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.

 

England struggles and Australia's capitulation

 

I've started to feel about this England cricket team like I did about the rugby team in 2002 - even when they're losing I keep thinking they'll fight back!   But for Cook getting out last night I would have been confidently predicting they'd bat day 5 out, but now I'm more than a little concerned!   Is it too much to hope for a Cardiff-esque 10th wicket stand between Anderson and Panesar?   I hope not!

 

So with that backdrop, it feels a little bit rash to criticise the Aussies, but I'm English so it's essentially my job (as it is there's to criticise us Poms).   So what is going on with their batting line up?   Only Warner (just) averages over 40 other than Michael Clarke.   It really is one of the weakest Australian batting line ups to have played in a couple of generations.  

 

Interesting then the way Australia handled (or mishandled) the older guys reaching the end of their career last year.   And that's not just the Australian selectors, it's the Australian public who were right on the backs of Ponting and Haddin prematurely.   It should never have been about whether they were as good as they once were - they didn't need to be.   As long as they were in the best Australian XI they should have been encouraged to carry on playing.

 

Ponting dominating Australia's domestic cricket this season with an average of nearly 90 is interesting.   And Haddin also had a dominant year.   Can Australia really say that they have a stronger XI without Ponting?   For one thing it's unlikely that their team ethic would have slipped with him there and Clarke wouldn't have found himself so entirely alone.

 

There's even been rumours of Hussey coming back for The Ashes, such is the current disaster.   Good luck getting that top 7 ship shape in the next few months Australia - even if England bat like they have in the 3rd NZ Test they'll still be big favourites....

England can play Patel AND Panesar

What's your views on the balance of the England side?   It's interesting to see that today, the majority of wickets fell to medium pacers, although of course that's not accounting for the "real" wickets as some that were out were given not out, and some that were not out were given out.

In retrospect I'd have picked Panesar, but I can see why England picked Bresnan given that the ball has been reverse swinging a lot in the warm up games.   The other factors to take into account is that just because England's top order look pretty inept against spin, doesn't mean that England's spinners will automatically take lots of wickets - the Indian batsmen are sadly far better at playing spin so Panesar won't necessarily run throgh them. And of course, Bresnan can bat and his batting could yet prove crucial if England are to pull off a miraculous escape on day 5.

 

Having picked the side they picked, what really disappointed me was the lack of bowling Cook gave Patel on day 1.   (Yes, I know it's not the done thing to criticise Cook, sorry!).   Patel and Swann have sometimes bowled together brilliantly for Nottinghamshire, and it would have been great to see them in tandem far more - Patel will bowl bad balls but he's proven he can also bowl some great ones.   He may be inferior to Panesar but he's still well worth a long bowl in those conditions.

 

Patel's in danger of losing his chance for England and I feel very sorry for him.   He's the right man for number 6 in India in my opinion (as he's a far better player of spin than Bairstow and Morgan) irrespective of his bowling.   But he's been unlucky on several counts - he's had some shocking LBW decisions (including one in the first innings in his favour when he should have been given), he's starting to get negative press purely because he's seen by some as keeping Panesar out of the side (compare his press with, for example Bairstow when he came into the side and the commentators raved about his classy 16 on debut), and of course Patel hasn't played a home Test yet. Readers of Cricket Burble may remember that it's been statistically proven you're less likely to succeed as a player if you make your debut away.

 

Assuming the wicket is much the same as this one for the next Test, I'd want Panesar in the side, but I wouldn't be dropping Patel.   My preference would be to drop Broad for Panesar (which means that Broad will now take 5 for because every time he's gone a few games without doing anything that seems to happen!), and England would then need to select between Anderson and Finn.   The alternative would be to bat Prior and Patel and 5 and 6 (who goes in first doesn't really matter to me but I'm not sure I agree with those wanting Prior up the order - given England's top order batting if he bats 5 he'll be in within a few overs which won't be helpful if he's been keeping for 5 sessions).   I'd like to keep Bresnan in the side in that scenario because he's an excellent reverse swing bowler, and of course he's the only bowler who tries to bat properly.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens if England can get through the first session tomorrow without a wicket falling - a huge ask, but if they could it may be an exciting Test match.   With Sehwag opening and the likes of Kohli, Yuvraj and Dhoni in the Indian side they can easily chase down 200 in a session, so it's crucial England are still batting at tea if they want to pull off a miracle draw.

