In the wake of England's much anticipated, ultimately crushing defeat in the first Test, the criticism has ranged from the contribution of the opening bowlers to that of the captain and his senior spinner. All have had prouder days than the last two in Chennai; but if England bear psychological scars they should be worn lightly. Conceding a fourth innings total as large as 387 looks criminal: a fairer way would be too look at the target less the damage done by Virender Sehwag on the fourth evening. Only in allowing him a running start did England disgrace themselves. Following his dismissal, they kept themselves in the game with necessary wickets, before, as will happen with around 100 of a large total needed, the pendulum made its fatal swing. All told it was a classic Test match of its type, the subcontinental slow-burner. Skilful bowlers, notably Zaheer Khan and Andrew Flintoff, found reward from a pitch which looked more helpful than proved the case. The batsmen with the strongest minds, and the most outrageous skill, were the significant ones, and six outstanding innings were played. In the end it was subtle momentum shifts - the lower order partnership between Dhoni and Harbhajan; England's catharsis on the fourth afternoon - which proved crucial, allied to a brutal one effected by Sehwag. Best of all, it was a Test match which lasted almost the full five days, yet never looked like finishing a draw.
-----------------------------
While India have been all-conquering on home soil this winter, it has been despite, rather than thanks to two of their greatest players, Mahendra Dhoni's predecessors as captain. Indian fans will hope that, between them, Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid have drained the chalice of its poison: both careers fell from the sky following a muted handover, which seems all the more significant in view of Dravid's subsequent plight. He has a diminishing handful of chances to rescue his career, while Kumble has already gone. There were already signs in the last Test that his kicking-horse legspin is missed, with the skilful Amit Mishra a bowler who can be attacked in a way few would have tried with Kumble. He chose the right time to depart, and increasingly it seems Dravid should follow him. And the hurt that will have been suffered by the pair over their own waning skills should be tempered by the realisation that India, as they would not have done a few years ago, are winning without them. Their ability to hold direct influence over results may have now dwindled, but the legacy of those two courteous competitors is rich.
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Polar opposites alter critical mass
Their paths into international cricket - Lord's via Johannesburg versus a tough apprenticeship with an infant county - could hardly have been more different; likewise their initiation into the top level, the opener who began and went on faultlessly and the spare-part derided as England's first specialist fielder. Yet Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood have shared a common fate over the past year: each has made a century with their career on the line; both travelled to India with a weak hold on their starting positions. But when three quick wickets threatened to dissolve England's well-earned supremacy in the 1st Test in Chennai, it was the unlikely duo who came together and steered the team back to high ground. In cricketing terms the two have more similarities: both favour shots square of the wicket, mainly off the back foot; steady accumulation is a shared purpose and sharp running a common trait. Each played his keynote role: Strauss constructing the innings apposite to the circumstances and Collingwood steeling himself in the face of a potential crisis. Within a few hours, the two most dispensible players made themselves necesary again, and England look set fair for an unlikely victory.
Come in, No.3
As Strauss and Collingwood take their leave from the last-chance saloon, the spotlight turns to Ian Bell, with enough ability for the three of them but sadly lacking the capability to capitalise on his gifts. Two innocuous dismissals will not have helped the cause of a career on which perception
weighs heavy, and Bell, albeit just two games into his latest run at the crucial No.3 position, again looks unsure in and of his place. One view is that a dead-rubber and a Test under unusually stressful circumstances are no way to judge a player's true worth. The other is that Bell has proved once again that he does not have the mettle for a primary role in international cricket, and should be relieved of his duties. His fate is one bulky issue, but just part of the even weightier problem that is England's No.3. Nasser Hussain and Mark Butcher, two doughty fighters, did valuable service there and latterly Michael Vaughan had some success moving down from the top of the order. But when compared to their rivals, who have boasted the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara, Dravid and Kallis there in recent times, England look lightweight. Bell does not currently possess the stature to be England's batting fulcrum, while Kevin Pietersen will not (fairly) promote himself, and Owais Shah, although he bats there for Middlesex, is mainly viewed as a middle-order option. Of options from the counties, Rob Key will always be pushed in some quarters, and his inclusion would allow the possibility to re-jig what remains an unbalanced top order. It would be trust in his calibre rather than recent contributions that would propel Key, however, after an underpowered summer. Which leaves Michael Vaughan, the elephant still unwilling to leave the room; it has always seemed likely that the Caribbean tour would be his one chance to prove himself in anticipation of next year's Ashes contest. And Bell's travails may well have opened an unlikely door for him.
Emperor's old clothes
Meanwhile the arrival of South Africa has been proclaimed as a further test of Australia's fallen stock. One wonders whether the home support will be more amused by the tourists' confident predictions or the news that they have turned to Duncan Flethcer to give them them new ideas about how to win down under. New seems to be what is lacking from this South African outfit: they bring a batting line-up almost unchanged from their last visit, and one which has of late been carrying as a passenger its former driving force; on the bowling front, dependence on Pollock and Ntini has become dependence on Steyn, who will be targeted by the home batsmen. Australia have problems of their own, with uncertainty over the two giant Queenslanders, Hayden and Symonds, and of course the spinning option, but this is neither the place nor opposition to expose them. As their last recourse there remains the possibility that South Africa might, in time-honoured tradition, bottle it, but it will be a surpirse if they get close enough.
