All posts by h716a5.icu

West Indies have been superb when batting second in ODIs in the last six months, but their track record when batting first is less than impressive

S Rajesh05-Mar-2007

Chris Gayle: awesome when West Indies chase a target, but not so terrific when batting first © AFP
Bright start, but fading fastWest Indies have a 31-16 win-loss record in the eight World Cups they’ve played so far, but nearly half of their wins came in the first three editions. At the end of the 1983 tournament, they had won 15 games and lost just two, but since then they have struggled, winning 16 times but losing 14. Thanks to their early successes, though, their win-loss ratio of 1.93 is third among all teams, behind Australia (2.35) and South Africa (2.11). (Click here for West Indies’ record in each World Cup, and here for more stats on West Indies in World Cups.)Recent formWest Indies’ recent ODI record isn’t very encouraging either – in their last 20 games they have lost 11, and since their fabulous run in the Champions Trophy, they have lost six out of eight matches.Their recent home record is slightly better – ten wins in their last 20 ODIs, but six of those wins were against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.Win the toss and bowlMuch has been made of Brian Lara’s decision to field against India recently at Nagpur, but here is a perfectly simple explanation – West Indies are much better at chasing targets than at setting them: out of their last 20 games, they have batted first seven times, and won just once. When chasing, on the other hand, they have won eight out of 13. Expect Lara to be putting the opposition in to bat if he wins the toss during the World Cup as well. (Click here for an overall summary of West Indies’ last 20 ODIs.)West Indies’ problem in matches in which they’ve batted first has been their batting – they only score 24.4 runs per wicket, at a rate of 4.29 per over. When chasing, the average goes up significantly (32.5) as does the scoring rate (5.07).One of the main reasons for the skewed numbers when batting first and second has been the form of the three main left-handers in their line-up. The table below shows how West Indies’ main batsmen have fared when batting first and chasing. The numbers for Chris Gayle, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Brian Lara explain the team’s struggle when batting first.

West Indies’ top batsmen when batting first and second in their last 20 ODIs

Batsman Batting first – ODIs Average Batting second – ODIs Average

Chris Gayle 7 30.00 13 46.27 Shivnarine Chanderpaul 6 29.50 14 65.30 Brian Lara 7 21.00 13 41.00 Ramnaresh Sarwan 9 44.25 11 46.14 Starting troublesWith Gayle at the helm you’d expect a flurry of runs upfront, but in their last 20 ODIs, West Indies only average 4.50 runs per over in the opening 20 overs. In the seven games when they’ve batted first, that figure drops to a pathetic 3.79, while when batting second it’s a more respectable 4.88.With the ball, though, they’ve done fairly well at the start, conceding 4.54 per over in the first 20, and averaging 2.5 wickets per game in this period (in other words, opposition teams have an average score of 91 after 20 overs, for the loss of 2.5 wickets).Ending with a whimperIn the last ten overs, too, West Indies’ batsmen haven’t impressed, averaging only 5.70 per over in their last 20 ODIs. When bowling in the last ten during this period, they concede 6.99 runs per over, suggesting that the last ten overs of the game is an area they need to work on.The bowling firepowerA line-up consisting of Jerome Taylor, Daren Powell, Ian Bradshaw, Dwayne Bravo, Dwayne Smith, Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels provides Lara with varied bowling options, and this could be crucial in conditions which are expected to aid batsmen. The table below provides some pointers as to how Lara could use his bowlers – Bradshaw is at his best when used upfront, Dwayne Smith is more than handy in the early stages as is Gayle, while Bravo – with his clever changes of pace and slower balls – is the best bet when the heat of the slog overs is on.

Windies bowlers in the last 20 ODIs (since Sept 14, 2006) – at the start ( first 20 overs) and death (last 10 overs)

Bowler Total wickets First 20 overs
wkts, average Econ Last 10 overs
wkts, average Econ

Jerome Taylor 21 11, 35.72 4.39 10, 14.20 6.65 Ian Bradshaw 13 10, 30.20 3.11 3, 24.66 7.16 Dwayne Bravo 11 2, 32.50 5.90 9, 20.00 6.35 Dwayne Smith 9 9, 28.22 3.87 0, – 7.50 Marlon Samuels 8 1, 84.00 4.84 7, 22.00 6.46 Daren Powell 7 7, 23.71 4.40 0, – 9.00 Chris Gayle 5 5, 13.20 4.71 0, – 5.85 Corey Collymore 5 4, 42.75 4.05 1, 13.00 4.33Working in partnershipsThe table below shows the average partnerships for each wicket for and against West Indies in their last 20 matches. What’s noticeable is the meaty contributions of the first four wickets, but equally noticeable is how quickly the numbers fall away thereafter. Brian Lara and his team have given away a huge amount of ground through some insipid lower-middle-order batting – West Indies’ sixth, seventh and eighth wickets have averaged less than 49 together; against West Indies, however, those three wickets average an impressive 82. Which means positions six, seven, eight and nine need to contribute a lot more with the bat for West Indies.

Partnerships for & against Windies in last 20 ODIs

Wicket For Windies – Average 100s/ 50s Against Windies – Average 100s/ 50s

First 43.22 2/ 2 33.65 1/ 4 Second 35.77 1/ 3 46.94 2/ 5 Third 44.58 2/ 4 33.77 2/ 0 Fourth 44.50 1/ 5 50.79 2/ 4 Fifth 24.84 1/ 0 28.71 1/ 2 Sixth 16.92 0/ 2 32.46 1/ 0 Seventh 16.92 0/ 2 25.09 0/ 1 Eighth 14.87 0/ 2 24.30 0/ 1 Ninth 10.86 0, 0 7.12 0, 0 Tenth 2.71 0, 0 9.17 0, 0

England’s record since the 2005 Ashes is as mediocre now as before Duncan Fletcher. The Wisden Cricketer compares, contrasts and looks for the positives

