Mound Stand, Section R

King of spin

2006-12-14T12:28:00.000+01:00

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

2006-12-09T13:14:00.000+01:00

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)

2006-07-31T15:24:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-14T22:50:00.000+02:00

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

2006-05-14T12:05:00.000+02:00

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...

2006-05-12T21:33:00.000+02:00

...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

2006-03-22T08:33:00.000+01:00

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

2006-03-20T20:43:00.000+01:00

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

2006-03-20T10:38:00.000+01:00

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.

Fair weather supporter

2006-03-19T11:57:00.000+01:00

Yeah, that's me. I must admit I was pretty disappointed after the last test. Not such a great performance, not such a great result. But look what´s going on over in Mumbai at the moment. India are reeling. Jimmy Anderson is bowling well. Three wickets down. It looks like there's something in the pitch now. Can England level the series? That would be a great result. There's a long way to go. The Wall is still there and I guess he must be extra determined (if it's possible for Dravid to be any more determined than usual) after his horrendous misjudgement after winning the toss. What was he thinking?
I must admit that when I came out to the internet cafe I'm in, about an hour ago, I was going to write a bit more about England's batting, how they'd thrown it away again, how they should have made 500. Maybe the pitch is playing up a bit now, but even so it doesn't appear that the team have got out of their habit of not capitalising when given first use of a pitch. Congratulations to Strauss, of course (although I do wonder why he hadn't worked out not to be quite so aggressive some time ago - how to bat on the subcontinent is not a big secret) and to Owais Shah (is five consecutive batsmen scoring fifties in their first innings in tests a record?), but again, it seems, Pietersen won't learn, and Jones looks like a tailender. Pietersen must be pretty daft. If I were the management I'd be thinking about dropping him for the next home test, assuming that Trescothick and Vaughan play in it, just to let him know that his place is guaranteed. He does score quite a few runs, yes, but with his talent I'm sure he could score a lot more. I wonder how many of his dismissals in test cricket are self inflicted? A high proportion, I imagine. I like the look (or sound anyway) of Shah too. Then there's Cook. I still think that it might be worth trying Strauss at five, but then I still miss Graeme Thorpe.
22 overs left today at the time of writing. One or two more wickets would be good. I guess Hoggard will come back for a second spell soon. He and Flintoff will bowl the last few overs I imagine. Monty might bowl another wonder ball though before then.

Upside down

2006-03-06T13:12:00.000+01:00

I'm sure there's a disco track with the chorus "Upside Down". Donna Summer? Diana Ross? I can't remember. Anyway, that's by the by. Far more exciting, and bewildering, is the news that Hoggard is now rated the fourth best bowler in the World. There was me thinking he was the fourth best bowler in the England team. Still, I suppose that Jonesy is always injured, Harmy has gone off the boil, and... errr... surely Flinters is rated higher than the Hogster? Apparently not.
More interesting news, following yesterday's post, about wicket keepers scoring runs. Chris Read has only gone and scored a ton in the West Indies. You may not have noticed 'cause cricinfo doesn't report these A matches on their front page. I also found that in the past two first class seasons, the Readster has average 44 and 50, respectively. That's pretty good. Maybe he can bat after all.

Not to be

2006-03-05T16:33:00.000+01:00

I guess that it was a very flat pitch. It's lucky really that England got some helpful atmospheric conditions on the third morning, otherwise it could have been a very different game. Still, we've got out of this one with a draw, so no complaints. Also Cook and Monty both made very promising debuts, and Ian Blackwell didn't, which isn't a good thing itself, although it does make me feel as if I might not be quite such a big idiot as Collingwood's century did. The next test is on Thursday now. Can't we have a week and a bit between Tests, like in the old days? It's a shame for the players, as much as anything. In the past, they probably got to know a place. Now they only see practice facilities, I imagine.
One last thing. I've been a big supporter of GO Jones, but I'm starting to lose faith. He keeps dropping catches and his batting seems to have got worse too. Will Chris Read be back in the team in the summer? Is Robert Key practicing his wicket keeping? Why else isn't he on the A tour?

Oi, George. Nooo.

2006-03-05T16:25:00.000+01:00

You're not a cricket match person. Check out these funny pictures (especially the face he pulls in 4 and 5).

Well bowled

2006-03-03T19:12:00.000+01:00

OK, so when exactly did Matthew Hoggard learn to bowl reverse swing? I admit that I haven't watched much cricket live on TV over the past couple of years, but I'm pretty sure that he never bowled a ball which swung in (to a right hander) before. Is this something new? If he has learned the art (the magic), he may well have become a complete bowler. Anyway, the important thing is that he blew away the India middle order this morning. I was mighty surprised when I logged on this morning and saw that he'd done so. Mighty surprised and mighty pleased. And what about Monty? What a debut, after all the doubts about him. Not only did he hold up one end yesterday while Collingwood added about 60 runs at the other but then he comes out today and bowls a lot of very tight overs, picking up the dream debut wicket of the (once) mighty Sachin and then bowling Kaif with what sounds as if it was a perfect delivery right at the end.
It's going to be interesting to see how the batsmen get on tomorrow. Will Pietersen go big? He usually performs when people start muttering that he may not be worth his place in the side. Certainly today's performance must have done wonders for the team's confidence. I, for one, thought that they were out of the game yesterday morning. Now they look as if they could be very, very slight favourites. Ohmigod. I shouldn't tempt fate. Either way, they're competing, when they weren't expected to. That's already a victory of sorts.

Doesn't taste too bad

2006-03-02T13:50:00.000+01:00

I'm talking about humble pie, my hat, whatever. Actually, I'll keep the hat so I can raise it to my mate Paul Collingwood. Yes sir, well done. That was a pretty good innings, wasn't it? Frankly, as after his efforts during that last Test in Pakistan, I'm a bit inclined to think that his success only shows up how badly the rest of the batsmen performed, but there you go. I'm still not convinced that Paul Collingwood is much of a batsman. Perhaps the conditions in the sub-continent suit him, as they did Craig White, who never scored many runs anywhere else, but seemed to like it when the ball didn't bounce too much. The way Collingwood constructed his innings should be recognised by the rest of the batsmen (apart from Cook who played similarly). He only scored 50 off his first 150 balls (or so). Then he accelerated. Ominously, Dravid only scored 5 of his first 50 balls. It looked as if he was digging himself in for the long haul. The effort by Collingwood and the tailenders (good name for a group) this morning was great. It did suggest, however, that the pitch was playing very well. I think the England total was at least 100 too few. I expect that we'll be batting to save the match. Pietersen will probably get out on the hook and whine afterwards about that being the way he plays.

Where's the button marked 'panic'?

2006-02-26T12:58:00.000+01:00

Yeah, that's right. A couple of posts ago I was going on about how solid the England team were looking. It didn't take too long for that to change. The question about which spinner to pick doesn't seem so quite so important anymore. There are more pressing concerns, like who's going to captain the team, who's going to open the batting, where the hell are the runs going to come from, for Christ's sake? Oh and does anyone have a cure for stomach bugs (lots of Coca Cola, kills everything)?
Leaving medical matters to the more medically minded, I do feel a bit as if my constant questioning of Collingwood's involvement in the team has been vindicated by the news that the management are sending for another middle order batsman from the A tour. This seems like an admission that Collingwood isn't really up to the job. I'm not sure that Bell is either. I mean, he scores a few runs, but he never seems very secure. Pietersen's lost form. So have Strauss and Flintoff and Vaughan (his loss is starting to have a look of permanence about it). I was pleased to see that Alistair Cook was summoned from the A tour, as he's very young and seems very promising, but I think that the middle order batsman who arrives should have been touring in the first place.
Look at it this way, if selecting a combined India and England team (as I often did as a kid when playing dice cricket, for some reason), on current form at least, you'd probably have to include all the Indian batsmen, especially now that Trescothick has gone home. Dhoni would also get in ahead of Jones (whose batting hasn't come along either).
I guess that England have a bit of a record of doing badly in warm up matches and then performing well in the Tests (think of the last South Africa tour, and even recently in Pakistan when the performance during the first four days of the first Test was tip top). This time though, without key personel, with most of the rest of the team out of form or suffering from something nasty, or both, I'm finding it harder to imagine that England have much chance in the First Test, especially given that it's likely to be played on a raging turner.
Where's that button?

The best English spinner

2006-02-20T21:39:00.000+01:00

Disturbingly, there seems to be some sort of consensus developing that Ian Blackwell is England's best spinner (apart from the currently incapacitated King of Spain, naturally). That was before today anyway, because stone me, wee Gareth Batty has gone and taken 7 for 23 playing for A team in Antigua. Those are pretty impressive figures, Gareth. Have you been working on a couple of special deliveries over the winter? A doobla doosra or something? Or were the Antigua XI carrying on in the great tradition of teams past (think Sydney in the 80's and Alan Border, 1995 at the Oval) of getting out to innocuous spinners? It doesn't look as if they were slogging too much, or at least not very successfully, because 5 of Gareth's (that's Mr Batty to you, sonny) overs were maidens. Anyway, I haven't been able to find a match report yet. Still, it's very exciting.
As for the best English spinner in India at the moment, I'm still not convinced that it's big Ian. OK, so he took four wickets in the first innings, but let's look at the manner of those wickets shall we? Stumped, caught in the deep, caught in the deep... you get the picture. Derek Pringle seems to think that he was actually bowling best of all the spinners, but then he probably thought of himself as a front line bowler too (ouch). Which leads to the question: if Ian Blackwell is picked, would he have the worst first class record of any front line bowler ever chosen to play for England? That his classification as a front line bowler seems a bit dubious only proves my point, I think. Could we please leave the picking of bits and pieces cricketers who are good at neither one thing nor the other back in the 80's and 90's, back where they belong (yeah, I'm talking about you, Geoff Miller, Derek Pringle, Mark Ealham, the list goes on)? I fully expect big Ian to now go and take a 10 for in the first test. If he does, I shall consume as many meat pies, one after the other, doused in ketchup. I hate ketchup.

The Underdogs

2006-02-17T10:24:00.000+01:00

So another test series involving England is soon to start. I'm getting excited. After Australia, India are probably England's greatest rivals and the passion for cricket over there means that the atmosphere at the Tests should be great (or do the locals ignore test matches in favour of the one day stuff - I don't know). It also seems as if the England team are prepared for this one. Simon Jones has been out in India for a while, getting used to bowling with the SG ball (the one used over there), getting it to swing, which is encouraging. Andrew Strauss says he's been concentrating on playing spin and knows that he has to do better than he did in Pakistan. In a press conference last week, Vaughan made a similar comment, about the team in general. Pietersen has even shaved his head. It seems that there is a collective determination that there wasn't for the series in Pakistan. After the Ashes series, I guess they were favourites this team (although I thought it would be evenly balanced). This time around, they are definitely the underdogs, but, as was evident in that Ashes series, perhaps they enjoy a challenge. We'll see. I can't wait.
Interesting to see that the ICC have decided to end the ridiculous super-subs experiment, which seemed flawed from the start. They say though that they're trying to think of other ways to make one day cricket more exciting. Why not just play less of them? The biggest reason for many one day matches being dull is that they're largely meaningless. The players aren't bothered. The cricket watching public see too many of them. Now we have he ridiculous situation in which the next Ashes series is going to be squeezed into 6 weeks between one day competitions which no one could be bothered about.

