Cricket’s Legacy

Sometimes you read something and you remember why started doing this all in the first place.

North of Colombo there is a town called Chilaw. There is an ancient Hindu temple in Chilaw that was once visited by Gandhi. Every year they have the Munneswaram festival. It was once famous for pearls. And they have a first-class cricket team: the Chilaw Marians Cricket Club.

Shaminda Eranga comes from Chilaw.

Like many in Sri Lanka, the cricketers from Chilaw are largely invisible inside the system. There are Test-quality cricketers playing on the streets of the Hikkaduwa right now that will never play with a hard cricket ball in their life.

Eranga was not playing first-class cricket. He was not in the system. He shouldn’t have made it at all. But like his seam-bowling partner Nuwan Pradeep, he made his way to a fast-bowling competition. He bowled fast. But five guys bowled faster. Somehow the sixth-fastest bowler in that completion was picked for Chilaw Marians Cricket Club. Five years later he would clean bowl Brad Haddin with his second ball in international cricket.

Eranga is the closest thing Chilaw has produced to a pearl in a very long time.

-Jarrod Kimber, via Cricinfo

*

Cricket is a bat and ball sport existing on the fringes of everything. But it inspires the best sportswriting on earth. Period. And Jarrod is one of the best. He writes about cricket the way cricket is supposed to be played: with abandon, freedom and caution. He swashbuckles like a West Indian seamer, yet he can also block like an English nightwatchman.

I find pieces like Jarrod’s inspiring – they remind me that cricket is a game that deserves respect from those that are lucky enough to write about it. It’s a marvelous game filled with escape tunnels and villains and turncoats and heroes riding into battle. It’s poetry and it’s madness. It has characters that no fiction writer could possibly imagine given a thousand years. And when we write about it, we need to give it its due.

Our work can’t be phoned in. Cricket deserves better than that. For the game’s legacy is determined not in the actions of the players on the field or the supporters in the stands, it is determined by those that write about it. Journalists, editors, bloggers…all of us hold cricket’s legacy in our hands.

Jarrod Kimber is providing this game we love with a legacy that will last a thousand years. And we need to do the same.

#ICYMI

I have been doing some freelance writing, and I wanted to pass along the links in case anyone was interested.

For the brand new PasteSoccer.com I have been helping them out with their World Cup coverage. I wrote a piece about why Switzerland is going to shock the world this summer, as well as a couple more straightforward previews (Ecuador, France, Honduras and the Swiss), a stadium gallery and a few quick-hit video posts – with more to come, too.

Regarding cricket, I also wrote two short features for the ACF Champions League’s official site: a player feature on all-rounder Fawwad Latif and a team profile of the Arizona Scorpions.

Getting paid to write is both rewarding as well as far more tedious, as I tend to agonize over every word for the paid pieces, while here on the blog I just shoot from the hip – which is a bit more fun. That said, seeing the money show up in my PayPal account makes the agonizing worth it.

Mankading

Earlier this week Sri Lankan bowler Sachithra Senanayake “Mankaded” English batsman Jos Butler and the whole of world cricket went completely mental.

Traditionally, while legal, the act of Mankading is seen to be in violation of the “spirit of the game”, and those four words tend to bring out the best of the best and the worst of the worst when it comes to cricket related debates (just ask Ian Bell).

I, for one, don’t really have an opinion on this particular run out* – as I support neither England nor Sri Lanka – but I will say that it was a legal maneuver on Senanayake’s part and until the law is changed, everyone should just get on with the game – and quit backing up in the meantime.

However, off the pitch, I love it when this kind of thing happens and we all get to talk about it for a few days. It’s these bizarre intricacies of this weird little game that – at the end of the day – keep us coming back for more. Making Mankading illegal maybe would shut everyone up, but it would kill off a little bit of cricket’s soul – a little bit of its spirit, if you will – and I think that would be the real shame here.

Jos Butler’s wicket is worth the sacrifice.

And debating the “spirit of the game” – and whether or not it’s being upheld or pissed on or both – is way better than talking about spot fixing, doping or any of the other actually really horrible parts of the game.

*

In baseball, they have outlawed the always controversial home plate collision, and I gotta say that while the game might be safer and mildly less contentious, it’s also 10% less interesting, and 10% more sterile.

