USA relegation - an opportunity?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

USA cricket - where to from here?

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!

1. Honest Assessment - we need to understand and accept the current level of our cricket before we can actually improve it
2. Long term thinking - progress does not happen overnight
3. Out with the politics, self-aggrandizement and vested interests
4. Professionalism - administrators need to have relevant experience and skill sets
5. Development - groom and grow cricketers locally
6. Fundamentals - focus on facilities and playing the game properly
7. Continuity - create a U-23 squad
8. 20/20 cricket - embrace it, but not at the expense of core cricketing skills
9. Pipeline - infuse the senior squad with up and coming young talent
10. Selection - not just about statistics, look at mental and technical cricketing skills
11. Mediocrity - quit celebrating it
12. Coaching - not just physical training, look at technical and mental skills and how to play the game
13. 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.

When is a draw not a draw?

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.

Aus vs RSA Day 4: Rain, rain go away

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

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?

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!

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.

South Africa vs Western Australian XI

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

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.

Bad shot, or bad shot selection?

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.

Geography 101 for Cricket Journalists

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

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.

Four brilliant days at the WACA

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.