-
The wait for the 52nd hundred
There’s been a bit more talk recently about the possibility of Tendulkar reaching his 52nd Test hundred. The current India v West Indies Test is in Mumbai, and if he could get the the magic five two in his home city it would be extra special. What is so special about fifty-two you ask? Well it is the first even number after fifty for one thing. That’s pretty special. Of course the real reason why there is such a fuss about it is that if he goes to 52 Test hundreds his 48 ODI hundreds would make his total number of international hundreds is a nice round number, and people like nice round numbers. I am actually rather dreading the moment when he gets to it. Not because I have anything against Tendulkar, I should point out, but the fuss surrounding it is rather tiresome.
For one thing, it’s not a proper milestone. His fiftieth Test hundred was an amazing accomplishment, but Test and ODI hundreds are different beasts. An ODI hundred does not require the same endurance as a Test hundred, the bowling cannot tie down a batsman in the same way in ODIs as they can in Tests. Furthermore there are a lot more ODIs played than Tests. (Tendulkar has more than twice the number of ODI caps as he has Test caps.) It doesn’t really mean anything to add them together; one wouldn’t merge Test and ODI batting averages, one wouldn’t merge Test and ODI strike rates why merge number of hundreds? It’s only nice in that it will add up to a hundred international hundreds. It’s still a nice accomplishment but only insofar as the number of Test and ODI tons are individually impressive. It is not like going to a hundred first class hundreds, which involves no addition of separate stats. (Remember that Test matches are a subset of first class matches.) In the end it just isn’t meaningful. Would any rational person claim that Sanath Jayasuriya’s combined 42 international hundreds are more impressive than Wally Hammond’s 22?
And that hints at the main reason why I am dreading Tendulkar’s 52nd Test hundred (or 49th ODI hundred). There are a lot of people (I don’t think a majority, but an annoyingly vocal minority) who already claim that Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time and they will all come out of the woodwork again. There may even be serious articles in otherwise reputable news sources about this. It’s ridiculous though. There should not be any discussion about the greatest batsman of all time that does not begin and end with Don Bradman. Everyone knows his average and it is a sight higher than Tendulkar’s 56.08. Furthermore, Bradman played on more treacherous pitches. (I’m not trying to sound like Geoffrey Boycott, but feel free to imagine him saying ‘uncovered pitches’ there.) The Don also has a far higher centuries/matches ratio; he scored 29 hundreds in 52 matches compared to Tendulkar’s 51 in 183. At the rate at which he scored, if Bradman had had the opportunity to play as many Tests as Tendulkar (remember that there were fewer Tests in Bradman’s time and that he lost six years to the war) he would have scored 102 Test hundreds. Bradman blows Tendulkar out of the water in every category that corrects for a different number of Tests played.
To be fair to Tendulkar, playing 183 Tests over the course of 22 years is an incredible feat itself. Bradman, however, did not lack in longevity. He played Test cricket for 20 years and there is no reason why he could not have played close to as many Tests as Tendulkar. Tendulkar’s record is very impressive certainly, but not only is he is a long, long way behind Bradman, he is probably behind Wally Hammond as well. Hammond averaged 58.45 in his 20 year career and like Bradman did so on difficult pitches and had his career interrupted by the war. Tendulkar also has had the advantage of playing Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. (Though at the time New Zealand and India weren’t much better than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are today.) There is a decent discussion to be had about the exact order of the all time greatest Test batsmen after Bradman (Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs and Grace all have good arguments for the top five and that’s just amongst Englishmen). Tendulkar would certainly be in the top ten, but no rational person could claim him to be better than Bradman.
Perhaps I’m overreacting, but the number of Indian fans who (in some cases literally) treat Tendulkar like he is a god is already a source of irritation. I know that there are lots of rational Indian fans (and lots of irrational English fans, and indeed of all nationalities) but for whatever reason the Indian ones are louder. Perhaps it is because there are more of them as an absolute number (not as a percentage of all Indian fans). The fact that there is even talk about this ‘milestone’ is a bit daft and part of it is due to the deified status of Tendulkar. When he finally does go to three figures it will be enough take precedence over a lot of more important goings on. (I was thrilled that he didn’t do it in England and that India could not hide their humiliating whitewash behind that.) One could say that I like Tendulkar but so not like his fans. In the end I’m left teetering schizophrenically between wanting a good player to do well and dreading the reaction it will provoke.
