Oval cricket fiasco: Pakistan have cause to complain Socialist Worker
Monday, August 21, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
In Praise of Twenty20
For most cricket fans the Test match is the truest form of the sport, and the one-day contest a mere variant. The one-day game embodies the worst excess of commercialism, with a plethora of meaningless contests, played with a priority to fill bank balances.
Logos dominate players’ shirts and equipment, the boundary edge, the umpires’ clothing, the competition they play for and even the hallowed turf. It is distressing but the 50-overs game has become at best predictable and stale, and at worst irrelevant. Strategies such as the floating power-play and the use of substitutions are designed to breathe new life so that the cash cow can continue to be milked.
The best innovation of late has been the Twenty20 competition, although I must declare an interest here. Being a supporter of Leicestershire is fraught with disappointment in all contests bar this one, where they are champions for the second time. This partisanship, however, does not cloud my view of this new format. I see it as one that can be a saviour for the domestic game and finally take international cricket beyond the so-called elite of eight teams.
The idea of the Twenty20 is to provide a contest that would last for about three hours in the early evening, so that it could be enjoyed by workers. In this way the format will be familiar to the club cricketer who plays in the midweek leagues.
Its popularity has staggered even the most optimistic of supporters. Aggregate crowds have grown year on year, and grounds such as Lord’s have sold out. Worcestershire's experience is typical. Whereas an average of 1,600 attended their matches in the old 50 overs competition, over 8,000 have attended their Twenty20 home games. Graham Gooch revealed on Test Match Special last week that one home Twenty20 game brought in the same revenue for Essex as three years worth of gate receipts for the County Championship.
Pleasingly, cricket is appealing to a newer audience. Research has shown that two-thirds of the first year’s attendees were under 34 and a quarter female. When Glamorgan qualified for the quarter-final in 2004, 80% of its ground was made up of non-members.
The format’s success has seen an international in Australia, against South Africa, attracting a record crowd of 38,894 to the Gabba. Domestic tournaments have started up in most of the major-playing countries, while a final in Pakistan last year attracted 35,000 spectators.
The shorter game proves a great leveller, and is cricket’s best opportunity to become global. Countries such as Bermuda, Malaysia, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates have all expressed an interest in staging international tournaments. In the recent event in the Caribbean, both Nevis and Grenada made unlikely semi-finalists, then there is the unfashionable and relatively hard-up Leicester, who have made finals day each year.
The complaints about technique and the inability to build an innings, both to the ultimate detriment of Test cricket, have been made before, and the evidence has proved them wrong. Test cricket in this country is more popular today than it has been for a while, and maybe the Twenty20 will bring new fans and wanabee stars to the sport.
The one sticking-point is India, where the one-day contest generates huge profits for the Board. A shorter game reduces the breaks between innings and wickets and therefore the potential for advertising revenue, upsetting the forces of commercialism. What better reason to give this format your support?
Logos dominate players’ shirts and equipment, the boundary edge, the umpires’ clothing, the competition they play for and even the hallowed turf. It is distressing but the 50-overs game has become at best predictable and stale, and at worst irrelevant. Strategies such as the floating power-play and the use of substitutions are designed to breathe new life so that the cash cow can continue to be milked.
The best innovation of late has been the Twenty20 competition, although I must declare an interest here. Being a supporter of Leicestershire is fraught with disappointment in all contests bar this one, where they are champions for the second time. This partisanship, however, does not cloud my view of this new format. I see it as one that can be a saviour for the domestic game and finally take international cricket beyond the so-called elite of eight teams.
The idea of the Twenty20 is to provide a contest that would last for about three hours in the early evening, so that it could be enjoyed by workers. In this way the format will be familiar to the club cricketer who plays in the midweek leagues.
Its popularity has staggered even the most optimistic of supporters. Aggregate crowds have grown year on year, and grounds such as Lord’s have sold out. Worcestershire's experience is typical. Whereas an average of 1,600 attended their matches in the old 50 overs competition, over 8,000 have attended their Twenty20 home games. Graham Gooch revealed on Test Match Special last week that one home Twenty20 game brought in the same revenue for Essex as three years worth of gate receipts for the County Championship.
