Yes, yes, I know. My promises to resume posting regularly here have been about as reliable as the Tory government's...no, I'm not going to go there. I have the urge to blog, and to write more generally, and I suspect one of the main reasons is the utter chaos out there at the moment. So, I'm going to restrict myself to talking about poetry, and literature more generally, and birds, and history, and maybe some cricket (although, there's not much about England that inspires me at the moment). I can't guarantee it will be upbeat, exactly, but it will definitely be more fun than the news.
Showing posts with label Cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cricket. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 March 2022
Thursday, 7 October 2021
Tony Greig
After reading that John Snow article the other day, I came across this fine piece from the same writer, James Mettyear, about his hero-worship of Tony Greig. Greig was a hero to a whole generation until his move to help set up World Series Cricket, but the years since have put that in a different perspective.
Monday, 4 October 2021
The cricketing poet
To be fair, the title of this post is a bit of a cheat. John Snow, the former England fast bowler who's the subject of this article, was of course more of a cricketer who did a bit of poeting, but there you go – poetic licence and all that.
I was too young to see Snow at anything like his best - my memories are of seeing him in a test against the West Indies in 1976, and a few Sunday League games. But reading about his career, it strikes me that he is not given the credit he deserves. Beyond the bare statistics, he saved most of his best performances for the Aussies and the West Indies, and in 1970-71 he won the Ashes back for England with a performance that shaped a whole generation of Aussie cricketers, bizarrely – Ian Chappell consciously set out to create a team that played the way Ray Illingworth's did, with one or more John Snows dishing out the short stuff.
Anyway, it's a really excellent article. Take a look, and enjoy.
Sunday, 21 March 2021
Fighting fire with fire
Up front, a warning. This post is about cricket, and pretty much nothing else. And it's long.
There's obviously a long way to go, given that we have no idea whether this summer will pan out anything like normal, but the cricket press and forums are starting to turn their attention to England's Ashes tour next winter, and to who might make up the team. In particular, large parts of the cricket press and public seem to have decided that the only way England are going to win is with out and out fast bowlers.
That always sets the alarm bells ringing for me. In my lifetime, England have won four Ashes series in Australia. They suggest that there are far more important things for England to concentrate on than "fighting fire with fire" by picking quicks.
In 2010-11, Andrew Strauss's team won 3-1, with a four-man bowling attack. None of them were what I'd call fast – Chris Tremlett came closest, but his height and extra bounce were more important weapons. Jimmy Anderson and Tim Bresnan were good old-fashioned English seamers, and Graeme Swann played a big part with his off-spin. What was even more important was a batting line-up that, other than the first innings at Brisbane and most of the Perth match, coped superbly with the Aussies' pace and bounce.
In 1986-87, Graham Dilley was the closest England had to a genuine quick, but he was still more like fast-medium, as were Botham, Small and DeFreitas. Spin twins John Emburey and Phil Edmonds helped give Mike Gatting control in the field, but again the vital thing was a batting line-up that, Allan Lamb apart, dealt well with the Australian attack.
In 1978-79, the Aussies were weakened by the loss of their Packer players, and England beat them 5-1 (we'd lost a few too, but they were pretty much all players on the downhill slope). Now, Bob Willis played a significant role, and Big Bob was genuinely sharp. A young Ian Botham was quicker than he sometimes appeared, too, and he was among the wickets. But Mike Hendrick, a classic English seamer if ever there was one, was just as important, and off-spinners Geoff Miller and John Emburey were both highly successful.
Only in 1970-71, which I don't remember, did an English fast bowler genuinely dominate the series. John Snow was the quickest, the nastiest and the best on both sides, and the Aussies had no answer.
Looking back beyond that, it's fair to say that the two previous England wins in Australia could be put down to out and out fast bowling – 1954-55 ('Typhoon' Tyson blowing the Aussies away in two tests) and 1932-33 (Larwood, Voce and Bodyline).
What has always been important in Ashes wins in Australia has been the batting. Batting as long as possible, and wearing down the Aussie pace attack, which is rarely anything but impressive (OK, 1986-87 was an exception there). Boycott, Edrich, Luckhurst etc., in 70-71. Randall, Gower and an all-round performance in 78-79. Chris Broad, with help from Gower and Gatting in 86-87. And Strauss, Cook, Trott, Pietersen and Bell in 10-11. When we've lost over there, it's generally been because we haven;t coped with their quick bowling. In the 90s, there was Shane Warne to cope with too.
I have a horrible feeling the squad will be packed with Archer, Wood, Stone and maybe others only because they are fast. I'd rather it be packed with the best bowlers, regardless, and even more importantly the best batsmen, the ones who will fight it out and bat for days if necessary.
Friday, 19 March 2021
Might have beens
This is a really good article about Aussie off-spinner Jason Krejza, and his brief but memorable test career. He comes across as a thoughtful chap, wistful rather than embittered, and it's hard not to think he was unlucky in the way he was treated by the selectors. I remember watching that debut against India, and thinking that he was a name who'd be on the scene for years.
