All posts by h716a5.icu

Mahela Jayawardene on reaching a third consecutive World Cup semi-final, drawing the same opposition as 2007 and the performance against England

Mahela Jayawardene27-Mar-2011The next week is definitely the most important week of our cricket lives. We know we are two games away from fulfilling a dream we came so close to fulfilling four years ago. We also know that one mistake can be enough to end that dream. And a World Cup comes only once every four years. The memories of that campaign in the West Indies come back to us, but it is important to stay in the present moment. The reality is, four years have passed, we have come a long way, in our preparation and in what we have done.Two matches away, but we need to take it one game at a time. That’s what we have done this entire tournament, and we will keep doing that. It is an exciting time in every player’s life, but at such times there is a fine line between enjoying it and letting it become a pressure for you. We have spoken to the guys and asked them to try and live a normal life. Try and keep your feet on the ground. Make sure you do everyday things the way you have been doing them, and just carry on with life. Don’t make any changes.Our preparations haven’t changed at all for the knockouts. We have kept it simple: the same routines, practice and everything else. We have our team get-togethers, with family and friends if they are around, and just hang out with them to make sure that we don’t think too much about what’s in front of us. It is important because what is going to happen in the future you don’t have any control over right now, but what you have control over is the preparation you go through, and also the way you enjoy that preparation.It’s not easy to stay away from distractions at this stage of the tournament because everybody wants a piece of you. You have to realise they are all fans and once you play cricket, you are part and parcel of the whole cricket frenzy in the subcontinent. You have to accommodate that as well. I think the more you start trying to say no to that, you tend to give in to it, and make it a distraction. You have to embrace that as well, and make sure you all enjoy that in a way that it’s not going to be a distraction. That’s part of the fun.Most of our team members have been here before. They played a final in 2007. For the newcomers, we have asked them to be excited about the whole thing. From what I have seen they are enjoying their cricket, and they have enjoyed the journey so far. We have asked them to just continue to do that, rather than tell them, “Okay you are going into a World Cup semi-final.” Just enjoy the ride, the moment.We have come here through a near-perfect performance in the quarter-final against England. Near-perfect because we dropped three catches. Now that you think about those catches, we can afford ourselves a little laugh. You think you need to take the half chances to win matches, but these were the really easy ones. Half chances might go our way, might not go our way, but I am sure now the guys will hang on to those kind of easy ones. The three players who dropped those catches are our lesser experienced players when it comes to playing World Cup knockout games, so it could have been nerves too. They are all relieved the way we finished the game off after that. They have all realised their mistakes. We have had a good laugh about the way they dropped those catches.The only big drawback of that period, when Jonathan Trott and Eoin Morgan had put together a partnership, was that we felt we got rattled a bit. That’s something we have spoken about as well. We have told our guys those things can happen, but we cannot let ourselves get rattled.A big positive about these moments is that we have a big pool of match-winners that we can rely on. On that day it was Lasith Malinga who bowled superbly at the death, on other days it can be anybody: Muttiah Muralitharan, Angelo Mathews, Ajantha Mendis. That’s the luxury we have, and up to now we have used that luxury really well.Another reason why the memories of the 2007 World Cup are coming back is that we are facing the same team in the semi-finals as we did then. And New Zealand have our fullest respect, even though we have had success against them. It’s a semi-final, and they will be charged up. They were surely charged up when they faced South Africa in the quarter-final. We will never underestimate them. We have understood exactly how tough they can be. We saw the way they finished off South Africa, how good they can be. We have to make sure we don’t give them those opportunities. And we just need to make sure we concentrate on our strengths and enjoy the game.

Haroon Lorgat talks about the postponement of the Test Championship over commercial concerns, and why he didn’t seek an extension to his tenure

