Run with Eric [Search results for Cricket] 

Looking at all kinds of news stories over the course of the week, you can't help but feel there's a lot of hostility in the world. As a highly-opinionated budding journalist, I like to think I'm adding to that.

Sarkozy upsets the Irish
London upsets the tourists
Pattinson upsets the balance of the English cricket team

The most amusing news for me this week was the EU’s understanding and diplomatic response to Ireland’s snubbing of the Lisbon Treaty. Ireland’s general public said ‘no’ in a referendum on June 12, and this week Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and kind-of-President-of-the-EU-until-the-end-of-the-year, basically told them to try again and get it right this time.

Strangely, the response to his response hasn’t been that positive. The Irish are very proud of their referenda – any potential change to the Irish constitution must go to a public vote – and having sent a serious message to the EU and helped Poland and other member states to throw a spanner in the works they don’t really fancy the ignominy of being treated like an unruly child. After all, the power is theirs. If they keep saying no, the Lisbon Treaty can’t go ahead. Simple as.

Sarkozy has recently tried to explain his position, arguing that the EU needs to operate and can’t wait on the Irish forever because, “We will need to know a little in advance under which legal system, Nice or Lisbon, we will be making these decisions” (the wonderful irony there, of course, being that the Irish rejected the Nice Treaty as well). But the Irish have made a decision. It wasn’t a maybe. It was a no.

The bigger question for me is whether they should have had a referendum in the first place. The basis of Western democracy is that we have the power to elect people to make decisions for us, and then complain when they do. An attractive loophole is that if a massive issue arises, we can vote directly on it (theoretically). But for a referendum to make any sense, the issue can’t just be sufficiently important, but sufficiently simple as well.

The (brilliant) comedian Marcus Brigstocke put it well in his Planet Corduroy tour: “Yes, ask us questions we couldn’t possibly know the answer to. Please ask me something, I am utterly unqualified….I can tell you what the dividing line will be between the ‘Yes’ and the ‘No’ camps: it will be whether or not you had a shitty French exchange when you were a teenager.”

And he’s completely right. My bet is that very few Irish voters know the ins and outs of the monolithic slab of paper that is the Lisbon Treaty. They’re effectively voting on whether they like the EU or not. Now that’s OK if you’re voting on whether or not to join the EU or even the Euro (even if you can’t know the in-depth economic details, it’s a sufficiently big decision for the public to have a right to vote on it), but not in this case, perhaps.

The Sunday Telegraph has revealed that London is an expensive city for a tourist. The world continues to spin on its axis.

This cannot come as a surprise to anyone who has ever tried to do the tourism thing in London. “Two tickets to the London Eye, please.” “Certainly, sir. That’ll be £390.”

Sorry, that’s a gross exaggeration. As if anyone working for the London tourist trade would be as deferential and polite as to call you ‘sir’.

Anyway, the study calculated that for a family of four to take an open-top bus tour and visit the city’s top nine tourist attractions (including the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and Tutankhamun live in person at the O2) would cost, in total, £550. If you’re looking for a comparison, Rome would cost only £216 for an equivalent day out, New York £376 and Paris – including the Eiffel Tower, Disneyland and the Louvre – £386. Riots not included.

You could argue, reasonably, that you’re paying for better attractions. Dublin may cost less than a third of the price on the same axis, but the tourist spots include Trinity College Library and the birthplace of George Bernard Shaw. Without any disrespect to Dublin, that’s not quite on the same scale as what London has to offer.

But this is not to excuse its extortionate prices. Madame Tussaud’s costs £27 in Hong Kong and £50 in Berlin, but £85 in London. There’s no excuse for that kind of overpricing. Maybe it’s hard when they’re stopping you walking in the street to take photographs and constantly asking the way to the Houses of Parliament, but you’ve got to treat tourists with a little respect.

In my extremely biased view, London could learn a thing or two from Cardiff. Not only does it have free prescriptions and free hospital parking (hurrah for the Welsh Assembly), but free museums as well. London claims its museums are free, but only when they feel like it – one-off exhibitions cost a bomb.

Of course, not everything in London costs money, and seeing the city’s undiscovered delights is definitely the way forward. It also might persuade tourism bosses to drop their prices at little. And for me at least, while Westminster Abbey’s great and everything, few experiences can top a walk through Hyde Park with a 99 and having a healthy political debate with a complete stranger at Speaker’s Corner.

