Today 25,000 people around the world will die needlessly of hunger, while three billion people will scrape less than $2 to live off. Today Sri Lanka play England in a Test match. It is obvious and frustratingly trite to point out that sport doesn't matter. Of course it doesn't. Except that millions of people believe it does. The countless number following the Colombo Test will smile, scream, tut and cheer because of it.
Those of us who do believe that it matters are not just a brazen minority with a skewed sense of perspective. By investing meaning in the teams we follow we form a community that, in the case of international sport, helps keep the precarious idea of nationhood alive. When a Dhoni six prompts the same delight for a dalit woman in Bihar as a Mumbai executive, a kinship forms that momentarily gives India a common bond. It's why the cliché about sport and politics not mixing misses the point entirely. Sport is politics.
While the Ten Sport commentary may insist otherwise, politics and sport are deeply intertwined in Sri Lanka's current Test series against England. The cricket is happening in the midsts of a recent genocide. Channel Four's Killing Fields unearthed serious evidence that 40,000 civilians, mostly Tamils, were systematically murdered in the final weeks of Sri Lanka's civil war. The government accused is intimately tied to the Sri Lanka cricket team, even affecting - as we saw last summer - the make up of the side. When you add that SLCB's corruption means some of the world's best cricketers are not being paid on time you have a strong case that international cricket should not be supporting the regime by touring.
But that would miss sport's significance. In Kumar Sangakkarra's brilliant MCC address last year he recalled his shock at meeting a soldier who told him: "It is OK if I die because it is my job and I am ready for it. But you are a hero and if you were to die it would be a great loss for our country.” It again sounds like an absurd lack of perspective.
Yet as Sri Lankans – and many others - are discovering to brutal effect, holding the idea of a nation together is incredibly difficult. Different histories, classes, ethnicities, religions and genders have to be subsumed under an identity strong enough, ultimately, to override all others. When American schoolchildren swear their allegiance to the flag each morning it's a nod to just how much work goes into keeping the imagined community alive.
Angelo Matthews, the Sri Lanka vice captain, has returned from injury for the second Test. Matthews is the highest-profile Tamil in Sri Lanka cricket since Muttiah Muralitharan retired. His presence is practice, however fleeting, of the ideal of a diverse country unified by common interest. When Sinhalese and Tamil supporters cheer for Sri Lanka cricket, they stick a finger in the eye of the forces that aim to rip the nation apart. It's why cricket must continue to be played in the country.
The recent cricketing boycotts have been precisely because diversity was sucked out the 'national' team. South Africa refused to allow the idea of a multi-racial nation be demonstrated by a multi-racial cricket team and were rightly boycotted. Discrimination happens, of course, in far more subtle and bureaucratic ways: you only have to think of Australia's inability to find non-white players and England's inability to find cricketers from less privileged backgrounds. Equally the fact Matthews is Sri Lanka's only Tamil player and was himself brought up in a Sinhalese area shows that significant obstacles exist. But directly blocking an ethnic group is different and Sri Lanka's government are yet to do that.
This isn't to say that calls for reform should be ignored. Ten Sports' continual promotion of Sri Lanka tourism and its studied indifference to the political context is difficult to stomach. A board as cash-strapped as Sri Lanka's are in no position to make demands of a TV company. Likewise the ICC and the other member nations' total silence over the SLCB's endemic corruption is a disgrace.
Yet those are off-field matters. National identity is about more than administration. It's about people who never meet sharing the same symbols and experiences and feeling united because of them. As the national sport, cricket is a vital part of that.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
What cricket tells us about... regulation
In Ed Smith's What sport tells us about life he regales a set of familiar sporting stories to pontificate about the world as he sees it. It's lovely writing and the kind of armchair-academic fun that made Malcolm Gladwell a millionaire. England's recent 3-0,0-4 desert turnaround against Pakistan probably doesn't tell us much about life but it did get me thinking about the peculiar nature of economic regulation.
After England's catastrophic second-Test defeat in Abu Dhabi, Andrew Strauss wondered whether his side would have fared better if they had fewer overs to chase the 145 needed. As it was, they had around 130 overs, spread across two days and a target that was neither close to dash for the line nor far off enough to resist trying. With no scoreboard pressure to force their hand, the batsmen floundered and Pakistan were able to spring a stunning victory.
