Mustn’t laugh, mustn’t laugh…

The fact that Yorkshire were relegated last year still makes me happy. Not as happy as Lancs winning the County Championship, of course, but still very happy. I shouldn’t laugh of course, I don’t want to be too cruel to the White Rose. And it’ll be quite disappointing not having any Roses matches next year. I really enjoyed doing the double over them last year and we’ll have to wait until 2013 to do it again.

Obviously Yorkshire are intent on returning to the top flight in 2013, but the extend of their shake-up is surprising. They’ve revamped their coaching set up and Jason Gillespie is the new first team coach. The biggest surprise for me, however, is that Phil Jaques is rejoining the club as their overseas player next year. I had been under the impression that they still would not be able to afford one, so I’m curious as to where they got the money. From a Yorkshire standpoint it looks like a very good series of moves. Both Geoffrey Boycott and Michael Vaughan were involved and it’s hard to imagine any pair with better Yorkshire credentials than that. I think Yorkshire were probably going to be favourites to win promotion next year (though it’s obviously very early and it isn’t clear how their opponents will look next April) and this ought to boost their chances. The lack of an overseas player this year clearly hurt them; Rudolph’s brief appearance was not enough. Their coaching staff was unable to make the most of their homegrown talent in the same way Lancashire did, so this probably addresses their two biggest problems.

My desire for schadenfreude aside, it’s probably a good thing that Yorkshire have gone to unprecedented lengths to ensure that there will be Roses cricket in 2013. They are one of the most historic counties, and the Championship is probably better off with them in the top flight. I still enjoy seeing them lose though.

A deserted Eden

Apparently the crowd for the second Test between India and the West Indies is as sparse as the crowd for the first Test and without the excuse of being in the middle of nowhere. Of course, there are mitigating circumstances. The Indian public have been saturated with cricket this year and may be a bit burnt out. The West Indies are a long way from the force, and thus the draw that they once were, whilst India have not played well this year either. Also, the Test started on a Monday, which is certainly a questionable decision. So there are reasons besides the imminent collapse of Test cricket in India why the turnout might be low.

Still, it’s very troubling. If Indian crowds continue to favour the shorter forms then so will the BCCI and if the BCCI favour the shorter forms then so will the ICC. We’ve already seen that in the postponement of the Test Championship. It may get worse in the future; the Indian team look like they will get worse before they will get better. Without knowing the intricacies of the situation in India I can’t think of a good way to boost interest, but hopefully someone will. India is a big enough market that there must be a fair number of people who still love Test cricket, or would if given the proper opportunity.

Alternative formats for the Test Championship

The ICC today confirmed what had already been very strongly expected, that the inaugural Test Championship would not take place before 2017. I blogged a month ago about the stupidity of the decision, and I stand by that. It is a blow to the purest form of the game and reminds us that the ICC are impotent at best.

It does mean, however, that there is now time to alter the format of the Test Championship, which I never liked. The current plan is to have four teams play a semi-final and a final in England. The first problem with this is the time. Even if the semi-finals are not held concurrently that is only three weeks and three matches, which is a bit short for something of the stature that they want. I think it will be hard to make people properly care about something that short. The second problem is that one match a side leaves more room for fluke results. Upsets themselves are not bad, but these would not be the giant killings of the FA cup. A side coming to England for at best two test matches will have a hard time warming up and getting acclimatised to the conditions. With that in mind, I think people will have trouble viewing the Test Champions in the same way as the World Cup winners. More broadly, I don’t think the current format would do a lot to add meaning to Test series; England, South Africa and India don’t look like slipping out of the top four anytime soon. Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, New Zealand and the West Indies don’t look like breaking into the top four anytime soon. The only battle is between Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia for fourth place.

So I think the ICC need to spend the next six years looking for a better format. If the goal is to add context to other Test series then I think there needs to be a clear benefit from being ranked number one or two. Right now there isn’t so England, South Africa and India have nothing for which to play. It would also help if lower level teams had a decent chance of playing in the knockout. Both those problems can be solved in one go, however. Instead of just semi-finals and a final there should be a qualifying round where the top two teams have a bye. With the current tables that would be India v Pakistan and Australia v Sri Lanka in the qualifying round. The lowest ranked winner would then play England in the semi-final and the highest ranked would play South Africa. I would also like just the final to be at a predetermined venue. If it could be fit into the schedule (no guarantee), the qualifiers and semi-finals should be three match series hosted by the higher ranked team. This would decrease the likelihood of a fluke result and would provide a strong incentive to have a higher ranking. The final would still be a one-off match at Lord’s, but would then be the result of a proper tournament (albeit one spread out over the course of a few months).

If the goal is simply to have a knockout tournament, however, I think something along the lines of the FA cup would be best. The associates ranked 3-10 would play each other in the first round and the winners would be drawn with the top two associates and the bottom two full members in the second round. The winners from the second round would be drawn with the full members ranked 5-8 and the top four full members would come in at the fourth round/quarter-finals. This does not fix the problem of travelling to a country to play one Test match, but it would allow the knockouts to run alongside the existing Test series, so it would not have the same scheduling problem as the above proposal. It would also help the associates, as at least one would be able to play a money spinning match against a Test side. Anyone who read the comments on my piece about the importance of Test cricket will recognise this as being part of that plan. On the whole, however, I prefer the first one.

It is, of course, unlikely that the ICC will review their format, as we have already seen how much difficulty they have in doing anything. We’ll have six years to discuss it, however.

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.

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?

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.

Disgrace

It was a common theme of discussion during the India v England ODI series that the grounds were uncommonly empty. (Common during the rare passages of play in which England were not collapsing, anyway.) Various reasons were mooted, such as too much exposure to cricket and the big names not playing for India. (And apparently a number of Indian ‘supporters’ only like to watch India bat.) I wasn’t too surprised then, to hear that the crowds for the first test against the West Indies were also small. The West Indies are a smaller draw than England now, and the Indian public prefer limited overs matches anyway. Still, the big guns are back for India and it’s a chance for them to recover some face after their humiliation in England so shouldn’t a lot of people show up?

Apparently not, and this account goes a long way to explaining why. No country is immune to jobsworths and bureaucracy of course, least of all England, but compare that attitude to the one displayed by those in charge of last day ticket sales at Lord’s over the summer. We saw this same sort of farce at the World Cup last year; England’s match against India was moved at the last minute without regard to the accommodations already booked by the travelling supporters, the ticket sales mayhem for the same match and the rather amusing story of Geoffrey Boycott summoning a general to prevent his sandwiches from being confiscated. (In fact, Adam Mountford’s blog from the World Cup is basically a day by day tale of incompetence.) The fact that any international ground can treat its fans in such a manner is a disgrace and must be considered as part of the reason for poor attendances.