Sluggo soars, India roars

It’s the catch everyone is talking about. Sluggo launches himself into a Jonty Rhodes-like jump, soaring horizontally at full extension and seizes the ball the last possible moment. Poetry in motion.

Here’s what cricinfo had to say about this nimble take:

"Jones to Uthappa, OUT, OMG! what a catch by Dwayne Levorock! And what wild celebrations! Let no body say anymore that a fat man can't jump! Uthappa has a nervous poke, away from the body, at a length-delivery outside off stump. It flew to the right of Leverock hurled himself - hard to visualise, I am not lying but that's what happened- to his right and plucked it single-handed. And the celebrations followed. He ran off to nowhere in particular, changed directions and again went on a jig. The players mobbed him, few other went down in heap in midwicket in celebration. All over each other. Bermuda are overjoyed. The bowler is the bottom of that heap and hold on he is crying. Tears of joy! What a start!"

Sadly, despite this awesome display of athleticism, Bermuda received a thorough battering at the hands of the Indians. Interestingly, Virender Sehwag came up with the goods after a long spell of bad form, scoring 114 off 87. The Indians posted a World Cup record 413 off their 50 overs. Neat work.

Once again, the Bermudan batting lacked steel, and they folded for 156. However, Sluggo was promoted up the order, and contributed, with David Kemp, 44 for the ninth wicket. This made up, I suppose, for conceding 96 from his 10 overs.

But what a catch.

Batting first

I think we are far enough into to the tournament to begin looking at the “Simon Wilde Thesis”. The Sunday Times cricket correspondent argues that the side batting second should expect a greater chance of victory:

"Figures show 57% of all one-day internationals are won by the team batting second, and the figure is higher in matches in the West Indies."

So let’s test the hypothesis. So far, I count 11 completed matches. The full list is as follows:

1. West Indies beat Pakistan
2. Australia beat Scotland
3. Canada lost to Kenya
4. Sri Lanka beat Bermuda
5. Ireland tied with Zimbabwe
6. England lost to New Zealand
7. South Africa beat Holland
8. India lost to Bangladesh
9. Pakistan lost to Ireland
10. Australia beat Holland
11. England beat Canada

From the above, the side batting first has won six games, the chasing team has won four games and one match has been tied. 60% of the total victories has been won by the side batting first – which is a result which flatly contradicts Wilde’s thesis.

However, considering the large number of minnows in this data-set, we cannot hope to glean much useful information for aiding our predictions over Big Fish matches. I shall, therefore, refine the analysis a little more. So, let me eliminate all those games involving minnows and the keep only intra-Big Fish matches and the upsets. Preserving, in the above list, numbers (1), (6), (8) and (9), with the following additional warm-up matches (in accordance with the above criteria):

a. New Zealand lost to Bangladesh
b. West Indies lost to India
c. South Africa lost to Pakistan
d. New Zealand beat Sri Lanka
e. England lost to Australia

Of this nine, only twice has a side batting first won. 78% of the time chasing sides win. Far greater than the originally percentage predicted by the theory, and a dramatic departure from the previous conclusion.

I’m not sure whether my cleaning of the data has been legitimate, but if these results are prescient, it may create a horribly predictable World Cup. No one really wants the Final to be determined by the toss of a coin. I hate it when Simon Bloody Wilde is right.

Nevertheless, although I will revisit this issue in the future, I do not believe there to be enough results to produce meaningful statistics. A conclusion on the Wildean Hypothesis will remain on hold until I have seen more Big Fish on Big Fish action.

Bob Woolmer dies

This is really terrible news. I don’t think I can add much to what has already been said. King Cricket has written a touching obituary, and the BBC has collected some tributes from around the cricketing world.

After losing to Ireland, Bob Woolmer came under immense pressure, and was pondering his the future of his career. However, this does not explain the tragedy. He died in frightening circumstances, alone and far from his family. It is awful that any human being has to endure such ordeals, especially in the context of a prosperous career and potential to use his skills to help develop more cricketers.

