Jump to content
IGNORED

Evening Gas Match Report - Disgrace.

Tunley Legend

By Tunley Legend
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Tunley Legend

Tunley Legend

Posted
Posted

Was Stockhausen at the game last night? That was the worst match report I have ever read.

No mention of the good football we played second half.

No mention of the McIndoe free kick hitting the underside of the bar.

Giving the impression that we were under the cosh for most of the match when we were fantatsic second half. BBC Stats say 49% possession for them and 51% for us over the 90 minutes.

Apparently Charlton attacks were frenzied after our goal when the plain truth is that we had so much of the ball that they played ON THE BREAK.

McCombe apparently scored at the FAR post when I am 120% certain it was the NEAR post!!

And then for his "stats":-

We only had FOUR shots according to Stockhausen - BBC website counted NINETEEN

He only "counted" ONE corner - BBC website counted three (I thought we had five but there you go)

Vasko and Andy Gray were apparently UNUSED substitutes. I wonder who was wearing their jersey's on the pitch in the last 10-15 minutes then?

Looking at the headlines in the EP Stockhausen is trying to create the same impression as the national media in that we are some over achieving bunch of muppets who are "brave", "plucky" and "never say die" but totally lack ability. What a massive pile of rocking horse $h1te that is. It is unbelivable that a PROFESSIONAL journalist could get a match report SO WRONG.

Alan Pardew - "Bristol City DEFINITELY deserved something from the game"

Darren Ambrose "Bristol City are a fantastic side and you can see why they are top of the league" (slightly OTT in my opinion but he obviously respects us).

Rant over.

Fantastic second half team performance by the lads and as good support as you will find ANYWHERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAVE MARTINS HAIR

DAVE MARTINS HAIR

Posted
Posted
Was Stockhausen at the game last night? That was the worst match report I have ever read.

No mention of the good football we played second half.

No mention of the McIndoe free kick hitting the underside of the bar.

Giving the impression that we were under the cosh for most of the match when we were fantatsic second half. BBC Stats say 49% possession for them and 51% for us over the 90 minutes.

Apparently Charlton attacks were frenzied after our goal when the plain truth is that we had so much of the ball that they played ON THE BREAK.

McCombe apparently scored at the FAR post when I am 120% certain it was the NEAR post!!

And then for his "stats":-

We only had FOUR shots according to Stockhausen - BBC website counted NINETEEN

He only "counted" ONE corner - BBC website counted three (I thought we had five but there you go)

Vasko and Andy Gray were apparently UNUSED substitutes. I wonder who was wearing their jersey's on the pitch in the last 10-15 minutes then?

Looking at the headlines in the EP Stockhausen is trying to create the same impression as the national media in that we are some over achieving bunch of muppets who are "brave", "plucky" and "never say die" but totally lack ability. What a massive pile of rocking horse $h1te that is. It is unbelivable that a PROFESSIONAL journalist could get a match report SO WRONG.

Alan Pardew - "Bristol City DEFINITELY deserved something from the game"

Darren Ambrose "Bristol City are a fantastic side and you can see why they are top of the league" (slightly OTT in my opinion but he obviously respects us).

Rant over.

Fantastic second half team performance by the lads and as good support as you will find ANYWHERE.

Was just about to mention this

reckon he went home after we scored????

Lucky old City eh

Even though we have lost the least amount of games in the div

And won more than everyone apart from WBA who have an equally good win rate

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tunley Legend

Tunley Legend

Posted
  • Author
Posted
There is a very simple thing to do if you are unhappy with the post. don't buy it. I don't.

To be fair, the only time I buy it now is for the match reports (due to previous reporting of our club on the "news" pages). But given that they are now even f00k1ng up that most basic of tasks I will be joining you mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gaffer

Gaffer

Posted
Posted

What an absolutely appalling report from a professional journalist. He should hang his head in shame after that one. Maybe he had to leave at half time?? If i was that bad at my job, the FSA would have fired my ar$e by now!

