So let me get this straight. You're panning the coverage Ross puts in the paper, and suggesting instead of interviewing players about how close they are to comebacks etc, you suggest he runs a story about them all going to Nandos?

Possibly rlthisrl is the type of article Staffbull would like to see, and I agree

So, he's damned if Nandoes, and damned if Nandoesn't, then. Sums it up for me.

I thought that when I read this. It's a well-written piece which brings out the personality of both player and writer. A creative way to turn more fairly run-of-the-mill quotes into an engaging story.

Problem is, you can't do pieces like this every day. The Bullpen page on a Thursday is a good home for this kind of piece but the daily news pieces need to be more straight down the line. There is scope for more like this though and features which show thought from outside the box.

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.

so,what do you propose the person writes about that you might find interesting - maybe write to him or her with ideas ?

One can always try the 'scoop' technique where info is sensationalised to whip up interest ie. tell the truth about what players are getting up to off-field - that kind of info is easy to rake up,problem is that any bond or trust between journo & club has been broken so that's why journos have to stick with the mundane training chit chat or injury updates etc until matchday finally arrives.

what do you expect exactly ?

I personally find player interviews interesting but that's just me - also I don't think papers or mags talk enough about the fans,every fan has a story (or three) to tell...

I take it that when Ross moves on from the T&A all you highly trained journalists complete with unprecedented knowledge of covering a sports team will be sending your CV's to the Argus for consideration?

This thread really is an abomination and shows a total lack of respect to Ross.

The Sammut piece was a good read anyway

He should count himself lucky. Some T and A reporters have been called 'liars' without a solitary piece of supporting evidence.

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.