Jaded

Andrew Strauss is jaded. He is a tired man who needs a break from cricket. He is so tired that Strauss not going to Bangladesh has been a foregone conclusion since September when the ECB leaked as much. So he is not jaded, it is just convenient ECB lie. Indeed, the surprise is that other players are not tired enough to skip going. Hold on a moment, Strauss is a batsman who does not bowl – how can he be tired? He hasn’t even done much batting of late and he will not be going to the World Twenty20. For those of us who actually do a day’s work ... the thought of being given three months off from visiting hot places and playing cricket seems a bit like a mickey-take. Burn-out? I wouldn’t mind the risk of that type of burn-out.

They gave Strauss’ job to Alastair Cook. It makes perfect sense to give it to a guy whose Test average is on the slide and can barely justify his place in the side. Oh, hang on that covers the whole batting line-up except Collingwood – so Cook is probably as good a sacrifice as anyone. I wonder if he will get Strauss' extra Captain's salary...

They have announced a few replacements for the ‘jaded’ player but I am not going to even type their names: they have NO chance of being picked – it may rock a boat somewhere.

Just pick your mates

Michael Vaughan is now a cricket commentator for TMS. In this interview he says of England’s defeat:

“This is a developing team, a lot of the players are worth sticking with and given many, many more chances.”

Two years ago and 150 odd posts ago I started this blog. The first Test England played after that time their batting line-up was:

Cook
Vaughan
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood

The only difference between this side and the beating at Jo’berg was Vaughan himself who has retired and his place taken over by Trott. In that time Shah and Bopara weren’t given ‘many, many more chances’. Still others never got a chance.

Not much sun with mostly showers

So South Africa made it – they managed to win the last test and draw the series. Odd that, because the fact they managed to force a draw in the last test make it look as if England were the dominant team, when in reality it was the other way around. South Africa really should have won the series 3-1 and had it not been for the heroics of England number 11s (i.e. Graham Onions) the Proteas would have done. England was thrashed ... and nearly won the series. In those terms, a draw seems like a good result.

Interesting England averages:

Cook 287 @ 41 (about average for a poor player)
Strauss 170 @ 24.28 (very poor)
Trott 190 @ 27.14 (very poor)
Pietersen 177 @ 25.28 (very poor)
Collingwood 344 @ 57.33 (only batsman that had a good tour!)
Bell 313 @ 44.71 (what sort of a team is it where 44.71 is a success?)
Prior 158 @ 22.57 (at least he didn’t drop many)
Broad 76 @ 10.85 (allrounder? Nope)
Swann 171 @ 28.5 (better average than Strauss, Pietersen and Trott. Topped bowling averages, the tours real success)

Trott is an interesting one. 27.14 is poor and he has no record to call on. By all rights he should go the way of Bopara and Shah – I wonder if that will happen. I bet he gets to tour Bangladesh for some buffet runs.

Ian Bell (who else)

Ian Bell, much derided on these pages has finally played an innings that mattered in the context of the game. Ian Bell is a bit like a bus – you wait ages for him to do something significant and then he does it twice in a match. The Cape Town match was Bell’s fifty-second Test match and by my reckoning the first innings he has played that made a substantial difference to the result. At the start of the day South Africa were definitely favourites to win the game and Bell and Collinwood denied them. Why has it taken Bell so long to produce some innings that matter? You could argue (in fact I probably have) that if you give any player enough chances they will eventually do something significant. In Bell’s case though, his technique and ability always suggested something greater – that he was good enough to play Test cricket – he just couldn’t because of a mental problem. They say top sport is mostly played in the head and Bell seems a prime example of that. He would make the best looking innings of 32 you have seen and then get out in a silly fashion - repeatedly. I would suggest today’s innings was the best he has ever played. Let’s hope he has learnt something from this Test and that this is not a one-off.

2009, a mixed year for England

It has been a funny year for the England team. They ended the year in the exact opposite way to the way they started it. In the first Test against West Indies at Kingston a fairly uneventful Test came to a crashing conclusion as England were skittled for 51. Fast forward to today and another Test that looked like an uneventful draw burst into life as England went to the bowling alley to strike out a panicking South African team for 133. Between those two matches England have won The Ashes (he mentions in passing) and been involved in some really exciting draws. It has been an amazing year for English skin-of-teeth draws:

West Indies v England 3rd Test at St John’s (remember the debacle at North Sound?): West Indies last pair (Powell and Edwards) hang on for 36 minutes to scrape a draw.

West Indies v England 5th Test at Queen’s Park: West Indies pair Ramdin and Edwards hold on at 114-8 and win the series.

England v Australia 1st Test at Cardiff: England’s last pair Anderson and Panesar survive for 11.3 overs to deny Australia.

South Africa v England 1st Test at Pretoria: Collingwood and Onions survived for 19 deliveries allowing England to walk away still level in the series.

