Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Yes, Fine, It Was Really That Bad. England Cricket Officially in Doldrums

So England lose. Again. Nightwatchgirl is resigned.

England have moments of brilliance. The last couple of hours of play were at least interesting to watch (which is something that feels new, but surely that is whole point of cricket?).

Has the England fan's standard of watching/enjoying the game shot down to its lowest level? Are we just satisfied that Chanderpaul only got 6 runs? Or that James Anderson had a decent spell finally?

NWG feels that the Australian fan is like a rich businessman, used to eating out in expensive restaurants and buying bottles of wine equal to someone's annual salary. When the restaurant is shut, they feel cheated and angry.

The England fan is like a starved, poor telesales worker, earning pittance and surviving on kebabs. Occasionally they might splash out and have a nice pizza, which is extremely enjoyable and afterwards they feel full of lovely, greasy cheese, but tomorrow it's back to the kebabs.

The difference between those two is that Australia expect to eat out. England have no expectations.

This must change. Someone (preferably more than just one) in the England side must pull their socks up and deliver (in cricket - not pizza).



Anonymous said...

Alas, I think that we'll be on kebabs for a while yet. The recovery of the batting order remains under question for me until we see them on a normal pitch - and I won't bore you with the havoc bowler question again today...

The women's team appear to be in good form tho!

The Nightwatchgirl said...

We have no havoc bowler. Where will he be found? NWG wouldn't even mind if the England bowlers took turns to wreak havoc on a batting line-up.

Unknown said...

At least you have KP which is an improvement on a decade ago, but a lot of the fans seem to hate KP and were happy that he is not captain. Flintoff is a havoc bowler, but the rubbish coaches in the England setup are unable to keep him healthy.

Anonymous said...

Flintoff is NOT a havoc bowler - of all bowlers to take over 200 wickets in tests, he has the least number of 5-fors at just TWO.

English cricket goes through repeated and distinct cycles - firstly, we will spend a number of years in the doldrums, playing mediocre cricket (e.g. the late 90s).

Then we will have a period of relative success, ending with an Ashes victory (2004/5).

After this, we will get so excited about how brilliant we are and how we're better than everybody that we get complacent again and return to mediocrity.

It will not change until the "men upstairs" realise that county cricket is not good enough to produce hardened players.

Unknown said...

Well if you are speaking in such terms, they havent had a bowler like that since the 1970s. Devon Malcolm could be very awkward to face, but he wouldnt meet your standard for consistency. County cricket prefers the plodding medium pacer who can wobble the ball a little.

Anonymous said...

Ben, I wouldn't go back as far as the 70s myself, but I suppose it depends how you define it. To me, a havoc bowler would be one who can run through the top order in one devastating spell, so Harmison in 2004/5-ish would qualify, as would Caddick around the time of 2000 against West Indies.

But, for sustained periods of this kind of performance over a number of series, I suppose you could go back as far as Botham/Willis in the late 70s early 80s.