Oh god. I don’t feel good.
Here is the comments thread for today. Feel free to react to the events of the day, share wisdom or anything else.
Uncategorized
Dmitri’s Ashes Memories – Day 1 at Lord’s 2005
I have already put the pictures up from the day (I’ll add a few more in this piece) in the Ashes Memories piece here. However, for me this was an incredibly emotional and tumultuous time, so the following piece will be a little bit personal as well as a discussion on cricket.
Dmitri’s Ashes Memories Part Whatever – Day 1 at Lord’s – 2005
Wolfy Blast
Before I start, let me point you in the direction of two excellent pieces I read today.
Andrew Miller’s piece on Alastair Cook (and thanks to SimonH for the heads up) is the sort of writing that the Cricketer misses. It doesn’t tally with all I believe in this saga, but it’s well put together, it comes across as considered, even-handed and evidential, and despite one use of “conspiracy theorist”, I’ll let Andrew off as his description of the “outside cricket” statement nails it. More on that below.
Also, David Oram’s piece on the ostracising of Reds Perreira and Tony Cozier, as well as Kenny Benjamin and Michael Holding, from West Indian commentary puts some of the below piece into perspective. It couldn’t happen here? Well, we had “something must be done” and the reported KP request. Who knows. Ruling bodies seem to think the sport is about them.
So to the meat of the argument.
As per usual I’m going to kick a piece off and not really knowing where it is going to end up. But the very minor events of last night, as a reaction to a post that had a brief shelf-life called “Hardly” was almost amazing, even by the standards of some of the stuff that had been seen in the HDWLIA days. A blog that was going slightly moribund as I tried so hard to get up for the Ashes had a rant laid down before it and I can tell you, by the hit rate, which gets the readers’ juices flowing and what doesn’t. I mentioned on a frank twitter exchange with someone we might know that I wrote what I did last night as a partial experiment. I wanted to see if I could still get the rage going, still see if it’s what the readership react to. It wasn’t contrived AT ALL, but it’s a piece I’ve avoided writing for quite a while now.
The fact is that the whole of the last 18 months has got me in a combative mood towards those that challenge me, and more, the opinions I hold. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a rebel of any kind. I am not some political animal who rages against everything. What does annoy me is being told what to think, told what I am thinking, told something without evidence and treated like an idiot. And yes, I don’t like being misrepresented, and in the case of last night’s post, I believe I misrepresented Lawrence Booth’s position. I certainly did not misrepresent Paul Newman’s.
The problem with the 140 character format is you can leap to your own conclusions and they may be wrong. The problem with the longer reading format is you can leap to your own conclusions on the basis of a couple of sentences. I am particularly touchy when it comes to the inside/outside cricket thing. After all, the blog is named after that phrase. To belittle its significance is, in a small way, belittling the premise of this blog. On that February day, and frankly you can stick all the excuses you want, a professional organisation has no excuses for it, the authorities, having sacked a prominent player, and told the paying public to just accept it, threw in a phrase “outside cricket”. We aren’t a bunch of muppets, we knew full well what they were talking about, and it was one man. But instead of calling him out, they thought they’d be clever. They could have said “certain individuals”, “associates of people involved”, or anything like that. No, they put in the phrase “outside cricket”. It may have meant one man, but it opened the window into their DNA. We’re inside, and if you’re not inside, you’re outside, which means shut the hell up, and butt out.
So many journos are rapid to emphasise the first part – the Piers Morgan part – as if we’re elementary school pupils who need education by constant repetition. No. Increasingly a number, not all, journalists need to have that method applied to the true insight on outside cricket. There is an attitude around that say we are too touchy about it, that it was clumsy, that it wasn’t meant as implied, that it was really all about one person. Well, they knew the storm it caused, and apology there has been none. If there was, I certainly missed it. The ECB acted like all arrogant, out of touch organisations do. It wasn’t going to admit it had made a mistake. Instead, they’d hope us shallow proles would be ameliorated by performances on the field and new fresh brands etc. (note – Andrew Miller says exactly the same in his excellent piece on Alastair Cook) In short, they hoped the team would dig them out and make us forget.
