England vs Australia T3D3: A Santa Barbara Yankee in Gilly's Court

Wow. What an innings. You've read all about it by now, and all I can see is that Gilly was magnificent, as was the crowd as they enjoyed a spectacular and brutal assault by one of their favourite sons. I think it's appropriate that Viv's record is intact, but I have to admit, I badly wanted to be able to say "I was there". I was.

Australia were crusing when Gilly came in, probably planning to declare at lunch on Day 4, and then bowl England out by lunch on Day 5. 20 overs and 162 runs later, the declaration arrived. Not one person saw that blitzkrieg coming, especially when Gilchrist was fortunate not to see an edge fly straight to the fielder before he got off the mark.

It's late, so brief highlights of my day:

• In the queue at 5am, I heard a strong American accent. I was stunned. And that was just the beginning. The American in question was upset because he had overslept, and would not be the first person in the ground today. He's from Santa Barbara. He's been attending Tests at the WACA for a few years. He thinks ODI's and 20/20 are a joke, and Test cricket is the real thing. He must sit behind the bowler's arm. He can't understand how he enjoyed baseball as a youngster in America, when cricket is where it's at. I'm not making any of this up.
• I don't know why Flintoff started the proceedings with Kevin Pietersen. On the radio, they suggested it was to get an early wicket so that the regular bowlers could come on. I won't even dignify that suggestion with a comment.
• Hussey's century was the worst knock I've ever seen him play. Just goes to show what a batsman he is. He was patchy, he was lucky to escape when Monty had him caught close in, he was smacked on the helmet by Harmison, and he top edged a few hook shots.
• One of those was spilled by, you guesst it, Geraint Jones, who called for what was clearly Pietersen's catch, and then made a complete hash of it. This was in addition to missing a regulation stumping when Michael Clarke had just a few runs to his name.
• When Flintoff took the new ball at 3 for 300, he used it with just one slip. I simply don't understand captains who refuse to attack even for a few overs with a new ball. What can you be scared of at 3 for 300? Conceding a boundary? Sure enough, Strauss dropped Hussey on 78, diving across from 2nd slip to the vacant first slip. Pathetic
• Monty was the man again. he should have had Clarke early on - the stumping missed by Jones, and it was eventually he who found Hussey's edge, and then followed that up with Symonds wicket.
• Collingwood is credited with catching Symonds, but what the scoreboard doesn't show is that Jones dropped that catch first. What must Chris Read (and James Foster) be thinking?
• Why did England bother to play Sajid Mahmood when the captain has no confidence in him? It's a vicious cycle for a bowler - you know your captain doesn't rate you, so when you finally get the ball (once the game is all but gone), you don't run in with the confidence you would otherwise have. You therefore bowl poorly, and the cycle intensifies.
  
• Michael Clarke is here to stay. He batted superbly, and as always played Panesar with aplomb for the most part. He's seized his chance, and I'll go out on a limb and say that when Ponting retires, Clarke may well be the one to take the reins. He's pure class, and with Ponting, Hussey and him around for the next few years, the Australian middle order is in good hands.
• You've got to hand it to Matty Hayden - every time the critics get on his case, he answers them. Not his most fluent knock, but he stood up to be counted.
• The value of having a 20 minute bowling session before the close was highlighted today. The Aussie bowlers had had a wonderful day's rest, and could bowl with freedom. Little wonder that Brett Lee could therefore send down 95mph outswingers. Strauss got his third bad decision in a row, but as a batsman, you will pay the price for padding up without offering a shot.

And so to day 4. I don't see how England can do it. If Cook and Bell can put on 300 and take it to 350-1 at the close, then there might be a contest. If not, then I see England getting out for between 200-300 depending on just how intent Australia are on delivering a humiliation.

England vs Australia T3D2: Monty and Harmy Take Two

Well, who would have thought that after taking 9 wickets between them on the first day, it would be Monty Panesar and Steve Harmison who provided England their best partnership with the bat as well!

