Bleacher Report - Articles by Jon Gemmell

Defending the Test brand

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:15:21 -0400

A feature of contemporary economies has been the elevation of the brand. Captured best in Naomi Klein's epic No Logo, institutions invest huge sums to ascertain brand recognition and associate their product with a certain lifestyle.

It was inevitable that such marketing and product placement would encroach into sports.

It is played out at its ugliest in the Indian Premier League (IPL), where a six is no longer a six but a DFL six, a seven-and-a-half minute commercial break at 10 overs becomes a tactical timeout and no opportunity is lost to endorse the commercial concerns which have invested heavily to promote their particular brand.

Cricket's most important brand though is the Test match. Rather than being thrust upon a television audience in order to generate a commercial return, it has gradually evolved over the last two centuries.

It may lack the "cool" factor, but to nearly all players and a majority of those who share an understanding of cricket nuances, the Test match between two nations remains the pinnacle of the sport.

That the brand is being undermined is a further consequence of contemporary economies, which place short-term returns above any vague moral sense of duty or purpose.

If economics is viewed as a science based on predictions and a clear end result, sport at its best is more of an art form enjoyed for its own sake.

When treated as a science, sport takes on many negative connotations, as shown in Jean-Marie Brohm's classic, A Prison of Measured Time. While requiring funding to maintain it, sport's end-results lie beyond the profit and loss columns.

Not that the match takings contributed to profits in the recent contest between England and the West Indies, which ended disappointingly in just three days.

The opening Test of the summer should have been greeted with anticipation rather than a whimper. Those who went or watched were rewarded with a contest that rarely deserved the status of international. Lord's didn't even get its traditional Saturday.

The lack of expectation was hardly surprising. A two-Test series originally scheduled for Zimbabwe represented nothing more than an hors d'oeuvre for the Ashes and you had to question the value of a contest between two teams who had just finished a four-Test series.

Before anyone points to Sri Lanka reneging on their commitment to tour, their players preferring the lucrative IPL to representing their country in Test cricket, the same thing happened last year when a February/March tour to New Zealand was followed by a three-match series in England against the Kiwis in May and June.

An international in early May is an upshot of a schedule that is governed by the maxim "the more the better." But the lack of equilibrium between supply and demand means half-filled stadia and a further downgrading of the status of the Test match.

A May 6 start is, of course, determined by the balance sheets and notably Sky's contract that insists on seven Tests per "summer," despite how unseasonal early May is in England.

The West Indies were clearly unprepared. Their captain and main strike bowler only joined the tour a couple of days before the first international. While Fidel Edwards bowled admirably, he was let down by his fielders who had spent most of the day with their hands in their pockets trying to keep warm.

Chris Gayle's 28 and 0 showed a batter who requires time to adjust to inclement conditions. He was not the only one. Kevin Pietersen (0) and Paul Collingwood (8) have spent little or no time at the crease since the end of England's tour to the Caribbean.

The IPL will continue to impact on England's opening Test matches if it sticks to its schedule and Sky stick to their demand for a mini-tour at the wrong time of the season.

The brands will continue to dominate their respective spheres of influence, but at an inevitable cost to the future well-being of the sport.

Still, why worry about tomorrow when there's a stack of cash to be made today?

Wisden's Wise Men Warn of Capitalism's Threat to Cricket

Jon Gemmell — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:53:11 -0400

The first round of the County Championship starts today, accompanied no doubt by undesirable weather, but also by the welcome release of the 146th Wisden Cricketers' Almanack.

Any review on the past 12 months is sure to offer something to both cricket fan and social historian. The book's preface outlines the shared belief of editor Scyld Berry, former editor John Woodcock, and former England captain Ted Dexter that the last 12 months have been the most turbulent that they have known.

Arguably the biggest phenomenon was the Indian Premier League (IPL). A TV audience running into the hundreds of millions enjoyed 20-overs cricket, and a player auction in February bucked the trend of the world's most serious economic downturn since the 1930s.

The suggestion of the sport's future prosperity is matched by warning words: the need to tame the commercial interests that reduced many overs for TV audiences to five balls, the lack of characters in the shortened form, and just 23 of the 58-game competition being decided in the last over or by a margin of 10 runs or less, though a far higher ratio than that of the 2007 World Cup.

Test matches have been rearranged and series cancelled in order to placate the IPL. England's star cricketers will return from this year's tournament with four days to prepare for the first Test against the West Indies. It will be the first time that English players will play outside of England during the domestic season, other than on national service.

The International Cricket Council (ICC), cricket's United Nations, seems unwilling to step in to curtail the prominence of the IPL. But this has always been the case, argues Gideon Haigh, in an article to mark the organisation's centenary.

Long-serving Australian official Ray Steele stated that it had "only very limited functions and powers," and that it shouldn't be allowed to "get teeth."

That seemed to rest well when the ICC was considered at one with the MCC. Now that it is viewed as a subsidiary of the Indian Board, it is criticised as political and ineffective.

While we witness the proliferation of the 20-overs format, Sri Lanka's ex-captain Mahela Jayawardene points out that the ultimate form of the game for most players is still Test cricket. Yet these values are not reflected in the payments given to players.

Economic factors provide the reason that many South Africans come to England as Kolpak players—one of whom, Dale Benkenstein, is one of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year. Another, Claude Henderson, points out to critics that England still has more players to qualify for their Test side than any other country.

It was not just players from the Southern hemisphere that dominated county sides, but also those recruited from public schools.

Yet cricket came 21st in a popularity survey among London secondary school children. The English Cricket Board's deal that allows Sky to deny free-to-air cricket will do little to win over the 26,000 youngsters who took part in the poll.

The majority of the country's pensioners are also being deprived, and Berry's fear is that these trends point towards cricket becoming a minority sport for the white and Asian middle class to watch and play.

Former editor Matthew Engel points out that Sky's interest depends on increasing subscriptions, not on English cricket. Nobody, he argues, outside of the TV industry wants Tests in early May.

It is not just the urban young and impoverished pensioners who feel excluded from the domestic game. An essay by Dean Wilson seeks reasons for the demise of cricket within the Afro-Caribbean community.

Unsurprisingly, these are mostly economic. They include the greater facilities on offer in the grammar and privately educated sector—schools that don't attract children of Afro-Caribbean backgrounds.

The cost of playing at a high level impacts on a community in which half of households are headed by one parent. The hiring of facilities has also become more difficult now that local authorities are either selling or not maintaining public spaces.

It matters that cricket embraces the similarities and the differences in those who play and follow it. The greater the diversity, the richer its tapestry.

Maybe Kevin Pietersen was seen as too diverse, as he lasted just three Tests before being fired for being the wrong sort of chap. He was an outsider who didn't always understand how the system operated. When asked for his thoughts on what was wrong with team England, the mandarins at the ECB were taken aback by his sincerity.

International cricket has become a little more competitive now that the Australians are not quite so dominant.

They were beaten in a home series for the first time since 1992-3 by South Africa, who also won a series in England for the first time since the end of apartheid.

Much has been made of the ethnic makeup of the Proteas, but it is pointed out that an African batter has still not reached the highest level.

Through the referral system, we have players openly questioning the umpire's decision, a Test match over-rate that averages below 14 an hour for the fourth year running, and a Pakistan team that didn't play a single Test in 2008.

Matthew Engel even berates a fixture schedule that means only four of the summer's Tests have the traditional Thursday start. All this confirms a turbulent 12 months, but also suggests problems ahead, particularly in the harsh economic climate.

This is alluded to by Scyld Berry in his concluding points, which note the failures of Western-style capitalism and hopes for a reassessment of cricket's values: "The best not the biggest, the most watchable not the most lucrative, the optimum amount of cricket not the maximum."

The pursuit of short-term profit has brought the world's financial institutions to ruin's door. Cricket has to deal with the aftereffects and ensure that it avoids the same fate.

Enjoy the season.

The Dispute Behind The Windies Revival

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:07:20 -0400

Despite succumbing to the brilliance of Andrew Flintoff's bowling, and subsequently losing the one-day series, the West Indies have enjoyed the better of England's tour.

Test series victories are rare moments, but the reaction of the returning crowds shows that cricket remains an important social activity in the Caribbean.

But all is not well within the side.

World cricket needs a rejuvenated West Indies, just as it needs Pakistan. While accolades have been pouring down on the likes of Ramnaresh Sarwan, Fidel Edwards, and Chris Gayle, the players' union took an opportune moment to raise unfinished business with the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB).

This last dispute echoes the struggle that West Indies cricketers have had to endure for decades.

Early West Indian cricketers had to battle to gain recognition in all-white sides, and many exceptional players were overlooked for the captaincy because they were not of the "right stock."

There was little difficulty in raising a West Indian side to take part in Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket. They were branded as mercenaries by some, but their efforts would benefit both domestic and international players of the future.

Timing is imperative in any industrial dispute.

When the players delayed their first ever tour to South Africa in 1998 in umbrage at their pay and conditions, they lost public support and appeared greedy.

The victory in the 2004 Champions Trophy created a better atmosphere in which to re-engage grievances with employers.

But, when the West Indian Players Association (WIPA) failed to make headway, every player except Shivnarine Chanderpaul pulled out of a tour to Sri Lanka.

A reserve team was raised, a point was made by both sides, and a long-term settlement included appointing WIPA President Dinanath Ramnarine onto the West Indies board.

That Ramnarine resigned from the board before the current one-day internationals shows that issues had still not been resolved and the time had come to resume battle.

A number of objections have fused together into the current dispute.

Retainer contracts and players' fees for the recent tour of New Zealand, for the current England series, and for the first-class season are still unresolved.

Payments for the "A" team, contracts for the upcoming England tour, and the Players Provident Fund have not been settled.

Dwayne Bravo, who has returned to international action after an eight-month injury lay-off, claimed that he had not been paid any money during his time on the sidelines.

The players want a bigger say in how West Indies cricket is organised.

There is little discussion between board and union about schedules and the forthcoming tour of England clashes with the lucrative Indian Premier League.

Sponsors have been targeted as a means to force the WICB to the negotiating table. Players boycotted an official Digicel function and placed duct tape over their name on their shirt sleeves during the first one-day match. The first day of the domestic tournament was hit by strikes.

Future action could affect the domestic tournament and the team's tour to England.

"The WICB went on and signed that tour without letting WIPA know anything about the tour," Bravo said.

"We signed our contract to go and represent our IPL team. Now we are in a position where we have to choose whether to go and play IPL for the first six weeks or go to England. It is a tricky situation."

Captain Gayle is the biggest West Indian draw for the IPL.

He is disappointed with a national board that continuously says it wants the best out of its players, and he counters that the players "also need the best out of the board."

If the West Indies are to build on their recent success, they will need everyone working together. This means an employer relinquishing power and a wider share of the profits to all cricketers.

In this sense, we have a traditional industrial dispute

When Cricket Was the King of Sports in the United States

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:40:47 -0400

The baseball season finally starts next week following the seemingly endless spring training. Baseball has often been described as cricket’s cousin, and if more a distant relative there are many similarities between the two sports.

Baseball is the national summer sport of the US, but this was not always the case. Tom Melville, the author of A History of Cricket in America, shows that cricket was the most popular American team sport before the Civil War.

Most of the early teams were composed of ex-patriots or first generation English settlers. In the 1840s, for example, English hosiers had traveled from Nottingham to work in the Philadelphian mills, bringing with them their taste in sports.

This gave cricket a working class flavor, though the middle class came to dominate as they sought to replicate English values. By 1850 there were about a thousand clubs in existence.

The oldest international rivalry is not England and Australia, but the US and Canada, with the first contest taking place in 1844. The first England XI to tour overseas went to Canada and the US in 1859. America proved equally appealing to Australian and English tourists.

The reasons for the decline of cricket are many. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the subsequent war between the separatists and the British meant that anything associated with the English would be viewed with suspicion.

Cricket was not suited to a society built by a God-fearing Puritan ancestry that held little respect for leisure.

Clubs were created in order to preserve an English community. The right standard had to be maintained. The Baltimore Cricket Club, for example, was known more for the excellence of its lunch than the cricket being played.