When that didn’t work, we were marginalised. Attempts were made to make us look like idiots. False dawns were (and still are) exaggerated beyond belief. How many pieces do we see about bilious inadequate, the phenomenon of social media and the silent majority codswallop? It’s again, as if we are too stupid to understand. I see our hit rates for a month, and the number of visitors we get. I know this blog is seen by a very small section of the cricket community. Fine by me. While the message can be intemperate, maybe a bit OTT, from my behalf, I didn’t exactly get noticed by being all sweetness and light. Because to do that you become neutered. When an unreasonable party faces someone being aggressive, they tend to blame that party for being unreasonable. To divert attention away from their own failings. I’m really not like that. Nor are many of the readers here.
This is rare from me, but I do apologise to Lawrence, having considered my position overnight, for perhaps reacting in the wrong way to his tweets. If the first paragraph of “Hardly” had been more clear, maybe he could see why, but that’s not enough from me to justify my jumping the gun. I have to recognise when I’ve over-stepped the mark and over-reacted. Lawrence has been someone prepared to break bread with me, and I think using his tweet to post that item was not the brightest thing I’ve ever done. I can still see why I reacted to it the way I did, but I needed to stop and think. We should all learn along the way. I am not one who will let that Piers Morgan / Outside Cricket thing pass, but also Lawrence’s Wisden notes, his comments, and what he says to me along the way, I should have taken into account. My mistake.
There comes a point when you blog, and 18 months full on is pretty hard work, where you evaluate where you are. In terms of quality of writing, this blog is better than ever. TLG is a brilliant addition (thanks jofo), I love the panel stuff, I’ve enjoyed the memories work and others seem to enjoy it too, and at times it has been fun. But the mood that made this blog what it was is changing, and I’m wrestling with myself over whether we can have the success and feedback (struggling for the right word) in an environment like this. There is a “fear” (if that’s the right word) that this blog is a “bad times” blog and when success comes to this England team, as it will, can it function and survive?
This is not a blog that is negative for the sake of it. Seriously, believe it or not, it isn’t. It’s just that negativity brings the best out of me, and many of you. By negativity, of course, I mean critiquing bad results, bad administration, bad reporting not just being doom and gloom merchants. We enjoyed the ODI series that just went by (how could you not watching England bat like that) but instead of many of the print and TV journos who only jumped on the “we are out of date” bandwagon once the World Cup got underway, we’d been banging on about it for ages. Yet we are pilloried by insinuation if we are “not reconnecting with the team” or “falling in love with it”. I’m not. Nowhere near it. I’m pleased we played well. I’m effing livid we blew a World Cup and no-one did anything to change it beforehand. That’s in the past now. Doesn’t matter etc. Because if you think it did, you’d be aiming your laser missile at the ECB, who made Downton carry the can, and then his greatest coach of a generation.
From where I sit, I see much journalism determined by access. It was one of Brian Carpenter’s criticism of HDWLIA in Wisden (don’t get me wrong, I thought it was an incredibly fair article) that I maybe didn’t have an understanding of their pressures. Fine. I probably don’t know the realpolitk of modern sports reporting. That’s because I’m not a journalist. But what I see from the outside is not the stenographer that some of the commenters on here are seeing (and they may be right), but more reporting by access. Benny, I think, on here says that much of the press coverage now in newspapers is out of date by the time you read it, because bloggers get there first, or the internet has it all up. Yes, to a degree, but I was always one who wanted to read what others thought. Half the fun of a Newman column is reading his opinions, and then getting angry about them. The same with Selvey. But remembering that those people have vastly larger
audiences than us and are writing to be read by the fanatics and the casual fan. They have vastly more influence on shaping views than we ever will.
I’ve banged on about the Tyers Twitter Tendency – the inside knowledge what I can’t tell you plebs approach – for ages, but it grates. I wrestle with the fact I talk to a couple of journalists behind the scenes and do not report it here. Am I being a hypocrite? Probably, but this is because I’ve actually not been expressly asked to keep this stuff quiet, and I treat it as a relatively private conversation (I’ve shared a couple of things with my co-writer to be fair). These guys are dealing with the decision makers, and in some cases, are consulted by those decision makers (Downton freely admitted it). That’s where there’s a lack of trust, so that when we see the Outside Cricket line is about Piers Morgan, I get tetchy. That’s the ECB line. You are reporting the ECB line, because they don’t want to admit that’s how they think about cricket, and their public. My touchiness on this is my problem. You wouldn’t have read the stuff on this blog for
the time you have if you didn’t at least respect where it came from.
