English Cricket

The Mighty Irish!

2007-03-18T11:09:00.000Z

In the biggest upset since Kenya beat the West Indies in the 1995 World Cup, Ireland defied poor umpiring decisions and having to bat in near twilight to beat Pakistan by 3 wickets.

My grandfather, who was born in Cardigan to an Irish father and Welsh mother but lived his adult life in England, once complained that the "England" Cricket team should be called the "Britain" cricket team, as players born in Wales (Robert Croft), Scotland (Gavin Hamilton) and Northern Ireland (Martin McCague) were all eligible to play for the side.

My grandfather passed away before Ireland played in their first World Cup, but he would no doubt have highlighted the glaring anomaly. How can a player, such as Ed Joyce, be eligble to play for "England" after representing Ireland? Why should the "England" team be allowed to cherry pick the most promising Scottish and Irish players?

If cricket in Ireland is to progress, following their memorable St Patrick's Day victory, then this matter needs to be resolved. The "England" team should be renamed "England and Wales" to the exclusion of Irish and Scottish players.

Asif is Lucky He's Not An Aussie

2007-01-14T14:55:00.000Z

In 2003 Shane Warne was banned from all cricket for one year by the Australian Cricket Board after failing a drugs test for taking a diuretic. At the time I agreed with the view of the Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates who warned: "This is a stark reminder to everyone that you have to know what's inside your body and you're responsible for what you take."

It was a little harsh on Warne, as I doubt anyone believed that he had taken a performance enhancing drug, he was just trying to lose some weight. However, it was a relief that cricket was not going the same way as athletics, cycling and tennis, where sportsmen who failed a test would portray themselves as a victim and would employ an army of lawyers to escape punishment. Warne had broken the rules and he was banned for a year.

Mohammad Asif was cleared last month by a Pakistan Cricket Board committee of knowingly taking the banned steroid nandrolone, over-turning the previous decision to ban him from cricket for a year. He had broken the rules, he has gone unpunished.

If the Pakistan Cricket Board believe that the rules are wrong then they should lobby hard to get the rules changed. Otherwise they should uphold the rules.

The long term impact on cricket can only be guessed at, but it is upsetting that the Pakistan Cricket Board did not follow the precedent set by the ACB. It is unfortunate that the next cricket Board to face this issue will have a different precedent to follow.

So What Went Wrong?

2006-12-18T20:06:00.000Z

The silver lining for Chris Read, Monty Panesar and Andrew Strauss's captaincy ambitions is that when the history of how England surrendered the Ashes in 2006 is written, it will conclude that they were "not guilty".

The same cannot be said of Flintoff and Fletcher. Selectors are usually very reluctant to change a winning side. Panesar, Read and Strauss were the men in possession and to replace them was what Sir Humphrey Appleby would have described as "a courageous decision".

Strauss had just led England to a revenge victory against a dangerous Pakistan. He inherited a side that had failed to beat a vulnerable Sri Lankan team and was bereft of its talismatic all-rounder. Read has scored runs at crucial times since his recall, while Panesar is England's most dangerous spinner since Phil Tufnell and at 24 can only get better. What did these players do wrong?

The Monty Show

2006-12-14T19:13:00.000Z

My fears that England's tour would turn into a one-sided humiliation were dissipated by the seventh ashes delivery from the Sikh of tweak. Monty went on to take 5 wickets on the first day of this match, unheard of for an England spinner. Monty's enthusiasm as much as his wickets makes the man a joy to watch. Take note Mr Fletcher, drop this man again at your peril.

That Harmison deserved his four wickets is as important as the wickets themselves. England's bowling attack suddenly looks more balanced, although the question mark over the fourth seamer remains as inevitable as Australia's fightback. England were reduced to a fortuatous 51-2. Game-on.

So When Is The Ball Dead?

2006-12-09T19:24:00.000Z

A few years ago a team mate was run out whilst he did a bit of gardening outside off-stump. We were disgusted, both by the behaviour of the wicket-keeper and the failure of their captain to withdraw the appeal. Our captain got hold of the rules, only to find it particularly ambiguous. Law 23 (Dead ball) states at paragraph 1(a)i that the ball is dead when "it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or the bowler." Paragraph 2 adds that "whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide." Not good news for our player umpiring at square leg.

In a superfluous attempt at clarification the laws conclude "the ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the umpire at the bowler's end that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play." There will never be a problem if both teams consider the ball to be dead.

Today at the first test between New Zealand and Sri Lanka, Muralitharan was run out as he went down the pitch to congratulate Sangakkara on his gritty century. This event has polarised opinion; as the Sri Lankan team were visibly outraged on the team balcony, Kiwi commentator Martin Crowe stated that Muralitharan had "suffered a brain explosion."

Certainly to walk out of your ground as the ball comes in from the outfield is not to be recommended and although Brendan McCullum was unsporting when he broke the stumps and appealed, Muralitharan should not have given him the opportunity.

New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming asserted: "You can't just wander off when the ball's in mid-air and if we'd had an overthrow I'm sure they would have taken that." I guess only the Sri Lankan batsmen can answer that.

Refections on the Adelaide Test

2006-12-05T20:40:00.000Z

I have been an England fan for as long as I can remember. I have been hooked on watching my team play ever since I thought an over meant the number of times the ball went over the wicket. If GK Chesterton's "Great Scorer" exists then I will be an England fan for eternity. So it will take more than one humiliating defeat to make me indifferent.

I have supported this England team through the truly dark days; I was there at the Oval when defeat against New Zealand made us officially the worst team in the world. So why are the journalists describing this as one of the worst England defeats? It is because after two days it all looked so promising. As John Cleese's character said in the film Clockwise "I can handle the despair, it's the hope I can't stand."

The England Selectors should avoid scapegoats or otherwise the tour will turn into a rout. A full review can come later, in the meantime Panesar must be selected, probably in the place of Anderson, but the backbone of the team must remain the same.

Reflections on Disappointing First Day

2006-11-23T18:33:00.000Z

As a carefree student I remember staying-up late and listening to Michael Slater smashing the first delivery of the 1994-5 series for 4. That set the tone for the entire series as Australia ran out 3-1 winners. England were fortunate to get the 1. Over 10 years later, as a responsible Local Government Officer, I stayed up to see Harmison's first delivery going straight to slip. Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose.

When I saw James Andersen miss a possible run out by a country mile and going for an other-throw, I went to bed. My hope of England retaining the Ashes have been replaced by the aspiration that the series will at least be competitive.

I can deal with despair it is hope I can't stand.

Boost For England: Trescothick Going Home

2006-11-14T19:43:00.000Z

By returning home Trescothick has made the greatest contribution that he could possibly have made to England’s cause. It has been apparent to all but the selectors that he has been hopelessly out of form and to have forced him to continue his run of failures in the most eagerly awaited series in a generation would surely have been in contravention of his Human Rights. I am relieved to have been saved from the torture of watching any more single figure scores from a fallen giant, with feet (or should that be footwork?) of clay.

This is the second time he has quit an England tour because he can’t handle the pressure and the kindest thing for the selectors to do would be to thank Tresco for his memorable contributions in the past but make it clear that his international career is over. To be blunt he is an unreliable liability and must not prevent the progress of players like Alastair Cook.

I would strongly recommend Robert Key to replace Trescothick in the squad. This would be his second tour to Australia and he has been on the fringes of the side for some time. He deserves his chance.

England Fall At First Hurdle

2006-11-10T22:00:00.000Z

The England selectors have many questions to ponder following their sides humiliating 166 run defeat by the President's XI, starting with "who agreed this tour schedule?" To prepare properly for the 1st Test England need to play 4 day games against weak-medium strengthened opposition, not a one-day match against an Australian A team. I doubt that Australia would have accepted a similar tour opener that could only serve the interests of the home team.

Other questions include:

Who is going to open with Strauss in the 1st Test?
Who will keep wicket?
Who will be selected as spinner?

This disadvantage with having 16 players who all have a chance of making the final XI is the inevitable uncertainty of an unsettled team. England won the Ashes by selecting 12 players for the 5 match series, the only change being forced on them by injury. The selectors need to take a deep breath, decide on their starting XI and then ensure that these players get as much match practice as possible. That team should be:

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Mahmood
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

Injuries and a poor selection policy have ensured that less than half these players can feel assured of the place in the team. This more than any other factor makes England the underdog for the coming series.

England Move Out of One Day Slow Lane

2006-10-28T13:24:00.000Z

England lost their first two matches in the ICC Champions Trophy match due to poor batting. They won their final match due to good batting, suggesting that bowling is of less importance in one day cricket.

England are no further forward with regard to finding a settled team. Harmison was replaced by Jon Lewis who was arguably the pick of the bowlers, returning 35 from 10 overs, but the previously impressive Anderson disappeared for 72 from his 10. The selectors must feel like the cartoon character trying to plug holes in a dyke, no sooner is one run leak fixed, another appears.