Interview by Nagraj Gollapudi24-Nov-2011Why did you announce before your term runs out that you won’t be seeking an additional term in office?
My term of office ends in June of next year. In late 2010 I had agreed on an additional one year to my initial contract, which was due to expire in June 2011. At the time I believed I would not have been able to properly complete a new ICC strategy for 2011-2015, and, importantly, the spot-fixing matter was not concluded. Hence I agreed on a one year extension. We have now reached a stage where the strategy is well understood internally and is progressing well in its implementation, and thankfully the spot-fixing trial is behind us. I therefore feel it is the right time to move on.You said it was disappointing the World Test Championship would not take place in 2013. Was the postponing of the event a big setback for you and a reason for your quitting?
I can assure you that is no reason for my departure. I am of course disappointed that it will not happen in 2013 because I believe we needed urgency to create context in order to promote Test cricket. A Test World Championship would have been the ideal culmination for teams competing over a period to achieve a top-four ranking and then progress to the playoffs and the eventual champion team.Did the ICC think of renegotiating the broadcast deal, whereby they could pay ESPN STAR Sports* the money it was owed for the Champions Trophy as a measure to go all out to hold the Test Championships?
This was considered but not supported by the ICC board and the Chief Executives’ Committee.There seemed a lot of support for the event until money came into it. Did you feel the member countries should have looked beyond short-term financial ends?
A balanced mindset would have been a lot better. Money is clearly an important factor but it should not be the only factor. We looked at different models of evaluating the revenue implications but the fact is that the value of an inaugural Test Championship comprising four teams and fewer matches is not viewed the same commercially as the Champions Trophy comprising eight teams.It is a complex issue, particularly for some of the Members, and there could be occasions when some of them would favour the commercial aspects above strategic or other aspects.Reportedly, some of the countries that turned out to be reluctant about 2013 were stronger ones like England and Australia. Was it disappointing that countries which already have the benefit of marquee series seem less enthusiastic about broadening Test cricket’s appeal?
Your information is not correct because some of those countries you mention were strong supporters of the Test Championship.What about the World Cup format, where you had decided in April that only 10 teams would play before it was reversed in June at the annual conference.
I still believe that a ten-team World Cup on a qualification basis for all Members would be a better event. This was part of the proposals to strategically restructure international cricket and was designed to protect and promote all three formats. In my view, the top four teams in a Test playoff, the top 10 teams in the 50-over format and the top 16 teams in the Twenty20 format is the most suitable structure and would create excellent context, as every match would count towards qualifying for a global event. We must ensure quality games with no mismatches, and I believe that fewer teams are able to compete in the longer the format. Making everyone qualify will raise playing standards overall. Since the Full Members believed they deserved automatic entry, it is obvious that the 50-over World Cup needed to be expanded [from 10 teams]. That is perfectly understandable.Was it a setback for you personally?
No. I was backing a particular line of thinking which did not find sufficient support for implementation in 2015. It will be applied in the next World Cup, in 2019, and I still believe it is the best way to ensure the sustainability of the 50-over game. Once the Full Members were not willing to go through a qualification process, I was in favour of 14 teams.What were the objections presented? Was there any ill feeling?
The main objection was that a ten-team event would require [some] Full Members to qualify. Their belief was that there was a long-standing expectation that Full Members automatically play in the World Cup, and that therefore [we] needed sufficient notice before we can change this practice. This is why the ten-team World Cup will start from 2019.I can assure you there was no animosity in the debates and this may be a reflection of the fact that I am not confrontational by nature. In fact, [at the moment] I am engaged in the Development Committee meeting, which consists of members who pushed for the 14-team World Cup, yet we are having amicable and interesting arguments for the good of the game. The members on this committee fully appreciate why I was batting for a ten-team World Cup and many would have supported me had there been a qualification process for all members. Their argument, quite rightly, is about having access to the World Cup.Were there objections from certain Full Members to your recommendation or was it a unanimous vote?
At the end it was unanimous – to go with the 14-team format, although initially there was strong support from countries like Australia, New Zealand and England for a ten-team event with qualification. But ultimately it was a unanimous decision to go with 14 teams.Haroon Lorgat: “We cannot carry out sting operations or arrest people or seize property. That is not within our remit or powers”•Getty ImagesThe governance review is an important step, but how likely are Member nations to accept genuine change and a more powerful ICC?
There is a lot of interest and support for the governance review and it is one of the key initiatives agreed in the new strategy. At this stage it is not possible for me to speculate but I do know that Lord Woolf is on track to report at the next board meeting. As for accepting change, it will take vision and courage from the board to openly consider the recommendations for the good of the game.Has your tenure been a frustrating one, in that the ICC executive does not have any powers vis-a-vis the board?
It is not ideal when you are not sufficiently empowered to undertake or implement what you know is correct and must be done. But I understood that when I entered the ICC, and it is why the ICC board rather than the executive [is] held accountable for the future of the game.Your relationship with BCCI has seemed far from cordial. Was it humiliating when the Indian team did not turn up at the ICC awards earlier this summer in London?
This must be the most frequently asked question and I seem unable to convince you that we share a very cordial relationship in spite of the debates we have. It’s not me that was humiliated – rather it is the team that faced criticism.Malcolm Speed, your predecessor, wrote in his book : “finding the right balance between India’s commercial power and the interests of the other countries is a big test for the game”. Do you agree?
Malcolm’s view is shared by many and is accurate. However, in my view we should not begrudge India its commercial strength; rather we should celebrate such economic power. What we should be concerned about is the weakness of the other Members that leads to leadership and governance challenges.Do you think the ICC can afford to invest money in sting operations to help the ACSU apprehend match-fixers?
We cannot carry out sting operations or arrest people or seize property. That is not within our remit or powers. This was made clear by the members when the ACSU was established. Corruption is a serious challenge and we must not be complacent but remain vigilant to combat this menace. While there may be exceptions, I firmly believe that the vast majority of players and officials are honest and play the game in great spirit, and it is most unfair on these players to cast doubt on them. I do believe that the recent convictions will send a strong message to all involved in the game. You can rest assured that we will not tolerate corruption.*ESPN STAR Sports is a 50:50 joint venture between Walt Disney (ESPN, Inc.), the parent company of ESPNcricinfo, and News Corporation Limited (STAR)

Over the last four years, Sehwag has been the most successful Test batsman in Asia, but outside the subcontinent his stats have plummeted

S Rajesh18-Jan-2012One of the tweets doing the rounds towards the end of the first day’s play in Perth said this (or words to this effect): ‘Finally saw a Sehwag innings. Only, it came from Warner.’ The comment captured how destructive David Warner had been in the last session on that day, when he scored 104 from 80 balls, but it also showed up Sehwag’s failure to play the sort of innings that has defined his batsmanship.When he first burst onto the international scene, Sehwag was thought to be someone who’d be utterly destructive in good batting conditions, but would struggle on juicier pitches abroad. As soon as he got an opportunity, he went about busting that notion. A stunning debut hundred in Bloemfontein was followed by hundreds at Trent Bridge, Melbourne, and Adelaide, plus other emphatic performances outside the subcontinent.Since scoring that game-saving century in Adelaide in January 2008, though, his ability to dominate and score runs in conditions conducive to seam, swing and bounce seems to have diminished considerably. You wouldn’t know that looking at his overall numbers, for those haven’t changed much at all: his career average till January 2008 was 50.46; since then, it’s 51.50, in 41 Tests. There’s some difference in his strike rate – 74.89 to 92.04 – and in his conversion rate of fifties into hundreds – 50% to 33% – but the average is as strong as ever.However, look at the details and more significant differences emerge. Since that 151 in Adelaide, Sehwag’s stocks outside the subcontinent have fallen: in each of the last tours to New Zealand, South Africa, England and Australia, Sehwag’s average hasn’t touched 30 – it was 28 in New Zealand, 24 in South Africa, 10.25 in England and 19.67 so far in Australia. That’s 21 innings in which he has managed only two fifties, and a highest score of 67.What’s kept his overall average at the same heights of old are his stats in the subcontinent: his average of 64.28 in Asia compensates for his lean spell overseas. In 11 series in Asia during this period, he has averaged 49 or more in eight of them, and 65-plus in six. He has notched up scores of 319, 293 and 201 not out, plus six more hundreds in 53 innings. That’s in stark contrast to no score of more than 70 in 21 innings abroad.The strike-rate stats are interesting too. Before February 2008 Sehwag was already scoring pretty quickly, with a Test match strike rate touching 75, but since then, it’s rocketed up to 92 runs per 100 balls. His attacking instincts have worked well in the subcontinent, when he has been more dominant than ever – no one has scored more runs in Asia during this period – but not in conditions that have aided the quick bowlers.

