Cricket Australia today announced that in its latest attempt to raise money from a gullible public, it will allow its senior players to appear in films for a percentage of their fee.
Australia's adoring cricket public have long been tempted by loads of old tosh including limited edition memorabilia etc. Just imagine having a signed photo of Matthew Hayden slogging some Bangladeshi no hoper into the middle of next week hanging over your fireplace (Fireplace... hmmm). Lovely.
Now though they have decided to allow the players to appear in films. Here Ricky Ponting announces that he is to appear in the Borrowers III, Return of the Midgets. The props department have supplied him here with a lifesize diary pencil created for the movive.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Ponting to Star in New PORG Movie
Cricket Australia today announced that in its latest attempt to raise money from a gullible public, it will allow its senior players to appear in films for a percentage of their fee.
Australia's adoring cricket public have long been tempted by loads of old tosh including limited edition memorabilia etc. Just imagine having a signed photo of Matthew Hayden slogging some Bangladeshi no hoper into the middle of next week hanging over your fireplace (Fireplace... hmmm). Lovely.
Now though they have decided to allow the players to appear in films. Here Ricky Ponting announces that he is to appear in the Borrowers III, Return of the Midgets. The props department have supplied him here with a lifesize diary pencil created for the movive.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Common sense from Alastair Cook
I think out of all the cricketers I never think about, Alastair Cook would be up there near the top of the list. There or thereabouts would have to be Chris Rogers from Australia and, possibly, Ian O'Brien from NZ. Cracking new record set by WICB
The West Indies Cricket Board are probably a bunch of well motivated good guys who have the best intersts of the cricket world at heart. They've certainly lifted English spirits since about 2000 by reducing one of the best teams in the world to the status of cricket bums. They've also worked hard, at Sabina Park, a few years back, to create the shortest ever test.
On that occasion they managed to bowl 10 quite frightening overs of chin music at some seriously scared England batsmen. In his autobiography (Being a Grumpy Northern Bastard Trying Hard to Get a Career in Journalism) [Wickman thinks that was what it was called] Michael Atherton recalls seeing a ball whistle over his head from a full length and clear the stands [Wickman thinks that was what happened] and then hearing Lara at first slip saying "I liiiiike it Curtly, I really LIKE it". At least they got 10.3 overs in on that occasion.
Today they managed to bowl ten balls. Ten miserable balls. This will surely be the classiest moment ever in cricket. There was no threat to the batsmen. Actually there was going to be. With Fidel Edwards running in three times and not letting go, the danger was the batsmen swinging at thin air and ricking their necks. No this time it was the bowlers who were in danger of falling into the bunkers that the grounds staff had put on the outfield.
Wickman understands that the problem may lie in a shortage of qualified grounds people in the West Indies now. The only people available to do the ground were the Greens Keepers from the Antigua 9 hole pitch and putt at the Paris HiltonTravelodge who were drafted in last Thursday and told to make things a bit tricky for the Englishmen. On that basis they decided to grow the rough a bit longer just off the green bit and put in some new sand traps.
Wickman sends his sympathies to those supporters who have booked holidays, time off work and paid good money to be out there. A true cricket fan is not going to be consoled by 5 days on the beach.
[Wickman found this picture of the WICB's annual conference]
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
A Moment for Reflection
Congratulations to Chris Gayle and John Dyson's West Indies. They have shown that what they did during the Stanford Series and in New Zealand could very well be the start of a revival by sticking it to a poor England in Jamaica.
The entire test made poor watching from Wickman's armchair and particularly because of the referrals. On a couple of occasions Wickman was dancing around, sometimes trying not to spill a pint, other times in a complicated two step with Wickmutt, when wickets fell, only for them to be referred. When the referrals went our way (Chanderpaul for example) the moment didn't seem as fine when the finger went up again. Certainly Wickmutt was not up for another trip around the dancefloor even when he was offerred a Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrumba! When they didn't there was a general feeling of bemusement in the Wickman brain.
The commentators kept on saying "The TV umpire is only looking to see if an obvious mistake has been made - the players (and by implication those of us not good enough to be there fulfilling a playing function) need to understand that". So - Detective Supt Wickman presents two cases for M'luds to inspect:
Rammy S on 7, first innings, pinned in front by Harmison. Given out by Hill. Referred. Not out as Harper thought it "might be going over". Hang on a cotton picking second. Might be going over? MIGHT be going over? Where the obvious mistake? If it was, in his judgement, going to miss by a country mile, then absolutely it shouldn't have been given. But "might"? The very technology they were using then showed that the ball would have certainly taken out the leg bail and probably hit middle and leg. Hill made a good decision and Harper overruled him.
