The peerless Paul Hayward, one of the great sports writers and now a contributing editor at The Observer, has a fantastic article on why football journalism needs defending in today’s paper.
Hayward argues that the traditional match report belongs to a begone era pre-the internet and that football writing has to offer something different in the era of the influencers. That might be why the Observer, in its Tortoise era, has foregone reports on the previous day’s football – and I suspect that Hayward might have seen the need for a rewrite last weekend if – like us – he was covering Fulham’s trip to Brighton and Hove Albion. Capturing the colour of that Rodrigo Muniz equaliser was pretty hard, even when it happened right in front of you.
But, having slaved away in a press box many times myself, Hayward is clearly correct about how journalism has to evolve, especially when print is no longer the king. His concluding paragraphs are perfect:
The slab of copy now has to work extra hard to keep the reader hooked. It has to be revealing, authoritative, provocative, dramatic or beautifully written to hold the gaze. The “digestible chunks” principle now governs the act of writing: five things we learned, what they said, was it handball, should it have been a red card, and so on. Usually this is no bad thing. The best reporters do it well, because they know their subject and their craft.
Our eyes and brains have been rewired, but writing can’t be abandoned, in football, sport – or anywhere. Football reporting can save itself by adaptation, yes, but surrender, no. A friend who told me he knew everything about that day in the life of his team by 11pm said he would still read a fresh perspective the next day, if he respected the writing or the writer.
That’s the aim. That was always the aim.
