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.

Mankading not ok for Swann and Agnew

I wrote before how it was Jos Buttler's fault that he was run out backing up by Sri Lanka in the ODI series.   Most club cricketers I spoke to thought the same - why wasn't Buttler a bit more careful having been warned?   

So it's interesting to hear from Agnew that the general response from club cricketers was that it was ok and his speculation as to the reason for that.   He suggested the reason could be that club cricketers don't see their opponents again where as pro cricketers see each other regularly on the circuit.   That's not the case at all - as a club cricketer I've built up a large number of opponents who I play against home and away each year and have a beer or two with after each game.   So the fact that I thought Buttler's dismissal was ok wasn't to do with the fact I wouldn't see people again if I did the same - it was to do the fact that he was in the wrong and Sri Lanka were in the right!

Swann talked of his mankading of Mark Snell of Middlesex when he was Under 11 and said his father told him he wished he was adopted after he did it.   That's left him with a feeling that it's not an acceptable dismissal, but surely it is when the batsman is regularly backing up too far?

I don't expect to agree with the commentators all the time, but I'm surprised with their views on mankading, not because I disagree (which happens fairly regularly)....but more because it's not just me that disagrees....the overwhelming majority of club cricketers seem to disagree despite key influencers in the media making as strong a case as they can for mankading to be wrong.   It hasn't changed the views of any club cricketers I speak to.

What to make of Swann's retirement?

To be honest it makes no sense to me.   Whether he's bowling better or worse than before his elbow op early in the year, there's no doubt he deserved to be on the tour.   The vast majority of observers would still have him down as the best spinner in England, even before considering his catching at 2nd slip and his batting down the order.   None of that has changed in the course of 3 matches.

In those 3 matches Swann's figures have been very poor, but there's always the little nuances to consider.   Swann's wickets have been the top order batsmen or Mitchell Johnson (Clarke x 3, Warner x 2, Rogers, Bailey, Johnson).   And unfortunately his team mates haven't helped him out - Root dropped Clarke when he was on 18 in the first innings at Adelaide before he went on to score a hundred, and Prior sadly missed two opportunities to stump Warner in the 2nd innings at Perth.   So things aren't quite as bad as the numbers suggest given that one of the world's best players of spin has succumbed 3 times and also been dropped of Swann's bowling.

That's not to say that he should necessarily have been picked for the MCG - his place quite rightly was in question.   It's possible he would have been dropped, but that was the case for a number of England players.   They all took the decision to be part of the Ashes squad and unless they are medically unfit to play (i.e. Trott), they should be there for the duration.   It's obvious that retiring mid-tour will have huge pick up in the press and completely destabilise the side.   So I can't work out Swann's decision - it can be described as selfish, the actions of a quitter, gutless, etc.

Interesting then to see that his decision has been defended by the likes of Vaughan and Boycott.   Vaughan says that he's not being selfish because he's given up 9 months money rather than seeing out his contract.   And Boycott says that's "it takes a brave man" to do what he has done.   What a load of b***sh*t!   He's a rich man anyway and doesn't need the money as he'll walk into another highly paid line of work.   What would be fair to say is that if, as David Lloyd says in the same piece, Swann is all about the team, then he's made a big mistake.   Mistakes are part and parcel of life, and can be forgiven, but to try and pass off a mid-tour retirement as anything other than entirely detrimental to the team is lunacy.

I heard Jonathan Agnew giving an interview in which he suggested that the management team had given Swann the nod that he would be dropped and therefore given him the opportunity to retire first.   I wouldn't rule that out, but if Swann was as much of a team man as everyone says he is, then the response would have been to continue and to support Panesar and the rest of the side by helping them prepare for the MCG.   Not cause a commotion, tell the press that you'd like to see Scott Borthwick selected (which is really going to help Panesar as he prepares for the Boxing Day Test) or say anything that could be twisted by the media to be a criticism of his ex-England team mates.

Frustrating really - such a great player for England but he's not handled the retirement process at all well.   England need to learn from this - before Clive Woodward took the 2003 World Cup winning rugby team to Australia they discussed the retirement issue as a number of players were at the end of their careers.  They agreed as a team not to announce retirements, or discuss them, until after the tournament.   How Flower must be wishing he'd had the same foresight to agree the handling of retirements pre-tour as Woodward did.

 

Do or die

So England have to defy history and momentum to stop Australia taking the Ashes over the next 5 days in Perth.   5 days if England are lucky many will think.   But I'm not quite as negative as many!

