More Tests could happen quite easily...couldn't it?

I've openly wondered in comments on a couple of cricket sites why it is that there's the obsession with playing lots of ODIs - the reasons are normally assumed to be financial but I couldn't understand why that would be. Surely there's economies of scale repeating the same staffing and organisational things 5 days in a row compared to 5 separate days, and in the UK it's the Tests that people are more interested in?

No one seemed able to answer my question as to why ODIs got better financial returns and there's a good reason for that - they don't. Giles Clarke seems to think that the proliferation of ODIs comes from England's poor 2007 World Cup and the demand to play more ODI cricket. Well Duncan Fletcher (who always pushed for more ODI cricket) has gone now.

My solution would be 3 match ODI series only with at least one extra Test each summer. For one day practice the England players can also play for their Counties if they feel they need more than the international ODIs to hone their skills. And Twenty20? Just the one match against each touring side if absolutely necessary.

I can't see that it's the fixture list that impacts England's chances at World Cups. It's about having several weeks together in the lead up to World Cups without thinking about other formats, playing practice matches as necessary in the country the World Cup will be played in during that period.

So without the financials to worry about, please can we change the English schedule to have a greater focus on Test cricket?

"It wasn't the highest quality of cricket"

The Cricinfo report on the India v West Indies ODI yesterday suggests that "it wasn't the highest quality of cricket". I didn't watch the whole thing but the last portion of the match from when India were 6 down was worse than that. Very ordinary field placing from Sammy, who gifted India runs with a deep set field at a time all the Indian batsmen were doing was looking to knock risk-free singles given an asking rate of not much more than 3 an over.

Having said that, Sharma almost through his wicket away with a slog when he was seeing India home, only for Darren Bravo to either not see the skied ball at 3rd man, or perhaps just not been keen to dive forwards for the ball in case of injury. Ashwin showed that his poor running wasn't just a Test match issue, this time moving far too late when Sharma was running to the danger end and calling Ashwin through for a relatively easy 2nd run.

Duncan Fletcher has some work to do with Ashwin's out cricket - in his autobiography he lamented how certain England cricketers weren't taught the basics bu their Counties (I always assumed, rightly or wrongly, he was referring to Northants and Panesar) and he must feel the same about Ashwin. With Ashwin doing well his coach and mentor of course came forward to take the praise, but Sunil Subramaniam clearly didn't worry about out cricket during his sessions with Ashwin. Fletcher will no doubt be on the case.

With India desperately trying to throw the match away, West Indies returned the compliment with Sammy bowling a wide long-hop to India's number 10 Varun Aaron (which he hit for 4). And to make their task harder for himself, Aaron turned down a single off the 5th ball of the 47th over on the basis that he wanted to face the 48th over. Dim-witted tactics from both sides.

Poor cricket, but edge of the seat stuff. I imagine Fletcher is amazed at the impact he could have on some of the Indian players who've joined the side after the World Cup. Unlike England though, India's reserves can still beat West Indies....just.

Kohli ready to replace Dravid

Virat Kohli claims to be ready to replace Rahul Dravid in India's Test side....it will be interesting to see how Duncan Fletcher and MS Dhoni handle the retirements of some top players over the next few years.

Fletcher and the Indian coaching job

While the World Cup was on I read Behind the Shades- the autobiography of the new Indian coach Duncan Fletcher. A few things stood out. The first was the fact that Fletcher can't agree to disagree....he holds grudges and the whole book is an exercise in score-settling. The second is that he holds Gary Kirsten in extremely high regard and they clearly have a good relationship (the book was written before Kirsten got the India job). The third is that he makes it clear the (negative) impact the England job had on his family. And the fourth is that he's ambitious and the book demonstrates that he's been successful in all his coaching roles and wants to continue to challenge himself.

