The case for Strauss

A gritty 60 today on a slow turner against Sri Lanka's canny but limited attack should be enough to allay some of the recent media and supporter pressure for Andrew Strauss to make way. But is it fair that he was under this pressure to begin with?

Firstly leave aside the captaincy - a separate case can be made for carrying a great captain who is out of form or not up to making the starting XI in his own right; we don't need to go there with Strauss.

I can remember a few years ago, in the period just before Strauss was given his first taste of captaincy in the summer of 2006, remarking to a friend that the problem with Strauss was that he was clearly not one of England's best two opening batsmen. At that time, Michael Vaughan was slotting into the side at three or four in order to accommodate him, Alastair Cook was beginning to hint at his prodigious future and Marcus Trescothick hadn't yet given up the ghost of international cricket. At that time, I would still say I was right.

But Strauss was probably the most consistent and temperamentally strong of these players at that time, and has, barring the last tour of Sri Lanka, when we tried Vaughan and Cook and he played state cricket in New Zealand, made the position his own since. He is closing in on 20 Test centuries and 7000 runs, which puts him in the very top bracket of England's test batsmen. Captaincy brought him back for two years into England's ODI side and he transformed himself into arguably our most consistent ODI batsman in the period between the summer of 2009 and the 2011 World Cup.

Strauss hasn't scored really heavily in a series since the 2009 Ashes, when he was the leading runscorer on either side. He did have a pretty strong 2010-11 Ashes series but hasn't scored a hundred since and his career average has been gently sliding towards 40 over the last three seasons. Nevertheless he has not been abysmal - he has scored important runs on occasion but got out when set, previously something which didn't trouble him. This winter he has been below-par, averaging about 30, but in the context of the rest of England's batting order that has been steady. Only Trott has done better. He is under more pressure than Pietersen and Bell, who have done far worse, because:

a) he is 35;

b) he has had a prolonged period of mediocrity when the others had great triumphs as recently as last summer; and

c) as a Test specialist he is judged solely on Test innings so he lacks the opportunities the others have in the other formats.

Strauss deserves to stay. This is mainly because he is one of the two best openers in my book. If he was injured, Trott would move up to open and if he retires this is probably what England will do in the short term. Doing this has risks. England have become quite dependant on Trott's solidity at three - even when Strauss has not been scoring heavily he has been spending time at the crease and keeping out the new ball. The second big reason for keeping Strauss is that, once England's winter of failure against spinners on helpful (but by no means dustbowl) surfaces is over we will be facing the West Indies, against whom he would surely back himself to thrive, and the South Africans, who boast Steyn, Morkel, Philander and De Lange. Negotiating the new ball will be a totally different challenge to that presented by the three sub-continental teams and it will be in helpful conditions. This is when we will really see Strauss's worth, or be in a position to judge whether he still has it in him.

The lack of strong candidates to come into the team and open is worrying. James Taylor may be used to open at his new county, Notts, in the same way that Alex Hales has in recent years. But although Taylor looks to have a technique capable of doing this he is still essentially a middle order batsman. Yorkshire's Joe Root might be another option, and the slightly journeyman Hampshire pair of Michael Carberry and Jimmy Adams could both be stop-gaps. Warwickshire's Varun Chopra, who used to open for Essex with Cook, is the other obvious choice and seems to be fulfilling some of the promise of his U19 days.

There is a host of middle order talent: Tom Maynard, now of Surrey, looks class, Jonny Bairstow and Joss Buttler have both been bred in the pyrotechnic world of T20 but have the capacity to bat in the longer forms of the game. Rory Hamilton-Brown, again of Surrey, looks a natural leader should Cook fail to inspire.

But no-one to challenge Strauss this season. You can have a separate debate about whether England would be better off if he stayed in the team but gave up the captaincy but I don't detect any desire from the team or its management for this.

Read more...

Be patient, for the world is broad

Broad cutting a typically frustrated figure.

Is Stuart Broad's form with the ball a problem for England?

