Lately I started listening to the audio interviews by cricinfo staff. The concept of interviewing a player is good. But the content is below par.Lets talk bout the following things in detail.
Language
Relevance
Questions

Language
First of the english spoken by cricinfo staff is either too fast or not clear. Why can't these folks speak to the player is native language of the player ? I am sure its to cover the non Hindi speaking folks, but I beg to differ with that. People who listen these audio bits have access to a computer and ofcourse speak english.And a fair bit of these folks know Hindi. Why can't these interviews be in Hindi when Harbhajan is the player ? Or English if Rahul is the case.

Relavance
The interviewing person should elaborate a bit more on why this player is choosen to be interviewed.How he is relevant to the scheme of things ? How he can improvise some areas ? Whats his natural talent ?

Questions
The questions are just crap. Take a look at this in Robin Uthappa's interview 
"86 against England, the highest by an indian in ODI on debut, and now in your comeback match a blistering 70 in 41 deliveries, how would you compare the two innings ?" . Hmmm., does this matter ? I am more interested in "Robin you have made two goods scores at more than 100 % strike rate, Do you think you can adjust to fast pitches and deliver the same in the Wcup ?.
Questions like "What changed between then and now ?" ,  be specific, ask "how did your batting change ? or did it change ? how is your fielding changed ?".
Questions like " You scored a half century , how important was that to build confidence"? are no good. Because the answer is "Definitely it gave me confidence" :-)
The interviewers seems to have a hidden agenda of saying good things. Why can't these questions be of critical nature ?

Cricinfo could benefit from BBCs know how  , for sure :-)