Not that I stole the ice cream, obviously. I did have to pay for that, I suppose.

In sport, Padraig Harrington defied the weather to retain the Open, Lewis Hamilton defied his own team to win in Hockenheim and South Africa beat the English cricket team into a bloody pulp.

With questions over Hawk-eye and sportsmanship just on the first day, controversy was at the forefront and no more so than in the shadowy figure of Darren Pattinson. You may well ask who. The Grimsby-born, Australia-raised 29-year-old’s selection ahead of a plethora of proven stars and promising hopefuls can only spell bad news for English cricket.

Not that it’s Pattinson’s fault, of course – he was as stunned as anyone else to be called up for the English national side. And not just because he has a broad Aussie accent. After all, Kevin Pietersen was born and raised in South Africa, not to mention former English greats such as Tony Greig, Allan Lamb, Graeme Hick and Nasser Hussain all hailing from the southern hemisphere. No, the problem with Pattinson’s selection isn’t his nationality – it’s his pedigree.

When Pattinson walked onto the pitch just weeks short of his 30th birthday, he’d played just 11 first-class matches in his career. Yes, 11. Ever. Two years ago he was a roof-tiler. You simply cannot throw such an inexperienced player into a Test Match and expect him to do well.

Much was spoken about England’s decision to go with a five-pronged bowling attack, but it was hardly a sharp one. In fact, it had as much penetration as a spork. What with Andrew Flintoff playing his first Test in 18 months and Monty Panesar extracting little spin from the typical Headingley pitch, Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad had a tough enough job without Pattinson chucking down harmless wobblers.

This is not to mention the adverse psychological ramifications of such a random selection. Steve Harmison expressed concern that Pattinson was selected ahead of him. Matthew Hoggard mentioned the possibility of international retirement. How it must feel for the likes of Harmison, Hoggard, Simon Jones, Chris Tremlett and Kabir Ali (6-58 for Worcestershire at the weekend), knowing they’re effectively next in line for a place only for Pattinson to come in from nowhere. It’s not even about Muggins’ Turn; to pick Pattinson on form alone (29 first-class wickets this season at an average of 20.86) is crazy, especially when Harmison has taken 40 at 23.1, and knows a bit about Test cricket.

Pattinson just isn’t good enough for Test cricket – or at least has not been given the time on the county circuit to prove he is. He’s inexperienced. He’s Australian. He can’t bat (a problem, given England’s tail). And at 29, he’s not one for the future. Why pick him?

He also dropped an easy catch. Maybe he’ll fit in after all.

[Monday’s edit: incredibly, the selectors’ idiocy has been surpassed by that of Kevin Pietersen, who, required to bat for at least a day to give England a chance of a draw, hit 4 4 1 4 before getting himself out. 13 from 5 balls. Just what England needed.]

Thanks to the exploits of a certain Adil Rashid and a slightly less certain Ryan Sidebottom, it was an exciting finish to the first one-day international between England and Australia at the Oval – but let's get one thing clear.

This one-day international was not the Ashes. In fact, it was nowhere near the Ashes. If the Ashes series this year was a rollercoaster ride of emotion and Hollywood heroics, this match was a broken ghost train on Blackpool Pier.

The fact of the matter is that the first of this autumn's seven-match series was a poor, unexciting match for the spectator from start to (about ten overs before) the finish.

Many people can be blamed for this: Messrs Collingwood, Bopara and Clarke for a start, all mistiming the ball and scoring at a rate to make Geoffrey Boycott impatient. But if we're talking anticlimaxes, we have to point the finger at the tour's schedulers.

Up until now, the one-day internationals have always been played prior to the Ashes Test series, and that's absolutely the way it should be. An Ashes summer is all about that treasured urn, and so the fight for it should be left until last. You don't get it out the way; you build up to it, and treasure it like that last Rolo.

The problem is that schedulers, apparently knowing little about the game, seem to automatically assume the shorter form of the game is more exciting for spectators. It was decided long ago by these people that when it comes to cricket formats, shorter is better - like a genetic engineering maverick cheating at a limbo competition.

But they are forgetting this is England vs Australia, a cricketing rivalry older than time, and fans don't want to see one-day thumb wars; they want to see epic five-day battles between two mighty opposing armies.

