Month: Aug 2016

Read All About It – Written Media Review

LordCanisLupus34 Comments

I thought I might take a look, in a bit more detail, at how the domestic (to the UK) written media has evolved and changed over the past couple of years. While I don’t have the in depth knowledge of the commercial metrics that some of the contributors here retain, I do think I know a little bit about the message drivers. I’ll also go into some of the social media developments – blogs, Twitter etc. – and what I think of the future for BOC.

Dobell Spy Dossier

This blog, and its predecessor, made its presence felt when it commented upon the journalist corps and its attitude to the events of 2013/14. I had always had an eye on the writing corps because I saw them as our window to the play when we weren’t there, and also a little bit inside to tell us the latest goings on. I’d always been a bit of a sceptic, probably since the Hold The Back Page days, when the personality of the journalist seemed to be more important than the story. Mark’s take on that always makes me smile. There was always a thought that this was a dying trade, as the internet and cheaper writers were available, and cricket, like baseball in the US, seemed a sport open to “new media”. I never thought I’d be part of it, writing away, with no-one paying attention. 2013/14 might have been the Year Zero, but it had been building up to a crescendo for a while. Did the print media care more about themselves than they did about the readership. That’s been the question for me.

Jarrod caric
Wasting Time The Right Way

Despite a journo telling me that we are wasting our time talking about the press because no-one gives a shit about them, the evidence on hits and responses shows this not to be the case. Since the end of that ill-fated Ashes tour. there has been some interesting interaction with a number of the print media, and some of the television/radio gang too, but while quite frequent in 2014, and early 2015, in the past few months that has slowed down to a trickle of comments. But it is funny how pieces about journalists seemed to get traction. We’ll see how this goes down. What I do know is that the old media don’t come around here much no more.

For example, I can’t remember the last time Etheridge got enraged, Selfey called us bilious inadequates, Pringle called us irrelevant, and Paul Newman said we are “nothing important”. In some ways this is a shame. Our penchant for investigating their writing was at times great fun, but also headbangingly annoying. It provided the fuel to run much of this blog, but was also something that needed writing about, and some of them cared what we did. It is evident that quite a few of the journalists are fully aware of some of the things written about them. For example, I was told categorically that Newman never read this blog. I’ve never abused him, as far as I know on Twitter, but he blocked me, and has done for a while. Did someone read it to him? He knows enough about it to deem it “nothing important” which isn’t really the point, but if it keeps him happy, who am I to complain.

Interaction has diminished because, most definitely, the heat is off, for now. In much the same way as Ed Smith is riding out the current plagiarism accusations by saying nothing and hoping it will all go away, he has a precedent in the way the press had time on their side with the fallout of 2014, knowing, that at some point, the main cornerstone, a recall of KP, would become impossible for even the legendary fruitfly to pull off. It’s no coincidence that some of the media who spoke to me in 2014, and who I struck up reasonable conversations with, now barely bother to feel out how the proles are taking things. That’s fine. But if there is a future storm, we’ll be a little bit more guarded than we were before. Others, who were testing us out, taking the temperature, and even getting involved, see no need now despite claiming they wanted to have an interaction. Again, that is absolutely their call, but again allows us to look at them as a “cosy little clique”, with us not sure what side they are on. Actually, we know full well, but let’s be polite here.

There has been a decided trend in cricket reporting. As the sport gets less and less visible, so paying the big beasts large sums in a crowded media market becomes more anachronistic. It has been evident this year. The departure from the scene of two key players, following on the release of Pringle a year or so before that has confirmed it.

The noticeable journalistic news of the past season was the moving on of two of those behemoths. The first was Stephen Brenkley, aka Bunkers, of the Independent, who appeared to be a casualty of the Independent’s decision to go online only. Bunkers filed his last piece as the season was about to begin, and I have to say, I have no idea what he is up to now. Bunkers will always, in my eyes, be associated with the “aplomb” verdict on Moores and Downton’s first presser. Bunkers’ removal / resignation was the canary in the goldmine as a cut-down, online newspaper was not about to keep the payroll of a minority sport specialist on the books when it could source copy from cheaper sources. Bunkers is a good writer, and I disagreed with a lot he said, but he had a turn of phrase that was clever but not, in the main, patronising. Deep down, I quite liked his persona, but he backed the wrong horses on the ECB front and for that he will not be judged favourably. But as I said at the time, we should not be rejoicing, firstly on a personal level, but also on our wish to see cricket in the spotlight.

Selvey Retirement Card

The departure of Selvey is definitely more seismic. This is the biggest of cricket writing beasts, and he is being moved on, and given his Twitter pronouncements, it appears against his will. This sends out the message that few are safe – is it new media and new audiences, or just the reticence not to pay over the odds? The game is losing visibility and although we may not like what he writes, his departure is a bad sign for the game.

