BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Forthview

Listed below are comments made by Forthview between Tuesday, 11th August 2009 and Wednesday, 26th August 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Richards' reputation hits new low 10:37am on 26 Aug 2009 I'm amazed at how many contributors seem prepared to respond to the whole sorry mess with a shrug of the shoulders, often apparently on the basis that cheating is rife and Harlequins' main sin was to get found out.

One implication one could draw from this is that rugby union is such a nest of cheating and improper practices that there would be strong reasons for the Government to ban it forthwith on public policy grounds as a breeding ground for anti-social behaviour....... I wonder whether this might be the last straw for some parents musing over what sports they want to see little Johnny (and little Joanna) take up some.

I quite agree that substitution rules have been abused in rugby ever since the law was changed to allow tactical substitutions. Personally I'd want to see a reversion to the old days- substitutions only allowed for medical grounds adjudicated by an independent doctor (though I'm not sure how that would work at Extra 3rd XV level.....) and those substitutions to be irreversible- if a team wanted a player with a cut back on the pitch when it had been patched up then they'd have to play with 14 men for a bit. I'm not so taken with the requirement to have a full set of front row substitutes even though I can see the issue with non-contested scrums- unless you cut down the number of subs elsewhere and make everybody have what I think of as an "Italian" bench this simply means squads have to be even bigger, meaning more costs at professional level and issues at lower level as all the front row forwards get snaffled for the First and Second XVs. It could be be death of the lowest level teams within clubs
The PM breaks his silence... 5:19pm on 25 Aug 2009 OldNat

"I have resisted the attempt to draw political comparisons!! but isn't it a bit easy to enhance your national team by bringing in good outsiders? Don't you have a need for the player to have an English granny or something? Do the Australians get to do the same thing?"

Don't get started on qualification to play international cricket- it's even more tangled than rugby and can involve a mix of birth, ancestry and residence. The Aussies can play the import game-back in the 1980s they fielded Kepler Wessels, a South African who qualified because he was then based in Oz and then went back to his homeland to be the first captain of the post-Apartheid SA side (this was OK becasue he hadn't payed international cricket for Australia for over ten years). More recently there was the very messy case of Andrew Symmonds who was (I think) English born but had Aussie qualification as well. For years he played up his Englishness so that he didn't have to count as a "foreign" player for the English county be played for before finally opting for Australia in conditions of some acrimony. He'd probably have been in the current Australian side if he hadn't had one disciplinary falling out too many with the Aussie Board.

Scottish (and Irish) players are anomalous in that both Scotland and Ireland count as separate countries for the purposes of one day internationals and so can qualify for the World cup (Ireland have just done so, Scotland lost out to Afghanistan in the last qualifying competition), are involved in the International Cricket Conference's competetion for countries just below Test status but Scottish and Irish players can be picked for England not just in test matches but in one day internationals (so in theory Dougie Brown could have played for England against Scotland in the World Cup and Ireland's Ed Joyce might end up playing for England against his brother in the next World Cup).

It makes politics seem simple by comparison
Perfect Storm 2030: Public attitudes 4:12pm on 25 Aug 2009 With the best will in the world, this is the sort of story which is simply going to fuel the conspiracy theorists. The DECC paper (I assume it's from that Department) comes over like an internal briefing note from one of Orwell's Ministries blended with a hefty does of Packard's "Hidden Persuaders" and just a whiff of an environmentally oriented cousin to the GDR's Ministry of State Security (all these "normal folk" busily influencing their neighbours at the behest of the state- are they going to be expected to feed back on those who fail to respond appropriately to their blandishments so that "appropriate action" can be taken?). If the masses don't play ball, what happens next? If anything was calculated to reinforce a suspicion that global warming/climate change is an issue of questionable validity being spun for all its worth to allow the political establishment to impose its control over every detail of the lives of ordinary people, this is it.
Flintoff a very English hero 11:24am on 25 Aug 2009 I think JimDand’s contribution (65) is closest to my feelings on the subject. I’ve always looked on Flintoff as a massively unfulfilled talent; a player who had the potential to be genuinely world class with the statistics to match but never quite did it over the course of his career. Up to a point his failure to do so derived from what could be seen as external circumstances. At the start of his text career nobody- not even he- seemed to be sure whether he has a stock bowler or a strike bowler and his batting technique was full of holes. In his later years injury took its toll. That said, a fair proportion of his problems on the injury front could broadly be seen as self-inflicted due to his lifestyle. But it was the larger than life, pint-glass-in-hand, ordinary bloke enjoying himself, side of Flintoff which endeared him so much to the wider public in England (and indeed beyond) and made that public prepared to overlook his weaknesses. He was a genuine entertainer who really did empty the proverbial beer tent when he went into bat or came on to bowl and there aren’t so many of them in cricket (particularly the five day variety).

