8 October 2006   Finally the Hairgate row is concluded; rarely in the history of cricket has so much rubbish been said by so many about so little.  Now perhaps we can get on with the cricket.  Well, we have to wait a bit for that .  Before we can get back to real cricket, we have the meaningless ICC bi-annual competition to get through first.  And it will probably work in England's favour if it gets some key players back nearer to match fitness, but (and we recognise we are getting beyond our remit here) it continues to reflect badly on the ICC for continually trying to milk the game.  Goodness knows, whilst they did the right thing in charging the Pakistan team (through their captain) with bringing the game into disrepute by the Oval walk-out,  to charge them with "ball-tampering" was just daft.  As Mike Selvey rightly points out in his Guardian column, surely umpires will think twice about acting on suspected ball tampering in future, if it's going to end in all this furore.

One thing that struck me was - upon receiving this month's WCM and reading the reports of the 3rd (Headingley, and I had to look that up!) and 4th (Oval, of course) tests - how much the cricket had become over-shadowed.  Completely.  I had totally forgotten about Ian Bell's 3rd consecutive ton, KP's 135, a fifty from Tresco!;  Younis 173 + Yousuf 192 = 363 for the Pakistan's 3rd wicket; Panesar's 3 wickets in each innings).  And the 4th test was actually almost interestingly poised.  Shame.

22 August 2006  (Day O + 2, the day after the day after the Oval Test)        Hair-brained (2)    As a follow up to our comment of yesterday, clearly the papers have been full of the repercussions of the Hair/Inzamam impasse of Sunday.  I have avoided the more sensationalist papers, dragging in former players/umpires off the street to add their two'penn'orth, but have tried to glean some sense from the more intelligent writers in the Guardian and the FT.  

Sadly, common sense remains in short supply:

Whilst the FT is not known for its cricket coverage, Matthew Engel writes a thoughtful piece, part reportage and part opinion. He does, however, suggest that "it is a flaw in the laws that umpires are empowered to take an instant decision [on suspected ball tampering] without giving the players a chance to state their case. Justice demands that the umpires prove beyond doubt that the ball was damaged [deliberately by a fielder]".  Firstly, this is not a flaw at all; I think the whole point of the Law is to permit the umpires to take action there and then without it becoming a major drama. Now clearly here it has, but perhaps the fielding side over-reacted by regarding it as a slur on their collective character and an allegation of cheating: The idea of the five-point penalty + ball change would seem to be to largely de-criminalise the whole thing. Ball-tampering has always gone on, at all levels of the game; it is a grey area and not a big issue like performance enhancing drugs, match fixing, etc.  Umpire suspects it has happened, five run penalty (won't alter the game) + change ball. End of story. No stigma. No personal "cheating" accusations.  One wonders what might have happened had a different umpire been there ...?

Secondly, to suggest as Engel and others have that the umpire should provide evidence would lead to the umpire's action being a whole much bigger affair.  I reiterate the point: how does the umpire gather evidence to present? Furthermore, if he has to present evidence (to whom? at what juncture? how long would this take?), the whole game will lose momentum. It won't be like calling for the 3rd umpire on a run-out (makes ball tampering hand motion towards the pavilion!);  It is supposed to be a quick, stigma-free penalty (like bowling a no-ball!).  Here it hasn't worked like it should but I'm still not sure that is Umpire Hair's fault;  as many observers noted, he did what he felt he had to do given his interpretation of events on the field. The Laws required and empowered him to act and he did.  He would be entitled to expect this to be the end of matters. To say, as Mike Marqusee (the Guardian) has , that it was an "attack of [the fielders'] integrity" is surely nonsense; not even umpire Hair would have intended this, surely. Surely?

Furthermore, Marqusee goes on to say that he fully supports and understands the fielding side's mini-strike as being justified.  That writer's excellent book Anyone but England - Cricket, race and class made a lot of good points about cultural arrogance towards "cheating foreigners", but for him to say that it was right for the fielding side to regard the umpire's actions as insulting and to take action to collapse the whole game to the detriment of the spectators (who do not seem to get any sort of consideration in the matter), would seem to be short-sided and irresponsible.

