Rugby not keen on following Twenty20 route

Interesting to see Eddie Jones' (former Australia rugby coach) comments about the new laws that have been brought in to rugby in an attempt to make it more entertaining. The difference in rugby is that they are trying to convert the "proper" version of the game to be more "exciting", where as cricket has 3 separate versions, rather than tinkering with Test match laws.

You can read his comments here. It will be interesting to see if he's right and a third version of rugby springs up alongside 7 a-side and 15 a-side.

A quick word on Pietersen and Broad

It would be chirlish not to comment on the sensational start Pietersen has made to captaincy, and the first 5 for of Stuart Broad's career. Both are incredibly exciting for England - I've burbled before about how Broad's bowling might not quite be good enough for international level, but it would be superb for England if it is, and a couple more match winning performances over the rest of this series and the winter will really cement his place in the side.

Pietersen seems to have had a galvanising effect on the side and long may it continue. The only way we'll really know how good he is though is when he's under real pressure with a run or two in it at the end of an ODI, or when he's lost a Test or two and needs to turn it around. But the initial signs are very good which is a better position than I expected England to be in immediately after his appointment....

Batting help to avoid those LBWs...

This is a subject close to my heart - I must have set some kind of record for being out LBW while falling over and playing towards leg over the years. In fact, one year aged 15 I spent a whole season being out LBW almost exclusively - you can tell that it was a big problem as I haven't forgotten it 15 years on!

So this article about how to stop yourself planting your front foot was interesting - I'll be trying - as ever - to put the advice into practice this weekend.

Mathematical help please?!

I once did Maths A-level and got a C, having failed all exams throughout the 2 years (by enlisting the help of an ultra-intelligent friend in the final few weeks before the exam who went on to get a 1st at Oxford), but my C in Maths A-level isn't proving sufficient to work out a vital cricketing formula.

What is that formula? The formula for when it's ok to shower when you're batting second.

You know the score (or perhaps you don't?) - your team is cruising to victory and you're batting relatively low down. You want to get a head start by getting into the bar quickly after the game, and you also want to avoid the peak showering time at the end of the match. So you do a quick calculation and work out when it's ok to risk having a shower, despite the fact that a horrific collapse would see you having to scrabble around trying to get some kit and pads on rapidly. Obviously you can never completely rule that out, but on the balance of probabilities you decide to either watch in kit for longer, or take the risk of showering.

On Monday I was nearly caught out on this one, hence the post. To be fair on me and give you the whole situation, my skipper decided to retire two batsmen to give a couple of others a game, and only one of them hung around with his pads on to go back in if necessary - I couldn't be expected to predict that! But nonetheless I was one wicket away from having to dart back into the changing rooms and quickly get kit and pads on after showering.

It seems to me there are 5 factors to take into consideration:

I = importance of match
R = runs required
W = wickets left to fall before you have to pad up
S = the score you're chasing
C = competence of the two batsman at the crease

There must be a formula that can be created to solve this vital problem, but it's stumped me so far! Your help please maths boffins....

Things cricket can learn from the Olympics

It's been great watching Great Britain do well in the Olympics and long may it continue over future games. With Clive Woodward overseeing overall performance up to 2012 with a whole heap of investment behind him, I'm confident we'll keep improving. Anyway - two things that stood out for me that may relate to cricket in the future:

1. Did you notice how many people in individual sports were interviewed afterwards and said "we've been training hard for this", "we're got our reward", etc? It seems that individual athletes realise that they are only as good as the sum of their parts which involves their coach, nutritionalist, sports psychologist etc. With the IPL and Stanford money coming in, I wonder how long it is before we find an international batsman or bowler burst onto the scene with an individual entorage they use to guide them (and them alone rather than the team).

2. Avoid farce by using technology before spectators and players lose faith in your sport. Sports like taekwondo, boxing, diving and gymnastics (and probably several others) all need TV replays to ensure that the right person wins. Gymnastics, from the bit of the Olympics that I saw, is the only sport to have brought that in. Cricket is also a sport that is judged by someone - umpires - and we need to sort out the use of technology asap to avoid farce - we've heard about the Sarah Stevenson taekwondo case in Britain, but it was just one of several for that sport. One of the fighters has made all sorts of allegations against the taekwondo Federation - let's hope this doesn't happen to cricket.

Private-life trouble for Brett Lee

Cricket Burble definitely isn't going to come over all tabloid on you, but given the context of the recent post about depression, and how it's so important for cricketers to be right mentally to play professionally, I suspect the Australian cricketing authorities will be concerned to hear about Brett Lee's marriage difficulties.