Two phases of Sehwag’s Test career

PeriodTestsRunsAverageStrike rate100s/ 50s2001 to Jan 200854444150.4674.8913/ 13Feb 2008 onwards41365751.5092.049/ 18Career95809850.9381.7722/ 31

Sehwag in and outside Asia in these two periods

PeriodTestsRunsAverageStrike rate100s/ 50sTill Jan 2008 – in Asia30263457.2674.938/ 8Feb 2008 onwards – in Asia30321464.2895.039/ 16Till Jan 2008 – outside Asia24180743.0274.825/ 5Feb 2008 onwards – outside Asia1144321.0974.950/ 2Against the quick bowlers, Sehwag’s numbers have fallen significantly outside the subcontinent in the last four years. Till January 2008, he’d averaged 46 against them, but since then, it has fallen to 25, with 16 of his 21 dismissals coming against them. The lack of runs hasn’t affected the strike rate, though.

Sehwag against fast bowlers outside the subcontinent*

PeriodRunsDismissalsAverageRuns per overTill Jan 200814263146.004.25Feb 2008 onwards4011625.064.35The bowlers who’ve done well against him have all been those whose primary weapon, apart from pace, is swing. In the ongoing series in Australia, not only has Ben Hilfenhaus dismissed Sehwag three times, he has also kept him on a tight leash, conceding only 33 runs from 88 deliveries. Dale Steyn got him three times too in the series in 2010-11. (Overall, Sehwag averages 51.67 against Steyn in Tests in India, and 13.25 in Tests in South Africa.)On the tour to England last year, Sehwag tried to dominate James Anderson right from the start, but there’s no question about who won that battle: though Sehwag scored 22 runs in 13 balls, he was also dismissed by him twice.On the other hand, against Morne Morkel, a bowler who mostly bowls back of a length and hits the deck hard, Sehwag scored 47 from 53 balls, and was dismissed just once.

Fast bowlers v Sehwag in Tests outside subcontinent since Feb 2008

BowlerRunsBallsDismissalsAverageRuns per overBen Hilfenhaus3388311.002.25Dale Steyn4991316.333.23James Anderson2213211.0010.15James Pattinson3656218.003.85One of the criticisms about Sehwag recently has been that he tends to play too many extravagant strokes early in his innings, which become low percentage in conditions aiding seam and swing. As argued in this piece, in some of his big innings outside the subcontinent earlier, his first few runs came at a relatively slow rate. However, a comparison of his numbers in the first 15 overs during these two periods show that the strike rates aren’t too different. What it does show, though, is that Sehwag is scoring about 10% faster despite being in poorer form now.

Sehwag in the first 15 overs of an innings, in Tests outside subcontinent*

PeriodRunsBallsDismissalsAverageRuns per overTill Jan 200874310051939.104.43Feb 2008 onwards3924911526.134.79After the three defeats in Australia, there’s been plenty of clamour over who should be dropped for the Adelaide Test and further into the future. Looking at the stats of India’s batsmen outside the subcontinent in the last four years, Sehwag’s numbers don’t look pretty. On average, he has faced 28 balls per dismissal during this period, which is a ball less than the corresponding average for Harbhajan Singh. In terms of averages, Sehwag’s is worse than MS Dhoni and even Suresh Raina.The last time Sehwag played a Test in Adelaide, though, he batted for almost six hours and scored 151, which remains his only second-innings century in Test cricket. An encore in 2012 won’t save the series, but it’ll surely end the overseas rut that Sehwag has got into.

Indian batsmen outside subcontinent since Feb 2008 (Excl Zimbabwe)

BatsmanTestsRunsAverageStrike rate100s/ 50sSachin Tendulkar13119251.8253.983/ 6Rahul Dravid16131446.9240.304/ 6Gautam Gambhir1193344.4243.412/ 5VVS Laxman16101836.3548.611/ 9MS Dhoni1575331.3757.560/ 7Suresh Raina834322.8649.560/ 4Virender Sehwag1144321.0974.950/ 2Harbhajan Singh1134320.1769.850/ 2

Wright the pragmatist wanted more control over selection than Buchanan the analyst but NZC decided the former was more expendable

