Peter Roebuck
Peter Roebuck Peter RoebuckRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Former captain of Somerset; author of It Never Rains, Sometimes I Forgot to Laugh and other books

A new beginning for England?

Collingwood's side were fearless and kept pressing till victory was theirs. Here's hoping it marks a renaissance in the country's cricket

Peter Roebuck

May 19, 2010

Comments: 34 | Text size: A | A

England's Jonathan Trott and Kevin Pietersen, South African Invitational XI v England XI at East London, December 11, 2009
England cricket has been saved by the influx of South Africans © PA Photos

England deserved their triumph in the Caribbean. The two best teams met in the final and the most resourceful side prevailed. Paul Collingwood's outfit gathered momentum as the tournament went along and met every challenge with mounting confidence. Australia emerged as a side determined to play their brand of cricket but unduly dependent on winning the new-ball battles. They were outplayed for the vast majority of the 40 overs in their semi-final. Accordingly there is no reason whatsoever to cavil at England's achievement.

Thanks not least to these finalists, and groundsmen able to provide firm pitches, the tournament produced a lot of attractive cricket. Indeed, it was the most compelling one-day competition of the decade, with the splendid first edition of the Champions League as its only rival. Happily the tournament galloped along and exposed mediocrities and impostors. Illumination and confirmation were its daily deliverance.

Not a single second-rate over was bowled in the final, and precious few in the entire competition. Even Luke Wright can be considered a serious practitioner, albeit one intermittently employed. Otherwise the bowling was put in the hands of specialists and proven allrounders. Pakistan played four tweakers and came within a whisker of victory. Australia fielded its three fastest bowlers, a tyro legspinner and its main handyman. England probed cannily. Fears that Twenty20 might favour front-foot blasters and punish spinners were confounded. Quite the opposite occurred.

Although beaten, the Australians helped ensure that batsmen were properly tested. The Indians, especially, were found wanting. Plainly the education of the new generation of batsmen is incomplete. Whether or not these performers have a taste for learning remains to be seen. These saplings might consider studying the techniques and lifestyles of the giant oaks close at hand.

If the Australian bowling was satisfying in its rawness, the English version was impressive in its inventiveness. Afterwards Paul Collingwood praised his bowlers for responding to conditions. Certainly they were not slaves to custom, relying instead on swing and pace at the right time, and resorting to cutters and so forth on slower pitches. England did not give much away, and the fielding was alert. Accordingly they were able to pressure opponents into error, not least the taking of the sort of harum scarum single that cost David Warner his wicket and Australia their best chance of taking the trophy.

England's batting was also audacious and varied, with a balance of power and invention, left and right, and an ability to gamble intelligently, as opposed to desperately. Captain and coach deserve credit for creating the atmosphere required to encourage constructive thinking.

Both finalists had strength in depth, and so an ability to renew a faltering attack. Contrastingly West Indies and Sri Lanka relied on a couple of match turners. Pakistan depended on the Akmals, whilst the New Zealanders and South Africans never quite found their rhythm. Twenty20 is an unforgiving game.

Thankfully the batting was as pleasing as the bowling. By and large the strokeplay was clean, controlled and commanding. Throughout, spectators were reminded of the importance of cricket's newest and most telling shot, the lofted straight drive played with open hips, an abandoned front leg and whiplash arms. Naturally the scoop and reverse sweep attract more attention - Michael Hussey's sweep off Mohammed Aamer in the second-last over of the tumultuous semi-final was astonishing - but the straight hit off the front foot with back-foot technique is more reliable and damaging. Not even Eoin Morgan's intrepid activities were as dangerous. No wonder young batsmen practise this shot in the nets. It is critical to their futures and fortune. It has rendered the yorker and slower ball less effective

For all the innovation, though, the batting was often top class. A particular delight lies in watching a proficient operator blessed with an abundance of strokes stretch himself the better to impose himself on an equally determined attack. True mastery does not easily admit to limitations. Nor is belligerence always, or even often, the only way forward. By no means have the swashbucklers had it all their own way in Twenty20.

