England at the 2015 World Cup.

[Gingerfinch]

"The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game"

True. They have to sell papers. The other problem is they mostly dont know what they are talking about regarding players outside the international set up. The Chief Criket writers of two quality papers never watch county cricket (one actually baosts about it) so really dont have a clue when putting names forward - thats why when they suggets replacements its generally someone who has played before, a youngster they have never seen but has good figures or someone who has done well in a televised game. Trott, for example, didnt fit any of these categories which is why none of them saw him coming back in 2009.

Problem is they have more power than in most sports because cricket is more read about than watched - at games/on TV - below international level.

So I take most of what they say with a tonne of salt.

Morning rant over. No idea where that came from. Sorry.

Exactly, most cricket writers in India too would not be knowing even the names of domestic tournaments. I doubt if they are aware of tournaments like Shalini Bhalekar trophy and what purpose it is played for. I doubt they even know which tournaments actually can be classified as domestic and which do not.

I am very choosy about what i read as far as cricket is concerned. First thing i see is who has written the article. If the author is not a proper cricketer then i don't read it because i believe without practical knowledge the writers will only be able to tell you the scores and general things like the ball was moving etc and some played rash strokes so match was lost. For example i skip Firdoose Moonda's articles on cricinfo but always try to read Akash Chopra's articles. Firdose Moonda cannot analyze what Akash Chopra can ( technicalities of batting, bowling, fielding, wicket keeping ) because of the vast gulf in their cricket upbringing. One has just watched the game whereas the other has played. Like you say cricket is more read than watched and i would add played properly by far fewer. Media thrives on this and is successful in selling a lot of nonsense articles.

I'm not that bothered what level a writer has played or if at all. If a modest club cricketer watches a lot of cricket then he will gain enough knowledge to give a good opinion.

Agreed, Ginger. Even i am not bothered about the level of the writer at proper cricket as well. All i look for is that he has played proper (club) cricket at least.

TBH, I would read an article and take note from a good village cricketer, as long as he watches a lot of LIVE cricket.

[meninblue]

"The problem with the media is you're only as good as your last game"

True. They have to sell papers. The other problem is they mostly dont know what they are talking about regarding players outside the international set up. The Chief Criket writers of two quality papers never watch county cricket (one actually baosts about it) so really dont have a clue when putting names forward - thats why when they suggets replacements its generally someone who has played before, a youngster they have never seen but has good figures or someone who has done well in a televised game. Trott, for example, didnt fit any of these categories which is why none of them saw him coming back in 2009.

Problem is they have more power than in most sports because cricket is more read about than watched - at games/on TV - below international level.

So I take most of what they say with a tonne of salt.

Morning rant over. No idea where that came from. Sorry.

Exactly, most cricket writers in India too would not be knowing even the names of domestic tournaments. I doubt if they are aware of tournaments like Shalini Bhalekar trophy and what purpose it is played for. I doubt they even know which tournaments actually can be classified as domestic and which do not.

I am very choosy about what i read as far as cricket is concerned. First thing i see is who has written the article. If the author is not a proper cricketer then i don't read it because i believe without practical knowledge the writers will only be able to tell you the scores and general things like the ball was moving etc and some played rash strokes so match was lost. For example i skip Firdoose Moonda's articles on cricinfo but always try to read Akash Chopra's articles. Firdose Moonda cannot analyze what Akash Chopra can ( technicalities of batting, bowling, fielding, wicket keeping ) because of the vast gulf in their cricket upbringing. One has just watched the game whereas the other has played. Like you say cricket is more read than watched and i would add played properly by far fewer. Media thrives on this and is successful in selling a lot of nonsense articles.

I'm not that bothered what level a writer has played or if at all. If a modest club cricketer watches a lot of cricket then he will gain enough knowledge to give a good opinion.

Agreed, Ginger. Even i am not bothered about the level of the writer at proper cricket as well. All i look for is that he has played proper (club) cricket at least.

TBH, I would read an article and take note from a good village cricketer, as long as he watches a lot of LIVE cricket.

Okay. My Village is many hundred miles away from my home in Mumbai. No stadiums over there or in nearby villages where domestic matches can be played. Our village people do not get to see LIVE matches at all. But they do have proper cricket tournaments over there.

