Another puddle of tinkle to scroll past at the start of an Arseletic article about Spurs Hojbjerg from the Arsenal season ticket holder:
An automatic starter for Jose Mourinho and then Antonio Conte — nobody at Spurs, not even Harry Kane, played more league minutes than Hojbjerg in the previous three seasons — and someone who was broadly good without ever really looking like he would elevate the team beyond top-four hopefuls, he tended to divide supporters, some buying into the Dane’s committed ‘Viking’ image, others frustrated at his technical deficiencies and wondering how tough he really was. Hojbjerg was also generally very close to both Conte and Mourinho; some at the club felt in a borderline sycophantic way, which was not the best association to have in the eyes of most supporters.
I've bolded the weasel words -
some, others, most, wondering etc. Lazy or mischief-making writers adopt these vague, unsupported terms to suggest things but offer no real proof or substance. The rest of the article seems generally positive about Hojbjerg but the reader is introduced to the subject through this negatively slanted paragraph.
The line '...without ever really looking like he would elevate the team...'. It's a team game. Bentancur, at the peak of his game, was hurt in early February. Hojbjerg was a great partner in that tandem, but Conte's tactics of playing a sparse two-man midfield needed exactly such a partnership and Skipp et al couldn't provide that, so the SmarterScout stats provided on Hojbjerg's play, especially defending, that season are accordingly effected. But that's conveniently left out.
Last years stats for Hojbjerg are used because he hasn't had enough minutes this season to properly compare with Bissouma. While Hojbjerg's passing and attacking stats stack up well with Bissouma, he was bound to suffer defensively due to Conte's tactics and Bentancur's absence.
And then there's the little backhanders at Hojbjerg about his character. Like, 'some at the club felt'. Who? At what level? Head coach? Media room janitor?
Another term that professional editors would never allow me to use - in my scribbling days - is to say someone 'feels'. The writer isn't a mind reader. Quotes have to be used to support that notion and, of course, none are ever used. Except from some freelance Danish journo who apparently knows how Hojbjerg feels:
“He is a guy who needs to feel important to get the best out of him,” says Poul Ferdinand, a freelance journalist in Denmark who has covered its national team for 15 years. “He thrives on being in a leadership group. It’s hard for anyone, but especially for someone like him to be a fringe player.”
That suggests that Hojbjerg has bared his soul to this writer. Quotes please, like, PEH said this to him on such-and-such a date. But no. Just after that, the article goes on to say that, despite being pushed to a secondary role, Hojbjerg has behaved like a model pro - "...
nothing but professional..." - and done well when used, playing to his strengths and setting up key goals. Certainly passed the eye test against Fulham. Which renders the Danish journo's quote/opinion pretty meaningless.
Another example of how I see this writer craftily shaping articles to encourage negative perceptions when reading about Spurs. Get 'im out by Friday.
