Batting, bowling and boorishness

“Hit him again!” – a Wanderers spectator as Zak Crawley prepared to face his first delivery after being felled by a bouncer to the head from Anrich Nortjé.

TELFORD VICE at The Wanderers

DROPS dripped. That’s a sentence, complete and perfect, from Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace. It was just as true about the Wanderers on Friday. Drops started dripping, in their millions, late on Thursday night and continued unabated until the afternoon. Drops also dripped, in singles, from the pressbox ceiling around the time of the scheduled 10am start. A bucket placed beneath caught them apologetically. You might say it was a sorry sight all round. And you might also have made a decent dent in reading War and Peace as the dreary nothingness of the morning wore on towards a lost day.

But, at 1.20pm, Vernon Philander stood at the top of his mark at the Golf Course End on one of cricket’s fastest drying outfields, Zak Crawley awaited him, and away we went. And for the best part of the next three hours not a lot happened. For South Africa, anyway. The closest they came to putting anything like a dent in England’s batting was in the third over before tea, when Crawley missed a pull and Anrich Nortjé dinged him on the helmet with a bouncer timed at 149 kilometres per hour. Play was held up for eight minutes while Crawley was medically assessed and tried several replacement helmets on for size before being allowed to continue. When he did, up went a cry from the country’s most raucous crowd: “Hit him again!” That followed Dom Sibley winning a reprieve after being given out caught behind to a legside delivery from Beuran Hendricks that flicked a pad, and surviving being caught in the gully because Philander had bowled a no-ball.   

Aside from those minor spikes the Richter scale readout of the first half of Friday’s play was a serenely level line. On the meanest junkyard dog of a pitch in the land, and having opted to fling five fast bowlers into the fray, South Africa looked as if they had brought a plastic straw to a lightsabre fight. Hendricks, instead of Nortjé, sharing the new ball with Philander looked too much like the blunder of Dane Paterson, instead of the now banned Kagiso Rabada, doing so at St George’s Park. But there was poignance in the fact that Philander is playing his last Test and Hendricks his first. “I’m always tuning into ‘Vern’, making sure I can get enough info out of him,” Hendricks said after stumps.” Even so, their shortish length and widish line allowed Crawley and Sibley to select balls to hit as if they were picking their favourite bits out of a salad.

Crawley drove straight with aplomb — once almost sawing Sibley in half — and Sibley repeatedly showcased his mastery of one of the most challenging strokes in the game, the on-drive.

The last ball before tea, a legside effort from Nortjé that Sibley smeared to fine leg for four, took England to 100 without loss. That marked the third time in succession in the series that South Africa’s bowlers had failed to strike in the opening session of a match. It also sealed the only occasion in the 16 Wanderers Tests since Graeme Smith and Herschelle Gibbs put on 149 against West Indies in December 2003 that a pair of openers have shared a century in the very first innings of a match here, only the third time it’s happened at all in the 41 Wanderers Tests, and the first time it’s been accomplished by the visiting team.

The Wanderers is an ominous 13th on the list of all 121 Test grounds in terms of the lowest average for the first wicket: 31.51, or marginally outside the top 10 percentile. If that doesn’t get the point across, this should: the Wanderers is a damnably difficult place to bat, and exponentially more so on a fresh pitch against well-rested bowlers armed with a new ball.

Clearly, no-one told Crawley and Sibley, who seemed as at home as if they were having a laugh on the Kent and Surrey featherbeds of their youth. “They left well and didn’t play at anything that was loose,” Hendricks said. “I was surprised at how comfortable they looked.” By now, someone has told them that no England pair had shared a century stand in the first innings of a Test since Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook put up 196 against Australia at Lord’s in July 2009.

They did so with too much help from their friends in the other dressingroom. “We told ourselves [at tea] that we were better than what we bowled,” Hendricks said. He took that seriously, and in the third over after the resumption another of his scrambled seam legside stranglers did for Sibley. Sixteen balls later Crawley played a weird, lazy hybrid between a stroke and a leave and was taken behind. Then came two grassed chances in the space of 23 deliveries by Pieter Malan and Dwaine Pretorius, neither of them straightforward. Drops dripped, you might say. Only for Joe Denly and Ben Stokes to be dismissed 16 balls apart, and a match that had listed heavily in one side’s favour less than two hours previously had been yanked back to something like level with all the rudeness that is visited on pedestrians who dare try cross Johannesburg’s car-centric, pavement-poor streets.

