Jacky1990 Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 Tom English has one of the cushtiest jobs in the country. Spits out utter garbage, half arsed articles every week or so. Talks pish on the radio a couple times a week about his second favourite sport. Next to no oversight or accountability for being correct. All while being paid what i imagine is a small fortune compared to other journalists. You've got to admire it to an extent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 4 hours ago, Jacky1990 said: Tom English has one of the cushtiest jobs in the country. Spits out utter garbage, half arsed articles every week or so. Talks pish on the radio a couple times a week about his second favourite sport. Next to no oversight or accountability for being correct. All while being paid what i imagine is a small fortune compared to other journalists. You've got to admire it to an extent. Apart from that, what's your opinion of him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 9 hours ago, Jacky1990 said: Tom English has one of the cushtiest jobs in the country. Spits out utter garbage, half arsed articles every week or so. Talks pish on the radio a couple times a week about his second favourite sport. Next to no oversight or accountability for being correct. All while being paid what i imagine is a small fortune compared to other journalists. You've got to admire it to an extent. He had an absolutely horrendous day yesterday with his favourite sport. Such a wee shame 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
18May1991 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, Mark Connolly said: He had an absolutely horrendous day yesterday with his favourite sport. Such a wee shame Jokingly said to a mate how funny it would be if it was a Bulls v Warriors final….. Marvellous stuff yesterday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Heliums Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) BBC today on Scotland's match on Sunday: Quote That should be enough to see the national team move to the last 16 stage for the first time ever. I know the trope that Scotland would make history on Sunday by qualifying from our group has to be written into every article, but surely not to the extent that the 1974 World Cup – where we qualified for the last 16 and remained unbeaten throughout – has to be removed from the records to make way for it? (Or if they're just talking about the Euros, surely they might mention that there wasn''t actually a last 16 stage in 1992 - only 8 teams took part – and in 1996, the last 16 stage was the group stage?) Edited June 21 by Mr Heliums 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 8 hours ago, Mr Heliums said: BBC today on Scotland's match on Sunday: I know the trope that Scotland would make history on Sunday by qualifying from our group has to be written into every article, but surely not to the extent that the 1974 World Cup – where we qualified for the last 16 and remained unbeaten throughout – has to be removed from the records to make way for it? (Or if they're just talking about the Euros, surely they might mention that there wasn''t actually a last 16 stage in 1992 - only 8 teams took part – and in 1996, the last 16 stage was the group stage?) We were in the last 16 in the 1954 and 1958 World Cups too. And would have been in the last 14 if the SFA had accepted our place in 1950. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 8 hours ago, Parttimesupporter said: We were in the last 16 in the 1954 and 1958 World Cups too. And would have been in the last 14 if the SFA had accepted our place in 1950. 17 hours ago, Mr Heliums said: BBC today on Scotland's match on Sunday: I know the trope that Scotland would make history on Sunday by qualifying from our group has to be written into every article, but surely not to the extent that the 1974 World Cup – where we qualified for the last 16 and remained unbeaten throughout – has to be removed from the records to make way for it? (Or if they're just talking about the Euros, surely they might mention that there wasn''t actually a last 16 stage in 1992 - only 8 teams took part – and in 1996, the last 16 stage was the group stage?) 8 hours ago, Parttimesupporter said: We were in the last 16 in the 1954 and 1958 World Cups too. And would have been in the last 14 if the SFA had accepted our place in 1950. We didn't qualify from our group in any of those competitions, though. That's the point, surely? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 1 hour ago, hk blues said: We didn't qualify from our group in any of those competitions, though. That's the point, surely? Yep. The number of teams in the competition is irrelevant. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Heliums Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 1 hour ago, hk blues said: We didn't qualify from our group in any of those competitions, though. That's the point, surely? But that’s an artificial measure introduced to build a narrative for a success story. In any case, the article I referred to went further: it didn’t mention qualification, it talked about getting to the last 16 for the first time. It’s journalists either ignorant of the historical context or knowingly deceptive - how on earth could we have qualified for the last 16 in 1992? But the media never mention this and I confess it irritates me more than it should. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 3 minutes ago, Mr Heliums said: But that’s an artificial measure introduced to build a narrative for a success story. In any case, the article I referred to went further: it didn’t mention qualification, it talked about getting to the last 16 for the first time. It’s journalists either ignorant of the historical context or knowingly deceptive - how on earth could we have qualified for the last 16 in 1992? But the media never mention this and I confess it irritates me more than it should. I think you're perhaps being overly pedantic - we have never qualified out of the first round of a major competition and that's the point being made. I agree though that journalists should qualify their broadbrush comments but that wouldn't change the fact above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Heliums Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 (edited) 24 minutes ago, hk blues said: I think you're perhaps being overly pedantic - we have never qualified out of the first round of a major competition and that's the point being made. I agree though that journalists should qualify their broadbrush comments but that wouldn't change the fact above. You say pedantic, I say it's journalists's job to maybe point out the relevant context at least occasionally. Or to put it another way, how many times over the last few weeks have journalists mentioned that we've reached the last 16 of the World Cup twice and the last eight of the Euros once? Or that the only Euros where we we actually could have moved forward to the last 16 stage was in 2020? My guess is zero. I think it matters and not mentioning it devalues the achievements of previous Scotland teams. Edited June 22 by Mr Heliums 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 3 minutes ago, Mr Heliums said: You say pedantic, I say it's journalists's job to maybe point out the relevant context at least occasionally. Or to put it another way, how many times over the last few weeks have journalists mentioned that we've reached the last 16 of the World Cup twice and the last eight of the Euros once? Or that the only Euros where we we actually could have moved forward to the last 16 stage was in 2020? My guess is zero. I think it matters and not mentioning it devalues the achievements of previous Scotland teams. I said you were pedantic but I also said I agree that journalists should do better. I actually think that saying we qualified for the last 16 of the World Cup twice and the last 8 of the Euros once would be a wee bit disingenuous UNLESS it was qualified by stating the context. And what would then be the point as it would mean no more than saying we'd qualified for those tournaments? As for your last point - the team always gets plenty of praise for qualifying for a tournament. Going out at the 1st stage of those tournaments doesn't really justify further praise in itself. Sure, there are times when additional praise is justified and duly given i.e. 1974. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Not a big deal but I think Mr Heliums is still right to file "That should be enough to see the national team move to the last 16 stage for the first time ever." as terrible journalism. A semi competent journalist would use the phrase "knock-out stages". Anyhoo, let's hope this discussion can be consigned to the dustbin of history on Sunday evening 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 (edited) On 22/06/2024 at 07:59, Mr Heliums said: But that’s an artificial measure introduced to build a narrative for a success story. In any case, the article I referred to went further: it didn’t mention qualification, it talked about getting to the last 16 for the first time. It’s journalists either ignorant of the historical context or knowingly deceptive - how on earth could we have qualified for the last 16 in 1992? But the media never mention this and I confess it irritates me more than it should. A bit like me and people talking about the bottom team in League Two "dropping out of the senior leagues". Edited June 23 by Jacksgranda grandma 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Wolf Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) The BBC North Britain football gossip page is never especially edifying but this takes the cake - "Brondby have reportedly placed a price tag on forward Mathias Kvistgaarden amid interest from Celtic." Aye, thanks for that. Edited June 23 by Bad Wolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 On 22/06/2024 at 10:37, Jacksgranda said: A bit like me and people talking about the bottom team in League Two "dropping out of the senior leagues". What would be the correct description for that? Dropping out the professional leagues? Or just dropping out the SPFL? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: What would be the correct description for that? Dropping out the professional leagues? Or just dropping out the SPFL? Dropping out of the national leagues. Most of the leagues - especially the 2 main feeder leagues - are professional to a greater or lesser extent. Except the Buckie Thistle board, perhaps. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoingThe42 Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 6 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: Dropping out of the national leagues. Most of the leagues - especially the 2 main feeder leagues - are professional to a greater or lesser extent. Except the Buckie Thistle board, perhaps. I heard Caley Braves owner recently talking about them running a hybrid close to full time model next season. Couldn't believe what I was hearing. A club with no fans considering being anything like full-time. Makes you wonder what other horrors are going on at LL level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 12 hours ago, RandomGuy. said: What would be the correct description for that? Dropping out the professional leagues? Or just dropping out the SPFL? 12 hours ago, Jacksgranda said: Dropping out of the national leagues. Most of the leagues - especially the 2 main feeder leagues - are professional to a greater or lesser extent. This. There are 3 officially professional leagues by SFA board definition (SPFL, Lowland, Highland); or 9 if a more colloquial "non-amateur" is meant i.e. players can be paid. There are 7 senior leagues (aforementioned 3 + East of Scotland, SOS, WOS, North Caledonian). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S7C Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Can’t wait to read whatever condescending, cliché-filled waffle piece Tom’s writing at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.