Katich takes 3 as Australia win again

Interesting to see how Australia have bounced back since they lost to South Africa at home. In classic Australia style, despite having limited resources they've gone back to South Africa and taken a 2-0 lead.

When they were desperately trying to find a spinner in India, you may remember that I was agreeing with others who had put forward Simon Katich as a realitic "Michael Bevan style" spin option. Ponting and the Australian management clearly didn't agree then, but with no specialist spinners in the side Ponting has used Katich in the last Test and he took 3 wickets. Yes, only the lower order but nevertheless, he took 3 wickets.

As an Englishman expecting the Aussies over this summer, them getting their act together and understanding that Clarke and Katich can cover their spin requirements doesn't bode well.

Bye Bye Bye Bye

I haven't watched any of the latest Test and haven't had the chance to listen to much, but what has happened to justify the number of byes Prior has conceeded?

Check the scorecard out....30 so far out of 384 at the time of writing....

As long as he doesn't drop any I guess Prior is still in credit after his hundred but it doesn't look good!

Patel wouldn't listen to warnings

As you no doubt picked up last week, Samit Patel will not travel from New Zealand where the Lions are on tour, to join up with the main squad in the West Indies for the ODIs. The reason? He's not as fit as is expected of him. Or, as The Telegraph explains, because he's fat.

He's 24 and, although many observers consider that young, it's plenty old enough to have gone through the rebellious teens and got that out of your system. He's a professional sportsman and that means approaching all aspects of his game professionally. Yes, he may be able to carry out what is required of him without being as fit as he possible could be, but equally his lack of application now could reduce the length of his career or make him more susceptible to injury.

But the main reason I think the England management are right to take a stand on Patel - who has had many warnings apparently - is the impact that someone not pulling their weight has on team morale. Everyone must be 100% dedicated to being the best they possibly can be, and it appears Patel isn't.

He clearly has talent and I hope he comes back into the reckoning for both the ODI and Test squads because, although it hasn't really been recognised yet, he is another option as a batting all-rounder in Tests. I just hope he heeds this clear warning that he'll only make it internationally if he knuckles down - as a country England can't afford not to have talented players on the pitch....we're not overburdened with them.

Gun attack in Pakistan

Shocking breaking news from Lahore - apparently gunmen have attacked the Sri Lankan cricket team's coach, killing six security men and injuring at least five members of the touring party. Apparently Samaraweera and Paranavitana are the most seriously injured and are receiving treatment in hospital, with Jayawardene and Sangakkara receiving minor injuries.

According to Cricinfo:

The Sri Lankans were on their way to the Gaddafi Stadium when their bus was attacked by five armed terrorists near Liberty market. Habibur Rehman, chief commissioner of police, said 12 masked terrorists fired at the Sri Lankan team bus. The gunmen shot at the wheels of the bus and also injured the driver. A grenade was also thrown at the bus but it missed.

"The bus came under attack as we were driving to the stadium, the gunmen targeted the wheels of the bus first and then the bus," Mahela Jayawardene told Cricinfo. "We all dived to the floor to take cover. About five players have been injured and also Paul Farbrace [a member of the support staff], but most of the injuries appear to be minor at this stage and caused by debris."

Lahore police chief Habib-ur Rehman said, "They appeared to be well-trained terrorists. They came on rickshaws." Television footage of several gunmen creeping through the trees, crouching to aim their kalashnikovs then running onto the next target were aired by Pakistan's private channel Geo, AFP reported. Crystals of broken glass littered the road next to a gun cartridge and an empty rocket-propelled grenade launcher. A police motorbike was shown crashed sideways into the road at the Liberty Chowk (roundabout) in Lahore. Bullet holes ripped through the windscreen of another vehicle and a white car was shown smashed headlong into the roundabout as nervous security officers guarded the site.

Australian players' views

Hope I got the use of the apostrophe right in the title there...rumour has it that apostrophes may only be used for shortening of words in the future because people like me can't work out how to use them apart from in those circumstances!

This Cricket Australia survey looks interesting - it asks all the pro cricketers in Australia their opinions on various issues. Kevin Pietersen will be happy - he is deemed the best opposition international batsman above Sachin Tendulkar and Kumar Sangakarra. And Andrew Flintoff is the 3rd most dangerous opposition international pace bowler apparently. What I can't really get my head round is why this is public property - why don't Cricket Australia keep this information to themselves? I wonder if the fact it goes public (all be it that the results are aggregated) sways the results at all?

Indian players can't play against ICL players?

This seems crazy from the BCCI - they are now pulling out players from matches in which the opposition field an ICL player - Sachin Tendulkar being pulled out of a match in NZ at short notice.

