England drop a giant and select AN EVEN MORE TERRIFYING GIANT

Posted by
< 1 minute read

The ancient code of the giants is the only thing preventing Chris Tremlett from eating you

We’ve already done ‘Chris Tremlett’s back‘ once before. We’d hate to repeat ourself.

England have dropped the grossly-overtall Steven Finn and have replaced him with a man of similar height but who also has arms the size of thighs hanging off the sides of some sort of oil-tanker-cum-torso. Then there’s the mouth. Tremlett could definitely have a damn good go at swallowing you whole.

When a snake gets really ambitious with a mouthful and gets an animal lodged halfway in, it coughs up its windpipe to use as a kind of built-in snorkel. We have no doubt whatsoever that Chris Tremlett also has this facility. He is only prevented from using it by his conscience and the ancient code of the giants, which specifies that their kind may only harm humans through seaming deliveries which lift sharply off a good length.

Monty Panesar and James Taylor are also in England’s squad, but eating humans whole isn’t even an option for them. Taylor isn’t even human-sized himself. Take a look at this picture and this picture if you don’t believe us.


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. Hmmm. Not convinced by Tremlett. I would, however, like to see a photo of him batting with Taylor.

    1. I have a quite marvellous height discrepancy photo taken recently of Adam Wheater ‘keeping to Charlie Shreck. Unfortunately I can only tempt you with it at this point because it’s not yet on my blog and I’m not techy enough to know if I can post it here without having to link elsewhere. As a kind gesture, I shall take another look at it and giggle a bit more on behalf of you all.

  2. Tremlett is in the squad to let England get a look at him while Surrey aren’t playing a game – he won’t play ahead of Bresnan. Monty’s there so he still feels involved, but again, he won’t play. Root can be the second spinner.

    Finn and Onions are only dropped because Middlesex and Durham have games and they’re better served actually playing a game than carry drinks (presumably, Tremlett will get that job as he can carry more than Taylor – unless they fit one of these to Little Jimmy http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/swtj/r2tray.jpg ).

    I’d actually have Taylor playing ahead of Bairstow if Pietersen is fit. I don’t rate Bairstow; I suspect he is viewed as the long-term replacement for Prior so they want him to get international experience under his belt before he takes the gloves.

    1. good point re bairstow. do you not think they see buttler as prior’s replacement though?

    2. Not Buttler for Tests, surely? I’d rather have Kieswetter.

      Being totally one-eyed, I keep mentioning him but Eckersley’s your man.

    3. If Bairstow were in the sights as Prior’s replacement wouldn’t they rather he were keeping regularly for his county rather than trying to become a #6 England batsman?

      I agree that Buttler seems to have that role – he seems to have developed a sudden interest on finding a county where he’ll be the first choice keeper. Suspect England have a lot to do with that.

  3. I think they’ve put Panesar in just to say to the Aussies,”We’re thinking of playing two test-quality spinners in our team. You?”

  4. James Taylor can eat a Chicken McNugget whole.

    Or a Nandos butterfly chicken breast in no more than four chunks.

    Surely that counts for something, KC?

  5. Tremlett so looks like Jaws from James Bond, and yes, he seems capable of swallow Ian Ronald Bell whole.

  6. Oh, by a link to “Chris Tremletts Back,” I was expecting nothing short of a brilliant scientific treatise on the biomechanics of having a treetrunk for a back; and a calm commentary on the individual and the family who have succeeded in growing such a back. Instead, I got a chuckle-worthy but altogether lamish pun. Not good, KC.

    1. Many of us loyal followers keep telling you that you use the “so-and-so’s back” joke too infrequently, KC, but it takes “Pete-come-lately” to convince you.

      Not good, KC. Indeed.

  7. Ok, point made, posts made me laugh. But Chris Tremlett’s torso’s bigger than some obscure spinal condition and a 5-year joke tradition, and will always take over. And that pic above makes me slightly frightened.

  8. I think we’re all getting a bit confused right now. It’s this new world we’ve entered that’s doing it. Two tests into an Ashes series, and we’re not dead and buried (1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002), leading but fearful of an Aussie comeback (2009, 2010), reeling in stunned disbelief (2006), or on valium (2005). We don’t understand how to act in these circumstances; we have no experience to draw on. We’re like Replicants without sufficient memories to cushion our emotional response.

    Our heads are telling us that this Aussie team is rubbish beyond belief, that their top six will only get a century if we let them add all their scores together, and that there’s a significant chance they won’t take 20 wickets in the next three matches. But our hearts know differently – they know without any doubt that Australia will win at Old Trafford (Warner 145, Hughes 223*, Agar 7–24). Our hearts are wrong, of course, that’s why we don’t use them for designing nuclear power stations. But they are annoyingly insistent.

    1. After two Tests into 1997 we were 1-0 up, 1-1 going into the fourth.

      Then Graham Thorpe dropped Matthew Elliot off Mike Smith’s bowling. Australia would have been 50-5. Elliot made 199 – and everything returned to normal.

      Cricinfo seems bust so I can’t check my facts – Wisden 1998 is at home – so that’s a potted version of the 1997 Ashes series, how I remember it. Apologies for errors.

    2. You should write and edit some sort of bookazine detailing the history of the Ashes.

    3. 1997 was a bad/good year. It’s the Ashes I remember most acutely for the hope/pain of the Ashes Wilderness Years.

      It had everything you’d expect: winning a dead rubber, random selection, dropped catches, batting collapses and great, fruitless performances from England. All the while, Australia were great.

      I’d be amazed if Hick wasn’t picked then dropped at some point during the series.

    4. He wasn’t! No Hick. He must have been injured or something, not to be picked in the second Test and dropped by the sixth.

    5. The reason we were 1-0 up after two tests was because it rained for nearly two whole days at Lord’s. 77 all out in the first innings (McGrath 8 for 38). We all knew what was to come by then (defeat by 268, an innings and 61, and 264, before nabbing a dead-match win). We got past 300 once in the next four matches (by 13 runs).

      A proper Ashes series, that one. You knew where you stood with those kind of series.

    6. Just so we’re clear, does this count as reminiscing? Are we reminiscing about England being heavily beaten?

    7. I have blanked out that entire series after Thorpe and Hussain’s massive partnership and Australia collapsing.

      In the same vein, the 2001 series consists of one Mark Butcher innings.

    8. Ah, everyone’s favorite playing cricket memories are of good performances when everyone else was rubbish and the team lost, aren’t they?

      Like the time you top scored and the rest of the team collapsed, leaving you to lose on wickets taken to the self professed ‘worst team in England’, Minstrels Taverners. Or the time you watched a hat trick from the non-strikers end before you faced a ball against Siakh CC, right?

      Having a good day when everyone else is good too is nowhere near as much fun, surely.

  9. Sounds about right, D Charlton. There’s a great story that at the end of that day in the dressing room Atherton said loudly: “Mr Thorpe, you’ve just lost us the Ashes”, paraphrasing Jardine. Everyone just looked at him blankly and thought “that’s a bit harsh.”

Comments are closed.