Cricket

Summer, or rather the hint or promise of it, only arrives with the publication of Wisden. The cricketers' almanack - the venerable almanack - celebrates its 150th anniversary this season. It has been quite an innings. John Wisden (pictured above) created an institution that, happily, shows no sign of flagging. This year's almanack clocks in at a chunky 1584 pages and is a fine edition that pays proper tribute to the Yellow Brick's past. This second edition stewarded by Lawrence Booth confirms the impression fostered last season that his editorship is a considerable upgrade upon his predecessor's. His prejudices are sound. Quite correctly, Booth is a conservative but not a reactionary.

Slight treachery from Boris, who has written a glowing piece on the occasion of the New Statesman’s centenary. While most people will focus on his dissection of the evils of left-wingery and explanations for hatred of Margaret Thatcher, something else caught Steerpike’s eye: 'My paranoia about the New Statesman and its terrific pieces went on for some months, until we finally met for physical combat, in the form of a cricket match. It was a torrid afternoon and I was full of nerves. Bernard Levin had come to watch, for heaven’s sake, and the New Statesman’s captain, Christian Wolmar, displayed what I am forced to call gamesmanship. At last we prevailed, thanks to a last-wicket stand by Alex van Straubenzee, our circulation manager, and myself.

Today, February 28th 2013, is the 80th anniversary of the conclusion to one of the finest - and certainly the most controversial - test series ever played. Eighty years ago today, Wally Hammond and Bob Wyatt put on 125 for the third wicket as England strolled to an eight wicket win at Sydney. This capped a remarkable winter for the tourists and sealed a crushing 4-1 series victory. It remains one of English cricket's greatest foreign triumphs. Rarely before and rarely since has pure theory been so completely matched to the needs of applied cricket.

With the Don at three and Keith Miller inked for the all-rounder's role at six there are only two open spots in Australia's all-time middle order. It is a measure of Ricky Ponting's greatness that no-one doubts he's a sensible, worthy contender for one of those places. You may prefer the claims of Clem Hill, Charlie McCartney, Stan McCabe, Neil Harvey or Greg Chappell, but Punter is undoubtedly part of the conversation and only a fool would scoff at including him in this Fantasy XI. That's how good he was. In England I fancy there's sometimes a tendency to forget how fine a batsman Ponting was and instead place a little too much emphasis upon his captaincy. We sometimes forget how important luck is in cricket.

‘I’m fascinated by politics. But I’m not that enthralled by any of the parties.’ Those are the words of Andrew Strauss, who resigned the England cricket captaincy earlier today, in an interview with the Spectator last year. The interview was conducted by the former England cricketer Ed Smith, who remarked that ‘Strauss is not talked about with hushed awe’. Where the great Mike Brearley has entered mythology, Smith noted, Strauss has been merely marked ‘effective’. Now we must talk of Strauss the cricketer in the past tense; and Smith’s judgment merits revisiting. True, Strauss did not inspire awe. He was not a tactician, either in the modern or traditional mould.

And then there was one.  Of the four princes who made India the world's best side to watch in the first decade of the 21st century, only Sachin Tendulkar - the first and greatest of them - remains. Saurav Ganguly, the tiger of Bengal, was first to leave the arena. Rahul Dravid, the classicist, departed last year. Now Vangipurappu Venkata Sai Laxman, the most artistic member of India's most formidable quartet, has announced his retirement from international cricket. As Cardus (who else?) wrote of Ranji, Laxman distributed his runs as largesse delivered in silk purses. If he could not claim Ranji's aristocratic lineage, he was still, even in his own time, something of a throwback to an earlier age.

How do you solve a problem like Kevin Pietersen? England's most talented and most infuriating batsman faces another crisis and, yet again, it is a crisis of his own making. Pietersen's dispute with the ECB (the cricket authorities, not the European Central Bank) shows every sign of ending his Test Match career. The man himself insists he just wants to play for England yet, puzzlingly, seems to find the business of actually doing so more tedious and complicated than the layman - that is, the supporter - can possibly hope to understand. Notionally it is a simple business. England would like to offer Pietersen the privilege of batting for England. What could be more handsome than that? This reckons without the complicating matter of the Pietersen Ego, however.

Sorry folks, but you'll not have me to kick around these next two weeks. I'm away to the Isle of Jura this week for Midge Fest 2012 (and the 62nd edition of the Ardlussa Sports). Thence to Ireland for a week of cricket as a member of Peter Oborne's annual travelling circus. See you here next month.

A pearl richer than all his tribe who, alas, loved batting not wisely but all too well. If tragedy seems too strong a term for Mark Ramprakash's career there remains ample room for sadness when one considers the fate of the best batsman England has produced since Gooch and Gower announced themselves more than 30 years ago. The answer to the eternal question 'What might have been?’ is rarely less than melancholy but never sadder or more frustrating than when pondering Ramprakash's fate. The outline of his story is familiar to all who've followed English cricket these past 20 years: the most gifted batsman of his generation couldn't find a way of parading those gifts at the highest level.