Tag: Ashes

New Zealand unfortunately are the Ashes warmup

Mike Hesson, the New Zealand coach, said earlier this week that he did not want the upcoming England v New Zealand series to be just a warmup for the Ashes. This is understandable on many levels. I doubt anyone would want their team to be the ‘other’ tourist no matter what the occasion and especially now New Zealand have a very good reason to think they deserve more. They so very nearly beat England in New Zealand two months ago and deserved more than the 0-0 draw that they got. In any other circumstances that would make the return trip a mouth-watering series.

But these are not normal circumstances. I hate that New Zealand have been given a paltry two-Test series in an Ashes year, but they have. And that means that, fair or not, they are the Ashes warmup. There is simply no way that a two Test series against New Zealand, even a New Zealand side who have played very well, is going to match the hype and expectation of a five-Test Ashes series. It’s not a slight on the skill of the New Zealand team; I don’t think the England team are taking the series against New Zealand lightly and certainly as a fan I know I am not, but I still think of this as an Ashes summer and Australia as the main opponents. The series against New Zealand should make for a very good appetiser and a very interesting appetiser, but it is an appetiser nonetheless. The only way a series, any series, ahead of the Ashes will be anything but an appetiser is if the ECB and Cricket Australia finally succeed in staging an Ashes series every year.

Hopefully the New Zealand team to take some umbrage at that; I would love to see them fired up and trying to prove a point. But there is no point trying to deny it or wish it away.

England still don’t need Pietersen

It was reported in the Telegraph that Kevin Pietersen had refused to sign a four-month contract with England before being left out of the touring squad to India. In other words, for all his talk about committing to England and wanting to play for England when given the chance to return he decided that he did not want to do what was required of him. His arrogance is staggering; he is labouring under the delusion the one calling the shots. He has to be forgiven by Flower and his (former) teammates to come back and whilst that ought indeed to happen, Pietersen does not seem to grasp that it is not down to him, the one seeking forgiveness, to set the terms. He must show humility and contrition for his behaviour over the whole summer to be allowed back and a large part of that is simply accepting the terms given by Flower and co and then actually working to get back into the side. It should not have to be stated that giving one’s public ‘apology’ via an agent and then haggling about one’s penitence is not the path to forgiveness.

In the meantime, we will be treated to more hysteria about England not having a chance in India without Pietersen. I’m not sure on what this is based; it’s not like England have been cruising to victory in Asia with him. Excluding the two match series in Bangladesh in 2010, Pietersen has played 16 Tests in Asia of which England have won only two and lost nine. England have not won any of those six series, the best result being a 1-1 draw in India in 2006 and of course Pietersen himself led the team to a 0-1 defeat in India in 2008.

The individual averages are even more damming. Pietersen in his career averages only 33.94 in Tests in Asia (excluding Bangladesh) in 31 innings. There are six batsmen with better averages in Asia in those same Tests (excluding Owais Shah who played only one) with the list topped by Marcus Trescothick and Paul Collingwood. And yet I have not heard anyone suggest that England cannot win in India without Collingwood or Trescothick. Amongst current players Pietersen is behind Cook, Prior and Trott (and Strauss, if one wishes to look at until-very-recently-current players as well). Despite all the suggestions that he can take the game away from oppositions and counter spin in a manner of which no one else is supposedly capable, the fact is that he either can’t or doesn’t. I’d much rather have Colly back than Pietersen.

But perhaps that is harsh. All it really shows is that Pietersen is not some talisman to lead us to victory in India. And whilst that is an important point it does not mean that he has not been vital in the wins we have had elsewhere. England’s most notable victories in recent times have come in the 2009 and 2010/11 Ashes and in the 4-0 win over India in 2011. Perhaps Pietersen was integral to those? Well, not quite. He’s been good, of course; he’s been useful. But he has not been the main factor. Pietersen actually only played two matches in the 2009 Ashes, during which he averaged only 38. To be fair, few of the batsmen had a good series, but that was still only a bit more than Graeme Swann who averaged 36 in all five Tests. Pietersen was also outscored in the series by Jonathan Trott who played in just one Test.

In 2010/11 Pietersen finished behind Cook, Trott and Bell in the series averages (and was not even close to the first two) despite scoring 227 in just one innings at Adelaide. That one innings was an outstanding display and utterly deserving of all the praise put on it. But the other four Tests got him just 133 runs. He helped England win that series, but he did not do so alone and was not even the biggest contributor. And of course, that only looks at the batting. He was not at all involved in England bowling Australia out for 98 in Melbourne.