All things considered, Mahela Jayawardene's batting was the highlight of the tournament. As with Jacques Kallis, it took him a while to come to terms with the format. Previously, anxiety had been his downfall. Now his work was a pleasure to watch as he eased the ball around or else deftly flicked it into an unpatrolled area.

Inevitably, though, the composition of the teams in the final provoked debate. The sight of two batsmen born and raised in South Africa and an Irishman holding the fort for England gave pause for thought. Contrastingly the narrow but distinctive nature of the Australian line-up was ignored. It is not legitimate to ignore the issue. Over the years I have failed to provide a clear exposition of my viewpoint.

As far as Australian cricket is concerned, the inability to involve a wider range of players is frustrating. Daniel Christian's inclusion in the squad was a boon. He is an aborigine whose few predecessors were mostly driven out of the game due to supposedly suspect actions - and never mind that one of them put his arm in a splint in one club game and continued delivering thunderbolts. Christian is an impressive young man devoted to his country, community and cricket.

Alas, the large subcontinental groupings were not represented. Usman Khawaja, a popular young man and a splendid batsman, might well have been taken to New Zealand on the recent Test tour had not injury intervened.

English cricket spends umpteen millions of pounds and employs numerous coaches and still the side relies mostly on sons of cricketers, and players from other cultures and from the remote North-east

The causes of the Australian narrowness are not easily pinned down. Some blame the direct approach that has long been the local way, an attitude enjoyed by those raised within its confines but liable to be taken personally by the unfamiliar. Others point directly towards lingering strains in an increasingly multi-racial society. Others still suggest that the first priority of new Australians is to establish themselves, so that the focus is on study and career. Whatever the reason, Australian cricket remains stubbornly narrow. For now Cricket Australia can only envy the diversity detected elsewhere.

Contrastingly England is a mixed bag. Its ability to absorb all sorts of players from all sorts of backgrounds is admirable. Always I've fought in that corner. But there is another aspect to be considered. To no small degree English cricket has been saved by the influx of South African players, including Kevin Pietersen, Jonathan Trott, Craig Kieswetter, Michael Lumb, as well as Andrew Strauss and Matt Prior, cricketers from that heritage.

That these players are as committed as anyone else to the cause is not the point. Why did they succeed? English cricket spends umpteen millions of pounds and employs numerous coaches and still the side relies mostly on sons of cricketers, and players from other cultures and from the remote North-east.

It is a state of affairs long predicted hereabouts. The contention is that English cricket has lost the hard edge brought to it by the aristocrats, miners and wide boys of yesteryear (Douglas Jardine, Harold Larwood and Ken Barrington are my cricketing heroes). Perhaps only those fortunate enough to sample both can appreciate the gulf between, say, Maritzburg College and any Australian club, and their equivalents in England. Exposure tends to provoke a response saying "How on earth are we supposed to compete with this lot?"

The rise of Kieswetter, Lumb, Trott and Pietersen is not a surprise because they were raised in a demanding culture. England has been strengthened by the disruptions in South Africa as that country sets about the daunting task of carrying out an economic, political and sporting revolution without undue loss of blood or capital.

Hackles may rise, but in suggesting that the culture has become complacent, and that the thought process affects every section of a society, this column offers an answer to an extraordinary but long-ago predicted position. The system is unproductive; success has come in part because harder attitudes have been imported. Even the coach is African, as was Duncan Fletcher. Does anyone seriously suppose the rush of African-born players is a coincidence? Let critics present an alternative interpretation.

All the more reason to salute Collingwood, a man from a working-class background who has made the most of his abilities. Determination can take a man a long way. Of late England has been blessed with good captains.

All the more reason to praise Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann, players prepared to look any opponent in the eye. All the more reason to praise a well planned and spirited performance from a combative England team. How many of them emerged because of the system, and how many despite it?

