We didn’t see any of today’s match

Posted by
< 1 minute read

Not one minute of it. We logged onto the internet this evening, saw a headline about it, thought: “Ooh, that sounds juicy,” and then went and looked up the scorecard.

Top stuff. Top, top stuff. Well played, England.

We take it this is still the transitional period then? Not quite the new era yet, eh?



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. Were any of KC’s readers there? I’d love to see a match report. Where did you park? What did you have for lunch? Did anyone’s Dad say anything embarrassing?

  2. Chill, people. We’re in a rebuilding phase. People don’t realise that when you rebuild something, anything, you have to completely destroy it first. And then you have to leave it in its completely destroyed state for about 10 years or so. Otherwise it’s not rebuilding, probably.

    Ask any house-builder. When he does an extension to a modest 1970s semi-detached property on a quiet cul-de-sac, to add a fourth bedroom and a downstairs loo, the first thing he does is completely destroy the existing house. Every last brick, even that special brick that is holding everything else together. How could he not? And naturally, for the next decade the plot is left untouched while the house-owner lives in a shitty caravan in the garden. But it’s not as if the builder is doing nothing in this ten-year period. Oh no, what he’s doing is making sure that the bricks he wants to use and their brick families are very much the sort of bricks they want the new bricks and their brick families to be. Because if that is true, the builder is happy, even if the house-owner hates their shitty caravan with a passion and the children get pneumonia.


    1. Are you suggesting that Giles Clarke is that “special brick holding everything else together”, Bert?

      Forgive me, but I cannot agree with the gist of your comment in that case.

      Personally, I’d have dropped Giles Clarke once it became clear that he had alienated the BCCI and done a deal with a crook instead. Granted, Clarke didn’t knowingly do a deal with a crook, but most decent Chairfolk would do the right thing and resign once it became clear that they personally had made a really big mistake.

      Or were you referring to someone else, Bert, as that special brick? Perhaps someone who deliberately (or perhaps, due to an unfortunate stonk in the brain, randomly and unwittingly) did hugely destructive, disloyal stuff on many occasions?

      I’m confused.

    2. Well yes, Ged, I am referring to a different special brick. The one I had in mind did indeed do many stupid and disloyal things during his bricky career, and was a twat, but during all of that there was no actual destruction. In fact, the house continued to become ever more impressive, almost as if the stupid disloyalty made not the slightest bit of difference.

      Now this is strange, because on the one hand we are told that disloyalty = failure as sure as eggs is eggs, and on the other hand we are told that our brick has been being disloyal for a very long time, even during the time when there was no failure and much success. This is what is known as cognitive dissonance, the ability to hold two completely contradictory views at the same time.

    3. “he and his family are very much the sort of people we want the England captain and his family to be.” is a creepingly sinister phrase from GC, there.

  3. Just wondering why England keep changing their kit so much. It’s back to that old horrible shade of blue again, from the red last year that made them look like Zimbabwe. I actually liked the darker blue with the Brit Insurance sponsor a few years ago. Not sure how the players feel about being a walking billboard for a supermarket chain.

Comments are closed.