Tim de Lisle23-Jan-2008

Are we watching a sequel here?: The Mediocrity Returns? © Getty Images
It was a time when pop fans wereflocking to see Take That and theSpice Girls, when house priceswere alarmingly high, when agovernment that had been in powerfor a long time seemed intent onbringing itself down with a mixture ofincompetence and sleaze. It was the tail endof 2007 but it felt like 1996. And then therewas the cricket.The Nineties were supposed to be part ofEnglish cricket’s bad old days. The nationalteam lurched from one disappointment tothe next, with the odd stirring victory toshow that they were capable of more.They were especially bad at World Cups and in1999, when as hosts they might have beenexpected to do all right, they crashed out atthe group stage. A couple of months later,as Duncan Fletcher waited to take over,England hit rock bottom. They lost a homeTest series to New Zealand and slumpedto ninth out of nine in the Wisden WorldChampionship, the precursor of the ICC TestChampionship. Things could only get better.And, under Duncan Fletcher, they did- slowly at first, then spectacularly in the2005 Ashes. We all know what happenednext. They stuttered and stumbled, theAshes-winning XI never took the field again,results went back to being hit and miss andFletcher left, nursing a set of grudges thathe turned into a dismally successful book.What may not have been realised isjust how far the results have slipped in thewrong direction. England have now played eight Test series since the 2005 Ashes andwon only two – which is how they did in thelast eight series before Fletcher took over,back in 1996-99:

Broken down into Tests won and lost the pattern is similar:

So are we watching a sequel here: The Mediocrity Returns?That was then

The team were inconsistent and only Gough played in over half the games © Cricinfo Ltd
To compare the two eras we need first todo some time travel, to go and gawp atthe pre-Fletcher period. Where were youin 1996? I was in Guildford, and not evencentral Guildford. Some way out of the towncentre, in Merrow, was the office, on the ground floor of a semi,underneath a flat occupied by an old lady whowas so deaf one could hear all the questionswhen she was watching . I had justarrived as editor and we used to glue eachissue together with cowgum. Page proofsarrived every day from the printers – by car.The England set-up was only marginallymore modern. The players were not oncentral contracts, there was hardly anyspecialist coaching, there were no properplans in place for playing Shane Warne.The coach, David Lloyd, was affable andpassionate but his team were chronicallyinconsistent. They were often rather good- for half a season (see table page 26).The team were inconsistent partlybecause the selectors were. In the eight Testseries that we are talking about here, fromNovember 1996 to September 1999, Englandused 38 players. Half of them appeared sixtimes or less; seven were picked just once.Only one bowler, Darren Gough, played inmore than half the matches. The surprise isnot that this team often did badly but thatthey ever did well.They had plenty of gifted batsmen – MikeAtherton, Alec Stewart and Nasser Hussain,Graham Thorpe, Graeme Hick and MarkRamprakash (happy under Stewart and Lloyd,and averaging 40 in this period) – yet theiraverage team total was 266. These were low-scoringtimes but not that low-scoring: theiropponents’ average was 313. And the batsmenwere not good at dominating. They potteredalong at 2.59 runs an over as other teams, onthe same pitches, managed 2.96.The bowlers were almost as talented -Gough, Andy Caddick, Dominic Cork, DeanHeadley, Angus Fraser, Phil Tufnell – butthey were missing someone: our old friendAzhar Unit. The chopping and changingwas even worse at this end of the order. Thefirst-choice new-ball pair was Gough andCaddick one minute, then Gough and DevonMalcolm, then Gough and Headley. Stewartdid not trust Caddick enough to take him toAustralia for the 1998-99 Ashes. If he had, hemight have won them.The tail was useless: the average score forsomeone batting in the last four in the orderwas 10, the worst of any Test team. Balancingthe side was an eternal conundrum. Fiveallrounders were tried, including two veryyoung men, Ben Hollioake and AndrewFlintoff, for two Tests each. Many were calledbut few were given a real chance.This is nowSay what you like about today’s selectors,they are at least more consistent. Englandhave played 28 Tests in their last eightseries and fielded 26 players. Only four haveappeared twice or less – Stuart Broad, IanBlackwell, Owais Shah and poor old JonLewis, who is a mirror image of poor old Mike Smith from the nineties. Eight menhave played in at least 20 of the 28 Tests(see table below). Flintoff (14) and MichaelVaughan (11) would be among them if theyhad been consistently fit.

Only four of the ’96-99ers managed anequivalent consistency – Stewart (everpresent),Hussain (30), Atherton (28) andThorpe (25). So England now have a moresettled team. But do they have a better one?The results have not been quite as bad thistime. The series-win column may be the samebut the draws are more numerous and morehonourable. Then there was only Zimbabweaway, a draw that felt like a defeat; now,there is Sri Lanka home, of which the samecan be said, but also India away, which wasmore of a moral victory – for the unlikelyforces of Flintoff, Fletcher, Matthew Hoggard,Shah, Shaun Udal and Johnny Cash.There was no moment like that in 1996-99. But that may be because we are talkingabout different opponents. There is anelement of apples and oranges here. Only two series, home to Sri Lanka and away toAustralia, appear in each set of eight. But ifyou look at the opponents more broadly, interms of standing, they even out.England’s standing has changed. For mostof the first period they were ranked low.From 2005 until the other day they weresecond. So seven of the past eight series havebeen against teams ranked below them. Andthey have won only two of those, which isnot good enough.

