Australia slip in warm up v SA

Twenty20 is such a short game that upsets are not just possible but probable in the Twenty20 World Cup, and the warm up game between South Africa and Australia proved just that. South Africa won by 8 wickets against Australia to give them a boost going into the tournament against the much-fancied Aussies.

I'm a little concerned about having one-off Twenty20 fixtures in the semi-final and final stages of the competition. It's bad enough in the 50 over version of the game, but in Twenty20 there is a serious risk of a sub-standard team winning due to a slice of luck and a poor decision or two. Maybe I'm alone in wanting the best team to win the competition, and upsets are what the tournament organisers want?

Good riddance Shoaib

Following on from Dave's post about Shoiab, take a look at this Pakistani cricket blog that I read sometimes (is cricket blogging taking over my life?!). It appears that public opinion in Pakistan is turning against Shoaib in a big way, and given what has been reported about his latest changing room scuffle, it's difficult not to agree. At least Pakistan have acted quickly and decisively in sending him home.

I hope that Pakistan now look to the future and ignore Shoaib's (no doubt extremely loud) calls for a recall via the media.

Strange Goings On In SA

Loots Bosman has reacted angrily after being ruled out of the South African Twenty20 squad on medical advice. Bosman claims he feels fine and wants to play. He as also accused coach Mickey Arthur of lying. You can read the cricinfo report here. The strange thing about this story for me is that he has been replaced by Andre Nel. A top order basher replaced by a specialist fast bowler. Is it possible that South Africa suddenly realised thay had the balance of the side wrong and have sought a medical report to get them out of it?

Akhtar Sent Home

Shoaib Akhtar has been sent home from South Africa after a dressing room altercation ended with Shoaib striking Mohammed Asif in the thigh with a cricket bat. Shoaib is one of those characters that just can't seem to stay away from controversy. There is a good little piece on cricinfo by Pakistani journalist Kamran Abbasi suggesting the Shoaib has had too many chances. I couldn't agree more with his sentiments. He is obviously a de-stabilising factor in the team and it seems to be stem from his arrogance. When he gets it right, he is one of the most devastating bowlers of his generation, but it is too rare an occurrence (he has hardly played in the last 18 months, and when he does, he is often lacklustre) to allow him to continue disrupting the morale of the team.

Get on with it - use technology every time

When the subject of technology aiding umpires comes up, there tends to be three objections that arise immediately. (1) the umpires lose respect, (2) the game will become disjointed by constantly replaying decisions, and (3) that the technology isn't good enough to "prove" a decision either way. The 3rd point of course, is only an argument for delaying the bringing in of technology - not for never having it.

But yesterday's dismissal of Collingwood proved what an absurd argument the second one is. Peter Hartley had only just started to reset the stumps when the replay was shown on the big screen at the Oval and it was clear to everyone in the ground that the batsman was short of his ground. No delay whatsoever. So I hope yesterday's incident speeds up the inevitable move to technology being used on all decisions. That way we'll avoid the absurdity of journalists today acclaiming Shah's "breakthrough" international innings when he was clearly out on 40 (brilliantly though he played).

ICC Awards

Ricky Ponting is most people's pick for the cricketer of the year award - no suprises there. For me Mohammed Yousuf gets the Test player award at a stroll and Jacques Kallis just takes the ODI player award. The ODI is the only one there can be much debate on - the candidates are all worthy - Hayden, Ponting, Kallis and McGrath. It may be that McGrath gets it for sentimental reasons....certainly no-one could complain about that as an ODI bowler who averages under 20 is a massive rarity.

You can see all the award noninees at Cricinfo.

All down to a decider...

I was only able to catch small bits of today's ODI, but it looked like England's fielding let them down. Much comment has been made of India's fielding weaknesses but as the pressure came on there were misfields and runs pinched involving Pietersen (admittedly the ball bobbled rediculously but that's an excuse for fumbling, not for letting it go for four), Anderson, Prior, Bell, Panesar and Cook. That's too many runs given away to deserve to win a game unfortunately, despite everyone's best efforts.

