The Corridor of Discernity

Is cricket ready for Ajmal and his new best friend?

2012-02-02T17:26:00.000+01:00

Unless your shoes are covered in red clay from the time you could walk, winning the French Open is likely to be the toughest task in tennis. McEnroe never managed it, Sampras never even made the final and even Federer, regarded by many as the best ever, can count only one victory amongst his 16 Grand Slam titles. Winning a Test series on the sub-continent is cricket's equivalent. It was beyond even Steve Waugh's great Australian side and has proved way beyond the world's current number one team.

The capitulation of the English batting line-up in Abu Dhabi on Saturday made for particularly strange, if compelling, viewing. I had the feeling of witnessing something profound, a changed game. Now of course cricket is always evolving, or indeed revolving, but its essence has always remained the same. Having watched DRS' impact on that last day's play, I am no longer sure.

The general consensus is that the onus remains on the English batsmen. They must sharpen up. On the sub-continent, with DRS, the margin of error is much smaller. They must improve their judgment, particularly of length, and more generally come up with a strategy that will achieve more than just survival. All this being said, has the balance may not have swung back too far in the bowler's favour. Has that margin of error been reduced too much?

The LBW law was first introduced in 1774 for reasons of fairness - to prevent negative pad play. In 1883 the MCC vowed to "discount and prevent this practice by every means in their power". Amended many times, there is now little argument as to its correctness. What has never changed, partly because it is not written down, is the discretion granted to umpires to give the benefit of the doubt. Technology, firstly in the form of the 'landing strip' and then Hawkeye, has however served to reduce this doubt. Umpires, with Darrell Hair very much a pioneer in this regard, have become much more confident in giving batsman out on the front foot, with spinners like Graeme Swann the chief beneificiaries. Nevertheless before DRS, where there was doubt it was still the batsmen who received it. Whilst that benefit remains with the review system, it is the umpire who is now the recipient rather than the batsman - a decision will only be overturned if Hawkeye shows a clear error.

And we are yet to see the full effect of DRS. Even if it has been around several years, it has never been used consistently or uniformly on sub-continental pitches. It was not even used in Pakistan's series victory over Sri Lanka in the UAE less than four months ago. Furthermore in the post Murali/Warne era, even where such conditions have arisen there have been few bowlers skillful enough in terms of accuracy and deception to exploit them fully. In Saeed Ajmal, Pakistan now have such a bowler.

Ajmal is the perfect soldier for a new kind of warfare. Bowling relatively straight to maximise the doosra's effect, Ajmal's subtle and seemingly indicipherable variations have bamboozled the English batsmen. He is not a huge turner of the ball which is to his advantage. LBW is his preferred method of dismissal and for that a bat's width is sufficient - any more than that he risks falling foul of DRS, his new best friend. Eleven of his seventeen wickets in the current series have come in this manner.

In the finest spinning bowling tradition, from William Clarke, to Bosanquet to Warne, Ajmal also uses psychology to throw batsmen off guard - he didn't even coin the phrase 'teesra' (Saqlain Mushtaq did that a few years ago) and certainly there is no clear evidence that he has developed a new ball - which he then backs up with wonderful control to create stiffling pressure and, in the case of England's batsmen, near paralysis. With a batsman's mind so befuddled, a straight ball can be as deadly as viciously turning one, something which has benefited not only Ajmal but his fellow spinners too.

Earlier in the week Mike Atherton suggested that the DRS may actually lead to the teaching of different batting techniques. He was referring to younger players but from an English perspective such remedial work cannot wait till next week let alone until the next generation. As Alistair Cook amongst others has already noted, some techniques, namely those which involve a reliance on pad play, simply do not work any more. With DRS the pad is more a landmine than protective armour.

The solution though is not simple. Much is made of the skill and success of two members of the England coaching team, Andy Flower and Graham Gooch, in playing spin. Both however relied heavily on the sweep shot, a positive tactic which can serve to disrupt a bowler's rhythm. But that was pre DRS. Playing across the line and across your pad is now a very dangerous tactic as Kevin Pietersen has found. Others advise batsmen to use their feet and indeed this can be very effective - both in negating spin and in disrupting a bowler's rhythm. But it is also very dangerous if you don't know which way the ball is spinning and in any case, unlike Graeme Swann, Ajmal tends to bowl quickly and relatively flat making a chassis down the pitch all the more difficult.

In effect for the first time in cricket's history, DRS is ensuring that the lbw law is properly enforced and batsmen, at least the English batsmen, are struggling to adjust. It is initially tempting to view this as a return to the purity of cricket's origin - a simple game of bat and ball. But cricket is not a simple game and the LBW law is perhaps the least simple aspect of it. The law originated when such definitive judgment was inconceivable and my concern is whether such enforcement, particularly on sub continental pitches, ensures a fair balance between bat and ball. The 16 LBWs in the match was the third highest total in 2032 Test matches. Will this become the new norm?

Of course it is far too soon to come to any reasonable judgment on this, and certainly too early to predict a doomsday like scenario. For all we know DRS may lead to the emergence of more bowlers of Saeed Ajmal's skill and not just in the sub-continent. By consequence, more countries may be encouraged to produce pitches that take spin earlier in the game. Can this be a bad thing? From a batting perspective we may also see a revolution in technique and in particular footwork, with batsmen regularly advancing down the pitch, Trumper-like, attempting to impose their own will on the game. Does this not sound like a glorious future? It may be the reality, but it also may not.

Test cricket can't be left at the mercy of the free market

2011-10-13T17:40:00.000+02:00

Another ICC meeting and another disappointing retreat by the powers that should-be.The continued flip-flopping on the DRS issue could have been predicted but the likely postponement of the first World Test Championship, considered by some as a key means of re-invigorating the greatest form of the game, is altogether more serious. As so often before, financial considerations appear to have trumped all others.

To be fair, this is not a broken promise - under their long term planning the Champions Trophy 50 over competition was originally scheduled for 2013 and that is what now looks like happening. To all intents and purposes, however, the Test championship had been pencilled into to replace it. Indeed Lord's was awarded, or decided to bid for, only one Test in 2013 on this assumption. The MCC must have received some fairly strong assurances to have gone along with this.

