Stop right there Gilly

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Wow what a wonderful way to begin a test series!  Both England and Australia turned it on at Trent Bridge to breathe life into a series that was expected by many to be somewhat one-sided.  After England's dramatic 14 victory we - the people with no real dog in that race but love cricket - can look forward to the remaining 5 (or is it 9...) tests with anticipation and excitement.  There was plenty in the first test: Siddle running through England to take 5 on Day one, Australia collapsing just as badly but rescued by one of the most audacious counter attacks and debut innings in history in Ashton Agar's 98.  Ian Bell's most important innings, Australia chasing 311 and being reduced to 231-9 before Brad Haddin lead yet another counterattack that fell just short of its aim to steal a tight contest from the favourites.  The game went one way and then another in the manner that fans of test cricket enjoy but witness too seldom it seems.  The only real drawback was the drama surrounding the use of the DRS system thoughout the match, yesterday Adam Gilchrist's article appeared on Cricinfo and I would like to focus on this today.  In short the fact that this excellent test match was overshadowed by the DRS is the only thing I believe Adam gets right.

His main point is essentially that the game is poorer for having the review system in place.  This is the natural position of those who find it uncomfortable or too radical but I have always contended that, in one line, the players are certainly not poorer for it.  I refer of course to the modern emergence of professional cricket players.  Now that cricket is as much a money making machine as an entertainment/sporting one, people's livelihood is tied to how well they progress through the different levels of cricket and it's different forms.  For me, the one main reason the review system is crucial is because when you have people's careers relying on their performance in a game, you cannot leave crucial moments down to just an umpire's impression - as good as the umpire might well be.  There is too much at stake to leave it simply to human error; just ask Matthew Sinclair how much a talented player depends finacially on the game.
Gilchrist further contends that the game's flow is disrupted and the institution of the umpire is diminished.  I actually have some sympathy for this line of thought, being a traditionalist of sorts.  I think if there is an argument to be made it might be on these grounds but in light of the point I make above, it's purely academic.  Also I would point out that Gilchrist probably benefited from the odd referral upstairs for stumpings off his keeping and shouldn't complain too quickly about the flow of a game being disrupted for the sake of correct decision making.
If the review system was in place for Edgebaston 2005 (2 run victory to England) the correct answer to the final dismissal would still be raising questions.  Well actually NO that is not true at all - replays clearly show that Michael Kasprowicz's hand is not on the bat when the ball hits it and therefore the caught-behind was not actually out.  Whether or not Michael would have reviewed it or not if given the opportunity is something you would have to ask him (I doubt it) but to suggest that the review system would not have produced a compelling answer to the question is dishonest at best.

Look at this terrible paragraph (in reference to the Trent Bridge result)

"...In my opinion, the game is poorer for that. I don't say that because the decision to give Brad Haddin out caught-behind cost Australia a Test match. I understand the proposed benefits of technology eradicating umpiring errors but this Test match, which was full of wonderful technique and skill and fight, showed quite glaringly that the errors are still occurring..."

Gilchrist understands the benefits?  He fails to mention them at all in the entire article and doesn't seem to have heard any of the arguments against his position before.  Also, this game was riddled with poor-technique of both bat (loose shots, lazy decisions) and ball (how many wides did the Australians bowl on Day 1?  Why did Finn continue to bounce Agar in the face of multiple boundaries)  The game was wonderful entertainment but a textbook on technique it was not.  And yes the errors ARE still occuring and that my dear fellow is precisely the point.

The final moment where you know he has got this all wrong is where he suggests he understands the position of the Indian cricket establishment.  If Gilchrist believes that the position of India in anyway rests on some of the fair points against the DRS that I have highlighted above then that tells me all I need to know about his analysis - with that one line, he's said all that I could say.

 

Australia don't want to complain about the result because it shouldn't have even been that close.  After two top-order collapses they were lucky to get away with a 14 run defeat.  After Day One I expected the result to mirror that of Lords in 2005 when Australia inflicted a 239 run defeat on England after themselves being bowled out for 190.  The trick of playing four no.8-batsmen instead of a tail-end saved Australia and also England's inability to set them 380 odd in the 4th innings.
 

