Different Strokes
Michael's calling
The truth of “class is permanent” is nowhere better demonstrated than on the county grounds of England
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
 |
 |
Oh dear. It seems that Michael Vaughan has battuus interruptus, otherwise known as premature dismissal syndrome, that often embarrassing condition to which stylish batsmen are peculiarly vulnerable. It is very easy to spot the afflicted: they walk confidently out to bat and begin with a few sweetly-timed boundaries but then get out for not very many, and the onlookers who were contentedly setting themselves down to savour some delectable batting haute cuisine get no more than a mouthful before an over-zealous waiter whips their plates away.
Even though today’s innings was probably cut short by an over-zealous umpire, Vaughan’s chances of appearing in the Tests this summer are receding daily. Which means that those of us who were hoping that Headingley would resound in July to the Barmy Army’s version of “Kumbaya” while the former captain’s cover drive simultaneously completes his hundred and clinches the Ashes are liable to become very boring as we intone sentences beginning “If only …” at every conceivable opportunity, so be warned.
On the other hand, we have this week heard the welcome news that, barring unforeseen disasters, he intends to play cricket next summer (at least) whether or not he gets picked for England along the way.
Full postSouth Africa v Australia wrap
The last game at the Wanderers was typical of the entire season really
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
Having stayed up all night to watch the final episode of a long mini-series that spanned five months, it was fitting that the final ODI in Johannesburg stuck to the overall script. A see-saw battle, two evenly matched teams, constant momentum shifts and well-set batsman giving their wicket away to trigger mini-collapses.
It was pretty much the tale of the summer. The Tests finished deadlocked at three apiece whilst SA were clearly the better ODI team but of the 20 games these sides played against each other since December (Tests, ODI and T20), nearly all of them had a similar script. It was characterised by batsmen who threw away good starts and precipitated momentum shifts that ultimately swung games. Ironically, it was also a period where the most unlikely batsmen also changed the entire course of a game with some stunning hitting. Duminy, Steyn, De Villiers and Albie Morkel featured for South Africa. Johnson and Hughes stood out for Australia in that regard.
For Australia, I suspect these last few months have raised some questions that have no immediate answers. On the positive side, it looks like the search for Hayden’s replacement is over, the fearless Hughes nailing that door shut behind him. Johnson is on the cusp of becoming a genuine Test all-rounder (although surprisingly, his batting in ODI cricket is abject) and Haddin seems to have finally settled into the void left by Gilchrist. With Lee and Stuart Clarke still to return, there’s plenty of blue sky in that respect.
On the other hand, some things are still as clear as mud. Australia’s ODI game plan is the first thing that comes to mind. Most of the summer, even against NZ, they were tactically outplayed. The batting powerplay rarely worked and the middle period of their innings, batting and bowling, was consistently the period when SA (and NZ) took the game away from Australia. Their poor batting against Botha, van der Merve and Vettori in those middle overs must be a worrying sign for when they come up against even better spinners in spin-friendly conditions. Their bowling, for so long controlled in that crucial 15-40 over stage through the likes of Warne, Hogg, Symonds etc, looked utterly impotent this season. Both SA and NZ plundered at will, setting themselves up for their powerplay whereas Australia kept losing wickets to the spinners and delaying the powerplay until it had to be taken with the tail. This issue with the powerplay is one area that Australia cannot afford to keep messing up, such is the game-changing impact it has on the modern game.
Full postA case for multiple captains
The central question Buchanan raised is a valid one
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
Those who read my last piece will not be surprised that I thoroughly approve of the decision by Andrew Strauss and Geoff Miller that if Strauss plays any Twenty20 cricket this year, it will be for Middlesex - though whether the Twenty20 champions will want to pick someone rejected by a rotten side like England remains to be seen.
I admit to scepticism that he will be a success as a 50-over opener: his five Caribbean outings only produced one innings which was what the team required. On the other hand, once in five attempts is more than a fair number of other applicants have managed in their auditions, so I am very willing to be proved wrong about his batting because his leadership skills are an asset to a struggling ODI team.
So who should lead the Twenty20 side instead?