The superficial statistics would say yes: even including a very successful summer series against Pakistan last year, where he took 14 wickets in the low twenties, his average since the turn of 2010 is over 40, dragging his career average comfortably the wrong side of 35. For a four man attack, this causes problems. This period has however been one of the most successful in England's history - why?

James Anderson has led the Test attack brilliantly in this period, and has become the incisive, consistent spearhead that we on this blog hoped he could be. Barring injuries, he should be able to lead the attack for the next few years. He's been sharing the new ball with Broad when they've both been available and whilst Broad has been economical, Anderson has been making the breakthroughs.

Graeme Swann has also played a huge role, consistently taking wickets and rarely being dominated, he has made a four man attack possible.

These two mainstays have been well supported by a succession of good reserve seam and swing bowlers: Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan and Steven Finn have all contributed effectively to a four man attack when needed. Although Broad did not bowl badly in the first two tests of the Ashes, this attack was improved by Tremlett.

Career records of England's current fast bowlers (before Third Test v Sri Lanka)

Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike Rate Economy

James Anderson 58 215 30.98 56.8 3.26
Stuart Broad 36 105 35.97 68.4 3.15
Steven Finn 12 50 26.92 41.4 3.89
Chris Tremlett 8 38 26.84 53.7 2.99
Graham Onions 8 28 31.03 51.0 3.64
Tim Bresnan 7 25 28.28 59.2 2.86

So the solution to the Broad "problem" seems obvious: when everyone's fit, replace him with better bowlers until he can prove he's more effective. If this is the solution, then why do England still so obviously regard him as a guaranteed selection in all forms of the game, a view reinforced by his appointment as Twenty20 captain?

I think it is because, perhaps subconsciously, the selectors and management have glimpsed his true value. He has latent talent with the bat, having played several genuinely top class innings, capped by his spectacular century last summer at Lord's against Pakistan. He looks a proper batsman when he bothers to build an innings. He also has the aura of a matchwinner, and has produced some bowling spells of real quality to swing big games in England's favour, more often in ODI cricket, but also famously in the Oval Test in 2009. So even though on paper he has not taken the wickets to justify inclusion, they cannot bring themselves to put someone so clearly talented, capable of taking 5fers and scoring tons, on the sidelines. Despite having played a lot of cricket already, he's still only 24 years old, one of the youngest ever to do the Test double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets.

This is the right instinct, but will hinder England unless they change their structure. They should back this instinct, and move Broad up the order, in my view to six, at the expense of their sixth batsman. This would then allow for the inclusion of a fifth bowler, and lessen the pressure on Graeme Swann. I think it would also help Broad. If he could be largely entrusted with holding an end up and going for under two runs an over, he would pay a really valuable role. His bowling tends to fall apart when he stretches for magic balls. He is capable of real pace, but should rely on his height to bowl a Pollock/McGrath line; fractionally back of a length on or outside the top of off-stump. If he can achieve this consistently, he will be able to throttle back his pace and bowl long, economical spells.

We should be brave enough to do this: England's top four has never been stronger in my memory, Bell has found his feet at five, and Prior staying at seven is a great insurance policy. The lower order, with Bresnan and Swann potentially at eight and nine, also compares very favourably to recent, successful, years.

So to answer the question I set myself, Broad's lack of wicket-taking recently should be pushing us towards taking the opportunity to move to a five man attack. Opponents of this view will point to our successful track record with four bowlers in the Strauss-Flower era. This is valid, but if we really want to be the number one side in the world then this is the sort of move we need to make. We seem to be entirely wedded to the Australian model in the Waugh and Ponting eras - this was obviously a successful four-bowler formula but was successful only because two of the bowlers were McGrath and Warne, and came about because the Australians have not produced a genuine Test standard allrounder for several generations.

Having a genuine quick bowling allrounder also paves the way for playing two spinners when we need to without unbalancing the side - crucial to England's prospects on the subcontinent...

Read more...

Fantasy all-time England Twenty 20 team

As the rain pours down on the first day of the oldest format of the international game at its latest venue, my thoughts turned to players from the past who might have graced T20 cricket. I've placed extra weight on power-hitting, the ability to improvise shots, good athletes in the field, variety of bowling and bowling depth. I've chosen three out-and-out bowlers, but backed up by two high class all-rounders and a further two useful change bowlers to give the captain up to seven decent options for his twenty overs.

