It appears that Gray-Nicolls are likely to produce the first double-sided bat for some time. That's not something I saw coming, but why not? If it allows more adventurous strokes that excite the crowd (in all forms of the game!), then that can only be good.
But something tells me fellow Burbler Mark Davis won't like this as the bats are designed to aid the batsman - sacrilege!
Once again South Africa are slaying the Bangladesh bowling attack. Following the 400+ opening stand that Smith and MacKenzie put on in 2007, this time it was Smith and Amla who took the score to 299-1 at the end of a rain-reduced first day.
Of course Mohammed Ashraful, the Bangladesh captain, can do nothing about the lack of talent at his disposal but he and Jamie Siddons, the coach, can at least work out the most appropriate tactics for the match. And in this case that didn't mean winning the toss and fielding first.
If you assess Bangladesh and South Africa man for man, the only possible area that Bangladesh have an advantage is their spinner. Shakib Al-Hassan is only 21 and averages 37 with the ball in his 8 Tests to date, but he's coming off a confidence boosting 7 wickets in an innings in his last series v New Zealand. And judging by the way he was turning the ball square on the first day, he can tweak it a bit (he should have had Smith stumped if the keeper hadn't been done by the huge turn in the same way as Smith was).
So what Ashraful should have done was bat and allow his most likely match winner last use of the pitch in the 4th innings if the batsman could take things to a 4th innings. Only one of the most seam friendly wickets ever or the strangest of thinking could lead any sane person to an alternative conclusion.
Well it seems that atleast one person agrees with me that Prior shouldn't be opening. And there is a vague suggestion in this Cricinfo preview of the 3rd ODI that Pietersen might consider moving himself up to 3. While I agree that would be ideal, what does that say about England's pre-tour preparation if two matches into a series they rethink such a fundamental as where their best batsman bats?
If Pietersen moves up a slot it potentially allows England to bat Collingwood at 4 (assuming Bopara is considered an opener or specialist 8!) with Shah moving down to 6 (where he's been at his best for England) - something that Geoff Boycott was keen to see happen. Remember, Collingwood and Pietersen bat well together as I've burbled about before. So if Bopara opens and Pietersen moves to three, while I think it's scary that there has been a change of tactics so soon into the series, it could just rebalance the top 6 to ensure it includes England's 6 best ODI batsmen (on tour) - and no England supporter can argue with that no matter how much they may wish to debate the order.
Wouldn't it be nice if Vaughan found form so that we had a natural shot playing opener to select next summer?
Old Trafford hasn't got a Test for a while, so perhaps that's why the Lancashire groundsman Peter Marron took the opportunity to tend the grass on board a Miami-based cruise ship.
A couple of weekends ago Kowloon Cricket Club hosted the Hong Kong Sixes. In many ways it's a similar event to the much more famous Rugby Sevens tournament held every March: world class players from all over the globe play over a couple of days to a largely expat audience who mix actually watching the game with catching up with friends and drinking themselves silly. Of course, the Sixes are of a much smaller scale, with crowds up 4,000ish compared ten times that for the rugby, but this cosiness has its advantages one of which being physically much closer to the action.
This year's tournament was superb, despite the All Stars team (comprising Fleming, Chanderpaul, Henderson, Hoggard, Jayasuriya, Langer and Vaas) performing poorly, mainly because a lot of the games went down to the wire. A few players caught my eye; Irfan Ahmed who opened the batting for Hong Kong (who came 4th out of 8 teams) and retired after reaching 31 runs in each of his innings until his last against Australia; David Warner of Australia who batted and fielded amazingly in the final against England and finally Anwar Ali from Pakistan who bowls at decent pace and hits a long ball (check out his inswing bowling in the U-19 World Cup final against India when Pakistan somehow defended 110).
The final was between an English team full of seasoned county pros (Mascarenhas, Joyce, Bresnan, Wagg, Maddy and Napier) and a very young Australian team. It looked to be all over at the half way mark after England posted a whopping 120 of 5 eight ball overs. Australia though, led by Warner, batted astonishingly well and with 11 required off the last over they were firm favourites. Suddenly the festival atmosphere that we had so enjoyed over the past two days evaporated as the crowd became tense. Goodness knows how Tim Bresnan felt as he ran up to bowl but whatever nerves he felt did not betray his action which landed yorker after yorker. A good catch on the point boundary and the retiring of one of Australia's hitters left 2 runs required off the last two balls. The batsman could only squeeze another yorker back to the bowler and the entire tournament came down to Australia needing two runs off the last ball.