Progressive Aussies?

2006-02-03T23:38:00.000+01:00

Contradiction in terms? Obviously not. Look at Germaine Greer, for Christ's sake. Still, it does make you think when you see that Greg Chappell has been having a go at Shoaib for his action, while crowds in Australia continue to shout "no ball" as Muralitharan bowls. Do they realise, I wonder, that they're watching one of the best bowlers ever? Would they be so vociferous if he were Australian? Obviously not, but you see what I'm getting at. That made me laugh a couple of years ago when it was revealed that pretty much all of the Australian bowlers exceeded the legal limit at the time. Suddenly a lot of ex players down under went a bit quiet. I don't know, but they may just be a link between what is said in the papers and what's said in the stands (by the likes of those who have been having a go at South Africans, for example).
So is this article by Peter Roebuck tongue in cheek or not? He makes such a habit of saying ridiculous stuff that it's hard to tell. Also, whenever I read his articles, not only do they piss me off because of his ill informed views on the cricket (suggesting, for example, that Ian Blackwell should replace Ashley Giles after the Lord's Test last summer), but he also seems quite happy to slip in more than his fair share of near racist comments (a fair share being none). I quote: "People keep banging on about rights and so forth (though not in China)". Mmm... is he trying to suggest that no Chinese people support human rights? Stick to the cricket, Pete. Actually, stick to something else in which I'm not at all interested, like errr... I don't know. Badminton?
Finally, and 'cause it's a bit related, and 'cause it's pissing me off: those cartoons by that Danish paper. Not big, not clever. Very sad, in fact, as is their reproduction throughout Europe. I've got nothing against freedom of speech, but there's a difference between speaking freely and being extremely insulting.

Interest at last

2006-01-29T22:57:00.000+01:00

So after 10 days of the most tedious cricket imaginable, suddenly the test series between India and Pakistan explodes into life, simply because of a pitch which offers something to the bowlers (how much isn´t clear - the batsm had probably got used to the ball never moving off the straight). Congratulations to Kamran Akmal. From the stats at least, it looks as if he played a magnificent innings. Congrats to Pathan too for the first over hat trick. It looked like a very exciting day. The rest of the Test looks as if it will make for compulsive viewing.

It's Monty

2006-01-27T21:20:00.000+01:00

Yes, that's right. Before a tour to the subcontinent (actually, at pretty much any time), I like to get unreasonably excited about an unknown spinner. I was going to write "the full monty" in the headline, but that's probably best reserved for when he takes all ten wickets in the second innnings of the first test. OK, so he'll probably get hammered all over the place by Sehwag and co (most bowlers do), but he's young, appears to have a good attitude, and if England can stick by him as they've stuck by Harmison, Jones and Flintoff, then perhaps in a few years' time we'll have a decent attacking spinner. I think it's good too that he's a Sikh, in the England team, going to tour India. Surely that will ease relations between the two sides, and the two countries, which at times, as far as I can tell, seem just that little bit fraught.
As for England's new bowling coach, at least it's not going to be Alan Donald. When I first saw that he was in the frame, from what he was saying, it did seem that he may have put his name forward just to force the hand of the South African authorities. That's just what he's done. Seeing as he's so passionate about South African cricket, this is probably for the best. Also, you know, as Mike Selvey points out, there's something to be said for promoting from within. It keeps everyone interested.
Finally, a bit off topic I know, but I'm very excited that Robbie Fowler's going back to Liverpool. I'm not mad about football, but I do like it and when I used to like it a bit more, Robbie Fowler was my favourite player I think.
I will never mention football again... unless England win the world cup maybe, but even then, I will only do so to mention how unexcited I get about it compared to England winning the Ashes.

On third thoughts...

2006-01-25T15:01:00.000+01:00

The bad news it that it now seems as if the King of Spain won't be fit to tour India. The really bad news is that England may be planning to taking Ian Blackwell along if old Ash doesn't make it. I'm sorry, but that is kerrazzy talk. Ian Blackwell has a career first class bowling average of 43.25. He is not a bowler. He is a bits and pieces one day cricketer who, quite frankly, wouldn't get into a lot of county sides. What on earth do the England set up like about him? He even seems to be overweight (I'm not fattist, you understand, but this is a professional sportsman we're talking about here). Anyone but Ian Blackwell. If not Panesar, then why not Gary Keedy, who has been the best spinner in England for a few years now? I know he can't bat, but at least he might take a wicket.
The less said about the last test match between India and Pakistan, the better probably. How disappointing, once again. What a waste of time, money, interest.

Come on Jonesy

2006-01-21T11:24:00.000+01:00

Good to see this article in which Simon Jones says he's going to try to become number one in the world within a year. He was fantastic during the Ashes series, a bowler transformed. Previously, he had always looked a little one dimensional, I thought. Suddenly he had an inswinger, an outswinger, using either conventional or reverse swing, depending on the state of the ball. One of his main competitors for the number one spot must be Flintoff, whose transformation has been almost as sudden. If Harmison can rediscover the form that took him to the number one spot, and Hoggard can continue to improve, England are going to have a pretty special pace attack (if they can all stay fit). They already do. If only the batting line up could match them...
So Ganguly has been dropped, finally. It was bizarre, how the government intervened (or at least, I think they did) to get him a recall. Why do the Indian people like him so much? I respect him for how he brought a tough, winning sensibility to his Indian teams, and how he pissed off Steve Waugh, but at the same time, he seems quite amazingly selfish (Chappell's comments about him only seemed to confirm what I already suspected).
Good to see a few wickets fall on the first day of the Test in Pakistan. Lots of runs are being scored too. Perhaps there will be a result in this one.

Better than all the rest?

2006-01-20T14:16:00.000+01:00

Yeah, that's right, I knick headlines from dodgy Tina Turner hits. Anyway, there was an interesting little article about Murali over on cricinfo to which I would like to draw your attention forthwith (I'm learning German at the moment and frankly, it's creating havoc with my English). Now, I, more than most perhaps, know that one day cricket bears little resemblance to real cricket (and yes, I use the value laden adjective deliberately), but it is quite remarkable, methinks, that a spinner should have the best record in one day cricket. Warne or Murali? Who would you choose? I'd definitely go for the former, if only 'cause it would mean that the dressing room would be a smoke free zone, and there might be some pies left by lunch time (oh dear).
So an Australian has had a go at Ponting about his team's baiting of umpires. I don't know. They looked pretty docile over here during the Ashes, especially when compared with previous Australian teams, such as those lead by Waugh, Border, etc. Ian Chappell's lot make the current bunch look like pansies (Australian vernacular, don't you know). I like a bit of aggro anyway. It's good to watch, to a degree of course. Andre Nel is very boring.

On second thoughts...

2006-01-19T15:36:00.000+01:00

Being a reasonable man (and not a prime minister or a president, who seems to believe that changing one's mind is a sign of weakness (little bit of politics)), I'm having second thoughts about whether old Monty (Panesar, not the golfer) should be selected to go to India after all. My doubts were inspired by this article. Perhaps it would be better for him to go on an A Tour to the West Indies. It's more than likely that he wouldn't play much in India (unless Giles gets injured), and if he did, it's more than likely than he wouldn't have too much joy bowling to Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar et al (Warne probably still wakes up in the middle of the night after nightmares about it, although I guess his success during his last Indian tour may have eased them somewhat). Anyway, it's not up to me, and we'll all find out tomorrow (I think).
The whole Zimbabwe situation is very sad (and I'm not just talking about cricket), but it is a relief to see that they've withdrawn from Test cricket. Perhaps Bangladesh could also do the decent thing. Recent announcements regarding future series between India, Australia and England seem to imply that the national authorities have been deciding that they no longer need to toe (tow?) the ICC line, which is only right, I think. No one is too interested in the Test league table (or whatever it's called) and I'd far rather see 5 tests against India or Australia spread out over an entire summer, like they used to be. As much as anything, it gives fast bowlers time to recover between matches, batsmen time to lose or get into form, and, perhaps most importantly, spectators a bit of time to talk about it all. That, however, is unlikely to happen, I guess.

Wasted Hussey and he´s not Ganguly

2006-01-15T12:33:00.000+01:00

I was just looking at the scorecard of the SA vs Australia one day international, not that I´m too interested in the one day game, you understand, but it´s nice to see an Australian defeat, even when South Africa are inflicting it. I do wonder about those Australian selectors though. Why on earth is Hussey batting at 7. Given his recent record, which is far superior to all those coming in before him, with the exception of Ponting perhaps, surely he should be coming in at 5 (or maybe he should even open, which he has done for most of his career).
The India vs Pakistan Test continues to be amazingly dull. How disappointing. Good to see, however, that Dravid has finally grasped the nettle (is there an India equivalent of that expression?) and decided to open. Frankly, I think he should have done it years ago. His technique is suited to opening, and given the miserable largely miserable records of all those who have opened with Sehwag over the past years, he was often facing a very new ball anyway, even when coming in number 3. With him opening, Laxman can come in at no.3 (surely his preferred position) and room is made for Yuvraj Singh lower down the order. Room could also be made for another promising youngster if Ganguly were to go. I wonder if he´s ashamed to see a captain sacrificing his own interests for those of the team, something which, allegedly, he was always very reluctant to do.

Ch-, ch-, ch-, ch-.... errr... wait there.

2006-01-14T11:49:00.000+01:00

Changes? None. None that were very significant anyway. Sorry, I'm talking about England's test squad to India. How Udal kept his place, I don't know. It does seem a bit pointless to retain a 36 year old spinner who never really looked like he was going to take a wicket in Pakistan. Why was Alex Loudun dropped? What did he do wrong? If he was good enough to be third spinner before, why isn't he now? I'm confused. It sounds as if a third spinner is going to be picked. Personally, I would have dropped Udal and included both Loudun and Panesar.
I would have liked to have seen a new batsman added to the squad too, Owais Shah or Ed Joyce perhaps. Unfortunately none of the batsmen did so badly in Pakistan that they had to be dropped. None of them did that well though, did they. Pietersen seems to score runs when he needs them. Bell doesn't look like he's got the temperament to be the new Thorpe. It's all very well scoring a hundred, but regular 30's are just as important.
Mmm... I must have got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. There is something to be said, of course, for continuity. Bell is still young. As for Collingwood...
I'm guessing that the pitch at Lahore for the Pakistan vs India test is pretty docile. The worst test matches are those played on feather beds, I think. Runs are almost worthless. Bowlers are neutered. There is no result (although there might be, I suppose, if India succumb to the pressure of such a huge total). It seems wrong that featherbeds are referred to as 'good' pitches. Some of the best test matches have been played on 'bad pitches', on which batsmen have to struggle. Someone though, usually manages to score runs, and those runs are priceless. Meanwhile, every ball is full of possibility. The batsman might just get out. A spectator can't leave his/her seat.
Interesting to read this article about the tiger moth incident. I'm not really sure where my sympathies lie. I can see how running off to go flying during a match might not be good for team morale. Did such behaviour warrant a kind of court martial though? All in the past now, all in the past.

