England and India amazing things - none of them matter

England and India did amazing things in a way that never could have come about in a T20 match. Yesterday’s match had laughter and tears. Both sets of fans enjoyed the pleasures snatching victory from the jaws of defeat… before allowing the other side to claw their way back again. And then it all went horribly agreeable.

Unfortunately – much like a political compromise – a tie left both sides feeling disappointed. “Oh” we all collectively thought, “so we didn’t win”.

Interestingly, the match, despite its drama, was still meaningless. Both sides will probably qualify. So. It was all just a waste of everyone’s time, really.

The match did show simply the relative ineptness of the bowling. Aside from Zaheer’s moment of maddeningness and Bresnan’s tedious reliability, neither time has sufficient firepower to blast their way to the world cup.

Sachin Tendulkar, though, eh? Fluky bloody bastard.

How to prepare for the Ashes

England water-treading batsman

It’s so easy to dislike English batsman. English conditions breed cautious, accumulators that seek to defend their wicket and poke the singles. A well-fought four-hour 32 is a significant achievement. A ten-minute 32 is “airy”. The net effect, of course, is the same, but somehow, in England, longevity has a gravitas denied to quick, if effective innings. This is why Marcus Tresocothick, arguably England’s best batsman of modern times, dipped below the radar.

So, anyway. We have a number of grinders. Alastair Cook, Paul Collingwood, Jonathan Trott and even Andrew Strauss. They all scratch away and their places are perennially under question. However, they are all still class, god dammit, and have an infuriating habit of scoring a century just on the cusp of being dropped. This buys them a few more opportunities to nurdle out a string of painful 20s.

England’s “consistency” approach allows for these sort of players to exploit a failing in the system. The principles of England enlightened selection policy is to pick on the basis of long-term performance, not immediate flashes in the pain. Players positions are awarded on the basis of performance over a number of games, allowing occasional failures in return of significant contributions elsewhere.

But, this is not so. When a player comes under threat, we take a long term approach, but, when he’s scored runs, and specially scored one more run than 99, then we take a short-term approach, and all before is forgotten.

So, players that consistently under-perform, but will occasionally produce runs, will be secured of a long-term position in the team. Half of England’s top-order have averaged under 40 during 2010. Yet, they just about do enough to stay in.

I agree with the consistency policy, but perhaps it should be shaken up once in a little while?

Pakistan vs England: where clichés collide

There’s an article on cricinfo entitled Pakistan’s nature vs England’s nurture. Obviously I refuse to go near anything like that.

As an Englishman, I have been happily free of any nurturing or maternal love by the cricketing establishment. Not my mum though. She’s ace. Although, she didn’t give me the excellent rhubarb-based education that was afforded to Geoffrey Boycott.

So! England’s woefully ungifted line-up play Pakistan’s backstreet bruisers. You see, Englishmen have no talent, by they do have oodles of coaching manuals. That’s how this works. Pakistan, however, doesn’t have any coaching manuals. Or coaches. But they do have heart.

Characterising a test match as a Rocky sequel is an excellent way to put off sniffy cricket fans – such as AYALAC. So, here in Atheist Towers, we have developed a sure-fire to prevent cliché rage.

1. There will be inhalations of surprise when a Pakistan batsman plays a forward defensive. Anticipate this by blowing the air back into the breathers’s judgemental maw during the stroke. This should balance the background bastardliness that pervades the universe.
2. At some point, an English batsmen will play a stroke. It is possible that runs will follow. It is certain that the commentator will chortle, “ho ho ho, he’s being watching too much Afridi!” An eye-roll will not suffice. Bellow. Bellow with all the anger that years of missed opportunities and unnaturally high expectations have given you.
3. You friends may reflect any of these opinions prevalent in the press. Steely stares or years of unexplained silence are the best way to deal with this.
4. Upon hearing a commentator saying “thank god he didn’t have that coached out of him”, perform three rollie-pollies whilst saying “thereisnotoothfairythereisnotoofairythereisnotoothfairythereisnotoothfairy”.
5. In response to the word “mercurial” kick the nearest man in suit, kindly-looking old woman or pigeon.

A close brush with success

Today, I went to work conference. Don’t worry. I didn’t learn anything, and I came away with my free share of booze and pens. A success. Apparently, though, I shared the hotel venue with none other than the England cricket team.

