Match reports written by people thousands of miles away
Andrew Dunford
In most respects this is an accurate report of the match, which I listened
to on the radio. It does however fall down in one minor detail, which is
that the names of the two teams are reversed throughout.
Monkeys and typewriters.
Andrew
Will Luke
It was a terrible error, Andrew, but spotted pretty quickly and was
altered accordingly. Mistakes do happen, but we work our backsides off
to meet tight and strict editorial standards...which makes that
particular report all the more depressing.
Cheers
Will
Andrew Dunford
"Will Luke" <wtl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169332550.2...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Will
I'm not taking aim at the hard-working staff at cricinfo, but rather at the
practice of concocting a match 'report' from a scorecard. This often means
that the 'reporter' knows little about the match and players; mistakes such
as that described here are inevitable.
There was a time when local expertise was employed.
Andrew
Gilly's Danda
Angling for a job?
A
BenjaminFranklin
"Gilly's Danda" <finally...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169504855.7...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
They need "cricket experts" NOT "sarcasm experts"
Andrew Dunford
"Gilly's Danda" <finally...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169504855.7...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
No ta.
To further emphasise my point, CI's match reports for yesterday's round
states that Northern Districts's innings at Hamilton was reduced to 42 overs
because of rain. In fact the interruption to play was caused by a fire in
an electrical box in a lighting tower.
<snip>
Andrew
Benjamin Franklin
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:51q8ptF...@mid.individual.net...
I agree thats very important piece of information cricinfo missed. Because
of their reporting error, the match result reversed.