The end of an enthralling period of test cricket

From November, we've been witness to enthralling test cricket action, with the Ashes being followed by India's tour of South Africa.

I feel an enormous amount of schadenfreude for the position Australia, and especially Ricky Ponting, find themselves in. Australia have, over the last 3-4 years, failed to find replacements for Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Gilchrist, and to a lesser extent Martyn and Langer.

It was never ever going to be easy to replace players of that calibre, but it didn't even seem like those in charge were trying. That's why we now have Shane Watson opening with Simon Katich. The lack of planning is the reason why as many as 7 options have been tried out since Warne retired, and none of them have worked so far.

As for Ricky Ponting, I've believed for a very long time that he was a pathetic captain. Over the past 3-4 years, he's done his best to prove it. I've enjoyed watching him bat, but his captaincy is generally ridiculous. Add in the number of times he's had run-ins with umpires, and got away with it almost all the time, and I just get more ammunition to hate him in general.

England have thoroughly deserved to win. They seem to have planned better, and more importantly, executed so much better in all departments. Strangely, I don't feel any sort of disbelief or revulsion at England's win, in total contrast to 2005.

In 2006, I wrote that a series win for India in Australia would be be my #1 preference, followed by one in South Africa. India've done exceptionally well over the last few years. The scoreline in Australia read 2-1 to Australia, but it could (and should) have been 1-1. The last time India went to South Africa, the scoreline should have been 2-1!

The fact that the 1-1 draw in the just-concluded series can be considered a failure for India is an indication of how India fluffed their lines when it mattered most, on day 4 at Cape Town. 130/6! Heck, even 233/7 would have been ok, because it would have meant a chase of 250 in an entire day.

At the same time, South Africa seemed afraid of losing. Why would you not declare with 3-4 overs to go before stumps when India was quite vulnerable to a burst just before stumps with Sehwag & Dravid not in any sort of form and Gambhir injured?

Before the series, I'd predicted to a few folks that the scoreline would be 2-0 in favour of South Africa. I'll gladly take 1-1!

There are worries though - the batting form of Sehwag & Dravid, the over-reliance on Zaheer and the general inconsistency of the other bowlers. Dravid's knock yesterday was really pressure-soaking. But his inconsistency is worrying. The next test series is in the West Indies (June). I wouldn't be surprised if he quits soon.

As for the bowling, in Zaheer's absence, the bowling unit seems totally clueless. Harbhajan's inconsistency, and inability to spearhead the bowling attack, means that he is going to be effective only once in every 3-4 tests, with the ball. Sreesanth mixed brilliance with pathetic stuff. I don't care how often he gets fined or banned if he can keep producing the brilliance and become more consistent.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2010, australia, england, india, schadenfreude, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:09 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Aussies, be happy it was Justin and not John

The hottest Ashes news yesterday was not Australia levelling the series 1-1, but Justin Langer's leaked memo/dossier on specific England players & England cricket in general.

If the newspaper ('The Daily Telegraph') really paid to get access to that document, they really have a lot of spare money on their hands. There's nothing in that document that Australia's cricketers or team management would not have already been aware of. Indeed, replace references to England (cricketers or the domestic cricket system) with any other country, and the dossier would still be valid.

John Buchanan made a career out of such well-timed and well-placed leaks.

Australia must actually feel glad that it was Langer's dossier and not one from John Buchanan. At least they could understand what Justin was saying.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, australia, buchanan, dossier, england, langer, leak

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:30 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Where have we seen this one before?

Australia embark on high profile tour, with a squad light on bowling. Injuries impact the selection of the XI. Amidst much speculation about his inclusion, a former captain of the host country announces his retirement. While the series is on, one of the host country's main bowlers also announces his retirement.

Australia pretty much dominate the first test, but can't quite close things out. The cricket early on is gripping, but largely attritional with neither side apparently willing to risk defeat while pursuing victory. There are claims related to 'moral victory', 'momentum', etc. after the first test.

The Aussies are thrashed in the 2nd test, at a venue where until then, they'd lost only once in the ground's history.

Somewhere along the way, individual batting records were broken.

Australia's much-hyped & aggressive opener fails miserably.

This is so much 'deja-vu all over again'! Now all we need is an elbowing incident, a ban, some very defensive strategic bowling by the host team and bizarre captaincy by Australia's skipper.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, aus v ind 2008, australia, deja vu, england

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:42 am | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Could retainerships in Twenty20 leagues prevent premature retirements?

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Flintoff announced his retirement from test cricket. He was followed by Chaminda Vaas. These retirements come as no surprise considering the physical strain associated with being quick/fast-medium bowlers. If Flintoff plays the remaining 3 Ashes tests, he would end up with 80 tests. The sad part is that he missed a whopping 63 tests. At 143 tests, he'd have been in the top 5 most-capped test cricketers of all time (behind Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Border & Warne).

Last year, Scott Styris retired from tests. Earlier this year, Jacob Oram threatened to follow his teammate.

The irony is that the same cricketers who extoll the virtues of test cricket, call it the ultimate form of the game, rate their test cricket achievements as being the pinnacle compared to those in other forms of the game, etc. invariably end up retiring from test cricket. Can you point out anyone who has quit ODIs to continue playing tests? So do we all get this lip-service?