England's response to victory has been sober and sensible. Senior writers have put the victory in its context. It was a Twenty20 tournament. Even so, it was splendid to watch a fearless and well-drilled England side keep pressing till finally the deed was done. It was not the end, but hopefully it was a beginning. Perhaps these fellows can begin a real renaissance in English cricket.

Peter Roebuck is a former captain of Somerset and the author, most recently, of In It to Win It

RSS Feeds: Peter Roebuck

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by MustardCharlie on (May 22, 2010, 12:34 GMT)

I fail to see why people regard this as something new. It is almost 20 years since England fielded a team of Atherton, Gooch, Hick, Lamb, Ramprakash, Smith (R), Russell, Pringle, De Freitas, Watkin and Malcolm. There were 4 English born players in that team and a Welshman. I don't remember anybody suggesting that Devon Malcolm was only playing for England because he wasn't good enough to get in the WI team. We spent years waiting for Hick to qualify. That was his debut. Lamb? Smith? Nobody questioned their heritage. Both before and since England have fielded many players who were born and/or raised in foreign countries. Why is it such an issue now?

Posted by simon_w on (May 20, 2010, 12:23 GMT)

Just want to express my agreement with the positions expressed by landl47 and Confectionary_Stall (is that you Andy?). That no team made more than 150 against England is an excellent stat that I hadn't noticed, and it *does* seem rather odd to suggest that England can produce bowlers but not batsmen.

Furthermore there *is* more to success than winning. A nation sanguine about its multicultural nature and the openness and equality of opportunity that engenders are pretty important factors in my book. Being inclusive and accepting of others has always seemed better than being exclusive and divisive, to me, and even the disappointing tone of much of the debate over this issue won't persuade me that I'm in the minority.

Posted by lucyferr on (May 20, 2010, 6:58 GMT)

Thanks for raising the issue of multiculturalism - an issue far deeper than mere race, as you so well point out - in both England and Australia. There isn't a thing you said that I disagree with. For the record, I'm brown, and often caught between at least three cultures, depending on how you count. PS: What's a 'wide boy'?

Posted by   on (May 20, 2010, 4:55 GMT)

I think to make your argument clear you should be leaving Matt Prior and Andrew Strauss out of it - they were both born abroad but brought up in England. They are as English as Andrew Symonds is Australian.

Interesting debate about Lumb, Kieswetter, Trott and Pietersen - the reason that they are playing for England - at least in part - is because their talent wasn't getting recognised quickly enough and they see England as the land of opportunity. That could, and probably should, be seen as a positive sign for the English system.

To tackle the issue the ICC - if they wanted - could stop players changing countries after they have represented one country above a certain age group. For me, if you've represented your country at Under 19 level, it seems strange to be able to swop allegiance after that.

Posted by satzcrazy1 on (May 20, 2010, 4:51 GMT)

Congrats to England team, you deserve the WC. Still i think, Australians are better side than England. They have quality batting & bowling attack rather than England. Australians are going to come back strong in Ashes.

Posted by TheOnlyEmperor on (May 20, 2010, 4:27 GMT)

It took Eng 35 years to win an international tournament. I guess they will be speaking of how great a side they are for the next 35 years...

Posted by hornet18 on (May 20, 2010, 4:16 GMT)

Here we go again with Peter Roebuck playing the race card. I wish more Aborogines did play the game - I played against some pretty good ones as a junior. It alarms me though to see Roebucks sweeping generalisations however. For those that don't know the biggest drain of indigineous Australians from Cricket is Football (Rugby Leaugue and AFL). These are by far the most popular games for them and games for which they are athletically gifted. There is an historical case from the 1930's of an Aboriginal bowler being no-balled for throwing (and maybe just maybe Peter - he did throw) but none more that I am aware of. I will certainly concede things would have been much harder for a black man in first class cricket back then but to imply that they were rounded out of the game like cattle is unfair.