None of the players I've picked is a natural captain.

Here's my pick for a fantasy England XI:


1. Marcus Trescothick

Should still be more of a reality than a fantasy, but Tresco would be an incredible asset to the team, with his calm, powerful hitting and ability to regularly dominate all types of bowling. He plays proper cricket shots by and large, and relies on the clean strikes of a straight bat. Other than Chris Gayle and Sachin Tendulkar, no batsman has been more consistent at the top of the order in the T20 era. He would just edge out another modern batsman, Graham Gooch, for me.

2. Wally Hammond

Particularly earlier on in his career, Hammond was one of the most relentless attacking batsmen we've seen, murdering bowling through the off-side as no-one else could. Although he later abandoned some shots in order to minimise risks, he also started as a dangerous on-side player, and his power and poise would have allowed him to capitalise during powerplays. Would be an extremely handy fifth or sixth bowler, capable of genuine pace and swing for short spells, and often used (not least by Jardine on the bodyline tour) as a containing bowler. Also one of the best athletes English cricket has seen. Because of his power and versatility, he edges out Jack Hobbs and Len Hutton, two truly great English openers whose careers overlapped with his before the second world war.


3. WG Grace

Arguably the greatest cricketer ever, although comparisons with the modern game aren't straightforward. Again a great athlete in his youth, Grace proved adaptably prolific in all forms of the game, not just first class cricket. The father of modern batting in many ways, he had a capacity to innovate his technique to dominate whatever bowling/conditions he faced; the key requirement to success in T2o batting. As with Hammond, and probably more so, he would add an effective change option to the bowling and another gun fielder. In the absence of any real contenders on merit, he captains the side because he's about 40 years older than the others.


4. Denis Compton

Compton was a superb innovator, capable of inventing shots as he played them, and his ability to cut, glance and sweep the ball at an almost infinite degree of angles would drive any fielding captain to distraction in the middle overs. He would be a terrific finisher in a T20 game, as well as someone to set the platform for big scores. He nicks Kevin Pietersen's place, who narrowly misses out.

5. Gilbert Jessop

Jessop would be the powerhouse in my (for some reason rather Gloucester heavy) batting lineup, providing impetus and hard hitting - his records for fast-scoring at all levels of cricket beggar belief. As well as being able to hit boundaries, he was a rapid runner between the wickets (his 76 ball ton against the Aussies at the Oval in 1902 included an all-run five!). Until he had been overbowled a few years into his career, he was a rapid bowler, and a lightning quick fielder either in the covers or in the deep. If he'd been born a hundred years later, he would have been one of the most valuable cricketers on the planet. A country mile ahead of his nearest competitor for this slot, Allan Lamb.


6. Eoin Morgan

A pick more on promise than achievement, although he's had a fair amount of that, Morgan would bring an almost Comptonian ability to manufacture shots and, for a slight man, to hit shots with a suprising amount of power. His steely temparament is ideal for someone who might come to the crease in the final over needing to slog a few boundaries, or might need to resurrect and finish a run chase. The only current England T20 player in the side edges out stalwarts like Paul Collingwood and Neil Fairbrother.


7. Andrew Flintoff

A difficult pick to put him ahead of Botham, but Freddie just takes it for me. Beefy's limited overs batting never really lived up to its promise, although he was arguably a slightly better limited overs bowler than Flintoff. Freddie's power with bat and ball swing it for me. The side is also possibly already over-filled with egos (Hammond, Grace and Barnes) and the addition of Botham would probably sink the team!

8. Alan Knott

Knott edges out Les Ames, probably a better allround batsman, on the genius and neatness of his keeping (with such a premium on missed chances and unnecessary extras) and his ability to find awkward runs whenever they were needed in tough match situations.


