Good Morning at the Last Dragon: Colin Cowdrey and the Beauty of Futile Courage

“Good morning, my name’s Cowdrey.”

The line sounds absurdly polite, almost comic, until you remember the moment in which it was delivered. Jeff Thomson was already at the top of his run in Perth, December 1974, bristling with speed, menace, and what he later admitted was a desire to “kill somebody”. Into that cauldron stepped Colin Cowdrey, armed with nothing more modern than a bat, an England cap, and an instinctive courtesy drawn from another century of cricket. It remains one of the strangest greetings the game has ever known—half etiquette, half provocation, and entirely Cowdrey.

His presence on that Ashes tour was not strategic. It was symbolic. England, battered and bruised after the first Test, needed more than reinforcements; they needed reassurance. So they summoned Cowdrey, aged 41, veteran of a different Australia, a different game altogether. It was an act of what might best be called futile heroism—an old-fashioned sacrifice offered not because it would change the outcome, but because it might restore dignity.

Peter Cook once joked that a futile sacrifice raises the tone of a war. Cowdrey’s recall raised the tone of the series in exactly that way. It did nothing to stop Australia’s rampage. It did everything to remind cricket what courage used to look like.

Great athletes understand, in theory, that one day there will be a final dragon. What distinguishes them is that they never recognise it in practice. They do not pause for symbolism or self-preservation. They say good morning and carry on.

Cowdrey did precisely that. He flew 47 hours to Australia, had a single net session, packed his MCC woolly, and walked out at No.3 against the fiercest fast-bowling partnership the game had yet assembled. If you are going to make a gesture doomed to fail, you might as well make it properly.

He looked, even on television, like a survivor from a vanished civilisation: a trifle stout, helmetless, moving with a graceful economy that seemed tragically out of date. The contrast was brutal. Lillee and Thomson were cricket’s future—physical, explosive, unsentimental. Cowdrey was the past, strolling calmly into a storm.

Asked why he had accepted the challenge, his eyes lit up with a familiar spark. “The challenge! I couldn’t resist it! That’s the thing about sport—you have to be perpetually two years old.”

This was not nostalgia. It was philosophy. The eternal youth of the great competitor lies not in reflexes or muscle tone but in curiosity—in the urge to test oneself even when logic screams retreat.

There was fragility in those early moments. A couple of wild plays-and-misses hinted at humiliation. Yet slowly, improbably, Cowdrey settled. He found his leave. He shuffled across his stumps. He began to score. The embers of the great batsman glowed again, and for brief moments even flickered into flame.

When Thomson struck him square in the chest, it was not evidence of failure but of adjustment. He was getting into line. Courage, after all, is not a diminishing resource. Cowdrey had drawn upon it too many times in his career for it to desert him now.

He even found enjoyment in the contest. Turning to David Lloyd at the other end, he remarked cheerfully, “This is fun!” In doing so, he achieved something truly miraculous: leaving Bumble Lloyd temporarily speechless.

Sport can perform small miracles like that. But its main business is truth, and the truth was harsh. Cowdrey made 22 in the first innings—respectable, resilient, unbroken in spirit. It felt like a moral victory, a quiet defiance against a ruthlessly efficient excellence. Australia, of course, won easily. They took the series 4–1. Thomson claimed 33 wickets, Lillee 25. History marched on without hesitation.

Cowdrey’s tour numbers tell a simple story: a highest score of 41, an average of 18.33. Statistically, he failed. Emotionally, symbolically, culturally—he succeeded in a way that statistics cannot hope to explain.

Because after that series, cricket changed. Quixotry vanished. Sentiment was priced out of selection meetings. Professionalism hardened into doctrine. Perhaps Cowdrey’s anachronistic bravery even nudged the game toward Kerry Packer’s inevitable revolution. The sport could no longer afford gestures like his.

It was, undeniably, a ridiculous interlude.

It was also beautiful.

And unforgettable.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Pakistan in New Zealand, 1995-96: Collapse, Control, and the Quiet Authority of Mushtaq Ahmed

Eight days is not long in the calendar, but in the emotional weather of a touring side it can feel like a season. Eight days after a consolation win in Australia — a victory that felt more like relief than resurrection — Pakistan found themselves again standing in borrowed light, this time under New Zealand skies. The question lingered unspoken: was Sydney a beginning, or merely an echo?