Maybe England should come on to the field to ‘The Great Escape’ rather than ‘Jerusalem’.

Ten years on

Statistically and, in my case rather unbelievably, it has been almost ten years since the turn of the millennium. There will not be such a fuss made as 2009 turns into 2010 as there was a decade ago. Can you guess what England’s first XI was for their first Test match in 2000? What do they do now and do any still play? The England XI to play South Africa (which included Jacques Kallis, the only player still playing Test Cricket from the twenty-two named in both sides) was:

1. Mark Butcher – retired from first class cricket in 2009
2. Michael Atherton – retired in 2001. He works for The Times and is part of Sky TVs commentary team
3. Nasser Hussain (Captain) – retired in 2004 after making a winning century at Lord’s. Nasser is part of the Sky TV commentary team.
4. Michael Vaughan – retired in 2009 whilst still holding an England player contract. Now works for Test Match Special and as an artist.
5. Alec Stewart – is a member of the Surrey coaching staff and may also work for ‘Essentially’ (his company was bought by them)
6. Andrew Caddick – retired from first class cricket in 2009 and now sells helicopters
7. Chris Adams – played his last first class match for Sussex at the end of 2008 and is now the cricket manager at Surrey
8. Andrew Flintoff – Retired from test cricket at the end of the 2009 Ashes series and is currently recovering from a knee operation
9. Darren Gough – Retired from first class cricket in 2008 and now works for talkSPORT
10. Chris Silverwood – Chris was released by Middlesex at the end of the 2009 season
11. Phil Tufnell – retired from cricket in 2003 and has a successful career in TV and radio.

Ian Bell (again)

There seems to be a push to blame Ian Bell for the close finish in the first Test – or at least for him to be the fall guy. This seems a little unfair: if you pick a guy who is way out of his depth and then he fails – how can it be his fault? Surely it is a failure of selection. Jonathan Trott was interviewed today and asked whether he thought Bell’s place was under threat. Of course he wasn’t about to say anything negative and so said “Ian has proved himself at Test level”. No he hasn’t. Ian Bell has played fifty Test matches. Yep, you heard that right: 50. How can a bloke who averages 38.9 play fifty Tests for England? Remember who is at fault here: Ian Bell doesn’t pick the side.

England beat South Africa... again

Rain: we get a lot of it in England. They also seem to get a lot in South Africa too with two out of five ODIs being washed out. That gives England a 2-1 victory over South Africa in South Africa something that has not been done by any side for 15 home series! More remarkable than England beating South Africa is how poor South Africa looked. Their bowling looked ineffective and the batting flaky. I thought England would get out muscled in the test series but now I am not so sure. If the wickets are flat we could be in for some big scores and sore bowlers.

Topsy turvy is the new normal for England

What a strange series England are having with South Africa. One side dominates completely then the other only for it to switch again. I would say it was extraordinary except it isn’t: it matches the pattern of the Ashes series almost to a tee. We have had three thrashings with England currently leading 2:1.

England has shown some promise with the batting have an uncharacteristic solidity. Strauss continues to lead well, Trott and Morgan are cementing the places and Collingwood is back in form. Bowling was always going to be difficult on flat South African pitches but at least England managed to seize the opportunity today when it appeared.

South Africa has been pretty poor. They have had one good performance and although England did bowl poorly at Cape Town the statistics were against them batting second under lights. Smith was delighted when he won the toss and batted. Their batting looks fragile and their bowling almost non-existent. I expected South Africa to beat England easily, especially in the test matches. However South Africa are struggling to find a second opening bowler and if Stein isn’t fully fit they are in real trouble.

Crown Jewels get played with

Television in the UK is bit odd. For a start, you need a licence to own a TV. No, seriously – a licence. The licence largely pays for the BBC. In addition there are a set of sporting events that have to be shown on free-to-air television. This is called the 'Crown Jewels' sporting list. No cricket matches are currently on the list and so, predictably, there is no live cricket on free-to-air television in the UK. Sky has it all and it costs about £36 a month to watch it. It seems that this is to change in the future and that the Ashes (in England) series will be shown on free-to-air television – not until 2017 though.

The ECB are against this. They clearly do not want the general UK population watching cricket. After all, why would you want the grass roots of your sport being able to watch it? The ECB clearly puts it coffers above the populous. Of course we knew that anyway otherwise Sky wouldn’t have the current deal in the first place – but do they have to make it so obvious by complaining about a single series in six years time?

A few immediate thoughts:

1. Sky could do free-to-air TV if they wanted too. It would make them look like heroes
2. The ECB have shown themselves to be only concerned about money – so come on Sky screw them right down – you can clearly own them for much less money.
3. Expect lots of Sky people to hate the idea and say so publicly (Atherton, Warne, Hussain, Lloyd, Botham, Knight , Ward etc)

Personally I think the free-to-air list is a bit weird. Do we have a free market or not? I suppose the UK government supporting banks and train companies would suggest ‘not’.