Consider this, India complain about the DRS as well, especially while on the receiving end of 4-0 drubbings overseas.  It's a great cover for the failings of the team and allows partisans to avoid reality a little longer.

 

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

It's good bye for now

Is it 1985 or 1989?

Hello and welcome back to my blog

The Ashes 2013 are upon us and everybody wants to say that England will thrash Australia, but not too loudly and certainly not if you’re an Englishman.  The reason for this reluctance is because the line ‘worst Australian team to tour England’ was uttered in 1989 and what happened? Allan Border and Bob Simpson won 4-0 (and would have been 6-0 if not for rain) and began an Ashes dynasty that lasted until 2005; who would want to usher in that again!  I am here today to assure England supporters that this feels more like 1985 than 1989 and the state of cricket in both countries is the reason I feel confident of this pronouncement.  Australia only needs half its squad to announce a rebel tour to South Africa to equal the turmoil of the mid-1980s.  England on the other hand is enjoying its strongest period of player talent since the 1970s and 1980s without the structural issues that created the decline and embarrassment of the 1990s.

The Australian team began their build up by sacking their current coach in favour of Darren Lehmann.  Now Ian Chappell and Geoff Boycott can talk all they like about how a coach has nothing to do with an international team and such a change has a negligible impact.  The end-of-season/era replacement of a coach may have less impact than media headlines would have you believe, but to spring such a move right before 10 consecutive Ashes test matches is extreme and desperate.  I assure you that one way or another the change will have an impact.  Beyond the practical implications for team preparations, culture, etc, the timing of this has the potential to do serious damage to the confidence of the whole touring party who must all be glancing over their shoulders.  Although apparently they were already with Arthur in charge (one of the charges against him after certain home-work related incidents) and Lehman is supposed to bring more ‘calm’ and reassurance to players; I am not so sure about that.

Certainly Michael Clarke who missed a lot of cricket in the last few months seems a little distracted and even suggested that these next 5 months will not define his career as captain or player.  He stated that the Australian team relishes Ashes contests just like any other game.  Well he’s either lying or they really are going to be thrashed.  Ashes contests have been defined by very small moments and that may end up haunting this team for years.

I do feel slightly sorry for Clarke who is far and away the best batsman in the team (against both pace and spin) but we should remember that, in Ashes terms, he is coming off his worst effort in 2010/11 with 193 runs @ just 21.44 (ignoring the bucket loads of runs scored in between, that kind of thing plays on the mind).  He hasn’t played much cricket of late and it may show if it all comes down to what he produces.

In the large sense Australian cricket is at a difficult crossroads where an old generation of cricket is done and the next one begins.  Aside from all the talk about players being better under Waugh and Ponting, the real thing that is hurting them is the change to the 2020 age which has taken much longer to impact them than other countries.  A few years ago the likes of Ponting and Clarke stated that they didn’t feel the need to grab the dollars from 2020 leagues (and they probably didn’t need to) but they were established players in a great team.  The younger players now face the ever-present question over where their loyalties lie – even if only subconsciously – and this affects their cricket at a very basic level.  This is why they will likely lose this and the next series until they come to terms with constructing an international team under this pressure.

For England it all looks very positive.  In Cook, Trott and Pietersen they have 3/4 top-order batting positions in fine order with all three players looking settled, mature and to be honest they’re the best exponents of those spots England have had in a generation.  The bowling is beautifully balanced with Anderson and Swann beginning to form an almost-McGrath/Warne like partnership (although not quite of that class, they have skill enough to do the job against most teams).  The likes of Broad and Finn are excellent additions to that attack.  Cook’s captaincy has yet to truly develop but as Ricky Ponting proved for the first half of his career, anyone can point a team at the opposition and say ‘destroy that’.

The potential danger would be how to sustain the team in the long term – England after 1986/87 were woeful for more than a decade and will be desperate to avoid a repeat slump.  They will benefit greatly from the introduction of a quality, tiered domestic structure as well as central contracts that has all things heading in one direction.  The ECB may still face the challenge that Australia does in that the influence of 2020 cricket may impact their next generation of cricketers but for now the rise of Joe Root for instance will assuage their fears.

