Before the seriousness descends, let’s be flippant. Safely.

How are fans of fading rockers supposed to forget how old they are without a drink to dull the sad truth?

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

MIDDLECLASS South Africans walk only when driving isn’t an option. Their cars are their kings. In the most unequal society on earth economically, according to the World Bank, what little public transport exists is used by the underclasses. Walking? That’s for the properly poor. Yet there the well-heeled were in Cape Town’s city centre on the evening of February 7, parking their most precious possessions and walking — yes, walking — several kilometres to join the rest of the 51,954 gathering to be enraptured by Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal drinking deeply from the font of mutual admiration.

“The Match in Africa” at Cape Town Stadium, an exhibition event that revealed to the watching world how much aptitude for playing tennis Bill Gates and Trevor Noah absolutely do not have, raised USD3.5-million for charity. Perhaps that’s what gave the record crowd, for any tennis match anywhere, licence to luxuriate smugly in their imaginary First World experience here on the sharp end of the impoverished dark continent.

While that was happening, not quite three kilometres away in the entertainment district, one of South Africa’s premier rock groups took to the stage at the Jagger Lounge. At least, Wonderboom used to be one of the country’s best bands. If you’re a South African of a certain age and demographic Wonderboom’s music still hits the spot. Hard, happily. Thing is, they’ve been at it since 1996. Cito, the frontman, turns 46 in July. The kids can see the wrinkles in his leather trousers. Not that they were any kids in attendance. Nor many of their parents. An audience of 12 turned up. Embarrassed emptiness was all around, even in a setting with a capacity of only 105, and even though the band did their bit and belted out their hits — and an encore — one more time with feeling.

Seven weeks on, who’s smug now? The dismal dozen plus the four Wonderboomers and the six or so venue staff add up to comfortably fewer than the 50 people that public gatherings in South Africa have been restricted to by Coronavirus regulations. Unlike the tennis, were the gig scheduled now it would go ahead. Not quite. The Jagger Lounge has, like so many others, shuttered itself. The few such places that remain open cannot serve alcohol after 6pm. How are fans of fading rockers supposed to forget how old they are without a drink to dull the sad truth?

Do not frown on such flippancy, for soon seriousness is likely engulf us all. The closure and cancellation of almost everything we hold dear — though, strangely, not of Aussie rules football *, perhaps because it follows no rules the uninitiated understand — haunts cricket already. The start of the IPL, originally March 29, has been postponed to April 15. That seems hopelessly optimistic considering how the marauding virus has spread around the world since that decision was taken on March 13. The county championship was to have begun on April 12, but now the English season won’t get going until May 28 at the earliest and the championship seems likely not to be played at all. Even the Sheffield Shield, due to start on October 10, cannot be considered safe.

No international matches remain on the schedule before April 26, when Belgium are to host Luxembourg at the Royal Brussels Cricket Ground in the first of two T20s. The second game is meant to follow four hours after the series starts. Just weeks ago, much of the world according to cricket wouldn’t have noticed these fixtures. After suspending your disbelief about them being played, imagine the exponential increase in the asking price of the broadcast rights. Consider the clamour to see real, live international matches at a ground that has a capacity of 1,500. That’s comfortably big enough to host a Wonderboom concert these days, but certainly not for the only games in any town.   

Because that’s what this is all about: how we watch cricket. There are vast differences between being at a ground on your own with only the match for company, alone watching on television, being part of a group of friends at a packed ground, and in a television audience of more or less 12 in a bar not afflicted by ageing rockers and their fans. Unless they’re also watching the cricket. Do we cheer if we’re the only spectator in a stand? Or if we’re in solitary communion with our television? Probably not. Does being in a crowd make us more likely to voice our appreciation for the players’ exploits? Does the same apply in a busy bar, especially after a few drinks? Likely yes. A man walks into that bar and asks, “Do you have Corona?” He means not the virus but the bland Mexican beer.