The Chicago Cricket Club vetted applicants. Groups that either failed or refused to associate with these elites, such as German, Italian, and Irish Americans ensured cricket would not survive beyond a small social faction.

If these reasons provide the “why” cricket failed to flourish, the Civil War provides the “when.” Despite cricket being recommended as recreation by both armies, troops on the move would find baseball a more convenient game to play.

Following the Civil War, baseball surpassed cricket, and within a few years there were 2,000 clubs, 100,000 players, and a quarter of a million spectators at top matches.

The formation of the Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) in 1909 finally secured the sport’s demise. Membership was allocated by allegiance to the monarch rather than cricketing ability. Twice in three years Philadelphia had defeated visiting Australian sides, yet the less developed South Africans were preferred.

South Africa was considered an essential ally. Its location made it strategically important, and its abundance of minerals left imperialist adventurers salivating. The triangular tournament in 1912—featuring England, Australia, and South Africa—designed to strengthen “the bonds of Union within the Empire,” excluded the United States.

The commercial marketers at the ICC would love to see the US incorporated into the world game. The sport is still played across the pond, mainly by ex-pats from the new commonwealth, but is in some disarray.

The Twenty20 format might provide the leveler for smaller teams to compete, but for now—come on you Mets!

Warning Signs for the IPL

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:26:59 -0400

You have to wonder what lessons the English Cricket Board took from the Stanford debacle. It seemed obvious to most observers that a short-sighted lust for the dollar superseded any long-term consequences of joining forces with an entrepreneur more akin to Arthur Daly than John Paul Getty.

Yet when the Indian Premier League dangled the bait of playing in England to whip the South African authorities into action, the ECB came running to lie once again at the foot of mammon.

It would have been an act of lunacy to stage the IPL in a country that can still expect snow and hail to greet the start of its season. It would have been an act of recklessness on the part of the ECB to pit its fiercest rival against the English domestic season.

With England players rested and the best overseas stars in the IPL, you are struggling to sell the County Championship and the 50-overs competition at the best of times.

Now in its tricky second season, the IPL will be played in South Africa. The Twenty20 tournament is billed as the biggest spectacle in world cricket, and critics are concerned that it could develop to rival the international game. Its future is certainly demanding more column inches in the Indian media than the national side’s current tour of New Zealand.

But what is the IPL’s future?

Cricket has been brought to a standstill in Pakistan and the terrorist threat in India is such that the tournament has been moved to South Africa on the grounds that the government cannot spare anti-terror forces during election times.

When you consider that the actual polling and counting of votes lasts fewer than three days whilst the IPL is spread over six weeks, you have to ask if there is more to this.

If the Indian Board (BCCI) has taken this step out of frustration of not getting their own way in negotiations with the government—and the BCCI is not used to people standing up to it—it may prove foolhardy.

The IPL franchises were purchased for millions as a means to provide playthings for India’s new elite and for the hope of further fame and fortune. Investors were warned to be patient and that the profits would flow after a few years. Last year the average loss per franchise was £4 million.

Still, there are very lucrative deals in place with the television companies and advertisers. In addition, the franchises get to keep most of the attendance revenues once they have paid for the cost of staging the match and provided the BCCI with their cut.

Here lies the problem with moving the whole enterprise to another country. Will the crowds turn up? After all, they are not going to see local teams who have their roots in the community.

Indeed, the franchises are not teams in the normal sense at all. The commentator Harsha Bhogle speaks of the enthusiasm and the energy of the filled stadiums last season. Without this, will the matches still provide the spectacle?

There is the obvious threat to crowd revenue, but if this affects TV audiences what about advertising? Already BIG TV has withdrawn from a sponsorship deal worth £25 million and Pepsi has re-negotiated their contract. The IPL is not immune from the world economic crisis.

The gamble to stage the IPL overseas also undermines the image of India as a young, modern, and confident state. Maybe it helped people forget about the threat of terrorism, economic depression, and the appalling poverty. The decision to move the tournament, however, during an election, will bring these issues to the fore.

If that is the case then the IPL will have serviced interests outside of its own bubble after all.

England's Women Show The Men How to Win

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:51:39 -0400

England's bizarre win over the West Indies on Friday was their first taste of success in any of cricket’s three formats this winter.

That victory arrived courtesy of a cynical attempt by the West Indies coach to exploit the Duckworth-Lewis method to contrive a positive result. The decision to deprive a full-house of a proper ending speaks volumes of the low-ebb the sport has reached.

However, I refer to the male form of cricket. In Australia, the ninth women’s World Cup has just ended with England victorious.

The history of women’s cricket is as rich, diverse, and as full of mystery as its male counterpart. Female have often been treated as novelty acts rather than as serious athletes.

Even when organised into national associations, discussions focused on dress code and mannerisms on the pitch. Cricket’s authorities have always been preoccupied with attracting the right kind of participant, and the class struggle did not bypass the female sport any more than it did the men’s version.

Prejudices of class accompanied prejudices of gender. Rosalie Deane, the first Australian woman to appear in Wisden, spoke in 1934 of how: “You had to love the game very dearly to stick to it because you were ostracised by society.”

For too many, their role in cricket became not in partaking, but in helping to run the clubs to which their men belonged, to make the teas and be spectators.

Despite these obstacles, England played Australia in the first international in 1934. In 1958, the International Women’s Cricket Council was formed with delegates from Australia, England, Holland, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Women’s cricket later became developed in the other Test-playing nations, and in 1973 the first ever cricket World Cup took place.

England’s current rise to supremacy follows a carefully mapped-out plan that has allowed for better preparation than their competitors.

Clare Connor had led England at the last World Cup in 2005. She had to combine her captaincy of the national side with being a PE teacher and a representative in the media. At 29 she retired.

The current England team, however, have a full-time strength and conditioning coach, and a full-time coach in Mark Lane, who is assisted on a part-time basis by ex-Leicestershire coach Jack Birkenshaw.

The players receive a coaching salary and in return they provide 25 hours of coaching in schools for eight months of the year. This is the female version of central contracts.

This investment has clearly paid off. In Claire Taylor and Sarah Taylor, England have the number one and three batters in the ICC rankings, while four of the top 10 bowlers are English.

Despite England’s success, the sport still faces the problem of identifying talent and then holding onto it. Many in the 13-19 age range give up cricket for their studies or to pursue something less time consuming. It doesn’t help that female cricket is still not taken seriously enough.

Yet this has proved to be an all-round successful competition with some notable contributions. That Pakistan is taking part is heartening considering recent events, whilst the Sri Lankans cobbled a side from just 300 players. Encouragingly, the South Africans sent a multi-ethnic side with a black captain. Centuries were scored and bowlers sent down deliveries at 120 KPH.

That such an exciting event took place within two weeks is an additional lesson from which the male form can learn considering that drawn out World Cup in 2007.

Let’s hope that the sport's profile is raised and it further benefits from the Twenty20 World Cup that is being played alongside the men’s version in England this summer. The women certainly have the better chance of winning.

The Many Victims of Allen Stanford

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:46:44 -0500

So now it’s vulgar to appear on the "hallowed" turf at Lord’s in a gold-plated helicopter in order to show off a treasure chest of $20 million? Cricket’s establishment cannot retreat fast enough from their warm embrace of Texan Allen Stanford last summer.

Former Wisden editor Tim de-Lisle has now described the scene at Lord’s as “undignified” and accused administrators and the ex-players who were party to it as blinded by the amount of money on offer. One of those ex-players, Ian Botham, wrote in The Daily Mirror that the sorry Stanford debacle leaves English cricket with “nothing but egg on its face.” He conveniently left out his own role in the charade.

Current England star Kevin Pietersen, never one afraid to speak his mind, once compared the Stanford deal to winning the lottery. Now he says that he felt that the England team had been sold. Maybe the reason he took so long to express his doubts was that he had signed a two-year deal to be one of Stanford’s "ambassadors."

I wrote back in June that Stanford’s millions came at a cost that further cedes power to business interests and threatens the format of cricket and hence its long-term stability. I predicted that alongside a few winners, there will be many more losers.

OK, so I might have over-estimated those who benefited, but the reasoning behind the assertion was based on Stanford’s questionable motives for getting involved in cricket.

Stanford now stands accused by the US Securities and Exchange Commission of a “massive ongoing fraud” of “shocking magnitude” worth an alleged $8 billion.

As more information about Stanford's background becomes known, the English Cricket Board (ECB) is left looking at best inept and incompetent, and at worst downright greedy.

By 2008, Stanford’s personal fortune was $2.1 billion, which allowed Forbes to rank him the 605th richest man in the world. He invested his own and his organisation’s funds in promoting the Stanford brand and protecting his interests.

It was not only in sports that Stanford’s organisations sought to buy influence. Large amounts were invested in American politicians. House of Representatives member Bob Ney, who served 17 months in prison for conspiracy to defraud, was amongst those who received funding. Ney was a member of the Financial Services Committee, a body regulating offshore banking.

President Barack Obama was the third largest individual recipient of donations from the Stanford Financial Group. He received $31,750 during his presidential campaign. His opponent John McCain also received more than $28,000, whilst Hilary Clinton, now the secretary of state, received $6,900. The single largest individual recipient was Bill Nelson, the Florida senator who was vice-chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2002, when Congress was considering tougher anti-fraud legislation.

It is easy to see why Stanford might want friends in Washington. The US Treasury Department had warned about the lax regulation of Antigua’s offshore banks and their links to money laundering. Stanford flew members of the House Caribbean Caucus to the West Indies for meetings and holidays.

It was not just in the US that the billionaire sought to buy influence. Stanford lent an estimated $65 million to former Antiguan Prime Minister Lester Bird’s government. He also underwrote the construction of a new hospital and new executive offices for the government and, of course, the Stanford cricket ground.

Stanford’s authority was further entrenched through the ownership of the Antigua Sun newspaper and the National bank.

Was Stanford the philanthropist that the ECB had painted, or simply empowering his business interests? He had already been kicked out of the Caribbean island of Montserrat by the British Government in 1990, after setting up his bank there five years earlier.

Baldwin Spencer, leader of Antigua’s United Progressive Party, who replaced Bird as Prime Minister in 2004, condemned Stanford as a modern-day colonialist.

Why would the ECB want to do business with such an individual? Giles Clarke, the organisation’s chairman, once told Wisden’s John Stern that “no-one questions the commercial competence of the ECB any more.” On hearing the news of the charges against Stanford, he justified his decision saying that the contract with him was signed with “the best of intentions.”

Any checks on Stanford were based on his ability to meet his financial obligations to the ECB, not on his moral worthiness. Clarke fought for some particle of moral ground by arguing that the ECB “haven’t promoted his products.”

Yet The Daily Telegraph is suggesting a reason for Stanford’s involvement in cricket with England, namely that he was preparing to set up a UK base for his financial empire.

Clarke is an experienced businessman who now lacks credibility as the head of the ECB. To argue that they were not promoting the Stanford product is preposterous considering the Stanford 20/20 Tournament was named after him. That Clarke didn’t see or know about Stanford’s dubious background further weakens his standing.

Ultimately, Clarke was appointed in order to bring more money into cricket. He jumped into bed with a fraudster because he couldn’t see beyond the dollar bills. As Simon Barnes wrote in The Times: “If it’s all right to make money, then it must be important to make as much as possible.”

This is the mentality behind the Stanford contests, just as it is behind the Indian Premier League. It is no longer important what the sport stands for as it becomes exploited as a means to generate cash flow. Ex-England captain Mike Atherton best summed it up by saying that “when a game is played for money only, it is worthless.”

Officials will need to ask themselves, which is the more important: the sport or making money?

Cricket will survive, but will it learn? What measures are there to ensure an Allen Stanford character does not get involved in the lucrative IPL, for example?

The real sufferers, though, are those who will have lost their livelihoods and savings in Antigua, where an estimated five percent of the population is employed in a Stanford organisation. Deposits in Antiguan banks are not guaranteed and a nation of 70,000 is unlikely to be able to afford to bail out investors.

Whilst English cricket looks like it's run by incompetents and the IPL will provide opportunities for more Stanfords, it’s the Antiguan workers who are the real losers. Unlike Clarke, Pietersen, and Botham, they had little choice about being duped by this fraudster and can expect no compensation.

