July 15, 2014

When the weak can resist the strong

Cricket and football give lesser teams and players a chance to hold out and sometimes even show up stronger opposition

Watching a No. 11 defy bowling that would on any other day finish him up in next to no time is very satisfying © Getty Images

I woke up on Saturday morning fully expecting England to be well on the way to losing the first Test. There was something disconcerting about finding out Jimmy Anderson was not only still there but had scored a half-century. My first reaction, I confess, was irritation: all these years of watching him bat, all the years of arguing that he should be scoring more runs, that he was a No. 11 in name only, and vindication came when I was on the other side of the world, in a time zone four hours behind, covering the football World Cup, with no way of watching him.

I had a shower and he was still in. I had breakfast and he was still in. I wrote a lengthy piece about German youth development and he was still in. I decided to follow online after lunch to see if he could get his ton and, of course, he was out immediately. Still, the resistance of No. 11 batsmen in this game seemed relevant to a discussion I'd had with a US journalist earlier in this World Cup.

He suggested that basketball was better than football because the better team always won. I suggested that made it an inherently flawed sport: one of the things I love about football is that a lesser team can, through diligent defending and organisation, hold out against a superior team and perhaps even nick a winner on the break.

Usually the better team wins, so the game isn't simply a matter of chance, but because the significant scoring moments are so infrequent, there is enough of a possibility of the weaker team prevailing that every game - or at least every game in a major competition - carries an air of unpredictability. To try to put that in numbers, imagine a scenario in which one team is good enough to have a 75% chance of scoring the next point/goal. In a game of just one point/goal, the weaker side will win 25% of games. In a game of three points/goals it will win 15.6% of games. In a game of five points/goals the weaker team will win only 10.4% of games. By the time you get to the sort of scores involved in basketball, the chances of the weaker team winning are minuscule. There is something in-built in football that makes it possible for weaker teams to compete.

Cricket, similarly, allows lesser players to fulfil their role - or, in the case of Anderson, and Mohammed Shami before him, for players gifted in one facet of the game to play their part in another. No. 11s can block, can frustrate, can, as in the case of this Test, make their own version of batting work.

They crowded men round the bat. I left or blocked, then wandered off. They began chirping in a most unchristian way. "If you're trying to get in my head," I said, "then I'm already inside yours"

That's perhaps even more true at the amateur end of the game, particularly in timed matches. The innings I remember with the greatest fondness came in 1998, for my college second team against a local church. They had scored nearly 250 and we were 60-odd for 6 with two hours left to bat when I went in. The groundsman, Jim, had opened the innings and was still in on 30-something.

"What do you want me to do?" I asked our captain.

"Get it over quickly or get a draw," he said, tucking into a can of lager. "But if you block, don't you dare muck it up. I'm not hanging around here till half seven for a defeat."

The first ball left me off the pitch and took a thickish edge but, fortunately, I'd played with soft enough hands that the ball squirted through a vacant third slip. We ran two. "Easy," Jim cautioned, as though he thought I'd deliberately played the shot. The next ball I let go. The next ball I blocked.

Time went by. After every ball I wandered off to square leg, trying to make out who was winning a tennis match on the court that lay just beyond the boundary. I refused to look at my team-mates getting lagered up on the boundary. Quickly a strange sense of calm settled. They crowded men round the bat. I left or blocked, then wandered off. They began chirping in a most unchristian way. "If you're trying to get in my head," I said, "then I'm already inside yours."

The umpire called the last hour. Block, block, leave. Block, block, leave. Always wandering off. The tennis players finished their match. I started concentrating on the way the sun reflected off the windows in the accommodation block in the corner. Block, block, leave. block, block, leave.

Jim started playing more naturally. "Come on," he said. "They've got nothing left. Have some fun."

I was having fun. Jim completed his century in the second-last over. With five balls to go, he ran a single. One more block and we were safe. It was a floaty legbreak. I came forward and smothered it on the half-volley. "At least hit the thing now," said the exasperated short leg. I didn't. I couldn't. Block, block, leave. We finished on 150-something. I'd taken 76 balls to score 2 not out, the last 75 of them dots.