The only one of those three great wins where Pietersen really was the main destroyer was in 2011 against India. He scored 533 runs at an average of over 100 with a pair of centuries (one of them an unbeaten double ton). Once again there were some brilliant innings and his contributions are deservedly praised. But once again he was not alone. He was the highest of seven England batsmen to average over fifty (and barely scored more than Ian Bell) in that series and once again the bowlers did just as much work. He was a huge help for England but he was not the reason they won.

The conclusion is obvious: Pietersen is a good player. He is an asset to England, but he is not the only asset. England can win matches when he is absent or not contributing and they can lose matches when he plays. He is one player not The Chosen One. The suggestions that England can not win without him are likely a product of a combination of hyperbole and poor memory; they certainly do not have a factual grounding.

Poor preparation

With now exactly two weeks before the start of the abbreviated series against South Africa, I have been thinking about scheduling again. Obviously I am cross and have been for some time that the series is only three matches. Even without questioning the ECB’s rationale in playing five ODIs against Australia (though it is a very foolish rationale) the scheduling is poor.

That the series against South Africa is too short is not in doubt. It is the number one side in the world playing the number two side with the winner getting the top spot. To play it only over three matches is lunacy; it ought to be at least four. What is maddening is that the schedule could have easily accommodated a full length Test series and the ECB’s desired ODIs. Even if there were no way to squeeze in seven Tests and 13 ODIs (and the only reason that there is not is because of the World T20 and even then it’s close) then the arrangement could have and should have been different. For one thing, there was no need for a third Test against the West Indies. Whilst no one could have predicted so far ahead of time that it would have been a washout anyway, almost everyone managed to predict that it was going to be a dead rubber. I am no fan of two Test series, but in this case it would have been very much the lesser of two evils. A far better option, however, would have been to simply reduce the number of ODIs being played against South Africa and the West Indies. We are playing a combined eight matches against them, it would have been very easy to cut out three and play a usual seven Test/ten ODI summer.

Those solutions assume we have to play those five ODIs against Australia this summer for the ECB to accomplish its goal of preparing England for the World Cup, but that is not even true. These ODIs are actually supposed to be more for Australia’s benefit than England’s; it is allowing them to prepare for the Champions Trophy in reciprocation for England playing in Australia ahead of the World Cup. But the Champions Trophy is next year and we are playing the normal Ashes related ODIs against Australia then anyway. Surely Australia would prepare better by simply having those ODIs moved in front of the Champions Trophy, just as England’s matches in Oz will immediately precede the World Cup. This seems like a solution that would not only allow us to play four (or five) Tests against South Africa like we ought to, but also to allow the ECB to get their desired pre-World Cup preparation and actually improve Australia’s pre-Champions Trophy preparation.

It is, of course, a bit late to be complaining about fixtures that were set over a year ago, but the reason I bring it up is because I think England may not only have robbed the fans of a good series, but also put themselves at a bit of a disadvantage by playing so much white ball cricket ahead of an important Test series. England will go into the first Test against South Africa with many of their players having played seven limited overs matches and no significant red ball cricket since the end of the second Test. Strauss at least will play a bit for Somerset and I am hoping Jimmy and KP (both of whom are missing some or all of the series against Oz) will play in the Surrey v Lancashire match at Guildford the week before the Test series starts, though I am not optimistic. It probably won’t be a massive problem for England, but it is a bit troubling especially given how good at preparation Flower and Strauss usually are. It is worth remembering that when England were playing warmup matches before the 2010/11 Ashes, Australia were playing ODIs against Sri Lanka. This was not the difference in the series, England were always going to be far too good for Australia, but it was another advantage given to England. With the series against South Africa looking like it may be a very close one and every difference magnified due to the shortness of the series, this is certainly an area where England should have done better.

Armchair selector: An Australian winter’s tale

Australia’s 75 run win in Dominica secured a 2-0 series victory, their second consecutive series win. They have now not lost a Test since their seven run defeat against New Zealand at Hobart. Unfortunately for them, they do not now play another Test until next winter. Obviously they do not entirely control the relevant parts of the Future Tours Programme, but I do think that Cricket Australia may have missed a trick by not trying to schedule something more than five ODIs for the summer. Despite their victories, we have seen some clear gaps in the side recently and there is really nothing to be done to repair them until what must be, for both Cricket Australia and the Australian public, alarmingly close to the 2013 Ashes. With that series in mind, this is how I see the current Australian side:continue reading part I and part II on the Armchair Selector…

Ashes Wednesday

It’s not the traditional celebration, but for me the significance of Ash Wednesday is to watch Ashes highlights and videos. It’s right there in the name, and this year is a particularly good one for it, as we’re in the midst of a month without Test cricket. In that spirit, I’ve compiled a few of my favourites from YouTube. The first one probably the best musical selection I’ve ever heard. Enjoy!

