http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-pakistan-2010/engine/current/match/473922.html
246 for six in a full day's play may seem a bit retro, the sort of day that led to the pressing need for the invention of the one-day game, but it pleased a decent Basin Reserve crowd which is always tolerant of slow play in a good contest. The main questions of the day were whether:
a. New Zealand's batting could develop the resilience to build a decent score after winning the toss; and
b. umpire Rod Tucker could remain adjacent to his hat in the fierce Wellington breeze.
The answer to the first question is a provisional “no”, though the failure was a game one, and all hope is not yet lost. Only Kane Williamson and Jesse Ryder could claim to have fallen to a quality delivery (and receiving such a delivery does not have to result in dismissal).
In the first fifteen minutes of the match (and I refer readers to my previous homily on the importance of getting to the ground on time) we fondly remembered an absent friend in the form of the decision referral system, as Daryl Harper got the first two big decisions wrong, though neither was a horrendous error. Brendon McCullum deserved to be out for padding up to a straight one, which the technology showed to be passing just over the stumps. Martin Guptill got away with a thin edge to keeper Adnan Akmal, who was to take five catches as the day went on.
With Gloucestershire's James Franklin replacing Tim McIntosh, Martin Guptill opened and Kane Williamson came in at three. Williamson's 21 contained some of the classiest batting of the day before he was out to a sharp rising delivery from Umar Gul, but it is a mistake to push the 20-year-old up the order. He is a rare and precious talent who should be allowed to develop at five or six for a couple of years however desperate the needs of the team. If another opener could be conjured up, three to six should be: Taylor, Ryder, Guptill, Williamson.
Guptill puts me in mind of CJ Tavaré (and that is never an uncomplimentary comparison in these columns). Like the great man, Guptill is full of shots in all forms of domestic cricket, and a pillar of defence in Tests, where his determination to survive engenders amnesia in the matter of strokeplay. His stance also has a tendency to become square-on, and he even wandered to short square-leg and back between deliveries a couple of times. However, he has yet to emulate Tavaré's geological concentration span and fell to a fearful mow outside off just after lunch.
Up to that point Guptill had been secure, but runless, while Ross Taylor was aggressive but lucky to survive early on. Taylor is one of those rare batsmen whose natural talent is such that they almost always time the ball well from the start without having to think much about it. So when they hit a rare patch of poor form, as Taylor has of late, they don't know what to do to get out of it. David Gower was like that. Watching him in a bad patch was to see something that was against nature, a cheetah stuck in a swamp.
Taylor's fifty was possibly the scratchiest he has ever scored, which perversely makes it more of an achievement. That he took fewer risks and scored more slowly as time went on (13 in 70 minutes after tea) was a sign of increasing, not diminishing, confidence. After Ryder's first-ball dismissal to a fine ball from Tanvir Ahmed that pitched on off and left him, Taylor and Franklin put on 68 in the best partnership of the day, just as the phrase “all out by tea” was being bandied widely among the crowd. Both men displayed such sound judgement in shot selection that John Wright's blood pressure must have almost returned to normal. Alas, both fell to lapses in this very area, Franklin wafting at a ball well down legside and Taylor going the way of Guptill.
The one New Zealand batsman who was obviously not trying very hard to concentrate more than usual was Daniel Vettori, whose inventive urgency was untrammelled and effective. He was well supported by Reece Young, with whom he has an unbroken partnership of 66.
It was even windier than usual in Wellington today, and by mid-afternoon plastic bags, caps, bails and even helmets were being relocated. Umpire Tucker did manage to keep his hat on, but only by gripping the brim firmly at all times, which left his arm permanently raised in the “out” position, which must have unnerved the batsmen.
On such a day the wind is a strategic factor at the Basin, and the fact that Misbah-ul-Haq had his fastest bowler Wahib Riaz bowling into it for most of his overs suggests that he had yet to come to grips with the resulting subtleties.
New Zealand must beg, borrow or steal at least another hundred runs tomorrow to have a decent chance of a first-innings advantage.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Humiliation in Hamilton
BBC News reports that Justo Gallego, 85, has spent almost 50 years building a church entirely from scrap, after he was expelled from a monastery after he contracted tuberculosis. I can match that as an act of faith. I've bought a five-day pass for the second Test between New Zealand and Pakistan at the Basin Reserve, starting on Saturday.
Just before the tea interval on the third day of the first Test, played at Seddon Park, Hamilton last week, commentator Ian Smith was discussing the odds being offered by the bookies on the result. He advised punters to go for the draw, credible advice given that New Zealand had started soundly in making up the first innings deficit of 93 on a pitch that had not been giving the bowlers much help and, if anything, appeared to be getting flatter.
Three hours later Pakistan had won by ten wickets after what was, even by New Zealand standards, an Icelandic bank of a batting collapse, the top seven falling for 35 runs.
The Pakistan bowling was good, which should come as no surprise in a Test match. Their fielding was superb, which was astonishing given how slapstick-bad it was when Pakistan visited at the end of 2009. The New Zealand batsmen (in whom as I have written before, the talent of the team resides) committed collective suicide by poor shot (if they had actually tried to shoot themselves, they would have missed). This was particularly disappointing after good batting performances in the first two Tests in India recently (Ross Taylor, run out by a direct hit when responding to a call from Kane Williamson is absolved from this general criticism, but is in far from top form).
Tim McIntosh has borne the brunt of the blame. He has never looked convincing as a Test opener, but has managed to make runs just often enough to avoid the axe. Of course, most established first-class batsmen would make runs in Tests from time to time. Doing so regularly is what is difficult. The fact that there is no obvious alternative opener has helped keep McIntosh in the side too.
Naturally, the media has focused on the failings of the home team, so Pakistan has not been given the praise it deserves for producing such a convincing win despite being without at least six players who would be in its best line-up. Salman Butt and the brilliant opening bowling partnership of Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Aamer await their fate on spotfixing charges, Saeed Ajmal returned home because of his father's sudden death, wicketkeeper Zulquarnan Haider fled during the recent series against South Africa in the UAE, claiming some sort of cricketing asylum and, in the long Pakistani tradition of botched selection, Mohammad Yousef, one of the outstanding batsmen of the age, has been ignored. In all my years watching cricket no country has produced more naturally talented cricketers than Pakistan, and none has been remotely as inventive in finding ways to squander their gifts.
There is, I regret to say, a certain lack of excitement here about this series. The betting scandals, the fact that Pakistan were here this time last year and the poor showing of the home team have all contributed to this. Even those professional enthusiasts the marketing people seem unmotivated by the prospect. The series is being promoted with the least inspiring slogan in the history of advertising:
But I'll be there, so watch this space.
Just before the tea interval on the third day of the first Test, played at Seddon Park, Hamilton last week, commentator Ian Smith was discussing the odds being offered by the bookies on the result. He advised punters to go for the draw, credible advice given that New Zealand had started soundly in making up the first innings deficit of 93 on a pitch that had not been giving the bowlers much help and, if anything, appeared to be getting flatter.
Three hours later Pakistan had won by ten wickets after what was, even by New Zealand standards, an Icelandic bank of a batting collapse, the top seven falling for 35 runs.
The Pakistan bowling was good, which should come as no surprise in a Test match. Their fielding was superb, which was astonishing given how slapstick-bad it was when Pakistan visited at the end of 2009. The New Zealand batsmen (in whom as I have written before, the talent of the team resides) committed collective suicide by poor shot (if they had actually tried to shoot themselves, they would have missed). This was particularly disappointing after good batting performances in the first two Tests in India recently (Ross Taylor, run out by a direct hit when responding to a call from Kane Williamson is absolved from this general criticism, but is in far from top form).
