so this agenda thing.

[Chippy_boy]

To be honest like others have said it is a pretty accurate report. Just out of interest I read through the match day thread to seek a second opinion in relation to Ogdens opinion.

Most people are even more critical of the first half performance and the comments were much more strongly worded and critical of the team.

Do those fans also have an agenda against City or similar to Ogden were they just underwhelmed by the teams performance?

No, they are football fans as you say, who get tied up with emotion
He's an independent journalist writing for a major broadsheet

But whether tied up with emotion or not most people would agree that First Half City were poor. Why is a journalist not able to say it? Maybe without emotion he came to the same conclusion

Actually I thought we were pretty decent and I said so in the match thread. Totally dominated possession and looked in complete control. A bit low on chances, but that's to be expected with the opposition defending like their lives depended on it and 8 of our regular starters missing.

On that subject by the way, how many times did we hear about Wednesday being up a against a full strength Man City? We had 8 players out FFS!

 

[franksinatra]

No, they are football fans as you say, who get tied up with emotion
He's an independent journalist writing for a major broadsheet

But whether tied up with emotion or not most people would agree that First Half City were poor. Why is a journalist not able to say it? Maybe without emotion he came to the same conclusion

Actually I thought we were pretty decent and I said so in the match thread. Totally dominated possession and looked in complete control. A bit low on chances, but that's to be expected with the opposition defending like their lives depended on it and 8 of our regular starters missing.

On that subject by the way, how many times did we hear about Wednesday being up a against a full strength Man City? We had 8 players out FFS!

The point being a number of City fans thought we were poor first half so why when a journalist comes to the same conclusion does he have some kind of bias against the club?

 

[cibaman]

No, they are football fans as you say, who get tied up with emotion
He's an independent journalist writing for a major broadsheet

But whether tied up with emotion or not most people would agree that First Half City were poor. Why is a journalist not able to say it? Maybe without emotion he came to the same conclusion

Actually I thought we were pretty decent and I said so in the match thread. Totally dominated possession and looked in complete control. A bit low on chances, but that's to be expected with the opposition defending like their lives depended on it and 8 of our regular starters missing.

On that subject by the way, how many times did we hear about Wednesday being up a against a full strength Man City? We had 8 players out FFS!

It was the usual problem in the first half of playing at home and using a single striker. We always struggle early on because its so much easier for a defensive minded team to put bodies around Dzeko. We have to wait for the game to open up in the second half.

 

[moomba]

But whether tied up with emotion or not most people would agree that First Half City were poor. Why is a journalist not able to say it? Maybe without emotion he came to the same conclusion

Actually I thought we were pretty decent and I said so in the match thread. Totally dominated possession and looked in complete control. A bit low on chances, but that's to be expected with the opposition defending like their lives depended on it and 8 of our regular starters missing.

On that subject by the way, how many times did we hear about Wednesday being up a against a full strength Man City? We had 8 players out FFS!

The point being a number of City fans thought we were poor first half so why when a journalist comes to the same conclusion does he have some kind of bias against the club?

Are we really going to use the match day thread as a standard for professional journalists?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Actually I thought we were pretty decent and I said so in the match thread. Totally dominated possession and looked in complete control. A bit low on chances, but that's to be expected with the opposition defending like their lives depended on it and 8 of our regular starters missing.

On that subject by the way, how many times did we hear about Wednesday being up a against a full strength Man City? We had 8 players out FFS!

The point being a number of City fans thought we were poor first half so why when a journalist comes to the same conclusion does he have some kind of bias against the club?

Are we really going to use the match day thread as a standard for professional journalists?

Probably a pretty apposite yardstick.

 

[Blue Mooner]

But whether tied up with emotion or not most people would agree that First Half City were poor. Why is a journalist not able to say it? Maybe without emotion he came to the same conclusion

Actually I thought we were pretty decent and I said so in the match thread. Totally dominated possession and looked in complete control. A bit low on chances, but that's to be expected with the opposition defending like their lives depended on it and 8 of our regular starters missing.

On that subject by the way, how many times did we hear about Wednesday being up a against a full strength Man City? We had 8 players out FFS!

The point being a number of City fans thought we were poor first half so why when a journalist comes to the same conclusion does he have some kind of bias against the club?

Those comments are made in the heat of the moment when the game is still nil nil. In case you had forgotten a game is 90 minutes not 45 and we won the game 7-0. Why then would a journalist focus on the first 45 minutes. Blimey if you can write a critical report for a nil nil first half even though the game finished 7-0 there must be no words that could possibly sum up a game where you lose 4-0 against a team one division below Sheffield weds. Seriously I cant believe there are blues defending this sh*t .

 

[franksinatra]

Actually I thought we were pretty decent and I said so in the match thread. Totally dominated possession and looked in complete control. A bit low on chances, but that's to be expected with the opposition defending like their lives depended on it and 8 of our regular starters missing.

On that subject by the way, how many times did we hear about Wednesday being up a against a full strength Man City? We had 8 players out FFS!

The point being a number of City fans thought we were poor first half so why when a journalist comes to the same conclusion does he have some kind of bias against the club?

Those comments are made in the heat of the moment when the game is still nil nil. In case you had forgotten a game is 90 minutes not 45 and we won the game 7-0. Why then would a journalist focus on the first 45 minutes. Blimey if you can write a critical report for a nil nil first half even though the game finished 7-0 there must be no words that could possibly sum up a game where you lose 4-0 against a team one division below Sheffield weds. Seriously I cant believe there are blues defending this sh*t .

I defend it because the majority of the article relates to the impact of Frank Lampard, a possible Carling Cup final appearance and the complexities of extending the loan. If anything a Sheffield Wednesday fan would read that article and think his club was hardly mentioned in it.

But you see what you want to see pal.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Journalists have always diminished their narrative input into match reports as the game progresses for obvious, time scarce reasons. Whilst technology has obviated that as an imperative, old habits die hard and journalists still have deadlines to meet and pubs to visit when the full-time whistle has gone.

They're still a bunch of fucking cockroaches though.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Journalists have always diminished their narrative input into match reports as the game progresses for obvious, time scarce reasons. Whilst technology has obviated that as an imperative, old habits die hard and journalists still have deadlines to meet and pubs to visit when the full-time whistle has gone.

They're still a bunch of fucking cockroaches though.

This is undoubtedly true and the story was updated several times online. However Ogden has a bad track record when it comes to coverage of City. He seems incapable of carrying out the basic journalistic function of writing a fair and balanced article. The standard of sports reporting generally in the British press is appalling. Newspaper football reporters have become irrelevant in the digital age and the coverage on TV and Radio, often by former players, is largely moronic. The truth these days is that many fans, certainly those who live near their local clubs, are better informed than the journalists.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Journalists have always diminished their narrative input into match reports as the game progresses for obvious, time scarce reasons. Whilst technology has obviated that as an imperative, old habits die hard and journalists still have deadlines to meet and pubs to visit when the full-time whistle has gone.

They're still a bunch of fucking cockroaches though.

This is undoubtedly true and the story was updated several times online. However Ogden has a bad track record when it comes to coverage of City. He seems incapable of carrying out the basic journalistic function of writing a fair and balanced article. The standard of sports reporting generally in the British press is appalling. Newspaper football reporters have become irrelevant in the digital age and the coverage on TV and Radio, often by former players, is largely moronic. The truth these days is that many fans, certainly those who live near their local clubs, are better informed than the journalists.

I agree. Ogden is a cockroach.