Just how yellow is Indian cricket journalism?

[ankitj]

I know this article doesn't deserve much attention, but I can't help expressing my anger at this slander against Bradman

Bradman gave his game away when he came out with that beautiful story from his home in Adelaide. "Sir Donald Bradman was watching a 1996 World Cup match on television when he first saw Sachin Tendulkar bat. The Indian player's technique seemed strangely familiar. The Australian called his wife into the living room of their suburban Adelaide home. 'Who does this remind you of?' asked Bradman, then 87. The answer was obvious. 'I never saw myself play,' Bradman said later. 'But I feel that this player is playing much the same [way] I used to play.'

What is Bradman trying to say here? Is he implying that the average of 99.94 is achieved by playing like this and so the equivalent of that in the modern era is somewhere over 56. You have to completely misunderstand Bradman the man and credulously believe Bradman the legend in order to swallow that.
.....

Bradman was greedy to the hilt and this comparison he made shows that he wanted all that he could have. Bradman was not elevating Tendulkar, in fact, he was trying to obliterate all anecdotal evidence about himself. Does Tendulkar from any angle look like an unorthodox player without beauty in his stroke play? Bradman was not copybook as far as looking elegant is concerned. Tendulkar is better than copybook and even his wild innovations look beautiful.

Bradman had the average and what he badly needed was a model, so he chose the most-perfect and compact and perhaps the most-beautiful run-getter in the history of the game to serve his purpose. What he meant was that he got his runs at an average of 99.94 playing like Tendulkar does. And someday there would come a time when the last man to have watched him bat would pass away but what will remain forever is the way Tendulkar has got his runs. The Don was trying to perpetrate and preserve a false legacy.

GAGF Mr. Deepan Joshi. The idiot even goes into the comment section of his own article and abuses the people disagreeing with him.

 

[Bun]

I have read worse in other papers incl indian and foreign ones like the australian.

talking abt indian writers, there used to be stalwarts like r mohan, bala, etc.. nowadays I think lokapally, ugra, bhogle, are pretty good. nirmal sekar puts in a good spin but he rarely ventures into cricket these days. dileep premchandran is also a good mention.

but by far the best i've read in the last few yrs have been from the gifted osman samiuddin... he's brilliant, articulate and most importantly puts in his emotions also into the words which make it sucha heady ****tail. while u can find much better constructed articles by sum english guys, they are more or less staid, osman pours his heart out.

 

[Shri]

I find a lot of Indian journos analytically sound in their columns. Gets ****ed up when they try and talk about stuff other than Net Run Rate calculations.

 

[Teja.]

I know this article doesn't deserve much attention, but I can't help expressing my anger at this slander against Bradman




GAGF Mr. Deepan Joshi. The idiot even goes into the comment section of his own article and abuses the people disagreeing with him.

That is utterly disgusting.

 

[vcs]

The quality of "journalism" in The Times of India is abysmal. The fact that it sells so much is a worrying indictment on the profession and the taste of the average Indian reader. That article, however, plumbs the depths. It is terrible, even by the standards of the typical ToI article. Which is saying something.

 

[Shri]

The quality of "journalism" in The Times of India is abysmal. The fact that it sells so much is a worrying indictment on the profession and the taste of the average Indian reader. That article, however, plumbs the depths. It is terrible, even by the standards of the typical ToI article. Which is saying something.

You do realize not a lot of people care about the sports section of a newspaper in India and mainly buy papers to follow the next best sport in the country - politics - right?

 

[Cevno]

Odd article that.
Another Article about Bradman i found from World Cricket Watch -

Bradman Legacy Shifted




Ben Roberts of World Cricket Watch and Balanced Sports gives an alternative narrative to The Don’s Legacy

Appointed in an autocratic fashion by his father, my newborn son’s favourite toy is his ‘Bradman’ teddy bear. The bear is of standard teddy bear appearance except for the addition of a school tie promoting academic excellence and the green cap promoting cricketing excellence. These two fields of excellence are what the Bradman foundation continues to promote (through means other than just teddy bear sales) now over ten years post Sir Donald’s passing.

