Oh how I love the press
I do chuckle sometimes when I read endless analysis about how good players are and whether or not they should be in the team or not. I am particularly thinking of the publicity surrounding Alistair Cook and whether he should even have been picked in the current tour party. I am delighted to see that he has proved what rubbish all the talk was.
If a player is good enough to be picked to play for England I believe that it is counter-productive to analyse every performance to see if there is any way that he can be criticised. I suppose it is the very nature of good press that you build them up only to knock them down. I am sure that adverse comments have an adverse effect on players and surely it is the job of the English press to build up our players and knock the Australian ones. I think the Australian press does this very well the other way round.
My experience of cricketers that I have played with is that you know who the good ones are and pretty much what to expect from each of them. For instance, several surprise me if they do not score a lot of runs or take lots of wickets and some of us are surprised if we contribute at all.
Over the past couple of years the English selectors have been a lot more consistent with their approach with the odd exception where they do not appear to have reached a decision and consequently they were in and out of the side.
Rant over!
10 comments:
Oh and by the way, I do not think that any of the Australian bowlers would get in to the England side.
The Aussie press seem to have changed now they don't have such a good side. They are being slated at the moment; anyone would think they had lost the first Test.
It will be interesting to see what they do with Mitchell Johnson. Who many times have we heard an Aussie senior pro (esp Ponting) going on about how they would pick Harmison every time despite how erratic he is. Will they back up their comments with action by retaining Johnson for Adelaide? My guess is that they will bow to the pressure of their media and drop the guy that they have been building up as the 'leader of the attack'.
I have to say it is fantastic to see the Aussie press, ex-players and selectors behaving exactly the same as ours in the 90s!
I don't really understand why Hilfenhaus is in the firing line - one poor Test shouldn't mean you drop someone or Johnson would have gone 18 months ago. Hilfenhaus was Australia's best bowler in India on unresponsive wickets - they surely have to stick with him! If they want to play Harris and Bollinger then it's Johnson and Doherty that need to go....
Apparently Hilfenhaus is carrying an injury which explains why they've brought 2 seamers into the squad....
Hilfenhaus is in no danger if fit.
If that's true Dave, it's interesting the way that Ponting is talking as reported on Cricinfo. He seems to be talking like Hilfenhaus may be dropped and there's no reference to any injury.
It's not the job of the press to build up English players and knock down Aussie ones. It's their job to report what they see. This doesn't necessarily happen of course, and they often bring their own agendas and bias. Nonetheless, they have no duty to the England team. As an England fan, it would be nice to see people being positive about the side, but good journalists shouldn't be writing as England fans (again, that doesn't stop many doing so).
The fact that the Aussie press has in the past gone down this route doesn't make them any better, in fact it has sometimes blinded them the truth, in the same way that the English press in the past, has been so quick to criticise, that they've missed obvious positives.
For both sides, it's simple. Win, and the press will be off your back.
Interesting point Miz. I don't mind a bit of home-bias when it comes to sport but I think most journos go the other way.
I find it fascinating the journalists' tactics to source readers, especially online - eg. an article after the next Test, whatever his figures, that's titled "Time for England to drop Swann" would simply be a journalist trying to get attention....there's no way any credible observer would support that argument. But it would work because so many people would vehermently disagree with it that it would gain greater coverage.
That's pretty much how the media works, isn't it? Controversy sells. I think as a reader, if you don't like that sort of thing, you just need to accept they're being sensational, that's their style, and then seek out the sources who take a more measured and informed approach.
One of the disadvantages of the internet is that you can be besieged with poor quality journalism, but the flip side is that you can use it to seek out the good stuff, wherever it comes from.
unless it's on The Times. Or The Sun or The Telegraph when they get their paywalls sorted out....
Post a Comment