Just occasionally you get an ODI that’s genuinely gripping. They tend to be usually forgettable and in truth although this was a good example of the format, it still won’t be one that is recalled in a decade. It’s just the disposable nature of 50 over cricket.
Even so. This one see-sawed almost like a Test match, with England getting themselves into terrible trouble at 108-6 with only Hales and Root at that point making any impression on the game. Rabada had ripped through the England top order, not for the first time, and an early finish seemed on the cards.
Root got England up to a half reasonable total, aided by Woakes (who had a good game all round) and Rashid. Root’s century was in the circumstances an outstanding one, quite possibly the best he’s made in short form cricket. But even a total of 262 looked woefully inadequate, especially when the build up had been full of suggestions that 400 was a competitive score.
It didn’t quite turn out that way, as while the South African batsmen all made contributions, England kept chipping away. Broad took out Amla at the top of the order, while Duminy decided that if England couldn’t get De Villiers out then he could, running him out in spectacular style thanks to an athletic pick up and throw from Woakes. 143-5 and 210-8 left England hot favourites but a combination of an astounding innings from Chris Morris and some fairly poor bowling and fielding under pressure turned that around.
Rashid’s removal of Morris with the scores level made it interesting but he’d already won the game for his team, and Imran Tahir applied the coup de grace.
So it’s 2-2 going to Cape Town and all to play for. England will be scratching their heads about losing this one. From absolutely nowhere they got in position to take the series, and then it was taken away from them. That can happen, and they did at least give themselves the chance of a win by continuing to attack even from the wreckage of their innings at the mid point of the first dig. Equally, South Africa will feel that they both nearly threw it away, and also stole a game they had no right to win. How very odd all round.
In other news today, the ECB rather carelessly lost Waitrose as the team sponsor. According to the Mail, the supermarket both felt undervalued and ignored by the ECB, and we’re also unwilling to double the value of it as the ECB wanted. To add to that, they were apparently unimpressed that the ECB were trying to find new partners even before they’d decided not to renew. It is good to know that the ECB treat their sponsors with the same degree of contempt they do everyone else, and perhaps Waitrose too can now consider themselves Outside Cricket with everyone else.
No more Team Waitrose. I’m not sure who will be most relieved.
One other small item that came out of the Mail report was to say that the ECB lost a potentially “lucrative” sponsorship with Johnson’s Paint because of minimal TV coverage of the county game. Whether that means the small number of county matches currently on Sky, or the lack of a wider audience on a more open TV channel is open to question, but it seems both surprising and inept if it’s the former, as persuading Sky to cover additional county matches should have been well within their range of abilities.
After this week, if you can give a flying one about this match then good on you.
Because I don’t. Not today. I will be at one of my best mate’s leaving do and will not be watching a single ball of this. The game will not merit a mention at the do. I will check in to see how this is rumbling on, but even then, I’m not sure that I’ll have anything to say.
However, TLG advises me that he’ll be watching, so he’ll help you through the day. I’ve a lot spinning around in my head to write but I need to think a bit more.
But please, please, please. Don’t let me stop you. Comment away.
“This is not what you wanted. Nor what you had in mind” Moderat.
Something a little odd happened yesterday. England announced their World T20 squad, and to the surprise of no-one Kevin Pietersen was left out. One or two journalists outside of Fleet Street – Andrew Miller at Cricinfo – did point out that on merit he should have been picked but of course it was always known this wasn’t about cricketing merit. We’ve been here for some time of course, and while the ECB could have been clever and used this one short tournament to largely defuse the ongoing disconnect between themselves and large numbers of Outside Cricket people (amateur players, supporters that kind of thing – the worthless types who merely pay all their wages) they chose not to, and pretended it wasn’t happening. Now that in itself wasn’t the odd thing, unless talking about the oddness and duplicity of the ECB itself. No, the odd thing was that on the very day of the announcement, Alastair Cook suddenly was made available for interview at a Chance to Shine launch event, to numerous media sources.
Now clearly this is a fortuitous coincidence, what else could it be? Having been silent since returning from South Africa (perfectly reasonably so) and without any cricket until the start of the domestic season, his schedule and that of the ECB clearly would have been rather busy, but obviously this one day was the notable gap in his busy diary, not a day earlier and not a day later. As Goldilocks would have said, yesterday was “just right”.