So with that all in mind:

• Trent Bridge Jul 10
• Lords Jul 18
• Old Trafford August 1
• Chester-le Street August 9
• The Oval August 21

I predict 3-1 - more based on 1985 than anything.  To be fair, Australia have the firepower to unsettle England often enough to win a game or two but it really comes down to how many runs their batsmen get.  Hundreds are important in English conditions and the men from down-under just don’t compile (deliberate word choice here) enough of them.

England should win the series but if the Ashes has taught us anything it’s that these contests can be surprisingly even – even if the final score line doesn’t suggest as much.

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

It’s good bye for now

68 isn't 45 (and certainly not 26)

Hello and welcome back to my blog

The first test at Lords was one of the more fascinating tests at Lords that I have seen since 2005.  Similar to that Ashes match, I understand the kind of bewildered feeling of disappointment that English fans must have gone through on that occasion but after a few days to ponder on the bizarre result I thought I had better post my thoughts on the game before the second test at Headingly gets underway.  In short I do not believe that the 4th innings capitulation for 68 is cause for great alarm, it is of an entirely different context to the 45 all out vs. South Africa and considering other disasters against English bowling attacks (there have been many down the years) this one leaves me with more optimism than most.

First of all the game itself and in its entirety:
England (chose to bat) first innings:
232-10, 112.2 overs
Bairstow 41, Root 40
Southee 4-58, Wagner 3-70

• Trent Boult's dismissal of Cook and Trott was world class bowling in terms of discipline, planning, skill and delivering the right ball at the right time

New Zealand first innings:
207-10, 69 overs
Taylor 66, Williamson 60
Anderson 5-47, Finn 4-63

• Ross Taylor played very nicely and should have carried on to make a century
• James Anderson's 300th wicket was a special moment (although I doubt it required quite the fanfare it got from the English commentary team)

England second innings:
213-10, 68.3 overs
Root 71, Trott 56
Southee 6-50

• Tim Southee becomes the second NZ player to take 10-for at Lords (after Dion Nash's 11-for)

New Zealand's second innings:
68-10, 22.3 overs
Wagner 17
Broad 7-44 (man of the match)

England win by 170 runs

Now the infuriating thing about that scorecard is the way New Zealand fell over in their FIRST innings.  If there is one problem that persists with this team for years now it is when they do well in the field, keep a top side to 250 or less but then barely manage a lead or even (as was the case here) fail to even reach that mark.  However that is my only real issue with the performance.  The bowling and fielding was some of the best I have EVER seen from New Zealand it was purposeful, patient and above all it was confident even if wickets weren't falling.  We have a world-class seem/swing bowling combination in Southee & Boult and both are not even 25 years old yet!  Wagner and Bracewell provide different skills as first-change bowlers and add a competent spinner for balance and the team will be set for 10 years.  Williamson looks better at no.3 with each match - it will forever be a disappointment to me that he couldn't start at 5 and work his way up under the leadership of more experienced batsmen but he has great potential even without the preferred tutelage.  A small pet-peeve of mine appears to be satiated for the moment and that is the ability to wrap up the tail with Southee and Wagner combining well in both innings of this game against the best lower-order in the world (Swann, Broad, Finn and Anderson (who didn't score his first duck for 54 innings - Martin went that long before scoring his first run!))

