Streaker Advice

Tip: If you have to streak at Brisbane, don't run near to Andrew Symonds...

A game of two halves

They say in cricket that you never know what the next ball will bring and that even when a side is in total control, batting with the gods, a lapse of concentration or an inspired bowling spell can completely change that. This has been vividly demonstrated twice in two days.

Firstly Australia faced Sri Lanka at the MCG. This was Adam Gilchrist’s last appearance at the ‘G’ and what a performance he put on. Chasing 222 for victory Gilchrist struck 83 from 50 balls and demonstrated exactly what we will be missing when he retires – class. At 113-2 from 15.4 overs when he was dismissed it all looked a formality and Sri Lanka were in the process of being crushed (again). This was not to be as the Sri Lankans reduced Australia to 123-6, then 158-8 bowling them out for 208. Ponting, Clarke, Symonds, Hussey and Haddin managed twelve between them! A remarkable turn-around.

Secondly South Africa started their second Test Match against Bangladesh. The first was a surprisingly close affair and so Smith and McKenzie must have gone out to bat on the first morning with a few nerves. If they did, it didn’t show. By stumps on day one, South Africa had amassed 405/0 with Smith on 223 and McKenzie 169 – a record highest first day score without losing a wicket. The highest first wicket stand ever (413) looked a formality and given the way Smith in particular played, all sorts of records looked like being broken. Smith and McKenzie broke the first wicket record and then, relatively at least, collapsed -- slowly. Smith went at 415 having make 232 from 277 balls, a truly commanding innings. From that point only Amla 38 from 87, Boucher 21 from 83 and Kallis 39 from 120 made double figures and South Africa made very heavy weather of getting to 583/7 dec. 583/7 is still clearly a commanding position but I expected to wake up to hear Lara’s 400* had been broken...

How can we get Strauss in the side?

Andrew Strauss was not selected for the tour of Sri Lanka and has not played between that unselection and the selection of the touring party to New Zealand. So, how could he be picked for the tour to New Zealand if he had been dropped for the previous tour? Why wasn't say, to pull a completely random name out of the hat: Mark Ramprakash (who has managed to averaged over 100 in the last two seasons) chosen ahead of him?

Strauss managed 4 in 25 balls in the first tour match and has been selected for the second (and final) warm up match. If he fails again, what excuse will they use to include him? Who could they drop to make way: Owais Shah who made 96 in the warm up match?

Same old, same old

New Zealand beat England 3-1 in the ODI series and it must be said thoroughly deserved to win. New Zealand does not have a team full of star players; Vettori is an excellent spinner and Oram is quite good on his day. So how does a team of good county players beat a world class England team? The obvious answer is because they are better. New Zealand work well as a team and have players that, although not world class, can regularly produce good performances. England do not.

The England line up is desperately short of fire power in the upper and middle order. The one stand-out player – Keven Pietersen has been in a long decline. The bowling attack, with the exception of Sidebottom looks poor. Anderson has series figures of 37 1 270 4, that is a run-rate of 7.3 per over and a wicket every 68 runs. I am not sure if Anderson’s selection can be justified in future. Broad at least has better figures: 38 3 206 8 … and he topped the batting averages.

Thriller in Napier

The One Day International (ODI) series between New Zealand and England has finally produced a match worth watching. The forth match of the series, in Napier, ended with a thrilling tie meaning that New Zealand lead the series 2-1 with a match to play. The wicket at Napier was an excellent ODI wicket. It was fast, had a true bounce with short boundaries square of the wicket and a fast outfield. In the end New Zealand blew an easy win, they needed 25 from 24 balls with four wickets left including Jamie How who was on 128 at the time.

The match saw 680 runs and 13 wickets, clearly a batting paradise, so which bowlers did England pick: J Anderson, R Sidebottom and S Broad. That is three bowlers, not the required five. England ‘filled in’ with twenty overs from Collingwood, Shah and Mascarenhas. Collingwood is not a bad one day bowler but with that selection there is no room for mistakes or an off day. Anderson went for 86 from his ten but Collingwood had nowhere to turn. So who bowled the last, vital over: Luke Wright. That was definitely not based his previous efforts... because that is the only over he has bowled in the competition. To be fair it worked, and New Zealand only managed six from the last over but can you imagine the fuss that would have been made if the first ball of the over had gone for six...

Shambles

There have been four International matches between New Zealand and England on the current tour. In the first two New Zealand were hopeless, completely outclassed and played like a team who didn’t know how to win. It was with little expectation of a good match that I watched the first 50 over ODI. Well, I was correct but this time it was England who turned in a dreadful performance. Poor batting and worse running. The 2^nd ODI was even worse, England thumped by ten wickets. Very poor. Come on guys…let’s see a decent game.

Harbhajan gets off?

Harbhajan Singh’s appeal for his ban for allegedly racially abusing Andrew Symonds has been upheld. Quite often in these cases we are left with a bad taste in the mouth, a feeling that there is no smoke without fire and that Singh ‘got away with it’, probably on a technicality. That was my initial reaction and I have heard a few people voice the same. The Australian cricket team certainly feel this way. To quote Ricky Ponting:

"The judge has made it pretty clear today that even he was a bit disappointed with the severity, or non-severity, of his findings, basically because he wasn't handed some pretty vital and important information," ... "There's no doubt that there'd be a few players in the Australian dressing-room that would be a little bit disappointed with the outcome as well, knowing what we now know.”