9. Harold Larwood

A tough pick, with a couple of standout fast bowlers, Fred Trueman and Brian Statham, each missing out by a whisker. Larwood was famed for his relentless accuracy, and is possibly the quickest bowler we've produced (competing with the more fragile Frank Tyson). Bowlers like Dale Steyn and, to a lesser extent, Shaun Tait and Brett Lee, have shown the value of having a genuine express option in the opening and closing overs. There hasn't been a better bowler of this type than Larwood.


10. Derek Underwood

The choice of spinner isn't straightforward. As out and out bowlers, Hedley Verity and Jim Laker are right up there with him. Deadly Derek Underwood has the advantages of a terrific understanding with Knott, and his incredible economy rate in the ODIs he did play. Other than Compton, and occasionally Hammond, he's the only spinner I've picked. On the subcontinent, I'd be tempted to drop Morgan and replace him with a high class spinning allrounder, like Frank Woolley. As it is, the final bowler would be just as likely to exploit any turn in the pitch....


11. SF Barnes

From what you read, Barnes was a unique bowler, operating at medium-quick pace, he could cut, seam, swing and spin the ball at will, and combined incredibly prolific wicket taking with an iron will and quick bowler's selfishness which meant he just didn't bowl bad balls. I think in some ways as a professional he was ahead of his time (he could give the WIPA a few lessons about negotiating a contract) as he was acutely aware of his market worth and did not quietly tolerate exploitation. He would have been tailor made for the IPL.

Read more...

India-England: My England Player Ratings

What a shame we only had two Tests!

This match would have had a different dimension if 1-0 wouldn't have been enough to kill off the series. Nevertheless after the horrors of Mumbai, we've all been treated to some great, competitive cricket.

The result is a deserved win for India by a head. England have plenty of positives to draw upon though.

ENGLAND RATINGS (out of ten)

1. Alistair Cook

121 runs at 30.25 hardly represent disaster, but he will be frustrated that his apparent slide from world class opener to mediocrity seems to be continuing. A revealing statistic is that in his first 18 months, he scored 6 centuries and 5 half-centuries, becoming in the course the youngest player in Test history to get to 6 tons. In his last 18 months, he has only scored one hundred, but 11 fifties. You would expect players' conversion rates to improve in time not to decline.

A player who used to average 50 now rests at a shade above 40. His fielding, which had improved after a slow start, is also looking dodgy. Badly needs to re-find the knack of scoring big if he is to have an impact in the summer.

At Mohali, his fluent 50 was key to getting England back into the game after a terrible start.

RG's rating: 5

2. Andrew Strauss

Cook in reverse. A player who seemed to have reached his peak in his first year of Test cricket reacted brilliantly to being dropped last winter. He came back with fewer shots but more resolve, and has scored hundreds in each series since. The only England batsman to top 1000 runs in the calendar year (India had four) he is now our mainstay at the top of the order and the only member of the top three currently up for the battle with tough opposition. Always displayed a cool head, allied to some terrific physical stamina in searing conditions. After Gambhir, he was the second highest run scorer in the series with 252 runs at 84. His back-to-back tons at Chennai meant that he was desperately unlucky to end up on the losing side.

His return has greatly strengthened England's slip cordon. With two other specialists in Swann and Flintoff, it slowly starts to look like a great unit again (albeit not quite as good as it would be with Trescothick).

RG's rating: 9

3. Ian R Bell

Ian, Ian, Ian. I'm a tremendous backer of his and really expected him to be prolific in Indian conditions but I am now slowly reaching the inescapable conclusion that he is in need of a Strauss-like kick up the arse. His final average for the series was a shade over 15, and this was doubled by his not out runs today when the game was dead.

He is batting with about as much intensity and conviction as I imagine Bruce Forsyth would bring to playing Lear.

His giant ton against the Saffers aside, throughout 2008 he has looked in great nick but got out for 30 or 40 odd in both forms of the game. Now he looks out of form, devoid of confidence or presence at the crease. Gets a point for his brilliant fielding, but with Michael Vaughan hovering in the wings I expect him to be dropped for the Windies tour. It might be just what he needs- I'd keep him in the ODI side, and let him score buckets of runs for Warks before considering him again. I'd like to seem him come back in a year with a point to prove. He has the game to be great but is running out of time.