A moral victory for the unlikely forces of Flintoff, Fletcher and Johnny Cash © Getty Images
It is too close to call. Results were slightlyworse in 1996-99 but the 2005-07 figuresinclude an unearned victory against Pakistanin the forfeited Oval Test. Of the other sevenwins three were at home against West Indies,who were a soft touch. Which leaves onlyfour genuine, hard-earned Test wins: againstIndia away, Sri Lanka home and Pakistanhome. None of them, curiously, was securedunder Vaughan.There is another dog that did not barkhere. The series victories and defeats haveall been to love: the defeats have been 0-2,0-5, 0-1 and 0-1 and the wins both 3-0.There has been no coming back or blowinga lead, as Hussain did at home to NewZealand. (Equally there has been no winningdead Tests with the series already lost.) It isnot just English excellence that has joinedthe list of Test cricket’s endangered species:ebb and flow has too. Most series are socompressed and perfunctory that reversalsof fortune have gone out of fashion. Therehas been nothing lately to match the dramaof England v South Africa in 1998.Comparatively the runs per wicket arerevealing. In the late nineties England’saverage completed innings was 266 and theiropponents’ 313. Since November 2005 thebatsmen have done far better, averaging 344,but the bowlers worse: England’s opponentshave averaged 372. Still, those are worldwidetrends and the difference between England’sscore and their opponents’ has narrowed,from 49 to 28. And England’s scoring-rate hasleapt to 3.27, only fractionally behind theiroppponents’ (3.35). Our batsmen walk tallerthese days. Just about all of them average 40and Kevin Pietersen hovers above 50, whilealso scoring at a domineering rate.The problem is that, over the sameperiod, other teams have had playersaveraging 70: Ricky Ponting (71), MikeHussey (85), Kumar Sangakkara (78),Mohammad Yousuf (78). Mahela Jayawardeneand Jacques Kallis are over 60. Pietersen istop of the list by aggregate, with 2,551 runsto Yousuf’s 2,498, but he is only 14th inthe averages among those who have playedat least five Tests. The bowling is muchthe same: Panesar is seventh and Hoggardeighth among the wicket-takers but they arewell down the averages.The bowling figures tell a stark story.This England simply do not take enoughwickets. Since the 2005 Ashes, whenVaughan could make a breakthrough just bywaving his arms at Simon Jones, the bowlershave a joint average of 36.82. They arebehind Australia (26), Sri Lanka (29), NewZealand (30), South Africa (32) and India(32). So, when it comes to bowling, they arenot fifth in the world, as their new TestChampionship placing might suggest, butsixth. In the two years to autumn 2005 theywere the world’s second-best bowling unit,with an average of 30. What has changed?Hoggard has not, except to become moreinjury prone. Giles has given way to Panesar,which (outside Sri Lanka and disregardingthe batting) has been an improvement. Thedifference has been Flintoff, Harmison andJones: one faltering, one flaky, and one, alltoo possibly, finished. England’s variouscaptains have been deprived of one, twoor three spearheads. Having a couple ofYorkshire terriers, however admirable, doesnot make up for that.Injuries are a perfectly reasonable excusebut only if the best possible replacementsare picked. England played Ravi Bopara,aged 22, in all three Tests in Sri Lanka whenthey could have played Shah. And they lostthe series not to the wiles of Murali butto the rectitude, patience and hunger ofSangakkara and Jayawardene. It was battingof the kind only one Englishman purveysthese days and he had been deemed too old.Besides going for youth, backing characterover career records was another Fletcherinstinct. One of the characters he backed,Vaughan, is still applying that policy. The trouble is that there is a fine line betweenbacking character and picking people youlike. Vaughan is said to warm to Boparawhile finding Shah more tricky. Englandpaid a high price for that preference.It is still hard to separate the team oftoday from that of ’96-99. Man for manhere are the typical teams from each era(with the batting order jiggled to make thematches more like for like) and the player Iwould choose.

Five places are a tie, there are three winsfor today’s team and three for the Nineties.It is a dead heat.Today’s team have some hefty advantages:central contracts, specialist coaching, videohomework. But they have big disadvantagestoo – more Tests, shorter series, more tours.For several players Sri Lanka was the year’sfifth overseas assignment. There are moreinjuries now and they last longer – Vaughanhas missed 17 Tests out of 28, Flintoff 14,Marcus Trescothick 18, Simon Jones all28. The batsmen are more attacking andcloser to level terms with the rest of theworld: England’s top six average 40 sinceNovember 2005 while their opposite numbers average 41. The series-losing runs Englandare conceding come lower down the orderand they are often made by canny oldcompetitors – an Anil Kumble or ChamindaVaas – who seem to know better than anyEnglishman when the moment is there tobe seized.The close catching is worse now thanit was then. The outfielding is much thesame; it does not help that the captain isham-handed. But England’s captaincy hasimproved. Vaughan is more imaginative andcommunicative than Atherton or Stewartand calmer than Hussain. Wicketkeeping isstill a muddle. Balancing the side happensonly when Flintoff is fit and firing. Thefeeling persists that in a bat-friendly erathe batsmen are not playing enough match-winninginnings. They did not in theNineties either but the same players- Atherton and Thorpe especially- found the knack later.Overall, things are abit better now.England are more united, better at batting and, if theyare worse at bowling, it is partly becausethey are injury-prone. They are worsetravellers (won 1, lost 9 in Tests overseas) butstronger at home (7-2). But in one area theboys of the nineties have provedoutstanding. Three of the regulars went onreality-TV shows and won – Tufnell on and Gough andRamprakash on . Montylooks a good bet already but how manyothers will follow in their footsteps?

Sidharth Monga presents the Plays of the day for Pakistan v Bangladesh, Super Four, Asia Cup, Karachi, July 4, 2008

Sidharth Monga in Karachi04-Jul-2008
The pitch offered sideways movement to the fast bowlers © AFP
Transformer of the day
The National Stadium pitch finally answered the call. It could have something to do with the overcast conditions and the breeze today, because till now the bowlers have found that getting any assistance here is akin to milking stones. Today, though, Abdur Rauf and Rao Iftikhar Anjum got consistent sideways movement to go with the genuine bounce they got in the match against India. Even the spinners managed to surprise with the bounce they managed to extract.Shot of the day … followed by ball of the day
Dismissive to the core, Mohammad Ashraful stood still, and deposited a gentle length ball from Rauf to the midwicket fence with a violent slash. It was not the aesthetics, but the condescending attitude towards the ball that made the shot stand out. But the next ball was the Revenge of Rauf, a nasty lifter directed at Ashraful’s body. Ashraful tried to fend it off, but all he could do was edge it to point. Remember the saying – it takes only one good ball.Comeback of the day
After being hit for three boundaries in his first over by Alok Kapali, Anjum made the comeback of our times. His next nine overs featured six maidens, and went for just seven runs. Only Phil Simmons has bowled more maidens in a 10-over spell than Anjum’s six; Simmons’s figures in the legendary spell against Pakistan in Sydney were 10-8-3-4.