Of itself, this would not be the end of the world, indeed I would question whether such a championship is absolutely necessary. The point is though, that it was put forward as an example of the importance the ICC placed on Test cricket and how seriously it was about protecting it. Instead it looks like another case of the ICC failing or being unable to provide strong leadership.

Chief Executive Haroon Lagat may argue that the Board has to balance several objectives. Fair enough, as is his point about the financial implications for the game without broadcasting support. The problem is broadcasters are not just influencing the agenda, they are setting it and that is the ICC's job. It is not a broadcasters job to care about the future of the game (although they would be unwise to ignore it entirely), their job is to make money. And the fact is, that if it was left to the free market to decide, international cricket would probably be dead in thirty years. Test cricket, with the exception of the Ashes series in Australia, would probably cease to exist outside England in the next ten. And with no one else playing how long can it survive there? The 50 - over game wouldn't survive much longer either. T20 would be okay for a while, particularly on the subcontinent, but it is hard to believe that even Indians won't eventually get bored with its formulaic monotony.

Avoiding such a scenario requires a greater, wider and deeper vision than the ICC currently seems capable of providing. The revenue and exposure from international competitions such as the World T20 and the World Cup are clearly essential to the game's future. But what broadcasters, such as ESPN the Board's broadcasting partner, would like to do is to pick and choose the tournaments they cover, to take off the cream and leave the rest, which in the case of ESPN's main market includes Test cricket, to go sour. When it comes to the next negotiations in 2015, the ICC must back up its words with actions and ensure that Test cricket is an integral part of the deal.

England v India 3rd Test Preview: Broad and Bresnan's rise gives headaches all round

2011-08-10T04:10:00.006+02:00

At the beginning of the week both teams had selection headaches but of very different sorts. England's was strictly a 'two paracetamol' job, and akin to deciding whether the next bottle should be Dom Perignon or Krug. India on the other hand had a full blown 'in bed with the lights out' migraine. Their wine list currently looks blanker than the edges of VVS Laxman's bat and and they appear entirely out of stock in three sections: 'leading fast bowler' 'top class wicket-keeper/batsman' and 'high class spinner'. As Wednesday arrives, England's selectors have unburdened themselves of even this minor discomfort (via the genuine discomfort felt in Chris Tremlett's back) whilst India's steadfastly remains.

It is premature to write off the Indians at this stage and yet there is nothing to suggest a resurgence, certainly nothing that occurred during their two day match at Northampton. The return of Virender Sehwag may raise their spirits but it is asking a lot, even of Wisden's Leading Cricketer in the World in 2008 and 2009, to produce his best after so little practice and against such a confident and in-form England attack.

The roles played by Bresnan and Broad in the previous game were particularly interesting. Six months ago, Broad was portrayed as 'the enforcer', pitching short of a length, literally and figuratively getting in the batsman's face at every opportunity. Bresnan by contrast was considered to be something of a classic English seamer and one who 'hit the deck hard'. Whilst each retains an element of these characteristics, neither truly fit these descriptions. At Trent Bridge, the vast majority of Broad's wickets came from full length swinging deliveries with the bouncer used as an occasional surprise variation, whilst in the second innings India had no answer to Bresnan's fierce and well directed short pitched deliveries. The England team may regard Broad as having the best bouncer in world cricket but the Yorkshireman's, with its wider angle of delivery, brought greater reward.

Broad's bowling has undergone a true revolution for which both himself and David Saker must take great credit. He is unrecognisable from the Sri Lankan series in style and effectiveness. It seems impossible imagine him going back to his headstrong former ways. Bresnan's game by contrast seems merely have evolved. He is now a significant threat, capable of causing batsman difficulties on any surface. Overall, taking into account their batting, you now have two serious Test cricketers.

Today, it is not only the Indian batsman who will be casting the two a nervous glance. With Jimmy Anderson and Graeme Swann undroppable and England seemingly committed to a four man attack outside the sub-continent, Chris Tremlett, Steven Finn, Graham Onions et al should be looking on anxiously. These two are here to stay.

Zaheer injury reinforces the folly of a one month Test series

2011-07-29T03:29:00.001+02:00

Barring calamity beyond any review system, the Indian Test series was always going to be, and still should be, the highlight of the season. The First Test certainly did not disappoint. Although not a great match - England dominated too consistently for that - it did live up to the hype, and that is never a mean feat. It's a shame then that not only has the series arrived about a month too late in the season but, like the English summer itself, it will come and go so quickly that indulging in anything beyond an extended forty winks and you are likely to have missed it.

The great joys of individual Tests are their slowly twisting tales, their shifts of momentum, not to mention the swings and roundabouts of outrageous fortune (or misfortune such as India suffered at Lord's). That applies equally to any series of matches. It is why no series should ever be less than three matches and why series such as this one should always be of five. Nor should such a series of games be crammed together so tightly that players are effectively playing virtually one game a week. The last game of this four match series begins on 18 August, twenty-nine days after the first began. Even Thursday starts have had to be abandoned to provide sufficient rest time for players.

The attraction of a concentrated burst of matches is initially compelling. Interest is built continually through the series, there is in fact no time for it to be lost, even for those with the lowest of attention spans. But to me this is just the point, the schedule speaks not to the lover of Test cricket but to the impatient child for whom Twenty20 was invented. Presented with a bag of sweets to last the week, he or she will devour the whole contents in the space of one Zaheer Khan over (around five and a half minutes by current standards). Test cricket teaches patience and rewards you handsomely for it, scheduling like this ignores the value of that lesson.

Even putting aside the spectator's viewpoint, not something which usually taxes administrators anyway, the effect on players should make such an arrangement a non-starter. The evidence has already presented itself in this series. Zaheer, India's best bowler, will miss the game at Trent Bridge with an injury that with four days gap he had no chance of recovering from. If it is a hamstring injury, (and possibly even an aggravation of an existing one judging by the way he was shuffling around the outfield from the start), he will do well to play again this summer.

Whilst one might argue that this serves to highlights India's lack of strength in depth, certainly in comparison to their opponents, the fact is that the series and India's chances in it, are severely weakened as a result. Even England, considerably luckier with injuries so far, are unlikely to be spared. Andy Flower indicated that it was highly unlikely that the Anderson, Tremlett, Broad and Swann would make it through the whole series given the intensity of the workload.