My overnight prediction appeared to be bang on target until these two somehow contrived to add 40 in 10 overs for the tenth wicket. I say contrived, but they deserve credit for some great cricketing shots, most notably Monty's cracking straight drive for four.

Unfortunately for England supporters, although the day had it's twists, the end result was that Australia cemented their position of control, and set themselves up for a terrifyingly big day tomorrow. Hayden and Ponting had a couple of close shaves each, but with both unbeaten on 57 at the close, you wouldn't bet against Australia racking up a lead of 500 tomorrow, and possibly even batting into day 4. England's struggle now is that only Monty Panesar looks likely to take a wicket, and he can't do it single handedly in his first Ashes Test!

I managed to snag a great seat again this morning, having shown up a little earlier to get in the queue. My neighbour for the day was a fascinating gentleman who was a 60 year WACA veteran, with awesome stories to tell in great detail about cricket and cricketers on and off the pitch. The two highlights of his viewing career appeared to be Barry Richards scoring 300 in a day, and Sunny GasGiver (his words, not mine) getting out twice in the same session one morning.

The other non-cricketing highlight of the day would have been seeing Tony Greig get sledged in the toilet by a patron, after the commentator had kindly helped out another man who was having some toilet paper problems. Got to say, Tony appeared to take it very well.

The cricket itself wasn't quite the perfect day of Test cricket of the previous day, perhaps because England didn't have a Mike Hussey to impress me. Sure, Kevin Pietersen doggedly made his way to 70, but it didn't have the same stamp of class over it at all.

What did come out was that my contention that England really need to play 6+1+4 was proven out once again. In fact, the ABC Grandstand commentators suggested the same thing at the end of the day - perhaps they've been reading the blog in the spare time!

Andrew Strauss certainly got a poor decision, but none of the batsmen looked interested in sticking around or gritting it out as Hussey had done, and the Australian bowling juggernaut was relentless, with every ball pitched in the right spot and causing problems. Even Andy Symonds got in on the act, taking two cheap wickets, including that of the quite pathetic Geraint Jones.

While I'm mentioning Symonds, I have to call out his stupendous performance in the field. His batting is not temperamentally up to scratch, but the man has got to be saving 20-30 runs per innings in the field, and given his ability as a bowling option, it may well be worth giving him a bit of a run in the side.

The atmosphere in the ground was much improved today. The Aussies in the crowd tend to get going when their men are steaming in, and the Barmy Army used the Panesar-Harmison partnership as an opportunity to get their own in.

England did much the same, taking some of that momentum and sending Justin Langer back to the pavilion as a contributor to the Primary Club, but they simply couldn't carry on from there. Frankly, I lay some of that blame at the feet (and hands) of an iffy keeper. The pressure is clearly writ over Jones' face, and if Fletcher likes him as much as he apparently does, he needs to get him out of there as soon as possible.

Panesar looks the only bowler worth a wicket. He had Hayden missed by Jones (and Collingwood off the same delivery), and had Ponting edging inches short of first slip. If England are to salvage anything from this game, they need to make the half chances count, and someone other than Panesar needs to step up and create opportunities. Frankly, I don't see who it could be, and I think Australia have every chance of establishing a 500 run lead and batting till lunch on day 4.

England vs Australia T3D1: Monty and Harmy

Now that's what I call Test Cricket. This was exactly what it should be all about. And it started with the pitch - which offered a touch of pace and bounce for the bowlers, along with some non-extravagant turn. A capacity crowd, on a near-perfect day weather wise, enjoyed some class batsmanship, quality spin bowling, and even some good seam bowling under blue skies and a light breeze.

Contrary to popular belief, I think Australia actually ended the day on top. My rationale is simple - England don't have a lot of batting at all, given that the tail really starts with Flintoff in his current form. The wickets of Cook and Bell have set them back a long way, and I suspect it will take something special for them to get near Australia's score, given the way the Aussies have bowled thus far.

I was at the ground at 5:20am, thinking that I'd be near the front of the member's queue to get in. No such luck. The crowds had started coming in at 4am as it turned out, and I was probably about a thousand people back, and that's not counting the priority queue for loyal (40 consecutive years) members and others.

Once I got into the ground at 7:45am, I was lucky enough to find a single seat in a perfect position, right behind the bowlers arm on the second level of the Lillee-Marsh stand, just in front of the press box and below the TV/Radio box.

The day started with the singing of the national anthems, the most interesting part of which was the 'special appearance' of Graham Mackenzie and Geoff Boycott, who bowled and faced the first Test match delivery at the WACA 36 years ago. The outfield looked fantastic, and the binoculars revealed that the pitch was apparently a hard one, but clearly with some moisture in it to help the bowlers.

Australia won the toss and batted, and Langer and Hayden, both having quiet series' thus far, looked as if they were going to take control, despite a typically impressive opening spell from Hoggard. Harmison was as wayward as ever to begin with, but the complexion of the game changed completely when Hoggard had Hayden caught behind, and then out of the blue, Harmison trapped Ricky Ponting bang in front.

You could see the realisation suddenly dawn on England that they truly were in this contest. Harmison was a man transformed - not near his best, but the radar switched on, then length shortened up, and he reverted to type, doing his Curtly Ambrose impressions.

The story of the day, of course, was Monty Panesar. He showed himself to be a top quality spinner, and the only batsmen to play him confidently, Symonds little assault notwithstanding, were Clarke, and to a lesser extent, Hussey. Panesar's 5 wickets were well deserved, his dismissal of Symonds being particularly impressive given that he had been hit for two massive sixes in the previous over. The entire crowd enjoyed his boyish enthusiasm - in an age of automaton cricketers, it is lovely to see someone who genuinely relishes every moment out there on the field.

Other bits of interest during the day:

• Flintoff looked lost at times, unsure how or where to place his field. It was interesting to note that Geraint Jones often made decisions with regard to field placing, adding credence to the strong rumour that Jones is an advisor to the team selection committee on tour! One wag in the members politely enquired, to the amusement of all around him, whether he should call Michael Vaughan to get an opinion on what to do next.
• The over-rate was terrible, even with the spinner on. It'll be interesting to see what fines, if any, are imposed.
• Apparently daylight saving time, recently introduced in Western Australia, is a terrible thing, because it causes curtains and carpets to fade. Okay, that's not cricket related, but I overheard someone complaining about this, and thought it was worth a mention :-)
• Geraint Jones' keeping was shoddy, at best. He dropped a couple of catches, fumbled a few non-catches, and nearly dropped Symonds before holding on at the second attempt. It is beyond comprehension how he manages to retain his place ahead of Chris Read, particularly given that his batting is a disaster these days as well.
• Australia's dismissal of Cook was brilliantly engineered - Ponting and McGrath had a long discussion, moved Justin Langer to a very carefully positioned second gully, and he dutifully took the catch which went straight to him 2 balls later. That spoke volumes about just how good a bowler Glenn McGrath really is.
• And he's not even Australia's best bowler. Stewart Clark quite simply blew me away with his over to Collingwood, in which he beat and found the outside edge about 10 times in six deliveries, or so it seemed.
• How good is Mike Hussey? I posted about Dravid and Ponting the other day. Hussey is making a damn good case to be added to that list.

At the end of the day, as I said, Australia are on top, having taken two key wickets, and I think England will struggle to make 200 tomorrow, if Australia bowl as well as they did tonight.

Legends 20/20 - England vs Australia

Just some quick notes/observations:

• I was stunned to see 18 thousand people crammed into the WACA for this game.
• Even more amazed to hear a kid over the PA system announce that the only two players he had heard of were Kim Hughes and Rodney Hogg. Not Lillee, Botham, Marsh, Alderman, Merv Hughes, Gatting or any of the others
• For the most part, the cricket was decidedly mediocre, with a couple of notable exceptions
• Lillee getting Gatting caught behind for a duck with a little outswinger was brilliant
• Bruce Reid illustrated just what a great bowler he was - and if he'd had this physique when he played, he'd have got 400 Test wickets and been an all-time great.
• Dean Jones is still a great fielder - every one of his throws from 70 yards was right over the bails... very few players currently playing could manage that

Some notes for the future:

• The pitch being prepared for the Test (which was covered for protection today) looked, from a great distance, to be a good 2005/2006 style WACA batting track.
• Tomorrow night, I've finagled my way into a dinner with Merv Hughes - what more could someone ask for in life?
• That late night is going to be followed by a 4:30am start to get near the front of the member's queue and snag a good seat with a view of pitch #4 from behind the right-arm-over bowlers arm.

