Radio 4 Today programme

"A famous name is out already, Nick Compton out for a third ball duck" Cue Mike Gatting to explain how to bat in India. Good grief ! 

Off to India !

Excellent evening at a non-favourite playing ground for TVCL annual dinner and for no reason that I can think of found myself on the top table with Geoff Miller ( his blog today is saying that for no reason that he can think of he found himself listening to the wisdom of Mark Davis). His reputation as an after dinner speaker is high and he didn't disappoint - and he's pretty good as a during dinner speaker too.
As a consquence I can now tell you that KP's 're-integration' was thorough and that he'll score a shed load of runs in India.
And in my dreams I'm off out there too - we agreed that turning a cricket ball was an unnecessary refinement and that it is all an illusion ( how many times have I had that conversation!). All in good hands with his mate Ashley Giles in the same camp.

Cricket needs businessmen and women

 

You'll have heard me say before that cricket needs businessmen running it as well as cricketers.   Obviously in an ideal world you'd have proven successful businessmen who have some international cricket experience, but there aren't that many of them around.   So choosing between the two for the most senior roles I'd go for business skills over cricket knowledge (much of which can be learnt).   The large-scale change management skills needed in bringing in technology for example, simply weren't there so unsurprisingly the whole thing's been a farce.

It's not often a view that anyone (publicly) agrees with....Nasser Hussain does judging from his autobiography...off the top of my head I can't think of any others.   So I enjoyed reading this piece which seems to agree with my views, aptly titled "The Business of Cricket Needs BusinessPeople".

Michael Clarke and his coffin

 

Or in this piece they call it his "trunk".

And people wonder why Michael Clarke is sometimes criticised for being a bit of a pretty boy!

Selection issues for England

 

Unusually for England over the last decade there doesn't seem to be much consistency in selection lately.   In Tests, Jonny Bairstow had the first chance of the summer before Ravi Bopara came in and when Bopara was unavailable for personal reasons, James Taylor was given a chance ahead of Nick Compton, who was also overlooked when Pietersen was left out with Bairstow preferred.   Now the Test touring squad for the winter includes neither Bopara or Taylor, but includes Bairstow and Compton...and Eoin Morgan who hadn't featured all summer.

 

Then in the Twenty20 they're all over the place.   The late selection of Luke Wright over Bopara at 3 has proved a huge success, but they continue to chop and change with Patel and Briggs, Bresnan and Dernbach, while also changing their keeper to Bairstow today.   Whatever happens in the rest of the tournament I find it hard to work out a circumstance in which Dernbach should be picked over Bresnan on merit.   And I felt Patel had every right to be annoyed, which he apparently was, when he was left out of the New Zealand match....Briggs then performed fine and was dropped for Patel today.

 

It's not brilliant tactical thinking...it's a muddled strategy and, although Twenty20 is to a certain extent a lottery, it would be a huge surprise if England qualify for the semi-finals, let alone get further than that.   If that leads to Broad's removal as captain then that would at least be one change that - in my opinion - would increase England's Twenty20 prospects moving forwards.   Anyone (else) who can keep a level-head under pressure would be good!

Unfancied holders and world number 1

 

I can't think of a time when the side that is the number 1 in the world and the current holders have been given less of a chance of winning a trophy (all be it that England are playing without their best player and player of the tournament last time round).  

 

Every game is a lottery and the fact that there hasn't been an upset yet makes me assume Afghanistan will beat England - there's got to be an upset somewhere given it's Twenty20.

 

So far I've hardly watched any of the action....hopefully I'll motivate myself to get interested when England are involved - I find it very hard to get too excited about Twenty20.   Maybe if England get to the final I'll watch it....

Facts v opinion in the reporting of the KP saga

This post from King Cricket (and the parody piece it's following up on from the day before) pretty much sums up my feelings on the way that the KP story has been reported in the UK press (as you may be aware from when I wrote this piece)....nice to know I'm not alone on this!

Strauss' departure

 

Clearly the arrival of Elgar for South Africa means that there's one too many composers in professional cricket and Strauss realised that he had to go.