Clearly we will not, and should not, go back to the days of three/four month tours: the mental strain on players more than offsets any physical gains in recovery or practice time. Nevertheless the balance currently struck does not serve the interests of anyway genuinely concerned for the future of Test cricket. This current series should be the pinnacle of the game, rivalling the Ashes if not for history then for quality and passion. If it turns out to be so, it will be in spite of not because of the administrator's hand.

***********************************

Events at Lord's last Thursday, served only to reaffirm my belief that spectators are the lowest element in cricket's food chain. Arriving at the ground around 9 there was some light drizzle, but it had stopped to all intents and purposes by 10. Groundstaff activity was at a minimum with nothing more than a rope being used to remove some surface moisture from the outfield.

With optimism (and the evidence of my own eyes) outweighing many years of humbling experience I confidently expected a prompt start at 11. It was somewhat surprising therefore to hear that following one pitch inspection at 10.30 there would be a delayed start and another inspection at 11. That inspection elicited an 11.30 start. The decision defied credulity. The conditions had not changed one iota between 10 and 11.30, no rain had fallen to warrant the further delay nor had there been any significant sun or wind to aid the 'drying' process. But with pitiful over rates assured and rain forecast (accurately) for later the umpires decided that a half hour delay was the way to go. The result: spectators who had paid up to £90 per ticket were treated to less than half the play promised.

In the TMS box it was suggested, half-jokingly, that it was to allow time for the on field presentations for the hundredth test. Clearly neither they, nor the umpires, nor the wider administration of the game are too concerned at ripping off the paying spectator. They should be.

Second Test Preview: Stumbling Sri Lanka v An unbalanced England

2011-06-03T02:31:00.001+02:00

I can't help but agree with Nasser Hussain. It pains me to say it because his default method of point making - hammering away over and over again like a demented woodpecker - leaves me firstly reaching for the paracetamol and secondly, decidly illdisposed to his arguments. However, his observation, that the Sri Lankans were simply not mentally up to the demands of five days of Test cricket (even when about half that time had been spent watching the rain come down) seemed undeniable in view of Monday's ingnominous collapse.

The Sri Lankans themselves seem to have admitted as much. To be fair the situation they found themselves in on Monday is one of the toughest in Test cricket. Going out to bat without anything really to play for requires the strongest mental discipline. With no victory to seek or rearguard to fight, the intoxicting power of adrenaline is in short supply. A team primed on and for high octane limited overs games, came out flat as chapatis and were then further reduced to mere crepes following a superb spell from Chris Tremlett.

Tremlett's stock has risen to the point where he will lead England's attack in Jimmy Anderson's absence. The question of who should replace the Lancastrian at Lords tomorrow has provoked some strange thinking in my view. Prior to the second innings collapse, the general view was that a like for like replacement was required rather than the Tremlett/Broadesque Steven Finn. However, an excellent spell from Tremlett where he mixed up the odd short ball with those on a fuller length and lifters from Broad at the tail seem somehow to have changed the view. Finn seems set to play ahead of the more Anderson-like Jade Dernbach.

This seems just the sort of plan destined to bite one squarely on the backside. You throw all your eggs in one basket and it turns out to have a hole in the bottom. It just makes no sense. Even Mike Atherton seems in favour (et tu Bruti?), he argues that whilst variety is good, picking the next in line is better.

No value it seems is placed on the special skill of the swing bowler. Had Graham Swann been injured, would Finn been next in line then? The question is, I hope, rhetorical. If Dernbach is good enough to be in the squad, and being picked ahead of Shahzad suggest he is, then he must play.

********************

Amongst the praise for Jonathan Trott there were, however, some slight rumblings about his pace of scoring. Batting so much with Alastair Cook probably hasn't helped this impression, but it is nonetheless true though that he is exceedingly well named. Nonetheless, as "Nas" pointed out once or seven times, five days of Test cricket is a long time. If you score 600 in two and half days, at a Trott like 2.2 an over, then, weather permitting, you still have that same amount of time again to bowl the other side out twice. Put simply, bat once and the speed of scoring becomes much less significant.

Cardiff was something of a freak result, but it is still the third match in a row, and the fourth in five games, that England have won whilst batting only once. In the process they have scored 620,513, 644 and 496. It may not be exciting cricket, and nor am I am advocating it as my preferred strategy, but it is, at the moment, demonstrably winning cricket.

********************

The use of the UDRS was again a talking point at Cardiff. Overall third umpire Rod Tucker had a good match, showing a surprising and admirable willingness to do his job and make the big calls.

Kevin Pietersen was unlucky - pre UDRS he would have survived - but Tucker got the decision dead right. In the case of Prasanna Jayawardene, caught off the glove down the leg side, the evidence appeared less than conclusive at first. Tucker, however, trusted what he saw and what he heard (the sound was apparently clearer and easier to place in his box than on tv) and, after being made to confirm his judgement by the on field umpire, made the call, again correctly.

In the Sky commentary box, Nas questioned whether Tucker could be "100% certain" and suggested that if he wasn't, the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt. This is absurd. To reject an appeal on that basis would be to impose a ridiculous standard of proof. Men are routinely sent to the electric chair on less demanding grounds. Fortunately Billy Doctrove only required that he was sure. He didn't add "beyond a reasonable doubt" but we can take that as implicit. Perhaps it should be made explicitly so.

The only blot on Tucker's copy book came with his failure to uphold Andrew Strauss' low slip catch on the second day. We have seen such catches routinely rejected on replay and even though this was probably the most "out" one I have ever seen, it was hardly a great surprise to see Tucker follow a long line of third umpires in chickening out. As the honour system seems now to be a utopian dream, this issue could again be rectified by considering the burden of proof.

Countless tea-time demonstrations have shown that catches that look to have bounced haven't, for reasons of camera forshortening and two dimensional imagery. On this basis I propose cricket takes a leaf from rugby's book and allows the on field umpire to ask the question "Is there any reason I can't give this out". The third umpire would then have to find conclusive evidence, such as was the case with Phillip Hughes in the winter, to reject the claimed catch.