In the one-dayers, England's task was much more defined. They twice set and twice chased targets successfully. The lack of close-in fielders and the 10-over limit to Saeed Ajmal helped unclutter their minds, but the main reason they coped so easily was that the rules and regulations of ODI cricket did most of the mental hard work for them.
The limit of 300 balls, two (newly restricted) Powerplays and a clutch of other rules meant the batsmen had all the tools they needed to guide their innings. Unlike in Tests, where the match spreads out in front of you as a vast, uncharted terrain, the regulations of the limited-overs game map out the land ahead of you and hands out a compass for the journey.
That's not how mainstream economists see things though. In a world dominated by their dubious beliefs, regulations are viewed as restrictive: pesky obstacles on the path to the free market at the end of the rainbow. To them limited overs mean limited freedom.
The opposite is in fact true. Though it may not seem it, what regulations help direct us towards matters far more than what they stop us doing. Think of drinking games. Yes, the rules control when you can't drink, but much more importantly, they decide exactly when you should. Similarly when lobbyists and governments design regulations they shape what businesses can do much more than what they can't.
Take England's batting in the opening ODI. They had to decide what a decent target was but after that the rules almost dictated the correct approach to take. Halfway through England's innings if Alastair Cook had targeted 270, he knew England needed 157 more from 150 balls, with eight Ajmal overs to go and eight wickets in hand. There's a lot there with which to develop a strategy. If Cook's innings slowed, for example, the 'asking' rate was on hand to remind him it's probably time to risk that slog-sweep.
Long-form cricket offers no such relief. You're left isolated, trying to decide when to do what. In the one-day series Cook's strike rate was 88.98, in the second-Test chase Cook's seven runs took 15 overs. Everyone watching knew paralysis would be fatal. England's batsmen may have known it too; Pakistan's captain, bowlers and fielders certainly did. Yet against inspired opponents in unfamiliar conditions England's minds scrambled as taming the great empty space of Test cricket proved too demanding.
Regulations – whether in sport or economics – help people make decisions. It's why Test cricket – a game with fairly few - is less predictable than the shorter forms. It's also why 'experts' like the Economist miss the point so spectacularly when they moan about prohibitive regulation.
After England's catastrophic second-Test defeat in Abu Dhabi, Andrew Strauss wondered whether his side would have fared better if they had fewer overs to chase the 145 needed. As it was, they had around 130 overs, spread across two days and a target that was neither close to dash for the line nor far off enough to resist trying. With no scoreboard pressure to force their hand, the batsmen floundered and Pakistan were able to spring a stunning victory.
In the one-dayers, England's task was much more defined. They twice set and twice chased targets successfully. The lack of close-in fielders and the 10-over limit to Saeed Ajmal helped unclutter their minds, but the main reason they coped so easily was that the rules and regulations of ODI cricket did most of the mental hard work for them.
The limit of 300 balls, two (newly restricted) Powerplays and a clutch of other rules meant the batsmen had all the tools they needed to guide their innings. Unlike in Tests, where the match spreads out in front of you as a vast, uncharted terrain, the regulations of the limited-overs game map out the land ahead of you and hands out a compass for the journey.
That's not how mainstream economists see things though. In a world dominated by their dubious beliefs, regulations are viewed as restrictive: pesky obstacles on the path to the free market at the end of the rainbow. To them limited overs mean limited freedom.
The opposite is in fact true. Though it may not seem it, what regulations help direct us towards matters far more than what they stop us doing. Think of drinking games. Yes, the rules control when you can't drink, but much more importantly, they decide exactly when you should. Similarly when lobbyists and governments design regulations they shape what businesses can do much more than what they can't.
Take England's batting in the opening ODI. They had to decide what a decent target was but after that the rules almost dictated the correct approach to take. Halfway through England's innings if Alastair Cook had targeted 270, he knew England needed 157 more from 150 balls, with eight Ajmal overs to go and eight wickets in hand. There's a lot there with which to develop a strategy. If Cook's innings slowed, for example, the 'asking' rate was on hand to remind him it's probably time to risk that slog-sweep.
Long-form cricket offers no such relief. You're left isolated, trying to decide when to do what. In the one-day series Cook's strike rate was 88.98, in the second-Test chase Cook's seven runs took 15 overs. Everyone watching knew paralysis would be fatal. England's batsmen may have known it too; Pakistan's captain, bowlers and fielders certainly did. Yet against inspired opponents in unfamiliar conditions England's minds scrambled as taming the great empty space of Test cricket proved too demanding.
