We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I am watching a F1 motor-racing guy drive a racing car with a map of the Earth on it. It is a Honda and apparently the idea is to break with the usual sponsorship of tobacco firms etc and instead “raise awareness about ecological issues”, according to the television commentator. So let me get this right: a F1 car that does more than 200mph and uses a fair amount of petrol – that evil greenhouse effect stuff – is attempting to “raise awareness of ecologicial issues”. Think of how much Co2 is pumped out by all these F1 racing teams from Ferrari, Benetton, McLaren, etc. Think of how much of the stuff is pumped out transporting the drivers, mechanics, press flacks and of course the crowds to places like Melbourne or Monaco. The idea that motorsport has anything to do with saving the planet from doom is preposterous. Has this most red-blooded of sports, once famed for dudes like Ascari, James Hunt or Fangio, become as pussified and guilt-ridden as everything else? F1 cars are supposed to be in bright colours, with emblems of cigarettes and naked women on them, like old WW2 American military aircraft. It is all part of the essential naughtiness involved in driving a car very fast round a track, which if you think about it, is one of the more pointless ways to spend an afternoon, and all the more wonderful for it.
You have to hand it to these guys in the Honda racing team. The Japanese are unfairly accused of not having much sense of humour, but this is one of the best jokes I have seen for a while. Keep it going guys.
The ninth cricket World Cup commenced today, As I write this, the West Indies are playing Pakistan in Jamaica. Sixteen teams will play a total of 51 games between now and the final in Barbados on April 28. My recently neglected personal blog shall be turning into World Cup Central for the next seven week. I shall be blogging every match, and fellow Samizdatistas Scott Wickstein, Brian Micklethwait, Philip Chaston and Jonathan Pearce shall be joining me as guest bloggers for the duration of the tournament. As well as match commentary there shall be analysis of the teams, the format, the points system, the politics of the International Cricket Council, the cricketing cultures of the participating nations, and whatever else comes to mind. I did this also four years ago: people who are interested might want to look here (and scroll down). However, wheras four years ago there was a lot else on the blog as well, this time it is going to be mostly or entirely cricket.
However, a brief primer for the tournament.
- The World Cup is a one day cricket tournament. This form of the game was invented in the mid 1960s in England, and has been played internationally since 1971. The traditional form of the game is played over five days. Whereas in test cricket each team bats twice and there is no limit as to how long each can bat for (other than the time limit of the game), in one day cricket each team is allowed to bat for a maximum of 50 overs (300 balls) and is only allowed to bat once. This means that the game takes a total of seven hours playing time. One day games often start mid afternoon and are played (under lights) until about 10pm. Players in one day matches wear coloured uniforms and play with a whilte ball. Traditional test cricket is played with both teams wearing white and with a red ball. The more serious a cricket fan, the more he is likely to prefer traditional five day test cricket to one day cricket, particularly if he is Australian or English. Australians would probably rather win the Ashes than win the World Cup. (Australians certainly hate losing the Asehs more than losing the World Cup). On the other hand, if India win it will will be a huge event for more than a billion people. If India make the final, the entire Bollywood entertainment industry will decamp to Barbados in the hope that some of the glamour of the victory will rub of on them if India win the tournament. (This happened when India made the final in Johannesburg four years ago, but alas for them, India did not win).
- One day cricket in recent times has been dominated by batsmen, with scores of 300 or even 400 runs becoming more and more frequent. The conditions in the West Indies should suit the bowlers more than has recently been the case in Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. This means the strong batting sides (Australia, South Africa, India) make find themselves brought back to the pack by sides with canny bowling and clever tactics. This may favour sides such as New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and perhaps the West Indian hosts, none of who would not be favoured if the tournament was in South Africa. Conditions at times will also favour spin bowlers, which will make the tournament interesting, and may allow sides such as England and Sri Lanka to surprise a few of their opponents.
