Plans undone and plans gone mad

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Some of cricket's greatest success stories have centred around good planning before a series or a tournament; the major three that jump to my mind would be Stephen Fleming planning the way to victory in England in 1999 and 3 draws against Steve Waugh's Australian team in 2001, or Martin Crowe's World Cup team of 1992 and, most impressively, the transformation of the poor Australian side of 1986 into the best team of the 1990s and 2000s by Allan Border and Bob Simpson. These are some of the best instances, this week we have witnessed some of - not the worst but - the less fruitful ones
First to The Ashes where cricket's main event got underway with a fascinating draw that included two 6-fors, two double hundreds and two triple century partnerships (enough '2's for Richie Benaud to drown on his own saliva). England refused to accept tradition and batted well in the second innings of a test in Australia and crossed 500 for 1 - crushing records and Australian dreams in the process. Now that the dust has settled (literally in this case given the pitch by the end of day 5) it is amusing to note some of the obvious plans that went nowhere in this match:

1. Strauss' obvious intention to attack with the bat on Day 1 ended when he cut the 3rd ball to gully - although history would suggest he was correct to try and I would say his frustration would be with the groundsman before himself
2. The reliance on Swann to not only take wickets, but tie down the Australian batsmen. I predicted last week that the opposition wouldn't allow this to happen again without a fight and I think I was right. Swann was attacked early and his control of length disappeared as a result. The one lesson the English should have learnt from 2006/7 is that the plans of the previous series won't work twice
3. For Australia, Mitchell Johnson looks terrible. Enough said? Perhaps not so how about this. Their 'best' bowler looks slow, lost and confused - so much so that his innings of 0 lasted 19 deliveries! The less-than-subtle tattoo decorating his non-bowling arm looks more dangerous than his bowling at the moment. I said that Australia needed him to bowl well to win and I meant it

Here are some thoughts going forward:

• Bollinger and Harris have already been drafted into the team for the Adelaide match. With Johnson not getting runs at the moment (none in fact) he could be dropped for either of these - Dougie would be my preference - but then the Australian tail will be significant (Ashes experts feel free to chuckle at that thought)
• If Australia plan to win this series they MUST find a way to crush Trott and I mean destroy him mentally and technically (ala Atherton or Lara) and the best way to do this is with accurate, left-arm pace (thus my preference for Bollinger). If there is one technical flaw that seems obvious to me, it's that Trott seems to play to the legside a little too often and could be found out with the ball shooting across him - think of that ball McKay got Tendulkar with last week

Oh and there is one last plan that has come undone for England and that is their player's not being able to use Twitter while on tour. Apparently Alastair Cook couldn't help himself after the match today:
http://twitter.com/engcricketteam
(or perhaps this could be the Ashes Twitter account I promised back in August. Look forward to further 'tweets' here during the next test)

NOW to the New Zealand team
Although I applaud imagination in captains some of the stuff going on in this ODI team boggles the mind. For instance, sending Darryl Tuffey up the order like that was more surprising that effective, but it was opening the bowling with him that annoyed me most - he is too similar to Mills at the other end! - why would you do this with McKay as an option?
However, the thing that keeps me up at night is a nagging feeling that the team is not taking any of this seriously. Let me expand here, I don't mean to question their commitment as such, I just think that, with all this talk of 'conditioning' for the World Cup, the concentration has been removed from the now and focused on the future - as if the tours to Bangladesh and India are merely net sessions - for lack of a better term. We should be trying to WIN over there - not just get used to the conditions. I hope this hasn't begun to rot the team, I'm not sure that it has but it is a growing fear in my mind when i see them play. Feel free to disagree with me on this, I think it is a worth while discussion though.

On the other hand, all the best or worst laid plans in the world will mean nothing if the match reporting is as poor as that on display in the TVNZ ranks this morning. I was appalled while witnessing the ONE News report on the match - I thought they were talking about a different match until I realised that the reporter must have been simply researching straight from the scorecard - here are some points and see if you agree with my suspicion:

• 'the indian 2nd tier team that doesn't include Dravid or Laxman' oh right because those two have played ODIs lately (2009 and 2006 respectively!)
• 'late fireworks pushed the total up to 276' funny because as someone who watched the game I could have sworn it was the hitting in the middle that did the damage?
• 'Guptill's innings was filled with luck that ran out' I could have sworn he played several wonderful straight drives reminiscent of Martin Crowe before getting carried away against the spinner
• 'it took Taylor blasting his way to 66' my definition of blasting doesn't include spending the first 40-odd balls nudging singles but perhaps the definition was changed.
• 'Mills and McCullum's hitting delayed the inevitable' well this one is more a matter of opinion I guess but the tone doesn't impress me - it's that 'oh there they go collapsing again' nonsense that you get from the same people who would have lorded the effort if it had gone on for just 30 more balls (and won the game) as it could well have done.

