Cricket journalism- How much do you have to know?

[Pothas]

Yep, a certain Mr Atherton certainly springs to mind.

 

[Goughy]

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.

Sounds like we need to go back to the golden days of ghost writing. Nothing wrong with combining the name and insight of a player with someone elses ability to craft a sentance.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

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.

I think it's pretty simple to understand.

Ex-Players writting/commentating about the game = Legitimacy

Players that never played the game commentating/writting = Fake (Their opinion is no different and no more valid to anyone's elses)

Some people might think that zambrea, Pothas or whatever have great cricket knowledge. Should they be qualifyed cricinfo Journalists? I mean what would the difference be between them and a current cricinfo if everyone/majority agrees with them? The fact that people disagree with what they say makes that person's opinion less relevant to someone who has actually played the game. People shouldn't get paid to pubically write about a sport that they never experienced at the highest level. People should get the chance to voice their opinion, but not in the media or on well-known web-sites/sources.

You'd have to be pretty simplistic not to comprehend.

 

[Shri]

Its called freedom of speech. A very simple concept to grasp really.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't think you have to have played the game at a high-level to write about the game well, but I do think you need to know your boundaries. If you know a lot about cricket but have never played it at state/international level then you should be prepared to do your research and talk to people who have to get some insight. That or leave the writing about the internal workings of the cricketing mind at that level to someone else who actually knows what they're talking about.

If you're writing for a local paper in a small town though it doesn't really matter. The guys who write about our comp at home clearly have no idea what they're talking about, but that doesn't stop them.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Its called freedom of speech. A very simple concept to grasp really.

Of course, on internet forums and such where what's written isn't reveered in the public eye.

 

[pasag]

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.

I think this is where you're mixing things up. You're treating cricketing thought and news with a very dogmatic approach as if it's a secret only a certain amount of people in the world are privy to. As long as you have logic and reasoning to back up what you're saying I don't give a crap as to who you are. Yes, when it comes to spin bowling I would rather listen to Shane Warne than anyone else but cricketing media has only a very small percentage of ultra-technical pieces and do we really need to employ cricketers to rehash the same old tired cliches again and again?

TBH, for the most part I couldn't give a toss about legitimacy and I don't care who the author of an article is and what they've done with their lives, it makes no difference, for the most part.

 

[Pothas]

I think it's pretty simple to understand.

Ex-Players writting/commentating about the game = Legitimacy

Players that never played the game commentating/writting = Fake (Their opinion is no different and no more valid to anyone's elses)

Some people might think that zambrea, Pothas or whatever have great cricket knowledge. Should they be qualifyed cricinfo Journalists? I mean what would the difference be between them and a current cricinfo if everyone/majority agrees with them? The fact that people disagree with what they say makes that person's opinion less relevant to someone who has actually played the game. People shouldn't get paid to pubically write about a sport that they never experienced at the highest level. People should get the chance to voice their opinion, but not in the media or on well-known web-sites/sources.

You'd have to be pretty simplistic not to comprehend.

That is a rather extraordinary thing to say.

 

[pasag]

That is a rather extraordinary thing to say.

I love these normative statements of who cricinfo should and shouldn't employ, as if it's some sacred organisation where currently evil non-legitimates (y'know proper journalists) are stealing the rightful income of poor cricketers.

 

[vcs]

I'd rather read a Cricinfo article than listen to a post-match analysis segment or read a Gavaskar/Shastri article. Cricinfo is probably the only self-contained online resource that caters entirely to a particular sport, I have no need to go anywhere else for cricket analysis. Says a lot for journalists who are genuinely passionate about a sport rather than just former players.

 

[pasag]

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

Let's follow this logic trail here.

Glenn McGrath is a better commentator than Michael Holding
Ricky Ponting is a better commentator than Sunil Gavaskar, Matt Hayden, Mark Taylor (but not in India of course)
Greg Chappell clearly the better commentator than Ian Chappell
Ian Botham is the best commentator, by far, in the Sky Box

 

[L Trumper]

Wisden is known as cricket bible. I don't see them employing only former international players to do the almanack.

As far as great writers consider Cardus, CLR, CMJ etc all never played international cricket that doesn't make them bad writers compared to the likes of Gavaskar, Ponting etc. As long as author backed up what he is saying with enough valid reason then it is fine. And being a professional writer/ sports journalist will help.

According to Ben's logic Botham is a better commentator than Atherton and Hussain

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I think this is where you're mixing things up. You're treating cricketing thought and news with a very dogmatic approach as if it's a secret only a certain amount of people in the world are privy to. As long as you have logic and reasoning to back up what you're saying I don't give a crap as to who you are. Yes, when it comes to spin bowling I would rather listen to Shane Warne than anyone else but cricketing media has only a very small percentage of ultra-technical pieces and do we really need to employ cricketers to rehash the same old tired cliches again and again?

TBH, for the most part I couldn't give a toss about legitimacy and I don't care who the author of an article is and what they've done with their lives, it makes no difference, for the most part.

It's not about being a bad/good writter, it's about the legitimacy about knowing what you're talking about. How would a cricket writer know the difference between easy/good/difficult batting conditions and different cricketing scenarios at the top level when they've never experienced them themselves?

