Most cricket fans either would have seen it by now, or least heard about it. It's been making waves on social media (like everything seems to do), the radio and the TV. It is of course the "Mankading" incident in the final over of the Under 19's World Cup match between West Indies and Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe, needed just 2 to win off the last over with just 1 wicket remaining. WI paceman Keemo Paul came running in, then this happened.
Mankading - the act of the bowler breaking the wicket at the non-striker's end as he runs up to bowl, and running out the non-striker who is walking out of his crease too early.
It was named after Indian all-rounder Vinoo Mankad who, in the second test of a tour to Australia in 1947- 48, ran out Bill Brown at the non-striker's end. Despite having done exactly the same thing earlier in the series, this incident in the Test really brought it to the attention of the public and particularly the press.
The current law is slightly confusing in it's origin, but quite clear. Historically the MCC have been the custodians of the laws of cricket but all laws created and amended by them are ratified by the ICC before being applied to matches. The original MCC law (Law 42.15) reads as follows:
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead Ball as soon as possible.
This law was in place during the famous Vinoo Mankad Test match, and quite simply Mankad had not done anything wrong. His actions were in keeping with the laws of the game.
What many may be unaware of however, is that in 2011 the ICC tweaked this law slightly. They replaced before entering his delivery stride with before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing.
Crucially for Keemo Paul, this slight law change also meant that his actions were in keeping with the laws of the game. He has also done nothing wrong.
So why all the controversy?
Immediately after this incident, Twitter instantly went mental. (As it often does). Current players, ex-players, writers and fans all have an opinion and there seem to be few issues in cricket that have divided opinion more than mankading. Most are either vehemently against it, or can't see the problem with it.
Historically it has been accepted that if a bowler feels that the batsman is backing up too far, a warning is given before a run out is attempted. Good old spirit of the game. Growing up, I always thought this was the law of the game. You gave 1 warning, then it's fair game. But even then it never entered my head as I trundled in to bowl to mankad. Even if a prior warning was given. In 12 years of club cricket (which occasionally throws up some idiot attention-seeker who likes to show off his knowledge of the laws to make up for his crapness) I've never seen a mankading incident. In the professional game it rarely happens. Perhaps because of the inevitable press melee that will follow it. Even in professional sport, nobody wants the reputation as a bad sport. Just look at the famous Trevor Chappell under-arm ball incident and Stuart Broad not walking in the Ashes test.
I like to take a pragmatic view of it.
The bottom line is, in the laws of the game, it shouldn't be a problem. It's perfectly legal to run out a non-striker if he's backing up too much, and who can blame a bowler for doing it? Modern day bowlers, especially in one-day cricket are getting more and more flogged. They can't over step when they run in to bowl and have a strict channel in which to bowl in otherwise it's called wide. Why should a batsman be able to steal a yard without retribution? And what makes it worthy of a gentlemanly warning? It's pretty close to cheating in fact. It's always accepted that batsmen can overstep the line when it comes to the spirit of the game. They never walk when they nick it. Surely this is win for a bowler? I don't think you can escape the feeling of hypocrisy when a mankading incident is so maligned by many. I completely agree that a batsman should be more prepared to be run out if he tries to push his luck at the non-striker's end.
But in this case, I think I'm against what happened.
The psychology behind it leaves me feeling very uneasy. At no point was the Zimbabwe batsman trying to gain extra ground. Keemo Paul ran in to the crease with no intention of bowling that ball. The batsman was out of his crease by a millimetre and actually did a better job of staying in his crease than most do. Paul was simply trying it on. What's the difference between this and a batsman not walking you ask? Michael Atherton once wrote that he never walked when he edged it as he felt that in the professional game the umpires are paid to make the decision when it came to marginal calls. With the review system at present, a batsman doesn't easily get away with it now. The skill of the umpire (and they are very skilled, just like the players) was never called upon.
Overall I feel it was a sad sight that a tight match was ended by an incident like this. It just feels wrong. It doesn't feel like it should be part of the game, and it doesn't feel like a match with such importance (a quarter final place of a world cup was at stake) should be decided in the absence of a piece of cricketing skill. I think that it's this general feeling of unfairness that sways it for me. It's ugly to see an U19 player who may be the future of the game to feel comfortable trying a tactic that is so frowned upon by so many. The spirit of cricket is important. It's what makes cricket a game rather than a business.
