And no, it has very little to do with this blog being mentioned this year and How Did We Lose In Adelaide last year. Actually, while it is nice being mentioned again, the actual prose accompanying it is a little odd. Most people who I left behind on HDWLIA caught up with me in the next week or so. So “Old” hadn’t disappeared, if you count the three hours between shutting down HDWLIA and starting up Being Outside Cricket as a disappearance. But as Michael O’Leary said “bad publicity is better than no publicity”, I have to say that whatever is written is a recognition of what we do. That’s no bad thing. But to write even a snippet on the blog and not recognise it is more than a one man job (Chris, and lets not also forget Phil and Sean’s contributions too) shows how rigorous it is (I have to say, I’ve not seen the full article, so if there is more in it, then I will correct).
It’s also not the first time both your editors have been in there. I filled in the schools piece for my educational establishment for a few years in the 1980s and TLG has his school record in there slightly later than that, the handsome, more able, young devil that he is.
I am, by my nature, quite a traditionalist, and yes, that is odd when you consider my attitude to the ECB and to Kevin Pietersen, for instance. Wisden dates back 150 or so years, and I have a collection of sorts, as I try to nab as many of the 1970s ones as I can. I think I’m complete from 1980 onwards. Indeed, I have a spare, bought in error, 1979 one so if you don’t have that, and might like it, let me know! It’s not a passion to get all of them that I can, but when I see one I don’t have, reasonably priced, I’ll get it. I also don’t go for the new release straight away, often waiting until Autumn to secure one at a reduced price. These are tough economic times and all that!
My love for it is in the numbers, not so much the written parts. Indeed, in the past, I’d probably have skipped the section on bloggers, or cricket on the internet. I sometimes read the book reviews. But to me it has always been the scorecards. I had a 1987 copy with me for the last few weeks, mainly to assist in “Blackwash” articles, but you look at the scorecards and follow Graeme Hick’s 2000 runs season and immerse yourself in the sheer lunacy of 3 day cricket. Hick made 227 not out against a fully in form Richard Hadlee at Worcester, and just taking myself back to those days is what the Almanack does to me. Yes, it is nerdy, but it triggers memories.
Before I bought a single Almanack, when I was part of the Cricket Book Club, I got, as my free gift, The Wisden Anthology 1963-82 by Benny Green. I remember taking it on my cricket tour to the Netherlands in 1984 and finding Nolan Clarke’s name in it on the day I met the great man (it was, if my memory serves, a Barbados v Australia game). Again, though, it was the scorecards. The match reports were great, but it was the numbers accompanying them. Record partnerships, massive innings, freak matches. Wisden and the Anthology were my cricketing education.
To a degree, even in the internet age, that is still the case for me, albeit less so. Like all things time moves on and in the tiresome mantra of the modern age, we have to “innovate or die”. The scorecards are on Cricinfo, and I can find what I want when I want, so maybe I’m not the business model they need to continue. Statsguru has long since taken Wisden’s place for looking that sort of information up. But there was always something about reading a scorecard at total random flipping open the book.
There are additional awards, which I have to say I find tiresome, but know others don’t, but what I have never minded, and understood fully why it’s there, is the Five Cricketers of the Year. It’s always been clear to me – Wisden is an English publication, and it has been tried in Australia (I have one) and India – that it is primarily focused on the English summer, has always had an eye on English players throughout the year, recognises the great performers from other countries when they tour, as long as they perform here (Jacques Kallis, for instance, had a huge wait to get in) and you are named just the once. It’s that last bit, and the nonsense spouted about it, that gets on my nerves.
I like Dennis a lot, but his article today would have had me fisking it a couple of years ago. Dennis prods and pokes, and I think he’s still a friend of this blog, as I am a friend of his! But he is one voice among a number that do this – and it really peeves me. This award has always been different, it has seen some tweaks when some domestic cases were particularly weak, but it has been the same type of award pretty much throughout. I have absolutely zero problem with that. See it as a “I was good enough to get it once” award rather than “I deserve it every year”. Treat it like the stars on Hollywood’s street. If you are good enough to get on there once, that’s all.
It’s not Wisden’s fault that other awards might lack gravitas. I think the Cricketer of the Year has the required gravitas, but doesn’t constrain itself to a “Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis, Warne, Murali” and repeat load of old crap year in year out. So people with freak years, like Tim Robinson in 1985 or James Whitaker’s Gary Ballance in 2014 can stand alongside Don Bradman and Jeetan Patel to pick out two diverse names. Keep it as it is, Wisden. Ben Stokes role in the Lord’s test against New Zealand transcended the match. His century was brilliant, his first innings 90-odd even better in my opinion, and his slaying of the New Zealand titan on Day 5 was arguably one of the moments of the season. He had a reasonable Ashes, not spectacular, but again provided moments. As much as a stat nerd as i can be, you have to recognise what the game can be about. No problem with Stokes. At all.
One of the other complaints raised is the presence of convicted match-fixers in the list of Cricketers of the Year, but Mohammad Amir was not put in when he qualified. Again, erasing history is a difficult thing to do. The 1991 edition, should you come across it in the shops, isn’t going to have Azharuddin’s pages ripped out, is it? I am not sure what a futile gesture like that is going to achieve, to be honest. And where do you draw the line. Shane Warne is a convicted drug cheat. Should he be in?
