My career in journalism is a bit of an anomaly. For years I did a variety of other jobs: from house-painting to youth work, as well as sub-editing for magazines and book publishers. For about a decade I edited a left wing magazine, in the course of which I learned a great deal about writing but made very little money.

PakPassion.Net: How did you get into journalism? Was it something you always wanted to do and what was your big break? If you weren't a journalist what would you be doing?

Mike Marqusee: My career in journalism is a bit of an anomaly. For years I did a variety of other jobs: from house-painting to youth work, as well as sub-editing for magazines and book publishers. For about a decade I edited a left wing magazine, in the course of which I learned a great deal about writing but made very little money. It was only after publishing Anyone But England in 1994 – when I was 41 years old - that I began publishing articles in the mainstream press and getting paid for them.

People looking at a career in journalism from outside tend to glamorise it. For most of us, it's an endless struggle to secure decently paying work and it involves a great deal of rejection and disappointment. In compensation, there are the joys of writing and making one's opinions known. If I weren't a professional free-lance writer, god knows what I'd be doing!


PakPassion.Net: You've probably been asked this a bit but how/when were you first introduced to the game of cricket and who are your favourite players, both current and all time. Also, if you were to pick a team of players that you would like to see the most, who would you select in that XI?

Mike Marqusee: Since I grew up in the USA, I didn’t encounter cricket until relatively late in life. To be precise, it was during the long hot English summer of 1976 (I was 23 at the time), when Clive Lloyd’s magnificent West Indies side were pummeling the English. I began watching the tests on television, and was soon hooked.

Among the players I’ve actually seen in my cricket-watching years, my personal favourites would include Viv Richards, Malcolm Marshall, Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, Aravinda de Silva, G. Vishwanath, Wasim Akram, Curtley Ambrose, Dennis Lillee, David Gower …. Among performers I've watched over the last two years, say, I’d single out Muralitharan, Inzamam, Dravid, Flintoff, Warne, Kumble, Panesar, Brett Lee…. As for those I never got a chance to see, top of the list would be Sobers and Headley, SF Barnes, and Ranjitsinhji….


PakPassion.Net: The political left is not a homogenous, monochrome entity. Where do you identify yourself on the political left, who was your leftist inspiration and what do you see as the future of 'socialism'?

Mike Marqusee: I grew up in the USA in the 60s and was profoundly influenced by the political insurgencies of the time, the African-American freedom struggle and the worldwide campaign against the Vietnam War. Since then my politics have developed through involvement in all sorts of campaigns – trade union, anti-racist, anti-war. I was an active member of the British Labour Party for twenty years; I left in 2000 because I felt that under Tony Blair the party had become unrecognisable and more an impediment to social justice than a tool for achieving it. Since then, I've been involved in the anti-war movement, opposing US-UK attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and also in Palestine solidarity campaigns.

I'd describe myself as belonging to the anti-authoritarian, democratic, secular, non-sectarian left – at the moment best reflected in the World Social Forum process (I was lucky enough to attend the WSF in Mumbai in 2004). While I think Marxism remains a powerful instrument for understanding – and therefore changing – a world dominated (more than ever) by an economic elite, it must be a Marxism enriched by a pluralist absorption of different influences and ideas, a Marxism that has really learned the lessons of the grotesque failures of Stalinism, a Marxism that doesn’t assume it has the final word on all social and political problems. (If anyone is interested in more, please see my talk on the subject at http://www.mikemarqusee.com/index.php?p=41 )

I guess what I really believe in is human solidarity, and the human capacity for change.


PakPassion.Net: If you could have 5 autographs of anyone alive today, who would you choose and why?

Mike Marqusee: I once had Muhammad Ali’s autograph, but lost it! Autographs don’t really mean anything to me, though I do have Murali’s hanging on the wall above my desk. I love and live by Bob Dylan’s music, but for some reason would never want his autograph. It would seem crass compared to the richness of the songs.


PakPassion.Net: You have spent a lot of time writing on many varied subjects. Cricket fans and critics of the sport often say cricket could widen its appeal by introducing common sense to the game and learning from other areas of society - would you agree with this and how could the game be improved?

Mike Marqusee: Cricket can only be understood as part of a broader social canvas. I’m not sure what “common sense” means – the more you travel, the more you realise it’s defined in radically different ways in different places. However, one improvement I’d like to see is the introduction of a fair and transparent system of appeals against umpire’s and referee’s decisions. In tennis, a player can ask for a bad line-call to be over-ruled by the umpire, and for a bad umpiring decision to be reconsidered by the match referee.


