Y

Letter added to the end of an England player's surname to create a whole new and inventive nickname, e.g. Straussy, Cooky, Pately, Nawab of Pataudi-y

Stuart Broad's Indian diary - day one

We have arranged for exclusive extracts from Stuart Broad's diaries to be passed to us by a shadowy intermediary so we can share them here with you, dear reader. Here's the first missive.


Thursday.

Cooky came in and said he'd lost the toss and would bowl. I asked if he was sure he'd lost it and whether he'd considered reviewing it, but he seemed content enough.


So we bowled today. This was very exciting. You see, the regulations have changed to allow two shoulder-high balls per over. I piled loads of short balls down as fast as I could, but for some bizarre reason it didn't work. I mean, I tried everything: glaring at the umpire, glaring at Cooky, glaring at Michael Atherton, glaring at some guy in the crowd who called me 'benchod'.... nothing.   Second spell was just as futile. Tried reviewing a couple of decisions when the batsman got the bat within an inch of the ball, but Cooky didn't seem to fancy it. I got to use the second new ball late on and got one to move away and brush the edge. Again, nothing. Glared at the ground staff, but that was the end of things for today. It was nice to see Yuvraj though. He said something about 'Durban' to me, but I just glared at him. That showed him.   Bobbed out after dinner for a look round Ahmedabad. The tuk-tuk driver was really taking the piss with his fare. Tried reviewing it, but he told me to stop being such a massive pillock and pay up. Glared at him. I think I won that exchange.
So back out there tomorrow and we need early wickets. I'll have a quick net in the morning to sharpen up my short ball. It's a surefire means of success, you mark my words.

A name for Yorkshire

Some years ago, the marketing gurus at the ECB decided that calling counties after the counties from which they come simply wasn't enough. A contrived nickname must be added, they said, and so it came to pass.

This isn't anything really new, but the way it's been applied to cricket hasn't really worked, as evidenced by the number of clubs that have changed that nickname, some more than once. There's no heritage or history behind these names and, as such, they're failing to stick.

Rugby league went through this process some years ago, and that's largely worked. In Australia, old clubs were already known by the names now associated with them; Eastern Suburbs were always the Roosters, Souths the Rabbitohs and so on. Newer clubs began with a nickname which have been stuck with and have become commonly used in association with those clubs. Some of Britain's RL clubs had less successful experiments. Halifax dropped the unloved and unlovely 'Blue Sox' moniker to revert to 'Halifax' while St Helens, rightly, didn't feel the need to add the word 'Saints' to the end of the club's name. Others have become second nature - even Warrington's 'Wolves' which makes those, like this writer, who still call them 'the Wire' seem like the dinosaurs they probably are. But even ones that haven't really caught on - Wigan will never really be the Warriors - have been stuck to.

Yorkshire are about to try and find a fourth such nickname and have opened it up to the fanbase. Initially 'Phoenix', which wouldn't have been too bad were it not for the garish orange outfits, they were subsequently 'Tykes' and latterly 'Carnegie', a product of a tie-up with Leeds Met university, an agreement which has come to an end.

The example of Halifax RLFC is a good one here. They ended up with 'Blue Sox' as an unhappy compromise after the fans were consulted and came up with 'Bombers' which was deemed insensitive and inappropriate. Nobody wanted Blue Sox, but nobody was vehemently against it and it was ushered in with derision and a footnote in history that placed it alongside Swiss football club Neuchatel Xamax as the only two professional sports sides with two Xs in their name. Neither name now exist.

Yorkshire are actively seeking suggestions. Given that three previous artificial addenda have failed to grip the imagination of the Yorkshire public and they want something that fans will be happy to shout from the terraces, there is only one option. Anyone who has been to a Yorkshire game will know that there's only one thing that is ever shouted and, fortunately, that also ties in to the one name that will please everybody. Moreover, it's an opportunity to show that cricket doesn't need these constructs and that clubs are perfectly able to market themselves without having such a contrivance imposed on them.

Yorkshire's new name must be 'Yorkshire'.

Dancing, Strictly Come

Inexplicably popular TV talent show where old cricketers go once they've lost any relevance to the modern world. See also Vaughan, Michael; Tufnell, Phil; Ramprakash, Mark; Gough, Darren

The Pietersen principle

Let us begin this with an apology. Below are a number of words about Kevin Pietersen. Sorry.

If you've ever been systematically undermined in your job, you'll know the plan of attack. It's back to your desk, update the CV and get out of there as soon as. That's a little tricky in international cricket. You can't just swan off and go play for someone else (insert your own joke here about international eligibility rules). You're pretty much stuck. If Kevin Pietersen genuinely feels that he's unwelcome in the England environment, he has little option but to reject the Test contract that will be offered to him shortly and become the new Chris Gayle, the pre-reconciled Gayle, a bat for hire in the various t20 leagues around the world.

The question that arises, of course, is whether Pietersen has been systematically undermined or if he's now challenging David Icke as one of the great conspiracy theorists of the age. If Pietersen is really willing to end his England career over a spoof Twitter account, then he really needs to have a look back over his own public pronouncements and develop a bit of self-awareness. We'll stop short of asking for humility as that isn't a quality high on his list of traits and it's absence, in part, makes him the batsman he is, the swaggering, domineering beast who will dictate terms. If this is the end, then we have to hope there's something else at play rather than just the suggestion - strenuously denied - that one of his team-mates is behind the spoof.

If it's glory and adulation Pietersen desires - and he strikes us a man who likes to be told on a regular basis that he's great and how we can't possibly cope without him - then he'll find that without international cricket and the recognition that goes with it, he will struggle to find it playing in the Indian/Bangladesh/Sri Lankan/Zimbabwe Premier League.