England vs Western Australia: Day Two

This one will be brief, since I'm still stuck with dial-up Internet access, and frankly, there wasn't an awful lot worth saying about the second day of this practice match.

Most of the entertainment was provided by the radio commentators, including Kim Hughes and Terry Alderman. When Strauss was finally dismissed, Geraint Jones walked in, a right-hander, only to be identified on the radio as Ed Joyce. When Joyce, a left-hander, walked in to face the hat-trick delivery, he was identified as Chris Read, who of course, is a right-hander. Superb preparation that.

Read did his cause no harm with a positive half-century, quite a contrast to Jones' golden duck. Not clear to me, however, that it was enough - sending Jones out at number 3 seemed to suggest that he was inked in for the 3rd Test.

The crowd were disappointed that Michael Vaughan didn't come out to bat, but this really wasn't surprising, given that he was never going to play in the Test. I suspect he only got a run out because England wanted to rest a few key players.

On the Australian side, it is really a question of whether Adam Voges or Andrew Symonds will replace the now-retired Damien Martyn. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Symonds will get the nod. However, a very reliably placed source indicates that Voges is a serious chance to make his debut on Thursday. His elevation to the Test squad ahead of his own compatriots Rogers and North owes much to his right-handedness. His chances of making the final XI rest on whether the selectors take the like-for-like approach the full distance.

More than I intended to say already - I'm off to the Legends 20-20 game tomorrow, hoping to see the legend that is Merv Hughes in the flesh one last time!

England vs Western Australia: Day One

I woke this morning to the news that Damien Martyn had announced his retirement with immediate effect. His time had probably come, but you had to think he would have retained his place for the remainder of this series. One can only wonder what went on behind the scenes.

In any case, it was off bright and early to the WACA to see England take on the Retrovision Warriors, also known as Western Australia, in a 2-day, non-first-class fixture. I had a few goals in mind for the day:

1. To cast my discerning eye over the batting of Adam Voges, whom I know next to nothing about.

2. To watch Monty Panesar and Chris Read demonstrate why they should be playing in the Test next week.

3. To see the allegedly flat Perth track first hand

4. To pick my seats for the Test, and figure out what the competition for them from other WACA members would be like.

The day started well enough, despite an unintended detour as a result of a bad navigational decision on the way to the Members entrance. Gates were due to open at 10am, and I was there with well over a minute to spare. Surprisingly, there were only about 200 members (and/or guests) waiting to be admitted into the ground.

I made my way to the top of the Lillee-Marsh stand, and picked a spot two seats to the left of middle stump - about as good a view of a game of cricket as one can get. It soon emerged that WA had won the toss and elected to bat, which suited my objectives perfectly.

As I listened to a gentleman behind me agonize over whether to take his MCC tie out of his pocket and put it on, I realized that my presence in the stand was a statistical anomaly in more ways than one. I was both lowering the average age from about 60 to somewhere nearer 59.8 (I can only do so much as one out of 200), and I was darkening the average skin tone a few shades. To be fair, I did get some help from some youngsters later in the afternoon with the former, but the only thing redressing the balance on the pigmentation front was the sun.

England's bowling attack suggested that a bowl-off was on the cards. With Hoggard and Flintoff rested, it was a battle between Giles and Panesar, and another between Mahmood, Harmison and Anderson. If you ask me, there were clear winners and losers in both cases, but as we all know, the England management may not see it the same way.