Were the bowlers better than me? Of course. On most given days, would they have got me out? Obviously. But that day they didn't. And that seems to me a key aspect of sport, or at least of sports I like: what opportunity does it give the weak to resist the strong? Football scores highly, and so too does cricket.

Jonathan Wilson writes for the Guardian, the National, Sports Illustrated, World Soccer and Fox. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on July 15, 2014, 13:43 GMT

    Cricket being a non-contact sport sort of neutralizes the strength the bigger and stronger people. For example body building or boxing skills will not really help to hone your skills. Shorter formats help minnows surprise some bigger teams. But in reality very few teams actually are able to play quality cricket. We still have only 10 test nations. Subcontinent teams mostly are in Cricket because of the skills and the nature of the sport. A lean Srinath was able to bowl so well and a short Sachin did very well.

    Hockey - inspite of skills, the modern game is tough for the subcontinent teams. Pace and strength is key. Somehow they lack the edge that european teams have. Skills keep India at 7 to 10 but suddenly Argentina or Belgium or NZ do very well. How? Do they have more skills than Pak or Ind?

    Football. You need great skills and Strength plus pace at a very high level is needed. Asian teams dont win - why?

    Can Bhutan draw against Germany? Can Malaysia beat Spain? Ind vs Ghana 0-16?

  • Dysan25 on July 16, 2014, 13:28 GMT

    Enjoyed reading this article. Also, the weaker cricket teams/players are producing results more often now than they did earlier, which makes even neutral matches interesting.

  • RB007 on July 16, 2014, 6:42 GMT

    Great insight and a thought provoking read. In most sports, weaker teams cannot match their opponents in terms of attacking with greater creativity, skills and flair. But it is possible to match them in defence. Sports with scoring systems that limit scoring opportunities offers weaker teams more possibility to win. Tennis is such an example where service breaks are rare and affords the chance of upsets as opposed to badminton. In football scoring goals is far more difficult than defending your goal. And in cricket taking wickets is much more difficult than scoring runs. That's why weaker teams compete more effectively in T20 than Test Matches. That's why Australia with a suspect batting line up is still top dog in Test Cricket. Say hi to Mitchell Johnson, Harris and Siddle!

  • Naikan on July 15, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    This is an aspect of cricket (where the weak can dominate the strong) for which I always held it up as a superior field game to any other field game. However my view comes from a slightly different angle. For me "weak" - does not imply one with limited skills or ability - but one who is physically weaker. When seen from that point of view even Football falls by the wayside in general. In which other field game can you come across a situation where a diminutive Gavaskar, Sachin or for that matter Don could totally lord over a giant hurling a ball at you at nearly 100 miles an hour? Nor is it a must that only a giant can hurl the ball at 100. Some of the fastest bowlers like Lindwall were well below 6 feet in height. Conversely, where else can you find a portly Prasanna or Herath could befuddle a powerful hitter of the ball or for that matter a polio afflicted person like Chandra bowl out an England team in English conditions for around a hundred? Only cricket offers that opportunity.

  • py0alb on July 15, 2014, 12:53 GMT

    Its a massive design flaw in soccer that if a poor quality team wants to simply park the bus and play for a 0-0, it will often succeed.

    Its this that makes soccer probably the most boring sport ever invented.

  • paddles952 on July 14, 2014, 17:33 GMT

    yeah not quite sure about that logic ....a team that comprised half assed amateurs was the only team to not lose in the last football world cup ( 2010 ...a hint ... one of the teat paying nations - not england). I really struggle to see how those stats makes football a better game... no doubt it makes it a luckier game,... if you follow your statistical rationale flipping a coin is inherently better than football. Not only does cricket reward the better team I would suggest some other games including, rugby, rugby league , tennis, golf, volleyball ahh hang on every sport ... rewards the better team ... only in football does luck play such a large part ( refereeing decisions, lucky deflections, ref's not spotting dives)

  • on July 14, 2014, 16:01 GMT

    excellent article! loved it

  • on July 14, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    "what opportunity does it give the weak to resist the strong? Football scores highly, and so too does cricket."

    Cricket barely even allows the weak nations the chance to play against the strong, and is trying to limit even that contact further. Cricket is trying to make the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

  • CricketChat on July 14, 2014, 14:53 GMT

    Ind just doesn't have the bowling attack to succeed outside sub-continent. They are especially poor in finishing off the tail. Only sub-continent spin feather beds give them any chance in tests Tha't the simple truth.

