Home

  • New Year’s Tests

    Like on Boxing Day there are two Tests back to back this week; stumps in Sydney lead neatly into the start of play at Cape Town. Unlike on Boxing Day I’m not going to all but ignore South Africa, but the Australian match is on at a more reasonable time (for me) so I’ll still focus on them.

    Australia still have a lot of questions to answer, despite their emphatic victory at the MCG. Their batsmen collapsed to 27-4 whilst trying to build a lead despite mediocre bowling and being under no pressure to score quickly. Their shot selection was poor, and not for the first time this year. Warner is a good young player, but he still has work to do on curbing his aggression. Cowan left a ball a bit too close, but he still looks like the most reliable member of the top order. Leaving balls is not something his compatriots have done nearly enough. On the bowling side, Harris is back in the squad, but not expected to play. After their strong performance at Melbourne that isn’t surprising, no bowler gave a performance that would be worthy of being dropped.

    India are in a clearly worse state than Australia. Their batsmen still seem incapable of dealing with the slightest movement and worse did not even seem to realise that they could not play the same shots that they would on the subcontinent. There does not appear to be a lot they could change with regard to selection, after the performance in England there does not seem to be any point to playing Raina in place of Kohli. Their bowlers are not the problem, but they do not have the strength in depth to exploit the pace of the pitches as Australia have done. They must find a way to make their batsmen play sensibly, especially Sehwag at the top of the order. The age of the batmen make this look unlikely, however, they are fairly well established in their styles.

    The pitch is expected to help the quicks as it has the previous two years. This will help Australia, and they should try to ensure that the pitches in the remaining two Tests do the same. I expect it will be another low scoring game then, and it will probably be decided by who does the best job of knuckling down. Australia will be happy with that; Dravid is the only batmsan who appears to be able to knuckle down and having been bowled twice off legal deliveries and once off a no-ball he might have a weakness that Australia can exploit. If he does fall cheaply Australia will be strong favourites, as India do not look like having anyone else who can build an innings. I’m predicting an Australian win by 50 runs.

    I mostly ignored the Boxing Day Test between South Africa and Sri Lanka. The first match went the way I had predicted and the series did not look like it was going to be as close or as interesting as the one in Oz. Of course, then, it turned into a reasonably close and quite surprising match. I had underestimated South Africa’s ability to choke, especially on Boxing Day. They collapsed, again, and lost, again. It’s great news for the neutral like myself, as the series is now 1-1 going into Cape Town. South Africa still ought to win, but they never ought to have lost the previous match and I’m not sure they’ll be able to force a victory.

    Prince has been dropped and Alviro Petersen will play in his stead. Petersen is an opener by trade and Prince batted at number six, so it’s not clear where he will bat at Cape Town. With Rudolph struggling a bit at the top I would expect Petersen to open and Rudolph to move down the order. Philander is also back fit, which leaves a slight conundrum for the selectors. Marchant de Lange was Philander’s replacement at Kingsmead and took seven wickets in the first innings. Morne Morkel performed better in the second innings though, and may yet keep his place. I would be tempted to give de Lange another Test in which to try to push for an extended run.

    Sri Lanka shouldn’t feel like they need to do too much differently. A draw will be a good result in the series for them, and the pressure will be firmly on South Africa to win the match. Given their history when the pressure has been on Sri Lanka will feel like they have a good chance to at least draw and maybe even win the match. Their only injury concern (or at least only new injury concern) is that of Dinesh Chandimal, and he is expected to be fit to play. I’m predicting a draw, with South Africa on top but not doing enough to actually win.

    , , , , , ,

  • 2011 XI

    After an all-too-few 39 matches, 2011 is over. Well not really, but the next Test is at the SCG on 3 January, so the year is over for all intents and purposes. As my final look back on the year I have compiled an XI for 2011. It’s a generalised lineup; I have given no thought to specialised conditions such as a spinning Indian wicket or a seaming English one. Doing so would also be an interesting exercise, but this is a good place to start. For the balance of the side I went with four bowlers and six batsmen. It’s not one with which I entirely agree, but England were undefeated with it this year so there we are. My XI is thus:

    Alastair Cook*
    Rahul Dravid
    Kumar Sangakkara
    Kevin Pietersen
    Ian Bell
    Younis Khan
    Matt Prior†
    Stuart Broad
    Dale Steyn
    Saeed Ajmal
    James Anderson

