When the golfer Bobby Jones was congratulated for calling a foul on himself in a tournament long ago, he replied, 'you might as well praise me for not robbing a bank'. The Corinthian Casuals football team would instruct their goalkeeper to vacate the six yard box if they conceded a penalty on the grounds that the other side had already been denied a goal by their foul. Mark Taylor declared on himself when he was level with Bradman's then-record Australian score of 334.
Sportsmanship in sport has always been coded by the times in which it happens. Jones admitted that he never played what he called 'friendly golf' even when he went out with his friends. Football's professional foul occupies a respectful category of its own. Matthew Hayden remained qualm-less as he muscled past Taylor and the Don against the mighty Zimbabwe.
The point being that acceptability is a movable feast, the product of complex interpretations that change with the years. Bodyline almost started a war; the West Indies quicks who did the same thing are the subject of awe and rose-tinted documentaries. WG regarded the umpire's decision as optional. Andy Flower and Henry Olonga risked their lives to wear black armbands. Things are equivocal.
MS Dhoni's act was about more than just sportsmanship, although it was an act of sportsmanship and should be remembered as one. Yet it was also an act of leadership, and one that explained a lot about why India are successful. It was the decision of an alpha-male with a sense of perspective.
It was noticeable, during the Sky coverage, that one of the commentators most convinced that Bell should be dismissed was Nasser Hussain. His England side would have done so, because they were not a great team and he was trying to install in them a notion that no-one should give an inch on the field. Shane Warne, a player far more accustomed to winning and the winner's mentality, said that he would have recalled Bell.
Ultimately, it's a decision based on confidence. Dhoni is confident in himself and his team. If he allowed himself to be consumed by the pressure of captaining India, he would implode. The same quality that allowed him to saunter to the crease in the World Cup final and win the game was the one that allowed him to withdraw his appeal. The truly secure man knows that his time will come again; he's not obsessed with small-picture detail.
England would do well not to get ahead of themselves. India have been asked to win a World Cup, stage the IPL, achieve number one status in Test cricket, play out a series of shimmering brilliance in South Africa, appear in front of empty stadiums in West Indies and then take on England with a main bowler and talismanic batsman missing.
Andrew Strauss said that he 'liked to think' he'd do the same as Dhoni. It will be a signal of his strength if he does.
Showing posts with label Andrew Strauss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Strauss. Show all posts
Monday, 1 August 2011
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
There always has to be a story
Something strange happened when Kevin Pietersen walked out to bat on Monday evening - at least it would have been strange had you been reading the papers. He was applauded, warmly, all the way to the crease, and then cheered equally warmly as he played out the final hour or so to set up his innings today.
It was strange, because if you took your perception of the fans' opinion of KP from the media, you might have been surprised at this unequivocal support. You may also have been under the impression that Pietersen was under pressure for his place, because again, this was the media line.
There has to be a story, because this is how the media works. It's interesting that the most intuitive piece on KP was a simpatico analysis from Mike Brearley in the Observer. This was the story that tuned in best to both the public's and the dressing room's view of KP, and yet it stood alone. Brearley, of course, is not a member of the regular press pack.
There is a question worth asking about the press position on KP: who was the last batsman to be dropped from the England Test team? The answer, excluding injury replacements, is Ravi Bopara in the Ashes of 2009. Before that, it was probably Ian Bell, who pushed selectorial patience beyond the limit in Jamaica. Andrew Strauss, Alastair Cook, Paul Collingwood and Jonathan Trott [in South Africa] were all nursed through lengthy droughts, as Pietersen would have been. His drought, comparatively, has been less severe, yet this point was rarely made.
So did the media want Pietersen to be dropped? As individuals, probably not. But as a story, it would have gone big and KP felt its weight. Like football, the media agenda for cricket is now short-term, even as the England team's strategy stretches the other way.
If Pietersen continues to revive, he will leave a vacuum behind him. It may be filled, even more remarkably, by Andrew Strauss. For the media, his retirement from short-form cricket loosens his grip on power. Now, his dismissals by left-arm bowlers are lining up behind him as more ammunition. A full two Test matches after an Ashes win for the ages, whispers are beginning.