The elephant in the room is of course the 4th innings that only lasted 22.3 overs of quite unbelievable collapse.  I watched the entire thing and crazy would be the right way to describe it; whether it was Fulton prodding at one about 10 miles outside his off-stump - something he had avoided doing back home - to Kane Williamson just lifting one to cover which perhaps indicates one area of his no.3 game yet to be fully developed i.e. the counter-attack.  It really was an hour or two of insanity but again I say that I don't really care.  The innings was not anything like the one against South Africa in January where we chose to bat in difficult conditions, fresh from a team upheaval and all against the best attack in the world; that was a rookie mistake and produced only what it could/should have produced.  Against South Africa we saw everything that could have gone wrong for the team culminate in true humiliation but I contend that the 170-run loss at Lords had more to do with fine bowling than anything.
I sat watching as the innings began and the commentary box was going on about how Anderson and Swann would be serious threats and although that was a true, if basic, analysis, I couldn't help thinking that Stuart Broad might well do the damage in conditions that were swinging and on a pitch that was quickening up.  This proved to be sadly accurate as Broad bowled the best spell I have seen from him - easily the equal of his Oval performance against Australia in 2009 - with the ball moving sideways, up, down, in the air, off the pitch; add to that James-300-wickets-Anderson hooping it at the other end and I contend that this was more difficult to face than the bowling in South Africa.  Sometimes you just have to accept that you were undone, yes they could have defended better, perhaps the aura of Lords got to them but at the end of the day England have a fine bowling attack and this will happen in their home conditions.
In the 1950s and 1960s New Zealand were regularly rolled for next to nothing by England but today the context is not that of a colony being rightly smashed by the mother-country but of a team on the up that is slowly rectifying the inadequacies, the failings and the mistakes of the last decade of mediocre to embarrassing cricket.  Context matters and I look at this performance with only mild disappointment because we continue to make the number 2 side look mortal and beatable in every match - not just one innings, one day or one test but across months.  This side won a test in Australia and in Sri Lanka and I have nothing but optimism for what it can achieve in the next 10 years if it remains determined, consistent and confident.  The only thing I fear is that the players don't look back on the Lords test the same way I do...

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

A lesson in dealing with the media - for the reading public

Hello and welcome back to my blog

The first test at Lords is about to begin and while I have made my opinions fairly clear on this match, there is one thing that happened during the lead up to this series that I haven't really commented on yet.  last week Ross Taylor admitted that he had moved on from the loss of the captaincy last year and just wanted to concentrate on success in England.  This seems in stark contrast to his comments in March, right after the third test at Eden Park where he admitted to 'not feeling comfortable' in the dressing room with the team.  Now there are a few things infuriating about that interview:

1. That he even gave an interview the day after that test match at all
2. That he was foolish enough to say a statement like that which was always going to be exploded over the news and distract from a very impressive series for his team
3. That the media would then use that statement, never mind what he might have actually meant by it (see below), to constantly suggest disquiet in the team and keep the drama rolling for another 6 weeks, and finally
4. That we the public would start believing this nonsense

It's this last point I want to look at right now.

Just to lay it all my cards on the table, I do not believe for one second that Taylor's comment after the third test was meant to be interpreted as anything other than this: due to his absence during the South Africa tour (and the reasons behind that absence) it was a little bit awkward being back in the changing rooms with the team, under the captain and coach that had figured so prominently in said absence and this would naturally take time to heal.  To me this seems a natural reaction to the question of how he had coped being back in the team again, but no no no we had to watch as every paper and news bulletin lead with this as if it were a story - usually insinuating if not blatantly stating, that there was clearly still a divide between captain, batsman and coach.  I believe this was an appalling exaggeration of what Taylor said - whether or not you think he should have said anything or not is a discussion for a different day - and because of the reaction there was no way that either party was going to try and clarify the statement.
Thus you allow the subsequent articles to lead with lines like '...after Taylor's indication that there were still problems within the team'  which is one statement jumping from context to context to context like different dimensions.  Now that he has admitted to moving on from the whole episode we can expect to see the following '...and the Black Caps, a team that played under the pressure of a split dressing room for two months while Taylor was rehabilitated...'

This requires us to ask the following question, do players need to be more careful about what and when they say things?  To which I would say yes probably but only for the sake of not distracting the team.  Not because of what the media might do with what they say.  The onus should be on us not to take every headline we see in the papers and ignore the context, the nuance or the simple plain truth.  Remember that media is a business and sensation sells so they will hype anything to make you read/buy their product.  We need to learn to read and separate the facts from the speculation and misinformation - for instance the second paragraph of this article which seems tame enough until you realise that it basically says that Taylor didn't tour SA because Hesson was a 'key figure' in his ousting.  Hesson WAS the key figure, for a start, and to reduce Taylor's decision to one of player vs. coach misses the point of the whole episode which was as much about New Zealand Cricket as it was about Hesson; the word they want is 'subsequently' not 'consequently'.  We should demand better.