Some cynics, who may also be such things as bilious inadequates, and are quite probably also impertinent, have wondered about this timing. One or two may have idly wondered if it was even deliberate, perhaps a specific arrangement to provide the press with ample copy gifted by the chosen one, there to fill numerous column inches and ensure that no one went off message and asked difficult questions. Such dreadful scepticism should never form the basis of dealings with the ECB, who have after all shown themselves to be honest, upright types, not given to deceit, deception or subterfuge in any way, and certainly not the kind of body to brief against players or grotesquely insult the entire non-professional playing and watching base of England and Wales and then refuse to even acknowledge they might have annoyed anyone.
On that basis, one could hardly expect the written press to then acknowledge the timing, or to ever openly state that they were being played and draw attention to that, for that would mean that said interview might not transpire. Equally, given the announcement of the squad for the World T20, it would of course be rather unusual to ask the England Test captain for his view on the exclusion of players who the great unwashed might be talking about. For since they are nothing other than resources to be exploited, anything they might want to know is of no relevance whatsoever. Now, doubtless when granted an audience with our noble lord, there would have been restrictions on the questions, so to pick an entirely random example from the air, it’s distinctly possible that the various ECB media teams may have expressed a preference for the Great Satan Pietersen’s name not to be mentioned. And of course when faced with such a plaintive request, our brave souls with their pens could have no recourse except to obey – for how else would they gain the insights into the Glorious Leader’s thoughts and musings?
Now the press of course would rarely ever debase themselves by abiding by restrictions imposed by a sporting body in order to gain access to anyone, for such behaviour would be contrary to fearless and free journalism, and prevent interviews actually shining a light on what people might like to know rather than what those in authority want the message to be, so perhaps it is merely that there is no interest in the matter instead. Perhaps no one cares or wants to know, which is why there are never any articles about Kevin Pietersen published, and nor are there any hits, let alone hundred of comments made.
In a pig’s eye.
Let’s be clear here, either the press supinely obeyed restrictions which is pathetic, or those involved didn’t think it worth asking the question, which is unprofessional. It isn’t entirely black and white, for some who have been openly critical of many of the ECB’s actions over time bought into this, and presumably considered it worth the price in this instance in order to get the story. There is a professional decision to be made, and in each individual case it could be justified. But when it is both so blatant and when it applies across every single person carrying the story, it moves beyond that. When it is so obviously the ECB’s intention to stage manage the agenda and avoid scrutiny, then there really isn’t an excuse for it. In some instances it’s entirely to be expected, in others, it’s frankly disappointing.
Perhaps less surprising, given the context, is that little of what Cook did say was given close examination, being allowed to speak for itself. For example, he highlighted the problem of burn out for those players who play multiple formats for England, and he is right to as well, given how the ECB milk their players for as much revenue cricket as possible. 2016 has a ludicrous schedule with 16 Tests, 18 ODIs and 4 T20s – plus the World T20 itself. So when he says
“Those two [Root and Stokes], plus Moeen, are dead certs in all three squads. And there’s going to have to be times to take those guys out of international cricket. When it becomes a chore, you need to protect them.”
he is quite right. Yet those with longer memories may recall the occasional previous player bemoaning the workload of playing in all formats, particularly when playing through injury, only to be told to “man up” and stop complaining. Indeed, when attempting to reduce that workload, the response was to deem it a retirement from two forms of the game. So Cook is quite right, but all it does is highlight the hypocrisy of the ECB, not for the first time.
With England engaged in a one day series in South Africa, Cook had observations about how England had played the game:
“The game of one-day cricket has changed over the last two years. We were slow to catch on to that. We were one year behind the revolution. The guys who have gone in now and taken it forward are brilliant to watch and exciting to watch.”
This is also true, and he’s entirely correct that they are exciting to watch as well. Given how England approached the World Cup last year, and Cook’s own part in that approach, it remains intriguing how this can have failed to merit a follow up question in some quarters. For this is the “problem” with Cook all too often, what he says is very often entirely fair comment, but the lack of context and reminders about where it came from simply make those statements, left alone as they are, quite ludicrous. Cook is no fool, he knows exactly that he was part of the problem, for when asked about the same thing in the Daily Mail he said
“As captain, I was fully responsible for that. It’s hard to take, but we were one year behind the revolution.”