RG's rating: 2.5

4. Kevin Pietersen

Deserves a lot of credit for his leadership in bringing England back to play which was the right decision.

This has been the first time in his fledgling captaincy career that he's encountered reverses. Having thrashed South Africa in ODIs, he received an equally emphatic drubbing from the Indians, and was narrowly but clearly the loser in the Tests. As I suggested on his appointment, it will be through his reactions to defeats which will show his mettle.

Although he was almost statesmanlike in taking the team back to India, his behaviour in the series has at times been completely childish. Stirring up Yuvraj was clearly a tactic, but leave it on the pitch. Clearly if anyone's game was affected by the sledging, it was Pietersen's- his suicidal attempt to smash Yuvraj out of the ground from ball one in England's first innings was playing into Dhoni's hands. If he'd got out, England would have lost 2-0.

There were also a lot of times when I felt he didn't really support his bowlers. Some of the fields he set to Panesar were frankly odd, and didn't work. It didn't help that he clearly (understandably) favoured Swann, but I think Panesar might be quite damaged by this tour.

It would be churlish to dwell on the negatives. He has remained positive as skipper throughout and his batting in Mohali was magnificent- toying with the bowling and the fields. If he could bat like that all the time (which he looks like he could) he would be better than anyone else playing the game today. All in all he scored 149 runs at a shade under his career average of 50. England will still (just) be favourites for the tour to the West Indies and it will be an opportunity for KP to build his side. Some tough choices will have to be made, but England look just short of being good enough to beat good sides. Lots of fixtures against the Kiwis and the Windies might give us a decent win percentage but we are clearly short of the top three Test sides in the world. We are probably closer to Australia than the others and KP will have a real opportunity next summer to be a hero. If Vaughan is back, I actually think that can only help his captaincy.

RG's rating: 7.5

5. Paul Collingwood

I'm still unconvinced that he should be a long term fixture in the Test team. He's older than Owais Shah, and a lot older than Ravi Bopara. His ton at Chennai, though initially valuable, ground to a halt and lost England all momentum to give India a sniff at winning (even then it took something special from Sehwag). I can't escape the (probably unfair) impression that ever since he came within a whisker of being dropped in the summer, he has been batting for himself. Overall he, like most England batsmen in recent times, got his average this series.

I suspect he will be kept on at the expense of Bell, but on English pitches he will struggle badly against Lee, Clark and Johnson. Bopara should be a fixture at number five for me- he has a far more multi-faceted game at this level.

RG's rating: 6.5

6. Andrew Flintoff

Terrific bowling througout the series- lion-hearted and constantly in excess of 90mph, he led our attack from first-change. He used his invaluable previous experience of two tours of India. If he stays fit, England compete with (don't necessarily beat) everyone in the world. If we can get three more years out of him that will be a tremendous result.

He played a superb knock at Mohali, and it was disastrous that the nightwatchman (Jimmy Anderson) decided to give him the strike in fading light in the last over of the day. Had he been at the crease when the fog lifted the next morning, England might have had a sniff at levelling the series.

Fully rehabilited in the England side following the Fredalo episode.

RG's rating: 8.5

7. Matthew Prior

A very solid series. Kept tidily but unspectacularly and batted well, scoring 88 runs at 44. One grumble is that he seems unable to change gear when batting with the tail. Consistently alternated between blocking and giving the bulk of the strike to the tailender (including Panesar). Looking at the likes of Sehwag and Yuvraj, in both the ODI and Test series, you'd have to say that England lack enough players who can clear the ropes when needed.

Prior is clearly established as the keeper for the next few series. After the Ashes I'd like to see us blooding young Steven Davies, who should be nearly ready to step up.

RG's rating: 7

8. Graeme Swann

I'm very glad that he finally got his chance (after he was left out of the ODI side I feared we might go with just one spinner) and he didn't disappoint. Joint leading wicket-taker with 8 and bowled more overs than anyone else (100.3). His final stats aren't spectacular but he was consistently turning the ball, attacking batsmen of the highest calibre and refusing to be over-awed. KP clearly saw him and Flintoff as the most dangerous bowlers in all conditions.

