There had been enough decidedly un-English play in the first three matches of this sprawling one-day marathon to dictate that the bad old ways would soon return. And in the manner beloved of the British press, today's unlikely victory was achieved in extraordinary circumstances, with the odds heavily stacked against it - put another way, it was an excellent face-saving exercise on what was turning into a monumental cock-up. When Stuart Broad joined Ravi Bopara with England 99 adrift of victory, and just three wickets in hand, very much in the manner of Roosevelt at the D-Day landings, one assumed that captain Paul Collingwood had his defeat-speech ready in his pocket.
Despite a pitch on which the vaunted Indian batting line-up had limped to just over 200, and 7 front-line English batsmen had mustered just over 100, and even with Collingwood, anchoring the innings and the only man in dark blue to have given a sense of permanence, having got on the wrong end of a run-out, somehow England's two youngest players managed to forge the elusive partnership which the commentators declared was all England needed, and yet all the senior batsmen had failed to manufacture. Just 28 of the 99 runs they put on were in boundaries, and like another illustrious English late-order partnership of 105 years ago, Wilfred Rhodes and George Hirst, they resolved to get the majority in singles. Glides, nudges and pokes were supplemented by wristy inventiveness on the part of Bopara and the odd dominant off-side stroke from Broad, more reminiscent of his father, former England opener Chris. Bopara, of course, has been here before - in the company of another left-hander, team-elder Paul Nixon, he made an even more thrilling last stand in the World Cup against Sri Lanka, although that effort was fated to end in defeat. Today's partnership was far lower-octane - there was barely a reverse sweep in sight, and the job was completed long before one of the Indian seamers had the chance to emulate Fernando's last ball chutzpah. But, more happily, the result was an England victory; while Bopara continued to build his reputation as ice-blood finisher, Broad made the first significant batting contribution of his international career to join his ODI best figures with the ball and confirm what his bowling has suggested throughout the series, that he has now settled into this England team and is starting to produce his best.
In the circumstances of such a triumph, it is hard to strike a balance between praise for the heroes of the hour and criticism of those who put them in a situation where heroes were needed at all. It would be wrong to suggest that today's batting shambles is illustrative of England's general one-day situation, for they have batted well for most of the series. Rather it was a result of the usual mixture of potent bowling and foolish shot-selection. They were not helped by the early loss of Cook, who ideally would have batted as in a Test match and anchored the innings, but the general support for Collingwood was below poor - Flintoff has regained no confidence with the bat, while Shah is probably suffering from an inner-turmoil brought about by the fact he is being made to prove himself the series after he had been the only English batsman worthy of the description.
But at the stage in the series where the selectors can opt to alter the squad, there is far more reason to be positive than otherwise, largely thanks to the excellent standard of bowling. Gone are the much peddled sequences of wides, no-balls and boundaries which the likes of Plunkett and Mahmood amongst others have frequently dished up over the last year. Instead, James Anderson now leads the attack with his bowling and confidence appearing to grow with every passing game. He is now on the verge of being the ideal one-day pace bowler: providing wickets with the new ball, he is the sort to which Collingwood can turn to when he needs a wicket mid-innings, and some embellishments to his repertoire have meant that bowling at the death is now increasingly less of a trial. Alongside him, Broad has been as reliable as one could have hoped for a bowler of his experience: before today's game, perhaps the wickets had not come as freely as they might have, but he has been resolute with the new ball, his accuracy, nip and bounce creating pressure from one end, which his colleagues, especially Anderson, have been gleefully capitalising on. Flintoff has bowled with pace and aggression seldom seen since he last regularly played ODI cricket at home, in the summer of 2005. Doubt remains over the abilities of Panesar in this form of the game, and he lacks the variation which has made his opposite numbers so troublesome, although to his credit he produced his best one-day performance today, conceding less than 40 runs from his complete allocation of overs and taking away the scalp of Dhoni, castled by a sharp-spinner.
Almost as pleasing as the much improved bowling performances has been the excellent showing in the two outwardly peripheral areas of one-day cricket which few teams prosper without successfully executing. Australia have long been the market leaders in ODI cricket, and while the stellar names at both ends of the teamsheet have much to do with this, the high quality of their fielding is the factor which swings tight contests their way. Their current team possesses an unrivalled trio of world-class fielders in the gully/cover ring, with Ponting, Symonds and Clarke all predatory in hunting down even the best hit missiles, and deadly with the returns. England can only boast one fielder of that repute, in their captain Paul Collingwood, who has a claim for the title of best gully-line fielder in the world. But what has been apparent in this series is the way England are starting to field as a unit; alongside the captain, Bell, Bopara and Pietersen are on the way to becoming the same intimidating presence in the 30-yard circle as Australia offer. Throw in the catching and athleticism of Flintoff and the supreme arm of Anderson and you can see the potential this nascent England side has as a team in the field. Further to that, they have run excellently between the wickets, stealing singles and rotating the strike even when the boundaries will not come. In contrast, India have been slack in their running and slovenly in the field: while the experience of their batsmen is beneficial for that part of the game, having to carry their ageing legs in the field is costing India - it was something Greg Chappell identified during his now notorious spell as coach and although most involved in Indian cricket are now doing their best to forget the Chappell years, his point is an enduring one, and India will continue to struggle in one-day cricket while nothing is done.
Most of the negatives surrounding England's performances centre around the batting, although, excepting today's performance, returns have been promising. Cook and Bell delivered the centuries in the first game which the team had been crying out for. Both have continued to prosper, and although they are not fully able to exploit the powerplays in the popular muscular style, it is not inconceivable that they could continue to be accommodated. However, Matt Prior is not the right man to fill that particular sandwich - he is not a bad pinch-hitter, but rarely threatens to really cut loose or indeed progress much beyond 30, too often the victim to an ugly swipe resulting in a towering catch. Now they have the opportunity to meddle with the squad, it seems that the form of Durham opener (and 'keeper) Phil Mustard is just a bit too good to ignore: following his quickfire 49 in the FP final, he has produced innings of 84 (74 balls), 78 (40 balls) and 66 (31 balls) in three consecutive Pro40 games. Continuity is what England may bleat should they choose to pass over Mustard, but bloodymindedness is a greater sin than contravening the former.
But in comparison to earlier in the summer, these are just quibbles, and the English team and fans can take a brief moment to bask in the glory of some one-day success, in recent years about as commonplace as Saharan rain. But not for too long; despite their considerable advantage, there is still a series to win. And if it is for his bowling rather than batting that Stuart Broad continues to make headlines, then his country will be well served.
Thursday 30 August 2007
Sunday 26 August 2007
Looking for a happy ending to hard times
County cricket can be a strange and capricious world, but the reality of a probable title-decider at Hove is remarkable even by such standards, considering the relative recent fortunes of the two counties. Sussex are the champions, and are seeking their third title in five season, so their presence would not be cause for any great surprise. However such an eventuality seemed unlikely back in April, as they crashed to successive innings defeats against Kent and Wawrickshire. Michael Yardy was unavailable, his finger broken in the curtain raiser against MCC; Matt Prior likewise, at the behest of the England selectors.
At that stage of the season, Yorkshire fans were in a state of delirium; Surrey, Durham and Worcestershire had all submitted to heavy defeats, while fancied Hampshire escaped with a draw. It had been a swift turnaround from the circumstances six months previously, when the club was in straits calamitous even when set against the frequent disasters which litter the club's history, ancient and modern. Darren Lehmann, who had literally preserved Yorkshire's Division 1 status off his own bat, scoring a triple century in the survive or die match against Durham, and a top-drawer overseas pro in every way, had lost the battle against ageing bones and was unable to commit to another full campaign. Joining him through the exit door was Michael Lumb, off to the greener grass of Hampshire's Rose Bowl, and, so it seemed Anthony McGrath. No-one had been more committed to the cause than McGrath, a loyal servant to the club for over a decade. But like so many Yorkshire greats of the past, the back-biting and inner machinations had tipped him over the edge and he resolved to cut his ties with the club. Craig White extended his contract, but terminated his leadership, so Yorkshire had no captain. David Byas, cause for some of the unrest, also departed, so they had no coach.
Where two had been, Yorkshire sought to fill the void with one man. Ironically enough, that was the then Sussex captain Chris Adams. Captaining the side, acting as head coach and shoring up a flimsy middle-order were the tasks assigned to him, the reciprocal being a four year contract and an enticing financial offer. Perhaps bearing in mind the job that faced him, one can understand while Adams took one look and fled back to homely Hove (stopping on the way to have his photo taken holding a Yorkshire shirt), which is why he is the still Sussex captain. But his departure left the club in a tricky situation; as ever, Geoffrey Boycott homed in on the nub of the issue - Yorkshire had spent the months where they could have found the players they now needed persuading Adams and that time had been wasted and Adams had not only left them up a creek but taken their paddle with him back to Sussex. The batting appeared to begin and end with Younus Khan; the bowling with Jason Gillespie - not an appealing prospect when his first season with the club was taken into account. Younus could not be captain, as he was going to be away the World Cup (as was the assumption), neither could McGrath as he was leaving.
But while the reaction of most Yorkshire fans to Chris Adams' U-turn ranged from anger to outright hostility, they might well now consider a pilgrimage to Hove to kiss his feet. Realising that the middle-order batting was set to resemble that of the previous year's Second XI, a mixture of hard-headed dealing from Chief Exec. Stuart Regan and Geoffrey Boycott's contacts in South Africa helped bring Jaques Rudolph to the club on a three year Kolpak deal. It was not popular, and fiercely contested by other counties, but at the end of it all, Yorkshire had secured the services of a Test-class batsman, who has proved over the course of the season to be their best. However, the captaincy options were still thin on the ground - the fact that Jason Gillespie was probably the second horse in the race is a fair illustration of the situation. Yet an amazing winter for the club had one more surprise left in it, and it concerned the nature of a two-year contract offered by Essex; it was unsigned, and the name on it was Darren Gough. With his old foe Byas out of the way, Gough did not need too much persuading to make the emotional return once the captaincy option was on the table. Gough alone would have been a significant capture, but when his signing reaped the immediate benefits of mollifying McGrath and provoking an extraordinary reconciliation as well as luring former coach Martyn Moxon back from Durham, no-one could quite believe the transformation that the club had undergone in a matter of months. And when Pakistan's dismal World Cup exit meant Younus would be available from the start of the season, optimism knew no bounds. It was cup runneth over stuff, especially when Surrey were knocked over on their own turf, leading to three wins in the first four championship games.
It couldn't last, could it? Well yes and no - despite having won just one more match since the initial spurt, Yorkshire find themselves at the top of the table, albeit having played a game more than nearest rivals Sussex and two more than Hampshire. After rain interrupted their mid-season, with none of their four matches after the 20-20 break going beyond a third innings, consecutive losses to Lancashire and Worcestershire looked to have scuppered their title chances. The latter result was a real body-blow - Worcestershire were (and still are) propping up the table, winless all season. However, enterprising captaincy from Vikram Solanki, declaring behind on first innings after the weather had taken time out of the game, gave his opposite number the chance to reciprocate, which he did a little too generously as Worcestershire chased down 337 with ease on the final afternoon.