-
Why I disagree with the ECB
There has been a very interesting discussion on Twitter about the logic of England’s schedule next summer. After the clearly too short South Africa v Australia series there has been a lot of discussion about why South Africa are only playing three Tests on these shores in 2012 and the soundness of that decision. I think I have probably made it known here and on Twitter that I think it is a bad idea, but it is not a straightforward issue and I want to spell out my thoughts.
The ECB are axeing one Test to fit in a five ODI series against Australia. From the standpoint of a spectator this looks like lunacy, but there is a reason. By agreeing to host the five ODIs against Australia England will play a reciprocal series in Oz just before the World Cup, so as to get their eye in. Also, it has been pointed out that the ODIs are money spinners and the ECB need money to fund nice things, like central contracts.
I still don’t like the decision though. For one thing, I question the soundness of the reasoning. It’s true that England have not done well at recent World Cups, but the problem goes deeper than preparation. That’s not to say that England will necessarily continue to fare poorly at World Cups (they used to fare poorly in Test matches too), but extra preparation time is still unlikely to dramatically improve the performance. Australian conditions are not as alien as Indian conditions and acclimatisation was not England’s problem in the last World Cup. (Whilst the conditions were problematic, England played better near the start of the tournament. If the issue had been acclimatisation they would have improved over the course of the tournament. The same would have happened in the most recent five match series, but clearly didn’t.) Certainly more preparation will not would not hurt, but it will only be a benefit if a lot else goes England’s way as well. Given that there will be warmup matches against other sides before the World Cup it looks like overkill. It’s not by itself enough to justify losing a Test match.
I’m not convinced that this series will offer a significant boost to the ECB coffers either. We saw this summer that there is still a strong appetite for Test cricket in England. (Wales not so much.) The four match series against India was about as one sided as they come, yet there were very large crowds every day. The images of the queues for the final day at Lord’s are still incredible. The crowds will clearly come when England play a strong side like South Africa. A Test match against the second best side in the world is not less likely to draw crowds than a meaningless five match ODI series, even against Australia. It can’t even be said that it is due to the Olympics, as the 2012 games fall during the Test series anyway. The decision would make a lot more sense if it had been a Test match against the West Indies to go, as the Windies are less of a contest, but we only played a two match series last time. I don’t know if that has a direct bearing on the current decision, but it would be understandable. There are still other, better ways that the ECB could have fit in five ODIs against Australia though. They could have reduced the number of ODIs against the Windies and/or South Africa, for instance, and played Australia at the tail end of the season. It is not a reasonable decision and I have yet to see a good explanation for it.
More broadly though, I oppose the notion of playing extra ODIs at the expense of a Test match. I understand that ODIs are important, that smaller nations need them to develop and that more matches mean more money for the ECB. (And I don’t think the ECB are being greedy, there is a lot of good they can do with more money.) This sends a message that the ODIs are a priority though, which is not a good message to send. Unless England actually win the World Cup, a good ODI performance is unlikely to raise the profile of cricket as much as a good Test series is. If I ask about the summer of 2005, how many people will wax lyrical about the tied NatWest Trophy final? It was a very good ODI series, but it was not in the same postcode as the Test series. I think the same will hold with the World Cup. It would be very nice if England win it, but it will not be a disaster if we don’t and anything short of making the final is very unlikely to be as exciting as a full Test series. Even if England do go to the final I don’t think anyone will be saying that it was down to the extra preparation (see above). It’s possible, of course, and it’s possible that South Africa will be two up after three matches, but neither are likely. More likely we will be denied a conclusion to the series, just as South Africa and Australia were today, in exchange for a World Cup performance that still fails to capture the imagination
-
One all going into a nonexistent third Test
I’m still a bit amazed at the finish to the second South Africa v Australia Test. Australia won by 2 wickets after the advantage had changed hands several times. Pat Cummins, the eighteen year old on debut, hit the winning runs after coming within about a centimetre of being LBW on review. (He was struck in line, but not so much as to overturn the umpire’s decision.)