Friday, 5 March 2021
A day to remember/forget
I stumbled across this article the other day, and although I knew all about Brian Langford's record-breaking spell of bowling, I'd never come across the bit about Doug Insole before. Called out of retirement (after six years) to play in an injury crisis, a baby throws up all over his cricket bag on the train, and then he's run out for 0.
That's the sort of story that makes cricket my favourite sport.
Friday, 3 July 2020
Summer's here
So, its been a long time. What can I say? The whole Covid-19 lockdown situation has dominated everything for the past few months, and Polyolbion has had to take a back seat. But here I am again. It's July, and summer's here, sort of.
Those nice people at Candlestick Press have a new pamphlet, Ten Poems for Summer, for anyone in need of a bit of literary sustenance. It also, like all Candlestick's pamphlets, makes a nice alternative to a greetings card.
Of course, it's a pretty strange summer, and not just in terms of weather. There's been no cricket, for a start, although that will change next week, when England start to play a test series against the West Indies behind closed doors.
But while I was at the Candlestick website, I was reminded that among their other fine titles, they have Ten Poems about Cricket, which includes my own poem Two Orthodox Left-Armers. If you're missing the sound of leather on willow, you could do a lot worse than picking up a copy.
Those nice people at Candlestick Press have a new pamphlet, Ten Poems for Summer, for anyone in need of a bit of literary sustenance. It also, like all Candlestick's pamphlets, makes a nice alternative to a greetings card.
Of course, it's a pretty strange summer, and not just in terms of weather. There's been no cricket, for a start, although that will change next week, when England start to play a test series against the West Indies behind closed doors.
But while I was at the Candlestick website, I was reminded that among their other fine titles, they have Ten Poems about Cricket, which includes my own poem Two Orthodox Left-Armers. If you're missing the sound of leather on willow, you could do a lot worse than picking up a copy.
Wednesday, 12 June 2019
Life after cricket: Robin Smith
I'm sorry the link has to be to the Daily Mail, but this interview with Robin Smith about the mental health problems he suffered after retiring from cricket is excellent, both moving and, ultimately, uplifting.
Back in the dark days of the late 80s and early 90s (for English cricket), he was one of my favourite players – combative and positive, as well as a terrific batsman. I remember watching his 167 in a one-day international (an extraordinary score in those days) – it was absolutely brutal.
But he also always came across as modest and unselfish, and there's a hint of that in the interview. Look at his stats, and his test average is really pretty impressive, again when you consider that in those days batting averages were generally lower. I thought he was ultimately rather shabbily treated by England – they suddenly decided that he was hopeless against spin bowling, just because he'd struggled against Shane Warne, but then who didn't?
Back in the dark days of the late 80s and early 90s (for English cricket), he was one of my favourite players – combative and positive, as well as a terrific batsman. I remember watching his 167 in a one-day international (an extraordinary score in those days) – it was absolutely brutal.
But he also always came across as modest and unselfish, and there's a hint of that in the interview. Look at his stats, and his test average is really pretty impressive, again when you consider that in those days batting averages were generally lower. I thought he was ultimately rather shabbily treated by England – they suddenly decided that he was hopeless against spin bowling, just because he'd struggled against Shane Warne, but then who didn't?
Friday, 24 May 2019
And another thing
I don't want to give his execrable book any more publicity than it deserves (ie., none), but I read another damning review of Jacob Rees-Mogg's The Victorians this morning. OK, the New Statesman was never likely to be that appreciative of the walking anachronism's hurriedly completed homework assignment (presumably the dog ate the original manuscript), but they do do the reader the favour of quoting some of the author's laborious and tedious prose.
The one part of the review I would immediately take issue with is "The one non-Westminster discussed is the cricketer WG Grace, included mainly because 'as Every Englishman knows', more than any other sport, 'cricket at its best captures the soul of the nation. Fair play, etiquette and gentlemanly behaviour.' Not much of the latter is evident in the modern game, but Rees-Mogg's perceptions, here as elsewhere, are myopically rooted in the past."
The reviewer appears to have missed the point about WG just as much as Rees-Mogg has. Dr Grace was undoubtedly a great player, a man who revolutionised batting technique in particular, but he really didn't give much of a damn about fair play, etiquette or gentlemanly behaviour. Reading about his career, it's hard to escape the conclusion that even David Warner and Steve Smith might have baulked at taking the field with such a master of gamesmanship (well, more like straightforward cheating), so the dig at the modern game is unwarranted. Nor, it should be noted, was WG alone in that respect.
The one part of the review I would immediately take issue with is "The one non-Westminster discussed is the cricketer WG Grace, included mainly because 'as Every Englishman knows', more than any other sport, 'cricket at its best captures the soul of the nation. Fair play, etiquette and gentlemanly behaviour.' Not much of the latter is evident in the modern game, but Rees-Mogg's perceptions, here as elsewhere, are myopically rooted in the past."
The reviewer appears to have missed the point about WG just as much as Rees-Mogg has. Dr Grace was undoubtedly a great player, a man who revolutionised batting technique in particular, but he really didn't give much of a damn about fair play, etiquette or gentlemanly behaviour. Reading about his career, it's hard to escape the conclusion that even David Warner and Steve Smith might have baulked at taking the field with such a master of gamesmanship (well, more like straightforward cheating), so the dig at the modern game is unwarranted. Nor, it should be noted, was WG alone in that respect.
