The Athletic: How the three promoted sides will give the Premier League a tactical shake-up

[Linz]

I'm not copy-pasting, because they deserve the support (and there's a free trial on at the moment) but there's a really well-researched article on there today about the tactics employed by us, Villa and Norwich.

There's pretty pictures with arrows on and everything...

Explained: How the promoted sides will give Premier League a tactical shake-up

Sheffield United, Norwich and Aston Villa all bring fascinating innovations to challenge their top-flight opponents...

theathletic.com

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

From what you’ve seen so far Linz what are your thought on it? Worth a subscription?

 

[Bladeinleeds]

There is a new dedicated blades correspondent on the website. Never heard of him to be fair, but he worked for the YEP.

 

[Linz]

From what you’ve seen so far Linz what are your thought on it? Worth a subscription?

I haven't read much outside the Blades section but it's £2.49 a month for a year with an initial free month so figured it was worth a try. The articles are more in-depth than you'd get elsewhere (more like the Guardian Long Reads, if you're familiar) and not at all click-baity (because there's no point when it's a subscription service).

You can also set up a newsfeed so you can see the things the clubs/leagues/topics that interest you.

Definitely give the free trial a go.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

From what you’ve seen so far Linz what are your thought on it? Worth a subscription?

I would say yes based on what have read so far (not just on United). The linked piece is excellent – reminds me of one of the really good blogs on us last season. The Basham piece was very well-researched. The Poundshop Partridge piece was also fine tbh (he’s much better in written format). I also hadn’t appreciated just how established they already are with North American sports, which is a nice bonus onto what I already read on that.

There’s absolutely no harm in doing the free trial and seeing what you think. Cancel if you don’t like it, but for £30 for the year based on its initial rate it seems very reasonable.

 

[LondonBlade89]

Agreed with the views of Linz and LoughboroBlade about the quality. There have been some really good articles over the past two days. At £2.49 a month, it's very reasonable compared to most paywalls and the quality is good. I'm sure they will have front-loaded a lot of the content in terms of quality to impress the people on free trials and new sign-ups as word of mouth will be so important, but the early signs are good.

Linz, I had the same battle about whether to copy and paste the Basham article. But I wagered it'd likely lead to more interest in free trials and signing up. No slight on the publication intended.

 

[Steve Mackan]

I'm not copy-pasting, because they deserve the support (and there's a free trial on at the moment) but there's a really well-researched article on there today about the tactics employed by us, Villa and Norwich.

There's pretty pictures with arrows on and everything...

Explained: How the promoted sides will give Premier League a tactical shake-up

Sheffield United, Norwich and Aston Villa all bring fascinating innovations to challenge their top-flight opponents...

theathletic.com

I've taken the free trial but dunno if they 'deserve the support'. The Athletic is the first major step to kill-off regional journalism (arguments to say it's already dying slowly are accepted) and, more worryingly, to centralise all football content into one clap-happy package where subscribers are drip-fed whatever is deemed commerically acceptable. Google, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, and now the Athletic represent a quite sad and boring future where interent exploration and the thrill of dicovering a new and exciting content about football is replaced by what is easy to find and to read.

That aside. Great article. Great arrows and pictures too. Worth a read.

 

[Camden Blade]

Just signed up although it said 7 day free trial and £59.99 per year subscription billed at £5 per month which seems good value. Just downloaded the app and about to read the article. Very snazzy, professional lay out. This is the kind of thing you do when you're Premier League. If we were still in Champ I wouldn't have bothered but now we are Premier League it's good to read up on your rivals City, Man U, Spurs, Liverpool etc ☺

 

[LoughboroBlade]

The Athletic is the first major step to kill-off regional journalism (arguments to say it's already dying slowly are accepted) and, more worryingly, to centralise all football content into one clap-happy package where subscribers are drip-fed whatever is deemed commerically acceptable.

Do you mean regional journalism or regional newspapers? From what I’ve seen for club-specific journalists they’ve gone to generally tried and tested regional journalists. I’m tending to judge the content on what it’s offering against what’s currently available. The Basham piece I’d be surprised to see included in say The Star. The PP piece, yes that would be more likely to be included possibly, though I’d argue this was one of his better pieces so perhaps he’s upping his game.

I don’t agree with the criticisms over Star bias, but I do think the paper is littered too much with click-bait shite, puff-pieces, and articles expanded around either recycled content or very little content to start with. In that respect I think what The Athletic is doing is offered something worth reading (based on the pieces so far).

 

[LondonBlade89]

I've taken the free trial but dunno if they 'deserve the support'. The Athletic is the first major step to kill-off regional journalism (arguments to say it's already dying slowly are accepted) and, more worryingly, to centralise all football content into one clap-happy package where subscribers are drip-fed whatever is deemed commerically acceptable. Google, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, and now the Athletic represent a quite sad and boring future where interent exploration and the thrill of dicovering a new and exciting content about football is replaced by what is easy to find and to read.

That aside. Great article. Great arrows and pictures too. Worth a read.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Being behind a paywall means articles will be judged on different criteria to other publications, such as views and dwell times. In theory this rewards quality journalism, ie. the better articles are better read. Meanwhile for publications without paywalls it's all about clicks, which is what encourages trashy articles over quality longer pieces. On the other hand, if by "commercially acceptable" you mean to say "won't annoy advertisers and commercial partners", all articles I've read so far don't have a hint of an agenda. And, again, by being behind a paywall it means the publication doesn't use an ad-funded model.