The second point means that Kirsten would have put in a good word for him in relation to the Indian coaching role (once Fletcher said he was interested) and Kirsten's word would have been taken very seriously as following the World Cup win, he is now revered for life in India. The third about the impact on his family may have been a problem for him, but the fourth point - his ambitious nature - meant that he would never let his family stop him from taking the top (and toughest) coaching job in cricket, and as they understand him presumably they wouldn't want to stop him either.

But it's the first point that makes me worry for him. Indian cricket is full of politics and back-stabbing - right now there will be a group of people who wanted someone else to be coach who will be undermining him. And there will be numerous leaks of information, something that he mentions time and time again riles him, so unless he changes his attitude he's going to have only himself to speak to for fear of a leak. How he deals with the administrative challenges of the Indian coaching role will determine how successful he is...

Trott can look back on a successful World Cup

Amazing (I think) that at this stage of the World Cup, Jonathan Trott is the leading run scorer. He continues to surprise people and there's no doubt he's been England's one success story in this World Cup. His strike rate is 80, but imagine what it could have been with better support from those around him, rather than having to hold most of England's innings together.

This piece by Duncan Fletcher sums things up for me - he compares Trott to Kallis, which in itself is a huge compliment to England's number 3, with Kallis being one of the all-time greats.

New Zealand woes

Having lost two series in a row against Bangladesh and India without winning a game, New Zealand seem to be really struggling. And the worry for them is that the World Cup coming up will be in similar spin-friendly conditions. However, anyone who saw the final ODI against India will appreciate that the amount of spin that the slow bowlers got was rediculous, and even spin friendly wickets shouldn't play like that. In retrospect, both sides would have played spinners only if they could have, and that means the wicket was at fault to some degree.

As with any struggling side they need to retain their best team, successful or not, and ensure that they give themselves the best possible chance of turning things around. They've started by enlisting the services of Duncan Fletcher, who has reportedly suggested a reduction in Daniel Vettori's responsibilities. I'm glad that's all he's suggested - Vettori is the stand out player in New Zealand and there were a few reports that the captaincy would get taken off him. If that's what he wants, fair enough, but to sack him would be catastrophic for new Zealand cricket in my opinion.

It will be interesting to see if New Zealand can rally, given that their coach Mark Greatbach seems to want to push all blame to the players rather than taking any responsibility himself.

England preparation to smooth?

An interesting piece from Duncan Fletcher about how things couldn't look any better for England going into next week's 1st Ashes Test (although they could have finished the job against Australia A having got them 66-5). And for yet more discussion about how the two teams are preparing and their various issues, listen to Cricinfo's Switch Hit....

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...!

Ramprakash's 100th Hundred

Amidst the mass resignations over the weekend, Mark Ramprakash quietly achieved his hundredth hundred against Yorkshire. It has been mentioned that he will probably be the last player to achieve this memorable feat and I am delighted that he has done so.

He was my first batting hero, primarily as he was a local boy to me (his school was 'just round the corner'). He was also someone who I could quite easily find an excuse for, for not cutting it in the international arena (dropped too many times, played with a tail which started at 7 too many times etc).

I am certain that if he was 5 years younger he would have benefitted from central contracts and would been taken under the wing of Duncan Fletcher (without the baggage of the early 90s) and would have become a true international star and not just a county great.

But rather than reflecting on the woulds and ifs, Ramprakash will still have a memorable and deserved place in cricket history.

Well done!

Flintoff & drinking

I find it difficult to have much sympathy for Flintoff, if the comments attributed to Duncan Fletcher are true. It is suggested that Flintoff drank in the Australian changing room until midnight after the 2nd Test defeat in Australia, and that a net session had to be cancelled because he had been drinking.

It is often the players who are more extroverted outside the game that are the match-winners on it but, if these comments are factually correct, there seem indefendable. I'm all for socialising with the opposition post-match, but in a game where Flintoff's team had thrown the Ashes away, his duty was to his own team and attempting to rebuild confidence before the 3rd Test, not drinking to the Aussie's success.

It will be interesting to see whether the comments are considered to be accurate or have been exaggerated...