Now, of course, some of you might think this blogger’s friendly relations with the Editor of Wisden plays some part in my little defence. It probably does, although we do not converse on Twitter anywhere near as much as used to, and I still shake my fists at the screen when I read something of his I do not agree with. But I think Lawrence has done a pretty damn good job of editing Wisden (except handing anything KP related to Patrick Collins!), I suspect it’s a hell of a task for him and his team, and that he has, in my opinion, raised the profile of the Almanack in his time in charge does him a lot of credit. This is one pillar of the establishment that needs to remain pretty much true to its soul. Whether that stands the tests of time is up to the consumers. But in the digital age, I still love that little big book. That’s why even getting a mention in it makes me proud of what we have all achieved. You don’t quite realise how proud I am.
Long may Wisden Almanack continue. I come to praise. I leave the sniffiness to these kinds of reviews – I think the first paragraph is so amusing…..
The first open thread seemed to work well, so let’s go for it in week 2 of the County Championship and the second week of fixtures in the IPL.
First up, the matches….
County Championship – Division 1
Lancashire v Nottinghamshire
Middlesex v Warwickshire
Yorkshire v Hampshire
County Championhship – Division 2
Glamorgan v Leicestershire
Gloucestershire v Derbyshire
Sussex v Essex
and in the IPL
IPL – 16 April – 22 April
16 – Sunrisers v Kolkata
16 – Mumbai v Gujarat
17 – Kings XI v Pune
17 – Bangalore v Delhi
18 – Sunrisers v Mumbai
19 – Kings XI v Kolkata
20 – Mumbai v Bangalore
21 – Gujarat v Sunrisers
22 – Pune v Bangalore
The last thread went in many directions, and not many referring to the cricket. That’s fine. We are well catered for in terms of county blogs and such like. But still, if there’s something on your mind, then let’s have it here.
I’ve been out of commission all day today, having had to go to Germany for work, but was amazed at some of the stuff I was reading. Did someone really say Kumar Sangakkara struggles with English? Really?
You do have to wonder.
I’ve also got a piece on the Wisden Almanack to put up (it’s missed the boat a little, but still, let’s do it) but I’ll do that later tomorrow after this thread takes hold.
When I asked for some input in to further things we could do on the blog during the non-England periods, or when finding something to say proves difficult, one of the ideas that I quite liked was the “Open Thread”. A post where you can post anything on cricket in the comments.
I don’t want this to be a lazy “here’s an open thread so do your thing” type affair. I’ll tie it, if it proves successful to a week’s fixtures, and so given the start of the County Championship on Sunday and the IPL on Saturday, this seems an ideal time to give it a go.
County Championship – Division One
Durham v Somerset
Hampshire v Warwickshire
Nottinghamshire v Surrey
County Championship – Division Two
Essex v Gloucestershire
Northants v Sussex
Worcestershire v Kent
Then there is the IPL and the competition kicks off on Saturday with KP’s Pune team in action against Jos’s Mumbai (if he gets a game!)
IPL –
9/4 – Mumbai v Pune
10/4 – Kolkata v Delhi
11/4 – Kings XI v Gujarat
12/4 – Bangalore v Sunrisers
13/4 – Kolkata v Mumbai
14/4 – Gujarat v Pune
15/4 – Delhi v Kings XI
Also, feel free to comment on anything else unrelated to our posts. It’s all in your hands whether this works or not!
On other matters, I will have a lot of spare time at the end of May/beginning of June so will look to update The Glossary. Any suggestion of definitions will be welcome. Where’s Phil A when I need him?
Note – there is another post published last night below this on county cricket so read that if interested too.
Today is Downton Assassination Day. On 8 April 2015, Tom Harrison announced a restructuring of the ECB top brass and our man Downton was gone. Assassination sounds too harsh. I kind of appreciated him. Without Rupe, I wouldn’t have had much to write. Without Rupe, we wouldn’t have a title for this blog. We owe him much.
It is worth sparing a thought for the man, a great appointment, full of aplomb, and a titan in an era when we needed one. Lauded as “great behind the scenes” at the start of his wondrous reign, we will all remember the wondrous interview with Aggers (winding up with me getting a threatening Tweet from an Aggers fanboy), the “something must be done” stuff with Cook and Warne and then the will he be skipper stuff in Sri Lanka. Then came our favourite interview when he tried to get ahead of the World Cup elimination.
On this sad day let us be reminded of an article that bade him farewell. From the man who anointed him with aplomb on the day of his first public announcements..
Despite his 30 Test caps, his part in an Ashes-winning campaign and durable playing career, as well as being a thoroughly affable chap, Paul Downton will go down in cricket history for one thing. He is The Man Who Sacked Kevin Pietersen.
“A thoroughly affable chap”. There you have it peeps. That’s what it takes.
That will be his legacy as it was his curse during his short time as managing director of England cricket. He took what was a brave, perhaps necessary, decision within days of officially starting in the job last year and it came to stalk him wherever he went and whatever he did.
Because he never explained why. Lawyers or something. Disconnected or something. 10000 runs as an ambition or something. Fielding at fine leg or something.
Perhaps it came to affect his own outlook. Downton could barely emerge from his office without being asked about Pietersen and was never quite able to offer definitive reasons. On the occasion he did, he was lambasted for breaching confidentiality agreements.
It really is / was reprehensible for the paying public to demand an answer. Especially when the media weren’t exactly falling over themselves to find out.
As the months wore on, it became increasingly clear that Downton, while he had a deep love for the game, was out of touch with its modern version. He recognised that England were playing an outdated brand of one-day cricket but never quite detailed how he might change it.
It took a genius, after that World Cup, and that build up to recognise change was needed. Also he had a deep love for the game is a baseline requirement, not some special trait.
In his last public utterances, he was confident and measured until the name of Pietersen was mentioned, when he virtually seized up. It is not without irony that he should have said: “I’m not saying everybody’s job is safe and I’m not saying that everybody is going to be sacked. It feels as though, from your perspective [the media’s], there needs to be a scapegoat. There needs to be a target.