I thought we totally dominated the second half proceedings, looked very likely to score every time we got on the ball, and created chances. McIndoe's free kick looked to have won it, and Charlton were booed off at full time, whilst we celebrated like the quality team we know we are.

Everyone disrespects us...BUT WE DON'T CARE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tunley Legend

Tunley Legend

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The online Bristol Evening Post Report is attached.

http://www.epost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nod...;pNodeId=144930

It doesn't seem unfair. Am I reading the wrong Report?

I actually bought the paper where Stockhausen described us as "under the cosh for long periods" along with the rest of the inaccurate drivel. Or do you agree with him and therefore totally disagree with Pardew, Ambrose, 1500 City fans and many, many Charlton fans?

Was Jamie McCombe at the far post or the near post?

Don't you think McIndoe hitting the underside of the bar is worthy of inclusion in a match report?

Don't you think some fantastic passing football from City second half is relevant to a match report?

Did Vasko and Gray play or didn't they?

And what is the point in including totally inaccurate statistics that give the non-attending reader a completely false impression of the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HIGHRIDGE BCFC

HIGHRIDGE BCFC

Posted
Posted

I was going to post exactly the same mate. This is the worst piece of reporting i have ever seen (and thats saying something for this comic).

I'm not one for saying evening post bias but this shows the contempt the evening post & that muppet stockhausen shows towards our club.

Lazy journalism at its best !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simez

Simez

Posted
Posted

It's not just the Evil Rag, I found a copy of the Daily Mail at work, the headline being 'Johnson's jolt as leaders are outgunned'. Sorry did we loose big time? I couldn't be bothered to read the report when I noticed another line that said 'City created very little all game', what apart from the fact that on another night Mcindoe could've bagged a second half hattrick....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luke_Ciderhead

Luke_Ciderhead

Posted
Posted

I agree. I read that report and it made us appear like the plucky underdogs that battled and fought our way to a point after being under the cosh against a far superior side for 90 minutes....

No mention of the fantastic football we played.

No mention of our complete domination of the second half.

On the other hand, the Rovers match report just whined about how the referee cheated them out of three points.

They really are a pathetic joke of a paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest red ken 2

Guest red ken 2

Posted
Posted

Andy Stockhausen is a non league reporter, writing for a non league paper. The blokes out of his depth, the quicker he slopes off back to the village park the better. In fact his research is so bad he was unable to get the points total of clubs around us correct, (post last week) the mans shambolic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
walshy-shuffle-carl-shutt

walshy-shuffle-carl-shutt

Posted
Posted

I was amazed by this report and could hardly beleive what i was reading all the facts were wrong just like another member said he must have gone home at half time. What dissapoints me most is the fact it's a local team i can just about take the fact that the rest of the country does not take us seriously but our own paper they should be ashamed of themselves. The editor needs to take a long hard look at him/her self and ask why they allowed this completley fictional story to be published. All that rubbish about how they support local team.

Anyway i have posted my comment on the website and will not be buying this comic in the future it's not fit to line my dog's bed.

I will now be sticking to the broadsheets as they seem to give a fair unbiased reports.

Evening post take heed Bristol City fans are calling time on your pathetic Journalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red_Mat

Red_Mat

Posted
Posted

What people should begin to realise from the shambolic sports reporting is that it doesn't end there...! It's the same throughout all newspapers, up and down the land, from front cover to back. They are all shambolic, biased, innaccurate and full of lies.

People should be able to see from the poor quality of City's coverage over the last few years, that the whole of the Evil Post is like that, not just the back covers! From it's anti-immigrant, pro-Conservative stance, all the way through to it's support for the Rovers.

All newspapers are biased in one way or another. You have to remember an article is written by ONE person!

Of course we shouldn't buy the Post, it's a rag. It has nothing newsworthy to say and is totally outdated. There is no place for newspapers in our society these days, that's why most of them fill their pages with gossip about celebs - because they do not have the time or inclination to bother reporting about the real issues in the world. Such as oppression, phoney wars, big business mis-management, etc, etc.

