Cricket Films at the Cameo

Crossers might well be interested to know that next week sees the release of not one but two Cricket related films at the Cameo.

First up on Tuesday 10th May at 19.50 is From the Ashes:

http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema/Cameo_Picturehouse/film/From_The_Ashes/

Which also features a live video link up Q and A with Ian Botham and Dickie Bird at the end.

Then on Thursday 12th May at 20.35 the long awaited Fire in Babylon:

http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema/Cameo_Picturehouse/News/Item/Live_Satellite_Q_A_With_Sir_Viv_Richards/

With a live Q and A with Viv Richards.

Amazing eh, you wait 32 years for a decent cricket film and two come along at once. You should have seen the look on my misses face when I asked her if she wanted to go to the cinema on Tuesday and/or Thursday.................oooh what to see she said!

Who is up for it then?

KF on the Ashes 2010-11: (Part 4)- World Domination Beckons

[KF's final commentary on the 2010-11 Ashes]

Having identified from my couch by the end of the 4^th Test that the two things you didn’t want to do in this series was win the toss or bat first, I near choked on my midnight Pimms when Michael Clarke foolishly won the toss and then batted at Sydney. Strewth. When the boat is fast taking in water, you can do without the skipper merrily urinating in the bailing bucket. An atrocious start for Australia’s captain-elect which was compounded when England went on to clobber their biggest ever (EVER) total down under. It’s obviously not all Clarke’s fault but first impressions count apparently. Like the whole series for Australia, it could have been worse, but not much.

Electing to bat in conditions English bowlers can usually only dream of, in no time the hapless hosts were 189-8 and in all sorts of disrepair. As usual, this was down to a mix of Australian inconsistency and English consistency. However, while sticking to a successful field plan for the ‘recognised’ batsmen, Strauss almost collaborated with the Australian tail opening up large gaps and failing to attack in any sense. Johnson & Hilfenhaus made hay while the sun shone.

Strauss appears to be a top class captain for England as an opening bat, an ambassador and man-to-man, but to me his biggest weakness is his ultra conservative tactical intransigence. It allows situations to be wrested from England’s control when a much more positive approach is called for and would surely do no worse. While it ultimately made no difference to the outcome in this match, the difference between say 195-10 and the actual 1^st innings total of 280 shows an area where Strauss needs to seriously improve. Another example I’d suggest is his use of Swann, which at times appears to me to be more like he’s tried everything else and now it’s the spinners turn, rather than thinking of Swann as a genuine attacking option.

One big positive for Australia in a sea of negatives was the first impression from Khawaja. Australia’s crackpot selectors only decided to ask the debutant to fill the shoes of some hacker called Ponting and save the series. Despite this idiocy (why not move Clarke & Hussey up one and ease Khawaja in a bit more?) his attitude showed no signs of inhibition. But worryingly in the short term, he looks to have as many Achilles heels as Hughes when examined closely by the relentless England attack. Both these Aussie ‘youngsters’ need work and if they’re able to shore up the leaky defensive shortcomings and develop like I’m sure they will, they look really sensational when they’re attacking and if you’re Australian, neutral or just pro-cricket, promise to shine very brightly in future. The reversal in Alastair Cook’s fortunes is as far as they need to look for inspiration.

While football still holds out against the inevitable introduction of ‘video technology’ I find it interesting to watch the ongoing development of its use in cricket. What can’t be questioned is that more correct decisions are being made which is brilliant. But there is still a bit of controversy. You may have heard Sir Beefy calling Hughes a cheat for claiming a catch when the ball was shown to have bounced first. A couple of things here. First, pre-technology Hughes/Australia may have been awarded the catch and history may have unfolded differently (if only the DRS was in place when Kasprowicz was incorrectly given out in that 2005 cliffhanger at Birmingham with 2 runs needed to go 2-0 up with 3 to play in a series England ultimately won 2-1). But now, all players know that they are under the scrutiny of hotspot, hawkeye and super slo-mo and therefore if they claim something they know to be wrong, the 3^rd umpires decision will be along in a minute to expose them on the big screen to the whole crowd. In time, I’m sure the use of ‘technology’ will force players to play more fairly, a process I think has already started. Surely a good thing. Bottom line is that more correct decisions are being made, games aren’t being spoiled by howlers from the umpires and players are in the main being forced to be more honest or being exposed when they aren’t (the sooner its in the East League the better…).

