The Body Politic

Kumar Sangakkara

Kumar Sangakkara: A brave man

Our book, Right Off the Bat, spends quite a bit of time exploring the less salubrious sides of cricket and baseball, including the corruption that has accompanied the games almost from their beginnings. Although one might wish that double-dealing and cheating should have no place in either cricket or baseball, human nature being what it is, neither sport has been immune to both.

Today was the opening day of the trial of Roger Clemens, the Yankee pitcher whose astonishing longevity on the mound and loud claims that he’d never took steroids were a source of disbelief throughout baseball. Clemens, like Oscar Wilde, had vigorously denied what everyone apparently knew to be true and is paying the price. Of course, Clemens is not alone: questions of who took what and how much have been were raised about a bunch of players—Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, and Manny Ramirez come to mind. Pete Rose is still not allowed into the Hall of Fame (in fact, he is banned from baseball for life) because of a betting scandal. And so it goes on.

In the world of cricket, the scandal du jour is a little more obviously political. The erstwhile captain of the Sri Lankan team, Kumar Sangakkara, yesterday gave a speech in which he denounced the interference over fifteen years by the Sri Lankan political establishment in the management of cricket in his country. (I [Martin] touched on this in an earlier blog.) Sangakkara noted that cricket could have brought the country together in the wake of the terrible civil war with the Tamil Tigers. However, the meddling has left a bitter taste in his, and his fellow citizens’ mouths. Sangakkara’s speech has been widely praised—not least because the boards and establishments of many cricketing nations could be accused by their players of the same thing. Given the political situation in Sri Lanka, however, Sangakkara’s straightforwardness and honesty could land him in much more trouble than a banning from the sport, a fine, or disfavor from the government. It could cost him his life.

Posted in Baseball, Cricket, Sri Lanka, Yankees | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

You Can’t Count on Anything

Iambic pentameter: No one loses the count

Something new always happens in baseball. I (Evander) don’t know if this is a first, but I cannot remember it happening. (I do remember this oddity: One of former lifetime home-run champion Hank Aaron’s round-trippers [cricket fans: baseballspeak for “home run”] being nullified because the home-plate umpire ruled that Aaron had set himself outside the batters’ box before stroking the pitch; I would say ca. 1964.) The San Diego Padres defeated the Seattle Mariners by the slimmest margin, 1-0, in the penultimate interleague contest of the season (July 2). Not exactly news you say? How it happened is.

One-nothing games are rare enough in our steroids/high-bouncing ball/small-stadium era. But this one was all due to a mistake on the part of the home-plate umpire, as well as stadium officials, as well as Seattle Mariners manager (and former Indians manager) Eric Wedge and his pitching coach, as well as many if not all of the players on the field and in the Seattle dugout. And probably a number of fans, at least the ones that do not keep score by charting pitches (although clearly not at fault), were likely oblivious to the umpire’s inexcusable call.

The scoreboard showed the count three balls and two strikes when ball four was called. Except this was not ball four. The real count preceding this pitch outside the strike zone, contra the scoreboard, was two balls and two strikes. The batter, Cameron Maybin, thus walked (was assigned first base) on three balls not four. He ultimately came around to score the lone run of this controversial game. Umpire Phil Cuzzi reports that he had the count correct on his hand-held pocket counter. But when he checked it against the scoreboard, he thought his internal-counting device was incorrect.

Technology run amok? Human error? Sorry to say, there are no “do-overs” in Major League Baseball (or on any but the most amateurish levels), and it is unlikely the commissioner will involve himself.  In Seattle however, the manager’s boss ought to have plenty to say. It might even become a wedge issue.

Posted in Baseball | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When It Rains It Bores

Rain at a cricket game.

I can't stand the rain.

In the recently concluded Test series between England and Sri Lanka, which the host country won 1–0, all but two of the fifteen days scheduled saw no rain. As one wag noted, it was amazing that cricket was invented in a country where rain is such a constant in life. A total of more than 350 overs (or 2,100 balls) were lost, which not only meant that vast amounts of time weren’t available for one team to beat the other, but that spectators were deprived of almost four full days’ worth of play. Unlike in baseball, you can’t hold a rematch of a five-day Test game when it rains—the scheduling won’t permit it. You also can’t fiddle with the scores and the number of balls bowled to work out a new goal for a victory, as you can in one-day cricket. You just have to call it a draw (no team wins or loses), and move on.