Yes, England have looked shocking in the first two Tests but the primary problem has been with the batting.   You look down the side and there's only Stokes who there's any doubt about.   Cook, Bell, Pietersen and Prior are class players who, apart from Bell, have been off form.   They will regain form.   Root and Carberry are inexperienced but fighting hard.   Cook needs to win the toss, bat and lead the way.   Two hundreds in the first innings of the match and the game will be England's to lose.

It's a massive if given the struggles England have had with the bat in 2013, but if they can get runs on the board the next challenge is getting 20 wickets.   Interesting to hear the side that Cricinfo have suggested is likely- they suggest one change from Adelaide which is Bresnan for Panesar.   That's the most likely team and the one I would go for, partly because of Swann's catching at second slip.   But I wonder how much thought England are giving to a side that involves Ballance and Stokes, as Alec Stewart has proposed, but no Swann.   Stokes would have to bowl a lot more overs than in Adelaide, possibly nearly as many in a day than the 25 he bowled in the match there.   But a batting line up that has Bresnan at 9 and Broad at 10 theoretically gives England a long batting line up.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall.   I'd play Swann, but it's a marginal call and I wouldn't be too disappointed if he was dropped.   I imagine England have looked at the stats of how many batsmen are caught at slip and are weighing up the dropping of one of their specialists in that position.

The main thing is the batting - the largest partnership in the first two Tests was 111 and other than that it's 62...not good enough!   A small momentum change like Cook getting a big score after being dropped, or two of England's top 4 getting big runs in the first innings of the match could turn things in England favour - Australia's batting is pretty brittle, despite the big scores in the first two Tests.

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torment of man" (Friedrich Nietzsche).

I haven't given up hope yet but the toss is crucial!

Like children in the playground

 

You'll have noticed my lack of comment on the whole Kevin Pietersen debacle.   That's partly because of work/childcare etc, but partly because I don't know what to make of it.   KP is clearly like an only child who needs constant care and attention or otherwise he throws a tantrum.   Some of the players (e.g. Broad, Swann and Anderson) show so much petulance at times that you wonder if they're really past adolescence too so I assume they dig at him relentlessly.   All in all it amounts to a skirmish that resembles children bickering in the playground.

It's easy to give an opinion and without all the facts it's likely to be wrong.   But from what's in the public domain it's clear that Pietersen wanted to play the whole IPL and there will be others hoping that he'll pave the way for them, such as Morgan who apparently came to KP's defence on Twitter.   In that respect, Pietersen is playing the role of the elder child testing the parents' patience - he may not be successful, but I suspect the ECB will be a little more understanding with Morgan requests the same at some point.

I imagine most readers of Cricket Burble will be extremely anti-Pietersen.   I've not got a strong opinion.   Knowing the detail that Strauss and Flower plan with though, I think they'll be cursing themselves for not treating Pietersen with all the care and attention he feels he needs.   It's easy to say that he needs to fall in with the team ethic, but some players need love and adoration more than others, and all need bespoke handling to get the best out of them.   It would be interesting to know if Strauss and Flower have spent time thinking in detail about what could motivate Pietersen to new heights and ensure that he and his team mates gel....and then put in place that individual plan.

When West Indies toured here, much was made by the commentators about the fact that their most talented players weren't playing such as Gayle, Sarwan and Jerome Taylor.   It was said then that it was the job of the management to ensure that these characters were integrated and moulded into the best possible team for the West Indies.  

I don't hear anyone saying the same about England's management of Pietersen.   Being hard on Pietersen is acceptable (under the assumption that it leads to mid and long-term benefit for the England team), but only if at the same time they're reiterating to the rest of the team that all characters need to be integrated into the team.   It's not a popularity contest....it's about getting the best XI on the pitch to win for England, and Pietersen is undoubtedly in England's best XI.   It's both Pietersen and the ECB's responsibility to find a compromise, and the rest of the player's responsibilities to reintegrate him.

Strauss on his team mates

A huge amount was made of Graeme Swann's comments about Kevin Pietersen's lack of leadership credentials in his recently released autobiography, and yet any tensions that those words caused were never apparent to any external observer. Perhaps the England team have found that happy blend of honesty and even taking the mickey out of each other that allows sides to build up fantastic morale?

It's a near impossible thing to get right because it's rare that all players can give as good as they get, so invariably "banter" between team mates is something that is enjoyed rather more by some than by others. And if the team aren't careful, one or two players all too easily become the target for the majority of "banter", leaving them feeling a little ostracised.

Interesting then to hear Andrew Strauss - in relatively unguarded mood - make a few comments about his team mates and Chairman of Selectors, tongue in cheek. The whole video is about an hour and twenty minutes so here's a few of his comments I thought were interesting....