I'm sure it'll happen again as this may have set a precendent. If it happens in a senior World Cup match, Twitter may explode..
Saturday, 6 February 2016
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Cricketing Characters #5: Eric Rowan
As all men that have ever played cricket know, there is one absolutely indispensable piece of kit that you would never consider for an instant leaving out of your kit bag. Even more important than the bat. Unless you were aiming for a career as a soprano singer, the box is the first piece of kit that goes on when you're padding up. Having said that, I've had the occasional alarming lapse when I've forgotten it, but have always remembered before reaching the middle.
This guy on the other hand, scored 150 in a test match without wearing one...
This is Eric Rowan. He was born in Johannesburg in 1909 and played first class cricket for Transvaal and Eastern Province, as well Test cricket for South Africa. An often controversial and demonstrative figure, he regularly took on the cricketing establishment both on and off the pitch.
He made his Test debut in 1935 at the age of 25 when on tour to England, as a reward for a prolific few years opening the batting for Transvaal. Wisden reported: "He did not bat with either dignity or precision; he regarded his cricket in most lighthearted style; his confidence was amazing".
He had a stuttering early test career, with inconsistency meaning he was in and out of the team. His initial brimming self confidence playing for Transvaal as a youngster was especially bruised in his second tour for South Africa against Australia, when bowler Charlie Grimmett had him dismissed 5 times in his 6 innings, leading to him being dropped. A pre-war test recall was not forthcoming, and was reportedly as much due to an abrasive manner when it came to authority as it was about lack of runs.
Runs were fairly hard to come by in the subsequent pre-war years until in 1939 he scored a record 309 not out for Transvaal against Natal. This stood as a first class record in South Africa right up until 1993. The war curtailed this upward cricketing momentum however, with a South Africa not playing first class cricket again until 1945. Eric himself serving as a Lieutenant in the Armoured Car Regiment.
When first class cricket resumed, Eric picked up where he left off, nearly scoring a second triple century (284) in 1945 against Griqualand West. Despite his form he had to wait until 1948 until a Test recall came his way, when he was selected for the home series against England.
Perhaps a sign of his ability to rub people up the wrong way, it was announced during play in the second test that Eric would be dropped for the next test. The selectors clearly had an axe to grind! Eric proceeded to score 156 not out to save the test, reportedly so incensed that he went out forgetting to insert the all important box. He batted for 6 hours and reportedly found time to give the selectors a V sign from the middle. When questioned about this he said he was giving them a V for Victory and when told that it was wrong way round he replied "it depends what side of the ground you're sitting"
This performance was enough to get him restored to the test team for the next test, but his relationship with the captain Dudley Nourse remained strained. His performances on the field made him impossible to ignore however, scoring a Currie Cup record of 277 not out in 1950, then plundering 176 before lunch in a match against Rhodesia later the same year.
Further controversy followed in a 1951 Test against England at Old Trafford when he was batting with John Waite. So slow was the run rate, that the pair were slow hand-clapped by the increasingly restless spectators. In true rebellious Eric Rowan style, he and Waite responded by sitting down on the pitch and waited for the clapping to stop. Eric was later reportedly involved in a scuffle in the pavilion on the way off. Clearly his actions ruffled some feathers with the Lancashire faithful.
Despite the various spicy incidents, this 1951 tour proved to be the making of Eric. He was picked as vice captain, and often found himself leading the team due to injury to the skipper Nourse. He went on to dominate the tour with the bat. He hit his highest test score of 236 at Headingley and topped the batting averages in both test cricket and first class cricket. This was enough to see him named Wisden's Cricketer of the Year in 1951.
Somewhat surprisingly he was not retained in the South African squad the following year. Despite being 43 years old he was seemingly still in his prime as a batsman. He responded to his omission from the test squad by having his most prolific season in first class cricket. He retired from first class cricket shortly afterwards however, sensing a test return was not on the cards.