Posted by ww113 on (May 20, 2010, 3:40 GMT)

Well played England.A very well deserved vicotry.

Posted by va_jatt on (May 20, 2010, 2:22 GMT)


Posted by ZainHaq11 on (May 19, 2010, 23:27 GMT)



Posted by landl47 on (May 19, 2010, 22:40 GMT)

The strength of England's game was its bowling. No team made 150 against the English attack. All the English bowlers were born in England. Roebuck's assertions therefore don't make sense. Is he seriously suggesting that England can produce bowlers but not batsmen? It so happens that at the moment there's a crop of good batsmen who were born in South Africa but emigrated to England at an early age. They learned their first-class trade in England, not South Africa. It's purely a coincidence, just as much as the fact that all the English players happen to be white at this time, although many players of different ethnic backgrounds have played for England in the past and will again in the future.

Stop thinking, Peter, and start celebrating. The logical process isn't going so well for you.

Posted by Confectionery_Stall on (May 19, 2010, 22:20 GMT)

Nice article Peter, but you seem to have bowled yourself a googly in one regard. On the one hand you want to commend England for having wider selection than Australia's. On the other hand you want to imply that this is somehow the result of weakness -- I don't think complacent could be intepreted in any other way in this context. Of course, the greater assumption is that sporting success is automatically a sign of the success of the wider culture. It may be taken as a sign of my own complacency, but maybe there's more to success than _just_ winning, not that it's possible without winning of course. In the Eighties, the West Indies were a lot of people's second-favourite team. That too was part of their success.

Posted by ebbie-qld on (May 19, 2010, 21:58 GMT)

Here we go again. Peter Roebuck, the social commentator, hints at racism throughout australian cricket. Aus teams are occasionally picked on past form and loyalty and mostly on form and Not because we need to have a "quota" for other cultures. As Bollo stated we have plenty of players form many different backgrounds playing for Aus and those who are close to Aus selection , but most will not quite make it to top level as well as many other "australians" Congrats to England (and Aus) for playing the type of bold cricket that most people enjoy and confounded the commentators.

Posted by knowledge_eater on (May 19, 2010, 21:41 GMT)

Last time I checked People were becoming "Nationalist" and "Patriots" just because of War. I thought we are over with it !! So, I don't care anymore. Its 2010. USA/Canada is making billions per season from foreign players, so why not Cricket. Btw. on a seriously joking note, if I really want to taunt British philosophy, than all I have to do, and search "Common Wealth Nations" and go little back in past ... oh wow my eyes have lit up. Amazing British empires' deeds and their economy boosting agendas. Wonderful. So, this application of special Cricketer recruiting is surprisingly too late call regarding their past/present Queen's revenue agendas. England should have done that many years ago. Ahaa Also, I hope English fans are not carried away with the first world cup win. I still think they have lot of things to catch up in ODI compare to SA Ind Aus. and Srilanka. Their fast bowling brigade are still vulnerable without Freddy.

Posted by GrayJ on (May 19, 2010, 20:56 GMT)

An interesting article, however marred by Peter's repetition of a slur from an earlier article. This is the accusation of complacency throughout British (maybe English?) society - he's toned down from last time where he alleged degeneracy, with its more sinister overtones. Britain suffers problems, as do all nations, but a sweeping accusation that complacency is causing its sporting failure is wrong. Teams and competitors from this country are successful and competitive (not dominant, not infallible, but in the top end of the mix) in a wide range of sports - soccer, rugby, Olympic, golf, boxing etc. England's shortage of 'English born and bred' cricketers is however, significant. To me, 2 major causes. First, 90% of state schools no longer play cricket. Many kids never play, so young players come from public schools or families connected with clubs (hence sons of ex-players and Asian backgrounds). Second, modern lives don't allow so many men to spend full days at clubs.

