Life, Cricket and Manchester United

USA relegation - an opportunity?

2011-01-30T13:05:00.000-08:00

So Team USA has been relegated back to Division 4 of the World Cricket League. Although this is a crying shame for the talent we have in our country, we have nobody to blame but ourselves, and it is absolutely imperative that we look at this abject failure, for that is what it is, as a window of opportunity. We've had such windows before, but we haven't taken advantage. We simply must not make the same mistake.

More than anything, we can learn from the examples of Hong Kong and Papua New Guinea. From their basic cricketing infrastructure and structure, to they way they select their teams, to the way they prepared for this tournament. The single unifying tenet, and this also applies to the West Indies in the 1980s, Australia in the late 90s and 2000s, and the current Indian, South African and English teams, is long-term thinking. Every one of those teams has set itself up for the long haul, and not been afraid to make hard decisions in the process.

Papua New Guinea have been working to a plan, with their young team, for the last two years. They didn't change their playing XI through the tournament. Hong Kong invested in their young talent, stuck with it, and a 16 year old batsman rewarded them with the Man of the Match, tournament winning performance in the championship game. The performances of the young bowling attack improved with every game. It doesn't get better than that. For those who argue that our youngsters are not quite as good as our thirty-somethings, right there is your answer. It's about trajectories, and the long term, and if those in charge cannot grasp and embrace that, then we are never going to learn.

We complain about our players being spread around the country, being busy working professionals, and the advantages of smaller countries in which the team can get together every weekend. That excuse is poor, at best. Hong Kong flew their team out for a week in Sri Lanka as preparation for the tournament. Their players go to school and work as well. Could we not fly our players out to the Carribean in much the same fashion?

Our preparation for this tournament was surprising. Most surprising because when I spoke to the coach and others about a week before the tournament, they had been given to believe that we were headed out to play on big grounds which would be spin friendly. Did nobody even look at the grounds on Google Maps? Or Bing Maps? Or Yahoo Maps? Hong Kong is not North Korea. We ultimately went into the tournament knowing what we'd face. The coach and I even had a discussion on how PNG bowling first at HKCC might be the biggest challenge we would face. 44 all out tells you how we handled that challenge. The point here is that, once again, we have no business complaining that we were unable to prepare. We simply failed to prepare professionally, and administrators have to take the bulk of the responsibility for that.

The bottom line continues to be that we have the young talent, but we are not giving them the opportunity. And not only are we not giving them their head at the senior level, we're not even giving them an opportunity to develop their cricket. I continue to see it every year in Northern California - we have had several cricketers over the years who at 14-16 have looked to have some quality. By 19 or 20, they've been reduced to playing in the manner that we laud and reward - hoiks across the line on small grounds against mediocre bowling to post scores at a high strike rate. We encourage that, and then wonder why, one after the other, they fall off the map by the age of 23-25, rather than becoming stars. We don't even reward those who play their cricket properly, we don't encourage them - and yet they are the ones we need as we move up a level.

There's a lot of work to be done, and that's a separate subject, but we can start right now by taking this opportunity to clean house. From the top down. It doesn't mean that everyone is bad, but sometimes when things just aren't working, you really have to shake them up from all angles. And we need leadership, from CEO to captain, from Directors to Selectors, from Coaches to League Presidents, all of whom share a vision of a long term future. Not for themselves and their own self-aggrandization, and not even for the star cricketers of today. But for the star cricketers of tomorrow. Only then will something sustainable emerge.

Ashes 3rd Test Review

2010-12-20T04:39:00.000-08:00

A thumping victory for Australia, and with any luck, if nothing else, journalists in both hemispheres will now settle down and accept the rather mundane reality that this is not the worst Australian team in history, and nor are Strauss' England the next coming of The Invincibles. Both teams are chasing the top pack, nothing more, nothing less.

The best way to review the test will, I think, be a player by player assessment, so here goes.

ENGLAND

Andrew Strauss, 5/10 : Strauss chalked up another half-century in the first innings, but was not convincing in either knock. More critically, his captaincy lacked imagination, and his use of Swann, albeit on an unhelpful track, was mysterious. He wasn't aggressive enough with field placings on the first day, and in both innings, spent a lot of time chasing the ball - the sort of captaincy we see from 12 year olds.
Alastair Cook, 5/10 : Cook actually looked in control in both innings, but failed to make it count either time. He got a great delivery from Harris in the second knock, but rather gifted his wicket first time around. No reason to think he won't come good at the MCG and SCG on flatter tracks.
Jonathan Trott, 4/10 : Simply did not look like a man who averages 58, and was one of the weak links in the field. Not terrible, but simply didn't deliver.
Kevin Pietersen, 1/10 : Gets a point for a couple of good stops in the gully. His worst contribution in a Test match ever. He didn't look comfortable when the Australians were gunning for him in the second dig, but I suspect he'll be pretty determined to get back on track at the MCG.
Paul Collingwood, 2/10 : Quite simply not good enough with the bat - didn't look like he could handle it at all. I know he's a nervous starter, but there seemed little chance that he would even get a start. However, he remains a stupendous catcher, and his catch to dismiss Ponting in the first innings was sheer class. England may want to drop him for Morgan, but his fielding, Morgan's lack of cricket, and Collingwood's bowling may shade it.
Ian Bell, 6/10 : The class batsman in this England side. He looked a cut above the rest in both knocks, only giving it away in the first innings looking for quick runs. Simply put, I'd pay to watch this man bat. He was very good in the field too, and I think he's now set for a long and productive career.
Matthew Prior, 7/10 : Prior rates high because his keeping was absolutely outstanding in this game (despite copping a serious earful from the crowd). His batting however, looked ill at ease on this pitch - yet another player who can look a world-beater on a flat track...
Graeme Swann, 2/10 : Had a match he would want to forget, and his body language was surprisingly negative by the end of it. Struggled to settle on a line and length to bowl to Hussey, and dropped one that he'd usually catch in his sleep. But he's world class, and will come back. I have no doubt of that.
James Anderson, 6/10 : Was far off his best, and couldn't find his ideal line with any consistency, but continued to show that he's a genuine swing bowler, and one who actually has real control over the swing (see Mitchell Johnson for contrast). His batting looked surprisingly weak against the pace and bounce, but his fielding - well, I don't think I've ever seen an opening bowler who can field like this man. Superb.
Chris Tremlett, 8/10 : What a revelation! Bowled like a seasoned campaigner, generally hit a decent length, and got the ball to talk a bit. Easily the standout for England, and cemented his place in the side for the remainder of the tour, deservedly so. When Stuart Broad comes back, it won't be at Tremlett's expense.
Steven Finn, 2/10 : May have played his last Test for a while - his bowling was simply all over the place, and didn't warrant his figures. Bowled some good deliveries, and I suppose they may have taken the batsmen by surprise. He looks as raw as he is, but I do see real potential there, and I think he'll come back to have a long career for England if he stays fit and hungry. Shouldn't be worried by a bad game - he's young and learning.

Total for England: 48/110. Ouch.

AUSTRALIA

Shane Watson, 6/10 : I could have given Watson more for his second knock, but he loses points for his spoilt-child decision review and petulance after being given out, and also for the slip catch that he watched go straight past him. But back to his batting, he is a real anachronism. An opener in the classic mould, with impeccable judgement around his off stump, a willingness to leave the ball, and an ability to pounce on any errors in line and length. Couple that with one of the classiest cover drives going, and you've got the real deal. Australia should not move him out of this position.
Philip Hughes, 1/10 : Hughes doesn't look the part at all. His technique was loose, and he didn't look likely at any point. His fielding is also surprisingly weak, something I'd never really noticed before. He may yet be the future, and his run scoring record suggests there's something there, but he definitely has work to do. A flatter pitch at the MCG may be just what he needs.
Ricky Ponting, 3/10 : Ponting was lucky to get the runs that he did, and his captaincy was similar to Strauss' - lacking in invention, and a lot of chasing the ball. However, he gets a couple of bonus points for clearly firing his side up and leading them to a victory that few anticipated. I wouldn't be surprised if he turns the corner and scores a big century at Melbourne.
Michael Clarke, 2/10 : Clarke only gets that much for having a good outing in the field in general. His batting was poor, and more than looking out of form, he looks mentally frazzled and it is showing in his shot selection. I think he simply needs to relax, and like Ponting, I suspect the win will relieve some pressure and we may see him return to his best.
Michael Hussey, 9/10 : Sheer class. His batting was simply phenomenal. Others have said everything that needs to be said. I've seen some Hussey masterclasses at the WACA, and this was right up there.
Steven Smith, 3/10 : I give him this much not because he really performed, but because I sense there's something about him. He batted with character and intent, even if he doesn't seem ready to be a Test match number six. Looked good in the field too.
Brad Haddin, 6/10 : Haddin had another typical outing. Solid if not brilliant with the gloves, and yet another critical, match-defining partnership with Mike Hussey. Won't be going anywhere for a while, other than possible one spot further up in the batting order.
Mitchell Johnson, 9/10 : Johnson took this match by the scruff of its neck and saved both the Ashes and Ricky Ponting's captaincy. The only reason I knock a point off is because I'm not sure how much he really knows about what he's bowling. Use of 12x binoculars revealed a scrambled seam more often than not, which suggests that he doesn't have control over whether or not the ball swings. The contrast with Jimmy Anderson in this regard is significant. However, he bowled with real purpose and hunger, and despite what the radar gun said, hurried the batsman consistently as the quickest bowler on display. He also adds so much to the Australian side with the bat, inspiring the rest of the tail to perform as well. I don't think he'll be dropped again for a while.
Ryan Harris, 8/10 : Harris is probably the best overall bowler in Australia. He may not hit the heights that Johnson can, but he steams in all day, and gets the ball to do a little. He's able to bowl defensively and to attack, and 9 wickets in the match tells its own story.
Peter Siddle, 5/10 : Siddle did little wrong, but he really didn't do much either. He's the weakest link in the attack, and it's evident that his captain thinks much the same. The story is that Ponting wanted Beer in the side ahead of Siddle.
Ben Hilfenhaus, 6/10 : This may look generous given the statistics, but Hilfenhaus is the closest thing Australia have to Jimmy Anderson - a genuine swing bowler. He caused plenty of problems, and will bowl much worse for much better figures. Will be confident of retaining his place in the team at the MCG.

Total for Australia: 58/110.

Not a huge difference between the sides. This game was settled by one spell from Johnson, and Hussey's batting. Australia bowled a fuller length than England, who made the usual mistake of bowling too short on a bouncier track. All of this is remediable, and that's why England will not remotely have lost hope.

One aside worth mentioning - while the presentations were going on, and for a while after, the three reserve England bowlers were having a session on the match pitch. Tim Bresnan looked rock solid, and it was clear that he could come in as the stock-bowler option and also strengthen the tail. Ajmal Shahzad looked the paciest, and may have a shot given his reputation of loving to bowl at lefties. Most impressive though, was Monty Panesar. He was hitting his spot perfectly, and getting the sort of turn and bounce that had seemed to be completely unavailable when Graeme Swann was bowling. He won't get a game at the MCG, but if England win in Melbourne and the Ashes are secure, you could well see them play 5 bowlers, with Monty and Bresnan in.

WACA Test: Day Three

2010-12-18T04:34:00.001-08:00

What a day of cricket! There is absolutely no chance of England preventing Australia from squaring the series at this point, and while yesterday I felt that England could get back on top in Melbourne, I am now of the opinion that they will need to freshen up substantially in order to compete again.

We saw once again batsmen struggling to come to terms with a very good pitch. As Graham Gooch said at the end of the day, the pitch is a high quality Test wicket, the likes of which we should see more often. Something for everyone, and as Hussey, Watson and Ian Bell have demonstrated, that includes any batsman who can control his impulse to play at every ball. The occasion called for some good old-fashioned Test Cricket, with proper batsmen facing a moving, bouncing ball. Not many were up to it.

Both Hussey and Watson looked untroubled, and both deserved centuries even though only the local lad reached the milestone. Watson is almost an anachronism, with his impeccable leaving of the ball outside off combined with one of the classiest cover drives in the business. All talk of him being moved down the order for Australia should be silenced - he's certainly the best opener in the country.

They were helped by a rather listless England attack. Strauss clearly had little faith in Swann after Hussey's attack on him the previous day. Jimmy Anderson was clearly feeling the effects of travel and a lot of bowling; Steven Finn was below par and constrained by his own inexperience; and Chris Tremlett, while bowling well, was perceptibly reduced in effectiveness.

The contrast when England batted was marked. Australia were clearly enjoying being in the ascendancy, and they bowled with a purpose and fire that has not been seen previously in this series. It serves ultimately to illustrate just how much of a mental game cricket is. Once again though, the English batsmen were their own worst enemy. Cook was squarely beaten for pace by a good delivery, albeit one that kept a touch low, but the others can only blame incompetence for their dismissals as they provided catching practice for the slip cordon.

Collingwood's dismissal off the final delivery of the day would have been particularly galling to England fans, if only because he had declined an easy single off the previous delivery. I am not in favour of nightwatchmen in general, but having sent Anderson in to do that job, it was silly to see Collingwood protecting Anderson instead of vice versa.

The WACA crowd got a great day of cricket, and even the injury to Ponting couldn't put a dampener on their day. In fact, there's not a lot of love for Ponting there, and a some people in the Members section were wondering aloud whether Ponting's career could be ended by a broken pinky.

There was other entertainment on offer too - a sightscreen malfunction that would have provoked mass outrage had it happened on the Indian subcontinent, and positively the worst streaker ever seen at a cricket game. Picture an extremely pale and morbidly obese drunken 25 year old male jumping a fence, running onto the field fully clothed, and then attempting to disrobe whilst running. End result - streaker tackles himself and falls face first. It then took 5 security officers to get him back up and off the ground, but not before he provided the Members with a ghastly and disturbing view of his own member.

Anyway, back to the cricket - it's onto the MCG for both teams, and both have some big questions to answer.

For my money, England should bring in Morgan for Collingwood (but somehow get the ginger fella onto the field to take some catches in the slips); and replace Finn with either Shahzad or Bresnan - possibly the latter to play a stock bowler role and beef up a very weak lower order. I think Finn is a great long term prospect, but he took a hammering here, and I don't think England can afford any weak links going forward. As for Collingwood, quite simply, his batting isn't up to par.

Cook, Strauss, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Morgan, Prior, Bresnan, Swann, Anderson, Tremlett would be my line up for the MCG.

For Australia, although Phil Hughes does not look the part, the only possible replacement is Shaun Marsh, and I just don't see that happening. Young Nic Maddinson scored an unbeaten hundred for NSW today, but he's got a ways to go. Steven Smith shouldn't play if he's not going to bowl - either Callum Ferguson or Usman Khawaja should come into the middle order. I'd be inclined to go with:

Watson, Hughes, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Khawaja, Haddin, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Harris and a spinner.

If they were being really bold and ruthless, and if Ponting's injury rules him out, they could go with:

Watson, Marsh, Khawaja, David Hussey, Mike Hussey, Ferguson, Haddin, Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Harris, Beer (seeing as they really do have to pick him if they pick a spinner).

It's always fun playing selector :)

WACA Test: Day Two

2010-12-17T05:00:00.001-08:00

Day Two at the WACA was an absolute treat for those who enjoy Test cricket at it's best, though Australian fans would do well not to get over-excited as their team's failings have not disappeared, rather they were papered over by a tremendous spell of bowling by Mitchell Johnson.

Johnson was at his mercurial best today - running in and bowling with a high(ish) arm action, getting the ball to dart back in to the right-handers, and most importantly, bowling quicker than the radar gun implied. He was sharp, and was beating batsmen with sheer pace at times.

On a track that continues to be fine for batting, England paid a big price for failing to prise out the Australian tail on Day One, and then for some loose cricket today. Ian Bell was the only one to emerge with any credit as he showed himself once more to be probably the best batsman (in terms of current form) on either side. His footwork was decisive, his strokemaking crisp, and his shot selection flawless - until his dismissal, which can probably be attributed to lack of faith in the tail.

Outside of Johnson, the Australian bowlers looked largely toothless. Hilfenhaus swung the ball appreciably, but none of them looked more than honest triers. Siddle's experiment with modern day Bodyline, in which he had no fielders in front of square on either side of the wicket, would have been laughable had Matt Prior not somehow contrived to fall victim to it.

The concern for England will be that they looked a little deflated, and more crucially, their bowlers looked tired second time around. The wickets may have continued to fall, but Finn bowled a lot worse than his figures imply, Tremlett wasn't hitting the lines of the first innings, and Anderson can't buy his 200th Test wicket. Even flying First Class on Emirates doesn't prevent jetlag.

Australia are effectively 200-3, and will back themselves to set England something in excess of the 414 South Africa chased down in 2008. However, they would be wise not to get ahead of themselves. Shane Watson continues to look the part - a throwback to openers of time gone by, with a remarkable ability to leave the ball (including when fielding in the slips). Mike Hussey and Brad Haddin can do little wrong either, and Hussey extracted some very classy revenge on Graeme Swann late in the day. But Philip Hughes looked ill-equipped once again, Ricky Ponting doesn't know where he's going to find a run, and Michael Clarke appears to be a complete mental basket case. Steve Smith isn't yet a Test #6, and England won't bowl so poorly to the tail again, so while this Test may seem won, once we get back to flatter pitches, England will feel very confident.

Speaking of pitches, what we're seeing here really says a lot, too much even, about the modern cricketer. This is decidedly not the WACA of old, it's simply a pitch with good bounce and carry. Absolutely nothing alarming about it. What is very obvious is that batsman have been so well mollycoddled that once the pitch does anything other than help the ball sit up and beg to be hit, the batsmen really don't know quite what to do. Only those with strong technique, strong minds, or both, have made runs thus far.

The first 60-90 minutes tomorrow will probably decide the game. England will want 2 or 3 quick wickets and to bowl Australia out for under 225. Australia will want to bat the day, and I don't see why they can't if they put their minds to it.

The series should go to the MCG standing at 1-1, at which time I expect England to regain the ascendancy.

WACA Test: Day One

2010-12-16T04:41:00.000-08:00

The contrast between these two teams couldn't have been more apparent today. On a track that looked a little green compared to the typical modern Test match deck, Australia went for overkill and picked five middle-of-the-road medium pacers. They then lost the toss, and watched as Graeme Swann claimed the prize scalp of Michael Hussey and took two wickets on the opening day. I suppose Australia might not live to regret their decision, in so far as England may not have to bat twice in this Test match!

A sell-out crowd provided a superb atmosphere and the best WACA track in years provided some great cricket. Make no mistake, this is not a deadly fast bowler's wicket, simply a pitch on which batsmen, quick bowlers, and even spinners could all find some assistance, if they were willing and able to put in the effort.

Ricky Ponting had a very long conversation with David Boon and Greg Chappell out in the centre before going straight over to Michael Beer to inform him that his days in the headlines were numbered for the time being. For my money, this was a defensive decision by a risk-averse Australia, and it was countered by England taking the aggressive option and bringing in Chris Tremlett.

And how Tremlett repaid the faith shown in him. He was unquestionably the star performer on the day, bowling well enough that I don't feel so bad about not being able to watch Morne Morkel and Dale Steyn this week.

Jimmy Anderson moved the ball both ways, and bowled with intelligence, but failed to find a consistent line, more often than not bowling a foot too wide and not forcing the batsmen to play. Tremlett was landing the ball, seam perfectly upright, on a dime, and he tested everyone, beating the bat with incredible regularity and ease. If he keeps bowling like this, Stuart Broad will not come straight back into the side.

The spirit and energy in the England team was palpable - players congratulating each other on every good piece of fielding, and there was plenty of that. Paul Collingwood pulled off yet another stunner to dismiss Ponting, and Swann's vertical leap to snare Brad Haddin did not suffer in comparison.

The only negative from England's point of view would be that they really ought to have bowled an insipid Australian side out for well under 200. You won't see this widely written, but Strauss' surprisingly defensive captaincy was partly to blame. There was an incredible amount of ball-chasing in the field placing, something which is usually only seen in kiddie cricket.

As far as Australia are concerned, there will be a lot of worry overnight. The pitch is good for batting, and their bowlers failed to exert any sort of sustained pressure in the evening session, struggling to find the right line or length. Mitchell Johnson's rehab is alleged to have been successful, but in the two overs I saw this evening, he looked incredibly tense and rigid in his action, and if there's one thing a fast bowler needs to be, it's loose and relaxed. The three right arm pacemen are all a little different, but there is just much of a sameness about the attack.

Australia lost a lot of wickets because their batsmen are simply not up to the task currently - whether because they looked technically unsound, as in the case of Phil Hughes, or because they lack self-belief, which is very apparent in the shot Michael Clarke played. Steven Smith is not a number six yet, and with Ponting looking a shadow of himself, there's not a lot left. It's hard to picture any of the Englishmen giving their wicket away, and frankly, it's hard to see the Australians taking the catches that the English did.

If England stay focused, then there's no reason why they can't end the second day at 350+, and go on to a 200+ lead.

A comment on the umpiring too - it was excellent, for the most part. Billy Doctrove was overruled by UDRS twice, and yet he didn't really get anything wrong. On the Hussey catch, even Graeme Swann, who is about as shy as Shane Warne, didn't really appeal - the edge was clear on review, but also clearly faint.

The queuing experience was a good one, once again. My WACA Test buddy, Rick the American from Sonoma who lives in Margaret River was there as usual, making it two yanks at the front of the queue for an Ashes Test once again. It's always fun to watch some of the elderly members turn back the clock as they race for the prime seats - especially those that then spend the day focusing on their reading or knitting.

Tomorrow's target is 2:30am, that should put me at the front again, and give me a great view of what I hope will be a massive Pietersen-Bell partnership in the afternoon. Nothing against Cook, Strauss and Trott, but they aren't the entertainers!

WACA Test Preview

2010-12-14T20:20:00.000-08:00

It's noon on Wednesday December 15th, and that means I'm just 12 hours away from standing (or more likely sitting/lying) in the queue at the Member's entrance to the WACA, in anticipation of Day One of the 3rd Ashes Test, as Australia seek to prevent England from retaining the Ashes.

I'd rather be at Centurion, watching Steyn and Morkel bowl to Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman. Sheer class on both sides there. However, my in-laws don't live in South Africa, and haven't travelled there for Christmas, so here I am in Perth, as ever. Truth be told, I don't mind at all. It's becoming something of a tradition - so much so that when I missed the WACA Test in 2009 (West Indies), it caused some consternation and my absence was noted on ABC radio. The global recession never made it to Perth, but when the bloke who travels 11,000 miles every year to the Test match doesn't make it, people start to wonder, apparently.

What's more, I've been pretty lucky at the WACA of late. Monty taking 5-for and Gilchrist's blazing century 4 years ago; India's first ever win in Perth including *that* spell from Ishant to Ponting in 2007; Duminy taking South Africa to victory in 2008 despite a tremendous Mitchell Johnson performance - these have all been special experiences. Hopefully Anderson, Swann and a couple of others can step up and delivery for me this weekend!

I'm also looking forward to seeing Phil Hughes in action. He's been talking a phenomenal game this week, citing Virender Sehwag as his inspiration, so at the very least I guess we'll see some excitement. Of sorts.

The pitch looks a lot greener than it has in recent years, but although it's steadily recovered some pace, it is not the WACA of old, and it's hard to see any of the medium pacers terrorizing batsmen unless Mitchell Johnson somehow gets it right on his home ground. I won't be wagering my mortgage on that though.

The Fremantle Doctor has also been making its presence felt all week. It's been the driest winter on record in Western Australia, and now we're in for a relatively cool Test match, with temperatures barely topping 30 degrees. Throw in a nice breeze, a true pitch, and one of the best sighting grounds in the world, and you've got to think that anyone who gets themselves in will have to work hard to get themselves out.

As far as my picks for the game are concerned, I think we're going to see Tim Bresnan come in for England and play the reliable stock bowler role, as well as adding a little bit of depth to the batting, as superfluous as that may appear. There will be purchase for Swann in the latter stages, and I'm really looking forward to watching him bowl live for the first time. The Aussies will be fired up, and there is everything to play for, but it's very hard to look past England taking it with a 50+ run or 4+ wicket win early on Day 5. You heard it here first.

Pietersen drops himself?

2010-08-31T09:47:00.000-07:00

More sensationalism from CricInfo this morning - I woke up to read the headline "Pietersen drops himself by Twitter." Now we can leave aside debate as to whether or not that actually constitutes a sentence, and focus on the implied meaning.

The clear and no doubt intended suggestion is that Kevin Pietersen, of all people, was able to subjugate his own ego, and announce that he was in terrible nick and would consequently be making himself unavailable for England for the remainder of the summer as he felt that he was not worthy of a place in the squad.

It transpires that this is, perhaps not surprisingly, a long way from the truth. What Pietersen actually did was reveal that he had been dropped by the selectors. You know, the way it usually happens, especially with superstars.