Another opportunity may present itself to Sourav Ganguly in the secondinnings, but it’s equally likely that we have witnessed his last substantialcontribution with the bat for India

Cricinfo staff07-Nov-2008
Today Sourav Ganguly was more assured against Jason Krejza than on day one © Getty Images
Another opportunity may present itself to Sourav Ganguly in the secondinnings, but it’s equally likely that we have witnessed his last substantialcontribution with the bat for India. If that is the case, his swansong wasnot a breath-taking innings filled with memorable drives shooting throughthe off-side. Instead, it was a serene effort with little flash.This innings will be remembered perhaps only because it was Ganguly’s final Test; its role, however, was significant in steering India towards a formidable first-innings total in their quest to wrest the Border-Gavaskar Trophy from Australia’s grip.His dismissal came against the run of play for, up to that point Ganguly was steady – gently accumulating his runs – without particularly dominating the bowling. The calmness was consistent with several of his recent efforts but two factors distinguished this one from others.Ganguly ran sharply between the wickets, urged by his partner Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Perhaps the timing wasn’t quite right, or maybe the outfield was slower in the morning, but several strokes were chased down by the Australian fielders, forcing the batsmen to run. Ganguly responded to Dhoni’s energy and the pair ran three runs thrice in the first four overs of the day.The other aspect which stood out, because of its absence, was the scarcity of front-foot drives against the fast bowlers. Although he scored 32 out of his 85 runs between backward point and cover, Ganguly hit only two boundaries through that region. His off/leg-side split was 45-40, usually its heavily tilted towards the off side. The scoring pattern was undoubtedly shaped by the fast bowlers’ lines to Ganguly. They rarely gavehim width outside off stump, and balls on a driveable length were few.Ganguly batted within these constraints – Ricky Ponting had men close at midwicket and just behind square – but didn’t let them shackle him, nudging and flicking off his pads to rotate strike. His only off-side boundary – a cut off the back foot – against a fast bowler came when Mitchell Johnson offered width. Johnson quickly returned to his stock lineand struck Ganguly on the body with a short ball. He eventually called for a chest guard while facing Shane Watson, from round the stumps, and pulled a short one through midwicket.Ganguly’s strike-rate against each of Australia’s fast bowlers was below 40 but against the offspinner Jason Krejza, he ticked along at 81. Ganguly had a couple of uncertain moments against Krejza last evening when he had to check his shot after mistiming a couple of advances down the pitch. Today’s start was more fluent and he didn’t wait more than four balls from the offspinner before stepping out and hitting into the stands atlong-on.Ganguly barely celebrated his half-century – he had been there 34 timesalready – and raised his bat and fist. His sights were set on doubling hisscore and he motored towards the target. Krejza eventually went over thewicket, pitching the ball outside the leg stump. Gangulyresponded by padding away several deliveries, waiting for the length thatwould allow him to sweep and nudge.The end, therefore, when it came was sudden. Dhoni had fallen a ballearlier and it seemed like Ganguly could hardly believe that he had edgedthe ball. He swung his bat in exasperation and turned to head towards thedressing-room. His walk was extremely slow and he stopped to turn aroundand watch the replay – the thick edge, the low trajectory of the catch,Michael Clarke’s excellent reflexes in grabbing the ball inches from theground. A magnificent opportunity had not been taken and Ganguly justabout raised his bat to the cheers of a small crowd before swishingit in disappointment once again as he passed over the boundary.He fell 15 runs short of possibly ending his Test career in the same way he startedit. He failed to join four batsmen who have scored centuries in theirfirst and last Test: Mohammad Azharuddin, Bill Ponsford, Reggie Duff and,ironically, Greg Chappell.

Professional cricketers have never enjoyed the bargaining clout they do now. And thanks to the Twenty20 revolution there’s plenty to add

