Gideon Haigh and Simon Barnes

Remove this Banner Ad

Apr 21, 2007
1,921
679
NT
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Yurrampi
l hate to distract from the very real tragedy of the events in Pakistan. This sadness should be the focus and obviously all hope the cricketing community at least can find positive solutions for Pakistani cricket. The problems with Pakistan society itself are obviously too big and complex for cricket.

Anyway two of my favourite sports writers are Gideon Haigh and Simon Barnes. l am shocked that these two intelligent and talented sports writers could so completely lose it at such an important time with Gideon suggesting Australia has little interest or concern in the tragic events and Barnes implying we are cowards or previously 'weasels' (see comments) for refusing to tour Pakistan previously despite it coming from expert security advice. Perhaps l am being over sensitive but l really think it is disgraceful journalism and completely misrepresentative of Australian interests over this important issue.

For some reason both have just completely and unnecessarily slagged off Australia as a side note in this tragedy. Relevant excerpts below. Comments can be left on both newspaper sites (to agree or disagree).

The Guardian. Gideon Haigh

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...tacks-sri-lanka?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

Lahore attacks not the top story in Australia

On days such as Tuesday my phone usually rings hot with requests for "comment", such as it is possible to make. At such times Australia's distance from the rest of the world is strangely palpable. While waiting to speak on Brisbane radio, I sat patiently through a detailed traffic report: there might be dead police round a bus full of cricketers in Pakistan but in the meantime a ute [utility truck] had overturned on the freeway and was blocking a lane. I was reminded of an English friend's view that Australian news consisted of car accidents and community-service announcements. A television current affairs show sent pressing emails and phone messages, then an hour later had lost interest in the story. "Not enough people died," was the explanation. "And those who did were foreigners." I think it was a joke. Happy the land where such views can be expressed – stupid, too.

The Times. Simon Barnes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article5838886.ece?Submitted=true

It is true that events and tours have frequently been cancelled out of fear, much to the gratification of terrorists, no doubt. The Australian cricket team have become notorious for pulling out of tours any time that anyone lights a match within 500 miles of a cricket ground.
 
Anyway two of my favourite sports writers are Gideon Haigh and Simon Barnes.

can i ask why??

l am shocked that these two intelligent and talented sports writers

:eek:

these two guys do not much more than take sly digs at Australia, especially Barnes.

EDIT: actually Haigh's not too bad. i was a bit hasty there. i still don't like him though. Barnes is a complete dick though.
 
They are both bitter clowns. Let's fact it. British news is dominated by youth stabbings and the high teeange pregancy rate.

Is it any coincidence these 2 are lining up to have pot shots at us after our first test win?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Simon Barnes won't admit he was wrong, journos very rarely do. Fact remains our security reports and intelligence was right in saying that we shouldn't tour Pakistan as there would be a significant risk to our players safety.

Journos tried to write this off as saying cricketers are never specifically targeted and therefore to be caught up in a terrorist attack you would have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was a very poor argument and our security personel privately dismissed it.

Basically it comes down to a simple fact involving jealously. We have some great young talent coming through when many people thought we were finished. I remember Ian Botham saying last year that apart from Lee we had "no bowlers". Barnes and Haigh have jumped on the bandwagon as well when we were losing to India. Now that we have won some games they can't attack us other then having sly digs at us about radio stations. I mean WTF?

Can't blame them however, any team that has James Anderson leading it's attack is without doubt, a very ordinary lineup.
 
In fairness though Gideon Haigh is a fair deal better then Simon Barnes. Haigh i remember wrote an article after the thing with over-rates in India. Here are some quotes.

Indeed, Ponting might well have lost Australia the Test, but if so, he did it on the first day, when he lost the toss; ditto Mohali. It's no fluke that Australia's best performance during the series came the only time they won the toss. The way the Australian bowlers that Ponting didn't use have been described, meanwhile, you'd think he had Ray Lindwall, Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath at his disposal. In fact, the pace attack at Ponting's disposal had taken five wickets for the match, and on tour had paid 45 runs per wicket.

On Saturday, the ABC radio commentary team threw every toy out of the cot - pacifier, diaper and all - and they were only contending with a lost satellite link to Australia. Ponting made other captaincy calls that earned him no praise, but at which a lesser leader might have baulked, like first choosing then persevering with Jason Krezja.

I especially like that bit. Getting stuck in the ABC comm team like the children they were that day. It was embrassing to listen to Coward, Maxwell and Mitchell that day. Reminded me a lot of the past test match against SA when the commentators were all but demanding Clarke replace McDonald before the new ball. McDonald then gets AB Devillers and the ABC commentators look like idiots.