 

[shorehamview]

Didn’t read it, didn’t sign up. Oh well, never mind.

 

[Steve Mackan]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Being behind a paywall means articles will be judged on different criteria to other publications, such as views and dwell times. In theory this rewards quality journalism, ie. the better articles are better read. Meanwhile for publications without paywalls it's all about clicks, which is what encourages trashy articles over quality longer pieces. On the other hand, if by "commercially acceptable" you mean to say "won't annoy advertisers and commercial partners", all articles I've read so far don't have a hint of an agenda. And, again, by being behind a paywall it means the publication doesn't use an ad-funded model.

So, this shiny new content creation company has no agenda? Will have no agenda? Their agenda is making money. I have no truck with that as it goes. Except, the more desperate it is to turn a profit or please shaleholders, the less likely it will be to publish a story that will piss off whole sections off supporters. If they did - which would be their right - an article criticisng Klopp or Wilder or Solskjaer, then their fans would vote with their feet. Who's taking that risk with a wage bill that high?

The centralisation of any content, be it film, television, art, writing, will always tend to homogenise and become a cheap pastiche of what it thinks it's audience wants. Listen to any national football podcast (by that, I mean talking about football more widely, ergo not Blades Pod). They are so caught up in repeating the traits of one another. Whether it's the Peter Crouch podcast, Football Ramble, NTT20, the closer they percieve their audience to be, the more similar they sound - and we know that audience data is the foundation of their success. My cynicism in that respect is visible in the journos they've hired. Look at their social media profiles. This is all still clickbait, they've literally convinced them to schedule tweets to get you to sign-up. Why isn't that clickbait?

To me, their message is simple: 'We're not clickbait, please click here.'

I'm not saying it's impossible to have a some brilliant content on there. I am just saying that this development represents something I disagree with. Bland. Beige. Premier League-bait.

 

[Steve Mackan]

I’m tending to judge the content on what it’s offering against what’s currently available. The Basham piece I’d be surprised to see included in say The Star. Basham piece was written by one of their feature writers. Will you get a feature like that each week? For me, I bet not.

I don’t agree with the criticisms over Star bias, but I do think the paper is littered too much with click-bait shite, puff-pieces, and articles expanded around either recycled content or very little content to start with. In that respect I think what The Athletic is doing is offered something worth reading (based on the pieces so far).
Agree the pop-ups and adverts on The Star are annoying. I am not defending that. I am just saying that I don't like the trajectory of centralised content. We already have an organisation that does that, it's called the BBC. The report, on the whole, pretty factual stuff like match reports. That's fine. What the Athletic seem to be doing is centralising everything else and I think that's a crap direction for football content - even if it means lots of great writers go there, and even if it means some of the content is great.

It becomes self-perpetuating. The content is great because the Athletic tells you it is. From what I've read, I'll stick to When Saturday Comes.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Agree the pop-ups and adverts on The Star are annoying. I am not defending that. I am just saying that I don't like the trajectory of centralised content. We already have an organisation that does that, it's called the BBC. The report, on the whole, pretty factual stuff like match reports. That's fine. What the Athletic seem to be doing is centralising everything else and I think that's a crap direction for football content - even if it means lots of great writers go there, and even if it means some of the content is great.

It becomes self-perpetuating. The content is great because the Athletic tells you it is. From what I've read, I'll stick to When Saturday Comes.

The pop-ups and adverts for The Star I’ve always been amazed at the strong negative reaction to – I’ve not had a problem with them because they’re easy to ignore and I’ve always recognised they need income from somewhere. What I do take issue with this the quality of the pieces around the ads...

“The content is great because the Athletic tells you it is” – slightly surprised by that comment tbh, as it suggests that people aren’t capable of paying based on quality they judge for themselves rather than are told is quality. I’m much more likely to be sensitive to poor quality if I’ve paid for it.

This is one of two sports subscriptions I currently have, and which I pay for because I’m really pleased with the quality offered. You know what the other one is, because you produce it.

 

[Steve Mackan]

“The content is great because the Athletic tells you it is” – slightly surprised by that comment tbh, as it suggests that people aren’t capable of paying based on quality they judge for themselves rather than are told is quality. I’m much more likely to be sensitive to poor quality if I’ve paid for it.

This is one of two sports subscriptions I currently have, and which I pay for because I’m really pleased with the quality offered. You know what the other one is, because you produce it.

I'm not for a second doubting people's judgement or agency. It was more a 1984 point. The more content that is centralised, the more it becomes self perpetuating. It already calls itself 'the new home of football writing'. What I am saying is that, like with any projects aiming to swallow up EVERYTHING else in it's sphere (and the Athletic is trying to do that), the "medium becomes the message". If they succeed in hoovering up the lot, then what happens to divergence of opinion? What happens when we start to notice that, for some bizarre reason they don't slag off Klopp? Their business model isn't to rival and compete, it's to takeover. The solution is 3/4 more of these companies with rival content - the problem is, that such companies don't turn a profit unless they rule all. Lose, lose for me.

(Admittedly, I put it in too crude terms before. I don't mean to say that you, or anyone, believes that something is quality just becuase you are told to. Unless it is Dem Blades of course )

 

[LoughboroBlade]

If they succeed in hoovering up the lot, then what happens to divergence of opinion? What happens when we start to notice that, for some bizarre reason they don't slag off Klopp?

Is there much divergence of opinion currently among regional journalism, which you originally put as most at threat here by this? If you can find me a single piece in the Star that’s slagged off one of the local managers (past or present) I’d like to see it.