Jimmy Anderson started off very nicely, swinging the ball into left-hander Chris Rogers, and then turning him inside out with one that went the other way. Harmison at the other end was not getting the ball to deviate at all, and appeared to be bowling everywhere but straight. It was no surprise when Anderson eventually got Dave Bandy to edge one behind to Chris Read, and it was perhaps even less of a surprise in the next over when Harmison found Rogers' edge, only for Ashley Giles to spill an absolute sitter at 2nd slip. The members certainly had a good little titter at that one - at least, those who were able to draw their gaze away from their knitting did.

The remainder of the morning session was quite dull. Anderson had bowled impressively, but Harmison was poor, and Mahmood, struggling with his length, was only slightly better. At least, I thought it was Sajid Mahmood bowling from one end, but the know-it-all to my left didn't agree - he was quite insistent that it was in fact Michael Vaughan on the comeback trail. Perhaps there should be a qualification examination for cricket association membership.

The entertainment level picked up after the lunch break, thanks largely to the steward at the player's gate, whose attempt to underarm the ball back to the fielder at third-man nearly knocked out a napping spectator some 15 rows back. I shouldn't laugh though - many years ago I was umpiring at square leg, wearing a good old-fashioned umpire's coat, when the spare ball in my pocket was required. I attempted to underarm it to the bowler, and instead sent it over my head to the boundary behind me. It can happen to the best and worst of us.

The rest of the day hammered home a few hard truths. Steve Harmison finished with 1-99, and was deliberately taken off after just 3 overs with the new ball to avoid conceding a century. Sajjid Mahmood came back to bowl an excellent second spell, and picked up two wickets, one of them courtesy a tremendous low diving catch by Chris Read. I suspect Mahmood may pick up an England cap to go with it next week, should England want to field four pacemen.

Monty Panesar proved himself to be a class above Ashley Giles, not just with the ball, but in the field. Giles ended the day with a dropped catch; Panesar with a dramatic direct hit run out after swooping down from mid-wicket. Both were also a little bruised after they collided with each other in the field on one occasion - you can speculate ad nauseum as to which was trying to take the other out of contention.

But what of my objectives for the day?

1. Adam Voges looked like a solid, compact batsman, who like all WA players, enjoys the short stuff. He was outshone on the day though, by Luke Pomersbach (aka Luke Pommiesbasher), whose unbeaten 90-odd included one breathtaking pull for six off Anderson.

2a. Monty Panesar surely bowled himself into the Test match, unless he gets banned for dissent after snatching his sweater from the umpire when an edge to slip was turned down. He only got one wicket, but created numerous chances, and on another day would have had 3 or 4. Flintoff, Hoggard and Anderson will certainly play, and I think it will be Panesar and one of Mahmood or Giles for the final bowling spots.

2b. Chris Read continues to look a class above Geraint Jones, but you have to wonder if his missed stumping off Panesar will cost him a return to the side.

3. This is not quite a flat-track, but it's not the Perth of the 1980s and even 1990s either.

4. It transpires that the keenest members will be queuing up at 5:30am on the Test match days in order to secure their preferred seats. The gates open at 7:30am, and the Test starts at 11:30am. If you have any suggestions as to what I can do for those 6 hours, please let me know.

He's baaack!

I suppose with a new selection committee at the helm, we should have expected nothing short of a complete U-turn in policy. And sure enough, Sourav Ganguly is back in the Indian middle order.

Make no mistake about it - he is going to play in each and every Test match on this tour. India won't go in with less than six batsmen, and as Gambhir is the spare opener, the lineup is going to read: Sehwag, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly. Yes, Ganguly, the man whose least favourite opponent is.... South Africa. He averages 27 against them for heaven's sake. And this is a pick to "lend solidity to the middle order?"

This is, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), a complete disaster for Indian cricket. After all the pain we had to go through to try and take a step forward, the long term planning has been jettisoned. A big step backwards that will serve no-one's interests, even if Ganguly in one series eclipses Mohammad Yousuf's new calendar year scoring record. Australia bringing back Michael Bevan would be a more positive move than this one.

Looks like the Vengsarkar selection committee is going to take us back to the good old days, and I guess that given that Kiran More has quite amusingly endorsed the choice, none of us should complain.