Cook’s response to his sacking as ODI captain is well known, but the acute personal disappointment was always going to colour his response. So that realisation does him credit, though with the proviso that not all player are afforded the privilege of being forgiven for speaking out of turn. But certainly the Guardian was feeling especially warm and friendly for it went on
Cook scored 766 runs in seven innings in Australia in 2010‑11 – “probably the best I’ll ever bat” – and is now targeting the next Ashes series there, in 2017-18, possibly as his swansong.
which is an example of telling the truth, but entirely avoiding the wider truth. For Cook batted like God in that series, but has a dire record in the other Ashes series he has played – so why bring up that one that is five years ago now? How does that have greater relevance than the South Africa series where he again struggled? Articles that cosy up to him do him a huge disservice, for they merely give the impression of an adoring journalist sat at his feet listening to him tell sad stories of the death of friends instead of a player who might actually have something of value to say. Readers can spot adoring flattery a mile off. In the same article Cook talked about the change in approach from England
“We got to No1 in the world by being really methodical, very insular, and we ground [the] opposition down. We played to our strengths hugely. We became a very efficient side who didn’t have many bad days,”
which is as good a summary of that England side as I’ve seen. It’s insightful, honest and accurate.
Likewise when talking to Lawrence Booth in the Mail, his observation that
“I thought I was going to step down as captain after the Ashes, whether we won or lost, but the way this side had gone, it didn’t feel like the right time. What’s motivating me at the moment is not just the runs, but pushing the side forward.”
has the ring of truth to it, and as far as the Test team goes, it’s probably what most others expected at the time too. But Cook actually captained that side fairly well, having been utterly woeful as skipper up to that point. Carrying on was probably as beneficial to the team as it is to a player who has finally grown into the role somewhat. Having done so, it reached the point that he had actually genuinely become the captain. Cook was quick to praise Bayliss and Farbrace, and they do deserve credit for ensuring that Cook actually captains the side, rather than being a cipher for a coach itching to get into the action. It is entirely possible that Cook could have flowered as captain far earlier than he did.
Cook does also suffer because of entrenched views about him, so even saying
“In T20, there is always an element of luck. The best side wins it but, because it is such a short tournament and a short form of the game, it only takes a team to get on a roll, get a bit of confidence, and they’ll win it.”
can receive criticism for being viewed as a slight on the 2010 winning side, yet in the shortest form of the game luck does play a part. That side could have gone out in the group stages had the weather been only slightly more unkind. Cook is quite right.
He also suffers from the hypocrisy of those within the ECB structure. Paul Downton, who Cook would hardly consider to have been entirely straight with him either, identified Kevin Pietersen’s desire to reach 10,000 runs as being emblematic of selfishness, yet Cook can be asked about the possibility of playing 200 Tests and say
“I’d love to do it”
Of course he would. So would anyone in his position, and it would be a fine achievement too. It is grossly unfair to criticise Cook for this as personal ambitions are entirely part of the game and are not just acceptable, but crucial for self-motivation. Those who bang on about it being a team sport always miss the point; a batsman does not raise his blade on reaching a hundred because he’s really, really pleased for the team, nor does a bowler celebrate a five for by thinking instantly about the match position. Thus it was equally unfair to use it as a stick to beat Pietersen with. It is the double standards of response to the words depending on who says it.
Cook himself may wonder why he gets such a derisive response from so many quarters, having spoken and said many perfectly reasonable things. The problem is those behind him and above him, and their positioning of him as the standard bearer for all they believe. He bears some responsibility for allowing himself to be part of that, but he is not the main problem, he is simply being used to advance a specific agenda and image. He is a fine opening batsman, not as great as his cheerleaders would claim him to be (in the same way that Pietersen wasn’t as great as some of his main cheerleaders would claim him to be – not that it is relevant in itself to what happened), but a very fine batsman still. He took his time about it, but he has developed into a perfectly competent Test captain too. The problem for him is that he is also the visible face of a regime that regards all others with complete contempt. And that the press have allowed this to unfold and continue to uphold it.
As long as this state of affairs continues, the response will be the same. Not from all, but from enough to worsen the reputation of all involved.
I have reason to believe that there is someone trying to bring the site down. It’s not paranoia, but we’ve got two very ominous click sources in the past 24 hours. If this site is to go down, we will revert to the old one.
Hopefully a false alarm. But I’m not so sure.
We’ll keep you informed.
UPDATE – No more attempts and speaking to an IT guy at work the threat is small. But if there is anything odd (and I don’t mean commenters) let me know.
I love my Ipod. It’s one of them 160GB classic Ipods. I bought it just before Apple, in their infinite wisdom thought that they were obsolete and decided it was all about those silly “minis” or “Iphones” or whatever. But I love walking out of my house every day, on the way to work, having the shuffle on for the 23k tracks there are on there and wondering “what will today throw up”? I mean, it’s not all great. ITunes is the spawn of satan, but you can’t have everything.
Anyway, I was walking into work and the news had broken a little before of the team for the World T20. I was checking the phone when the Carly Simon song with that well known Nile Rodgers riff came on. It’s as if the Ipod had the same thoughts as me. Why?