It isn’t any paternal desire for my son to achieve academic or cricketing success (though they unashamedly exist) that I write this piece. It is the realisation that he has been born into a generation that will relate to the monumental figure of Bradman so much differently than those preceding him. He is the first generation in 100 years not to have lived during Bradman’s lifetime.

Bradman passed away just as I was entering University. My childhood had a vision of Bradman as being more than just the greatest batsman but really a deified entity. Despite Bradman being the greatest batsman of all time he was considered more even than a national icon that had raised spirits during the Great Depression and Second World War and a servant of the game long after his playing days ceased. Such positive reflection of the Don was only increased by stage managed puffy journalistic pieces such as Ray Martin’s late 1990s interview with the Don.

Many a journalist has been treated with contempt at trying to reveal anything remotely negative. Jim Maxwell tried to publish some of Bradman’s letters scathingly describing other players and was beaten back legally. It was even well known that Bradman’s takeover of the disgraced Harry Hodgetts’ brokerage, while not considered illegal, at least ‘smelt bad’, yet this wasn’t something spoken about for fear of his embarrassment. No-one could ever challenged Bradman’s on-field supremacy, and seemingly this further extended to off the field.

It did not taken long for the errors and clashes Bradman had, kept under wraps during his lifetime, to become more well known post his passing. Light was even shone on his strained relationship with his son. Nothing in any of these ‘headlines’ that should be considered particularly abnormal, however because of Bradman’s protected status during his lifetime they are viewed with shock and horror now when revealed. Primarily the difficulties he had with individuals such as Bill O’Reilly and Jack Fingleton are of greatest interest, occurring within the dressing room. But it is small minded to think that in teams of 11 individuals there won’t be personality clashes.

Ironically Bradman posthumously has ‘fallen’ back to being just admired as the great batsman. Because we tried to make him more than a human, the more we found out, the more we realise just how human he was. Such a lesson should be easily learned, with Bradman so far in advance of others, not to idolise sporting performers beyond prowess on the field. All this in mind my son’s generation are free to see Bradman more accurately in history. Not as superhuman, nor a major figure of influence, just as the greatest batsman in the history of cricket by a long way, and one who brought much pleasure to many. A great legacy by itself.

http://*****************.com/stories/opinion/bradman-legacy-shifted/

More balanced version and a less sensationalist version about his Legacy and how it was protected to an extent.

 

[Cevno]

The quality of "journalism" in The Times of India is abysmal. The fact that it sells so much is a worrying indictment on the profession and the taste of the average Indian reader. That article, however, plumbs the depths. It is terrible, even by the standards of the typical ToI article. Which is saying something.

Can't be bothered to read it. Too long.

But seems a strange article and probably biased from the excrepts posted here.

But generally TOI's reporting of other things like Politics is less biased than that almost Congress Mouthpiece ,The Hindustan Times.

 

[vcs]

I am utterly clueless about Politics, so can't really comment about it TBH.

Even on their editorial page, the "Point vs. Counterpoint" arguments that they present are sometimes school-boyish. And I occasionally read the Science and Technology page, which is full of ****ty meaningless surveys and stuff (without any context) that do a disservice to the name of science. Kind of assumed that would be the general standard throughout.

 

[Shri]

I am utterly clueless about Politics, so can't really comment about it TBH.

Even on their editorial page, the "Point vs. Counterpoint" arguments that they present are sometimes school-boyish. And I occasionally read the Science and Technology page, which is full of ****ty meaningless surveys and stuff (without any context) that do a disservice to the name of science. Kind of assumed that would be the general standard throughout.

You must be one of those guys who reads the paper backwards from the sports section, browse for n00dz hopefully for a few pages, read the trivia page and do the crossword when there is a power cut.

 

[Teja.]

I am utterly clueless about Politics, so can't really comment about it TBH.

Even on their editorial page, the "Point vs. Counterpoint" arguments that they present are sometimes school-boyish. And I occasionally read the Science and Technology page, which is full of ****ty meaningless surveys and stuff (without any context) that do a disservice to the name of science. Kind of assumed that would be the general standard throughout.

They should rename the science section to pop psychology

 

[vcs]

You must be one of those guys who reads the paper backwards from the sports section, browse for n00dz hopefully for a few pages, read the trivia page and do the crossword sudoku when there is a power cut.