Richard Williams writing in the Guardian also seems to over-look the rights of the paying spectators.  He is correct to say that sport is about the contest between its participants and that no decision should be taken with the motive of pleasing, etc, people who had bought tickets to see it.  But the point I was trying to make yesterday was that rather than take an extreme interpretation of the fielders' action in striking, umpire Hair could have allowed a little more time to retrieve the situation, perhaps involving Mike Proctor as the match referee.  Interpreting the match as forfeit should have only happened as an absolute last resort, or rather when all last resorts have been exhausted.

In addition, I was staggered to learn that various eminent politicians (i.e. both the fielding side's national president and leader of the opposition, none other than the eminent Imran Khan, had sent messages of support to Inzamam.  Perhaps these were for local political purposes but (a) haven't they better things to do (this is a game of cricket!) and (b) would it not be better if such powerful people did not take sides in such inflammatory situations?

Finally, the threat of Pakistan pulling out of the rest of their tour if Inzamam is banned as a result of the two charges he will now face from the ICC, seems real. How sad and how unnecessary.  Let's just hope everyone calms down over the next few days and that the ICC takes a pragmatic approach, absent any hard evidence of dastardly deeds emerging from the depths of Sky's TV footage.  I would like to go and see the excellent Pakistan team play in the ODIs. I would not want to watch match-fixers or performance-enhancing drug takers.  Do I care whether they might have scuffed a ball a little, or not? Not really.  Please, Pakistan, do not feel slighted by the umpire's actions; undoubtedly he was acting in good faith and there is no stigma.  This is what the Laws were trying to do.  Please play cricket and let us watch you.

21 August 2006     (the day after the Oval Test)  Hair-brained    Once again it is the cricket fan who is the loser.    

He may or may not have been actually right, but Umpire Darrell Hair cannot be criticised for being bold in awarding the penalty runs against the fielding side if he genuinely believed – as he presumably did – that the ball had been deliberately tampered with.  One must disagree with commentators like Ian Botham who felt he should have “evidence” before making such a move. What “evidence” can an umpire out there in the middle possibly have other than his own beliefs in what he has seen?

He may or may not have been mistaken but that was his call to make and there the matter should have rested, subject to the fielding side appealing through the proper channels later if they felt he had erred.  But for a fielding side to protest by delaying their entrance on to the field was insult in turn to the paying spectators and, as tourists, their hosts. 

But once this protest had been registered, again there the matter should have stood; for an umpire then to interpret this as "refusing to play" under law 21(a) and, presumably 21(b) which provides for the umpire to make suitable enquiries to try to resolve matters if he SUSPECTS a team might be refusing to play, would simply beggar belief.  Did Umpire Hair give no thought whatsoever to the paying public?   It is one thing to be (and to be seen as) decisive – e.g. in the Shahid Afridi pitch-scuffing incident in the winter - but surely here was a situation crying out for pause and reflection especially as presumably Hair might have guessed that the Pakistan team would have (mis?)interpreted his actions as biased against them.  The Laws were written from the perspective of playing the game, not spectating, but as a professional umpire in a professional sport, there should, in practice, be more acknowledgment of the importance of the game’s spectators and followers. Ho hum

As an aside, one wonders whether Sky’s tea-time commentary, courtesy of David Gower,  that they had trawled their footage and had themselves seen no evidence of ball-tampering gave Pakistan the confidence to try to take the umpires on via the protest; but still one wonders what they hoped to achieve.

Finally, in the ICC’s announcement today that they will charge Pakistan with changing the condition of the ball, does this mean that there IS some hard evidence to present…? Maybe, maybe not, but that still doesn’t make Umpire Hair’s decision to bring the match down correct.

Meanwhile we hear there is no truth in the rumour that UEFA are to replay the Arsenal-Barcelona Champions League final with Umpire Hair as the referee.

*                             *                             *

As a postscript there is now the ludicrous suggestion from, apparently, the normally sensible Bob Woolmer, that the ODI series might be cancelled if Inzamam is censured by the ICC.  Come on chaps, give us something back here.

