Earle's caught?

Today, despite all the competing demands for space in its sporting pages, the Advertiser gives a full bodied report of SA's defeat of Tasmania at cricket. The reporter seems to be parodying the old cricket writers who got paid by quantity (number of words) not quality, as in "the shimmering haze of a crazed Mediterranean heat drained SA's attacking energy in the first session" and [after a key wicket fell] "the repressive mood engulfing the Redbacks, desperate for maximum points, promptly lifted."

Need more? We are told that one of the Tasmanian players "executed a rebellious ton that included 15 boundaries and several mini-partnerships with the tail."

I checked to see whether Tasmanian readers were fed the same rich soup. Mr Murdoch's print media reach means that his Hobart outlet the Mercury can economise by taking the reports from the Advertiser's man on the spot. Perhaps the Mercury has better sub editors or perhaps Tasmanians are less tolerant of verbosity, because the Mercury's report, also attributed to Richard Earle is much less florid. The innings of the Tasmanian who the Advertiser said "executed a rebellious ton" is described by the Mercury as "a bold if fruitless 130".

Which came first: the Advertiser or the Mercury report, and who really wrote each? Is the real Richard Earle willing to stand up?