Thursday, 23 May 2019
Mike Brearley on Cricket
I know you're not supposed to say it, but one of the most disappointing cricket books I've ever read (possibly one of the most disappointing books, full stop), is Mike Brearley's The Art Of Captaincy.
When I bought it, 15 years ago or so, I expected to find it full of all sorts of arcane insights into cricket leadership. Brearley, after all, is considered one of England's best-ever captains, the architect of three Ashes triumphs, including the miracle turnaround of 1981. He was tactically innovative and always thoughtful, and his man management skills were legendary. A trained psychologist, he was described by admiring Aussie fast bowler Rodney Hogg as "having a degree in people".
But I felt at the time that it simply stated the obvious. I came away from it with no more idea of how Brearley achieved what he did than I had at the start. Shorter articles on captaincy, from the likes of Ian Chappell, revealed far more.
But he's more than made up for it with On Cricket. It's wide-ranging and diverse, taking in controversial issues such as ball-tampering and the Basil D'Oliveira affair as well as Brearley's opinions on some of the greats of the game, and on his own career.
Above all, it's beautifully written. Packed with detail, yet clear, concise and very readable, and Brearley's own character comes through on every page. Not in the sense that he puts himself at the centre of things, just that he approaches every subject with the same inquisitive, open-minded, tolerant and thoughtful way.
And that, I realised, probably says a great deal more about the art of captaincy than anything. As a player, how could you not want to perform well for a captain like that? One who, you could be confident, would treat every team member fairly, and never put his own ambitions above the team's. Brearley may or may not be England's greatest ever captain, but he's certainly the most interesting thinker about cricket writing today.
When I bought it, 15 years ago or so, I expected to find it full of all sorts of arcane insights into cricket leadership. Brearley, after all, is considered one of England's best-ever captains, the architect of three Ashes triumphs, including the miracle turnaround of 1981. He was tactically innovative and always thoughtful, and his man management skills were legendary. A trained psychologist, he was described by admiring Aussie fast bowler Rodney Hogg as "having a degree in people".
But I felt at the time that it simply stated the obvious. I came away from it with no more idea of how Brearley achieved what he did than I had at the start. Shorter articles on captaincy, from the likes of Ian Chappell, revealed far more.
But he's more than made up for it with On Cricket. It's wide-ranging and diverse, taking in controversial issues such as ball-tampering and the Basil D'Oliveira affair as well as Brearley's opinions on some of the greats of the game, and on his own career.
Above all, it's beautifully written. Packed with detail, yet clear, concise and very readable, and Brearley's own character comes through on every page. Not in the sense that he puts himself at the centre of things, just that he approaches every subject with the same inquisitive, open-minded, tolerant and thoughtful way.
And that, I realised, probably says a great deal more about the art of captaincy than anything. As a player, how could you not want to perform well for a captain like that? One who, you could be confident, would treat every team member fairly, and never put his own ambitions above the team's. Brearley may or may not be England's greatest ever captain, but he's certainly the most interesting thinker about cricket writing today.
Thursday, 25 April 2019
The Ugly Australian
Superb article here by Jarrod Kimber, on the ongoing fallout from 'Sandpapergate'. He makes some very good points, not least about the tendency of Aussie cricketers to claim persecution as soon as someone reacts to their sledging, or mental disintegration, as they prefer to call it.
Also interesting that he points out that Australia have always been the most successful Test Cricket side, even in the days when they weren't known for such antics.
I'm not claiming that any other team in world cricket is made up of angels, but the Aussies do seem to have got away with things ludicrously easily. David Warner had, I suspect, been ball tampering for at least a couple of years, and the extent to which it all happened at the instigation of the coaching team also seems to have been underplayed.
Also interesting that he points out that Australia have always been the most successful Test Cricket side, even in the days when they weren't known for such antics.
I'm not claiming that any other team in world cricket is made up of angels, but the Aussies do seem to have got away with things ludicrously easily. David Warner had, I suspect, been ball tampering for at least a couple of years, and the extent to which it all happened at the instigation of the coaching team also seems to have been underplayed.
Wednesday, 1 August 2018
Two Orthodox Left-Armers
My last post reminded me that I have a two-part poem about Wilfred Rhodes and Hedley Verity – Two Orthodox Left-Armers – in Candlestick Press's splendid Ten Poems About Cricket chapbook.
Introduced by John Lucas, whose own poem is a highlight for me, it also contains work by the likes of Adrian Buckner, Hubert Moore, Norman Nicholson, Kit Wright, and John Arlott, the doyen of radio cricket commentators. Perfect for the cricket-lover in your life.
Introduced by John Lucas, whose own poem is a highlight for me, it also contains work by the likes of Adrian Buckner, Hubert Moore, Norman Nicholson, Kit Wright, and John Arlott, the doyen of radio cricket commentators. Perfect for the cricket-lover in your life.