Regulations – whether in sport or economics – help people make decisions. It's why Test cricket – a game with fairly few - is less predictable than the shorter forms. It's also why 'experts' like the Economist miss the point so spectacularly when they moan about prohibitive regulation.
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Winning 'dry'
There was a lot to enjoy about Pakistan’s shockingly straightforward victory in the first Test. Saeed Ajmal bewitching England’s batsmen into submission on a first-day pitch was a highlight. But for a team celebrated for their volatility, it was Pakistan’s stubbornness in pursuit of victory that impressed most.
It has been Misbah-ul-Haq’s way since he took over as captain after the spot fixing debacle. While victories against Test cricket’s weaker nations showed promise, to outdo England - at their own conservative approach - was something to cherish.
Though Andrew Strauss may be reluctant to admit it at this precise moment, he has something of a kindred spirit in Misbah. Both give the air of enlightened bureaucrats, mucking in stoically for the greater good. Both claimed the captaincy at moments of relative turmoil but Misbah has had little of the structural support Strauss enjoys. Pakistan’s backroom organisation has been improving, but it’s been Misbah alone whose forged unity and discipline on the field.
It’s the first time England have been up against a side prepared to match their pragmatism shot for shot. Or leave for leave. England have climbed the rankings by being prepared to dial down the pace of the game at a time when the rest of the world seemed intent on hurrying it up. Bowling ‘dry’ was matched by Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott laying sturdy foundations with the batting equivalent.
But in the first Test Pakistan too resisted all frivolity. After bundling England out in less than a day it would have been easy for their batsmen to come out trying to dominate and kick home the advantage. But that might have let England back into the game.
Instead openers Mohammed Hafeez and Taufeeq Umar calmly negotiated the new ball - England’s biggest hope - before Younis Khan, Misbah himself and Adnan Akmal all made solid contributions. By nudging and tucking their way, at 2.82 an over, to a 146-run lead, they effectively closed the door on England.
Though Pakistan’s bowlers hardly needed patience - the tourists were too generous for that - they were still miserly. Misbah set low-ego fields, just as Strauss might have done, and allowed England to make the mistakes they seemed intent on.
In the past England could have taken hope from the fact a crushing Pakistan win could easily be followed by a clanging defeat a week later. Team Misbah may prove a far more robust outfit.
It has been Misbah-ul-Haq’s way since he took over as captain after the spot fixing debacle. While victories against Test cricket’s weaker nations showed promise, to outdo England - at their own conservative approach - was something to cherish.
Though Andrew Strauss may be reluctant to admit it at this precise moment, he has something of a kindred spirit in Misbah. Both give the air of enlightened bureaucrats, mucking in stoically for the greater good. Both claimed the captaincy at moments of relative turmoil but Misbah has had little of the structural support Strauss enjoys. Pakistan’s backroom organisation has been improving, but it’s been Misbah alone whose forged unity and discipline on the field.
It’s the first time England have been up against a side prepared to match their pragmatism shot for shot. Or leave for leave. England have climbed the rankings by being prepared to dial down the pace of the game at a time when the rest of the world seemed intent on hurrying it up. Bowling ‘dry’ was matched by Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott laying sturdy foundations with the batting equivalent.
But in the first Test Pakistan too resisted all frivolity. After bundling England out in less than a day it would have been easy for their batsmen to come out trying to dominate and kick home the advantage. But that might have let England back into the game.
Instead openers Mohammed Hafeez and Taufeeq Umar calmly negotiated the new ball - England’s biggest hope - before Younis Khan, Misbah himself and Adnan Akmal all made solid contributions. By nudging and tucking their way, at 2.82 an over, to a 146-run lead, they effectively closed the door on England.
Though Pakistan’s bowlers hardly needed patience - the tourists were too generous for that - they were still miserly. Misbah set low-ego fields, just as Strauss might have done, and allowed England to make the mistakes they seemed intent on.
In the past England could have taken hope from the fact a crushing Pakistan win could easily be followed by a clanging defeat a week later. Team Misbah may prove a far more robust outfit.