The Many Mysteries of Indian Cricket

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:22:51 -0500

Amid the fanfare of the IPL auctions and the condemnation for refusing to promote aid to the victims of Israeli aggression, BBC’s Radio 4 has just produced a gem of a programme on the importance of cricket to India.

In "The Tiger Takes Guard", ex-England captain Mike Brearley spoke to a range of commentators about the state of the sport in India—its past, its cultural significance and potential future in the age of Twenty20.

Everywhere you go in India, Brearley began, you see cricket being played on whatever patch of ground there is. The national team recently beat both England and Australia and then there is the Indian Premier League, whose final was enjoyed by a TV audience of 100 million.

However, the programme asked, is the garden really so rosy? Following the Chennai Test in which India spectacularly beat England with the help of another Sachin Tendulkar century, the second Test at Mohali was viewed by just a smattering of fans.

Brearley walked through the town looking for a tee-shirt, but they were all adorned with baseball motifs. When asked about cricket tee-shirts he was told that they would be on sale once the IPL was underway.

This dichotomy between the recently discovered cash-cow and Test cricket formed the main focus of the programmes. Wisden editor Scyld Berry defines three key phases in the transition from Test match to one-day supremacy in India.

In the 1970s emphasis was on not losing which led to boring cricket. In 1983 India was surprise winners of the one-day World Cup and this launched the country’s fascination with the shortened form of the game. This was extended in 2007 when they won the inaugural World Twenty20.

Brearley fears for the longer game in which, as Rahul Dravid says, all aspects of character and technique are tested, and Tendulkar describes as still that little bit special.

Former spinner Bishen Bedi is critical of Twenty20 cricket, arguing that it leaves no impact. He believes that it will eventually destroy deeper values, replacing them with something new. This apprehension is shared by writer Rahul Bhattacharya who believes that Tests will never regain their supremacy.

Pundit Ravi Shastri, though, believes that Twenty20 will make Test cricket more interesting. It will encourage new shots, different fields and bowling options, while Tendulkar points out that run rates in Test cricket have assumed a new importance.

Beyond the current concerns for Test cricket, the programme explored the reasons for India’s fascination with cricket. For sociologist Ashis Nandy, cricket has always been an Indian game, accidentally discovered by the English. He argues that there are certain similarities in the values and culture of cricket with the Indian lifestyle.

For Mark Tully these values stem from the main religious faiths’ rejection of the notion of certainty. In cricket at no time are all 22 players on the field, so that changing conditions affect the two sides differently. Weather and atmosphere can change how the ball behaves, affecting the uncertainty of the game.

Many nationalists thought cricket should be abolished after independence. But instead it became part of an India that absorbed cultures and adapted them into something Indian.

For Bedi cricket and Bollywood both provide pleasure to the workers whose life is otherwise grim. India is the seventh largest country in the world with the second biggest population. “What do we have?” asked an Indian journalist. “All we have is a huge difference between rich and poor, but through cricket also some hope and something to cheer.”

For Brearley, nothing unites this country of 14 different languages as much as cricket. In some ways there is no "India", such are the differences in geography and culture. Cricket unites class, religion, and geographic region like little else does.

For historian Boria Majumdar, cricket is much more than a game for Indians. “We might not be a multi-faceted sporting nation, but in cricket we matter, that’s why it has such a hold over India.”

It is doubtful that a commercial station would have been interested in such a sophisticated piece of broadcasting, and whilst we all feel disappointed every now and then with the BBC’s actions, it is a disappointment with an organisation that most cherish—advert free and run without the obvious necessity of commercial concerns.

If only we could say that about cricket!

Outsourcing to Blame for Latest Fiascos

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:09:01 -0500

West Indian cricket fans were supposed to be purring over their decimation of the English batting line-up and contemplating their latest renaissance. They might recall their victory over South Africa in the 2007 Boxing Day Test, only to lose the series 2-1.

Antigua, though, would provide the answer to whether they have made serious improvement. Instead it provided another explanation for the decline of West Indian cricketing culture.

The 2007 World Cup witnessed huge investments in the Caribbean’s cricketing infrastructure. Sabina Park which hosted the first Test against England is a magnificent stadium; though it’s a pity its size means that it looks more than half-empty.

In Antigua it was decided not to redevelop the Recreation Ground but build a new state-of-the-art ground out of town at a cost of £40 million.

Apart from the obvious problem of access for local supporters, the stadium is built in a valley on swamp ground. Since the World Cup there has been only one match played there, the drawn Test between West Indies and Australia last May.

This contest exposed problems with drainage, which was rectified with liberal proportions of sand—the cause of the problem in last Friday’s aborted Test.

The ICC has immediately apportioned blame on the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and the case against looks quite damming. No regional cricket is played in Antigua any more due to lack of funding and support, yet grounds are supposed to host a regional game prior to a Test match, in order to ready the pitch.

This could be put down as rank negligence but is a worrying sign of cricketing authorities outsourcing their obligations and commitments. For the WICB are not the authority for the Viv Richards stadium, it comes under the management of a government-appointed committee.

Antigua is not unique in this set-up. The Barbadosground, which hosts the next Test, is managed by the Kensington Oval Management Inc, which has little cricketing expertise. Its square was so damaged during a festival last year that none of this season’s regional first-class matches have been played there.

There is talk that the Viv Richards ground will never stage a cricket match again, whilst the best ground for cricket in Antigua is owned by the Texan billionaire Allen Stanford who is in dispute with the West Indies Board.

Stanford is the beneficiary of the WICB outsourcing their twenty overs competition to commercial interests in the hope that he will fund regional cricketing interests. However, Stanford, whose company is currently under investigation by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in the US, is looking to downsize his commitments to cricket.

It is believed that his Twenty20 tournament between a Caribbean XI and England will not happen again.

The Indian Cricket League is also feeling the economic squeeze and has cancelled its World Series Twenty20 tournament, scheduled for March. In addition, payments to players have been put on hold. Any chance of survival rests with ICC recognition which is hoping to be sorted at a meeting on February 21.

In its way, as always, stands the Indian Board and their Indian Premier League (IPL) which they seek to shield from all competitors. A further worrying sign of the over-arching influence of the IPL is their sanction against Pakistani bowler Mohammad Asif, who has been banned for one year for a doping violation.

The ICC has confirmed that whilst they are still to consider Asif’s case that they expect all Member Boards to adopt the ban. The problem here is that the IPL seem to be formulating policy outside their area of jurisdiction. Under current ICC regulations, for example, all steroid violations attract a two-year suspension.

There are numerous problems with outsourcing, notably who takes responsibility when things go wrong as they inevitably seem to do. When commercial interests are involved it falls to the taxpayer to bail out the gamblers. Outsourcing of policy though has the potential to cause irrevocable harm to democratic structures and the essence of what the sport stands for.

Would BBC Commit to International Cricket

Jon Gemmell — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:28:24 -0500

A government review of the events that are protected for terrestrial television has hinted that live international cricket could once again return to the nation’s screens. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham is known to favour returning cricket in one of its forms to free-to-air broadcasters.

The 2005 Ashes was the last we saw of international cricket unless we had access to Sky TV. From free-to-air coverage, supporters could now only watch live cricket if they were prepared to pay a subscription of about £400 per year.

A much needed injection of £208 million into the sport was immediately contrasted with the potential effects from the lack of viewing figures. Whilst increasing numbers do have access to Sky Sports press reports have estimated an 80% reduction in the television audience watching cricket since it left Channel 4.

The former Sports Minister, Kate Hoey, said, apparently without any irony, ‘The sell-off of cricket to the highest bidder is shameful and is a reflection of the short-sighted people running the game’.

That the ECB were engaged in a commercial venture totally in accord to the spirit of the privatisation mentality of neo-liberal political regimes doesn’t make it right, but it sticks in the throat when these advocates of privatisation now complain.

You can’t promote the sovereignty of markets for the health system, post offices and every other asset of worth to a nation’s social infrastructure and be alarmed when sport does the same thing.

Still, if cricket is available to a wider audience then that has to be a good thing.

Though whilst Test Match Special remains the most rewarding way to follow England, the BBC has done itself no favours with its attitude to the televised form.

Last summer, the ECB agreed a £300m deal with Sky that renewed their deal, giving them exclusive live rights to all England games. Despite a range of packages designed to entice the BBC and Channel 4 to make competing bids, the BBC showed zero interest.

The problem now for cricket is one of profile. With advertising revenues falling who knows what the future holds for pay-TV, so free-to-air channels have their role to play in promoting the product.

But it does seem as if they have washed their hands of the Test-match format, finding it difficult to schedule a event that lacks fixed times of play.

However, it is believed that the authorities have considered this and could place international Twenty20 cricket on the protected list. This seems a strange compromise, satisfying the dictates of the television companies rather than the needs of the sport or the wishes of the fan. Burnham argued that television’s social role to include and involve drives the principle of a protected sporting list. This may ring true of the Croatia vs England game last September, which was available to just a few Satanta subscribers, but to Twenty20 cricket?

You cannot say that the sport is suffering because of Sky’s exclusive coverage. Both attendances at domestic games and people actively playing cricket have risen in recent years. The most popular form is the Twenty20 and apart from a couple of games in the first season, it is a format that has by-passed terrestrial television.

The BBC’s remit is that of public broadcaster. I have argued before that I am disappointed that it has not promoted women’s cricket. Last year it was criticised by Alex Salmond of the SNP for not wanting to show Scotland’s encounter with England. Why didn’t it bid for the Indian Premier League? Its coverage of the Olympics shows the potential to utilise its interactive facilities.

There needs to be cricket on free-to-air television, but it needs to offer more than just the most popular bits. The facility is there to provide it, the sport can only benefit from wider coverage, but I’m left wondering whether the commitment is there.

Matthew Hayden Leaves Behind More Than Just Records

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:15:18 -0500

The retirement of opener Matthew Hayden removes another piece of armoury from one of the greatest sides to grace the cricket field. Whilst England supporters might discreetly sneer at the loss of another nemesis, cricket fans are denied a last opportunity to witness the array of shots of one of the world’s outstanding players.

Australian selectors are renowned for their ruthlessness. Their remit is not just the now, but also the future, and players such as Michael Slater, Greg Blewett, and Matthew Elliott were discarded as not up to it. Sentimentality was not even a close second when Ian Healy was denied a farewell Test at his home ground, a match that would have given him 100 caps.

Despite this, Australian captain Ricky Ponting described Hayden’s decision to retire as a surprise.

He added his admiration for a player who “extracted every last little bit out of his ability.” This proved to be some ability. Statistically, Hayden is the greatest opening batter Australia has produced. His feats include 30 Test centuries with four in consecutive Tests. He has the third highest century conversion rate, whilst scoring 1,000 or more Test runs in five consecutive years from 2001.

Despite not always featuring in the one-day side, Hayden was twice a World Cup winner, and at the 2007 event scored the fastest century in the tournament’s history. To show that no form of the sport was alien, he led the 2007 inaugural World Twenty20 with 265 runs.

Yet, his international career took a while to get going. He played his first Test in South Africa in March 1994, scored 15 and five, and endured a broken thumb courtesy of Allan Donald. Hayden managed just 13 Tests for one century and two fifties in the next seven years.

Then the captaincy was passed on to Steven Waugh. Here was another player who worked hard to squeeze the best out of his abilities. As captain, Waugh sought any way in which to elevate his side. On overseas tours players had to give talks to their teammates about aspects of Australian life and its cricketing history.

There were those who scoffed at his ideas, and so Waugh sought to build a unit that could respond to his style of leadership. Hayden fit the part. He might have been considered by some selectors as too slow to succeed in the Test arena, but Waugh saw something in his attitude and approach to the sport. Hayden repaid his captain’s confidence with 549 runs at 109.80 in the next away series in India.

Hayden admitted at his recent press conference that he had been at the crossroads six or seven times in his career and each time he had to go away and reinvent himself. He was regularly told he was too big, couldn't play spin, or was poor off his pads.

The Australian Cricket Academy even rejected him because they were “really only after players suitable for first class cricket.”