As I said on Twitter this morning, I am not a three year old. I knew he wasn’t going to be picked. If the people out there are dense enough to think that then they aren’t worthy of reading a single piece on here. But I still thought. Why?
After a work function in Park Lane, I rambled down Oxford Street, passing Grosvenor Square, looking at the building, thinking about the future. I was there to purchase my wife’s Valentine’s present (hope she likes it) and then wend my way home. On the bus I caught up with some of the correspondence on line, read some of the tweets, and felt like shit, to be honest.
Got to the station, and boarded it. Still head full of “what should I write”. I Whatsapped Chris and told him I probably wouldn’t be on tonight, and I probably shouldn’t be. Then, near the end of my train journey came on one of my favourite pieces of music of recent times.
It’s “And I Will Kiss” by Underworld. Or as it is better known worldwide as that music from the Pandemonium portion of the Olympic Opening Ceremony. And it takes me back. I’m an emotional sort, and that piece of music still brings a little tear to my eye. It is immense. It has everything in it. It was played when our country was being portrayed to the world. And it made me immensely proud to be British. It filled my heart and soul with a joy I can’t express. I wished my mum and dad were here to see the ceremony and hear the music. My brother, no lover of that thing, texted me to say it was amazing. He doesn’t say things like that. No matter what anyone else out there thought, my family loved it.
It lasts 19 minutes, and I’m listening to this music and just getting overwhelmed by it as I always do. Yes, a little alcohol might have assisted, but it generally doesn’t matter. And I go back to when it was released. A week before textgate and all that nonsense. While we were getting humped by South Africa and the scapegoating was in full effect. I thought of Andrew Strauss getting upset that KP was fraternising with key South African players, and then thinking “what do you think Ian Botham would have said to Strauss if he moaned about him being too close to Viv and Joel?”. But that’s by the by. It’s all moot now.
And the thing is that the swelling of pride in my country, the love of the music, the joy of the sport, ended. Two weeks of Mo, Vicky, Chris, Greg, Jess, Brad, Laura et al, and watching, in person, the GB women’s basketball team run the eventual silver medallists, France, so damn close, and then it was gone. Sure, it’ll all be repeated in Rio later this year, but it won’t all be here again. While that was going on, England’s cricket team went off the effing rails. The contrast was stark.
And I Will Kiss will remind me, did remind me of that. How, on the one hand, the country rallied behind the participants, not knowing personalities, not showing suspicions, but enjoying sport, while our precious cricket lot got into a spat and started leaking like a sieve. Like it always did.
And that brings me to the present. I really don’t like the ECB. They run the game like a fucking old boys club. There’s snobbery. There’s cowardice. Overall, there’s arrogance. They know that out there there are many, many cricket fans who would love to see the dust settle between the ECB and KP. There are a lot that don’t, but their needs have been more than catered for in the last two or so years. The dust isn’t settled by saying “sorry old chap, sorry you’ve cancelled a £200k contract on a wild goose chase, and made us look like muppets, but hey, how about a little part time job as a matter of goodwill?” but by being honest. Telling us what the trust issues are, not “I don’t want to get into that” which has been far too easy on them. But again, that’s for another day.
They know there are many KP fans out there. Their attitude towards them this week has been downright insulting. Eoin Morgan’s “that’s from me” without so much as an explanation was bad enough. Anyone who thinks I overdid it on the Outside Cricket Day yesterday, that’s why. It’s contemptuous. Then for Bayliss to say “his name never even came up” put the tin hat on it. So that’s that then. And you want me to put money in your coffers to watch you lot? I doubt that this even entered their mind. I find people with these sort of attitudes just don’t think like that. What can I say….
I’m not asking for him to be selected. I’m asking for some bloody openness and transparency. I’m asking for a cricket reporter, if there are still any out there, to do their damn job and get answers to the questions. TLG earlier made the eloquent point that this is about not selecting on merit. We’ve done that to death. This is about owing something to the supporters who wanted him back. Who want selection on merit. Who want to know what it was he did that was so wrong that he’s been blackballed and airbrushed from history. And no, it is not the book. That was not what got him sacked.