One wonders where Pakistani cricket will go from here. As Inzamam has retired from one-day cricket, the team has lost its foundation. But moments like this expose the unimportance of the game, relative to value of a human life. A genuinely upsetting day for cricket.

Hungry hungry minnows

By buggery! They did it! The Irish knocked Pakistan out of the World Cup. On the same day, Bangladesh smote India. The minnows have changed world history. This justifies all I have said about the minnows. And everything else I’ve written, too.

There is a lot of talk in the blog community about Pakistan’s dismal batting. Ahmer Azhar Karimuddin in the Pakistan Cricket Update raises an interesting point:

"Who would have thought that it would be the batting that would be the biggest hang-up Pakistan would have in this tournament? "

Indeed, with the Big Three, you would think they would secure a minimum of 200 in every match. This was not the case; the batting was rubbish. Whereas the bowling was, despite the doubters and lack of stars, pretty good.

India, on the other hand, were all-round crap.

What is it with these sub-continental sides? Why aren’t they trying? Is it the old “they don’t care enough” clap-trap? Perhaps it’s the pitches? Perhaps it’s the lack of practice? Perhaps the administrative issues or off-the-field distractions? What ever it is, I wish it would stop, otherwise it looks as though no one can stop the evil Australians winning again.

As a final thought, I think we can all agree that Pakistan is a side that has not fulfilled its potential. Part of this problem has been the management issues. However, Inzy, in his current spell as captain, has done a good job. I really hope they don’t axe him, as another sacking would add to their state of confusion. I also think that Bob Woolmer has brought stability to the team, and deserves to stay on. However, the Pakistan coach has said:

"Coaching is what I like to do but whether I continue to do that at international level is under discussion. I'm going to give it some thought."

It would be a shame if he gave up coaching altogether over one mistake. It’s not his fault. We need a scapegoat. I blame Mohammad Hafeez. I had high expectations for him. He bowls off spin. A spinner should know better than losing a match. This traitor to the cause should be ruthlessly persecuted and banished from the team. It is not Inzy’s fault. Or Bob’s.

Saying this, there is clearly an attitudinal problem in the Pakistani dressing room, and something needs to change if they are to sort themselves out.

Ah well.

Cricketers at leisure

Here is a picture of Pakistan Coach Bob Woolmer and fast bowler Mohammad Sami I saw last week.

These two naked men seem to getting very close. And by the look on Bob’s face, things might get a little closer.

Actually, what is going on with his face? What is he about to do? Maybe he’s about to “dunk” Sami? I’m not sure he’d look that keen, though. Sami’s knee seems to be moving across. Perhaps he is trying to ward Bob off? “Keep off!” he says through a feigned smile. “Not in front of the cameras.”

It shows you the changing times of cricket. You certainly wouldn’t have seen Devon Malcolm and Raymond Illingworth caught in a similarly semi-nude embrace. Saucy cricketers: it’s the way forward

England rediscover their natural game

Yes. We lost again. Just like the good old days. I can’t say that many of us our surprised. But it’s a pity as their performance was rather spineless. The Kiwis didn’t really do anything special. They just turned up, bowled some good balls and tapped the ball around. Nothing spectacular. They just waited for England’s inevitable slump.

And what a slump: England lost four wickets for five in a rather nostalgic middle order collapse. There was some nice batting at the death from Paul Nixon and Plunkers, but 209 was never enough. A slow pitch and poor fielding saw New Zealand ease home.

This doesn’t mean the World Cup is over for the English - they still will go into the Super 8 (albeit with less points). However, the great “Play Slow” plan was not productive. As I predicted (sorry, smugness getting me again) this strategy is dangerous if you lose quick wickets - as you have not accumulated a buffer of runs. If you invest batsmen’s energies in “getting their eye in” you are totally reliant on them staying in to covert this into a decent score. England’s batsman failed, and thus the innings was a disaster.

More importantly, they need to work out how to play on the St. Lucia ground and, ultimately, develop of game that is well-suited and productive on Caribbean pitches. Otherwise, the dynamic Kenyans will have us for breakfast.