Hayden persevered, rolled up his sleeves, and worked at his game. His closest English counterparts would be the likes of Nasser Hussain and even Geoffrey Boycott. Yet Hayden played his cricket with a confidence more akin to Marcus Trescothick.

It was whilst picking a bunch of wild tomatoes in his back garden with daughter Grace that Hayden decided, “this is where it is at.” Maybe he will turn his attentions to his other passion, cooking, but undoubtedly Australia will miss him. If he leaves behind, though, his work ethic and dedication to practice, then he will inspire many more to torment future England teams.

Cricket's Connections to Charles Dickens and Christmas

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:08:18 -0500

Socialist historian Eric Hobsbawn wrote of how many long-held customs are actually nothing of the sort and are recent creations. His treatise on "Invented Traditions" didn’t mention Christmas, but if it had, it would no doubt have discussed the impact of Charles Dickens in helping to establish the modern British Christmas.

We don’t know if Ebenezer Scrooge was ever a cricket fan, or whether he found time to enjoy it once relieved from the shackles of the counting-house by the spectres who haunted him over a festive period in the mid-nineteenth century. However, there are numerous references to the sport in other Dickens narratives.

Most famous is the contest in his first novel, The Pickwick Papers, between All Muggelton and Dingley Dell. This match is supposedly based on a real fixture between the Cobham and Town Malling Clubs between 1830 and 1835. It is notable for its reference to “the art and mystery of the noble game,” with Dickens adding to cricket’s mystique.

The piece also highlights how the emerging bourgeoisie had taken to cricket and how they frequented it as much for the purpose of social ceremony as for the enjoyment of competition.

The irascible Alfred Jingle claims to have played the game in the West Indies. The earliest reference of cricket in the Caribbean was made in the Barbados press of 1806, and so it must have been established to be included in The Pickwick Papers in 1837.

In addition to his first novel, cricket is mentioned in Barnaby Rudge, Great Expectations, and Martin Chuzzelwit. Memories are evoked of men and boys playing on the green and the smell of trodden grass. In The Old Curiosity Shop, a child dies with a bat beside his bed, whilst James Steerforth is described in David Copperfield as “the best cricketer you ever saw.”

As Dickens the journalist painted pictures of social life, the social campaigner highlighted some of the injustices of early industrial England. One of which was the high admission charges to Lord's designed to keep the proletarian out.

Dickens complained, “the London masses do not care much for cricket, probably because they have little chance of exercising any taste they may have for the noble game; but if they did, the half-crown gate-money would effectively keep them out.”

Dickens had visited America in 1842, and readings from his works had proved to be successful. He was as popular in Australia as anywhere else where English was spoken by the multitudes and considered a speaking tour down under in 1862.

Caterers Felix Spiers and Christopher Pond looked for ways to promote their business and thought hiring the author would boost their brand. However, Dickens was unable to make the trip, and the entrepreneurs had to look elsewhere for an attraction that would assist them. Instead of England’s most favoured writer, a team of cricketers from the "old country" were invited instead.

This first English team to tour Australia arrived on Christmas Eve 1861, to be greeted by a crowd that was described by the Melbourne Herald as not seen since “the Athenians arrived in Corinth.”

We don’t know what would have happened to cricketing tours to and from Australia if Dickens had accepted the offer of a speaking tour anymore than we could predict what Christmas would be like without his books. One suspects that both would still exist with the same affection as they are held today, but perhaps they would be slightly different.

Happy holidays!

Cricketers Have to Step up in Conflict Between India and Pakistan

Jon Gemmell — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:56:03 -0500

Now that England have arrived in India in the wake of the Mumbai atrocities, attention has focused on India’s scheduled tour to Pakistan in the new year. The sub-continent’s version of the Ashes provides a fascinating backdrop to the political relationship between the traditional foes.

The proposed tour—due to begin on January 6th—is in serious doubt. India's Sports Minister, MS Gill, has said that India should not tour Pakistan in the wake of the terror attacks in Mumbai.

“Is it possible for one team to arrive in Mumbai and indulge in mass murder, and have another team go and play cricket in the winter afternoon sun at Lahore, immediately after?” he asked.

This position is supported by cricketing legend Sunil Gavaskar, who argued it will be “impossible” for India to tour Pakistan given the deterioration in political relations between the two countries.

Politics and sport are natural bedfellows in these two countries. Cricket provides both countries with international recognition and acclaim. The Pakistan Cricket Board’s constitution, for example, actually recognises the head of state as its patron. Similarly, in India many former Chief Ministers become members of domestic or national boards of control.

Ever since the Parsees and the princes became involved, the political advantages of patronising cricket have out-weighed the financial cost of playing. Today, those political advantages have been surpassed by economic benefits.

Enormous figures are involved in media rights and advertising. Early in 2006, the Indian global media rights package was sold for £350 million for four years, and Nike paid £25 million to sponsor the team’s kit. When Tests resumed against Pakistan in 2004, corporate advertising spending was said to have reached £40 million.

Business interests may be behind the renaissance of relations between Pakistan and India. The cost of TV commercials and round-the-ground advertising was about three times the price of when India plays other opponents.

These financial concerns are even more acute for an increasingly isolated Pakistan. Unsurprisingly, the Minister of Sport Aftab Jilani is optimistic that India will tour, believing that it will help ease tension between the two governments.

Gill responded by saying that Pakistan should first promise that it would help the world to stop terrorism. Whilst these two ministers of sport lock horns over political issues, it begs the question of what this has to do with cricket.

Yet any analysis of the India-Pakistan cricket history is embroiled in the political and military conflict between the two neighbours. Contests were suspended between 1961 and 1978, a period in which the two nations fought two wars with each other. The 1978 series was the result of negotiations between the two governments.

Cricket was again suspended in the 1990s when Pakistan was accused of sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. Relations were resumed in 2004 due to a process initiated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India’s prime minister, and General Musharraf, the President of Pakistan.

The respective cricket boards played no part in the decision-making.

This still leaves the question of terrorism. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence has an acknowledged history of supporting Islamic fundamentalists. These have included the Mujahideen, the Taliban, and the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba—the group India accuses of being behind the attack on Mumbai.

Whilst acknowledging that its intelligence agency helped train terrorists in the past, the Pakistan government now claims there is no role for the army in the democratic process. Though whether this is accepted by the military, who have always provided a silhouette to the political apparatus, is another matter.

Zimbabwe has been isolated because of a regime that fell out of favour and on a number of indices Pakistan compare unfavourably. Then we have the precedence of the boycott of South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s to show that sport can apply political pressure on a despised regime.

However, in South Africa there was a groundswell of internal opposition that does not exist in Pakistan.

This has to leave a role for the cricketers of the two nations, for whilst two nuclear powers are on hair-trigger alert, it is the responsibility of cricket interests to promote peace between the two nations—for if not they, who else?

Cricket: Terrorism Threatens India’s Hegemony

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:40:30 -0500

Any discussion on whether England should continue their tour to India needs to consider the following points: the team had been staying in the Taj Mahal hotel the week before.

All the white kit, including blazers and caps, was locked away in a room there when the fanatics attacked.

The Middlesex team were due to check into the same hotel a day after the siege started, and the England high performance squad were meant to be staying in Mumbai last week, but for some reason had their training camp switched at the last minute.

During 2008, India has witnessed blasts in Jaipur (during the IPL games), Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Guwahati (during Australia’s tour), and now in Mumbai.

If this was Pakistan or Sri Lanka, of course, there would be no discussion; the tour would have been cancelled straight away.

However, India is an economic powerhouse, has a grip on the international game, and has the England players falling over themselves to express their desire to play in the lucrative Indian Premier League.

Now, the Champions League, in which Middlesex were about to set out to join, has been temporarily postponed, whilst the rival Indian Cricket League has been cancelled.

If these are troubled times for India, it is only natural that the sport many consider akin to a religion will share in any grief.

This would not be the first time that England has been unable to fulfill its obligations in India.

They were due in the autumn of 1930, but plans were scuppered following a nationalist revival in which Congress issued an Independence Pledge that denounced the British for having “ruined India economically, politically, culturally, and spiritually.”

To submit further to their rule was “a crime against man and God.”

England was also due to set sail in the autumn of 1939 but was prevented by the outbreak of war.

Within three hours of the England team landing in 1984, India’s Prime Minister Indira Ghandi was assassinated and the tour was immediately under threat.

Most of the players wanted to abort, but were at the behest of a cricket board that negotiated an amended itinerary that was played against a country in mourning.

The next visit was due for 1988-89, but was cancelled because of the connections of a number of English players, notably newly named captain Graham Gooch, to racist South African cricket.

The Indian government took a firm stand against racism in sport and were thanked by their South African counterparts by being the first country they visited on their reintroduction to the international arena.

War and politics provided interruptions to relations between India and England; terrorism threatens something far more sinister.

Already Lalit Modi, the Indian Board vice-president and head of the IPL, has professed his fears of India going the way of Pakistan, who play very little home international cricket, if attacks continue.

This has much wider repercussions than just India. Cricket Australia, for example, has lost millions of dollars from the postponement of the Champions League.

The Pakistan Board has now said that the situation regarding India’s visit to their country in January 2009 has changed considerably, following the attacks in Mumbai.

The Indians in return are under pressure from their government to cancel their tour to Pakistan, as they look to the neighbours for someone to blame for the atrocities.

As for England, by opting to return home, you feel that the decision not to carry on with the tour has already been taken. In 1984, by contrast, the side retired to Sri Lanka whilst the situation calmed down.

Where does all this put India’s dominance of world cricket? It may generate nine-tenths of the sport’s income, but if the likes of Australia, England, and South Africa refuse to play there, their plan for the direction of the sport, notably the commercial potential of Twenty20, could be jeopardised.

Maybe more than just the spirit of a city died last week.

Could Offensive Slogan Reignite West Indies Cricket?

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:16:49 -0500

The social order in the ‘British’ Caribbean was carved out of slavery in the period 1650-1838. Its main industry was sugar; its ownership was British, and workforce African. British law, custom, culture and social conventions dominated the islands’ development.

Cricket, argued the historian Brian Stoddart, provided the greatest cultural monument to English social influence. It assisted the process of elevating whites above the black populations and enabled the propertied elite to celebrate the bonds that tied them to England.

Hilary Beckles further notes that the politics of West Indian cricket and the history of West Indian politics in the century after Emancipation travel the same road. This, according to cricketer Learie Constantine, was “to keep the black man in his place”.

The West Indies first sent a team to England in 1900, and from then until 1957, the captain was always white. That some players were not good enough for international cricket was secondary to their social status.

In 1930, for example, the captaincy was offered to Jack Grant, a white, 23-year-old Trinidadian, who had only recently completed his studies at Cambridge. Younger than all save three of his fellow tourists to Australia, Grant had never captained a first-class team and had not even played in a first-class match in the region of his birth.

He was succeeded by his younger brother Rolph for the 1939 tour of England, and his deputy was the 19-year-old Jeffrey Stollmeyer. The likes of Constantine and George Headley were overlooked in favour of a captain with four caps and a vice-captain with none.

Rolph Grant’s selection came against a period of acute political and economic unrest in the Caribbean. Barbados had legalised political parties and widened the franchise, while in Jamaica the Peoples National Party was formed in 1938 on the proviso of seeking independence.

Strikes by sugar workers in Jamaica, coal loaders in St Lucia and in Trinidad’s oilfields helped merge class and national consciousness, and challenge the established order.

As traditional society faced the uncertainty of ideological struggle, the stress on ‘playing the game’ and ‘keeping a straight bat’ was reinforced as part of a wider value system that desperately sought to maintain order and authority.

Amid this social turmoil the ruling authorities asserted their position by calling on British warships for support and by naming the son of a wealthy and powerful Trinidadian family to lead the region’s cricket team.

When Denis Atkinson led the West Indies to defeat in the first Test against Australian 1955, Stollmeyer noted “that it was well nigh impossible for him to command the respect of the players and get their full support”.

Atkinson was replaced by John Goddard, who had been in virtual retirement since 1952, and the Cambridge-educated Gerry Alexander became captain for the 1957/58 home series against Pakistan. Being of "mixed race" his appointment marked a departure from exclusively selecting whites, but he came from the right social background and to Frank Birbalsingh he was considered “white by class and colour”.