In England's collapse, Siders asked for his LBW to be reviewed. And fair enough. The ball spun a mile across him and he had every right to think it was going to miss leg stump. As Harper lined up the pics, Wickman was thinking "on the basis that you didn't give out old Rammy, you can hardly send Siders back to the hutch". But blow Wickers if he didn't trigger him with the commentators a chatterin and a harrumphin that all the players know that only catastrophic mistakes can be overturned.
Hang on. Hawk Eye showed that the ball would have shaved the stumps like a Wilkinson Sword 237 blade razor (they'll be one along soon - just you wait and see) but 99.9 per cent of the ball was missing everything. One of the commentators (not an Englishman) was delightedly opining, when he saw this shaving occur, that that justified the decision! Well matey, Wickman didn't hear anyone moaning at Harper when the bails came off on the Sarwan shout! Quite the opposite. Some crud about "you can't give those out".
Wickman reckons the key problem with the Sarwan decision was where the ball went the millisecond after it had struck Rammy's pad. It hit him flush on the top sausage on his knee role and then rolled up an inch into the flappy bit on top. Thus the point of impact was the sausagey bit, not the rest of the pad flap. But the commentators (maybe Harper as well) made their decision on the basis of where they thought the impact was, not where it was.
With full Hawk Eye tracking, hotspot, stump mics and the rest these decisions would be more accurate surely? The very technology that Harper is being allowed to use and manipulate leaves him in one moment thinking there's an element of doubt on Sarwan (Wickman thought it was supposed to be a major error not a bit of doubt) and the next it confirmed (when the blue extension bit was added in) that he got it wrong.
Totally inconsistent and utimately confusing.
Either go for it big time and and use everything at your disposal to give the decision or go back to the way things were when we were allowed to bemoan poor fortune.
[Wickman likes to think that this picture shows Steve "ahm jist a wee laddie froom tha coontry reahly ahnd I divvent ahlways embarrass meself when ah play for England like" Harmison letting loose one of his many Durham based animals at Harper in rertribution for bizarrely overruling the Sarwan lbw. But it's probably not...]
Sunday, 8 February 2009
51 reasons for despair....
(Pic: see you later mate - Pietersen has his off stump removed by Jerome "the body" taylor)
The fallout from England's anhiliation by the West Indies is beginning in earnest. Surprise, Suprise...everyone from Nassar Hussain, Bob Willis (has there ever been anyone more annoying in the game?) to Bob Woolmer (via a weeja board) have chipped in with their two cents about what this all means for English cricket. Incidently, despite being dead for almost 2 years, Bob still managed to offer the best of the advice to England. His calling for "calm amidst the storm" was seen by many as a "refreshing view" of what England should do next. Reports cannot be confirmed whether Bob was still wrapped naked in a towel at the time of these comments....
So what next? According to some Wick members - interviewed by Jimmy C last night in Clapham - it's time to bring in Owais Shah, Samit Patel and, in what would be a surprise selection, a recall for the Australian-born bricklayer Darren Pattinson. The sense was that these players would add the necessary "aggro" to help England get back to winning ways.
In my opinion, now is not the time for rash decisions. Sure, it is a setback for the Andrew Strauss-led England. But, as wiser people have said before me many years ago, "Rome wasn't built in a day". The "revolution" that Strauss is trying to create will take time. Just for those of you who need a quick recap, the revolution includes:
- giving players greater responsibility out on the field (i.e. don't let me make any decisions, if you bowl or bat badly....it's your own fault)
- encouraging batsmen to score "millions of runs", despite mathematical improbability
- getting back to what England does best: winning test matches
- an in-depth strategy for winning matches which, on closer inspection, only says "winning" is the strategy.
But this revolution will take time. It needs to grow roots. Some people call the above revolution "insane" and "poorly thought through", but it's important to remember that people used to think that the earth was flat too! People who said it was spherical were derided as naysayers at the time. We now know that the world is spherical (largely)....which just shows that maybe Strauss is onto something....something new and exciting.
Wickman Junior
Thursday, 5 February 2009
the downfall of Roy Symonds....and why you should care
The decision from Cricket Australia to stand Andrew "Roy" Symonds down from the tour to South Africa is nothing short of complete injustice. After referring to New Zealand journeyman Brendan McCullum as a "lump of shit", Roy has been tapped on the shoulder and sent back to the asylum for further assessment.
According to James Sutherland, now regarded by many as the "Nurse Ratchet" of the Australian cricket team, Andrew needs to "review and reaffirm his personal documented commitments" if he was to be considered for Australia's one-day international series against Pakistan in April.
Like many, you're probably wondering what these commitments are. Well, following some in-depth trawling on the internet, i've managed to track down what Roy has signed up to. To the untrained eye, the "rules" that Roy must obey if he is to continue "making progress" seem simplistic and almost comical. However, for seasoned observers like Wickman Junior, these represent the very foundation of how to live a good life.
