England's problem

is not Andrew Flintoff's dodgy knee. But Stuart Broad's bowling form. And Ravi Bopara's batting form.

If Ravi Bopara had shown any semblance of grinding it out there in the three tests thus far, Flintoff the batsman would not be needed to add teeth to the batting line up.

And if Stuart Broad had bowled half as well as he is capable of, Flintoff the bowler would not be needed as cover.

Instead, now England are faced with the dilemma of a weakened batting and bowling line up in Flintoff's absence.

Like for like, Sidebottom or Harmison could do the job of Flintoff the bowler and probably with better results. But playing either weakens the batting line up. And England love to bat deep. And with the middle order not showing any signs of solidity ( bar Collingwood at Cardiff), playing 5 bowlers is a high risk strategy for a team that finds itself in the lead in the series.

The problem England have with Flintoff playing is that he can barely get through one day with his knee being dodgy. And with Broad not bowling well, England are effectively a 3 bowler team - which is exactly what Australia want, with thier superior batting.

Had Broad shown some semblance of form at Edgbaston, this would have been a non issue. But no team can afford to carry one, let alone three passengers with the series still open. And had Bopara scored a 50 in all of his outings thus far, again England could have carried Broad and drafted in Harmison or Sidebottom.

Left to me, I would play Flintoff as a pure batsman and go in with Sidebottom for Broad. 7 batsmen, 4 bowlers with the added variety of a left arm swing bowler. And I will bring in Harmison for Onions. Harsh, I know, but I would rather have atleast one hit the deck bowler for the variety that gives me.

Test 3 Day 5

In the end, Australia did what was required of them. They played time and more importantly, they played for runs. 84 overs and 287 runs for the loss of 3 wickets is a fair return for a team that found itself under the hammer.

It showed intent and I believe the Australian dressing room will be the happier one going into Headingley on Friday.

About the Test match itself, what should have been an engrossing Test match despite the rain turned out to be another of those dead Tests that are going to kill Test Cricket.

5 sessions were lost to the weather. 25 wickets fell in the remaining 9 odd sessions. Of which 7 fell in one sensational session on Day 2.

More proof that T20 is killing Test cricket! Now we can all go home happy.

Test 3 Day 4

So far so good. The test has panned out the way I expected it to thus far.Starting with the toss until England's surprising counter attack in the middle session of the day, the Test was playing along expected lines.

But what the England counterattack and the two Australian wickets ( including probably the over of the day, by Swann to Ponting) have achieved is to put Australia firmly on the back foot.

Conventional wisdom will hold that Australia play for time tomorrow. Prolong the innings long enough to eke out a draw and regroup for Headingley.

It may work, but it is a move fraught with risks.Playing for time generally translates to not searching for runs. And with the early start and the atmospherics forecast, there is always the chance that the batsmen will offer one, earlier in their innings than later. And as the second day showed, it does not take too long for the team to unravel, especially when England have bowlers who can get more from the wicket than the Australians could.

88/2 in 28 overs is indicative of that mindset.

If ever there was a time now for Australia to rediscover what made them the most dominant force in world cricket for well over 15 years, it will be tomorrow.

I am not advocating recklessness, but I am definitely not advocating a 300 ball century for Mike Hussey. Australia have to look for runs and they have to show intent that they are looking for runs.And runs dont mean boundaries. Whatever happened to tip and run and those sharply run singles that used to make the fielding look ragged and would make the bowlers potty?

It is imperative that Australia maintain a scoring rate of atleast 3.5 in the first session of play. As the runs pile up, the lead will grow. And as the lead grows, English shoulders will sag ( think back to Lords on Day 4). And as the lead grows, time becomes of essence.

And if it is England that offers the draw, thats a huge morale boost for the Australian camp that is desperately looking for some good news.

Now, what I think wil happen is that there will be more of the same from the Australians. Hussey and Watson will see off the initial hour before the ball starts doing something ( as evidenced in both innings). And as when things start happening, England will attack- with Swann getting purchase, Strauss can actually rotate his fast bowlers from one end while giving Swann an extended spell from the other.

Which in turn will leave Australia in a rather awkward position of whether to attack or to defend. And as is the case most times of trying to straddle two stools, bad things will happen!

Slow news day? Definately India's fault

India, cricket's money magnet, only cares about umpiring when it thinks it has been dudded.
It's always someone else's fault, like in Sydney 18 months ago, and the umpires are an easy target.
Just ask Steve Bucknor about the support, or lack of it, that umpires receive when India spits the dummy.
Bucknor, who like Koertzen stayed in the game about a decade too long, failed to give Andrew Symonds out caught behind in Sydney during the New Year's Test in 2007. India lost, India whinged, moaned and complained, Bucknor got sacked and the ICC and Cricket Australia let the caravan roll on. Who cares about principles when there's millions at stake?
It comes as no surprise then that India, which has more resources than the rest of the cricket world combined, is the only major Test nation without an umpire on the dozen-strong international panel.