Sluggo down and out

A sad day for lovers of teddy bears – Sri Lanka destroy Bermuda. Normally, minnow-swotting wouldn’t bother me. However, in this instance, cuddly Sluggo was involved. Sluggo didn’t perform well at all. And this makes me sad. :(

His bowling statistics are: 10-0-67-1 .

Not the usual standards we expect here in Ayalac.

Whilst batting, he scored one run, and his eighth ball brought the end of his, and Bermuda’s, sorry innings. (He also dropped two catches – hence the droppy picture.) Despite a brave effort from the extras (9), they only managed 78, and didn’t last half their allotted overs. Coupled with allowing the Lankan to ease over 300 runs, this made for a sorry show.

Although I noted elsewhere that I thought the minnows were a cheery addition to an otherwise formulaic international cricket scene, I am beginning to have doubts.

The rather predictable dispatching of the Banana Republic’s finest cricketing postmen doesn’t seem to mirror the intense competition in other sports – like the Football World Cup. It’s more Twickenham under-12s FCC than Inter Milan. The incorporation of the minnows might turn more people off. I’m still not sure.

Saying that, the Ireland/Zimbabwe game was a cracker, to be sure. It gave international exposure to two developing squads, which surely can’t be a bad thing? The standard of cricket wasn’t the best, but, as any England cricket fan will opine, quality isn’t a vital element in enjoying a match.

Generally, I am finding this phase of the tournament rather unsatisatisfying. The groups have been organised in such a way to ensure that the Big Fish are guaranteed to get through. Yes, there may be a surprise result – but the Test Level sides will all make it to Stage Two. There is no real drama – no tension over who might go. I can only assume that the ICC has decided that the teams require an extra long warm-up period, or perhaps they wouldn’t mind some more cash?

No… I’m sure they’re thinking about the players.

Spaceship Scotland crashes and burns

This match was always going to be a lose-lose situation for me.

Like the rest of humanity, I obviously want to see the Australians humiliated by a minnow. However, after a nasty break up with a Scottish girlfriend, I have turned rather anti-Things-North-Of-The-Border. I am now an advocate of full Scottish independence, isolation and saturation bombing. So, it’s probably best if I take the little drop of bitter glee from the match and do like any good journalist by Focusing On The Loser.

So it brings me great joy when I say: Scotland were crushed by an opposing team. Hurrah!

This, yet again, matches up to my forecasts on the matter. The Scocthmen’s bizarre strategy of targeting one of the most awesome cricket machines in history was a mistake. Why not quote myself? It saves on effort.

There is no point in drawing up detailed plans on defeating Ponting’s team; it is a waste of effort. Scotland will lose against the Ozzies. They need to be realistic, and attempt to fell a weaker team: like England.

OK – admittedly this wasn’t exactly sticking my neck out. But still, one group of barbarians defeated another. Isn’t that enough?

The Ayalac curse strikes

I’ll try not to smug in this post. I’ll probably fail, but at least I’m trying.

So! The first blood is drawn. As per my prediction, the West Indies dispatched Pakistan. I even got some things right: Pakistan won the toss (although, contrary to my advice, chose to field); Mohammad Yousuf and Inzamam-ul-Haq contributed with the second and third highest scores; and, erm, Chanderpaul scored a century.

I wouldn’t read too much into this match, however. As two teams will go through to the next round, and there’s two ‘good’ sides in each group, the first stage is rather like a glorified warm-up. Even if there is an upset, the same old pros are sure to get through.

Still, I pity the poor Pakistan fans. Unlike England, they are packed with talent and should win matches. Unlike England, you don’t expect them to lose. And yet somehow they do. Hence, I was also amused to read the desperation in Omar’s blog. It was a lot more sweary than usual. These made me laugh, so let me share:

“Imran Nazir's …. is a fucking idiot. …Someone needs to bumjack him in the dressing room”

One shudders to think what this entails.

“What in the world was [Younis Khan] doing? Did you see that shot? What the fuck?”

Eventually, the laws of physics are attacked:

“Inzi was unlucky with the decision. I think it was going over the wicket. Fuck what Hawkeye says!”

However, as we all know, it was not science that stopped Pakistan, but my predictions. I have back the Windies. Fear my wrath all those that defy my champions!