Cricket boards really run the risk of many more quality players quitting test cricket. Is it possible for everyone to have the cake and eat it to? Can T20 leagues & international cricket co-exist without antagonizing everyone involved? Is it necessarily a zero-sum game?

Let's make a few assumptions here - some could be wrong of course!

• Cricket administrators (cricket boards & organizers of T20 leagues) are telling the truth when they say test cricket needs to thrive.
  
• Cricket boards want to exercise maximum control over their players.
  
• Players believe that test cricket is the supreme form of the game.
  
• Players want to maximize their earning potential while they're still able to exhibit their skills well.
  
• Sponsors want the best players to be part of the event (not necessarily play) so that they can be used as great marketing vehicles.
  
• Cricket boards don't get anything from the IPL (or indeed any of the other proposed T20 leagues) when their contracted players participate in the tournament. So, a cricket board's first reaction to such a tournament is either that they won't allow their contracted players, or the players can participate for a ridiculously short period of time.
  
• The player's concerns are to not get injured, to play quality cricket, to earn as much as they can and to be able to fulfill their national commitments & contractual obligations with their cricket board.
  
• The T20 tournament organizer's primary concern is that the best players should be available for the maximum possible period of time, and play well enough in order to make the tournament a great success.
  
• Players are paid only on the basis of the number of games they play in T20 leagues.
  
• The money that cricketers earn from the IPL (or other leagues) is far in excess of what they have been earning so far.

Given all these assumptions, how do we best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? The combination of the last two factors hugely influences a player's decision to quit playing test cricket and free up that time to play more and more Twenty20, including at events like the IPL, Champions League, etc. Adam Gilchrist was largely spot-on in the talk he gave as part of the 2009 Cowdrey Spirit of Cricket Lecture (transcript & video) when he said:

An acceptance that professional players will increasingly make pragmatic decisions about their careers, which may involve playing less Test cricket or even perhaps, none at all. That the arrival of rich, franchised based competitions like the IPL will hasten this trend and reduce the primacy of playing for your country or provincial team. That a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia. That Cricket Administrators must adapt to these realities with clever programming of international fixtures to dove-tail off these competitions and if necessary radically change, even jettison the Future Tours Program in order to achieve this.

Let's leave aside for a moment the reality that Gilchrist contradicted himself in that statement. If the FTP was jettisoned, this would directly result in the likes of Bangladesh, West Indies & Zimbabwe playing less cricket against the 'stronger' (cricketing & economic factors) teams like Australia, South Africa, India & England. That would imply a reduction in the quality of cricket they're exposed to as well as revenue for boards. Do you seriously expect a cricketer from West Indies to say "No thanks, I'd rather play a test against Bangladesh because I'm so much in love with my administration"? Of course not! He's going to take the first opportunity available to throw away the WICB contract and play in one of the T20 leagues. So actually, by jettisoning the FTP, you could be increasing the risk that "a young first class cricketer in Bangladesh or the West Indies may have an entirely different set of playing priorities and goals to those youngsters playing in England or Australia". Having digressed, we now go back to the question - how to best balance the self-interests of the players and the administrators? Would a retainership-based payment structure work? What if the IPL (or other T20 leagues) split up the player's payment on a 60-40 basis, whereby 60% of the money they get is based on the number of games they play? But the remaining 40% is actually given to their cricket board. The cricket board could reduce the payment made to the player if he skips commitments (training, other contractual obligations, international games, etc.) because he gave a higher preference to playing in the T20 tournament. That 60-40 split is just a number. It could have been 50-50 or even 70-30, but the split-up needs to provide sufficient incentives & disincentives. Players who are not contracted to their boards would receive a pro-rata amount based on the number of games they played along with other contractual obligations fulfilled. This gives cricket boards enough incentive to release players for the tournament, knowing fully well that they will get something out of it if the players don't honour their side of the bargain. Players have an incentive to balance playing T20 leagues and international cricket. They don't fall under the 'daily wage worker' category, because really speaking when you're paid on a pro-rata basis, that is what you are! The tournament organizers & sponsors benefit since they know that cricket boards and players are both committed to the event because they both stand to gain. What are the potential problems associated with such a model? Manipulative boards (and there're plenty in that category) could reduce the payments on the basis of flimsy arguments. Players could opt out of board contracts, thereby removing the boards from the equation altogether and destabilizing international cricket. Tournament organizers & sponsors could offer incentives for players to give up their existing board contracts.

It may still be an option worth considering. If the model can prevent even one star player from quitting test cricket, I'd reckon it has done its job.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, burnout, champions league, colin cowdrey lecture, fatigue, flintoff, future tours programme, gilchrist, indian premier league, lord's, mcc, retire, spirit of cricket, twenty20, vaas

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:35 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Close, but no cigar

While it is tempting to think that England's last wicket pair's efforts to draw the Cardiff Ashes test represent a rare feat, the reality is that it has happened three times already in 2009! As this post is being written, it seems like the West Indies "B" v Bangladesh test at St. Vincent is also heading to a closely fought draw. West Indies "B" need to get 122 runs more to win, but have only 3 wickets in hand!