I will release the Hardly post without the bit referring to the Outside Cricket exchange which will make the comments look slightly odd. Apologies for the long-winded nature of this post, and it’s only touched the surface of what I would wish to say, but it needed clarifying.
Note – Hardly
I’ve not done this much before, but I’ve taken a post down.
I want to reconsider it before I put it out again. I’m sorry folks, but that’s the way it is. If people read the first part of the post, they might see some reason why I reacted the way I did. Maybe I should have left it longer before I posted.
Speak soon.
It was interesting the reaction it got. In more than one way. All these Ashes Memories and panels are treated with equanimity and quite low hit rates. Put out a “Dmitri Rant” post aimed at my favorite targets and “bang”. The first 30 minutes after release and the dial rocketed.
Guess I know now what floats the boats.
Ashes Panel
Just put up on Twitter that five lucky people (or unlucky) have just had the first set of questions e-mailed to them. Don’t worry if you’ve volunteered and you haven’t got some, because you will be next (or the one after) and all will get at least one set before the series starts. That’s the aim.
If you want to be on it (and I’m going to volunteer a few of you if you don’t) then drop me a line on dmitriold@hotmail.co.uk – I’ll need your e-mail address.
This might work, and I seem to think it will, or it might die a death, but we try here on Being Outside Cricket!
Also added a number of new random header shots, all from Ashes tests, all pictures taken by me. You’ll recognise one instantly if you were a reader of HDWLIA.
Dmitri’s Ashes Memories – Part 3 – TV Watching in 1985
Filling in a quick fifteen or so minutes in my lunchbreak I thought I’d take myself away from the personal appearances and instead look back at my favourite TV watching experience of the Ashes; 1985.
It wasn’t really a vintage series. You got the impression that England were far stronger in all departments, but like so many Aussie teams, we couldn’t nail them. That was until an amazing spell by Richard Ellison at Edgbaston, but more of that later.
I was a schoolboy cricketer at the time, going up from year-based cricket to the 1st and 2nd XI structure at my school. The 2nd ODI coincided with the only time I ever carried my bat in a cricket match (11 not out out of 36) for which honour I was dropped from the team a fortnight later. I have not changed much and had an almighty strop and told them where they could poke their bloody cricket (I played one more game, where I batted 10 to come in the last two overs to save the game. OK, but the number 9 was the kid who batted 11 for our year team and was awful as a batsman. The explosion after that…) I digress. I became our 1st XI scorer (and going on to score for England Schools) and this meant sitting in the scorebox listening to TMS while scoring our matches in the early part of the tour. Most notably the 1st Test at Headingley.
Now 1985 made me fall for Tim Robinson as a player. Sorry, but I was never a Foxy Fowler fan, and despite making 201 in Madras (as it was known then) two tests before the Headingley test, someone had to make way for Graham Gooch. It was Fowler, and Robinson made sure that this would last at least until the West Indies quicks dismantled him the following winter. England also brought back John Emburey, to replace venerable Pat Pocock. A winning team dropping players for those who put personal gain over their country…. let that statement stand.
Headingley memories are a headline after day 1 that said “Hilditch Carts The Rubbish”. England would have the last laugh over Andy, but he made an excellent first day hundred, but we still managed to eke out wickets. Australia’s innings fell away a little, making 331. I particularly liked Greg Ritchie’s batting and thought he was one for the future, but he didn’t really go on. Simon O’Donnell had made a century against the MCC (captained, I think, by Lord HawHaw Nicholas) but copped a first baller from Botham (LBW). England’s reply was interrupted by rain on the second day, but there had been a recovery after we lost Gooch (LBW) and Gower (caught behind) off new Aussie quick Craig McDermott. Gatting and Robinson put on a hundred, Lamb came in and made 38, and then into the bear pit came Ian Botham, with bright highlights in his mullet and a bad attitude. The great memory was him plonking Jeff Thomson into the stands for 6 and Thommo giving the ubiquitous salute to the Western Terrace! Robinson carried on and on, Emburey cracked a square cut that Richie Benaud thought was one of the hardest hit fours he’d ever seen, and even everyone’s favourite MD of England Cricket managed an aplomb-filled half century. Robinson, in his first test innings in England, made 175. England had a lead of 202.
