‘Bullying’ stars have no place in club cricket
Criticism of Rikki Clarke for double century in low-level league match was justified – it ruins the very essence of sport
It is great that former England and county players should play league cricket. The interface between professional and amateur cricket has always been weak. It is so sad that county players, having played their last game, never want to pick up a bat or ball again.
And it is one of the strengths of Australian cricket that their players are always connected to their clubs. When Mitchell Starc was injured and could not bowl, he batted in the middle order for his Sydney grade club and scored a century, learning how to do something he had never done at a professional level.
Similarly, all of England’s injured fast bowlers – Jofra Archer, Mark Wood and the rest – should be keeping their hands in by playing for their league clubs and developing their batting. Win-win all around.
But the crucial factor in the uproar of a debate about Rikki Clarke smashing 229 for Shrewton against South Wiltshire third XI is the standard of the league match. Superb if Clarke is playing in Division One of his local ECB Premier League. Not if he is smashing village second and third elevens.
The whole point of playing or watching a cricket match – that it is a roughly even contest – is annihilated if a shark swims in a goldfish bowl.
Having played in media matches with a few former England players, you do not see the big difference when they walk out to bat: when playing themselves in, they are human. But when their brains and conditioned reflexes have been reactivated, they return to their former level and bat like the internationals they were.
Having a former England all-rounder – and Clarke was a full-time Surrey player until last season – in a village match makes the game lopsided, or simply one-sided, and ruins the essence of cricket and sport. Once he has got a start, and his eye in, and it all comes flooding back, it is just bullying.
I have played for my club, Hinton Charterhouse, against teams who have brought along an Australian or South African professional who has proceeded to bludgeon a hundred, and to keep on bludgeoning, instead of retiring, because, like Clarke, they have no sense of proportion.
It spoiled the afternoon for us, because we did not spend most of the time playing cricket, we spent it climbing over fences and looking for the ball in the bushes.
And it spoiled the afternoon for some of their team, too. A few thought it was clever for a shark to run amok in a goldfish bowl, but not those who wanted a bat, and a fair game.
Would it have been justifiable if Clarke had played for his village team and retired after scoring 50? In a friendly, yes. Not in a league game where points, promotion and demotion are at stake. He would still be upsetting the balance – weighting the game excessively in his side’s favour – so long as he was batting. Another Surrey batsman had a better idea. The late and very gifted Tom Maynard, who was then contracted to Glamorgan before moving to the Oval, was at Millfield school when he went to play for the village of Butleigh a mile down the road. He batted left-handed, and still scored a hundred, but at least he was redressing the balance by handicapping himself.
In England, it is highly regrettable that the last thing that most former professional cricketers want to do is to play cricket: their experience, instead of rubbing off on others, is wasted. I can understand that they have been there and done that, and do not want to do it again, and at a far lower level: but it would still be nice if they so loved the game that they wanted to keep on playing, because it is a privilege for the rest of us to see the best in action, close up.
I am all for Clarke playing for Shrewton at cricket – when he is 60. Until then, he should pick on opponents of similar ability, and pay out of his own pocket for all the balls he loses.