PakPassion.Net: Is Sport war by other means? If so what is the influence of the current geo-political environment on the game of cricket and what are its long-term implications? As CLR James argued victory on the Cricket field, due to its status as the archetypal colonial game, was the catalyst for political change. Therefore is it good for World order that England lose?

Mike Marqusee: Sport should not be a proxy for war but it is sometimes used or seen that way. The aim of war is the destruction of the enemy; the aim of sport is fundamentally different: if you destroy your opponents, you won’t be able to play them again – and play, wonderfully purposeless, delightfully trivial, essentially human play, is the end of sport, i.e. it has no end but the pleasure it gives.

But because sport is played not in the abstract but in a real world marked by injustice, inequality and violence, the story does not end there. CLR described how cricket served as a vehicle for the expression and identification of an independent West Indian identity. One would love to know what he'd have to say about the the state of West Indian cricket today. I suspect he'd note how neo-liberal economics had re-subordinated West Indian economies to remote centres of power, how the growing gap between rich and poor had affected the relation between global televised sport and popular participation. Those trends arre present everywhere in the game today.

We live in world in which the US and its principal ally the UK are engaged in aggression - both military and economic – on various fronts. Within Britain, as within other western societies, the rights of immigrants and refugees have become defining, hotly disputed issues. In that context, English nationalism has some very dangerous edges, and there's no doubt that sporting victory – in football more than cricket - can sharpen those edges. That's one of the reasons why I continue to support Anyone But England (at this point, it's also sheer habit).

However, I think it's an error to be dogmatic about sporting partisanship of almost any kind. England losing at cricket for so many years was probably a useful if painful experience for English cricket fans. It changed their assumptions about the game's world order. It helped open their eyes to the diversity and attractiveness of global cricket. But over the same period, much more powerful forces were injecting renewed white supremacist or western supremacist notions into the public realm. That's much more significant than the result of any sporting contest.

England's Ashes victory in 2005 was celebrated for the most part in an easy-going, non-xenophobic manner. The current England squad are products of modern Britain - multi-racial, post-imperial - and at the moment more religiously diverse than any international cricket squad apart, I suppose, from Sri Lanka and India. That doesn't make England or English cricket some multi-cultural paradise; far from it. But it is a reflection of a process that is underway in this country, one that is far form complete or secure and which is under constant challenge from hostile political forces, but is nonetheless real.


PakPassion.Net: Mike - in your excellent book Anyone but England you dissected the obnoxious Tebbit test and were also one of the first to pick (pardon the pun) the hypocrisy and racism of the ball tampering allegations made against Pakistan in 1992. 14 years later Pakistan tour again and the same issues have blighted the current tour. What's your take on the verbal abuse Saj Mahmood got from British born and bred Pakistan supporters in the recent Headingley test.

Mike Marqusee: I wasn't there so I'm not sure how serious it was. My impression is that most was harmless banter - certainly Mahmood took it that way. The reality is that Mahmood and the fans enjoy a multiple social identity and part that is about having fun with it, mocking oneself and one another.


PakPassion.Net: The Hair/Inzy saga generally and did it surprise you that the British media took a more balanced view of the issue this time (it didn't surprise me as reverse swing was how the Ashes were won).

Mike Marqusee: Hair's conduct was outrageous and I think Inzy's action was the minimum required. I'm pleased that the British media did for the most part take a balanced view - a huge improvement on the abysmal performance in 1992. Part of that has to do with the legitmisation of reverse swing , and part of it with the fact that this was a dispute between the Pakistanis and an individual umpire (an Australian, to boot), not the England side or the England fans. It's also about an increased sensitivity on the part of the broadcasters, at least, to racial stereotyping. Interestingly, those articles attacking the Pakistanis that have appeared in the British press have come from writers who do not normally write about cricket - basically, people hose political agenda is to decry what they construe as the “political correctness” of others.

The ICC should clear Pakistan of the ball-tampering charge, apologise to the team, and remove Hair from the umpiring panel. In my view, he should have been removed ages ago; certainly after he made clear in his autobiography that he did not accept the ICC's ruling on Murali's action. Beyond that, there also need to be a review of the role of the match referee. Mike Proctor was a terruifc cricket,r but he was clearly way out of his depth at the Oval.


PakPassion.Net: Michael Holding recently discussed the concept of 'First World Hypocrisy' relating to the whole Darrell Hair controversy. Is he correct in his assertion?

Mike Marqusee: Yes. Holding's comments were spot-on. There's a new twist on the old double standard. It's now argued that any decision that doesn't go the preferred way of the English or Australian cricket elites is a “concession” either to “political correctness” or to south Asian power, which is somehow deemed less legitimate, less sporting, more suspect than first world power.