Too good for the Aussies but Cook's technique is still not convincing

2011-05-25T23:41:00.002+02:00

With over 5000 runs at an average of 47.50 and a triumphant Ashes Tour behind him, Alistair Cook has little to prove in the Test series against Sri Lanka starting tomorrow. Or does he?

A closer examination of his stats reveal an increasing gap between his performances in England and abroad. Whilst he averages 54 from 31 matches overseas, it drops to a still reasonable but hardly startling 41 from 34 home games.

Even without knowing these statistics, or even having witnessed Cook's performances, this is not a real surprise if you look at his technique. A predominantly back foot player, strong square of the wicket, he is likely to do well on the faster, harder pitches of Australia and South Africa. And even though the lower bouncing pitches of the sub-continent force him forward there is little lateral movement to worry about.

By contrast in England, his often leaden and stiff legged footwork has been shown up against the moving ball. When out of form he becomes at once an lbw candidate to the one swinging back in and, in particular, vulnerable to late movement in the other direction. In fact, as is often the case, his attempts to compensate for one problem seemed to exacerbate the other. Last summer, on admittedly not the best pitches, he struggled terribly.

It is clearly only a small problem - his first innings at Brisbane against a moving ball was an awful scratchy affair but, aided by some relatively placid pitches, we know what happened after that. But I am not yet convinced that the problem has been solved definitively.

No one can expect him to score 700 runs every series but the Ashes have raised expectations on England's new one day captain. No one doubts his temperament but if the ball moves around at Cardiff, Sydney may suddenly seem a long time ago.

******************************

Whilst I am dissecting batting techniques, a little word on Jonathan Trott. Although he is much sounder than Alistair Cook, the strategy of the Australians in bowling to him, particularly early on, played into his hands. Believing that they could trap him leg before as he moved across the crease they instead fed his strength and built his confidence. The lesson was actually there in the First Test at Brisbane.

For such a restrained, disciplined player Trott shares one trait with Kevin Pietersen, the desire to feel bat on ball at the beginning of his innings. And Trott is not content with the tip and run single, no he likes to feel bat solidly on ball, even if it is a little wide. In the First Test he was very nearly caught in the gully from a wide, full delivery. Several further times during the series he drove early on in the same manner, albeit more successfully.

The Australians missed a trick there. My advice to Tillikeratne Dilshan: post a couple of gullies and get your bowlers to throw it up and out there. My advice to Trott: leave it alone, one on your pads will come along soon enough.

KP: One last shot at greatness?

2011-05-24T22:20:00.002+02:00

It seems that each of the last six or so series have been 'career-defining' for Kevin Pietersen and each time he has done just enough to defer a definitive judgement. During the winter one destructive double hundred against a demoralised attack papered over a series where he was well and truly overtaken as England's leading batsman and as the opposition's prize wicket. The KP that we hoped would emerge after 2005 would have taken the Aussies to the cleaners in Melbourne and Sydney. Instead this week, in the lead up to the first Test of the summer, he received another vote of confidence from the selectors. Time and patience are rapidly running out for one, who, for a time seemed destined for greatness.

There was a point when that greatness seemed within his grasp. I discount his epic 2005 Ashes innings because it was too early in his career to judge and, rather like Botham's Headingley knock, it owed a little too much to luck to be considered of the highest class. To my mind that point occurred at Mohali in 2008, ironically his last game as England captain. Responding to a dramatic defeat in the previous game and to an Indian first innings of 453, he smashed 144 off 201 balls. The innings included a trademark switch hit six over extra cover off Harbhajan.

If we really have seen the best of him then this was the game he should have retired on. In the previous match, he had had got out to Youvraj's left armers and the Indians were not slow to reintroduce him here. But having dismissed him verbally as a bent-armed purveyor of less than clean pies, Pietersen then played him with according disdain. It was impossible to imagine the kryptonite-like effect that such bowlers would increasingly have. Perhaps it is this fallibility more than anything else that has taken greatness, in the eyes of most, out of his reach.

Even if the majority view is wrong, it must also be asked whether he still seeks that greatness. Back in 2008, there was no doubt. In my view, however, he never really worked out what was necessary to achieve it. There have been many unorthodox batsmen capable of great innings but few great batsmen who have been unorthodox. Like Virender Sehwag, Pietersen seems destined for the former category rather than the latter.

Viv Richards should have been his role model - an unorthodox, destructive batsman who shared Pietersen's love of the leg side. Rarely, however, did he seem give his wicket away softly and little did he seem to care for personal landmarks (although I'm sure he did). Richards also exuded ultra self-confidence, unlike KP, however, he never appeared to care what anyone thought. Andrew Strauss in his recent book says of Pietersen that "You get the impression he wants desperately to be liked but does not know the best way go about it.” It is a telling statement. Great people don't care about being liked or loved, which is probably a good thing as many are not. It is harder for the average person to associate himself with a great person, therefore he tends to be admired instead. Adoration is saved for more agreeably flawed characters such as Andrew Flintoff. As it stands today, Pietersen is neither loved for his flaws nor admired for his greatness.

On the positive side it seems at least that Andy Flower has not given up. Instead he has challenged KP to become the best batsman in the world. We await now the response. Does he still want to be great? With retirement rumours too regular to be easily dismissed, it is his hunger for the game that is now most in doubt. All cricket lovers should hope that he can find that desire within, because at only 30 his best years may still lie ahead. Whilst Pietersen will never be loved, he may yet be admired.

Overstepping the mark: UDRS must go farther

2011-01-14T21:16:00.002+01:00

It may have gone through more updates and revision than Windows but the current version of the referral system (UDRS) shows little sign of having ironed out the bugs of its earlier editions. Like space travel, our ambitions for the technology continue to outweigh what it can currently supply. That is, of course, if you consider a world where every decision is guaranteed 100% correct to be an utopian rather than orwellian one.

The Indian cricket board last week announced that it would not accept the use of the referral system (UDRS) in any bilateral series in the forseeable future. (It will, however, be forced to accept it during the forthcoming world cup.) The BCCI stated quite plainly that it doesn't trust the accuracy of the technology. The Ashes series just finished, hardly disproved this point but it did provide compelling evidence for its extension in one particular area.