So not to sound too much like a Monday-morning-quarterback (to borrow an American Football expression) I would like to offer some advice. First Ross Talyor needs to have a net with Kyle Mills and I don't mean as the bowler, he needs to learn that you can hit the ball to areas other than square leg! Also, as a more long-term idea, with the return of a keen Lou Vincent this might free up Brendon McCullum to return to 7 in ODIs where his skills are needed far more than opening (thanks to a friend for giving me this brain wave)
Or perhaps answers will come from the king of plans himself, former English Coach Duncan Fletcher who has joined the team for the remaining 4 games. You may remember him as the man who, with Michael Vaughan, led the 2005 Ashes campaign He should provide a fresh voice as Mark Richardson put it last night

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

"It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing..."

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I have long thought that the quote in the title of this week's post sums up The Ashes contest perfectly (I won't tell you till the end where it comes from by the way - see if you can guess). This season it seems even more appropriate given the conundrum that faces me and fellow cricket fans looking at two seemingly well-matched teams, not great teams but talented and certainly eager XIs. Many commentators seem almost irritated that the New Zealand cricket team is distracting them from this task (tough luck) however now that the campaign for a first series win in India (or even a draw) is going quickly down the 'gurgler', my attention switches to Australia as easily as the wording in this sentence. Some might say that, given the 4-0 defeat in Bangladesh, ambitions for winning that series began IN the gurgler but I digress

The two teams that will line up in Brisbane this Thursday are led by two tired captains who must realise that they have both played a great deal of cricket in their careers, during this year and will have to play in the longest World Cup yet in the new year. Both captains are not known for flare or imagination and both have suffered the lows of Ashes defeat and the high of Ashes victory. They must both use the memory of these experiences to overcome their defensive, cricket-killing-because-they're-not-prepared-to-take-a-chance, barely-club-level captaincy and push their troops to victory. I firmly believe that this may be the factor that ensures victory for one side or the other - this is a long series and will be hard fought in conditions stretching from a seamer at the Gabba in November to a dust-bowl at the SCG in January (with a WACA flyer in the middle hopefully). Strauss leads a team with more senior players but only ONE (Pietersen) has tasted any kind of success in Australia (obviously I mean in a personal sense) and Ponting has the home turf advantage that helps Australia just like any other cricket team.


(yes Ricky you hit the ball with that side) (Andrew don't drop them!)

Predicting the performance of these captains is impossible so lets look at some points we can predict:

• First, if England wish to WIN the series they must win at the Gabba and with seam-friendly conditions they should be in with a good chance - their best in years. The reasons for this are that Australia have such a good record there (16 wins and 4 draws in their last 20 matches there!) and have used victories here to upset opposing teams, with the flat wickets of Adelaide and co to come a good result here is crucial and any touring side knows that wins become harder to manufacture as a tour goes on - fatigue sets in to rot the resolve
  Second, if Australia wish to WIN back The Ashes the need Mitchell Johnson to bowl like Wasim Akram and not like James Franklin. Poor as his bowling action is, he has the fitness and strength to bowl some devastating spells at key times - the kind that can steal victories in places like Adelaide and Melbourne. They don't need him trying to imitate Harmison's efforts of 2006 (where the first ball of the series ended at 2nd slip and quickly announced the end of that particular campaign before it had time to begin)
• Third, the Australian batsmen (Ponting, Clarke and Hussey) of real class will come good at some point in this series and cannot be matched by England (Trott, Pietersen and Collingwood). All three are very experienced in their conditions and dominated the last Ashes contest in Australia.
• Fourth, Shane Watson will resume his normal habit of getting out LBW to quality bowling
• Fifth, Graeme Swann will need to think on his feet and be flexible with his plans because there is no way that the Australian think-tank hasn't planned for his influence on this series. They know he is the key difference between the two bowling attacks and will/should have formulated plans for countering, negating or even defeating him - spinners have met their end in Aus before