Cricket has been castrated enough as of late, no reason to cut anymore.

*

*I actually do have an opinion: Butler was being lazy and England batted poorly. That’s what cost them the match. Not ICC playing regulation 42-11.

Traditionally speaking

Yesterday I wrote about how unfortunate it was that a makeup day was not scheduled for the Ireland v Sri Lanka ODI series. But I guess it was not a mistake or a purposeful slight, it was, in fact, tradition:

Now, I love traditions. I love seeing them form, I love upholding them and I love participating in them. I think they are an important part of our family heritage, our cultural heritage and our society in general – and that includes our sporting traditions.

But it is also equally important to let certain traditions pass away. The passing of certain customs is inherent to change, and change is inherent to a society or a culture that is progressing in a positive manner. Sure, we should mourn traditions that passed before their time, and we should bemoan those that never should have gone away, and we should celebrate the passage of others into history’s dustbin – but then we should move on. If we are to grow and change, then certain traditions need to die.

*

Many people would say that cricket is too beholden to its traditions. I don’t think this is true at all. I think instead they are too beholden to certain customs, while not beholden enough to others.

For instance, right now the entire cricketing world save England has its eyes on the Indian Premier League. A league that is only in it’s sixth season playing a format that is only two years older than Twitter…and it is the most popular cricket related thing in the world ever. If that’s not iconoclastic than I don’t know what is.

Further: Cricket adopted technology sooner than baseball or football. It has three different formats to allow for more television revenue. It has pink balls and floodlights and fourth umpires.

Cricket changes, it progresses with the times, it moves forward and it knows that – like the shark – if it stops moving…it dies.

Cricket gets it.

Except when it doesn’t.

As if to compensate for all the traditions that have been discarded since One Day cricket was invented, the game still stays beholden to the dumbest, most ridiculous traditions ever. Traditions like not having a makeup game during a two match series…in Ireland, in May, when the other team is going to be within easy travel distance for seven weeks.

I talk a lot about how I am optimistic about cricket’s future because of its adaptability, but that adaptability will be meaningless unless it quits clinging to anachronisms in order to appease a shrinking subsection of its global audience. Schedule makeup days, World Cricket. For the good of the game, schedule makeup days.

And quit it with that nightwatchman business while you’re at it.

Without a Ball Bowled

Today’s ODI between Ireland and Sri Lanka was abandoned without a ball bowled due to heavy rains and a wet outfield.

For Sri Lanka, I think this means very little. In fact, they probably welcomed the unforeseen day off in the middle of a very long tour.

But for Ireland – while not catastrophic – it is very, very unfortunate. This was their last ODI against world class competition until next year’s World Cup (they play three ODIs against Sri Lanka A in August and three more against Scotland in September). And while we can all agree that one match in May is not going to have a huge influence on results a year from now, it is still one less ODI against top competition, and will have –  at least – a nominal affect on how Ireland perform in Australia in 2015.

But more than that, it’s a financial blow. Ticket sales = gone. Advertising revenue = gone. Concession revenue = gone. Ad infinitum. I have no idea what the actual dollar figure is – but I can only guess that Cricket Ireland stands to lose tens of thousands of pounds. At minimum.

Now, surely, Cricket Ireland took out insurance on this match – I know my nonprofit takes out “snow” insurance on our annual fundraising gala – but even if they did, it’s probably only pennies on the dollar. Enough to cover costs at most.

And so to sum it all up: Cricket Ireland loses out on invaluable revenue needed to development its program, Ireland’s cricketers miss out on the opporuntity to hone their skills against the world’s best, Ireland’s cricket supporters were unable to see their boys play against top notch competition on home soil, and cricket followers around the world were unable to tune in and watch the live stream (which doesn’t seem like a big deal, but for all intents and purposes that stream was going to be a global advertisement for Irish cricket.)

All because of a little rain.

And this begs the question: why wasn’t a makeup day put on Sri Lanka’s tour calendar? It would have solved all of the above problems, and it seems like such a simple solution that I can’t believe no one thought to include it, and so I can only assume that somewhere along the line it was objected to by one party or another. The ICC? Sri Lanka Cricket? Cricket Ireland!?

