Limited media careers

 

 I suppose it's because I used to drink with the secretary of The Institute of Journalists that I'm very aware of the occasionally acrimonious debate about the relative merits of ex-sportsmen and trained journalists as reporters and commentators ( some of course - Benaud, Agnew for example - are both) and there now seems to be a new debate.

 

This is about the criticism that newly retired players make of their recent colleagues. Clearly Swann has upset his old mate Jimmy Anderson and Vaughan's pop at Trott was just crass (and I expect he now regrets it).

Whilst I accept that to report on anything properly you need to be able to give criticism, my own view (limited  by being neither a trained writer or an ex-pro) is that Swann has a limited career in the media - once he's another year or so away from being able to give us insight from the players viewpoint he'll be struggling. And as for Vaughan, I'm hugely disappointed ; he seems to veer from the bleeding obvious to the " nothing is as good as Yorkshire" line. Perhaps he's after Boycott's title.

The answer is simple - Charlie Dagnall, no one could ever fault his enthusiasm.

So what next post Strauss?

 

I can understand Strauss wanting to go.   With concerns about his form starting to fill his mind rather than tactics, although I'm disappointed he couldn't stay on for another year or so, it's unlikely to dramatically impact England's results.   As an intelligent guy, he leaves with loads of opportunities to go and earn lots of money outside of cricket should he wish to, but it sounds like he wants to stay involved in the game.

 

Whether Cook is quite ready is perhaps debatable.   I fear his form will dip a little and it seems that players now take on the captaincy knowing that their own personal form will dip.   Hopefully it doesn't all overcome him - he appears level-headed but he's got a tough baptism with India away his first test.   There seem few (or no) other options...can you imagine Stuart Broad leading out England for a Test match?   I certainly can't.

 

Who should open in India?   What a tough ask, whoever is selected (as it's statistically proven that players playing away for their first Test are less likely to succeed).   I'd go for Michael Carberry myself, but it's a close thing v Joe Root.   Carberry being 32 next month he would have a relatively short Test career even if successful, but my rationale is that Root isn't quite ready yet and those years will allow Root to develop his game.

 

One final point on Strauss - he has said that his form concerned him, but if England had drawn the series and remained number 1 in the world, I wonder if he would have felt the same?   It's a game of close margins and the drops of Amla and de Villiers in South Africa's 2nd innings didn't help him.   It appears to me that England's out cricket has dropped down several levels recently (2 run outs in the Lords second innings didn't help) and those little mistakes cost them hugely in the 3rd Test.   It draws some comparison with the last South Africa series that saw Vaughan resign, where England dropped nearly 3 times as many catches as South Africa.

 

In these days of relentless analysis, it wouldn't go amiss for the England analysis team to ensure their captains see those kind of stats and weigh them up before considering their future.

 

Good luck to Strauss in whatever he does next!

 

Michael Vaughan

I have recently read Michael Vaughan's autobiography and it is a very interesting read. However, I get the feeling from his book that he thinks he was a better player than he actually was. Additionally, I always thought the media overrated him too.

So how good was the former England captain? His international career lasted from 1999 - 2008, where he scored 16 centuries (which is excellent), but his average was a mere 41. In the modern era that is not good enough. If you look closer, he averaged 31 between 1999 and the start 2002 English summer. He then has a golden 6 months, against India, and then in Australia where he averaged a mammoth 76, scoring 7 centuries. However, from January 2003 until his last Test in 2008, he averaged just 36 over 54 matches!

When we think of Vaughan we think of the Ashes 2005, but he only averaged 32! And that was thanks to one major score at Old Trafford where he scored 166. He was extremely lucky in that innings too, as he was dropped on 41, and bowled off a no-ball the very next delivery (so his average could easily have been 20 in that series).