It is true that players/coaches ought to be careful how they respond to media questions - answers should be well thought out as they can be misinterpreted.  At the end of the day however, the media is a filter that information goes into and then appears on the other side, often altered; players/coaches appear to understand this (even though they still make mistakes) but I am concerned that the public remain ignorant.

Good luck to the Black Caps tonight

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

You better believe we're an Ashes entree

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Just a month after New Zealand's encouraging efforts against England in Dunedin, Wellington and Auckland, they are beginning the return tour of the motherland which will include two May tests.  There  is a Champions Trophy (gods are they still doing that tournament?) and then 10 - that's right 10! - Ashes Test matches in the next 9 months and some forgettable ODI cricket as well no doubt.  New Zealand coach Mike 'knock-on-your-door-mid-series' Hesson suggested to the English Press that his team were not merely the entree for the coming Ashes series and they would give England another shock if they were treated as such.  Well as much as I support the team I feel it necessary to point out that we really are the entree course in a bloated summer and winter of cricket for the cricket establishment.  That's OK though, use it and do what New Zealand does well - fight from the corner.

Even IF there wasn't so much cricket following our appearance on English shores, even if England were set to play 5 tests each against Sri Lanka and Bangladesh after us, this tour is still an entree.  It's the classic English fixtures list where a low-ranked team has to play in cool May conditions for 2 measly games that the home side will almost certainly win ONE of (ensuring they don't lose the series) - second test is at Leeds? Done.  It allows England to play 5-test series against Australia and South Africa in the warmth of July and August which is all they really want to do every summer.  The real indication of how the thing works is that every team that plays in May is forced to splinter its squad due to IPL commitments which ensures key opposition players (lets be honest, key batsmen) don't turn up till the night before the first test and weaken their chances further.  Well if England want to play warm-up rounds against weak opposition like that then that says enough about how they think and operate but we don't need to make it easy for them.

It is true, despite the 0-0 draw last month and a fine victory in Sri Lanka last year, that New Zealand is still a poorly ranked cricket team and we shouldn't be surprised that we end up playing the May-tests in England.  The goal is simply to improve our rankings over time so that we can be the team playing in July and August and let Australia play in May (imagine it).  If we are to be the first course this summer then we use that to our advantage.  We have begun tours quite badly in recent years, often losing by massive margins in the opening test only to either win or gain a respectful draw/loss in the second match, but we cannot do that this time around.  Lords is where we have to try and steal our best result because Leeds in Headingly is as much about the toss and weather as actual skill.  I would love to see England have to fight for a win in Headingly instead of us.

Now in terms of the team make up I think the following 11 should play at Lords*

1. Fulton
2. Rutherford
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. Brownlie
6. McCullum (c)
7. Watling (wk)
8. Martin
9. Wagner
10. Southee
11. Boult

*under the assumption that the Lords surface is the usual one that offers a bit of swing but mainly seam movement and the weird impact of the 'Lords Slope' before flattening out to a road by day 3

The main exclusions here you will notice are Guptill (no form) and Bracewell (unlucky that Wanger is taking more wickets at present).  However you need to play the team with a plan in mind to dismiss the opposition batsmen: Cook and Trott.  Both have certain technical disadvantages against left-arm pace and swing and add the slope of the pitch into that equation and Boult/Wagner should be the best chance.  I don't think it will really swing that much for Southee - a brave punter would drop him for Bracewell but that would be a BIG call - but the real interesting spot is that of Bruce Martin.  Now Martin is a poor-man's Daniel Vettori - not quite as good a batsman or bowler as Vettori but honest and hard working in both facets - so lets not kid ourselves there, but he's done enough to be on tour certainly (although neither test is at a spin-friendly ground like Edgbaston or Old Trafford).  Do we need a spinner at Lords?  Are we guilt tripping ourselves into thinking we need one for balance?
I honestly don't know; without Kevin Pietersen in the opposition line-up the automatic advantage of slow-left-arm-spin is gone but is it wise to rely on Kane Williamson to be the spin option?  In the end there is probably enough balance and potential in the 11 players named above to do the job if given a bit of luck and some good bowling to Cook and Trott.  Either way I will be glued to the TV well into the night for what is always a fascinating tour for New Zealand teams

One last note: the 1st test at Lords will be the 100th First Class match of Ross Taylor's career which will be a nice moment, just hope he celebrates it with a century or two...

