I find this all really strange - as far as I can tell there's no misconduct here. It all just feels like pearl clutching (would anyone care if they were winning?)
I wish we had more in depth analysis of the actual individual performances (although in fairness, I'm not closely following this specific tour, so maybe there is elsewhere and it just doesn't generate clicks so I don't see it... Which is probably also part of the problem, but I'm inferring the quality of coverage from the cricket I follow more closely).
It seems wrong that the highest quality analysis now are the commentators doing it live. Obviously they're good thinkers and I expect them to provide good analysis as the game goes on (another bugbear of mine with some comms), but after the match when you've had time to go through everything, I'd expect it to be even more in depth rather than just 'player X averaged 34.43 a middling tour' followed by a description of the most notable innings, which is often about the most in depth you see these days.








