Day 63: is the bat mightier than the pen?

 One of the most difficult aspects of commenting on any sport and cricket, in particular, is how do you talk about a player who is going through a rough period of form? How do you do it, objectively? It is far from easy. There are many reasons why you may criticise a player. They may have played a rash shot, bowled a poor spell or dropped an easy catch.

What is easy is to get carried away from the drama of it all. The way the crowd (when they are around) add to the occasion. As a writer, feedback is welcome because you want to get better and engage with your reader in an informative and entertaining way.

We will always have someone that reacts poorly to something you have done as a cricketer or a writer. Those that write about cricket were fans of the game long before they eulogise about it. Sometimes that makes you get wrapped up in what is happening too much. That objectivity disappears because we want a particular player to do well.

The player knows what they have done wrong and doesn't need the advice of someone who makes up the numbers village third team and plays the game for the teas.

Then again, I would doubt they look forward to former England players' opinions who may have forgotten what it's like to be in that pressure environment. Those on the sidelines commenting have been through a rough patch, had their technique found out and had to readjust.

Therefore the process of the cricketer is much like the writer, searching for perfection. The cricketer hits the nets, and hours of throw-downs while the writer goes through a process of editing; strengths that would be useful on a particular day are put away for the greater good.

It could be argued that the writer, the journalist, television pundit, is there to do a job and describe and give analysis of the day's events. There will be outspoken views on the game; one may be from a deep well of knowledge who can articulate their opinion with great skill.

They will always be the "it was better in my day" type who want to relive their glory days. It can, of course, be entertaining with their different perspective, but then it can also come across as boorish.

On the other hand, it can come across that you aren't giving an accurate account of the game if you gloss over the play's negative aspects.

There is a middle way, and as long as you are objective, fair to everyone and carry no bias, then most people will realise you are doing the best for the sport in general. With most games televised or streamed, someone will call you out on it if you are none of these things. Or they may have an agenda that goes against all that, but for now, I will let you decide.