Do They Play Cricket?


Any criticism of cricket is justifiable grounds for regime change and nation building. As agreed in a recent college class on terrorism, cricket when played properly (i.e. to lose) is the drinking man's baseball. For the sake of clarity, no Englishman can discuss terrorism and cricket at the same time, because global terrorism is quite simply “just not cricket”.

Cricket can be contrasted to modern foreign policy because, played properly, the very idea of a "we win, you lose" premise is not an issue. Cricket, particularly global-village cricket, has to be played with either a lose-lose or lose-win philosophy. The exceptions to this are Australia and South Africa who both practice beforehand (which is unsporting) and cannot tell the difference between cricket and foreign policy anyway. Countries that do not play cricket are seldom, if ever, successful in the foreign relations aspects of government.

Lose-Lose cricket is played when a team travels a long way, only for the long and very dull game to be declared a draw. It is also associated with poor quality meals, no sense of humor, little or no alcohol and little in the way of entertainment. Some individuals (not this author) maintain that Pakistan has suffered criticism in this respect. It is to be hoped that Pakistan’s recent defeat by the Republic of Ireland will encourage the consumption of Guinness in Islamabad and increase the longevity amongst cricket coaches.

The Win-Lose policy is only maintained by sides that actually think the result is important. In this situation the losing side, usually the home side, out of consideration for their guests, will merely watch with amused detachment while the other team, who have obviously been practicing, run themselves ragged in a maniacal desire to win. Naturally after the game is over the home side is full of praise for the victors, safe in the knowledge that when they have gone home, not much will have changed and they can go on as before. Any resemblance to US policy in the Middle East is purely fortuitous.

As everyone knows the British have perfected the Lose-Win philosophy to a fine art. Apart from 1966 when England won the world cup and again in 2003 when they won the rugby world championship in Australia (just to piss-off Australian prime minister, John Howard) the British have skillfully lost just about everything. The thing is they have done it so politely and with such sensitivity that nobody except the English realizes it.

Some individuals have perceptively compared England’s loss of cricket games to countries like Ireland and Sri Lanka as similar to the loss of an empire and previously the loss of the new-world colonies. The contention was that the captain of the global-village cricket team, called George #3 and generally recognized as “one stump short of a wicket”, lost the new world colonies in a game of hazard while waiting for the rain to stop. It didn’t help that the French do not play cricket. Come to think of it, what do the French play? Oh yes! Football, rugby, losing wars, breathing garlic fumes, ignoring EU directives, getting married, disagreeing with everybody and unacceptable interference in foreign affairs.

I digress.

England (I purposefully exclude the hostile colonies of Scotland and Wales) lost its empire that had been built up by a sensitive and caring policy of assimilation, physical abuse, commercial rape and democracy. Actually that was very unfair about Scotland and Wales and I unreservedly and insincerely apologize. Both these countries now have a degree of self-determination, totally financed by the English taxpayers and now have double representation without taxation (they are all unemployed). The Welsh coalmining industry was decimated by a Canadian and a well-balanced Yorkshire Tyke (he had equally sized chips on both shoulders). So with little to occupy the minds of the Welsh people, the local sheep became very preoccupied and anxious.

Once the offshore reserves of fossil fuels were gone, Scotland was also given its own assembly. The Scots are now freely able to smoke heavily, fight in pubs, eat saturated fats and support England’s opponents in any sporting event. You will note that both these countries do play a little cricket, but neither plays it well enough to gain a meaningful contribution to the international community - although both teams could beat Canada. If it seems I have a “down” on Canada you are perfectly correct. As a communications major I learned to despise all the communication experts that country has birthed. Sorry Mr. McLuhan and Mr. Innis but my message is not in the method and I don’t care two hoots for Minerva’s Owl. Also, although Canada does have a cricket team, it is entirely made up of immigrants from the Caribbean and the Sub-Continent and Canada is too far way from anywhere else to engage in foreign affairs. They do think winning is important but cannot remember why.

If Afghanistan weren’t so hilly the English would have succeeded in their 19th century invasion and they would have taught the tribes to play cricket, thus allowing them to vent their aggression on the field of play instead of killing each other. Afghanistan would have then become independent but would still have liked England because they would win their cricket games against them. It is important to realize that the Soviet Union never played cricket. If they had the West would have lost the cold war, but would never have realized it because it would have been done so politely and sensitively.