Said the man who scapegoated someone after an Ashes whitewash. I wonder why he had to go.
“All I’m saying is we’re in a position where we’re a transitioning side and that will take time. We have to take the right decisions to ensure we do that as quickly and smoothly as we can. But it’s too early to say yet in terms of any definitives: he’s going or he’s not going.”
Confident and measured said the scribe. I’d say this indicates a frazzled mind and someone without a clue.
The article went on. The link is at the end.
Downton provided this blog with a ton of ammunition because he was out of his depth from Day One. We said it here and on HDWLIA. The press didn’t. Remember that. Some of the press were incredibly sceptical of the appointment of Moores, so at that point they might have been thinking there were doubts with the man making the decision, but they didn’t show it. Far more important to them was the grandiose decision, the “taking the bull by the horns” act of scapegoating Pietersen and yes, it did define him. In the process the ECB showed contempt for the fans, and the press showed contempt for their audience. They hoped they’d get away with it, and they probably have. But Downton is the main symbol of their approach. Sure, it’s a little unfair to pile it all on Downton, but he was their lightning rod, and he got the strikes. He was the first one truly jettisoned, and yet he did the ECB proud in disposing with you-know-who.
Now we await the ECB accounts to see how much he was paid off. For failure. They are due soon.
TLG and I have full-time jobs and other things we need to do over and above this blog. This means that we put a great deal of trust in you to do the right thing in the comments because we can’t monitor 24/7. We don’t set rules or parameters, we aren’t a newspaper or a paid-for or getting paid to do blog. We’re a couple of blokes with something to say. If we spot something that we think goes beyond what we think is acceptable in the comments, then we moderate (often to decide whether to allow or not). That we’ve had to do so on such an infrequent basis is testament to you, but we also know feelings run high.
If you have a complaint on anything you’ve read that you think is beyond acceptable, and it remains, please e-mail me on dmitriold@hotmail.co.uk or if you follow me on Twitter, tweet me (@dmitriold ) .
With that out of the way, I thought I’d usher in the start of the county cricket season with a little piece on our domestic game.
Chesterfield 2008
The subject of county cricket is really one of those that can never be solved. I had a go at this Schleswig Holsteinshire and if anything, in the light of the comments from Russell Degnan, I’ve probably hardened in that view. I don’t think the will exists, or the solution apparent, that will give us the perfect domestic structure on which to go forward. There are many out there, many county members, who do not give a flying one about international cricket. They don’t all reside in Yorkshire either. It struck me in my time as a member at Surrey how little the membership cared about their players reaching international honours. “county cricket does not exist to fill the England team” was a very common remark.
County cricket is increasingly becoming like exclusive art galleries. It may be of substantial aesthetic value, of increasing nostalgic value as it ages, and available only if you are really committed to it, and that may be the problem. No-one is advocating demolishing old institutions and starting again, but we live in an age where a repackage here, a new broom there, can create something from nothing. After all, our top division was always the envy of Europe (with the possible exception of Italy) in the 80s and early 90s, but repackaging as the Premier League, giving clubs a few more quid, and lo and behold, the whole projection has changed. Despite the product sagging a little in the past few years, it’s still iconic enough to get the largest TV deal in UK sporting history by a distance. All the time this method, of buffering and repackaging, as Mark calls it “making it an event” tempts other sports. Rugby Union and Rugby League went through a revolution, with Heineken Cups and league play introduced to Union, and SuperLeague in Rugby League. The PGA Tour in golf has inhaled every other tour, so that there is now one source of the highest quality golf. Tennis had been a pioneer in this, with the ATP and WTA Tours. Of course, the inspiration for many sports now is the NFL. The Champions League is desperate to bill its annual football final as the Superbowl of football. The problem with that is that in every year ending in an even number, there’s arguably a much bigger game being played less than six weeks later!
So English domestic cricket stands still. And is there anything inherently wrong in that? It depends on how you “consume” it, maybe?
Some out there on this blog do not bow down and worship to the current county cricket structure. For the purposes of this I’m leaving out the T20 debate for now as that’s separate. From my standpoint there’s not a lot of emotional investment in it. I can compare my feelings for sports teams across the sports – my club loyalties are Millwall, Boston Red Sox, Miami Dolphins, Chicago Bulls, Wigan Warriors, and, of course, whichever T20 team KP plays for!!!! Surrey are on a par with my rugby league favourites. I like it when they win, don’t get too bothered when they don’t.
The great Surrey team of the 1999-2004 era, roughly, coincided with the time I was a member. I got to see some great cricket, with the common thread for much of my enjoyment being Ally Brown, Adam Hollioake, Saqlain Mushtaq, Martin Bicknell and for the second half, the imperious Mark Ramprakash. It was a golden time to watch them and I thoroughly enjoyed my days out. I was actually committing myself to watch them even more in 2005, my penultimate year as a member, but that came to an abrupt halt when my mum was diagnosed with cancer. I’d seen a few days of the initial games, got down to T-Wells as well, but things were to take a bad turn.
