Predictable Ashes Predictions

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I am sitting, about to watch the opening session of the 2015 Ashes series hosted by England.  The hosts have won the toss and will bat first.  Before we get too far into Day 1 of this ever-fascinating contest I would like to share my thoughts on the likely outcomes of each test and the series.

I will offer a quick word on the lead up for both teams but – as many Ashes battles before us have shown – series that precede the ancient contest seldom offer true insight into the strength of either team.  Ponting’s 2005 team arrived in England having swept all before them (including India IN India as you may recall), Australia again looked strong before the 2010-11 thrashing at the hands of Strauss and Cook (700+ runs) and who will forget (I assure the commentators won’t let us forget during this series) the 5-0 result inflicted on England mere weeks after they retained the Ashes at home 3-0.

England hardly looked convincing while drawing series against West Indies (away) and New Zealand (home), fielding an occasionally brittle batting line-up and a too-often toothless bowling attack.  The ODI success against the touring New Zealand side has renewed confidence in the home team for the Ashes but Test cricket is a very different beast.  Australia on the other hand have barely looked back from their loss two years ago (yes we are witnessing two Ashes series in England in a 24 month period) with their Ashes dominance at home, away wins in South Africa and the West Indies and a dominant home summer culminating in World Cup victory.  The form guide suggests Australian dominance with rain alone preventing another 5-0 result.

Then there are the opposing XIs.  The teams have been confirmed with Watson in for Australia despite some brilliant early-tour form from Marsh; in his latest bid for brilliance Watson will bat in the middle to lower order.  Meanwhile, England retain the bits-and-pieces services of Moeen Ali in a similar position as Watson; there was a great deal of talk before the match that leg-spinner Rashid (who figured against New Zealand in the ODIs last month) may start but no luck.  Both are conservative selections, clearly not based on form although both may feature later in the series if fortune goes against either team.  The other choice that leapt off the team sheet at me was the retention of Gary Balance.  He remains at no.3 when I am not entirely sure why he is still in the XI at all – his technical and form deficiencies will be on show against Australia’s fast bowlers just as they were against Southee and Boult (probably more so).  The mind-set here suggests Australian dominance with rain alone preventing another 5-0 result.

The pitches – “always of vital importance” R.I.P. R.B.C.T.C – by which I really mean the grounds, are a favourite indicator of mine as to the likely result of the series.  Cardiff is up first and despite the swing and very variable bounce that I am witnessing as I write this, the draw is always even money at the Welsh ground; although tell Anderson & Panesar how easy the draw comes about at Cardiff!  Next week is Lords and before 2009 I would have chalked this one up for Australia without hesitation because England had not won there since 1934 when Verity took 14 wickets, but they have erased that curse in recent memory with two dominant wins.  However with the re-emergence of Australia’s bowling attack I would say they should win this match.  For Round 3 the tour will move to Edgbaston where it often goes England’s way and if they can snatch a victory against the flow it may well be here.  Trent Bridge is a bowler’s ground – historically if not recently – and will depend largely on whether Anderson bowls well.  The series will be completed at the Oval which should be a batting paradise with some assistance to the spinners.  Therefore you can assume that Ali will finally be dropped in time for Rashid to be debuted hastily as an afterthought and swatted away by a dominant Australian batting line-up as an afterthought.  So I think you’re looking at either a 3-1 or 2-1 result in Australia’s favour.  This is equivalent to a no-show for England so rain alone can prevent another 5-0 result…

The stars do seem to be aligned in Australia’s favour this time – what a difference 24 months can make! – but in England you never quite know what will happen.  The weather can ruin a team’s innings in a session no matter what the pitch is doing, a bowler can lose the plot in the face of the Lords slope and injuries can take their toll.  All three of these things have undone seemingly dominant Australian teams in the past and I see no reason to dispel these fears just yet.

When it comes down to it I would highlight a couple things to keep in mind:

• Ryan Harris’ 22 wickets in the last series beautifully complimented the carnage of Johnson at the other but not just in numerical terms.  Harris’ control was instrumental in pinning the English to their crease and allowing Johnson to attack and Australia’s ability to consistently take wickets will depend on Hazelwood’s ability to replicate Harris’ control with the latter’s sad retirement this week.  It is not enough to throw fast bowlers at the opposition when playing in England – success in English conditions is about the basics of the game and consistency.
• For England I fear their principal problem will be confidence, particularly if Australia takes an early lead.  They need the confidence to attack the fast bowlers and also the spinner Lyon who is a fine off-spinner but he is not Shane Warne.  Anderson and Broad need the confidence to pitch the ball up and not get stuck bowling length balls; swing has always decimated Australian teams and can do so again.  Finally, Cook needs the confidence to attack in the field and not fall into controlling patterns; he does not have the strongest team on paper this time and his old style will not succeed in this series.
• Having said that, the Australians have a certain fragility in their batting that has gone largely unnoticed in recent times.  Since the retirements of Hussey and Ponting their batting has relied heavily on first Clarke and then Smith and if both fail there is little substance to the middle order.  Warner’s style may prove inconsistent and therefore unreliable in England so middle-order runs are where the tests may be decided and with Clarke on the decline and Smith untested as the front-man in England (he did well 24 months ago but lower in the order) they present a fascinating match-up with Bell and Root (the declining Bell and the young, world-class Root).  There is plenty to be decided and that includes the final score line.

