[Cricket] Favourite cricket pundit/anyliser

[Invicta]

Isa Guha

Lovely voice. All time favourite is Benaud, no debate.

 

[Mackenzie]

Ah, I see. As a non-Twatter I did not know that was possible. Mind you, still not a nice thing to do.

Not the smartest move, I hate that word too.

 

[Beanstalk]

I don't agree. Aggers lost his shit in a private message to a self-righteous journalist who has completely miss-read the Archer situation for his own ends.

I think C*** is a measured response.

Personally, I don't think it is that hard to a) write an actually measured public response to the article, or b) simply ignore the article. He's a professional, he should've done a lot better. You might think someone is c*** but is it really imperative that you tell them? Especially if your relationship isn't a personal one.

Regardless, I do think that is all quite forgivable. My problem is that English cricket has an unbelievable representation problem. It is dominated by privately educated white men, and when you have privately educated white ex-cricketers talking about upsetting the "culture" of that team without really explaining what they mean by that, its problematic. It's not just Agnew, but others also mentioned by Liew in the article.

 

[Eeyore]

Personally, I don't think it is that hard to a) write an actually measured public response to the article, or b) simply ignore the article. He's a professional, he should've done a lot better. You might think someone is c*** but is it really imperative that you tell them? Especially if your relationship isn't a personal one.

Regardless, I do think that is all quite forgivable. My problem is that English cricket has an unbelievable representation problem. It is dominated by privately educated white men, and when you have privately educated white ex-cricketers talking about upsetting the "culture" of that team without really explaining what they mean by that, its problematic. It's not just Agnew, but others also mentioned by Liew in the article.

Currently about 45%- some of whom are not white.

The problem is that cricket is not the game of choice in secondary schools and, whilst not ideal, it is the privately educated players that have kept things alive.

The point of fact about the article is that racism was insinuated towards Agnew. That is why I get his anger.

 

[LlcoolJ]

James Anderson has been great on TMS during the world cup

Cookie was on today. Thought he'd be terrible based on his post match interviews. He was surprisingly excellent.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Possibly before your time? But the BBC TV team of the late 70’s and 80’s were also great ... Richie Benaud, Jim Laker, grumpy Fred Trueman and Peter West. I first got into cricket as a spectator sport, as a kid, by coming on across their test match coverages. Great memories of the era onwards from Randall, Gower, Emburey, Edmonds, Gooch.

How could I have forgotten Fred Trueman?!

 

[LlcoolJ]

Personally, I don't think it is that hard to a) write an actually measured public response to the article, or b) simply ignore the article. He's a professional, he should've done a lot better. You might think someone is c*** but is it really imperative that you tell them? Especially if your relationship isn't a personal one.

Regardless, I do think that is all quite forgivable. My problem is that English cricket has an unbelievable representation problem. It is dominated by privately educated white men, and when you have privately educated white ex-cricketers talking about upsetting the "culture" of that team without really explaining what they mean by that, its problematic. It's not just Agnew, but others also mentioned by Liew in the article.

Well said.

On a more positive note, we hear all the time that cricket is dominated by the privately educated.

However, my son has played for South Yorkshire for the past four years and only two of the lads in the current squad of 15 are public schoolboys.

To put it in perspective, South Yorkshire at U12 level are as good as most counties A teams. Cricket is still massive in Yorkshire, and not just for the rich.

 

[Beanstalk]

Currently about 45%- some of whom are not white.

The problem is that cricket is not the game of choice in secondary schools and, whilst not ideal, it is the privately educated players that have kept things alive.

The point of fact about the article is that racism was insinuated towards Agnew. That is why I get his anger.

I understand completely, but I didn't read that the article in that it was insuating that Agnew was racist, but that English cricket has a representation problem (6% of first-class cricketers are non-white) and part of that problem is wider attitudes, especially those from the experienced statesmen of the game. Personally, I think that is a very valid point and one that doesn't point the racist finger at any one, but tells people like Agnew that they need to think about what they say, and the wider effects of those words a little deeper.

On your other point about school's games of choice, as someone who went to a state school and also experienced the fringes of youth level county cricket, I found it was mostly about access to facilities. I grew up in the aftermath of 2005 and people loved it. It may have been secondary to football, but it was still more popular than anything else. However, by the time you are 12-13, those at the "better" schools have had such an advantage in terms of training and access, that the competition isn't really fair. I would argue that the game is less accessible to state-educated players but both of our views are pretty subjective so I think it's fair to agree to disagree.

 

[Beanstalk]

Well said.

On a more positive note, we hear all the time that cricket is dominated by the privately educated.

However, my son has played for South Yorkshire for the past four years and only two of the lads in the current squad of 15 are public schoolboys.

To put it in perspective, South Yorkshire at U12 level are as good as most counties A teams. Cricket is still massive in Yorkshire, and not just for the rich.

Completely agree, I played for North Middlesex (regional) between 12-15. It was a fantastic standard. It was a majority state school kids but (presumably due to the area) it was probably a 60/40 split. When I played at a level higher than that (for a very brief time), it was a whole different world of Private/Independent kids who had been a part of the county system from a very early age (some from 6). There were great links between the private-schools and Middlesex and this allowed those kids to develop into top quality players. However, there wasn't the same access for state-school kids. Hopefully, things are a bit different up north, Yorkie and Lancs do have a great tradition of being a little less elitist (at least in their selection...).

Regardless, change is afoot (if how it is being reported is just a start) and hopefully your son is reflective of that.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I understand completely, but I didn't read that the article in that it was insuating that Agnew was racist, but that English cricket has a representation problem (6% of first-class cricketers are non-white) and part of that problem is wider attitudes, especially those from the experienced statesmen of the game. Personally, I think that is a very valid point and one that doesn't point the racist finger at any one, but tells people like Agnew that they need to think about what they say, and the wider effects of those words a little deeper.

On your other point about school's games of choice, as someone who went to a state school and also experienced the fringes of youth level county cricket, I found it was mostly about access to facilities. I grew up in the aftermath of 2005 and people loved it. It may have been secondary to football, but it was still more popular than anything else. However, by the time you are 12-13, those at the "better" schools have had such an advantage in terms of training and access, that the competition isn't really fair. I would argue that the game is less accessible to state-educated players but both of our views are pretty subjective so I think it's fair to agree to disagree.

It's true, obviously, that privately educated lads have much better access to facilities and get to play sport in general, and particularly cricket, much more often.

However, if parents are willing to take their kid to a club and then invest the time (and money) in giving them a chance then the playing field is pretty level. From what I've seen.

Politics and nepotism still play a big part unfortunately. But nothing can beat practice, practice and practice. And that's possible for anyone, anywhere and without any school input.

Pertinently, the nipper played in the Sheffield school's final today. His school Vs the top public school in Sheffield. They lost, but only because his mate who also plays for South Yorkshire got 82 before my son got him out.

The game was played at their sports complex which is ridiculously good. The attitude of some of their players though was disgraceful. We gave them a good game and the sprog got 48* (and 4-1-15-1) but as we left I said "would you fancy going to this school?" and he said "No way Dad, they're awful".

Cricket is a huge part of our life but I wouldn't sacrifice my kid going to a proper school for it. And I don't think we have to, fortunately.

 

[nwgull]

Aggers and Boycott are both *****. Fact.

 

[dazzer6666]

Facilities (and access to them) are one of the key issues aren’t they ? My lad (normal secondary education) played in some representative and other matches, often held at public school grounds (locally Hurst College and Ardingly for example). The grounds are up there with some of the better league club facilities, but the local state secondaries don’t even have cricket squares. It’s no surprise such a high % of players come through the independent school network as non-public school kids just don’t have the same level of access to pitches, coaching etc. When I was a kid (70s) we had two good grass pitches at our comprehensive school, and several teachers who played and were happy to coach and supervise in their spare time - the school even arranged a relationship with Somerset CCC where one of the pros ran a session for us every week (either at the school, or the county nets which was about 20m away). Not sure many state schools commit much in the way of resource to cricket these days.

 

[cuthbert]

I find the Aggers, Boycott "banter" extremely tiresome and at times I think the "all let's laugh at Geoffrey" close to bullying. I'm 75yo and for me the greatest sports pundit in any sport was Richie Benaud.

 

[Gwylan]

However, if parents are willing to take their kid to a club and then invest the time (and money) in giving them a chance then the playing field is pretty level. From what I've seen.

Politics and nepotism still play a big part unfortunately. But nothing can beat practice, practice and practice. And that's possible for anyone, anywhere and without any school input.

Yep, totally agree with this. Private school kids do have a head start but it's not the be-all and end-all. We have a few kids on the county pathway and only one is privately educated.
Practice is the ke. Private schools may have the facilities but I also think the players have a different mindset, where they realise that some things have to be worked on.

I despair at the low turnout of our players who turn out for one in three practice sessions (if that). The kids who have made it have some natural talent but it's been honed by hours of net sessions. There's a general feeling that net sessions are boring and worth skipping but these players then wonder why they're out for a duck every time.

 

[Razzoo]

I like George Dobell.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Fred Trueman was great in that he was the ultimate cricket dinosaur.

I remember going to Old Trafford for one of the blackwash tests in the 80s. The atmosphere was fabulous with trumpets, drums and some great banter. Half of Moss Side was at the game and they were just as keen to see Norman Cowans do well as Viv Richards.

During the lunch break a guy in the crowd turned his radio up full volume and all everyone could hear was Fred moaning about the noise the trumpet man was making. Suffice to say it just made every thing louder and noisier - especially as more and more beer was consumed.

Never happen now.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Of the current crop.

Like: Rob Key, Nasser, Vic Marks, Sangakkara (and indeed most of the overseas guest commentators/analysts)


Don't mind: Aggers, Daggers and (shame there's no 'Shaggers') the BBC staffers


Don't care for: Boycs (insufferable bore), Beefy (ghastly bully), Nicholas & Gower (both smug public school t&ssers) and Tuffers (fake mockney)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Brian Johnston Richie Benaud, Blowers and Tuffers.

 

[Sussexscots]

Love listening to Michael Holding and particularly enjoy listening to him and Atherton on the opening morning of a Test match. Combination /contrast of one of the world's best fast bowlers and a resolute opening bat ticks all the boxes for me.

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

Dear old Henry Blofeld....legend of the airwaves.
Turned up last weekend to commentate on the Piers Morgan charity game in Newick. Had a quick chat with him afterwards too - an honour to be in his presence.