I think the comment thing has sorted itself out now, which is a shame, in a way, because I don't have anything amusing or learned to say at the moment.
I think - and I stress think - that I am going to be on Radio 5 Live this afternoon; I've been asked to present myself to Radio Gloucester studios at 3.30pm for a recorded piece, so I don't know when it'll be on - Drive maybe?
One genuine bit of news I've read this morning: is Shane Warne about to announce his retirement from international cricket? The thing about cricket is that it really does emphasise the appreciation of genius, wherever it is found. I remember Peter Baxter swatting a question from Charlie Whelan on 5 Live a few years ago when Whelan said that it would be a good thing if Warne was injured and couldn't play, to which Baxter replied: "No, not really." And Warne is nothing if not a bona fide genius, a man who make things happen, bend a game of 22 players and several umpires to his will, and create wickets in the least promising situations. At the Oval last year England were flaying the tired Aussie attack in the first innings until Warne came on and just ran through the top order on the first day of the match. Leg-spinners are not supposed to do that. Shane Warne is, perhaps, the greatest player of cricket, up there with Bradman and Grace: and more, he single-handedly rescued leg spin bowling from an era in which blasting batsman out was regarded as the way to go. Suddenly you didn't have to be brave but clever, to stay in. He is a master of a difficult art and a testament to the fizzing inventiveness and cunning of the game of cricket.
Sir Shane Warne, surely?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sir Shane? Not possible for both Australian political reasons and his off field behaviour. Still, on the field, he was really close to a genius.
Oh? Do aussies not get knighted anymore? I'm sure Bradman was.
Post a Comment