Tunbridge Wells
The other thing that kept the interest in the County Championship was our annual Fantasy Cricket competition, based on the scoring system that was developed by Fantasy Football. There it was – one point for ever twenty runs, five bonus points for a hundred, minus one for any non-bowler for a score under 10, -2 for anyone at all who was dismissed for 0, one point for a catch, two for a stumping, two points for a wicket, five point bonus for five wickets, minus one for ever 20 runs conceded. Got all that? Teletext and the internet were on overload in the glory days. Legendary pick-ups like Mike Hussey (when no-one knew who he was) got our pub discussions going – Joe Scuderi was legendary for other reasons. Now I doubt I could get four people interested in this – in those days we had leagues of nine or ten! It did mean that team news was gobbled up, any snippets we could get on the wires eagerly awaited, and scorecards followed assiduously. Once the league died in 2008 (I ran it after a succession of others – we had a few people leave work, so got tougher to arrange) county cricket wasn’t an obsession. (I recall another notable thing from the latter days of that competition was I had to get squads and try to classify the players. One Kevin Pietersen in his first season was classed as a bowler in my annual player list. Imagine the glee of my colleague when he had immunity for scores under 10 for a prime batsman, Fantasy cricket was a batsman’s game, and KP racked up double hundreds while sitting at 11 in his batting order! Bastard).
Now how do I see County Championship cricket? A decent day out with mates might be the best answer. Last year I went to Surrey v Derbyshire on a rain-affected day, which was memorable for meeting Benny, and then had a terrific day at Lord’s for Day 3 of the Middlesex v Yorkshire game where I saw Toby Roland-Jones make his maiden hundred, and got the chance to meet Mr Declaration Game and Mr Tim Wigmore. These days out, especially if we get lucky with the weather, are relaxing, get me away from work, and generally end in great days out with my good mates. The cricket, frequently, matters only when I’m behind the camera. That’s a bit harsh, actually, because I remember snapping away at Surrey v Middlesex through the zoom on the lens, and watching the mastery of Hashim Amla on a raging turner a few years back. That sort of thing isn’t too common, though.
Too often, county cricket is used by some as some sort of badge of honour, a kind of haughtiness ensues when people discuss it. “Oh, don’t spoil our discussion on the merits of [insert jobbing county pro] with your international cricket stuff. I’m just not interested.” Fine, if that’s your boat, set up a county cricket discussion board of your own. I was warned off this early in my enhanced blogging career (2014) by nonoxcol, when I made the mistake of trying to bring some ECB issue into a county discussion. In my opinion this is part of the problem with the county structures and the long-form of the game. There’s too much inherent snobbery in it. I used to say that when the Beautiful South wrote a song, I thought they’d finish it, and congratulate themselves on how clever they were. That’s the impression I get of a number of county cricket fans. By no means all – I’ve had some great conversations with total strangers at county matches – but if you go to games, and read about them, you get the picture.
It’s easy to like the county championship. It’s relatively cheap – £15-£20 to watch decent quality stuff and the ability not to be held hostage by the catering arrangements at international and T20 games is really pretty OK. I like the peaceful atmosphere at The Oval and Lord’s on a working day, amidst the hubbub of the massive metropolis. It’s soothing and makes you feel light years away from your office, when it is really only a short bus ride away. Then there’s going to Guilldford, or T-Wells, or Chelmsford, or Arundel as we have over the past few years (not forgetting Whitgift and Southgate) and being a little more up close and personal – seeing KP at Whitgift, Ricky Ponting at Arundel and Shane Warne at Southgate is just something else – which is a great day out. I’m looking to get down to Hove for the first time in 39 years this summer, for example. But this is about my personal enjoyment, not really an emotional investment in a competition or two.
That’s not sustainable as a business model. It never will be, so why try? It might just be time to accept that the County Championship is like it is, because that is what it is. An anachronism, never likely to be self-funding, always likely to be a compromise, and more likely to become skewed to the haves rather than the have nots. I just request that those who love it, cherish it and breathe it don’t act as if they are some higher power, someone sent from the Gods of Cricket to save the international fans from themselves, while also hoping and praying that those newly-retired or ensconced in press boxes don’t bite the hand that fed them and disparage it at every turn.
Whitgift
But what do you think? I notice when I write about the domestic game in the UK there’s a rather lukewarm response. I know this blog has an international audience, but the majority of hits and comments are from the UK. Have a say. Speak up. Say what you think.
Predictions? Can’t see past Yorkshire, Warwickshire might run them close, not sure Middlesex can repeat what they did last year, can’t see my mob pulling up any trees. I start off with good intentions to go to watch it, but only go on very few occasions.
We have a trial type of post coming up related to this. Stay tuned.
“This is not what you wanted, not what you had in mind.” – Moderat (Bad Kingdom)
The last 26 months have made a huge difference to me. I remember how angry I was when we coughed up the Champions Trophy on that dull Sunday June afternoon in 2013, as all our mental failings were laid bare in front of us. I cared, passionately, about how our team got on. I remember 2004, when Browne and Bradshaw won a low scoring encounter in the early Autumn gloom to win the Champions Trophy for the West Indies in 2004 at The Oval. I was gobsmacked. Unexpected, our team that had won all its tests looked nailed on once they’d taken care of the World Champions in the Semis.
We have a way of losing. We have a way about us when we lose. In football competitions there’s usually a hard luck story. Cricket – I still remember Adelaide, of course. But that might be the best/worst yet. A freak ending, and I should feel crushed. But the thing is, when you’ve been so angry at the people running the sport here and in the world game (especially the former), you’ve only so much to give. Despite the constant exhortations that these are a “great bunch of lads” and that people can’t understand why we can’t give this team our all, the sheer fact that newspaper columnists and the useful idiots were lining up to polish Andrew Strauss’s clock (that’s clock), shows what the real power wants. It’s all about the management baby. The palpable sense of articles being re-written and the eulogies put on hold was prevalent. Everyone with a vested interest in pumping up their tyres were ready to give it “all that”. And we know what would have been included in “all that”. We all know.
That management today nearly had it all. It nearly won a major ICC tournament overseas. It nearly had a trophy to ram down the KP fanboys’ throats. It nearly had a load of endorsement opportunities, a boost to their T20 Blast, a load of heroes to parade before an adoring public, and it nearly had their total justification after an Ashes win and a success in South Africa. A T20 win in India? Beyond comprehension. Think of the plaudits, think of the bragging. See you lot on BOC – what do you know?
