In deep

There are a variety of unusually placed cricket grounds around the world. When I was but a lad I played the one or two games at Grenoside CC in Sheffield. Grenoside is on the side of a large hill…and so is the cricket pitch. The wicket area was flat(ish) but not much good. The worst position to field, by far, was in-the-deep down the hill. It was a tricky place to be. For a start you could not see the batsman play his shots because he was over the lip of the hill. When a shot was played down the hill the first I heard was the fielders shouting that there is a ball coming, followed by a short sprint in the general direction of the ball. Of course I had no chance because I am on a steep hill and the ball just accelerates passed and on down the rest of the hill. In reality you are not a fielder but a ball fetcher – a ball fetcher with at least another 100 meters to go. Getting into a position where I could throw the ball back took a while and the fielders just milled about vaguely amused. It really wasn’t much fun fielding down the hill.

It seems that the England cricket team, like those who played at Grenoside, are not playing on a level playing field. The members of ‘Team England’ have a place in the Pavillion at the top of the hill and seem to be forever having their tea while talented county players flail away unnoticed down the hill. The squad for the tour of India was announced today and Michael Vaughan is not on it. We knew this prior to its announcement because Vaughan has been given a three month sabbatical. Sabbatical? Vaughan’s recent Test form has been terrible. He gave up the Test captaincy and made himself unavailable for selection. He then returned to play for Yorkshire so he could make some runs and get some form back – something he failed miserably at. He was rewarded for all this by having his central contract renewed and now has been given a sabbatical… he must have compromising pictures of Geoff Miller and Max Moseley or something. Cricket is supposed to be a competitive game and surely the selection process must be the same. What on earth must the players who just missed out on a central contact feel? How can the current selection policy possibly be on a level playing field?

Money-go-round

The team to go to Antigua and play the Stanford ‘big money T20’ games was announced today. According to my conspiracy theory it should contain as many of the New Zealand test side as possible… and guess what – it does. It includes Alastair Cook, surely the most unlikely T20 player there is. The only hard hats passed out when Cooky is at the middle are the ones used to have a quick snooze under. It also contains ‘Big’ Steve Harmison. A few months ago people probably thought his international career was over. They had forgotten about the great conspiracy. A test recall and some moderate figures clearly means he is a show-in for Antigua. With people like Cook and Harmison around the likes of Graham Napier didn’t stand a chance…

I have said before that I think central contracts are too long. Steve Harmison, despite spending half the year as not good enough to play for England has been awarded another contract. Michael Vaughan, who made himself unavailable for selection, does not play ODIs and whose form for Yorkshire has been woeful has also had his contract renewed. Is there no requirement for players to deserve their yearlong contract?

Conspiracy, what conspiracy.

Batsman, Captain, Off Spinner?

King Kev is of course the best batsman in the England side - by some considerable margin. He is also the best off spinner, so why is he so infrequently used? It will be interesting to see if he bowls himself in India. I think he should although captains are notoriously reluctant to bowl themselves. This article from the archives makes interesting reading: Hussain impressed with Pieterson
...as well as one amusing comment:

"Vaughan, who was virtually strokeless throughout his tedious 222-minute innings of 45."


That is one thing that has changed, Vaughan is rarely strokeless.

Back from Holiday

I had it all set up in my mind. Just before the T20 match in Antigua on November first I was going to mock up a picture of a wooden spoon on a pile of cash. England and West Indies were seventh and eighth in the ODI rankings and that makes them the bottom two of the ‘major’ nations. I go away on holiday and something remarkable happens: England thrash South Africa. If they win the last match they will move to number two in the rankings. Given the poor form England have shown in one-day cricket recently it seems logical to assume the improvement in form was due to me going on holiday. In a purely altruistic move and for the sake of ‘Team England’ I am willing to go on holiday more, I wonder of I can get a sports grant...

Test matches over before the summer arrives

Being an England fan I tend to obsess about the England side and its failings – not that I am short of things to talk about there. South Africa has just won the Test series 2-1 and deservedly so. England rallied in the last Test match and South Africa, having already won the series, lost a bit of their discipline. England has played the same batsmen all year (10 Tests) and they have rarely looked like a Test match winning line-up. This will continue because the same players will continue to make the same mistakes. Will England fall lower that their current Test Ranking of 5th? Possibly. There I go again… obsessing about England.