The BCCI need to put money to one side and sort out their issues with the ICL if they are to be true to their claim of wanting to advance the game of cricket both in India and globally. It's clear that the ICC haven't got the power to force the BCCI to make that decision, so it's up to them to make that decision for themselves. I'm not holding my breath!

Cricket originated in Flanders?

Interesting piece in The Telegraph on Saturday about how people from Flanders might have introduced the game of cricket to England. I'll leave you to decide what you think the truth is - I doubt it will ever be clarified for certain!

Draw inevitable on day 4?

Only days ago I suggested that an England skipper wouldn't get away with bowling joke bowlers on day 4, no matter how certain the game was to result in a draw. Well it looks like we'll find out what Strauss thinks of that today - unless things change rapidly, a draw looks inevitable. It will be interesting to see what tactics he employs as he desperately tried to move the game towards a result....

Ravi Bopara

I've never seen him bat before - is he always so much of a leg side player? And if so is he the most one sided player ever to play in test cricket?

First net of the 2009 season

I'm off to the County ground at Hove for nets tonight - my first attempt to play cricket of 2009. And nets with a new club. What scares me a little is just how variable my cricketing skills can be the first time I play each year. Last year, not too bad in that my first ball hit the mat. All seasons I can remember before that - appalling.

My fear of the first attempt to play cricket each season particularly hinges around bowling. Batting-wise I normally get my pad in the way so at least I rarely hear the death rattle and suffer the ignominy of picking the stumps up and placing them back in position. Although now I've said that I will no doubt be bowled a dozen times.

The first ball I bowl normally consists of a couple of bounces (or more) or a head-high full toss, combined with hitting the side netting. Fortunately there's no umpire, because if there was I'd take their head off with my round arm initial attempts to get the ball anywhere near the batsman. My aspirations for the end of net 1 is normally just to bounce the ball on the green mat without letting out too much of a groan at the point of delivery (that comes from a rugby shoulder injury which only marginally eases with use throughout the summer).

So I'll let you know how it goes. My new team mates will wonder if I've ever played cricket before after they see me in action tonight....! And if any of them are reading this, then at least they are forewarned!

A sign of the times

Last year Middlesex's shirts were sponsored by Northern Rock. This year I can only assume that they can find no replacement for them as in a press release strewn with exclamation marks on their website http://www.middlesexccc.com/ they are urging members and supporters to sponsor a set of kit. There are 32 players each with separate kit for each of 4 competitions which means 128 sets of kit. At £300 a pop that means they are looking for £38,400. And you don't get to pick your favourite player - you just go into a raffle. Times is hard.

This will also put an end to my naive assumption that the name change to Middlesex Panthers (away from Crusaders - am I still the only one who thought that that was potentially offensive?) must be to do with sponsorship from Slazengers.

Runs galore

No doubt Younis Khan has been dreaming of breaking the world record for runs scored in one innings, and he will never have a better opportunity than the current Test between Pakistan and Sri Lanka in which there have been two double centuries and now a triple. When the two best spinners in the world can't take wickets on day 4, you know that the wicket is "a belter".

What I found interesting was that Jayawardene bowled joke bowlers in the 3rd session of day 4. While I can completely understand his frustration, and appreciating that a draw was the only possible result, I don't think an England captain would ever get away with that approach. Hopefully we'll never find out as England will never play on a wicket like the one in Karachi! Despite the fact that Jayawardene actually took a wicket (and no doubt turned around to Mendis and Murali to tell them that's how it's done), I still don't think I can advocate the use of joke bowlers in anything but the last session of a Test.

We're not really close enough to the goings-on in Sri Lanka to understand the reasons that Jayawardene has announced that he will step down as captain at the end of this Pakistan series, but it seems a great shame. He has been critical to Sri Lanka coming through as genuine challengers to any opposition and a dip in ODI form shouldn't have been a reason for him to stop I don't think. In Tests he's still scoring stacks of runs and the team have gelled around him.

It would be interesting to know the real reasons, rather than the published reasons, for his resignation. I can completely understand if he's burnt out, but I also find it hard to believe that he doesn't think he can captain in the 2011 World Cup - he's only 31! Perhaps bowling joke bowlers on the 4th day of a Test demonstrates to everyone that he's had enough....

Cricket + American TV = Science?

There are two English language terrestrial television channels in Hong Kong and both try to make the most of their meagre budgets by filling their schedules with earnest local reporting and cheapo-Discovery channel sciencey fluff. Late one night last week, feeling a little worse for wear after a few post-150-run-defeat beers, I was watching said fluff and discovered much to my astonishment that cricket is the most dangerous ball sport in the world. Fact.