Secondly, for England or Sir Ian to throw cheating accusations is very rich. Suppose England appeal for an LBW and the umpire says not out. Then England don’t review the decision, as has happened on many occasions, why were they actually appealing? If they think its out, appeal and if it’s not given, review it. Otherwise I’d suggest appealing for a wicket when you don’t think its out is cheating also. Or what about Ian Bell being asked by Nasser Hussein “yes or no, did you nick it” referring to the hotspot/snicko anomaly that got Bell off the hook after being given out caught behind. A hundred word answer followed that didn’t include the words ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Hussein persevered asking if Bell had heard a sound. “There may have been a sound” he replied. Beyond reasonable doubt I’d say he nicked it and knew it but decided to review (or as Sir Ian might say cheat) it purely because it was a free review (somewhat undermining my argument about increasing honesty, but when a review can be called for is one of the ongoing aspects of the DRS evolution).

Another area where England have massively poo’d all over Australia is in the realm of luck. To pick one example, Alastair Cook holing out on 46, giving Beer his first Test scalp, before Silly Bowden asked upstairs whither the Beer ball was a no ball. A further 143 Lazarean runs were consequently pocketed by the Ozzies arch slayer. Prior benefited similarly at Melbourne. Various Aussies have been grumbling including all time leading chunterer Glenn McGrath. Whatever the ins and outs, the grey areas in the process etc, fact is, they were no balls, the batsmen weren’t out and the correct decision was reached. When you’re generally better, you’re generally luckier. How lucky England have been at times, I don’t think I can even recall the Aussies being lucky once, is yet another illustration if any were needed that England have been so much better in this series than their hosts (as I was trying to convince you Shifters in the St Vincent after 2 Tests (3 innings defeat FFS)).

Lastly, if you haven’t seen it I’d suggest you look at Will Swanton’s (anagram Wanton Swill) unerringly incorrect Ashes preview entitled 10 Reasons Why Australia Will Win The Ashes. I’ve been heckled before for not making more predictions, this is what happens when you do!!!!

KF on the Ashes (Part 5).

A final set of reflections on the 2009 Ashes by KF.

Did you get your tackety boots on and join in the assault on the hopeless Aussie skipper? Hopefully those partaking didn’t get blood on their ‘Wenger must go’ t-shirts (circa April 2009). Great past achievements and a high likelihood of future glory (it took Ponting a few short weeks to slaughter England in the 1-dayers and win the ICC Trophy), are no buffer against populist braying. If Bradman and Grace were Ashes captains going head to head, they couldn’t both win. It wouldn’t mean one was godlike and the other needed dropped in the harbour with concrete slippers. However, if I was in Ponting’s position now, I suspect I’d be passing on the captaincy before the next but one Ashes back on these shores. Losing it once could be put down to bad luck. Losing it twice is very careless. Losing it for a third time would cast a permanent shadow over 5-0 Ashes wins and world cup triumph’s.

Sir Ian Botham had to slave away for a whole test match and also borrow an 8-for from Bob Willis to claim an Ashes Test to himself in 1981 at Headingley. Flintoff, even more economical than Botham with his movement, managed to claim his own glory in the decisive last Match of the series this time with one short burst of effort. I don’t recall ever seeing a batsman look so determined to stay in and so hellbent on winning a Test Match single-handedly than Ponting was in the crucial 2nd innings in the final test. I couldn’t see how England were going to get him out. He looked as invincible as Charlie does against Fauldhouse on a ploughed track. Then, with a bit of a wibble-wobble towards the ball, down stooped Sir Freddie on his disintegrating knees and the rest, as they say, is history. One for my new 100 Great Sporting Moments series. Great theatre, and all the more improbable that it was an Englander doing it to the Aussies and not the other way round.

