Biased reporting on Cricinfo
Before I start my little rant I must state this - I do not have anything personal with anyone. What I'm about to say is just an observation, although its nothing new.
I'm sure many of you would've noticed this before me but the biased reporting on Cricinfo is really starting to get on my nerves.
Take a look at this for example:
Both the articles refer to the current India vs New Zealand test series. They are written by Indian writers and if you are a cricket newbie or a casual cricket fan reading them you would think India must be the unluckiest cricket team on planet Earth. The authors give the impression India are the best side going around and only lose their matches because, despite dominating the match for large periods, they just happen to relax during one key moment and let the (allegedly) weaker opposition run away with the game. I don't know about you guys but that's the impression I get.
Take the first article for example: according to the author, India were strong favourites to win 2 of the matches against England and one against Australia, South Africa and New Zealand away from home if only they had not given up their strong position at one point during the match. Am I missing a trick here? Isn't this exactly how you win? Keeping a tab on your opponents, recovering from weak positions, turning a game on its head, running away with it when the opposition is tired and weary?
I'm sure if you take most cricket matches in history you could make a point where the losing team had an outside chance of winning at some point. That doesn't mean they were the better side to begin with, and to be honest that doesn't even mean they failed to capitalise on their chances either (well, mostly). It just means they were outplayed by the winning team.
Moving on to the second article: again, relating to the recurring theme of Indian writers making excuses why their team is playing poorly abroad the Indian writer has alluded to the drop in intensity as to why India loosened their grip during the first test. However, you may notice the language used: "the disappointing part was, India went too flat too soon in face of that fightback", "India probably think allowing two opposition batsmen to score at that rate on a flattening surface is acceptable". To me, this doesn't come across as a neutral, unbiased piece of journalism by a sports writer on a popular cricket website but more like a strong opinion by a frustrated Indian cricket fan.
It might seem like I'm clutching at straws here, being a bit pedantic, but I'm beginning to feel annoyed with the cheap journalism by some of the Indian writers on Cricinfo. Its completely acceptable to write about the poor performance (or even the success) of your team but doing it in such a way to incur the annoyance of neutral or opposition of fans does not seem like a clever idea to me.
A few people may even suggest this is part of an elaborate scheme by the BCCI to dominate world cricket. I don't think that's the case, but rather the Indian writers, who are linked to the BCCI one way or the other, pandering to the typical Indian fan. As for me, as a Sri Lankan, I have decided not to waste more of my time reading trash.