- There are 16 teams playing in this year’s tournament: West Indies; Pakistan; Australia; Sri Lanka; South Africa; England; New Zealand; India; Scotland; Canada; Kenya; Bermuda; Ireland; Zimbabwe; Netherlands; and Bangladesh. Only the first eight of these teams have an chance of winning the tournament. It is unimaginable that any of the other eight could win it. The tournament organisers know this, which is why the second round consists of eight teams and the first stage is relatively short. It is extremely unlikely that any of the second eight teams will make the second round. It is quite unlikely that any of the second eight teams will win a game against any of the first eight, although such events have occurred in previous tournaments. Previous World Cups have had formats in which the lesser nations have stayed in the tournament longer, and have had many one sided mismatches. However, there is very little between the eight first named sides. It would not be a huge surprise if any of the eight won the tournament. Going into the tournament, the World Cup seems one of the most open on record. This is completely unlike the last tournament, where Australia were obviously the best side from day one. (Their performance in winning eleven games straight in that tournament was awe inspiring, but it did not make for an exciting tournament
- At seven weeks and 51 games, the tournament seems endless. The two finalists will each play a total of eleven games. The reason for this is that television rights for the World Cup is the major source of income for the International Cricket Council, the sport’s governing body. The vast majoirty of other cricketing events make money for the sides participating and in particular the side that hosts them. When the ICC is making the money, they milk it for all it is worth.
- The World Cup has been played eight times before. Australia have won it three times (1987, 1999, and 2003), the West Indies twice (1975 and 1979), India (1983), Pakistan (1992) and Sri Lanka (1996) once each. The tournament has been hosted by England four times (1975, 1979, 1983, 1999), South Africa once (2003), India once (1987, with some games in Pakistan), Pakistan once (1996, with some games in India and Sri Lanka), and Australia once (with some games in New Zealand). No side has ever one the tournament at home, unless you count Sri Lanka in 1996. (They played all their important games away from home, so I personally do not). The tournament is being played in the West Indies for the first time.
- For team by team analysis, you have two choices. Either look below the fold, or head over to my blog. You will find the same in either case.
→ Continue reading: The cricket world cup: a primer and a brief plug
Watching cricket is one of the best ways of avoiding working known to man
– Someone from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) is worried about the impact the Cricket World Cup will have on the economy.
As regulars of this site will know, even the most ardent sports fans on this blog – Brian Micklethwait, Michael Jennings and yours truly – despise the Olympic Games. Or, more exactly, we despise how the Games in the UK are funded out of taxes, and despise the crooks, cretins and gullible fools who imagine that the benighted taxpayers of Britain are making some sort of “investment” by paying for the Games. The other evening, flicking through the channels, I saw Sebastian Coe, now a peer and a former Tory MP, go on about what a smashing “investment” the Games respresented, as if he was talking about a punt on the Nasdaq or a purchase of BMW bonds. That an alleged Tory should use the word “investment” to talk about something that could not stand up on commercial grounds and requires the looting powers of the state to function is depressing evidence of the calibre of Tories today. For all their faults, former Chancellors Nigel Lawson, Geoffrey Howe or even Norman Lamont never insulted our intelligence by abusing the English language in this way.
It is possible that the Conservatives have made the crude calculation that the blasted Games, which surge in cost all the time, are going to happen anyway, will be an expensive mess, and the best thing to do is to make supportive noises, not appear to be grouchy, and pin any blame for cockups on the Labour government. From a narrow tactical angle, this is possibly sensible. There are some battles not worth fighting; while the cost of the Games could run above 10 billion pounds, the overalll size of UK public spending is several multiples of that and the Tories or any decent opposition must focus its attention on that. Although a huge figure, the cost of the Games represents a rounding error compared to the total public spending burden. Even so, it would be good to see the Tories flaying the government over the fiasco that this event threatens to become. Over at the Social Affairs Unit blog, the writer Jeremy Black makes some good points on what this government’s opponents should be doing.
Oh well, at least writing about this takes my mind off Ipswich Town FC’s miserable footballing year and England’s loss of the Ashes. Sigh.
There is a pull-out supplement in the latest Spectator, entitled “The Connoisseur’s Guide to the Cricket World Cup 2007”. Peter Oborne is very gung-ho about cricket just now (no link because the bit I am about to quote is stuck behind a registration wall – I read it on paper):
Never have there been so many outstanding international teams. Go back to the previous ‘golden age’ before the first world war and there were just three Test-playing nations: England, Australia and South Africa.
So far so routine, this being from a piece by Oborne entitled “A new golden age”, which he does explain. Basically, not only are there more good national teams now, and more excellent players, but they also play cricket that is entertaining to watch, unlike what was played a generation ago. But then comes this kicker, and in brackets if you please:
(Actually there should have been four: until 1914 the United States was well capable of competing at the highest level, and a cricket tour of the United States formed the background to Psmith Journalist, one of P. G. Wodehouse’s best novels. Unfortunately, the Imperial Cricket Conference, which governed international cricket, excluded America because it was not part of the British empire, so it went off and played baseball instead. This snub to the US at such a promising stage of its cricketing development, is one of the tragedies of history.)