And so, when And I Will Kiss ended, this Ipod read my mind. As I walked down the hill to my house, there came on this…
Such a shame to believe in escape ‘A life on every face’, but that’s a change Until I’m finally left with an ‘8’ Tell me to relax, I just stare Maybe I don’t know if I should change A feeling that we share, it’s a shame
(Such a shame) Number me with rage, it’s a shame (Such a shame) Number me in haste (Such a shame) This eagerness to change It’s a shame
The dice decide my fate, that’s a shame In these trembling hands my faith Tells me to react, I don’t care Maybe it’s unkind if I should change A feeling that we share, it’s a shame
England announced their squad for March’s World T20, making a late bid to match their previous and astounding heights of omnishambles over the last few years. The selection of Liam Dawson, apparently on the back of a good Lions tour, is certainly eyebrow raising. Trevor Bayliss’ swiftly made it clear one way or the other than if it all goes horribly wrong it ain’t down to him guv, by openly stating he hadn’t seen him play and that he was trusting the selectors. The tone is so often the giveaway, and saying he was a good fielder “apparently” spoke volumes. Of course, it’s not remotely Dawson’s fault, and he will be rightly thrilled and excited at his call up. That James Whitaker stated it was on the back of the Lions tour may have been because it’s rather hard to state it was due to last year’s T20 blast when he failed to take a wicket. Stephen Parry can count himself unfortunate.
Dawson may well go on to be a success, and there is nothing at all wrong with selections based on a hunch that the player will go well, but there is the suspicion that he will be little more than drinks carrier on this trip.
Broad too has been omitted, which rather makes his call up to the ODI series in South Africa somewhat peculiar, as he could have been given the time off to recover if he wasn’t going to be in the squad. As it stands, and given he isn’t playing in that series so far, it seems pointless to make England’s key Test bowler hang around.
The selectors have managed to thoroughly pretend the various T20 competitions going on around the world don’t exist by ignoring Luke Wright. England play too few T20 matches for there to be a pattern of international success to draw upon, and Wright is unquestionably a specialist in this form of the game.
And then there’s Kevin Pietersen. His non-selection is a surprise to no-one, but the idea that England have six better T20 batsmen to draw upon is laughable. It is thus a team selection for reasons other than cricketing ones. Some will approve of that, many will not. No one will be shocked, but the ECB once again are making it clear that teams are not decided on what players can do on the field. They could have made the argument that they felt others would be more effective, which would be open to question, but a cricketing decision. Instead they said that he wasn’t even discussed, and thus confirming the point that cricketing matters were not the focus. As ever, the point is not about one player’s presence or otherwise, but what that means for all others going forward – if they don’t like you, then no matter how many runs or wickets you might take, you will not get in the side.
Some have suggested that England are amongst the favourites for the tournament, but the bowling looks somewhat thin for India conditions. Even so, in competition cricket, they may well find a way, for not too many would have pointed to Ryan Sidebottom being so outstanding in the one global tournament England have ever won. Steven Finn is in the squad despite his injury, and he is the one member of that attack shorn of Stuart Broad who looks a wicket-taker, his fitness is critical to England’s chances.
The fundamental objection to the ECB remains that they would prefer not to give themselves the best chance of winning something, in favour of internal politics.
Thought I’d stick up some more of my snaps to finish the day. There’s no match report today as both TLG and I saw none of the game….
Cricket at Tunbridge WellsHundred Up for Alviro PetersenJacques Kallis – 2012Graham Napier in his six-hitting masterclass at WhitgiftTrent Bridge – England v New Zealand – 2008Ramps
Since my blogging got more attention than the one man and his dog prior to the KP announcement, it’s been a question nagging me more and more. “What’s the point? Have I lost the point? Is the point different?”
A warning up front here. This is a long and quite self-indulgent piece, but blogging is self-indulgent. I had a lot of doubts about publishing it, but so what. Let’s go for it. That’s what blogging is about. But what is the point of doing it?
It is actually quite an easy one to answer, but I tend to over-complicate it. For large parts of the time, the point is…. I enjoy it. I love writing about the sport that I played as a bumbling amateur for years. I love the sport that brought me the closest of friends. I love the sport that energised the spark in me to travel. It was the sport I loved to take pictures of. It had a camaraderie of its own. I followed a football team home and away for 15 or so years, and never really got that. But cricket did, and it did bring a joy in me to write about it. Even in times of complete anger, it was good to get it off my chest.
And yet often there’s a feeling of some emptiness in doing this. A huge frustration that the point will always be lost. The point that it resonates, if at all, infrequently. This isn’t some cry for influence, some desperate attempt to be relevant at some thing or other. It’s about putting out my voice and seeing what resonates and what doesn’t, which I did for years without a hit, but wrote some of my best stuff.
It’s not about him…no matter how much they tell me it is.
