To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Cookies may be used for personalisation of ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Posted by 
I’m surprised Selassie-I isn’t slightly embarrassed to reveal that it took him a whole 4 minutes to read ‘this dross’.
In fairness, he has been dead for 38 years.
I loved I “thus I deem it redundant”. I imagined him as the Disney King John; looking bored and casting down edicts from his throne.
It’s the self-loathing and lack of confidence that keeps me coming back here, if that’s any consolation.
What he said.
Not quite
Criticism of “wicked counselors” as a device to avoid directly oposing supposedly devinely ordained monarchs will be familiar to students of history. You can almost take your pick of early modern monarchs. I quite like the idea of KP as Louis XIV myself. Criticism of our own King Cricket (By The Grace Of God) should also be directed at members of the court as proxies.
(Note I’ve taken the unusual step of putting a link to my occassional blog here, in feeble defence of my claim as a student of history, but as it is neither humourous, nor about cricket, you should probably give it a miss. It is better than Livescore, however)
It just made me feel sick. How low can you go in denigrating Prince Rupert.
Denigrating him? I’m quite an admirer, and I think the Wolfe is rather dashing, but this is probably not the place.
An admirer of Rupert of the Rhine? That just made me feel sick. How low can you go in denigrating our Lord Protector.
Ah. I see. Missed the point didn’t I?
Great one oh great one.
I make those commenters redundant. I discard them. Keep up ruling the kingdom well, KC.
Really enjoyed the column this week. I just assumed the people that didn’t are all idiots.
Brilliant piece, KC.
If my comments pass Cricinfo moderation (not entirely polite to the naysayers) you’ll have one more in the plus box.
Crisis of confidence utterly uncalled for.
Confidence crises are necessary. We get lazy otherwise.
I suspect KingOwl may be member of your court moonlighting as a Troll. Schadenfreude (albeit misspelt)and first person plural pronouns. A clear case of lese-majesty. Which of you is it? Confess!
Now I’ve done a bit of facebook stalking of those naysayers KC.
Julie has a photo of her dog as her profile picture. Now if that wasn’t evidence enough to suggest she’s a middle-aged woman with issues, all of the posts on her wall that try to stick up for poor little Kevin do. You’ve insulted her fantasy.
Christoper has one of his rubbish paintings as his profile picture. He also has 782 facebook friends. Anyone who has that number of facebook ‘friends’ is clearly shallow and not worth listening to.
Jay has a photo of his daughter for his profile picture. What is it they’re all afraid of? Why don’t they show their faces?
Naved has posted a cartoon on his timeline which seems to suggest that domestic violence is humorous.
In conclusion your highness, sod ’em.
Nice
The article itself is up to your normal high standards and a great analogy for the mind of KP.
By not mentioning Sachin you will probably have LESS outraged comments than usual, so if you measure a good cricinfo article by the number of outraged indian fans that rise to the bait then you could say it’s not as good as the others, but by any other measure it’s every bit as good.
There are also less references to Zaltman in the comments section today too (eg Not as funny as Andy Zaltman. Need to have more good articles like those by Andy Zaltman), perhaps there is a correlation between indian fans love of Sachin and Zaltman?
The question is, which should we strive for?
(a) Being not as funny as Andy Zaltzman
(b) Being not as funny as The Two Chucks
We know and like all of the above people, incidentally.
Immediately above, or all the way to the top of the page?
We meant immediately above. We don’t know most of the commenters, except by (fake) name.
When it falls to Adrian to make a decision, he comes up with two radically different approaches to the problem, and then puts Sachin in to bat an innings in England, making a decision based on whether or not he makes a good score.
I believe the traditional remedy to crises of confidence is to say “sod them” and write whatever you enjoy. This however may not always be the most efficacious course of action in contemporary society. Or am I missing the boat entirely?
In any case, one of the things I have always loved about your blog is that I have no idea which audience you are “targeting”.
No, that is actually good advice. People can tell when you’re not into what you’re doing.