Monday, 16 January 2012
Swann should beware the No.1 tag
If India’s recent troubles show anything it’s that life up top is precarious. All the sweat exhausted inching to the summit can rapidly feel wasted tumbling back down again. As Graeme Swann looks ahead to the first Test against Pakistan, it is something he might reflect on.
More than anyone else in the England side, he has had to struggle to get to where he is – the world’s best-ranked spinner in the world’s best-ranked side. But when reaching the top is greeted with a shower of rewards, it is easy to forget just hard that journey is. Fine margins separate the best and dropping even an imperceptible level - think Rob Key relaxing a fraction against Damien Martyn - can leave you grimly exposed.
Be it the prickly autobiography, the out-for-Christmas DVD or the fact that, over the last three series, his 40 wickets have come at 35.22, Swann gives the impression of a cricketer just off the boil. His rise has closely followed England's and as he and the team enter a two-year period that will go a long way to defining their history, he needs to prove his focus is fastened to the task at hand.
After a forgettable performance - along with the rest of the team - in the ODI series India, Swann has started this tour being outbowled by Monty Panesar. He is clearly one who enjoys his standing as England's best and if that rivalry doesn't sharpen him then lining up against Saeed Ajmal should.
Ajmal has blossomed under Misbah-ul-Haq and - with 50 at 23.86 - was Test cricket's leading wicket taker in 2011. Like Swann, he is a mischievous type and, armed with the best doosra in the game, is the main challenger to Swann's top-dog status.
With vapid pitches and cloudless skies expected in Dubai, Swann's role in a four-man attack is the most important in the team. Ajmal, likewise, is the key Pakistani threat. England's tail, already weakened by Tim Bresnan's absence, has been central to the team's resilience. The lower-order, from Matt Prior down, have bailed England out on more than one occasion. Ajmal, though, has the variations to run through them. Swann's importance won't just be with ball in hand.
How Swann fares will give a good window into the how firm a grip Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss have on the mindset of the squad. All the right noises seem to emerge from press conferences, with every player on message with platitudes about 'new challenges' and the like. But under bright sun and in a bare stadium, just how driven the side are will be revealed.
Both Swann and England will do well to leave UAE with their lofty reputations intact.
More than anyone else in the England side, he has had to struggle to get to where he is – the world’s best-ranked spinner in the world’s best-ranked side. But when reaching the top is greeted with a shower of rewards, it is easy to forget just hard that journey is. Fine margins separate the best and dropping even an imperceptible level - think Rob Key relaxing a fraction against Damien Martyn - can leave you grimly exposed.
Be it the prickly autobiography, the out-for-Christmas DVD or the fact that, over the last three series, his 40 wickets have come at 35.22, Swann gives the impression of a cricketer just off the boil. His rise has closely followed England's and as he and the team enter a two-year period that will go a long way to defining their history, he needs to prove his focus is fastened to the task at hand.
After a forgettable performance - along with the rest of the team - in the ODI series India, Swann has started this tour being outbowled by Monty Panesar. He is clearly one who enjoys his standing as England's best and if that rivalry doesn't sharpen him then lining up against Saeed Ajmal should.
Ajmal has blossomed under Misbah-ul-Haq and - with 50 at 23.86 - was Test cricket's leading wicket taker in 2011. Like Swann, he is a mischievous type and, armed with the best doosra in the game, is the main challenger to Swann's top-dog status.
With vapid pitches and cloudless skies expected in Dubai, Swann's role in a four-man attack is the most important in the team. Ajmal, likewise, is the key Pakistani threat. England's tail, already weakened by Tim Bresnan's absence, has been central to the team's resilience. The lower-order, from Matt Prior down, have bailed England out on more than one occasion. Ajmal, though, has the variations to run through them. Swann's importance won't just be with ball in hand.
How Swann fares will give a good window into the how firm a grip Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss have on the mindset of the squad. All the right noises seem to emerge from press conferences, with every player on message with platitudes about 'new challenges' and the like. But under bright sun and in a bare stadium, just how driven the side are will be revealed.
Both Swann and England will do well to leave UAE with their lofty reputations intact.
Friday, 10 December 2010
Cooley's star fades with Australia's
Few things spark opinion quite like crisis. And after toothless displays in successive Ashes Tests the frenzied opinion has diagnosed crisis. Speculation and solutions have spouted from all corners with cry of youth coming simultaneously with a dewy-eyed (and muddy-headed) plea for Shane Warne to waddle out of retirement. You sense the Australian management will wade through it all until the series concludes the before unearthing that weary staple of meltdown strategies – heads on a plate.
