Bravo Steven Davies!
Just a quick post to applaud the decision of Surrey (and England) wicket-keeper Steven Davies to go public about his sexuality. I think it is a very brave thing for him to have done. I congratulate him for his courage, and wish him well in facing the challenges ahead. His decision might also give heart to younger gay people enduring homophobic bullying, and help to spread the message that it gets better.
Here’s a picture of him starring with the bat for England against Pakistan last year.
Cricket is probably not one of the worst sports for homophobic attitudes, but he’s still bound to have to cope with some unpleasant barracking, both on the field and off. I’m sure he’ll be very apprehensive when he takes the field for the first games of the forthcoming County Championship, but he’s a talented cricketer and I’m sure he’ll answer his critics.
Moreover, if he gets selected for future England tours he might have to travel to countries where homosexuality is illegal, and who knows what will happen then. Still it’s good to hear that his England colleagues are supporting him, including captain Andrew Strauss and fellow wicket-keeper Matt Prior. Times have certainly changed. I couldn’t have imagined this happening even a decade ago.
Anyway, now that he’s “out” in one sense I hope he’ll avoid being so in the cricketing sense, at least while batting for England. Who knows? He might even score…
In the Dark 
March 1, 2011 at 11:27 am
Yes, it’s the declaration!
March 1, 2011 at 11:30 am
Is this a unique occasion of a batsman declaring himself “out”?
March 1, 2011 at 11:48 am
Bell was daft enough to do that in the recent tied ODI and was thankfully called back to resume his innings.
March 1, 2011 at 11:51 am
I’ve often wondered whether it is legal for a batsman to “walk” if the umpire gives him “not out” but he knows he is out.
March 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Until the 1960s many a batsman who was reasonably certain that he was LBW would ‘walk’ and I don’t think there was any requirement for the umpire to ratify it by raising his finger. Perhaps we should check whether finger-raising is now both necessary and sufficient and the history of any such changes.
March 1, 2011 at 12:40 pm
If a batsman simply walks off without declaring himself injured and the umpire considers him not out then presumably his failure to return within 3 minutes would mean that he is timed out. The wording of the relevant law, while clearly drafted to refer to his successor, is strictly applicable to himself also.
March 2, 2011 at 11:19 am
Actually a test case is needed on that because the fielding side might try to claim that the *next* batsman was timed out and that two wickets, not one, had fallen…
March 1, 2011 at 11:39 am
I always thought that playing straight was very over-rated.
March 1, 2011 at 11:51 am
Certainly as a straight I have not been able to hit the ball gaily round the field.
March 1, 2011 at 11:53 am
But you have a better chance of bowling a maiden over.
March 1, 2011 at 12:26 pm
“if he gets selected for future England tours he might have to travel to countries where homosexuality is illegal, and who knows what will happen then”
Interesting question. Unlike Basil d’Oliveira, whose skin colour would have been illegal in the hotels he would have stayed at on tour in South Africa in 1968/9, Davies would face court in such countries only if caught indulging in homosexual activity. Personally I take the view that if you go to another country then you should abide by the laws. Much as I like a drink, I wouldn’t go hunting for alcohol in a country under Sharia law – and not merely out of fear, but out of respect.
March 1, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I agree, that one should respect the laws of the land one is in. If you really dislike them then you shouldn’t go there! But I’m sure as a professional cricketer he wouldn’t mind abstaining while on tour. Not all gay blokes are sex addicts!
I’m more worried by the hostile reception he might get, e.g. in some Caribbean countries, although it is possible that some rabble rouser might declare him persona non grata just for what he is. Then it would be like the D’Oliveira affair.
March 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm
“But I’m sure as a professional cricketer he wouldn’t mind abstaining while on tour”
Then he’ll need to take a different attitude from many of the South African team, based on Herschelle Gibbs’ autobiography.
“some rabble rouser might declare him persona non grata just for what he is”
That would be deplorable. All of the ill feeling between evangelical Christians and gays comes about because we happen to live in a democracy where pressure groups can influence the State and the two groups lobby oppositely (eg, should Christian adoption agencies be forced to place children with gay couples?) I make a clear distinction between the political and personal over all issues and I count myself glad to have friends of diverse views.
March 1, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Phillip,
It is meaningless to say that “homosexuality is illegal [in country X]” without defining ‘homosexuality’.
The reference to angels dancing on pinheads is actually a later parody of mediaeval ‘scholastic’ theology – the scholastics never debated the number of angels that would fit. I don’t know “whether it is OK for a Catholic priest to be homosexual as long as he is celibate”. As for churches whose rule of faith is Sola Scriptura, here is St Paul (from ch.3 of his 1st letter to Timothy):
“An episkopos… must be a one-woman man and must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him…”
In the New Testament, congregations were run by an internal council of
episkopoi; the word means “overseer”. This quotation therefore indirectly answers your question. (Furthermore, the NT takes the view that *all* Christians are by default priests of Christ: 1 Peter 2:9.) Although ‘episkopos’ is also commonly translated as ‘bishop’, the NT describes many episkopoi per congregation; the inversion to many congregations per episkopos, as you find in the large denominations today, is without scriptural sanction.
Anton
March 1, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Does this actually forbid an episkopos to be single?
March 1, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“Does this actually forbid an episkopos to be single?”
That has been debated – although it is difficult today to disentangle the issue from the hierarchy question and the ordination question. My view is that in a congregation set up the NT way, the church council (ie the episkopoi) should be appointed from among the congregation’s married men who conform to Paul’s criteria; but if the wife of an episkopos dies, he should not be required to resign.
This raises the question of who appoints the episkopoi. Originally it would be the ‘apostolos’ [one who is sent] who came to the town and first preached the gospel; he would determine from the strength of faith and personalities of the converts which of them was suited to leadership. After he had passed on, the council would appoint from *within* the congregation as new converts grew to maturity.
Anton
March 1, 2011 at 12:32 pm
It’s a question of who declares boycotts. What I don’t want is for athletes who do choose to go to a country having laws widely different from their own to then get boycotted by their own sports administrators. Leave it to the individual, *please*!
March 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I’m sure Boycott is too old to be selected anyway.
March 1, 2011 at 7:02 pm
“Ba gum lad, ah could bat better than that shower even at my age…”