Cricket Burble sympathy for Symonds

Andrew Symonds has been getting a lot of grief lately and the latest thing that he seems to have done wrong is declined to have his photo taken. The fact that some idiot then decided to take offence to that is hardly his issue. The hotelier there has backed up Symonds version of events so it's clear he's done nothing wrong.

To say that he shouldn't have been there in the first place seems a bit harsh - can he really not have a quiet drink where he wants? When I asked Monty Panesar for a photo in a bar in Kuala Lumpur days before the 2006-07 Ashes flight left, he politely declined and I politely accepted that (scroll down on this page to read the conversation). Symonds was no more in the wrong than Monty was sitting in a bar in Kuala Lumpur days before leaving for the Ashes.

It would be a shame if the likes of Symonds, Flintoff etc can't have a drink without getting grief.

Hong Kong boundaries

It appears that Graham Wagg agrees with John Wright's recent comments about the size of the boundaries in Hong Kong judging from his comments on Quote Unquote on Cricinfo!

"I think my little boy, Brayden, would have a chance of hitting a six out there next year and he's only eight weeks old."

First class teams across the globe

If you've ever wondered which teams around the world are considered "first class" this blog claims to know the answer....

Good captaincy from Dhoni

Interesting to see that Dhoni was employing a slip at 157-3 and that's how India got Flintoff for 0. Given his lack of attacking fielders when England desperately needed wickets in the 3rd ODI that was decided using the Duckworth-Lewis method, I think Dhoni has one over Pietersen in his captaincy skills. Pietersen is all for attacking when batting, but I'm not sure his captaincy matches his batting and talking.....yet!

Mark Butcher has been vocal about wanting Pietersen to change tactics and employ proper spinners in the sub-continent. And he talks at length about considering Panesar for the ODI side - with the benefit of hindsight I agree. We've almost forgotten about Monty as an ODI bowler but I really liked the way he was used by Vaughan when he was skipper as an attacking option. He normally came on as soon as the initial powerplays were over with the intention of taking wickets and sometimes when the seamers were getting hit to every corner of the ground Monty would even come on in the powerplay and take the crucial partnership breaking wicket.

Have we forgotten that spinners can take wickets and attack I wonder? To me it appears that Collingwood and Pietersen see spinners as support for the (apparently) wicket-taking seamers, where as Vaughan saw them as an attacking wicket-taking option. But of course, it could be influenced by Peter Moores as Vaughan hasn't captained an ODI since he's been in charge.

I hope Pietersen proves me wrong in the way that he uses the spinners and sets the field for the rest of England's time in India. It should have been something that they discussed during their much publicised chat yesterday.

England missing a trick

The Observer Sports Monthly magazine yesterday featured a small article talking about some of the "Bolly Wags" - girlfriends of some of the Indian cricket team currently doing so brilliantly against England. It appears from the article that MS Dhoni's girlfriend, Deepika Padukone, has previously gone out with Yuvraj Singh. So given that all else seems to have failed, I hope that England have at least tried to rile Yuvraj about this - perhaps they have and that's why they've only got him out once in four innings!

If reports are to be believed, KP's not averse to the odd comment to try to get under opponents skin with relationship comments - he famously told Shane Watson "you're just upset because no one loves you any more" when he'd just been dumped by his girlfriend.

Given how India are performing at the moment, a few comments to Yuvraj about how Miss Padukone considers MS to be a superior partner surely wouldn't go amiss. And, again if media stories are to be believed, when Dhoni comes in there's scope to rile him too, as various commentators have described it as "difficult to keep up" with who she's seeing.

Some are worried about sledging and it's role in cricket. But, in my opinion, anything none-physical goes and if England aren't having a few words when Yuvraj and MS are batting then they're missing a trick....after all, things can't go any worse, can they?

Indian Perspective

England have been completely outplayed so far in the ODIs over in India and the Indian team seem unstoppable having just beaten Australia. So it's no surprise they are getting the big talk up but, as always, it goes a bit far some times. Remember it was only a few months ago that they lost to Sri Lanka. And they are some distance from Australia in the Test rankings, and only just above South Africa (who play Australia soon).

So it's nice to see a little perspective from one area of the Indian media.

Dangerous Mints

After Marcus Trescothick's revelations and other incidents it was interesting to see Tic Tacs as a sponsor in the current ODI series. Not only that but they seemed to be sponsoring the third umpire system!

Lighten our darkness

Wanted to get in with this post before anybody else because it's so bl***y obvious.
There we are in the richest country on planet cricket and it's a bit dark (but I bet we'd have played) But the floodlights are installed, so no problem.
Well there is if you're not allowed to switch them on.
Madness! and then we had the bizarre sight of the skipper and his colleagues speaking to the umpires in what seemed very polite displeasure as they took them off at the end with overs left. They were obviouly expecting to play in the twilight at the end of the day because they weren't allowed to play in the gloom in the morning!

Remember Tony Cottey?

You're probably thinking that I've spelt Tony Cottee's surname wrong....but no, not Tony Cottee who played for various top-level football teams including England. This is Tony Cottey who won the County Championship with both Glamorgan and Sussex. Personally I quite like the idea of reading an autobiography from someone who didn't play international cricket but who lived and breathed County cricket for nearly two decades. And the Cricinfo review sounds pretty good.

You can buy the book here at Cricket Burble (see right).

Double-sided bats?

It appears that Gray-Nicolls are likely to produce the first double-sided bat for some time. That's not something I saw coming, but why not? If it allows more adventurous strokes that excite the crowd (in all forms of the game!), then that can only be good.

But something tells me fellow Burbler Mark Davis won't like this as the bats are designed to aid the batsman - sacrilege!

Muddled tactics from Bangladesh

Once again South Africa are slaying the Bangladesh bowling attack. Following the 400+ opening stand that Smith and MacKenzie put on in 2007, this time it was Smith and Amla who took the score to 299-1 at the end of a rain-reduced first day.

Of course Mohammed Ashraful, the Bangladesh captain, can do nothing about the lack of talent at his disposal but he and Jamie Siddons, the coach, can at least work out the most appropriate tactics for the match. And in this case that didn't mean winning the toss and fielding first.

If you assess Bangladesh and South Africa man for man, the only possible area that Bangladesh have an advantage is their spinner. Shakib Al-Hassan is only 21 and averages 37 with the ball in his 8 Tests to date, but he's coming off a confidence boosting 7 wickets in an innings in his last series v New Zealand. And judging by the way he was turning the ball square on the first day, he can tweak it a bit (he should have had Smith stumped if the keeper hadn't been done by the huge turn in the same way as Smith was).

So what Ashraful should have done was bat and allow his most likely match winner last use of the pitch in the 4th innings if the batsman could take things to a 4th innings. Only one of the most seam friendly wickets ever or the strangest of thinking could lead any sane person to an alternative conclusion.

Bopara to open?

Well it seems that atleast one person agrees with me that Prior shouldn't be opening. And there is a vague suggestion in this Cricinfo preview of the 3rd ODI that Pietersen might consider moving himself up to 3. While I agree that would be ideal, what does that say about England's pre-tour preparation if two matches into a series they rethink such a fundamental as where their best batsman bats?

If Pietersen moves up a slot it potentially allows England to bat Collingwood at 4 (assuming Bopara is considered an opener or specialist 8!) with Shah moving down to 6 (where he's been at his best for England) - something that Geoff Boycott was keen to see happen. Remember, Collingwood and Pietersen bat well together as I've burbled about before. So if Bopara opens and Pietersen moves to three, while I think it's scary that there has been a change of tactics so soon into the series, it could just rebalance the top 6 to ensure it includes England's 6 best ODI batsmen (on tour) - and no England supporter can argue with that no matter how much they may wish to debate the order.

Wouldn't it be nice if Vaughan found form so that we had a natural shot playing opener to select next summer?

Marron tends to cruise ship grass

Old Trafford hasn't got a Test for a while, so perhaps that's why the Lancashire groundsman Peter Marron took the opportunity to tend the grass on board a Miami-based cruise ship.

HK at Sixes and Sevens

A couple of weekends ago Kowloon Cricket Club hosted the Hong Kong Sixes. In many ways it's a similar event to the much more famous Rugby Sevens tournament held every March: world class players from all over the globe play over a couple of days to a largely expat audience who mix actually watching the game with catching up with friends and drinking themselves silly. Of course, the Sixes are of a much smaller scale, with crowds up 4,000ish compared ten times that for the rugby, but this cosiness has its advantages one of which being physically much closer to the action.

This year's tournament was superb, despite the All Stars team (comprising Fleming, Chanderpaul, Henderson, Hoggard, Jayasuriya, Langer and Vaas) performing poorly, mainly because a lot of the games went down to the wire. A few players caught my eye; Irfan Ahmed who opened the batting for Hong Kong (who came 4th out of 8 teams) and retired after reaching 31 runs in each of his innings until his last against Australia; David Warner of Australia who batted and fielded amazingly in the final against England and finally Anwar Ali from Pakistan who bowls at decent pace and hits a long ball (check out his inswing bowling in the U-19 World Cup final against India when Pakistan somehow defended 110).

The final was between an English team full of seasoned county pros (Mascarenhas, Joyce, Bresnan, Wagg, Maddy and Napier) and a very young Australian team. It looked to be all over at the half way mark after England posted a whopping 120 of 5 eight ball overs. Australia though, led by Warner, batted astonishingly well and with 11 required off the last over they were firm favourites. Suddenly the festival atmosphere that we had so enjoyed over the past two days evaporated as the crowd became tense. Goodness knows how Tim Bresnan felt as he ran up to bowl but whatever nerves he felt did not betray his action which landed yorker after yorker. A good catch on the point boundary and the retiring of one of Australia's hitters left 2 runs required off the last two balls. The batsman could only squeeze another yorker back to the bowler and the entire tournament came down to Australia needing two runs off the last ball.

When Bresnan let the ball go, the non-striker was already half-way down the pitch. Again, the batsman could only squirt a full-length ball to Darren Maddy at long-on. His sharp thinking won England the tournament as he realised that the non-striker would complete his two runs easily. A hard, flat throw to the keeper's end found the striker short of his ground and the scores finished tied, with England winning thanks to fewer wickets lost.

All in all, a fantastic weekend and a real treat to watch some potential future stars and of course England winning something!

England's selection

Everyone of course has an opinion and that's not surprising following a second big defeat in India. The top 3 are coming under-fire again....the openers can expect to be criticised but interestingly Owais Shah has come in for some criticism too. Geoff Boycott has said that "anyone who believes that he is a No 3 for England wants his head testing".

Personally, while I don't think that Shah looks comfortable at 3, I think England need to give him the series there. You can't swop and change mid-series when a player has made a success of a lower-middle order position and been asked to step up....the adjustment takes time. So although 3 may not be his best position, they need to prove once and for all if he can do it.

But Prior opening has been tried and proven to fail now, so that experiment should stop with Prior batting around 7 or 8. And Bell has had plenty of time to make his opening birth work without ever really getting to grips with it....but to change two people in one go could be even more destabalising than playing Bell with someone else. So he needs to be given at least 2 or 3 more games before being replaced by Cook if he doesn't come good.

Who should be playing in the 3rd ODI? For me I'd like to see a few personnel and order changes:

Bell
Bopara (not ideal for him but better than 8)
Shah
Pietersen
Flintoff
Collingwood
Prior
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Harmison (just in ahead of Anderson as dropping him would mean his fragile confidence would go again!).

What role is Bopara playing?

I've often posted about how I think Ravi Bopara can come good for England but his international career is stalling just when he's showing his quality in County cricket. He got the cricket writers award this year and for me his 201 for Essex in a one-day game was the domestic performance of the season ahead of Napier's Twenty20 knock because there was a bit more brain used than Napier's shot a ball, not to mention more runs. And yet he is a specialist batsman at 8 for England in the one-day team.

Yes, I've chosen to post this after he scored a quick unbeaten 50 in possibly the only high point of England's ODI match against India. But whether he's scored a hatrick of ducks or a hatrick of century's, he should never bat below Matt Prior for England in any form of cricket, even though he is from Sussex! And realistically he could make a great argument for batting ahead of Bell, Collingwood and Patel too.

So if he's going to bat at eight and waste his obvious batting ability then he's going to bowl....right? Well maybe not every match, but when we're not on top in the field? Or perhaps when we're losing it a little and the main bowlers aren't keeping the runs down? Or when we've lost all control and clearly no bowler can do much worse than what's gone before him, no matter how part time he is? It seems the answer is always no to Bopara's bowling, no matter what the situation.

Fingers crossed that his career isn't ruined by poor management.

Australia's bowling woes

The last time I gave my opinion on Australia's selection (suggesting that Krejca wouldn't take wickets) it was obviously rubbish. So here goes for a second attempt. Shane Watson is never good enough to play as a 3rd seamer....although apparently Steve Waugh thinks he could be. For me he's a good all-rounder in one-day cricket but he falls dangerously close to being not quite good enough at either discipline in Tests. Averages don't tell the full story (unless they are real averages!), but Watson averages 22 with the bat and 37 with the ball - not good enough at either, but admittedly in only a 7-match career.

He still has plenty of time to come good as he's only 27, but if he's going to play for Australia in Tests surely it has to be as a batsman that bowls and not the other way round.

Setting your field positions

I'm a fan of the Pitch Vision website (formerly Harrow Drive) but one particular post I've just come across has reminded me of an unfortunate experience when I was a keen potential skipper at school level. I'll come to that in a minute, but the page in question is "The complete guide to cricket field settings" which I love as an idea. But it's feasibility for use amongst anything other than (early) school children? I'll let you be the judge of that (but I'll try to persuade you of my opinion!).

Like many (I assume), when I was made captain of my first school side I was given a few photocopies of an oval pitch and two marks for the stumps with crease lines, and then encouraged to mark crosses where I might put my field. I had a different field for each type of bowler which at that age was basically "quick" and "slow". Very useful. For an 8 year-old who'd never captained a side before. I think I may even have taken the sheets on to the pitch with me in my pocket in case I forgot and panicked.

Later on in my youth cricket career at the age of 15 (having captained many matches) I was given a similar task over the winter by my cricket master to be the following summer. From memory about four of us had the same task - the same old photocopies with a couple of notes on the conditions such as "60 for 4, turning wicket, leg-spin bowler". I have to admit that I behaved somewhat inappropriately.

My concern is that there are just too many issues to take into account on a bit of paper. If he's bowling leg-spin on a turning wicket then how much turn are we talking about? At right angles? Is the outfield so fast that when it beats the in-field it's four? Is the batsman playing attackingly despite the score? How attackingly? Does he try to whip it through midwicket against the spin or play elegantly through the covers? Is he looking to come down the wicket? Can my bowler bowl a googly? A top-spinner? The list goes on....and on....and on....and on. That's why I found captaincy interesting - no two situations are identical so you have to think on your feet.

So I'm ashamed to admit that, rather than explaining my concerns to my cricket master to be, I simply scrawled "Stupid question - it depends!" across each of the photocopies to answer the question "What field would you set if..." Needless to say I wasn't made captain that year and there was quite a bit of tension over that particular summer.

My concern with the Pitch Vision attempt to document fields is that the there are infinite factors to take into account and setting a field from an information resource like a bit of paper, a book or a website is going to be instantly flawed. But I'll certainly be interested in the results and I promise not to comment "Stupid question - it depends!" this time....

Overblown case of bile

This article on The Australian website made me laugh....it sarcastically discusses the over-reaction to Australia's defeat in India. Take a read....

Yellow Cards

I have read that the ECB are contemplating the introduction of yellow cards at Club and Minor County level with the possibility of extending it to the first class game.

I am afraid that I cannot understand the logic behind this when, since 2000, the Laws of Cricket have comprehensively covered penalties for diciplinary matters. In the Southern Premier Cricket League there is a strict reporting regime for umpires and each case is treated according to its severity by the league committee.

The onus is on the captain of the side to ensure that guidelines behind The Spirit of Cricket are adhered to and I think that the danger of a yellow card system is that players could think that they now have more opportunities to flaunt the Laws before action is taken.

What do others think?

Officiating professionally at 2 sports

This is quite impressive. For those that missed the story yesterday, Martin Bodenham has gone from Premier League football referee to English first class cricket umpire.

As far as I know he can only be outdone by Steve Bucknor who has refereed football and umpired cricket at international level. Any others spring to mind?

Specialist spin bowling site

Every now and again I do a quick check of who is linking to Cricket Burble or who is syndicating our content elsewhere. It seems that Spininfo have quoted something I wrote about Australia needing to use Katich more as a spin bowling option so as one good turn deserves another, take a look at Spininfo here.

The only slight concern that I have is that the article in question (The answer to Australia's spin bowling woes?) suggests that Jason Krejza is "unlikely to take wickets...." after his cumulative 0-199 in the two innings warm up match.

Despite Australia losing the 4th Test, Krejza took 12 wickets and the man-of-the-match award. I suspect that Spininfo might not feature a Cricket Burble article again!!

Apparently we're going to win the Ashes easily!

It seems Ian Botham is more than a little bit confident that we'll win the Ashes next year. I don't mind betting that we'll never beat the Aussies "easily" in my lifetime. In the current series has failed once when they lot the second Test, and apart from that neither side has looked like winning, so I'm not sure I agree with Botham's assessment that "they are weak in the bowling attack".

They are undoubtedly weaker than they were but if they pick the correct line up all they're missing is a spinner. Lee, Clark, Johnson, Symonds or Watson and a spinner (possibly a mixture of Clarke, Katich and Krejza who did well today). I don't mind betting that Australia will find a way and our wickets won't be spin friendly so their lack of spin won't be such a factor as in India.

Moneyballs

I think I've already burbled about Ed Smith's books and how after I'd found 'Playing Hardball', about baseball, so good I'd been disappointed by 'What Sport teaches us about life'. Anyway in one of these two he refers to Moneyballs by Michael Lewis (see right) about a player who found managing so much more satisfying than playing so retired from the latter early. He's Billy Beane and has been able, over several seasons and on a low budget, to make Oakland Athletics seriously competitive in Baseball leagues in America.

His secret is that, armed with a wealth of statistics, he has worked out what are the important attributes of players in terms of getting results; it seems that his views differ from the standard view so that he is able to trade players with other teams to his benefit.

It's brilliant even if like me you have little understanding of baseball and there are analogies relevant to football and cricket (particularly when he talks about batter's eyes lighting up when the slow pitcher is in action!)

Highly recommended.

Recognise the ICL

It's interesting to see the response to Mohammed Yousuf signing up to the ICL. From the comments at the bottom of this page about Yousuf, it seems the vast majority of people want the ICL to be recognised by the ICC.

When I was in India the ICL was on and it looked like an interesting league. I've not watched the IPL and that, I assume, is a slightly higher standard given the players involved, but the ICL is still a very good quality of cricket. It's difficult to make a judgement based on a few TV matches, but to my untrained eye it looked like it was at least as good as County cricket.

The BCCI recognise that there's money to be made here and not surprisingly they don't want a rival league in their backyard - all be it one that they have proved is helpful to them in that they can learn what works and make better use of the learnings given their massive spending power. I would argue that the BCCI should be a little more forward thinking and consider how the ICL could be useful to them. And that the ICC should recognise the ICL asap so that member countries can stop the farcical banning of players that only goes to weaken world cricket.

The BCCI needs to show that it's capable of playing a lead role in world cricket, rather than playing the role of an angry teenager. They could start by accepting Gambhir's one-match ban. The rest of the world are ready to support India as the lead-player if only the BCCI can get their act together and realise they are subordinate to the ICC, not above them.

The start of the English summer

The debate goes on about who will tour England to play two Tests at the start of next summer, and of course the IPL looms large. This Telegraph article claims that the ECB might try to get the IPL start date moved back 10 days but whether that is realisitic remains to be seen - Modi hasn't shown much flexibility so far so I'd be surprised if he started to be flexible now but it has to be worth a shot.

Given Modi has buckets of money, I wonder if the ECB have considered asking for financial compensation for every last penny that they wouldn't get if they play two less Tests next summer and in return allowing the England players to play in the IPL. That would be a one-off deal on the basis that the IPL is moved back to accomodate the first Tests of the English summer in future.

The ECB could be similarly flexible and move the date of the 1st Test of the summer slightly later - that would be to the benefit of the spectators in England who often don't see enough play in the May Tests given bad light/poor weather. Looking at the start date of the 1st Test last year it was 15th May, and all 7 Tests of the English summer were complete by 11th August. In previous years the 1st Test of the summer started on 17th May (2007), 11th May (2006) and 26th May (2005).

A start date towards the end of May should be emminently achievable and it would allow the England players who aren't selected for the IPL to get into form with their Counties prior to the Test series. Even those involved in the IPL could in theory play a 4-day match for their County prior to playing the 1st Test given that the IPL fits into 6 weeks and the last few days of that are only relevant to the teams that reach the semis. Last year the IPL ran 18th April - 1st June but if it started at the start of April, everything could be fitted in.

Embarrassing

Well that was embarrassing wasn't it - blown away with 44 balls to spare - and to think I'd rushed home from deepest Kent to get to a pub with Sky in, in order to watch it. It looked as if the players had decided to put all the embarrassment into one basket, get it over with and make sure we don't get invited back again.

But now Peter Moores is talking about the players not being sure what the match was for - was it for England or was it for money? and what difference would that make ? Alternatively there is talk of changing the name of the team - that will make a lot of difference!

Might well be that this is another sport that we've given to the world and then watched as the world has got better than us. (I remember the early ODI days when there was the theory that, since the county players played more of it than the competitors, we'd be the best !). I think it all means that Middlesex's performance in The Champions Trophy becomes even more interesting.