Sunday, 29 April 2007
World Cup select XI
Matthew Hayden (Aus): Quite simply the best batsman of the tournament. His tally of 659 runs was over 100 more than anyone else achieved; likewise no-one matched his three centuries. After his position was questioned during the CB series, it has been some recovery. His highest score by an Australian in ODI cricket in the lead-up to the World Cup confirmed his place and he set on his way with a blistering century against South Africa aided by the easy conditions at St.Kitts. Constantly advanced down the pitch to bowlers of all pace, with nobody immune from being launched over the long-on boundary. Just when the opening bowlers felt it was safe to come out again...
Sanath Jayasuriya (SL): Even at 37, he is one of the most feared openers in the one-day game, and he showed why, producing his runs at nearly a run a ball. Width is what he thrives on, and no amount of coaching and biomechanics seems able to produce a unit of bowlers which deny it him. 7 wickets and an economy rate of under 4.5 show that his bowling is as niggardly as ever; when you add that to his immense batting ability and the fact that it was he who changed the one-day game in 1996, there is a compelling argument for him to be seen as the greatest ever one-day cricketer. There will be more attacking openers capable of dismantling attacks, but one feels there may never be another Jayasuriya.
Ricky Ponting (Aus): Do we have to? Yes we do. The best batsman on the planet, his contribution seemed slight with all the attention lavished on the man above hm in the batting order. Still, the statistics, which show him to be the third highest run-getter of the tournament demand his inclusion as much as his reputation does. Still only 32, he has been kingpin for a few years now, and it will only be after the next World Cup when he might consider letting up.
Mahela Jayawardene (SL): Until Gilchrist produced the sort of innings that Australians tend to in World Cup finals, Jayawardene's matchwinning knock in the semi against New Zealand was the standout contribution of the tournament. It may have not had the explosive quality of a bash by Hayden or Gilchrist, but he held his side together at a time when they were reeling and guided them to a near untouchable position in a game of massive importance. It was living proof that there is more than one way to play ODI cricket, and one of those which defines the term "captain's innings". He does not just get in on the strength of that one knock; as second highest run scorer and captain of a side which reached the final, his selection is more than justified.
Kevin Pietersen (Eng): Pips Michael Clarke at the post, mainly due to the fact that he fought almost a lone hand and scored 2 centuries whereas the Australian managed none. Very few play the one-day game better than him, reflected by his no.1 ranking and he showed it playing imperiosuly at almost every visit to the crease. Mostly he was his own undoing, with a number of lazy flicks finding midwicket, but his focus is much better than when he first burst onto the scene. The worry is that he realises his importance is such that he has to rein himself in.
Scott Styris (NZ): The mainstay of New Zealand's batting, he was probably the surprise performer of the tournament producing innings which were both attacking and crucial. Much like Pietersen, the hopes of his team rested with him all too often, but he coped well for the best part, finishing as one of the highest run scorers as well as having one of the best averages. His bowling was also better than expected, with 9 cheap wickets enhancing his reputation as a genuine all-rounder. Jacques Kallis pushes him close, but in the final reckoning, Kallis bottled it on the two occasions where he needed to step up and his bowling returns were unimpressive.
Adam Gilchrist (Aus): The wicket-keeping slot was proving a difficult slot to fill for much of the tournament. The star names, Sangakkara and Gilchrist had done well enough, without really living up to their reputations, while Niall O'Brien and Paul Nixon has boosted theirs without really demanding selection. Then Gilchrist changed everything. Some one-day innings, such as Jayawardene's semi-final effort, are masteries of craft and planning; others, such as Gilchrist's are simply sustained, unrelenting exhibitions of shot-making. His batting has indisputably declined since he was exposed in 2005, but he still has it in him to produce innings which very few are capable of. Only two have materialised this winter, here and at Perth during the Ashes, but both have been record breaking and breathtaking. As ever, his keeping was near faultless and utterly ignored.
Brad Hogg (Aus): Barely used during the CB series, and with 5 wicketless matches in the lead-up to the tournament, his inclusion in the squad was mainly due to the inability of Cameron White, a far superior batsman, to prove his worth as a leg-spinner capable of bowling his full allocation. White blew his chance, leaving Hogg as the perceived weak link in what looked an underpowered bowling attack. He proceeded to do much as he had in 2003, when he filled in for the banned Shane Warne, and surprise everyone; after four years on the one-day scene, still no-one can pick his chinaman googly, and his control and variation led him to a tally of 21 wickets, the fourth highest, and with an economy rate better than McGrath or Muralitharan. In his 37th year, it was more a farewell than an arrival, but with Warne gone and the young Australian spinners floundering in domestic cricket, an Australian summer of Test Matches is not out of the question.
Lasith Malinga (SL): Every major tournament, even one as uninspiring as this one, tends to unearth a new talent, let loose on the world stage. During two months short on glamour and excitement, the extravagent barnet and whipping round-arm action of Malinga proved a rare highlight. Npt the most incicisve with the new ball, he was most dangerous when returning mid-innings, where his reverse swing and pace plucked out even well-set batsmen. He had already made ripples, flummoxing New Zealand in 2004 and playing a big part in Sri Lanka's successful tour of England last year. But for an injury which lost him three matches in mid-tournament, he might well have finished leading wicket taker, but unlike the man who did, he will have more chances.
Muttiah Muralitharan (SL): There is not much which has not already been said about the man whom history will remember as the most successful bowler ever to play the game. Needless to say, Sri Lanka would not have got to the final without him, where the shortened format did not do him any favours. Now that Warne turns his arm over in Hampshire colours only, he has the world stage to himself, and one suspects that he will enjoy a few more years yet, and set a target of Test wickets which could well be one of cricket's few untouchable statistics.
Glenn McGrath (Aus): Having the last laugh has proved a feature of his cricketing dotage; first his 5-0 Ashes prediction was vindicated, while after a period in one-day cricket when for once he seemed to have no answers, and his non-selection for the World Cup was mooted in the Australian press, he bounced back in the only way he knows. Top wicket taker in a winning team is a neat microcosm of McGrath's career, which has coincided with a period of almost unrivalled Australian dominance, which would have been impossible without him. In the words of the great Keith Miller, he has reitred "when they were asking why did you, rather than why don't you?
Farcical end for tournament of sad farewells
Many things have been said about this World Cup, with the complimentary ones in the minority. Perhaps a fairer judgement is that it was a tournament of unsatisfactory goodbyes: before it all began (what seems a very long time ago) one of the selling points was that it presented the last chance to see the greats of the modern game bestride the world stage. That it did, but not as we would have wished; Sachin Tendulkar, so often king of World Cup cricket, departed before it all got going; Brian Lara, the greatest batsman of his day and a genuine great, got the reception he deserved but not the final act, run out at the non-striker's end. Inzamam left the field in tears, and, tragically, one of the greatest coaches was lost to the world forever.
In the same fashion, a truncated final, concluded with the sort of farcical situation only cricket can contrive, was not a proper end to a World Cup, although those more cynical might reflect that it was one fitting for the tournament we had. Once again, the ingredients were there, in the form of one special innings, setting up a run-chase which was simmering nicely until the rain clouds rolled in.
Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakkara had played their hands beautifully after the early loss of Tharanga and at 123-1, the game looked set for a close finish. Not so. For the rain, which had earlier resulted in the first final to be of less than 50 overs, threatened again. Sri Lanka, although going well, were slightly behind the D/L rate, and were forced to charge early to avoid losing the game thanks to the impending rain. Ponting, a far improved captain since Michael Vaughan embarrassed him in 2005, cleverly tossed the ball to one of his part-timers, Michael Clarke, giving the batsmen license to have a dip. His hands tied, Jayasuriya attempted a shot he rarely plays, dancing down the wicket, and he duly played the price, his wicket sending the D/L par score spiralling away from Sri Lanka, and effectively ending the game.
It is a minor quibble, and one for once not caused by tournament organisers, but it was disappointing that Jayasuriya was not allowed to play the chase his way. It is still likely that Australia would have won, but a close finish may well have been in order. As it was, the only thing that the climax was close to was total darkness, as the umpires and match referee ignored the rule that the game was over after 20 overs of the Sri Lankan innings, and that there was no point or need to have the tournament concluded with three meaningless overs bowled by the Australian spinners to the Sri Lankan tail-enders (a spectacle endured to avoid having to return the next day).
While the final itself was an indeterminate affair, what is indisputable is that Australia were worthy winners. At no point did any team come close to matching them and it would have been a travesty if another team had walked off with the prize. When you consider that the winning XI was the guts of a side that had endured a long winter, with an Ashes series followed by an interminable run of ODI cricket, their freshness was extraordinary. England, who had suffered the same winter, looked tired and beaten as soon as they reached the Caribbean; not Australia, who belied their worst run of form in many a year, the loss of their No.1 ranking and No.1 strike bowler and the suspicions that it was a tournament too far for some and a tournament too soon for others, to dominate in a way even they have never achieved. Loath as I am to accept Glenn McGrath's analysis, his comment that they have improved in every World Cup since 1996 cannot be argued with. A final in '96 was followed by victory in '99, an undefeated tournament in '03 and a run in '07 where no-one came close to defeating them.
Many thought before the World Cup that this would be the point at which Australia's hegemony in one-day cricket would end. They pointed to their poor form, the strength of others and the structure of a tournament which should have required them to play each of the other top sides. McGrath takes his leave from international cricket a fulfilled man, his one of the few happy endings. There will be no more McGrath, no more Warne; on the evidence of the World Cup just gone, there will be more Australian dominance.
In the same fashion, a truncated final, concluded with the sort of farcical situation only cricket can contrive, was not a proper end to a World Cup, although those more cynical might reflect that it was one fitting for the tournament we had. Once again, the ingredients were there, in the form of one special innings, setting up a run-chase which was simmering nicely until the rain clouds rolled in.
Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakkara had played their hands beautifully after the early loss of Tharanga and at 123-1, the game looked set for a close finish. Not so. For the rain, which had earlier resulted in the first final to be of less than 50 overs, threatened again. Sri Lanka, although going well, were slightly behind the D/L rate, and were forced to charge early to avoid losing the game thanks to the impending rain. Ponting, a far improved captain since Michael Vaughan embarrassed him in 2005, cleverly tossed the ball to one of his part-timers, Michael Clarke, giving the batsmen license to have a dip. His hands tied, Jayasuriya attempted a shot he rarely plays, dancing down the wicket, and he duly played the price, his wicket sending the D/L par score spiralling away from Sri Lanka, and effectively ending the game.
It is a minor quibble, and one for once not caused by tournament organisers, but it was disappointing that Jayasuriya was not allowed to play the chase his way. It is still likely that Australia would have won, but a close finish may well have been in order. As it was, the only thing that the climax was close to was total darkness, as the umpires and match referee ignored the rule that the game was over after 20 overs of the Sri Lankan innings, and that there was no point or need to have the tournament concluded with three meaningless overs bowled by the Australian spinners to the Sri Lankan tail-enders (a spectacle endured to avoid having to return the next day).
While the final itself was an indeterminate affair, what is indisputable is that Australia were worthy winners. At no point did any team come close to matching them and it would have been a travesty if another team had walked off with the prize. When you consider that the winning XI was the guts of a side that had endured a long winter, with an Ashes series followed by an interminable run of ODI cricket, their freshness was extraordinary. England, who had suffered the same winter, looked tired and beaten as soon as they reached the Caribbean; not Australia, who belied their worst run of form in many a year, the loss of their No.1 ranking and No.1 strike bowler and the suspicions that it was a tournament too far for some and a tournament too soon for others, to dominate in a way even they have never achieved. Loath as I am to accept Glenn McGrath's analysis, his comment that they have improved in every World Cup since 1996 cannot be argued with. A final in '96 was followed by victory in '99, an undefeated tournament in '03 and a run in '07 where no-one came close to defeating them.
Many thought before the World Cup that this would be the point at which Australia's hegemony in one-day cricket would end. They pointed to their poor form, the strength of others and the structure of a tournament which should have required them to play each of the other top sides. McGrath takes his leave from international cricket a fulfilled man, his one of the few happy endings. There will be no more McGrath, no more Warne; on the evidence of the World Cup just gone, there will be more Australian dominance.
Friday, 27 April 2007
Anticipation lacking for long awaited end
It's been a strange old tournament; while there have been upsets, notably the progression of Ireland and Bangladesh at the expense of the subcontinental powers, the tournament has lacked excitement, with the desperately one-sided semi-finals doing little to justify the overlong preamble. The faults are many and well documented, but at least it has brought home the point that any ICC managed event is about as dull as a century partnerhsip between Chris Tavare and Matthew Hoggard would be. It is faintly extraordinary that they have managed to so comprehensively remove all the soul and joy assosciated with Caribbean cricket, but while they wave statistics around and proclaim a great success, those of sound mind can only reflect on a tournament with all the dramatic tension of a communist election.
Still, the protracted format has still produced the final that most people wanted; on the one hand, you have Australia, unbeaten since 1999, a veritable machine in one-day cricket which has had its problems in the last few years but has crucially produced the goods when needed, even lacking their strike bowler. There are two ways of looking at Australia's seamless progression to a fourth consecutive final. You could argue that they have been at no point made to work hard for victory and the opposition has been insufficient; they would like you to believe that their own brilliance has precluded anyone from coming close to them.
But machines can be derailed. Not by a lesser model, such as workmanlike South Africa, or insufficient England and West Indies. No, to knock the Australian peacock off its lofty perch requires a team which is capable of transcending the ordinary and producing the unbelievable. And, from the sun-cream smeared Vaas, the hair trailing Malinga, the idiosyncratic master Jayasuriya and the eternal beguiler Muralitharan Sri Lanka have the ability to be just that team. If Jayasuriya blazes away, backed up by the more articulate strokeplay of his captain Jayawardene and the classy Sangakkara, the Sri Lankan batting is capable of dealing with an Australian attack which has not yet been forced to lay it on the line. Nathan Bracken may have been deadly efficient so far, but he could have a very different experience if Jaysuriya starts pinging him back over his head or upper-cutting him over the ropes. Hayden has been proflific so far, but Vaas could be the man to get the lbw decision many have deserved. And for almost every cricket fan except those who wear thongs on their feet, this will be the desired outcome. Even if Australia do win, it would be good to see them tested; far better Glenn McGrath hits the winning runs in the last over than Ricky Ponting before the rum punches have started to take effect.