However, just as Yorkshire looked to have played themselves out of contention, fate took a hand: as Sussex were sat in a dressing room at The Oval unable to get on the field for a single ball over four days, the Scarborough crowd were witnessing the utter destruction of Wawrickshire, who went down to a crushing innings defeat, twice bowled out cheaply and made to suffer in the field as Rudolph amassed a double-century and Bresnan his third ton of the season. Maximum points to Yorkshire; squat all to Sussex except the realisation that the title race was wide-open again.
The clash between the two teams in early September is the next Championship game for both sides, and should either one emerge as winner, the title is likely to go with them. Yorkshire have relied on their batsmen a lot this term, reflected by their mammoth amount of batting bonus points, the factor which is keeping them at the top of the table. And after the top order had begun to falter recently, they have been reinforced by the arrival of two Test captains - incumbent English leader Michael Vaughan and recently departed Pakistani skipper Inzamam-Ul-Haq, a replacement for compatriot Younus Khan. Anthony McGrath has returned to the form of last season after a shaky start, and Yorkshire will rely on him for solidity at the top, alongside Vaughan. Batsman of the season Rudolph is the fourth Test player in the top 5, and has combined well with a strong lower order, improved keeper-batsman Gerard Brophy and England future hopefuls Rashid and Bresnan, both in the runs of late. Sussex boast less international pedigree, but are nevertheless packed with experienced practitioners, Goodwin and Adams the best bets for heavy runs, backed up by Yardy and Montgomerie, enjoying his best season for years at the top of the order. The lower-order also shows up well, with Hodd deputising effectively for Prior, as well as all-rounders Martin-Jenkins and 20 over star Luke Wright.
Yorkshire's opening pair with the ball is an exciting mix of England past and present, captain Gough alongside Hoggard. Bresnan and Shahzad are the back-up seamers, while the trump card is spinning prodigy Adil Rashid. Although his season has tailed off with the ball after a turbo-charged start, he is still a serious threat. Should he be looking to learn, in his two opposite numbers there are no better examples as masters of their respective crafts. Mushtaq Ahmed has been top wicket-taker for Sussex in every season since he joined in 2003, and nothing has changed this term, 69 already having fallen victim. He is now joined by the other man who sustained Pakistani spin bowling in the 1990s, Saqlain Mushtaq: if Shane Warne saved the art of leg-spin, the same must be said of Saqlain as regards off-spin, with his invention of what is now known as the doosra, but to start off with was just Saqlain's mystery ball. The last three years have been a real struggle for him - dropped by Pakistan, he found himself abandoned by his home country, and has finally emerged with Sussex, alongside his old accomplice. With the Pakistani spin-twins, expect the Hove pitch to be conducive to turn (make that a raging bunsen), although Yorkshire can counter with not only Rashid but Imran Tahir, replacement for Jason Gillespie.
The two counties can find much in common over the last year, not least the man who could have been leading out either team. But for all that shared experience, only one team can lift the trophy, and the forthcoming match represents the best chance for one team to deliver a knockout blow. Yorkshire have the big-names, Sussex the men who know what it takes to win a Championship. Only after four days will Chris Adams know whether he made the right choice.
At that stage of the season, Yorkshire fans were in a state of delirium; Surrey, Durham and Worcestershire had all submitted to heavy defeats, while fancied Hampshire escaped with a draw. It had been a swift turnaround from the circumstances six months previously, when the club was in straits calamitous even when set against the frequent disasters which litter the club's history, ancient and modern. Darren Lehmann, who had literally preserved Yorkshire's Division 1 status off his own bat, scoring a triple century in the survive or die match against Durham, and a top-drawer overseas pro in every way, had lost the battle against ageing bones and was unable to commit to another full campaign. Joining him through the exit door was Michael Lumb, off to the greener grass of Hampshire's Rose Bowl, and, so it seemed Anthony McGrath. No-one had been more committed to the cause than McGrath, a loyal servant to the club for over a decade. But like so many Yorkshire greats of the past, the back-biting and inner machinations had tipped him over the edge and he resolved to cut his ties with the club. Craig White extended his contract, but terminated his leadership, so Yorkshire had no captain. David Byas, cause for some of the unrest, also departed, so they had no coach.
Where two had been, Yorkshire sought to fill the void with one man. Ironically enough, that was the then Sussex captain Chris Adams. Captaining the side, acting as head coach and shoring up a flimsy middle-order were the tasks assigned to him, the reciprocal being a four year contract and an enticing financial offer. Perhaps bearing in mind the job that faced him, one can understand while Adams took one look and fled back to homely Hove (stopping on the way to have his photo taken holding a Yorkshire shirt), which is why he is the still Sussex captain. But his departure left the club in a tricky situation; as ever, Geoffrey Boycott homed in on the nub of the issue - Yorkshire had spent the months where they could have found the players they now needed persuading Adams and that time had been wasted and Adams had not only left them up a creek but taken their paddle with him back to Sussex. The batting appeared to begin and end with Younus Khan; the bowling with Jason Gillespie - not an appealing prospect when his first season with the club was taken into account. Younus could not be captain, as he was going to be away the World Cup (as was the assumption), neither could McGrath as he was leaving.
But while the reaction of most Yorkshire fans to Chris Adams' U-turn ranged from anger to outright hostility, they might well now consider a pilgrimage to Hove to kiss his feet. Realising that the middle-order batting was set to resemble that of the previous year's Second XI, a mixture of hard-headed dealing from Chief Exec. Stuart Regan and Geoffrey Boycott's contacts in South Africa helped bring Jaques Rudolph to the club on a three year Kolpak deal. It was not popular, and fiercely contested by other counties, but at the end of it all, Yorkshire had secured the services of a Test-class batsman, who has proved over the course of the season to be their best. However, the captaincy options were still thin on the ground - the fact that Jason Gillespie was probably the second horse in the race is a fair illustration of the situation. Yet an amazing winter for the club had one more surprise left in it, and it concerned the nature of a two-year contract offered by Essex; it was unsigned, and the name on it was Darren Gough. With his old foe Byas out of the way, Gough did not need too much persuading to make the emotional return once the captaincy option was on the table. Gough alone would have been a significant capture, but when his signing reaped the immediate benefits of mollifying McGrath and provoking an extraordinary reconciliation as well as luring former coach Martyn Moxon back from Durham, no-one could quite believe the transformation that the club had undergone in a matter of months. And when Pakistan's dismal World Cup exit meant Younus would be available from the start of the season, optimism knew no bounds. It was cup runneth over stuff, especially when Surrey were knocked over on their own turf, leading to three wins in the first four championship games.
It couldn't last, could it? Well yes and no - despite having won just one more match since the initial spurt, Yorkshire find themselves at the top of the table, albeit having played a game more than nearest rivals Sussex and two more than Hampshire. After rain interrupted their mid-season, with none of their four matches after the 20-20 break going beyond a third innings, consecutive losses to Lancashire and Worcestershire looked to have scuppered their title chances. The latter result was a real body-blow - Worcestershire were (and still are) propping up the table, winless all season. However, enterprising captaincy from Vikram Solanki, declaring behind on first innings after the weather had taken time out of the game, gave his opposite number the chance to reciprocate, which he did a little too generously as Worcestershire chased down 337 with ease on the final afternoon.
However, just as Yorkshire looked to have played themselves out of contention, fate took a hand: as Sussex were sat in a dressing room at The Oval unable to get on the field for a single ball over four days, the Scarborough crowd were witnessing the utter destruction of Wawrickshire, who went down to a crushing innings defeat, twice bowled out cheaply and made to suffer in the field as Rudolph amassed a double-century and Bresnan his third ton of the season. Maximum points to Yorkshire; squat all to Sussex except the realisation that the title race was wide-open again.
The clash between the two teams in early September is the next Championship game for both sides, and should either one emerge as winner, the title is likely to go with them. Yorkshire have relied on their batsmen a lot this term, reflected by their mammoth amount of batting bonus points, the factor which is keeping them at the top of the table. And after the top order had begun to falter recently, they have been reinforced by the arrival of two Test captains - incumbent English leader Michael Vaughan and recently departed Pakistani skipper Inzamam-Ul-Haq, a replacement for compatriot Younus Khan. Anthony McGrath has returned to the form of last season after a shaky start, and Yorkshire will rely on him for solidity at the top, alongside Vaughan. Batsman of the season Rudolph is the fourth Test player in the top 5, and has combined well with a strong lower order, improved keeper-batsman Gerard Brophy and England future hopefuls Rashid and Bresnan, both in the runs of late. Sussex boast less international pedigree, but are nevertheless packed with experienced practitioners, Goodwin and Adams the best bets for heavy runs, backed up by Yardy and Montgomerie, enjoying his best season for years at the top of the order. The lower-order also shows up well, with Hodd deputising effectively for Prior, as well as all-rounders Martin-Jenkins and 20 over star Luke Wright.
Yorkshire's opening pair with the ball is an exciting mix of England past and present, captain Gough alongside Hoggard. Bresnan and Shahzad are the back-up seamers, while the trump card is spinning prodigy Adil Rashid. Although his season has tailed off with the ball after a turbo-charged start, he is still a serious threat. Should he be looking to learn, in his two opposite numbers there are no better examples as masters of their respective crafts. Mushtaq Ahmed has been top wicket-taker for Sussex in every season since he joined in 2003, and nothing has changed this term, 69 already having fallen victim. He is now joined by the other man who sustained Pakistani spin bowling in the 1990s, Saqlain Mushtaq: if Shane Warne saved the art of leg-spin, the same must be said of Saqlain as regards off-spin, with his invention of what is now known as the doosra, but to start off with was just Saqlain's mystery ball. The last three years have been a real struggle for him - dropped by Pakistan, he found himself abandoned by his home country, and has finally emerged with Sussex, alongside his old accomplice. With the Pakistani spin-twins, expect the Hove pitch to be conducive to turn (make that a raging bunsen), although Yorkshire can counter with not only Rashid but Imran Tahir, replacement for Jason Gillespie.
The two counties can find much in common over the last year, not least the man who could have been leading out either team. But for all that shared experience, only one team can lift the trophy, and the forthcoming match represents the best chance for one team to deliver a knockout blow. Yorkshire have the big-names, Sussex the men who know what it takes to win a Championship. Only after four days will Chris Adams know whether he made the right choice.
Sunday 19 August 2007
Directionless England set to suffer
One pattern established during the Duncan Fletcher years, namely the refusal to submit to defeat in a home Test series, has already been disrupted in his successor's first summer in charge; it is now the duty of Peter Moores and his team to break another trend. Just three matches against West Indies were necessary for the ugly truth about England's one-day team to make itself painfully apparent to the new coach and captain. Not quite the dismal outfit they are in Test cricket, this West Indies team are still an ordinary outfit, albeit fast improving, in ODIs. Yet despite taking the lead in the series, once away from the heavily overcast conditions which assisted their victory at Lord's and briefly clouded harsh reality, they never looked like getting close to, let alone overcoming, the only team who at that stage were below them in the ICC rankings.