South Africa looked an impressive side against England. The batting, when required, looked very solid. I was particularly impressed with Amla and Prince who looked every inch Test quality players. When England last played South Africa there was a suggestion Amla was in the side because of his ‘colour’. Whatever the truth, or otherwise, of that rumour he is now an impressive number three. Both players seem to have a very good knowledge of where their off-stump is and what not to play at. Smith captained his side as well as any South African I have seen and was quite rightly named man-of-the-series by the England coach. His innings at Edgbaston that won the series was one of real character and ability. The fact that South Africa won the series with barely a contribution from Kallis and had half the series without Steyn showed how far ahead of England they now are.

South Africa’s next Test series is against Australia – can they trouble them? Australia is a team in steady decline. They have lost some exceptional players: Warne, Mcgrath, Glichrist with Hayden to follow shortly. In addition they have lost some good players: MacGill, Hogg, Langer. However, their initial bar of excellence was so high that they are only just getting down to the point where they can be beaten by normal Test sides. I think it will be a close series, made closer by Australia’s inability to find a decent spinner. If they lose Lee to injury, which must happen someday because they bowl him into the ground, then the bowling cupboard will look very bare.

However, long before all that we have a one-day series which South Africa will win with some ease…

A combined 11+11=11

One thing I like to do as a mental exercise in a Test series is choose a combined team – just to see how many England players make it into the eleven. Clearly the result will be the biased by me – so feel free to disagree in the comments. I have tried to match player against player and I have used the Edgbaston line-up… and anyway the Oval line-up without Vaughan or a direct replacement makes it more difficult  Here goes:

Strauss or Cook v Smith or McKenzie
I am not that fond of Graham Smith and his particular brand of arrogance but there is no doubt he has bags more ability than Strauss or Cook. I think the Strauss, Cook, McKenzie choice is not clear cut. What is clear though is that McKenzie is in miles better form that either of the other two so I would choose him.

Vaughan v Amla
On anywhere near current form it’s a no-brainer for Amla

Pietersen v Kallis
Hmm, tough one. Of course it wouldn’t be a tough one because you would choose Pietersen and Kallis and drop someone else. Kallis’s record is miles better than Petersen although their ICC rankings are near identical. If I had to choose on batting alone it would be Pietersen, he is lots younger and can still improve.

Bell v Prince
Another no-brainer: Prince.

Collingwood v de Villiers
de Villiers and Collingwood have very similar Test records so in theory it’s a tough call. de Villiers is much younger and just as good a fielder. Collingwood is a useful bowler though. I would go for de Villiers, although it is very tight – he has three centuries this year (one a double).

Ambrose v Boucher
Quite a large mismatch… Boucher by a mile.

Flintoff v Morkel
Morkel is good, but Flintoff is Flintoff.

Sidebottom v Nel
Although Sidebottom has been excellent for England, I would choose Nel every time He has that ability to get wickets when none look likely. In addition, Nel replaced Steyn and Sidebottom v Steyn is a simple call.

Anderson v Ntini
Ntini is the most experienced current pace bowler in world cricket but he has looked past his best on this tour. I have been impressed with Anderson recently and so would choose him.

Panasar v Harris
Although Panasar is a liability in the field his ability to change a Test match wins here.

That makes the combined side:
Smith
McKenzie
Amla
Pietersen
Prince
de Villiers
Boucher
Flintoff
Nel
Anderson
Panasar

I would swap Kallis for de Villiers and get a better batsman and a very useful bowler. Anybody else fancy a try?

Conspiracy rumbles on

Recent events are, of course, bang in line with the ECB conspiracy I blogged about a while ago. Vaughan isn’t really part of the conspiracy, mainly because he doesn’t play ODI cricket and so would not be selected in Antigua or for the IPL anyway. England have lost two test matches on the trot and lost the series against South Africa so it would be expected that, in addition to Vaughan’s self imposed exile, there would be more changes to the Test squad. We, of course, know better and so there was no surprise (although maybe some disgust) that the only change was the minimum possible they could make: Bopara for Vaughan.

The one day squad despite taking a beating against New Zealand also has the minimum of changes: Prior for the woeful Ambrose and the addition of Samit ‘who?’ Patel. There is no way they are going to risk upsetting the Stanford Gravy Train there...