On the plus side, the appointment of VVS Laxman as vice-captain is probably an astute one. With Rahul Dravid an uncertain participant in the series at this juncture, Laxman is probably the right person to lead the side. He has long been highly regarded as far as his cricketing acumen is concerned, and it is rumoured that John Wright always felt that VVS was a FIC (With apologies to FEC Atherton). Either way, if India is to have a chance in this series, it is going to be down to Dravid and Laxman to deliver. Let the games begin.

Ponting or Dravid?

Several months ago, I wrote a post entitled "The unbearable greatness of Ponting."

With his magnificent performance in the first Ashes Test this week, I find myself reflecting on that opinion once more. And I've come to the conclusion that I stand by it. History simply will not be able to ignore the fact that in 14 innings in India, Ponting has scored 172 runs at an average of 12.28.

I assure you that a batsman with a similar record to Ponting - brilliant success everywhere, and an average of 12 from 14 innings in Australia, would always be labelled as one notch below greatness. I suppose it's a truism of the sport that success against spin is just not considered relevant.

Before I get slammed again, let me state that Ricky Ponting is nothing short of awesome as a batsman, and the blot on his record is highly unfortunate. It is sad that he won't tour India again until 2010. But none of that changes the facts.

Let's take another approach. The Big Four are unquestionably Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting and Dravid. Let's see which countries their averages dip below the 50-mark, which is typically the greatness threshold.

Tendulkar: averages just 40 in NZ, Pak, RSA and Zim, with 47 in the West Indies. That's Michael Atherton greatness, not Bradmanesque. No major weak spot, but far too many good-but-not-great ones.

Lara: averages just 33 in India, 36 in NZ, 42 in Aus and 48 in England. A bigger spread than Tendulkar, but then he's also won a lot more off his own blade.

Ponting: averages a whopping 12 in India, and 40 in England (we'll discount his single innings 31 in Zimbabwe). Of the four, he's the only one with a major blot on his record.

Dravid: his weak spot is an average of 42 in South Africa, and 47 in Sri Lanka.

Two things stand out here.

Firstly, while we've all been talking about Tendulkar and Lara, it's Ponting and Dravid who have been batting out there in the middle.

Secondly, while Ponting obviously has a better conversion rate on his 50s (turning them into 100s), and is the more destructive batsman, it's not remotely clear that Rahul Dravid should be left out of any discussion of who is the leading batsman on the planet currently.

And that's ignoring the fact that Ponting usually comes into bat after Hayden and Langer have started pulverising the opposition, versus Dravid coming into bat after Opener-Of-The-Week has been dismissed in the first over.

In truth, I'd be hard pushed to say either is greater than the other, even though on a personal level I'd take Dravid any day of the week. What I can unequivocally state however, is that a man who averages 12 after 14 innings in one country cannot be equated with Bradman. That's just nonsense.

A Marvellous Summer Down Under

I would write something about India's performances in South Africa, but I consider myself fortunate in having not watched the games, and therefore I shan't bother. There really weren't any surprises there. The wickets have pace and bounce, and only Rahul Dravid coped. Simple, and expected. The sooner Indian fans stop expecting the unreasonable, the happier their lives will become.

In the meantime, what of England? I am particularly concerned by their capitulation as I'm going to be spending 5 days (I hope) in the member's enclosure at the WACA in a couple of weeks, and I'd like to see a true contest. Unfortunately, it appears as if England caved in before they even started. The team selection was defensive, and betrayed a remarkable lack of confidence on the part of the Ashes holders.

I'm a big fan of playing your two best openers, your four best middle order batsmen, your four best bowlers, and your best keeper. If one of those provides all-round capabilities, then all the better. If it were up to me, I'd be going in with: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Owais Shah, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar.

Three medium pacers, your best spinner, and the occasional bowling of Pieterson, Collingwood and Bell to supplement. Bring in a youngster with some spunk to add to the batting depth (Shah), and pick a keeper who can inspire with the gloves, and do the job standing up to Panesar. Back yourself, and play aggressive cricket.