In fact, there were two instances in the same series (England's tour of West Indies). At Antigua and Trinidad, West Indies managed to squeeze out a draw. The third instance was New Zealand against India.

Some other recent tests where a side had already lost 7 wickets and still managed to salvage a draw (criteria being an end-of-game lead <= 50) include Pakistan escaping at Bangalore in 2007, India escaping at Lord's in 2007, West Indies escaping (against India, twice in the same 2006 series - what's it with close draws and West Indies?!) at St. Lucia and Antigua and Australia drawing at Old Trafford the 2005 Ashes.

After the Antigua test of 2006, I wrote about other similar close tests.

However, the interesting part is that out of the 84 "they gutsed it out for a draw" results in test cricket so far, over 30 have been in the last 20 years.

Is it an indicator that it is increasingly becoming easier for tailenders to bat out time? Is it because pitches don't quite start rapidly helping bowlers later on in the game? Is it because umpires nowadays tend to be more cautious when it comes to lightmeter readings? Do umpires not clamp down on ruthlessly enough on obvious time-wasting tactics? Is it about bowlers taking their batting lessons seriously?

I suspect the answer is 'All of the above'.

Then again, if you just looked at the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, there were 16, 12 & 13 tests across those decades. So maybe there is no pattern there. The number of instances prior to the 1960s is low because the number of countries that played tests then is so low.

Pakistan started out in test cricket in the 1950s while India & New Zealand started playing more regularly from that decade and they got reasonably competitive from the 1960s. I think that explains the spurt in close draws from the 1960s. In addition, the other sides like Australia, West Indies, South Africa and England were also fairly well balanced and that would also have increased the number of close games.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, close finishes, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:28 am | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Should test matches be reduced to four days?

A couple of weeks ago, in an interview to India Today, ICC President David Morgan indicated that reducing test matches to being 4-day affairs was on the agenda.

Q: Other than merely re-emphasising its importance, what is being done on the ground to restrengthen Test cricket?
Another thought that many people have, that we are examining is whether Test match cricket can be played over four days rather than five.
Q: How quickly will we see a four-day Test? Has the mental shift been made?
The mental shift has been made in that it has been talked about and examined, I think that has already occoured. I would be very surprised if within a year you haven't seen some significant changes in Test match cricket. Over rates, pitches, daynight Test cricket … I think in a year's time you will see for yourself changes that have occoured in Test match cricket.

Let's examine if there is any evidence to support the ICC's stand. I took all tests that had been played after 1 Jan 2006 and excluded games involving Zimbabwe & Bangladesh. That's a total of 123 games. Surely that's a decent sample set. Then I excluded the Antigua farce and the terror-impacted Lahore test.

So now I had 121 tests and here're the results expressed in average duration of the test.

• The average duration of a game with a result (draws are 5-day affairs since the Antigua & Lahore tests have been excluded) has ranged between 4.2 and 4.4 days. It was 4.3 in 2006, 4.4 in 2007 & 2008 and 4.2 in 2009 [so far].
  
• West Indies and Pakistan win in the shortest period (average of 4 days), but that data is skewed because they've only won 2 & 5 tests respectively in the time period chosen. Among teams with at least 10 test wins, South Africa get things done in the shortest time - 4.1 days.
  
• The shortest tests also happen in South Africa, lasting 4.2 days on an average. Both these stats indicate that South Africa have been quite ruthless over the past 3.5 years.
  
• Australia have surprisingly taken the most time to win overall (4.6 days) and the number is identical for home games.

You can view the spreadsheet online, copy the data over to your local machine and play around with it to get more pivot reports.

The evidence does seem to suggest that more and more tests are getting over in around 4-4.5 days. So while David Morgan may not be quite right about getting to 4 day tests within the next year, I see it happening after the next 2-3 years for sure. Hopefully the changes include imposing overs restrictions on test innings, including giving toss-winning teams the option to pick the overs limit for their 1st and 2nd innings.

Of course, less than 4 years ago, this same ICC, in their infinite wisdom, staged a six day test! After the dreary draws at Lahore and Faisalabad Faisala-kabhi-nahin during India's tour of Pakistan in 2006, Pakistan's cricket establishment (captain, former players, administrators, etc.) began talking about the need for 6-day tests, especially in winter, since the weather conditions invariably interfered with play. Of course, they conveniently forgot that the Lahore and Faisalabad tests could have really gone on for perhaps another 2-3 days with no chance of a result because the fault was in the pitches used.

In other news, John Buchanan's comments in his soon-to-be-released book which focusses on the Twenty20 game, have surprisingly generated outrage in the Indian media & Indian cricket establishment. It's his book, he has a right to have an opinion. It could be right or wrong. When excerpts from Adam Gilchrist's autobiography caused a furore in India, I wrote:

Adam Gilchrist's autobiography, "True Colours: My Life", is to be released next week. As is to be expected, and as we've seen with cricketer autobiographies (Trescothick, Pietersen, Wright, Fletcher, Flintoff, Hussain or Lehmann), there is a tendency to selectively leak 'scandalous' portions of the book. The aim is to create a buzz around it, with the hope that it translates into more sales when the book is released.

