N.B. This is supposed to be funny, or at least tongue in cheek. Any similarities between characters in the story and real life is purely coincidental... Promise...
Imagine you're at a pub with 9 friends. You're sort of the leader of the group, because everyone else is crap at making decisions, you're the one that eventually decides where you're eating or drinking.
Tonight you're at the local. One of your mates, we'll call him Nigel is moaning as usual about your local, he doesn't like the staff and he thinks that the pints cost too much and that money could be better spent on the jukebox or on crisps for the whole group.
Nigel thinks you should drink elsewhere but is very vague on suggestions as to where that might be. Up until this point the consensus has been Nigel is a bit of a prat and its best to just let him get on with his moaning because you're going to stay regardless, it's your local and the status quo is fine...
On the last couple of trips you've noticed that at least one of your mates seems to be nodding in agreement with Nigel when he's moaning, alarm bells are ringing now because this bloke, we'll call him Davis, is more of a frenemy than a real mate of yours, but you know he's never really liked the pub and he has a lot of influence in the friendship group, so there could be a falling out if this pub situation isn't resolved.
In a bid to shut Davis and Nigel up, to reinforce your authority as the group's decision maker, you clear your throat and say; look lads, Nigel doesn't like the pub or its staff, Davis believes they hold too much influence over our choice of beverage and I've just renegotiated our bar tab to get the cost of a round down by a couple of quid, at least temporarily.
I think it's time we settled this once and for all, are we staying or are we moving on? Nigel and Davis haven't even suggested any alternative pubs, and you know full well the price of a round is unlikely to be cheaper elsewhere, you're confident your pals will see sense. You declare you want to stay and you're joined in that decision by your sidekick, we'll call him Creepy George.
Creepy George wants to make decisions when you stop making them in a few years and Creepy George decides to try and creep people into agreeing with you by saying that if we go to another pub he'll stop buying his round. Davis and Nigel are joined by Weird Michael.
Weird Michael has always held some weird views so it's no surprise to you he wants to leave, Weird Michael responds to fact and evidence-based arguments by weirdly saying that people are bored of experts, the weirdo.
At this point you're looking at the mates that haven't said anything yet, Beardy Jez says that he thinks we should stay, while appearing to edge towards the door, and at the same time Jacob Two Names says that he thinks we ought to leave because staying in this pub is a sign of our pessimism. At this point you, Creepy George and Beardy Jez are joined by Scottish Al and Invisible Tim who use this opportunity to remind everyone that they might not stay in this group if they don't get their way, and that they exist, respectively.
You're still confident, but this is close, you all look at Hairy Boris. He's been pretending not to listen while all this was going on, but that's Hairy Boris' game. You know full well he's said we should stay at the pub before now, and he knows you know, but that won't stop Hairy Boris.
You need Hairy Boris onside. People listen to Hairy Boris. They get hypnotised by that hair and all the words even Shakespeare rejected that tumble out of his mouth. Hairy Boris winks at you, nobody else sees it, but he winks. I think we should leave says Hairy Boris.
You've now effectively reached a point where half of you want to stay and half of you want to leave, but because Jacob Two Names is quite tall and Hairy Boris is oddly spherical they seem to have the edge, about 52% to 48%, if you will.
At this point you all start to walk VERY slowly towards to door. You mutter that you're opinion isn't taken seriously so you can't make the decisions for the group anymore, Creepy George says he'll buy a round wherever you end up after all. Beardy Jez, you're sure you saw him fist-pump, shrugs and says he couldn't do anymore.
Nobody is listening to Invisible Tim when he starts talking about it not being over yet. Divisions in the group are growing as Scottish Al says he's staying put because he didn't say he wanted to leave and he won't let the rest of us drag him out.
Hairy Boris didn't really want to leave, so doesn't know any other pubs but fancies the role of deciding where to go and makes his pitch. Unfortunately Weird Michael has suddenly decided that Hairy Boris doesn't have the capabilities to lead you to another pub and thinks he should, you're still not sure he knows if there is anywhere else open or worth a visit, just that he's never liked this pub.