Rob Steen26-Nov-2008

Morris is not confrontational, but he isn’t timid either © Getty Images
A few months ago, Sean Morris, the chief executive of the Professional Cricketers’ Association (PCA), the game’s oldest and most successful players’ union, flew to Manhattan. Not, you would have thought, the most obvious place to visit in the middle of an English season, but the alibi was an acceptable one.The purpose was a fact-finding visit to the Major League Baseball Players Association, one of the planet’s most powerful unions, period. The union that succeeded where two world wars and the Great Depression failed, instigating a strike that caused the cancellation of the World Series. The union that brought sport into the post-feudal era of free agency. It was a revealing trip, and also an extremely sobering one.”It’s a completely different organisation,” Morris notes, with as much dispassion as he can muster. The awe, though, is plain; the envy barely, if expertly, contained. “They have an annual surplus of US$40 million and their members are on a wage of around $400,000 a year. They base their operations on legal skills, focusing on contracts and in having leverage over them. If we had $40 million…”The voice trickles away. Morris is fully aware that the PCA, or any cricketers’ association, will almost certainly never match that sort of clout, not least since there is no such body in India. Nor does he envisage there ever being one. “In that culture everyone wants to be a cricketer. They’ve got godlike status and privileges. They seem happy. They certainly play like they’re happy.”Is that a dart at India’s current opponents? If it is, Morris is not about to admit to such a treacherous thought. Not one member of the national squad, he insists, “wouldn’t crawl through barbed wire to play for England”. But then, with all due respect, he would say that, wouldn’t he? He wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t. “I don’t buy the theory that they’re losing because they’re distracted. It’s too easy to draw that conclusion, and misleading. None of my conversations with players during the tour have suggested that. They’ve come up against a bloody good Indian side.”Nevertheless, Morris is acutely aware that the times are a’changin’, and fast. Professional cricketers have never remotely enjoyed the (admittedly limited) bargaining power they do right now. And thanks to the Twenty20 revolution there is plenty of power to add. The trick, he feels, is to harness it for the collective good.Morris, who turned 40 in September, seems a shrewd, amiable sort. It undoubtedly enhances his perspective that his own professional career was spent almost exclusively in the foothills. The main function of the PCA, he stresses, is to look after its members once they retire: “We have a duty of care.” Fortunately he appears to have needed less looking after than most.A sociology graduate from Durham University, brandishing suitably regimental initials (Robert Sean Milner, RSM), he played for clubs in Buenos Aires, Cape Town and Perth, and opened for Hampshire from 1992 to 1996. His nickname in the rickety old Northlands Road dressing room, intriguingly, was “The Saint”. I forgot, sadly, to ask whether this reflected selfless virtuousness or a personality similar to the renowned TV smoothie.What was clear from our conversation, as well as from the views of those who know him, is that Morris is not the confrontational type. Which is probably a good thing under the current circumstances, delicate as they are. It would be an error, though, to mistake diplomacy for timidity.In April he succeeded the trail-blazing Richard Bevan, who did so much to help county cricketers earn a liveable living, secure a decent pension, and have a less fearful afterlife. There was no settling-in period. After all, that was also the month the Indian Premier League launched. Morris is under no illusions whatsoever about its historical significance. “The auction system meant that this was the first time a public value had been put on individual players rather than teams or countries, giving a benchmark for their value. It created a market.”Right now, he says, “the biggest issue for us, for the players”, is not so much the wrangling between the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India as the more vicious tussle between the IPL and the Indian Cricket League. “The last I heard was that the talks had broken down, the ICL were talking about suing, and that this had prompted talk of a merger. My view is purely based on the value of the market. The only cricket market that’s big enough to have a major impact is in India, and it’s a question of whether it can sustain both leagues. The only parallel is Packer. There was more antagonism over that than this and a merger ensued. But here we have two people with deep pockets.” And unlike dear old Kerry, neither Subhash Chandra nor Lalit Modi seems likely to move into the shadows any time soon.And it is county cricket, home to a sizeable majority of the world’s full-time professionals, that has suffered the brunt of the fallout. “We missed out on having a second team in the Champions League because Kent fielded two ICL players in Justin Kemp and Azhar Mahmood in the Twenty20 Cup. Their players lost a lot of money. And we want players to have the right to play where they want. The bizarre thing was that all the problems now revolve around Kolpaks and overseas players. It was very hard for Kemp and Azhar. They’ve taken a hit for everyone. Hats off to them. But there’s clearly double standards here.”Of rather greater concern to British aficionados, of course, are the new central contracts currently being haggled over by the ECB and the PCA. Although Morris prefers to depict this in gentler tones and more genteel terms, he also appears to recognise that the gloves may have to come off if “discussions” do not bear the appropriate amount of fruit – i.e. allow the likes of Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff a share of some of that IPL lolly. “This can be a genteel game administratively,” he states, “but we mustn’t be frightened of our responsibilities.”At present, Morris and his PCA colleagues are “talking to agents, not players”. The unknown quantity, of course, is the IPL. To his almost certain knowledge, “there are no contracts on the table – the franchises can’t make offers yet because they’re still sorting out salary caps and so on”. This year’s central contracts were not signed until January, he points out, but it wasn’t a matter of brinkmanship then and it isn’t now.”We’ve got to include conditions for the Stanford Series, and potential IPL involvement. We’re working with the ECB to clarify the schedule. As you’d expect, it’s a thick document, and there’s a few little bits around the edges we’re tinkering with. We’ll wait to see the outcome of the ECB’s talks with the BCCI, and they’re a week or two away from resuming. The optimum solution would be a window for players to be available for the IPL – it makes sense for them as well as for our domestic competitions.” Morris is adamant about one thing: the Future Tours Programme is central to everything, and needs urgent surgery. And not solely in terms of removing clashes between international duties and more profitable endeavours The PCA’s relationship with the ECB, Morris says, is “pretty good on a lot of things”. He speaks “a lot” to David Collier, the ECB’s chief executive, and has set up a working party whose findings will be made available to the board’s own working party. “We’ve got to play a more active role in getting the optimum structure. It’s crazy not to ask the players for their views.” Which is about as emotive as a quote from Sean Morris gets.He is adamant about one thing: the Future Tours Programme is central to everything, and needs urgent surgery. And not solely in terms of removing clashes between international duties and more profitable endeavours. “We’re getting together in the New Year – the ECB, us and other stakeholders – to thrash it out. It’s definitely needed. We need a robust FTP. From the viewpoint of an armchair fan, we can’t have situations whereby we tour New Zealand for two-and-a-half months and then they play here three weeks later. It’ll probably be the same with the West Indies next year. And it’s becoming a pattern. South Africa toured Bangladesh recently, then came here, then Bangladesh went there. There’s not enough variety.”Unlike some compatriots, he is grateful for India’s hegemony. “In the current economic climate we’re very lucky to have a dominant market driving the value of cricket worldwide. We’re clearly going through teething problems – how can we not, with billions of dollars flying around? And it’s all because of Twenty20 – and that wouldn’t have happened had it not been necessary. Attendances and income were falling. And power is very difficult to control. Players and players’ associations have a bit more influence now, and with that comes responsibility.”The challenge, he says, is two-fold. “The guys at the top generate revenue and jobs and provide aspirational figures, so we need to maximise that. But that must fit the long-term needs of the game. We need a bit of balance right now. Freddie [Flintoff] would love to play in the IPL but cut him and he’d bleed blue. He doesn’t want to participate to the detriment of cricket. He feels that additional level of responsibility.”Amid all the swirling uncertainty, a recent reminder of the even bigger picture proved timely. “I saw a really heartwarming behind-the-scenes DVD, shot by Jeremy Snape during the IPL in the spring. The Australian and Indian players were getting on really well. That hasn’t always been the case in recent times, has it? Imagine how tense it was during the Packer years when counties were sacking players. One young Indian guy had had a poster of Shane Warne on his wall and now they were team-mates. If that isn’t great news, I don’t know what is.”

Different in talent and stature they may be, but Kumble and van der Merwe spin a mean web