The answer arrived slowly, spun rather than struck, shaped by patience rather than force.

Pakistan began as they so often did in that era — beautifully, recklessly. Aamir Sohail and Ramiz Raja stitched together an opening partnership of 135 that seemed to quiet the ground, their bats working in gentle agreement, the ball softened, the bowlers disarmed. It was cricket played in balance, the kind that invites optimism.

Then, as if someone had leaned too heavily on the future, it collapsed.

From comfort came chaos. Ten wickets fell for 73 runs, the innings folding in on itself with the suddenness of a thought interrupted. Chris Cairns was the agent, his burst sharp and unrelenting — three wickets in 21 balls, three truths revealed in quick succession. Sohail, who had looked so settled, lost his balance and knocked over his own stumps for 88, undone not by deception but by the smallest misalignment. It felt symbolic. Control had been surrendered, and Pakistan were once again chasing themselves.

New Zealand batted with restraint, if not dominance. Craig Spearman, on debut, played with the enthusiasm of a man keen to leave a footprint — five fours, a six off Mushtaq Ahmed, a promise briefly illuminated before a top-spinner bent time just enough to deceive him. The hosts closed the first day three down, and when only Stephen Fleming fell early next morning, the Test tilted gently away from Pakistan.

There were moments when the game could have hardened beyond retrieval. Ramiz Raja dropped Chris Cairns at mid-on when he was on 30 — a simple chance, heavy with consequence. Cairns went on to make 76, adding 102 with Roger Twose, and for a while New Zealand batted as if they were laying permanent claim to the match. Then Wasim Akram intervened.

There are bowlers who operate within the game, and others who rearrange it. Wasim belonged to the latter. Once he separated Cairns and Twose, the resistance dissolved. The last six wickets fell for 65, Wasim carving through them with five for 14 in ten overs — a reminder that decline, in his case, was always exaggerated, always temporary.

New Zealand’s lead of 78 felt useful, not decisive. Pakistan understood this too. When they batted again, they did so as if chastened, as if something had been learned in the wreckage of the first innings. By the close of the second day they had moved 60 runs ahead with only one wicket lost, though Ramiz Raja was forced to retire hurt, the wrist stiff with pain and uncertainty.

What followed on the third day was not spectacular cricket, but something rarer: disciplined cricket. Pakistan batted through the entire day, hour by hour, minute by minute, refusing temptation. Ijaz Ahmed and Inzamam-ul-Haq shared a partnership of 140 that felt built not on flair but on mutual trust. Inzamam fell at slip, but the rhythm remained.

Ijaz, given life on 81 when Parore spilled a chance, turned reprieve into declaration. After lunch, he moved with a new certainty, stepping beyond the nervous nineties into his fourth Test hundred. It took almost five hours. It included 13 fours and two sixes. More importantly, it carried authority — the quiet authority of a man no longer asking permission.

Salim Malik steadied the middle, Ramiz Raja returned, bruised but unbowed, to craft another half-century. When Pakistan were finally dismissed for 434 on the fourth morning — Waqar Younis and Mushtaq Ahmed having added a brisk 41 for the ninth wicket — the lead stood at 357. The match had been pulled back from the edge and reshaped entirely.

New Zealand chased bravely, if briefly. Spearman and Young added 50, delaying the inevitable with optimism, but once Mushtaq found his way through, the innings lost its spine. The score slipped to 75 for five, and when captain Lee Germon was run out at 101 for six, the Test seemed already to belong to memory.

Roger Twose resisted, as he had all match, gathering another half-century from the wreckage. But resistance without belief rarely alters outcomes. On the final morning, Pakistan required little more than an hour to close the door.

Mushtaq Ahmed finished with seven for 56 — his best in Test cricket — completing a match haul that brought his tally to 28 wickets in three Tests. This was no longer promise. This was arrival. Waqar Younis, relentless as ever, claimed his 200th Test wicket in his 38th match, bowling Nash and marking another milestone in a career that seemed to accumulate them without ceremony.

There was one final footnote. Danny Morrison, who had already equalled Bhagwat Chandrasekhar’s record of 23 Test ducks in the first innings, postponed infamy by scoring a single before falling to Mushtaq. Even records, it seemed, were waiting their turn.