17 December 2004  In this month's Wisden Cricketer, John Stern's editorial deals with the fiasco of the Zimbabwean tour (oops that's us banned from coverage there, ho hum) and concludes (probably rightly) that it comes down to money. Well, if English cricket sold out there it has happened to an even greater extent now the TV rights sale has concluded in depressingly predictable style.  Cricket as a game is priceless, except when £200m comes into play.  The condemnation has been, it seems, universal across the UK's newspapers, including CMJ writing in The Times owned by Murdoch's News Corp.  But none put it better than David Hopps in the Guardian; as he writes: "This was a day that English cricket will rue. It was the day when the game abandoned its claim to be part of the fabric of English society. It was the day when it became just another sport scrabbling for a fat pay cheque." 

We cannot add to this other than to be helplessly flippant about the whole thing: It's all a huge and cynical plot by people trying to wean us off the game:  The only reason people like us (here at idontlikecricket) waste so much time writing about, thinking about and playing cricket is because those complacent twits at the BBC in the 1970's stupidly showed live test matches on TV and John Player League games on a Sunday afternoon without a thought for what it was doing, i.e. indoctrinating impressionable young people into thinking cricket was a worthwhile game played by (and run by) decent people. No danger of my children growing up loving the game now.  I'd give the game (as we know it in this country) another 20 years...? 

Justifying the decision, Somerset chairman Giles Clarke, who led the ECB's negotiating team, said (according to the Guardian) that "less than 60% of people now watch terrestrial television; it's a dying form."  Now, lets step back and think about that statement: where did it come from? did someone tell him this? did he make it up? As far as I know, everyone (pretty well) who watches pay TV also receives free-to-air.  It is not a truism to say that because (circa) 40% of TV homes receive pay-tv (i.e. Sky, either direct or via cable) and 60% don't, that the 40% of pay subs do not watch terrestrial!  It is just such a crass statement, it beggars belief.  Did he really take this decision because by allowing test cricket to go free-to-air he'd be DEPRIVING 40% of TV homes of it?!?!

As Rob Steen might say: "read on and weep". 

15 November 2004  Rather worryingly, you'll be aware no doubt that with Channel Four's coverage of English tests up for renewal following next summer's Ashes series, there is a possibility that C4 and BSkyB (or Sky) carve this up but with Sky getting more tests than previously.  This will erode - still further - the amount of free-to-air cricket available in this country.  Undoubtedly, the ECB is trying to cash in on the current upswing in English cricket  by selling out further. Death by a thousand cuts (and I'm not referring to one of my bowling spells).

It was to be hoped that the ECB would recognise that perhaps some of the increased popularity might be due to terrestrial coverage being available to all.  To further limit the amount of cricket available to non- pay TV subscribers could further damage the game in the longer-term by having it accessible to fewer.  

Perhaps the ECB thinks that in allowing C4 to continue to have some cricket, it has graciously made a concession to those of us who continuously want something for nothing. Come on ECB, just give it back to the BBC. We don't want it to go the way of football (look what's going on there).

If you agree, contact the ECB now before it's too late.

23 October 2004  Good on The Wisden Cricketer for giving some prominence to the astonishingly appalling conduct of the authorities for policing paying spectators' lunch-boxes at the recent one-day international tournament; quite staggering.  Whilst I am not quite sure why one would want to take coca cola or crisps to a cricket match (give me a proper picnic and a nice bottle of wine - oh no, alcohol was banned too!), people should at least have the right .. etc etc ...in short, w e do not want sponsors' money that badly. Get a life Pepsi.  More seriously, is attending a major cricket match actually all that much fun..? cramped tip up seats, over-priced tickets, lousy mass-market catering, inability to sit on the grass by the boundary .... Cricket is not a 90 minute football match; a day at cricket needs to be a relaxing and entertaining experience.  But is it?  Let us know what you think.