Sriram Veera at the Chinnaswamy Stadium17-Oct-2009Anil Kumble and Roelof van der Merwe, two men vastly different in class but quite similar in attitude, ensured that the campaign of the last IPL team also derailed with fine performances with the ball. Both men, it seems, were born to be fast bowlers but have been forced by their latent skill to be spinners. If a caricature was to be made of them, their veins would be almost exploding and faces contorted to reflect an almost inbred hatred against the batsmen.Kumble’s angry scowl, much like Sachin Tendulkar’s signature crotch yank, is one of the most recognisable vignettes of Indian cricket. The television cameras love it: when a fielder misfields, as Virat Kohli and Manish Pandey found out today, Kumble’s visage goes through a quick transformation. The muscles tighten up, the jaw clenches, the pupils dilate and a cold angry stare is tattooed on the offender. Interestingly, only Tendulkar – by his own admission – has escaped the treatment. Kumble hasn’t even spared Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly. Tonight you could almost feel his burning desire to win.Kumble made an interesting move today. He held himself back till the 11th over and importantly, didn’t bowl himself early against Virender Sehwag. Through his career and also during his IPL stint last year, Kumble has thrown himself early against the thorniest opponent. In this year’s IPL final, he brought himself first over and lured Adam Gilchrist to his demise with a wonderfully flighted loopy googly. Not today, though.Each of Kumble’s dismissals was wonderfully orchestrated. If Dinesh Karthik thought Kumble would give him the treatment with those quick deliveries, he was in for a surprise. Kumble floated it up ever so slowly, above the eye line, and Karthik, looking to come out, almost stumbled as he was forced to wait. The result? He was trapped right in front.Next to go was Tillakaratne Dilshan. After being frustrated by three googlies of varying trajectories, Dilshan went for his trademark paddle scoop and paid the price. This ball was again slower than he anticipated and Dilshan was through with his shot early. A kicked Kumble didn’t allow anyone to intervene between him and the resultant top edge.Finally, Kumble turned his attention to Owais Shah. Kumble had just seen Kohli fumbled in the deep to allow a boundary. Kumble persisted with a slow flighted googly on middle and leg; Shah couldn’t control his bat swing while trying to adjust to the lack of pace and only succeeded in lobbing it to deep square leg. Kumble waved his fist in front his face in celebration as he stared at the departing batsman.Before Kumble weaved his magic, van der Merwe did his thing. He only got one wicket but was pressed into the attack as early as the eighth over with Sehwag and Dilshan looking to cut loose. He bowled a very tight first over and took the big wicket in his second, luring Sehwag by holding one back to induce a checked drive to long-off. There is nothing sensational stuff in van der Merwe’s bowling: it spins just enough, there is no vicious arm ball, but he does enough to keep the batsmen honest. He is still not a good Test bowler but has proven to be effective in the limited-overs cricket when the batsmen are trying to go after him.What stands out is his attitude. The intensity is so crackling that you almost fear his veins would burst and when he stares at the batsman or at a fielder, he resembles Kumble. And then there’s his fielding off his own bowling, where he scrambles here and there with an almost endearing earnestness.A nice little tribute to van der Merwe came from the opposing captain. Asked whether Ross Taylor’s furious knock was the turning point, Gautam Gambhir said, “Taylor did play really well but it was that left-armer and Anil Kumble who really turned the game. We were going so well but van der Merwe bowled really well, and Anil too, to restrict us to a score which was not going to prove enough on this track. The pitch was good for batting but they bowled really well.”van der Merwe obviously doesn’t possess Kumble’s talent but he tries his best to make up for it with a fierce competitiveness. While Gambhir’s tribute was verbally communicated, the best tribute, probably, was a silent one from Kumble. Through this tournament and even in the IPL, whenever van der Merwe made one of his intense fielding saves or when he stared down a batsman, you unconsciously looked at Kumble. Most time he would applaud, hands held above his head.But you would be hard pressed to see Kumble having to glare at van der Merwe. Perhaps, he sees something of himself in the South African, and that can’t be a bad thing.

If Tests were played like Grand Slam tennis matches, with each day equating to a set, then England would currently be leading 2-1 at Chittagong

Andrew Miller in Chittagong14-Mar-2010If Tests were played like Grand Slam tennis matches, with each day equating to a set, then England would currently be leading 2-1 at Chittagong – 6-0, 6-1, 5-7 – but with Bangladesh having shown sufficient tenacity to scrap their way back into the contest, and give themselves a slim hope of taking the game to a decider.Unfortunately for Tamim Iqbal and his colleagues, not to mention the neutral spectators who have probably now drifted off to watch the IPL, this game is surely already out of sight, despite their best day of the tour so far. In a peculiar sequence of misguided strategies, England started by giving Bangladesh’s bowlers too much respect by packing their side with batsmen, only for Bangladesh themselves to baulk at the compliment by fielding first and gift-wrapping a 600-run handicap.The net result has been a slow bleeding of Bangladesh’s resistance in this contest, rather than the swift neck-crack that might have been administered in the past – and while that still counts as progress of a sort, it rather undermines the true value of their spirited fightback on a sappingly humid third day.Their gutsy lower-order batting, coupled with a sparky effort second-time around in the field, could yet be sufficient to give them a get-out, despite the fact that they were still restricted to less than half of their opponent’s first-innings total. But from the manner in which wickets began to tumble on a livelier-than-anticipated third-innings surface, survival will be a stern challenge, especially against a bowler as guileful as Graeme Swann.”We’re 430 ahead after three days and you can’t argue with that,” said Swann. “Yes, we lost a couple of wickets at the end which isn’t ideal, but with two days to play I think we’re in the box seat. We picked the best possible team to win this game, and I’ve got no qualms because we’re in a magnificent position.”In truth, England picked a team to guard against embarrassment, and their subsequent strategy has been tweaked accordingly. The absence of a fifth bowler made Alastair Cook’s refusal of the follow-on inevitable, no matter how negative it might appear to the outside world. With just three frontline pacemen, one of whom is on debut and another of whom was an injury doubt coming into the match, going for broke was never going to be countenanced. There’s a time and a place for big statements – the here and now is simply about getting a job done.James Tredwell: Super sub

Accidents and excellence contributed significantly to England’s dominant position by the close of the third day. Tim Bresnan produced a sensational seamer to dislodge the rock of Bangladesh’s innings, Tamim Iqbal; Michael Carberry slid and threw expertly to run out Naeem Islam; but the star turn was reserved for a player who, last week, thought he was set for a Test debut.
James Tredwell’s omission was unexpected selection, but he didn’t let the disappointment get him down. In the 91st over, he trotted onto the field while his captain, Alastair Cook, paid a visit to “Mr Armitage Shanks”, as Graeme Swann euphemistically described it afterwards, and proceeded to intercept the catch of his life.
“It the best catch I’ve ever had taken off my bowling, and I wish everyone could field like that,” said Swann, after Tredwell, at short midwicket, dived back and across to pluck a thunderous pull from Mushfiqur Rahim in his outstretched left hand. “I was just overjoyed Cooky was off the field, because there was no chance he’d have caught that.
“You’re always told, if you’re not playing, to try and make an impact in whatever way you can,” Swann said. “Taking the best catch of your career is probably the best way to do that. Unlike me. When I came on as a sub, I threw the ball over the keeper’s head for four.”
As an individual moment, Tredwell’s snaffle trumped Bresnan’s ball of the day – a seamer so wicked it appeared from the distance to have flown off Tamim’s edge to be dropped by the keeper, Matt Prior. Instead, the deflection had come from the top of the off stump, as Tamim departed for an excellent 86.
“I was aiming for a big one, but that kind of delivery can get any world-class cricket player out,” he said. “It was a good ball, but I will concentrate on the next innings.”