Pakistan left the ground as winners, but also as something else — a team that, for once, had not relied solely on chaos or brilliance. This was a victory spun into being, patiently, deliberately, by a leg-spinner who understood that Test matches are not seized in moments, but shaped over days.

And in that understanding, Pakistan may have found something far more enduring than a win.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Xabi Alonso’s Bernabéu Trial: A Better Madrid, But Is It Too Late?

On the night many at Real Madrid expected to sack him, Xabi Alonso walked into the Bernabéu knowing he was managing not just a football match, but a verdict. He watched his battered, makeshift team rise against Manchester City with spirit and defiance—only to fall again. When the final whistle arrived, the whistles from the stands followed. Alonso embraced Pep Guardiola, disappeared down the tunnel without a backward glance, and left behind the same question that has hung over this club all season: Is this enough to save him?

A Coach on the Edge, A Team Showing Life

Six injured defenders. No Camavinga. No Militão, Carvajal, Mendy, Alaba, or Alexander-Arnold. Kylian Mbappé, the supposed face of a new era, scratched at the last minute with an ankle issue. Four Castilla players on the bench. Fede Valverde reinvented himself as a right-back and captain. Gonzalo García pushed into the XI. Dani Ceballos, long forgotten, suddenly became a creative hub.

It was not a lineup; it was a plea.

And yet, Madrid started with something they have lacked for weeks: urgency. Vinícius demanded noise from the Bernabéu, Rodrygo rediscovered a pulse with his first goal in 33 games, and the players ran—truly ran—for their coach. Their early intensity forced City into errors. For 25 minutes, it looked like Real Madrid again.

Rodrygo’s goal was more than a finish—it was a statement. He ran straight to Alonso, embracing him publicly at one of the most precarious moments in the coach’s brief tenure.

“It’s a complicated moment for him too,” Rodrygo said, “and I wanted to show we are united.”

But unity does not always bring salvation.

Madrid’s Fragility Returns

If Madrid had rediscovered their heartbeat, they had not repaired their flaws. A scrambled corner, then Antonio Rüdiger’s catastrophic decision to lunge at Erling Haaland in the box, flipped the night upside down. Haaland does not miss those penalties. Courtois briefly preserved dignity with a miraculous double save, but the damage was done.

In the second half, Manchester City began to play like Manchester City. Jérémy Doku tore at Madrid’s patched-together defence. Madrid, unable to build sustained attacks without chaos, reverted to hopeful rushes forward. The whistles returned. So did the anxiety.

Yet Madrid still nearly clawed back the draw:

– Tchouaméni heading inches wide

– Vinícius missing an empty net

– Rodrygo flashing a shot just over

– And Endrick, forgotten all season, rattling the crossbar in despair

Fine margins. Another night where courage was undeniable, but the outcome was irreversible.

Pep’s Unfiltered Advice—and the Reality

Before this first managerial meeting between student and mentor, Guardiola was asked what advice he’d give Alonso. His answer was blunt, vulgar, and true:

“Que mee con la suya.” – Piss with your own penis. Do it your own way.

But could Alonso truly do that?

With seven key players unavailable, his choices were more constrained than conviction. And yet, there were signs of a coach trying to reshape a broken team—Ceballos as a playmaker, Valverde as captain, Vinícius moved centrally to re-centre the attack, Rodrygo restored to confidence.

The football wasn’t perfect, but it was purposeful. The question is whether it came too late.

The Boardroom: Suspended Sentence, Uncertain Future

Last Sunday night, after a run of two wins in seven matches, sections of Madrid’s hierarchy—never known for patience—were ready to dismiss Alonso. His reprieve was conditional: show life against City, show progress, and show something.

He did.

But Madrid still lost. And in a club where performances matter but results dictate survival, that distinction is rarely enough.

As Alonso said afterwards, “This bad moment will pass.”

The problem is that Real Madrid coaches aren’t always given time to wait for the passing.

The Verdict: Improvement, Yes. Salvation, Uncertain.

Madrid were better. Much better.

They competed, not capitulated. They showed spirit, unity, and structure that had been missing for weeks. The fans felt it. The players felt it. Even Guardiola felt it.

