RESPONSE POSTED BY IkeyAllTheWay – Tuesday, 12 May 2009 18:31
As a rule when talking about alot of games one cannot go into detail about every single game as to do so would not allow the writer to review all games played. To spend an entire article writing on one game would bias the other teams and as it is there is not enough time and space to do a preview and a report of every game, that is why the reviews are very brief and sometime do not include everything you might want in it. That is also why most of the teams have websites/blogspots or facegroup pages where they can put up a detailed summary of their own as there is simply not enough time to go into detail about Nadoes choice of substitutions during a particular match.
Reviewing Rugby is obviously a very subjective past-time which is clearly swayed by who you play for, where your loyalties lie and the specific incidents/events that you yourself noticed in the match. Furthermore, the Nadoes have set the bar very high for themselves by being the most successful side in the competition and racking up big scores every week. That is why it is possible to talk about a 34-0 thrashing and still be able to make the point that it was not a faultless performance from a side from whom we all expect so much. Nothing in the article was a ‘Nadoe-bash’ but more a comment on the fact that Nadoes had not yet hit their straps fully. In order to make this reply easier I have addressed your complaints in the same format that you first wrote them
Week 1: The match report versus Ikhaya never said that the Nadoes produced a poor performance, only that it was not what the Nadoes are capable of doing, the article did however make reference to the Nadoes ability to capitalize on Ikhaya mistakes and score from anywhere on the field as the following quote shows; “Instead the Nadoes managed to capitalize on mistakes and score break-away tries in typical Nadoe fashion” as anyone can see, this is a compliment and I thus fail to see the bias in this.
Week 2: It was right to talk up Marquad as they had come off of a surprising and exciting win against the Panthers, something that was never expected of them. Furthermore, it is also important in previewing a rugby game to talk about both sides chances and in the preview it was stated that it is tough to know what to expect from Marquad after their awesome first game. In reviewing the Marquad game it was acknowledged that Nadoes were the better side on the night and in fact, several compliments were given to the Nadoes, in particular about their ability to turn over ruck ball and create space for themselves out wide. I fail to see the bias in any of this.
There were also a lot more complimentary things said about the nadoes including; “The Nadoes certainly looked a more complete package on the night than they had in their previous outing as they ran in 5 unanswered tries” which was in reference to my belief that they were showing more of their true potential and;
“It seems Nadoes are finding their form early on in the competition which will leave many of the other teams wondering how to beat the old men of the Internal League.” which I believe says the same thing about their form. The quote ‘old men of the internal league’ was meant as a reference to the length the Nadoes brand has been around for and that they are the most successful side in the competition though I understand how this could have been misconstrued if one has a complex about this.
week 3: The Panthers vs Nadoes game was re-scheduled for this week and I was not aware of this, that is why there is no reference to this game in the preview as obviously it is a massive game. Note, however, that there is also not a preview of UH vs Smuts or of Turtles vs Clarendon and yet none of their players/fans are being abusive on this site.
Every effort is made to remain neutral and to talk about each sides games as much as possible. I believe that this has been done fairly as I’ve shown above.
Just because the Nadoes are the most successful team of the internal League does not entitle them to preferential treatment and they should get the same coverage as everyone else. I believe that the only problem you saw is that I was not being more biased towards the Nadoes on this site and that is something I will endeavour not to do for any team. In addition I would like to state that I have no affiliation wth the Cobra’s whatsoever, I just believe that they played good rugby and i have the same amount of respect for them as I do for the Nadoes.
This is after all a rugby site, based on rugby which as I’ve said, can be very subjective. After reviewing all of the articles you mentioned in order to see if I was being biased by accident/without meaning to, the only conclusion I can come to is that you yourself need to review your own bias.