Cricketing characters #2: Rachael Heyhoe-Flint

"Girls don't play cricket."

That's the response Rachael Heyhoe was given in 1940 when the police stopped a game of street cricket she was playing with her brothers and his friends. They had set up 2 bins in the middle of the road in Rachael's home town of Wolverhampton, but upon hearing police sirens the game came to an abrupt end. The police officers took the names of all the boys, but once Rachael had emerged from her hiding spot and offered her name to the officer, the idea of a young girl playing cricket in 1940 was so incredulous to him that he didn't bother taking it. Rachael, by virtue of her gender alone,  had got away with it.

So started the story of a remarkable life which has seen Rachael Heyhoe-Flint become a trailblazer who revolutionised women's cricket, which created reverberations throughout women's sport in Britain.

Rachel was born in 1939 in Wolverhampton. Her parents were both Physical Education teachers. She adopted the Flint addition to her surname when marrying Derrick Flint, himself a former First Class cricketer who played 18 matches for Warwickshire in 1948-49.


Rachael was first capped for England in 1960 and became captain in 1966. Her playing career was amongst the most illustrious in the women's game and over her 22 years at international level, played 22 Tests and 23 One-Day Internationals. She averaged 45.54 over 38 Test innings (including 3 centuries) and 58.45 in ODI's. Her ODI average remains the highest ever for a batsman with more than 20 innings. An occasional bowler, she also took 4 international wickets. She was replaced as Captain in 1978 but returned to play her final matches in the 1982 World Cup.

Perhaps it is not an over-statement to suggest that without Rachael Heyhoe-Flint, women's cricket would not have risen to the heights it is at in 2015. Her passion and drive paved the way for the recognition of women in the highest circles of world cricket.

Like all women cricketers in her era, she had to find other work alongside her playing career. She found that freelance journalism was the most flexible work, but she also managed to fit in PE teaching and a marketing job. During her time as captain Rachael would often take the scorebooks back to her hotel at the end of a day's play and write articles for the Telegraph, Express, Reuters and the Press Association, in an effort to broadcast the women's game to wider audience. In a 2013 interview with the Independent she stated that seeing the matches covered in the national press gave the rest of the team a boost, even if the words were from their own captain.

Despite her efforts to garner new interest, women's cricket in the 1970's was generally declining in participation and awareness. The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) generally held rather snobbish views and being the driving force behind the development of cricket around the world, women's cricket development away from England also suffered. In 1969 Rachael approached a local Wolverhampton man - Sir Jack Hayward (who had previously acted as a benefactor for the Wolverhampton Wanderers football club). On her requests he had agreed to fund 2 tours for the England women's team to the West Indies. Following these successful tours Rachael and Haywood approached the Women's Cricket Association in 1971 to pitch the idea of the inaugural women's cricket World Cup. Haywood reportedly contributed £40,000 to the tournament. Rachael then worked tirelessly to make her vision a reality, and after securing another £100,000 from Prudential, the first cricket World Cup was contested in England in 1973.

It was contested by 7 teams, these being the main test playing nations at the time - England, Australia and New Zealand; Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago (invited following the earlier successful Heywood funded tours); a Young England team and an Invitational XI (effectively a Rest of the World team). A South African XI was initially offered a place, but the invitation was withdrawn following protests by the West Indian teams due to the apartheid laws in place at the time. Although Rachael was lucky enough to gain paid leave from her work as a PE teacher in Wolverhampton, many of the other players were not so fortunate. Indeed many lost their jobs for the chance to participate, such was the lack of recognition for the women's game. The tournament was won by England with a 92 run victory over Australia at Edgbaston which meant they topped the table following a round-robin format. Rachel herself scored 64 in this match as well as bowling the final over in the match. She recalled of this final over: "I paced out my run, turned to bowl and found that every one of my England team had placed themselves at least 70 yards out on the boundary edge - even wicketkeeper Shirley Hodges".

It is worth bearing in mind that this was played with virtually no monetary support from the sport's governing body or the most influential cricketing body in the world - the MCC. Most noteworthy maybe, is the fact that this was also played 2 years before the inaugural Men's tournament. Rachael's commitment and passion for her sport during this period was recognised when she was awarded an MBE for services to Women's cricket in 1972.

Following on from the success of the World Cup, the MCC somewhat reluctantly recognised the contribution of the women's team to the game, as calls for a first women's match at the home of the MCC - Lord's - grew louder. These calls were lead by Rachael herself who reportedly threatened to haul the MCC in front of the Equal Opportunities Commission if the request wasn't given consideration. In 1972, the MCC president Aiden Crawley finally conceded that the women "had done enough to deserve a game at cricket's headquarters".