Turning around the supertanker 'England Fail'

A few years ago, England had a good Test side. This culminated in the 2005 home win against Australia. Since then the side has been in decline. England’s loss against South Africa is the second home series loss from the three series and by any yardstick England’s Test side should be considered a failure. That probably sounds a bit harsh ‘failure’ but it is accurate. England can only beat weak Test sides and make that seem difficult. The latest loss was typical of England – a poor first innings, it looks like the opposing side are easily going to get a big lead before Flintoff performs some heroics, a second innings which includes a century by someone in ‘Last Chance Saloon’ and finally a successful run chase by the opposition who manage to win despite multiple attempts to lose.

The selectors have tried the ‘do absolutely nothing at all unless we really, really have too’ strategy. That is not a bad way to treat nuclear waste but has been hopeless for England’s Test side. Here are a few ideas:

Give Strauss the Captaincy
Michael Vaughan is a good captain but his form is terrible. On form alone Vaughan shouldn’t even be considered for the England side, let alone be a permanent fixture. Strauss does have his bad form runs but he did play well when captain and in reasonable form right now. However, Vaughan has the ability to be the best player in the England side. Anyone who doubts this should go back and see what he did before becoming captain. His run of scores was remarkable and took him to number one in the world. I think Vaughan is worth another series as a player. If he can capture that old form he will be brilliant.

Drop Collingwood and Bell
You don’t drop a bloke after making a century. I would - mainly because I wouldn’t have picked him in the first place. Collingwood and Bell both just do enough to be picked. Their averages are poor. With his recent century, Collingwood now has six centuries in seventy innings – that is about one century for every six Tests. Rubbish. Bell has eight centuries in seventy-five innings and whilst he may look good when batting he rarely produces the goods when it matters.

Commit to Ambrose, or not
Lots of people seem to dislike Tim Ambrose. I am not one of them. I want my wicket-keeper to catch the ball. Specifically, I want him to not drop the ball when it has been edged. The previous incumbents, Prior for example, were unable to catch the ball when edged. I would much rather a wicket-keeper have an average of 26 and catch Jayawardene when he has 15 than have an average of 40 and drop the Sri Lankan captain allowing him to make another 150. The key point here is to pick a wicket-keeper who is good behind the stumps and stick with him.

Cut central contracts to six-months
Giving out central contracts for a year makes no sense to me. The ‘logic’ is that it gives stability to players who then know where they stand. I don’t agree, if a player is good enough it will make no difference to them. If they are not good enough it is better to cut them free after six months. As it stands the ECB will have to commit another twelve months to Vaughan in a month or so. That seems madness given his current form. Hoggard and Harmison, both centrally contracted players, have not played for England since the start of March. The money they have been paid would be much better spent if it went to Ambrose and Broad. My point is: award contracts at the start and end of the season(ish).

None of this will happen of course...

It is a conspiracy I tell you

I like a good conspiracy theory. Most of the ones I have heard are wrong, so I thought it worthwhile making up my own conspiracy theory. It will be wrong of course, but more in an improbable ‘grassy knoll’ sort of a way than the plain stupid ‘faked moon landings’ variety. Here goes:

There is a secret agreement between some England players and the ECB to ensure that these star players are picked as much as possible. Why would there be such an agreement? The answer is of course, the root of all evil T20 cricket: ‘money’. The logic goes something like this: earlier in the year there was a huge amount of press coverage concerning the IPL and in particular the auctioning of players and the large quantities of money they could make for fairly small amounts of work. This, of course, is fantastic if you are an International cricketer who can be well rewarded for years of hard work. All this is provided you are not an English (or English-sort-of-ish) International player – if you are then you are going to miss out on the bonanza because of central contracts and up-coming matches. I would expect a lot complaining about this, why should the England players miss out? What complaining did we get? Virtually none. The odd small comment was made but England players made little of it and came out of it smelling all virtuous and not-at-all money grabbing. I contend that is because a deal had already been done in ECB backrooms. A deal that ensures England’s top players get preferential selection treatment and on the understanding that all the key players will be at Antigua on November 1^st to earn mega-bucks. In the light of these ‘revelations’ a few recent events make sense:

1. The constant and unswerving selection of poor, out-of-form batsmen – however badly they do. If they are in on the deal, they are in the team – period.
2. The selection of Darren Pattinson. We cannot risk picking someone like Simon Jones who may do well and force out of the ‘key’ bowlers. Pick someone we can unequivocally drop.
3. Do not let Strauss or Cook play in the T20 finals. They are not in the England T20 squad and so it would be very dangerous to let them play in the finals. If they did well they may force their way into the existing squad and that would ruin ‘the deal’. Make up some lame excuse like ‘they are tired’ which we can also use in point 4.
4. Replace Stuart Broad who tops the series batting averages with Paul Collingwood who has no runs, at all, this year. Use the same ‘tired’ excuse and if there is doubt also say that he has been dropped for his bowling. <special sarcasm mode>This makes perfect sense because Paul Collingwood is a world class opening bowler despite needing a shoulder operation. As part of a five man bowling attack he will be able to take strain from Andrew Flintoff. He was mighty in the T20 semi-final (didn’t bowl) </special sarcasm mode>. They couldn’t drop Broad for his batting of course…
5. Bring in Harmison to the squad and then get rid of him. The people who hate him are happy. The people who like him are happy because it looks like he may get back in the selection frame. He won’t of course because they cannot risk him doing well.

I have been telling people this conspiracy for a while, somewhat tongue in-cheek; the trouble is everything that happens just seems to confirm it. According to the theory they need Collingwood in the Test side because non-selection would cast doubts on his ability to captain the one-day side and risk guaranteed selection for the Stanford game. The fact they have picked him after a single game away, having done virtually nothing in the interim, is staggering. Vaughan said this:

“Colly's obviously struggled of late, but he averages over 40 in Test-match cricket with a double-hundred," said Vaughan. "His fielding, his energy, and his bowling on this type of wicket could be useful if it swings. He's just a good man to have around the team, because he's very mature and a good thinker of the game. He knows he needs to start scoring runs, as a few of us do, but it's good to have him back in among the ranks.”

A ringing endorsement – a certain pick. Is that all they could come up with? Earlier in the week we were ‘prepared’ for his inclusion with this statement (I think from Geoff Miller):

"Paul Collingwood was unlucky to miss out on a place in the team for the second Test match but this decision was based on a number of factors. He has shown what a true professional he is by returning to Durham over the past week and playing well for his county."

What a trouper, he actually played cricket for Durham.

If we assume I am wrong for a moment (silly I know), can you come up with a better reason for the five events and statements? You are not allowed to use the ECB incompetence wildcard, that has been used far too often…

South Africa show up England's failings

I expected South Africa to thrash England at Lords’. As it turned out the beatings were put back a week until they got to Headingley, not that they lost any of their severity. England lost in Leeds because of two things: batting and bowling.

How can a side that made 593-8 at Lords’ be bowled out for 203 and 327 at Headingley? The fact is that the 593-8 is out of the ordinary for England. 203 is a more representative score, a true reflection of where England’s batting is at. Earlier in the summer against much weaker opposition England managed first innings scores of 319 (Lords’), 202 (Old Trafford) and 364 (Trent Bridge). Given these scores, 203 sounds about right. The second innings was classic England:

• a bad start, it is the law that when facing a huge task an England opener has to get less than five.
• a hopelessly out of form number three.
• a middle order whom play like they have just won the lottery
• someone who looks in decent form who then gets out to a soft catch
• a general collapse followed by someone in the lower order making the score look much more respectable than it really is

On a flat wicket, in the sun, England was reduced to 152-6, of which Jimmy Anderson had made 34. Rubbish.

England’s bowlers continued to struggle. Flintoff’s return is welcome and he added some pace into the attack. Anderson bowled well without much success. Broad looks worryingly like a man who doesn’t know how to take wickets but it is difficult to drop a number eight who regularly makes more runs than half of the top order combined. Pattinson was there for reasons about which I will not go into, mainly because I haven’t figured out what they could possibly be. That leaves Panasar who looked ineffective.

South Africa batted really well and England’s singly failed to follow their lead. South Africa made 522 and to be honest it looked like a 500 wicket so it seems churlish to criticize England’s bowlers for not getting South Africa out sooner. There was some movement early on in the first day but it was by no means a 203 all out wicket, at least not for a quality Test line-up...

Its twenty-twenty finals day on Saturday. The first match is Essex v Middlesex and Cook and Strauss have been told (and no this isn’t me having a laugh by making something ridiculous up):
“It was deemed after two tough Test matches that those players who played in both Tests will not be available,” an England spokesman said.

Unbelievable.