The program was called Sport Science and this episode competed different sports against each other. Which goes fastest - a well-hit ice hockey puck or golf ball? What hurts more - a rugby tackle without pads or an American football tackle with pads? And most interestingly for us, which is most dangerous - baseball or cricket? Baseball was represented by a rookie pitcher whose fast ball touches 95mph. The force of his fastest pitch was calculated and clips of people being smashed in the face by pitches (or even worse, pitchers hit by return hits) were shown. Ouch.

Then cricket was introduced as a quirky outta-left-field contender. A brief comment along the lines of 'you may think that cricket is about quaint sandwiches and cups of tea... but you'd be dead wrong' accompanied clips almost exclusively from New Zealand vs West Indies series over the years. So who would represent cricket? Shoaib? Brett? None other than... Franklyn Rose. To be fair, there can't have been many fast bowlers knocking about the US and Franklyn was quite good for the Windies, taking 53 wickets at 31. Despite playing his last test in 2000, he looked in good shape and was soon whanging the ball down at seemingly good pace, with one delivery smashing the leg stump - this program's equivalent of a money shot. When Frankyn starting talking about how he could break arms and legs legitimately in cricket because he is allowed to aim at the body, I thought 'well, that maybe true but it doesn't happen that often...'. Broken legs sound a lot more interesting than broken fingers and when Franklyn pointed out that a hit to the head could kill, the moody, dramatic background music reached its crescendo. Here comes the science.

My disbelief in the program, which up til now had willingly weathered the dodgy scientific methods, over-eager host (and creator), and 'person wearing lab coat + safety goggles = scientist' sophistry came back from suspension with a bang when Mr Voiceover said 'Franklyn bowls at 95 mph.' Shoaib, maybe. Brett on a good day, maybe. But not Franklyn, and especially not 37-year-old-hasn't-played-first-class-cricket-in-ages Franklyn. Oh well. It turns out that because a cricket ball weighs a little more than a baseball that a hit in the face from a rapid bouncer will cause a bit more damage than a beanball from a pitcher. And because bowlers are allowed to hit batsmen (to an extent) and pitchers are not, cricket is far more dangerous. Q.E.D.

You can find several clips of the show on youtube and it's quite entertaining, especially if you like watching glass being smashed by a golf ball in super-slo-mo or someone smacking a crash test dummy in the face with a hockey stick. Just don't believe the numbers...

Bell shouldn't be in consideration....should he?

There's various speculation about who replaces Flintoff for the next Test in West Indies (incidentally I'm totally confused about why it's called the 4th Test and the last Test was called the 3rd - surely it was just the 2nd rescheduled?).

This Guardian article concerns me in that it even considers Ian Bell. There are two options: (1) bat Prior at 6, if he's available given the imminent birth of his first child, with Broad at 7 and 4 other bowlers. (2) play Bopara at 6 so that we go in with 4 and a bit bowlers. Bell is nowhere in either option.

Personally I'd go for the second option and play Bopara, get runs on the board and then - using 4 specialist bowlers - pressure them out. That puts the pressure on both the bowlers and the captain as tactics are vital, but when our top bowlers are struggling, I'm not quite sure how adding our 5th best bowler is suddenly expected to make us into a brilliant bowling unit. I'd rather rely on the top 4 and attacking fields.

Would anyone seriously consider playing Bell?

Let's hear it for Colly

Readers of Cricket Burble will know I'm a bit of a Paul Collingwood fan. So it's great to read this Cricinfo article - predictably titled "Colly flowering" - talking about how Collingwood has performed the second best behind Pietersen since 2005. What I find particularly pleasing is the comments given at the end of the article by numourous Collingwood fans. Even one comment, from a New Zealand fan, suggesting he has been wrongly vilified for his role in the Grant Elliot run out - something I definitely agree with.

And having seen that there does seem to be some support for Mr Collingwood, I checked his popularity in the only way there is to check popularity these days - the number of Facebook groups created to honour him - 8. That compares to 3 for Andrew Strauss and vast numbers for Pietersen - it seems that Collingwood is always going to come second to Pietersen whether it be runs or Facebook groups. But you get the impression he'd be very happy with being rated as second best, rather than constantly being on the verge of being dropped. If he can continue scoring a hundred every couple of matches as he has done lately, he might finally be able to get the respect he deserves....

More on nightwatchman

Interstingly according to yesterday's Times quoting Andy Flower the decision to use a nightwatchman in the second innings wasn't his or even Strauss's but Shah's. Now leaving aside the notion that this appears to be spectacular buck passing and even if the view is that it's the ingoing batsman's prerogative to call for a nightwatchman then I'd argue that the view is wrong and that captain and manager should make decisions of this kind. That's what I thought until discussing it with people who seem to know more about it yesterday when I learnt that apparently it is common practice for the ingoing (or non-ingoing) batsman to make the decision.

Can't be right can it ?