Nigel doesn't like the staff, he wants to go somewhere with self-service, you're pretty sure that doesn't exist but Nigel isn't listening and Davis wants more freedom to pick what he drinks, but doesn't know of any specific pubs that will actually be serving his favourite beer.
Jacob Two Names says something posh and reassuring that reassures nobody as you all stroll out into the night coming to terms with the realisation half of you wanted to stay and the other half wanted to leave for different reasons, you don't know whether they can all be accommodated wherever you end up, just that at least half, probably more, will be disappointed.
You ring the Mrs and say, Stern Theresa, can you give us a lift? Where to, she asks... No idea, you say... Fair enough, she says.
Thoughts on life and cricket from a former postman with a journalism degree...
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
Monday, 9 March 2015
#CricketWorldCupdates: England out, but there are bigger lessons to learn
Moments ago, England crashed out of the 2015 Cricket World
Cup. It has been a long time coming, but with the format as it is, until this
morning they still looked set to make the quarterfinals. But they didn’t.
A hugely frustrating run chase that saw a steady start, a stuttering middle, a Jos Buttler-inspired rally and a tame end saw the Three Lions come up 15 runs short of Bangladesh's 275-7. This leaves them on two points after only one win in their first five games, unable to make the top four.
Rather than carry out the same post-mortem as everyone else,
lambasting and lamenting the effort of the 15 professionals sent Down Under to
do a job, I’ll simply say what England’s World Cup efforts have taught me.
This is the first global tournament to feature the key rule
changes to ODI cricket that have seen different balls used at each end and a
reduction in fielders allowed outside the circle. The experiment hasn't
worked, and English trials and tribulations have only served to emphasise the
point.
When the new playing conditions were introduced it was with
the aim of making the game more exciting, compared to its little brother, T20.
More runs were to be scored, with the aim of keeping the interest of fans for
100 overs of cricket.
After a while my observation was that it didn’t necessarily
mean it would be easier to score every time. I thought the new rules served to
emphasise and exaggerate the other factors on display. If it’s a good batting
pitch, even more runs will come. But if conditions are favouring bowlers and
the fielding side is on top, forcing the captain to bring an extra fielder up
can make scoring even harder in the middle overs too.
During this World Cup, and particularly in England matches,
I have seen more areas where match factors are exaggerated. Simply put, the
conditions make the better side even better. Weaker bowlers are given a smaller
margin for error and stronger batsmen are given more room and opportunity to
score their runs, which inevitably makes the gap between sides even bigger.
Two examples of this are the way England’s bowlers have gone
to all parts in the latter overs of the innings, and the results of the Irish
team. Most teams have struggled to contain batsmen in these overs, but the England
attack, lacking a clear plan or any semblance of confidence, has suffered more
than most.
Ireland have beaten West Indies, UAE and Zimbabwe in this
tournament and been one of the bright sparks of the whole event, but when they
faced South Africa they didn’t have a prayer. I’m sure that a side full of
confidence and with some very useful cricketers would have given the South
African’s a much better game had they not been faced with the current fielding
regulations that saw the last 15 overs they bowled disappear for 200 runs.
The other thing that the new rules has exaggerated and
intensified is the importance and affect of runs on the board. In good batting
conditions 300 is no longer enough but even if 350 is a ‘par score’, chasing it
is some challenge. There have been 18 scores of 300 or more in the first
innings showing the opportunity to go big is there, but only two of these have
been chased successfully.
More tellingly though none of the scores over 310, let alone
the scores upwards of 350 or 400, have been successfully chased. The
opportunity to score 100 or more in the last ten overs is undoubtedly there,
but doing that to set a score has proven immeasurably easier than doing it
because you need to when chasing one down.
It’s not the battle between bat and ball that has reached an
untenable level, but the battle between batting first and second. The
experiment hasn’t worked.