And the Wanderers, like Stokes discovered as he stalked off, is this city congealed into one wet spot; the kind of place were boorishness comes standard. Even the umpires, Rod Tucker and Joel Wilson, weren’t spared when they called time for bad light. They were booed all the way off the ground and assailed by a loud and clear, “Fuck you!” Welcome, gentlemen, neither to war nor peace, but to Joburg.

First published by Cricbuzz.

Cricket’s ugly old man is a knight, and good men do nothing

“I don’t care a toss about her, love.” – Geoffrey Boycott doesn’t get why people are aghast that he has been honoured despite his conviction for beating up a woman.

TELFORD VICE in London

RAIN, cricket and England. That’s just how things are here in summer. So there was nothing unholy about the trinity gathering over Lord’s last month on what was billed as the first day of the second men’s Ashes Test.

It’s at times like these that commentators earn their money. Without field placings to fuss about, strokes to salivate over, bouncers to babble on, and the drama of dropped catches, what’s going on out of the pressbox window — not a lot besides the groundstaff’s hard work — won’t hold an audience for long.

If the rain keeps coming, broadcasters who aren’t resourced well enough admit defeat and resort to alternative programming.

That doesn’t include Test Match Special (TMS), which has brought cricket to the BBC’s listeners since 1957. Regardless of the weather TMS is on the air and in a class of its own, at least in English.

Nowhere else is cricket presented anywhere near as wonderfully. Television has yet to beam footage as captivating as the spoken word pictures painted by the TMS team.

They’re a touch fuddy-duddy — there’s a poshness about too many of them that doesn’t sit well with those of us who aren’t — it took them far too long to involve women, and they are too accepting of the banality of those who were exponentially better at playing cricket than they are at talking about it.

But TMS is unarguably the best in the business and a blessing the cricketminded among us should count at every opportunity.

As rain soaked Lord’s on August 14, TMS went above and beyond even all that.

Cancer ended, cruelly early, the lives of Ruth Strauss and Jane McGrath. Emma Agnew is also battling the disease, and winning. Strauss and McGrath left behind them four children and two husbands: Andrew Strauss and Glenn McGrath. Agnew’s husband, Jonathan Agnew, is the BBC’s cricket correspondent and the fulcrum around which TMS turns.

Instead of filling the empty airtime with wittering about long ago exploits on faraway fields, or nurdling this way and that through a debate about who should bat at No. 5, or wondering what’s for lunch — all staples of cricket conversation on TMS and elsewhere — the three husbands spoke about their wives. And about cancer.

They talked of bravery and commitment, of love given and received, of the best times of their lives. And the worst.    

They told their stories with openness and honesty, and with an uncommon softness that only added to the strength of what they said.

It’s rare to hear men express themselves with such care and goodness, more so on a prominent mainstream platform and even more so by such unvarnished examples of the species.

They were beautiful, and it rubbed off: unusually, it was uplifting to be a man listening to other men talk about women.

But the bubble has burst.

Geoffrey Boycott is an unpleasant old man. He is possessed of an ego monstrously bigger than anything he ever did as a player, which took him — willingly and profitably — to apartheid South Africa. He is a caricature of someone the world should have left behind by now; an unreconstructed bigot. He has somehow made a second career spouting clichés as profundities. He adds nothing to TMS except a rich Yorkshire accent.

None of which is news. Neither is it a secret that, in 1998, he was found guilty of the vicious assault of his then partner, Margaret Moore, in France. Moore testified that Boycott pinned her to a hotel room floor using his legs and unleashed 20 or more punches into her face, body and limbs. The photographic and medical evidence concurred. Boycott said she had injured herself in a fall.