On a two paced pitch Gayle and Bravo both made patient centuries, punishing the bad deliveries and not taking any risks until a large total was assured. In contrast Strauss and Bell both threw their wickets away when they both looked like they were going to emulate Gayle and Bravo. Bravo then blotted his copybook by claiming a catch on the bounce to dismiss Yardy, leaving Pietersen to hit a match winning 90 of 86 deliveries. However, Mahmood's contribution should not be forgotten. When he came to the crease 41 runs were required at more than a run a ball. His 14 off 21 deliveries was also a match wining contribution. England won this match because they were the side batting second.

So now it's the Australians!

Village England Fail Again

2006-10-21T14:12:00.000Z

My village team often get off to a good start, only for the middle order to throw it away in a vain attempt to maintain the early momentum when they should be consolidating the team's position. The tail-enders then haul the team towards a respectable position (guess where I bat), before the opposition batsmen ensure we all get to the pub early.

The England team continue to remind me of my cricketing experience this summer. Bell batted positively, while Strauss played what I should be describing as a captain's innings. In an attempt to justify his position in the side as batsman rather than an all-rounder, Flintoff continues to bat 2-3 position higher than he should and he continues to bat is if the innings was 20 overs or so older. In fact England only started batting well when they were 7 wickets down with Mahmood and Collingwood and then Anderson and Collingwood, who ensured that we reached 169. About a 100 short, but still the right side of total humiliation. Bell, Strauss, Collingwood(not out) and Anderson reached double figures and Mahmood had the next highest score of 8. The other six batsmen could only muster 13 runs between them.

Inevitably the Austrailian batsmen not only ensured that the players could hit the bar early, they also ensured that the England team can spend more time with their families.

How Green Was My Cricket Pitch: Drugs Scandal Hits The Game

2006-10-16T17:20:00.000Z

My favourite cricketer when growing-up was the England and Derbyshire wicket-keeper Bob Taylor. His enjoyment of the game shone through, allowing him to fulfil the glovemen's role as the soul of the team. His determination to play the game as it should be played made him a hero that my parents and sports teacher could approve of. In the 5th Test at Adelaide in 1979, he walked on 97 for a thin leg-side edge through to the keeper, denying him what would have been his only test century. He was a cricketer that GK Chesterton's Great Scorer would have approved of.

Years later I heard him despairing of the decline in sportmanship in cricket, stating that in particular the batsman's refusal to walk led to him to retire from the game. I wonder what he thinks of the latest scandal to hit the sport. Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif have both tested positive for nandrolone, an anabolic steriod. Akhtar protests his innocence, but a procession of guilty atheletes attempting to protray themseleves as the victim means that he will not be believed.

The ICC need to investigate the medical teams supporting the players, nandrolone is not something that you get without a prescription, it is not something that a cricketer is likely to take without consulting their doctor. A single international panel of approved doctors, who rate the Hippocratic oathe above national success, would solve the problem.

Still No Sign Of One-Day Recovery

2006-10-15T20:57:00.000Z

At the turn of the century the English Test team was in the doldrums and the desperate selectors argued that it was all cyclical and soon the England team would be revolved back up to the top. The argument had an element of truth, the results were so bad they simply had to get better.

The One-Day team are now in a familiar position. One-Day cricket should be a great leveller, as a match can turn on a single incident. This makes England's disasterous form all the more baffling. How can a team of talented cricketers only win 2 out of their last 10 One-Day matches? Especially when nine of them were at home. The margins of the defeats also make a mockery of the laws of probability, which suggest that the majority of One-Day games should be close.

Trying anything different would be better than simply blundering along as we are. Perhaps we should simply select the same team for One-Day and Test cricket and see how we go from there.

Thanks Glenn, Our Boys Needed That

2006-10-11T18:34:00.000Z

Sheffield Shield sides learnt that when playing Queensland it was counter-productive to sledge Allan Border, as this would merely inspire the skipper of the banana-benders to play a match winning innings (when travelling in Victoria I was told that people from Queensland were called banana-benders, as this term is probably derogatory I apologise to anybody I may have offended).

Before the start of the 2005 series Glenn McGrath displayed his own special brand of arrogant optimism by stating that Australia would win 5-0. His point may have been that a person of his competitive nature had to believe this, as anything else would seem weak and pessimistic. Fair enough, but after the gleeful taunts he suffered by the England fans and after the England players admitted that they had been inspired by Glenn’s boastful predictions, wouldn’t it have been better to keep his mouth shut this time?

In his autobiography Mike Atherton ruefully states how he suggested to Steve Waugh that he was Darren Gough’s bunny. Waugh merely commented “thanks mate, I needed that” and went on to score a match winning century.

England's attitude should be the same as Waugh's. I only hope that Hoggard does not repeat his ageist comments of last year.

The Ashes Squad

2006-09-12T20:44:00.000Z

The squad the selectors named at 3pm today looks more like a desperate gambler's last throw of the dice than a sensible balanced team, capable of enduring the hardest of tours. I can't help fearing that they have got in badly wrong.

Flintoff is an ambitious choice as captain. Strauss would have been a safer pair of hands as he led England to a series victory against Pakistan and saw his own form improve under the burden of captaincy. As captain Flintoff could only manage a draw against a vulnerable Sri Lankan team. The jury is still out regarding Flintoff's leadership. He is an inspirational character, but has yet to show whether he has the tactical skills necessary to be a successful captain. He is also currently injured, with no guarantee that he will be match fit when the first test starts in November.

Flintoff isn't the only player in the squad with fitness concerns. In fact four of the other 15 are major doubts. Giles hasn't bowled all season, nor has Anderson and like the injured Plunkett he is yet to prove himself at international level. Trescothick has averaged under 20 since the Ashes and had to desert the England team in India because he couldn't cope with the stress. The decision to take only 6 batsmen is clearly a big risk. As for the bowlers it is a over a year since Simon Jones limped out of the Trent Bridge test. England still have not found his replacement.

The selectors appear to have decided that the only way England can retain the ashes is for the injured key players to recover in time. I fear that they are playing fantasy cricket.

Game Sacrificed On The Altar Of Egos

2006-08-21T10:42:00.000Z

Everybody involved in the confrontation between umpire Shakoor Rana and Mike Gatting in 1987 and its aftermath emerged with a tarnished reputation. Yesterday’s events at the Oval threaten to do the same.

In protest at the umpires’ decision to award five penalty runs to England for alleged ball tampering, Pakistan refused to take the field after tea. They should have learned from Sir Don Bradman’s wise advice in 1987, “you should wait until after the day’s play to make your protest.” The umpires then with jobsworthian vigour warned the Pakistan team that if they continued to refuse to play they would forfeit the match. By exercising the letter of the law, the umpires ignored its more diplomatic spirit. The point of no return had been reached; with the pride of the officials and the players at stake the game was always going to be the loser.

At this stage the powers-that-be should have informed the media and the crowd what was going on. Everyone should have realised that when the umpires removed the bails the match was over. This would have highlighted the pointlessness of Pakistan’s decision to finally take the field 30 minutes later. The good-natured crowd naturally thought play was about to finally re-start and it is to their credit they did not adversely react to being cheated out of a third of the day’s play.

So from being 33 runs in arrears, with only 6 second innings wickets remaining, England have astonishingly won the final test and with it the series 3-0. The second and third tests were won through cricketing ability but the final test was won via a dispute between the opposition and the officials that they had nothing to do with.

Perhaps those responsible for this debacle should consider what GK Chesterton’s Great Scorer, has made of all this.

Pakistan Ease England's Progress

2006-08-08T20:55:00.000Z

It shouldn't have been that easy. England played well and the pitch was becoming increasingly treacherous, but 155 all out serves to exaggerate both these factors. Pakistan played badly and contributed to their downfall.

Pakistan needed to negotiate the new ball, but throughout this series their openers have been little more than the hors d'oeuvre to the main course of the middle order. Today was no exception as injudicious stroke-play ensured that both openers were back in the pavilion with barely 50 on the board. With Inzamam's injury forcing him to bat no higher than 7, the partnership between Yousuf and Khan was always going to be crucial. This partnership had contributed 363 in the first innings and if it been unbroken at lunch the result could have been very different.

Collingwood's acrobatic dive to run out Yousuf was the turning point of the match, as it ensured that the soft underbelly of Pakistan's lower middle order was exposed to a hard ball, which was barely 20 overs old. However, this should not disguise the fact that it was a senseless run; Collingwood did well but he was only a few yards from the wicket, with, I would estimate, at least three-quarters of the stumps to aim at. In the closing stages of a one-day game it would have been a foolish run, on the final morning of a test match it was verging on the insane.

In this game trouble has come in twos for Pakistan, with two run outs in their first innings and two dropped catches by Akmal in England's second. The second run out in the second innings was even more of a gift than the first, as Pietersen had time to underarm the ball to Mahmood who broke the stumps with the hesitant Sami still a yard short of his ground.

The match was completed when Inzamam walked out of his crease and took a lazy inaccurate heave at a Panesar delivery. He did not even try and regain his ground as Read completed the stumping.

This new look England have completed their first series victory since the Ashes and have cemented their place as the second best team in the world. Bring on the Aussies!

A Tale of Two Wicket-Keepers

2006-08-07T21:07:00.000Z

It is hard to believe that we go into the final day of this Test with all three results possible despite the fact that both teams scored over 500 in their first innings. England's position would be far worse if it hadn't been for the diverging fortunes of the two glove men.