To my mind the value of having no-balls reviewed was proved beyond question, with two wicket-taking deliveries voided for overstepping. I have mentioned previously that line decisions are technologies' bread and butter, the logic of using it for no-balls is obvious and undeniable. So why do we continue to adopt such a half-baked approach? Are we really to believe that the only two deliveries in the entire series where an umpire was unsure as to where the front foot landed were those that took wickets. Of course not. You can't blame the on field umpires. Mitchell Johnson's radar was typically askew when he argued "If the umpires know it's a no-ball I think they should call it, instead of waiting to call it," Well I guess they would have if they were sure Mitch...

The fact is, umpires are in no position to make an accurate judgment - they are often stood two or three metres back from the stumps (at the request of the bowler no doubt) and besides which they have more important things to do. I also wouldn't criticise them for not making more referrals, over rates are funereal enough as it is. Instead full responsibility should be given to the third umpire to review each delivery. There may not have been many tight finishes in this particular series, but one doesn't have to go too far back to recall matches won or lost by the odd run. 34 no-balls were called during this past series. But how many more went unpunished?

Bringing back distant memories of Perth, Johnson did eventually find his line and length when adding " "I suppose it's not a bad thing, but it can be frustrating. I suppose you've just got to get your foot behind the line." Well, yeah.

System's failure hits Bangladesh

2010-06-12T19:16:00.007+02:00

Last week I championed 'patience' as one of the qualities which defines Test cricket. I could have added 'unpredictability'- the ability of a game to change dramatically first one way then the other, within the space of one session or continually over the course of five days. One of the defining features of good Test cricket that is. Sad to say, the action at Lord's and Old Trafford over the past two weeks was nothing if not predictable and anything but good Test cricket.

I say 'sadly' for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that Bangladesh deserve better and more sympathetic treatment. As Geoffrey Boycott pointed out repeatedly (to the point of self-caricature), they were totally out of their depth in English conditions, a problem exacerbated by the sterile nature of their home pitches. They had neither the technique to combat the steady if unspectacular English bowling nor, more particularly, the bowlers themselves to exploit the conditions. At their current stage of development, playing two tests in England in late May, no matter how dry the weather, is asking a lot. It proved far too much. A three month tour of England playing county sides and finishing off with a one-off Test in easier conditions at the end of the summer would have been far more beneficial.

The current situation leads one to question the ICC strategy towards potential and new test playing countries. It is too easy to say that Bangladesh should never have been awarded Test status. It has had three seriously negative consequences: firstly the reputation of Test cricket has been damaged by unworthy contests; secondly players averages are being artificially inflated with cheap runs and wickets and thirdly and perhaps most importantly rather than being encouraged Bangladesh are suffering humiliation on a regular basis. But it has also been an enormous boost to their cricket and brought great joy to their citizens and supporters both back in 2000 when Test status was granted and over the past ten years.

These are not irrelevant considerations. So awarding them Test status was not necessarily a mistake. But doing so without a sufficient 'post-accession' strategy certainly was. One only has to look at the ICC website to see the problem. Emphasis is placed on "closing the gap" between 'affiliate' and 'associate' member countries and the full, test playing nations. The inference being that each country in the latter category has reached some hypothetical minimum standard. Clearly that is not the case. Not only should the ICC create/change its strategy to Bangladesh now but it should also set up clear benchmarks for future countries, covering everything from umpiring to pitch preparation, both prior and after achieving Test status. It is in the interest of everyone concerned with cricket's future that they do so.

-----------------------------------------------

As a consequence of two no-contests, nothing further was learnt about the form or class of either England or Bangladesh than was garnered during the two tests on the sub-continent. The bowling of Steven Finn was a clear and encouraging exception. His follow-through aside, he appears a more balanced individual than Stuart Broad and with a clearer idea of what sort of bowler he wants to be. There may be room of both of them in the England team, especially with Broad's superior batting, but if I had to predict who was likely to enjoy greater success in Test cricket, my money would be firmly on Finn.

-----------------------------------------------

Predictable only to those of us with extensive experience of Old Trafford architecture, is its latest folie des dieux, 'The Point'. What has always amazed me about Lancashire since I first went to the ground in 1985 is its seemingly endless determination to diminish, at any cost, the appearance of its one memorable landmark - its old, Victorian pavilion.

Back in the 80's it was decided that the senior capped players needed a bigger changing room. So an annex was built on the side of the existing pavilion changing rooms. Rather than making some attempt to blend it in to the existing red brickwork (note red is not always a bad idea) the result was what looked like a rather upmarket, semi-permanent, beige port-a-loo. The pavilion's next near-appendage came in 1999 with 'The Lodge', a hotel development of apparently great commercial success, situated behind the seating to the immediate right of the pavilion. Although of more tasteful pallor, cricketing cream, it nevertheless looks exactly what it is: a hotel on a cricket ground. And now the aliens have landed their big, red spaceship on the other side. Shame they forgot to switch on the cloaking device.

The Old Trafford Pavilion may not be a thing of great beauty but it does have history. It is the one remaining link to the many glorious games and players to have graced the ground. It deserves to stand alone. Surely the could have stuck this thing on the other side of the ground?

Losing patience with T20

2010-06-04T15:50:00.000+02:00

I almost watched an entire T20 game the other week, well two in fact - England's victorious semi-final and final of the World T20. And well worth a partial view they were too.

The skill and discipline of the English side not only fully merited them a first international trophy and the praise that followed but actually caused me to reflect on my general distaste for what I had considered the Lambrusco in cricket's cellar. Having reflected, however, particularly in the light of last week's First Test, my overall impression is of an entirely new game developing. It may be a little unkind to describe it as the bastard child of cricket and baseball, but then again I can't really think of a better description.

Baseball is not the worse game ever, and so neither is T20. But it is cricket stripped of at least one essential and defining element. I have written previously about how Test cricket is aptly named. It places demands on its participants that simply cannot be fully tested in a limited overs environment: stamina and concentration come to mind. Perhaps most important of all though, is the value it places on patience. Patience for bowlers and batsmen, particularly for captains, but also for spectators.