The schedulers are, in fact, guilty of underestimating or even patronising the fans. Despite how it may often appear, even the Barmy Army know their cricket, and appreciate a gritty battle for domination as much as anyone. It may seem surprising at first but they're more interested in England grinding out a difficult last session than playing and missing at medium-pacers in bright yellow jumpsuits – and that's why attendances for international 50-over games are on the wane.

It is true that Twenty20 continues to thrive. But the 40- and 50-over formats are struggling, and needed a confidence boost from the ECB a month or so ago when they confirmed the existence of a Sunday League for all counties next season, to stay alive. The reason seems to be that 40- and 50-over games strike an unhappy medium: neither drawn-out tactical battles or 20-over slogfests, they take up a whole day and often end in a massive anti-climax (albeit not in this game, admittedly).

For the schedulers to end this Ashes summer with a 50-over competition, and one dragged out to a yawn-inducing seven matches as well, was a thoughtless mistake. Does anyone really care once the Ashes have been won or lost (and think what the ODI crowds would be like had England lost)? It's a question that needs to be asked. Playing the one-dayers before the Test series whets the appetite - playing them after is a bloated dessert nobody can stomach, let alone finish.

It also seems that if the schedulers do know little about the game, they know even less about the British weather. It may be that they wanted the Test series to be played earlier in the summer so they would be least affected by rain – a noble pursuit, but one that almost seems to contradict nature and the history of cricket.

But why has the one-day series been arranged so that the matches move gradually northwards? After the first four matches take place in London and Southampton, the series moves on to Nottingham and finally Durham, deep, by that point, into September. The likelihood of these games being rained off increases exponentially with every day and every mile.

All in all, it's a crazy cricketing summer – but perhaps not for the right reasons.

America in 'still racist' shocker
The Sun in 'moral outrage' shocker
Footballer in 'stupid celebration' shocker
English cricket selectors in 'don't know what they're doing' shocker
Croatia in 'strict ex-Soviet state' shocker

I suppose it was only a matter of time.

What may also be only a matter of time is Barack Obama being assassinated. I am genuinely worried for his safety (and now they're taking away his BlackBerry, so we can't even e-mail him saying "Duck"). This really might happen. If it does, it's a tragedy not only for the obvious reason that, well, he'd be dead and his family would be quite upset, but because I can't see America electing another black man into the White House if Obama were to be assassinated. He has inspired millions, but a dead black president would be the final proof that America isn't ready. We can only hope and pray he doesn't become a latter-day JFK.

And these violent race crimes aren't encouraging, although they are predictable. Still, I am surprised by the burning crosses. You'd think even idiots from the Deep South would think that's going too far – not because everything else is OK (clearly it isn't), but because you'd think they'd be sensible enough to realise that associating yourself with the Ku Klux Klan doesn't do your argument any favours.

"Hey, Billy-Bob-Joe."

"How ya doin', Joe-Billy-Bob?"

"How'd that stunt go just now?"

"No prob, Bob. Those monkeys just got a window full of shit."

"Good work, buddy. Just let me finish this 'KILL OBAMA' sign and we'll head on down to the subway. Hey, do we still have any of those burning crosses from that, uh, fancy dress party?"

"Burning crosses?"

"Yeah."

"I dunno... isn't that a bit too far? I mean, we want this guy to die, obviously – he's black and he's in charge of the greatest country in the world. But don't you think burning crosses kinda make us look a bit stupid? It's not even like it's ironic."

"Don't black out on me, man. We put up burning crosses and people know we're serious. Besides, what have you got against the Ku Klux Klan? Those guys were national heroes."

"Good point, man."

"Damn right good point. U-S-A! A-O-K-K-K!"

(Disclaimer: I feel no shame if you think this is in bad taste. I mock because I always do, and racism doesn't deserve special treatment.)

No one does moral outrage quite like The Sun. Or The Mail. Or The Evening Standard. Actually, most of the British press does moral outrage in quite a big way, and you have to laugh because if you don't you just might cry.

But what does make me want to cry is just how powerful these papers can be. After this little shenanigan, a Gary Glitter song has been axed from a GCSE Music syllabus. Understandable, you might think at first, since he's a convicted paedophile and it would be 15- and 16-year-olds listening to his music. But think again. Why should it have to go?