C.L.R. James’ crusade for Frank Worrell’s promotion to the captaincy became embraced in the broader campaign for black leadership in the Caribbean.

During the period 1960 to 1966 four British West Indian territories achieved independence, and the cricket team became the leading force in the sport. The emergence of Worrell as captain in 1960 inevitably led to the working-class Gary Sobers and then the black nationalist Viv Richards, as the processes of democratisation finally broke the shackles of the colonial mindset.

So when the Otago Cricket Board use the slogan “It’s all white here” to promote the forthcoming Test match between New Zealand and West Indies, it is not surprising that their prospective guests feel a sense of outrage.

Apparently, the slogan was meant to be a reference to the white clothing worn in the longer form of the game.

To the West Indies Players’ Association, however, the slogan “may be reasonably perceived to be loaded with racial innuendos”. Furthermore, “it comes at a time when the spectre of racial intolerance is insidiously and, at times, openly appearing in major sporting events.”

Beckles has long argued that one of the reasons the edge has been taken from West Indies cricket is their lack of understanding of the political processes that forged West Indies cricket.

This crass marketing exercise provides the opportunity to remind this one great side of their historical and political roots.

Australians Mark Victor Trumper Day

Jon Gemmell — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:13:00 -0500

Early national cricket captains were selected according to their background rather than their ability on the field of play. For the West Indies, this meant that he had to be white, the Indian had to secure the patronage of the princes, whereas for the English he had to be an amateur and gentleman.

Having the right sort was considered more significant, as performance had more to do with the instillation of key values than with winning.

Australia would provide an exception to this norm. When touring they had by custom chosen their own captain and manager, and even taken a share of the profits.

Jim Phillips, the umpire who had officiated in both England and Australia, told the magazine Cricket in 1899 that one of the reasons for Australia’s success was the democratic manner in which the captain was elected and behaved, and the rejection of the gentleman-player idea.

Off the field, an Australian captain receives the benefit of his comrades as if he were chairman of a board of directors, argued the umpire. “The average English captain is more of an autocrat. He rarely seeks advice from his men”.

The players’ ascendancy was challenged by the formation of an Australian Board of Control for International Cricket in 1905, which marked a realisation of both the commercial possibilities for cricket and the desire for a national organisation following federation just four years previously.

A constitution was drafted that gave the Board control and responsibility for tours, the appointment of umpires and decisions over laws.

When in 1912 the Board notified the team that it would now choose the tour manager, six of the chosen cricketers informed them that they would not now be available for selection unless their decision was reversed. By directly challenging the authority of the bureaucrats they were dumped from the team.

One of these rebels was Victor Trumper who was commemorated on Sunday 2nd November, with a special day to mark the anniversary of his birth. The first Victor Trumper Day in Sydney, Australia is a fitting tribute to a player who rivals Donald Bradman not only as the greatest to have played Test cricket, but as a cultural icon as well.

The Australian cricket team was partaking in international fixtures 25 years before the federation of Australia in 1901. It thus became a natural focus for cultural nationalism and a means by which the new nation could measure itself against England.

In Trumper Australia found a national hero, a batter of such abilities that he was spoken of in the same breath as England’s CB Fry and WG Grace.

Australian cricket in the late 19th century was a combination of affection for the "old country" alongside a sharply democratic "Jack’s as good as his master" attitude. Trumper very-much represented the latter school. Renowned for batting in crumpled shirts and baggy trousers, he cared little for ego and often chastised teammates who having scored a century would try for another.

A prolific run-scorer he was described by player turned author Jack Fingleton as “the greatest batsman who ever lived.” Neville Cardus wrote of Trumper’s natural elegance in comparison to Donald Bradman’s mechanistic dominance: an eagle contrasted to an aeroplane.

In celebrating Trumper’s life the Sydney cricket ground was transformed to remind people of what it was like at the turn of the 20th century.

For all the novelties of dressing up and the reproduction of popular dishes exists such an occasion which highlights the importance of cricket to Australian cultural life.

When Cricket Was King in America

Jon Gemmell — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:50:17 -0400

Baseball has often been described as cricket’s cousin, and if more a distant relative there are many similarities between the two sports.

Baseball is the national summer sport of the US, but this was not always the case. Tom Melville, the author of A History of Cricket in America, shows that cricket was the most popular American team sport before the Civil War.

Most of the early teams were composed of ex-patriots or first generation English settlers. In the 1840s, for example, English hosiers had travelled from Nottingham to work in the Philadelphian mills, bringing with them their taste in sports. This gave cricket a working class flavour, though the middle class came to dominate as they sought to replicate English values. By 1850 there was about a thousand clubs in existence.

The oldest international rivalry is not England and Australia, but the US and Canada, with the first contest taking place in 1844. The first England XI to tour overseas went to Canada and the US in 1859. America proved equally appealing to Australian and English tourists.

The reasons for the decline of cricket are many. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the subsequent war between the separatists and the British meant that anything associated with the English would be viewed with suspicion.

Cricket was not suited to a society built by a God-fearing Puritan ancestry that held little respect for leisure.

Clubs were created in order to preserve an English community. The right standard had to be maintained. The Baltimore Cricket Club, for example, was known more for the excellence of its lunch than the cricket being played. The Chicago Cricket Club vetted applicants. Groups that either failed or refused to associate with these elites, such as German, Italian, and Irish Americans ensured that cricket would not survive beyond a small social faction.

If these reasons provide the "why" cricket failed to flourish, the civil war provides the "when." Despite cricket being recommended as recreation by both armies, troops on the move would find baseball a more convenient game to play. Following the Civil War, baseball surpassed cricket, and within a few years there were 2,000 clubs, 100,000 players and a quarter of a million spectators at top matches.

The formation of the Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) in 1909 finally secured the sport’s demise. Membership was allocated by allegiance to the monarch rather than cricketing ability.

Twice in three years Philadelphia had defeated visiting Australian sides, yet the less developed South Africans were preferred. South Africa was considered an essential ally. Its location made it strategically important, and its abundance of minerals left imperialist adventurers salivating.

The triangular tournament in 1912—featuring England, Australia and South Africa—designed to strengthen "the bonds of Union within the Empire," excluded the United States.

The commercial marketers at the ICC would love to see the US incorporated into the world game. The sport is still played across the pond, mainly by ex-pats from the new commonwealth, but is in some disarray. The Twenty20 format might yet provide the leveller for smaller teams to compete.

Spin Bowling enters its Next Phase

Jon Gemmell — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:29:44 -0400

Only those with short memories or an irrational affliction to all things Antipodean write off the Australian cricket team. Yet their last Test match against India suggested that the era of dominance is entering its terminal phase. The batting rates with any side but a bowling line-up that was easily the world’s best now lacks balance and depth.

For me Shane Warne was the greatest cricketer bar none. He is simply irreplaceable, but of course his place in the side has to be filled. A combination of Michael Clarke and Cameron White place Australia below all the top teams except the West Indies in the spin-bowling department, and when was the last time you could say that about an Australian side?

Of course, White wasn’t the first choice spinner for the tour, that went to 36-year old Bryce McGain, who has only played 19 first-class matches. Unfortunately, he was not able to make his international debut returning home injured.

That the Australians selected someone considered a one-day specialist as McGain’s replacement raises the question of how they will fill the void left by Warne. Selector Jamie Cox was honest in his reply that he didn’t know. “There is no simple answer,” he admitted.

As the sport evolves so do the specialist skills required to compete. If the fast-bowler has traditionally been cricket’s proletarian, the spinner would be the equivalent of the artisan. For not only is greater variation the key to accomplishment but also the mental elements are more acute.

Denied the uncovered pitch in which the artist once enchanted, one fears for the contemporary specialist. England’s Monty Panasar, for example, brings little to the sport barring his ability to bowl sides out in cricket’s longer form.

Yet the twenty-20 has seen the unexpected renaissance of the slow bowler, but it has been the type who bowls tight, spearing the ball in towards leg-stump with the ability to fluctuate pace. It also helps if they can bat and field. So whilst England are sending both Graeme Swann and Sambit Patel to the Caribbean, Monty is off to perfect his craft in the Sri Lankan domestic league.

This is not to suggest the demise of the spin-bowler. The historian David Frith wrote in the early 1980s when West Indian pace-quartets were re-writing the bowling manuals that it would take a panel of learned sociologists and psychologists to establish why spin bowling has gone out of favour.

Yet a decade ago we enjoyed a resurgence of leg-spin with the greats Shane Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed and Anil Kumble, and also fine practitioners such as South African Paul Adams and Zimbabwe’s Paul Strang. In addition England’s Ian Salisbury and Chris Schofield and Aussie Michael Bevan were honing their talents. Saqlain Mushtaq and Muralitharan ensured that finger-spin also remained part of a team’s arsenal.

Since then a balanced side has been the order of the day. The retirement of Warne and the imminent departure of Anil Kumble and Murali again raises the question of the decline of this most difficult of talents.

However, two recent Test matches were dominated by young slow bowlers. The Indian leg-spinner Amit Mishra took five Aussie wickets in the first innings in the second Test and two in the second, whilst the seven first-innings wickets for the twenty-one year-old Shakib Al Hasan almost bowled Bangladesh to a surprise victory against New Zealand.

Add to this pair the mesmeric Sri Lankan Ajantha Mendis who at 23 has already taken 26 wickets in only three Tests and rather than decline we can speak of spin’s latest resurgence nearing take-off point.

How much though the poise and panache of spin bowling in Tests is allowed to be spoiled by the more mechanistic requirements of the one-day game is one of the key questions facing those who control cricket’s destiny.

For it is a rare bowler than can perform well in both formats.

Sachin Tendulkar and the Hopes of the Nation

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:44:29 -0400

Shortly before he passed away the Australian Donald Bradman announced Sachin Tendulkar as the batter to whom he would most like to be compared. It is therefore fitting that at the age of 35 Tendulkar has become the highest run scorer in Test cricket.

That Tendulkar has always maintained that if he played enough he would get the record is not a sign of arrogance but his acknowledgment of exceptional natural qualities. At only 35 it seems that he has been around for ever and this is due to an international debut at only 16.

Of his first international team-mates, a number have gone into the commentary box, another into films, one was convicted of murder, and another banned for life as a match-fixer. On his first tour of England, Tendulkar batted against Eddie Hemmings who had started his first-class career seven years before he was born.

If there was a sense of inevitability about his greatness it has been shared by the billion plus cricket fans that see him as something extraordinary. That Tendulkar appears non-sensed by the expectations of a nation is a further testament to his incredible staying powers.

He plays the sport under the severest of pressures. The commentator Harsha Bhogle noted that every time he has dropped a notch, India has moaned. “We put up with corruption”, he added, “don't mind poor toilets, manfully live through terrorism but cannot allow Tendulkar, in the end just a man, to fail occasionally.”

For Suresh Menon Tendulkar holds a mirror to the nation. “When he fails, therefore, it is as if we fail.”

On top of the Test record Tendulkar has also scored a record 16,361 one-day international runs, making in total over 28,000—some 5,000 more than any other batter. In addition he has scored an unsurpassed 81 international hundreds. He has utilised such feats to become one of the world’s highest-paid sportsmen and nobody who visits India can miss the huge billboards displaying his image.

To question his integrity would be to criticise the very gods to which some compare him. During the match-fixing allegations in 2000 Raj Singh, the then head of Indian cricket said: “You know why I believe nobody can fix a cricket match. Because the only man good enough to influence a match on his own is Sachin and he would never even consider doing it.”

Yet there has been controversy such as when a Test series was abandoned in South Africa seven years ago after he was caught fiddling with the ball.

However, it is his remarkable dedication to cricket that has impressed watchers of the sport. A rough calculation estimated that he averages over 200 days in a year travelling for cricket, playing it at the highest level, or practising it.

That he got the record against Australia was appropriate, for whilst he is considered one of the greatest of his era, there is no debate over the team of the last decade. Whilst VVS Laxman has been the irritant, and Rahul Dravid the most obstinate, Tendulkar’s is the most treasured wicket for the Aussies.

