Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Thornley

  • 05-06-2012 2:14pm
    #1
    skregs
    Registered Users Posts: 746 ✭✭✭


    Pretty gigantic error in todays paper defending his BFFs selection of Murray. I'm not trolling, it's a fairly massive mistake for an "expert" to write a paragraph about the wrong guy starting in probably Irelands biggest match since 2009

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0605/1224317294917.html


    Now Reddan returns to his Test rivalry with Conor Murray, who has been first-choice for Ireland since starting the epic World Cup pool win against Australia in Eden Park until being ruled out of the final Six Nations games against Scotland and England with a bruised knee.


«13456789

Comments

  • #2
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    Yep. Laying the ground for Murray to be picked by just plain making stuff up.


  • #3
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    danthefan wrote: »
    Yep. Laying the ground for Murray to be picked by just plain making stuff up.

    I think it was just an error, a very lazy error which isn't like Thornley at all

    He didn't do it on purpose to try and enhance Murrays rep or anything


  • #4
    smurphy29
    Registered Users Posts: 871 ✭✭✭smurphy29


    Yep, the With Hills Sauvignon Blanc has possibly taken effect here. He even managaes to "remember" Murray's defensive sweeping and physicallity aruond the fringes in that game.

    Sloppy stuff.


  • #5
    smurphy29
    Registered Users Posts: 871 ✭✭✭smurphy29


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    I think it was just an error, a very lazy error which isn't like Thornley at all

    He didn't do it on purpose to try and enhance Murrays rep or anything
    Trouble is, he has earned a rep for being embedded with the Irish management team and for breaking Kidney's more dubious team selections to the public, so using arguments that are just point of fact wrong won't go down well with the rugby public.


  • #6
    justsomebloke
    Registered Users Posts: 10,407 ✭✭✭✭justsomebloke


    offensive thread title has been edited and OP is currently taking an extended break


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Flincher
    Registered Users Posts: 686 ✭✭✭Flincher


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    I think it was just an error, a very lazy error which isn't like Thornley at all

    He didn't do it on purpose to try and enhance Murrays rep or anything

    I think it is an error more than anything.

    I've noticed stuff like this creeping into his writing though. Silly errors. Off the top of my head, I remember him listing Munster's past quarter final opponents incorrectly. Its hard to think of specific examples, but similar mistakes - wrong scorlines, incorrect oppoenents, wrong players named as scoring tries - creeping in to his articles over the past year or so.

    I think he, and the Times in general, have become sloppy with their editing processes. Thornley probably just figures he can recall facts off the top of his head. Unfortunately nobody in the Times is picking up on the ones he gets wrong. Its a simple matter of not double-checking facts, which is fairly indicative of the sloppyness in Irish print journalism over the past while.


  • #8
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    smurphy29 wrote: »
    Trouble is, he has earned a rep for being embedded with the Irish management team and for breaking Kidney's more dubious team selections to the public, so using arguments that are just point of fact wrong won't go down well with the rugby public.

    No but if he really wanted to push for Murray's inclusion, which would be of no benefit to him personally, an error like this wouldn't be the way to go about it

    I imagine he'll be very embarrassed tbh

    It's bad subbing too. Should have been picked up on unless the sub wasn't in the sports dept and didn't know Murray didn't start


  • #9
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Given he reads the forum, he will see this and hopefully not make the same mistake next time.


  • #10
    tolosenc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    Mistakenly saying he started is one thing, but then saying that memories of his great performance should merit his position in the team is questionable. Either he's up to something, or he might want to see someone about his memory. Earlier caught the better.


  • #11
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    danthefan wrote: »
    Yep. Laying the ground for Murray to be picked by just plain making stuff up.

    I think it was just an error, a very lazy error which isn't like Thornley at all

    He didn't do it on purpose to try and enhance Murrays rep or anything

    He goes on to highlight the performance of Murray in a game he didn't start in as a reason for him to start against NZ. Much worse than a lazy error imo.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    danthefan wrote: »
    He goes on to highlight the performance of Murray in a game he didn't start in as a reason for him to start against NZ. Much worse than a lazy error imo.

    What is it so? Is he trying to influence Kidney or the public by sacrificing his own journalistic integrity by knowingly stating a non truth ?

    It was a mistake, a stupid one but a mistake nonethless. Lazy journalism


  • #13
    Tox56
    Registered Users Posts: 11,636 ✭✭✭✭Tox56


    tolosenc wrote: »
    Mistakenly saying he started is one thing, but then saying that memories of his great performance should merit his position in the team is questionable. Either he's up to something, or he might want to see someone about his memory. Earlier caught the better.

    I agree this was the worst thing, not only making the error but using it to validate Murray's selection.

    Although I don't think it was intentional or anything.


  • #14
    clsmooth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    Does anyone else squirm when he refers to Keith Wood as 'Fester' on Newstalk 106?? :o


  • #15
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    danthefan wrote: »
    He goes on to highlight the performance of Murray in a game he didn't start in as a reason for him to start against NZ. Much worse than a lazy error imo.

    What is it so? Is he trying to influence Kidney?