Usually if a team wins a series you can look at the top run scorer or highest wicket taker and say that their efforts were the difference. But Australia dominated all the usual individual performance charts and still came up short. A lot of this was to do with England relying less on main men, with the likes of Flintoff & Pietersen not being fully fit and Bopara’s form being almost unsettling. While Australia as the touring side with less bodies to choose from maybe stuck with who they had a bit too much. I’m sure anyone who viewed Australia play Scotland at the Grange will wonder why Brett Lee played no part in the Ashes. Without him, can anyone argue Australia are at full strength? Seemed a pretty strange one.

And so, off into the sun (Dubai I believe) goes the new Botham. Legs now useless as far as international sport is concerned. Legs so criminally treated, allowing even more destruction and injury to already toiling joints. I’ve probably said enough on the bewildering and desperate treatment of Flintoff’s injuries in the past. So we move on and what do we ‘discover’ at the end of the Ashes. Woopeedoo, we have a ‘New Flintoff’. Read all about the injuries and injections cutting Stuart Broad’s career short here in about 7 years time.

KF on the Ashes (Part 3).

From KF (written before this morning's collapse/ strange selections):

A rain reduced analysis from your humble scribe today to match the 3rd Test itself? Not likely!!! A feeling of what if and what might have been for an improving England against the increasingly perplexing tourists. But, as I said at the conclusion of my 1st Test blurb, all that surely matters is the score and its still looking excellent for England. They would take this score after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th Tests and it’s probably a pretty fair reflection of the series so far.

During the 'greatest sporting event' ever in 2005 I felt the Aussies failed to pick their strongest eleven leaving out the likes of Symonds and Hussey when injuries occurred and form declined through the series, especially with their bowlers. Replacements seemed to be hopeful gambles as opposed to bringing in a tried and trusted deputy. I get that same feeling with these tourists. The selection of Watson to open in this match drew comment from our friends in the potting shed. Although performing well enough at Edgbaston, Watson’s technique isn’t what would traditionally be preferred for a Test opener. As most of us are aware, the game has moved on since the days of Boycott so if Watson can average 55 or so at the top of the order like he did at Edgbaston, it doesn’t really matter that his bat comes down squint rather too often. It still leaves a strong whiff of desperation lingering in the air. Is there really not a ready made option for replacement Test opener in the whole of Australia? Phil Jaques springs immediately to mind, though I don’t know that he is yet fully fit. It is similar in the bowling department. The closest bowler to McGrath that Australia have is Stuart Clark. His ability to keep putting the ball in the same, correct place is reminiscent of old pidge. I was surprised during the 3rd Test to find out that Clark was fit, just not selected. It appears that Ponting is a good captain when it’s going his way, but he often gives off bad vibes and seems more desperate when they are not. Then again, it may simply be that the Aussies have set such a high standard in recent years that we expect too much.

I’ve been asked to make more predictions for this series, rather than putting my thoughts into print after the event. I would have thought that my derision of predictions by the likes of Sir Ian Botham would have made it clear that predictions are a mostly a mug's game. If Botham can’t tell what is going to happen, how am I going to do any better? I’ve said before, all I want from commentary is “a fair and unbiased assessment of the game … commented upon where necessary, with some tactical and technical insights by an eloquent commentator”. Where it gets annoying is when these gentlemen start making fanciful predictions (these are predictions too influenced by bias and hope). To predict an exact score or result or whatever edges too close to dumb conceit. I can’t tell the future and haven’t met anyone else who can. Before anyone throws a previous quote about predictions at me, I’ll emphasise I said “If I had to bet” with the emphasis on ‘had’. I don’t have to, and therefore don’t. I see nothing wrong with watching events unfold and enjoying them for what they are. Isn’t that the greatest attraction of sport for the observer?

KF on the Ashes (Part 2).

Part 2 of KF's Ashes commentary.

One single match after the worst performance in the history of sport against the greatest side ever to walk the planet, England find themselves 1-0 up in the series. OK, I’m exaggerating a bit, but as usual, it’s the commentary by supposed experts that gets me going. I’d love to watch a game (and this applies to football as well), where a fair and unbiased assessment of the game is commented upon where necessary, with some tactical and technical insights by an eloquent commentator. Too often we are fed total nonsense. There are exceptions. I think ‘our’ own Michael Atherton is excellent and feel it’s hard to beat a Jeremy Coney assessment of a match situation. Where Coney is also extremely good is that when talking about New Zealand, there is no bias or jingoism, he tells it exactly like it is. And that is how it should be. We need more like him and they must be out there (certainly in cricket, maybe not in football).