Andrew Alderson01-May-2012You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. John Wright’s face appeared equal parts incredulity and apprehension last March, when told New Zealand Cricket was seeking a new director of cricket. Wright had been casually informed by New Zealand’s three-person 2011 World Cup media contingent in the palatial lobby of the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel on Mumbai’s waterfront.The fact two-time World Cup winning coach John Buchanan was appointed several weeks later is less relevant than the wider scope of the role: Wright would have a new direct boss and the autonomy he so desperately sought as head coach would inevitably be compromised. Perhaps Buchanan’s appointment was the beginning of the end. Wright’s decision to step down as coach of the New Zealand team after the upcoming West Indies tour – a stint of just over 19 months – has been a tale of two coaches, two contracts and two cricket philosophies. Wright might have beaten Buchanan 2-1 as the respective coaches of India and Australia in 2001 during one of the greatest Test series in history but Buchanan has wrestled one back.Wright wanted the NZC board and chief executive David White to reduce Buchanan’s powers. He didn’t get it. As someone who has achieved plenty as a player and coach before taking on the New Zealand role, Wright consequently decided there was more to life, especially given the expectation he would sign until the end of the 2015 World Cup. If the 57-year-old had stayed in the role he faced numerous intense tours over the next three years. It’s understood Wright did not demand a salary increase and was happy to concede more administrative responsibility to manager Mike Sandle but, in return, wanted absolute power over the coaching and selection of the team.The “positive tension” oxymoron White previously spoke about between Wright and Buchanan was at the core of the problem. Wright is a pragmatist, Buchanan is an analyst. Both have been successful international coaches before joining NZC. Yet less Buchanan influence around the selection table became a non-negotiable for Wright.It placed NZC in a difficult position. It could accept Wright’s position and avoid the awkwardness of a public hero stepping aside prematurely. The downside (in the board’s eyes) would be reducing Buchanan’s control, or, given the pair might struggle to work together, paying Buchanan off. In tough economic times Wright was more expendable, given his contract finished after the West Indies tour. Likewise, if Wright wanted to adjust his staffing situation, which included three Australians – Kim Littlejohn (selection manager), Trent Woodhill (assistant coach) and Damien Wright (bowling coach) – it would potentially require more ‘money-for-nothing’ pay-outs. NZC’s hand was forced.An endorsement of Wright’s tenure was not helped at board level by perceived inadequacies in his communication skills. The board was initially believed to have given White carte blanche to secure Wright’s signature. However, its outlook became less generous over time. Concerns were raised that, regardless of inspirational dressing room talks, Wright could not afford to cut corners in the modern cricketing environment and needed to communicate more clearly with players and management outside the shed.One example had Wright adamant players should not have to fill out a substantial 2011-12 season review document. Wright preferred an old-school “sit down with a beer at the bar” approach to counselling players.Wright was also disappointed NZC failed to appoint former Otago coach Mike Hesson – now in charge of Kenya – to either the selection manager or team manager roles eventually secured by former Bowls Australia high performance manager Littlejohn and ex-Blues rugby manager Sandle respectively.Sadly Wright’s decision means New Zealand cricket fans got only a fleeting glimpse of what might have been possible. Unless something spectacular occurs in the West Indies his tenure will forever be marked with a tentative “showed promise”. Under Wright, New Zealand secured the country’s first semi-finals spot in a World Cup on the subcontinent (after 11 straight ODI losses in that part of the world at the start of the tournament). They followed that with their first Test win in 18 years against Australia and added further Test wins, home and away, against Zimbabwe. No silverware was earned against South Africa but – the second Test aside – there were signs the team could at least compete for sustained periods. Wright also proved a masterful selector at times, based on form (Mark Gillespie, Dean Brownlie and Kruger van Wyk) and intuition (Doug Bracewell and BJ Watling).

“The ‘positive tension’ oxymoron between Wright and Buchanan was at the core of the problem”

After four years with NZC in various capacities, Wright can presumably return to short-term contracts, perhaps with English and Indian teams, while spending further time on his Canterbury farm.The non-renewal of Wright’s contract means the coaching position remains a poisoned chalice. Since John Bracewell resigned in 2008 the reins have been held in various capacities by Andy Moles, Mark Greatbatch, Roger Mortimer and Wright. The team won’t slide back to square one but Wright’s exit means they have lost valuable kudos in the public perception stakes. The former skipper is forever etched in the nation’s memory through cricketing achievements, including his famed prolonged and painful exits from the batting crease. When Wright was dismissed the cricketing nation grieved with him, as they do now.Few obvious replacements spring to mind. Chennai Super Kings coach and former New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming, Kenya’s Hesson, Northern Districts coach Grant Bradburn, Wellington and former Bangladesh coach Jamie Siddons and even Lancashire and former England coach Peter Moores have been touted as possible successors, provided they can get out of their current contracts.As New Zealand’s most successful Test leader and with an IPL title as a coach, Fleming would be the preferred choice. Convincing him to step into the full-time role and away from his young family, multitude of business interests and Chennai coaching cameo would require serious levels of persuasion, patriotism and cash.Hesson seems suitable but, given he was overlooked for the team manager and selection manager roles, he might not be top of the recruitment list. He also needs to be bought out of his Kenya contract.Bradburn ideally needs to serve a couple more seasons in charge of Northern Districts, despite securing his second Plunket Shield title in three years this season. Bradburn is a consummate professional with Test experience and a proven capability for bringing through fledgling talent.Siddons has international coaching experience but the creation of a fully Australian management panel (Sandle excepted) seems a risky public relations exercise in the current fragile environment. Moores would be a wildcard, although his name has been bandied in local cricket circles after his stint with England ended prematurely courtesy of a disagreement with then-captain Kevin Pietersen.

For players in the middle order of a Twenty20 side there is precious little time to get settled, but for Jonny Bairstow and Jos Buttler that does not appear to be a problem

David Hopps in Colombo22-Sep-2012Jonny Bairstow and Jos Buttler faced only 12 balls between them against Afghanistan and, in the aftermath of a comprehensive victory, they barely warranted a mention, but England’s Twenty20 captain, Stuart Broad, was clearly excited that his two young batsmen had done all that was asked of them ahead of Saturday’s Group A tie against India.Broad’s tale of Bairstow’s arrival at the crease against Afghanistan with only 10 balls remaining, encapsulated the brazen approach of two unproven players who England hope will maintain the upbeat mood throughout the tournament.Luke Wright, who finished unbeaten on 99, rightly took the plaudits, but Buttler and Bairstow somehow found time to make an impact as England added 55 in the last three overs.”Jonny’s first ball yesterday, I was speaking to Wrighty about it last night,” Broad said. “Jonny said, ‘What’s it doing?’ Wrighty said, `It looks like he’s going for yorkers but he’s not quite got it right.’ Jonny said, ‘OK, I’ll have a look.’ First ball he hits him out of the ground, walks up to Wrighty and says, ‘Yes, you were right, he’s missed his yorker.’ “It was a good cricketing story, a rare thing in a media conference these days, and Broad deserved credit himself for sharing it with a wider audience. He thinks it has a deeper significance. “That confidence is what you want in a set up,” he said. “We have a youngish batting line up which at times might not come off, but we have a three-week period where it would be lovely if it did.”There had been question marks against us in these conditions and the Afghans had made a real statement against India. There were a few questions floating above our heads so for us to put in as powerful a performance is really pleasing.”Broad describes Bairstow as “a fantastic striker of spin.” He measures it up, keeps it simple and belts it miles. Buttler’s game can look more gauche, but his captain’s expectations are just as high. “Jos hasn’t needed to come in against spin in his short international career but I have never seen a guy hit a further ball in training. A slow languid swing and it goes miles. So I think they both go to the crease with confidence.”Buttler can score quickly even when he looks under duress. He attempted a reverse sweep against his first ball from Mohammad Nabi and was struck on the grille of the helmet, as ungainly an end it was possible to invent. Ah well, that’s just how it goes, he seemed to conclude. Next ball, he was fortunate not to be stumped off a wide when Nabi outfoxed him and slipped one down the leg side. He was dropped third ball; it could have been a horrible nought.Such niceties seem to wash over Buttler. It is his job; sometimes it gets messy. He possesses enough natural power to make light of the misconceived moments as long as he remains at the crease. When he fell lbw to the seam bowler, Izatullah Dawlatzai, he had made 15 from seven balls, three of which had thundered to the boundary.As Broad said: “Every time we play India in England, we are expected to do well and every time they play in their conditions they are expected to do well against us. We are out of our comfort zones. But we have beaten Pakistan and Australia in warm-ups and it’s important we continue that momentum.” It is doubtful that either Bairstow or Buttler have worried about such niceties.If England’s approach goes to plan then Bairstow and Buttler might have a few short innings to play. It does not matter how much you remove overs from a game of cricket, a statistician will eventually prove that preservation of early wickets is crucial. England certainly take that view in T20.”If you have a batsman in at the end you have a chance and that’s what we hammer home to the guys,” Broad said. “The statistics are quite clear that it is the team that loses the fewer wickets after eight overs that wins 80% of the games.”Obviously you don’t want to be 10 for 1, but it’s much better to be 40 for 1 than 70 for 3. Then you can really go at the end. If you look at the likes of Bairstow and Buttler, they can really go in the last five.”

