King of spin

When Giles was England's best spinner, I was right behind him, but, for Christ's sake, why was he playing in those first 2 tests? Still, no use dwelling. Monty is king. I don't suppose he'll ever be dropped again. What are the odds on his breaking Botham's record for most wickets by an English bowler? Don't you just love getting carried away? It sounds like he didn't bowl Australia out as much as they got themselves out, but there was always a chance he would do that because the Australians like to dominate a bowler and Monty, as he has shown against all the subcontinental teams (save Bangladesh, but I think we can assume that one) is indominatable. It does sound like he got Gilchrist out though. Gilchrist, I seem to remember reading in a cricinfo article many moons ago, has a bit of a weakness against left spin. Add that to his weakness against high class round the wicket pace bowling and it seems unlikely that he'll score many more during the rest of this series, especially because, yes, Harmison's back... hopefully. I didn't think he would be. Frankly, I thought he'd pretty much lost it for good, that his nerves were shot, but maybe he had a bit of luck getting Ponting early (he had to fail sometime) which gave him a bit of confidence and... well, look at those figures. Not just wickets but economical too.
So, has the momentum shifted? Thank god Warne put down Collingwood at first slip just before the end. That could be crucial. I hope it is. We need a decent lead, at least a hundred, I think, to put a bit of pressure on the home team and, especially, their aging batsmen. Where are the runs going to come from? At least the signs are that the English batsmen are going to attack. They don't seem to be very good at defending.

Sweet dreams

2-0 down. That last day was particularly painful, but, but, I don't know. Since Thorpe left the team, England, when batting in particular, have shown a distinct tendency to throw it all away. They almost did during the Ashes on several occasions. Then they did against Pakistan in Pakistand and again against Sri Lanka. There's nothing solid in the middle there. The calming influence has gone. Maybe if Collingwood can learn to rotate the strike...
I haven't been too happy with the team selection, or the build up to this series. My team for the first test, given the form and fitness of the players, would have been something like: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Read, Mahmood, Anderson, Hoggard, Panesar, with Strauss as captain. Even then, I would have been tempted to play an extra batsman, namely Shah (who plays spin well, and seemed to have a good test match temperament when he played against India) instead of Flintoff, who hadn't batted for a long time, and whose fitness to bowl had to be suspect. You can't just walk into a Test match series after a long injury without having played for a while and expect to be at the top of your game. We won well against Pakistan last summer with four bowlers and though I'm sure my team probably wouldn't have done much better than the one picked (especially given Anderson's bowling), it is depressing to see Harmison picked in the hope that all will suddenly click. Meanwhile, I can't believe that Collingwood would be much worse a bowler than Giles who takes few wickets and lacks penetration. As for Giles' batting, when did this myth develop that he is a decent batsman. He's not bad but he's not good. When he was England's best spinner, he had to play, but now he isn't. Not at all. And he'd been out for a long time injured. In fact, if the management wanted a spinner to keep things tight and score some lower order runs, they should have picked Dalrymple.
As for Flintoff's captaincy, the signs during the Sri Lanka series were that it wouldn't be great. Strauss, on the other hand, seemed to have the nous of Vaughan. It is a shame that he isn't leading the team now, especially if it leaves us with a non-bowling, out of form Flintoff at number 6.
Given that Flintoff kind of has to lead the team now, I would pick the same team as I would have done for the first Test, especially as Anderson has shown some form in the warm up game, and who knows, win the toss and maybe, just maybe, things will start going for England. Strauss and Cook could put on a lot for the first wicket, Flintoff could get lucky and score a few, Anderson could find some swing, and Panesar could bowl a lot of overs for not too many runs, pick up a couple of wickets and get the batsmen to swish at Hoggard and Anderson at the other end. Mahmood might even knock over Ponting. I can dream. At least it will all happen while I'm asleep.

You heard it here first (or a while ago anyway)

Yeah, yeah, not wishing to crow or anything (the thought would never cross my tiny mind), but check out Selvey writing about the argument for rebalancing the team following Monty's performance at OT. Sounds kind of like what I wrote back in May.
I was a little sad but also pleased to see that GO Jones has finally been dropped for Chris Read. It was all very well that GO's keeping was getting better, but he had been picked as a batsman and to keep picking him, when he kept failing, and Chris Read kept scoring runs for Notts, seemed a little daft. At least the selectors are being consistent.

Fred's fear of Monty

After being the best bowler yesterday afternoon, Monty was only asked to bowl six overs today. Why was that then? Bizarre. I still fancy England to win this test, if the weather holds, but even so, why not Monty today.

