What England can do about being shit

Everyone, at one point in their life, has looked themselves in the mirror and thought "nope, shit".

Even those that haven't, and want to "excel" and "achieve", usually go on to become generally regarded as "shits".

So, now comes a reflective moment for the England cricket team, and all they can see is shit. Puddles and puddles of gooey, poorly bonded shit.

People criticise the critics: "why must you be so critical?" say they. Well, here's the official AYALAC guide for being less shit:

1. Bowl as if you had played before

To become good at something you either need to pay someone else to do it for you, or to practice. England broke the record for the worst bowling performance ever in Port of Spain - second most extras conceded in an innings.

Apparently, in a list the worst bowling performances ever, England feature in over 40% of them.

I know. I did an excel spreadsheet. That's how you make blogging look like work - for you amateurs out there. In any case, this statistic is a sign. Rather like an omen of the second coming, a shitty sign.

2. Get rid of the rubbishy players in bring in less rubbishy ones

No really, it works.

3. Rule the team with an iron fist

England's main problem is the emergence of a private life for the players. That the players think of something other than cricket has become "acceptable" is not only a sign of weakness in the ranks, but indicative of the broader corruption of society generally.

Sex lives of all players must cease. For the good of the country.

A threat of mutilation for dropping averages wouldn't go amiss, either.

4. Cheat

England, for too long, have played fair, following the spirit of the laws and generally behaved in the cricketing way. It's time to follow Australia - not to Australia, obviously, who'd want to do that? Horrible place; full of spiders. No, we must relearn the science of cheating.

This goes beyond the dark arts of Murray Mints and jelly beans, we have to start thinking about creative use of the equipment at hand. After all, the cricket bat originally started life as a weapon.

We must use the resources available to us to prevent the opposition from freely scoring runs, or from running freely.

5. Replace the team with robots

By my reckoning, its four years since the mysterious Merlyn came into being. Which makes is qualified for the England team. That it can't run or operate effectively in the field only marginally disadvantages it against players such as Owais Shah.

It is claimed that the machine can bowl every ball known to man, which is some claim; there are a lot of men and therefore a lot of balls.

Although the inevitable mechanisation of the England bowling unit leads us to interesting possibilities: perhaps the future is all about technology in cricket.

Maybe we'll witness giant bowling guns fire 500 mph death balls at Mega-Slogotron 5.0; gawp at stratospheric sixes; and delight in lighting quick catches in continental-sized fields.

Although watching a batbot getting hit in the robo-goolies would be significantly less amusing.

Do umpires make England rubbish?

No. We do the hard work ourselves.

The recent flurry of dodgy umpiring decisions has galvanised the technophiles, and they are once again calling for increased use of the Third Umpire in adjudicating appeals.

Alastair Cook fell to a shocker, and Kevin Pietersen may feel rightfully upset. This, coupled with the freak dismissal of Michael Vaughan and the loss of Ravi Bopara, who should never been out there, leaves England feeling persecuted and hard-done-by.

The England captain has said in an interview,

“Those bastards! I’ll kill them! Why do we get the dodgy decisions, why do we get attacked by killer bees? Why us? It’s not fair! IT’S NOT FAIR!”

However, despite this, King Cricket thinks that these decisions didn’t affect the match. And that corresponds with my general mistrust of technology.

Here, I’m lazy tonight; let’s quote an old post of mine:

“Not only will [the increased use of technology] act to further undermine the field umpires confidence and authority on the pitch, but it also has the potential to reduce the quality of umpiring in the long-term. If the umpires give a decision based on their immediate thoughts, knowing that poor judgement can be corrected, we might develop a culture of dependence.”

Weirdly, I haven’t changed my views since then. Actually, the more I read of that blog, the more I agree with it. That bloke talks a lot of sense. Technology is pants.

I think this is because I hate all things technological. My copy of Word at work is completely buggered, and IT refuses to do anything about it. So I’ll be damned if I’d help the IT sector in any way by advocating its continual interference into the noble game.

That’s cricket, by the way.

Anyway, make sure you have a look at the blog tomorrow… I have some special treats for you tomorrow…oooooh….

The ump-teenth appeal

OK! So we’re back in business with access to Photoshop and everything. Apologies for the poor headline, I thought of a good pun, but didn’t know how to use it. A condition that has haunted me all my life.

Nevertheless, look at the picture! It really improves the quality of the blog, doesn’t it? It’s got David Shepherd in it. Now he was the man. You tell that young Aussie what for, Shep!

Bugger writing, we like the piccies. I’ve become The Sun of the internet world.

So, first up, an interesting English domestic issue: players will be able to refer all dismissals to the Third Umpire if they disagree with the field umpire’s decision in televised matches of the 50-over Friends Provident Trophy (the former C & G Trophy). This will operate on a trial basis, starting from April 29.

For the fielding team, only the captain may appeal against a decision, whereas any batsman can refer to the Third Umpire. Much has been made of the potential of this to slow down the game and undermine the umpire’s authority on the pitch. One umpire said, “There is the potential for it to be a disaster.” But this is true of anything.

Like powerplays and strategic pinch-hitting, it is likely that this new facility will be integrated into the game to be used as another tactic. I imagine that fielding teams would be loathed to use their appeal initially, but will try to grab the momentum when the middle order breaks into the tail-enders to finish off an inning. Similarly, for batsman, unless they are certain they didn’t nick it, I think they will rarely appeal except in dire situations. Maybe they’ll try to chance their arm to save their best batsman? But, seeing as it will be up to the blokes out there, it depends on how twatish they are – you can bet Kevin Pieterson will be appealing repeatedly.

Interestingly, the ECB has decided not to allow the use of the snickometer or Hawk-eye. Quite what the Third Umpire will bring to proceedings is anyone’s guess. I, for the life of me, cannot detect whether the batsman had nicked it over the television. The background interference and imperfections in technology make it all but impossible to perceive a noticeable difference. However, tedious over-analysis of LBW decisions normally gives a conclusive result either way.

Not only will this act to further undermine the field umpires confidence and authority on the pitch, but it also has the potential to reduce the quality of umpiring in the long-term. If the umpires give a decision based on their immediate thoughts, knowing that poor judgement can be corrected, we might develop a culture of dependence. I doubt it though. More likely, the lowering standards of respect that the umpires are given by professional players (there’s still deference at club level) is probably going to drop lower still.

What is baffling me about this whole issue is whether it is important at all. Much is made of a match changing because of a poor decision. So what? Matches change all the time: that’s cricket. It changes when a few wickets are lost; it changes when quick runs are scored. It is all part of the game.

However, I find it hard to believe how a forensic examination of a passage of play will add to the charm of cricket. Indeed, it stuns me when bowlers display self-righteous indignation when a marginal decision goes against them. The differences we are talking about here are of the slightest degrees: less than an inch one way or the other. Unfortunately, no bowler has this much control over the ball, and this degree of movement is more due to the “unfair” pitch than anything.

In reality, when looking at marginal dismissals we are looking into the world of chance. Skill, knowledge and foresight and hazed out by the unpredictable probabilities that determine the outcome of play. The MCC rules took the most sensible line, on this matter, and put the onus of proof on the fielding time. However, considering the nature of flat pitches these days, we may wish to reconsider this initial principle, yet we can a priori reach some systematic settlement for the lottery moments. The rule change will distabilise this solid scheme of laws that have governed the game so well.