Adam Gilchrist's revelations about Tendulkar are nothing but just that. He has his point of view, and others have theirs. Its his autobiography, and he has a right to choose what to say, and what not to say. If he reckons that the best way to sell his book, when there's an Australia v India series on, is to say things about India's cricketers that rile their fans, then that's his judgement.

Personally, I've never had a great opinion of Buchanan. He's said enough stupid things (blaming losing opponents for his bowlers not executing their skills & predicting that Australia's 2007 World Cup side would have ambidextrous cricketers, just to take a couple of examples). If he really does point out in the book that Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly & Laxman aren't suited to Twenty20 cricket, then is that necessarily a wrong thing to say? In any case, none of them play Twenty20 internationals anymore (Tendulkar is the only one to have played a T20 international) and Laxman probably sat out all of the 2009 IPL edition.

I wrote before the BCCI announced the 2007 Twenty20 World Cup squad that Dravid & Ganguly shouldn't be in the squad while I was ambivalent about Tendulkar. If I had to arrange the 4 batsmen in decreasing order of ability in Twenty20, the order would be Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman. So exactly what's new about what Buchanan says? Is the outrage based on "How dare this foreigner tell us our greats aren't good enough at T20!"?

I'm guessing everyone who is outraged actually thinks the same way about Laxman and a lot of people would feel so about Ganguly & Dravid. The only questionable comment is about Tendulkar, and given he averaged 31 (strike rate 106) and 33 (strike rate 120) in the 2008 & 2009 editions of the Indian Premier League, there's enough evidence to suggest Buchanan is right! In any case, I haven't read the book, so I really can't comment on other issues.

Today at Cardiff, the venue for the first Ashes test, Ricky Ponting became the 2nd fastest to reach 11000 test runs, taking 9 innings more than Lara and one less than Tendulkar. Next in his sights - going past Border's Australian record of 11174. After that, he'll go on and get the test runs and centuries records for sure, unless injury strikes him down or he gets totally demotivated after being dismissed 8 times by Graeme Swann in this series.

Last week, India won the ODIs in West Indies to notch up 5 consecutive series wins. I was curious to find out other similar streaks and here's what I found.

• 6 by West Indies in 1985-1986
  
• 6 by Pakistan in 2001-2002
  
• 6 by New Zealand from 2007 to 2009

But the runaway victor in this category is Australia with a whopping 10 consecutive series wins between Dec 2002 and Sep 2004, including an unbeaten 2003 World Cup campaign.

I could have probably excluded series where there were lesser than 3 ODIs. But I couldn't have excluded series involving the minnow teams because they turn up at the various World Cup-like events. Even then, I don't think the results will differ too much from the ones above.

Labels: 11000, ashes, ashes 2009, autobiography, buchanan, innovation, ponting, statistic, streak, test cricket

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:47 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

BCCI & TEN Sports, ICC "Hall of fame" and Michael Vaughan retires

Sometime last week, the BCCI announced that India would play a tri-series in Sri Lanka, with New Zealand being the third team. The announcement came a few days after India were thrashed at the Super Eight stage of the Twenty20 World Cup leading a lot of folks, including the coach Gary Kirsten, to proclaim that fatigue was one of the main reasons for the pathetic showing.

Maybe the BCCI was making a point - "You chaps can keep bleating about burnout. Until you actually collectively start pulling out of series, we'll keep milking you for what it's worth". So doesn't this previously unscheduled 4-match ODI series present a wonderful opportunity for players like the skipper Dhoni, Ishant, Gambhir and Yuvraj to excuse themselves from this tour?

Maybe there's a commercial angle that doesn't seem so obvious here. This would be the 3rd consecutive unscheduled series (or hastily arranged series) that is being played in a country where TEN Sports has the telecast rights for the Indian TV audience. The first was the ODI series in Sri Lanka and the second is the on-going 4-match ODI series in West Indies.

It does seem too much of a coincidence. But perhaps not when you realize that TEN Sports was in fact launched in India by none other than Lalit Modi and his MEN distributed the channel for a few years.

TEN Sports is partly owned by Zee, and the BCCI has basically not been on talking terms with Zee (Subhash Chandra) ever since he took the BCCI to court over the BCCI's allotment of TV rights 4-5 years ago when Zee Sports first won the rights only for the BCCI to move the goalposts when ESPN-Star bleated.

Now, after the BCCI announced an amnesty scheme for those affiliated with the ICL, maybe the BCCI and Zee Sports are becoming friends again. Maybe, like I predicted a year ago, the ICL would be wound-up and the quid pro-quo would involve TV rights, IPL team ownership, etc.

So maybe the new-found bonhomie explains why the BCCI is scheduling matches in these countries/regions. After all, surely the BCCI would have earned more revenue (gate proceeds, in-stadia advertising, etc.) if the games had been played in India.

Now, moving on to the ICC. At the start of the year, the ICC announced that it was creating a "Hall of fame" and the first list would have 55 players.

That '55' number sounds so arbitrary. Why wasn't it 50, surely a more 'round' number? Or did the ICC think they'd create 5 teams of 11 players each from the first batch of inductees? Given that the only wicket-keepers they've picked are Knott, Marsh and Walcott (who only kept wickets in 15 out of the 44 tests he played in), there's no way they could have got 5 playing XIs.

