Another minnow and another win for England today. They will claim that the two points was what they came for, and this is fair, but with the double-warhead of Sri Lanka and Australia looming large, a performance was what the team and the fans were crying out for. A side low on confidence, England have had three games against distinctly inferior opposition; three chances to impose themselves and build some self-belief. Three chances wasted.
In truth, once both openers had been put back in the hutch by the lively Rankin, the prospects of a dominating performace were all but lost. Joyce remains a frustration; as much as his off-side strokeplay is pleasing on the eye when he is ticking, ugly dismissals such as his raising of the drawbridge to a straight ball today will only increase the rumblings for Andrew Strauss to be recalled. Almost as bad was Vaughan, perishing to a shot he needn't have played, and one which would not have brought him runs anyway.
Ian Bell's catatonic 31, scored at less than a run every other ball, did nobody any favours, least of all himself. When in form Bell is a very capable performer, not least in one-day cricket, as he showed at the end of the last English summer with some well paced knocks. But when he struggles, he cannot even execute the basic requirement of rotating the strike. All he needed to do today was to pick the gaps, take singles and let Pietersen play the shots. That he was unable to do this does not bode well for the rest of the tournament, especially as there is no ready made replacement for him in the squad.
Once againit was left to England's middle order to save the day. Pietersen played well, as he has all tournament; however, a player of his class getting out for 48 against harmless bowling is unforgivable. There was nothing to stop him powering on to a century - a landmark he has not achieved since he notched three against South Africa two years ago. Flintoff was strangely subdued, and seems to have lost the confidence to commit to some slogging. Collingwood is a man in form, and it showed, as he paced his innings perfectly. He did not worry about his pedestrian start, and cleared the boundary three times, finishing with 90 at a rate comfortably above a run a ball. His combination at the death with Nixon, who continued to prove his worth, helped England to piullage 94 off the last ten overs, lifting them to a respectable score. If only these two could pass on some of their self-confidence to the rest of the team.
267 was always likely to be out of Ireland's reach, especially after the early dismissals of class-acts Bray and Morgan. Yet England still made an unholy mess of finishing the job, with the pace bowling distinctly average. Anderson did not swing the ball, and was a bit flustered, whilst Mahmood, after a good first spell, disappeared when he returned later. Flintoff, although he took 4, still looked laboured as he has all tournament.
More pleasing was the spin bowling; Panesar delivered the sort of accurate and incisive spell now expected of him and it was good to see Vaughan, an underrated off-break bowler, bowl nine ecenomical overs, snaring top scorer O'Brien in the process. Nevertheless, England find themselves in something of a pickle over the opening bowlers; Anderson should and will be persevered with, but the mystifying decision to dispense with Plunkett and employ the unconvincing Mahmood leaves them nowhere as to deciding on his partner. It may well be wise to turn to Jon Lewis rather than risk one of the tyros against the power of Sri Lanka and Australia. All the same, the Durham paceman will be justifiably miffed; he was the man in possession, and was dumped without having a chance to prove his credentials either way.
England will claim that the run glut in the last ten overs of their innings justifies their tactic of "back to basics", that is providing a solid platform and keeping wickets in hand for some slap and ticklr at the death. But in coining the tagline of John Major's equally unsuccessful 1992 initiative, they also seem to be playing a brand of cricket which has been out of date since then. If they think that they can get away with ignoring the power-play overs, then they are burying their heads in the sand. Ever since fielding restrictions were introduced, the sensible tactic has been to hit out at the beginning and end of the innings and consolidate in the middle. In the course of the next week, England will come up against Jayasuriya, Tharanga, Hayden, Gilchrist and Ponting; there will be some harsh lessons learnt, lessons that have failed to percolate through to the England hierarchy depsite the timely refreshers given last summer by the Sri Lankans and in the early part of the CB series but two months ago. It is too late for this campaign, but in the aftermath England need to find an opener who is really capable of filling Trescothiock's boots (that is unless the man himself can make a comeback). That does not mean promoting Pietersen or Flintoff either; Smith, Jayasuriya, Hayden, Gayle, these are all men who open for the Test teams as well. Possibly only Gilchrist, who is a one-off, achieves success away from his natural position.
