h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Saw you commented on the Sobers piece.
I never know what to say about (the generally rare) cricket writing on hootoo. Cricketer biographies, even more than the wider-interest pieces like Bodyline, are difficult to pitch. They have to be personal, I think. The people who'll read them are (probably) fans who won't be satisfied by regurgitation of other journalism.
The Kallis comparison is particular bizarre. The idea that a candidate for the World's best all-rounder might be South African is perverse. The idea it might be Kallis among South Africans is just as weird.
I guess I saw the generation of the lost, like Proctor and Rice. It's odd that only the English know how good those guys were.
Even among the recent crop, I'm not sure Pollock or even Klusener aren't better. Maybe I have the belief that all-rounders should be game-seizers, capable of turning a match in a single session of mayhem with either bat or ball. That was Sobers, and his true peers. It sure ain't Kallis.

Agree with all you said except this..."It's odd that only the English know how good those guys were."

Pollack[s], Rice, Richards,Eddie Barlow, a truly great wicketkeeper in Dennis Lindsay, Mike Proctor, and they murdered us, truly murdered us. We were flogged by the greatest SA side ever and possibly one of the top 5 greatest teams ever. 4-nil was the scorline of that Test series and you lot in Blighty were damn lucky that the tour to England was abandoned they would of killed you dead in the water without a doubt.


I can't see the point of an entry like that unless it tells the lay person a bit about *why* Sobers was the best. I'll be interested to see how this goes. I'd imagine you might also.

Oh well. Smith out twice with the game in the balance. Not given. What can you do?

England lost it in the first innings by gutless and guileless batting, and the top order was hardly better second time. Vaughan must go. Beyond that, though, can't we just send the South Africans home? They're just charmless. Correction: they're unsportsmanlike, arrogant and vile.

This game at professional level needs either a new breed of sportsman or else automated umpires. I think a good new law would be that anyone failing to walk and subsequently shown to have touched a catch that clearly carried should also forfeit their next innings in the series. (Don't try telling me that batsmen may get a touch without knowing. Anyone who's played knows that's a lie).

Actually I think it needs automated umpires anyway, judging by lbw performance. In any game with Hawkeye available, all we want umpires doing is judging whether a shot was offered or not. The rest (hitting, outside the line etc) should be left to the far more reliable cameras.

*Oh well. Smith out twice with the game in the balance. Not given. What can you do?*


Nothing.
That's Cricket and I don't agree with you about more decisions to be adjudicated by camera. I like to have a whinge too when things don't go our way but what comes round goes round. Although I will read up on how the trial goes in the India v SL series, which if you haven't been following it leaves this series we're talking about for dead as far as spectacle goes, actually as far as incredibly good cricket goes full stop, it has everything for the enthusiast. Sehwags innings was an absolute pearl and the mystery spinner Mendis is a real eye opener for sure.

Send them home eh?

OK, OK. Just a whinge, I admit. I'm mad because they're really not that good.

The camera thing is a better suggestion, though. Your balancing-up point is just another common fallacy: two wrongs don't make a right. The not-walking penalty is heartfelt. What kind of society sets an example to young competitors by turning a blind eye to blatant cheating? There's no need to do so any more, and yet the establishment is so decadent that it prefers the tradition of cheating to an improving innovation.

Let's take a leaf out of tennis' book. Umpire calls the basics, but each team has a quota of three Hawkeye appeals per session (run-outs, lbws, catches). If the appeal is for an unwalked catch behind, the batsman's reminded that if he doesn't go before they view the replay, then he's out twice, not just once.

Oh yeah, let's have aoutomatic no-balling while we're at it. Why not? A lot of poor calls, I'm sure, is because umpires are trying to look in two places almost at once.

Mind you, I suppose I should declare an interest. Another part of the group I work for invented and developed Hawkeye.

Now I'll join you in the no-ball idea. That's a no-brainer when you think about it and once the umpires got used to it they could really concentrate on the ball at hand so to speak.

Hey Pin, in all honesty and I don't want to sound like a tub thumping oz yob; they aren't all that good and it's a constant source of speculation amongst cricket tragics(me included) why Englands not better. They should be!.

Just reading up on MKV's tearful farewell in various papers sites.
A couple of things struck me: Tears hmmm...not a good look and reminded me automatically of Kim Hughes. Vaughan is England's most successful captain with 26 wins from 51 tests as the skipper, a good record.
He is England's 74th captain and that's one of the problems with English cricket...74 captains.
In the same period we have had 42, when you get the captaincy here you have it until you retire or your nudged sideways out the back door and out to pasture. how long was Taylor's bad stretch of no runs? 21 odd matches I think it was and yes everyone stressed about it but never would the Board consider replacing a Captain just because of a run of outs with the bat.
I've always wondered why English players and their Board or selectors if you will, consider it an OK thing to do: Swap and change the captain. It cheapens the position, it lessens the aura, the Indians like to do it too.

Why is that?

Damn! I don't like Ponting but at the moment he has the best record of any Australian captain!
41 played 31 won 4 lost(we know who too two were lost too)6 drawn.
I might have to reappraise the gimlet eyed little fella from Tassie...

We've had a dayful of what a great guy Vaughan is.
The bloke's ostensibly a Sheffielder, but I still refuse to rate him.
A decent bat, particularly in his younger years, but latterly just bossed by tight wicket-to-wicket quicks. His confidence is long-gone.
As a captain, tentative and defensive. Buttoned up to the point of repression. At best a calming influence; at worst a whole-team anaesthetic.
And he blubbed. Like you said, shades of Kim Hughes. Bugger off losers both.

Not, sadly, that KP is any great pick. No real leadership credentials, and just as likely to phase his own side as the opposition. If he knows how to marshal bowling resources, it's a well-kept secret. Most likely he starts learning Thursday.

The side isn't exactly brimming with alternatives, mind