Pleasingly, cricket is appealing to a newer audience. Research has shown that two-thirds of the first year’s attendees were under 34 and a quarter female. When Glamorgan qualified for the quarter-final in 2004, 80% of its ground was made up of non-members.
The format’s success has seen an international in Australia, against South Africa, attracting a record crowd of 38,894 to the Gabba. Domestic tournaments have started up in most of the major-playing countries, while a final in Pakistan last year attracted 35,000 spectators.
The shorter game proves a great leveller, and is cricket’s best opportunity to become global. Countries such as Bermuda, Malaysia, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates have all expressed an interest in staging international tournaments. In the recent event in the Caribbean, both Nevis and Grenada made unlikely semi-finalists, then there is the unfashionable and relatively hard-up Leicester, who have made finals day each year.
The complaints about technique and the inability to build an innings, both to the ultimate detriment of Test cricket, have been made before, and the evidence has proved them wrong. Test cricket in this country is more popular today than it has been for a while, and maybe the Twenty20 will bring new fans and wanabee stars to the sport.
The one sticking-point is India, where the one-day contest generates huge profits for the Board. A shorter game reduces the breaks between innings and wickets and therefore the potential for advertising revenue, upsetting the forces of commercialism. What better reason to give this format your support?
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Johnny Mullagh - Australia's first All-Rounder
August 13 marks the birthdate, 165 years ago, of Australia’s first great all-rounder, Johnny Mullagh, whose real name, Unaarrimin, provides a reason why he is not talked about with the same adulation as other past Australian cricketers such as Spofforth, Trumper and Bradman. For Unaarrimin was an Aborigine plying his trade in a racist Australia.
Born in 1841 on Mullagh Station about 10 miles north of Harrow, Victoria, he learned to play cricket whilst working on the adjoining Pine Hills agricultural station. He was given the name ‘black Johnny’, so as to distinguish him from a ‘white Johnny’.
It was obvious that Unaarrimin was a remarkable cricketer, and he was chosen for the first Australian side to tour England in 1868. These tourists were made up of members of the indigenous population led by the Englishman Charles Lawrence. Unaarrimin was given the name ‘Mullagh’ to identify him with his place of birth.
Unaarrimin’s tour statistics make impressive reading. He played in 47 matches, batted in 71 innings and hit 1698 runs at an average of 23, and was considered the equal of any English batter. He also bowled 1877 overs, 831 of which were maidens, and took 245 wickets at 10 apiece. If this wasn’t enough, he would occasionally don the wicket-keeping gloves and had four stumpings to his name. Few cricketers better merited the title of all-rounder.
Nineteenth century Australia witnessed an onslaught against indigenous peoples. Many of those chosen to tour England were left to obscure futures and early deaths. One Player, King Cole, died on the trip and of those who returned, seven spent time on a reserve, two vanished, and two cannot be counted for. Measures were introduced to ‘protect’ the indigenous population from the exploits of white society, but these only aided their social isolation. Protection, in reality, meant controlling their movements, who they married, what they read, their religious rituals and their sporting activities.
Unaarrimin was both an independent individual and a passionate advocate of indigenous rights, and he refused to live on the state-controlled reserves. His politics was revealed during a game at Apsley, when as the players went to lunch somebody asked “what about the nigger?” The captain replied, “let him have his dinner in the kitchen. Anything is good enough for the nigger”. Unaarrimin refused to eat in the kitchen, and sat outside the hotel in protest.
Unaarrimin never appeared in intercolonial cricket, although he did represent Victoria against a touring England side in 1879, top scoring with 36 in the second innings. He was then 38 years old, and instead of going in first wicket-down, as he did for his club, he batted nine and ten.
Maintaining his independence and dignity to the end, Unaarrimin spent his last days living in a rabbitter’s shack, but continued to play cricket until a few months before his death in 1891, the day after his 50th birthday. The Hamilton Spectator described him in his obituary as ‘“the Grace” of aboriginal cricketers’.
Australia’s treatment of its indigenous people is one of the great untold blots on colonialism. That some maybe willing to come to terms with what was attempted genocide is shown by a memorial built to honour Unaarrimin, and a local indigenous tournament for the Johnny Mullagh Memorial Trophy. His fame came too late, but for what he stood for and how he played, a light will always shine for this remarkable cricketer.