Tuesday, 31 July 2018
England's all-time Test best
Go down to the bottom of this story, and you'll see England's All Time Greatest Test Match XI, as voted for by BBC viewers/listeners/readers.
My first thought was that, as usual with these things, it's far too slanted towards current and recent players.
I can't see how Jack Hobbs and Wally Hammond could not be in there, if they were even half as good as their records suggest. And that's before you start wondering at the absence of May, Cowdrey and Compton - wouldn't one of them be worth a spot? And Ken Barrington? His test record was right up there with the best ever, and he had a particularly good record against the Aussies.
The bowling is a bit less contentious, but great as Swann was, was he really better than Hedley Verity, or Wilfred Rhodes, or Jim Laker?
On second thoughts, I suppose it's inevitable. No-one voting will have seen much of most of those players, so perhaps the real surprise is that Hutton and Trueman make the cut, presumably based mainly on their records and what voters have been told about them, rather than what they've actually seen.
So, I got to thinking, and compiled my All Time England XI, and then my Lifetime England XI, purely from players I've seen. In fact, I added a twelfth man for each, so that the captain would have a choice of playing one spinner or two. Here they are:
All Time England XI
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Denis Compton
Ian Botham
Alan Knott (WK)
Fred Trueman
Hedley Verity
Sydney Barnes
Alec Bedser
Wilfred Rhodes (12th man)
Lifetime England XI
Graham Gooch
Geoff Boycott
Alastair Cook
David Gower
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Alec Stewart (WK)
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson
Bob Willis
John Emburey (12th man)
In the first, it was a hard choice as regards the spinners, but Verity was reputedly the only bowler that Bradman felt he could never wholly master, so he gets the nod. Rhodes would offer flexibility as 12th man, given that as well as his bowling, he could bat pretty much anywhere. Compton and Bedser get in there because their records would be even better had they not played in weak sides for large parts of their careers (and because World War Two got in the way, too).
In the second, I went for Stewart as keeper because he was far better there than he was ever given credit for (and had a great batting record as well), and because I can't really remember Knott at his best. Matt Prior was unlucky, though.
My first thought was that, as usual with these things, it's far too slanted towards current and recent players.
I can't see how Jack Hobbs and Wally Hammond could not be in there, if they were even half as good as their records suggest. And that's before you start wondering at the absence of May, Cowdrey and Compton - wouldn't one of them be worth a spot? And Ken Barrington? His test record was right up there with the best ever, and he had a particularly good record against the Aussies.
The bowling is a bit less contentious, but great as Swann was, was he really better than Hedley Verity, or Wilfred Rhodes, or Jim Laker?
On second thoughts, I suppose it's inevitable. No-one voting will have seen much of most of those players, so perhaps the real surprise is that Hutton and Trueman make the cut, presumably based mainly on their records and what voters have been told about them, rather than what they've actually seen.
So, I got to thinking, and compiled my All Time England XI, and then my Lifetime England XI, purely from players I've seen. In fact, I added a twelfth man for each, so that the captain would have a choice of playing one spinner or two. Here they are:
All Time England XI
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Denis Compton
Ian Botham
Alan Knott (WK)
Fred Trueman
Hedley Verity
Sydney Barnes
Alec Bedser
Wilfred Rhodes (12th man)
Lifetime England XI
Graham Gooch
Geoff Boycott
Alastair Cook
David Gower
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Botham
Alec Stewart (WK)
Graeme Swann
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson
Bob Willis
John Emburey (12th man)
In the first, it was a hard choice as regards the spinners, but Verity was reputedly the only bowler that Bradman felt he could never wholly master, so he gets the nod. Rhodes would offer flexibility as 12th man, given that as well as his bowling, he could bat pretty much anywhere. Compton and Bedser get in there because their records would be even better had they not played in weak sides for large parts of their careers (and because World War Two got in the way, too).
In the second, I went for Stewart as keeper because he was far better there than he was ever given credit for (and had a great batting record as well), and because I can't really remember Knott at his best. Matt Prior was unlucky, though.
Thursday, 21 June 2018
The balance between bat and ball
England's utter destruction of Australia in the 3rd one-day international at Trent Bridge on Tuesday (Richie Benaud would almost certainly have said "It's absolute carnage out there" at some stage during it), has sparked a lot of debate online and on Test Match Special about whether or not there needs to be some evening up of the balance between bat and ball in this format of the game.
The straightforward answer is yes. As Jimmy Anderson said on the commentary, if every game is a high-scoring big-hitting contest, it all starts to blur into one. Many of the best one-day games I can remember have been low-scoring, tense affairs. Derbyshire's 1981 Nat West Trophy Final win. India's 1983 World Cup Final win. And of course, the 1999 Australia vs South Africa World Cup Semi-Final – for my money the best one-day match ever played.
What's annoying, though, is that this only ever comes up when England dish out a hammering. Yes, the pitch was flat and favoured batsmen. Yes, the Kookaburra balls used gives bowlers no assistance whatsoever. But it's the same for both sides. Australia won the toss and declined to use the pitch when it was at its best for batting. They also bowled poorly, let's be honest, while England were excellent in the field. Adil Rashid and Moeen Ali showed there was something in the pitch for spinners – more fool the Aussies for picking only one frontline spinner, leaving out Nathan Lyon, their best option.