Instead, we're going to see: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Hoggard, Anderson, Harmison - with maybe Panesar in for Harmison/Anderson if Duncan Fletcher wakes up facing due East. Five batsmen, an all-rounder whose bowling is his strong suit, two players who are in the side for their batting, but pretend to keep and bowl respectively, and three bowlers, two of whom were a disaster last time out.

I'm off to Australia this weekend. Look out for reports on the 3rd Test, the England vs. Western Australia 2-day game, and most exciting of all, the Legends 20/20 International. Dean Jones, Kim Hughes, Big Merv, Bruce Reid, Terry Alderman and Dennis Lillee, taking on Gatting, Stewart, Robin Smith, Devon Malcolm and Ian Botham.

Of course, none of that is ultimately important. Overshadowing all of this is the news that Billy Birmingham has finally released a new CD!! "Boned" promises to follow in the footsteps of his prior work. If you haven't heard The Twelfth Man, you need to get out more, and when you do, start by getting a hold of his CDs. You're looking for:

Wired World of Sports, The 12th Man Again!, Still the 12th Man, Wired World of Sports 2, Bill Lawry... This Is Your Life, The Final Dig, and now, Boned! I've actually never heard the Bruce 2000 Olympic album, but I'm sure it's just as good.

Who could avoid laughing at Sunil Have-A-Cigar going for a slash outside off stump; or Rubbish Binny being left out... only for nobody to collect him; or Max Walker's attempts to be re-instated to the commentary team; or Bill Lawry completely losing it; or the ProtectoCam, CrackCam and Scrotometer... the list is endless.

Black Swan Green

I may have lived in Hong Kong at the time, but my adolesence and schooling was as quintessentially English as they come. It's perhaps for that reason that Black Swan Green struck several poignant chords with me. Memories (the vast majority of them very fond ones) of P.E. lessons and playground games of British Bulldogs came flooding back. I can almost feel the cuts, scrapes and bruises when AB sent me sliding across the concrete and into a partially barbed fence - all part of the game, of course!

The tale of typical adolescent angst, set in a truly nondescript English village, is constructed as a series of entertaining vignettes, each independent, yet threaded together to span a calendar year in which a teenager has his life turned upside down and inside out from every angle, and yet manages to somehow use it all to come of age, as such.

Much like The Essence of the Thing, at the end of the book, I wasn't entirely sure what it was about, given that there wasn't much that you couldn't see coming after the first chapter. And yet once again, I was hooked, read it cover to cover, and was entertained throughout.

Many critics panned it as being too conventional a tome, and consequently overly ambitious for David Mitchell - ostensibly paradoxical, but then I haven't had the pleasure of reading his prior work. As far as I'm concerned, it did more than enough to hint at, without fully revealing, an exceptional literary talent, and the reputedly more complex and more cerebral Cloud Atlas has found a place on my wish list as a result.

P.S. - for those who are wondering, I'm not turning this into a book-blog per se. Lots of work-related travel of late has left me with little time for spending online reading and blogging about the usual stuff.

Incompetence or intransigence?

Have you ever been in a store and tried to give the cashier $10.25 for something that cost $9.25 so as to avoid getting coins in change, only to be met by a look of complete bewilderment?

The following transpired on a flight from Dallas to San Francisco recently:


The Characters

• Me (ME), a cash-poor flier stuck in seat 24A on an Airbus A320 (last row corner, no recline)
• Flight Attendant (FA), a middle-aged lady obliged to keep us safe, and serve us if safety permits
• John Doe (JD), a cash-rich infrequent flier in seat 24C

Preamble

I rarely drink on a flight, and as a former very frequent flier, I have amassed quite a collection of drink coupons. Each coupon is good for one alcoholic beverage - normally sold for $5 in cash. Some flights have snack boxes available, also for $5 in cash, and there are no coupons that specifically pertain to snack boxes.

The Conversation

FA: Would you like to purchase a snack box today?

ME: Yes please. Is there any chance I could use this drink coupon that I have, which is worth the same amount, to buy the snack box?

FA: Sorry, those can only be used for beverages. I need cash for the snack box.

