Bo Selecta

Well, I may be a little late, but I've had problems with my computer, and I've been busy for Christ's sake, so now 'tis time for me to make a few well considered comments on ye olde tour party to Pakistan.
The big surprise was Shaun Udal. Ray Illingworth used to like him. That should be reason enough not to pick him, you would think, but he's just had a fantastic season in county cricket (fourth in the averages), has developed a slider with a bit of input from Shane Warne (which sounds like what young ladies around the world have been telling tabloid editors recently), and he's unlikely to play much anyway, unless Simon Jones is injured... so, errr, ink him in for the three tests then. As for his age, well, even if he does play this winter, presuming Ashley is a fixture in the team, any off spinner is unlikely to play again until.... well, when do we next tour Sri Lanka? England hardly have a history of developing off spinners by taking them on tour anyway, do they (viz Swann, Dawson, Batty, Jason Brown (did he go on a tour?))? So (after that delicious slice of punctuation, mmmm... brackets), it just remains for me to reveal the real reason why I think old Ooders is a good pick. It means that I'm not older than everyone in the touring party. Yes, there's still hope. If I spend all winter honing my leg spinner (I could turn it square when I was 12), I could force my way into a county team next season, take a stack of wickets and be on that plane to Australia next October, mentally preparing myself to outbowl the erstwhile master, Warnie himself. Of course, I'd have to work on my batting a bit too. Do I really fancy facing Brett Lee beamers (for he would be bound to bowl them at me after I'd frustrated him for a couple of hours)? Maybe I'll stick to programming. It is, naturally, cricket's loss.
As for the rest of the squad, well, the first eleven kind of picked itself (even Bell, just about), but Udal excepted, I'm not altogether happy with the rest of the selections. I'm not beside myself. All the players selected do have potential, but, for starters, I do feel sorry for Chris Read. As previously documented, I'm not a fan, but the reason given for preferring Prior (apparently a worse gloveman than Jones, if that's possible) was the latter's superior batting. Read's first class average last season was a whole 11 (count 'em) better than Prior's. What does the guy have to do?
Anderson is a bit of an enigma, isn't he? A couple of years ago his deliveries swung out and late at nearly 90 miles an hour. Now they don't. The management are saying that they're happy with his progress but he averaged over 30 in county cricket. What's more worrying is his economy rate, about 3.5, significantly higher than his fellow seamers at Lancashire. It does baffle me (not wishing to sound too much like Fred Trueman) why professional seam bowlers can't learn to bowl 9 out of 10 deliveries on a length just outside off stump. If they did, well, look at McGrath: there's nothing very special about him apart from his consistency. So he takes wickets. Anderson doesn't, not much, not anymore anyway.
Ooo, I forgot about Loudun, he of the doosra, took 6-66 (diabolical) in his last county game and can bat a bit. Could be interesting.
Last, and definitely least in my tiny little mind, we come to Collingwood. I have made my feelings about Collingwood quite clear. Nothing personal, you understand (as Dave Houghton preceded his statement about Ashley Giles being a waste of time), but he's not that young, he's a crap bowler, and he's not a great batsman. Everyone went on about his 10 in the second innings at the Oval. OK, it was quite important, but 10? It's not that significant is it? Personally, I think the King of Spain's 59 put it into perspective. That 10 was a great innings by a bits and pieces cricketer, but not for a front line batsman. Owais Shah, Ed Joyce and Rob Key must be wondering what the hell is going on. Apparently Collingwood is a good tourer. He should be by now, the number of tours he's been on.
Right, well, that's me done. It's sunny outside. I'm off to buy a tennis ball and see if I can pitch a leg spinner

Twin imposters

I've had a few problems with my computer since my last post, which explains the gap, when so much has been happening: the Chappell/Ganguly spat, naming of the tour parties, gearing up to the Super Series, etc. More of all that later, but, just in case you didn't know, since I last wrote, England won the Ashes. Oh yeah.
I started this blog just before the Edgbaston Test, partly because I'm in the middle of nowhere this summer with an internet connection and I read a web page about blogging, and partly because I was disappointed by the criticism of the England team following their defeat at Lord's. I thought they could do with some support. They've got enough of that now haven't they?
That's great. It was fantastic to see/hear everyone get so excited. I got very excited. When the ashes were finally won, I almost shed a tear for Christ's sake. Very odd. The summer wasn't just about England winning though. It was about the cricket. What a story. What a comeback. There was something unreal about that succession of close finishes. Part of the appeal of cricket, for me anyway, is that it is so uncontrived. Nothing has to happen. No runs have to be scored. No wickets have to be taken. So when something does happen, it's very special. When as much happens as did during that series, it's incredible.
I was going to quote from "If" by old Rudyard Kipling, probably just about the most cheesy poem ever written, but what the hell, I like it and I particularly like those lines about treating those twin imposters (ie success and failure) just the same. Close cricket matches turn on a handful of moments. More of those (just) went England's way than Australia's during the series. So we won. We could have lost. It doesn't matter too much. Shit. I can't think of any way of saying so without it being obvious that I'm just trying to say so in a different way, so what the hell: ladies and gentlemen, I do declare that cricket was the winner. Cricket and England anyway.