Simon Hughes asked Dusty Miller about how Strauss had come to be captain of England and Miller explained how he originally didn't see Strauss as a one day player and he thought at the time England needed the same captain for ODIs and Tests. His view that Strauss couldn't play ODIs changed and that opened things up for Strauss to become captain. Strauss' view (paraphrased): "What Dusty's is really trying to say is that after the Kevin Pietersen / Peter Moores fallout, there weren't many other options".

Simon Hughes also asked if Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott were really as boring as it appeared. Answer, "yes"! Strauss then clarified when asked if Trott participated in the changing room banter or if he was a loner....no, he's not a loner, "but don't let anyone tell you he's a normal bloke because he isn't". Apparently Trott has a habit of walking off to the next tee on the golf course before his opponent has finished the previous hole as he's so wrapped up in his own game, so it's not just batting where he's self-obsessed.

And what of the team comedian Graeme Swann? Strauss likens him to a Mars bar - the first one tastes great and the first time you meet Graeme Swann it's a very enjoyable experience. By the 15th Mars bar you're feeling sick, and continually spending time with Swann makes you feel that way too apparently.

Nice to know the England captain feels comfortable ribbing his team mates a little without fear of admonishment.

A sad day

It's a sad day when you flick the channel away from England to SA v Australia in an attempt to watch a match that's a proper contest! Let's hope the England team are learning while they're losing and it strengthens them moving forwards.

Someone will have to explain to me how anyone would pick Borthwick ahead of Swann...perhaps Swann is feeling the ramifications of his tell all autobiography which he must have realised wasn't going to go down well with Flower?

"Horror show" is about right

Before Sunday's Twenty20 against West Indies I read this piece on King Cricket that rang true - it was all about how some of England's youngsters were being rated very highly with little proof of their credentials. I have to say that I agreed with the sentiment.

So it really grated when the commentators just assumed England would chase 114 yesterday - I certainly didn't feel the same given England had no experience in their batting line up. To lose though they did have to put in a terrible batting performance, which is what they duly did - rightly termed a "horror show" by Swann.

It's never nice to watch England lose but I think it will help in the long run - Swann only bowling 2 overs and Bresnan not coming back for the last over instead of Bopara gave the impression of a little bit of arrogance. 4 run outs is clearly disasterous. And the shots from Stokes and Bairstow were ill judged. Not to mention Bresnan seemingly picking out the fielder at long-off to give catching practice too. So just the 3 wickets that were the result of good bowling (and I'm being charitable to Kieswetter)....

Perhaps England still have a bit of work to do. Hopefully the loss will help in the mid and long-term.

The alternative to Strauss - Stuart Broad???

As I said in a previous post, I think Strauss should carry on as England captain. And that's irrespective of whether he wants to try to carry on to the 2015 World Cup - even if he doesn't there's no ideal candidate to replace him right now.

Michael Vaughan has suggested that if England were to look past Alastair Cook, he thinks Stuart Broad should be considered. I struggle with that - a guy who is so petulant clearly has problems remaining emotionally detached as the skipper needs to. The old Bob Woolmer saying "Your heart's in the oven, your brain's in the fridge" is something completely alien to Broad. He may have captaincy potential eventually but, dare I say it, he's got a bit of maturing to do before he reaches that point.

You can see how Vaughan has ended up considering Broad though - who else is there exactly other than Cook, who currently doesn't get in the side? It's difficult to be able to tell from outside the changing room who has the respect of the other players and who is tactically astute. My guess is that they'd go to Ian Bell. I don't know if Graeme Swann has any captaincy credentials but it would be interesting to know if he even gets a thought given his care free attitude.

I hope for England's sake it doesn't become an issue and Strauss continues.

England tactics are worrying for the rest of the WC

I know, I know, England won. And it's not fashionable to criticise a winning team. But I'm afraid I can't help it.

Strauss seems to have a happy knack of turning to the right bowler at the right time, but for the most part I hate his defensive field placings. When South Africa were 7 down he allowed Van Wyk and Steyn to knock the ball around without pressure with a deep field. England had to take wickets - a ring field assumed the only way to get wickets was through a huge batting error, hitting the ball in the air, apart from bowled and LBW.

This Cricinfo piece suggests that Strauss did a good job as captain but his fields drove me quietly insane! When Swann bowled his 10th over - one that England desperately needed a wicket in, there was just the slip and backward short-leg - where was the forward short-leg and silly point?

And when Broad bowled the match-changing 48th over of the South African innings, there wasn't a catcher in site - as Prior took the catch to win the game there was no lone slip next to him, let alone two - what if the edge had been a little thicker?

