A spider being conspicuously indifferent to cricket

Ged writes:

This plucky fellow was observed in the Lower Compton Stand at Lord’s, very close to the historic concrete step where King Cricket demonstrated his “Real World Skills” in 2016.

Perhaps this spider’s magnificent web is an arachnidian equivalent of a blue plaque, commemorating King Cricket’s astonishing feat…or merely the fact that King Cricket once sat there. A rotund specimen, this – a veritable arachnoid Dwayne Leverock. Take a closer look; magnificent.

If you’ve got a picture of an animal being conspicuously indifferent to cricket, send it to king@kingcricket.co.uk.

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

Tired of checking the site for updates? Sign up for our near-daily email

15 Appeals

  1. A top quality spinner

    I can only bow in awe, and imagine just how smug and self-satisfied your face became when you thought of that one. How many times have you shown it to Niamh?

    • Presumably when not called upon to bowl, you’ll find this fine specimen fielding at long leg.

      Just noticed as I typed that (s)pun there’s a spider on my keyboard – don’t worry, though – it’s under Ctrl.

  2. On the subject of throdkin, while the oatmeal cookie version look ideal for Lord’s picnicking, in my understanding throdkin is one of the forefathers of American ‘scrapple’ and is made by making a thick porridge with lard, bacon fat and oats, pouring into a loaf tin and baking it. Then cutting slices which can either be fried or just eaten like a cheaper version of a meatloaf.

  3. SPIDERY XI

    1. Arthuropod Morris
    2. Bill Brown Recluse
    3. Kumar Sangakkarachnid+
    4. Stevenomous Smith
    5. Basilk D’Olivera
    6. Josh Cobbweb
    7. Jehan Mubaraknid
    8. Ian Blackwidowwell
    9. Spiderek Pringle
    10. Shoiab Ahktarantula
    11. Bill Huntsman

    • I probably shouldn’t post on here while also talking to Daisy – the above posting is a grammatical abomination – yet strangely I suspect it still sort of makes sense.

  4. http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20767233/sa-play-four-day-game-zimbabwe-india-tour-cut

    Looks like the four-day Test is coming, so long as the ICC stamps its approval. Actually for matches against the likes of Zimbabwe, I will grudgingly admit it makes some sense – if Zimbabwe are to beat South Africa, I wouldn’t expect it to happen on day five (I’m sure it’s most likely if the South Africans have a mare and get skittled in a low-scoring contest) and cutting a day off does increase their chances of battling for a draw, if it comes down to that.

    Not too keen on one-off Tests either, mind. There’s some funny scheduling going on over there.

    • India playing silly buggers again. ‘We’re sorry, we can’t hear you over the sound of all this money.’

      • This might be a case of wrong rationale, right result, though, Balladeer.

        Lots of conversations at HQ about this over the past few weeks, with the consensus among the more enlightened folk being that allowing the flexibility for some test series to be scheduled as four day tests rather than five day tests might help save and expand test cricket among the smaller test nations.

        Have I ever mentioned before around here that two tests is not, to my mind, a series? Nor is one test a series.

        But perhaps again we should accept that one-off tests between major and minor test nations is better than no tests at all. I seem to recall Sri Lanka’s emergence as a test nation being kick started, in part, by taking England to pieces at the Oval in a one-off testathon in 1998.

        If this helps puts paid to the notion of a future tours programme in which everyone plays test series against everyone else, with “series” being defined as “perhaps only two matches”, that’s no bad thing either.

      • Ged, well put. I’ve never understood why the proposed Test league-stye structure had ever been expected to be financially sustainable – if Tests are played only grudgingly and as burdens, then the short-term prospect is for cheap second-string teams playing series of minimal length (with the big guns all off a’freelancing), and the long-term prospect is for a tedious board-meeting campaigning for their abolition altogether that may eventually grind its way to victory. If the Tests that do get played are ones there is a public appetite for, arranged by boards that at least expect them to be financially viable, and there is some flexibility to allow access to non-traditional Test-playing nations (or which have simply latterly “gone off” Test cricket), I think things will look a bit healthier.

Comments are closed.

© 2017 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