September 12, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Ten tips for improving England's ODI chances
England's ODI debacle against Australia shows where they stand in the shorter version of the game. Here's a look at ten ways in which they could improve their chances.
From Ben J. Tanner, United Kingdom
1. Wield the Axe: I'm not suggesting a return to the late-80s/early-90s revolving door selection policy, which saw Graeme Hick get dropped more often than a Monty Panesar catch. But, if someone has not proven themselves to be up to the job, bin them.
2. Shuffle the Pack: Try new talent out. Rather than repeatedly going back to Owais Shah and Tim Bresnan, see who else is out there. The only real way to find out if they sink or swim is to chuck them in the deep end. Rather than watching the same old has-beens fail time-and-again, why not watch a noob fail instead? You never know, he might not!
3. Get Them In Young: India do it; Pakistan do it all the time; the Windies are often forced to do it; Aussies have been known to do it; even the guys on our level, like New Zealand do it - just look at Dan Vettori. The most left-field and yet most successful one-day pick in the last decade for England was Jimmy Anderson, off the back of half-a-dozen Lancashire appearances and some U-19 cricket. And he was immediately a demon (and continued to be so). Of course, this is difficult when you’re waiting for your best players to actually qualify for England in the first place, but that’s another issue. For the time being, get Chris Woakes and Dawid Malan in the team - an after the Lord Mayor’s show one-day series against the Aussies is the ideal time.
4. Biff It, Don’t tap it! “Whack it!” is the slogan of a well-known fruit-shaped chocolate product, but it could equally be applied to England’s top order. We don’t, at present, have someone who can hit the ball a very long way from a good length, striking fear into the hearts of opposition bowlers and rousing the love of the crowd. Freddie and KP are the obvious exceptions, but (a) they’re never fit and (b) they always bat too low. Get them in at No. 1, start the innings at 7-an-over in the first Powerplay and the opposition are on the back foot from ball one. Look at the likes of Dilshan and Jayasuriya, Afridi, Ryder and McCullum, Sehwag, even David Warner.
5. Don’t Get Rid of Domestic 50-Over Cricket If you’re not playing it regularly, how do you expect to get good at it. That said, how often do England players actually play for their counties anyway?
6. Play Domestic 50-Over cricket on Uncovered Pitches: This has the effect of: encouraging young bowlers, spinners in particular (of whom there are not enough); weeding out the men from the boys when it comes to batting (no more flat-track bullies); challenging the captaincy nous of the prime candidates, as it adds an extra dimension to their game-planning, suggesting who might have the vision to think outside the box in international games.
7. Don’t Conform: At first glance, England look like they follow this instruction rather too well already. They don’t have a power-hitter; they employ dibbly-dobblers for at least 40 overs every innings; from 2010, they won’t practice the game they play most often. The list goes on. But what I really mean is: think outside the box, when you’re on the field. Try different field placings. Get the keeper to stand up to the seamers (see my next point). Don’t play into the opposition’s hands by being wholly one-dimensional and predictable. Find players like Sohail Tanvir who bowl of the wrong foot, or slinger-Malinga, or mystery spinner Ajantha Mendis, who doesn’t “wheelie-bin” down six stock balls per over; Philip Hughes whose stance is a little too open; Shiv Chanderpaul even more so.
8. Pick James Foster: For goodness sake. He’s the most tidy gloveman around. Probably in the world. He can stand up to all of the seamers, except perhaps for Anderson, and put extra pressure on all those big-hitters who like to dance up and down the track. And he can bat very nicely too, thank you very much. Do you not remember the World Twenty20 tournament - he was pretty much the only positive to be drawn from the whole competition, from an England perspective.
9. Pick Dimi Mascarenhas: I know this is one of my bug-bears. But I’ve got to say it again. The man is an excellent one-day cricketer. He has played in the IPL. He has led a cup-winning side for Hampshire. He, like KP, has learnt a lot from Warney. He hit Yuvraj for five sixes in the last over of an ODI; his economy rate is excellent (4.24 in domestic cricket, as against Broad’s 5.12); he fields well; he’s a character (which England as a unit seem to lack).
10.Put the Football Away: Seriously, guys. We don’t see David Beckham warming up for a World Cup qualifier in Zagreb by chucking down a few doosras to Rio Ferdinand in the nets. It’s just a constant source of ridicule and injury, and I was pleased to see the comments from Andrew Strauss on Cricinfo that suggest this might be a thing of the past.
Comments (50)
July 18, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Oh, for one more Welshman in Cardiff...
From Sriram Dayanand, Canada
As all those rugby loving Welshmen in Cardiff last week, perplexed by the unexpected opening act of an age old tradition of the island watched their city taken over by cricket, a lad from nearby Morriston, Swansea in Wales was the one who was so poignantly missing out there on the fresh turf of Sophia Gardens. Cardiff, as a choice for the first Ashes Test of 2009 was a tough pill to swallow for the more traditional venues, especially out in Manchester, but it would have been poetic if - Freddie aside - my favourite bowler from the previous edition of the Ashes of 2005 had lined up for the national anthems on July 8th, 2009, before the horns were locked.
“Seems like just the other day
Gee, ain't it funny how time slips away.”
sang that indomitable Welshman Tom Jones in “Funny How Time Slips Away”. It has been four long years since the Trent Bridge Test of the 2005 Ashes. Four long years since that other Welsh Jones - the Simon, not Tom - fielded a ball at square point, grimaced suddenly and wandered off limping like Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects. His substitute in the field Gary Pratt’s throw and the ensuing outburst of a pricked Ricky Ponting over his runout bemused and tickled everyone silly to no end and garnered enough newsprint to kill a forest. Yes, we did read about the man nicknamed “Horse” desperately trying to accelerate the healing of his ankle in an oxygen tent at Arsenal’s home in Highbury days later, hoping to be fit for the nerve wracking fifth Test at the Oval. But it wasn’t to be, and it was Paul Collingwood who took his place at the Oval for the denouement of a compelling and dramatic series. And Simon Jones somehow was forced to cede the stage he had graced till then and resurfaced to only collect his Ashes medal at the end, clad in beach flip-flops. And he hasn’t played for England ever since.
