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.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
KP: One last shot at greatness?
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.
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.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Overstepping the mark: DRS must go farther
It may have gone through more updates and revision than Windows but the current version of the referral system (DRS) 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 in any bilateral series in the foreseeable 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.
The Indian cricket board last week announced that it would not accept the use of the referral system in any bilateral series in the foreseeable 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.
Saturday, 12 June 2010
System's failure hits Bangladesh
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?
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?
Friday, 4 June 2010
Losing patience with T20
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.
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.
Friday, 19 March 2010
KP, cricketing romantic or 99 flake?
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?
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?
Friday, 12 February 2010
The referral system - practically better, philsophically flawed
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)