Different Strokes
Goodbye and hello to Iain O'Brien
Thirty-three is a fair old age to be embarking on a gruelling county career playing more cricket than he has ever done in his life
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
| ||
In a few days' time, Iain O'Brien will be a former Test cricketer, since he retires after New Zealand's current match against Pakistan. Barring exceptional figures like 0 for 250 or 18 for 80, he will finish his career as a Test bowler with about 70 wickets at about 34 apiece. He may improve on his tally of one five-for in 21 Tests, but his career figures will even then be unimpressive. But the figures tell only a part of the story: much of his contribution over the last two or three years of being a regular in the side is less tangible than is recorded in scorebooks.
New Zealand will always need a bowler who can bowl into the teeth of the howling gale at the Basin Reserve even though the main reward for doing so is exhaustion, and every team needs someone to bowl on flat tracks against well-set top-class batsmen when the best hope of a wicket is a run out. Those are the really hard yards, and Iain O'Brien will run them all and still be disappointed when he is finally taken off. Captains dream of commanding soldiers like O'Brien.
Not only does he do the jobs no-one else wants to do; he always does them with a huge smile on his face. He appears to be just so thrilled to be on the field at all, and the enthusiasm he exudes cannot fail to lift flagging spirits. Bundles of energy like him spur the top players on – if he is still charging in, they have no excuse for slacking even when things look grim.
Full postThe Kaneria conundrum
Kaneria’s assets include a highly effective googly, an accurate stock ball, and the will to strike back after coming in for some stick
Saad Shafqat
25-Feb-2013
| ||
During the course of the second Test against New Zealand in Wellington, wrist spinner Danish Kaneria inched past an important milestone on the ladder of Pakistani wicket-takers. With 238 wickets (from 55 Tests), he has now become the most successful spinner (and the fourth-most successful bowler of any type) in Pakistani Test history. Ahead of him lie only the truly hallowed names – Imran Khan, Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram. Kaneria is almost 29, and still has several years of active playing life left. If he continues at his current rate of 4.3 wickets per Test and six Tests per year, he could well end up with 400 wickets.
He is no Shane Warne, but then nobody is. Still, Kaneria is potentially a great bowler. His numbers (an average of 34.04 and strike rate of 67.9) stand up well against Pakistan’s other leggies; an accomplished fraternity by any standards. Abdul Qadir took 236 Test wickets at an average of 32.80 and a strike rate of 72.5. Mushtaq Ahmed had 185 at 32.97 and 67.7, and Intikhab Alam, the first Pakistani wrist-spinner to go past 100 Test wickets, took 125 at 35.95 and 83.7.
Although Kaneria has done exceptionally well against Bangladesh (34 wickets at an average of 16.41 and strike rate of 36.1), he has succeeded against all the frontline teams as well. His Man-of-the-Match awards have come against South Africa, Sri Lanka, and West Indies, in addition to Bangladesh. During Pakistan’s 2005 series in India that was drawn 1-1, he performed better than his revered Indian counterpart Anil Kumble.
Full postCan Strauss perform the impossible?
Because of Strauss's leadership, England are now playing optimistic one-day cricket: they have no idea whether they are going to win the next game but they will give it a decent shot because – at last – they believe in themselves.
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
| ||
Maybe one day we will look back on the South Africa v England ODI series and think “This was where it all began.” We probably won't, of course, but should England win the 2011 World Cup, the roots will be traceable back to South Africa 2009.
They will not be the best team in the world by then, but it is entirely possible to win the World Cup without being the best team in the tournament, as India showed in 1983, by being the best on the day - several times, if need be. That's the nature of tournament play. And what England have managed, when the weather allowed, is to beat a superior team by being better on a couple of days.
As against Australia during the Ashes, they grabbed hold of some key moments and never let go. It is not the holding on that is the difficult part, though, so much as the creating of key moments to grab. The difference about England in this series is that they now have a number of players capable of doing it.
Full postWhy is Shoaib Malik not opening the batting?
If there is anything this team needs, it is an opener with a steady bat, and Malik has one
Saad Shafqat
25-Feb-2013
| ||
If there is anything this team needs, it is an opener with a steady bat, and Malik has one. Out of 27 Tests played so far, he has opened the batting in seven, for an average of 42.60 in the opening slot that is a cut above his overall Test average of 37.57. Nor are these inflated figures: Malik has opened only against authentic opposition, including West Indies, England, India and Sri Lanka. His highest Test score of 148 not out was made as an opener in a defiant fourth innings against Sri Lanka in Colombo. Of the seven Tests in which Malik has opened, Pakistan have won three, drawn four, and never lost. Admittedly, a span of seven Tests is not much of a trend, but at the very least it is a good omen.
