Re: Fletcher on Pietersen's catching

As the author of the "overlong" post (and that's nice coming from you
Robert, always the master of brevity...) I find myself thinking that
Robert's reply did not "entirely" answer my questions.

Essentially, what interests me is what goes through Robert's mind when
he watches England play cricket. When KP comes to bat, does Robert
want him to get out, or does he put on hold his politics and think
"well, I wouldn't have picked him, but it's too late now so I hope he
does well for England's sake" (much as I felt when Ronnie Irani played
for England, although my reservations were due to his glaring lack of
talent rather than his background)? How does Robert reconcile his
support for England with his opposition to certain players who, whether
he likes it or not, are playing for England?

I just find it such an irony that Robert's main complaint is a
(possibly mistaken) belief that the "merceneries" he talks about won't
be as committed to England as a "true" Englishman, and yet Robert
himself appears to be an enemy within who seems, despite his apparent
Englishness, not to get 100% behind the team England sends out.

His reply of "Only a fool is unreservedly patriotic about that which is
tainted by foreignness" is curious. I can only infer from that that
Robert believes that just about every England cricket fan, and the
entire coaching staff of the England cricket team, and indeed the
England team themselves, are fools. Are the England bowlers fools for
trusting Troy Cooley thus letting him taint them with his foreign
coaching? Or are they fools for listening to Duncan Fletcher? When
Robert sees Ashley Giles celebrate Simon Jones taking a wicket, does
Robert think that Ashley Giles is a fool for being unreservedly
patriotic about something tainted by foreignness? Since Robert's core
point has always been that a team without "merceneries" would be more
coherent and committed and pull together better, does he really think
that it would be in the best interests of the England side for Giles,
Trescothick, Vaughan, Strauss, Harmison, Hoggard, Bell & Flintoff to
shun Jones, Jones & Pietersen when they play since to celebrate without
reservation with them would be "foolish"? To my mind it is this
cutting off of his nose to spite his face, this denial of England
having the best possible chance, that is really foolish, and if I'm
100% honest, I just don't believe RH follows his claims through to
their logical conclusion: I believe that when the chips are down for
England and things come to the wire, RH doesn't care where the hero of
the hour comes from, as long as they come to save England, because I
believe that whatever his politics, RH is a fan at heart and that he
wants to see England do well. Perhaps I'm wrong...

I just find the things he says too hard to swallow. I mean, clearly I
don't agree with RH's core beliefs, but as an act of empathy I'm trying
to understand them and the more I think about them the more I come to
the conclusion that they're incoherent. When Robert posts, he seems to
exist in a parallel universe where cricket is run the way he'd like it
to be (it always makes me laugh to see his proposed England XIs when he
drops the likes of Jones & Pietersen after their latest heroics) and
it's fine to discuss theoretically what he might like in an ideal world
but the fact is that it's not (I'd like Ramprakash to have had a better
run in the England side, but his time has passed and I have to accept
that whether England's management made a howling error of people
management or not, it's time to move on), so I'm fascinated to consider
how Robert responds to the realities of English cricket. No amount of
denial can change the fact that England's Ashes victory was achieved
partly with the very significant help of 2 of his "merceneries" in KP &
Simon Jones. Would RH have been happier to see England lose than to
see these men play for England? I'd love to have watched RH watch the
tests this summer - would I have seen a smile on his face when KP
scored his century at the Oval? I'd love to know...

We all know who Robert would prefer not to have been picked, but given
that they have been picked, what does he think when they do well? Does
he feel really left out, or does he swallow his pride (even if only in
private) and secretly celebrate it when they help England do well...

The tangle of RH's beliefs are fascinating in their bizarreness, I love
trying to understand people with different views of the world from me,
so it's such a shame that when on the defensive he resorts to short,
glib utterances. I s'pose I don't expect much more from Robert - I
certainly don't expect him to change...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fletcher on Pietersens catching
    ... > he watches England play cricket. ... does Robert ... > England team themselves, are fools. ... > shun Jones, Jones & Pietersen when they play since to celebrate without ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Ancestors of Joan Baynard
    ... Joan Baynard, daughter of Robert Baynard and Lucy Atte Eshe, was ... born about 1322 in Of, Colkirk, Norfolk, England and died in February ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Wife of Sir Robert Whitney
    ... Is this the same Sir Robert as I have below or this document or am I incorrect? ... Robert WHITNEY b. ... He married Sybill BASKERVILLE married 1541 in Whitney, Herefordshire, England, ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: floridsalopia@hotmail.com
    ... >> Well Robert wasn't far off the mark. ... >Max.it England had to enforce the follow on given the state of the series. ... >Any sane Englishman would have done the same. ... Fair play Vaughan backed his boys, ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Congratulations to Sri Lanka
    ... England captain, he must acquire the same streak of ruthlessness which ... I don't believe that Vaughan would have allowed the side ... explanation is that someone has convinced the England team that the ... SP Jones to Gillespie, no run, full and on the off, a hint of away ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)