When Bresnan let the ball go, the non-striker was already half-way down the pitch. Again, the batsman could only squirt a full-length ball to Darren Maddy at long-on. His sharp thinking won England the tournament as he realised that the non-striker would complete his two runs easily. A hard, flat throw to the keeper's end found the striker short of his ground and the scores finished tied, with England winning thanks to fewer wickets lost.
All in all, a fantastic weekend and a real treat to watch some potential future stars and of course England winning something!
Everyone of course has an opinion and that's not surprising following a second big defeat in India. The top 3 are coming under-fire again....the openers can expect to be criticised but interestingly Owais Shah has come in for some criticism too. Geoff Boycott has said that "anyone who believes that he is a No 3 for England wants his head testing".
Personally, while I don't think that Shah looks comfortable at 3, I think England need to give him the series there. You can't swop and change mid-series when a player has made a success of a lower-middle order position and been asked to step up....the adjustment takes time. So although 3 may not be his best position, they need to prove once and for all if he can do it.
But Prior opening has been tried and proven to fail now, so that experiment should stop with Prior batting around 7 or 8. And Bell has had plenty of time to make his opening birth work without ever really getting to grips with it....but to change two people in one go could be even more destabalising than playing Bell with someone else. So he needs to be given at least 2 or 3 more games before being replaced by Cook if he doesn't come good.
Who should be playing in the 3rd ODI? For me I'd like to see a few personnel and order changes:
Bell
Bopara (not ideal for him but better than 8)
Shah
Pietersen
Flintoff
Collingwood
Prior
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Harmison (just in ahead of Anderson as dropping him would mean his fragile confidence would go again!).
I've often posted about how I think Ravi Bopara can come good for England but his international career is stalling just when he's showing his quality in County cricket. He got the cricket writers award this year and for me his 201 for Essex in a one-day game was the domestic performance of the season ahead of Napier's Twenty20 knock because there was a bit more brain used than Napier's shot a ball, not to mention more runs. And yet he is a specialist batsman at 8 for England in the one-day team.
Yes, I've chosen to post this after he scored a quick unbeaten 50 in possibly the only high point of England's ODI match against India. But whether he's scored a hatrick of ducks or a hatrick of century's, he should never bat below Matt Prior for England in any form of cricket, even though he is from Sussex! And realistically he could make a great argument for batting ahead of Bell, Collingwood and Patel too.
So if he's going to bat at eight and waste his obvious batting ability then he's going to bowl....right? Well maybe not every match, but when we're not on top in the field? Or perhaps when we're losing it a little and the main bowlers aren't keeping the runs down? Or when we've lost all control and clearly no bowler can do much worse than what's gone before him, no matter how part time he is? It seems the answer is always no to Bopara's bowling, no matter what the situation.
Fingers crossed that his career isn't ruined by poor management.
The last time I gave my opinion on Australia's selection (suggesting that Krejca wouldn't take wickets) it was obviously rubbish. So here goes for a second attempt. Shane Watson is never good enough to play as a 3rd seamer....although apparently Steve Waugh thinks he could be. For me he's a good all-rounder in one-day cricket but he falls dangerously close to being not quite good enough at either discipline in Tests. Averages don't tell the full story (unless they are real averages!), but Watson averages 22 with the bat and 37 with the ball - not good enough at either, but admittedly in only a 7-match career.
He still has plenty of time to come good as he's only 27, but if he's going to play for Australia in Tests surely it has to be as a batsman that bowls and not the other way round.
I'm a fan of the Pitch Vision website (formerly Harrow Drive) but one particular post I've just come across has reminded me of an unfortunate experience when I was a keen potential skipper at school level. I'll come to that in a minute, but the page in question is "The complete guide to cricket field settings" which I love as an idea. But it's feasibility for use amongst anything other than (early) school children? I'll let you be the judge of that (but I'll try to persuade you of my opinion!).
Like many (I assume), when I was made captain of my first school side I was given a few photocopies of an oval pitch and two marks for the stumps with crease lines, and then encouraged to mark crosses where I might put my field. I had a different field for each type of bowler which at that age was basically "quick" and "slow". Very useful. For an 8 year-old who'd never captained a side before. I think I may even have taken the sheets on to the pitch with me in my pocket in case I forgot and panicked.
Later on in my youth cricket career at the age of 15 (having captained many matches) I was given a similar task over the winter by my cricket master to be the following summer. From memory about four of us had the same task - the same old photocopies with a couple of notes on the conditions such as "60 for 4, turning wicket, leg-spin bowler". I have to admit that I behaved somewhat inappropriately.
