Cricket

Apart from being England wicket-keepers what do Matt Prior and Godfrey Evans have in common? Congratulations if you answered that they're the only keepers in the history of test cricket to have twice conceded 25 or more byes in an innings. Of course, Evans's "achievement" came in 91 tests; Prior has done it in just 15. In fact, at the time of writing Prior has the misfortune to rank 3rd and 4th in the list of "most byes conceded in an innings". The 34 he's conceded (so far!) in the current test goes along with the 33 he let through against India at the Oval in 2007. In one sense Evans's presence on the list demonstrates the weakness of bald numbers.

Test match cricket is something else, isn't it? Patrick Kidd has a splendid line making the point that test cricket is terrific because it is "a game in which it is much more exciting when something almost happens than when it happens all the time." Granted, cricket's detractors might cite this as evidence to support their prejudices, but who cares about them? Kidd is right. This was a great test match, conjured from the most unlikely circumstances. Full credit to the groundstaff at the ARG and, of course, to both teams who produced a match that vindicated the idea and reality of test cricket even as one of its greatest enemies - Sir Allen Stanford - was being pursued by the FBI. If you believe in karma, this makes sense, doesn't it?

There's some good stuff in Michael Henderson's column on the so-called Stanford debacle* today, even if he indulges himself with a rather rosy,soft-focus view of cricket's past. The ideal of the village green bathed in evening sunlight with the vicar standing as umpire and children playing by the boundary and all that is a powerful, enduring image for sure but this English arcadia is only one thread running through the game's history. A history that has been tougher, more scandalous and, often, meaner, than Henderson's cosy view would have one believe. That's to say, the sport's history is well-stocked with cads and frauds and bounders and Allen Stanford is but the latest of them.

It's an ill-wind that fails to blow in any silver-lined clouds and the current financial difficulties are no exception. It seems that Sir Allen Stanford, the Texan financier determined to "crack" the American "market" with Twenty20 cricket may be in a spot of bother himself. I'm going to guess that having people suggest you could be a kind of Caribbean Bernie Madoff is, even if completely untrue, not Good News. It wasn't the money involved in the Stanford Twenty20 challenge match between his all-stars and England that was objectionable. After all, there's a long history of big-money challenge matches and cricket's known worse rogues than Stanford in the past. True, the event was pretty vulgar stuff but that's not really the issue either.

Just in case you had any doubts that cricket is the worst-run sport in the world, further proof comes from today's farce in Antigua. Even by cricket's lofty standards this is a disgraceful shambles. England were embarrassed in Jamaica; the entire sport is embarrassed by this nonsense. Ian Botham has just recommended moving the game to the Recreation Ground, arguing, quite correctly, that "you can't ignore the paying public". Except of course, ignoring the paying public is the game's administrators' standard operating procedure.  UPDATE: As ToryLion says, if the pitch is unsafe it's unsafe. Fair enough. But they have had weeks, if not months to sort this out. And it's not as though there aren't alternative arrangements that could have been made well in advance of today's debacle.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who ever defends Ian Bell. Not that this will do him much good since it seems probable that he'll be dropped for the second test against the West Indies tomorrow. An odd consensus appears to have emerged that Bell is especially culpable for England's failures in the first test and that, accordingly, his is the head that must roll. Mike Selvey fires his Katyushas at Bell today: Last Saturday, before lunch on what was to prove the final day of the first Test at Sabina Park, Ian Bell played a stroke of such staggering ineptitude that it alone should be reason enough to ensure he does not bat again for England for a considerable while. Bell is a batsman of immense talent which he has failed consistently to covert that into ability by performance.

Apologies for the radio silence. I'm still struggling to comes to terms with England's Jamaican debacle. Matters were scarcely improved by an ill-considered trip to Murrayfield yesterday. Back to the drawing board then. Still, while there was a certain grimness to Scotland's sluggish performance against Wales, at least it didn't plumb the depths of England's cricketing fiasco against the West Indies. When the tourists stumbled to 15/3 I suggested, jokingly, that they might lose by an innings. But I didn't actually expect them to go ahead and do it. Right now the Ashes look as though they will be contested by two pretty mediocre sides (though Australia should, alas, still and rightly be favoured.

English cricket in shambolic farce. It's like Scottish football, except more important.