In nine days time, after England have played Australia, they will have a good idea of what future this World Cup holds for them. If they can claim one win ut of two, then qualification is a real possibiltiy. If, as is likely, they have been on the end of two sound beatings, then it is back to Blighty and time for England to update the way they play the one-day game
Friday 30 March 2007
Wednesday 28 March 2007
Suprise in normality
Had a soothsayer accurately predicted the results of the firs two Super 8 matches, nobody would have batted an eyelid. South Africa, the world No.1, would have been expected to overcome talented but unfancied Sri Lanka, whilst you would have still thought Australia, albeit under the cosh, to have enough to see an underpowered host nation.
Yet, coming into the games themselves, there was a degree of uncertainty; Sri Lanka looked the form side, an explosvie and lenghty batting line up had knocked up totals which the balanced and incisive bowling attack defended. Conversely, South Africa looked somewhat listless; the failure of Shaun Pollock to live up to his status as No.1 seemed to reflect the overall inability of the team to justify the hype.
In the end, the game turned out in a way that will both encourage and annoy each side: South Africa come away with the points, but the manner of victory will not satisfy coach and captain. Chasing a modest 209, they were in total control at 160-2. However, a cluster of wickets from Murali, followed by the extraordinary feat of four wickets in as many balls from Malinga left the South African last wicket pair facing embarassment and the prospect of the sort of choke which only the Proteas could contrive. As it was, they prevailed nervously, but in a fashion which will not imbue them with confidence for the other games. Sri Lanka, havin brought themselves so close to an unlikely triumph, can only reflect on a botched innings and a modest total which cost them the game.
Australia marched to victory in a way which suggested that all doubts had been dispelled. Matthew Hayden's second successive century indicated a real return to form, and gave a refresher of the lesson he emphatically dished out to India in 2000-1; on slow, flat pitches, he is nigh on unstoppable. The only slight disappointment will be the lack of time spent at the crease by the other batsmen - the next best score was Clarke's 41. The bowling performance also allayed some concerns; Bracken was steady, Tait took wickets and 3 top-6 scalps proved that Glenn McGrath still has some life in him yet. Even better, spinner Brad Hogg, having endured a wicketless run prior to the tournament, bagged three here and brought his tally for the tournament to an impressive 10.
As for the hosts, the limitations of their attack were shown up, whilst the batting performance was limp, especially at the top of the order, with the normally free-hitting Gayle supressed. Although they did carry through points from the groups, as it turned out they were from the match against Ireland, who all the other teams will expect to beat anyway. They now have to pick themselves up from a drubbing which the rain elongated to two days, and face up to New Zealand tomorrow. For differing reasons, both teams will be even more keen than ususal to win: with points carried through from the group stage, a win for the Kiwis would put them in a very strong position to qualify, with only the two minnows barring their progression. On the flipside, should the West Indies lose, they will be staring elimination in the face all too quickly.
Yet, coming into the games themselves, there was a degree of uncertainty; Sri Lanka looked the form side, an explosvie and lenghty batting line up had knocked up totals which the balanced and incisive bowling attack defended. Conversely, South Africa looked somewhat listless; the failure of Shaun Pollock to live up to his status as No.1 seemed to reflect the overall inability of the team to justify the hype.
In the end, the game turned out in a way that will both encourage and annoy each side: South Africa come away with the points, but the manner of victory will not satisfy coach and captain. Chasing a modest 209, they were in total control at 160-2. However, a cluster of wickets from Murali, followed by the extraordinary feat of four wickets in as many balls from Malinga left the South African last wicket pair facing embarassment and the prospect of the sort of choke which only the Proteas could contrive. As it was, they prevailed nervously, but in a fashion which will not imbue them with confidence for the other games. Sri Lanka, havin brought themselves so close to an unlikely triumph, can only reflect on a botched innings and a modest total which cost them the game.
Australia marched to victory in a way which suggested that all doubts had been dispelled. Matthew Hayden's second successive century indicated a real return to form, and gave a refresher of the lesson he emphatically dished out to India in 2000-1; on slow, flat pitches, he is nigh on unstoppable. The only slight disappointment will be the lack of time spent at the crease by the other batsmen - the next best score was Clarke's 41. The bowling performance also allayed some concerns; Bracken was steady, Tait took wickets and 3 top-6 scalps proved that Glenn McGrath still has some life in him yet. Even better, spinner Brad Hogg, having endured a wicketless run prior to the tournament, bagged three here and brought his tally for the tournament to an impressive 10.