ME: Fair enough. The gentlemen in 23C in front of me just gave you $5 cash for a beverage. Could I buy him his drink with my coupon, and then use his cash for my snack box?

FA: No, I need cash for the snack box, I can't accept the coupon.

JD: (chuckles to self)

ME: Ah. umm, the problem is I don't have any cash. It seems logical that I could effectively swap my coupon for somebody's cash.

FA: Sure, if you can find someone who is willing to do that, then I'm okay with it.

ME: Aha. Okay.

JD: I'll have a beer and my $5 can buy your snack box

ME: Perfect - I'll have the green snack box if you have one please.

FA: Well, I need cash for the snack box, not the coupon.

ME: Aah. I see. How about if I give him my coupon, and he gives me his $5, then he pays you with the coupon for his drink, and I pay you with the cash for my snack box.

FA: That's great. Which snack box did you say you wanted again?

Drugs in cricket

By now, everyone's read about and expressed an opinion on cricket's latest scandal - Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif failing a drugs test. That Shoaib would partake of a banned substance probably does not come as a surprise to many, but I suspect even the most hardened cynic would be shocked at what goes on in the cricketing world.

The stories I could tell probably would not be believed, and yet I am quite certain that what I have witnessed barely scratches the surface. After all, it's not as if I routinely move around in such exalted social circles! Still, my own experiences have been sufficient to ensure that little does surprise me. In fact, I am amazed that much more has not been exposed in the media, although I am glad for it in so far as I am more interested in cricketer's on-field exploits than there off-field ones.

Still, for those who are curious, some of the things I have either seen with my own eyes, or heard about from one or more of the parties involved include:

• recreational drug use (okay, that one's not going to surprise anyone)
• discussion of how to start with creatine (not considered doping, although it's banned in many countries), and go on from there
• cricketers on the phone to their wives whilst in bed with someone else (no, this is not one of the ones where I was standing in the room)
  
• notes being passed between the dressing room and groupies with arrangements of where and when to meet
• requests to officials/management to arrange 'dates' with specifical types of women
• exchange of 'love letters' over many years with multiple women (by married cricketers, of course)

The funny thing is, none of this really sounds that unusual, although what you read here is not neccessarily the worst of it. Most readers are probably thinking - "well, of course, that's the sort of thing Shane Warne does all the time." Thing is, it's often the ones who you are convinced are innocent, simple gentlemen who are the worst of the lot.

More than enough said.

More revisionist history

So CricInfo announced, or re-announced, it's new blog section the other day. And in it's announcement, yet another example of the ongoing revisionist history that is being put forth.

Sambit Bal, who wasn't involved with CI back then, states that CricInfo did it's first ball by ball commentary in 1996. Elsewhere, I've seen certain individuals claiming to have been founders of CricInfo, also in 1996. Neither claim is remotely true.

You really would think that CricInfo never existed between 1992/93 and 1996. It's bad enough that many of those who contributed significantly to the creation of the brand have been erased from the history books. But to suggest that CricInfo's history is built on anything less than the phenomenal efforts of a few genuine founders (in early '93) and many diligent volunteers, is disingenuous at best, and ridiculous at worst. For the organization itself to do this is just plain sad. Governments have tried it and failed, so hopefully in the long run, the truth will out.

Perhaps it's time to put together and publish the real history of CI. The story of Frozen Poms, Raggamuffins and others is truly an entertaining one.

The Essence of the Thing

A funny one, this. I read it, and enjoyed it, and yet I have absolutely no idea what the essence of the thing is. In fact, the books essence is almost that there is a Seinfeld-esque nothingness about it. An interesting literary style, to be sure. The dialogue, which dominates the narrative, is occasionally witty, often snappy, and always compelling, in so far as it provides for a surprisingly vivid portrayal of character. The plot itself managed to be strangely irrelevant, and yet, as a friend with nothing better to do just pointed out, the notion of individuals failing to accept or embrace the freedom they have been granted is eerily topical. Witness Iraq.

All in all, a good read. I might just have to give her follow-up, "A Stairway to Paradise" a go.