Has NAYLOR Written his 1st Good Article

[Withdean Wanderer]

Just a long shot here but balanced is supposed to mean just that. Some angry young men on here seem to think that balanced means presenting negatives. It doesn't - it means presenting a fair reflection of the situation.

As I see it, a balance means weighing up pro's and cons, positives and negatives.

Naylor does this well, i believe.

 

[ROSM]

As I see it, a balance means weighing up pro's and cons, positives and negatives.

Naylor does this well, i believe.

if that were the case then finding the examples I've asked for wont take too long then?

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

If you can point me to one positive thing that naylor has written about Dick Knight in the last 5 years I would be very grateful. Vice versa, if you could point me to one negative thing written about mcghee during his time as manager. There is no way that McGhee did everything correctly as manager (although not as totally awfully as some would have you believe). In the same way, for all his faults, there is no way that DK has done everything wrongly.

The Argus search function is running painfully slowly, and i'm just off to the cricket.

But i've looked at one McGhee article (Comment Mcghee Deserves This Chance (from The Argus)</title>)

and have this quote: Yes, he signed some duds (show me a manager who hasn't) but his overall record in the transfer market was good.

This shows an example of weighing up positives with negatives.

I will happily hunt or Dick Knight references at a later date, when I have more time on my hands, if you insist.

 

[ROSM]

The Argus search function is running painfully slowly, and i'm just off to the cricket.

But i've looked at one McGhee article (Comment Mcghee Deserves This Chance (from The Argus)</title>)

and have this quote: Yes, he signed some duds (show me a manager who hasn't) but his overall record in the transfer market was good.

This shows an example of weighing up positives with negatives.

I will happily hunt or Dick Knight references at a later date, when I have more time on my hands, if you insist.

sorry - that does not fulfill the criteria of identifying a negative thing. It was an excuse, a spin, a mitigation made on mchee's behalf. Not surprising when you read the content of the whole article as naylor justifying why he likes him!

 

[beorhthelm]

If he didn't do that, the article wouldn't be balanced, would it?

balanced also implies neutral. when stating a fact, leave it at that. What Naylor does is follow up facts with a heavy emphasis of his opinion. so rather than just raising that three key players left that lead to rebuliding, he had to follow up by making a dig about thier greivences and "Dick Knights hardline approach". unnecessary and detracts from the balance. He even manages to take the shine off the following purchases and loans, reffering to "unfamiliar spending spree" and "merely maintained numbers".

the long and short of this article is he believes that those players leaving and manner in which they did so, led directly to us failing to reach the play offs. but he was involved in that with airing their problems so its not ultimately very neutral, is it?

 

[Zesh Rehman]

because you like him.

yes i do like him, because he writes good articles.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Naylor is a mid third division journo, writing slightly above his weight, so about right for us. The difference is I don't think he will ever be promoted.

 

[TSB]

Consecutive goalless deadlocks at Forest and Leeds were regarded as a triumph but draws get you nowhere these days and the defeats which followed, against Port Vale and at Southend, effectively ended Albion's challenge.

The nagging feeling is that, when a second chance arose to reach the play-offs, they did not go all out for it.

The Seagulls could live to regret this conservatism. You cannot pick and choose when you are going to be in contention, football does not work like that. You have to seize the moment.

Yeah? and what would you have done differently then Mr Naylor?

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

But in the magical 70's seventies didn't we average over 20,000 for a few seasons and could on a crunch game hit the 30,000 mark, what average 3rd division side could then and now achieve that .

In the 1964-65 season we were the highest placed 4th division club for average attendances, with 17907. This was higher than Fulham, Blackburn and Burnley in the 1st division in fact only four 2nd division clubs were higher than us for that season.

We have the potential, it just needs to be tapped!