Monday, 9 June 2008

What's worse? Failing or being unrequired?

...gland win.... luck... 7-43... batting at 3... gain bad light has... Taylor 154... ntle drizzl....

So a 2-0 win, just about what was expected, but as ever against the odds at many times in the middle. Danny boy picked up 2 gongs, with Strauss as the other man player of the series and Jimmy and Monty a man player of the match each. Well done good people, except anyone at all called James Michael Anderson (Born July 30, 1982, Burnley, Lancashire). You know who you are.

Almost as much discussion (on TMS at least) has fallen around the ginges, and as a fellow ginge I generally feel the guilt and therefore the urge to stick the knife in too. But given that so often it's only a couple of players who define the match in either direction, when you are clearly not one of them, what's worse: to have failed when possibly that could have been you, or to just never get a chance either way. In terms of the latter, Monty in the third test sadly wasn't allowed to say anything. He just got a bad LBW call against him to close Englands innings and then stood at long leg for the rest of the time, save for 11 measley overs for little more than sympathy from Vaughan.

At least Bell and Collingwood both had numerous chances to do something, they were involved, and noted and discussed (albeit for only 4 innings, not 6, which I'm sure annoyed them - bet they'd have preferred to be spending tomorrow putting on a 150 partnership to win the match). They were tested, they failed, the SORN is in the post. Monty just stood there, not needed, not useful. Obviously he stopped some runs. A given that he should have stopped more, but that goes for everyone. Clearly he was the absolute man in the 2nd test, but that was almost a fortnight ago. Nearly long enough for echo from his appeals to have faded. Nearly.

So how would you react if you were monty had had basically just punched a clock for three and a half days? Maybe there's nothing of substance there at all, but I think I'd have felt cheated or dejected for never being needed.

As for the ginges, give Bell back to Warwickshire please. Just to get them back into CC Div 1 again, and he's all Moores again.


Anonymous said...

Why Spig, are the Bears so absolutely dreadful? They SHOULD be better - they have Ash, they have AD - but they have rubbish players - more rubbish and vunerable to disaster than my lovely Durham - in fact just about on a par with my lovely Boro. There seemed to be lots of optimism at the start of the season - but the results have just seen that evaporate. And Yorkshire are top of Div 1 - Pah. Still - on the bright side, Surrey are bottom

Spigot said...

well in the first instance I can refer you to this... which has numerous grains of truth, but yeah... there is a lot of drabness to be honest. I'll admit a lot less than I would have done this morning as I'm now a member for better or worse.

They (not "we"!) are top of div 2 (albeit with a game in hand) but then not much earlier than this point last year it was top of div 1, and see where we ended up. At least they'll always beat Glamorgan.

I've got familiar with them as "my" side, so all the players have been set aside. I can think "Oh no here comes Hick" or "Oh few, it's only "Few, it's only Plunkett" but with the Bears players themselves, it's still a general drab grey covering them all, and I'm at a loss to really compare Troughton and Anyon to anyone else...