Posted by vichan on (May 19, 2010, 18:55 GMT)

Spot on, HERBERT. The foreign born population of the UK is just over 11%, and of England just over 13%. So if the team is representative of its population then it is likely to have one or two players born overseas, naturally. Anyhow, it is not as if the likes of Pietersen, Lumb and Kieswetter have no connection to England - in all their cases at least one parent is British. And are England the only country that have had foreign born players representing them? The answer is: no....Gordon Greenidge (WI <- born in England), Kepler Wessels (Aus <- SA), Brendon Julian (Aus <- NZ), Andrew Symonds (Aus <- Eng), Andy Flower (Zim <- SA), Robin Singh (Ind <- WI), Roger Twose (NZ <- Eng), Dav Whatmore (Aus <- SL), to name but a few.

Posted by NickHughes on (May 19, 2010, 17:55 GMT)

Here we go again with Peter Roebuck's bugbear: That somehow, in his opinion, England are soft, a nation in terminal decline and incapable of producing tough cricketers because of our system. As with most contentious statements, his opinion doesn't hold up too well when scrutinised. Yes, there has been problems with English cricket over the course of the century, let alone the last few years but you see a system that is changing and tackling those problems. Australia too went through eras of stagnation or decline and they lost a lot of their competative edge (the sixties and eighties). And to harp on about England's successes coming from outside the culture warps the facts: Strauss and Prior did not grow up under the SA system, Morgan is essentially from the English system and what about home grown successes such as Swann, Sidebottom, Broad, Bresnan and Collingwood. Change the record, Mr. Roebuck.

Posted by   on (May 19, 2010, 15:55 GMT)

the payback will come in this years ashes series........

Posted by Herbet on (May 19, 2010, 15:45 GMT)

Also, while I'm here, Lumb, Prior and Strauss are not South African. I dont care where it says they were born. Their parents are Englsih and they have spent the vast majority of their lives in England, so they are English. My mate was born in Canada while his dad played football over there and came back as a child. He is in no way Canadian and if its suggested to him that he is he just laughs. Plus, Pietersen and Kieswetter have just as much right to play for England as anyone, seen as their mothers are English. I'm sick of all this, its only an issue in cricket, have a look at the French football team and see how many of them were born in France. On the point about Australia, if the ethnic minorities dont play cricket and arent as good as the elite then Australia have every right not to pick any. Some will come good one day and no doubt will be picked.

Posted by bestbuddy on (May 19, 2010, 15:40 GMT)

It seems to me that everyone is missing half the point of the article. Yes England were magnificant, playing their best cricket in 5 years (and the way they dominated, perhaps longer). The point is not that England are taking foreign cricketers at whatever age, but why foreigners developed overseas are performing better than players who have had tens of thousand of pounds invested in them. And @ Paul Frame, Kieswetter only did A-levels at Milfield, and was already 19 when he moved - he had already represented SA at u19 level, and like Trott, Pietersen,Lumb, and Stephen Moore of the england lions team (and grant elliott of NZ) was developed wholly in South Africa

Posted by protea_fan on (May 19, 2010, 15:38 GMT)

Good article. The success of the South Africans, and Morgan, certainly illustrates the lack of competitiveness in English domestic cricket. Whether they play for England or not, the Saffers are still South African, which makes me proud.

Posted by Herbet on (May 19, 2010, 15:37 GMT)

To answer the question you raise on what feels like a daily basis on this website, the reason Young/Talented English Cricketers are in short supply compared to Australians and South Africans is because cricket is not the premier outdoor sport played in this country, football is. Just about everybody prefers football to cricket, even those who play cricket for a living. As a result of this and the fact that there are far more football clubs intaking young athletes than cricket clubs - lots of which have money coming out of their ears - the best and most determined young athletes play football and not cricket. Plenty of professional footballers were also handy cricketers but naturally chose football - Gary Lineker and the Neville brothers recently and Geoff Hurst from a bit further back. I'm sure the atmosphere at a local Sunday League football game certainly wouldnt look soft compared to club cricket down under, never mind a Liverpool Youth Team v Everton or Man Utd Youth Team game.