Come in, No.3
As Strauss and Collingwood take their leave from the last-chance saloon, the spotlight turns to Ian Bell, with enough ability for the three of them but sadly lacking the capability to capitalise on his gifts. Two innocuous dismissals will not have helped the cause of a career on which perception
weighs heavy, and Bell, albeit just two games into his latest run at the crucial No.3 position, again looks unsure in and of his place. One view is that a dead-rubber and a Test under unusually stressful circumstances are no way to judge a player's true worth. The other is that Bell has proved once again that he does not have the mettle for a primary role in international cricket, and should be relieved of his duties. His fate is one bulky issue, but just part of the even weightier problem that is England's No.3. Nasser Hussain and Mark Butcher, two doughty fighters, did valuable service there and latterly Michael Vaughan had some success moving down from the top of the order. But when compared to their rivals, who have boasted the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara, Dravid and Kallis there in recent times, England look lightweight. Bell does not currently possess the stature to be England's batting fulcrum, while Kevin Pietersen will not (fairly) promote himself, and Owais Shah, although he bats there for Middlesex, is mainly viewed as a middle-order option. Of options from the counties, Rob Key will always be pushed in some quarters, and his inclusion would allow the possibility to re-jig what remains an unbalanced top order. It would be trust in his calibre rather than recent contributions that would propel Key, however, after an underpowered summer. Which leaves Michael Vaughan, the elephant still unwilling to leave the room; it has always seemed likely that the Caribbean tour would be his one chance to prove himself in anticipation of next year's Ashes contest. And Bell's travails may well have opened an unlikely door for him.
Emperor's old clothes
Meanwhile the arrival of South Africa has been proclaimed as a further test of Australia's fallen stock. One wonders whether the home support will be more amused by the tourists' confident predictions or the news that they have turned to Duncan Flethcer to give them them new ideas about how to win down under. New seems to be what is lacking from this South African outfit: they bring a batting line-up almost unchanged from their last visit, and one which has of late been carrying as a passenger its former driving force; on the bowling front, dependence on Pollock and Ntini has become dependence on Steyn, who will be targeted by the home batsmen. Australia have problems of their own, with uncertainty over the two giant Queenslanders, Hayden and Symonds, and of course the spinning option, but this is neither the place nor opposition to expose them. As their last recourse there remains the possibility that South Africa might, in time-honoured tradition, bottle it, but it will be a surpirse if they get close enough.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Battered Australia to rise again
So high have Australia flown over the last decade in Test cricket that every singed feather has been greedily seized upon by detractors, held up and proclaimed as evidence of irreversible decline. Two series defeats in India proved to be mere blips; the gloating that followed their Ashes reverse in 2005 led to a fierce recoil, and an 18 month period of concentrated, driven excellence. But even Australia, who, hydra-like, overcame the loss of Mark Taylor's entire batting unit, were never going to be able to revert to full power after the exodus that followed the last Ashes series. It was just a question of how they, shorn of the unique controlling mechanism that was Warne and McGrath, would cope with a team that no longer inhabited a higher plane, and how well opponents would rise to the challenge, something they had tended not to do well in the past.
It is tempting, in the wake of what must rank as their lowest point for two decades, to sink the boot into Australia with some confidence. There have been defeats before; they have been outplayed. But tenacity and talent nearly always dragged them back into contention, often to improbable victory. The most worrying thing for them here was the manner of defeat: once Tendulkar and Ganguly had batted India away from danger at 163-4, India never lost control of the game; worse, Australia never looked like wresting it from them. Perhaps the signs were there in Bangalore, where they were frustrated by India's tailenders and flaccid in their efforts to dismiss India on the fifth day.
Australia struggling in India is hardly news, and should not rank as a surprise, bearing in mind their record there even during their best years and India's tendency to run them hard even in their fortresses down under. The magnitude of defeat just serves to underline the point that Australia cannot now dominate as they have done. More than anything they were outbowled, most acutely by the Indian seam duo of Zaheer and Ishant Sharma, who found movement which eluded the Australians. Their mastery over the Australian top-order, continuing from the series last winter, offers hope for this Indian side to base itself on foundations other than the habitual pillars of middle-order batting and spin bowling.
But if the result at Mohali was a rude awakening, the new reality is one which bears a distinct likeness to its forerunner. Australia are still the best team around: even an unlikely 3-0 series result for India would only prove so much, and they are overripe for a changing of the guard which will weaken them as much as recent losses have Australia. South Africa, who have already begun to rattle sabres, do not have the resources to make good their talk. Past a core of Smith, Kallis and Steyn they are short on matchwinners; their commendable series win in England, which they did not have to play brilliantly to earn, reflected more on the state of the home side than anything else.