Shame on you, CricInfo. Seems like these sensationalist headline shenanigans are never going to end and it's a real disappointment.

Myopic journalism

2010-04-07T09:59:00.000-07:00

Lionel Messi is being hailed in the English media. Turns out that he's a good footballer. The evidence of this? He scored a goal against Manchester United, and four against Arsenal. That'll be it then.

The case of Zlatan Ibrahimovic is even more amusing. While he's no Messi or Ronaldo, he's a supremely gifted footballer, with an eye and talent for something a bit special. He has shown this countless times over the years, but the English media judged him on one non-performance against England in an international. In the build-up to the first leg of the Arsenal-Barcelona clash, we kept hearing about how overrated he was.

Two goals later, and a bit of humble pie was being hastily consumed. All of a sudden, we heard how Zlatan had finally raised his game, and evolved from a raw talent into the finished article. Apparently this evolution happened in 20 minutes at The Emirates stadium. Amazing transformation.

Seriously, in this day and age, how ridiculously myopic and insular does one have to be in order to make such selective judgments?

Messi, Maradona and Ronaldo.

2010-04-07T09:45:00.001-07:00

The quite predictable happened yesterday - Arsenal were humbled by Barcelona. We often hear, and rightly so, about how United were taught a lesson in last year's champion's league final, but the schooling Arsenal received over two legs put 2009 to shame.

There's not a lot left to say about Lionel Messi that hasn't been said, other than for me to assert that rather too much has already been said.

He is a stupendous footballer, of that there is no doubt. He's always looked a serious talent, and over the last 18 months he's translated that into consistently exceptional performances. However, to talk about him in the same breath as Maradona is quite simply premature. I'm not sure there's ever been a player like Maradona, warts and all. Perhaps Duncan Edwards might have become that player, but we'll never know. But Maradona single-handedly dominated all in his path. What he did with Napoli defies belief, and then he went on to win the World Cup in 1986. Not Argentina, but Maradona.

Messi, on the other hand, is a phenomenal player in an superb footballing team. He's not carrying them in quite the way that Maradona carried Napoli, but he's also not as far off as one might think. What he has to do, in order to even knock on the door of that ultimate pantheon of greatness, is to put in those performances for Argentina.

It's unfashionable to say this, but Cristiano Ronaldo, who currently seems a distant second to Messi, has regularly done the business for Portugal, as well as being the architect of his teams' successes at club level. Ronaldo may not be quite the footballer Messi is, though history will be the final arbiter on that score, but he's had a greater and broader impact on his teams than Messi, at this point. Controversial, but true.

What makes a great T20 cricketer?

2010-04-01T14:43:00.000-07:00

Some say it's all about physical strength. Some say it's raw aggression. Jacques Kallis and Sachin Tendulkar may be proving in the IPL that it's simply down to cricketing skills in their purest forms.

But Geoff Miller, England selector, has other ideas, according to AFP. England picked Michael Lumb in their T20 squad not because of his explosive batting, but apparently because he can make the rest of the team feel good about themselves. Move over, sports psychologists.

Do we really live in a world in which journalists don't know the difference between "complement" and "compliment?" Don't answer that question.

USA cricket - where to from here?

2010-02-09T11:54:00.000-08:00

The dust has settled on the U-19 World Cup, and it’s about time that we started looking critically at where we are, and what we need to do. This is a bit long-winded, so I’ll start by summarizing the points I’ve made within, and for those who are interested in where I’m coming from with each one, read on!

Honest Assessment - we need to understand and accept the current level of our cricket before we can actually improve it
Long term thinking - progress does not happen overnight
Out with the politics, self-aggrandizement and vested interests
Professionalism - administrators need to have relevant experience and skill sets
Development - groom and grow cricketers locally
Fundamentals - focus on facilities and playing the game properly
Continuity - create a U-23 squad
20/20 cricket - embrace it, but not at the expense of core cricketing skills
Pipeline - infuse the senior squad with up and coming young talent
Selection - not just about statistics, look at mental and technical cricketing skills
Mediocrity - quit celebrating it
Coaching - not just physical training, look at technical and mental skills and how to play the game
Understanding - the challenges of an associate nation trying to climb up a level are not the same as those of a test nation

What went wrong in New Zealand

It doesn’t take any great cricketing understanding to deem the tournament a failure for the USA U-19 squad, although let’s not forget that there were always going to be two associate nations (and/or Zimbabwe) playing in the 15^th/16^th place playoff at the end of the tournament. However, that’s far too simplistic. It was indeed a failure, and an abject one at that, but the failure is less on the part of the young boys who went out to New Zealand and so much more a reflection on the older men who are responsible for their cricket, and for cricket in the US as a whole. It is they who must hold up their hands and accept responsibility, and there is little doubt that it will be they who most pointedly do not do so.

Yes, the boys were found wanting. Yes, they apparently did not know how to go about batting against a good bowling attack. Yes, as some opponents commented, the medium pacers “didn’t try to swing the ball.” But the fault lies not just with the players, but with what was around them.

It should have been no surprise to anyone that batting was the biggest technical problem in New Zealand. That is, quite brutally, the nature of the game. A mediocre bowler can bowl one long hop every over, and you can still keep the opposition under 300. A batsman is finished the first time anything goes wrong. That the coaching staff failed to consider this simple reality ahead of time, indicates that they were not worthy of their positions, plain and simple.

What the boys needed was to be guided along a path that would compensate for the cricketing nous and experience that we simply don’t and can’t have in our environment. The fact of the matter is that our 19 year olds have the cricketing experience and acumen of a 13 year old in Australia. There is no shame in that, but it is therefore the job of the rest of us to give them everything else we can. Tactics, physical readiness, mental approach to the game – we’re not going to become Test cricketers overnight, but we can certainly learn to approach and play the game the right way, and give ourselves a chance to showcase our natural talent.

So what do we need to do?

Realism

Thinking long term is always going to be fundamental to achieving something in our cricket. We tend to tie our hopes and expectations to the players we know and love – the ones we play with every Sunday. That mentality needs to be shed, and shed fast. If we’re going to do something sustainable for our cricket, then it is going to be the next generation and the one after that who get the glory, not us. And if we can’t come to terms with that, and put our egos to the side, then it simply will never happen. A false dawn here and there, and we’ll keep coming back to square one.

The USA U-19 coach went on the record saying that he went to New Zealand expecting to win a few games against the bigger nations. Who was he kidding, apart from himself? Even under ideal conditions, beating the Australian and South African U-19 boys would have taken a perfect storm. Given our background and preparation, it would have been a miracle, and the boys deserve great credit for the bowling and fielding performances in those games.

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with a coach thinking positive and being optimistic. The problem is that when you abandon realism, you fail to prepare for what you are actually going to confront. Until we realize and acknowledge the level of our cricket, and the yawning chasms that we have to cross, we are unlikely to put anything in place that helps us raise that standard.

Administration

Our administration, top-down and bottom-up, is an unmitigated disaster, and continues to be so in so many ways. There are flickers of hope that sporadically shine across the country, but we are dominated by an environment of self-aggrandizing ego-fuelled politics, and that’s being generous.

Quite simply, too few people are honestly thinking about cricket and its long term future, and too many people are thinking about how themselves, and their nearest and dearest, can benefit. Unfortunately, with the current global interest in the US as a cricketing destination and minor cricketing power, the incentive to operate in this manner has only increased. The rewards range from an all-expenses paid trip to New Zealand, to a seat alongside legends of the game at ICC meetings and events.

We desperately need to get professional and get accountability into the mix. Transparency of operation is paramount – every appointment, every decision, should be open to public scrutiny and able to withstand that analysis. This is easier said than done, but if we’re serious about this, we have to start with a clean slate. Bring in people who have relevant experience, professional skills that can be leveraged, and crucially, where possible, no direct skin in the game. The old guard, to a man, need to step aside. Not because all of them are bad, but because every one of them comes with baggage that limits our ability to do things the right way.

Infrastructure and Development

This is really the bottom line when it comes to putting cricket, or indeed any sport, on the road to long term success. Quite simply we have no infrastructure and no path for cricket development, and we need to focus strongly on setting that straight.

We will give ourselves a chance for success when we’re able to identify a talented 13 year old and groom him so that not only does he do a job at the age group level, but most importantly, he develops to a peak in his mid to late twenties and becomes a long-term contributor at the senior national level. When we can point to a few players who have followed that path, then we can point to a system that nurtures and develops cricketing talent.

Instead what we have is two separate and distinct cricketing worlds. One of them is for U-19 cricket, and the other for so-called adult cricket. The composition of the senior national squad tells a story. It doesn’t matter so much that none of the players were born in this country – we are after all a nation of immigrants. It doesn’t even matter that they are ageing, though I comment on that elsewhere. What is telling is that not one of the players was developed in this country. They all learned and evolved their games elsewhere and came to us as formed cricketers. They may have been honed and fine-tuned a little on these shores, but they weren’t grown here. Not one of the players from the 2006 U-19 team is in the picture, and really, nothing more need be said to illustrate the problem

In fact, I would be so bold as to say that we see talent not only not going forward, but moving backwards. We have a tendency to overplay U-19 achievements, as if playing at the U-19 level is the pinnacle of your cricketing career. If that is the message we send out to the players, then combined with the complete absence of any coaching or development infrastructure to take them beyond that stage, it can be no surprise that their cricket suffers and ultimately settles into the mediocrity that surrounds them in our local leagues.

We certainly should encourage our young cricketers, but we have to stop celebrating mediocrity and start searching for true quality. Our U19 squads, both regional and national, should be playing together through the year, every year. The opposition doesn’t have to be other international teams, as the objective is to have them learn how to play the game. At 19 and 20, we aren’t going to create cricketing talent out of nowhere, but what we can do is help them evolve into thinking cricketers, for as you go up the ladder, it is in the mind (with temperament, strategy and tactics) that games will be won and lost.

I would actually advocate the creation of a national U-23 squad that should play against the national senior team and against regional senior teams every year. This would help keep our U-19s in the game beyond their U-19 days, and with the right guidance and mentorship hopefully help turn them into cricketers that can serve the country for a long time.

In parallel, we need to focus on cricketing fundamentals at the grass roots levels. Forget about trying to jazz up the game with white balls and colored clothing – let’s look at getting cricketers to play the basic game properly in the first place. The party stuff can come later, or elsewhere. Yes, we absolutely need proper pitches and outfields, but we also need cricket balls that swing, and bowlers and batsmen who can learn to deal with that. We need to have youngsters understand that a properly compiled 30 may actually set you on the way to a far better cricketing career than the slogged 50, and we need to follow through on that.

Foster quality cricket, create some continuity for the youngsters and a lot of what Peter Della Penna raised in his excellent article back in November 2009 will be addressed as a consequence.

Selection

Selection is going to be controversial at the best of times, and it’s even harder in our environment. Once again, short-termism and politics are controlling how we pick our teams, and we simply plan to worry about tomorrow if and when the sun rises again.

The first thing we need to address in our selection, particularly at the senior level, is the objective of a team. It’s very easy for an established cricketing nation to simply select the best team to win each game or tournament as it comes. For one that is seeking to establish itself on the world stage, the challenges are a lot greater. It’s not sufficient to simply try and win today, because you need to prepare to win tomorrow and the day after to maintain a certain standing in the game.

This may be my most controversial contention, but I submit that the US needs to be willing to dare to make some short term sacrifices in order to reap the long term rewards. Peter Della Penna nailed this one too in his aforementioned article. Our stated objective today is to make it to the 2015 Cricket World Cup. In my eyes, the objective really should be to ensure that we can make it to the 2019, 2023 and 2027 World Cups without having to worry about it unduly as we get closer to those events.

Doing that, however, starts today. It starts with everything else I’ve talked about, but it also starts with picking players with an eye to the future. Just as a quite random example, taking Saqib Saleem to Nepal would have done a lot more for US cricket than taking Sudesh Dhaniram, regardless of how good Dhaniram is. This is the time to start giving the players of the future exposure, and introducing them to the game at increasingly higher levels.

There’s plenty of experience in the team in the form of the likes of Massiah, Thyagarajan, Usman Shuja and others. Take a few thirty year olds to lead on the field, surround them with the exuberance of youth, and all of a sudden, you’ll not only be developing those individuals, you’ll be showing every cricket playing youngster in the country that there is something to strive for. You will naturally create a pipeline, and that pipeline will keep flowing. No longer will you have to pray weekly that a few more good cricketers leave India, Pakistan and the Caribbean and come to the US to seek their fame and fortune. You’ll already have them.

The second thing we need to radically alter in our selection, this time particularly at the youth level, is the type of player we select. We need to recognize the substantial difference between cricket in our local leagues, and cricket at a higher level. We have to learn to look beyond the statistics, and look at the sort of cricketer who is worth the long term investment. Often times we’ll find that the guy scoring thirties every week is actually going to be a better perfomer at a higher level than the one bludgeoning his way to big scores on a cow pasture with the aid of sloppy fielding and short boundaries. We need to look at how players think, how strong they are mentally in both comfortable and challenging situations. In short, we need to look at their core cricketing skills – but I’m not even sure that today, we understand what core cricketing skills are!

Coaching

It’s hard to overstate how poor the coaching and preparation for the U-19 trip to New Zealand appears to have been. The icing on the cake was the coach, a former Test cricketer no less, indicating that the grassy tracks surprised him. A complete lack of homework and preparation was betrayed by that single comment.

There was clearly no thought given to what the team was going to be up against, no consideration of what they needed to do to raise their game a level, and even less time spent working out how a team needs to operate and manage itself over the course of a month long tournament on foreign soil. Instead we had a wonderful boondoggle for the management and coaching staff with a few games of cricket on picturesque grounds thrown in for good measure. Oh, and some hobnobbing with a few cricketing superstars.

There is no point in playing the percentages when you’re the weaker player. You can only punch above your weight if you throw some punches, and what that translates to is playing positive cricket from the start. The time for playing the percentages is in the years before the big tournaments, when skills are being developed and refined. When it comes to the crunch, you need to bring out your best.

The thing to understand is that positive cricket does not equate to slogging or bowling bouncers galore. It means playing with intelligence, it means applying pressure throughout, it means bowling to take wickets, and batting to score runs. Sounds simple in writing, but it can only be put into practice when youngsters are given the appropriate foundation. Coaches in local leagues need to start teaching our youngsters how to bowl for wickets, how to field aggressively, and how to bat assertively without losing your head.

We need to be able to identify young talent around the country. We need coaches and cricketing mentors who can train them in how to play the game. Instead of celebrating small achievements with excessive hyperbole, we need to make sure the youngsters understand that they have a long road ahead of them, and then guide them along the way. We need proper coaches who can actually resolve technical flaws at an early stage. We need proper coaches and leaders who can help cricketers understand how to play the game. As I keep saying, it’s a mental game when you step up a level, and that is where we are sorely lacking.

Conclusion

There is a long, long way for US cricket to go, but for the first time, even if it might be for all the wrong reasons, we have a global vested interest in our success. Opportunity is knocking, and if we have the guts to do so, we can take full advantage of it. Build something sustainable, and our epitaphs will read “left a lasting legacy that allowed cricket to flourish in the USA” rather than “had a drink at Lord’s with Clive Lloyd and Sunil Gavaskar.” I hope I’m not alone in thinking that it’s the first one that reads better.

Contest: Fill out the sequence

2009-07-01T11:25:00.001-07:00

So we were hanging out at work trying to figure out how to name our servers. Eventually, we settled upon a sequence that was both apposite and sufficiently geeky.

Server #1 has been named Ulyett

Our Interns are now hard at work trying to figure out what #2 through #10 should be named, and explain the sequence. There are only 10 entities in this set, and they do have a specific sequence. There may be an 11th entity sometime in the future, but the chances are we'll reach 11 servers before that, unfortunately. Still, this is fun for the first ten.

This is your chance at fame, albeit with no associated fortune. Post your thoughts in the comments section.

When is a draw not a draw?

2009-05-13T12:08:00.000-07:00

The Surrey vs. Middlesex game in the latest round of the County Championship was always going to be an interesting one, pitting one of the greatest Surrey batsmen of all time, Mark Ramprakash, against the prodigal son of Australian cricket, Philip Hughes.

Neither man disappointed, with Ramps making yet another century against his former employers, followed by Hughes falling just short of a double century in his first effort. But this was just the appetizer.

Surrey began their second innings 57 runs behind, and with Michael Brown and Ramps looking in complete control and scoring at nearly 4 an over, would have been entertaining thoughts of some great average-boosting batting practice. Enter the 40-year old slow bowler, Shaun Udal. He took 6, as Surrey were dismissed for 242.

All of a sudden, Middlesex had 25 overs to score 186 to win, or 185 to tie the game. They got off to an absolute flyer. At the 10 over mark, they were 93 for no loss. So ten wickets in hand, 93 runs required, and 15 overs to get them. I'd imagine the bookies stopped offering odds at that point, with Hughes in full cry, and the Irish Englishman Eoin Morgan in next.

Compton and Hughes fell in quick succession, but Morgan took Middlesex to 169-3 in 22 overs. Three overs remaining, 16 to tie, 17 to win.

Then Morgan got out, and Chris Schofield and Murtaza Hussain spun their way through the rest of the batting in the space of 9 deliveries, to leave Middlesex on a quite incredible 184-9 at the end of the 25 overs.

One more wicket, and Surrey win by a run. One more run, and it's a tie. Two more runs, and Middlesex win by a wicket. But the overs are up, and it's a draw.

When people come back to CricInfo or CricketArchive years from now, they'll see a drab listing in the headline for this scorecard. It will say something like

Surrey vs Middlesex, Match Drawn.

My question is -- is that a fair description of a game that winds up this close? Heck, it almost seems worthy of being called a tie! It reminds me of GCSE and O and A-level days, when you could actually get a grade that signified a "Near Miss". If I recall correctly, we had A, B, C, D, E, N (Near Miss), F (Fail), and U (unclassified - i.e. so bad that we can't even state it). Perhaps cricket needs a "Near Miss" type result.

I really am a twit

2009-04-24T15:00:00.000-07:00

Useful piece of information for both my readers:

My twitter id is fourthumpire

I'm a twit

2009-04-24T11:31:00.000-07:00

I vowed I wouldn't, but I've been convinced by an evil friend to get myself on twitter. It will probably go the way of this blog, but let's give it a whirl and see what happens.

Aus vs RSA Day 4: Rain, rain go away

2008-12-20T04:28:00.000-08:00

The wicket is still as docile as ever, but this evening we were treated to a wonderful spell of fast bowling from Brett Lee in particular. There still is no greater sight in cricket than a fast bowler in full flow, and once he dismissed Amla (who walked, it should be noted), he bowled some beauties to de Villiers and Kallis. Full credit to to Mitchell Johnson, who was excellent bowling into the wind, took the likely match-winning wicket of Graeme Smith, and knocked Kallis onto his backside.

South Africa ended the day mathematically in the game yet again, but the reality is that everytime they've worked their way back to parity, Australia managed to wrest the initiative once again. More crucially, de Villiers and Kallis represent the last hope for the Proteas. Duminy is making a debut, and the tail effectively begins with him. It won't wag like the Aussie tail has, twice, that's for sure.

I'm expecting South Africa to fold around 100 short, but praying that they will actually run the Aussies close and give me a 5th successive great day of Test cricket. Either way, I doubt I'll have a 15 hour day at the WACA on Day 5. When was the last time a day's play in a Test ended at 8:03pm under lights?

My day's highlight, apart from Kallis being knocked on his rear end - Aleem Dar asking AB de Villiers "how many balls has he (Johnson) bowled in this over?" I wonder if he'll be consulting the non-striker on the next lbw decision as well. Oh, and yet another brilliant catch by de Villiers. The man is a legend.

Aus vs RSA Day 3: The Wessels Vessel

2008-12-19T04:50:00.000-08:00

I'm shattered, and in need of sleep, so this will be brief. The radio comms were trying to figure out what to call a potential trophy for this series (there currently isn't one). My offering -- "The Wessels Vessel," in honour of Kepler Wessels, who played for both teams.

Another surprisingly topsy turvy day of cricket saw South Africa get bowled out much as I expected, and Australia seemingly take a stranglehold, before the Springboks flirted with the idea of being competitive, much to my surprise. Paul Harris and Jacques Kallis bowled beautifully to strangle Australia, and claw their side right back into the contest, but unfortunately, there was insufficient support from Steyn, Morkel and Ntini (those would be the 3 supposed strike bowlers). A target of under 300 might have been gettable, but it looks like they'll be chasing 400 now, and I just can't see it happening. Then again, this team did bat for over two days in England in the last innings, so perhaps I shouldn't abandon hope on their behalf. Then again, again, that was England. This is Australia.

Hats off, ultimately, to Mitchell Johnson, for single handedly wresting the initiative and delivering the Test match to his side. He'd have had a 9-fer too, had Brett Lee called for the catch which Haddin eventually didn't quite reach. On a wicket that continues to be completely devoid of significant life, to take 8-61 is simply phenomenal. Especially if you're a bloke who doesn't even swing the ball.

Hats off, also, to AB de Villiers. When I grow up, AB, I want to be you. Three breathtaking catches, and you also play golf off a single handicap despite playing only one round per month, and allegedly could outslash Slash on the guitar. Not bad, for a man who by his 7th Test match had scored a 50, a 100, taken two wickets, taken outfield catches, and taken catches as a keeper. Beat that, Sobers!!

Aus vs RSA Day Two: Where are all the flat track bullies?

2008-12-18T04:30:00.000-08:00

Make no mistake about it, this track is as flat as the proverbial pancake. South Africa's 243-8 may not suggest it, but that is frankly nothing more than a reflection of the Proteas' weak batting line up, which was hampered further by the absence of Prince in this Test.

Kallis and Smith scored a few, but the former was nothing more than his obdurate self, and the latter thoroughly unconvincing. Amla and de Villiers were the ones who looked class on the day, Amla in particular looking like he could grow into a real world-beater. The pair timed the ball beautifully and looked completely untroubled at the crease.

It took a beautiful delivery by Krezja, drifting away, dipping late, then turning in sharply, to lure Amla into a drive that was beaten on the inside on the way through to the stumps, and as for de Villiers, his loose drive at Johnson paved the way for a truly South African collapse.

The collapse owed much to Johnson's brilliant day at work. Like Morkel on the first day, he bowled intelligently, varying his pace and length, and looked likely from the start. He richly deserved his 7-fer, even if he was aided and abetted by Aleem Dar, who had yet another poor day as he first dubiously triggered Duminy, and then appeared to miss a back-foot no-ball when Johnson went round the wicket to Harris and had him caught at backward square.

When i got to the WACA at 4:30am this morning, I predicted 400 for Australia, and 250 all out for South Africa in response. Australia fell slightly short, but South Africa are right on track to live up to my expectations, and unfortunately what that means is that this game is somewhat over as a contest. The interest now lies in whether Johnson can turn 7 into 9, and possibly beat Murali's 9-51 and record the 5th best figures of all time; and then in how many Australian batsmen can record second innings hundreds on a dead wicket, as I can't see them all messing up a second time around. Fortunately, I'll be there to see it all.

One more thing about Johnson - he was clearly the fastest bowler on display in this Test match. I don't know if the speed gun backed that up, but it was pretty obvious watching it live. Siddle was not far behind, followed by Lee, and I'd have to say that all three Australians were faster than the South African pace trio, which does not reflect well on the much-hyped Steyn.

It's also interesting to look at just how few of the dismissals in the match were a result of good deliveries. Taking them one by one:

Hayden - got a good ball that bounced a bit and seamed away from him, but played a poor shot
Katich - triggered by Aleem Dar
Ponting - a good catch, but a very poor short pushing hard at the ball first up
Hussey - a good ball that angled across him, and a great catch by de Villiers
Clarke - the second worst shot of the game
Symonds - the equal third worst shot of the game
Haddin - the equal third worst shot of the game, again to a nothing delivery
Lee - soft half-hearted prod with hard hands
Johnson - possibly triggered by Aleem Dar
Siddle - had a go at one too many in the end, and edged through - credit to Ntini probably merited here
McKenzie - perhaps the worst shot ever, leave alone off this game -- I only know one other person who plays shots like that pull to mid on, and he plays club cricket in Northern California.
Smith - a big inside edge, no footwork, but no surprises there, he wasn't batting all that well
Amla - got undone by an absolute beaut by Krezja
Kallis - chased it a little outside off and edged through to the keeper
de Villiers - got a decent ball, but could have let it go
Duminy - okay, a bum decision, but he got in a right tangle over a short ball on a flat track, and that's worrying
Morkel - so much for being an all rounder, but to be fair, Johnson bowled a smart slower off-cutter and he closed the face early - credit to the bowler here
Harris - a possible back-foot no-ball, but tamely turned straight into the hands of backward square leg.