This isn’t about the dropping and exile of one player, which has been a catalyst, but never the main point. It isn’t even about berating the ECB for their latest nonsense. It’s about what sport has become. A business. A product. Something to monetise. Personified by the suits that run the game. A budding management consultant as our Director, waffling on about trust. A former TV sports rights negotiator now in charge of the ECB’s operations. A bloody supermarket owner, who the ECB owe(d) money to, as the Chairman. And Giles Clarke – laughed off by the Guardian as a pet store owner. These are the insiders. The main men.
Who am I? What was I? I was a crap club cricketer, and an even worse schoolboy one. I was an opening batsman for much of my playing days. I bowled only if the game was dead, or on a skipper’s hunch. I wasn’t very good, but I wasn’t very bad. Being an opener requires something else, I think. I’m by no means a driven individual, but you need to have some sort of bloody-mindedness to stay up the top of the order. A great friend of mine had a completely different approach to opening than I did. His view was that it gave him the maximum time to score his runs. He always was a team player, but he had his own personal goals. My approach was “please don’t get out for 0”. Then, please get to 10. Then 20, and then I’d lose count many times, and my objective was to not be too slow. I never made a hundred, and I think my playing life is enriched by not reaching my goal. A true metaphor for life.
The other thing with being an opener, and a non-bowler (and someone who hated fielding) is that my day could be effectively over one minute into the match. But I also knew that if I made it through the opening spell, I’d made my runs against the best bowlers. I never really looked forward to playing, yet I loved playing. I was always scared of failure, but I loved some successes. I never wanted to be someone put out in front, but in my one full season as captain, we lost just one game all year and enjoyed it. I think those characteristics are the same as in blogging. You do it because you enjoy it, but the process is tiresome, there is a fear of failure, and when you hit the spot, it’ll count for sod all if you mess up next week.
The thing with being a very ordinary club cricketer is that when you watch those so gifted players at the top level, you just shake your head. I will take an example where we faced a bowler measured in the low 80 mph. I never bloody saw it for four balls. I’m jealous at their ability to be able to do what I could not possibly hope to master. But I also saw it as a gift, to watch those top players, and to see their skills. What I could not abide, even at club level, was petty politics, and people caring only about getting a game for their tenner. I also hated cliques, favouritism and stupidity (some of which I was guilty of). I think you see some of that driving me on here.
I think the thing that riles me the most is the playing of any cricket being seen as a “job”. I’m lucky. I have a nice job doing things that can bring good to people. But it’s a job. Cricket is a profession, but it isn’t work (and yes, you can accuse me of naivety). Or it shouldn’t be. I’ve seen a couple of comments on my “Outside Cricket” piece referring to the dismissal of KP as “office politics”, and while Kev and Paddy are two guys I’d willingly have a beer with, I nearly swore on the 9:04. This shouldn’t be about office politics, should it? It shouldn’t be about corporate PR, should it? It shouldn’t be about anything other than putting the best players on the park. It shouldn’t be about anything other than being clear as to what has gone on.
The responsibility isn’t to cover up your own tracks, but to be open and honest. Your responsibility isn’t to rake in the cash, but to protect the sport and those two things are most definitely not the same. Secrecy begets suspicion begets mistrust and for people like me, it makes me want to know what is going on. Money doesn’t kill sport, but the attitude to it does. It divides. The excellent back and forth between David Oram and Amit on “The Phantom Menace” is an example. Money and power, sport and politics (my thanks to both, by the way).
So for me blogging like this sort of comes down to being an opening batsman. I’m not the most talented, or the most outrageous. I’m not the most confident, or the most agile. I’m not going to win you many games, but I can bloody well assist those who can. I’m also not going to back down easily. I might lick my wounds and want to move down the order for a while, but there’s nothing like that rock hard ball on my bat. In blogging terms, getting a post that hits the spot is the same as that pull shot off the opening bowler. Getting something wrong is like running out your premier batsman in a tight run chase.
Brendon McCullum playing one of those shots…..
When I did play, I found like I was thinking too much. Dreaming of shots I couldn’t play. When an opposition sledged, and in one case, really pretty appallingly, it made me concentrate. It made me focus much harder and fight harder. Again there are a number of parallels with the blogging world – the useless taunts and crappy barbs of those who, for whatever reason, despise my right to say what I think – but it’s not that simple. On the field you are never looking to win those opponents over, but you don’t feel that much anger towards them 99% of the time. But I do want to win the battle of minds over these views and this does lead to anger.
There is a point to this, so please stick with it! The thing with writing something like this blog is everyone is looking for “my angle”. What’s “your agenda”? We’ve had this discussion already. There’s no agenda, just a reaction to action, which have consequences and effect. The consequences of the actions have meant I don’t watch England cricket matches now with an all consuming desire that we win that game. Do not confuse this with me wanting us to lose, which is what the brainless think. They prefer to sit on their prejudices and believe it is all about the KP issue, which is easy, because it causes them not to think. Simple messages. Black and white.