Akmal had a torrid day behind the stumps; he dropped Trescothick twice in consecutive overs whilst he was on single figures. The first chance was a bad miss down the leg-side but the second drop was a regulation catch that would cost a village wicket-keeper at least one round of drinks. At first glance he seemed to partly atone for these errors by catching Bell off an inside edge. However, the slow motion replay provided an ironic twist. It appeared that Akmal lost control of the ball as he dived. Only Akmal will know for certain, but with Bell's highly dubious caught and bowled dismissal of Yousuf in the winter in mind, many Pakistan fans will see this as poetic justice.

Bell's departure brought Chris Read to the crease, who batted positively to score 55 from 84 deliveries. He shared a 51 stand with Collingwood and then marshalled the tail to ensure that the England innings subsided rather than collapsed from 299-6 to 345 all out. It is hard to imagine Jones playing such an innings and Read's form in this match has fully justified the selectors belated decision to include him in the team.

The failure of England's usually reliable middle order ensured that the journalists have been denied the opportunity to criticise Strauss for delaying a declaration. However, the pitch is still a good one and I expect that the same scribes will be commentating on overly defensive field placing and slow over rates. Whether Pakistan can gain revenge for England's victory in the twilight of Karachi in 2001 remains to be seen.

Is This Really Headingley?

2006-08-05T20:18:00.000Z

Before this test match started I tried to recall what usually happens at Headingley. My memory told me that scores over 300 are rare and providing the weather doesn't intervene, a result is inevitable.

England made 515 and Pakistan are currently 202-2 in reply and a draw is the most likely result.

I also recalled that it is a pitch which favours medium pace swing and seam bowlers. Neil Mallender won the match for England here in 1992, only to be unceremoniously dropped after struggling on a good Oval pitch; he was never selected again. It is a suprise then that, whilst all bowlers have found wickets hard to come by, it is the spinners who have had the most control and the best economy rates.

I now expect that the Oval will provide a slow turning pitch.

Jones Sent Back To Old Kent Road

2006-07-31T20:51:00.000Z

While politicians live in fear of having to spend more time with their family, cricketers with central contracts live in fear of having to spend more time with their county. This happened to Geraint Jones today as his paltry 91 runs from his last ten innings finally sent him back to Kent. England desperately need runs from their number seven, as there is no Giles to keep the tail-end up and Bell will not always be able to marshal the tail as effectively as he has done in the last two tests. In view of this Jones' replacement by Chris Read should have be made after Read's 150 not out against Pakistan for England A, but I guess it's a case of better late than never.

It is usual to select two wicket-keepers on tour and so both Read and Jones can start packing their bags for Australia. Clearly the selection of Matt Prior for the last tour was an aberration. Chris Read has gone from being third choice to first choice; how long he remains will probably depend on the next two matches. He should have been given four.

The Harm is on!

2006-07-29T20:34:00.000Z

With a depleted England bowling attack, exacerbated by the decision to replace an all-rounder with a batsman, England were looking for their main strike bowler to deliver. Stephen James Harmison did not disappoint. He took 5 for 57 as he and Panesar stole the show.

Like most England fans I had a sleepless night after watching Harmison leave the field late on the second day with a shoulder strain. If he was unavailable, England's seam attack would have comprised of the ineffective Hoggard and Mahmood, who failed to take a wicket between them in the entire match. Fortunately this fear was groundless and Harmison made the breakthrough early in the morning by removing the hapless Akmal who had just endured a day and a half keeping wicket in the hot sun. Pakistan then crumbled to the juxtaposition of Harmison's hostile pace and Monty's subtle spin. Their combined match figures were an impressive 55.5-17-169-19. I expect we will see them bowling regularly in tandem in the future.

Teams often respond better to criticism following an innings victory than they do after a defeat and questions need to be asked of England's other bowlers. Hoggard has been England's most consistent bowler since the ashes and he was perhaps a little unlucky. Mahmood on the other hand was a great disappointment on his home ground and the third seamer's position remains open to the first bowler who can seize the chance.

Steve Finally Harms Pakistan

2006-07-27T20:18:00.000Z

Today saw the re-emergence of Steve Harmison as a world class fast bowler as he took 6 for 19, his second best test analysis, causing Pakistan to crumble to 119 all-out. Whilst Harmison was bowling all the batsmen looked vulnerable, when anyone else was bowling the pitch looked flatter and batting seemed relatively straight forward.

Monty Panesar also deserves credit for taking three wickets on the first day of a test match, an amazing feat for an English spinner. Credit too for the selectors for continuing to select England's best spinner and ignoring calls for either a spinning all-rounder or an all-out seam attack.

The batsmen then rounded off the best day this year for the English team by easing to 168 for 2, a lead of 49. Pakistan now need something special to save this match. The tiger is in a corner, can England finish it off?

Ashes Are Still Months Away, but the Pakistan Series is Here and Now

2006-07-25T20:24:00.000Z

We are currently in the middle of test series against Pakistan, but all the media seem to care about is whether any of the hospital ward load of injured players will be fit to play in the ashes series in Australia this winter.

This attitude is short-sighted and self-defeating. This England team won the ashes by winning four series in a row, which then gave them the confidence to challenge the mighty Australians as unquestionably the second best team in the world. Since then that mantle has passed to Pakistan, a team which turned England over 2-0 at their place, a team whose star has risen as England's has fallen.

The ashes should be a contest between the two best teams in the world, if we fail to beat Pakistan on home soil, it will be something less than that. This will devalue the ashes and cheat the fans from both countries who have already bought tickets for the forthcoming series.

The Role of the Wicket-Keeper

2006-07-18T20:17:00.000Z

My Grandfather would worry when the England wicket-keeper played a good innings, warning that if he spent too long batting he would struggle to adjust to his proper job of keeping wicket.

I am reminded of his insight when considering the recent performances of Geraint Jones. The improvement of his wicket-keeping has gone largely unnoticed as his batting average has declined. This indicates just how difficult it is for any glove man to be a genuine all-rounder. In both jobs every delivery demands total concentration, but a moment's lapse can ruin a performance.

The wicket-keeper is the soul of the fielding side. No other player is so constantly involved. No other player is in a better position to give insightful advice to the bowlers or to give encouragement to the team when they most need it. Perhaps this is why Jones remains in the side. Read may be the better batsman and the better wicket-keeper, but Jones does the unquantifiable work far better.

When To Declare?

2006-07-17T20:33:00.000Z

England drew the first test against Pakistan today, but the dominance of bat over ball (1,483 run scored for only 31 wickets taken) had as much to do with the paucity of the two team's bowling attacks (and perhaps the fallibility of Pakistan's catching) as the placidity of the pitch.

I imagine that tomorrow's papers will criticise Strauss for not declaring earlier, but whilst these overpaid and under-worked hacks will gleefully point out that the target set for Pakistan was higher than any other that had been successfully chased at Lords, their analysis will most probably end there. The current record remains the 344-1 scored by West Indies in 1984. At the time Richie Benaud called David Gower's decision an "inspired declaration", whilst others in the media argued that he should have declared the previous evening. Following the conclusion of the game Gower was condemned for giving away a match that England had dominated.

I don't blame Strauss for not wanting to end up like Gower in what could be his only Test as captain. I expected this under-strength England team to be beaten at the home of cricket and arguably but for a brace of dropped catches they would have been. However, in the end England dominated this match and while an earlier declaration would not have resulted in a win for England, it could have handed Pakistan a victory they did not deserve.

Captaincy: The Good, The Bad and The Great

2006-07-14T20:56:00.000Z

A good captain will usually make the correct decision and then relax in the knowledge that nothing more can be done. A great captain will instinctively know when not to relax because he knows that something innovative is required. A bad captain will shun the obvious in favour of something unnecessarily novel.

At Headingley in 1981 Mike Brearly demonstrated a great piece of captaincy by bowling Bob Willis uphill just to wind him up. He then switched Willis to bowling downhill and the result was a match winning 8-43 as England completed the greatest come-back since Lazarus.

This year Brian Lara took the extraordinary decision not to enforce the follow-on on the fourth day on the third test against India. Sometimes the obvious decision is the right one and by not enforcing the follow-on Lara ensured that the match was drawn. This then is an example of bad captaincy.

During the current Test match Inzamam-ul-Haq decided not to take the new ball on the first day despite there being ten overs left in the day. This was innovative, unconventional and simply wrong. Cook and Collingwood were playing for stumps and by not taking the new ball the Pakistan seam attack were denied the opportunity to get two uses of the new ball, at the end of the first day and the beginning of the second.

However, had the Pakistan spinners got a wicket at the end of the first day then it would have been a great piece of captaincy. It is only a step from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Reflections on Day of First Test

2006-07-13T21:15:00.000Z

Dickie Bird once said that the first day of a first test at Lords beats any other sporting occasion. For all the talent that has been displayed this summer at the home of cricket the fielding has been something to forget.

