England should copy Australia

Posted by
< 1 minute read

That’s the premise of this piece that we wrote for Cricinfo.

It’s funny because Australia are really, really bad at cricket while England are amazing, so it’s ridiculous that the latter would ape the former. We thought we’d state that explicitly in case you weren’t aware of those facts and therefore missed the humour.

Actually, the humour works on two levels. There’s also the more straightforward humour that derives from Australia being bad at cricket. That’s funny in itself.

Australian readers will still get something out of the article though. They can nod sagely when we highlight many of their national team’s shortcomings and wonder why in hell the people responsible can’t seem to see them when they’re so blatantly obvious that even an idiot Pom can identify them.

There’s also a nod to Back to the Future in one line, which is always good.

Also, if you want to justify a third or a fourth reading, try and spot the really, really minor edit that was made and see if you can explain it to us. It is a ‘how people really speak’ thing. We’ve strong feelings about how people really speak.

That link again.


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. You are explaining why the article is funny, is it because of all the “Was it supposed to be funny” comments you always get on cricinfo?

    1. No, it was just because we’re still taking every opportunity to emphasise England’s superiority over Australia.

  2. Why do our posts about having written something for Cricinfo always get more comments than the Cricinfo article itself?

    Is this site more popular than Cricinfo? How come ESPN haven’t bought us for millions of pounds?

    1. Or should we start writing articles for Cricinfo about how we’ve just uploaded a 90-word post at King Cricket?

    2. I think it’s more a measure of the moderation by cricinfo than anything else. I tried posting some abuse to get the ball rolling but they don’t seem to want to publish it.
      Is ‘stratalygenist’ a nod to arrested development?

  3. Most of the comments here appear to by you KC. In fact, at one point you are even talking to yourself.

    1. “A greater conversation is one that you hold with yourself, rather than one that you hold with a fellow man”.
      KC recognizes this.

    1. Not too sure what happened there. Sorry about that. It wasn’t until we saw that on the site that we realised we’d forgotten to add the jokes.

  4. Was the edit in this sentence?
    “No, I mean it metaphorically”.
    Also, all this about copying the best is nonsense. You can’t ALL sit next to the smartest kid in the class. Just copy whoever’s nearest. That’s how I passed all those French vocab tests. Beyan shure.

  5. Perhaps, crincinfo are tired of you making something on the side by making fun of comments on the site here(and thereby generate hits for your site, presumably, making money in the process) – this, after they pay you(presumably) for the piece

    Hence the moderation of angry and idiot comments, perhaps?
    But you still made a post out of it and generated hits, no?

    Take a bow, King Cricket!

  6. Should we ignite an India-Pakistan fans argument on your cricinfo article??
    Comments will run into hundreds if not thousands.
    Just give us a nod and we’ll do it, for a substantial sum ofcourse.

  7. Dear Sir,

    I find it ironic that one of the few page 2 authors that don’t need to explain the humour in their articles has chosen to do so. I hope the others will follow suit and forthwith!!!

    Yours fondly with extra fondles for dashing Ravi,

    E Brandes

  8. “Okay, Lindsay, are you forgetting that I was a professional twice over – an analyst and a therapist. The world’s first analrapist.”

    Tobias Fünke.

    1. They changed one “they’ve” into a “they have”.

      We’re really puzzled by it.

Comments are closed.