Substitute own pun on Lamb

2006-01-09T13:57:00.000+01:00

Allan Lamb. Did anyone else score centuries in 3 consecutive Test matches against the fearsome West Indian attack in the 70's and 80's? I don't think so. Did anyone else play so many tests while otherwise so consistently underperforming? Carl Hooper, maybe. I used to love the way that Allan Lamb batted - hands right at the top of the handle, cutting like a butcher (ooh, there's the pun), but he wasn't exactly known for his application was he? This is an interesting article about him I think. People seem to remember the England team in the 80's as having a great batting line up, but Gatting, Lamb and Botham had career averages in the mid thirties, and Gooch didn't become world class until the 90's, I don't think. Did Lamb and Botham also adversely effect the spirit of the team during that era?
The England squad for India is going to be named on Friday. Monty Panesar's county coach (strokeless Australian/South African Kepler Wessels) seems to think that Monty should be selected. Worth a try, I reckon.
It was good to see (purely for aesthetic reasons) Damien Martyn make a lot in yesterday's 20/20 match. I do think that he was dropped from the test team too quickly.

The new Boycott?

2006-01-05T13:12:00.000+01:00

It seems like Kallis has been up to his old tricks again. He did something similar in the second innings of the last Test against England in South Africa, although I don't remember him running anyone out on that occasion. Is he the most selfish batsman since Boycott? At least Boycott opened the batting. He also played in a different era, when it was more acceptable for players to grind. There was a documentary about Boycott on TV a couple of years ago. Botham was on it, talking about a time when England had been trying to score quick runs to set a target against New Zealand, back in the late seventies. To Boycott's horror, and the rest of the team's glee, Botham had gone out to bat and got Boycott run out. Perhaps some of the rest of the South African team should take a lesson from history. I imagine that Gibbs might be tempted, next time around.

Is Ponting one of the greats?

2006-01-04T12:47:00.000+01:00

I just saw an interesting article about Ricky Ponting, discussing whether he should be consdered one of the greats. I don't reckon so, not quite. I mean, he's obviously very, very good but he's ever so slightly lacking in two respects. Firstly, I don't think he's that great to watch. He appears like a functional batsman. OK, that's probably a bit harsh. His swivel pull is pretty impressive, as are his driving and pulling, but there's a lack of finesse about his batting, I think. He certainly isn't David Gower. The second reason is that he hasn't played any really great innings. You only have to look at cricinfo's list of his seven greatest. Nothing too amazing there I don't think. Even the one at Old Trafford this year ended with him getting out just before the end. Personally, I've always suspected that he's a bit of a flat track bully. Of course, he's never had to play against his own attack either (one reason why I think that Viv Richards is overrated).
Thinking about it, I would put him fourth in the list of batsmen currently playing, after Lara, Dravid and Tendulkar, in that order (bit controversial putting Dravid before Tendulkar, I know, but Dravid just pips it, I think, owing to his overall record and the significance of some of his innings).
Well, that was interesting wasn't it? No? Oh well, the same couldn't be said of the Test going on in Sydney (that it's uninteresting, that is - Jesus, English please). My brother will be there watching, so I hope he's enjoying himself. I'm sure he is. I wish I was there with him. I was for the test there last year against Pakistan, but it wasn't very good, frankly (very disappointing to watch Shoaib bowl at 80mph). Hopefully, next year's, at the end of the Ashes, will be a stormer (or, even better perhaps, meaningless 'cause England are 4-0 up - dream on).

Only about 11 months until the next ashes...

2005-12-30T21:50:00.000+01:00

...and the build up hasn't started yet. What the hell is going on? I feel let down by cricket journalists everywhere.
OK, OK, I jest (ha, ha, ha, guts spilling everywhere). There's a whole lot of cricket to be played between now and then, some of which looks very interesting and is imminent. I'm talking of course about Pakistan against India (cue drum rolls, or maybe not - too military). It's going to be interesting to see how the former fare. Have they improved or were England just shite? Bit of both maybe.
Of all the many end of year round ups, this one was my favourite. Apart from being quite funny, it's an interesting point he makes about England not really celebrating the wickets they took in Pakistan. They didn't, did they? They just looked kind of bored.
Anyway, the reason I'm thinking about next year's Ashes is that I've been watching the DVD of last year's once again. Quite a few of those Australians aren't in their side any more, are they? I do feel a bit sorry for Damien Martyn. I always thought he was a very classy batsman and almost all of his dismissals during that last series were either unlucky (he edged a couple which were given LBW), a bit careless (chipping one to mid wicket), or else the result of some amazing cricket by the opposition (run out by Vaughan at Edgbaston, bowled by Giles at Old Trafford). Is Hodge better than him? Probably not. Still, with Hussey there, the Australian batting is looking a little more formidable. Long may Gilchrist's loss of form continue.
Ponting seems to be happy with his new look team anyway. Then again, he doesn't just look like Dubya, he also has a similar way of ignoring what doesn't look so great, and frankly, the australian bowling still seems pretty average to me (average as in not as good as it used to be). McGrath may be getting old, Lee isn't much younger and never was so great, I don't think. As for Nathan Bracken... OK, OK, there's always Warne.
Fine as England's pace bowling quartet may look (I'm thinking of you Mr Jones, no, not in that way, but bowling Clarke with what must have been the ball of the series on that last day at Old Trafford), our batting still looks shit. I've said that before, haven't I?
Anyway, it had crossed my mind in recent weeks that every test playing nation seems to have a wicketkeeper who can bat better than Geraint Jones. Here is confirmation. Can't someone do an Alec Stewart for us? Did Rob Key's Mum give him some gauntlets for Xmas?
I swear not to mention the Ashes for another six months.

141-8???

2005-12-19T13:55:00.000+01:00

Oh for an English batsman.

VVS Special

2005-12-19T11:22:00.000+01:00

It's great to see Laxman get a ton. Hopefully those crazy Indian selectors won´t be tempted to drop him again anytime in the near future. I want to see him bat at Lord's in 2007. Is there a better batsman to watch? I can't think of one. He seems like a really nice guy too.
From an English point of view however, Pathan's form with the bat is looking a bit ominous. I just hope that he doesn't play pace bowling as well as he does spin.
Down Under, another middle order Australian batsman comes to the party. Frankly I'm a bit ambivalent about what goes one there in the series. I would like to see both teams lose, if that were possible.

And the really bad news is...

2005-12-12T14:33:00.000+01:00

The bad news is that England collapsed again, on a good pitch, albeit after having probably stayed up half the night to celebrate Freddie's winning the sports personality of the year award. It may just have been another one day international, but it's becoming a very worrying trend. Soon it's going to be time for new blood. Who will be the fall guy? Who will come in? Will old Dunc take my advice and move Strauss down the order? Probably not. Actually, it sounds like a bit of a daft idea.
Anyway, that was the bad news. The really bad news is that bowling coach Troy Cooley has defected in much the same manner as a Cold War double agent only without all the hiding in suitcases. It's the betrayal that hurts most, Troy. Or should that be Judas? OK, so I suppose that strictly speaking, he is actually Australian, but just when it seemed like McGrath and Warne were going to be succeeded by a bunch of pie throwers, the old enemy has gone and got someone who transformed Flintoff, Jones, Harmison and Hoggard (to a lesser extent perhaps, because his improvement hasn't been so dramatic) into world beaters. Damn that old enemy's eyes. I guess we're going to find out how much credit Troy can take for those transformations. Not very much, hopefully. Either way, it looks like he might have some work to do.
It's all going on in the rest of the cricket world. Well, not all, but quite a lot. That test series in India against Sri Lanka looks like it might be a good 'un. Congratulations to Tendulkar of course, for getting the record number of centuries. I saw him score this one at Edgbaston back in 1996. Given the circumstances and the conditions, I think it's the best innings I've ever seen live. I still think Lara is, slightly, the greater batsman, if only because he's more mercurial and has scored more runs when they mattered most (notably against Australia in that series back in 1999).
Talking of all time greats, it was good to see this article in praise of Murali. I think that he's fantastic. As well as being the most unique bowler, he seems like such a nice, down to earth bloke. I do like his mischievous smile, and his mad eyes at the point of delivery (he'd be good at the Haka, I reckon). It is such a shame that some commentators just dismiss him as, at best, a freak (and, more commonly, as a cheat). He has to be at least as good a bowler as Shane Warne. Personally, I think he's ever so slightly better.
Finally, I was looking forward to seeing how the Australians would fare against South Africa, but the latter don't look to be in such great shape at the moment. Perhaps they're trying England's technique of playing atrociously in the warm up games. It didn't work in the last series though did it?

That was worse

2005-12-04T12:23:00.000+01:00

What a collapse... again.
All in all what a horrible defeat. I couldn't bear to listen while Pakistan were piling up the runs on Wednesday and Thursday. It was like a return to the bad old days of toothless attacks (Defreitas et al). There was the consolation, however, that our brilliant fast bowlers had just been neutralised by a very flat track. Collingwood and Bell, hardly the most imposing batsmen, both looked to have the measure of it, but then... oh no, not again. That was truly horrible. Had the players given up? Did they just want to get it over with? I don't know. If the team needed a wake up call after the ashes though, that was it.
So where now? Well, I think there are two or three issues to be dealt with. The first is the spin bowling. Without Giles, the cupboard looks very bare. Is it time to throw Monty Panesar (spelling?) in at the deep end? That's been the policy with the fast bowlers of late (viz Plunkett), so why not with a spinner as well? OK, so the guy can't bat, but we're desperately in need of a spinner who can take wickets and given a few years in the team, who knows? He can't be much worse than Udal. I wouldn't jettison Gilo just yet, but it's sad to seem him having to play when he's injured just because of the lack of a credible alternative. I was wrong about Udal. He doesn't really look up to it, and he's not young enough to worth perservering with.
The next issue is the batting. As I've said before, we're desperately in need of a grafter down there in the middle order. I even said this at the beginning of the Ashes when Thorpe was so unceremoniously dropped. We got away with it in that series but only just. The second innings performances at Edgbaston, Trent Bridge and the Oval weren't at all convincing (if Warne had caught Pietersen...). In fact none of the batting performances in any of the Tests were that convincing, not given the flatness of the pitches.
The problem seems to be that 5, 6 and 7 are all the same type of player: high risk strokemakers. I previously suggested trying to make Pietersen into a grafter but that doesn't look as if it's about to happen. Alternatively how about playing Pietersen at 4 and Bell at 5? If Bell can build on his decent series, he could become the new Thorpe. New blood isn't really required, I don't think. It is about time, however, that Vaughan started to score some runs. Swap him and Strauss perhaps?
The third issue is that of preparation. Aggers makes a good point here I think. How much better might the batting have been if they'd had a chance to acclimatise? The conditions out there are so very different. Of course, the Pakistanis were unlikely to give the batsmen a chance to acclimatise: they produced seaming wickets for the only two warm up games. But, as in South Africa last year, the batting did look half baked. Chances of longer tours look slim however. Let's just hope that the batsmen can take some lessons from Pakistan with them to India.
On a brighter note, it's good to see Pakistan gelling finally. It could be a false dawn, of course. They've always looked good when on a roll, not so good when faced by adversity. But with Woolmer at the helm, Kaneria and Shoaib Ahktar maturing, two great middle order batsmen in Inzaman and Yousuf, and the rest of the team looking relatively solid (with the exception of Shoaib Malik at the top of the order), they could start winning regularly. They certainly have the raw materials. Strong teams make for good cricket.
As for England, well, maybe they should go to India as underdogs now. That might suit them.