The judge believed that evidence, as well as Moore and her blackened eyes and swollen face, and convicted Boycott — who appealled. And lost. He was given a suspended sentence of three months and fined £5 000.

It was also unsurprising that, in one of the last failures of her calamitous tenure as the United Kingdom’s prime minister, Theresa May decided to give Boycott a knighthood in her resignation honours list, which was announced on Tuesday.

Adina Claire, the co-acting chief executive of Women’s Aid, said: “Celebrating a man who was convicted for assaulting his partner sends a dangerous message that domestic abuse is not taken seriously as a crime.

“With increasing awareness of domestic abuse, and a domestic abuse bill ready to be taken forward by government, it is extremely disappointing that a knighthood has been recommended for Geoffrey Boycott, who is a convicted perpetrator of domestic abuse.”

Neither did it raise eyebrows that Boycott’s tone turned menacing when he was asked, elsewhere on the BBC, by Today’s Martha Kearney, whether the honour had taken so long to come his way because of his crime.

“I don’t care a toss about her [Claire], love. It was 25 years ago. You can take your political nature and do whatever you want with it. You want to talk to me about my knighthood. It’s very nice of you to have me, but I couldn’t give a toss.

“This is just recognition of my cricket. Very nice, very honoured, thankful to Theresa May, and I thank all the people that supported me and cared for me throughout my cricketing career.”

He claimed, wrongly, that in France “you’re guilty until you’re proved innocent” and listed that as “one of the reasons I [didn’t] vote to remain in Europe”.

So far, so Boycott. The only unanswered question in all that is why the BBC continue to employ him.

And this: what would the good men of TMS — who had at Lord’s used their platform to raise matters vastly more important than cricket — do about Boycott’s unrepentant, outrageous, disgusting answer to fair questions about his criminal past?

The question loomed when Boycott took his spot behind the microphone on the first day of the fifth Test at the Oval on Thursday. Would it be asked, nevermind answered?

That duty fell to Agnew, who greeted Boycott with: “Clanking in in his suit of armour, sword dangling by his side, visor down — I’ve called you ‘Sir Geoffrey’ for so many years, it’s ridiculous — but, Sir Geoffrey Boycott. Congratulations from all of us. Good man.”

Rain, cricket, England. And extreme disappointment.

First published by Times SELECT.

Fearless? Who us? England refuse to believe

“[England will] never have a better chance to win the World Cup; that’s a fact.” – Andrew Strauss, trying not to put pressure on his old team, does exactly that

TMG Digital

TELFORD VICE in London

IF you didn’t know better you might think Andrew Strauss had switched allegiance to the country of his birth ahead of the World Cup opener between England and South Africa at the Oval next Thursday.

Strauss played 100 Tests, 127 one-day internationals and four T20s for England, scoring 11 315 runs in all and captaining them 115 times, and serving as their director of cricket for three-and-a-half years after his retirement.

Thing is, he was born in Johannesburg and moved to England when he was six. So he doesn’t sound quite like a Joburg boykie.

But, on the BBC on Wednesday, Strauss said the kind of things your mates at Chaf-Pozi, the Jolly Roger, or somewhere on the Maboneng strip might say — or want to hear — when they ponder, over a beer, Faf’s okes’ chances of putting one over the poms.

“Expectations are high,” Strauss said. “We’ve never gone into a World Cup before being No. 1 in the world and it’s on our home soil and our record at home is very strong.

“We haven’t had the problem of dealing with the favourites tag before, so it’s a good problem to have in a lot of ways.”

Strauss did brighten up to say he had “great faith in [England captain] Eoin Morgan and the guys; they’ve done incredibly well over the last four years”.

But he also added his spadeful to the growing heap of pressure on his former team: “They’ll never have a better chance to win the World Cup; that’s a fact.

“ … The prospect of them winning a World Cup on home soil is so enticing. It could do such incredible things for the game in this country. Fingers crossed the lads will do the job.” 

That comes in the wake of the nation getting itself into a tizz about whether or not to pick Barbados-born fast bowler Jofra Archer — they did — and agonising over the state of the pitches later in a tournament that will run through what is expected to be a hot, dry summer.