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

The search for The Don's successor: an exercise in futility

Hello and welcome back to my blog

With no major cricket happening at the moment (the IPL hasn't held my attention much this season) I thought I would throw a question up for discussion: Who is the best after Sir. Donald Bradman?  The question has floated around cricinfo of late so I thought I would throw my two cents in as well.  First it is important to get back to first principles and examine why the question exists at all, then I will mention some of the common answers to the question before putting forward my best suggestion.

Every article on the subject includes the line, or words to the effect of, 'you cannot get past the stats' and nor should there be an article that isn't bound by Bradman's numbers, stats that have overshadowed cricket since his retirement in 1948.  If you're an English cricket fan you might sheepishly suggest that his numbers overshadowed the game since the end of the 1930 Ashes tour, but I get ahead of myself.  The facts are:

Sir. D. G. Bradman (1928/29-1948)

• 52 tests, 80 innings/10 not-outs, 6996 runs @ 99.94 with 29 centuries and 13 half-centuries, High score of 334. (PLUS 28,000+ first class runs @ 95 with 117 centuries)
• He made 2 triples centuries (also a 299*)
• He also made 10 other double centuries - one every 5 test matches!
• In the 1930 Ashes series he made an astonishing - and still unbeaten - 974 runs (innings of 8, 131, 254, 1, 334, 14 and 232).

His first series as captain was the 1936/37 Ashes series in which his team did poorly in tough conditions, 0-2 down after two tests before he made 270 in Melbourne, 212 in Adelaide and 169 in Melbourne again to win the series 3-2 - the ONLY instance of a team winning after being 0-2 down.
Indeed he was hardly diminished by captaincy, as so many batting-captains are, averaging 101 while leading Australia - Richie Benaud often lords him as Australia's finest captain.  To illustrate his value to the team 23/29 centuries came in the 30 victories celebrated in his 52 match career.  His ability to dominate a series wasn't restricted to early in a tour either, his average actually increases test by test (over 100 in the 3rd and 4th matches of a series) and he averaged 130 in the 3rd innings of test matches where most batsmen begin to drop off.
He was simply the master batsman of his age and the staggering degree to which that was true suggests he could have been just as destructive in any age of cricket.  He was asked in the 1990s by Warne and Tendulkar what he thought of cricket today and how he might go, with little pause he suggested his average would probably drop to 70.  They further asked how he came to that conclusion to which he grinned in reply 'well 70 isn't a bad average considering I turned 90 this week!'.

