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 2010-11: (Part 3)- Ponting Buckles

[KF's latest Discharge-sent on 27/12/10]

“Ricky’s actions as captain of his country were unacceptable.”

“He apologized for his action and stated that he has nothing but respect for the umpires.”

Don’t you just love press offices. What a load of Bull.

We’ve seen the tantrums before of course, most amusingly with Gary Pratt’s 15 minutes of fame and just like football managers with similar compunctions, it’s always when taking a beating that they take particular umbrage with the officials. It’s never the fault of the captain or manager or players themselves.

I understand the Punter wants another crack at the Ashes in England. Try not to chuckle. It can’t be up to him any more. He’s fast becoming an embarrassment, as are the team he claims to have picked (from the 12 names he was given?!?!). Taxi for Ponting methinks.

I’ve been harping on about Australia picking unfit players through this whole series. As soon as Punter broke his finger dropping a catch at Perth, it was almost inevitable he wouldn’t be fit for Melbourne, but say he was, then show he wasn’t. And so it came to pass. I would be surprised if he hasn’t got more big ton’s in him at Test level, but they are increasingly fewer and farther between.

My previous piece of journalistic jocularity identified the dangers of winning the toss in this series. Seems I misinterpreted the trend, which wasn’t winning/losing the toss, but actually batting first. The question might be ‘who is worst at setting a 1^st innings total?’ While England haven’t been up to much in this department, like most things in this series, the hosts have been much worse. 98 all out on Boxing Day!!! Compounded by Strauss/Cook making 157-0 straight after!!! This must be rock bottom for the baggy greens. Too much for Australia’s paying public who voted with their feet in no uncertain terms long before the end. If you’re going to bray for pommy blood when McGrath/Lee/Warne/Hayden/Gilchrist etc are in their pomp, try giving Hughes/Smith/Doherty/Hilfenhaus some support when things aren’t going so well. An amusing aside, Xavier has more series wickets than Homehelp.

Sad to watch (I claim to myself to be neutral). When this series has erred into genuine competition it’s been really good. Most of the rest has been English pundits not quite knowing how to report the first time since at least the 1980’s that England have been genuinely better. Usually they’re claiming Imperial superiority after a session where, say, Hayden & Gilchrist were restricted to 220 runs off 27 overs in fog on a farm track. Now that their team are sticking it right up their tormentors, they can’t seem to bring themselves to say outright (Boycott aside) exactly how superior they are. Too many false dawns in the past temper any triumphalism, but when its so obviously a bright sunny day now, why not just say what you see? As I believe I’ve been saying since the Ponting/Haddin toys out the pram (Ponting, huff, really???) in the 2^nd test. Incidentally, it was Haddin again stoking Pontings petulance (and subsequent official rebuke) in this Test claiming a catch when Watson at 1^st slip didn’t go up for it at all.

Who knows what the Aus XI will be at Sydney (Dregs, Chucker, Huffy??). Will any Aussies fans even turn up? Who will be the captain? England have ran out of good records to beat. Australia keep getting worse.

My only advice to them now is to play the next series in Perth and bat 2^nd every time. Just remembered, this Test is only two days old. I’ll be accused of counting chooks again. Well I’ve counted mine and I’d recommend you count yours.

KF on the Ashes 2010-11: (Part 2)- Australia on the Verge of Winning back the Ashes!

[KF's latest piece of Ashes Analysis]

As promised, I quote from the end of my ‘article’ of two weeks ago “I always said Australia would win back the Ashes at a canter”.

Finally, we have a contest. From oblivion and hopelessness, the clichés of grit, determination and a few lorry-loads of obnoxiousness have returned to the Australian cricket team just in the nick of time.

What a very strange series. Every single toss so far has been a great toss to lose. In the first Test, Strauss struck the first psychological blow by winning the toss and batting, then poked himself in the eye by giving his wicket away third ball. Match drawn. At Adelaide, Australia won the toss on a batsman-only pitch, batted and were 2-3. England won. England won the toss at Perth, stole a march on Ponting who had picked a bowl first team, put them in, then proceeded to wilt in the face of Australian aggression. Australia win. Let’s see what happens at the MCG and Sydney but losing the toss would appear to be quite important.