More flippancy. Because the seriousness is here: none of the ways in which we watch cricket will be relevant for months, at least. Because there isn’t going to be any cricket to watch, maybe until this annus wretched has run its course. Maybe longer. We will be reduced to remembering how we used to watch cricket, helped by rebroadcasts of matches we have already watched. Or not helped. It is impossible to see with fresh eyes what your brain has long since analysed and consigned to memory. There cannot be excitement, or debates about who is going to do what next, or marvelling about the unscripted excellence of a stroke, delivery, catch, runout, or even an umpire’s decision. Everything will have been scripted, and we will know our lines depressingly well.

The macabre will stalk our hunger of cricket. If we take to staving off the pangs by reading, we could do worse than pick up a copy of José Saramago’s As Intermitências da Morte. In English, that’s Death with Interruptions. Or, as it has been published in the UK, Death at Intervals. It’s a fittingly dark satire about a country in which people who should, by all that’s natural, die instead suddenly stop dying. And continue not dying. At first, this is celebrated as a miracle. But soon hospitals, old age homes, undertakers, insurance companies and religious orders are stricken with worry. What are they to do with scores, hundreds, thousands of the undead taking up space and exhausting resources? Families saddled with decrepit but not dead elders ask the same questions. Religious orders are terrified. How can they demand adherence to their tenets as the price for a better afterlife if this life never ends? Then someone pays criminals to take a relative who should be dead, but isn’t, to a neighbouring country. Hey presto, they duly die. Soon the government is paying organised crime gangs to ferry those who should be dead across the borders. Then death comes back to work. With a twist: she — yes, death is a woman — will forewarn her victims. In writing. Cue mass panic. It’s a brilliantly woven story, much like the best Test matches. And all the more apposite because we know that Covid-19 will kill many. Not for them the fiction of death suspended, postponed, or promised. Among the dead will be those who have sat singularly in a stand, or kept their own counsel with their televisions, or been in a throng of friends among thousands, or in a noisy bar arguing over who should or shouldn’t bowl the next over.

If we’re lucky, none of us or our friends will be among them. But we should prepare ourselves for the other possibility. For some still alive and well, it’s over. Time has been called. They will never watch cricket again.

* The AFL season has since been suspended.

First published by Cricbuzz.

The truth and the reality of Serena Williams and the umpire

Serena Williams railing at the umpire sounded like nothing so much as a thoroughly Seffrican madam berating her maid for putting the tea-cups in the wrong cupboard. Again! For God’s sake!

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in London

CARLOS Ramos is a reprehensible chauvinist who seems to believe, and is ready to enforce his views beyond his station, that women must be seen and not heard — not like men are, anyway.

Serena Williams is an arrogant, 36-year-old brat who couldn’t stand losing to an opponent she should have beaten, so she found someone else to blame for what was going wrong.

There. Now that we’ve established the truth of what happened in the US Open final in New York on Sunday we can get into what really happened.

And, no, the truth and what really happened are not the same thing. Not in an age when the truth isn’t what it is but what someone says it is, preferably while they have the eyes and ears — and therefore the hearts and minds — of millions of ready, willing and able believers.

So a relative nobody like Ramos, a mere tennis umpire, abusing his limited authority to punish Williams for the kind of behaviour that is routinely tolerated by officials when they are presiding over a match played by men is just as valid as a nugget of truth as Williams wielding her massive celebrity like a sledgehammer in the just cause of smashing sexism, and exposing herself as a sore, sour, selfish loser.

As much as Williams had a case for calling Ramos a thief for docking her a point for smashing a racquet — an escalation of the drama that had started when Ramos accused her coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, of doing his job from the stands, which is not allowed, and would lead to her having an entire game awarded to her opponent for another bilious, ill-considered outburst — Williams herself was guilty of stealing the spotlight from its rightful place.

That was to shine on Naomi Osaka, who was robbed of the public celebration she had earned by winning easily the biggest match of her 20-year-old life.

For Williams to then say “let’s not boo anymore” to a crowd she had swept into a disapproving frenzy with her outrageous tantrum smacked of Donald Trump at his worst: folks, you know what’s right and wrong (especially after I’ve told you what’s right and wrong).