I remember it being quite attritional getting the wickets on the Monday, but we had 5 down by the end of play, with David Boon and Wayne Phillips likely to stand in our way. Hilditch and Wessles put on over a hundred for the second wicket, but I was in the middle of exams so don’t think I got to watch much of it! I do remember watching Phillips go on to 91 and looking mightily impressive in doing so. Aussie made 324, with Emburey taking five wickets, and England wobbled in getting the runs. The match finished in farce when a steepling hook from Lamb was heading down Geoff Lawson’s throat, except he was surrounded by loads of fans running onto the pitch and had no chance. In modern day cricket this is never going to happen, and I could imagine the po-faced reaction to it if it did, but I don’t know, it was funny at the time. England had won by five wickets and were 1-0 up in the series.
The second test at Lord’s had a lot to live up to. The first day of the game coincided with a school cricket match to score, and I listened all day as England continuously lost wickets, making 290. Craig McDermott took 6 more English wickets, with Gower top scoring with 86. Did Gatting get out padding up? I seem to recall he might have…. Australia saw 290 and thought they were in with a shout. They were quickly 24 for 2 and 80 for 3, then 101 for 4 and it was game on. However, one of those wickets wasn’t Allan Border, and in that summer, the Aussies were not dead until Border was killed off. There was the infamous Gatting “catch that wasn’t” when Border was in his 80s I believe, but in alliance with Greg Ritchie, Border took Australia past the England score. Ritchie made 94, O’Donnell 48 and the captain a mighty 196. Australia were dismissed just before the end of day 3 for 425, and then made immediate inroads into the England team by dismissing both openers so that England finished the day 37/2 and had two night-watchment batting. They both went rapidly on day 4, and but for a partnership between Mike Gatting (75 not out) and Ian Botham (85 – batting at 8!) England would possibly have lost more comfortably. Nice to see our MD make a nice round one with aplomb – a first baller to Bob Holland who took 5 for 68.
Australia wobbled in getting the 127 needed, and if we’d have got Border early, we might have won. At 65 for 6, memories of 1981 were being invoked, but Border was still there, and Wayne Phillips made a 32 ball 29 to take his team to the brink of victory. This was an innings that caused Richie Benaud to say “word goes around that Wayne Phillips doesn’t know what a crisis is”. O’Donnell smacked the winning runs, and Australia’s choke-hold of Lord’s remained.
I’ll come back to this series as breakt-time is over. Any thoughts from you lot on this first part of the series?
The T20 Match – England v New Zealand
Any comments on this game, please leave below.
Debating The Data Later
The first interview granted by Peter Moores was to George Dobell on Cricinfo. The text of it you would have read by now (well most of you would have). This piece is written on the tablet, with not so much ability to cross-refer and post links. I have limited time and ability with the tools at my disposal to do a thorough job. But I thought I should post some initial reactions.
“Peter Moores, the head coach at Lancashire should succeed Andy Flower, of that I have no doubt. Were I Paul Downton, I would scan the list of contenders – some self-promoted, others having hats thrown into the ring by third parties – and then I would get in touch with the man who is not only arguably the most accomplished coach in the county system but one of the best in the world, whose skill deserves to be on the international stage” – Mike Selvey (12 Feb 2014)
“I have to accept that my time as England coach has gone. But Iam frustrated. The portrayal of me as a coach in the media is just wrong. If people said “I don’t rate you as a coach” then fine. But when it’s not what you are, it’s really frustrating.” – Peter Moores (interview with George Dobell) (22 June 2015)
George Dobell’s interview is fascinating, but I found it frustrating. Peter Moores, despite grave reservations from this parish and others was allowed to have a go at a job he failed in before. The portrayal of him as a coach hasn’t really changed and it has little to do with his use or otherwise of data. That’s a point he is zeroing in on the BBC for and he is abjectly wrong to do so. He’s using it is as a fig leaf. I don’t really care that Nathan Leamon nearly went home because he wasn’t being used enough (that sounds an interesting conversation, me being a former scorer and all that), or over the slip or otherwise about looking at the data. Peter Moores first obstacle was that he had failed before. Ordinary rebuilding would not have done, it had to be better. His second problem is that he is English, and I find it hard to believe a man from these isles can be a long-term successful coach. His third problem was that he was English and did not play international cricket. Lots of egos had to be checked at the door for that to work, and given what we are reading from those not in that inner sanctum, those egos ran amok. Fourthly, he accepted the job with the strings attached, and although tied to Downton through that infamous “best coach of his generation” statement, it was his acceptance of the KP ban that immediately set a good number of people against his appointment.