Posted by Percy_Fender on (May 19, 2010, 13:51 GMT)

It does'nt matter that Pietersen and Keiswetter are South Africans really. They are as English as Collingwood is as far as most of us are concerned. In the past too England have had one or the other of naturalised Englishmen playing for them as Alan Lamb and Robin Smith were. But no one has been churlish in discrediting their worthy performances for this reason alone. I think England have an excellent team now. They have a fairly good batting line-up and a bowling attack that is fairly menacing. In Swann they have probably the best spin bowler in the world. Some shockingly nerveless charecters like Eoin Morgan on the bench and a pretty good fielding unit make for a bright future. They are courageous and now have won an ICC event. Good luck to them because they have been nearly there for some years now starting with the 1979 World Cup. Sadly not many remember that they have been good in the past as well. It is not as if a new order has been created with the Calypso 20/20 World Cup.

Posted by Gilliana on (May 19, 2010, 13:25 GMT)

With Kieswetter and Pietersen in tandem, it really makes the most fearsome combination in world cricket. Bot have somewhat similar styles when flaying the ball - baseball style. I feel that all cricketers should play baseball as the South Africans and Aussies do. Pieterson and Kieswetter use their arms and feet to the fullest extent and it is a delight to watch them as I had when they thumped the Aussie bowling in the T20 final. Congratulations to England. They deserved to win.

Posted by Bollo on (May 19, 2010, 12:16 GMT)

Gillespie, Symonds, Nannes, Katich, Henriques, Hilfenhaus, Manou, Voges, Hauritz...if you`re good enough

Posted by Bollo on (May 19, 2010, 12:08 GMT)

C`mon Peter, no need to create an issue where none exists. Overwhelmingly Asians in the UK are from the subcontinent - cricket playing nations, in Australia, they are from the far east, or south-east asia. Occam`s razor mate.

Posted by zippydingdong on (May 19, 2010, 11:16 GMT)

I hate to burst the English bubble,I think they have improved ten fold and have the right mix now whatever country the players are from.But how you can put this team up so high after a T20 tournament is beyond me,the format is not doing anything for the development of the longer versions which is in my opinion is seperating the boys from the men and I believe the English were well deserving of the last ashes,very lucky in areas but they took their chances.I cant wait for the ashes,people have forgotten very quickly the last ashes in Australia was an absolute smashing 5-0.The English will need to be switched on.Good luck to them.

Posted by   on (May 19, 2010, 10:41 GMT)

Kieswetter was certainly raised in a demanding culture, Peter.

He Went to Millfield School and was coached cricket by Richard Ellison.

Millfield is in Galstonbury and is also responsible for producing (however briefly his star shined at Test level) Simon Jones.

Posted by   on (May 19, 2010, 8:09 GMT)

The cohesiveness of the English team was clearly visible. It's tough to imagine England lost 1-6 to the Aussies after Ashes in 2009. In a globalised world, it does not make much of a difference if the player was born in one country and plays for another. If skilled people in banking, engineering, literature and business can go and make a new country their 'home', then why not cricketers or sportsmen in general. Well done England!

Posted by sm1024 on (May 19, 2010, 6:53 GMT)

"Whether or not these performers have a taste for learning remains to be seen. These saplings might consider studying the techniques and lifestyles of the giant oaks close at hand. " -- or perhaps the techniques of their peers. From Hawk-eye analysis, English batters scored mostly offside against Aussie seamers when the ball was pitched short. With very similar beehive against India, Aussie seamers got 5 wickets. So, the Indian batters must consider viewing English batters techniques.