    12th Man: Misbah-ul-Haq

    Cook is an obvious choice. He started the year by scoring 189 runs at the SCG (in one innings, obviously) and barely slacked off after that. He scored 927 runs in only eight matches this year at an average of 84, including 294 at Edgbaston to form the base of England’s 710-7 declared. I also selected him as captain. Although he does not have a lot of experience none of the players in my XI are currently captain and Cook is being groomed as Strauss’ replacement. This XI should not need a particularly strong captain, however, just look at how successful Ponting was. The selection of his opening partner was much more difficult. Few other openers stood out and none came close to matching Cook. Dravid is not a regular opener, and has said that he does not like to open, but did so with aplomb in England. He was lead run scorer this year and averaged better than 57, but in the five innings in which he opened he averaged almost eighty. Although it’s not his regular position, there are no other openers who impressed in the same way that he and Cook did, so they are my opening pair.

    By selecting Dravid as an opener it opens up the number three spot and the choice of Sangakkara is an easy one. He scored over a thousand runs this year (only Dravid scored more) and has just come off a match winning century in Durban. He averaged over fifty batting in the middle order as well, and often seemed to carry his side. Ian Bell, although he has preferred batting at number three, spent a lot of the year at number five, so that is where he goes into this XI. His selection was as easy as Sangakkara’s though; he scored 950 runs at 118 apiece this year. He was the only batsman this year to average over 100 after playing in more than one match. Younis Khan was the last pretty straightforward selection. He scored 765 runs at an average of exactly 85, the second best amongst all middle order players. It was a very good performance, especially as he would have had to put a lot of politics out of his head. The last middle order place went to KP, but it was a very difficult decision between him and Misbah-ul-Haq. In the end I though KP had a better year, making a spectacular resurgence against India. Misbah scored a lot or runs, and did a brilliant job captaining the side, but KP had a better average and also provided a good explosive option after the top three who would have built a solid base. Although he was the last selection he goes in at number four as that is his usual spot.

    The selection of a wicket-keeper was easy, Matt Prior has been peerless for some time now. He averaged 64.87 with the bat and 2.25 dismissals per innings. The former is far and away the highest, whilst the latter is second by 0.02 to MS Dhoni. Unfortunately Statsguru doesn’t seem to let me sort wicket-keepers by byes, so I don’t know how he ranks in that regard.
    — Edited to add: John Townsend very kindly sent me some bye totals for this year on Twitter: Prior 122 (16 innings), Dhoni 103 (22 innings), Carlton Baugh 65 (19 innings). This surprised me somewhat. I knew Dhoni was a good gloveman, but I thought the combination of Prior’s skill, the accuracy of his bowlers and the fact that he played in fewer matches would give him a better total. The weight of Prior’s runs with the bat still gives him a place in the side (he averaged 37.98 runs better than Dhoni with the bat, so an extra 2.94 per innings conceded is not problematic) but it’s interesting that he has farther to go with the gloves than I thought. —

    Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson share the new ball in this XI. Both have led their respective attacks brilliantly this year. Steyn finished amongst the top ten quick bowlers in terms of number of wickets despite the fact that South Africa only played five matches and he was also the only full time bowler (Mike Hussey absolutely does not count) to have an average under 20 this year. Anderson had the second highest wicket tally amongst quicks this year, and achieved that in only seven matches (as he missed the Lord’s Test against Sri Lanka). He and Steyn were the only two bowlers to average better than five wickets per match this year. First change is Stuart Broad who finally remembered the importance of pitching it in the batsman’s half of the pitch. His overall numbers this year are quite impressive, 33 wickets in seven matches at an average of 22.30, but he actually did not have a great series against Sri Lanka at the start of the summer. He was still pitching the ball short and trying to be the ‘enforcer’. Against India he went back to the fuller length of the Oval 2009 and took 25 wickets in the four matches at an amazing 13.84 apiece. It was one of the best bowling performances in a series one will see, and he also chipped in by scoring 182 runs at 60.66 against India. As much as it pained me not to give the spinner’s slot to Graeme Swann, the fact is that he had a very quiet year. He only took 27 wickets in eight matches, though a large part of that was because the seamers were cleaning up at the other end. Even if he had had a fantastic year, however, it would have been impossible to ignore Saeed Ajmal. In eight matches he took 50 wickets at just shy of 24. It’s true that they were against weak teams, but statistically he was the best bowler, paceman or spinner, of the year.

    I expect there are not a lot people who would agree with every one of my selections. The batsmen were particularly difficult, but amongst the bowlers Umar Gul made a very good case for selection as well. The biggest flaw is probably that there are three proper tailenders after Stuart Broad. The top order is such that those three are very unlikely to have to bat at all though. I doubt many would think the players selected are undeserving, but I would still greatly like to see your XI in the comments.