 

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.

Monty and Tremlett have nipped into the Ashes squad ahead of Shahzad and Tredwell. And Adil Rashid isn't even in the Performance squad. I can only assume they forgot him like the ICC did when considering Graeme Swann for the world player of the year!

Your thoughts?

Sussex/Middlesex swings in favour of Sussex

All the pressure is on poor old Malan as Middlesex try to get to the 243 that Sussex set them today. Panesar scored 46 not out - a career best - but it shouldn't have been that many if Owais Shah has caught him at 3rd slip, and that drop could be crucial in the final analysis.

It was really interesting watching the two captains. I only saw Strauss trying to get the final two wickets but it seemed like they had given up trying to get Hodd out (who got a hundred) as they gave him one the whole time, and yet they didn't put that much pressure on Panesar either. Looked a little strange to me, but O'Brien finally got Hodd out LBW to make the breakthrough - even then Panesar and Collymore still managed to put on 33 for the final wicket thanks to Shah's drop.

When Sussex fielded Collymore bowled two long hops to Strauss which got deposited to the cover boundary. Rather than ask his bowler to stop bowling there, Goodwin had a cover sweeper in the 4th over of the innings. I was sitting there thinking Collymore needed to come off or bowl better with a ring field when Scott Newman padded up to a straight one and Sussex were off the mark. My take out was that Sussex seem to rely on some wonder balls from their bowlers and accept that there may be some dross too - they try to limit the damage with a very in/out field. As long as it works then I'm all for it - they just need Malan out early tomorrow to put themselves in with a superb chance of another victory to keep their 100% season going.

Thoughts on day 1 of the County season

A couple of thoughts:

1. Monty: I hope things pick up from here - what a start!

2. Matthew Hoggard: I'll be happy to be proved wrong as I'm a big fan of Paul Nixon's whole-hearted endeavour and desire to do whatever's best for the team, but batting a guy with a first class average of 34 at 3 as a specialist batsmen worries me!

So amazing seasons coming up for Nixon and Panesar then....

I fear for Monty

No, not because he isn't England's number 1 spinner any more. Because when he does play it seems that the ICC are keen to clamp down on his massively over-excited appealing.

This is a guy who doesn't know the laws of the game (clearly given the way he frantically appeals for LBWs that can't possibly be out), and has proven that he can't work an umpire to save his life.

From here on in, I'd be counting on taking home 75% of any future match fees if I was Monty....

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....

I'm finally over the result of the 1st Test!

OK - I now feel ready to post! What a gutter from an English perspective....you shouldn't lose a match that you're in control of. And I'm afraid I'm not in the "well we made a good fight of it" camp - it's amazed me how many commentators have been saying that! In assessing how the match went we have to realise that the toss is worth more in India than in England, so to win the toss and still lose is pretty disasterous.

We should have got 500, preferably more, as was previously Burbled about. The Indians would have been settling in for a draw once they didn't take early wickets on the first day - a win would have been at the back of their minds as they're used to teams racking up 500+ in the 1st innings. But rather than put ourselves in a position where we'd struggle to lose, we gave India a chance with a poor batting performance.

Somehow though we were still in a good position come the 4th day and in a position to win the match so it's hard to blame the whole loss on the 1st innings. Strauss batted like a dream and must be wondering what on earth else he's meant to do to get the man-of-the match award - instead it went to Sehwag for cumulative runs in the Test that totalled less than either of Strauss' innings. Whoever decides these things needs to recognise that the man-of-the-match doesn't necessarily need to be from the winning side, but if it did have to be, Tendulkar was the most worthy winner amongst the Indian team.