When, in the past, England's one-day side has taken thrashing after thrashing on flat pitches, the pundits have been quick to say that they need to find bowlers who can come up with something different on such surfaces. Now we have, and now we've found batsmen who can take the fullest advantage of such friendly surfaces, we're being told that the rules need to change.
The straightforward answer is yes. As Jimmy Anderson said on the commentary, if every game is a high-scoring big-hitting contest, it all starts to blur into one. Many of the best one-day games I can remember have been low-scoring, tense affairs. Derbyshire's 1981 Nat West Trophy Final win. India's 1983 World Cup Final win. And of course, the 1999 Australia vs South Africa World Cup Semi-Final – for my money the best one-day match ever played.
What's annoying, though, is that this only ever comes up when England dish out a hammering. Yes, the pitch was flat and favoured batsmen. Yes, the Kookaburra balls used gives bowlers no assistance whatsoever. But it's the same for both sides. Australia won the toss and declined to use the pitch when it was at its best for batting. They also bowled poorly, let's be honest, while England were excellent in the field. Adil Rashid and Moeen Ali showed there was something in the pitch for spinners – more fool the Aussies for picking only one frontline spinner, leaving out Nathan Lyon, their best option.
When, in the past, England's one-day side has taken thrashing after thrashing on flat pitches, the pundits have been quick to say that they need to find bowlers who can come up with something different on such surfaces. Now we have, and now we've found batsmen who can take the fullest advantage of such friendly surfaces, we're being told that the rules need to change.
Wednesday, 16 May 2018
New-look England
Well, maybe Ed Smith is going to prove me wrong straight away, which can only be a good thing. I agree with most of what Jonathan Agnew says here. Buttler is, as Smith has said, a unique talent, and I'd always want to find a way to keep him in the test set-up. He's the sort of player that could win you a game in a session, and for all the nay-saying about him being a 20/20 player, there are others who have made the switch successfully. David Warner, for example.
Bess looks a good choice, too. He probably won't get a lot to do in these first couple of tests, but it's a bold selection.
Bess looks a good choice, too. He probably won't get a lot to do in these first couple of tests, but it's a bold selection.
Sunday, 22 April 2018
Three reasons to be depressed by cricket...
...other than cheating Australians and the misery of England's winter tours, I mean.
1 TalkSport getting the rights to broadcast England's tours next winter. I don't care who they recruit, it's not going to be Test Match Special, is it? And although TMS these days isn't always as good as it could be, it's still pretty great.
2 The creation of another new format for the ECB's city-franchise league. Why? They say it's partly to differentiate it from their 20/20 Blast competition, in which case why not just do one or the other? Preferably the former, as many cricket fans, me included, will have zero interest in supporting artificially created teams that ignore large parts of the country. Reading around the decision, it seems the ECB don't really give a damn what cricket fans think, though. They want to attract new audiences. Which is fine, but pretty pointless if you drive away your core audience in doing so. Also, why the obsession with speed? They've shaved time off the game anyway, but will then penalise teams for slow over rates, with the result, of course, that potentially close finishes (which is what people want to see in limited over and 20/20 cricket) will be ruined by late adjustments to the target. If I'm giving up an evening to watch a game of cricket, half an hour here or there makes no difference, but I do want to see the game decided by skill.
3 The appointment of Ed Smith as national selector. How predictable that it should be an Oxbridge educated former Middlesex player. There's a lot of talk that he'll take a stats-based, 'Moneyball' approach, which is fine up to a point, but I suspect will mean a return to the chopping and changing of the 80s and 90s. It's no coincidence that England's best years, during my lifetime, were with David Graveney and Geoff Miller as selectors – both of them emphasised continuity, consistency, and settled teams.
1 TalkSport getting the rights to broadcast England's tours next winter. I don't care who they recruit, it's not going to be Test Match Special, is it? And although TMS these days isn't always as good as it could be, it's still pretty great.
2 The creation of another new format for the ECB's city-franchise league. Why? They say it's partly to differentiate it from their 20/20 Blast competition, in which case why not just do one or the other? Preferably the former, as many cricket fans, me included, will have zero interest in supporting artificially created teams that ignore large parts of the country. Reading around the decision, it seems the ECB don't really give a damn what cricket fans think, though. They want to attract new audiences. Which is fine, but pretty pointless if you drive away your core audience in doing so. Also, why the obsession with speed? They've shaved time off the game anyway, but will then penalise teams for slow over rates, with the result, of course, that potentially close finishes (which is what people want to see in limited over and 20/20 cricket) will be ruined by late adjustments to the target. If I'm giving up an evening to watch a game of cricket, half an hour here or there makes no difference, but I do want to see the game decided by skill.
3 The appointment of Ed Smith as national selector. How predictable that it should be an Oxbridge educated former Middlesex player. There's a lot of talk that he'll take a stats-based, 'Moneyball' approach, which is fine up to a point, but I suspect will mean a return to the chopping and changing of the 80s and 90s. It's no coincidence that England's best years, during my lifetime, were with David Graveney and Geoff Miller as selectors – both of them emphasised continuity, consistency, and settled teams.
