HHCC vs Bank of England

Back in 2004, Andrew Flintoff gave a piece of friendly advice to West Indian all-rounder Dwayne Bravo: “This game's got a funny way of biting you on the arse,” he said, before continuing, worldly-wise: “I've seen it all mate. Let's see where you are in three years time.”

The irony is that in three years time, Bravo had cemented his place in an (admittedly ropey) West Indies team, while Flintoff, the big man, had just led England to a disastrous 5-0 whitewash against Australia, and been fined for drunken pedalo -bothering. When the teams met next, Bravo performed creditably while Flintoff was nowhere to be seen.

If only Flintoff had realised at the time that his words could also be applied to himself. If only Hyde Heath had realised that too, as we made the most straightforward of run chases somehow into the most nail-biting of farces. Although Bank of England bowled tidily enough, it was over-confidence that nearly did for us. Charlie was so confident that he had showered and changed; I batted like a was still not out from the week before – attempting to drill my first ball back over the bowler's head, missing comfortably, and pottering back to the pavilion.

That, it turned out, was the second dismissal in a hat-trick as Liam got himself LBW first ball; Dom – who had earlier continued his fine recent form with another half-century, and alongside Shrimpie, scored the bulk of the side's runs in another excellent partnership – was the first of the trio. It meant that within just two runs of our target we lost no less than four wickets. It may have been embarrassing cricket but it made for entertaining viewing. I've never seen a changing room laughing so much as the wickets tumbled. There's something hilarious sometimes about inevitability.

Thankfully we weren't chasing many, and it was Charlie's earlier canniness that was to thank for that – especially as several of his batsmen, brimming with (over?)confidence were requesting we “give 'em a few” to make a game of it.

We found ourself in such a position thanks to probably the tightest hour of cricket I've seen from the Heath. The pitch – the same as last week – was a little slow and low but played very true, and we were never going to blast through them. But Sohail was as full and straight as ever, Ben hit that perfect, miserly length, Fiddy found his rhythm, and even my first two overs were pretty tight (obviously the next five were total rubbish). We also fielded brilliantly: Dom made a very difficult chance (coming down over his left shoulder as he ran backwards from mid-off) look easy, while I, ambling forwards from mid-on, made a very straight-forward catch look exceptionally tricky. “I've never seen a thirty year-old look more like a seventy year-old,” said Shrimpie, encouragingly.

Perhaps all those teas are finally taking their toll. Devilled eggs, smoked salmon, chikken tikka wraps.... Mmmmm cricket.

Fire in Babylon

For cricket fans, the release of Fire in Babylon was probably the most exciting piece of cinema news in the past decade or so. Finally, a film about cricket. Sure, there have been others in recent years – Lagaan is meant to be quite good, Out of the Ashes (that one about the Afghanistan team) is apparently excellent, and there’s always the hilarious sounding slasher/village cricket movie I Know How Many Runs You Scored Last Summer – but Fire in Babylon promised something else entirely.

Most cricket films – and indeed cricket books – fall into two main categories: those for cricket obsessives that nobody else could possibly be interested in; and those that aren’t really about cricket at all, but instead use cricket to discuss something else. These tend to appeal to the broader audience but suffer from the problem of not showing enough cricket. Fire in Babylon, however, does both.

For the non-cricket fan it tells of the fascinating and at times genuinely disturbing fight for equal rights that has been one of the defining racial issues of the twentieth century. Some of the footage is truly shocking, both in terms of the violence it contains, and in terms of how recently much of this took place. Frankly, it’s appalling to think how recently racism was still not only acceptable but institutionally approved: apartheid in South Africa only ended in 1994. For context, that’s the year Brian Lara scored 501 against Durham and the year Stephen Fleming made his Test debut. I was 9 at the time. It’s that recent.

What Fire in Babylon does so well is to depict the emergence of the world-conquering West Indies team of the 1970s and ‘80s through the eyes of those that were there. There’s very little narration; instead it’s left to the likes of Michael Holding, Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Colin Croft, Andy Roberts and Gordon Greenidge to tell their stories. All are insightful speakers, and the sense of destiny and of being driven on by something far bigger than cricket is genuinely fascinating, if in places it drifts towards cod-spiritual nonsense. The presence of various Rastafarian pseudo-philosophers and contemporary musicians is entertaining, but in places rather clutters the narrative.

One of the other downsides of this 1st person approach is that you only get one side of the story. It would have been good to hear more from the batsmen who had to face these four-pronged pace attacks, and it certainly would have been interesting to hear what Tony Greig has to say about his infamous ‘grovel’ comments all these years later.

This, however, is more than made up for by what Fire in Babylon offers to the cricket fan: cricket. Lots and lots of cricket – cricket at its most brutal and gladiatorial, its most violent, dangerous, confrontational and terrifying. None of which are words one usually associates with the sport. There’s great footage of batsman getting hit, of Viv Richards nearly decapitating an umpire, and of Holding’s silky smooth run up. Much of it is footage I’ve never seen before – and as a cricket DVD obsessive, that’s something rare.