Whether his influence on the England side was altogether positive is much harder to judge and will perhaps only become apparent with time. I can see the arguments of those who’re suggesting that an England side that doesn’t instinctively turn to one talismanic figure to get out of difficult moments will be stronger (though how far was the “Fred the Talisman” perception purely a media one?). He was a disastrous captain (and plenty of folk said he would be from the moment of his appointment). How far, if at all, he was a negative dressing room presence as well as a positive one is something that we’ll no doubt get a chance to pick over a few years down the line when the (usually ghosted) memoirs of the current generation of test players start appearing. The one area where I can imagine he might have had a certain negative impact is one which one has to write about with caution. To the extent Flintoff reinforced a tendency for the England team to bond over alcoholic drinks he may have made it a less welcoming place for players who came from backgrounds where the consumption of such drinks is forbidden on religious grounds and made it harder for individuals from those backgrounds to feel fully part of the team. As I say, this is a very sensitive area when you start pushing it too hard and the issues it raises go well beyond one player, however influential.

All that said, best wishes to Flintoff in the rest of his career- if he makes a packet from the IPL then good luck to him. His test career had its highs and lows but was always entertaining to watch. Perhaps he could have been an even better player than he was, but he produced some wonderfully memorable moments which will stay with any cricket enthusiast of the present era.
Can Brown stay silent? 3:13pm on 24 Aug 2009 If we hadn’t had devolution, or if Labour was still in charge at Holyrood it would be all too easy to believe that there had been some dirty work at the crossroads- though it would have been pretty transparent what had been afoot when the big oil or gas deal was signed. No doubt in that event it would also have been a “purely judicial” decision but as long as politicians rather than judges are taking those decisions then one is entitled to believe that political considerations are not going to be ignored in the process.

As is it, it’s hardly a secret that the Holyrood and Westminster administrations are hardly bosom buddies. Indeed my assumption when the possibility of al-Megrahi’s release was first mooted was that the Scottish Government’s political instincts were that any resulting fuss would primarily involve negative noises from “Number 10 Sources” which could then be spun into a patriotic cause for a domestic audience; any American angle would be a minor added bonus in getting Holyrood the golden opinions of the reflexively anti-American elements of the chattering classes but wasn’t a big deal either way. Indeed if Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson had been actively encouraging release as part of some murky commercial deal I have little doubt that al-Megrahi would be in his cell as I write and Kenny MacKaskell would be milking the implied insult to the integrity of the Scottish legal system for all it was worth. I can’t help thinking that someone somewhere has badly misread the situation but I’m not sure who.

A couple of other points. The reaction of several people I know who were genuinely undecided on the issue ( in principle favourable to release on compassionate grounds but uncomfortable about letting a convicted mass murderer out of prison) turned sharply negative after the scenes from Tripoli, which could all too easily be interpreted as “we committed murder and got away with it because the West is soft and weak”. The kind of quasi-racist views posted by some participants on other threads here to the effect that the Arab/Muslim world views compassion as weakness began to look horribly persuasive. And, for a man who at times last week seemed to be preaching a sermon rather than making a statement, Kenny MacKaskill is now in the unpleasant position of having to hope fervently that al-Megrahi dies in short order. If he’s still alive when we get into the election run up next year things could get very messy indeed.
Strauss's England worthy winners 11:10am on 24 Aug 2009 The predictable mix of fair comments and some very sour grapes. As CricketingStargazer justly observes, it’s funny how any side suddenly becomes mediocre and rubbish when England have just beaten them.

