Topic: The Sunday Times: Laughably Incompetent, Patronising or Deliberately Misleading

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The Footy section of this week's Sunday Times featured this little graphic:



Ah, so things are not as bad as they seem you think.  Roy's record is not that spectacularly bad as compared to Rafa's.  Liverpool it seems are just notoriously slow starters.  Look at 2006. Take inspiration. Third place is still within our grasp.

Except there is one small problem those figures are utter nonsense.  A check of the actual results in those seasons gives this:

04-05 13 pts
05-06 10 pts
06-07 11 pts
07-08 16 pts
08-09 20 pts
09-10 15 pts
10-11 6 pts

The only total The Sunday Times managed to get right was this years, although in fairness Roy did make the adding up very easy for them

So what do we think?  Is The Sunday Times researched, written and edited by morons who cannot do five-year-old level sums?  Do the staff at the Sunday Times hold footy fans in such low esteem that they thought "ah fuck it bung any old numbers down, nobody will ever know the difference"?  Or is someone at The Sunday Times trying to deliberately twist things so that the doyen of English football management doesn't seem to have fucked things up quite as much as he has?

You decide.

[kevmck]

a) Is The Sunday Times researched, written and edited by morons who cannot do five year old level sums?
b) Do the staff at the Sunday Times hold footy fans in such low esteem that they thought "ah fuck it bung any old numbers down, nobody will ever know the difference"?
c) is someone at The Sunday Times trying to deliberately twist things so that the doyen of English football management doesn't seem to have fucked things up quite as much as he has?

Quite honestly, I was going to go for c, they're twisting it, then I remembered that they're idiots, so i leaned towards a, then I realized its the british press and I'm now leaning towards b

[VamosLiverpool]

it's a joke. That's done on purpose, you just don't make those mistakes without knowing they are wrong. Barclay?

[Sangria]

Isn't Roy's mate Patrick Barclay the main football man at the Times?

[kevmck]

You know, I'd understand if they screwed up 1.. maybe even 2 years.. but to screw up everything except this year shows an ineptness which is really quite stunning.

Think there'll be a retraction?  Or if so, think it'll be as visual as this one was?  no chance.  Maybe another paper needs the proper numbers so they can take the piss out of the sunday times.. i'm sure there are papers that'd love to rub their competitors noses in it, even at the expense of looking like they'll treat liverpool fairly

[JP-65]

They don't have to do research, they just need to go to RAWK's results comparison thread

[alonsoisared]

haha that is actually unbelievable! It's hard not to laugh but people will read and believe that, I wonder which one of my mates will be first to defend Hodgson because we're always slow starters.

[Passmaster Molby]

Can only think that is deliberately misleading its readers - the totals they post are ours after 6 league games of each season, and this season after 6 games we had 6 points as well. It deliberately misleads the reader by making it seem thats our total after 8 games of each of the previous seasons.

[Chakan]

Yeah who cares what the media says.... I mean it's not like anyone pays any attention to anything written in the media.

[red_dub]

Sickening and highlights the level of journalism out there.

These 'journalists' haven't a clue and are deliberatly supplying false information in their ever progressing campaign against our clubs previous management.

Email campaign anyone

[Coady]

Who was it who wrote the story, any ideas?

[JP-65]

Thought I'd ask them

JParkins10
 
@OliverKayTimes How did the Sunday Times get this so wrong? #LFC http://bit.ly/b9ORCU

[Nessy76]

Murdoch paper prints lies shocker.
Why even waste your time with this rag?

[Sing A Song of Torres]

Just to add a few more figures to support VdM's numbers (and highlight just how wrong the Times got it), in the first eight games:
In 2008, 6 wins, 2 draws (away to Villa, home to Stoke), no loses = 20 points
In 2009, 5 wins, no draws, 3 loses (away to Spurs, home to Villa, away to Chelsea) = 15 points
In 2010, 1 win, 3 draws, 4 loses = 6 points

To base a thesis of optimism on these comparisons is foolish at best, misleading, misguided and reckless at worst.

[edeyj]

Has somebody brought this "mistake" to their attention?

[SP]

Cock up. The totals for the last 2 years are the totals after 6 games. I suspect that they reused the figures from 6 games in. And as we lost the 2 intervening games this season the total for this season is right....

[Ryan M]

Haha that is brilliant that. Soon Rafa never won any trophies and finished mid table every season!

[SP]

The totals are accurate for 6 games. Unfortunately for the comparisons we did not lose the 7th and 8th games in any other year.

