England must avoid getting bogged down in sand
The state of the outfield at the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium is a cause for worry, writes Mike Selvey in the Guardian
Kanishkaa Balachandran
25-Feb-2013
The state of the outfield at the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium is a cause for worry, writes Mike Selvey in the Guardian. The whole of the outfield has bare patches of pure soft sand but, most pertinently, these are worst on the bowlers' run-ups and, at one end, at the point of take off into delivery stride of the pace bowlers.
Within half an hour's play, the bowlers will have so softened the sand that it will be as if they are running along the strand, losing their momentum and risking calf strains and ankle injuries. No wonder the England physiotherapist Kirk Russell was prowling around with a face like thunder. He could have some business over the next few days.
In the same paper, Dan Roebuck has an update on the betting scene for the second Test. Punters are predicting a draw, with the pitch known to be a batsman's paradise.
On the eve of today's match, the draw was best at 10–11 (general), with England 11–4 (general) and West Indies 3–1 (general). England's fragility means they cannot be backed, while the draw price looks too short as it will almost certainly trade bigger at some stage during the match. If pushed for a selection it would have to be West Indies. There are, though, far better punts to be had outside the match betting.
In the same paper, Vic Marks comments on the usage of the referrals system. He feels there should be a penalty for unsuccessful referrals - a two-run penalty for the first failed referral, four for the second, eight for the third, just to spice things up.
There is much to be said for the Stanford system, in which the players have nothing to do with the referrals and the umpires themselves opt to go upstairs for help. This worked pretty well in Stanford's Twenty20 matches but in a Test the number of referrals might mushroom out of control. Umpires would be bound to take the cautious path. But the pursuit of a better system should not be abandoned because of the inevitable teething problems. More trials are needed to cut down the errors.
In his column for the same paper, Duncan Fletcher feels that administrators and selectors should be kept from the dressing room so England can address their off-field decision-making. It is also important they appoint a full-time coach soon.
Now we've got Hugh Morris, the managing director of the England team, closely involved with the side. Yet he's the guy who sacked Kevin Pietersen. What must the players think seeing him at breakfast every morning? To me, it's crucial that the atmosphere is generated by the players, not affected by the administrators. You just hope the players can get on with their jobs.
In the Times, Michel Atherton turns the spotlight on Andrew Strauss, saying that the one thing he can control is his own batting form.
They need to feel that a leader has things under control; the appearance of control, at any rate, even if that is far from the truth. In practice this week, Strauss has been exactly that. No ranting and raving from him, at least in public.
In the Telegraph, Simon Briggs meets Angus Fraser, the man who piloted England's stunning comeback in Barbados in 1994 after being rolled over for 46 in Trinidad.
Stephen Brenkley, in the Independent, lists his ten best batting collapses.
Read Brendan Nash's player diary in the Jamaica Observer.
Kanishkaa Balachandran is a senior sub-editor at ESPNcricinfo