Earlier this year in Australia, he got a standing ovation at every ground he played on and returned the gesture of respect by scoring 494 runs in the series.

There will be other players who will have their claim to being the best over the last 30 years. Brian Lara, Alan Border and Sunil Gavaskar have all held the record for Test runs, Ricky Ponting has the greatest opportunity to surpass it. To my knowledge, none of Tendulkar’s rivals also held the record for one-day runs, with more certainty I can add that none has held the hopes and aspirations of a nation in the same way as Sachin.

No Sign of Credit Crunch Affecting Cricket

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:23:35 -0400

Cricket seems to be immune from the current chaos gripping financial markets. Sport has always provided the hope that can temporarily alleviate concern about savings accounts and worry about future job prospects.

It seems surreal that as Iceland declares bankruptcy a row breaks out about the rights to a three-hour match that is worth £10 million to the victors. England opener Alastair Cook admitted last week that money was the sole motivation for England’s players in the Stanford Twenty20 game. “In terms of cricket,” he told a BBC interview, “we know it’s not that important.”

Considering the mess that the world’s bankers have created you might judge Cook’s comments to be rather distasteful. But at least he is saying what everyone else suspects and is providing a moment of honesty.

The real contest for England, according to captain Kevin Pietersen, is next year’s Ashes, which could be seen as discourteous to the Indian hosts of England’s forthcoming tour.

The real contest at present is that between Australia and India. There are a number of sides with a claim to be world number two. Three of them—India, South Africa, and England—will be tested by the Aussies in the coming twelve months.

Watching the current series shows how much the sport has changed. It is evident that India’s Cricket Board, the BCCI, are seeking to stamp their imprint on all aspects of the spectacle of cricket.

The players’ shirts no longer adorn the logo of the national colours, but that of the Board. Similarly the same logo sits obtrusively in the left hand of the television screen and, most uncomfortable of all, is worn on the shirts of the (supposedly neutral) commentators.

Postmodernists assert that the notion of national identity will become increasingly fractured and re-designed in the era of globalisation. But what we have here is something akin to early imperialist ventures where the corporation usurps the state, the East India Company being the best example.

The BCCI have reacted to the Bangladesh exodus to their rival ICL by buying up Sri Lankan cricket. The Sri Lankan Board will be paid a figure of approximately £40 million over the next 10 years.

In return the Sri Lankan Board will pledge full allegiance to the BCCI’s IPL and Champions League Trophy, which means that the proposed tour to England next summer will be minus Sri Lanka’s IPL players, who will be forced by their own Board to put 20 overs cricket for an Indian franchise ahead of playing for their country. This will almost certainly mean a cancellation of the tour to England.

Before England cry foul, let’s remember that they are going out to the Caribbean to play against a West Indies team that is technically—for rights purposes—not the West Indies for no other motive than money.

As Angus Fraser pointed out in The Independent the game is an irrelevance. No trophy of any value will be won and the performances of the players will not appear in their career records. It is nothing more than an exhibition game.

The relegation of national interest to domestic concerns was also revealed last week by Kent who refused to release South African all-rounder Ryan McLaren from his three-year contract. McLaren, is on a Kolpak deal until 2010, which rules him out of representing his country of birth. Kent have argued that they have built their side around this promising all-rounder, but are reluctant to redesignate him as their overseas player.

The consequences of capitalism’s latest slump will become apparent over the next two or three years, the same is also true of the latest developments in cricket. Greed got us into this financial crisis, it is a lesson that those who want to impose their commercial blueprint on cricket need to wake up to.

Paul Adams’ Place in the History Books

Jon Gemmell — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:50:49 -0400

Every so often a cricketer emerges whose contribution to the sport goes beyond merely what takes place on the field of play. I am referring to the likes of Brian Lara in the Caribbean and before him Viv Richards, but also to Sachin Tendulkar in India and Australia’s Shane Warne.

Players of such stature have become figureheads of both team and time and are used to measure wider social and economic change in their country/region.

Though not of the same standard of the above players, Paul Adams, who chose the start of the domestic season to retire, provides a means through which South Africa’s transformation process can be examined.

Adams took eight wickets on his Western Province debut against Northerns, earning him a call-up for South Africa A against England in which he returned match figures of nine for 181. Six weeks later he became the youngest cricketer to play for South Africa when picked for the Boxing Day Test. He took eight wickets in the last two Tests of the series as the Proteas beat England 1-0.

Bursting onto the scene he was considered the great hope, not merely for his abilities with the ball but in the expectation that he could appeal to the majority of black South Africans who preferred football to cricket. His unorthodox action proved effective in early appearances before batters learned how to read him and his body rejected the strain placed upon it.

Yet Adams seemed destined for the history books. A member of Basil D’Oliveira’s St. Augustine’s club, his international debut coincided with Nelson Mandela’s visit to the Port Elizabeth ground.

The start of his international career also coincided with key debates about the transformation of South African cricket. His unusual position at delivery earned him the nickname, "Goggo," which in Afrikaans refers to a small gnat-like insect that has arms and legs thrashing everywhere.

Some black cricketers took exception to this association with clumsiness, a throwback to an era in which their temperament was questioned by white counterparts.

Adams’ omission along with Makhaya Ntini from the side to play the West Indies in 1998 led to condemnation by Ali Bacher, the managing director of the United Cricket Board of South Africa.

The national coach, Bob Woolmer, failed to foresee the difficulties in selecting an all-white XI to play against the first visiting West Indies team and when Pat Symcox was omitted from the side to accommodate Adams for the fourth Test of the series, his captain Hansie Cronje walked out in protest.

It was this series that led the political authorities to conclude that the UCB were less interested in the long-term interests of the sport. The ANC issued a statement condemning the national selectors for omitting the black cricketers for the flimsiest of reasons.

Never again would South Africa select an all-white side, yet now Adams would have to face the cries of tokenism. Nicky Boje, his closest rival for the spinner’s position walked away from the national set-up when Adams was selected ahead of him for the tour to India in 2006.

However, an examination of the records shows Adams to be the superior bowler of the era. His 134 wickets in 45 Tests compare with Boje’s 100 in 43, whilst an average of 32.87 is ten runs better than Boje, Claude Henderson and Pat Symcox the others who challenged Adams for the spinner’s birth.

Retirement at the age of 31 is a shame for South Africa’s sixth highest Test wicket-taker. After all he is five years younger than Bryce McGain, the spinner who was set to make his debut for Australia until a shoulder injury sent him home from India. A career beckons in the commentary booth whilst his legacy will help provide the basis of the latest chapter in the history of black cricket in South Africa.

Farewell Darren Gough The Entertainer

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:20:48 -0400

After another wretched summer, at least the autumn weather didn’t ruin the conclusion of cricket’s premier competition and congratulations are extended to Durham on lifting their maiden championship.

County stalwarts Graeme Hick and Mushtaq Ahmed are among early retirees alongside Yorkshire and England’s Darren Dough who has played his final championship match for his county.

I mention England for Gough was as much a part of the England line up as he was Yorkshire; I say final championship match for this most alluring of entertainers has left the door ajar for possible twenty overs games.

Gough marked the footsteps of former Yorkshire greats who epitomised tough, professional and no-nonsense cricket. If Headingley still evokes the memories of Hutton, Trueman, Illingworth and Boycott, the name Gough can justifiably be counted amongst them.

Gough enjoyed his cricket and played out the most intense duels with a smile and an acknowledgment that there were probably more important things in life. But he was more than the mere brawn expected from fast bowlers. Marcus Trescothick wrote in his recent auto-biography that “Goughy was the most instinctively clever bowler I ever played with. He could switch and change to suit the conditions. He seemed to have a plan and a ball for every batsman he came up against”.

A master of his craft, Gough perfected late away movement, the inswinging yorker and became the first English bowler to exploit reverse-swing. Such variety made him England’s greatest one-day bowler, particularly at the death-throes of an innings.

In a career in which injury was too often a companion Gough became England’s all-time highest wicket-taker in one-day internationals with 234, and with 229 wickets in 58 Test matches, was the team’s ninth most successful wicket-taker.

He is the type of player that central contracts were designed for and one can only wonder of his impact if they had been introduced at the start rather the end of his England career.

An average of 28.39 has to be considered alongside the fact that 33 of his 58 Tests were against the two strongest teams of the age, Australia and South Africa. Against the rest he managed 112 wickets at 22.91.

Yet you always felt that it was against the strongest that the best was brought out of Gough. When the chips were down the captain would turn to his star bowler, for from adversity would the antagonist accept the challenge, none more so than when playing the Australians. It was fitting that his last wicket was retired-Aussie and now Somerset captain Darren Langer.

England’s current fast-bowling triumvirate of Harmison, Anderson and Broad are reserved personalities and the team looks to the likes of captain Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff to provide the sense of self-belief that Gough carried in buckets.

Like Flintoff, Gough had the ability to make things happen and could inspire team-mates and crowds with a feat in the field or some daring hitting alongside his bowling. Michael Atherton who skippered him wrote: “Chest puffed out and striding back to his mark, sneaking a peek at the speedometer as he went, he was a captain’s dream.”

He was also a recognisable personality and with cricket becoming an exclusive pay-for-TV sport, Gough helped provide exposure. I’m sure that viewers of Saturday’s ‘light-entertainment’ will be seeing more of this infectious artiste, but let’s hope that he is remembered mostly for the trade that gave him his superstar status.

Desperate ICL Plays The National Card

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:28:55 -0400

Further evidence of the impetus accompanying 20-overs cricket came last week when a number of leading Bangladesh players, led by their most successful captain Habibul Bashar, retired from international and domestic cricket in order to play in the renegade Indian Cricket League.

The 13 Bangladesh cricketers who signed up for the ICL will be part of the Dhaka Warriors team who will take part in the second season of the ICL starting early October.

The ICL lacks the big names of its official counter-part the Indian Premier League. However, despite a number of stringent measures designed to kill it off, it looks set for another season at least.

The move towards national sides should attract support from the home countries and thus assist the profile and ultimately sponsorship of the league.

A similar team from Pakistan, the Lahore Badshahs is captained by Inzamam ul-Haq and plays to large television audiences in their homeland. The Bangladesh players have stated dissatisfaction with their board as their reason to retire. Left-arm spinner Mosharraf Hossain stated that he hadn't been enjoying his time playing cricket in the last year. "They don't think of us, so why should we think of them?" he asked.

Those who have played for the national team are expected to pocket around £100,000 each after signing three-year contracts, several times what they can ever expect to earn while playing for Bangladesh.

The Bangladesh Board of Control reacted to the move by banning the players for 10 years.

This could have a serious impact on a national side that has always struggled, especially at Test level. The ICL have shrewdly suggested that the players would be released for national duty if requested.

But executive board member Ahmed Sajjadul Alam stringently stuck to the ban as a "deterrent" against others and rejected allegations from some of the ICL recruits that they were mistreated by the BCB as "ridiculous," adding that "these players should be honest and admit openly they did this just for the money."

"They have let down their country and its people and opted to join a commercial venture which will benefit a group of individuals and nobody else."

This argument loses some of its spite with the board placing its faith in the IPL and the Champions Twenty20 League to boost the game in Bangladesh.

The fact that the IPL benefits a group of individuals and nobody else was lost on a desperate Bangladesh board obviously turning to India and the mighty rupee for assistance.

This latest development will force the arm of the IPL who will now be caught between the prevention of other cricketers joining the ICL and the devaluing of their premier tournament with either weak sides or a token number of Bangladeshi players distributed to the IPL squads with little hope of playing for the actual sides as only four overseas players are permitted.

The interesting thing will be national allegiance if the ICL side achieves some successes—a lot easier in 20 overs cricket—than a national side that will undoubtedly be weakened. How long before critics further challenge Bangladesh's right to Test status?

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have traditionally sided with India in the politics of international cricket and to lose two could jeopardise plans for the sport's future development.

Further signs of cracks in the Indian stranglehold have come from the Sri Lankans, who have broken ranks with official guidelines by announcing that five of their cricketers and an umpire who last year signed up for the ICL will now be welcomed back to the domestic fold.

Change is afoot and it is not only the style and format of cricket that is under examination, but also what we have long considered national entities.