Two areas of weakness Australia need to sort are their opening pair and spin option. Matthew Hayden has struggled, but those who seek to write him off should remember that he has barely played since the beginning of the year, when Australia's top-order looked ragged in his absence. With Phil Jaques' back injury ruling him out for months rather than weeks, Australia are not yet ready to move out of Hayden's considerable shadow, and he should come again back on the familiar home pitches where he has always scored so heavily. Australia have been made to regret their reluctance to back their most credible frontline spinner, Beau Casson. The punt, Jason Krezja, was blown out of the water in a single practice match and will not be risked. Cameron White has been miscast as a replacement for Stuart MacGill, rather than Andrew Symonds, into whose shoes he would have fitted more easily. Australia went into the series with the notion that their seamers would cover the slow-bowling shortfall. That will be their working hypothesis until a genuine spinner emerges, but only Mitchell Johnson of the pace trio has proved fit and ready enough for the task.
That Australia are some way below full strength is part of their problem. With Andrew Symonds absent and Hayden and Lee below-par, they have been functioning without their three main attacking players, their batting and bowling leaders. Yet they remain formidable: Ponting demonstrated in Bangalore how far willpower can take him when he is truly focused, even if his subsequent troubles - unexpectedly against seam rather than spin bowling - have indicated his opening century was something of an anomaly on his Indian record. He leads a middle-order which still ranks alongside that any other side can offer, even if Michael Clarke has been strangely subdued on the pitches where he made an instant reputation for himself four years ago. When Stuart Clark regains his fitness, and Brett Lee his focus, they will again boast the best seam attack in the world. This tour may prove to be a write-off for Australia, and it will stand as a further black-mark against Ricky Ponting's captaincy should they not resurrect it, but it is on their results over the next year that Australia must be judged. It would be a surprise if, come November 2009, they have not emphatically proved the doomsayers wrong once again.
It is tempting, in the wake of what must rank as their lowest point for two decades, to sink the boot into Australia with some confidence. There have been defeats before; they have been outplayed. But tenacity and talent nearly always dragged them back into contention, often to improbable victory. The most worrying thing for them here was the manner of defeat: once Tendulkar and Ganguly had batted India away from danger at 163-4, India never lost control of the game; worse, Australia never looked like wresting it from them. Perhaps the signs were there in Bangalore, where they were frustrated by India's tailenders and flaccid in their efforts to dismiss India on the fifth day.
Australia struggling in India is hardly news, and should not rank as a surprise, bearing in mind their record there even during their best years and India's tendency to run them hard even in their fortresses down under. The magnitude of defeat just serves to underline the point that Australia cannot now dominate as they have done. More than anything they were outbowled, most acutely by the Indian seam duo of Zaheer and Ishant Sharma, who found movement which eluded the Australians. Their mastery over the Australian top-order, continuing from the series last winter, offers hope for this Indian side to base itself on foundations other than the habitual pillars of middle-order batting and spin bowling.
But if the result at Mohali was a rude awakening, the new reality is one which bears a distinct likeness to its forerunner. Australia are still the best team around: even an unlikely 3-0 series result for India would only prove so much, and they are overripe for a changing of the guard which will weaken them as much as recent losses have Australia. South Africa, who have already begun to rattle sabres, do not have the resources to make good their talk. Past a core of Smith, Kallis and Steyn they are short on matchwinners; their commendable series win in England, which they did not have to play brilliantly to earn, reflected more on the state of the home side than anything else.
Two areas of weakness Australia need to sort are their opening pair and spin option. Matthew Hayden has struggled, but those who seek to write him off should remember that he has barely played since the beginning of the year, when Australia's top-order looked ragged in his absence. With Phil Jaques' back injury ruling him out for months rather than weeks, Australia are not yet ready to move out of Hayden's considerable shadow, and he should come again back on the familiar home pitches where he has always scored so heavily. Australia have been made to regret their reluctance to back their most credible frontline spinner, Beau Casson. The punt, Jason Krezja, was blown out of the water in a single practice match and will not be risked. Cameron White has been miscast as a replacement for Stuart MacGill, rather than Andrew Symonds, into whose shoes he would have fitted more easily. Australia went into the series with the notion that their seamers would cover the slow-bowling shortfall. That will be their working hypothesis until a genuine spinner emerges, but only Mitchell Johnson of the pace trio has proved fit and ready enough for the task.