Perhaps the most striking feature of England's play in the West Indies was their discipline, particularly in their bowling and fielding. One only has to think of Glenn McGrath to recognise that discipline is a quality as applicable to the long game as the short. But what made McGrath a 'relentless genius' was that he allied discipline to patience. His 563 test wickets and 381 ODI dismissals came because he gave batsman no respite. Of course he had the physical attributes: stamina to bowl long spells when needed and fantastic control based on a simple but metronomic action, but without the patience to maintain that line and length of a concerted period he would have been nothing like the bowler he was. By comparison T20 bowling seems to be heading in the opposite direction. With great skill, it must be added, the English bowlers served up a mixed bag of 'change-up' slower short balls, bouncers and fast yorkers. Exactly in the manner of a baseball pitcher. Nothing for patience, everything for variety.

To be fair, I did see the odd delivery patted back to the bowler during the World Cup matches, which, on simple mathematics, would be the equivalent of blocking out an entire over of a day's Test cricket. So perhaps patience is not entirely excluded. This is however an unsatisfactory comparison. A blocker is not necessarily a patient player, more likely he is simply a limited one. Patience comes from the self-confident (not arrogant) knowledge that sooner or later your opponent will make a mistake - you just have to make sure you are still around to take advantage. It is a mark of the very best cricketers and as such its value increases the higher the standard of play. KP, please take note.

In the absence of such subtleties, the T20 sprint places greater emphasis on other attributes such as innovation and raw power. It also puts an even greater emphasis on fielding. Fielding is the 'defence' of cricket, where teams of more limited ability can reduce the gap to their more talented opponents. Baseball is obsessed with statistics, including those for 'errors' committed during a game. Now, T20 is not quite so low scoring and so an individual error is not quite so costly, but I would be amazed if Andy Flower and indeed every international team coach, does not already have similar statistics for their fielders. This is certainly no bad thing. Perhaps one-day cricket's greatest gift to the overall game has been the improvement it has brought to fielding (including some elements such as the slide pick-up taken directly from baseball) in all forms of the game.Whilst T20's star continues to shine, we can expect such trends to continue.

Fielding will, however, only ever be a side-attraction; it lacks complexity and therefore interest. And to my mind that follows for T20 too. One day I may watch a whole game. I doubt it though, I just don't have the patience.

KP, cricketing romantic or 99 flake?

2010-03-19T20:17:00.002+01:00

England should be well satisfied with their First Test performance. Satisfaction in this case being measured in terms of banana skin avoidance. The only real comedy slip up came from perhaps an expected quarter. Kevin Pietersen.

Putting aside the bland, banal statements of the obvious - that his innings was a welcome return to form, proof that not much is wrong etc.,etc., his first innings dismissal was fascinating.

If you had been told in advance that he would be dismissed by a spinner on 99 then, with the best will in the world, visions of a huge premeditated slog-sweep/reverse swipe would have come to mind. This would have led to a large, and similarly premeditated, castigation of his irresponsible, self-absorbed, ego-maniacal persona. Prejudice confirmed and satisfied.

To a lesser or greater extent we would all have been guilty. Not, for the majority at least, because we dislike him, but because it shows ourselves to be a good judge of the man and the game. 'KP? Complex character? Nah. He's just like this guy that used to play at our club a few years ago, okay maybe a bit better, but the same massive ego...'

So attempting a sort of dainty nurdle down to third man for an ambled single was not really what was expected. Or wanted. In fact it has really rather added to his very particular mystique. If it weren't for that fact that it was a left arm spinner then one would be left thinking we didn't know him at all.

In his own words he admitted "Funny things happen to cricketers all over the world on 99". Of course this is true but, as I'm sure he'd agree, this isn't just any cricketer we are talking about. This is one of the most talented players the world has seen in the last twenty years and the most talented England player since David Gower. Even more to a point, this is a cricketer who wants to be a great cricketer. So I'm afraid that 'funny things happen on 99' just doesn't cut it KP. What were you thinking? I want to know.

One possibility is that he was so determined not to provide extra fodder for his critics that he determined that under no circumstances was he going to play the big shot. But I'm not convinced. It has a rather disappointing 'batting by numbers' feel to it and I would like to give him greater credit than that, even at the risk of continuing the mystery.

My preferred theory, which has the added bonus of taking his ego-maniacal rating into Kanye West territory, is that he consciously, okay subconsciously, allowed himself to be dismissed, considering that a hundred against Bangladesh was not a true Test hundred. There are precedents for cricketers denying themselves such landmarks. Mark Taylor famously declared on himself on 334 not out, leaving him tied with Bradman as, the then, highest score by an Australian in Test cricket. Less well-known was Gary Yates, the ex-Lancashire off-spinner's refusal to go to three figures in the face of some top quality Glamorgan declaration bowling, leaving it instead for his partner Glenn Chapple, who apparently suffered from no such elevated morals, to set a then world record 27-ball hundred in 1993.

Okay it's a bit of a flight of fancy, but what if there was more evidence?

Fortunately, KP doesn't just let his batting do the talking and is usually good for a couple of memorable quotes on which to base some in depth psychoanalysis. This week was no exception. Yesterday he announced that Test cricket is 'not a game for girls' and followed it up today with a pronouncement that he was a 'huge, huge, fan of Test cricket' (as Derek Pringle pointed out in The Telegraph, he never does anything by halves).

If we put this information into the 'bat computer' then, aside from establishing that he probably doesn't like girls' games, it may just add credence to my theory. The 'hugeness' of his of love of Test cricket suggests someone quite prepared to sacrifice a personal goal for the good of the game. The 'not a game for girls' quote though is even more intriguing and may reveal an astonishing truth.

Test cricket is complex, unpredictable and can go on for days. And what's more, men have been trying to work it out for centuries.... Think about it. What if Pietersen, was trying to tell us something? Test cricket is not a game for girls because.... it is in fact a girl itself. If so, his sacrificial dismissal was in fact his latest attempt to woo her, to prise her out of little Sachin's arms and into his all enveloping, slightly tattooed, embrace. How about that?

I wonder if Freud liked cricket?

The referral system - practically better, philsophically flawed

2010-02-12T20:33:00.003+01:00

So the review system, is err under review. Again. This time the changes are expected to be cosmetic but actually rather sensible.