Test 3 Day 2

The day panned as expected.

England bowled better lines and lengths, Australia capitulated. England then worked themselves into a fairly decent position before taking the light ( a move that I have never quite endorsed but in the context of the game, pardonable).

Day 3 beckons with Australia having to do all the running. An early start and a ball that is 36 overs old means that Australia are more or less in the same position England were in at the end of Day 1. But while England were guilty of bad bowling, the same cannot be said of Australia. Australia has to think wickets, not containment , if they have to stay in the game. And they have to do this despite Rudi Koetzen.

Which brings me to this - should 100 tests be the cut off for the life of a Test umpire? Steve Bucknor was one who went over a 100 tests and the less said about his umpiring, the better. Ditto Koetzen. And with technology becoming more integral in the game today, is it time for the ICC to expand its Elite panel by compulsorily forcing each test playing nation to volunteer atleast two Test umpires?

On Cricinfo

my comment in response to Sambit Bal's article

Make Test cricket more elitist and still Test cricket will wither and die if they continue to play the game on the roads that masquerade as wickets these days.

If I have to watch a game on a road, I would rather waste 3 hours of my life watching a game with a definite result instead of spending 30 hours watching a bore fest.

And that is what Test cricket these days is.. Administrators want to maximize revenues ( gate, TV etc) and so would much rather the Test go the distance. Heck, the administrators at Cardiff did not even try to hide this fact when talking of the type of wicket that would be rolled.

And then there is the ICC with its own "blue print" for what is a good wicket. The Kanpur wicket gets called for having "excessive turn" when what we witnessed was a tight 3 day contest.

Deny people a contest and they will divert thier attention to something else.

T20 gives them a contest in an abbreviated time span. Test Cricket doesnt.

Good luck then saving Test cricket!

Brilliant!

"If I get hit out there, make sure you stop mum from jumping over the fence."

Test 3 Day 1

In my previous post, I had alluded to Ponting's decision to bat first a mistake. 126/1 in 30 overs later, I see no reason to change my opinion on that call.

the reasons I would have bowled first are fairly simple

1. The pitch has been under the covers and sweating.

2. The outfield was impacted by the rain and therefore, slow.

3. A shortened session meant that the bowlers could always regroup if things went wrong for them while the batsmen would have to start from scratch.

Also, this gave Australia the opportunity to get Johnson back in the swing of things. With Watson coming as cover, Australia have more depth in their bowling resources. This would then have allowed Ponting to attack from the get go.

Also, if I were captain, I would look at the England team sheet and see Bopara and Bell at numbers 3 and 4. If my bowlers got the early break through, I had two batsmen, both low on confidence, to contend with. And if I did not make the early break through, I still could control the tempo of the game by shutting shop and along with it, the flow of runs. And I could always come back tomorrow and rethink the game plan.

Also, with a make shift opening pair, the odds of the shoe being on the other foot are high. Had two marginal LBW calls ( one each against Watson and Katich) gone the other way, it would be I who would have to play the waiting game.

And finally this - Australia have to take 20 England wickets to win the match. With rain becoming a factor, time is of paramount importance. So, by batting first, Australia have to set themselves to batting only once, batting big and batting fast to give themselves enough time to force a result. But with the weather forecast being what it is, it is the Australian batsmen who will have to face the start stop start situation - not ideal when you are trying to bat fast.

Having said all that, England looked at Ponting's gift and decided to up the charity stakes. If Australia could be charitable to let the England bowlers first under helpful conditions, England would repay in full by bowling too short or too full. Thereby squandering all advantage accrued.

Plus with Strauss unwilling to stem the flow of runs and England unable to take wickets, the end result was that Australia ended with 126/1 with Watson scoring a 50 at the top of the order.

For England now, the priority is to slow the run flow. If they can choke off the free flow of runs, Australia will be compelled to play outside of their comfort zone because they will have to force the pace. And when that happens, the risk increases. And with increased risk comes the opportunity to take wickets. However, if England continue to play they have on the first day, they can forget competing in this test.

For Australia, more of the same please. Coupled with not losing wickets. The longer each partnership plays at a fair clip, the more pressure Strauss will face because he will have to contend with time no longer being an ally. And if England have to play 2 innings on the back foot, odds that they will fold under the pressure increase.