Whilst on the subject of the Wisden Cricketer, they've been running a series on the inside back cover showing cricketers' other hobbies (painting, guitar-playing, etc.).  To my mind, this should be interesting and show the various, often unusual, hobbies in which our pros indulge in order to relax.  This month they have Shane Warne and his hobby is ... wait for it ... golf.  How excruciatingly dull.  Not just on Warne's part but on the part of the magazine. Maybe all the other cricketers in the world who they haven't already featured also only play golf, in which case they might as well go for the world's leading wicket taker .... or maybe not.

25 August 2004  So Channel Four's coverage of English tests is up for renewal following next summer's Ashes series.  Could the ECB be looking to cash in on the current upswing in English cricket (successful test team, TwentyTwenty, etc.) by selling out to Sky? Does it think it can copy football's Premier League success, based on Sky money? (Is Brian Lara cricket's Thierry Henry?). Let's hope not. Barring a few hiccups a year or 2 back, C4's coverage has been pretty good even if it does rely on old staples of Benaud and Boycott (and how many times have you missed the first ball of a new over because you drifted away during the adverts?).

Hopefully the ECB will recognise that perhaps some of the increased popularity might be due to terrestrial coverage being available to all.  To limit the audience to pay TV subscribers could bring in more ££ now but could damage the game in the longer-term by having it accessible to fewer.  Perhaps in these days of lower media valuations, Sky will not be able justify offering enough to turn the ECB's head. The worry is that if it's marginal, it turns into a bidding war and cash becomes the only factor. According to the BBC web site, an ECB official is reported to have said: 

"What we're interested in is attractive proposals that recognise this is the most valuable sporting property being offered in the television market in the UK this year.

"We have an obligation as stewards of the game to have an open mind to all proposals. We have a game to finance and a game to pay for.

"Somebody cannot put forward a proposal that does not give us a proper and fair value for what we are offering just because they think we should be presented in one particular medium."

Hmm.  We believe the board will be risking the future of the game if they don't believe it should be presented in one particular medium, i.e. terrestrial.

1 October 2003   Refreshing and enjoyable! That's the view on the new The Wisden Cricketer magazine. As a subscriber to the old The Cricketer, I have to say that the format was getting stale and the magazine was often getting stashed away unread.  I don't think this will be happening much with the new periodical. For those not in the know, the mass of cricket info now available over the web has driven down sales numbers of the UK's two indigenous monthly magazine titles, such that they had no choice but to merge. And the result proves that 2+2 can equal 5.  It is a complete fresh start. No longer trying to provide belated news and match reviews (whilst there is some element of this still, the magazine takes a fresh approach and seeks a new angle rather than simply reporting the match facts as if it were yesterday), the new title is a monthly look at the state of the game and a cracking good read.  

Good points include a thought provoking review of the 18 counties by Rob Steen; There are a number of interesting columns and some editorial to boot; Good photography; Also there are no book reviews by Robin Marlar - instead are a number of guest reviewers including Matthew Engel provide a more varied approach.  

On the not-so-plus side, the Cricketer's Last Word piece is replaced by a rather predictable "interview" with guitar-playing Mark Butcher (does he really play the guitar? I never knew that!).  And why do all magazines always have a crossword? who fills these in??! 

Minor gripes aside, I shall actually look forward to my second edition dropping onto my door-mat and offer (nearly) full marks to the editorial team (led by John Stern) for what is far more than merely a marvellous overhaul or re-launch or merger or whatever.

15 September 03:- 2003 season draws to a close ...

Well, the season draws to a close, England with their traditional finale grabbing a dramatic series-tying win at the Oval. The only unusual thing being that maybe, just maybe, Surrey CC won't win the County Championship (and who'd have thought Sussex would be the contenders?!). 

A number of successes in the season: Smith's runs for Kent (til he got selected; Vaughan (til he got the captaincy); Harmison; Flintoff; Kirtley (til he got injured); Thorpe back; Trescothick working his way back to runs; Murali for Kent (sorry about the Kent flavour); Collingwood back; South Africa's top order; South Africa's bowlers despite there being no Donald; Blackwell's amazing 247 in 156 balls; Flintoff (again); Bicknell.  

The game needs star players to capture imagination and it has been a long time since we have had one.  A year ago people latched on to Anderson and maybe his day will come, but Flintoff has made the difference this season.  Now no-one will care if their Woodworm Wand bat actually does have woodworm and breaks in two.  A real hero, just what the game needs. Good for you, Fred! Cheers mate.

11 July 03:- Cricket cricket where art'thou?

Well, 20/20 is almost gone and forgotten again for another year; the NatWest Series reaches its climax today at Lord's and can anyone remember when there was cricket last on the telly? (I mean proper telly).  July 24 apparently is the next time we can see cricket via terrestrial TV. A (metaphorical) prize to whoever can remember what the last time there was any on.  John Arlott must be turning in his grave.  Still there are plenty of books to read and it is gloriously summer, so who wants to sit in and watch cricket on the box anyway.

17 June 03:- Applying some 20/20 Hindsight

Last night, we attended our first Twenty20 game (Kent v Hampshire at Beckenham) and thoroughly enjoyed it, with much credit due to Andrew Symonds impressive hitting (first 50 in just 16 balls and Ed Giddins and Alan Mullally each off after just one over!).  As to the game in a wider context, think of it as a potted version of the old 40-over JP League, I suppose.  The fielding restrictions look complicated and difficult for the spectator to understand/follow; but then again how many rugby fans understand the offside law and when players can/can't go over the top, of whatever.  Anyway, Kent will have been pleased with the crowd and the takings;  It was, however, a hot sunny evening at Kent's new suburban ground, with many there out of interest.  It remains to be seen how many come back regularly.  The old JPL used to attract huge crowds in the 1970's; once the novelty has worn off, I do have reservations as to the sustainability of interest. Cricket fans tend, in my view, to follow the game more than an individual team and whilst there are exceptions to this, I do feel that even the 20/20 format will struggle to create a loyal, dedicated and fanatical following, a sizeable core of supporters who really CARE whether their county finishes top or not.

Still, I was impressed by the commitment shown by the players:  Full strength teams from both sides and fielders scampering hither and thither; batsmen getting on with it to the detriment of their averages (although with bowlers taking a pasting and batsmen getting out going for shots too early, it remains to be seen whether this is sustainable). And the crowd was genuinely enthusiastic (not merely "there"), cheering boundaries and wickets and thankfully there were no wretched "Mexican waves", although again there may have been a novelty-value factor in this (read the reports from Imber Court's second match). But it looks like 20/20 definitely stands a chance.  

However, county cricket still needs to better organise itself.  One finding of the research that led to 20/20 was that potential spectators did not know how to find out about games.  Now the 4-day league has split into 2 divisions, I would like to see a return to a simpler schedule.  How about JPL, sorry, National League games on Sundays; Gillette/NatWest/C&G games on Saturdays and leave the 4 day game to take place on Tuesday-Friday, maybe with a break in the June/July period for the 20/20; Test matches maybe Friday-Tuesday; ODIs Wednesday or Saturday depending on local audience preferences?. I am sure it cannot be totally beyond the wit of the ECB to tidy up the schedule so people know whether they are coming or going.

The 20/20 is a great initiative; personally I cannot see why face painting and bouncy castles need to be quite so heavily billed, but if their presence brings in additional revenue and means that junior wants to keep going back with Dad, then fine. It has a future as an evening entertainment, I am sure. Whether it makes the difference to the economics of professional county-level cricket in the long run remains to be seen; but it may have bought some breathing space.  Now, how about some TV coverage Channel 4, to make up for the abysmal coverage of the test series? the shorter time taken should suit your own limited attention span.  

One final reservation: Will 20/20 make the 45/50 over format seem boring? what future for this now? Already (thankfully) the B&H has gone. Can the game sustain 4 formats (including 5-day tests)?

24 May 03:- What is it Good FOUR?

Oh dear; I thought Mark Nicholas was merely being a bit disingenuous when, during Saturday's play at the Lord's test as the players went off for lunch at the requisite time, having started late and therefore only getting a short morning, he commented how silly this was.  I was (still am) inclined to agree - the game does need to show more flexibility - however what Mark strangely omitted to mention was that Ch4 would be ceasing their coverage at 6pm regardless of the evening extension to 7 o'clock. I am sure I am not the first to comment on this appalling (lack of) coverage.  I was however, speechless and hopping mad when they cut transmission at 6pm notwithstanding the extension of play.

Free-to-air TV coverage in this country is now truly abysmal: We have commented previously on the total lack of coverage of the World Cup this year; now we have stunted coverage of a home test series too. And not just this, the second test at Chester-le-Street (I have just learned) is not even going to be covered by Free To Air terrestrial TV as it is on Sky. Hopeless. How is the game to develop a following among young people? It is signing its own death warrant through such short-sighted, money oriented policies.  This is not all the fault of the TV companies - they are businesses (remember this!). The ECB should only sell rights to a terrestrial channel who, as part of the contract granting those  will guarantee to cover 100% of play, otherwise they owe the game compensation. Is anyone at the ECB listening?? This is our game, not a business.

10 May 03:- They should know better..?

Leafing through May's edition of The Cricketer, as I do, I always look to see which books Robin Marlar has reviewed this month. Now I would hate to draw retaliatory criticism from the venerable sage, but I did find his notes supposedly reviewing this year's Cricketers' Who's Who a little uncalled for, shall we say. It is one thing to take issue with Robin Martin-Jenkins' introduction to the book (although maybe there is something worth considering in RMJ's suggested regional first class competition), but Marlar's subsequent train of thought takes us off at a large tangent.  How we get from players falling on their swords (after a disappointing winter's touring) to the rights and wrongs of pulling out of the Zimbabwe game puzzled me a little and smacked of a blustering anger at modern-day do-gooders, perhaps.  Marlar actually calls the England squad "cowardly", presumably (although not explicitly) for having pulled out of the game after the reported "death threats", accusing them of bringing "the game to its financial knees".  

I am sure there was a lot of debate about the genuineness of the "death threats" but as I recall this was really only an excuse for extricating themselves from a situation that should never have been arranged - essentially the pull out being on moral grounds on account of the Mugabe regime - a stance which drew much support (and criticism) in its own right, with the debate rightly separated from the financial impact of not playing and the risk that it would cost England a place in the next round.  The rights and wrongs of the decision, from a moral/effectiveness point of view can be debated at length (and were) but for Marlar to attribute the poor winter results to cowardliness is on a par with his view, further up the column, that "current professional players, particularly bowlers, work too little for their pay. Hence they are not fit for purpose and too often not fit for anything".  And there was me thinking that professional cricketers these days do play too much.  

Seriously, Marlar is entitled to his view but The esteemed Cricketer should not give him a platform if this is what he is going to do with it.  He clearly knows alot about cricket, but little about modern times (the whole thing reminded me of the "Good old days" of Fred Trueman on Test Match Special ("I don't know what's goin' on oot there!"). Let's hope the merged WCM/Cricketer carries a more enlightened approach.

29 April 03: - Don't judge a book by its cover..

Can anyone believe the hoo-ha about Wisden?   So, they have put a picture of Michael Vaughan on the cover (left).  So what!  Why would any one change their plans to buy or not buy Wisden just because of this.  It is of interest, yes, but the flack Wisden has attracted is out of proportion.  Perhaps it just proves the old maxim  "there's no such thing as bad publicity" (in marketing).  

Personally, we like it: maybe it was a touch boring having the same cover year-in-year-out??  Tradition is part of cricket, but tradition also needs to evolve. And "the woodcut" is still there somewhere.  But hey look, there we go, joining in the debate about the cover - we're supposed to review books not covers. Ho hum; a wicket maiden to the marketing men.  As to the book itself, we think £35- is rather a lot for the (hardcover) edition.  Perhaps if someone (at Wisden) would care to send us a copy, we will gladly review the content as well as the cover. Thanks!

Contact us

© idontlikecricket.co.uk