That was Freddie’s Ashes, yes. And rightfully so. Flintoff’s towering, exuberant, aggressive, overpowering and ubiquitous presence for every second of that series was unquestionable. His numbers were there to prove it too – 24 wickets at 27.29, the most by a bowler and 402 runs, the second best on England’s batting list. But there is that small matter of the bowler below Freddie on England’s bowling list for the series. 18 wickets in only 4 matches and at a miserly 21 a piece were the numbers for Simon Jones. Prime statistics they are and tell the story of an integral contribution to the team cause. But when the books were being tallied, the champagne being popped, a Prime Minister being visited at home and MBEs being awarded to the entire crew, he had somehow faded into the background, nursing his errant ankle.
Freddie’s astonishing bowling - especially to left handers - harvested the bulk of the watching public’s psyche, but can we forget what Simon Jones did in 2005? Michael Vaughan, who garnered accolades for his innovative captaincy four years ago seemed to have an uncanny, if not spooky knack of bringing on Jones every time he needed to turn a trick to nab a wicket. And Simon’s penchant for grabbing one of the first ball of his spells must have left Vaughan wide-eyed and chuckling in glee. But it was his astonishing control of reverse swing, honed to an art and science for the team by his close friend Troy Cooley that mesmerized. Screaming corkers whizzed past outside edges and swinging yorkers thudded into disoriented batsmen’s pads time and again.
Cheeky grin in place and an almost mock seriousness on his mien the rest of the time, the Welshman was a revelation and joy to watch – especially to neutrals not versed in the details of his sojourns for Glamorgan or England. His smooth and relaxed runup disguised the guile that was waiting to reveal itself to unsuspecting Aussie batsmen. Overshadowed on pitch and in print by Freddie’s belligerent presence, he seemed to glide through the entire series, smiling. Harmison and the reticent Hoggard even, seemed more visible all through. Always fielding on the boundary somewhere, he seemed to be only in the peripheral vision of the national consciousness. Except when Vaughan threw him the ball and the smooth and upright runup proceeded to unleash those zingers at the batsmen. Or when he indulged in some clean hitting at innings end, clearing the boundary with surprising ease (“Sixaah!” exclaimed Mark Nicholas as one of his crisp swings cleared the ropes effortlessly). There was something relaxed about him with the bat or ball in his hand, and in the uproar over the conquered urn, he was the one poking his head between shoulders in all the group photographs it seemed.
In the years that followed, Vaughan and Flintoff’s injuries barreled all news of his travails under the surgeon’s knife to the periphery of cricket’s awareness. Harmison decapitating the slip fielder with the opening ball of the 2007 Ashes and Hoggard losing his place to Sidebottom are recalled with more alacrity by cricket flowers than the footnotes Jones was making in the papers with his unsuccessful attempts at getting back to playing with some semblance of regularity. Frustrating and dark times they were at a critical juncture in his life and career but he somehow was left to fend off his demons by himself.
“Before these funny familiar forgotten feelings
Stop walk' all over my mind”
crooned Tom Jones again in “Funny familiar Forgotten Feelings”. So, before things get too heavy in the upcoming weeks continuing at Lord’s, and minds get trampled over with the drama of events on the field, I just want to say this Simon: You were missed out there in Cardiff, bachgen. You were special the last time we saw you and while your career may have unfortunately swung in reverse, those screaming reverse swingers and those scorching yorkers in 2005 won’t be forgotten for some time. Fate and your body have conspired to keep you away from what you do best, but rest assured, you were a champion. And as you watch your mates from 2005 out there at Lord’s, and you nurse feelings like that your countryman Ryan Giggs has watching the football World Cup or the Euro, keep your chin up laddie...and keep smiling.
“Raise your arms in the air, now shake 'em”
-Tom Jones, “You can leave your hat on”
Comments (4)
June 6, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Beer chaos at The Oval
From Richard Seeckts
"It wasn't until I got there that I realised one of the 20s was the duration in minutes of the queue for beer." PP of Kent, 2008.
On the evidence of last week’s Surrey v Sussex match, things have got worse, not better, in 2009. Twenty20 games at Surrey’s south London ground are advertised as turbo-charged cricket. The experience in the stands has not been so thrilling.
Spectators visiting The Oval for ICC World Twenty20 matches should be reassured that "the problem with the (bar) tills has been rectified and we have had no further problems". This is wonderful news, though it comes too late for those who endured woefully inadequate bar provision at last week's Surrey v Sussex Twenty20 match, when the recent dry spell took on another meaning.
That Tuesday evening saw people wanting an after work pint at the cricket queuing for up to half an hour to be served. 'Man waits 25 minutes for beer' is not, in isolation, a matter of great concern to anybody. However, 'World's oldest Test venue fails to cater for crowd of 7,500' doesn't sound so clever. The problem with standing in a queue for 25 minutes during a Twenty20 game is that you miss about seven overs of action, or one third of an innings. And if you fancy a second, or third pint during the evening, you'll see less cricket than on a good day at the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium.
I don’t know the exact nature of the alleged (and now resolved) bar till problem, but I do know that Surrey CCC infuriated many spectators last week, compounding their blanket ban on taking alcohol into the ground by making it virtually impossible to obtain inside. Surrey claim that the ground was one third full, and that five of seven public bars were open. It’s an interesting claim when the shutters were down on every drinks outlet bar one (pardon the pun) at the Vauxhall end of the ground. If true, it doesn’t bode well for an Ashes Test in August.
Whatever the cause of the chaos, all major sports venues have an obligation to cater for their paying customers swiftly and efficiently, enabling them to optimise their time watching the main event. When getting a drink becomes the main event, something has gone horribly wrong. Tickets are not cheap at The Oval, a cheeseburger and chips costs £8, a pint of beer £3.50, and a replica shirt is £39.99, if your favourite colour happens to be brown. The public deserves better.
The Oval was, however, amply prepared for the queues at the bars to develop into full-blown riots. 190 security / stewards were in attendance, gloriously intimidating in their fluorescent jackets, many radio-linked to Big Brother and ready to pounce on any sign of drunken (fat chance) or inappropriate behaviour. Most of the spectators were family groups on a half term treat or professional types in suits who had just rolled out of their offices. An east London football derby it was not, and yet there was a steward for every forty spectators.
Needless to say they had no riots to crush, perhaps we should have asked the 'Green Team' to fetch the beers for us.
Comments (4)
February 10, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in Australian Cricket
Forget the Ashes, England
From Brendan Layton, Australia
One of the unexpected laughs of the week came at the expense of England, who showed the world they are still the masters of disaster with a dismal collapse to 51 in their test against the West Indies. And the reason I laugh? Every Pommie supporter has been in my ears or on Cricinfo talking up how Australia will be devastated on their trip for England. Following their ridiculous fall on the weekend, I am completely confident that we will retain our hold on the priceless urn.
England and Australia are often accused of paying too much attention to the Ashes. It is true to some respects, although Australia in its time puts a lot of priority on its duels these days with South Africa and especially India, as well as having a long standing competition with the Windies for the Frank Worrell Trophy. England, however, are clearly Ashes-obsessed. The tabloids in England are more infatuated with beating Australia than they are with Amy Winehouse's drunken exploits or what stupid comment the Gallagher brothers have summoned for the week. It's an old sore that they cannot tolerate, a colony creating its own identity and then emerging as superior in some aspects, as they have with cricket.
The hysteria surrounding 2005, when England thrillingly won to breathe life back into the contest, was a good example of how much they revere the contest, and how much it means for them to win. There were some that hadn't ever seen the urn in England's trophy cabinet following its capture in 1989 and subsequent long term possession by Australia. I don't blame them for going mad and then giving MBEs top the victorious team. They did the same for the English Union team when they won the World Cup in 2003, having knocked off, you guessed it, Australia for the title.
England were widely rumoured to be treating this tour as an 'Ashes warm-up'. How that has now backfired spectacularly. Their reliance on Kevin Pietersen is beginning to grow with every Test, especially with the continually lean showings of Alastair Cook and the spineless Ian Bell. Their bowling, apart from the luckless yet venomous 'Freddie' Flintoff, is rather frail. Stuart Broad is developing but can't hide a lack of real pace. Ryan Sidebottom is steady and accurate, but can be negotiated by a good batting line-up. He went wicketless at Kingston, and that might be playing on their minds. The less said of Harmison and Jimmy Anderson the better. Neither are the answer for England's bowling woes.
Harmy is way too inconsistent and has problems with his attitude. Now that he is on the wrong side of 30, they need to cut off from a talented but highly enigmatic bowler. Anderson is a real conundrum. He can bowl prodigious swing at a good pace at times but when he has an off day, which is quite often, he can be plundered for many runs. He was highly ineffectual in the last Ashes series, and the Australian batsmen will be licking their lips if he comes into contention for a place. Monty is certainly their best spinner. And one would hope he finds his mojo, as he can be considered a far better spin bowler than anyone Australia can muster at the present time. England needs to have a long think, and so do all you Pom supporters out there. Do you really think you can win the Ashes with this inconsistent bunch of underachievers?
Comments (5)
January 25, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Apparently, we're in crisis
From Andrew Hughes, United Kingdom
Now, I have to confess that I started to watch England play cricket in the mid eighties so for me, the word crisis has rather lost its sting over the years. Indeed, to connoisseurs of spicy English cricket calamity, this latest pickle is rather tame. A captain who wasn't very good has been replaced by a better one. Even Eyeore would struggle to work that one up into a crisis.
But the c-word just will not go away. Why? Because though your average Englishman will always prefer gossip to investigation, he doesn't like to admit it. This gives editors a problem. They solve it in the same way governments do when they want to throw large numbers of the populace into jail: by invoking a state of emergency. Old man crisis is brought out of retirement and under his puritanical gaze, we are free to carry on indulging in the soap opera that is the England cricket team. Is Daisy friends with Freddie? Is KP talking to Harmy? It's all jolly good fun.
Of course, should a chap be so uncouth as to suggest, after coughing politely, that the real problem we have is that the vast majority of players in the English game aren't actually very good, he would be greeted with a stony silence. It would be the journalistic equivalent of telling a knock-knock joke at a funeral.
Another English trait is our habit of slandering, mocking and generally abusing our leaders, regardless of their merits. The mendacity or incompetence of anyone in power is a given; they represent inanimate effigies that we can safely lay into over our lattes and bacon sarnies. In itself this trait is harmless, the information age equivalent of the man employed to sit behind Caesar and remind him that he was mortal.
But we also have an unrealistically strong faith in the democratic system. Not happy about the state of English cricket? Don't worry, there's going to be an election. Get rid of tatty old Giles Clarke and get the new bloke in. Then things will be fine. Democracy of course, can be a blunt but powerful instrument, a savage hammer of justice falling heavily on the incumbent and tearing down the established structure.
Unfortunately, the hammer used in ECB elections is made of foam. The upcoming contest for the leadership of English cricket is about as significant as two ducks squabbling over a piece of bread. In the red corner is Giles Clarke, a successful businessman and passionate defender of county cricket. In the other red corner is Lord Marland, a passionate defender of county cricket and successful businessman. Which of them will prevail? A nation is on tenterhooks.
English cricket isn't in a crisis. It's in a coma. A one hundred and fifty year coma, to be precise; a deep and enduring state of unconsciousness in which we may occasionally bat an eyelid, but soon sink back into silent, uncomplaining numbness.
Our game is organised in a way that would warm the cockles of Al Capone's heart. Huge sums of money are extorted from a profitable national team in order to prop up a loss-making domestic game that no-one watches and which serves no discernable purpose. Meanwhile, members of the public who have the audacity to want to watch their national team must either pay £100 a time for the privilege of squeezing into poky little stadiums like Lord's or shell out £500 a year for a Sky subscription.
The eighteen first class counties run our game in a thoroughly English way, that is, ruthlessly, but out of sight, whilst being able to pretend that they have nothing to do with it. Think of the ECB as a large polished table, around which sit eighteen super villains, from Dr No to Darth Vader. From time to time they pick a new puppet to do their bidding. So who will it be this time? Clarke or Marland? Who cares.
Comments (4)
January 21, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
A New Yawn For English Cricket
From Andrew Hughes, United Kingdom
Exciting news, cricket chums. Today saw the official re-launch of the English Premier League. Better still, I was lucky enough to win a ticket to the press conference by successfully guessing how many fairy cakes Giles Clarke can store in his cheeks at any one time. (The answer is twenty-seven). So here it is: the full details of what could be the most significant day in English cricket since the last most significant day.
As the ECB’s Head of Corporate Nonsense, it was the hamster-faced Clarke himself who opened proceedings with a short slide show about his recent holiday in Antigua and his friend Allen. There followed a brief interlude whilst the assembled gentlemen of the press adjourned to the bar, before the esteemed leader of the free cricket world resumed his presentation and explained how the highly successful Indian Premier League had influenced the English version.
“Obviously, we can’t just copy the Indians, so you’ll see a few differences,” said Clarke, gnawing on a piece of cheese. “For a start no-one will want to watch it, because it’ll be rubbish. So we’ve gone away from the idea of big stadia and we’re holding it in my back-garden. Well it was either that or Taunton. And we’ve sold the rights to Mongolian State TV, so those lazy old buggers in their armchairs won’t be able to see it either.”
Asked whether there would be IPL-style player auctions, Clarke chuckled. “Oh yes, sure,” he replied sarcastically. “What am I bid for this Gareth Batty? Do I see ten pounds. Ten pounds anyone? Don’t be daft, lad.”
The English Premier League will run from January to December, with forty-eight rounds of matches, a month of play-offs and a Grand Final to decide which is the least worst team. Amongst the galaxy of international superstars scheduled to take part are Jonas Van Kolpack, brother of someone who almost played for South Africa and former Australian 12th man Carl Rackemann or someone who looks very much like him. The eighteen counties have also been specially renamed for the tournament, the names being chosen by a consultancy firm, 'Old Rope Associates' and finely tuned to reflect the diverse reality of modern British life:
Lancashire Drizzle
Durham Beer Bellies
Yorkshire Moan
Nottinghamshire Accents
Derbyshire Fly Tippers
Leicestershire Kolpacks
Northamptonshire Traffic Cones
Worcestershire Wellies
Gloucestershire Flood Warnings
Glamorgan Slag Heaps
Surrey Shooters
Middlesex Mortgages
Sussex Nimbys
Hampshire Chemicals
Somerset Inebriates
Kent Bigots
Essex Nightclubs
Warwickshire Idiots
Comments (4)
January 8, 2009
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Socrates on KP
From Andrew Hughes, United Kingdom
Typical ECB. Can't even organise an exciting double-sacking. Where were the angry shouted questions from a baying mob of hacks? Where were the scuffles with reporters? The tears? The threats of legal action? No, all we get is an exchange of press releases and then timid little Hugh Morris reading out a prepared story as long as the assembled media types promised not to ask him any questions. "Once upon a time," he began, in a whispery little voice, "there were two nice men called Kevin and Peter. Thenwesackedthembotheventhoughneitherofthemhaddoneanythingwrong. And they both lived happily ever after. The end." And off he skipped to Neverland.
Mind you, Sky News wasn't much better. Between 5:40pm and 5:55pm we saw the same footage of KP at Durban airport approximately fourteen times. I've memorised it now. I can picture him, wearing a light burgundy top with a hint of charcoal. He walks past a Subway (closed) and a man with a shiny forehead who turns to watch him go. The camera lingers on the back of KP's head for a while. A little later on, we see him handing a ticket to an official. Fourteen times. And Sky had the nerve to call this, 'Exclusive footage of the England captain.'
Thank God then for Bob Willis. Called in to fill the gap between when Sky started to tell us about the 6 o'clock statement and when it actually arrived, old Bob grumbled, whinged and moaned delightfully for a few minutes, managing to explain that KP had been stupid and that the England players didn't like him. Then it was Gower's turn. "Is English cricket in a mess, asked the excitable studio presenter. Not really, I was thinking. "Yes it is," opined David and proceeded to lull us to sleep with a five minute exposition, the finer points of which I may only be able to recall under hypnosis.
Of course it's nothing of the sort. Socrates would have summed it up thus: "Wouldn't you say that yesterday we had a captain who wasn't quite up to the job?" "Yes I would." "And would you also say that we had a coach who wasn't that great?" "Well, yes, that's true." "And would you further say that the captain and the coach didn't work well together?" "I suppose that is true, yes." "And that the team was divided, not all of them supporting the captain?" "I would have to say yes." "And would say that these were bad or good things?" "Bad things, certainly." "And after today's mess, do these things still exist?" "Well, no." "So if it is a mess, isn't it a peculiarly good kind of mess, in which all the problems which existed yesterday have now been resolved?" "Why, yes it is." "So can it really be considered to be a mess?" "When you put it like that, no, I suppose it isn't." So there you have it.
Socrates would have made mincemeat of David Gower. But probably not Andrew Strauss. Which is reason number 94 in the long list of reasons why he should already be captain and we should not be having this conversation.
Comments (5)
October 24, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Saint KP
From Anshul, Singapore
Often the most rebellious students turn out to be discipline masters. Kevin Pietersen could be one of them. Sample this: "This game has obviously come at a very difficult time in terms of what's happening in the world and I want 100% respect for that, so there won't be any nonsense happening in and around and after the game and I will be really angry if it does happen," Pietersen said. The man has decent intentions, but whats with the chiding?
On evidence of his yet-short captaincy, KP comes across as a man who can get his pack to follow him. Against the 'Saffers' they did as he bid. But this sort of stuff - it reminds me of my 6th grade teacher (I'm sorry Mrs. Luke!) who was a regular at sending jitters down my spine.
Is KP, the unabashed rockstar, trying to doctor his team's reaction? Does he expect a Swann or a Sidebottom to play it cool when they win the only million-dollar lottery they ever had any odds at? And what if Strauss goes ballistic should Middlesex win? Will Pietersen drop him into the Bermuda triangle on the flight to India because he was really angry? I exaggerate but it helps make me my point. I hope Pietersen was doing the same.
Comments (0)
October 6, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Ding gong!
From Paddy Briggs, United Kingdom
One of the Australian team's sledges during England's woeful last tour of Australia was the one directed at Paul Collingwood who had been awarded the honour of becoming a Member of the 'Most Excellent Order of the British Empire' (MBE) for his innings of 7 and 10 and his 0-17 in the 2005 Oval Test match. Lovely chap Colly but, as the Aussies suggested, was this performance really worthy of a gong?
This brings me to the subject of honours and cricket and an invitation to you to join in a discussion of the most surprising omissions from the cricketing gong list.