Only one thing is certain and that is that cricket will not be the same in 10 years time.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul a Triumph of Caribbean Unity

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:58:03 -0400

If you were to consider the top five West Indian batters of all time, without a doubt you would include George Headley and Brian Lara. Uniting both players is not merely their exceptional talents with the bat, but that they excelled in weak sides. Headley, for example, was known as “atlas” because he carried the team’s batting on his shoulders.

I wonder where Shivnarine Chanderpaul would come on the list. The latest ICC Player of the Year may not have the strokes of Lara or the dominance of Headley, but he has carved himself into the most immovable portrayer of his craft.

In the tour of England last year, he kept a home attack at bay for nearly 17 hours between dismissals whilst averaging 148. He thereby became the first player to record three 1,000-minute vigils in Test cricket.

Chanderpaul provides an apt case of how environment has affected style of play. He originates from the humble fishing village of Unity on the northeast coast of Guyana, an hour’s drive from the capital Georgetown.

Unity's population includes those of both East Indian and African descent. These are represented by the two Test cricketers the village has produced, Colin Croft and Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

Cricket was, as they say, in Chanderpaul’s blood, with his father keeping wicket to Croft while both uncles played for strong clubs. It helped that they grew up minutes from the cricket ground.

Not that the ground is how we imagine cricket pitches to be. Having no nets or square, it's just a field of rough grass, often shared with goats and cows. His father and uncles cut a pitch, though it remained muddy and bumpy, not helped by the grazing animals wandering over it.

This type of pitch would encourage the watchful and defensive cricketer, and obviously didn’t hinder the young Chanderpaul. He was playing for his village at eight years old and for the Demerara Cricket Club Under-16s at age 10.

Joining the prestigious Georgetown Cricket Club, he scored 117 on debut. It was at Georgetown's ground, Bourda, that he made his Test debut against England in March 1994 at 19, in which he impressed with 62.

Chanderpaul’s ascent is further affirmation of the rise of the East Indian community in West Indies cricket. About 160 years ago, hundreds of contracted labourers migrated to the Caribbean to work on the British-owned plantations. The descendents of these workers form roughly half the population of Guyana and Trinidad.

By the middle of the 20th century, three large communities lived side by side—the ruling whites who were on their way out, the Africans who had broken free, and the Indians who were still settling in.

Whilst players such as Sonny Ramadhin, Alvin Kallicharan, and Rohan Khanai played at the highest level, there was a feeling in the 1980s that the all-conquering West Indian sides were African-Caribbean by design.

Not a single Indian was selected to play under Viv Richards and the Ethiopian/Rastarafri colours of red, yellow, and green introduced to the West Indian logo suggested African colours for a team that was supposed to represent the whole of the Caribbean.

Recent West Indian sides have included Ramnaresh Sarwan, Darren Ganga, Dinanath Ramnarine, and Mahendra Nagamootoo from the Indian community.

Chanderpaul doesn’t dwell on issues of ethnicity. “My batting is for everyone,” he says. Yet as he is associated in his village with Croft, on a national basis he and now retired Carl Hooper, an Afro-Guyanese, have been projected as symbols of a coming together.

Their social place has even been portrayed in song: “We must play Carl and Shiv/That’s how we must live.”

Cricket has taken a battering in recent years in the Caribbean, yet the likes of Chanderpaul remind us of the merits of hard work, the ability to persevere, and the potential that a group of disparate islands have when all come together as one.

Graeme Hick Retires Amid Turbulent Times

Jon Gemmell — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:25:28 -0400

Graeme Hick made his County Championship debut for Worcestershire during the last game of the 1984 season and made 82 not out whilst batting at number nine. His cricketing season would normally consist of an early match against one of the Oxbridge Universities, followed by a 55-overs competition.

The County Championship consisted of one division with 24 three-day matches. In addition, there was a knockout 60-overs tournament that included the Minor counties and a one-division 40-overs Sunday League.

I have never understood why critics claim that cricket is conservative. As Hick retires, none of the above remains in place.

Cricket is more likely to present a traditional image because of its fascination with a mythical spirit of the game. Whilst Hick brought his own controversies, notably that regarding nationality, an examination of recent events highlights that conceptions of how the game should be played are still being negotiated.

Discourse is set in an environment dominated by the unprecedented injection of capital. Recently Cricket Australia agreed to move a Test match to accommodate a 20-overs Champions League.

A kitty of £3 million will tempt most administrators and can even persuade Michael Hussey to represent Chennai against his state-side Western Australia. The three-Test series will now be crammed into a three-week period.

One of the world’s best umpires, Darrell Hair, will not be invited to the Indian jamboree. This is principally because he has only been offered two Tests since his return to the elite panel of umpires in March and has so retired. A stubborn man, he was vilified for enforcing the rule book and is an example of how the umpire, once the upholder of the laws, is becoming marginalised.

I wonder what Hair makes of Marcus Trescothick’s revelations that he used mints to sweeten his saliva in order to add shine to a ball, supposedly assisting late reverse swing.

The Australian tabloids found a reason why their boys were beaten in the 2005 Ashes—England cheated. The English press meanwhile treated the revelation as something bowlers have always tried to do, be it with suncream, lip-balm, or brylcream.

The laws of the game favour batters, and so bowlers are forced to devise new ways to remain competitive. Michael Atherton admitted to The Times that in his day chewing gum was the favoured additive.

This is all very well, but how does the addition of sugary spittle differ from picking the seam or digging fingernails into one side of the ball to roughen it up? I wonder what the response of the English press would have been if it had been Shoaib Akhtar or any of his Pakistani colleagues who had confessed to ball-tampering?

Then hypocrisy has remained a constant during Hick’s career.

I haven’t seen, for example, any Australian newspaper condemn their previous coach, John Buchanan’s revelations that he instructed bowlers to position themselves in their follow through to force batters to run around them. Law 42.5 states that it is unfair to attempt to distract or obstruct the batter.

Maybe it’s because they are too concerned about their star all-rounder Andrew Symonds who has been dropped from the current one-day series against Bangladesh because he preferred fishing to team meetings.

Condemned as arrogant and boorish, it has been pointed out by those sensitive to mental fatigue that Symonds may be struggling with the unforgiving work-rate. There is also his sudden prominence in the side following retirements, his controversial series against India, and the expectations of being the highest paid player in the world game.

Hick mastered the basics of cricket orthodoxy on the burnt outfields of Zimbabwe playing what was practically an all-white sport. His education continued in England’s domestic format, which has been reputed for being too soft.

This attitude is being challenged by many of the 40 South Africans who have played this summer as Kolpak players.

An un-named player told the South African Mail and Guardian that he learned a lot more in England: “We had four or five international guys in the team and we discussed techniques and tactics, how to win games and how to behave as professionals. At the [South African] franchise last season the conversation was pretty much based around who had the girlfriend with the biggest tits.”

So maybe the County Championship stands up as a domestic league and is not the mundane mediocre entity critics would have us believe. It is certainly poorer for the loss of Graeme Hick, though after 24 years at the highest level, he will be one of those to pass on tactics and advice.

I will be amazed if he does not continue in a coaching role, where alongside his views on perfecting orthodoxy we can tease from him some of his thoughts about how the sport has changed.

The African Imprint on English Cricket

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:47:08 -0400

The International summer draws to a close with a surprising home victory in the one-day series.

Whether this rejuvenated England is a consequence of the inspired leadership of South African-born Kevin Pietersen or another false dawn remains to be seen.

You cannot discard the effects, though, of a change of direction at the top. This is not the first time that a South African has led England, as both Tony Greig and Alan Lamb captained their adopted country.

With good timing, the newly released book Exiles and Kings by Richard Jones considers the influence of African cricketers on the English game. The work is a collection of cameos using the D'Oliveira affair as a starting point and then recalling the impact of mainly South African cricketers through three key phases.

The first comes alongside the Springboks' isolation following the refusal to allow D'Oliveira to tour with England in 1968 and then to select their teams according to the principle of non-racialism.

The colourful Tony Greig stamped his personality on the England side during the 1973/4 tour to the West Indies where he scored 148 in one innings and took 24 wickets.

He will be forever remembered as the leading protagonist behind Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket, rather than the first captain to win a series in India since Douglas Jardine in 1933/34 or the first all-rounder to take 3,000 runs and 100 wickets for England. Only Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff have matched him.

Barry Richards came to England to play domestic cricket frustrated at the developments in his country. "After participating in the wining of a Test series," he would write in Summers of Discontent, "every other cricket experience is an anticlimax."

Mike Proctor took 109 wickets for Gloucestershire in 1977, one of their most memorable seasons and, the following year, he won the award for the best-all-rounder.

Another to win this prestigious accolade was the multifaceted Clive Rice who led Nottinghamshire to two championships and never fell below 1,000 runs for the season.

Other county stalwarts include Ken McEwan who made valuable contributions to the all-conquering Essex side of the early 1980s and Derbyshire's Peter Kirsten who scored three double-centuries before the end of June in the 1980 season and five centuries in July 2002.

Bowlers Garth Le Roux and Vincent van der Bijl would have enlightened an England line-up that lacked bite and penetration.

A second phase of influence saw players such as Alan Lamb, Robin and Chris Smith, and Graeme Hick make their commitment to the England team.

Lamb captained the national side in 1990 when Graham Gooch had his hand broken by Ezra Mosley in the Caribbean and he scored a hundred in his first Test as leader.

A batting average of 40 (Mike Gatting's is 36) shows how important he was to England's middle order.

Robin Smith would triumph while those around him crumbled - the best example of this coming in his debut series against Australia in 1989 - and he rose in the ICC batting rankings to number two.

The third phase comes after South Africa's readmission and acknowledges some of the great performances by international cricketers as overseas players.

Alan Donald was an outstanding bowler and helped Warwickshire to dominate county cricket for a number of seasons.

We might also forget that Zimbabwe's Andrew Flower once topped the ICC batting ratings, while, in his five seasons at Essex, he never scored less than 1,000 runs per year.

The book inevitably ends with the rise of Pietersen and examines his genius with reference to the 2005 Ashes series.

It was published before Pietersen became captain and comes full circle linking D'Oliveira with Pietersen, notably the 158 that they each scored against Australia.

The work holds little for the social historian, offering nothing on the politics of South African cricket or the hardships faced by contemporary players.

There is, therefore, no fourth phase about the increase in Kolpak players, professionals allowed to come to England to eke out a living income, and it ignores the contribution that black cricketers made to the northern leagues in the 1970s.

What is clear, though, is that England's domestic cricket owes a debt of gratitude to the many players who graced these shores from Africa.

Let's hope that many continue to do so.

Bradman's Cultural Legacy

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:20:12 -0400

Wednesday 27^th August marks the centenary of the birth of the world’s greatest ever cricketer, Donald Bradman, who in his 52 Tests scored an astonishing 29 centuries at an unassailable average of 99.94.

Bradman, though, was more than a cricketer and became not just a figurehead for Australian nationalism, but a yardstick to its development. The writer Gideon Haigh wrote that he enjoys a status in Australia that other countries bestow on those who lead revolutions, create immortal works of art or make great scientific breakthroughs.

His head has appeared on both stamps and coins and his name associated with a certain way of life, much of which, of course, has been manufactured by vested interests. International Who’s Who named Bradman as one of only two Australians among the top 100 people who did most to shape the twentieth century.

Being born just seven years after federation, Bradman acquired heroic status due to his ability to bind sport and national identity. This evolved out of the tussles with England for the Ashes, and notably the ‘bodyline’ series of 1932-3 in which a depression-hit Australia sought Davids to stand up to the imperial Goliath.

The historian David Frith spoke of the little bloke batting against the mother country set against the backdrop of economic depression. His “eagle eye, twinkling footwork and flashing blade” being the stuff of school-boy superheroes.

But bodyline was more than just star batter from humble origins defending the spirit of the game against the public-school led adversary. A 1984 newspaper advertisement promoting the television mini-series declared: “Bodyline: The Day England Declared war on Australia.”

K.N. Prabhu, the long-time cricket correspondent of the Times of India saw Bradman as an avenging angel, punishing the English for putting Indians in jail in the 1930s. In later years Bradman received more fan mail from India than all other countries put together.