Could it get much worse?

2005-11-29T22:26:00.000+01:00

Well, yes, probably. Still, not only did England throw away a great start, but then Collingwood scored runs. Were they good runs? From the sounds of it, the pitch is good. Every other batsman got himself out. Sorry, Collie, but they weren't that good. Now, I'm not going to say that I wish he hadn't made them, but... I do wish that someone else had made them instead. If he makes a ton tomorrow, he can't really be dropped can he, so who will be? Not Strauss surely. Shit.
I can think of a couple of former England batsmen whom I didn't like to see make runs.
First there was Tim Robinson, he of the pseudo Gooch backlift, slightly mincing gait and poodle perm (he was on tv recently and his hair looked suspiciously straight). He used to murder medium pacers, in particular the '85 Australians. Then he kind of limped on for a while, scoring runs every time it looked like he was about to be dropped. I remember one innings in particular, in 1987, the first test against Pakistan. He made a hundred on an easy paced pitch (Old Trafford?), when Imran wasn't playing. I can't remember whether Wasim was playing or not. Ooo... the joys of cricinfo, let's have a look... Why can't I put links into this post? The button isn't there. Mmm... Oh well, the match was indeed at Old Trafford. Wasim was playing. So was Imran, but he didn't bowl, so Pakistan had 4 bowlers, one of whom was arch trundler (a la Collingwood), Mudassar Nazar (although I seem to remember him taking a 6 for in 1982... Yes, yes, he did, at Lords, 6 for 32. How do I remember? I can't remember the names of colleagues of work who I sit next to everyday. At least I remember the important stuff, eh?)
Anyway, the next, and far more significant object of my ill will was... go on, guess... debut in 1991, played for Worcestershire, dropped 6 times, yeah, that's right, Hicky, the great white hope, whom Curtley Ambrose (amongst others) steamrollered. Talk about mental scars. For years, any ball pitched half way down the wicket made him flinch. And still they picked him. I know he averaged abourt 33 in his test career, but he was the anti-Hussain: very few of the runs he made were important. When the chips were down he could be relied on to get out. Atherton's declaration when Hick was on 98 in Sydney made me strangely happy. I am a sick, bitter and twisted man.
England could do with a batsman like Hussain at the moment, or even better like his mate Graeme Thorpe (there I go again)/ Tricky situations and difficult batting conditions brought the best out of both of them. Hussain, in particular, seemed almost perverse, the way he would score runs when the ball was darting around (notably in that first test in NZ a few years) or when the team was up against it (I remember 2 great rearguard hundreds, against Australia and India, both at Headingley, both in the second innings, both in what were ultimately losing causes)
Yeah, well, those two have gone. So who's going to replace them? The primary candidate in the current line up is Ian Bell, but at the moment, he isn't really shaping up. I thought that his century in the last test might be a turning point, but he's followed that up with two low scores, two soft dismissals. His century was hardly chanceless either.
Pietersen frustrates me. He can't really be faulted for the number of runs he scores, but still, I have the feeling that he could score a whole lot more if he had even just one braincell in his head. Whenever he gets out in a daft way, people say "well, that's the way he plays", and yet, he has grafted, on more than one occasion, and when he does, he seems to do really well. Perhaps they should put him on sedatives.
Anyway, all is not yet lost. There could be something in the pitch, hopefully, for our battery of bowlers, who must be getting pretty sick of the batsmen. I mean, really, they haven't posted an above par score since... not counting Bangladesh... errr... against West Indies the year before. Ok, Ok, they score a few runs against South Africa last winter. Still, even against Australia last summer, when they had first use of some great batting pitches, they scored well enough, but never as well as they could or should have done, I don't think. Also, as previously mentioned, they've got into a habit of collapsing, which England teams of years gone by found very hard to get out of. In fact, it was only really during the last series in Pakistan that England got into the habit of scoring heavily. What's happened? McGrath at Lord's, Warne at Trent Bridge, the pair of them at the Oval on that last morning. What if Pietersen hadn't been dropped by the latter off the former?
It was good to see Vaughan back at the top of the order. He seems to be a different player up there. Perhaps Strauss should be the new Thorpe. That's it!!! Oi, Duncan!!!
Finally, spare a thought for Jimmy Anderson. Is Liam Plunkett any good? I do hope he wasn't selected because of his batting. Then again, we could do with a few runs from him tomorrow morning.

Stop sweeping!

2005-11-29T09:33:00.000+01:00

Losing quick wickets is a very bad habit to get into.

Keep 'em coming

2005-11-29T02:10:00.000+01:00

Does the next test really start tomorrow? It only seems like a few days ago that I was listening to the end of the last one on the radio. It was just a few days ago. They don't hang around these days do they?
So Straussy has gone home. I've read the odd bit of press about how he shouldn't have been allowed to play just two tests if it was known that he was going to head home before the third. Well, that's ridiculous. This is the twenty first century. Do we really want players to have to miss the birth of their first child in order to open the batting? No. Good. Also, it makes things more interesting for us spectators. A bit of speculation is all we need. I've made my feelings about Collingwood quite clear. Sorry, Paul, but you ain't up to it (much as it pains me to have to agree with Mike Gatting once again). I'd like to see Alistair Cook in the team, just 'cause, well, he's one for the future. Chances are though that Collingwood will be there again, blocking for hours like a dodgy Morris Minor on the motorway, breaking down before the next services. Select thy metaphors carefully.
This blog has been shamelessly anglocentric up 'till now, but the test series down under has been interesting, principally because there have been signs of life in the West Indies team. It's been so sad to see them hammered over the past few years. Finally, however, it seems like they might be on the way back. OK, so they're getting beaten again, but not hammered. There is a difference. Bravo to Dwayne and as for Lara, well, I think he's the best batsman I've ever seen. He's certainly better than Viv Richards. Not only is his record better but for most of his career, he's been playing in a losing team. He's probably not the easiest bloke to play alongside but even so, you've got to admire him. In a couple of years, he'll retire I expect. Will such a high backlift ever be seen again?
It looks like Jimmy Anderson might be in the team tomorrow. When he first played for England, he looked so good. I really thought that he'd be a feature for the next decade. What went wrong? He certainly lost that banana outswing. His action always looked slightly suspect, the way he lowered his head at delivery. It would be great to see him performing well again. He's looked a bit lost these past couple of years.
So can England's succeed in this final test? Losing that first one must still rankle. Winning the toss tomorrow morning is essential, I think. After Ponting's mistake in choosing to bowl at Edgbaston, the Ashes were won by winning the toss and batting first. The flip of a coin is so very important.

Eggs not hatched

2005-11-21T15:52:00.000+01:00

Yesterday's disappointment that the game was most likely heading for a draw has become a feeling of unease that we're going to get beaten. The bowlers did pretty well. When the last wicket fell, the commentators were even talking about the possibility of England getting a lead. Now all the talk is of the pitch breaking up (watch it, Shahid) and England needing to bat the whole of tomorrow. Whenever people start muttering that Pietersen is getting a bit big for his boots, he seems to do the business, so here's hoping that that's the case tomorrow. Bell also seems to be playing pretty well. Freddie seems clueless against Kaneira but then he seemed clueless against Warne at first. See straws, clutch them, that's my policy.
I didn't see Inzaman's run out but it is a shame if the good spirit in which the series has been played is dissipated by that incident. Unusually, I agree with Agnew about this: throwing the ball at the stumps like should be strongly discouraged.

Mud Pie

2005-11-21T01:00:00.000+01:00

Baked for a long time. The ball didn't bounce very much did it?
I woke up, switched on the radio, found out that Pakistan were batting. My heart sank. Then I heard that they were 73-3. Heart lifted a little, but only a little. Even listening to the radio, the pitch seemed slow and flat. I realised how slow and how flat when I went down to watch at my Dad's a little later on. A good length for the seamer's was almost a half volley. Pitch any shorter and the ball just stopped. It reminded me of sodden pitches which I played on as a kid. Only the ball probably did a bit off those. I don't envy our seamers.
As for our spinners, well, there weren't too many signs of improvement. It's not looking good for the rest of the winter. The Indians must be pretty happy. Pakistan only have one world class batsman: Inzaman. India have three: Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar. I don't think Laxman is too far behind either. If the pitches in India are like those in Pakistan, which take the sting out of our seam attack, then the Indians will bat forever before unleashing Harbajan and Kumble. Come on Ash. What's going on?
One good thing: no Collingwood. Bell even bowled pretty well, better than Collingwood would have done maybe. I'm not sure about his catch though. Commentators for the past few years have been almost universally adamant that debatable catches shouldn't be referred to third umpires, because the replays almost always suggest that the ball might have grounded. Personally, I think that that's because, in those situations, the ball almost always has been grounded. The catcher might think he's caught the ball cleanly. He will be able to persuade himself quite easily. It's not really a question of honesty, not when the ball hits the ground and the catcher's hand(s) almost simultaneously. Yousuf wasn't out.
What a joy he was to watch too. He reminded me a lot of David Gower, with a lazy backlift towards fourth slip before bringing the bat around and gently down. Batsmen like that really are a joy to watch: Dujon, Gower, Laxman, Mark Waugh. Inzaman lacks a little grace but makes up for it perhaps by being extra easy. He really is very cool. As for Afridi...
It was great to see the crowd's reaction to his entrance. It was great to see a crowd even. Congratulations to the authorities for letting so many people in for free. Perhaps test cricket isn't so unpopular on the subcontinent after all. Perhaps it's just that the people out there haven't got a whole lot of money. Duh.
Anyway, I won't be tuning into tomorrow with much hope of England having made inroads. Unless England bat like idiots, which is quite possible, given the quality of Pakistan's spinner(s) and the likely size of Pakistan's first innings total, the most likely result is a bore draw. When I started watching cricket, that was the likely result of ever test match everywhere. Test cricket really is so much better than it ever was. It is a shame that an extra flat pitch can still make it a bit tedious. The contest between bat and ball stops being a contest. Batsmen fill their boots. Averages are bloated. People say cricket is boring. Sometimes it is. I quite enjoyed watching it this morning, but I did read a lot of the paper whilst doing so.

