Back to what’s important

Posted by
< 1 minute read

We’ve got behind Australia to a quite sickening degree in recent days. We’ve intimated that South African defeats can be enjoyable and we’ve sympathised – SYMPATHISED – with Australians when they weren’t able to win a Test series after one little catastrophe.

Well enough of that. Let’s get back to the catastrophe. Not content with writing about it here and basing an entire weekly newsletter on it for The Cricketer, we’ve also written about the 47 all out for Cricinfo.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. the headline of this piece had me anticipating a picture of a cat being indifferent to some cricket.

    no such luck.

  2. I really must take issue with this, KC. This Stuart and Ash series is getting far too much approval in the Cricinfo comments section. Sort it out!

    1. We could be utterly dismissive of Sachin Tendulkar’s one-day double hundred?

      Would that work?

  3. The one time you try to be serious in a Stu and Ash piece, KC, and for once the readers all claim to be enjoying the joke.

    But if you really want bile-laden comments again, I’d be dismissive of an Indian World Cup win, be it the 1983, the T20 one a few years ago or this year’s ODI jobbie. Or be dismissive of all three.

  4. Tendulkar is the key, but it doesn’t need a whole article. Just put the following line in somewhere, any context will do:

    “…and Tendulkar has always lacked basic technique.”


    Sign up to add your comment below.

    wot u saying about tendulkar hes not got technique hes always been the best technique u are mad!!!!!
    – Sachinisgrate: 10:03am

    Does this writer (if that is what we can call him) ever actually watch cricket? If he thinks that Tendulkar’s technique is lacking in any way, he is mistaken. I’d like to see Tendulkar against Kevin Pietersen in a technique contest – there would only be one winner and that’s for sure.
    – Mr. D. Thurston: 10:04am

    And that would be Tendulkar.
    – Mr. D . Thurston: 10:05am

    LOL at the comments here chill out guys it is supposed to be a funny article its’ not saying Tendulkar hasnt got technique just that hes not as good as some of the others like irfan pathan
    – Sanjeev: 10:06am

    Utter, utter rubbish, and distinctly not as funny as Alan Tyers. Stick to what you know, which is being not as funny as Alan Tyers.
    – Bert: 10:07am

    1. I’m fascinated by how creative people produce their art. Writing the responses and then constructing an article to fit them is a technique Beckett, Pound or Faulkner would be proud of.

  5. An excellent suggestion by Bert – you can increase the bile content by not stopping with being dismissive of Sachin, but also going further to gently throw in the suggestion that Lara has always been the better batsman. Gently.

    1. But he was the better batsman. I’m still outraged that this KC article wasn’t an animal being indifferent or a cricket bat in an unusual place mind you. Who cares about batsmen really.

    2. A cat being indifferent to Tendulkar might tick all of these boxes, KC.

      Especially if you suggest that the cat’s indifference is evidence of Tendulkar’s fundamental flaws.

Comments are closed.