Cricket

Cricket Housekeeping: 1. Since this post making the case that Shane Warne is, indisputably, a greater cricketer than Muttiah Muralitharan it's only fair to note that Murali had the chance to show that he can win matches in Australia as well as Sri Lanka. Granted, the tests were played at Brisbane and Hobart rather than Sydney but still: four wickets at 100 apiece is not an impressive return. 2. England are now preparing - in their usual slapdash* style - for a series in Sri Lanka. Having wisely decided to leave the best English batsman at home (that would be Mark Ramprakash, who, though 38, has enjoyed a Bradmanesque flowering at Surrey) gambled instead on the fitness and mental health of Steve Harmison to find some sort of form. To no-one's great surprise, Harmison is now injured.

Warning: Cricket blogging! Via Norm, I find that The Guardian asked Phil Simmons and Gary Kirsten to debate the question, Is Shane Warne better than Muttiah Muralitharan? A superficial analysis of the numbers might suggest that Murali has the edge. But then you need to remember that Murali's figures are padded by the fruits of no fewer than 25 tests against hapless Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (Warne has a total of three tests against such feeble competition). Secondly, Wanre's record away from home is just as good as his record at home; Murali is less effective away from the comforts of Sri Lankan wickets. Thirdly, their records when they confront the world's best players of spin in India are broadly similar. You can make an eminently defensible case for either man.

When I saw that The Atlantic had a feature on "The Greatest Sports Book Ever Written" in its October edition I thought, well, that's nice but I daresay they really mean "The Greatest Sports Book Ever Written That Isn't About Cricket." Be wary of your assumptions. turns out I underestimated the Atlantic's taste and perspicacity. For, lo, there it is: a fine piece by Joseph O'Neill explaining why CLR James' Beyond A Boundary is an important work - though a mystifying one should you have no knowledge of the greatest game of them all. O'Neill concludes that it's sad that Beyond A Boundary is off-limits to Americans. But I'm not so sure that's the case. I'm generally a fan of globalisation, but I draw a line in the sand when it comes to cricket.

Americans or, for that matter, anyone unfortunate enough to know little about - and worse, care nothing - for cricket may be advised to pass by this post. You've had your warning. As a kid I used to spend rather more time playing imaginary games of cricket than might have been considered wholly healthy. Actually, to say I was playing is inaccurate. I was selecting teams that would do battle for hours on end in my own modified - and more complicated - version of Dice Cricket (modified in part to take account of different ground conditions: thus a test at Headingley would take place with a grid more thinly populated with run-scoring opportunities than one prepared for the more comfortable batting enjoyed at the Oval).