Elsewhere, the show ponies and prima donna’s, the players with more ability than Charlie and Coco combined, the guys who need to perfect their hair before taking the field, the top level match winners like KP & Mitch apparently require the axe to bring them to their senses. Pre-series, KP was chopped. When he returned, it didn’t take him long to carve out a Test best. If England’s top 3 score tons, KP somehow feels he must do even better. If they fail, no pressure on him, he can seemingly fail too.

Meanwhile, every English commentators favourite Aussie quick, Mitchell Johnson, batted and bowled in the 3^rd Test so immensely well that it seems to me more of negative against him considering how atrocious he was in the 1^st Test. Does he really need to be dropped to force him to perform like that? It’s one thing to be below par, then re-find your form. It’s entirely different if you go from utterly hopeless to best ever in the space of one performance. Quite beguiling with shades of Botham when he lost the captaincy. But Johnson’s incredible improvement was almost all Australia needed to win this test. His batting in the first innings was the most entertaining and devastating knock of the series so far, I’d even contend it eclipsed his magnificent bowling destruction which knocked England batting confidence back about 15 years. Do the Aussie selectors have the cohoonies to claim credit for his resurgence? Even a stopped clock…

Now, after consulting with Captain Hindsight, I’d like to do my usual ‘I know best’ spiel. Would there be an improvement on the last test when Hilditch & Co picked 4 injured players (Clarke, Katich, Bollinger, Harris) and a nonentity (poor old Xavier), so effectively playing with about 6 players? Only just. They refused to listen when I called for Marsh and D Hussey. Instead they picked Hughes (14 runs) and a still unfit Clarke (24 runs). They persist with Watson as an opener (45 innings, 2 hundreds). I think in M Hussey (42,000,000 runs and a series average of 8876.99) they have a ready made series winning opener (in all seriousness, 99 innings, 13 tons), leaving Watson to come in at 6 and batter England with no responsibility. Imagine a Haddin/Watson 6^th wicket partnership or two!!!! As for Marsh, he has no Tests to state a proper case for him, plus, he’s not usually an opener. But for sure he’s fitter than Katich at the moment and I’d liken Hughes to a powerful outboard motor attached to a colander. The holes in Hughes game are remarkable for a 50+ pre-3^rd-test average (although its now below 45). He may come again, but now isn’t his time. I was happy to see Steve Smith (43 runs), but couldn’t believe he appeared above Haddin at 6. And it was good to see a recall for Johnson, who should only have been dropped if there was better to come in, which there so obviously wasn’t. I’d have picked Bolly (Test ave 25.92) ahead of Hilfenhaus (Test ave 34.04 and 1-68 in the 3^rd Test). The only selection I’d accept I got wrong, was that of Harris who ignored my fitness question marks to be a worthy inclusion who played an important part in equalling the series, albeit at a slower pace than in Adelaide. Since he’s a bowler, I’ll leave his comedy batting alone for now.

As for England, are they just a victim of the shifting tides of sport? You simply can’t win them all. We are always told that getting to the top is the easy bit, it’s staying there that’s difficult. The difference in performances between Tests II & III show a drastic lack of consistency (arguably you could say this has been the case the whole series), the trademark over which they shall have to do battle with Johnson. They were beaten far too easily for a team that had just won so easily. But who could have coped with such a fired up Johnson in particular and Australia in general?

Pre-Test I felt Tremlett had to come in for Broad. However, after in depth discussions with ol’ Captain Hindsight, feel that Bresnan should also have appeared at the expense of Finn. Neither Finn or Tremlett could replace Broads experience and I’m arguing age ahead of actual Test experience may have been more in England’s favour as a Broad replacement. I’d still suggest Tremlett/Bresnan for the 4^th Test ahead of Finn.

In the 4^th innings, you may have noticed, that not only was Bell (this series 76, 68*, 53, 16) still below Collingwood (4, 42, 5, 11), he was actually at 7 below JAMES ANDERSON too. This sort of decision should be a sackable offence. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!! Bell must now move up to 5 and Collingwood must perform with the bat asap or make way. I’ve heard folk talk about getting the 1 percenters right. Moving Bell up would be a 10 percenter!!!!

Now for the leftfield suggestion. Why not drop KP for Melbourne? Using the Johnson example, this should ensure an England victory when he’s (inevitably) recalled for the 5^th Test. This would mean England win the 5^th Test and therefore the series, no matter what happens at the MCG. You can read too much into a speeding ticket in a bright yellow sports car, but if these prima donna menchildren need their shiny toys taken away from them before they perform like adults, then so be it. We might see them less, but when we do, they’ll come out all guns blazing.