It is nearly upon us

OK – the hype for this World Cup has been near BBC Grandstand proportions. You know the feeling, you look in the paper to see when the match starts, you read “3:00pm”, giving you just enough time to make some tea. You sit down, with a biscuit in a comfortable “I’m ready to watch the match now” position. Then, they talk and talk, you see footage of past matches, interviews, statistics, pretty pictures and it seems to be tomorrow before the game has even started. By which time, you have imbibed your drink, leaving you tealess and distraught before it has even started.

This blog is rather like that.

So following on from soon-to-be-accurate predictions, I will give you a summary of today’s match straight to the point.

West Indies vs. Pakistan, Jamaica, 2:30pm GMT start.

Pakistan will win the toss and bat.

Pakistan will score 238. Inzamam-ul-Haq will score a useful 41, but Mohammad Yousuf and Mohammad Hafeez will top-score with 52 and 62 respectively.

The quicks will chip away, but Chris Gayle will do most of the damage taking 3-38 in his ten overs.

The Windies reply will start disastrously. Rapidly being reduced to 34-4, losing Brian Lara, Ramnaresh Sarwan, and Gayle for not much. However, Shivnarine Chanderpaul will hold the side together with a tremendous 109 not out. He will receive solid late-order support, with most players chipping in. Despite the efforts of Naved-ul-Hasan (2-34) and impressive spinning from Danish Kaneria (2-45) Chanderpaul will hit the winning runs on the third ball of the 48th over, with a nice flick through mid-wicket.

Winning the game by two wickets. Nice.

AYALAC Official Backing

I’m not sure I like the look of that acronym. It sounds a bit like a health-food shop for hippies. “This organic tofu contains essence of Ayalac, which decleanses your spiritual pores.” Ah well. It’s too late to change my name now. I’ll have to live with this humiliation for the rest of my blogging life – which, on average I understand, is about five minutes.

So anyway! On the World Cup’s eve, I have decided to champion the cause of one team, and one team alone. Normally, I would give my total support to the England team. Obviously, they are a bunch of useless losers, so there is no point in getting my hopes up. Besides, England teams are supposed to lose. I think our fans prefer it like that. It feels normal; losing make my insides warm and cosy. “It’s like I’m home in front of the fire” I think when we are whitewashed again.

Hence, the essence of Ayalac gives its backing to the WEST INDIES.

Sir Vivian Richards finally swung us when he said:

“Brian Lara is retiring from one-day cricket at the end of the World Cup and it would be fitting to see him smash the winning runs in the final.”

Now that, you must agree, would be a superb way to finish the tournament. To be honest, I think most of the world wants the Windies to win. A West Indies win would surely rejuvenate a sport that increasingly less popular in the region. There’s an adage in England: “When Yorkshire are strong, England are strong.” I have a feeling that when Caribbean cricket is strong, world cricket is strong. And, at the moment, I would rather fancy the Martians chances against us. Also, the hosts have to win at some point…

Go on Brian! Do it for your spiritual pores!

(I actually think that South Africa will win. Don’t tell. But I fear it is rather prosaic to pick a side that you think will actually succeed.)

The ego and cricket

There‘s an interesting blog on Gentleman‘s Game No More on pressure. The article trots out the old Keith Miller quote, who piloted Hurricanes during the Second World War:

"Pressure? I'll tell you what pressure is. Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse. Playing cricket is not."

Mephistopheles concludes that "pressure" is an over-used word in modern cricket, and suggests that it is not applicable in the context of a sporting event. There are two reasons why this is wrong.

Firstly, the key word here is the pronoun "I". Our characters are partly formed by our past. Major or traumatic events are significant in affecting our current proclivities. Miller is alluding to a subjective episode that correlates tightly with particular circumstances in his life experience.