The other imposter

2005-11-19T10:36:00.000+01:00

So it's a few days now since the end of the last test. I doubt that the dust has settled yet in Multan, but then it probably never does. What a match. England currently seem incapable of playing a dull one. Everything was looking so good with Bell and Trescothick piling on the runs in that first innings, but then, as is England's wont, they let it slip. So they bounced back on the fourth day, when Inzaman and Salman Butt were building a lead which looked like it could become unassailable, but 198 was always going to be a decent total, albeit one which was makeable. It seemed though, that the lack of experience in the middle order finally let us down. Thorpe would have retired anyway by now, even if he hadn't been discarded before the ashes, but that's who was needed in such a situation. Not Collingwood. Oh dear.
Now I'm not the kind of person to call for people's heads after one defeat, but I was never much of a fan of Collingwood in the first place. Have England ever had a more inept number 4? I can't think of one. Hussain was a walking wicket for a couple of years before getting to Sri Lanka in 2000, but I think he batted at number 3, and he was a good captain, and he'd made runs in the past. Anyway, Collingwood batted at 7 at the Oval. What changed between then and last week? Nothing. He's not good enough to bat in the top six in a test. If proof of this were needed then it was provided by his dismissals. In the first innings, he edged a ball from arch trundler Shabbir which didn't deviate in the slightest and missed what was described as a straight one on TMS in the second. Anyway, now that Vaughan is fit(tish), and after Bell scored a few, there's no reason for him not to be sub again, which, quite frankly, seems to be his best role.
The other disappointment in the match was the bowling of England's spinners. It wasn't that great, was it? To have nearly won a test on the subcontinent with the spinners only taking two wickets between them is quite an achievement in itself. Giles bowled so well in Pakistan last time. Will he bounce back? He's made a habit of starting badly in the past few years, last summer and the summer before and in Bangladesh before that, so there's hope. I don't think there's much for England if he doesn't improve. It was quite depressing to see Shoaib Malik bowl. He's described as a part timer, but he spun the ball a lot more sharply then Giles or Udal. Then again, that might be because he's a chucker. Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those who thinks Muralitharan chucks the ball, not for a moment. Malik's arm did look a bit crooked though, and I'm guessing that he was born with a straight one.
Anyway, as I think I've said before, I do get very excited when England win a test, but I can usually remain philosophical when they don't. In this instance, I haven't found it too difficult, partly because I quite like Pakistan. The only team I really hate to get beaten by is South Africa, for some reason. Probably because they have a habit of thanking God, like American sportsmen (and thank god they don't play cricket). Pakistanis sound like lovely people. I don't find it hard to feel happy for them.
Still, I wouldn't mind if their team got hammered in the next two tests. Odds are that they'll both be drawers, but England have bounced back before. Any complacency must have been expelled by that defeat. I'll be at my Dad's again tomorrow morning to watch. Life is sweet.

England beat Argentina

2005-11-12T23:05:00.000+01:00

So what.
I left to go to my Dad's at 9.30. Pakistan were 160-1. I imagined that they'd go on to score over 500 and that we'd be batting to save the game against Kaneira et al. You'd think I would have learned during the summer to have a little faith. Two wickets had fallen by the time I got to my Dad's. Two more fell in that first over after tea and then, towards the end, Kamran Akmal played what was, in the circumstances, not a very clever shot to be caught at second slip. Sami didn't look like much of a batsman did he? England might bowl them out for little more than 300 on a pitch which has yielded huge first innings totals in previous test matches. Once again, even without Simon Jones, the bowlers did the business.
I think England showed what a good team they've become today. When I was panicing, well, not panicing so much as willing to give up, the bowlers were calmly going about their business, confident that a break would come, and that after one there would be another. Meanwhile Pakistan showed once again how they're the cricketing equivalent of Holland's football team. Their batsmen are great to watch. Wristiness like that is sublime. Then Salman flashes when he should be pressing on to a ton. Yousuf misses a yorker by a long way, as does the new number 6 and finally Kamra, oh Kamran. Thou hath the head of a melon and the brain of one too. Only Inzaman is left. I don't know why, but I love guy. He seems singularly amiable. He's a tryer and he's bloody good, only not good enough for me to want to get up at 4 o' clock to watch him continue.
It was great to see that there were a few people in the ground today. By all accounts it seems that Pakistan is a great place to visit, that the people are amazingly welcoming. I'd love to go and watch some cricket on the sub continent. I had thought that Sri Lanka would be the best place to go, but it might be Pakistan, given that going there wouldn't involve associating with the barmy army. Too late now though, I think. Maybe in four years' time, God willing, Inshalla.

Back once again, it is the incredible...

2005-11-10T11:46:00.000+01:00

Rhyme animal? Not this time, Chuck, no. It's a test match, involving England. I realise that I've been a bit slow on the update this past month or two, but, let's face it, there hasn't been a whole lot happening to make me feel compelled to write. The Super Series turned out to be a fiasco, predictably after the Ashes perhaps, serving only to restore a bit of the Australians' old confidence. Ganguly was sacked, finally. Actually, that whole saga was quite interesting. If his behaviour was anything like what Chappell described in his inadvertently open email, why did the Indians put up with the Prince for so long? Very odd. I digress. Two days to go. England lost their second tour match. Jones and now Vaughan are out injured. The players haven't had a chance to practice on the type of pitch, a low, slow turner, which is bound to be prepared at Multan. Things aren't looking too good.
Well, that depends on which way you look at them. Even the Australians were bored by their team steamrolling everyone (and are probably becoming bored again). There seems to be little danger of the England team following suit. No matter who they come up against, they seem to like to make it into a bit of a contest. This next test could go either way, and that's good.
In the tradition I've established of remaining positive in the face of contrary evidence(and vica versa), I reckon after their disastrous displays in the first two tour games the England batting line will come good when it matters. Strauss won't like the fact that he missed out on a century in his debut Test against Australia, having scored one the first time he faced New Zealand, West Indies and South Africa, so I wouldn't bet against him doing the business at Multan. Old Ooders outbowled everyone, Kaneira and Mushtaq Ahmed included, in county cricket last season. He and the King of Spain will be a deadly spin pairing. As for Collingwood, well, I guess he could score a few runs. Vaughan and Trescothick only averaged in the 30's in county cricket when they started playing for England. There's just something I don't like about Collingwood. He's boring.
Still the best news of all, for me at least, is that I'm going to be able to go around to my Dad's to watch the action on Sky. It'll be a bit different to the balcony in the south of france where I followed England's last Test. Frankly, I wouldn't mind being on the balcony, in the sunshine, listening to TMS, but sharing toast, tea and newspapers with my Dad while he says, once again, that he's never heard of any of the Pakistanis (apart from Inzaman maybe) will be pretty good.

Bo Selecta

2005-09-29T11:05:00.000+02:00

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

2005-09-26T10:42:00.000+02:00

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?

2005-09-12T09:36:00.000+02:00

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

2005-09-11T08:53:00.000+02:00

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"

2005-09-10T11:03:00.000+02:00

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...

2005-09-09T08:57:00.000+02:00

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???

2005-09-08T10:19:00.000+02:00

Arse.

Act V

2005-09-07T20:46:00.000+02:00

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.

Whingeing Aussies and the Moral High Ground

2005-08-31T20:50:00.000+02:00

Sounds like a band name... Anyway, yes, if there's one thing better than beating than beating the Australians, it's doing so in a way that really pisses them off. Jardine/Larwood, Illingworth/Snow, Brearley/Botham and now Vaughan/Pratt. Fantastic. Now I'm all for fair play (so I'm actually not unreservedly proud of what happened during the Bodyline series, although you have to hand it to old Douglas), but it is quite amusing to hear Ponting invoke the spirit of cricket. Clearly John Buchanan hasn't done "hypocrisy" as one of his words of the day yet. Is old Punter aware that it was his predecessors who first adopted the policy of not walking when they knew they were out? Even if not, then he was part of the team which, under Steve Waugh, took sledging to an extreme (or "mental disintegration", sorry John). And even if his memory is failing him, then I don't think slagging off all and sundry after being run out is really in keeping with the spirit of the game. Jones had his ankle in a brace for Christ's sake. OK, so the whole policy of having bowlers leave the pitch quite frequently is a little dubious, admittedly, but it's not that bad. They only have 8 minutes before they have to be back on again. Do they really gain that much of an advantage? Actually, Harmison might have even reached one catch which just cleared Pratt's head. Oh, and, if memory serves, which it does apparently, the first bowler to make a habit of leaving the pitch after bowling a spell was.... yeah, you guessed it, uber Australian Dennis Lillee, back in 1981, when he used to nip off to change his shirt (and his natty yellow headband, I bet).
Anyway, Ponting is seriously in danger of sounding like I did as an 8 year old whenever my older brother beat me in a game in the garden. I buried my new gloves once, blaming them for my defeat. Why I was wearing gloves, I don't know. We were playing with a tennis ball. I think they were new. Anyway, I was only 8. Ponting is 33 or something. He does look like Dubya doesn't he? Perhaps he shares a mental age. I digress. What I'm trying to say is that Punter and his crew clearly wouldn't be complaining about this nonsense if, as expected by almost everyone (me included, I must admit), they were 3 or 4-0 up at this point. They just can't believe what's happening. Nor can I. Isn't it great?
What is almost as unbelievable is that the Australians could still retain the Ashes if they win at the Oval. How cruel would that be? It wouldn't be much of a victory for them, I don't think, but nevertheless, it would be very annoying. If Jones manages to get fit then I'm not too concerned, because with him our pace quartet look champion (as Boycott might say). Obviously there's a good chance that he get better, because otherwise they wouldn't be bothering to put him in an oxygen tank, with assorted divers (I wonder what they talk about). Still, he must be a doubt, for the same reason, and if he doesn't play then the pressure created by the bowling won't be quite so relentless. Who would replace Jones? Tremlett, almost certainly. Gatting suggested Collingwood, but Gatting only managed to captain an Ashes winning team only because our team and Australia's were both absolutely rubbish at the time, so we can ignore his suggestion. Others have mentioned Caddick. Shiver. Is there anyone the Australians would rather see grimacing at non-existent footholes after he's just bowled another first innings half volley than Andy Caddick? I think not. If the selectors want to pick an old hand for one game only then they could do worse than select Dominic Cork who's doing pretty well this season, and who is always up for the occasion. I'm sure they won't though, and I don't think they should.
As for Australia, well... will they play five bowlers, as suggest by Waugh? Will they drop Hayden, as suggested by Roebuck (who will soon be admitting that he is English after all)? Will Tait be injured (his shoulder is sore)? Could we give a shit? No. The only important question about Australia is whether McGrath is fit or not. If he is, and Jones isn't... mmm... well, let's see. Only a few days to wait now. English boot is on Australian throat. Altogether now... press.