Lastly, the spinners. Panesar has come in for a bit of criticism and rightly so as he took 3 wickets in the match which in India isn't good enough. Peter Moores has said that Panesar lacked practice but let's remember that the ECB wouldn't pay Bloomfields £7,500 so that Panesar could have practised in Sri Lanka. Yes, Bloomfields shouldn't have accepted and then tried to renegotiate, but what price on a key bowler bowling well in India? Less than £7,500 according to the ECB.

I hope that Panesar doesn't get too much stick - he took 3 wickets in 46 overs in the match. Compare that to India's spinners who took 10 wickets in 137 overs between them and it doesn't look particularly poor - only slightly worse than the Indian spinners who haven't been criticised in the slightest!

If England are lucky enough to win the toss again in the 2nd Test, I just hope they nail the 1st innings next time. For me that's the lesson - not worries about Panesar.

Batting with the tail

It's always interesting watching a batsman batting with the tail and the way that they approach it. Clearly they are more likely to score runs than the tail-end batsman, but an overly pessimistic view on the tail being able to face a few balls sometimes leads to some chaotic running. Or often the batsman tends to get themselves out while over-attacking.

Matt Prior batted well in the 1st innings for England to score his 53 not out, but was criticised for allowing the tail to face too many balls: "...his tactics with the tail were odd, as he continually exposed both Harmison and Panesar. The final-wicket stand lasted 37 balls, of which Panesar faced 26."

Last summer at Edgbaston, the final two wickets fell in 2 balls at a time when Flintoff was batting really well - some would say that had a big impact on the eventual result - and the result certainly impacted on Michael Vaughan who resigned afterwards. First Anderson was run out as Flintoff tried to keep the strike, and then Panesar ran himself out trying to get Flintoff on strike.

It wasn't the first time that Flintoff had been involved in some nightmarish tactics with the tail. Although the Ashes had long-since gone, in the 5th Test in Sydney at the start of 2007, he was batting brilliantly and looked on for 100 with England 8 down at the time. But faced with the prospect of batting with the last of the tail, he ran down the wicket at Stuart Clark, got bowled having a wild slog, and England were all out on the same score.

Surely with all the statistical analysis that is done these days, the players can be educated about the best way to bat with the tail so that they eek out what could be crucial runs. Blatant slogging is totally unecessary until the team are 9 down for starters. But someone like Prior or Flintoff should have in their mind things like the average number of balls that Panesar or Anderson faces per innings, whether they are statistically more comfortable facing pace or spin, and then add on top of that their own interpretation of the situation as no two situations will be the same.

As a side that need every run they can get, England could certainly do with focussing on how they can make that 10 or 20 more from the final couple of wickets. Either proper analysis and attention to that part of their game is long overdue, or they are simply picking the wrong tactics despite having done the planning. Either way, they can improve and, as professional sportsmen, I trust they have recognised this and are tackling it....

Cricket Burble sympathy for Symonds

Andrew Symonds has been getting a lot of grief lately and the latest thing that he seems to have done wrong is declined to have his photo taken. The fact that some idiot then decided to take offence to that is hardly his issue. The hotelier there has backed up Symonds version of events so it's clear he's done nothing wrong.

To say that he shouldn't have been there in the first place seems a bit harsh - can he really not have a quiet drink where he wants? When I asked Monty Panesar for a photo in a bar in Kuala Lumpur days before the 2006-07 Ashes flight left, he politely declined and I politely accepted that (scroll down on this page to read the conversation). Symonds was no more in the wrong than Monty was sitting in a bar in Kuala Lumpur days before leaving for the Ashes.

It would be a shame if the likes of Symonds, Flintoff etc can't have a drink without getting grief.