I should have been alerted to this by the quantity of short sweaty, red-faced bald men shuttling about the rooms kitted out in England gear. I didn’t think much of this. There are small, exhausted looking men everywhere.

But, my colleagues eventually informed me, I missed an obvious equation:

Puffy-faced + red chops + total lack of hair + sports gear = professional cricketer

The place was crawling with Englanders. In my spiral of pen-bingeing booze-outs, I missed all of them. I was probably the only person in the whole bloody place that would take an interest in unseemly idol ogling, and yet it was left to a conference of bland suits to ignorantly glance at the more famous of the puffy-faced gingers.

At least I scored three paper pads.

If anyone wants to know where they are, I will happily tell you. But only in return for a free corporate branded item of stationery.

England’s success is proof of T20’s randomness

Sorry for the delay in getting back to, but I was preparing my excuse for you.

So I AYALC returns. Various stuff happened to me; various other, more glamorous things, did not.

Prior to the tournament Stuart Broad, no longer the virginal Bambi figure when I started blogging, busied himself by lowering our expectations over the result of the tournament: total England victory.

This shagged out old pro has been around long enough now to recognise a winner, and England’s formula of tedious seamers and buying in foreigners has proven a surprising success. Notwithstanding a rather anomalous loss against the West Indies, which owed more to Duckworth-Lewis peculiarities than superior opposition, England have stormed the competition.

So have Australia, mind you, but we like to be parochial in AYALAC’s dusty, dilapidated towers.

There are some clichés that we can draw out of the hack’s bollocks box of tricks:

• Have England peaked too soon?
• Will the mercurial Pakistan emerge into unexpected success?
• Will England choke in the final?

I offer to you, the traditional AYALAC line, that none of these factors, nor any others relating to skills or confidence, obtain. It’s T20. And therefore we are well into the realm of randomness.

To decide the result, I have thrown my house mate’s stupid little pot plant at the wall. The pathetic carcass of an ex-Bonsai tree is pointing towards the toilet. Chance has spoken: England will win the tournament.

England "do a Mandleson"

Peter, sorry LORD Mandleson had an interesting political career. Often
attributed with the transformation of Labour from a political party
with values to an all-conquering media machine, he has significantly
impacted upon British politics. It is alleged that he “spotted” young
sproutlings Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – by which we mean that he
leached onto them and devoured their life energy once they became
powerful. Rather like a red-socked wearing parasite investing in elephant stocks.

Anyway, once power was achieved, Mandy had a hilariously insecure grip
on his position. After a series of riotous failures, he was in and
out of Government like a window cleaner. However, a final scandal saw
him banished again, and he was sent to the backwaters of Brussels -
the political equivalent of the county cricket scene.

Only now, in Gordon’s last desperate hour, after his Lordship has
excelled in Europe, has the Prime Minister hit the panic button and
recalled Mandy for a third time. Now Mandleson is akin to a GOD. There
are no limits to his powers, or titles. His influence in the country
is second only to that of Alan Sugar.

Mark Ramprakash, it seems, may also consider another brief spell to the top
of the tree.

Ramprakash has outclassed all that he has faced for the past three
years. His county-level success is Bradmanian in scale, Mandlesonian
even. And thus, in England’s current intoxicating crisis, are we
considering a return Blair’s Britain.

Unfortunately, the England cricket team didn’t do under Blair. In
fact, As a general rule, England tend to do better under Conservative
governments.

But that we are panicked enough to deep into the dark days of Puffa jackets, Teletubbies and Dana International is signs of a serious collapse in confidence.

Everyone is chipping in with potential number threes. Potential number threes are sounded out to discuss their opinions on their potential. Past number threes are urged out of retirement to give their views on their potential.

At some point someone will be advocating Stephen Fry for the number
three slot. I don’t know why. People always advocate Stephen Fry to do
everything. Apparently, his being on the telly every five minutes
isn’t enough. I don’t know why.

Forcing form

England’s line-up has consisted of a number of figures that justify their position purely for reasons of stability and consistency for the broader team.

Ravi Bopara, not only has he suffered from the premature spotlight that comes with over-promotion, but retains his place only because of the wider desire not to upset the batting order.

Graeme Swann, although feisty in the field, and with the bat, has also underperformed. Until Headingley, Stuart Broad was a liability with the ball.