My concern is that there are just too many issues to take into account on a bit of paper. If he's bowling leg-spin on a turning wicket then how much turn are we talking about? At right angles? Is the outfield so fast that when it beats the in-field it's four? Is the batsman playing attackingly despite the score? How attackingly? Does he try to whip it through midwicket against the spin or play elegantly through the covers? Is he looking to come down the wicket? Can my bowler bowl a googly? A top-spinner? The list goes on....and on....and on....and on. That's why I found captaincy interesting - no two situations are identical so you have to think on your feet.
So I'm ashamed to admit that, rather than explaining my concerns to my cricket master to be, I simply scrawled "Stupid question - it depends!" across each of the photocopies to answer the question "What field would you set if..." Needless to say I wasn't made captain that year and there was quite a bit of tension over that particular summer.
My concern with the Pitch Vision attempt to document fields is that the there are infinite factors to take into account and setting a field from an information resource like a bit of paper, a book or a website is going to be instantly flawed. But I'll certainly be interested in the results and I promise not to comment "Stupid question - it depends!" this time....
This article on The Australian website made me laugh....it sarcastically discusses the over-reaction to Australia's defeat in India. Take a read....
I have read that the ECB are contemplating the introduction of yellow cards at Club and Minor County level with the possibility of extending it to the first class game.
I am afraid that I cannot understand the logic behind this when, since 2000, the Laws of Cricket have comprehensively covered penalties for diciplinary matters. In the Southern Premier Cricket League there is a strict reporting regime for umpires and each case is treated according to its severity by the league committee.
The onus is on the captain of the side to ensure that guidelines behind The Spirit of Cricket are adhered to and I think that the danger of a yellow card system is that players could think that they now have more opportunities to flaunt the Laws before action is taken.
What do others think?
This is quite impressive. For those that missed the story yesterday, Martin Bodenham has gone from Premier League football referee to English first class cricket umpire.
As far as I know he can only be outdone by Steve Bucknor who has refereed football and umpired cricket at international level. Any others spring to mind?
Every now and again I do a quick check of who is linking to Cricket Burble or who is syndicating our content elsewhere. It seems that Spininfo have quoted something I wrote about Australia needing to use Katich more as a spin bowling option so as one good turn deserves another, take a look at Spininfo here.
The only slight concern that I have is that the article in question (The answer to Australia's spin bowling woes?) suggests that Jason Krejza is "unlikely to take wickets...." after his cumulative 0-199 in the two innings warm up match.
Despite Australia losing the 4th Test, Krejza took 12 wickets and the man-of-the-match award. I suspect that Spininfo might not feature a Cricket Burble article again!!
It seems Ian Botham is more than a little bit confident that we'll win the Ashes next year. I don't mind betting that we'll never beat the Aussies "easily" in my lifetime. In the current series has failed once when they lot the second Test, and apart from that neither side has looked like winning, so I'm not sure I agree with Botham's assessment that "they are weak in the bowling attack".
They are undoubtedly weaker than they were but if they pick the correct line up all they're missing is a spinner. Lee, Clark, Johnson, Symonds or Watson and a spinner (possibly a mixture of Clarke, Katich and Krejza who did well today). I don't mind betting that Australia will find a way and our wickets won't be spin friendly so their lack of spin won't be such a factor as in India.
I think I've already burbled about Ed Smith's books and how after I'd found 'Playing Hardball', about baseball, so good I'd been disappointed by 'What Sport teaches us about life'. Anyway in one of these two he refers to Moneyballs by Michael Lewis (see right) about a player who found managing so much more satisfying than playing so retired from the latter early. He's Billy Beane and has been able, over several seasons and on a low budget, to make Oakland Athletics seriously competitive in Baseball leagues in America.
His secret is that, armed with a wealth of statistics, he has worked out what are the important attributes of players in terms of getting results; it seems that his views differ from the standard view so that he is able to trade players with other teams to his benefit.
It's brilliant even if like me you have little understanding of baseball and there are analogies relevant to football and cricket (particularly when he talks about batter's eyes lighting up when the slow pitcher is in action!)
Highly recommended.
It's interesting to see the response to Mohammed Yousuf signing up to the ICL. From the comments at the bottom of this page about Yousuf, it seems the vast majority of people want the ICL to be recognised by the ICC.
When I was in India the ICL was on and it looked like an interesting league. I've not watched the IPL and that, I assume, is a slightly higher standard given the players involved, but the ICL is still a very good quality of cricket. It's difficult to make a judgement based on a few TV matches, but to my untrained eye it looked like it was at least as good as County cricket.