    , , , , , , , , ,

  • 2011: England’s dominance, India’s collapse

    My original plan for this post was a month-by-month review of all sports. I got halfway through May before realising that I was even boring myself and that there was no way anyone else was going to read past the end of the Sydney Test.

    I’m not sure if it was the biggest surprise this year, but I don’t think anyone expected England to do as well as we did. England finished 2010 well by beating Australia by an innings at the MCG, but even after the Sydney Test it was not clear if England were very good or Australia very poor. Strauss and Flower’s stated ambition to become number one in the world was clearly possible, but if it was going to happen it looked like it would be a long climb to the summit. Instead it took eight months. India did not play well, but the extent of England’s dominance over the course of the 4-0 whitewash was incredible. There are no weak links in the side; even though Trott finally started to look mortal Ian Bell picked up the slack. He averaged 118 this year, 23 runs more than the next best batsman. Cook was as brilliantly obdurate as ever, KP had a resurgence and Morgan started to look comfortable at Test level. Prior is easily the best wicket-keeper in the world, both with the gloves and with the bat. Broad stopped trying to be an ‘enforcer’ (though I still haven’t stopped making jokes about it) and instead took a shedload of wickets. Bresnan and Tremlett would share the new ball in probably every other country bar South Africa, but right now they can’t both even get into the team unless someone else is injured. Graeme Swann is still the best spinner in the world and Anderson is second only to Dale Steyn. The calm leadership of Andrew Strauss has ensured that no one has got carried away. In eight Tests in 2011 England won six and lost none. They averaged 59.16 with the bat (and that’s the entire XI, not just the top order) and 28.45 with the ball. With Prior, Broad, Bresnan and Swann in the side England could reasonably be said to bat down to number ten. No other side came close to playing better than England in 2011, and the question is no longer if England are the best side in the world but if they can turn their current success into the kind of dominance that the West Indies and Australia did.

    Australia did not play for several months after the Ashes, but have made a good effort to rebuild their side. They’re batting is yet to really come around, though Shaun Marsh is talented and the dropping of Phil Hughes for Ed Cowan was long overdue. Ponting and Hussey are still in the side though, and although they made some runs at the MCG they cannot be allowed to stay much longer. They both have had poor years and are in the twilight of their careers. The real improvement for Australia has been their bowling. In Nathan Lyon they finally seem to have found a long term spinner and the injury to Mitchell Johnson was probably the best thing that could have happened. The introduction of Pat Cummins and James Pattinson in particular are major improvements. They still have some way to go, but the strides they have made since the Ashes were clear when they were playing an Indian side who did not adjust at all to being beaten by England. Australia have become a side very difficult to predict, collapsing to 47 all out against South Africa and losing at home to New Zealand, but also recording big wins over South Africa and India. It might be some time before we know how good they are, however; after what should be an easy tour to the Windies next March they do not play again until November.

    There was cricket amongst the non-Ashes sides too, although not very much. (It’s not just this year either. If you want to despair look at the number of Test matches in the Future Tours Programme.) The West Indies lost twice to India, and barely avoided losing a Test against Bangladesh. They beat Pakistan in a Test at the beginning of the year though and they made India work for their victories. (Though that’s not too impressive, see below.) All things considered it was probably a positive year, albeit not by much. South Africa didn’t play for nine months after the New Year’s Test, but looked quite good when they did. Then in the Boxing Day Test they looked dreadful and lost to Sri Lanka. It could simply be another attack of their well known mental problems, they’ve lost four Boxing Day Tests on the trot, but their batsmen are starting to age and they will find themselves in a similar position to Australia before too much longer. Pakistan were overshadowed by the spot fixing judgements, but played very well against weak opposition. Statistically they were the second best team in 2011, after England. Sri Lanka had a bad year, but they ended the year on a high with their first victory in South Africa. They need to find more consistent bowling however, over the course of the year only Bangladesh were worse. No one really expected Sri Lanka to play well after the loss of Murali though. Zimbabwe returned to Test cricket and beat Bangladesh and almost beat New Zealand, neither of whom played enough cricket this year to make an impact.

    The worst team in 2011 was surely India. They started the year as the number one Test side, but never looked interested. They did not try to force victories in Tests in South Africa or the West Indies, although the former was to win the series. They never bothered to turn up in England and then used their (self-inflicted) lack of preparedness as an excuse. They didn’t try to improve and looked just as bad at the MCG. That match was only close because Australia are not as good as England and collapsed themselves. As bad as India’s performances were, the fact that they do not seem to care is probably worse. Their batsmen are massively overrated, especially Sehwag, and all of the possible replacements are limited overs specialists. They were the worst team this year and unless there is a massive change in attitude they will be next year as well.