Ok, so that 55 is just a number picked out of the someone's nose. What was the criteria for picking these players? Test records? ODI records? Contribution to the advancement of cricket [especially applicable for those who played in the first 2-3 decades of test cricket perhaps]? Domestic cricket records? Gut-feel? Only those who'd retired before a specific date? There're a few players who really make me wonder about the criteria.

Barry Richards is universally considered to be among the best batsmen who never got to showcase his wares long enough in test cricket (4 tests at a batting average of 72 against a bowling 'attack' of Garth McKenzie, Ashley Mallett and John Gleeson). Watching this video of him batting convinces me that the perception about him isn't wrong. Yet, the hard facts are that he only played 7 innings.

Was David Gower such a good player? Obviously he was a very attractive batsman to watch, and was good enough to make bowlers look ridiculous. But he didn't do it often enough, and most certainly not when the bowling was of decent quality (averaging 33 against West Indies, for example).

Javed Miandad retired from international cricket multiple times, the last occasion being after Pakistan were knocked out of the 1996 World Cup. Martin Crowe played his last international cricket game 3-4 months before Miandad retired. So clearly 1995 doesn't seem to be the cut-off year. Perhaps it is 1996. Why 1996?

Surely, if David Gower finds a place on the basis of him being lovely to watch, Crowe must be a shoo-in, especially considering he averaged 45 against West Indies, 50 against Pakistan and 48 against Australia!

As noted in multiple tweets, Michael Vaughan retired from all forms of professional cricket yesterday, 11 months after he quit as captain. Exactly 3 years ago, I wrote about how he was only 32 and nearly retired because of his wonky knee.

Vaughan was a very pleasing batsman to watch, especially in 2002 and early 2003 when he was consistently dismantling India's and Australia's bowlers. However, the runs pretty much dried up after that series, and the most he averaged in a year after 2002 was 47.6 in 2007. It certainly wasn't for lack of opportunity, since between 2003 and 2008, he played at least 9 tests every year, including against West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

The reality is that Vaughan under-achieved as a batsman. On that front, I'd rank him alongside Stephen Fleming, VVS Laxman, Sourav Ganguly and Damien Martyn (until 2-3 years ago, Mahela Jayawardene would have also been included in this list). TV commentary, newspaper columns, reality TV adjudication, etc. beckon and I hope he does well in his new roles.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2009, bcci, book cricket, england, hall of fame, icc, lalit modi, retire, ten sports, tv rights, vaughan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:23 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC chickens out on reviews system for Ashes

The ICC Cricket Committee, in its wisdom, yesterday decided that the reviews system would have a phased roll-out from October.

Now, you could debate about whether the reviews system is needed and if just empowering the third umpire more would solve most problems. You could also debate on whether 2 reviews per innings are sufficient.

If the ICC believes that the system is here to stay, surely it makes sense to start early rather than later. Given the high profile nature of the Ashes series, and the obvious importance associated with ensuring that wrong on-field umpiring bloopers don't have a significant impact on the result of a game, it is baffling that the reviews system won't be in place for the Ashes.

Could it be related to England having a torrid time with the referrals system in the West Indies? Why wasn't the referral system used for the India-New Zealand series where Sky actually had Hawk Eye, HotSpot and a whole lot of other gizmos?

Labels: ashes, australia, england, icc, reviews

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:39 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Quite a weekend, that!

The weekend was quite eventful.

First, Marcus Stresscothick Trescothick revealed in his newly published autobiography that during the 2005 Ashes, England tampered with the ball by using mints to polish the ball. Rahul Dravid must be wondering about how stupid he was, not for using a lozenge, but for getting caught while doing so!

Update: I came across Ricky Ponting's response when asked about Dravid being pulled up. He said

I don't think you'll see us doing anything like that.

Ricky's response confirms that Dravid's mistake was in getting caught. Notice that Ponting didn't say "We never do such things". What he said was "You won't see us doing anything like that". i.e. his team would never be caught by umpires, match referees, opponents (live or on television) doing something like that.

However, remember that the ICC, in July, altered the result of a test match two years after the game was completed! So it may not be a bad ploy for Australia to lobby the ICC to reverse the result of the 2005 Ashes series.

Then, the ICC decided that the ICC Champions Trophy would be postponed to Oct 2009, with the proviso that the environment is deemed fit for an international tournament to be staged and there are no security concerns. In case people didn't notice, the boards that wanted the tournament to be moved or rescheduled weren't all 'white'. South Africa and West Indies had concerns as well. In my opinion, this is certainly not an instance of a racial split in cricket, as is often made out to be!

The move is highly likely to cause a lot of ripples in international series scheduling. The ICC's Future Tours Programme doesn't seem to have too much flexibility to accommodate the tournament in 2009. Looking at the schedule, mid-Apr 2009 to early-May 2009 seems the only time period when there's very little international cricket scheduled. West Indies host Bangladesh in that duration, but come on, who cares about that series!

