cricket with balls

It had to happen. Someone had to be an idiot and say it. Within hours of England winning the T20 World Cup, someone had to say that it wasn’t a proper English team, because a third of the party were not born in England.

The surprise is that the idiot in question was Jonathan ‘Aggers’ Agnew, the BBC’s own cricket correspondent who was, largely, basing his comments upon a conversation with Craig White, during which the latter opined that if you were not born English you never felt truly English.

That’s Jonathan Agnew, the cricket correspondent for the nation’s broadcaster.

That’s Jonathan Agnew, who in his heady six match international career, played alongside the likes of the South Africa born Allan Lamb, the Jamaican Norman Cowans and the Rhodesian Phil Edmonds.

And that’s Craig White, who played 81 international matches for a country he apparently didn’t feel a part of, despite the fact that he was born in Yorkshire.

Which, in turn, knocks a hole the size of Mark Cosgrove through Agnew’s argument, because White just proves that it is not where you were born that matters, it is where you feel you belong that counts. White even made his debut in a side which contained four players born outside of the UK.

Suggesting that the England team is anything less for having the likes of Lumb, Kieswetter, Pietersen and Morgan in it is such a steaming pile of hypocritical horseshit that it barely merits consideration. But if it does, then we’ll have the credit for every Aussie victory that included Andrew Symonds, OK?

I’m not sure what kind of kid Michael Clarke was, but I doubt he was a brawler.

He looks like the sort of smooth adult that was also like Teflon in the play ground.

Perhaps people tried to abuse him, but he probably had team mates from various sporting teams who would step in for him.

Plus the teachers probably kept on eye on their golden boy, don’t want the local cricket star being found dead behind the portables.

With all that in mind yesterday was probably the first real beating he has ever taken.

And he was beaten, hard.

It was public too, while everyone was at lunch, crowded around as Clarke didn’t even try to defend himself.

He just sat there been moved by the force of England’s blows.  He was more a punching bag than a fighter.

There was nothing he could do to stop it, so perhaps he thought by hitting himself a few times he might confuse England and gain some respite.

Instead it just made the English beat him up harder.

Finally his lifeless body was put out of it’s misery well earlier than anyone had thought possible.

Battered and bruised he will be returned to Cricket Australia, who may not want him anymore.

I thought Clarke was unlucky, Kieswetter won the man of the match award, but surely no one did more for England’s victory than Clarke did.

The only good news for Australian cricket was that this might mean Australia don’t automatically turn to Clarke when they need their next captain, they might actually look at who would be the best captain, and not just the guy who speaks to media without saying anything and who grooms himself well for photoshoots.

England were nerdishly efficient and brutal on Australia all day. They still had some great luck, dropped catches finding other fielders, Haddin caught of the hip, but surely there biggest slice of luck was that Clarke was playing.

Swann and Collingwood are lucky their team won, because conspiring to get Clarke out could have been the worst thing either of them had ever done.

I cannot believe Australia won.

To defend such a low total, wow.

The batting might have been poor, but the bowling was outstanding.

The fielding was even better.

But special credit must go to the captain, what a special effort.

I have never been so proud.

Shame the men played like a team of busted assholes.

Three hours in and I’m done celebrating England’s T20 World Cup win.

It’s a strange sort of feeling. We English are not used to winning things. We expect our teams to fail. In 2003, we expected our rugby team to fail despite being red hot favourites. The football team, well, whenever they set foot near a tournament we expect them to balls it up (pun intended). So when our cricket team suddenly started playing well – after, let us not forget, being spanked by the Windies and barely having the better of the washed out game against Ireland – we still expect them to lose at the very end.

And before anyone starts, yes, the Duckworth Lewis method probably did deprive England of a win in that West Indies game, but the sheer woefulness of their opening bowling meant that the result wasn’t as unjust as everyone will now try and make out.

Which means that when we do actually win something, we don’t quite know how to react. When the rugby side won their World Cup, it was honours all around and boozy bus rides through the centre of London – something replicated by the Ashes winning side of 2005. But when the football team won in 1966, the manager and captain got gongs, but no-one else did until there was an outcry 30 years later.

The 2009 Ashes side went even further than that, publicly saying that there would be no honours or victory parades.

Something tells me that this might be a subdued affair – for one thing, the coach and the man of the match might not actually be British enough to qualify for any state honour. There might be a bus ride and I’m sure the new push me- pull you prime ministerial duo will not pass up the chance to be photographed with some people who actually won something outright. After that, it’ll be back to work and back the the serious business of beating up Bangladesh again, followed by a dull and humiliating loss to the remnants of the Pakistani team.

So I’m not really sure what I was supposed to do tonight, but I reckon a couple of beers, a huge slice of chocolate cake and yelling at my son to go to sleep probably fit the bill. I’m just not that used to being on the winning side.

My retort to Daniel’s character assassination.

According to Daniel, test match sofa is an anarcho-syndecalist commune. This is his way of coming across as the lovable uncle you wish you had. When Ahmer was heart broken it was Daniel who comforted him, but not because he cares about Pakistanis (he rates all former colonies the same way, like that thing he found on his boot) but because he knows that appearing to be on Ahmer’s side will win him more fans. Test match sofa is not an anarcho-syndecalist commune it is a fascist dictatorship where he regularly beats the other commentators, especially Tom. His leadership style is styled on Lady Thatcher and Groucho Marx with a touch of Genghis Khan thrown in.

Even though Dan clearly sees himself as superior to most other people, he does share several traits with other English supporters, the “can’t lose” attitude. I don’t mean “can’t lose” in the way an Indian supporter who has the Indian flag painted on their face thinks can’t lose, I mean the way English supporters build themselves an emotional bunker so that no matter the result they end up winners.

Dan has already proclaimed that Australia will crush England. So if Australia crush England, he can say, “see I told you so, I’m pretty clever”. If England wins, he can streak naked through the streets of Tooting screaming about the power of the Empire. Either way, Dan is the winner. And this sort of defeated undefeatable loserism is how English fans shield themselves from ever having to look at their own ineptitude in sport.

I, on the other hand, believe Australia should win because they are the better side. I’ve studied this match with the asexual eagerness of a young Mike Hussey, and while I think England are a very cohesive unit, Australia should have the fire power with bat and ball to beat them.

When Australia does win, it will be the greatest win in the history of organized sport, over coming adversity, impossible obstacles and Bangladesh. . No team has overcome so much (including the Michael Clarke handicap) to be victorious.

If, and this is purely hypothetical, Australia do lose, it will be Michael Clarke’s fault. Because England couldn’t possibly play better than Australia to win.

Obviously.

Either way Dan wins, because he has chosen both sides as usual, like a proper Englishman should.