Strauss has got out to a lot of left-arm over bowlers, and like Pietersen, he has a technical issue to address. But batting is a process not a destination, and things change all the time. A generation ago Strauss would have faced Wasim Akram and very few others. In the last year he has encountered Bollinger, Johnson, Amir and Welegedera with Zaheer Khan to come. He is an opener, and openers get out to opening bowlers.
This short-termism is not so much the fault of the journalists as the the wider media, which has increased in speed to keep pace with life. The culture in general is more disposable and it burns through information in its many forms. The England Test team does not run at sufficient speed for its purposes, and a gap between the story and reality is emerging. There always has to be a story, but increasingly, it's created by the authors rather than their subjects.
It was strange, because if you took your perception of the fans' opinion of KP from the media, you might have been surprised at this unequivocal support. You may also have been under the impression that Pietersen was under pressure for his place, because again, this was the media line.
There has to be a story, because this is how the media works. It's interesting that the most intuitive piece on KP was a simpatico analysis from Mike Brearley in the Observer. This was the story that tuned in best to both the public's and the dressing room's view of KP, and yet it stood alone. Brearley, of course, is not a member of the regular press pack.
There is a question worth asking about the press position on KP: who was the last batsman to be dropped from the England Test team? The answer, excluding injury replacements, is Ravi Bopara in the Ashes of 2009. Before that, it was probably Ian Bell, who pushed selectorial patience beyond the limit in Jamaica. Andrew Strauss, Alastair Cook, Paul Collingwood and Jonathan Trott [in South Africa] were all nursed through lengthy droughts, as Pietersen would have been. His drought, comparatively, has been less severe, yet this point was rarely made.
So did the media want Pietersen to be dropped? As individuals, probably not. But as a story, it would have gone big and KP felt its weight. Like football, the media agenda for cricket is now short-term, even as the England team's strategy stretches the other way.
If Pietersen continues to revive, he will leave a vacuum behind him. It may be filled, even more remarkably, by Andrew Strauss. For the media, his retirement from short-form cricket loosens his grip on power. Now, his dismissals by left-arm bowlers are lining up behind him as more ammunition. A full two Test matches after an Ashes win for the ages, whispers are beginning.
Strauss has got out to a lot of left-arm over bowlers, and like Pietersen, he has a technical issue to address. But batting is a process not a destination, and things change all the time. A generation ago Strauss would have faced Wasim Akram and very few others. In the last year he has encountered Bollinger, Johnson, Amir and Welegedera with Zaheer Khan to come. He is an opener, and openers get out to opening bowlers.
This short-termism is not so much the fault of the journalists as the the wider media, which has increased in speed to keep pace with life. The culture in general is more disposable and it burns through information in its many forms. The England Test team does not run at sufficient speed for its purposes, and a gap between the story and reality is emerging. There always has to be a story, but increasingly, it's created by the authors rather than their subjects.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Melancholy and the infinite sadness of Ian Bell
So, England came close to declaring on Ian Bell when he was 98 not out. What stopped them was Andrew Strauss's argument that a mood of 'melancholy' might be created around the team. As melancholy is an important emotion in life and one woven into the fabric of the game, it was good to see Strauss's England respect its influence and get their unlikely reward.
There's an obvious parallel with Sydney 1995, when Mike Atherton pulled the plug on England's second dig with Graeme Hick on the same score. That was an extraordinary, weather-affected game too, eventually drawn after first Australia looked like they'd chase England down and then fell in a heap before clinging on. 'Atherton lost patience and ungenerously declared,' the Almanack thundered. 'He had batted far more slowly himself'.
There was plenty of support for Atherton's decision at the time, though. There was a view that the England team needed steel, a kind of Australian-style macho, no-bullshit, no-frills, low indulgence of the individual which in turn would make the unit stronger.
It did not allow a lot of room for melancholy, although there was always plenty around Hick, and around Atherton, too. It's a worldview that seems very 90s now. In cricket, more than almost any other team game, it is about the individual. It has to be. There's no point pretending that individual achievement doesn't matter, or that the team must always take precedence. Instinctively, Strauss, with the team in mind, invested in Ian Bell's happiness. It was a decision that might not have paid off in the short term, but it was guaranteed to at some point, because as Strauss understood, it would have made every individual in the team feel good.
