Steve Magoffin and MacGuffins

Posted by
< 1 minute read

In film, a MacGuffin is something characters strive for which rather conveniently drives the plot. As often as not, its exact nature is unimportant. What matters is that at least one of the characters wants it.

People aren’t fighting to acquire Sussex’s Steve Magoffin, so he doesn’t really fit the description. However, the name does seem apt when you consider that one of the common characteristics of a MacGuffin is that it shapes the narrative even though the audience doesn’t really know what it is.

The contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction present a classic example. The whole film revolves around them, but we never actually find out what they are. It doesn’t matter. Similarly, do we need to see Steve Magoffin going about his job, or is it enough that he shapes the story of the 2014 County Championship in its early stages, allowing other characters to take centre stage later on?

This is a roundabout way of saying that after two rounds of championship matches, Sussex are the only team with two wins. In both games, Magoffin has set up the match on the first day and then polished things off in the second innings. He already has 14 wickets at 12.85. Team-mate Jon Lewis has taken 10 wickets at 12.10, but we didn’t feel like writing about department stores today.


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. Do be fair, Yorkshire, Middlesex and Durham are also unbeaten – admittedly Sussex have a 100% record but so do Middlesex and Durham 🙂

    1. It is confusing when you correct an error that someone has pointed out, especially when the out-pointing is so beautifully withering (well done, Richard). On the other hand, it does allow us a certain amount of mischievousness.

    2. I’d love to claim that Middlesex are unbeaten, but we were the first of the counties to suffer the early season Magoffin/MacGuffin-fest.

  2. KC! What are you saying? You really shouldn’t say any of those things about Ged and Sam and Dan and Richard and Ed, not without some evidence at least. I’m not sure what you describe is even possible, let alone enjoyable. And judging from the photos of him, I don’t think Ged is shaped that way at all.

    1. But that would be a disaster. It would undermine all trust. Just imagine a world in which we couldn’t necessarily trust everything we read on the internet. Where would we be then, eh?

    2. Now I don’t know what to believe. I’m not sure Bert even actually exists. Surely he is a KC alter-ego.

    3. I think I am sort-of shaped that way, Bert, but thanks for your support.

      Your support is a heck of a lot more effective than the truss which fails to mask my shape.

      But KC should never have said those libellous things about you, Bert. I note that he took them down sharpish – I guess you set m’learned friends onto KC.

      A good suit would be fitting around here, which is more than can be said for the fine Italian off-the-peg jobs in my wardrobe, which strain to contort to my shape.

  3. Didn’t he fire on all guns last season too? Bloody morons who run the WACA dumped him aeons ago for some wee kiddie in nappies.

    1. If there’s one thing we like, it’s going to the trouble of making a reference when very few people are likely to get it.

      Good work.

  4. If anyone cares, I’ve been following someone who I believe to be Sam on Twitter and I don’t think he’s KC.

    He was savaged by some plonker of a journalist and his groupies there.

    Sam not KC.

    On Twitter.

    1. Yes, I believe that was the name of said plonker. Not ashamed of his sycophantic following, either.

      So I gather it is Sam, residing in a minor county.

Comments are closed.