Never in doubt

2005-08-28T22:00:00.000+02:00

I always thought that watching cricket was a great way to relax, but for the third time in four weeks, I've spent an hour or two this afternoon quite concerned that I might be about to have a coronary. I know that this series is very exciting, but here's hoping for a definite, clear winner at the Oval... or a lot of rain. Nah, not really. That was great. Again.
If Australia had got a lead of over 200 then yeah, England would have been in trouble. As it was, they bowled very well again, without Simon Jones this time, and with that bit of luck when Aleem Dar gave Katich out to Harmison. That was a shocker. Earlier, Hoggard had stepped into the breach, bowling a very tight spell before removing Clarke, and then, after lunch, Gilchrist. The latter, especially, was a great moment. I almost allowed myself to relax.
For years now, Hayden and Gilchrist have been the twin totems of Australia's dominance, bashing bowlers all over the place, humiliating them. Suddenly (at least in Gilchrist's case - Hayden has been out of form for a while), they're looking human. Hayden might even be dropped for the last Test and I hope he isn't. That's how edgy he's looking.
As for that run chase, well, what can I say? Is that the first time Hoggard has ever played a cover drive? In an interview afterwards, he joked that he'd played it with his eyes closed. At least, I think he was joking. Then there was Ashley Giles to finish things off. Good for him. England's isn't a team of superstars. Hoggard and Giles are two of its finest representatives.
I do hope Simon Jones is fit for the last Test. Not only has he been our best bowler, it would also be neat (especially given England's well documented, disastrous selection policy over the years) for the same eleven to play all the way through. He's got ten days to recover. Haven't we all?

Kicking and screaming

2005-08-28T08:17:00.000+02:00

That didn't exactly go to plan did it? England may have forced the follow on, but life remains in the Australian side and they're not just twitching. They're only 37 runs behind with 6 wickets left. Adam Gilchrist is due in next. It's unlikely that Simon Jones will be able to bowl and he's been England's best bowler. The rest have been bowling for over a day now. They're not going to be supremely fresh. England are now also favourites. That brings its own pressure, as was evident on that last day at Edgbaston. I wouldn't be surprised if England have to chase over 200 in the last innings. That wouldn't be easy, not with Shane Warne bowling on a wearing pitch and the Ashes in the balance. I'm preparing for another day of uneasy listening.
So was Vaughan right to enforce the follow on? He had to, really, I suppose, but there were risks involved. The opposition are harder to bowl out with bowlers who haven't been sitting around for a day. Runs are much harder to make in the fourth innings. If Ponting hadn't been run out then things could have been looking quite serious this morning. As it is, I think the game is still in the balance. Oh, for a couple of quick wickets...

Revisionism

2005-08-27T09:28:00.000+02:00

Big word that... Not entirely sure what it means.
Still, the Australians would have had us believe that the momentum was with them after they'd managed to save the last Test. Did they really believe it? Could they? It would have taken a leap of faith, one which Flanders Buchanan may have been able to make, but I'm not convinced that the rest of the team were able to.
In fact (and here comes the revisionist bit), I'm now wondering whether England's failure to win the last test wasn't actually a good thing. Okey dokeley? Well, maybe not a good thing, but not such a bad thing anyway, because if England had won, they would have been 2-1 up, but the Australians would have been stung and would have come out fighting at Trent Bridge. As it is, they were able (just about) to dismiss Old Trafford as an aberration, to convince themselves that the situation wasn't too serious, and crucially, to allow themselves to think that if the series scoreline remains as it is, then they would end up retaining the Ashes. They stuck with four bowlers. They were very quick to go on the defensive in England's first innings. Yesterday, the field was spread for Flintoff and Jones almost from the off. No pressure was applied, when one wicket then would have meant that they were on top. It was as if the Australians were already playing for a draw.
Still, I doubt whether this defensive mentality had anything to do with Australia's top order being blown away, once again. England's bowling attack has become pretty special. Simon Jones has developed control to compliment his swing, and Hoggard, in conditions which suited him, finally, backed himself, stepped up to the plate, held his hand up and came to the party (still on a plate, arm raised, moonwalking). The Australian lower order are going to have to bat pretty well to get out of this one. Here's hoping that they're blown away this morning, England enforce the follow on and wrap it up by the end of the day. The one thing England have lacked so far is the killer instinct. Oddly, this may have worked in their favour up until this point, but now it's time to put the boot in.

Cracking up

2005-08-25T07:26:00.000+02:00

I imagine that some of those Australians are feeling a little uncomfortable this morning. Of course, McGrath will still be feeling a little soreness in his ankle and the injury to his elbow won't help him look any less than the medium pacer who got belted around in the second innings at Old Trafford. Otherwise, the discomfort will largely be mental. Warne's been having a go at the groundsman (quite rightly, probably). Gilchrist (or his ghost) has written how he must do better. Langer has been writing about how great it has been to get away from it all. His article, in particular, seems quite revealing. It's all very well being relaxed on a golf course, but today must feel like judgement day to quite a few of those Australian players. It's not just the Ashes that are at stake. Their reputations are on the line. There have been quite a number of mutterings about their dominance over the past few years being due to the lack of quality in the rest of the teams around the world. Hayden, for example, who must have thought that he had booked his place amongst the greats, is suddenly being questioned. For such a big man, it must feel odd to be seen as one dimensional. I'm not sure about this idea that bowling around the world is weaker than it has been for a long time. West Indian batsmen during the eighties, for example, would only really need to get concerned about Imran, and perhaps Hadlee, whose record isn't as good as Pollock's is now anyway. There were no decent spinners back then, not really, certainly none as good as Muralitharan, Harbajan and Kumble. Still, Hayden did appear susceptible to extreme pace early in his career. Shoaib got him out a few times in the Australian summer, and at Old Trafford, Flintoff made him look very average. Is he starting to think that it might all be over? Is he reflecting on his career? It looks that way to me.
Apart from worrying about their reputations, a few of the players will be noticing Shaun Tait and wondering about their own futures. Gillespie, who is younger than most of them, may have played his last Test. What will happen if they do lose the Ashes? Will they replaced en masse? Certainly, questions will be asked.
Of course, Ponting could win the toss and, if the reports of a flat pitch are accurate, Australia could end the day at 350-2, and, if so, all will be well in their world again. Should the reverse happen however, the cracks in the Australian psyches will be widened. One Test under the cosh could be dismissed as an accident, a temporary blip. A second one, and the idea that the Australians are a team in decline may take hold in the heads of the players and become a self-fulfilling analysis. It's time to see what these Australians are really made of.

"Scream it like you hate that bitch"

2005-08-22T21:18:00.000+02:00

Such was the advice given to a pre-Pixies Black Francis by a minor South East Asian pop star. Nothing to do with cricket there, but if John Buchanan can use Lao Tzu to motivate his fellas, then I'd like to suggest that Duncan Fletcher try invoking Black Francis' mentor. If a few shared drinks have softened the attitudes of the England lads to their opponents, a quick perusal of some of the pearls that John Buchanan deigns to share with the general public now and again might put them back on track. On second thoughts, those pearls might just make them laugh, especially that revelation near the end about how John has encourage his players to learn new words. Opportunity there for some creative sledging methinks.
Anyway, just a couple of days now until the next test and it seems that quite a number of people might be getting that gearing-up-for-a-test-match feeling for the first time. The press since the last test has been chocka with a broad gallimaufry (hey John, maybe that idea of yours wasn't so bad after all) of articles about cricket's new popularity. My favourite was this one, by a woman who's developed an interest in the game. Maybe the next time I tell someone that I like cricket then I won't feel the need to do so apologetically. I always try to explain that's what great about it are the characters and the way you can dip in and out of it, and that it goes on for five days, and can change suddenly, and you can do all the housework while listening to the commentary, which is great in itself (the commentary, not the housework), but I don't think I've ever convinced anyone. I've never expected to, truth be told. Now it seems as if a combination of a great ashes series and Simon Jones' torso may have achieved the apparently impossible. That's OK by me. I'm not bitter. Lust will become love soon enough. Of course, it's also great that loads of kids have been getting into the game too. I've even been practicing my creaky bowling action. As a result, my back hurts and I will stop.
Whether all of this lasts is a different matter. By the time that Sri Lanka arrive next May then this Ashes series will be a distant memory and the papers will be full of speculation about the state of David Beckham's linguistic skills (cunning) in the build up to the next World Cup (the World Cup, not the Cricket World Cup, which is one day cricket anyway and therefore crap). Now part of me isn't too bothered about this. Frankly, selfishly, I want to be able to get tickets to watch several days play of both Lord's Test matches. On each of those days, after tea if not earlier, I'll go sit in the Mound Stand, square of the wicket, to enjoy the evening sun with a beer and then probably another. I'm dreaming about it already, the honey light, the Lord's murmur, heaven on earth, or quite close to it anyway (unless Graeme Smith is making a very ugly double century, which he won't be, because the second test is against Pakistan). But if cricket remains popular then my chances of acquiring said tickets will be minimal.
The authorities have done their bit to help me out by selling the television rights to Sky. Oh dear. When I first heard the news, back whenever, I felt like I had when Dubya was reelected: gutted and disbelieving that anyone could sanction such a ridiculous decision? Without wishing to sound too prejudiced (or, as David Houghton might say, "No disrespect, but..."), one does half expects such idiocy of our friends across the pond, but of the ECB? Mmm... Well, anyway, it does mean that if I'm back in the UK next summer, I'll have to shell out for a satellite dish and subscribe to line Murdoch's pockets, even though I'd rather do lots of other nasty things instead. To confirm the hint of leftiness given in my reference to Dubya up above, yes, I do believe Murdoch is a force of evil (as does his son perhaps, but I digress). So I might just continue to make do with the radio.
It is a bit annoying that people are only really kicking up a fuss now, when the deal was done months ago. I've also read that Channel 4 didn't even offer as much this time as they had for the previous set of rights, so I guess that the ECB were put in a difficult decision. It is a shame though. Worst of all, watching the cricket will mean having to listen to Botham, Willis, Allott... What is David Gower doing with that lot?
Still, for the time being, all is good in the world of the English cricket fan. I'm trying to enjoy it while it lasts. Old Punter may call correctly come Thursday morning, and the ball may not reverse swing (Trent Bridge having a relatively lush outfield) meaning that a couple of days in the field for England's new heroes wouldn't be out of the question. Then we'd get beat by an innings and... I'd have no problems getting tickets for the Lord's Tests next year. I can't lose.

Which way will it go?