Amidst all the chaos, India have gone 2-1 up against Sri Lanka in the one-day series with a fairly comprehensive 33 run win in the 3rd ODI. But I still don't understand why Sri Lanka were allowed to recover from 59/6 & 94/7. For some bizarre reason, Yuvraj was persisted with despite having done his job in providing the breakthrough (Kulasekara). He's a part-time bowler, yet Dhoni got him to bowl 8 overs on the trot. Naturally, Yuvraj became less effective as his spell dragged on, conceding 16 runs in his last 2 overs. Dhoni should have brought back Munaf or Zaheer or Praveen (in that order of priority) to try and get the remaining 3 wickets (or at least get Jayawardene out).

Sangakkara needs to do something about Zaheer Khan's stranglehold on him. In 6 matches this year, he has been dismissed 5 times by Zaheer and has barely got a run. In the tests, he was driving away from the body and getting caught in the slips. In the one-dayers, he's been troubled by Zaheer getting the ball to cut in. I think this is because Sangakkara is moving a lot outside offstump when the ball is being delivered, possibly to cope with the swing or just as an attacking measure. As a result, he's forced to play at outswingers and when the ball does nip back, he's caught on the move. In any case, I hope he doesn't sort it out for the next couple of games at least!

Charles Davis, an Aussie statistician, seems to have misread his calendar. After a lot of meticulous & painstaking research, he claims to have discovered that 4 runs had to be added to Bradman's test run aggregate, which would give the Don an average of 100. But he seems to have sent in his report around 8 months too early - 1 Apr 2009 would have been the appropriate date for the story!

Darrell Hair, who had been reinstated to the ICC's Elite panel of umpires in March this year, has resigned and will be coaching umpires in New South Wales. There is some ambiguity about when his ICC contract actually expires - Oct 2008 or Mar 2009. In any case, the ICC is really messing up the quality of umpiring in international cricket.

PS: Forget Beefy, I want to know who the heck writes Pietersen's scripts! He got a 100 and England won his first test in charge. Last week, in his first ODI as the official captain, he scored 90, helped England get 270, got two crucial wickets and England won!

Labels: 2009 champions trophy, ashes, autobiography, ball tampering, champions trophy, england, icc, india, pietersen, sangakkara, security, sri lanka, zaheer khan

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:07 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Thanks, Geoff and Stuart

When Stuart and Geoff joined us in our coverage of the Ashes (which got extended into the tri-series), a test series score of 5-0 for Australia and a one-day series win for England were perhaps very far on the horizon, the latter being quite unthinkable. Perhaps only Lillee and Marsh would have bet on those kind of odds!

We now head into the World Cup, with several questions asked about Australia's invincibility and England's resurgence.

We'd like to thank Geoff and Stuart for their wonderful and passionate posts during the last three months. Of course, this doesn't mean that Geoff and Stuart stop contributing! They'll continue to comment, and who knows, even guest blog again!

- Ganesh & Jagadish

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, Commonwealth Bank Series, guest blogger

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:24 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

David Lloyd: "All that was meant to be inside the box was now outside it"

Here's a hilarious video where David Lloyd describes what it felt like to be hit in the 'box' by Jeff Thomson in the 1974/75 Ashes test at Perth.

Labels: ashes, david lloyd, humour, jeff thomson

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:11 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Greatness is often just 5% further away

At Cape Town, India made 24 runs in a period of 15.1 overs (90 in 31.4 to 114 in 46.5) between Ganguly's and Dravid's dismissals.

At Adelaide, England made 24 runs in 16.4 overs (70 in 32 overs to 94 in 48.4 overs) between Bell's and Jones' dismissals.

On the basis of this evidence, and the eventual results, it does seem very possible that the pathetic rate of run-scoring was the primary reason for the results. This isn't to say that England would have come back to win the series, but it wouldn't have been 5-0. On the other hand, some more positive batting could have resulted in a series win for India.

If England and India had scored at a normal rate (3 an over, which is about what you'd expect in a test match), Australia's target would have been 216 in 36 overs (6 an over, certainly tougher than 4.7 an over) while South Africa's target would have been 240-odd, possibly just enough to make them wobble at 132/4 when Smith and Pollock got out in quick succession.

Positive intent is always a useful thing to have. Case in point - Australia. Last year, at The Oval, Australia bowled out England for 373. Hayden and Langer had a century partnership and Australia were sitting pretty at 112/0 at tea on the second day. After tea, it became overcast and the light was offered to the batsmen, who accepted it, despite the onus being on Australia to do all the running, given England was 2-1 up and only needed a draw to win the series while Australia needed to win to retain the urn. The result is well-documented now, as indeed is the current status.

I'm fairly sure that England's and India's cricketers, especially the ones who get really hurt by losing, would have woken up the next day morning thinking that the day would have been significantly better if each of them had score even 1 more run an over!

THAT is what great teams do. The difference between victory and defeat, in international cricket, is that thin. Great teams do the small things better. The extra one run an over, the four overthrows saved, the cut-shot heading to the boundary which was ruthlessly intercepted by the point fielder ... those're the things that great teams do well.

That extra 5% improvement which Rohit Brijnath wrote about last April now seems so bloody relevant!

Labels: ashes, attitude, australia, england, india, positive intent, ruthlessness, scoring, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 6:54 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What England did right

The ECB have launched an inquiry; you could fill a space the size of Kevin Pietersen's ego with examinations of what England did wrong and how they might not next time.