I much prefer that explanation to anything in the press and I hope that history doesn't relate that he was the victim of two apparently unpleasant South Africans.

Good news - more cars with TMS

Lucky enough to be able to choose a new car and as ever rule one is 'does the radio receive TMS?'  i.e. Long Wave not DAB, which seems to be useless outside London.  Last time around that helped to eliminate a lot of cars but now I find that most cars do receive the service so I have to scratch my head for longer.

But at least it shows that manufacturers are waking up to the importance of cricket.

So what next post Strauss?

 

I can understand Strauss wanting to go.   With concerns about his form starting to fill his mind rather than tactics, although I'm disappointed he couldn't stay on for another year or so, it's unlikely to dramatically impact England's results.   As an intelligent guy, he leaves with loads of opportunities to go and earn lots of money outside of cricket should he wish to, but it sounds like he wants to stay involved in the game.

 

Whether Cook is quite ready is perhaps debatable.   I fear his form will dip a little and it seems that players now take on the captaincy knowing that their own personal form will dip.   Hopefully it doesn't all overcome him - he appears level-headed but he's got a tough baptism with India away his first test.   There seem few (or no) other options...can you imagine Stuart Broad leading out England for a Test match?   I certainly can't.

 

Who should open in India?   What a tough ask, whoever is selected (as it's statistically proven that players playing away for their first Test are less likely to succeed).   I'd go for Michael Carberry myself, but it's a close thing v Joe Root.   Carberry being 32 next month he would have a relatively short Test career even if successful, but my rationale is that Root isn't quite ready yet and those years will allow Root to develop his game.

 

One final point on Strauss - he has said that his form concerned him, but if England had drawn the series and remained number 1 in the world, I wonder if he would have felt the same?   It's a game of close margins and the drops of Amla and de Villiers in South Africa's 2nd innings didn't help him.   It appears to me that England's out cricket has dropped down several levels recently (2 run outs in the Lords second innings didn't help) and those little mistakes cost them hugely in the 3rd Test.   It draws some comparison with the last South Africa series that saw Vaughan resign, where England dropped nearly 3 times as many catches as South Africa.

 

In these days of relentless analysis, it wouldn't go amiss for the England analysis team to ensure their captains see those kind of stats and weigh them up before considering their future.

 

Good luck to Strauss in whatever he does next!

 

2 hit wickets in an over?

 

I've never hit wicket before Sunday but there's a first time for everything I guess!   But even more unusually there was a second hit wicket in the over!   Can't say that's something I've ever witnessed or know of....can anyone match or raise 2 hit wickets in an over?

 

The scorecard's here for proof!

 

For anyone that was watching, I was in text contact with Jawwad yesterday - who dislocated his shoulder while bowling which meant waiting for an ambulance to come and treat him on the wicket - and he'll be alright....just sore now it's back in the socket.

 

No middle wicket?

Watching Jacques bat against Kent yesterday at Canterbury I saw a selection of dilscoops and similar shots which all whizzed over Geraint Jones to the boundary. 'You can't set a field to that' they said. What about the old fashioned long stop - euphemistically called middle wicket in The Art of Coarse Cricket ( definitely a suggestion for Ed's growing cricket library). Is it too schoolboy?

Asad Rauf away from cricket

 

Strange goings on in the world of Asad Rauf....so far unproven so it could all be nonsense.   Judging by my feeds with cricket news from around the world, it seems to be big news outside of England....

Sun out, England concerns

Can't say I'm feeling confident about England's prospects today with the sun out and AB de Villers to come in who still has to get a score in this series.   England's catching seems to have deteriorated this summer, but Prior is normally pretty reliable so it was gutting from an England point of view to see him drop Amla down the legside yesterday.
So fingers crossed for a top bowling and catching performance, but I can't say I'm feeling confident!

Fair play to the selectors by the way for picking Bairstow.   From the squad picked, I would have gone with Prior at 6 and Bresnan 7 - you can never work out how things might have been with a different team, but fair to say Bairstow came off nicely.

