Sticks and stones...

Don’t you just love the press? A well meaning body of persons, no doubt, for the most part...but who seem to have a bit of a problem with the meaning of the word ‘ego’.

I’ve heard this word bandied around by sports writers in conjunction with the Surrey team for quite a while now, and its misuse is beginning to rankle a touch. Apparently the team are stuffed full of them, meaning that the young captain cannot possibly be able to keep them under control.

In the true sense of the word ego, there are indeed numerous people in the team who have an idea of their worth. And why shouldn’t they have? Some, like Ramps with his 34,000 first class runs and 111 first class centuries, and Nel with his international exploits for South Africa, will know their value. But the word ego as used by these sports journalists is meant to suggest Surrey have too many problematic hotheads who think only of themselves, not the team, known to put their own interests first. People who play for the cash and the fancy cars rather than the badge they wear on their Surrey shirts.

Of course, in an ideal world you would have a team that had all come up through the ranks of the Surrey academy system. Some of the youngsters are pushing through: some already have. But you have got to have some older statesmen in there to help these people learn as they go about their business. Look how well Harinath and Ramps bat together and you will see what I mean! And if that means buying in some experienced old hands from other counties in the interim, so be it. Although I’m sure there are plenty out there who would prefer to see the youngsters fail rather than the older team members. I suppose the inference is that it’s difficult to form a bond between such a mishmash of strong personalities at varying stages in their careers.

I’ve seen various names bandied about in reference to the word ‘ego’. Schofield: because of his past acrimonious break from Lancashire? Does that make him an egotist?

Tremlett? How's he meant to be an ego? He's as fragile as cut glass but I’ve not heard a word said against him.

Ramps? For being the best county level player in the last twenty years, possibly even post war? Does being a perfectionist and throwing the odd hissy fit automatically make you an attention seeking prima donna, only out for yourself?

Nel? For being too passionate, hot headed and for transgressing ECB rules?

None of these individuals remotely match my definition of the word ego.

It’s simply a very lazy excuse by people who want to believe they are in the know, trying to explain away the Surrey malaise of hardly winning a thing in the last three or so years. And it's a huge, unprofessional assumption from those who should know better to come out with that kind of damaging nonsense! Can someone explain what these players have done to have themselves labelled egos? Because I don't get it! As I have mentioned already, it's these oddball individuals who are actually functioning for Surrey!

And if this is not what the journalists mean by their use of the word ego, I suggest they get themselves a dictionary that gives them some appropriate alternatives!