Now, if I were the batting captain, I would write this match off. Instead I would set stall to bat all 5 days. The reason is simple really - with back to back tests, it is in my interest that England's bowlers bowl for as long as possible. And with Flintoff nursing a bad knee, it is definitely in my interest to render him hors de combat before Headingley. And what better way to achieve that than by having him bowl in excess of 50 overs for the match!

A mistake

A new opening pair, a truncated session,a ground soaked by rain, a heavy outfield, the pitch under covers and therefore sweating, and Ricky Ponting elects to bat first.

Nice!

On Selection

Over the weekend, I read more news paper columns and blog posts highlighting England's selection travails in the post KP setup than is healthy.

Yet, for all of England's tribulations with selection, there is atleast no ambiguity on who the replacements are. Ian Bell, whatever his shortcomings, was the man identified almost immediately the moment KP went under the knife.

Harmison is the go to guy if Flintoff is not available.

Yes, the caliber of the players is not the same and yes, the England game plan will have to change to account for the two high profile players, but England have had 9 days between the tests to come up with alternatives ( In fact, Andy Flower went on record as soon as the Lords test was over about England's prospects in the sans KP, sans Freddie scenario).

Contrast that with the travails the Australians face.

Their one 95 mph bowler is hors de combat, the other one has let his mother's sledging get to him.

And given that Johnson is the sensitive sort ( highlighted ad infinitum in newspapers), how exactly will he take to being dropped from the squad?

And with back to back tests, the odds of Lee, with no match fitness to speak of, making an Headingley appearance is an idea fraught with risk.

Then there is the opener, who makes runs by the ton against second Division county sides but has not been able to match those performances when it really counts.

Then, there is the spinner, dealing with the after effects of a dislocated middle finger on his bowling hand. While he has gone about his job manfully, how much long term damage will he do to his finger if his work load keeps going up ( as it is expected to).

Then there is the all rounder - blond, athletic and currently making a persuasive case for inclusion. But he is known to break down mid test, and there are back to back tests to be played.

And then there is Ginger.

Point is, Australia have as many, if not more, selection issues compared to England.

And unlike, Ricky Ponting, I dont believe Australia has enough time to turn the series on its head. If England win at Edgbaston, Australia will have to win both Headingley and the Oval to retain the Ahes. Which, with the current resources on hand, is a bridge too far.

Goodbye WPUJC Vaas

Plan B

Now that Kevin Pieterson is no longergoing to be a part of the Ashes, what are the odds that we will see wickets similar to Cardiff and Lords at Edgbaston, Headingley and the Oval? And what are the odds that England will strengthen its batting and bat Australia out of the series?

While it is a move fraught with risk ( one slip and the Ashes will be gone), I think that is exactly what England will do.

Test 2 Wrap

Given that the weather in this neck of the woods held as firm as over in England, I found myself unable to watch Days 3,4 and 5 of the Test (lets just say that life took precedence and leave it at that).

England won, Freddie was magnificent, Johnson scored about the runs as the number of overs he bowled, Ponting was gracious in defeat, a 75 year streak was broken, England are 1-0 ahead in the Ashes and all is well with the world.

Except that it is not.

Bad umpiring, a spineless batting display and the strength of character of one man were the only reasons why we have a result in this match. Again, we find that the Lord's pitch, the one that promised bounce and carry for the bowlers, was nothing but another of those factory manufactured, dull,lifeless pieces of dirt that is all too common these days.

What point a Test match if the tail swats the ball as merrily on the first day as the last? What point a Test match where the team batting last reaches 406 despite being 5 down for 128? What point a Test match if making in excess of 500 on the final two days is considered on par?

And what point crowing about the primacy of Test Cricket and the dangers posed by T20 when the body making those statements roll out a deck that, on Day 5, is not dis-similar to an ideal T20 deck?

Test 2 Day 2 Lords

What to make of this?

Day 1 - 364 runs. 6 wickets.90 overs.

Day 2 - 217 runs. 12 wickets. 59.4 overs.

Yesterday's play was the first time in a long time that left me confused. Generally the end of the first day gives enough hints on how the match will pan out.

Yesterday was different.

196 runs without losing a wicket. 168 runs for the loss of 6 wickets. Bad bowling? Bad batting? And what about the England rune rate, well over 4 rpo. It just did not add up.

And at the end of today;'s play, I remain confused.

Yes, 156/8 represents England on the ascendancy but, is that really true? If the pitch continues to behave the way it has on Day 2, can England honestly put their hands on their hearts and say that they have the werewithal to perform better than the Australians did today?

Then there is the case for not enforcing the follow on.