My rules: By Roy (NB: the language has been edited)
- Don't turn up to matches pissed.
- If you're given two options of how to spend your day, either going to cricket training or going fishing with mates, stick with the first option. It's more important.
- Don't get into fights in pubs; and
- If referring to other players, don't describe them as "lumps of shit". Call them "difficult opponents" or "fiery customers" instead.
Strong rules aren't they? If everyone in the world could follow these simple rules, can I suggest it would be a better place?
But, Nurse Ratchet doesn't think these rules are enough:
"Our assessment is that he is making good progress but that his commitment needs testing against new, tougher criteria we will finalise after consultation with his counsellors, the ACA [Australian Cricketers' Association] and Queensland Cricket."
Tougher criteria? Perhaps they'll bring out a straight jacket if he breaks one of these rules? It just seems laughable....THE BLOKE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG! So what....can we not have a few beers anymore, swear on the pitch or get into the occasional fight? How many Wick players could adapt to these rules? Can I suggest maybe one or two?
Playing cricket should be whether you can deliver on the field or not. That's it. Why do we try and bring people down just for having a life outside of the game, or for the language they use? I'd be happy if they just dropped Roy for making no runs. A logical, reasoned decision. But don't do it because he uses the word "shit"!
Make no mistake, this is just the start of big brother in the cricket world. Roy might be the first, but who's to say that you won't be next?
Wickman Junior
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Day One Report - By Wickman
Strauss continues to baffle
England's first test match against the Windies is currently in full swing. Unfortunately for Andrew Strauss, he is already back in the pavillion after what can only be described as "a loose shot". Speaking earlier to Wickman Junior, former HWRCC Sunday Skipper Jimmy C called his dismissal "farcical" and "consistent with previous performances".
Perhaps this newest setback for Strauss has stemmed for some recent comments made to the press about England's plans for 2009. It has left this writer "baffled" to say the least.
Speaking to a handful of journalists from the mainstream media about the importance of this series, Strauss was heard to have said:
"The game plan is to get on a roll by winning here," admitted Strauss. "The key to taking on a team like Australia is believing that you can beat them and you get that belief by winning a lot of games ahead of the Ashes. But we won't be taking West Indies lightly.
Can I be the first to suggest that this is the simplest game i've ever seen? I mean, i'm a huge fan of winning and everything that comes with it, but i think some specifics could be helpful for the players. Can you imagine how confused Harmy is going to be when asking Straussy during the warm-up: "hey skip, what's our plan for beating the Windies?", and Strauss simplly says: "winning"? Perhaps some of the players believe that losing is a game plan, and just need that extra reminder? The only redeeming factor here for Strauss appears to be his fondness for "belief" and the role it plays in cricket. I'm with you on that one buddy.
Wickman Junior
Monday, 2 February 2009
No games cancelled as weather doesn't wreck season
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Could it be magic now?
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
England roll worst tour side ever
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Strauss has lost it
I posed the question just a few days ago that Andrew "brown nose" Strauss had completely lost the plot. Sure, the comment about KP scoring "millions of runs" in the West Indies wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It was a stupid thing to say. But now all doubt has officially been washed away. Just read this:
- "We want to get back to doing what we do best, playing cricket and winning Test matches"
Thanks Captain obvious. As professional cricket players i'm not surprised that what you do best is playing cricket. What next: the best thing a pilot does if fly a plane? A vicar spreading the word of god? Thanks for clarifying that Andrew - I was concerned that as professional cricketers what you did best was perhaps daubing a picture on a blank canvas. Also - what England do BEST is losing test matches, not winning them. There's a great track record of this. Can I suggest they need to get away from what they do best and start doing what they are not good at: winning!!
- "My belief is we want to see players think on their feet out in the middle, take responsibility for the situation and not leave it to someone else.
What, so the players have been walking around like dolts until now? Also...i love it how this is his belief!!?? No Andrew, that's common sense mate. When a player puts bat on ball from now on, is he going to think: "shit...Straussy didn't tell me what to do if i get a bouncer from Sharma"?
- "I'm challenging my players to start thinking a bit more about what they need to do in terms of preparation and I'm giving them a lot more flexibility to do that."
In simple terms this means: don't go out after a game and get smashed....that's not great preparation for cricket. Or - should i really get into a pedalo after too many brews before a match, or turn up to training drunk?
Put all of this together and you've pretty much got the picture of Andrew Strauss. This is a guy who is going to sit back, let players do what they want - and if they bugger up it's their fault - and coddle up to England management. He clearly doesn't have a high regard for his players either.
But I could be wrong.
Wickman Junior