Plenty of predictions are being made about Thursday's Edgbaston Test - that there will be problems starting the game (because of a water-logged outfield), problems continuing it (because of the rain forecast) and problems bringing it to a positive conclusion (because the pitch is a bowler's graveyard) - but, after the vast swing in the sides' fortunes between Cardiff and Lord's, it is impossible to know what next to expect this Ashes summer.
My feeling at both Cardiff and Lord's was that England's batting was careless and vulnerable, but they have topped 400 in each 1st innings: no disaster. And one change to a bowling attack that had struggled to take 6 wickets in 180 overs at Cardiff enabled them to take all 20 in 170 at Lord's. Sure, the overcast conditions helped Anderson to swing the ball in the 1st innings but Hughes, Haddin, Johnson, Katich and North all fell to attempted hooks and pulls. A strange series, then, so far.
In my book, the toss is a crucial one: if Ponting, a bad 'Punter' at Cardiff and Lord's, can make it 3rd time lucky and Australia get first use of an Edgbaston featherbed, they may be able to exert some proper first innings pressure on England's batting line-up, with particular question marks, to my mind, lingering over Ravi Bopara (clearly struggling for form in the Lord's 2nd innings), Ian Bell and Matt Prior. Prior's 2 Test centuries have both been scored against the West Indies and both were the 3rd of the England innings; it is one thing playing cameos with a declaration looming, quite another proving yourself a number 6 under pressure.
A similar argument can be deployed against Ian Bell, whose 8 Test centuries have always been the 2nd, at least, of the innings in which they were scored. That could potentially be misleading - accusations levelled at Bell that he has often 'slipstreamed' Kevin Pietersen show a lack of understanding of the differences between their batting styles - but his conversion rate of 8 centuries from 27 fifties (similar to Cook's 9 from 29, contrast Strauss 18 from 32, KP 16 from 31) is a poor one, a statistic that does not lie.
So make sure you're tuned in at about 10.45 tomorrow - if play is to start on time - since Andrew Strauss' flip of the coin could perhaps be a crucial one.
Showing posts with label kevin pietersen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kevin pietersen. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Lord's - some photos and a very little history
The next stop in this Ashes series that you may just have heard about lately is Lord's, the 'home of cricket', which, since you ask, is St John's Wood, NW8. In the spirit of evangelism, I thought that I might put a few photos of the ground up and maybe even write a little bit about it to try to give some idea of what all the fuss is about.
The pavilion in pre-season serenity
Cricket has been played on this pitch since 1814, when the wine merchant and entrepreneur Thomas Lord moved the Marylebone Cricket Club, or MCC (formerly of Dorset Square, NW1 and White Conduit Fields, N1), to St John's Wood.
The MCC, founded in 1787, had shortly after established a Code of Laws for the game of cricket (as it did for lawn tennis just under a century later), very necessary in view of the sums aristocrats of the time were gambling upon it. It became and remained for a long time the game's central administrative body as its laws were adopted throughout the country, the empire and the world (though attempts to break the American market continue to meet obstacles).
In view of this history, it is perhaps not surprising that the club built up quite a reputation for stuffiness, refusing until 1997 to allow women to be members or to enter the pavilion. Its 20-year waiting list means that, in some respects, it can be slow to change and that its members are prone to wear the club's colours of red and gold as much as possible when finally accepted.
He was wearing the tie too
Yet the MCC is now very forward-thinking in its support for and tours of emerging cricketing countries around the world, from Argentina to Afghanistan, the latter one of the most notable success stories over the past few years. And at one end of Lord's itself stands the rather space-agey media centre, built for the 1999 World Cup.
The media centre, a magnificent viewpoint
The pavilion in pre-season serenity
Cricket has been played on this pitch since 1814, when the wine merchant and entrepreneur Thomas Lord moved the Marylebone Cricket Club, or MCC (formerly of Dorset Square, NW1 and White Conduit Fields, N1), to St John's Wood.
The MCC, founded in 1787, had shortly after established a Code of Laws for the game of cricket (as it did for lawn tennis just under a century later), very necessary in view of the sums aristocrats of the time were gambling upon it. It became and remained for a long time the game's central administrative body as its laws were adopted throughout the country, the empire and the world (though attempts to break the American market continue to meet obstacles).
