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