Unfortunately this did not materialise until 1976 when England faced the touring Australians at Lord's for the first time, as part of the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations. This test series coincided with perhaps Rachael's most prolific batting form and provided her most memorable performance in an England shirt. Coming in at number 4 with England 66-2, she batted for 521 minutes, scoring 179 which was enough to lead England to a famous draw. It was her highest test score, a world record at the time and to put it into context of the match, the next highest score in the innings was just 39. The series finished with Rachael scoring another century at Edgbaston and averaging 87.50 over 3 tests.

The long-awaited match at Lord's finally came about when the England met Australia in the third ODI of the series. The MCC were gracious enough to allow the England women access to the changing rooms in the Lord's pavilion, as well as to the famous Long Room. Both were traditionally male only.  The match was a success with England winning the ODI by 9 wickets, Rachael herself being one of the not out batsmen and leading the team off the field. Despite the result, there was still reportedly some consternation amongst the more conservative-minded MCC members, with some even taking to the press to voice their disapproval. A member at the time named Brian Wijerane was quoted as saying: "I was quite shocked when I saw the women playing. Cricket is a game where concentration is very important and women are the greatest distraction a man can have around". The MCC had made some concessions by allowing the women players in the pavilion, but still maintained its strict male only policy by not allowing any non-playing female through its doors. Despite the obvious gains Rachael had instigated in progressing the women's game over the previous few years, clearly the MCC nut was going to be a particularly tough one to crack.

Indeed it was not until 1999 when the MCC eventually opened its doors fully to women members, thus ending 212 years of male exclusivity. Rachael herself, in her own words, had "the temerity to apply to be a member" in 1991. Despite this unsuccessful bid, she is regarded as one of the main catalysts to change, culminating in Rachael being one of the first 10 women to be admitted as members. Tony Lewis, the MCC president at the time, stated that "the unanimous thinking of the committee was simply this - we could not claim to be a great cricket club unless we had women's teams and women members". Persuading the 18,000 strong members though remained a challenge and an original vote in February 1999 failed to gain the required two thirds majority, but following pressure from lobby groups and the government, a second vote later in the year overturned the decision with a 70% majority.

Rachael has still been met with occasional resistance in the Long Room at Lord's however. In an interview with the Independent in 2013 she was quoted as saying: "Two summers ago, I walked through the Long Room at a Test match. This dear old codger looked up and he said: "Have you lost your way, my dear?" I thought, oh God, it's only nine years and he doesn't realise. I put my hand in my handbag and brought out my membership card and on it it says 'committee'. His friends were blushing on his behalf, but perhaps he didn't realise."

Even after all of this her other pioneering exploits in sport are quite remarkable. She became the first female sports commentator when she commentated on her beloved Wolverhampton Wanderers football club for ITV's World of Sport in the 1970's. She later became a director of the Wolves board in 1997. She became President of the Lady Taverners in 2001, and was one of the first 2 women appointed to the board of the England Cricket Board (ECB) in 2010. She was the first woman to be inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame, also in 2010. Her 1972 MBE became an OBE in 2008. In 2010 she was ennobled by David Cameron to sit in the House of Lords as a conservative party peer and the following year was created a life peer as she took on the title of Baroness Heyhoe Flint of Wolverhampton.

Oh, and she also played as a goalkeeper for the England Hockey team in 1964.

In 2014, rumours abounded that Rachael would momentously become the first female President of the MCC, perhaps finally breaking down the brick wall of conservatism the lingers in the famous Lord's pavilion. Alas this did not materialise - the job falling to David Morgan in succession of Mike Gatting following an election process described by Rachael as "as secret a nomination as for the next pope". How close she was to taking up one of the most influential positions in cricket is unclear. Rachael described in an interview with The Guardian newspaper in 2014: "If people think it is right that I should be appointed to one of the best positions in cricket, if I live long enough, that will be fantastic, but you don't go around lobbying for it." This lead on to one of my favourite quotes from her:

"If it happens to me one day – fantastic – if it doesn't I'll just carry on knitting and cooking."

Cricketing characters #1: Jasper Vinall

Jasper Vinall was a village cricketer born in West Hoathly, Sussex in 1590. That's right, 1590. Before I write any more about him, I must say I was astonished that cricket was even played as long ago as that!

