This was also the first week in which Marcus Trescothick has ever been dropped from the England team, being replaced in the side for yesterday's game by another player for whom I have a lot of time, Middlesex's Irishman Ed Joyce. Joyce began well, striking two boundaries off Shoaib before edging a catch behind off Mohammad Asif, but anybody can do that. Hopefully he'll be around for a lot longer.
As for Marcus, well, I'm not so sure. He's been struggling for form all summer, and his exclusion from the side came on the back of an announcement that he was suffering from an unspecified 'stress-related illness', and wouldn't be travelling to the ICC Champions Trophy, although there seems no question, as perhaps Fletcher's ultimate protege, of him failing to make the plane to Australia. His days on the international cricket treadmill, however, seem numbered. His premature return from India earlier this year was shrouded in mystery, although it seemed obvious that domestic problems were at the root of it, and this week came the acknowledgement in the press that his wife has been suffering from post-natal depression, not an easy thing to cope with if your partner is in constant attendance but even harder if he's away playing cricket on an almost permanent basis. However, it now appears as though the explanation given by the ECB 'media machine' (hardly an appropriate metaphor, but you know what I mean and I can't think of anything better just now) and himself some time after he returned from India - that he was suffering from 'a virus' - may have had more truth in it than was supposed at the time by most people. The bottom line is probably that more than five years of almost constant travelling and playing has taken a toll on Trescothick's health, and it may be that he needs to take a permanent step off the treadmill in order to regain the equilibrium that used to be such an admirable and essential facet of his character, and, by extension, his batting.
Although I've never met him, I have watched Marcus bat regularly for more than a decade now, from his days in the England Under-19 side, through his early struggles with Somerset to his years at the top of the England order. As a number of media commentators have said, he's a humble, personable, consistent man who loves cricket and especially batting. But it's becoming increasingly clear that he's finding it harder and harder to cope with the amount of time he has to spend away from his family.
My money would be on him retiring from One-Day Internationals sooner rather than later, perhaps after the World Cup, a move which would hopefully prolong his Test career. He will, though, need to score some runs.
Brisbane wouldn't be a bad place to start.
9.9.06
That Was The Week That Was
Almost a week has gone by since I last posted and a lot has happened. But then I find that most weeks are like that - a lot happens but they seem to go incredibly quickly. I've had many a conversation with friends and colleagues (wage slaves all) about this over recent years and we never come to any very firm conclusions about what's behind it other than 'the pace of modern life'. Perhaps that's what Marcus Trescothick is suffering from, or perhaps it's just the pace of Shoaib Akhtar, something to which I've thankfully never been subjected.
Since I was last here England have played two more ODIs against Pakistan, losing at the Rose Bowl (where Younis Khan's magnificent century stood out) and then, just when otherwise sane people (and some journalists) were almost starting to wonder if they'd ever win another match against a major country, completing a handsome victory at Trent Bridge yesterday. I only really saw the England innings after returning from work, but it looked as though Lewis, Yardy and Dalrymple bowled well, and Andrew Strauss, and especially Ian Bell, certainly batted well. In fact, if anyone who hasn't got a Sky subscription is reading this (or even if anyone is reading this), get one. It's well worth the money, and when all is said and done, it allows you to watch Ian Bell bat.
And that, as the 2006 English season draws to a close, is about as good as it gets.
Since I was last here England have played two more ODIs against Pakistan, losing at the Rose Bowl (where Younis Khan's magnificent century stood out) and then, just when otherwise sane people (and some journalists) were almost starting to wonder if they'd ever win another match against a major country, completing a handsome victory at Trent Bridge yesterday. I only really saw the England innings after returning from work, but it looked as though Lewis, Yardy and Dalrymple bowled well, and Andrew Strauss, and especially Ian Bell, certainly batted well. In fact, if anyone who hasn't got a Sky subscription is reading this (or even if anyone is reading this), get one. It's well worth the money, and when all is said and done, it allows you to watch Ian Bell bat.
And that, as the 2006 English season draws to a close, is about as good as it gets.
3.9.06
Davies for Read for Jones?
Spent a few hours this afternoon watching the Pro 40 game between Worcestershire and Derbyshire on Sky. Some good fielding from both sides and a comfortable win for Worcestershire to go top of the Second Division. The Derbyshire side was very young, including one sixteen year-old, Daniel Redfern, who looked like the youngest person seen on an English first-class ground since India brought Parthiv Patel (17 going on 12) over in 2002.
But what was really notable was the performance of Worcestershire's twenty year-old wicketkeeper-batsman Steven Davies - a smooth half-century, some sound and occasionally brilliant keeping and a couple of personable and blandly articulate interviews. Atherton, having not seen him before, was clearly impressed, and even Bob Willis got a little bit excited at one point.
All in all a pretty handy package, and one can't help feeling that Read and Jones are both just keeping the England berth warm for him. I reckon he'll be in the England side within three years and will stay there for a long time.
You didn't hear it here first.
But what was really notable was the performance of Worcestershire's twenty year-old wicketkeeper-batsman Steven Davies - a smooth half-century, some sound and occasionally brilliant keeping and a couple of personable and blandly articulate interviews. Atherton, having not seen him before, was clearly impressed, and even Bob Willis got a little bit excited at one point.
All in all a pretty handy package, and one can't help feeling that Read and Jones are both just keeping the England berth warm for him. I reckon he'll be in the England side within three years and will stay there for a long time.
You didn't hear it here first.
Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow?
Now that the dust has settled after what happened at The Oval two weeks ago - and it's probably especially thick on Malcolm Speed's desk in Dubai - it's time to consider what went on.
The focus of the 'debate' (if the rather sickly blend of unvarnished hindsight, exaggeration and self-righteousness which has dominated the media can be dignified with that title) has been the actions on the day and subsequent conduct of Darrell Hair. While, as I stated in the brief post which I produced on the fateful evening, I can see that there was fault on both sides, I think that the incessant concentration on Hair's actions and assumed motivations has been unbalanced and unfair and has contrived to move the debate away from a proper assessment of the deeds of the Pakistan team and those of Hair's fellow umpire on the day, the Dominican Billy Doctrove.
Indeed, such has been the clamour to condemn Hair that most people who have made comments about the controversy (and that, my friends, is a lot of people) seem to have forgotten or deliberately ignored the fact that there were two umpires on the field on the day and the decision to replace the ball and award five penalty runs to England was taken jointly. True, Hair was the senior partner, and all visible evidence suggested that he took the initiative in the decision by first examining the ball, then discussing its condition with Doctrove, then beckoning Trevor Jesty onto the field with the replacement balls and finally signalling the penalty runs. But is it reasonable to assume that Doctrove, although an inexperienced umpire at Test level, would not have had the courage to debate the point with Hair if he did not agree that the condition of the ball was suspicious? Perhaps so, but the fact is that the decision was, at least in terms of protocol, a joint one, and while Hair has been cast into the wilderness, Doctrove was happily umpiring at Lord's yesterday (if he did look a bit cold at times).
Of course, it's also true to say that Hair, having begun to dig a small hole for himself (initially sharing the spade with Doctrove), has gone on to dig himself deeper and deeper into it, to the point where his head is surely about to disappear for good. His e-mailed offer to resign from the ICC's elite panel of umpires in return for a very substantial sum of money was crass, ill-timed and presumptuous, and has done more to seal his fate than any of his other actions in the saga. While it is likely that Hair would have continued to umpire at international level for some time and the sum concerned - we must assume - was roughly equivalent to what he would have earned over that period, how can he say that he would not have suffered a catastrophic loss of form or some other misfortune and been replaced in advance of his time anyway? If he was going to resign (and, since he clearly believed that he was in the right in changing the ball and then abandoning the match, why would he have done so?) he should simply have indicated as much and waited for his employers to suggest a suitable compensation figure.
With all this said, I think that it's a pity that Hair will be lost to international cricket, as, technically, he has always been a very good umpire (not perfect, but nobody, not even the blessed Simon Taufel, is). His main faults lie in a certain inflexibility of temperament and the fact that he has the courage to take unpopular decisions which he believes to be right, no matter what the potential consequences. Given his previous problems with Asian sides, including Pakistan, it was inevitable that trouble would follow the Oval decision, but too much of the comment which has followed has placed Hair a little too firmly in the wrong and failed to consider the fact that the actions of the Pakistan team were very far from being above reproach.
While the whole affair might have been avoided if Hair (or, even better, Doctrove) had spoken to Inzamam before replacing the ball and awarding the penalty runs, the actions of the Pakistan side in refusing to play when instructed to do so were a clear example of the type of weakness of temperament and spirit which has always prevented them, with one or two exceptions, from fulfilling their potential on the field. God knows, they were on top in the game at the time and could have salvaged a consolation victory from a series in which they had performed very poorly. That they chose to remain in their dressing room when surely they could have taken possession of even more of the moral high ground with a victory, was always guaranteed to cloud the waters of the debate in the eyes of those people (myself included) who tend towards the view that the decisions of officials in any sport are best regarded as being right even when they're transparently wrong.
Of course, the real problem lies in the framing of Law 42 (3) (d) (iii), which empowers the umpires to award five penalty runs against the fielding side in a case of adjudged ball tampering, without the fielding side having any opportunity to present a case for the defence. There can be little doubt that at The Oval the sense of injustice felt by the Pakistan side was compounded by the fact that when Hair and Doctrove took their decision they were not just being accused of ball tampering. In the eyes of the umpires, they were already guilty.
In among all the guff written by people who clearly didn't know better, two articles stood out. One by Martin Samuel in The Times, which, broadly speaking, put the case for the umpire's decision being final, and one by The Observer's veteran columnist Jon Henderson, who attempted, by reference to the Greig-Kallicharran incident in Port-of-Spain in 1974, to reassure younger readers (and that's most of us) that the Test world wasn't about to stop turning.
Not that I ever thought it would.
The focus of the 'debate' (if the rather sickly blend of unvarnished hindsight, exaggeration and self-righteousness which has dominated the media can be dignified with that title) has been the actions on the day and subsequent conduct of Darrell Hair. While, as I stated in the brief post which I produced on the fateful evening, I can see that there was fault on both sides, I think that the incessant concentration on Hair's actions and assumed motivations has been unbalanced and unfair and has contrived to move the debate away from a proper assessment of the deeds of the Pakistan team and those of Hair's fellow umpire on the day, the Dominican Billy Doctrove.
Indeed, such has been the clamour to condemn Hair that most people who have made comments about the controversy (and that, my friends, is a lot of people) seem to have forgotten or deliberately ignored the fact that there were two umpires on the field on the day and the decision to replace the ball and award five penalty runs to England was taken jointly. True, Hair was the senior partner, and all visible evidence suggested that he took the initiative in the decision by first examining the ball, then discussing its condition with Doctrove, then beckoning Trevor Jesty onto the field with the replacement balls and finally signalling the penalty runs. But is it reasonable to assume that Doctrove, although an inexperienced umpire at Test level, would not have had the courage to debate the point with Hair if he did not agree that the condition of the ball was suspicious? Perhaps so, but the fact is that the decision was, at least in terms of protocol, a joint one, and while Hair has been cast into the wilderness, Doctrove was happily umpiring at Lord's yesterday (if he did look a bit cold at times).
Of course, it's also true to say that Hair, having begun to dig a small hole for himself (initially sharing the spade with Doctrove), has gone on to dig himself deeper and deeper into it, to the point where his head is surely about to disappear for good. His e-mailed offer to resign from the ICC's elite panel of umpires in return for a very substantial sum of money was crass, ill-timed and presumptuous, and has done more to seal his fate than any of his other actions in the saga. While it is likely that Hair would have continued to umpire at international level for some time and the sum concerned - we must assume - was roughly equivalent to what he would have earned over that period, how can he say that he would not have suffered a catastrophic loss of form or some other misfortune and been replaced in advance of his time anyway? If he was going to resign (and, since he clearly believed that he was in the right in changing the ball and then abandoning the match, why would he have done so?) he should simply have indicated as much and waited for his employers to suggest a suitable compensation figure.
With all this said, I think that it's a pity that Hair will be lost to international cricket, as, technically, he has always been a very good umpire (not perfect, but nobody, not even the blessed Simon Taufel, is). His main faults lie in a certain inflexibility of temperament and the fact that he has the courage to take unpopular decisions which he believes to be right, no matter what the potential consequences. Given his previous problems with Asian sides, including Pakistan, it was inevitable that trouble would follow the Oval decision, but too much of the comment which has followed has placed Hair a little too firmly in the wrong and failed to consider the fact that the actions of the Pakistan team were very far from being above reproach.
While the whole affair might have been avoided if Hair (or, even better, Doctrove) had spoken to Inzamam before replacing the ball and awarding the penalty runs, the actions of the Pakistan side in refusing to play when instructed to do so were a clear example of the type of weakness of temperament and spirit which has always prevented them, with one or two exceptions, from fulfilling their potential on the field. God knows, they were on top in the game at the time and could have salvaged a consolation victory from a series in which they had performed very poorly. That they chose to remain in their dressing room when surely they could have taken possession of even more of the moral high ground with a victory, was always guaranteed to cloud the waters of the debate in the eyes of those people (myself included) who tend towards the view that the decisions of officials in any sport are best regarded as being right even when they're transparently wrong.
Of course, the real problem lies in the framing of Law 42 (3) (d) (iii), which empowers the umpires to award five penalty runs against the fielding side in a case of adjudged ball tampering, without the fielding side having any opportunity to present a case for the defence. There can be little doubt that at The Oval the sense of injustice felt by the Pakistan side was compounded by the fact that when Hair and Doctrove took their decision they were not just being accused of ball tampering. In the eyes of the umpires, they were already guilty.
In among all the guff written by people who clearly didn't know better, two articles stood out. One by Martin Samuel in The Times, which, broadly speaking, put the case for the umpire's decision being final, and one by The Observer's veteran columnist Jon Henderson, who attempted, by reference to the Greig-Kallicharran incident in Port-of-Spain in 1974, to reassure younger readers (and that's most of us) that the Test world wasn't about to stop turning.
Not that I ever thought it would.
2.9.06
Where the Hell is (the) King of Prussia?
I've been writing this blog for two months now and I'm still:
a. Managing to think of things to write about (and relatively lucidly at that)
and
b. Enjoying it
What's more, a few people seem to read it, only a few of whom are my friends. I've had a visit from somebody in Singapore, a few recent ones from Australia and a surprising number from America, my favourite being one from 'King of Prussia, Pennsylvania'. I've been meaning to Google it to find out, but I assume that's a place and not a person.
However, although my original intention was to write about cricket and rugby, I've now decided to stick to cricket (with perhaps the odd mention of whatever else I'm doing in my life), even though the rugby season's just started and my team won today. If I can't resist the temptation to write about rugby later in the season I'll start another blog.
Announcement over. I'm off for a bath.
a. Managing to think of things to write about (and relatively lucidly at that)
and
b. Enjoying it
What's more, a few people seem to read it, only a few of whom are my friends. I've had a visit from somebody in Singapore, a few recent ones from Australia and a surprising number from America, my favourite being one from 'King of Prussia, Pennsylvania'. I've been meaning to Google it to find out, but I assume that's a place and not a person.
However, although my original intention was to write about cricket and rugby, I've now decided to stick to cricket (with perhaps the odd mention of whatever else I'm doing in my life), even though the rugby season's just started and my team won today. If I can't resist the temptation to write about rugby later in the season I'll start another blog.
Announcement over. I'm off for a bath.
Interesting Times
It's often seemed as though the cricket world's been going mad these last two weeks and I've been away in Derbyshire visiting my family, so I haven't managed to post anything for a while. Now that things are returning to normal (England are losing a One-Day International as I write) it seems as though it's time to jot down a few thoughts.
I haven't got much to say about England's continued problems in limited-over cricket apart from stating what seems to be obvious, namely that if they'd been up against the current Pakistan attack - with Shoaib Akhtar, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and the massively impressive and skilful Mohammad Asif all firing - earlier in the summer, it seems highly unlikely that they would have won the Test series. In fact, in all probability they would have lost it and would be going to Australia having failed to win a series since the conclusion of the last Ashes contest. However, as the pros (and various other people, including me) always say, you can only beat what's put in front of you. This England did, but their uneasy and complacent performance at The Oval until they were let off the hook by Pakistan perhaps gave a clearer pointer to how tough things are likely to be in Australia than their comfortable wins at Old Trafford and Headingley.
Meanwhile, on the domestic scene, two tales from the last few days stand out. One, Graeme Hick (you may remember that I follow his career quite closely) scored two centuries for Worcestershire against Essex, and two, a pair of leg-spinners, Yorkshire's Mark Lawson (6-88) and Adil Rashid (4-96), bowled out Middlesex at Headingley.
The first time that's happened for a while, surely, but hopefully not the last.
I haven't got much to say about England's continued problems in limited-over cricket apart from stating what seems to be obvious, namely that if they'd been up against the current Pakistan attack - with Shoaib Akhtar, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and the massively impressive and skilful Mohammad Asif all firing - earlier in the summer, it seems highly unlikely that they would have won the Test series. In fact, in all probability they would have lost it and would be going to Australia having failed to win a series since the conclusion of the last Ashes contest. However, as the pros (and various other people, including me) always say, you can only beat what's put in front of you. This England did, but their uneasy and complacent performance at The Oval until they were let off the hook by Pakistan perhaps gave a clearer pointer to how tough things are likely to be in Australia than their comfortable wins at Old Trafford and Headingley.
Meanwhile, on the domestic scene, two tales from the last few days stand out. One, Graeme Hick (you may remember that I follow his career quite closely) scored two centuries for Worcestershire against Essex, and two, a pair of leg-spinners, Yorkshire's Mark Lawson (6-88) and Adil Rashid (4-96), bowled out Middlesex at Headingley.
The first time that's happened for a while, surely, but hopefully not the last.
20.8.06
Shep in Retirement, Hair in the Spotlight
There was something a little bit unexpected, a little bit interesting, a little bit poignant and a little bit thought-provoking about coming across England's most experienced international umpire on the day which gave us the biggest umpiring controversy to hit international cricket since...oh, since the last time Darrell Hair annoyed an Asian Test team.
David Shepherd, in his capacity as President of Devon CCC, was at Exmouth, watching Devon play Wales in the Minor Counties Championship. As the sun glinted off the water in the bay, the swallows soared and swooped over the ground, and the former Somerset and Surrey bowler Ian Bishop gave one of the best demonstrations of fast-medium outswing bowling you could ever wish to see, the controversy of The Oval seemed a very long way away.
Shep in retirement is still an avuncular and genial figure; he's lost some weight and acquired some glasses. But what, in the position in which the Oval umpires found themselves, would he have done?
He wasn't saying, but it's a fair bet that he might have shown a bit more tact than Hair and had a quiet word with Inzamam before deciding to award any penalty runs. Hair (and, by association, Billy Doctrove) probably got things either slightly wrong (if the damage to the ball was illegally caused) or very wrong (if, as the Pakistan team seem to be claiming, nothing dubious happened at all).
The indignation of the Pakistan team can be understood, as can their perceived need to make a stand. However, when you're playing cricket at the highest level (or any level) it's generally best to get yourself onto the field when the umpires say so.
If you don't, you might just find that they've applied the laws of the game and you've lost a match which you could - indeed should - have won.
David Shepherd, in his capacity as President of Devon CCC, was at Exmouth, watching Devon play Wales in the Minor Counties Championship. As the sun glinted off the water in the bay, the swallows soared and swooped over the ground, and the former Somerset and Surrey bowler Ian Bishop gave one of the best demonstrations of fast-medium outswing bowling you could ever wish to see, the controversy of The Oval seemed a very long way away.
Shep in retirement is still an avuncular and genial figure; he's lost some weight and acquired some glasses. But what, in the position in which the Oval umpires found themselves, would he have done?
He wasn't saying, but it's a fair bet that he might have shown a bit more tact than Hair and had a quiet word with Inzamam before deciding to award any penalty runs. Hair (and, by association, Billy Doctrove) probably got things either slightly wrong (if the damage to the ball was illegally caused) or very wrong (if, as the Pakistan team seem to be claiming, nothing dubious happened at all).
The indignation of the Pakistan team can be understood, as can their perceived need to make a stand. However, when you're playing cricket at the highest level (or any level) it's generally best to get yourself onto the field when the umpires say so.
If you don't, you might just find that they've applied the laws of the game and you've lost a match which you could - indeed should - have won.
17.8.06
Good Arrows, Alastair!
I love browsing The Surfer on Cricinfo to see what cricket stories are around in the world's newspapers. Today they've come up with this.
It has the kind of blandness readily associated with ghost-written pap but there's no reason to believe it's not true.
I can see Alastair Cook as many things (such as a great batsman) but a darts professional isn't one of them. He's just a bit too, well, wholesome for it, and a lurid baggy darts shirt really wouldn't suit him.
I wonder if he's read London Fields?
It has the kind of blandness readily associated with ghost-written pap but there's no reason to believe it's not true.
I can see Alastair Cook as many things (such as a great batsman) but a darts professional isn't one of them. He's just a bit too, well, wholesome for it, and a lurid baggy darts shirt really wouldn't suit him.
I wonder if he's read London Fields?
Hick Stays
The best news of the week for some of us - like me and The Guardian's long-term Hick devotee Simon Hattenstone, who wrote this, was the decision by Graeme Hick to sign a one-year extension to his current Worcestershire contract and stay at New Road until, in all probability, the end of his career. Derbyshire were interested in signing him and some rumours were being circulated that he might have been interested in leaving Worcester, but I could never imagine it happening. Some players stay with counties so long, and achieve so much, that they become virtually synonymous with that county. Hick is one of those, and something about English cricket just wouldn't be right if he played for anyone else.
Some of my reasons for thinking that are here.
Some of my reasons for thinking that are here.
13.8.06
Twenty20 Champions
When Somerset's Graeme Smith hammered the Leicestershire attack all round the County Ground in Taunton to make 311 in a day in July 2005, a forlorn Foxes fan in the crowd kept trying to encourage his side's wilting attack by repeatedly shouting 'Come on Leicester, Twenty20 champions!'.
It smacked of clutching at straws, but, at that time they were, indeed, Twenty20 champions, having won the title at Edgbaston in August 2004. And now they are champions again.
Everyone takes Twenty20 seriously these days, but Leicestershire take it more seriously than most. There are few secrets; their game plan is usually to bat first and get good runs on the board, frequently courtesy of Darren Maddy, and then apply pressure with the ball and in the field. Economical pace and movement from Stuart Broad, slow variation from Jeremy Snape and Claude Henderson. It's not original, but it seems to work most times.
And Broad really does look good. But some caution would be wise. It's barely more than a year since he was one of the bowlers being humiliated by Smith, and most good young English bowlers collect injuries faster than they take wickets.
If he can avoid doing that, he's one to watch.
It smacked of clutching at straws, but, at that time they were, indeed, Twenty20 champions, having won the title at Edgbaston in August 2004. And now they are champions again.
Everyone takes Twenty20 seriously these days, but Leicestershire take it more seriously than most. There are few secrets; their game plan is usually to bat first and get good runs on the board, frequently courtesy of Darren Maddy, and then apply pressure with the ball and in the field. Economical pace and movement from Stuart Broad, slow variation from Jeremy Snape and Claude Henderson. It's not original, but it seems to work most times.
And Broad really does look good. But some caution would be wise. It's barely more than a year since he was one of the bowlers being humiliated by Smith, and most good young English bowlers collect injuries faster than they take wickets.
If he can avoid doing that, he's one to watch.
10.8.06
Last Train from Guildford
News of Martin Bicknell's retirement led me to think over the career of one of the best English seam bowlers of his generation.
He was, as everybody has said, desperately unlucky to win just four England caps. I think he was pigeonholed early in his career as just another injury-prone young bowler, an unfair and premature verdict which condemned him to a few more hours bowling in the shadow of the Oval gasholders than he deserved.
Not that he, as a Surrey man through and through, would have seen it that way, and his sentiments about his Test career, as recorded in Jenny Thompson's interview here are admirable and heartfelt.
Because he spent so long ploughing the county furrow when he could have been playing for England I didn't see as much of him as I would have liked but I was in front of a television when he set up Jacques Rudolph with a series of away-swingers before bringing one back to kiss the top of his off-stump as he declined to play a shot.
For me, English seam bowling has never got much better than that.
He was, as everybody has said, desperately unlucky to win just four England caps. I think he was pigeonholed early in his career as just another injury-prone young bowler, an unfair and premature verdict which condemned him to a few more hours bowling in the shadow of the Oval gasholders than he deserved.
Not that he, as a Surrey man through and through, would have seen it that way, and his sentiments about his Test career, as recorded in Jenny Thompson's interview here are admirable and heartfelt.
Because he spent so long ploughing the county furrow when he could have been playing for England I didn't see as much of him as I would have liked but I was in front of a television when he set up Jacques Rudolph with a series of away-swingers before bringing one back to kiss the top of his off-stump as he declined to play a shot.
For me, English seam bowling has never got much better than that.
8.8.06
As The World Turns
It seems these days as though on any given day there's usually at least a couple of Test matches going on somewhere around the world. We've just seen Sri Lanka defeat South Africa by one wicket in what was obviously a thrilling finish, and England draw away to a much more comfortable win over Pakistan.
I didn't see much of either game (well, I didn't see any of the Sri Lankan one) so it's difficult to comment in depth, but it's enough to say that I've always regarded Mahela Jayawardene as a truly special batsman and it's been good to have his greatness confirmed these past few months.
It's also true to say that I couldn't stand Dean Jones as a commentator - something to do with his excessive mateyness and his inability to say anything remotely original - and I won't lose any sleep if he's never heard from again after his, er, 'clumsy' remark during the Colombo game.
Back in Leeds (I can't quite bring myself to refer to the ground as 'Headingley Carnegie'), England were excellent, while Pakistan were very disappointing, capitulating lamely to an England side that played increasingly tight and powerful cricket on either side of the Pennines.
Prior to the series much was made of the influence of Woolmer's coaching, his relationship with Inzamam and the players' discovery and re-discovery of Islamic devotion in turning the Pakistan side from a perennially inconsistent blend of disparate talents and personalities into a lean and mean unit that was good enough to challenge the world's best. While there appeared to be something in this during the last English winter, especially in the home series victory over England, they have fallen away badly on this tour, something which they, and their many followers, must feel very uncomfortable about.
I didn't see much of either game (well, I didn't see any of the Sri Lankan one) so it's difficult to comment in depth, but it's enough to say that I've always regarded Mahela Jayawardene as a truly special batsman and it's been good to have his greatness confirmed these past few months.
It's also true to say that I couldn't stand Dean Jones as a commentator - something to do with his excessive mateyness and his inability to say anything remotely original - and I won't lose any sleep if he's never heard from again after his, er, 'clumsy' remark during the Colombo game.
Back in Leeds (I can't quite bring myself to refer to the ground as 'Headingley Carnegie'), England were excellent, while Pakistan were very disappointing, capitulating lamely to an England side that played increasingly tight and powerful cricket on either side of the Pennines.
Prior to the series much was made of the influence of Woolmer's coaching, his relationship with Inzamam and the players' discovery and re-discovery of Islamic devotion in turning the Pakistan side from a perennially inconsistent blend of disparate talents and personalities into a lean and mean unit that was good enough to challenge the world's best. While there appeared to be something in this during the last English winter, especially in the home series victory over England, they have fallen away badly on this tour, something which they, and their many followers, must feel very uncomfortable about.
True, they have been denied the services of Shoaib Akhtar, the vaunted Mohammad Asif and the Hove favourite Rana Naved-ul-Hasan by injury, but, unlike England, who, since Lord's, seem to have drawn strength from the absence of Flintoff (and Vaughan and Giles), Pakistan have withered. They have frequently appeared little more than a three man team, relying almost completely on Mohammad Yousuf, Inzamam and Younis Khan (who didn't even play at Lord's), with no opening pair, a pronounced tendency to drop catches and run each other out, and a range of mediocre bowlers (although we all know what Kaneria is capable of and I maintain that much more will be seen and heard of Umar Gul). All in all, in the last two Tests, much of their cricket has bordered on the shambolic.
England's progress must be set against Pakistan's decline, but there can be no doubt that England have rediscovered an intensity and bite to their game which largely went missing in the first six months after The Ashes were regained.
While life is certainly easier when you're playing at home and have a new player who's better than the hitherto established one whom he's replaced (and no prizes for guessing who I'm talking about), England have shown a desire and mental toughness which has been absent from Pakistan's displays.
Strauss must take much of the credit for this - Fletcher has rightly praised his mental strength, as evidenced by his centuries at Lord's and Leeds and his increasingly assured captaincy - but we've also started to glimpse a little of what Saj Mahmood could be capable of, both with the ball and in the field, where his first innings run out of Younis set the tone for some bristling English out-cricket.
I've already said enough about Harmison and Panesar, Bell, Cook and Collingwood, so the final word on Headingley has to go with Chris Read. As I said after his recall here, I was pleased that he'd been picked again but was concerned about how he would cope with such an intensely pressurized situation. I needn't have worried. He appeared to keep flawlessly, and, after some early luck, batted just about as well as could be expected in both innings. I'm still not convinced that Jones won't be back for Brisbane but Chris has at least given himself a fighting chance.
It's all he ever wanted, and with Fletcher even starting to praise Panesar, you never know where it could lead...
7.8.06
Shot, Monty!
A finely poised Leeds Test as we go into the last day, but England should win.
And who can say that Monty doesn't have at least some batting potential after that cover drive?
And who can say that Monty doesn't have at least some batting potential after that cover drive?
6.8.06
For Whom The Bell Tolls...
What more to say about Ian Bell? Not a lot, except to say again that it's great that he's shown how good he could be and he'll take a lot of shifting now.
Andrew Miller sums up the situation very well here.
Andrew Miller sums up the situation very well here.
4.8.06
Beware Ramps
Over Easter I was chatting with a couple of members of my family about the prospects for the County Championship Division Two season (my Dad follows Derbyshire, you see). We didn't come to many firm conclusions but I do remember suggesting that Surrey would win it and 'Ramprakash will make millions of runs'.
That was obviously an exaggeration, but I knew that Mark Ramprakash would lay waste to the division's bowlers. And he has. The latest instalment was a career-best 301 not out against Northants at The Oval, an innings which, to me, had a remarkable inevitability about it. He was dismissed on 292 against Gloucestershire early in the season, but I was virtually certain, after he ended the first day on 174, that he'd make 300 this time.
It must be difficult at times, being Mark Ramprakash. To know that for much of the nineties you were one of the best batsmen in the whole world, but that you never managed to prove yourself properly at the highest level of the game, so you've been left to pile up runs against bowlers barely fit to lace your boots. But the runs still have to be made, and, whenever you hear him interviewed, he seems to have reconciled himself with the vicissitudes of his past.
And he's not alone, either in terms of past experiences or the quality of his batting. Down in Southampton John Crawley also continues to pile up runs like there's no tomorrow.
It must be difficult at times, being a county bowler.
That was obviously an exaggeration, but I knew that Mark Ramprakash would lay waste to the division's bowlers. And he has. The latest instalment was a career-best 301 not out against Northants at The Oval, an innings which, to me, had a remarkable inevitability about it. He was dismissed on 292 against Gloucestershire early in the season, but I was virtually certain, after he ended the first day on 174, that he'd make 300 this time.
It must be difficult at times, being Mark Ramprakash. To know that for much of the nineties you were one of the best batsmen in the whole world, but that you never managed to prove yourself properly at the highest level of the game, so you've been left to pile up runs against bowlers barely fit to lace your boots. But the runs still have to be made, and, whenever you hear him interviewed, he seems to have reconciled himself with the vicissitudes of his past.
And he's not alone, either in terms of past experiences or the quality of his batting. Down in Southampton John Crawley also continues to pile up runs like there's no tomorrow.
It must be difficult at times, being a county bowler.
31.7.06
Read for Jones
Well, having wanted Chris Read to replace Geraint Jones for much of the last two years, I've got mixed feelings now it's finally happened.
Jones's keeping has been a lot better this season and he was virtually flawless at both Lord's and Old Trafford. His batting, though, has become increasingly hesitant, and I felt that his inability to get a shift on at an important time had a lot to do with England's delayed declaration at Lord's. As Geoff Boycott, in his characteristically compassionate and understated way, said on TMS during the Lord's Test: 'He's gone from being a batsman who can't keep to being a keeper who can't bat'.
Truth is, he's now a pretty good keeper who's simply going through a very bad trot with the bat, and I feel slightly sorry for him, having worked so hard to improve what was (correctly) perceived as his weakness, only to find that his form in the stronger part of his game has deserted him.
The timing of the change is surprising. With only two more Tests before the resumption of the battle for the Ashes, I had largely given up hope of seeing Read recalled, and, considering Jones's improvement behind the stumps, the more conservative move (and how frequently do English cricket selectors spurn the conservative option?) would have been to stick with the Kent man.
I doubt if it was rationalized (or even discussed) in these terms, but the move smacks of an attempt by the selectors to settle the argument once and for all. Time for Read to put up or shut up. Avoid any fatal errors with the gloves and make a few runs and you'll arrive in Brisbane as first choice, fail in either department (but especially with the bat), and you won't. Come back Geraint, all is forgiven.
As I've said before, I've got a natural affinity with Read as I've watched him since he first got into the Devon side at the age of sixteen, but I've become slightly concerned about some of the stuff that's been written about him in the press, which may have led people to believe that he's some sort of cross between Alan Knott, Bob Taylor and Jack Russell.
He's a good keeper - but not a great one - and he's always been able to bat, an area of the game which unquestionably let him down during his previous flirtations with the Test side. He's worked on that, made plenty of runs, and deserves a go. But the pressure will really be on.
This is Chris Read's big opportunity. I just hope it's not too big.
Jones's keeping has been a lot better this season and he was virtually flawless at both Lord's and Old Trafford. His batting, though, has become increasingly hesitant, and I felt that his inability to get a shift on at an important time had a lot to do with England's delayed declaration at Lord's. As Geoff Boycott, in his characteristically compassionate and understated way, said on TMS during the Lord's Test: 'He's gone from being a batsman who can't keep to being a keeper who can't bat'.
Truth is, he's now a pretty good keeper who's simply going through a very bad trot with the bat, and I feel slightly sorry for him, having worked so hard to improve what was (correctly) perceived as his weakness, only to find that his form in the stronger part of his game has deserted him.
The timing of the change is surprising. With only two more Tests before the resumption of the battle for the Ashes, I had largely given up hope of seeing Read recalled, and, considering Jones's improvement behind the stumps, the more conservative move (and how frequently do English cricket selectors spurn the conservative option?) would have been to stick with the Kent man.
I doubt if it was rationalized (or even discussed) in these terms, but the move smacks of an attempt by the selectors to settle the argument once and for all. Time for Read to put up or shut up. Avoid any fatal errors with the gloves and make a few runs and you'll arrive in Brisbane as first choice, fail in either department (but especially with the bat), and you won't. Come back Geraint, all is forgiven.
As I've said before, I've got a natural affinity with Read as I've watched him since he first got into the Devon side at the age of sixteen, but I've become slightly concerned about some of the stuff that's been written about him in the press, which may have led people to believe that he's some sort of cross between Alan Knott, Bob Taylor and Jack Russell.
He's a good keeper - but not a great one - and he's always been able to bat, an area of the game which unquestionably let him down during his previous flirtations with the Test side. He's worked on that, made plenty of runs, and deserves a go. But the pressure will really be on.
This is Chris Read's big opportunity. I just hope it's not too big.
29.7.06
Records are Made to be Broken
For anyone who grew up, as I did, obsessed with cricket statistics (as well as every other aspect of the game), the breaking of records such as the highest partnership in Test and first-class cricket history carries particular significance, and I was strangely tense as I counted the runs down on Cricinfo's ball-by-ball commentary on the Sri Lanka-South Africa Test at the SSC in Colombo this morning.
After the stand between Kumar Sangakkara and his close friend Mahela Jayawardene had ended on 624 I reflected on the fact that it's gratifying that the runs were made against a relatively strong attack, although it was clearly rendered impotent by a combination of unforgiving conditions and fine batting.
Sangakkara, with a number of assured starts which failed to develop, and Jayawardene, with his superb batting at Lord's in particular, gave hints of what they were capable of on their team's tour of England earlier this summer.
Even after a quarter-century of Test cricket, Sri Lankan players still tend to be underestimated, but Sangakkara and Jayawardene are unquestionably among the finest batsmen operating in the world today.
Just look in the book.
After the stand between Kumar Sangakkara and his close friend Mahela Jayawardene had ended on 624 I reflected on the fact that it's gratifying that the runs were made against a relatively strong attack, although it was clearly rendered impotent by a combination of unforgiving conditions and fine batting.
Sangakkara, with a number of assured starts which failed to develop, and Jayawardene, with his superb batting at Lord's in particular, gave hints of what they were capable of on their team's tour of England earlier this summer.
Even after a quarter-century of Test cricket, Sri Lankan players still tend to be underestimated, but Sangakkara and Jayawardene are unquestionably among the finest batsmen operating in the world today.
Just look in the book.
Line and Length, Pace and Spin
After their conservative display at Lord's, where they seemed content to bide their time and wait for Flintoff to return, England's crushing defeat of Pakistan at Old Trafford came as a welcome relief, and a sign that they had come to terms with the fact that they won't be seeing their mate Freddie for another few months and they'd better try to get along without him.
On an unusually helpful surface Steve Harmison produced his best display of fast bowling for more than two years and Monty Panesar again demonstrated what a magnificent bowler he could become.
England haven't had a slow bowler with Panesar's ability to spin the ball since Derek Underwood, and when you consider the fact that he appears unafraid of both reputations and flighting the ball, he could go a very long way indeed.
The apparent obsession with his lack of fielding and batting ability appears increasingly irrelevant. Anyone who's been around the cricket block for more than a couple of years will remember players who make Monty look like Ricky Ponting (Kevin Jarvis and Jim Griffiths to name only two), and, while he clearly struggles in the field, he's working hard to improve and England seem to be doing a very good job of hiding him thus far.
Panesar appears to have captured the public's imagination in a way that few cricketers have managed in recent years and, as an example of the evolution of his country as a multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-cultural society at something approaching ease with itself, the response of English crowds this summer has been resonant and fascinating.
Up until Old Trafford I felt that Ashley Giles would almost certainly return to the side as soon as he's fit, but I'm starting to have my doubts.
Perhaps even Duncan Fletcher is as well.
On an unusually helpful surface Steve Harmison produced his best display of fast bowling for more than two years and Monty Panesar again demonstrated what a magnificent bowler he could become.
England haven't had a slow bowler with Panesar's ability to spin the ball since Derek Underwood, and when you consider the fact that he appears unafraid of both reputations and flighting the ball, he could go a very long way indeed.
The apparent obsession with his lack of fielding and batting ability appears increasingly irrelevant. Anyone who's been around the cricket block for more than a couple of years will remember players who make Monty look like Ricky Ponting (Kevin Jarvis and Jim Griffiths to name only two), and, while he clearly struggles in the field, he's working hard to improve and England seem to be doing a very good job of hiding him thus far.