Monty and the balance of the team

Following Monty's fine performance yesterday, I've been thinking, should the balance of the England team be altered? At the moment, the management appear to be trying to fit players into a model team of 5 batsmen, an all rounder, a batting wicket keeper, a bowler who can bat and three others who can't. It seems though that Ashley Giles is the only candidate for the role of a bowler who can bat. Plunkett doesn't look up to it to me. Ashley will be back from injury soon probably, but his coming back into the team would mean dropping Monty, and Monty is starting to look like a class act. 2-26 from 15 overs on an unhelpful wicket against well set batsmen who are good players of spin? That's impressive.
For years Australia have got away with playing just four bowlers because of the quality of those four bowlers, and in particular the quality of their spinner. Warne contains. He takes wickets and he can bowl a lot more overs during a day than a seamer. I'm not suggesting that Panesar will ever be even nearly as good as Warne, but if he can consistently take wickets and concede runs at less than three an over, then why not pick him with three other seamers? This idea seems particularly sensible if one or more of our four leading seamers isn't fit (as is often the case), and let's face it, old Ashley is little more than a stock bowler, who can be carted around if he's not at his best.
The question for the selectors is: would three of Harmison, Jones, Flintoff and Hoggard, plus Giles, plus AN Other represent a stronger bowling attack than the same three plus Panesar? I'm not so sure. Of course, the batting would also be significantly stronger with the second option. Just a thought.

Back once again it is the incredible...

...Rhyme animal? Nah, cricket. Or, to be more precise, Test cricket involving England. Cue massive excitement, except... oh dear. Sri Lanka seem to be doing a good impression of Bangladesh. Actually, that's probably a bit unfair on old Bangladesh.
Still, I was heartened by the team selection. Much as I wanted Bell to be dropped, I didn't think that he would be. Cook sounds like a better prospect. If Vaughan ever comes back, there'll be four openers at the top of the English order. Lots of folk seem to think that Trescothick should be dropped down the order for the Ashes, but that there is crazy talk. He is England's best opener since Boycott. In fact, his stats are slightly more impressive than Boycott's. Sorry Geoffrey. Who was the best before him? Len Hutton? I still think that it might be worth trying Strauss at number 5 as a kind of ersatz Graham Thorpe, but then playing spin isn't his strength really is it? So maybe not.
I was also very pleased to see Sajid Mahmood selected ahead of Lewis. Perhaps Sajid will be another (like Flintoff, Jones, and Harmison) to take a while to develop, but he hasn't started too badly has he?
The only selection I wasn't too keen on was that of Plunkett. Silly name for starters, although that shouldn't be held against him. He seems to be selected for his batting though. His bowling doesn't sound as if it's up to much. I can't remember him ever scoring many runs either. Personally I always think that it's a mistake to pick bits and pieces cricketers because, at Test level, they're usually not good enough to take wickets or score runs.
I won't start on GO Jones.

Two in two

So, I log onto the internet about 10 or 15 minutes after the end of the lunch break thinking, "Mmmm... a wicket would be good. Two would be amazing." Look what happened. Flinters knocked over the wall and Sachin, who was looking good, was beaten by one that turned, which is saying something, seeing as it was bowled by Udal, who, it seems, is finally performing. Five to go. Knowing the difficulty that England have had with the tail in this series (in the Ashes too), I still think there's a long way to go, but things are looking a whole lot better now.

Deja vu

Mmm... England in a good position to kill off a game with a big first innings lead and then look like blowing. Where have I seen this before? Ah well, fortunately, they won those tests during the Ashes. Then again, they didn't win in Pakistan. As Penelope Pitstop might say, "Hayulp".
Still, my mate Owais is still in and I guess Mr Bell (or Bell End as I now like to refer to him (was that ever a term of abuse in anyone else's world, or just the tiny one I lived in when at school)) must be the only Englishman hoping he doesn't go big (Super size us, Owais). KP is South African. Little bit of politics.
Sreesanth did average 5 in first class cricket before today. His previous highest score was 19, so he exceeded that by over 50 percent. I didn't expect that. I can't even think what Kumble looks like when he bats, so obviously he's improved a bit since I last saw him.
Big respect going out to wee Jimmy Anderson (all Jimmy's are wee). Perhaps the most heartening thing about his performance was his economy. He's often taken wickets but usually he's gone for 4 an over, or more. He was the most economical of the England bowlers in that innings. Coooool. Did you know he's married to a model? I used to feel sorry for him when he was getting bashed around by Graeme Smith. I shouldn't have done.
Right. Tomorrow. Come on, England. Let's win this one. I've got work to do. I don't want to be having to check the score every two minutes.

Weather getting fairer

The title is a reference to yesterday's title and also to the climate here in Berlin, where finally, after three months, it's getting a little warmer, just a little. Today is officially the first day of spring. I don't think I've ever experienced a colder winter. There's still snow on the ground. India seems a long way away.
Still, goddamit, England are doing the business. GO Jones has taken three blinding catches and wee Jimmy Anderson has, at the time of writing, taken 3-18. Is this going to be the performance which gives him his confidence back? I hope so. He looked such a good bowler when he started out and then he lost it, somehow.
Why do legspinners who've taken more than 500 wickets seem to like batting against England so much?
Still, Sreenath has a first class batting average of 5, so the end of the Indian innings should be nigh. Should be...
Then England could take almost a day to score 300 and send India in on a crumbling pitch just after tea tomorrow, or just before, or sometime.
I fully expect there now to be a record eighth wicket partnership.