The Evil Post - The paper that all Bristol asked for. Total b/s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest red ken 2

Guest red ken 2

Posted
Posted
THEN don't BUY IT!

THINK HOW MUCH MONEY THE E.P. MAKE FROM THE RED ARMY!

LETS ALL BOYCOTT IT!!

I buy the rag only after we have played a game, not for the match report, but to see how poor Stockhausens report will be. But as you rightly say, its now time to BOYCOTT the trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andy g

andy g

Posted
Posted
I actually bought the paper where Stockhausen described us as "under the cosh for long periods" along with the rest of the inaccurate drivel. Or do you agree with him and therefore totally disagree with Pardew, Ambrose, 1500 City fans and many, many Charlton fans?

Was Jamie McCombe at the far post or the near post?

Don't you think McIndoe hitting the underside of the bar is worthy of inclusion in a match report?

Don't you think some fantastic passing football from City second half is relevant to a match report?

Did Vasko and Gray play or didn't they?

And what is the point in including totally inaccurate statistics that give the non-attending reader a completely false impression of the game?

Is the article in the paper different to the online version then ?

I read the online version and its nowhere near as bad as some of you are making out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tunley Legend

Tunley Legend

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Is the article in the paper different to the online version then ?

I read the online version and its nowhere near as bad as some of you are making out.

The online version does not give you the statistics or Stockhausens view of the game which were completely WRONG in pretty much everyone's eyes who was there. I honestly don't believe he attended the match - if he did, how could he possibly describe McCombe's goal as a FAR POST header? But even the online version fails to mention McIndoe's free kick that hit the underside of the bar or, for that matter, much of what went on second half. We played some great stuff second half (were you there?) and it seems a shame that a "Bristol" paper which you would expect to cover us in a reasonable light totally fails to acknowledge that fact in it's match "report".

Most people are criticising the paper not for being biased (on this occasion) but more for the glaring inaccuracies and omissions from the report that paint a totally different picture of the match from that seen by the 1,900 City fans who were there together with Pardew and Ambrose who were fullsome in their praise of our team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andy g

andy g

Posted
Posted

yes i was there and yes that free kick could have got a mention, but to be fair the report does say things like...

"Gary Johnson's men displayed characteristic never-say-die spirit to deny big-spending opponents who were in the Premier League last season."

and

"Rather than panic, City adopted a measured response, adhering to the pass and move style that has become their trademark this season."

and i really don't understand why some of you think that online article was critical of City.

the reporter could have written a glowing report which praised us and hardly mentioned the opposition. that might be how fans see it, but that wouldnt have been a fair account of what happened. i thought Charlton gave us a tough game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tunley Legend

Tunley Legend

Posted
  • Author
Posted
yes i was there and yes that free kick could have got a mention, but to be fair the report does say things like...

"Gary Johnson's men displayed characteristic never-say-die spirit to deny big-spending opponents who were in the Premier League last season."

and

"Rather than panic, City adopted a measured response, adhering to the pass and move style that has become their trademark this season."

and i really don't understand why some of you think that online article was critical of City.

the reporter could have written a glowing report which praised us and hardly mentioned the opposition. that might be how fans see it, but that wouldnt have been a fair account of what happened. i thought Charlton gave us a tough game.

What do you mean with "yes that free kick COULD have got a mention"? It was the third most significant chance of the game and is precisely what the non-attending supporter would want to know. How do you explain the innacuracies regarding description of the goal, substitutions, number of shots, corners etc.? Whilst I do not expect match reports to be heavily biased in our favour I do not expect them to overstate the opposition and understate our contribution to the game. This report has certainly done that. Of course it was a tough game but we emerged as the better side by the end of the ninety minutes. Even the Charlton manager and goalscorer pretty much said so. Terms such as "never say die" and "rather than panic" suggest to people that our limited bunch of battlers were up against it all night when for large parts of that game we played some great passing football that really stretched Charlton. It's a shame that Stockhausen did not impart that a little bit better in his report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...