But while most are hoping for Australia to stumble, even if not terminally, a third consecutive title is what we should expect. If Jaysuriya falls early, as he so often does, a Sri Lankan batting order which is slightly shallow in quality could be exposed as it was in the Super 8 game between the two. Equally, Malinga has yet to be taken on, and it will be interesting to see if Hayden gives him the charge early. In what could be one of his last ODIs, Gilchrist is due a big one after a tournament where he has ridden in his partner's slipstream and his relative failures have been masked.
Ever since February, when Australia followed their loss of the CB series with some demoralising losses against New Zealand, people have been trying to find reasons why they will not win the World Cup. Even now, after a tournament which they have dominated for its tiresome entirety, there is some doubt. The smart money says that by tomorrow, there will be none.
Still, the protracted format has still produced the final that most people wanted; on the one hand, you have Australia, unbeaten since 1999, a veritable machine in one-day cricket which has had its problems in the last few years but has crucially produced the goods when needed, even lacking their strike bowler. There are two ways of looking at Australia's seamless progression to a fourth consecutive final. You could argue that they have been at no point made to work hard for victory and the opposition has been insufficient; they would like you to believe that their own brilliance has precluded anyone from coming close to them.
But machines can be derailed. Not by a lesser model, such as workmanlike South Africa, or insufficient England and West Indies. No, to knock the Australian peacock off its lofty perch requires a team which is capable of transcending the ordinary and producing the unbelievable. And, from the sun-cream smeared Vaas, the hair trailing Malinga, the idiosyncratic master Jayasuriya and the eternal beguiler Muralitharan Sri Lanka have the ability to be just that team. If Jayasuriya blazes away, backed up by the more articulate strokeplay of his captain Jayawardene and the classy Sangakkara, the Sri Lankan batting is capable of dealing with an Australian attack which has not yet been forced to lay it on the line. Nathan Bracken may have been deadly efficient so far, but he could have a very different experience if Jaysuriya starts pinging him back over his head or upper-cutting him over the ropes. Hayden has been proflific so far, but Vaas could be the man to get the lbw decision many have deserved. And for almost every cricket fan except those who wear thongs on their feet, this will be the desired outcome. Even if Australia do win, it would be good to see them tested; far better Glenn McGrath hits the winning runs in the last over than Ricky Ponting before the rum punches have started to take effect.
But while most are hoping for Australia to stumble, even if not terminally, a third consecutive title is what we should expect. If Jaysuriya falls early, as he so often does, a Sri Lankan batting order which is slightly shallow in quality could be exposed as it was in the Super 8 game between the two. Equally, Malinga has yet to be taken on, and it will be interesting to see if Hayden gives him the charge early. In what could be one of his last ODIs, Gilchrist is due a big one after a tournament where he has ridden in his partner's slipstream and his relative failures have been masked.
Ever since February, when Australia followed their loss of the CB series with some demoralising losses against New Zealand, people have been trying to find reasons why they will not win the World Cup. Even now, after a tournament which they have dominated for its tiresome entirety, there is some doubt. The smart money says that by tomorrow, there will be none.
Saturday, 21 April 2007
England player ratings
Marks out of 10 for the World Cup squad:
Michael Vaughan 3: Looked alright to begin with, against New Zealand and Canada, but failed to capitalise on starts in both of those two games and paid the price as the tournament went on, with his batting form receding to a point where he was able to do little more than block out the South African bowlers. Finally reminded us of his ability when he cut loose against the West Indies, but by then it was too late. There was also scant evidence of his fabled captaincy ability, although he was not helped by his bowlers, who were under-par. Having worked so hard to recover from his chronic knee problem, and aware as he is of the undermining nature of splitting the captaincy, he will be unwilling to give it away voluntarily, but it seems now that the decision may be out of his hands.
Ed Joyce 4: Runs against Kenya and Canada, but when tested by the better attacks, he struggled, showing both indiscretion outside his off-stump and an inability to force the pace during the powerplay overs. Discarded midway through for Strauss, he may have set back his international chances, although he was not helped by being made to open and fill the boots of Trescothick, a position and role ill suited to his silky strokeplay which was only sporadically displayed, removed from its natural home in the middle-order.
Ian Bell 5.5: Criticised for his slow scoring early on, he nevertheless made runs, while the rest of the top order crumbled around him. When moved up to open in lieu of Joyce, he showed his shot-playing ability, teeing off against McGrath in particular on the way to an enterprising 77. Possibly his best one-day innings to date, he did give it away needlessly and from then on did not register, his part in the dirge against South Africa especially disappointing. Axed for the last match, he lost his record as the only England player to have played every match over the whole winter, but there were glimpses of a future in the one-day game.
Andrew Strauss 3: Left out to begin with, he was given the unenviable task of making his World-Cup bow against the Australians, and got out cheaply despite looking good, a trend that continued for the remainder, although he alone was exempt from criticism in the South Africa debacle. Yet to recover from the heavy working over the Australians gave him, he will need a successful spell in county cricket to get back on track, although it appears that his future now lies in the longer form of the game.
Kevin Pietersen 8: Generally in good form, he showed touches of his best, notably in his half-century against Sri Lanka, and his first 50 runs against the Australians. Only really broke loose in the final game, notching his first century in a winning cause and showing how dangerous he can be when a platform is laid for him. Still, he still continued to give it away when set, one century coming courtesy of a dropped catch by Hayden . Needs to show more precision in his leg-side play, as he was caught by midwicket several times from lazy flicks, and must re-assess the way he plays when he is past 50. Even so, his superiority over the rest of the English batsmen in ODIs is painfully obvious as ever.
Paul Collingwood 6: Continued his purple patch from the end of the Australian tour as he proved the linchpin of the batting in early stages, some timely and well paced innings saving England from embarrassment against the minnows. He will probably be a bit disappointed with his contribution at the business end of the tournament, missing out against both Sri Lanka and Australia. His bowling showed up well on the slower pitches, and he showed the ability to recover from early tap. Also took a catch which was exceptional, even by his sky-high standards, against the West Indies and his name remains one of the few indelibly inked in on England's one-day teamsheet.
Andrew Flintoff 5: As was the case for much of the winter, the bowling was there and thereabouts, although somewhere short of his best, while his batting was horrible. Generally economical with the ball, he was not enough of a wicket-taking threat other than in the death overs, where he is now master. Coming in at 6, on generally slow pitches, his weakness against spin was exposed, while he appears to have lost confidence when facing seam bowling. A streaky, slogged fifty was what he needed, but it never materialised, and he needs to have a big summer with the bat to dispel notions that his days as a genuine all-rounder are over.
Ravi Bopara 6: Announced himself with a brave and resourceful maiden half-century, so nearly taking England over the line against Sri Lanka. Not much chance to make an impact thereafter, although he looked good when batting at 3 before being run out in the final dead rubber. His bowling was very underused, and he had no chance to build on a two wicket spell against Canada, against whom he played in place of the banned Flintoff. One match was enough to convince the selectors that he was worth his place ahead of Jamie Dalrymple, and he could be a fixture for some years to come.