Post retirement he continued playing club cricket in Transvaal until the age of 51 for Jeppe Old Boys, and continued to work with schools for many more years. He passed away in 1993 aged 84.
Eric's career is beset by controversy, fall outs, fights and above all, tenacity. His greatest achievements came when he was going head to head with authority. Maybe it's urban legend that he scored that 150 against England without wearing a box, but it seems to fit with his overall story. He reportedly occasionally omitted his batting gloves as well. Whatever else he was, he was clearly a hard man who evokes a image of a 70's footballer - tough, muddy, an everyman. An image that's lacking in modern sport with all it's professionalism and scrutiny. Although the odd dust-up does happen on the pitch, to me it has often the air of spoilt kids who know the camera is on them (Virat Kohli, David Warner, Marlon Samuels, I'm talking about you in particular..). It seems Eric genuinely didn't care and played the game in his own way. And even if his story has the added the embellishment that time often brings, it's still a good one.
I certainly won't be doing away with my box though in tribute though..
This guy on the other hand, scored 150 in a test match without wearing one...
This is Eric Rowan. He was born in Johannesburg in 1909 and played first class cricket for Transvaal and Eastern Province, as well Test cricket for South Africa. An often controversial and demonstrative figure, he regularly took on the cricketing establishment both on and off the pitch.
He made his Test debut in 1935 at the age of 25 when on tour to England, as a reward for a prolific few years opening the batting for Transvaal. Wisden reported: "He did not bat with either dignity or precision; he regarded his cricket in most lighthearted style; his confidence was amazing".
He had a stuttering early test career, with inconsistency meaning he was in and out of the team. His initial brimming self confidence playing for Transvaal as a youngster was especially bruised in his second tour for South Africa against Australia, when bowler Charlie Grimmett had him dismissed 5 times in his 6 innings, leading to him being dropped. A pre-war test recall was not forthcoming, and was reportedly as much due to an abrasive manner when it came to authority as it was about lack of runs.
Runs were fairly hard to come by in the subsequent pre-war years until in 1939 he scored a record 309 not out for Transvaal against Natal. This stood as a first class record in South Africa right up until 1993. The war curtailed this upward cricketing momentum however, with a South Africa not playing first class cricket again until 1945. Eric himself serving as a Lieutenant in the Armoured Car Regiment.
When first class cricket resumed, Eric picked up where he left off, nearly scoring a second triple century (284) in 1945 against Griqualand West. Despite his form he had to wait until 1948 until a Test recall came his way, when he was selected for the home series against England.
Perhaps a sign of his ability to rub people up the wrong way, it was announced during play in the second test that Eric would be dropped for the next test. The selectors clearly had an axe to grind! Eric proceeded to score 156 not out to save the test, reportedly so incensed that he went out forgetting to insert the all important box. He batted for 6 hours and reportedly found time to give the selectors a V sign from the middle. When questioned about this he said he was giving them a V for Victory and when told that it was wrong way round he replied "it depends what side of the ground you're sitting"
This performance was enough to get him restored to the test team for the next test, but his relationship with the captain Dudley Nourse remained strained. His performances on the field made him impossible to ignore however, scoring a Currie Cup record of 277 not out in 1950, then plundering 176 before lunch in a match against Rhodesia later the same year.
Further controversy followed in a 1951 Test against England at Old Trafford when he was batting with John Waite. So slow was the run rate, that the pair were slow hand-clapped by the increasingly restless spectators. In true rebellious Eric Rowan style, he and Waite responded by sitting down on the pitch and waited for the clapping to stop. Eric was later reportedly involved in a scuffle in the pavilion on the way off. Clearly his actions ruffled some feathers with the Lancashire faithful.
Despite the various spicy incidents, this 1951 tour proved to be the making of Eric. He was picked as vice captain, and often found himself leading the team due to injury to the skipper Nourse. He went on to dominate the tour with the bat. He hit his highest test score of 236 at Headingley and topped the batting averages in both test cricket and first class cricket. This was enough to see him named Wisden's Cricketer of the Year in 1951.