Night watchmen

I guess most watchers would have been diappointed that England chose to go with Jimmy Anderson at first wicket down last night when in such a dominant position. My thought was that Shah was probably very relieved as the new boy trying to cement a place but maybe a batsman more secure in the side might have been sent in or more sensibly someone like Broad or Prior who'd be able to have a whack in the morning as opposed to Anderson now having to get himself out asap.

Issues for Sir Allan Stanford?

Yesterday the Times reported that Sir Allen Stanford was being investigated, and now Cricinfo are reporting that he's been arrested for "fraud on a massive scale".

Interesting....

What a catch!

I assume you've all read about/seen Adam Voges' catch in the Australia v NZ Twenty20? If you haven't, take a look here.

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...!

Yet another reason to play cricket....

It seems that school children will now be encouraged to play cricket as it helps with Maths. I don't want to be a stickler for detail (ahem), but you probably don't need to actually play the game to help your maths, just taking an interest will suffice....

Backroom Staff

A lot has been said about the lack of a Head Coach and the effect that it had on the recent batting performance.

It does make me wonder whether all the people taken on tour are really necessary and whether they really do make a valid contribution to the well-being of the team. Remember the old days when the debate raged about whether Botham needed to attend nets and I cannot imagine how Gatting would have reacted to the comments from a nutritionist about eating cheese and pickle sandwiches!

My real point is whether batting, fielding and bowling coaches plus nutritionists and goodness knows how many others are really necessary. Do they really help all players? I am sure they hinder some.

Just a thought but would the lack of a Head Coach have been mentioned if England had won handsomely?

Referral System

I unfortunately don't have Sky Sports so I can't really give a proper opinion on this referral system without seeing the incidents, but the notion of this doesn't seem right.

The idea that players can formally disagree with the on-field umpire just erodes the authority these umpires have, which will lead to more cases of dissent. I do think there is a case that the 3rd umpire can over-rule the on-field umpires, but only when they are certain, not when there is a shadow of doubt. But for this to happen the 3rd umpire has to be good at his job which I'm afraid to say Daryl Harper certainly isn't!

Same England team next week, no doubt

Given that England only scored 51, there are obvious comparisons to be made with 1994, when they scored 46 against West Indies. That put them 3-0 down, but Atherton's men came back and won the 4th Test of the series. How many changes were there to the starting XI? Just one - Phil Tufnell came in as the spinner for the 4th Test, instead of Ian Salisbury who had played the 3rd. The idea at the time was very much that Atherton wanted to show that the days of constant chopping and changing were over.

This time, England haven't chopped and changed in the run up to the Test - certainly not with their batting. To outside observers it seems inconceivable that Owais Shah won't play in the 2nd Test, but inside the camp they are no doubt considering if they should retain the same side - possibly making the same change as in 1994 - the spinner. But the time has come for Ian Bell to go - he will come back if he's good enough. You may or may not have seen a short article on Bell in one of the free London papers last week, written after day 1, lamenting the fact that 28 was probably enough for Bell to cement his place for the series. Bell is starting to become a joke, and Collingwood and Cook need to turn the corner soon to avoid the same ridicule. It's none of the player's fault that they keep getting selected for faultering perfomances, but they've got to return that faith eventually. A side that relies so heavily on Pietersen is never going to be consistent.

With the Ashes months away, now is not the time to drop the lot of them, and as they are away touring the option does not exist, but the management need to show that consistent failure is not acceptable by dropping Bell. They should also start to consider how they can alter the balance of the side to leave Flintoff and Prior batting at 7 and 8 without it being seen as a negative move. If Flintoff is going to open the bowling and bowl more overs than anyone else bar the spinner, the argument that his injury worries mean we must play 5 bowlers so that he's not over-worked doesn't stack up, especially given that we're finding it hard to find 5 consistent world class bowlers right now. Runs on the board and getting wickets through pressure might be a necessary evil for England until news players emerge.

So the same team next week then, no doubt.

Al-Hassan the world's best ODI all-rounder!

Clearly, as has been pointed out, the franchises didn't agree with me that Shakib Al-Hassan was brilliant value for money at €75,000 in the IPL auction. He wasn't snapped up, but his time will come.

And just to prove that it wasn't just me touting him(!), his results do stack up statistically, putting him at the top of the ICC ODI all-rounder list.

Spot on on Scott

Anybody who'se been prepared to listen will know that I've been singing the praises of Ben Scott the Middlesex wicket keeper. Now All Out Cricket agrees with me with an article in this month's issue. Shaun Udal is quoted as saying that he'd back him one million per cent (good mathematics !) to bat at number eight and keep wicket better than anyone in the country. He particularly rates him when standing up to the stumps which as we all know is the harshest test of a keeper.