Tim McIntosh has borne the brunt of the blame. He has never looked convincing as a Test opener, but has managed to make runs just often enough to avoid the axe. Of course, most established first-class batsmen would make runs in Tests from time to time. Doing so regularly is what is difficult. The fact that there is no obvious alternative opener has helped keep McIntosh in the side too.
Naturally, the media has focused on the failings of the home team, so Pakistan has not been given the praise it deserves for producing such a convincing win despite being without at least six players who would be in its best line-up. Salman Butt and the brilliant opening bowling partnership of Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Aamer await their fate on spotfixing charges, Saeed Ajmal returned home because of his father's sudden death, wicketkeeper Zulquarnan Haider fled during the recent series against South Africa in the UAE, claiming some sort of cricketing asylum and, in the long Pakistani tradition of botched selection, Mohammad Yousef, one of the outstanding batsmen of the age, has been ignored. In all my years watching cricket no country has produced more naturally talented cricketers than Pakistan, and none has been remotely as inventive in finding ways to squander their gifts.
There is, I regret to say, a certain lack of excitement here about this series. The betting scandals, the fact that Pakistan were here this time last year and the poor showing of the home team have all contributed to this. Even those professional enthusiasts the marketing people seem unmotivated by the prospect. The series is being promoted with the least inspiring slogan in the history of advertising:
It's the last international tour for a very, very long time.which was presumably chosen just ahead of “We'll probably all be dead this time next year”.
But I'll be there, so watch this space.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Random thoughts on the Ashes: Sydney
This 2010/11 Ashes has shown that, in a perfect world, Test cricket would always be played in five-match series. If this series had finished one-all at Perth after three games the sages would have declared the two sides to be evenly matched, but Australia with a few more problems to solve. It took the last two games to reveal the extent of the difference in quality between the two teams.
Of course, when one side is far superior to the other, as was the case in too many series between England and Australia in the nineties and noughties, and against the West Indies in the eighties, a long series is superfluous, but this has not happened that often in cricket history. We have a two-match series against Pakistan beginning here in New Zealand today, which is no use to anybody (I shall report from the second Test at the Basin nevertheless).
For England, weaknesses identified at the start of the tour turned into strengths, particularly Alistair Cook, whose place was in doubt halfway through the last English season. He accumulated his runs so smoothly that news that he had batted longer than any Englishman in any Ashes series came as a surprise. Boycott and Barrington just seemed to bat longer, I suppose. Why the Australians did not pitch the ball up to him more? That is one of many questions they will ask themselves in the weeks and months to come.
The big bonus for England was the depth of the fast bowling. At the beginning of the series Stuart Broad was said by many to be crucial to the team's chances, but was not missed after he was injured in the second Test. How many teams have been able to drop their leading wicket-taker half way through the series, yet improve the team by doing so? This is what England achieved by replacing Finn with Bresnan. Anderson was world class, his control of reverse swing magnificent.
Despite the overwhelming scale of the victory England are not as good as some say, nor Australia as bad. This Australian side saw off New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan easily enough last year, and remain a first division side, albeit one flirting with relegation. Optimism levels here in New Zealand remain low looking ahead to the two-Test series in Australia next November.
England have to lose the habit of throwing away a game a series (Perth, and at the Oval against Pakistan). A crushing defeat in South Africa this time last year was avoided only thanks to two last-wicket survival acts. Both sides are at home to India later this year, an effective test of quality and progress in both cases.
The composition of a team selected from both sides has been discussed in various media outlets. Some think that only Hussey would make it from the Australian team, but this going too far. I would pick Haddin ahead of Prior, as his runs came at more difficult times and because his glovework was tidier. It has been suggested that Prior was better because he took more catches, but wicketkeepers are judged by what they miss, not what they catch.
I am tempted to argue that, the Adelaide double century excepted (and others were scoring runs there) Pietersen threw it away too often and contributed less than the other batsmen, Collingwood apart, so Watson should take his place. Talk of Watson moving down the order is mysterious, as he has done a good job as an opener, apart from the comedy running between the wickets. Also, it seems to take the pressure off his bowling.
I watched more of this than any other Ashes series, with the possible exception of 2002/03, when I was working from home and could pass off time spent in front of the television as research for my role as a CricInfo writer. It has been an interesting and entertaining series, but not a classic, as none of the four tests that finished were close. The most tension was felt at Brisbane, before it became obvious that England's rescue act was being mounted in a shallow park pond, not a stormy ocean. It was a historic series though, as it leaves Andrew Strauss alongside only Len Hutton and Mike Brearley (who, as Tony Greig is never slow to point out, did it against the Australian 2nd/3rd XI) as the only England captains to beat Australia home and away.
Roll on Ashes 2013.
Of course, when one side is far superior to the other, as was the case in too many series between England and Australia in the nineties and noughties, and against the West Indies in the eighties, a long series is superfluous, but this has not happened that often in cricket history. We have a two-match series against Pakistan beginning here in New Zealand today, which is no use to anybody (I shall report from the second Test at the Basin nevertheless).
For England, weaknesses identified at the start of the tour turned into strengths, particularly Alistair Cook, whose place was in doubt halfway through the last English season. He accumulated his runs so smoothly that news that he had batted longer than any Englishman in any Ashes series came as a surprise. Boycott and Barrington just seemed to bat longer, I suppose. Why the Australians did not pitch the ball up to him more? That is one of many questions they will ask themselves in the weeks and months to come.
The big bonus for England was the depth of the fast bowling. At the beginning of the series Stuart Broad was said by many to be crucial to the team's chances, but was not missed after he was injured in the second Test. How many teams have been able to drop their leading wicket-taker half way through the series, yet improve the team by doing so? This is what England achieved by replacing Finn with Bresnan. Anderson was world class, his control of reverse swing magnificent.
Despite the overwhelming scale of the victory England are not as good as some say, nor Australia as bad. This Australian side saw off New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan easily enough last year, and remain a first division side, albeit one flirting with relegation. Optimism levels here in New Zealand remain low looking ahead to the two-Test series in Australia next November.
England have to lose the habit of throwing away a game a series (Perth, and at the Oval against Pakistan). A crushing defeat in South Africa this time last year was avoided only thanks to two last-wicket survival acts. Both sides are at home to India later this year, an effective test of quality and progress in both cases.
The composition of a team selected from both sides has been discussed in various media outlets. Some think that only Hussey would make it from the Australian team, but this going too far. I would pick Haddin ahead of Prior, as his runs came at more difficult times and because his glovework was tidier. It has been suggested that Prior was better because he took more catches, but wicketkeepers are judged by what they miss, not what they catch.
I am tempted to argue that, the Adelaide double century excepted (and others were scoring runs there) Pietersen threw it away too often and contributed less than the other batsmen, Collingwood apart, so Watson should take his place. Talk of Watson moving down the order is mysterious, as he has done a good job as an opener, apart from the comedy running between the wickets. Also, it seems to take the pressure off his bowling.
I watched more of this than any other Ashes series, with the possible exception of 2002/03, when I was working from home and could pass off time spent in front of the television as research for my role as a CricInfo writer. It has been an interesting and entertaining series, but not a classic, as none of the four tests that finished were close. The most tension was felt at Brisbane, before it became obvious that England's rescue act was being mounted in a shallow park pond, not a stormy ocean. It was a historic series though, as it leaves Andrew Strauss alongside only Len Hutton and Mike Brearley (who, as Tony Greig is never slow to point out, did it against the Australian 2nd/3rd XI) as the only England captains to beat Australia home and away.