A year ago they returned to Test cricket amid much optimism. Things seem to have gone downhill steadily since

Firdose Moonda26-Sep-2012Zimbabwe were not expected to win a match at the World Twenty20; they had accepted as much before the tournament began. At best, they knew that challenging Sri Lanka and South Africa for even a portion of a match, if not the full 40 overs, would be as close as they could come to victory.In the event, they did not get close. The tournament was three days old when Zimbabwe returned home, having failed to give any sort of reasonable account of themselves. As professional cricketers, they had had two of their worst days in the office, scoring and then surpassing their second-lowest T20 totals in the matches they played.The captain, Brendan Taylor, made no attempt to hide his disappointment, repeatedly telling the media that his side was “better” than they seemed to be at the tournament. Taylor’s belief is more than just false bravado, because the squad does include talented individuals who could blossom into achieving cricketers – though that talent goes through so much hot water that by the time it comes out, it can only be the limp, over-boiled vegetable we saw in Sri LankaThe future did not look this colourless just over a year ago, when Zimbabwe made their Test comeback. Their squad included a healthy mix of experience and youth, with players like Hamilton Masakadza and Taylor finally seeing their years in the game begin to count for something, and the emergence of a solid attack, led by Brian Vitori and Kyle Jarvis. The coaching staff was headed by a man passionate about Zimbabwe cricket, Alan Butcher, and included two former players, Heath Streak and Grant Flower, who had returned to the fold after walking away. The game was integrated, healthy, and seemed to be growing. The early results, which included a Test and ODI series win over Bangladesh, hinted at promise. The personnel are still there but the magic is not. Zimbabwe are fading into the sort of obscurity that has beset their African counterparts Kenya, who are now mostly only remembered for the 2003 World Cup, and for many of the same reasons that afflict Zimbabwe at present.Lack of regular international fixtures, the loss of some players and a worsening financial situation at board level have all contributed to the stagnation of cricket in the country. The World Twenty20 performance was a symptom, and a telling one, illustrating how much help Zimbabwe cricket needs and how soon.Before the tournament, Zimbabwe last played an international on February 14. Seven months passed between then and the day they faced Sri Lanka in the opening match of the World Twenty20. Had Zimbabwe not played some practice matches in that time, the margin of defeat could have been worse. An unofficial T20 tri-series between themselves, South Africa and Bangladesh, and a 50-over competition with South Africa A and Sri Lanka A kept them occupied but did not seem to do much more. South Africa sent an experimental side to that series, leaving out their best players, including Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel and Jacques Kallis. It was those three pacemen Zimbabwe could not stand up to in their second match of the World Twenty20.Streak, Zimbabwe’s bowling coach and former captain, said if the team had more practice against top sides, it may have fared better. “I know from when I was playing that the more we played international cricket against full-strength sides, the better we got,” he said. “It’s tough enough for us as a smaller team to play, and when we don’t get enough matches, it makes it even harder. We don’t need a lot of games but we need to be able to test ourselves.”Opportunities to do that appear slim. Pakistan have asked for their October tour of Zimbabwe to be postponed so they can play ODIs against India. This means Zimbabwe’s next international series will only be next March, in the Caribbean. They could have played Bangladesh in the lead-up to the World Twenty20 but the series was postponed by mutual agreement: Bangladesh wanted their national players available for the BPL, and Zimbabwe hid behind the excuse of needing to upgrade ground surfaces in Bulawayo and Harare, when it was actually financial problems that prevented them hosting the tour.

Lack of regular international fixtures, the loss of some players and a worsening financial situation at board level have all contributed to the stagnation of cricket in Zimbabwe

Monetary concerns have long been an issue for Zimbabwe cricket. The board confessed that it would take time for it to break even after the three incoming tours last year, but it did not give a full indication of how bad the situation was. Only Tatenda Taibu, who has since retired from international cricket, suggested something was wrong when he said that players had not been paid in the lead-up to the Bangladesh Test.ESPNcricinfo understands that even after central contracts were reintroduced for the 2011-2012 season, some players were not paid outstanding match fees. An insider said that the risk of losing players who are looking for more security is high because “there is little confidence among players that they will be treated well”.Already Zimbabwe cricket is feeling the loss of talented batsman Gary Ballance, who plays for Yorkshire and has been included in England’s Performance Squad to tour India. Ballance returns to Zimbabwe every summer to play for the Mid-West Rhinos but has no interest in playing for the country of his birth, especially as he nears the line for England selection.A source close to players in Zimbabwe said Ballance and Sean Ervine, who turned his back on Zimbabwe before the 2011 World Cup, could have been persuaded to play for Zimbabwe if the rules governing non-UK cricketers playing in the UK were different. Both players have committed to England because of the limits imposed on the number of overseas players a county can field. If these players could still play county cricket and have income security but remain available for Zimbabwe, they probably would.Zimbabwean players’ lack of exposure to top-level cricket elsewhere in the world is also minimal and has contributed to their lack of development. Taylor has played in T20 leagues in New Zealand, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, but he is unique in that regard. Jarvis is the only other player to have plied his trade elsewhere. He was spotted by New Zealand’s Central Districts during Zimbabwe’s January tour there and represented them for six matches in the Plunket Shield and finished as the fifth-highest wicket-taker overall, with 31 at an average of 21.06.Experiences like Jarvis’ are what former Rhinos coach Jason Gillespie thinks will make better cricketers out of the current Zimbabwe crop. With county cricket not really an option for those who want to continue playing for their country, Gillespie suggested that Zimbabwe actively seek opportunities for players to get experience by playing club cricket in the UK. Ed Rainsford and Glen Querl have made names for themselves in the Birmingham league and with the Unicorns, and Gillespie is trying to facilitate the passage for more players to take that path. “I have been in touch with a few league clubs that are interested in having a Zimbabwean cricketer as an overseas player, so we will see how that pans out,” he said.He also suggested that Zimbabwe try to play in some of South Africa’s domestic competitions, specifically the T20 one. “Two franchises, Harare and Bulawayo, would be obvious choices,” he said. As Rhodesia, Zimbabwe was part of South Africa’s Currie Cup before the country gained independence, and Zimbabwe have played a few seasons in South Africa’s first-class structures. They last played in the 2007-08 season as Zimbabwe Provinces, although they participated in the amateur division, not the franchise tournament.Endeavours like that could, in Gillespie’s view, help Zimbabwean cricket, but only if ZC get more meaningful international fixtures for their players. “Playing Australia A and SA A in 2011 was excellent cricket for Zimbabwe, because after that they performed well against Bangladesh and New Zealand.”Those matches were played at a time when hope was still being invested in Zimbabwean cricket. Reality has now hit. For people like Streak, things must go on, and he has reaffirmed his commitment to the game in the country, coupled with a hope that all involved will do the same.”We were bamboozled by the mystery of [Ajantha] Mendis, and the South African attack had the better of us on a surface that suited them more than us. But we felt we should have been more competitive. Our next assignment is in West Indies next year, but before that we have our own domestic season. We need to be playing a lot of cricket from now on if we want to do well.”Before Streak could say what his expectations for the future were, Zimbabwe’s notoriously fractious phone lines cut him off. Hopefully the cricket will not follow suit.

Plays of the Day from the fourth ODI between Sri Lanka and New Zealand in Hambantota

Andrew Fernando10-Nov-2012The run out
BJ Watling has been New Zealand’s batsman of the series so far, and he looked set to knuckle down for another good innings before Brendon McCullum caused his dismissal in the 12th over. McCullum knocked one into a gap on the leg-side and the batsmen took off with two on their minds. As he turned though, Watling saw that Nuwan Kulasekara was closing in, and protested. McCullum was insistent however, and Watling was forced to attempt the second run but was nowhere near completing it when the throw came in and the bails were removed.The double-strike
Jeevan Mendis’ legspin has been used sparingly in this series, but he ensured New Zealand would not rebuild after four top order wickets had gone cheaply, when he dismissed Kane Williamson and Nathan McCullum off consecutive deliveries, in the same fashion, with the same delivery. Williamson had played Mendis’ legbreaks comfortably, but did not pick the googly, leaving a gap between bat and pad for the ball to bisect as it broke the other way. McCullum failed to read the googly as well, and was also bowled through the gate next ball.The delivery
Tim Southee and Trent Boult were moving the ball viciously in the air and off the seam in their opening spells, and were unlucky to finish with just one wicket between them, having beaten the batsmen on numerous occasions. Southee’s best delivery came the second ball of his second over and, typically, it went unrewarded. Southee moved the ball in through the air, pitching it on a length on middle stump, before getting it to straighten dramatically off the seam. The ball beat Dinesh Chandimal’s prod and flew inches above the bails. Southee was so adamant that he should have something to show for that ball that he turned around to appeal raucously by himself, despite the fact that the batsman had got nowhere near it.The déjà vu
Upul Tharanga was dismissed by Southee after the bowler had had words with him in the second ODI, and so would have been desperate to get the better of Southee in the next match. But like in the second ODI, Tharanga hit a beautifully timed punch off Southee through the offside before throwing his wicket away, this time cutting straight to backward point. No words were necessary this time.The misfield
New Zealand pride themselves on their fielding, but in the 13th over James Franklin failed to make a regulation boundary stop. It was a slip-up that most backyard cricketers would be embarrassed by: sauntering around from sweeper cover, Franklin got down to intercept a Dinesh Chandimal cut shot, didn’t get his hands near the ball, and it duly rolled between his legs and onto the boundary.The umpires’ justice
Having worked hard to see Sri Lanka through the chase, Kumar Sangakkara was livid to have been deemed caught behind off Trent Boult in the 25th over, when the deflection had come off his thigh pad. Justice prevailed however, in a slightly complex fashion, as the third umpire ruled that Boult had overstepped, even though replays suggested a fraction of his boot had landed behind the line. In the end, two wrongs made a right, and Sangakkara finished unbeaten on 42.

Despite drifting into the wilderness, Ravi Bopara could still be the man England are looking for

George Dobell17-Jan-2013When he left the pitch after his dismissal in Pallekele with England’s defence of their World T20 all but over, it seemed Ravi Bopara may not represent England again.Devoid of confidence, Bopara’s record in recent games has been not so much modest as agoraphobic: his last eight international innings have yielded two double figure scores – the best being 22 – and three ducks. World-weary, diffident and even sad, he has looked unrecognisable from the carefree player who had once scored centuries in three successive Tests.But, as Bopara returns for Chittagong Kings in the next few days, it may be time for the England selectors to consider him once again for the ODI side.England require an allrounder to balance the side. With five specialist batsmen (Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen and Eoin Morgan), four specialist bowlers (James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann and Steven Finn) and a wicketkeeper (to be decided) all highly likely to feature at start the Champions Trophy in five months, it is clear that they require someone who can reliably provide another 10 overs and bat in either defensive or offensive fashion. Bopara may yet be that man.Samit Patel has made a decent claim for the position in the first two ODIs in India. His batting, in particular, appears well-suited to the role – he averages 37.00 in ODIs with a strike-rate of 95.62 – but concerns over his bowling linger. He has not taken a wicket in his last 10 ODIs and, in that time, has delivered 56 overs at a cost of 277 runs and only twice contributed a full 10-over allocation. While his ODI economy-rate, 5.42 overall, the effectiveness of his gentle left-arm spin on Indian pitches may well not be replicated on home pitches in June.Bopara offers a viable alternative. His ODI economy-rate is an impressive 4.63 – better than Anderson or Broad – which drops to 3.23 in his last 11 ODIs as his well-controlled medium-pace has improved and, while his batting average, 30.62, and strike-rate, 75.68, are inferior to Patel’s, it is worth noting that, at No. 6, Bopara’s strike-rate rises to 90.90. As he showed with unbeaten innings of 45 in 16 balls against Bangladesh at Edgbaston made from No. 7 and 37 from 22 balls against India in Cardiff made from No. 5, he has the power and ranger of strokes to add late impetus to an innings. The selectors will not have forgotten his cultured innings of 60 against South Africa in a low-scoring game in the 2011 World Cup, either. It led to a victory and was one of the higher points for England in a dismal campaign.

He will need to prove he has rediscovered the ability to focus on his game but Bopara is still only 27 and should have the best part of his career in front of him.

But there is a sense that they may have lost patience with him. It is true that he has been on the periphery of the England sides for several years – he has played 118 international games for England across the three formats – without ever nailing down a position. It is true, too, that younger men have passed him in the struggle for a Test place. There are those who have concluded that Bopara is the sort to go missing under pressure; not so much the sort you want beside you in a trench, but opposite you in the enemy’s trenches.But it would be wrong to judge Bopara on the form he showed in the last few months of 2012. Troubled by matters off the pitch, he was unable to dedicate himself fully to his work and his performance suffered. He is better than the shuffling mess that was, against all logic, promoted to bat at No. 3 at Trent Bridge in September. While he will need to prove he has rediscovered the ability to focus on his game, he is still only 27 and should have the best part of his career in front of him.There are other candidates. Chris Woakes, Luke Wright, Tim Bresnan and Ben Stokes are among those who might do a good job for England. The selectors may also decide that the wicketkeeper should bat at No. 6 and allow the inclusion of five specialist bowlers with Broad or Swann batting as high as No. 7. Bearing in mind that four of England’s current top five in the ODI side – Trott, Pietersen, Cook, Morgan and Pietersen – currently feature in the top five of England’s highest all-time ODI averages, then that may not be as big a risk at it appears at first glance. Bell and Patel feature in the top 16, too.But, in English conditions, a seam-bowling allrounder capable of batting in the top seven will remain the preference. If Bopara can prove he has put his troubles behind him, he is worth bearing in mind.Of more immediate concern to England ahead of the third ODI, for which Tim Bresnan will return to contention having recovered from bruising just above his knee, is how they bowl to MS Dhoni. England’s assistant coach, Richard Halsall, said the side were frustrated that they had let match-defining opportunities slip away from them in the second ODI, but it might be more accurate to admit that Dhoni wrestled them away.”At one stage they were 119 for 4, a great opportunity, and even when they made 285 we got to 60 for 1 after 10 overs and were thinking ‘we are going to win this’,” Halsall said. “The disappointment is that we created two very good opportunities to win a game of cricket in India, which is very hard to do, and we didn’t take them. It was a heavy defeat and the lads were disappointed they didn’t deliver.”

Does Pakistan cricket need to introspect

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013

The PCB’s punishment reeks more of a diversionary tactic© AFP
Cricinfo, as far as I can tell, isn’t the place to vent one’s frustrations. At the very least, one can outline valid reasons in an organized, mature manner. And that’s why Samir Chopra’s latest post “Should any ‘family’ be this tolerant?” strikes me as, in the author’s words, “patently offensive”.I do agree with Mr. Chopra in one regard – that we should stop with the increasingly grating cliches of wonderfully unpredictable, charmingly volatile, and capable of spectacular blows both to itself and to its on-field opponents. It sounds entertaining enough, but it’s not helping Pakistan cricket. A far more agreeable term for all concerned would be quietly clinical, thoroughly professional…but Pakistan isn’t anywhere near that. The board, in my opinion, has exacerbated matters.Yes, Pakistan suffers from too much player power and yes, it needs to be checked. But what exactly the bans slapped on two of the team’s veterans, Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan, are supposed to achieve is anybody’s guess. Younis, by all accounts a dignified and sincere member of the side, has been one of Pakistan’s most stalwart performers over the years. His results may not impress in terms of Standard Deviation – a first-baller can be followed by a match-winning century, or some-such, but, in general he gets the job done. So he didn’t particularly take to captaincy. He was certainly taking Pakistan in the right direction when political interference into over-hyped defeats in the Champions Trophy insulted his integrity. Few players have had so ill-deserved a send-off.Yousuf, whose easy, graceful strokes could melt butter on a frigid winter day, was perhaps Pakistan’s best performer of the topsy-turvy 2000s. A fluent, dashing stroke-player to begin with, he then displayed an increasing tendency to fight it out at the crease, culminating in a record run-tally in the calendar year of 2006. An undignified off-field spat with Shoaib Malik and some tactless comments during a disastrous captaincy aside, he hardly deserved so wretched a punishment.The punishment reeks more of a diversionary tactic. In the aftermath of a disastrous Australian tour, the PCB needed to be seen as doing something. Like the shameless politicians before them, they tried a cheap distraction. And the sad thing is it’s not the first time, either. Of course, as Chopra says, it would not be surprising if these banned players made a comeback. Pakistan has a history, not just in cricket, of confounding comebacks. And instead of affectionately oozing over the glorious uncertainties, Pakistan would do well to pick itself up and try to instill some consistency and accountability into its cricket.But Mr. Chopra, with all due respect, seems to have taken this latest twist as an opportunity to vent a lifetime of misgivings. He has his right to, of course, and I hope he won’t begrudge me my right to respond, but the stream of “endemic indiscipline” and “stunning lack of professionalism” seems to strike me as somewhat one-eyed. Yes, Inzamam-ul-Haq once lost his temper with a Toronto spectator. Shameful, and not pretty to watch. But it’s all too easy to forget Khalid Latif’s prudence when confronted with a worse situation just over a month ago. Those volatile Pakistanis, indeed. And not to make this a slanging match, but when accused of “Test-match forfeits”, it’s too easy to point out Bishan Singh Bedi and Sunil Gavaskar’s tantrums against West Indies and Australia respectively; when accused of crying “racist”, it’s too easy to recall Indian fans’ recent fits against an admittedly suspect Australia in 2007-08, as well as the infamous Mike Denness Affair of 2001-02; when accused of crying “umpiring conspiracies”, it’s all too easy to recall the Indian media’s public mangling of Steve Bucknor, who admittedly had a terrible Sydney match, in 2008.Yet Indian cricket, largely to its credit but also due to the sometimes ill-disguised indulgence of other nations, has emerged stronger. Mr. Chopra’s lambasting of Pakistan cricket is correct in theory, not method, much as the Australian media months ago laid into a supposedly haphazard West Indies and were called to show some decency by an unusually-stirred Joel Garner. Does Pakistan cricket need to introspect? You bet. Is such open contempt and disrespect necessary for that to happen? Probably not. Perhaps Mr. Chopra’s truest statement is “We could all do with a little tough love.” Quite. Pakistan, much like West Indies and Zimbabwe, is in some strife at the moment. Hanging out all misgivings to dry is hardly an appropriate response. (P.S. I understand this post may be slightly inflammatory. No personal attack on Mr. Chopra is intended and I hope the editors understand.)

Too slow, too negative, too defensive, England are not interested in anyone else’s opinion and know their own plans bring success

Jarrod Kimber at Headingley27-May-2013″Get on with it,” shouted the angry cricket journalist. This was before play. But during play, at breaks, as people ate lunch or went about folding clothes, many people said the same thing. Why won’t England get on with it? Or declare? Or both? And why didn’t they enforce the follow-on yesterday? Why, why?England have, as of yet, decided not to run their cricketing decisions through a committee of media and fans. The media and fans may have suggested that not enforcing the follow-on when you’ve only taken 43.4 overs to bowl a side out is a defensive option. Team England may suggest that they could see how flat the pitch was and that their best chance of bowling New Zealand out again would be a Graeme Swann fourth and fifth day attack.The media and fans could point to the fact that England scored at 3.77-an-over when pushing for a declaration, which was only slightly quicker than their first innings total, and slower than New Zealand’s first innings. Team England could answer that this is their last Test before the Ashes, and they had a chance to get a couple of players back into form.The media and fans might wonder if the added gate receipts of a fourth or fifth day could have persuaded England to bat on and on. Team England might ask which ECB employee would tell Andy Flower that he has to base his and Alastair Cook’s decisions on financial concerns.The media and fans will probably say that no matter what reasons you think 468 is a good total to chase, it’s still 19 more runs than New Zealand have scored in the entire series. Team England will probably say better to be safe than sorry.The media and fans have been looking at the weather updates for days wondering why England haven’t rushed things along. Team England have never trusted two day forecasts.England probably should have enforced the follow-on. Nick Compton and Jonathan Trott shouldn’t have batted like Han Solo in carbonite and batting on beyond lunch was an odd decision, if you’re being nice.But Team England hasn’t been overtaken by an alien life form. This is a conservative team. Replacing Andrew Strauss with Cook wasn’t going to upset the careful, careful, softly, softly approach that once made England the No. 1 Test team on earth.

England will continue to play the way that they believe is best for them and continue to make their own cricket decisions

England weren’t going to declare 300 in front, or 400 in front, they were going to bat until any total was notional. Not notional for people sitting in the press box, or on a couch, who seem to think every single declaration is too late, but notional for cricketers who understand how the pitch is playing. 468 for a team with batsmen as out of form as New Zealand is quite notional.But even with this mythical chase being set, England kept being conservative. Despite some variable bounce, Hamish Rutherford was given a deep point. A run-saving position when runs just couldn’t have mattered less.Yet England would say that Rutherford is a confidence batsman. And that statistically he scores the majority of his runs where they put their man. They were trying to drain his mojo but Rutherford still scored quicker than the England batsmen even with a sweeper out. His eventual wicket was to a bat-pad.Later on, Brendon McCullum faced the penetrating spin of Joe Root. New Zealand had lost six wickets by this stage. They needed more than 300 runs to win. The over started with Cook having three men on the boundary. England would point out that McCullum is more likely to be caught by a deep set fielder than anyone in the circle as their statistical analysis can prove.While some seem to see events like this as momentary lapse in judgment, it is really a deep seated ideology. It may not be one that is popular with fans, but it is one that this team truly believe in.A running joke in this series is how attacking McCullum can be with his fields. His slips cordons are filled with bodies even when his team is not doing well. McCullum’s field this morning often had as many catching fielders as some of those from Cook in the afternoon.Drawing this Test will not be the end of the world for England. They’ve won the series. This Test means very little in the larger picture. Even if by ignoring weather forecasts they’ve not left themselves the 30 to 120 minutes they will probably need tomorrow, it’s not a massive problem.What a full day’s rain might mean is that in future England slightly change their outlook to a more aggressive way of thinking the next time a similar match plays out.What is more likely is that England win this series 2-0 and they continue to play the way that they believe is best for them. I would also assume that England will continue to make their own cricket decisions and not be swayed too much by the opinions of the media and fans.