The BCCI recognise that there's money to be made here and not surprisingly they don't want a rival league in their backyard - all be it one that they have proved is helpful to them in that they can learn what works and make better use of the learnings given their massive spending power. I would argue that the BCCI should be a little more forward thinking and consider how the ICL could be useful to them. And that the ICC should recognise the ICL asap so that member countries can stop the farcical banning of players that only goes to weaken world cricket.
The BCCI needs to show that it's capable of playing a lead role in world cricket, rather than playing the role of an angry teenager. They could start by accepting Gambhir's one-match ban. The rest of the world are ready to support India as the lead-player if only the BCCI can get their act together and realise they are subordinate to the ICC, not above them.
The debate goes on about who will tour England to play two Tests at the start of next summer, and of course the IPL looms large. This Telegraph article claims that the ECB might try to get the IPL start date moved back 10 days but whether that is realisitic remains to be seen - Modi hasn't shown much flexibility so far so I'd be surprised if he started to be flexible now but it has to be worth a shot.
Given Modi has buckets of money, I wonder if the ECB have considered asking for financial compensation for every last penny that they wouldn't get if they play two less Tests next summer and in return allowing the England players to play in the IPL. That would be a one-off deal on the basis that the IPL is moved back to accomodate the first Tests of the English summer in future.
The ECB could be similarly flexible and move the date of the 1st Test of the summer slightly later - that would be to the benefit of the spectators in England who often don't see enough play in the May Tests given bad light/poor weather. Looking at the start date of the 1st Test last year it was 15th May, and all 7 Tests of the English summer were complete by 11th August. In previous years the 1st Test of the summer started on 17th May (2007), 11th May (2006) and 26th May (2005).
A start date towards the end of May should be emminently achievable and it would allow the England players who aren't selected for the IPL to get into form with their Counties prior to the Test series. Even those involved in the IPL could in theory play a 4-day match for their County prior to playing the 1st Test given that the IPL fits into 6 weeks and the last few days of that are only relevant to the teams that reach the semis. Last year the IPL ran 18th April - 1st June but if it started at the start of April, everything could be fitted in.
Well that was embarrassing wasn't it - blown away with 44 balls to spare - and to think I'd rushed home from deepest Kent to get to a pub with Sky in, in order to watch it. It looked as if the players had decided to put all the embarrassment into one basket, get it over with and make sure we don't get invited back again.
But now Peter Moores is talking about the players not being sure what the match was for - was it for England or was it for money? and what difference would that make ? Alternatively there is talk of changing the name of the team - that will make a lot of difference!
Might well be that this is another sport that we've given to the world and then watched as the world has got better than us. (I remember the early ODI days when there was the theory that, since the county players played more of it than the competitors, we'd be the best !). I think it all means that Middlesex's performance in The Champions Trophy becomes even more interesting.
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...
Interesting to see the England cricket team concerned about the Stanford competition. No matter how much of a farce the competition is, personally I'd put up with it for the chance of a life changing amount of money in return for playing the game I love in a beautiful location! The England players would have to feel really strongly to put the 4 remaining years on the 5 year $100m deal in doubt.
Once again it appears that a tiny incident has suddenly been blown out of proportion by the media. Yes, Sir Allen Standord flirted with Matt Prior's wife as she sat on his knee, and if the players think that is unacceptable (although she looked anything but concerned) then they have every right to let him know and feel as disgruntled as they like. But why put the cricket at risk - that's a purely off-field matter. Similarly if they don't want him in their dressing room, just ask him for some privacy at key times - only the most brash of men would want to come into the dressing room when they know they aren't wanted.
I can't help feeling that there's a little bit of a parallel with the absurd over-reaction in England to Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross' radio show in the UK where they left a dodgy voicemail for ex-actor Andrew Sachs (nearly all the complaints have been inspired by the media rather than coming from people who listened to the show live). We have to get a bit of a grip or pretty soon, no-one will be able to say anything or do anything ever!! As the British public we need to have our own opinions and not just be taken where the media would like us to go in order for them to maximise sales.
Please Britain, have minds of your own and don't succumb. Press freedom is vital but free-thinking from the public is even more vital. No ECB sackings are needed, and a routine assessment post-tournament is what is required. Let's hope for an exciting final.
Interesting to watch the replays of the contact between players and verbals that went on in today's play in the 3rd India v Australia test. From this replay I don't think Gambhir can possibly have any argument about his deliberate arm into Watson. Yes, Watson wasn't making it easy for him, but Gambhir clearly sticks his arm out.
The Katich confrontation is interesting. If I was an Aussie I'd want to see Katich bowl so much more - he's got that Warne like aggression when he bowls, all be it with nowhere near the ability. But nevertheless it appears that something will happen, and that's what the Aussies desperately need. It's difficult to tell if Katich blocks Gambhir deliberately, but obviously the officials didn't think so as Katich hasn't been charged with anything.