Of course, all that rain might have been avoided if the English Cricket Board had confined Test cricket to the English summer and not have games played in June and even May, which Shakespeare noted could be full of “rough winds.” True, most grounds now have floodlights that allow play to continue even if it gets dark and cloudy (and doesn’t rain), and you can make up some of the balls lost by ending later the next day, or day after that, etc. But it don’t mean a thing if it rains, and Wimbledon’s answer of covered roofs would be prohibitively expensive, given the much greater expanse of a cricket field.

Unfortunately, cricket authorities don’t make Test cricket any more attractive by holding rigidly to schedule breaks, even when the sun is shining, or bringing the play to an end for the day, despite the fact that in June in England the sun doesn’t set until past nine p.m.  Something’s gotta give, because Test cricket is already challenged enough for (lack of a) crowd presence, without the rain washing the few remaining stalwarts away.

Posted in Cricket, Test Cricket | Leave a comment

Josh Hamilton Earns His Golden Sombrero: Christmas Also Is Coming

Josh Hamilton of the Texas Rangers: Give this man a cigar!

For cricket fans who may not know or understand the term, the Golden Sombrero concerns a succession of “hitting” failures within a single game: The batter in question strikes out at least four times. Josh Hamilton was the 2010 American League’s Most Valuable Player. This did not save him from the humiliation of earning the Golden Sombrero, in front of the home-town fans and a national-television audience on Fox no less, during today’s interleague tilt versus the New York Mets (a game in progress at this writing but probably soon mercifully over for the Rangers). Thus, Hamilton still has a chance to make it five or who knows how many K’s? (Cricket fans: a “K” is the score-card symbol for a strikeout. Also remember: theoretically, there is no limit to the number of times a hitter may come to bat in a game, though the usual number is four or five so-called plate appearances.) In fact, the slugger has seen only three balls out of the strike zone (and at which he has not swung) all day to this point, an astounding combination of good pitching and batting futility. (Cricket fans: A batter can swing at a ball out of the strike zone, otherwise “a ball,” and take his chances doing something good with that high, low, or outside pitch.) In short, June 25, 2011, only six months till Christmas, marks the date of one game that Josh Hamilton will not include in his 2011 highlight reel, for special sled delivery to the kiddies, by Santa.

Posted in Baseball | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Veterans Administration

Rahul Dravid

Rahul Dravid: Stony-faced

Rahul Dravid, known as “The Wall” for the solidity and imperviousness of his defensive technique, has just scored his thirty-second century for India in his 152nd Test match. He is thirty-eight years old. This summer, Sachin Tendulkar, also thirty-eight, will attempt to get his hundredth international hundred, when he joins the Indian tour of England (following the tour in the West Indies, which Tendulkar’s sitting out, to give others a chance). Joining Dravid and Tendulkar on the tour will be thirty-six-year-old V. V. S. Laxman. Together, they constitute a very powerful (and box office-friendly) batting line-up that will surely test the English bowlers, and pack in the crowds.

The longevity of India’s batting greats is causing concern to some pundits. It would be one thing if Dravid, Tendulkar, and Laxman were failing in their powers of concentration, their skills were diminished, or their appetite for the game was waning: then they could be persuaded to retire, assured of their place in the cricketing firmament, and the young tyros who are currently restricted to the Indian Premier League (IPL) and other follies could step up to the big leagues of playing international Test cricket (still considered the ultimate by players and fans alike). The trouble is that, far from fading away, Tendulkar and Dravid continue to be very, very good. Tendulkar is simply without equal in gathering runs and records, while Dravid almost single-handedly held up the West Indian attack in the recent first Test match in Kingston, Jamaica. Laxman continues to be a stylish batsman, who packs the panache admired by Test cricket, if not the punch that wows Twenty20 and one-day cricket fans. What’s more they want to play, even though the big bucks and less physically demanding pleasures of the IPL await.