The first and most obvious change is to check no-balls after each and every delivery. It is so overdue that really some sort of compensation should be due to somebody. Given that we have had locked off cameras for run outs for years now, and that line decisions are by far and away the best use of video evidence, it is staggering that they have not been used before. Think of all the embarrassment that could have been saved poor David Shepherd after replays showed up the plethora of overstepping by Saqlain Mushtaq at Old Trafford some years ago.

The mystery is not why the change was made but why now? My theory is that Ian Botham got in somebody's ear. A conscientious pupil, Botham continued to work hard on his studies in disbelief (Fred Trueman scholarship) throughout the winter tour, showing particular élan both on this topic and on the 'floating slip' issue. I believe that either someone on the ICC panel accidentally tuned into the Sky commentary or more likely Sir Ian continued his training outside work hours and accosted one or more of them in the clubhouse after an afternoon's fourball-better ball. Whatever the reason and whoever is responsible, it is excellent news. Spread-betters, my advice - buy extras in the forthcoming series.

The other rumoured changes, involve the time allowed to ask for a referral and the number of referrals per match. Both of these are welcome in theory, how they will work in practice remains to be seen. The mistake that sport lawmakers continually make is to believe that creating more laws and more restrictive laws will make games better. Professional teams look at new laws not as threats but as opportunities. If they can find a better way to 'adapt' to the rule ( which is often code for 'find a loophole') then they will have found an advantage.

During the last series England objected to the time South Africa took to ask for a referral, suggesting that they had looked up to their balcony for advice from the TV replay. Well what did anyone expect? You watch any Grand Slam tennis tournament and almost every player glances up to their corner before asking to check the call. As long as there is the opportunity to gain an upper hand, teams will take it. My question is why on earth didn't the ICC realise this? And as for England's complaint, well excuse my cynicism but if they didn't think of it then they were simply outmanouevred by Graeme Smith's side. Not that I approve you understand. It is not in the spirit of the game, England are correct, but I question their motives.

My solution, although I don't doubt that a way could be found around this too, is to not allow any TV replay until a decision to refer or not has been made. If such change were made, you can bet your life the TV stations would be demanding that teams speed up their decision-making too.

As for changing the number of referrals per match. I believe the favoured option is four per match instead of two per innings. This closes the loophole where teams use up their 'spare' referrals at the end of an innings. It won't stop the spurious request completely but it makes them less likely in the first innings of the game.

So the system will work better. Until the next problem comes along. Now to be fair to the ICC, it hasn't suggested that the meeting in Dubai this week is the final and definitive word on the subject. Nevertheless the next time they come together, I would like to see them review not just the specificities of the Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) but its entire rationale.

We often hear from commentators, although I am yet to hear the ICC state it officially, that the UDRS is designed to eliminate 'the howlers'. Or 'Harpers' as I believe they are now known. Whilst I understand the premise, I find it false. Surely you employ the best umpires to avoid 'howlers'? If not then any fool could do the job safe in the knowledge that there is the third umpire with his TV and gadgets to back him up. People talk about undermining the umpire's authority, well introducing a system designed to pick up and highlight their 'incompetence' seems to me the perfect way to do it.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the technology was to aid umpires where their eyes and ears might prove insufficient then it would actually have added value. And if this were the case, the ICC should not only come out and say it publicly but it should be written into the playing conditions. Like that, umpires would not be undermined by technology but supported by it. Oh and if they did make a 'howler', the system would still cover that too!

It's only twenty wickets

2010-01-22T21:46:00.002+01:00

He may have made some handy contributions with the bat for England over the years but under normal circumstances Ryan Sidebottom's wicket would not be a prized one. On this occasion his dismissal on Sunday morning was not only the match winning one but it was the twentieth English wicket to fall. After weeks of trying, South Africa had finally broken through the magical '19' mark.

For basically a statement of the bleedin' obvious, the importance of 'taking twenty wickets' has come along way in recent years. In the hands of players and commentators alike, it has moved way beyond truism, transcended mere cliché and attained a significance only usually reserved for ethereal terms like 'the spirit of the game'. It may even go mainstream one day, instead of 'closing the deal' you could be 'taking the twentieth'.

Aside from limited vocabularies and limitless press conferences there is a good reason why captains and coaches are speaking about it more. Results in Test matches are expected now. With covered pitches, covered outfields, better drainage and even floodlights much less play is lost to rain than fourty years. As a consequence every one of the Test playing nations who were playing then and now have reduced considerably their percentage of drawn games. Pakistan for example, between 1970 and 1979 drew over 56% of their matches compared to only 26% in the last ten years. Most pleasingly, outside the subcontinent the stalemate has become almost a thing of the past, but with it has also gone many a captain's and many a bowler's first excuse.

This has become the era of the 'good draw' or even the 'great draw', the type of concept that leaves your stereotypical American bewildered. But for all the honest, positive sentiment after games such as Cardiff, Centurion and Cape Town, the truth of the matter is that winning is still almost everything. As an Englishman I celebrated those epic draws, but had I been an Australian or a South African I would only have cursed the missed opportunities.

So why can't teams finish off the opposition like they used to? There are a number of obvious reasons for this, better pitch preparation for one and yes that does include ones of the 'chief executive' variety from time to time. There is also the matter of the players themselves. The lower orders are much stronger than they used to be. When the South Africans returned to Test cricket, by accident or design their numbers 7 to 10 seemed almost as potent as their top order. And of course this was something that Duncan Fletcher brought, most certainly by design, to his England side. (It's interesting to note 'c.f.' on this subject that in the Bodyline series Jardine considered the biggest difference between the teams to be England's superior lower order batting rather than a particular fast bowler that one might more obviously think of..)

The Australians are also responsible. Specifically the Australian side of 1989 to 2007. They are responsible because they have skewed our current reality. Teams didn't actually finish off teams with any greater regularity in the past, certainly not since covered pitches were introduced and timeless Tests abolished. That particular Australian side was a complete Test team, the first in a long time and much more complete than the West Indies of the late 70's and 80's who were one-dimensional by comparison. The Australians had a conveyor belt of high quality batsman, two superb wicket keepers and two of the best bowlers, one fast, one slow that have ever played the game. It would be too easy to say, especially given the theme of this article, that it was Shane Warne that really made the difference. Sure on many occasions it was him that finished sides off, but he only got that opportunity because of the work of the team as a whole.