And his presence in the ODI side was an embarrassment. He held back England's progress in this form of the game, and he does not admit to this in his book. He still maintained he was good enough, even after 2007 World Cup debacle. In 86 matches, he averaged 27, with a strike rate of 68, where he batted in the top 3 for most of the time. How was he allowed to do this?

Owais Shah and Robert Key were never given these kind of extended opportunities!
In summary, Vaughan had 6 good months in Test Cricket, and he lived off that run for the rest of his career. He fails to acknowledge this in his autobiography. He talks about how important "character" is to play for England; whilst this is true, you still need the stats to back it up, which Vaughan did not seem too concerned about, which was lucky for him considering how poor his figures were for most of the time he was in an England shirt.

Another Aggers double entrendre

I was listening live to this double entendre from Jonathan Agnew and must admit I was sniggering along with Michael Vaughan....

I think we can safely say this has been set up...

....and I am of course inadvertently supporting whatever event or product this is for, but here is a short video of Michael Vaughan apparently punching an interviewer!

Two great England captains

Differing stories about two great England captains in the last 24 hours. Yesterday, the Guardian ran an interesting piece about Charlotte Edwards, giving the background as to how she became captain of the all-conquering England women's team. (I hope they are still all-conquering after the one game Ashes series coming up!)

And this morning, rumours abound that Michael Vaughan will retire. This Cricinfo article suggests he will retire from international cricket, but the BBC are reporting that he'll retire from all first-class cricket. I can't say I'm surprised - he's struggled with his knee again, and I didn't ever really believe him when he said he'd be playing next season whether he was picked by England or not.

England selection - bold but risky

So it's Bopara, Bresnan and Onions in, with no place for Bell, Shah or Vaughan. In many ways it's a bold move from the selectors trying to move forward and I'm not against Bopara playing as I think, ultimately, he'll be quality. I hope he has the temperament to bat at 3 in Tests, unlike Bell (so far). But it is a gamble and the selectors will get feedback - positive or negative - at the end of the summer based on results.

As you know, I would have picked Vaughan. Out last night for a curry with my Steyning team mates the general consensus was that Vaughan is the most feared by oppositions - often a near perfect guide to who should be selected. But Bopara offers the possibility of Pietersen-style talent to take the game away from the opposition, so if Vaughan was to miss out I'm glad it was to Bopara.

I'm pleased they went for Onions. He's unproven but worth the risk - he's far more consistent than Harmison. Where I disagree is Bresnan.....that's not to say he can't be a success but what exactly is his role? He's not as good a batsman as Broad leaving Broad to step up to 7, but I fear the England management see a player who averages less than 27 in first-class cricket batting at 7. Neither Broad or Bresnan should bat above 8 yet, but as one of them will have to, I think Broad shades it. The real question is about Bresnan's bowling? He's started the season well undoubtedly, but a first-class bowling average of 31+ indicates that he's not fit to lace Hoggard's boots (he averages less than 27 in first-class cricket and less than Bresnan's first-class average in Tests at 30.5).

I fear that Bresnan got picked because he can hold a bat, rather than consideration of the best 4 seam bowlers in England, irrespective of their batting abilities. And I have a sneaking suspicion who West Indies and Australia would least like to face of the two - it's not Bresnan! And 2 unproven bowlers is a greater risk than 1, on top of already playing Bopara at 3. The selectors are hitting the gamble button and I hope they get the plaudits if they're successful, but also the criticism if they aren't.

England selections soon to be made

The 3 England squads are just about to be announced to it was good timing for Vaughan that he scored 80odd for Yorkshire today in their one-dayer. As this piece by Steve James suggests, it would still be a bit of a leap of faith for the selectors to pick him, but James would go for him I'm pleased to say. Of course, the injury to Flintoff allows the selectors to cover all bases and include Vaughan, Bell and Bopara in the squad if they want to, allowing them a little more time to assess their options.