It seems only Dhoni and Sangakkara in world cricket are advocates of attacking captaincy and backing their bowlers....of course I want England to win the World Cup but assuming they don't, it would be nice to see an attacking captain win rather than one of the conservative camp, which Strauss, sadly for England, definitely falls into. He won't always get so lucky.

P.S. The best England team is still the one that hasn't been played yet, that I put forward at the start of the World Cup...hopefully England will get to it eventually.

England improving...

England couldn't finish the job having got themselves into a winning position but England supporters can take heart from the main part of the batting display which was perfectly paced. As an Englishman I'm used to match-changing collapses and the arrogant way that the likes of Botham, Hussain and, to a lesser extent, Atherton, assumed England would walk it - with Bell and Strauss batting well going into the final 10 overs - grated.


Sure enough two wickets in two balls saw England's set batsmen depart and the game started to slip away from England. The powerplay worked against the in-coming batsmen (not that it exactly helped the set ones), with Prior in particular drilling the ball straight at fielders inside the circle, and England couldn't have made more of a mess of the part of the game that's meant to work to their advantage. That's where they can make huge strides forwards in their future games. Losing 4 wickets in the powerplay was disasterous, especially when India had to return to their less experienced bowlers once it was over as Khan and Harbajan were bowled out.


The powerplay out of the way and with nothing to lose, Swann and Bresnan belted sixes off the Chawla over that England surely must have been waiting for and expecting big things from. But just as England were getting themselves into a good position Bresnan got bowled leaving 14 required off the final over. England managed to get 15 off the Chawla over but only scored off 4 balls. Shahzad displayed his cool with a straight six in the final over (hopefully England can learn from that - a low risk maximum rather than a swish across the line), and in the end England will feel they could have won given 2 needed off 1 ball. But with 29 needed with 2 wickets in hand and 11 balls to go, they'd have taken a tie every time.


Where does this put England? In a far better position than they were going into the match. Their bowling and fielding still has a long way to go, and I'm sure a level-head like Flower will be able to point out the shot selection issues as the pressure came on in the powerplay and at the end. That's good news - they aren't even playing that well and yet they tied with the tournament favourites.


It would be great if Strauss could show a little more flexibility in the field and to get the best side on the pitch he and Flower need to work out if they have confidence in Collingwood as a bowler. If you're going to give him just 3 overs rather than allow him to take the heat off Anderson given his off day then it is questionable whether they should pick Collingwood at all. On batting alone, Bopara is the more fluent so Collingwood should only be playing if they consider him an all-rounder and Strauss will give him the ball on days like today when one of his bowlers has an off-day. Only Strauss can answer what's going on in his mind in the field, but his batting has been fantastic and long may he remain top run scorer in the competition.


So take heart England supporters - loads of room for improvement and still tieing with India - it could be worse.

Weather could come to Australia's aid

Sadly (for England supporters) the rain yesterday in Adelaide meant that the mouth-watering prospect of watching Kevin Pietersen, already with a double century to his name, and Ian Bell, who looked in sumptuous form, step on the accelerator prior to a declaration that would have left Australia an awkward few overs to see out at the end of the day, didn't become reality. It seems a shame that England will now almost certainly have to declare, having scored 1,068 for 5 over their last 2 innings given the Adelaide weather forecast.

If the weather was decent I'd be wanting to get a lead of over 450 because England won't want to bat again, but second guessing how much play there will be over the next two days will be tricky for Strauss. As a pessimist I fear a draw as Ponting will dig in second time round, and Australia won't gift England two wickets with schoolboy running again. But there is just a little optimistic streak in me that says that Anderson might be helped by cloudy and humid conditions and, more importantly, that Swann could turn it big, take a 5 for, and take England to victory. Fingers crossed!

Bowling changes

As expected the word on the street or any newspaper you read/pundit you (try not to) listen to, Mitchell Johnson's Test career is over for the short term. In his place will be either the rather dull prospect of Ryan Harris or the more intriguing Doug Bollinger. Hopefully you will ascertain from my slightly colourful language who I think the Australians should pick. A Bollinger selection would weaken the batting but would certainly improve the bowling, as he's probably the best bowler to test Trott, Pietersen and Bell, who I'd think would be pretty comfortable facing the right-arm-over bowlers. Bollinger would make all the England batsmen play more deliveries than poor old Johnson.

