Half? I think NLOTH really just lacked 2 songs. Stand Up Comedy should have been taken behind the shed and been shot dead to never see the light of day, add two songs to make a 12 song(Winter and ???) album tweak the tracklisting a little and you have a strong album.
I feel the same about "A Man and a Woman" as you do about SUC. And I'd say the same about "Trip through Your Wires" or "Trying to Throw..", but I know many others love those songs. Music - so subjective...
IMO, there were only two "pop" songs on NLOTH. GOYB, which was U2's attempt to try to recreate "Vertigo" (which is arguably the song's greatest weakness) and "Crazy". However, the remix of "Crazy" that U2 does in concert is fantastic and shows that U2 are willing to take big chances (after all, name another rock band that performs a dance remix version of their own song).
If U2 can keep up with songs like "Fast Cars", "Love and Peace" (even if you aren't a fan of the lyrics, the music is great), "Moment of Surrender", NLOTH and some of the more brilliant slow songs, like "Winter" (and NOT "Crumbs"), then I'd think they'd come darn close to the perfect album (for U2).
Of course, fans disagree and as a result, nothing will truly be perfect. While some here hate that U2 shied away from "Pop", many 80's U2 fans hated that album and only returned with ATYCLB.
I think one reason is accessibility - which is one of U2's biggest strengths. "Pop" deviated too much by being too personal, too dark and not having enough catchy tunes. Plus, "Pop" was not cohesive - first three songs were techno, then some classic U2, then some experimental U2, etc. It bounced all over, IMO. Some love this aspect of the album, but this is why I feel U2's "perfect" album will not be a return to "Pop". However, if U2 keep the "spirit of Pop" in this new album, it will be enough.
As for the article - yeah, perhaps U2 played it a bit "safe", but that's relative. In an era of boybands and pop music, U2 release ATYCLB, which featured many classic rock songs. And U2 being safe is sounding like U2, which is rather unique. U2 always stood out as having a different sound. Plus, why attack just U2? Bon Jovi, INXS, Springsteen, McCartney, Aerosmith, etc., have made careers out of keeping their own unique style and sound - this is what their fans love and what keeps their music selling. So what's really wrong with U2 sounding like U2? Sometimes I think we do push too much.