I think MachinElf (74) makes some very fair points from an Australian perspective- they (perhaps even more than England) have been the Jekyll-and-Hyde side of the series with a batting line up capable of making over 600 on first innings or collapsing for under 250 after making a solid start. Despite Clarke’s quality performances, there’s still a sense that if you get Ponting early a collapse is on the cards, especially with Hussey’s dire form until yesterday (given the way the English media get on the backs of certain individuals after a couple of bad tests I’d be interested to know whether there have been calls to drop a man who has, after all, been underperforming for some time). Oddly enough, in a way the Australian bowling actually looked more balanced this year than in 2009 in the sense that four years ago it was clear that Australia were always at least one bowler short, two if McGrath was injured (I still remember Ponting having to bowl Lee and Warne into the ground at the death at Headingly in 2005 because he had no-one else to turn to). Even at his worst Johnson looked more likely to take a wicket than Gillespie, Kasprowicz or Tait. I wonder whether the Australian management needs to have another look at their rather inflexible policy of only playing four front line bowlers. It worked a treat when two of those were Warne and McGrath, backed up by people like Lee and Gillespie at his best and you could rely on big runs from the top seven (Gilchrist is looking like the biggest loss of all the high profile retirements)- if your batsmen aren’t making decent scores then it leaves you potentially short of options. North looks a respectable part time spinner but no more than that; I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking things might have been a bit different if Hauritz had played, especially since Clark contributed little with the ball.

For England, it’s a remarkable win given how poorly some of the team played (given the venom aimed at certain players- notably Bell and, bizarrely, Broad at times- I’m amazed Cook’s persistent under-performance hasn’t come in for more comment). Collingwood is looking very jaded and Bell isn’t a number 3. Trott looks a find, at least until opposing bowlers work him out (did he play hockey in his youth- his fondness for rather front-on pushes through the on side looks like a legacy of playing on the right side of midfield in a hockey team). Strauss, even more than Flintoff and Pietersen was the key man; when he went early England were likely to struggle. On the positive side, at long last England have a lower order than can bat (how on earth was Swann overlooked for so long? I can only assume there were personality issues), Prior had a good series with the gloves (I say that as one who has never been a fan of him) though looks a shade over-batted at six. All the bowlers chipped in at some point in the series, though I’m not persuaded that Harmison is still worth his place and Anderson is worryingly reliant on favourable pitch and weather conditions. The selectors got some things badly wrong (Bopara should have been put down the order when Pietersen dropped out, Panesar, despite his improbably batting heroics at Cardiff, was a bad choice as the second spinner, Sidebottom might have offered more than Harmison) but the big things right (going with Trott, resisting calls to drop half the side after Headingly).

Going forward, despite the ballyhoo, I’m not persuaded Flintoff will actually be a huge loss, not least because he’s been so injury prone since 2005 (I have views on Flintoff which I won’t expand on here because this is already an awfully long post…). I assume Pietersen will come back (though I have some doubts about his long term position, especially if the leg injury turns out to be an ongoing issue) and if he does he should be told he’s batting at 3. Rashid needs to be given a chance (in an ideal world he’d come in to bat at six or seven) and players on the fringes like Denly or Hildreth need an opportunity to make their case, presumably in South Africa. As far as that series goes, South Africa look a good side but have a bit of a record of flattering to deceive (as against Australia at home earlier this year). There isn’t much between the top five sides at the moment so it should be a fascinating series.
Semenya left stranded by storm 2:40pm on 20 Aug 2009 Blindsavant (189) makes an interesting point (and one which those contributors who have taken a high feminist line might like to muse on). Is there not a case for saying that the very notion of "men's" and "women's" sports is innately discriminatory? One could, I suspect, make a very plausible case using the approved feminist jargon that "women's" sports are some kind of partriarchal cospiracy against the sisterhood. Getting rid gender based competition would certainly solve the problem of Olympic bloat and might make space for sports like squash which can't get in at the moment.
Seconds out as golf and sevens go Olympic 2:08pm on 14 Aug 2009 Has anyone begun to think about the potential complications of picking a "GB" rugby sevens team for 2016, especially with the political grandstanding we've already had over football in 2012? Admittedly I don't suppose even the most paranoid Scottish (or, more credibly, Welsh) nationalist could credibly argue that this is a plot by the IRB to put their national teams out of business and force the creation of one UK side for World Cups etc but the scope for complications (and further political grandstanding) is there. Also, how would Irish players fit in given that the IRFU operates on an all-Ireland basis? Presumably Ulster players would play for an Ireland Olympic rugby team (as boxers from Northern Ireland already do)?

Rugby's been in the Olympics before, though not terribly happily. The competition struggled for participants; in 1900 the UK was represented by a club side who got thumped by France and had to go home before they could play Germany, the only other side to turn up. In 1908 the Cornwall county side turned out for the UK to play against a combined Australia/New Zealand side which was essentially the Wallabies touring team under another name. France were supposed to compete but couldn't field a competitive side and droped out at the last minute. In 1920 only France and the USA competed, the latter causing a big upset by winning and in 1924 those two were joined by Romania; the USA won again in a game marred by crowd trouble.

Hopefully a Sevens tournament will be a bit more competitive these days, and it should allow countries like Samoa and Fiji who never normally get near an Olympic medal a chance to compete in a sport where they have a chance of glory.
How England can win the Ashes 2:59pm on 12 Aug 2009 It's a bit late in the day to talk of putting Bopara down the order, even if that's his natural place- his confidence looks to be completely shot at the moment and I don't think he'll make runs wherever he bats. The logical time to put him down at 4 or 5 would have been when Pietersen dropped out in the context of a complete reshuffle of the team- but at that point the in form batsman in Div 1 of the CC was a certain Ian Bell. In the same way I can see the argument that the Oval might be a better pitch for Harmison than Headingley was (though it's a debateable one) and that Sidebottom should perhaps have played there with Harmison coming in now on a horses for courses basis but I think it's too much of a gamble to hope that he'll suddenly click now.

It's fair enough to say that you can't just ignore CC form- it's all the selectors have got to go on. The trouble is that it's far from reliable as a guide to how players will do at test level because the real depth of quality isn't there. I've been saying for years that 18 fully professional first class counties are at least ten too many for a genuinely competitive domestic scene. To take just one example of the issue, the burden of trying to make enough money to keep the show on the road leads to a proliferation of one day competitions of limited value (one of the less commented on bits in the notorious Langer "dossier" was his aside about just how much cricket English players get through in a season). Central contracting was supposed to help deal with this but it hasn't done- England players tend if anything to be a bit under-cooked in mid-season. But as I've said before, doing anything about this would require literally dozens of country administrators an committee members to vote themselves out of a job (and, in fairness, would probably alienate a high percentage of hard core cricket fans in the process) so I suspect England will just have to be prepared to live with an underperforming national side.
How England can win the Ashes 2:26pm on 11 Aug 2009 Please, for pity's sake, can someone put to bed this myth of the Aussies picking their team solely on very current form. It simply isn't true. Indeed one of the most impressive things about their structure in the past ten years and more is the way that they've persevered with players who are having a rough patch but who they have faith will come good. Looking back in time, Steve Waugh took ages to really break through with the bat and Shane Warne wasn't taking fivefors until he'd played quite a few tests, ditto for Brett Lee. More recently, they've gone on picking players like Clarke and Hayden through rough patches. Currently they're doing it with Hussey (if he was English he'd have been cast into the outer darkness a year and more ago when his form tailed off) and Mitchell Johnson (who'd have been dropped after Lords). Hughes is very much the exception here and (given the Twitter story) I wonder if there are non-cricketing aspects to that decision that we're not hearing about

If anything Australia have been a little too loyal in recent years to players who are getting past their best - Hayden being a good example, MacGill perhaps being another. It's that partial fumble of the always-tricky business of generational handover which has opened the door a chink for England.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Forthview