Cricket: The Untucked Version.

Thank you, cricketers. While you go and untuck your shirts on the field, the YouTube livestream chat will deliberate. (This is a RuPaul's Drag Race reference - not sure how much crossover I'll have between cricket and Drag Race but HELLO if you get it)

So on the County Cricket Season eve, I have decided to bring the blog back out.

Last week, Somerset played Worcestershire in one of their pre-season games. As a keen supporter, I avidly watched the livestream that was organised (amazingly well) by Somerset CCC. While I'm in no way a cricket aficionado, I enjoy participating in online cricket discourse: most of the time this just results in memes and shitposts. Alongside the livestream, however, the chat was popping - but not necessarily with the cricket fan discourse you would expect.

Person A (whose username I cannot remember) complained that some of the Worcestershire side had their shirts untucked - this complaint was partially supported by the commentary team. Person B (whose username I also cannot remember) said that Person A's message had classist undertones. Person A said that class does not come into the matter - it was all a matter of cricketers appearing neat. Person B then elaborated on their earlier comment and explained that the concept of 'neatness' is rooted in class, which makes sense to me. Those who turn up to places looking 'prim' and 'proper' are often from more well-off backgrounds. I don't believe that Person A was in any way attempting to poke fun at another class, but the outcome was an interesting conversation. I can't speak for Person A or B, but I felt that the original message was just a result of cricket traditionalism: the same reason that some people call white ball cricket 'pyjama cricket' because their kits dare to be colourful. But deep down, is it that deep? A cricket shirt, to quote Michelle Visage (2 Drag Race references, here we go): it's a piece of fabric.

It was a lot to take in on a livestream chat that usually just consists of people talking about cider and what they're having for dinner, but it raised an interesting point in the context of cricket traditionalism. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to anyone (and I am so sorry if it does), but, spoiler alert: cricket has been and still is an elitist sport. Of course, leaps and bounds have been made in counteracting this problem in recent years by clubs and governing bodies, especially in grassroots cricket, but you only need to take a look at the current make-up of the English cricket team and county cricket to see that the majority of English cricketers are privately educated. It also comes as no surprise to many that to participate in cricket you often have to break the bank to afford the necessary items to play. In my dream world I would like it if everyone could play with a nice affordable Kwik Cricket plastic bat, stumps and tennis ball forever, but I realise that saying that out loud in the real cricket world will get me crucified (I agree that it would look horrible before anyone comes for me). I can see the torches and pitchforks coming to my house now: "It's just not cricket!" And I get that. I get that the traditionalists have grown up being led to believe that cricket should be played in a certain way and that the cricketers should dress and behave in a certain way. I get that it takes time to adjust to new ideas. And I also get that the aforementioned traditionalists would never want to maintain elitism in cricket! But it would just be nice if everyone could automatically be on an equal playing field - no offence to the Lord's slope. 

Cricket, in my eyes, is 9 fielders, 1 bowler, 1 wicketkeeper, 2 people batting and a sprinkling of umpires. That's it. Wear what you like. Cricketers aren't there for fashion, sadly. Sidenote: how fun would it be if each game had a best dressed cricketer who was given an award for styling their kit out in the best way? I digress. Can you believe I have made it this far into a post about traditionalism in cricket without mentioning The Hundred? And, for the sake of my readers, I shan't. 

I guess what I am trying to say is: cricket is fun. WHO KNEW? And that's all it ever should be. Why does an untucked shirt matter? Who are we to sit at home and lambast the players for their fashion choices? Unless, of course, we are talking about Yorkshire's T20 shirt from Nike (kidding... or am I?). The original conversation on YouTube was never intended to be this serious and I'm sure Person A and B would both be shocked if they knew I had written a blog post about it, but their conversation sparked an important conversation in my brain and is a conversation that the cricketing community should continue to have when considering traditionalism. Is there any need to force cricket into its archaic bubble for the sake of traditionalism? 

 

As we go into the new season, let us all take a deep breath and remember one simple and salient fact: cricket is a GAME, not the military. They are a team of 11 people, not a regiment. As long as cricket maintains its fun, then, in my eyes, it is still the wonderful cricket that I know and love. 

Thank you all for reading x