In view of this history, it is perhaps not surprising that the club built up quite a reputation for stuffiness, refusing until 1997 to allow women to be members or to enter the pavilion. Its 20-year waiting list means that, in some respects, it can be slow to change and that its members are prone to wear the club's colours of red and gold as much as possible when finally accepted.
He was wearing the tie too
Yet the MCC is now very forward-thinking in its support for and tours of emerging cricketing countries around the world, from Argentina to Afghanistan, the latter one of the most notable success stories over the past few years. And at one end of Lord's itself stands the rather space-agey media centre, built for the 1999 World Cup.
The media centre, a magnificent viewpoint
And, though it is rather a cliché , it is this combination of tradition and modernity that makes Lord's such a magnificent venue for cricket. The teams make their way out from the pavilion through the Long Room, filled with paintings from cricket's centuries of history and the members' applause, and are greeted by the media centre, the advertising hoardings and a chanting crowd 30,000-strong. The familiar slope of the pitch remains even as ever more inventive strokes, such as Kevin Pietersen's switch hits, are played upon it.
The only problem for tomorrow? Touring teams tend to rise to the occasion: the Australians have not lost there since 1934.
The only problem for tomorrow? Touring teams tend to rise to the occasion: the Australians have not lost there since 1934.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Cricket Tragics on Twitter
Cricket Tragics’ very own Tom Cameron has somehow bagged himself tickets to the first day of the long-awaited 2009 Ashes. And guess what? He’s only gone and joined Twitter to keep you folks up to date on all the action.
Check it out here: http://twitter.com/Cricket_Tragics
Cricket Tragics on Twitter – now that’s what I call new media-tastic.
Check it out here: http://twitter.com/Cricket_Tragics
Cricket Tragics on Twitter – now that’s what I call new media-tastic.
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.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
In search of an IPL team to support
At the end of my last post, I began to ponder which team I'd be supporting in the second season of the Indian Premier League - a bizarre 8-franchise event pitching together teams composed of the world's best current players, the cream of India's up-and-coming crop and some from the 'Seniors' Tour'. As it enters the second of its five weeks in South Africa - complete with cheerleaders, mid-innings commercial breaks and the venomous (and hugely popular) Fake IPL Player blog (supposedly the work of a reserve for the Kolkata Knight Riders) - I am still none the wiser.
I was initially quite excited at the prospect of watching Kevin Pietersen turn around the fortunes of Bangalore Royal Challengers, who came 7th of the 8 teams last year and were widely ridiculed for picking a 'Test team', with a batting line-up including Rahul 'The Wall' Dravid and Jacques 'What's my average now?' Kallis. Not only was I very sorry that Pietersen was not England's captain for longer (I always fancied he could have emulated Viv Richards as a captain as well as a batsman), but I've also long felt that the best Test cricketers adapt their games best to the shorter formats - Dravid was one of the leading run-scorers last year and is currently 6th in the list this year. The problems with supporting the Challengers, though, are that Pietersen will be returning to England soon and I am unable to do anything other than enjoy the sight of Jacques Kallis' face as his bowling is hit around the park. They're also now bottom of the table.
Besides, the 'Royal Challengers' sobriquet is pretty poor really. In fact, half the teams have 'Royal' or 'Kings' as part of their name - a bit of a dearth of creativity in the marketing department, surely? By the 'name criterion', the Kolkata 'Knight Riders' are also a non-starter, I'm afraid, much as I like Chris Gayle and enjoy as I do the row brewing between John Buchanan and anyone who plays for him. If they'd been the 'Night Riders', I might have been intrigued..
The Delhi Daredevils are the only team to manage a vaguely decent name - hitting the jackpot (comparatively speaking) by being alliterative and appropriate to Twenty20 - and they seem to have assembled a team made for this format: Gambhir, Sehwag, De Villiers (scorer of the first century in this year's competition) and Dilshan are four of the most in-form batsmen in the world (in all formats), while Daniel Vettori is the world's best Twenty20 bowler and a fine captain. They have Owais Shah and Paul Collingwood in reserve, not to mention Glenn McGrath and Twenty20 sensation, David Warner. All this probably makes them the favourites to win the competition, which might well lose them my support, I'm afraid...