Roll on Ashes 2013.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Random thoughts on the Ashes: Melbourne
When England last retained the Ashes as they just have, by winning the penultimate Test thereby ensuring that the series could not be lost, the fact was noted only in passing. It was 29 July 1972 and I watched it on Grandstand on our new colour TV. The game finished mid-afternoon on the third day, Kent's own Derek Underwood routing the Aussies with ten wickets on a sickly Headingley pitch about which Australians mutter dark conspiracy theories to this day.
There were few celebrations and no post-match presentation ceremony (there was nothing to present). England's captain, Ray Illingworth, might have had time for a quick beer before going back to Leicestershire to lead the team in the Sunday League the next day. Tony Greig played for Sussex at Arundel, a 350-mile drive away (John Snow's name is conspicuous in its absence from that day's Sussex teamlist; he was never the county game's most enthusiastic devotee).
I suppose that in 1972 we were a bit too Celia Johnson for our own good, but in 2010 we have surely moved too far in the direction of Lady Gaga. David Cameron was effusive in his congratulations and invited the team (or the “group” as it is fashionably known) to No 10. BBC World News led with the Ashes for many hours on Wednesday, which even during the slowest news period of the year is getting things seriously out of proportion (Afghanistan anybody?). It wouldn't have been so bad if reporter James Pearce had not been so ignorant of cricket history, referring to England v Australia as “cricket's oldest contest” when USA v Canada beats it by 18 years. He also speculated that Ponting would be replaced as Australia's captain “as soon as the series ends”, which he certainly will not, as captain of the No 1 ranked ODI team and the World Cup only a few weeks away. The change will take place after that.
Hopelessly uptight as we were in the seventies, our reluctance to throw street parties across the country was at least informed by the knowledge that the series had not been decided. The fifth Test of the '72 series was outstanding, and ended with Australia winning on the sixth day (the extra day was added as the series was still undetermined, which was exactly the point). The stories that have proliferated in both hemispheres explaining why the English are so much better than the Australians are going to look pretty silly if Australia wins in Sydney.
That is not the most likely outcome, but twice already in this series a badly beaten team has come back to win the following Test and it could happen again, if Mitch Johnson rediscovers his inner Dr Strangelove and resists The Fiendish Plot of Dr Fu Manchu, if Michael Clarke finds his form... I was going to add, if the Australian selectors see sense and drop Hughes and Smith, and include Nathan Hauritz, but that moment has already passed. Usman Khawaja comes in for the injured Ponting, but will bat at three, giving the hapless Hughes another chance as opener (I don't recall an Aussie opener as vulnerable since Andrew “Hooking” Hilditch, the current chairman of the Australian selectors, which may explain something), the richly promising but under-ripe Smith remains too, and they're sticking with Michael Beer, the good form that led to his original selection no doubt lost in the three weeks that he's been trailling the team around Australia.
While the Australian selectors have made and compounded mistakes galore, England's have got everything right. Winning the Ashes with a four-man attack including Bresnan? Can't see a problem there.
Jonathan Agnew described the first day's play at Melbourne as the most one-sided he'd ever seen in Tests, including those involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. There might be a few that can be dragged up from New Zealand's recent past that would contend. I immediately thought of the first day of the fifth Test of the 1989 Ashes, where openers Mark Taylor and Geoff Marsh batted all day.
And then there was Ponting. It's difficult to engender the appropriate degree of outrage at his outburst over the third umpire's correct decision to rule Pietersen not out for two reasons. The first is that during the Test Channel 9 replayed the Dennis Lillee aluminium bat incident at Perth in 1979, which culminated the Australian captain Greg Chappell coming on to the field with a replacement and Lillee hurling the offending piece of metal 30 metres across the Waca. In comparison the Ponting incident looks tame. Also, Ponting got it so wrong that the effect was comical rather than provoking. His expression of incomprehension as Aleem Dar used his forearm to explain that the “hotspot” seen on the screen could not have been produced by the ball could not have been bettered by either Laurel or Hardy.
I hope that Ponting has not played his last Test. He has been the great batsman of the past decade and deserves to go out with a century.
There were few celebrations and no post-match presentation ceremony (there was nothing to present). England's captain, Ray Illingworth, might have had time for a quick beer before going back to Leicestershire to lead the team in the Sunday League the next day. Tony Greig played for Sussex at Arundel, a 350-mile drive away (John Snow's name is conspicuous in its absence from that day's Sussex teamlist; he was never the county game's most enthusiastic devotee).
I suppose that in 1972 we were a bit too Celia Johnson for our own good, but in 2010 we have surely moved too far in the direction of Lady Gaga. David Cameron was effusive in his congratulations and invited the team (or the “group” as it is fashionably known) to No 10. BBC World News led with the Ashes for many hours on Wednesday, which even during the slowest news period of the year is getting things seriously out of proportion (Afghanistan anybody?). It wouldn't have been so bad if reporter James Pearce had not been so ignorant of cricket history, referring to England v Australia as “cricket's oldest contest” when USA v Canada beats it by 18 years. He also speculated that Ponting would be replaced as Australia's captain “as soon as the series ends”, which he certainly will not, as captain of the No 1 ranked ODI team and the World Cup only a few weeks away. The change will take place after that.
Hopelessly uptight as we were in the seventies, our reluctance to throw street parties across the country was at least informed by the knowledge that the series had not been decided. The fifth Test of the '72 series was outstanding, and ended with Australia winning on the sixth day (the extra day was added as the series was still undetermined, which was exactly the point). The stories that have proliferated in both hemispheres explaining why the English are so much better than the Australians are going to look pretty silly if Australia wins in Sydney.
That is not the most likely outcome, but twice already in this series a badly beaten team has come back to win the following Test and it could happen again, if Mitch Johnson rediscovers his inner Dr Strangelove and resists The Fiendish Plot of Dr Fu Manchu, if Michael Clarke finds his form... I was going to add, if the Australian selectors see sense and drop Hughes and Smith, and include Nathan Hauritz, but that moment has already passed. Usman Khawaja comes in for the injured Ponting, but will bat at three, giving the hapless Hughes another chance as opener (I don't recall an Aussie opener as vulnerable since Andrew “Hooking” Hilditch, the current chairman of the Australian selectors, which may explain something), the richly promising but under-ripe Smith remains too, and they're sticking with Michael Beer, the good form that led to his original selection no doubt lost in the three weeks that he's been trailling the team around Australia.
While the Australian selectors have made and compounded mistakes galore, England's have got everything right. Winning the Ashes with a four-man attack including Bresnan? Can't see a problem there.
Jonathan Agnew described the first day's play at Melbourne as the most one-sided he'd ever seen in Tests, including those involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. There might be a few that can be dragged up from New Zealand's recent past that would contend. I immediately thought of the first day of the fifth Test of the 1989 Ashes, where openers Mark Taylor and Geoff Marsh batted all day.
And then there was Ponting. It's difficult to engender the appropriate degree of outrage at his outburst over the third umpire's correct decision to rule Pietersen not out for two reasons. The first is that during the Test Channel 9 replayed the Dennis Lillee aluminium bat incident at Perth in 1979, which culminated the Australian captain Greg Chappell coming on to the field with a replacement and Lillee hurling the offending piece of metal 30 metres across the Waca. In comparison the Ponting incident looks tame. Also, Ponting got it so wrong that the effect was comical rather than provoking. His expression of incomprehension as Aleem Dar used his forearm to explain that the “hotspot” seen on the screen could not have been produced by the ball could not have been bettered by either Laurel or Hardy.
I hope that Ponting has not played his last Test. He has been the great batsman of the past decade and deserves to go out with a century.
