In the good old days for a 5-match test series to finish 0-0, or 1-0 if one side was feeling a bit frisky, was far from uncommon. When people trot out statistics of years passing without a side losing a single game, I’m always tempted to ask whether they actually won any either. Those days are by and large long gone, unless it’s a test match at Lord’s. Of the last 6 test matches at said venue, a mere 6 have been draws. And the one just passed between England and South Africa is probably the worst of them.
The scorecard, given a cursory glance, suggests that England let the Proteas off the hook, but this is far from the truth. On reflection England’s 593 was no more than par on this flatter than flat pitch. The South African’s initial reply was indeed poor and England’s bowling was disciplined, if unspectacular. Ashwell ‘The Fresh’ Prince proved with his prosaic century, that as long as you batted sensibly and didn’t get an absolute jaffa, nobody was going to get you out. Following on, the rest of the South African batsmen had got with the programme and realised that even if they played 24 hours a day, for a fortnight, in blindfolds and straight-jackets, England were never going to take 20 wickets. The recriminations began in earnest, long before the game was even over and will no doubt continue ad nauseum; England aren’t ruthless enough, South Africa are too negative, England batted too long, South Africa were undercooked, on and on, forever and ever. Amen.
However, the two guilty parties who should be fixed in our crosshairs are Lord’s and the ECB. I understand and can just about cope with all the sentimental old bollocks about Lord’s being the ‘home’ of cricket and how every cricketer who has ever lived would die happy were they to be allowed a single touch of its hallowed turf. What I can’t understand is how the ECB let Lord’s get away with producing, year after year, such a turgid, lifeless excuse of a wicket. It’s a pitch so dead I often wonder whether even the toss is going to produce a result. Any other ground would be given a public dressing down were it to produce anything as flaccid. Old Trafford, which is England’s happiest hunting ground of recent times, has been denied test cricket for the next 4 years. Officially it’s because of spreading international matches to different grounds, i.e. having to give the Welsh some international cricket. But everyone knows it’s because the ECB don’t think Old Trafford is up to the standard required, too shabby around the edges. Well how about you give some of the millions of pounds that you earn just from tests at Lord’s to Old Trafford to improve its facilities? Or give them more matches, so they can earn more income to tart the place up a bit. I hate to think what the ECB would have done if Old Trafford had not been a successful ground for England. The cynic in me says that all Lord’s is doing is maximising income at the expense of competitive cricket. 4 full houses plus any bonus-extras on day 5, at £85 a ticket, must make the ECB a fortune, and all the sales of drink, food and merchandise must do likewise for Lord’s. I really hope that this isn’t the case. But I suspect it probably is. How very sad.
It is highly unlikely that the ECB will ever stand up to Lord’s; after all the MCC is there, jealously guarding the Laws of Cricket and dribbling partially digested bits of food down their disgusting ties as they doze in the afternoon sun.
We can only hope that the vitriol rained down upon Lord’s will have the desired effect and then next year we might see something slightly more competitive than God versus Sodom and Gomorrah.
From one catastrophe that has happened to one waiting to happen. Various plans for a re-vamped Twenty20 Cup, from 2010 onwards have been announced. The spectre of 9 city-based franchises has re-materialised and although Giles Clarke (head honcho at the ECB) is against anything less than the 18 counties taking part, ‘market forces’ might still win the day. (Mind you, making up names for city-based franchises is quite an amusing way to pass 5 minutes – any suggestions gratefully received.)
In Britain we love our sporting past. Morons in pubs talk about ’66 like they were actually on the pitch when Geoff Hurst scored the winner, when in fact they weren’t even born. In cricket, people talk about ‘Botham’s Ashes’ as if they were yesterday and the Rugby World Cup victory in ’03 and Wilkinson’s drop goal in particular, will be drooled over for ever more. (Which is part of the reason that we struggle at sport, but that issue will have to wait for another day – can you imagine the Germans getting all teary-eyed about a football match that happend 40 years ago?)
What people want is to buy into a team with some history behind it, irrational as that may be. A fictitious team called the Leeds Luddites or Bristol Bumpkins that has been made up in a committee meeting won’t have the historical gravitas demanded by sports fans. It is ridiculous, what does it matter who won what in 1905? Or if ‘who’ even existed then? But I’m in the minority.
The killer argument against the city franchises is that for Twenty20 cricket to become the major sporting event of the summer, it has to distinguish itself from other sports, in particular, football. Calling the teams after the counties automatically achieves this, not to mention that it will also avoid the administrative kerfuffle of merging various counties.
As for the format, I think that playing in 3 randomly selected groups (rather than the regional ones we have at the moment – I’m bored of the Bears playing the same teams in the group stages every year), followed by the quarter finals, over an 8 or 9 week period in June and July. The games, with the exception of finals day, which should be on a Saturday in August, should be played on a Friday night, so you can have a proper build up to the matches, rather than squeezing 800 games into a 25-minute slot at the end of June. This has two main advantages; weather is unlikely to ruin someone’s chances as it did last year to Leicestershire and Surrey and the punters are more likely to go to every game if they are spaced out a bit, i.e. they don’t have to put their life on hold for two weeks.
The real key to the English Premier League (as it will be known) being a success is television. If the games or at least some of them, are on terrestrial TV, especially the final, it will be a success. If it all stays on Sky, it will meander along for a few years until interest wanes and someone has a ‘brighter’ idea. The government should, at the very least, add finals day (and home test matches – but that’s another story,) to the list of ‘sporting crown jewels’. How good would it be to see domestic cricket on the BBC or Channel 4? We can but live in hope.
