Thornley

skregs

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.

danthefan

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

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

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.

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.

justsomebloke

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

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.

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

thomond2006

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

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.

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.

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

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.

clsmooth

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

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

ionadnapokot

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

GerM

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

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.

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.

Taco Corp

JustinDee wrote: »

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.

Can a player or member of coaching staff refuse to do an interview?

GerM

Surley wrote: »

Can a player or member of coaching staff refuse to do an interview?

Things may have changed but on the NZ tour in 2006, David Kelly from The Irish Independent was ostracised by the players.

*mod edit. posting full articles is no longer permissible

JustinDee

"It remains to be seen whether a solution can be found, but late night attempts to broker a resolution proved unsuccessful"
- Nothing like that the melodrama above these days. All good from this end anyway.

Taco Corp

JustinDee wrote: »

"It remains to be seen whether a solution can be found, but late night attempts to broker a resolution proved unsuccessful"
- Nothing like that the melodrama above these days. All good from this end anyway.

What was the resolution of the mess from 2006? Don't write anything too critical again or we won't do any interviews?

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

"It remains to be seen whether a solution can be found, but late night attempts to broker a resolution proved unsuccessful"
- Nothing like that the melodrama above these days. All good from this end anyway.

But that's the whole point of this thread; it's all good on both ends and the journos are too cosy in their relationships with the team and management to be objective or critical, even in the face of ever-worsening results.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

But that's the whole point of this thread; it's all good on both ends and the journos are too cosy in their relationships with the team and management to be objective or critical, even in the face of ever-worsening results.

Oh for . . .

I meant there are no hassles between either regardless. I already described how good the access to players is, regardless of what a journo writes. Writers criticise. Brendan Fanning criticises. Peter O'Reilly criticises. Neil Francis the same. Sinead Kissane never got blanked for asking Eddie O'Sullivan 'that' question. Gerry Thornley went tonto regarding the player succession programme, for example. Its the IRFU who still perform accreditation procedures.
Journalists from home or abroad, still have plenty of access, and write what they want.

spank_inferno

I have never seen any of Kelly's copy so I can't vouch for it.

However from the outside, I think the players should get a grip.

The journalists are not there to be their friends, all parties are there to do a job, which the players get well for.

We all face criticism in our work from time to time, we live with it.

Podge_irl

Thornley clearly didn't make the mistake on purpose. He was however clearly trying to explain away the inevitable selection of Murray as he does with all of Kidney's selections and just made a cock of it.

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh for . . .

I meant there are no hassles between either regardless. I already described how good the access to players is, regardless of what a journo writes. Writers criticise. Brendan Fanning criticises. Peter O'Reilly criticises. Neil Francis the same. Sinead Kissane never got blanked for asking Eddie O'Sullivan 'that' question. Gerry Thornley went tonto regarding the player succession programme, for example. Its the IRFU who still perform accreditation procedures.
Journalists from home or abroad, still have plenty of access, and write what they want.

Fair point, I should have been more specific by saying that certain journos are too cosy with the team and management (please see the thread title).

Thornley's criticism of the IRFU's player persecution succession policy is a separate issue from criticising Kidney and/or the team performance.

BTW, the IRFU giving accreditation is proof of nothing, in a million years they would never refuse it to a journalist no matter what he wrote, doesn't mean that the journalist in question will get anything good in interviews.

Tim Robbins

In some respects, it's a tough job and I can't imagine there being a lot of money in the journalism of rugby.

Where is Thornley from and where did he play Rugby? I remember googling it and not being able to find it anywhere.

danthefan

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In some respects, it's a tough job and I can't imagine there being a lot of money in the journalism of rugby.

Where is Thornley from and where did he play Rugby? I remember googling it and not being able to find it anywhere.

He played a bit in school but never to any high level.

JustinDee

totallegend wrote: »

Fair point, I should have been more specific by saying that certain journos are too cosy with the team and management (please see the thread title).

Thornley's criticism of the IRFU's player persecution succession policy is a separate issue from criticising Kidney and/or the team performance.

BTW, the IRFU giving accreditation is proof of nothing, in a million years they would never refuse it to a journalist no matter what he wrote, doesn't mean that the journalist in question will get anything good in interviews.

Accreditation is not automatic, regardless of media outlet. Each application is dealt with on a match by match basis.

GerM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In some respects, it's a tough job and I can't imagine there being a lot of money in the journalism of rugby.

Where is Thornley from and where did he play Rugby? I remember googling it and not being able to find it anywhere.

Thornley wasn't a rugby journalist to begin with. I think it may have been tennis that he originally reported on and he was generally a League of Ireland reporter before eventually winding up as rugby correspondent.