But—and this is the painful truth—Real Madrid measure progress with comebacks, not consolation. Near-misses do not absolve defeats. Improving while losing is still losing.

Alonso is not blameless either. His substitutions were questionable; Gonzalo García should have stayed on longer, Vinícius should have come off earlier. Tactical bravery is one thing; managerial stubbornness is another. Alonso occasionally shoots himself in the foot—and on nights like this, every mistake echoes louder.

Final Opinion: Madrid Showed Life, But the Coach’s Future Still Hangs by a Thread

This match proved two things at once:

1. Xabi Alonso’s Madrid is still fighting.

2. Real Madrid are still falling short.

The Bernabéu saw signs of a team trying to rise again, but signs cannot replace points. The club must now decide whether this performance represents a foundation—or a farewell.

If the standard is improved, Alonso stays.

If the standard is results, he may already be gone in all but name.

As harsh as it sounds, Madrid are a club that does not wait for better days.

And right now, Xabi Alonso’s future depends on whether the people who run this club believe that what they saw was a beginning—or just the last spark before the lights go out.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

The Pakistan-West Indies Test Series 1990: A Saga of Resilience, Strategy, and Changing Fortune

The Test series between Pakistan and the West Indies was an enthralling spectacle that captivated cricket fans around the world. Over three Tests, both teams showcased extraordinary skills, adaptability, and the ability to overcome significant challenges. The series unfolded on pitches that tested each team’s resolve, with fluctuating fortunes that ultimately produced an unforgettable narrative of courage, strategy, and individual brilliance.

First Test at Karachi: A Test of Patience and Tactical Brilliance

The opening Test at Karachi saw West Indies bat first on a pitch that was devoid of grass, with a variable bounce that would later prove to be crucial. West Indian opener Desmond Haynes, in his characteristic style, anchored the innings and was the only batsman to really prosper on a tricky surface, scoring a composed 122 runs. This century marked Haynes’ 15th Test hundred and was a testament to his adaptability and immense skill. His partnership with Richie Richardson, which contributed 73 runs for the second wicket, looked promising. However, as so often happens in cricket, just when West Indies seemed to be in control, the match took a sharp turn.

Richardson, in an impulsive move, fell to the leg-spin of Mushtaq Ahmed, a key moment that tilted the balance in Pakistan’s favour. Even Haynes, who looked set for a big score, was fortunate not to be dismissed when Waqar Younis had him caught behind on 92. This was an unlucky moment for Younis, who was bowling superbly and had already taken two early wickets, but his persistence was undeniable as he claimed five wickets across the innings, becoming a key figure in Pakistan’s comeback. His ability to extract bounce and movement from the pitch showed why he was a constant threat throughout the series.

The West Indies’ innings faltered after the initial stability, with the middle order losing wickets at regular intervals. Logie’s lapse in concentration, and his dismissal when seemingly set, further compounded their troubles. Despite some resistance, West Indies were only able to post a modest total, leaving Pakistan with a target to chase that seemed daunting but not insurmountable.

Pakistan's Resolute Response: Shoaib Mohammad and Salim Malik Lead the Charge

On the second day, Pakistan’s response to the West Indian total seemed dire. The team was reeling at 27 for three, and the momentum appeared firmly with the West Indies. However, this was the moment that the match began to turn in Pakistan’s favour, thanks to the brilliant fightback by Shoaib Mohammad and Salim Malik. The two batsmen remained unbeaten until the close of play, successfully weathering the storm and anchoring Pakistan's reply.

The next day, both batsmen continued to frustrate the West Indian bowlers, building a partnership that became the cornerstone of Pakistan’s recovery. Shoaib Mohammad, the son of the great Hanif Mohammad, was particularly composed, offering a stern challenge to the West Indies attack. Salim Malik, playing with grit and determination, reached his eighth Test century, batting for over four hours. His 100 was not just a milestone but a statement of Pakistan’s resilience. In contrast to the West Indies’ middle-order collapse, Pakistan’s middle-order flourished, with Shoaib adding another 80 runs with Imran Khan before his dismissal after batting for 314 balls.

Imran Khan’s leadership and batting were crucial during this phase. He batted for over five hours, amassing an unbeaten 73 runs, showing extraordinary patience and composure. Although he was struck on the leg and could not field later in the match, his role as a leader and as a contributor to the total was immense.