Again, I am not sure of answer to the above. Whether it was the ICC, the Big Three, Sri Lanka or Cricket Ireland itself  doesn’t matter, however. What does matter is that World Cricket has failed an Associate nation. Again. For the millionth time. And that’s the real tragedy in all of this.

The Cricket Guy

Last week the New York Times published a story about how soccer – particularly the English Premier League – was fast becoming the sport for hipster creative types in trendy NYC neighborhoods.

Despite the fact that there were more than several cringe-worthy passages, I thought it was a harmless piece that got a few things right – and I was happy to see the game I love get a bit of press off of the back pages. For me, it’s a “the more, the merrier” situation when it comes to football. If some hipster doofus wants to come watch Arsenal with me after reading a New York Times trend piece, then that’s just fine with me. Just as long as they wear red and pay their tab, I am fine with it.

But the Internet went ballistic.

Major League Soccer fans were upset because the article surmised that the growth of football in America had everything to do with the growth of the English Premier League and very little – if anything – to do with MLS. And whine all they want, the author is right.

But EPL fans were upset, too. And this I just couldn’t understand. See above. Who cares if this game we like – and especially this league we like – gets more popular in America? That just means that more pubs will show games – competition is never a bad thing – and there will be more and better television coverage. Plus, I don’t know, there might be fewer sideways glances when you tell people you get up at 7am every Saturday to watch a team from London play soccer.

My friend Tim – who writes a really great Arsenal blog – explained why the article upset him so much:

It’s the dominant culture taking over the subculture. Subcultures are about rebellion and defiance and in the takeover process they strip the meaning and history out of the subculture. Think of this as the Hot Topic transformation of football in America. You are about to be defined by people, packaged to people, have your team defined for you in ways that are controlled by Madison Ave. and not by you any more.

I guess I both disagree and agree with that. I have never subscribed to the punk aesthetic that everything that becomes popular starts to suck – but to a small extent, things do become less fun once your mom starts doing them, for lack of a superior metaphor.

And then I started to think about the article in relation to cricket: what if this quirky little game that I love that no one else knows or cares about suddenly became the “it” sport among pseudo-intellectuals and tweedy hipsters?

Would it affect my enjoyment of it? Would my relationship with the game change?

Referring back to the punk rock metaphor, there is something to be said for losing ownership of something that once belonged to you – and only you. When I was a teenager I saw Green Day before Dookie was released. It cost me four dollars and they played for three hours and it was phenomenal. And then Dookie hit the shelves and six months later Green Day was being blasted out of frat houses and chain sports bars and they were playing arenas and tickets were out of my price range. The music was the same, but it was no longer mine. It belonged to everyone. And so while I never was part of the horrible backlash that Green Day was on the receiving end of from the punk rock community, my relationship with the band was still changed, and probably not for the better.

I have talked about this before.

And so would it be the same with cricket? I don’t think so. Cricket has never felt like mine and only mine – despite its relative anonymity in the American sporting landscape. It’s always been OUR game – and by “our” I mean the global sporting world. Following cricket has made me feel more like a global citizen, if you allow me to be so dramatic. It can’t become less mine, because it never was mine to begin with.

Cricket’s popularity also would change the way the game is covered in America – and so while it would be great if there was better access to televised cricket in America – and increased popularity would do that – I would hate it if American networks started hiring their own broadcast teams (cough, Gus Johnson, cough) and I would be upset if cricket knowledgeable networks like Willow lost rights to non-cricket-knowing networks like, say, Fox or NBC.

And once the game expands how it is covered and televised, it becomes not just a game for early followers and johnny-come-lately hipsters, it becomes mainstream, and that’s where I start to really wane in my support for the game becoming popular in America.

For while it would be nice to have casual conversations about the game in person – something I never get to do – I guess I would miss being the “cricket guy.”

By that I mean this: in Fever Pitch Nick Hornsby talks about how everyone he has ever met in his entire life associates Arsenal with him – or vice versa, I guess – and so every time Arsenal are in the news – for good or for bad – he is a passing thought for scores of friends, acquaintances and family members.