Wednesday, 11 February 2015
The monotony of modern football
The first rule of football club is don’t say anything original about football club. Sam Allardyce’s ‘thump it forward and see’ description of Manchester United’s approach towards the end of Sunday’s game only serves to prove a theory I’ve been working on for some time; football has run out of ideas.
As pundits continue to trot out recycled thoughtless descriptions
of what has gone before and what might follow and @footballcliches thrives on
Twitter, I’m left believing that managers are destined to repeat accusations
once thrown at them, as a cycle of nothingness continues to go nowhere.
Allardyce v Van Gaal:
Long ball team…
Putting aside the negative connotations of long-ball
football, the suggestion that this was United’s best chance of scoring a goal
at the weekend was, from Allardyce, undeniably the pot calling the kettle
black.
Recently United have gone noticeably direct in an attempt to
utilise Marouane Fellaini’s attributes and avoid previous criticisms linked to
ponderous build-up play, but let’s be honest, Allardyce was just frustrated
about conceding a late goal.
Anything else would be hypocrisy, as during his tenure at
West Ham he has repeatedly come under fire from his own fans for a style of
play far removed from the passing game believed to be the ‘West Ham way’.
Less than a year ago ‘Fat Sam out, killing WHU’ was displayed on a large banner as Allardyce watched his side lose to West Brom, and this followed a long period where results were poor, and the style of play was regularly criticised. Despite this harrowing experience, something he also dealt with in his ill-fated period as Newcastle boss too, Big Sam was happy to make the same accusation this weekend.
Allardyce v Mourinho:
Parking the bus..?
Just over a year ago, as Allardyce was fighting against poor
form and the abuse from sections of his own fans, West Ham won a hard fought
point at Stamford Bridge against Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea.
‘It's very difficult to play
a football match where only one team wants to play,’ declared Mourinho, as he
described the West Ham playing style as being from the nineteenth century.
This particular assertion,
that West Ham had wronged Chelsea by not attempting to take them on blow for
blow is not a new one to Mourinho, as he has put teams out to (often
successfully) stifle and suffocate all creativity from a game. Not more
hypocrisy, surely?
His comments received a
variety of responses, including a description of Victorian-era football, and reasonable suggestions that he has been equally guilty of this type of tactic.
The best response though, comes from Mourinho’s own archive of witticisms. Following a 1-0 defeat at the Nou Camp that saw his Inter Milan side reach the Champions League final on aggregate, Mourinho triumphantly rejected allegations that his side had parked the bus.
‘People say we park[ed] the
bus,’ he said. ‘That is not true, we park[ed] the plane!’
Van Gaal v Koeman: You came for one point…
The most blatant example of
repetition involves colleagues turned nemeses, Louis Van Gaal and Ronald
Koeman. When Koeman took his Southampton team to Old Trafford, and beat United
1-0, Van Gaal was exasperated by the result.
‘They came for a draw and
they got away with a victory,’ he said, barely making sense.
Three weeks later, Koeman’s
team were the hosts, and Swansea City were the visitors. After more than an
hour of near-domination by the home side, Jonjo Shelvey scored the winner for
the Welsh side, and it was Koeman left lamenting a smash and grab defeat at
home.
As if reading off a script
prepared for all managers faced with explaining a 1-0 home defeat, the Dutchman
said: ‘I think the luckiest team won today. They came for one point and theygot three points.’
Maybe the bizarre touchline incident involving Nigel Pearson
and James McArthur on Saturday was the Leicester manager's attempt to break the monotony and
repetition of modern football, and we should be grateful if that is the case. Strangely,
his comment after the incident that he is ‘more than capable of looking after
himself’ was rhetoric more akin to Fight
Club than a football club. Fortunately, the Leicester manager didn’t breach
the first rule of this club any further by explaining or justifying his
behaviour, a shrewd move indeed…
Saturday, 31 January 2015
#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 5: ...The Unexpected
The World Cup should be the pinnacle of one-day cricket, with the best players on show, fighting for the biggest trophy in the sport. Unfortunately the high-quality cricket often gets overshadowed by any number of bizarre off-field events.