He gets even more self-centred

So I've planned my day to perfection - a couple of pub inspections and a meeting in the morning then a drive back from Canterbury timed to start just as TMS begins. Disappointment is not long in showing its face with Bell for Shah - should have seen that coming but still can help feeling that it's wrong.

Then the conversation turns to Bill Frindall and clearly it's time to acknowledge his scorerfullness but what do we get from Boycott? Firstly he tells us that he's got two houses as in he keeps one copy of Frindall's reference works in each and then that he likes to check his own figures because his memory plays tricks (so he's not perfect in every aspect). And soon after that we get tales of scoring 150s off Agnew's bowling. Proof that top level sport needs self awareness but for commentary? - I've had enough and he's starting to become a caricature of himself in the same way that FST did.

The final list for the IPL auction

The answer to the question of who would finally go up for IPL auction from the England players has been answered and the answer is:

England: Kevin Pietersen (1,350,000), Andrew Flintoff (950,000), Luke Wright (150,000), Owais Shah (150,000), Paul Collingwood (250,000), Ravi Bopara (150,000), Samit Patel (100,000).

Of those, Patel was publicised before but is still a little surprising as he hasn't done anything to speak of as a batsman in international cricket, and his bowling is average. Of the others Luke Wright might consider himself a little fortunate to have got this far having been dropped from the England side recently. Thankfully the list of all and sundry in English county cricket that was initially put forward has got trimmed down, but I feel a little sorry for James Foster who we've seen can change a Twenty20 game with his excellent keeping.

Looking outside of the England players, who is the bargain to be snapped up? You guessed it - my old friend Shakib Al-Hassan from Bangladesh. At $75,000 I'm telling you he's a bargain and looking at the prices, if he'd been from England he would have been worth about $400,000 - Samit Patel (who is roughly comparable in that he's a left-arm spinning all-rounder) worth more than him? Don't make me laugh!!

Middlesex Panthers

Seems that the Middlesex committee agree with me. I said some time ago that in view of history the use of the name 'Crusaders' for the one day team is more than a tad insensitive these days and inappropriate if you're wishing to enlist more from the Asian communities or play in what used to be called the Middle East.

So now they've announced that in future they will call themselves the Panthers and it looks as if they had to make the announcement earlier than they intended because of leaks.

Australian's fight for place and lick wounds

The latest round of the Sheffield Shield has the Aussie slectors watching all matches in an attempt to conjeur up the best possible squad for the trip to South Africa - you can read who's in the mix here.

Of course, this follows the last ball loss in the ODI to New Zealand this weekend - something which the Aussies are ashamed of, according to the NZ press, and that loss coming despite having cheated according to Daniel Vettori. And there's some interesting Cricinfo statistical analaysis pointing to why the Aussies lost 4-1 in the ODIs to South Africa.

OK, so England also don't have a dominant spin bowler to bowl in the middle overs, but the current situation in Australia makes England's look a little better following the captaincy debacle!

Modi questioned by Indian police

It seems that Lalit Modi might not have things all his own way in India and the notorious Indian politics that go on behind the scenes could be causing him some concern. He's been questioned by police of the misuse of Rs 22 lakh of BCCI funds, which I believe is not much more than £30,000 but I could be wrong in knowing how much a lakh is!

Modi seems to be able to play the politics game over there, so I'd be surprised if this damages him in any way.

Treasurer can't pay back cash

This seems to happen quite a lot at cricket clubs - club officials managing to use club funds as their own and not being able to pay it back or, more dangerously, officials wantonly ripping off their club. Amazingly though, records are often kept so amazingly poorly that there is no paper-trail to enable a successful prosecution and the guilty party gets away with it.

So it seemed only sensible to publicice this case on Cricket Burble to try and reduce the chances of another cricket club experiencing the same problems. Inevitably though, some will.

Beware the wounded West Indian tiger....

Interesting to see how West Indies cricket always gets a slating in the run up to Test series against England and there is no doubt they've slid a long way since their glory days. This Stephen Brenkley article in The Independent, sums things up nicely by returning to the merits of Chanderpaul and Gayle, in cricketing terms, at the end of the article.

Who's the top-rated Test batsman in the world? Chanderpaul.

Who's the 2nd highest rated ODI batsman in the world? Gayle.

Perhaps we should be a little less hasty in assuming that we'll march to an easy victory and a little more supportive of the plight of this disparate group of islands...I wonder if my wife would see it as an altruistic thing to do if I was to suggest that a group of us go to watch the next England tour of the West Indies?!

Pick Shah and bat him at 5

Strauss of course tells us that the latest warm-up was a good workout, but I'm not sure the various journalists out there have the same view, particularly when it came to England's lousy fielding. But on the positive side, there are key batsmen in form (particularly the skipper and ex-skipper) and the bowlers have had plenty of time to find their rhythm.

