Not-so-clean reporting

Nagraj Gollapudi writes on Cricinfo on the curious case of the 22 yards. It makes some interesting points about the pitch at the Kotla. In general, I'm not bothered by seeing a pitch which requires caution from the bowlers, and I'm not just saying that because of the results yesterday. (If anything, I think I'd rather Delhi had put the Ned Kelly-wannabes away.)

However, I have a quibble with the article in its use of cricketing language. "A good statistic that could shed light on the matter: of the 26 wickets to fall on the day, half were clean bowled," writes Gollapaudi. Really?

I know that in these days where a six must always be a "DLF maximum" or a "super six", we can't use a single word where two would do. For this purpose, perhaps adjectives are tagged onto words because we are used to hearing them together, but in all my previous reading and conversations, "clean bowled" meant something more than simply "out according to Law 30".

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a major issue. I'll take a sensible opinion with errors in writing over perfectly constructed waffle any day, but is it too much to ask that professional reporters (or commentators) resist the sensationalism and focus on what they are communicating?