Selvey’s not been shy in reminding people he is on his way, a decision that did not surprise your writers on BOC who had heard from multiple sources that this was on the cards, but maybe the timing did shock because we thought there was a natural fin de siècle at the end of the next Ashes series. Selvey is the cornerstone of the Guardian’s cricket coverage, and the feeling is if he could be dumped, so could anyone.It’s a chill wind blowing. England may be on the up, but if the game is so out of the public eye, the top people might as well be reading out the stock market prices.

On this blog the consensus from our commenters is that Selvey had it coming, and there are few tears being shed. I can’t celebrate people losing their jobs, but Selvey made sympathy tough for me. I’m sure there would be little sympathy if the situation were reversed.  He’s certainly dismissive of this “newer form” of cricket writing, and much was based on a snobbish “requirement” of having played at the top level to be an aficionado of the game. When being a former pro appeared to be the main reason for employment, things looked shaky. He thought our passionate criticism of his positions taken were an affront to his professional sensibilities. He reacted not with engagement, but with hostile fire. We’re not ogres here, and we believe a vast majority of the upset fans weren’t either. But it was either you were with him, or you could Foxtrot Oscar. Incidentally, exactly the same attitude a certain fruitfly has towards his detractors! Those that come in peace and constructive dialogue find we are what most of the readers of blogs and newspapers are – cricket fans. That care.

What we have, or at least had, in my view were three classes of national journalist (there are others, but lets deal with the three main sectors).

  • There were the old pros reinventing themselves as writers – we’re thinking Selvey, Atherton, Marks and Pringle. Athers is newer to the genre, and as he’s hidden behind a paywall, and I’m not walking conspicuously to the newspaper rack in the office to read him, is a little blindsided to me. Athers is not a source of any heat, nor, on most occasions is Marks. But the other two have been lightning rods.
  • There are the experienced writers, a genre being phased out, including Bunkers, to a lesser extent Etheridge (not really a call to be a writer in The Sun, not that his role isn’t skilled), Wilson and Newman. These are the hacks, the day to day sloggers, the test match reporters who weren’t former pros. They’ve done the hard yards to get where they are, and they stay there.
  • Then there is a third section – a newer breed. The likes of Dobell, who has been around a while, Kimber, to a lesser extent Hoult, (Booth crosses hack and new school), who don’t seem to treat their audience with contempt, and attempt to approach things in a more open manner. This isn’t to say they are not “hacks”, but they get “newer media” and its opportunities, and yes, its threats. That they are of the generally “younger” generation, may, or may not, be a coincidence.

wp-1468270250323.jpg

Of course, there are other areas of reporting I’ve not touched yet. The Cricket Paper, out every Friday, is a really worthy attempt to bring the old newspaper type reports into a distilled weekly package. It’s not perfect, of course it isn’t, but if it wasn’t there I’d miss it. It allows talented new reporters like Tim Wigmore to have an outlet, for which he is getting wider viewing as a result, and although I have my issues with the way Chris Stocks is going about things, and that it gives Derek a chance to air his misery, it is generally a good read. How viable it is in the long-term, I have no idea.

The Cricketer magazine has had a revamp, it looks quite good, but I can’t quite get past the Simon Hughes thing. He is one of those who effects to be a “man of the people” and in with “new media” but in practice I never see it, with his interactions quickly breaking down when challenged and reverting to “I know more than you because…” responses. He, and others, don’t have to read blogs like ours, or TFT or whoever, but there’s a good deal of journalistic snobbery in the Cricketer – Henderson and Selvey each month for example. Again, though, the failings as I see them are outweighed by the fact that there is a cricket magazine on the market and it can be worth a read. I don’t intend giving up my subscription just yet, though do note that I used to renew each September and now that auto-renew seems to have moved forward to June. They have given airtime to some bloggers – most notably our old friend Tregaskis – but it’s a toe in the water, and a risk. It was interesting that T’s most recent piece, a short one, about how close journalists were getting to players, sparked the ire of Jonathan Agnew, for instance. I thought that interesting. Maybe the Cricketer could try that approach again?

Then there is blogs, and blogging. While there is a twilight zone between papers and the bloggers, where the likes of Peter Miller and others inhabit, with a foot in both camps, I’m obviously interested in how they are working, but to do so, we need to consider what is being reported, and how/

How do people consume, if that’s the word, their cricket reporting? As you know, Chris, Sean and I do reports on test matches, previews etc., but we see them as part report, part opening up comments to the visitors here. We do not see ourselves as the alternative to cricket reports in newspapers and magazines. I rarely read those reports on newspapers, often, these days, scrolling through a Selfey tome to visit the resident muppets BTL, looking to see who can put out the most ridiculous or obsequious comment. The Telegraph website is an absolute disgrace, and I’m finished with it – a shame. It’s where I chanced upon the comments of Chris, where Nick Hoult resides, and where I used to draw a lot of material. The Telegraph has become a horror to visit and it really does Nick, an absolute trojan in the game, no favours whatsoever. Nick is an example of how studying and looking at things more changes minds. I used to be quite scathing. Now I know more, he’s a great example.