On looking at the preliminary squad, the question that immediately sprung out was what a 40-year-old was doing in the 30 for the Twenty20 unless he was there as a captaincy candidate. England could do a lot worse than appointing Shaun Udal: with Murali Kartik he formed the jaws of the vice Middlesex used to squeeze their opponents to death on the way to winning last year’s trophy, and he is now on his second county captaincy. The only thing against him is age, but he’s quite athletic enough to field competently in the one-saving ring.
Full postUnfaithfully yours
Loyal to a fault, Australian cricketing culture is built around 100% support for the captain
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
|
|
 |
Australian cricket, even at the lowest levels, has always prided itself on team spirit. Regardless of personal differences, Australian cricket is famous for a fierce loyalty towards the captain and the notion that the team always comes first. I’ve seen it first-hand and cannot think of a time when any team I played for/against did not show this admirable trait. As a nation, we’ve even built an Anzac legend around this notion of mateship and unswerving loyalty.
I’ve just started reading 'Golden Boy' by Christian Ryan, a re-telling of the Kim Hughes era. The author describes it as “unairbrushed tale of Australian cricket in the Hughes mini-era” and it certainly lives up to that billing! I’ve rarely enjoyed a cricket book as much as this one, perhaps because I remember that period with great clarity and perhaps, because it destroys so many myths I had of that great ‘team spirit’ ethic in Australian cricket.
The fact that it is unauthorised is what makes it so interesting. No hidden agenda and no favourites – he just tells the story as seen through the eyes of all the players, administrators and media of that period. There’s an overall consistency to it that gives it authenticity. Too many people are singing from the same hymn sheet for the author to be too far off the truth.
Full postEngland's win is England's loss
The plan must be that the series win sufficiently blinds them to their own uselessness to allow the rest of the world to laugh at them come June
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
|
|
 |
Whichever of their number the cricketing gods deputed to oversee proceedings on England’s tour of West Indies has an evil sense of humour. He saw to it that the average Test side lost the series to the weak one, and then turned round and made the decent ODI side lose the series to the truly awful one. And then he caps it all by making Andrew Strauss the Player of the Series when everybody knows he shouldn’t be within a hundred miles of a one-day side.
Granted, Strauss’s innings to win the fourth ODI was a decent enough effort, but awarding him Player of the Series involves also giving him credit for the century he made in the second game. While he did not quite scale the heights of irrelevance reached by Gavaskar’s famous World Cup 36, giving him an award for it is like giving a safe driving medal to an ambulanceman who observes traffic lights and speed limits without worrying whether the casualty in the back will survive long enough to receive treatment.
But as his other three innings were what one expects from him in short-form cricket – scratch, scratch, miscued big shot, out – there may have been a deeper purpose behind the award, that of ensuring that he will think he is good at one-day cricket and continue to open England’s innings throughout the World Twenty20.
Full postBravo, Bravo!
Dwayne Bravo does not take as many wickets as the other bowlers, nor does he score as many runs as those higher in the order, but then his contribution is more qualitative than quantitative
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
|
|
 |
The West Indies-England ODI series has been a pretty scrappy affair, the games mostly being given away by incompetence rather than won by superior play. Even should the deciding match take place and be a humdinger, this will still not be a series many will wish to remember.
Except for one thing: the return of Dwayne Bravo to international cricket.
He is that rarity in West Indians, an allrounder. In their 80-year history as a Test team, they have only really had five: Learie Constantine, Gerry Gomez, Frank Worrell, Garry Sobers and now Bravo. Collis King was a very useful one-day allrounder, but it takes thinking very hard to come up with any other names unless you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the spin of Viv Richards, Carl Hooper or Chris Gayle – and I incline not to.
Full postThe Businessman's Game
As sport becomes a business and athletes become businessmen, umpires should be the only ones empowered to regulate this market
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
Integrity? Does it have any place in the modern game? Given the big money stakes and winner-take-all mentality that now pervades professional sport, including cricket, can we rely on outdated notions of integrity and honesty to guide the game? Is it fair on the players/coaches to burden them with this responsibility when they are judged (and employed) purely on the basis of their win/lose ratios?
Should we now accept that all decisions be left to umpires and officials, thereby relieving players of the tensions that seem to be dogging the game when it comes to walking, low catches, excessive appealing or bad light? Many of the recent cases involving bad blood between players or officials can be traced back to some on-field incident where someone’s integrity was questioned. Remove that onus on the players, coaches or managers and hand it all over to the umpires and the match referee. Will that result in a change of atmosphere where decisions are accepted in good grace and players are not looking accusingly at each other.
