|
|
Post by channonite on Oct 4, 2011 7:14:58 GMT
I have spent some time reading all the various match reports of Saturday's game and have been surprised at how much they differ, often in factual details.
I have noticed this before, the more that happens of significance in a game the more the various reports will differ. As an example, Rickie Lambert was reported to have hit the post with a header at the end of the first half. To be more accurate, he was reported to have hit the post in four reports and missed the goal in six. A further three didn't even mention it. In fact his header missed to the right of goal, when it looked easier to hit the target.
The interesting thing was that it seemed to me that the most factually accurate report was on Saints OS. The detail was right, but God was it boring reading!
I know that a lot of reports would have been written by those who were not even at the match, but surely in that case you keep it brief and stick to the obvious facts?
Anyone else notice glaring errors?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rags on Oct 4, 2011 7:30:22 GMT
The report in the Observer on Sunday was pretty much about their manager complaining about the first penalty and that it won us the game. No actual mention of how the teams played or any other incidents. The reporter was clearly not at the game so found a talking point.
|
|