Following that defeat, England take their rightful place at the bottom of the pile and are faced with the inglorious prospect of 7 matches against an Indian side which still packs a significant punch, World Cup debacle notwithstanding, without even the habitual succour of success in the Test series to galvanise them against the expected thrashing. Moores can take some comfort from the return of some key players, including influential all-rounders Andrew Flintoff and Ravi Bopara who were absent in the West Indies series. Nevertheless, he is more likely to reflect on what he is missing, with Marcus Trescothick having ruled himself out of the winter tours and consequently drawing a line under a distinguished international career, something which Steve Harmison, who would be unavailable anyway, has already done as regards one-day cricket.
One-day cricket is all about strategy; well-thought out plans efficiently executed have ever been the basis of successful teams in the shorter form of the game. And, unsurprisingly, a 50-over innings can be broken down into beginning, middle and end, different phases which require different approaches both with bat and ball. Although the prevalence of hulking openers with equally large weapons (bats) and the extension of the fielding restrictions has persuaded most teams that all-out attack is the best way to start off an innings, it is by no means the only way, although as England found out at the World Cup, a contrary strategy can be tricky. The problem for England at the top of the order is a lack of continuity and clear-thinking. Back in the Caribbean last spring, the idea was to preserve wickets and to score the majority of runs at the end, rather than beginning of the innings; all well and good, but the problem was that theory did not convert into reality. While they should have been aiming for about 70 runs for the loss of no more than one wicket in the first 20 overs, in preference to over 100 for the loss of three, the reality was more like 80-3, too few runs scored and too many wickets surrendered. The current partnership is a classic example of England hamstringing themselves as they veer between sticking and twisting - Alistair Cook is yet to prove he can bat throughout a one-day innings, and was guilty in the last series of getting himself out after promising starts, while Matt Prior deserves a chance, but would probably be better suited to leading the charge at the other end of the innings. The squad selected is for the first four games only, and that is probably the time which Cook and Prior have to convince the selectors they should not opt for a wild-card at the top of the order, with Luke Wright and Phil Mustard having pressed their claims in the high-profile games over the weekend.
The identity of the man coming in at first drop is also a conundrum yet to be satisfactorily resolved; England are not helped by the fact that their Test match No.3, Michael Vaughan, has proved himself immiscible in the one-day melting pot, and, although not yet officially retired, is not in the primary thoughts of the selectors. The necessity for adaptability has generally pushed the hierarchy in the direction of Ian Bell is , although his one-day career is, if anything, even more frustrating than his Test one and his fortunes fluctuate from one game to another. On a given day he looks the perfect man for the job, with a well paced knock which balances the innings; the next he may scratch around listlessly, causing those watching to wonder why anyone ever let him near a coloured kit. One option yet to be assessed is Ravi Bopara filling the same position for country as he does he county; his wristy, intelligent batting makes him a more dangerous prospect than Bell in one-dayers, and deploying him at the top of the order lessens the congestion for places in the lower order.
The middle-order is at least one area where England can feel comfortable; now that the idea of batting Pietersen at 3 has finally run its course, he is settled as heart of the batting at 4, followed by Owais Shah, who earned himself the right for continued selection by being the standout batsman against West Indies, pushing captain Collingwood down a place. Unless the selectors surprise everyone by pushing Flintoff into the top 3, something which would probably be ill-advised given past experience, he should follow his captain in; his batting increasingly deteriorated over the course of the last year, and he was becoming an untenable option at 6, and it remains to be seen whether a demotion will allow him more freedom to express himself with the bat; much as they need his bowling, England could also do with Flintoff discovering the one-day batting form of 2004 and being ringleader in the dash for late-order runs.
Just as with batting strategy, bowling plans can also be divided into the three basic stages. And in the previous series, it was more in conception than execution where England's tactics erred. While the lack of ability to take wickets with the new ball is a concern, the way they approached the middle overs was the most worrying aspect of the bowling; the slower bowlers, Mascarenhas, Panesar and Collingwood, were all utilised with the intention of rattling quickly through overs quickly in the period between the power plays and the slog overs at the end. And while they succeeded in keeping the scoring rate down, they were made to pay at the death, where West Indies twice milked over 100 of the last 10 overs having kept wickets in hand. And while Mascarenhas can boast an excellent economy rate (3.5 rpo) from his three matches, he failed to take a wicket, while Panesar managed just one and a tailender at that. Hopefully the harsh lesson dealt out by West Indies will convince the English strategists that they must use bowlers who are genuine wicket-taking threats in the middle overs. The return of Flintoff gives them an extra option in that area, as well as at the end of the innings, where he is England's only proven "death bowler", having the skills which the scorecards from the last two games suggest Anderson, Broad et al are not endowed with. With regards to that, they would do well to jettison Mascarenhas's all round talents in favour of an extra front-line seamer, giving Collingwood options to exert pressure throughout the innings; if that pressure brings about wickets, it would also go some way to alleviating England's problem with bowling at the death, where damage sustained is always in direct correlation with the number of wickets preserved by the batting side. It would also allow England to see how Broad copes with batting at 8, something which could also influence future Test selection. To start off with, Sidebottom should get the nod to take the new ball with Anderson, with Tremlett to come into consideration at some point in the series.
The role of Monty Panesar is also something which bears scrutiny. Despite being an excellent attacking bowler in Test matches, his 19 ODIs have failed to bring that many wickets, with an economy rate of 4.48 which is not quite frugal enough to justify the lack of success. One obvious explanation is that he is grossly inexperienced in this form of the game, having played more times for England than Northants., whom he has represented just 11 times in pajamas. What is his strength in Tests, namely nagging accuracy and a flat, buzzing trajectory, count against him in ODIs, where batsman prosper when they know what to expect. To succeed in the one-day game, he will have to alter his approach slightly and flight the ball more, enticing batsman and, to an extent, try to buy wickets - in the increasingly batsman friendly game, the Illingworthian exhortation of "I can get him for less than six" sadly no longer holds water.
Batting in the first twenty overs; taking wickets with the new ball; taking wickets with the old ball; restricting scoring in the death overs. That doesn't leave out much, which goes a fair way to explaining why England have been such a poor one-day side, and gives an impression of the problems faced by Moores and Collingwood in what is becoming akin to a Holy Grail quest. Converesly India, despite their World Cup travails, are a one-day team bursting with all the right stuff; the collective number of caps achieved by England's putative top 6 (228) is dwarfed by Tendulkar's total, which the 7 matches will bring within 5 of 400. Not to mention Dravid and Ganguly, who boast 615 between them or Yuvraj Singh, who at the age of 25 is in sight of his 200th. The batting, possessing two of the one-day game's greatest talents in Tendulkar and Ganguly, and supplemented by the calm and eloquent strokeplay of Dravid, as well as the aggression of Yuvraj and Gambhir and outright brutality of Uthappa (ODI strike rate of 102.1) will give England's green attack nightmares; while the bowling, much of it the left-arm variety so hard to get away in one-day cricket will be a significant examination of a batting order whose future is very much in flux. Unlike in the Test series, defeat is anticipated by English supporters, and the realisation of that fear over the course of 7 matches and 700 overs would make this at least the second worst summer of the decade and be a further bitter pill in what has been an undoubted annus horribilis for the team.
Following that defeat, England take their rightful place at the bottom of the pile and are faced with the inglorious prospect of 7 matches against an Indian side which still packs a significant punch, World Cup debacle notwithstanding, without even the habitual succour of success in the Test series to galvanise them against the expected thrashing. Moores can take some comfort from the return of some key players, including influential all-rounders Andrew Flintoff and Ravi Bopara who were absent in the West Indies series. Nevertheless, he is more likely to reflect on what he is missing, with Marcus Trescothick having ruled himself out of the winter tours and consequently drawing a line under a distinguished international career, something which Steve Harmison, who would be unavailable anyway, has already done as regards one-day cricket.
One-day cricket is all about strategy; well-thought out plans efficiently executed have ever been the basis of successful teams in the shorter form of the game. And, unsurprisingly, a 50-over innings can be broken down into beginning, middle and end, different phases which require different approaches both with bat and ball. Although the prevalence of hulking openers with equally large weapons (bats) and the extension of the fielding restrictions has persuaded most teams that all-out attack is the best way to start off an innings, it is by no means the only way, although as England found out at the World Cup, a contrary strategy can be tricky. The problem for England at the top of the order is a lack of continuity and clear-thinking. Back in the Caribbean last spring, the idea was to preserve wickets and to score the majority of runs at the end, rather than beginning of the innings; all well and good, but the problem was that theory did not convert into reality. While they should have been aiming for about 70 runs for the loss of no more than one wicket in the first 20 overs, in preference to over 100 for the loss of three, the reality was more like 80-3, too few runs scored and too many wickets surrendered. The current partnership is a classic example of England hamstringing themselves as they veer between sticking and twisting - Alistair Cook is yet to prove he can bat throughout a one-day innings, and was guilty in the last series of getting himself out after promising starts, while Matt Prior deserves a chance, but would probably be better suited to leading the charge at the other end of the innings. The squad selected is for the first four games only, and that is probably the time which Cook and Prior have to convince the selectors they should not opt for a wild-card at the top of the order, with Luke Wright and Phil Mustard having pressed their claims in the high-profile games over the weekend.
The identity of the man coming in at first drop is also a conundrum yet to be satisfactorily resolved; England are not helped by the fact that their Test match No.3, Michael Vaughan, has proved himself immiscible in the one-day melting pot, and, although not yet officially retired, is not in the primary thoughts of the selectors. The necessity for adaptability has generally pushed the hierarchy in the direction of Ian Bell is , although his one-day career is, if anything, even more frustrating than his Test one and his fortunes fluctuate from one game to another. On a given day he looks the perfect man for the job, with a well paced knock which balances the innings; the next he may scratch around listlessly, causing those watching to wonder why anyone ever let him near a coloured kit. One option yet to be assessed is Ravi Bopara filling the same position for country as he does he county; his wristy, intelligent batting makes him a more dangerous prospect than Bell in one-dayers, and deploying him at the top of the order lessens the congestion for places in the lower order.
The middle-order is at least one area where England can feel comfortable; now that the idea of batting Pietersen at 3 has finally run its course, he is settled as heart of the batting at 4, followed by Owais Shah, who earned himself the right for continued selection by being the standout batsman against West Indies, pushing captain Collingwood down a place. Unless the selectors surprise everyone by pushing Flintoff into the top 3, something which would probably be ill-advised given past experience, he should follow his captain in; his batting increasingly deteriorated over the course of the last year, and he was becoming an untenable option at 6, and it remains to be seen whether a demotion will allow him more freedom to express himself with the bat; much as they need his bowling, England could also do with Flintoff discovering the one-day batting form of 2004 and being ringleader in the dash for late-order runs.