Jamie Dalrymple 2: Lost form during the CB series in Australia, and didn't do anything when he was given the nod initially; his bowling, economical during his performances last summer, was taken apart, and he could no longer be relied on for 10 overs. The batting also fell away, and a token selection against the West Indies may well be his last, as he could prove to be an anonymous casualty of a disastrous campaign.
Paul Nixon 6: His mouth was credited for helping to pick-up England and inspire them to the CB series victory in Australia. Mercifully, he let his bat do most of the talking in the Caribbean, with useful cameos in almost every innings which justified his selection, capped by a match-winning surge against West Indies. Deserved his international break after a long county career, but it would be the wrong move to retain him this summer.
Sajid Mahmood 3: Didn't really do much to justify his initial promotion ahead of Liam Plunkett, and even less thereafter, with his usual diet of wides and slower balls feasted on by the better players, although he did creditably against Sri Lanka. He has the potential, but is not yet reliable enough to be considered for one-day cricket and, as there are better options in Test cricket, he must be sent back to Lancashire to get a season or two of bowling behind him at county level.
James Anderson 4.5: At times, it was easy to see why he was the most talked about English bowler back in 2003, but for the most part he looked a shadow of the bowler who had burst onto the scene, knocking over top-drawer batsmen with fast swing bowling. His remodelled action has none of the natural ease of his early method, and he has lost some of his potency while gaining little in terms of accuracy. Should be persevered with in one-day cricket, and he will benefit from some time with his county, as he is unlikely to make the Test team.
Monty Panesar 5: He was economical for the most part, but he has not really cracked the one-day game, and was not the wicket-taking threat England had intended him to be, bowling too quickly in a slightly negative fashion. Not totally immune from being taken apart, he is still short of being a good spinner in the shorter form, but will have plenty of chances to learn. On the bonus side, his fielding was not exposed, and the improvement has been such that it is no longer an issue.
Liam Plunkett 3: Not great in the first two games when given the chance, but was dropped without justification, and did not do himself any favours in the final game, taking the worst punishment from a fired up Gayle. Showed his batting prowess in a stand with Nixon against New Zealand, and may get a chance this summer if he can produce the goods in domestic cricket.
Jon Lewis did not play, while Stuart Broad had little impact in his one game against the West Indies, although he was one of the more economical seamers and hit the winning runs.
Michael Vaughan 3: Looked alright to begin with, against New Zealand and Canada, but failed to capitalise on starts in both of those two games and paid the price as the tournament went on, with his batting form receding to a point where he was able to do little more than block out the South African bowlers. Finally reminded us of his ability when he cut loose against the West Indies, but by then it was too late. There was also scant evidence of his fabled captaincy ability, although he was not helped by his bowlers, who were under-par. Having worked so hard to recover from his chronic knee problem, and aware as he is of the undermining nature of splitting the captaincy, he will be unwilling to give it away voluntarily, but it seems now that the decision may be out of his hands.
Ed Joyce 4: Runs against Kenya and Canada, but when tested by the better attacks, he struggled, showing both indiscretion outside his off-stump and an inability to force the pace during the powerplay overs. Discarded midway through for Strauss, he may have set back his international chances, although he was not helped by being made to open and fill the boots of Trescothick, a position and role ill suited to his silky strokeplay which was only sporadically displayed, removed from its natural home in the middle-order.
Ian Bell 5.5: Criticised for his slow scoring early on, he nevertheless made runs, while the rest of the top order crumbled around him. When moved up to open in lieu of Joyce, he showed his shot-playing ability, teeing off against McGrath in particular on the way to an enterprising 77. Possibly his best one-day innings to date, he did give it away needlessly and from then on did not register, his part in the dirge against South Africa especially disappointing. Axed for the last match, he lost his record as the only England player to have played every match over the whole winter, but there were glimpses of a future in the one-day game.
Andrew Strauss 3: Left out to begin with, he was given the unenviable task of making his World-Cup bow against the Australians, and got out cheaply despite looking good, a trend that continued for the remainder, although he alone was exempt from criticism in the South Africa debacle. Yet to recover from the heavy working over the Australians gave him, he will need a successful spell in county cricket to get back on track, although it appears that his future now lies in the longer form of the game.
Kevin Pietersen 8: Generally in good form, he showed touches of his best, notably in his half-century against Sri Lanka, and his first 50 runs against the Australians. Only really broke loose in the final game, notching his first century in a winning cause and showing how dangerous he can be when a platform is laid for him. Still, he still continued to give it away when set, one century coming courtesy of a dropped catch by Hayden . Needs to show more precision in his leg-side play, as he was caught by midwicket several times from lazy flicks, and must re-assess the way he plays when he is past 50. Even so, his superiority over the rest of the English batsmen in ODIs is painfully obvious as ever.
Paul Collingwood 6: Continued his purple patch from the end of the Australian tour as he proved the linchpin of the batting in early stages, some timely and well paced innings saving England from embarrassment against the minnows. He will probably be a bit disappointed with his contribution at the business end of the tournament, missing out against both Sri Lanka and Australia. His bowling showed up well on the slower pitches, and he showed the ability to recover from early tap. Also took a catch which was exceptional, even by his sky-high standards, against the West Indies and his name remains one of the few indelibly inked in on England's one-day teamsheet.
Andrew Flintoff 5: As was the case for much of the winter, the bowling was there and thereabouts, although somewhere short of his best, while his batting was horrible. Generally economical with the ball, he was not enough of a wicket-taking threat other than in the death overs, where he is now master. Coming in at 6, on generally slow pitches, his weakness against spin was exposed, while he appears to have lost confidence when facing seam bowling. A streaky, slogged fifty was what he needed, but it never materialised, and he needs to have a big summer with the bat to dispel notions that his days as a genuine all-rounder are over.
Ravi Bopara 6: Announced himself with a brave and resourceful maiden half-century, so nearly taking England over the line against Sri Lanka. Not much chance to make an impact thereafter, although he looked good when batting at 3 before being run out in the final dead rubber. His bowling was very underused, and he had no chance to build on a two wicket spell against Canada, against whom he played in place of the banned Flintoff. One match was enough to convince the selectors that he was worth his place ahead of Jamie Dalrymple, and he could be a fixture for some years to come.
Jamie Dalrymple 2: Lost form during the CB series in Australia, and didn't do anything when he was given the nod initially; his bowling, economical during his performances last summer, was taken apart, and he could no longer be relied on for 10 overs. The batting also fell away, and a token selection against the West Indies may well be his last, as he could prove to be an anonymous casualty of a disastrous campaign.
Paul Nixon 6: His mouth was credited for helping to pick-up England and inspire them to the CB series victory in Australia. Mercifully, he let his bat do most of the talking in the Caribbean, with useful cameos in almost every innings which justified his selection, capped by a match-winning surge against West Indies. Deserved his international break after a long county career, but it would be the wrong move to retain him this summer.
Sajid Mahmood 3: Didn't really do much to justify his initial promotion ahead of Liam Plunkett, and even less thereafter, with his usual diet of wides and slower balls feasted on by the better players, although he did creditably against Sri Lanka. He has the potential, but is not yet reliable enough to be considered for one-day cricket and, as there are better options in Test cricket, he must be sent back to Lancashire to get a season or two of bowling behind him at county level.