Yet, fortunately, the present cricketing generation has not fought in a war. Our point of reference for our concepts and language come from the notable instances from our rather less turbulent history. We deploy a vocabulary that seems, in our view, most relevant to the situation before us. As, thankfully, we all have not experienced such peril, we apply words that others (say, soldiers) who have may not feel suitable. However, surely language does not fit the extremes of the human emotions, but the middle ground. Or, more accurately, it matches with the usage of the current generation of the English-speaking community. Moreover, is this not simply too high a benchmark for our language? It is not the cricketers that must struggle to formulate an applicable phrase - but the fighter pilots.

Secondly, the nature of modern cricket has changed. I have noted elsewhere that "intensity" is just as much a part of the international game as bats and stumps. For better or for worse, this is a fact of life. Indeed, it also reflects the changing focus of society. We are no longer are stirred by national prestige, as sport is now the chief channel for our emotional energies and passions. This is surely an improvement. But also, it irresistibly heightens the role for sport in language as well as society. Consequently, cricket has become professional. Sponsorship deals are worth millions. Players give 110%. They give their all to the team; those who fail to fully commitment lose. Careers, the lives of men, hang in the balance. Like businessman and stockbrokers, they feel pressure because their future, and the team's future, is uncertain.

Moreover, as we are social animals, the pressure is felt because of the over-spilling anticipation of the millions of fans, the expectation of the coach and the demands of the press. This additional dimension adds to the excitement and to the enjoyment of the game.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Do you remember the summer of 1998? In that summer, a new bloke started playing for England. He seemed promising. The only problem was his fatness. Despite being only 20, this weight problem persisted. It even started to give him back problems. The ECB issued an ultimatum: shape up, or sod off.

Now that bloke is super-fit, and is one of the best players in the world. Although, he’ll never forget his roots. His heart is with the fat people. He feels for them, he empathises with them. He knows their pain like no other.

Hang on. This picture doesn’t seem to be saying these things. The picture says: “Betrayal.” It says, “Ex-Fatty is being mean to my new hero, Sluggo.” Well I won’t stand for that Andrew Flintoff of Lancashire! You leave the teddy bear of Bermuda alone! He is my hero. This is a warning: blogging can turn nasty.

Lets all by nice to Sluggo. I’ll start: he has the best hair-do of all the world’s cricketers.

Vaughan: Back to Basics

I notice that the BBC stole my Michael Vaughan picture in the post below. Should I sue them? Best not draw attention to myself, really… Anyway, sorry for the repetition, but here’s some more Vaughan.

In a recent interview, Vaughan has claimed that England’s recent success is due to their “back to basics” approach. I normally associate back to basics with John Major’s desperate attempts to hold a divided and toppling government together in the face of inevitable annihilation. But I’m sure it’ll all be cheery for Vaughany.

Anyway, in this interview, the England captain believes big-hitters are not central to the England plan:

“Paul Collingwood is not that explosive, but he’s very, very valuable. JD [Jamie Dalrymple] is very explosive towards the end, Belly is a nice little player who knocks it around and KP [Kevin Pieterson] is coming back. These guys are all going to play their part.”

This cerebral, clear-thinking approach for Vaughan is really refreshing. It rejects the contemporary obsession with rope-clearing; it is not the only tactic worth considering. Building an innings in a deliberate and methodical way is just as effective when compiling a score. Rather like the old adage: “It’s not how, it’s how many”.

For Vaughan, England won in Australia because of

“…going back to basics, working together as a team, trying to prepare in a way that was specific to one-day cricket and then just having that little bit of luck. We got together and talked about every aspect of one-day cricket as a team – we left no stone unturned.”

This is a very interesting comment. It shows that England are willing to scrutinise their approach and diversify their tactics. One-day cricket is not about predictable variation (rotating bowlers and field settings for the hell of it) it’s about conforming to a carefully constructed plan and being flexible in the use of tactics. Similarly, when batting you must look to your team’s particular skill-set, and build a plan that emphasis and even exaggerates this natural advantage.

I have now convinced myself: Pinch-hitting is not the only method to victory.

It seems, rather like me, Michael Vaughan is challenging the hegemonic discourses that many take for granted. Is there nothing the man can’t do?