2005-08-19T13:36:00.000+02:00

It's been a few days now since the end of the last test match. It's going to take a lot longer than that for me to forget it. When those DVD's of the Edgbaston Test were rushed out with the title "The Greatest Test", I did think "mmm... (I even "mmm..." in my head), that may be a little premature. I mean, they're going to look pretty silly if the next one is even better." Of course, I didn't think that the next one would be even better, and it wasn't, not from a neutral standpoint, but personally, I enjoyed it more.
As I said in the last post, I had been expecting a draw, because the wicket was flat, it hadn't broken up and the Australian batting line up is rather strong. To win, I thought that we would need at least 3 wickets by lunch, 6 by tea, and, of course, all 10 by the end. In each instance, we were one short. Even so, at the end of the first two sessions, I was very happy with England's performance. It sounded like they'd been bowling well. In particular, Flintoff's bolwing sounded special (I was listening to the radio) first to Hayden in the morning, and then to Katich and Gilchrist in the afternoon. Hayden was made to look very ordinary, playing and missing repeatedly before being bowled around his legs, and when did Gilchrist last score just 4 in 30 balls?
After tea though, I thought that Vaughan got it wrong. Earlier even, before tea, after Flintoff had finished his afternoon spell, I was thinking that the obvious choice to replace him was Jones, who had taken 6 for 53 in the first innings, and is the other bowler in the England team who can make the ball reverse swing. After tea, I was sure that he would be brought back. Instead, Giles bowled a few more innocuous overs from one end (his success may depend on batsmen going after him) while Harmison banged it in from the other (please, please pitch it up, for Christ's sake). What was going on? Why wasn't Jones bowling? It seems like I wasn't the only one wondering (see the comment in the 73rd over). Anyway, just to prove that I am one hell of a smart ass, when Jones was finally brought back, he took a wicket in his second over after, making one go back in to Clarke like a particularly bendy banana. When Hoggard dismissed Gillespie with a straight one in the next over, I thought that the end was nigh. But no, with the old ball reversing nicely and Freddie getting ready for a final spell, they took the new ball. Big mistake, fellas. What the hell were you thinking of? The old ball was moving. The new one didn't, allowing Warne to bat for ages with Ponting. Shit.
Anyway, I'm just being picky, because overall England were great, and Vaughan has to be applauded for his captaincy. I just hope that he's been reading what the Australians have been saying about the difficulty they're having in playing reverse swing. Reverse swing is the difference. Flintoff and Jones have been down to the crossroads at midnight, or whatever is the cricketing equivalent (around the pavilion at tea time?).
By the way, does anyone know (as if anyone is reading this) the physics behind reverse swing? There's a good article about its history over on cricinfo, but I'm yet to read a comprehensible and convincing explanation of the phenomenon. From those I have read, I've got the idea that it happens because air sliding past a ball which is travelling at over 80 mph actually goes around the rough side quicker. Why this happens though, is not entirely clear. Does the air just give up trying to go through the rough bits because the ball is travelling so quickly? I'm not a physicist, as you may have guessed. Also, does bowler actually do something different when trying to make a ball reverse swing, or does he just try to bowl a ball in the same way that he would an outswinger/inswinger and then watch it go the other way? Not many people seem to know. Call Sarfraz!!

Jones and Jones

2005-08-14T21:17:00.000+02:00

For a moment, I felt sorry for the Australians this afternoon. There is something sad about age catching up with top sportspeople. It's a reminder of mortality. "Time like an ever rolling stream bears all its sons away". And then I thought, "Bollocks". How arrogant were they for all those years? How much did they patronise the English teams put up to face them? How annoying are they when they go on about "executing their skills"? VERY. And how often did they say they wanted a real challenge? They don't really look up for it right at the moment. I'm sure that right now, they'd quite like to face a few pie throwers.
I think a draw is the most likely result tomorrow, but it's a reflection of how well England have been playing that I wouldn't be too bothered if they don't manage to force the win. Of course, the Australian batsmen may suddenly find form and manage a record winning total. The pitch does look as if it's playing quite easy, although that was when the Australians were bowling on it (ouch). Anyway, perhaps the most heartening aspect of England's performance is that everyone (nearly) is contributing. Strauss got runs today (when we would have been vulnerable if bowled out for less than 200), Bell was very gutsy in the first innings (even I felt the pressure when he spent so long stuck on 18), Ashley Giles' successes have been well documented, and finally Simon Jones' bowling was deservedly rewarded with a few wickets. I like the way he bowls now, at a full length, swinging it both ways at a good (if not express) pace. He's so much better a bowler than he was even 6 months ago. As for Hoggard, well, apparently it will swing at Trent Bridge.
So what about the other Jones? Chris Read's name has been mentioned, again and again and again. Good wicket keeper. Shit batsmen. He's not as a good a batsman as Ashley Giles. Do we really want Ashley Giles coming in at 7? If Jones is to be replaced then I think it would have to be with another genuine no.7. Prior is the leading candidate, I reckon, but apparently his keeping is worse than Geraint's. So, I say "stick with the Welshman from Papua New Guinea". Hoorah. The success of this side, and in particular the bowling unit, has been achieved by picking players and then sticking with them. It took Harmison, Flintoff and Simon Jones a number of tests each to become as good as they are now. GO Jones clearly has the batting talent. Jack Russell thinks he's a decent keeper. Alec Stewart started as a stopper and ended up as a decent gloveman. GO Jones will get there. And in the meantime, let's be thankful that the bowling attack is good enough for his mistakes not to have been too expensive. He caught that catch at Edgbaston when it mattered.
Anyway, didn't anyone notice Gilchrist miss 2 catches in the first innings and 2 stumpings today. Even good keepers miss chances (not that I'm suggesting Gilchrist is great with the gloves). Pressure does strange things and England are currently applying it, magnificently.
One of the ways in which they're doing so when bowling is by keeping very defensive fields. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this is helping Harmison too much. It's encouraging him to bowl short, with the odd yorker, a la Flintoff, but the transformation in his performances first occurred when he started bowling a good, fullish length (ie not halfway down the track). He should be bringing people forward and having them caught in a packed slip cordon.
Anyway, I'm being picky. The defensive fields do exploit the principle Australian weakness, which is the urge to dominate. Vaughan is the new Brearley, or the new Nasser. Of course, it helps to be a captain with fairly decent bowlers.

Australians pray for rain

2005-08-12T22:14:00.000+02:00

What the hell is going on? I feel like I've slipped into a parallel universe. In the real one, Australia are 250-1, cruising towards 600, with Warne licking his lips and laughing at Merlyn. I thought that England had scored enough in their first innings up at Edgbaston, but I didn't think so today. I thought that Flintoff had thrown it away. The wicket at Old Trafford looked like such a good one, with enough bounce to make Australian batsmen feel at home. I imagine that those batsmen are feeling pretty uncomfortable right now.
As I pointed out in my last post, they could claim to form the strongest ever batting unit. So what went wrong? Well, they've been out of form for a while now. Gilchrist has been bailing them out. I thought that he was about to do so again today, especially after he was dropped twice in an over. My own mental scars were opening up. But then in ran Simon Jones to dismiss those big ears with the first ball of his second spell, and suddenly the commentators were starting to talk about the possibility of England enforcing the follow on. It's a bit surreal.
Where did Jones and Flintoff learn to bowl like that? I guess that Darren Gough may have instructed them in the art of reverse swing, but he was never quite so good at it. The way Flintoff dismissed Katich was brilliant. Can there be any greater humiliation for a batsman than having his stump knocked out by a ball which he has left alone? How about being bamboozled by the King of Spain? At this rate, the King is in danger of losing his "a".

McGrath IS a robot

2005-08-10T21:16:00.000+02:00

For a long time people have been describing McGrath's bowling as metronomic, robotic even. How does he manage to land the ball on that same spot ball after ball after ball? Almost inhuman, isn't it? As are his powers of recovery, it seems. Apparently he had a grade 2 tear of the ligaments in one of his ankles. I don't know what "grade 2" means, but I'm assuming there's a least a grade 3, which would suggest that the injury wasn't trivial. I though it was doubtful whether he would take any further part in the series. But I log on this evening and what do I find: McGrath has been bowling off a full run. Shit. I can only conclude that McGrath is indeed a robot. Rather than waiting for the ligaments to "heal", the physio (who lists amongst his hobbies "animatronix") just whipped out the old, synthetic set and fitted a new pair. He can't really play tomorrow, can he? I doubt it, but still, he's scary.
So what about England? Well, despite all the calls for changes after Lord's, I thought the selectors should stick with the same team, and they did, thankfully, but the time to change a team is when it's winning, and there appear to be mutterings that the selectors may actually replace Hoggard with Tremlett. What England really need is a stock bowler, a reliable seamer who can bowl 20 overs a day for 60 runs (if such economy is still possible) and maybe chip in with the odd wicket or two (actually, I wouldn't mind a devastating pace bowler who can bowl 15 overs and take 7 for 2, but still...). This was supposed to be Hoggard's role in the team, when the ball isn't swinging. When it is, Hoggard can be very dangerous, as he proved in SA during the winter. When it isn't though, he doesn't seem able to contain. Vaughan was hiding him at Old Trafford. Still, I've just checked out Tremlett's first class stats it doesn't look like he's a particularly economical bowler anyway. Plus there is a chance that Hoggard will swing a couple back in to the left handers (remember how he bowled Hayden in the first innings at Lords). So perhaps the selectors should keep faith with Hoggard after all, as they did with the King of Spain, with spectacular results (5 big wickets, or 4 big wickets plus Warne). If the King of Spain had been hit out of the attack, then the pressure to replace Hoggard (and his majesty) would have been greater.
Talking of greatness, Ian Chappell seems to think that this Australian team is just a good one, with two great bowlers (can't find the link now). Gee, you lose one test, by just two runs, and the critics turn on you. Now I reckon Pakistan in the late 80's and early 90's were a good side with two great bowlers (Imran and Wasim, followed by Waqar and Wasim), as were South Africa in the mid-90's (Donald and Pollock), but this Australian team probably have the best top 7 ever. If you added up their averages, I wouldn't be surprised if they exceeded those of the top 7 of the Invincibles, even with Bradman's 99.4. Some of them are just out of form at the moment. What's more worrying for the Australians is that they're all starting to get on a bit, at least in cricketing terms, meaning that this might actually be the Australians best chance of winning the Ashes for the next however many years. They don't appear to have any special young bowlers coming through. Nearly all their batsmen, and all those who they might call upon (Hodge, Hussey, etc) are over 30. Are Australians going to find out what it's like to be repeatedly hammered during the next 18 years? Will we be drawing parallels with the relative fortunes of the Conservative and Labour parties in British politics? Am I getting way ahead of myself? Errr... yes.
Win the toss Vaughnie. Bat. Make a ton. Calm Bell down as he approaches his. Then, on Friday afternoon, unleash Flinters and Harmison. Those Australians, they don't like it up 'em.