What are you doing today?

I'll be following the cricket. Thank god I'm not in a 9-to-5er at the moment. I don't think I could stand having to (pretend to) concentrate on work while this amazing series draws (hopefully) to its conclusion.
In yesterday's post I mentioned that I wouldn't be surprised if Australia lost a few quick wickets. I take that back. I was surprised, especially when they lost eight. Nevertheless, and needless to say (but I'm going to) I'm feeling like a bit of smart arse today. Of course, the selection of an extra batsman now looks like a good one. So on that score, I was wrong. England were lucky though, to have bowled with frequent interruptions which meant the bowlers didn't get too tired. And then there was Flintoff. At the beginning of the series I wouldn't have had him in my Rest of the World side for the forthcoming Super Series Test. Now, his would be one of the first names on the list. Pretty good, isn't he?
So, what's in store today? Mmm... the way this series has gone so far, odds must be short on England leaving Australia a total of 230 to chase in 30 overs. Spare us. Please. A lot depends on Trescothick and Thorpe.... wishful thinking... I mean Vaughan. They are our best two players of Warne. If one of them goes early, then our callow middle order will be exposed. Confidence in Bell is low. Pietersen, however, actually seems to perform better when the pressure is on, and when people are doubting him, as they seem to be starting to, so perhaps he will take it away from Australia once and for all. Go on KP, ya big freaky haired bastard, smash a ton.

Wire coming into focus

It may seem strange to say so, as Australia approach 300 for the loss of only 2 wickets, but I think that the England bowlers have bowled well. For once they haven't had much luck, and decisions have gone against them. Hoggard could have had LBW's, Giles an LBW and a bat/pad and Flintoff had Martyn caught behind. Bowden and Koertzen (sp?) both seem to be determined not outers. I guess that it's the best way to deflect criticism, which is far greater when a batsman is given out incorrectly than not given out. It does make life very dull however.
Apart from the lack of wickets though, the bowlers have managed to contain Australia. Flintoff has been particularly good at this, only going for about 2.5 an over. The others have backed him up. The King of Spain has done especially well as it was clear that the Australians wanted to get after him.
They've been helped by Hayden's lack of form. If England are already playing for the draw, they might want to drop him should he offer a sharp chance. I remember Clive Lloyd dropping Brearley during the 1979 World Cup Final. Did he do it on purpose? Who knows. I don't suspect that England would do this. Gilchrist lurks however. A run a ball century would lessen the significance of the weather.
Just as an aside, it's been interesting to see in the morning's press that I'm not the only one missing Graham Thorpe and a fifth bowler, or thinking that the whole Jerusalem business is a bit over the top.
Meanwhile, back to the game. The possibility remains of a rush of wickets this morning. The bowlers just need a bit of luck. Conditions are likely to be helpful. The more likely scenario, however, is that Australia bat for most of the day, trying to get as far ahead as possible before a declaration near the end. Given that the light is likely to be dodgy, I can't see them (duh) declaring much earlier because otherwise they might lose overs (unless they bowled Warne in tandem with a part time spinner, which they might). The pitch is flat, so England should be able to bat out the game, but with the Ashes at stake and Shane Warne bowling? It's going to be tight, I reckon. That old wire is coming back into focus. This game, like the previous 3, seems likely to go down to it.

"Here comes the rain"

As Ian Astbury once sang, so memorably. I just had another look at the BBC five day weather forecast for SW9 (which may not cover the Oval, though it was the postcode for Stockwell, just down the road, which I know because I used to live there), and the forecast for today is a black cloud, with some sun behind it and one rain drop. Yesterday, the forecast for Sunday was a white cloud, but now, oh joy, it's the same as it is for today, only with two drops instead of one. Hallelujah! Saying which, this weather forecast does seem to change... like the weather.

Oh dear...