In ODIs too, Malik has fared better as an opener than lower down. Of his 167 ODI innings, 15 have been as an opener, with an average of 37.35 that compares favourably with his overall ODI batting average of 34.76. On three occasions he has opened against an associate nation, but the other matches have been against the likes of India, England, Sri Lanka, South Africa and New Zealand. Of his seven ODI hundreds, two have come as an opener (against New Zealand and India).
Indeed, Malik’s batting average as a Test opener is superior to the several other openers Pakistan have tried in the last few years, including Imran Farhat (32.26 from 28 Tests), Salman Butt (29.23 from 22 Tests), Taufeeq Umar (39.29 from 25 Tests), Khurram Manzoor (27.66 from six Tests), and Kamran Akmal (35.77 from six Tests).
Full postOut with the neutral umpire
Do we really think that umpires are biased towards their own country
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
| ||
Prompted by a thoughtful email from a loyal Different Strokes reader, Jamie Droney, I thought it might be a good time to further explore the issue of the video referral system in relation to neutral umpires. I touched on this topic in my previous blog piece and the first Test at the Gabba proved to be a fascinating insight into the tactics and horrendously poor decisions made by the players. The umpires emerged with enhanced reputations, by and large. In fact, around the world this weekend, umpires had a pretty good time of it overall. Simon Taufel (New Zealand vs Pakistan) and Rod Tucker (South Africa vs England) made some pretty tight calls that were vindicated under closer scrutiny.
Put bluntly, the way I see it, with the new referral system, there is no more need for neutral umpires, if ever there was a need in the first place. I’ve never subscribed to the theory that umpires were ever biased on a patriotic basis. Perhaps there were perceptions that certain umpires had ‘issues’ with particular teams or individuals and this may have created tensions that the ICC tried to resolve with neutral umpires. It clearly did not work.
For example, both Sri Lanka and Pakistan seemed to be uncomfortable with Darrell Hair. Likewise, India expressed reservations about Steve Bucknor. Neither of these problems would have been satisfactorily resolved with the neutral umpire solution anyway. So what’s the point?
Full postTwo firsts at the Gabba
If anyone chooses not to come to the Gabba these next five days because there is a limit on alcohol or beach balls or whistles or Mexican Waves, the policy would have achieved its main aim – keeping cricket sacrosanct for those who actually prefer
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
| ||
Despite the total lack of buzz and excitement that usually precedes the Gabba Test match, heralding the start of Australia’s international cricket season, I’m looking forward to two distinctly different aspects of the game.
In the grandstand, it marks the start of a new era in an attempt to curb crowd behaviour, most significantly around the issue of excessive alcohol consumption and the flow-on effects that result from drinking too much beer under a burning sun. The emphasis now seems to be on returning Test cricket to a more traditional atmosphere where families and genuine cricket lovers are being wooed back to the game. For too long now, the Gabba Test has attracted attitude people with very little interest in the cricket itself but who felt the need to be part of Brisbane’s social events calendar.
I heard a radio interview this morning with the CEO of Queensland Cricket, Graham Dixon, an eminently sensible and commonsense chap, if ever there was one. His stance seems to be borne from a desire to position a cricket ground as distinct from a pub, a beach or a rock concert for imbeciles. On the banned list are whistles, beach balls and projectiles. The stadium will now have separate ‘cooling-off zones’ where one can escape the alcohol-fuelled louts whose biggest cheers are reserved for the ubiquitous Mexican Wave or the confiscation of a beach ball.
Full postThe age of innocence and marketing
What will be interesting to see is whether the funding is truly directed to the grassroots of the sport or whether it ends up being siphoned towards the elite end of the pyramid.
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
| ||
Anyone with an interest in Australian sport, not just cricket, will be digesting the detail of the government-commissioned Crawford Report which was handed down yesterday. Basically, in a very simplistic summary, the report attempts to prioritise where the limited pool of government funding should go. Some Olympic sports - the niche ones that don’t attract many participants or win medals - will probably see a cut in funding while other popular sports (like cricket), which enjoys huge participation, should continue to receive generous funding.
