Something's up at the ARG, St. John's...

I am sure that the WIndies are throwing this match.

No matter what happens now, even if my mood lifts - I am seeing the logical conclusion
of PayTV as enacted through Caribbean cricket.

Less than 10% of the paying customers are 'locals', ie Antiguans.

The great majority of the crowd are Brits.

This is about SkyTV hegemony, and all kinds of
skullduggery. The event will carry on regardless.

The Eng-ur-land have claimed the ARG. Great TV,
but is it cricket?

Welcome to neo-colonialism, C21 style.

Now I know why I’m feeling queasy about Stanford...

" Now whoo wants tah git a hold of mah assits furst??? "

This explains why I felt uncomfortable about the Stanford deal.

He's actually gone and proved that what I said in an earlier blog about cricket selling out is kinda true.

Not even the most ambitious soccer WAG would allow herself to be photographed like this with a man like this (willingly)...

I am actually on the side of the ladies here.

I refuse to judge them - some things are more important than money...

...and I am not blaming Sir Allen either. Mr KP said that they didn't set up this situation, they play where they're told for England. I do not blame the players at all.

Nor their unfortunate wives and companions.

Cricket finds itself a 'widow' in the next...

D'ya see ‘her’ the other day - with that strange-looking guy throwing her ‘corn‘ (and she picking it up too!) ?

Cricket once had ‘game’.

Man, I stayed up into the night to please that fickle spirit - and once followed those brave souls around the world (via radio 4 long wave) to catch the muse. I was called an anorak - and I wore that name as a badge of pride. (Still do, if I'm honest)

Now the sport stands accused of “marrying the 'spirit of the age' ” rather than staying put with her former soulmate.

Good G_D Almighty.

Why am I saying this ?

Because of this...

And to think that I had a go at the BBC for not bidding.

I apologise unreservedly if this story is even half-true...

...for the Corporation would have been entirely correct not to contribute a penny of the TV licence fee money towards this set-up.

I am angry at myself for half-believing the hype. But even at its worst, the Beeb does have some standards left. They did very well to distance themselves from this ‘situation’ that English cricket finds itself in right now.

{note to reader: it's like watching a once-attractive - if formerly rather prim - married woman making a total fool of herself over not ONE, but TWO unsuitable men whilst her erstwhile (and rather boring) husband shakes his head and waits patiently for his wife, this 'stupid woman' (quote unquote) to come to her senses and return home to the children before they all end up playing football}

For if the Antiguan crusade succeeds, all well and good for the players and 'West Indian' (should really read Caribbean) cricket.

But if the November night tryst at twenty hours for $20 million falls flat, cricket in England - and maybe in the ‘WIndies’ too - may well find itself a ‘widow’ in the digital age - and ClearBlue might eventually tire of this bruised, haughty little ‘game’ as its summer companion... 

...polo anyone?

©PoorCricketFan: 02September2008

R•I•P Terrestrial Coverage of Cricket in the United Kingdom.

Much loved (even when interrupted for the 3:30 at Catterick) and missed

(NB - I am NOT referring to the players - I am glad that they can earn decent money - but to the higher-level administrators who have put the game on a platter and served it up to Mammon - big time. These guys have stitched up the game - and also themselves. This will not endear the sport to those children who no longer play. What bargaining power do the E-Z Beez have now? Do they have a ‘plan B’?)

(NBB - title is a misquote from the late (and missed) Archbishop of Cantebury, Dr Runcie - who in turn took it from the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, W.R. Inge - here is a best copy taken from “Between Two Worlds” by Dr John Stott. This quote is fashionable again, clichéd, but still true - and not just for ecclesiastical matters...)

(NBB - I'm not turning into a Torygraph reader, am I? Please say no...)

SSSSHHHHH!!!!! (Jonathan Agnew has been censored)

For your delectation and delight - here is Jonathan Agnew and what he said (apparently) about the retroactive award of a draw to Pakistan earlier this week (viz-a-viz the controversial Test v England at the Oval in 2006):

BBC cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew said the move would open up “an absolutely enormous can of worms”.

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: “The Pakistanis were accused of ball tampering and they did not come out to play.

“The umpires went into their room and said ‘You must come out to continue the game’, they did not and, under the laws of any sport, if you refuse to play, you lose the game.”

“Match abandoned, they’re saying, as a draw, - well, abandoned on what grounds? It wasn’t the weather, it wasn’t anything else, it was that Pakistan wouldn’t come out to play for whatever reason.

“That game has now been classified as a draw, so if you’re losing, you sit in the dressing room, don’t come out and you can get away with a draw.”

I'm preserving this - because I heard him say it (3rd July 2008 - PM-ish), but all traces of this part of the interview was removed from the Beeb website - perhaps because it caused offence. Whatever. I'm one of those that believe that the umpire is the final authority - at least at the crease.

There are a few things that I wish I could change retroactively: - a) if I were prettier I would have the ... I can't believe that I've come to terms with not being attractive!!!

The ump's word is law. Full stop. (even if he is sh*te)