While I doubt they're too concerned about England and the Ashes, Australia play South Africa in December for the right to call themselves the number 1 Test side in the world, and Lee is going to have to overcome these personal issues if he's going to be on top form for that series. I hope he comes through it ok.

The lure of IPL money

I'm sure that Harmison's decision to make himself available for ODIs again has nothing to do with the potential money involved in the Stanford game and the IPL...

Depression sets in...

As a club cricketer, depression tends to set in around this time of year for me, given that the season will end soon....then the clocks change....and then it's back to leaving for work and returning from work in the dark. But for professionals, depression can be a great deal more serious and as Mike Atherton refers to in this interesting article, David Frith has even written a book about cricketing suicides, such is the number of them.

Personally I can't begin to imagine the scenario where you aren't in the right state of mind to play cricket - it's always been a great release - even if, for example, you're working all other hours available to you in your waking day. Having said that, I do remember an innings in a league match a few years ago where I padded up while having a telephone row with an ex-girlfriend. When a wicket fell I told her I had to go and just before I hung up I heard "don't put the phone down on me" - I'm not sure that was ideal preparation for my innings! Surprise, surprise, I scored 0, but such is my lack of cricketing skill, I'll never know if my duck was down to the preparation, or my own lack of ability!

After that 0 I was of course selected for the following week (I was captain!), but it must be hellish to be playing professionally and to know that you could be dropped if you don't perform. That's why I was so pleased for Collingwood when he got his hundred at Edgbaston - I literally can't imagine what he was going through because I've always known that I've got an enjoyable match next weekend, no matter how badly I do. Reading Graham Thorpe's autobiography gave me an interesting insight into just how different it is for pros and just how it can get on top of them, all the more when things aren't going right off the field. Atherton's article is similarly thought-provoking.

Vaughan gone, next in line Moores

You'll remember various burbles about how Peter Moores could alleviate pressure on his position by using Vaughan as a scapegoat - this post in particular, "Don't lose faith in Vaughan". And of course, as we now know, that concern turned into reality.

I'm surprised that already there are the first murmurs of discontent about Moores though - I thought it would at least take until after the India series (if 2 Tests can count as a series?). The Guardian site is suggesting that Moores is under real pressure if England don't win the ODI series against the South Africans.

I wonder what odds I'd get with a bookie on the ECB panicking after a losing run over the winter and begging Vaughan to reconsider his resignation in time for the Ashes, alongside a new coach?

David Fulton's view on Pietersen

There has been much burbled about Pietersen's appointment as England captain, along with the enormous amounts of column inches given to it elsewhere. This article, by David Fulton, seems to be a relatively objective view on Pietersen's first Test in charge, and his future prospects. There's one paragraph in particular that rings true to me, which is the last one:

"The best captains for the most part remain an emotional constant. When the team is down it's important he's lifting them up. When the team is on the crest of the wave it's important the captain keeps a proper sense of perspective and is not surfing on top of it."

See what you think of the article....

Asif B sample is positive

I can't quite understand the rationale of Mohammad Asif who now thinks that his case is "stronger" because his A sample and B sample haven't recorded the same amounts of drugs in his system. Surely the only question this throws up is the volume of drugs he's taken and that seems an irrelevance when both samples are shows he's tested positive.

As I've burbled about before, I find it amazing how much of this is in the public domain, but I guess that's the way of these things with today's media...

Using technology to aid umpires

The debate goes on - if you're interested in the latest views of Tony Greig, David Lloyd and Sanjay Manjrekar, have a listen to their debate on Cricinfo.

Leave the ball alone!

I spent a large part of Saturday's batting (and therefore umpiring ) session watching, with amusement, the antics of an opponent fielding in the gully. Most times the ball went through his hands on its way back to the bowler he'd lick a finger and then apply the moisture to a point on the ball - it was often a random part because he'd not always look at the ball. Then the ball would continue its route to the bowler who was usually by then waiting at the end of his run and almost without exception the throw was short so the ball bounced and undid the work.

All done with the best of intentions I'm sure but odd that none of his team mates pointed out the waste of effort and of time. Additionally as a bowler I'd prefer not to receive a ball with somebody elses saliva on it.

The England number 3 spot

Interesting to see the table giving the stats for England number 3s on Cricinfo.