Whilst researching for the start of this new blog project, I came across Jasper on a brief Wikipedia entry. This entry was so brief but struck such a chord that he was the perfect man to start the cricketing characters odyssey.

History reports Jasper Vinall as the first cricketer to have died during a game of cricket.

Jasper played for the village of his birth, West Hoathly in Sussex from 1620 to the time of his death in 1624. It's reported that Jasper was fielding close in when Edward Tye of Horsted Keynes was batting on 28th August 1624. Tye hit the ball in the air and, seeing the opportunity to hit it again and score more runs, hit Jasper on the back of head with his bat, unaware that Jasper was running up behind him trying to catch the ball. The resulting head injury ultimately claimed Jaspers life 13 days later on 10th September.

There are no official records of this match, and the result is unknown. In fact it is not even confirmed that this was a cricket match at all! At least not what is known as modern day cricket. It is only assumed that this was a cricket match due to the details noted in the subsequent coroners report following Jasper's death. The inquest ruled that he had been killed by "misadventure" and, possibly somewhat insensitively, through "his own carelessness".

This match is one of the earliest recorded in England. Evidence of the the first village cricket match has been dated back to Kent c.1610 when a 1640 court case makes reference to a "cricketing" of Weald and Upland versus Chalkhill 30 years previously. The case reported no details of game being played, but rather concerned a dispute about the land that the match was played on.

Jasper's final match at West Hoathly is the earliest organised match in Sussex for which any reference is thought to exist. It is assumed that this was a village cricket match between 2 neighbouring parishes, and would arguably have been lost to history if it weren't for Jasper's unfortunate accident. There are also no readily available records of who Jasper was, what he did for a living, or whether he left behind a family.

This story raises an interesting question about Law 34 - hitting the ball twice. The incident of Edward Tye trying to hit the ball twice would not occur now as it is outlawed in the modern game. If a batsman is judged to having attempted to score runs of a second hit, he is given out by the umpire. The first official Laws of Cricket were first coded in 1744 by the Marylebone Cricket club as a way to regulate the game for allow for fairer betting. These laws were derived from an amalgamation of various bat and ball games played throughout the country in the centuries before, as betting was becoming more and more popular among British aristocracy. Whether Law 34 was borne out of Jasper's incident or other similar incidents of close fielders being hit by flailing bats is unknown, but the modern law does give protection to these fielders. Therefore perhaps Jasper Vinall's untimely death in a largely forgotten 17th century bat and ball game may have left a legacy on the game we play and watch today. If not, Jasper at least deserves a nod of recognition, and he's a very fitting first cricketing character of this series!

Ian Bell

I'd like to talk about one of my favourite desserts. A panna cotta.

For those that don't know what one of these is I'll describe it for you. It's a mould of sweet cream which is set using gelatine and flavoured with something like sharp fruit, or coffee of rum etc. There are few nice little things served on the side as well usually like some red berries or a smooth caramel sauce. It tends to been seen in restaurants rather than in the home so it's nearly always associated with a nice meal rather than home cooking. When it's made well it's the perfect third course (or even fourth or fifth course). In the right setting and at the right time it can easily be considered the perfect dessert that rounds off a great meal magnificently. It's both comforting and light. The varying ratio of gelatine and cream make it either silky smooth and rich, or delicate which melts in the mouth. It has a characteristic gentle but firm, structured wobble which sets it so elegantly apart from other lesser desserts. It has a sophistication and style that many of the other desserts just don't possess. It is a pure dessert and it is an absolute joy.

So why do I hardly ever order it?

For all its sophistication and silkiness, other desserts just 'hit the spot' a bit more. It's comforting but it doesn't have the all enveloping food-coma inducing quality of a chocolate torte or a hot British pudding with custard. It's light but not as refreshing and palette cleansing as a lemon posset or a sorbet. It's eye catching in its elegance but place a fruity terrine, or a champagne jelly on the table, and everyone's eyes often invariably move to that instead. The factor is always provided more by anything with a bit of sugar work on it.

It's classic, silky and perfect at the right time. But so often it leaves you wanting a bit more.

Sounds a bit like a certain England batsman don't you think?

Looking at Ian Bell's record over a long and very successful career, it's unfair and very difficult to argue with his contribution to English and world cricket. He averages 43 over 115 tests with 22 test hundreds. As far as test hundreds go, he is equal on the all time list with Wally Hammond, Geoffrey Boycott and Colin Cowdrey. Only Kevin Pietersen and Alistair Cook have scored more test hundreds for England than him. There are some special names mentioned there, and Ian Bell has earned the right to be amongst them.