Let’s be honest. Don’t buy the inexperienced team stuff. There’s a lot of experience in that team, but it is on the young side. It’s fit, it’s enthusiastic and it has room to improve. Saying we are inexperienced is getting your excuses in first.
This England T20 team showed signs of progress before Bayliss. Many of us do not forget the care-free, ambitious, gleeful win of Eoin Morgan’s England against India in the match at Edgbaston in 2014. This had come in stunning contrast to the often staid, dull approach of Alastair Cook’s 50 over side. It really didn’t take rocket scientist levels of deduction to draw the conclusion from a World Cup of nearly all out aggression, that sitting in and making nice handy totals wasn’t the way forward. We’re not exactly talking out of the box thinking. But there they were, giving it all up to Strauss. We are a funny nation.
A major England defeat in many major sports comes with some ready-made controversy or “bad thing” to hang our hats on. Last night it was the classless WIndies. But wait a minute. I know, for one, that I have a go at Australia a lot for their conduct on the field, but that’s what we do. We’re aggressive, and we’re not backward in letting people know we want to “mentally disintegrate” them. While England have, in some ways, “re-connected” with the public who wanted to “re-connect” by a more open approach to fans they previously treated with a little contempt, their conduct on the field hasn’t been without blemish. So let us stop pretending that it is. Ben Stokes, who, as I’ve said, isn’t my favourite player in the team, had been gobbing off to all and sundry this summer, including, it seems to his own coach (according to Cook, half-jokingly, he says Stokes and Bayliss communicate by swearing at each other). I don’t know about you, but if you dish it out, you should expect to take it when the you know what hits the fan. While I will defend Ben to the hilt over his bowling the last over – that Ben Chokes headline is an utter disgrace – he isn’t, outside these shores, a sympathetic character. But those berating him for his final over yesterday have quickly forgotten that Stokes’s final over against Sri Lanka, when defending less, was absolutely magnificent.
We cannot, simply cannot, have a go at the West Indies for their celebrations. My least favourite player in the England team, David Willey, is not someone who I’d employ in the diplomatic service. Stokes we know. Root’s a chippy little sod. There have been outlandish celebrations throughout, and no doubt we’ve been giving players little send-offs throughout. But for the likes of Newman to turn all maiden aunt on us about the West Indies’ celebrations, and therefore lack of class, as if that matters, is laughable. Watch when we clinch the match against Sri Lanka. The game was over before the last ball, yet when it was concluded, all but one player rushed to engulf Stokes in the huddle. Jos Buttler, to his great credit, went over and shook Angelo Mathews hand. I saw it. I doubt Newman did. It reflected well on Jos, and increased my affection for this terrific talent, and less so on his team-mates. West Indies, their players largely hated by their board, not, by any means, without fault or iffy personalities, had clinched a world title. You might not like their celebrations, but STFU about them when your team do pretty much the same.
Also, imagine an England player who would stand up to his board as Sammy did, deliver that speech, excoriating the suits surviving one minute as an international player in his future career. Imagine how the media in this country would react, the sides they’d take, the understanding they’d show. Yeah. Picture it.
I understand people having issues with Gayle, Bravo and Samuels. But don’t imagine our players are universally loved overseas.
Then there is the ICC. They got a tournament they did not deserve. I’m not having a pop at India’s cricket fans for anything. The ICC and the host board, increasingly, in financial terms, one and the same, treated all fans like crap. You have the new jewel in your crown, and you treated it like a pre-season tournament at times. Crap ticketing, arguments over hosting grounds, switching locations (remember India v England got switched in 2011), an awful format. Despite the ICC they got a Final they did not deserve. They got a semi-final in Mumbai they did not deserve. Those who split the cricket from the governing body, claiming that all sports are poorly run, are being wilfully negligent. FIFA may be inherently corrupt, but the World Cup is treated like the sporting treasure it is when it comes to earning revenue and growing the game (because growing the game earns more revenue). Host stadia are known ages in advance, the draw takes place six months before the event and you know where every game is being played. It draws massive audiences around the globe regardless who is playing. The ICC, as this blog, and the commenters point out constantly, treat the major events as if they are personal fiefdoms, treat fans with contempt, constrain the playing field, ensure major teams get at least four matches, and yet no-one outside of what is rapidly appearing to be labelled as an “evangelical sect” seems to care. Those England folk raging against the ICC don’t share the entire portion of the Venn Diagram with the “KP fanboys”, but there’s a decent correlation. Chris, in his piece later this week on the press and the WT20, may reflect further. Watch those “evangelicals” get marginalised further. As one journo once said, and as I was reminded today “I report on men in boots, not men in suits”. Or something like that.
England made remarkable progress, are clearly on the right lines, need a little think on their strategy perhaps (I’m still really keen to see Jos in at four, or three if the openers have lasted until the 6th or 7th over), but are a team on the rise if they don’t let this heartbreaking loss get to them. They can leave India with the knowledge that they’ve made our limited overs cricket respectable, they’ve developed a number of players in the white heat of international competition and that they have done a lot to rehabilitate “Team England” in some people’s eyes.
England have played pretty well since that opening game against their final opponents. I’ll bet if you asked the experts which group might produce both finalists, you’d have said it might have been the one with India and Australia in, but it didn’t. Now the question might be are England over the mental scars they might have picked up from the first meeting in Mumbai?
Both teams had shockers in one form or other against Afghanistan. England won their match while the WIndies had little to play for and got caught out. The WIndies saw off the remainder of their opposition in better style than we managed, so on form, it has to be the West Indies, doesn’t it?