Assuming that Pietersen's England, with Flintoff at 6, don't return to Vaughan for the India tour, we have moved from someone who averages 40 at number 3 to someone who averages 34 there. And I also noticed that a certain Mr Key, who is in with a chance of making the squad, averages nearly 41 at 3 in Tests too.

I still haven't got over the Vaughan thing, as you can tell! But if England want to persist with Strauss and are worried about him being too similar to Cook, the table also shows that Cook's average at 3 is well over 50 - that's pretty handy even accounting for the amount of luck he had early in his career with dropped catches and wrong decisions. So Key could open and Cook could move to 3, leaving Bell to fight it out for number 5 with Collingwood, Shah and Bopara.

Several of us have burbled about Ian Bell many times before, primarily because he inspires debate as he never seems to quite come good (enough), and opinion is still divided, despite his own protestations. Given that's the case I think moving him to 3 is a mistake, but it would be nice to be proved wrong if that means England win the series in India (they won't get a better chance given India's recent loss to Sri Lanka and the recriminations taking place).

Catching

After some very rudimentary checks (i.e. if it's inaccurate I apologise but you'll just have to live with it) on how successful the England and South Africa teams were in their catching during the recent series, here are the scores on the doors in case you're interested:

England dropped 14 catches, South Africa dropped 5.

Dropped catches by England: Cook (5), Ambrose (3), Collingwood (2), Pattinson (2), Pietersen (1), Panesar (1). Dropped catches by South Africa: Ntini (2), de Villiers (1), Kallis (1), McKenzie (1).

Interestingly, 3 of the 5 dropped catches by South Africa were in the final Test at which point the series had already been won, while England dropped 4 catches in that match. It occurs to me that a dropped catch ratio of more than 3:1 in the 1st 3 Tests didn't help Vaughan!

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 ?

Use Hot Spot to aid referral decisions says Benson

Interesting to see that we now have an umpire calling for more technology. Mark Benson has called for the use of Hot Spot when the video umpire is asked to judge whether a decision from the on-field umpires is correct.

As I've burbled about many times before, it makes no sense to give the umpires less technology than TV viewers, so this is an issue that will continue until common sense prevails.

Hansie Cronje film

Believe it or not, Hansie's brother has directed a film about the life of Hansie Cronje. Could be an interesting watch, but I guess it will be a little bit one sided!

The latest Botham walk

In October Ian Botham will be doing another of his leukemia walks. Since the first walk in 1985 the survival rate for children with leukemia has risen from 20% to 80% which isn't bad going!

To find out more or donate, take a look at the site - www.bothamwalk.com - and if you want to you even have the chance to walk alongside him on part of the walk...

"I just roll up and go whang"

I think several bowlers have said something similar to the quote above, but none really "whanged" it like its originator, Jeff Thomson. During a quiet moment at work, I began watching cricket videos on Youtube. What was supposed to be 2 mins of distraction as I waited for the kettle to boil all too inevitably became 45 min of faffing around, watching one video as it linked to another as that linked to another and another and so on. A lot of the cricket clips on Youtube are, to put it politely, rubbish - you can sleep peacefully at night knowing you haven't missed much by not clicking the link to 'criczz83's 'Best ball in the world everrrr!!!' - but some are absolute gems.

Take this video of 1979's World's Fastest Bowler Competition for starters. A few things make this video interesting to watch, not least its similarity in style to Look Around You, but for me it is the opportunity to watch some of yesteryear's great fast bowlers tearing into the crease. The competitors included Thomson, Lillee, Roberts, Holding and many others who terrorized batsmen during the 70's and 80's. Not surprisingly, Thommo won with the impressive speed of 147.9km/h (91.9mph), with Holding second on 141.3km/h (87.8mph). Very quick yes, but wasn't Thomson supposed to be the fastest ever? Was I expecting too much of him when I thought he would hit 95mph plus?

Maybe not. This clip shows that a few years earlier that scientists at the West Australian University clocked Thomson at 160.45km/h (99.7mph) bowling against the West Indies at the WACA in 1975/6, seriously quick. By 1979, he had endured serious injury and at the time of the competition had been 'drinking beer and sitting on [his] backside, for months' because of a ban from cricket. But he turned up, went whang and won it.

And it seems the way he whanged it was very important - apparently, by moving the ball through a longer distance he could achieve the sorts of speeds that a much taller bowler could, and then some. Being a short very non-threatening medium pacer myself, perhaps I should take note...

PS - apologies for my lack of burbling over the past... well, very long time! There is a reason why, I just haven't found it yet.