Good captaincy from Dhoni

Interesting to see that Dhoni was employing a slip at 157-3 and that's how India got Flintoff for 0. Given his lack of attacking fielders when England desperately needed wickets in the 3rd ODI that was decided using the Duckworth-Lewis method, I think Dhoni has one over Pietersen in his captaincy skills. Pietersen is all for attacking when batting, but I'm not sure his captaincy matches his batting and talking.....yet!

Mark Butcher has been vocal about wanting Pietersen to change tactics and employ proper spinners in the sub-continent. And he talks at length about considering Panesar for the ODI side - with the benefit of hindsight I agree. We've almost forgotten about Monty as an ODI bowler but I really liked the way he was used by Vaughan when he was skipper as an attacking option. He normally came on as soon as the initial powerplays were over with the intention of taking wickets and sometimes when the seamers were getting hit to every corner of the ground Monty would even come on in the powerplay and take the crucial partnership breaking wicket.

Have we forgotten that spinners can take wickets and attack I wonder? To me it appears that Collingwood and Pietersen see spinners as support for the (apparently) wicket-taking seamers, where as Vaughan saw them as an attacking wicket-taking option. But of course, it could be influenced by Peter Moores as Vaughan hasn't captained an ODI since he's been in charge.

I hope Pietersen proves me wrong in the way that he uses the spinners and sets the field for the rest of England's time in India. It should have been something that they discussed during their much publicised chat yesterday.

Gift horses and mouths...

So, it would appear that Monty Panesar's plans to play club cricket in Sri Lanka ahead of the India tour have fallen through over a financial dispute. But it is not, as one might initially expect, an issue of a local club being unable to meet the player's appearance fee. On the contrary, the club have demanded £7,500 from the ECB for letting him play!

It transpires that the ECB offered a £500 donation to the building of a new clubhouse, but received an email reply with this more ambitious demand, claiming that the ECB would benefit more from the deal - which they, of course, refused.

Unbelieveable! I find it hard to imagine there's any lowly club side in the world that wouldn't appreciate a cameo from a current Test match spinner. I'm sure my club would jump at the opportunity (though I hope that Burble's Mark Davis would still be given choice of ends).

I wonder if Monty would mind changing on the boundary or doing an umpiring stint at square leg...

Times change quickly

It was on 11 August that I burbled about the lack of spinners for the tour to India and clearly raised a bit of a hornets nest as there were 10 comments including a string on Rashid where views seemed to depend on ones county of origin. Udal was also mentioned. Now barely 3 weeks later we have a cupboard that looks much fuller - perm any two or three from Monty, Patel, Rashid and Swann...and Udal wouldn't be the worst pick ever.

Two spinners in India - who?

In the past we've taken two or even three spinners (and once Tony Greig won a test match out there bowling off breaks !). Where are we going to find them?

No matter how much we all love Monty his novelty is starting to wear a bit thin - his fielding and batting are still embarrassing and he's not really returning the sort of figures we expected; to say nothing about the appealing which is going to start costing him wickets if it isn't doing so already (umpires need to be cosseted not shouted at !).

So that's cause for concern with our no.1 who's next in line ?

Observations from Lords

Having taken the day off work and spent the day at Lord's in the over-optimistic hope of a tense finish to the first test vs South Africa, only to witness a flat and anticlimactic day's play on a lifeless and benign Lord's pitch. Andrew Miller sums it up well on Cricinfo, but here are my burbles from the day, in no particular order...

- What on earth are the rules for an early finish to a draw-bound match?! The 'bad light' ruse after Amla had got his century was nonsense - I was applying suncream while the players were off the pitch! Clearly none of the players wanted to be there any more, but the way the match was concluded was something of a farce for the paying crowd.

- With Sidebottom, fielding at fine leg by us in the Tavern Stand, clearly in trainers for the final session and Anderson bowled into the ground, the third new ball was taken by Broad and...Collingwood. Which takes the tally of England new-ball bowlers this test to six (as the spinners Panesar and KP were used in failing light on day three). That must be some sort of record!