But I think England should also be making a bowling change - Monty Panesar for Steven Finn. Why? Adelaide is a notorious flat pitch, the Kookaburra ball is pretty ineffective after 20 overs for seamers and the Australians seem to have a plan to combat Graeme Swann. Rather than waste Finn as a containing bowler, Panesar could be used to attack the right-handers which would include a fired-up Ricky Ponting and their best player of spin Michael Clarke. This would take the pressure of Swann and allow him to be more relaxed/threatening. If England need a third-seamer to contain Paul Collingwood would be that man. Finn in return will be sufficiently rested ahead of the third Test in Perth where he would come back into the side.

Strauss and Swann's tactics

For the most part England bowled and fielded pretty well this morning and they can consider themselves very unlucky not to have broken the Hussey/Haddin partnership. Things that they could have done better were Finn's length, Swann's consistency and Cook's drop.

We hear they're constantly evaluating their performance and thinking about how it can be bettered so I suspect those will be discussed at lunch, but I wonder if they'll talk about their fields for when Swann is bowling to Hussey? I wasn't watching live yesterday but the field seemed to go back early and made it easy for Hussey to accumulate while waiting for the short ball to put away. Today, before he came down the wicket and hit Swann down the ground over mid-off, I was gutted England hadn't put a straight mid-on and mid-off as deep as they could go while saving one. Having not done that, in my (relatively humble!) opinion, Strauss then compounded the error by immediately dropping cover out to sweep and put out a long on and long off. Exactly what Hussey was looking for - that's why he took the risk of coming down the wicket to hit straight.

I'd love to see England attack with Swann and make Hussey hit over the top half a dozen times before dropping the field back. And even then, deep point shouldn't be required if he's pitching it up, which surely he must if he's got two straight fielders on the boundary.

Anyway, going to sleep now so fingers crossed England's luck will change!

Past Aussie players predict 3-2

Interesting to read what the likes of Mark Waugh, Brendon Julien, Damien Fleming and Stuart McGill predict for The Ashes. The first two predict a 3-2 Australian win and the other two agree Australia will win but don't give a score.

I find it difficult to take opinions seriously that don't mention Graeme Swann once - as he's England's best bowler you would have thought he might warrant a mention! Apparently the bowlers for Australia to fear are Anderson and Broad so these past players think...it'll be great for England if they are as potent a threat as Swann.

Australia's bowling attack for the Gabba

Given recent scores at the Gabba, I was going to post this morning about how it looks like it's seam friendly and if your spinner is borderline for selection, it looks like a place to go in with 4 seamers. So England will of course play Swann as he's their best bowler, but for Australia I'd be going with Bollinger (assuming he's fit), Harris, Siddle and Johnson, with North, Katich and Clarke able to bowl spin as necessary.

But Greg Chappell seems to be leaning away from 4 seamers, so what do I know?

James Anderson coming out of his shell

Nasser Hussain famously said that he struggled to get a word out of James Anderson in the England changing room, but it appears that he's now Mr Confident. He's leading England's bowling attack, and he's getting his kit off. Not content with this starkers shot advertising Hugo Boss, he's now going to appear nude on the front of gay magazine Attitude to assert the rights of gay men in cricket to come out. I can't imagine Graeme Swann congratulating him on that without a hint of sarcasm!!

Out to a World Cup winner...

Playing for a Steyning XI against the President's XI on Monday I was asked to open the batting and was just getting going when this guy I'd been introduced to before we walked on the pitch as "Giles" came on to bowl. Giles Hayward seemed a bit "tommy trundle" to me so after playing an over I tried to hit him over the top and got caught at mid-on. "Good bowler" isn't he, someone said. I thought it was more batsman error, but apparently Giles was man-of-the-match for England Under 19s when they won the World Cup in 99 as this article from back in 2004 reveals (written pre Shah and Swann playing Test cricket!).

It's not every day you get out to a World Cup winner....

Yesterday at the Test

Three observations:

1. Swann's ball to get Farhat out was spectacular - the perfect ball.

2. Broad needs to mature rapidly if he's to make the most of his ability - he's not a child anymore but continues to act like one on the pitch.

3. Zulqarnain needs a reality check. It was a good battling innings, but you don't react like that when you score 50, whatever the circumstances. That would have been over the top even for a hundred. Kissing the wicket is appropriate when you've broken the world record only!

Swann pussies out

After a no ball was bowled in today's England v Australia game today with Graeme Swann at short-leg, Australia had a free hit and the field wasn't allowed to change. I can imagine that short-leg wouldn't be the ideal spot to be for a free hit, but it seems a bit gutless to leg it off the field and leave England with 10 for the free hit delivery! If the ball had gone through where Swann was and England had lost off the last ball he would (I hope/trust) have felt very guilty!

Still, didn't seem to hurt England who won easily despite a slight wobble.