The Twenty20 captain is also to be announced and it seems that it's going to be Collingwood. That sits comfortably with the set up at the moment - safe, workman-like, Collingwood is cut from the same cloth as Flower and Strauss. The more daring appointment would have been Mascarenas who has been a great success in the IPL, along with Bopara, but conservatism is the way to go in the aftermath of KP.

Set up for Vaughan

The suggestion seems to be that Yorkshire can't win this, so it would be a nice game for Vaughan to score a hundred and win the game! Remember, he starts on 24 not out in his quest for an England place after a wrong decision in the 1st innings! And the state of the Warwickshire game means that Bell is unlikely to get another innings prior to the England squad announcement.

Incidentally, it doesn't sound great for Adil Rashid when the match report says "The legspinner, like most of the Yorkshire bowlers, was inaccurate at the start of his spell, and Andrew Gale at short leg must have felt in danger as one long hop followed another and he did receive one powerful hit on the body, but bravely picked himself up and carried on."

Fingers crossed for the weather tomorrow, both in Durham for the Yorkshire game, and in Steyning for my game!

Vaughan v Bell - the update

Vaughan wasn't even out!!! You know how I feel about the role of luck....he could have been in line for a hundred or more and that poor umpiring could cost him years of playing for England. Interesting that the headline on the big screen at Victoria as I waited for my train said "Vaughan struggles for Yorkshire". In fact his 24 included 5 fours so I don't think he exactly stuggled and the report of his innings suggests he was fluent, plus the fact he wasn't actually out. Small details!

I have to say, I would personally consider Samit Patel for the number 3 Test birth. I'd pick Vaughan every time, but Patel has the advantage that he seems to bowl well in tandem with Swann and if we pick him we can have 4 seamers and two spinners or even play 7 batsmen (including Prior) and 3 seamers.

Bell v Vaughan

Bell 29.

Vaughan 24.

The case against Ian Bell

Once again, we're back debating Ian Bell's spot in the England team. And that sums up one of my (and many others') enormous frustrations - he can never quite cement his place in the side, despite the fact that his batting can ooze class. His 199 last summer against South Africa was hailed as a break through for him, after so many other false dawns, but he went on to score 133 runs in his other six innings in that series.

I've tried desperately not to blame Bell for the fact that he was picked ahead of Graham Thorpe for the 2005 Ashes - I watched him score his 70 on debut against the West Indies and, quality innings though it was, there was the definite whiff of easy runs to be had. He then went on to score a huge amount of runs in two Tests against Bangladesh and on that basis was selected for The Ashes ahead of Thorpe, seemingly on the basis that he was young and could hit second rate bowling about a bit. Warne in particular soon showed that it was too early for him, leaving him with an average of 17. You can see Bell's series averages here.

England's management have a problem with number 3 and it would seem like Bell should be the answer. That is, until you look at his results there. He averages 31 in the critical number 3 position and that means, for me, that he shouldn't be considered there again for the forseeable future. It's not like he's been bereft of chances - England need to consider him as a number 5 and select him if he is good enough to see off the others competing for that position.

Bell supporters will no doubt point to Bell's start to the season - 172 on a batting paradise at Taunton, but as Vic Marks pointed out in The Oberver, that score started to look less valuable as James Hildreth racked up a triple century. Next Bell scored another hundred against the same opposition, but this time at Edgbaston. But even in success, more questions were asked - once again Bell's big innings hadn't helped win the match - in fact Somerset won easily by 8 wickets. It's of course not Bell's fault that his colleagues didn't bat better around him, but the suspicion remains that he doesn't win games for his team, or dig in when the going gets tough.

So what to make of Bell's prospects in the future? I think he's England's Damien Martyn - he'll come back to play for England for years and ultimately be successful. But right now he needs to play a season of County Cricket and average 70 or 80 over a season, making scores when his team really need him to and helping them to win matches. I fear that the England management still see him as a number 3, but on the assumption that they decide he's better placed in the middle order, his best bet is to wait until Collingwood gets injured or retires - he's only 32, but his gritty style is such that as soon as his batting goes, it will really go quickly. And that's if he gets through injury-free - he's likely to play for England in all 3 forms of cricket so his body could buckle.

