*Official* Australia in Sri Lanka 2016

[Daemon]

Those teams had Sanga though.

 

[Shady Slim]

clickbait headline on cricinfo David Warner falls back into attacking ways | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

thought it would be some bs about positive intent when it's a reasonable article about strike rotation

 

[honestbharani]

clickbait headline on cricinfo David Warner falls back into attacking ways | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

thought it would be some bs about positive intent when it's a reasonable article about strike rotation

That entire site is a clickbait right now.. pretty full of biased crap and unknowledgable writers writing about the game with the occassional gems thrown in just to remind us of when it used to be cricinfo and not this current crapinfo. Just read their ball by ball to understand how little they even seem to try... Batsman plays a glorious cover drive to a ball that was pitched up and swung away from the batsman. Ball by Ball guy, watching on TV, goes, easy ball put away for 4. Ridiculous.

 

[DriveClub]

Those teams had Sanga though.

Don't think sanga played against pak and played only 2 against India as he retired after that series, didn't look himself in that series got to couple of 30s that's it.

 

[Starfighter]

That entire site is a clickbait right now.. pretty full of biased crap and unknowledgable writers writing about the game with the occassional gems thrown in just to remind us of when it used to be cricinfo and not this current crapinfo. Just read their ball by ball to understand how little they even seem to try... Batsman plays a glorious cover drive to a ball that was pitched up and swung away from the batsman. Ball by Ball guy, watching on TV, goes, easy ball put away for 4. Ridiculous.

Yeah, it's pretty sad now. In the commentary every delivery is 'floated', even if one of Starc's yorkers, and the ball is said to go 'laughing' away. I used to read a couple of articles there a day and now it's more like one or two a week, if that. And I still don't accept that layout. It's crap.

 

[DriveClub]

Cricinfos mobile app is the worst, especially the widget

 

[Black_Warrior]

That entire site is a clickbait right now.. pretty full of biased crap and unknowledgable writers writing about the game with the occassional gems thrown in just to remind us of when it used to be cricinfo and not this current crapinfo. Just read their ball by ball to understand how little they even seem to try... Batsman plays a glorious cover drive to a ball that was pitched up and swung away from the batsman. Ball by Ball guy, watching on TV, goes, easy ball put away for 4. Ridiculous.

Read CricketMonthly. Cricinfo is now geared more towards the casual and impatient fans who can't read beyond a few words. CricketMonthly is where the solid cricket writing is at.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, it's pretty sad now. In the commentary every delivery is 'floated', even if one of Starc's yorkers, and the ball is said to go 'laughing' away. I used to read a couple of articles there a day and now it's more like one or two a week, if that. And I still don't accept that layout. It's crap.

Ball by ball commentary has gotten pretty tiresome to follow too since every commentator now thinks of themselves as a fantastic comedian and publishes every comment from every moron who believes the same.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Do they still overuse the term "nicked off"?

 

[Burgey]

Read CricketMonthly. Cricinfo is now geared more towards the casual and impatient fans who can't read beyond a few words. CricketMonthly is where the solid cricket writing is at.

Apart from here, you mean.

 

[vcs]

Read CricketMonthly. Cricinfo is now geared more towards the casual and impatient fans who can't read beyond a few words. CricketMonthly is where the solid cricket writing is at.

Don't you have to pay for that? **** that ****.

Some of the articles are free though, I think. I read those when I get time.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Don't you have to pay for that? **** that ****.

Some of the articles are free though, I think. I read those when I get time.

I've never had to pay a cent. Read all issues all articles. I have an account though which I created when it first came out.

 

[Dan]

Don't you have to pay for that? **** that ****.

**** you ****.

In all seriousness, people are going to have to recognise that quality journalism (i.e. not listicles, clickbait, regurgitated press releases or copy-pasted wire stories) is something they're actually going to have to pay for.

 

[morgieb]

I don't need to pay for the Cricket Monthly. Perhaps you need a CricInfo account though, dunno.

 

[Prince EWS]

**** you ****.

In all seriousness, people are going to have to recognise that quality journalism (i.e. not listicles, clickbait, regurgitated press releases or copy-pasted wire stories) is something they're actually going to have to pay for.

I'm not sure I really agree. I think you pay for the convenience of consistency in quality, but I don't think the best subscription-only journalism is any better than the best free stuff.

 

[Black_Warrior]

**** you ****.

In all seriousness, people are going to have to recognise that quality journalism (i.e. not listicles, clickbait, regurgitated press releases or copy-pasted wire stories) is something they're actually going to have to pay for.

Agreed. And I wouldn't mind paying for Cricket Monthly if they do go into a subscription model. People writing there sometimes spend months developing a story and on research. More than happy to pay for that.

The internet has kinda destroyed journalism in the sense that we expect it to be free now which in turn has led to this decline. But Cricket Monthly is trying to do something different here and should be supported.

 

[Dan]

I'm not sure I really agree. I think you pay for the convenience of consistency in quality, but I don't think the best subscription-only journalism is any better than the best free stuff.

Yeah, but it's certainly shifting that way; the revenue streams simply aren't there for digital publishers unless they start paywall-ing, and most of the media industry is now moving online (so you can't offset the costs through your broadsheet). We're not at that point yet -- there's certainly still a lot of good free journalism around -- but as the market shifts further and further to digital-only publishing, I don't think substantive journalism will be sustainable without paywalls.

tl;dr I think the 'best free stuff' isn't paying for itself under current models of digital publishing.

 

[Dan Jamson]

Great day for the series. Pakistan to get an 80 odd run lead and then England will have to be bat well to set Pakistan 220'ish to chase on the final day.

Lovely jubbly.

 

[Adders]

Great day for the series. Pakistan to get an 80 odd run lead and then England will have to be bat well to set Pakistan 220'ish to chase on the final day.

Lovely jubbly.

Cool story bro........but whats going to happen today in the SL/Aus test??

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, but it's certainly shifting that way; the revenue streams simply aren't there for digital publishers unless they start paywall-ing, and most of the media industry is now moving online (so you can't offset the costs through your broadsheet). We're not at that point yet -- there's certainly still a lot of good free journalism around -- but as the market shifts further and further to digital-only publishing, I don't think substantive journalism will be sustainable without paywalls.

tl;dr I think the 'best free stuff' isn't paying for itself under current models of digital publishing.

It depends a bit on what topic you're keen to read about, but most of the 'best free stuff' I'm referring to isn't even really attempting to make a profit; it's done on an amateur basis.