  • on July 15, 2014, 13:43 GMT

    Cricket being a non-contact sport sort of neutralizes the strength the bigger and stronger people. For example body building or boxing skills will not really help to hone your skills. Shorter formats help minnows surprise some bigger teams. But in reality very few teams actually are able to play quality cricket. We still have only 10 test nations. Subcontinent teams mostly are in Cricket because of the skills and the nature of the sport. A lean Srinath was able to bowl so well and a short Sachin did very well.

    Hockey - inspite of skills, the modern game is tough for the subcontinent teams. Pace and strength is key. Somehow they lack the edge that european teams have. Skills keep India at 7 to 10 but suddenly Argentina or Belgium or NZ do very well. How? Do they have more skills than Pak or Ind?

    Football. You need great skills and Strength plus pace at a very high level is needed. Asian teams dont win - why?

    Can Bhutan draw against Germany? Can Malaysia beat Spain? Ind vs Ghana 0-16?

  • Dysan25 on July 16, 2014, 13:28 GMT

    Enjoyed reading this article. Also, the weaker cricket teams/players are producing results more often now than they did earlier, which makes even neutral matches interesting.

  • RB007 on July 16, 2014, 6:42 GMT

    Great insight and a thought provoking read. In most sports, weaker teams cannot match their opponents in terms of attacking with greater creativity, skills and flair. But it is possible to match them in defence. Sports with scoring systems that limit scoring opportunities offers weaker teams more possibility to win. Tennis is such an example where service breaks are rare and affords the chance of upsets as opposed to badminton. In football scoring goals is far more difficult than defending your goal. And in cricket taking wickets is much more difficult than scoring runs. That's why weaker teams compete more effectively in T20 than Test Matches. That's why Australia with a suspect batting line up is still top dog in Test Cricket. Say hi to Mitchell Johnson, Harris and Siddle!

  • Naikan on July 15, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    This is an aspect of cricket (where the weak can dominate the strong) for which I always held it up as a superior field game to any other field game. However my view comes from a slightly different angle. For me "weak" - does not imply one with limited skills or ability - but one who is physically weaker. When seen from that point of view even Football falls by the wayside in general. In which other field game can you come across a situation where a diminutive Gavaskar, Sachin or for that matter Don could totally lord over a giant hurling a ball at you at nearly 100 miles an hour? Nor is it a must that only a giant can hurl the ball at 100. Some of the fastest bowlers like Lindwall were well below 6 feet in height. Conversely, where else can you find a portly Prasanna or Herath could befuddle a powerful hitter of the ball or for that matter a polio afflicted person like Chandra bowl out an England team in English conditions for around a hundred? Only cricket offers that opportunity.

  • py0alb on July 15, 2014, 12:53 GMT

    Its a massive design flaw in soccer that if a poor quality team wants to simply park the bus and play for a 0-0, it will often succeed.

    Its this that makes soccer probably the most boring sport ever invented.

  • paddles952 on July 14, 2014, 17:33 GMT

    yeah not quite sure about that logic ....a team that comprised half assed amateurs was the only team to not lose in the last football world cup ( 2010 ...a hint ... one of the teat paying nations - not england). I really struggle to see how those stats makes football a better game... no doubt it makes it a luckier game,... if you follow your statistical rationale flipping a coin is inherently better than football. Not only does cricket reward the better team I would suggest some other games including, rugby, rugby league , tennis, golf, volleyball ahh hang on every sport ... rewards the better team ... only in football does luck play such a large part ( refereeing decisions, lucky deflections, ref's not spotting dives)

  • on July 14, 2014, 16:01 GMT

    excellent article! loved it

  • on July 14, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    "what opportunity does it give the weak to resist the strong? Football scores highly, and so too does cricket."

    Cricket barely even allows the weak nations the chance to play against the strong, and is trying to limit even that contact further. Cricket is trying to make the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

  • CricketChat on July 14, 2014, 14:53 GMT

    Ind just doesn't have the bowling attack to succeed outside sub-continent. They are especially poor in finishing off the tail. Only sub-continent spin feather beds give them any chance in tests Tha't the simple truth.