Personally I think a drawn series is quite possible (where England retain The Ashes but don't win the series itself). This would include English victory in Brisbane but defeat at Perth or Melbourne where their attack won't be as affective. That's about as far as I would even CONSIDER putting moeny in this fight. before I finish here are some links to previous Ashes moments and any thoughts inspired by them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClNsK1bX23A
Ponting's 196 from two years ago to set up victory at the Gabba. He lost the urn the year before and with this innings, made an emphatic statement of intent - really a threat - of what was to come. Runs are his best method of captaincy and will be crucial to winningthe series
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1z6P9LCRiU
Johnson's 7 wickets at Perth against South Africa, this kind of bowling will be the best England can expect - at least they won't have to face these two again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA2mJP-UgPY&feature=related (Warne)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IQPMU44IPE&feature=related (McGrath)
Sadly neither side will likely offer the following kind of innings...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPOOhFmUprA (Gilchrist second-fastest test century) ...but what team could

Personally I don't really have a dog in this race and thus don't really care what the result is - I am looking forward to a tight contest though and the ingredients are all there. As for the quote in the title for this post, Sean Bean said those words in The Fellowship of the Ring 10 years ago




Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Maddening, McCullum and Mail Bag

Hello and welcome back to my blog

The New Zealand team continues to push the 'best' side in the world over in India this week, refusing to live in a lugubrious state of being like the rest of us; I hope they can maintain their intensity for the whole series. Having said that I do have some thoughts:

• Daniel Vettori finally picked up his 19th 5WB but went for 130+ runs to do it despite taking his 4th wicket having only conceded 91 runs. Try and as he might, he was unable to remove the last wicket (a period of tired and terrible cricket that could have proven fatal today) and his struggle highlighted a major short-fall in his game. The great spinners have always been able to run through the tail-end of a team by spinning the ball - think Warne and Murali here - Vettori lacks this skill and thus takes much longer to pick up nine, ten and jack. Probably too late to change this but it is certainly a weakness the team needs to address and with a different bowler
• I must be running out of hats to devour in shame during this series. Brendon McCullum defied my criticism and scored a very nicely constructed test century last night and showed the kind of patience required at this level by turning it into a double to draw the match. I will say that I am glad to be proven wrong so far on this point
• If the question mark over McCullum has been removed this has only emphasised another one, two spots down the list over Ross Taylor's head. He has failed to have the impact in India that he had at home against Australia and India in the last two seasons and appears to have no real idea how to play. His quality continues to appear in an on-drive or flick through mid-wicket but seems to be quickly negated and forgotten by a poor piece of defence - the delivery that got him last night (an inswinger) moved less sideways than his bat did across the line

I can't help but feel that this series may turn out to be as maddening as a whack-a-mole game

Now to the mail-bag, to borrow a term from Murray Deaker of Sky Sports, a few weeks ago a fan of the blog posted a comment of equal length to the relevant post (Playing cricket doesn't make you a journalist anymore than being blind makes you an optometrist ) and thus I felt it fair to reply in this form as opposed to tacking another comment below his. In his comment there are several points and questions which I would like to address here:

First is the concern over Roger Mortimer (high performance manager) and whether his expertise with the fitness and discipline of singular athletes is suited to a team sport. I admit that this question worries me as well, it seems like the whole exercise could be a waste. Can Mortimer relate to the pressures of batsmen out in the middle? What does he know of cricket technique? I honestly don't think this role is required in a cricket team (at least not in the form of a separate coach/manager) but it did occur to me that the relative inexperience of the players may require something new, like this to bridge the gap between them and their international colleagues. I therefore recommend patience on this point
The comment also states that Daniel Vettori should remain a selector and that every captain should have some influence on selection. There are many arguments supporting this assertion and I personally think that this is the way to go in the small cricketing nations but let me ask you this: can you honestly see this working in India and Pakistan where the political in-fighting and favours are rife. As a rule of thumb I would say that if you charge a captain and coach with rebuilding a team then they deserve a say in selection
Third point was that the 4-0 loss in Bangladesh was more educational than disastrous. I think I know what he means here but if he could elaborate that would be great - I can foresee a good discussion in this area
Now we reach my major disagreement with the fan's comment, the pushing for John Wright to be a coach NOW. First I wish to point out that I never said he wasn't needed, my thinking was that it would be cruel to bring him in 5 months before a World Cup. The team deserves more faith than that, Greatbatch deserves more time and certainly Wright deserves more respect. I don't wish to sound strident but I firmly disagree with what appears to me to be a knee-jerk reaction that I know the fan to be above
Lastly, the suggestion that the All Black coaching model of using coaches for specific roles (like batting, bowling and fielding?) is an interesting thought. Correct me if I'm wrong here but don't England currently do this? I won't say I don't like the idea but it might be prudent at this point to mention Bob Simpson, who with Allan Border crafted one of the greatest cricket sides in the world between 1986 and 1996 without such a structure. Their approach was very basic, create the best fielding, most disciplined and fittest team in the world out of young and talented men and the success will follow. Could well work for the Black Caps under Vettori and Greatbatch although I doubt we would allow them 10 years to do it