Whilst I love cricket primarily for its nuances – the trickery of the leg-spinner, the delicate late cut, the inspired captaincy decision – there’s no question that, as depicted in Fire in Babylon, cricket is also a thrilling spectacle. Or rather, it was. I always despise those washed up has-beens who lament the birth of the helmet as the death of cricket (what kind of idiot would think that?) but something has certainly been lost from the game now that batting is such a safe and comparatively simple task. Gone is the concept of batting as grim survival. And consequently gone too is the sense of the batsman as brave, embattled hero: from Brian Close to Mike Atherton. Partly because of the pitches, partly because of the workload, and partly, probably, just down to luck, no batsman these days has such challenges to overcome.

Fire in Babylon may be a flawed film – one that’s at times unwilling to take a step back, analyse, and examine complexity or contradiction – but it is a brilliant one. Funny, genuinely exciting, brutal, shocking, and enlightening: a triumph.

HHCC vs Full Tossers

Rained off. On the plus side, it finally gave me the chance to watch the hotly anticipated new cricket film, Fire in Babylon. It's bloody good I can tell you - full review coming soon...

HHCC vs The Lee

They say that with the truly great sporting teams – and I'm thinking of the 1970s West Indians here, Bradman's Invincibles or Australia under Steve Waugh – it's not about never making mistakes, for that would be impossible. It's about learning from those mistakes and avoiding them in the future. Well if the speed at which that lesson is learnt is an accurate indicator of greatness, then Hyde Heath have just etched themselves into the history books.

Last week you may recall, our middle order crashed horribly in pursuit of an eminently gettable 150. This week, in pursuit of roughly the same target, history looked like repeating itself. But no! Hyde Heath stood firm, and despite a mini-wobble, Ben Sonley played sensibly and James Shrimpton (40*) with customary élan to see the team home with consummate ease.

Earlier, stand-in skipper Bradley Hoult had won the toss and fielded against what was a decidedly youthful Lee XI. To make up for it, it seemed, The Lee decided to opt for some dubious umpiring tactics and wided everything in sight. Jez kept things tight and picked up a couple of wickets, but Brad was a little wayward early on. I came on, and once again got the treatment, although in fairness I did bowl better than last week – I just kept hitting a middle and leg line against a batsman whose one shot was the sweep. Not ideal.

Thankfully Shrimpy wheeled away with impressive changes in pace to pick up four wickets, Jez returned at the end to mop up the tail (and earn him the privilege of buying a jug), whilst a run out accounted for the other dismissal. In between all this I managed to take a catch – amazing! It was a bloody dolly though.

And then it was our turn to bat, and with the top order all contributing it was a walk in the park. Almost literally.

Image credit: Dr Crystal Bennes.

The Ashes plan or horses for courses?

To anyone following the build-up to today's England team selection for the first of the two upcoming Tests against the West Indies, that selection will have come as a surprise - neither Ian Bell, nor Michael Vaughan (around whom speculation has centred) made the 12-man squad, nor even Owais Shah, with Ravi Bopara preferred for the No. 3 berth, whilst Steve Harmison was passed over in favour of Durham teammate, Graham Onions, and Yorkshire's Tim Bresnan.

What is unclear about the selection, however, is how far it signals England's Ashes intentions. A top 7 of Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior and Broad may look adequate against the inexperienced West Indies attack, but it is surely a little lightweight to face the Australians. At No.8, Broad was a luxury, but, at No.7, he will shoulder run-scoring responsibility; Bopara scored one century against West Indies at No.6 (after being dropped on 4), but coming in first down against a top bowling attack on pitches with some life (Lord's aside) is quite a different matter. Putting two players in 'make or break' situations inevitably pressurises the rest of the batting line-up.

The 5-bowler selection may be a reflection of the difficulty of forcing a result at Lord's (the last 6 Tests there have been drawn), rather than a statement for the summer, although it's worth remembering that the team for the final Windies Test of the winter had the same balance. If this balance works well in the first Tests, it could well be kept for the summer, especially if Flintoff returns at No.7.

Whatever the side's balance, players I'd regard, at this stage, as inked-in Ashes certainties are Strauss(c.), Cook (reluctantly), Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior (with reservations), Broad and Anderson. With Swann or Panesar as the main spinner, this leaves 3 further places up for grabs: 2 batting and 1 bowling if England are being conservative, 2 bowling and 1 batting if caution is thrown to the wind, and one of each if Flintoff is fit.

The brusque message sent to Bell and Harmison, the most notable 'snubees', is that they are going to have to make themselves impossible to leave out between now and July, rather than simply returning to 'their' spots in the team. Bell, in particular, repeatedly puts being dropped down to a 3-month loss of form, rather than a failure, over a longer period, to do justice to his talent by scoring match-dictating centuries under pressure.