As for the hosts, the limitations of their attack were shown up, whilst the batting performance was limp, especially at the top of the order, with the normally free-hitting Gayle supressed. Although they did carry through points from the groups, as it turned out they were from the match against Ireland, who all the other teams will expect to beat anyway. They now have to pick themselves up from a drubbing which the rain elongated to two days, and face up to New Zealand tomorrow. For differing reasons, both teams will be even more keen than ususal to win: with points carried through from the group stage, a win for the Kiwis would put them in a very strong position to qualify, with only the two minnows barring their progression. On the flipside, should the West Indies lose, they will be staring elimination in the face all too quickly.
Monday 26 March 2007
First Post
Got to start somewhere, I suppose. Anyway, welcome to my blog, which will mainly focus on cricket, with an emphasis on England and Yorkshire. Now we have reached the Super 8 stage of the World Cup, the point at which the tournament was really meant to begin; by now the minnows should have been eliminated, leaving the Test nations to fight it out. Yet it has not quite gone to plan, and the presence of Ireland and Bangladesh is, although good for them, not ideal for the tounrmant as a whole. For one, they are unlikely to spring any more suprises (although Bangladesh might fancy their chances) and this makes it very difficult for the sides who have not carried through points from the groups - namely England and South Africa - to qualify for the semi-finals. Furthermore, the presence of a genuine minnow, in Ireland, is likely to create a whole raft of one-sided matches, which, unpalatable in the group stages, becomes tiresome at the point where the matches should be really keenly contested. But at the end of the day they have (sort of) earned their place, and India in particular must have no quibble - they had two chances to save themselves and twice bottled it.
So here are my views on the eight contenders:
Australia: Their batting, as evidenced by the display agianst South Africa, is still a fearsome unit, which should score heavily against most sides. However, they have had the luxury on playing themselves in at St.Ktts - a small ground and a very flat pitch - and they should be wary of being caught cold on a greentop. The bowling, as it has been since the outset, will be the main worry: although Brad Hogg has not had the nightmare many predicted, the pace bowling is a bit underwhelming. McGrath lacks his old pace and nip, and batsmen are finding it increasingly easy to line him up; Bracken is useful in a containing role, but is in reality very ordinary, whilst Tait may become an excellent bolwer but is currently something of a liability. Nevertheless, if Symonds can get back to full fitness, he will balance the side nicely, and their road to the semi-finals s relatively clear. Once there, they will be hard to beat, if not quite as of old.
West Indies: Easy victories agianst minnows and an underpowered Pakistan do not tell us much, and the host team remain an unknown quantity. However the batting is strong and experienced, and the pace bolwing, whilst a shadow of what came before, is decent enough. They have matchwinners in Lara and Gayle, and are balanced with the presence of all-rounders Smith and Bravo. However, they are probably a little too inconsistent to be a good bet for the title, although if they reach the semis (and they will carry htorugh the points) you never know.
South Africa: Whilst their batting looks good, especially with Smith in form, it will be the one-dimensional nature of their bowling attack which will cause worry. They have nobody who bowls lef-handed and no-one (bar Smith with his rubbish off-spin) who can take pace of the ball. In easy batting conditions this can be a recipe for conceding huge totals, as Australia showed. However, one off-day does not make Pollock and Ntini bad bowlers, and they have the batting depth and quality to chase nearly anything. On the back foot, but too early to write them off.
New Zealand: They play well together as a team, and are a very efficient one-day team. The battign is a mixture between the solidity of Fleming and Styris and the impetuousness of McMillan, Taylor and Oram. However, there is the propensity to collapse, and they will have to battle hard against the good attacks. Past Bond and Vettori the bowling is a bit thin, but then popgun seamers such as Styris and Oram have prospered so far. Nothing hugely special, but underestimate them at your peril.
Sri Lanka: They have really started with a bang, and go into the Super 8 joint favourites. The batting boasts power in the form of explosive openers Jayasuriya and Tharanga, flair from Jayawerdene and Sangakarra, pragmatism from bedrock Atapattu and depth, with Russell Arnold and Chamara Silva kicking around down the order, along with Chaminda Vaas' ability to oscillate effectively between slogging and blocking, as the situation dictates. Vaas leads the bowling with the nous and experience gained from well over 200 ODIs, whilst his partner Malinga adds a maverick element, with his low arm and high speed. Murali will prdouce wickets as he always does, alongside Jayasuriya, whose left arm spin is as restrictive as his batting is destructive. The third seamer postion could be occupied either by the improving Farveez Maharoof or the rapid Fernando. Overall, the most balanced side for whom the wickets are tailor-made; the only question remains as to their ability to perform under pressure - but they have the experience to cope, and will be very hard to beat on their day.