Now I am not fond of being in the majority on cricket matters but in the case of Bradman I and most writers/commentators believe that not only does he have no equal but there is sunshine between him and the next best, the question is really just the degree of sunshine.  Several names are often sighted as coming close to his genius.  Sir. Garfield Sobers, who made 8000 runs, took over 200 wickets (with pace, swing and finger & wrist spin) as well as amazing fielding skills, was probably the greatest 'cricketer' of all time but whether he was close to Bradman in pure batting terms is an interesting discussion - it is true that he averaged around 60 for most of his career.  His predecessor of West Indian batting talent, George Headley was named the 'Black Bradman' for his ability to score consistently in a similar vain to his Australian rival.  Headley had to play in an otherwise average side only new to test cricket and I wonder what he might have achieved if he had played in the West Indies teams of the 60s, 70s and 80s.
In England the best argument goes for Sir. Jack Hobbs who dominated batting for almost 30 years before Bradman arrived, and could play brilliant innings on any surface as well as the record of 199 first-class centuries.  Although spare a thought for poor Walter Hammond who is probably underrated only because his career ran parallel to The Don who overtook every record Hammond tried to set.  South Africans place two greats up for inspection with Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock but their careers were never fully realised due to the isolation of their nation during the 1970s and 1980s.
In my lifetime there have been 2 (perhaps 4) individuals who dared to answer my question.  Sachin Tendulkar, the most successful batsman of all time has played any number of amazing innings and carried the attack to quality bowling all over the world in conditions alien to his native India.  Brian Lara has probably come closest to Bradman in the modern era, in terms of making big runs with scores of 375 and 400 (as well as his remarkable run of form against Australia in 1999).  Then there is Ricky Ponting who dominated for most of the first decade this century and finally Jacques Kallis who is till churning out centuries with remarkable consistency.
The latter two, it must be said, thrived in an age of relative weakness in terms of fast bowlers.  While I probably place Ponting higher than Kallis, this would only be due to his ability to attack from any position as well as defend when it was required; a more complete top-order batsman as Kallis has a reputation for scoring runs how-and-when he wants (great for his average but not always for the team).  Lara's genius was almost artful in its execution at the expense of any and every bowler that came across him in form.  If he has a blot on his career, a weakness in his setup it would have to be the extended form slumps that appeared to almost be a product of his skill - he was so talented that when form deserted him his natural instincts could not be curbed and thus he would appear so fragile only to suddenly smash another century.  Tendulkar, again a genius but if he has a negative attribute to his legacy it would perhaps be the opposite to Lara and that is a lack of desire to truly pile on runs, to dominate, to score 300 in a day.  The remarkable thing about Bradman was the ability AND the desire to bat all day for 300 - a kind of Tendulkar + Sehwag cricket entity.

For my opinion I want to single out the FEAR.  The fear of bowling to Bradman.  Young South African and Indian teams almost subsided before the game had started against him while England devised a regrettable bowling strategy (Bodyline) in the face of his batting power.  New Zealand  never played against a team including him but given what Hammond did to us (227 and 336* in consecutive innings) one can only imagine.  Fear and the skill to back it up is what destroys oppositions and the greats have always generated in abundance.  Eventually players and whole teams begin to fear what you might do, as much as what you actually do, so much so they end up letting it happen because of that fear as much as any skill.  Great batsmen fail to live up to the fear generated by their records as much as anyone but Bradmans was the least prone to this end.  My pick for his successor did naturally fail a little more often than The Don but in terms of generating fear in his opponents, no one has come close Sir. Vivian Richards.
It is true to say that Viv averaged 50, he held the record for most runs in a calendar year for over 30 years, he has the record for the fastest test century (56 balls) and thrilled crowds throughout his career.  However as time goes by and his records are beaten for whatever reason (helmets, flat pitches, worse bowlers, etc) it is his presence that remains etched in the mind.  The stride, the swagger, the nonchalant chewing of gum and then the blasting of a cricket ball - off any bowler, any length to any part of the ground.  He was no slogger lacking of grace, no fair-weather performer lacking of technique, no fool lacking of temperament but a titan of batting that batted no.3 in the finest team in the world for two decades.  No one before or since has been able to match his aggression with as much success and it was that match of seemingly antipodean traits that instilled fear in others.  To sum up his contempt for bowlers I would point to the batting helmet that became required protection for all batsmen of his era - except Viv who never used one but preferred to hook fast bowlers to the boundary instead.

Donald Bradman secured a position in cricket history as its greatest batsman that may never be truly challenged but if you look back at the career of Vivian Richards you get an idea of what it would take.  Viv's tenacity and nerve matched with natural skill and just enough determination fashioned a career second only to The Don's in terms of the fear he generated by simply walking out to take guard.  If you were to take that presence and add the skill of Tendulkar, the hunger of Lara, the boldness of Ponting and the consistency of Kallis (in our lifetimes) you would come close to replicating the man but you would still miss one thing - Bradman dreamt it first and that takes something different entirely.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me...

