Poor and poorer from Dominic Cork

The downside of Dominic Cork retiring is that he'll have more time to spend being a pundit. Take this exchange from yesterday as he commented on the intriguing second Test between South Africa and Australia (paraphrasing):

Cork: (with South Africa now in a good position following an Amla/deVilliers partnership) "Perhaps they can look at bringing Prince to 5 and dropping de Villiers to 6 to get the balance in their batting right"

Ian Ward: "They seem to be doing alright with the order they've got"

Cork: "I just think they may want Prince up one and a stroke player like de Villiers at 6 in England this summer. But then again Prince hasn't been in the runs lately and is under pressure for his place. And the batting order they have now is pretty much perfect."

Thanks Dominic. Another incisive comment.

And then talking through Mitchell Johnson's troubles with the ball he came up with another corker (geddit?). After showing how Johnson is working to get his wrist behind the delivery now, Cork suggested that (again paraphrased) "the in-swinger to the right-hander is the hardest ball for a left-armer like Johnson to bowl and he's showing signs he's rediscovering it".

Really Dominic - the inswinger to the right-hander is the hardest ball to bowl for a left-armer? Not the outswinger to the right-hander that I've only ever seen Wasim Akram bowl consistently well in my lifetime?

I think it's save to assume that Cork's captaincy at Hampshire was built around man-management and motivation rather than tactical nous. How useful for a pro pundit.

Is it best to be occasionally brilliant?

Now that Australia have finally dropped Mitchell Johnson I think it raises some interesting questions about why some bowlers are retained for longer than others. Some seem to be retained against all common sense, while others are always talked about as close to being dropped. I'm no psychologist, but it must come down to people (and selectors) feeling more favourable towards players who give brilliant performances and very poor ones, compared to the steady-eddies.

Of course the best bowlers are always steady-eddies and can occasionally put in brilliant match-winning performances too. I'm thinking of bowlers like McGrath, Warne, and dare I say his name in the same breath, Flintoff in his latter career (NB. he had a far better later part of his career). Their worst was a decent Test match performance. And their bowling averages - yes, I know stats don't tell the full story - back that up.

But then you've got the steady-eddies who don't seem to ever be quite as revered as the scattergun occasional match winners. I'm thinking of the likes of Angus Fraser who averaged 27 but always seemed to be on the verge of being dropped in the second half of his career. Or Matthew Hoggard, who's average of 30.5 puts him miles ahead of Devon Malcolm (37), Steve Harmison (31.8), and Flintoff's overall average of 32.8. But no-one remembers Hoggard's regular 3 fors, just the 9 in an innings that Malcolm got against South Africa, Harmison's 7 for 12 against West Indies, or Flintoff's 5 for at Lord's against Australia.

Mitchell Johnson (30.1) had a sensational period in Test cricket and will remember some real highs, such as his 8 for against South Africa. But somehow those highs stopped the selectors from assessing him as they should have done, just as England did with Harmison. Then consider this against Stuart Clark, who averages 23.9 in Tests, only took a 5 for twice and never took 10 in a match, and was swiftly forgotten after injury pegged him back a little (sorry Dave, just had to mention Clark one more time to rile you!!).

Anyone with me on this theory that players get cut far more slack if they can be a matchwinner occassionally rather than a steady performer almost every match?!?

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.

Odd Bits and Bobs - Ashes related

A couple of things I've noticed in the last week or so.

1) Ian Chappell talks a lot of rubbish - one example being how disappointed he was in Steven Smith bowling in a long sleeve sweater in the Australia A game in windy Hobart. Is that a crime?

2) That moustache suits Ben Hilfenhaus. Looks like a modern Dennis Lillee. Mitchell Johnson and Kevin Pietersen, on the other hand...

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?

Indian running between the wickets

I watched much of the final session today and there were a few things to note. First Ponting started to Sehwag with a field of slip, gully, third man, deep point, extra cover, mid on, short leg, leg gully, fine leg. What a field to go with when you've put 478 on the board in the first innings! It meant that the occasional good balls on off stump tended to be fended away for one to cover, while wider balls were dispatched. One short ball was put just wide and over the 3rd man for 6 by Sehwag.

But Australia clearly had a plan and Sehwag was occasionally troubled by balls into his ribs. And eventually he tried to tuck into a slower ball bouncer from Hilfenhaus. The crowd went wild but the ball came down just inside the boundary at deep square, exactly where Mitchell Johnson was standing to take an easy catch.