England, though, put it all together against our almost perennial ICC tournament nemesis New Zealand, in a complete display. The form of Roy, the clinical bowling, the coolness under pressure all augur well.
You cannot argue. England have taken many strides forward in the limited overs formats, and bat all the way down, with the bowling improving game by game. To argue against that isn’t going to have evidence on your side. This really appears to be Bayliss’s strength, and made the selection of him as coach quite a prescient one (oh dear, another knock on Downton). I think bringing in Strauss as some guru is stretching it a bit – after all, I don’t remember the hosannahs for Hugh Morris when we won the same competition on 2010 – but the philosophy appears the right one. If it is still within your heart to forgive the ECB and all that surrounds it, and cheer on this England team with all your might and heart, things look really rosy. Enjoy the game.
Me? You know where I stand. I wish Jason and Jos, Alex and Joe, Chris and Moeen, good finals. I like these guys. They embody the new England. They seem decent guys. I don’t wish them ill. I just can’t stand their employer. Not quite Teddy playing for Manchester United but not far off it!
Personally, I think England will win. I think they are on a roll, qualifying comfortably through their semi, rather than the fraught, but awesome run chase the WIndies had to pull off. Bit like 2010 – we (relatively) cruised through the knock-out games, the other finalist pulled off an escapology act in the semi – we pulled things together.
Tomorrow an England cricket team will play a major World Semi-Final and it provides us with a chance to move towards a second world title in this format. It will be played out, the drama, the big hits, the slower balls, the yorkers, the running between the wickets behind a pay TV wall. As far as I am aware, there are no plans to share the coverage with those not in possession of a Sky subscription. Oh well. Internet highlights it is.
Has this game registered on the public conscience here? Has anyone outside your normal cricket circle expressed any sort of interest? Not with me it hasn’t and all my colleagues and friends know I’m that blogger.
But there’s not a problem.
New Zealand are unbeaten in the competition, have a game plan, or several plans, and yet if we could choose a team to play at this stage of a competition, we’d probably be grateful to be playing the Black Caps rather than Kohlishire. But again, they are not to be underestimated.
From a misery guts point of view, England are probably playing with house money now for the powers that be. They’ve reached the semi-final so even if they go out here, the ECB have some tangible progress to report. In many ways they have, but this still looks a flaky team to me. It could chase down pretty much anything, but it could also be chasing pretty much anything. It definitely looks more comfortable chasing rather than setting.
Captain this ship is sinking Captain these seas are rough, oh yes We gas tank almost empty No electricity, we oil pressure reading low Shall we abandon ship Or shall we stay on it and perish slow We doh know, we doh know Captain you tell we what to do
Gypsy – Sinking Ship
We left the England team a quivering mess. Having been dismissed in Barbados, the series score was 3-0. England faced the fourth test in Trinidad, having lost the second there, and then the finale at St. John’s. The Blackwash was on for a second time. The England team were falling apart at the seams, and morale was at a terrible low. Most of this was centred around the off field relations between Ian Botham and the press. The infamy of this clash is still recalled, because if you play word association with Botham and Barbados, the somewhat less than pristine state of a piece of bedroom furniture generally pops into my mind.
“Optional Nets”?
David Gower, in his column in the May 1986 Wisden Cricket Monthly, commented on the allegations..
“To catalogue the list of allegations against Ian Botham would take too long, and the man certainly has had enough strife on the field out here without having to worry about some of the stuff that has filtered back from home or been thrust under his nose by inquisitive hacks phoning through at five in the morning local time.
This is not the place to try to solve these individual bugbears, nor must I give the impression that all this happens every day as a matter of course. In discussion with colleagues and the gentlemen of the Fourth Estate, the concept is emerging of cricketers now becoming more like pop stars in terms of media treatment. John Jackson of the Daily Mirror, when questioned by BBC Sporstnight, quite happily and honestly admitted that extraneous Press interest was going too far, but. equally honestly suggested it will have to be accepted more and more as time goes on. If this pop-star status is to be officially conferred on us, perhaps the TCCB should be warned that we shall need £1m up front plus a share of all album sales before our next “gig ” at Lord’s.”
This was typical Gower and why he lost the press. He didn’t play their game, but also didn’t appear to take the game that seriously. In trying to laugh off what was a bloody awful time between press and players – and yes, today’s players ought to recognise that (and in the context of Pringle’s piece in TCP too) – he didn’t take umbrage in an overt way as he might have to “protect his players”, nor antagonise those “gentlemen of the Fourth Estate”. His rallying cry at the end of the piece is pure Lubo.
“Lest I be accused of ending on too flippant a note, let me just say that as ever we still have work to do out here, and intend to carry on trying.”
Stephen Thorpe, in the same issue of TCM, starts a piece rather over-dramatically but captures the moment:
“He’s gone on record as saying he doesn’t read newspapers any more. If he’d read them over March he’d be close to suicide now. Those who know hims best say he is affected, but rarely ever shows it.
Botham had been accused of taking hard drugs, bedding local “beauty” queens and hardly tasting sobriety throughout. You had to be there at the time to know how vociferous these attacks were, and how big a personality Botham was in the game. It seems scarcely credible now the game is hidden behind a paywall and there is instant news everywhere.
We can study this a bit more at length in due course, but I think we must sum up the final cricket action of the tour.
England may have still been in the ODI competition, but the fourth game of the series was the end of that hope. Played on a wicket described in the B&H Year Book as a “slow wicket”, Tim Robinson took 40 overs over a score of 55, and in the end racked up a score of 165 for 9 in 47 overs. Haynes made 77, Richards made 50, both unbeaten, and the hosts completed a series win in 38.2 overs.