The danger of paying someone to sit and talk when there is nothing to say is all too apparent. And the logic seemingly followed by Sky, that you need to have been an England captain to be able to commentate, is questionable. Yes, they’d have a crack senior 6-a-side team, but are they the greatest commentary team? When Hughes opens for Australia and clobbers a four over point, you hear English voices say things like ‘ooh, he got away with that one’ or ‘a bit uppish there’. In my head I can only hear Bill Lawry screaming ‘BANG, there’s another one crashing into the boards’. Why are England’s commentator’s so negative? When, as happens, the umpire’s made a meal of things, I could hardly believe my ears. The game was brought into disrepute with the assertion that these umpires were rubbish and that in world cricket, only Dar and Taufel are up to the job. Amazing stuff coming from former England players. If this is the case, and you think you can do better then stop being so defamatory and show us how it’s done. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

How nice is it to hear Warne in amongst them. He is Australian and he wants them to win. No problems there. But he is also a genuine world cricketer having captained in England and India in different versions of the game to go alongside his Australian record/s. His cricket opinion is clear of petty jealousies and suchlike, he just espouses sensible opinion again and again. He can’t be rivalled when it comes to ospinion (do you like that?) and I think his point that there should only be referrals if there is a referral system that is 100% accurate is well considered. Simply put, when he opens his mouth you listen. When Botham starts contradicting what he said 15 minutes ago, you switch off. When Hussein goes in a huff because England are being beaten, you despair.

Onto the actual cricket. What a difference Graham Onions made. Without him, England limped to a draw at Cardiff. With him Australia were steamrollered at Lords. Obviously I jest. But regarding England’s team selection, who do you rate most/who is best/who would you least like to face? Onions & Broad or Harmison & Panesar? All four would skittle me, but I suspect the vast majority would prefer the latter pair in their side and they’d be a fantastically entertaining last wicket partnership as well.

Now for Sir Freddie. That his injuries have cut short his career is no surprise at all. As he is ‘big-built’ and a quickie, he was always going to incur more wear and tear. But as I’ve said on record before (see Jon’s quote in the comments about my 1^st Test report), injecting him with pain killers and making him play while injured is stupid, counter-productive and borderline criminal. The pain is there for a reason. Masking it allows you to dumbly exacerbate the problem. I’m astonished such short-termism pervades. Anyone familiar with the story of Allan McGraw will dread what the future holds for Flintoff’s legs. At least in the 1960’s they could plead ignorance. That he can thunder in and consistently bowl over 90mph owes as much to the ‘wonders’ of medicine than natural ability. Sorry to labour this but I reckon I could smash a few lids if I was on the same drugs as Flintoff.

Now without their show pony (allowing countless laboured Achilles heel jokes), will England pick a work horse or a donkey? Is there an Australian available with 3 games under his belt for a minor county who qualifies through a criminal grandparent deported here 50 years ago? I refer of course to the somewhat leftfield selection of that bowler whose name escapes me and I can’t be bothered to look up. While losing KP is a blow they have an obvious replacement in Bell, but you never know with England selectors do you!!! And all that losing KP from the batting line-up will do is allow the commentators to start attacking Bopara or Cook or whoever instead of their goofy Saffer.

The performances in the first two Test’s don’t matter now. An argument could be made that England have the momentum, but didn’t Australia have that after Cardiff? Momentum or over-confidence, six and half a dozen!!! The score is 1-0 to England, an outstanding position. But with doubts over Flintoff’s ability to play another 3 Tests, Broad’s cold statistics and Onions yet to prove he is Test class, there are still 60 Australian wickets between England and the Ashes. The cricket has been excellent so far and I can’t wait for the next instalment, although I might just watch it with the sound turned off. Actually, I can’t do that or I’d have nothing to whinge about in my next dispatch.