All that talk of winning the Ashes does seem very premature now, doesn't it? Whoever arranged a victory parade really shouldn't have told anyone. It wasn't as if the Australians were about to roll over, not like our middle order did yesterday. My hankering after Thorpey a couple of posts ago now seems quite prescient. Like a new ball, Pietersen is beginning to lose his lacquer. Not only was he bowled by a very average delivery, he then proceeded to reexamine it like it was the ball of this century. Did he fool anyone? As for Bell... well... maybe it was another leg break which didn't turn and not a misread slider.
Strauss' innings was a triumph, under that kind of pressure, when all around him were losing their heads, after the Australians had claimed (justifiably it seemed) to have worked him out earlier in the series. If he could only survive towards the end of a day after a long innings, then he would be a fantastic batsman. Even so, that kind of fault really isn't too serious.
For some reason, I have a feeling that the King of Spain might make a few this morning. I'm quietly confident of our reaching 400. I doubt that that will be enough though. The wicket is flat, the outfield like lightening. We're lacking a frontline bowler.
Now, I know it's too late, but to return to that selection debate, there are three circumstances, I think, in which it is sensible to pick just four bowlers (selectors take note). The first is when you don't have a bowler or wicket keeper good enough to bat in the top six, the second when your four bowlers are exceptional and reliable (as Australia's have been for the past decade or so), the third is when the wicket is very helpful to the bowlers, meaning that a fifth bowler is unlikely to be needed. Shit... Aggers was saying on the radio that the fourth seamer often only bowls 10 overs in a day. Maybe, but 10 overs is 10 more than none, and anyway, the identity of that "fourth seamer" isn't a given. For the first three tests of this series it was Hoggard. When it doesn't swing, he's vulnerable. Will it swing at the Oval? I hope so. I also hope that Harmison's on form... and the Fred meister. The King of Spain will be, as ever, imperious.
I've just had another look at the 5 day weather forecast for sw9. An hour ago, rain was forecast today. Now there's a big sun where a black cloud used to be. It doesn't like much play will be lost during the subsequent three days either. Oh dear...

Collingwood???

Arse.

Act V

And now the end is near. Could I care less? Well, yeah, I could care less, but I'm not getting as excited about the last Test as I might. Why? I don't know. I'm a contrary bastard, I suppose, so whilst everyone else is getting very worked up about it, learning the lines to "Jerusalem" and planning where to stand for the victory parade on Tuesday, I'm sitting tight. There is something about mass celebrations of sporting victories which leaves me cold. It's just sport. There are more important things. Jingoism is ugly, from all angles. When it's English, it's particularly pasty.
Still, don't get me wrong, I will definitely be tuning in at 10.20 tomorrow morning, desperate to hear who has won the toss, hoping like hell that it's Vaughan and that we're batting, again. Then we could make 500 between the showers and declare, late on Saturday evening, with nine wickets down and the Ashes pretty much safe. I have a horrible feeling though that it's Ponting's turn to call correctly. For Christ's sake, if any selectors are reading this, please don't pick Collingwood. Anderson may not be the greatest bowler but he's not too bad and I'd rather have him coming on for the first time at 5pm tomorrow than Collingwood. Collingwood is not an all rounder. He's a batsman... and a very good substitute fielder.
Talking of selection issues, I read an interview with Graham Thorpe earlier today. How sad that he isn't still playing. I was so disappointed when he was dropped. I felt like I had when George Bush was reelected. How could anyone think that way? How could so much evidence be ignored? Everyone (including Thorpe) now says that it was the right decision to pick Pietersen. I'm not so sure. He's done pretty well. He averages over 40, but Thorpe averaged over 60 since his comeback at the Oval in 2003, and he wouldn't have thrown his wicket away like that on the first evening at Old Trafford, and his would have been a very reassuring presence during that last innings at Trent Bridge. I don't think he would have dropped 6 catches either. Still, Pietersen hasn't exactly been a failure. I didn't think he would be. Before the first Test, I suggested that they should both play and that Trescothick should be dropped, which shows how much I know. Saying which, I do think that Trescothick's success owes a lot to the demise of his twin nemeses, McGrath and Gillespie. Had the latter regained his form and the former not injured himself at Edgbaston, then things might have been very different. However, that could be said of the entire series. In retrospect, as Mike Atherton suggested at the time, Thorpe could have played instead of Bell. I'm quite sure that Bell will average over 40 for England over a long career, but he seems to have been a bit overwhelmed during this series, unsurprisingly. A lot more experienced players than him have been. You can't blame him.
Perhaps my diffidence owes something to the fact that, to a large extent, the story of this test series has already been written. The Australians have been beaten. If they do manage to win this next test, then it will just be a temporary reprieve. How many of them will be back in 4 years' time? Perhaps just Michael Clarke. Do they have any exciting youngsters coming through? None that I've heard of. The era of Australian dominance is nearing an end. No longer will we have to believe that the Australian way is best, just because they had a generation of extraordinary cricketers.