The future will be better tomorrow
Dan Quayle
The scorecard, given a cursory glance, suggests that England let the Proteas off the hook, but this is far from the truth. On reflection England’s 593 was no more than par on this flatter than flat pitch. The South African’s initial reply was indeed poor and England’s bowling was disciplined, if unspectacular. Ashwell ‘The Fresh’ Prince proved with his prosaic century, that as long as you batted sensibly and didn’t get an absolute jaffa, nobody was going to get you out. Following on, the rest of the South African batsmen had got with the programme and realised that even if they played 24 hours a day, for a fortnight, in blindfolds and straight-jackets, England were never going to take 20 wickets. The recriminations began in earnest, long before the game was even over and will no doubt continue ad nauseum; England aren’t ruthless enough, South Africa are too negative, England batted too long, South Africa were undercooked, on and on, forever and ever. Amen.
However, the two guilty parties who should be fixed in our crosshairs are Lord’s and the ECB. I understand and can just about cope with all the sentimental old bollocks about Lord’s being the ‘home’ of cricket and how every cricketer who has ever lived would die happy were they to be allowed a single touch of its hallowed turf. What I can’t understand is how the ECB let Lord’s get away with producing, year after year, such a turgid, lifeless excuse of a wicket. It’s a pitch so dead I often wonder whether even the toss is going to produce a result. Any other ground would be given a public dressing down were it to produce anything as flaccid. Old Trafford, which is England’s happiest hunting ground of recent times, has been denied test cricket for the next 4 years. Officially it’s because of spreading international matches to different grounds, i.e. having to give the Welsh some international cricket. But everyone knows it’s because the ECB don’t think Old Trafford is up to the standard required, too shabby around the edges. Well how about you give some of the millions of pounds that you earn just from tests at Lord’s to Old Trafford to improve its facilities? Or give them more matches, so they can earn more income to tart the place up a bit. I hate to think what the ECB would have done if Old Trafford had not been a successful ground for England. The cynic in me says that all Lord’s is doing is maximising income at the expense of competitive cricket. 4 full houses plus any bonus-extras on day 5, at £85 a ticket, must make the ECB a fortune, and all the sales of drink, food and merchandise must do likewise for Lord’s. I really hope that this isn’t the case. But I suspect it probably is. How very sad.
It is highly unlikely that the ECB will ever stand up to Lord’s; after all the MCC is there, jealously guarding the Laws of Cricket and dribbling partially digested bits of food down their disgusting ties as they doze in the afternoon sun.
We can only hope that the vitriol rained down upon Lord’s will have the desired effect and then next year we might see something slightly more competitive than God versus Sodom and Gomorrah.
From one catastrophe that has happened to one waiting to happen. Various plans for a re-vamped Twenty20 Cup, from 2010 onwards have been announced. The spectre of 9 city-based franchises has re-materialised and although Giles Clarke (head honcho at the ECB) is against anything less than the 18 counties taking part, ‘market forces’ might still win the day. (Mind you, making up names for city-based franchises is quite an amusing way to pass 5 minutes – any suggestions gratefully received.)
In Britain we love our sporting past. Morons in pubs talk about ’66 like they were actually on the pitch when Geoff Hurst scored the winner, when in fact they weren’t even born. In cricket, people talk about ‘Botham’s Ashes’ as if they were yesterday and the Rugby World Cup victory in ’03 and Wilkinson’s drop goal in particular, will be drooled over for ever more. (Which is part of the reason that we struggle at sport, but that issue will have to wait for another day – can you imagine the Germans getting all teary-eyed about a football match that happend 40 years ago?)
What people want is to buy into a team with some history behind it, irrational as that may be. A fictitious team called the Leeds Luddites or Bristol Bumpkins that has been made up in a committee meeting won’t have the historical gravitas demanded by sports fans. It is ridiculous, what does it matter who won what in 1905? Or if ‘who’ even existed then? But I’m in the minority.
The killer argument against the city franchises is that for Twenty20 cricket to become the major sporting event of the summer, it has to distinguish itself from other sports, in particular, football. Calling the teams after the counties automatically achieves this, not to mention that it will also avoid the administrative kerfuffle of merging various counties.
As for the format, I think that playing in 3 randomly selected groups (rather than the regional ones we have at the moment – I’m bored of the Bears playing the same teams in the group stages every year), followed by the quarter finals, over an 8 or 9 week period in June and July. The games, with the exception of finals day, which should be on a Saturday in August, should be played on a Friday night, so you can have a proper build up to the matches, rather than squeezing 800 games into a 25-minute slot at the end of June. This has two main advantages; weather is unlikely to ruin someone’s chances as it did last year to Leicestershire and Surrey and the punters are more likely to go to every game if they are spaced out a bit, i.e. they don’t have to put their life on hold for two weeks.
The real key to the English Premier League (as it will be known) being a success is television. If the games or at least some of them, are on terrestrial TV, especially the final, it will be a success. If it all stays on Sky, it will meander along for a few years until interest wanes and someone has a ‘brighter’ idea. The government should, at the very least, add finals day (and home test matches – but that’s another story,) to the list of ‘sporting crown jewels’. How good would it be to see domestic cricket on the BBC or Channel 4? We can but live in hope.
The future will be better tomorrow
Dan Quayle
No comments:
Post a Comment