Media influence in cricket

[superkingdave]

gism you still need to give me an avatar for 2 weeks btw

 

[SteveNZ]

Funny thing is, a lot of people here bemoan the media and their radical/rubbish views - yet a lot of the stuff on here is just as outrageous, if not worse (because they know it's not going to be printed on a website/paper).

 

[Viscount Tom]

But we here don't have any pretenses to be influencing the decisions of our own teams selectors and lets be equally honest, there's a few on here who arguably know more about and have mos certainly seen more cricket than a good many of the writers on cricinfo.

 

[SteveNZ]

But no one has the platform to influence selectors on here, so it's a moot point. I can say as part of any NZ-based thread there's definitely a barrow-pushing of players from certain districts, which if in print would be classed as influencing selectors.

It's partly bias, partly that these writers/whoever have a much more intimate knowledge of certain players and can push their case better, whilst not realising the extent of talent of others.

Certainly there are some knowledgeable posters and some would better equipped than people in media outlets, that I completely agree. The trouble is, anyone with a writing degree can work in the industry. You don't have to prove you know your BCCIs from your LBWs and your RPOs, not in some jobs anyway. And sure, there's some posters on here who are completely clueless, but that's their right to give their views. Not so enamoured with it when those sorts are in print, as you say. There's one particular Cricinfo writer from the No.2 ranked nation in the world that is absolutely diabolical.

 

[Jacknife]

But no one has the platform to influence selectors on here, so it's a moot point. I can say as part of any NZ-based thread there's definitely a barrow-pushing of players from certain districts, which if in print would be classed as influencing selectors.

It's partly bias, partly that these writers/whoever have a much more intimate knowledge of certain players and can push their case better, whilst not realising the extent of talent of others.

Certainly there are some knowledgeable posters and some would better equipped than people in media outlets, that I completely agree. The trouble is, anyone with a writing degree can work in the industry. You don't have to prove you know your BCCIs from your LBWs and your RPOs, not in some jobs anyway. And sure, there's some posters on here who are completely clueless, but that's their right to give their views. Not so enamoured with it when those sorts are in print, as you say. There's one particular Cricinfo writer from the No.2 ranked nation in the world that is absolutely diabolical.

I think I've read a few articles by a female writer from SA, is that the one?

 

[Flem274*]

But no one has the platform to influence selectors on here, so it's a moot point. I can say as part of any NZ-based thread there's definitely a barrow-pushing of players from certain districts, which if in print would be classed as influencing selectors.

Sinclair is God and you know it.

 

[uvelocity]

And sure, there's some posters on here who are completely clueless,

I resemble that remark

 

[SteveNZ]

I think I've read a few articles by a female writer from SA, is that the one?

Bingo. And if it's directed at me that I'm being ***ist, I had no idea what the *** of that particular writer was when I formed the opinion.

And Flem, I said certain districts not central districts

 

[Jono]

I don't agree or disagree about Cricinfo's obsession with Bopara, but isn't the fact that he wasn't selected ahead of Morgan in that test match that you blokes keep talking about a suggestion that Cricinfo actually doesn't have much influence at all?

And since this thread is about media influence on team selection and cricket policies, and not just bad reporting, I think that example goes against the whole contention of this thread.

 

[Andre]

You've got to realise when reading this stuff that most of it is reporting based on 'sources' rather than opinion. Cricinfo's biggest crime is that it's sources are nowhere near as well in the loop as the press journo's, so they more often than not have incorrect mail. The newspapers etc have proven sources over a number of years who are always pretty close to the mark.

So realistically, cricinfo's news stories are based on weak/out of the loop sources with bad mail rather than their writers opinions. They don't have any journalistic credibility as such compared to many.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You've got to realise when reading this stuff that most of it is reporting based on 'sources' rather than opinion. Cricinfo's biggest crime is that it's sources are nowhere near as well in the loop as the press journo's, so they more often than not have incorrect mail. The newspapers etc have proven sources over a number of years who are always pretty close to the mark.

So realistically, cricinfo's news stories are based on weak/out of the loop sources with bad mail rather than their writers opinions. They don't have any journalistic credibility as such compared to many.

Yeah, the feigned shock/surprise when their predicted selection doesn't occur is what gets to me. If you're consistently wrong, stop pretending its a shock.

 

[Sanz]

Are we better off with Cricinfo or without it ? Stop looking for perfection on a website that provides free content. You have the freedom to not click on the link or not visit the site.

 

[Sanz]

This thread started with the Subject of "Media Influence in Cricket" and ended up bashing "Cricinfo" and how its writers are biased because of their connection with IPL and BCCI, Which is the most common and consistent theme of Scaly's posting.

 

[Jacknife]

It's not just cricinfo, the journalists at Fleet Street have always thought they held some sort of sway over selection. This is not just confined to cricket mind, when it comes to Football it's on a whole different scale.

 

[Burgey]

I must confess I never read cricinfo articles. I only use the site for live scores when I'm not near a tv or on the odd occasion I want refer to and bastardise some statistics to support a specious argument which I have.

 

[BackFootPunch]

To be honest I read a lot less of Cricinfo than I used to. I do find a lot of their opinion pieces to be dull/repetitive. So many writers seem to been grinding the same axe over and over again.

Having said that, if it wasn't for Cricinfo I certainly wouldn't have nearly as much of an appreciation for cricket as I do now. Growing up in a rugby oriented country there really isn't a lot of cricket coverage in our media so Cricinfo was pretty much it. Reading the views of their writers and seeing how statistics can be (ab)used has been fairly important in me forming my own opinions on the game. I still use the site every day for live scoring and match reports too.

 

[benchmark00]

Cricinfo >>>>>>>> CricketWeb.


Tang aside.

 

[Burgey]

You should stop posting here and start posting there. It'll lift the standard of both

 

[wpdavid]

Hmmmm ... one or two contributors here with agendas of their own afaics. An alternative view to writing off Bopara's one-day 100 because it was in an 'easy win' is that the win was only easy because Bopara and his partner batted as well as they did. And that writing off his current innings because it's against Northants rather ignores the state of the Essex innings when he came in at 15 for 2, soon to become 50odd for 4.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd actually say cricket has some of the best sports writers around: Selvey, Marks, James, Nobbs, Ronay, Fraser, Hayter, Haigh, Frith, etc. One only has to compare Cricket Writers on TV to its football equivalent for the proof. The latter deals almost exclusively in bluster and bull**** (with Paddy Barclay & Henry Winter noble exceptions) whereas the former seems like a symposium by comparison.