Cricket journalism- How much do you have to know?

[wfdu_ben91]

Chappell played cricket though, and by your argument anyone who did is a better journalist then anyone who didn't.

Yeah and I was saying that I'd rather listen to Gavaskar instead of Chappell because he was a much better cricketer.

 

[andyc]

And fair enough. Why should some no-namer get their opinion publically published?

All fair in discussing the game and your opinion on a forum and what not, but only sportsmen that have played their respective sport should get the chance to voice their opinion publically.

No one on cricinfo who hasn't played International/State cricket deserves to be a cricinfo journalist. Sammit Bal and Christian Ryan both have mediocre cricket knowledge but they get to write on cricinfo. It's ridiculous.

I'd laugh if I were someone who averaged 55 in 100+ Tests with the bat and then at the end of my career, my career was completely analysed and publically overlooked by some no-namer who never came close to playing International cricket.

Fair enough for fans to discuss it on forums and be as critical as they want, but none of them should get the opportunity to spray International performers on well-known media sources such as cricinfo. I'm as critical as I want to be, but me or no one else who hasn't played high class cricket deserves to have their opinion voiced because it's as irrelevant as anyone else's.

Yeah and I was saying that I'd rather listen to Gavaskar instead of Chappell because he was a much better cricketer.

So... according to your logic, we should disregard everything written by Neville Cardus, CMJ, Gideon Haigh, etc. because they didn't play cricket? And clearly, the only person fit to criticise Shane Warne is Murali, because he's the only one that's done better than him at Test level? Just staggers me how little these two posts make sense.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

So... according to your logic, we should disregard everything written by Neville Cardus, CMJ, Gideon Haigh, etc. because they didn't play cricket? And clearly, the only person fit to criticise Shane Warne is Murali, because he's the only one that's done better than him at Test level? Just staggers me how little these two posts make sense.

Not a matter of how good they were, but atleast they played International cricket. It seems pretty fake for someone who didn't play International cricket to publicise like they know everything about the game, despite not having a clue what it's like actually playing the game at the highest standard. I thought that would be pretty clear and precise to understand.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't recall seeing any cricket writer, whether a former player or not, claiming to "know everything about the game"

 

[pasag]

Can only politicians write about politics?
Can only film directors write movie reviews?

Too many sportsmen with no formal journalism or professional media training (and half a brain cell) make fools of themselves every time they open their mouths and offer no original thought or insight despite having played 100 tests and averaging 50. They are there solely for their name and their name only. So many amazing writers and commentators have never played cricket at the highest level and continuously prove that cricketing thought isn't only in the domain of top shelf cricketers and if it was, the game might still be in the dark ages.

At the end of the day a good mix is required, but the notion that you have to be a good cricketer to be a good cricket writer or commentator is ststl.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

At the end of the day a good mix is required, but the notion that you have to be a good cricketer to be a good cricket writer or commentator is ststl.

At the end of the day, it's an opinion and a professional's opinion is more valid then a bystander's opinion, hence why only the professional's should be publicised.

 

[andyc]

At the end of the day, it's an opinion and a professional's opinion is more valid then a bystander's opinion, hence why only the professional's should be publicised.

But it's not as if they just publish the ramblings of any random bloke from the street, they're professional cricket journalists who've done it for years.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

But it's not as if they just publish the ramblings of any random bloke from the street, they're professional cricket journalists who've done it for years.

And none of them played International/State cricket.

Do you honestly think any International cricketer would give a **** about what some "professional" cricket journalist thinks? Given that the journalist never came close to playing International cricket himself and wouldn't have a clue about playing International cricket aswell?

Most players care what Richie Benuad thinks because his been a long standing commentator who played International cricket with good success. Take away his International credentials and his a much less liable source.

 

[zaremba]

It is obvious that a professional, or ex-professional, will have valuable insights about the game which others might not.

But it's equally obvious that (1) the non-professional can be an excellent journalist with a perfectly valid contribution to make (CMJ, Cardus, Haigh being three examples already given; you might add Arlott and many others), and (2) the mere fact that a person has played professional cricket doesn't in itself equip him to write about the game.

Ben's view that "only the professional's [opinion] should be publicised" is extraordinary in the extreme. It really does seem that he believes that Haigh, CMJ, Arlott and Cardus are unworthy to write about the game. Wacky.

 

[fredfertang]

Although Sky seem to take a similar view to Ben - except in the case of Charles Colville of course

 

[zaremba]

I suspect that Sky's game-plan is to sign big names in the belief that they will attract viewers - and that basically means big-name players, however god-awful they may be as commentators.

 

[Goughy]

The reality of successful popular journalism (or any form of writing for that matter) is that the reader buys into the legitimacy of what is being said and the authority of who is saying it. Accuracy and insight isnt always important (though of course this can be one way to establish this credibility) a fair proportion of cricket writers pump out pretty poor quality stuff.

The easiest way to get people to listen is to be an ex-player and the easiest way to be a high profile writer is to be an ex-player, know what you are talking about, and can frame it well.

There are no doubt that there are scores of guys that know more than ex-pros (plenty more that know less but that is a different story) but they are not the ones being read. They spend their days doing something else while others are paid for their views.