Let's follow this logic trail here.

Glenn McGrath is a better commentator than Michael Holding
Ricky Ponting is a better commentator than Sunil Gavaskar, Matt Hayden, Mark Taylor (but not in India of course)
Greg Chappell clearly the better commentator than Ian Chappell
Ian Botham is the best commentator, by far, in the Sky Box

They have better knowledge, yeah.

 

[fredfertang]

What usually happens is that leading cricketer is interviewed by leading writer who then writes feature article - I'd much rather read that sort of collaborative effort than the other alternatives which are the cricketer struggling to express himself alone or doing so with the assistance of a professional journo with no special interest in cricket - the idea that the likes of David Frith, Stephen Chalke and Gideon Haigh are not gifted cricket writers is palpable nonsense - likewise radio commentators - on the subject of television commentary Ben is on much stronger ground

 

[pasag]

It's not about being a bad/good writter, it's about the legitimacy about knowing what you're talking about. How would a cricket writer know the difference between easy/good/difficult batting conditions and different cricketing scenarios at the top level when they've never experienced them themselves?

As I said it's not some kind of hidden secret nor is it rocket science. I think you've made the sport into some sort of mysterious enigma that only a few people who average over 50 really know anything about. Does that mean that great players can't offer special insight? Of course they can, does that mean that non-crickters can't write about the game? No, that would be ridiculous.

They have better knowledge, yeah.

I can guarantee you you'll look back at this post in a couple of years and laugh.

Edit: And cricketing skill = cricketing intelligence? Mike Brearley would like a word.

 

[zaremba]

It's not about being a bad/good writter, it's about the legitimacy about knowing what you're talking about. How would a cricket writer know the difference between easy/good/difficult batting conditions and different cricketing scenarios at the top level when they've never experienced them themselves?

Let's come back to the point: do you think that Gideon Haigh, CMJ, John Arlott, Tony Cozier, CLR James or Neville Cardus had/have legitimacy as cricket writers? Do you really think they were/are unable to tell the difference between good and bad batting conditions, and different scenarios?

The fact is, you don't need to have experienced something directly in order to write or comment on it with legitimacy and authority. You don't need to have been Prime Minister in order to comment on politics; you don't need to have served at Gallipoli to write a history book about it. Those who have these experiences are likely to be full of interesting insights about them, which will assist them should they choose to write about them; but those experiences are by no means necessary.

 

[zaremba]

I think it's pretty simple to understand.

Ex-Players writting/commentating about the game = Legitimacy

Players that never played the game commentating/writting = Fake (Their opinion is no different and no more valid to anyone's elses)

Fake?

Honestly, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

Some people might think that zambrea, Pothas or whatever have great cricket knowledge. Should they be qualifyed cricinfo Journalists? I mean what would the difference be between them and a current cricinfo if everyone/majority agrees with them? The fact that people disagree with what they say makes that person's opinion less relevant to someone who has actually played the game. People shouldn't get paid to pubically write about a sport that they never experienced at the highest level. People should get the chance to voice their opinion, but not in the media or on well-known web-sites/sources.

Genuinely mystified by the logic here. The relevance of your opinion isn't determined by whether people disagree with you or not.

FTR I don't have any pretensions to be a cricket journalist, or of having any particular knowledge. But there are people on CW who could without question make good cricket writers. By way of example, fredfertang, SJS and Life on Limbrick, and there are others.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Let's come back to the point: do you think that Gideon Haigh, CMJ, John Arlott, Tony Cozier, CLR James or Neville Cardus had/have legitimacy as cricket writers? Do you really think they were/are unable to tell the difference between good and bad batting conditions, and different scenarios?

The fact is, you don't need to have experienced something directly in order to write or comment on it with legitimacy and authority. You don't need to have been Prime Minister in order to comment on politics; you don't need to have served at Gallipoli to write a history book about it. Those who have these experiences are likely to be full of interesting insights about them, which will assist them should they choose to write about them; but those experiences are by no means necessary.

This is what you don't get. You are allowed to have an opinion and you're allowed to voice it, but there opinion is no more valid then anyone else's on this forum.

 

[vcs]

This is what you don't get. You are allowed to have an opinion and you're allowed to voice it, but there opinion is no more valid then anyone else's on this forum.

Their opinions are as valid as their target audience perceives them to be. As numerous examples that have already been pointed out on this thread, Bhogle, Cozier, Haigh etc. are highly thought of in their respective areas of specialization. It is harder to make it in the field as a non-cricketer, yes, but the opinions of the above mentioned guys are as respected, if not more so, than their former cricketer counterparts.

 

[zaremba]

This is what you don't get. You are allowed to have an opinion and you're allowed to voice it, but there opinion is no more valid then anyone else's on this forum.

No, not all opinions are equally valid. It depends on your level of insight into the game, the level of your research, your capacity for original thought, your open-mindedness, your ability to see the broader picture, your experience of life, the accuracy of the facts you present and the facts that underpin your opinions, etc etc.

It's pretty obvious that an opinion held by a 5-year-old who's never seen a game of cricket is likely to be less valid than that of someone who's spent 20 years as a professional cricket journalist or, for that matter, most of the people who post on CW. It's irrelevant that neither of them has played a game of Test cricket.