It’s worth remembering that Williams took a ridiculous amount of umbrage at Ramos’ assertion about Mouratoglou’s actions.

And that Mouratoglou subsequently admitted he was guilty as charged.

And that other coaches who have been nabbed for this offence tend to have their players informally tut-tutted by the umpire, not officially warned.

And that Williams’ reaction to Ramos’ verdict on her coach was ludicrously haughty: “I don’t cheat to win; I’d rather lose.” How dare the man? Didn’t he know who she was?  

And that just days ago Alize Cornet was fined for changing her top in a few seconds during a match, and that no-one blinks when men take as long as they like between games to strip off and put on a fresh shirt. 

And that Ramos is white and male and Williams is black and female and from a country where police apparently kill black people for sport.

And that she is part of a sport that is second only to golf as a foxhole in which white men can and do hide their racism and misogyny. 

And that Ramos has a reputation for being pathetically anal about enforcing the kind of rules that can make tennis seem like a nursing home for the socially inept.

And that he failed miserably in the key responsibility of defusing a ticking bomb.

And that he hasn’t taken the same action against male players who have ticked at him with similarly growing rage.

When Rafael Nadal told Ramos he wouldn’t grace his matches again after he was penalised for a time delay during the 2017 French Open, Ramos turned the other cheek.

When Williams said much the same thing, among other nasty things, on Sunday, she had a game taken from her.

It’s also worth considering the difference between Nadal’s and Williams’ comments on their run-ins with Ramos.

Nadal: “I say it with sadness but he is an umpire who scrutinizes me more and who fixates on me more. He also pressured me about coaching. I have respect for him, and all I ask is for that to be reciprocated.”   

Williams: “For you to attack my character is something that’s wrong. It’s wrong. You’re attacking my character. Yes you are. You owe me an apology. You will never, ever, ever be on a court of mine as long as you live. You are the liar.”

Respect? Maybe Williams isn’t an Aretha Franklin fan.

An apology? How about, “I’m sorry that Ms Williams can, at times, be an insufferable oaf”?

Might “as long as you live” be construed as a death threat, albeit obliquely? As Williams spewed her bile, Ramos would have been forgiven for thinking her thousands-strong mob of supporters weren’t baying for his blood only in the metaphorical sense.

Note the absence hiding in plain sight in much of what has been said and written about this sorry saga.

The cause of what happened, what really happened, wasn’t what Ramos did — which as the umpire he was wholly entitled to do. Blame tennis itself for devising stupid rules and appointing self-important little men to enforce them.

That Ramos operates on a gender-biased double standard is his real sin, and it is serious enough for him to be barred from being in the chair in any match regardless of who might be playing.

The major problem also isn’t Williams’ stream of woke consciousness. Vicious verbal diarrhoea is deplorable but not a crime.

The far more serious issue is that sports stars have been given the idea that they can behave as they like towards officials, that talent, skill and millions in the bank makes it OK to treat others, particularly those who have less talent, skill and money in the bank, as if they’re trash.

When Williams was railing at Ramos she sounded like nothing so much as a thoroughly Seffrican madam berating her maid for putting the tea-cups in the wrong cupboard. Again! For God’s sake!

Worse, many of those springing to Williams’ defence have done so on the grounds that “everybody does this”.

So that makes it OK? The opposite is true, and it should be what really happens. Every tennis player who is coached from the stands should have a point taken off them summarily. Every footballer and rugby player who gets in a referee’s face should be red-carded. Players should be barred from speaking to the ref unless they’re spoken to first. 

Imagine the fuss if officials started telling players how to do their job the same way players do to officials: “What were you thinking taking the lineout instead of the scrum? And your tactical kicking is way below par.”

Golf, for all that’s wrong with the game of the anti-Christ, gets it right: police yourself, and properly or the officials will smack you upside the head — as in disqualify you — for the easily made mistake of signing an incorrect scorecard.

Maybe Williams would have been a better human being had she made a career out of golf.

Maybe Ramos should be in charge of races between schools of clownfish, which change gender but are always led by a female, rather than anything involving human beings.

Maybe everybody should shut the hell up and play and officiate properly.