In The Wisden Cricketer, they talk about the Bell predicament using Collingwood as a parallel who digs in when required. But I think Collingwood is too good to be compared with Bell at the moment - he averages more than 3 runs an innings more than Bell and has scored four hundreds in his last 8 Tests, not to mention an additional 96. Come to think of it, should I be concerned that Thorpe scored four hundreds during calendar year 2004, before being dropped? Please England management - don't repeat the wrongs of 2005 again this year. Leave the England 1,2, 4 and 5 as they are, and consider Shah, Key, Bopara and Vaughan (who averages 40 there) for the number 3 slot. You can even consider Bell, as long...as you don't pick him!

ECB and RFU "worse than bankers"!

This article gets it pretty much spot on for me - it looks at the similarities between the England cricket and football teams, turning success into relative failure. Specifically it says:

"...despite delivering unfettered success, Sir Clive Woodward and Duncan Fletcher were undermined by boards jealous of their prominence. Thus in place of experienced winners, both teams are now led by novices."

I'd add two comments - the captain in cricket plays a huge role, so getting rid of Michael Vaughan was just as big an issue in my book as dismissing Fletcher. And second, I'm not sure that the claim that "no one can claim a shortage of playing talent" is true in rugby. In fact, having just discussed it last night over beers with a friend, I'm sure it's not!

Both the ICC and RFU need to remember in future that the grass is not always greener. As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts...!

Let's not pretend sackings are resignations

In yesterday's Guardian there was an article that tickled me entitled "Should Strauss just resign right now?" which tackled the issue of forced resignations because the author doesn't even contemplate the end of Strauss' tenure coming in any other way than resignation.

Let's be clear. Pietersen did eventually resign with this statement. But he's now saying that he was forced into resignation - in fact he's saying that he was sacked for doing exactly what the ECB asked him to do - put forward his proposed structure moving forward. He sent an email to the ECB before he went on holiday outlining how he thought England should be taken forward and suggesting that the current set up was not the right one to bring success. It sounds like he went as far as suggesting that he wasn't willing to go to the West Indies unless the issues that he felt were holding back the England cricket team were sorted out. The act of a passionate and driven man desperate to achieve success. Not the action of a man throwing in the towel.

So why the need to force Pietersen into resignation rather than sacking him? While some football clubs try to force resignation rather than sack their manager as resignation saves them millions of pounds in compensation, the ECB don't need to worry about that - this is someone who will continue to play for the side. So the only conclusion that we can come to is that the ECB are nervous about taking full responsibility for their actions. After all, they have come to the conclusion that Peter Moores is not the best man to manage the England cricket team so that should have left the path open for Pietersen to continue. Unless they had also come to the conclusion that he wasn't the man to captain the England cricket team.

Two things - in my opinion - show that last summer's merry-go-round was instigated entirely by the ECB who were desperate to make the popular decision and so too quick to listen to the media who's point of view was clouded by the need to sell papers (suggesting - correctly - that Vaughan was head and shoulders above the next best captaincy candidate despite his slump in form when England were losing a home series would always be a reader loser). First, Vaughan's resignation where he fought back tears - hardly the actions of a man who's just had enough and was relieved to be jacking it in.

And second - and this really is the one where the ECB insulted the intelligence of England cricket supporters - they expected us to believe that without any pressure from them, Paul Collingwood came to the decision that he wanted to resign the ODI captaincy on exactly the same day that Michael Vaughan resigned the Test captaincy, but that it had nothing to do with the fact there would be a new Test skipper and the ECB wanted to unify the roles into one. Paul Collingwood's words when he resigned suggest no discussion about unifying the roles - afterall that would be unseemly if the ECB were seen to push such a loyal servant of England cricket out. His statements talked of his desire to enjoy his cricket and talked of his struggle with the extra workload, despite his personal batting results improving when captain.

