OMISSION STATEMENT

"There are none so blind as those that will not see," instructs Peter Roebuck. Spanky must be applauded for the rigour with which he pursues the many chuckers plaguing cricket. The blight of illegal actions must be rubbed out.

Strangely, though, the Cane Man appears unaware of his own glaring omission.

In once again seeking to highlight chuckers, Roebuck once again neglects to mention the the rankest chucker of them all. Sure, Brett Lee, Jermaine Lawson, Shabbir Ahmed, Harbhajan Singh and the two Shoaibs, Malik and Akhtar have all, at one time or another, served up illegal deliveries. And yet Roebuck can't seem to bring himself to castigate Murali. None of the above bowlers employ anything like the base structural debacle that is the Sri Lankan's bowling style.

In chasing down chuckers, Roebuck should be all over Murali like a cheap set of whites, but the reverse applies: Spanky goes out of his way not to criticize him. Perhaps after making such an arse of himself during the 1995 Boxing Day test, he can't find a way to properly address his own blatant - and shrill - error of judgement back then. There are, indeed, some so blind they will not see.

Flingtoff -- Oops -- Doubts Remain

Andrew Flintoff's jerky bowling action was the main point of interest in an otherwise forgettable mismatch between England and Bangladesh recently staged at Lord's.

The Lancastrian's last spell contained some of the most blatant transgressions of the law covering legitimate actions seen in respectable company this year. The bumper delivered from round the wicket looked diabolical. Surprisingly, the issue was allowed to go through to the keeper, a response bound to have been noticed in the cricketing countries of the Indian Ocean.

Craven nationalists reacted with fury the last time this column drew attention to Flintoff's action. A regrettable tendency has arisen in some quarters to play the man and not the ball. Not that every delivery was condemned, or every spell.

Rather, Flintoff's action appears to deteriorate when he searches for an extra yard of pace and especially when he moves around the wicket and starts to pound the middle of the pitch. Then, his naturally open-chested style betrays him.

Fluency is replaced by the sort of raggedness that regularly draws censure upon the heads of subcontinental leather-flingers. There's the rub.

Suggestions that your correspondent nurses some particular grievance against Englishmen are as wide of the mark as Devon Malcolm's most speculative delivery. Nor does it survive familiarity with the facts. After subjecting it to an examination calculated to satisfy the most rigorous revenue inspector, this column regretfully questioned the acceptability of Jermaine Lawson's action.

Likewise Brett Lee's work was condemned whenever he went wide of the crease and opened his chest to send down a pinger, a custom now in abeyance. The bumper with which Lee removed Marcus Trescothick in Perth was described as a blight upon the game. Lee's beamers were unfavourably reviewed, including the retaliatory chest-thumper sent down to Abdul Razzaq earlier this year.

Nor is the fact that this writer alone expresses misgivings about some of Flintoff's deliveries any reason to desist. Decades ago Bill O'Reilly, a remarkable cricketer, patriarch and wordsmith, said that columnists must speak their minds and repeat their point until some notice was taken or the grave beckons, whichever was the sooner.

Of course my eyes may deceive and Flintoff's bumpers may be delivered with an arm as ramrod straight as a Grenadier guard sensing the approach of his commanding officer. That the topic has not been considered worth addressing is altogether more disconcerting. What is the old saying? There are none so blind as those that will not see?

Cricket is ready enough to send Shabbir Ahmed, Harbhajan Singh, Shoaib Malik, Shoaib Akhtar and others for some rehabilitation. No harm in that. Better that a bowler is helped than condemned by word of mouth.

Despite the hostility of those convinced that the past worked, which it did not, and that these things can be left to the umpires, which they cannot, cricket is trying to develop a mature approach that helps the player and protects what remains of the game's integrity. Consistency is needed, though, or troubles lie ahead.

Without wanting to pour oil upon the ever-burning fire of subcontinental paranoia, it does seem that the goose and the gander are treated differently. Cricket must be careful lest racism creeps back into the game. The past is not as glorious as it appears. Not until 1960 was a black man allowed to lead the West Indies.

Cricket did not raise a hue and cry about apartheid or the massacres of the Ndebele and Tamils in the 1980s. Mugabe was helped into power by Mrs Thatcher's government. Small wonder that subcontinentals and Africans can seem sensitive.

Flintoff's action is not the real issue. England's lack of rigour is the problem. Long regarded as the guardian of the game, it contributed little to the investigation of corruption (even in county cricket).

It bewilderingly thought it fit to play Zimbabwe at home but not away, and now seems unduly concerned about players' private lives. Time to throw away the chocolate cake and to join the rest of the world in the struggle for equality.