They probably recycled an old graphic and forgot to update the numbers. Still fucking slack though.

[No666]

Someone sent this to their direct competitors? I'm sure there'd be some mileage in it for them.

[AK47]

Can the club sue for slander over this? Surely reporting incorrect facts is something that can be challanged? Maybe worth a few million in damages! Be nice to see the Time buy our nextplayer for us

[vitch]

Just incredible. We should get them to write a f*in apology and correction.

[Lusty]

Bizarre.  I'm wondering how it would be possible to get that wrong, surely it's fairly easy to lookup up.

Have they gone for the points tally after 8 games in all competitions maybe?

[Chakan]

Bizarre.  I'm wondering how it would be possible to get that wrong, surely it's fairly easy to lookup up.

Have they gone for the points tally after 8 games in all competitions maybe?

It's the points total after 6 games.... except the last one which is correct

[PaisleyPrint]

Someone sent this to their direct competitors? I'm sure there'd be some mileage in it for them.

Rory smith's twitter maybe.

[SP]

It's the points total after 6 games.... except the last one which is correct

Because the points total after 6 and 8 games was the same courtesy of Blackpool and Everton.

[the 92A]

Nothing can get in the way of the narrative, and fachts are not that important, especially when dealing with football fans who are one step up from neanderthals. Patrick Barclay gave the game away and showed just what contempt he holds us in, with his stupid comment about us when defending his mate Roy. What I can't understand is how V. de Mayo spotted this when he should be thinking about  how to get on telly with Jeremy Kyle or what size chain would look good on his pitbull.

[Cadno]

Lol now that the Rafa spending myth has been put to bed (well for the most part) they now are attempting to create another one 

[Rococo]

To be honest I'm not sure what to make of that. 

My initial reaction would be to say you've succumbed to the 'the whole world's against us' agenda but it really is odd.  How can a national newspaper, which employs highly paid journalists, sub editors, editors and whatever else they do make such a monumental cock up.

Cock up. The totals for the last 2 years are the totals after 6 games. I suspect that they reused the figures from 6 games in. And as we lost the 2 intervening games this season the total for this season is right....

If that's the case then it's very poor on their part

[hoonin]

Have they gone for the points tally after 8 games in all competitions maybe?

The 2nd column is final league placing so it's just for the PL.

As for them using points totals from 6 games or from a previous graphic, it was published this Sunday in advance of the the 9th league game so no excuses available at all.

Either incompetent or intentionally misleading.

[Chakan]

Sent to Rory Smith

[SP]

Either incompetent or intentionally misleading.

Incompetent. When they are being intentionally misleading, they are a good deal more competent about it. I can understand how a mistake like that could be made, but it would be very lax if it got to print without anyone checking it or picking it up...

[Yorkykopite]

Meanwhile, according to the paper's economic pages, we smashed our production targets on wheat, barley, pig-iron, shoes and machine guns. The 5-Year Plan is one year ahead of schedule! All hail Comrade Stalin! All hail the Politburo!

   

[IndianRed]

Its the media's way of distorting facts to ensure that Roy stays in the job till such a time comes where he can string together a couple of wins as Liverpool manager. Also, the even more pathetic thing is how they continue to try and piss on Rafa's legacy at our club. In a couple of months time, they'll be telling us how Roy has laid the foundations for our club to aim for future successes even as we were still reeling from Rafa's ineptitude and profligacy while wheeling out Hicks' infamous "net spend of 300 million" quote to back them up.

[Solomon Grundy]

The 2nd column is final league placing so it's just for the PL.

As for them using points totals from 6 games or from a previous graphic, it was published this Sunday in advance of the the 9th league game so no excuses available at all.

Either incompetent or intentionally misleading.

Its probably the latter. As they cant be that stupid surely?

[Raoul Duke]

Very blatantly deliberate. I don't trust any of these weasels.

[DangerScouse]

Rod Liddle laying into Nando in the editorial on the backpage as well. He had a disappointing world cup because he was hampered by injury you fucking cockney twat.

[The Jackal]

The way they're trying to justify this season's start by comparing it to the start of the 05/06 season is laughable as well.. we had 3 rounds of CL qualifiers to play due to the FA's gutlessness, and a Supercup to win in Monaco in amongst our opening 6 fixtures.

[WorldChampions]

[hoonin]

From a Times article written by a well known football journalist back in May.

let me remind the reader: this newspaper possesses a long-held reputation for veracity that we prize above all.

[The Gulleysucker]