Australia—similarly loaded with aging greats like Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey, and Simon Katich, all thirty-six years old (or thereabouts)—has (in the form of Cricket Australia, the authority managing, er, Australian cricket) just decided to dump Katich, arguing that the Test team, thrashed by the English earlier this year, needs to rebuild. Unfortunately for Cricket Australia, Katich has been the most successful opening batsman the Australians have had in the last few years. Katich was furious, holding a press conference to ask just what it was he’d done wrong that caused him to be dropped. His teammates came to his defense and now nobody’s happy.

I’m sure baseball fans will recognize some commonalities, but we’ll leave that to another post.

Posted in Australia, Cricket, India, Test Cricket | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peter Falk and Derek Jeter: Just One More Thing, Ma’am

When Derek Jeter might reach 3,000 hits is a mystery worthy of the late Peter Falk in his most celebrated role as TV sleuth Columbo.

It’s been a tough news day. First, it was reported that Yankees superstar Derek Jeter’s quest for the magical number of 3,000 hits in his career (he is six shy; cricket fans, out of 17,000 players who have made it in Major League Baseball, only 27 batters have collected 3,000 hits or more) may still be on ice since his aching calf muscle continues to be. Then, it was reported that Peter Falk died after a long battle with either dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. I feel bad for pal and TV critic extraordinary Mark Dawidziak, who came to know and admire Mr. Falk thro work on his definitive study, The Columbo Phile.

Posted in Baseball, Yankees | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Right Off the Bat Is Available from Amazon in Three Days

Amazon believes "Always on Sunday"!

Amazon will (finally) begin filling orders for Right Off the Bat on June 26! (Who said “Never on Sunday”?) We thank all readers of this blog and our other fans for your support. Soon, you will see what all the hubbub is (or is not) about.

Posted in Baseball, Cricket, Right Off the Bat Book | Leave a comment

Frank Worrell: Cricket’s Jackie Robinson

Frank Worrell

Frank Worrell in full flow

Every baseball fan knows the Legend of Jackie Robinson: how he was the first man to integrate baseball; how he was vilified and slandered, and yet maintained his discipline and strength and classiness to the end; and how his story represents the best and worst aspects of a country that has struggled from its inception to live up to its founding credo. The question for us today is whether cricket has an equivalent, and if so, who it might be?

The question is tricky because cricket has a number of individuals who in their own way literally changed the complexion of the game.  The Indian prince Kumar Ranjitsinjhi (1972–33) was the first person of color to play for England, although that was mainly because there wasn’t an Indian national side at the time. Moreover, being a royal buffered him from the racial slurs that came his and others’ way. George Headley (1909–83) lifted West Indian cricket to a prominence it hadn’t had before. Makhaya Ntini was the first Black player to play for the post-Apartheid South Africa side.

However, cricket has for decades featured games with people from a variety of countries playing for the same side. What we’re looking for is someone who possessed Robinson’s combination of grace under pressure and ability to handle the expectations placed upon him by a people hungry for respect, recognition, and dignity. As far as I (Martin) am concerned, one man fits the bill: Frank Worrell (1924–67).

Even though Black people had been playing cricket for the West Indies since the 1920s, anomalies remained. The hidebound (and, frankly, racist) cricket authorities determined that the team—made up of players from the Anglophone colonies of the Caribbean—could only be captained by a white man. (You can probably imagine the excuses they gave.) This situation obtained until the late 1950s, even as the considerable depth of talent in West Indian cricket became obvious. Finally, the historian and cricket journalist, C. L. R. James wrote a much-heralded article calling for the West Indies side to be led by a Black man. That man was Frank Worrell.

(What baseball fans need to know is that captaining a cricket side is a much bigger deal than its baseball equivalent, which is largely ceremonial: an honor. The captain determines who’s going to bowl [pitch], where the fielders will take their positions, and has a whole host of other responsibilities—including maintaining morale, discipline, and focus during the game. It’s a tough job, especially given that you usually have to be able to justify your place in the side on your own merits.)

Along with his fellow Barbadians Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott, Worrell was a world-class batsman. But, crucially, he saw the cricket team as more than just a chance to play internationally. As Britain’s empire began to dissolve in the 1950s, Worrell saw an opportunity to knit Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Antigua, and other islands into a cohesive unit on the field and thus mirror a potential political federation, where the whole was more powerful and effective than the parts.