Australia were probably deserved winners. They put their previous collapses behind them and managed to put together timely partnerships. The individuals who were under the most pressure to perform did so; Ponting made 62 and Haddin 55. Hussey also chipped in with some useful runs in a partnership with Haddin that put Australia in the ascendancy after the early wickets of Clarke and Ponting. Mitchell Johnson continues to look better with the bat than with the ball; he scored an unbeaten 40 that went a long way to winning Australia the match. His contribution might be a bit overlooked with the headlines about Cummins, but it was probably more important and at least as important as Haddin’s 55. The manner of the result probably eases some of the pressure on the selectors. They could probably justify naming an unchanged XI for the first Test against New Zealand. (Though they did so after the win at Perth last year and we know how well that turned out.) I would still drop Johnson. Australia may hove lost this Test without his batting, but the rest of the bowling attack has had to carry him this series. I don’t think they can go on like that.
It could be, and probably will be, said that South Africa choked. I certainly made that joke on Twitter when Australia looked like they were going to cruise to victory. It probably isn’t fair, but they did not play as well as they ought to have. Smith’s bowling decisions and field placings as Haddin and Hussey betted were not particularly sensible. At the time he had runs with which to play, but neither really attacked nor really defended. The batsmen could and did find the gaps and were not under a lot of pressure. His best decision was to take the new ball straightaway, but it transpired that it was not quite enough. The deciding point was probably when Steyn dropped a sharp return chance off Cummins with nine still to win. The TV was showing Nathan Lyon looking so nervous that it is hard to imagine that he would have survived long. We’ll never know, unfortunately. More unfortunately we won’t get a deciding Test match after the two thrillers to which we have been treated. Hopefully the absurdity of this will sound a wake up call to the administrators.
-
Chelsea 1-2 Liverpool!
It was great to see the Reds win again today, it seems like it’s been a while. They deserved the win too, they played much more convincingly than I have seen them for a lot of this season, at least in the first half. Before the interval they kept possession well and harried Chelsea into errors. It was one of these which led to the opening goal and almost to a second. It was good sustained pressure from the Reds and they deserved the lead.
It was odd, then, that all of their positive nature seemed to desert them at halftime. Chelsea did make a change at the interval, but Liverpool seemed more content to sit back. It is this that led to Chelsea’s equaliser as the Reds failed to close down the attack. It was all right in the end though. Johnson put together an absolutely brilliant run to score the winner that had eluded the Reds in their last few matches.
-
It’s late and I’m tired
As I write this it’s just gone past 03.00 CST. I haven’t been to bed yet. It’s Sunday morning so this isn’t too unusual, but I got up earlier than I had planned today so I’m quite tired. South Africa are 255-5 and they are holding my attention well, which is good because I want to see how the day’s play pans out. If the Proteas get another fifty Australia are probably just about out of it. They only got near 300 in the first innings because of Watson and Hughes, but neither of them, nor anyone in the Aussie batting order, can be relied upon to get a score in the second innings.
It’s the run chase to which I am looking forward. Amongst other things it could be the last time we Ricky Ponting play for Australia. As much as I have enjoyed seeing him struggle, especially during the last Ashes, he has had an excellent career and it will be interesting to see if he can prolong it. If he can’t it is always nice to have watched such endings instead of reading about it in the papers the next morning. Even if he fails it may not be his last innings; he has said that he wants to keep playing and the Australian selectors have not had a good year. Other, though slightly less likely possible departures are Brad Haddin, Michael Hussey and Mitchell Johnson. If the new chairman of selectors decides to really wield the axe most of the players that I so enjoyed watching during the last Ashes may be gone. (Though I only really enjoyed watching Hussey bat in the last two Tests.)
I don’t think they will be that ruthless though. Ponting ought to go, though it would not be unreasonable for him to get a farewell series at home. It’s hard to think that a wicket keeper could do much worse than Haddin is currently, but I don’t think Australia have a clear potential replacement for him so he might stay. There is a clear replacement for Johnson though, so he will be lucky to face New Zealand. Ironically given the difficulties Australia have had in finding a spinner, Nathan Lyon is probably more secure in his place than most of his team-mates.