England: Plus ca change; as much as we have chopped and changed our one-day line up for the last four years, England still play a brand of cricket that has been outdated since 1992. The top 3 are all talented batsmen, but lack the power and confidence to take advantage of the now crucial power-plays. Joyce is a nice touch player, whose innings ebb and flow too much for him to ever dominate, whilst one despairs of Vaughan ever prvoing himself as a one-day batsman. Bell also has the propensity to get bogged down, and his attempts to hit over the top are undermined by a clear lack of faith in his own ability to do so (as evidenced by his feeble dismissal against Kenya). The engine room is obviously England's strong point, but it is too much to ask for them to save every game and do all the work themselves. That said, if the top three can somehow fashion a platform, Pietersen and Flintoff are the ideal men to capitalise. There are many good points to the bowling attack; they possess a good opening bolwer in Anderson, backed up by a genuine paceman in Flintoff and a top-drawer spinner. Throw into the mix the canny medium pace of Collingwood and Bopara's skiddy cutters and you have a very good unit. However, Anderson is not wholly reliable; even less so his opening partner, with neither Plunkett nor Mahmood inspiring confidence. Furthemore, although they are arguably England's best two bolwers in one-day cricket, Flintoff and Panesar do sometimes struggle to take wickets. It would be a suprise if England could claw back the points lost against NZ and qualify for the semi-finals. However, they are probably only two players away from being a really potent team, and you never know.
Bangladesh: As encouraging as their victory was, they went some way to dismantling their shaky reputation with a dimsal showing against Sri Lanka, and they remain a side agianst which the top teams expect to win. The tyro opening pair Imam and Rahim make up in talent what they lack in experience, and they are backed up by an experienced middle order, with Habibul Bashar and Mohammed Ashraful the stand-outs. The bowling, led well by the niggardly Mortaza, is heavily reliant on left arm spin which could be a weakness as well as a strength. For them, one or two wins on top of the one they should achieve against Ireland would constitute an excellent campaign.
Ireland: They should not really be here (sorry, but it's true) and they would be surpassing themselves just to win another game. Heavily reliant on expats, they are led well by Australian Trent Johnson, whose compatirot Jeremy Bray provides the mainstay of the batting. Past them, only the O'Brien brothers, Eoin Morgan and Boyd Rankin are noteworthy. Three of those are county players, but bar Morgan (possibly) they have little or no chance of recognition with England, and are at best solid county pros. Even so, it is good for assosciate cricket that they should have a representative in the latter stages, although they could suffer some serious beating further down the line. First up for them is England, a match they will eye as a possible opportunity, and for which they will be as keen as England are wary.
So here are my views on the eight contenders:
Australia: Their batting, as evidenced by the display agianst South Africa, is still a fearsome unit, which should score heavily against most sides. However, they have had the luxury on playing themselves in at St.Ktts - a small ground and a very flat pitch - and they should be wary of being caught cold on a greentop. The bowling, as it has been since the outset, will be the main worry: although Brad Hogg has not had the nightmare many predicted, the pace bowling is a bit underwhelming. McGrath lacks his old pace and nip, and batsmen are finding it increasingly easy to line him up; Bracken is useful in a containing role, but is in reality very ordinary, whilst Tait may become an excellent bolwer but is currently something of a liability. Nevertheless, if Symonds can get back to full fitness, he will balance the side nicely, and their road to the semi-finals s relatively clear. Once there, they will be hard to beat, if not quite as of old.
West Indies: Easy victories agianst minnows and an underpowered Pakistan do not tell us much, and the host team remain an unknown quantity. However the batting is strong and experienced, and the pace bolwing, whilst a shadow of what came before, is decent enough. They have matchwinners in Lara and Gayle, and are balanced with the presence of all-rounders Smith and Bravo. However, they are probably a little too inconsistent to be a good bet for the title, although if they reach the semis (and they will carry htorugh the points) you never know.