Just as with batting strategy, bowling plans can also be divided into the three basic stages. And in the previous series, it was more in conception than execution where England's tactics erred. While the lack of ability to take wickets with the new ball is a concern, the way they approached the middle overs was the most worrying aspect of the bowling; the slower bowlers, Mascarenhas, Panesar and Collingwood, were all utilised with the intention of rattling quickly through overs quickly in the period between the power plays and the slog overs at the end. And while they succeeded in keeping the scoring rate down, they were made to pay at the death, where West Indies twice milked over 100 of the last 10 overs having kept wickets in hand. And while Mascarenhas can boast an excellent economy rate (3.5 rpo) from his three matches, he failed to take a wicket, while Panesar managed just one and a tailender at that. Hopefully the harsh lesson dealt out by West Indies will convince the English strategists that they must use bowlers who are genuine wicket-taking threats in the middle overs. The return of Flintoff gives them an extra option in that area, as well as at the end of the innings, where he is England's only proven "death bowler", having the skills which the scorecards from the last two games suggest Anderson, Broad et al are not endowed with. With regards to that, they would do well to jettison Mascarenhas's all round talents in favour of an extra front-line seamer, giving Collingwood options to exert pressure throughout the innings; if that pressure brings about wickets, it would also go some way to alleviating England's problem with bowling at the death, where damage sustained is always in direct correlation with the number of wickets preserved by the batting side. It would also allow England to see how Broad copes with batting at 8, something which could also influence future Test selection. To start off with, Sidebottom should get the nod to take the new ball with Anderson, with Tremlett to come into consideration at some point in the series.
The role of Monty Panesar is also something which bears scrutiny. Despite being an excellent attacking bowler in Test matches, his 19 ODIs have failed to bring that many wickets, with an economy rate of 4.48 which is not quite frugal enough to justify the lack of success. One obvious explanation is that he is grossly inexperienced in this form of the game, having played more times for England than Northants., whom he has represented just 11 times in pajamas. What is his strength in Tests, namely nagging accuracy and a flat, buzzing trajectory, count against him in ODIs, where batsman prosper when they know what to expect. To succeed in the one-day game, he will have to alter his approach slightly and flight the ball more, enticing batsman and, to an extent, try to buy wickets - in the increasingly batsman friendly game, the Illingworthian exhortation of "I can get him for less than six" sadly no longer holds water.
Batting in the first twenty overs; taking wickets with the new ball; taking wickets with the old ball; restricting scoring in the death overs. That doesn't leave out much, which goes a fair way to explaining why England have been such a poor one-day side, and gives an impression of the problems faced by Moores and Collingwood in what is becoming akin to a Holy Grail quest. Converesly India, despite their World Cup travails, are a one-day team bursting with all the right stuff; the collective number of caps achieved by England's putative top 6 (228) is dwarfed by Tendulkar's total, which the 7 matches will bring within 5 of 400. Not to mention Dravid and Ganguly, who boast 615 between them or Yuvraj Singh, who at the age of 25 is in sight of his 200th. The batting, possessing two of the one-day game's greatest talents in Tendulkar and Ganguly, and supplemented by the calm and eloquent strokeplay of Dravid, as well as the aggression of Yuvraj and Gambhir and outright brutality of Uthappa (ODI strike rate of 102.1) will give England's green attack nightmares; while the bowling, much of it the left-arm variety so hard to get away in one-day cricket will be a significant examination of a batting order whose future is very much in flux. Unlike in the Test series, defeat is anticipated by English supporters, and the realisation of that fear over the course of 7 matches and 700 overs would make this at least the second worst summer of the decade and be a further bitter pill in what has been an undoubted annus horribilis for the team.
Friday 17 August 2007
Worth the wait?
Not many could have foreseen back in April when the county season begun in unnaturally hot conditions that 2007 would be a summer in which rain would be a menace more persistent than even English cricket followers are accustomed to. But it appears that the rain deities managed to confuse June and July for January, in the process almost completely snuffing out the Twenty20 spark which county cricket has become almost entirely dependent on for publicity and popular presence. With this failing, the old standby of the domestic one-day final has been looked to, and, glory-be, there is a story.
Just as Gloucestershire became known by the name of their talisman Mike Procter in the 1970s, Shane Warne now has such influence over his dominion of Hampshire that a similar acknowledgement would not be remiss. And while he may in time join his four fellow Wisden cricketers of the century as a knight of the realm, the peership that only Learie Constantine from the cricketing fraternity has risen to is unlikely to ever be awarded to him, meaning that he can be Lord Warne of the Rose Bowl in the mind's eye only. And he, as ever, is a significant part of that story in what could well be his last Lord's final, 8 years after he made the best team of the tournament, Pakistan, look like impostors in the World Cup final.
15 years ago, the appearance of Shane Warne on any cricketing stage would have failed to produce much more than a passing interest. For it was back then that he was making his first steps in international cricket; around the same time, dominant minor county Durham were also starting out in first-class cricket, wet nursed through infancy by a number of fading star names in Wayne Larkins, Ian Botham and Simon Hughes, alongside combative Aussie Dean Jones and the homegrown crop. The two roads have diverged greatly since the shared point of departure: while Warne has, not without mishap, forged a path as the supreme bowler of his generation, and perhaps any, Durham have mostly been hacking through the rough, propping up the championship table and acting as cannon fodder for Brian Lara as he amassed, rather blasted, his record 501*. But as Warne's playing days reach a dignified end, and Durham taste sustained success for the first time in their history as a first-class county, the two paths cross again; it is Durham's first domestic Lord's final, as it is Warne's, and it is also conceivably the great man's last.
But just as Warne is now a totally different beast from that which managed just one expensive wicket on Test debut, Durham are no longer a team to be taken lightly, especially in this form of the game. Michael Di Venuto, whom only Mark Ramprakash has surpassed in run getting this championship season, opens up alongside wicket-keeper Phil Mustard, whose surname gives a fair impression of how he sets about opening bowlers. An international middle-order follows; Paul Collingwood, followed by batsman of the summer Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Dale Benkenstein, the South African who bucks the general Kolpak trend by being a player of the highest class and commitment. Even without the injured Steve Harmison, the bowling is far from inert; Ottis Gibson is a year older than Warne and is already on the ECB payroll as an Academy coach, although he is playing almost well enough to be representing the national team, in the form of his life after achieving the rare feat of all ten wickets in an innings last month. He is backed up in the seam department by England present and future: Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions, as well as Neil Killeen, a war-horse who has survived through the dark days to represent his home county in their finest hour. Gareth Breese provides the spin option and sustains the West Indian connection as well as supplementing a strong lower order, alongside Gibson and Plunkett. With Collingwood and Benkenstein also good value for their medium-pacers, Durham will not be short of options as they seek to restrict Pietersen and co.
On a rare jaunt for his second county, England's kingpin will be the prized wicket, although he is by no means the be all and end all for the Hampshire batting. Despite not quite being in the imperious form of the past few seasons, John Crawley is still a force to be reckoned with at the top of the order, while a lot could depend on the contribution of the two Southern African left-handers, the hard hitting duo of Lumb and Ervine, whose belligerence will be complemented by the pragmatism of Nic Pothas, quietly enjoying another excellent season while the wicket-keeping debate rages elsewhere. Stuart Clark has gone, but in his place Daren Powell has blossomed after a mixed tour with his country in early summer, and leads the seam attack alongside Chris Tremlett, buoyed by his impressive Test performances and looking to lay down a marker for selection in the forthcoming one-day marathon against India. Likewise Dimitri Mascarenhas, who will aim to restrict with ball and explode with the bat and whose position as fourth seamer is indicative of his team's bowling depth, with James Bruce an understated performer as first change. And then there is Warne; like all others, he has only 10 overs to bowl, but for the Durham batsmen, experienced as the majority are, his spell will seem that much longer - while there is always a certain formulaic nature to one-day cricket, you cannot account for a singular genius like Warne. And not just with ball in hand; the chatter will not cease from his domain of first-slip, especially when Collingwood comes to the crease. And there are few other No.8 batsmen you would rather have coming in to guide a tight run-chase; while others might hesitate, or be seized by nerves, you know that Warne will never divert from his primary setting, which is attack, and attack again until the enemy has been defeated.
Warne 15 years in the making; Durham 15 years in the waiting. It is easy to overestimate the one, and underrate the other. Hampshire, with their unbeaten record in Lord's finals, will start as favourites, although Durham's inexperience in big-game situations is as a team only, with the majority of their team well versed in the cut and thrust of the winner-takes-all scenario. It is far easier in the mind's eye to picture Warne with the trophy held aloft, but on balance the solidity of the Durham line-up is a good bet to deny him. But probability and odds only interest Warne when he is laying bets, rather than deciding their outcome, and he is one major hurdle Durham will have to surmount if they are to mark the biggest day out in their history with their greatest achievement.
Just as Gloucestershire became known by the name of their talisman Mike Procter in the 1970s, Shane Warne now has such influence over his dominion of Hampshire that a similar acknowledgement would not be remiss. And while he may in time join his four fellow Wisden cricketers of the century as a knight of the realm, the peership that only Learie Constantine from the cricketing fraternity has risen to is unlikely to ever be awarded to him, meaning that he can be Lord Warne of the Rose Bowl in the mind's eye only. And he, as ever, is a significant part of that story in what could well be his last Lord's final, 8 years after he made the best team of the tournament, Pakistan, look like impostors in the World Cup final.
15 years ago, the appearance of Shane Warne on any cricketing stage would have failed to produce much more than a passing interest. For it was back then that he was making his first steps in international cricket; around the same time, dominant minor county Durham were also starting out in first-class cricket, wet nursed through infancy by a number of fading star names in Wayne Larkins, Ian Botham and Simon Hughes, alongside combative Aussie Dean Jones and the homegrown crop. The two roads have diverged greatly since the shared point of departure: while Warne has, not without mishap, forged a path as the supreme bowler of his generation, and perhaps any, Durham have mostly been hacking through the rough, propping up the championship table and acting as cannon fodder for Brian Lara as he amassed, rather blasted, his record 501*. But as Warne's playing days reach a dignified end, and Durham taste sustained success for the first time in their history as a first-class county, the two paths cross again; it is Durham's first domestic Lord's final, as it is Warne's, and it is also conceivably the great man's last.
But just as Warne is now a totally different beast from that which managed just one expensive wicket on Test debut, Durham are no longer a team to be taken lightly, especially in this form of the game. Michael Di Venuto, whom only Mark Ramprakash has surpassed in run getting this championship season, opens up alongside wicket-keeper Phil Mustard, whose surname gives a fair impression of how he sets about opening bowlers. An international middle-order follows; Paul Collingwood, followed by batsman of the summer Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Dale Benkenstein, the South African who bucks the general Kolpak trend by being a player of the highest class and commitment. Even without the injured Steve Harmison, the bowling is far from inert; Ottis Gibson is a year older than Warne and is already on the ECB payroll as an Academy coach, although he is playing almost well enough to be representing the national team, in the form of his life after achieving the rare feat of all ten wickets in an innings last month. He is backed up in the seam department by England present and future: Liam Plunkett and Graham Onions, as well as Neil Killeen, a war-horse who has survived through the dark days to represent his home county in their finest hour. Gareth Breese provides the spin option and sustains the West Indian connection as well as supplementing a strong lower order, alongside Gibson and Plunkett. With Collingwood and Benkenstein also good value for their medium-pacers, Durham will not be short of options as they seek to restrict Pietersen and co.