The Independent was only worth a look when Bunkers was there – and then only for laughs. No idea who writes for it now, and don’t know what they are saying. The Mirror and Sun are only read when someone leaves me a copy. The Express is a joke. Which leaves the Mail.

Newman Dossier

This is the only online site where I read the writing and ignore the comments. The focus, of course, is my perennial favourite, Paul Newman. He’s either excellent at his job, or the worst out there depending on your metrics. But, to contradict myself within one sentence, I think it is a bit of both. The articles, at times, are absolutely designed to provoke a reaction (aka blatant clickbait). His anti-KP screeds in 2014 were by far the most intense in their dislike for the controversial one from a journo – or gave the impression that he did. But the comments followed in droves. His defence of Alastair Cook, the England hierarchy and his attacks (the Bell one in particular) on potential rivals were seen as lacking integrity. It has been noted, that in my perception, he has been more vociferous against Colin Graves than he ever was against Giles Clarke in the Great Leader’s later years at the ECB. Graves made the cardinal sin of trying to finesse the KP situation when it wasn’t called for in Newman’s eyes. From that day it seemed as though Graves was in Newman’s cross-hairs. Not that he’s wrong to do so (especially over the four day test nonsense). I’ve been about as unimpressed by the Costcutter Clown as I was Downton. But Newman’s motives are absolutely not those I share, and he’s attacking Graves as an affront to the old ways, not some desire for a new broom.

While the Mail employs a stream of writers, including Booth, Lloyd and Hussain, Newman is the focal point here. After a quiet period where things had calmed down post KP and World T20, he got the interview with Andy “Dignified Silence” Flower in what seemed a barely concealed pitch by our former Team Director to have a more prominent role with the main England team. That that was followed, not long after, by an attack on the selection panel revolving around playing, or not playing, not fully fit players (Stokes broke down in his first test match back – something not noted anywhere near as readily as the row over the first test), which again was construed as a pro-Flower supremo piece. We can be accused (well I can) of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories here, but isn’t as if we don’t have form here with Newman and his sources. As you know, we have seen plenty of “good journalism” round these parts.

So, with a couple of small exceptions, this summer has been pretty quiet on the journalistic ire front. We saw the treatment of Nick Compton by some, which seemed to be borderline personal in places, as if Compton, who has as two test hundreds to his name, two more than Alex Hales, for example, was the first intense batsman to fail in England colours. There barely seemed an article by Pringle passing by where Ramprakash, who had a better test career than Muppet in my eyes, was not used to compare Compton. But in the end, the fact that Compton wasn’t, or isn’t up to it, was “proved” on the cricket field. His performances in the Sri Lanka series weren’t good, while Hales had a decent series so someone has to be on the hot seat. But the vitriol, and it seemed it from Stocks in particular, was something I’d not seen in a while.The calls for Vince seem slightly more muted to me – there’s an England player there but with mental blocks – is odd. He’s never looked like making a big score. I guess personalities matter.

Cricinfo remains a reassuring constant presence. I have a post on them alone in my head, so may well leave it until then to go into detail. The Ed Smith nonsense will pass – he’s not some ordinary OBO person so making a stand is harder – but the journalistic and writing chops of Dobell, Kimber, Hopps and Andrew Miller for starters, with all the others who contribute means it is a much better force for good than bad. We are really lucky to have such a vehicle covering our sport so well.

So to social media, and blogging. How does it look from my perspective after the test summer has ended? I have to say I don’t read anywhere near as much as I used to, as time pressures and other interests make a play for my spare time. The perception is that there is not as much to see. My “must reads” were always Maxie Allen, Tregaskis, Yates and The Old Batsman. Of course, there is also the Full Toss, seen by a few in the media in times gone by as joined at the hip with us – which wasn’t correct. That is not so much the case now, as James has taken the blog in a slightly different direction, which is absolutely within his right and he still produces fine work. But there is no doubt, if ever there was one, that we are two different entities now (not that we were that similar in the past – just we attacked the same targets) and I do miss Maxie’s takes.Long may they continue. James is a bloody hard worker and the site has some crossover and some distinct areas we don’t approach. Their presence is important.

Tregaskis plays his cards very astutely, posting little, but substantial and tenacious when he does.His jumping on the golf interaction in the UAE and the follow up non ODI with Hong Kong is the main time we saw the press truly interact with us in the past 12 months.

