The English Press

[Gambit]

Would you say that they have played a big role in overhyping the reputations of some retired players and those currently playing? The English press have tended to lionise only those batsmen and bowlers who 1. did well in county cricket 2. did well in England Most English commentators and journos readily pick Boycott over Sunny.They made Hick out to be some monster before his aukaat was exposed. Nasser was proclaimed to be nothing short of a genius captain. KP was(still is?) the next Viv. Viv was hailed as the best because he toyed with the English bowling and dominated county cricket. Zaheer Abbas was also sometimes higher than Sunny because of his exploits in county cricket. Veeru doesn't even get a mention whereas KP is God.(I know Dhondy touched on this earlier) Despite Sehwag's decent run with Leicester, he still has the reputation of a slogger. Exploits in the subcon are always accompanied with a footnote relating to flat tracks, raging turners etc whose intention is to mitigate the performance. I think the English press still hold sway over the cricket world when it comes to building and destroying reputations. Until you've impressed them and/or Wisden, you are a nobody. And that is wrong.

[King Tendulkar]

I totally agree. I also feel they have natural bias against indian subcontinent players. How many times do you hear the pace and bouce theory thrown at such players. They are also very keen to hype SA and aussie players.

[Predator_05]

The press from all countries are biased. Why should one expect the English media to focus on cricket played beyond their shores unless it involves their team ? Does the Indian media give a damn about the West Indies' test series vs Sri Lanka ? It's only natural that county cricketers and those who have played well against England or in England are given such attention, after all - these are the players their cricket-watching crowds would be more familiar with. Why should an Englishman be expected to follow the IND-SA test series going on at the moment ? ...and Indians themselves don't do much to change the stereotypes associated with subcontinental cricket, in fact they are the ones who contribute to spreading them.

[Gambit]

The press from all countries are biased. Why should one expect the English media to focus on cricket played beyond their shores unless it involves their team ? Does the Indian media give a damn about the West Indies' test series vs Sri Lanka ? It's only natural that county cricketers and those who have played well against England or in England are given such attention, after all - these are the players their cricket-watching crowds would be more familiar with. Why should an Englishman be expected to follow the IND-SA test series going on at the moment ? ...and Indians themselves don't do much to change the stereotypes associated with subcontinental cricket, in fact they are the ones who contribute to spreading them.

Sure, all press is biased. My main point was that what the English media says about a certain player or team still holds a lot of weight. Their bias against a certain team or player becomes fact for other media. It's almost as if you need a seal of approval from them to know you have arrived as a cricketer. The Indian media, especially, treats their word as gospel and pooh pooh it's own players based on what their 'respected' colleagues from England say. As an example, take Sourav. He was referred to as Prince Snooty after his Lancashire stint. The Indian media started to tear their own captain down using the same nickname and called him arrogant based on the same old claptrap 'rich family, 10000 servants' that was echoed by the Brit Media.

[Temujin Khaghan]

I agree with the english press showing double standards. But I am not sure about our journos displaying sycophancy towards their english counterparts. Our guys are entirely power driven and persistent to the point which irritates other people. They dont give a damn even about their USA counterparts.

[Predator_05]

Sure' date=' all press is biased. My main point was that what the English media says about a certain player or team still holds a lot of weight. Their bias against a certain team or player becomes fact for other media. It's almost as if you need a seal of approval from them to know you have arrived as a cricketer. The Indian media, especially, treats their word as gospel and pooh pooh it's own players based on what their 'respected' colleagues from England say. As an example, take Sourav. He was referred to as Prince Snooty after his Lancashire stint. The Indian media started to tear their own captain down using the same nickname and called him arrogant based on the same old claptrap 'rich family, 10000 servants' that was echoed by the Brit Media.[/quote'] So the Indians are the ones who are fools for being so damn gullible. The English media has always treated India and all matters regarding India with a colonialist attitude, and that will never change. The Indians are the ones who have to change - primarily by reporting things about their own country from their own perspective, rather than the foreigner's.

[Ram]

I think the English press still hold sway over the cricket world when it comes to building and destroying reputations. Until you've impressed them and/or Wisden, you are a nobody. And that is wrong.

Can there be any bigger proof of this, than the Murali-Warne saga ? The English hyped up Warne like there was no tomorrow and as though he was the epitome of the perfect performer. Just coz he was White ( or Aussie, whichever you think is more politically correct), could come up with witty sledges, dress fashionably, give interesting sound-bites, not to mention his late-night messaging talents and binge drinking, chain-smoking tantrums, he was always popular with the English media. Murali was the odd man in the company of elites, He wasnt supposed to be there. He couldnt dress in a suave manner nor could he capture the attention of world audiences with his off-field antice. Beyond all, he was Sri Lankan. So obviously, there was an orchestrated campaign to malign him with his action and more. He was painted as this grotesque, villainous figure, who did abnormal things on the cricket field because of his deformity. His action was scrutinized like how a test species will be subject to investigation in a lab, it was all so very malicious, all the in the name of scientific investigation. And anyway, who gives a damn bout the English press anymore ?