In general, I suppose I don't have too much against the idea of a cricket Hall of Fame though given that we've managed to get along fine without one for centuries there doesn't seem any pressing need for one. But if you are going to have such a Hall, then for god's sake include the right people. Via Patrick Kidd, I see that the ICC's new venture has found room for an initial class of 55 inductees that, bewilderingly, fails to include Victor Trumper. While it's fine to ignore players who only retired in the last ten or so years the lack of recognition of chaps from the Golden Age (no Jessop, Fry or Ranji) to say nothing of the 19th century makes the whole enterprise look rather silly.

As a member of the English cricket team's supporters club (vital for snaring Ashes tickets next summer) I was pleased to receive this email from the ECB today: ‘Tests are best’ say fans – We received a fantastic nearly 3,000 responses to the recent online TwelfthMan survey where, amongst many other things, you indicated that although you love the razzmatazz and big-hitting of the Twenty20 game, Test cricket still gets the majority vote – a staggering 94% of you in fact. Full survey results will be with you in the new year. Thanks to all who took part as it really does help us at ECB understand the game from the fans point of view. This, obviously, is encouraging even if it's also a survey of some of the most committed cricket fans.

Accounts of cricket in the United States are always endearing, generally on account of the enthusiasm of the converts to the greatest game and the manner in which the poor old journalist charged with scribbling this account labours to explain the game to a generally uncomprehending audience. This piece from the Baltimore Sun about a school in Charm City that has taken up cricket, is an excellent example. Best bit? A former pitcher, Cardinal Gibbons senior Will Foy says the national pastime simply can't compare with the age-old sport of cricket. "It's pretty much baseball, minus the boring parts," he said. Despite its mainstream popularity in dozens of countries, cricket in the U.S. is largely viewed as a relic.

Regular readers may have noticed - but not necessarily been disheartened by - the absence of much cricket-related commentary here. There are a couple of reasons for its absence. First, I've been reading a lot in preparation for what I hope may become a longer-term project. Secondly, so much of the news these days is sufficiently depressing as to make one think that the game - that is to say, the game one knows and loves - is scarcely worth the candle. And yet, despite this, there are occasional sparks of light. Consider the comments of Darren Ganga, for instance. The West Indian is no-one's idea of a titan, but he seems to have the sport's best interests at heart. "Really and truly, this [Twenty20] is not really a benchmark for judging players.

Like Norm, I am entirely unsurprised by this: The Phrase "it's not cricket" is reverberating again around state school classrooms. Good old-fashioned cricketing values have prompted an improvement in behaviour in schools, according to the evaluation of a project to promote the sport in schools to be published later this week. The "Chance to Shine" scheme, designed to promote cricket in state schools by sending in club coaches to teach the game, has had a spin off beyond PE lessons. According to researchers at Loughborough University, schools which have taken part in the scheme report improved behaviour in school generally as a result of participating in it. Admittedly even cricket cannot cure all.

On to more important matters than the Democratic convention. Today marks the centenary the birth of Sir Donald Bradman, perhaps the greatest sportsman who ever lived and a man whose brilliance becomes more, not less, mysterious as the years pass and no fresh pretender emerges to challenge his claim to the crown. The numbers peak for themselves: Bradman's test average of 99.94 runs per innings is a summit beyond reach. No-one before, or since, has come close to his record of scoring a century every 2.75 innings. His closest comeptitor - of those who have played a serious amount of top-class cricket - is George Headley and even the great West Indian only scored a test century every four innings.

the London papers, Mike Atherton at the Times, Selvey at the Guardian, Angus Fraser at the Independent and Derek Pringle at the Telegraph. Atherton is new to the post but shows signs of becoming, as one might expect frankly, an excellent addition to the press box. There is nothing wrong, per se, with former test cricketers moving into the press box. After all, it has long been the case that former players have found fresh and comfortable berths in the press corps.

There's the theory - and history -  of cricket in Scotland. Then there's the reality...  Scotland vs England, The Grange, Monday August 18th, 2008. Match abandoned.

So, after a nip and tuck South African affair, Norm and I finish the week by selecting our teams to represent a post-1945 England. As always, players need only have played for England after 1945 to be eligible for inclusion and the merits of their inclusion are to be judged on the totality of their career, not just the part of it that took place after Hitler's War.