However, before we consign another spat into history and secretly blacken Harbhajan’s name it may be worth a quiet discussion of what actually happened.

You can read the hearing transcript at http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2007-08/IND_IN_AUS/icc_commissioner_decision_30012008.pdf. Some points from it (italics denote direct quotes)

1. Brett Lee bowled an excellent yorker at Singh who just managed to get a bit of bat on it and scored runs. As they passed Singh patted Lee on the backside, anyone who plays cricket will recognise this as an indication of ‘well bowled’.

2. Symonds took exception to this action and “approached Harbhajan Singh and told him that he had no friends amongst the Australians (he admits he used the word ‘fuck’ or a derivation thereof). Singh used similar language to Symonds and neither took offence at that stage.”

3. However the exchange caused Singh to become angry and he motioned to Symonds to come towards him. Singh then said something to Symonds.

When asked why Symonds took exception he said (and I kid you not, this is his reply at the hearing):

MR MANOHAR: You had any objection to that patting on the back?
MR SYMONDS: Did I have an objection to it – my objection was that a test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection.

So… Symonds deliberately walked up to Singh and used abusive language just because he showed a bit of sportsmanship and friendship. What sort of an attitude is that? I think Symonds should take a long look at his actions and consider setting an example for others to follow rather than deplore.

What Singh said to Symonds is the point of the hearing. Several people (Symonds, Clarke and Hayden) say they heard the word ‘monkey’ or ‘big monkey’ although only Symonds was close to Singh. Tendulkar did not hear ‘monkey’ and was quite close. Singh and Tendulkar claim the word ‘teri maki’ was used which is an insult in his native tongue and could be misheard as ‘monkey’. Symonds does not deny ‘teri maki’ was used.

I am personally disgusted at Symonds attitude and actions; they have no place on a cricket field. It seems fairly likely that Singh used ‘teri maki’ and quite rightly was cleared of the offence.

The Gilchrist Effect

There are very few players who have genuinely changed cricket; a handful at best over the last fifty years. Adam Gilchrist is one of these rare cricketers, someone who has changed cricket forever. Gilchrist is the best wicket-keeper batsman there has ever been. He is not just a wicket keeper who can bat a bit. At his best Gilchrist is one of the most destructive batsmen of all time, his ability to hit a good ball out of the ground is the stuff of nightmares for the world’s bowlers. Conversely, he is not just an exceptional batsman who can keep-wicket; he holds the current test record for most wicket-keeping dismissals.

Gilchrist has taken a role that was considered something that would be nice to have, a wicket keeper who could make useful runs, and converted it into “a world class batsman who is also a world class wicket-keeper”. He has redefined the role and in the process forced all wicket-keepers to work much harder at their batting. As it stands if a wicket-keeper cannot average forty with the bat then his place is in jeopardy and he may fall victim to the Gilchrist Effect. The England Test side is a perfect example of this, they have been choosing mediocre wicket-keepers for years hoping their batting skills will compensate. They don’t of course.

Adam Gilchrist will play his last day of test cricket tomorrow at Adelaide. He will be applauded on the ground and hopefully cheered off it. He is one of the greats and will be sadly missed.

Just what the (Freemantle) Doctor Ordered

India winning in Perth, what will they think of next? It was a complete and utterly deserved win; India controlled the match from the get-go. The final margin of victory, 72 runs, belies India’s superiority over the four days. Some spirited tail-end wagging by Johnson and (Stuart) Clark brought the margin of victory down – those Australians don’t know when they are beaten.

There were two crucial passages of play on the final day:

Firstly Ishant Sharma bowled an impressive spell at Ricky Ponting. He worried the Aussie captain on numerous occasions, hitting him on the body and gloves. Ponting was fortunate to get an LBW decision go his way but eventually succumbed and Sharma got his man. At 19, Sharma is a real find for India; let us hope he stays fit...

Secondly was Kumble’s decision to bowl Sehwag when Gilchrist and (Michael) Clark were making hay. Sehwag ambled up and bowled Gilly around his legs and followed it up by getting the dangerous Lee caught at silly point.

Australia’s run of sixteen consecutive victories comes to an end at the hands of India, just as it did in 2001. I am looking forward to the series decider in Adelaide – Hayden will be fit, so look out India.

Shaun Pollock

Shaun Pollock played his last day of Test cricket last Saturday. Pollock, along with Allan Donald, have been the two class-acts for South Africa since their reintroduction to international cricket. He has provided valiant service to South Africa both as strike bowler and captain.

As a bowler he took 421 test wickets at 23 apiece in 108 test matches – 8^th on the all time list and the first South African. His accuracy and ability to move the ball in both directions made him the perfect foil for the quick and aggressive Donald. Pollock himself was quite quick although he has slowed a little over time.

Pollock is a much underrated lower order batsman who could get his runs quickly if needed. He made two test centuries and sixteen fifties, many of them at critical times for South Africa.

Pollock took over the South African captaincy after the Hansie Cronje debacle in 2000. He won 14 of 26 test matches.