I know people criticise players for their writing but to be frank being an supposed 'in the know' and insightful journo isnt really much better as they write their fair share of crap and there are a lot of bad cricket journos in addition to ex-players turned journos.

Essentially there are a number of ways to the top but the easiest and most legit (in the eyes of the consumer) is to be a former ex-player. I get it and accept it. There is a role for the non-playing cricket writer but very few actually offer anything of great value and the ones that do are special and valuable.

EDIT- Just read that back and its a bit of a ramble.

 

[slippyslip]

Most players care what Richie Benuad thinks because his been a long standing commentator who played International cricket with good success. Take away his International credentials and his a much less liable source.

How does Benaud's experience in the 1950's relate to the IPL and Twenty20 cricket? The guy never EVER played ONE limited overs match at any LEVEL.

So if we dug up W.G. Grace from his grave and brought him back to life he would automatically be an expert about all things cricket in the 21st century? Bizzare concept you have, wfdu_ben91.

And by your own arguments Benaud should never commentate on ODI matches.

I like Benaud as a commentator because hes a good commentator. I would listen to Benaud commentate a tennis match. I dont care if he could hit a ball over the net or not.

wfdu_ben91, its people like you that Roy and HG have been making fun of for the past 20 years. I don't know what it is about Australian sports fans but they subscribe to idiot clichés and banalities - Stand up and be counted. Under the pump. I gave 110%. Just taking it one game at a time.

Also shows like Live and Sweaty and The Fat made fun of the stupidity of Australian sports fans while still celebrating sport.

 

[zaremba]

Goughy - No, it's not a ramble. It makes perfect sense. There has always been a place for the pro or ex-pro, for both of the reasons identified: (1) they will achieve a higher readership by reason of their fame and status and (2) they will have certain insights by reason of their experience. But I think we agree that being a pro or ex-pro is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a good or successful journalist.

 

[Pothas]

I don't know what it is about Australian sports fans but they subscribe to idiot clichés and banalities - Stand up and be counted. Under the pump. I gave 110%. Just taking it one game at a time.

You should hear the English talk about Football

 

[zaremba]

You should hear the English talk about Football

"in and around" is the latest grim cliche to be spouted. I heard someone recently refer to the teams "in and around us in the league table". My god it drives me nuts.

 

[Pothas]

"in and around" is the latest grim cliche to be spouted. I heard someone recently refer to the teams "in and around us in the league table". My god it drives me nuts.

One that gets me that all sports use is the use of 'a' - 'it really helps when you have 'a Messi' or 'a Xavi' in your side.

Or when they refer to one person as a plural.

'Indian batting is really good, they have the Tendulkar's and the Dravids' and the Laxmans'.

 

[zaremba]

one that gets me that all sports use is the use of 'a' - 'it really helps when you have 'a messi' or 'a xavi' in your side.

Or when they refer to one person as a plural.

'indian batting is really good, they have the tendulkar's and the dravids' and the laxmans'.

awta 100%.

 

[Goughy]

Goughy - No, it's not a ramble. It makes perfect sense. There has always been a place for the pro or ex-pro, for both of the reasons identified: (1) they will achieve a higher readership by reason of their fame and status and (2) they will have certain insights by reason of their experience. But I think we agree that being a pro or ex-pro is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a good or successful journalist.

Agreed and I think we see it pretty similar. The point I wanted to make is that, for non-playing journos, being particularly good or knowledgeable isnt required to be successful either. Its about drawing the reader in and getting them to regularly read. It doesnt have to be good and can often be trash. There are a lot of really bad non-playing writers and I know if faced with the choice of a poorly written piece by a journo or an ex-player I would take the latter.

I dont buy into the seemingly overriding theme here that non-playing writers are somehow more noble and superior. Of course the greatest fall into that bracket but for every Cardus or CLR James there are 1000s of ordinary-bad writers.

 

[zaremba]

Agreed and I think we see it pretty similar. The point I wanted to make is that for non-playing journos being particularly good or knowledgeable isnt required to be successful either. Its about drawing the reader in and getting them to regularly read. It doesnt have to be good. There are a lot of really bad non-playing writers and I know faced with the choice of a poorly written piece by a journo or an ex-player, I know which I prefer.

I dont buy into the seemingly overriding theme here that non-playing writers are somehow more noble and superior. Of course the greatest fall into that bracket but for every Cardus or CLR James there are 1000s of ordinary-bad writers.

And that point is well-made too. I haven't read this whole thread tbh so I don't know whether there is an overriding theme of non-cricketers being superior; if it is there I wouldn't buy into it either.

Some of the best commentators (I include writers in that) are those that have played the game but fallen a little short of the highest level. Someone like Simon Hughes, for instance, is an interesting analyst (albeit a hopeless commentator) precisely because he was never blessed with supreme natural talent: he clearly had to think about what he was doing, and this equips him well for an "analyst" style role. CMJ also played at a decent level (County 2nd XI I think). This surely helps.

Perhaps one reason why there is a bit of snobbishness from some of us about ex-player journalists is that it is very rare for someone to be both an excellent sportsman and an excellent writer. It's not that one in any way excludes the other, it's just that there aren't that many excellent sportsmen and there aren't that many excellent writers and so the odds against being both are pretty long. Some certainly manage it, however.