  • CricketChat on July 14, 2014, 14:53 GMT

    Ind just doesn't have the bowling attack to succeed outside sub-continent. They are especially poor in finishing off the tail. Only sub-continent spin feather beds give them any chance in tests Tha't the simple truth.

  • on July 14, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    "what opportunity does it give the weak to resist the strong? Football scores highly, and so too does cricket."

    Cricket barely even allows the weak nations the chance to play against the strong, and is trying to limit even that contact further. Cricket is trying to make the strong stronger and the weak weaker.

  • on July 14, 2014, 16:01 GMT

    excellent article! loved it

  • paddles952 on July 14, 2014, 17:33 GMT

    yeah not quite sure about that logic ....a team that comprised half assed amateurs was the only team to not lose in the last football world cup ( 2010 ...a hint ... one of the teat paying nations - not england). I really struggle to see how those stats makes football a better game... no doubt it makes it a luckier game,... if you follow your statistical rationale flipping a coin is inherently better than football. Not only does cricket reward the better team I would suggest some other games including, rugby, rugby league , tennis, golf, volleyball ahh hang on every sport ... rewards the better team ... only in football does luck play such a large part ( refereeing decisions, lucky deflections, ref's not spotting dives)

  • py0alb on July 15, 2014, 12:53 GMT

    Its a massive design flaw in soccer that if a poor quality team wants to simply park the bus and play for a 0-0, it will often succeed.

    Its this that makes soccer probably the most boring sport ever invented.

  • Naikan on July 15, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    This is an aspect of cricket (where the weak can dominate the strong) for which I always held it up as a superior field game to any other field game. However my view comes from a slightly different angle. For me "weak" - does not imply one with limited skills or ability - but one who is physically weaker. When seen from that point of view even Football falls by the wayside in general. In which other field game can you come across a situation where a diminutive Gavaskar, Sachin or for that matter Don could totally lord over a giant hurling a ball at you at nearly 100 miles an hour? Nor is it a must that only a giant can hurl the ball at 100. Some of the fastest bowlers like Lindwall were well below 6 feet in height. Conversely, where else can you find a portly Prasanna or Herath could befuddle a powerful hitter of the ball or for that matter a polio afflicted person like Chandra bowl out an England team in English conditions for around a hundred? Only cricket offers that opportunity.

  • RB007 on July 16, 2014, 6:42 GMT

    Great insight and a thought provoking read. In most sports, weaker teams cannot match their opponents in terms of attacking with greater creativity, skills and flair. But it is possible to match them in defence. Sports with scoring systems that limit scoring opportunities offers weaker teams more possibility to win. Tennis is such an example where service breaks are rare and affords the chance of upsets as opposed to badminton. In football scoring goals is far more difficult than defending your goal. And in cricket taking wickets is much more difficult than scoring runs. That's why weaker teams compete more effectively in T20 than Test Matches. That's why Australia with a suspect batting line up is still top dog in Test Cricket. Say hi to Mitchell Johnson, Harris and Siddle!

  • Dysan25 on July 16, 2014, 13:28 GMT

    Enjoyed reading this article. Also, the weaker cricket teams/players are producing results more often now than they did earlier, which makes even neutral matches interesting.

  • on July 15, 2014, 13:43 GMT

    Cricket being a non-contact sport sort of neutralizes the strength the bigger and stronger people. For example body building or boxing skills will not really help to hone your skills. Shorter formats help minnows surprise some bigger teams. But in reality very few teams actually are able to play quality cricket. We still have only 10 test nations. Subcontinent teams mostly are in Cricket because of the skills and the nature of the sport. A lean Srinath was able to bowl so well and a short Sachin did very well.

    Hockey - inspite of skills, the modern game is tough for the subcontinent teams. Pace and strength is key. Somehow they lack the edge that european teams have. Skills keep India at 7 to 10 but suddenly Argentina or Belgium or NZ do very well. How? Do they have more skills than Pak or Ind?

    Football. You need great skills and Strength plus pace at a very high level is needed. Asian teams dont win - why?

    Can Bhutan draw against Germany? Can Malaysia beat Spain? Ind vs Ghana 0-16?