But what went right? Very little, obviously - hence the whitewash. But it wasn't all doom and gloom.

That one innings
Alastair Cook scored a century at Perth to add to his one at Nagpur. That's a century in Australia and a century in India, in his first year of Test cricket. Openers deal in centuries, so that's good news.

Paul Collingwood scored a double century, England's first since Robert Key.

Another whose efforts at Adelaide turned out to be utterly futile was Matthew Hoggard. 7/109, a 200, and a 150 - I still can't believe England lost that.

Almost, but not quite
Ian Bell passed 50 as many times as Ricky Ponting, and scored almost 250 less runs. Oh, and he played two more innings. It's an improvement on last time, although he needs to figure out a way of playing against teams that aren't Pakistan.

No news is good news
Simon Jones became even more important to the side. Monty Panesar improved immeasurably by his absence, and then by his presence, at least until half-way through the Perth match. And that's the last of McGrath and Warne.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england

Thus spake Geoff @ 11:25 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Thanks Cricket 24x7

Well, Jagadish invited me over here to comment on the Ashes Matches - it's been fun, thanks very much for that.

I hope I've managed to give a different perspective on things and not gloat too much in what has been a very enjoyable "cleansing of the dissapointment of 2005" for me and most of us downunder.

Normally, we do like to see a closer competition and in the past, the public here has bored fairly early on in the summer, of Australia's domination.

Things were different this time. The public's hunger for a complete smashing of the poms was palpable and I think reflected in Australia's ability to shake that dead rubber syndrome they've suffered from in past series.

This too was motivated by the retirements of Warne, Langer, McGrath and to a lesser extent Martyn. Of course these guys will be sorely missed. It remains to be seen just how far the side slips as a result. Of course a slip is unavoidable - we're losing probably the greatest bowling combination ever - the odds of seeing better in my lifetime are slim - the odds of seeing that, for Australia even slimmer I guess - so we have indeed been lucky to witness it haven't we.

From here, it's on to the World Cup and plenty of ODI's in the coming months, and I look forward to a big competition against India next summer.

Keep in touch and by all means, add STUmpcam to your favourties and keep the comments (favourable or not) flowing in...cheers.

Stu.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, guest blogger

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 6:25 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

The Ashes - what could've been...

Australia have just completed the much publicised white-wash of the Ashes series. 5 nil! Incredible! Early on, we kept saying how well England were doing, how they performed well and weren't far away. In each Test, save perhaps Brisbane, there were points where things could've been so much different - they were in winning, if not match saving positions each time...

1st Test - Brisbane - asides from just prior to that infamous first ball being bowled (when scores were equal) England were pretty much behind the 8 ball all the way, though at tea on Day 4, England were 3 for 150, then 5 for 293 at the end of the day - with just one day to go a draw was still an outside chance. (Australia won by 277 runs before lunch on Day 5!)

2nd Test - Adelaide - What do you say about this one? Australia were 3 for 65 in their first innings chasing 551 (5 declared). The series was about to be level. Brisbane was being put down as an abberation. (Australia won by 6 wickets late on the last day.)

3rd Test - Perth - England bowled Australia out for 244 in their first innings and still managed to lose by 206 runs! (There went the Ashes)

4th Test - Melbourne - Australia 5 for 89 (admittedly only chasing 159), went on to score 419 and win by 99 runs.

5th Test - Sydney - Australia 5 for 190 chasing 291. Australia win by 10 wickets.
It is staggering to think that England didn't manage at least a draw from one of these scenarios. Not just that, but there wasn't even a close result amongst them. Capitulation!

Some other interesting points:

• In all except the Perth match, England were dismissed for less than 160 in at least one innings. (In Perth they got to 215)
• Australia scored more than 400 in at least one innings in all tests except Sydney where they got 393.
• For batsmen at position 7 through 11, England averaged 8.7 runs, Australia 27.86.
• Australian batsmen scored 9 centuries (with all batsmen from 1 to 7 getting at least one) while England managed just 3 from their entire 20 innings.

So did England throw it away or did Australia snatch it from them? Was it a combination? Did England simply lack the ability to beat Australia or does Australia just not know how to lose?

Is there any one definitive factor in Australia's domination - if so what do you think it is? Is it Mental / Physical? Were England playing above themselves in 2005 - were Australia playing below themselves? Let me know what you put this incredible 18 month form reversal down to?...

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 6:13 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Ashes stat of the day

Who suffers from dead-rubber syndrome?

Test	Sessions	Overs
Brisbane	13	361.3
Adelaide	15	439.2
Perth	14	369.3
Melbourne	9	248.2
Sydney	10	269

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, dead-rubber

Thus spake Geoff @ 7:11 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Batting with the tail

While Andrew Flintoff's captaincy in the series so far has been questionable, his batting in the first innings at Sydney has been his best effort so far.

The interesting part about his innings was the way he batted with the tail (i.e. after the fifth wicket fell!). In total contrast to Kevin Pietersen's approach of taking a single off the first ball and keeping himself happy with a not out, something which Steve Waugh was very adept at doing, Flintoff played out an hour (16 overs) with the tail, scoring 39 out of the 46 runs made until he was out. He took a single off the first or second ball of an over only five times in that duration.

It's perhaps quite obvious who the 'selfish' bloke is!

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, flintoff, pietersen, steve waugh, waugh

Thus spake Jagadish @ 7:12 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Bye bye, Andrew Flintoff?

There was a report in the 'Daily Telegraph' yesterday that Michael Vaughan could be made captain of the one-day side for the triangular series (Australia and New Zealand are the other two teams) and the 2007 World Cup starting in March.

While Michael Vaughan's one-day record (ODI avg. 28, 1730 runs from 71 innings, strike rate 68, no centuries and 15 fifties) has been documented here earlier, this obviously leaves Andrew Flintoff in the lurch altogether!

England is all set to slip to a 5-0 defeat before lunch tomorrow, making Flintoff the second English captain (after "Johnny Won't Hit Today" Douglas) in the history of test cricket to lose an Ashes series 5-0.

Update: You can vote in our poll and cast a vote for your choice of the best test team in the last twenty years.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, flintoff, vaughan, whitewash

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:42 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Australia vs England - Fifth Test - Day 3

Australia a tail in front...

The total first innings runs scored by batsmen at numbers 7 through 11, for Australia, 173, for England, 4!!! Australia's lead, 102!

They often say that batting is all about building partnerships - today we saw a few valuable partnerships, some built in a disciplined manner, some built with gay-abandon by players with confidence that if they did so, the guys below them were capable and motivated to do the same. Gilchrist and Symonds in particular batted very well, when they would've far preferred to belt the opposition attack into submission they instead batted with care and constraint to ensure Australia made it close to England's total - this discipline, belief and commitment highlighted a major difference between the two sides today.

Then, enter Shane Warne, as only Warne can...it was always going to happen quickly, or not at all. He was going to enjoy it, one way or the other. We all flirted with the idea (dream) of that elusive 100 in his last test, but the dream died with an over ambitious shot on 71. At least he wasn't left wondering...

Australia went passed England's first innings total in style, then England immediately went defensive. I think they were basically saying, if you're going to get a lead, you're going to do it slowly, to give us a chance of a draw. When you're 4 nil down I suppose this is understandable, but really - it's Day 3!?! With Australia batting last a small first innings lead may not be enough for them. To immediately drop out the slips, where you've picked up Gilchrist so often, was very negative and a sign of Flintoff's defeatist attitude this series. Going negative at this point could just have snuffed out any chance of a win here for England. Australia's tail chipped and lobbed the ball around as Clark was played in nicely, by England's defensive field positions, helped too by some smashing from Warne and a lead was built - big enough to fill the dressing room with enthusiasm and energy - which spilled onto the field and saw Cook fall early.

So we get down to 2 results for England - a draw or a loss.

Australia hit the field, full of beans, England, again frustrated and despondent at the prospect of chasing down a lead then trying to give their tired bowling attack something to work with. Australia knowing, early in-roads will set up a victory. Early in roads it was, followed by middle order in roads. Then, Monty Panesar at number 7! I can't believe, as the Channel 9 commentators would have us believe, this was at night watchman - what for?? To protect Read?? Unlikely. I think perhaps the bottom 5 for England are simply drawing straws these days, and it was Monty's turn...surely they can't seriously be trying to protect anyone in that tail...

Steve Waugh proved to us all, you have to be prepared to lose, in order to win. England don't appear to have learned this, although they have certainly learnt to lose this summer, they don't appear to be prepared to risk one more, in an attempt to chalk up a victory. If this lack of confidence and fight spills over to the ODI series it's going to be a miserable World Cup campaign as well. This is supposed to be the second ranked Test Nation in the World - I find that hard to believe just at the moment.

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, warne

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 4:18 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Australia vs England - Fifth Test - Day 1 & 2

So, after 2 days, we have a fairly evenly poised match. England, collapsing all too predicatbly in the first innings, losing their last 5 wickets for just over 50 runs. Australia now, similarly set at the end of day two, to England at the end of day 1. I'd rather have Hussey in than Collingwood though, and Australia's tail than England's - but there is a certain "pep in the step" of England. They seem a little more determined to at least inflect something in the form of damage on these Aussies - maybe Langer, McGrath and Warne (and maybe some others) losing their last test is just enough motivation for a down and almost out English side. Who knows? Who would be game to predict anything.

It is probably stating the obvious but just about anything could happen yet. It seems a result one way or the other is more likely than a draw given the low first innings total, but with Hussey and Symonds in and Gilchrist to come Australia could yet make 500 - of course, they could also quite conceivably trail on the first innings too, not that that may matter either. Who could say anything confidently really? I would add though, that a run chase by Australia on day 4 and 5 will be somewhat harder in Sydney with Panesar in the side, than Adelaide without him - The POMS will know that and therefore be despearate for early wickets, hopefully Hussey and Symonds have thought of this two, and play them out of the game in the first two session tomorrow. They are the sessions that will set up this match.

If England can get two wickets in the first session tomorrow, it's game on - if not, it could just be slipping away. I am no longer willing to say there is anything that can happen, that will put the Aussies out of the match just yet ;-)

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, hussey, panesar, scg, sydney

Thus spake Stuart Helwig @ 2:37 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]