Serious question: How much should a typo effect the rest of a newspaper article?
The confusing view from the bridge
The game itself looked oddly familiar to me. North won because they had better players, natural footballers such as Lindsay Thomas and Matt Campbell who knew where the ball was going before it got there and used it with total awareness of what was around them.
For three quarters, the Dees kept coming back. They lack a marking forward. Brad Miller is gallant, but Jace Bode needs someone vigorous playing alongside him to create spaces for him.
Melbourne dumped Jace Bode last year, and no one seems quite sure who Flanagan is talking about - Bate? Bennell? Jetta? Petard? - least of all no one at Demonland where it got feisty and needed the sort of customarily soothing, level-headed input regularly displayed at the AGB:
Are you Einstein's telling me that because one journalist got one player's name wrong the article is no good?
Nice one, Eins... Thundercloud.
There's no need for an apostrophe in your Einsteins. Everything else you right... write is now flawed.
For what it's worth: The Jace Bode error is the sort of typo journos often mistakenly include in their articles, but which should be picked up by a subbie. I stress "should" because the remaining subbies at the Age wouldn't know footy from a double-choc florentine. Doubtless Bode's name came up in despatches on Sunday and Flanagan got his wires crossed. The mistake, although a howler, is more a reflection on the paper than the pressed-for-deadline journalist.
That said, there's nothing wrong with people ribbing Flanagan/The Age over the mistake - I mean, that's what we do. But rather than drifting into outrageous indignation, we should count our blessings Flanagan has been given such a large brief to cover the Dees. And in turn given us a large chance to take the p1ss out of him.
And her: this is a worse mistake.