They don't want children listening to Gary Glitter's music. Fair enough. It's awful. But it's not as if I'm The Leader Of The Gang (I Am) has subliminal messages in it telling certain listeners to take sweets from dirty old men, is it?

Listening to his music isn't going to hurt him. And then saying, "I dread to think what they may find searching online for him" – what? What will they find? His penis? Private videos of him abusing children? The only thing they'll find is that he's a paedophile, and if they didn't know that already they're intelligent enough to go "Boo, hiss" when they find out.

A lot of people are using the argument that he'll make money from the, ahem, exposure, but only if people buy his music. Are teenagers going to start buying Gary Glitter records? Really? Exactly.

I also find the browser headline interesting: "How can exam bosses ask kids to study Gary Glitter? ¦ The Sun ¦ News" Now come on, guys, that's not news. That's opinion. That's a liberty almost as bad as this related headline: 'PERVERT GLITTER'S £100k TELLY AD' – a fantastically misleading headline which makes it sound as though he's actually getting an advert for his services ("Hey kids! It's Gary Glitter!").

Maybe the song should have been removed after all. But I'm pretty sure The Sun's home brand 'got the bastard' bring-a-pitchfork whine party isn't necessary.

David Norris has been fined by Ipswich Town after seemingly making a gesture in support of ex-teammate Luke McCormick, who was jailed for seven years after causing the death of two boys in a car crash, having been twice the drink-drive legal limit after drinking at Norris' wedding.

I have one issue with this, and that's the club's response. The boys' mother was right to complain, and so reasonably too (call me inconsistent all you like – I think this moral outrage is justified), and I'm glad Ipswich Town looked into it. But they have come out in support of Norris and still fined him. What's the message there?

The club says it has heard Norris' explanation and is satisfied it was all a big misunderstanding, and that his celebration was misinterpreted. OK then. No problem there. But then they fined him an undisclosed fee for doing it. Why? If the gesture was so innocent, it's not his fault it was misinterpreted. Either he's guilty of deliberately making the gesture supporting Luke McCormick, in which case he should be punished, or he's the innocent victim of a giant misunderstanding, in which case he shouldn't be punished.

Mixed messages, methinks.

In an attack on the English Cricket Board's selection policy, Darren Gough criticised the selectors for picking Ravi Bopara only to do nothing with him.

I couldn't agree more. Ravi Bopara is wasted batting at no8. In England's 158-run defeat to India on Friday, he came into a match that was pretty much already lost and hit an unbeaten 38-ball half-century, including five sixes. Significantly, he ran out of partners.

He also didn't bowl, although Collingwood and captain KP did, conceding 31 runs in 3 overs. In total, England were hit for 387 in 50 overs, which is not far away from 8 an over.

So, why is a man picked to bat and bowl batting at 8 and not bowling? Bopara bats at 3 for Essex and does a damn good job of it. He is definitely a better batsman than new boy Samit Patel and Matty Prior, who again disappointed opening the batting. He deserves better than this.

Ravi Bopara is a quality player, and if the selectors don't believe this, then why are they picking him?

It's official: Croatia has cancelled Christmas. OK, so only in the public sector, but still: won't somebody think of the children?

It's a shame to see Michael Vaughan has retired. Apart from anything else, he's one of the nicest blokes in cricket: look at that anecdote about his son in the above story. But mainly, of course, he's a fantastic cricketer and captain par excellence.

I do think it's too early for him to retire. He has struggled with form of late, but the greats are able to turn that around. Ricky Ponting confessed he thought Vaughan "might have had a bit more to offer international cricket", and I agree. Think what a vice-captain he'd make to Andrew Strauss.

Also, if the rightly-picked younger players start to stutter then England might need someone with experience, and while the likes of Collingwood, Strauss and - God help us - Pietersen have that experience, they don't have the Test nouse that Vaughan has.

But I don't judge the selectors for dropping Vaughan - of course not. You need to pick on form and current quality, not performances of yesteryear. I wouldn't have picked him for the 16-man squad either (although, having just seen his performance in the Lions warm-up game against Australia, I'm not sure I feel the same about Harmison). It's just a shame that Vaughan took this opportunity to retire because I, like Ponting, really feel he has more to offer. If he'd stuck around on the county circuit for another year or two, he might have picked up a lot more runs and even found himself back in the international set-up - and even if he didn't, he'd still be a major player at his beloved Yorkshire.