    Twenty-eleven also featured the 2000th Test of all time. Officially it was a close encounter at Lord’s in which 20,000 people queued for a mile to get into the ground on the last day and England finished off India in the last session. The actual 2000th Test was a week later at Trent Bridge and saw Stuart Broad and Ian Bell turn a close game into a blowout. Outside of the performances of the individual teams, the year was most notable for the resurgence of bowling and some very close finishes. England twice won a Test in the last session, India drew with the West Indies with nine down and the scores level and Australia won by two wickets and lost by seven runs in fairly quick succession. I lost count of how many debutants took five-fers this year, but I can remember at least four, plus Doug Bracewell’s match winning performance in his third Test. It was a year of fascinating and absorbing Test cricket which highlighted the short-sightedness of the administrators who had been increasingly marginalising the longest form of the game. Hopefully next year we’ll see more good performances and those in charge will give Test cricket the respect it deserves.

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

  • Australia win by 122 runs

    It wasn’t nearly as close as I expected. Yesterday I thought that 250 was the magic number, and that it would be a very close finish. I did back Australia to win, but I was thinking by about 15 runs. I had forgot, however, about India’s almost complete abandonment not just of technique but of common sense. I’m pretty hard on Brad Haddin for playing stupid shots, but this isn’t the first occasion where India have looked like a team of Haddins. (Except Dravid, I should specify.) Australia’s young quicks did well to move the ball a bit and put it in areas where it could not easily be slogged, but that should not be enough to cause some of the most successful batsmen in history to completely lose their heads as the Indians did.

    India actually never seemed to show up at the MCG. Despite starting the day with a clear chance to win (a lot of people considered them favourites) they didn’t seem interested as they tried to finish off Australia. Hussey was struck in front very early on in the innings and whilst India appealed it was very half hearted, despite the fact that the replay showed that it was plumb! The fact that it wasn’t given was not India’s fault, but their reaction showed how uninspired they were. Their fielding continued to be poor as well. Zaheer Khan failed to get into position to catch a top edge skier that was in the air for so long one thought it might have been sucked into a jet engine. Australia took well judged singles and quick twos almost at will and added 61 to the overnight score. India were clear second favourites by this time and it was almost entirely their own doing.

    As they came out to start the chase I got to see the usual buzz on Twitter about how Sehwag could take the game away from Australia and get half the runs by lunch or whatever hyperbole is favoured amongst Indians now. The same thing happened in England over the summer and he made a king pair, but no one seems to have noticed. He’s probably the most overrated player in international cricket at the moment, averaging 37 outside the subcontinent. With his feet rooted to the spot he wafted at the first ball he faced and was lucky to miss it. The camera then cut to a sign in the crowd saying that Sehwag didn’t care about footwork, complete with a drawing of him batting sat in an armchair. It was being held by an Indian supporter and appeared to be meant as a compliment, which goes a long way to explaining the form in which India’s batsmen find themselves. Needless to say it wasn’t long before Sehwag made contact with that shot and hit it straight down the throat of Hussey in the gully. I assume as he walked off he thanked Haddin for all the batting tips he’d apparently received. I understand the notion of that being how he plays, and he probably would not score any more runs if he changed his game, but chasing a tricky 292 to win it was probably the worst thing he could do. If India are going to work their way back to the Test summit, or even Test respectability, they are going to have to find a way to rein him in, or simply drop him for overseas tours.

    Sehwag’s opening partner, Gambhir, was almost as bad. He went the same way he did in the first innings, hanging his bat outside off. His dismissal also said a a lot about the Indian mentality. Hawk-Eye showed that the ball had moved after pitching, but not much, almost exactly half the width of the bat. Gambhir would have middled it, but did not adjust at all to the seam movement. I understand that it is harder to play the moving ball (that’s the point) but for a Test batsman to be so careless ought to be unacceptable. The vast majority of the Indian batsmen played in a similar style, however. Only Dravid kept his dignity intact; he merely misjudged the line of a Pattinson delivery and was bowled through the gate. Tendulkar edged a ball half a metre outside off to gully; Laxman was caught in the same way that he was twice at Lord’s, trying that hybrid pull/flick; Kohli went across his stumps and was plumb LBW (and then stood there a bit before going off muttering and shaking his head, for no reason that anyone can fathom) and Dhoni inside edged the ball onto his stumps playing a horrific mow across the line, though it was over by then anyway.