Think he went to St. Andrews although I'm definitely open to correction on that.

DeDoc

spank_inferno wrote: »

I have never seen any of Kelly's copy so I can't vouch for it.

However from the outside, I think the players should get a grip.

The journalists are not there to be their friends, all parties are there to do a job, which the players get well for.

We all face criticism in our work from time to time, we live with it.

Its a hard one to call. Journalists have to (or at least should) critique the performance of the players (and coach. Please note GT!). Differences of opinion as to the validity of any criticism is inevitable from time to time. In that I can agree with you - players, coaches etc need to suck it up and
get on with the job.

However, I do think the scribblers (and other media) must be held to certain standards. That is not censorship - it is simply balancing the rights of those with a lot of power in the equation (the journalists) and those without much (the players etc) about what is fair and factual.

In that sense I've no problem with Thornley - I think he is doing a poor job (right now) of being a rugby correspondent, but I don't think there is anything malicious etc about what he is writing or not writing.

That certainly wouldn't be my take on Kelly as referred to above - I thought his conduct at that time was despicable and I would totally support the players stance at the time.

danthefan

DeDoc wrote: »

That certainly wouldn't be my take on Kelly as referred to above - I thought his conduct at that time was despicable and I would totally support the players stance at the time.

What did he say/write/do exactly?

GerM

spank_inferno wrote: »

I have never seen any of Kelly's copy so I can't vouch for it.

Some harsh words but fairly honest really. Ireland had a brilliant chance to win the game and blew it. We conceded 13 points in the last 8 minutes after being 16-8 up at half time and were the better side. Remember the box kick that led to their try. It was madness. I think this was article just was the straw that broke the camel's back though. There had been a trend of picking at players leading up to it.

*mod edit. posting full articles is no longer permissible

DeDoc

danthefan wrote: »

What did he say/write/do exactly?

I can't give you chapter and verse I'm afraid, but I recall him writing some pretty scurrilous stuff - little basis in fact and extremely personalised and nasty. It may have been around the autumn internationals in 2005 or the 6N in 2006.

The AIs in 05 were certainly disappointing - we got hammered by NZ (who hammered everyone else in a GS tour to be fair), well beaten by Australia and we beat Romania in 2nd gear.

What gets overlooked very easily (and did by several at the time) was that we were without both O'Driscoll and O'Connell for the games, and we also had a slew of senior players on their way out - e.g. Corrigan, Foley, Byrne, Maggs, Miller. EOS brought in Bowe, Bestx2 and Leamy for the series, along with Trimble.

trackguy

It's interesting reading that article by David Kelly from 2006. Barring the player's names, this passage could have been written about the current set-up -

Ireland, unfortunately, are still reluctant to use the numbers allowed by the IRB to supplement the starting 15. It is a damning indictment of the unused replacements who continue to grow splinters on the Irish international bench that they are not deemed worthy of adequate, impactful game time. It is quite inconceivable why Geordan Murphy was allowed to remain on the field for 79 minutes before being replaced by Girvan Dempsey. One presumes that Murphy had been fulfilling the wishes of the management in what he admitted was a limited attacking approach on his behalf.

If not, the logic dictated that his replacement should have arrived much, much earlier than shortly after that lone, almost definitive daring break from his own half which led to the McAlister intercept. Alternatively, what does it say to Dempsey about the faith in his ability to alter the tempo of a game at such a crucial time?

Ditto the rest of the bench, a point forcefully emphasised by the delay in replacing a tiring David Wallace - who had just conceded a penalty - with a groundhog (Keith Gleeson) when a ball carrier was needed at that stage, as the All Blacks stepped up their own barrage of ball-carrying.

Sadly, there are players on this tour who would be better off sunning themselves in Tahiti as their value in terms of this summer's enterprise appears to be negligible unless there is some radical shift in emphasis this week.

One marvels at how McAlister's mental strength will have hardened in manifold ways as a result of Saturday's experience. In stark contrast, when Ronan O'Gara misfires, there is nobody on the bench to light a fire under him.

It is this comfort zone which allows the frequent lapses which creep into his performances to disappear into a worrying vacuum of almost desultory analysis. O'Gara is indubitably number one but wouldn't it be nice to see what his number two, or heaven forefend, number three look like?

Morf

GerM wrote: »

Think he went to St. Andrews although I'm definitely open to correction on that.

I thought someone had said he went to St. Conleths previously on here.

CatFromHue

I don't think it really matters where he went to school to be honest. He is usually a pretty good writer but has made a mistake here and has gone on the record in saying that he believes in Declan Kidney. I don't think the two are related though.