Let's start with a trio of England captains, Wally Hammond, Ted Dexter and Tony Greig. When I was a kid Dexter was referred to as 'Lord Ted' but I was disappointed to learn that (like Geoffrey Boycott's knighthood) this was an honorary title. Boycs has an OBE but Ted remains not even a Member of the British Empire, let alone anything more distinguished. Greigy's involvement with Packer perhaps scuppered his chances and Hammond did have some dodgy business dealings but their cricketing achievements are surely not in dispute?
There are a fair number of batsmen in the gongless list who would be close to the top of a cricket fan's list of England batting greats. Herbert Sutcliffe, Frank Woolley and Ken Barrington to name but three, and Allan Lamb and Robin Smith wouldn't be far behind. Add all-rounder Wilfred Rhodes and you have the core of a pretty good side. Then the fast bowling would be lead by John Snow aided by Andy Caddick, Devon Malcolm, Graham Dilley and spinners Laker, Lock and Verity would be in the frame 'how can they all never have been honoured?'
But for me the biggest omission of all on the list of cricketers unhonoured in my lifetime is the man I regard as England's greatest ever wicket-keeper Alan Knott. Now it may be that the shy and elusive Knotty turned down an honour - but if not it's not too late is it? But what do you think, are there even more deserving cases than his?
Comments (0)
August 27, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in Pakistan cricket
A case of double standards
From Abdullah Khalid, United Kingdom
The recent admission by Marcus Trescothick that he used minty saliva on the ball to shine to aid it to swing more is another example of the two yardsticks used in cricket. When Wasim and Waqar in '92 demolished England with reverse swing they were labelled as cheats, but when England uses the same reverse swing it becomes an 'art' perfected by the English bowlers.
Similarly, during the 'Oval' fiasco, Darrel Hair was so quick in penalising the Pakistani team for ball tampering that he did not even give it a second thought, and on what evidence...his instincts ! However, here we have someone admitting that he did use something to aid swing, and I hear that it is legitimate. Micheal Kasprowicz went on saying that he wished they had applied more so the ball missed his glove. Huh! Let me be very honest, if this had been admitted by any Pakistani player, the whole series would have been scrapped or worse the scoreline reversed. The only reason this has not been possible is that it has never been proved that Pakistan did it. If it was so, then the current Pakistani fast bowlers would be winning matches as well, which they cannot, because perfecting the art of reverse swing is difficult and it was only the great Khan and the Ws who could do it perfectly.
Double standards have always been the norm for Australia and England. From the '87 incident involving Mike Gatting and Shakoor Rana to Ross Emerson/Darrel Hair and Muralitharan to the Oval fiasco, there have always been double standards applied by these nations. It is time we have one law for all rather than different laws for different countries. We already have seen the split in ICC, the CT and Zimbabwe issues are clear examples of this split. Round 1 (Zimbabwe) was won by the Asian bloc, Round 2 (CT) to the non-Asian bloc. What happens next. We might be hearing Lalit Modi soon saying the IPL Champions League will take place in Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi and Lahore. What will happen then?
Comments (15)
August 22, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Forget the Ashes
From Brendan Layton, Australia
Let's not get ahead of ourselves In lieu of England's loss to South Africa, and KP's declaration afterwards that if they play like they did in their consolation win they will beat Australia, I must warn England not to get too far ahead of themselves as they count down to the Ashes 2009 already. To be honest, I actually hadn't been thinking about that particular series until KP came out with his quote of the week. I found it amazing that England had just lost a series to South Africa, dropping them to fifth on the ICC test rankings, they had a tough series against India approaching, and the next thing on their mind is the Ashes.
This has been a systematic problem of English cricket. Only one opponent seems to matter anymore, and that is Australia, despite the fact that South Africa, India and Sri Lanka are now considered superior cricket teams. While the Ashes rivalry is the founding block of Test cricket, the nations that now play have improved and contributed healthily to modern game. For England to ignore India, for example, who defeated them in their backyard last year, as a threat, they are sowing seeds for a further drop down the ladder.
The single-minded focus on the Ashes helped England win in 2005, yes. But on the way to that, they restructured their team to find the right combination and beat South Africa in South Africa and knocked off a majority of other competitors to claim 2nd place. Their victory was wildly praised and celebrated and in the ecstasy and overlong glory that followed, England lost their chance to secure their place at the top.
Now that team is looking to 2009 and a lot has changed. KP is now captain, and while aggressive, we have yet to see whether he can marshal his troops and match wits with a strong Australian side. There is no Vaughan. No Trescothick. Several of the players who will play in that series were part of the squad that was humbled in 2006-2007 5-0. Several of the players have showed glimpses of ability but have failed to follow this through, classic examples being the graceful but spineless Ian Bell and the determined but technically flawed Alastair Cook. And there will be no opponent more relentless on exposing those problems than Australia. However, both England and Australia have a multitude of test series ahead of them that they should be focusing on instead.
Australia has its mind set on what may be a spiteful series in India, followed by home series against New Zealand and the improving South African side. England should be focusing on their visit to India, the West Indies, and a prelude to the Ashes against the mighty Sri Lankas, who will surely be bringing their little pals Murali and Mendis. Then England can perhaps focus on the Ashes. Australia will only be thinking about hen the time comes to wage war once more in the middle. Until then there are more important things to focus on.
Comments (3)
August 18, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Strauss should captain
From Chris Liston, United Kingdom
We've all got our views on past, current and future England captains. I disagree with Doug Perrins that Vaughan should have stayed as captain until after this test, as a "dead" match is a good opportunity to blood a new captain. The value of a good captain is enormous, as Vaughan showed throughout his reign, regardless of how many runs he's scoring.
I think that Mike Brearley was the best captain that I've seen before Vaughan and he wasn't a prolific run scorer, but an excellent tactician. But KP as captain just because he's about the only player that's guaranteed to be picked for the next test match? When has Kevin ever showed that he's got the responsibility and maturity to be captain? He (and umpire Dar) lost us the Edgbaston game because his ego demanded that he got his ton with a blow out of the ground, whereas a responsible player would have picked off ones and twos and waited for the loose ball. Brian Lara was a flamboyant batsman, but regarded his 100 as a stepping stone to the next one and the one after that. Another 30 minutes at the crease at Edgbaston would have won us the Test.
I'd have liked to have seen Strauss picked as captain, as it could hardly affect his form, but he knows where to place a field and how and when to change his bowlers. What on earth was a deep mid-wicket fielder there for yesterday? Cook may well be the next captain and probably (like Mike Atherton) has F.E.C. on his bag, but we need a man with a good head on his shoulders and that certainly isn't KP.