    Kidney has Thornley in his pocket, so no is the answer to that.

    As I said, he's essentially breaking selection news softly.


  • #16
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    danthefan wrote: »
    Kidney has Thornley in his pocket, so no is the answer to that.

    As I said, he's essentially breaking selection news softly.

    By making a huge embarrassing error on purpose? Why on earth would he want to do that? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds

    How would it benefit Thornley? A journalists integrity is everything, why would he threaten it just to "break news softly"?


  • #17
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    danthefan wrote: »
    Kidney has Thornley in his pocket, so no is the answer to that.

    As I said, he's essentially breaking selection news softly.

    By making a huge embarrassing error on purpose? Why on earth would he want to do that? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds

    How would it benefit Thornley? A journalists integrity is everything, why would you threaten it by "breaking news softly"?

    Well he has little credibility from the situation either way, getting a selection wrong is one thing but providing analysis of an imaginary performance is another.


  • #18
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    danthefan wrote: »
    Well he has little credibility from the situation either way, getting a selection wrong is one thing but providing analysis of an imaginary performance is another.

    So you can't give a reason as to what benefit doing it on purpose would have for him?


  • #19
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    danthefan wrote: »
    Well he has little credibility from the situation either way, getting a selection wrong is one thing but providing analysis of an imaginary performance is another.

    So you can't give a reason as to what benefit doing it on purpose would have for him?

    There would be little benefit.


  • #20
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    danthefan wrote: »
    There would be little benefit. You're getting agitated. I stated Thornley has made this nonsense up. That is patently true.

    You alluded to him doing it on purpose "breaking selection news softly" when he clearly just made a stupid mistake


  • #21
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    danthefan wrote: »
    There would be little benefit. You're getting agitated. I stated Thornley has made this nonsense up. That is patently true.

    You alluded to him doing it on purpose "breaking selection news softly" when he clearly just made a stupid mistake

    Post above edited, not arsed further, I still think his trip into fantasy land goes too far for a silly mistake.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    danthefan wrote: »
    Post above edited, not arsed further, I still think his trip into fantasy land goes too far for a silly mistake.

    In other words you think he did it on purpose

    If you can provide a logical opinion as to how this would be beneficial to Thornley in any minute way I'd like to hear it.


  • #23
    ionadnapokot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,729 ✭✭✭ionadnapokot


    A mistake. We all make sloppy ones!
    He is still the best Irish print rugby journalist by a long, long way.


  • #24
    Raisins
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭Raisins


    I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that he put that error in on purpose. It's just a mistake but a terrible mistake nonetheless.

    The piece is actually written about Reddan which is the crazy thing. A general match review is one thing but if you're going to write a piece on an Irish player at least be familiar with the games he's played. Particularly when the game in question is Ireland's biggest victory this season.


  • #25
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    ionadnapokot wrote: »
    A mistake. We all make sloppy ones!
    He is still the best Irish print rugby journalist by a long, long way.

    He's absolutely awful these days, provides no insight or constructive criticism at all.


  • #26
    ionadnapokot
    Registered Users Posts: 4,729 ✭✭✭ionadnapokot


    danthefan wrote: »
    He's absolutely awful these days, provides no insight or constructive criticism at all.

    he is definitely not as good as he once was. Too much “psychic energy” mumbo jumbo. But still the best.


  • #27
    GerM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    ionadnapokot wrote: »
    A mistake. We all make sloppy ones!
    He is still the best Irish print rugby journalist by a long, long way.

    At this point, I could genuinley say that the online publications massively outrank the likes of Thornley in terms of quality. I'd also say Brendan Fanning is as good as Thornley with respect to printed media.

    Thornley is too close to Irish rugby to ever be objective. Criticism of it in any form is almost non-existent. Disappointed me to see such a widely read journalist criticise the referee in a completely over the top and childish fashionwhen Leinster lost the other week and not Leinster's poor defensive efforts and lack of concentration in the closing minutes.


  • #28
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Some of the online blogs like demented mole frankly embarrass these idiots.

    As I said on the podcast, I hope they enjoy their 100k a year, although I doubt many of them get that much! :D


  • #29
    GerM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    I'd say his work on Trevor Brennan's book and the Grand Slam book were nice little earners for Gezza.


  • #30
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    GerM wrote: »
    At this point, I could genuinley say that the online publications massively outrank the likes of Thornley in terms of quality. I'd also say Brendan Fanning is as good as Thornley with respect to printed media.

    Thornley is too close to Irish rugby to ever be objective. Criticism of it in any form is almost non-existent.

    I'd broadly agree with that. A lot of the Irish media are too close to the players / coaches / even bloody refs to be critical of them. They know if they say anything too critical they won't get interviews with them.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I'd broadly agree with that. A lot of the Irish media are too close to the players / coaches / even bloody refs to be critical of them. They know if they say anything too critical they won't get interviews with them.

    Everyone gets interviews on an open press day in camp. On a large day like pre-RWC squad announcement, a large number of players are accessible to all.
    After a match, for example, there is an area for priority broadcast media to interview, a full-on press conference, interviews off top-table then a mixed zone for non-accredited media.


Advertisement