Swanny is also a great character and a multi-dimensional cricketer with decent batting and fielding. He's probably done enough to edge Panesar out of the starting eleven for the Windies tour.

RG's rating: 8

9. Stuart Broad

Like Swann his statistics aren't incredible (he only took two wickets from his single Test) but the manner of his bowling was impressive and a notch above Harmison's contribution to the first Test. As he's getting older, he's physically developing and is now bowling consistently at 88-90mph. He's maintaining that pace over long spells.

I think this experience will be good for him- we look a much more balanced side in both forms of the game with him and he should play every Test next year if fit.

RG's rating: 7

10. James Anderson

Another bowler who was better than his stats. However Sehwag took him to the cleaners at Chennai and concerns over his temperament will not go away. Showed character to come back well by bowling consistently good and hostile lines at Mohali but can we afford the luxury of Jimmy? I'd keep him in the side, but be wary over having both him and Harmison in the side at the same time. Both 'daisy' bowlers.

I'm against nightwatchmen but he has developed into a reliable one (clanger in Mohali notwithstanding) and he is an honest, hard-working cricketer.

RG's rating: 6

11. Monty Panesar

The only England bowler who probably got better stats than he deserved (6 wickets at 50). He's going through a prolonged dip in form and may benefit from a break to concentrate on developing his variations of pace. He still has a perfect action but will struggle unless he can add to his armoury. In the mean time, if we're picking one spinner, Swann has made a compelling case for selection.

With Adil Rashid, another multi-faceted cricketer and a better batsman than Swann, waiting in the wings, Monty might find the road back into the side tough.

RG's rating: 4

12. Steve Harmison

With Stuart Broad returning from injury, it is telling that England opted to drop Harmison. Like Anderson he fell apart in the face of Sehwag's onslaught. Again he had moments of hostility, but the pitches and conditions didn't suit him greatly. Pietersen's reluctance to bowl him on the last day at Chennai (when if there was any variable bounce, you'd expect him to find it) was telling.

RG's rating: 4.5

RG'S COMBINED SIDE:

1. G Gambhir (361 runs at 90.25)

2. AJ Strauss (252 runs at 84.00)

3. SR Tendulkar (156 runs at 52.00)

4. KP Pietersen (149 runs at 49.66)

5. Y Singh (212 runs at 70.66)

6. A Flintoff (84 runs at 28.00, 7 wickets at 29.42)

7. MS Dhoni (capt, wkt*) (82 runs at 27.33, 5 catches)

8. H Singh (69 runs at 34.50, 8 wickets at 35.00)

9. GP Swann (8 wickets at 39.50)

10. Z Khan (8 wickets at 21.00)

11. I Sharma (6 wickets at 25.16)

12th man: PD Collingwood

*In ahead of Prior on captaincy.

Read more...

Surly Sourav....

"There are players who haven't scored in the last three series for India, even for the last one year. There are some who have changed their hairstyle more than they have scored for India.”

So said Sourav Ganguly on the eve the test series with Australia, as he explained his decision to retire once the series ends.  He remains brusque over his teammates to the last. 

The barnet jibe must be aimed at Dhoni.  But who are the ‘haven’t scored in three series’ miscreants?  Gambhir is an easy target, and Sehwag aside, all golden oldies have struggled recently.  Including Ganguly, without a century to his name since the third test against Pakistan last December.

Ganguly seems to thrive on controversy, but can such a gruff assessment help India beat the Aussies?  And can we think of a more negative opinion of ones team-mates uttered by a cricketer before their retirement?

Read more...

War & KPs...

It seems a long time since Kevin Pietersen played That Shot in the third test against South Africa this summer. His subsequent promotion to captaincy produced such an upturn in the fortunes of the English team that, valid reasons for the poor South African performances notwithstanding, the celui qui commande ended the international summer as something of a saviour. Whilst the challenges ahead remain stark, KP has certainly done all he can thus far to silence the doomsayers.

