Robert Craddock - journalist or sycophant

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

Does this *ahem* journalist ever write anything that doesn't involve crawling as far up Australia's back passage as possible.

Any scandal, problem or controversy involving Australia or its players is mitigated, justified or just plain ignored, while every single triumph is trumpeted like the second coming.

I recall a very, very soft stance on the M Waugh/Warne "weatherman" episode, and almost an endorsement of Brett Lee's juvenile, pathetic display of a fortnight ago.

My question: is this bloke a paid ACB employee, or just a blinkered News Corp hack who thinks his readership can't handle any criticism of Australia at all?

 

[Darky]

I hate him for his personal vendetta against Mark Taylor a few years ago. During Tubby's elongated form lapse, Craddock picked on the most insignificant things with the aim of making the public bay for Taylor's blood.

Taylor drops a difficult catch : he is a crap captain and should be sacked

Australia draws a Test match : Taylor is a crap captain and cost his side a win

Taylor is on an international tour : he should be made to hand back his "Father of the Year" award because he is unfit to be a parent.

Just some examples* of Craddock's work.

* examples are fictional, but are accurate in their portrayal of Robert Craddock as a d1ckhead

 

[Joe Mama]

It's not just Craddock that irks me, its Mike Coward from the Australian and Peter Roebuck from the Age that give me the ****s like you wouldn't believe.

As for Brett Lee, his no-ball count is inexcuseable (Hey Lee move your marker back half a yard, you tool) and he is far too erratic to be a strike bowler (unlike Gilespie or McGrath who can turn it on against the best)

 

[wagstaff]

It's not that Craddock is a sycophant (although there is an element of truth in this), the problem is that he is a hack journalist. Not only does he write in a tediously heavy-handed style with some lame analogies thrown in somewhere, but he know nothing about the game.

 

[Fat Red]

Wayde, could you be specific in your criticisms of Coward and Roebuck?

In my view they are both much better than Craddock.

 

[Dave]

Roebuck? Talks out of his arse. After the test series gainst NZ his articles talked about how badly Australia had played and that they were lucky to have escaped with draws in two of the tests, Was fulsome in his praise of NZ's "tactical preparation", making no mention of the fact that the only thing that stopped Australia winning two of the three tests was rain.

 

[mrboy]

and too think those two lee gits have realesed a book

 

[GoEagles]

The only articles of cricket I actually bother to read in detail is by the great man himself, Dennis Lillee. He writes in The West Australian on a weekly basis - not sure if you get him column over east?

 

[Collo]

Craddock

I have hated Robert Craddock with a passion for a few years now.

First of all the Taylor slump, he would not get off his back. I was so happy for Tubs to shove it right up the ass of people like Craddock when he came back with a vengence in the 1997-1998 years.


Then last year with the Mark Waugh scandal when he quite rightly refused to answer anymore questions, Craddock was there calling for his head, literally. Saying he was a disgrace and shouldn't be allowed to play cricket ever again.

Roebuck I find to be a lot better, even if he does bat for the other mob.