Friday, December 31, 2010
I am not a number, I'm a cricket writer
It is now possible to search CricInfo, sorry ESPN CricInfo, by author. Turns out I'm author 160. The reports listed are the close-of-play wraps. The hourly reports are still there, but hidden deeper in the achives:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/author.html?author=160;page=1
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/author.html?author=160;page=1
Friday, December 24, 2010
Random thoughts on the Ashes: Perth
This was an Aesop's Fable of a Test, a simple moral tale of the dangers of pride and self-regard. Though the England camp (and there are so many "support" people present that it's more of small town) would not associate itself with the premature triumphalism of the British media - even the Guardian ran an on-line poll on whether this was the worst Aussie side ever - Matt Prior's statement quoted in an earlier post that England were looking to go through the tour unbeaten showed that hubris had been asked in and given a cup of tea. Not for nothing is "we'll take each game as it comes" sport's oldest cliche.
An hour or so into the second day it appeared that complacency was justified, with England 78 without loss in reply Australia's unimpressive 268. Then Mitchell Johnson began to swing it like the Glenn Miller Orchestra, finishing with six for 38. Johnson is the Peter Sellers of contemporary cricket. A long period of nothing but rubbish, then, suddenly at the Waca, it's Being There.
In contrast to the Gabba, and to a lesser extent the Adelaide Oval, the pitch nurtured good cricket, chiefly because of its pace and trueness of bounce. It was through the air, rather than off the pitch, that the bowlers caused problems.
The less thoughtful members of the media, supported by the ignorati of the internet, will say that all is well in Australia, while England are in crisis. Neither is true. This Ashes series is unfolding like a Shakesperian drama, in five acts. Whether Ricky Ponting or Andrew Strauss is the tragic figure who will fall on his sword in the final scene is not yet clear. Both sides have weaknesses, and it is these fallabilities that are making it such a good contest.
For England, Collingwood is out of touch, Swann somewhat neutralised, and Finn tired (but still taking wickets, a happy knack). It is rumoured that he may be rested in Melbourne. England to win a Test with a four-man attack, one of whom is Bresnan? It has an improbable feel to it.
For Australia, there must be several openers available more secure than Phil Hughes, and Clarke looked as if he'd lost it in the second innings at Perth, slogging away from the start. Ponting looks vulnerable too, but Ian Chappell says that the feet are moving well, so runs will follow. The Australians may green up the pitch at Melbourne, and go without a spinner, though Beer is still in the squad, at the expense of the unfortunate Hauritz.
Much nonsense is being written about "momentum" and the "psychological advantage". At Melbourne in will simply come down to which team bats and bowls better. The issue of sledging has taken up many column inches too. Peter Siddle gave a radio interview in which he defended the aggressive use of words on the cricket field, the irony of his failure to form words into a coherent sentence at any point of the interview lost on him.
Happy Festival of the Day Before the Boxing Day Test to one and all.
An hour or so into the second day it appeared that complacency was justified, with England 78 without loss in reply Australia's unimpressive 268. Then Mitchell Johnson began to swing it like the Glenn Miller Orchestra, finishing with six for 38. Johnson is the Peter Sellers of contemporary cricket. A long period of nothing but rubbish, then, suddenly at the Waca, it's Being There.
In contrast to the Gabba, and to a lesser extent the Adelaide Oval, the pitch nurtured good cricket, chiefly because of its pace and trueness of bounce. It was through the air, rather than off the pitch, that the bowlers caused problems.
The less thoughtful members of the media, supported by the ignorati of the internet, will say that all is well in Australia, while England are in crisis. Neither is true. This Ashes series is unfolding like a Shakesperian drama, in five acts. Whether Ricky Ponting or Andrew Strauss is the tragic figure who will fall on his sword in the final scene is not yet clear. Both sides have weaknesses, and it is these fallabilities that are making it such a good contest.
For England, Collingwood is out of touch, Swann somewhat neutralised, and Finn tired (but still taking wickets, a happy knack). It is rumoured that he may be rested in Melbourne. England to win a Test with a four-man attack, one of whom is Bresnan? It has an improbable feel to it.
For Australia, there must be several openers available more secure than Phil Hughes, and Clarke looked as if he'd lost it in the second innings at Perth, slogging away from the start. Ponting looks vulnerable too, but Ian Chappell says that the feet are moving well, so runs will follow. The Australians may green up the pitch at Melbourne, and go without a spinner, though Beer is still in the squad, at the expense of the unfortunate Hauritz.
Much nonsense is being written about "momentum" and the "psychological advantage". At Melbourne in will simply come down to which team bats and bowls better. The issue of sledging has taken up many column inches too. Peter Siddle gave a radio interview in which he defended the aggressive use of words on the cricket field, the irony of his failure to form words into a coherent sentence at any point of the interview lost on him.
Happy Festival of the Day Before the Boxing Day Test to one and all.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wellington v Northern Districts, T20, Basin Reserve, 12 December 2010
A pleasant summer’s day for my first visit to the Basin this season. There were games on both days last weekend, but live T20 versus the Ashes on TV is no contest, and today’s match showed why.
ND knocked up 200 in their 20 overs, with a spectacular 31-ball 66 from Peter McGlashan, including a reverse-pull which fell inches short of the mid-wicket boundary. McGlashan, a certainty for the New Zealand T20 team, should also be in the ODI team, badly in need of a confident presence after 11 successive defeats. For Wellington, Luke Woodcock was the best bowler, and should be considered if Daniel Vettori is not fit at the start of the ODI series in the New Year.Jesse Ryder played for the first time since his most recent injury, but was out-of-touch, and holed out for four.
The result was certain when Ryder went in the third over, leaving Wellington already needing more than eleven an over. That’s the flaw with T20. If, as more often than not, a team batting second chasing a big total fails to make a swift start, that’s it. Even in the 50-over format a fightback is possible, but not in T20.
The Wellington team, sponsored by a well-known pizza company, are now known as the Hell Wellington Firebirds, which, when they perform as they did today, makes the sub-editor's headline writing easy.
A note on spectating etiquette. Just as Ronald Karataina bowled during the sixth over of the day, a late arrival (see previous post) pushed past me to get to a vacant seat. Wilson was out. “What happened there?” he asked.
“I don’t know, you were blocking my view” I replied. Another chance to make a lifelong friend disappears.
There was a time when it was generally recognised that it was inconsiderate to move to or from a seat except between overs, but, like having a fielder at third man in a Test match, it’s a nicety that has disappeared.
Random thoughts on the Ashes: Adelaide
This, my friends, is why you should always be at the cricket well before the start of play.
All this happened in the first ten minutes of the Test match. A few moments afterwards Channel Nine showed us a queue of people waiting to get in to the Adelaide Oval. They missed the most gripping cricket of the Test, Australia's worst start to a Test innings since 1950.
These people mistook going to the cricket for a day out, and have failed to undertake the thoughtful planning that is necessary for optimum pleasure. For example, everybody knows that it takes an age to get into sports venues these days, as the security folk go about their task of hunting down illicit sandwiches and soft drinks in the manner of Simon Wiesenthal on the trail of former members of the SS. The alarm must be set half an hour earlier.
When I went to Sydney for the final Test of the 1998/9 Ashes, on the first day play started at 11. I was in my seat in the Churchill Stand by 8.35. Of course, this may be habit borne of need, as in the seventies it was desirable to get to the St Lawrence Ground early to get a decent seat, essential for big matches in the knock-out competitions. John Arlott used to call it “the Canterbury breakfast”.
I favour cricket grounds adopting the practice of the opera, with no admittance for latecomers until the interval, but I can see that would be a difficult one to get past the marketing people.