England's impressive number of dropped catches in the first test against Sri Lanka was matched today by Pakistan as they allowed no less than five clear cut chances go begging. One has to feel increasingly sorry for the bowlers, especially when a clear caught behind decision also went against them.

Credit should be given to Cook and Collingwood for making the best of their good fortune and putting together an invaluable 200 run stand. This must one of the few occasions when two England centurions are batting together.

England now have the rare opportunity of achieving a victory at HQ, now that is something that would put a real smile on Dickie Bird's lips!

Recall Read (Writing is on the Wall For Jones)

2006-07-08T21:17:00.000Z

Chris Read top scored with 150 not out in England A's mammoth total of 595 for 9 declared against Pakistan. That alone is not enough to earn an England call-up, but it tips the balance.

There has never been any doubt that Read is a superior glove-man to Jones, but it was Jones' superior batting that allowed him to replace Read in the 2004 series against the West Indies. However, Jones' batting form is no longer sufficient to obscure his errors with the gloves. His batting average has dropped to 26.67. It should be remembered that Jack Russell's test average was 27.10 and he was dropped because his batting was not deemed good enough for an international wicket keeper. Jones' average since the Ashes is 20.31 and an examination of his scores since the summer of 2005 is testimony to his decline in form. In Pakistan his scores were 22, 33, 55, 30*, 4 and 5. In India: 14, 52, 5, 1 & 3. While the latest series against Sri Lanka saw scores of 11*, 4, 19 and 6.

To be blunt all the justifications for keeping Jones in the side have gone. His keeping is not good enough, his batting is no longer good enough and there is an obvious alternative. Chris Read.

Selectors Undermine Strauss

2006-07-04T20:43:00.000Z

Andrew Strauss has been appointed for the first test against Pakistan but it is a pyrrhic victory for those such as Mike Gatting and Marcus Trescothick who wanted him to be appointed as full-time captain, as Strauss will return to the ranks as soon as Flintoff returns to the side.

So after presiding over a humiliating 5-0 whitewash in the recent one-day series, Strauss must now lead a Flintoffless England against a resurgent Pakistan team at Lords, the only venue in world cricket which inspires the visitors more than the hosts. He must also try and inspire a team who knows that he has only been appointed for a single match. By declaring that he is a temporary captain, instead of adopting a wait and see policy, the selectors have undermined Strauss before he has made his first decision.

I hope that Strauss rewards the selectors by giving them a real dilemma and leading England to victory this month. But in reality I know he is on a hiding to nothing.

England's Great Loss

2006-07-01T21:01:00.000Z

This is a cricket blog, so this article is not going to be about England's perennial inability to take penalty kicks. It's about Fred Trueman, arguably "t'greatest fast bowler who ever drew breath" and undisputedly the first bowler to take 300 test wickets, who died today aged 75.

Fiery Fred was a rebel, who would have taken far more than his 307 test wickets had he been prepared to keep his nose clean with the authorities. He played in the days when the amateurs who ran the game referred to professional cricketers by their surnames and the next generation of cricketers were much beholden to Fred and others whose careers undoubtedly suffered because they refused to accept second class treatment. The great raconteur once said that he ignored those who called him Trueman because "my parents gave me a first name".

People my age remember Fred as an astute summariser for Test Match special, who would call a spade a bloody shovel with humour and fairness. I salute you Fred and I'll sithee!

Captain Required - no experience necessary

2006-06-29T21:21:00.000Z

The one game I remember most fondly from my childhood was called "guess who'll be the next England Captain". This reached its zenith during the 1988 home series against the West Indies, when the selectors sacked Gatting for "irresponsibility", but couldn't settle on a replacement. Four different captains were tried for the five match series, which England duly lost 5-0.

The old games are always the best as they make you feel like a child again. So far the selectors have been opting for short-term solutions to the captaincy problem, in the belief that Vaughan's return was imminent. The truth is he has probably played his last test match.

Clearly the solution is to appoint a captain for the long-term. The question is who? Flintoff is also injured, Trescothick has a tendenancy to get ill if he even thinks about the captaincy and Strauss has just managed to captain the one-day team to a 4-0 scoreline against the Sri-Lankans. Whoever does get the job should be allowed to settle into the role and not be made a scape goat for poor team performances by a depleated side. For that reason I'd opt for Strauss.

I can see the headlines now: England waltz to Strauss' tune.

England's Use of the Second New Ball Sets Up Victory

2006-05-28T21:06:00.000Z

England won the second test by a flattering 6 wicket margin. Sri Lanka's defiance was broken by skilful bowling with the second new ball, particularly from Liam Plunkett who took two wickets in two balls to ensure that for once the Sri Lankan tail did not wag.

A lead of 78 was never going to be enough, but Muralitharan's 4 for 29 served to remind us all how close this contest really was. Had 80 runs been added to the target we could have witnessed a repeat of England's 22 run defeat against Pakistan in Multan. Another 40 runs and we could have been treated to a repeat of England's 3 wicket victory at Trent Bridge last year.

This England side have a fine record when batting in their first innings, but they need to adopt different tactics when facing the greater challenge of batting last on a wearing pitch. The best time for a coach to criticise his team is after a victory and Fletcher needs to work on this chink in the armour of the team of St George.

Reflections on the Drawn First Test

2006-05-15T21:07:00.000Z

Determined batting from the tail and dispirited bowling, especially with the third new ball, ensured that Sri Lanka posted their highest ever second innings total and wrote another chapter in the book on defiant tail-end stands against England. Before the start of today's play it was said that Sri Lanka would require some assistance from the weather if they were to draw the match. In fact all they required was assistance from the English fielders. Two more straight forward chances were spilled, which in village cricket would have cost Flintoff and Cook at least one round of drinks each, where an explanation of why the captain chose to field at slip when he was about to bowl the next over would also be expected.

Flintoff is clearly a captain who wishes to do everything himself and undoubtedly he has been successful in getting the best out of Freddie Flintoff. But he failed to get the best out of his inexperienced bowling attack. Panesar should have been bowling immediately after lunch with the old ball and not over half-way through the session with the new one. The fact that he only bowled 27 overs to Flintoff's 51, but took the same number of wickets and had the best economy rate, indicates why England failed to win this match. Plan A was for the seam bowlers to bowl out Sri Lanka. When that failed Flintoff reverted to Plan A.

I hope Flintoff can learn from this match and so when the time comes he will be a successful captain. In the meantime though, we need Vaughan back.

Have England Found A Wicket Taking Spinner?

2006-05-13T22:10:00.000Z

Sri Lanka followed on in the first test today, after Hoggard took his 200 test wicket to return the impressive analysis of 4 for 27 off 14. We all know that Hoggard is a great test match bowler who deserves his number 5 position in the official world rankings. So this blog entry is not about him but Monty Panesar and for me this was his day.

Panesar's had a promising tour of India, but it was uncertain whether he could keep his position in the side when England started playing on less responsive pitches. His lack of ability with the bat and as a fielder and will always count against him in the modern game. Duncan Fletcher is renowned for favouring bowlers who can bat and the selection of Panesar over Udal certainly had its critics, including Udal's Hampshire teammate and captain, Shane Warne. Panesar answered those critics today, when after trying five other bowlers (including the occasional medium pace of Collingwood) Flintoff threw him the ball. The pitch was playing well and the Sri Lankan batsmen, who are competent players of spin, were well set. Panesar responded to these challenges with 15 testing overs, which brought him 2 wickets for 26 runs and brought the game back under England's control.

Panesar's England career may still be far from certain but there can be no doubt that he is the most threatening English spin bowler since Phil Tufnell.

Reflections on Day 2 of First Test

2006-05-12T21:11:00.000Z

In a speech to the House of Commons Churchill stated that "the problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult." This is the problem that now faces the England selectors. A few years ago they struggled to agree on who to pick, now they must struggle to decide who to leave out.

This agreeable problem was made worse today following a typically resolute 57 from Collingwood and a stunning debut from Mahmood where his first five overs in test cricket were rewarded with three wickets for nine runs.

Should Vaughan come back to full fitness, who should be dropped? If Harmison and Jones get back to match fitness, which bowlers should make way for them? The selectors are probably secretly relieved that Plunkett looked out of his depth!

Reflections on Day 1 of First Test

2006-05-11T21:44:00.000Z

The excellent sports writer Simon Barnes wrote a brilliant obituary piece on David Gower's career. In it he argued that Gower's main virtue: the ability to destroy any attack regardless of the circumstances, was the same as his main flaw: the ability to throw his wicket by being unnecessarily aggressive, when the situation required defence. Barnes warned those who defend mercurial geniuses like Gower not to expect any favours from the player himself, who will respond to your loyalty by hitting the last ball before lunch straight to backward square leg in an Adelaide Test in 1991.

Today I realised that this advice works in reverse. Never expect any favours from a player that you are disloyal to. I had criticised Trescothick for his unreliability after walking out on England before the India tour. Following several weeks for reflection he could have come up with a better excuse than a viral infection, which if true would surely have been disclosed at the time. I did not believe that Trescothick deserved to be selected for this match at the expense of Ian Bell who was beginning to reward the selectors for their loyalty. Today, Trescothick top scored with a determined 106, which I have to admit was vintage Trescothick, combining a judicious blend of attack and defence.