South Africa have lost another two wickets though, so it’s game on. A win for Australia may save a few careers.
-
Saturday review – 19 Nov
I’ve decided to make it a regular Saturday feature on the blog where I gather my favourite stories from the week. Unsurprisingly, a lot of the media focus this week has been on the deaths of Peter Roebuck last Saturday and Basil D’Oliveira earlier today.
Jarrod Kimbler at Cricket With Balls wrote an excellent piece about Roebuck being the lone dissenting voice in the Australian press corps during their years of dominance and how the manner of his death may affect how he is remembered. (As an aside, I am very glad that CWB is back up, the style is unmatched.)
Peter English wrote for Cricinfo about the irreplaceability of Peter Roebuck.
Vic Marks wrote about both for the Guardian – Roebuck last Sunday and D’Oliveira today. Both are excellent pieces; the Roebuck one is a more personal tribute, whereas the D’Oliveira piece gives some fascinating background to D’Oliveira’s move to England and his role is starting South Africa’s isolation.
Jonathan Agnew wrote for the BBC about D’Oliveira showing that sometimes sport and politics must mix, with a lovely reminder that racism in sports used to be much worse than it is now.
Other things did happen in cricket this week too, and King Cricket wrote about the absurdity of Australia being out of a Test series after only three days.
-
Calypso collapso
This South Africa v Australia series will probably be remembered for the collapses. After the chaos of the first Test, South Africa collapsed from 241-4 to 266 all out yesterday. Today Australia went from 191-1 to 296 all out. Watson and Hughes both managed to get runs, 88 apiece. The next highest score after that was Mitchell Johnson’s 38 not out. He has done a lot more with the bat than with the ball in this series, but I don’t think that will save him from the axe. It’s true that Australia are in need of batting (and his 38 was enough to give Oz a first innings lead), but it’s far more likely that they will try to find an actual batsman to get the runs. Ponting picked up a third ball duck, once again shuffling across the line and being trapped LBW.
The game is well set up for the third day; I think South Africa are probably on top. Tahir took three of the Australian wickets and he will have a fairly helpful pitch by the time Australia’s run chase starts. Also, whilst none of the batting looks strong, South Africa’s still looks stronger. Australia’s batsmen have still not fired as a unit, and at they won’t be confident of chasing even a very low total. South Africa may struggle again, but if their batsmen get set, as they did in the fourth innings at Newlands, Australia are in danger of losing the plot. Australia will probably not want to chase more than 150-200, so they will have to keep wickets coming at fairly regular intervals. I still think South Africa are favourites to win.
-
Bud Selig is an idiot
Today has been billed as a historic day in Major League Baseball. It may certainly be that, but I think mostly for the wrong reasons. I don’t know what metric Bud Selig is using when he says that the Wild Card has been a ‘remarkable success’, but even if it is his new system will effectively gut it. From either next year or 2013 the top two Wild Card teams will play a one game play-in to determine the Wild Card berth. So we are finally rid of that ridiculous situation where we can go to the last day of the season and have four games with an impact on the Wild Card winner! Never again will we have that nightmare scenario where two walk-off wins in the space of ten minutes can decide who will be in the postseason! Thank you Bud Selig, thank you! To paraphrase Selig himself, to say that this decision is remarkably stupid would be an understatement. There is nothing to be gained by having two more teams play one more game. If the Wild Card race is close it won’t be exciting (since finishing in first will guarantee nothing) and if one team runs away with it they will not be rewarded for their superior performance. It’s a no-win situation. It’s yet more evidence in favour of my longstanding hypothesis that Bud Selig is an idiot.
The rest of the changes aren’t nearly as bad. The Astros will be moving to the AL West in 2013. As a fan of symmetry, I am happy with this. Each division will now have five teams. Houston has historically been an NL market, but there has been less and less difference between the leagues recently. The move will mostly just guarantee that the Royals will have at least six games in 2013 against a team that was 56-106 this year. That’s no bad thing. It will also necessitate interleague play throughout the season, to which I am ambivalent. I like interleague play, but I can see it taken too far. Especially since it tends to mean that some teams have a slightly easier schedule than others. (Though the unbalanced schedule does the same and to a much greater extent. Hopefully they will do away with that.)