There is always plenty to occupy the mind at cricket grounds before play begins. On an unfamiliar ground there is orientation to be done, and on a familiar one old friends to meet, old conversations to be repeated and idle speculation to be indulged in. There are newspapers or a carefully chosen book to read. The first Scotch egg of the day can be put away. This way, by the time play begins, the spectator is attuned to the atmosphere, and ready to appreciate the nuances of the game.
Obviously, the same applies to leaving the ground at the close of play. There are people who, regardless of the state of the game, will leave a quarter of a hour before the close of play, even a close one-day game. Do they do this elsewhere? Do they leave theatres at the end of act four and thus go through life believing that Hamlet and Ophelia married and opened a flower shop? Or cinemas, thinking that James Garner will have no trouble getting Donald Pleasance to the Swiss border? Almost certainly not. So why leave a cricket ground early, particularly first-class cricket where anything can happen at any time?
An example. At the end of the aforementioned first day at Sydney in 1999, Darren Gough took the first hat-trick by an England bowler in Ashes Tests for a hundred years, a moment that will make those of us who saw it smile with pleasure at its memory many decades hence, even when we can’t remember our own names. Yet several thousand seats were already empty, their occupants thoroughly pleased with themselves at getting a good place in the bus queue. Some of them may have had what they regard as better excuses for leaving early. To attend their child’s birthday party perhaps, or to be by the bedside of their sick wife. But look deep into their eyes and you will see a sadness that will be with them always.
As for the rest of the Adelaide Test, the unaccustomed ease with which the English batsmen took runs off the Australian attack reminded me of the 1985 series when Gooch, Gower, Gatting and Robinson scored a heap of runs at almost four an over, a welcome increase in the tempo of Test cricket. The reaction of the Australian selectors (chairman: Lance Corporal Jones) is more redolent of England’s in 1989, when the team was changed so often that by the final Test Ted Dexter failed to recognise Alan Igglesden, who he’d picked to open the bowling. Quite what Nathan Hauritz has done wrong is unclear. In Australian conditions he has appeared to be good enough to exercise some sort of control, and is a decent bat and fine field.
But a word of caution. The two teams in this series are not that far apart in terms of quality (remember England’s loss to Pakistan at the Oval just a few months ago), and England have won only once at the Waca, and then against a weak Australia in the World Series years. I have just seem Matt Prior quoted as saying that England are aiming to go through the tour unbeaten, which is foolish talk, suggesting that some in the England camp are making the mistake of believing their own publicity. I hope that the Australians do come back, as it would be magnificent watching if the Ashes are still at stake in Sydney.
End of over 2 (1 run) Australia 2/2
SR Watson 0* (6b) SCJ Broad 1-0-1-0
MJ Clarke 2* (5b) JM Anderson 1-0-1-1
2.1 Anderson to Clarke, OUT, 135.3 kph, Two for Anderson! Clarke departs! Another perfect, pitched-up outswinger, Clarke has looked all at sea and walks into a nothing drive that flicks the edge and flies to Swann again
MJ Clarke c Swann b Anderson 2 (7m 6b 0x4 0x6) SR: 33.33
Impossible drama at the Adelaide Oval.
(Adapted from CricInfo's ball-by-ball commentary)
All this happened in the first ten minutes of the Test match. A few moments afterwards Channel Nine showed us a queue of people waiting to get in to the Adelaide Oval. They missed the most gripping cricket of the Test, Australia's worst start to a Test innings since 1950.
These people mistook going to the cricket for a day out, and have failed to undertake the thoughtful planning that is necessary for optimum pleasure. For example, everybody knows that it takes an age to get into sports venues these days, as the security folk go about their task of hunting down illicit sandwiches and soft drinks in the manner of Simon Wiesenthal on the trail of former members of the SS. The alarm must be set half an hour earlier.
When I went to Sydney for the final Test of the 1998/9 Ashes, on the first day play started at 11. I was in my seat in the Churchill Stand by 8.35. Of course, this may be habit borne of need, as in the seventies it was desirable to get to the St Lawrence Ground early to get a decent seat, essential for big matches in the knock-out competitions. John Arlott used to call it “the Canterbury breakfast”.
I favour cricket grounds adopting the practice of the opera, with no admittance for latecomers until the interval, but I can see that would be a difficult one to get past the marketing people.
There is always plenty to occupy the mind at cricket grounds before play begins. On an unfamiliar ground there is orientation to be done, and on a familiar one old friends to meet, old conversations to be repeated and idle speculation to be indulged in. There are newspapers or a carefully chosen book to read. The first Scotch egg of the day can be put away. This way, by the time play begins, the spectator is attuned to the atmosphere, and ready to appreciate the nuances of the game.
Obviously, the same applies to leaving the ground at the close of play. There are people who, regardless of the state of the game, will leave a quarter of a hour before the close of play, even a close one-day game. Do they do this elsewhere? Do they leave theatres at the end of act four and thus go through life believing that Hamlet and Ophelia married and opened a flower shop? Or cinemas, thinking that James Garner will have no trouble getting Donald Pleasance to the Swiss border? Almost certainly not. So why leave a cricket ground early, particularly first-class cricket where anything can happen at any time?
An example. At the end of the aforementioned first day at Sydney in 1999, Darren Gough took the first hat-trick by an England bowler in Ashes Tests for a hundred years, a moment that will make those of us who saw it smile with pleasure at its memory many decades hence, even when we can’t remember our own names. Yet several thousand seats were already empty, their occupants thoroughly pleased with themselves at getting a good place in the bus queue. Some of them may have had what they regard as better excuses for leaving early. To attend their child’s birthday party perhaps, or to be by the bedside of their sick wife. But look deep into their eyes and you will see a sadness that will be with them always.
As for the rest of the Adelaide Test, the unaccustomed ease with which the English batsmen took runs off the Australian attack reminded me of the 1985 series when Gooch, Gower, Gatting and Robinson scored a heap of runs at almost four an over, a welcome increase in the tempo of Test cricket. The reaction of the Australian selectors (chairman: Lance Corporal Jones) is more redolent of England’s in 1989, when the team was changed so often that by the final Test Ted Dexter failed to recognise Alan Igglesden, who he’d picked to open the bowling. Quite what Nathan Hauritz has done wrong is unclear. In Australian conditions he has appeared to be good enough to exercise some sort of control, and is a decent bat and fine field.
But a word of caution. The two teams in this series are not that far apart in terms of quality (remember England’s loss to Pakistan at the Oval just a few months ago), and England have won only once at the Waca, and then against a weak Australia in the World Series years. I have just seem Matt Prior quoted as saying that England are aiming to go through the tour unbeaten, which is foolish talk, suggesting that some in the England camp are making the mistake of believing their own publicity. I hope that the Australians do come back, as it would be magnificent watching if the Ashes are still at stake in Sydney.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Random thoughts on the Ashes: Brisbane
There was something for everyone in the first Test at the Gabba. A hat-trick on the first day; a fighting partnership by Hussey and Haddin to push Australia ahead; an Ashes debut six-for by Finn (he'll bowl much better for less reward); and rearguard heroics from Strauss, Cook and Trott. England have yet to prove that they can win consistently against strong opposition, but they can certainly save games, which is a pleasing novelty for those of us who have lived most of our lives with an England team that had the willpower and steadfastness of Jesse Ryder in a pie shop.
The result leaves key questions unanswered, as is right in a five-match series, which should unfold like a good mystery, the full truth not being revealed until just before the end.
The most important of these questions is “can either of these attacks take twenty wickets to win a Test?”. Mitchell Johnson, with his Movember moustache, looked like Ronald Colman, and bowled like him too. Graham Swann bore little resemblance to the match-winner of recent series. An off spinner winning the Ashes in Australia? The idea begins to sound more absurd than ever.
