Thanks Namya

for this.

Dear Mitchell,

On the pages of Cricinfo, I came across this statement from your manager

"You would have to say, looking back now, it worked effectively. With that same thing in mind we want to protect his long-term interests and I don't see that will be served by playing the IPL and he agrees."

Laudable sentiments those. And one which I would have endorsed wholeheartedly in normal circumstances.

But these are not normal circumstances.

A cursory glance through Statsguru reveals the following

Test matches - Bowling analysis - Innings break up

The minimum overs bowled by you in an innings is 8.

The Matchwise breakup makes for more painful reading

Test matches - Bowling analysis - Matchwise break up

The minimum number of overs bowled in a Test - 23.5

Add to that the following

1. Australia plays 11 test matches in the remainder of this calender year, not to mention T20 and ODI series.

2. Your team does not have a spinner, which means that the pace bowlers have to pick up the slack.

3. With Brett Lee on the sidelines and Stuart Clark on the mend, you are the go to guy for the Australians.

4. Your batting has come about in leaps and bounds, making you a genuine all rounder in the lower middle order.

My point - your workload will not decrease anytime soon As a matter of fact, you will have more to do during this season and the next.

And given that your idiot captain uses you as both strike and stock bowler, how much longer before you pick up injuries? And how much longer before your captain bowls you to the ground?

You are 27 now, and not getting any younger. And given the way the cricket calender is structured and given the paucity of bowling resources your team has at the moment and given the manner in which your captain treats bowlers ( Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Krejza, Lee), how long do you think your shelf life is?

Signing up for the IPL may increase your workload, but you don't have to show up for work to be assured of a steady income for the next 3 years - the pro rated salary structure takes care of that.

And here is the other thing - you are the flavour of the season at the moment. You may be on the sidelines the next. And when you are on the sidelines, how many IPL owners do you think will be queueing up to sign you?

So tell me again, how are your long term interests being protected?

Cheers,

PS:- Just realized something - you play your tests at Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, venues that hosted you the last time Australia were in South Africa. And we all know what happened then, right?

No extra webbing - 3

So here I am, on a Friday evening, with a lot of time on my hands and not much to do. Which is an excellent opportunity to kick back and watch the highlights of the recently concluded series between Australia and South Africa.

As I watched, something struck me - Ian Healy was on commentary. And yet, in all the segments that made up the commentary schedule, there was no mention, at all, of extra webbing.

So, a quick search of the CricInfo website and here is what I found ( funnily enough, CA's ban on game time images meant that I could not find corresponding images from the SA-Aus series)

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/374296.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/374352.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/374392.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/374466.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/376018.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/376664.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/373555.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/377124.html

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/image/377541.html

There was just the one image from the SA series

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvrsa2008_09/content/image/384508.html

which begs the obvious question for Mr Ian Healy - No extra webbing?

Shooting itself in the foot

So, curbing player power is why Kevin Pieterson had to go. Which would have made sense if there was the case for player power. But, as usual, the ECB misread the situation and now finds itself a mess.

Which is just about well, I say.

Player power was on display when the ECB bent over backwards to accommodate Sir Allen Stanford in order to dissuade players from running over to the IPL. It showed the extent to which the ECB would bend in order for its players to make some extra cash.

This was one battle the ECB could have avoided fighting. It was common knowledge that Pieterson and Moores were not bosom buddies. It is also well documented that England havent made any forward progress in the time that Moores was coach. And it is also well documented that Pieterson is ambitious, fiercely so.

And it was in Pieterson's interest ( and the ECB's) that the team progress - Pieterson getting the accolades for his leadership, the ECB because it would keep the bean counters active.

Kevin Pieterson's power struggle with Peter Moores was no display of player power. In fact, it was a golden opportunity for the ECB to quell player power.

Here is how.

Accede to Pieterson's demands. Sack Peter Moores. Get in a new coach. Put the onus of winning completely on Pieterson.

If he trips, he trips alone. If he succeeds,the ECB still brings home the money.

And when he trips, that becomes the fait accompli for the ECB to put him in place.

Also, because Pieterson does not command his dressing room, there are already ready made counterweights to his "power".

Also because Pieterson has an inflated worth of self, odds are that he will not let anyone else get anywhere close to the limelight, the Talisman included.

A perfect crabs in a box situation.

Which would have worked brilliantly for the ECB.