Unbelievable really. All this on a track that as I keep saying, is pretty much dead. There's nothing to help the bowlers here, which shows you just how well Johnson bowled to take 7! Over the years, we keep seeing certain batsmen labelled Flat Track Bullies. Well, what would South Africa give to have one of those right now, I wonder?

Aus vs RSA Day 1: Keep your mouth shut!

2008-12-17T04:24:00.000-08:00

341-9 on a docile pitch after electing to bat would appear to be a sub par score. On the other hand, having been 15-3 at one stage, Australia might consider it a great recovery. On a third hand, having been 164-3 and in total control, they might have been looking at 500. On a fourth hand, having then been 166-5 with an out of form Symonds fresh at the crease, 341-9 looks good again. But on a fifth hand, having climbed to 259-5 in commanding fashion, it represents a collapse. And on the sixth and final hand, having been 303-8, with an expected 6 or 7 overs remaining, perhaps it is a good score after all.

That set of hands really tells the story of the day's play. You'll hear people say that it ebbed and flowed, with each side gaining the advantage at different times. However if truth be told, the only advantage that was gained was the first one, in the first 45 minutes of play. Each subsequent one was spectacularly lost by one team, not gained by the other.

Australia started well by winning the toss, and Steyn and Ntini were bowling the wrong lengths and lines, though at least the latter was attempting to pitch the ball somewhere near the batsman. Hayden looked in complete command, playing some cracking straight drives on both sides, before Ntini changed the angle, went round the wicket, and inexplicably lured the opener into a soft prod outside off, presenting Smith with the easiest of catches at first slip.

By this point, it was already clear that the pitch was something of a featherbed. Good carry, decent bounce, but essentially a perfect batting track. Justin Langer was drooling in the commentary box above my head. In strode Ricky Ponting, and not being a fan, I was concerned that he was on his way to a massive hundred. I needn't have worried. First ball, he pushed hard, and perhaps a touch late, at a ball outside off stump, and the edge flew low to de Villiers, who took what I thought at the time was a really good catch.

Hussey survived the hat-trick, but then became the first, and perhaps only, Australian batsman to fall victim to quality cricket. Steyn angled one across him, on a perfect line and length, and Hussey had to play at it. He duly edged, the ball landing a few feet short of de Villiers at third slip, thanks to Hussey's softening of the hands. Or at least, that's what everyone in the ground thought was happening, only for de Villiers to quite brilliantly dive forward from third slip and take a truly stupendous catch. The last player I saw taking catches like that was Carl Hooper. I don't know how much airtime the replay got on TV (it got a fair few on the big screen at the WACA), but I hope it got the credit it deserved. It doesn't look as spectacular as many so-called classic catches, but it really was one of the best catches you will ever see.

Unfortunately, that was one of the few pieces of good bowling from South Africa on the day. Steyn was too short, even being wided 3 times in the process, Ntini never looked threatening, Kallis was disastrous, and only Morkel of the pacemen looked to have the ability to make something happen on a dead track, varying his pace, line and length intelligently at times.

Clarke and Katich batted nervously at first, presumably because of the situation, but soon realised how friendly the pitch was, and once they were set, it looked like there was nothing that could get them out. The only threat posed was by one Paul Harris delivery that accidentally turned and bounced, much to the bemusement of everyone, I'm sure.

Speaking of Harris, he fast became a cult hero of the WACA crowd. He had a mild case of the yips with his bowling run up, stopping several times in mid-run. Not something you see often from a spinner. The real comedy moment, which earned him eternal adulation from the fans, was when he ran in and stopped for the third time. Only this time, he looked to be a in a bit of a panic, pointing feverishly in his mouth and almost appearing to choke. Indeed, it transpired that while running in with his mouth wide open, he had swallowed a fly. No spiders around to catch the fly, and I suspect he kept his mouth well shut thereafter.

There was also a comedy moment from Kallis, his entire bowling spell apart, when he warmed up to bowl for the first time and sent his practice delivery, aimed at mid-off, about 20 feet behind him in the direction of mid-wicket instead.

The Katich-Clarke partnership was only broken by the efforts of Aleem Dar. Apparently Hawkeye suggests that he may have been correct, but my birds-eye viewpoint says that he was a little too eager to give Katich lbw when nailed by a low full toss from Morkel, who was bowling round the wicket and angling it down leg. In fact, he was so eager, that he raised his finger completely in conjunction with the bowler's half-hearted appeal. It was a shocker, no matter what Hawkeye says - you could see that the South Africans were surprised as well.

A combination of smart captaincy and batsman stupidity then accounted for Clarke. Smith brought in the long-off, to try and tempt Clarke to hit Harris over the top instead of milking singles. He tried it the very next ball. It didn't work.

Symonds and Haddin then came together and consolidated by upping the tempo considerably - with some early edges and later lusty blows. However, the Smith-Harris combination then trapped Symonds. Smith had Harris move to bowling over the wicket, outside leg stump. Symonds hit the first one through mid-wicket for four, and then tried to repeat next delivery, only to top edge high to mid-on.

Haddin was then a victim of the new ball, a Mark Boucher adjustment to the field, and yet another ridiculous shot. Slashing with rooted feet at a wide loosener off the second delivery of the second new ball, when Boucher has specifically had the man at point pushed deep is a bad idea, and Duminy was grateful to get on the scoresheet on debut.

Steyn then bounced Lee out (Ian O'Brien can tell you how that worked out), and then Morkel applied the coup-de-grace with another Aleem Dar assisted lbw off the final delivery of the evening, leaving the match perfectly poised.

A sub-par score on a flat track means that there is probably enough in the South African batting to post a competitive total, and take this game into at least a 4th day, which will make the expense of this years membership well worthwhile :-)

And for the interested, a chronology of my day:

0215hrs -- alarm goes off. pack lunch, load car up with chair and cushions
0245hrs -- head out to the WACA on empty roads, trying really hard to keep to the speed limit
0305hrs -- arrive at the WACA. #4 in the queue this year, behind ex CI-er Dave, and my American buddy Rick from Sonoma, whom I met in the Members queue at the WACA 2 years ago for the Ashes Test. Two Americans (if you count me) as part of the first four people in line to watch an Australia South Africa Test match at the WACA... what are the odds?
0400hrs -- curse myself for waking up so early - there's less interest in this Test than there was in the India Test last year, nad I could clearly have slept in an extra hour and still been at the front.
0430hrs -- feel a little better as the crowd starts to trickle in
0600hrs -- a new innovation, a coffee, tea and hot chocolate van - congratulations to the WACA for figuring this one out at long last.
0800hrs -- round one of gates opening, and we can move up to the turnstiles
0830hrs -- loyalty (40 years) and high attendee members are let in first, they have a separate queue. This is the moment to enjoy watching 90 year olds with walking sticks outrun Usain Bolt. It's pheneomenal stuff. The poor security guards are nearly trampled in the process, as always.
0845hrs -- got my seat, just about. There's about 10 seats which I consider worthwhile, and I managed to snag the 8th one. Couldn't have asked for a better place from which to watch the Test match.
1000hrs -- sitting there and wondering why all the South Africans are congratulating Duminy. Looks like he's playing - but can't tell who's injured.
1130hrs -- feels like bedtime, but at last the cricket is starting!

I shall be sleeping in tonight. I think getting there for 4:30am on Day 2 should do the trick.

Australia vs South Africa: My Preview

2008-12-14T19:38:00.001-08:00

Here we are again. Less than 48 hours remain before the start of the Australia-South Africa Test series. Highly anticipated by many, including myself, for some of the most compelling Test cricket I have seen, especially as a neutral, has been in Tests involving these two teams. A packed MCG for Warne's 300th Test wicket, and a spectacular spell from Allan Donald to the Waugh brothers remain firmly etched in memory. With any luck, a fast bouncy track this week will ensure that Steyn, Morkel, Lee and Johnson create a few new highlights.

I expect Australia to win, with runs for Ponting in particular, simply because they have, in my book, a far superior batting lineup. Steyn and Morkel look to have world class potential, but neither can claim to be the finished article yet, and if they're not careful, the WACA will be a curse rather than a blessing. More than one visiting paceman has lost the plot and pitched the ball far too short over here, and you can expect that the Australians will not make that mistake.

It appears that the game is not sold out - surprising, considering Perth's large South African population. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to make a difference for those of us queueing up for a seat in the Member's enclosure. A 2am drive down to the WACA looks to be the order of the day, though with any luck, I can sleep in until 4am after the first day.

A comfy chair, a seat cushion, a good book, some cryptic crosswords, my Sansa mp3 player ($20 - beat that, iPod!!) and plenty of food and drink will get me through to gates opening at 9:30 and the 11:30 start of play. 9 and a half hours of waiting, followed by 6 hours of cricket. And as always, the funniest part will be watching those who queued up in order to do their knitting, and then leave at tea-time in order to beat the traffic. Unbelievable, but it happens every year.

After my brush with WACA authority this weekend - I was booted out of the Member's for not wearing a collared shirt, or as someone else suggested, for not being old enough or white enough - I shall be suitably attired. Instead of my smart long-sleeved shirt and trousers, which were deemed unacceptable, I will wear scruffy shorts and a collared T-shirt, and sure enough, they'll wave me right on in. Quite incredible.

The White Tiger

2008-12-14T19:28:00.000-08:00

Lightweight. That was my instinctive reaction to this Booker Prize winner. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the book, and in fact, I read it in two short sittings, putting it down only to watch the warm up game at the WACA.

However, no major flaws does not a prize-winner make, in my estimation. The tale is appropriately poignant, and that's where it seems to fall down. It's almost as if the entire story is crafted in order to pointedly engage a particular audience, and that manufactured feel is what stopped me from liking it a lot more.

The narrative is solid, and the prose engaging but not spectacular, and anyone who enjoys fueling a stereotype (which may well be accurate, in this case) will appreciate it.

If you are drawn to tales of an exotic yet down to earth reality in which caste, creed and basic human instinct are fundamental, then this is for you. Even more so if that is your carefully cultivated image of the India that you only ever get to see the periphery of, the one that you are sheltered from in your five-star hotel and luxury lifestyle. And that, no doubt, is why Adiga now has the Booker Prize.

Read it. Enjoy it. It's a good book. Insightful, even, if you're not already overexposed. Just don't be fooled into expecting great literature.

South Africa vs Western Australian XI

2008-12-12T05:04:00.000-08:00

I made my way down to the WACA this morning to watch the South Africans' warm up game against what was essentially the Western Australian 2nd XI. Being a 2-day game, it was really never going to be more than a glorified net session, meaning that there's little one can really glean from the performances or anything else, but there was still enough of interest for the couple of hundred souls who were there. Of course, that said, most of them spent the day reading books or getting on with their knitting, but I've moaned about that before so I won't start now.

The pitch itself was a disappointment. Pitch number 8 was used for this game, apparently relaid 6 months ago. The relaid pitches at the WACA have been a throwback to its heyday, when pace and bounce ruled the roost. Not this one. Lonwabo Tsotsobe did get struck, but that owed more to his relative ineptitude with the bat than anything in the surface. The rest of the day, the ball carried through no more than waist high, and the spectators were in about as much danger as the batsmen.

The Test match however, is to be played on pitch number 6, and that could make for some fun stuff. That's the pitch on which Shaun Tait had the Kiwis hopping about last year, and if it plays anything like that, then watching Morkel, Steyn, Lee and Johnson ought to be an absolute blast.

Pitch issues aside, the South Africans may also be a little concerned about their batting. Bluntly put, they don't seem to have an awful lot of it, despite coming here with, on paper, their strongest line up in years. De Villiers put together a composed century, but McKenzie's half century wasn't altogether convincing, and with Smith, Prince and Boucher failing, and Kallis once again being called selfish by the press in an attempt to create some interest in the proceedings, only Amla looks in possession of both class and form. However, he too looked less than complete when playing the short ball, and a quick bouncy pitch may be quite a test. Throw in his having not yet been dismissed on tour, and his odds of failing in the Test seem pretty good.

Also of interest today were the field placings employed by the WA side in the initial overs. Smith, a belligerent lefty, and McKenzie, a relatively stoic right-hander, were facing Davis, bowling left arm inswing (to the righty), and Porter, a right-armer shaping the ball away. That covers about every permutation in the book. And yet Simmons, the WA captain, employed an absolutely identical field for both bowlers to both batsmen. Three slips, a gully, a square point (presumably because of the lack of pace in the pitch and the bowlers), a mid-off, a mid-on, a square leg and a deep fine leg. Either he expected his bowlers to bowl to that field, which they most certainly did not do, or what we all get taught about adjusting our fields for the bowler and batsman is not all that it's cracked out to be.

Field placing aside, Ricky Ponting could learn a thing or two from Simmons. He managed 32 overs in the first hour, despite using 7 medium pacers and just two overs of spin in that time, and he followed it up with 33 overs in the second hour. In fact, stumps were drawn after 90 overs, a full ten minutes ahead of schedule. Has that ever happened before?

Hot Spot - the perils of technology

2008-12-04T11:20:00.000-08:00

If you're a cricket fan, you're now well used to Hawkeye, the Snickometer and perhaps even the Protecto-Cam (ok, that one only exists in Billy Birmingham's world). Most recently, you've probably encountered Hot Spot.

Launched a couple of years ago by Channel Nine (who else?), Hot Spot uses infra-red imaging technology, detecting the heat emitted when, for example, the ball strikes the edge of the bat. Viewers are shown a negative image which clearly highlights the "hot spots," amongst which are any points of impact between the ball and other surfaces.

Hot Spot technology has also detected a few other distinct heat signatures that viewers have hitherto not been made privy too. If you thought technology was putting the Umpire's decision making under intense scrutiny, you're right, but the scrutiny doesn't end there.

Hot Spot, it transpires, can also detect flatulence. That's right. The Channel Nine technicians "see" Umpires and Players breaking wind. One can only wonder if they've actually been keeping score, as it were. You'd have to imagine baked-beans-on-toast Warney would be somewhere at the top end of the rankings.

Ronaldo's handball

2008-12-02T16:54:00.000-08:00

There's not an awful lot to say about Ronaldo winning the Ballon D'Or today, but after reading all the articles about his quite incredible sending off in the derby game this weekend, I have to sneak a word in edgewise.

It's worth stepping back to the first yellow card he received. The tackle, even in the eyes of the commentators on my TV feed, did not warrant a card, and it was quite a surprise when Howard Webb flashed the yellow. That said, when Ronaldo responded by saracastically applauding, I fully expected him to be sent off there and then, and was quite relieved when it didn't happen.

He does cop a lot on the field, and is often not protected by the referees, but to be fair, City did not set out to nobble him, unlike some other teams, and in this case, although he received a poor yellow, he risked it all by reacting.

Still, the game went on, and then came the comical incident pictured above. There's no question that he used his hands, and nobody, least of all Ronaldo, is disputing that. What he claims is that he heard a shout, and a whistle, and so he used his hands and was intending to stop the game. For this, he has been roundly pilloried, but let's pause to think rationally for a moment. Forget about your hatred for all things Ronaldo (for those of you who are not United fans) for a minute.

Consider for a second that we have here one of, if not the, most accomplished headers of a ball in a penalty box. Remember his header against Roma last year, or even his header against Chelsea in the Champions League final. Not a man who is queasy in the air. Now look at the picture above. He has risen higher than all and sundry, and has a clear opportunity to head the ball goalwards. It's what he does best. Now whatever you may think of him, it is ridiculous to suggest, as most observers have done, that he did this for no reason. It's pretty obvious that under normal circumstances, Ronaldo would have got head to ball, and aimed for goal. Once again, that's what he does. Something prompted him to do otherwise. I'm inclined to believe that he did think he heard a whistle.

Unfortunately, there was no whistle. I can't and don't blame the referee for producing a second yellow card. It's the rest of us - the media and the fans - who need to retain some perspective here and think about what we're saying when we analyze the situation. Sure, there's nothing more fun than pulling the big guy down. But in this particular instance, all it does is make those of you doing it look very foolish indeed. At least, it would, if anyone else were thinking rationally.

Worst Bond movie ever?

2008-11-26T10:26:00.000-08:00

Debatable, to be sure, but the fact that it's even a consideration is a major let-down.

Granted, it was a better than average action movie - but the problem is, that's all it was. Car chase, followed by foot chase, followed by boat chase, followed by plane chase. I can only assume that the train chase was left on the editing room floor.

So what was wrong with the movie?

Worst. Bond Theme Song. Ever. Simple as that. There have been some good, and some great, Bond theme songs in the past - just think of View to a Kill, Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, Nobody Does it Better. There have been a couple of misses too, especially in the Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan eras, but ultimately, even the oft-maligned All Time High (from Octopussy) was streets ahead of the abysmal Another Way To Die
Speaking of Bond Themes, where was the signature theme in the movie? I heard a few distant cousins along the way, but Bond without his theme? Give me a break
Gadgets? Hello? If Q could be succeeded by R, he presumably was also preceded by P. So where's P?
Dry wit? Bond is an English Spy. Not an American Assassin. Sarcastic British humour is a quintessential part of his character. Only the perfunctory and somewhat lame "He was a dead end" line came close.
Let's face it. Bond is a "sexist, mysoginist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War." If you need to re-imagine him, make up a new character. Start a 008 franchise if you must.

At the end of the day, if James Bond is not deliviring cutting one-liners, bedding women, and saving the world in the nick of time with the aid of a cool gadget or two, then he doesn't really exist. A castrated Bond is worthless. I'll go watch one of the Matt Damon Bourne movies if I just want an action thriller.

Here's hoping the next effort gets the franchise back on track. It's not a co-incidence that there were a grand total of 13 people in the cinema last night.

We've only just begun

2008-11-05T10:31:00.000-08:00

Everyone's saying it, and I couldn't agree more - this is truly a historic day, not just for America, but for the world. I had tears in my eyes when the election was called last night. Credit where it's due too - John McCain's concession speech was graceful and dignified. Barack Obama's acceptance speech was absolutely sensational, and I was even more grateful that he gave us a harsh dose of reality when he pointed out that all we've done is give change an opportunity.

And therein lies my one concern in all of this.

Certainly, we've just witnessed something even an optimist like myself wasn't sure would happen anytime soon. A statement has been made about what this country can and should stand for, and the gauntlet has been thrown down to the rest of the world. There can be little doubt that the United States already, less than 24 hours after the election was called, projects a softer and more open face to the world. One that we can all love and learn to love. There is hope, for us, and for everyone out there.

But Barack Obama is not God. That's where I'm starting to feel like a few people have got it wrong. Not because Obama has ever suggested or implied that he is, but because people, as we tend to do, have taken things to extremes. I'm already hearing about how all our problems will be solved by Valentine's Day next year.

They won't. Obama keeps re-iterating that even one term is unlikely to fix everything. He's spot on. The question is, do the people realise that? My worst fear is that we see a backlash that brings out the worst in our country when people start to realise that instant gratification and reality are mutually exclusive for the most part.

We've set ourselves up for something truly great, but the key is to now trust in our judgement, back ourselves to the hilt, and give our leader, and ourselves, the time and space that is fundamental to bringing about change.

To borrow from my inner Dileep Premchandran, let me draw on a football analogy. Sir Alex Ferguson was brought into Manchester United to bring about change. He was hailed when he was appointed, but when he didn't deliver instant results, even some of his most ardent supporters begain to turn on him. Fortunately, the masses could not vote him out, the board understood and bought into the long term vision, and the results are there to see. The fans now hail his greatness, to a man.

Obama's Board of Directors includes you, me (once I get the paperwork completed) and every other (voting-age) citizen of this great country. Let's not make the mistake of abandoning the long term vision we've voted for. Let the foundations be built, and from that platform, the future will arise. Don't blow it.

How do people get here?

2008-09-26T16:16:00.000-07:00

I discovered today that Devendra Prabhudesai is now a BCCI media relations officer. He is of course better known for his biography of Rahul Dravid, which I once scathingly reviewed, amongst other things. Anyway, that reminded me that I had this blog, so I went to check out if anyone else was looking at it. Apparently, one or two people are -- and without further ado, here are some of the search terms you're typing into Google and Yahoo! to get here (the most popular by far is "park park wherever you may be")

theirry henry arrogant (he sure is)
goooooooooooooooooal (with that many o's precisely)
shakespeare cockroach (umm, if you say so)
scrotometer (where do I get one of those?)
"laura gunderson" and "window shop"" (huh?)
how i watch india tour to bangladesh cricket match channel name please (google doesn't like rude queries)
shane warne blow up dolls (yeah!)
t2d2 (wtf?)
www.5thumpire.blogspot.com (sorry buddy!)
don't want to go to south africa (umm, well don't then!)
4fc395a8b00ca00e0d9d4430d8b766d466d53dfd1e6f482a40f65a07c758b205 (if anyone can tell me how the search algo got this person to my blog I'd be much obliged)
a profile that tells you what phone cristiano ronaldo has got (stalker alert!)
bob woolmer might be related to dawood (hadn't heard that theory before)
can india cricket team win world cup of 2011 after disappointment performance of 2007 world cup (in a word, no)
did thierry really cheat on his wife? (no idea)
tell me everything i ever want to know about the cricketer chris roger in australia (he didn't quite make the cut)
how close is the friendship between harbhajan singh and shahid afridi (ooh, that could be a good rumour)
if someone gave you a cricket phone can you get turned on (whatever floats your boat!!)
manchester united's brilliant counter-attacking game is the best in the world (how can I disagree)
out of my comfort john (yes, i think that was the original title for Steve Waugh's autobiography)
sofa disposal outlet in manchester (umm, why the heck did you click on my blog?)
why the umpire has not given any batsman out yet? (yes, Google really knows everything)
why usa suspended the icc (sorry mate, it was the other way around)
we all live cricket and some of us play and enjoy cricket and some of us appear for umpire tests (err, okay)
are we all from pluto? (you might be)
why goalkeepers are called onion bags? (aah, Tommy Smyth, you have a fan!)

All I can say is are these for real?

Bad shot, or bad shot selection?

2008-04-25T21:24:00.001-07:00

A nice little article in the Times by Simon Barnes today - he talks about the difference between flawed thinking and flawed action, in a sporting context, and I think articulates it pretty well. He rightly points out as well how fine a line it is, and how success and failure impact our armchair assessments. All in all a great little read, and something that anyone who has played sport to a significant level can certainly comprehend and relate to.

Fabricated quotes?

2008-03-27T22:37:00.000-07:00

Anyone who's ever spoken to a journalist knows that what appears in the press the following morning may or may not resemble what you actually said. It can get even worse when some sort of translation is involved. Looks like CricInfo is getting in on the game with it's quotes.

Top of the quotes on the site today is the following:

"Dammit."
Neil McKenzie, at the non-striker's end, reacts as Jacques Kallis trudges off before the umpire's verdict in the first Test against India in Chennai

Not a particularly exciting quote, until you realise that, according to CricInfo's own commentary and scorecard, Neil McKenzie had been sitting in the pavilion for the best part of 15 overs when this happened. He may have been anywhere on the ground, but wherever he was, it certainly was not at the non-strikers end.

So the question is - can CI not tell the difference between Hashim Amla and Neil McKenzie? (ouch!) Or should we really not trust any of the quotes that are trotted out for our entertainment?

Geography 101 for Cricket Journalists

2008-02-19T10:19:00.000-08:00

Clearly, Geography 101, as well as Logic 101, need to be included in mandatory training for journalists.

Take this brilliant excerpt from Myles Hodgson of the Press Association, as he attempts to explain why relatively few English players are likely to sign up with the IPL.

"Unlike the other Test-playing nations, England is in the Northern Hemisphere so they have less breaks than most international teams simply because they play in their summer and then go abroad to play in another summer."

Ponder that for a minute, if you will. And then ask yourself a couple of questions.

Firstly, when did India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Caribbean countries shift south of the equator? Or is it, in Hodgson's view, only South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia and New Zealand that, along with England, rank consideration as "real" Test-playing nations? I won't even go where some people might take this one!

Secondly, if England play at home in the summer, and go abroad to play in the southern summer; and all the other teams are in the southern hemisphere; then who exactly are England playing against, if you take Hodgson's premise that no other team has to play both home and abroad in opposite summers?

Unbelievable - how does this tripe get past an editor?

Mr Cricket - an example for everyone

2008-02-18T16:12:00.001-08:00

I've written about how poor Viv Richard's autobiography was. I've pilloried Prabhudesai on Dravid, enough to receive a long and impassioned defense of his work from the author (material for another post someday). Steve Waugh's epic was sadly, decidedly within his comfort zone. Generally, sporting biographies and autobiographies turn out to be as banal as can be.

With that in mind, I wasn't impressed when my wife spent a few dollars on Mike Hussey's book - and yet here I sit today, complimenting her on her astute choice.

For once, we have a book by a cricketer that actually talks about what it means and what it takes, to be the cricketer that he is. It is open, honest and insightful, and apart from a few graphics to illustrate how good a cricketer Hussey actually is, everything in it is information I cannot glean from elsewhere. I actually feel like I learned something from the book, not just about Hussey and his struggle to the top, but about myself as well.