In the race for Ashes places, it's all to play for, which is just as it should be. Since Andy Flower doesn't have the luxury of a settled team, the best he can do is to stimulate competition for places and hope that the results will follow. It'll be interesting to see which players react best.

The Referral System

I would imagine that anyone who follows English Test cricket will want to forget the Sabina Park incident as quickly as is humanly possible. However, this match will live long in the memory – not due to the failure of England’s fragile batting line up, nor to the possible resurgence of the West Indies under Gayle’s quietly efficient captaincy – but due to the fact that this was the Test in which England met the referral system for the first time. In principle the referral system is a logical application of the available technology. I for one can still remember the devastation of watching wicket after wicket falling to no-balls against Pakistan in 2001, a situation that ultimately could have been simply avoided through the simple use of video replays. Indeed, in the West Indian innings Gayle, having been given out caught behind down the leg side, was able to immediately refer the decision and rightly continue his innings. Sarwan was given LBW for 5 and again the decision was reversed, allowing Sarwan to provide his vital innings. The referral system therefore should be seen as a great step forward for Test cricket – proof that the game is willing to march forward and evolve with time. Players, umpires and spectators can be certain that the best decision will be reached and games decided on the skill of the players involved not the vagaries of umpires.

The referral system is a logical step but this is sport and since when has everything in sport been logical? Just ask Owais Shah. Part of the attraction for me of cricket, and indeed sport in general, is the spectacle. The spectacle of cricket is not simply the majesty of a Trescothick straight drive but also the waft outside off stump with no foot movement. It is the moments of exquisite skill and the momentary loss of concentration. Umpires are no less part of this. The skill involved in making a decision and the courage to make a judgment call at a key stage of a Test are vital ingredients in this spectacle. I am (perhaps unsurprisingly) often a listener of TMS and the fall of a wicket often brings out the best in the commentators. They are caught in the moment and, to the listener, part of the spectacle. There are moments of Test cricket that I will never forget – Harmison’s slower ball to Michael Clarke at Edgbaston in 2005. This is not simply due to the significance of the moment or the skill involved but the commentary of Mark Nicholas. I was listening to TMS when the Smith, Sarwan, and Gayle referrals were made and the moment was destroyed by the system. Each decision took an age to process even though the commentary teams had a fair idea of what was going to happen within seconds.

I must admit to sneaking glances at the Six Nations on Saturday as England collapsed in Jamaica. Video technology has been in use for many years and can be said to be a success. Decisions are reached quickly and accurately without spoiling the flow of the game. The length of time needed to make the decisions during the first Test was certainly my principle concern with a full adoption of the system. I had come into the Test thinking that technology was a necessity for the modern game; however, I am not so certain now. Bad umpiring decisions, like dropped catches, are as much part of the game today as they have been in the past, and in reality how many games can be said to rest on a single decision? With falling Test crowds the spectacle of Test cricket is of vital importance for the initiation of future cricket tragics. If at the end of the summer of 2009 Ponting is trapped by Flintoff for England to regain the Ashes I want the moment to last. I don’t want technology spoiling it for me.

Starting XI against the West Indies

Right, pretty boring one to start off, but I'm worried Tom may cry if it's just him that keeps on posting…

What would be your starting XI against the West Indies?

The opening partnership picks itself: they have both just scored runs against the Nevis Invitational XI and we haven't really got anyone better.

I'm going for Shah at three. He has waited long enough for his chance, and every time Bell plays it seems as if he is batting for his life. Always one innings before he is dropped he scores a good looking 70 odd and he’s saved for the next two tests. I also think Shah has a bit of grit about him, I think he is a guy that will play better the bigger the occasion. If he gets runs against West Indies A then they have no choice. Also Bell looks like a vole!

Colly: I would love to have a solid number 5 in our team, but as England don’t seem to have one, what can they do? Collingwood can add a bit of determination to the innings, he can keep his head and help England rebuild, if his technique does not let him down first. I would love to see someone else in there but he’ll do for now.

KP and Flintoff, enough said.

Prior: Best of a bad bunch (I use the word best loosely).

Broad: I think he has potential as a bowler and we need to develop him for all formats of the game. He could come on and I see no reason to replace him, plus he also just turned down the chance of not getting picked for the IPL unlike some other prats, Sajid Mahmood anyone. IPL picks.

Sidebottom: as we seem to have shut the door on Hoggard and he was England’s player of last year, if he is fit, I think he works as solid metronomic operator to tie up one end and if it swings then great news.

Monty: we have to give him another chance seeing as he took 7 wickets in the warm up game. If he again proves ineffective then we need to give either Swann or Rashid a prolonged run in the team as a succession plan for the next Ashes series.

Harmison: I know hoping for a repeat of last time is clutching at straws, but I’m English, I thought that is what we did. I know he is a homesick, serial breeding, lazy shit... but he's not James Anderson.

My Starting XI:

Strauss (C)
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior (W)
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar
Harmison