Shah apparently got a dodgy decision to be dismissed for 9 LBW, but Bell played a terrible pre-meditated sweep to be bowled round his legs towards the end of day 2. For me, the time has come for Shah to replace Bell (if it hadn't before) - if he's good enough (which his technique suggests that he is) Bell will make stacks of runs at county level and then come back a better player. I'd also - much as I hate to admit it - listen the Geoff Boycott's view and bat Shah at 5, Boycott of course having said that anyone that thinks Owais Shah is an international number 3 needs their head read. That allows our best player, Pietersen, to come in at 3 and dominate the match, and it also allows Collingwood to bat at 4 and be entrusted with getting the side a big score. One of the decisions that Moores got wrong was to push Collingwood back to bit-part number 6 when most of his success has come from batting high up the order with Pietersen. At 4, Collingwood averages 56 and I think we should settle for that.

The bowling looks a little less predictable, but I'm glad that the prevailing view seems to be that Sidebottom will play. England have looked rudderless without him as there is no-one else apart from Flintoff who the captain can expect to keep the runs down if we're not taking wickets. I trust Flintoff is happy he'll be there and I suspect the spinners will be, given that they may be able to use the rough he creates. But which spinner will it be? Personally I'd go for Panesar, but there's very little in it given Swann's improvement and Panesar's relative decline of late. So you'd be left with the side:

Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Collingwood, Shah, Flintoff, Prior, Broad, Sidebottom, Harmison, Panesar.

Suprised I picked Harmison? Yes, so am I! But he has to be given the chance to relive his former West Indian glories and Anderson hasn't done enough to take the place ahead of him....

Dave McCabe's pal shows extra common sense

It seems that Shaun Udal has been approached by the IPL and asked to put his name into the hat for the auctions but has declined as he wants to concentrate on his job as the newly appointed captain of Middlesex.

All well and good for this Middlesex supporter and you'd think that all the Committee etc. would be delighted too but Angus Fraser makes a very interesting point and clearly would have been happy whatever Shaun decided. His argument being that going to India would have given Udal new experiences and would probably have benefitted him as a player.

Why doesn't that happen more often ?

If you walk along a busy street you don't bump into people constantly. Instead you subconsciously catch the eyes of people approaching you and somehow transmit a message enabling evasive action to take place. Occasionally you get a situation where you almost collide and then both people move in the same direction once or twice more before you eventually pass. It's always because one of the two was looking away or, more usually, down and no eye contact was made.

Now it seems that Bell and Prior had a moment like that yesterday and Prior was run out as a consequence. So it occurred to me that with batsman watching the ball and fielders as they run between wicketes it is surprising that it doesn't happen more often.

Obviously we know that the non-striker's position when the ball is bowled is determined by what side of the wicket the bowler is operating from and the striker presumably takes that into account in his calculations but I wonder if there is more to it than that.

Should Flintoff have been playing?

I should be in a position to say I told you so, but unfortunately lack of time meant that I didn't actually get round to posting that I wouldn't have picked Flintoff for the warm up game against St Kitts. As I didn't ever write the post, you'll just need to take my word for it that this isn't just the benefit of retrospect! Now, unfortunately, there are concerns over Flintoff's fitness again after he injured his side.

My thinking in wanting to suggest Flintoff didn't play was this. There are two spots out of 3 in the order for Bell, Shah and Collingwood and it seems very unfair on Collingwood if Bell and Shah get the opportunity to score hundreds, while he is left on the sidelines. Collingwood is also one of those guys who needs time in the middle in a way that someone like Pietersen doesn't. The alternative to Collingwood instead of Flintoff would have been Sidebottom who needs lots of bowling and wickets if he's to prove himself and therefore be a realistic candidate for the Tests. England's other 10 were sufficiently "all-round" that it wouldn't have mattered greatly which of Collingwood and Sidebottom played.

Flintoff, who is pretty metronomic in his bowling (i.e. needs little practice it seems), was chosen and unfortunately the worst has happened. Personally I would have liked to see England use the chance to look at options for the 1st Test which means looking at the non-certainties. Shah has shown just how important that can be and I really hope he gets the nod ahead of Bell now for the 1st Test. We just have to hope that Flintoff is fit in time....

England's IPL players

The news that England's players will be available for 3 weeks of the 2009 IPL and for some of the 2010 competition means that some of the best players can look forward to making huge amounts of money for very little work. The question is, who might be wanted by the IPL franchises?