Sure, he doesn't have the literary skills of a Dumas or a Mitchell, but boy does he deliver some meaningful content. I would countenance any young player looking to make his way in the game to read this. Hussey's methods may not be for everyone, but there's little doubt that this book can be a tremendous guide to anyone.

How good is David Mitchell?!

2008-02-15T11:38:00.001-08:00

I observed back when I read Black Swan Green that David Mitchell appeared to be a prodigiously talented writer. Now that I've read Cloud Atlas I can safely say that my original assessment was a massive understatement and I did Mitchell a great disservice. I don't even know where to begin to describe the masterful tapestry that he has woven, so I won't.

It shall have to suffice to say that he has got to be one of, if not the, most innately talented authors I have ever come across. His mastery of each of the half-dozen completely different voices that he adopts is quite incredible, and the only reason it took me more than one night to read the book was the fact that I had to get up early each morning to drive down to the WACA for the small matter of a Test match.

One contrarian caveat that I must throw in here for clarification. The book itself I found to be excellent, but I'm not sure it's really an all-time-great novel in my own estimation. It's up there near the top of modern literature to be sure, but I'm not sure I'd even rate it above one of my other recent reads, The Time Traveler's Wife.

Perhaps it wasn't wise to read For One More Day right after Cloud Atlas, but in any case, I'm simply glad that I didn't actually spend money on this book. There's nothing egregiously bad about it, but it didn't particularly have anything going for it either. Repetitive and thus predictable, it smacks of a short story masquerading as a novel. An author can pull that off, if he has the sort of literary skills that Mitchell possesses. I suspect even Mitch Albom fans would struggle to say this was a really great piece of work.

The Inheritance of Loss was an interesting read, mostly in that I really struggled to figure out where the author was coming from. Astonishingly, there wasn't a single positive character in the book. Every one of them was in some way a pathetic caricature, and I use that word to emphasise the lack of depth that often existed. Oddly, I found myself wanting to skip chunks of text, and yet continue reading - perhaps an indication that Ms Desai's writing didn't resonate with me, but that the story that might have been told, did? Again, nothing terrible about the book, but not one I'd particularly recommend, and I am stunned that it won the Booker prize! An almost very good book that didn't quite make it.

Jasper Fforde, take a bow. I've been wanting to try Fforde out for a long time, and I finally took the plunge. The Eyre Affair is outrageous stuff, and pure entertainment, but in a quality, rather than cheap way. Light, yet sumptuous, and oestensibly trite, yet captivatingly brilliant. No question I'll be reading his entire collection now, and if you are into your literature, but also enjoy suspending disbelief, then I have little doubt that you will love the neither utopian nor dystopian world that Fforde has created.

Four brilliant days at the WACA

2008-01-23T04:18:00.000-08:00

What a wonderful Test match. It ebbed and flowed for three great days, and the fourth day provided tremendous entertainment, although with Australia never quite getting back on top despite threatening, it may not qualify as one of the all time great Test matches.

However, it did qualify, in my book, as one of India's greatest ever victories, and it certainly was a historic performance. Perhaps the only Indian victory greater than this one, given the context, the pitch, the expectations and the quality of the opposition, was the Laxman-Dravid Calcutta encounter.

I think the best way to summarise my experience is to go through player by player with my thoughts, seeing as anyone who's reading this already knows what happened.

Billy Bowden - He had a pretty good Test actually, keeping the theatrics to a minimum, and getting it mostly right. His one clanger may have been the Symonds lbw on the final day, and there was a close one he didn't give against Dravid in the first knock, but that was about it. However, his inability to count to six was quite ridiculous at times, most notably when he made his partner go back to his post, only to be overruled by the third umpire. Also poor was his remonstrating with bowlers not to appeal too much - perhaps he got a little carried away by the spirit situation.
Asad Rauf - he had a shocker in my book. He seemed to be struggling with the conditions, and he got increasingly trigger happy as the Test went on. He sent Dhoni, Tendulkar, Rogers and Hussey all packing with iffy lbw's, and nailed Dravid in the second innings with a poor caught behind decision. Fortunately though, all these were marginal calls, rather than egregiously terrible ones as we saw in Sydney. What he did prove though, was that umpires need warm-up games too. The ball bounces more in Sydney than it does in Rawalpindi or Multan, Mr Rauf.

Wasim Jaffer - Continued to show that he possesses quite unflappable temperament, but also little ability to resist the flirtatious drive. He was enthusiastic in the field though, and the opening partnership is likely to remain for Adelaide.
Virender Sehwag - Batted like a man who had no form and little class to fall back on, which was sad to see. However, quite simply his attitude and approach - taking the game to the Aussies - made a notable difference at the top of the order, and he'll be back in the side for a while now I think. He was also heavily involved in the field, always having something to say to the captain and bowlers, and by all accounts his contributions were vital.
Rahul Dravid - Much happier at number three, and played some great cricket, despite not being at his most fluent. No surprise that he wound up top-scoring in India's best away win ever, is it? Dropped one on day 4 that he didn't see, but otherwise was superb in the slips, and was clearly Kumble's right hand man - the captain was invariably seen going to Dravid for advice. He made me cry when he got out though. That's the third 90-odd I've seen him get live!
Sachin Tendulkar - I take back anything I've ever said in question of this man. He can bloody well bat. Getting very slow in the field unfortunately, but do we care? The crowd in the members all wanted to see him score runs, and they got their wish, though not the century both they and he craved, thanks to Asad Rauf.
Saurav Ganguly - What a disaster in the field, and in this Test in general. Everyone around me in the crowd wanted to know why on earth he was in the side, and I couldn't provide an answer. His lethargy was mind-numbing, and his efforts in the field often laughable (not that I could do better or anything). I hope the rumour of sickness was in fact true, and we will see better from him in Adelaide. I'm not a fan, but even then I expected a lot more!
VVS Laxman - Sometimes it's hard to imagine how he hasn't scored 10 thousand runs and 40 centuries. This was one of those Tests. He just manages to look divine.
MS Dhoni - Samson in disguise? The long highlighted hair is gone, and so is the go-for-it batsman. In his place though, we have someone who is looking increasingly competent, both in front of and behind the stumps. I've been calling for Parthiv Patel to come back into the side, but I think I might have to rethink that one.
Anil Kumble - What can you say about the man? Looks like he was made skipper about ten years too late, and I don't see how he's ever going to stop bowling. His batting was a disappointment though - his team needed him twice, and he failed them both times. Getting to be a liability in the field too.
Irfan Pathan - He bowled beautifully, moved the ball nicely, was a livewire in the field, and batted with considerable aplomb, to the surprise and consternation of many in the crowd. Welcome back - it's going to be hard to drop him now, and RP Singh will be the one looking to see when Zaheer is back.
RP Singh - I like his attitude, and what's not to like about a bloke who can swing it at 140kmh? His batting in the second dig was a bit of a revelation, but he may be the most vulnerable of the three pacemen from this Test, despite being the most senior!
Ishant Sharma - what do you say about a chap who gets Ricky Ponting twice, does him for pace and bounce half a dozen times, and bowls one of the best extended spells I have ever seen, live or on television. The crowd really took to him, and the general consensus was that if he put some meat on those bones, there's some truly world class potential there - stuff that would put a Srinath to shame.
Harbhajan Singh - talk about an enthusiastic twelfth man. He was everywhere, all the time -- except when Andrew Symonds was batting, in which case the 12th man duties were undertaken by others.
Yuvraj Singh - the poor attitude that we have read about was quite apparent in the fielding sessions, and it was no great disappointment when he limped off injured on the third morning.
VRV Singh & Pankaj Singh - let's just say that they won't be coming on as substitute fielders anytime soon.
Dinesh Karthik - like Harbhajan, he was everywhere, and displayed the sort of attitude that suggests that he's a real positive asset in the dressing room.

Chris Rogers - back to the drawing board for him, but he knows that he's the next cab off the ranks at least. He was sensational in the field, but one hopes the flashy bmw he drove to the ground in is not an indication of a feeling that he has already found success.
Phil Jacques - coming back down to earth after a high-flying start to his Test career. This is where the rubber meets the road, and it'll be interesting if he's able to adapt and stop going after everything. Fortunately for him, there's not a lot of good swing bowling in world cricket, so he won't often be tested this much. Supposedly poor in the field, but Australia's worst is better than India's best I think!
Ricky Ponting - reality bites for Ponting. He's really been outdone by India, though I expect a double-ton at Adelaide to compensate. He was roughed up by a 19 year old, and it was interesting that there were a lot of people in the members who felt that his time as captain may be up as soon as the end of this season. One thing worth pointing out - he was a consummate sportsman through the entire match, no two ways about it.
Michael Hussey - showed everyone how to bat at the WACA on the fourth day... it's all about knowing how to leave the ball. I wonder though, if he should be batting at five, with Clarke at number four.
Michael Clarke - drove into the WACA in an old Ford, with Lara Bingle accompanying him. Perhaps it hasn't all gone to his head after all. Classy batting in the second knock, but as happened after the 6-9 in Mumbai, his bowling is becoming overrated.
Andrew Symonds - what an all round cricketer this man is. He's not a great at anything, but he can swing the ball at 125kmh, bowl good offies, hit a ball as hard and cleanly as anyone, and he is stupendous in the field - for the second year running I lost count of the number of certain boundaries he turned into dot balls.
Adam Gilchrist - this fairytale is coming to an end. He's still better than most, but certainly not at his best. I imagine we've got another year at most, if that, so enjoy it while it lasts.
Brett Lee - Dale Steyn is awesome, but Brett Lee must be the best fast bowler in the world right now bar none. Simply wonderful to watch - the sort of cricketer I will pay good money to see.
Mitchell Johnson - as the radio commentators pointed out, tried to bowl fast instead of reverting to type and swinging it. Normally it's the touring bowlers that struggle with that at the WACA!
Stuart Clark - As I said last year, nobody's missing Glenn McGrath - he just had a haircut and a name change, simple as that.
Shaun Tait - My God, what a disappointment after all the 170kmh hype. A real dud, but I know he can bowl better - we've all seen it. His last over on day 2, when Ponting was trying to squeeze an extra over was hilarious, particularly the stuttering stop-start run that ended in the delivery being abandoned right as the clock ticked over. He'll need a good ODI series to ensure he doesn't drop out of the mix.
Brad Hogg - got the biggest cheer of the game.... everytime he ran out on the field. Australia missed him, for his batting more than anything.

So on to Adelaide now. I'll be hoping for an Indian win, but I'm not expecting it.

More thoughts on Bollyline (ugh)

2008-01-08T16:46:00.000-08:00

Who'd want to be Asad Rauf or Billy Bowden. Woe betide them should they even miss a marginal no-ball call that turns out to be of no consequence, leave alone give one team or the other a free wicket. Ironically, it will be a no-win situation that India have put themselves into. If the umpires err against India, it will "prove" that replacing Bucknor was silly. If they err against Australia, it will be a perfect opportunity for the Aussies to score points by making a big show of not being bothered by it.

Anil Kumble was the first captain to accept Ricky Ponting's deal regarding captains/fielders calling catches. It's probably a safe bet that he will also be the last.

Were Brad Hogg and Harbhajan Singh ever going to play in Perth anyway? I suppose Harbhajan might have, if only to bowl two overs (one in each innings to dismiss Ponting). But surely Tait is coming in for Hogg to blast India out?

Conventional wisdom has it that Sehwag will come in for Yuvraj if he scores more than about 20 in Canberra this week. However, you have to wonder at this point if it won't be Jaffer who makes way. Perhaps Sehwag and Karthik in for Yuvraj and Jaffer, or maybe Pathan takes one of those spots, plays as an opener and an extra bowling option allowing Harbhajan to play as well. I'm not a fan of 5 bowlers in general, but India have to be aggressive tactically to square the series. Personally though, I'd dump Harbhajan, play Pathan to deepen the batting, and work on the presumption that batting depth will give India a chance on the bouncy track more than extra bowlers.

Hopefully, we'll get a real scorcher of a Test next week. I'm going to enjoy my birds eye view, almost as much as I'm going to enjoy the opportunity to meet a certain Liverpool supporter!

Finally, while many people are suggesting banning sledging, I'd like to suggest the polar opposite. Let's make cricket a full contact sport. See if Harbhajan still wants to take on Symonds, or if anyone would ever challenge Inzamam (were he to return to the game).

A controversial victory

2008-01-07T15:06:00.000-08:00

OK, so absolutely nobody will get the pathetic pun, if you can even call it that. For your consideration, I propose the conspiracy theory of the day, postulated by a man who once was a fan of a fan of Rodney Hogg's, though I'm not sure that's relevant.

Last we heard, a major Bollywood epic, entitled "Victory" was filming at the SCG. They couldn't have scripted better material if they had tried. The rest I leave to your imagination.

In all seriousness though, the controversy is quite ridiculous, as is the "Bolly-line" moniker that I have seen applied to it. I see it pretty simply. Ponting needs some runs, and if Harbhajan plays, he won't be getting them. Here comes RT Ponting, 401* at Perth - and I'll be there to witness it. Wait, I said I was going to be serious:

If Harbhajan used the term "monkey," he's an idiot, because he was fully aware of what happened in the recent ODI series, and would have known full well that it is considered an offensive term. Let's be brutally honest - India can be a very hostile place if you're dark-skinned, so this is not the time for being holier-than-thou and some introspection is in order.
That said, people are called a lot lot worse on a cricket field. As, I think, Greg Baum, observed, the Australians have figured out how to keep it within the letter, if not the spirit, and other teams need to get a little more sophisticated.
Michael Clarke cheated in my book. He joins the sad list of cricketers who have, most likely knowingly, claimed bump catches. My list started with Mark Waugh, 17 years ago, and includes players from several countries and of several skin pigments.
Not walking when you edge to first slip? These guys need to come to California, where a batsman can walk after being caught at second slip, and then come back after the umpire shouts after him "hey, I'm not giving you out!"
At the end of the day, despite the atrocious umpiring which in this instance ended up favouring Australia overall, India should have drawn the Test match. You simply cannot complain about the result when you wind up losing three wickets to someone who never bowls in the penultimate over of the match.

Cricket or Liverpool?

2008-01-07T15:01:00.000-08:00

I think I've finally had my fill of Dileep Premachandran's editorials. It's bad enough that the man is a Liverpool supporter, but it's become borderline pathetic the way in which all his cricketing columns have to somehow attempt to make a point about the greatness of Liverpool, and if he can squeeze it in, a, usually baseless, dig at United.

His latest piece, on the monkey-bastard "Bolly-line" controversy, is no exception. In it he manages to point out how Liverpool were cheated of the European Cup in 1965, how a referee had a stinker at a Liverpool game recently, and how he thinks that Cristiano Ronaldo is a villain. Why, if he really wanted to make a point about cheating, perhaps he'd do better to use Steven Gerrard as an example.

Revealed at last - why Indian batsmen don't run singles!

2008-01-04T13:57:00.001-08:00

You may not have realised this, but it's because they are... Brahmins! No, that's not my theory - but it's the one described in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today.

Not a lot that I can say, other than to remain in vein and point out that the Brahmins have scored most of the runs for India in this series. It also stands to reason, I am forced to conclude, that there must be a super secret by-invitation-only subset of Brahmins, who run even less than their 'ordinary' counterparts. No doubt Sourav Ganguly is a member of this sect :-)

Good thing there's some entertaining journalism doing the rounds to take our minds off what is on the way to becoming a bore-draw.

Reality Bites for India

2007-12-28T21:21:00.000-08:00

I can safely say that I'm not speaking purely with the benefit of hindsight. A few things to consider.

Yuvraj Singh I don't think has ever even scored more than 30 other than on flat tracks at home and in Pakistan. He may yet go on to do great things, but his 169 against Pakistan was not the great knock that many said it was. It came in amongst first innings scores of 630 and 530, both scored at around four runs per over, which tells you about the track in Bangalore!
Therefore, to sacrifice your best batsman by making him open, to accomodate Yuvraj, was a ridiculous move. Even more so when you consider Dravid's history as an opener. Eight Tests prior to this one, and India have lost five of them, drawn two, and won one. Apart from two centuries in run-fests in Pakistan, I don't think he's ever topped 20 as an opener. Therefore, the think-tank sends him in to open. Go figure.
Sourav Ganguly - as someone who is far from a fan, I have to hand it to him for these two knocks. Arguably his best stuff since his comeback, in which his contribution has not been as outstanding as the statistics might lead you to believe. He's showing some guts, and while it can be argued that he managed to spend most of his time facing Hogg and Symonds, the fact remains that he was at least able to get off strike when facing the pace trio, which is more than any of the other batsmen can claim for themselves.
The Pitch - what many people forget is that Australia beat India in India not so long ago. This match was played on a very Indian sort of wicket, and the Aussies are expert at bowling a suffocating line and length on those wickets. They did just that here at the MCG.

Sydney and Adelaide likely represent the two chances India have of salvaging some pride in this series.

I'll be at the Perth Test, which at this rate is likely to be a three day affair, and I hope to be at the Adelaide Oval as well, though the series may be a dead rubber at that point.

There aren't a lot of options available to India. I think they'll have to consider bringing Sehwag back in for Yuvraj, and possibly Irfan Pathan in for RP Singh to add depth to the batting line up. If we could get Parthiv Patel in for Dhoni, that would be the icing on the cake, but it isn't likely to happen.

Time Travel and other recent reads

2007-12-26T14:34:00.000-08:00

A few of my better recent reads:

Anne Fadiman - The spirit catches you and you fall down

Wasn't sure what I was going to get here, but it turned out to be a touching story and I was riveted. First of all, it was a specific story of a culture and people that I knew nothing about, and was therefore happy to get an introduction to. It was also a harrowing tale of a poor young girl suffering from epilepsy. But more than both of those, it was a surprisingly insightful revelation of an experience that could be transposed onto any diasporic community. It just goes to show that for all our differences, things are so much the same for all of us on a fundamental level. There's so many levels on which to read this book - all of them valuable and enjoyable.

Michael Chabon - Kavalier and Clay

An excellent read. Everytime I felt it was dragging on, it shifted, which said to me that the author paced it just right. There were definitely points at which I worried that it would be descending into political propaganda, but it never quite did. I look forward to reading more about a Yiddish policeman.

Audrey Niffenegger - The Time Traveller's Wife

So I'm a sucker for time travel, so much so that I'm the person that thinks Journeyman is the only show on TV worth watching, apart from Heroes. I really couldn't lose with a book like this. And I didn't. Right at the top of my list, for the time being, at least. What really blew me away was how effectively Niffenegger managed to develop the plot and the central characters, despite operating in a chronologically challenged environment. We may have jumped back 30 years from chapter to chapter, but the individuals always progressed in our minds.

Mark Haddon - A Spot of Bother

Curious Incident was superb. I really felt like I was inside the mind of an autistic child, not that I have any idea what that would actually feel like. Haddon's follow up, "A Spot of Bother," is not perhaps on that level, but he has given us another wonderfully quirky, amusing and yet profound glimpse into a dysfunctional world. I hope I don't have to wait too long for the next one. He's on my must-read list now.

Harry Thompson - Penguins Stopped Play

Superb. If you play cricket at all, and know how to read, pick up a copy of this one! One of those that really resonated with me - I could pick out characters in my own cricketing experiences that matched up with every member of the Captain Scott squad. If you don't know who Thompson is - he's one of the creators of Ali G, and as such instrumental in the discovery of Sacha Baron Cohen. He also helped put guys like Ricky Gervais and Harry Enfield on the map - a real comedy legend!

Freakonomics

2007-09-08T22:18:00.001-07:00

I guess it's fashionable to rave about this book. Fortunately, it's also fashionable in some circles to be contrarian, so I'm not going to be completely out of favour after this brief comment.

They say economics is the science of incentives. I'd go a step further and say it's the science of common sense. The concept that is the foundation of economics is that of supply and demand. If you want more of something that is in scarce supply, it'll cost you. If you don't want something that is available in abundance, you can get it on the cheap. Your first year of economics in high school will focus on that - and if you ask me, if you didn't realise it already, you're doomed anyway.

As far as Freakonomics goes though, we've moved one level lower - to the science of statistics. In the famous words of Aaron Levenstein, "statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting. What they conceal is vital!" Ironically, that's essentially what the authors claim about other peoples statistics, only to go and fall foul of the same issues themselves.

Are swimming pools really more dangerous than guns? Is flying safer than driving? Is the crime rate lower today because of Roe vs. Wade? Is having an intact family unit and reading to your child totally irrelevant? The same stats that the authors use to supposedly prove one side of each of these and many other questions, can be used to prove the inverse.

So in the ultimate analysis, the book is an entertaining read, but not necessarily insightful. In fact, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was in part an excuse to espouse a particular set of beliefs, under the guise of scientific fact.

Read it, if you haven't already. You'll have a good laugh, and if you're not an open minded thinker, it might make you aware that there are many ways to skin a cat.

Mantra

2007-08-28T15:10:00.000-07:00

I'm not a food blogger, and I don't usually bother to post about my restaurant experiences, but this one really took me by surprise last night, so I had to say something. We dined at Mantra, in Palo Alto - a restaurant that can best be classified as part of the growing breed of Indian fusion experiences.

It opened a couple of years ago, to less than glowing reviews, but a change of chef and revamp of the menu supposedly yielded positive results, so we figured it was worth a try. It was a fabulous meal.

I was a little concerned at the menu - it gave lie to the impression that there may be a little too much happening with the food, but that turned out to be far from the case. In fact, most impressive was the balance the chef achieved between Indian flavours in non-Indian dishes, and vice versa. Second to that was the plating of the dishes, which managed to add to the experience without ever being overdone -- other than perhaps the desserts which were a little over the top in presentation!

The appetizers were both superb - a delicate pea, cumin and green apple soup poured tableside over a crisp medley of diced mango and a few other things (sorry, the details are failing me!); and a kebab combination featuring minced lamb over quail eggs, and an absolutely stunning chicken reshmi kebab tinged with just the right amount of saffron.

It was the mains that really blew me away though. My Kashmiri Sea Bass was unequivocally the best fish I have ever eaten. It was cooked perfectly, moist throughout, the flavours of fish and spices perfectly matched - and it truly melted in your mouth. The two veggie entrees - an Indian style ravioli (a single large piece) and the Sabz ki Salan both elicited rave reviews, and perhaps the only disappointment was the lemon and thyme tandoori chicken in the mixed grill, which was not the best cut of chicken, and failed to live up to the standards set by everything else.

Dessert was also impressive - the rose and cardamom chocolate lava cake was a hit, as was the home made ice-cream and kulfi combination, and the shrikhand-esque lavender creme brulee.

If there's one criticism I have, it's that the food didn't quite come out together - it seemed as though the kitchen started everything, and sent it out when ready, rather than figure out preparation time and back into when to start preparing each dish. Other than that, the service was attentive, but unobtrusive - just how I like it.

All in all - a brilliant experience, one which I would highly recommend.. and I will definitely be back for more.

New York Times on cricket!!

2007-08-14T13:00:00.000-07:00

So the New York Times got all excited about India's series victory today. No doubt we're all supposed to be excited that cricket is getting coverage in one of the leading US publications. And then you get into the details.

A "picture of the day", of Sachin Tendulkar screaming with anguish. It's the look he usually reserves for his regular failed attempts to hit the stumps. The kicker though, is the caption:

Sachin Tendulkar, an Indian bowler, narrowly missed an opportunity to dismiss the England batsman Matt Prior during the final day of the third test between England and India at the Oval cricket ground in England. Later Monday, India won the five-day international competition.

I guess the only thing they really got right is the fact that Tendulkar was more of a bowler than a batsman in this Test!

The Edge of Marriage

2007-08-09T22:07:00.000-07:00

Of course, many would say that marriage in it's entirety tends to rest on a pretty fine edge, but that's neither here nor there.

This book is, of course, a collection of short stories. As I've repeatedly said, I am not the biggest short story aficionado out there. So when I say that this is actually a pretty good read, that's not just damning with faint praise.

I still faced my usual frustration with the lack of any sort of closure, cliched or otherwise, in most of the stories - though the final pair of tales surprised me by winding up in some sort of a settled state. However, what set this collection apart from most for me was the fact that without fail, the stories were gripping. I don't know that Kaplan is a great writer, but she did a tremendous job of capturing the relationships she was describing, and the state of mind of her key characters.

Don't go out of your way - but if you come across the book, pick it up and you won't be disappointed.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

2007-08-01T12:58:00.000-07:00

WARNING - Some of the following may spoil the plot, although I'll try and avoid doing so in too significant a manner.

So I consoled myself over the loss of "War Reporting for Cowards" by reading the same book that 350 million others have been reading over the last week or two. While I don't really have anything overwhelmingly negative to say about the experience, I am thankful that I am a fast reader and it only took me about 6 hours to get through it.