Posted by 68704 on (May 19, 2010, 6:09 GMT)

South Africa"s loss is England"s gain. I really cannot understand how English cricket can have so many foreigners . Of course we have a former captain waxing eloquent about the team even if he was born in Madras not too long ago. While it is a great thing for England as it is able to support diversity unlike Australia which seems to steadfastly keep out cricketers of Asian origin, I feel sad for the countless English cricketers who should probably think of playing for some other country, for surely more and more South Africans who have their own problems at home, will find a way of coming to play for England. Australia were disadvantaged as they were not playing a nation but a "foreign legion". But congrats to Collingwood , on excellent leadership . They were deserving winners. It used to be one called "one day" because anyone can win on one day. The semi finals showed us that you can dominate for 38 overs and still lose the game. But to correct Peter, only a few games were close.

Posted by _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on (May 19, 2010, 3:58 GMT)

One prob CANNOT count Strauss n Prior as Saffers, they grew up in Eng. The rest though...some even have a SA accent. All that being makes cricket so much more interesting n it has helped a weaker Eng team become better without serious damage to SA (Poor Ireland though).

Posted by _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on (May 19, 2010, 3:52 GMT)

"A particular delight lies in watching a proficient operator blessed with an abundance of strokes stretch himself the better to impose himself on an equally determined attack. True mastery does not easily admit to limitations. Nor is belligerence always, or even often, the only way forward. By no means have the swashbucklers had it all their own way in Twenty20"- Oh well said again! Lets have a limitation to lets say... only 2 sloggers or limited batsmen with muscle per team. Long live Mahela, Kallis,Keiswetter, Rohit Sharma and Umar Akmal!...The REAL class , adaptable batsmen.

Posted by _NEUTRAL_Fan_ on (May 19, 2010, 3:46 GMT)

"Otherwise the bowling was put in the hands of specialists and proven allrounders. Pakistan played four tweakers and came within a whisker of victory. Australia fielded its three fastest bowlers, a tyro legspinner and its main handyman. England probed cannily. Fears that Twenty20 might favour front-foot blasters and punish spinners were confounded. Quite the opposite occurred". Well said! Finally, REAL cricket is being played again (the type where the bowlers matter n the fielding gets much credit) BUT still it is an exaggeration to say it was the most compelling ODI tourney for the decade but it was pretty good.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Peter RoebuckClose
Peter Roebuck He may not have played Test cricket for England, but Peter Roebuck represented Somerset with distinction, making over 1000 runs nine times in 12 seasons, and captaining the county during a tempestuous period in the 1980s. Roebuck acquired recognition all over the cricket world for his distinctive, perceptive, independent writing. Widely travelled, he divided his time between Australia and South Africa. He died in November 2011

    Shiv's not-outs, and hit-wicket victims

Ask Steven: Also, top-scoring in both innings, most Test dismissals caught, and the oldest Test centurion

    Yorkshire's lucky 13

The heroes of 2001 recount how they won the Championship. The similarities to 2014 are striking. By Alan Gardner

    'All I wanted to do was watch Sobers'

My Favourite Cricketer: Martin Crowe on a cricketer who drew your eye irresistibly

'Chanderpaul was always out to prove himself'

Modern Masters: Playing in a weak team, his single-minded focus is to be the best he can be

Will Boult and Southee make an all-time NZ XI?

The Beige Brigade boys wish Martin Crowe a speedy recovery, and discuss cricketers turned politicians

News | Features Last 7 days

Champions League T20 still battling for meaning

The thrills are rather low-octane, the skills are a bit lightweight, and the tournament overly India-centric

Automaton, man, inspiration

Twenty years on, Shivnarine Chanderpaul continues to be understated, underestimated. And that doesn't bother him. What's not to like?

Busy keepers, and Waqar's bowleds

Also, high scores and low averages, most ducks in international cricket, and the 12-year-old Test player

85 Tests, 70 defeats

Of the 85 Tests that Bangladesh have played so far, they've lost 70 and won just four. Those stats are easily the worst among all teams when they'd played as many Tests

'My kind of bowling style is gone now'

Former New Zealand seamer Gavin Larsen talks about wobbly seam-up bowling, the 1992 World Cup, and his role in the next tournament

News | Features Last 7 days