Bradman makes an unlikely foe to British imperialism. He was a conservative figure who socialised with the establishment. He proudly accepted a knighthood which he considered to be a royal tribute to cricket and its role in the Empire. Historian Brett Hutchins noted that from an Australian perspective, Bradman mastered the master’s game and signified an independent national identity without threatening the political and cultural order.

There were many who sought to bestow certain attributes on ‘The Don’. The Sydney Morning Herald spoke of his career as a testament to “egalitarian mateship”. Whilst ex-Prime Minister, John Howard, argued that Bradman represented “a sense of Australianness that a lot of us would like to see in ourselves”.

For Howard this represented the rural townsfolk and the white farmer as opposed to marginalised ethnic and indigenous identities. In reality, Bradman was a solitary figure who treated the playing of cricket as a business, arguing in the 1939 Wisden that cricket could not be disassociated from the “cold, hard facts of finance”.

He was not the most popular member of the team and was described by his contemporary Jack Fingleton as “somewhat indifferent, cold and unfriendly towards most of those with whom he played”. He rarely granted interviews and those he gave were with journalists who could be trusted not to ask difficult questions.

As a cricketer there is no questioning his ability or his achievements, yet as with most super-heroes Bradman will have his doubters. That he should be remembered at the greatest ever batter will prove a longer legacy than attributes that are bestowed upon him by vested interests.

Still, the Sydney Morning Herald once suggested that if Australia ever votes to become a republic then the Queen’s Birthday Holiday could be replaced by Don’s day – Bradman’s birthday on August 27.

As both a republican and cricket fan, I could drink to that.

The Cricketing Olympians

Jon Gemmell — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:14:23 -0400

In 1931, the man attributed with resurrecting the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin, wrote that his intentions were to bring back the “intellectual, philosophical and moral” characteristics of the ancient Games.

A frequent visitor to England and an admirer of the English public-school system, the aristocrat had acknowledged the sense of morality and intellectualism displayed through the notion of Muscular Christianity, the development of physical and spiritual well-being, that dominated cricket’s ethos during the Victorian age.

A sporting competition made up of a range of activities that sought to propel sport to a higher moral plane surely had to have cricket as one of its key events.

The problem, however, as pointed out by Saad Shafqat in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, was that cricket is very much an acquired taste and “in cricket’s case, the most effective way to acquire this taste has been to suffer through British Colonial rule.”

In spite of this handicap, cricket was one of the original sports listed in the provisional Olympic programme for 1896. A lack of entries meant that the competition was abandoned, but in 1900, the Paris games featured the only Olympic final in cricket.

There were only two entries, England and France, and the sides might not have known that they were taking part in the historic Olympic Games. Events were spread out over a long summer, and the 1900 Games were more likely to be known as the Great Exposition or the World’s Fair instead of the Olympics.

Rather than a national side, England were represented by the Devon & Somerset Wanderers, who were victorious over their French opponents in front of a crowd that barely reached double figures at an impressive 20,000 capacity cycling track.

Cricket had failed to catch on in France, and in true imperial fashion this was blamed on the French themselves because, according to one correspondent: “A cricketer in France is a stranger in a strange land looked upon with mingled awe and contempt by the average Frenchman.”

It was not surprising then that the French side had a strong British influence. They included players from the Albion Cricket Club and the Standard Athletic Club, a sporting club for expatriates living in Paris. The team included names such as Robinson, Browning, Jordan, and McEvoy.

Other anomalies included sides of 12 and awards of silver and bronze medals rather than the traditional gold for victors—though each competitor was given a miniature replica of the eleven-year-old Eiffel Tower.

Cricket was not included in the 1904 Games in St. Louis, but was expected to appear in 1908, originally awarded to Rome. However, the tournament never took place as Mt. Vesuvius erupted and the Games were moved to London. Cricket was not included then, nor since.

The emergence of Twenty20 cricket provides a format that could enable the sport’s return to the Olympics. Played over roughly the same length of time as baseball and by more countries, cricket could justify its inclusion.

Ex-Australian players Steve Waugh and Adam Gilchrist are championing its addition and current captain Ricky Ponting has said that he could not think of anything better or more exciting than cricket being part of the Olympics.

If it happens, it is most likely to be in the 2020 Games, as the decision as to what sports are included is made as early as 2013. Rumour has it that Delhi is one of the frontrunners to host, and the opportunity to promote their national sport on the world stage would be an opportunity the Indian Board are unlikely to miss.

Basil D'Oliveira Affair Remembered 40 Years On

Jon Gemmell — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:58:33 -0400

Current England cricket team captain South African-born Kevin Pietersen was given a Test against the land of his birth at the Oval to mark his ascendancy.

Forty years ago, it was another South African playing at the Oval who would dominate not just the back pages with a match winning 158, but the front as well.

The reason was his exclusion from the forthcoming touring party to South Africa, also the land of his birth. The decision was made on political grounds rather than in consideration of the needs of the side or the ability of the player.

A firm body of evidence suggests that Basil D'Oliveira's initial non-selection was made for reasons other than ability.

Take his merit as a player. He was considered the best black player of his era in South Africa. But, denied the opportunity to play representative cricket because of his skin colour, he came to join England's northern leagues in 1960.

Signed by Worcestershire, D'Oliveira made the 1966 England side to face the West Indies, playing in all but the first Test.

After only two years in the first class game, he was included as one of Wisden's five Cricketers of the Year.

D'Oliveira played in the first Test against Australia in 1968, top-scoring with 87 not out in a losing cause.

He was dropped but returned for the final contest at the Oval and scored 158, while also taking the wicket of Barry Jarman in the second innings. It was the breakthrough that ultimately won the match.

All eyes were now on the selection of the touring side to South Africa.

Despite apartheid being firmly entrenched in South African life, rising domestic tensions over racism, and South Africa leaving the International Cricket Council, white Test sides continued to compete against the Springboks. India, Pakistan, and the West Indies had never been invited to play against them.

Following England's heroics at the Oval, captain Colin Cowdrey proclaimed: "It's good to have beaten the Aussies. It looks as though we shall have problems with South Africa, though. They can't leave Basil out of the team. Not now."

The problem was that the South Africans were unlikely to accept any black player as part of a multiracial touring side.

In January 1967, a report appeared in the Johannesburg Sunday Express claiming that then interior minister Peter le Roux had implied that D'Oliveira, if chosen to tour with England, would not be accepted in South Africa.

When the touring side was announced, D'Oliveira, who had just scored 128 for Worcester and headed the batting averages against Australia, was missing.

The chairman of selectors Doug Insole explained that, "from an overseas tour point of view" D'Oliveira was considered "as a batsman rather than an all-rounder."

It was felt that Tom Cartwright, a medium-pace bowler, would be more likely to succeed on South African wickets than a man who had grown up in the Cape. There were places for Keith Fletcher and Roger Prideaux, neither of whom had been selected for the squad at the Oval.

As for Cartwright, he had not represented England all summer and had missed nine of Warwickshire's last 10 championship matches through injury.

Graeme Wright, the editor of Wisden from 1986-92, declared that "the only sound louder than the cries of conspiracy was the sigh of relief blowing out of South Africa."

Indeed, a National Party rally in Potchefstroom broke into cheering and applause on hearing the news of D'Oliveira's omission. Despite increasing calls to isolate the abhorrent regime, it appeared that English cricket's ruling body the MCC had wanted to avoid a confrontation with South Africa.

The attitude of the cricket authorities has to be considered alongside their political persuasions.

The leading figures representing the MCC viewpoint were Aidan Crawley and Dennis Silk. Crawley had been an MP for both Labour and Conservative parties, while Dennis Silk "rejoiced in the third name of Whitehall."

Every one of the 10 selectors had played cricket in South Africa.

The chairman Alec Bedser later became a founding member of the right-wing Freedom Association, which received funds from the South African government to promote its cause. Fellow selector Arthur Gilligan had been for many years a member of the British Union of Fascists.

Nineteen members of the MCC resigned in protest at D'Oliveira's omission and Labour MP Ivor Richard called on the Race Relations Board to investigate it. They were placated when Tom Cartwright had to pull out of the tour and D'Oliveira was chosen as his replacement.

Again, the selection defied cricketing logic. Cartwright was principally a bowler who could bat a little and D'Oliveira's substitution for him was completely inconsistent with the selectors' initial arguments.

South Africa's prime minister John Vorster told his party conference that D'Oliveira's selection was unacceptable. "The team as constituted now is not the team of the MCC but the team of the Anti-Apartheid Movement."

Under pressure from the Labour government, the MCC called off the tour. It did not play South Africa in a Test series until 1994.

During this period, various voices on the right called for the re-engagement of relations with South Africa, though the authorities realised that this would cast England out into the wilderness.

South Africa now play England for the aptly named D'Oliveira Trophy, while many who were once concerned with keeping politics out of sport now favour a boycott of Zimbabwe, further muddying the "logic" of the right's thinking about race and politics.

Charles Bennett Llewellyn: South Africa's First Black Cricketer

Jon Gemmell — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:11:38 -0400

Nationality and national allegiance are complicated in this day and age.

England’s leading batter is South African.

Pakistani spinners Danish Kaneria and Saqlain Mushtaq have each hinted that they may opt for England over the place of their birth.

And when English-born Aussie Darren Pattinson was the surprise choice for the recent second Test, the disgruntled Matthew Hoggard remarked that he thought he was a Kolpak player. Australians don’t qualify as Kolpaks, but we get what Hoggard means.

All this is, of course, not new. Take the example of South African Charles Bennett "Buck" Llewellyn who was born to white and black parents in Pietermaritzburg, Natal in 1876.

An all-rounder, Llewellyn was a left-handed batter, an exceptional fielder—especially at mid-off, and a slow to medium bowler. He was one of the first bowlers in England to perfect the "wrong-un," the leg-spinning delivery that goes the other way.

He made his debut for Natal in April 1895 and first played for South Africa later in the year against England. From 1899 to 1910, he played in England as a professional for Hampshire, performing the double of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in a season on five occasions.

He was even included in the England squad for the 1902 Edgbaston Test against Australia, though he wasn’t selected to play and returned that year to South Africa to play in all three Tests against the visiting Aussies.

He was, however, included in an English side captained by Ranjitsinhji that toured America in 1899. Still, any questions of allegiance were settled by playing for South Africa on the tour of Australia in 1910-11 and again in 1912 when the Triangular Tournament was held in England.

Under British rule and custom, cricket was segregated in South Africa and a number of talented players were denied opportunities to perform at a higher level because of skin colour. However, Llewellyn was able to pass himself off as a white, though this caused some confusion.

In Overthrows, a Book of Cricket, J.M. Kilburn noted that Llewellyn “was dark-eyed and dark-skinned and South Africans called him coloured.”

The Springbok, Herby Taylor, has stated that his father employed Llewellyn as a coloured clerk and paid him accordingly. Some who knew him in the Bolton area in the 1930s when he was playing League cricket, said that he would be taken for an Asian.

It is thought that he chose county cricket because of the racist abuse suffered at the hands of national teammates, in particular Transvaal batter Jimmy Sinclair.

Roland Bowen claims that during the 1910/11 tour of Australia “Llewellyn was tormented by his white fellow tourists to such an extent that he took refuge in the WCs and locked himself in.”

It is also believed that he left Hampshire for the northern leagues in 1926—where he would play until the age of 62—in part because of racist comments from other players and because of being refused accommodation in hotels and boarding houses when the team was playing away.

Skin colour remained a contentious issue and Llewellyn’s daughter refuted the claim that her father was of mixed race, claiming that both grandparents were of pure British descent.

Llewellyn died in 1964. And while the official white Cricket Board found space in its annual in 1955 to recognize the death of Lady Warner, widow of imperialist Pelham, it waited five years before mentioning the passing away of South Africa’s first black cricketer. Even then it was merely noted, including no obituary.

This lack of respect for a past Wisden Cricketer of the Year and leading South African all-rounder was a consequence of the impact of apartheid on cricket’s administrators. It was an admission that they believed Llewellyn was black and shouldn’t have been selected.