On a rare jaunt for his second county, England's kingpin will be the prized wicket, although he is by no means the be all and end all for the Hampshire batting. Despite not quite being in the imperious form of the past few seasons, John Crawley is still a force to be reckoned with at the top of the order, while a lot could depend on the contribution of the two Southern African left-handers, the hard hitting duo of Lumb and Ervine, whose belligerence will be complemented by the pragmatism of Nic Pothas, quietly enjoying another excellent season while the wicket-keeping debate rages elsewhere. Stuart Clark has gone, but in his place Daren Powell has blossomed after a mixed tour with his country in early summer, and leads the seam attack alongside Chris Tremlett, buoyed by his impressive Test performances and looking to lay down a marker for selection in the forthcoming one-day marathon against India. Likewise Dimitri Mascarenhas, who will aim to restrict with ball and explode with the bat and whose position as fourth seamer is indicative of his team's bowling depth, with James Bruce an understated performer as first change. And then there is Warne; like all others, he has only 10 overs to bowl, but for the Durham batsmen, experienced as the majority are, his spell will seem that much longer - while there is always a certain formulaic nature to one-day cricket, you cannot account for a singular genius like Warne. And not just with ball in hand; the chatter will not cease from his domain of first-slip, especially when Collingwood comes to the crease. And there are few other No.8 batsmen you would rather have coming in to guide a tight run-chase; while others might hesitate, or be seized by nerves, you know that Warne will never divert from his primary setting, which is attack, and attack again until the enemy has been defeated.
Warne 15 years in the making; Durham 15 years in the waiting. It is easy to overestimate the one, and underrate the other. Hampshire, with their unbeaten record in Lord's finals, will start as favourites, although Durham's inexperience in big-game situations is as a team only, with the majority of their team well versed in the cut and thrust of the winner-takes-all scenario. It is far easier in the mind's eye to picture Warne with the trophy held aloft, but on balance the solidity of the Durham line-up is a good bet to deny him. But probability and odds only interest Warne when he is laying bets, rather than deciding their outcome, and he is one major hurdle Durham will have to surmount if they are to mark the biggest day out in their history with their greatest achievement.
Monday 13 August 2007
England ambushed in bloodless coup
Just as this England team's finest hour had arrived at the same venue two years ago, the end to a wait longer than they had themselves endured without an Ashes win arrived in fairly incongruous circumstances, the fielders jumping for joy as Matt Prior dead-batted Anil Kumble's 222nd ball of the innings to end the match in the draw which had long since represented England's best possible result from the match. 21 years and three barren tours have passed since Kapil Dev's team triumphed 2-0 over the same team which would that winter go on to register the away Ashes victory yet to be repeated since.
Considering the number of high-profile names not selected to tour, and the still reverberating impact of the World Cup disaster, the success of this Indian team came as a surprise to all, not least England. The old nucleus of batsmen - namely the decade-old quartet of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman - remains, formidable if not quite as of old, so the doubts were harboured about the opening partnership and the pace bowling attack. The name of Sehwag was one both sets of fans were probably relieved to see missing from the scorecard, although it left a gap which it seemed unlikely Jaffer, who had looked uncomfortable on his last tour here, and Karthik, with a Test average in the 20s, could fill. Yet he finished as India's leading run scorer, and the only man to strike three half-centuries for his team; England struggled to breach his compact defence, and his application at the crease gave him long enough to show off some of the strokes which signify him as a natural middle-order player. Jaffer was less successful, but the combination was sufficient to protect the middle order from the new ball, and to mean that a modest series from Tendulkar (228 runs @ 38) and a disturbingly lean one from Dravid (125 @ 25.2) did not have a destabilising affect on the team as a whole.
Since the duo of Srinath and Prasad faded in the early part of the decade, many seamers have passed through the Indian Test team, few with any lasting impact. So when the newest cabs off the rank - Sreesanth and Munaf Patel - made their debut against England last year at Nagpur, the away side might have been forgiven for failing to realise that they were in fact witnessing a true genesis in Indian fast bowling. Patel, possibly the greatest talent, was not chosen to tour on grounds of fitness, so it was a mixture of the old - Zaheer Khan - and new - Sreesanth and RP Singh - which carried the Indian attack. Although England had had a good look at Zaheer over 4 Tests back in 2002, he was still a big surprise, his attacking edge sharpened by a fruitful season last year at Worcestershire. And while earlier in the season Ryan Sidebottom had reintroduced the art of left-arm swing bowling from over the wicket, there were shades of Wasim Akram (albeit at a significantly reduced pace), as Khan bustled in off his short run from around the wicket to further confound the English right-handers. 18 wickets at a shade over 20 made him comfortably the best bowler on either side, and an obvious overall man of the series (even if the namby-pamby administrators now insist there must be one from each team). His fellow left-armer, RP Singh, was slightly less effective, and although he faded after bagging a 5-fer at Lord's, he has much promise and, it must be remembered, only 21. Sreesanth was statistically the least impressive seamer, although he caused problems for the English batsmen with his very straight approach and ability to swing and seam the ball. And while the current trio may seem like riches compared to past attacks, there is plenty in reserve, with Patel, Pathan and the tall and talented Ishant Sharma, who toured but did not play a Test.
The nature of a three-match series is that opportunities must be seized, and after England lost theirs, not entirely through their own fault, at Lord's, they failed to regroup quickly enough and were caught cold in the crucial second game which had always represented the best chance of a result. Losing the tosses at Trent Bridge and The Oval put them on the back foot from the off in both games, yet they still managed to twice make the worst of a bad job. Few Test pitches provide excuse for a sum total of less than 200 and the Trent Bridge surface was not one of them, overcast conditions notwithstanding. Similarly, at The Oval, they were in sight of dismissing India for less than 500, which would have allowed them a road, albeit a tenuous one, back into the match.
Even so, as a unit they did not perform particularly badly, which is why the series loss comes laced with as much surprise as it does regret. The batting could have been a lot better, but did not bomb consistently, while the pace bowlers especially are hard to criticise. Only Sidebottom would have been first choice, but the performances of Anderson and Tremlett were extremely encouraging, and have muddied the waters as regards future selection. After missing the whole of last summer and looking ill at ease during the Ashes and World Cup, Anderson looks at his best since he made such an impression early on in his career before the doubt and the doctorate in the art of the drinks waiter set him back. His action looks freer than the over-specified incarnation we saw last winter, and he retains the happy knack of being a wicket-taking bowler, with his natural ability to move the ball in the air and off the pitch. Consistency left something to be desired, although the nature of a bowler like Anderson is that wickets are, to an extent, being bought, and a return of 14 was very healthy. Tremlett's story is an even more unlikely one. After he was the chosen one in 2005 and set for the highway to future success, some insipid performances in one-day cricket, along with unfortunate injuries and the emergence of the young trio of Plunkett, Mahmood and Broad had dumped him seemingly at the bottom of the fast bowling food-chain. But he became a beneficiary of Peter Moores' more pragmatic attitude to the selection of young fast bowlers when unexpectedly chosen ahead of Stuart Broad as a locum for the injured Hoggard at Lord's. With a height that sets him above the category of the tall and into that of the sub-giant, bounce is not an unforeseen ally. Crucially, he has the ability to make the ball move laterally as well as vertically off the pitch, and in patches he bowled very well indeed and provided substantitation for the continual claims of the Hampshire lobby that England were wasting him in one-day cricket. Although he will lose his place when the senior bowlers return, Tremlett has done more than enough to ensure he is one of the first Peter Moores will turn to when injuries strike. Sidebottom's figures are slightly unprepossessing, and he was not helped by an streak of misfortune which is threatening to extend itself into recurring pattern, especially where Matt Prior's rebounding gloves are concerned. Although he was statistically the least effective seamer, he may well be the only one to retain his place, and it will be interesting to see if he can incorporate some of Zaheer's tricks into his armoury. And while it would be stretching a point to say that Monty Panesar had a poor series, it was certainly a reality check after he had it a bit too easy against West Indies; the pitches were not really suited to him - two seaming tracks followed by a featherbed - and he was bowling to a middle order containing some of the most accomplished players of spin in the world.
But while the bowling attack was very much a scratch force, the same could not be said of the batting, where, barring Flintoff who on current form may well have weakened it, the first choice top-6 was deployed. After three different partnerships had prospered for England at the top of the order since 2000, the fourth attempt has failed to meld successfully. The common thread between the first three was Marcus Trescothick; for the last two years of Mike Atherton's career, he became the sort of reliable partner which only Graham Gooch and Alec Stewart out of the 15 or so tried could also claim to have been. Trescothick was also the bedrock of alliances with Vaughan and then Strauss, and England had seldom had it better at the top. Yet in the absence of Trescothick, something which seems increasingly like a permanent state of affairs, England have paired their best two openers and suffered. Strauss and Cook have never made a century partnership, and it is not for want of trying - in fact Cook has only ever opened for England in tandem with Strauss (he batted at 3 when Trescothick played last summer). Strauss's poor form is one obvious factor; the lack of difference between the two is another. Both are in a way archetypal left-handed Test openers; proficient off their legs, favouring the cut shot and essentially limited in their scoring areas. Whereas in partnership with Trescothick, who always set a brisk pace, Strauss could act as the counter-puncher, riding in the slipstream, in his absence he has found himself trying to force the pace. This has led to a proliferation in loose dismissals, edges from over-ambitious cuts and drives as well as the odd skied hook shot. It has cost him his place in the one-day side and now the selectors will think long and hard before selecting him to tour this winter. The lack of a ready-made replacement has saved him thus far, although there is no reason why Vaughan could not resume his career as an opener, something which might in itself benefit Cook.
That said, Peter Moores might be loath to part his captain from the No.3 position where he blossomed on his return to Test cricket. Before his injury, there were increasing doubts over Vaughan's worth to the team as a batsman, just a few years after he had been ranked the world's best. Throughout the summer he was imperious and both by weight of runs and the manner of their getting, he confirmed himself as the second best batsman behind Pietersen, with whom he formed a strong axis. He slightly blotted his copybook with two "millionaire" shots in the final Tests, although such lapses have always been the price paid for his otherwise exquisite batsmanship. With his second match saving century in two years at the same ground, Pietersen marked his evolution from outrageously talented hitter into master Test match batsman, who has it in him to be one day described as a great of the game. The circumstances of the two innings could not have been more different; in 2005, he was batting for the Ashes, against the best in the world, for the most sought after prize in English cricket. His 158 was suitably glitzy and, in keeping with the tone of the summer, he lived on the very edge. It was the innings of a gambler, and one which he could never hope to repeat. Today's effort was a polar opposite: the series lost, he was playing for pride only, although saving the game remained important. Suitably, his tenth Test century was, by his standards, a measured affair. Crucially, he buckled down and played the innings that the team required; some of the shots dazzled, but the daredevil hooks and slog-sweeps were not apparent. It was his fourth century of the summer and came as confirmation of what he had hinted at through those innings, namely that he has chosen the hard road, and the one that should lead him to success and a seat at the top table of batsmen in the modern era.
Past those two, however, the batting was below-par. Bell and Collingwood had very similar series - both just under 200 runs at just over 30 with 2 half-centuries - and disappointment was another shared theme. Both are Test class batsmen; Bell through greater natural talent and Collingwood thanks to his fierce fighting spirit, but there may well be a place for only one of them against Sri Lanka. Collingwood is probably the safer of the two, thanks to his fielding and improved bowling, and Bell will need to establish himself away from No.6, the domain of the returning Flintoff. The disappointment was that the batsmen failed to work well as a unit, in marked comparison to their opponents, who were superior despite the fact that their only century came from the unlikely source of No.8 Anil Kumble. Too often batsmen made starts but did not go on to register significant scores, as evidenced at The Oval, where three batsmen were out in the 60s in the first innings, and at Trent Bridge, where neither side had a first innings century-maker and India more than doubled England's sub-200 total.