It's always seemed that throughout his career he's had to try and shake off the feeling amongst fans that he doesn't produce when the going gets tough. This has always struck me as being unfair and I think if fans really analysed it properly, most would agree with this. Going back to that famous ashes series win in 2005, perhaps he was the only one who didn't light up the contest with a significant moment. People often forget the very next series though - the same ashes winning squad, albeit minus Michael Vaughan and Simon Jones, lost 3-0 away to Pakistan. He was England's top run scorer and averaged 52 in that series. He was every bit an equal in that squad and announced himself as a international batsman.

And let's not forget the ashes winning home series in 2013. It was 3-0 to England and without a bit of bad light in the final test, probably would've been 4-0. This was largely down to Bell's match saving runs at number 5 when the top order consistently failed. It was a flattering score line for England which preceded the whitewash in 2013/14. He was awarded man of the series.

Yet the feeling persists. For a senior player, he's never really been considered as a captain. He was briefly vice captain in a turbulent 2014, but was soon superseded by Joe Root. I've heard Michael Vaughan say a few times that Bell is one of the first to lose self confidence after a couple of low scores. This was quite evident this year when he scored a big hundred in the first test in the Caribbean, then hasn't really been able to buy a run since. Stephen Harmison has said a similar thing on the radio also. When he gets out it often looks so soft. Regulation nicks to slip and middling it straight to a set field. When a truly top test batsman (eg Sangakkara, Dravid, etc) gets in it looks like only a hand grenade will shift them from the middle. It sometimes looks like a ping pong ball could find Ian Bell's edge.

Perhaps he's been a bit harshly treated? The problem lies with the expectation possibly. As a teenager, so much was expected from him. He was first picked by England aged 19. He was ear marked for greatness from a young age, and with that expectation, I guess it takes a an awful lot to satisfy every critic. There's no better player to watch in world cricket when he gets in. His cover drive is like a fine champagne. This can make it especially infuriating when he gets out in a seemingly soft manner. If he does retire from tests soon (which seems to be the theme of a few rumblings in the background), his stats and his career will stack up will all but the very best that the game has seen. But he won't break into that very top category. Not now. Some see Ian Bell as a slightly wasted talent, but I prefer to sum it up using a laboured simile.

When I go out for a nice meal I often feel the need for a dessert that gives me more than what a panna cotta provides. Much like Ian Bell, probably unfairly, it just leaves you wanting a little bit more...

County cricket, the IPL and fast cars..

This time of year is a very exciting time of year for a cricket fan.

I have very happy memories as a teenager of the Telegraph fantasy cricket league. My brother Gary and I would've spent a week or 2 agonising over the player lists trying the pick a team mixed of proven performers and up and coming players. It was always easy enough to identify the players that would be reliable enough to have a decent county season. The county championship was always full of plenty of old county pros who you could bank on. The key was trying to find a cheap player who was going to have their breakthrough season. The outsider who would elevate a decent team to a winning team. It was skill I always thought I had, but the evidence certainly never backed this claim. My brother on the other hand always managed to do it. The best example was a left arm Worcestershire bowler called Alamgir Sheriyar. Gary picked him in 1999 as a struggling young bowler, and of course he ended up as one of the top wicket takers that season. Gary was actually printed in the top 10 in the country for quite a few weeks in a row.

Today marks the first day of the matches in the county championship and it brings back all the memories of Gary and I were regularly checking Ceefax for the latest scores. We don't do the fantasy cricket anymore though unfortunately. It lost its edge when the England players play so little of the season, and the overseas players change so regularly. It used to be skill to pick a team that had the longevity to perform consistently throughout the whole season, but now it's more of an exercise of managing the numerous amount of transfers each player is allowed. More transfers equals more hits for the paper's website and therefore more revenue. I get that they need to do that. But it takes the edge off the game.

Never mind, it's still exciting, just for different reasons. It marks the start of summer. And it's still exciting to see who will make the breakthrough.

In the last few years, April/May has seen a rival to the county season for our attention. The Indian Premier League.