When you're looking at any form of cricket the top two names on the England list are always Pietersen and Flintoff. So those two are automatic. But when Lalit Modi talks about 4 or 5 England players, who else might he be considering? Samit Patel has already made himself available and is a good shout, although his bowling in India recently did him no favours. On that tour Owais Shah and Graeme Swann certainly put good cases forward (although Swann came through in the Tests rather than the Twenty20 and ODIs), as did Stuart Broad. Rumour also has it that Ravi Bopara is in with a shout.

While he's not been in great form lately, I'd still put Collingwood right up there, so for me the England players who might realistically put themselves forward and expect a contract (not including Patel who's already on the list, and also not including Mascarenas and Napier who are already spoken for) are: Pietersen, Flintoff, Shah, Collingwood, Broad. The two outside bets might be Bopara and Swann. Others like Harmison, Bell or Anderson may feel they have a chance but I don't think any franchise will get a good return on them.

Who do you think will get an IPL contract from the England side?

Miller really hates the Aussies

The merits of Geoff Miller as an England selector might sometimes be questioned, but his ability to give a good after dinner speech isn't. I particularly liked the report in The Sun this week quoting Miller's comments at a charity event:

“I really hate the Aussies. Sometimes I get up an hour early, just so I can hate them some more.”

We might be left wondering why someone who so hates the Aussies picked Pattinson for the 2nd Test against South Africa, despite Vaughan's strongly stated preference for Simon Jones and the availability of Matthew Hoggard. But that's in the past - let's hope that Miller's hatred leads to the right team being picked for this year's Ashes.

Snowballs, sledges and fast bowlers

Well, I don't know how the Burble readership spent their New Year, but I spent mine on a ski trip to Les Arcs in the French alps, tumbling merrily down slopes and spending £6 on a pint of lager (thanks, credit crunch). But - before you start wondering if this is now Ski Burble - let me tell you about our New Year's Eve.

After a decent dinner and a quick trip to the local bar, we hit the slopes a shade before midnight in order to watch a fireworks display and see in the New Year climbing up and sliding down the lower slopes on some small plastic trays affectionately known as 'bum boards'. A few slides into our session and 2009, we noticed we had company - a lumbering hulk of a chap and his son were just about perceptible in the dark engaged in similar sliding pursuits.

Despite the gloom, a fellow cricketer within our party and I became increasingly aware that we recognized the world-weary gait and the gruff voice that answered our greetings: Angus Fraser. With neither of us looking like approaching the guy to plug Cricket Burble or give him some batting tips, another of our party took matters into her own hands ("Are you Angus Fergus?" - near enough! - "My friends are too shy to ask!"). Mind you, I fortunately managed to recover from this humiliation in time to meet a rather weak Fraser snowball with the observation that he'd lost a yard of pace ("And the rest!" said Gus).

It brings a whole new meaning to sledging...

Ed Smith - easily pleased ?

As you'll now if you've read previous witterings I'm a fan of Ed Smith both as a cricketer and as a writer ( although I felt 'What sport teaches us...' slightly disappointing after 'Playing Hardball' ) but a comment in yesterday Telegraph strikes me as slightly odd in a Simon Hughes sort of way.
'I once turned on the television,' he wrote 'watched Brian Lara execute a heavenly late cut, and immediately switched off again, perfectly satisfied.'
If that had been you, wouldn't you want to wait and see whether he did it again?

David Warner - you read about him here first... possibly.

Following on from Ed's post about spotting Bangladesh's rising star Al-Hassan, I'm going to (not so) subtly remind readers that in my post covering last year's Hong Kong Sixes I recommended David Warner as one for the future... and who should make 89 off 43 balls against South Africa on his debut (I'll gloss over his next knock of 7 off 12 as the always difficult second innings)?

If Anwar Ali comes good I might just quit this mathematical research lark and become a cricket scout full-time...

Al-Hassan could make a fortune in the IPL

Before Xmas I plugged Shakib Al-Hassan from Bangladesh as a potential world-beater so it seems only right that I should publicise his match winning batting performance against Sri Lanka - 92 not out off 69 balls against a bowling attack that included Mendis and Murali.

I assume he'll be available for the IPL so it will be interesting to see what bids come in for him....

Who says Strauss isn't a limited overs player ?

Anyone who, like me, was at The Oval on April 20th last year when he took 163 off Surrey in a Friends Provident Trophy match, would disagree.
The best bit was that I was with a pal who's a member of Surrey!

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.

Flintoff and Pietersen

Without being inside the England camp it's very difficult to know for sure how Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff get along. What you can say is that they both have big characters and play a huge role in dressing room morale. So rumours that Flintoff was involved in Pietersen's downfall as England captain comes as a nightmare to any England fan. Although today Harmison has unequivocally stated that Flintoff's support for Pietersen was total in a Cricinfo article titled "Flintoff and I supported Pietersen". (Personally I'm just impressed he didn't say "Me and Flintoff..."!)