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Old men take the lime light, sadly

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I thought to myself 24 hours ago that I shouldn't write my blog until the thing was finished - herald the NZ comeback only to see a boring draw/embarrassing loss etc. Naturally I refer to the just-completed test between India and New Zealand and not surprisingly it didn't end in a victory for my favoured team. Despite the efforts of Martin, four wickets were still to be claimed when play began on Day Five. The last of these was not removed until after Tea by which time Black Cap fans had moved comfortably from celebrating a possible victory to celebrating - well anything else.

I am disappointed that Dhoni didn't push for a victory himself - his side blunted the Day Five attack after an hour and could have declared anytime after lunch really. This is the kind of captaincy that destroys interest in test cricket; certainly there was no real reason to keep batting after Harbhajan Singh reached his century (sigh). The only sympathy I have for him is that he likely didn't expect both overnight-batsmen to still be in at lunch and closing in on centuries (neither, I would wager, did Vettori). However, some kind of punishment for 'captaincy contrary to the spirit of the game' could be useful...

Certainly the visiting team took more out of this match than the home side. Although I didn't write them off to the extent that many publications did, I never thought the match would make it to the end of Day Five. The sad thing is, and it will be a learning curve for many of the players, you really need to win early in India because it generally takes great sacrifice of resources to do so. In the case of Vettori's men the cost for this draw was quite obvious with Bennett, Ryder and possibly McIntosh injured to one degree or another; less obvious will be the physical and mental strains from this match which will likely appear in tests 2 and 3. While there are still bowling resources to be used (and, according to Vettori, players that can be called from NZ) one can't help but ask whether Simon Doull and Danny Morrison have been told to hit the nets before the second and third tests.

Beyond this, the glaring concern is the use of Brendon McCullum as a top order batsman. This development has huge implications on the balance of the team - suddenly they only had two front line seamers (and the danger of this was realised when Vettori was forced to open the bowling with Martin in the second innings) not to mention the joke selection of Gareth Hopkins as keeper. Although equally important a consequence, the latter proved more frustrating as Hopkins missed several straight forward chances (in both innings) and did nothing while batting to convince us that he isn't a poor (emphasis on poor) man's version of a domestic keeper (harsh? I'm not sure). Traditionalists worthier of the title than I express a regret that the post Marsh/Healy/Gilchrist area is dominated by keeper-batsmen, but of equal importance to these geriatrics is the QUALITY of the old keepers whose batting average was less than 25. The idea of selecting an all-but-34 year old keeper is also insulting to some of us who would perhaps have kept quiet if only a person of younger years than McCullum were given the chance - I doubt that Brendon will suddenly change his mind, thus a bit of forward thinking was required and hardly difficult to manage.

One might say that the Black Caps have lost a keeper but gained a top-order batsman (no secret that they were lacking) but sadly that small victory has not yet been won- and I don't think it will be either. It certainly will please some that Brendon made runs at No. 2 (curse them if they print such a 'triumph') but to the trained eye the problem was as obvious as it was saddening. His eventual dismissal (stumped) was of bad technique equal to the fine piece of keeping to complete it and exposes his flaw. The top three batsmen MUST be century makers (although old-time openers were less concerned with this, their time finished after the West Indies/Australian dominance of the last 25 years) and this requires a mix of mental and technical skill and patience; McCullum was undone by hard hands going at the ball and lost his balance - never mind how good the delivery was. I would have given him the benefit of the doubt if I hadn't seen him play two seasons of ODI cricket in the same position and walking into the same problem (literally?). Is the team losing a talented No. 7 (in both forms of the game) to that player's ambitions? The corollary question is what about his next flight of fancy? Ross Taylor took two wickets today - after making a handful of fifties opening the batting in test cricket will Brendon try and be an all-rounder?

