As you are discussing the (already notorious) Pokeman piece, I wasn't naive about the mixed reaction it would get. Quite the opposite. There is a church of cricket readership (52% maybe?) who want their cricket writing in traditional style and would prefer that every cricket piece they ever read follows a deep technical analysis of the day. That is fair enough. It is a preference.
What irritates me is when such readers refer to "we" as in "We don't need this childish stuff" or whatever. They have no right to say "we". Cricket is not the preserve of traditionalists. It has - and needs - an evolving and widespread readership, interested in different pieces at different times.
Mullaney can be proud of his CB, but it was a featurless day - another flat-pitch hundred against an inconsequential attack when very little noteworthy happened. So many days have felt like that, journalistically. Either I have been doing the job too long - and that might well be true - or the pitches produced by the toss regulations are producing the sort of cricket that the counties are struggling to make interesting.
haha - yes my son said it was "disappointingly inaccurate about the powers of Ditto"
In other words, Ditto.
I asked him for another word instead of powerful and he never provided one and then I got sidetracked by a pint of 6X and some late-night Test subbing in the Lincolnshire Poacher.