[Albion] Argus Reporting on the Albion

[chaileyjem]

I would disagree here. Whilst the sample may have come from one source ie NSC anybody who has been around as long as you must know that we on NSC have wide-ranging opinions on just about everything! Look at this thread. Some AN supporters and a greater number of detractors. It is therefore not correct IMO to suggest that the sample is screwed because that sample is taken entirely from NSC contributors.
Our diversity of opinions on NSC would suggest that there is nothing biased in the sample at all.
(For more on statistical data points look at the small number of people surveyed regarding beauty products etc that are acceptable to the ASA for marketing purposes!)

Yes. The number isn't the issue. Small numbers can be valid. But a largish sample of NSC contributors or voters or readers of a particular thread isn't necessarily representative of "Albion fans". Impossible to know without a breakdown of the ages / demos / frequency of visits of ticket holders/NSC users . Also the question itself is "Is Hughton negative or not" oversimplifies the issue and probably a loaded question in the first place.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Sniping and sneering at your readers generates a lot more page impressions than praising them. When I worked in-house for a publication and our traffic was dropping, I'd write something that called a section of our reader-base idiots and watch the comments come in and traffic go up... works every time.

EXACTLY why I said when I posted yesterday:

although his click bait is probably keeping them going right now.

I should imagine he's got himself a nice little bonus today.

 

[The Large One]

By the sounds of things I would give 'Nailed It' a miss tomorrow.....

Andy Naylor@AndyNaylorArgus
Tomorrow's Nailed It:
1. VAR but not as we know it (Vocal Albion Revisionists).
2. Why Glenn Murray deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Bobby Zamora and Peter Ward.
3. An awkward Saturday awaits.

Assume he is going to be a bit sanctimonious about fans again.....

Are the fans above criticism then?

 

[chaileyjem]

Christ if he’d have been reporting during the Archer years can you imagine

Andy joined the Argus in 1987.
https://twitter.com/AndyNaylorArgus/status/834666812482662401

 

[Guinness Boy]

Also the question itself is "Is Hughton negative or not" oversimplifies the issue

A bit like asking ""Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" although, if you disagree with the outcome of that you are apparently an undemocratic quisling who should be sent to the Tower.

*hides*

 

[Mackenzie]

JV. Enough said, true Brighton Legend.

Wasn’t he a Bristol Rovers fan?

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree with 50% of this.

Deliciously ambiguous.

 

[Bozza]

Yes. The number isn't the issue. Small numbers can be valid. But a largish sample of NSC contributors or voters or readers of a particular thread isn't necessarily representative of "Albion fans". Impossible to know without a breakdown of the ages / demos / frequency of visits of ticket holders/NSC users . Also the question itself is "Is Hughton negative or not" oversimplifies the issue and probably a loaded question in the first place.

That wasn’t the question asked though. And the thread and poll in question explicitly acknowledged that a negative approach is wholly valid.

 

[seagulls4ever]

I have defended Andy Naylor in the past, but I can't do so here. That's an absolutely shithouse article which completely misrepresents the thread/poll in question, and also misrepresents the contrasting tactics between the Southampton and West Ham games.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I have defended Andy Naylor in the past, but I can't do so here. That's an absolutely shithouse article which completely misrepresents the thread/poll in question, and also misrepresents the contracting tactics between the Southampton and West Ham games.

Indeed it does, much of the article is absolute drivel. It totally misses the point, made only by a couple of posters on here, that formations and tactics are two DIFFERENT things. Yes we had wingers at Southampton but once we went 1-0 up we used them solely to defend. Against West Ham we used them in a far more attacking way, unsurprisingly because we were at home, because West Ham didn't have much pace at the back and because their full backs left big gaps. Different tactics Andy (and everyone else who insists that it had to be the same because 4-4-1-1- in both).

You'd think a professional football writer would know the difference.

