I can understand what you're saying about coverage needing to be a bit different, which is why I enjoy opinion pieces, features which delve into the player's personality and features which draw on unexpected/ aspects of the club's day-to-day operations or a player's life.

The problem with a lot of what you suggested is that it's often just infeasible. I very much doubt that Mick Potter would let anyone get involved in a training session or document what goes on in any kind of detail. I seem to remember him kicking off a bit when Sky tried to film part of a session last year.

A feature about the players going to Nandos would be dull and 20 questions-style pieces are programme fodder not credible journalism. Articles looking at aspects of the player's lives outside rugby can be good but only when they appear sparingly and only if the player does anything worth reporting.

It's not as straightforward as you make out but I do think coverage should be more varied than a series of straight-up reports about how the players are disappointed/buzzing after the weekend's game. I think Ross is trying to achieve this and will have more success the more comfortable he gets in the job and the more comfortable the players/club become with him.

to summarise: theres the real reporting such as match reports, which nobody seems to be criticising Ross for, and the "PR" reporting which is predominantly between match and more difficult given the editors demand for column inches when nothing much is going on to provide material.

Which is amazingly like this blog, (including the dodgy semantics that started this latest incarnation of this topic going): proper posts about games and real events such as the Odsal deal (as shown by Adey), and then in between mostly a load of nonsense. Physician, heal thyself, by casting out the mote in your own eye. or is that mixing malapropisms?

Ross's copy is fine by me.

Given the constraints he will have to work within (access to players and info - including the identikit "interviews" are in the Club's gift; lots of people don't actually buy the paper and help pay his salary; the team has been pants for too long now; there are periods when nothing much actually happens...), I can't see the justification for any harsh criticism at all. Indeed, I thought Connor was good but Ross is producing a lot of material and good content.

Speaking as someone who struggles to take notes for minutes for meetings and then produce the minutes at short order afterwards (and I've been having to do THAT all my working life and I bloody hate it...) I have nothing but respect for those who have the ability to produce an accurate and informative match report at short order. And Ross's are pretty comprehensive. Or commentate on a match while it is in progress. Indeed, that's why even though Gledhill can be a wally when it suits him, he bows to no-one when it comes to his commentaries and post-match reports. Its a bloody hard job to do well (and Gledhill does), and critics could do worse than try and do it themselves IMO.

i wonder why exactly the same criticisms aren't being made of Bill Arthur, who speaks to the same players after the Sky games? Listen to them, and then tell me how you could remotely construct a fresh or novel report from answers which are 99% cliches and very tired ones at that. The very same ones they provide to Ross. if this is all they can come up with - what's he supposed to write?

To be fair nearly all sportsmen come out with the same cliches straight afetr the heat of battle.

of course, because there are only so many things that can be discussed - it's all very repetitive in whichever sport you are reporting.Press conferences whether they be pre match, midweek or post match are boring affairs ,just rituals that have to be undertaken.