Those that engage with me on here, and I don’t bite unless you pull my tail, find I’m not the person they thought I would be. I have my doubts. I’ve had a pretty famous cricket writer, for instance, tell me “why do you waste your time on journalists, when you are a far better writer than they are, and no-one gives a shit what they think”. My reaction to that was to say the individual was wrong, and it isn’t false modesty. But my best writing is when I’m most angry, and for a while, it was the journalists who made me angry. But there were a lot of people who speak to me on DM who think, I believe I’m not the “baby eater”!
So, I’m a useless, but keen player, who opened because he blunted the attack for better players. I value the sport for the camaraderie and friends, and for helping me to see some of the world. I admire the top players for their immense skill, but hate it being referred to as a job. I concentrate when attacked, I write better when I’m angry. You want my agenda, that is it. A mixture, a mismatch of aims and ideals, an outlet for frustrations, a chance to have a say. But absolutely, totally, sure that this is nothing special. That this happened a lot by chance.
I’m the bad guy, the fruitfly, the problem. Not this chap.
There is no point for people who don’t understand that I can write this blog without needing to have any “attention” that goes with it. There is no point in trying to persuade those who singularly will not even countenance a debate, no matter how they try to say that they do. There is a point though when, as I felt very strongly at the time, and still do, that I am “outside cricket”. How dare they say that after all cricket has done for me (and for countless others who played for the love of the game). How fucking dare they. Angus Porter said that the comment implied “elitism”, and he was one of the co-signatories to it. So don’t tell me I’m imagining things. I know they were after one person, but in doing so they besmirched everyone outside their cosy little coterie. This isn’t the stuff of corporate PR, because, as was shown, it was an unmitigated disaster. This isn’t the stuff of competence. I cannot speak, I do not speak, for all of you, but when I faced an 80 mph quick bowler, far above my ability, without a helmet (couldn’t bat in one), that the governing body could, a decade later, say someone like me, like Piers Morgan, a club cricketer, is outside cricket, it cut. It cut very, very badly. It told me they didn’t give a fuck. They really didn’t. And who were they to determine that?
I remember, a couple of years ago now, popping down to The Oval for the season opener against Somerset. At this stage Jos had broken into the England limited over teams and was seen as a T20 assassin in the English competition. This picture, of him not particular flattering pose, was tkaen then. I think Jade Dernbach dismissed him. He was an ODI player too! How fondly we remember that.
England look to ride the Buttler Bus all the way to a series win. His mind is uncluttered, free from the stick or twist nature of test cricket for the time being, a purchased star for the biggest stage of all. His century in the first game was the key cog in a 400 innings (call me a liar for a run) and his tour de force finish in the second game, making Imran Tahir look like the sort of stuff I used to dreg up in the intra-club games. He seems a decent, self-effacing chap, the sort that us English quite like. Be really good, but don’t be too damn flash about it.
Alex Hales played a really decent innings on Saturday, and yes, he became the first man to make 99 at ODI and T20 level, and I’m hoping that he’ll go on and become the man to set us up at the top of the order. Jason Roy showed what I think most Surrey fans know – he’s a definite hit or miss player, but the hits are really worth it. The gate between his bat and pad when Abbott dismissed him last weekend was quite alarming which should be Exhibit A for any people tempted to think he might be the next taxi on the rank for the test opener slot. But Jason is box office, and I’m hoping we treat him better than we did Ally Brown back in the day.
The bowling did well on Saturday and kept the South Africans to a total that could be managed. I think we all know that this part of the team is a work in progress, but in Adil and Moeen, we have two spinners who I don’t mind having in the team going into the upcoming World T20.
We meet again in Centurion, on the High Veldt, and while not the home to the fearsome totals at Friday’s location, it still poses a great test. The home team are giving off the vibe that they are in a state of flux, and it is England’s time to pounce.
I love an anniversary. I’m into that sort of nonsense.
You have to admire the timing of the latest nonsense. Eoin Morgan exclusively reveals to the Daily Mail that the door is shut on Kevin Pietersen. We knew it was, of course we did. For to say it isn’t would mean answering many, many questions more than reinstating him would. To reinstate him wouldn’t placate us, and would only enrage those who so “loyally” follow the team, and we can’t have them upset too. And, most importantly, it would require the authorities to say they were wrong. They might even have to profer a little apology. We’ve waited two years for that. We’ve waited two years for someone to tell us – you know us, the cricket fans who actually liked watching him play, who thought England teams on merit. Two years? Yes, two years today….. when those in charge told us truly what they felt.