Cricket is a team game and Test cricket a true test of that team. Where there is a weak link it will be shown up, especially on a good pitch and even against moderate opposition. Unlike Australian, South Africa have always suffered from an overly defensive mentality but like today's Australians they also do not yet have the players. Morkel and Steyn are already very good and will get even better but without the depth battting and the spin bowling to match, they are fated to suffer further frustrations.

Harsh as it might be, a draw doesn't just mean you failed to beat the opposition it means you failed to meet the challenge of the game.

Hussain's lasting legacy?

2010-01-08T16:59:00.006+01:00

Being out of the country I was unable to see and hear the Sky coverage of the final day of the Cape Town Test. From a commentary point of view this isn't something that usually causes me too much pain. Whilst acknowledging the quality of Atherton's analysis and the gentleness of Gower's whimsy it is in general a team heavy on Harrises and Ntinis and light on Morkels and Steyns.

On this occasion though, I had a guilty urge to hear the views of Nasser Hussain. For it was a day made for him. Him as a player and captain that is. When he took over as captain in July 1999 he explicitly and unapologetically stated that his aim was to make England 'difficult to beat'. Not for him the gloriously idealistic sentiments of Richie Benaud on Australia's 1956 tour of England where he promised, and indeed delivered, 'attractive cricket even at the risk of defeat'. Hussain's considerations were much more prosaic - it was his primary duty to make England respected again as a cricketing nation. He might have believed they could win ever game they played, but he was also a realist. He didn't have the players to win games consistently, especially against the best teams. According to his immediate predecessor, Alec Stewart, only 'about four' of the side Hussain inherited were of true Test class (one hopes he included his number 3 amongst them!)

Under Hussain's leadership England might win some games, they might lose some but they must absolutely not lose meekly. He was sick of the batting collapses and of the unfavourable comparisons with the mental toughness of Australia and South Africa. He succeeded in changing and improving performances and results quite quickly, winning four Test series in a row. Impressive enough, but the true test and what Hussain really wanted to achieve was to change mindsets, to instill that toughness that he so admired in the Aussies, in the English team side on a permanent basis. We may now have enough evidence to say that he succeeded.

What though, I hear you say, of the collapse at Headingley last year that you describe in your only other blog entry? I submit that this is in fact the exception that proves the new rule. England are not a great team and so against good opposition such as Australia, India and South Africa they are always likely to find themselves in difficulties from time to time. Nevertheless, three times time in less than a year when England have appeared in an almost hopeless position, they have stood firm and instead it is the ability and killer instinct of those same Australian and South Africans that has been brought into question.

Aside from what must now be considered the glorious blip of 2005, England are as far away from being world beaters as every they were. But they can no longer be regarded as the meek, soft touches that they once were either. Hussain deserves great credit for this and he, as much as anybody, must have revelled in yesterday's play.

Missing Fred

2009-08-10T19:28:00.006+02:00

Maybe England did miss Andrew Flintoff. And maybe they didn’t. The disease that afflicted the batting and bowling ranks at Headingley appeared so contagious that it seems impossible to imagine that he too wouldn’t have succumbed. Had that happened, England may well have lost their trump card - on the back of his wicketless performance at Edgbaston it would have added to Ricky Ponting's suggestion that he was on a downward spiral. Instead Flintoff's aura remains intact, perhaps even enhanced by his absence. Surely they wouldn't haven't have lost like that if he had played they will say. As it stands the Australians do still fear him, and the return of a fit (relatively), motivated and possibly even rather angry Fred (if the report from Michael Atherton in The Times today is anything to go by) can be the boost that England desperately need.

By the end of Saturday’s play the team looked bereft of ideas, confidence and hope. But not only will England have an undoubtedly stronger team when they take to field a week on Thursday, Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower will also have vital ammunition for the almost equally important media battle that will take place in those intervening ten days. They will be able to argue, without stretching credulity unnecessarily, that not only will England have a stronger team than at Headingley but that Fred is desperate to bow out on a high note and that the rest of the team is equally determined that he should do so.

The series has all been about momentum. Momentum has been achieved not through thrilling victories but through stoic resistance at Cardiff and Edgbaston. First England and then Australia seemed to take immense heart both from the spirit and fight that their respective batsman showed and from the lack of killer instinct displayed by the respective bowling attacks. Australia may justifiably lay claim to having all the momentum going into the decider, but with some careful spin England may, over the next week and half, create some momentum of their own.

It was another ‘Fred’, a fast bowler of an earlier vintage from the other side of the Pennines, who was more truly missed at Headingley. Fred Trueman would have nodded approvingly at Peter Siddle’s well directed hostility at the England lower order. But he would have approved even more though of Stuart Clark’s probing line and length (in the first innings), giving nowt away, waiting for the batsmen to make mistakes. Not old fashioned, but classic (for is was as effective on Thursday as it ever has been) Headingley bowling.

But that is not why he was missed. It was when it was England’s turn to bowl. By the end of his life Trueman had become something of a caricature of himself, his refrain on Test Match Special that ‘I don’t know what’s going off out there’ reflecting a man ill at ease with the changing times, in a way that Richie Benaud, a man of similar vintage, has never been. It rather diminished him in the eyes of the public particularly those who had never seen him in full flow or in colour (black and white making bowlers look much slower of course...).

It would probably have amused him to have looked down on Headingley on Friday evening and again on Saturday and to hear his familiar refrain or a modern, possibly less polite version, being uttered by just about ever supporter whether in the ground, watching on TV or listening on TMS. Fred Trueman impersonators, one and all of us. He was particularly missed because no professional broadcaster, came close to approximating Fred's studied disbelief. Honourable mention though to Ian Botham, whose capacity for over-simplification continues to amaze and who thus struck a suitably bewildered figure as England continued to pepper the middle of the Headingley pitch in search of goodness knows what.Whilst still to develop the levels of curmudgeoness necessary for a proper Trueman homage, he has the ability and as Sky seem unlikely ever to fire him he has plenty of time to work on it. Or not.

A final thought on this thread. I read this week that following his retirement, Graeme Hick is looking to do some television or radio commentating. Both Trueman and Botham were famous for total self-belief something which made them great cricketers but dreadful commentators. On this basis, could we be about to witness the birth of a new broadcasting legend?