Media influence in cricket

[Scaly piscine]

As some of you may have noticed one of the things that really pisses me off in England is the media having such a huge influence on things such as sport and politics. Journalists are generally a bunch of clueless morons who should have no input in anything of even remote importance.

My main early memories of cricket come from the late 1990s, the whimsical selection policies. Players in and out of the side. Back then it felt like more of an old boys network, with limited influence from the media - the management were weak enough to be taken in but the media was more interested in football most of the time anyway. In the last decade it seemed to me the media have increasingly trying to select the side, piling pressure on to players they didn't like for whatever reason. Fortunately Duncan Fletcher didn't seem to take much notice and now Andy Flower seems to be similar in that regard.

What irritates me now is we seem to have evolved to the point where numpties on Cricinfo are trying to impose their nonsense onto the consciousness of millions. Their pinup boy Ravi Bopara only has to pick his nose and strike gold and he'll be on the front page. Recently I've seen some total bollocks written about T20. An article I read in the last few days wrote how the bowlers input shouldn't be reduced in ODIs and become a batting exhibition like T20 (did they watch the ODI World Cup in India?!?) - just after an IPL where Narine, Steyn had huge impacts and the current world champions dominated because of their bowling attack, consistently limiting teams to 140-150. We have commentators (see the current SL v Pakistan ODI match) presenting their T20 hatred as fact.

With Cricinfo's financial clout these days I'm increasingly worried about their influence on the game. I don't expect individuals to be impartial but there seem to be persistent themes. Bopara, Hating T20 whilst still kissing up to the IPL as they employ many of the BCCI lackeys as writers. They are far too political.

[Spikey]

opinion writers write opinionated articles

[Scaly piscine]

Cricinfo don't know draw a line though. Unless it will upset the ECB or BCCI.

[Spikey]

Last 8 articles on CricInfo with Bopara 's name in the headline:

Essex lifted by Ravi Bopara knock (after he was 65* at stumps)
Sublime Ravi Bopara downs Gloucs (after he made 120*)
Jonny Bairstow gets call after Ravi Bopara injury (Bopara is injured)
Ravi Bopara struggles in tame draw (Bopara, all set to be re-called to the England team, struggles with injury as a match crawls to a draw)
Ravi Bopara injury raises batting questions (Bopara injury raises questions)
Fortune evades luckless Bopara (Bopara, all set to be re-called to the England team, does not get re-called due to injury. Article talks about how this was unlucky)
Samit Patel pushes case for England after Ravi Bopara injury (Bopara gets injured)
Ravi Bopara has IPL change of heart | (Bopara decides to play in the IPL)

bro, it's just because you hate Bopara.

[Spikey]

Just another thing, here is a screenshot of my cricinfo page:



As you can see, there is not a mention of Bopara, non has there been recently. This is because I am in Australia. Because you are in England, news relating to English domestic cricket does feature, usually as one of three headlines. Further more, news relating to a player of national interest is bound to get the headline relating to English domestic news over something like 'Starc takes 2 wickets on rain affected day'

Anyway, get over it. You don't like the news they report.

Edit:

Guess I should bring this post over from the English Domestic thread:

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

So Bopara scores a century in an easy chase in a CB40 game, ends up as a Cricinfo headline.

Shortly after Bopara scores 65* against Northants in a Division Two game, ends up as a Cricinfo headline.

For ****'s sake.

[Spikey]

It's not cricinfo's fault if Bopara scores a century ftr

This really is just a nothing thread.

[Andre]

Cricinfo delivers its news by country, so anything published regarding England will appear higher on the news list than other stories. Nothing more to it than that. It just filters news by location of server.

[Spikey]

'Rain returns with SL struggling'

****ING CRICINFO WHAT THE HELL IS THAT RUBBISH??!?!?!?!

[Agent Nationaux]

Is it cos I is Bopara?

[Spikey]

I mean, you are right that some of the opinion and analysis writing sucks. Some of all opinion & analysis writing sucks. It's also very common in all newspapers. Cricinfo is a news website. They will have opinion & analysis writing. Some of it will suck.

Cricket boards will not be influenced by it. In some cases, it's a shame they won't

[vic_orthdox]

They do blur the lines between reporting and opinion a bit often, especially when they talk about "expected sides", pecking orders and that something is "widely believed".

I guess the main issue is that Cricinfo need new sources.

[Spikey]

Yeah there's some writers who mix match reports and analysis with uh match reporting. that can be annoying.

[uvelocity]

I think cricinfo reads CW too much

[Jacknife]

I agree to some extent on the Bopara thing, I remember last year when Cricinfo thought it was a forgone conclusion that Ravi was getting picked for the 6 spot when Colly retired, while all evidence suggested that Morgan was the next man in after being the back up batsman for some time. One of the big Ravi fan boys on Cricinfo seems to be that Andrew McGlashan, when you listen to the switch hit podcast one of his big past times on the show seems to be to talk up Ravi and his lack of runs in County cricket, or the 50 he got was the equivalent to a ton because of the conditions.

[Uppercut]

Has a point on the treatment of T20. Lots of pundits, commentators and ex-players openly dislike it, and presumably never watch any as a result. So you end up with people that are employed as 'cricket experts' expressing opinions on its impact that are essentially just uneducated guesses with a heavy anti-T20 bias.