Tuesday, 27 March 2018
Ball tampering
If you have no interest in cricket at all, or if you're an Australian, you may want to look away now. It's taken me a few days to digest exactly what went on in the Newlands Test, but I've finally pieced together a few thoughts.
1 The statements made by Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft at the press conference were insulting to the intelligence of any cricket fan. They talked about it as if it were something that had happened to them, as if they had no control over it whatsoever. Do they really expect us to believe that, had they not got caught, they'd have been wracked by guilt?
2 Still, at least they made it to the press conference. Where was Warner, who was certainly part of the 'leadership group'? And Lehmann?
3 If Lehmann knew nothing about it, as they claimed, then what exactly is he doing as coach? If he did (and his utterly shifty reaction once he realised Bancroft had been caught on camera suggests that's the case), he needs to be sacked.
4 So do Smith and Warner, and both they and Bancroft need lengthy bans. I've some sympathy for the latter, because I suspect he was pressured into doing the dirty work because he's the youngest member of the side, and the one whose place is in most jeopardy. But if he isn't willing to break ranks and say so, then I'm afraid he has to cop the same punishment as the others.
5 A lot is made of the centrality of 'mateship' to Australian sport, and culture in general. And yet the worst thing about this is how willing Smith and Warner have been to throw Bancroft under the train. By talking about the leadership group, too, they've potentially implicated Starc and Hazlewood, and by all accounts neither are happy about it, saying they didn't take part in the lunchtime discussions. When Mike Atherton was caught mucking about with the ball in 1994 (and he should have been sacked as England captain at the time), he did at least have the guts to do it himself.
6 The ICC could have acted sooner. Warner has been wearing tape on his fingers while fielding for the last two years. He should have been told to remove it, or that he also had to wear it for batting. Its presence looks very suspicious.
7 Whenever something like this happens, the Aussies like to imply that there are only two ways to play. You can be hard, aggressive, push the limits and win, or you can do it the soft, 'English' way, and lose. But they're wrong. In recent years, New Zealand under Brendon McCullum showed that you could play aggressive, attractive, winning cricket without disrespecting your opponents, the game, or the cricket-watching public. The Aussies need a new coach in that vein – Jason Gillespie might be the man.
8 Finally, how on earth did they think they'd get away with it? With 30 cameras watching? Was it really worth the risk? At the stage that it happened, they were practically out of the game anyway.
1 The statements made by Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft at the press conference were insulting to the intelligence of any cricket fan. They talked about it as if it were something that had happened to them, as if they had no control over it whatsoever. Do they really expect us to believe that, had they not got caught, they'd have been wracked by guilt?
2 Still, at least they made it to the press conference. Where was Warner, who was certainly part of the 'leadership group'? And Lehmann?
3 If Lehmann knew nothing about it, as they claimed, then what exactly is he doing as coach? If he did (and his utterly shifty reaction once he realised Bancroft had been caught on camera suggests that's the case), he needs to be sacked.
4 So do Smith and Warner, and both they and Bancroft need lengthy bans. I've some sympathy for the latter, because I suspect he was pressured into doing the dirty work because he's the youngest member of the side, and the one whose place is in most jeopardy. But if he isn't willing to break ranks and say so, then I'm afraid he has to cop the same punishment as the others.
5 A lot is made of the centrality of 'mateship' to Australian sport, and culture in general. And yet the worst thing about this is how willing Smith and Warner have been to throw Bancroft under the train. By talking about the leadership group, too, they've potentially implicated Starc and Hazlewood, and by all accounts neither are happy about it, saying they didn't take part in the lunchtime discussions. When Mike Atherton was caught mucking about with the ball in 1994 (and he should have been sacked as England captain at the time), he did at least have the guts to do it himself.
6 The ICC could have acted sooner. Warner has been wearing tape on his fingers while fielding for the last two years. He should have been told to remove it, or that he also had to wear it for batting. Its presence looks very suspicious.
7 Whenever something like this happens, the Aussies like to imply that there are only two ways to play. You can be hard, aggressive, push the limits and win, or you can do it the soft, 'English' way, and lose. But they're wrong. In recent years, New Zealand under Brendon McCullum showed that you could play aggressive, attractive, winning cricket without disrespecting your opponents, the game, or the cricket-watching public. The Aussies need a new coach in that vein – Jason Gillespie might be the man.
8 Finally, how on earth did they think they'd get away with it? With 30 cameras watching? Was it really worth the risk? At the stage that it happened, they were practically out of the game anyway.
Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Ashes preview
This is the best Ashes preview article I've read so far, and it's by an Australian. The fact that he quotes Mr T is just the icing on the cake.
If England can come away from Brisbane with a draw, and the signs are that the weather may help them out considerably there, I think it could be a very tight series. I keep hearing about how good Australia's pace attack is, but the back-up looks fairly thin, and they will need it at some stage. I'm a bit baffled as to why they've gone into the series with no support at all for their four front-line bowlers, especially given that one of them, Cummins, has a terrible fitness record.
What England are going to need is for someone other than their big four - Anderson, Broad, Root and Cook - to have a huge series. I fancy Chris Woakes to surprise a few Aussies, and I think James Vince, if he could get one big score under his belt, could also go on to do big things.
If England can come away from Brisbane with a draw, and the signs are that the weather may help them out considerably there, I think it could be a very tight series. I keep hearing about how good Australia's pace attack is, but the back-up looks fairly thin, and they will need it at some stage. I'm a bit baffled as to why they've gone into the series with no support at all for their four front-line bowlers, especially given that one of them, Cummins, has a terrible fitness record.
What England are going to need is for someone other than their big four - Anderson, Broad, Root and Cook - to have a huge series. I fancy Chris Woakes to surprise a few Aussies, and I think James Vince, if he could get one big score under his belt, could also go on to do big things.
Thursday, 28 September 2017
Ashes squad assessment
So, the whole Ben Stokes business has rather overshadowed the announcement of the actual Ashes squad, but reaction to it generally was pretty negative. Several pundits, including Jonathan Agnew, have called it weak, with others even describing it as the weakest Ashes squad they can remember.
Well, I'd take all that with a pinch of salt, for starters. I can remember several previous England squads being described in the same way, most notably in 1986-87, when it was widely predicted that a resurgent Australia would thrash us. In fact, we won 2-1, but the scoreline flattered the home side hugely. We went into the series with no idea who our openers would be – one of them, Chris Broad, scored three centuries and was man of the series. Incidentally, I can also remember it happening in reverse more than once, with Australian sides arriving on these shores being described as the worst-ever. 1989, anyone?
Still, there's plenty to quibble with in the team the selectors have picked. Gary Ballance, for a start. He may have a great first-class average, and his test average of 37 is OK, but he started his test career well and has been getting steadily worse, as quality seam attacks have discovered exactly where to bowl to him, given his lack of foot movement. I can't see him performing any better in Australia, whether he bats at 3 or 5.
The selection of James Vince is similarly strange, although in its defence, this will be only his second chance (Ballance is on, what, his fifth?), and there's reason to think that his technique might be suited to Australian pitches. But to be honest, I wouldn't have taken either. They have good reasons for not wanting to plunge newcomers into the fray, but if they had to go back to someone from the past, why not Alex Hales (who also has a technique suited to Aussie pitches, and who has played successfully there)?
I don't understand the selection of Mason Crane as the second spinner - he's struggled to get into Hampshire's team most of the season, while over at Somerset Jack Leach has turned in a second consecutive 60-wicket year (despite having to remodel his action). More to the point, the second spinner will probably spend most of the series carrying drinks, and only be called upon if Moeen is injured or suffers a catastrophic loss of form. If they do get the call, they're more likely to be asked to do a holding job than to become an instant match-winner, and Leach seems a much better bowler in that respect.
Finally, the wicketkeepers. Ben Foakes is probably the best actual keeper in the country, and he can bat a bit, too. But as with the spinners, he's only likely to play if the man in possession, Jonny Bairstow, gets injured. In that situation, coming in cold (because there are few matches outside the tests), is he really likely to hit the ground running? Jos Buttler, on the other hand, is one of those batsmen for whom both form and pressure seem to be irrelevant – he plays the same way whatever. He has underachieved for England in tests, but he seems to me to be the best back-up for Bairstow we have, and far more likely to play a match-winning (or even series-winning) innings should he make the side.
There's also the point that Andrew Miller makes towards the end of this article. Buttler, whatever his failings, has a better test record than most of the batting options they've considered and/or taken, despite having played largely as a keeper. So why is he excluded? I think, to some extent, they've started judging Buttler against the player they think he could and should be, rather than against his peers. It's what used to happen with Graeme Hick – yes, he was disappointing when judged against the 'new Bradman' some thought he could be, but his test record was better than all the batsmen they used to bring in to replace him after a couple of failures.
Well, I'd take all that with a pinch of salt, for starters. I can remember several previous England squads being described in the same way, most notably in 1986-87, when it was widely predicted that a resurgent Australia would thrash us. In fact, we won 2-1, but the scoreline flattered the home side hugely. We went into the series with no idea who our openers would be – one of them, Chris Broad, scored three centuries and was man of the series. Incidentally, I can also remember it happening in reverse more than once, with Australian sides arriving on these shores being described as the worst-ever. 1989, anyone?
Still, there's plenty to quibble with in the team the selectors have picked. Gary Ballance, for a start. He may have a great first-class average, and his test average of 37 is OK, but he started his test career well and has been getting steadily worse, as quality seam attacks have discovered exactly where to bowl to him, given his lack of foot movement. I can't see him performing any better in Australia, whether he bats at 3 or 5.
The selection of James Vince is similarly strange, although in its defence, this will be only his second chance (Ballance is on, what, his fifth?), and there's reason to think that his technique might be suited to Australian pitches. But to be honest, I wouldn't have taken either. They have good reasons for not wanting to plunge newcomers into the fray, but if they had to go back to someone from the past, why not Alex Hales (who also has a technique suited to Aussie pitches, and who has played successfully there)?