England taught the hotter parts of the empire to play cricket and taught Canada how to brew ale. Unfortunately the Canadians then passed legislation that made it next to impossible to buy it. This legislation was relaxed during the United States period of prohibition to allow the alcoholic equivalent of sixteen Niagara Falls to flow into the United States every 8.73 minutes. Had the Canadian weather been better and they had been taught to play cricket earlier, the French would have left much sooner (taking Quebec with them) to pursue foreign policy in Syria and Lebanon. If that had happened the area would be much more peaceful now and that nice Mr. Rumsfeld would have been repelled by a wave of garlic fumes that would make WMDs redundant.

I trigress!

Once the English taught these countries of the benevolent empire to play cricket or brew ale, then it was clear they would practice these skills and eventually the Brits would be forced out. Properly coached in the art of wrist-spin bowling, Gandhi could have played cricket up to UN standards – he might even have been good at it. Of course that white frock he always wore would have to go, unless they moved the UN HQ to San Francisco, Sydney or Mykonos.

It will now be clear to readers that have tolerated me so far that I am inclined to wander from the subject. I hesitate to use the word “deviate” on the same page as Mykonos. I will no longer apologize for this, for your erudition, it is caused by an undisciplined brain and some extremely ordinary chardonnay. Actually I now have no idea what subject I have strayed from but this has never stopped me from writing before.

Cricket and foreign policy are the two inextricably linked phenomena invented by the English that have irrevocably changed the world for the better. If we could only get the latter to take place in the middle of a green field and the former to be played in government buildings worldwide, how much more peaceful would this planet be? If Dick Cheney were to be “standing in the gulley with his legs apart waiting for a tickle”, would anyone take his invasion plans for most of the Middle East seriously? Mind you the sheep in Wales might be worried if American Football became popular, the very idea of a tight end and a wide receiver! Then again…?


The consequential question that now springs to mind is how did the United States of America gain independence without knowing how to play cricket, how to brew ale or how to practice foreign affairs? All sorts of sophisticated theories have been put forward, but in fact the answers are all down to series of pragmatic expediencies. Forget taxation without representation, put out of your mind payment for Indian-French wars and obliterate pompous Declarations of Independence for ever.

Some individuals (not this author) blame the Germans for the United State’s inability to brew ale, on the basis that cold efficient people make cold flavorless beer – end of story.

Foreign affairs are irrelevant in the independence process. Anyway Madison spent all of his time in France consorting with prostitutes and government officials – Encoulez moi* seemed to work equally well with both.

The real reason the United States gained independence from England was because early colonists did, in fact, play cricket. However, so many of the male settlers died early in life that it was difficult to get sufficient numbers together to make two teams. This left the colonists with some hard choices to make. They could get the ladies to play, but the girls were busy fighting Indians, farming, practicing witchcraft and didn’t like beer anyway. The logical solutions were to reduce the size of the teams and to disallow scoring behind the wicket. As there were no straight flat pieces of wood in the colonies, they could make neither bat nor stumps, so they did away with stumps and substituted a fat old Native American (later he was replaced with a catcher and an umpire who subsequently went on to be president). The bat was replaced with a round tree branch and instead of running up and down to score, the players ran in circles. There were two reasons for this, the first being that it was difficult to find another fat old Native American to stand at the other end. The second was that running in circles made a tougher target for the Native Americans who were not old and fat and that liked to shoot sharp arrows at the players. Incidentally the first “new world” team was given their name because the blood from their wounds ran down their legs onto their socks, turning them crimson red. Yes, you’ve guessed it – The Yankees.

It was also clear to these early sportsmen that the contemporary life expectancy would not allow for games to run for two or three days so they reduced the time allowed, enabling a match to be completed between church on Sunday and the afternoon farina. This is where America’s love for instant gratification originated. Incidentally, the name baseball came not from running between “bases”, but from a comment made by an unlettered governor of Massachusetts, who upon seeing this sporting blasphemy, remarked, “Encoulez moi, what a base way to play ball.” He was an apparent acquaintance of Madison.

The point of all this is an affirmation that the United States was only able to become an independent nation because they played a type of cricket which in turn gave them skills in foreign affairs. The fact that their politicians have to do these things quickly in case they are no longer there and with whoever is available is immaterial. It is the very fact of the game’s existence (however much besmirched) that matters.

Is the spirit of the game in evidence in the United States? Remember, cricket is a drinking man’s game and that “it is not the winning, it is the taking part that is important”. England invented many of the sports played in the world, but was never any good at playing them. To lessen this mortifying embarrassment they came up with expressions like “it’s the game that matters – not the result”. Eventually this philosophy developed into the way cricket and imperialism should be played.

Remember that cricket played properly is a ceremony, a ritual in which it is important to let the other team take something home with them. Kicking the other team’s butt, stealing their cars, screwing their wives/assorted livestock, killing their sons and selling their daughters is just not cricket.

*Colloquial expression loosely translated as “please have your way with me”