The ECB have made some terrible decisions in forcing out 3 captains in the last 6 months. But the fact that they have dressed them up as resignations is what really sticks in the throat. It is their attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility for decisions that their role is to get right. And anyone who wants responsibility without accountability doesn't deserve to continue in their role.

So we're left hoping that the Strauss/Flower combo can bring success in the West Indies and the quality of the opposition suggests that shouldn't be too testing. But if they are successful it will be in spite of, rather than because of, the ECB. And of course if it isn't, we can expect another round of sackings dressed up as resignations.

Told you so !

Well I meant to anyway. I'm sure that when Vaughan stepped down I wrote something about how Pietersen would be a bad choice and let's have Bob Key (I might have been in Whitstable when I wrote that last bit). [Ed: I can't find you saying that you wanted Rob Key on Cricket Burble!]

Unfortunately I'm not computer-literate to be able to find the evidence on the site. [Ed: But I am, here's the post Mark is referring to appropriately titled "Disastrous" and your exact words were "They say they want unity but they'll get division."]

So - in case I didn't tell you so - I meant to. [Ed: You did tell us!]

I think I might also have said (or at least thought) that I don't see any need for one man to captain the Test and ODI sides, but perhaps I only thought that too. [Ed: I can find no evidence of you writing this on Cricket Burble!]

One benefit of this shambles (and it's not a real shambles, we'll get over it after a succesful tour of the West Indies) is that it's enabled The Times to publish some super comments by Atherton, Martin-Jenkins and even The Sage of Longparish.

Vaughan to come back in?

If rumours are to be believed then Michael Vaughan may be included in the West Indies tour party later this morning. The unlucky players who would have to miss out if that were the case are two of Bell, Shah and Bopara, with the other likely to be in the squad and fighting it out with Vaughan for the number 3 spot.

Bell can have little argument if he does go. Over the last 2 years he has played 27 Tests and has averaged 37.44 at a time when he really should be pushing on with his career. Frustratingly, he can look so good, as he did in making 199 versus South Africa last summer at Lords, but it usually comes to nothing. An enormous score like that normally points to a huge average for the series, but Bell flattered to deceive, averaging 47 overall and just 22 when looking at all his other innings in that series, placing him only 6th in the real averages list for that series.

Vaughan has a similar criticism levelled at him - he can look so good and yet all too often gets himself out rather than making the bowler work for his wicket. But this is someone who turned 34 only 2 months ago and has the respect of all cricketers round the world (especially the Aussies given it's Ashes year next year). Even last year when he went through the first 3 Tests versus South Africa averaging an unworthy 8, he played a few shots that left spectators purring, and the notoriously attack minded Pietersen (apparently - his fields don't always support that) will have in mind that he wants a number 3 with some presence and who can take the attack to the opposition when necessary. He may also benefit from having England's most successful ever captain to turn to when he needs to.

Owais Shah can consider himself extremely unlucky if he doesn't get at least a place on the tour, let alone a place in the Test side. But he's also struggling with the perception that he's not a natural number 3, at Test level at least - Geoff Boycott is his loudest critic declaring "anyone who believes that he is a No 3 for England wants his head testing." Looking around the world at the moment it's hard to make a case for Shah, or the even more talented Bopara batting at 3, when other sides have the sheer presence of players like Ponting and Dravid filling that slot. Even the second rung of sides have players like Khan, Sarwan and Amla who on paper are miles ahead of Bopara and Shah in both reputation and results, if not talent.

If the England selectors go with the tried and tested method of considering who the opposition would least like to play against, then they'll pick Vaughan and Shah to tour with Vaughan taking strike first wicket down at Sabina Park come the start of February.

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.

The relentless march of technology....