Clearly this "virus" cannot thrive in an English climate, but if it breeds in the Australian sun the selectors may still rue their decision to reinstate Trescothick so soon.

Preview of 1st Test Against Sri Lanka

2006-05-08T17:27:00.000Z

A team needs to take 20 wickets to have any chance of winning a Test match and with Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff and Giles, England were always likely to straddle this first hurdle. It was then up to the batsmen to clear the final fence to ensure victory.

Harmison is injured for this match, but should return later in the series. However, if the injury prone Giles and Jones were race horses they surely would have been shot by now. Anderson's chance of cementing his place in the team at the expense of the other two seamers have been ended by a back injury.

This extensive injury list means that the uncapped Mahmood and Lewis have been included in the 13 man squad, along with the inexperienced Liam Plunkett. Panesar has also been selected, but is unlikely to be chosen, as Lords in early May is not a place for a spinner who can't bat.

Lords has a habit of inspiring the opposition more than the hosts and there is a real danger that England's young bucks will fall at the first hurdle, making a draw the best the team can hope for.

Hooray! We've Won One At Last!

2006-04-12T20:37:00.000Z

Andrew Strauss, England's fourth choice skipper, played a captain's innings to ensure that England finally won their first One-Day International on this tour of India. The key to the victory was the 107 run opening stand between Strauss and Bell and despite a mini-collapse at the end, England's comfortable 5 wicket victory with nearly 10 overs to spare was never in doubt.

The main question now is who should captain the final game should Flintoff come back into the side. Flintoff may be the man in possession, but his record of four games and four losses suggests that his captaincy inspires him more than it does his teammates.

I think England's One Day team should be dancing to Strauss's tune.

Warning: This England Team Will Self-Destruct in 2 Overs

2006-04-06T21:15:00.000Z

At 148 for 3 after 28 overs England looked well placed to make a big score. Pietersen and Flintoff, the two biggest hitters in the England team, were at the crease and had already shared a partnership of 31. Dravid's decision to go for the second power play looked as if it had been taken by the batting, not the fielding side. Two overs later the self-destruct button had been well and truly pressed. Flintoff and Pietersen were back in the pavilion and England's hope of a challenging total was reliant on the fragile lower middle order and tail, who subsided rather than collapsed from 155 for 5 to 237 all out. The most disappointing fact is that India did not have to work for their wickets. The occasional spin of Yuvraj Singh and Sehwag accounted for two wickets each and there were two run outs.

With India still requiring over 80 runs to win England took two quick wickets, to bring about the perennial agony of false hope that all England fans have to endure. Anderson's two late wickets gave the result a fig leaf of respectability it hardly deserved.

England have now lost all four of the matches in the series so far and none of the games have been the nail-biters that One Day matches typically bring. This One-Day team are in danger of being humiliated 7-0.

While those players who were unavailable for this tour may fear for their Test places, their places in the One-Day side are assured.

England Reserves Go 3-0 Down

2006-04-03T12:05:00.000Z

Another defeat for England, another match winning partnership for India. Whilst being flogged to all parts of Goa, the bowlers looked to the fielders for support. Unfortunately the only two chances offered by Raina were squandered by Jones, who missed a stumping and Strauss, who missed a run out.

One Day Internationals tend to be won by the batsmen, but that does not excuse the selection of such an inexperienced bowling attack. Mahmood looked totally out of his depth and is likely to join the burgeoning ranks of former England players whose international careers are finished before they start. With the exception of Blackwell, the England bowler's were cannon fodder to the blades of Yuvraj Singh and Raina.

Facing a mammoth 295 to win, England at least managed to make a game of it, before slumping to a 49 run defeat. Collingwood's 93 of 84 deliveries could have inspired Dylan Thomas to write Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night. But heroic failures are not enough and England's One Day game remains in the shadows.

Why Are England Playing Two Wicket-Keepers?

2006-03-29T20:25:00.000Z

For the 1993 tour of India Jack Russell, who had a batting average of 27.17, was dropped as wicket-keeper for Richard Blakey, who began and ended his Test career on that tour with a batting average of 1.75, no stumpings and only two catches.

By playing two wicket-keepers in the same team this English tradition of bizarre wicket-keeping selections against India has been continued. Neither Matt Prior nor Geraint Jones are worth a place on batting ability alone and so unless all other batsmen are injured or ill (impossible, even on this tour) their selection makes no sense.

Drop Jones for Solanki and give Prior the gloves.

England Batsmen Humiliated in Delhi

2006-03-28T11:16:00.000Z

After bowling India out for a paltry 203, England threw away a winning position in the first One-Day International, to lose the match by 39 runs. They collapsed from 117-3 to 164 all out.

Pietersen started the collapse by slog-sweeping a full toss from outside off stump into the hands of Gambhir on the mid-wicket boundary. With a run rate of just over 3 required with about 25 overs left the English batsmen only needed to bat sensibly against steady bowling to win the game. Flintoff then swept across the line to be plumb LBW. Like a precession of manically depressed lemmings the English batsmen followed their leader back to the pavilion with similarly ill-judged shots. I would pay money to hear Geraint Jones explain how he appeared to offer two half shots to a straight ball from Harbhajan Singh and was bowled without getting anywhere near it. Blackwell's slog sweep to mid-wicket summed up England's inability to tailor their shot selection to the match situation.

The last wicket pairing of Anderson and Plunkett shared a stand of 22, showing that by waiting for the bad delivery and cutting out the sweep shot it was possible to score runs with minimum risk. Why the batsmen could not play in the same manner is a mystery.

Flintoff needs to show that there is an austere side to his easy going style of captaincy. The middle order need to realise how badly they let their team down. I would suggest that they be sent to a darkened room with the last wicket partnership being replayed in a continuous loop.

The One-Day Internationals

2006-03-27T20:57:00.000Z

My Great Uncle Pat had a story regarding an American who announced himself to the members' enclosure at Lords with the words "so are we in for an exciting days play?" The nearest member replied "Good Lord, I do hope not!"

This antipathy to the one-day game still exists among the more conventional cricket supporters. We prefer to see a game slowly develop over 5 days rather than an action packed 50 over game which often turns on a single moment of brilliance.

The One Day Series against India starts tomorrow and the Indians are red hot favourites. There will be a number of tired English players who know that while the result of Test series are remembered, the one day series are inevitably forgotten.

England Victory Causes Selection Conundrum

2006-03-25T20:45:00.000Z

England owe their victory in Mumbai to the new boys, who would not have played had the team been at full strength. The problems this causes with selection may be more palatable than those caused by a defeat, but that doesn't make them any simpler.

The assumption of many is that Trescothick will waltz back into the team when he makes himself available for selection. For this to happen a number of issues need to be addressed. Firstly he needs to confirm his availability for next winter's tour to Australia; without this guarantee his selection would be shortsighted. Secondly his position in the team needs to be considered. Cook is an excellent opener and has proved himself at test level; he is the man in possession of the opener's spot alongside Strauss. Trescothick's lack of foot movement sometimes lets him down against the new ball and his skill against the spinners suggests that he should bat in the middle order. However, assuming that Vaughan is fit and Pietersen is retained, there is only one available space in the middle order. This position would be contested by Trescothick, Bell, Shah and Collingwood. In my view Trescothick does not come top of this list.

In previous years players could miss tours, safe in the knowledge that the dearth of talent available to the selectors would ensure the continuation of their test careers. This is no longer the case and if those who played in the series against India maintain both their fitness and their form, Trescothick should be made to realise this.

Reflections on England's Third Defeat in the Sub-Continent in Five Games

2006-03-13T13:49:00.000Z

In the film Clockwise John Cleese's character laments: "I can cope with the despair, it's the hope I can't stand!" Whenever an England defeat reminds me of that quote I have to reflect that their performance wasn't as bad as the commentators and press are making out, because at some point I believed that they would win.

There were moments of hope in England's nine wicket defeat in the second test against India. At 288-6 England appeared to be destined for a challenging total, but they collapsed to 300 all out. India had weakened their batting line-up for this game and so when England reduced them to 153-5, a first innings lead look probable. However, after humiliating the England bowlers with the ball, the Indian bowlers then punished them with the bat and secured a 38 run lead. After that little went right for England's young team. Their batsmen should have been able to make the game safe and their failure to do so reminds England fans how close the team came to disaster at the Oval last summer.

Sehwag and Dravid then made light of the awkward task of chasing 144 in little over two sessions on the fifth day of a test match. It truly looked like men against boys as England's bowlers tried too hard and saw the patient Indian batsmen punish the resulting errors in line and length.

Now that India have secured a vital lead, we can expect a batsman's wicket at Mumbai. The only challenge facing the English side now is to strive to lose the series 1-0 not 2-0.

Reflections on Fourth Day of Second Test

2006-03-12T21:06:00.000Z

England are 74 runs ahead with only five second innings wickets remaining. Their situation is desperate, but not hopeless.

India secured what could prove to be a match winning first innings lead of 38, as their tail-enders batted defiantly against the second new ball.

