Neil Manthorp in Durham Cricket
`Allow me to introduce myself – I’m your wife, Betty.” It was a cartoon on the front page of the Daily Telegraph and, as always, it touched a nerve with an abnormally high percentage of readers – most of whom were of the “class” to imagine it would be more appropriate to readers of the tabloids.
The football World Cup was watched by more Englishmen and women than any other sporting event – and now there is a strange void in their lives as their blurry eyes clear and they remember that they used to own a cat.
It has, therefore, been very easy for the English Cricket Board to apportion reason (blame, actually) for the public apathy and lack of interest that have festered in English cricket for the past three years like a stubborn rash. It is, of course, a nonsense.
Cricket’s popularity in England has boomed in times of success, no matter what the competition for viewers from other sports. The harsh fact is, this England team is not good enough. They have won three series in the past nine years. Twice against New Zealand and once against India, at home.
Just four years ago, on the 1994 tour, South Africa’s cricketers made front- page (okay, only small stories) and back-page news. There was no end to the stream of interview requests and the squad were rarely able to forget that they were touring the home of cricket.
They were recognised in nine out of 10 pubs and restaurants and they were necessarily advised where “profile” was acceptable and where it may lead to problems.
This time, profile is down. Crowds are down. Interest, generally, is down. Not rock bottom, but definitely, irrefutably down.
Three years ago, Sky Television “bought” cricket in the same way that Supersport has in South Africa. The number of Sky subscribers during that time – at least those interested in cricket – has barely moved beyond the mean and the game’s profile has subsequently declined.
One-day internationals, the first choice of the casual viewer, have been exclusively Sky’s property while Test matches have been shared with the BBC, although not quite equally. Domestic cricket has also been shown exclusively on the satellite channel.
“There has definitely been an effect,” concedes Steve James, the Glamorgan opening batsman to whom England belatedly gave a debut in the Lord’s Test and then promptly dropped.
“But what you must remember is what effect Sky’s involvement had on the players. The minimum basic wage for a capped county player went up by about 40%. We went from struggling to rent a small flat for six months of the year (during the season) and having to find work in the winter to being able to think of ourselves as professionals.”
In other words, men like James were able to buy a house, train and practise when they wanted and take playing/coaching jobs overseas that were likely to improve their games, not necessarily pay just enough money to cover the insurance premiums and pension policies between county seasons.
James even lowered himself into the smoky world of freelance sports journalism to try and survive.
It resulted in his self-elevation from journeyman into Test player. But he appears to be a product years ahead of its time, a rare benefit to England. They hope that will change in the future.
England badly needs to reverse the trend of dwindling support, poor crowds and lack of interest. They have been given a priceless opportunity, right now, by a series of events culminating in France’s 3-0 victory over Brazil in the World Cup final.
England’s soccer fans mourned their own team’s early exit, symbolised by the anti-hero behaviour of the pre- match hero, David Beckham. They are desperately looking for a wet-nurse surrogate. They will turn to the cricketers, if they can offer succour.
Tim Henman’s semi-final appearance at Wimbledon provided much excitement but no climax. The British Grand Prix has been and gone without so much as a rev in anger from an Englishman, let alone the darling of Silverstone, Damon Hill. The rugby side – whom hardly anyone has heard of anyway – have been appallingly stuffed in the southern hemisphere and, well, that’s just about it.
Then France – whom the English traditionally love to hate, beat Brazil and went completely nutty about it for days afterwards which really upset England. They don’t even bloody well take the game seriously, for goodness sake.
The last stroke of luck for England is the injury to batsman Graham Thorpe that has permitted the return of Graeme Hick. No one has been so collectively willed towards success as Hick.
Quality newspapers devoted double-page spreads to his mesmeric achievement of 100 centuries earlier this summer – the country’s cricketers, and fans, all prayed for another chance for the great batsman. If, and when, he gets it at Trent Bridge, a hundred thousand or more fans will make the effort to find a Sky dish, and the Test series really might come alive.
“The summer has been left in cricket’s hands. If England is going to have anything to cheer about, it looks like it’s going to have to come from us. I think everyone is aware of that,” said an England player who didn’t want to be named because “we’re under enough pressure already”.
Sociologists established some time in the late 19th century that sporting endeavour could substitute almost perfectly for battle and war when it came to creating a bit of jingoistic fervour, passion and pride.
It may sound a bit far-fetched, but it probably isn’t. England’s cricketers are playing for a lot more than a share of the series, or even a victory. They are playing to help stop brattish youths setting fire to cars. They are playing to give London’s homeless a reason to look up from their glue bag.
In many ways, they are playing for the sake of an over-crowded, under-motivated nation of under-achievers. It would be better if the team was to deliver “something” to cheer the crowds. Or gatherings, as they have become.