Despite my reservations about holding yet another Ashes series, these tests look set to entertain and if nothing else gives us an idea of what New Zealand should expect when they tour Australia in November…

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

It’s good bye for now

'Langue de bois' strikes again

Hello and welcome back to my blog

"New Zealand Cricket set to scrap Aussie test for Chappell-Hadlee ODIs"

Not quite the headline I wished to come home to.  The Australian and NZ boards are in negotiations about home and away fixtures between the two teams next summer.  The Black Caps are set to play 3 tests in Australia in November and then host the Australians in February.  It seems, in order to fit in an ODI series as part of the latter tour, one of the tests must be scrapped.  India host the 2020 World Cup at the end of the season - I will go ahead and assume that the IPL is not moving to accommodate this tournament... anyway.  Enjoy

I have reproduced sections from the article here and provided a translation for what it really means:

David White: "It's an interesting debate. We want three-match test series where possible and there's been a lot of valid discussion about that over the last week."

Translation: "it's a question that I don't really want to answer at the risk of jeopardizing monetary gains from staging more limited overs cricket next season, but in order to suggest that we don't have an opinion on the matter we shall say there is a debate.  We don't have a problem with three-match series as long as they don't interfere with our ability to re-stage the World Cup final over and over again, and there's been a lot of annoying discussion recently due to the genuine excitement produced by the tests in England."

David White: "But on the back of the success of Cricket World Cup, and bearing in mind we would have played three test matches in Australia [in November], it would be very appealing to have three Chappell-Hadlee ODIs in New Zealand."

Translation: "But after the team managed to make the final of the World Cup using an easily marketable brand of cricket - also don't forget that we will have played three test matches in Australia in November and people shouldn't get, ahem, greedy - it would be very appealing to our investors and stakeholders to have three Chappell-Hadlee ODIs in New Zealand.  Chappell-Hadlee being - as you all know - euphemism for spirited rivalry but we're using it to justify cashing-in on recent world cup success."

David White: "It's fair to say it is advantageous for NZC to have a close working relationship with Australia. They're one of the top teams in the world and it would be great for us if we could play them more."

Translation:  "we don't trust our ability to draw crowds with the most entertaining team in the world, we'd much rather sell out now"

I won't beat about the bush on this one - I think this is a terrible decision and a clear betrayal of the Black Caps by New Zealand Cricket.  While the team and it's captain continue to create a positive style of cricket in all formats, the board appears to be blindly searching for any cash stream it can get in the short term.  Does it occur to them that the World Cup - both as an event in New Zealand AND the team doing well - can be a force for increased enjoyment and marketability in all forms, not just ODIs?  They are the most exciting test team going around and with a squad of talented players only just coming into their prime there is a bright future for the test side if they're given the chance.

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

It's good bye for now

Note "langue de bois" meaning language that uses vague, ambiguous, abstract or pompous words in order to divert attention from the salient issues

Star, style and substance

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Alastair Cook’s second innings century at Lords was a remarkable achievement for a man under enormous pressure.  It reminds me of innings like Ricky Ponting at Old Trafford 10 years ago or Michael Clarke at the Basin Reserve 5 years ago.  It is one thing to turn good form into an innings of substance but to expel the many off-field dramas from your mind and achieve something meaningful for your team is one of cricket’s oldest and finest challenges.  In the wake of England’s unlikely victory we may find it easy to forget that the principal drama leading up to the Lords test match was whether or not Kevin Pietersen would return to the team or not; does a player’s star power trump the power of that same star to disrupt the entire team?

