There ought to be respect and honour, chivalry and a nod in the direction of a worthy opponent, a compliment for the enemy who fights hard and hands that shake with sincerity whether the game is won by an innings or drawn by the width of a fingernail, writes Ted Corbett.
In the two weeks needed to play the five one-day internationals between England and New Zealand we had enough controversy to make a tabloid editor sweat ink.
Kevin Pietersen began it with two beautifully struck left-handed sixes. The debate over this piece of inventiveness raged so hotly it seemed at one time that he or the shot might be banned for causing too many problems about lbw, field settings and the rights of the bowler.
In the second match at Edgbaston, where dispute is never far away, England bowled their overs so slowly that New Zealand were robbed of a victory and Mr. Duckworth of the famed Duckworth-Lewis results divining system had to issue a long statement explaining that his method had been wrongly interpreted.
(Just in case it happens again, captains, critics and carping spectators must remember that the runs needed do not necessarily increase if a wicket falls. New Zealand were robbed all the same.)
New Zealand drew level at Bristol, where the ground is still not suitable to stage an international match, four England fast bowlers — James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Chris Tremlett and Luke Wright — had New Zealand on the floor at 182 all out but England’s feeble batting fell 22 runs short.
None of this prepared us for the mighty storm that blew up at the Oval where the Kiwis got home by one wicket, where there was an obstruction worthy of the best blocking you will see in an American grid iron football match. England bowled their overs so slowly that Paul Collingwood, a man with “previous” as the police have it about a habitual criminal, was banned for four matches.
So England needed a new captain and chose Pietersen, South African born and bred, controversial in word and deed and so inexperienced that he claimed he could not remember leading a side before.
The selectors might have called back Michael Vaughan, no longer an essential part of the Yorkshire Twenty-20 set-up, or given Andrew Strauss the leadership but I guess it was all right to hand the reins to Pietersen just in case he was natural captaincy material.
His side lost but then I guess a Vaughan-led, Strauss-driven team would have done too for the only conclusion that we could reach was that England are no more able to play 50-over cricket than they are to give Harry Potter a game at quidditch.
I insist, for all those who argue that I am wrong, that it goes back to a contempt for the game bred into the players at an early age. They do not have the hard attitude that brings victory, they neglect the skills they need for this brief burst of activity because somehow, it is unnatural for an Englishman to demonstrate all that determination.
After all it is only a game, there are more important considerations in cricket than winning and losing and — apart from the 1992 World Cup finalists — there have never been a bunch of English players who cared enough. What we care about is playing the game in the correct spirit, obeying the Corinthian ethic, and shaking hands with worthy winners at the end of the match.
Yeah, right!Call me old-fashioned, call me a conservative, a traditionalist, a dyed-in-the-wool Law-abiding fuddy-duddy if you like but I hated the moment when England insisted on continuing the appeal against Grant Elliott at the Oval.
I was reminded at that moment of an incident years ago in the middle of a Premier League football match — not highly revered among cricketers as a place to search out sportsmanship — when a player was in front of an open goal, with the goalkeeper lying injured and the game to be won. He simply caught the ball and threw it to the referee without making any attempt to score the goal that was his for the taking. His manager rolled his eyes and then doubled up with laughter, the referee awarded a free kick for hands ball and the goalkeeper was led off the field, too injured to continue.
Honour in every sense was satisfied, that striker had more friends than ever and no-one thought the less of him. I wish I could say the same of Paul Collingwood.
If slow, sometimes boring, often out of touch, lovely old cricket has a place in the world it is because — wearing its traditional, all-white or in a coloured uniform — it shows us how life ought to be lived.
There ought to be respect and honour, chivalry and a nod in the direction of a worthy opponent, a compliment for the enemy who fights hard and hands that shake with sincerity whether the game is won by an innings or drawn by the width of a fingernail. If the game drifts further towards win-at-all-costs, if money becomes central to every move, if obstruction becomes part of the captain’s thinking, I want no more to do with this swiftly changing game.
If, for instance, there is a run to score at the end of a prize-rich Twenty-20 game, and an incident like the one at the Oval settles the result, cricket will be the loser.
I will tell you why. During the Collingwood-Elliott-umpire Mark Benson debate the crowd grew restless. Then they booed. They were not offended by the length of time it took Elliott, naturally aggrieved, not surprisingly truculent, to go back to the pavilion but by the unsporting behaviour of England.
The Oval crowd is full of working men and women, people who have come for a day out at a price not easily obtainable at Lord’s four miles away. They are not normally driven to boo and certainly did not when Pakistan refused to take the field a couple of years ago.
For all the might of sponsors and television it is still the sight of a full house — as we had at every one-dayer in this series — that makes cricket a spectacle, that keeps the TV executives interested, that keeps sponsorship money flowing.
I will wager a year’s income that that scene is hotly debated in the boardrooms of all the sponsors involved and discussed at length in the chambers where television is planned years in advance.
“Do we want to be involved in a sport where the captain has to apologise for his and his side’s actions at the end of a game?” they will ask each other. Some will relish the controversy, some will abhor the behaviour; but they will all look at the crowd and wonder what the man in the street thinks.
As for Collingwood he should ask what his peers would have done. What would Peter May, Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell, Imran Khan, Mark Taylor or Steve Waugh have done? There was nothing soft, or wishy-washy or namby-pamby about those guys but I hope they would have withdrawn the appeal, told Grant Elliott to continue his innings if he was able to, and thrown their energies into winning it.
That is how cricket should be and how I wish it will always be.
The ScoresFifth ODI, Lord’s, June 28, 2008New Zealand 266 for six in 50 overs (S. Styris 87, R. Flynn 36, J. Oram 52) beat England 215 in 47.5 overs (I. Bell 27, R. Bopara 30, O. A. Shah 69, T. Southee three for 49, D. Vettori three for 32).
Fourth ODI, Kennington Oval, June 26, 2008England 245 in 49.4 overs (I. Bell 46, R. Bopara 58, O. Shah 63, T. Southee three for 47) lost to New Zealand 246 for nine in 50 overs (J. How 37, S. Styris 69, J. Oram 38, K. Mills 25).
Third ODI, Bristol, June 21, 2008New Zealand 182 in 50 overs (G. Elliott 56, K. Mills 47, J. Anderson three for 61) beat England 160 in 46.2 overs (R. Bopara 27, G. Swann 29, T. Southee four for 38).
Second ODI, Birmingham, June 18, 2008England 162 in 24 overs (L. Wright 52, P. Collingwood 37, G. Elliott three for 23) and New Zealand 127 for two in 19 overs (B. McCullum 60, L. Taylor 25). Match washed out.
First ODI, Chester-le-Street, June 15, 2008England 307 for five in 50 overs (I. Bell 46, K. Pietersen 110 not out, P. Collingwood 64, O. Shah 49) beat New Zealand 193 in 42.5 overs ( B. McCullum 36, D. Flynn 34, G. Hopkins 25, P. Collingwood four for 15).
Comments
SHARE