And in stark contrast to India's wicket-keeper MS Dhoni, who should take as much credit as the rain for denying England at Lord's as well as putting them beyond reach in the final Test, the contributions of England's No.7 were decidedly meagre. After his 42 at Lord's, he made just 31 runs in 5 innings, a total which exceeded that of Ryan Sidebottom by just 15 runs and Chris Tremlett by 23. Runs are the currency which Prior must deal in if he is to retain his place in the long-term, and in no-one's book is 73 @ 14.6 an acceptable. Had he been faultless elsewhere, he might well have escaped with passing criticism. However, having laid himself open to reproach as leader of the English brat-pack at Trent Bridge, he then took what hindsight can see as an inevitable fall, shelling Tendulkar and Laxman as well as waving through 33 first-innings byes. In the modern era where wicket-keepers must be able to score their share of runs, England have oscillated between specialist wicket-keepers who have not justified their place with the bat and batsmen whose wicket-keeping has not met international standards. The problem for the latter category is that the wicket-keeping troubles tend to erode general confidence and consequentially batting form. For Geraint Jones this became a terminal problem, and one hopes that Prior can overcome it. There is a clear technical malfunction with his footwork when he keeps, resulting in mishaps when he dives for catches. For now, England would be advised to stick with him, and with Peter Moores, his Sussex mentor, at the helm, he will be given some leeway. Another problem is in the shifting perception of fans and critics; when someone like Prior is in possession of the gloves, the most important facet of the game is wicket-keeping - you simply cannot have a wicket-keeper who misses regulation chances. When the gauntlets are passed over to someone like Read, suddenly the batting becomes the overriding concern - no matter how good a 'keeper you are, in today's world you simply have to be a Test class No.7. The England selectors will forever be damned whichever way they go until someone nails down the place who proves himself international class on both sides of the stumps. At this moment in time, Prior is best placed to be that man, and with some work on his keeping technique and a few confidence-balming innings, the literary brickbats could easily morph back into the fan-mail most correspondants were composing when Prior made his century on debut.
What is concrete is that the series and the unbeaten record have been lost, and that England are yet to win a series of any great note since the Ashes (considering that Pakistan lacked their three first choice seamers last summer). It is not the time for the axe to be wielded in a headless chicken manner, but refinement, both in tactics and personnel are required, and a tough series away to an accomplished Sri Lankan team will be a good barometer of progress, especially if all the injured players are, as they are expected to be, available. As for India, not half a year on from what seemed like the all time low of the World Cup exit, there is not a mention of that or favoured voodoo doll Chappell to be seen as they bask in their well earned glory. England could well take heart; victory on the subcontinent this winter would represent an equivalent achievement and the path forward, although strenuous, is not insurmountable.
Considering the number of high-profile names not selected to tour, and the still reverberating impact of the World Cup disaster, the success of this Indian team came as a surprise to all, not least England. The old nucleus of batsmen - namely the decade-old quartet of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman - remains, formidable if not quite as of old, so the doubts were harboured about the opening partnership and the pace bowling attack. The name of Sehwag was one both sets of fans were probably relieved to see missing from the scorecard, although it left a gap which it seemed unlikely Jaffer, who had looked uncomfortable on his last tour here, and Karthik, with a Test average in the 20s, could fill. Yet he finished as India's leading run scorer, and the only man to strike three half-centuries for his team; England struggled to breach his compact defence, and his application at the crease gave him long enough to show off some of the strokes which signify him as a natural middle-order player. Jaffer was less successful, but the combination was sufficient to protect the middle order from the new ball, and to mean that a modest series from Tendulkar (228 runs @ 38) and a disturbingly lean one from Dravid (125 @ 25.2) did not have a destabilising affect on the team as a whole.
Since the duo of Srinath and Prasad faded in the early part of the decade, many seamers have passed through the Indian Test team, few with any lasting impact. So when the newest cabs off the rank - Sreesanth and Munaf Patel - made their debut against England last year at Nagpur, the away side might have been forgiven for failing to realise that they were in fact witnessing a true genesis in Indian fast bowling. Patel, possibly the greatest talent, was not chosen to tour on grounds of fitness, so it was a mixture of the old - Zaheer Khan - and new - Sreesanth and RP Singh - which carried the Indian attack. Although England had had a good look at Zaheer over 4 Tests back in 2002, he was still a big surprise, his attacking edge sharpened by a fruitful season last year at Worcestershire. And while earlier in the season Ryan Sidebottom had reintroduced the art of left-arm swing bowling from over the wicket, there were shades of Wasim Akram (albeit at a significantly reduced pace), as Khan bustled in off his short run from around the wicket to further confound the English right-handers. 18 wickets at a shade over 20 made him comfortably the best bowler on either side, and an obvious overall man of the series (even if the namby-pamby administrators now insist there must be one from each team). His fellow left-armer, RP Singh, was slightly less effective, and although he faded after bagging a 5-fer at Lord's, he has much promise and, it must be remembered, only 21. Sreesanth was statistically the least impressive seamer, although he caused problems for the English batsmen with his very straight approach and ability to swing and seam the ball. And while the current trio may seem like riches compared to past attacks, there is plenty in reserve, with Patel, Pathan and the tall and talented Ishant Sharma, who toured but did not play a Test.
The nature of a three-match series is that opportunities must be seized, and after England lost theirs, not entirely through their own fault, at Lord's, they failed to regroup quickly enough and were caught cold in the crucial second game which had always represented the best chance of a result. Losing the tosses at Trent Bridge and The Oval put them on the back foot from the off in both games, yet they still managed to twice make the worst of a bad job. Few Test pitches provide excuse for a sum total of less than 200 and the Trent Bridge surface was not one of them, overcast conditions notwithstanding. Similarly, at The Oval, they were in sight of dismissing India for less than 500, which would have allowed them a road, albeit a tenuous one, back into the match.
Even so, as a unit they did not perform particularly badly, which is why the series loss comes laced with as much surprise as it does regret. The batting could have been a lot better, but did not bomb consistently, while the pace bowlers especially are hard to criticise. Only Sidebottom would have been first choice, but the performances of Anderson and Tremlett were extremely encouraging, and have muddied the waters as regards future selection. After missing the whole of last summer and looking ill at ease during the Ashes and World Cup, Anderson looks at his best since he made such an impression early on in his career before the doubt and the doctorate in the art of the drinks waiter set him back. His action looks freer than the over-specified incarnation we saw last winter, and he retains the happy knack of being a wicket-taking bowler, with his natural ability to move the ball in the air and off the pitch. Consistency left something to be desired, although the nature of a bowler like Anderson is that wickets are, to an extent, being bought, and a return of 14 was very healthy. Tremlett's story is an even more unlikely one. After he was the chosen one in 2005 and set for the highway to future success, some insipid performances in one-day cricket, along with unfortunate injuries and the emergence of the young trio of Plunkett, Mahmood and Broad had dumped him seemingly at the bottom of the fast bowling food-chain. But he became a beneficiary of Peter Moores' more pragmatic attitude to the selection of young fast bowlers when unexpectedly chosen ahead of Stuart Broad as a locum for the injured Hoggard at Lord's. With a height that sets him above the category of the tall and into that of the sub-giant, bounce is not an unforeseen ally. Crucially, he has the ability to make the ball move laterally as well as vertically off the pitch, and in patches he bowled very well indeed and provided substantitation for the continual claims of the Hampshire lobby that England were wasting him in one-day cricket. Although he will lose his place when the senior bowlers return, Tremlett has done more than enough to ensure he is one of the first Peter Moores will turn to when injuries strike. Sidebottom's figures are slightly unprepossessing, and he was not helped by an streak of misfortune which is threatening to extend itself into recurring pattern, especially where Matt Prior's rebounding gloves are concerned. Although he was statistically the least effective seamer, he may well be the only one to retain his place, and it will be interesting to see if he can incorporate some of Zaheer's tricks into his armoury. And while it would be stretching a point to say that Monty Panesar had a poor series, it was certainly a reality check after he had it a bit too easy against West Indies; the pitches were not really suited to him - two seaming tracks followed by a featherbed - and he was bowling to a middle order containing some of the most accomplished players of spin in the world.
But while the bowling attack was very much a scratch force, the same could not be said of the batting, where, barring Flintoff who on current form may well have weakened it, the first choice top-6 was deployed. After three different partnerships had prospered for England at the top of the order since 2000, the fourth attempt has failed to meld successfully. The common thread between the first three was Marcus Trescothick; for the last two years of Mike Atherton's career, he became the sort of reliable partner which only Graham Gooch and Alec Stewart out of the 15 or so tried could also claim to have been. Trescothick was also the bedrock of alliances with Vaughan and then Strauss, and England had seldom had it better at the top. Yet in the absence of Trescothick, something which seems increasingly like a permanent state of affairs, England have paired their best two openers and suffered. Strauss and Cook have never made a century partnership, and it is not for want of trying - in fact Cook has only ever opened for England in tandem with Strauss (he batted at 3 when Trescothick played last summer). Strauss's poor form is one obvious factor; the lack of difference between the two is another. Both are in a way archetypal left-handed Test openers; proficient off their legs, favouring the cut shot and essentially limited in their scoring areas. Whereas in partnership with Trescothick, who always set a brisk pace, Strauss could act as the counter-puncher, riding in the slipstream, in his absence he has found himself trying to force the pace. This has led to a proliferation in loose dismissals, edges from over-ambitious cuts and drives as well as the odd skied hook shot. It has cost him his place in the one-day side and now the selectors will think long and hard before selecting him to tour this winter. The lack of a ready-made replacement has saved him thus far, although there is no reason why Vaughan could not resume his career as an opener, something which might in itself benefit Cook.
That said, Peter Moores might be loath to part his captain from the No.3 position where he blossomed on his return to Test cricket. Before his injury, there were increasing doubts over Vaughan's worth to the team as a batsman, just a few years after he had been ranked the world's best. Throughout the summer he was imperious and both by weight of runs and the manner of their getting, he confirmed himself as the second best batsman behind Pietersen, with whom he formed a strong axis. He slightly blotted his copybook with two "millionaire" shots in the final Tests, although such lapses have always been the price paid for his otherwise exquisite batsmanship. With his second match saving century in two years at the same ground, Pietersen marked his evolution from outrageously talented hitter into master Test match batsman, who has it in him to be one day described as a great of the game. The circumstances of the two innings could not have been more different; in 2005, he was batting for the Ashes, against the best in the world, for the most sought after prize in English cricket. His 158 was suitably glitzy and, in keeping with the tone of the summer, he lived on the very edge. It was the innings of a gambler, and one which he could never hope to repeat. Today's effort was a polar opposite: the series lost, he was playing for pride only, although saving the game remained important. Suitably, his tenth Test century was, by his standards, a measured affair. Crucially, he buckled down and played the innings that the team required; some of the shots dazzled, but the daredevil hooks and slog-sweeps were not apparent. It was his fourth century of the summer and came as confirmation of what he had hinted at through those innings, namely that he has chosen the hard road, and the one that should lead him to success and a seat at the top table of batsmen in the modern era.
Past those two, however, the batting was below-par. Bell and Collingwood had very similar series - both just under 200 runs at just over 30 with 2 half-centuries - and disappointment was another shared theme. Both are Test class batsmen; Bell through greater natural talent and Collingwood thanks to his fierce fighting spirit, but there may well be a place for only one of them against Sri Lanka. Collingwood is probably the safer of the two, thanks to his fielding and improved bowling, and Bell will need to establish himself away from No.6, the domain of the returning Flintoff. The disappointment was that the batsmen failed to work well as a unit, in marked comparison to their opponents, who were superior despite the fact that their only century came from the unlikely source of No.8 Anil Kumble. Too often batsmen made starts but did not go on to register significant scores, as evidenced at The Oval, where three batsmen were out in the 60s in the first innings, and at Trent Bridge, where neither side had a first innings century-maker and India more than doubled England's sub-200 total.
And in stark contrast to India's wicket-keeper MS Dhoni, who should take as much credit as the rain for denying England at Lord's as well as putting them beyond reach in the final Test, the contributions of England's No.7 were decidedly meagre. After his 42 at Lord's, he made just 31 runs in 5 innings, a total which exceeded that of Ryan Sidebottom by just 15 runs and Chris Tremlett by 23. Runs are the currency which Prior must deal in if he is to retain his place in the long-term, and in no-one's book is 73 @ 14.6 an acceptable. Had he been faultless elsewhere, he might well have escaped with passing criticism. However, having laid himself open to reproach as leader of the English brat-pack at Trent Bridge, he then took what hindsight can see as an inevitable fall, shelling Tendulkar and Laxman as well as waving through 33 first-innings byes. In the modern era where wicket-keepers must be able to score their share of runs, England have oscillated between specialist wicket-keepers who have not justified their place with the bat and batsmen whose wicket-keeping has not met international standards. The problem for the latter category is that the wicket-keeping troubles tend to erode general confidence and consequentially batting form. For Geraint Jones this became a terminal problem, and one hopes that Prior can overcome it. There is a clear technical malfunction with his footwork when he keeps, resulting in mishaps when he dives for catches. For now, England would be advised to stick with him, and with Peter Moores, his Sussex mentor, at the helm, he will be given some leeway. Another problem is in the shifting perception of fans and critics; when someone like Prior is in possession of the gloves, the most important facet of the game is wicket-keeping - you simply cannot have a wicket-keeper who misses regulation chances. When the gauntlets are passed over to someone like Read, suddenly the batting becomes the overriding concern - no matter how good a 'keeper you are, in today's world you simply have to be a Test class No.7. The England selectors will forever be damned whichever way they go until someone nails down the place who proves himself international class on both sides of the stumps. At this moment in time, Prior is best placed to be that man, and with some work on his keeping technique and a few confidence-balming innings, the literary brickbats could easily morph back into the fan-mail most correspondants were composing when Prior made his century on debut.
What is concrete is that the series and the unbeaten record have been lost, and that England are yet to win a series of any great note since the Ashes (considering that Pakistan lacked their three first choice seamers last summer). It is not the time for the axe to be wielded in a headless chicken manner, but refinement, both in tactics and personnel are required, and a tough series away to an accomplished Sri Lankan team will be a good barometer of progress, especially if all the injured players are, as they are expected to be, available. As for India, not half a year on from what seemed like the all time low of the World Cup exit, there is not a mention of that or favoured voodoo doll Chappell to be seen as they bask in their well earned glory. England could well take heart; victory on the subcontinent this winter would represent an equivalent achievement and the path forward, although strenuous, is not insurmountable.
Sunday 12 August 2007
Old ghosts stirred as England face harsh reality
Maybe it is because England have not been subjected to the series loss they are now staring squarely in the face that it is hard to remember two consecutive Test matches in which they have slipped out of contention so quickly. Even as they crashed and burned across Australia last winter, it was only at Brisbane where they were dominated from the get-go and in each of the other matches there were brief periods where they might have seized control. And as much as India endeavoured today to pull of their usual trick of messing up good opportunities for rare away vicotries, such was the advantage on first innings that even a day in which they were totally outdone did not bring England back into realistic sight of winning the game.
The match as a whole has provided an engaging mix of old and new: bearing in mind the unbeaten run set to be capped at six years, this Test has had a fair resemblence to its 2001 predecessor, where Australia racked up over 600 first up to take control of the game. The common denominator of both games has been the flat, late-summer Oval track, a positive font of runs when allied with such a lightning outfield. Yet for a period in the late morning, Chris Tremlett and James Anderson bowled well enough to coax out the ghost of mid-1990s Oval pitches on which England secured soothing vicotries against Australia in '93 and ''97 and Devon Malcolm bombed out nine South Africans in an innings in 1994.
Just as there had been six years ago, there was a major departure from the Oval stage. In 2001, it was the turn of Mike Atherton, leaving the Test arena for good, departing in the manner to which he had become accustomed, c.Warne b.McGrath, with just a wave of the bat to bid farewell to the crowds whose hopes he had often born alone. Although no less important to his country, Atherton was not on the same level internatioanlly as Tendulkar, who also has more innings to play, if not on English soil. But the mode of dismissal, stumps splattered, was definitely something which has crept into reality for the new Tendulkar, whereas of old he would not have countenanced it. Vulnerable at 11-3, India were grateful for two of the old guard to return to the styles of play which were serving both well when they made their debuts in the same match at Lord's eleven years ago. Dravid, who has since blossomed into Test cricket's foremost accumulator, with an increasing array of strokes, shrunk back into the defensive shell which his game grew out of, realising that batting time was as essential to his team as scoring runs. His predecessor as captain, Sourav Ganguly, also returned to his core strength, comprising the masterful use of timing and placement to thwart even the best packed gully and point areas and pepper the off-side boundary behind square. By the time he fell to Collingwood, India were safe once again, and a cameo from Dhoni, alongside a silky innings of 42 from VVS Laxman, another one rolling back the years, allowed Dravid the indulgence of declaring on one of the nice round numbers so beloved of cricket captains. Tremlett and Anderson bowled their hearts out in the absence of Sidebottom, laid low by a side strain (what else?). But while they enjoyed some rare response from the placid surface, Monty Panesar must now be dreading every ball he bowls at The Oval, as well as wondering how a decade ago there was a pitch on which an English left-arm spinner managed to take a ten wicket haul in a Test Match.
Despite unhindered progress from the English opening pair, registering what is for them a rare 50 partnership, even the amazing recent history of this ground does not allow for a possibility as outlandish as a successful chase of 500 on the last day. The more you try and work out the permutations, and hypothetical situations, the more ridiculous the thought seems. Realistically the only possibility left open to England is the draw, and realistically they ought to achieve it. Granted, Kumble will be a handful on a fifth day pitch, but the said surface is still excellent, and it is time the English batsmen showed the necessary fight and gumption to save a Test match, something they have proved themselves inept at in the recent past. The series is lost, but there is a world of difference between a meek surrender and 2-0 defeat and a fighting draw here, salvaging pride, as well as the knowledge that, but for the weather at Lord's, they would still have a record to boast about.
The match as a whole has provided an engaging mix of old and new: bearing in mind the unbeaten run set to be capped at six years, this Test has had a fair resemblence to its 2001 predecessor, where Australia racked up over 600 first up to take control of the game. The common denominator of both games has been the flat, late-summer Oval track, a positive font of runs when allied with such a lightning outfield. Yet for a period in the late morning, Chris Tremlett and James Anderson bowled well enough to coax out the ghost of mid-1990s Oval pitches on which England secured soothing vicotries against Australia in '93 and ''97 and Devon Malcolm bombed out nine South Africans in an innings in 1994.
Just as there had been six years ago, there was a major departure from the Oval stage. In 2001, it was the turn of Mike Atherton, leaving the Test arena for good, departing in the manner to which he had become accustomed, c.Warne b.McGrath, with just a wave of the bat to bid farewell to the crowds whose hopes he had often born alone. Although no less important to his country, Atherton was not on the same level internatioanlly as Tendulkar, who also has more innings to play, if not on English soil. But the mode of dismissal, stumps splattered, was definitely something which has crept into reality for the new Tendulkar, whereas of old he would not have countenanced it. Vulnerable at 11-3, India were grateful for two of the old guard to return to the styles of play which were serving both well when they made their debuts in the same match at Lord's eleven years ago. Dravid, who has since blossomed into Test cricket's foremost accumulator, with an increasing array of strokes, shrunk back into the defensive shell which his game grew out of, realising that batting time was as essential to his team as scoring runs. His predecessor as captain, Sourav Ganguly, also returned to his core strength, comprising the masterful use of timing and placement to thwart even the best packed gully and point areas and pepper the off-side boundary behind square. By the time he fell to Collingwood, India were safe once again, and a cameo from Dhoni, alongside a silky innings of 42 from VVS Laxman, another one rolling back the years, allowed Dravid the indulgence of declaring on one of the nice round numbers so beloved of cricket captains. Tremlett and Anderson bowled their hearts out in the absence of Sidebottom, laid low by a side strain (what else?). But while they enjoyed some rare response from the placid surface, Monty Panesar must now be dreading every ball he bowls at The Oval, as well as wondering how a decade ago there was a pitch on which an English left-arm spinner managed to take a ten wicket haul in a Test Match.
Despite unhindered progress from the English opening pair, registering what is for them a rare 50 partnership, even the amazing recent history of this ground does not allow for a possibility as outlandish as a successful chase of 500 on the last day. The more you try and work out the permutations, and hypothetical situations, the more ridiculous the thought seems. Realistically the only possibility left open to England is the draw, and realistically they ought to achieve it. Granted, Kumble will be a handful on a fifth day pitch, but the said surface is still excellent, and it is time the English batsmen showed the necessary fight and gumption to save a Test match, something they have proved themselves inept at in the recent past. The series is lost, but there is a world of difference between a meek surrender and 2-0 defeat and a fighting draw here, salvaging pride, as well as the knowledge that, but for the weather at Lord's, they would still have a record to boast about.
Thursday 9 August 2007
Achievement within achievement
Hidden amongst the impassioned outpourings about England's loosening grip on a 6 year unbeaten run and the continuing rumbles about boorish sledging and jelly-bean related activities came another announcement. As with many of his greatest achievements in a distinguished international career, it was significant yet swamped under a mound of more trumpeted stories. The retirement of Ashley Giles from all cricket had been largely anticipated after a degenerative hip problem allowed him only two batches of two Tests following the 2005 Ashes had been largely anticipated and almost a decade after he made his Test debut alongside the likes of Atherton, Hussain, Knight and Fraser, he is now set to join them in the commentary and press boxes.
England's last two long-serving left-arm spinners were very much peas in a pod; highly talented, maverick, Middlesex men, Edmonds and Tufnell were the best slow bowlers of their time, but both managed to upset the establishment and were never firmly ensconced in the fold. Giles came as a polar opposite: less naturally gifted, his all round talents, steady slow left-arm supplemented by trenchant batting and safe-as houses gully fielding, found him favour in Duncan Fletcher's Team England. You wouldn't expect to find Giles relieving his boredom by reading a newspaper on the field, or being accused of smoking weed in a New Zealand cafe.