And I like to think – as humbly as possibly – that people associate cricket with me, and vice versa. For most of the people in my life, I am the only person they know who follows the sport, and so when something news-worthy happens cricket wise – Sachin’s 100th 100 and his retirement were two recent events of note that received domestic coverage – people think of me. People I haven’t talked to in years think of me. Some will even make the effort to reach out to me and ask me what I thought about the event in question.

And so cricket is, in a way, a manner in which I stay connected to distant friends.

And I like that about it.

And so I guess that means I wouldn’t want the sport to become the thinking man’s alternative to baseball, and I wouldn’t want Williamsburg yuppies to know the difference between Test cricket and a T20.

Cricket isn’t mine – it never was – but my friends think of it as mine, and I would like to keep it that way. For at least a little while longer.

*

A bit of an epilogue: every sport in the world has in some way or another been Americanized. But cricket – for better or for worse – feels so far untouched by American hands. And maybe that is something worth treasuring, and worth maintaining.

The Wide World of Sport

Today’s World T20 final was broadcast live in the United States on ESPN2. To the best of my knowledge, it was the first live cricket match ever to be shown on mainstream TV in America.

I was at the pub for the Arsenal match (the less said about that, the better), and they were generous enough to put the match up on one of the smaller TVs. It was the first time I had watched cricket outside of my home since I was in London during the 2011 World Cup. So it was pretty cool.

What was also cool was all the heads that were turned over and watching the cricket instead of the football. Now, surely, this had something to do with what was going on at Goodison Park, but it also definitely had something to do with the cricket. And why not? It was the first time most of the people in the bar had ever seen live cricket – and while they were not treated to the game at its zenith – they saw that it was more than just 22 guys in sweater vests drinking tea. It’s flashy and moves at a good pace. It ebbs and flows and has tangible energy. It’s subcontinental and therefore is attractive for its exoticness.

I am not sure if we won any converts. But it goes to show that American sports fans – especially those already interested in foreign sport – would watch cricket if given the opportunity to do so.

And speaking of which: ESPN has the domestic rights for the 50 over World Cup next year. I wonder if they will have the bravery to put the final of that tournament on one of its flagship channels? We shall see.

*

For those curious, the first televised cricket match ever was in 1938 – England vs Australia at Lord’s. The match featured double centuries from Wally Hammond for England and Bill Brown for Australia – who carried his bat in the first innings – and it ended in a draw. The series itself ended 1-1 and Australia retained the urn. World War 2 would break out the next year and so it was the last Ashes series until 1946-1947.

Reading a bit about that tour, and despite the fact that of course there were no other formats to play besides the Test, Australia were in England from the last week of April until mid-September. On top of the five Tests – one of which was abandoned without a ball bowled – they played a whopping 27 tour matches. 27!!

Just further evidence that times have sure changed. On that day at Lord’s in 1938, there was one camera perched atop the Nursery End stand and Kerry Packer was only six months old. Today at Mirpur they played a format that is only two years older than Twitter and there were at least 20 times as many cameras – and the match was beamed all over the world – including to the cricketing backwater that is the United States.

Times change. But so does cricket. That, for me, bodes well for its future.

*

We are the Robots

A couple weeks back, I predicted the outcome of all the matches at the ICC World T20s using the ICC’s very own ranking system as a guide.

It got one very big thing wrong right at the start, as the Netherlands qualified and Ireland did not, but it still started out with an impressive streak of eight matches in a row correctly predicted.

Now with two and a half matches left to go in the group stages, I wanted to take another look at how my predictions did.

Group 1:

Super 10; Group 1 Predicted Winner Actual
SA v SL SL SL
ENG v NZ NZ NZ
NZ v SA SA SA
SL v IRE SL SL
SA v IRE SA SA
ENG v SL SL ENG
NZ v IRE NZ NZ
ENG v SA SA SA
ENG v IRE ENG NETH
NZ v SL SL n/a

That’s seven out of nine correct – which means the ICC robots got 78% of its pre-tournament predictions right in this group. That’s impressive. If this was Vegas, the ICC would get kicked out of the casino for card counting.

As I type this, New Zealand are 23/4 and collapsing, so it will likely be a solid 8 out of 10 for the ICC’s rankers – a classy 80%.