PakPassion.Net: Do you feel that the "Asian Bloc" in cricket has ANY influence on the running of this game or do the traditional owners of cricket i.e. Australia and England - rule the roost?

Mike Marqusee: The “Asian bloc” certainly has clout – inevitably so, because it represents by far the biggest market for the game – but the Anglo-Australian bloc retains enough power to offset that. The ICC head office has moved to a “neutral” venue (Dubai) but its chief full-time personnel are still drawn from Australia and Britain. More importantly, both the England and Australia boards are better organised, more efficient, more focused than their south Asian counterparts.


PakPassion.Net: How would you compare the cricket cultures of India and Pakistan and what are the essentially distinctive features of the Pakistan cricket culture?

Mike Marqusee: This is a fascinating question and a difficult one to answer. Though Indian and Pakistani cricket share a common root – and still have more in common with each other than with English, West Indian or Australian cricket – in the decades since partition they have inevitably bifurcated. Pakistan's cricket culture (partly because of its scanty domestic organisation, limited facilities, etc.) retains more intimate links with the grass-roots game, with the streets and with urban open spaces, than India's, and that can be seen in the more improvisatory (sometimes more rough-hewn) style of Pakistani cricketers, and in the innovative approach to quick bowling.


PakPassion.Net: Which international team do you think plays the most attractive cricket? And why?

Mike Marqusee: The Australians have played tremendously attractive cricket over the last decade: involving power-house batting, great spin and seam bowling, and hot-shot fielding. However, I can't say I've found them particularly attractive as individuals (exception being Gilchrist), and the machismo and puff-chested arrogance are not my thing. On their day, Pakistan play cricket as attractive as anything I've seen... but, as PakPassion people know, not every day is their day. What makes a cricket team attractive to me is a diversity of styles and skills, and an ability to transform adversity into advantage, as well as a dose of humour and good cheer.


PakPassion.Net: How would you compare this Pak team with the one that toured England in '87 and the one in '96?

Mike Marqusee: This was a disappointing tour for the Pakistanis- and for Pakistani fans here in England. Partly, that was due to the absence of the front-line fast bowlers; had Asif, Akhtar and Rana played all the Tests, England would surely have struggled. On the other hand, England were also without key players. So that excuse is not entirely satisfying. It was also significant that Akmal had a dire tour; that weakened the side both in the field and at the crease. Potentially, I think the current Pakistan side could be as good as any: but the fielding is terrible and the opening partnership still effectively non-existent; unless there's big improvement in both these area, the potential will not be fulfilled.


PakPassion.Net: If you were Inzamam and Darrell Hair had changed the ball without notifying you and awarded 5 penalty runs against your team, thereby implying they had cheated, what would YOU have done?

Mike Marqusee: More or less what Inzamam did: a visible protest of some kind was necessary. What's the point in continuing to play a cricket match under these circumstances? There's no dignity for the players, no confidence in the umpire, no clarity for the spectators. When such a flagrant injustice is perpetrated by authority, then the correct response is to challenge authority, and the only way to do that in cricket is to refuse to play (i.e. go on strike). I know many people feel Inzamam should have walked off straight away, but that's not his style and it's understandable that he wanted to consult with his team in private before taking action.


PakPassion.Net: Do you think Twenty20 could become bigger than odis and tests in terms of interest and attendance as well as publicity?

Mike Marqusee: I hope not! When it comes to a three hour bat-and-ball game, baseball is far more stimulating and satisfying than Twenty20, which forfeits nearly all the features that make cricket special. For a sporting contest to be dramatically satisfying, and to engage the interest of the spectator on deeper level than televised wallpaper, it has to be seen and felt to produce a result that is somehow the cumulative expression of the varied skills, strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Results in Twenty20 are too arbitrary, too dependent on accident, to offer that kind of satisfaction. Yes, the ODI is often stereotyped, and something needs to be done to give it spice (playing fewer of them would be a start) but it's still far more meaningful than Twenty20.


PakPassion.Net: Does cricket need more or less people like Shahid Afridi, Ricardo Powell, Dwayne Smith, whom some call entertainers, some call brainless sloggers?

Mike Marqusee: Cricket needs aggressive batsmen, not only because of the thrills they supply to the crowd, but because of their capacity to transform the state of play between the two sides – and the challenge they offer to bowlers and fielders. I think Afridi is a much better batsmen than Powell (haven't seen much of Smith). Great Test teams need batsmen with the ability to quicken the tempo as well as batsmen who can retrench , wait and watch. The key to aggressive batsmanship is to bring the brain into the “slogging” - and when Afridi, or Pietersen, are at their best, this is what they're doing.