There are mixed lessons for the England management. It has taken three Ashes tests before Broad performed. And all four have been scotched as far as Bopara and Swann are concerned.

But, there is this assumption that stability breeds success: That a settled side has the confidence as a functioning unit to think about the long term.

Underlying this, is a second assumption, that this team unity will pull flaggers upwards and convert stragglers into battlers.

The depleting effects and resentment that comes with carrying passengers aside, on the basis of the evidence of this series, there is little evidence to suppose that this thesis is correct.

Of course it is true, and no one wants to return to the disastrous chop and change strategy of yore, there is a balance to strike.

Continual failure after the opposition has worked you out, can worsen your prospects if you don’t have the character to fight back with continued exposure.

In any case, England have dug themselves into a hole now. So blatant is the batting order’s weaknesses, is that some form of panic button pressing is inevitable.

Confidence from the top to the bottom is so shot that new blood is vital to fight back. Otherwise, the fragile line-up of goons that England has constructed will implode again.

How England should proceed

YES! PRESS IT NOW!!

What England need to do

This series is between two emotionally fragile teams. I mocked Alistair Cook’s feeble “aura” jibe at the Aussie’s expense. But I overestimated the thickness of their skins, and England launched into a major holistic therapy offensive, sensing hippy blood.

Andrew Strauss also laid into the Ozzlers’ dubious karma:

"I don't think this Australian side has got an aura about it to be honest with you and prior to this Test series starting we didn't feel they had an aura about them,"

Metaphysically cutting, I’m sure you’ll agree. Although, it’s also true and fair. In any case, Ricky Ponting responded rather tersely,

“But it's okay for him to say that now, I'm not sure he was saying that after Cardiff - we had it well and truly over most of their batsmen down there."

Which, of course, is also true. Although, they didn’t quite have Monty’s number, did they?

For some reason, Australia appears to have a weakness for this beatnik bull-plop. It’s probably something to do with the feelings of guilt they have developed after a decade of bullying and dominating the world. Much like the Germans. And looked what happened to them - they voted the Greens in.

The point is, both sides are weakened, and fatally aware of their own vulnerabilities, and any suggestion of doubt may decisive unbalance a team. Something like losing the toss seems to be a catalyst to the mood dropping.

All England need to do in Birmingham is hold it together. Go through the motions and play the game into a draw. Don’t overbowl Freddie. Recognise that your team is full of feckless midgies and move on. I mean, Stuart Broad and Graham Onions – since when were they international bowlers? In fact, when did Jimmy Anderson become our cutting edge? He’s pants.

Anyway, we must stick to tried and tested English strategy: Just hold it together until the rain comes, chaps…

Ian Bell: will the mouse roar?

I doubt it.

Ian Bell has been various described as the “most talented batsman in the country”, “Atherton-esque” and “complete shit”. And his test match record raised more questions than Aunties.

The general consensus in the mono-glot press is that Bell only does well on milkruns. Much has been made of his centuries at six – all coming when more responsible players grafted 100s above him.

This may be right, and I have generally shared the view that Ian Bell looks most at home when he is at home.

The problem is that there really isn’t anyone of the same authority in the English game who can replace Kevin Pietersen. Bell’s extended and underperforming run at three crowded out any other player, and blocked the emergence of potential county stars. Where would we be had Ravi Bopara been giving a long run a year ago?

But we are where we are, and there is, at this moment, quite honestly no alternative to the rat-faced bimbo.

At the moment, the line-up is looking decidedly Atherton-esque alright. Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Bell, Paul Collingwood, and Pratty Prior. It’s a wonder that they didn’t bring John Crawley and Simon Jones out of retirement (and/or death).

Although, Australia’s attack also finds itself competing against England’s former stars. Could Peter Siddle out-bowl Gavin Hamilton? Could Mitchell Johnson out-long-hop Chris Schofield?

Such questions might give England’s tart at number four new hope.

England: can they cock it all up?

We’ve been here before. We know what they’re like. England squander opportunities just as carelessly as bloggers split infinitives.

It’s best to wear the “oh Christ not again” hat in these situations.

But, whilst I was stirring Sunday morning’s scrambled eggs, the fall of Simon Katich and Ricky Ponting caused much jubilation, even if it was at the price of scraping breakfast from the ceiling.

There are always painful consequences to English success.

