« | Home | »

The Spirit of Cricket

Tags:

‘What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?’ The Sri Lankan cricketer Kumar Sangakkara, giving the Spirit of Cricket lecture at Lords a few days ago, answered this question – first posed by C.L.R. James in Beyond a Boundary half a century ago – at length and in some detail. It was a virtuoso performance that linked cricket to the history and politics of the island. It was witty, intelligent and, above all, courageous. Sangakkara’s assault on the cricketing establishment (the Ministry of Sport) of his own country is a model for others to follow. Listening to the speech I wondered whether there was any other practising cricketer in the world today who could have made it. Not a single name sprang to mind. Much of what Sangakkara said about corruption also applies to the other cricketing nations of South Asia, not to mention the West Indies. A few lessons could be learned in England too, where the obsession with money threatens to damage the game. Cricketers everywhere should pay attention to Sangakkara’s words: they have a little money to lose, but a great game to save.

Comments on “The Spirit of Cricket”

  1. Martin says:

    I agree that Sangakkara spoke brilliantly. But I disagree with one thing he said – maybe I didn’t understand him correctly, though. He said that no other Test team selection is subject to political interference in the way that Sri Lanka’s is. The South African team certainly is, although not for the same reasons. And I thought Pakistan team selections were shambolic exactly because of political interference. Yet other dynamics play out in the West Indies, although those are more at a cricketing board level. Or not?

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • wearytruth on Stoke and Copeland: "Corbyn’s stated mission in leading Labour is to offer a break with the past and create an economy for the many, not the few." That was MY stated...
    • Ouessante on Stoke and Copeland: Stoke: Cons+UKIP 49.1%, Lab 37.1%. Saved only by a split vote. Hardly cause for Lab rejoicing I think. They should be very worried.
    • streetsj on Stoke and Copeland: As in all votes there are a multitude of reasons why people vote as they do but it seems unlikely that Nuttall's contribution was anything other than ...
    • piffin on Stoke and Copeland: That Labour could beat off Ukip's anti-immigrant challenge in Stoke but lose to the Tories in Copeland suggests the latter result was informed by the ...
    • suetonius on Remembering Seymour Papert: Oh my, flashback inducing. I remember being an undergraduate right when the book came out, physics student at the time. Several of my professors wer...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement