For the first time in quite a while in an Ashes Test build-up, Australia are wrestling with more difficult selection quandaries than England, who can only wait upon the results of Andrew Flintoff’s various painkilling injections (if Flintoff isn’t fit, Stuart Broad’s batting definitely puts him ahead of Harmison, though he is an almost certain pick anyway). The Australians, by contrast, have serious question marks over the two great success stories of their series win in South Africa, the prodigy Phillip Hughes and the man of that series, Mitchell Johnson.
Johnson’s radar went completely awol on the first morning at Lord’s, putting Australia on the back foot for much of the rest of the game, whilst Hughes has had some problems on that back foot against deliveries into the body from top fast bowlers such as Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison and, err, David Wigley of Northamptonshire. Johnson’s travails are the more worrying, especially since his yips continued at Northampton, where he went for nearly 6 an over and took just one (tail-end) wicket. Hughes did score second innings runs and has, as far as I’m concerned, had only one bad match at Test level – having scored Test runs against the likes of Makhaya Ntini, Morne Morkel and Dale Steyn, he can't be that vulnerable against the short ball.
If the Australian selectors choose to back Johnson, though, it would be quite a risk to do so as part of a 4-man attack, which makes Shane Watson that bit more likely to play in the top order (probably in Hughes’ place). If Stuart Clark (23 overs, 4-74 at Northampton) replaces Johnson, the team will probably remain otherwise unchanged. I’d definitely make that change, mindful of Clark’s vice-like hold over Alistair Cook and Andrew Strauss in 2006-7, but Tim Nielsen has remained bullish in backing Johnson. Surely they won’t actually keep the same team, though? Let me know your thoughts!
Showing posts with label stuart broad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stuart broad. Show all posts
Monday, 27 July 2009
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Cardiff review, Lord's preview
As those of you following the Tragics on Twitter will know, I was happily (though anxiously) amongst the spectators in Cardiff on the first and last days of the opening Ashes Test - one of the more swiftly snapped up of my girlfriend's date suggestions.
Broad sunshine swathed Test cricket's newest ground, picturesque and filled to capacity, as the Welsh Assembly's £3.2m bid for the match was rewarded by a finish as fine as any of those in the famed 2005 series (especially reminiscent, with roles reversed, of Old Trafford). The controversy surrounding Cardiff's selection as a venue ahead of the more established Test grounds in Durham and Manchester was largely forgotten as a well-organised week was capped by Paul Collingwood's defiant, intelligent innings and unexpected heroics from England's (or Britain's) last pair.
Paul Collingwood after his 1st innings dismissal
An enjoyable couple of days, then, and England's best of the match, but worrying nonetheless. Australia's attack was without Brett Lee or Stuart Clark, their two most experienced bowlers, and few difficulties had been anticipated from Nathan Hauritz, the off-spinner with a first-class bowling average of 45.84. Yet England's batting line-up compiled not one century in two innings on a benign surface, whilst watching 4 Australian batsmen of the 7 who came to the crease reach three figures. Admittedly, Ben Hilfenhaus did deliver the best performance of his short Test career, maintaining a tight line and getting good movement, and was definitely underbowled on the last day (15 overs to the less impressive Johnson's 22), whilst Siddle provided bustle and short-pitched menace and Hauritz steadily grew in confidence after a nervy first 5 overs.
England's batsmen, however, got out to some pretty ordinary shots. Enough has already been written about Pietersen's horrific sweep when set in the first innings, but too little about Prior and Flintoff perishing to expansive drives against the new ball late on the first evening, after their partnership of 86 had just about wrested back the initiative. Prior's dismissal in the second innings, attempting to cut an off-spinner on a sharply turning pitch, was also frustrating: so many of his runs have been scored against the West Indies (739 in 10 matches, as against 396 from his other 9) that it is doubtful whether he is a sound option at No. 6 against better sides. Strauss looked very composed in each innings, before indecision (against a Johnson short ball) and a poor decision (to cut at Hauritz twice in a row) cost him. He needs to stamp his authority on this series with the bat sooner rather than later.
As concerning as the batsmen's failure to capitalise having played themselves in (the first 10 English batsmen reached double figures in the 1st innings) were the workings over that Bopara, in the 1st innings, and Pietersen, in both innings, received. Bopara was understandably very scratchy after being struck in the gullet by a Siddle lifter, but Pietersen was exceptionally jumpy, even for him, at the start of each innings and looked all at sea right through his 20-minute stay on the final morning, the result, very likely, of a more fragile ego than he lets on. My confidence in Cook to improve his 32% conversion rate of 50s to 100s - as he must - remains slight.
Ben Hilfenhaus in his delivery stride on the final day
In my view, then, there is certainly a case for lengthening the batting order for the livelier pitch at Lord's and including Bell at No.6, where he has had some success. This decision may be forced upon England if Flintoff is injured, but should arguably be embraced regardless. The problem with that, of course, is that one cannot rely on Flintoff's body holding up as part of a 4-man attack. Perhaps, as Mike Atherton suggests, England should be prepared for life without Flintoff: after all, since the 2005 Ashes, they have won 12 of 25 Tests without him and only 3 of 23 with him. It is hardly likely that they will be this ruthless though.
Although Monty Panesar will surely be left out for the Lord's match, it is very difficult to make further predictions as to the bowling line-up in view of the doubts over Flintoff's fitness, Harmison's temperament and Broad's role. Either Harmison or Flintoff is needed to provide the steepling bounce that seems likely to account for the phenomenon Phillip Hughes (Stuart Broad was misused in attempting this), although it is just possible that Onions may remain ahead of Harmison in the pecking order. Anderson and Swann must surely retain their places, whilst the selectors will be unwilling to drop Broad after one bad match in a fine summer.
Which leaves me with Broad, Swann, Harmison (or perhaps Onions) and Anderson, with Bell's inclusion depending on Freddie's fitness. For the Australians, the selection is comparatively straightforward and the same team will line up at Lord's, health permitting. I'm dreading Mitchell Johnson's rediscovery of the inswinger that made him man of the series in South Africa and was conspicuous by its absence in Cardiff. England's best hope is for Strauss to find the form and the mettle he showed this winter.
Do let us know what you think about the selection, particularly on the bowling front...
Broad sunshine swathed Test cricket's newest ground, picturesque and filled to capacity, as the Welsh Assembly's £3.2m bid for the match was rewarded by a finish as fine as any of those in the famed 2005 series (especially reminiscent, with roles reversed, of Old Trafford). The controversy surrounding Cardiff's selection as a venue ahead of the more established Test grounds in Durham and Manchester was largely forgotten as a well-organised week was capped by Paul Collingwood's defiant, intelligent innings and unexpected heroics from England's (or Britain's) last pair.
Paul Collingwood after his 1st innings dismissalEngland's batsmen, however, got out to some pretty ordinary shots. Enough has already been written about Pietersen's horrific sweep when set in the first innings, but too little about Prior and Flintoff perishing to expansive drives against the new ball late on the first evening, after their partnership of 86 had just about wrested back the initiative. Prior's dismissal in the second innings, attempting to cut an off-spinner on a sharply turning pitch, was also frustrating: so many of his runs have been scored against the West Indies (739 in 10 matches, as against 396 from his other 9) that it is doubtful whether he is a sound option at No. 6 against better sides. Strauss looked very composed in each innings, before indecision (against a Johnson short ball) and a poor decision (to cut at Hauritz twice in a row) cost him. He needs to stamp his authority on this series with the bat sooner rather than later.
As concerning as the batsmen's failure to capitalise having played themselves in (the first 10 English batsmen reached double figures in the 1st innings) were the workings over that Bopara, in the 1st innings, and Pietersen, in both innings, received. Bopara was understandably very scratchy after being struck in the gullet by a Siddle lifter, but Pietersen was exceptionally jumpy, even for him, at the start of each innings and looked all at sea right through his 20-minute stay on the final morning, the result, very likely, of a more fragile ego than he lets on. My confidence in Cook to improve his 32% conversion rate of 50s to 100s - as he must - remains slight.
Ben Hilfenhaus in his delivery stride on the final dayIn my view, then, there is certainly a case for lengthening the batting order for the livelier pitch at Lord's and including Bell at No.6, where he has had some success. This decision may be forced upon England if Flintoff is injured, but should arguably be embraced regardless. The problem with that, of course, is that one cannot rely on Flintoff's body holding up as part of a 4-man attack. Perhaps, as Mike Atherton suggests, England should be prepared for life without Flintoff: after all, since the 2005 Ashes, they have won 12 of 25 Tests without him and only 3 of 23 with him. It is hardly likely that they will be this ruthless though.
Although Monty Panesar will surely be left out for the Lord's match, it is very difficult to make further predictions as to the bowling line-up in view of the doubts over Flintoff's fitness, Harmison's temperament and Broad's role. Either Harmison or Flintoff is needed to provide the steepling bounce that seems likely to account for the phenomenon Phillip Hughes (Stuart Broad was misused in attempting this), although it is just possible that Onions may remain ahead of Harmison in the pecking order. Anderson and Swann must surely retain their places, whilst the selectors will be unwilling to drop Broad after one bad match in a fine summer.
Which leaves me with Broad, Swann, Harmison (or perhaps Onions) and Anderson, with Bell's inclusion depending on Freddie's fitness. For the Australians, the selection is comparatively straightforward and the same team will line up at Lord's, health permitting. I'm dreading Mitchell Johnson's rediscovery of the inswinger that made him man of the series in South Africa and was conspicuous by its absence in Cardiff. England's best hope is for Strauss to find the form and the mettle he showed this winter.
Do let us know what you think about the selection, particularly on the bowling front...
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
In Defence of Twenty20
I am, as most are, worried about the impact that the T20 phenomenon will have on the longer form of the game... however as I work from home and have recently acquired Sky Sports I feel I should share some optimism about what I have seen.
Watching a game develop in front of us, it is clear that the international teams are still finding their feet in this format of the game, field settings and balance of teams are still a work in progress. I find it fascinating to be able to watch the development of ideas and tactic in this form of the game, for so long has 50 over cricket become formulaic (and in my opinion dull) it is with real pleasure that one can watch on to see the steady development of crickets newest toy.
It is still not clear how best to set your fields in the first 6 over of these T20 games, some teams opting for fine leg and third man to be back and bowl full and straight, while others prefer to pull their length back and have one man square of the wicket and fine leg in the circle.
It is still not clear what types of bowling are the most effective in this format. Our domestic T20 league seems to point to the fact that spinners/ slow bowlers are the key to success, but some of the international teams have proven to the contrary perhaps due to the higher class of batsmen compared to the domestic scene finding the more gentle pace easy to attack. But in this shortened format it has been fascinating to see how some international batsmen just don’t have the skill or ability to get after the genuinely fast bowlers; anyone who watched the NZ Vs South Africa game last night would have seen that Guptill and Broom (both Kiwi internationals) were clearly not up to panning the Saffer quicks out the ground and succumbed quickly
trying to do so.
Seeing novel bowling methods has also been of interest, whether it be Broad coming round the wicket bowling wide yorkers across the right-handers, the ever increasing array of slower balls or the continued emergence of Mendis finding genuine confusion is a more useful tool then genuine turn. It has been touted round that T20 is a batsmen game, but from the games I have watched it is more often inspired bowling and fielding displays that have won games rather than big knocks (Gale not included).
A fairly obvious point about T20, due to its shorter length, means one or two big performances from a side can result in a victory. Although that leaves many feeling a bit hollow, I think it is great to go into contest between any two teams knowing that the game could be turned upside down by early wickets or an explosive first 6 overs.
Not many of us will forget the Netherlands game too quickly (I had the joy of being there live!) but it can’t be a bad thing for the game to see an increased competitiveness between all sides and I am sure the Broad final over must have been a catalyst to many a chat over the resulting weekend – often for me with people who I would not usually consider to be big cricket fans.
I must stress again that I would not want to see T20 cricket to eat away at any of our beloved Test match cricket, as the longest form of the game is the true test of skill and where I hope all future cricket stars will make their names. But I feel with the cricket calendar getting more and more hectic, and players complaining of burn out, this format could lighten the work load on our players while still filling up the stadium and create that cash for the county grounds. This could also create a great opportunity to promote the women’s games having a women’s match as a prelude to the main event.
We all know that T20 is here to stay and it seems as if it is only going to increase in its frequency. I just hope that it is at the expense of the 50 over format rather than Test cricket. There are 7 scheduled one day games between Australia and England after the Ashes this summer. I would assume that we will all remember the result of the Ashes, but wonder how many of us will recall the outcome of the 7 match series. It’s not Test cricket but I encourage you all to give T20 a second chance, not just as a cheap thrill but as another spectacle of this great game, and one is forcing players and coaches to think as deeply and innovatively as they have done in any format.
Watching a game develop in front of us, it is clear that the international teams are still finding their feet in this format of the game, field settings and balance of teams are still a work in progress. I find it fascinating to be able to watch the development of ideas and tactic in this form of the game, for so long has 50 over cricket become formulaic (and in my opinion dull) it is with real pleasure that one can watch on to see the steady development of crickets newest toy.
It is still not clear how best to set your fields in the first 6 over of these T20 games, some teams opting for fine leg and third man to be back and bowl full and straight, while others prefer to pull their length back and have one man square of the wicket and fine leg in the circle.
It is still not clear what types of bowling are the most effective in this format. Our domestic T20 league seems to point to the fact that spinners/ slow bowlers are the key to success, but some of the international teams have proven to the contrary perhaps due to the higher class of batsmen compared to the domestic scene finding the more gentle pace easy to attack. But in this shortened format it has been fascinating to see how some international batsmen just don’t have the skill or ability to get after the genuinely fast bowlers; anyone who watched the NZ Vs South Africa game last night would have seen that Guptill and Broom (both Kiwi internationals) were clearly not up to panning the Saffer quicks out the ground and succumbed quickly
trying to do so.
Seeing novel bowling methods has also been of interest, whether it be Broad coming round the wicket bowling wide yorkers across the right-handers, the ever increasing array of slower balls or the continued emergence of Mendis finding genuine confusion is a more useful tool then genuine turn. It has been touted round that T20 is a batsmen game, but from the games I have watched it is more often inspired bowling and fielding displays that have won games rather than big knocks (Gale not included).
A fairly obvious point about T20, due to its shorter length, means one or two big performances from a side can result in a victory. Although that leaves many feeling a bit hollow, I think it is great to go into contest between any two teams knowing that the game could be turned upside down by early wickets or an explosive first 6 overs.
Not many of us will forget the Netherlands game too quickly (I had the joy of being there live!) but it can’t be a bad thing for the game to see an increased competitiveness between all sides and I am sure the Broad final over must have been a catalyst to many a chat over the resulting weekend – often for me with people who I would not usually consider to be big cricket fans.
I must stress again that I would not want to see T20 cricket to eat away at any of our beloved Test match cricket, as the longest form of the game is the true test of skill and where I hope all future cricket stars will make their names. But I feel with the cricket calendar getting more and more hectic, and players complaining of burn out, this format could lighten the work load on our players while still filling up the stadium and create that cash for the county grounds. This could also create a great opportunity to promote the women’s games having a women’s match as a prelude to the main event.
We all know that T20 is here to stay and it seems as if it is only going to increase in its frequency. I just hope that it is at the expense of the 50 over format rather than Test cricket. There are 7 scheduled one day games between Australia and England after the Ashes this summer. I would assume that we will all remember the result of the Ashes, but wonder how many of us will recall the outcome of the 7 match series. It’s not Test cricket but I encourage you all to give T20 a second chance, not just as a cheap thrill but as another spectacle of this great game, and one is forcing players and coaches to think as deeply and innovatively as they have done in any format.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Starting XI against the West Indies
Right, pretty boring one to start off, but I'm worried Tom may cry if it's just him that keeps on posting…
What would be your starting XI against the West Indies?
The opening partnership picks itself: they have both just scored runs against the Nevis Invitational XI and we haven't really got anyone better.
I'm going for Shah at three. He has waited long enough for his chance, and every time Bell plays it seems as if he is batting for his life. Always one innings before he is dropped he scores a good looking 70 odd and he’s saved for the next two tests. I also think Shah has a bit of grit about him, I think he is a guy that will play better the bigger the occasion. If he gets runs against West Indies A then they have no choice. Also Bell looks like a vole!
Colly: I would love to have a solid number 5 in our team, but as England don’t seem to have one, what can they do? Collingwood can add a bit of determination to the innings, he can keep his head and help England rebuild, if his technique does not let him down first. I would love to see someone else in there but he’ll do for now.
KP and Flintoff, enough said.
Prior: Best of a bad bunch (I use the word best loosely).
Broad: I think he has potential as a bowler and we need to develop him for all formats of the game. He could come on and I see no reason to replace him, plus he also just turned down the chance of not getting picked for the IPL unlike some other prats, Sajid Mahmood anyone. IPL picks.
Sidebottom: as we seem to have shut the door on Hoggard and he was England’s player of last year, if he is fit, I think he works as solid metronomic operator to tie up one end and if it swings then great news.
Monty: we have to give him another chance seeing as he took 7 wickets in the warm up game. If he again proves ineffective then we need to give either Swann or Rashid a prolonged run in the team as a succession plan for the next Ashes series.
Harmison: I know hoping for a repeat of last time is clutching at straws, but I’m English, I thought that is what we did. I know he is a homesick, serial breeding, lazy shit... but he's not James Anderson.
My Starting XI:
Strauss (C)
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior (W)
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar
Harmison
What would be your starting XI against the West Indies?
The opening partnership picks itself: they have both just scored runs against the Nevis Invitational XI and we haven't really got anyone better.
I'm going for Shah at three. He has waited long enough for his chance, and every time Bell plays it seems as if he is batting for his life. Always one innings before he is dropped he scores a good looking 70 odd and he’s saved for the next two tests. I also think Shah has a bit of grit about him, I think he is a guy that will play better the bigger the occasion. If he gets runs against West Indies A then they have no choice. Also Bell looks like a vole!
Colly: I would love to have a solid number 5 in our team, but as England don’t seem to have one, what can they do? Collingwood can add a bit of determination to the innings, he can keep his head and help England rebuild, if his technique does not let him down first. I would love to see someone else in there but he’ll do for now.
KP and Flintoff, enough said.
Prior: Best of a bad bunch (I use the word best loosely).
Broad: I think he has potential as a bowler and we need to develop him for all formats of the game. He could come on and I see no reason to replace him, plus he also just turned down the chance of not getting picked for the IPL unlike some other prats, Sajid Mahmood anyone. IPL picks.
Sidebottom: as we seem to have shut the door on Hoggard and he was England’s player of last year, if he is fit, I think he works as solid metronomic operator to tie up one end and if it swings then great news.
Monty: we have to give him another chance seeing as he took 7 wickets in the warm up game. If he again proves ineffective then we need to give either Swann or Rashid a prolonged run in the team as a succession plan for the next Ashes series.
Harmison: I know hoping for a repeat of last time is clutching at straws, but I’m English, I thought that is what we did. I know he is a homesick, serial breeding, lazy shit... but he's not James Anderson.
My Starting XI:
Strauss (C)
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior (W)
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar
Harmison
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