Born in 1841 on Mullagh Station about 10 miles north of Harrow, Victoria, he learned to play cricket whilst working on the adjoining Pine Hills agricultural station. He was given the name ‘black Johnny’, so as to distinguish him from a ‘white Johnny’.
It was obvious that Unaarrimin was a remarkable cricketer, and he was chosen for the first Australian side to tour England in 1868. These tourists were made up of members of the indigenous population led by the Englishman Charles Lawrence. Unaarrimin was given the name ‘Mullagh’ to identify him with his place of birth.
Unaarrimin’s tour statistics make impressive reading. He played in 47 matches, batted in 71 innings and hit 1698 runs at an average of 23, and was considered the equal of any English batter. He also bowled 1877 overs, 831 of which were maidens, and took 245 wickets at 10 apiece. If this wasn’t enough, he would occasionally don the wicket-keeping gloves and had four stumpings to his name. Few cricketers better merited the title of all-rounder.
Nineteenth century Australia witnessed an onslaught against indigenous peoples. Many of those chosen to tour England were left to obscure futures and early deaths. One Player, King Cole, died on the trip and of those who returned, seven spent time on a reserve, two vanished, and two cannot be counted for. Measures were introduced to ‘protect’ the indigenous population from the exploits of white society, but these only aided their social isolation. Protection, in reality, meant controlling their movements, who they married, what they read, their religious rituals and their sporting activities.
Unaarrimin was both an independent individual and a passionate advocate of indigenous rights, and he refused to live on the state-controlled reserves. His politics was revealed during a game at Apsley, when as the players went to lunch somebody asked “what about the nigger?” The captain replied, “let him have his dinner in the kitchen. Anything is good enough for the nigger”. Unaarrimin refused to eat in the kitchen, and sat outside the hotel in protest.
Unaarrimin never appeared in intercolonial cricket, although he did represent Victoria against a touring England side in 1879, top scoring with 36 in the second innings. He was then 38 years old, and instead of going in first wicket-down, as he did for his club, he batted nine and ten.
Maintaining his independence and dignity to the end, Unaarrimin spent his last days living in a rabbitter’s shack, but continued to play cricket until a few months before his death in 1891, the day after his 50th birthday. The Hamilton Spectator described him in his obituary as ‘“the Grace” of aboriginal cricketers’.
Australia’s treatment of its indigenous people is one of the great untold blots on colonialism. That some maybe willing to come to terms with what was attempted genocide is shown by a memorial built to honour Unaarrimin, and a local indigenous tournament for the Johnny Mullagh Memorial Trophy. His fame came too late, but for what he stood for and how he played, a light will always shine for this remarkable cricketer.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Whose Side are you On?
“Everyone keeps asking me who I’ll be supporting”, said Sajid Mahmood’s father Shahid, on the eve of the last Test. “I’m in a great situation.
You will recall that the Tebbit test questioned the loyalty of migrants, claiming that they could only be properly integrated when they are supporting
The marginalisation is exacerbated by the rise in Islamophobia that followed the attacks on the twin towers and the
The real basis of alienation is brought out through figures that show 60 per cent of Muslim households with the main breadwinner on a low income, the least likely group to own their own property, and an unemployment rate of 13 per cent, three times the national average. Combine these economic indicators with the massive increase in police stop and searches of Asians and a picture emerges of a community that has every right to feel excluded.
The Cantle report on the underlying causes of disturbances between Asian and white youths in
This cultural separatism has been reflected in local cricket leagues. Research has shown that ethnic minorities prefer to organise their own games and leagues. The Yorkshire Quaid-I-Azam League, for example, is named after the domestic tournament in
Surely though, we should not feel threatened by people who chose to support another team than
Maybe we have to consider why second and third-generation British-Asians are following the teams of their parents’ homeland. With the reality of racist abuse and the lack of encouragement for joining cricket teams it is a question of inclusion: why support a country that doesn’t want me? A. Sivanandan, director of the
Cricket has the ability to bring people together on the field of play in a cultural setting. What it cannot do is eradicate the social and economic conditions that lead to marginalisation. This role requires political will and education, something we all should agree on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)