TTME Cricket

The greatest game invented by the human race. An Indian game accidentally invented by the English. A game for heroes. But we are not talking about tiddlywinks here – instead, this week its all about Cricket.

Download Podcast - TTME Cricket (Right Click and select Save Link As)

It’s not all about tea and buns. It is mostly, but not always.

Cricket 1


10 thoughts on “TTME Cricket

  1. Did you do this to torture Royfield? It is not fair to compare cricket to baseball given how boring and crap baseball is. He fell into the trap of talking about baseball rather than talking about important things like the fact that bodyline got outlawed because the West Indies did it to England immediately after England did it to Australia and the English batsmen threatened to take their bats and go home unless something was done about it.

  2. Baseball is like everything else American. You get 1% substance, and the rest is ads, infomercials, reality TV and alternative facts.

  3. Calling for a discussion about who was the greatest batsman of all time at the end of the cast was just silly. No need for a discussion there. Very grateful for you putting on an episode about cricket though.

    1. Hi Tony. And you know I have a horrible feeling that, with sufficient time and application, it is possible to get engrossed in any sport. I was at one stage quite a fan of Kabaddi, a game with which I have no connection. So I reckon you could love Baseball, Though you are so right – it’s not a patch on Cricket. And actually it wasn’t my fault – I actually tried quite hard to get the discussion away from baseball! Yes, you are right; what is the point in starting a debate where everyone will simply agree that Jack Hobbes was the greatest batsman ever to grace the field? A chorus of agreement is so dull.

      Most of all Tony I took great pleasure at the Bodyline reference! Still a bone of contention after all these years.

      Glad you are listening to the podcast! There must be a topic you’d like me to raise (needless to say I’m going to be ducking Empire as long as I can). If so let me know, and I’ll certainly do it if I feel able.

      1. I’m not sure Hobbs was your best. Wasn’t there another guy called Sutcliffe?
        And yes bodyline and Gallipoli will forever be remembered. Jardine and Churchill are the two arch villains of Australian history.
        I would like to hear about the voyages of Cabot, and a good look at Bristol and when they started fishing off the grand banks.
        Later on, I would like to hear about the relationship between the failure of the Scottish attempt to found a colony in Panama and the formation of the Union. Britain has always been much more important an idea here than England. It was by focusing on being British that we were able to coalesce into a nation in the early days. We could never have done that if we considered ourselves English.

  4. Also, a very thorough look at the glorious revolution would be good. Was that a Dutch invasion that got airbrushed out of history?

  5. That actually brings to mind a very important philosophical debate about history. Our media usually judges historical figures by the current ethical view on what is acceptable and what is not. And this has always been the case while the acceptable ethical position has been constantly changing. Is it fair to judge people in the past by current standards?

    1. Sutcliffe was, as you say, pretty decent. On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone quite like Viv in his prime. Not quite sure why. I have a bit of a thing also for Gavaskar. Anyway, the only rule of the debate would be – no statistics allowed. That’ll upset everyone.

      I did a bit about Cabot and the sandbanks in 209 – Scottish colony in Panama sounds like a lot of fun, I’ll certainly use that int eh History of Scotland. And yes, I can understand why British would be more important; and it seems to me that Empire might well have been the one period when the union actually made sense. Certainly doesn’t any more. We should all become separately part of a united states of Europe in my view, but it’s an unpopular one.

      I could not agree with you more about the point about judging people by the standards of their own times, and the context of it. The modern age is so appallingly sanctimonious it makes me feel ill,m frequently. A point I shall make in the Henry VIII debate coming up (there is a forum, by the way, just so that you don’t have to go onto Facebook). I’m not sure it’s up for debate though – I know the right answer, its a question of telling people!! Having said that there are some problems with it; should we not condemn those who made money by trading in slaves? Perfectly legal at the time, but surely there must be some moral absolutes?

  6. I don’t think there are any moral absolutes. It all depends on individual circumstances. A human who is educated in ethics and has financial means should be judged very differently than say a feral cat. The cat can’t survive unless it eats meat. The Voles of the world would consider it a psychopathic mass murderer, but everyone else would understand that this outcome was predictable. Whereas if the human engaged in the same behaviour(habitual torture and murder of Voles), everyone else would agree with the Voles. All of ethics is like that. It gets very murky when the examples are not black and white like the one above.

    1. Very difficult I agree. I agree with the principle that you must judge by the standards of the time, and by standards suitable to the subject. I remember having the debate with some chinless involved in shooting Magpies – his argument was they raid nests, a sot of moral judgement – but Magpies aren’t moral beings. Its just that with an example like slavery, though legal and widely practiced at the time, it is a difficult view to maintain. How could you stack hundreds of human beings in the hold of a ship knowing 1/3rd would die and the rest spend their lives in slavery?

Leave a Reply