Re: Canadian Cricket Journalism


Errol Townsend

I have no desire to continue this back-and-forth discussion on Canadian
cricket journalism, interesting as it may be to those who initiated it.
However, I do wish to correct two factual errors in the latest offerings of
Dori Krinski and Mike McLean.

1.Dori Krinski writes: "Mr.T (meaning me) was apparently on the committee to run this tournament (ICC Trophy 2001) but was asked to step down as by the new committee,which was made up mainly of members of my club due to the appearance that nothing was being done."

FACT: Yes I was on the Committee but was NOT "asked to step down" by any new committee because nothing was being done. I was long gone OFF the committee when the new committee took over. And thereby hangs a tale ! Not long after becoming involved it became apparent to me that the financial basis on which the CCA had applied for and been granted the tournament by the ICC was bound to lead to an ocean of red ink for the CCA. That's exactly what has happened, resulting in a loss of some $300,000 in a year and a highly solvent organization ending up passing the begging bowl around. When I saw that train coming down the track no one had to ask me to "step aside". I ran from it as fast as I could ! Should Mr.Krinski widen his narrow circle of information he would have known that.

Mike McLean states:
"I think Mr.Townsend's criticism of the wickekeeper were particularly
unfair". He then repeats the many plaudits Ashish Bagai has received for his 'keeping.

Here's what I wrote:
"Wicketkeeper Ashish Bagai is a prime example ( of the lack of improvement in skill level under two national coaches over the past four years). While he contributes behind the stumps, it's rubbed out as soon as he bats. Invariably, he either runs himself or his partner out. This has cost us several games and has been going on even before the current coach took over. There has been no improvement."

Clearly, this is not a criticism of Bagai's wicketkeeping which everyone
recognizes is of a high standard. Clearly it is a criticism of his running
between the wickets which everyone, excluding these two touchy gentlemen, recognizes is atrocious, to put it mildly.That it has been atrocious for a long time is equally undeniable, as in the 2000 Red Stripe Bowl he figured in THREE runouts in ONE innings.

I have no problem if McLean wishes to make snide remarks about me even though he has never met me.Nor am I going to complain if he attacks my journalistic competence. I gather I'm fairly notorious for giving as good as I get. He should just be aware that this journalist considers an attack on him for criticizing someone's wicketkeeping---- when the criticism is about running between the wickets---- as equivalent to a doctor treating a patient for shin splints when the complaint is tennis elbow.



Please contact us with all your opinions on this article

Note: The views expressed in the Opinion pages, unless otherwise stated, are the views of those who author the pages, and are not necessarily the views of