None of us are denying he’s a good bloke who treated his players with great respect and attention. Try going to a job interview though and say that I should get the job even if results err on the disappointing side, I blew the World Cup, but the players like me. It’s a results business, and it’s a perception business. Moores is not, in my eyes, hooked to the data quote, but to, as one person said to me “an alarming inability to get his point across”. No-one I know perceives Peter Moores as robotic, something he thinks he’s thought of. Many believe he’s a management speak man, a safe company appointment, a man not to ruffle feathers. Most of us, when he was appointed, when Selvey was blowing smoke up his arse, thought “er, wow. That’s an interesting one. He was a failure. Good luck with that.” I’ll bet a number of senior pros thought the same.
Interesting to in this interview are the copious mentions of the BBC apologising for the “data/later” issue, but nothing about Sky saying it (other than George’s mention) and the later role Sky (and one member of their team in particular who, if not the conduit, has a fair number of fingers pointing at him as being so) had in the disgrace that was the handling of his dismissal. No, it seemed, from my purely guesswork point of view that Moores refusal to speak about his dismissal by the ECB is either (a) the ECB showing their usual sensitivity and not allowing it and/or (b) Peter Moores wish to work for them again. Yet again, another dismissal, another cock-up by the ECB, shrouded in secrecy and mistrust. Yeah, just a bunch of KP fanboys, us.
Peter Moores, in my view, gave the authorities the chance to sack him because of the World Cup. When Strauss moved in as supremo, it was clear that the rumours of Jazzer not rating him were true. Strauss then took the decision to fire him because he wanted one man in the job, but at ODI level, Moores was hopeless. Whether Strauss fit the reason to sack Moores, or Moores was going to be sacked due to it seems the point. It had, in my view, naff all to do with Moores’ perception or otherwise. Attacking the BBC is a fig leaf. A comfort blanket.
I didn’t go in hard on Moores. He did what we’d probably all do if we were him and in the position he was in. He was Downton’s appointment and that never helped. But don’t mythologise him. I love the bit where “he made Swann England’s number one spinner”. Well yes, just. Swann played the role inhabited by Blackwell, Dawson, Udal, Swann and Tredwell, as being the second spinner selected on a tour – Swann behind Monty. Unlike the others he out-performed Monty. But let’s not go mad about it, eh? Moores being credited for Joe Root also seems a little odd. Sure, he’s come on a bundle in the recent tests, but let’s see him up against top notch stuff this summer?
Moores is a genuinely decent guy who had a bad thing happen to him. His interview is not the worst of its type, but leave off the I deserved longer schtick. You may well get the plaudits later on in life, but for now, the ODI team’s performance without you at the helm speaks volumes, Peter. It’s pretty damning. It may not have been all your fault, but you cannot be surprised.
Read George Dobell’s interview on cricinfo. Link to follow later.
Contusion
The one thing you get from me on this blog is how I feel. I see this as not only a cricket journal, following some of the threads others don’t, and trying to get the issues out in the open, but also how it interacts with my daily life. I’m a lot stronger in my mentality than I was this time last year, but have several moments, one of which resulted in me closing down the old blog and starting a new one. I may never go into why that happened in writing on here, but suffice to say I got spooked a little by other events to people quite close to me. Just because I’m paranoid, it doesn’t mean they ain’t out to get me.
