The theory that article debunks is ‘Darwin was scared of hurting people’s feelings’. The theory I’m relating to yr article is ‘Darwin was scared his ideas would not by people in authority’. Because for a long time, he wasnt a biologist. Just like my reckons on cricket aren’t of much interest to anyone because I’m a playwright who writes plays about people like Darwin. But I grew up in NZ watching Martin Crowe’s cricket max. Im interested in why that didnt become the world beating new format that T20 became. And im interested in where the Hundred sits in all this. Who’s got the authority says if the hundred has a future? Fans? Broadcasters? Or does it all finally come down to the ECB? Or the BCCI?
This is a cool article J - with great food for thought. This will seems a minor point at first, but... Darwin was not a slow writer. He wrote On the Origin of Species basically in full, 20 years before he published it. He sat on it because he was not a qualified biologist - his scientific reputation was as a rock man, a geologist who had written a very popular travel book (beagle journey) so it was not defensible. That’s why he spent 8 years on barnacles. At the end he said ‘no man hates a barnacle more than I’. But it transformed him into a reputable biologist whose theory of evolution could be taken seriously (his granddad had written a sci-fi book espousing evolution some years prior, so not actually a new idea, just an unsubstantiated one). So the point: you’ve got to have the status to change the game - and then add the will and the means. ECB/ICC has the status and possibly the means. But do they have the vision of cricket as a truly global, truly inclusive team sport. Potentially more suited to ‘beyond international men’ in terms of playing and broadcasting than soccer and basketball. Or will baseball beat them out?
The theory that article debunks is ‘Darwin was scared of hurting people’s feelings’. The theory I’m relating to yr article is ‘Darwin was scared his ideas would not by people in authority’. Because for a long time, he wasnt a biologist. Just like my reckons on cricket aren’t of much interest to anyone because I’m a playwright who writes plays about people like Darwin. But I grew up in NZ watching Martin Crowe’s cricket max. Im interested in why that didnt become the world beating new format that T20 became. And im interested in where the Hundred sits in all this. Who’s got the authority says if the hundred has a future? Fans? Broadcasters? Or does it all finally come down to the ECB? Or the BCCI?
This is a cool article J - with great food for thought. This will seems a minor point at first, but... Darwin was not a slow writer. He wrote On the Origin of Species basically in full, 20 years before he published it. He sat on it because he was not a qualified biologist - his scientific reputation was as a rock man, a geologist who had written a very popular travel book (beagle journey) so it was not defensible. That’s why he spent 8 years on barnacles. At the end he said ‘no man hates a barnacle more than I’. But it transformed him into a reputable biologist whose theory of evolution could be taken seriously (his granddad had written a sci-fi book espousing evolution some years prior, so not actually a new idea, just an unsubstantiated one). So the point: you’ve got to have the status to change the game - and then add the will and the means. ECB/ICC has the status and possibly the means. But do they have the vision of cricket as a truly global, truly inclusive team sport. Potentially more suited to ‘beyond international men’ in terms of playing and broadcasting than soccer and basketball. Or will baseball beat them out?