During the follow-on carry-on, I began to descend into dark, fearful thoughts. I even considered the replacement of Stuart Broad with Steve Harmison - and not feel a pang of self-loathing. Thankfully, Broad’s accuracy ceased living up to his name, and began to threaten the Australians.

In fact, England’s new look players have generally found life difficult at the next level. Ravi Bopara and Graeme Swann have struggled against non-hopeless opposition. As have young Ozzlers.

But the question we ask ourselves is this: how can England wank it up this time?

Andrew Flintoff is looking fragile, and could break down at any moment. The ball may not swing for either James Anderson or Graham Onions. Graeme Swann might bowl at a right-hander. Stuart Broad might return to his normal self.

If a combination of any of these factors occurs, England might just gift away the match. Indeed, a draw, from this position, may be an unrecoverable blow for the boys.

Here’s hoping they don’t blow it…

Cut-off dates in cricket

I’ve recently finished Malcolm Gladwell’s interesting Outliers book, which rambles on about successful people. The reasons for certain individuals doing great things is due to factors outside their own control, such as their family, timing and opportunities. Excellence comes from chance events and environmental conditions.

Gladwell outlined one study which identified that in the highest level of Canadian ice-hockey an over-whelming number of players were born in January, February and March – well over fifty percent of some terms were born early in the year.

The reason? The cut-off date for youth levels was the 1st January, giving a year’s advantage to beef up and enhance their hand-eye co-ordination to those born earlier in the year. Once this advantage had been bedded in the early years, it reverberated into the professional leagues.

So! I wondered, what about the England cricket time? Any effect there? Here’s a chart of the birth months of the recently announced test team against the West Indies, and those still with lingering contracts.

It doesn’t show us much, really, does it? Other than anyone being born in August is completely knackered already. Although this crumb in itself backs Gladwell’s thesis, as the cut-off date in the English junior leagues is 1st September.

Perhaps the longevity of the games levels out early differences, or the confinement of cricket to a relatively short season negates age advantages?

Generally, though, it seems as though the English selection policy at schools and villages seems to be working ok. No one is unfairly favoured by the system. Grand.


Now, lets look at the Australian cricket team:


The cut-off for Cricket Australia is also on the 1st September, but there seems to be a noticeable effect here. Indeed, more than a fifth of the entire squad were born in the month of October, with a half being born in the last quarter of the year.

So, clearly, Australia discriminates, whereas England doesn’t. According to Gladwell we would therefore expect “double” the amount of elite level cricketers in England, compared to Australia. The Pommies should crush the pommies at every meeting.

Oh dear.

Maybe discrimination at the youth level is a good idea itself, no matter which criteria you deploy to distinguish between candidates, as this allows you to focus energies on enhancing the abilities of someone who is at least reasonably good. Whereas the “let’s all have a jolly good time” approach of English cricket may not be set up to pick out and invest into those displaying talent.

That these two data sets display very different patterns, despite sharing the same cut-off date, suggests that there is something else going on here. Or maybe nothing at all. In any case, the data speaks for itself, and I need add nothing more.

Reaping that which they sowed

The England cricket team. Not for the first time, their cupboard looks bare. There are a number of serious problems which a disastrous series against weaker opposition resulted in the one change.

Ian Bell was axed, which came as a shock to all of us.

But, weirdly enough, some argue that there are still passengers in the England line-up. Funnily enough, the lost series against the Rubbish Windies didn’t provide the proof the selectors needed to identify which players are crap. The investigation to spot the stuffer continues.

As does their myriad problems. Total lack of vision. An ODI team lacking in shape, and consistently fields a chaotic line-up. An opening attack of James Anderson and Stuart Broad.

The fact that Steve Harmison, cricket’s equivalent of Peter Mandleson, is still not out of contention leaves blind old women, clueless as to the ways of cricket, enraged with the short-sightedness of it all.

For some reason, Chris Tremlett and Matthew Hoggard are not even considered.

Some people would call this madness. I would call it worse things. Two years of floating, lack of direction, leadership fiascos have taken a heavy toll on the England line-up. And the toll for being crap is quite high.

At least it used to be, now you just get early retirement and a six figure pension.

God. England eh? England!

God.

Not converting enough double hundreds

Sure, the English batsman are treading water, they’re just about doing enough, but are they delivering what we need?

Andrew Strauss has again demonstrated England’s lack of mental fortitude by failing to knock off a double hundred after scoring a lowly big hundred.

