Englishmen, it is time to follow Andrew Strauss

What ho, cricketers!

Chaps, something rather remarkable has been happening in Africa.  England's cricketers, who traditionally show no more aptitude for the shortened versions of the game than I do for skateboarding, have been meting out some damned good thrashings to the local chappies.  Strauss's men gave the Proteas a hefty thwacking in Johannesburg and another one for good measure in Port Elizabeth (a delightfully Anglo city).  Graeme Smith has had that enormous backside of his so roundly whipped by our Radley man's walking cane that the poor fellow is no longer able to sit down for his press conferences.  He merely stands there with a stunned look on his gormless face and utters vacuities about line and length in his horrid guttural accent.  It is no exaggeration to state that a quick flick of the lance in Durban will finish these Proteas off for good.

But has it not occurred to anyone to enquire into the causes of this sudden turnaround in English cricket?  Indeed, are the causes not obvious?  Is Britannia still so in thrall to proletarianisation that we cannot sit up and acknowledge what is staring us in the face?  I shall say it simply, gentlemen: England are winning because we have a dashed good public school man as Captain.  There.  I said it.  It as simple and straightforward as that, and you jolly well know it is!

Strauss upholds to the maximum the three cardinal Crouchbackian sporting virtues: 

1. Pluck: a more courageous blighter one would struggle to find - see his magnificent 177 in Napier too save his career!
2. Phlegm: what magnificent detachment he displayed throughout the Ashes - always chuckling away with the chaps as if he had not a care in the world!
3. Beef: he is no Hask, granted, but look at those magnificent forearms - he could jolly well crack coconuts with them!

I cannot over-state my admiration for this fellow.  To my mind, Strauss is the quintessential English hero.  He is not a flashy, suspiciously handsome chap like some of those ostentatious foreign johnnies.  Nor is he overly aggressive like some of those horrid colonial types.  He is simply a good, sensible, old fashioned Englishman with an admirable sense of fair play, a healthy British serving of the bulldog spirit, a public school boy's traditional dose of sang froid, and a jolly deep voice for keeping the oiks in the dressing room in order.

Once upon a time it was taken as a given that men like Strauss would run things.  After all, they did it jolly well - a third of the globe and unimaginable advancements for mankind, no less.  Then, unaccountably, Englishmen became less enamoured of the traditional officer class.  In a naive quest to be seen as egalitarian, we preferred to let oiks have a bash at running things even when it was patently obvious that they weren't up to it.  I suppose this was borne of a sense of pity for the poor fellows - as if their hideous lack of breeding was somehow our fault and required us to suffer a bit while they ballsed things up with their clodhopping plebeian ways.  Thus the trauma of Flintoff's calamitous Ashes of 2006/7; thus Steve McClaren; thus Steve Borthwick; thus social engineering at our ancient universities; thus Greg Dyke and Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling and all the other horrendous incompetents who have ousted our traditional ruling class from their rightful place at the zenith of British public life.  

Well, I hope that some of Britannia's talent spotters are taking a long, hard look at the England cricket team.  I hope they are asking themselves what a chap like Strauss could do for them.  I hope they are applying a mental gum tree test to every interviewee they come across.  Yes, chaps, there is hope for England yet, but only if we sons of the public schools grab this moment by the scruff of the neck.  Strauss has shown the way and it is now up to us to follow him over the top.  There will be some slings and arrows from the plebeian hordes, but they will be as nothing to the shame we will feel deep in our breast if we pass up this opportunity.  Gentlemen, it is time to take our country back. 

Yours, etc

Viscount Crouchback

Comments

[darwinia]

Your Lordship has an ally in Dominic Lawson. Not only Westminster, Christ Church product, but also sensibly married to a 2nd Viscount's daughter.

He believes, everyone except your Lordship, the noble Strauss and obviously the Dominic, is boorish and chauvinistic.

I am sure Your Lordship finds Chauvinism as abhorrent as plebianism.

A serious question from a barbarian, my Lord. Why do you say "England ARE winning"? To me as a second language English speaker that sounds wrong. I feel it should be "England IS winning"? Please help.

[Wikus]

Dear Viscount,
Here's a little snippet for you.
England's cricketing prowess is directly proportional to the number of players born in Boerland.
Of which there are currently 3, including the esteemed captain, of whom you think so highly.
As to why this is so, I am not entirely sure.
I suspect it would have something to with "cojones", something South African males appear to possess in rather generous portions. Perhaps Darwinia could confirm this?

[Viscount Crouchback]

Oh yes, those enormous cojones have been ever so prominent as South Africa has choked from one cricket tournament to another with comical regularity. Do keep visiting Wikus, old bean - it is rare to find such humour in a South African.

Darwinia, it is common in England to use the plural when referring to sporting teams and clubs. What has Dominic Lawson said? I am unfamiliar with his recent utterances.

[darwinia]

Thank you for the explanation my Lord. I accept it is common, but is it correct. What would be the Oxbridge norm? The more gramatically correct?

[Biggs]

My Lord,
I believe that there are in fact 4 Boerland natives in the current English side, the aforementioned Strauss included.

[Viscount Crouchback]

Strauss is no Boerland native! Good heavens, the fellow attended Radley and speaks perfect Queen's English. Any traits of brutishness imparted by the locals in his short stay in Africa were surely disposed of the moment he strolled into his Oxfordshire public school and became an English gentleman.

Speaking of the Queen's English, here is a cut-and-paste for you, Darwinia:

In BrE, collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is, respectively, on the body as a whole or on the individual members; compare a committee was appointed… with the committee were unable to agree….[8][9] The term the Government always takes a plural verb in British civil service convention, perhaps to emphasise the principle of collective responsibility[10]. Compare also the following lines of Elvis Costello’s song “Oliver’s Army”: Oliver’s Army are on their way / Oliver’s Army is here to stay. Some of these nouns, for example staff,[11] actually combine with plural verbs most of the time. In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree… AmE however may use plural pronouns in agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of “individuals acting separately” is considered plural.[12] However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats. Despite exceptions such as usage in the New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular.[13] The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance, BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well-known band.
BrE: Pittsburgh are the champions; AmE: Pittsburgh is the champion.

In other words, Darwinia, if you wish to speak like the Queen, you will do as I do and opt for the plural. If you wish to speak like a Midwestern car salesman, then you will opt for the singular.

[darwinia]

thank you so much. This has been bothering me for some time.

I have to point out that ian Botham, boycott and Bubbles speak like you too.

[Viscount Crouchback]

There is no harm in a few cricketing oiks trying to emulate their betters, Dizzy old gel. It is infinitely preferable to the tortured syntax of our couldn't-give-a-monkeys footballers. Even Frank Lampard, who attended (an extremely minor) public school and supposedly boasts an IQ of 180, is prone to the old "we woz robbed".

[Rpert Chumley-Worpingston]

My Lord

You are right to correct Biggs re Strauss, but he needs correcting on the other supposedly Yappie contingent to the Engand team. Both Trott and Prior are of English parentage, and have made their home here, and Pieterson is 50% English by blood.

What these colonials don't understand is that by blood connection a lot of their chaps are English. Indeed being a colony they exclsively pick misplaced Britons, and in South Africa's case a few decendents of North European protestant nut jobs.

This Barrett fellow playing for Saracens is claimed as a Boer yet his parents are both British. If he gets a chance in England colours one can expect the same boring bleating from the Boers.

Yours

Chumley-Worpingston

[Viscount Crouchback]

North European Protestant nut jobs - that is as fine a description of the Boer as I have ever read!

You are quite right about Pietersen, Barritt & Co. Blood is thicker than water.