So do I think he's lost his bottle and retiring too soon? Yes. He's 34: the 'spending time with the family' excuse doesn't ring true yet, and since he's blaming a loss of form anyway, it's not even relevant. This may seem harsh, but remember I'm a massive Michael Vaughan fan, and let us remember him this way. But ultimately, when the going gets tough the tough get going, and Vaughan has - unfortunately, in the wrong direction.

Someone, somewhere, needs to work out the Duckworth-Lewis rule and explain it to people before using it.

The West Indies are the latest team to lose out as a result of confusion, having accepted the offer to go off for bad light, thinking they were ahead of the rate. It turned out they weren't, and England won by one run. Completely unfair on the Windies, of course, who weren't even being naïve but were operating under a different set of rules.

Another game ruined.

The bigger question for me, though, is why they went off in the first place. 27 needed to win from 22 balls? 3 wickets left? Game on. It'd have to be pitch black to call that one off in my mind. And for the sake of 3 1/2 overs, you really do think they could have played on in the supposed gloom.

Officials need to either think up a simpler alternative to the Duckworth-Lewis system or explain it to teams more clearly, and umpires really need to think about what constitutes sufficient bad light to end a day's play. A cricket match shouldn't end abruptly because it's a little murky.

England's Test and one-day squads to tour South Africa clearly show the selectors taking everything into account. They have one eye firmly on the future, looking to develop younger players. They have one eye on the past, looking at previous tourists ready for an England recall. And they have one eye on the present, glued to this season's performances in the County Championship. We're talking three eyes here, all looking in different directions.

Which may explain why the selectors seem to have lost sight of their objectives. There's no doubting that the Test squad for this tour represents a monumental shake-up, with new players being brought in and what is perceived as chaff being ruthlessly chucked away. Oh yes, you won't see any aging Test match failures in this squad. You won't see any Ian Bells, any Paul Collingwoods, any... oh.

Yes, the under- and overachiever, the gruesome twosome, the most painful partnership you'll ever have to watch, continue to hold down Test places in spite of their increasing years and decreasing contributions. Hold on, you might say – Bell scored two 50s in the Ashes. Yes, but he's still a top-level bottler of the same ilk as Hick and Ramprakash who is terrified of taking responsibility in a batting order. Well, hold on yet further, you might add – Collingwood saved our skin in Cardiff and was one of the highest run-scorers in the recent ICC Champions Trophy. He also did nothing for the rest of the Ashes, and one-day form is no indicator of Test match ability.

Which brings me onto Luke Wright. The Sussex slogger is by far and away the most baffling, absurd and ire-inducing inclusion in the 16-man Test squad. I almost feel sorry for him, because I think the whole thing is a joke that's gone on for too long and one day he'll realise he's been played for a sap.

The simple fact of the matter is that Luke Wright is not an international cricketer, and certainly isn't anywhere near good enough to play at Test level. He can slog the ball, but no better than your average blacksmith (Ian Blackwell ahoy), and he can – apparently – bowl, although all evidence to the contrary suggests it's a miracle he makes it to the crease without falling over. But he is, to all extents and purposes, a club cricketer with big arms. National selector Geoff Miller said they don't see Wright as "a like-for-like replacement" for Andrew Flintoff. Damn right he isn't. Flintoff could play cricket.

Coming to a Test match near you

Ravi Bopara, meanwhile, has been given the boot after one poor series, in which he arguably batted in the wrong position (he's a middle-order Test batsman, not a number three). His immediate omission from both the Test and one-day squads is a travesty. Still, he's young and highly talented, so I have faith he'll bounce back.

The same, sadly, can't be said of Owais Shah, one of the great talents of late never to fill his boots. Told he had four games in the Champions Trophy to save his place, Shah duly hit 44 and 98 against the two best bowling line-ups in the world, including a matchwinning knock against South Africa. It was too late. He was always going to be dropped. He's been lied to.

He's not the only one. Steve Harmison's omission is understandable, but the selectors haven't been straight with him. They at least owe him an explanation. You're past it. You're no good away from home. Hearing you crying into your pillow about how much you miss Freddie might disturb the younger players. But instead of an excuse Geoff Miller provided a lie – that he's not been consistent this season. Harmison took 51 Championship wickets at 22 runs apiece (Liam Plunkett took 49 at 24).