Cricket is a game played in the mind as well as on the pitch and England's mental weakness against spin was exposed again. Had Dravid bowled Kumble from the pavilion end from the start, the match would probably be effectively over. Although the occasional ball did misbehave, the English batsmen got themselves out to shots they would prefer to forget.

Cook nicked the ball to the keeper, playing a needless defensive shot to a wide delivery. Strauss's tortuous innings of 13 off 64 deliveries was ended when, for the second time in his test career, he swept the ball onto to his boot and into the arms of the wicket-keeper. Pietersen was unlucky to be given out caught off the forearm but he had looked far from assured; he had twice chipped the ball to within a few feet of a fielder before his dismissal. Collingwood and Bell were both caught behind playing what appeared to be attempts to steer the ball down to third man, but only they will know for sure.

In recent times England have under achieved when batting under pressure in their second innings and much now depends on Jones and Flintoff. An England total of 200 could set up an enthralling last day's play, but with Plunkett, Harmison and Panesar all on a pair it seems unlikely that England will be able to set a challenging target.

Reflections on Day 3 of Second Test

2006-03-11T17:43:00.000Z

Various sports writers had assured us that this test was sleepwalking into a draw. However, it burst into life on the third day as two opposing players set two impressive individual milestones. Captain Flintoff, on his way to his side's top score of 70, hit his 68th test match six, overhauling Botham's record tally of 67 and whilst the commentators were lamenting the technological improvements in today's bats, Anil Kumble inspired an England batting collapse by taking three wickets in four balls and becoming only the fifth bowler to take over 500 test wickets. England's promising 288-6 at tea became a disappointing 300 all out.

The fun did not finish there. I have often thought that danger money should be paid to those who stand at short-leg and the aggressively entertaining Yuvraj Sing underlined this point as he pulled a short delivery from Panesar straight into the back of Ian Bell's helmeted head. Unfortunately for England, the Brian Close method of dismissing batsmen by heading the ball into the slips was poorly executed and the ball bounced safely into the outfield. I am perhaps being a little unfair on Bell here, who, according to the latest technology, only had 0.12 seconds to get himself into the right position. With traditional Closian grit, Bell gave a brief shake of the head, put his helmet back on and prepared for the next delivery. In a delightful twist, Bell took a stunning one handed catch, to dismiss Yuvraj Sing off the bowling of Hoggard, a few overs later.

India will resume tomorrow at 149-4 and so the game is delicately poised, with a draw still the most likely outcome. However, with an extra half hour scheduled for the next two days anything can happen.

Reflections on the First Two Days of the Second Test

2006-03-10T21:56:00.000Z

England have fought their way to 200-5 in the rain affected first two days of this test. I only hope that the England players have a different attitude to the BBC website which declared at lunch time that England were striving for a draw! Sure 200-5 is a little disappointing but there's no reason why England shouldn't make over 300 and then put the Indians under some pressure.

The premature hope of a draw lost England the third test against New Zealand in March 2002, which allowed the Kiwis to level the series. England should not make the same mistake again.

To stay at peace you must prepare for war. To draw a test match you must strive for victory!

England's Depleted Squad Travel To Mohali

2006-03-07T22:00:00.000Z

The second test starts in Mohali on Thursday and England now know that they will be without Simon Jones for the rest of the tour. Jones was a crucial part of the England seam attack which beat Australia and his absence, on what is said to be a seamers' wicket, will be keenly felt.

Boycott has criticised England's policy of playing two spinners and a glance at the bowling figures for the four tests that England have recently played in the sub-continent backs up his comments. But in the absence of Jones, England will have to select either play two spinners or select Liam Plunkett or James Anderson, neither of whom look capable of filling Jones' boots with the ball or Giles' with the bat.

I predict only one change from the team that played the 1st test: Udal replacing Blackwell. We shall see.

Reflections on Final Day of First Test

2006-03-05T20:54:00.000Z

By learning from their mistakes of the 1st innings, the batsmen from both sides ensured that this match ended in a draw. The players only have three days to reflect on the pros and cons of this contest before the second test starts on Thursday.

David Lloyd suggested that Panesar was Flintoff's choice. If so it was an inspired one. He bowled 58 overs in the match, more than any other England bowler. He took three wickets, more than any other spinner in the match and had an impressive economy rate of 2.26. His three victims were all quality batsmen: Tendulkar, Kaif and Dravid. However, if Panesar was Flintoff's choice, Blackwell clearly wasn't. He only bowled 19 overs in the match, less than any other England bowler, with the exception of Bell. Blackwell was wicket-less with an economy rate of 3.74.

The selectors will have to wrestle with the age old problem of whether to select a bowler when the captain clearly has no faith in his ability. It will be very difficult for Blackwell to prove himself to his captain if he is always last to get his hands on the ball and is only tried as a last resort. With Udal waiting in the wings I venture that Blackwell will have to wait a little longer for another opportunity to take his first test wicket.

Reflections on Day 6 of First Test: Third Umpire Rules In Favour of Batsman (again!)

2006-03-04T17:27:00.000Z

If I were ever on trial for my life, I'd want a third umpire sitting on the jury. In the series against Pakistan a run out decision was ruled not out because although the stumps were clearly broken, the umpire could not be certain that the bails were off the stumps. Today Pietersen should have been given out caught and bowled as the television replays showed the ball bounce before the bat. But again the umpire ruled in the batsman's favour as the less reliable head on replay, which is not the best angle to judge the distance between the ball and the ground, appeared to show that the bat, ball and ground collided together in a juxtaposition of uncertainty. Third umpires should be encouraged to give the best decision they can on the evidence available, instead of ruling in favour of the batsman if there is unreasonable doubt.

The game will probably be a draw, but huge credit is due to Cook who became only the 16th England player to score a century on debut. In recent times only Strauss and Thorpe have emulated him, making Cook a great prospect for the future.

It has been suggested that the selectors will have a problem in deciding who should open the innings should Trescothick become available. There is no contest. I'd go for the man who, when his country called, dropped everything, flew half way round the world, fought jet lag and stomach cramps and seized his opportunity to write himself into the record books.

Reflections on the First Three Days of the First Test

2006-03-03T21:46:00.000Z

Thank Flindulkar (an Anglo-Indian Cricket God) we have a contest! After defeat by the President's XI and the disappearance of both the Captain and Vice-Captain (from injury and cause unknown) I feared that England were heading for their worst defeat in the sub-continent since the 1993 series. The first day seemed to confirm this as England slumped to 246-7; but since then England have rediscovered their fighting spirit and a competitive match has unfolded. Interestingly it was Cook and Collingwood who top scored for England, the two players who would not have played had Trescothick and Vaughan been available. I wonder if Cook's performance will encourage Trescothick to sort out his mystery "personal" problem!

The match is being played on a good batting surface, which has encouraged accurate defensive bowling. This has meant that the batsmen who lose their patience, also lose their wicket. It is the tail-end batsmen from both sides who have learnt this lesson and a defiant 128 run stand between Kaif and Kumble ensured that the Indian tail emulated their English counterparts, as their rescued their team from a dire situation.

India trail by 71 with one first innings wicket remaining and so England will be hoping for a lead of over 50. At one stage they were hoping for a lead of over 150. A draw is the most likely conclusion to this match, but all three results are still possible. I hope that this will still be true at the end of the fourth day.

Flintoff Given The Poisoned Chalice Of Captaincy

2006-02-27T22:00:00.000Z

Flintoff has been awarded the captaincy following the absence of both Vaughan and Trescothick and he faces a real baptism of fire. Very few bowlers have made successful captains, as they find it impossible to decide when to bowl themselves.

For once England fans will be hoping that Flintoff fails to emulate Botham, who skippered England 12 times without ever leading them to victory. Botham faced back-to-back tests against the West Indies, whilst Flintoff faces a talented Indian team, in India, with an untested spin attack, a batting line-up missing its two most experienced players and to top it all his wife is about to give birth to their second child.

To make Flintoff captain was a mistake. A player's form inevitably declines when given the poisoned chalice of captaincy and the selectors should have realised that England are too reliant on Flintoff the player. They should never have contemplated Flintoff the captain.

Why Flintoff Should Not Be On The England Tour

2006-02-13T20:52:00.000Z

Andrew Flintoff's second child is due at the same time as the third test and in my view it would better for Flintoff, his family and the England team if he is where any man should be in his circumstances, by his wife's side.

I wasn't much use at work before the birth of my first child and my wife was never more than a short journey away. Andrew Strauss has been a rock in the England side, round which many match winning England scores have been made. It is no coincidence that his form deserted him in Pakistan before the birth of his first child caused him to miss the third test. Robin Smith endured a tortuous tour of Australia when his wife expecting, more proof of the impossibility of putting in world-class performances as a touring cricketer and an expectant father.

Flintoff's pivotal position in the side and his living legend status has forced him to go on this tour, but the selectors should have looked in the mirror and realised that their panel and the commentary box is full of irreplaceable cricketers. I predict that Flintoff will have a poor two Tests before flying home, because in any man's mind the enormity of being a father will always triumph over the triviality of cricket.