All Change

2005-08-09T08:15:00.000+02:00

What's that clattering sound? Journalists jumping on a bandwagon perhaps? A couple of weeks ago the criticism of the England team following the defeat at Lords was really rather vicious. It was articles like this one, in particular (spectacularly ill-informed, ignoring England's recent record run of victories) which made me want to start this blog. OK, so I really didn't expect England to win at Edgbaston, but I did think it was way too early to write the team off. The criticism of Ashley Giles was particularly harsh (does David Houghton really think that he's not showing disrespect for the King of Spain by saying that he's a waste of space?!). It was interesting to see an article by Justin Langer this morning, with the title "Giles is the key to home success". Even I think he may be exaggerating with that one.
I imagine that old Ashley is probably getting pretty excited about the prospect of a raging turner up at Old Trafford, but it seems that the pitch might actually turn out to be hard, fast and bouncy, favouring pace. How good would that be? The Australians will be reinforcing their helmets. Not that I have a bloodlust, you understand, but there's no more thrilling sight in cricket than fast bowling, as far as I'm concerned, and Warne might not take ten wickets, although bounce would favour legspin too, of course.
Following my comments about the respective merits of Botham and Flintoff, it was good to see one journalist (at least) agree with me, complete with stats (Botham's career actually tailed off mmore than I thought it had).
Viv Richards, however, seems to think that Roger Harper and Eldine Baptiste were better bowlers than Shane Warne. Oh dear.
Finally, just in case this linktastic post has given the (very false) impression that my favourite newspapers are the Times and the Telegraph (only the cricket, only online), then here's proof in the Guardian, if further proof were needed, that Ray Illingworth's brain really is made of cheese. I can't really believe that the Test against Pakistan at Headingley in 1971 was quite as amazing as the one we've just seen.

Towards the heart of an impenetrable darkness

2005-08-07T22:10:00.000+02:00

"The horror, the horror," whispered Colonel Kurtz. For a while there, I was starting to think that I was about to find out what he felt like, as the runs required slipped away like sand through an hour glass. The England players wouldn't have been the only ones left with mental scars. I started trying to tell myself that it didn't really matter, that really, it's only a game. And then in those last few minutes, as the loss began to seem inevitable, I started to feel a strange sense of calm. Dread was becoming resignation, and meanwhile, desperately, I was trying to hold on to the memory of the last couple of times Australia had been in a similar situation, against England, in Melbourne, 1982, and then again against the West Indies in the early nineties, when the last wickets had fallen, right at the death. Please, I thought, let history it repeat itself.
And what if the ball had made fuller contact with Kasprowicz's glove? And what if the umpire hadn't raised his finger? Best not go there, I reckon. Along that path, madness lies. Look. I can just about make out Colonel Kurtz at the end of it.
It has to be said that Flintoff and Harmison bowled pretty shit this morning. Brett Lee's hands might now look like raw steak, but line and length would surely have induced a mistake or two far earlier. The last two wickets could have been something like caught at slip and LBW, not hit wicket and caught down the leg side by the keeper (and if you'd dropped that one Geraint, even I would have lost faith in you).
And I agree with the press: Flintoff's really was an amazing performance. Is he really the new Botham? No, I don't think so. Botham never bowled at over 90 mph. Botham never hit the ball quite so hard. Botham played a lot against Packer ravaged sides early in his career (for some reason, I always remember Haroon Rashid). The Australians he conquered weren't nearly as good as the current bunch. And let's face it, Botham was a bit of a prick, a show off, a yob, who never really made the most of his extraordinary talent, who never performed against the best team of the time. Flintoff, on the other hand, is like Desperate Dan, or Obelix without the weight problem. He's genuine. He tries bloody hard, I reckon. So far, throughout his career, he's been improving. How much better can he get? I'm not sure that there's a whole lot of room for improvement. Maybe, he could learn how to read Shane Warne, but then maybe he should just carry on belting the crap out of the ball.
For once, thank god for back to back tests, meaning that there are only 3 more days until it all starts up again. Can England put in a repeat performance? Will Australia bounce back? Has a sporting event ever made so much build up seem so justified?
The football starts again next week. I wonder which sport people will be thinking of now when someone mentions Old Trafford.

All hail the King of Spain

2005-08-06T01:11:00.000+02:00

No, not him. That's right, "targetted" Ashley Giles bowled 26 of the match's least expensive overs and, while doing so, took 3 vital wickets. Good plan Buchanan. I suggest you try plan B.
Of course, Warne's dismissal of Strauss right at the end was a little like the moment in a horror movie when the demonic character, apparently dead, does something truly horrible, but I'm going to stick my neck right out (mmm... can feel the blade already) and say that things are looking pretty good.
Well, aren't they? I really thought that Gilchrist was going to blast away and score 150, and he might have done, had Jones and Flintoff not blasted away the tail at the other end, swinging the ball like they were Waqar and Wasim. Our bowling attack looked pretty handy, I reckon. For a man who doesn't like hitting batsmen, Harmison seems to do so with amazing regularity. Jones has improved remarkably (check out the lovely straight seam on the slow motion replay) and when did Flintoff develop those inswinging yorkers? Shame about Hoggard, but as for the King of Spain... well, I hope commentators the world over consumed extra large portions of humble pie this evening, no condiments allowed.
Now if Warne could just tread on a ball while warming up tomorrow morning...

Divine Madness

2005-08-05T06:46:00.000+02:00

So McGrath injured himself during the warm up. Hard not smile, wasn’t it? I may have even laughed a little. After Lord’s, the thought did cross my mind that England’s best chance of regaining of the Ashes would be to get someone to knobble McGrath and Warne, and if only one then the former. Now he’s done the job himself. Or did he? After mentioning Mr Jardine this morning, I did wonder this afternoon whether the England team might have got out the ouija board at the hotel last night and evoked the wandering, restless spirit of the old enforcer with the Harlequin cap. Was that ball there before McGrath put his foot on it? What was it doing there anyway? Jardine may have devised a radical tactic to combat one member of the Australian team (Bradman), but in the intervening years he probably reached the conclusion that it would have been a hell of a lot easier just to knobble the bastard at the beginning and be done with it.

The incident, I think, also represents justice (of a poetic variety) being served. Over the years numerous England players have suffered injuries both prior to and during Ashes series. Recently, in 2001, we lost Hussain, Thorpe and White (who was actually quite important at the time, having cemented his place in the side as a useful batsman who bowled at over 90 mph). Then in 2003 Gough, Flintoff and Thorpe (again, although not because of a physical injury in this instance) were unavailable. On each occasion the media (both Australian and English, strangely) insisted that injuries were a poor excuse for getting hammered, which was bollocks as far as I was concerned: no team loses three of its more important members without suffering a little. So I hope that the media aren’t going to make allowances because of McGrath’s absence this time.

They should, of course. Without McGrath, Australia’s pace attack looks pretty ordinary. Would any of them get into the England team? I don’t think so. Lee’s record is no better than Hoggard’s, Gillespie isn’t the bowler he was even a couple of years ago and Kasprowicz is just a steady seamer. Apart from missing his bowling ability, his loss will have a psychological impact. Without him (and Warne) the Australian attack was flayed all over the park(s) in Australia by the Indians a couple of years ago. Meanwhile the England batsmen must have felt like the school bully had been expelled. They played like they did. Either that or someone had stirred something into their morning tea. Meanwhile, spare a thought for Ian Bell.

I’m surprised by the suggestion in some parts of the media that 407 might not be a good score. Over 400 is a decent score pretty much anywhere, I reckon, especially after being put in. OK, so we were 290-4, but we were also 180-4 when Flintoff’s first scoring shot just cleared mid off. Had that been caught we would have been luck to make 300. As it is, 407 isn’t bad, not on a pitch like that, which is likely to deteriorate. Batting last on it won’t be too much fun. Of course, the true value of those runs won’t become apparent until tomorrow, after Australia have batted for a while. I hope someone has told Flintoff and Harmison not to bother banging it in.

Ashes in the mouth

2005-08-04T08:23:00.000+02:00

There's an article that's just appeared on cricinfo about "the Real Douglas Jardine": http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/213701.html. It sounds like he was a pretty uptight kind of guy. I remember watching that mini series about Bodyline back in the early eighties. The article says old Doug was portrayed as a cross between Bertie Wooster and Hyde. I reckon he came across more like a close relation to Darth Vader, one who had been to public school, unforgiving of both the opposition and his own men, and yeah, very cool. I'm sure that the viewer was supposed to sympathise with the poor Australians, Bradman and all, but Jardine was a great anti-hero.
Clearly Vaughan isn't an ex-public school boy, but he did appear to be trying to adopt a bit of Jardine's aloofness when telling Ponting where to stick his suggestion that players be trusted to be the judges of whether they'd caught a ball cleanly or not. On the first morning at Lord's, it even seemed a bit like Bodyline, with Harmison very satisfying clanging the helmets of each of the Australian's top three. Then I read afterwards a quote in which Harmison said he didn't like hitting batsmen. What would Jardine have done had Harold said such a thing? Threatened to send him back down a coal mine I imagine. Obviously Vaughan doesn't have this option, but perhaps he should sit Harmison down and show him videos of Lillee and Thomson terrorising our lot back in the 70's, and then a few minutes of Merv Hughes trying to do the same in the early 90's (just for some light relief). If that doesn't work then someone should remind him that some of us have had to watch the likes of Neil Foster and Phil Defreitas opening England's bowling for the past 20 odd years. Botham? Medium pacer. Gough? Too short. Let 'em have it, Stephen, knocking their f*cking heads off.

Edgbaston predictions

2005-08-03T21:33:00.000+02:00

I'm with Ashley Giles. There's been a whole load of crap written during the last ten or eleven days about how England are useless and they need to change this or that. It was like being in a time warp. I'm sure a lot of journalists just cut and paste large chunks of articles first written in the eighties and nineties. This England team isn't at all bad. It's certainly the best that I've seen since I started watching back in the late seventies. They won a lot of test matches before losing one to Australia, who are possibly the best team ever (although it would have been interesting to see them face up to Marshall and Garner). And that one loss wasn't exactly a humiliation either. It was like a 3-0 scoreline in a football match: sounds like a drubbing but the second and third goals were scored in the last ten minutes. So I'm relieved that the selectors have stuck with the same team (even though they should never have discarded Thorpe, but that's history now) and I'm guessing that their faith may be repaid, a little at least. The atmosphere at Edgbaston will suit England. The pitch may do also. I reckon that Vaughan will score a few, I hope that Bell does and the bowlers must be feeling pretty confident, Giles excepted. So come on, Ash, roll up, twirl, remember bowling Lara at Lord's last year, be our Shane Warne equivalent.
OK, yeah, odds on that Australia will win again, but you never know...

Mentally tough?

2005-08-03T21:19:00.000+02:00

I read an article today about how the Australians were thinking that they might go home if there's another terrorist attack in the UK. Are these the same players who came to be so mentally tough, who visited the battlefields of Gallipoli four years ago and those of France earlier this summer in order to gain inspiration from the bravery of their forefathers? Their reaction might be understandable if they had actually been targetted by terrorists, or even if they had to travel on the tube everyday, but they don't, do they, no. Come back, Kim Hughes, all is forgiven.