Different Strokes
The disadvantage of consistency
A constant complaint about England's players is that they are too inconsistent
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
The biggest difference for me between the 2009 Ashes and most recent editions of this long-running soap was that the Australian bowlers were never alarming. During the 90s and most of this decade, I usually had a reaction to a change of bowling. Either dread at what Warne or McGrath or Alderman or McDermott or Gillespie might do in the next few (or, in Warne's case, many) overs or relief that they were taking a rest and England's batsmen - or, more to the point, their supporters - could breathe somewhat more easily.
It's not that Ben Hilfenhaus or Peter Siddle are bad bowlers. Hilfenhaus is the nearest approach Australia have made to an Alderman-a-like in ages and Siddle can bustle in like a truck for hours of lung-bursting effort, but one never felt that they put batsmen in imminent danger of dismissal. Nathan Hauritz, Marcus North and Stuart Clark are usually competent at what they do, but rarely rise to incisiveness. And the bowler who had ripped through South African batting orders like so much tissue paper, Mitchell Johnson, only managed to bowl well in one innings of the fourth Test – if anything, his introduction to the attack was the signal for the batsmen to get their shovels out and start filling their boots.
Full postLimited-overs a major challenge for Flintoff
At the end of the day, ODI’s and Twenty20s require the quintessential modern athlete to conquer it
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
 |
 |
The charm of sport lies in the warm afterglow of careers like Andrew Flintoff. Sport allows for charisma and romance to overshadow mere statistics. It recognises that sheer force of personality and the ability to galvanise a nation counts for more than runs and wickets, averages and strike rates, win/loss ratios. Flintoff has the humility to recognise sport’s forgiving nature and he has the personal brand to capitalise on that sense of being bigger even than he deserves to be.
In a revealing interview with Jonathan Agnew of BBC’s radio commentary team, Flintoff speaks determinedly, yet without arrogance, about the next stage of his cricket career – to become the best player in the world in the short form of the game. Despite his optimism and the warmth surrounding the man in these hours of celebration, I simply can’t see that happening. Not by a long shot.
To say that is not to decry his talents or question his skill. Flintoff is an easy champion to like and to wish him well is not a difficult thing, even for an Australian, even after an Ashes loss. My reasoning is based purely on cricketing ability and durability. I don’t think Flintoff has the game or the body to possibly come close to realising this dream.
Full postRe: Joyce
I have no quarrel with the selectors for picking Trott, but his selection creates a vacancy for the heir-apparent: my contention is that Joyce was the baby thrown out with Duncan Fletcher's bathwater and deserves serious reconsideration.
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
| ||
A quiz question: who is the only player to have scored a one-day hundred for England against Australia who has not played a Test?
We'll come back to that in a moment, but first, some applause to the selectors for agreeing with my last post and sticking with their original judgement that Jonathan Trott is the batsman most deserving a chance. Presumably this was a decision based on rational assessment of his capabilities, such as averaging over 90 this season in Div 1 of the championship, although since two of the last three debutants were Swann and Onions, one cannot entirely avoid the suspicion that having a name which makes for good punning headlines is now the primary qualification for selection. (Actually, come to think of it, perhaps “Amjad Khan't” counts as well.)
Like Australia's casualty Phil Hughes, Ravi Bopara is too young and too talented a player not to get another chance in the fulness of time, but his failure to establish himself gives Ian Bell his third shot at convincing people that he should be England's No. 3.
Full postNo time for Ramps romance
Thinking about calling him up as the knight in shining armour to save the Ashes would be a triumph of hope over experience, and there would not even be the compensation of feeling that a new player had been blooded who might profit from the
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
|
|
 |
In the 1988 NatWest final, Middlesex were set a modest target of 162 in 60 overs. They made a poor start, and things took a disastrous turn when Mike Gatting, the side's main batsman and captain, was run out without facing a ball. The young lad who had called him through for the cheeky single needed to stay out there and get runs, at least until his captain had calmed down, which he did to such good effect that his 56 won the cup and the Man of the Match award.
Over the next couple of years, Mark Ramprakash revealed himself as the finest batting prospect England had had for decades. It was surely inevitable that he would go on to play for England, score thousands of Test runs and be acclaimed as an all-time great. So confident of this outcome was I that when I saw him in a pizza joint in Cardiff the week following his Test debut, I waited until he had finished his meal and then asked him to autograph my Headingley match tickets, figuring that they would be worth a packet some day.
As we all now know, this was not one of my most accurate predictions, but at least I am not alone in having been wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong.
Full postThree cricket conundrums
There are always mysteries in cricket, though they change from decade to decade and even from year to year
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
There are always mysteries in cricket, though they change from decade to decade and even from year to year. Here are three which I have given up trying to solve for myself and which perhaps the readers of Cricinfo can shed some light on.
First, what happened to third man?
Full postLet cricket remain a gentleman's game
Predicting the final outcome of the Ashes Series is a tough call
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
| ||
I make this prediction, hoping fervently that I will be wrong, yearning for another repeat of the 2005 Ashes when both teams played entertaining cricket without the ‘mongrel’. I’m clearly on the conservative side of the debate when it comes to sledging and on-field theatrics and I will no doubt cop a volley of abuse from those who firmly lean towards a less genteel culture. Fair enough – we’re all entitled to our preferences. Not that it is likely to make much difference to the combatants – they will dance to the tune of their own masters and mentors.
