Cricinfo is excellent. Some of it's statistics may be wrong or flawed, but it does do very well. You have to remember it is a corporation, and it is under no obligation, as the guy said, to promote sport. The authors are excellent, and their editorials are better than any other cricket website out there.
ESPN acquires Cricinfo !!!
- Thread starter siddharth2002
- Start date
RoboRocks
Chairman of Selectors
Have a look at this:
This is George Hirst and its in Wilfred Rhodes's profile.
This is George Hirst and its in Wilfred Rhodes's profile.
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Well put and I totally agree.
Pak_cricketer
Chairman of Selectors
Yeah, they might be a bit slow, but their commentary is fun.
We know already, you don't have to mention it in EVERY POST in this thread.
RoboRocks
Chairman of Selectors
Cricket Archive also has FC filters too.
Sagacious
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
This is not the original ESPN website.ESPN is owned by Disney group, not Rupert Murdock
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=437905&cc=4716
What's your opinion about howstat.com?
Last edited:
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
It's good for Test and ODI cricket, but pretty much useless when it comes to women's cricket, Under-19 internationals, First-class, List A, Twenty20 and anything below Test and ODI level.
siddharth2002
National Board President<br /><a href="showthread.
I know that's not actually The Original website but in terms of cricket coverage, everything happens at www.espnstar.com. That website came about when ESPN acquired Star group or was it the other one acquiring the other?, don't know but that doesn't matter anyways. ESPNSTAR is still owned by Disney Corp at the end of the day?
madmusician
Club Cricketer
I like Cricinfo, and I use their text commentaries, just because they auto-refresh!
For England articles, though, I use the BBC because they are very good also...
For England articles, though, I use the BBC because they are very good also...
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
Personally I love cricinfo, it is always my first place to visit and is in my opinion still the best and most comprehensive cricket site. I honestly couldn't care less about Vincent Barnes' stats, obviously there are some cricket buffs out there that would care, but I've never heard of the guy (sorry if he's a famous player) and I've always relied on it for all cricketing statistics and articles, so I hope it isn't affected by this changeover, though it may very well be. I will be very disappointed if it becomes very marketing oriented and starts to become more about ESPN making money than providing cricketing information.
siddharth2002
National Board President<br /><a href="showthread.
Exactly the thing I am worried about the most, although the idea of a Cricinfo TV sounded good to me as it will be all Internet based.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Cricinfo already is about making money, so nothing will change there. You may not care about Vincent Barnes stats (but surely you agree that a 300 wicket error is just stupid!), but how about a lengendary player like Basil D'Oliveria, whos stats are also wrong on cricinfo, substantially enough for them to have his first-class batting average under 40 when it should be over 40. Relying on cricinfo for stats is treading on dangerous turf.
Whilst it is comprehensive for Test and ODI cricket, it is far from the most comprehensive cricket site out there, as would be obvious if you went looking for anything below Test and ODI level.
Perhaps my view is tainted as I know what some of cricinfo's writers are like behind the scenes.
nightprowler10
Executive member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Location
- Madhouse on Madison
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
Andrew's pet hates about Cricinfo aside, I do think there is a lot they could improve on. I've read more than a few articles (out of hundreds mind) that are somewhat inaccurate and I think some of the articles written on PC and CW are more professional looking than some of theirs. Not to mention their magazine, which I subscribe to, is filled with stupid typos.
Still, it is by and far the best cricket site (or atleast for Test and ODI cricket, as Andrew points out) on the web. There's a reason I subscribed to their magazine
But that doesn't mean that they don't have any weaknesses to exploit.
Still, it is by and far the best cricket site (or atleast for Test and ODI cricket, as Andrew points out) on the web. There's a reason I subscribed to their magazine
But that doesn't mean that they don't have any weaknesses to exploit.
