Home

  • MUFC v LFC etc

    It’s into that part of the football season where I will spend hours at a time looking at the league table and fixture list and working out the various permutations of who needs to win against whom for me to get the results I want. (Specifically: Champions League qualification and for neither of the Manchester clubs, but especially not United to win the title.) This year, it’s also an opportunity to look back at all the points we’ve dropped against clubs trying to avoid relegation and think what might have been. (If we’d beaten Wigan, Blackburn and Bolton in the past six weeks we would be pretty comfortable in fourth right now.)

    Liverpool and Tottenham can help each other tomorrow by winning. We play United (as everyone knows and more on which below) who are five points in front of Tottenham and they play Newcastle who are four points in front of us. Obviously three points will be very, very hard to get at Old Trafford, but we beat them at home in the FA Cup and we have a bit of momentum against teams from Manchester recently. If we can get those three points then if Arsenal even draw at Sunderland we will go into sixth. It’s not a huge improvement, but every bit helps and we need to start moving up the table.

    The match itself starts at a more than a little bit irritating 06.45 CST, which is really far too early to be getting up on a Saturday, but I would not think of missing it. I do think we have a chance of pulling off an upset. United’s defence looks shaky and we will have an extra motivated Suarez and probably an in-form Bellamy. We have occasionally looked a bit shoddy at the back too, despite how good Agger and Skrtel have been overall, and it will be very difficult against a United who have scored twice the number of goals this year that we have. I think we have a great chance of getting a goal or two, however, (though we will need to be less wasteful in front of goal, that seems like it has been more of a problem at home) and if we can hold firm at the back I think we will have a very good chance of winning.

    The match is also notable for being the first time Suarez and Evra have come face to face since the FA hearing. There has been some speculation about whether Evra will shake Suarez’s hand before the match. I’m sure I’ve heard something more pointless, but I’m hard pressed to think of what. There is no point in any of them shaking hands, ever. It is an entirely meaningless display of ritual sportsmanship, a cursory glance at cricket and football will show that it has no effect on the game. The battle between Evra and Suarez will be much, much more interesting than whether or not they shake hands. Hopefully Evra will repeat the performance he put in at Anfield.

    ,

  • Some things I missed

    I’m still kind of catching up on events that I missed during the final Test. (The time difference was so awkward I did not have time to do a lot.) The most amusing thing was probably Sahara pulling their funding from the BCCI and IPL. The Sahara press release was possibly the strangest one I’ve ever read; it was written in a very informal style, used the phrase ‘natural justice’ five times and described their deal with the BCCI as ‘primarily emotional’. It read like someone playing up their hardships in an effort to get a sympathetic response (which it almost certainly was) and most unlike almost every other press release I have read. I have no idea how this will affect the BCCI in the long run. I assume they have plenty of money in the coffers, though they also seem to have a knack at offending their commercial partners (the TV rights-holders spring to mind). It also further exposes the shoddy administration of the IPL. It’s almost as though the tournament was thrown together for the purpose of making a quick rupee and everything else fell by the wayside. Funny that.

    The other big piece of news that I missed was the Woolf Report to the ICC. It proposes some fairly major changes to the structure of the ICC and I rather like it. It almost certainly won’t get accepted, due to the ‘turkeys don’t vote for Christmas’ principle, but there are some good recommendations. Most of it is aimed at curbing the power of the largest boards and giving the Associates more say, which would only be a good thing. The problem, of course, is that those larger boards have to ratify the proposals. We have already seen with the DRS and Test Championship that even when there is large support it is very hard to get the ICC to actually do anything. It’s particularly amusing/galling (depending on how dark one’s sense of humour is) that the inherent impenetrability is one of the reasons why the ICC badly needs reform.

    , , ,

  • Capello out…

    Fabio Capello has fairly surprisingly resigned as the England manager after meeting with the FA today. I had nothing against Capello’s tactics (the problem was that the players weren’t performing) and I prefer to see a manager given ample time to get settled before deciding he is not the right fit. That said, I am glad that he is gone, because I think his backing of Terry made him untenable. I strongly dislike Terry. Regardless of whether or not it’s true that he racially abused Ferdinand, Terry is a very sleazy character. For him to be the public face of the England football team speaks very poorly of the sport. (Though there are quite a few other things that do so more effectively.) I don’t think someone like Terry would ever have been allowed to captain the England cricket team. (Compare Terry to Strauss for a moment.) It is the fact that Capello could still support Terry as captain that made him unsuitable for the job as manager, and hopefully he would have been sacked if he had tried to stay on.