Yates doesn’t update his blog any more, but is still an astute and acerbic commenter on Twitter (if you can get through the darts stuff), and I’d love to see him get back on his horse. The Old Batsman, aka Jon Hotten, has gone from strength to strength and has shown how blogging can get people to notice good writing, but his blog is now neglected for other outlets.

The blogging environment is getting somewhat more scarce – I’m more interested in blogs delivering messages rather than trying to win writing awards (T does both, and I’m envious) – and quite often the biggest “enemies” of the writers are those who frequent BTL and put their own views prominently on newspaper comment sites, but seek to deny or decry those who take the time out to create their own space. Never understood that thinking. I see BOC as my home venue, and you know where to read what I think. I know where to go to find out where my antagonists comment, so I choose to avoid them. I see no point in going out of my way to say what I think. I’ll never understand them, even as my two co-conspirators tell me not to try! Which takes me on to the Danger Zone…

Twitter has its behemoths as well. Peter Miller is obviously quite a prominent figure, and he appeals to some and not others, in his double act with Dave Tickner – I’ve interacted a lot less in the past year as it does feel like too much of an in crowd. Fair enough. They are doing bigger and better things. Lizzie Ammon, who veers more to the journo side than blogger, given she is a journo, also caters for that audience, but not for my tastes as I stopped following a while back.

To me, the biggest question on Twitter is when does Innocent Bystander sleep. If you go on Twitter, he’s a must follow, and also, as much as you can judge someone by Twitter interactions, a top bloke. His coverage of the game is amazing. I’ve singled him out but there are loads of top people to follow, and in my view some to avoid, but I don’t doubt all their sincerity and love for the game, even if that is sometimes not reciprocated and my motives in particular are questioned. I’m not going to comment on Dennis Does Cricket. I really am not!

Now to us. Sean being brought on board was brilliant for us, and I’d like to thank him for all his work. He’s shown he can do this, and so can you! So we all met for the first time as the Glum Boy Three. As you may know, we had an Editorial Meeting on Wednesday, and the minutes have been recorded as follows:

MINUTES OF BEING OUTSIDE CRICKET EDITORIAL MEETING – 17 AUGUST 2016

  1. Attendees – Dmitri Lord Canis Lupus Old, The Leg Glance, Sean Great Bucko B

  2. Apologies – We apologise to no-one

  3. Items for Action – 2 x 3 rounds of beverages.

  4. Actions Going Forward – Write more articles

  5. Items for Discussion – Two of the editorial committee have made club hundreds. One has made double figures in hundreds. Bastard.

  6. Date of Next Meeting – Some time before Christmas.

It has been a curious summer. I think the first thing that needs to be noted is that for a blog like this to run as it does, it needs some commitment and a lot of hard work. It also has to be enjoyable to do. This year, from my perspective, the enjoyment has waned a little, but not enough to pack it in. Those who read this blog regularly and comment on here know this. They really get what we do, and what it takes, and I feel the same way about our commenters. We genuinely regret seeing some old faces go, but we are happy when new ones appear. We are particularly concerned that genuine newbies are allowed to dissent, without there being too much rancour. We’ve seen a few come along and stick, and that’s good. We do not want this being an echo chamber. We will maintain our policy on moderation – that is there really isn’t one, just behave yourselves.

In the same way an Ashes summer boosts TV viewings, and controversy drives hit spikes, we know there is a solid core of people who visit nearly every day, and even when we don’t post there are still a core amount of hits per day. No-one is confusing us with a national circulation, but we have our niche. It would be lovely to grow it further, but we will not do it by compromising our values and beliefs. We write because we enjoy it, we write what we want, we do not try to court hits via blatant clickbait, and we love interaction and comment. If you are prepared to come on here with that in mind, you’ll find me sticking up for you. If you question my motives, I’m afraid that’s not the way to keep me onside. Question what I say, by all means. Don’t impugn motives that aren’t there.

Here ends the ramble through the written media this summer. Hope there is something in it for all of you, and would welcome, as always, any views. Being Outside Cricket remains, and will continue, to provide comment, analysis, reporting of sorts, and a forum for you to discuss cricket. We will provide nostalgia, anecdotes and a platform for anyone who wants to write things on here that fit with our concept. We loved it when Andy and Simon provided us with pieces, and we’d like some more! The future looks busy – we have seven England tests scheduled by the end of the year, five of which are in India. There are some key anniversaries for series to go through, as well as a number of international matches that are sure to be interesting. There appears a dead spot for a couple of months next Winter, but then the following 12 months looks full on. Sean B, TLG and I are looking forward to it. Hope you are too. Where the print media is at the end of the next 18 months is anyone’s guess. Where the blogging world is, who knows? Maybe some new players can come on the scene and hit it off. Where English and test cricket is too is going to be interesting and with the flaws in all teams, plenty to debate. Let’s hope there are plenty of sources to read and talk about it.

UPDATE – I came across this piece in an old edition of Wisden Cricket Monthly from 1987. Amazing how the same themes come through three decades on, especially the bit about team selections (below the header “Briefed In Advance”. We’ve done a bit of EM Wellings before, I think, and he might have been a spectacular curmudgeon, but this certainly is something worth reading.

Wellings Press

Also, great to see Yates back on his metaphorical horse with a new blog post. Read him here.

 

Dmitri

 

Hand me Down a Solution – Series Review

thelegglance38 Comments

In the early 1980s when growing up, summer holidays meant tuning in to BBC1 at 10:55 to watch the Test matches.  Come the end of summer, the feeling of melancholy at the conclusion of a series was always strong, with the only subsequent cricket being the end of season Lords one day final, which was akin to pretending to enjoy the sloe gin from the drinks cabinet when everything else has been consumed.  Times change, and cricket now is unending, where the finish to the Tests is merely a pause before the one day internationals begin, and then England go on tour somewhere.  In the same way that the end of the football season is a mere pause in hostilities, the end of the Test match cricket summer no longer normally carries so much power to create sadness.

And yet with this one, perhaps there is a little more in the way of regret at the passing of the season.  This is probably as much as anything due to Pakistan, who have been exceptional tourists, and thoroughly merited their victory at the Oval to draw the series.  Four Tests also offered up the reminder as to why a five Test series remains the best possible format, provided the series is a competitive one.  Few cricket fans would object to a decider for this one, yet it is a lament that so often is heard and never acted upon.  It was at least better than the ridiculous two Test “series” against New Zealand last year.

What the drawn series did do was silence those who were quoting the article of faith about England holding all the bilateral trophies.  It isn’t that doing such a thing isn’t a meritorious achievement, it’s just that something that no one had ever noticed or paid attention to before somehow became the highest possible achievement in the game in their eyes.  As with so many things, the context is all, noting success is a good thing, going overboard about it is not.  Doubtless, the bilateral series record will now return to being what it always was – a minor matter.

Given their troubled previous tour to England, Pakistan clearly intended to win hearts and minds this time around, and in that they succeeded.  It is a remarkable turn around for a side who it is probably fair to say were one of the least popular touring sides in England; they played with a joie de vivre that reminds everyone that cricket – even in its modern, money is all important guide – is a game, a pastime, and above all fun; the reason all of these players first picked up a bat or a ball in the first place.  The repeated press ups may have irritated the England players, but it amused the spectators every time.  Quite simply, the Pakistan team looked like they were enjoying themselves.  One particular moment comes to mind, a catch by Hafeez (who didn’t exactly have many high points) caused a young boy in the crowd to wildly celebrate, being picked up by the TV cameras and leading the player to end almost doubled over laughing, and applauding his young supporter.  It was a delightful moment, and one that re-inforced the image of a team comfortable with where and who they are at last.

Misbah ul-Haq remains under-appreciated in his homeland, but elsewhere he is approaching hero status for cricket fans.  The achievements are verging on the extraordinary, with Pakistan now having the most successful period in Test cricket in their history under his leadership.  It is quite exceptional in itself, and given his age, truly remarkable.  Misbah has made Pakistan competitive, and above all given his team their self-respect.  If it has to be that it is something more recognised for what it is abroad, then that is a pity, but it is still worth recognising.

So what of England?  The first part of the summer was routine enough, a Sri Lankan side shorn of its great players was despatched with little difficulty, but Pakistan proved to be something of a harder nut to crack.  This in itself came as something of a surprise to some, with many predictions of a comfortable England win before the series began.  Yet Pakistan were always going to be a threat, and in advance of the series the assessment of it being between two sides with good seam attacks, and patchy batting proved to be ultimately more or less right.  England had the advantage in the middle and lower order, while Pakistan had a (much) better spinner at their disposal.

Statistics can be gleefully misleading at the end of a series though: take the comparison between Moeen Ali and Yasir Shah, both of whom averaged over 40 in the series with the ball.  Yet Yasir was instrumental in both Pakistan wins, while Moeen – with the ball at least – certainly was not.  This isn’t a particular surprise of course, for Yasir is an outstanding bowler, and even the most adoring fan of Moeen would never make that claim.  But it does highlight the point that players can have an impact in a game disproportionate to their overall figures, perhaps we could call it the Ben Stokes effect.

England did have some real successes in the series, Moeen himself batted absolutely beautifully, that dreadful slog at Lords proving to be very much the exception.  It’s notable in his case that that particular dismissal didn’t stop him from using his feet to the spinners, most gloriously on that final morning at Edgbaston where in the first over of the day he served notice that England were going all out for the win.  That Moeen can bat is not especially surprising news, that his batting improves out of all recognition when given one of the batting spots rather than being in the tail perhaps is.  Either way, and given that England have limited spin bowling options – presumably Adil Rashid will come in for the India tour – his series will count as a success, albeit with a couple of major caveats.  One item of note with Moeen’s bowling is that although his average is certainly not the best, his strike rate is quite decent, comparable with Nathan Lyon for example.  Batsmen do try to attack him, and do get out to him.  In the absence of a truly top class spinner of the calibre of a Graeme Swann, replacing Moeen with another off spinner is unlikely to deliver markedly improved results.  It doesn’t mean defending Moeen irrespective, but it does mean cutting England’s cloth according to what they have.  A decade ago Ashley Giles received no end of criticism for not being Shane Warne, but he did a job, and did it well.  Chasing rainbows is not the means to a successful side.

Joe Root finished top of the batting averages, largely due to that astounding 254.  Aside from that it will represent a mildly frustrating series for him, getting in and getting out with annoying frequency.  An illustration of just how good Root has become is shown by the feeling that the series was a slightly unsatisfying one despite over 500 runs at more than 73.  Such is the penalty for excellence, for brilliance is expected every time.  But Root himself alluded to the irritation of getting out when set, so it is less a criticism, and more a matter of the player being so good now that he can deliver even more than he currently is.  He has a decent shout of being England’s best batsman in many, many years.

Cook too had a mixed time of it, despite a strong set of figures over the series.  He looked somewhat rusty in the first Test, but thereafter his biggest problem appeared to be that his form was too good if anything.  He rattled along, having the highest strike rate of anyone bar Moeen, a most un-Cooklike state of affairs.  He was fluent and even playing cover drives, which tends to be one of the best indicators of an in form Cook.  That would then bring about his downfall – seeing him caught at point off a skewed drive, or dragging pull shots onto the stumps is not something that is expected.  Most batsmen will tell you that they score the most runs when they are just shy of their very best, where there is a degree of caution in the strokeplay.  When feeling on top of the world, more chances are taken, and getting out is more likely.  It is impossible to measure, but the suspicion has to be that this was the case with Cook this time.  Still, a good series for him.

Jonny Bairstow was the other major plus point in the batting order.  He’s the leading run scorer in Tests in the world this calendar year (by dint of having played far more than anyone else, it has to be an Englishman) and scored heavily without ever going on to a truly match defining innings at any point.  Four fifties and no hundreds represents a decent return from a player in excellent form, but perhaps his most notable achievement was muting the comment about his wicketkeeping.  He hasn’t turned into a great ‘keeper overnight, and probably never will, but it is tidier, and with fewer errors than in previous series.  He pulled off a couple of decent catches too.  His wicketkeeping remains a work in progress, but the reality is that his runs balance that out; the age old debate about a specialist keeper versus an auxiliary batsman who keeps has long been settled, in favour of the batting.  Bairstow will make mistakes, but the more he keeps – and it does need to be remembered that much of his career he has been essentially part-time – the better he will get.  There have been some suggestions that he move up the order, effectively to compensate for the flaws in England’s batting, but it would be a big ask to expect him to do that, especially in the heat of India or Bangladesh.  Weakening another player to make up for the failures of others has never been a solution.

England have become something of a team of all rounders in the last eighteen months, and the player who was widely felt to be more of a bits and pieces player than a true example of the breed is Chris Woakes, who probably had the best series of anyone.  He batted well enough, making a maiden half century, but his bowling was a revelation to many.  Yet Woakes has an excellent first class record with both bat and ball, and he was hardly the first player to find the transition to Test cricket a challenge.  The demand for instant success clouds the reality that an immediate impact guarantees nothing, and other players can take time to adjust.  One fine series doesn’t mean that he’s a fixture for the next few years, but he’s started to look the part with the ball for a while; in South Africa he bowled with very well yet was spectacularly unlucky.  This time he got the rewards.  By all accounts he has worked exceptionally hard on his bowling, putting on an extra few mph and improving his control.  Players can and do learn – it is not unlikely that James Anderson is a rather useful resource – and Woakes’ success is a reward for being patient with him.