That Australia are some way below full strength is part of their problem. With Andrew Symonds absent and Hayden and Lee below-par, they have been functioning without their three main attacking players, their batting and bowling leaders. Yet they remain formidable: Ponting demonstrated in Bangalore how far willpower can take him when he is truly focused, even if his subsequent troubles - unexpectedly against seam rather than spin bowling - have indicated his opening century was something of an anomaly on his Indian record. He leads a middle-order which still ranks alongside that any other side can offer, even if Michael Clarke has been strangely subdued on the pitches where he made an instant reputation for himself four years ago. When Stuart Clark regains his fitness, and Brett Lee his focus, they will again boast the best seam attack in the world. This tour may prove to be a write-off for Australia, and it will stand as a further black-mark against Ricky Ponting's captaincy should they not resurrect it, but it is on their results over the next year that Australia must be judged. It would be a surprise if, come November 2009, they have not emphatically proved the doomsayers wrong once again.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Monty finds the worm has turned
More than ever, international players seem to be judged by the common consensus of the media. Take Steve Harmison, who, dropped after the last in a long line of insipid performances in March, was deemed, quite reasonably, to have little prospect of an international future. Six months down the line, one Test and four wickets later, Harmison has been welcomed back into the journalistic embrace as England's matchwinner. With the Harmison story no longer interesting, attention has been turned to England's incumbent spinner, Monty Panesar. When Panesar was doing well - though never brilliantly - he was England's spin bowling messiah, the long-sought missing piece. Everyone loved Monty. But all party-lines become boring after a time: his relentlessness is now mundanity; bubbly enthusiasm is irritating over-oppealing; cult-status is arrogance. Shane Warne would no-doubt be amused and delighted to learn that barely a relevant article is written without his catchy but trite assessment of Panesar's career being faithfully trotted out.
In fairness, Panesar has not made the strides he might have over the past year. Like the team, he has been successful against a weak New Zealand side and much less so when the tougher challenges of Sri Lanka and South Africa presented themselves. Yet while Panesar was a palpable disappointment in Sri Lanka, failing to either restrict or dismiss batsmen with any regularity, his efforts against South Africa were, on the face of it, reasonable. Critics point to his failure to win games in the fourth innings at Lord's and Edgbaston, overlooking the extreme placidity of the pitch at HQ and the fact that - but for an understandable umpiring error - he would have dismissed Graeme Smith at Birmingham and opened the door for England to win the game.
Invariably, in such situations, the cry goes up for Panesar to flight the ball and experiment with variations. It is generic advice for a very specific bowler. He has had success through a well-honed method: buzzing the ball in at a quickish pace, imparting heavy revolutions on it and giving it the best chance of exploiting what bounce and turn the surface has to offer. On hard, abrasive pitches, Old Trafford being the best example, he has thrived and been a matchwinner. His failings this summer have been more of control than limitation. He has dished up too many short balls, releasing any pressure built up and compromising the accuracy which has been, and needs to be, a hallmark. Panesar is a mechanical bowler, and asking him to concentrate on flighting the ball requires him to do what does not come naturally, an unhappy situation.
Comparisons are most easily made with Test cricket's other current left-arm spinner of note, New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori. Party-line here is that Panesar has much to learn from the Kiwi. And he is an admirable bowler and cricketer, a spinner of flight and guile, rather than jarring repetition. At Lord's last summer, where Panesar struggled on a flat pitch, he swept up a five-wicket, first innings haul, the sure sign of an accomplished practitioner. Yet in the next Test, at Panesar's favourite Manchester stomping ground, he was ineffective as England easily chased down 294, a scenario which had been set up by Panesar, who knifed through New Zealand's second innings with 6-37 from just 17 overs. They are two different bowlers, who prosper in different circumstances and have different areas of strength and weakness. That Vettori fits the more classical idea of a spin bowler does not make him a better one, something borne out by the statsitics, which in terms of average and strike rate are similar, slightly favouring the Englishman.
The England management have picked up on the issue fairly quickly and sent Panesar off to Sri Lanka for a month's club cricket in anticipation of the Indian Test series in December. It is a good move, and hopefully it will help him improve his weak sub-continental record when England visit India. But those who are expecting Panesar to blossom into a crafty, protean practitioner should prepare to be disappointed. If spin bowling is a form of code-breaking, his is a brute-force method, and essentially that will never change. There are subtleties to be added to his game, but they are adjustments, not redefinitions, which will come with time, of which Panesar has had only two and a half years as an international cricketer. And for those who worry he will stagnate because of a lack of comeptition, there is the comforting thought that it may be only one more season before Adil Rashid is giving Monty even more to worry about.
In fairness, Panesar has not made the strides he might have over the past year. Like the team, he has been successful against a weak New Zealand side and much less so when the tougher challenges of Sri Lanka and South Africa presented themselves. Yet while Panesar was a palpable disappointment in Sri Lanka, failing to either restrict or dismiss batsmen with any regularity, his efforts against South Africa were, on the face of it, reasonable. Critics point to his failure to win games in the fourth innings at Lord's and Edgbaston, overlooking the extreme placidity of the pitch at HQ and the fact that - but for an understandable umpiring error - he would have dismissed Graeme Smith at Birmingham and opened the door for England to win the game.
Invariably, in such situations, the cry goes up for Panesar to flight the ball and experiment with variations. It is generic advice for a very specific bowler. He has had success through a well-honed method: buzzing the ball in at a quickish pace, imparting heavy revolutions on it and giving it the best chance of exploiting what bounce and turn the surface has to offer. On hard, abrasive pitches, Old Trafford being the best example, he has thrived and been a matchwinner. His failings this summer have been more of control than limitation. He has dished up too many short balls, releasing any pressure built up and compromising the accuracy which has been, and needs to be, a hallmark. Panesar is a mechanical bowler, and asking him to concentrate on flighting the ball requires him to do what does not come naturally, an unhappy situation.
Comparisons are most easily made with Test cricket's other current left-arm spinner of note, New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori. Party-line here is that Panesar has much to learn from the Kiwi. And he is an admirable bowler and cricketer, a spinner of flight and guile, rather than jarring repetition. At Lord's last summer, where Panesar struggled on a flat pitch, he swept up a five-wicket, first innings haul, the sure sign of an accomplished practitioner. Yet in the next Test, at Panesar's favourite Manchester stomping ground, he was ineffective as England easily chased down 294, a scenario which had been set up by Panesar, who knifed through New Zealand's second innings with 6-37 from just 17 overs. They are two different bowlers, who prosper in different circumstances and have different areas of strength and weakness. That Vettori fits the more classical idea of a spin bowler does not make him a better one, something borne out by the statsitics, which in terms of average and strike rate are similar, slightly favouring the Englishman.
The England management have picked up on the issue fairly quickly and sent Panesar off to Sri Lanka for a month's club cricket in anticipation of the Indian Test series in December. It is a good move, and hopefully it will help him improve his weak sub-continental record when England visit India. But those who are expecting Panesar to blossom into a crafty, protean practitioner should prepare to be disappointed. If spin bowling is a form of code-breaking, his is a brute-force method, and essentially that will never change. There are subtleties to be added to his game, but they are adjustments, not redefinitions, which will come with time, of which Panesar has had only two and a half years as an international cricketer. And for those who worry he will stagnate because of a lack of comeptition, there is the comforting thought that it may be only one more season before Adil Rashid is giving Monty even more to worry about.
Sunday, 31 August 2008
England ride on giant shoulders
A winding tunnel with no visible way out; the occasional, illusory glimmer of light. An apt summary for the fortunes of England's one-day side prior to Kevin's Pietersen's reign as captain; likewise for the career of Andrew Flintoff following three golden, glorious months back in the summer of 2005, when he stood tall and the cricket world sat at his feet. Almost a year ago, Flintoff's career was again ruptured by injury - terminally, it was feared at the time. He hobbled around the Twenty20 World Cup, the sort of tournament he might have dominated, bowling medium pace as England toiled. His batting was a broken wreck, the confidence and eye which once sustained a suspect technique had deserted him. It could have been a crushing end to an exhilarating career.
England had to prepare for a future without their biggest star. How desolate it seemed. The batting, to which Flintoff - along with the also departed Marcus Trescothick - had once given impetus, looked listless and blunt. They ground away - fading to dust in Sri Lanka, doing just enough to hold off New Zealand. Even Kevin Pietersen seemed to be succumbing to the collective inertia, his average and stike rate sucked into the morass. The bowling too was almost devoid of edge: once good batsmen were set, England looked to have no way of dislodging them. Flintoff was missed in the field too: for his bucket hands in the slips, inadequately replaced, and his totemic, galvanising presence. Victory across two series against a transient New Zealand outfit concealed harsh truths, already apparent to a burdened Michael Vaughan, as he was to later reveal.
In the event, Flintoff's return came too late to save Vaughan, feeling his way back into an underperforming and fractious side. But when he huffed, puffed and blew Jacques Kallis down on an electric evening at Edgbaston, Flintoff was back. He was unable to sustain the intensity as England fell away, but a statement had been made; Kallis, past 50 and belatedly setting out his stall for the series, has yet to recover. Briefly, England and their supporters were reminded of the power of Flintoff, his ability to stand toe to toe with the best players in the world and be England's champion. It is an exalted level of performance they have lacked without him and will need if they are to progress under Kevin Pietersen's leadership.
But while Flintoff looked a work in progress during the Test series, the transition to limited-overs cricket has seen him return to his all-encompassing best and fire England to undreamt-of heights. While other captains might have been tempted to forget about Flintoff's misfiring batting and concentrate on his ever-reliable bowling, Pietersen took the risk-reward path. Promotion to 5 in the order had not been earned and was a gamble, albeit one covered by England's batting depth. That has scarcely been needed, Flintoff anchoring two first-innings efforts which would have faltered without him and blasting England over the line in a 20-over chase. More telling than the runs themselves is the way he has made them: as has always been the case when Flintoff is in form, it is not power but timing that underpins his batting. Just a fraction of his fearsome strength is needed to dispatch bowling to all parts and Flintoff, batting well within himself, has shown full knowledge of this. His bowling, needless to say, has been supreme.
Stumbling blocks lie ahead, most tangibly over seven matches in India where his fitness and fallibility against spin will be examined. He will also need to translate his batting form to Tests, where he has always been less at ease. England, for all their one-day strife of recent years, have still managed a good home record, and more than one series win against an overripe South African outfit will be needed to convince cynics that there truly has been a renaissance. But, for now, Flintoff is flying and taking England with him. And it is a long time since we have been able to say that.
England had to prepare for a future without their biggest star. How desolate it seemed. The batting, to which Flintoff - along with the also departed Marcus Trescothick - had once given impetus, looked listless and blunt. They ground away - fading to dust in Sri Lanka, doing just enough to hold off New Zealand. Even Kevin Pietersen seemed to be succumbing to the collective inertia, his average and stike rate sucked into the morass. The bowling too was almost devoid of edge: once good batsmen were set, England looked to have no way of dislodging them. Flintoff was missed in the field too: for his bucket hands in the slips, inadequately replaced, and his totemic, galvanising presence. Victory across two series against a transient New Zealand outfit concealed harsh truths, already apparent to a burdened Michael Vaughan, as he was to later reveal.
In the event, Flintoff's return came too late to save Vaughan, feeling his way back into an underperforming and fractious side. But when he huffed, puffed and blew Jacques Kallis down on an electric evening at Edgbaston, Flintoff was back. He was unable to sustain the intensity as England fell away, but a statement had been made; Kallis, past 50 and belatedly setting out his stall for the series, has yet to recover. Briefly, England and their supporters were reminded of the power of Flintoff, his ability to stand toe to toe with the best players in the world and be England's champion. It is an exalted level of performance they have lacked without him and will need if they are to progress under Kevin Pietersen's leadership.
But while Flintoff looked a work in progress during the Test series, the transition to limited-overs cricket has seen him return to his all-encompassing best and fire England to undreamt-of heights. While other captains might have been tempted to forget about Flintoff's misfiring batting and concentrate on his ever-reliable bowling, Pietersen took the risk-reward path. Promotion to 5 in the order had not been earned and was a gamble, albeit one covered by England's batting depth. That has scarcely been needed, Flintoff anchoring two first-innings efforts which would have faltered without him and blasting England over the line in a 20-over chase. More telling than the runs themselves is the way he has made them: as has always been the case when Flintoff is in form, it is not power but timing that underpins his batting. Just a fraction of his fearsome strength is needed to dispatch bowling to all parts and Flintoff, batting well within himself, has shown full knowledge of this. His bowling, needless to say, has been supreme.
Stumbling blocks lie ahead, most tangibly over seven matches in India where his fitness and fallibility against spin will be examined. He will also need to translate his batting form to Tests, where he has always been less at ease. England, for all their one-day strife of recent years, have still managed a good home record, and more than one series win against an overripe South African outfit will be needed to convince cynics that there truly has been a renaissance. But, for now, Flintoff is flying and taking England with him. And it is a long time since we have been able to say that.
Saturday, 23 August 2008
All aboard the KP express
And suddenly, it's all about Pietersen. Pietersen the master batsman; Pietersen the golden-arm; Pietersen the intrepid leader. King Midas, Nostradamus and Paul McKenna all rolled into one. It could have happened no other way. In time, salutary questions such as where the golden touch led Midas will need to be addressed; for now there is little option but to hold on tight and enjoy the ride. What must be said for Pietersen is that he has wasted no time in putting together the team he wants and thinks can be successful. Owais Shah has finally been shown to a seat at the top table after years of fighting for scraps; Andrew Flintoff's batting ego has been massaged with promotion; while Steve Harmison, the player drawn most tightly into the Pietersen embrace, is back to add snap to the change bowling.
The immediate signs are promising: Flintoff, back at 5 where he has produced his best in one-day cricket, constructed his most significant innings since his 2005 zenith; Harmison took two important wickets and was inexpensive. England, for so long lacking in one-day cricket, looked to have deep resources in both batting and bowling. Indeed so well did the specialists deliver in the first game against South Africa that all-round luxuries Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright were little more than window-dressing. One of them will be cut to make room for one-day lynchpin Paul Collingwood, who adds experience as well as balance, which looked slightly askew with so many all-rounders cluttering the lower-middle order.
Much was good about England, but even the all-encompassing figure of Pietersen could not mask all the old flaws, still mainly concerning the beginning of the innings with both bat and ball. A partnership of Ian Bell and Matt Prior at the top showsis no progress from England's post-Trescothick stagnation. In a way they did their job, Prior especially, setting up a platform for the middle-order to expand upon. The potency of Pietersen when coming in at around the 20-over mark and batting through was thoroughly demonstrated. But Bell batted too long and unwisely, before perishing slightly unfortunately to a stunning catch from AB De Villiers. Had his square cut sped away to the boundary, Bell might have gone on to make the big, anchoring contribution that is being asked of him. Certainly his fortune contrasted with that of his captain, who might have been adjudged leg-before twice before he had got going. But Bell is not the type of character to make his own luck; whispers suggest that the new regime may not have too much patience for him, either. And with England now travelling very much under the KP brand, Bell could easily find himself sidelined. Pietersen may have shown an inclination to embrace awkward characters - akin to Nasser Hussain, as Vic Marks has suggested - but there are always the faces that do not fit, and Bell may be one of those left behind.
While the return of Harmison sharpens England's attack, the new ball pairing is still a conundrum. It seems a long time since England have seen the best of James Anderson with the white ball, a curiosity considering he has begun to settle into Test cricket and has been a given in England's one-day line-up for some time. An off-colour Anderson destabilises the balance of the attack, especially when he opens alongside Stuart Broad, who will continue to have good and bad days. Ryan Sidebottom, when he returns from injury, might be needed to shore up the new ball attack, with Harmison and Flintoff either unwilling or unwise options in that regard.
More than anything, England were lucky, with decisions and the attitude of the opposition. South Africa, although reinforced with some one-day specialists, are yet to recover the focus they left behind at Edgbaston. The fielding was lax and three of their top 4 gave their wickets away, when only one needed to score big to win the game. No-one understands cricketing hangovers better than England of late; some would say there are suffering from an extended one themselves, while in the past they have benefited from them at the start of one-day series. It would be a surprise if South Africa, who are competing for the title of No.1 ODI side, do not come at them hard under the lights at Nottingham. At least England will be ready, Pietersen having acknowledged the trend when England start a series well. But there is more work to be done if a familiar tale is not to unfold.
The immediate signs are promising: Flintoff, back at 5 where he has produced his best in one-day cricket, constructed his most significant innings since his 2005 zenith; Harmison took two important wickets and was inexpensive. England, for so long lacking in one-day cricket, looked to have deep resources in both batting and bowling. Indeed so well did the specialists deliver in the first game against South Africa that all-round luxuries Ravi Bopara and Luke Wright were little more than window-dressing. One of them will be cut to make room for one-day lynchpin Paul Collingwood, who adds experience as well as balance, which looked slightly askew with so many all-rounders cluttering the lower-middle order.
Much was good about England, but even the all-encompassing figure of Pietersen could not mask all the old flaws, still mainly concerning the beginning of the innings with both bat and ball. A partnership of Ian Bell and Matt Prior at the top showsis no progress from England's post-Trescothick stagnation. In a way they did their job, Prior especially, setting up a platform for the middle-order to expand upon. The potency of Pietersen when coming in at around the 20-over mark and batting through was thoroughly demonstrated. But Bell batted too long and unwisely, before perishing slightly unfortunately to a stunning catch from AB De Villiers. Had his square cut sped away to the boundary, Bell might have gone on to make the big, anchoring contribution that is being asked of him. Certainly his fortune contrasted with that of his captain, who might have been adjudged leg-before twice before he had got going. But Bell is not the type of character to make his own luck; whispers suggest that the new regime may not have too much patience for him, either. And with England now travelling very much under the KP brand, Bell could easily find himself sidelined. Pietersen may have shown an inclination to embrace awkward characters - akin to Nasser Hussain, as Vic Marks has suggested - but there are always the faces that do not fit, and Bell may be one of those left behind.
While the return of Harmison sharpens England's attack, the new ball pairing is still a conundrum. It seems a long time since England have seen the best of James Anderson with the white ball, a curiosity considering he has begun to settle into Test cricket and has been a given in England's one-day line-up for some time. An off-colour Anderson destabilises the balance of the attack, especially when he opens alongside Stuart Broad, who will continue to have good and bad days. Ryan Sidebottom, when he returns from injury, might be needed to shore up the new ball attack, with Harmison and Flintoff either unwilling or unwise options in that regard.
More than anything, England were lucky, with decisions and the attitude of the opposition. South Africa, although reinforced with some one-day specialists, are yet to recover the focus they left behind at Edgbaston. The fielding was lax and three of their top 4 gave their wickets away, when only one needed to score big to win the game. No-one understands cricketing hangovers better than England of late; some would say there are suffering from an extended one themselves, while in the past they have benefited from them at the start of one-day series. It would be a surprise if South Africa, who are competing for the title of No.1 ODI side, do not come at them hard under the lights at Nottingham. At least England will be ready, Pietersen having acknowledged the trend when England start a series well. But there is more work to be done if a familiar tale is not to unfold.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Pietersen the inheritor of a tainted legacy
In an age when it seems perfectly normal for a team to finish a Test match on the Saturday under one captain and begin the next five days later with a new leader, one could almost be convinced that Kevin Pietersen is the sane choice to succeed Michael Vaughan as England's captain. In all seriousness, the selectors had almost nowhere else to go once they had decided to unify the captaincy. If nothing else the appointment will provoke heated debate, as the man himself has never failed to do throughout his career. But those who seek to label Pietersen as nothing more than an ego with all the trimmings miss the point: none but an uncommonly precise and driven character could have successfuly completed the unconventional road to stardom Pietersen has manufactured for himself. Indeed his presence is so all encompassing that it is amazing to think he has been in the team but three summers.
One thing he will not lack is the courage of his convictions. In increasingly troubled times for English cricket he will need them. The success of the team during the Duncan Fletcher era showed what can be achieved. But it was self-contained; the lessons and policies have proved non-transferable and the connections with that team - diminishing now Vaughan has gone - must not disguise that England are at their lowest ebb for almost a decade. Fletcher's tenure was successful in navigating the team away from the mismanagement and whimsy that undermined a talented generation in the 1990s. But, towards the end of his time and ever since, they have continued on the same course unabated, drifting further away from the happy medium towards the equally capricious opposite extreme. In the batting, especially, there seems to be an unhealthy lack of competition: form needs to become an almost national issue before anyone can be axed. Pietersen cannot effect change overnight on the team ethic, but he must ensure a gradual shift in dynamic. Vaughan achieved something similar, as a sympathetic counterpoint to Nasser Hussain, whose disciplinarian regime had run its course. In whatever way he chooses, Pietersen must restore England's edge.
Even before the first 'leading out England, Kevin Pietersen' has reverberated around The Oval, he has made a statement of intent. His first team will contain five bowlers, with Steve Harmison reinstated and Andrew Flintoff back in the all-rounder's berth at 6. In one hand he has grasped two nettles: both have questions hanging over them in their chosen positions and Pietersen has prudently sought to resolve them early on. Nevertheless, the honeymoon could last little longer than a few days: his old friend Graeme Smith will have been re-energised by the turn of events, and any prospect of the South Africans relaxing in the wake of their series victory has dissolved with Pietersen's elevation.
Like any England captain he will be judged on results against Australia. At this stage, his chances look slim. After The Oval there are just six Tests to refine the line-up, focus minds and build the necessary momentum. Foremost in his priorities must be establishing the best bowling attack. Flintoff should be the lynchpin, but establishing whether or not he can fulfil an all-round role will be crucial. Whether he plays as one of three or four seamers, another strike bowler is needed: in that regard they will need to examine the relative merits of Harmison and Simon Jones. Stuart Broad adds a nice balance but cannot play a part unless his bowling has improved. With his head spinning over that delicate conundrum, Pietersen will then need to set his mind to the thorny issue of the top 3, and the hardy perennial that is the wicket-keeper debate. He won't want to forget about his own batting either. That could be important. No sweat, King Kev. Give it 110%.
One thing he will not lack is the courage of his convictions. In increasingly troubled times for English cricket he will need them. The success of the team during the Duncan Fletcher era showed what can be achieved. But it was self-contained; the lessons and policies have proved non-transferable and the connections with that team - diminishing now Vaughan has gone - must not disguise that England are at their lowest ebb for almost a decade. Fletcher's tenure was successful in navigating the team away from the mismanagement and whimsy that undermined a talented generation in the 1990s. But, towards the end of his time and ever since, they have continued on the same course unabated, drifting further away from the happy medium towards the equally capricious opposite extreme. In the batting, especially, there seems to be an unhealthy lack of competition: form needs to become an almost national issue before anyone can be axed. Pietersen cannot effect change overnight on the team ethic, but he must ensure a gradual shift in dynamic. Vaughan achieved something similar, as a sympathetic counterpoint to Nasser Hussain, whose disciplinarian regime had run its course. In whatever way he chooses, Pietersen must restore England's edge.
Even before the first 'leading out England, Kevin Pietersen' has reverberated around The Oval, he has made a statement of intent. His first team will contain five bowlers, with Steve Harmison reinstated and Andrew Flintoff back in the all-rounder's berth at 6. In one hand he has grasped two nettles: both have questions hanging over them in their chosen positions and Pietersen has prudently sought to resolve them early on. Nevertheless, the honeymoon could last little longer than a few days: his old friend Graeme Smith will have been re-energised by the turn of events, and any prospect of the South Africans relaxing in the wake of their series victory has dissolved with Pietersen's elevation.
Like any England captain he will be judged on results against Australia. At this stage, his chances look slim. After The Oval there are just six Tests to refine the line-up, focus minds and build the necessary momentum. Foremost in his priorities must be establishing the best bowling attack. Flintoff should be the lynchpin, but establishing whether or not he can fulfil an all-round role will be crucial. Whether he plays as one of three or four seamers, another strike bowler is needed: in that regard they will need to examine the relative merits of Harmison and Simon Jones. Stuart Broad adds a nice balance but cannot play a part unless his bowling has improved. With his head spinning over that delicate conundrum, Pietersen will then need to set his mind to the thorny issue of the top 3, and the hardy perennial that is the wicket-keeper debate. He won't want to forget about his own batting either. That could be important. No sweat, King Kev. Give it 110%.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)