But they got one match very, very wrong. For today in Chittagong, the Netherlands humiliated and hapless England. It was a simultaneously unpredictable and predictable result. Everyone knew that England were in a shambles, despite an impressive win over Sri Lanka. And despite the points they had built up in the T20 format over the last couple of years, everyone – save the ICC robots – knew that England might struggle against a spirited Dutch side. And they did. And that’s why we play the games. Because sometimes the things that really matter don’t show up on a stat sheet. I don’t put a ton of stock in the sports cliches of “clutch” and “hustle” and the like – I think it is more that good cricketers play for good cricket sides and those good cricket sides more often than not beat poorer cricket sides – but things like momentum and attitude and chutzpah and spirit and teamwork MATTER. And those are not tangibles. And that’s why we play the games. For the intangibles.

Onto group 2:

Super 10; Group 1 Predicted Winner Actual
IND v PAK IND IND
AUS v PAK PAK PAK
IND v WI IND IND
WI v BANG WI WI
AUS v WI AUS WI
IND v BANG IND IND
PAK v BANG PAK PAK
AUS v IND IND IND
AUS v BANG AUS n/a
PAK v WI PAK n/a

With two matches still to come tomorrow, the ICC robots are 7 for 8 for an impressive 88%. If Aus v Bang and Pak v WI go as predicted, it will end up at 90%.

What this shows us, I think, is that for the most part, the ICC rankings are pretty good, if not infallible. And so while I think they can and should be used a guide for tournament rankings and the like, I do think they are not quite good enough to be used to determine which sides should get into those tournaments and which stay home. And I certainly don’t think they are good enough for the proposed relegation/promotion system.

*

And just as a reminder, here is how the robots predict the knockout stages:

Semi-Final #1: Winner
Sri Lanka v Pakistan Sri Lanka
Semi-Final #2: Winner
India vs South Africa India
Final Winner
Sri Lanka vs India Sri Lanka

A couple of results in the group stage still need to go the right way for those to hold true, but I think that looks about right.

Why I Canceled my Willow.TV Subscription

There is more than one reason, of course, but I will spare you the boring ones like “I wanted to save a few bucks” and “been too busy to watch much cricket lately anyway” and “ESPN3’s been doing a nice job recently filling in the cracks when I do have time” – those are important and valid reasons, of course, but they do not tell the entire story.

I cancelled because the service – despite its best intentions – is no longer worth the $15 a month. And this is because it is catering not to the global cricket supporter, but to the Indian ex-pat in America. All you have to do to see the direction the service is taking is to look at the events page: mostly Indian domestic leagues – including the IPL, of course – plus a few International tours, most of them involving India.

Now Indian cricket is phenomenally entertaining – and the IPL alone is a fantastic product (if that’s your thing) – and so I do not blame the service for the business decision they have made – they saw a hole in the market and they exploited it, just like you’re supposed to do – but unfortunately their current roster of rights is just not worth my $15 a month.

But there is a larger story here, as Willow’s model adjustment makes it appear that the only way for an online cricket service to survive in America is for it to cater almost exclusively to one segment of the cricket watching US public – albeit, of course, the largest and most passionate, but still only one segment – and that goes to show that the sport really hasn’t taken any sort of foothold in the mainstream US sporting landscape. And this lack of solid footing for the game could spell the end of what was a truly a great time to be a cricket follower in America.

Of course, there is ESPN, with their coverage of ICC tournaments and other tours, but as the American based Aussie Rules fan will tell you, ESPN picks up and drops rights to “alternative” sports as it pleases and without warning. And so while ESPN might very well pick up the rights that Willow have dropped – England, for one; New Zealand, for another – then again they might not. And if they don’t, then the cricketing golden age here in the states might very well have reached its Zenith last summer, and simultaneously we might very well wave goodbye forever to cricket ever “happening” in America.

I hope I am wrong, and I might be jumping the gun a bit, but we shall see. At this point I don’t see another provider the size of ESPN – like an NBC for example – jumping in for any cricketing rights; and I really don’t think there is room for another start-up online cricketing service. And so we can only hope that ESPN expands its coverage, and fills in the gaps left by Willow.TV, or that Willow adjusts back to its past business model of showing a great deal more variety of world cricket (and if that happens, they will get my $15/month back).

Time will tell. Until then, I am back to the good old days of the ball by ball and the BBC.