[shankycricket]

You dont read Harsha Bhogle then,Adi?

[Making_Splinters]

Ultimately, how important a writers background is entirely depends on what they are talking about, if for example they are talking about the pressure of being part of an international tour, then someone who has never had any involvement in international cricket might not be the best person to comment on it.

However for general cricket writing a writers background is completely irrelevant, I have seen excellent writing on here, for example (and this is just a single case, not the only case) Greyblazer who I assume has never played test cricket, yet people like Botham, who is arguably one of England's greatest modern day players, regularly talks complete nonsense.

As always sweeping generalisations are rarely accurate, good content is good content regardless of what perspective it is being written from.

[Gingerfinch]

Ultimately, how important a writers background is entirely depends on what they are talking about, if for example they are talking about the pressure of being part of an international tour, then someone who has never had any involvement in international cricket might not be the best person to comment on it.

However for general cricket writing a writers background is completely irrelevant, I have seen excellent writing on here, for example (and this is just a single case, not the only case) Greyblazer who I assume has never played test cricket, yet people like Botham, who is arguably one of England's greatest modern day players, regularly talks complete nonsense.

As always sweeping generalisations are rarely accurate, good content is good content regardless of what perspective it is being written from.

Yes, the subject matter will count.

ms is right.

[shankycricket]

Ultimately, how important a writers background is entirely depends on what they are talking about, if for example they are talking about the pressure of being part of an international tour, then someone who has never had any involvement in international cricket might not be the best person to comment on it.

However for general cricket writing a writers background is completely irrelevant, I have seen excellent writing on here, for example (and this is just a single case, not the only case) Greyblazer who I assume has never played test cricket, yet people like Botham, who is arguably one of England's greatest modern day players, regularly talks complete nonsense.

As always sweeping generalisations are rarely accurate, good content is good content regardless of what perspective it is being written from.

Well said MS
MS is right.

[meninblue]

You dont read Harsha Bhogle then,Adi?

Harsha Bhogle has played for Osmania University in the Inter University Championship. University matches are proper cricket matches.

[shankycricket]

You dont read Harsha Bhogle then,Adi?

Harsha Bhogle has played for Osmania University in the Inter University Championship. University matches are proper cricket matches.

Thanks for the info.

[Making_Splinters]

I would also add that, one should never not read content simply because yu think it is bad content. For example I generally take what Ganguly writes with a pinch of salt reserved for only the most artery clogging plate of chips, but that doesn't mean he never makes good points amongst all the bits and peices from his Greg Chappell voodoo dolls.

Equally while I respect Ashley Mallett as a writer immensely, it doesn't mean some timeshis writing is as bad as the ghost's batting.

If you set out with a preconceived view on the content you are going to read, you will do nothing but a disservice to your view on the cricketing world. The most important thing in any reading is your ability to assess and process what you are reading, rather than making judgements based on where someone is coming from.

[Gingerfinch]

Have an open mind then, ms.

[shankycricket]

MS is spot on.

[Slipstream]

Ultimately, how important a writers background is entirely depends on what they are talking about, if for example they are talking about the pressure of being part of an international tour, then someone who has never had any involvement in international cricket might not be the best person to comment on it.

However for general cricket writing a writers background is completely irrelevant, I have seen excellent writing on here, for example (and this is just a single case, not the only case) Greyblazer who I assume has never played test cricket, yet people like Botham, who is arguably one of England's greatest modern day players, regularly talks complete nonsense.

As always sweeping generalisations are rarely accurate, good content is good content regardless of what perspective it is being written from.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Agree with splinters. Unless it means I have to rate George Dobell.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Interesting that all the press and ex players were saying that England have to play forward more to the pakistan spinners. Ajmal said (maybe mischievously) that he was pleased that England were playing back. But analysis of Indian batters playing spinners shows they are playing back to more balls from the spinners, at each length, than the English.

That's the kind of thing you'd really expect an ex player to know. A technical thing.

I thought the whole thing with playing forward was dealt with a bit simplistically by the commentators/press.

[andy]

have to say that finn will defo be part of that side, injury permititng lol.....fnatastic bowler, and is excelling in limited overs cricket especially at the moment.