Playing it slow

England have announced another ex post facto change of tactics. Instead of promoting a pinch-hitter to take advantage of the early fielding restrictions, they will “build a foundation”. Angus Fraser states:

“The plan is for England to make up for a slow start by scoring heavily in the final 15 overs of each innings. It is hoped the tactic allows them to consistently post scores of 260-270, totals that will ensure they are competitive in every match.”

Weirdly, this puts a lot of pressure for the bowlers to perform well. As others* have pointed out, the days of an “unchasable score” seems to be over. This means that the bowlers must (and there is not derogating this) must contain or skittle the batsman. Achieving containment is extremely difficult given the quality of current international slogging, and taking wickets depends on the penetration of the bowlers. However, considering last summer’s performance, I doubt Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, James Anderson et al. are capable of defending scores below thee-hundred.

Saying that, the approach is a practical and realistic acknowledgement of England’s modest boundary-spanking resources. Thus, we must make the most of Kevin Pieterson and Andrew Flintoff by giving them a licence to slog towards the end of the innings. As always, we can only hope for the best with the bowlers.

Anyway, is this really a conservative return to old-fashioned one-day play? Well, consider this: if Adam Gilchrist gets out swinging the bat, there’s plenty of talent below him to recover the innings and put on a decent score through nudging ones and twos. But, what happens when England lose their upper-order cheaply? The sloggers are exposed and, if they lose their wickets, an imperfect start turns into a disastrous end.

Arguably, the insurance of consequence-free early hitting provides a greater buffer to a side wanting to “play it safe”; obtaining quickly the comfort of runs. Whereas nurdling singles can only succeed if executed over a long duration, and with wickets in hand. Pinning our hopes on preserving wickets might undermine confidence further, and place more pressure on the lower order to “catch up”. Digging ourselves further into a hole of negativity. Which is something I generally approve of.

So, accepting reality might be another ECB cock-up. Who knows? So, we’ll see how it goes with England. But at least Michael Vaughan has implemented some strategy to proceedings.

* The link feature appears to be broken on blogger. Here's the article I wanted to link to: http://www.cricket-blog.com/archives/2007/03/5/Preview-of-Australias-World-Cup-chances/

The minnows fight back

Despite the efforts of the ten-fingered Jacob Oram, minnow Bangladesh consumed the big fish New Zealand.

Poor batting reduced New Zealand to 34 for 4, whereupon Oram added a steady 88 to leave them with 226. Bangladesh’s reply was solid, with Javed Omar and Tamim Iqbal putting on 85 for the first wicket. Thereafter, Bangladesh commanded the game. Mashrafe Mortaza finished the Black Caps off with 30 off 14 balls, striking three sixes, with an over to spare.

Clearly, the Kiwis didn’t really turn up to Bridgetown. They’re only Bangladesh, after all. But, this is the strength of the minnow: deceptive ability. They are not a push over, like Twickenham under-13s were, you must apply yourself to win. When international teams become complacent against such sides they lose.

All these little teams are trying hard to win and deserve respect from their opponents. To fail to give this respect teams run the risk of “doing a New Zealand”.

Minnows play to an international standard, only they do not contain the consistent quality of the bigger teams. It’s more like a football World Cup, with plucky Ghana trying to fell mighty Brazil. As such, minnows are an important part of the World Cup. Their presence diversifies the international cricket experience and makes it more interesting to a wider audience.

Let them play!

England beat a fat man at his own game

When I looked up the score during the interval, England looked on the ropes. The press’ main theme was “Uninspiring England scrape a score thanks to Jamie Dalrymple’s nurdling”. This morning the headline in the Metro is “England cruise to crushing win”. 22.2 overs is a short time in cricket.

After posting a respectable 286, England blew Bermuda away, scoring 45 all out. Hopefully, our boys got some practice out of it.

There has been a lot of talk of the minnows’ place in the World Cup. I, for one, have not issued a comment on the matter. I will continue this precedent.

However, I would like to note that the Caribbean island has two decent players: David Hemp, who captains Glamorgan and 21-stone Dwayne Leverock who bowls tight left-armers. The latter is now one of my favourites in the international cricket arena – his nickname is “Sluggo”. What a name. What a man. What a spinner.

The rest of them are rubbish.

