The Press Bowled Out: Why the Media Attack the England Cricket Team

The Great British media for all its glory (ahem) has an awkward, yet fascinating method of explaining the most mediocre of events and turning them into a catastrophic shambles. They have, in their infinite wisdom and over-the-top hype,shaped games, teams and the lives of sporting players.

My passion in sport lies with cricket. It is a game of skill, integrity and good old-fashioned brain power, combined with character and a strong sense of humour. Cricket has been a sport over-flowing with characters of this nature. It is a game of physical and mental strength.

Why then must the media, in its sublime wisdom, set out to destroy everything that the game and the players offer?

Take, for instance, our emphatic victory in the 2005 Ashes series: surely one of the English national side's greatest achievements. The Lions were a strong side, with the likes of Flintoff, Harmison, Simon Jones, Hoggard, Vaughan, Bell and Pietersen.

Sure, we had the slight problems of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, McGrath, Gilchrist and Warne turning out for the Aussies. But we had a side that could cope with that onslaught of batting prowess and sheer terror that the Australian bowling attack commanded...couldn't we?

Well, I thought we could and for once I was right! We won. Sure, the added bonus that Glen McGrath slipped on a pipe cleaner and broke his back rendering him unfit was, I am sure, welcomed with silent jubilation in the Lions' dressing room.

This was a time for the English team to go out there and  expel all the myth and legend that they were a mediocre National side, and restore some pride and faith back into the game of Cricket. They did...with an astonishing ability that had, we as the public, wanting more. Lives were changed...The passion for the game was rejuvenated..

Lining the gardens, schools, fields, anything with just a pitch of grass, lads were out with the cricket set that had been in the attic since they were born. There were new unwritten laws for chanting in public houses. Instead of the weary sound of "United", "Rooney" or "Ref, you complete time wasting, blind b*****d", there was a new lease of life.

"Freddie" was heard ringing through the main streets of England. Every time an Aussie wicket fell, people reacted like they had won the lottery.

This was passion; people had finally come to see that the game of cricket was in fact a great great game, that all the urban legends were not true ( well most of them).

And still the British press had to find fault! Whatever could be dragged up, was dragged up. If the tabloids could rain on the team's parade they would drown them.

Ashley Giles suffered through his entire Ashes experience. The press labelled him a "has-been and a "wannabe". I remember reading one article that referred to Gilo as "talentless".

I think Gilo proved his point. Hoggard and Harmison were among the others that faced the 'iron glove' of the national press.

Of course, as England captain, Michael Vauhgan was hardly going to escape the wrath of the media. Of course, one of our national heroes and possibly the greatest personality to come from the English game since Botham, Andrew Flintoff, was another that felt the scourge of the press.

What I find astonishing about this period in the game was the media's total incompetence on how to publish material that actually generated any form of support towards certain players and the team.

Michael Vaughan came under scrutiny when compared to a number of predecessors. The skipper was compared to the likes of Nasser Hussain, Mike Gatting and even Mike Brearley. His mistakes were compared to the victories of the predecessing captains. How is this possible?

Michael Vaughan is by all reality, his own man. He has a style of captaincy and a method with players that have brought the England team to a completely different level. The players that Mike Brearley had are not the players that Michael Vaughan has, and vice-versa.

So how can the press compare or even begin to criticise?

Vaughan's own form with the bat suffered through the Ashes series, but with good reason. The skipper led a team that actually went onto the field and defeated the likes of Warne, Gilchrist and Ponting. His leadership actually motivated the players into defeating the Australians fair and square. He led the side with enigmatic brilliance and, although personally he took a blow, the overall result was without question.

So why criticise? As for the players who maybe had an average game or performed at a lesser spectacle to those who were on song, why write them off?

In my experience, that is how the British press has always dealt with cricketers who have had a dip in form or a bad game. Should it not be up to the English camp to find out why they have a slump in form?

There may be underlying issues as to why they have scored 7 runs in the past three innings, but surely with the correct methods and right encouragement the players could be on-song in no time.

But no, the fabulous British press find it easier and, in some uncertain gratifying way, more substantial to attack and destroy players in their juvenile reports.

Imagine the scene...it's a glorious sunny Sunday morning. Paul Collingwood has returned home from walking his dogs and collecting the early Sunday tabloids. He sits at his dining table with his bowl of Wheat Bisks with a smile on his face, for the previous day he helped England secure a victory over the Aussies in a limited over match.

England won the match after scoring 450. They bowled the Aussies over for 112. On a personal level PC didn't do great with the bat making 6, but he took three wickets and two catches. With a spoon full of Wheat Bisks in one hand and some awful tabloid newspaper in the next he cannot wait to reveal the headlines stating "England knock Aussies for Six"

Instead he is met with the headline, "Colly wavers with bat...[he] should be dropped".

This is the British press and their ever-demeaning approach to cricket players. Instead of praise for other aspects of the game, players are shot down and labelled virtually incompetent because they have had a bad day.

I'm almost positive that these "journalists" never have a bad day. Nothing apparently ever goes wrong in their lives to cause them to have a bad day. They never get out of bed on the wrong side, their car always starts, they are always on time for deadlines; in fact, they are not even human, they are super beings from Krypton. This is why one failure to them means failure for good.

But incredibly, how two-faced the press are when, the week after Collingwood scores 700 not out, they are completely mad and crazy about the guy.

The press have left indelible marks on players and teams lives, of this I have no doubt. Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff have borne the brunt of press intrusion. Their personal lives have been surgically opened for everyone in Great Britain to read. "Flintoff picks his nose: Is he really a role model?"

There should surely be an amount of press coverage that is deemed appropriate. It seems that "Freddie" can't take his children to the park, or go shopping or even relax with friends without this causing controversy. Why are the press so interested?

I do not think they can fathom the fact that Flintoff is actually a normal bloke and does normal stuff. But how much of this intrusion actually affects Flintoff in his day to day life and when he steps on the field as an England player? How much pressure must be added to "Freddie" to out perform himself?

I sometimes don't think he can play a natural game because the presshave hyped so much of his life and game that a new level of expectation is on him.

I have also no doubt in my mind that the press contribute to the selection process; that selectors often drop players because they are seen as "no good" and, instead of letting them work through their natural game, they are sidelined and mentally affected by this.

A consequence from perspective of the British public is that the press command a lot of attention. The people's awareness of events and people are often shaped by what is scribed in these tabloids.

The press should try a different approach to their constant black-listing of players and their constant career threatening intrusion. Instead, they should try to encourage our players.

Instead of bringing them down, encourage what they have done (and indeed recognise what they have already done) the English team. This would in turn build up and further the public's support of our national team and the players.

And as for pictures of Andrew Flintoff buying 28p toilet roll from Asda, who cares?