Botham criticises Fletcher's handling of the media

Ian Botham seems to find it difficult to give credit where credit is due. He's labelled Duncan Fletcher as "miserable" and "paranoid" when dealing with the media. It's a little like a small child that doesn't get his own way. Fletcher didn't give the media everything they wanted and instead focused on getting results from a team that didn't look on paper as if they could challenge the best in the world. I seem to remember Botham's handling of the press when he resigned the England captaincy before he was pushed as a little on the miserable side too.

Botham was at least able to say a few nice words about Fletcher before the criticism: "Duncan Fletcher did some extremely good things for the England cricket team but everyone has a shelf life but I'm afraid his had expired. England were going nowhere. There was no communication and at times I think Duncan took being miserable to a new level. You have to communicate with people. You have to be able to talk to the media and I think that Duncan didn't want to. In my opinion he was becoming paranoid about the media and what they were saying. That became a major concern and it possibly undermined his position in the team. He seemed totally withdrawn and you can't be like that.

I think the media take some of the blame for this - you only have to look at the way Sven-Goran Erikson was treated by the British media to understand why Fletcher may have been a little paranoid. So which came first - the chicken or the egg?

Can't we just thank Duncan Fletcher for a job well done? After all he took us from complete nobody's on the world cricket stage to a team that is second only to Australia in the Test Match rankings. Admittedly he couldn't replicate that success in ODI's, but we shouldn't hold that against him. Let's just thank Duncan Fletcher for working hard for England and leaving us in a hugely stronger position than when he started. As he has said himself, "One thing you can say is that when I got the job not many people wanted it. Now everyone's clamouring for it."

I know my praise is not worth anything compared to the views of Ian Botham, but thanks very much Duncan. If you go on to coach the West Indies, as Clive Lloyd wants you to, then good luck - that's an even harder task than the one you took with England 7 years ago.

The Schofield Report

There is an epidemic of enquiries and reports across all publicly accountable organisations these days, whether it be government or, in this case, the ECB. Clearly there was a requirement to look into what happened in Australia and the Caribbean, as is the case after all tours whether they be successful or otherwise, but is it just Cricket Burble that thinks there are too many people contributing?

The list of authors are a list of ex England cricketers and Ken Schofield himself, who was Executive Director of the European Golf Tour for 30 years. The full list of these ex-players compiling the report are: Nasser Hussain, Nick Knight, Angus Fraser, Hugh Morris, Micky Stewart and Brian Rose. Cricket Burble would be very interested to hear how they are going about their task, because seven heads is surely too many to collate a report like this? And why the list of 6 ex-England cricketers - playing cricket doesn't necessarily mean that you are in the best position to evaluate the backroom processes of an international cricket team - in fact, some like Hussain, are too close to Fletcher and some of the players to be truly objective, even if it is only on an unconscious level.

If you take Hussain in particular, he went very public in his autobiography about his huge admiration for Fletcher - while he would certainly be able to put this to the back of his mind, he must be able to admit he's not the best man for this job. Interestingly the report is meant to be delving into the team's affairs over the last 4 years - one wonders what has happened to the previous tour reports that must have been compiled. And have you noticed the significance of the dates involved - Hussain was still playing at the start of the 4 year period he's looking into. Hussain's decision to take up the ECB's request to play a part in the report seems all the more odd because of his quite correct publicly stated objections to "jobs for the boys". He outlines in his book just why he feels so many counties are poorly run - because they are run by ex-cricketers rather than businessmen.

When Greg Chappell resigned as coach of the Indian team he allegedly declined to give in his post World Cup report that was expected of him and the BCCI didn't push him for it. Duncan Fletcher's ECB legacy it appears, is out of his hands too, although the decision wasn't of his making. Let's hope that Schofield and his ECB assembled group of ex-international cricket players, can come up with a report that really drives English cricket forward, rather than digs knives in to various backs. If they do, they at least will have proven that they perhaps were right for the job of writing the report, even if there are too many of them.