[Sourav Ganguly]

SG is not Lord Snooty but its the Brit Press who are big pathetic losers.

[Predator_05]

Can there be any bigger proof of this, than the Murali-Warne saga ? The English hyped up Warne like there was no tomorrow and as though he was the epitome of the perfect performer. Just coz he was White ( or Aussie, whichever you think is more politically correct), could come up with witty sledges, dress fashionably, give interesting sound-bites, not to mention his late-night messaging talents and binge drinking, chain-smoking tantrums, he was always popular with the English media. Murali was the odd man in the company of elites, He wasnt supposed to be there. He couldnt dress in a suave manner nor could he capture the attention of world audiences with his off-field antice. Beyond all, he was Sri Lankan. So obviously, there was an orchestrated campaign to malign him with his action and more. He was painted as this grotesque, villainous figure, who did abnormal things on the cricket field because of his deformity. His action was scrutinized like how a test species will be subject to investigation in a lab, it was all so very malicious, all the in the name of scientific investigation. ?

What a crock of sh it that entire post is. Warne was a popular cricketer and revered by the English media because they saw a lot more of him. Murali played less than half as many test matches against England as Warne did, and Warne also played a lot more county cricket. ...and Murali was "scrutinized like a test species in a lab" because he had a suspect action. Simple as that.

[Ram]

What a crock of sh it that entire post is. Warne was a popular cricketer and revered by the English media because they saw a lot more of him. Murali played less than half as many test matches against England as Warne did, and Warne also played a lot more county cricket. ...and Murali was "scrutinized like a test species in a lab" because he had a suspect action. Simple as that.

Suit yourself with your blissful ignorance, it isnt simply coz the English press ' saw a lot more of Warne and he played a lot of county cricket' that he is 'revered' by them, its plainly the fact that they wanted to hype him over Murali's achievements. Nobody gave a rotten-ass to Murali's suspect action when he was first called '95. It was when he started, day in and day out, more wickets than Warne, won more matches single-handedly than Warne, that all the nanoscopic investigation of his action started. Now, if that doesnt tell you what you are supposed to understand, then its a pity.

[observer1]

Murali in fact has a huge fan following in Lancs, and is treated very well by the English press. Who, in addition, cannot stop gushing about Tendulkar, Dravid, and in the recent Aus-Ind spat, about Kumble. Given the current status of the 4th estate worldwide, the English cricket press (with a few dishonourable exceptions) is probably the least bigotted.

[Predator_05]

Suit yourself with your blissful ignorance, it isnt simply coz the English press ' saw a lot more of Warne and he played a lot of county cricket' that he is 'revered' by them, its plainly the fact that they wanted to hype him over Murali's achievements. Nobody gave a rotten-ass to Murali's suspect action when he was first called '95. It was when he started, day in and day out, more wickets than Warne, won more matches single-handedly than Warne, that all the nanoscopic investigation of his action started. Now, if that doesnt tell you what you are supposed to understand, then its a pity.

LMFAO. "Plainly the fact"...no, it's NOT a fact, it's your OPINION. Saying that the English hyped up Warne because he was white/Aussie rather than because of his inimitable skill is utter garbage. You may want to read your post again. ...and the chucker's action was always under the microscope. Warne, as a cricketer, was FAR more respectable than Chutiahlitharan ever was. He had a whistle-clean action, took wickets everywhere and he won more trophies. You can try to deny it, but in that case you should at least admit that you're being biased against Warne

[Ram]

LMFAO. "Plainly the fact"...no, it's NOT a fact, it's your OPINION. Saying that the English hyped up Warne because he was white/Aussie rather than because of his inimitable skill is utter garbage. You may want to read your post again.

Inimitable what ? :haha: And how many 'endless hours' did the representatives of the English media spend, dissecting Akhtar or for that matter, any other bowler with suspect action who is out there ?

...and the chucker's action was always under the microscope. Warne' date=' as a cricketer, was FAR more respectable than Chutiahlitharan ever was. He had a whistle-clean action, took wickets everywhere and he won more trophies. You can try to deny it, but in that case you should at least admit that you're being biased against Warne[/quote'] There's a fundamental flaw in your argument, which is your all-encompassing assumption that Murali chucks. He simply doesnt. So, go sell your " Oh Murali chucks and Warne is clean" somewhere else. Even ICC says Murali is clean, so does most the world scientific community.