Comments (0)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
KP rocks!
From Martin Keats, United Kingdom
Having watched England captains since Colin Cowdrey, I have to say that in KP I have seen something really different! I too was doubting the wisdom of KP for England captain. I was however very impressed with his "man management". The way he encouraged individual players and gave a little personal acknowledgment to players for "good effort" was certainly one thing that I have not seen in an England team.
Take for instance the after Tea session where the Sky commentary team were calling for Harmison and Anderson to be brought straight on to knock over 9, 10 and jack. After Monty finished his half over he gave the ball to Stuart Broad. 'Broady' had bowled well during the day but just lacks a little in confidence. With KP talking to him and encouraging and calming he took two wickets.
Having tried Harmison and Anderson to knock over the last man, only to be met with stubborn resistance and steady if not spectacular scoring from the last pair who seemed capable of leaving the ball and staying put against the pace, KP brought back Monty and talked him into the well flighted ball that completely foxed Ntini. Rock on KP!
Comments (0)
August 14, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Welcoming KP
From Alisalman Husain, Pakistan
Captaincy must have seemed very easy to Kevin Pietersen as his first day in charge of the England team coincided with the return of a rejuvenated Stephen Harmison and perfect conditions for swing that were superbly exploited by James Anderson. By the end, England could reflect on probably their best day of the npower series.
The extra pace of Harmison changed the course of the fourth Test match at the Brit Oval, sparking a South Africa collapse from 103 for one to 194 all out with wickets in successive balls after lunch. England then reduced the deficit to 145 for the loss of only Andrew Strauss before close. Even the most mundane captain can be made to look like Mike Brearley if he has top-class bowlers at his disposal and Pietersen, who will never be described as mundane, can take credit for his personal wish not only to have Harmison back in the side, but also to entrust him with the new ball.
A lot of the things that Kevin did went right for him, Harmison said "I thought he did fantastically well and I think a lot of us helped him. He is up for it and enjoying the challenge. He always has ideas and he is always behind us." Pietersen is already guaranteed a happier introduction to captaincy than Vaughan, his predecessor, whose first Test in charge against South Africa in 2003 resulted in an innings defeat at Lord's. On the first day, England were dismissed for 173 and Smith finished on 80 not out on the way to a second double-hundred of the series.
Comments (0)
August 12, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in League cricket
Lalit Modi v Kent
From Jojy John Alphonso, India
My heartfelt sympathies for Kent, the county team snubbed by Lalit Modi and his cronies for the Twenty20 Challenger tournament to be held later this year. The ECB is probably the only cricketing board that had the courage to stand up to the might and arm-twisting techniques of the BCCI only to be let down by the South African and Australian boards. So what if some English counties took some ICL players on board? The only reason these ICL players were given a chance was because they were good. I wish a truce is called out before its too late. The BCCI can ban the ICL players from playing in their backyard but should NOT interfere in the affairs of boards elsewhere. Another ten years from now, the BCCI and Lalit Modi will have a lot of answering to do about how they killed the carrers of talented players that include names like Stuart Binny, Rayudu and their likes. The voices of Kapil Dev & company will not die down soon either.
Comments (3)
August 11, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in Rules
Umpires relying on guesswork?
From Alan Rhys-Thompson, United Kingdom
I am interested in the way umpires seeme to apply different standards of "being certain" (the sole criterion for giving a batsman out as I understand it) as between lbws and 'bat-pad' claims. For the former, they appear to me to be if anything over-scrupulous (especially hard on spinners, as has been noted!), not that I have any problem with any last sliver of doubt going the batsman's way. But that's just the point.
It seems to me to be far harder to be "certain" when it comes to 'bat-pad' decisions, but they seem almost to be given on guesswork. Paul Collingwood's dismissal at Headingley was a classic case. How COULD the umpire be certain in that case, as the bat was a fair way from the ball? I bet he just THOUGHT it hit the bat! I have used the word "seems" a lot, because I don't want to appear dogmatic about this, and just wonder if other viewers share this opinion.
Of course, as England batsmen seem incapable of playing any spinner with a sliver of talent (and God help them when they meet up with this new star, Mendis!) so are frequently out prodding forward, leaving themselves open to the umpire's whim. Am I being unfair to the men in white?
Comments (0)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
All-round obsession
From Stephen Vagg, Australia
The Single Biggest Problem with English Cricket - the 'Allrounder Obssession' The recent selection of England's cricket team has drawn attention once again to the blight that has damaged English cricket for the past twenty years - the obssession with finding an allrounder.
Ever since the glory days of Ian Botham the English selectors have persisted with all rounders, in the foolish belief this somehow gives the team an extra player - ignoring the fact that this usually means you have one (sometimes two) less. Cricket is all about the basics, and the basics of team selection is that you pick batsmen who can bat, bowlers who can bowl, and keepers who can keep. You should only pick an allrounder if (a) they are good enough at one of those jobs to justify their place in the team (eg Kapil Dev, Imran, Gilchrist) or (b) back them up with another all rounder.
During the last Ashes, England's obssession with having an all rounder saw them pick a not very good keeper (Jones) over a world class one (Read) for his batting, an average spin bowler (Giles) over a world class one (Panesar) for the same reason, and played an out of form batsman (Flintoff) at six instead of a proper batsman - to enable them to play a fifth bowler. It came a cropper and it should have.
Now they are picking Flintoff, a not-very-good-test-batsman (at the moment) to play at six, Broad, a not-very-good test bowler, at eight because of his batting. Some people will go "what about the 2005 Ashes then?" and that's fair enough - but the team structure worked then because Flintoff, Jones and Giles kept up their ends with the bat. The moment they lost batting form (any one of them), it didn't work - and that's where you get into difficulty, because a fast bowler, keeper and spinner should be in the team on their basis to bowl fast, keep and spin the ball, not score runs.
The number of dud all rounders England have tried since Botham is staggering: Derek Pringle, Chris Lewis, De Freitas, Dominic Cork, David Capel, Craig White, Ronnie Irani, Alex Tudor, and Ben and Adam Hollioake are just some. These players all had their moments but their presence in the team almost always threw out the balance. They got some runs but no wickets or wickets but no runs; they boosted the bowling a little or weakened the batting a bit, or weakened the batting but boosted the bowling. They made the selectors see-saw between Jack Russell and Alec Stewart, just as they now chop and change with Read, Jones, Prior and Nixon. But such is the lure and glamour of the all rounder that no one seems to care.
I like Freddie Flintoff - who could not like Freddie Flintoff? He's a good enough player to be picked in the team, but as a bowler - he's not good enough to bat at six. Stuart Broad should not be in the test team as a bowler mainly because he's a "not-bad" number eight batsman. That's madness. England had the balance right in the third test - play six batters, and Flintoff at seven. Yes, they lost that test. But remember that England were put in a winning position in that test because of the efforts of a number six batsman (Collingwood). Does anyone think that would have happened if Flintoff had played at six? They just needed to keep their nerve.
But England's selectors snapped under pressure - and now it looks like they're going to win the 4th test, they'll keep making this mistake, and they'll keep losing and wonder why. The great thing about test cricket is that it finds you out in the end. England are trying to take short cuts, and they will come undone. Until they learn that lesson they will always remain a second-rate side.
Comments (5)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
American wife solves England's problem
From Alfred Moore, Ireland
Sometimes it takes an outsider to show you what ought to be obvious. My wife is American, and since falling in love with Matthew Hoggard in 2005 she has become an extremely knowledgable observer of the game. You might say this is like a cat who plays tennis: It doesn't do it very well, but you're amazed it can play at all. In this case, however, her clarity of vision puts many an Englishman to shame.
She made a very sharp point about England's wicket-keeping conundrum. First, though, a few background facts. The way the English media tells it, the rest of the world have a different class of batsman-wicketkeeper. Newsflash: They don't.
We must stop beating and breaking our wicketkeepers with massively distorted and unrealistic expectations. Rather like the desperate wannabe model who starves herself in the mistaken belief that the photos on her wall actually represent real people, English cricket is damaging itself by trying to live up to an ideal that everybody else ignores. Gilchrist was a one off. Stewart was exceptional. Sangakkara is arguably a better batsman than either, but he has recently given up the gloves. His replacement, HAPW Jayawardene, after 21 tests, averages a mere 27. And by current global standards, that's pretty good.
Let's take a look at the current keepers of the main test-playing nations. India's Parthiv Patel is one of the better batsmen. He averages 30 from 20 games. Pakistan's Kamran Akmal is a shaky stumper but makes 32 each time he comes to the wicket. West Indies' Denesh Ramdin has the lowest average, a mere 22 from 27 games. Of the antipodeans, Brendan McCullum, considering his fearsome reputation, has a surprisingly modest record: He averages a mere 31 from his 35 games. Brad Haddin, the man with the most illustrious predecessor in the history of anything, averages a respectable 30 from his 3 tests. Time will tell whether he can keep it up. From the candidate with the least experience to the one with the most. From Mark Boucher's 118 tests he averages just 31.
By now it should be clear that if England's keeper averages 25 it's far from being a national disaster. It would actually be par for the course. Ambrose's head is on the chopping block despite averaging only 6 runs fewer than Boucher. Rough justice. Matt Prior averages an outstanding 40, though by one calculation he has dropped more runs than he's scored in an England shirt. And Chris Read, England's forgotten man, is still one of the stronger candidates. In his brief run of seven tests in 2006-7 he averaged a thoroughly respectable 27, a considerable improvement on his first eight tests. Which brings me back to my wife.
She put it more simply than anybody I've heard in England's cricket commentariat. The 'offence' sets the total. The 'defence' defends it. Of course, all the bowlers are also part of the offense, and all the batsman play a part in the defence, but this black and white scheme captures an essential truth about the game. And the wicketkeeper, she points out, is obviously part of the defence. He's a key part of the wicket-taking unit. That's his primary job. So my wife's advice? Pick the best keeper. If he can average between 25 and 30 with the bat, then he may not be a new Gilchrist, but he'll be as good as all the real wicketkeepers in the real world today. And that comes from my wife.
Comments (8)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Kolpak KP
From Tim Smith, United Kingdom
As a South African, living in the UK, I do experience friendly banter from time to time from friends and colleagues a like, and that is fine, I mean, just remember the words Springbok, France and 2007. But there is one thing I can not stand, and that is the level of abuse I get with regards to Kevin Pietersen. After a while now, his very existence annoys me. I should be proud to have an England captain coming out of my School and Hometown, let alone country. But his arrogance and ability to forget his roots completely angers me.
Yes fine, he was treated unfairly, by an unfair system, and I shared his reasons for leaving South Africa. But his complete neglect to mention how South Africa made him what he is today (obviously not completely, Clive Rice and Hampshire helped a fair bit) is truly angering. How can he be England captain? He is no more than a mercenary, plying his trade in England because he happened to be able to make it here. If he had had a New Zealand passport would he be their captain? This opportunism should not be congratulated in such a way. I can think of many home-grown players, brimming with talent, AND have supported England and been English ALL there lives, for example, Bell or Cook. This is a disgrace.
Comments (4)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Need for speed
From Ward Parry, United Kingdom
Regardless of how our fragile, underperforming batsmen fare, I think what has been so perfectly illustrated in the opening day's play of the fourth Test match is the importance of bowlers who can bowl at pace. Duncan Fletcher was all too aware of it and it is why he spent so long building a team that would fulfil that need. Don't get me wrong, I like Sidebottom. The team requires a workman, Hoggard did it, now it's Sidey's turn, and he has the added effect of being a lefty - and fundamentally he's good.
The problem is when you have an opening pair of similar bowlers, who don't bowl consistently express deliveries, on flat tracks you will inevitably struggle. We have seen, with the exception of the first innings South Africa played, how a mediocre batting side can flourish against fairly timid bowling. It's all about time, time to see the ball, time to play the ball, and time to make runs. There exists an intensity to pace bowling, one which disrupts this comfort zone that batsmen can afford to play in.
Had Harmison being working in tandem with Freddie at Edgbaston, with Jimmy supporting, I can assure you Vaughan would still have been skippering the side. Why oh why? Harmison has to spearhead the attack. Ok, he's prone to lapses in form, confidence and rhythm. Never has a player been under so much constant scrutiny. Why? Because he is so good. I don't think there is a player out there who would argue with the fact that when his rhythm and form are there he is the best bowler in the world - and by some distance.
He is a towering man, who bowls at mid 90s with accuracy and bounce - we've seen it before, and we saw it today. I'm happy to take the periods of mediocrity for the devastation of today. However, I think the second (or third, I lose count) coming of Harmison may actually be the real deal. He thrives under the umbrella of a pack bowler rather than the individual on whose shoulders the attack lies. Vaughan was unfortunate to lose, Freddie, Jones, and Tres - ripping the heart of the team from his grasp. But pertinently it left Harmy with the sole responsibility of carrying the attack. He's back where he belongs and I for one have missed him.
Comments (0)
August 7, 2008
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Sleeping on the job
From David Allen, United Kingdom
How is it that selectors can never seem to get it right when at least one glaring inconsistency turns up in each match? Collingwood out, then in, Pattinson, where did that come from? Four bowlers, then five, then four again, Anderson, who seems to be a fixture but has a mediocre average of over 35 with an unselected-but-fit-again Simon Jones with an average of 28. It seems that selectors have no better idea of who to pick (often worse) than Joe public but why is that the case when they have every opportunity to see up-and-coming English talent of which there is plenty?
My view is that it is a mixture of fear and considerably more ignorance about what makes a great cricketer than they would like to let on. We should be putting out our best team but a fixture in the England side like Collingwood, for example who isn't the next best batsman in the country, is preferred in the hope that he might get a score and because of an over-rated 'team' concept. Batsmen do not bat as a team but as an individual in a team environment and that is a psychological fact that is clearly misunderstood.
Firstly the selectors have to know which players have that special talent, the time to play, the county results etc and then they have to find out if such abilities surface at the highest levels. I'm not sure that they even know the first or are even aware of the second because their selections indicate they don't do either very well. Again we see Bopara given another go despite only averaging eight in five innings and finding new and interesting ways to get out. Great players don't go through this failure process for very long even if they might initially. It's happened so many times.
Gatting a classic example of a good county player who was never good enough at Test level yet played an incredible 79 tests and finished with an average of just 35, poor by any standards. My recollection is that he barely scored a run in the first 20. How much longer are we going to be prepared to put up with long-term mediocrity when a wealth of talent waits on the sidelines? Rather, like the Ryder Cup approach, I would like to see players selected for England based, in part, upon actual current performance. Something along the lines of a third current performance, a third the captain and a third the selectors rather than the entire decision being made by out-of-touch ex-cricketers.
At least some structured means of ensuring that if a great young player is performing better than everyone else he cannot be permanently excluded just because the existing team are such good mates. Our recent performances have been lamentable simply because we never ever field the best available team and a capitulation to a good but not exceptional South African side really reinforces this weak showing. The final Test won't tell us anything either because it is a worthless exercise. The competition has already been lost and the players cannot somehow overlook that.
Comments (13)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
Cook not Pietersen
From Doug Perrins, United Kingdom
I write regarding the state of English cricket and what, in my opinion, should be done before Australia arrive next summer. Firstly, the announcement of Michael Vaughan stepping down from the captaincy was premature by one match. He should have seen the series through at The Oval before blooding the next captain. Alastair Cook (former Under-21 captain!) should be the next Test captain and he would have learnt a great deal having Michael Vaughan on the field next to him giving instructions at The Oval, he won't even be there let alone advise.
Have a look at how Michael Clarke is being prepared by Ricky Ponting in the Australian set up, always listening and being included in the decision making with the other senior players. Kevin Pietersen is not a captain, a talent but not a captain. His decisions in certain situations in this series have let England down badly, not to mention his captain. There has been suggestions that he should be either dropped or made captain, both of these are wrong, keep him at four and teach him how to play "team cricket".
The another strong candidate is Andrew Strauss, he has won a series, has respect and is playing very good cricket. He must be slightly confused as to how he is not on top of the pecking order, considering he was covering Vaughan in the last test at certain times.
The selectors have mis-managed this team with some daft selections. Dropping Collingwood for a game due to form was sensible, so he went back to his county, played a couple of limited over matches and failed. So there was no basis for him to be re-instated to the test team, not a very good message being sent out to players in waiting (Bopra, Shah etc.). The selectors got lucky with his second innings hundred, very lucky. Stuart Broad was told he was tired and that he needed a break (he wasn't, he was dropped), so he goes back to his county and was bowling quick, getting wickets with no signs of fatigue.
If you're good enough, you're old enough. Ryan Sidebottom is injured, so why play him? England cannot continue to carry Monty Panesar, a good bowler but terrible batsman and fielder. On a wicket that was supposed to of "aided" him as the match progressed, he returned with the match figures of 40-3-116-2 (ave 58 rpw!), scored 1 run and dropped catches. Sorry but he should be "rested" and Rashid from Yorkshire given a go at The Oval for the experience. My Oval test team should be: Cook (C), Strauss, Bell, Pietersen, Bopra, Collingwood, Flintoff, Foster (WK), Rashid, Broad, Anderson.
Comments (5)
Posted by Cricinfo at
in English cricket
In praise of Colly
From Matt Fennell, Australia
As a young Australian Cricketer i was coached with the ideology that the poms were to be beaten at all costs and no quarter to be given. However, I can not help but admire the talent, determination and courage of one Paul Collingwood under immense pressure after being omitted from the previous Test match. Having witnessed his well-compiled 200 against my beloved Australians in Adelaide in the 2006-07 Ashes, I could not help but feel compelled to emulate his courageous style of batting.
While not always the most attractive or pure of strokeplay, he maintains a gutsy determination through any style of opposition attack from and refuses to give in. As I am studying at university away from home I am unable to watch as much international test cricket as I wish but I do check online scorecards regularly. I must admit, though he is an exceptional player and I am sure it was filled with much more dashing strokeplay, I had not noticed the fact that Pietersen had scored 94 runs until a day after I initially checked the score. Instead I was drawn to the fact that Paul Collingwood, a cricketer recognised as a fighter by most, if not all, cricketing nations, had scored a spectacular hundred while under the pump (not to mention at a strike rate of 70).
So I simply write this primarily as a hats off to Paul Collingwood and I hope you can transfer your dogged determination into your team-mates for the upcoming 2009 Ashes series in England, because as much as I really would love Australia to win, I really would love to see another epic and well fought out contest as I witnessed in 2005. Even if it is without Harmison, Jones and Hoggard.
Comments (0)
|
RSS Feed
