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