Instead, we now have atleast 3 power centers in the England team ( Pieterson, Strauss and Flintoff), no coach, no direction, no leadership and the ignominy of being the laughing stock of world cricket.

PS - Just been reading about the IPL frenzy following Pieterson's resignation drama. And that is the crux of the ECB's problem - no leverage.

No leverage with the South African Mercenary(tm) as he is no longer captain and is yet to sign the ECB's contact. There is very little the ECB can do if Pieterson now decides to pick and choos when he plays.

No leverage with Andrew Strauss as Strauss is the one the ECB is looking at to bail them out of this mess. Rest assured that he will extract his pound of flesh.

No leverage with the Talisman either.

"The ECB will have the final say on Pietersen's participation in the IPL as the tournament's rules clearly state all overseas players will require a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from their respective national boards. " - is not an option because that will make both the players and the BCCI extremely unhappy. And that is not good.

The only thing the ECB can really do, short of dropping Pieterson is to bank on the goodwill generated with the BCCI to ensure his availability. But there will be quid pro quo.

Will the ECB pay the price?

"We haven't been that bad'

What was said - "We haven't been that bad. There's been a lot of negativity around us. This can only be a really positive thing for us."

What was left unsaid -

On winning - " We are actually working our way to winning a match by taking 20 wickets. "

On negativity - "I dont necessarily read what I write.. Its just the rest of the world that is so negative".

There were some invaluable lessons, particularly for the younger guys, about just how disciplined you have to be, how well you have to execute your plans and how long you have to execute them for.

That's the real difference between this team and the teams we've had over the past 10 or 12 years.

Those teams with guys like Warne and McGrath were so relentless with the way they went about their bowling and executing their plans. They just wore other teams down.

We haven't been able to do that. We haven't put enough pressure on to stop the run rate ticking over and we've put catches down at crucial times.

If you're not taking your chances with inexperienced guys, all the pressure keeps mounting back on them.

--

I've never been a great one for records but looking through this year in Test cricket we finished with five wins, five losses and four draws. That's very different to the results we have been used to in the past.

If you look back to Sri Lanka at home last summer and the West Indies away mid-year, we really had to grind games out and win them late on the fifth day. Normally against those sorts of sides we would have won quite comfortably.

But I think that was a good thing for us. It gave some of the younger guys some know-how and experience when tough moments in Test matches come around.

We've been confronted by some really good batting teams, and some good bowling sides with India in India and South Africa at the moment.

We've found our work a bit harder and a bit more difficult.

--

It wasn't just our bowling in the second innings which concerned me, when South Africa managed its record run chase of 414.

It was also our batting in the second innings, when we should have batted them out of the match and not given them a sniff of victory. Senior guys like myself, Matty Hayden and Mike Hussey who should have done better.

Everyone knows that Australian cricket is going through a transition phase at the moment, which presents an exciting challenge that I'm really enjoying.

The hardest thing about the younger guys in the squad is not knowing how they're going to react under the different pressures of international cricket and finding the best way of communicating with them.

As captain, I and the other senior guys are still learning a fair bit about the younger guys and what makes them tick. Whether you're better off giving them a pat on the back or a rocket.

The biggest part of captaincy as far as I'm concerned is understanding the different personalities in the team well enough to allow you to communicate with them properly.

Pitches

( my comment on Aakash Chopra's blog post on Cricinfo, one that I am sure wont get published)

If a wicket has not deteriorated on the 4th day, odds of it changing complexion on the 5th are remote. So, adding the extra day will have no real bearing on the contest.

Instead, there should be points awarded for result oriented pitches - pitches that produce the most results ( and are within the parameters of fairness), should get to host the knockouts, semis and finals.

If the BCCI is really serious about the pitch quality, domestic results must be a factor in awarding Tests and ODIs - roads like the Kotla and Chennai should not be considered while most result oriented wickets should.

Also, a graded payment scheme for curators may help - you produce result oriented wickets, you get compensated accordingly.

And one last thing - Delhi must be penalized for producing a green top in the must win game against Orissa while producing a road for all their other home games.

Cheers,

M.P. Vaughan for coach!

Not such a daft idea as I previously thought. In fact, sheer genius.

In one stroke, the ECB can kill as many birds as they choose with one stone.

Call Pieterson's bluff. By having Vaughan in the dressing room as coach, it puts paid to Pieterson's grouse of not getting the required tactical support from the backroom staff.