Worst case scenario for Gambhir is that he's banned from the next game which could be crucial if Australia hang on in this Test. Given that he's got history and has barged into Afridi only last year, that's got to be a big concern - his previous 65% fine doesn't seem to have deterred him from repeating the incident, so they may feel a ban is now required which will be a big loss to India given his form over the first 3 Tests.
Interesting to see that Edgbaston is going to be developed to increase capacity by 4,000. I know they sold out quickly for the Ashes Test in 2009 but it's still a risk increasing capacity for one game a year. I wouldn't mind betting the TV and internet viewers is where the real expansion will come rather than in live audiences for cricket, and unless the authorities change the bad light rule, Test crowds could come under pressure.
I wonder if the extra 4,000 seats will have the same amount of room as the other seats. One of the things I really look forward to about Edgbaston is that you have room to sit normally and even stretch your legs as necessary. At Lords you are crammed in just like spectators are in football stadiums - where your knees jam against the seat in front if you're over 5ft and you have to sit alternately leaning backwards or forwards along your row as there isn't enough room to fit everyone shoulder to shoulder!
Who cares about squillions of quid when you can achieve fame like two reported in today's Times? Peter Buckley is about to retire from boxing after his 300th bout on Friday - he is the undisputed champion of defeats with a mere 31 wins and 12 draws to his credit. His success seems to lie in his ability to persuade opponents (presumably easily) and the authorities (apparently much more difficult ) that he is competent enough to carry on.
But this palls into insignificance alongside the revelation that whilst Philadelphia Philies are in danger of winning Major League Baseball's World Series their more important claim to fame is that they are the only professional sports team in the world to have lost more that 10,000 games.
Awesome !
For a period of time just before his book was launched Marcus Trescothick was in the news for apparently sucking mints while playing in the 2005 Ashes because they would help swing the ball when mixed with his saliva. No dramatic shocks there but it catapulted Trescothick to number 22 in the Zoo Australia poll of most hated people on the planet, two places ahead of George W Bush.
This time it's Adam Gilchrist with a book to sell. The big news when I was in India last week was that he's claimed that Sachin Tendulkar changed his story in the "monkeygate" hearing and that he was often hard to find for a handshake after games. This has of course provoked a furious reaction in India where Tendulkar is a national hero and that week also became the highest Test run scorer in the history of the game. He's also, as Michael Atherton noted recently, a paragon of virtue.
Apart from realising that we should ignore anything anyone says in the lead up to their book being published (and be sceptical about the quality of the book as it's clearly not good enough to sell itself), what should be made of Gilchrist's comments? The first point about Tendulkar initially saying he couldn't hear anything and then changing his mind and saying he heard a Hindi word sounding like monkey is fact, isn't it? I believe that was recorded at the time for ever more - if that's not the case someone please correct me! The second point about Tendulkar not being around to shake hands is the one that particularly got people's backs up, especially when this clip shows his as the first of the off-field India players to shake hands with the Aussies who spent a lot of time whooping and cheering in the centre of the pitch.
So it's 1-1 in that Gilchrist's comments about Tendulkar's change of mind in the monkeygate hearing shouldn't have been vilified, but his comments about Tendulkar not shaking hands appear wrong on the basis of TV evidence after the close Sydney game, and the evidence of many many opposition players over the years.
The Aussies will be hoping that it's 1-1 on the pitch too after the up coming 3rd Test.
OK, so it is only Bangladesh, but it looks like Daniel Vettori bowled a pretty special over at the end of the 4th day (but the 1st one where they've been able to play due to the weather) of the 2nd Test. Here's the scorecard.
Can anyone shed any light on what Ed Smith did wrong to lose the captaincy of Middlesex to 39 year-old Shaun Udal? Looks like a very short-term decision...there must be some rationale behind it?
Like most of us addicts in Planet Cricket I was smitten with the game as soon as I met it and that was in 1961 when Richie Benaud captained Australia to an Ashes win and famously bowled England skipper Peter May behind his legs, causing the selectors to drop Fred Trueman from the next and potentially series-deciding Test Match because it was argued that it was his footmarks that had allowed Benaud his success.
In those days it was always the case that Tests started on Thursdays with the team announced on the previous Sunday and I remember my Latin master being concerned whether the newly emerging Ted Dexter was, as his name meant he should be, indeed right handed. We all knew, of course that he was indeed right handed.
The old boy would have been so pleased with the Middlesex line-up yesterday - 6 left handers then Neil Dexter facing the correct way - perfect.
