there was a piece on a Reading board a day or two ago... Does it not strike anyone as odd that he pretty much admitted to knowing hardly anything about a team that will be in the premiership next year? Actually I'll re-phrase that, as it isn't a huge surprise, but shouldn't a chief sports writer be expected to know something beyond the bubble of the premiership, or is that too idealistic? Journalists possibly are just very lazy here. A friend of mine was at the Reading Festival and got asked about a few bands by an NME journalist, only to find their comments used verbatim in the journalist's review of the event.
Not in itself - would you expect him to know a reasonable amount about Preston if they came up? But given that Reading are on the verge of the most successful season ever in that division then they really should be known to the media.
Yes. Why should journalism be the one profession that is allowed to officially incorporate sloppiness and laziness into its working practices, as though it's somehow less important that the people who collate news and then expect us to buy it off them are good at their jobs?
He's the Chief Sports Writer - would you expect him to have an in depth knowledge about every sport at multiple levels which the paper covers? If he was the Chief Football Writer then it would be unnacceptable, as it is it's more of a disappointment.
Holt was a football writer (and Chief Football Writer) for The Times for years before moving to The Mirror for his present gig. And in any case, he writes extensively about football to this day. Should the Chief Sports Writer of a major national tab know about a club that is being promoted into the Premier League (following a quite stellar season in the Championship which even a casual football fan would be at least aware of)? Yes he should. End of story.
He does, however, seem to have a comparatively in-depth knowledge of US sports, which seem to be something of a passion of his. IIRC, the baseball world series got a huge chunk of coverage last year, with Mr Holt reporting back to the literally several readers demanding more of his sports section be devoted to baseball. I'm really not all all surprised, but I will wonder when I read his premiership preview, with Reading undoubtledly tipped to go down (in last place unless Preston or Watford go up, but certainly behind Leeds if they do) what exactly he'll be basing that opinion on. I still always remember the fantastic piece of journalism that was the Emlyn Hughes column, where he confidently predicted an easy play-off victory for bolton over Reading on the grounds that "Bolton had a great history". Rather closer to the modern day, last year one newspaper report fo the play-off final between Sheffield wednesday and Hartlepool talked of Hartlepool nearly pulling off a shock victory, as if it was some mismatched cup tie. Of course, in a few weeks time the world cup previews will be out, and it's pretty easy to imagine the reaction on here when such lazy thinking is applied to "certain lesser known" international teams in the world cup, and their supporters find the articles.
Oliver Holts a t**t plain and simple. When Delia made her rather embarrassing half time speech last season he came out and called her disgrace and said that she had brought the game into disripute. Granted it wasn't clever and it still makes me cringe thinking about it now but it certainely wasn't a disgrace. People like Holt and his tabloid journo ilk are a bunch overpaid idiots without a clue!
Holt has always struck me as one of those fellas that doesn't particularly football supporters, the people who play it or, (one could say), even the game itself.