England shouldn't be down though. In some ways I'm pleased that India came through to win given the travesty of the Shah wrong decision, but they also got very lucky. In the last few overs, Uthappa managed to edge the ball just to the right of Prior (one of which Prior should have stopped), just to the left of him and Dhoni managed to top edge it just over him, all off Anderson. You had to feel for Anderson and he surely won't have such bad luck in the deciding match. Bring on Lords....

England set challenging total

England have set India a challenging total of 316. There were a few interesting things about the innings.

1. Collingwood was initially given not out when a big appeal for a run out was made, without referring to the 3rd umpire. The replay on the big screen showed that Collingwood was out so, after a delay, the decision was referred to the 3rd umpire after the crowd had made their feelings clear. Eventually the correct decision was made and Collingwood was given out. Lots of debate ensued about how the decision was given, but readers of Cricket Burble won't be surprised that I don't mind how the decision was made - the point is that it was correct in the end. There is no excuse for wrong decisions where the 3rd umpire could have been called upon.

2. Pietersen and Shah were involved in a mix up which led to Pietersen's run out. Pietersen jogged the first run and then turned and sprinted for a second - Shah didn't move. Who was at fault I don't know, but what was clear was that Shah had plenty of time to realise that one of them would be out and he should have sacrificed himself given that Pietersen was on over 50 and he was only just in double figures. That's not to say he didn't bat well from that point on.

3. Shah was out on 40 and not given. That decision has been added to the list of Cricket Burble wrong decisions. That wrong decision could have a big influence on the result of the game.

4. Mascarenas hit 5 sixes in a row off the last 5 balls of the innings. Yuvraj Singh was bowling which was a strange choice by Dravid, and he duly served up some lovely balls to hit. The hitting was very special by Mascarenas though.

Looking forward to listening to as much of the India innings as possible! You can listen to the commentary by clicking here.

Brett Lee really does do pop

I'm quite sure that several of you will have seen/heard this before but seeing as I joked about a 5-piece English band, I thought it was only right to put the Brett Lee effort up on Cricket Burble. I think it's safe to say it wasn't, and never will be, the start of an alternative career for Brett!

England players form 5-piece boy band

A Hugo Boss promotion seems to have made 5 of England's Test cricketers look like a less than heterosexual boy band. I think the point has been proven - the players will do anything for money. Seriously, did they not get to approve the shot before if was made public?

Hong Kong Sixes ad revamp

Look out for the new Hong Kong sixes advertising which it is is said will "inject a more social and vibrant feel" compared to standard cricket advertising. No doubt they feel under pressure given the rise of the Twenty20 game. It will be interesting to see what the net result is....cricket marketing hasn't traditionally been up to much, in my opinion....

Key fined for Twenty20 dissent

It was only a matter of time that someone would have a tantrum in full view of all the spectators once they made the players sit in their little dugouts for Twenty20 rather than the changing rooms...!

This is what happens (click here) if they are allowed to get back to the changing rooms...

Top 10 dropped catches

The Observer Sports Monthly magazine featured the top 10 cricketing drops, and some excellent drops there were too, featuring the likes of Gatting, Warne and Flintoff senior. Worth a look for those of you that haven't seen it already....

Wage problem

Simon Jones has to be a dodgy investment for any county doesn't he? Highly injury prone, and if he does get fit, the likelihood is that he'll be off playing for England within a season at the longest. No surprises that Hampshire are the ones that seem to be interested as they seem to have more money that most...and the ambition to go with it.

Another one off to the ICL...?

Another older international player looks set to join the ICL after Upul Chandana's retirement from international cricket. Who can blame them - a big pay day at the end of your career seems like a good opportunity....

Making your mark - how many ways?

You wouldn't have thought there could be that many ways of making your mark in the crease after taking guard.

Usually we do it by scratching a mark with a stud or the edge of the bat and then usually banging a small hole with the bottom of the face of the bat. There is also the West Indian way of banging a hole into the ground using a bail (one day surely somebody is going to break the spigot off the barrel of the bail - hope it happens on television in a big match!).