 

[Xuhaib]

get times of India news channel on my cable will watch it for a few minutes while flipping channels it comes across as a cheap rip off for Fox news and their anchor with glasses shouts way too much.And most of their news alerts have something to do with Pakistan

 

[ankitj]

get times of India news channel on my cable will watch it for a few minutes while flipping channels it comes across as a cheap rip off for Fox news and their anchor with glasses shouts way too much.And most of their news alerts have something to do with Pakistan

You mean Arnab Goswami? I actually like him more than some of the other prominent TV journalists. Rajdeep Sardesai, his wife (what's her name?) and pretentious Barkha Dutt are more annoying. Two others that I like are Vikram Chandra and Pranab Roy.

Most irritating sports journalist is the cricket "expert" Boria Majumdar. He calls himself a "purist"

 

[Xuhaib]

You mean Arnab Goswami? I actually like him more than some of the other prominent TV journalists. Rajdeep Sardesai, his wife (what's her name?) and pretentious Barkha Dutt are more annoying. Two others that I like are Vikram Chandra and Pranab Roy.

Most irritating sports journalist is the cricket "expert" Boria Majumdar. He calls himself a "purist"

tell him that face and voice is not for telly if he has a good pen he should stick to that.

 

[Borges]

Just how yellow is Indian cricket journalism? Just sufficiently yellow - no more, no less - to be able to adequately address the needs of their audience.

They are as good or as bad as the Indian cricket fans, the Indian cricket establishment, the Indian cricket players, the IPL circus operators and so forth. It is unreasonable to expect anything else. Journalists - like Mukul Kesavan, to give just one example - who do not write with the sole intention of pampering this audience would be simply sidelined and ignored.

The quality of journalism anywhere is merely a reflection of the mileau in which they operate. Ian Botham is a preferred pundit on English TV because most English fans swoon on every word he utters. Likewise for Ian Healy on Aussie TV. If the IPL continues to employ commentators who appear both incompetent and asinine to some, it is not because IPL can't afford better commentators. It is because the typical IPL fan laps up every word that they utter; they are the ideal commentators for their intended audience.

 

[honestbharani]

Odd article that.
Another Article about Bradman i found from World Cricket Watch -




http://*****************.com/stories/opinion/bradman-legacy-shifted/

More balanced version and a less sensationalist version about his Legacy and how it was protected to an extent.

what has this got to do with Indian cricket journalism?

 

[GotSpin]

I know this article doesn't deserve much attention, but I can't help expressing my anger at this slander against Bradman




GAGF Mr. Deepan Joshi. The idiot even goes into the comment section of his own article and abuses the people disagreeing with him.

That's so bad.

 

[Contrarian]

The reader has to stay and work for this as it's a fascinating insight. Bradman may have remained an enigma if a player like Sehwag had not come along. Against England Bradman averaged 89.78 and Sehwag against Pakistan averages 91.14. Against West Indies Bradman averaged 74.50 and against Sri Lanka Sehwag averages 72.88. All four can be considered as oppositions as though West Indies lost the series 4-1 they at least managed to win a Test. The combined average for Bradman is 82.14 and that for Sehwag is 82.01. When an unconventional and destructive player has the measure of an attack he can hammer it all day. Sehwag's strike rate in his marathon innings is way superior to Bradman although it should have been the other way round as the overs bowled per hour were much higher in Bradman's time and gave less time to the bowlers for planning.

Also fielding and field settings have improved many times as coaches and team management watch the opposition line-up thoroughly to protect their strong areas and attack weak ones to plot individual dismissals in the post net gatherings. Even Sehwag has not been described as a fundamentally incorrect batsman by modern writers like Bradman was by Fender and others.

You cannot count South Africa and India as credible oppositions during Bradman’s time as out of the nine matches they played against Australia 7 were massive innings defeats, one was by 10 wickets and the last by close to 250 runs. Bradman came out to bat just 11 times and scored 8 hundreds (some massive ones), was not out twice with one clear chance to make it 9 in 9 when he tore a muscle and retired hurt on 50-plus. These runs are the equivalent of the best Test team playing against a weak Under-19 side. These are not contests.

