Skip to main content

Rohit or Manoj on infinite loop

Sometime ago I wrote about how ESPN Cricinfo, despite still being the best single sport website in my opinion is showing the tendency to slip into mainstream media tendencies of sensationalism. Now they seem to be taking on another facet of it, namely flogging the same issue to death as evidenced by the repeated focus on the Rohit Sharma/Manoj Tiwary debate.

First, after the second ODI, Aakash Chopra (who seems to have let the positive response from readers to his initial writings go to his head and churns out relative drivel these days) writes about Rohit Sharma's temperament and how it lets him down. Then, in the build-up to the third ODI, Abhishek Purohit writes a feature about the two and who should be picked. He then follows it up with a re-emphasizing of the issue in his write-up on the pre-match press conference from Gautam Gambhir, indicating relatively clearly Cricinfo's stance that Sharma should be dropped and Tiwary picked. Fair enough, editors should have an opinion. That's not the end of it however, as in the pre-match build up to the final ODI, a big part of the focus of the pre-match conference again seems to be, yes Rohit Sharma's poor form. Yes, we hear you Cricinfo, you want Rohit benched and Manoj picked. But no, post the final ODI (where surely the big news is how India continue their comprehensive ODI domination of Sri Lanka), we have the feature being about Manoj Tiwary's claim for a permanent spot over you know who. And not satisfied with that, the build-up to the T20 game also has another piece on Tiwary's bench days. At least they mention Rohit Sharma only once in the article.

Apart from decent writing, the only thing I (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) ask for from journalists is balanced coverage. And yet in this case, not one piece or interview that talks about Rohit Sharma and what he's going through? No one likes to fail personally and potentially let his team down, especially a young man of 25 who's clearly insecure at the moment. Maybe the folks at Cricinfo tried talking to him but from the coverage, it clearly doesn't seem like it. At least, Harsha Bhogle brings some sanity to proceedings and highlights the main problem that Rohit Sharma seems to be having (and nary a mention of Tiwary). The editorial staff at Cricinfo could learn a few things from his experience and wisdom, just like Rohit Sharma could learn a thing or two from his seniors.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

Of backward selections and England's future

A couple of interesting selectorial decisions recently by England and India (and actually as its turning out Australia as well!). For once I think the England selectors didn't panic and showed the right thinking by not picking either Key or Ramprakash for the Oval Test. And luckily for them, both Bell and Trott have performed well enough to vindicate the decision. India on the other hand have actually gone the other way bringing Dravid back to the one-day squad. I'm a bit ambivalent on that one. While the decision to leave out Rohit Sharma and retain Raina was certainly the right one, bringing back Dravid is questionable. It would have been a bolder decision to pick someone like Kohli or Rahane who both played really well in the Emerging Players Trophy recently, mainly because Dravid is quite unlikely to feature in the 2011 World Cup so why bring him back now? As for the Aussies, they will certainly be regretting not picking Nathan Hauritz for the Oval. A defensive decision if...

England in the 90s revisited and oh, for backup bowlers!

So its come to this finally. As the cliche goes, the wheel comes full circle. Australian selection policies these days resemble that of England from the 1990s :-) Took a quick look at the last two years and over 37 Test matches since 1 Jan 2008, Australia have used 36 different players. That's an average of roughly one additional/new player every 1.48 matches! Talk about instability. When compared to India (a new player every 1.94 matches), South Africa (2.14), England (2.24) it shows how things have changed in the last two years with regards to the power balance in Test cricket. What the overall stat also does not show directly is that most of these new players have been bowlers. With the exception of replacing Hayden and Symonds the batting line-up has been quite stable but the bowling has been the exact opposite. Indian spinners like Amit Mishra, Piyush Chawla, Ashwin, and Murali Kartik must be ruing the fact that they don't have an Australian passport! The latter in parti...