-
Weekend roundup
Here are some of my favourite articles from around the web this week:
– There is nothing big or clever or grown-up about wallowing in other people’s misery King Cricket produces a graph of Australia’s recent batting performances which doubles as an inverted graph of the levels of schadenfreude experienced by English cricket lovers.
– Yorkshire sack three coaches in shake-up after Division One relegation Keeping with the schadenfreude theme (at least for those west of the Pennines), the Guardian report on the ongoing repercussions of Yorkshire’s relegation.
– West Indies have flubbed their best chance Harsha Bhogle on the West Indies failure to press home their advantage in the first Test in India and how the West Indies must get out of their losing mindset.
– Flower’s fears for the future Andy Flower spoke to the Independent about his fears for the future of Test cricket.
– Finally, a sad note: As I was writing this the news broke that journalist and former Somerset captain Peter Roebuck had died. One could do worse than spend some time re-reading some of his articles.
-
There wasn’t blood
Full time: England 1-0 Spain. It’s an amazing result. I thought England would be butchered by Spain. To be fair, every analysis I saw agreed with me. Spain are rightly World and European Champions, whilst England looked lacklustre throughout most of their qualifying campaign.
Spain played their usual style of possession and passing based football, but even early on they were a bit sloppy. Their passes weren’t quite right and England had opportunities to pick them off before Spain could apply any sustained pressure. England couldn’t hold possession themselves, however, so there weren’t many real chances in the first half. England had looked strong at the back, but Spain made a living at the last World Cup by wearing down opponents and picking off late goals.
This being a friendly, though, England could change out their entire midfield during the second half, which I think really helped. They also played more positively for the start of the second half which led to their goal. It was an ugly sort of goal and Reina really ought to have done better, but it gave England something to defend. For a time after the goal England actually looked much the better side with Spain a bit shocked that they were behind.
It was in the last fifteen minutes in which England really performed well, however. Spain threw everything at them, but England’s defenders, Scott Parker in particular, were everywhere. Spain’s pressure was repeatedly cleared they only got a few clear chances from almost a quarter of an hour’s worth of possession in England’s back third. In the entire match Spain had something like twenty off target shots. A couple were bad misses, but a lot were scuffed because of the English defenders weren’t letting them get away. Only once in the last fifteen minutes did Hart have to make a save, though Cesc Fabregas missed a shot that he would put away nine times out of ten. Spain also had a shot come off the bar.
Overall, England played very well. Much better than I or almost anyone expected them to do, however Spain played poorly by their (admittedly lofty) standards. A defensive lapse led to the only goal and Spain had chances to equalise and take the lead late that they spurned. That shouldn’t bother England too much, however, as few sides can beat Spain when they are playing on top of their game. England mustn’t get carried away, but they can be rightly proud of their performance.
-
There will be blood
Tomorrow (or later today, depending on one’s location) an ‘experimental’ England side face a full strength Spain. Even a full strength England side failed (twice!) to beat Montenegro and barely beat Wales (Wales!) at home. It’s not going to be pretty. Or at least the bit England play won’t; Spain will probably pass the ball around very fluently and aesthetically, however. I’m not sure why the FA wanted to play the current champions of everything under the sun in a place where supporters would be able to witness the carnage first-hand, but there we are. It’s possible, of course, that Capello may find some hidden talent that wouldn’t otherwise get on the plane to the 31st best hotel in Krakow, but it’s more likely that said talent won’t be a match for Spain. It’s only a friendly though, and playing Spain will allow the supporters to get into the right frame of mind for Euro2012. My pessimism won’t stop me watching and cheering on England, I should make clear, it’s just important to be realistic.
-
Offseason notes
Some notes I made that weren’t worth full posts on their own:
– There is a poll on mlb.com for the best play of the year. I’m biased, of course, but I fail to see how any play of the nominees could be better than Jeff Francoeur reaching his whole arm over the wall. I’m confident that you’ll all vote the right way.
– The Phillies are continuing their quest from last offseason to buy every pitcher in the Major Leagues, having signed Jonathan Papelbon. They do appear to recognise, however, that some of the blame for last year’s failure must go to their hitting and have convinced Jim Thome to return.
– I was going to put something about the now Miami Marlins here, but none of it was actually very interesting.