To my mind Ponting has done the game a favour by showing how neurotic we have become about Test cricket in these Twenty20-centric times. On Saturday critics were lamenting the day's poverty of entertainment, the teams' insensitivity to the legitimate expectations of the paying public. On Sunday they turned to lamenting an attempt by a captain to meet one of the arbitrary indicators that those legitimate expectations are being met: the requirement of 90 overs in a day

Im not basing this on a "you slagged Punter" i hate you, "you praised Punter" i love you kneejerk reaction. The article presented a balanced view on the whole over-rate incident and it was a great piece that looked at the issue at hand through clear thought. Something our journos lacked.
 
Fair enough about Barnes he can be shrill. Does a good line in spirituality/romance of sport thing.

Haigh though l find excellent and thus really disappointed with this kind of Germaine Greer ex pat crap.
 
This is the problem when professional "intellectuals" are paid to write opinion pieces on, or discuss sport.

I have never been a fan of the pompous know-it-all Gideon Haigh, and Simon Barnes' "weasel" comment makes him look an utter fool.
 
I have a pretty black and white view on this. I ask myself, would i go to Pakistan? The question is no, i wouldn't go to India or Sri Lanka. So why should i expect cricketers to go? Sometimes i wish i never played or followed the game at all to be honest. It's a lot easier to sit at home in your comfy chair in front of the English fireplace and write articles on your brave you are and how cowardly other countries are. I wonder if Simon Barnes would change his tune if he was sent to Pakistan as "chief cricket correspondent".
 
Why on earth is it Australia's problem ??
I would urge anybody trying to get a "feeling" for this situation to watch 4 Corners a couple of weeks ago, with an ozzie journo i.e. a real one, going around Pakistan and the disputed territories and providing unbelievable footage of the Taliban and their acquantances. Mate, I'm telling you if you think that Iraq or the Middle East have been disappointments, just wait until the Taliban get their "mits" on 170 million muslims in Pakistan.
It really is the heaviest thing the free world faces today, as opposed to the GFC obviously !!
PS that's not GEELONG either !!
icon9.gif
 
If you examine Gideon Haigh's comments a little more closely, you'll find he wasn't saying all of Australia had little interest, his barb was directed towards the priorities of the Australian media.

FWIW, I think he's 100% correct. The priorities shown by our media have always been a mystery to me. On the day Meckiff got called for chucking, one newspaper had it splashed across the front page as headline news ... and up on the top right hand corner there was reference (possibly on page 2) to some "lesser" happening in the USA .. something about President Kennedy being shot.
 
If you examine Gideon Haigh's comments a little more closely, you'll find he wasn't saying all of Australia had little interest, his barb was directed towards the priorities of the Australian media.
.

l am aware of what he is implying and whilst l would generally agree, this is not a correct representation in this case where there has been saturation media coverage, front page news, leading tv news etc.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If you examine Gideon Haigh's comments a little more closely, you'll find he wasn't saying all of Australia had little interest, his barb was directed towards the priorities of the Australian media.

.

I tend to agree, but in this case I thought there was blanket coverage in the hours after the attack. Ch 9 was covering it extensively, crossing to CNN, interviews with people on the scene etc. I don't really agree with Haigh in this case in isolation. I want to know which station was he going to talk to, surely he could of mentioned the station, because I heard plenty of coverage on ABC Radio in Brisbane and there was plenty on the TV.

It is possible to cover major news events and still provide motorists with helpful information about traffic conditions. :rolleyes: He makes it sound like if you aren't giving every second of airspace to it, there is no care factor, which is wrong in my opinion. That paragraph about the coverage sounds like a bit of a rant to me and not really a balanced view on it, but fair enough, the OZ media do have their priorities in odd places at times.
 
If you examine Gideon Haigh's comments a little more closely, you'll find he wasn't saying all of Australia had little interest, his barb was directed towards the priorities of the Australian media.

FWIW, I think he's 100% correct. The priorities shown by our media have always been a mystery to me. On the day Meckiff got called for chucking, one newspaper had it splashed across the front page as headline news ... and up on the top right hand corner there was reference (possibly on page 2) to some "lesser" happening in the USA .. something about President Kennedy being shot.

That's not suprising.

Ian Meckiff was called for throwing on the 7th of December.

Jack Kennedy had been shot dead two weeks earlier on the 23rd of November.

Kennedy's shooting still being on page two at the time sounds pretty fair to me.
 
l am aware of what he is implying and whilst l would generally agree, this is not a correct representation in this case where there has been saturation media coverage, front page news, leading tv news etc.

Yes, I think that's spot on. Frankly I'm a little disappointed with Haigh on this occasion.

From my perpsective the media (and the populaiton more broadly) have been all over this story. It's been the dominant news item of the week.

That he says "on days such as this his phone usually rings hot looking for comment" smacks a little of self obsession. Why would they ring you specfically in relation to this tragedy Gideon? For the record I heard interviews with former Sri Lankan test player (now Melbourne resident) Gurusinha on three different radio stations. It seemed to me he was a little more relevant in this instance than Gideon Haigh sitting in London.

Disappointing, because Haigh is normally right on the money.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Gideon Haigh and Simon Barnes

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top