Obsession with injury

OK – I may not have a great memory,but I don’t remember
cricketers always being a bunch of old crocks. Angus Fraser (champion) used to plug away for years without injury. Alright, that may not be entirely true, but in my unfounded opinion, cricketers are receiving more injuries. There are two schools of thought explaining this development:

1. Geoff Boycottism (They’re all a bunch of girls). This thesis asserts that modern cricketers have become increasingly fragile because of universal use of “shoes” and banning corporal punishment in schools.

2. They’re over-worked. This re-iterates the usual complaint that cricketers play too much cricket.

The reality is probably a mixture of the two. Or probably not. Anyway, here is a list of international players that are either injured or have an injury “scare”.

- Mathew Hayden
- Michael Vaughan
- Herschelle Gibbs
- Justin Kemp
- Jacob Oram
- Andrew Symonds
- Abdul Razzaq
- Brett Lee
- Simon Jones
- Shoaib Akhtar
- Mohammad Asif

I decided to stop at eleven. But it’s enough for a whole team – a pretty good team, now that I look at it. It seems that at any point 5% of the world’s cricketing talent has some sort of injury.

It’s worth noting that none of the above crocks is a spinner. Look at the above picture. Anil Kumble continuing to win matches, despite the major head trauma. What does that tell you about spinners?

There is a very interesting article on the Canadian cricket website, about the under-development of cricket in the Americas.

It documents the first overseas tour in 1859, as All-England took on the Americans.

…the tour concluded with the notorious 'Frosty Match' played at Rochester, NY, on October 21, 24, and 25 between Eleven of England and Twenty-two of the United States and Canada. The home side was wrecked by the round-arm bowling of John Wisden (of the Cricket Almanack). But dismissal appeared to come as relief to the half frozen batsmen. "Shiver my timbers, I'm out!" was the relieved cry as they made a dash for the warmth of the pavilion. The home side was beaten, early on the third day, by an innings and 70 runs, but in fact, it was cricket that was defeated on the fields of Rochester.

Cricket simply failed to attract a broader audience that day. A PR disaster; cricket beaten by bad weather. It may have been the first such instance, but it wasn’t the last.

The article goes on to place partial responsibility for the death of cricket, on those that attempted to preserve it, specifically those in Philadelphia:

Indeed, I sometimes think that it was the snobbishness of Philadelphia which was largely responsible for branding cricket as a 'stuck-up' game in popular American perception

Compared to the everyman’s game of baseball, cricket didn’t have a chance. It was seen as exclusive. Which is, in itself, part of the contradictory nature of cricket: its charm lies in its antiquated and rather archaic rules that baffle outsiders. Cricket stops for tea, plays with a straight bat, and have you ever tried to explain a forward defensive to someone who knows nothing about the game? Cricket feeds on these snobberies, and appeals to those who are dissatisfied with American culture.

In another possible world cricket could have survived in America. But imagine the game if the yanks got hold of it. It would be a vulgar spectacle, with unnecessary American rules with silly titles like “power plays”. Games would last no more than twenty overs, and awful music would blare out when boundaries are scored. Ghastly.

Thankfully, this never happened, and cricket remains the better game. Conversely, baseball did catch on over here. Only we call in “rounders” and it is played by children.

Ian Salisbury agrees with me

After reading Muttiah Muralitharan’s savage attack on me, former England spinner, Ian Salisbury comes to my defence. In a recent interview, he states that Monty Panesar will be a big player in the World Cup and that “spin may play a big part in the tournament.” Take that Murali!

Moreover, he goes on to support another thesis of mine:

“…why is that a fast bowler can get away with being a No. 11 but a spin bowler can’t? Spinners are always expected to bat at seven, eight or nine. You look at Glenn McGrath, he’s in the Australia side for his bowling but he can’t bat to save his life. So why was Monty given stick for his batting when he was in the side for his bowling?”

Hear, hear! Spinners are indeed oppressed. Spinning is an important discipline in itself, and should not be sullied by the demand for batting skills. In fact, rubbishy fast bowlers should be the ones expected to swan around with the willow, and keep wicket.