And it provides the required counterweight to Pieterson's influence as captain and player.

Dressing room unity - Flintoff and Harmison will play for Vaughan, if not for Pieterson.

England retain their best player, the dressing room is a happier place, player ego gets checked, everyone gets a piece of the IPL pie, Australia get thrashed.

Whats not to like?

Smarter than I think

The Ego is.

It was a game of chicken, one which Pieterson was sure he would win. And he still might, despite the whole resignation drama.

Pieterson knows, and the ECB know Pieterson knows, that for all the talismanic qualities Flintoff brings to the plate, it is Pieterson who is the backbone of the England batting set up.

And the ECB also know that the disgruntlement with Peter Moores is not limited to Pieterson alone.

Pieterson may have ostensibly overplayed his hand, but there is the small matter of the England contracts not being signed as of date.

If Pieterson's resignation is indeed accepted by the ECB, there is no guarantee that the South African Mercenary will want to continue plying his trade for the ECB . And if he does not continue to ply his trade for the ECB, the ECB have a huge publicity problem - losing your drawcard before one of the biggest summers in the land ( the Ashes and the World Cup Twenty20) is not very smart.

Now, if Pietersopn does not play for the ECB, his chances of playing for the IPL diminish correspondingly - the BCCI will not play ball with a renegade and impact its now recovering relations with the ECB.

Which leaves the ICL.

If Pieterson walks away from the ECB and into the ICL, the ECB have a much bigger problem than they think - in one stroke the ICL gets not only free publicity and a marquee player but puts the ECB in a bind with respect to the county players currently attached to the ICL.

On the one hand, Pieterson's association with the ICL will make the ICL a pariah for the ECB ( without any necessary prompting from the BCCI). On the other hand, there is nothing the ECB can do to prevent Pieterson from turning up for Hampshire ( although Hampshire may lose on the Champions League booty if Pieterson plays for the ICL). And it will be hard for the ECB to pressurize a county team from benching Pieterson because he continues to be a draw card.

Also, with Pieterson not playing, the whole Stanford thingie loses sheen - Pieterson is the one English player ( the only English player?) who is comfortable with the whole Twenty20 shennanigans.

And with Giles Clarke up for re-election, say hello to a tight rope walk.

From Pieterson's perspective, he will continue to roll in the big bucks from the ICL and Subhash Chandra will only be too happy to bankroll him ( given what his presence will do to the TRPs).

And , as mentioned earlier, Pieterson is on terra firma as far as the Moores affair is concerned. It is public knowledge that things were not kosher between him and Moores. And if there is validity in the claim that Moores did not provide the tactical support that Pieterson sought in India, Moores' position is further diminished.

Pieterson's personality is a deterrent to overwhelming public sympathy and support for his poition, but nothing that a good publicist cannot overcome.

And the impact of Pieterson on the sidelines instead of on the field ( and corresponding England scorelines) will have a bigger impact shaping public opinion ( and garnering sympathy for his cause) than anything a publicist might conjure.

So, Pieterson holds atleast 3 ( if not all) of the Aces. And the ECB, yet again, finds itself in an untenable position.

This was a battle they could have done well not fighting. Yet, in their haste to "put the captain in his place" and support for "one of the boys", they have bitten more than they can chew.

Must be Sydney

McDonald to Kallis, OUT, oh well held, McDonald .. or not? Pitches it up down the stumps, Kallis goes back and starts to turn it to the on side, but the ball takes a leading edge and balloons back up in the air towards the bowler, who flings himself to his right in his follow through and looks like he's taken a stunner ... his team-mates converge but Kallis asks for confirmation, and McDonald admits he's not sure. To the naked eye it looked like he took it, Ponting sticks up a finger even before the umpires are consulted, and after numerous analysis Kallis is adjudged out. Thats a very, very tough call. One angle indicates he took it, the straight view says something else. I'm not convinced he took it.

But, of course!!!

AUSTRALIAN cricketers have struggled since their return from last year's IPL tournament. Some have been injured, but the figures are unavoidable.
But try this for a list of names of the fallen. Test players Matthew Hayden, Michael Hussey, Andrew Symonds and Brett Lee have figures showing a remarkable decline in productivity when the year before the IPL and the nine months since are compared.

It was just a matter of time before the blame was passed on to the IPL. I am just surprised it took the Aussie hacks the better part of a year before one of them reached the conlusion!