Your Papers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I find the BBC sport just a mess these days Koyomi. Real shame, considering what it was.

[Chris de Burgh]

I find the BBC sport just a mess these days Koyomi. Real shame, considering what it was.

I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the new look for the sports website, it looks scruffy compared to it's predecessor.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Just big headlines and a tiny story. Like a tabloid. A lot of the emphasis is on links to other sites. 606 was a huge magnet for BBC sport. Obviously that had to go.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Mark Nicholas joining cricinfo doesn't fill me with cheer.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Crikey. It's different talking about cricket than it is writing about it. But CWOTV is a festival of knee jerk rubbish. Athers is a different class compared with the studio journos.

All got the path of the Test wrong.

[Kim]

Crikey. It's different talking about cricket than it is writing about it. But CWOTV is a festival of knee jerk rubbish. Athers is a different class compared with the studio journos.

All got the path of the Test wrong.

Didnt they just? I quite like the programme but, bloody hell, they need to refresh the format a bit especially when its in the middle of a test. After a few weeks its like watching the same programme over and over again. Need to have a few different journos as well. I know how you feel about George but at least he livens it up a bit; though he got into trouble last year.

[Arthur Crabtree]

What trouble?

[Kim]

He was talking about how T20 had gone wrong and gave as an example, words that seemed to suggest that the best bowler was a "fat 40 year old". The 40 year old (Robert Croft) wasnt happy - and tweeted and emailed about it, Sky werent happy and one or two other journos had a go as well.

One of those situations where if you looked at what he actually said it was OK but it came over wrong.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I remember that episode. Thanks Kim.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think the volte face by the press about Strauss is massively disingenuous. They seem to be saying, we didn't want Strauss to be dropped, we wanted him to get some runs to confirm his position. But by writing that he wasn't getting enough runs, what are they suggesting should be done? That he should be fined? That he should wear a different type of power bracelet? That he must make a blood sacrifice?

And if he had made more thirties in this series, what would they be saying now?

Of course they were saying he should be dropped.

I also think it is absurd that whenever a subject like this comes up, and their behaviour is criticised, they have some collective tantrum about their right to pursue any subject in order to attract readers. We've got to fill the column. They seem to believe that they have some untouchable right to jump on the career of any player who happens to be struggling at any point. Columns questioning the place in the team of the least currently successful player are facile knee jerks usually requiring zero journalistic skill. And are not something to get defensive or righteous about.

Journalists don't have a right to form join the posse just because the have a blank page to fill.

[Kim]

"We've got to fill the column."

That was said a few times on Sunday.

Very weak.

I used to write ads. I didnt fill them with sh*t (well not intentionally) because I was having an off day.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Moan of the day!

You were a Mad Man Kim? Cool.

[ddb]

He's still a Mad Man, just in a different way. Supposedly did a 12 page report on county finances in SPIN.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There is a cricket journo posting on here?

[Aidan11]

There is a cricket journo posting on here?

Well I didn't want to mention it but I'm really Stephen Brenkley.