Poor Tendulkar averages just 42.28 against Pakistan (less than half of what Sehwag does) and 60.45 against Sri Lanka but you can ask their bowlers and they’ll tell you the real deal. “Sehwag is not even a patch on Tendulkar,” Saqlain Mushtaq said after the former got 309 and the latter 194 not out in Multan. Sehwag is exposed in the modern era with different conditions and a variety of attacks while Bradman just played against one decent side—and against a good attack only once at home. The bowlers then had very little time to think and plan as the overs per hour were significantly higher.

Now the surprise, the Black Swan. “The main point of the Gaussian (Average) is that most observations hover around the mediocre, the average; the odds of a deviation decline faster and faster (exponentially) as you move away from the average. If you must have only one single piece of information, this is the one: the dramatic increase in the speed of decline in the odds as you move away from the center, or the average.” This centre, this average, this mean is 99.94 for Bradman, 56.94 for Jack Hobbs and 53.78 for Tendulkar.

Bradman represented Australia in 12 Test defeats out of a total sample of 52 Tests which makes up 28.57% of his career. Jack Hobbs nicknamed ‘The Master’ in Bradman’s time has 22 losses in 61 Tests, roughly 36% of his career. And then the ‘Little Master’ from Bandra with his broad shoulders displaying 56 Test defeats that make up an exact 28% of his Test career on the losing side enters the field. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of Test cricket would agree that it is the bowlers that win you the matches as you need 20 wickets (discounting the rare occasion where the team declaring loses) to win a Test. The perfect balance is to have four completely fit wicket-taking bowlers and a good allrounder. The batsmen set it up and give the bowlers a good cushion to take wickets. Let's check the performance of the three batsmen we just spoke about in matches lost.
Jack Hobbs: 22 matches, 1,889 runs, Highest Score 154, Batting Average 46.07, 6 hundreds and nine fifties
Sachin Tendulkar: 56 matches, 4,088 runs, Highest Score 177, Batting Average 37.16, 11 hundreds, 18 fifties and 19 wickets
Donald Bradman: 12 matches, 952 runs, Highest Score 131, Batting Average 43.27, 2 hundreds, six half centuries and a wicket.

Did you spot the jewel in there and experienced a moment of epiphany. Hobbs drops from his centre by about 10 basis points. Tendulkar drops from his mean by 16.62 basis points and Bradman a staggering and astounding 56.67 basis points. This is the perfect demonstration of the dramatic increase in the speed of decline in the odds as you move away from the center, or the average—which we just spoke about. The first thing that you can infer from it is that 99.94 is not Bradman's actual average, it is an inflated figure. What explains it, the unorthodoxy that allows a certain kind of batsmen who can score very quickly and consistently if the attack is below par. It also says that a batsman like this is useless against good attacks and challenging conditions.

In simple language the mathematical indication means that whenever and wherever Bradman was up against a good attack he was cut to much more than half his size and his odds of scoring were declining dramatically and exponentially. He’s the only one in the group who is still in an unstable state as the defeats are just 12. Going by the linear logic of average it can be said that if Bradman had say 24 Tests on the losing side his average would have fallen to less than 20 as he is in a complete free-fall. Hobbs is just superb and Tendulkar is great considering that the number of defeats, great attacks, that he has been a part of are higher than Bradman's entire career.

The evidence is all around in the modern era if you have an eye for it. Consider the first Test of the 2006 Test series against Pakistan in Lahore. Pakistan declared at 679 for 7, scoring at a run rate of 4.73. India came out to bat with that pressure of runs on a day of intermittent light showers that meant batsmen had to keep coming to the crease, retreating to the dressing room and then come again. India were scoring at 5.3 runs per over when the match ended after 77.2 overs. Sehwag made 254 in 247 balls and was the only Indian batsmen to be dismissed, three balls before the match ended. Dravid was 128 not out in 233 balls. Sehwag scored at a strike rate of 102.83 with 47 fours and a six and Dravid hit 19 fours at a strike rate of 54.93. Can you conclude that Sehwag was a better batsman than Dravid. Pause, and think about it hard. Dravid is an all time great and Sehwag a unique player who can do brilliant in a very defined set of circumstances. Hobbs, Hobbs and Hobbs was the greatest then and would surely be an all time great. You can't judge on average as it is a wrong way. Understand the model's errors before you understand the model.

 

[trundler]

Appropriate thread for that post.