Ah yes, Plunkett: the man on form. The selectors' one eye on this year's County Championship averages fittingly lacks depth perception, failing to see that Plunkett doesn't have the tactical nouse to think out a world-class batsman on a flat wicket. As for Sajid Mahmood coming back into the frame, well – we've slipped back in time. Mahmood and Plunkett last played for England in 2007, alongside Hoggard, Harmy and a plucky Chris Tremlett, not to mention Monty Panesar, then being hailed as a future world-beater (interesting to see how that turned out).

Undoubtedly, the squads could be worse. It's encouraging to see Adil Rashid picked over Panesar, and Jonathan Trott's inclusion in the one-day squad is a long overdue one, even if it does represent a cost-cutting measure whereby players stay at their parents' houses (a quarter of England's squad was born in South Africa).

But the inclusion of previous disappointments Mahmood and Plunkett suggests we've gone one step forward, but two years back in time.

I had the chance to listen to Ricky Ponting's press conference yesterday and I was impressed by his combination of honesty and tact. I don't especially like the guy, but it was refreshing to hear one piece of level-headedness in particular.

There was a lot of talk in both Ponting and Strauss' conferences about 'aura', and whether Australia have lost it. Strauss said they had. The Telegraph, and probably numerous other papers as well, splashed this across six pages, most of which were dedicated to calling Strauss a silly boy and telling him to do his talking on the field. Some of these words came from Geoffrey Boycott, who should perhaps heed his own advice and shut the hell up, or at least do the tiniest bit of research before putting his uninformed views to press.

The reason I say this is because Strauss didn't come out with a prepared statement that Australia had lost their aura. He was asked whether he thought they had, and said yes. Which is true. They have. He also made it clear that this was in no way an insult to the Australian team; merely an inevitable consequence of the players being so new to Test cricket. The 'offending' statement can be seen on video here.

The point is that Strauss was only answering a question, not making a statment of his own. That's not arrogant, or foolish. It's honest. And yes, they do differ sometimes.

So where does Ponting come into this? Because he was asked four or five questions about what Strauss said, and after answering straight questions with straight answers - such as saying England didn't have an aura themselves, a statement he only made when asked that specific question - he questioned the context of Strauss' statement.

Was Strauss asked a direct question about Australia's lack of aura, he asked? Yes, he was told. Well, Ponting said, we can't take that out of context then, can we? He was just answering a question. We all have to do that. You have to be careful: the press will blow things out of proportion.

And he was right.

---

Don't forget to look for live updates from the Test match on inthenews.co.uk.

Being in Devon for a spell with Sky Sports enables me to write this post watching the 2nd India-England Test match but also keep up-to-date on the South Africa-Australia game. This is handy, because there's something of a pattern shared by the two.

South Africa chased to win in Perth, reaching the 414 target for the loss of only four wickets. This is the second-highest run chase in Test history, knocking India's demolition of England just the other day down to the fifth-highest ever. That's two of history's five highest run chases recorded in under a week. Good news, right? Right?

Well. The South Africa-Australia battle was a fantastic match, no doubt, but I'm not as happy as others are about success stories for teams batting second. It's good that seeing a target of 350+ does not automatically equate to a draw or a loss for the batting side, and it's more exciting for the spectators, obviously, and I suppose that's the point, but I can't help but feel a bit sorry for the bowlers. You're almost on a hiding to nothing.

OK, so Australia's attack was a lot weaker than it's been in the past: even with the Brettster and rising star Mitch Johnson, a four-pronged attack of Lee, Johnson, Peter Siddle and Jason Krejza is no McGrath-McDermott-Hughes-Warne. But nevertheless, South Africa should not have been allowed to chase a 400+ total against the best side in the world.

Big runs are happening not just in Australia, either. India chased a massive total the other day, and England are currently scoring at more than four runs an over (I still don't expect a result, though - not with the Beijing-esque bad light in Mohali).

The problem is the rolled pitches. Call me an old man, but with unprotected pitches there was always more in it for the bowler, and by the fifth day it was like batting on a cattle grid.

Now THAT is interesting cricket.