South Africa: Whilst their batting looks good, especially with Smith in form, it will be the one-dimensional nature of their bowling attack which will cause worry. They have nobody who bowls lef-handed and no-one (bar Smith with his rubbish off-spin) who can take pace of the ball. In easy batting conditions this can be a recipe for conceding huge totals, as Australia showed. However, one off-day does not make Pollock and Ntini bad bowlers, and they have the batting depth and quality to chase nearly anything. On the back foot, but too early to write them off.
New Zealand: They play well together as a team, and are a very efficient one-day team. The battign is a mixture between the solidity of Fleming and Styris and the impetuousness of McMillan, Taylor and Oram. However, there is the propensity to collapse, and they will have to battle hard against the good attacks. Past Bond and Vettori the bowling is a bit thin, but then popgun seamers such as Styris and Oram have prospered so far. Nothing hugely special, but underestimate them at your peril.
Sri Lanka: They have really started with a bang, and go into the Super 8 joint favourites. The batting boasts power in the form of explosive openers Jayasuriya and Tharanga, flair from Jayawerdene and Sangakarra, pragmatism from bedrock Atapattu and depth, with Russell Arnold and Chamara Silva kicking around down the order, along with Chaminda Vaas' ability to oscillate effectively between slogging and blocking, as the situation dictates. Vaas leads the bowling with the nous and experience gained from well over 200 ODIs, whilst his partner Malinga adds a maverick element, with his low arm and high speed. Murali will prdouce wickets as he always does, alongside Jayasuriya, whose left arm spin is as restrictive as his batting is destructive. The third seamer postion could be occupied either by the improving Farveez Maharoof or the rapid Fernando. Overall, the most balanced side for whom the wickets are tailor-made; the only question remains as to their ability to perform under pressure - but they have the experience to cope, and will be very hard to beat on their day.
England: Plus ca change; as much as we have chopped and changed our one-day line up for the last four years, England still play a brand of cricket that has been outdated since 1992. The top 3 are all talented batsmen, but lack the power and confidence to take advantage of the now crucial power-plays. Joyce is a nice touch player, whose innings ebb and flow too much for him to ever dominate, whilst one despairs of Vaughan ever prvoing himself as a one-day batsman. Bell also has the propensity to get bogged down, and his attempts to hit over the top are undermined by a clear lack of faith in his own ability to do so (as evidenced by his feeble dismissal against Kenya). The engine room is obviously England's strong point, but it is too much to ask for them to save every game and do all the work themselves. That said, if the top three can somehow fashion a platform, Pietersen and Flintoff are the ideal men to capitalise. There are many good points to the bowling attack; they possess a good opening bolwer in Anderson, backed up by a genuine paceman in Flintoff and a top-drawer spinner. Throw into the mix the canny medium pace of Collingwood and Bopara's skiddy cutters and you have a very good unit. However, Anderson is not wholly reliable; even less so his opening partner, with neither Plunkett nor Mahmood inspiring confidence. Furthemore, although they are arguably England's best two bolwers in one-day cricket, Flintoff and Panesar do sometimes struggle to take wickets. It would be a suprise if England could claw back the points lost against NZ and qualify for the semi-finals. However, they are probably only two players away from being a really potent team, and you never know.
Bangladesh: As encouraging as their victory was, they went some way to dismantling their shaky reputation with a dimsal showing against Sri Lanka, and they remain a side agianst which the top teams expect to win. The tyro opening pair Imam and Rahim make up in talent what they lack in experience, and they are backed up by an experienced middle order, with Habibul Bashar and Mohammed Ashraful the stand-outs. The bowling, led well by the niggardly Mortaza, is heavily reliant on left arm spin which could be a weakness as well as a strength. For them, one or two wins on top of the one they should achieve against Ireland would constitute an excellent campaign.
Ireland: They should not really be here (sorry, but it's true) and they would be surpassing themselves just to win another game. Heavily reliant on expats, they are led well by Australian Trent Johnson, whose compatirot Jeremy Bray provides the mainstay of the batting. Past them, only the O'Brien brothers, Eoin Morgan and Boyd Rankin are noteworthy. Three of those are county players, but bar Morgan (possibly) they have little or no chance of recognition with England, and are at best solid county pros. Even so, it is good for assosciate cricket that they should have a representative in the latter stages, although they could suffer some serious beating further down the line. First up for them is England, a match they will eye as a possible opportunity, and for which they will be as keen as England are wary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)