Giles Smith: Cork model for confrontational future (15 August 1997)

Saturday 16 August 1997

Cork model for confrontational future

By Giles Smith

THOSE who believe civilisation is on its way to hell in a handcart will probably have had only knowing looks to exchange after the scenes at Chelmsford on Tuesday evening. Cricketers fighting! Can we sink any lower?

Robert Croft and Mark Ilott must now pay -L1,000 each for their little altercation at the square, but I wonder if, actually, they haven`t been treated a little harshly. They only shoved each other, after all. And only over a question of the available light. In some small way, they may even have done their sport a service. It had never before occurred to me that a NatWest tie was worth shoving anyone for. Now I see how it might be. Looked at this way, they served as an example.

And a timely one. These are crucial, transitional days for county cricket. Thus far, the authorities, though clearly sincerely committed to making the game seem vibrant again, have taken only the soft option: redesigning the league system. That and some rock music and a few floodlights. It cannot be denied, though, that a bit of argy-bargy every now and again would brighten up the slumbering county scene considerably and bring in the new, younger audience which cricket is so keen to attract.

Of course, one cannot have grown men just flinging themselves at each other willy-nilly, so the violence would need to be carefully regulated, to which end, the following modest proposals:

1) That members of the fielding side other than the wicketkeeper should be allowed to pad up, too, and that one of them, pre-selected by the captain, should be allowed to carry a bat.

2) That cricketers should drop the tediously friendly nicknaming they traditionally go in for (Athers, Lamby, Both, etc) and adopt instead more galvanising, East End-in- spired monikers, such as `Knuckles`, `Mad Dog` and `Eyeball` - these to be registered with the England and Wales Cricket Board at the start of the season.

3) That at least once before lunchtime, and twice per session thereafter, a fast bowler should be required to send down two balls at once, just to add that random, confrontational edge.

4) No more spin bowling.

5) No more medium-pace bowling, either.

6) That it should be perfectly OK to impede a running batsman, in organised manoeuvres based on American football`s blocking techniques.

If these proposals seem too extreme for immediate introduction, there is a simpler measure, which would send much the same sort of ripples through the game: everyone could start modelling themselves on Dominic Cork.

Source :: The Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/)