Somewhat surprisingly he was not retained in the South African squad the following year. Despite being 43 years old he was seemingly still in his prime as a batsman. He responded to his omission from the test squad by having his most prolific season in first class cricket. He retired from first class cricket shortly afterwards however, sensing a test return was not on the cards.
Post retirement he continued playing club cricket in Transvaal until the age of 51 for Jeppe Old Boys, and continued to work with schools for many more years. He passed away in 1993 aged 84.
Eric's career is beset by controversy, fall outs, fights and above all, tenacity. His greatest achievements came when he was going head to head with authority. Maybe it's urban legend that he scored that 150 against England without wearing a box, but it seems to fit with his overall story. He reportedly occasionally omitted his batting gloves as well. Whatever else he was, he was clearly a hard man who evokes a image of a 70's footballer - tough, muddy, an everyman. An image that's lacking in modern sport with all it's professionalism and scrutiny. Although the odd dust-up does happen on the pitch, to me it has often the air of spoilt kids who know the camera is on them (Virat Kohli, David Warner, Marlon Samuels, I'm talking about you in particular..). It seems Eric genuinely didn't care and played the game in his own way. And even if his story has the added the embellishment that time often brings, it's still a good one.
I certainly won't be doing away with my box though in tribute though..
Friday, 22 January 2016
Cricketing Characters #4: Arthur Collins
An Indian schoolboy named Pranav Dhanawade from Mumbai last week set a new world record for the most amount of runs scored in a single innings in an officially recorded match. He was playing for his KC Gandhi school against Arya Gurukul school and he racked up 1009 runs (not out) in a total of 1465-3 declared. He plundered 59 sixes and 127 fours in just over 6 hours at the crease. School cricket in Mumbai is renowned for being of high quality, and boasts Sachin Tendulkar and Rohit Sharma amongst it's alumni. After seeing a few of Pranav's shots on BBC news it struck me just how stylish he looked. I guess you would have to have a decent technique to score over a thousand runs whoever you were playing! (The boundary did look a little short, and a good proportion of the opposition looked at least a foot shorter than Pranav, but still, you've still got to hit 'em.) It made me wonder who the previous record belonged to. It transpires that the previous record was over 100 years old; this effort belonging to Arthur Collins.
A record that has stood for nearly 116 years deserves recognition and you'd be hard pressed to find many who could've put a name and a face to it. So here he is!
Arthur Collins was born in Hazaribagh, India in 1885, but attended school in Bristol. He started at Clifton College in 1897, attending Clarke's House. Clifton College already had a weighty reputation for sport, particularly cricket. None other that W.G Grace attended the school, and latterly his sons. As well as cricket, Arthur was also represented the school as a boxer, and played rugby for the 1st XI.
There's some debate as to whether Arthur's parents survived his early childhood. In a 1999 article for the Telegraph newspaper, Tim Rice described Arthur as "an orphan boy" who's adopted parents lived in Devon. However, the 1901 census shows that Arthur's Mother Esther Ida Collins was still alive at that time.
Arthur was only 13 years old during the match in 1899 that immortalised him in the cricketing history books. He was captaining the Clarke's House side against North Town House on a ground at Guthrie Road, Bristol. The match was timeless, but was played in breaks between lessons. The school houses had 2 half-days scheduled for the match to complete, so the first ball was bowled at 3:30pm on Thursday 22nd June after the day's lessons were over. By the close of play on the first day (6pm), Arthur had already notched up his double ton. Admittedly this was helped by some rather generous fielding from the opposition as he was dropped on 50, 100 and 140. The next day brought 2 more hours play after lessons and again Arthur was in no mood to hang around. As the first hour concluded, the crowd was building as news of Arthur's innings spread around the school. After a dolly of catch was dropped by an poor unfortunate 11 year old named Victor Fuller-Eburle when Arthur was on 400, the previous world record of 485 was in sight. It was downed by 5:30pm. He finished the day on 509 undefeated out of a Clarke's House total of 680-8. By now the news of Arthur's exploits had not just travelled around the local area as, thanks to an article in The Times newspaper the next day, it was declared to the world that a world record has been set (they reported his name, age and overnight score incorrectly however!)
