England v Australia – Twenty20 Final (Barbados) - 16.5.10

An American walks into a bar. It’s 5pm on Sunday 16th May 2010 and every television is showing live coverage of the Twenty20 final between England and Australia. The American orders some food and moves towards the vacant seat opposite me. As he pulls back the chair he says, “Could you do me a favour? Explain to me how this game works.”

Many people have tried to explain cricket to foreigners, the most famous attempt can be found here. Being a helpful sort of soul, I readily accepted the task of providing a complete and thoroughly accurate account of the beautiful game, and soon began to realise there’s just so damn much of it. The nature of runs and wickets, the stumps, the bowling action, the boundaries etc. are easy enough to explain. The fact that England were playing in the final of a major tournament and had reduced the Old Enemy to 8-3 in the third over, well, I couldn’t even understand that myself.

What’s the ball made from? Why do the pitchers take such a long run? Don’t those guys even wear gloves? These are just some of the issues we tackled in that first half hour. Then Collingwood took a superb diving catch at short mid-wicket to get rid of Clarke.
“And that’s it, he’s done now?”
“Yes sir, he’s done now.”

My guest told me he lives in Minnesota and is in England for a week delivering IT training. He said he was staying in a place “three or four blocks away”. I’m not sure exactly how much of Wokingham “a block” constitutes but I didn’t feel the need to enquire further. Then he ruthlessly polished off a chicken Caesar salad and a burger and chips. I love Americans.

The thing that struck me about this situation was that this was only Dan’s third visit to England (his first time watching cricket) and he happened to walk in on England winning their first world title EVER. He was doubly fortunate as he stumbled across the shortest form of the game with a result guaranteed in a couple of hours. And his host for the evening: the author of a cricket blog. Welcome to England, my friend, we look after people here.

Adequately supplied with beer, we covered each important aspect of the game as it came up. As Australia scrambled for every run and took greater risks to get the ball off the square, we talked about “limited overs”, “wickets in hand” and “setting a competitive total”. (I stopped short of naming the fielding positions – the last thing my new friend needed was a deep backward square leg or a silly point.) I tried to describe the phenomenal ending to the semi-final against Pakistan when Hussey needed 18 from the final over and hit 23 from just five balls. Dan absorbed it all and kept on asking questions.

(Incidentally, I do have an unfortunate tendency to unconsciously mimic the speech of the person I’m talking to, and realised slightly too late when I said “Pakistan” placing the emphasis on the first syllable. Thinking back, I also remember referring to the players as “guys” far, far more often than I usually would.)

The England bowlers were brilliant throughout but Australia built a couple of good partnerships in the second half of their innings thanks to Cameron White and David Hussey and finished on a respectable but below-par 147-6. Dan still referred to runs as “points”, to wickets as “outs” and to the bowler as the “pitcher”, but by now he had a pretty good idea of what was going on. There was a moment of particular excitement when Hussey was run out: stumps everywhere, players sprinting in vain - great entertainment for a newcomer.

After a drinks break for the players and for me, the England reply got underway and almost immediately Michael Lumb was caught at mid-on for two.
“Two! That’s all he got, two! Hey that’s not great for your top guy.” I had to agree.

As Pieterson came in we found an area of common ground between cricket and baseball: you put your best hitters in the middle. I quietly mentioned that both batsmen were actually South African then we enjoyed the next ten overs immensely as Kieswetter and KP started to dominate the Australian bowlers.

And then the moment I’d been dreading: an LBW appeal. “What are they screaming for?” Dan asked in all innocence.
“Ah,” I started. “There’s another way of getting out.”
I explained the basics of the LBW law just as hawk-eye showed clearly the ball was going to hit middle stump half way up.
“So why is he still there?”
The answer was of course: “It possibly pitched just outside leg-stump – he’s bowling left-arm over the wicket and it’s difficult to get a decision from there.” But rather than get too detailed I offered the rather feeble, “There are rules about where the ball can bounce and stuff.”

Fortunately this was accepted as gospel and the game continued. Dan went back to the bar and returned with a pint. He sat down, took a sip and said, “Man, that’s some funny tasting beer.” I took a sniff - he had ordered Strongbow.

As Dan’s understanding of the rules improved, he became more and more convinced that England would walk an easy victory but to his obvious bafflement I wasn’t getting carried away. After yet another four from Kieswetter he watched the scoreboard tick along to 95-1.

“Ninety-five!” he exclaimed, loudly. “Ninety-five! Surely you think they’re gonna do it now.”
“You’ve been watching England for an hour and a half,” I said. “I’ve been watching them for twenty-five years. Do not underestimate their capacity to disappoint.”
I liked his confidence though, it was reassuring. He had never seen a cricket match before but it was obvious to him who was the better side and that the odds were heavily in England’s favour.

When first Pieterson then Kieswetter were dismissed with England still 27 runs short of victory I took the opportunity to enlighten Dan about the nature of the batting collapse. At this stage I was still waiting for something else to go wrong, but a few minutes later when Collingwood perfectly executed his short-arm jab over square leg for six, England needed only five runs from 20 balls. It was at this point where I finally thought, “We could actually win this.” And we did.

Now, I know Pieterson was born in South Africa, but did you see his reaction at the winning run? He looked absolutely ecstatic. He was first out of the dugout, first onto the pitch and first to congratulate his team-mates in the middle. I realise his superior reactions and greater speed over land are probably because he’s South African but that’s not the point here. He’s an England player and he has been for five years. This meant a lot to him, as he showed in his interviews after picking up the award for Player of the Tournament.

What a great evening’s entertainment. I was given the chance to sell cricket, the game I love, to a complete stranger during one of the most important, most gripping and most superb performances in England’s One-Day International history. Dan was as pleased with the result as anyone else in the pub. Now we just have to wait and see whether a new cricket club springs up in Minnesota.