KF on the Ashes 2010-11: (Part 1)- England Win the Ashes!

'With legendary reporter-cum-controversialist KF otherwise engaged composing unfeasibly tricky quizzes, the editorial board has sought long and hard for a new Chief Test Cricket Correspondent'

KF has not taken this challenge lying down but -rather than sending a team of heavies armed with baseball bats to Bellevue Chapel- has spent the last two nights preparing this:

As the teams left the field at the end of the 1^st day at Adelaide, two of Australia’s three players to turn up so far (the other being Hussey), effectively conceded this Ashes series to England. After being pasted for two days at Brisbane, then rolling over for 245 after winning the toss in a batting paradise, the frustration for Ponting and Haddin spilled over into quite embarrassing verbals. It appears that the Aussies felt Strauss & Cook had time wasted at the end of the first days play, finishing on 1-0. In what is fast turning into complete humiliation for the home side, the Aussies should be looking no further than themselves and their blanket ineptitude before attacking one of the finest England sides ever to contest an Ashes tour. To take overs or time out of the game, I’m afraid England’s batsmen are doing Australia a favour, for as soon as the cricket gets underway, the hosts, one partnership and one hat trick aside, are a complete shambles.

Whilst, to an extent, I’m excusing Ponting, Haddin & Hussey, the former has had a golden duck and been unable to affect the game through on field captaincy and the other two have already dropped catches (just three innings into the series). These are Australia’s best players. Watson, probably the 4^th best home player has failed where Cook has excelled. Test openers getting 50 per match aren’t worth as much as one who converts into hundreds. Is Watson a Test opener? Asking that question alone suggests doubt. Katich (injured finger) gave his wicket away without even facing in the first innings whilst so asleep it boggles the mind. Ponting, notoriously vulnerable early in an innings seems to need to take a beating before fighting back. His quick 50 in the 1^st test was too little, too late, inconsequential even. His golden in the 2^nd test was worryingly unsurprising for such a ‘great’ player. Where was the 50 in 40 balls when his team needed it? At 4 there is a patently unfit Michael Clarke. He is unable to bowl, but supposedly fit, unable to bat (11 in 83 balls while its runs galore elsewhere), never mind the 1^st test, at Adelaide it was a matter of time til he succumbed, doing well to reach 2 with a rabbit in the headlights stroke that fended a short one off down to fine leg. And when he’s dropping regulation slip catches (at Brisbane), picking him is both unfair to him and stupid for the team. Hussey, one drop at gully aside has held his own, same goes for Haddin.

At 6 there is a batsman who doesn’t score runs. What else needs said? Johnson at 8 in Brisbane turned in as inept a performance as you’ll see in Test cricket post Harmison. He had to be dropped. But only if there is an able replacement. He looks like he needs cricket, yet I see he’s doing 12^th man duties at Adelaide?!?!? Siddle, who I think should bowl 1^st over for Australia has been very hot and very cold. A great hat trick and 6-54 followed by 40-7-140-0. Hilfenhaus has bowled not much worse, just without the 6-54 taking 1-142 at the Gabba. Leaving the worst for last, it’s a shame for any Ozzie spinner because they’ll all be compared to Warne and fall short. Xavier Doherty , hilariously included to directly counter Pietersen (bats 4, Eng 517-1 dec) barely turns the ball, has average control and its difficult to see why he got one cap (ahead of Hauritz), never mind two. His two wickets so far have been James Anderson, then Ian Bell who was last man out when hitting out. Since then 0-207. I’ll leave his below par fielding performance alone. I don’t even think he’s as good a bowler as North.

The cunning plan for the 2^nd test was to drop Hilf & Mitch and add Bollinger & Harris, both short of games and fitness doubts. Harris looks to me about the equivalent of Bresnan. And he was given the new ball!!! Is he better than Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson or even a 35 year old S Clark? If anything illustrates the gulf between these sides, this must be it. At the time of writing, this new look attack has England rocking at 317-2 with batting records of all descriptions being obliterated. It is dark and desperate times for the hosts and if the 13 players we’ve seen so far are the best they can produce, England and their fans are in for a sun kissed bonanza. Australia must drop injured players now (Clarke, Katich) and need another bowler because, stating the obvious, they aren’t taking wickets. They also need to inject some of that unquantifiable Aussie spirit. If not Cameron White whose seems to struggle at Test level, then I’d get Steve Smith straight in. What he lacks in ability, he more than makes up for with attitude.

