Media influence in cricket

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Andre

You've got to realise when reading this stuff that most of it is reporting based on 'sources' rather than opinion. Cricinfo's biggest crime is that it's sources are nowhere near as well in the loop as the press journo's, so they more often than not have incorrect mail. The newspapers etc have proven sources over a number of years who are always pretty close to the mark.

So realistically, cricinfo's news stories are based on weak/out of the loop sources with bad mail rather than their writers opinions. They don't have any journalistic credibility as such compared to many.

Yeah, the feigned shock/surprise when their predicted selection doesn't occur is what gets to me. If you're consistently wrong, stop pretending its a shock.

[Sanz]

Are we better off with Cricinfo or without it ? Stop looking for perfection on a website that provides free content. You have the freedom to not click on the link or not visit the site.

[Sanz]

This thread started with the Subject of "Media Influence in Cricket" and ended up bashing "Cricinfo" and how its writers are biased because of their connection with IPL and BCCI, Which is the most common and consistent theme of Scaly's posting.

[Jacknife]

It's not just cricinfo, the journalists at Fleet Street have always thought they held some sort of sway over selection. This is not just confined to cricket mind, when it comes to Football it's on a whole different scale.

[Burgey]

I must confess I never read cricinfo articles. I only use the site for live scores when I'm not near a tv or on the odd occasion I want refer to and bastardise some statistics to support a specious argument which I have.

[BackFootPunch]

To be honest I read a lot less of Cricinfo than I used to. I do find a lot of their opinion pieces to be dull/repetitive. So many writers seem to been grinding the same axe over and over again.

Having said that, if it wasn't for Cricinfo I certainly wouldn't have nearly as much of an appreciation for cricket as I do now. Growing up in a rugby oriented country there really isn't a lot of cricket coverage in our media so Cricinfo was pretty much it. Reading the views of their writers and seeing how statistics can be (ab)used has been fairly important in me forming my own opinions on the game. I still use the site every day for live scoring and match reports too.

[benchmark00]

Cricinfo >>>>>>>> CricketWeb.


Tang aside.

[Burgey]

You should stop posting here and start posting there. It'll lift the standard of both

[wpdavid]

Hmmmm ... one or two contributors here with agendas of their own afaics. An alternative view to writing off Bopara's one-day 100 because it was in an 'easy win' is that the win was only easy because Bopara and his partner batted as well as they did. And that writing off his current innings because it's against Northants rather ignores the state of the Essex innings when he came in at 15 for 2, soon to become 50odd for 4.

[BoyBrumby]

I'd actually say cricket has some of the best sports writers around: Selvey, Marks, James, Nobbs, Ronay, Fraser, Hayter, Haigh, Frith, etc. One only has to compare Cricket Writers on TV to its football equivalent for the proof. The latter deals almost exclusively in bluster and bull**** (with Paddy Barclay & Henry Winter noble exceptions) whereas the former seems like a symposium by comparison.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

I'd actually say cricket has some of the best sports writers around: Selvey, Marks, James, Nobbs, Ronay, Fraser, Hayter, Haigh, Frith, etc. One only has to compare Cricket Writers on TV to its football equivalent for the proof. The latter deals almost exclusively in bluster and bull**** (with Paddy Barclay & Henry Winter noble exceptions) whereas the former seems like a symposium by comparison.

True. But did you ever read any of Hugh Mcilvanney's writing on football? It really was a class apart. And I'm aware I'm using the past tense when I genuinely have no idea whether he's still writing or even alive.

And is this the right place to add how must I detest James Lawton's pieces in The Indy?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

True. But did you ever read any of Hugh Mcilvanney's writing on football? It really was a class apart. And I'm aware I'm using the past tense when I genuinely have no idea whether he's still writing or even alive.

And is this the right place to add how must I detest James Lawton's pieces in The Indy?

Still writes a weekly column for The Sunday Times; sadly Murdoch being what he is one would have to pay to see it.

But yeah, great writer. Made a three part documentary called something like The Football Men, with an episode on Matt Busby, Bill Shankly & Jock Stein. One of the very best I've seen.

I'm not quite so anti Lawton as you, but I do feel slightly queasy sometimes when he ramps up the sanctimony, as is his increasing wont.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Still writes a weekly column for The Sunday Times; sadly Murdoch being what he is one would have to pay to see it.

But yeah, great writer. Made a three part documentary called something like The Football Men, with an episode on Matt Busby, Bill Shankly & Jock Stein. One of the very best I've seen.

I'm not quite so anti Lawton as you, but I do feel slightly queasy sometimes when he ramps up the sanctimony, as is his increasing wont.

Yes, I saw the series about Busby, Shankly & Stein. Absolutely magnificent it was too.

btw nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, but have you caught 'Punk Britannia' on BBC 4? Well worth catching.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

Yes, I saw the series about Busby, Shankly & Stein. Absolutely magnificent it was too.

btw nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, but have you caught 'Punk Britannia' on BBC 4? Well worth catching.

Haven't no; might have a gander on i-player tomorrow if the weather curtails the cricket as expected.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Haven't no; might have a gander on i-player tomorrow if the weather curtails the cricket as expected.

I would. It's a 3-part series. Last week was pre-punk, this week is the brief golden age from 1976 to 1978 and next week is the post-punk period in the late 1970s & early 1980s. Lots of the key players are interviewed and there's some great footage.