“The follow-on was discussed but we felt this was the best way to win the game,” said Swann. “From the one-dayers we played beforehand, Bangladesh showed they’ve got some capable batsmen and some capable bowlers, so it’s no surprise they are putting up a fight. We’ll have to perform well in the second innings to win.”The pitch is excellent, but we knew it would be good,” he added. “You have to work hard after the ball goes dead, and if a guy gets in you have to work hard to get rid of them. But we’ve got a bit of reverse-swing going and there’s always a little bit of turn, with the odd one hitting a crack and going a bit more, so we’re confident.”All the same, by laying claim to the third-day honours, Bangladesh ensured that their confidence is as high as it has been all week – and given that they started the game in disarray following the walk-out of Raqibul Hasan, the recovery, no matter how partial, is a testament to their collective determination.”At the moment it is difficult for us, but I think the match has not ended yet,” said Tamim, whose superb 86 was ended by the ball of the match from Tim Bresnan. “I think they are eyeing a lead close to 500 runs, but we scored more than 400 in the fourth innings in a Test match against Sri Lanka in Dhaka, so who knows? You cannot predict in cricket what will happen in a game. If two or three of us can play a big innings, only Allah can say what will happen.”Once Tamim had departed, the cause was taken up by his diminutive team-mate, Mushfiqur Rahim, whose fighting 79 allowed Bangladesh to all but double their overnight 154 for 5. Despite looking like a schoolboy he batted like a man, dancing at the crease to keep both spin and seam at bay, before finally succumbing to a stunning take at short midwicket from the substitute fielder, James Tredwell.”Short blokes are quite tricky to bowl at,” said Swann. “When a chap is knee-high to a grasshopper it’s quite hard to get your length right, but he batted really well. It’s always nice to have a big guy lunging down the wicket giving you easy bat-pad chances, but I thought Bangladesh batted really well today, in the hour before and the hour after lunch. We’ll have our work cut out to bowl them out in the second innings.””It will be difficult, but not impossible,” said Tamim. “We’ve got some good players, and everyone is capable of making big scores, so if two or three play big innings everything is possible. We are now mentally strong, and we all know we have to perform well in the next innings.”

Cheteshwara Pujara has spent the last four seasons ticking almost every possible box that could be ticked from outside the Test squad

Sidharth Monga20-Sep-2010This was a call the selectors couldn’t really have delayed much more. Cheteshwar Pujara was not knocking at that door. No sir, he had a log in his hand and he was threatening to break it down. He has spent the last four seasons ticking almost every possible box that could be ticked from outside the Test squad.They said he scored only on the flat Rajkot pitch, he went outside and scored. They said he didn’t score big hundreds, he replied with three consecutive triples. They said he was slow, he changed his game and became a quick scorer. He went to England and scored. He went to Australia and scored. Until Sunday, at the age of 22, Pujara had scored 14 first-class centuries, averaged 60.38, and was far away from India selection. Statistics of course are no guarantee of Test material, but if he hasn’t deserved a chance to fail, not many have.Twenty-two is not an age to feel desperate. Twenty-two is also not an age where perspective comes easy. Those who know Pujara well have seen both desperation and perspective in him. Aakash Chopra, former India opener, has been on the same bus at times – literally and metaphorically. The two have been part of many an Irani squad or an A team, even the Kolkata Knight Riders IPL squad. They have spent many an evening running up and down cricket grounds, many an evening discussing what has been a mysterious selection world to them.Chopra is glad Pujara’s time has come. He remembers how dejected Pujara felt when Kolkata dropped him during the first season of the IPL, and how his injury during the second IPL was the worst low.”He wouldn’t like the word ‘dejected’,” says Chopra. “But whenever you are not picked, you feel left out. There are enough people around to make you believe you deserve to be there. And also when you have scored so many runs, there needs to be a solid justification. But he has conducted himself really well. Even though he has been dejected he hasn’t allowed it to surface.”The only way he has responded is by scoring runs. You can end up sulking, you can change your game too much. He has a correct, solid technique, suited for the longer version. But there has to be a temptation to change your game when you see flashier, less prolific batsmen move up and not you. He hasn’t really changed. He has maintained the base. His batting has revolved around that base beautifully.”It is actually ironic that a correct batsman’s most desperate moment should come during a Twenty20 league. That just shows how much Indian cricket has changed since the advent of the IPL. If first-class runs don’t seem to matter, what’s a boy to do?Arvind Pujara, his father, used to borrow bats for Cheteshwar when he was younger. Cheteshwar scored his first triple-century with one of those borrowed bats. Arvind, a former Ranji Trophy player himself, has been a big influence on the son’s career ever since the mother died. ” [To keep holding on is very difficult],” says Arvind about the constant rejection by the selectors. “But his mother gave him a great quality. To pray everyday, that keeps him positive, helps him concentrate. Nowadays he just tells me, ‘My job is to play cricket, rest will take care of itself.’ Unfortunately that mother is not there to witness this.”Cheteshwar did play cricket five days after his mother died. The young boy, attached to his mother, didn’t want to play that Under-19 event, but his relatives said his mother wouldn’t have had it any other way. In the third match, he scored a century. Arvind thinks Cheteshwar is ready for bigger setbacks too. “He says it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t become a big batsman, he will be happy if he is a good human being.”

There has to be a temptation to change your game when you see flashier, less prolific batsmen move up and not you. He hasn’t really changed. He has maintained the base. His batting has revolved around that base beautifullyAakash Chopra

Still Chopra has felt his younger friend’s pain. “I have spent enough hours with him. Occasionally, talking man to man, when you talk your heart out, it would come out. Questions like why not?”Isn’t it, then, the sign of the new impatient generation? He is just 22 after all. Chopra thinks otherwise. “Disappointment is always going to be there,” Chopra says. “Whether you are 19, 20 or 29. It has also got to do with what is happening around you. In india – and it has a lot to do with the kind of selections and with the advent of the IPL, even younger people are hogging the limelight.”Not only younger, lesser talented people, who have done far fewer things in the world of cricket, getting more limelight, more money, more recognition in the world of cricket. That is good enough reason to feel dejected. You are told if you score, you will be picked. If you are not, there is a serious problem.”The worst is over, though. Or is it? Pujara is unlikely to get a game against Australia, unless there are two injuries. It will be crucial to groom him, and not keep him as a one-off selection. They wouldn’t want to take an uncapped batsman to South Africa. They wouldn’t want to drop him without giving him a game either. Where Pujara goes from here is not just Pujara’s test, but that of the captain, coach and selectors too.