Sometimes, you just get back what you give out. Athers and Strauss did when they made their different calls.
There's an obvious parallel with Sydney 1995, when Mike Atherton pulled the plug on England's second dig with Graeme Hick on the same score. That was an extraordinary, weather-affected game too, eventually drawn after first Australia looked like they'd chase England down and then fell in a heap before clinging on. 'Atherton lost patience and ungenerously declared,' the Almanack thundered. 'He had batted far more slowly himself'.
There was plenty of support for Atherton's decision at the time, though. There was a view that the England team needed steel, a kind of Australian-style macho, no-bullshit, no-frills, low indulgence of the individual which in turn would make the unit stronger.
It did not allow a lot of room for melancholy, although there was always plenty around Hick, and around Atherton, too. It's a worldview that seems very 90s now. In cricket, more than almost any other team game, it is about the individual. It has to be. There's no point pretending that individual achievement doesn't matter, or that the team must always take precedence. Instinctively, Strauss, with the team in mind, invested in Ian Bell's happiness. It was a decision that might not have paid off in the short term, but it was guaranteed to at some point, because as Strauss understood, it would have made every individual in the team feel good.
Sometimes, you just get back what you give out. Athers and Strauss did when they made their different calls.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Andrew Strauss's Bat
Fed up with hearing about and thinking about spot fixing. Not enthused by five ODIs against Pakistan. Only mildly amused by Dimi Mascarenhas calling Geoff Miller a knob on Twitter. Slightly more amused by Geoff Miller continuing to pretend he doesn't know what 'this twitter' is. In need of something to remind me of what the game is really all about.
Found it in this post from Jrod at Mountain Chickens, a blog about an Australian being schooled in the arts of the game in the land of its birth. He was playing a match against a bunch of accountants. One of them started hitting Jrod even further than usual:
'In this game we had an injured batsman come out. He played a sweep shot early on that just seemed so effortless as it went to the rope, but the noise was amazing. Two balls later he hit a cover drive even harder, and that is when the mumurs started.
"He is using Andrew Strauss's bat"
"His mate plays Middlesex 2s"
"That is a proper Test bat".
It was being spoken about as if it were Excalibur.
Next the guy hit me over my head and into some nearby paddock, and this was no longer a cricket bat, this was now a myth.'
I love this sort of rumour. It plays in so many ways. On the mortal plane, it asks whether such a thing as a 'proper Test bat' exists. On the metaphysical plane, it wonders whether a bit of hand-carved wood can be something more, something transformative.
On the mortal question, well there probably is such a thing, especially now. Batmakers obviously set aside the very best clefts of willow for their pros. And most pros seem far less wedded to one or two particular bats. Thus they can be pressed less, shortening their lifespan but heightening the trampolining effect of their power.
As for the magic of a bat, well who knows? I'll never forget the bat that never was, a bat I found in a shop but didn't have the money to buy. It was a Stuart Surridge jumbo, short-handled, a beast of a thing that picked up like it was an extension of my hands. I've never felt anything like it before or since. I'd have loved to have batted with it just once.
It's great too how rumours can spread, even in the course of a game. I remember playing in one where their quick bowler was said to have 'opened the bowling for Wales'. The other classic is having a player who is related to a pro. That one goes around at least once a season.
These things are what the game is about, and they make it what it is. Good work Jrod. Just keep telling yourself it was the bat... [and happy birthday too, to the Balls, in all of its wickedness...]
Found it in this post from Jrod at Mountain Chickens, a blog about an Australian being schooled in the arts of the game in the land of its birth. He was playing a match against a bunch of accountants. One of them started hitting Jrod even further than usual:
'In this game we had an injured batsman come out. He played a sweep shot early on that just seemed so effortless as it went to the rope, but the noise was amazing. Two balls later he hit a cover drive even harder, and that is when the mumurs started.
"He is using Andrew Strauss's bat"
"His mate plays Middlesex 2s"
"That is a proper Test bat".
It was being spoken about as if it were Excalibur.
Next the guy hit me over my head and into some nearby paddock, and this was no longer a cricket bat, this was now a myth.'
I love this sort of rumour. It plays in so many ways. On the mortal plane, it asks whether such a thing as a 'proper Test bat' exists. On the metaphysical plane, it wonders whether a bit of hand-carved wood can be something more, something transformative.