As a cricket fan, with young children on the verge of entering the system, the Crawford Report’s probable bias towards cricket is likely to benefit my own selfish ends. My oldest child, aged six, has just begun his cricket career for the Ferny Fireballs under-eight team and will no doubt benefit from continued grassroots investment. His passion for the game is unbelievable – broken light bulbs, damaged walls and a room full of cricket posters attest to the reach of the clever marketers who are charged with the task of seeding the next generation of young Australian cricket fans. “Good on ‘em” I say. I can think of nothing better than a cricket-crazy household, just to ensure that my wife can't change the TV channel without a howl of protest!
What will be interesting to see is whether the funding is truly directed to the grassroots of the sport or whether it ends up being siphoned towards the elite end of the pyramid. A sport like cricket already has far too much money at the top of the tree and I’m hoping that the Australian government will go to great lengths to ensure that the lion’s share of the funding is directed at young kids. Sponsors and TV rights will keep the big boys in champagne and caviar for some time to come, but the real battlefront in a country like Australia, where cricket competes ferociously with so many other sports, is to win the loyalty of the juniors.
Full postFlat foot stooges
On many levels, cricket seems to be full of contradictions and confusion right now
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
 |
 |
Despite a surfeit of cricket, I sense a slight ‘flatness’ on the world circuit right now. In fact, that's probably the exact reason why there seems to be a lack of spark. On many levels, cricket seems to be full of contradictions and confusion right now.
The once-mighty West Indies arrived in my home city, Brisbane, today. Their arrival barely rated a mention, such has been their fall from grace in recent times, not helped by the uncertainty about whether the star players would tour or not. Any team that boasts the batting explosiveness of Gayle, Chanderpaul, Sarwan and Bravo is worth paying the entrance fee to watch but if early ticket sales are any indication, the Gabba staff can expect a quiet shift at the turnstiles. Ironically, the main attraction may end up being the least flamboyant batsman in the squad – hometown boy Brendan Nash who is the least unlikely Calypso King in every respect.
Even the Australian team, shorn of it’s marquee stars of yesterday, crippled by minor injuries and in transition, is struggling to capture local imagination. The great irony is that Ashes tickets for this identical fixture in 12 months time are already in hot demand. No wonder Sir Viv is worried about the great legacy he left behind him in the halcyon days of the West Indian dynasty.
Full postWanted: More aggression from England
I want to see more England batsmen playing like Bangladeshis, hitting out as often as possible even if they get out while doing it
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
| ||
One of the great puzzles about South Africa since re-admission is why they have performed so poorly against England. The last time England toured, in 2004-05, England brought the side which won the Ashes a few months later and may just have had a slight edge which they duly converted to a series win, but on every other occasion South Africa's team has been obviously miles better - until you look at the scoreline and find that if they managed to win at all, it was only by the odd Test, and that they even contrived to lose in 1998. In one-day cricket, at which South Africa are known to be good and England known to be hopeless, the score between the sides in the 2000s is 10-all with one tie and two no-results.
I have no wish to know why South Africa underperform against England -- and would rather no-one found out, because the consequence has been fascinating cricket with ding-dong battles and it would be a shame to dispel the magic.
And although it would be amazing if the ODI series which is about to begin will consistently emulate the last match these sides played, at Centurion a few weeks ago in the Champions Trophy, we can hope.
Full postWhy Mohammad Yousuf never learns
Mohammad Yousuf has had ample experience in making mistakes while running between the wickets, but the only mastery he has shown is in refusing to learn from them
Saad Shafqat
25-Feb-2013
| ||
If you watched the first ODI between New Zealand and Pakistan sitting somewhere in Pakistan, you would have heard a collective national groan when Pakistan’s total was 57 for 2. At that point, Mohammad Yousuf tapped a ball straight into the hands of short cover and took off for a single. That’s “short” cover, mind you – meaning that the fielder was well within the circle and ideally positioned to block the single. Nor was the fielder some uncoordinated slack. Yousuf has picked out the spry Martin Guptill, who nailed the stumps at the bowling end with a direct smash.
The groan preceded the run-out, because we all understood in a flash what was about to happen. The one person who appeared not to have grasped the moment, from the looks of it, was Yousuf himself.
The theory of running between the wickets is straightforward, and it has not changed in a hundred years. “One point in which many otherwise excellent cricketers fail is in the matter of judging runs,” wrote Ranjitsinjhi in The Jubilee Book of Cricket, published in 1897, anticipating the likes of Yousuf by over a century. The general idea is to play the ball into a gap and call your partner. If you play the ball towards a fielder, then the fielder should be some distance away for you to risk a run. Your vocabulary should be limited to “yes”, “no”, and “wait”.
Full postMost Read
Writers