Another point from yesterday - I bet there's more people who agree with me now that Ben Scott is the best keeper on the county circuit.
I seemed to time my trip to Goa quite nicely....not just because a friend got married, but also because India beat the Aussies in the 2nd Test, the ICL was in full swing, and Sachin Tendulkar took the record for most Test runs and went past 12,000.
Said Mark Nicholas as Dhomi gave and survived a caught and bowled chance ( actually the bowler did very well to get his hands anywhere near and the umpire did even better to avoid being decapitated).
Actually what I saw and liked much more was a bit later.
Amit Mishra. Anybody want to bet me he won't take 200 test wickets?
It appears that near me in Worthing, a church side lost to a German side. They are still getting over the shame, and quite rightly. Apparently the German side had to be told that they'd won, such was their rudimentary understanding of the laws!
There is a return match in Germany next year. I don't live far away from Worthing and am available!
Poor old Dickie Bird. Times are changing, technology is coming in and he believes it's a "sad moment" - I can understand why umpires are reluctant to accept change, but they - as with all people across organisations across the world - need to divorce themselves from what has happened previously. If you started the game of cricket today, with the technology now available, you wouldn't rely on the human eye to make decisions - it really is as simple as that....to me at least!
On a similar note, before the 1st India v Australia Test there was much discussion about catching and whether or not teams could be trusted to have a "pact". And previously Michael Vaughan rejected Ponting's attempts to agree a pact in the 2005 Ashes series. I have a simple way to sort out the issue - at least I think it's simple!
Currently batsmen that are in doubt stand their ground knowing there is no way they can be given out as the benefit of the doubt goes to them and cameras often can't prove the catch was clean. I would simply swop that for catches when it relates to whether the ball touched the ground - the benefit of the doubt should go to the fielder. As the length of grass on a cricket field is often longer than the diameter of a human finger, until this is the case, legitimate catches will often be ruled out. I would add one further disciplinary rule - players who knowingly try to cheat by claiming a catch that is subsequently proven to have bounced, would be banned for the rest of the series and their next one. That would stop a repeat of the incident this English summer where AB de Villiers claimed a catch that very obviously bounced.
Thoughts?
I couldn't agree with Kumble's comments more. Irrespective of anyone's thoughts on his captaincy, there's no doubt he's a class bowler and the media grief he's getting will only increase the pressure on him. Most players respond better when not under pressure (Collingwood excepted!), so the Indian media are responsible for reducing their national side's chances of winning.
That sort of thing infuriates me - The News of the World trapping Sven Goran Eriksson prior to the World Cup was a classic English example....that story (that had been created deliberately by the paper) was only ever going to damage England's chances in the competition, so why even consider running it if you put the interests of the national side near the top of your priorities. Unfortunately, the interests of the national side are low in the media's list of priorities and sales of course come top. But I certainly have never bought the News of the World again after that story was run and anecdotally I know of several others who felt the same and also stopped buying it regularly, so these stories may create a short-term positive blip in sales, but aren't going to do them any favours in the long-term.
I hope Kumble isn't forced into succumbing like Michael Vaughan was.
According to this article on Telegraph.co.uk, the ICC are to discuss the impact of Twenty20 on the Future Tours Programme and also greater use of technology following the trial in the Sri Lanka v India series. Trying to contain the IPL given the money that is involved will be near impossible, so I wish the ICC luck in trying maintain the importance of Test cricket - the fact that England are on playing two Tests in India this winter signifies the problem. Unfortunately the horse has bolted - it's a little late now.
But using greater technology pleases me for 2 reasons. 1) as Cricket Burble readers will know I am on a constant tirade to try to reduce the role of luck in the game so that best players succeed based on the laws of the game and not an umpiring mistake. But also 2) I can't keep up with the number of wrong decisions that need to be added to the Cricket Burble Wrong Decisions list, given that I have a more than full-time job! I thought I'd get respite in the Sri Lanka v India series where they used technology, but rather than allow umpires access to all the technology they only allowed access to some of it, which meant more wrong decisions. They haven't been added to the list yet, and neither have the recent wrong decisions in the India v Australia 1st Test. If technology is used sensibly, wrong decisions would be limited to an error with the technology, which will be infinitely less often than human error.
For both reasons, I can't wait!
Did you see that article in The Independent 'Cricket brings calm to state classrooms'?
It seems that one of the side effects of the wonderful 'Chance to Shine' scheme has been that, in schools involved, the standards of behaviour we're used to on cricket pitches is replacing that seen on football pitches.