Stuart Broad is a bowler who attracts considerable ire and much comment, despite a record over the last couple of years that compares with anyone.  This series certainly wasn’t his best, and mutterings about his apparent habit of coasting resurfaced.  Yet 13 wickets at 28.61 is hardly a catastrophic return, and if that now counts as coasting, then it merely demonstrates what a fine bowler he has become.  It was a relatively quiet series for him because he didn’t have one of those spells where he becomes completely unplayable, rather than because he struggled at any point.  Broad is the focal point of the England bowling attack these days, despite Woakes having a better time of it this time.  Criticism of Broad is absurd, he is a fine bowler who had a series that was quiet by his standards.  The “by his standards” is the key.  Where there can be severe disappointment with him is with his batting.  It has completely fallen apart, and the pity of that is that for so long he looked like someone who, if never destined to be a true all rounder, looked a player capable of meaningful contributions on a regular basis.

Anderson too had a reasonably quiet but still moderately effective series.  He didn’t take a whole lot of wickets, but maintained excellent control throughout.  He made more headlines for having a preposterous strop at being rightly sanctioned for running on the track than anything else.  What can be said about him is that at 34 he remains an outstanding athlete, with few obvious signs of diminishing powers.  Assuming he carries on for another few years he will doubtless get slower, but he is a clever bowler, and one who will use the skill developed over a career to take wickets.  At the veteran stage of his cricketing life, he is still a valuable asset.

As for Steven Finn, his raw figures look horrible, but at times he bowled well and with pace.  He’s a difficult one to assess, forever making progress and then regressing.  At 27 he should be coming into his peak, but the nagging worry that he is not going to fulfil the potential he first showed is very much there.  Two away series (assuming Bangladesh goes ahead) in Asia are unlikely to show him at his very best, given that the rampaging, lightning fast Finn of the past now appears to be something we won’t see again.  He is once more at the crossroads, and which way his career goes is open to question.

The bowling overall looks in reasonable shape, the nucleus is there as it has been for some years, and if the spin side of it looks a bit thin, it’s an issue that applies to the English game as a whole more than anything.  Unfortunately the same can’t be said of the batting, for despite the good performances of those mentioned, that they were required to do almost all of it as the rest of the top order had poor series.

Ballance was the best of them, and he at least has a strong record to fall back on.  His return to Test cricket doesn’t appear to have shown any major changes in his technique, beyond batting a little more out of the crease than he used to.  He didn’t appear out of his depth, did get a few good deliveries and made one score of note.  Of all the players who had weak series, he still appears to be best equipped for Test cricket.  Yet the jury remains out on him, as to whether that slightly idiosyncratic style is going to allow him to make a true success of the longest form of the game.  He probably did enough to retain his place in the side, if only because others did worse, but he needs significant runs soon if he is not to be another to shine brightly but briefly.

Hales and Vince are the two who are most at risk, yet for differing reasons.  Hales doesn’t have the purest technique, but was brought into the side to provide a contrast with Alastair Cook’s accumulative style of batting.  Yet it was Cook who was by far the more fluent, while Hales appears to be attempting to bat like a traditional opener.  It’s hard to understand the thinking behind this, for Hales is never going to be as competent at that as others are, his strengths are in playing his shots, taking the attack to the bowling and giving England a fast start.  Once in, he is one of the most destructive players around, but whether it is his own decision, or it is pushed from above, it seems to be the worst of all worlds, a pedestrian style and a technique that doesn’t stand up to the rigours of Test cricket.  It would be easier to comprehend if he was trying to be England’s answer to David Warner, and whether that succeeded or failed, it would at least be an experiment worth trying.  As things stand, it’s hard to grasp what the intention is.

Vince in contrast looks lovely, full of gorgeous and stylish shots, only to fall repeatedly to a fundamental weakness outside off stump.  The health enforced retirement of James Taylor created a vacancy in the middle order, but it wasn’t a position that had carried much strength anyway.  Vince looks every inch the Test cricketer right up to the point he gets out, then rinse and repeat next time around.  Michael Vaughan for one has insisted that Vince be given more time but the ISM factor there lowers the credibility of someone whose views ought to be credible.

What that means is that there are three players in the top five not pulling their weight, an impossible situation for any team.  The only reason it hasn’t proved catastrophic is because of the strength of the middle and lower order.  When England’s top five (with two obvious exceptions) are collectively referred to as the “first tail” it’s clear there is a problem.  Of course, not for the first time the selectors have made a rod for their own backs.  As with the Pietersen situation it requires replacements to be notably better than those that have been dropped, and the discarding of Ian Bell can hardly be said to have been an unqualified success.  The problem here is not the dropping of a player, it so rarely is.  Bell had struggled for a while and not selecting him for the South Africa tour was a decision that could be justified.  Where England go wrong is in at the very least implying that at no point could they ever have made a mistake, and ignoring any and all criticism that they may have done so.  All teams have to create a space for new players to develop, the issue England have is that 60% of the top five are in that position, something completely unsustainable.  The rather transparent attempt to undermine the selectors in the media by the coincidence of several articles at once proposing the creation of a supremo (like we haven’t been here before) don’t alter the truth that the selectors themselves have a fairly patchy record.