If the bowlers are to be successful, they will need more help from the pitch than the Gabba gave them. The Channel Nine commentary team, in full every-day-is-Australia-Day mode, sang the praises of the curator (a term I rather prefer to the more rustic “groundsman”) for producing an “excellent” – Bill Lawry – surface. In fact, the pitch was difficult to stay in on in the first half of the game, and difficult to get out on for the second half, pretty much the antithesis of how a Test pitch should behave.
Despite the undoubted merits of the innings of Hussey, Haddin, Strauss, Cook and Trott, 962 runs for six wickets over the last three-and-a-bit days of a Test match means that the pitch was a poor one, in that it did not facilitate an even match between bat and ball. One or two match-saving centuries are worth celebrating. Five are merely mundane.
And then there is the question of the decision referral system (DRS), which functioned poorly in Brisbane. Anderson had Hussey lbw when he was 85, but Aleem Dar rejected the appeal (he had sound grounds for doing so, as there were two noises as the ball hit both pads on the way through) and England could not refer the decision to the third umpire because they had already had two unsuccessful referrals, the allowance for one innings.
It’s true that England had rather squandered their opportunities to refer, but the reason for the limit is to prevent frivolous referrals, not to introduce an extra tactical dimension; that sort of thing is fine for ODIs, but not Tests. When the DRS was first trialled, three unsuccessful referrals was the limit, which prevented abuse of the system, but meant that few close decisions went unscrutinised. That the two-strikes limit is too severe was further illustrated in England's second innings when Australia had two unsuccessful referrals for lbw decisions (including Strauss first ball; what a difference that would have made). Both were exactly the sort of marginal decisions that the DRS was designed for, and Ponting was right to refer them, but a serious umpiring error might have gone uncorrected as a result.
Another alternative would be to declare unsuccessful referrals as spent after, say, 50 overs. Under the present system the fielding side will almost inevitably lose their referrals in a long innings, which is exactly when they need them most.
At least the DRS is operative in Australia, which it was not for the recent series in India, presumably because the BCCI (the governing body in India) was too stingy to pay for all the necessary hardware, preferring to spend their IPL riches on asses milk for Board members to bathe in, or similar. Was this discussed by the commentators? It was not. Why? Because the BCCI is producing the TV broadcast and selling the finished product, rather than just the rights. This is a disturbing trend that would seriously affect the quality of sports coverage were it to spread.
The good news is that Jeremy Coney has replaced the dreadful Morrison on the team for the ODIs.
Can’t wait for Adelaide.
The result leaves key questions unanswered, as is right in a five-match series, which should unfold like a good mystery, the full truth not being revealed until just before the end.
The most important of these questions is “can either of these attacks take twenty wickets to win a Test?”. Mitchell Johnson, with his Movember moustache, looked like Ronald Colman, and bowled like him too. Graham Swann bore little resemblance to the match-winner of recent series. An off spinner winning the Ashes in Australia? The idea begins to sound more absurd than ever.
If the bowlers are to be successful, they will need more help from the pitch than the Gabba gave them. The Channel Nine commentary team, in full every-day-is-Australia-Day mode, sang the praises of the curator (a term I rather prefer to the more rustic “groundsman”) for producing an “excellent” – Bill Lawry – surface. In fact, the pitch was difficult to stay in on in the first half of the game, and difficult to get out on for the second half, pretty much the antithesis of how a Test pitch should behave.
Despite the undoubted merits of the innings of Hussey, Haddin, Strauss, Cook and Trott, 962 runs for six wickets over the last three-and-a-bit days of a Test match means that the pitch was a poor one, in that it did not facilitate an even match between bat and ball. One or two match-saving centuries are worth celebrating. Five are merely mundane.
And then there is the question of the decision referral system (DRS), which functioned poorly in Brisbane. Anderson had Hussey lbw when he was 85, but Aleem Dar rejected the appeal (he had sound grounds for doing so, as there were two noises as the ball hit both pads on the way through) and England could not refer the decision to the third umpire because they had already had two unsuccessful referrals, the allowance for one innings.
It’s true that England had rather squandered their opportunities to refer, but the reason for the limit is to prevent frivolous referrals, not to introduce an extra tactical dimension; that sort of thing is fine for ODIs, but not Tests. When the DRS was first trialled, three unsuccessful referrals was the limit, which prevented abuse of the system, but meant that few close decisions went unscrutinised. That the two-strikes limit is too severe was further illustrated in England's second innings when Australia had two unsuccessful referrals for lbw decisions (including Strauss first ball; what a difference that would have made). Both were exactly the sort of marginal decisions that the DRS was designed for, and Ponting was right to refer them, but a serious umpiring error might have gone uncorrected as a result.
Another alternative would be to declare unsuccessful referrals as spent after, say, 50 overs. Under the present system the fielding side will almost inevitably lose their referrals in a long innings, which is exactly when they need them most.
At least the DRS is operative in Australia, which it was not for the recent series in India, presumably because the BCCI (the governing body in India) was too stingy to pay for all the necessary hardware, preferring to spend their IPL riches on asses milk for Board members to bathe in, or similar. Was this discussed by the commentators? It was not. Why? Because the BCCI is producing the TV broadcast and selling the finished product, rather than just the rights. This is a disturbing trend that would seriously affect the quality of sports coverage were it to spread.
The good news is that Jeremy Coney has replaced the dreadful Morrison on the team for the ODIs.
Can’t wait for Adelaide.
Monday, November 22, 2010
India v New Zealand: Once More into the Valley of Death
And it was all going so well. After two Test matches in the current series in India, New Zealand supporters, exiled for so long in the dark vale of batting collapse and follow ons, found themselves transported to the sunny uplands of centuries, wickets and—no, not victory, that would be more excitement than was good for us—of honourable draws. What’s more, New Zealand were well-placed to win had either game gone into a sixth day.
But, as we all expected, it’s all gone wrong at Nagpur, venue for the deciding third Test. As I write India lead by 250 with five wickets standing, wondering when they’ll have enough to declare and not have to bat again, while everybody here thinks they passed that mark fifty runs ago. Rahul Dravid (once of Kent) is batting like cream being poured over fresh strawberries.
Let us walk away from the scene of the crash and reflect on what went right at Ahmedabad and Hyderabad before we become convinced that it was all a dream.
The success of the batting was particularly pleasing. For a couple of years that’s where the real talent of the team has lain, but it has rarely delivered. So far in this series there have been four centuries by different batsmen.
In the second Test the odd couple, Tim McIntosh and Brendon McCullum, put on the first century partnership for the first wicket for New Zealand for more than six years, a measure of how bad things have been. McIntosh bagged a pair in the first Test, and might have been dropped. He has the happy knack of scoring runs in these circumstances, and produced his best Test innings, with a sound rearguard 49 to follow. He kept the score ticking over better than he has done in the past, though having McCullum at the other end reduces the pressure in this respect.
Ever since I saw McCullum score a fine hundred for New Zealand under-19s against South Africa at Pukekura Park, New Plymouth almost ten years ago (it was his third in successive games)...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/99089.html
...I have felt that he would become a successful top-order Test batsman (ODIs are another matter; I still think he may be more valuable in the finisher role at six or seven). He was praised for curbing his attacking instincts during his match-saving double century at Hyderabad, yet still moved along with a strike rate of 75 (four-and-a-half an over in old money), which is hardly laggardly. He passed 200 with a T20 scoop shot, probably a first for Test cricket.