Which brings me nicely on to the underdog appeal of the Rajasthan Royals, or Team Warne, who won last year on a shoe-string budget (well, it's all relative - see here for a look at who was worth the spend last year). After losing Shane Watson, the Man of the Tournament last time, and Sohail Tanvir, its leading bowler, to the Pakistan-Australia series in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, things aren't going so well, with the Graeme Smith-led batting yet to fire (and Swapnil Asnodkar a shadow of last year's buccaneer). Dimitri Mascarenhas is doing marginally better than Warne with the ball (as things stand), but both have been trumped by the 18 year-old Indian left-armer, Kamran Khan, until recently, like me nowadays, predominantly playing tennis-ball cricket. Plucked from nowhere, he epitomises Rajasthan's lure - I wonder, though, whether liking them is a sign of my inner curmudgeon failing to embrace the IPL on its own terms, sticking two fingers up to its big-spending fantasy team ideal (in the first season, Rajasthan were actually penalised for not spending enough!).
As such, I'm going to need to look further afield and avoid curmudgeonliness in that respect. I'm not charitable enough, though, to overlook Chennai Super Kings signing Matthew Hayden. The Deccan Chargers have Adam Gilchrist and Herschelle Gibbs as their scintillating opening pair and are currently leading the way, after finishing bottom last year. Pragyan Ojha, an Indian slow left-armer, is proving one of the bowlers of the tournament so far, and Fidel Edwards' slingy action is highly effective in the death overs.
But Lasith Malinga, playing for the Mumbai Indians, is a more exciting slinger than Edwards and has been thrillingly unplayable thus far. And you can't beat the old masters, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar, for an opening pair. Sentiment and Sri Lankan exuberance, then, might just swing me Mumbai's way.
I've not quite persuaded myself yet - I'm still rooting for Rajasthan in their current run-chase against Delhi - but I'm certainly excited at the feast of cricket on offer. Hopefully, the more I watch, the less confused I'll be - I'll keep you posted...
I was initially quite excited at the prospect of watching Kevin Pietersen turn around the fortunes of Bangalore Royal Challengers, who came 7th of the 8 teams last year and were widely ridiculed for picking a 'Test team', with a batting line-up including Rahul 'The Wall' Dravid and Jacques 'What's my average now?' Kallis. Not only was I very sorry that Pietersen was not England's captain for longer (I always fancied he could have emulated Viv Richards as a captain as well as a batsman), but I've also long felt that the best Test cricketers adapt their games best to the shorter formats - Dravid was one of the leading run-scorers last year and is currently 6th in the list this year. The problems with supporting the Challengers, though, are that Pietersen will be returning to England soon and I am unable to do anything other than enjoy the sight of Jacques Kallis' face as his bowling is hit around the park. They're also now bottom of the table.
Besides, the 'Royal Challengers' sobriquet is pretty poor really. In fact, half the teams have 'Royal' or 'Kings' as part of their name - a bit of a dearth of creativity in the marketing department, surely? By the 'name criterion', the Kolkata 'Knight Riders' are also a non-starter, I'm afraid, much as I like Chris Gayle and enjoy as I do the row brewing between John Buchanan and anyone who plays for him. If they'd been the 'Night Riders', I might have been intrigued..
The Delhi Daredevils are the only team to manage a vaguely decent name - hitting the jackpot (comparatively speaking) by being alliterative and appropriate to Twenty20 - and they seem to have assembled a team made for this format: Gambhir, Sehwag, De Villiers (scorer of the first century in this year's competition) and Dilshan are four of the most in-form batsmen in the world (in all formats), while Daniel Vettori is the world's best Twenty20 bowler and a fine captain. They have Owais Shah and Paul Collingwood in reserve, not to mention Glenn McGrath and Twenty20 sensation, David Warner. All this probably makes them the favourites to win the competition, which might well lose them my support, I'm afraid...