Now that it's in its 8th year, I've tried to like it and get into it but I've really struggled with it. And I'm not alone in that in this country. You often hear that the sentiment in India (probably the new powerhouse in world cricket) is that England (the old powerhouse) is "jealous" of the successes of the IPL. I can see why that might be thought. T20 cricket originated in England in 2002 but since then India have taken it and turned it into something the ECB would never have thought possible. The IPL is watched by millions and each game is played in front of a full house. The Indian fans have adopted teams with the same intensity as the average football fan over here. It attracts the best players and best coaches in the world. Every team plays in gold. There is advertising everywhere, and in between each over the camera moves to a preening Bollywood star or business leader owner overlooking his latest folly with dark glasses and flowing hair. It is undoubtably a huge success and it's set a template for other competitions around the world.

It's the Lamborghini of the cricket world. A garish bright green Lamborghini, the type that's parked outside the Grand Casino in Monte Carlo.

I think that's why it doesn't sit well with the English cricket fan. We've all grown up with the conservative world of the MCC. Pristine cricket whites, afternoon tea, village greens and stiff upper lips. Everything the IPL isn't.

It is (or was) the Black shiny Rolls Royce. Understated, but of immense quality.

There is an underlying compulsion to preserve the memories that we've grown up with and the IPL doesn't fit with this. We're not jealous, we're just a bit scared. Scared that what we hold dear might change. The IPL and the BCCI hold the power and the money to change the game, and since the IPL the game has changed.

It puts the ECB in a bit of a quandary (one of many they have to sort out at the moment!). After the World Cup debacle, it's clear that they need to change. To embrace the brave new world that that IPL has carved out. But they need to stay true to the past as well as there's too much history to just turn the back on.

Other countries have managed it. Australia have the Big Bash League. Another huge sucess which has lead to them being World Champions. It's a more easy going version of the IPL and more accessible. It suits Australia. It's like a high end convertible. A decent Alfa maybe. The West Indies have a more modest competition (The Carribban Premier League) but it's growing. It seems to be the only form of cricket they are interested in. With all the contractual wranglings in the Caribbean at the moment at Test Level, it is the antithesis. The rough and ready, but comforting VW camper van. The Bangladesh Premier League is corrupt, and has a lot of problems so I can't really compare this with the others but I guess for the sake of this metaphor it can be a car as well. Let's call it a blacked out BMW and move away from it quite quickly.

At the moment the T20 competition in England is getting lost. It's not special. It's not bad, but it doesn't hold the excitement. The county championship and especially Test Cricket are Rolls Royce's (although a bit ageing and will probably need a service at some point soon). The T20 competition is a Ford Mondeo. A bit rubbish. I'm sure the ECB will change things as there are all sorts of ideas flying about, from an FA cup style competition advocated by Midhael Vaughan, to a similar franchise competition to the IPL and BBL. Whatever happens, they need to get the balance right. A Rolls won't work with T20. If a competition can be made that feels like an Aston Martin the I think the ECB would've got it just about right..

Paul Downton - the soap opera continues

So Paul Downton has just been sacked. That's not what the ECB statement exactly states but it's fairly clear he was pushed rather than a jump occurred.

I love Twitter. The news was announced there via several sources all trying the be the first at the precise time I was composing a rubbish tweet about the St Kitts game (I can't let it go). I think the Independent newspaper won.

I find the statement quite interesting and it definitely seems like there's more to come. They specifically mentioned a 're-structure' and if the managing director goes, I think it's pretty safe to say the selectors may not be far behind.

The new role of 'Director of England Cricket' is also interesting. They say the new post holder will 'report directly to the Chief Executive'. It seems the incoming Colin Graves is certainly setting his new scene before he takes over as ECB chairman in May.

It had to happen really. The ridiculous soap opera that is English cricket demanded it. The World Cup performance crossed a line that was so low nobody thought it was possible. The direction English cricket was going in was so far from where it so plainly should be that changes had to be made.

Where could this lead for the English cricket fan? Well I must admit that I'm quite enjoying this prolonged saga! I know it's wholly embarrassing and that the rest of the cricketing world must see the ECB as bunch of inept dinosaurs, but to watch from afar, it's like watching an episode of TOWIE (with egg and bacon ties rather than Fred Perry polo shirts). It's great listening to Boycott rant! It's genuinely compelling. And as much as I'd like to see more stability and of course better results, it just makes it all a bit more interesting.

We will wait and see what the future holds.

And as for KP (of course no discussion about the future of English cricket would be complete without a reference to him). No reaction on Twitter yet. I think Jarrod Kimber sums it up when he joked earlier: "There is a PR team currently wrestling with KP trying to stop him pressing send"

St Kitts v England

I don't quite get it.

I was watching the live stream of the St Kitts and Nevis v England tour match last night and I can't quite understand what anyone gets from a match like this.