Australia have a problem with their bowling. Hauritz is hurt, Siddle has a niggle, Johnson's radar
is all over the place. That leaves Hilfenhaus as the lone uninjured bowler in the ranks. Coupled with North, Katich, Clarke, Hussey and Ponting. If England bat more than 100 overs, how much will the injuries come to bite Australia?

Then there is the case for enforcing the follow on.

6 of the last 7 tests at Lords have ended in a draw. Teams batting last have scored 537, 214, 89, 282. 269 and 393 in the 6 drawn games. And with the wicket expected to behave as is or get slightly quicker tomorrow, England does not want to give Australia the advantage of a) getting back into the game by exploiting whatever little the wicket has to offer before easing up and b) let Australia bat last on a wicket with little or no assistance for the bowlers on Days 4 and 5.

Then there is the question of time.

270 overs and a bit remain in the game.If England bat long, it will impact Australia's bowling resources but will give the Australians enough time to eke out a draw. If England don't bat long enough, Australia get the benefit of time.

But long long is long? Strauss was extremely conservative with his declarations in the West Indies. If the same pattern follows, he will shut the game completely before inviting the Australians to bat. And even in that case - if 150 overs enough to get the Australians out a second time? 100? 170? And what about the score - 500?450? South Africa chased 413 to win in 119 overs at Perth. And the West Indies drew twice with their last pair at the crease against England at home.

So many permutations. So much to think. Who wants to be a captain.

A modest proposal

Now that the MCC World Cricket committee has spoken, with recommendations ranging from a World Test Championship to day/night tests and pink balls, here are my two cents..

There is one and only one reason why Test Cricket is losing out to the other forms of the game - the draw.

In an era where attention spans are diminishing by the second, where the middle overs of an ODI are now considered tedium, a five day test that ends in a stalemate is hardly going to grab the attention ( or the eyeballs).

For those who consider me a heretic, let me say this - Cardiff may be the poster child for what a good test should be , but the only redeeming thing about Cardiff was the post tea session on the final day. T20 provides the same or more excitement in about the same period of time, maybe a tad longer. So why would I waste my time through 28 hours of tedium for the two hours of excitement that I can get anyway watching T20. And T20 assures me of a result, however contrived. 30 hours of play for nothing - how does that resonate in today's world view?

Better bats, better athletes, more sophisticated technologies, greater insight, intense analyses, all of which amount to nothing if after 30 hours and 450 overs of play, the landscape remains the same.

It is all fine and dandy to innovate Test Cricket so as to deliver a more pleasing product but, at the end of the day, all of that will come to naught if two basic concerns are not addressed

1. Over rates
2. Standardization of wickets

Plenty has been said about the over rates, I don't have much to add except to say that the monetary penalties imposed by the ICC ( on an ad hoc basis) haven't really arrested the problem. And that is because, as I read somewhere, most of the money that is paid in penalties comes from the sponsors, so the players are not directly affected anyway.

The second problem is a favorite bug bear of mine - the notion that the wise men in Dubai can conjure up the perfect Test wicket.

There exists "standards", if one may call them that, that determine whether the wicket is "good" or "bad". There are plenty of things a good wicket must be, and a lot more for the wicket to be bad, but there is no provision in the existing framework that regulates against roads.

Which is because roads are what the administrators want.

A test lasting the distance means 450 ad spots ( at a minimum) for the TV broadcaster. 5 days of gate money for the home board. Plus 5 days of sold out corporate boxes etc etc.

Roads are also a vindication for the ICC. Because roads represent the ultimate standard wickets. Every wicket, just like the other one. Geography be damned.

Welcome to standardized wickets, but are we doing anything to improve the quality of cricket?

T20 is being blamed for the "plonk your front foot forward and hit thru the line of the ball", but if the same is possible in a Test match, on the first day, where lies the difference between a batathon that is the T20 and the batathon that is Test Cricket?

What if ( and here is my proposal), Cricket Boards, before signing on to the new FTP, identify the venues that will be hosting Test Cricket in their respective countries. And also identify the nature of the wicket at each of the venues for the duration of the FTP.

That way, if Dilli is identified as a raging turner, then it is incumbent on the the BCCI to maintain that characteristic withing a prescribed delta ( The delta being for changes due to weather patterns). If the wicket deviates outside of the prescribed delta, the host Board faces a stiff penalty, including but not limited to, a ban for a duration previously agreed upon by all Host nations. Add a deduction of points from the Test Championship leaderboard and not only do host countries face a loss of revenue, but a loss in the rankings as well.

The side effect of this is that players will not only know the nature of the wickets beforehand, they will therefore have to adjust their games to suit and thus become more all surface players.

And if the Boards unanimously decide that all wickets, the world over, are roads, then pink balls or not, we can kiss Test Cricket good bye.