No, not in this case the iconic TV series featuring the Eighties escapades of DCI Gene Hunt, but the excellent book by Marcus Berkmann on the "35 years of agony (and about 20 minutes of ecstasy) watching England v Australia". Or alternatively the "37 years of humiliation....", depending on whether you choose to rely on the front cover or the inside sleeve.
This is definitely one for the hardcore cricket fan - the sort who also happens to be British and in possession of a self-deprecating sense of humour. Right up my street then. As the sub-title (either version) implies, the book recounts Marcus's experiences of following all the Ashes series from 1972 (at age 12) to the present day - with more or less enthusiasm, depending on England's chances of winning (very slim for at least 15 years from the late 1980's onwards) and/or the outside distractions of actually having a life.
With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, some very basic questions arise from a reading of the early chapters:
(1) Why were all cricketers invariably identified in the media by their initials, not their first names? (Hence, England's star performer was I.T. Botham, rather than Ian Botham. Some players, such as M.J.K. Smith, didn't appear to have a first name at all.) And when did this archaic practice stop?
(2) Why were many of the players of that era (who were, after all, supposed to be international sportsmen representing their country) patently unfit, unable to catch or in some cases unable to bend down very far to stop the ball? And when did all that start to change?
(3) Why did the class system within cricket continue to dominate decision-making long after the (to modern eyes) absurd distinction between "amateur" and "professional" was abolished in the Sixties? And when did this finally peter out, if at all?
Any ideas?
I guess even in these days of professional sport, the governing bodies are still run by enthusiastic amateurs who are old, reactionary and are not answerable to anyone, least of all the fans. Old farts at the RFU, crooks at FIFA, the list goes on. Anyway, please make sure you ditch all intellectual thoughts..you are now joining the Barmy Army. I'll look out for your face in the crowd
ReplyDeleteDon't worry Mark, that's as intellectual as it's going to get!
ReplyDeleteRather than take the intellectual route – where I would almost certainly fail – I will try to address this logically:
ReplyDelete1. I would think is probably due to media coverage of sport. When sport was largely reported in newspapers, it was easier and more efficient to use initials, and relationships to sportsmen were more impersonal. Now that TV dominates, the audience wants to get “up close and personal” with the players, hence addressing on first name terms.
2. Is a general phenomenon in sport driven by increased devotion to sports science and diets. It may also partly (but maybe not so much for cricket!), be related to improved playing surfaces over the years (e.g. for the old “mud baths” of rugby pitches, it didn’t really benefit you if you could be 21 stone and run 100m in 11 seconds, whereas now….).
3. I would definitely agree with Mark (without even having met him!).
Anyway, enough of this….. start acting like a professional journalist: get pissed, start some tasty rumours and give us some crap predictions!!!!
Good answers! Sorry Glenn, was too drunk to respond last night but bumped into Mitchell Johnson in a bar and he confided that he was a bit concerned for his place in the Aussie team. I predict he will be dropped! (will that do?)
ReplyDelete