– The next ten days will see all of the major awards announced. There has been a bit of controversy this year, with discussions of whether pitchers ought to be eligible to win the MVP and whether relievers ought to be eligible to win the Cy Young. (To which the answers are ‘yes’ and ‘yes’ respectively.) The big question, however, is whether Eric Hosmer will get the Rookie of the Year award that he deserves. He probably won’t, but we’ll find out on Monday.
-
An evening with Statsguru
After the spectacular display this morning I have spent some quite a bit of time today on Statsguru to see where this it fits in. (If you don’t like stats you should stop reading straight away, but if you’re reading this in the first place you probably like stats.)
– Australia’s first innings lead in this match was 188, but they may still lose. There have been six previous instances of team losing after posting a first innings lead greater than 188 (throwing out Pakistan’s forfeiture at The Oval in 2006 and the bookmaker affected Test in Centurion twelve years ago). Interestingly, Australia have been involved in all six. They’ve been on the losing end three times though; in addition to Headingley 1981 and Calcutta 2001 the also lost at the SCG in 1894 after scoring 586 in the first innings. One of their victories was in South Africa though. At Kingsmead in 1950 they were bowled out for their previous lowest score in South Africa, 75, and conceded a first innings lead of 236. They bowled South Africa out for 99 in the second innings, however and successfully chased 336 to win.
– A draw seems unlikely, so one of South Africa or Australia will win with a completed innings score under 100. South Africa look the more likely victors; if so their 96 all out will be the twelfth lowest all time in a win and the third lowest since the war. The smallest ever is England’s 45 all out at the SCG in 1887 and each of the lowest four are from before 1900. The lowest post-war total in a winning cause is the same 75 all out from above, which may give Australia some hope. The second lowest is New Zealand’s 94 all out against India in 2002. Should Australia come back, their 47 all out will be the second lowest all time.
– Whilst taking five wickets on debut is not too unusual (it’s happened 89 times since the war) Vernon Philander did so with the fewest total deliveries. He bowled seven overs for his 5-15. The only other bowler to take a five-fer on debut in under ten overs is Graham Onions, who took 5-38 in 9.3 overs at Lord’s in 2009.
– Shane Watson’s 5-17 in five overs is the fourth fastest five-fer of all time. The fastest is Ernie Toshack’s 5-2 in just 19 deliveries (2.3 eight ball overs) against India at Brisbane in 1947.
– If Watson’s performance is on the losing side in this Test, he will at least have an understanding captain. Clarke took 6-9 in 6.2 overs in Mumbai in 2004, a Test that Australia lost by 13 runs. That currently stands as the shortest losing five-fer and is level with compatriot Tim May’s 5-9 as the fewest runs conceded in a losing five-fer.
-
Two is not enough
Today we saw another example of how incredible Test cricket is. There has been a bit of hand-wringing in recent times about bat starting to dominate ball to an unreasonable extent. It isn’t all founded, but it is true that there has been an increasing sentiment that a ‘good’ pitch is a road on which both sides can score 500 in the first innings. Today blew that out of the water. Today we saw the ball finally make a comeback. Twenty-three wickets fell, nineteen of them in the space of about three hours after lunch. It was, as I mentioned earlier, the most incredible day of cricket I have seen.
We have already seen some spectacular tests this year when the bowlers were on top of the batsmen. Sri Lanka collapsed so spectacularly in Cardiff, England collapsed at Lord’s to set up a close finish, India collapsed to Stuart Broad at Trent Bridge to set up an English victory that had looked impossible, India collapsed to the West Indies earlier this week before the West Indies returned the favour and set up a thrilling finish to the test. This one will trump them all. Hopefully groundsmen and administrators are finally learning that a good pitch has something in it for batsmen and bowlers.
Today was also yet another reason why Test cricket is the greatest form of the sport. In what other sport could you have the match so utterly transform not once but twice? In what other sport could a side have a historically bad performance and still have a good chance to win? South Africa are in a good position on 81-1 needing 236, but at the start of their innings 236 looked like a very daunting target. The ‘ebb and flow’ of Test matches has always been considered a benefit, today it was a tsunami. How frustrating then that what should have been a third Test was scrapped in favour of more unremarkable limited overs matches? There were a pair of good contents in that leg, but most were one sided and dull. By contrast, when have these two sides not put on a thrilling exhibition of test cricket? Already England have played five meaningless ODIs in India. Next year they will have five more against Australia instead of a fourth Test against South Africa. This after the ECB and CSA agreed that the Test series ought to be a five match ‘marquee’ series. It is maddening, and there is a petition for the ECB and CSA to see sense. (I know I’ve plugged it before, but it is all the more obvious now why it is needed.) A three match series last winter would have seen the Ashes drawn 1-1 and a two match series here will certainly not be enough to determine a proper winner. We’re finally getting decent pitches, now we’re losing the matches to play on them.
