He has a natural talent for the convincing facade, hence his success in poker. It's what will make his media career watchable: there will be what he says and what he means, and the two will not necessarily match up.
His column in today's Times is a classic of the genre. Ravi Bopara is 'a bit flaky'. Michael Vaughan is 'not just a better batsmen than Bopara, I'd put him above everyone bar Pietersen. As long as he's making runs and can run between the wickets, he'd be in my team'.
'As with bowlers,' he goes on, 'you have to pick on form rather than reputation'.
So is Bopara dangerous or a dud? Does he really think Michael Vaughan is in form? Is this a straight one or a zooter? Can he still bowl that googly? Did he really need hair replacement? How many cards is he holding?
Ah, Shane. It's good to have you back.
Posts
4 comments:
That's the generous interpretation. The less generous one is that he's just mad as a box of frogs.
Last time I saw Warney was for Hampshire at Bristol, floodlit Pro 40 job, freezing cold drizzly Sept evening. Between innings I spied him hunched outside the dressing room smoking a crafty ciggy. When he finished, he yawned, stretched, then took the empty fag packet and chucked it nonchalantly - but expertly - through a random pavilion window and went inside to bellow at his team-mates.
Nice story. I must admit if I could pick one current player to sit down and talk about cricket with, it would be Warne. But then I err towards the generous interpretation...
Wot, even over Ronnie Irani?
Yes, the single good thing to emerge from the collapse of Setanta is that Ronnie Irani should never appear as a pundit again.
Post a Comment