    It does bring up the question of who will replace him. Redknapp is the odds-on favourite as he meets the main requirement of being English at a time immediately after a foreigner was in charge. He’s also done a very good job at Spurs, and I think he would do well for England. It would be a blow for Spurs, however and honestly I think Redknapp has a much better chance of success at White Hart Lane than Wembley. The second favourite is Stuart Pearce, who is managing the U-21 side and will apparently manage the friendly against Holland. I think I would prefer Pearce to Redknapp for the long term. Partly because Tottenham are the only team I like left in the title race, but also because Pearce will have seen quite a few of the players already and have some experience in getting them to play together as a unit, which is one of the things that seems to have been problematic England in the past.

    ,

  • Pakistan v England limited overs preview

    England are looking to bounce back in the limited overs leg of the UAE tour, having lost a Test series for the first time since the start of 2009. On the face of it, they look about as likely to bounce back as they are to go back in time and play the Test series over. Since returning home from that ill-fated tour of the West Indies England have won 31 and lost 30 ODIs, but are 14-17 away from home. In Asia, going back to when England played Pakistan in 2005, England have won just 13 and lost 25 ODIs. England will make some changes to the side that was beaten in the Tests, with Bell out of the side and KP set to open. Tim Bresnan is also back fit and will provide a good bowling option, whilst Steven Finn performed admirably in India last year. I very much doubt any of that will be enough for England to perform any better than they did in India, however. Pakistan are probably a tougher challenge than India, and England did not make that series close.

    England are also considered the best T20 team at the moment and are still World Champions in that format, but were also hammered by the West Indies at the end of last summer. (Though I got the impression that no one really cared.) England also won the T20 in India, which was reasonably impressive. There will be three T20s, so it will be interesting to see how a full series plays out. The short form of the game makes it very hard to predict the result, but I think that uncertainty will benefit England. After the results in the Tests, the T20s are probably their best chance to get something out of the tour. At the very least it will be practice for the T20 World Cup in Sri Lanka.

    , , ,

  • Six Nations thoughts

    I was preoccupied by the Test match, but I watched the two of the first three Six Nations matches at the weekend. I already talked a bit on the Armchair Selector about the Scotland v England match, but I don’t think I emphasised how lacklustre England still looked. It didn’t really surprise me, given the number of new faces in the side, but they did not fill me with confidence. The defence especially looked patchy and were fortunate to concede only six points. It was a poor match from both sides, however, and not a particularly entertaining one. Both sides will need to improve in order to finish high in the table.

    The other match I watched was Ireland v Wales. After the meetings at the World Cup and last year’s Six Nations it looked before the match like it could be the best fixture of the entire of the tournament and will certainly take some beating. As disappointed as Ireland will be to have lost, Wales were probably the deserved victors. The did not quite dominate play, I thought, but they looked more fluid and better organised. Had they been on the losing side I think they would have been just as disappointed overall, albeit with a less singular cause. With Wales hosting France later in the tournament, this win should put them clear favourites for the title.

    The match I did not watch was France v Italy. (There was cricket on and I only have so many hours in a day.) France won, which is no surprise, though I heard that Italy played better than they have in the past. Italy may have a decent chance to spring an upset this year; they host England and Scotland both of whom look to be amongst the weaker teams in the tournament. Next Saturday is Italy v England and France v Ireland, with Wales v Scotland on Sunday. I’m tipping England to win against Italy, but they will not find it straightforward, France to beat Ireland in a reasonably good match and Wales to overcome Scotland fairly easily.

    , , , , , , ,

  • Pakistan v England review and player marks

    There’s not much more to say about how England performed in this series. No batsman scored a hundred and only Matt Prior averaged over 30 in the series. England were not just poor with the bat, but historically awful. The only series of three or more matches in which England have averaged lower than the 19.06 they did in the UAE was the 1888 Ashes. From that perspective, it’s amazing to think that we definitely ought to have wont he second Test and maybe even the third. It’s hard to know which is more surprising: that the bowlers kept us in the match after the batsmen had failed so badly or that the batsmen threw away such good positions. I’ve compiled marks out of ten for each of the players:

    Pakistan
    Misbah-ul-Haq* – 7/10
    It was only a mediocre series with the bat from the Pakistan captain, but such was the nature of the series that his average of 36 was still fifth highest. More importantly for Pakistan is that he led the side well. It didn’t seem to take a lot to beat England’s batsmen, but he did not give them very many openings with his bowling changes and field placings.

    Mohammad Hafeez – 6/10
    Only one score of note with the bat, 88 in the first match, but he made it into double figures each of his other innings as well. His main contribution was with the ball, spinning it early in the innings. He took five wickets at 16 apiece, including the wicket of Cook on the first morning that started the rot for England.

    Taufeeq Umar – 3/10
    Passed fifty in the first Test, but was dismissed cheaply by Swann and Anderson in the next two. Victim of some good bowling, but did not look assured and did not defend well.

    Azhar Ali – 9/10
    Overcame an indifferent start to the series to finish top of the averages thanks to a match winning 157 in the final Test. He also scored a crucial (and possibly also match winning) 68 in the second Test and showed considerable maturity throughout.

    Younis Khan – 6/10
    A high score of 127 in a series where only one other batsman made it to three figures would seem to require more than six points out of ten, but he only scored 66 runs in the other four innings in the series. His high score before that knock had been 37 in the opening Test, and that had been ignominiously ended when he was lbw to Jonathan Trott.

    Asad Shafiq – 5/10
    A very creditable series for a batsman from whom little was expected. He passed 40 in three of the five innings in which he batted, but had difficulty going on and his top score was only 58.

    Adnan Akmal† – 4/10
    In rating the latest Akmal’s performance it is important to compare him with other wicket-keepers, not just his infamous brother. He did a reasonable job with the gloves, but appealed every time the ball hit the pads. (Though I will concede that a lot of them were out.) Had a hilarious drop early in England’s third Test run chase, but it cost them little. Poor series with the bat, but better than most were expecting.

    Abdur Rehman – 9/10
    A fantastic series for the left arm spinner, he finished only behind Ajmal in the series wicket tally and was the main destroyer in England’s second and third Test collapses.

    Umar Gul – 8/10
    Very quietly had a brilliant series. All of the headlines were about England woes against spin and with the effectiveness of Ajmal and Rehman he only needed to bowl 74 overs in the series. In those 74 overs he took 11 wickets at 22.27 and with a strike rate second only to Ajmal.

    Saeed Ajmal – 10/10
    Came off a brilliant 2011 and could not have made a better start to 2012. England could not read his variations and never got over the mess he made of them in the first innings of the series. Bell in particular looked all at sea facing him. Deserved man of the series.

    Aizaz Cheema- 1/10
    Only played in the first and third Tests, but was hardly needed. Bowled only 27 overs and took one wicket for 70 runs. Scored 0* in each of his three innings with the bat.

    Junaid Khan – 0/10
    Sadly, never really showed up. His biggest contribution to the second Test was a terrible drop in the deep with Prior batting in the first innings. Took 0-33 off eight overs in the first innings, did not bowl in the second.

    England
    Andrew Strauss* – 6/10
    Led from the front with a good 56 in the last Test, but that was the high point as he struggled to get onto the front foot the entire series. He used his bowlers to good effect and did a good job keeping spirits up when England were in the field.

    Alastair Cook – 5/10
    Could not replicate his form from the summer, though he came closest of any English batsman to score a century this series. His soft dismissal in the first innings of the first Test set the tone for the series and he fell cheaply to start the disastrous run chase in the second Test too.

    Jonathan Trott – 5/10
    Second in England’s batting averages, but needless to say he still had a poor series. Made a good 74 in the second Test, but had an untimely illness in the second and could not meaningfully contribute to the run chase.

    Kevin Pietersen – 1/10
    Not merely a poor series from KP, but an abysmal one. He threw his wicket away more often than not, his efforts in the second innings of the first Test deserving special criticism. He finally started to find some form in the third Test, but still could not master the trick of hitting the ball with the bat when defending.

    Ian Bell – 1/10
    Poor Ian. Only once did he look like he could pick the variations from Ajmal and when he did he was trapped by Gul instead. His dismissal in the third Test run chase was one of the worst one will ever see, the very picture of a batsman out of form. From a man who came into the series on the back of an imperious 200 against India, it was rather a shock.

    Eoin Morgan – 1/10
    Eoin Morgan was supposed to be the man who would play spin. Supposedly his unorthodox style and ability to score quickly and to all parts of the field were going to be invaluable against spin. Instead he consistently threw his wicket away to the spinners. Just for a change in the last Test he threw his wicket away to Gul instead, but the entire series clearly showed up a dearth of application.

    Matt Prior† – 7/10
    England’s best batsman, plus another good series with the gloves (though he did not have a huge amount to do behind the stumps). He started the series with an unbeaten 70 as England collapsed and finished it with an unbeaten 49. His form dipped in between, but he was one of only two batsmen to get into double figures in the second Test run chase.

    Stuart Broad – 9/10
    Put in an absolutely amazing effort in the series. He was the pick of the English bowlers with 13 wickets at just over 20 and put England into excellent positions in the second and third Tests. He was more than handy with the bat as well, averaging more than KP, Bell and Morgan and scoring more in one innings (58* in the first innings of the second Test) than Bell did in the series.

    Graeme Swann – 8/10
    Rather unexpectedly found himself as the second spinner when Monty returned to the side, but still performed admirably. He finished with 13 and an almost identical strike rate to Broad, but conceded about sixty more runs. As usual, he was most effective against left-handers

    Jimmy Anderson – 8/10
    Took a bit of a back seat to Broad, but certainly did not embarrass himself. He was very unlucky to end up with only nine wickets, but bowled a very tight, probing line throughout.

    Monty Panesar – 9/10
    England sprung a surprise by playing two spinners in Abu Dhabi, and Monty took the opportunity superbly. He took 6-62 in the second innings to set up what should have been a very straightforward run chase. He was the only English bowler to take five wickets in a match in the series and he did so twice, picking up 14 in all.

    Chris Tremlett – 0/10
    Only played in the first Test and only had a chance to bowl in the first innings. He took 0-53, never looked particularly threatening and was dropped in favour of Monty.

    Despite the poor performance of England in the series, I would not make wholesale changes for Sri Lanka. It is worth remembering that we did come up against some very good bowlers in conditions which suited them. KP and Bell averaged over 70 and over 100 last year, respectively, so to suggest that they be dropped over one poor series is very, very harsh. Similarly, Andrew Strauss has not been in the best of form with the bat, but he is easily the best leader of the side. Cook showed in the ODIs in India that he is not ready for the captaincy yet, and I would certainly not want to entrust Broad with it as I would want some England to still have reviews left after the first over. In any case, Strauss was the best of the full time batsmen in the third Test.

    A change I would make is that I would drop Morgan.He has shown in this series that he is not a Test batsman. That is not to say that he will never be one, but he was brought into the side on the back of limited overs performances and I think a season playing first class cricket will do his temperament no end of good. In his place I would play Tim Bresnan, assuming he is fit (which seems likely). Whilst it seems odd to suggest playing one fewer batsman after the struggles in the UAE, Bres has a Test batting average of 45. Not only is this very reasonable on its own, it is actually 15 runs higher than Morgan averages. It’s good enough that I would pick him as a batsman over Mogan and Bopara even if he did not bowl a single ball.

    That is the only change I would make, however, the other batsmen have good enough records that they certainly deserve another chance against the weaker Sri Lankan bowling and Monty has easily done enough to stay in the starting XI. It’s been a poor series, but these players will be strongly motivated to put that behind them and play well in Sri Lanka.

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Dubai, third Test, day three

    England have not yet lost. It’s more of a cruelty than anything else, however. Pakistan collapsed abruptly to some sharp spin in the evening session to leave England a very improbable target of 324 to win. England made it to stumps on 36-0.

    The highlight of the day, the match, and maybe the series, was Azhar Ali. He scored a fantastic 150, the highest individual score of the series and a fantastic demonstration of how to bat on a pitch like this. He seldom took any undue risks, but scored when he had the opportunity to do so and rotated the strike well. It took over nine hours and demonstrated the utmost maturity and patience of which we have seen too little in Test cricket recently. It was an innings of Cook-esque brilliance and without it England’s target would be looking a lot more gettable. It may well be that he has hit a match winning knock for his country in a match and series were almost all of the batsman have failed and he thoroughly deserves every bit of praise he gets.

    Pakistan lost their last seven wickets for only 34 runs and lost them to some sharp spin from Monty (who bagged another five-fer) and Swann, so I don’t think England will score another 288 runs and win the Test. Stranger things have happened, of course, and our batting did look a bit better in the first innings, but it is unlikely. England need a good foundation from this pair, but I fear they will need to put on about 200 to make England favourites as it’s not uncommon for a team for team to get off to a good start in a run chase and then collapse to a big defeat. (England chasing 400+ at Lord’s in 2005 is a good example.) For England to win the match they will have to bat out of their skins on a pitch that is now turning sharply. They won’t quite need their highest score in the series, which is 327, but they will need someone to step up and score a century in the same way that Ali did for Pakistan. It is a batting order which we know can score runs and if they manage to knock these off it will be a famous victory. By definition, however, famous victories are quite rare; more likely is that they will get close enough to make us optimistic and then lose anyway. Like I said: it’s cruel.

    , , , ,

  • Pay no attention to the man in the blue shirt!

    You should definitely already be watching Jeremy Irvine’s excellent series of Armchair Selector vodcasts. I am a guest in this episode too, so I suppose if you like reading what I write you will also like hearing what I have to say. Or you might come to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that I have a very annoying voice and should stick to writing. Either way, the rest of the programme is excellent as always:

    ,
    , , ,

  • Dubai, third Test, day two

    It’s almost over now. Today was the day that the bowlers, who have done absolutely everything they could in this series to keep England from being blown away, could finally do no more. Azhar Ali and Younis Khan have batted for two sessions and taken Pakistan to 222-2, a lead of 180. It’s probably already too many for England to chase and Pakistan can easily add another 200 to it. For the first time in the series England looked flat in the field and uninspired bowling. It’s annoying, but there comes a point at which I cannot blame them. They have performed brilliantly all series and put England in winning positions both in the second Test and in the first innings of this one only for the batsmen to let them down time and time again. They can’t be blamed for finally coming up short.

    There are two possible upsides for England. The first is that maybe maybe, just this once the batsmen will not humiliate themselves and us. The pitch is flat (though so were the other two) and maybe they can do something reasonable for once. It’s unlikely, though the Pakistani batsmen have done well and they had a poor series too. More likely is that the bright side will be that the match will be over today. Pakistan could bat almost to stumps, but if they declare at lunch, or even the afternoon drinks break we probably won’t have to come back tomorrow. I’m not sure which I would prefer.

    ,

  • The DRS, again

    Once again there has been controversy in this Test about the use of the DRS. I already wrote my thoughts on the DRS in general, but this series has brought up some new points. Mostly the talk has been about the number of LBWs that have been given with the review system (never any mention that most of them were given out anyway) and how that caused the low scoring in this match.

    I think, once again, that most of the criticism has been unwarranted. The DRS is changing how players have to play in that they are not necessarily safe even getting a big stride in. Whilst this is a change, it is not something batsmen cannot get used to. It may be easy to say from sitting on my settee, but one can never be out LBW if one hits the ball. Getting a big stride in and exploiting the benefit of the doubt used to ensure being given not out, but that does not mean all those ‘not out’ decisions were good. The principle of the LBW law has not changed: if one is hit on the pads and the ball would have hit the stumps one is out. It’s very simple and the other caveats of the ball having to pitch inside the line of leg stump and hit inside the line of off stumps have not changed either. The only thing that has changed is that the decisions are being made correctly now, instead of batsmen being able to exploit uncertainty. Now the batsmen must learn to hit the ball with the bat, which cannot be a bad thing. It will take some getting used to, but the necessary changes in technique will surely take place.

    I have heard that it pointed out that the batsmen cannot always make contact with the ball and should be able to play with bat and pad together, but why? If one misses the ball and is bowled no one suggests one has been hard done by. The same is, or ought to be, true in this case. The onus must be on the batsman to hit the ball, not defend with his pad.

    I have also heard it suggested that if the ball is only clipping the stumps it should be given ‘not out’ rather than ‘umpire’s call’. There is some merit in this. Theoretically, if the umpire has already taken ‘benefit of the doubt’ into consideration than there is no need for technology to do so. This, theoretically, is the situation currently in place. There has been some suggestion, and not unfounded I think, that the umpires are giving decisions out more regularly knowing that the DRS is there. I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with that, but if so the technology must give the batsman benefit of the doubt and give close decisions not out.

    The final suggestion that I have heard that I want to address is that the DRS is the reason for all of these low scores. It has possibly played a role, but the batsmen have played brainlessly for the most part and a lot of the LBW shouts that have been given have been given on the field, not on review. On the low and slow pitches of the UAE, bowled and LBW are always going to be more likely than caught.

    There are improvements that can be made to the DRS; in addition to the one given above there are improvements that need to be made to the technology. Virtual-Eye has been much less reliable than than HawkEye is the most notable one, but improvements to HotSpot are also in order and a version of Snicko that worked quickly enough to use in the DRS would be very nice. The system itself is a good one though. It may alter the way batsmen have to play on the subcontinent, but that will not kill the game and in this series at least has made it more exciting. Most importantly, there are more correct decisions being made now.

    , ,