James Anderson 4.5: At times, it was easy to see why he was the most talked about English bowler back in 2003, but for the most part he looked a shadow of the bowler who had burst onto the scene, knocking over top-drawer batsmen with fast swing bowling. His remodelled action has none of the natural ease of his early method, and he has lost some of his potency while gaining little in terms of accuracy. Should be persevered with in one-day cricket, and he will benefit from some time with his county, as he is unlikely to make the Test team.
Monty Panesar 5: He was economical for the most part, but he has not really cracked the one-day game, and was not the wicket-taking threat England had intended him to be, bowling too quickly in a slightly negative fashion. Not totally immune from being taken apart, he is still short of being a good spinner in the shorter form, but will have plenty of chances to learn. On the bonus side, his fielding was not exposed, and the improvement has been such that it is no longer an issue.
Liam Plunkett 3: Not great in the first two games when given the chance, but was dropped without justification, and did not do himself any favours in the final game, taking the worst punishment from a fired up Gayle. Showed his batting prowess in a stand with Nixon against New Zealand, and may get a chance this summer if he can produce the goods in domestic cricket.
Jon Lewis did not play, while Stuart Broad had little impact in his one game against the West Indies, although he was one of the more economical seamers and hit the winning runs.
Friday, 20 April 2007
Moores rises from the mist
If the end of Duncan Fletcher's reign as England coach bore some resemblance to that of his football equivalent, Sven Goran Erikkson, the manner in which his successor was appointed was a world away from the protracted and painful process employed by the FA last year. We already knew that Peter Moores, the Academy and England A coach, was due to take over the reins in at least a temporary role, although today's announcement that he was to be Fletcher's permanent replacement was something of a surprise, as the ECB had been expected to take a view after seeing the contents of the Schofield Report, due in mid-May.
Nevertheless, the rapidity of the decision gives the firm impression that Moores was always first choice, and the ECB must be applauded for making a rare decisive move. He may not be the glamorous candidate, lacking the star appeal of someone like Tom Moody or Dav Whatmore, but his credentials are impeccable. He comes from a solid background in county cricket, bringing his career as a wicket-keeper to a premature end to concentrate on coaching Sussex, for whom he played, and leading them into the first division and, two years later, to the title.
He was then snapped up by the England setup, succeeding Rod Marsh as Academy director, and coach for A team tours. This should stand him in good stead as he seeks to build on the solid foundation he has inherited from Fletcher, and bring through the next generation, the best of whom he will already have coached.
His county connections should help him to rebuild the bridges between the international and domestic games so comprehensively burned during Fletcher's time. Expect contracted England players to be turning out more often for their counties, and more weight to be apportioned to county performance. Certainly the passing of the baton will not have escaped the notice of the likes of Chris Read and Owais Shah, two who were non grata under the previous regime.
Moores, who officially begins on May 1st, will have a number of issues to ponder before the first Test against West Indies just over a fortnight later. He is probably stuck with Michael Vaughan as captain, but will have to make a difficult decision as to which of the established batsmen is axed to accommodate him. He will also need to take a raincheck on the early-season performances of Harmison and Trescothick in particular and assess their worth at international level. The right wicket-keeper is still yet to identified, while the bowling attack needs refining. This is where Moores experience with the Academy should be of most use; he, more than anyone, will know if someone like Stuart Broad is ready to take the step-up to Test cricket.
More than anything, he needs to act a as pick-me up to an England team laid low by a disastrous six-month winter. Judging by the glowing accolades bestowed on him by those he has worked with, it seems that he is perfect for the job, intense and passionate but also sparky and light-hearted. The last two coaches England have had were at opposite ends of the spectrum; on the one hand, you had the excitable and deeply patriotic David Lloyd, while his successor Fletcher proved much more of a cold-fish, focused yet distant. Moores' task will be to steer a course between these two extremes; given time and the freedom to bring in his own people, his could prove to be a very successful appointment indeed.
Nevertheless, the rapidity of the decision gives the firm impression that Moores was always first choice, and the ECB must be applauded for making a rare decisive move. He may not be the glamorous candidate, lacking the star appeal of someone like Tom Moody or Dav Whatmore, but his credentials are impeccable. He comes from a solid background in county cricket, bringing his career as a wicket-keeper to a premature end to concentrate on coaching Sussex, for whom he played, and leading them into the first division and, two years later, to the title.
He was then snapped up by the England setup, succeeding Rod Marsh as Academy director, and coach for A team tours. This should stand him in good stead as he seeks to build on the solid foundation he has inherited from Fletcher, and bring through the next generation, the best of whom he will already have coached.
His county connections should help him to rebuild the bridges between the international and domestic games so comprehensively burned during Fletcher's time. Expect contracted England players to be turning out more often for their counties, and more weight to be apportioned to county performance. Certainly the passing of the baton will not have escaped the notice of the likes of Chris Read and Owais Shah, two who were non grata under the previous regime.
Moores, who officially begins on May 1st, will have a number of issues to ponder before the first Test against West Indies just over a fortnight later. He is probably stuck with Michael Vaughan as captain, but will have to make a difficult decision as to which of the established batsmen is axed to accommodate him. He will also need to take a raincheck on the early-season performances of Harmison and Trescothick in particular and assess their worth at international level. The right wicket-keeper is still yet to identified, while the bowling attack needs refining. This is where Moores experience with the Academy should be of most use; he, more than anyone, will know if someone like Stuart Broad is ready to take the step-up to Test cricket.
More than anything, he needs to act a as pick-me up to an England team laid low by a disastrous six-month winter. Judging by the glowing accolades bestowed on him by those he has worked with, it seems that he is perfect for the job, intense and passionate but also sparky and light-hearted. The last two coaches England have had were at opposite ends of the spectrum; on the one hand, you had the excitable and deeply patriotic David Lloyd, while his successor Fletcher proved much more of a cold-fish, focused yet distant. Moores' task will be to steer a course between these two extremes; given time and the freedom to bring in his own people, his could prove to be a very successful appointment indeed.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Quiet end for the silent revolutionary
One cannot help but notice the cyclical nature of Duncan Fletcher's reign as England coach. Not only did it neatly coincide with two full turns of the international wheel, but it ended as it began, with gutless batting and defeat to South Africa. Yet no England fan, however embittered by the downturn in fortunes since 2005, could make the glib assertion that English cricket has also come full circle, and is back where it was when he started in 1999.
The vagaries of the international schedule have dictated that the last three World Cups have all followed on from failed Ashes campaigns, away from home, with the ensuing result unerringly dismal. The fact that this is the second time Fletcher presided over such a sequence, along with the general malaise which has descended on England over the last 18 months has sparked a call for change so loud that even Fletcher, so often stubborn in the face of criticism, could not ignore.
Even if England had come home with the Ashes urn in one hand and the World Cup in the other, there was a good chance that we would have seen the last of Fletcher. For this winter represented the chance for him to make an indelible mark on the history of English cricket. In Test matches, he has achieved almost everything, beating all-comers on home soil, and leading successful ventures to Asia, South Africa and the Caribbean. To have retained the Ashes and emulated the feat of Mike Gatting's team on the corresponding tour 20 years ago would have been his crowning achievement, while a successful World Cup campaign would have dispelled all the criticism of England's one-day form throughout his reign.
Unfortunately, it was not to be. During happier days, especially the glory run in 2004-5, Fletcher was always a background figure in the public eye, with his influence behind closed doors. He may have alienated the press to an extent with his attitude, but the results were always good enough to keep the criticism at a manageable level. Recently, with performances and results on the decline, his methods have increasingly come under scrutiny. His two most high profile selections on the Ashes Tour, those of Giles and Jones over Read and Panesar were castigated, even though the reason behind them, that of strengthening the lower-order batting, had been heralded as one of his legacies. Yet he was wrong; the basis for the selections was sound, the logic misapplied.
Ever since he put his eggs in the unpopular basket back in Brisbane, he has been fighting against a tirade of criticism, making a difficult winter even more trying. It is sad that the man who has certainly been England's most successful coach will go out with an Ashes whitewash and a botched World Cup campaign ringing in his ears and that his achievements will be tempered by the steep fall from grace in the last 18 months of his reign.
He first took on the job in 1999, in a decade during which the England team had plunged from one disaster to the next. There might have been no shortage of talent, but, hampered by a selection policy which would have disgraced a paranoid schizophrenic, they lurched from one failure to the next. Fletcher showed just what might have been, winning a home series against a still capable West Indies side and then guiding them to double success on the subcontinent, with series wins in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka - arguably one of his greatest and most underrated achievements.
Central contracts were introduced in 2000, bringing to an end the madcap situation whereby England players were accountable to both club and country. The policy may have its critics, not least from those in the county game, but one need only take a look at the way English rugby is being torn apart by the club vs. country row to see that it was the right way to go.
With Nasser Hussain, appointed to the England captaincy at the same time as Fletcher was given the job of coach, he formed a strong bond which suited both men. Hussain's forthright nature allowed him to take control of the team, while allowing Fletcher to take his preferred back-stage role. Darren Gough, long England's lone strike bowler, was finally given a worthy partner in Andy Caddick, with whom he formed England's best opening bowling partnership since Willis and Botham.
Fletcher may have copped flak in later years for his sometimes misplaced loyalty to players, but he showed himself in his early years to be no mean judge of talent. Without him, we might never have had Michael Vaughan or Marcus Tresocthick, both with mediocre county records, but in whom Fletcher rightly saw the talent and temperament to succeed at the highest level. Of course not all his punts were successful; amongst the less good calls on the South Africa tour of 1999-00, were Chris Adams, Gavin Hamilton and Graeme Swann, none of whom made an impression on the international game.
From that base of players who he had inherited, he built a new team, a core of then young fast bowlers such as Hoggard, Harmison and Jones backed up by an experienced batting core of Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe. That was, in effect, the basis of the side which stormed the Caribbean in early 2004, the starting point for a golden period. That was under the leadership of a new captain, Michael Vaughan, another with whom Fletcher was compatible. The main batsmen in that side had been replaced a year later, when the 2005 Ashes came around, yet England still triumphed. Hussain had by then retired, and Butcher was injured, but it was the decision to drop Thorpe in favour of Kevin Pietersen was a gutsy one. At the time, many felt it was wrong (including myself), he was, after all, dropping the man who had been England's foremost batsmen for a decade, in favour of someone who was at that time little more than a glorified slogger. Even on the first day of that momentous series, as Pietersen defied a hopeless situation and took the attack to Australia, Fletcher was vindicated. Perhaps now, he will look back with a half-smile at how one decision could have been so fruitful, while the equivalent ones he took a year later were so awry.
Of course, despite continued success at Test level, there were always question marks over England's ODI team. During Fletcher's eight year reign, there have been perhaps three batsmen who could be relied on in the shorter form. At one point two of them, Knight and Trescothick, opened the batting, while Pietersen only emerged in early 2005. Otherwise, England's batting in limited-overs cricket has been fairly dismal. Players such as Hussain, Stewart, Vaughan, all excellent Test batsmen, were incapable of expanding their games to suit the shorter format. Add to that the traditional inability of English batsmen to play good spin bowling, and you have a recipe for disaster. Yet as much as the players are largely responsible, one has to wonder how Fletcher, so revered as a batting coach, was unable to help them focus their games more productively. Furthermore, on the selection front, he was as patchy in ODI teams as he was consistent for Tests. Not only did he fail to identify talented county players suited to the one-day game, he would chop and change, somehow always ending up back with the same collection of failures, such as Solanki, Blackwell, Clarke and Kabir Ali.
Briefly, during the summer of 2005, the one-day side way successful, matching Australia. However, this was practically a mirror of the Test team, boosted by the presence of two proficient one-day players, Trescothick and Pietersen and Flintoff in the form of his life. A year later, it had descended into chaos. Everyone who was nobody was given a go: think Chapple, Bresnan, Loudon and Yardy. Even a month before the World Cup, untried players were being given their first go.
There was also Fletcher's attitude to the county game, at best apathetic, at worst, disdainful. Although central contracts have been an undoubted positive, there is an extent to which they have gone too far. While one does not want to see someone like Flintoff or Harmison bowled into the ground, they do, however, still need to bowl; it is not good enough to simply turn up on the day an expect them to produce the goods, a lesson which Harmison's displays in the recent Ashes will hopefully have driven home.
There will be a time in the near future for reviews and recriminations, and for blame to be apportioned and shouldered. But right now, followers of the England cricket team should pause for a minute to salute a man who has been of immeasurable value to them over a long period and who has transformed a team in the doldrums to one capable of, however briefly, defeating champions. He leaves with England in a state of disarray, but with a structure he has helped impose which should stand it in good stead for the future. As the announcement of his resignation was made today in his absence, he departs much as he arrived, in relative anonymity. Still, his impact on English cricket has been significant, and will linger on, even if the man himself will not.
The vagaries of the international schedule have dictated that the last three World Cups have all followed on from failed Ashes campaigns, away from home, with the ensuing result unerringly dismal. The fact that this is the second time Fletcher presided over such a sequence, along with the general malaise which has descended on England over the last 18 months has sparked a call for change so loud that even Fletcher, so often stubborn in the face of criticism, could not ignore.
Even if England had come home with the Ashes urn in one hand and the World Cup in the other, there was a good chance that we would have seen the last of Fletcher. For this winter represented the chance for him to make an indelible mark on the history of English cricket. In Test matches, he has achieved almost everything, beating all-comers on home soil, and leading successful ventures to Asia, South Africa and the Caribbean. To have retained the Ashes and emulated the feat of Mike Gatting's team on the corresponding tour 20 years ago would have been his crowning achievement, while a successful World Cup campaign would have dispelled all the criticism of England's one-day form throughout his reign.
Unfortunately, it was not to be. During happier days, especially the glory run in 2004-5, Fletcher was always a background figure in the public eye, with his influence behind closed doors. He may have alienated the press to an extent with his attitude, but the results were always good enough to keep the criticism at a manageable level. Recently, with performances and results on the decline, his methods have increasingly come under scrutiny. His two most high profile selections on the Ashes Tour, those of Giles and Jones over Read and Panesar were castigated, even though the reason behind them, that of strengthening the lower-order batting, had been heralded as one of his legacies. Yet he was wrong; the basis for the selections was sound, the logic misapplied.
Ever since he put his eggs in the unpopular basket back in Brisbane, he has been fighting against a tirade of criticism, making a difficult winter even more trying. It is sad that the man who has certainly been England's most successful coach will go out with an Ashes whitewash and a botched World Cup campaign ringing in his ears and that his achievements will be tempered by the steep fall from grace in the last 18 months of his reign.
He first took on the job in 1999, in a decade during which the England team had plunged from one disaster to the next. There might have been no shortage of talent, but, hampered by a selection policy which would have disgraced a paranoid schizophrenic, they lurched from one failure to the next. Fletcher showed just what might have been, winning a home series against a still capable West Indies side and then guiding them to double success on the subcontinent, with series wins in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka - arguably one of his greatest and most underrated achievements.
Central contracts were introduced in 2000, bringing to an end the madcap situation whereby England players were accountable to both club and country. The policy may have its critics, not least from those in the county game, but one need only take a look at the way English rugby is being torn apart by the club vs. country row to see that it was the right way to go.
With Nasser Hussain, appointed to the England captaincy at the same time as Fletcher was given the job of coach, he formed a strong bond which suited both men. Hussain's forthright nature allowed him to take control of the team, while allowing Fletcher to take his preferred back-stage role. Darren Gough, long England's lone strike bowler, was finally given a worthy partner in Andy Caddick, with whom he formed England's best opening bowling partnership since Willis and Botham.
Fletcher may have copped flak in later years for his sometimes misplaced loyalty to players, but he showed himself in his early years to be no mean judge of talent. Without him, we might never have had Michael Vaughan or Marcus Tresocthick, both with mediocre county records, but in whom Fletcher rightly saw the talent and temperament to succeed at the highest level. Of course not all his punts were successful; amongst the less good calls on the South Africa tour of 1999-00, were Chris Adams, Gavin Hamilton and Graeme Swann, none of whom made an impression on the international game.
From that base of players who he had inherited, he built a new team, a core of then young fast bowlers such as Hoggard, Harmison and Jones backed up by an experienced batting core of Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe. That was, in effect, the basis of the side which stormed the Caribbean in early 2004, the starting point for a golden period. That was under the leadership of a new captain, Michael Vaughan, another with whom Fletcher was compatible. The main batsmen in that side had been replaced a year later, when the 2005 Ashes came around, yet England still triumphed. Hussain had by then retired, and Butcher was injured, but it was the decision to drop Thorpe in favour of Kevin Pietersen was a gutsy one. At the time, many felt it was wrong (including myself), he was, after all, dropping the man who had been England's foremost batsmen for a decade, in favour of someone who was at that time little more than a glorified slogger. Even on the first day of that momentous series, as Pietersen defied a hopeless situation and took the attack to Australia, Fletcher was vindicated. Perhaps now, he will look back with a half-smile at how one decision could have been so fruitful, while the equivalent ones he took a year later were so awry.
Of course, despite continued success at Test level, there were always question marks over England's ODI team. During Fletcher's eight year reign, there have been perhaps three batsmen who could be relied on in the shorter form. At one point two of them, Knight and Trescothick, opened the batting, while Pietersen only emerged in early 2005. Otherwise, England's batting in limited-overs cricket has been fairly dismal. Players such as Hussain, Stewart, Vaughan, all excellent Test batsmen, were incapable of expanding their games to suit the shorter format. Add to that the traditional inability of English batsmen to play good spin bowling, and you have a recipe for disaster. Yet as much as the players are largely responsible, one has to wonder how Fletcher, so revered as a batting coach, was unable to help them focus their games more productively. Furthermore, on the selection front, he was as patchy in ODI teams as he was consistent for Tests. Not only did he fail to identify talented county players suited to the one-day game, he would chop and change, somehow always ending up back with the same collection of failures, such as Solanki, Blackwell, Clarke and Kabir Ali.
Briefly, during the summer of 2005, the one-day side way successful, matching Australia. However, this was practically a mirror of the Test team, boosted by the presence of two proficient one-day players, Trescothick and Pietersen and Flintoff in the form of his life. A year later, it had descended into chaos. Everyone who was nobody was given a go: think Chapple, Bresnan, Loudon and Yardy. Even a month before the World Cup, untried players were being given their first go.
There was also Fletcher's attitude to the county game, at best apathetic, at worst, disdainful. Although central contracts have been an undoubted positive, there is an extent to which they have gone too far. While one does not want to see someone like Flintoff or Harmison bowled into the ground, they do, however, still need to bowl; it is not good enough to simply turn up on the day an expect them to produce the goods, a lesson which Harmison's displays in the recent Ashes will hopefully have driven home.
There will be a time in the near future for reviews and recriminations, and for blame to be apportioned and shouldered. But right now, followers of the England cricket team should pause for a minute to salute a man who has been of immeasurable value to them over a long period and who has transformed a team in the doldrums to one capable of, however briefly, defeating champions. He leaves with England in a state of disarray, but with a structure he has helped impose which should stand it in good stead for the future. As the announcement of his resignation was made today in his absence, he departs much as he arrived, in relative anonymity. Still, his impact on English cricket has been significant, and will linger on, even if the man himself will not.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Yorkshire grateful for R and R
Having endured a winter during which England plumbed the depths and kept on digging, it made a pleasant change to actually go and see some cricket, as I did today at The Oval. (that's the Brit Oval to you and me, the one in Kennington where Surrey and Yorkshire contested their first match of the LV=County Championship the day after England bowed out of ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007 in Kensington.)
Jimmy Ormond, even more corpulent now than in his England days when his girth far exceeded his wicket tally, bowled the first ball to another old England lag Craig White in front of the ubiquitous "smattering", nevertheless a few hundred more than will be expending any interest in England's game against the West Indies on Saturday.
Had you half closed your eyes, and put out of your mind that the players were dressed in white, you might have begun to imagine that England was taking itself on in a one-day game. The batting was slow to begin with, and wickets fell just as the batsmen who had got in attempted to raise the tempo. The bowling was fairly laboured, with the return of 4 wickets in the morning session probably twice what they deserved.
While the openers scratched around, Anthony McGrath started to show why Yorkshire fought so hard to keep him, as he peppered the cover boundary with a few delightful drives before falling to Mahmood, the second of three wickets picked up by the Surrey medium pace duo of Mahmood and Clarke just before lunch. His predecessor Sayers was responsible for his own downfall, slashing at a wide offering from Clarke, which brought in the billed star turn, Younus Khan. Like many who single-handedly wear the crowd's expectations, he flattered to deceive, guiding his first delivery to the boundary before playing around a straight one three balls later.
With two of their three main batsmen having fallen on 73, Yorkshire were facing a repeat of the opening of the 2002 season against the same opposition and dismissal for a total of less than 150 on a pitch whose only concession to the bowlers was healthy carry through to the 'keeper. As he made his frequent wanderings towards square leg between deliveries, Jacques Rudolph's thoughts could have been forgiven for drifting away from the Kennington Oval to its near namesake in Barbados, where he might have been celebrating a crushing victory rather than scrapping to prevent suffering the reverse.