PakPassion.Net: Bat has tended to dominate ball over the last few years. Restrictions on field placements and bouncers and the use of heavier bats have loaded the dice in the batsman's favour. In view of this, do you think any legislative changes ought to be made to the game - in either ODI's or Test Cricket - to readdress the balance between bat and ball?

Mike Marqusee: If you ask bowlers, they will say it's always been a batsmen's game. The restrictions on field placements are vital for ODIs – in fact, there's an argument for extending them. More than any legislative changes, what's most important for me is the production of competitive wickets – always easier said than done. In general, pacier, bouncier wickets would improve the bat-ball balance.


PakPassion.Net: SKY TV deal - good or bad for the OVERALL well being of the national game in England & Wales in the long term? My view is that it denies the majority of the cricket-loving public the opportunity to watch LIVE cricket - and that will have a profound effect on future generations of potential England cricketers.

Mike Marqusee: The Sky deal is thoroughly bad for cricket in Britain, where it is now impossible to watch any live cricket unless one pays pays a premium (over and above the basic payment for a satellite or cable subscription) of some £240 per year – a considerable sum for many people. The existing fan-base will shell out, if they can; but what about the fans of the future? If test cricket had not been available on free-to-air TV in 1976, I never would have had the chance to become a cricket fan.

The ground for the Sky deal was laid back in 1998, when the government “de-listed” test cricket, i.e. removed it from the list of premiere sporting events that had to be telecast free-to-air (such as the football World Cup and FA Cup finals, Wimbledon, etc.). this was done at the express request of the ECB: because they wanted the right to sell the game to the highest bidder, regardless of other concerns. At the time, I wrote an article criticising the decision and arguing that it would mean the eventual absorption of all cricket into the exclusive satellite-cable domain. The then Culture Secretary, Chris Smith (who was responsible for the de-listng) replied that I was needlessly worried, that he had been assured by the ECB that some cricket would always remain available free-to-air. I take no pleasure in having been proved right on this one.


PakPassion.Net: Matthew Hoggard was quoted as saying England would rather win the Ashes than win the World Cup. In Pakistan, no matter how much satisfaction a series win over India gives, a World Cup will always be the main prize?

Mike Marqusee: Yes, it's true that the Ashes are more important here than the World Cup, though were England to win the next WC that would probably begin to change. The prestige of the Ashes in Britain has to do with pedigree, tradition, and lingering assumptions about Western supremacy. In recent years it has also bee re-enforced by the fact that Australia have been the best in the wold and so defeating them is a major achievement, for any one. I still think a prolonged test series (at least four matches) represents the toughest, most complete, most engrossing contest cricket has to offer, but of course it can be played only between two nations at a time. The beauty of the world cup is the global nature of the competition, and it's in the WC that the fifty over format is most enjoyable – because each match is far more than just another in an endless series.


PakPassion.Net: Do you believe that England see every series as a preparation for the next Ashes contest and that this is the reason for them struggling for form?

Mike Marqusee: Partly, though I think Duncan Fletcher and the players were well aware that drawing a test series in India was also a major achievement, in its own way as impressive as beating the Aussies in England. The English media, however, are preoccupied with the Ashes: it's familiar, it's saleable, it's symbolic. That's a pity because the very limited coverage of cricket played by other counties hampers appreciation and development of the game.


PakPassion.Net: Why does England, compared to all other teams, take ODI cricket a lot less seriously? How different would things have been had England won the World Cup in '92?

Mike Marqusee: Until the 90s, England's record in ODIs was superior to their record in Tests; they were WC finalists not only in 92, but also in 87 and 79. Since then, they've been abysmal. It's strange, because English professional cricketers play far more domestic one day cricket than any others. And attendance at domestic one dayers is generally higher than for domestic first class matches – it's only at Test level that England fans pour into the grounds for the traditional fair.

England have always had a pragmatic, safety-first approach to ODI cricket: and Duncan Fletcher has made clear his preference for reliable workaday one-day cricketers who can do a bit of everything. They've tended to follow the innovations made by others only after a safe interval. I suspect this rests on a condescension to the one day game, a failure to grasp the need for adventure, tactical variety, and surprise. With few exceptions, the best Test cricketers are also the best one day players. One wonders: if Murali or Warne or Dravid had been English, would they have have been given the chance to play much ODI cricket?

Mike Marqusee: Thanks to all for the challenging questions!