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