For the first four days of the second Ashes Test between England and Australia, the atmosphere at Lord’s Cricket Ground had been sedate to say the least.
So sedate, in fact, that numerous posts on Twitter were either making unfavourable comparisons to the vibrancy witnessed throughout the first Test at Edgbaston or, even, suggesting the blood and thunder of ‘Bazball’ was “incompatible” with the staid conformity of Lord’s.
Day five would prove to be very different, however, as the affordability of tickets, at just £25, had ensured a demographic change among the spectators akin to that called for by the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket Report (ICEC) earlier in the week.
As much as the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) accepted the findings of the ICEC Report – they apologised to all women who had ever played the game and the Black British community as a whole – others, most notably Simon Heffer in The Telegraph, tried to suggest the Report was an attempt to drag cricket into the broader ‘culture war’ being waged in British politics by an ‘activist minority’.
Desperate accusations of ‘wokeness’ aside (79% of the 4000 + respondents to the ICEC were, if fact, ‘white British’), it was clear to all with an open mind that the game’s issues with racism, sexism and social class all stem from an overarching culture of elitism that is, most prominently, embodied by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and Lord’s itself.
The ECB is, as the ICEC suggests, also elitist. But, most infamously, it is the MCC (a private club that only allowed women to join in 1998) that is populated by white, privately educated, middle class men. Referred to as ‘Type K’s’ by the ICEC report, those in charge of the MCC also hold global responsibility for the ‘Laws’ by which cricket is played by.
If it ended there, the furore surrounding the events of day five are unlikely to have ever happened. But the English cricket establishment of the last century, or more, have also imbued the game with an all too nebulous ‘spirit’.
Accordingly, certain actions – even if within or according to the Laws – are simply ‘not done’. And as much as Lord’s cricket ground had been enjoying an uncharacteristically boisterous atmosphere, the temperature was instantly raised to boiling point following the ‘stumping’ of Johnny Bairstow who had left his crease following a bouncer.
According to the ‘spirit’ of cricket the, it must be said, immediate action of Australian keeper Alex Carey to hit the stumps with the ball, while Bairstow seemingly went walkabout, isn’t done. And, on being given out by the umpires, Lord’s erupted.
Incoming batsman Stuart Broad – no stranger to controversies relating to cricket’s alleged ‘spirit’ himself – certainly had a few words to share on the matter once he reached the middle, whereas the crowd either booed or sang “same old Aussies… Always cheating”.
The irony of all this is that it is the particularly ‘English’ sense of fair play that caused tempers to spill over. And yet, it was at lunch where the real controversy occurred as the Australian team were heckled (to put it mildly) as they passed through the Long Room of the pavilion on their way to their dressing room.
An official complaint from the Australian team’s management led to a telling statement from the MCC that stated the Long Room was not merely “unique in world cricket” it was the player’s “privilege” to pass through it in such close proximity to the MCC’s members.
Although three of these members would later be suspended pending further enquiries, Andrew Strauss, ex-director of cricket at the ECB and a member of the MCC, suggested on Sky Sports, soon after the match, that the rowdiness of the day was due to “people who don’t normally come to Lord’s”.
If this was to suggest the cheaper prices had allowed a cohort of undesirables to infiltrate Lord’s, Strauss was not simply overlooking events in the Long Room but outing himself as a ‘Type K’. In doing so, he was echoing the elitist sentiments of administrators and media commentators of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century who fought a sustained battle to eradicate any working-class presence from County Cricket by, in one case, “raising the entrance money to at least a shilling”.
If it were ever in doubt, the elitism, and the inflated sense of entitlement associated with English cricket that goes with it, was on full display in the Long Room at Lord’s. And while the authors of the ICEC Report will take little pleasure in being proved correct so publicly (and so soon), the powers that be, and certain sections of the media for that matter, who thought the Report could either be ignored or kicked into the long grass have not simply had a rude awakening, they have been hoisted by their own elitist petard.
Copyright © Dr Duncan Stone 2023
Your comments about The Spirit of Cricket are either erroneous or out of date, or both. There is nothing ’nebulous’ about it. So much so that it is written down and entitled ’The Preamble’ in MCC’s publication; ’The Laws of Cricket’. This is what is written:-
”Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket.”
Not a word, you will have noted, on the subject of ’stumping’.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to tell us which part(s) of The Spirit of Cricket you find so distasteful that you can subject the whole of it to mockery. And which bits of it support the allegation that cricket is elitist?