Time To Fund Amateur Cricket

2006-02-03T21:03:00.000Z

Jeremy Bentham stated that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation". Unfortunately it is not the foundation of cricket funding policy which dictates that the majority of resources are directed towards the 100 or so professional cricketers in England and Wales, whilst little is given to the thousands of amateurs who pay match fees and a yearly subscription to be able to play cricket every Saturday.

In his autobiography, Mike Atherton asserts that the comfortable living awarded to County cricketers harms the national cause, as players have less incentive to try and achieve the next level.

It is argued that the funding of the professional game leads to a successful national team, which generates interest at the grass roots. This belief is as flawed as the neo-liberal trickle-down economic theory: if the rich become richer everyone will benefit removing the need to direct resources towards the most disadvantaged.

No amount of funding can ensure a successful national team, but money can ensure better facilities for local teams, equipment for schools and the protection of playing fields from development. This in turn can guarantee that there is a larger group of players to fight for places in the professional ranks. Put simply, funding should benefit the many not the few, as it will give the greatest happiness to the greatest number.

Vaughan's Boast

2006-01-31T21:15:00.000Z

Churchill defined political skill as "The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year, and to have the ability afterwards to explain why it did not happen." Politicians and cricketers who do not have this ability should keep their mouths shut.

Whether it's Tony Greig intending to make the West Indies grovel or Glen McGrath predicting a 5-0 victory, cricket has its fair share of players who cannot open their mouths without putting their foot in it. Until recently nobody would have included Michael Vaughan amongst their number.

This week that all changed when Vaughan predicted that England, who are currently ranked 6th in the one-day rankings, were favourites to win the next year's World Cup in the Caribbean. It is difficult to see what he bases this on. I cannot remember the last one-day series that England won. We lost 3-2 to Pakistan, 2-1 to Australia and 4-1 to South Africa, with the only win coming courtesy of Duckworth/Lewis.

Vaughan can only hope that when England again fail to win their first world cup, people will have forgotten his ill advised boast.

Possible Selection For 1st Test v India

2006-01-28T22:05:00.000Z

The first Test versus India is still over a month away, so whilst crossing off the days in anticipation I found myself speculating on the possible England XI. I came up with the following:

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Flintoff
Geriant Jones
Udal
Hoggard
Simon Jones
Panesar

The two big omissions are Collingwood, simply because there isn't room for him and Harmison, whom I doubt will be effective on the Indian pitches.

Panesar Will Tour India

2006-01-26T21:26:00.000Z

Alan Hansen recalled that he was most motivated for the away matches Liverpool played against sides north of the border in the European Cup. Hussain has an excellent record in India and Pietersen burst onto the international scene in South Africa. Clearly sportsmen are invariably inspired when they play in the country of their forefathers.

This is just one of the reasons why the selectors have made the right choice in picking Monty Panesar for the England tour of India. The main reason though is his ability. The Pakistan tour showed that England lacked penetration in the spin department and while the batting skills of both Alex Loudon and Ian Blackwell make them good choices on pitches which may or may not assist the spinners, they would be poor selection choices for the India tour.

Much has been made of Panesar's lack of prowess with the bat, but with Shaud Udal shoring up the tail-end the England batting will not be fatally weakened if Panesar replaces Hoggard, Jones or Harmison. The new headache for the selectors is to decide which seam bowler he should replace.

Test Status Should Depend On Merit

2006-01-22T22:02:00.000Z

In what appeared to be a compromise deal, Zimbabwe have voluntarily decided to relinquish their Test match status, but will be allowed to contine to play One Day Internationals.

For years a debate has raged over whether teams should tour Zimbabwe. Arguments against have cited the human rights abuses of Mugabe's regime, this has been countered by those who rather naively assert that politics and sport shouldn't mix. However, in the end this debate was by-passed. Zimbabwe have lost their Test status because they were not good enough to maintain it.

The decision to award Test match status to nations has always been a subjective one. This needs to be rectified. Every four years the nation at the bottom of the Test rankings should play a series against the top ranked ICC Trophy team, the winner to awared Test match status.

Currently Test status depends on a nation's ability to make deals with ICC reps in smoke-filled rooms. These matters should be decided purely on cricketing merit.

Goodbye Darren Gough

2006-01-16T20:37:00.000Z

My Great Uncle Pat informed his cricket team that he wouldn't retire and they would have to drop him when he was no longer worth his place in the team. Aged 80 he lamented that they hadn't called him in 15 years.

These days it seems fashionable for players to retire on top. This approach of jumping instead of being pushed has its merits, as it allows players to end their careers with an ovation from their adoring public. However, I admire those who, like my Great Uncle, have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from the game they love.

Darren Gough undoubtedly belongs to the second category of player. The only person who truly believes that Darren Gough's international career is not over, is the man himself. He will be tearing in for Essex this season, determined to prove the buggers wrong again and force himself into contention for the 2007 World Cup.

Thanks for the memories Darren. Your career coincided with a low point in the fortunes of the England team and team mates, captain and fans would look to you to make things happen and you never disappointed.

The Greatest Catch Ever?

2006-01-15T22:01:00.000Z

All sports commentators exaggerate, especially when a fielder takes an outstanding catch. Usually it is the catches that look good on television but actually require little real skill that commentators waste their superlatives on. Mark Ramprakash's catch to dismiss Phil Simmonds at Headingley in 1991 looked brilliant on television, not least because he used both hands whilst diving at full stretch. However, those of us who play the game know that these catches tend to be more instinctive than skillful. Even if the catch is dropped the fielder will be applauded for his effort.

The hardest catches are the ones which require a fielder, who will be walking in with the bowler, to run backwards and take the catch over his left or right shoulder. It requires excellent judgement to be able to cover the necessary ground and still keep your eye on the ball. There will be no plaudits for the fielder. The more experienced will either console or congratuale with the words: "that was harder than it looked."

I have never seen a finer catch than the one taken by Hussey to dismiss Prince in today's One Day International between Australia and South Africa. From his position at mid-wicket he turned chased and then dived full length to take the ball left handed, inches from the turf.

The result, a South African victory, will probably obscure the greatness of this catch; but those who truly love and understand the game know what they witnessed.

Selecting The Spinners

2006-01-13T22:51:00.000Z

While it is accepted that pace bowlers will be genuine tail-enders, spin bowler are expected to ensure the tail wags. Emburey, Hemmings, Salisbury, Croft and now Giles and Udal have all made useful runs in the lower order.

It is for this reason that Monty Panesar, who has a first class average of 7.79, will probably only be selected if Giles is unfit. With the exception of Phil Tufnell, English spinners have not been selected as match winners. They have been selected as contributors; bowlers who can keep the run rate down until the new ball becomes available and then bat obdurately. They are the workhorses, who quietly get the job done while the show ponies take the credit. The fact that Ashley Giles has achieved the double has gone completely unnoticed.

The 23 year-old Monty Panesar deserves to be selected for the India tour. Perhaps he is the English spinner to break the mould and be selected purely for his bowling talent.

The Future of 20-20 Cricket

2006-01-10T21:45:00.000Z

When those who dislike sport dismiss it as insignificant when compared to other weightier matters, I retort that sport must be important because so many people value it. So when I dismiss 20 over cricket as trivial I am hoist by my own petard.

The respected cricket writer Gideon Haigh states that one-day cricket has its benefits as it "provides a place for bone-headed spectators to congregate, leaving the five-day form to proceed in relative calm". If he were writing about art, opera, films or television, I would deplore this attitude and attack his snobbism with Benthamite vigour; but he speaks of cricket and the preservation of the wonderful 5-day game.

I don't just watch Test cricket, I live it. When there is a Test match on I have to know the score and I speculate endlessly on all the possible outcomes. I wish I were able to drop everything and actually watch these matches live, but it remains on the list of things I'll do when I retire. I know there are many who are in the same position which explains why attendance at Test matches lags behind those of one-day games. This brings me neatly to the necessity of 20 over internationals. Both captains described yesterday's match between Australia and South Africa the as "fun", as they communicated directly with the commentators whilst actually on the field of play. This would not have occurred in a serious contest such as a Test or even a 50 over game. However, there was a crowd of around 40,000, who stayed in their seats long after the result was beyond doubt.

Cricket needs to stage these trivial matches, because it needs the revenue, but there is danger that 20 over internationals will become the dominant One-Day format and a game of skill, will become one of luck.

Canadian Cricket

2005-12-30T16:24:00.000Z

Test Cricket is played in England, Australia, South Africa, West Indies, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. There is one glaring omission. Canada is the largest country (by area) in the Commonwealth, but has never played Test Cricket.

It is rumoured that after the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in September 1759, which led to the securing of Canada for the Empire, the victorious English played an impromptu game of cricket against their French opponents. In 1844 the first ever cricket international was played, between Canada and the United States, a full 30 years before the first Ashes contest.

An English team under George Parr toured Canada in 1859 and a second tour took place in 1872, under the leadership of WG Grace. Grace predicted that cricket would thrive in Canada and at about this time Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. McDonald, declared cricket to be the country's national sport. So what went wrong?