Panesar appears to have captured the public's imagination in a way that few cricketers have managed in recent years and, as an example of the evolution of his country as a multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-cultural society at something approaching ease with itself, the response of English crowds this summer has been resonant and fascinating.
Up until Old Trafford I felt that Ashley Giles would almost certainly return to the side as soon as he's fit, but I'm starting to have my doubts.
Perhaps even Duncan Fletcher is as well.
28.7.06
Anything You Can Do...
I haven't seen enough of the first two days of the Old Trafford Test. In fact I haven't seen any of it live because I've had to go to work. Inconvenient, that.
Obviously I have been keeping a regular eye on Cricinfo, listening to bits of TMS and I've seen the Sky highlights on the first two evenings, so I have a good idea of what's gone on.
It was great to see Alastair Cook get another hundred, but even better to watch Ian Bell do so, especially when it sounded (and looked) like his best innings for England.
After watching Cook score 89 against Sri Lanka at Lord's in May (and having seen his debut in Nagpur on television) I started telling people that I thought he was going to be England's next truly great batsman. During and after his Lord's century against Pakistan I started to wonder if I'd got a bit too excited, but I now think I got it about right. There's a poise, style and maturity of temperament about Cook that is truly remarkable, and, as he already has a sound defence and a wide range of strokes which will get better, it's a case, for the next ten or twelve years, of 'look out world'.
Bell I'm just really pleased about. Like most people I've had my eye on him for a few years. First saw him play for England Under-19s in the late nineties, knew what Dayle Hadlee had said about him being the best sixteen year-old he'd ever seen, saw his unbeaten 65 in the 2002 Benson and Hedges final, waited for him to do it for England. Saw the assured debut versus the West Indies, the boot-filling against Bangladesh, the struggles against Australia and the intermittent runs during last winter.
I remained a believer, but just a few weeks ago a group of 'Cricket Writers on TV' (couldn't anyone think of a more original title?) were discussing their doubts about his temperament and wondering if he really had it in him to succeed at the highest level.
I can't be sure as I've never got anywhere near meeting him, but Bell does give an impression of diffidence. This doesn't, however, mean that he can't bat. In most cases (and the exceptions are widely known), true quality will always reveal itself, and that is what is now happening with Bell.
I never saw him play as a real junior but, seeing him walk out now it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to see him as a tiny thirteen year-old, the sort of kid who looks as though he's not sure he should be there but goes on to bat like a dream. His technique isn't completely perfect (there's still work to be done around and outside off stump for sure) but it isn't at all bad to be going on with.
And nor are his runs.
Obviously I have been keeping a regular eye on Cricinfo, listening to bits of TMS and I've seen the Sky highlights on the first two evenings, so I have a good idea of what's gone on.
It was great to see Alastair Cook get another hundred, but even better to watch Ian Bell do so, especially when it sounded (and looked) like his best innings for England.
After watching Cook score 89 against Sri Lanka at Lord's in May (and having seen his debut in Nagpur on television) I started telling people that I thought he was going to be England's next truly great batsman. During and after his Lord's century against Pakistan I started to wonder if I'd got a bit too excited, but I now think I got it about right. There's a poise, style and maturity of temperament about Cook that is truly remarkable, and, as he already has a sound defence and a wide range of strokes which will get better, it's a case, for the next ten or twelve years, of 'look out world'.
Bell I'm just really pleased about. Like most people I've had my eye on him for a few years. First saw him play for England Under-19s in the late nineties, knew what Dayle Hadlee had said about him being the best sixteen year-old he'd ever seen, saw his unbeaten 65 in the 2002 Benson and Hedges final, waited for him to do it for England. Saw the assured debut versus the West Indies, the boot-filling against Bangladesh, the struggles against Australia and the intermittent runs during last winter.
I remained a believer, but just a few weeks ago a group of 'Cricket Writers on TV' (couldn't anyone think of a more original title?) were discussing their doubts about his temperament and wondering if he really had it in him to succeed at the highest level.
I can't be sure as I've never got anywhere near meeting him, but Bell does give an impression of diffidence. This doesn't, however, mean that he can't bat. In most cases (and the exceptions are widely known), true quality will always reveal itself, and that is what is now happening with Bell.
I never saw him play as a real junior but, seeing him walk out now it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to see him as a tiny thirteen year-old, the sort of kid who looks as though he's not sure he should be there but goes on to bat like a dream. His technique isn't completely perfect (there's still work to be done around and outside off stump for sure) but it isn't at all bad to be going on with.
And nor are his runs.
23.7.06
Here is the News
Yesterday we had the regrettable, but somehow predictable, news that Andrew Flintoff's ankle injury was more serious than had first been thought (now where have I heard that before?) and that he will be having an operation this week. No more cricket for him this season and a hell of a battle to be fit for the Ashes series which starts in November.
Whether or not he's there it's becoming increasingly hard to see England retaining the Ashes. One short-term compensation: Ian Bell should stay in the side. He deserves to.
On Friday an 18 year-old leg-spinner called Adil Rashid took 6 for 67 on his debut to bowl Yorkshire to an innings victory over Warwickshire at Scarborough.
For more years than I care to remember people have been wondering when Yorkshire would have a regular, successful player from the county's vast Asian community.
Maybe Rashid is the man.
Whether or not he's there it's becoming increasingly hard to see England retaining the Ashes. One short-term compensation: Ian Bell should stay in the side. He deserves to.
On Friday an 18 year-old leg-spinner called Adil Rashid took 6 for 67 on his debut to bowl Yorkshire to an innings victory over Warwickshire at Scarborough.
For more years than I care to remember people have been wondering when Yorkshire would have a regular, successful player from the county's vast Asian community.
Maybe Rashid is the man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