A few headaches for the Andys

 

Moving away from KP, messrs Strauss and Flower have bit of a conundrum - how do you beat South Africa?

Do you play a spinner (Swann)?
Do you play 5 bowlers?

Do you bowl to Smith on his legs with 5 fielders on the leg side?

Will the batsmen be patient and build slow 50s and 100s like the South Africans?
Will the batsmen keep the sweep shot in the locker and wait for the inevitable full toss/long hop from Tahir?

These questions are a bit loaded as my answers in order are: Yes (all the time), Yes (Swann in for KP), No, I hope so, I bloody hope so!

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.

England had better go for this!

 

Great declaration by South Africa....gives the impression they think that they think they can still win (which I don't think is really the case but great move).   It's highly likely to be a draw given that you're allowed to bowl huge wides down the leg side in Test matches, but England need to open with Cook and Pietersen and look to move Prior up the order.   They can shut up shop from 3 down if necessary, but they have to start with intent surely?

Fingers crossed.

Taylor's time?

 

I'm glad that James Taylor got the nod ahead of Eoin Morgan (and Bairstow) to replace Bopara - it'll be great to see how he does.   He hasn't set the world alight over the last couple of years but with a great century to his name this weekend, it'll be interesting to see Taylor can emulate the likes of Gower and Vaughan who were not much more than mediocre in County cricket but who proved very successful in Test cricket.

It'll  be good to see him face Morne Morkel just for the comedy height difference!

As for Bopara, I hope that the cricket lifestyle hasn't caused relationship issues for him (which reading between the lines of various press reports I fear it may have done).   He had a child last year I believe too....fingers crossed all's ok for him.

Personally I'd play Taylor and put Finn in instead of Broad.   So hopefully that tees it up nicely for England to pick Broad and for him to take 10 wickets!

Great morning for the pedant

Excellent evening at The Oval watching one of our own see us home against the southerners but confusing if you read the report in The Times this morning. The trick is read Surrey for Middlesex and Middlesex for Surrey and you just have to imagine that they've introduced a very wise new law where run outs get credited to the bowler.

Then we had to listen to a clear non-cricketer talking about getting swing out of a  pitch and then we saw the famous Kasprowicz catch - yes his hand was off the bat but I think that it was his right hand off the bat but that the ball hit his left hand. So justice was done, wasn't it ?

Michael Vaughan

I have recently read Michael Vaughan's autobiography and it is a very interesting read. However, I get the feeling from his book that he thinks he was a better player than he actually was. Additionally, I always thought the media overrated him too.

So how good was the former England captain? His international career lasted from 1999 - 2008, where he scored 16 centuries (which is excellent), but his average was a mere 41. In the modern era that is not good enough. If you look closer, he averaged 31 between 1999 and the start 2002 English summer. He then has a golden 6 months, against India, and then in Australia where he averaged a mammoth 76, scoring 7 centuries. However, from January 2003 until his last Test in 2008, he averaged just 36 over 54 matches!

When we think of Vaughan we think of the Ashes 2005, but he only averaged 32! And that was thanks to one major score at Old Trafford where he scored 166. He was extremely lucky in that innings too, as he was dropped on 41, and bowled off a no-ball the very next delivery (so his average could easily have been 20 in that series).

And his presence in the ODI side was an embarrassment. He held back England's progress in this form of the game, and he does not admit to this in his book. He still maintained he was good enough, even after 2007 World Cup debacle. In 86 matches, he averaged 27, with a strike rate of 68, where he batted in the top 3 for most of the time. How was he allowed to do this?

Owais Shah and Robert Key were never given these kind of extended opportunities!
In summary, Vaughan had 6 good months in Test Cricket, and he lived off that run for the rest of his career. He fails to acknowledge this in his autobiography. He talks about how important "character" is to play for England; whilst this is true, you still need the stats to back it up, which Vaughan did not seem too concerned about, which was lucky for him considering how poor his figures were for most of the time he was in an England shirt.