The fourth test started four days after that, and the wicket I recall John Emburey said he was looking forward to bowling on in the hopes a second go around at Queen’s Park Oval might take spin, was not quite what was expected:
“No blame could be attached to the England side for their batting display in the first innings. They asked to bat first on a coarse, green wicket where survival was precarious and life dangerous. It was disgracefully under-prepared for a Test match although, obviously, highly suited to the West Indian pace attack.”
The Almanack was hardly less vociferous…
The pitch, a hotch-potch of thick grass and bare brown patches, was described as the greenest ever seen in Port-of-Spain. It was two-paced, uneven in bounce throughout, and after two days criss-crossed by cracks. On the third morning when, under the supervision of the umpires, groundstaff shaved off an eighth of an inch of grass, the resultant clippings weighed about two pounds. England’s cricket lacked distinction, and not only with the bat, as Thomas’s analysis makes clear. But what remained of their fighting spirit had undoubtedly been diminished by the seemingly calculated nature of the pitch’s preparation.
I do recall the commentators on the radio mentioning how green the wicket was. But England would hardly have wanted a great batting surface, because there had been a few of them in 1984 and it hadn’t made a difference. Perhaps if we bowled well, it might be a leveller? Ha. Wishful thinking.
England made 200, with Joel Garner the pick of the host bowlers, taking 4-43. Robinson was out early for 0, Gooch out for a stodgy 14 an hour and a quarter later, and Gower had preceded him, caught behind. At 31/3, with Big Bird rampaging through the line-up. disaster awaited. A recovery was put in place, as Lamb and David Smith put on 92 for the 4th wicket, with Smith falling for 47, Lamb for 36. Botham added 38, but the tail provided little value added, with our own Rupe making just 7, and England scraped up to 200.
The West Indies, playing on the same coarse wicket, made their innings count. In their score of 312 there was one half-century, made by VIv (87). England looked to have got a foot back in the game after the WIndies passed 200 with just three wickets down, as they took three wickets for 5 runs and the hosts were 249 for 7. A 50 partnership between Harper and Holding took the game away from England, and the deficit of 112 looked too much. One good response though came from Ian Botham who took 5 for 71. This contrasted to his new ball partner, Greg Thomas, who had 101 runs taken off his 15 overs. Viv’s 87 off 11 balls transcended all other efforts, and it would prove to be too much.
England may have had some hope entering Day 3 – a mere 71 behind at the time – but this was extinguished. The Yearbook spares nothing in their view of our performance:
“England now proceeded to give one of their most miserable batting performances in many years as they showed neither technique nor willingness to cope with high class fast bowling. The misery began third ball when Gooch mis-hooked. Robinson, the gap between bat and pad growing each innings, was bowled. Patterson left Gower stranded with quick movement and Lamb fell to a ball which pitched on middle stump and hit the off.
Holding bowled beautifully and had Smith LBW to an inswinger, the batsman offering no stroke. Willey had looked increasingly vulnerable as the tour progressed and, not surprisingly, fell to Marshall. Botham was taken at cover, and Emburey lost his off stump. Garner accounted for Foster and Thomas.
England were all out in 38 overs….”
Here’s the Almanack summary…
Once Gooch, hooking, top-edged the third ball of the innings straight up in the air, England never looked like overcoming their deficit of 112. Robinson, bat crooked and far away from body, was bowled off the inside edge for his fifth single-figure score in six innings in the series; Gower was adjudged lbw when he turned his back on a short ball, bowled over the wicket, which kept low; Lamb was beaten by a great delivery from Patterson which pitched on middle stump and struck the top of off. Hard enough to play in conditions favouring the bat, as in 1984 in England, the quality of West Indies’ pace quartet made for something less than gripping contests on pitches such as this.
England were bowled out for 150, and the West Indies polished off the 39 required in 5.5 overs to go 4-0 up. Desolation. Beaten inside three days, it just meant we had longer to wait in between times for the final coup de grace. Off to Antigua and to another Blackwash. Surely.
Gower had received a nasty blow in the second innings of the 4th Test and only made himself available on the day of the 5th Test. David Smith, who had top scored in both innings for England in Trinidad, was ruled out with a back injury, and Gatting, back from both injuries, returned.
B&H showed our mindset:
“The England management had rightly complained to the West Indian authorities about the pitches on which they had been asked to play the Test Series for they were invariably wickets on which the bounce was uneven.”
We were a bunch of bloody moaners then too.
Gower won the toss on a belting wicket at St. John’s (plus ca change) and then decided to put the hosts in, believing the only opening you might get would be early moisture. That proved optimistic and our bowling and fielding did not back up that insertion. Botham dropped Haynes off Foster when he was on 2, and dropped again off Emburey when on 38. Dessie went on to make “a sober hundred”. Haynes made 131, but again the West Indies top order didn’t fire fully, with Greenidge (14), Richardson (24), Gomes (24), Richards (26) and Dujon (21) all getting starts and all getting out. West Indies were 281 for 6 when the top order had gone, but this was the start of the malaise in this match.
The lower order launched “a violent attack”, and took the game away. Malcolm Marshall made 76, Roger Harper 60 and Michael Holding made 73. 474 all out after a barrage of shots and a dispirited England looked set to lose by an innings again. After all, who gave us an earthly of making it to 275 to avoid the follow on?