A selection of tributes to former England allrounder, and commentator, Trevor Bailey

ESPNcricinfo staff11-Feb-2011″Trevor Bailey is one of the great allrounders in the history of English cricket. One of my abiding memories as a small boy is of Trevor Bailey and Willie Watson batting at Lord’s to save the Test match against the Australians. It was a superb effort, without which we would not have won back the Ashes in 1953… He has certainly earned his place in the history of English cricket.”
“He was a great lover of the game. So many people of that ilk, it becomes absolutely manifest – the game was everything to them. A great admirer of everyone who played it well – a very good man indeed all-round. I suspect a lot of younger people like myself will remember him for what he brought to the radio.
“I shall remember him as a wonderful man first of all. He had a lovely waspish sense of humour. He was a very good clinical commentator. He commentated rather as he played cricket: he played it very hard in a very canny way, and he didn’t have room for people who gave half-measures. He was a wonderful batsman, a wonderful bowler, and he didn’t waste his words at the microphone either.”
Test Match Special”Trevor was a great friend for well over 60 years. We played football and cricket for Cambridge University and were colleagues in the Essex side for about 15 years. He was a great allrounder with a cast-iron temperament… one of a kind.”
“He was cricket and Essex, through and through.”
“Trevor was such a pain if you were playing against him – a damned nuisance in fact. You knew that if you could get this bloke out of the way, the chances were that you would win. All too frequently Ray Lindwall and I would find the task beyond us and it got under our skin.”
“I always felt that in the commentary box he thought like a bowler, rather than a batsman. He would often poke fun at his own stonewalling reputation, as when Kapil Dev had hit Eddie Hemmings for three consecutive sixes at Lord’s in 1990, to leave India needing six more to save the follow-on, with No. 11 in and only one more ball to go in the over. ‘I’d push the single,’ he said with a chuckle, as we all joined in with, ‘You would’.”
Peter Baxter, the former TMS

By drafting in Michael Hussey, and keeping Dirk Nannes on standby, Australia’s selectors have taken a gamble that’s out of character but welcome and worth taking

Brydon Coverdale06-Mar-2011It’s not often Australia’s selectors are congratulated, but they deserve it this time. Andrew Hilditch’s panel has got it just right by sending Michael Hussey to the World Cup and flying Dirk Nannes across as a standby player. In one move they have both strengthened Australia’s batting, especially against spin, and ensured the bowling won’t be compromised.The loss of Doug Bollinger to an ankle injury provided an opportunity. The selectors needed to choose as his replacement the player who would add the most to Australia’s hopes of winning a fourth consecutive World Cup. Clearly, that man was Michael Hussey, the fourth-ranked ODI batsman in the world and one of Australia’s most accomplished players of spin.They could have gone for the conservative option and chosen a bowler, keeping the balance of the squad, but would Peter Siddle, or James Pattinson, or James Hopes have worried opponents in the same way that Hussey does? And would another bowler have even played a game, or simply sat in the rooms listening to his iPod for the next month?Australia’s plan is to go hard with a pace attack of Brett Lee, Mitchell Johnson and Shaun Tait, and they should stick to it. Jason Krejza and the part-timers are there to bowl spin and John Hastings is in the squad, ready to step in if required. They can also get 10 overs out of Shane Watson, reducing the need for another genuine fast man.By sending Nannes as a standby player, they have cover in case of an injury, although whoever he replaces would not be able to return to the squad. They know that, as Stuart Broad found, there is the risk of waking up on match day to find a couple of bowlers in bed with stomach complaints. If that happens, they won’t have time to have Nannes approved by the ICC’s technical committee, but why make selections based on hypotheticals? The gamble they have made is worth taking.Of course, the ICC confused matters by stating earlier in the tournament that “once replaced, a player cannot return to the squad”. Australia’s full-time selector Greg Chappell, as well as Hussey himself, believed that once Hussey had been named in the 15-man squad and then withdrawn due to his serious hamstring injury, he could not come back regardless of other injuries.But a week ago, the ICC clarified that their wording was misleading. Now, the official ICC line is “once replaced, a player may not return to the squad save as an approved subsequent replacement for another player”. Welcome back, Michael Hussey.Hussey has proven himself as a finisher – remember the World Twenty20 semi-final? – and as a man who can rescue the innings if the top order fails. He showed against Graeme Swann during the Ashes that when he uses his feet and takes a positive approach against spinners, he can negate their impact, and that’s a key factor with a few of his colleagues struggling against quality slow men on the subcontinent, as they did in the warm-ups.Hussey averages 77 in ODIs in India, and in his ten innings he has never made a single-figure score. When he has visited over the past two years, he has made 73, 53, 81 not out, 40, 31 not out, 35 not out and 69. It would have been a travesty had he remained at home in Perth playing another meaningless Sheffield Shield match while there was a World Cup to be won.As strange as it seems, given he is now Australia’s Twenty20 captain, Cameron White could be the man in most danger of losing his place to accommodate Hussey. The other candidates are David Hussey and Steven Smith, but they both offer important bowling options that Ricky Ponting would be loath to give up, whereas White is in scratchy batting form and hasn’t bowled his legspin in an ODI for 18 months.The selectors also deserve credit for not only sending a standby bowler, but for choosing Nannes. His speed and unusual angle make him a tricky customer in limited-overs cricket, but for some reason he has been viewed as a Twenty20 specialist by Hilditch’s panel up until now. But if Johnson, Tait or Lee go down, Nannes is the best like-for-like swap to keep the aggressive approach going.He might not be needed but if he is, he won’t make things easy for the opposition. And by the time the quarter-finals come around, Australia know that it’s all or nothing. These selections give them their best chance of progressing to the final.