Not one to criticise without suggesting alternatives, here is my Aus team in order. M Hussey, Marsh, Ponting, D Hussey, Watson, Haddin, Smith, Johnson, Hauritz, Siddle, Bollinger. I’d have Clarke, Katich & Johnson doing their prep for the 3^rd test somewhere more suitable than in the 2^nd Test.

While laying into a woeful Australian side, the big question is, how much of this is down to England? Pretty much all of it I reckon. We are seeing one of the great England sides, at least of the modern era. Whilst a heck of a lot was made of the 2005 team, largely the same team went on to a 5-0 whitewash next time the sides met. This team might lack Flintoff, or the 2005 Pietersen, but they are a much better unit. My only gripe is that Collingwood bats ahead of Bell. I would possibly even say I’m surprised Collingwood is included ahead of Morgan, but Collingwood is more to this England team than just runs. At the moment I think Haddin would beat Prior into the England side and Hussey ahead of Collingwood. Could Ponting oust Strauss as captain or Trott at number 3? At the moment, I don’t think so. When was the last time 8 or 9 England players would walk into an Eng/Aus select XI?

I’ve also had the feeling for a while that England watchers aren’t quite aware of how good an opening pair they have in Strauss and Cook. Their big problem seems to be their lack of spectacularity(?), but their record and dogged consistency, which is coming to fruition in spectacular fashion at present augurs very well for the foreseeable future. With the rest of the batting line up falling into place (Collingwood issue aside), and Anderson & Swann finding top form in 2010 it seems like there is greatness ahead for the current England/Wales/Ireland/South African 2^nd XI test side (this might be read as derogatory, but it’s a fact and the team name should be changed at least to something more British, otherwise why not call them London, or Middlesex, or Westminster or MCC or something equally as untruthful).

Next week; I always said Australia would win back the Ashes at a canter!!!

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 4).

All I’m saying is Stiffies & Tossers. All will become clear.

Strewth, where did that England performance come from? In these times of professional sport a big problem with the amount of coaching and preparation is that sometimes, for no obvious reason, no amount of vitamin pills, bowling strategies, hypnosis, video studies of the opposition, ice baths, sex bans etc can make the athlete turn up and perform. As these factors are very difficult to study to definitively establish effectiveness, I often wonder just how effective many of them actually are. They sound intuitively correct, but you surely don’t need examples of how wrong human intuition can be.

There are countless anecdotes you could use whichever side of the argument you wish to take. Harold Larwood’s ‘Tea’ is a case in point. I understand he used to take 3 pints, 2 ciggies and a ham sandwich, then return to the field to bowl exceptionally enough to still be talked about today. I bet there isn’t a coaching manual anywhere that would recommend this to an aspiring cricketer. Whyever not? It worked for an all time great. The differences between the styles of Gower and Gooch are equally famous examples. Gower wouldn’t even go for a jog whilst Gooch espoused what we now recognise to be a much more professional approach. Could Gower have been even better if he jogged more? Would Gooch have been worse if he jogged less? Impossible to say. They did what they thought was best for themselves and it seemed to work just fine.

At Holy Cross (CA Smith & Astley aside), we take great delight in pillorying ‘warm-ups’. There are few things greater in cricket than watching the opposition blur around pre-game from a position of horizontal rest, to then take the field, fashionably late if possible and beat them. I’ve never noticed a correlation between the opposition warm-up and a Holy Cross defeat. I doubt it exists. Though I did see Astley injure himself first ball of the game once while the ten other stiffies soldiered on to victory!!!!!

We now have a situation where in the last two Ashes Test matches two wicket keepers have been injured in what is called the warm-up. Why not call it the ‘final injury chance’ or something that bit more truthful. Remember McGrath in 2005? What a great, series defining warm-up that was!!! Behind the (arguably avoidable*) injuries to Pietersen and Flintoff, the Prior back spasm seems to have played the major role in the turmoil leading up to the start of the 4th Test and the bad start from which England never recovered. So are warm-up’s worth it? Would more players get injured in a game if they didn’t warm up? Are there any stats on this? Or is it the type of warm-up? Should Gower and Gooch do a warm up that suits themselves, then go out and play to the best of their ability? I think so. I would contend that at most, a few small stretches or loosening of the joints would do for most people. Maybe a ‘loosen-off’ instead of a ‘warm-up’ would adequately suffice. If I was losing a wicket keeper every other match due to the warm-up, I’d be banning the stupid things immediately!!! But that might just be a stupid human with stupid human intuition talking.

So before the Match has even begun, teams are shooting themselves in the finger (Haddin), back (Prior) or ankle (McGrath)? If both teams are doing this, at least no disadvantage is gained.

My next point seems even crazier to me. Remember, we haven’t even started playing yet. What else could go wrong? How about the toss? At Headingley, England won the toss and chose to bat. Ponting said he’d have batted given the chance as well. What followed showed that both camps were absolutely wrong. How on earth can teams, in such supposedly enlightened times, have absolutely no clue how to read conditions? I plead now for any qualified academic’s out there to get a PhD arranged to look into this. It might even be as simple as just procuring a barometer.

At international level now (again, Trinidad aside, though I think it was the outfield that caused problems), pitches are pretty much immaculate and this is increasingly the case the higher you travel up through our club game. I suppose that the reason Strauss and Ponting were inclined to bat first at Headingley was because the pitch looked good. The factor of swing appears not to have been a worthwhile consideration. Having been a tosser myself for a few seasons, I feel I have some useful input here. I very recently heard the saying “look up, not down” when deciding what to do. As I became more experienced as a tosser, this is effectively how I came to decide what to do (I just hadn’t defined it so goodly). As a batsman, I think that standing in the middle, just ask, would I like to bat just now? How is the light, how windy is it, will there be much swing? If it doesn’t feel too good, best bet is to have a bowl. Not at all scientific, but summed up by ‘looking up, not down’. Whether I’m right or wrong, I’m amazed that there aren’t better ways of reading the conditions when it can have an overwhelming say in the result.

So, if I’d been in charge at Headingley, I’d have led my fully-fit, suitably loose XI onto the field to bowl. Ponting did this and despite a warm-up and losing the toss, his side triumphed. Strauss marched out, bat in hand already a man down (spasming) and lost. And the selectors get the blame?!?!?! It’s a funny old game!!!

*Pietersen has played injured for some time, including in the IPL without having the problem addressed and I’ve said enough about the madness of the Flintoff situation in previous writings.

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.

KF on the Ashes (Part 1)

[Some brief, er, reflections from the 1st team VC on the 1st Test].

Previously this may have been called an article, but now its probably a twitblog!!! I splatted out a twitarticleblog after the 2005 nailbiter. You may recall England retained their Ashes by beating Australia 365-0 and made Shane Warne retire and Ricky Ponting cry. To appease my literary fans, I’ve decided to review the 1st Test, and who knows, maybe more in the weeks to come.

England (& Wales) 687-19
Australia 674-6
Match Drawn!!!!!

Nathan who (6-158)? Marcus who (125no)? Congratulations to all the experts in the media who once again talked and wrote more tripe about proceedings in Cardiff than I would ever have thought possible (even Cricinfo bills it as “Australia tour of England and Scotland, 1st Test: England v Australia at Cardiff,”). The Sky boys were in great form, Sir Beefy in particular (“Australia have to score a lot of runs just to avoid the follow on” he slavered, rubbing his hands early in Australia’s first innings. I didn’t see him smile again until proceedings concluded), whilst our meatheaded papers couldn’t help smearing themselves in idiotic ink as well. The Sundays had a fine old time denouncing the tawdry, inept embarrassments turning out for England (& Wales) with a day of the match still to go. ‘Only Welsh Rain Can Save English Shower’ and more disrespectful tedium like that.

End result, a draw with no Welsh raindrops in sight. But how can that be? Well, against obviously superior opposition (“this Australian team isn’t as bad as we thought” – Smiler Hussein, morning of Day 4, hopefully speaking on behalf of the expert commentary team and not on behalf of average cricket fans who watched Australia in South Africa recently on the really obscure Sky Sports channels), two or three players showed international class application, specifically Anderson, Collingwood and an impeccable knock of 7 from 35 balls by Monty. Massive credit to them. But if Anderson outscores 5 of the top 6 in any more innings, heads have to roll. It seems harder to be dropped from England 1st XI than it is for Holy Cross 1st XI and I should know.