But England did. They started really well, with a century opening stand. Wilf Slack and Graham Gooch both made half centuries as we reached 127 for 0. Both fell in the space of five runs, and it was then left to the Captain of the Sinking Ship to try to avoid the rocks as he made England’s highest individual score of the test series. His 90 took us past the follow-on early on Day 4, and there was, at least, a sigh of relief. Maybe a draw could be established. They passed 275 with seven down, and then eked out another 20 after Gower left the scene to finish on 310, and a deficit of 164. The Yearbook made another point…
“Marshall then subjected Foster to some unwarranted, unnecessary, uncensured and vicious short pitched bowling accompanied by the fast bowler’s glare, as England added 20 for the last week.”
We didn’t half moan.
Obviously not in Antigua. But It’s him…
What followed was the stuff of legends. England had one aim in mind, to contain and delay the declaration. The West Indies had one aim in mind, to score, and to score quickly. Greenidge had been injured and so Richardson opened with Haynes. They put on a brisk century partnership, before Richardson fell to Emburey for the sixth time in succession. In hindsight getting out the son of Viv probably wasn’t our wisest idea. For in strolled the Masterblaster. 56 balls faced later, and one of the longest standing records in test cricket had fallen. Jack Gregory had made the previous fastest test century in 67 balls in 1921-22 against South Africa. Viv raised the bar.
“From the second ball he received Richards hit a six.”
“From 35 deliveries he made 50.”
“From the next 21 deliveries he made another 50.”
“The massacre of the England bowlers ended when he declared after reaching 110 from only 41 scoring strokes.”
“…did not play a false stroke in an innings which intoxicated his home crowd and stunned his opponents who could only pay homage in awe at the man’s brilliance.”
Wisden was equally as fulsome:
“Richards’s display, making him the obvious candidate for the match award, would have been staggering at any level of cricket. What made it unforgettable for the 5,000 or so lucky enough to see it was that he scored it without blemish at a time when England’s sole aim was to make run-scoring as difficult as possible to delay a declaration. Botham and Emburey never had fewer than six men on the boundary and sometimes nine, yet whatever length or line they bowled, Richards had a stroke for it. His control and touch were as much features of the innings as the tremendous power of his driving. As can be calculated from the following table, he was within range of his hundred six balls before completing it (with a leg-side 4 off Botham), while from the time he reached 83 off 46 balls there had been no doubt, assuming he stayed in, that he would trim several deliveries off J. M. Gregory’s previous record of 67 for Australia against South Africa at Johannesburg in 1921-22. The full innings went: 36126141 (24 off 10) 211 412 1 (36 off 20) 112 2111 (45 off 30) 1 1624441 (68 off 40) 12 664612 (96 off 50) 21 461 (110 off 58).
Plundered in 83 minutes out of 146 while he was at the wicket, it had to be, by any yardstick, among the most wonderful innings ever played.”
England showed real signs of distress, and in the short period of play that remained that day Wilf Slack was bowled and Robinson run out (ending a wretched tour for one of my favourite players of the day) to leave England 33 for 2.
I remember little of the hundred other than its sheer inevitability. I was at school, it was a Tuesday, and coming home the carnage was starting. I didn’t listen to it. I couldn’t. Richards was a majestic player, and watching him was something else, but listening to him tearing us apart was not something I wanted to subject myself to. Viv was Viv. Nothing else to say.
England commenced Day 5, almost an achievement to savour, with defeat not a total inevitability. Likely, but not inevitable. Gooch was there, our only international centurion of the tour. Richard Ellison was nightwatchman, and he’d shown stickability in the first of the two tests in Trinidad. Gower had made 90 in the first innings. Gatting might be able to get some form back in time to salvage a horrific experience.
And it started really well. Ellison stuck with Gooch until nearly lunch. Ellison fell, having been out there for two hours and faced 76 balls. The pitch had a little bit of low bounce, but no real demons. England might do it. Then Gooch fell shortly after lunch, and the house of cards collapsed thereafter. Gower made 21, but Lamb and Gatting went for one run each. Botham reined himself in, but the game was slipping away. Wickets fell. 84 for 2 subsided to 124 for 6 and the game was up. When Downton, who according to the Yearbook “had been lucky to hold his place throughout the series” (truly a difficult winter), was dismissed, LBW to Marshall (there’s a difference between the Yearbook and Wisden as to who the last man out is – Yearbook seems to suggest it’s Emburey, Wisden says Rupe. Rupe fits the story the best), the second Blackwash was complete.
We will finish the story in a wash-up, but let me give you a taste of what is to come. David Frith in WCM wrote this, I think, mid-series. It sums up the age very well.
I had a copy of the first TWC out today, released in the late season of 2003. It has a great reminder of one of my favourite test matches – England v South Africa at The Oval – I saw the first three days, including Tres’s 219, Thorpe’s glorious return and the last test innings of FICJAM.
But I thought I’d share with you a wonderful article by Mr Henderson on Alec Stewart. Man-o-man…..
Bloody hell. He didn’t like him, did he?
Mr Conformist, Mr Team Man (Steve Waugh thought he wasn’t though), Mr Straight And Narrow, I reckon he might have ruffled feathers after the 1999 pay schmozzle. Can’t be upsetting the suits now. He ended his career with reputation diminished (really). His choice to try media work is dismissed. His captaincy reign slagged off because he had shown no signs of leadership while in the ranks and in charge of Surrey (oh, the contrasts with Cook).
This man still has a monthly column in The Cricketer. I’m so glad our criticism is labelled as “personal” “mean spirited” and “trolling” but this is fair and above board.
A little late night nostalgia…
Plus, no points for guessing who said this:
“My double-first does nothing for me at the crease, I’m afraid”.
Sadly, Pringle’s article is of the present day. A magnificent piece of work. At no point does he give any evidence of the actual trolling. At no point does he say where it has an effect. At no point is there any tangible evidence that this is “a thing”.
Oh, and well done England. More of that, perhaps, later.
Being Outside Cricket 