It was a Sunday evening two years ago when the ECB and the PCA (and my God we must never forget that the PCA were co-authors of this press release. Never forget that) issued that infamous press release that gave the game away…
It is still there. On line. No remorse, no regret….
It has been a matter of great frustration that until now the England and Wales Cricket Board has been unable to respond to the unwarranted and unpleasant criticism of England players and the ECB itself, which has provided an unwelcome backdrop to the recent negotiations to release Kevin Pietersen from his central contract.
Those negotiations have been successfully concluded and whilst both parties remain bound by confidentiality provisions the ECB would like to make the following comments.
The ECB recognises the significant contribution Kevin has made to England teams over the last decade. He has played some of the finest innings ever produced by an England batsman.
However, the England team needs to rebuild after the whitewash in Australia. To do that we must invest in our captain Alastair Cook and we must support him in creating a culture in which we can be confident he will have the full support of all players, with everyone pulling in the same direction and able to trust each other. It is for those reasons that we have decided to move on without Kevin Pietersen.
Following the announcement of that decision, allegations have been made, some from people outside cricket, which as well as attacking the rationale of the ECB’s decision-making, have questioned, without justification, the integrity of the England Team Director and some of England’s players.
Clearly what happens in the dressing room or team meetings should remain in that environment and not be distributed to people not connected with the team. This is a core principle of any sports team, and any such action would constitute a breach of trust and team ethics.
Whilst respecting that principle, it is important to stress that Andy Flower, Alastair Cook and Matt Prior, who have all been singled out for uninformed and unwarranted criticism, retain the total confidence and respect of all the other members of the Ashes party.
These are men who care deeply about the fortunes of the England team and its image, and it is ironic that they were the people who led the reintegration of Kevin Pietersen into the England squad in 2012.
It is just a work of art. The Canaletto of condescension. Read it again and again, and the eyes still focus, laser like, not on their pathetic efforts to nudge-nudge, wink-wink their accusations against Pietersen, but on that phrase “some from people outside cricket”.
As usual, we will be accused by our critics of saying “well, you know they meant Piers Morgan so why do you get upset?” but that spectacularly misses the point. They cast the phrase “outside cricket” to mean anyone outside the playing, running and reporting of the game. Pure and simple. Morgan plays the game, watches the game and is a fan of the game. They knew that. Oh no. Don’t sell me that twaddle because I’m not buying. You can’t just pass off high-handedness that easily. We’ll have the usual eye rollers, the usual discounting of the views, pissed off less at the comments being made, more that we’re still making them.
I love that press release. It’s the petrol in my engine. Whenever I feel doubts as to why I write, I read this. The author, because, as we’ve seen from some little background research that the outside cricket phrase had been used by this key player, was spectacularly bad at his job and was removed (we’ll wait and see if the compo package appears in this year’s annual accounts, as David Collier’s appeared to be stated in the last one). We remember how those “inside cricket” said he had aplomb, was impressive, was helpful behind the scenes, while those outside were a little more careful in jumping to such lengths of adoration.
But what I’ve found in the last two years as that we’re no more inside cricket now than we were two years ago. The ECB felt a successful England team would be the antidote to the rage and fury, but it really hasn’t. Indeed, it is the ECB that leaves people less than keen on the team’s progress. The ECB of the Big Three stitch-up, something no-one should be interested in according to their man on the ICC top table. The ECB who thinks “trust” is a viable selection criterion. I’ll give them one thing – they’ve cured most of the leaking, which is nice, but I’m wondering if that is coincidence as it seemed to dry up a lot more once Clarke was shunted off to the ICC.
But there is hope. The ICC might be coming to their senses, and India may be a more receptive figure to change, which rather casts the remaining head honcho of the Big Three still there in a different, more challenging light. Death of a Gentleman played a small part in saying what many “outside cricket” fear – test cricket is dying, the game is run as a closed shop, and fans are there “to be monetised” (and never have a say). The journalists now feel a bit more reinforced now the test team has stabilised and won a couple of impressive series, but they still preach to us as mere neophytes, rather than lengthy watchers of the game, just like them.
So much made over two words. Oh yes. Because they spoke volumes. After all, you lot are still here after two years. It meant something. It still does. We are outside. We are not welcome. We are the irrelevant ones.
Two years on, it applies every bit as much as it did then. My thanks to Paul Downton. A legacy for a lifetime. Oh. And don’t forget the PCA. They agreed it. That’s important.
Being Outside Cricket 