But on Saturday I saw a technique I'd never seen before (in zillions of years experience) - the batsman used the edge of his bat laid at right angles to the crease as a ruler and scored a line with a bail. What a good idea!
I wonder whether there are any other methods out there.

Warnie's Top 50

As everyone is surely now aware, Shane Warne has named the 50 greatest cricketers that he's played with or against. As these lists (and Warnie himself) always do, it is bound create discussion and controversy. Here are a few points I found interesting about the list.

1. Two non test cricketers make the list in Jamie Siddons and Darren Berry. No surprise that they are both Victorians. I think Warnie has let personal biases influence some of his rankings, which he is perfectly entitled to do......... it is his list. During his playing career Siddons was thought to be the best player in Australia not to have played test cricket. He did play one ODI though. Berry was the Chris Read of Australian cricket, regarded as the best gloveman in the country, but his batting let him down. I saw the leg side stumping from Reiffel and rate it as possibly the single most brilliant thing I've seen on a cricket field........big call I know.

2. Waqar Younis at number 45 and Merv Hughes at 18...........please! This is another example of Warnie's personal bias. No one doubts that Merv (another Victorian) was an excellent bowler but he shouldn't be on the same page as Waqar, let alone 27 places ahead of him.

3. He rates Tim May better than Stuart MacGill. Few people would be better placed to make this judgement than Warne, having bowled many long spells in tandem with each of them, but I disagree.

4. Gilchrist at 20, Healy at 10. There is no doubt that Heals was a better gloveman the Gilly, but as a cricketer, surely Gilly's batting gives him the edge. Not just the number of runs he scores, but the way he scores them. Also, I think Gilly's glovework is under rated.

5. I'm also a little surprised that Ponting is as low as 8. Though to be fair, all seven above him are quality cricketers, so I'll let that one pass.

6. I think the one that has caused the most discussion (in Australia at least) is the ranking of Steve Waugh at 26, behind such names as Darren Lehman and Stephen Fleming. I heard someone mention on a talk back radio show that Warne has held a grudge against Waugh ever since he was dropped in favour of MacGill for a test in the Caribbean in 1999. I have no idea if there is any truth to this, but it seems strange for Waugh to be so low on the list. Also Warnie's explanation that Waugh was a match saver rather than a match winner just doesn't wash. There are numerous occasions when Waugh has won Australia matches, and really, how often was Australia in a situation where he was required to bat out a day to save a match.

Anyone else have any comments on the list?

Reasons for Hall quitting international cricket?

Andrew Hall has retired from international cricket at the age of 32. Here's a few possible reasons...take your pic:

a) his body needs a rest
b) he is annoyed at being left out of the Twenty20 squad
c) he is joining the ICL

I know which one my money is on....

Why pull out?

No, this post is not referring to the bedroom. It's about bowlers who decide, in their infinite wisdom, that they will decline to bowl the ball because the batsman has made a movement at the crease. Writing the previous post reminded me of the occassion when that happened in the World Cup when Fernando pulled out of his run up on the last ball with England needing 4 to win and Bopara shuffling around the crease. And it seems to have been happening occassionally in the current England v India series.

Surely, if the batsman is moving around, all the advantages are with the bowler. The batsman's head is moving around, making it harder for him to play the ball as he wants to, and if the bowler has time to pull out of their run up, then they clearly have time to readjust the line and length of their delivery. If the batsman has moved outside leg, just bowl a yorker relatively wide outside off-stump. So, why do bowlers pull out?

Confusing Bopara comment

The London Paper last night reported some of Ravi Bopara's comments after he and Stuart Broad guided England to an unlikely victory in the 4th ODI against India. Bopara was quoted as saying "All I could think about was the Sri Lanka game against the West Indies. I had a bit of stick for not finishing the job and I was desperate to finish it off here."

My question is, as someone who was out of the country at the time, who gave him some stick? OK, I was watching the game on a fuzzy screen in the middle of the night in India, and often couldn't see where the white ball had gone as the picture was that bad(!), but it looked like a heroic effort that just came up short to me. Were people really giving him stick after the Sri Lanka World Cup defeat?