I don't understand the selection of Mason Crane as the second spinner - he's struggled to get into Hampshire's team most of the season, while over at Somerset Jack Leach has turned in a second consecutive 60-wicket year (despite having to remodel his action). More to the point, the second spinner will probably spend most of the series carrying drinks, and only be called upon if Moeen is injured or suffers a catastrophic loss of form. If they do get the call, they're more likely to be asked to do a holding job than to become an instant match-winner, and Leach seems a much better bowler in that respect.
Finally, the wicketkeepers. Ben Foakes is probably the best actual keeper in the country, and he can bat a bit, too. But as with the spinners, he's only likely to play if the man in possession, Jonny Bairstow, gets injured. In that situation, coming in cold (because there are few matches outside the tests), is he really likely to hit the ground running? Jos Buttler, on the other hand, is one of those batsmen for whom both form and pressure seem to be irrelevant – he plays the same way whatever. He has underachieved for England in tests, but he seems to me to be the best back-up for Bairstow we have, and far more likely to play a match-winning (or even series-winning) innings should he make the side.
There's also the point that Andrew Miller makes towards the end of this article. Buttler, whatever his failings, has a better test record than most of the batting options they've considered and/or taken, despite having played largely as a keeper. So why is he excluded? I think, to some extent, they've started judging Buttler against the player they think he could and should be, rather than against his peers. It's what used to happen with Graeme Hick – yes, he was disappointing when judged against the 'new Bradman' some thought he could be, but his test record was better than all the batsmen they used to bring in to replace him after a couple of failures.
Thursday, 15 September 2016
Winter tour selections
Back in my schooldays, the pre-internet information wasteland of the 1980s (Ceefax seemed impossibly hi-tech), I used to look forward to the announcement of the England cricket touring team with great eagerness. It was a landmark – after two or three weeks back at school, on some warm, hazy September day, you'd hear the news on the radio, and you'd always be surprised by one or two of the names.
That wasn't always a good thing. There was a time when a single eye-catching performance in the Gillette Cup (later NatWest Trophy) Final at the start of September could propel you into the winter tour party. Roland Butcher did it in 1980, but there were others, and the players involved rarely went on to have long international careers.
These days, there are far fewer surprises. Consistency of selection has generally been a good thing and has played its part in England's generally better performances since the turn of the century (some good captains and coaches, central contracts, and more competitive county cricket have also helped). But I can't help missing the old days a bit, when a couple of names would always send you scurrying to the bookshelves to dig out the Playfair Cricket Annual and swot up on the players chosen.
This year, there's room for a few left-field selections. Alex Hales has opted not to tour Bangladesh, which leaves a spot for a new opener (he's quite possibly have been dropped anyway), and the struggles of England's middle order means there are other batting places up for grabs too. A third spinner will be needed.
So, I turned my mind to selecting my own touring party for Bangladesh, ahead of tomorrow's announcement. I'd keep pretty much the same squad for the India tour too. The first XI would be my starting line-up for the first test.
Alistair Cook
Haseeb Hameed
Ben Duckett
Joe Root
Jonny Bairstow
Ben Stokes
Jos Buttler
Moeen Ali
Adil Rashid
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson
Chris Woakes
Steve Finn
Jack Leach
Stuart Robson
Leach has come through strongly this season, although I think it's unlikely that we'll play three spinners in any one match. Robson looks a better player now than when he was first selected for England, and Duckett will certainly play for England sooner or later.
I wonder how many I'll have got right?
That wasn't always a good thing. There was a time when a single eye-catching performance in the Gillette Cup (later NatWest Trophy) Final at the start of September could propel you into the winter tour party. Roland Butcher did it in 1980, but there were others, and the players involved rarely went on to have long international careers.
These days, there are far fewer surprises. Consistency of selection has generally been a good thing and has played its part in England's generally better performances since the turn of the century (some good captains and coaches, central contracts, and more competitive county cricket have also helped). But I can't help missing the old days a bit, when a couple of names would always send you scurrying to the bookshelves to dig out the Playfair Cricket Annual and swot up on the players chosen.
This year, there's room for a few left-field selections. Alex Hales has opted not to tour Bangladesh, which leaves a spot for a new opener (he's quite possibly have been dropped anyway), and the struggles of England's middle order means there are other batting places up for grabs too. A third spinner will be needed.
So, I turned my mind to selecting my own touring party for Bangladesh, ahead of tomorrow's announcement. I'd keep pretty much the same squad for the India tour too. The first XI would be my starting line-up for the first test.
Alistair Cook
Haseeb Hameed
Ben Duckett
Joe Root
Jonny Bairstow
Ben Stokes
Jos Buttler
Moeen Ali
Adil Rashid
Stuart Broad
Jimmy Anderson
Chris Woakes
Steve Finn
Jack Leach
Stuart Robson
Leach has come through strongly this season, although I think it's unlikely that we'll play three spinners in any one match. Robson looks a better player now than when he was first selected for England, and Duckett will certainly play for England sooner or later.
I wonder how many I'll have got right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)