When the match recommenced after the weekend break, a large crowd was gathered to see just how high Arthur could reach. He was still unmovable on 598 not out at the end of the day, but wickets were steadily falling at the other end. Finally, after 25 minutes of play on the 4th day, the last Clarke's House batsman lost his wicket, leaving Arthur stranded on 628 not out after carrying bat for just over 7 hours of play.
The Times remained interested, giving a full report of Arthur's innings on the Wednesday, thus providing him with nationwide acclaim.
The match concluded rather quickly after this with the opposition being bowled out for just 87 in their first innings and a paltry 61 in their second innings, leading to a rather ignominious defeat for North Town House by an innings and 688 runs.
One of the scorers for the match was Edward Pelgar. He was quoted as having said after the match "The score was 628 plus or minus twenty shall we say". It seems it was all a bit much to take in even for the ones with the coloured pencils!
What has endeared me to Arthur the most is his story afterwards. Far from revelling in his new found fame, the schoolboy was reported to have mostly tried to distance himself from it in the proceeding years. It seems many of the national newspapers revered him in the next few years, creating an almost legendary status. Arthur was always going to be the boy who broke the record. One paper wrote "he has a reputation as great as the most advertised soap. He will be immortalised..". To be considered a legend at such a young age took its toll on Arthur, and the constant attention he courted proved to be too much for him by the time he left school. A reluctant hero, he was earmarked for great things in the game, but after finishing at Clifton he chose to pursue a military career, playing cricket sparingly. He did once play at Lord's representing the Royal Engineers in 1913, but never progressed further into First Class cricket.
During his time in the army he served in India, rising to the rank of Lieutenant in 1907 and then to Captain in 1913. He married in spring 1914. Sadly however, Arthur was unfortunate to be of the generation of young men in the prime of their lives at the outbreak of the First World War and, after only a few months of marriage, he was called to action at Ypres. He was killed on duty with the Royal Engineers on 11th September 1914 on the Belgian battlefields. He was 29.
Here's hoping that the future for Pranav Dhanawade is more prosperous. There will certainly be plenty of Indian eyes upon him in the upcoming years. I'm sure there are many cricket fans who may consider both Pranav's and Arthur's records quite perfunctory considering the rather loose definition of "an organised game of cricket". Both were at schoolboy level with opposition of questionable quality. I understand that these may not compare to for example, some of Brian Lara's modern day efforts, but I feel they fully deserve to stand side by side with the big boys. There's a wonderful human quality to both performances. They walked out the middle, casually broke world records, then went back to school again the following day. I certainly would never have contemplated being able to score that many runs in any of my school matches, even if the straight boundaries were only 15 yards in both directions (as was the case with Arthur's). My school record reads 34, 0, 0 and 0 not out in case you were wondering.
It evokes feelings of cricket being played the way we all wish we could hold on to throughout life - a joyful, uninhibited freedom- of-childhood way. It serves to remind you that cricket is indeed, just a game.
Any record that stands for 116 years deserves recognition, and although it seems he was ill at ease with this recognition, I believe the newspaper got it right. In cricketing circles at lease, he has been immortalised.
A record that has stood for nearly 116 years deserves recognition and you'd be hard pressed to find many who could've put a name and a face to it. So here he is!
Arthur Collins was born in Hazaribagh, India in 1885, but attended school in Bristol. He started at Clifton College in 1897, attending Clarke's House. Clifton College already had a weighty reputation for sport, particularly cricket. None other that W.G Grace attended the school, and latterly his sons. As well as cricket, Arthur was also represented the school as a boxer, and played rugby for the 1st XI.
There's some debate as to whether Arthur's parents survived his early childhood. In a 1999 article for the Telegraph newspaper, Tim Rice described Arthur as "an orphan boy" who's adopted parents lived in Devon. However, the 1901 census shows that Arthur's Mother Esther Ida Collins was still alive at that time.
