A win! A bloody win. After a joyless August, the (no longer) mighty Heath registered our first victory since July 28th. With Abbots Langley dropping out on the Thursday, much conferring took place and it was finally agreed that Goodwill Wanderers would be the day's opposition. And what an aptly named cricket team - for they proved a most entertaining bunch, full of abuse directed (as it should be) relentlessly towards their own players.
But before we get to the report proper, first, an apology. Last week's match report was written after a very boozy evening and I'm afraid it all got a bit Mark Nicholas in places ("Stephen Harmison, with a slower ball, one of the great balls. Given the moment, given the batsman, and given the match…" Yep, sorry about that one, chaps.) So this week, a review in strictly rigorous fact-based fashion:
1. Hyde Heath fielded first. (I can't remember if we won the toss.)
2. We bowled. Ben sent down a very tidy opening spell to pick up one wicket; at the other end Spencer picked up three, but was expensive in his second spell. Ateeq took two (or one) and I took one.
3. I bowled the best I had in some weeks but proved expensive as one of Goodwill's batsmen made an inexplicable 60 or so, in which he looked like he might get out any second but periodically timed the ball, much to our surprise.
4. Sohail bowled well, although his figures were ruined by a sole death over that cost 16, and Goodwill finished on an eminently threatening 179 (later upgraded to 180 for reasons that never became entirely apparent).
5. My fielding was ghastly.
6. Tea was belting, with jam and cream bedecked scones the stand-out performance in a strong all-round display.
7. After being horribly dropped offering one of the simplest caught-and-bowled chances you could imagine, Dom proceeded to compile a second consecutive half-century, and along with Capper, finding form after a couple of low scores, put together an increasingly authoritative opening partnership of 120 that effectively sealed the match. Both timed the ball well, with Dom particularly strong on the cut, and Capper timing the hell out of it off his legs.
8. Jez and I then came in to steal some glory with a few boundaries against a demoralised opposition (who have clearly never witnessed a Hyde Heath collapse before).
9. We went to the Plough.
10. The end.
Showing posts with label Steve Harmison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Harmison. Show all posts
Monday, 9 September 2013
Monday, 27 July 2009
Australia's Edgbaston selection
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!
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!
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, 29 April 2009
The Ashes plan or horses for courses?
To anyone following the build-up to today's England team selection for the first of the two upcoming Tests against the West Indies, that selection will have come as a surprise - neither Ian Bell, nor Michael Vaughan (around whom speculation has centred) made the 12-man squad, nor even Owais Shah, with Ravi Bopara preferred for the No. 3 berth, whilst Steve Harmison was passed over in favour of Durham teammate, Graham Onions, and Yorkshire's Tim Bresnan.
What is unclear about the selection, however, is how far it signals England's Ashes intentions. A top 7 of Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior and Broad may look adequate against the inexperienced West Indies attack, but it is surely a little lightweight to face the Australians. At No.8, Broad was a luxury, but, at No.7, he will shoulder run-scoring responsibility; Bopara scored one century against West Indies at No.6 (after being dropped on 4), but coming in first down against a top bowling attack on pitches with some life (Lord's aside) is quite a different matter. Putting two players in 'make or break' situations inevitably pressurises the rest of the batting line-up.
The 5-bowler selection may be a reflection of the difficulty of forcing a result at Lord's (the last 6 Tests there have been drawn), rather than a statement for the summer, although it's worth remembering that the team for the final Windies Test of the winter had the same balance. If this balance works well in the first Tests, it could well be kept for the summer, especially if Flintoff returns at No.7.
Whatever the side's balance, players I'd regard, at this stage, as inked-in Ashes certainties are Strauss(c.), Cook (reluctantly), Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior (with reservations), Broad and Anderson. With Swann or Panesar as the main spinner, this leaves 3 further places up for grabs: 2 batting and 1 bowling if England are being conservative, 2 bowling and 1 batting if caution is thrown to the wind, and one of each if Flintoff is fit.
The brusque message sent to Bell and Harmison, the most notable 'snubees', is that they are going to have to make themselves impossible to leave out between now and July, rather than simply returning to 'their' spots in the team. Bell, in particular, repeatedly puts being dropped down to a 3-month loss of form, rather than a failure, over a longer period, to do justice to his talent by scoring match-dictating centuries under pressure.
In the race for Ashes places, it's all to play for, which is just as it should be. Since Andy Flower doesn't have the luxury of a settled team, the best he can do is to stimulate competition for places and hope that the results will follow. It'll be interesting to see which players react best.
What is unclear about the selection, however, is how far it signals England's Ashes intentions. A top 7 of Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior and Broad may look adequate against the inexperienced West Indies attack, but it is surely a little lightweight to face the Australians. At No.8, Broad was a luxury, but, at No.7, he will shoulder run-scoring responsibility; Bopara scored one century against West Indies at No.6 (after being dropped on 4), but coming in first down against a top bowling attack on pitches with some life (Lord's aside) is quite a different matter. Putting two players in 'make or break' situations inevitably pressurises the rest of the batting line-up.
The 5-bowler selection may be a reflection of the difficulty of forcing a result at Lord's (the last 6 Tests there have been drawn), rather than a statement for the summer, although it's worth remembering that the team for the final Windies Test of the winter had the same balance. If this balance works well in the first Tests, it could well be kept for the summer, especially if Flintoff returns at No.7.
Whatever the side's balance, players I'd regard, at this stage, as inked-in Ashes certainties are Strauss(c.), Cook (reluctantly), Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior (with reservations), Broad and Anderson. With Swann or Panesar as the main spinner, this leaves 3 further places up for grabs: 2 batting and 1 bowling if England are being conservative, 2 bowling and 1 batting if caution is thrown to the wind, and one of each if Flintoff is fit.
The brusque message sent to Bell and Harmison, the most notable 'snubees', is that they are going to have to make themselves impossible to leave out between now and July, rather than simply returning to 'their' spots in the team. Bell, in particular, repeatedly puts being dropped down to a 3-month loss of form, rather than a failure, over a longer period, to do justice to his talent by scoring match-dictating centuries under pressure.
In the race for Ashes places, it's all to play for, which is just as it should be. Since Andy Flower doesn't have the luxury of a settled team, the best he can do is to stimulate competition for places and hope that the results will follow. It'll be interesting to see which players react best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