On the mortal question, well there probably is such a thing, especially now. Batmakers obviously set aside the very best clefts of willow for their pros. And most pros seem far less wedded to one or two particular bats. Thus they can be pressed less, shortening their lifespan but heightening the trampolining effect of their power.
As for the magic of a bat, well who knows? I'll never forget the bat that never was, a bat I found in a shop but didn't have the money to buy. It was a Stuart Surridge jumbo, short-handled, a beast of a thing that picked up like it was an extension of my hands. I've never felt anything like it before or since. I'd have loved to have batted with it just once.
It's great too how rumours can spread, even in the course of a game. I remember playing in one where their quick bowler was said to have 'opened the bowling for Wales'. The other classic is having a player who is related to a pro. That one goes around at least once a season.
These things are what the game is about, and they make it what it is. Good work Jrod. Just keep telling yourself it was the bat... [and happy birthday too, to the Balls, in all of its wickedness...]
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
The Strauss Two
Occasionally - rarely - it can be worth interviewing England cricketers who are not Kevin Pietersen.
Richard Hobson's piece with Andrew Strauss in the Times today yielded a nugget: 'He thinks he knows nine of the eleven he would like for the first [Ashes] Test at Cardiff, declining to identify the two vacant places'.
Who are the Strauss Two? Acknowledging the wishes of the captain by keeping this item blind, OAS will be one, music to the ears of IRB, RSB and of course MPV.
But IRB is one of three dumped by Strauss so far, with MSP and SJH. So the news that either the spinner's spot or the third seamer is settled [do the math, as the kids say] is bad news for one or the other. Which could it be?
Strauss would offer only coded clues: 'We must acknowledge that an Ashes series is different to others. I am thinking of the extra attention, expectation, pressure, and the brand of cricket Australia play. We cannot afford for any of our players to be surprised by the challenge'.
Given that SJH is constantly surprised by everything that ever happens to him ['I need to sit down and have a chat with Straussy, find out where I stand' etc] and MSP subsides into Bambi-eyed shock every time a batsman gets after him, it's still hard to tell.
Maybe it's even a further incentive to that Pro Arch century-maker, who only ever looks surprised when he's bowled.
Answers on a postcard.
NB: One of Strauss's finest attributes is his refusal [so far] to refer to himself in interviews as 'Andrew Strauss'. So let's hope Andrew Strauss gets what Andrew Strauss wants.
Monday, 30 March 2009
Ravi Bopara and Phenomenological Reality
Reality, n. what is real; the state of things as they actually exist.
The reality of being England's coach:
27 March 2009, Bridgetown, Barbados
Ten minutes before the 3rd ODI between West Indies and England. Sky Sports transmit a new interview with Ravi Bopara, conducted by Nasser Hussain.
Nasser Hussain: 'Fidel Edwards has bowled some terrific spells'.
Ravi Bopara: 'Yeah, his short ball is ten yards quicker than his normal ball'.
27 March, 2009, Bridgetown, Barbados
3rd ODI,West Indies versus England
Fourth ball of the sixth over. Cricinfo commentary: 'Edwards to Bopara OUT. That's awful from Bopara. Quick and aggressive. Bopara tried to hook and it got big on him. The ball made its limp and feeble way to mid-on'.
You see, you can tell them and tell them, but you can't do it for them... For Andy Flower and for England too, much now depends on Friday's final ODI.
Those who argue that reality can only be experienced as a personal interpretation of events will say that it all comes down to how you see it:
England win the match, and the series: They have come through a difficult winter with an ODI series win. They were narrowly defeated in the Tests following a fluke collapse that can be explained by the delayed shock of the Pietersen affair. They responded by coming within one and then two wickets of winning the next two matches. Andrew Strauss, the player of the winter, and Andy Flower have formed a strong bond and need time to develop their team.
England lose the match, and the series: They have been beaten in all formats by a team they should have defeated. They have won only two games, one of them because of a clerical error. Strauss and Flower have failed to convince Kevin Pietersen, the team's premier batsman, and morale remains suspect. They are, essentially, a second choice captain and a second choice coach.
Which way will it go? Depends how you look at it, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