But unfortunately it's not the first time that there have been rumours about whether or not they get on. When Flintoff was captaining the last Ashes tour, rumours were rife that Pietersen wasn't playing for the team, despite being one of the England success stories of the tour. As this article from the time suggested, Pietersen himself had said that he didn't follow team instructions during the nightmare 2nd Test at Adelaide where England capitulated on the final day.

While that 2nd Test didn't paint a good picture of Pietersen as fully supportive of his skipper - despite his hundred - it also showed why Flintoff made a lousy captain. He huffed and puffed and his shoulders dropped as England fielded on the 5th day, leaving Hoggard to put a consoling arm around his shoulders and try and remind him of his responsibilities to the team as captain. It's very possible that current animosities between the two started during that Test - both would have been distraught afterwards and looked for reasons why they slipped to an embarrassing defeat.

So what to make of it and how does it effect the England team? Well for all their talismanic qualities, the two are completely different. Reports suggest that Flintoff likes to relax over a beer with his mates and family. Pietersen likes to prepare every last detail and when he's not thinking cricket he relax with celebrity mates. But what makes their relationship tricky is that they have different approaches to get to the same goal - England winning. Their not poles apart - they're close enough to overlap. Neither could be accused of anything but total loyalty to the England cause (I hope I'm not proved wrong by Pietersen taking a lucrative IPL offer and turning his back on England - I'm sure I won't but you can never quite say never). And there is total respect for each other - Pietersen pushing Flintoff up the batting order against all statistical evidence to the contrary proved that.

So it's now down to captain and coach (in that order) to ensure that their shared goal is the main focus, not how the team gets there. Both will need to feel included and both should be told now what happens when Strauss has to leave the pitch (I would give the Test captaincy to neither and use Cook or Collingwood if necessary but the ODI "vice" captaincy could be a thornier issue). It's classic man-management - all be it very tricky man-management - and if Strauss can get it right while maintaining his batting form then his position as England captain will be a very strong one. If he struggles to pull the two of them together then he will go the way of the two previous England captains and be forced into resignation, but that is the subject of another post....

ECB finally making some sensible decisions?

Wow, what a spectacular mess. This was a high-profile implosion of a national team that never needed to happen and hasn't really done anyone any credit. It was hard to imagine when the news emerged that KP had been denied Vaughan back in the squad that it would catalyze this soap opera drama! Indeed, KP seems thoroughly to have wrought his own downfall, and deserves his criticism in the press. But, in my mind, the silver lining of the whole affair is that the ECB seem finally to be making some sensible decisions!

Firstly, the appointment of Strauss - clearly the only sensible option for the test team (though we can all dream of Vaughan returning!). Strauss is a level head and a thoughtful and dependable leader - just when we need a 'safe pair of hands' in charge of the national team the most. His successful previous captaincy during the Pakistan series is frequently cited. Furthermore, he has, since Vaughan's resignation and for the time being at least, reestablished himself in the test side. Burbler Mark Davis calls for Rob Key to be reconsidered, but his stock as a captaincy outsider must surely have declined now a successful 2007 county season is no longer so fresh in the memory.

I would venture, though, that the rather less obvious appointment of Strauss for the ODI leadership was also a good decision. Though he is a marginal one-day player at best, unity seems an important factor at this stage, and at least Hugh Morris is being consistent with his expressed preference for combining the roles. Though he hasn't played a ODI since the World Cup, surely introducing Strauss for Cook or Bell would have little adverse effect on the balance of the side. At any rate, surely the batsman who reevolved his batting to revive his test career may be able to conjure up a new face for the shorter format!

It also seems the right choice not to rush into a new coach appointment. The haste with which Moores was originally appointed seems not to have done the side any favours - after Moores' departure, the man who might have been courted had more time been available, Tom Moody, is once again a leading candidate. In the meantime Andy Flower seems capable enough!

Anyway - did anyone spot the stories that KP apparently asked Warne to come in as coach just before he was sacked?!

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.

Has Pietersen resigned?

The news just in on Cricinfo suggests that he has....

Sky first reported this - their story is here but it seems to be devoid of facts!

Day-evening Tests

The whole description of using the evening for Test matches is a little misleading at the moment. What we're really talking about, atleast initially, is a trial of day-evening Tests, not day-night matches. So rather than worrying about the ball which seems to be the major concern for the ICC, a trial should take place in countries with long evenings (eg. Australia or England - there may be more but I don't know!) where the red ball continues to be used but the lights are turned on as the sun goes down. We're talking half-light, not pitch black, which means that the ball argument is less important.

By talking about day-night Tests we're just confusing for matter. For now, why don't the ICC establish that day-evening Tests work for countries where there is that opportunity and then look at what that means for other countries who have longer nights?