The quality of cricinfo writing is pretty much unmatched, aside from Haigh & Atherton whose articles are weekly and behind paywalls - thought they covered the associate qualifiers superbly (and very visibly) so I don't get that criticism at all? Generally take the contrarian stance to the BCCI so am not seeing the issue there either.
Unmatched =/= great. They were once both, but not these days.
There's a paucity of cricket media in general. Cricbuzz is working their way up, but they are even more India-centric than Cricinfo.
Contrarian to the BCCI also =/= not Indian-centric.
Their coverage of the WCQ was not superb at all. Their ball-by-ball for WCL2 was far better, and that was hardly great. Their match summaries were mostly written by people who hadn't seen the match and were just going off the scorecard, which resulted in some clear errors to anyone who had at least been following the ball-by-ball.