| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
2009
London 2009
By Jonathan Liew 2 years ago, at the start of February, 10 Comments »
The inaugural Twenty20 World Cup is coming to England in 2009, which means a bumper summer of cricket for the whole country. As long, that is, if you live in London. Two of the three grounds chosen to host matches will be Lord’s (group games, super eights and the final) and The Oval (warm-ups, group games, super eights and a semi-final). Which leaves one semi and change for another lucky, lucky ground. The Rose Bowl, perhaps?
Now I live in London, and personally, this suits me down to the ground. In addition, there’s no doubting that the two grounds in question are superb venues. But London is not England. Cricket fans in the Midlands and the North have every right to feel aggrieved at this.
Apparently, if you believe Steve Elworthy, it’s all to do with travelling distances, which was a major factor in last year’s tournament. But a short trundle up the M6 isn’t really the same as 1600 kilometres from Durban to Cape Town. London to Nottingham to Manchester to London in the space of two weeks isn’t going to jet-lag anybody.
It’s not just this, either. Why, for example, is London is guaranteed Tests a summer out of seven (when it has about 15% of the population)? You have to wonder whether the predominance of Lord’s and The Oval is due primarily to the quality of their facilities, or the quality of their lobbyists.
10 Comments »The only series that still matters
By Jonathan Liew 3 years ago, mid-October, 4 Comments »
Here’s a hypothetical question for England fans out there: if England were to lose every Test match and one-day international from now until 2009, but then win the Ashes back, would you take it? Be honest, now.
Much has been talked and written about the indifference of the English to one-day cricket. But meaningless one-day bashes are, if anything, merely the tip of the indifference iceberg. As England fans, there’s a whole host of other things we don’t care about, from Twenty20 internationals, through the regular thrashings of Bangladesh and the West Indies, right up to – sharp intake of breath – the upcoming winter tours of Sri Lanka and New Zealand.
Oh, of course we’ll check the scores from time to time. Perhaps even watch a bit if we have Sky and remember to set the alarm. But I don’t know too many people from outside the game who have very much of an emotional investment in the outcome at all, just as long as it’s not a humiliation. England series these days feel like part of a two year-long hors d’oeuvres to the 2009 main course.
Just as Australia’s sights were fixed on the 2006-7 series from the moment they walked off the field at The Oval, the year 2009 is seared indelibly into our consciousness. It’s everywhere: in the press, on the messageboards, and very possibly in selection meetings (“I mean, Sidebottom’s accurate, but will he trouble the Australian top order?â€). And as for the detritus in between; well, the disappearance of cricket from terrestrial TV has made it a lot easier to ignore. The fact that England barely hit top gear all summer should be a point of grave concern. But to me at least, it doesn’t seem to have been.
There’s a parallel with the rugby here – the English descending on Paris this week care not one jot about the Six Nations humiliations and Antipodean kickings to which England have been subjected over the last four years, but about their performance on the stage that matters. For ‘World Cup’, substitute ‘Ashes’. I suspect most England cricket fans will willingly endure two more years of anguish if there’s a little red urn waiting at the end of it.
4 Comments »