|
Post by deliasmith on Mar 27, 2009 10:52:33 GMT
I wrote to the man after the piece in The Guardian on Stoke v Middlesbrough.
To his credit he's replied.
Dear [Delia]
I have only just picked up your email and thank you for it — the only civil one of seven — and for the invitation to reply. I had no idea The Guardian had so many readers in Stoke or that I had any anywhere. The other emails,carrying the same level of vitriolic abuse as those Oatcake responses which you claim are 'generally measured', would seem to confirm the worst impressions I hinted at from my experience on Saturday. I guess we have different measures. For the record I love the absurd passion that football generates in fans and deplore it when it spills over into hostility. That is why I have intervened on trains when supporters have been behaving like yobs and terrorising non-footballing passengers. That is why I have enjoyed good chatter with good fans in the same context and why, after more than 40years of reporting from top to bottom of the league and country (come to think of it, I haven't done Carlisle), I still love to be let out for my Saturday afternoon fix wherever it may be, even Stoke. I was privileged to catch the end of Stanley Matthews and some classic Waddington. Your fellow fans have pointed out all sorts of faults in the behaviour of players from other clubs as if they believe I approve of them. I don't and, given the chance, condemn them (players, managers, time-wasting,simulation, whatever) in the same way that I noted distasteful things on and off the field at the Britannia and, the previous week, the way in which Mick McCarthy was in danger of screwing things up at Wolves. The extraordinary letting off of foul steam from the Potteries in my direction will not affect that. To tidy up a couple of points, those who delighted in remarking that Stoke DO have to play a club in the top six, Arsenal, were dead right, of course, but my 'definite' aside about Ryan Shawcross, which also seemed to rile some, was nothing compared with the throwaway line of the local radio interviewer at the end. Incidentally, the headline on my piece was not the one approved, which ended '. . . but Stoke have more to shout about', recognising credit. Do what you will with this in terms of posting it and enjoy the rest of the season. More often than not I report in the Championship but, on the off-chance that I am sent again to Stoke, I will keep your email and get in touch. It would be good to banish hard feelings, if you have any, with a handshake if not a drink.
Best wishes Jeremy (Alexander)
|
|
|
Post by ukstoke1 on Mar 27, 2009 10:55:44 GMT
He seems a good man
|
|
|
Post by monkhousestokie on Mar 27, 2009 10:58:11 GMT
Read the article again. He is a prick
|
|
|
Post by exiledstokie on Mar 27, 2009 11:01:35 GMT
arrogant little man
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 27, 2009 11:02:53 GMT
Mmm - he hasn't really answered the question about his "aside" about Shawcross - it was an aside which seemed to take up most of the paragraph about Shawcross and was a cheap shot at a nice young lad. Saying that another reporter was just as bad doesn't excuse what Alexander wrote.
As regards what he saw on the pitch - does anyone argue that Boro didn't play the prettier football? That isn't the point we are making - Boro also produced some cynical fouling and cynical diving but the report implied that they were only sinned against and failed to recognise that they were far from blameless.
As to not recognising that we DID have a top six team to play (Arsenal) in our run in. Isn't it reasonable that someone who is paid good money to report on football matches should check their facts. It isn't as if the fixture list is hard to find, is it?
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Mar 27, 2009 11:03:20 GMT
You're right, Jeremy. We're all wrong.
Not a word of contrition, especially for the Shawcross comment.
Confirms everything we thought of him, in my opinion.
Interesting then that the efforts of SurreyStokie, ReverendStokie (correct name?) and Ted amongst many others, are classed as not being civil. I find that hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2009 11:11:14 GMT
Sounded like he strove massively to avoid having to justify the bullshit he'd written to me. He was found out and tried to bluster his way out of it with compliments, talk of his "40 years experience" and focusing on the abuse he'd received rather than the disgustingly ill-informed prejudice he'd penned to attract it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2009 11:11:40 GMT
I actually despise him more than I did on Monday. What a pompous, oily, obnoxious, pious bastard. I would rather shake hands and drink with the devil than this slime-ball.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 27, 2009 11:14:01 GMT
Completely pointless reply from Jez, pretty much confirming the impression we got from the initial article.