As it turned out, Worrell (who, like Jackie Robinson, died prematurely) never got to see his political dream realized. Rather than join together as a federation, the islands formed their own nation-states, diluting their political and economic power. On the cricket field, however, Worrell’s vision was triumphant. He led the West Indies on a hugely successful tour to Australia in 1960–61, and through force of character and discipline, initiated an almost three-decades period where the West Indies cricket team not only competed at the highest levels but, in the 1970s and 1980s, became easily the best team in the world. Whereas other men can be accredited with the greatness that followed Worrell (just as others stood on Robinson’s broad-shoulders), they needed someone with conviction, forethought, and incredible discipline to make it all happen.

Posted in Baseball, Cricket, West Indies | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Politics of Cricket Continue

Sanath Jayasuriya: Political appointee?

It is one of the contentions of our book Right Off the Bat that cricket and baseball have long had similar histories of political interference—usually around race and ethnicity—and have both been the focal points of conflict and the means by which those conflicts are resolved peacefully. Evander has already talked about the legendary Jackie Robinson on this blog, and I (Martin) discuss whether he has any equivalent in cricket elsewhere. One can assume that baseball in Venezuela and Cuba are deeply linked with a rhetoric of national resistance to American hegemony. Nonetheless, it seems safe to say that baseball no longer carries as much politicized baggage as it did a generation ago.

Cricket is different—especially in the Indian subcontinent.  A case in point is the presence of Sanath Jayasuriya in the Sri Lankan team, which is currently touring England. Jayasuriya recently became a member of parliament in his home country for the United People’s Freedom Alliance, the party of president Mahinda Rajapaksa. A recent UN report suggested that the government was responsible for extensive human rights abuses (including the deaths of 40,000 civilians) in its successful destruction of the Tamil Tiger rebellion in 2009Writing in the Guardian on June 21, Andy Bull noted that, while Jayasuriya is not personally responsible for any wrongdoing, he nonetheless belongs to a government that has some very, very serious questions to answer, and that the dissent shown by the U.K.’s Tamil community to his presence is understandable.

Jayasuriya has responded by arguing that the Tamil Tigers were terrorists, who regularly used suicide bombers and brutal tactics throughout their decades long campaign for a separate Tamil state in the north of the country, and that the fact Sri Lanka is finally at peace should be celebrated. True enough. But beyond the rights and wrongs of this civil conflict lies the question of just why Jayasuriya is in the side in the first place. He’s forty-one years old, was meant to be retired, and he’s only playing a few games. The official argument is that the games will offer the great cricketer a proper send-off. This blather doesn’t seem to be washing with the current (stand-in) captain Kumar Sangakkara, and the Sri Lankan coach, Stuart Law, who’s dropped broad hints that Jayasuriya’s appointment is political interference.

None of this bodes well for Sri Lanka’s cricket team (finalists in the recent World Cup) as they embark on the one-day stage of their tour, having lost the Test series 1–0. But wherever you stand on the terrible issue of what happened in 2009, cricket once more has become invested with much more than meaning than twenty-two players contesting ball and bat—even if that was all you’d hope it would be.

Posted in Baseball, Cricket, England, Sri Lanka | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Sterling and Suzyn at Wrigley

Chicago-baseball broadcasting great, Jack Brickhouse

At first it was just another lead-in to a Yankee broadcast on WCBS–but when I, Bill, heard “Yankees versus Chicago Cubs” I did a double-take. Don’t think I ever heard a game like this before.  Memories of long-ago broadcasts, TV or radio, with Jack Brickhouse, Lou Boudreau, or Vince Lloyd came to mind. Suzyn Waldman brought the almost over-the-top enthusiasm of a first-time visitor to her announcement. When she described the rickety stairway going under the first base stands, up through a wire cage enclosed passage toward right field, all those times I stood there under the stands waiting for an autograph from the visiting team came to mind. Her amazement at the Sheffield Avenue rooftop bleachers was enormous; to us longtime Cubs fans this is merely part of the rich history of the team. Growing up in Chicago, I was always in awe of the Yankees. Now in this rare turnabout, John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman brought my hometown team back in a new, appreciated focus.

Posted in Baseball | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment