Test 4 Day 2

Signed in about half an hour ago, saw England collapse from 58/0 to 78/5 and the question is - can my local league team play England? We have been on a bit of a skid recently and beating an international team will do our morale a world of good!

On a wicket on which Australia managed 445, it takes a special level of skill to first score 102 and then to lose 5 wickets for 20 runs.

Brilliant!

Test 4 Day 1

One thing differentiated the two sides on Day 1 of the Headingley Test - Discipline. Australia displayed oodles of discipline while England were all over the shop floor.

Like Edgbaston, England were slow on sussing up the bowling conditions. And when they did, they reaped immediate rewards.

Like Peter Siddle. And Stuart Clark. Whose lines were immaculate.

There is a special thrill that comes with seeing a bowler make a batsman look like an idiot. Doesn't happen all the time, and is much rarer these days with dead wickets, but when it happens, the joy! Oh the joy!!

And both Siddle and Clark delivered. It was exemplary bowling, marrying discipline with immaculate lengths. And it was brave. Having lost the toss, the Australian bowlers could just as easily have lost the plot by bowling too full or too short. That they did not is a tribute to the bowling.

England batted sloppily and bowled equally badly.

And yet, at the end of the day, England are still in with a chance if they can restrict Australia's lead to 150 or less.

If it seams, it will spin. And Australia have to bat last. With time no longer a factor in the game, England will have to emulate the Australians tomorrow by bowling much tighter. And then bat, remembering that this is a test match and not some charity match. Do that and we have a contest. A real contest.

Finally, the Ashes seems to be delivering on the hype!

Test 4 Prelude

England's mantra going into this test should be - bat first.For a multitude of reasons, some of which are listed below

1. It will force Australia to take 20 English wickets to win the test, something they have not done in the previous 3 tests.
2. Batsmen get offered the light - if atmospherics on the first 3 days transpire as the Met Office predicts, there will be opportunities for bad light. And England will be in control.
3. If batting conditions are hostile, it may seem a gamble but it is still upto Australia to get the right bowling combination and then to exploit the conditions. If conditions are not hostile, then Australia should be made to toil.
4. If England falter in the first innings, Australia will have to set the pace. And factor in time as they would not want a repeat of Cardiff. That in turn can lead to mis steps.
   
5. Australia have to bat last. With the Ashes on the line, pressure can do strange things to the best of them.

Bowling wise, England needs to think about what bowling combination gives them the best opportunity to take 20 Australian wickets.That should be the basis of naming their XI. If 5 bowlers is the way to go, Flintoff or Bopara must give way for Broad. If 4 bowlers is the norm, Broad must make way.

So, my line ups will be

With 5 bowlers

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson
Harmison

And with 4 bowlers

Strauss
Cook
Bopara
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson
Harmison

England has to do what India did in 2002 - play to their strengths and weather be damned.

An alternate view

Cricket journalism is dying if not dead and buried already. The new generation of cricket writers are not a patch on Harsha Bhogle and Rohit Brijnath. And they cannot hold a candle to Raju Bharatan and Rajan Bala.

Who amongst the new crop can marry music, anecdotes and cricket as beautifully as Bharatan did?

And who amongst the new crop can intoxicate the senses with words and transport you to a happy place the way Brijnath does?

Heck, they cannot even put a proper sentence together. All this generation does is blog and Twitter.

Condensing a thought to 140 characters or less, can there be anything more preposterous than twittering? No form, no rhythm, no narrative - even the grammar leaves a lot to be desired.

Imagine that!

Whatever happened to mellifluous prose, the gentle narrative of bat hitting ball, of building up the narrative till it reached a crescendo, of art and form?

And when they are not twittering, you can find them preening around like peacocks on Facebook. So much for the legacy of Cardus and James!

Sounds familiar? It is.

How practical?

From the WADA Athletes Whereabouts Guidelines

3.3 The overriding principle is that it is the responsibility of the Athlete to make him/herself available for Testing. In particular, if the Athlete specifies a location for the 60-minute time-slot where it is not easy to find him/her, and/or he/she does not remain at that location for the full 60-minute time-slot, he/she risks a Missed Test.

3.4 Residence: The Athlete must provide, for each day in the following quarter, the full address of the place where he/she will be residing (i.e., sleeping overnight). (See IST clause 11.3.1(d)). Usually, that address would be expected to be in the same vicinity as the location specified for the 60-minute time-slot for that day, unless the Athlete will be travelling to another city or town during the day and wishes to specify a location at his/her destination for the 60-minute time-slot. If circumstances change so that the Athlete will be residing at a different place on one or more nights, he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing

3.5.2 If the Athlete’s regular schedule changes during the quarter, he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing to reflect the change. For example, if he/she changes schedule so that instead of going to the gym every morning from 10 am to noon, he/she goes every afternoon from 2pm to 4pm, then he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing to reflect that change.

3.5.3 On the other hand, if the Athlete simply departs from his/her regular schedule on a one-off basis, he/she does not need to update his/her Whereabouts Filing to reflect that. For example, if he/she usually goes to the gym every morning from 10 am to noon, but on one particular day in the quarter he/she goes to the gym not between 10 am and noon but instead between 3 pm and 4 pm, no update is necessary to reflect that.

3.6 60 minute timeslot: The Athlete must provide, for each day during the following quarter, one specific 60-minute time-slot between 6 am and 11 pm each day where the Athlete will be available and accessible for Testing at a specific location. (See IST clause 11.3.2). If circumstances change so that the Athlete will no longer be at that location at that time, he/she should update his/her Whereabouts Filing

3.7 As the comment to IST 11.3.3 states, if an Athlete does not know, at the beginning of the quarter, precisely what his/her whereabouts will be for each day in the quarter, he/she must provide his/her best information, based on where he/she expects to be at the relevant time(s), and then update that information as necessary in accordance with IST clause 11.4.2.

3.8 The Responsible ADO should monitor Whereabouts Filings for patterns of behaviour that may indicate an attempt to evade Sample collection or otherwise to undermine or hinder the Doping Control process. For example, if an Athlete is constantly updating his/her Whereabouts Filings to change the time and/or location for his/her 60-minute time-slot at the last minute, the Responsible ADOshould consider whether this may reflect a concerted effort to undermine attempts to locate him/her for Testing. Such a pattern of last-minute updates should be investigated as a possible anti-doping rule violation under Code Article 2.5 (Tampering or Attempted Tampering) or 2.3 (evasion of Sample collection).

Now, all of us travel. By planes, trains and by road. And we all have had to deal with missed flights, delayed departures and arrivals, traffic jams, fender benders and such like. And we all know that all of these take time to sort out.

Most, if not all, of us have encountered cell phone dead zones. And the odd flaky internet connection.

Now, imagine athlete A. A signatory to the Athlete whereabouts program. Now it is not outside of the realm of imagination that the said athlete will be better placed to detail his/her exact whereabouts ( including the 60 minute slot that is mandatorily required) on a day to day basis as compared to a week to week and month to month basis. Say the athlete makes a commitment to be available at a particular place at a particular time.Say too that the athlete has to drive from point A to point B to be at the particular place at the particular time. Given that the athlete in question is diligent, say that he/she provides enough buffer time to be at the said place at the said time. And then a fender bender occurs.

Now, per the provisions of the WADA ruling, if the athlete is not at the required location in the required time slot, he/she stands in violation of the program. And if the athlete reschedules the Whereabouts Filing, that too is a red flag. Strike 1.

Now assume that our athlete is vacationing abroad, and traveling the local train system. And assume that his/her wallet/purse get stolen at a station that is some distance from his/her place of residence. And he/she does not speak the local language. Happens to the best of us, so why should athletes be exempt. But our athlete has diligently filled out the location and the time when he/she will be available for testing on the Whereabouts form. And his her cellphone is stolen/ he/she does not have a calling plan for the country in question/the battery on the phone is dead. Strike 2.

So finally, our athlete in question is flying from Mumbai to New York. And the flight is delayed at Mumbai because of "technical reasons". So our athlete updates the Whereabouts form following proper procedure. Excepts that he/she goofs up when calculating the correct time difference by not accounting for daylight savings. For the athlete, all is well with the world... Except it is not. And if there is a problem getting a gate at New York because the slot was taken by some other airline ( because of the delayed take off) which adds to the overall delay, what then? As it is our athlete is in hot water because of the mis calculation of time and is therefore not present at the location he/she is supposed to be at the appointed time. Strike 3 and that's a two year ban for our athlete.

Shit happens. All the time.

The whole IRTP is a code put together by bureaucrats. And one thing that is true of bureaucrats is that they lack imagination. As the provisions show. And the other thing about bureaucrats is that they are rigid.If someone can come up with a set of rules that demand an athlete present his/her itinerary for a full quarter in advance, what is to prevent the said entity from flagging the slightest deviation from the norm as a strike?

And then there is the ICC.

10.1 Disqualification of Individual Results in an ICC Event During Which an Anti-Doping Rule Violation occurs Subject to Article 10.1.1, where a Cricketer is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during or in connection with an International Match in an ICC Event where the Cricketer also participated in other International Matches (for example, the anti-doping rule violation was committed during or in connection with the final of an ICC Event and the Cricketer had participated in earlier rounds of the ICC Event), then in addition to the consequences set out at Article 9 (in relation to the Disqualification of results obtained in the particular International Match during or in connection with which the anti-doping rule violation was committed), the anti-doping rule violation will also lead to Disqualification of all of the individual results and performance statistics obtained by the Cricketer in the other International Matches that he/she participated in
during the ICC Event in question with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any individual medals, individual ranking points, individual prizes obtained in those International Matches and the non-inclusion of his/her performance statistics in those International Matches towards any official individual averages and/or records, except as provided in Article 10.1.1.
10.1.1 If the Cricketer establishes that he/she bears No Fault or Negligence for the
violation, the Cricketer’s individual results in the International Matches other than
the International Match during or in connection with which the anti-doping rule
violation occurred shall not be Disqualified unless the ICC establishes that the
Cricketer’s results in the other International Matches were likely to have been
affected by his/her anti-doping rule violation.

So if I understand this correctly, I can dope myself up, carry my team to the finals of an ICC tournament, and if I get caught, my records will be disqualified but my team will still legitimately contest the finals?

And then there is this

10.2 Imposition of a Period of Ineligibility for the Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or
Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods
The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Article 2.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample), Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) or Article 2.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Methods) that is the Cricketer or Cricketer Support Personnel’s first offence shall be two years, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility (as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.5) or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility (as provided in Article 10.6) are met.

and this

10.3.2 For a violation of Article 2.4 (Filing Failures and/or Missed Tests) that is the Cricketer’s first offence, the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be at a minimum one year and at a maximum two years, depending upon the Cricketer’s degree of fault.

So, if I understand this correctly,if I do drugs and get caught the first time, I stand to lose two years. But if I am lax in filling in my forms, but don't do any drugs, I still stand to lose an year?

And people have actually signed up to this nonsense? Oh and there is more - in the case of filing failures or missed tests, the burden of proof lies with the athlete while in the case of an actual dope test, the burden of proof lies with the ICC. how fair is that?

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.