Those Who Can, Do. Those Who Can't, Write About It

I thought this was interesting.

I agree with some of what Ryan says - Brearley and Atherton are both fine writers - but I think he might have been better off keeping his powder dry.

While it's easy to understand the professional journalist with a limited playing background being frustrated by the rapid advances of those who could really play the game - especially if they think they can't write - it seems a tad hubristic to set yourself up, as Ryan appears to have done, as some sort of arbiter of journalistic quality and taste.

For a start you leave yourself open to the sort of comment which appears after the article from someone who clearly doesn't think much of Ryan's writing either, and, if you're talking about cricket, I think it's ill-advised to get superior with an ex-Test cricketer. Because, at the end of the day, they've been there and done it (even if they can't describe what they've done very well), while you never did and never will. No matter how much cricket you've watched you're always going to come up short against someone who's played the game at the highest level, even for the briefest period. And many people who follow the game, but who may not be connoisseurs of cricket writing, will set more store by the opinions of someone they've seen play than those of someone they've never heard of but thinks they can write well.

My favourite cricket writers - Alan Ross, David Frith, Gideon Haigh, Scyld Berry, Andrew Miller - don't have a Test cap between them, but I wouldn't dream of dismissing the efforts of many of those who do, especially the superb Ed Smith.

Now, where's my thesaurus?

Anticipating Wisden

I haven't seen the 2008 Wisden yet, but there seems to be a lot of talk around about some of the comments Scyld Berry's made, together with the choice of Ian Bell as one of the Five Cricketers of the year, alongside the more deserving Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Ottis Gibson, Ryan Sidebottom and Zaheer Khan, at least two of whom were absolutely obvious selections.

Having not read any of Berry's comments in full I can't say very much, but I'm pleased he appears to have said something about the possibility of on-field violence and the duty of the ICC to try to prevent it happening. It's something I've been concerned about for a long time, and the events of the Australian winter only reinforced my views. I don't, though, have very much confidence in the ICC's ability to get to grips with the issue before (or even after) something serious happens. That said, they're probably in a flat spin at the moment about the effect which the forces of Indian commerce are threatening to have on world cricket. And if they're not, they should be.

I yield to absolutely no-one in my admiration for Ian Bell. As I've often stated, if he ever realizes just how good he could be he could become very good indeed (although I'm starting to doubt if he'll ever have the iron confidence which all really great players have, as that's something that's very hard - and probably impossible - to develop), but his achievements last summer don't in my opinion match up with the general standard set for Wisden selections. While acknowledging the quality he showed in the ODI arena (which he hasn't built upon since), he made 417 runs in 12 Test innings with one hundred and three fifties. Good, yes, but hardly briliant for someone with his potential.

Why not wait until he really starts to blossom?