Which brings me nicely on to the underdog appeal of the Rajasthan Royals, or Team Warne, who won last year on a shoe-string budget (well, it's all relative - see here for a look at who was worth the spend last year). After losing Shane Watson, the Man of the Tournament last time, and Sohail Tanvir, its leading bowler, to the Pakistan-Australia series in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, things aren't going so well, with the Graeme Smith-led batting yet to fire (and Swapnil Asnodkar a shadow of last year's buccaneer). Dimitri Mascarenhas is doing marginally better than Warne with the ball (as things stand), but both have been trumped by the 18 year-old Indian left-armer, Kamran Khan, until recently, like me nowadays, predominantly playing tennis-ball cricket. Plucked from nowhere, he epitomises Rajasthan's lure - I wonder, though, whether liking them is a sign of my inner curmudgeon failing to embrace the IPL on its own terms, sticking two fingers up to its big-spending fantasy team ideal (in the first season, Rajasthan were actually penalised for not spending enough!).
As such, I'm going to need to look further afield and avoid curmudgeonliness in that respect. I'm not charitable enough, though, to overlook Chennai Super Kings signing Matthew Hayden. The Deccan Chargers have Adam Gilchrist and Herschelle Gibbs as their scintillating opening pair and are currently leading the way, after finishing bottom last year. Pragyan Ojha, an Indian slow left-armer, is proving one of the bowlers of the tournament so far, and Fidel Edwards' slingy action is highly effective in the death overs.
But Lasith Malinga, playing for the Mumbai Indians, is a more exciting slinger than Edwards and has been thrillingly unplayable thus far. And you can't beat the old masters, Jayasuriya and Tendulkar, for an opening pair. Sentiment and Sri Lankan exuberance, then, might just swing me Mumbai's way.
I've not quite persuaded myself yet - I'm still rooting for Rajasthan in their current run-chase against Delhi - but I'm certainly excited at the feast of cricket on offer. Hopefully, the more I watch, the less confused I'll be - I'll keep you posted...
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Not Michael Vaughan...
Earlier today, Afghanistan went through with a whimper to the Super Eight phase, after losing to the UAE by 5 wickets and seeing Bermuda beaten by the Dutch. They will start that phase from the bottom of the table and it is, alas, hard to see them making a great deal of movement from that position, with the ruthless Irish side awaiting them on Saturday and the second-placed Canadians on Monday.
Nonetheless, the World Cup Qualifiers have provided a welcome distraction from the movement of Michael Vaughan towards the forefront of media speculation ahead of this summer's home test series against West Indies and Australia. The traditional English season-opener between the MCC and the champion county, Durham, starts tomorrow, with attention focusing on the battle between MCC batsmen Ian Bell, Vaughan and Rob Key for the number 3 berth that Owais Shah failed to make his own in the West Indies.
Even the eminently sensible Lawrence Booth, one of the very best cricket writers around, has put the case for Vaughan's reinstatement, arguing that "England tend not to beat Australia by playing it safe." Certainly Andrew Strauss would be well-advised to take note of the importance of risk-taking - he has historically been ultra-conservative in setting a total, whether sending in James Anderson as nightwatchman against the West Indies this year or pressing on to his own century against Pakistan in 2006, and cannot afford to pass up any comparable opportunity to force the game against the Aussies - but this argument surely cannot be made to pick a man who has scored only 2 Test centuries in his last 17 matches. Booth may have a certain claim to authority, having been a firm advocate of Kevin Pietersen before the 2005 series, but Pietersen had just taken a one-day series against South Africa unprecedentedly by storm, whilst Vaughan has scored one century against Surrey in a pre-season tournament in Abu Dhabi.
If Vaughan is picked, as Booth suggests, for his tactical nous, the effect, ironically, would be to implement the second of the demands (the other being Peter Moores' departure) that brought about Kevin Pietersen's unceremonious downfall as captain. In short, it would be an absurd move that would highlight once again the absurdity of England's management since the end of the Indian tour. I would love to be proven wrong, since there are few finer summer sights than a Vaughan cover drive - there can, however, be few more aggravating than that of Vaughan walking off with his trademark quizzical glance pitchwards, stumps strewn everywhere.
Nonetheless, the World Cup Qualifiers have provided a welcome distraction from the movement of Michael Vaughan towards the forefront of media speculation ahead of this summer's home test series against West Indies and Australia. The traditional English season-opener between the MCC and the champion county, Durham, starts tomorrow, with attention focusing on the battle between MCC batsmen Ian Bell, Vaughan and Rob Key for the number 3 berth that Owais Shah failed to make his own in the West Indies.
Even the eminently sensible Lawrence Booth, one of the very best cricket writers around, has put the case for Vaughan's reinstatement, arguing that "England tend not to beat Australia by playing it safe." Certainly Andrew Strauss would be well-advised to take note of the importance of risk-taking - he has historically been ultra-conservative in setting a total, whether sending in James Anderson as nightwatchman against the West Indies this year or pressing on to his own century against Pakistan in 2006, and cannot afford to pass up any comparable opportunity to force the game against the Aussies - but this argument surely cannot be made to pick a man who has scored only 2 Test centuries in his last 17 matches. Booth may have a certain claim to authority, having been a firm advocate of Kevin Pietersen before the 2005 series, but Pietersen had just taken a one-day series against South Africa unprecedentedly by storm, whilst Vaughan has scored one century against Surrey in a pre-season tournament in Abu Dhabi.
If Vaughan is picked, as Booth suggests, for his tactical nous, the effect, ironically, would be to implement the second of the demands (the other being Peter Moores' departure) that brought about Kevin Pietersen's unceremonious downfall as captain. In short, it would be an absurd move that would highlight once again the absurdity of England's management since the end of the Indian tour. I would love to be proven wrong, since there are few finer summer sights than a Vaughan cover drive - there can, however, be few more aggravating than that of Vaughan walking off with his trademark quizzical glance pitchwards, stumps strewn everywhere.
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
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
What a time to start a cricket blog!
Wow! 2009 has barely started and already English cricket is in turmoil. Throughout the '90s this kind of mess was reserved for the aftermath of (yet another) humiliating Ashes defeat. Not any more.
Nobody seems entirely sure what exactly is going on, but we can only agree with Bob Willis when he says the whole thing is "a right mess". First it looked like KP had forced out Peter Moores, now it looks like both of them are on their way out. You have to think that Pietersen – for all his admirable qualities – has been a bit of an idiot about this one. The sensible thing to do would have been to have a quiet word with the powers that be and express his dissatisfaction. By whining to the press and issuing an ultimatum, he has rather shot himself in the foot.
There’s no way that the ECB could accept Pietersen's demands to have Moores sacked. It would be a pretty dangerous precedent to set. What if Flintoff then decided he didn’t like Ian Bell, and issued a similar "it's him or me, pal" ultimatum? Just because Bell's spot was under pressure anyway would not excuse such an action. And similarly, just because Moores may have been likely to get the chop anyway does not excuse Pietersen's belligerence. If anything, that Moores has been under increasing pressure should have suggested that KP wait a bit: Moores would probably have gone in a few months anyway.
Well, it's all a bit of a disaster, and a sad end to what could have been an exciting period in English cricket. It ain't half entertaining though!
Nobody seems entirely sure what exactly is going on, but we can only agree with Bob Willis when he says the whole thing is "a right mess". First it looked like KP had forced out Peter Moores, now it looks like both of them are on their way out. You have to think that Pietersen – for all his admirable qualities – has been a bit of an idiot about this one. The sensible thing to do would have been to have a quiet word with the powers that be and express his dissatisfaction. By whining to the press and issuing an ultimatum, he has rather shot himself in the foot.
There’s no way that the ECB could accept Pietersen's demands to have Moores sacked. It would be a pretty dangerous precedent to set. What if Flintoff then decided he didn’t like Ian Bell, and issued a similar "it's him or me, pal" ultimatum? Just because Bell's spot was under pressure anyway would not excuse such an action. And similarly, just because Moores may have been likely to get the chop anyway does not excuse Pietersen's belligerence. If anything, that Moores has been under increasing pressure should have suggested that KP wait a bit: Moores would probably have gone in a few months anyway.
Well, it's all a bit of a disaster, and a sad end to what could have been an exciting period in English cricket. It ain't half entertaining though!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