Overall the changes are good, but the added wild card is change for the sake thereof and will have a negative effect. Hopefully Selig decides that this is his magnum opus and stops meddling now.
-
Can Australia bat?
We’ll find out tomorrow; South Africa were bowled out for 266 today, rather sensationally after being 241-4 at one stage. Australia did reasonably well, but South Africa were a bit brainless at the end. (A cruel person might make choking sounds here.) Australia will be a bit disturbed though that in an innings of only 71 overs they used seven bowlers. (Well, I say ‘bowlers’ but Hussey had four overs.) Clarke was one of them and he took 2-6 at the end of the innings. Part of this was because Watson pulled up in his fourth over, but that won’t make Australia feel much better. Also problematic is that Johnson and Cummins only took one wicket apiece. Siddle, who might have missed out if Harris had been fit, took three and their current spinner, Nathan Lyon, took two.
Still, this does give Australia a good chance to level the series, if they can bat well this time. It’s a big ‘if’ though. Watson is out of form, and carrying a knack now, Hughes hasn’t been in form for a few years, Ponting hasn’t had a big score in some time and may be playing in his last test, Khawaja has only played three tests and hasn’t amazed anyone, Hussey is back to his pre-Ashes form and Haddin clearly doesn’t have the nous to bat in a pressure situation. That just leaves Michael Clarke as the only batsman in the top seven in which Australia can be even remotely confident. He was up to the task in the first innings of the first Test, but failed along with the rest of them in the second innings. Australia cannot rely on him scoring two hundred again, so they will need a few of the other batsmen to step up. There’s really no-one who stands out as being that batsman, however. We’ll see tomorrow if one of them can, but right now 266 looks like it might be enough for a first innings lead.
-
SA v Oz round II
India are still well on top of what has been a very one sided second Test in Calcutta. As I write this the West Indies are 339-4, following on. They need 478 to make India bat again, but they need there is still over a day and a half to play.
The second Test between South Africa and Australia promises to be a much more exciting one. Australia must try to recover from being blown away for 47 (words I will never tire of writing) and losing the Test after having a first innings lead of 188 (also words I will never tire of writing). It’s a daunting task, but South Africa have a fairly daunting one as well – They mustn’t choke.
Apart from the fire and competitiveness that usually defines a South Africa v Australia Test, this will be notable for some peripheral contests as well. Most notably it may be Ricky Ponting’s last Test. He failed again in the first Test (though everyone bar Clarke failed for the Aussies) and if the new chairman of selectors wants to make his mark for the series against New Zealand he may have an easy target. Khawaja, Ponting’s replacement when the latter was injured last January, is in the side for the injured Shaun Marsh and if he gets a good score it’s hard to imagine the selectors not wanting to see him and Marsh batting together very soon. Clarke has also suggested that time may be up for Mitchell ‘He bowls to the left…’ Johnson if he doesn’t fire in Jo’burg. Certainly the teenager Pat Cummins is likely to come into the side, I would guess for the ‘stiff and sore‘ Ryan Harris. (Which, with Paul Harris possibly returning to the South Africa side, would be a relief for me.) It may then be a bowl off between Cummins and Johnson to see which of them is in the XI for the first Test against the Kiwis. Brad Haddin has the benefit of there not being a strong candidate to replace him, but his shot selection when his country are in trouble is so bad Australia might soon want to try anyone else behind the stumps.
South Africa are rather more settled, though Tahir did not get a chance to show himself at Newlands, so Paul Harris may fancy his chances for a return. Jacques Rudolph, after Yorkshire signed a different overseas player for next season, needs a score to maintain his rather tenuous place in the side.
Between Australia’s batsmen barely knowing which end of the bat to hold these days and South Africa having a history of chocking, there are the makings of some more batting collapses. However, South Africa showed a enough nous in their second innings that I think they can do enough to win.
Defensive Indifference 