Andy Naylor: Fountain of Football Wisdom

[nomoremithras4me]

Yes it is me! This thread was brought to my attention and I have come on here for the one and only time in the (probably) vain hope that people might just think a bit more before posting inaccurate and misleading thread titles and threads.
The player ratings for Saturday matches are by Brian Owen and Andy Naylor, hence the joint byline which appears under the ratings.
One week I do the back five and Brian the front six, the next week vice-versa. Brian is responsible for all the midweek ratings, when the deadline is much tighter for me.
Brian was looking after the front six on Saturday, not me. He awarded Ash a 7. Ratings are all about opinions and he is entitled to his, the same as
anyone else.
nomoremithras4me has given an inaccurate impression of what I wrote in yesterday's analysis in The Argus regarding Vicente. I did not say he was 'not always on the same wavelength as team-mates'.
Quite the reverse in fact. I wrote: "Not all the passes he tried came off. Sometimes it was his own fault, on other occasions he was thinking one step ahead of his team-mates."

Maybe you need to have a chat with your Editor then Andy, only quoting from the ratings column

 

[Icy Gull]

I think Gus should be getting some of the flak re Barnes, he's being asked to play out of position and seemingly it is affecting his confidence as a striker, presumably because he is still learning how to do a defensive job as well. If the defenders were better maybe he wouldn't have to do that job whilst he is still having to raise his game as a Championship striker.?

Barnes gets way too much stick on here, CMS was cut way more slack when he had those games where he couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo

 

[Tummy Burger]

Player Ratings vs Hull....

"Ashley Barnes: 7/10."

Embarrassing.

Well, clearly some do not agree, but I certainly do. The job of the paper is surely to give a fair reflection of the player's performance.... and 7/10 it most certainly was NOT. The " don't worry son" and the pat on the back is the job of Gus not the bloody paper.

 

[marshy68]

No the grief that a good young player valued and rated by Gus is getting on here is embarrassing

 

[hoveboyslim]

Well, clearly some do not agree, but I certainly do. The job of the paper is surely to give a fair reflection of the player's performance.... and 7/10 it most certainly was NOT. The " don't worry son" and the pat on the back is the job of Gus not the bloody paper.

To be fair to Naylor he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He is working for a local newspaper where the vast majority of their football coverage is one team. He has to build up relationships with the management team and players. If you were a player and he gave you 2/10 for a performance and he was looking for an interview the following week, do you honestly think you would be rushing to help him out? Some may say that he should play it straight down the line but players are like all of us at work - we like praise but we don't like being publicly criticised; so reporting on when a player is completely crap must be quite difficult!

National newspapers can me more honest in their scoring as they don't need to work on these relationships due to the sheer number of clubs they report on.

 

[Deleted member 18477]

Andy Naylor is a f***ing knob anyway so who cares!

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Interesting to contrast the view of different footie journos as to what might constitute a good performance. I see the Argus gave Barnes 7/10 whereas my local equivalent the Eastern Daily Press gave Elliott Bennett 7/10 for his performance for the Canaries. Having seen Bennos game on telly I thought he did well. Much as I might want to I couldn't say the same for Barnes yet he attracted the same rating. Eye of the beholder etc etc.

Coverage of general footie matters in the EDP is good however they don't always get it right. Stuff about the Canaries is becoming so nauseating syrupy to a neutral reader. Yes the team has shown some decent form in the Prem (not least due to their ex-Seagulls) and rightly deserve plaudits. However it is so obvious that the journos are having to establish and maintain contacts within the club, so rarely impart any serious criticism. Even the column from a fan is a bit too rosy tinted but to his credit not anywhere near the arrogance of a certain other South coast club. I guess there is a lot of competition from other forms of media for traditional local newspapers these days and have to tread a fine line in order to keep up sales. Maybe if they were more incisive it would generate more interest?

I haven't forgiven one of the local Canary journos after a patronising and ill informed article about us a year or two back that gave the Albion a load of stick about Withdean (mostly true of course) but failed to balance this with any acknowledgement of the grief our club and fans had been through for 14 years, somehow avoiding oblivion and now had a new stadium on the horizon. Could understand it being relevant 10 years earlier but not so recently. There is much to quietly admire a club like Norwich that appears to be heading in the right direction on and off the pitch, but their media coverage needs to be a bit more balanced. Good excuse to indulge in some serious banter with Canaries fans, especially when they keep nicking our players!

There are some quality journos about - wasn't it that guy from Carlisle who wrote a brilliant piece last year that was not only well thought out but highly articulate and thoroughly deserving of our appreciation? I miss that quality of analysis.