Kevin Pietersen is the most dynamic and destructive player that England have produced since Ian Botham (ignoring for the moment that he was born in South Africa).  His ability to turn a test match in a session, on any surface, against any attack (that doesn’t include a slow left-arm orthodox) is undeniable.  He induces fear in the same way that the swinging blade of Adam Gilchrist or the threatening swagger of Viv Richards did in years past.  You would think that any team would die to have him?  But he is also the player who publicly criticized his own coach when he was captain, undermined his own captain (Strauss), and wrote a book criticizing several current players after he was dropped.  He is a star and everything that comes with that label.  The difficulty is balancing his contribution to the team; positive and negative.  I do not wish to dwell too much on his situation specifically, I will only say that the real culprit is the ECB who have managed to mismanage Kevin Pietersen for years.  However I really want to look at the star vs. the team question because cricket provides a fascinating arena in which this battle can take place.

A star player in cricket is slightly different than in many other sports because each player is, at one point or another, forced to fend for themselves in the spotlight.  Whether this is a batsman facing the fastest bowler in the world, a bowler delivering the crucial final over of a match or indeed the captain facing his critics; cricket does not allow your moment to be short or hidden behind teammates – the focus is entirely on you.  The brutal nature of these moments often requires an equally bombastic and ego-driven character to counter them.  This is why so many of the public darlings like Pietersen, Warne, Gayle and Kohli can be both effective and arrogant in the same breath; they would not achieve star-status without this trait.  If only it could be contained to the playing field, we would not need to have this discussion in the first place.

Strong teams are fostered by a strong culture that allows anyone passing through to benefit and perform and this is only achieved by total buy-in by the players.  Star players on the cricket field often find this difficult to adhere to; they develop an arrogance about their successes and skills that leads to inevitable questioning of the regime - 'I'm the best player on the field and I know best off it'.  This need not be an obvious challenge but conveyed with subtlety to individual teammates in muted conversation, or it can be blatant like texting insults about your captain to opposition players.  In between you have the annoying trend of players making public pronouncements about team culture and policy – Ian Bell recently for example – which is dangerous because of the situations it traps captain and coach in but in particular how innocent it appears.  It’s not necessarily about being personal or being disruptive on purpose – although in the Kevin Pietersen scenario this does appear to be the case – but the disruption is palpable.  KP himself may agree although he would argue the stars in question are the bowlers and wicket keeper named in his book rather than himself.

At the end of the day the sport still requires 11 players and this can’t be sacrificed for 1 player’s ego.  As to my original question about whether the star comes first, the manager within me says no, while the fan in me says yes but the latter is not accountable to the rest of the team and the hierarchy of players in a country.  This is likely to be an ongoing battle as long as the game exists but ponder this: If you begin making concessions for a player when does it end?  Chanderpaul has been dropped from the West Indies team recently and an unhelpful succession of former-players have lined up to undermine the decision, ignoring the fact that he has averaged 16 across his last 10 innings – from a player who was a model of consistency this is will have been a major concern for the team.  The danger is that you trap yourself by sacrificing the team dynamic for a dynamic player.  If you choose the player then this is the risk you run.

Just a few thoughts about the Lords Test (admission: this section was written during Day 1 of the Headingly Test)

Much has been said about the first test between England and New Zealand – how a team who scored over 750 runs and took 20 wickets in the match could lose on the final day appears to be a common question – and my own thoughts have swung from outrage to confusion across the previous week.  While I believe that the Black Caps dominated about 60% of the match and really only gave it away in a handful of key moments, the result serves as a faint warning in my mind.

The team takes an aggressive approach to test cricket and while I admire and enjoy this I also understand the inherent dangers.  The main concern I have would be the sacrifice of substance for style; it is one thing to take advantage of a situation and aggressively ram home the initiative but it is quite another to think you can rewrite the rules of test cricket.  I have just witnessed the New Zealand captain attempt to smash the first ball after Tea over cover and instead chip the ball tamely to mid-off.  This is disgraceful from the leader of the team and should stand as a reminder about the boundaries of the team approach – there is another team playing out there and they and the conventions of the game must be respected.  Also, the bowling unit looked particularly underdone – something I feared as per my previous blog post – and struggled to maintain their composure while trying to sustain the aggression against the English middle order in both innings.  Although I did notice that Williamson (fresh from the IPL) scored 150 runs in the match while Taylor (played all tour games thus far) struggled in both innings.

There has to be substance with the style and the team must not allow itself to be blinded to the match situation if a draw is in the offering.  The team’s two remarkable performances at the Basin Reserve (against India and Sri Lanka) were built as much on stubbornness and application as aggression and they would do well to remember this when touring as well.