Perhaps Ricky Ponting’s repeated talk of ‘execution’ in the press conference following the Adelaide defeat was a nod in the direction of the axe dangling above his head. But as the blame heaps outside his door, he would be forgiven if, in a quieter moment, he took solace from that popular (though stubbornly unpopulist) truism about captains being only as capable as their bowlers allow. After conceding six for 1137 in the last two innings, the prognosis on either front isn’t great.
But with Doug Bollinger’s leg-stump half-volleys leading the resistance, what could he have done? No combination of Mark Taylor, Mike Brearley and Winston Churchill could have stopped England with the attack at Ponting’s disposal. It’s fair to expect more runs of him, certainly, and more subtlety tactically, but surely “bowl straight, Sid” isn’t part of his brief.
The bowlers should know better and the man charged with mentoring them, Troy Cooley, must shoulder some responsibility. Cooley is a fascinating case. Perhaps no one has traded as lucratively on the 2005 card as him. The story by now is familiar: under this Aussie-born guru England’s Fab Four - Steve Harmison, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones and Matthew Hoggard – grew into an all-powering, reverse-swinging battering-ram that delivered England their first Ashes win in a generation. Cricket Australia, incredulous that it should have been their own bowlers benefitting from Colley’s wizardry instead, snapped him up a year later.
But four years on and Cooley’s star looks overvalued. As so often happens during the good years, signs warning all was not as at it seems were waved away, the doubters cast aside and the myth allowed to fester. Yet look again and you see a gaping hole in Cooley’s CV. The man who played the decisive role at Adelaide - James Anderson - was failed by his tutelage. Drowned under torrent of advice Anderson was unable to trust the method that had brought him his boyhood success and it was only once Cooley moved on that his career began to recover.
If Anderson can be written off as ‘the one the got away’ then what about Steve Harmison? Cooley joined the ECB’s ranks in 2003 and a year later Harmison had torn through the West Indies to be crowned the world No. 1 bowler. His star has plummeted ever since with Cooley unable to rectify a career that once looked so promising. The frail mind and fragile action that underpinned Harmison’s downfall are paralleled in another of Cooley’s explosive students – Mitchell Johnson.
The ‘once-in-a-generation’ bowler that Dennis Lillee spotted also had a ground-breaking series that shot him to the top spot in the rankings - against South Africa in 2008-09 - but has degenerated into a frazzled lost-soul since. His decay has left the Australian selectors in much the same quandary that inflicted England’s for all those years with Harmison. In the team Johnson is an object of frustrated and obsessive analysis but out the team he becomes the obvious solution to a pedestrian attack. Cooley has been best placed to watch Johnson’s arm, and head, get lower and lower throughout the descent but, like with Harmison, proved powerless to intervene.
Shorn of a leader, the attack has been unable to offer Ponting a secure platform on which to forge the new generation he so desperately wants. Meanwhile Cooley has been quietly shunted to head of the academy developing Australia’s touted youngsters but if his record is anything to go by Australian’s recovery could prove a long time coming.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
England work hard to restrict Bangladesh
It was another case of what might have been for Bangladesh as they mixed talent and frustrating naivety to stutter to 330 for 8 on the opening day in Dhaka after their innings had been launched by a blistering 85 from 71 balls from Tamim Iqbal. Mahmudullah contributed a silky half-century and captain Shakib Al Hasan returned to form with 49, but England chipped away after opting to play five bowlers.
Read the rest here...Thursday, 21 January 2010
'I'm nowhere near Test cricket' - Morgan
Eoin Morgan believes he is still some way short of the finished article despite selling for US$220,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore at the IPL auction on Tuesday. Morgan was the only England player to be awarded a new IPL contract, and he is now set for a handsome boost to his finances.
 |
"When the bid came through I was delighted," Morgan told Cricinfo. "I was very nervous beforehand. I made a deal with my housemate that he would watch it and I would try and sleep through, but inevitably I woke up 10 minutes before I was due. Though I didn't want to watch it, I ended up following it on Cricinfo."
His nerves only heightened when Shahid Afridi failed to attract any interest. "After seeing him not get a gig, I thought I would struggle, but once it came up that Bangalore had bid for me, I knew I was sorted."
Read the rest of here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