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.

Ten best sporting moments of 2011

I know the sporting year isn’t over yet. I actually had a conversation on Twitter about whether I ought to write a ‘year end’ style post or save it for after the Test. I decided to save my full year in review post for later, but at the same time I would be very surprised if anything happened that warranted an inclusion on this list. If I’m wrong I can always write a revision as well, so with that in mind here are my top ten sporting moments of 2011:

10 – New Zealand winning the Hobart Test
I know my Aussie readers won’t like this, but it was a pretty important moment. New Zealanders probably care more about winning the Rugby World Cup, but they had not won a Test in Australia for 26 years before this. Doug Bracewell may be a great find for the Kiwis and the conclusion of the match was one of the most thrilling you will see.

9 – Tigers winning Game 5 of the ALDS
I love watching the Yankees lose. I love watching the Yankees lose deciding games in the playoffs even more. But most of all I love watching Alex Rodriguez strike out to lose a deciding game in the playoffs in front of a very put out Yankee Stadium crowd.

8 – Royals winning a three game series in New York
The Royals spent most of the month of April this year in or near first place. (It’s true, look it up.) Whilst losing six in a row to the Rangers and Indians at the end of April basically put an end to any notion of contending, there were still bright spots after that. In the second week of May the Royals travelled to New York and won two out of three against the Yankees. The deciding game of the series saw the Royals score six runs in the second inning, including Eric Hosmer’s second major league home run and some terrible defensive mistakes by the Yankees. It was the Royals first series win in New York since 1999.

7 – Manchester United 1-6 Manchester City
It was the match that that caused the media to accept City as genuine title contenders. More importantly it was the match that made United supporters very cross and thus made Liverpool supporters like myself very happy.

6 – Australia reduced to 21-9 at Cape Town
With apologies to my Australian readers. Though as much as I enjoyed this I was more astonished to watch the innings unfold. On no fewer than three occasions I thought there must surely be a recovery, surely they couldn’t lose another wicket. I was wrong on all three occasions, as by the time the recovery did come I had stopped expecting it. Almost as amazing as the innings itself was the shot selection of Brad Haddin and the fact that he wasn’t immediately dropped because of it. Both defy belief.

5 – England winning the Cardiff Test
I already used this in my best moments in English cricket this year, so there isn’t a lot more to say. Nonetheless, it was incredible watching England go from just wanting a few wickets to Sri Lanka not even coming close to saving the Test and certainly belongs on this list as well.

4 – Virender Sehwag making a king pair at Edgbaton/Stuart Broad’s Trent Bridge hat trick
I’ve included these together for their similarity, not only because they both involve Indian wickets falling cheaply. Broad’s hat trick marked the end of the last time India would have an advantage in the series, but I think Sehwag’s king pair marked the last time India had any real hope. It was also a moment of personal pleasure, because Sehwag is massively overrated. He has a good record on the flat pitches of the subcontinent and that is it; his aggression is not suited for English conditions or anywhere the ball does a bit. After the second Test I read about and saw Indians claiming that he would save the series for them and I rather enjoyed being vindicated.

3 – Cardinals winning Game 6 of the World Series
I’m a Royals fan, but years of living amongst Cardinals fans in Kirksville made me rather sympathetic to them. (Though I always hated when they would gripe about ‘barely being .500’ or some such.) Add that to the fact that I hate the Texas Rangers and I was definitely cheering for the Cardinals in the last World Series. Even if I hadn’t, however, I think their multiple comebacks in Game 6 would have had to rank high on a list of best sporting moments, as it was absolutely astonishing.

2 & 1 – Lancashire winning the County Championship and England winning the Ashes
How could I not copy these from my first list? England winning the Ashes in Australia is the only thing that could possibly trump Lancashire winning the title outright. Neither had ever happened before in my lifetime and for them both to happen this year is almost an embarrassment of riches. I have little doubt they will be on a list of best moments in the decade should I make one in 2020.

Edited to add: The Guardian have produced their list of cricketing moments, but there is a lot of World Cup stuff at the expense of Lancs.