Arthur was only 13 years old during the match in 1899 that immortalised him in the cricketing history books. He was captaining the Clarke's House side against North Town House on a ground at Guthrie Road, Bristol. The match was timeless, but was played in breaks between lessons. The school houses had 2 half-days scheduled for the match to complete, so the first ball was bowled at 3:30pm on Thursday 22nd June after the day's lessons were over. By the close of play on the first day (6pm), Arthur had already notched up his double ton. Admittedly this was helped by some rather generous fielding from the opposition as he was dropped on 50, 100 and 140. The next day brought 2 more hours play after lessons and again Arthur was in no mood to hang around. As the first hour concluded, the crowd was building as news of Arthur's innings spread around the school. After a dolly of catch was dropped by an poor unfortunate 11 year old named Victor Fuller-Eburle when Arthur was on 400, the previous world record of 485 was in sight. It was downed by 5:30pm. He finished the day on 509 undefeated out of a Clarke's House total of 680-8. By now the news of Arthur's exploits had not just travelled around the local area as, thanks to an article in The Times newspaper the next day, it was declared to the world that a world record has been set (they reported his name, age and overnight score incorrectly however!)
When the match recommenced after the weekend break, a large crowd was gathered to see just how high Arthur could reach. He was still unmovable on 598 not out at the end of the day, but wickets were steadily falling at the other end. Finally, after 25 minutes of play on the 4th day, the last Clarke's House batsman lost his wicket, leaving Arthur stranded on 628 not out after carrying bat for just over 7 hours of play.
The Times remained interested, giving a full report of Arthur's innings on the Wednesday, thus providing him with nationwide acclaim.
The match concluded rather quickly after this with the opposition being bowled out for just 87 in their first innings and a paltry 61 in their second innings, leading to a rather ignominious defeat for North Town House by an innings and 688 runs.
One of the scorers for the match was Edward Pelgar. He was quoted as having said after the match "The score was 628 plus or minus twenty shall we say". It seems it was all a bit much to take in even for the ones with the coloured pencils!
What has endeared me to Arthur the most is his story afterwards. Far from revelling in his new found fame, the schoolboy was reported to have mostly tried to distance himself from it in the proceeding years. It seems many of the national newspapers revered him in the next few years, creating an almost legendary status. Arthur was always going to be the boy who broke the record. One paper wrote "he has a reputation as great as the most advertised soap. He will be immortalised..". To be considered a legend at such a young age took its toll on Arthur, and the constant attention he courted proved to be too much for him by the time he left school. A reluctant hero, he was earmarked for great things in the game, but after finishing at Clifton he chose to pursue a military career, playing cricket sparingly. He did once play at Lord's representing the Royal Engineers in 1913, but never progressed further into First Class cricket.
During his time in the army he served in India, rising to the rank of Lieutenant in 1907 and then to Captain in 1913. He married in spring 1914. Sadly however, Arthur was unfortunate to be of the generation of young men in the prime of their lives at the outbreak of the First World War and, after only a few months of marriage, he was called to action at Ypres. He was killed on duty with the Royal Engineers on 11th September 1914 on the Belgian battlefields. He was 29.
Here's hoping that the future for Pranav Dhanawade is more prosperous. There will certainly be plenty of Indian eyes upon him in the upcoming years. I'm sure there are many cricket fans who may consider both Pranav's and Arthur's records quite perfunctory considering the rather loose definition of "an organised game of cricket". Both were at schoolboy level with opposition of questionable quality. I understand that these may not compare to for example, some of Brian Lara's modern day efforts, but I feel they fully deserve to stand side by side with the big boys. There's a wonderful human quality to both performances. They walked out the middle, casually broke world records, then went back to school again the following day. I certainly would never have contemplated being able to score that many runs in any of my school matches, even if the straight boundaries were only 15 yards in both directions (as was the case with Arthur's). My school record reads 34, 0, 0 and 0 not out in case you were wondering.
It evokes feelings of cricket being played the way we all wish we could hold on to throughout life - a joyful, uninhibited freedom- of-childhood way. It serves to remind you that cricket is indeed, just a game.
Any record that stands for 116 years deserves recognition, and although it seems he was ill at ease with this recognition, I believe the newspaper got it right. In cricketing circles at lease, he has been immortalised.