Firstly the England team. As fans we hear a lot about the importance of time in the middle for both batsmen and bowlers. I get that. A match situation will always be better preparation (especially mentally) than constant drills in the nets. But the home team have been so unbelievably poor. I watched James Tredwell take 3 wickets in the second innings in the space of 3 overs. With every respect to James Tredwell (I'm actually a big fan of him) he shouldn't be completely unplayable. He doesn't turn and rip it. He doesn't exactly bamboozle many batsmen with flight and guile. He's steady and clever. But yesterday the batsmen made him look like Murali. The majority of the home team didn't have any first class experience. One of them was only 16. I can't imagine the the England players can learn much about their form against a moderate standard club team. Apart from a very superficial ego boost maybe. They can bowl out a 16 year old. Big deal. The batsman had to defend the straight balls and just wait for the inevitable 1-2 bad balls an over. For the bowlers, a good/average ball can look like a Jaffa. Does this simulate the challenges they will face over the next 17 months in Test cricket? As George Dobell wrote yesterday - it's like preparing to face a lion by stroking a kitten. I don't quite get it.

But they can only face what's put in front of them. They are playing again today, but with mixed teams. Quite farcical. This brings me onto the St Kitts team. What are they getting out of it? First class cricket in the West Indies has seemingly been on the decline for some time. There are no major sponsors. No one watches it. But I would think that for a tiny island team with minimal resources, their top players would jump at the chance to play against a top test side looking for a challenge. But they all stay away. They have a rest and send a second/third string team in to get slaughtered. I don't quite get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not singling out St Kitts and Nevis. There has been a growing trend of pointless warm up games at the beginning of tours. English counties are just as bad. Every touring team over here has to play a county second team. Surely they would get more out of a good old fashioned game of pairs cricket amongst themselves! It seems these matches are just opportunities for the players to get injured. I've just heard that Stuart Broad has limped off whilst bowling to Gary Ballance in a St Kitts shirt. Broad is pivotal to England's hopes this summer. And now he's at risk. It reminds me of the very unfair demise of Mark Boucher, the South African stalwart keeper. His career was ended by a bail hitting him in the eye after Somerset second teamer Gemaal Hussain was bowled by Imran Tahir at an empty Taunton. Seems rather a waste.

I get that time in the middle on a foreign pitch is needed. But can fans like me be blamed for thinking - I don't quite get it.

(I've still been watching a grainy, soundless live stream for the past 2 days though...)

Middle please umpire...

Good afternoon Internet.

Something happened today that inspired me to start this blog. I've been off work sick with a raging stinking cold (the kind that only hits you when you have a long bank holiday weekend) and after I had become thorough sick of daytime TV I searched online for a live stream of England's first tour match of their current tour of the West Indies. It was the first day yesterday of their match against a St Kitts and Nevis XI, and I managed to find a UStream link on the WI cricket board website. It was a very basic setup of a soundless, fixed camera angle from one end. It wasn't really worth watching, but  The Jeremy Kyle Show had long since lost its appeal. I was genuinely interested in seeing how Alistair Cook and Jonathan Trott would fair in their first match as an opening pair. (I had already missed the woefully weak St Kitts team being demolished for 59 all out).

One thing struck me straight away - Alistair Cook seemed to be taking guard with a very open stance. He must be trying to get his front foot moving more freely, thus negating his head falling over to the off side when playing outside the off-stump I thought. The only thing giving away that it was Cook was the fact that it was left handed batting, such was the poor quality of streaming, but somehow I managed to notice his change in stance.

I decided to tweet George Dobell (the excellent cricinfo.com writer) who I had noticed was covering the game out in the Caribbean. He replied saying that he would ask Cook about it at the close of play. Lo and behold, in his day 1 report on cricinfo.com he mentioned the change in Cook's setup at the crease.

It's only a small thing, but it made me feel very smug indeed. The kind of smug that cricket geeks like myself are very good at when they make a seemingly good call from their comfy armchairs, and I'm unashamedly no different. It's the endless talking points that make cricket such an enjoyable subject to discuss at length. My lovely fiancée persuaded me to write some thoughts down on here. (Yes that's right - I found a girl who listens to my cricket ramblings, and still agreed to marry me. My 15 year old self would never have believed it was possible..)

So here I am. A sounding board for some thoughts I have on cricket and the cricketing world. The odd baking entry will make it on here too, as any club cricketer knows, cakes and cricket go hand in hand..


Over bowled...