For
example, in 1992 the pre Duckworth-Lewis “most productive overs” method of
calculating rain-affected results left South Africa needing 22 off the final ball to reach the final. However hard you run, it’s unlikely you’ll turn a
single into a 22...
In 2003 the
controversy started in the build up to the tournament with the question mark
over playing matches in, and against, Zimbabwe. Attention was particularly
focused on England, and they eventually chose to boycott the fixture. Zimbabwe
players Henry Olonga and Andy Flower went on to stage their own protests against the Mugabe regime. Shane Warne failed a drugs test in the build up to
Australia’s first game, meaning that the hero of the 1999 final was sent home
without bowling a ball.
The 2007
tournament was also plagued with criticism long before the first ball was
delivered. The way the ICC commercialised every aspect of the tournament and
high ticket prices came under the heaviest fire, and the standard and readiness
of facilities were also questioned.
Andrew Flintoff
made headlines for getting drunk and capsizing a pedalo after one of England’s
matches, and the tournament will also be remembered for the sad, and
mysterious, death of Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer.
2011 was
relatively controversy free, given that part of the schedule had to be
rearranged due to Pakistan’s ban on hosting international matches, but it
didn’t escape entirely. During England’s tie with India, Ian Bell survived a
DRS referral on the grounds that he was more than 2.5 metres away from the
stumps, much to MS Dhoni’s dismay. As we know, the Indians aren’t the biggest
supporters of technology in cricket anyway.
The ICC and
host nations in particular will be hoping that the 2015 tournament passes by
without criticism and controversy, and that the tournament is remembered for
what happens on the field: but history suggests that might be hoping for too
much.
Friday, 30 January 2015
#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 4: Aussie Grit
Needing to win to set up a semi-final against the Proteas
(and we know what happened there) Australia chased down the target of 272 to
win with two balls remaining. There was a patient 69 from Ricky Ponting, more
from him later, but it was captain Steve Waugh who held the innings together.
His unbeaten 120 from 110 balls started the trend of Australian captains coming
up trumps in huge World Cup games.
By 2003, Ponting had taken over as captain, and his side
were favourites to retain the title won in 1999. After a mediocre group stage
that only included a couple of half centuries, Ponting exploded into life in
the first Super Six game against Sri Lanka. His 109-ball 114 helped the Aussies
post over 300 to win a game that sent them through to the semi-finals with two
games to spare, and acted as a sign of things to come.
After meeting, and beating, Sri-Lanka again in a low-scoring
semi-final, Ponting’s men faced India in the final. Ponting lost the toss, but
having been put into bat, this was the last thing that would go wrong for the
Australian skipper on the day. After putting on a century stand for the first
wicket, openers Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden fell in quick succession.
This brought Ponting and Damien Martyn together at the crease, and they took
the game away from their opponents quickly and brutally. Martyn’s unbeaten 88
was impressive, but Ponting’s 140 not out was one of the greatest one-day
innings ever seen, on the biggest stage of them all.
Uncharacteristically, Ponting’s only century of the 2007
World Cup was against an associate nation. He followed up the 113 against
Scotland with half centuries as Australia defeated South Africa, England, Sri
Lanka and New Zealand to make serene progress through the tournament. The
reality though was that Australia didn’t need their captain to be anything more
than steady in a tournament they won easily.
2011 was a lot more challenging for the Australians though,
and Ponting’s own struggles were evident. New Zealand and Zimbabwe were the
only Test nations Australia beat in the group stage before bowing out in the
quarterfinals to eventual champions India. The quarterfinal was ultimately disappointing
for Australia, but showed the fighting qualities of their captain. After
failing to pass fifty in the group stage, Ponting rolled back the years to
score 104 and help his side to a competitive total. While 260/6 was not enough
on the day, the qualities that current captain Michael Clarke will be expected
to show, if he gets himself fit for the World Cup this year, were on display
for all to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)