Poor old Dickie Bird. Times are changing, technology is coming in and he believes it's a "sad moment" - I can understand why umpires are reluctant to accept change, but they - as with all people across organisations across the world - need to divorce themselves from what has happened previously. If you started the game of cricket today, with the technology now available, you wouldn't rely on the human eye to make decisions - it really is as simple as that....to me at least!

On a similar note, before the 1st India v Australia Test there was much discussion about catching and whether or not teams could be trusted to have a "pact". And previously Michael Vaughan rejected Ponting's attempts to agree a pact in the 2005 Ashes series. I have a simple way to sort out the issue - at least I think it's simple!

Currently batsmen that are in doubt stand their ground knowing there is no way they can be given out as the benefit of the doubt goes to them and cameras often can't prove the catch was clean. I would simply swop that for catches when it relates to whether the ball touched the ground - the benefit of the doubt should go to the fielder. As the length of grass on a cricket field is often longer than the diameter of a human finger, until this is the case, legitimate catches will often be ruled out. I would add one further disciplinary rule - players who knowingly try to cheat by claiming a catch that is subsequently proven to have bounced, would be banned for the rest of the series and their next one. That would stop a repeat of the incident this English summer where AB de Villiers claimed a catch that very obviously bounced.

Thoughts?

Kumble hits out at media pressure

I couldn't agree with Kumble's comments more. Irrespective of anyone's thoughts on his captaincy, there's no doubt he's a class bowler and the media grief he's getting will only increase the pressure on him. Most players respond better when not under pressure (Collingwood excepted!), so the Indian media are responsible for reducing their national side's chances of winning.

That sort of thing infuriates me - The News of the World trapping Sven Goran Eriksson prior to the World Cup was a classic English example....that story (that had been created deliberately by the paper) was only ever going to damage England's chances in the competition, so why even consider running it if you put the interests of the national side near the top of your priorities. Unfortunately, the interests of the national side are low in the media's list of priorities and sales of course come top. But I certainly have never bought the News of the World again after that story was run and anecdotally I know of several others who felt the same and also stopped buying it regularly, so these stories may create a short-term positive blip in sales, but aren't going to do them any favours in the long-term.

I hope Kumble isn't forced into succumbing like Michael Vaughan was.

The answer to Australia's spin bowling woes?

It's common knowledge that Australia are struggling a little for quality spin bowling now that Shane Warne has retired. But there is a partial solution to their problem that hasn't been explored. Regular Cricket Burble readers will remember my frustration that Michael Vaughan didn't bowl himself more - the value of his bowling was clear for all to see at the 2007 World Cup and yet when England toured Sri Lanka the following winter, his bowling was hardly used - he allowed himself 3 overs only.

Now Australia find themselves in an uncomfortable position. (In the spin bowling department rather than their tour game as it looks like Yuvraj Singh's rediculously late declaration has left that match to be a boring draw). Cameron White is joining the squad now that Bryce McGain has had to leave the tour through injury. Yes, it's possible that White could take wickets, but I don't think there are many observers who will be staking money on that given his career to date. And given his match figures of 0-199 from 31 overs in the latest tour match, it would appear that Jason Krezca is unlikely to take wickets or keep it tight too. So Australia face the uncomfortable prospect of entering a Test match in spin-friendly conditions with only Michael Clarke to bowl threatening spin and that creates issues, as he has back problems that apparently can be exacerbated by long spells of bowling.

Yet one possible answer to this problem already exists within the current Australian squad - Simon Katich. The argument made by an Aussie writing in to Cricinfo seems a good one to me, but given that Katich hasn't bowled a single over in this warm up game, it would appear that he is not being considered to bowl. It's long been known at club level for someone not to get a bowl "because you got a good bat", but at Test level? Unlike Kevin Pietersen, who has claimed that he hardly bowls in the nets (what a stupid admission to make if he's going to bowl himself in crucial situations), Katich has said that he continues to practice his bowling regularly, so Australia know where to turn to. He may not take bundles of wickets, but he should be given the chance to show what he can do.