All of which is getting in the way of the truth that England deserve to be No. 1 because they have won seven of their nine completed one-day internationals this year.

Supremely confident India will be a threat as will resurgent Australia, and you can never disregard those flinty, canny New Zealanders.

South Africa will take a healthy does of realism into the tournament, which could make them more dangerous than ever.

But England have won 20 of the 23 completed ODIs they’ve played at home in the past two years. They must be something close to fearless.

Morgan begged to differ: “I wouldn’t say that we feel fearless. Probably two years ago we felt more fearless because we were quite young in our growth as a team.

“We’ve had two more years’ experience on top of that and we are better at coping and adapting to scenarios and recognising different situations throughout a game. I wouldn’t say that’s fearless.”

Morgan spoke on Wednesday at the launch of the kit England will wear in the tournament, which looks not a little like the strip they sported at the 1992 World Cup.

That year they reached the final against a Pakistan team who had come back from the brink of elimination during the league stage.

Imran Khan’s side overcame that obstacle and prevailed in the final because they were what England aren’t: fearless.

Don’t take my word for it. Ask Strauss or Morgan.

Players, not suits, write code of conduct

“It works in other walks of life. In some countries you can get demerit points for [poor] driving.” – Shaun Pollock on ICC code of conduct

Sunday Times

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

DAMN fool suits. What do they know about the cut and thrust of cricketers’ battles? How much do they understand about the intensity of being out there when everything is on the line and the world is watching?

Why don’t they stick to shuffling paper on their desks and let people who know what they’re doing come up with important things like the code of conduct? People like the players.

Where’ve you heard that before? Everywhere, and more loudly and frequently since the Australians arrived.

Here’s something you might not have heard — the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) code of conduct is written in, large part, by players.

At least, by those who sit on the ICC’s cricket committee. Currently among them are Anil Kumble, Andrew Strauss, Mahela Jayawardene, Rahul Dravid, Tim May, Darren Lehmann, and Shaun Pollock, the newest member.

“There are some really good discussions,” Pollock said. “There are people of different ages from different eras who have played the game. It’s a good think pot.

“Everyone there, I would say, has the best interests of cricket at heart and want things to run smoothly.

“You want to protect the game, don’t you. And there are things you want to control. You don’t want any ugly incidents happening on the field. You want to put steps in place to try and prevent that.

“So there’s a lot of discussion that goes on about what should and shouldn’t be allowed, how they can prevent what shouldn’t be allowed, and who needs to have the authority.”

Things, of course, don’t run smoothly. They haven’t during Australia’s tour nor in a T20 between Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in Colombo last Friday, when players almost came to blows, Shakib Al Hasan ordered his batsmen off the field in protest at an umpire’s decision, and a dressingroom door was smashed.

And for all that two players were each docked 25% of their match fees and slapped, lightly, with a demerit point.

Considering Kagiso Rabada was banned, then unbanned, and that he and David Warner are a point away from a suspension in the wake of their conduct in the South Africa-Australia series, the match officials’ reaction to what happened in Colombo looks like system failure.

Seeming inconsistencies in application aside, Pollock had faith in the demerit approach: “It works in other walks of life. In some countries you can get demerit points for [poor] driving.

“What it tries to show is that if there’s consistent and accumulated bad behaviour you’re going to gather points and eventually you suffer the consequences.

“I suppose the issue that will be discussed again is that minor misdemeanours add up to a major issue and you maybe miss two games.

“They might discuss the point that it has to be something serious enough for you to miss a game, or maybe the financial implications will be bigger for minor infractions and that it must be a serious case of misconduct for you to miss a game.”

The demerit system has been in force since September 2016, and was devised, an ICC spokesperson said, because “there had been feedback from some countries that the existing system of fines and reprimands was proving ineffective, as the fines were having little impact on player attitudes or behaviour and there wasn’t an adequate deterrent for players who repeatedly breached the code of conduct.

“The cricket committee agreed, and recommended the system of demerit points to the chief executives’ committee.”

As long as the suits keep listening to the players and accepting their recommendations, we should be alright.