Dravid vs Sourav? Poor journalism…

In a test match series of the magnitude of an India-Australia series, there is of course a lot of articles and analyses on offer from the media. My usual haunt is Cricinfo, which for the most part gives insightful and trenchant commentary on the day’s action (when you’re on the other side of the world, that’s the most that you can hope for!).

This report appeared today at Cricinfo, and discusses how the Indian batsmen were forced out of their respective comfort zones by setting defensive field settings.

Only Dravid found a method to beat the suffocation … [and] he worked around it [Ponting’s field settings]. … Dravid waited for the ball [that he could hit suitably, and scored off them].

Unlike several of his team-mates, his dismissal was not a result of a rash shot. … he was beaten by Shane Watson’s inswing and got struck on the pad with the bat extremely close to ball. The decision might have gone his way on another day.

I wonder why Sourav Ganguly’s name does not come up even once in the entire write-up. Sourav scored 47, only 4 runs less than Dravid, at a patient 40 runs per 100 balls. About his dismissal, the daily bulletin of the day’s play mentions:

… [Johnson] trapped Ganguly lbw for 47. It was a rotten bit of luck for Ganguly, who was probably struck outside the line – although at first view it looked a reasonable shout – from the first ball after he had a concentration-breaking interruption due to a nosebleed.

The same bulletin continues:

… there were some positive signs from Ganguly… Apart from one loose waft outside off stump – and he chastised himself furiously for it – he displayed impressive focus.

Isn’t it shameful that a journalist resorts, even subconsciously (that, I think is worse – it only means that his ideas are so ingrained that he cannot get out of them), to a “Who’s better” contest within a team, when both batsmen contributed almost equally?

Why is it so hard to recognize that both these batsmen are great in their respective rights, and give them the due that they so well deserve?

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Dravid vs Sourav? Poor journalism…

  1. I’m not usually one to defend Cricinfo especially after its slow demise in standard after its acquisition by ESPN but as someone who writes reports regularly that are posted an hour after play it is difficult to include a summation of every performance and keep the article within word count and flowing.

    That said, Ganguly’s performance was gutsy and he set a fine example for his younger team mates.

    He and Dravid put a high price on their wickets and they were a tad unlucky not to get a few more runs.

    Comparing the two is a fruitless exercise. They are both champions and have served Indian cricket with distinction for over a decade.

    His retirement in Nagpur will be quite the occasion and I expect he will receive a rousing send off.

  2. Hm. True enough. Point accepted. 🙂

    Yet, the article in question was not one of those that appear an hour after play, but one that comes in later as the analyses are done.

    But yes, that’s one of the reasons perhaps… Thanks for writing in!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s