Rogers waxes lyrical on the eve of a new millennium
1-92 was the first year of the Reds C-Grade. also the year I resumed playing cricket. The events were completely unrelated. I arrived Reds the following season, having given the away after just one, unfulfilling season at a club. Possibly the first of many Ian Clark.
I knew very little about the club before I I'd played a social match with Ian and, witnessing his deeds at the bowling crease, that I might be a chance to get a game at the club he played for.
While politics were not the issue they apparently once were, I suspect Ian was relieved to discover my own ideology was not dissimilar from that of the club as a whole. What impressed me more, however, were the club's policies and the players' attitudes towards new recruits. Selection as a result of training attendance sounded like an excellent policy and was strictly adhered to - in the C-Grade at any rate. This compared most favourably with my prior experience of training twice a week for the joy of playing a solitary game for the season, with a captain I met neither before nor since. Conversation at Naughtons was similarly a far cry from the near ostracism that I encountered elsewhere (undoubtedly stemming from my inability to claim a heritage dating back to the Under 12 football team). Now all I had to worry about was how I could make my limited knowledge of modern European cinema last through an hour long conversation without making myself appear completely ignorant in the process. Still, at least you could bum a smoke from the guy waxing lyrical about the Golden Age of Lithuanian Drama while waiting to reveal how you once saw a really good Icelandic comedy but can't remember the name or what it was about.
It has been argued that, in seven years since then, the club has moved steadily further from its ideological roots. I find it hard to refute this. Even in the time that I've been with the club, I've noticed changes to the nature of typical Reds discussions. I'll concede that politics is a less prominent topic of discussion in 1999 than it seemed in 1992. The same can probably be said of socio-economic theory. Whether this in itself indicates that these issues are no longer important to the players is debatable. As far as matters of cricket are concerned, concerns are raised every season about the flexibility or otherwise of the selection process. Surely this is a major tenet of the club's structure and any departure from the stated policy is anathema to .the Reds as an entity. Having been a member of the selection committee for a few years, I have an obvious bias here, but the case I would argue is that what sets this club aside from many others is not simply that such a policy exists, but also that in the event of its being breached, players feel comfortable approaching the selectors with their concerns or complaints. Ideology aside, players surely maketh the club; and approachability is clearly a Reds staple.
To answer the question of whether the Reds Cricket Club has lost much of its ideology over the past twenty years, I would offer the following: if the original Reds concept was of the imposition and subsequent implementation of rigid doctrine, then yes. On the other hand, if the club charter of 1979 provided for a progressive, flexible attitude toward policy while retaining a basic, integral "Reds" structure, then surely the club has remained true to that ideal. Maybe its the changing face of the club that sees lowbrow conversation dominating Friday evenings at Naughtons, but I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I enjoy the odd chat about football, beer and women. I also, however, love a good dissertation on Slovakian slapstick and - as far as I know - this is the only cricket club where that's on offer.