I walked away from the book (well, more like turned out the light and went to sleep) with two clear lingering thoughts.

First of all, all the pre-book speculation about people dying turned out to be both right on the mark and wildly off base (how's that for avoiding spoilers). Deaths were somewhat gratuitous and insignificant, and yet were of the sort that students of literature fifty years from now will deem to have been central to plot advancement and critical to character development (at least, for those characters who remained alive, that is).

As for the grand denouement and the climactic scenes leading up to it, in truth I think many readers will find themselves surprisingly unsurprised. It seems to me that Rowling either unwittingly backed herself into a corner with the previous books, or else had always known how things would unfold, and revealed more than she really intended. That, or my guesses happened to be good ones.

As her characters have grown from book to book, Rowling's writing has clearly evolved with the series. The books are still a light read, as they should be, but she has done well with this one to keep me engaged despite the lack of suspense - I cast my mind back to the first book, which took me several attempts to plough through because it was simply not well written.

Can't really say much more without spoiling it for my two readers, so I won't.

What's in a name?

2007-07-30T12:40:00.000-07:00

The collective wisdom of the Guardian Sports Desk has left me stupefied, and I'm no Death Eater facing down a Hermione Granger spell.

Over the last year or so, I've noticed the western media struggling with what to call Sreesanth. Apparently the edict has now been handed down, and Shantakumaran Sreesanth is henceforth to be referred to as Sree Santh. This gives rise to statements such as "Santh was fortunate not to be given lbw by Steve Bucknor." Wonderful stuff.

Speaking of lbws, it's hardly escaped anyone's noticed that Simon Taufel is having possibly his worst series ever, at least on the evidence of the television cameras. India may yet want to thank him though, for by triggering Tendulkar and Ganguly when he did, he's set up the low 4th innings target. Had he not done so, we might have seen India pushing for an innings victory, and winding up running out of time.

Cue the media again - and this time it's the turn of Sambit Bal, CricInfo's editor, to make the moronic pronouncement of the week, one that reflects a complete lack of comprehension of the game that pays him his living.

"It is not criminal to have the benefit of the doubt extended to the bowler occasionally, particularly when he has beaten the batsman with a good ball"

he says. What a great idea. Rather than have the umpires adjudicate on the facts of the matter, let's have them decide whether or not they think the bowler bowled a good delivery. If he did so, then perhaps the umpire could toss a coin, and if it comes up heads, let's give the batsman out. That way, good deliveries get rewarded.

Do people think before they write this stuff?

War Reporting for Cowards

2007-07-26T21:41:00.000-07:00

I would tell you what I thought of this book, but unfortunately the bloody thing was last seen sitting in seat 2D of a United Airlines 737-500. Ironically, I'd just got through the first half of the book, which was the real scenario-setting, character-developing piece. I typically like to read on a flight, but my seatmate this time was a bloke with a rather recognizable name who runs a several hundred million dollar jewellery business, and that's a world just so far from my own that I couldn't help but engage in conversation. Still, I wish I had my book back!

It's certainly not a prize-winning work of non-fiction, but it was a gently irreverent look at 9/11, Iraq and the impact on everyday life. You won't swear by it, but you'll enjoy the read - and when you're done, please send the book my way so I can finish it!

Points

2007-07-23T11:58:00.000-07:00

Another great illustration of why there's no hope for cricket in this country. Football/soccer is massive at the youth level - the most widely played sport, in fact. The arrival of Becks and Posh has been hitting the headlines for weeks, and yet here's what got churned out in one match report on Beckham's debut for the LA Galaxy this weekend.

Despite a moment that claimed the collective breath of the sold-out stadium—when Beckham was side-tackled and remained down a hair too long for the crowd's liking—his debut was smooth, if entirely uneventful.

L.A. lost the "friendly" to Chelsea 1-0, with the match's sole point scored by John Terry, the man who succeeded Beckham as captain of the England team.

If that's the best that can be done for a game that is allegedly known and understood, with "side-tackled" and "sole point" being the writer's attempt to display a technical comprehension of the game, then what chance does cricket have?

Does Yahoo have a future?

2007-06-28T13:44:00.000-07:00

Reading Shri's blog this morning, I discovered that there is actually something that Yahoo! does better than Google, at least for today. Of course, in addition to this ostensibly slightly more intelligent image search, there's also the lead in mobile search that Y! has, or so I'm told by a billboard on 101 every afternoon. You could probably throw in the unlimited storage for your email, but in yet another brilliantly executed marketing tactic, nobody actually knows about that.

Put that together with the continued shuffling of the top of the corporate deck, and you start wondering if there isn't in fact a glimmer of hope for Yahoo!

Countless people with far greater credentials than mine have pontificated ad nauseam over what the company should, and shouldn't do going forward. I submit that it all has to start with a couple of core cultural changes, and unfortunately that's going to be a lot easier said than done.

First of all, and excuse the cliche, the company has to actually dare to be great. It was very clear to me in my short time there, that too many people in positions of significant power and influence quite simply lacked a backbone. A company that is led by followers is going to struggle to be a leader.

I'm reminded of the people who buy a lovely sofa set, or dining chairs, and then leave the plastic shrink wrap on them lest anything actually come into contact with the plush surface material. Or better yet, the guy in our local cricket league who owns a $300 helmet, but does not wear it to protect his head for fear of damage. It's no point crowing about all your wonderful assets and capabilities if you're not going to have the guts to leverage them in any way. It's even okay to do something imperfectly once in a while, particularly when the alternative is to do nothing at all.

Secondly, the company needs to rethink how it actually defines itself. I'm not just talking about the whole media company vs. technology company vs. internet company vs. something else debate here. I'm talking about the process inherent in self-definition.

There are two ways that an individual entity, be it a person, an organisation, a company, or a country, can define itself. The easy option is to take a look around you, and define yourself in terms of others. We see this all the time in the geo-political arena, and it's precisely what I saw, and still see/hear, going on extensively at Yahoo! Someone else is having success with something, therefore if we want to be successful, that's what we must be. Or everybody hates so-and-so, so we must at all costs, avoid looking like them.

Success, however, is more likely to be forthcoming if you take the other, harder, approach. Take a moment for introspection, and then think about what your place in the world can and should be. Based not on others, but on what you can really bring to the table.

Yahoo! still has unparalleled assets, especially in the form of data. It also has good systems, and good people, my and other people's disparaging comments notwithstanding. When it decides to focus on harnessing those, and opts to build on it's own foundation, the opportunity to be a great company will once again present itself.

So my not-particularly-thought-out advice to Jerry Yang -- shut out the rest of the world, think about what you have at your disposal, and imagine what you could really do with it. Then go out there and dare to chase that vision. It's ultimately inconsequential whether Google gets blown away, nudged aside, or embraced in that process.

CricInfo fixing the tournament?

2007-04-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

So I haven't posted in a while both because I've been travelling a lot for work, and because I really haven't had much to say about the World Cup.

I must therefore thank CricInfo for changing that with yet another great headline. Today they are claiming that the Bangladesh-Ireland match tomorrow is a play-off for last place in the Super Eights.

Let's just consider the facts here for a minute.

England have games remaining against South Africa and the West Indies, the latter match being the final game of the Super Eights, and Brian Lara's retirement match.

Bangladesh have to take on the Irish tomorrow, and the West Indians on the 18th.

Thus far, England have beaten Canada, Kenya, Ireland and Bangladesh, and lost to New Zealand, and Sri Lanka.

Bangladesh have beaten India, Bermuda, South Africa and lost to New Zealand, Australia, Sri Lanka and England.

Apparently CricInfo have missed the fact that if England beat South Africa, but lose to the West Indies (a game in which Lara will probably score the first double century in ODIs, knowing him), then Bangladesh will be through to the semi-finals if they win their two games. Some last-place battle. In fact, if Bangladesh win both their games, regardless of what happens elsewhere, they are a real shot for fifth place on NRR.

I suppose the headline writers are hoping against hope. Good luck to them.

No surprises here

2007-04-04T15:16:00.000-07:00

Heartache for the English, to be sure, but in the end, this most predictable of World Cups, Ireland notwithstanding, has continued true to form. Close, but no cigar.

Going into the Super Eights, it was evident that Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and New Zealand were clear favourites to make the semi-finals, with England the only team of the other four that really had a chance to crash the party. Unfortunately for the tournament, their chance was today, and they couldn't take it. Their only hope is to now defeat either South Africa or Australia, but their biggest worry will be that even if they do so, they face the host nation in the final match of the league, and the West Indians are sure to want to at least exit on a winning note.

It's harsh to say it, but you have to think that had India and Pakistan made it through, at least there would have been a fight to the last four. Still, Ireland and Bangladesh earned their spots, more so than Kenya in the last tournament, so we can't complain.

Frankly, I didn't rate England as a chance today, so I should really keep my mouth shut. Ravi Bopara and Paul Nixon left me speechless as they first let the game slip (apparently), and then brought it right back from the brink. You always felt though, that the team that nearly pulled off a miracle against South Africa were not going to come second at the end of this one.

It seems to me that Sri Lanka are the team most likely to challenge Australia in the final, with a Shane Bond inspired New Zealand possibly the other team who could come close. I can't see the South African bowling attack pulling it off, so I'm hoping that the Kiwis and Lankans can sneak into 2nd and 3rd place, to ensure that one of them faces off against Ponting's men on April 28th.

Rumours abound

2007-03-23T17:12:00.000-07:00

The conspiracy theorists are out in full force at this point.

I've heard everything from how Bob Woolmer was about to blow the lid on Hansie Cronje's murder in a plane crash, to how Pakistan were supposed to lose to the West Indies, but not to Ireland, and that lost a lot of people a lot of money. We even have claims from a New Delhi jail cell that Dawood Ibrahim commissioned the hit.

From slightly more credible sources in Jamaica, I've heard that:

Inzamam had a massive row with Woolmer in his hotel room that morning
An unidentified individual was seen loitering outside Woolmer's hotel room
At least 4 known bookies have been seen around the stadia in the Caribbean in the last fortnight
Some, but not all members of the Pakistan squad returned from Montego Bay to their hotel in Kingston, allegedly not of their own volition

The mind simply continues to boggle. In the meantime, India lived up to my expectations with a dismal performance today, one that may have Greg Chappell worried for more than just his job, given the circumstances. The Lankans were predictable and deserved winners, and at this point it's hard to look beyond them and New Zealand to join the Aussies and South Africans in the semi-finals.

Sri Lanka, New Zealand and the West Indies will all go into the Super Eights with 2 points to their name - tomorrow's clash, quite possibly a preview of the final, will determine who has to start out at the bottom of the heap alongside Ireland, Bangladesh, and England or Kenya.

Please don't email me and point out that Bermuda could beat Bangladesh and send India to the Super Eights. The only thing that would achieve would be to prove that the whole darn thing is predetermined.

An arrest is made

2007-03-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

As I wrote the previous post, I've just heard that an individual has been arrested. Said individual has apparently been in contact with the Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan teams and players during the tournament, and his involvement may be related to Bob Woolmer's resignation, which apparently had already been tendered to the PCB.

The mind boggles with the implications here.

Who dunnit?

2007-03-22T21:20:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to attempt to eulogise Bob Woolmer, nor am I going to attempt to comment on the facts of the case. There are plenty of people who far better equipped than I am to do as much.

Having been travelling for a couple of days, I was going to comment on the last four matches, and particularly on the fact that New Zealand further illustrated the devaluing of the tournament in resting a few key players for their game against Canada, and still winning without trying too hard.

The cricket was of course always likely to be upstaged by the Woolmer saga, and so it has played out. I'm really at a complete loss for words on this one. I'm not sure if the sporting world has ever seen anything like it, and it's telling, and not surprising, that people at work who don't know what a cricket bat looks like have now heard the story.

Leaving aside all the obvious questions and thoughts, one can only begin to ponder the impact that Bob Woolmer's murder will have on the cricket world.

The best case scenario, if there is one, for the game is that this was the work of a deranged fan, as I suggested a few days ago. That would of course be disastrous for Pakistan's image, but the game of cricket could emerge somewhat untarnished.

Really, the other options are even more unthinkable. I'll hope and assume it isn't a player, but the work of the match-fixing mafia? The implications of that are simply that the game continues to be rife with corruption, suggesting that there is little hope of stamping it out. Not a positive thought.

English language interviews

2007-03-20T10:17:00.000-07:00

Interviewing sportsmen who don't speak English as a first language in English routinely makes for some great entertainment.

Just this weekend, Inzamam-ul-Haq was asked whether he agreed that Ireland played brilliantly, and responded by saying that "The boys have been very good for the last 2-3 years but these things happen."

Cristiano Ronaldo was a deserved man-of-the-match after a brilliant display against Boro in the Cup quarter finals yesterday. He was then subject to this despicable interview by an obviously prejudiced reporter from Sky.

Notice how he misunderstands several of the questions, though I wouldn't blame him if he was doing so deliberately. Particularly amusing is when he is asked about how he feels at being branded a cheat, and he responds saying that "I feel good, the team is playing well...."

At the same time though, he manages to pull out a word like "polemic" early on in the exchange! I suppose the word is similar in French (polemique) and therefore likely in Portugese as well.

It's just not cricket

2007-03-20T09:59:00.000-07:00

It's quite amusing to see all the Sehwag and Dravid bashers scurrying for the cover of a rock following the mauling of the mighty Bermudans yesterday. More so because if ever a performance demonstrated absolutely nothing about anything, this was it. If Sehwag starts the same way against Sri Lanka, he'll be trudging back to the pavilion before long. He may have overcome the Bermudan Hurdle (sorry), but Messrs Malinga and Vaas won't be quite as obliging.

Contrary to popular belief, I think India should be a little bit concerned. Scoring runs against mediocre bowling is okay - you still have to go out there and do the job. Letting Bermuda score 156 however, suggests that Sri Lanka will not be bowled out for anything under 300. Cue beads of sweat on Greg Chappell's brow. The contention that half those runs were scored by the new Glamorgan county captain doesn't really help matters either. I simply shudder to think what would have happened to Bermuda in Group A.

The day's other game was of course entirely unremarkable, apart from the headline writing on CricInfo. The West Indies cruised through the game without ever having to shift out of second gear. That said, we won't know until the Super Eights whether or not they actually have another gear to shift into, such has been the lack of competition for them in that group. The Irish will have watched this and dared to dream of going into the next phase with 2 points to their name!

Headlines

2007-03-19T14:33:00.000-07:00

As pointed out by a friend who is still in recovery from Pakistan's humbling at the hands of Ireland on the weekend....

With the West Indies at 162-4 in 40 overs, needing 41 runs in the final ten overs, the headline on CricInfo reads "West Indies lose their way!"

Earlier, when they were 102-2 in 23 overs, it read "West Indies stutter after good start."
No matter that the required rate was actually just 3.76 per over and that the loss of two wickets had actually helped increase the run rate. At least in that case, one could call the loss of wickets a 'stutter.' Funnily enough though, at no point in this game has the headline suggested that the West Indians actually look like possible victors, let alone likely ones.

Six months ago, I commented on CI's tendency to sensationalise in the manner of the best tabloids. Looks like little has changed. I suppose you have to do what you have to do to get people to click through on your links. Advertisers want to see page impressions, after all.

Update: Dwayne Bravo has just brought the ask down to 25 in 42 deliveries. The headline writer's response? "West Indies creak towards victory"

It's only a game

2007-03-18T22:02:00.000-07:00

I was stunned to hear this morning that Bob Woolmer had died. Even more so when I read about blood and vomit on the walls of his bathroom, and him being found mouth gaping open in a pool of vomit. It's hard to comprehend how Inzamam could be so graceless as to use a press conference just a few hours after this tragedy to announce his impending retirement from the one day arena. Talk about selfishness and a lack of class.

We may never really know what happened to Bob Woolmer. Natural causes, suicide, or the unthinkable - his life taken by a deranged fan. Either which way, the one thing that is apparent is that perhaps the game sometimes means a bit too much to some people. I don't mean to trifle with a passion or a love, but being overly vested in any one thing in life is fraught with consequence.

The cricket today took a back seat as a result. The Netherlands are doing a great job of living up to my pre-tournament expectations of a dead last finish, and it was easy pickings for the Aussies today. England will be satisfied with their 2 points, but that's about all they can take from their game with Canada. Against mediocre opposition, the English never quite asserted themselves, and while Andrew Flintoff will have recovered from his drunken revelry in time to face Kenya, a place in the Super 8 looks far from assured.

The fun really starts tomorrow. With Pakistan eliminated, Zimbabwe suddenly have everything to play for, as do the West Indies who will want to be careful not to drop points to the team that accompanies them into the Super 8 phase. In the real cracker however, India play their 2nd game in 3 days (how did that get onto the schedule?) needing to win by a lofty margin to keep their hopes alive. They should be thankful that they are taking on Bermuda, but we've already seen what happens when you get complacent.

Revenge of the Minnows

2007-03-17T21:44:00.000-07:00

You'd think they were out to prove me wrong, but let's get a couple of things straight. Bangladesh are no minnows, and Ireland showed in their first outing that they were not going to be disgraced.

In truth, today's results were not surprising to anyone who watched the cricket on display. Bangladesh wholly outplayed India in every department. Some of the batting may well have been a little agricultural, but that was a step up from what the Indians showed. Mashrafe Mortaza was again brilliant with the new ball, and the tone was set at that point.

Also telling was the fact that the three half-century makers for Bangladesh were aged 17 (Tamim Iqbal), 18 (Mushfiqur Rahim) and 19 (Saqibul Hasan) respectively. I say this not to draw attention to their batting performance, but to politely wonder whether the fact that India's batting depends on three 34-year olds also is a factor in their pathetic fielding. After the display in the field today, it is possibly only Bermuda who are a weaker or less athletic side than the Indians. What's more, one side was out there playing to win, and the other was just waiting for their opponents to lose. No prizes for guessing which was which.

India now have a lot of work to do to get through to the Super 8s. Bangladesh will beat Bermuda and get to 4 points. India therefore not only need to win their remaining games, but will need to do so with a superior net run rate, unless Bangladesh can topple the Lankans as well. Don't bet the house on it, but watch out for some attempts at explosive batting against Bermuda. Bangladesh play Bermuda to round out the group, so they have the advantage.

Of course, Pakistan would give anything to be in that position right now. It will be a long flight home for Inzamam and his boys, but despite the best efforts of Umpire Jerling, they were soundly and deservedly beaten by Ireland. Better yet, it was a true Irishman who led the way with a composed innings of 72. The Irish could even afford to bowl 23 wides, as their fielding efforts more than compensated.

The best part of this, of course, is what happens to those who had tickets to the India-Pakistan Super 8 game. I'm not even entirely sure, other than I expect to see a lot for sale on eBay tomorrow morning. The obvious conclusion is that they will now see Ireland take on Bangladesh, but as the Super 8 schedule is allegedly based on seeding, it should technically result in them seeing Bangladesh vs. West Indies. But we can't have that, as that would mess with the expected West Indian schedule as well. I wonder what the organisers will do.

Records galore, but little entertainment

2007-03-16T21:10:00.000-07:00

And once again, the presence of teams that simply don't deserve to be there, makes a mockery of the World Cup. Oh, I know the folks at CricInfo and in fact much of the rest of the media are trying hard to tell us that we were wonderfully entertained, but let's face it, there was very little on display between South Africa and The Netherlands that represented top quality cricket.

Six sixes in an over? That should be one of the greatest feats in cricketing lore, and yet I suspect that I'll only remember it a few months down the road because I won't be allowed to forget. Even Herschelle Gibbs was visibly hesitant when rating this amongst the greatest efforts of his career.

Fortunately, England and New Zealand showed us that there might yet be hope for this tournament. Neither side will be truly happy with their overall performance, but what we did see was a contest - at least for a while. Shane Bond lived up to my pre-tournament expectations in his first outing by ripping the heart out of England in one over, without ever reaching full pace. The result leaves the Kiwis expecting to top Group C, and England knowing that if they switch off, Kenya will be ready to pounce.

I'm looking forward to a couple of interesting games tomorrow. Bangladesh will, I am certain, play their hearts out in response to the death of Manjural Islam in a motorbike accident yesterday, and the Indians will have to be on guard. As for the Pakistan-Ireland game, while the result may appear a foregone conclusion, the Irish are on a high, and Pakistan are, well, Pakistan.

How about some real cricket?

2007-03-15T22:30:00.000-07:00

It's not been the best of starts to the World Cup. A thoroughly uninspiring opening ceremony has been followed by a lot of mediocre cricket, watched in the stadiums by crowds smaller than those that gather in the rain to watch traditional bowling in Cork.

We've seen pretty much what I, and most others, expected. The minnows were able to maintain a modicum of respect in the field, clearly helped by the fact that none of the pitches have allowed for free strokeplay thus far. When they have batted, however, the true gulf in class has been clearly illustrated. Perhaps the only surprise in this respect was that Pakistan played only marginally better than the minnows, largely thanks to a typically pugnacious knock by Shoaib Malik down the order.

The West Indies and Pakistan were possibly playing off for 8th place, and as it turned out, the Pakistanis grasped their chance to finish last amongst the 'big' countries with both hands. Of course, it's hard to forget that in 1992, Pakistan opened their tournament by being hammered by 10 wickets. Against the West Indies. Ominous or irrelevant? You decide.

Australia hammered Scotland without breaking a sweat, the only point of interest in that game perhaps being that Shaun Tait was simply too fast for the Scots at times. Ricky Ponting's century was predictable the moment he was dropped, and his team really just picked up where they left off 4 years ago.

Kenya finished off Canada quite clinically, but I don't think that game told us a thing. Seeing the Canadian opening bowler, Umar Bhatti, struggle to reach 70mph told us plenty about the gulf in class that the associate nations have little hope of overcoming in the Caribbean.

The Sri Lankans didn't even have to switch on against Bermuda, for whom Dwayne Leverock failed to impress, thus removing any hope of spectator interest in the contest. As I suspected, Lasith Malinga's showed that his touch of pace may just prove a handful on these sluggish pitches, although I am not yet convinced by Ranjit Fernando's assertion that the Lankans have the best bowling attack in the tournament.

Thank the heavens then, for the last over of the Zimbabwe vs. Ireland game today - which frankly was the only part of the contest you really needed to watch. A tie was perhaps a fitting result, simply because neither side apparently had quite enough to win it, and yet neither deserved to lose. Martin Williamson at CricInfo has called this "one of the greatest World Cup games ever," and one can only assume that this is his first World Cup if that is truly the opinion he holds. It says much about the modern spectator and journalist that, in all sports to be fair, we apparently judge the greatness of a contest by the result and score, rather than the performance on display.

At the end of it all, the conclusion is simple - what we have here is the same format as the 1992 World Cup, except this time there is a 4 group exhibition tournament preceding it, in which we will be reminded how lucky we are that the cricket beamed to our TV sets is usually played between two major cricketing nations.

I admire the desire to provide the associate member countries with exposure and learning - unfortunately the signature tournament of the cricketing world is just not the right place for it. Not on this scale.

World Cup Preview - Group D

2007-03-12T13:24:00.000-07:00

West Indies

Opinion: As someone who grew up in an era of West Indian dominance, it is simply painful to watch them on the field these days. The inclusion of Kieron Pollard and Lendl Simmons (yes, he's related to Phil, he's a nephew) smack of a desperate gamble, rather than calculated prescience. Like all the big name teams, they'll make it to the Super 8s, but that is likely to be by default than by dint of performance.
Ones to Watch: I'm not a fan of Lara, but you can never discount the man, and he's likely to make his last World Cup a big one. The ones who will make the difference though, are probably Ramnaresh Sarwan, who will hopefully do full justice to his talent at last, and Dwayne Bravo, who has an uncanny ability to pick up key wickets when it counts with the ball. If Gayle and Samuels fire as well, things might start to look up.
Prediction: The hosts never win, and that won't be changing this time. If it does, I'll do a Steve the Bajan (of rec.sport.cricket fame from many years ago) and eat my hat. The hosts could in fact finish last in the Super 8 if they don't improve very very quickly.

Pakistan

Opinion: Now that they've been banned from speaking English, the tournament has been robbed of some of it's most reliable entertainment. I'm not sure that winning this matters to them in the way it mattered to Imran in 1992. That said, this is a team that you should never take your eyes off - they could entertain us by bowling the West Indians out for 50, or by being bowled out for 75 by Canada. Pay attention.
Ones to Watch: I think the late inclusion, Azhar Mahmood, could be a fortuitous selection for Inzy and his merry men. Here's a player with talent, who will be out to prove that he should have been part of this teams core, rather than a journeyman on the county circuit. If he struts his stuff with bat and ball, he will be fun to watch, and could make a mockery of my prediction.
Prediction: They will walk away with Group D, and then wonder what went wrong after that when they come up against some teams that are actually in the mix.