Kane Williamson’s debut hundred was all efficiency and temperament. He bats like a mathematician solving a complicated equation and the pleasure of watching him rests as much in the knowledge of the runs that he will score in the years to come as in those that he is scoring now.
But it is Jesse Ryder that most pleases the eye. He reminds me of Colin Cowdrey, at the crease at least, and that is high praise from this source. So much time, and a large form moving with such grace. It becomes clear why New Zealand cricket has been so patient with him. He’s not in great shape (I know this because he’s much the same shape as me) and batted with a runner for some of his century in the first Test, which put me in mind of Guardian football writer David Lacey’s comment on the selection of a half-fit Paul Gascoigne: “the manager clearly took the view that half an oaf was better than none”.
Less is expected of the bowling, so taking 20 wickets on Ahmedabad’s flat track was the best of all these achievements, Chris Martin a revelation. Martin is one of those bowlers who always appears to be bowling into the wind, and at the age of 36 there are times when it has seemed to have risen to a force ten gale. Yet in the second innings he produced an opening spell that was pure Glenn McGrath, 135kph bowling that troubled the batsman as if it were 15 kph faster, probing lines and steep bounce. India were 15 for five at one point.
New Zealand’s undoing has come in the improbable form of the batting of Harbajan Singh, who has registered his three highest Test scores during the series, including two hundreds. He is the Errol Flynn of the crease, taking on all comers fearlessly, erasing the invisible line that separates bravery from stupidity, the outcome pre-determined. Exciting, yes, but also (and I hope that this does not come across as ungracious) staggeringly lucky. Mark Richardson pointed on TV that New Zealand has form in the matter of allowing lower-order batsmen to rise above their station. In support he cited Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Jerome Taylor, and Geraint Jones, which is a bit harsh on Kent’s current No 3.
In coming weeks I shall be writing on the Ashes, as there are only three million Ashes blogs and the world deserves another one.
But, as we all expected, it’s all gone wrong at Nagpur, venue for the deciding third Test. As I write India lead by 250 with five wickets standing, wondering when they’ll have enough to declare and not have to bat again, while everybody here thinks they passed that mark fifty runs ago. Rahul Dravid (once of Kent) is batting like cream being poured over fresh strawberries.
Let us walk away from the scene of the crash and reflect on what went right at Ahmedabad and Hyderabad before we become convinced that it was all a dream.
The success of the batting was particularly pleasing. For a couple of years that’s where the real talent of the team has lain, but it has rarely delivered. So far in this series there have been four centuries by different batsmen.
In the second Test the odd couple, Tim McIntosh and Brendon McCullum, put on the first century partnership for the first wicket for New Zealand for more than six years, a measure of how bad things have been. McIntosh bagged a pair in the first Test, and might have been dropped. He has the happy knack of scoring runs in these circumstances, and produced his best Test innings, with a sound rearguard 49 to follow. He kept the score ticking over better than he has done in the past, though having McCullum at the other end reduces the pressure in this respect.
Ever since I saw McCullum score a fine hundred for New Zealand under-19s against South Africa at Pukekura Park, New Plymouth almost ten years ago (it was his third in successive games)...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/99089.html
...I have felt that he would become a successful top-order Test batsman (ODIs are another matter; I still think he may be more valuable in the finisher role at six or seven). He was praised for curbing his attacking instincts during his match-saving double century at Hyderabad, yet still moved along with a strike rate of 75 (four-and-a-half an over in old money), which is hardly laggardly. He passed 200 with a T20 scoop shot, probably a first for Test cricket.
Kane Williamson’s debut hundred was all efficiency and temperament. He bats like a mathematician solving a complicated equation and the pleasure of watching him rests as much in the knowledge of the runs that he will score in the years to come as in those that he is scoring now.
But it is Jesse Ryder that most pleases the eye. He reminds me of Colin Cowdrey, at the crease at least, and that is high praise from this source. So much time, and a large form moving with such grace. It becomes clear why New Zealand cricket has been so patient with him. He’s not in great shape (I know this because he’s much the same shape as me) and batted with a runner for some of his century in the first Test, which put me in mind of Guardian football writer David Lacey’s comment on the selection of a half-fit Paul Gascoigne: “the manager clearly took the view that half an oaf was better than none”.
Less is expected of the bowling, so taking 20 wickets on Ahmedabad’s flat track was the best of all these achievements, Chris Martin a revelation. Martin is one of those bowlers who always appears to be bowling into the wind, and at the age of 36 there are times when it has seemed to have risen to a force ten gale. Yet in the second innings he produced an opening spell that was pure Glenn McGrath, 135kph bowling that troubled the batsman as if it were 15 kph faster, probing lines and steep bounce. India were 15 for five at one point.
New Zealand’s undoing has come in the improbable form of the batting of Harbajan Singh, who has registered his three highest Test scores during the series, including two hundreds. He is the Errol Flynn of the crease, taking on all comers fearlessly, erasing the invisible line that separates bravery from stupidity, the outcome pre-determined. Exciting, yes, but also (and I hope that this does not come across as ungracious) staggeringly lucky. Mark Richardson pointed on TV that New Zealand has form in the matter of allowing lower-order batsmen to rise above their station. In support he cited Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Jerome Taylor, and Geraint Jones, which is a bit harsh on Kent’s current No 3.
In coming weeks I shall be writing on the Ashes, as there are only three million Ashes blogs and the world deserves another one.
Friday, November 5, 2010
"The Best Loved Game" and the "Wisden Cricketer" 50 best books
A few editions ago the Wisden Cricketer announced its list of the 50 best cricket books, as chosen by a panel consisting of most of the world’s best cricket writers, plus a few better known in other fields, such as Michael Parkinson, Michael Billington and Simon Heffer. The choice of any edition of the Wisden Almanack was forbidden, like Shakespeare and the Bible on Desert Island Discs.
The earliest choice is John Nyren’s The Cricketers of My Time (32nd: 1833), the most recent Harold Larwood by Duncan Hamilton (18th: 2009). The Australian writer Gideon Haigh is the most popular author, with four books on the list.
I’ve read about half of those that made the final cut, but not the book chosen as the best: The Willow Wand by Derek Birley (1979), a revisionist history of the game that took on every establishment figure from Lord Harris to EW Swanton (who was very nice when I got his autograph at the Oval in 1970). Of course, I’m a sucker for lists and have determined to read all those that I’ve missed so far, as well as reminding myself of some of the best that I haven’t read for a few years.
So I was pleased to have the opportunity to fill one of these gaps when I spotted a copy of Geoffrey Moorhouse’s The Best Loved Game (8th) in a second-hand bookshop in Wellington a few weeks ago. It is an episodic account of the 1978 season, with Moorhouse travelling around England watching cricket from the village green to a Lord’s Test Match, which was where my path crossed with his for the only time, on the Saturday of the Test versus Pakistan. This is surprising, as he visited Canterbury during cricket week, but, seduced by the old lie that travel broadens the mind, I found myself in the Ruhrland at that time (actually, it’s only travel to cricket matches that achieves the desired effect).
The memory is a curious thing. Moorhouse describes Haroon Rashid hitting a six onto the top deck of the old Grandstand that Saturday, and I have it in HD in my mind as if it were happening now. Yet I have no recall of a tenth-wicket stand of 40 between Bob Willis and Phil Edmonds in the same session, which is odd as I regard myself as a connoisseur of late-order partnerships (should you find yourself in the company of my Blean Correspondent and myself, on no account ask us about the Willis/Hendrick stand at the Oval in ’77; you will never get away and will end up wishing yourself dead).
