Here’s a curious anomaly. If you look at the top ten bowling averages there are quite a few familiar names: Anderson (at the top), Harmison (3rd) and Hoggard (#7). Tremlett and Monty Panesar don’t come so high but they’re in the top 35. But the batsmen: not one England regular in the top 20. Andrew Strauss comes highest (23rd) at 47.03, but Vaughan, Pietersen, Ian Bell? Nowhere to be seen. Of course, they played fewer county games because of test commitments so they weren’t able to fill their boots around the counties. But, still, we are talking averages not aggregates, and great old-timers like Ramprakash (3rd) and Trescothick (average 46.59) are there. Curious.
Curious and perhaps not very interesting which may explain cricket’s problem. How many even remembered that the cricket season was still going on when there’s the antics at Newcastle and talk of law suits against West Ham to occupy the media? Apart from Durham winning the Championship (big congrats) how many could name who won the limited overs competitions? Thankfully the Ashes are back next year and with a fully fit Pietersen and Flintoff it could be an exciting summer. But it’s a big if. Anyone for a 5-0 whitewash with Flintoff’s ankle packing up and the middle order having another nervous breakdown? And if it isn’t, cricket could be joining Newcastle in the last chance saloon as public interest just fades away.
This is just bizarre - where’s the story here? It’s a widely-acknowledged fact that batting feats happen at county level, not at international level - hence the feeling that Mark Ramprakash’s recent 100 centuries might be the last we see in a while, with the short form of the game becoming more dominant. So, nothing to see there.
As for the Ashes being a let-down, are you dismissing the notion that Australia has not been able to come up with an answer to Shane Warne’s retirement, and (whisper this) will be coming to these shores without much in the way of an attack? It’s expressed by Lawrence Booth here better than I can manage.
And this old nonsense about cricket being boring in comparison to other sports - what about the battles for the Stanford millions, the unfolding drama of the Pietersen captaincy, the south Asian politics that would shame a Renaissance city-state and, yes, the Ashes - is this not enough for you, or anyone else?
Then, of course, there’s the timeless pleasure of a test match unfolding like a hard-fought game of chess. With discussions starting up about cricket being back on the list of sports that must appear on terrestrial televison, it might just unfold in front of an audience of millions.
No, I think the sport’s in fighting form just now.