Ireland

Opinion: They have a few players with first class experience in their squad, including the captain, who hails from Australia, but fundamentally they just seem to be out of their depth. Their big game is of course against Zimbabwe, and they are a chance to claim a test-nation scalp there. I suppose though, that this is the group that any minnow would have wanted to be in - WI, Pak and Zim are the three countries who are surely the most likely to throw (no match-fixing implication implied) it away against a lesser opponent.
Ones to Watch: Eoin Morgan is just 20, and is already hailed as a future England batsman, and the next Ed Joyce. Fellow lefty Will Porterfield appears to be a raging talent as well, and he has a great chance to show that he can lift it up a level against the big boys. Completing the southpaw triumverate is South African Andre Botha, who had a great run out against the boks recently, and will be looking to carry that form through.
Prediction: I'll go out on a limb, purely to be different, and say that Ireland will upset Zimbabwe and sneak 3rd place in the group.

Zimbabwe

Opinion: I've paid very little attention to Zimbabwe cricket in recent years, but I'm pretty certain that without even the plucky Taitenda Taibu to keep them going, they are going to struggle to make any sort of impression on this tournament. The bowling and fielding are athletic and energetic, but I just don't see where the runs are going to come from. They are here for the experience, and will be hoping their young side return in 2011 as a force to be reckoned with.
Ones to Watch: I really have no idea. I'll be watching to see if Matsikinyeri finally shows some glimpses of his underlying talent, but other than that, I'm just not excited.
Prediction: Last place in the group after a narrow loss to Ireland.

World Cup Preview - Group C

2007-03-12T12:13:00.000-07:00

England

Opinion: A couple of wins at the end of a torrid summer, and as always, the home media has the English right up there as potential winners of the tournament. Don't believe the hype. They lack that cliched, but always requisite, X-factor to really make a major impact on the tournament. In their favour is the momentum gained from a couple of big wins, and they will believe that they can pull it out in a crunch situation. The problem is, this time around they will need other results to go in their favour as well. The utility axis of Lewis, Reeve, Pringle, DeFreitas and Botham served them well in 1992, but not well enough. Mahmood, Collingwood, Dalrymple, Bopara and Flintoff will be striving to achieve the same this time around.
Ones to Watch: It's got to be Monty. He's looking in great touch, and in proving to the English selectors and coach that there is room for a specialist in one-day cricket, has shown that he is right up there. You could be watching the bowler of the tournament right here.
Prediction: Although they are capable of losing to Kenya or Canada, they will not, but a Super 8 showing is about as good as they can hope for.

New Zealand

Opinion: The game against England is going to make or break their tournament. Win that, and they could just get on a roll. However, it's always dangerous to bet on New Zealand given their penchant for blowing it when it really matters. The small grounds, however, are something they will relish - they know how to work with those constraints as they face them day in day out at home. Furthermore, although I don't yet believe Andy Roberts when he says we'll see some tracks with bounce and movement, but if we do, the Kiwis know how to use a seamer too.
Ones to Watch: Shane Bond, is of course the key. I don't know if he's quite the bowler he once threatened to be, but what he is is a top class quick. He is also a pleasure to watch with the ball, and quite capable of destroying the best top orders, even on a placid track. I also have seen very little of the new kid on the block, Ross Taylor, but he has shown that he has the mental fortitude to mix it with the best of them on the biggest stage.
Prediction: I would love to see them squeeze through to the semi-finals, just to give us all something a little different, but I suspect the highlight of their tournament will be topping Group C.

Kenya

Opinion: Kenya, led as ever by Steve Tikolo, have a point to prove. They feel they don't get the opportunities they deserve, especially in light of their semi-final spot at the last tournament. They will probably see their game against England as the opportunity for an upset. It's the last game of the group stage, and the opportunity will never be better.
Ones to Watch: I simply haven't seen or read enough about the Kenyans to make a judgement here.
Prediction: A comfortable third in the group, but perhaps the most likely to pull off an upset and sneak through to the Super 8 stage.

Canada

Opinion: John Davison thrilled on occasion in 2003, but he is 4 years older, and his performances have been on the wane. He may yet lift himself for a last hurrah, and he has a steady if not inspired bowling attack at his disposal, but again, the batting doesn't look to have the depth it would need to compete. They were hammered by Kenya in the WCL recently, and there's little reason to expect anything different.
Ones to Watch: Ashish Bagai, the young keeper-batsman has been a standout for Canada for years, and was man of the tournament in Kenya. This is his big chance to show he can mix it with the best -- a couple of impressive performances in the big games, and he could find himself playing cricket in England in the summer.
Prediction: Dead last.

World Cup Preview - Group B

2007-03-07T14:48:00.000-08:00

India

Opinion: They are old and unathletic. The fast bowlers have lost a yard of pace after crossing the ripe old age of 21. The batsmen can't run singles. And they left out Mohammad Kaif. And yet they will saunter through the tournament simply because you can't repress class in the preliminary rounds of anything. Just like the Spanish will always make it to the quarter-finals of the football world cup before being eliminated. If the pitches continue to be slow and low, then having an army of batting spinners to support Kumble and Harbhajan is going to be a phenomenal asset.
Ones to Watch: Irfan Pathan's form with the ball is going to make the difference for India, I suspect. His presence in the side batting at #7 will allow them in some games to play both Kumble and Harbhajan, which could make all the difference. With the bat, it's hard to shake the feeling that Sachin Tendulkar is going to want to go out on a high, but will be the opening partnership of Ganguly/Sehwag/Uthappa which will dictate the tone of each game.
Prediction: They will edge the group in a tight one over Sri Lanka, and grab one of the semi-final spots. The final looks a step too far in the absence of a real match-winner with the ball.

Sri Lanka

Opinion: There's every chance that the Sri Lankans will feel at home with the pitches, and even the crowds and the overall atmosphere. They have a wonderfully balanced outfit, and even their older cricketers contribute in the field. The variety in their bowling attack will make them one of the real crowd-pleasers of the tournament - at least for those in the crowd who watch something other than the batsman.
Ones to Watch: The usual suspects - Sangakkara, Jayasuriya, Murali and Vaas will no doubt all do their bit, but I think the extra pace, oomph, and character that Lasith Malinga brings to the table will be key. On sluggish pitches, he may just have enough to strike a few telling blows.
Prediction: Although I have them coming a close second in the group stages, a semi-final spot is still theirs for the taking.

Bangladesh

Opinion: Now that Javed Omar is the only Bangladeshi remaining against whom I played, my soft spot for them is really a thing of the past. They continue to remind me of a group of talented schoolboy cricketers, in so far as that they don't ever seem to have discovered the temperamental maturity to translate talent into consistent performance. They'll probably be wishing they had been paired with Pakistan, the West Indies, or England, all of whom would have been a lot more susceptible to the upset victory. I wouldn't read too much into the warm up game with New Zealand.
Ones to Watch: Mashrafe Mortaza is going to have to lead the way with the ball, and he warmed up nicely for that task against the Kiwis yesterday. They will look to the talents of Shahriar Nafees and Mohammad Ashraful with the bat, and hope that those two can show up for the entire tournament (likely three matches). The interesting one though, will be the young all-rounder, Saqibul Hasan. Although CricInfo seem to be struggling to figure out whether he bowls left arm orthodox spin, or medium pace (see his player profile for the contradictory statements), his stats with both bat and ball are outstanding. Unfortunately, all his performances have been against Zimbabwe, Kenya, Scotland, Bermuda and Canada, and in his two outings against real opposition (WI and SL), he has no wickets, a duck, and a 50 in a lost cause to show for it. His true worth will be found out in the next fortnight.
Prediction: It will be a shocker if they finish anything other than third in the group.

Bermuda

Opinion: They are likely to be everybody's favourite minnow, thanks to the presence of the 270lb Dwayne Leverock. That's about all they can hope for - it's about experience for them, and for a nation of 60,000 to come up against the billion people of India is about as good as it gets. Like all the other weak sides, they will probably put on a good enough show with the ball - a score of 300 or so against is certainly not embarrassing. The worry is what they will do with the bat, given that you only get one chance in that department. Their capitulation for 45 against England might provide a few clues.
Ones to Watch: Let's face it, we're all going to be watching Leverock, who is actually not a half bad left arm spinner. I was speaking to the former UAE coach yesterday, and he told me how at the 2005 ICC Trophy, his team literally laughed when they saw Leverock in the opposition (he was 300 lbs back then). They weren't laughing when the man took 3 wickets, two slip catches and earned the Man of the Match in guiding his side to a shock victory. At 100-1 to be the "best performing full-figured cricketer" of the tournament (against 5-2 for both Inzi and Sehwag), he may be worth a punt. The other player to watch here will be David Hemp, a county cricket journeyman who has found an alternative path to the World Cup.
Prediction: Fourth in the group, but they'll provide a talking point.

World Cup Preview - Group A

2007-03-06T11:48:00.000-08:00

Australia

Opinion: Write off the Aussies at your own peril. They have demonstrated over the years that they are the number one side in the game, and have done so by showing that they can pull out the stops when it really matters. Note their performances when down and out either in individual games in 2003, or in the tournament as a whole in 1999.
Ones to Watch: The whole lot of them. Michael Clarke has been warming up nicely, and we all know what Ponting, Hussey and Gilchrist can do. On the bowling front, Glenn McGrath and Stuart Clark have points to prove, and I expect them to make those points pretty emphatically.
Prediction: The game against South Africa will be key, and I expect Australia to be out to make a statement and finish first in the group. Can't bet against them for the semi-finals, and if Symonds and Hayden show up fit, then I think we're looking at finalists here.

South Africa

Opinion: I think this world cup is their big chance. Perennial bridesmaids, their disciplined, albeit often mechanical, approach may for once serve them well. Steady bowling on current day West Indian pitches works a treat, and they have plenty of batting depth to take advantage of the smaller grounds as well. The lack of a quality slow bowling option may not hurt them as much as one would normally expect.
Ones to Watch: Shaun Pollock is primed to be the most miserly bowler of the tournament, and Graeme Smith and Jacques Kallis will no doubt do their thing, but I suspect much will depend on the mercurial Gibbs getting his act together, and the all-round talents of Justin Kemp helping to tip the balance in both disciplines.
Prediction: Second in the group, but I don't think that will matter, and they should be in the mix for the semi-finals.

Netherlands

Opinion: More than anything, the Netherlands will be looking to show that amongst the minnows of the tournament, they are top of the heap. Their world cup, experience aside, is going to boil down to the single game against Scotland, which could prove to be one of the best games of the first round. With a nice blend of experience and youth, they won't make it easy for either of the majors in the field, but, like all the weaker teams, the batting is likely to let them down. The star names are there, but the balance of the side isn't where they'd probably like to be.
Ones to Watch: All eyes are on the talented teenage batsman, Alex Kervezee, and I too will be looking to see if he is all that he's hyped up to be. THe team's fortunes, however, will rest squarely on the shoulders of Ryan ten Doeschate, the Essex all-rounder, with the support of Bas Zuiderent at the top of the order, and Tim de Leede with his canny medium pacers.
Prediction: I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Dutch are in for a big disappointment. Look for them to finish 4th in the group, and go back to the drawing board.

Scotland

Opinion: Nobody pays any attention to the Scots, but they just came off a very successful showing in the WCL, losing to Kenya in the finals, having beaten the hosts earlier in the tournament. They have some momentum with them, and will be very confident, having pulled of a great victory against the Netherlands in that tournament too.
Ones to Watch: Frankly, I don't know enough about these guys to express an opinion, other than to say that the experience of Dougie Brown and Gavin Hamilton, both ex-England internationals will be expected to provide a guiding influence. Paul Hoffman with the ball, and Ryan Watson with the bat, have both been in great nick of late, despite being amongst the older contingent.
Prediction: I think they can build on their outings in Kenya and steal another victory over the Netherlands. 3rd in the group, though I don't think they'll beat Australia as their coach has suggested.

Mourinho, are you listening?

2007-03-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

Mourinho, are you listening?
Better keep our trophy glistening
We'll be back in May
To take it away
Walking in a Fergie wonderland

I think I finally dare to believe. I screamed out loud, and scared the living daylights out of my wife, when John O'Shea, former Liverpool fan, stole the three points at Anfield on Saturday. A tremendous ball in from Ronaldo, as usual, and the doom and gloom associated with Scholesy's sending off was a distant memory.

I won't say it too often, but I think we just might be able to pull it off. There is something about winning without dominating, and winning at the last gasp, that fills you with confidence. Twisted, but true. I would like to join the queue to thank Arsene Wenger - I'm quite sure his "United stop playing after 70 minutes" comments have served to inspire the lads.

What a delight as well, to see how much it really meant to the boys. Ronaldo led the way, pumped up and throwing his shirt into the crowd, and several others followed suit. Don't anyone dare doubt that boy's commitment to United again. He may or may not leave, but if there's one person who has played his heart out at every single time of asking, he is it. 16 goals, and 11 "assists", and countless moments of torment for the opposition tell only half the story.

Here's to Lille on Wednesday, and Boro in the cup on Saturday!

USA kicked out of ICC - again

2007-03-02T12:04:00.000-08:00

A year and a half ago, I said that the USA needed to be removed from international competition and forced to get it's house in order. The decision by the ICC, today, to suspend the USA's membership and competing privileges is the best thing to happen to American cricket in a while. At least, it will be, if they stick to their guns this time.

Only when people in this country realise what is truly at stake, will they be motivated to effect the changes that are required.

The text of the ICC's letter to USACA is reproduced below. I'm cautiously optimistic that they'll stand by their decision, and, this time, USACA will really have to sort itself out.

Dear Gladstone

The ICC Executive Board met in Cape Town on 1^st & 2^nd March 2007 and in the course of its deliberations, considered the current situation in USA Cricket at considerable length.

You will be aware that ICC officials have been inundated with correspondence from disgruntled stakeholders of the game in the USA.

The following four matters were the major areas of concern:

1. USACA’s failure to meet the agreed and subsequently extended deadlines for the adoption of the new USACA constitution and the holding of elections.

2. The manner in which the new constitution has been adopted and the apparent lack of adequate opportunity for member clubs and leagues to consider and have input into the constitution.

3. The very short period in which nominations for the positions of office bearers is to take place.

4. The failure to establish an appropriate election auditor and dispute resolution process.

Last year, the ICC Executive Board agreed to lift the suspension of USACA as an ICC member on the strict understanding that the ICC deadlines would be met and that the 12 member interim Board would achieve an acceptable and harmonious program to amend the constitution and hold elections that satisfied the requirements of stakeholders.

Accordingly, the ICC Executive Board has resolved as follows:

1. The suspension of USACA will be re-activated with immediate effect.

2. USA will be withdrawn from the World Cricket League Division 3 Series to be held in Darwin in May.

3. The annual ICC grant that would otherwise have been paid to USACA on 15^th April 2007 will be withheld as too will the ICC World Cricket League national team preparation grant and direct funding support from the ICC Americas Region Development Program.

4. WICB, as the ICC Full Member in the region, has been asked to play a lead role in monitoring progress in the USA. The suspension will stand until such time as WICB recommends and the Executive Board agrees that it should be lifted.

Gladstone, by way of comment, we are saddened that progress has been minimal and that you have not been able to achieve and implement a governance structure that is accepted by cricketers in the USA and by ICC. In particular, we are disappointed by the fact that your team will not take part in Division 3 of the World Cricket League and will, in fact, be relegated. This occurs at a time when many objective observers strongly believe that the game in the USA is sufficiently strong to warrant USA being included in the ICC Cricket World Cup which commences this month.

In conclusion, since 2004 ICC has been urging you and your Board to solve the governance issues that you face and you have been unable to do so.

Mr Ken Gordon, President of WICB, will be available to discuss any of these matters with you when he is free of his pressing CWC 2007 commitments.

Roebuck on Akhtar

2007-03-02T10:26:00.000-08:00

Peter Roebuck doesn't think too highly of Shoaib Akhtar. Take a look at this article in which he expresses his profound thanks for the fact that Akhtar will not be taking part in the World Cup. I haven't got a lot more to add, other than although the article may be harsh in tone, I don't find myself disagreeing with it at all.

Inflated viewing figures

2007-02-28T17:21:00.000-08:00

Stumbled upon a fascinating article today in the Independent that talked about how viewing figures for major sports events are grossly inflated by the sporting bodies, and by extension, the media.

For example, the 2006 World Cup Final was supposedly watched by 715 million people. In fact, verifiable sources only put the number at 260 million. So where did the 715 come from? Well, suffice to say that one method widely used is "informed guesswork." I kid you not - and those are not my words either.

The 2006 Superbowl, allegedly watched by 750 million to a billion people? Turns out the number may have been a lot closer to 98 million. I wonder what Anheuser-Busch think about the $2.6 million they spent for each ad now?

The Winter Olympics opening ceremony? 2 billion viewers claimed, but only about 87 million verifiable. So they guessed at the other 1.913 billion. Fantastic.

The Commonwealth Games opening ceremony? 1 billion stated, 5 million verifiable. 99.5% guesswork - I'm sure that would go down well in my day job!

Wimbledon succumbs

2007-02-22T15:22:00.000-08:00

The pressures of political correctness have finally borne fruit, as they unfortunately always do. Wimbledon will now offer identical prize money for the men's and women's singles. Note that boys, girls and doubles competitors will still be discriminated against!

The clamour for this has grown every year, and it's really just more of the whole equality and identity confusion that seems to shroud our planet at times.

Amelie Mauresmo's comments today put it in perspective. On the one hand, she said that it was a "matter of principle" that men and women should get paid the same for the same work, conveniently ignoring the fact that they don't, in this instance, do the same work. In the same breath, she then went on to say that it's actually a matter of "equality" between men and women, and that it doesn't matter how many sets are played.

So her bottom line is that men and women should get paid the same for the same work, even if the work isn't actually the same, because what the work is is not relevant. Brilliant stuff.

There are only two or three ways you can properly skin this cat. For many years, Wimbledon followed one of them, but alas, no more.

The first option is to "pay" the players based on the work they do. In which case, per the current system, the women should be "paid" about three-fifths of what the men are "paid."

The second option, in the name of absolute equality which a lot of people seem to desire, would be to have a single open tournament, with men and women competing against one another. That way, there's no argument about equal "pay." Of course, you'd then hear that it's unfair that the women all get knocked out in the first two rounds. You can't win, can you?

A third option would be to actually equalise the work being done. Have the women play 5-set matches. We all know that one's not going to happen either.

Of those three, I lean towards the first - but I have a fundamental problem with treating prize money as "pay." So why not accept reality and recognise what's really going on? Pay the players based on the revenue they bring into the game. Let's have true equality, if that's what we want.

If the women's final brings in 20 million viewers, and the men's final only brings in 10 million, then by all means, pay the women twice as much. They will have truly earned it, for the sport. But if they only bring in 1 million viewers, then pay them one-tenth of what the men get.

Of course, you then have to take it a step further - perhaps Roger Federer should be paid more than Lleyton Hewitt for appearing in a Grand Slam Final, because people would actually pay money to watch Federer. A lot of proponents of the equal "pay" argument have taken the position that women's tennis is just as entertaining, and draws in the fans - so let's get serious about having the players' rewards tied to that.

It's a sad day when a free market collapses under the weight of political correctness. That's the way of the world we live in. I guess when my daughter wins Wimbledon, she'll now be a little richer than she otherwise would have been, and I should be glad for it.

New Zealand for the World Cup?

2007-02-20T14:05:00.000-08:00

Who'd be Matthew Hayden this morning? Battle a broken toe, which could potentially put you out of the World Cup, and move on to a record breaking 181*, only to see your side lose the game and be whitewashed in a one-day series for the first time in the best part of a decade.

Of course, the result of this is that several people are getting big on New Zealand, talking up their World Cup chances, all the while overlooking the Kiwi's remarkable talent for choking at the knock-out stage of any competition (vis-a-vis India's talent for merely choking in the final).

Along the same lines, Australia are now being written off in some quarters - now where have we seen that before? Anyone recall Australia's lead-up to and start at the 1999 tournament? 3-3 with a tie in the West Indies, followed by losses to New Zealand and Pakistan in the opening rounds. Write them off at your peril.

Time permitting, I'll post my thoughts on the various squads and their chances in the coming weeks leading up to the tournament. Suffice to say that I'm not betting against Australia, although I'm not certain that I'd bet on them either.

Out of my Comfort Zone

2007-02-16T20:53:00.000-08:00

Well, reading that certainly took me out of my comfort zone. It wouldn't even be far-fetched to say that the two best things about the book were the afterword by Lynette Waugh, describing life as a cricket widow, and the pictures.

I'd looked forward to this one for a while, albeit with the sort of apprehension that I once reserved for War and Peace as a precocious twelve year old. Turns out that Tolstoy spun a far greater yarn, and probably provided just as many insights as Waugh did into what made the Australians tick in the late 90's and through the turn of the century.

I've railed about the Prabhudesai biography of Rahul Dravid, but this was really only marginally better. The details of the odd on-field sledge aside, there just wasn't much in there that I didn't already know. There was little to help us understand the man, or his achievements, both as a player and as a leader.

There was even less when it came to his relationship with brother Mark - and you'd think a cricketer would have something to say about someone he played 108 Test matches alongside. I suppose the fact that most other teammates were referenced by first-names and nicknames, whereas 'Junior' was always referred to as 'Mark Waugh', tells a story in itself.

Bottom line - don't waste your money or your time.

The power of the BCCI

2007-02-06T13:34:00.000-08:00

I don't think anyone really doubted for a moment just how much clout the BCCI has in the cricketing world, but if ever we needed confirmation, we now have it, as Trevor Marshallsea reports in the Sydney Morning Herald today.

The last time India toured Australia, they were forced to schedule their series against Pakistan around the southern summer schedule. This time around, the boot is on the other foot. The pattern of the Australian summer has been pretty much sacrosanct since around 1980.

The MCG typically got the 2nd/3rd Test of the major or featured tour, and the SCG the one following. The only deviations from this rule were in 81/82, with the West Indies, and 93/94 and 97/98 with South Africa. In those three years, the summer was a split one, with two equal series, and the MCG opened the second series in each case.

Fast forward to 2007/08. India are to be the main drawcard down under this year. The expectation of most people was that there would be two Tests in Perth/Brisbane/Adelaide in early December, followed by the back to back MCG and SCG blue-ribbon events.

Instead, India will be starting their tour in the middle of December, because the Pakistan series, naturally, comes first for the BCCI. The MCG will open the series, and Perth and Adelaide will, unusually for both, host Tests in the middle of January. It's quite simply mind-boggling to realise that the BCCI truly does yield to nobody.

Turns out that this is good news for me as well. With a trip to India on the cards in September for my brother's wedding, it would have been tough to get to the Perth and Adelaide Tests in November. All of a sudden, that trip can now be part of the 2008 vacation plan - score one for the BCCI!

Dhoni's tinted windows

2007-01-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

We often wonder why Indian cricketers have egos the size of David Beckham's new paycheque. We challenge Sourav Ganguly's apparently supercilious attitude to the rest of the world. And yet the truth of the matter is that it is the Indian public that fuels this, and as such they really have no right to complain.

Witness the fate of Inspector Saifuddin Ahmed, in Ranchi, who recently stopped an expensive SUV which had dark-tinted windows. Tinting is permitted to different extents in different countries and states, and in this case the inspector was merely enforcing the law. To his undying credit, it did not bother him that the driver of the vehicle was Mahendra Singh Dhoni.

Unfortunately, things are not quite that simple. Because of his attempt to uphold the law which is he is duty-bound to serve, Inspector Ahmed has been demoted. He no longer patrols the downtown commercial district, and has been sent out to pasture in a distinctly downtrodden residential bazaar.

The remarks of the Chief Minister of the state (Jharkand), Madhu Khoda, say it all. "The police should be liberal while dealing with persons of his stature," he is quoted as having said. "What is the harm if a person of his standing [breaks the law]"

Need I say more?

England's bowling plan

2006-12-27T06:16:00.000-08:00

So supposedly, this was England's bowling plan for the MCG. It just got me thinking about bowling in general. You could read the document, consider that Hussey was out to a swinging delivery, Ponting to skied pull in front of square, Clarke to a catch behind the wicket, and so on and so forth. Evidence, no doubt, that the plans were spot on, and the bowlers executed on them perfectly.

Or, if you're a bowler, and a realist, you could accept that stuff just happens. More often than you realise. Matthew Hoggard pointed out today that he just runs up and "whangs it" with his eyes shut. The point being that as a bowler, you can do everything the same, 6 times in succession, and still bowl six different deliveries. It just isn't that simple. If it was, teams, other than just England, would be all out for 150 every week.

All that planning, and yet Andrew Flintoff was setting fields as if he was playing a one-day international. I understand that the Test series is all but over, but if your mind is already on the post-New Year bashabout, then don't bother showing up. How can you bring your attacking spinner on to bowl with everyone in the deep? Did nobody notice Symonds and Hayden milking the singles when this happened?