West Indies’ Second Innings: A Collapse Under the Weight of Pressure

Despite a sound start to their second innings, where they cleared their first-innings deficit, West Indies’ batting collapsed under the pressure of Pakistan’s aggressive bowling. From a seemingly comfortable position, they lost five wickets for just 42 runs in 15 overs. The shift in momentum was palpable, and at the close of the third day, West Indies found themselves in a precarious position—only 88 runs ahead with just three wickets in hand.

On the final morning, Pakistan’s bowlers, led by Waqar Younis, were relentless. In just 21 balls, they wrapped up the West Indies innings, finishing their rivals off with clinical precision. The West Indian collapse was so sudden that even the partisan Karachi crowd was caught off-guard. This dramatic shift set up Pakistan with a chaseable target of 98 runs.

Pakistan’s response was measured. The team adopted a cautious approach, steadily moving towards the target. The victory, achieved with a session to spare, was a result of Pakistan’s brilliant middle-order recovery and their ability to capitalize on West Indies' mistakes. The game had shifted in Pakistan’s favour, and their ability to close out the match was a testament to their resolve.

Second Test at Faisalabad: A West Indian Rebound

The second Test at Faisalabad was a sharp contrast to the first. West Indies, after a scintillating performance from Malcolm Marshall, levelled the series within three days. Marshall’s spell, where he took four wickets in just 13 balls, precipitated a dramatic collapse in Pakistan’s second innings. From a relatively stable 145 for four, Pakistan found themselves on the brink of disaster, collapsing to 146 for nine, with their middle-order unable to cope with the West Indian fast bowlers. Marshall’s pace and swing had undone Pakistan, and despite brief moments of resistance, they were effectively knocked out of contention.

In their second innings, West Indies lost their captain, Viv Richards, off the first ball. However, a steady partnership between Richardson and Hooper helped them recover. Hooper, in particular, played an outstanding innings, scoring an unbeaten 107, leading his team to a comfortable victory. The partnership of 96 runs between Richardson and Hooper guided West Indies past the target with 50 minutes to spare after tea.

Imran Khan’s decision to bat first proved to be a costly one, as Pakistan’s batsmen failed to capitalize on the conditions, and only Salim Malik’s 74 stood out. The West Indian fast bowlers, led by Marshall and Bishop, were too potent, and despite some early breakthroughs, West Indies capitalized on Pakistan's collapse to level the series.

Third Test at Lahore: Imran Khan's Defiant Stand

The third Test in Lahore was an absolute thriller, with Pakistan needing 346 runs to win and West Indies setting a daunting target. On the final morning, Pakistan were 110 for four, and the match seemed poised to end in a West Indian victory. However, the indomitable Imran Khan stepped up, leading by example with an unbeaten 58. His resistance, combined with a valiant 67-run stand for the fifth wicket with debutant Masood Anwar, frustrated the West Indian bowlers for more than four hours.

The pitch, which had already deteriorated, played a crucial role in the game. The cracks widened, and the surface began to break up, making batting increasingly difficult. West Indies, after a strong first innings, were struggling to maintain their grip on the match. Pakistan’s bowlers, particularly Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, showed grit and determination, with Akram taking the final four wickets in just five balls on the last morning, a remarkable feat that even M. J. C. Allom and C. M. Old had previously achieved.

Imran’s resilience in the chase was unmatched, as he faced 196 balls, hitting just three boundaries, showcasing his resolve. Although Pakistan’s target was always going to be difficult, their approach—defiant and relentless—gave them a chance to fight till the end. Despite losing Salim Malik and Shoaib Mohammad, Anwar’s defiant 130-ball innings and a partnership between Imran and Akram provided Pakistan with a chance to secure a draw. With the fading light and the inevitability of a draw, Pakistan held on, ending the series in a determined stalemate.

