Cricket

Not all change is necessarily or automatically regrettable. Even in cricket. Nonetheless, anytime anyone from the ICC talks about future plans you know that something terrible is on th ecards. No surprise then that David Taylor, president of the world’s worst governing body, suggests that what we what to see is four day tests and that there’s a “need” for day-night test cricket. Never mind that there’s absolutely no evidence of any demand for day-night tests, nor that day-night first class cricket was a complete and utter failure when trialled in the Sheffield Shield a few years ago. Nor is there any obvious demand or need for four days tests.

Henry Allingham, Britain`s oldest man and oldest surviving First World War veteran celebrates his 113th birthday at HMS President at St Katherine`s Dock, London, on June 6, 2009. To commemorate such a historic milestone the Royal Navy is helping their oldest member to celebrate in style. A birthday cake and card signed by the First Sea Lord will be delivered by fast raiding craft of the Royal Marines, and a decanter of Pussers Rum, Henry’s favourite tipple, will be presented on behalf of the Fleet Air Arm by Rear Admiral Charlier. Photo: Geoff Caddick/AFP/Getty Images Henry Allingham isn’t merely Britain’s oldest man; he’s now the oldest man on earth, outlasting

Every so often someone at Lords remembers to trot out the line that Test Cricket is and must remain the pinnacle of the game; every time this happens something pops up that makes it harder than ever to take the ECB seriously when they say this. Not that the ECB are the only culprits; the ICC is just as bad. The latest evidence supporting the sense that given the opportunity to protect or devalue test cricket he people running English cricket will invariably choose the option that most damages the greatest form of the greatest game is the news that, despite being injured, Kevin Pietersen expects to play in this

Shamefully, I’ve not kept a sufficiently close eye on the cricket today. It’s early May and it doesn’t feel right for there to be a test match on so soon. Anyway, reader TS writes “Do you realize that England have just given Graeme Swann the new ball?  In a test match at Lords, no less!  In May!  If this doesn’t merit an “O tempora O mores” post, I’m not sure what does.” Patrick Kidd and the chaps at Cricinfo seem equally perplexed. Actually, I quite like the move and not just because giving Swann a couple of overs with the new ball is refreshingly unorthodox. There’s method behind the idea

It’s true you know, Barack Obama does want to un-make the United States of America. First he takes a quick cricket lesson from Brian Lara, now he’s reading Joseph O’Neill’s (splendid) Netherland – a novel that is, at least in part, about cricket in New York City. Could anything be more un-American? Of course not. Except, of course, cricket has a long and proud history in the United States and, for a while, it seemed as likely that cricket would become the national pastime as baseball. Indeed, the world’s first international cricket match was contested by teams representing the United States and Canada. Personally, I blame the decision to move

The cricket season has begun which is, as usual, a cause for celebration and an occasion to lament the guarantee that the first month of the new innings will be ruined by rain. Commercial considerations – that is, the need to stuff the calendar with as many limited overs fixtures as possible during the prime summer months – demand the further marginalisation of the venerable County Championship. Nearly a quarter of the fixtures will be played by the end of May, with others just as liable to be afflicted by poor weather as the season staggers to a close at the end of September. Times change, of course, and even

Courtesy of the Scotsman: Boycott rigged poll, says Al-Qaeda chief This would surely come as no surprise to many of the great man’s former team-mates, but still, what can this mean? Has Sir Geoffrey been stuffing ballot boxes in some Greatest Yorkshireman contest or something? And why should Al-Qaeda care about that? Has Boycott offended them too? Alas, no, seems it’s something to do with the Algerian elections. More important, perhaps, but less mysterious or intriguing.

The news that England hope to host the IPL  is as unsurprising as it is depressing. After all, what better way to start an Ashes summer than with the distracting influence of a cricketing circus? Never underestimate the greed of those charged with looking after the game, howver. As soon as the Indian government declined to offer satisfactory security guarantees it was inevitable that English cricket administrators, dazzled as always by the prospect of raking in more cash, would prostitute themselves in a mad dash to grab a piece of the action. It is hard to see any advantage in this. Better by far if the circus were taking place

In the grander scheme of matters, a West Indian series victory which left England thinking they should really have won the series 2-1 was not a bad result. England can argue that they were the better side for most the series and  only just failed to turn their superiority into victory. For the West Indies, the importance of a first series victory in five years cannot be over-stated. Caribbean cricket desperately needed this and so what if they remain just half a team and should, by rights, have been beaten by a pretty ordinary England team. In other circumstances the West Indians’ decision not to even try and win the

Apart from being England wicket-keepers what do Matt Prior and Godfrey Evans have in common? Congratulations if you answered that they’re the only keepers in the history of test cricket to have twice conceded 25 or more byes in an innings. Of course, Evans’s “achievement” came in 91 tests; Prior has done it in just 15. In fact, at the time of writing Prior has the misfortune to rank 3rd and 4th in the list of “most byes conceded in an innings”. The 34 he’s conceded (so far!) in the current test goes along with the 33 he let through against India at the Oval in 2007. In one sense

Test match cricket is something else, isn’t it? Patrick Kidd has a splendid line making the point that test cricket is terrific because it is “a game in which it is much more exciting when something almost happens than when it happens all the time.” Granted, cricket’s detractors might cite this as evidence to support their prejudices, but who cares about them? Kidd is right. This was a great test match, conjured from the most unlikely circumstances. Full credit to the groundstaff at the ARG and, of course, to both teams who produced a match that vindicated the idea and reality of test cricket even as one of its greatest

There’s some good stuff in Michael Henderson’s column on the so-called Stanford debacle* today, even if he indulges himself with a rather rosy,soft-focus view of cricket’s past. The ideal of the village green bathed in evening sunlight with the vicar standing as umpire and children playing by the boundary and all that is a powerful, enduring image for sure but this English arcadia is only one thread running through the game’s history. A history that has been tougher, more scandalous and, often, meaner, than Henderson’s cosy view would have one believe. That’s to say, the sport’s history is well-stocked with cads and frauds and bounders and Allen Stanford is but

It’s an ill-wind that fails to blow in any silver-lined clouds and the current financial difficulties are no exception. It seems that Sir Allen Stanford, the Texan financier determined to “crack” the American “market” with Twenty20 cricket may be in a spot of bother himself. I’m going to guess that having people suggest you could be a kind of Caribbean Bernie Madoff is, even if completely untrue, not Good News. It wasn’t the money involved in the Stanford Twenty20 challenge match between his all-stars and England that was objectionable. After all, there’s a long history of big-money challenge matches and cricket’s known worse rogues than Stanford in the past. True,

Just in case you had any doubts that cricket is the worst-run sport in the world, further proof comes from today’s farce in Antigua. Even by cricket’s lofty standards this is a disgraceful shambles. England were embarrassed in Jamaica; the entire sport is embarrassed by this nonsense. Ian Botham has just recommended moving the game to the Recreation Ground, arguing, quite correctly, that “you can’t ignore the paying public”. Except of course, ignoring the paying public is the game’s administrators’ standard operating procedure.  UPDATE: As ToryLion says, if the pitch is unsafe it’s unsafe. Fair enough. But they have had weeks, if not months to sort this out. And it’s

Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only person who ever defends Ian Bell. Not that this will do him much good since it seems probable that he’ll be dropped for the second test against the West Indies tomorrow. An odd consensus appears to have emerged that Bell is especially culpable for England’s failures in the first test and that, accordingly, his is the head that must roll. Mike Selvey fires his Katyushas at Bell today: Last Saturday, before lunch on what was to prove the final day of the first Test at Sabina Park, Ian Bell played a stroke of such staggering ineptitude that it alone should be reason enough

Apologies for the radio silence. I’m still struggling to comes to terms with England’s Jamaican debacle. Matters were scarcely improved by an ill-considered trip to Murrayfield yesterday. Back to the drawing board then. Still, while there was a certain grimness to Scotland’s sluggish performance against Wales, at least it didn’t plumb the depths of England’s cricketing fiasco against the West Indies. When the tourists stumbled to 15/3 I suggested, jokingly, that they might lose by an innings. But I didn’t actually expect them to go ahead and do it. Right now the Ashes look as though they will be contested by two pretty mediocre sides (though Australia should, alas, still

English cricket in shambolic farce. It’s like Scottish football, except more important.

In general, I suppose I don’t have too much against the idea of a cricket Hall of Fame though given that we’ve managed to get along fine without one for centuries there doesn’t seem any pressing need for one. But if you are going to have such a Hall, then for god’s sake include the right people. Via Patrick Kidd, I see that the ICC’s new venture has found room for an initial class of 55 inductees that, bewilderingly, fails to include Victor Trumper. While it’s fine to ignore players who only retired in the last ten or so years the lack of recognition of chaps from the Golden Age