I also get on my high horse about injustice to people or matters I care about. I care about English cricket, as I’ve been a fan for life, and yes, I loved watching KP bat. If that makes me a “KP Fanboy” then so be it. All those that do call me that, let me ask how you feel about the Ashes 2005 now, you unreconstructed hypocrites? Wish it had never happened? Wish we’d been skittled out for 150 and drawn the series? I saw an injustice in the singling out of KP for the Ashes failure in 2013/14, the fact that he performed less worse than others, and then the lack of insight or need to know, and importantly tell, why it happened. Blow by longread blow. Someone will make a fortune when they do.
Why all this, again, now? It started last night on Twitter. It’s a dangerous medium at the best of times, but also very rewarding. I have several rules of engagement.
1. I do not troll journalists. I just do not. I may ask them questions, or joke with them, but I do not tweet who I criticise. Some contact me, some I feel able to contact behind the scenes. Some of them, believe it or not, I like. They may even like me, I don’t know. But I am honest.
2. I do not control, nor would I have the affront to, those of you who comment on here. If some of you want to wind up a journo or two, then I can’t stop you. Those that want to read this stuff know where it is. Those who don’t, won’t.
3. I will not have people misrepresent me or my position, or even what I write, without attempting to correct it. Neil Harris acted like an arse last night and I called him on it. It was a factual rebuttal where I called his position at varying times “over-reaching” and “nonsense”. I won’t block him on Twitter, because I don’t do that (I didn’t block the one who threatened to mutilate me and my dog) but in turns I was branded a “sad individual”, “a KP fanboy” someone with “bile” “keep trolling journalists” – hilariously at one point after saying “and you decided to get a rugby journalist involved because…” the individual concerned said he wasn’t accusing me of anything. When it was pointed out to him the piece was on statistical analysis (from Steve James book) he had to even pipe down on the Anti-Cook brigade twaddle. I will defend myself, and this blog, to anyone. It turned to “do I know the person who did” which was shifting his goalposts, and it wasn’t worth another second of my time. Still, Steve is clear now, because Pam’s told him all about us.
4. I will discuss with anyone on DM on Twitter, on my e-mail (dmitriold@hotmail.co.uk) or on here anything. I’m open to criticism, but I will, nearly always respond.
5.I have four Twitter presences. DmitriOld is the main one. LordCanisLupus was set up when I was spooked, and is used only to link posts on another Twitter feed. I don’t check it very often. The third is OutsideCricket where Vian and I publicise posts on here. The fourth is a secret, I never tweet from it, and I use it to get around the fools who block me. I am open about pretty much all I do except the last one. Vian also has just two Twitter identities – his @blueearthmanagement handle and the Outside Cricket one with me. So, Pam, close down your Twitter to all but your close acolytes if you are that worried that I read you.
6. I use an alias, or a nom de blog, for my own personal reasons. If you don’t like it, you can choose not to read me.
The article in question, forwarded to Steve James, was the statistical one. The one where Monte can predict a game to some accuracy. I’m not clever or sophisticated enough not to call this nonsense, so I asked what it was about. One of our number forwarded it to Steve James. Harris didn’t do his homework, had a pop, and got all prissy when I called him on it. He may think the same. I can’t help that. Maybe he’s neutral about it all.
I’m bloody angry at the moment, because I knew this was coming. WIth every good news story, we, the refuseniks, get attacked. You see, with every bad news story, we attack those constructing the message and delivering it to us. Like celebrating a 48 against the 16th placed county in the country, just weeks after you know who hit 355 against the 17th and had it pooh poohed. I make no apologies for not having Alastair Cook as my favourite player. I similarly make no apologies for saying KP was my favourite player. Those who choose to proceed in their own way COULD be accused of being on the same side as Giles Clarke, which would be a lovely thing to say. I don’t ever question their support of England cricket and the love of the game. So don’t you damn well question mine. You think I do this for a laugh.
I’ve put this below thelegglance’s post as the cricket is more important than this. Just wanted to get a few things off my chest.
Have a good day. Because all I do is “attack attack attack”, and it’s all “anti-Cook”. I don’t think I’d be getting the number (and it isn’t massive or particularly representative – I know that) of hits if we (Vian and I) were that one dimensional.
Being Outside Cricket 