Around the Wicket - On My Soapbox - Web Blog - Fanatics - the world's biggest events

Fan blogs

Around the Wicket - On My Soapbox

I must apologise for the delay of this week’s edition. I have been suffering from an ailment that we in the business like to refer to as “Writer’s Block.”

You see, over this last week, I’ve found very little in world cricket to get passionate enough about to make it a topic worthy of my blogging.

There was a big stack of people who got upset with the nasty Pomgolians running out that Kiwi bloke after he fell over – but I’m not one of them. I am 100% satisfied that there was no attempt by Weird Al Sidebottom to block Elliot. In fact – it seemed to me that Elliot actually ran in front of the ball to block Sidebottom. It backfired on him. And, I like the fact that Collingwood didn’t withdraw the appeal. The bloke was out – plain and simple. Collingwood did make one error though - apologising at the post match presentation. No need for it.

Having said that – had the batsman been an Indian, Pakistani, or even a West Indian, playing in front of their own supporters – I reckon the shade hopping Collingwood might have withdrawn the appeal. There’s something downright dangerous about crowds in those parts of the world when they get passionate or emotional about something.

I remember Sherwin Campbell being run out in a game in Antigua (I think it was), when big Brendan Julian collided with him. The West Indian crowd rioted (as they tend to do when things don’t go their way), and the Aussies had to retreat to the dressing room. The only way the game could continue was for the Aussies to have Campbell reinstated. Was that the right decision? Technically, no. For the safety of Australia’s cricketers – yes. (Just who was the prominent local identity who threw a bottle at Steve Waugh from the grandstand?)

Many soapbox climbers are saying that Collingwood made an “unsporting” and “ungentlemanly” decision to withhold the appeal. Garbage. (It’s my turn for a soapbox right about… now.) Despite the cricket romantics who describe it as so, cricket has never been a gentleman’s game. For example: Dr WG Grace was a blatant cheat, Bodyline wasn’t exactly gentlemen having a “spiffing good time, wot”, half of Bradman’s team mates didn’t like him, and wanted him to fail, Chappelli’s team were the “Ugly Australians” and I haven’t even scratched the surface (let alone mention the match fixers). Only a few men who have played cricket could claim to be gentlemen, and only a few of those gentlemen could actually claim to be successful cricketers. Cricket is a hard, tough, intimidating battle with one’s own mind, and against an opposition who wants you to fail. It’s a tough game – it should be played that way. The weak never survive.
Fri 04/07/2008 Dave Bremner 61 views

2 Comments about this article

  • Nothing to write about. Watching the "The Bore" test on Monday. We had the Sky crew whinging about everything. In between whinges they bring up the point on a balance of all cricket. EG England latest tour of India - 7 ODI and 2 tests. As readers of my reply know by now I advocate traditional tours. I think ICC should grow some genitalia and stand up to Subcontinent mafia and rule this tour as invalid. I think they shoud also give a directive that no test series should be less than three tests.

    Posted by John Campo Wed Jul 16, 2008 01:34pm AEST
  • Hear Hear! What's next - a one test series? Followed by an 11 match ODI series and a 7 match 20-20 series? Enough is enough. Test cricket should be given the respect it deserves. The ICC is a disgrace. Cricket needs an unbiased, impartial governing body - and at the moment, the ICC is not that.

    Posted by Dave Bremner Mon Jul 21, 2008 06:17pm AEST

Post a comment about this article

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Becoming a member is free and easy, sign up here.