- Vaughan never stops tinkering as a captain. It clearly wasn't England's day in the field on an unhelpful pitch and against obdurate batting, but I don't think we saw the same field twice through the day. Unlike an indecisive club captain though, the changes - at times, every ball - were always in place before the bowler was back at his run-up.

- The number of overs Panesar bowled over the wicket was baffling. A disciplined McKensie played everything outside leg with his pad, and any chance of taking a wicket was essentially eliminated.

- It was impressive to watch Ambrose effortlessly standing up to the stumps off Sidebottom (though it probably reflected how lifeless the pitch was). Maybe he was trying to sell his keeping to the selectors after his dropped catch yesterday!

- Given that, to my mind, there are not currently any undroppables from or shoe-ins into the England pace attack from a pool of Anderson, Broad, Flintoff, Sidebottom, Jones and Hoggard, and given the three days' toil (and injury niggles) of the current attack, the selectors could do worse than rest a bowler or two for the next test starting on Friday. Given the current squad (today's XI plus Flintoff), this would probably entail Flintoff for Sidebottom (and require a fit Freddie!).

- The queueing system for getting into Lord's is bizarre. Much to the amusement of the American and the Canadian that I was taking for their first experience of cricket, we were first directed by stewards at the East Gate to head over to the North Gate for the queue. After about half an hour of this queue, we reached the front, and were sent...round the block again to join another 15 minute queue back where we started!

Not a confident England cricket fan

I refer you to my previous post, "Vettori could win it for NZ". Panesar took 6 for 37 but Vettori is the better bowler of the two so there should really only be one winner in this game if the weather holds. Having said that, England's batsman are - whatever doubting England "supporters" think - better than New Zealand's batsman. It only needs two half centuries by the top order to get us into a winning position. Surely two calamitous capitulations isn't even possible for England's middle and lower order?

If I had to bet my house (I don't own one!) on it, I'd bet it on a New Zealand victory with at least 7 wickets for Vettori. But I have this lingering thought that Vaughan and Pietersen can do it. Bell has never, ever, scored runs under real pressure so maybe this could be his moment? (I think I read that every one of his 7 Test centuries has come when a colleague of his has also made a century.) And Collingwood has hardly scored a run all season, but is one of those players I'd always back in a crisis. From 7 down, we only have Broad - Ambrose isn't going to worry the scorers much, so it's down to the batsman to do the job. (Incidentally, Ambrose's only chance of a continued run in the side is if Flintoff comes back and bats 7 as there's no way he's capable of batting 7 in Test cricket, despite his debut century.)

I for one will be tuning into TMS at 11 tomorrow hoping that the weather doesn't spoil an absorbing day of cricket. What a pity it's not on terrestrial television....

Vettori could win it for NZ

Now I realise that this is a tad defeatist as an England supporter, but from the brief bit of the Test match I've watched so far, I don't think the England players will be looking forward to facing Vettori in the 4th innings. It's turning a lot already for Panesar on the 1st day, but for the part that I watched he was bowling too short. Having said that it's great to see that Vaughan brought Panesar on in the 9th over as an attacking weapon. Vaughan has changed ODI results with that tactic in the past and, although it didn't come off today, in the right circumstances it's worth a go.

You can see the latest scorecard here.

On another note, was that Flynn's tooth falling out after he was hit when they showed it in ultra slow motion?

I should have put a bet on!

It´s not often that I get it spot on with cricketing predictions so I feel I have to publicise a comment I made on simplycricket where I suggested that a fluent century by Vaughan or Pietersen would leave us time to bowl New Zealand out twice with Panesar the key man. Vaughan let me down but Pietersen and Panesar came good! Sidebottom has been a revelation and deserves his man of the series accolade.

It´s been quite tricky trying to watch or listen to live cricket from Lanzarote - having missed the first 4 days I eventually stumbled across a pub showing the cricket to see the 5th day´s play - needless to say my wife is pleased that the pub wasn´t located earlier!!