A wee point here about KP. Why is the English media hounding him into inevitable early retirement. Sure, he’s a total prat, but this isn’t a personality contest. He top scored in the 1st innings and was singled out and slaughtered for it. There are very few people in the world who can tell him how to play and none of them are English (or Welsh). You can have him playing his way (1st innings) or the ‘proper’ way (2nd innings). Absolutely no contest. He is far and away the teams most talented run scorer and this put them on a pedestal to knock them off thing is unfathomable. Everyone has flaws. Not everyone has talent like that. Cherish every run he scores before he says ‘enough is enough, see how you do without me’. He was treated shabbily as captain and despite establishing himself as the nations best batsman, still has to dodge flak from batsmen of the calibre of Bob Willis and the like.

Once the match was underway, the likelihood of a draw was a done deal. It is the practice in these times to prepare a flat dead batting track which won’t break up even if the whole series is played on it (unless you are Antiguan of course). As we see at club level, this seems to have the knock on effect of making league cricketers expect bone dry A-class roads for games, rather than just getting on with it and accepting indifferent bounce is the same for both teams. The talk of picking 1 or 2 spinners (if 2, why not 4 or 5?) seems redundant to me. I’m sure in the days of Underwood and uncovered pitches, these tactics were genuine (as was the nightwatchman thing with which England persist at any opportunity), but on the face of it at Cardiff, I don’t see how either Hauritz or Swann & Panesar were or could have been match winners here ahead of any other type of bowler. If the pitch is flat, dead and true and will be for 25 days apart from the odd bowlers follow through, picking specialist players for different Tests seems largely obsolete.

To ensure no possibility of a result, the ECB took the incredible decision of not only starting this series outside England, but also picking the wettest ground available. Peerages must be inevitable for these bright chaps. That the visitors almost prevailed bodes ill for England’s chances in this series. Depending how much attention you pay to history, I believe England haven’t won the first Ashes test for decades, and haven’t beaten Australia at Lords since the 1930’s. So, why on earth choose Lords for the 2nd Test??? Apparently the Venue Selection meeting began with the statement; ‘Gentlemen, under no circumstances do we want to be ahead after 2 Tests’. Where is the 3rd Test, the Gabba? Or maybe Wales has some other wetter Test standard grounds and the whole series could be played there.

Referring back to Nasser Hussein’s earlier quote, this is an Australian team arriving after beating the supremely talented South Africans away from home and who beat England (& Wales) 5-0 the last time they met. They are stuffed full with class, potential and experience. When 4 of the team are outscoring Mrs Cricket by 100+ runs (and the tail didn’t even get a bat), you can only fear for the pretty England bowlers who try so elegantly for so little return, for the rest of this series. I’ve said since the 5-0 drubbing in Australia that Harmison has to be picked at home, and left there when the team tour. With the depreciating Flintoff, he’s the only bowler available who can, albeit on his day, ruffle Aussie feathers. But I can’t remember England (& Wales) ever picking their best XI, so why begin now?

However close or otherwise this match played out, England have done very well to get a draw. Does it matter if both teams were 1000-5 after 5 days, or that one team nearly won/lost? I don’t think so. England (&Wales) only have to win the series 1-0. That is the only bottom line. Offer that to any Englander now and you’re hand, arm and shoulder would disappear with it. It’s currently 0-0, as good a start as they’ve had in recent memory. Not that you would sniff this from the press. Maybe some ‘Welsh’ rain can help them at Lords? Then by the 3rd Test when England (& etc) are picking something like their best side, and the Aussies have a niggle or two in a tiring squad, we might see the home side edge ahead. Or it may end up 4-0 to the Aussies. If I had to put £1 on a series result, it might be 50p each way on 3-0 or 4-0. I hope it’s a lot closer, if only to hear the blinkered brigade get excited and xenophobic for a while. As its bad form to criticise without offering alternatives, here is my England ((& Wales) & Scotland XI): K Fraser (c), WG Grace, C Ellis, K Pietersen, J Bates, M Bevan, J Russell (wk), I Botham, R Illingworth (always an idea to have an umpire in your side), H Larwood, G Small.

Will blether again after the next debacle…