-
Madness
Today was easily the most incredible day’s cricket I have ever seen. I actually missed the first session (I have to sleep sometime) and woke up to find that South Africa were in a reasonable position, 49-1 in response to Australia’s 284 all out. I didn’t think that Australia would get so many, but Clarke apparently batted very well with the tail. Still, South Africa looked in a good position. Shane Watson opened the bowling after lunch and I thought the Proteas would have an easy time of it. Ten overs later, of course, it was all but over. Watson took 5-17 in just five overs. It was good bowling, pitched up and moving off the surface, but South Africa didn’t play it very well. They went after the ball and were exposed when it nipped back at the stumps. There is bounce in the wicket, but Watson was pitching it on the right length to keep it hitting the stumps. Australia’s use of the DRS was also very good, precisely as it was meant. A dire run out for the ninth wicket summed up South Africa’s failings. After being one down at lunch they were all out for 96 halfway through the session.
Australia came out to bat leading by 188 and to the everyone’s amazement were all out leading by 235. It was without question the most dramatic collapse I have ever seen. I remember the West Indies being 21-5 at Sabina Park in 2004. I remember England being 21-5 at Lord’s the next year, though I’ve tried to block that out. Never before had I seen a side 21-7, however and never before in the history of Test cricket have a side been 21-9 and the Australians at one point were. They were in real danger of breaking the record for the lowest Test score of all time, New Zealand’s 26 all out against England. They got past that mark with a streaky boundary, however, and even managed to go past their lowest ever score of 36 all out. The actually added 26 for the tenth wicket to finish 47 all out. Vernon Philander picked up a five-fer on his debut, and it was certainly deserved. He bowled very tight, much like Watson did; pitching the ball up and threatening the stumps. If it went away from the batsmen he got an edge, if it went in he got an LBW.
It’s a spicy pitch in Cape Town, but that is not solely responsible for the two collapses. Nineteen wickets fell for 94 runs between lunch and the end of the Australian innings, but in the other half of the day 200 runs were added for the loss of just four wickets. The Australians especially could not be said to have batted well. Ponting shuffled across the stumps yet again and was LBW for a duck. Hussey played a needless waft outside off immediately after tea and was caught at slip and Brad Haddin played one of the worst shots I have ever seen. He tried to cut a ball that was too close to him and was caught behind with his team on 18-5! Although Australia avoided their lowest ever Test score, it was still their lowest since the war and their fourth lowest of all time.
More than anything else the Australians were culpable for their own demise and this was demonstrated quite clearly in the final passage of play. South Africa knew they had to bat sensibly to get the 236 they had been set and went about doing so. Australia were probably still in a state of some shock about their collapse and bowled a lot more loose deliveries and South Africa put them away gladly. They finished the day on 81-1 showing that the pitch was not a minefield. They may be favourites to win now, but who’d make a prediction about this match?
-
How crazy are Fifa?
Not so crazy that they have not allowed a compromise on the issue of England’s footballers wearing a poppy on Saturday, but still crazy enough that they aren’t making any sense. Fifa and the FA reached a compromise allowing the England players to wear poppies on black armbands on Saturday. It comes after both David Cameron and Prince William wrote to Fifa to ask them to reconsider their ban.
It was a slightly farcical display all around. Fifa’s ban made no sense, the poppy not being a political sign, and was indicative of the kind of insane bureaucracy at which Fifa is adept. They went so far as to order the referee to call off the match if England took to the field wearing poppies anyway. Their reasoning was that it would ‘open the door to similar initiatives from all over the world, jeopardising the neutrality of football’ thus fully displaying their well known detachment from reality. Their disproportionate determination on this issue was only matched by
lunaticsmembers of the English Defence League, who climbed to the roof of Fifa’s headquarters to display a banner condemning the decision.The compromise, whilst certainly a good thing, does not make a lot of sense. In effect Fifa have agreed that their rule should not apply to poppies (or else they should not shown at all) without actually agreeing to back down from their position. What’s the difference between a poppy on an armband and a poppy on a shirt? Apparently it is all a matter of mindlessly sticking to the letter of the law in defiance of all common sense. Fifa, in other words.