Well I for one am not surprised and I speak as one who would never use the 'it's not cricket' expression except as a joke. Any student of the game knows that gambling played a huge part in the establishment of the game and that the shenanigans that go with that were therefore there almost from the beginning. We also know that sledging and general fielding-side chatter are more common than they once were but we're still a long way from what the multi-millionaires get up to. (Perhaps the credit crunch will have some effect in bringing fotball and its players back to reality but that's the subject of another rant another day).
No, I'm not just talking about the weather in England with another two excellent cricket-playing days of weather in mid-October. The Australia v India contest should be hotting up over the next few hours if Katich can find the odd shot or two (his strike rate is below 15!) - with nearly two sessions and a day to go Australia are well over 100 ahead and can push on to leave India a tantalising target which allows Australia to take 10 wickets and win. Ponting's captaincy skills, which Ian Chappell has been praising compared to India captain Anil Kumble's, will come to the fore again.
With a Warne in their side, Australia would have been virtually dead certs, but without the game is in the balance. A draw just favourite perhaps....
As Ed alluded to in a previous post, there has been a little flurry of mentions of Hong Kong cricket on cricinfo and Patrick Kidd's Line and Length blog. For the past 22 months Hong Kong has been my home and for 21.5 of those Hong Kong University CC has been my cricket club. Since the pool of players here in HK is small, I reckon I've played either with or against the vast majority of the HK squad and from my lowly point of view from way down the cricketing ability ladder, they look very good indeed. One of them, Hussain Butt is the best player I've ever played with (which leads to a potential Cricket Burble discussion - who's the best player you have ever had on your side?) - the amount of time he appears to have to play the ball is insulting to fast bowlers everywhere. He hit the headlines a few years ago for hitting 311* in 35-over match, with 36 sixes. I'm just glad he's on my side!
Lack of suitable space (anything that is not a mountain or sea probably already has an apartment block on it) restricts to Hong Kong to having just six grounds, of which only two, the wealthy HKCC and Kowloon CC, have natural pitches. Even the grounds themselves are restricted - HKU has a straight boundary of some 40 yards - and this means the cricket played is different to that back home. The first over of the first match I played went for 24 (and no, I wasn't bowling). The rewards for an aggressive shot are magnified - middle it and you get six, mistime it slightly and you probably have six anyway. Consequently, 'horrible' swipes across the line are valuable shots. It was noticeable when we hosted a touring English team last summer that their techniques were almost too good - while they patted a good length ball back the bowler or caressed a half-volley through the covers flawlessly along the ground for two, a local player would wind up and try to smack the thing into orbit. In the end, we won (against a team who were roughly the same standard as us) by 170 runs. Of course, the fact that they were all monstrously hung over from the previous night's shenanigans in Wanchai probably worked to our advantage!
PS - tickets for the Hong Kong Sixes in November are available this week. If you want a cheaper version of the Hong Kong Sevens with 100% less rugby and infinity% more cricket, then look no further!
Yes, apparently Cricket Australia have done wrong in accepting the money from KFC and promoting them as their sponsors.
I think they've slightly missed the point there. Next they'll be calling for a ban to advertising of anything that can be deemed to possibly add weight!
The purpose of the sponsorship is to increase the proportion of fast food sales that KFC enjoys. And if total fast food consumption goes up slightly as a result of the campaign, then are KFC and Cricket Australia really to blame? Everyone has the ability to make decisions for themselves and Cricket Australia have nothing to apologise for.
The greater the sponsorship investment, the more Cricket Australia can encourage involvement in cricket, and that would - in my opinion - outway any possible obesity concerns given that involvement = exercise = less obesity.
There are a couple of cricketing jobs out there at the moment for Cricket Burble readers to peruse....
Chief Executive at Sussex
Sponsorship Manager for the ECB
Good luck! :-)
It's common knowledge that Australia are struggling a little for quality spin bowling now that Shane Warne has retired. But there is a partial solution to their problem that hasn't been explored. Regular Cricket Burble readers will remember my frustration that Michael Vaughan didn't bowl himself more - the value of his bowling was clear for all to see at the 2007 World Cup and yet when England toured Sri Lanka the following winter, his bowling was hardly used - he allowed himself 3 overs only.
Now Australia find themselves in an uncomfortable position. (In the spin bowling department rather than their tour game as it looks like Yuvraj Singh's rediculously late declaration has left that match to be a boring draw). Cameron White is joining the squad now that Bryce McGain has had to leave the tour through injury. Yes, it's possible that White could take wickets, but I don't think there are many observers who will be staking money on that given his career to date. And given his match figures of 0-199 from 31 overs in the latest tour match, it would appear that Jason Krezca is unlikely to take wickets or keep it tight too. So Australia face the uncomfortable prospect of entering a Test match in spin-friendly conditions with only Michael Clarke to bowl threatening spin and that creates issues, as he has back problems that apparently can be exacerbated by long spells of bowling.
