Richard Hobson, anybody else think he's an idiot?

[oitoitoi]

Lauding of wonderkid Phil Hughes should be put into perspective - Times Online

Hughes isn't as good as Bopara because he hasn't scored 3 hundreds in a row apparently. Well neither has Sachin Tendulkar, or Lara IIRC. Hughes is however the youngest man to ever hit twin hundreds in a test, taking the record from George Headley no less, he did it in South Africa (statistically the hardest place to bat in tests IIRC) against a bloody good South African attack to boot (though they were far from their best, especially in the first innings), opening as well! Bopara did it against a very lacklustre Windies attack, first hundred came on the most benign of surfaces, also before that he looked a fish of water in Sri Lanka. Hughes ahs impressed with almost every opportunity, his stats are carzy good. Sorry about the rant but this article really pissed me off, it's the kind of drivel that completely skews England fan's expectations, no objectivity at all, just seems like sour grapes. Just furthers my belief that Athers is the only English cricket writer worth reading. Certainly the only one worth reading with a regular newspaper column in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

Lauding of wonderkid Phil Hughes should be put into perspective - Times Online

Hughes isn't as good as Bopara because he hasn't scored 3 hundreds in a row apparently. Well neither has Sachin Tendulkar, or Lara IIRC. Hughes is however the youngest man to ever hit twin hundreds in a test, taking the record from George Headley no less, he did it in South Africa (statistically the hardest place to bat in tests IIRC) against a bloody good South African attack to boot (though they were far from their best, especially in the first innings), opening as well! Bopara did it against a very lacklustre Windies attack, first hundred came on the most benign of surfaces, also before that he looked a fish of water in Sri Lanka. Hughes ahs impressed with almost every opportunity, his stats are carzy good. Sorry about the rant but this article really pissed me off, it's the kind of drivel that completely skews England fan's expectations, no objectivity at all, just seems like sour grapes. Just furthers my belief that Athers is the only English cricket writer worth reading. Certainly the only one worth reading with a regular newspaper column in the world.

Dont think he stated anywhere in that article that Hughes isn't as good as Bopara so I think this is a little OTT. The point that he is trying to make in the article is that we (Brits) tend to talk up opposition players and criticize our own. Hughes may well turn out to be a great player, but hes still an unproven player in anyone's books.

 

[Richard]

Often easy to read stuff into articles that isn't there. Also, however, there's undoubtedly plenty of dross journalism out there.

 

[zaremba]

Often easy to read stuff into articles that isn't there.

Precisely. Oitoitoi I think this is what you've done tbh. I don't read Hobson's article as saying what you're suggesting, and agree with tooextracool and Richard on this. No-one, least of all Hobson, is denying that Hughes has had an outstanding start to his career. And I don't think he's actually saying that Bopara is a better player than Hughes.

As far as other English cricket writers worth reading, there are one or two. CMJ is usually pretty readable. As with any country, there are the good, the bad and the somewhere-in-between.

 

[oitoitoi]

Precisely. Oitoitoi I think this is what you've done tbh. I don't read Hobson's article as saying what you're suggesting, and agree with tooextracool and Richard on this. No-one, least of all Hobson, is denying that Hughes has had an outstanding start to his career. And I don't think he's actually saying that Bopara is a better player than Hughes.

As far as other English cricket writers worth reading, there are one or two. CMJ is usually pretty readable. As with any country, there are the good, the bad and the somewhere-in-between.

You're probably right, was in a pretty bad mood when I read it. CMJ was great but he doesn't write too regularly these days. There are very few decent cricket writers in any country to be quite frank, I reckon Manthrop in SA isn't too bad, I like Ian Chappell too. Aakash Chopra writes well and there used to be a couple of other journalists who wrote well in India but they've been swallowed by the waves of sensationalism. Fazeer Mohammed can be ok as can Cozier. But IMO Athers is just light years ahead of the competition.

 

[Jakester1288]

From article.

But has he yet scored three hundreds in successive Test innings, like Ravi Bopara? Sometimes we are good at talking up opponents.

I can see where oitoitoi's point of view is coming from.

 

[Redbacks]

Well the front cover of Ralph magazine had "Little Don" written on it, so this article must be wrong

Success ain't a destination and if you think that way you won't be successful for a sustained period (end of 05 ahses ). I don't care whether he is good/bad/brilliant/average good players have to deliver to remain considered good players, 3 hundreds in a row or two in one test don't maketh the man.

 

[zaremba]

But has he yet scored three hundreds in successive Test innings, like Ravi Bopara? Sometimes we are good at talking up opponents.

His point being, we English have an instinctive tendency to play down our own players' strengths and talk up our opponents'. It's not universally true, of course, but that tendency certainly exists. And while sometimes thoroughly justified, it also reflects a lack of perspective.

Paradoxically, the English also have a tendency to underestimate "lesser" opposition, which also shows a similar lack of perspective.

Thus Australian opposition will tend to be seen as supermen whilst Kiwis are seen as cannon fodder.

 

[Richard]

From article.



I can see where oitoitoi's point of view is coming from.

I can see where the mistaken interpretetation is coming from, yes - but it doesn't mean I'm any less inclined to think it's mistaken.

 

[Kweek]

His point being, we English have an instinctive tendency to play down our own players' strengths and talk up our opponents'. It's not universally true, of course, but that tendency certainly exists. And while sometimes thoroughly justified, it also reflects a lack of perspective.

Paradoxically, the English also have a tendency to underestimate "lesser" opposition, which also shows a similar lack of perspective.

Thus Australian opposition will tend to be seen as supermen whilst the dutch are seen as cannon fodder.

corrected it for you

 

[Redbacks]

Thus Australian opposition will tend to be seen as supermen whilst Kiwis are seen as cannon fodder.

Good to see they get somethings right

 

[zaremba]

corrected it for you

Nice one. And spot-on too. Mind you I think it's wrong to be too critical of England in that game because that would detract from the brilliant performance by the Dutch to win that game.