Yet at 5.30pm on the third day of the third test, a KP-led England team seemed a long way away. Looking to hit Paul Harris for six over long-on, KP was caught by De Villiers at mid-on. He was on 94, with England only 136 ahead and four wickets down in their second innings. The shot produced incredulous responses from several critics: Agnew described it as an ‘irresponsible’ shot that must have ‘ruled him out of the [captaincy] reckoning’; Paul Weaver called it ‘foolhardy’. Critics smitics.

The castigation of batsmen for playing one particular shot has long been a bugbear of mine, because the margin of error in test cricket is so narrow. I’m minded of elements of Tolstoy’s War & Peace; the successes and failures of empires are not driven by the actions of their leaders, but by myriad factors that influence the surrounding environment and the people therein. Such a theory can be applied to cricket: the ‘myriad factors’ – variable turn, bounce, swing that can result from identical balls from the bowler – can make the actions of the ‘leaders’ (batsmen) irrelevant, with the result that a ‘good ball’, one that does something a bit different, can take an edge and a wicket. Such balls look exceptional when a batsman plays a defensive shot. But when a batsman plays an aggressive shot, he will look irresponsible.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that the batsman has no influence over his fate – unlike the 'leaders' in Tolstoy’s world, batsmen will succeed or fail predominantly on the basis of their shots. But when you look at an individual shot, the difference between a 'dominant well timed cut through point' and a 'loose shot outside of off-stump' could just be a function of the factors above.

The point is this: that batsmen should not be overly praised nor criticised on the basis of one shot. There is too much uncertainty, too much that can happen between the ball leaving the fingers and reaching the bat or stumps to warrant it. Batsmen must be appraised over the nature of their performances (which includes but doesn’t limit itself to an assessment of their stats) across a period of time that reduces the influence of these ‘myriad factors’ (since they affect all batsmen).

So, let’s get back to that Pietersen ball. Yes, it was the first ball from Harris from around the wicket. Yes, it was at a delicate stage of a game that Pietersen was taking away from South Africa. Yes, Smith had set a field for the shot and was preying on KP’s ego. But if he had made it and reached his century, as nine times out of ten he would have, can you imagine one person calling it an ‘irresponsible shot’? Or, as when Collingwood reached his century later that day with a six, hit over - yes you’ve guessed it – long on, would the terms ‘dominant’, ‘gutsy’, and ‘convincing’ have been used?

Get out when in the nineties playing the sort of aggressive shot that you’ve been nailing all day and you’re 'rash'; slow down and play cautiously – against you’re nature and better judgement – and you’re 'tightening up in the nervous nineties'. The line between success and failure in this manner is unfairly fine. KP was right to play that shot because he felt it was the shot to play.
Read more...

Bye bye Dazzler

At the ripe old age of 38, and with more comebacks than Tom Jones (otherwise an entirely similar bloke) behind him, Goughie has finally called it a day.

Many say a glittering career in TV is ahead of him. That remains to be seen, I have a horrible sense that he might turn into a cricketing version of Ian Wright. What I think is unarguable is that he leaves behind him a career which glittered throughout and which changed English cricket.

With Graham Thorpe, he was our best and most consistent match-winner in the post-Botham era. But whilst Thorpe usually played quiet effective, significant innings, Goughie was pure Barnsley bragadoccio. Chest puffed out, arse swaggering to the crease he was quick, skiddy, aggressive bowler, happy to trade jaffas with boundaries. He relished the contest. At times, he was the lone spearhead against quality batting. He found partners in crime at times: Gus Fraser and Andrew Caddick both provided the contrast, if not always the consistency, to put genuine pressure on batsmen. Although his record is similar to both of these bowlers, his explosive, effervescent element will mean that he will be remembered longer.

Despite outward appearances, he was also a thinking bowler. I remember him working Lara out with a three ball trick in 2000, and varying his pace, line, and type of delivery cleverly throughout England's successful tours of Pakistan and Sri Lanka the following winter.

At that stage of his career, he was the best "death" bowler English one-day cricket has had, and remains the best one-day bowler. The likes of Flintoff and Broad will no doubt overhaul him in terms of one day wickets, they will be better bowlers from having developed watching and bowling with him.

Read more...