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

It’s good bye for now

"By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail"

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I do not believe I have seen both teams in an upcoming series have their preparation derailed so completely as those of New Zealand and England this month.  They will play two tests, 5 ODIs and a solitary T20 fixture and despite Mike Hesson’s call for more fixtures this is a full tour; although you would be forgiven for thinking that neither side is prepared for such an undertaking.  New Zealand are going to begin the international segment of the tour with frontline players who have played no First Class cricket since the New Zealand summer as well as little encouraging form from the players who have been present for the county matches.  England on the other hand find themselves drawn into a maelstrom of power, authority and ego in their non-selection of Kevin Pietersen that is swallowing up their new Director of Cricket, Test Captain, senior players (those foolish enough to voice their opinion) and – most importantly – their focus on the series that begins on Thursday.  Stuart Broad couldn’t even turn up to the series launch the other day due to anything from illness to hangover depending on whose hastily-deleted-tweets you have read…

Neither side will begin the first test at Lords confident in their preparation – although numerous interviews from now until Day 1 will try to convince us otherwise.  This is insulting to fans and players alike and in my series preview I am forced to focus on these elements.

I won’t beat about the bush here; Brendon McCullum, Kane Williamson, Tim Southee and Trent Boult are – baring injury – going to be named in the XI to play for New Zealand at Lords in just four days.  They will not have played a day of First Class cricket on this tour because they will not physically be on this tour until just three days before the first test.  This is a ridiculous situation because our star players will be underdone in a series that they profess to care very deeply about – one player said that it was their most important tour.  I don’t disagree with the sentiment but I do laugh at the commitment behind it because a situation where your Number 3 batsman (Kane Williamson) is kept IN India as injury cover, despite not having played for his IPL franchise since Round 3 is insane.

I understand all the noise about players making what they can from their cricketing skills which means participation in the IPL even at the detriment of their tour preparation (if not the actual international fixtures of that tour).  That there will be contractual obligations on the players to remain if their franchise wishes and that if New Zealand wishes to play in England they – for the time being – will have to tour in May and June.  I realise these are realities in the current tour-schedule but if New Zealand Cricket is to take all of the goodwill towards the team and the unprecedented level of talent within the it, and establish themselves as a cricket-power instead of the honest merchants of the second-tier, then this insanity needs to be addressed.  How is the team going to build on its 2013-2015 successes if short-cuts are taken now?  Perhaps it means reminding the players that the reason they are picked in the IPL in the first place is because of their international success.  Since the ill-fated tour of South Africa where the players sat down and decided that they would play cricket a certain way, their commitment to the team and tour preparation has been excellent but there is so much more to be achieved and they need to retain their commitment in order to establish the dynasty we all want them to create.

I realise that my argument is not helped by the fact that other linchpins of the team have not achieved the form they would like in the warm-up games – Ross Taylor being the main concern.  Watling, Bracewell and Rutherford have made mentionable contributions but I for one will feel very uncomfortable with the level of readiness in the twin engine rooms of batting and bowling when the first ball is bowled.

That being said, at least New Zealand’s troubles are not structural as England’s World Cup hangover continues after the tour to the West Indies – ideally placed to recover from their ODI troubles – was at best irrelevant and at worst a further step backwards.  They have fired their coach Peter Moores and installed Andrew Strauss to the highly-dubious position of “Director of Cricket”.  The latter’s first decision was to explain to a batsman who had just made 355* for Surrey – the highest county championship score in 13 years I have been told – that he would not be playing for England this summer; this is an extraordinary thing to say to a player and so bizarrely broad as well; was it really necessary to rule out the whole season?  On the other hand the player in question is Kevin Pietersen, a man who sent disparaging messages to opposition players during a live series, about his own captain (who was Strauss, the man now standing between him and the test team) leading to that captain’s resignation and retirement.  Not to mention slagging off various current players in a book published less than a year ago - I believe the Director of English Cricket when he says that it’s a matter of trust with Pietersen.  Once you add into the mix a recently-demoted vice-captain (Ian Bell) letting slip that it is current captain Alastair Cook who doesn’t want the Surrey star in his team and you have a Game-of-Thrones-style power play that must surely end in disaster for all concerned.

I realise that the last paragraph is difficult to follow and I want to assure you that this is deliberate because I could think of no better way to illustrate the nonsense that is the governance of English Cricket at the moment.  I reiterate, there is a month-long series beginning in just four days and the English team is all over the place with no sign of real leadership.  Oh and did I mention there’s an Ashes series right after the New Zealand tour?

People ask me if I side with Pietersen or Strauss in this fight and I honestly sigh in disgust; neither would be my answer.  I would side with every other cricketer in England as they deserve better, I would side with every member of the cricket audience who could rightly turn their back and leave these squabbling ‘men’ to their cesspool.  As Martin Crowe conveyed this week, none of them realise what they’re doing here – they've lost sight of the sport they are supposed to be the custodians of and instead play out these pitiful feuds in full sight of the media and public.  And it will be the sport and its fans who will suffer in the end.

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

It’s good bye for now

*title quote is from Benjamin Franklin