Moorhouse’s strengths are his powers of description and imagery. He describes Ian Botham, scoring 108 in only his eighth Test, like this:
His condemnation of the wearing of helmets, the new thing for batsmen and fielders that year, makes as much sense as if he were advocating the return of the man with the red flag to walk in front of motor cars, and they were offered in the knowledge that at least two cricketers—Roger Davis of Glamorgan and Ewen Chatfield of New Zealand—had recently come within a whisker of death for the want of cranial protection.
Alan Gibson’s Journal of the Season in The Cricketer stands as a superior account of cricket in England in 1978. The Best Loved Game has other faults too, such as the absence of an index, for which points are always deducted. Moorhouse might just cling on to a place on the list on the back of his quality as a writer, but the top ten? Never.
Which books not on the top 50 list should be? Of those mentioned on My Life In Cricket Scorecards previously, two recently published books should be there: John Major’s More Than a Game because of the hole it fills in cricket scholarship, and Alan Gibson’s Of Didcot and the Demon, near the top, of course. I’d suggest two more, just because both authors should be represented on a list of the best.
Some writers are wise, some brilliant with words. Matthew Engel has consistently been both. He is represented, but only as an editor, of The Guardian Book of Cricket (22nd, 1986). Engel is a victim of his own virtuosity. Though he has never stopped writing about cricket, the Guardian was smart enough to recognise that his talent could be deployed to other areas, including serving as the paper’s Washington correspondent. Editing twelve editions of Wisden took up time too. What little time he could spare to writing books he has devoted mostly to non-cricketing subjects, such as popular journalism and the British railway system. However, there is Ashes ’85, a collection of his reports on that series, and it should be on the list.
The other unrepresented writer is Martin “Scoop” Johnson, the inaugural cricket correspondent of The Independent, now of the Sunday Times, his output secreted behind Mr Murdoch’s paywall. Had Groucho Marx taken up cricket writing, he’d have written like Martin Johnson, a limitless stream of one-liners, all making a point and the reader laugh. Here’s part of a piece written during the 1993 Ashes series, from Can’t Bat, Can’t Bowl, Can’t Field (the only three things that, according to Johnson, were wrong with the 1986/7 England team), a collection of his cricket writing:
The earliest choice is John Nyren’s The Cricketers of My Time (32nd: 1833), the most recent Harold Larwood by Duncan Hamilton (18th: 2009). The Australian writer Gideon Haigh is the most popular author, with four books on the list.
I’ve read about half of those that made the final cut, but not the book chosen as the best: The Willow Wand by Derek Birley (1979), a revisionist history of the game that took on every establishment figure from Lord Harris to EW Swanton (who was very nice when I got his autograph at the Oval in 1970). Of course, I’m a sucker for lists and have determined to read all those that I’ve missed so far, as well as reminding myself of some of the best that I haven’t read for a few years.
So I was pleased to have the opportunity to fill one of these gaps when I spotted a copy of Geoffrey Moorhouse’s The Best Loved Game (8th) in a second-hand bookshop in Wellington a few weeks ago. It is an episodic account of the 1978 season, with Moorhouse travelling around England watching cricket from the village green to a Lord’s Test Match, which was where my path crossed with his for the only time, on the Saturday of the Test versus Pakistan. This is surprising, as he visited Canterbury during cricket week, but, seduced by the old lie that travel broadens the mind, I found myself in the Ruhrland at that time (actually, it’s only travel to cricket matches that achieves the desired effect).
The memory is a curious thing. Moorhouse describes Haroon Rashid hitting a six onto the top deck of the old Grandstand that Saturday, and I have it in HD in my mind as if it were happening now. Yet I have no recall of a tenth-wicket stand of 40 between Bob Willis and Phil Edmonds in the same session, which is odd as I regard myself as a connoisseur of late-order partnerships (should you find yourself in the company of my Blean Correspondent and myself, on no account ask us about the Willis/Hendrick stand at the Oval in ’77; you will never get away and will end up wishing yourself dead).
Moorhouse’s strengths are his powers of description and imagery. He describes Ian Botham, scoring 108 in only his eighth Test, like this:
He bats the way small boys dream of batting.And contrasting Gower with Botham:
The one excites the mind and shyly discloses grace; the other makes the heart leap and truculently has his way.Even in later years when they were famous, the difference between the two was never more sharply put. Nor could a sentence sum up how easy Viv Richards could make batting look better than the following:
Off Imran’s third ball he drives four runs to the long-on ropes so lazily that I almost expect him to finish the stroke with hand to mouth, stifling a yawn.But the book is a disappointment, because the prose is all there is. There are no profound insights, no astute observations, no original ideas. Cricket was in turmoil in 1978 because most of the leading players had joined Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket. Moorhouse’s views on this issue are mainstream and mundane , nothing more than could be read in the papers every day that summer, and all discredited by hindsight. Like many others at that time, he allows his antipathy to Packer to cloud his judgment on other matters. He tells us that Tony Greig, Packer’s chief recruiting officer,
...wouldn’t now be able to get into the side even if he were in a position to try.What nonsense. Greig would have walked in, for Roope, for the supposed off-spinner Miller (Greig won a Test in the West Indies bowling slower off-cutters), or even for Chris Old, leaving Botham to open the bowling with Willis.
His condemnation of the wearing of helmets, the new thing for batsmen and fielders that year, makes as much sense as if he were advocating the return of the man with the red flag to walk in front of motor cars, and they were offered in the knowledge that at least two cricketers—Roger Davis of Glamorgan and Ewen Chatfield of New Zealand—had recently come within a whisker of death for the want of cranial protection.
Alan Gibson’s Journal of the Season in The Cricketer stands as a superior account of cricket in England in 1978. The Best Loved Game has other faults too, such as the absence of an index, for which points are always deducted. Moorhouse might just cling on to a place on the list on the back of his quality as a writer, but the top ten? Never.
Which books not on the top 50 list should be? Of those mentioned on My Life In Cricket Scorecards previously, two recently published books should be there: John Major’s More Than a Game because of the hole it fills in cricket scholarship, and Alan Gibson’s Of Didcot and the Demon, near the top, of course. I’d suggest two more, just because both authors should be represented on a list of the best.
Some writers are wise, some brilliant with words. Matthew Engel has consistently been both. He is represented, but only as an editor, of The Guardian Book of Cricket (22nd, 1986). Engel is a victim of his own virtuosity. Though he has never stopped writing about cricket, the Guardian was smart enough to recognise that his talent could be deployed to other areas, including serving as the paper’s Washington correspondent. Editing twelve editions of Wisden took up time too. What little time he could spare to writing books he has devoted mostly to non-cricketing subjects, such as popular journalism and the British railway system. However, there is Ashes ’85, a collection of his reports on that series, and it should be on the list.
The other unrepresented writer is Martin “Scoop” Johnson, the inaugural cricket correspondent of The Independent, now of the Sunday Times, his output secreted behind Mr Murdoch’s paywall. Had Groucho Marx taken up cricket writing, he’d have written like Martin Johnson, a limitless stream of one-liners, all making a point and the reader laugh. Here’s part of a piece written during the 1993 Ashes series, from Can’t Bat, Can’t Bowl, Can’t Field (the only three things that, according to Johnson, were wrong with the 1986/7 England team), a collection of his cricket writing:
England’s Test team might be a waste of space, but as far as English Test cricket is concerned there is barely enough space to accommodate all those who want to watch it. England do not so much attract crowds these days as mourners at a funeral...Only in Yorkshire and Lancashire, where Venus would have to be aligned to Macclesfield and Pudsey before they stumped up in advance of the weather forecast, are there seats to be had at short notice...[England’s] domestic system generates less small change than a Saturday morning harmonica player outside Woolworth’s...How could they leave him out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)