Nick Wright previews this weekend's clash between York City Knights and Hull FC
Alex Reid looks at whether the once ever-present appearance of English clubs in the later stages of the Champions League is set to become a thing of the past
Craig Dobson looks at QPR's decision to sack Neil Warnock and replace him with Mark Hughes
James Tompkinson reviews an excellent pre-season victory for the York City Knights against Yorkshire rivals Leeds Rhinos
I write this piece on the back of a little slice of sporting history. Were it with a larger ball and a few weeks further down the line, I suspect it would appear to be the entire pie for many months and indeed many column inches. But that is still to be decided. What has occurred is that England are now ICC World T20 champions.
Just thought I would let you savour that for a moment. Yes, they only went and won it! England’s cricketers have finally won an international tournament. Of course this is not their only success, the Test side has won many major series of late, most notably the Ashes on two out of the last three occasions (not that we like to dredge up the intervening occasion in Australia). But cricket is a sport that increasingly desires to use the measuring sticks of other sports, and a world cup in the shorter forms of the game has been an institution since 1975. Now, finally, in their 5th final appearance at ICC events, England have come away with a trophy. What is more, it was at the expense of the Australians. It really was in many ways our (apologies to disillusioned readers of other nationalities) summer sport’s equivalent of 1966. Yet there was not quite the sense on joy and relief that I expected.
Was it perhaps that it came in the 20 over and not 50 over format? Not particularly. I think that the shortest form of the game is as legitimate as the traditional one day format. The constant ill-feeling as England progressed through the tournament was in fact down to the run scoring revelations of Michael Lumb and Craig Kieswetter opening the batting. Two South Africans. Two players whose appearance in the side instantly solved the power play dilemma and helped England win many games.
Lumb has learnt most of his cricket in this country, and he owes his rise to international standard to the Hampshire set up. Kieswetter however, is a much less well disguised import. He was fast tracked to national representation in the England Lions even before his eligibility had cleared. Personally, I had no problem justifying Pietersen’s place in the side. Being surrounded by a tapestry of English regional stereotypes from Collingwood to Cook was enough of a cover for him. But watching our top three dispatch South Africans, Pakistanis, or whoever all around the ground in a way English cricketers have rarely done, consistently leaves a hint of guilt that was only thinly papered over by Collingwood hitting the winning runs on Sunday night. England’s home grown solution to the top order situation, Luke Wright, was hidden away at number 6 with little to do all through tournament.
Of course, the whole thing is perfectly legitimate in the eye of the cricketing gods. And in any case, England’s much improved bowling attack for the tournament had no question of nationality hanging over them. However, in sport can any sort of niggling guilt or questions over legitimacy hurt a victory and take away from its joy? Taking another recent example, indeed one that can be found in Mr. Martin’s latest report, http://www.theyorker.co.uk/news/sport/4805. Had Bradford won, surely there would have been some guilt at the manner of victory? Perhaps any conscience would be drowned out by the victor’s rejoicing. York would have claimed moral victory if the outcome had been different, but as it was fate, justice or just a desertion of cricketing ability on the part of Bradford’s lower order. Obviously such feelings depend on the individuals, but I imagine many readers who have twisted the arm of good fortune, legitimately or not, have had their grievances soon after.
Perhaps I am fulfilling a typical English roll of attempting to rain on our own parade? Derision in the wake of success is as much the national past time as cricket itself. The truth is however that had Australia strolled to victory with an expatriated Chris Gayle, Virender Sehwag and Umar Akmal (cue the sound of legions of bowlers hanging up their boots at the thought) then English grumblings would drown out Eyjafjallajoekull’s best efforts. Pride will of course be the longest lasting sentiment, but each time the navy blue pyjamas on some news clip emanates a crisp South African twang I will be forced to ask: who should complain more, South African selectors, or Australia?
The answer is: it doesn't really matter, because neither will. They aren’t us.
A few important pointers:
Firstly Lumb learnt his cricket at Yorkshire not Hampshire, whom he joined 2 seasons ago. Kieswetter is way more English than Pietersen is and indeed regards himself as passionately English. Plus don't forget that Eoin Morgan is also Irish.
Your comparison with the Bradford article shown is a false one. Fielding players born of another nation is not against teh Spirit of the Game or on the border of cheating, it is an accepted employment practise in our modern global economy.
This is nothing new. We have aloways had lots of foreign born players representing England (Ted Dexter, Andrew Strauss, Nasser HUssain, Allan Lamb, Craig White, Graeme Hick to name but a few)
And actually the South African selectors have made an issue of this as they were desperate to recruit Kieswetter before he played for England as they really rated him.
The "England team is South African" argument is so boring and repeated everywhere without people thinking it through. It is hardly enlighteneing or interesting
Thanks for your points. I would argue that Lumb was not successful until moving to Hampshire, in particular where the fitness regime there caused him to bulk up massively and improve his striking of the ball. My omission of the Eoin Morgan point was merely for brevity. If it werent for Morgan, England may well have conceeded to Ireland well before the rain came. My argument is not that I have an issue with these selections as cheating, but that it can affect the joy of winning to know that it was not perhaps by conventional means. If you do not think so then fair enough, it is a legitimate practice as you say.
Obviously it is nothing new, but the impact of Lumb and especially Kiewswetter so soon after qualification and the affect it had on England's biggest limited over problem area may feel a bit odd to some people. Like when Panesar started to lose it before they picked Swann, England could have picked Saqlain Mushtaq. Had he started cleaning up other sides it might feel odd to some people. The article is inquisitive not definitive.
That point was as much a dig at the English mentality (one I display here) as anything.
I would not say the England team is South African, it is a bit of a broken record to say so. Just that the victory may not be quite so sweet as if it had been someone without a dual nationality carting other teams around the park.
Good questions though.
I think Lumb was a success before going to Hampshire:
Lumb made progress in 2002 by becoming a regular member of both the championship and limited-overs sides and in 2003 scored close to a thousand first-class runs at an average of over 40, including two centuries and six fifties. He was selected for the ECB National Academy squad the following winter. He averaged in the middle-thirties for the 2005 and 2006 seasons, with a top score of 144 in 2006 but, at the end of the season, decided against renewing his contract and moved to Hampshire for the 2007 County Championship.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report