In the following article…
… Cricinfo assistant editor Daniel Brettig describes Australia’s batting woes as a cancer. The Australian hasn’t used originality to produce this term. He has been influenced by the supposed labelling of fellow countryman Shane Watson as ‘a cancer on the team’ by Australia skipper Michael Clarke.
Does Brettig genuinely think that the suffering of cancer patients and their families is comparable to a few men playing bat and ball but not playing it very well?
Does he genuinely think that cancer is appropriate terminology to use in such an instance?
Someone once said that ‘The object of art is to divide opinion’. By prompting this response from me in comparison to some that have proclaimed his article as ‘very good’ or ‘spot on’, Brettig has possibly done his job well. Maybe he is happy in the knowledge that anybody who has experienced cancer, when reading his article might find it a strange comparison.
If cricket can be described as cancer that is Brettig’s opinion. That it can’t is mine.