langcafe2.myfreeforum.org

Loic · Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:11 am Post subject:

I thought I'd do a service to the endangered community of cricket aficionados amongst us here by summarising the Schofield report. The report gave a damning verdict of grassroots cricket in England and encapsulated the general mood of all England supporters when it said that the real shame of the twin Ashes-World Cup debacle was not the fact that the England players performed so badly; the real shame was that they were the best players the country had to offer.

The report identified the failure of the county cricket structure in grooming potential Ian Bothams to galvanise the next generation of cricketers. The report then does well by looking to its Australian cousin on the other side of the world and asking long and hard questions on why Australia are to cricket what Michael Schumacher was once to Formula 1.

Some interesting statistics were gleaned. In Australia, cricket is the number one choice of sport among the under 30s. Sorry, rugby. Sorry, soccer. Sorry, Aussie Rules. Cricket rules and just so you know it!

Every year, an astonishing 500,000 children participate in Cricket Australia's Milo development programmes which are run in conjunction with the states. For the uninitiated, Milo is a chocolate beverage drink that is not only well received Down Under, but also wildly popular in South-east Asia.

Overall, the Schofield Commission report makes for a compelling read especially when it is consumed with a pint of ale on a drowsy Sunday afternoon (such as I am doing now). Unfortunately, it failed by not suggesting viable solutions to arrest the rot of English cricket. Illuminating statistics highlight the dismal health of the game in the country that bequeathed this beautiful sport to us: a 2004 YouGov survey revealed that 43% of English people 'didn't care at all' about the performance of the national side.

Of course, those were figures taken before the epic Ashes victory of the beautiful 2005 summer. But after losing the Ashes just as quickly as they won it, interest must have nosedived once again.

PS: Congratulations to Kevin Pietersen for having scored a maiden double century against the West Indies! Somehow, KP's magnificent innings leaves a bittersweet aftertaste in my mouth. How the mighty have truly fallen - it is tragic that the once terrifying arsenal of West Indian pace bowling is now reduced to a toothless shadow of its former self.

I am not blaming Corey Collymore, Jerome Taylor or Darren Powell here. But one can't help but feel that they would not even have made it to the starting IX during those days when the likes of Michael Holding ruled the roost.
_________________
Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.

Loic · Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:22 am Post subject:

So it was "Arise, Sir Beefy" without the accompanying echos of "Arise, Sir David". It is now official. The mercurial England all-rounder of the 80s is now officially Sir Ian Terence Botham.

The knighting of Sir Ian begs the question: how many cricketing knights have there been in existence so far? Not a good many, if you consider that knights prefer jousting and drinking to standing guard in front of the wicket. Perhaps the most famous cricketing knight in history has to be the great Australian icon Sir Don Bradman, he of that famous 99.94 batting average.

The West Indies have also produced a hatful of cricketing knights with Sir Viv Richard, the master blaster, topping the list of those West Indian cricketers of yore when the English-speaking Carribean swaggered with aplomb on the world stage.

Even tiny New Zealand had one of their own received a knighthood in the great all-rounder Sir Richard Hadlee.

The recent honours list makes Sir Ian the only surviving English cricketing knight of renown. Now, wouldn't it be a thrill to have a starting IX made up of only knights?

_________________
Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.