    India have two young batsmen who are good in ODIs, but do not appear to be Test quality, Raina and Kohli. The culture of the Indian team is such that those two aren’t going to have a chance to improve. The ten batsmen bar Dravid went out and played like it was a fifty over match. They seemed incapable of just leaving the ball when it was not in a position to hit. After the 4-0 whitewash last during the summer I read and heard a slew of excuses for the Indian team’s performance. The point about injuries was a reasonable one, but this match shows how specious the rest of them were. India refused to learn the lessons of that series and this is the result. They have only themselves to blame.

    , , ,

  • Sri Lanka may win a Test

    South Africa are in a lot of strife in Durban. That’s not really anything new or surprising, South Africa’s last win at Kingsmead came against the West Indies in 2008. For some reason they seem to have a lot of trouble batting there, each of their last three matches (four including this one) has included a score under 200. Their 168 all out against Sri Lanka is actually an improvement on their previous three matches in which they were bowled out for 138 by Australia, 133 by England and 131 by India. The match against England is particularly interesting as they dominated the other three matches in the series, but had to settle for a 1-1 draw. If they go on to lose this match, as looks very likely, they will have to force a victory in the final Test to avoid the same result.

    Mark Boucher has been under some pressure recently, and that is going to increase after this Test. In the first over of the day (after the first hour was lost to rain) Kumar Sangakkara, on three, edged to the area between Boucher and first slip. Boucher reacted very late and only managed to put off the slip fielder (Graeme Smith, I think). The catch went down and Sangakkara went on to make 108 to probably put the match out of South Africa’s reach. The rest of Sri Lanka’s batting card is not impressive and I suspect that if Sangakkara had not been in to build partnerships with the rest of the order Sri Lanka would be all out by now, and obviously for at least 100 runs fewer. Sri Lanka currently lead by 426 and have three wickets in hand. Some rapid-fire batting from the tail should get them to about 460-475 with almost all of the final two days remaining. Even with their depleted and unreliable bowling that ought to be too many for South Africa to chase (it would be comfortably a record) and too much time for South Africa to bat out.

    , , ,

  • MCG, day 3

    Australia’s day. Yesterday I said India gained an advantage without looking comfortable. Today they looked only a little bit worse and conceded that advantage. The day got off to a terrible start for them, as Dravid was bowled in the first over. This time it was off a legal delivery and left India 214-4. (And fulfilled Geoffery Boycott’s adage of adding two wickets to the score, as they had been 214-2 last night.) It also left them with a new batsman and a nightwatchman at the crease. It’s never a good situation, but Sharma batted with poise and demonstrated why he was given the role. In particular he dealt with the short ball well, but the rest of the Indians apparently weren’t watching and collapsed in a heap. There was some pretty good bowling, but the batting was distinctly ordinary. It was certainly not the work of the pitch, which was still only displaying the bit of nip it had on the first two days. At their nadir India were 259-9, having lost 7-45. In the midst of all this, however, Clarke did something which I thought was odd. Peter Siddle had Laxman caught behind in the 73rd over to make the score 221-5. With the seamers having taken two middle order wickets and a new batsman batting with the nightwatchman Clarke decided to take off a seamer and put on Nathan Lyon. I understand wanting to save the seamers for the new ball, but they were doing fine with the old ball. Clarke could have waited to take the new ball and given his seamers a proper go with their tails up, but he didn’t. It did not cost Australia, but Lyon didn’t get a wicket and he let off some pressure. It was not until Clarke went back to two seamers that a wicket fell and it did so immediately after the bowling change. I’ve never really rated Clarke as a tactician (though he’s better than Ponting) and this was another example. (He also had a deep fine leg to a tailender which is is only acceptable if it’s to catch a top edge which this wasn’t.)