The Red Carpet

2006-12-22T05:09:00.000-08:00

I was at my brother's place a few weeks ago and noticed this sitting on the bookshelf. It's been at the back of my mind for a year and a half, ever since the author's brother mentioned it to me, and I figured I now had no excuse. Ironic, I suppose, that despite not being a short story aficionado, I wound up with two collections to while away the early mornings at the WACA!

I have to say that I infinitely preferred this lot to the Munro collection I read immediately prior.

At first glance, one would think that the stories would be best appreciated by someone who could directly identify - that is to say, a member of the modern-day South Asian Diaspora (with a nod to all you SSAMD members out there!). However, despite the fact that I've never lived in India myself, and couldn't directly identify with all the specific experiences, the underlying themes never failed to resonate.

The characters and stories were all lively and vibrant. I enjoyed the cross-pollination, with different aspects of individual characters being drawn out in different stories, sometimes as the central protagonist, and othertimes as the comedic side-kick. I doubt it was the author's intent, but for me this served to satisfy my innate need for trite endings and resolution in a short story, without actually reverting to either.

It could be said that the stories themselves are cliches - but against that, I would counter that that's precisely the point. It's the stark realities of those cliches that gets us reflecting and questioning, and any writer that can make us do that is onto something.

Several of the stories could easily be transformed into a novel in their own right. An exploration of the relationship and parallels between the Indian and American worker (I forget which short this was in) certainly would provide plenty of fodder. I'm looking forward to seeing what Sankaran comes out with to follow-up, given that it's often the second and third works that tell us where a writer is really going to go.

Next on my reading list: Iain Aitch's "A Fete Worse than Death" in which he reputedly sees Bill Bryson, and raises him some.

Runaway

2006-12-22T04:55:00.000-08:00

Apart from my collection of cryptic crosswords, I had some time whilst waiting in the queue at the Test match to read a couple of books that I recently acquired.

The first of these was Alice Munro's collection of short stories - Runaway. Fans of Munro swear by her work, and she came to me highly recommended. I've never worked out what I think of short stories. The ones that come with resolution, all neatly wrapped up, tend to be cliched, almost formulaic. The ones that are creative and well-written, tend to leave me unsatisfied. I suppose different styles work at different times.

Runaway definitely fell into the latter category for me. Much like the fast bowler who beats the outside edge half a dozen times, but never actually picks up a wicket, this collection of stories repeatedly introduced me to intriguing characters, but left me wondering what exactly happened to them. I suppose that's the inherent strength of the work. Munro certainly is a master of her craft.

I won't say no if another Munro crosses my path, but if truth be told, I won't be seeking them out either. There's plenty of reading material out there, and this just isn't at the top of my list.

England vs Australia: T3 summary

2006-12-19T03:45:00.000-08:00

All in all, a superb test match. I was seated for the last 3 days near a gentleman who has been watching Test matches for 50 years around the world, right back from when Len Hutton was given out obstructing the field (he showed me his own scorebook with that and other games in it). In his opinion, this was the finest Test match ever played.

It's difficult to come to conclusions like that. A lot of people confuse an exciting finish for a great Test match. Just look at Adelaide a fortnight ago for example. To my mind, what set this Perth Test apart from others I have seen was the all round quality that was on display. Put that together with a fabulous crowd, and a pitch that had something in it for everyone, and perfect weather, and I don't know that I'll ever see a better Test in my lifetime.

We had consistent top class pace bowling from start to finish by Stuart Clark, and some shows of real quality from McGrath, Harmison and Hoggard at various times. Monty Panesar provided an object lesson in finger spin, and Shane Warne went on to one-up him with one of his best spells in years. Michael Hussey played a classic test match knock in the first innings, Michael Clarke made a century that oozed class, and Adam Gilchrist was just one ball short of the fastest century in history. Add to that the simply sensational fielding of Andy Symonds, and some tremendous work by Hussey and Clarke as well, and Ponting's run-out of Jones on the final day, and there's really not a lot left to say. And remember, all of this was in the context of Australia wanting to reclaim the Ashes, and England trying desperately to keep a grip on them.

I loved every minute of it, and I was privileged to be there, and proud to say that I didn't miss a second of the action.

England vs Australia T3D5

2006-12-19T03:39:00.000-08:00

And so onto the final day's play. I debated long and hard whether to wake up early once more and stand in the queue with the other die hards? Actually, I call them die-hards, but it's absolutely shocking to see the number of members who queue up from early in the morning, snag a great seat behind the bowler's arm on the second level, and then either spend the entire day sleeping, reading a book, or knitting. A few of them even leave halfway through the second session. The only explanation I can come up with is that these are very old people, and they have nothing better to do at 5am.

Back to the story though - I'd been reaching the ground at about 5:15am each morning, and my position in the queue had improved from about 1000th on the first day, to 500th on the fourth. I had a feeling that the fifth day queue would be a lot shorter, but when it came to the crunch, I wasn't willing to risk it. Great cricket has to be watched from a great seat - if you're not on the second level behind the bowler's arm, you may as well go home and watch it on TV.

The other challenge was the threat of rain. I'm staying 20 minutes north of the ground, and we had a couple of light showers the previous night, but when I got up at 4:15am, the roads didn't look too wet, so I figured that it made sense to head on down.

I got there at about 5:30 in the end, and I was about 100th in the queue. No chance of getting a poor seat from there, although you always have to take into account the loyalty members. Those who have been members of the WACA for 40 continuous years, those who have a life membership, and anybody with a disability, are able to enter via a priority queue. Unsurprisingly, most of the people in that queue want the prime seats. It's not so much of a problem with the main queue - there's an alarming number of people who would prefer to sit in the sun, at ground level, at a 45 degree angle, and my life has been all the better for it this week.

There was a little bit of spitting from the light grey clouds above as we waited in the queue. As always, the conversation was fascinating. Today I met a gentleman who retired a couple of years ago, but was tempted back to work by an offer of A$3500 per week. The job? "Toolbox Guardian." For the un-initiated (which included myself, of course), that's the person who sits by a big container of tools, with a book in one hand and beer in the other, and logs the workers checking tools in and out during the day. Why does he get paid so much? That's the economic boom that Western Australia is undergoing right now, on the back of phenomenal demand from China, and to a lesser extent India. You can earn $150K for driving the trucks that transport iron ore from the bottom of a mining pit to the top. Needless to say, enrollment in Universities is dropping.

Right, back to the cricket now, I promise. Once in the ground, it was apparent that the groundsman was concerned about the weather. The covers were out, and we watched as first the hessian, and then the full cover, was pulled over the wicket. And then removed. And then replaced, this time with a third layer in between. And then removed again. The games went on for nearly an hour, before they finally accepted that the blue and white stuff in the skies above was not a threat.

Flintoff's little slog-fest apart, the day's play was dominated by that man Warne. His presence was felt as early as 10am, when Ian Healy was spotted talking to an unidentified individual near the sightscreen in front of the Lillee-Marsh stand. Healy did a quick little imitation of a Warne delivery, followed by a squealed "oooooh" and then an about turn and a couple of jumps with arms aloft, mimicing Warne's incessant appealing. Healy appeared to find it rather amusing, as did those in the crowd who noticed.

The Barmy Army had picked up on this as well, and throughout the morning, everytime Flintoff and Pietersen pushed Warne into the covers or mid-wicket off the full face of the bat, all thousand of them went up in mock appeal. It didn't stop there either. There were several renditions of the least printable of all the Warney songs - the one ending with "and he also loves his wife!", Billy Cooper launched into the theme from Dad's Army when Glenn McGrath came on to bowl, and most impressively of all, as soon as the England total reached 279, the Army launched into "Oh, we're half way there, oh oh, livin' on a prayer!" My first test match with the Barmy Army in attendance, and I was truly impressed. They bring a colour to the game that you typically only see at grounds in India and the Caribbean.

The man of the match award went to Hussey, but I'm not sure that the choice was an easy one. Warne's bowling in both innings was quality, and his contribution to the victory should not be underestimated. I suppose in the end the consideration would have been that Australia would have eventually won without Warne, but Hussey's knock in the first innings was as crucial as it gets. The other contender would have had to be Geraint Jones. With a pair batting at number 7, a missed stumping off Michael Clarke that cost over 100 runs, and something like 5 dropped catches, no single person can have done more to hand the Ashes back to Australia. Salim Malik and Wasim Akram would have been taken to court for such a performance.

Also mentioned in the dispatches would have been Adam Gilchrist. Not just for his unbelievable century, which was a privilege to have watched, but for one of the most informed sledges I have heard in my cricketing career. When Sajjid Mahmood came into bat at #9 in the second innings, Gilly knew that he had only bowled 17 overs, and commented audibly, but ostensibly to Hayden at first slip, that he must be playing as a batsman since he only bowled 17 overs. Now it'd be one thing to have said 15, or 20 - anything that implied a low over count, but the fact that they knew the precise number of overs Mahmood had bowled in the match simply blew me away.

One final point to note - when Flintoff was dismissed and Jones came to the wicket, there were 12 Australians, 2 South Africans and a Pakistani on the field. No wonder England had a hard time winning the game :-)

England vs Australia T3D4: The Tease

2006-12-18T05:21:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I admit it. Against my own better judgement, I dared to hope for a while. For half a day, England toyed with those of us who were supporting them. And then they reverted to type. We gave up hope, only to be brought right back to the brink, this time Pietersen being Cook's ally. Of course, the moment we dared to hope once more, we were let down with a resounding crash. You know the feeling - the guy or girl you've been eyeing flashes you a flirtatious smile. You hesitate, before concluding that it can be only you she is looking at. You settle your nerves, rehearse your best line, and just as you are all set to go, Brad Pitt steps forward from right behind you and steals your thunder. Suddenly, you know that it was never meant to be.

The cricket itself continued the trend of the game - intensity and quality were to be found from various corners. Cook and Bell had a great morning session. Bell, known to Warne as the Shermantor (from the movie American Pie), came out with positive intent against his tormentor, and delighted the crowd by coming down the track several times. He was far from dominant however - Warne bowled superbly, and the contest teetered and wobbled in every direction.

Cook had a lot more trouble with the leggie, and in fact was not especially fluent in general. However, even more so than Bell, he appeared absolutely determined to knuckle down and bat until the match was over. He might have been dismissed just before lunch, when he pulled carelessly and McGrath completely misjudged at deep square leg, allowing the ball to drop over his head, but inside the boundary rope. It doesn't get more embarrassing than that, and coupled with his drop in the first innings which resulted in a humiliating change of position with Michael Clarke, it capped a poor match in the outfield for McGrath.

The highlight of the bowling was Stuart Clark's spell of 6 overs for 9 runs. Clark is often referred to as a McGrath clone, but I'm starting to think that's a little unfair. He gets sharper bounce than McGrath does, and moves the ball more. He's more the next generation than an exact replica, and I see no reason that he won't lead the Australian attack (as he already is) for the next three or four years.

The lunch break, as usual, was devoted to the inflation of a huge blow-up can of Milo, which always takes about 20 minutes to raise, for a 5 minute showing as the young kids wind down their kanga cricket knockabout. It's actually been quite entertaining to watch, as have the interviews with the young cricketer of the day, who is invariably a five year old whose vocabulary is limited to the word "Yes!" I also used this time to learn that Billy Birmingham has some recordings that pre-date the Twelfth Man, so that's something I'll be hunting for over the next few days.

The post lunch session was dominated by Shane Warne. His bowling was nothing short of superb and his display made you realise that bowling is not just about the ball you deliver. Warne has raised it to a psychological art form, appealing to make a batsman see demons that aren't there in the pitch, staring, muttering, delaying the game, and using every ploy available to exert pressure on Bell and Cook. And it worked in the end - late in the session, Bell tamely patted one to short cover, and you knew from the Aussies' celebration that they now had one hand firmly on the little urn. Warney even bowled a rare googly at Alistair Cook during this period, surprising everyone, including Adam Gilchrist, who could only deflect it to an equally stunned Hayden at first slip.

Paul Collingwood once again looked out of his depth, as he has done intermittently during his Test career. I haven't got a lock on him, but my best guess is that he's the quintessential utility player, only he has sufficient determination and grit to occasionally punch above his weight class. He'll be found wanting at times - here he was brutally exposed yet again by Stuart Clark - but he may have a few more Adelaides, though I'd expect more 50s than 200s.

Pietersen and Cook looked good together after tea, but just when it looked like England might make the game last well into the fifth day, the skies started clouding over. As the darkness set in, the floodlights came on, and Cook nicked one through to Gilchrist, probably not for the last time in this series.

Hoggard had been waiting nervously in the dressing room, and walked out looking like he didn't really want to be out there. Fortunately for him, McGrath didn't want him there either, and a rare yorker had him back in the hutch faster than Geoffrey Boycott could say back in the hutch. The dream over finished with two leg cutters that had Flintoff completely flummoxed, and the day ended with the series all but over.

England have just one big hope for tomorrow - that the dark clouds of tonight turn into a massive thundershower. It would be nice to think that Flintoff and Pietersen can hang around for a couple of sessions, but quite frankly, I don't remotely believe that they can. I expect a finish in the morning session tomorrow, although I will be putting a few extra dollars in the parking meter just in case. The bottom line is that Shane Warne is just bowling far too well, on a pitch that is offering him (and the pacemen) turn and bounce.

A couple of other observations on the day's play:

The crowd, even in the members section, can be really annoying. What ever happened to not moving around or getting out of your seat while an over is in progress? Why can't the event staff control this behaviour?
What is it with short mid ons and mid offs standing next to the non-striker alongside the pitch? Do they serve any purpose at all? Has anyone ever seen a catch taken there? Actually, I think I have, once, but I simply don't understand it. Batsmen at this level should be too good to be distracted by such a presence.

England vs Australia T3D3: A Santa Barbara Yankee in Gilly's Court

2006-12-16T05:11:00.000-08:00

Wow. What an innings. You've read all about it by now, and all I can see is that Gilly was magnificent, as was the crowd as they enjoyed a spectacular and brutal assault by one of their favourite sons. I think it's appropriate that Viv's record is intact, but I have to admit, I badly wanted to be able to say "I was there". I was.

Australia were crusing when Gilly came in, probably planning to declare at lunch on Day 4, and then bowl England out by lunch on Day 5. 20 overs and 162 runs later, the declaration arrived. Not one person saw that blitzkrieg coming, especially when Gilchrist was fortunate not to see an edge fly straight to the fielder before he got off the mark.

It's late, so brief highlights of my day:

In the queue at 5am, I heard a strong American accent. I was stunned. And that was just the beginning. The American in question was upset because he had overslept, and would not be the first person in the ground today. He's from Santa Barbara. He's been attending Tests at the WACA for a few years. He thinks ODI's and 20/20 are a joke, and Test cricket is the real thing. He must sit behind the bowler's arm. He can't understand how he enjoyed baseball as a youngster in America, when cricket is where it's at. I'm not making any of this up.
I don't know why Flintoff started the proceedings with Kevin Pietersen. On the radio, they suggested it was to get an early wicket so that the regular bowlers could come on. I won't even dignify that suggestion with a comment.
Hussey's century was the worst knock I've ever seen him play. Just goes to show what a batsman he is. He was patchy, he was lucky to escape when Monty had him caught close in, he was smacked on the helmet by Harmison, and he top edged a few hook shots.
One of those was spilled by, you guesst it, Geraint Jones, who called for what was clearly Pietersen's catch, and then made a complete hash of it. This was in addition to missing a regulation stumping when Michael Clarke had just a few runs to his name.
When Flintoff took the new ball at 3 for 300, he used it with just one slip. I simply don't understand captains who refuse to attack even for a few overs with a new ball. What can you be scared of at 3 for 300? Conceding a boundary? Sure enough, Strauss dropped Hussey on 78, diving across from 2nd slip to the vacant first slip. Pathetic
Monty was the man again. he should have had Clarke early on - the stumping missed by Jones, and it was eventually he who found Hussey's edge, and then followed that up with Symonds wicket.
Collingwood is credited with catching Symonds, but what the scoreboard doesn't show is that Jones dropped that catch first. What must Chris Read (and James Foster) be thinking?
Why did England bother to play Sajid Mahmood when the captain has no confidence in him? It's a vicious cycle for a bowler - you know your captain doesn't rate you, so when you finally get the ball (once the game is all but gone), you don't run in with the confidence you would otherwise have. You therefore bowl poorly, and the cycle intensifies.
Michael Clarke is here to stay. He batted superbly, and as always played Panesar with aplomb for the most part. He's seized his chance, and I'll go out on a limb and say that when Ponting retires, Clarke may well be the one to take the reins. He's pure class, and with Ponting, Hussey and him around for the next few years, the Australian middle order is in good hands.
You've got to hand it to Matty Hayden - every time the critics get on his case, he answers them. Not his most fluent knock, but he stood up to be counted.
The value of having a 20 minute bowling session before the close was highlighted today. The Aussie bowlers had had a wonderful day's rest, and could bowl with freedom. Little wonder that Brett Lee could therefore send down 95mph outswingers. Strauss got his third bad decision in a row, but as a batsman, you will pay the price for padding up without offering a shot.

And so to day 4. I don't see how England can do it. If Cook and Bell can put on 300 and take it to 350-1 at the close, then there might be a contest. If not, then I see England getting out for between 200-300 depending on just how intent Australia are on delivering a humiliation.

England vs Australia T3D2: Monty and Harmy Take Two

2006-12-16T04:47:00.000-08:00

Well, who would have thought that after taking 9 wickets between them on the first day, it would be Monty Panesar and Steve Harmison who provided England their best partnership with the bat as well!

My overnight prediction appeared to be bang on target until these two somehow contrived to add 40 in 10 overs for the tenth wicket. I say contrived, but they deserve credit for some great cricketing shots, most notably Monty's cracking straight drive for four.

Unfortunately for England supporters, although the day had it's twists, the end result was that Australia cemented their position of control, and set themselves up for a terrifyingly big day tomorrow. Hayden and Ponting had a couple of close shaves each, but with both unbeaten on 57 at the close, you wouldn't bet against Australia racking up a lead of 500 tomorrow, and possibly even batting into day 4. England's struggle now is that only Monty Panesar looks likely to take a wicket, and he can't do it single handedly in his first Ashes Test!

I managed to snag a great seat again this morning, having shown up a little earlier to get in the queue. My neighbour for the day was a fascinating gentleman who was a 60 year WACA veteran, with awesome stories to tell in great detail about cricket and cricketers on and off the pitch. The two highlights of his viewing career appeared to be Barry Richards scoring 300 in a day, and Sunny GasGiver (his words, not mine) getting out twice in the same session one morning.

The other non-cricketing highlight of the day would have been seeing Tony Greig get sledged in the toilet by a patron, after the commentator had kindly helped out another man who was having some toilet paper problems. Got to say, Tony appeared to take it very well.

The cricket itself wasn't quite the perfect day of Test cricket of the previous day, perhaps because England didn't have a Mike Hussey to impress me. Sure, Kevin Pietersen doggedly made his way to 70, but it didn't have the same stamp of class over it at all.

What did come out was that my contention that England really need to play 6+1+4 was proven out once again. In fact, the ABC Grandstand commentators suggested the same thing at the end of the day - perhaps they've been reading the blog in the spare time!

Andrew Strauss certainly got a poor decision, but none of the batsmen looked interested in sticking around or gritting it out as Hussey had done, and the Australian bowling juggernaut was relentless, with every ball pitched in the right spot and causing problems. Even Andy Symonds got in on the act, taking two cheap wickets, including that of the quite pathetic Geraint Jones.

While I'm mentioning Symonds, I have to call out his stupendous performance in the field. His batting is not temperamentally up to scratch, but the man has got to be saving 20-30 runs per innings in the field, and given his ability as a bowling option, it may well be worth giving him a bit of a run in the side.

The atmosphere in the ground was much improved today. The Aussies in the crowd tend to get going when their men are steaming in, and the Barmy Army used the Panesar-Harmison partnership as an opportunity to get their own in.

England did much the same, taking some of that momentum and sending Justin Langer back to the pavilion as a contributor to the Primary Club, but they simply couldn't carry on from there. Frankly, I lay some of that blame at the feet (and hands) of an iffy keeper. The pressure is clearly writ over Jones' face, and if Fletcher likes him as much as he apparently does, he needs to get him out of there as soon as possible.

Panesar looks the only bowler worth a wicket. He had Hayden missed by Jones (and Collingwood off the same delivery), and had Ponting edging inches short of first slip. If England are to salvage anything from this game, they need to make the half chances count, and someone other than Panesar needs to step up and create opportunities. Frankly, I don't see who it could be, and I think Australia have every chance of establishing a 500 run lead and batting till lunch on day 4.

England vs Australia T3D1: Monty and Harmy

2006-12-14T04:47:00.000-08:00

Now that's what I call Test Cricket. This was exactly what it should be all about. And it started with the pitch - which offered a touch of pace and bounce for the bowlers, along with some non-extravagant turn. A capacity crowd, on a near-perfect day weather wise, enjoyed some class batsmanship, quality spin bowling, and even some good seam bowling under blue skies and a light breeze.

Contrary to popular belief, I think Australia actually ended the day on top. My rationale is simple - England don't have a lot of batting at all, given that the tail really starts with Flintoff in his current form. The wickets of Cook and Bell have set them back a long way, and I suspect it will take something special for them to get near Australia's score, given the way the Aussies have bowled thus far.

I was at the ground at 5:20am, thinking that I'd be near the front of the member's queue to get in. No such luck. The crowds had started coming in at 4am as it turned out, and I was probably about a thousand people back, and that's not counting the priority queue for loyal (40 consecutive years) members and others.

Once I got into the ground at 7:45am, I was lucky enough to find a single seat in a perfect position, right behind the bowlers arm on the second level of the Lillee-Marsh stand, just in front of the press box and below the TV/Radio box.

The day started with the singing of the national anthems, the most interesting part of which was the 'special appearance' of Graham Mackenzie and Geoff Boycott, who bowled and faced the first Test match delivery at the WACA 36 years ago. The outfield looked fantastic, and the binoculars revealed that the pitch was apparently a hard one, but clearly with some moisture in it to help the bowlers.

Australia won the toss and batted, and Langer and Hayden, both having quiet series' thus far, looked as if they were going to take control, despite a typically impressive opening spell from Hoggard. Harmison was as wayward as ever to begin with, but the complexion of the game changed completely when Hoggard had Hayden caught behind, and then out of the blue, Harmison trapped Ricky Ponting bang in front.

You could see the realisation suddenly dawn on England that they truly were in this contest. Harmison was a man transformed - not near his best, but the radar switched on, then length shortened up, and he reverted to type, doing his Curtly Ambrose impressions.

The story of the day, of course, was Monty Panesar. He showed himself to be a top quality spinner, and the only batsmen to play him confidently, Symonds little assault notwithstanding, were Clarke, and to a lesser extent, Hussey. Panesar's 5 wickets were well deserved, his dismissal of Symonds being particularly impressive given that he had been hit for two massive sixes in the previous over. The entire crowd enjoyed his boyish enthusiasm - in an age of automaton cricketers, it is lovely to see someone who genuinely relishes every moment out there on the field.

Other bits of interest during the day:

Flintoff looked lost at times, unsure how or where to place his field. It was interesting to note that Geraint Jones often made decisions with regard to field placing, adding credence to the strong rumour that Jones is an advisor to the team selection committee on tour! One wag in the members politely enquired, to the amusement of all around him, whether he should call Michael Vaughan to get an opinion on what to do next.
The over-rate was terrible, even with the spinner on. It'll be interesting to see what fines, if any, are imposed.
Apparently daylight saving time, recently introduced in Western Australia, is a terrible thing, because it causes curtains and carpets to fade. Okay, that's not cricket related, but I overheard someone complaining about this, and thought it was worth a mention :-)
Geraint Jones' keeping was shoddy, at best. He dropped a couple of catches, fumbled a few non-catches, and nearly dropped Symonds before holding on at the second attempt. It is beyond comprehension how he manages to retain his place ahead of Chris Read, particularly given that his batting is a disaster these days as well.
Australia's dismissal of Cook was brilliantly engineered - Ponting and McGrath had a long discussion, moved Justin Langer to a very carefully positioned second gully, and he dutifully took the catch which went straight to him 2 balls later. That spoke volumes about just how good a bowler Glenn McGrath really is.
And he's not even Australia's best bowler. Stewart Clark quite simply blew me away with his over to Collingwood, in which he beat and found the outside edge about 10 times in six deliveries, or so it seemed.
How good is Mike Hussey? I posted about Dravid and Ponting the other day. Hussey is making a damn good case to be added to that list.

At the end of the day, as I said, Australia are on top, having taken two key wickets, and I think England will struggle to make 200 tomorrow, if Australia bowl as well as they did tonight.