Friday, 1 January 2016
Cricketing characters #3: Napoleon Einstein
 |
| Is it a glut stretch or a pose? |
Napoleon Einstein is probably destined to answer questions about the origin of his name for the rest of life. I first came across his name in about 2007/08 when he broke into the India team for the under-19 World Cup in Malaysia. It instantly caught my eye. I mean, how could it not?! He's called Napoleon Einstein!
Instantly questions need to be answered. Why Napoleon? Why Einstein? Why Napoleon and Einstein together? What on earth was going through the minds of his parents?
It's easy to make fun I guess, but the more I read about him, the more it makes sense, and the more likeable he becomes. Purely by walking onto a cricket field he enriches the eccentric tapestry of the game further. If you're going through life with such an unorthodox name, the sport of cricket will of course welcome you with open arms. And that's why he deserves a place in my Cricketing Characters series.
The sad fact for the man himself, is that there isn't a great deal to read about. He has played a few List A games in India for Tamil Nadu. On debut he scored 92 opening the batting in a stand of 203 with current Indian Test opening batsman Murali Vijay against Kerala in the 2006 Ranji Trophy. A second opportunity arose a month later against Assam, but his score of 1 was enough to see him out of List A cricket. He has played several games for Chemplast in the BCCI corporate trophy over the last few years however. The BCCI corporate trophy is an annual competition preceeding the Ranji Trophy, and acts as a high profile starter to the Indian domestic league. The BCCI invites 12 of the country's largest corporations to compete and India's star players are expected to turn out. The aim is to encourage employment opportunities for cricketers in the country, with a rather progressive eye towards looking after its players that come from poorer backgrounds if their dreams of cricketing success do not materialise. Against an Air India XI in 2010 he score a century for Chemplast coming in at number 3 against a strong bowling attack that included India international stars RP Singh and Dhawal Kulkarni. He has never repeated that success however, with just the 1 more half century in the past 4 seasons. He made a brief comeback to the Tamil Nadu side with a solitary T20 performance versus Hyderabad in 2014, scoring 19.
The Under 19 World Cup in Malaysia in 2008 was perhaps Napoleon's greatest triumph as he came away with a winner's medal (despite only playing in 1 game). His reward was to be was drafted into the Chennai Super Kings squad for the IPL in 2008, but he did not get a chance to showcase his talents on India's biggest stage. He was not retained for the 2009 season.
So that's about all there is to talk about in a career that perhaps was never destined to live up to the potential of his ridiculously powerful name. The thought of his name being in lights on the biggest cricketing stages is still a gloriously exciting prospect. Just imagine what the TMS team would make of it. Hearing Blowers introduce him as he walks out to bat would probably be enough to make me weep. He's still only 26 so perhaps I can live in hope for a little while longer.
As for the name itself, Napoleon has provided an insight: "My grandfather was a scientist. He wrote a letter to Albert Einstein and even got a reply from him. I've got no idea [what the letter was about] even though I've read it. My mother was a physics graduate and she teaches Physics in one of the schools. So I'm Einstein. Napoleon is my father's name."
"We don't believe in God. In our family, we're rationalists. Other people are named Krishna and Ram after Gods, so we were named Einstein and Napoleon after great people."
I love this last quote. As a rationalist myself, there's something very endearing about the statement that Napoleon's parents have made. It must've been quite clear to them that the name they chose for their son would bring him attention. Although India isn't as religiously conservative as neighbouring cricketing nations such as Pakistan or Bangladesh, it is conceivable that this open statement to rationalism would've brought some consternation in some circles.
Maybe I'm overplaying it slightly to suggest he is a walking philosophical statement, but it seems unjust to dismiss him as just a slightly silly footnote in the annals of cricket. Yes, most people will laugh at his name. Yes, most will agree that I wouldn't be writing about him if it wasn't for his name. His minor fame is testament to a game that celebrates such eccentric anomalies, and I love his story more for that. But it is worth remembering that he is man who's family have aimed high for him. Living up to his namesakes will certainly prove challenging, but the fact that they follow him will certainly mean that he'll be remembered warmly by cricket fans the world over.
Thursday, 31 December 2015
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".
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."
Thursday, 17 December 2015
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!
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!
Wednesday, 26 August 2015
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)