 

[DJ NOBO]

The problem local football reporters have is they have to, to a large extent, tow the party line of the club. Or they won’t last long. There are plenty of examples of clubs banning reporters.
Naylor has been in post for ages and inevitably his coverage isn’t exactly cutting edge. “Ball was crossed in, and Murray headed it home” territory.
From his point of view, he has a great job, but like with many local footy reporters it all feels a bit cosy with the club , for me.

 

[DumLum]

I think he is too close to the club.
I guess that helps with facts but not opinions. He's too opinionated.

 

[surlyseagull]

Does anyone still read the Argus to know

When you live next to the Ampshire border and all you ever see is the bl**dy Hampshire news rag it is great to be able to read the Argus .
The newsagents are starting to get more of the Argus papers in now as before you had to fight the old geezer up the road as they normally only held one or two .
And as I point out to any newsagent that wants to listen (which isn't many to be fair) their shop is in Sussex not Hampshire so why have so many of the Hampshire News and not the Sussex Argus ffs.
Re Naylor he`s on a hiding to nothing really as he`s dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't .
Think the blokes alright imo .

 

[Mellotron]

Yes. I reckon half the reason NSC is so popular is that both the Argus and the official site are barely fit for purpose.

I have found myself defending Naylor's match reports and coverage in the past, but would agree that this sort of ill-considered and pointless sneering does him absolutely no favours at all. As Bozza says, he has shown himself up to be clueless on statistical significance. As I recall, If you've got a sensibly broad result set to draw upon, you only need 30 data points to have 95% confidence in the results, and that poll he quotes had 236 people respond.

Appears to completely miss all the nuance and context in the "Hughton - too negative"? debate.

Final line reads like an internet troll trying to score points, very childish, petty and surprisingly thin-skinned for a professional journalist.

 

[Petee]

Wish I left my '**** off' tweet to respond to this one, seems a lot more appropriate

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The LICKERS are out in FORCE...

 

[Barham's tash]

He was reporting during the Archer years. And the Dick Knight years, when club and chairman frequently failed to see eye to eye.

It's supposed to be a badge of honour for local paper reporters to be banned by the clubs they report on from time to time, but I'm not sure that's very good for those papers' business these days. I imagine a lot of people who buy the Argus do it for the Albion content, which includes post-match player access, which would disappear with a ban.

Of course, some papers have found creative ways around bans. When Gillingham banned the Kent Messenger, they decided to report on Charlton (who were then in the Premier League) instead. Bournemouth banned the Echo, so the Echo banned them right back, refusing to mention them at all or even record their results.

I knew he was during the DK years and that there had been schism (as there has also been during the TB years) and that as a result he now tows the line.

I agree in the main with your secondary comments around banning and counter banning etc but surely journalistic integrity STILL matters these days to a degree as well?

Andy joined the Argus in 1987.
https://twitter.com/AndyNaylorArgus/status/834666812482662401

Ok, maybe I should have clarified by saying if he’d been ‘Chief Sports Reporter’ back then as he’d have had more impact on the editorial content presumably?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Petee]

The LICKERS are out in FORCE...

View attachment 93901

Felt the full wrath of the lickers when Naylor thought it would be great to name and shame me after blocking me hahaha!

 

[Barham's tash]

OK, I did miss the bit where you said what you had just written wasn't very accurate.

One point is surely that the past few years have been absolutely brilliant for the Albion so for Naylor to err on the side of being positive is probably justified?

Yes they have been brilliant but is that it are we done as a collective in striding to be better, do better or achieve more? I’m damned sure TB isn’t finished here...

Speaking personally any criticism I have for perceived negative tactics employed by CH comes from a place where I want to see us do better not because I want him sacked.

I think if you stand still life/the game/success passes you by and I never want us to rest on our laurels.

Naylor seems incapable of grasping that constructive criticism comes from such a place and treats it with lowest common denominator disdain and that really irks me for some reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

The LICKERS are out in FORCE...

View attachment 93901