On a different note, congratulations to Chris Martin for producing a wonderful display of swing bowling yesterday evening. Although I did predict his selection, I did so in a dejected sense and certainly thought him past such spells - not even Hadlee could have dreamed of such an effort (in India) and neither could the bowling coaches of the subcontinent who have become obsessed with reverse-swing of late. Consider me silenced sir (for now) and eating my hat. Consider the other traditionalists occupied in a similar fashion.

Oh and by the way Kane Williamson made a debut century that required concentration that belied his years...

Sadly it won't surprise me if India ease to large victories in the remaining test matches (as has happened in the past) and that would be no great shame in my mind. As for the two tired umpire decisions made on the final afternoon - if you don't fork out and pay for the Umpire Review System you get what you deserve (and the BCCI are supposedly leaking cash!).

Also, as I type this up, a story is emerging around the second-choice keeper for Pakistan, Zulqarnain Haider, who may have received threats after steering his side to victory against South Africa in the fourth ODI of their current series. He has apparantly disappeared. Naturally I will be keeping an eye on this as it unfolds - despicable if true

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

All this talk of XIs!

Hello and welcome back to my blog

First an apology to my faithful readers for the lateness of this week's post, family frivolities kept me away from the Internet for several days - would have been at home in Bay 13 at the MCG to be honest. So today I find myself trying to avoid the Mark Richardson method (see his book) and ponder how the Black Caps might win (or win respect at least) in India over the next few weeks. In the spirit of picking XIs that seems to have overtaken Cricinfo of late (copied from my early blog entries I might add) here are some fun suggestions
The Squad is as follows:
Vettori, Arnel, Bennett, Guptil, Hopkins, McCullum, McIntosh, McKay, Martin, Patel, Ryder, Southee, Taylor, Watling and Williamson

The XI will likely be:
McIntosh and Watling to open (the description of 'get runs no matter how slow' picks these two quite naturally I'm afraid - enjoy these two while they're there because after this series it will likely be that time again where we 'blood' a new pair)
McCullum, Taylor, Ryder and Williamson (unless they're stupid enough to put in No-runs-against-Zimbabwe B/World 1000th XI-Guptil) should fill out the rest of the top-order.
Vettori fits into the counter-attacking Number Seven role (although he should move up if 4 wickets fall early)
Hopkins keeping at 8
Then bowlers will be Patel, Arnel and Martin

Now, in my opinion, the line up should be:
McIntosh, Watling, Taylor, Williamson, Ryder and Vettori as your top Six. McCullum should be given a slap or a bucket of water and told that he should be keeping and batting at 7 (where he has averaged 50 for the last 12 months or more) thus not wasting a spot with first-class rubbish like Hopkins (the same man who scored a century against ZIM B recently - revealing the 'quality' of that bowling line up)
The bowlers should include Southee, Arnel (who should know now that he will bowl a great deal) McKay/Bennett (for pace) and either Martin or Patel. Note that Patel, who went at 5+ an over in the recent A tour, should ONLY play if the pitch will definitely turn

Now for some fun:
The best chance for victory lies in the following selection:

1. Turner
2. Wright (just in case we need a century to draw a match - seriously look at his stats for drawn matches)
3. Crowe
4. Crowe
5. Crowe
6. Crowe
7. Hadlee (the one that gets runs)
8. Ian Smith
9. Vettori
10. Hadlee
11. Hadlee

(Note: these selections depend on the assumption that four Martin Crowes and four Richard Hadlees wouldn't kill each other)

Finally, to give some hope to the boys, almost no result could be as disappointing as the one likely to be produced by the following XIs
FIRST

1. Sutcliffe
2. Leggat
3. Poore
4. Reid
5. McGregor
6. Rabone (c)
7. Cave
8. MacGibbon
9. Colquhoun
10. Moir
11. Hayes

(see March 1955)

SECOND

1. T. Franklin
2. J. Morrison
3. M. Sinclair
4. J. Crowe
5. K. Rutherford
6. C. Harris (not to be confused with his twin who played ODI cricket with distinction)
7. V. Pollard
8. L. Germon (c)
9. G. Loveridge
10. C. Pringle
11. H. Davis

(Poor-men versions of better players all)

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now