30 off 28 for Sehwag then and perhaps vindication for Ponting's tactics, although I have to say they seem very strange to me. But one aspect of Sehwag's innings worried me - his running. It was truly appalling and while he's never been a great runner, I've not noticed him being so poor before. As some of you on Facebook noticed, I recently selected him in my all-time XI which was a very marginal call and his running may even make me rethink!

Gavaskar on commentary was talking nonsense when he twice criticised Vijay's running. When you're batting with Sehwag, rotating the strike is ideal and someone coming back into the team can't be expected to turn down singles because his better known opening partner isn't switched on. Twice Vijay pushed defensively into the covers for regulation singles and twice Sehwag was nearly caught short. Once the Australian's hit and Sehwag was considered in as the video frames couldn't quite show where his bat was when the bails first came off - far to close for comfort but if he'd been backing up and lunged in as all cricketers at club and pro level do, he'd have been past the stumps. And then he would have been out had the second Aussie throw hit, as he seemed too lazy to sprint past the stumps - as the ball whistled across the stumps he was slowing up so as to not go far past the stumps.

India's out cricket has often been criticised, but I'm not sure how they'll improve with the likes of the much respected Gavaskar suggesting that Vijay was at fault for risking Sehwag's wicket. Sehwag simply needed to wake up a bit. While regulation singles are being turned down and the likes of Gavaskar are being kept happy, India may well lose those tight matches. I hope Vijay isn't unnerved by those near-misses.

Tomorrow morning he'll be batting with Tendulkar who was the first person to go past 14,000 Test runs during his 44 not out. There's only one person Indian's would be even more annoyed about being run out then Sehwag, and that's the little master himself. Fingers crossed that it isn't a run out that splits the two up tomorrow morning!

Cricket all balls to Hitler

"Hitler has only got one ball, the other is in the Albert Hall..." I believe it goes, but it sounds like Hitler never quite got the hang of bowling a cricket ball. According to this account, he couldn't get his head around the Laws and wanted to make cricket more violent.

Without helmets in those days, it's just as well Mitchell Johnson wasn't around - he could have done some damage playing to Hitler's laws...

Mitchell Johnson - not that good

Having seen him spray the ball around Steve Harmison style during The Ashes, England supporters, as a general rule, were non-plussed by the fact that Mitchell Johnson won the ICC Player of the year award. It seems that it isn't just Englishmen though, judging from the latest numbers on Cricinfo's poll at the bottom of their homepage. I also voted for the bottom of the three options.

More wrong decisions

As Jez referred to in an earlier comment, it's getting a bit silly now from what I hear and read. It sounds like Clarke definitely wasn't out LBW, but possibly had been earlier in his innings and not given. Johnson wasn't out either but got given and then, just to prove to those that say these things even out what rubbish that is, Johnson couldn't have had a plummer LBW turned down in his life than the one against Bell.

It's not as bad as tossing a coin for each decision but technology certainly can't come in quick enough (with appropriate sensible laws in place on how it's used - sorry had to get that bit in there!).

Australia's selection

It's a tough selection decision. Allan Border is now saying that Australia should drop Johnson for Clark, and I certainly think they need to get Clark in the team somehow - going into the series without him seemed strange from the outset. Clearly I don't watch Aussie cricket day in, day out, but I'd be looking to play Clark ahead of all the Aussie seamers that have played.

Border suggests just the one change to bring Clark in instead of Johnson. I'd be tempted to get Watson in there as well and it has to be Hughes or North to go if you do that. I can only assume it would have to be Hughes, with Hussey up to open, so it will be interesting to see how they play it. As a non-Aussie with no experience of watching Hughes play well ever, or watching Watson bowl or bat well in a proper match (i.e. not a one-dayer or Twenty20), it's something I'll sit on the fence on....

Four letter word usage....

Is it just me and the rest of our touring cricket party who thought that Johnson turned to Anderson having got him out this morning and called him the C word? I'm not a lip reader but it looked like that. Two questions arise:

1. Can't the Aussies of the past give these current lot some sledging advice - just calling someone a c*** shows little imagination and won't bring a smile to the faces of those who hear that sledge many years later like some of the best old ones have done.

2. What is it about Anderson that winds oppositions up? Fidel Edwards seemed to lose the plot when he came in and it's not the first time. When I read Nasser Hussain's autobiography he said that he struggled to get Anderson to say a word in the England changing room so it's difficult to believe that he does anything to rile players so much in the middle.