Hayden. Kandy. LBW

Comments

[Clem Snide]

This is boilerplate leftist moral equivalence at work here, Tony, formerly known as hypocrisy. When confronted with despicable behaviour from the noble savage of his choosing, the leftist will squeal in hysterical tones of righteous indignation at trivial or imagined examples of the same fault in others, while studiously ignoring the elephant in the room, hoping this will divert attention from where it would otherwise be directed. The same, of course applies to the leftist's own behaviour, Spanky being no stranger to illegal actions involving excessive flexing of the elbow.

Incidentally, I only found out a couple of months ago why you called him "Spanky". Yech. It's worse than the Alan Jones toilet incident. I had Spanky as a cricket coach when I was a pre-pubescent in 1981 or 1982, and am happy to recall he never touched me inappropriately. However Spanky was always accompanied by a handsome and perpetually smiling young assistant called Mr Jones of about the same age as the boys that Spanky later assaulted. Mr Jones seemed to have little to do other than occassionally carry kit around. It's hard not to look at the two of them in a new light given Spanky's unsolicited buttock inspections.

[Tony.T]

Actually, Clem. I named him after The Little Rascal.

Well, not really. But it's a nice thought and/or fit.

[Scott Wickstein]

A welcome return to cricket-blogging from one of the genre's finest. Bravo!

[Tony.T]

Thanks, Wicky. Nice of you to say that.

Hopefully there will be plenty of bloggable action with The Ashes coming up. Can't wait! Winter nights home from work to watch the cricket are about as good as it gets.

This time round without the Channel Nine / Channel Seven butchering, too.

[Simon]

Quite right Tony
None of these guys -
"Brett Lee, Jermaine Lawson, Shabbir Ahmed, Harbhajan Singh and the two Shoaibs, Malik and Akhtar"
has anything like the Murali action. What was he -Wisden's "player of the century" in 2000 ? What a joke.

[Adsy]

Ahhh.. the three words that sum up the whole Murali debacle perfectly. I'll tell you what, if there was footage of that delivery (?!) around anywhere it would be great to show anyone who really truly thinks that the lad is hardly done by.

Back to the post, it seems funny Spanky quoting Tiger regarding columnists speaking their minds, and then only a few paragraphs down the page talking about not "wanting to pour oil upon the ever-burning fire of subcontinental paranoia".

This is only my opinion but Spanky seems racked by guilt and wants to right the wrongs of the past (which I have no doubt occurred frequently) which he quotes, by now targeting someone like Flintoff for a change because he is not "sub-continental" (for want of a better word) If a high profile bowler from England, Australia or South Africa could get rolled for chucking then the press would have a field day.

It shouldn't be a matter of colour but shite articles like this are just perpetuating the myth that there is some kind of colonial dominance conspiracy at play. If you chuck and there is enough doubt, you should be told to change your action or be barred from the sport.

Simple. As. That. Hayden. Kandy. LBW.

It shouldn't matter how well or poorly your arm contrasts against your sleeve...

[Pedro the Ignorant]

I will be looking keenly for the latest fashion statement from Bendy, the three quarter length sleeved shirt, with a flapping cuff ending between his elbow and wrist.
Not designed to disguise his"action" of course. Oh dear me, no, never.

[Tony.T]

Spanky's attracted a response in The Guardian.

Michael Vaughan laughed off allegations from Australia that Andrew Flintoff is a chucker as the Ashes propaganda campaign intensified yesterday.

The condemnation of Flintoff's action came from Peter Roebuck, a man who once captained England, but who has long been disaffected towards his native country.

[Clem Snide]

Captained England??!! Spanky never came within a cane's length of even being selected for the English cricket team, let alone captaining it, punishing it, or hugging it after inspecting its wealed buttocks. 30 seconds of internet access would have confirmed this. Jesus H. Sanchez, where does the Grauniad find its writers and editors?

[Tony.T]

He did, indeed, captain England, Clem. However, I agree the Guardian didn't report things ultra-accurately; it was an England XI and not the official First XI.

As it happens, he is the only Englishman to captain England to a loss against The Netherlands.

[Brett Pee]

Old Spanky played for England ? No, never, could never have happened. Did they take a BEATING ? That defeat must have sent them bottom of the table. So to speak.

Tony, are you going to read Roebucks autobiography, just published ? No ? I reckoned not. But i copped a review of it and he has written a chapter about that certain 'incident' shall we say, but the reviewer says the book is not all that interesting or revealing. He sounds better in his newspaper columns.

I think he was skipper when Somerset sacked Garner & Richards, and then Botham walked out. Now THAT would make interesting reading, if he mentions it in his book.