I did not know that (more about this sad story here). I am not used to feeling spasms of hatred toward those who presided over the British Empire, although I often learn about things that make others understandably angry about these people. But I did when I read that. We have talked here before about cricket in the USA, but I do not recall this particular circumstance being mentioned by anyone. Apologies if someone did and I missed it. For while I would not put this particular tragedy of history down there with the Slave Trade and the Holocaust and the depredations of King Leopold, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest of them, this certainly does seem like a definite pity to me.
Talking of cricket, and what with cricket’s World Cup fast approaching, Samizdata’s travel correspondent Michael Jennings has been, well, talking of cricket. He has done a podcast with Patrick Crozier, about Australian sport in general, and Australian cricket in particular, what with cricket being the biggest sport in Australia. Did you know that Aussie pace ace Brett Lee (who will sadly be missing the World Cup because of injury) does commercials on Indian telly, and has had a pop hit in India? You do now.
And for more about how sport and politics intersect, do not miss this sports report by Guido Fawkes.
We are coming into the final stretch of the college basketball season and it seems a good time to make the following observation.
The only category of education that presently has its accomplishments tested on a competitive basis (that being sports) is also the only category of education that is motivating and developing disadvantaged students to achieve their highest personal potential at what they are being taught.
Does it surprise anyone that the only part of education where student achievement can not be rigged (better/best football team, etc.) is also the only part of education that is producing marketable graduates from the disadvantaged communities? Or that it accomplishes this with less need for quotas and reduced expectations than any other category of education? In many cases these kids are able to move straight into national and international professional careers straight from high school. And when they do attend college, the academic education they receive is a by-product of their athletic educations.
And is it any surprise that a very disproportionate share of disadvantaged students gravitate to the only service of the education industry that is intractably merit judged and race indifferent at every single level of education from Pee Wee league to NCAA?
What better model could we ask for when we look to improve the motivation and education of disadvantaged students in other categories of learning?
“Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard for all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.”
From Orwell’s collected essays, which should be on everyone’s bookshelf.
It is good that Perry has supplied us Samizdatistas with a category called How very odd! to describe our oddest postings, because how else would you describe the calculation that England are now, still, the second best test match cricket side in the world?
On the other hand, England really are that bad at one day cricket.
I know a lot of Samizdata contributors and readers are cricket buffs. So, what do you all think about the Twenty20 limited overs format now that it has had some more exposure since last being discussed here?
The following item is for sale. One bucket of whitewash. This has recently been obtained by the English cricket team at a knockdown price during their tour of Australia.
The English cricket team wishes to sell this precious prize of English achievement in auction as quickly as possible. However, only purchasers of a more unpopular standing may need apply. They are therefore awaiting bids for this most useful of items.
Please note: only politicians or journalists may apply.
And a “Long Tail” discussion is about the England cricket team presumably.
– Michael Jennings commenting on this at my blog this morning. Last night, England’s 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 managed a total of four runs between them.
Buskashi is an Afghani game, akin to polo, that involves riding, sticks and the carcass of a goat. The carcass is soaked in cold water for twenty-four hours, so that it does not disintegrate, and then a large pack of horsemen compete to win the boz (renamed carcass) and the horsemen (chopendoz) compete to grab the carcass and throw it in a circle (the hallal).
This Afghani sport will not win any votes from animal lovers, but their fierce competitiveness has now blooded another arena: cricket. Refugees in Pakistan whiled away the long hours by learning to love cricket and have now brought the sport back to Afghanistan. Each province has a team and there are strong competitions to determine the best teams.
We know that the best team is not the Royal Marines, who emulated our Ashes tour:
ENGLAND’S cricket shame plunged new depths after a team of Royal Marines were hammered – by the Afghan National Army.
The crack soldiers crashed to a resounding eight wicket defeat after being bowled out for just 56 in 14 overs without one playing reaching double figures.
Afghans have only been playing the game since about 1992 but that did not stop the novice opponents knocking off the runs inside 12 overs
Are we seeing the birth of a new Test playing nation? I can think of no greater accolade to symbolise the departure of a country from misery and despair. We should be glad that the military skills of the Royal Marines far outweigh their cricketing skills.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