The only thing he acknowledges is the Arsenal fixture bloomer (big man!).
There's not any hint of apology for the completely out-of-place Shawcross paragraph nor the ridiculously OTT criticism of the 'brutish' Stoke supporters which pervades the entire article.
And Boro's gamesmanship seems to have passed him by, as if in a dream.
Not good enough, Jez.
Horrible, pretentious, mealy-mouthed reply.
Yuck.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2009 11:23:57 GMT
Charlatan
|
|
|
Post by deliasmith on Mar 27, 2009 11:25:49 GMT
Personally, I think it's one up to the guy that he replied, and I do think the kind of name-calling posted so far is just making his points for him.
What I minded about what he wrote is that it makes our team out to be dirty, which we aren't, and fails to take any account of the different approaches to debt, prudence in the spending of money,etc. as between Stoke and others, such as Middlesbrough.
And, above all, I mind the fact that he thinks a passionate, loud, vulgar, 'one-eyed' football crowd is a BAD thing. I was at the Middlesbrough game, near the away fans, and I was greatly impressed by the way our fans have learned to time their efforts to our best advantage. There was a noticeable stepping up in noise levels after about 70 minutes and it definitely affected the visiting players. Also, we know that picking on a particular visiting player often has a big effect. In short, we are smart fans, as well as loud and abusive.
Note to Smudge: he has clearly said you can print this in the Oatcake if you wish ...
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Mar 27, 2009 11:28:36 GMT
I actually despise him more than I did on Monday. What a pompous, oily, obnoxious, pious bastard. I would rather shake hands and drink with the devil than this slime-ball. Next Tuesday is good for me!
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Mar 27, 2009 11:32:30 GMT
"I had no idea The Guardian had so many readers in Stoke or that I had any anywhere." That says it all. A self-deprecating throw away comment that also includes the assumption that we in Stoke-on-Trent are all readers of the gutter press. He should stop reading the tabloids. He hasn't got a clue about us. We have people here who would lose him in both the intellectual and intelligence stakes. Many use this board. He can squirm all he likes, but he is still a fool. I did advise him to stop digging a hole for himself. It gets deeper by the day. I'll send him a size ten shovel. OS.
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Mar 27, 2009 11:33:41 GMT
Good post, delia. I guess that the points you make were those you put to him in your email. None of which he seems to acknowledge or accept?
I can very well believe that he's received some pretty foul abuse, and that might make his point for him.
However if we take the high ground that Jeremy thinks he occupies, then as with the Shawcross instance, we saw someone making insulting comments - so thought it justifiable to join in.
|
|
|
Post by jen on Mar 27, 2009 11:33:43 GMT
Wow, how arrogant is that "response".
Instead of answering the valid criticism of his lazy poisonous "journalism" - he ignores the many well reasoned, arguments posted on here and instead tries to argue that because some fans have reacted angrily (and understandably IMO), that we're all thugs and so he was right all along. "The extraordinary letting off of foul steam..."
And when he can't defend his treatment of Shawcross he becomes patronising ("which seemed to rile some"), and describes it as an "aside". Pretty rich when you look at his so-called match review and his comments about Ryan appear well before he even gets to describing the match (and after he's spent the whole of the first paragraph criticising the fans ). Hardly an aside? Or was that the sub-editor's fault Jeremy - just like the title?
And again - he's been caught out over the Arsenal game - but has to put in a little dig at the fans "those who delighted in remarking".
Incredible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2009 11:41:27 GMT
'What I minded about what he wrote is that it makes our team out to be dirty, which we aren't'
Unfortunately the disciplinary table seems to suggest otherwise - 5 reds and 60 yellows, so it's not hard to see why 'outsiders' consider us a dirty team.
|
|
|
Post by jen on Mar 27, 2009 11:43:03 GMT
Note to Smudge: he has clearly said you can print this in the Oatcake if you wish ... Smudge - I think you should acknowledge his permission to print it in the Oatcake, but explain that you have to refuse because it doesn't meet the high standards required.