    I can’t really say India’s last wicket partnership spared their blushes, they only got the score to 282, but the 23 they put on was the highest of the day for India and the third highest of the innings. It meant that Australia had a very handy looking lead of 51 and just needed to bat well to get themselves into a position where India would be under real pressure. They didn’t, of course. Warner and Cowan went out and appeared to have switched bodies. Warner blocked and left and nudged singles (and actually faced every ball of the first three overs) whilst Cowan hooked one which went for four off the top edge. It was only a matter of time before Warner’s patience ran out, though, and you have to think the Indians knew that. The 27th ball he faced was wide outside off and he dragged it on to his stumps. He had made only five. Cowan went three balls later, but refused to do so in such a way as to support my body switching hypothesis. Instead he played one of his almost trademark (if a debutant can be said to have a trademark) leaves to one that nipped back from outside off. It hit the pad, looked a good shout live and the umpire sent him on his way. It probably was not the greatest shot (or lack thereof) selection, given that nipping off the seam was one of the few things the pitch had been doing pretty consistently. Hawk-Eye showed that the ball was actually missing off by a fraction, but it was so close that one could not blame the umpire. (It was Umpire Erasmus, I think.) Apparently Tom Moody on ESPN Star Sports especially could not blame the umpire, and he spent the next several minutes talking bollocks about batsmen leaving the ball too much. Fortunately Marsh played on a few overs later, giving him the chance to talk about something else instead. (Weirdly, he did not mention that Marsh ought to have left that ball outside off.) Marsh’s dismissal was actually a bit impressive. The ball was quite full and well outside off and I still can’t quite work out how Marsh got it onto leg stump. Clarke then went to a much more orthodox inside edge onto the stumps and it was 27-4.

    To put that in perspective, when Australia were bowled out for 98 at this time last year their fourth wicket fell for fifty-odd. Their tail was probably stronger then too, and Ponting and Hussey weren’t looking terminally out of form. (Or at least Hussey wasn’t.) Today though Ponting and Hussey put on a stand of over 100. It was probably worth at least twice that, given the position in which Australia had been, and it served to highlight how good the pitch really was. It did not completely take the game away from India, but the body language of the fielders clearly dropped. If Ponting had kept batting the contest might be all but over now, but he let India back in to the game with a loose shot to a wide delivery from Khan that went straight to gully. Haddin did the same thing shortly thereafter, though to an even wider delivery. Haddin’s dismissal actually pleased me considerably, as I predicted the manner on Twitter about two minutes before it actually happened. Admittedly it isn’t too hard with Haddin, but it was still gratifying. Hussey stuck around with the tail (though was fortunate to be dropped by Dravid off Ashwin) and Australia ended the day 179-8, a lead of 230.

    I expect tomorrow to be the last day. Hussey might be able to shepherd the tail a bit, but I can’t see Australia getting too many more. If they do it’ll probably be game over though, as India will be hard pressed to chase anything considerably over 250. Right now it is very, very finely poised. Fielding may turn out to be the difference. Both these sides fielded poorly and ran between the wickets poorly when they were losing to England. Since then Australia look like they have made a concerted effort to improve, but India have not. Ricky Ponting’s fifty came when he hit a ball toward third man that pulled up inside the rope. The fielder (I think it was Sehwag, but it might have been Laxman) pursued it very casually and what ought to have been a three became an all-run four. I doubt Australia will win by that one run, but it is indicative of a difference in attitude which may cost India.

    , , ,

  • MCG, day two

    India are on top, but not in an orthodox way. If you look at the scoreboard you’d say that they are dominating the match. Australia only made 333 and in reply India are 214-3. When a side trail by only 119 with seven wickets in hand they ought to be well on top. India probably are, but they aren’t dominating the game. They’ve looked just a bit off through most of the day. They got a couple of quick wickets at the start, but they couldn’t get the Australian tail out as cheaply as they ought to have. Peter Siddle made 41 but when he was out it was still only 291-8. Pattinson, Hilfenhaus and Lyon conspired to put on another 42 however and lasted almost all the way to lunch.

    When India finally did bat they did not look particularly settled. Gambhir made only three in a stand of 22 before edging Hilfenhaus behind. He was batting with Sehwag, so it’s not surprising that he did not dominate the partnership, but Sehwag looked a bit skittish too. He made 67 off 83, but managed to do so without ever looking really settled. This was a far cry from the Sehwag of the subcontinent. (He averages 60.91 on the subcontinent and 37.91 everywhere else.) Only once did I see him middle a ball to the boundary. Most of his aerial drives were leading edges and he was dropped three times. One of those was a pretty inexcusable miss from Haddin, who is not justifying his selection at the moment. Sehwag continually had trouble controlling the ball that came up at his ribs, but it was a fuller one that did for him. It seamed back in, took the inside edge of his drive and went onto middle stump. During all this Rahul Dravid had played in his usual restrained style. He did well, but he did still hang his bat at the odd delivery going away from him. I even saw him chase a wide one. He looked uncomfortable, but not as bad as Sehwag had done. Tendulkar came in to the usual massive (and well deserved) ovation. He almost played the second ball he faced onto his stumps before trying to gift Michael Hussey a wicket just before tea. He failed, as there wasn’t a fielder close enough. (Because it was Michael Hussey bowling the last over before tea to Sachin Tendulkar. I’m surprised Clarke didn’t have everyone on the boundary.)

    India looked at their most settled after tea. Clarke seemed to have run out of ideas and Tendulkar started scoring at a run a ball. It was quite fun to watch. He went past his far more senior partner with a selection of picturesque drives. It isn’t original, but he is one of the mot pleasant players to watch. It’s actually a bit frustrating, because I really like him as a batsman and I’ve heard he’s a great bloke in person. The problem is that his fans (or at least the more vocal ones) are some of the most irritating people with whom I have ever interacted. (I mentioned on Twitter that he’s quite like Jesus in that regard.) I never want to hear about his ‘100th 100’. I never want to hear anyone suggest that he’s better than Bradman. Coupled with India’s opposition to the DRS it all makes me want Tendulkar to fail, just to avoid his fans. It’s harsh of me, I know, and I feel bad about it. Still, when he was bowled through the gate for 73 I was very happy to know that those incredibly annoying fans were very sad. (It also made for a good object lesson: Even if you are the best batsman since Hutton you still shouldn’t play across the line when the ball is doing a bit off the seam.)

    The day’s play ended shortly thereafter. Tendulkar’s 73 is the highest score in the match so far, though Dravid is 68 not out overnight. Dravid settled in during a lot of Tendulkar’s innings (at one point Clarke brought David Warner on to bowl) but he was bowled off a no-ball by Siddle and after that he went back to looking unsure. It summed up India’s day: Successful without looking comfortable. Australia will have possibly their best chance to bowl tomorrow morning. The first half hour to an hour is always a bit tricky and they’ll have fresh pacemen going against a nightwatchman and an uncertain looking Dravid. Pattinson and Siddle both had fantastic spells today and they are likely to get some rewards if they continue. It will be interesting to see if India can come up with a proper lead, or if they will collapse as they did at Trent Bridge over the summer.

    , , , ,

  • The DRS must be mandatory

    I have not always been a supporter of technology in cricket. I’m a traditionalist at heart and love the old fashion notion of walking off stoically even when you’ve had a howler. I was very happy in 2009 that the system was not trialled in a series as important as the Ashes. Subsequent debacles in South Africa and the West Indies ought to have deepened my distrust, but the more I saw it used the happier I became with it. Part of it was just a matter of getting used to it, but also there was the added comfort of knowing that our batsman weren’t going to be given out to a howler at a crucial moment. The poor showing in the 06/07 Ashes was not entirely, or even mostly, down to umpiring decisions, but they played a part. They also started a slide that could have ended Strauss’ career, and England would probably not be as good now without him. It is frustrating for one’s side to get a wicket and have it not be given, but it is more frustrating I think to have a batsman unfairly given out. Even in its early teething problems the DRS leaned more toward keeping batsmen in than giving them out.

    The DRS today still isn’t perfect. It never will be, of course, nothing is. HotSpot has trouble detecting faint edges, especially in warmer climates. Sometimes Hawk-Eye gives very odd looking results, and the display could be altered to more adequately reflect the margin of uncertainty. (It is certainly more variable than just ‘half a ball width’.) The manufacturers of HotSpot have already worked to improve their system and Hawk-Eye will improve as cameras get better and better as well. Even if the current technology were as good as it would ever get, however, I would support making it mandatory. Even now it is better than the human umpires. As much as I like Jonathan Agnew, his suggestion that technology not be adopted until it is 100% is silly. Any improvement is a good thing, any time a poor decision is overturned the game is better off for it.

    It is also not true to suggest that having the DRS encourages players to disrespect or undermine umpires. In the time when the quality of an umpires decision could not be immediately and independently inspected it was true that players could undermine the umpires by questioning the decision, but that is not the case anymore. Now the umpire is going to be undermined if he makes a poor decision with or without the help of the players. If an umpire gets one wrong everyone in the ground or watching on telly will see the mistake immediately and it will be all over the back pages the next day, undermining him far more effectively than a player ever could. I doubt there is a single umpire in the world who thinks that he never makes a mistake (although I can’t remember the last time I saw Simon Taufel make one) or who would rather have that mistake shown endless times on TV than have it be simply corrected and the game moved on. By the same token it is quite possible to respectfully question a decision. No one is suggesting that players be allowed to crowd around an umpire like footballers (or Australians at the MCG last year).

    Although there are purists such as the aforementioned Aggers who oppose the DRS, most of the vocal opposition has come from India. They are the main reason why the ICC has not implemented the DRS full time and they are the only board who still refuse to use it in their series. I have never heard a good explanation for their opposition, apart from the fact that they don’t think the technology is reliable. (Which is patently untrue, otherwise there would not be an option to use it at all.) They certainly aren’t traditionalists or interested in maintaining respect for the umpires. The refused to use the DRS for LBWs in England and it hurt them when Broad took his hat trick at Trent Bridge, but it was worse for England who had a few plumb decisions turned down. Now in Australia they refused any sort of DRS and have got two dodgy wickets for it. It’s probably not going to happen, but the other boards need to force the Indians to use the DRS next time the ICC meet. In the meantime I can only hope that Tendulkar gets a few horrible decisions in this and subsequent series.

    , , , ,

  • Morning at the MCG

    As I write this it’s raining at the MCG. It started just before lunch, and we’ll lose almost half of the afternoon session. It’s already been a very good morning, however and there should be a lot about which to talk by the end of the day.

    Michael Clarke won the toss at the start of the day and chose to bat on a green wicket. I didn’t, and still don’t, agree with the decision. India’s bowlers are shaky, and there’s every chance that Khan or Sharma will go down with injury at some point in this series. (Sharma looks more likely; Khan, to his credit, looks like he’s in much better shape than when he was in England last summer.) Even if those two do last out the series, a green wicket is probably the best conditions they’ll get in Oz. With Australia’s batting still looking either very inexperienced or very frail it is unwise to give India’s bowlers what would probably be their biggest advantage of the series. A year ago today on a similar (though I think even greener) pitch Australia were bowled out for 98. On the green pitches of England India did not manage to score over 300 in eight innings. If I were in Michael Clarke’s position I would have much rather seen James Pattinson bowling at an Indian batting order that looked unable to play the moving ball in England than an Indian attack probably at their peak bowling at an Australian order who have failed to play the moving ball for four consecutive Tests.

    Australia actually had a go at proving me wrong. (And they still might, lots of time left.) Ed Cowan, on debut, and David Warner got off to massively contrasting starts. It wasn’t particularly surprising, Warner being the T20 specialist and Cowan being brought into the side almost specifically because of his patience. At one point Australia were 25-0 with Cowan not out on two. Warner raced to 37 off 49 balls, including a hook for six. He tried to hook a ball that wasn’t really there, however, and was caught behind as it popped up off his glove. Cowan, by contrast, has 29 off 77 as I type this. He kept his nerve when the going was very tough in the morning and kept the innings together after Warner and Marsh went in quick succession. In particular he showed excellent judgement outside his off stump, something badly lacking in the Australian batsmen of recent Tests. Despite this, there were complaints of him being ‘boring’. It’s the same charge that is often levelled at Alastair Cook, who averaged over 80 this year, and is just as ridiculous. In particular I could hardly believe that any Australian would make that complaint. Did they not watch Cook and Trott grind them into the dust last year? Did they not watch their batsmen flash at everything outside off and collapse to 98 all out a year ago, or 47 all out a few months ago. I agree that it is more fun to watch Ian Bell bat than Alastair Cook, but Cook is just as much of a match winner. Australia don’t have an Ian Bell type player, and if they want to start winning Tests again they must embrace Cowan’s style of play.

    Australia are now 116-2. The pitch has flattened out and Ponting and Cowan are looking settled. His critics probably won’t mention it, but Ed Cowan’s assuredness may have saved his captain some blushes.

    , , , ,

  • Hilfenhaus plays, Christian doesn’t

    Australia have announced their XI for the Boxing Day Test. There’s nothing too surprising in the selection, the XI is Warner, Cowan, Marsh, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon, Hilfenhaus. I am not convinced the selection of Hilfenhaus was wise, Starc didn’t bowl particularly impressive against the Kiwis, but nor did Hilfenhaus look even competent against England. I don’t think two Tests is really enough to write off Starc, but Hilfenhaus has had plenty of chances. It does look like it might be a ‘six down is all out’ sort of XI, so it’s quite good that they resisted the temptation to play Christian as an all-rounder in place of Shaun Marsh. As well as Warner did against New Zealand and as well as Cowan has done, they are still largely untried at this level. With Hussey and Ponting still looking terminally out of form, only marsh and Clarke inspire any sort of confidence. (And Clarke has been quite mercurial recently.)

    The announcement of the XI, whilst not surprising, also made me wonder again why Australia usually announce their starting XI so early. In recent times England have named their XI at the toss. This seems like the best course of action, even when the XI names itself, to wait to see the state of the pitch and any late fitness concerns.

    , ,