Large centuries might be enough at county level, and they might just about secure your place in an already complacent line-up, but we’re playing test match cricket now, and opportunities need to be taken.

Especially these days, when pitches have as much threat in them as my toothless, octogenarian nan after her third gin and tea. Frankly, there’s no excuse.

The jump from an imposing, but not necessarily decisive 142 to a certain match-winning 200 is small. Just 58 runs. Not an impossible gap to bridge. Look, I just did it on my keyboard:

142 + 58 = 200

Giving the simple arithmetic involved, an accountant like Andrew Strauss should know better than succumbing to an irresponsibly low score.

I am disappointed in you.

At least young Cooky had the decency to play for the team and whack a quick fifty.

The market weighs man’s soul and decides his worth

"Which men?” you ask, “And what market?”

These are good questions, which makes a stark difference from the usual dribble you lot come up with, and so I will endeavour to answer them.

The IPL has held its latest round of auctions. For those English fans, and, least face it, no one really is, there are some interesting outcomes.

Of course, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff all of a sudden became more valuable than the draw full of plastic bags and string, but the most interesting outcome of the bonanza, is the relative vale the companies of India gave to the various English players:

Andrew Flintoff (Chennai Super Kings, $1,550,000);
Kevin Pietersen (Bangalore Royal Challengers, $1,550,000);
Ravi Bopara (Kings XI Punjab, $450,000);
Owais Shah (Delhi Daredevils, $375,000);
Paul Collingwood (Delhi Daredevils, $275,000).

Three of these people cannot be dropped from the England team. It is simply impossible. Well, unless they defect to Botswana, or something. I hear there is a lot of diamonds there.

According to the markets, Bopara and Shah, neither of whom are likely to get into the England team any time soon, are significantly more valuable than Paul Collingwood, whom the ECB gets funny feelings in funny places about.

Everyone loves an underdog. Especially a scrappy, trampy one with an ugly face and a history of rejection.

But remove the story from Collingwood and what are you left with? A ginger nurdle to nowhere.

The markets, with their cold, harsh calculating minds, processing balance sheets and cash flow forecasts faster than an accountant’s calculator marinated in amphetamines, has realised that Collingwood, although ginger, isn’t that great really.

He’s a player with no spice, in a world where you need to remember to always add more chilli and thyme.

Bopara has spice. Albeit a rubbishy, neglected spice that you find at the back of the cupboard of your long-expired neighbour, Old Tom.

It’s strange that no England bowlers were selected. Given that they are all cuttingly devastating in all conditions.

England may earn a draw. If they slow down.

Perceiving the fearsome threat before them, England buckled down, and prepared to eek out a draw from an apparently unbeatable opposition.

Former England Captain Andrew Strauss looked a bit out of form; as did Future England Captain Alastair Cook, and England’s innings was only given a glimmer of respectability by the efforts of Former England Captain Kevin Pietersen (97) and Former England Captain Andrew Flintoff (43*).

Former England Captain Paul Collingwood, managed a smash a no doubt decisive 16 from a mere 61 balls, after the testing and probably nose-endangering bowling of Sulieman Benn threatened to cause serious damage to the west coast of England, such was his potency.

Everyone is still convinced that Paul “Speed Gun” Collingwood is still a valuable addition to the side. We all agree that we can do no better - so why bother?

That Former England captain Kevin Pietersen’s “rash” miss-shot is the main headline, reflects just how difficult and boring things were.

Former West Indies captain, Shivnarine Chanderpaul appears to be England’s crab-apple of their eye, as they attempt to copy his method of grinding down the opposition with a gradual and ugly accumulation of runs. Isn’t it odd how England’s style of play cuts across sports: cricket, rugby, bar crawling – we all approach them in the same way.

The only difference between Shiv and ourselves, however, is ability to be good, which is a failing that has long dogged the Englanders.

Here’s looking for a lucky escape for England on day two.

Wronged Radio

Right. First things first. Who turned the cricket off?

Us Englanders in Germany used to follow live cricket over the radio. TMS, it seemed, was available to the entire world.

This was the case yesterday, when I woke up and, as is my want, listened to cricket in bed whilst breakfasting of muesli. A German AND English experience. The cultures are compatible.