Legends 20/20 - England vs Australia

2006-12-12T06:27:00.000-08:00

Just some quick notes/observations:

I was stunned to see 18 thousand people crammed into the WACA for this game.
Even more amazed to hear a kid over the PA system announce that the only two players he had heard of were Kim Hughes and Rodney Hogg. Not Lillee, Botham, Marsh, Alderman, Merv Hughes, Gatting or any of the others
For the most part, the cricket was decidedly mediocre, with a couple of notable exceptions
Lillee getting Gatting caught behind for a duck with a little outswinger was brilliant
Bruce Reid illustrated just what a great bowler he was - and if he'd had this physique when he played, he'd have got 400 Test wickets and been an all-time great.
Dean Jones is still a great fielder - every one of his throws from 70 yards was right over the bails... very few players currently playing could manage that

Some notes for the future:

The pitch being prepared for the Test (which was covered for protection today) looked, from a great distance, to be a good 2005/2006 style WACA batting track.
Tomorrow night, I've finagled my way into a dinner with Merv Hughes - what more could someone ask for in life?
That late night is going to be followed by a 4:30am start to get near the front of the member's queue and snag a good seat with a view of pitch #4 from behind the right-arm-over bowlers arm.

England vs Western Australia: Day Two

2006-12-11T05:52:00.000-08:00

This one will be brief, since I'm still stuck with dial-up Internet access, and frankly, there wasn't an awful lot worth saying about the second day of this practice match.

Most of the entertainment was provided by the radio commentators, including Kim Hughes and Terry Alderman. When Strauss was finally dismissed, Geraint Jones walked in, a right-hander, only to be identified on the radio as Ed Joyce. When Joyce, a left-hander, walked in to face the hat-trick delivery, he was identified as Chris Read, who of course, is a right-hander. Superb preparation that.

Read did his cause no harm with a positive half-century, quite a contrast to Jones' golden duck. Not clear to me, however, that it was enough - sending Jones out at number 3 seemed to suggest that he was inked in for the 3rd Test.

The crowd were disappointed that Michael Vaughan didn't come out to bat, but this really wasn't surprising, given that he was never going to play in the Test. I suspect he only got a run out because England wanted to rest a few key players.

On the Australian side, it is really a question of whether Adam Voges or Andrew Symonds will replace the now-retired Damien Martyn. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Symonds will get the nod. However, a very reliably placed source indicates that Voges is a serious chance to make his debut on Thursday. His elevation to the Test squad ahead of his own compatriots Rogers and North owes much to his right-handedness. His chances of making the final XI rest on whether the selectors take the like-for-like approach the full distance.

More than I intended to say already - I'm off to the Legends 20-20 game tomorrow, hoping to see the legend that is Merv Hughes in the flesh one last time!

England vs Western Australia: Day One

2006-12-09T04:36:00.000-08:00

I woke this morning to the news that Damien Martyn had announced his retirement with immediate effect. His time had probably come, but you had to think he would have retained his place for the remainder of this series. One can only wonder what went on behind the scenes.

In any case, it was off bright and early to the WACA to see England take on the Retrovision Warriors, also known as Western Australia, in a 2-day, non-first-class fixture. I had a few goals in mind for the day:

1. To cast my discerning eye over the batting of Adam Voges, whom I know next to nothing about.

2. To watch Monty Panesar and Chris Read demonstrate why they should be playing in the Test next week.

3. To see the allegedly flat Perth track first hand

4. To pick my seats for the Test, and figure out what the competition for them from other WACA members would be like.

The day started well enough, despite an unintended detour as a result of a bad navigational decision on the way to the Members entrance. Gates were due to open at 10am, and I was there with well over a minute to spare. Surprisingly, there were only about 200 members (and/or guests) waiting to be admitted into the ground.

I made my way to the top of the Lillee-Marsh stand, and picked a spot two seats to the left of middle stump - about as good a view of a game of cricket as one can get. It soon emerged that WA had won the toss and elected to bat, which suited my objectives perfectly.

As I listened to a gentleman behind me agonize over whether to take his MCC tie out of his pocket and put it on, I realized that my presence in the stand was a statistical anomaly in more ways than one. I was both lowering the average age from about 60 to somewhere nearer 59.8 (I can only do so much as one out of 200), and I was darkening the average skin tone a few shades. To be fair, I did get some help from some youngsters later in the afternoon with the former, but the only thing redressing the balance on the pigmentation front was the sun.

England's bowling attack suggested that a bowl-off was on the cards. With Hoggard and Flintoff rested, it was a battle between Giles and Panesar, and another between Mahmood, Harmison and Anderson. If you ask me, there were clear winners and losers in both cases, but as we all know, the England management may not see it the same way.

Jimmy Anderson started off very nicely, swinging the ball into left-hander Chris Rogers, and then turning him inside out with one that went the other way. Harmison at the other end was not getting the ball to deviate at all, and appeared to be bowling everywhere but straight. It was no surprise when Anderson eventually got Dave Bandy to edge one behind to Chris Read, and it was perhaps even less of a surprise in the next over when Harmison found Rogers' edge, only for Ashley Giles to spill an absolute sitter at 2nd slip. The members certainly had a good little titter at that one - at least, those who were able to draw their gaze away from their knitting did.

The remainder of the morning session was quite dull. Anderson had bowled impressively, but Harmison was poor, and Mahmood, struggling with his length, was only slightly better. At least, I thought it was Sajid Mahmood bowling from one end, but the know-it-all to my left didn't agree - he was quite insistent that it was in fact Michael Vaughan on the comeback trail. Perhaps there should be a qualification examination for cricket association membership.

The entertainment level picked up after the lunch break, thanks largely to the steward at the player's gate, whose attempt to underarm the ball back to the fielder at third-man nearly knocked out a napping spectator some 15 rows back. I shouldn't laugh though - many years ago I was umpiring at square leg, wearing a good old-fashioned umpire's coat, when the spare ball in my pocket was required. I attempted to underarm it to the bowler, and instead sent it over my head to the boundary behind me. It can happen to the best and worst of us.

The rest of the day hammered home a few hard truths. Steve Harmison finished with 1-99, and was deliberately taken off after just 3 overs with the new ball to avoid conceding a century. Sajjid Mahmood came back to bowl an excellent second spell, and picked up two wickets, one of them courtesy a tremendous low diving catch by Chris Read. I suspect Mahmood may pick up an England cap to go with it next week, should England want to field four pacemen.

Monty Panesar proved himself to be a class above Ashley Giles, not just with the ball, but in the field. Giles ended the day with a dropped catch; Panesar with a dramatic direct hit run out after swooping down from mid-wicket. Both were also a little bruised after they collided with each other in the field on one occasion - you can speculate ad nauseum as to which was trying to take the other out of contention.

But what of my objectives for the day?

1. Adam Voges looked like a solid, compact batsman, who like all WA players, enjoys the short stuff. He was outshone on the day though, by Luke Pomersbach (aka Luke Pommiesbasher), whose unbeaten 90-odd included one breathtaking pull for six off Anderson.

2a. Monty Panesar surely bowled himself into the Test match, unless he gets banned for dissent after snatching his sweater from the umpire when an edge to slip was turned down. He only got one wicket, but created numerous chances, and on another day would have had 3 or 4. Flintoff, Hoggard and Anderson will certainly play, and I think it will be Panesar and one of Mahmood or Giles for the final bowling spots.

2b. Chris Read continues to look a class above Geraint Jones, but you have to wonder if his missed stumping off Panesar will cost him a return to the side.

3. This is not quite a flat-track, but it's not the Perth of the 1980s and even 1990s either.

4. It transpires that the keenest members will be queuing up at 5:30am on the Test match days in order to secure their preferred seats. The gates open at 7:30am, and the Test starts at 11:30am. If you have any suggestions as to what I can do for those 6 hours, please let me know.

He's baaack!

2006-11-30T13:26:00.000-08:00

I suppose with a new selection committee at the helm, we should have expected nothing short of a complete U-turn in policy. And sure enough, Sourav Ganguly is back in the Indian middle order.

Make no mistake about it - he is going to play in each and every Test match on this tour. India won't go in with less than six batsmen, and as Gambhir is the spare opener, the lineup is going to read: Sehwag, Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly. Yes, Ganguly, the man whose least favourite opponent is.... South Africa. He averages 27 against them for heaven's sake. And this is a pick to "lend solidity to the middle order?"

This is, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), a complete disaster for Indian cricket. After all the pain we had to go through to try and take a step forward, the long term planning has been jettisoned. A big step backwards that will serve no-one's interests, even if Ganguly in one series eclipses Mohammad Yousuf's new calendar year scoring record. Australia bringing back Michael Bevan would be a more positive move than this one.

Looks like the Vengsarkar selection committee is going to take us back to the good old days, and I guess that given that Kiran More has quite amusingly endorsed the choice, none of us should complain.

On the plus side, the appointment of VVS Laxman as vice-captain is probably an astute one. With Rahul Dravid an uncertain participant in the series at this juncture, Laxman is probably the right person to lead the side. He has long been highly regarded as far as his cricketing acumen is concerned, and it is rumoured that John Wright always felt that VVS was a FIC (With apologies to FEC Atherton). Either way, if India is to have a chance in this series, it is going to be down to Dravid and Laxman to deliver. Let the games begin.

Ponting or Dravid?

2006-11-29T10:39:00.000-08:00

Several months ago, I wrote a post entitled "The unbearable greatness of Ponting."

With his magnificent performance in the first Ashes Test this week, I find myself reflecting on that opinion once more. And I've come to the conclusion that I stand by it. History simply will not be able to ignore the fact that in 14 innings in India, Ponting has scored 172 runs at an average of 12.28.

I assure you that a batsman with a similar record to Ponting - brilliant success everywhere, and an average of 12 from 14 innings in Australia, would always be labelled as one notch below greatness. I suppose it's a truism of the sport that success against spin is just not considered relevant.

Before I get slammed again, let me state that Ricky Ponting is nothing short of awesome as a batsman, and the blot on his record is highly unfortunate. It is sad that he won't tour India again until 2010. But none of that changes the facts.

Let's take another approach. The Big Four are unquestionably Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting and Dravid. Let's see which countries their averages dip below the 50-mark, which is typically the greatness threshold.

Tendulkar: averages just 40 in NZ, Pak, RSA and Zim, with 47 in the West Indies. That's Michael Atherton greatness, not Bradmanesque. No major weak spot, but far too many good-but-not-great ones.

Lara: averages just 33 in India, 36 in NZ, 42 in Aus and 48 in England. A bigger spread than Tendulkar, but then he's also won a lot more off his own blade.

Ponting: averages a whopping 12 in India, and 40 in England (we'll discount his single innings 31 in Zimbabwe). Of the four, he's the only one with a major blot on his record.

Dravid: his weak spot is an average of 42 in South Africa, and 47 in Sri Lanka.

Two things stand out here.

Firstly, while we've all been talking about Tendulkar and Lara, it's Ponting and Dravid who have been batting out there in the middle.

Secondly, while Ponting obviously has a better conversion rate on his 50s (turning them into 100s), and is the more destructive batsman, it's not remotely clear that Rahul Dravid should be left out of any discussion of who is the leading batsman on the planet currently.

And that's ignoring the fact that Ponting usually comes into bat after Hayden and Langer have started pulverising the opposition, versus Dravid coming into bat after Opener-Of-The-Week has been dismissed in the first over.

In truth, I'd be hard pushed to say either is greater than the other, even though on a personal level I'd take Dravid any day of the week. What I can unequivocally state however, is that a man who averages 12 after 14 innings in one country cannot be equated with Bradman. That's just nonsense.

A Marvellous Summer Down Under

2006-11-28T14:41:00.000-08:00

I would write something about India's performances in South Africa, but I consider myself fortunate in having not watched the games, and therefore I shan't bother. There really weren't any surprises there. The wickets have pace and bounce, and only Rahul Dravid coped. Simple, and expected. The sooner Indian fans stop expecting the unreasonable, the happier their lives will become.

In the meantime, what of England? I am particularly concerned by their capitulation as I'm going to be spending 5 days (I hope) in the member's enclosure at the WACA in a couple of weeks, and I'd like to see a true contest. Unfortunately, it appears as if England caved in before they even started. The team selection was defensive, and betrayed a remarkable lack of confidence on the part of the Ashes holders.

I'm a big fan of playing your two best openers, your four best middle order batsmen, your four best bowlers, and your best keeper. If one of those provides all-round capabilities, then all the better. If it were up to me, I'd be going in with: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Owais Shah, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar.

Three medium pacers, your best spinner, and the occasional bowling of Pieterson, Collingwood and Bell to supplement. Bring in a youngster with some spunk to add to the batting depth (Shah), and pick a keeper who can inspire with the gloves, and do the job standing up to Panesar. Back yourself, and play aggressive cricket.

Instead, we're going to see: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Hoggard, Anderson, Harmison - with maybe Panesar in for Harmison/Anderson if Duncan Fletcher wakes up facing due East. Five batsmen, an all-rounder whose bowling is his strong suit, two players who are in the side for their batting, but pretend to keep and bowl respectively, and three bowlers, two of whom were a disaster last time out.

I'm off to Australia this weekend. Look out for reports on the 3rd Test, the England vs. Western Australia 2-day game, and most exciting of all, the Legends 20/20 International. Dean Jones, Kim Hughes, Big Merv, Bruce Reid, Terry Alderman and Dennis Lillee, taking on Gatting, Stewart, Robin Smith, Devon Malcolm and Ian Botham.

Of course, none of that is ultimately important. Overshadowing all of this is the news that Billy Birmingham has finally released a new CD!! "Boned" promises to follow in the footsteps of his prior work. If you haven't heard The Twelfth Man, you need to get out more, and when you do, start by getting a hold of his CDs. You're looking for:

Wired World of Sports, The 12th Man Again!, Still the 12th Man, Wired World of Sports 2, Bill Lawry... This Is Your Life, The Final Dig, and now, Boned! I've actually never heard the Bruce 2000 Olympic album, but I'm sure it's just as good.

Who could avoid laughing at Sunil Have-A-Cigar going for a slash outside off stump; or Rubbish Binny being left out... only for nobody to collect him; or Max Walker's attempts to be re-instated to the commentary team; or Bill Lawry completely losing it; or the ProtectoCam, CrackCam and Scrotometer... the list is endless.

Black Swan Green

2006-11-14T14:18:00.000-08:00

I may have lived in Hong Kong at the time, but my adolesence and schooling was as quintessentially English as they come. It's perhaps for that reason that Black Swan Green struck several poignant chords with me. Memories (the vast majority of them very fond ones) of P.E. lessons and playground games of British Bulldogs came flooding back. I can almost feel the cuts, scrapes and bruises when AB sent me sliding across the concrete and into a partially barbed fence - all part of the game, of course!

The tale of typical adolescent angst, set in a truly nondescript English village, is constructed as a series of entertaining vignettes, each independent, yet threaded together to span a calendar year in which a teenager has his life turned upside down and inside out from every angle, and yet manages to somehow use it all to come of age, as such.

Much like The Essence of the Thing, at the end of the book, I wasn't entirely sure what it was about, given that there wasn't much that you couldn't see coming after the first chapter. And yet once again, I was hooked, read it cover to cover, and was entertained throughout.

Many critics panned it as being too conventional a tome, and consequently overly ambitious for David Mitchell - ostensibly paradoxical, but then I haven't had the pleasure of reading his prior work. As far as I'm concerned, it did more than enough to hint at, without fully revealing, an exceptional literary talent, and the reputedly more complex and more cerebral Cloud Atlas has found a place on my wish list as a result.

P.S. - for those who are wondering, I'm not turning this into a book-blog per se. Lots of work-related travel of late has left me with little time for spending online reading and blogging about the usual stuff.

Incompetence or intransigence?

2006-10-23T21:46:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been in a store and tried to give the cashier $10.25 for something that cost $9.25 so as to avoid getting coins in change, only to be met by a look of complete bewilderment?

The following transpired on a flight from Dallas to San Francisco recently:

The Characters

Me (ME), a cash-poor flier stuck in seat 24A on an Airbus A320 (last row corner, no recline)
Flight Attendant (FA), a middle-aged lady obliged to keep us safe, and serve us if safety permits
John Doe (JD), a cash-rich infrequent flier in seat 24C

Preamble

I rarely drink on a flight, and as a former very frequent flier, I have amassed quite a collection of drink coupons. Each coupon is good for one alcoholic beverage - normally sold for $5 in cash. Some flights have snack boxes available, also for $5 in cash, and there are no coupons that specifically pertain to snack boxes.

The Conversation

FA: Would you like to purchase a snack box today?

ME: Yes please. Is there any chance I could use this drink coupon that I have, which is worth the same amount, to buy the snack box?

FA: Sorry, those can only be used for beverages. I need cash for the snack box.

ME: Fair enough. The gentlemen in 23C in front of me just gave you $5 cash for a beverage. Could I buy him his drink with my coupon, and then use his cash for my snack box?

FA: No, I need cash for the snack box, I can't accept the coupon.

JD: (chuckles to self)

ME: Ah. umm, the problem is I don't have any cash. It seems logical that I could effectively swap my coupon for somebody's cash.

FA: Sure, if you can find someone who is willing to do that, then I'm okay with it.

ME: Aha. Okay.

JD: I'll have a beer and my $5 can buy your snack box

ME: Perfect - I'll have the green snack box if you have one please.

FA: Well, I need cash for the snack box, not the coupon.

ME: Aah. I see. How about if I give him my coupon, and he gives me his $5, then he pays you with the coupon for his drink, and I pay you with the cash for my snack box.

FA: That's great. Which snack box did you say you wanted again?

Drugs in cricket

2006-10-18T00:34:00.000-07:00

By now, everyone's read about and expressed an opinion on cricket's latest scandal - Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif failing a drugs test. That Shoaib would partake of a banned substance probably does not come as a surprise to many, but I suspect even the most hardened cynic would be shocked at what goes on in the cricketing world.

The stories I could tell probably would not be believed, and yet I am quite certain that what I have witnessed barely scratches the surface. After all, it's not as if I routinely move around in such exalted social circles! Still, my own experiences have been sufficient to ensure that little does surprise me. In fact, I am amazed that much more has not been exposed in the media, although I am glad for it in so far as I am more interested in cricketer's on-field exploits than there off-field ones.

Still, for those who are curious, some of the things I have either seen with my own eyes, or heard about from one or more of the parties involved include:

recreational drug use (okay, that one's not going to surprise anyone)
discussion of how to start with creatine (not considered doping, although it's banned in many countries), and go on from there
cricketers on the phone to their wives whilst in bed with someone else (no, this is not one of the ones where I was standing in the room)
notes being passed between the dressing room and groupies with arrangements of where and when to meet
requests to officials/management to arrange 'dates' with specifical types of women
exchange of 'love letters' over many years with multiple women (by married cricketers, of course)

The funny thing is, none of this really sounds that unusual, although what you read here is not neccessarily the worst of it. Most readers are probably thinking - "well, of course, that's the sort of thing Shane Warne does all the time." Thing is, it's often the ones who you are convinced are innocent, simple gentlemen who are the worst of the lot.

More than enough said.

More revisionist history

2006-10-17T00:13:00.000-07:00

So CricInfo announced, or re-announced, it's new blog section the other day. And in it's announcement, yet another example of the ongoing revisionist history that is being put forth.

Sambit Bal, who wasn't involved with CI back then, states that CricInfo did it's first ball by ball commentary in 1996. Elsewhere, I've seen certain individuals claiming to have been founders of CricInfo, also in 1996. Neither claim is remotely true.

You really would think that CricInfo never existed between 1992/93 and 1996. It's bad enough that many of those who contributed significantly to the creation of the brand have been erased from the history books. But to suggest that CricInfo's history is built on anything less than the phenomenal efforts of a few genuine founders (in early '93) and many diligent volunteers, is disingenuous at best, and ridiculous at worst. For the organization itself to do this is just plain sad. Governments have tried it and failed, so hopefully in the long run, the truth will out.

Perhaps it's time to put together and publish the real history of CI. The story of Frozen Poms, Raggamuffins and others is truly an entertaining one.

The Essence of the Thing

2006-10-05T16:04:00.000-07:00

A funny one, this. I read it, and enjoyed it, and yet I have absolutely no idea what the essence of the thing is. In fact, the books essence is almost that there is a Seinfeld-esque nothingness about it. An interesting literary style, to be sure. The dialogue, which dominates the narrative, is occasionally witty, often snappy, and always compelling, in so far as it provides for a surprisingly vivid portrayal of character. The plot itself managed to be strangely irrelevant, and yet, as a friend with nothing better to do just pointed out, the notion of individuals failing to accept or embrace the freedom they have been granted is eerily topical. Witness Iraq.

All in all, a good read. I might just have to give her follow-up, "A Stairway to Paradise" a go.

India fail again

2006-09-22T11:18:00.000-07:00

No surprise really. I only watched part of the game, so I can't really comment too much, but there's a couple of things worth mentioning:

India should push for 5-ball overs in all international cricket. I'm sure I'm not the only Indian fan who tenses up when our bowlers have to deliver that dreaded sixth delivery, and I'm certainly not alone in sighing exasperatedly when it is duly dispatched to the boundary.
Sachin Tendulkar - give up! For those who have known me or read my blog for a while, you will know that one of my biggest pet peeves is SRT's ability to never hit the stumps with a shy, and yet look completely stunned when he misses, as if to say "this has never happened to me before, there must have been a seismic shift at the planetary core that impacted the earth's rotation momentarily"

For some previous comments on this, refer to my posts of March 4th, and March 21st

It's not over yet

2006-09-18T13:23:00.000-07:00

Wow. A 1-0 loss to Arsenal, and the doom and gloom merchants are out in full force. It's astonishing to read that Ronaldo is a wasted talent, and that the five wins to open the season were a fluke.

First things first, we weren't good enough on the day. Arsenal played well, though not as 'delightfully' as the media would have you believe, and we were a shambles. Our best passes were often directly to a player in yellow.

Cristiano Ronaldo has been pilloried in the press, to nobody's surprise, for his role in the Arsenal goal, but most seem to have forgotten that he was probably our best player on the day, and the only one who really tested Lehmann. And who didn't enjoy the Arsenal goalie getting smacked upside the face by a pile driver?

Rooney may as well not have been on the pitch, and I'm not sure that Louis Saha did much on the day either. Perhaps the only player to really enhance his reputation in my eyes was Darren Fletcher, who managed to produce a series of top quality passes in the first half an hour. Just maybe there's more to him than I previously thought.

So we lost a game. There's not much I hate more than losing to Arsenal, but we're still in second place, ahead of Chelsea, and with a long way to go. We're right in the race, and we're certainly good enough to beat the poorer teams, so we will never quite be out of it. Perhaps the pessimists should just wait a little before they start the bleating.

The Keepers of Truth

2006-09-14T11:25:00.000-07:00

Someone left this book behind at my place for me to read a couple of months ago. Last week, I finally got around to it. Shortlisted for the Booker Prize, it said, so I went into it with the expectation that it would be a halfway decent read.

It wasn't, at least, not in my estimation. Granted, the fact that it's a bit of a depressing and somewhat allegorical tale doesn't help matters, but the idea that "the times, they are a-changin'" is hardly a novel one. Nothing particularly bad about the book - quite simply it just failed to capture my imagination or engross me on any level. Didn't work as a whodunit, and didn't quite work as a cautionary tale of cultural demise either.

Next on my list is "The Essence of the Thing" by Madeleine St John and the epic "Out of My Comfort Zone" by one Stephen Rodger Waugh. Something tells me I'll have better luck with both of those.

Cricket on your mobile and IM

2006-09-13T13:41:00.000-07:00

Now this is seriously cool. Live commentary on your mobile phone/device, and also on Yahoo Messenger! You can get it at http://plusmo.com/getcy

I've got the IM version installed, and I have it running on my Motorola V551 and my Blackberry as well. Free, no adverts, and I can now follow games without the pain of trying to watch streaming video at work, or dealing with the frustrations of not-quite-auto-refreshing scorecards. It's especially neat for the games that I have a less than completely vested interest in!

Tabloid Journalism

2006-09-08T11:21:00.000-07:00

An intriguing headline showed up on CricInfo this morning. "India captain slams 'foul-mouthed' England" it says, with a sub-heading of "Claims England skipper was 'scared'"

I have no doubt that countless readers were stunned to think that Rahul Dravid had spoken out against Andrew Flintoff (or is that Andrew Strauss, or Michael Vaughan, or....).

Imagine their surprise then, when after clicking through with fervent anticipation, adrenaline coarsing through their veins, they discovered that the story in fact was nothing more than a tame claim of sledging made by the Indian Women's Cricket Captain, Mithali Raj.

The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and papers of that ilk would have been proud of such chicanery. I truly wonder how many extra impressions, and therefore advertising dollars, CI was able to rustle up.

Not impressive at all.