Think back to last week’s ODI in the West Indies when John Dyson made the wrong call on D/L calculations and (arguably) cost West Indies the game. It boiled down to a simple integrity test that should no longer be in the hands of the players or coaches. It’s clear that bad light is now a strategic tool that is cynically employed to win matches (or avoid losing). It’s no longer about the physical danger to the combatants – last week’s incident proved that teams will accept the bad light offer if it suits them and yet will happily continue batting in that same light if it does not suit them to come off. That’s just the way the game’s going right now – it’s about the bottom line. Winning or losing.
This bad light situation is not just a function of cricket at the top level. Even in Z Grade club cricket, it is rarely ever used as an escape from physical danger. As far as I understand it, light should only be offered when players are in physical danger so why do so many cricketers (including yours truly) treat is as a cynical clause to avoid losing a wicket, dropping a catch or winning/losing/drawing a game? Easy answer? Because we can. It's got nothing to do with physical danger.
Full postEngland in Wonderland
There is clearly a distinct risk that several England players will be unavailable for training tomorrow, being on sick parade with sides split through laughing manically at their good fortune
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Oh frabjous day! Calloo, callay” – Lewis Carroll.
At last, England have won a match on tour this winter. Break out the champers, light the fireworks, let joy be unconfined.
Yes, I know it’s pathetic, but there has been all too little to be pleased about this winter, so it will have to do.
Still, this was a special win. Unlike most of England’s rare victories, this one will be remembered for many years. Pub quizmasters will be reminding their punters for decades that for the first time in the history of ODI cricket, batsmen were ordered from the sidelines to accept the offer of light when they would be declared the losers – and when they had been ahead on Duckworth-Lewis until the previous ball.
Full postCoach or boffin?
Judging by Dyson’s miscalculations today, he is certainly no statistician or mathematician
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
| ||
On the subject of waste, I have often wondered what role the coach actually plays at this level of the game. What is his role? Is it to literally “coach” the players in the skills of the game, is it to help with slips catching and fielding drills or is it as tactician/strategist/statistician? John Dyson’s confused actions in last night’s farce begs the question: Was it Dyson’s fault and what exactly is his role?
I have long wondered what value a coach brings to a team at this level of the game. I can see why an individual coach who knows the player well can make little changes to that player’s technique and performance (eg: Gilchrist and the famous squash ball example in the WC Final of 2007). Whether a team coach can honestly help players of this calibre to improve technical aspects of their game is a moot point. In 25 years of senior cricket, I have yet to come across a coach who has made any significant difference to a player’s skills or technique in a team environment. Personalised, one-on-one coaching is a different matter altogether – I’ve seen that relationship work quite well.
To confuse the argument even further, teams at this level have specialist batting, bowling, fielding and fitness coaches. So what does the Head Coach really do then?
Full postWhat should the ECB do next summer?
This is the same ECB which arranged an England Performance Squad tour of India to coincide with the senior team’s tour before Christmas, a transparent way of making sure they would have a pool of reserves fit and acclimatised if they suddenly needed
Mike Holmans
25-Feb-2013
| ||
The ECB are getting themselves in a lather about Kent signing Stuart Clark to play county cricket before the Ashes, stopping only just short of seeking an indictment of the Kent Committee on charges of high treason. What nonsense, not to mention piffle, poppycock, balderdash and claptrap.
This is the same ECB which was very pleased when last year the New Zealanders allowed Jimmy Anderson to play some state cricket to help him recover from injury, following which he got picked for the Second Test and ripped through the New Zealand top order as England went on to win the match and then the series.
This is the same ECB which arranged an England Performance Squad tour of India to coincide with the senior team’s tour before Christmas, a transparent way of making sure they would have a pool of reserves fit and acclimatised if they suddenly needed someone to step in (otherwise what was Michael Vaughan doing in the party?). It could not have been organised without the good offices of the BCCI, who did not turn the idea down on the grounds that it might help the visitors win a match or two – not that it did, but that is hardly the BCCI’s fault.
Full post