If this is the end, England lose their most infuriating and brilliant batsman of this and (m)any other era. His 158 at The Oval in the Ashes of 2005 was as brutal as it comes. By contrast, his dismissal at Cardiff four years later, when he swept a non-spinning Nathan Hauritz off-break from a good two feet outside off to loop a catch up to short leg, was horrible. "That's the way I play", he implored afterwards. Well maybe it bloody well shouldn't be, playing such a low, low percentage shot when well set. Time and again, we'd hear the "That's the way I play" excuse, normally after holing out at long-on when trying to go from 95 to 100 in one shot. And yet that's also why he's endurably watchable, the pyrotechnics and ugly dismissals both making for great television. Without him, England become weaker - that's undeniable. But cricket's unique dichotomy between the team ethic and the individual nature of batsmanship has never been more starkly demonstrated by one person.

But it's worth remembering that the last time Pietersen threw a massive, flouncy strop led to his removal as captain, Peter Moores' dismissal as coach and the arrival of the Strauss/Flower dream team, successive Ashes series wins and the number one ranking. So it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Calling out Nick Knight

Kevin Pietersen was fined for saying the following on Twitter: "Can somebody PLEASE tell me how Nick Knight has worked his way into the commentary box for home Tests?? RIDICULOUS!!". This is, apparently, prejudicial to the interests of the ECB.

Yeah, whatever, but nobody can deny that Pietersen has a point. Knight has never expressed an actual opinion since his broadcast career began. He does a funny thing with his top lip before espousing his latest nugget of vapid, cliched nonsense which, once you've noticed it, is really annoying and impossible to avoid. So far, so bad, but the bigger problem lies beneath.

Sky's commentary team is a cosy coterie of former England captains, coaches and Nick Knight. Professional broadcasters are conspicuous by their absence. The same is true of Test Match Special where Henry Blofeld is the last of the classically-trained journalists to appear regularly. The same is true around the world where Tony Cozier and Harsha Bhogle are about the only professionals in a world where Laxman Sivaramakrishnan can find work in commentary. There's a fetishisation among broadcasters to go for the ex-pro regardless of any other concerns. This is almost unique in cricket, unlike other sports where a professional commentator will describe while an ex-pro adds colour and tactical insight. With the box full of ex-pros, you end up with neither.

The other element is something the ECB response to Pietersen's outburst hints at: the commercial concerns of the broadcaster. Heaven forbid someone with strident opinions be allowed to spout forth. There's a reason that it was only Michael Holding's entertaining rant directed at the WICB was the only real area of dissent on Sky's coverage allowed. The sponsors must be appeased. The same is true on the BBC; despite their lack of sponsors themselves, the ECB's must not be upset or in any way associated with negative coverage. Each of these two areas leads to anodyne, boring coverage, but the two together leads to anodyne, boring coverage brought to you by an anodyne, boring old boys club.

Knight is rubbish, but the bigger issues lie in the policy of recruitment and the lack of risk-taking engendered throughout the game. Pietersen will not be allowed near a commentary box until he has that element of outspokeness surgically removed.

And if any players want to sound off about commentators under the cloak of anonymity, do drop me a line on twitter

A debate where debate is not needed

Happy new Test series!

Yes, the cold, grey skies - well, over Leeds they are; seems it's better in London - herald the onset of the English Test summer. The West Indies are the opponents for the first part of the summer and not expected to provide a huge amount of resistance. They arrive depleted for a number of reasons - politics, IPL, intransigence, disinterest - and as has become the norm when they arrive for Test matches in this country, the weather flatly refuses to be anything other than wintry. At least they don't have to go up to Durham this time, where the sight of a shivering Shiv Chanderpaul fielding at slip wearing every jumper he's ever owned is a pitiable one.

On the flip side, England are a happy and settled bunch after ending a pretty torrid winter with a much-needed and morale-boosting win. They've added Jonny Bairstow to the squad and he's expected to play, batting at six. The Todd Flanders look-alike is in fine form and has shown in county and international one-day cricket that he fears nothing. He'll come in for Samit Patel from the last time England played a Test with Matt Prior dropping down a spot as England revert to the four-man attack that's served them so well in every place other than south Asia.

Of that four man attack, Graeme Swann, Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad are givens. There should be no debate about the fourth either, and yet it seems a bone of contention. Yes, England are blessed with a number of different options, but one of those stands out so far above the others that it shouldn't be an issue. Steven Finn, Chris Tremlett and Graham Onions are all fine bowlers, of course, but how Tim Bresnan has become anything other than a first pick borders on the scandalous.

After 11 Tests - in all of which he has been on the winning side, lest we forget - Bresnan bats at over 40 and bowls at under 25. As a lower middle-order batsman alone, his figures would warrant discussion. As a bowler alone, he ought to be ahead of the others. As a package, he should be undroppable. As genuine all-rounders go, there's only Anthony McGrath Jacques Kallis that surpasses his figures. He offers so much more than stats though. His stereotypical willingness to keep running in is reminiscent of his fellow Yorkshireman Matthew Hoggard and that effort gets rewards. And yet the debate goes along the lines of 'and if there's an injury to one of your first three seamers, there's always Bresnan to come in'. 

He's done the hard miles for England, ploughing up and down motorways after being overlooked in favour of someone that the Prozone devotees determines is better horse for a particular course, missing chunks of county games as a result, but he still takes it on the chin and grinds through the overs for Yorkshire. The time has come, however, for him to be a mainstay of this England attack. He's proved himself. No longer should it be a case of 'if there's an injury, there's Bresnan to come in'. It should be 'who have we got if Bresnan is injured?'. The fact there's even a discussion over his inclusion is a debate that we need not have.