Let’s take Mitchell Johnson for example. Apparently his form slump can be fixed with a bit of sledging and on-field aggression. Paraphrasing the great Shane Warne, Johnson needs to let the Englishman know that he’s around (presumably, that is a euphemism for “give them a bit of a spray”). It matters not that Johnson’s wrist position may not be behind the ball or that he is dropping his front shoulder or that he is scrambling the seam. According to those who know best, it should all fix itself if only he could manufacture a bit of hatred and aggression towards those nasty, selfish batsmen who keep plundering him for boundaries. Let them know you’re there Mitchell!
Interesting theory…my guess is that they are acutely aware that he’s there all right! His name is on the team sheet, he’s bowled a few overs, thumped a few boundaries at Lord’s and he’s not the Invisible Man. Of course they know he’s there.
Full postAndy Caddick, the second-innings demon
The great mystery about Caddick was the enormous disparity between his performances in the first innings, which were usually insipid, and those in the second, which were often devastating.
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
Amid the welter of high-profile retirements from Test cricket, one which has not been noticed very much is Andy Caddick's – the consequence of his retiring from all cricket at the end of this season.
The great mystery about Caddick was the enormous disparity between his performances in the first innings, which were usually insipid, and those in the second, which were often devastating. It is particularly appropriate to take note of his retirement on the eve of a Test at Headingley, scene of one of his most spectacular feats of brilliance and of one of his most abject disasters.
Full postUnderstanding Hughes' ouster
Phillip Hughes – from golden boy to Twitter in three Test innings
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
|
|
 |
Phillip Hughes – from golden boy to Twitter in three Test innings. It’s hard to fully comprehend the logic of the decision to drop him for Shane Watson until you put it into context with the overall balance of the team. And therein lies Hughes’ problem. It's not that they really wanted to axe him but it's all part of the problem when a star player hits the skids. An opening bat for a fast bowler - that's the currency we're talking about today.
Hughes has effectively paid the ultimate price for Mitchell Johnson’s horror stretch it appears. Ironically, both players finished the South African tour riding the heady wave of success. Since then, Hughes has three indifferent innings in Test cricket, Johnson has had four bad innings with the ball so Hughes is dropped so Johnson can live to fight another day. That’s a team sport for you!
Even though the selectors may never admit as much, it sounds like the Hughes decision has been made to keep Johnson in the side rather than to drop Hughes per se. The balance of the side obviously required some insurance against Johnson’s form loss so rather than just swapping Johnson for Stuart Clark, it looks like poor old Hughes gets the rough end of the pineapple. Shane Watson, fine batsman that he is, can probably thank his bowling skills for his inclusion at the top of the order. Who was the last opening batsman selected for his bowling I wonder? Maybe back to the days when India used to pick a medium pacer just to get the shine off the ball for the spinners to do their magic.
Full postWho is the weakest link?
At 23, Broad is still young enough to be classed as a promising up-and-coming player who has not yet mastered his trade, whereas Johnson is 27 and should be approaching his best
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
| ||
Are Test matches won or lost? The immediate reaction to a match usually focuses on the outstanding performances which can be said to have won it, but I often find it instructive to look at the weakest links which might be said to have lost it. Specifically, I have a hypothesis that you learn most about the difference between two sides by looking at their fourth-best bowlers.
Few substantial Test innings involve less than four bowlers. If you like, they form the four walls surrounding your castle. If the fourth wall is a rickety wooden fence rather than solid brick or concrete, then the cavalry can plunder through and run riot, negating the sturdy resistance being mounted around the rest of the compound. A fourth bowler who restrains batsmen as well as a colander holds soup allows the batting side the luxury of blunting the edge of your best bowlers and just waiting until the runs flow again, whereas a fourth bowler who manages to contain and even take important wickets allows no let-up – which means the batsmen have to take risks against the top men, thus increasing their chances of getting out to them.
At Lord's these last five days, Stuart Broad was England's fourth bowler and Mitchell Johnson Australia's. Broad's match figures were 34-4-127-3 and Johnson's 38.4-4-200-3. Broad's performance was of the not-too-bad variety while Johnson's was somewhere between poor and awful. Since England won, this is an observation of data which confirms the Fourth Bowler Hypothesis (or, to be more rigorous, does not disprove it).
Full postOK, Matt Prior, you win
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
When Matt Prior was first picked for England, the obvious suspicion was that he was the personal pick of incoming coach Peter Moores, the ex-wicketkeeper who had coached him all through his formative years at Sussex.
He made a very good impression with his debut innings, a swash-buckling century against West Indies at Lord's in 2007. Subsequent matches of the series revealed that the attack was seriously poor, which took some of the shine off, and his batting form anyway declined as the season progressed. The odd error in his keeping on debut could be put down to first night nerves, but if anything he got worse behind the stumps as well as in front as time went on.
Full post