4 of 17 people found the following review helpful
Fails to capture the atmosphere of the Ashes Series,
This review is from: Ashes 2010-11: England's Record-Breaking Series Victory (Hardcover)
Whilst the book has a few entertaining literary witticisms, it fails to capture the excitement and atmosphere of the Ashes Test Series. I had to persuade myself to keep going with the book having twice chucked it away!
Was the book written for the author's entertainment or that of the reader's?
It is a view from the 'safe' environs of the Corporate Press Gallery.
We went to all 5 Test Matches and eagerly looked forward to reading this book,to relive that glorious tour.
But the book was dreadfully disappointing. For example, Mitchell Johnson's golden duck at Sydney, where he was greeted to the crease by 15,000 England fans singing "he bowls to the left etc". with his return to the pavilion after his golden duck being accompanied by another 15,000 rendition of the same song is described by Haigh with the words ...Tremlett beating Haddin's pull and Johnson's prod for pace with consecutive deliveries..!
A waste of £12.50
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Mar 2011 11:01:24 GMT
Yes, Mr Haigh can be guilty of over-writing at times and the structure of his "written to order" ashes series books can often drag him into the formulaic, but he is never less than entertaining as a writer.Of course Haigh's view emanates from the Press Gallery-in the same way that the perspective of the barmy army naturally informs this review. Both views are necessarily selective.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2011 21:18:44 BDT
Why do you assume I am a member of the Barmy Army???
How do I reclaim my wasted £12.50?
Posted on 8 Dec 2011 20:58:59 GMT
Amazon Customer says:
The book comprises Haigh's daily press reports. Not surprisingly these were written in the 'Corporate Press Gallery'. I'm not sure why anyone would expect anything else from the book. Starquester mentions the 'perspective of the Barmy Army' simply because the original review gives it such prominence. He doesn't suggest that the reviewer is or indeed is not a member.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›