-
Clarke and Ponting
The current and previous Aussie captains have had very contrasting days today. Michael Clarke played an incredible innings. He began the day slightly inauspiciously by losing the toss. It looked a bowl first pitch and Smith duly inserted the Aussies. (Though Clarke said that he would have liked to bat anyway.) He was into the crease much sooner than he would have liked, however, as Australia slipped to 40-3 against the bowling of Steyn and the debutant Vernon Philander. Clarke had a torrid time starting against Steyn, but he stayed in and it was only a few overs before Steyn had to come out of the attack. From there Clarke found it much easier. Morkel, Tahir and Kallis took just 1-121 between them and went at nearly five an over. By the time Steyn returned to the attack the Aussie skipper was already past 70 and well set. A further five wickets fell before bad light stopped play early with Australia struggling on 214-8 with Clarke not out and having made exactly half of those runs.
Ponting, on the other hand, made only eight. He did not play poorly, but was undone by a brilliant inswinger from Steyn. It does mean that he has not passed fifty since the meaningless second innings at Brisbane last November. Over the last twelve months he averages just 20 in seven Tests. There was a lot of speculation over his future in the side after the dismal Ashes series. He stepped down from the captaincy, but hung on to his place. He compared himself to Tendulkar at the time as he hoped to have a similar Indian summer. Before the limited overs leg of the tour Clarke suggested that Ponting was due for a renaissance and Ponting himself said two days ago that he had no plans to retire. Events may conspire against him though. There is a series against New Zealand coming up which is a good one in which to blood youngsters. If Ponting can’t put up a good score at some point in this series he may have to jump before he is pushed.
-
SA v Aus preview
The ridiculously short two Test series between South Africa and Australia gets underway on Saturday. Two matches is not enough to decide between two such heavyweights. Even three really isn’t enough (and there is a lovely petition to add an extra match to the England v South Africa series next summer). But it is what it is, and should be good viewing anyway. The ODI and T20 series made for a good primer, both were quite close in the end. South Africa and Australia have produced some incredibly compelling cricket over the last few years, and they are as evenly matched this year as they have ever been.
I gave an early preview a month ago, but everything is a bit clearer now that the limited overs leg is over. Australia may be rebuilding after their 1-3 Ashes defeat, but they’re going about it quite well. They played well in Sri Lanka and reasonably well in the limited overs matches. It will be only the second time that Clarke has lead the side against a major opponent, however, and the first was the innings defeat at Sydney at the start of the year. He didn’t look very creative in that match, in particular he did not look like he had any answers when England’s batsmen were well set. (He now has the ignominy of allowing England’s highest ever score in Australia.) Australia have also brought two spinners on the tour, neither of whom have played in South Africa before. (Ten points to anyone who can name Australia’s spinner last time they toured South Africa without looking it up on Cricinfo.) They may not be a lot of use, however. Cape Town, the venue for the first test, usually takes the most spin of any ground in South Africa, but the Test is being played so early in the summer that it looks like it will seam more. (Though no one is quite sure. It’s been ninety years since the last time Cape Town hosted a November Test.)
South Africa have not made very many changes to their Test side in the last several years and they’ve always played very good cricket in that time. (Though never quite good enough to top the rankings.) Nine of the XI who won by an innings and 20 runs in Jo’burg two and a half years ago are in South Africa’s squad for the first test, though there is a good chance that Paul Harris will miss out in favour of Imran Tahir. Dale Steyn is still the best bowler in the world, especially when the pitches have a bit of pace in them. The Australians (Hussey apart) had a very difficult time against England’s pacemen in the Ashes, and I think they will continue to struggle against Steyn and co. The biggest problem for South africa may be the length of time since they last played a Test match. They have not played a Test since they hosted India in January and it might take them a bit to get back into the rhythm of the longest form. They will need to adjust quickly however; they cannot afford to fall behind in a two match series. I do think that they are marginally the better side, however.
It is very difficult to accurately predict the outcome of a series between two such evenly matched teams, especially over such a short series. It wouldn’t be a proper preview if I didn’t at least try though. So my prediction: The first Test will be drawn and South Africa will win the second.
Defensive Indifference 