Immigration from Eastern Europe increased in the early 20th century, which would have done little to encourage the growth of cricket in Canada. The Internationals against the US were abandoned after 1912 and although England and Australia continued to tour, cricket in Canada was clearly in decline. However, the second half of the century saw a resurgence in Canadian Cricket; the Internationals against the US were re-established in 1963 and Cricket Associations were set up in Nova Scotia in 1976 and New Brunswick in 1980. Canada have competed in two World Cups in 1979 and 2003 and they will be there again in 2007.

Canada are a force to be reckoned with in the second tier of international cricket, but their victory against Bangladesh in the 2003 World Cup is their only victory against a Test playing nation in a meaningful contest. Unfortunately this was followed by a narrow defeat to Kenya and a 9 wicket humiliation against Sri Lanka where Canada’s lamentable 36 all out, along with one-sided defeats against New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies, proved that the Canadian team were not yet ready for Test status. Team Canada can revise this view at the 2007 World Cup in the West Indies.

The Banning Of Shabbir Ahmed

2005-12-21T03:26:00.000Z

The Pakistan bowler, Shabbir Ahmed, who has played in 10 test matches and has taken 51 wickets at 23 a piece, has been banned for 12 months by the ICC who have ruled that the straightening of his arm in delivery exceeds the 15 degree limit. He is the first bowler to be banned under these rules, which need to be amended if they are to be effective.

The old regulations placed the onus on the umpires to call a bowler for throwing on the field of play. However, this led to controversy in January 1999 when Ross Emersen incorrectly called Muralitharan in a One Day Match against England at Adelaide. In an attempt to diffuse this contentious matter the ICC ruled that umpires can refer a bowler for further analysis. Unfortunately this means that any ruling will be retrospective, which is unsatisfactory for both the bowler and the batting side.

Under the new regulations a bowler's career can be ended after the match has been completed, without a warning that he was transgressing during the game. It is equally unfair for the batting team, who can be bowled out by illegal deliveries, with the umpires impotently looking on but taking no action.

Obviously it is impossible for an umpire on the field of play to determine whether a bowler's action is within the 15 degree limit, but today's technology is able to determine almost instantly whether the rule is being transgressed. If possible the third umpire should call any unfair deliveries. Alternatively, bowlers should receive warnings during the match, similar to those received for running on the wicket. Further transgressions should lead to suspension during the match and a longer ban if necessary.

To wait until after the match before taking action is cowardly and serves the interests of no-one.

Idea From Canada

2005-12-17T22:32:00.000Z

Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I have been so depressed by England's performances in Pakistan that I have decided to avoid listening to reports of their last two matches by leaving the country and spending my Christmas holidays in Canada, who have little interest in cricket following their recording of the lowest ever One Day International score in the last World Cup against Sri Lanka. Naturally this means that my blog entries are likely to be infrequent until I return on 7th January.

It appears that other sports also suffer from the delays caused by the referring of decisions to slow motion replays. In Canadian Football (which is like American Football but the pitch is bigger, there are four downs not three and the players aren't paid as much) each team can insist that three decisions in the match be reviewed by television replay. This could be usefully applied to cricket, as it would unburden the umpire from the responsibility of referring decisions and ensure that there would only be a limited number of interruptions.

My main point is that cricket could learn from other sports, all of which are struggling to apply the use of television replays without fatally undermining the officials or spoiling the game's entertainment value.

England Were Not Complacent, They Were Just Outplayed

2005-12-14T19:36:00.000Z

By asking a leading question a Sky Sports interviewer managed to get the leg spinner Mushtaq Ahmed to suggest that England had lost the Test series because they were complacent. This is untrue. Pakistan defeated England because they played better.

Any team who suffer a disappointing defeat will be labelled as complacent by the media, while any team who win against the odds will be praised as having great self-belief. Self-belief only becomes complacency if the team loses; the English journalists would have been swapping the two definitions regularly whilst writing their reports for the 1st Test in Multan.

If the media really want to explain what went wrong they need to provide more than a one-word analysis. In my view the batsmen need to be more patient. This was not only true in Pakistan but also during the narrow victory at Trent Bridge, where unnecessarily aggressive batting almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfortunately the English players appeared to learn that aggressive reckless shot selection was the way to chase a modest victory target. A good coach should be prepared to criticise players for adopting the wrong tactics, even if they prove to be successful. The captains I’ve played under have always been quick to point out that long-hops and full-tosses are a fortunate way to take wickets!

Lack of Sleep Blamed For Defeat

2005-12-12T22:30:00.000Z

When it proves impossible for a dignitary to attend an award ceremony it is usual for them to record a message, which can be played at the appropriate moment.

Incredibly this did not happen for last night's BBC Sports Personality of the Year award and the entire England team was kept up until 1am and Flintoff to 2am, local time.

In an age where the management of the England teamed is praised for its professionalism this was a surprising lapse. I see no reason why the awarding of the personality of the year and team of the year could not have been recorded earlier in the evening. If the magnificent Ellen McArthur had won instead, the recorded clip would have ended up on the cutting room floor.

I thought in this professional age it was no longer acceptable for cricketer to stay up into the small hours and then play the next day.

Super-Sub Rule Need To Be Amended

2005-12-10T22:34:00.000Z

Many teams have been labelled either outstanding or useless simply due to their captain's ability to win the toss and the ill thought out super-sub rule has tipped the balance of One-Day Matches from skill towards luck.

England won the 1st One Day International against Pakistan by 42 runs (a coincidence? I don't think so! Douglas Adams lives!), but had secured a large advantage before a ball had been bowled. By winning the toss Trescothick chose to bat first allowing England to make full use of their substitute, Liam Plunkett, by selecting him at the halfway stage. Had England been made to field first Plunkett would have become as superfluous as Pakistan's Arshad Khan.

Since the introduction of substitutes, 70% of the games have been won by the side winning the toss (not including today's match). This is no coincidence. If the ICC had bothered to test the use of substitutes in non-first class games, before implementing them at international level, they could have avoided devaluing 35 One Day International matches.

The solution is simple: sides should name their substitutes after the toss.

Fielders Cannot Be Expected To Do An Umpire's Job

2005-12-09T23:11:00.000Z

It is now accepted that batsmen do not walk. Allan Lamb even tried to argue in his autobiography that this approach was more honest. He asserted that batsmen who walk, only do so to gain an honest reputation, in order to deceive the umpire by not walking on borderline decisions at crucial moments in a match. I doubt umpires have a mental list of which batsmen walk and so Lamb’s argument that somehow his opponents benefited by walking is perverse. His line of reasoning could be simplified to: “it is more honest to lie all the time than to lie occasionally.”

Unlike the batsman who refuses to walk, a fielder who appeals for a grounded catch can expect to be vilified. Clearly the batsmen want it both ways, they believe that they have every right to stand their ground when gloving the ball behind, but will be outraged if a fielder tries to claim a dubious catch.

Competitiveness clouds players’ judgement. A batsman rarely believes he was out LBW and conversely bowlers will reckon they fail to receive half the decisions they deserve. It is therefore unreasonable to argue that fielders are capable of being objective and honest, when batsmen and bowlers are anything but.

For better or for worse, we have to accept that relying on the honesty of the players is an unreliable method of decision-making. Fortunately today’s technology should also make it unnecessary.

The Poisened Chalice Of Captaincy

2005-12-07T21:56:00.000Z

Michael Vaughan has gone home to treat his knee injury, leaving Marcus Trescothick in charge of the One-Day team. The appointment of Adam Hollioake as One-Day captain signalled the beginning of the end of Mike Atherton's captaincy of the Test team and so this could be the beginning of the end of Vaughan's captaincy. If so, who should be his successor?

With few exceptions a cricketer's form suffers when he is made captain. So it is interesting that all recent England teams have been reliant on the runs scored by their captains: Vaughan, Hussain, Stewart, Atherton, Gooch, Gower and Gatting. The reason for this is clear, the selectors do not want to be faced with having to consider dropping the captain due to his form.

Duncan Fletcher recently defended Vaughan by stating that the captain is an all-rounder, but the alternative would be to select the best available captain, even if as a player he is not worth his place in the side. This was certainly true of Mike Brearley, who averaged only 22.88 with the bat. Cricket is one of the few team games where passengers can be carried and the benefit of choosing such a captain would avoid burdening a star player who the team relies on.

I have no answers as to who should succeed Vaughan, but the selectors should remember the effect the captaincy had on Botham's form and then realise that England are too reliant on Flintoff the player to ever seriously consider the possibility of Flintoff the captain.

The One-Day Internationals

2005-12-06T22:06:00.000Z

One-Day Internationals after the Test series are let down; like the school play after the Lord Mayor's show. The new rules regarding substitutes and fielding restrictions merely re-enforce this. The fact that such changes were introduced with only a few murmurs of opposition highlights the unimportance of such games. Provided that the sanctity of Test cricket remains unchanged, people do not really care what gimmicks are brought into the shorter version of the game.

In my view the One-Day Internationals should be held before, not after the Test Series. To whet the public's appetite before the real cricket begins. It would also provide the touring team with an opportunity to adjust fully to the different conditions the host country offers.

One-Day Internationals will always bring in larger crowds and as a money spinner they have a place in world cricket, but they should know their place, which is as a support to the main act.