Hello and welcome back to my blog

It has been along time my friends since I last posted here - December 5th 2012 actually - when I wrote about the regrettable situation that now finds New Zealand captained by Brendon McCullum instead of Ross Taylor.  It has been a long season since then with a 2-0 series defeat to South Africa that included both encouraging signs and depressing failures (45 anyone?), although this was redeemed by a 2-1 series win in the ODIs.  The latter has not yet proven to be a false dawn as we were competitive in the ODIs and 2020s against England before surprising everyone in the 0-0 tests against same (could have been 1 or 2 to nil in our favour but for weather and dropped catches).  However I will have to deal with this season in more depth next week because something else naturally drew my attention on my return to cricket writing.  I wanted to write at length today about the positive signs in the test team but instead I feel a need to pay my respects to the horrible fate that befell Jesse Ryder during the week.  While I find the public beating of him reprehensible, I will leave it to the vast social media of Facebook and Twitter to opine on the event itself and the good justice of the courts and the angry mobs to deal out punishment for the those involved, instead I would focus my emotion on a particular aspect.

I had grown used to the media exploitation of Jesse Ryder during his career.  From his drunken episodes in public to the throwing of his cricket bat at a chair after being dismissed, media again and again revealed an obsession with reporting any misdemeanour with relish.  This completely ignores the reality that any number of sportsmen, professional or otherwise, have made complete asses of themselves at one point or another but only a select few are worthy of media 'scrutiny' and the public scorn that follows.  The truth is that Ryder had as much chance in this fight with the media as he did against 2-4 individuals in a Christchurch bar and although questions remain over whether the individuals in the garden city attacked him from behind or from the front, I have no doubt from which side the media deliver their blows.

On Thursday morning we woke to find headlines stating that Jesse Ryder had been assaulted in the early hours.  A shocking enough wakeup for me and for you I imagine, especially when the severity of the injuries resulted in an induced coma upon a hospital bed.  What began to cause my breakfast to turn in my stomach however, was how quickly both Stuff and The Herald filled their articles with a long list of his history with alcohol and noted drunken episodes - as if to suggest that the beating had anything to do with alcohol at all.  They didn't dare suggest this openly but let us draw our own conclusions.  Can you imagine a scene where in Stephen Fleming tearfully spoke of the bomb blast in Pakistan and have it reported as 'tearful captain fronts media in daze, by the way remember how he got stoned in South Africa?  We're not saying anything but...'.

The media couldn't help itself - Jesse in a fight in the suburbs of Christchurch, there he goes again - and to see the treatment repeated in this way on the night news reports, several hours after it was plain that this was almost certainly not another situation like those that had come before; disgusting.  The moment when I realised Ryder will never have a chance with this lot, the greatest perversion of all was the inclusion of his score for Wellington the day before (0) to all but shout at the reader 'he got out of control ater failing with the bat'.  Without a shred of proof or understanding of the situation this disgraceful insinuation was planted in the middle of the Stuff story.  It doesn't matter what he does it can all be tied to the great tapestry of an arrogant alcoholic.

For instance, as I mentioned before Ryder once hurled his bat at a plastic chair after being dismissed for 200 and this was reported as Ryder being aggressive, betraying an angry or troubled person underneath.  You don't think Crowe, whose record was clearly insight for Jesse, didn't damage a bit of property after going for 299?  Or Taylor, McCullum, Fleming, McMillan and Cairns? – Don’t be absurd.  I just spent a summer watching batsmen swear, throw bats, kick fences and lord knows what else during such moments; they can't all be violent drunks?  They're painting the picture that they want of Jesse Ryder, it's easy to do, it sells and it's sadly what the public want.  There's no need to provide a fuller picture of his current situation, the story for instance that Jesse invited all the young boxers of the Naenae club he joined under Billy Graham, to his house for Christmas Day BBQ (not a drop of alcohol in sight) doesn't get mentioned.  It reveals a far more complicated individual beyond the abilities of hack reporters to examine or discuss

It's not reporting - it's tabloid garbage that isn't helping anyone and will only hurt the individual in the end.  Jesse Ryder's injuries from last week will heal, any mental scares of the incident may take a little longer but it is the false reputation spun around him that may do the most lasting damage.

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

It's good bye for now