Yet one possible answer to this problem already exists within the current Australian squad - Simon Katich. The argument made by an Aussie writing in to Cricinfo seems a good one to me, but given that Katich hasn't bowled a single over in this warm up game, it would appear that he is not being considered to bowl. It's long been known at club level for someone not to get a bowl "because you got a good bat", but at Test level? Unlike Kevin Pietersen, who has claimed that he hardly bowls in the nets (what a stupid admission to make if he's going to bowl himself in crucial situations), Katich has said that he continues to practice his bowling regularly, so Australia know where to turn to. He may not take bundles of wickets, but he should be given the chance to show what he can do.
In case you haven't picked up on it as yet, the Division 4 round of the World Cup qualifiers is happening in Tanzania. You can read a little about the background to Tanzanian cricket here.
It seems Hong Kong are the favourites, particularly having beaten Italy in the first round of matches. Also taking part are Afganistan and Jersey - the finalists from Division 5 - who still have their chance to pull off the most unlikely of qualifications into the World Cup proper. The next round - Division 3 - takes place in Argentina in January with the two finalists from this round taking their rightful place there, and the finalists in Argentina will then compete to get into the World Cup in the Division 2 stage. It all seems a long way from The Ashes or the upcoming India v Australia clash, but the ICC have pledged 6% of broadcast revenue to the lower echelons of the game and it would be great to see the quality and quantity of competing nations increase.
One blast from the past who is coaching Hong Kong in this competition is Aftab Habib, formerly of Reading, Middlesex, Leicestershire, Essex and England. It doesn't feel like long ago (although sadly it was) that I was playing club cricket against him in the Thames Valley League when he played for Reading - he scored a slow but valuable 70odd I remember - but only a couple of years after that he was playing for England. He certainly didn't seem that good when we played him. He now harbours ambitions of coaching at County level and why not? I dare say that the sort of player he was who bounced around a few non-pro teams, he's probably done more coaching during his playing days that most others. And the Hong Kong players certainly seem to hold him in high regard judging by this photo.
Last week I grumbled (again!) that Sport magazine decided not to cover the cricket despite the fact that only one side in the top division was not part of a scrap for either top spot or relegation. Surely they wouldn't ignore cricket for the second week running, now that the winners and losers are known?
Well it appears they have, with the following all getting coverage ahead of cricket: American football, motorcycling, golf, football, motor racing, rugby league, horse racing, baseball, ahtletics, tennis, ice hockey, yachting and climbing (admittedly that was an advertising feature). Cricket's only brief mention was on the "best sport on TV" page with less than 50 words explaining that Austalia will be playing India in the coming week. No season review, nothing.
What has cricket done wrong? I'm no expert in media matters, but I can't believe that Sport wouldn't have covered the end of the County season had it been properly promoted by the cricketing powers that be, offering up appropriate people for interviews. And yet there have been various quotes from Steve Harmison in the press about what it's like to win the County championship with Durham, and he's a well known England star. So that's at least one opportunity that Sport didn't take up. I'm confused!
There are those that say that Twenty20 will take cricket into the football world with massively inflated salaries and the players drinking too much and getting themselves into trouble. Let's hope not. And let's also hope that no cricket manager or coach launches the same tirade that Joe Kinnear has if Twenty20 does take cricket into that world. I have total sympathy for him in as much as we all appreciate that much of what is in the papers is deliberately mis-leading headlines and exaggerations of the truth.
But even the least media-savvy person could work out that verbally abusing the press for more than 10 minutes will not do him any favours!
*If you are under 18, or don't want to hear a lot of swearing, do not click through on the link above.*
Our esteemed Cricket Burbler Mark Davis has tried valiantly to arrange a game of cricket for this coming weekend - the first weekend of October - "as the last last game was so much fun". But his attempts have been dashed! 14 players and an opposition and nowhere to play the game! It appears that groundsman everywhere - or those volunteers acting as groundsman - take the opportunity to reseed, scarify etc as soon as the last scheduled game is played....
Given the change in the weather over the last decade I wonder if it will always be this way? The last couple of Saturdays have been the best of the year and yet, as a devoted cricket player, my league season was over well before that! Now that I've retired from playing rugby, I don't see anything wrong with playing cricket up until when the clocks go forward in October....a thought for fixture secretary's around the country?!? Anyone else keen?