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Mar 27, 2009 11:46:26 GMT
Stat's mean nothing, squareball. Ray Houghton said exclaimed shrieked. I think Alexander and friends think we're cynical, rather than dirty. Which is what I reject personally. We can be quite stupid though, which accounts for many of the yellows and reds, imo.
|
|
|
Post by mikeyb99 on Mar 27, 2009 11:52:34 GMT
A reply as poor as the original match report. There is nothing worthwhile that Jeremy Alexander has written, so nothing need to be published in the Oatcake.
Our best response to the likes of Alexander is to continue to do what we're doing, and continue being successful at it - nothing would rile him more than seeing a successful SCFC, and a passionate fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by euan ouzami on Mar 27, 2009 11:54:08 GMT
"I had no idea The Guardian had so many readers in Stoke or that I had any anywhere." That says it all. A self-deprecating throw away comment that also includes the assumption that we in Stoke-on-Trent are all readers of the gutter press. OS. Presumably he thinks Stoke is a dyed in the wool Tory stronghold???
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Mar 27, 2009 12:00:35 GMT
LOL. I reckon he thinks we're all BNP Fascist right wing hooligans. He'd change his mind if he saw how much I spent each week feeding the birds. [The feathered variety. ] OS.
|
|
|
Post by Trubritt on Mar 27, 2009 12:18:42 GMT
What a PATHETIC EXCUSE of a reply he should be barred from the Britt in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 27, 2009 12:33:03 GMT
All Acres said at the end of the Shawcross interview, was, 'Ryan Shawcross, there's a man who likes to begin every reply with Yeah definitely.'
Me and Norwich Stokie were driving away and after four 'Yeah definitelys' were going 'Yeah, definitely' in anticipation to each answer, and we were 'Yeah definitelying' all the way along the A50. I wouldn't write it in a match report though. Correspondent Alexander seems to understand nothing about context.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 27, 2009 12:38:58 GMT
I was just thinking that Alexander should take a leaf out of Winger's book and sprinkle his reports with nothing more offensive than a few of Delia's canapés and a bottle of sancerre. Of course the danger of trying to be a Winger MkII would be that he might miss a bit off the the report and forget to mention the score! ;D
|
|
|
Post by AlanHansen on Mar 27, 2009 12:40:42 GMT
Never heard of the geezer.
|
|
|
Post by winger on Mar 27, 2009 12:42:17 GMT
I'm gonna leave any semiotic decodings alone and take that as a compliment fornside What I really want to know is who Momo would least like to shake hands & have a drink with > Corresspondent Alexander or the Boss?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2009 12:49:45 GMT
Corresspondent Alexander or the Boss? Bruce Springsteen?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 27, 2009 13:15:04 GMT
'Born in Et-ru-ri-A'
sorry
t'is a bit lame
bit like Jez's apology re Shawcross.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2009 13:21:50 GMT
I'd happily shake hands with Bossie. The crime of being wank is a very forgivable one and gives a man character.
On the other hand, I wouldn't shake the final drops of my first morning piss* on Mr Alexander. The crimes of pomposity, a misplaced sense of your own superiority and possessing the kind of nose it is only possible to look down from, are much less forgivable.
*deliberately crude so not to disappoint, our sweet, sensitive, journalist type, Jeremy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2009 13:36:25 GMT
That's alright then isn't it Jeremy. You insulted tens of thousands of people by branding them as foul mouthed, ill-educated, barbarians. It is, at the least, a superior and condescending position you have adopted. But that's alright because you "...still love to be let out for [your] Saturday afternoon fix wherever it may be, even Stoke".
"...even Stoke". God bless ye Master Alexander and thank ye for your patronage? (doffing cap emoticon required)
I do wonder what the Guardian is guarding these days, judging by this article it is the smug, superior, self-satisfied footballing classes.
Still, can't stop long. I have to get back to my busy day of boorish swearing and proletarian irrelevance.
|
|