But if his concentration ever wavered, it did not show, as he safely saw Yorkshire through to the interval precariosuly placed at 87-4. After lunch, he and Gerard Brophy were responsible for the first period of bat dominating ball, with Brophy driving Ormond to the boundary three times in one over and forcing him out of the attack. Rudolph himself began to open up, revealing a pleasant array of off-side strokes to go with the natural left-handers' proficiency on the leg-side. Steve Magoffin, who bears some resemblance to his fellow Australian Shaun Tait in countenance if not bowling action (his arm is high and vertical) trapped Brophy on 127, bringing the great white hope of English leg-spin, Adil Rashid, to the crease.
Rikki Clarke, buoyed by a few wickets in the first session, brought himself back a tad prematurely, and decided to concentrate on a short-pitched line to the correspondingly sized Rashid. Maybe no-one has told him that small men tend to play short-pitched balls better than most, and, after Rashid had warmed up with a few wild and woolly fresh air shots, he was soon tucking into the Surrey captain, launching a hooked six into the crowd, followed up by a more delicate cut for another boundary. With Rudolph allowing no respite from the other end, Clarke soon elected to take the pace off the ball with spinners Doshi and Schofield.
The portents were not good, Rudolph greeting Doshi with three boundaries, all launched back over his head to the rope at long-off. To be fair, this was not reflective of the left-armer's overall performance, which was tight, if a bit lacking in bite. Chris Schofield, himself once the supposed future of English leg-spin, found himself bowling to his successor. One can only hope that Rashid ignored what he saw, as he was served up an entire repertoire of tripe all delivered at a pace too quick to allow the ball to grip on the surface. Both batsmen accepted the easy pickings, and it was Schofield who was made to look like the teenager.
As the game slipped away from Surrey, the two batsmen increasingly settled into the comfort zone, happy to wait for the bad balls, and scoring the majority of the runs in boundaries. Rudolph, in particular, accelerated once his half-century was registered off 84 balls, only braking once the second landmark was looming. Yet as he consolidated, Rashid pounced, a mixture of sweetly timed drives and savage leg-side hoicks rushing him past fifty and within sight of a maiden first-class century.
Sadly for him, he continued in this vein even when the new ball had been taken, and he was its first victim two overs in when he attempted to cut a ball too close to him and chopped on. Rudolph followed in quick succession, chipping to cover, before Surrey again lost the plot with the end of the road in sight. New captain Darren Gough strode to the wicket at 9, ahead of a man with a Test double-century to his name; maybe Magoffin stopped taking him seriously after a few almighty slogs (fresh-air, of course), but he made the mistake of dropping short and was clubbed for a meaty maximum over midwicket. Gough departed not long after, but Surrey could still not clean out the tail, with Bresnan and Gillespie ensuring that they will have finish the job tomorrow.
Jimmy Ormond, even more corpulent now than in his England days when his girth far exceeded his wicket tally, bowled the first ball to another old England lag Craig White in front of the ubiquitous "smattering", nevertheless a few hundred more than will be expending any interest in England's game against the West Indies on Saturday.
Had you half closed your eyes, and put out of your mind that the players were dressed in white, you might have begun to imagine that England was taking itself on in a one-day game. The batting was slow to begin with, and wickets fell just as the batsmen who had got in attempted to raise the tempo. The bowling was fairly laboured, with the return of 4 wickets in the morning session probably twice what they deserved.
While the openers scratched around, Anthony McGrath started to show why Yorkshire fought so hard to keep him, as he peppered the cover boundary with a few delightful drives before falling to Mahmood, the second of three wickets picked up by the Surrey medium pace duo of Mahmood and Clarke just before lunch. His predecessor Sayers was responsible for his own downfall, slashing at a wide offering from Clarke, which brought in the billed star turn, Younus Khan. Like many who single-handedly wear the crowd's expectations, he flattered to deceive, guiding his first delivery to the boundary before playing around a straight one three balls later.
With two of their three main batsmen having fallen on 73, Yorkshire were facing a repeat of the opening of the 2002 season against the same opposition and dismissal for a total of less than 150 on a pitch whose only concession to the bowlers was healthy carry through to the 'keeper. As he made his frequent wanderings towards square leg between deliveries, Jacques Rudolph's thoughts could have been forgiven for drifting away from the Kennington Oval to its near namesake in Barbados, where he might have been celebrating a crushing victory rather than scrapping to prevent suffering the reverse.
But if his concentration ever wavered, it did not show, as he safely saw Yorkshire through to the interval precariosuly placed at 87-4. After lunch, he and Gerard Brophy were responsible for the first period of bat dominating ball, with Brophy driving Ormond to the boundary three times in one over and forcing him out of the attack. Rudolph himself began to open up, revealing a pleasant array of off-side strokes to go with the natural left-handers' proficiency on the leg-side. Steve Magoffin, who bears some resemblance to his fellow Australian Shaun Tait in countenance if not bowling action (his arm is high and vertical) trapped Brophy on 127, bringing the great white hope of English leg-spin, Adil Rashid, to the crease.
Rikki Clarke, buoyed by a few wickets in the first session, brought himself back a tad prematurely, and decided to concentrate on a short-pitched line to the correspondingly sized Rashid. Maybe no-one has told him that small men tend to play short-pitched balls better than most, and, after Rashid had warmed up with a few wild and woolly fresh air shots, he was soon tucking into the Surrey captain, launching a hooked six into the crowd, followed up by a more delicate cut for another boundary. With Rudolph allowing no respite from the other end, Clarke soon elected to take the pace off the ball with spinners Doshi and Schofield.
The portents were not good, Rudolph greeting Doshi with three boundaries, all launched back over his head to the rope at long-off. To be fair, this was not reflective of the left-armer's overall performance, which was tight, if a bit lacking in bite. Chris Schofield, himself once the supposed future of English leg-spin, found himself bowling to his successor. One can only hope that Rashid ignored what he saw, as he was served up an entire repertoire of tripe all delivered at a pace too quick to allow the ball to grip on the surface. Both batsmen accepted the easy pickings, and it was Schofield who was made to look like the teenager.
As the game slipped away from Surrey, the two batsmen increasingly settled into the comfort zone, happy to wait for the bad balls, and scoring the majority of the runs in boundaries. Rudolph, in particular, accelerated once his half-century was registered off 84 balls, only braking once the second landmark was looming. Yet as he consolidated, Rashid pounced, a mixture of sweetly timed drives and savage leg-side hoicks rushing him past fifty and within sight of a maiden first-class century.
Sadly for him, he continued in this vein even when the new ball had been taken, and he was its first victim two overs in when he attempted to cut a ball too close to him and chopped on. Rudolph followed in quick succession, chipping to cover, before Surrey again lost the plot with the end of the road in sight. New captain Darren Gough strode to the wicket at 9, ahead of a man with a Test double-century to his name; maybe Magoffin stopped taking him seriously after a few almighty slogs (fresh-air, of course), but he made the mistake of dropping short and was clubbed for a meaty maximum over midwicket. Gough departed not long after, but Surrey could still not clean out the tail, with Bresnan and Gillespie ensuring that they will have finish the job tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)