Another fact which differentiated Giles from his predecessors is that his career coincided with one of England's most successful periods in Test cricket for quite some time. And while that sentence seems fairly anonymous, in fact the wording of it is extremely loaded and is the nub of the argument which raged - boringly as do most sagas related to English cricket - throughout his 52 Test career. His detractors always argued that he was a passenger: untalented and utilised only to fill a hole in an otherwise seamless XI. The favourite paradigm of the naysayer was that he maintained his place only because there was no-one better, while he did little to fight their principal doubt regarding his effectiveness by pursuing a consistent over-the-wicket line of attack.
Yet a brief perusal of the greatest successes of that glory period, now seemingly at an end, reveals the name of Giles to be a constant recurrence at all the most important stages. The series victory in Pakistan seven years ago, the first major triumph of the Fletcher-Hussain axis, featured an impressive 17 wickets from the man in question, while his fellow spinner Ian Salisbury managed just 1 in the 3 Tests. And while the Karachi Test will be forever remembered for its dramatic conclusion, too easily forgotten is the the crucial contribution of Giles, namely dismissing the often immovable feast Inzamam with a peach of a delivery, the sort which he replicated several times in later years, pitching outside leg and spinning past the bat to hit off. This sparked a frenzied Pakistan collapse, paving the way for England's twilight run-chase after Mike Atherton's painstaking 9 hour century had given England first-innings parity.
As with every cricketer who played that summer, the 2005 Ashes was his crowning achievement, one which went not without his own significant influence. The reason why England will not win the Ashes is because while Australia have Shane Warne, England can only present Ashley Giles as their best spin option. That was the line most cognoscenti were trotting out while England were sweeping up each of the 7 Tests in the 2004 summer. If England could just find a really top-drawer spinner, they might have a chance. And the comparison between the two is somewhat stark: indeed Giles took exactly a quarter of Warne's monumental haul that summer, and in the previous home Ashes series, Simon Hughes became a laughing stock amongst his Channel 4 colleagues just for the intimation that Giles and Warne were similar, in that they turned the ball the same way. But England did not need Giles to be like Warne; granted, they would have gladly accepted a superior attacking leg-spinner, but Giles' role was markedly different from the Australian's. As for much of his career, he plugged away gamely at one end, restricting the scoring and creating pressure for the formidable pace attack to capitalise on. Bowlers, like batsmen, work in pairs, and while Giles may not have bagged so many scalps for his own collection, a measure of wickets he helped bring about at the other end would have him in healthy credit. And while Kevin Pietersen is rightly hailed as the hero of the hour at The Oval, acting as England's Horatius in the face of the Australian onslaught, the contribution of Giles, with a patient half-century, ensured absolute safety and the recapture of the urn. Yet again, he was playing a small yet important and ultimately overshadowed role in a major team triumph.
Between times, he showed himself more than capable of making some headlines of his own, capturing 22 wickets in the 4 match series against West Indies in 2004, including the wicket of Brian Lara memorably at Lord's, with one of his ripsnorting specials. But it was not always for his own success that Giles became front-page news. On a difficult tour of India in 2001, his bowling attack depleted, Nasser Hussain was forced to test the boundaries of his formidable inventiveness; part of this involved Giles eschewing the traditional left-arm spinner's line of attack and bowl over the wicket into the deep rough which had developed. It succeeded in locating a depth to the patience of Tedulkar, stumped for the first time in his career in an attempt to break the shackles. It also caused a hue and cry in the press and from some fans: Hussain fit the bill nicely as the villain of the piece, being probably the most determined English captain since Douglas Jardine, although the mob found it hard to place Giles as successor to Larwood. So they settled for calling him boring, bland and ineffective, a far easier pigeon hole to stuff him in
Quite where Giles truly fits in between the extremist summaries of the adoring and the atheists is hard to say. A bowling average in excess of 40 in a Test career which stretched beyond 50 games is a slight anomaly and betrays the truth that Giles was no exceptional bowler, barely even excellent. There were also occasions on which he was expected to perform in favourable conditions and failed, such as on the last day of the Old Trafford Ashes Test in 2005, where he erred constantly in both length and line and went wicketless. A batting mark of over 20 goes some way to explaining his durability, as does the continued assertion that he was a good team-man, something which is easy to discredit from the outside, but which was valued highly by his fellows.
England have been fortunate that the tailing off of Giles' career has coincided with the emergence of a greater bowling talent in Monty Panesar. Panesar is without doubt the better bowler; he imparts greater turn and is an equal of Giles in terms of control. Therefore the uproar which followed the senior man's selection for the first two Ashes Tests last winter was somewhat understandable. In the end, it helped nobody: Giles had not played any sort of cricket for a year, and had remodelled his action into an ungainly trot, a shadow of the formerly graceful wheeling approach, and indicative of his slide into sporting infirmity. Below his best, he managed just two wickets in as many games before he was forced to return home to care for his wife, suffering from a brain tumour. Sadly, the abiding memory of his tour will be the dropped catch off Ricky Ponting in the first innings at Adelaide, which time has shown was an excruciatingly costly miss. In a rather ironic reflection of his earlier career, England's fortunes spiralled with his own, just as they had flourished with him in the first part of the decade. And for a man derided as a passenger throughout his career, perhaps the greatest compliment that can now be paid is that England are struggling without him.
England's last two long-serving left-arm spinners were very much peas in a pod; highly talented, maverick, Middlesex men, Edmonds and Tufnell were the best slow bowlers of their time, but both managed to upset the establishment and were never firmly ensconced in the fold. Giles came as a polar opposite: less naturally gifted, his all round talents, steady slow left-arm supplemented by trenchant batting and safe-as houses gully fielding, found him favour in Duncan Fletcher's Team England. You wouldn't expect to find Giles relieving his boredom by reading a newspaper on the field, or being accused of smoking weed in a New Zealand cafe.
Another fact which differentiated Giles from his predecessors is that his career coincided with one of England's most successful periods in Test cricket for quite some time. And while that sentence seems fairly anonymous, in fact the wording of it is extremely loaded and is the nub of the argument which raged - boringly as do most sagas related to English cricket - throughout his 52 Test career. His detractors always argued that he was a passenger: untalented and utilised only to fill a hole in an otherwise seamless XI. The favourite paradigm of the naysayer was that he maintained his place only because there was no-one better, while he did little to fight their principal doubt regarding his effectiveness by pursuing a consistent over-the-wicket line of attack.
Yet a brief perusal of the greatest successes of that glory period, now seemingly at an end, reveals the name of Giles to be a constant recurrence at all the most important stages. The series victory in Pakistan seven years ago, the first major triumph of the Fletcher-Hussain axis, featured an impressive 17 wickets from the man in question, while his fellow spinner Ian Salisbury managed just 1 in the 3 Tests. And while the Karachi Test will be forever remembered for its dramatic conclusion, too easily forgotten is the the crucial contribution of Giles, namely dismissing the often immovable feast Inzamam with a peach of a delivery, the sort which he replicated several times in later years, pitching outside leg and spinning past the bat to hit off. This sparked a frenzied Pakistan collapse, paving the way for England's twilight run-chase after Mike Atherton's painstaking 9 hour century had given England first-innings parity.
As with every cricketer who played that summer, the 2005 Ashes was his crowning achievement, one which went not without his own significant influence. The reason why England will not win the Ashes is because while Australia have Shane Warne, England can only present Ashley Giles as their best spin option. That was the line most cognoscenti were trotting out while England were sweeping up each of the 7 Tests in the 2004 summer. If England could just find a really top-drawer spinner, they might have a chance. And the comparison between the two is somewhat stark: indeed Giles took exactly a quarter of Warne's monumental haul that summer, and in the previous home Ashes series, Simon Hughes became a laughing stock amongst his Channel 4 colleagues just for the intimation that Giles and Warne were similar, in that they turned the ball the same way. But England did not need Giles to be like Warne; granted, they would have gladly accepted a superior attacking leg-spinner, but Giles' role was markedly different from the Australian's. As for much of his career, he plugged away gamely at one end, restricting the scoring and creating pressure for the formidable pace attack to capitalise on. Bowlers, like batsmen, work in pairs, and while Giles may not have bagged so many scalps for his own collection, a measure of wickets he helped bring about at the other end would have him in healthy credit. And while Kevin Pietersen is rightly hailed as the hero of the hour at The Oval, acting as England's Horatius in the face of the Australian onslaught, the contribution of Giles, with a patient half-century, ensured absolute safety and the recapture of the urn. Yet again, he was playing a small yet important and ultimately overshadowed role in a major team triumph.
Between times, he showed himself more than capable of making some headlines of his own, capturing 22 wickets in the 4 match series against West Indies in 2004, including the wicket of Brian Lara memorably at Lord's, with one of his ripsnorting specials. But it was not always for his own success that Giles became front-page news. On a difficult tour of India in 2001, his bowling attack depleted, Nasser Hussain was forced to test the boundaries of his formidable inventiveness; part of this involved Giles eschewing the traditional left-arm spinner's line of attack and bowl over the wicket into the deep rough which had developed. It succeeded in locating a depth to the patience of Tedulkar, stumped for the first time in his career in an attempt to break the shackles. It also caused a hue and cry in the press and from some fans: Hussain fit the bill nicely as the villain of the piece, being probably the most determined English captain since Douglas Jardine, although the mob found it hard to place Giles as successor to Larwood. So they settled for calling him boring, bland and ineffective, a far easier pigeon hole to stuff him in
Quite where Giles truly fits in between the extremist summaries of the adoring and the atheists is hard to say. A bowling average in excess of 40 in a Test career which stretched beyond 50 games is a slight anomaly and betrays the truth that Giles was no exceptional bowler, barely even excellent. There were also occasions on which he was expected to perform in favourable conditions and failed, such as on the last day of the Old Trafford Ashes Test in 2005, where he erred constantly in both length and line and went wicketless. A batting mark of over 20 goes some way to explaining his durability, as does the continued assertion that he was a good team-man, something which is easy to discredit from the outside, but which was valued highly by his fellows.
England have been fortunate that the tailing off of Giles' career has coincided with the emergence of a greater bowling talent in Monty Panesar. Panesar is without doubt the better bowler; he imparts greater turn and is an equal of Giles in terms of control. Therefore the uproar which followed the senior man's selection for the first two Ashes Tests last winter was somewhat understandable. In the end, it helped nobody: Giles had not played any sort of cricket for a year, and had remodelled his action into an ungainly trot, a shadow of the formerly graceful wheeling approach, and indicative of his slide into sporting infirmity. Below his best, he managed just two wickets in as many games before he was forced to return home to care for his wife, suffering from a brain tumour. Sadly, the abiding memory of his tour will be the dropped catch off Ricky Ponting in the first innings at Adelaide, which time has shown was an excruciatingly costly miss. In a rather ironic reflection of his earlier career, England's fortunes spiralled with his own, just as they had flourished with him in the first part of the decade. And for a man derided as a passenger throughout his career, perhaps the greatest compliment that can now be paid is that England are struggling without him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)