Conclusion: A Series of Fortitude, Strategy, and Tactical Brilliance

The Pakistan-West Indies Test series was a series full of character, resilience, and unforgettable moments. While West Indies displayed flashes of brilliance, Pakistan’s ability to fight back from difficult situations defined the series. Whether it was Imran Khan’s leadership and defiant batting, or the relentless pace attack of Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram, Pakistan’s resolve was evident at every turn. For West Indies, the tactical genius of Malcolm Marshall, the maturity of Richardson, and the composure of Hooper highlighted their class. In the end, the series was a testament to the unpredictable nature of cricket, where individual brilliance, tactical awareness, and sheer resilience combine to create unforgettable narratives.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Karachi 2000: England Won Deservingly, Pakistan Lost Needlessly

The evening Azaan had barely faded across Karachi when Graham Thorpe’s Chinese cut skidded off Saqlain Mushtaq and sent England into raptures. Twelve stubborn English supporters roared in the gathering darkness, but the significance of the moment reached far beyond the National Stadium. After 39 barren years, England had finally conquered Pakistan on its own soil. For Pakistan, unbeaten in Karachi for 34 Tests, the fortress had fallen—and in a fashion that was painfully avoidable.

Looking back, England’s win did not come from luck or favourable light. It came from discipline, belief, and Nasser Hussain’s blunt mantra: “Stay in the contest at all costs.” While England were still a team learning how to win after a decade of failures, they understood how to not lose. And against a Pakistan side drifting between caution and confusion, that was enough.

But if England rose to the occasion, Pakistan shrank from it. Their collapse on the final morning—seven wickets vanishing for 80—was a familiar ailment. What followed, however, was a failure of leadership that turned a salvageable situation into a slow, deliberate self-sabotage.

Much has been said about Pakistan’s defeat, yet too little about the tactical vacuum that enabled it. My contention is blunt: Moin Khan misread the moment, misused his resources, and misunderstood the psychology of defending a total under fading light.

Instead of creating pressure, Pakistan immediately dispersed it. Waqar Younis bowled with only a solitary slip—removed after Atherton struck a few boundaries. Against a fragile English top order, this was a surrender disguised as strategy. With two early breakthroughs, Pakistan had England exactly where they wanted them, yet the field remained spread, the intent timid, the plan reactive.

No Test match has ever been saved through passive hope.

Saqlain Mushtaq was one of the best options for Pakistan back then alongside other brilliant perforners , but even great bowlers endure barren spells. He had been off-rhythm since Lahore, and yet Moin persisted with him for 32 of the 42 overs bowled. The three wickets Saqlain claimed came not from deception but from England’s own misjudgments. Once Thorpe and Hick settled, Pakistan needed invention, not repetition.

Perhaps the most baffling decision was withholding Waqar Younis when Graeme Hick walked in. Few bowlers have tormented Hick more; Waqar had dismissed him repeatedly, including in the first innings. In the gloaming, even a half-fit Waqar—armed with reverse swing—would have been Hick’s nightmare. Instead, spin dribbled on, gaps widened, and England’s partnership flourished.

This was not strategy. It was inertia.

Pakistan’s attempt to manipulate the over rate—slowing proceedings to exploit the dying light—was not only transparent but tactically counterproductive. The umpires refused to indulge it, England refused to be rattled, and the tactic ultimately consumed Pakistan’s own clarity.

Had Pakistan attacked early with slips, maintained pressure after early wickets, alternated pace intelligently, and acknowledged Saqlain’s limitations that day, the final session could have looked entirely different. Even a drawn match—thus a series victory—was well within reach. Instead, the defeat became emblematic of a wider malaise: a reluctance to think boldly when the moment demands courage.

Nothing should detract from England’s achievement. Thorpe’s mastery, Hick’s calm defiance, and Hussain’s strategic clarity formed the backbone of one of England’s most significant modern victories. They earned their win through patience, intensity, and respect for the situation.

Pakistan, conversely, betrayed their own strengths. They possessed just enough firepower to defend 176—if deployed with imagination. They chose caution, and caution in cricket often resembles fear.

Captains, like economists, must contend with scarce resources. The art lies in maximizing them. Moin Khan had enough pieces on the chessboard to force a stalemate, perhaps even a victory. What he lacked was the boldness to move them into attacking positions.

Karachi 2000 will be remembered as England’s night of deliverance.

It should also be remembered as Pakistan’s lesson in leadership:

Negative tactics do not save matches.

They only guarantee defeat with fewer excuses.

The downward spiral of Pakistan Cricket, echoed around the world in 2000 - everyone heard, except Pakistan! 

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar