One for the road

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I understand that around this time of year many of us retreat from our normal lives of work and grind so I don't expect many to read this post until well after it is published. Therefore there seems little point in finding a gripe or current event to analysis, other than to say that the current MCG test match is wonderful to watch, instead I shall end 2011 with an addition to the cricket discussion I began earlier in the year with a cricket-mad friend of mine who graciously replied to my first points (here) with a long and well argued essay in September (here). I would recommend a quick skim through at least the latter post before proceding to my thoughts below

My Friend

Thank you for taking me up on the offer of an on-going cricket discussion and if we continue in the same form presented thus far then I am encouraged. I did warn readers that we may agree on many things but I am glad to find in your first reply that there are important areas of difference between us - if people wanted to view two idiots just agree all the time they would watch Hannity and Colmes. I can easily split your points into those that are misguided out of ignorance or laziness and those that I disagree with, but first I would mention the one that gave me pause for thought; that I might concede a point to your good self before I take you to task (or the cleaners as it might be) on a couple of points.

I believe your strongest point is when you talk about the T20 format as a different format requiring and providing a different skill set. I have heard and agreed with that point before but what you provide is a sincere and ultimatley accurate feel for what that really means and the extent to which it is serious. The increased need for accuracy of bowling and shot placement, the battle represented by the yorker and the Dilshan/McCullum 'scoop' to counteract this once guaranteed dot-ball and the general intensity of such a short format. When I read your honest belief in this I did begin to question my own dismissal of T20 as a bit of 'carnival-cricket' not to be taken too seriously; I'm not sure if I have changed my mind on whether it need be anything other than a bit of fun but at least I better understand what it means to the players themselves. I would point out though that the scoop shot that has appeared throughout this form is actually older than T20 cricket, I remember seeing Hamish Marshall play a similar shot at the MCG in 2004 to help get runs in the dying overs of an ODI; although naturally the new form of the game has developed it further.

I agree with you when you assert that a quality player in one form will be so in another - Ricky Ponting made 90 odd in the very first 2020 international match at Eden Park by playing aggressive cricket strokes, showing true class adapted to a new format and at this point convinced me of his modern greatness. However you also mention the other side of this argument which is that some players can be excellent at one form and garbage at another (you cite Micheal Bevan who averaged 56 in ODIs and invented 'finishing' but failed at test level while someone like Geoffrey Boycott opened England's test team innings with aplomb but maintained an ODI strike rate of just 54). I would caution in you in using Boycott's ODI record in this way, you sir must realise that strike rates have increased over the years and Boycott played in the very first match of this format at the MCG in 1971 (he was I believe the first wicket in ODI cricket too) and many of the early matches in 1970s where opening was to have a low strike rate as long as you lasted 30-40 overs. Your point is correct, just use a better example like Mark Richardson perhaps (although that might be too easy). Mind you, then you have to look at examples of aggressive test batsmen like Slater and Langer who never established themselves in limited overs cricket; it is a difficult area and perhaps one to look more closely at.
To make my point on this matter I would highlight the new Indian sensation Kohli who has impressed in ODI cricket but been, so far, disappointing at test level. I have only seen him play the pure form of cricket a couple of times but what strikes me as his problem is a need to hit every ball. His movements at the crease and defensive game are all about getting bat on ball. Now you my friend are quite able to see the problem here, test cricket requires the use of the 'positive leave' which is a statement in itself to a bowler and opposition, test bowlers would love nothing more than to have you play at every ball - that is their main aim for heaven's sake. Kohli suffers at test level at the moment for the very reason he excels at ODI cricket. Now I think this is slightly different from your points about players being unable to adapt for the following reason: the diet of limited overs cricket, which so far has been increased by playing T20 matches ON TOP of ODI cricket, destroys the culture of test match batting. T20 cricket is where the players will now make their money and if you don't think that is going to damage an entire generation of batsmenship then you would be naive. Before, the case was a more balanced environment of test and one-day cricket but T20 is changing that forever, to the detriment of some of the game's oldest skills
Your suggestion that the players who are in it for the $ in the IPL and other tournaments cannot and will not make it at test level and therefore the pure form of the game is safe from them is misguided for this reason. What happens when Ponting, Dravid and Kallis retire and we find ourselves watching the T20 generation of cricketers? Will they be able to adapt? If they do then I will admit I was wrong but I currently fear for the quality of test cricket in ten years.
Call me a padantic old fart if you will but I always felt that ODI cricket didn't change test cricket enough to kill off its basic skills and principles but with T20, if it is to be the new format that you say it is (and that I agreed with) then you cannot ignore the real possibility that it will have a major impact on test cricket - you can't have it both ways

To finish I would just pick at one point you made, nothing major - just couldn't let it pass without proving how much of an insuffereable know-it-all I am. You express a desire to have an Indian fast bowler stand up and fight the status quo on batting over bowling in that country - I think you may find one Kapil Dev (100+ tests, 5000+ runs and 434 wickets) may have done that in the 1980s. That's not to say they couldn't use one now, athough this Yadav fellow looks mighty impressive...

Well that's it from here, in 2011 and I hope you join me again in 2012
It's good bye for now and happy holidays to you

An uncomfortable feeling of pity: the Australian media's reaction to the loss in Hobart is both childish and stupid

Hello and welcome back to my blog

The Black Caps have done it at last. It has taken 19 or 26 years (depending on which humiliating marker you prefer to use) but the New Zealand cricket team has finally been victorious over their Australian counterparts in Hobart this week.

The test was played on one of the greener wickets I have seen (certainly the greenest seen IN Australia in many years) and provided an amazing dogfight that saw the tourists secure a victory with a margin of less than 10 runs just as Australia seemed likely to steal it (although cricket historians will tell you that Australia almost never wins with 9 wickets down - 1982? 2005? for instance, but even I had my doubts when just two scoring strokes were required). Young Bracewell collected 9-60 in the match (with 6-40 in the second innings) and recked the home side's seemingly simple task of scoring another 80 runs 20 minutes before the lunch break. His castling of Lyon to win the thing was so emphatic as to bypass the review system that delayed Australia's demise till that point. Credit should also go to Taylor for aggressive field placements, Guptill and Martin for their partnership that ended Phillip Hughes' career and Southee for the crucial wickets of Haddin and Siddle.

I said at the beginning of the series that the audience input into Channel 9's broadcast would annoy me by summer's end but now has already annoyed myself and many others by allowing the ridiculous instance of Warner receiving the Man fo the Match award despite his side losing the test. Although he played a fine innings that should see him retained for Boxing Day (at the expense of his partner Hughes one would expect) Bracewell's effort was really the winning of the game - I have always said that the award should go to the player that most infuenced the final result (thus on occasion I would award this to the groundsman for producing a flat, draw-inducing, bore of a pitch). Thankfully this farcical ending to a great match prompted the abandonment of this system in favour of expert opinion. What did they think was going to happen? The Australian public would recognise a great effort by a foreign player? Please, they haven't done that since Hammond made 905 runs in 1928/29 and quickly forgot that achievement after Bradman toured England in 1930. From a neutral point of view, the idea of awarding the Man of the Match prize in such a fashion was faulted by the close nature of the finish that had many votes received in Warner's favour because it looked like he was going to win the match until the final hour which didn't give time for Bracewell to receive enough.

The fall out from the match has been sadly predictable with many papers and commentators announcing the 'lowest point' for the Australian cricket team, their 'worst loss' and the 'ultimate low' (and this is just those based in Australia). What is sad about this attitude is the absence of any real credit awarded to New Zealand for their fine seam and swing bowling that dismantled the Australian batting line up on a very green wicket. In my opinion, the home side should not be too surprised with what happened given the nature of the wicket and the make up of the New Zealand team. There were potentially two key points to note during this match: the first was the injury to Daniel Vettori before the match began that enabled the fielding of four quick bowlers that almost certainly would not have happened otherwise; all four were required to get 20 wickets, the second point to note was the period of play late on Day Two when Williamson and Taylor put together a large partnership. This partnership, while impressive in its execution by the batsmen, should be a main point of focus for Australian criticism because their bowlers lost control of the match, revealing their inexperience. This inexperience was on show the next afternoon when their lower order imploded against some good swing bowling by Southee and Bracewell.

In the end I would not be too harsh on the team as a whole, the bowlers will learn (and did learn as their bowling on the 3rd morning was much more impressive than the previous evening). Hughes should lose his position though after four dismissals that all come from the same technical weakness. This drawn series creates a great deal of interest in the India tour that begins on Boxing Day: will the young bowlers be able to cope with a vastly experienced Indian batting line up? Will the Australian batsmen find form enough to grind out big totals against a varied Indian attack?

For New Zealand there is nothing but renewed hope leading into the home season. South Africa present the largest challenge in the New Year but if we break the habit of the last 5 years and actually prepare some greener wickets that suit our bowlers we should be able to compete.

Congratulations to the Black Caps for doing what Stephen Fleming and Daniel Vettori could not and win a test in Australia - slightly simplistic but the result is a huge boost to a young, positive team

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

It's good bye for now

Chappell and Richardson: a strange pair to be in complete agreement with

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Well somehow the country seemed to actually be behind the Black Caps a week ago, a confidence I have not seen, in print or in public, in years and that extraordinary feet was only matched by how quickly that expectation and goodwill was blown away (if not on day one, certainly by day four) and this time by our own incompetence. Ian Chappell mused, during one of the batting collapses, that Daniel Vettori must be so sick of having to rescue the batting after 10 years of this stuff. I quietly wondered if Vettori was out there warning Brownlie (who on my first inspection, appears to have quite good technique and temperament) that he better get used to doing the same thing. If that is true, the trend should continue up the order: Brownlie warns Ryder, who warns Taylor, who warns Williamson, etc then everyone will bat properly after one of the openers is out (wishful thinking?) as opposed to the top 5 getting out before 6 & 7 knuckle down. Chappell is right though, this constant state of panic that our batting finds itself in has long warn out its welcome and I think Mark Richardson did well to illuminate why

This week, in the papers and on Sky Sport, Richardson (seldom my favourite commentator or writer) has attacked the often employed line 'we're just playing our natural game' as lazy and detrimental to the test team. What that line usually means is that the players are just playing overly aggressive cricket and not taking the time to get set in the middle before they play their attacking strokes. Richardson claims it is lazy, irresponsible and costs the team in every test match and he is right. It is simply not good enough for each batsman to bat with an attitude of 'I can play my strokes because if I fail, the other boys will pick up the slack' because they all seem to be batting in this fashion and next minute (not 'nek minute') we are 4-17.

Richardson's answer to this problem intrigues me: he says that the aggressive/positive intent does not need to be removed but transferred from attacking strokes to a kind of attacking defense. This means that instead of taking pride and joy from hitting the fast bowler to the boundary the batsmen learn to take pride and joy from defending confidently and leaving confidently - that can be just as big of a statement of intent than a well timed stroke (which you can do later). It is a method purely for test cricket and I think the team could do worse than listen to Richardson on this occasion.

The pity really is that the team actually bowled and fielded quite well (except for the missed chances off Clarke, duly punished) and if the team had really tried to set a total of 200 for Australia to chase (i.e. made 300 on Day 4 instead of 150) then I think we could well have won. There were plenty of signs that indicated this Australian side is actually not good enough to endure 5 days of intense cricket. The bowlers look tired in their second spell, their young batsmen are just as susceptible to probing bowling as we are and the conditions didn't favour either side over the other. It will not take too much for an even contest in Hobart today if New Zealand can sort out their childish batting attitudes. As a final word I will say that that change must happen with Ross Taylor first. I lambasted Sehwag in my early posts for poor batting as a captain and I will offer Taylor no quarter here, those two dismissals were the worst pair I have seen from a captain and a friend of mine in Christchurch is right to question whether he is up to the captaincy if he is going to bat like that. I think his leadership in the field was really encouraging actually and I am willingly to wait and see how his batting goes in this match but a batting captain must lead from the front at least some of the time (forgetting Mike Brearley)

Speaking of Sehwag, last night the Indian destroyer-of-bowling-figures made 219* in an ODI and I must say I'm disappointed that the high score record is in his hands rather than the master of that form of cricket, Tendulkar. More about that next week perhaps - enjoy the test in Hobart!

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

It's good bye for now

'Please have mercy! Oh not tonight'

Hello and welcome back to my blog

This afternoon New Zealand will play Australia at the Gabba in the first of two test matches. The visitors will unleash a side possessing a great deal of confidence after their batsmen (1-6) all scored centuries in recent first class matches and the bowling attack boasts talent in Southee, Boult and Bracewell with Martin and Vettori as experience. They are due to play their first choice XI and have the form to throw all they have at Australia who are without most of the bowling attack that performed impressively in Sri Lanka and South Africa during the winter. Their batting line up is confused with Warner and Hughes to open and an aging Ponting at number 3. The wicket is set to be a fast, seamer and the back up bowlers that Australia will pick from to replace their wounded are the same ones that McCullum, Taylor and Ryder thrashed during the match against Australia A last week.

In my view these are the most even (if not favourable to NZ) circumstances to greet the Black Caps in many years. Although one should never underestimate an Australian sports team - they possess such strong individual and team character - but for once I feel confident that we can play at our best and truly test ourselves and our opponents. I am not the only commentator that has expressed as much but I have also heard people express regret that even if we are able to pull off a test or series victory, it would be diminished by the fact that Australia are fielding a weaker side than they would like. Are we to take advantage of injuries sustained while playing in other series? Do we attempt to kick our opponents while they're weak? Without reducing ourselves to the level of a carrion bird, I say yes we should.

It is the nature of the game. I want to see the team really try and crush the Australians if given half a chance, they have done the hard work and should have no hesitation in employing their full range of skills against a tough opponent. Would we expect any mercy if the situation was reversed? Well we need not guess because - as people quickly forget - the scenario presented to us today IS the reverse of all that have come before.

• In 2004 our bowling attack was lead by Martin and Franklin (both of little experience in such roles). We had them 4 down before this happened and we never recovered.


• In 2005 our side was so reduced we had to debut a long-haired Ian O'Brien (not nearly as established as the man who retired at the peak of his powers a couple seasons back) and saw good initial work undone yet again by Adam Gilchrist


• In 2008 our batting was still recovering from the retirements of Astle and Fleming and could not match the technique of the Australians


• In 2010 (remember the heavy roller moving in the wind?) a potential win in Hamilton was lost after some careless batting on Day two and a lack of penetration in the bowling

In fact one must go back to 2000/01 and 2001/02 to find a strong NZ side face off against a strong Australian side (and from those 6 tests, none resulted in victory). The problem then was that the Black Caps, strong as they were at the turn of the century, were no match for the greatest team of its time at the zenith of its rule. You may wish to notice that Shane Bond debuted in the latter series and did not play test cricket against Australia again. Who is complaining about injured bowlers?

Just to scale back the slightly tongue-in-cheek revenge talk, we should perhaps ask whether it is about being the 'better man' and take less joy in an opponent's weakness, beat them if we must but without the schadenfreude. I would argue that sport, certainly cricket, seldom affords the room for such luxury. To clarify, I mean that there is no problem taking joy and pride out of beating Australia just as long as the focus is correctly placed introspectively and not used to deride the opposition (even if Australia have been guilty of this in the past - see the late Peter Roebuck on the 2008 Sydney test match). I would also point out the importance of cricket teams taking whatever victory they can obtain because so seldom do two teams face one another at their peaks; 2005 was a fine example but that was a rare gem.

A lot of talk in this country will surround Kane Williamson (ignore the hype of Ryder's 16 6s - this is test cricket for goodness sake) and if he plays well then I will be pleased but he is not my focus - he plays, almost for his next series in Australia. It is McCullum and Taylor that are the key for me - especially if the pitch is a seaming wicket because one successful, aggressive innings in that environment can win the game. Overall I am encouraged by the following reality: for the first time in decades the Australian team won't have a hold on us; the Black Caps will have more freedom to play their own game without the pressure that the likes of Warne and McGrath use to apply.

All of this aside, I am looking forward to a really competitive series. However, if the team or its fans require any extra incentive to desire a New Zealand victory, just remember this horrible experience:

McGrath and Gillespie 100 run partnership and half centuries against NZ, Gabba 2004

If revenge was ever justified...

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

It's good bye for now

How quickly we forget: John Buchanan's insult to history and how it may cost New Zealand a great cricket team

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Jonathan Millmow wrote an article in the Dominion Post today covering the new selection policy to be followed for international, domestic and age-grade level cricket. It boils down to the following score-based analysis of players:

• Significant performance: 35%
• Consistent performance: 25%
• Contribution to the team: 15%
• Fitness: 10%
• Fielding: 10%
• Selector intuition: 5%

Now ignoring the regrettable writing style of Millmow (he actually uses the phrase "...the grand old days of the Richard Hadlee selection bolter have been hit for six") he does make one fine point and that is the surprisingly small percentage of influence the selector has compared to the statistical data- correctly pointing out that if stats were all that counted, we would not have benefited from one Jeremy Coney who captained winning sides in Australia and England in a 12 month period (and achieved much higher than his domestic averages would have suggested). John Buchanan is forgetting his cricket history, in my opinion, by going down this road; while the weight of statistics is important, there is still plenty of room for selector intuition. The two teams that Coney's cricket team beat in 1985/86 are appropriate given they can show us exactly how this 'new' system is flawed.

English cricket tried a purely performance based approach in the 1990s and it created an always-changing team that was constantly filled with players that scored heavily at domestic level/were performing well at the time, at the expense of players who, while out of form (perhaps), had the mental toughness and experience to play at the international level. In 1999 they lost a home series against New Zealand and were ranked the lowest test side in the world. Duncan Fletcher took over as coach with Nassar Hussain to captain and brought in central contracts and most importantly, a mind set that said there was more than just performing at the next level down - you had to show that your character was strong enough to help create a team capable of succeeding in the face of international pressures. It took a number of seasons but they reached number two in the world and beat Australia (2005) with batsmen who averaged 40-45 and bowlers who took wickets at 30 or more runs each. Now to reduce that victory to this simple fact is incorrect but the picking of players who could band together and meet the challenge presented by Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist was quite clearly important.

The Australians themselves learnt that important lesson in 1980s after, again, New Zealand beat them at home. The selectors could see that to climb back up the rankings of cricket they had to invest in hard, young cricketers like Boon, Marsh, Waugh and Healy who could withstand the hard slog early in their career in order to build a fantastic team machine a decade later. It isn't just about numbers and calculations, there is something more that must be accounted for - a defiance, doggedness and determination that doesn't always construct first class averages of 50 but can do at international level.

Buchanan and company are ignoring this history and they risk negating what is one of the most potential-filled group of cricketers I have seen in a New Zealand setup. Fill your team with the Matthew Sinclairs, Mark Ramparakashs and Graeme Hicks of this world and see what happens when the heat is on them. John, you are too fond of your stats and computers and your contempt for your history and that of the team that is now beating you in the Ashes may cost this team more than a country of four million can afford to replace.

Next week I will preview the two-test series in Australia

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

It's good bye for now

Peter M. Roebuck (1956-2011): rest in peace?

Peter Roebuck was announced as deceased after an apparent suicide at a hotel in South Africa over the weekend and cricket has lost one of its most brilliant and mysterious commentators.

There have been many kind and sad words spoken and written about this master of cricket writing in the last 48 hours; in papers and blogs in equal measure. Although no one person seems to have a full grasp of the enigma that was Peter Roebuck, the sum of the pieces paints the picture of a brilliant thinker on the game, a fascinating person and yet flawed - to the last it seems. For me, I have lost my favourite cricket writer. One I discovered on cricinfo around the time I first began this blog and I have read or at least sampled every weekly entry he has published on that website since. As a blogger, Roebuck was my role model; I consistently agreed with him on key issues and appreciated his well-phrased, yet straightforward prose and ability to be either harsh or kind without ever reeking of bias or disrespect for the reader. When you read a person like that you don't really mind if you disagree with them, you respect that in those moments they are being genuine and are totally committed to their point even if, in your own mind, they appear to be wrong.

The reason my title questions the age old sign-off for those who depart the plain of the living is because the idea of such peaceful rest seems hardly appropriate on one hand and yet eerily so on the other. For, as I mentioned above, Roebuck was a mysterious man to say the least. Distant to many, a loner, convicted of assault in 2001 (after employing corporal punishment on young cricketers he was coaching) and the questions that remain unanswered surrounding his death. He played over 300 first class matches, amassed 17,500+ runs @ 37 but ruined his friendship with Sir Ian Botham after supporting the Somerset (the county he captained between 1986 and 1991) decision not to renew contracts for Sir Vivian Richards and Joel Garner. This was a man of many demons and yet such brilliant opinions on the game and those involved in it.

They say it isn't kind to speak ill of the dead but to ignore the flaws in ones heroes is a dangerous and certainly foolish habit. Not to mention inappropriate in the case of a writer who pulled no punches as in Australia (where he wrote for much of the last few decades) when he was especially scathing of the national team and Ponting in particular, after the victory at the SCG against India in 2007/08.

I have long said that my ideal blogging style, the one that I would most enjoy reading and that which I would most like to aspire to, is that created by Peter Roebuck in the last 30 years (with perhaps a touch of Zatlzman's humour) and that is the best tribute I can provide to the man who has helped guide me through my early days of writing about the sport that I and clearly, he loved more than any other. I would urge you to read some of his work, his books, articles or blog pieces and benefit from the best of the generation.

I'm not sure if Roebuck was ever capable of peaceful rest in life or if he could experience it in death but I would hope he could rest assured that his style, neutral, fearless-contrarian nature lives on in myself and others who enjoyed his vast contribution to cricket

Even Geoffrey gets it!

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Readers last time may have wondered if I was turning my blog into a political ranting machine but I assure you that is not my intention. My statements about the tour of Zimbabwe were necessary in my mind to prove to myself, and others, that I was not simply a fan of cricket for cricket's own sake, but a fan of cricket as a sport within a modern world of human rights and democracy. I will not stand and listen to people say that politics has nothing to do with sport - easy to say, sir, when you enjoy the right to participate in either or both at your leisure - I care that many millions of people do not have that security and I will not be spoken to in a tone of voice that is happy to ignore that fact. Right enough of that for now, this week I will vent a different frustration; namely the ICC decision to return the use of the Umpire Review System to a matter of mutual agreement by cricket boards before each series.

A few 'errors', that seem to have proven once and for all to the Indian cricket establishment that the review system is flawed, appeared in England and Sri Lanka recently. The ICC (or is that the 'BCCI World Cricket Division' now?) wasted no time in reversing, what I and many others saw as a bold and crucial decision to moving the game forward. The ICC and its (bullied) members have created a precedent that will likely haunt the game for seasons to come and most certainly undermine any test championship that emerges. By back tracking on this point for the sole reason of 'a few errors' gives a never-ending-excuse to the forces of conservative Indian cricket that seek to profit in this life and stagnate the game for ever after. When will the technology be error-free enough for these people? Never, that is the point! It can't be, almost by definition technology cannot be error free in this kind of situation (where it requires human installation/operation and analysis). By being tricked into thinking that the review system is about getting every decision correct, ICC members and hoodwinked fans have missed the point entirely and done a great deal of damage to the credibility of the sport.

As Geoffrey Boycott explained in his cricinfo audio show on September 15th this year, technology and the review system are designed to remove the worst decisions that umpires would make occasionally from the game. The goal was never to reach perfection but to release umpires from the humiliation and shame of poor decisions and save players from getting out to them. This is such a simple concept that even old Boycott gets it. Admittedly Boycott has actually been right on this point for many years and to ignore his unwavering advocacy for the use of technology is not my intention - I am merely point out that somebody of his age and tradition can understand and embrace the review system. It is that simple

Much has been made of Hot Spot's failure to pick up certain edges, particularly in hot conditions but this doesn't worry me as much as if it were showing edges that did not occur. If this tool works most of the time it is a bonus, if it doesn't then you use a better tool. Boycott points out that the third umpire actually makes use of the stump microphone more than anything else, they can turn the volume up more than the TV commentators do and it provides a great indication of any sounds omitted when the ball passes the bat or pad. Hawk-eye/Eagle-eye does have very small limitations which are known and have been largely accounted for within the rules of the review system - the commentators have explained this point so many times I begin to wonder if anyone at the BCCI actually watches cricket anymore or do mountains of cash shield the television from view...

I realise I strike a slightly exasperated, even cynical tone with all of this but that is what the public is reduced to by one of cricket's worse flip-flops in my opinion. I would add just one more thing here really: it seems ironic to me that the very people who are encouraging (and no doubt benefiting from) the dramatic increase in the earning power of the modern cricketer (through the IPL etc) are robbing themselves of a key component to that transformation. If technology is unavailable to prevent bad decisions then how is the new 'professionalism' of the sport supposed to encourage anything but derisive laughter?

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

It's good bye for now

A black beginning to the Blackcaps summer: how cricket seems content to ignore human rights abuses

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I hope readers are enjoying the first two instalments of my cricket discussion with my friend (see my previous post). However, realising that hidden among the partying in New Zealand at the moment - a celebration of rugby and deservedly so - is a tour of Zimbabwe by the national cricket team; my mood becomes soured. I will get right down to it: did I miss the memo? Was I asleep the day that democracy blossomed in Zimbabwe? Was I on holiday when human rights abuses ceased and better yet, those who were responsible for their absence were held as such? At what point did it become OK for cricket teams to tour this sad country?

Bangladesh and Pakistan recently toured there and while the former was probably happy to face opposition at their level and the latter was happy to face opposition at all (and certainly opposition that made them look good - on and off the field you might say) forgive me for appearing slightly snobbish and perhaps slightly racist, but why is New Zealand touring there? Why is it not talked about that Chris Harris is currently coaching in that land which the world seems to have forgotten? How dare we legitimise the power 'sharing' agreement that has barely blunted the atrocities inflicted on its people. Further still, what is this loose babble from OUR Government about allowing the Zimbabwe team to tour here, to provide them with Visas in 2012? With the World Cup currently playing in New Zealand, surely there must be a few people left who recall what the 1981 Springbok tour was about?

Just because there isn't nightly footage of people being evicted from their homes or intimidated at gunpoint doesn't mean it isn't still happening. This from the Amnesty International Report this year:

"...Police continued to arbitrarily arrest and detain human rights defenders and journalists undertaking legitimate human rights work. There was some loosening of restrictions on the media and Parliament debated a bill to reform the repressive Public Order and Security Act (POSA). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people faced persecution. The victims of the 2005 forced evictions continued to live in deplorable conditions with some being targeted for eviction or facing the threat of eviction..."

The Black Caps were one of the last teams to tour Zimbabwe before they were banned from cricket and before that 2005 tour there was outrage in this country that such a thing was taking place. Where is this outrage now? The answer to that question most likely lies in the fact that this affair will go completely unnoticed until the Rugby World Cu; has concluded; curious timing by New Zealand Cricket to say the least. As in the past, the fault lies with the ICC here because their Tours Programme requires us to play there and should we back out without due cause (by their standards not ours) a heavy fine is the reward for speaking against human rights abuse it seems.

I find myself torn as to how I wish to follow this tour. The Black Cap fan wishes to see our players gain some useful experience and improve their skills ahead of a long and difficult summer (playing in Australia and at home against South Africa) – and Zimbabwe should provide this if their recent form and talent is anything to go by. The human being asks, at what cost to our image and to the sport’s image. There is also the question of equivalence between what is happening in Zimbabwe and other nations. Is it consistent to focus on the appalling conditions in one country and forget that some of the other member nations in the ICC aren’t havens of human rights either? Pakistan is essentially a military dictatorship, South Africa is still not free of its apartheid hangover, Australia’s treatment of indigenous people has only improved in recent years and Sri Lankan cricket (let alone its parliament) is so mired in corruption I don’t want to even think how bad Bangladesh must be.

Between 2005 and now, New Zealand refused to tour Zimbabwe because conditions would have put the players in danger in terms of their physical health. Well the current tour poses similar dangers for our reputation and moral high ground but that doesn't appear to matter; gentleman's game indeed - an ironic statement for many years but rarely does that irony lack humour as it does in this case. As such I hear by announce my boycott of this tour from this point onwards and refuse to watch any of the coverage (I am likely to view the scorecards at one point or another) and I urge you, humble reader, to do the same

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

It’s good bye for now

An apology and a reply

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I offer a feeble apology to my readers who, according to my counter, have continued to return to this page over the last month in search of cricket news and opinion but have found nothing. I am very sorry but illness, loss of necessary eye-wear and the the inevitable game of catch-up at work and elsewhere resulting from both, have severely hindered my ability to think clearly or at least write to a reasonable standard on cricket. My last post was a month ago and I ran the risk of not having anything to say in the month of September were it not for my return to health, vision and life-balance in recent days.

I thought I would begin by posting my friend's reply to my opening sentiments in the battle of wills I set in motion here

I would recommend a quick read of the points I set forth in that first move before reading the following reply from my good friend. It is quite long but well argued and I shall look to reply to it in early October. Later this week I will give my thoughts on New Zealand's upcoming tour of Zimbabwe (no small topic)

Sir,

First of all, to put my seemingly random question into context (I feel that in my frustration I may have neglected to do so). As I have to follow most international cricket on cricinfo I find that over the course of a day’s play I end up reading a fair bit of drivel from others, many of whom fancy themselves as comedians. It seems that one of the most common types of comment in recent times has been complaints with the IPL and T20 cricket in general. Throughout the most recent test series over here, as the Indians played as if the English attack were hurling scud missiles at them, I had to suffer through a number of comments blaming the IPL. So whilst I understand your skepticism, it seems that a number of people are of the view that T20 cricket was invented with the sole purpose of destroying test cricket. Well, seeing as the English invented the form of the game and now they sit atop the test rankings, they may have a point…

First of all, I do agree with your first point to a large extent. There are players in the IPL who will never be world class test or even ODI players whom are paid huge amounts of money to “slog”, as you put it. Kieran Pollard springs to mind here. However the advent of new formats will always produce players who are able to excel at that particular form, but lack the necessary skills to succeed in more traditional formats. One name that springs to mind is Michael Bevan. Regarded as one of the greatest Australian ODI batsmen of all time, he couldn’t match that success at test level. In the other direction is Geoff Boycott. A superb test player whom our own Paddles described as the hardest batsman that he ever bowled to, he simply was not cut out for shorter forms of the game. An ODI career strike rate of 54 is a clear indication of that. He could score a lot of runs and had the patience of a peace-mediator in the Middle-East, but when required to score quickly, he struggled. It is simply a case of different skills for different formats.

As a cricketer that has played a fair bit of T20 cricket (most recently at the very same Cambridge University that one Stephen Fry is an alum) and obviously know a number of people that have played the format at varying levels, I can say that it is a very difficult format to play. While I cannot speak for how players train in the IPL or at international level T20, in my experience players do invest a lot of time and effort in preparing themselves. Bowlers need to train hard to be able to put the ball exactly where they want to (no different from test cricket, except that the areas are less in the “corridor of uncertainty” and more of the block-hole variety) and work on variations to try and upset a batman’s rhythm. For batsmen, it is essential to know their strong scoring shots as due to the shorter nature of the game it is important to maximise every scoring opportunity. Unfortunately for the purists, this is the hoick to cow-corner for many of the big hitters in world cricket. One thing which has impressed me is how players have quickly adapted their game for T20. These adaptations require a great deal of skill and training. An example is the unbelievable scoop-paddle that Brendan McCullum pulled out against Shaun Tait. A great shot to counter the Yorker, which generated a lot of runs to a delivery that is traditionally seen as guaranteed dot ball. McCullum, in my opinion, has vastly improved as a test batsman in recent times. This is in spite of the fact that he is one of the poster boys for T20 cricket. The skills developed for T20 cricket should be added to a player’s repertoire, not replace it. Progress and cricket go hand in hand. Without it, the game would still be played with bats resembling hockey sticks and underarm bowling. If they are unable to do this, maybe they lacked the mental fortitude to cope with the rigors of traditional cricket to begin with?

Secondly one should never forget what the IPL really is, a glorified domestic competition. Every side must field a certain number of Indian players, so relatively unknown players get the chance to rub shoulders with some of the game’s greats. If this doesn’t motivate these lads to aim for the pinnacle of the sport, they probably should give up the game altogether. There is no greater thrill than playing against a world class player to really test yourself and the experience which can be gained from this is limitless. Any failure of any upcoming Indian players to take advantage of this is not the fault of the IPL, but of those individual players. Those players should be using the IPL as a way to make good money, as well as to gain valuable experience to develop their cricket away from the IPL. Any young player who is playing under great cricketing minds such as Shane Warne (even if he now resembles a poorly done wax figure of himself nowadays) and fails to emerge from that experience a better player needs to have his head examined.

Thirdly, while I agree that the Indian batting line-up displayed some frankly piss-poor technique, I disagree with where the blame should lie. T20 may be a factor, but it plays a very small part. The Indian side have traditionally been poor tourists and this was another (albeit extreme) example of it. You do hit on one of the major problems in my view, flat wickets. Sub-continent nations seem to have an obsession with producing snore-inducing wickets that even Chris Martin may have some hope of scoring runs on. I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard the quote on Indian attitudes towards bowlers, but it went along the lines of “those who can’t bat, bowl”. Indian batsmen such as Tendulkar, VVS and the Wall are worshipped like gods. On the other hand, Zaheer Khan is the only Indian bowler of any real note (even he is like Chaminda Vaas, good without being spectacular). Flat wickets cause two problems for Indian cricket. The first is that it discourages the development of quality fast bowlers as they are treated as second class citizens. I am holding hope that some young Indian lad refuses to be deterred by this and finds a way to counter this, a la Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis and reverse swing. The second is that batsmen are not required to have a great technique to score a lot of runs. Short bowling is wasted on flat wickets, so batsmen on sub-continent wickets are unlikely to face the sort of barrage that the English bowlers inflicted on them. Without exposure to quality short-pitched bowling, you will continue to see fragility to it. A cricketer worth his salt should wish to succeed in all conditions against all types of bowling. Rahul Dravid’s dogged resistance in the final test showed the quality of a player who has faced the most balls in test cricket history. Players who would rather take the easy route out and cash in can do so for all I care. I can find solace in the fact that characters such as those are unlikely to last in test cricket long enough to tarnish its good name. They will never be remembered like WG Grace and Don Bradman, nor earn a nickname as cool as “the Wall”.

Finally, the reason India were so soundly beaten. England are currently a very good test side with an abundance of quality quicks, a world-class spinner and batsmen enjoying a terrific run of form (Ian Bell was simply class). India are not a good test side and have not been for some time. They have long relied on their famed batting line-up to bat sides out of games. It is bowlers who win test matches. Without the ability to take 20 wickets, it is going to be difficult to win tests no matter how many runs you pile up. Champion test sides have always contained champion bowlers. The formerly-dominant Australians had Warne and McGrath, the West Indies of the 70s and 80s had a production-line of fearsome quicks and much of Sri Lanka’s success is owed to Murali. Simply put, India were up against a much better side. The Indian run-machine failed to produced any runs, their bowling attack made Dibbly, Dobbly, Wibbly and Wobbly (the NZ attack at the 1992 world cup for those thinking that I’m referring to some weird British children’s show) look lethal and they fielded like sub-continent sides of old. If anything, you’d think T20 would at least eliminate crap fielding!

Right, I’m well over the word limit so I should stop there. That should be sufficient material for you to ponder over (and no doubt pick to pieces). Quite a refreshing chance to engage my brain!

My surprised expression: first shameful then bemused

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I will admit that, while I didn't quite believe the Indian side lifting the World Cup earlier this year was the best cricket team in the world, I hoped and believed that the test series between them and England would be a real top of the cricket world clash. India had the swing and seam bowlers to perform in English conditions, an experienced spinner of 400 wickets and a veteran batting line up that could more easily deal with the unique conditions they would face. As it turned out their swing bowler was injured on the first day, their seamer found form only after the damage was done, their spinner doesn't look like taking many more wickets and the batting line up suffered in the face of hostile English bowling of all three types. Most predicted an advantage to England yet thoughts of attaining the necessary 2 win margin were tentative at best but, like myself, most failed to predict the appalling performance of the Indian team that was outclassed in every department and in every situation

When it comes down to why India not only lost but did not deserve their number1 title as early as the first test, was that they didn't act like a number one team. Being number one isn't just about having the best players, the most money or the best structures but about realising that number 1 is not a fixed position for that team among competitors but compared with itself. The top team must strive to continue to become better; the West Indies weren't just satisfied with beating England in England (1976) but white washing them, remaining undefeated for 15 years and creating an aura of dominance so frightening that only the next great team could penetrate it. Australia was not content to just win the Ashes in 1989, they had to beat the West Indies and then win every test of a series (including the dead rubbers). India quite clearly rested on their recent successes (many of which were in the subcontinent I will say) and failed to plan at all it appears.

England on the other hand, wanted it more. They knew what they had to do for each player and each situation. While they do not possess a GREAT player like Tendulkar (not yet at least) they fielded a side where each of the 11 players was talented enough to match an extraordinary desire to win and win with ruthless efficiency. Not since the best of McGrath and Gillespie have I seen a fast bowling attack that could deny the desire to provide loose deliveries so long. When they bowl it always seems as if a wicket is near, a collapse on the cards or at least a suffocation of all but the top players. England deserved 4-0 just as much as India deserved 4-0. I admit I was surprised and I was ashamed. The signs were perhaps there to be deduced over the last 12 months during which England ground down Australia into the dust while India scraped a 1-0 (from 3) test series win against New Zealand at home (a result I was and remain proud of but should have hinted at the 'attitude' that the India Number One side was content to exist with and, as it happens, die from)

So the corollary question becomes, what about this English team - now the best in the world - how do they match up in the long history of the game? Is the line of 'journalists' and writers ready to mention words like 'invincibles' and 'golden era' to be laughed at? Are their columns to be mocked as loose babble? I do admit that my initial shamed surprise quickly turns to bemusement at the sight of some of it. I have long felt that the English press and those who know cricket (and therefore should know better) are often too quick to lord the smallest, briefest amount of success or talent, but the worst of this situation is that for once they will not regret it. England's victory is, not equally but noticeably, an indictment of test cricket or the effects of limited overs cricket on it. The death of swing bowling in most nations, the flat pitches and, most of all, the impatient attitude to cricket's basics have aided (although not ensured) England's rise; perhaps for being the last bastion of test cricket's best qualities which still exist in county cricket. Expect England to remain the top side for some time; they have a maturing team of world class players, the necessary attitude to excel and a globe of nations weary of attempting the necessary hard work to overthrow them.

As for where to place this English team in cricket's almanac of excellence, without ignoring the fact that it's reign has barely begun, I would say it only shines by comparison to its contemporaries and that is not the fault of the team at all. Do you really think that England's batting, impressive in it's competency and application as it has been in recent years, could withstand Marshall in the 1980s, Warne in 1993 or McGrath in 1998/99? Would Richards, Waugh or Ponting have been undone by the talented but not entirely brilliant Anderson, Broad and Swann? I don't think any serious person who has seen or studied much cricket could say yes. The pity is that test cricket is no longer equipped to stage that contest or unpack the exaggerations that surround England's image. This is a sad fact in my mind and I don't find it funny at all - only those too foolish to realise it amuse me. For the briefest of moments I too was swept up in what England were doing to that over-hyped and self-pitying Indian establishment (cricket historians chuckle at that irony) and for that I am ashamed. Forgive me a knowing smirk as I step back from the dust of India's demise and watch the arrogance transfer with the title - hopefully not to the players

I found this article sums it up better than I can though:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/529393.html

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

It's good bye for now

A far better contest

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Lords and Ladies the time has come for me to draw you away from a non-contest in England and provide you with a far better battle of wills. Here today it is my intention to begin a back and forth between two keen cricketing minds over a simple question:

"Why do people keep saying that the IPL will destroy Indian cricket?"

To provide some context, I was discussing the current test match between England and India with a good friend of mine online and rather randomly he produced this little gem of a statement (he mean it solely as a question) and before I got to drunk on excitement in the wee hours of a working night I decided to transport the discussion to this forum, to set up a discussion that can play out in public on this blog - an experiment I have wanted to run here for some time. You humble reader will find that the two of us will agree on many things but the early exchanges suggested that there is enough of a difference between us, as well as a broad enough canvas to work with, to produce a fine conversation about the sport we all love and cherish.

Between us you will have the opinions of students in accounting, commercial law, law and psychology as well as a cricket blogger and a fine bowler for clubs in two countries.

I will set up some basic ground rules to guide, but hopefully not hinder, the debate:

• After one of us posts their thoughts the other has the right of reply thus creating a string of back and forth. Neither of us shall double-up on posts without prior negotiation
• Posts must remain under 1000 words (although this can be removed if necessary)

Now this will, with any luck, not be finished either quickly or easily and with both of us leading busy lives (he in particular will be travelling around Europe during our spring) the posts will not be daily or even necessarily weekly. The idea will be to produce a drawn out contest of opinions and thoughts that I expect will go well beyond the initial question and hopefully encapsulate many corners of this great sport of ours

Right well enough of my twaddle - let the games begin!

Well sir to start things off I thought I would take the position of avocatus diaboli and put some simple answers to you. I won't say I agree with the points I intend to make but they are worth having here to get things moving. Now I make the assumption that your question/statement is meant in a sarcastic manner - if not please don't hesitate to correct me - in an effort to poke fun at people in ivory towers that look down on the IPL as destructive to normal cricket (by which I mean traditional cricket). No doubt you also sense the creeping tone of mild racism or at best old colonialism behind their words. Well I have no intention of repeating those stupid points but there appears to be some evidence to support a more genuine concern for Indian cricket.

First and foremost, the IPL rewards mediocrity and rewards it obscenely well. A player who might never be good enough for test cricket and its challenges to the mind and body can earn 10,000s or even 100,000s of dollars for slogging essentially. With that in place, how is a country supposed to develop the talent necessary to remain competitive in international cricket?

Further reasons stem from this basic one really, for instance what is the incentive for a player to aim for test cricket when a fortune can be made for half the skill and with half the time invested in nets etc? The tradition and high standing of traditional cricket may still exist now but what about in ten years when the IPL could well still exist and would be an institution by then. First class cricket will die first in that case and the international team soon after (if not before).

To focus briefly on the timing of the criticism of the IPL and its influence, the death of good batting technique has perhaps been on show already in this test series with players like Raina and Yuvraj Singh looking helpless in the face of quality short-pitched bowling. Now obviously this has always been the enemy of touring sub-continent teams and will continue to be for the foreseeable future but never before have international batsmen appeared to show such cowardice towards it and even disdain towards having anything to do with it. Why bother with this stuff when I can go back home and pay for my retirement on flat wickets against hapless bowlers?

These points I have made before again and again and therefore I would charge you (and latter myself) with dealing with the truths and falsehoods that lie within.

Your move.

ENGLAND v INDIA at Trent Bridge

Hello and welcome back to my blog


Well Fletcher, the coach that won the 2005 Ashes, may be coaching India but it's his side that is being taken down by the very kind of planning that he nurtured in that team of 6 years ago. Admittedly the plans required to unhinge this Indian side aren't nearly as clever as those to disrupt Ricky Ponting's outfit but the skill and ruthlessness of their execution has been impressive so far. England have managed to crush India by over 300 runs after conceding a first innings lead. They yet again exposed how weak the Indian bowling can be without Zaheer Khan (and a fit Harbhajan Singh for that matter but a little about him later). Bell played one of his best innings and with the home side 2-0 up the possible exclusion of an injured Trott (the reason Bell batted at 3) shouldn't prove as costly as it might have done. For England the temptation must be there to bring Steven Finn back to expose the Indian lower order to another barrage of short pitched bowling, an obvious but ridiculously effective plan.
If Trott's injury won't concern England all that much, the injuries to the Indian team must be inflicting nightmares upon the management. The absence of Sehwag has proven to be a far larger curse than I thought it would, his destructive batting is ideal for not allowing the likes of Anderson and Bresnan to settle and certainly a better risk to take than to open with your form batsman (Dravid) and watch him get out to the swinging ball early. With weaker sides I would be more hesitant to advise such a move but with a top of the test ranking battle it pays never to be too conservative.
Indeed that appears to be India's main problem. They seem to be playing old school test cricket and old subcontinent cricket at that! Just settle in for a long innings and rack up a slow 500 runs - i.e. win the test with your batsmen instead of your bowlers which is the complete opposite to how a series in England is decided. The bowling and fielding is appalling in attitude, and by extension the results are as well, the kind of 'going through the motions' rubbish that flat subcontinent wickets breed sadly. The English team proved time and again in this test that you can manufacture wickets with a bit of planning, aggressive fielding and accurate bowling. At this point I expect that England will win this series by 3-1 if not 4-0 and rightfully become test cricket's top team (at least on the evidence of this series)


Now to a point of contention
When Ian Bell was on 137 and on the ball before tea, he was runout in bizarre circumstances when he left his crease (thinking that the shot had gone across the boundary and that it was basically the tea break) before being reinstated after Dhoni (eventually) withdrew the appeal during the break. The whole incident, while having little to do with the result of the match, has divided opinion in both countries with the two arguments basically boiling down to whether it was in the spirit of the game to withdraw the appeal; some have said that Bell should have known better and others say it was a great piece of statesmanship for Dhoni to provide such charity while being thrashed. Now I agree with both of those actually: Bell should have known better and Dhoni was kind to withdraw the call. The point I would like to make is the role of the crowd in these decisions - I have no doubt, no doubt that their reaction (needless to say it was vocal and not in favour of the visitors) was a key factor in Dhoni's decision and this disappoints me. Not that it was a factor but that it is allowed to be a factor, as cricket fans we need to understand that cricket was always the sport where quirky things occur and momentum can turn on the naivity of a player who forgets a basic rule for example. This is an idealist position and asks a lot of passionate cricket fans but an ideal is still something to aspire to and I would also contend that a real cricket fan would take such an instance on the chin - perhaps even see the humourous side to it; there is plenty of irony in a man set on 137 being dismissed by such a lapse in judgement.
Some have trumped up the Grant Eliot incident from 2008 or the Murali incident in New Zealand some years ago (you may well remember watching either one without my needing to go into detail - I witnessed both of them live and feel I have the ability to comment on the comparison). You can already tell perhaps that I think this is nonsense. In particular the comparison to Eliot being runout in that ODI, to think this a valid point you must, MUST believe that the batsman made an error and was runout according to the rules (basically what happened to Bell). Now this is babble of the loosest kind, Eliot was knocked to the ground in an accident that was the fault of neither he nor Sidebottom (the bowler) and should have been called back. The Murali case is slightly more grey because that error was of Murali's creation and certainly a cricketer of his experience should have known better. McCullum, who affected that runout had every right to whip the bails off and although it was unfortunate there is a key difference between these cases. For me it is all about whether the player has made an error of judgement


Last things
It was announced right before I finished this entry that Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj Singh will be out of the rest of this series. It's difficult to tell whether this is injury based or form based to be honest. Both are dynamic players that England have undone across the two tests

Well the next match is at Edgebaston and with any luck I will have a man (and lady!) on the ground there to give me inside info. This venue always seems to provide an interesting test match so we can look forward to that

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

England vs India at Lords

Welcome to my test commentary for the 2000th test match

DAY ONE

Once India won the toss and elected to bowl in overcast conditions unless their slow, swing bowlers get 2-3 wickets in the first spell the opportunity to use Sharma my have been missed - in the first 30 mins of the 2005 test, Harmison had struck Langer and Hayden and a crucial aggressive tone was set.

India's fielding was strangely without energy even for a subcontinent team and the two dropped catches off Trott will likely cost a fair few runs. The most important moment had to be suspected hamstring injury to Zaheer Khan who settled into his work very nicely as he picked up both opening batsmen. He pulled up after a delivery to Trott and I couldn't help but think it may be a huge loss to India - even if he recovers to play in the series he will likely be below-par

Sadly rain reduced the first day to barely 50 overs of play and most of that was quite slow going both in run rate and over rate

DAY TWO

Two stars today as Kumar toiled throughout to take 5 wickets while Kevin Pietersen regained his confidence and form to slaughter the rest of the attack and deposit the ball to all corners of a packed Lords cricket ground. 202* he finished on and England were able to declare with over 450 on the board despite Trott going early in the day. Tonight we get to witness the Indian batting line up battle in swinging conditions that should favour the likes of Anderson and co. Can Tendulkar make his 100th international century?

DAY THREE

Stuart Broad remembered his junior cricket days and decided to pitch the ball up and as a result netted 4 good wickets (including Tendulkar for 34) as India were bowled out just passed the follow on mark. Dravid scored a wonderful unbeaten century but support was hard to find and the ball continued to swing. England will look to build that lead to over 400 on Sunday and set a up a hard fought contest for Day five. I'm still hoping that the little master can at last score a Lords century (and his 100th) but the result will likely rely on Dravid again. however a batting collapse by England will make things interesting but with a wicket that is getting flatter and Zaheer Khan out of action this is unlikely. Then again, as I write this, Cook was just dismissed for 1 (27) by a really good ball so who knows?

DAY FOUR

Today we discovered why England will win this test series. As I said before, Zaheer Khan was India's important bowler and to have him go down injured on the first day was the worst blow possible for India. Today Ishant Sharma looked set to create an English collapse reminiscent of the 1990s and perhaps set up a target of 300 or so to provide a thrilling last day. At lunch this looked quite possible after Ishant took 3 wickets for next to nothing but after lunch the absence of Zaheer Khan was quite noticeable as well as Prior playing a wondeful counter-attacking role. When you are behind in the match you almost always require TWO bowlers to run through an opposition; Shane Warne and Brett Lee did this role during the latter stages of their careers. One bowler might take the majority of the wickets but it's the pressure at BOTH ends that does the damage. Tomorrow India will be fighting to save the test and lament the day one injury that prevented them from winning it and should prevent them from winning the series as well

DAY FIVE

India could not withstand some fine bowling and fielding from England and overall were outclassed in each facet of the game. The margin of victory was almost 200 runs as James Anderson took the key wickets and ended with 5. Tendulkar played what might be his last innings at Lords but was dismissed far short of the century that, like Shane Warne's 5 wicket haul at Lords, will be the one that got away; even Bradman was proved to be human at the end. For India there is plenty to rectify if they wish to compete in the rest of the series including their batting, bowling and fielding (I don't think I left anything out). The fielding lacked fitness, the bowling lacked consistent accuracy and the batting looked amazingly underdone. England will simply need to maintain the their intensity and should aim for the 2 match winning margin required for the ranking to become no1 in test cricket. As a fairly neutral spectator I have hope and that is for Zaheer Khan to return fit as soon as possible to make the ledger a tad more even

I will take 2000 more please sir

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Tonight (NZ time) Lords will host the 2000th match of test cricket. England and India begin their 4 match series at the 'home' of cricket and it would appear that only weather could disrupt this most brilliant of match ups as the two top ranked sides do battle, Rahul Dravid returns to the ground where he made his debut in 1996 and Sachin Tendulkar sits on 99 international centuries. I do feel a slight shiver of fear at the likelihood that this may be a boring draw going on Lords' wickets of the last decade or so, but on the other hand the bowling attacks of both sides may just comprise enough talent to avoid this disappointing possibility. As always the ability to master the Lords' Slope will be a crucial factor in this match but as for the series overall I think England are the favourites for no better reason than home advantage. For in these two teams we have opposites in terms of conditions, style and attitude to cricket. I have always said that if either team wishes to be the undisputed number-one test side they must prove it in the other's conditions.

There are plenty of factors that will likely play a part. For instance, many of England's players have just been part of their domestic 2020 competition while India have just played a tough test series in the West Indies, but counterbalance this with their surprisingly poor showing in the warm up game against Somerset where their attack was flayed to all parts (by Strauss for a time which may be something to note - his form will be crucial and in particular against Zaheer Khan the left-arm swing bowler). Khan is one key bowler for India as his ability to get both Strauss and Trott (who I believe has a weakness to good left arm pace) will be essential to breaking up the most effective top order going around. Sharma is the other key bowler: the match up against Plunket will be fascinating but I would offer a piece of advice to the lanky Indian quick: pitch the ball up a tad more than you normally would - Glenn McGrath learnt that (particularly at Lords) that you give yourself the best chance of swing and seam (as a tall bowler) if you do that. This may seem like common sense but... For England they must hope that Alastair Cook's run of form continues for at least as long as Strauss is out of form and that Pietersen can destroy Harbhajan Singh (who perhaps should change to left arm orthodox for those contests).

I suspect that the swing and seam of Anderson, Plunket and Broad/somebody better will do for India in one of the test matches even against their very experienced batting line up, whereas India will need to rely slightly more on batting pressure on the flatter wickets. The battle of the offspinners really isn't that important - it should be fun to watch Swann contend with right-handed Indians though (basically the opposite of his preferred victims i.e. left-handed-anybody-but-an-indian).

In the end I will simply cross my fingers for a tight contest and sit back to enjoy what could be classic series and a fine way to celebrate 2000 examples of my favourite sport. Expect plenty of pomp and ceremony at Lords this week and why not - there are far worse ways to celebrate this milestone as you will see below

NEWS

• New Zealand Cricket has confirmed Damian White of Australian domestic cricket circles as the new bowling coach for the Black Caps. Some of you may remember him as a bowling option of average quality when you played games like EA Cricket 2004 or International Cricket Captain 2005. That has been my answer to people asking 'who?' because that's all I really know about him - I hope NZC know more than that or we are in trouble
• The ICC announced the idea of making the championship final (held once every 4 years now) a timeless test. To which I can only gape and say 'yes, lets celebrate the survival of test cricket to its 2000th match in 2011 by announcing a return to the most ridiculous part of its past! Forget about introducing it to the USA market where they already scorn the idea of 50-over cricket let alone 5-day cricket or this outdated suggestion'

Will keep this post short in anticipation of the test series in England but expect regular posts during that contest

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

It's good bye for now

Do not allow mediocrity to get the better of you

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I have said in this space before that 'if everybody is somebody then nobody is anybody'. If fours and sixes are struck every over we lose the ability to describe the truly great batting assault because our superlatives lie withered on the ground, wasted on mediocrity. If an average medium-pace bowler takes wickets when a hint of seam movement destroys what little is left of a batting line-up's technique (due to a gluttony of flat wickets), the second coming of Glenn McGrath is proclaimed. I originally made this argument within the context of cricket commentary where practitioners have bought into the hype of 2020 cricket to a more disgusting degree than its promoters, but now I grow ever weary of the same weakness sneaking into the cricket talk in front of the television. I am increasingly aware that cricket media is powerless to prevent this because in the absence of a real star or real talent, television will hype anything

Suddenly Stuart Broad is the new Andrew Flintoff, Jacques Kallis is the new Garfield Sobers, Jonathan Trott is the new Steve Waugh and yes even Alastair Cook is the new Leonard Hutton (please don't make me say Jack Hobbs!). As cricket fans we desire enthralling cricket based on the concept of the battle between bat and ball but I refuse to be told that I should be happy with Mitchell Johnson bowling short at Ian Bell when I have seen Allan Donald bowl fire at Michael Atherton. Or watch James Anderson swing the ball around Sri Lanka when I have watched footage of Malcolm Marshall. We do our love of cricket a disservice when we allow ourselves to believe that any success we witness is of quality comparable with the greats of the past; we currently experience a nadir in the supply of great cricketers. To convince yourself otherwise will rob you of the ability to appreciate past greats and leave you with little to say when the current crop of talent (there is plenty) reaches maturity.

After hearing a couple of friends defend Cook and Trott as top class batsmen recently (friends whose understanding of cricket I respect and whose opinions I listen too) I was saddened to realise just how far this weed of mediocrity could spread. If cricket fans of such purity can allow their standards to drop then there is little hope for the money paying population. Cook's 766 runs in the Ashes this past season, while impressive for its temperament and consistency is not the equal of Vaughan's 600 runs of 2002/03 where an elegant technician took on the greatest attack in the world and won (personal, if not team victories). Cook is still a young man and has great potential, he is currently experiencing a wonderful vein of form but don't race to crown him the best opening batsman just yet. When his form does run out he will lose his wicket to another over-hyped player who then gets to be 'the great bowler who took down England's great batsman' and the cycle begins again.

Just because Trott takes an age to set his guard and pleasantly feasts on disappointing bowling attacks upon lifeless surfaces (which requires some skill but is largely a waste) does not make him the great no3 batsman that England hasn't had in decades. These young players need to be tested against the best exponents of the opposing skill (batting or bowling) before we can enjoy truly great cricket. I look forward to the 2013 Ashes when an English side, filled with talent now, will have grown into a juggernaut of quality cricket players to fight against a (hopefully) resurgent Australian XI. I drool at the idea of what Ross Taylor, Jesse Ryder and Tim Southee will achieve rather than sit content with what little success they have experienced so far. I plead with you not to be content with mediocrity now, when the true richness of cricket is simply absent and will return.

ICC NEWS

• Minnows to be included in the 2015 World cup - to the exclusion of many from the 2012 and 2014 T20 world cups (only 2 of them in each). It is certinaly too soon to come up with cliches like 'won the battle but lost the war' and yet I cannot help but wonder if this point will be recorded as the moment when lesser cricketing nations were shafted
• The decision review system will now be mandatory in all international matches although the use of ball tracking systems (Hawkeye or, the better, Eagle eye) will be negotiated by the two teams before a series. Hotspot will be mandatory. Progress of a kind I think and certainly a step forward of sorts in terms of democracy within the sport; there was no Indian dictatorship on this occasion
• The running out of non-striking batsmen by the bowler (mankading) will now be legal again. Not really an important rule change given there hadn't been an instance of it in nearly 20 years. The one are here they need to change, in my opinion, is the ridiculous running out of the nonstriker off the bowler's body from a straight drive. This type of dismissal has always seemed counter-productive in a sport where the straight drive is supposed to be the pinnacle of the batsman's technique. If the ball comes off the bowlers hand then I have less of an issue but now with the review system surely we can stop the runout (in this circumstance) where the ball is off the foot or the elbow or the shoelace.
• There will be no runners in international matches; Jesse Ryder has not yet recovered consciousness after this was announced
• ODI cricket will now feature a new ball at each end of the pitch, an idea that has been suggested by many people ever since that stupid 34th over ball change rule came into affect
• The optional powerplays must now be taken between overs 16 and 40; I really think this rule change was obviously required right from the off with only wishful thinking keeping it at bay until now
• Batsmen can now be dismissed obstructing the field if they change their path to intercept the ball and good luck to the poor people who have to write the rule/sections to cover this one - not to mention the umpires that will have interpret them. A nice idea but this could be a disaster in the making
• There have been some alterations to the rules around suspension of captains for slow over rates (two strikes and you're out instead of three - ACT Party eat your heart out)

RECENT RESULTS

• IND win the test series in WI after Chanderpaul's last day century and some terrible rule abuse by the two captains (see this article for more information) ensured a draw in the final test. India next play in England for what should be a cracking series
• ENG won their ODI series against SRL after being 2-1 down. They produced a green top for the 4th match and predictably won by 10 wickets before winning a thriller in the 5th match.

ARTICLE OF INTEREST

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/5262133/Cricketer-Iain-O-Brien-admits-depression

This I stumbled upon today and seemed like a story that some people may have missed. Ian O'Brien has admitted suffering from depression since his university days and joins the list of former international cricketers to admit this as a constant through their career. O'Brien talks very candidly about the condition in this article and as somebody with family who suffer from the same thing (not to mention a few friends) I found it particularly interesting. I decided to include at as something different. Worth a read

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

It's good bye for now

A tale of two openers

Hello and welcome back to my blog

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... depending on which cricket team you were trying to select; England or Australia (then there is New Zealand but more of that during the NEWS section). Two surprisingly similar batsmen treated in very different ways to show us just how desperate one team is compared with the other. While Alastair Cook enjoys the best form of his career so far, in terms of weight of runs and excess of praise (too easily placed in my opinion), Simon Katich finds himself on the outer for no other reason it seems than his age; or at least what his age will be during the next Ashes series. Both players have an excellent temperament for opening in test cricket - for test cricket in general - yet one suffers by comparison to an over hyped, younger opening partner and the other is lorded like players far better than he, have been in the past. The time and space I have to fill here is short so I will leave the question of Cook for another day (although he does appear below)

Katich was left out of the Australian team in an announcement in Adelaide recently - appropriate given the run out and injury that ended his Ashes series there before Christmas. The main reason given was his age and the intention of the Australian selectors to create a new opening pair now, that they might have time to mature before the 2013 Ashes in England. Katich, Australian's most consistent batsmen in the last 3 years, rightly felt aggrieved over this omission and stated as much in a very candid conference during which he expressed anger at the waste pile that his recovery plan had been flung into as a result. He then attacked the idea of using part-time selectors to pick players for a full time team where salaries are hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more. The saga has served nothing but to make the establishment of Australian cricket look befuddled and desperate and here is why:

• If you want to build an opening partnership that can cope in English conditions why so easily discard the one batsman that has been there on 3 tours? Maybe he will be too old but it appears that the argument has barely been fought - the man hasn't even returned from injury!
• At least, if you are having to pick between Watson and Katich as to who should go (with an eye on England in 2 years), why retain the guy who is a glutton for LBWs to the point where Fleming v McGrath seems like a light salad (2005)
• As Shane Warne rightly pointed out, if Katich is to go for age reasons, surely the likes of Ponting, Hussey or Haddin could go as well? Naturally the defense for that one is that some maturity is required to shepherd the new players through; well why not leave Katich at the top of the order to do just that?

Former opener Michael Slater came out in support of Katich and I would have to agree with him. The axing of such a hard working player in this manner is disgraceful. He has every right to feel hard done by as apparently an average of over 50 since his recall isn't enough when over-rated fellow openers must remain. Australian cricket faced a similar crises in the 1980s but at least then they didn't just focus on winning the Ashes, they tried to build a new core of players that could hack it at international level (against bowling attacks far more frightening than those that currently make up the crop) and win test matches in general. They needed tough cricketers willing to get hit, run into the ground and yes taste defeat at first. Katich is the kind of player capable of absorbing all of these things and deserved another chance to prove that he could perform at this level. Axing him now sets a dangerous precedent and a poor example to new players

NEWS

• New Zealand cricket featured heavily in the news in the last month or so with the following appointments/redundancies:
• John Buchanan to the position of president of cricket in New Zealand
• Glenn Turner and Lance Cairns' selecting roles are at an end - full power will reside in the coach (and likely the captain too)
• Ross Taylor was made captain of the Black Caps and rightly so. What little I have seen of Taylor's captaincy it appears to be of the more quiet and calculating (Stephen Fleming if you must) mold where as Brendon McCullum would have been a greater risk - although his captaincy during the 2009 IPL in South Africa didn't help his cause I suspect. Taylor has an interesting schedule ahead of him with 4 test against ZIM, 2 in AUS, 3 at home against SA and then a tour to WI (our first since 2002!). Then England tour here the following season. At some point during this drool worthy run of cricket we should have a fair idea as to whether the choice was a good one

Meanwhile, elsewhere in cricketdom

• Mohammed Amir broke his ban from cricket by playing for small club in England. What little sympathy I had for this player is under great strain as a result and I would not be immediately against a harsh penalty to drive home the fact that spot fixing won't be tolerated in this sport. I hope at least we shall endure less of this babble about giving him a pass due to his obvious talent - an idea that deserves every bit of contempt it has coming to it
• The war between Chris Gayle and the WICB continues for the moment but meanwhile there is a very interesting test series going on between an under-strength India side and the home team. Both possess bowling attacks noticeably stronger than the batsmen that make up the other half of the team sheet
• Even those possessing weaker powers of perception will notice that I haven't mentioned a word of the ICC conference in Hong Kong but as we are already pressed for time here I have decided to devote an entire blog entry to this pivotal event. This will appear by weekend's end (I know I sighed writing that word twice as well)

RECENT RESULTS

• ENG win their test series against SRL 1-0
• IND won an ODI series in WI 3-2

ARTICLE OF INTEREST

To add some colour to the Taylor/McCullum contest here is an article from the NZ Herald about the issue and why the result should have been no surprise (although I can't say I was very surprised)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=10734572

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

It's good bye for now

Why are we still paying attention to the BCCI?

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I'm back everyone and well rested after a frenetic World Cup that capped off an equally frenetic year in cricket (match fixing, Ashes, 4-0 to Bangladesh and John Wright as coach). I noticed that several readers have frequented this blog in my absence and I applaud your support, sadly after producing 3500 words at the end of the World Cup I decided to take a break; the time seemed right given the lack of cricket on offer (proper cricket that is). Now it's back into the trenches for what should be another fascinating twelve months.

A new season finds us fighting the same battles as the last one and the same enemy facing us across the battlefield of progress. That opposing force would be of the same cloth of the school of thought that said players shouldn't be paid in the 1970s for the entertainment that they were about to provide in one day cricket. That easily offended, weak chinned being across the table would be the same mentality that allows a fuss to stir up around retaliatory comments by an Australian cricketer while downplaying the racist nonsense uttered by its own favoured off-spinner. That self righteous, self pitying, stale-void-creating entity and subsidiaries would be the BCCI and the seemingly impenetrable armour that has been erected around it by the media and other cricketing nations. Today the fight is over the umpire review system that they clearly were uncomfortable with before but now flat-out oppose. Well we need to say that we have had quite enough of that!
Their opposition to this long awaited, long wanted and long needed innovation is born of an ignorant, defensive and baffling attitude to progress in the sport. You hear loose babble about how the reviews take power and respect away from the umpires which completely ignores the obvious truth that by seeking to remove the quite human, natural and understandable errors, the relationship between player and umpire is exerorcised of ill feeling generated by missed inside edges, balls hitting outside the line and deliveries missing the stumps etc. The use of this system will quickly clean up the 'walking' debate as the players of less integrity will be found uot and the players who cling, as to a mast on a sinking ship, to the excuse that 'you get the bad and the good so why walk?' can rest easy that the status quo no longer allows such a notion.
The BCCI still tries to pretend that it is the champion of an oppressed nation of talented, but underfunded cricket enthusiasts despite its clear transformation into the opposite of every word in that description. Although I don't have room to attack every sinue of that facade I will say that the claim that Indian cricket is still an international punching bag is about as credible as the wish that one successful IPL season should allow or entitle a player to a test debut. The ICC lives closer to India than to England, South Africa or Australia now! The BCCI deals with 70% of the wealth generated by international cricket, they just won the World Cup and, pending a series victory in England this winter, are poised to become the top test team as well.
Indian cricket needs to stop playing the hurt feelings card and realise that if they wish to lead the sport they need to look out for its best interests some of the time (instead of none of the time by blocking every innovation that presents itself). Next they will be trying to block the test championship because heaven forbid they are robbed of playing in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh every year and are forced to play a few more tests in New Zealand (i.e. on wickets that have actually seen a blade of grass). Play the world's smallest violin! The BCCI must realise that if they insist on benefiting from 'professional cricket' they must act the part of the first word instead of sucking the life out of the second.
...And we need to make a stand and say we will not be talked to in that tone of voice that says we can't have the review system. Draw a line at this argument, which is so obviously a crucial improvement to cricket (see the 'article of interest below' for useful analysis on this topic)


Also it would appear that the players themselves are feed up with the BCCI influence in the game as well as the ICC's inability to resist it: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/517518.html

NEWS

• Shane Warne has now retired from all cricket after his Rajastan team did not make it through to the IPL finals of 2011


• After a quiet start to the County Championship, Kane Williamson scored 149 at no.3 for Worscestershire and then took 3 wickets. He is just 20 years of age


• Pakistan cricket has issued contracts to its top women players for the first time. They will be paid 1/5 the salary of their top male equivalents but we can say it is progress of a kind


• On the other side of that coin, Afridi has 'retired' after having the captaincy taken from him. Suspicions are that he and Waqar Younis did not agree on much (particularly in the area of team selection). Basically the PCB has made the same mistake that England made in 2009 when Pietersen lost the captaincy although Pakistan don't have the luxury of Andrew Strauss waiting in the wings


• In New Zealand, John Buchanan has been appointed to the new position of Director of Cricket and Allan Donald's services appear to have been retained despite Australian interest

RECENT RESULTS

• Australia defeated Bangladesh in an ODI series right after the World Cup (so who really cares at this point). Shane Watson produced a particularly brutal innings in one of the matches but it will hardly go down as one of the great ODI moments - I would be suspicious of anyone who tries to say otherwise


• West Indies and Pakistan drew a test series 1-1 that provided much food for thought as the home side bowling attack looks more settled in the form of Roach, Rampaul, Sammy and Bishoo (a new legspinner of some talent)


• Sri Lanka provided the surprise result of the year perhaps, by capitulating to England late on Day 5 in Cardiff when they were knocked over in just 24.4 overs to lose by an innings. Not even Cronje could have picked that one. Trott and Cook continued their winter form with large, confident centuries; Trott averages 66 now so my advice would be to retire with the second highest average in test history

ARTICLE OF INTEREST
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/517334.html
'india vs the rest of the world'
I couldn't have put it better. This article looks closely at the battle plain that lies ahead and how India must surely and, while it can, gracefully accept defeat on this review system issue

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

It's good bye for now