[Predator_05]

Inimitable what ? :haha: And how many 'endless hours' did the representatives of the English media spend, dissecting Akhtar or for that matter, any other bowler with suspect action who is out there ?

Akhtar got just as much bad press as Muralitharan did, not just for his chucking but also for his ball-tampering and other factors

So' date=' go sell your " Oh Murali chucks and Warne is clean" somewhere else. Even ICC says Murali is clean, so does most the world scientific community.[/quote'] I wasn't aware that the entire world's scientific community even knew about this issue, nor did i know that they hired you to speak on their behalf. The ICC bent the rules to say Murali is clean - now THAT is a fact. You can twist it as many ways as you like, but Warne will always be much more respectable as a cricketer than Chuttiah - and no, that's not because he is white or an Aussie...:haha:

[Holysmoke]

Warne, as a cricketer, was FAR more respectable than Chutiahlitharan ever was. He had a whistle-clean action, took wickets everywhere and he won more trophies.

and he was banned for taking drugs. Yes, very respectable.

[Ram]

Akhtar got just as much bad press as Muralitharan did' date=' not just for his chucking but also for his ball-tampering and other factors[/quote'] Absolutely ! Even THE MOST fanatic Anti-Murali, Pro-anything person will readily concede that Murali got alteast 10 times more bad press than ANY other bowler with suspect action. Now, whether you are actually AWARE of this fact or, you are objective enough to concede to it, I dunno.

I wasn't aware that the entire world's scientific community even knew about this issue' date=' nor did i know that they hired you to speak on their behalf. The ICC bent the rules to say Murali is clean - now [i']THAT is a fact. You can twist it as many ways as you like, but Warne will always be much more respectable as a cricketer than Chuttiah - and no, that's not because he is white or an Aussie...:haha:

Are you running out of points or something ? Seems like it, from your " I wasnt aware.....". And why would ICC bend the rules for Murali anyway ? Is he some sort of super-class citizen ? Of course he isnt. Murali exposed the total facetiousness of chucking law, which was WAAAAAAAAAAAY outdated and needed reform. But who cares about whether the law is rubbish or not. Who cares whether one of the world's premier institutes specializing into the bio-mechanics of human body and has given a white paper, AFTER conducting extensive and comprehensive scientific trials, saying Murali was clean ? All they needed was an excuse to malign Murali and they got it. And of course Warne was a respected cricketer. All he did was take banned diuretics to lose weight, all because he could look good in his suit. And of course, it isnt because he got tired quickly bowling long spells, isnt it ? Those diuretics had nothing to do with his cricket right ? Absolutely, totally, unequivocally laughable !

[Predator_05]

and he was banned for taking drugs. Yes' date=' very respectable.[/quote'] Yes, let's ignore all the other things and focus on the one mistake he made in an otherwise amazing career. Besides, drugs didn't help him spin the ball more (like chucking did) they just helped him lose weight

[Predator_05]

And why would ICC bend the rules for Murali anyway ? Is he some sort of super-class citizen ? Of course he isnt. Murali exposed the total facetiousness of chucking law, which was WAAAAAAAAAAAY outdated and needed reform. !

?? You are just arguing for the sake of it now. The ICC couldn't have erased the hundreds of wickets he took from the record books, and they couldn't defy the powerful Asian lobby either. Thus they took it upon themselves to modifiy the rule to accomodate him and in the process, they made it so ridiculous that the only player who was adjudged to have a clean action at the time was Ramnaresh Sarwan. Anyway, i know you like rambling on and on for ages but what does any of this have to do with the English press ?

[Ram]

Yes' date=' let's ignore all the other things and focus on the one mistake he made in an otherwise amazing career[/quote'] And how about selling pitch information to bookies ? or get your national board to cover-up the entire issue for years ?

Besides' date=' drugs didn't help him spin the ball more (like chucking did) they just helped him lose weight[/quote'] You speak as though the physique ( and specifically in this case, the weight) of a cricketer has got nothing to di with what he can do on the cricket field. Amazing !

[Ram]

?? You are just arguing for the sake of it now. The ICC couldn't have erased the hundreds of wickets he took from the record books, and they couldn't defy the powerful Asian lobby either. Thus they took it upon themselves to modifiy the rule to accomodate him and in the process, they made it so ridiculous that the only player who was adjudged to have a clean action at the time was Ramnaresh Sarwan. Anyway, i know you like rambling on and on for ages but what does any of this have to do with the English press ?

And which part of powerful Asian lobby actually forced the ICC hand ? Anyways, I couldnt bother to 'ramble on and on'. This debate is over.