I've leapt straight for the big guns today. Three days of domination by the English (that being the team and their godforesaken weather) left me subdued and disappointed. However Dan the Man's antics, coupled with a fierce display by the BC's on Day Four has fuelled my desire to strike at the heart of the English media facade that has been their coverage of this test series.The media building up to this series have been generally apathetic towards the threat posed by our boys in black, and to be honest, this seemed largely justified. However, some of the coverage, in what I see as a blatant attempt to generate some reader interest has overstepped the mark.
This article is insulting to not only the New Zealand team, but our system of cricket, our love of the Big OE, and indeed it seems our entire history of race relations. It verges on saying that the only reason we don't see more players like Ross Taylor succeeding is because of institutional racism (oh sorry New Zealand's integration policies) in the set up of New Zealand cricket. This in turn has led to us producing a stable of crap, white, top order batsmen. Scyld Berry reeks of colonial English arrogance, and has probably only ventured further than the front gate of his parent's custodial residence in the English countryside to sit next to the Fishheads in the member's stand at Lords. I do agree the stats do not sit favourably behind the New Zealand top order, however to stoop as low as to insinuate it is because we deliberately haven't been selecting players of Pacific Island or Maori descent is racist, elitist and begging for hiding.
This article on the other hand is by a man who should know better. Athers is probably one of the most knowledgeable men calling the game in England, and a voice I'd rather hear over the sycophantic egocentrics of the Channel 9 team any day of the week. I do agree with Athers to a large extent, the decision of Dan the Man and his cohorts to show up late smacked of selfishness, and was not very captain-like. However, who can blame them. Dan, while in the top tier of the NZC pay bracket, doesn't have the same security of the county cricket pay-for-crap-play-system that the lines the money belts of Vaughan and Co. While KP is lambasted by the English Press for moaning about missing out, there is a fair sense of who can blame them about the NZ media's repsonse. Financial security is not what New Zealander's don the Black Cap for, and while the situation is regrettable, not only was it sanctioned by the New Zealand board, but if the English took our tour a little more seriously (i.e. scheduling games for the actual summer in England instead of early spring) it could have been avoided. It is easy for Athers to criticise when the ECB took the decision out of the player's hands, when the English captain is so spectacularly crap at Twenty20, and most players donning the three lions don't have to worry about where their next dollar is coming from should they fall from selectorial favour. Put it this way, if Michael Vaughan had been offered $500,000 and ECB approval to swap with Dan I'd like to see if he thought twice.
I don't like the IPL, I don't like the way money is corrupting the modern game, but I still recognise the vast means gap between perennial battlers like the BC's and the financial powers of the modern game. So I'm sorry Athers, I don't agree with you.
As for you Scyld, haven't you got some cocktail party for the Tory's to attend? Piss off.



