Billy Harris: a thread of mediocrity
So for all the people that bagged Bill H, maybe you will believe Paul I.
The thing I did want to point out is people should never read the headline and jump to a conclusion. The headline is by far the worst part of this article but it is incredibly rare for the writer of the article to also write the headline. Headlines are written for provocation and often barely reflect the sentiment's of the actual article.
So nice banner, guys, but Harris never called the Phoenix mediocre in the article. The only person who did was the anonymous person who wrote the headline. William2011-02-15 19:38:42
Does the headline set the tone for the article or is it just a "Tits and Bums, A weekly look at church architecture" approach?
Either way you wish to argue it is shabby journalism on the part of the writer or the editor.
Does the headline set the tone for the article or is it just a "Tits and Bums, A weekly look at church architecture" approach?
Either way you wish to argue it is shabby journalism on the part of the writer or the editor.
To your first question, yes but I think the headline is terrible. I just don't think it accurately sums up the message of the article or that it is far to criticize Billy Harris for something he probably didn't say.
Bill?
Billy?
Is it really you?
As you were.
Correct.
I guess that's the nature of the game?
Maybe they should have a fine print:
Headlines are not actually written by the columnists
Way to promote the sport. There were a million positive things he Couldve chosen to write about for our 100 games,but he chose that for some reason.
The headline reflected the tone of the article.
But yeah over it now.
That I'm sheltered by your heart
But in and outside I turn to water
Like a teardrop in your palm
And it's a hard winter's day
I dream away...
yep, that's how read it
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/4736910/Phoenix-reveal-a-talent-for-exporting-talent
I thought Marco was from the Waikato?
Despite the team lurching along from one poor result to another, crying out for a dose of X-factor, Rojas was given virtually no game time until injuries to others gave coach Ricki Herbert no choice but to field him."
Why do people conveniently forget that he was injured?
A, that wouldn't support the particular band-wagon they are pushing.
B, They are only experts since he's been a success and have no idea what occured before then.
C, The art of editorial fact checking is dead in this country.
it's the usually pointless article stating rthe obvious, and neglecting the even more obvious. ie Marco being injured for half his contract - which would make any coach/manager nervous about signing him long term.
Yeah, terribly uniformed.
Probably shows that he is not reading the forums.
The contrast between this week's Billy Harris column and this excellent effort from Michael Brown in the Herald couldn't be starker:
Negotiations for a new contract did not start until December 2010, when it was clear Rojas was something special, but Rodi is understood to have delayed talks to see what else was out there. He is understood to have later told the club Marco would re-sign with the Phoenix or go offshore to play in a different league.
It needs to be remembered Rojas has played only 21 A-League games and started just 10. He was excellent in some of them, particularly in Wellington, and was one of the reasons why the Phoenix made the playoffs. But he failed to flatter away from home and opposition players will be better equipped to deal with him next season.