Today, these simple pleasures in life, that all of us enjoy, were taken from me as cruelly an abruptly as a Bolivian grabs a child’s hamster to prepare in their dastardly Rodent Gravy.

Instead, I had to listen to BBC “We Don’t Do Adverts, We Only Constantly Spam The Airwaves With Trailers To Programmes You’ll All Probably Hate Anyway” rubbish.

Rubbish.

So, now I’m at work, and, consequently, in my usual angry mood (the Finance Department is being a right pain – but you know how finance people are, right?) following the OBO coverage, but without the usual colour and romance that TMS adds to my mornings.

Oh bastards in the BBC. If you were here, I’d give you a right going over with this pile of invoices and reimbursements claims, I would. Then, and only then, would you realise the wrong you have done.

Next item on the agenda: Graeme Swann, another player who hails from Burkina Faso or wherever, shoved in an England kit, given a few “patriotic” tattoos and thrown into the team. Why oh why, I have no idea. He is not one of my favourites. He, along with KP, Pratty Prior forms England’s Axis of Evil.

I mean, we know all foreigners are terrorists, so why are we letting them in the England side? To ease surveillance?

Anyway, just to cap off my bad mood, he’s only gone and bloody fluked two wickets in his first over of test cricket. Not only does this mean that he’s probably pushed Monty out of the spinner slot for about a year, but apparently, no other decent cricketer has ever done this before.

Why don’t the amazing blokes do amazing things, whereas the dreary, rubbishy geezers breeze through test cricket without a hitch. This explains a lot about the powers of Finance.

Moores steps bravely into action by lowering expectations

Peter Moores, chief England goon, has stated that England’s preparation to the will-they-won’t-they test series against India has been “less than ideal”.

This is the sort of British understatement that I’m missing in the Land of Chocolate. But, it’s also the sort of ridiculous, parochial drivel that happily assails me no more.

Contrary to England, the Indian team have had a marvellous build-up to the series. Oh wait, we can’t think about people other than ourselves. They don’t have feelings. They’re just cricket-playing machines. Sometimes they go to the toilet. Although, no them has actually publically announced this as fact.

Well, not everyone is an Australian, you know.

Although, you have to commend his “Us/The Foreign” mentality. Tidily bisecting the world into nice, if ineffective Englishman, and dangerous, unpredictable if good at making curries, Foreigners. Or, as they say here, Auslanderen.

(See? I’m learning. I am beginning to understand how people abuse me in bars.)

England are going to lose these series. They’ll play it. Because they’re muppets. (Peer pressure is helping, here, too.) But they’ll lose it, for sure. It’s not because they haven’t prepared well, but because they’re an incompetent horde of melons.

Which has been England’s problem for some years now.

Even their management is struggling to find their line. The team’s security will be fine. Of course, the England team are going to be guarded like a chocolate biscuit in a secretary pool. They still shouldn’t go, mind.

But, they’ve decided to let the individuals, with no expertise or perspective on the matter, to access their own security on the matter. This is a sensible move. We all know how good laypeople are at evaluating their own personal safety.

Why is everything so deeply, deeply awful?

England beaten by huge margin at the hands of stars

According to AYALAC’s refined methodology of re-weighting a team’s score by using irrelevant criteria, England lost to the star-peppered Trinidad and Tobago yesterday.

And by buggery did they lose big.

D. Charlton asked a cutting question recently (it was, I admit, hard to find sense in a fog of misguided comments). He asked:

“How many runs to England need to score to beat T&T tonight - before a ball is bowled?”

Well, let’s see. T&T’s land area is 1,980 square miles, and, as we saw yesterday, England is 50,351 square miles.

So, by my reckoning, the first ball of the match needed to be a no-ball, from which, England would proceed to run a relative modest 3,335 over-throws.

After achieving this, only then could England consider winning.

But, once again, our boys in whatever colour it is their advertisers have chosen for them these days, have failed us. And failed us bad.

By my recalibrated understanding of “the rules” England lost by 3,499 runs. Once again, not only did the opposition manage to chase down England’s total of 141 after just two balls, but they proceeded to put on a sensational show of hitting just to entertain the crowd and certain deluded parts of my mind.

What a victory by the young men from two islands whose names both begin with the letter “T” – what are the chances of that! After such a strurpling win under their belts, success, wealth and many, many women will surely come their way.

For England (and a small, rubbishy part of South Africa) this day will live in infamy. INFAMY.