Looked at that way, it is something of a miracle England managed to draw the series at all.  With the five matches in India to come, it is difficult to see how they could get away with these flaws.  The one bright spot is that Ben Stokes will return, and while his batting is not entirely reliable it is at least more so than some currently in the side.  It may well be that by bringing in Rashid and dropping one of the seamers (presumably Finn at this stage) they have a ridiculously strong middle order with Stokes, Bairstow, Moeen, Woakes and Rashid comprimising numbers 5 to 9.  Whether that then compensates for the top is another matter.  There are whispers that Adam Lyth may be recalled to top of the order, or it could be that another young player is thrown in.  Eventually no doubt they will find the right player, but repeated discarding of batsmen doesn’t give too much confidence in the method.

A few last items: It has been a regular topic of complaint on here, but this was surely the summer in which poor over rates finally caused the ICC to take action and stop the theft of spectators’ money.  It would take an extraordinarily insular governing body who didn’t have an issue with it, one that considered paying spectators as nothing other than a resource to be exploited.  Perish the thought.

According to the press, should the Bangladesh series go ahead it will be left to the players to decide whether to go, with no adverse reaction should they decide not to do so.  Nice words, but the reality is always different; it may not be deliberate, but a player has a chance to get into the side by making himself available – equally few but the most comfortable will want to take the chance that someone else comes in and takes their spot.  It’s not meant to be critical, the ECB’s position on this is a reasonable enough one.  But reality intrudes on this – there will be some reluctant tourists.

After that comes India, and a huge challenge for the team.  While it is entirely for monetary reasons, it is still welcome to have a five Test series over there, but 2012 is a long time ago and England will do will to escape with a drawn series, let alone anything better.  Cook will need to be at his very best for one thing, but the batting will need to do far better than it has shown itself capable of in recent times in order to compete.

England are not a bad side at all.  The Test rankings show nothing more than that several teams are capable of beating each other on their day and (especially) in their own conditions.  But for all the talk about whether England could get to number one by beating Pakistan, it’s of no importance if they might drop down the series following.  There is no outstanding side in world cricket quite simply, and the focus on being the best is quite some way away.  Although there is necessarily going to be an England-centric focus on that, it’s no bad thing to have a number of competitive sides.  A bigger issue is the difficulty of winning away for anyone – which is why Pakistan drawing this series is such a creditable result.  They have been delightful visitors.

Oh yes one last thing.  It’s 8-8 in Director, Cricket’s  Big Plan To Make Cricket Relevant Idea.  You hadn’t forgotten had you?

4th Test, The End…

LordCanisLupus92 Comments
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
The Oval Test – Another result

And there, ladies, gentleman and blog respondents is your test match summer done for another year. The wave of melancholy as the longest and best form of the game is put away for another summer in jolly old England. We can reflect on the whole summer later, and we will, but for now, let’s concentrate on what we’ve seen over the past four days and reflect on Pakistan’s excellent performance.

At this point I would like to wait for Ed Smith’s piece, so I could copy it and pass it off as my own work, but I fear TLG might suspend me, so that isn’t a great idea.

But after that somewhat snarky point, let’s talk about today’s play. England started the day at 88 for 4, and progressed quite serenly with Ballance and Bairstow ticking the score over and giving England some hope that they might post a lead. Wahab had received a second warning for running on the wicket, and was rendered less effective having to go wide of the crease or round the wicket. Then, from nowhere, Sohail Khan got one to bounce a little and Ballance nicked off to the keeper. This put more pressure on the Recovery Team, YJB and Moeen, but they seemed up to the task. Moeen looked in great nick, following on from the century and while a couple of YJB’s shots were a little uppish, he was past 50 and moving on. Just before Lunch, with a partnership of 65 in good time flowing, again, out of nowhere a Yasir Shah delivery caught the edge of Moeen’s bat, and Sarfraz held the chance at the second attempt. With Moeen, one sensed, went England’s hopes.

A two wicket in two ball calamity shortly after lunch saw Woakes run out attempting a single and getting turned back, with Jonny then hitting a cover drive that did not bounce, and was pouched by Azhar Ali. That was game over. England were still in arrears with 9, 10 and Jimmy to come. They rustled up 44 runs between them, but the damage had been done. As I write, Azhar has just plonked Moeen into the stands for a six to finish off the match. Series drawn/tied at 2-2. Let the spin begin.

I was struck by an interview with Andrew Strauss over the winter where he pretty much discounted the 2-0 defeat in the UAE last winter as being something totally unexpected because it was totally alien conditions. It’s a position that has been readily accepted by many of the cricketing firmament. Pakistan have come to very alien conditions here, and got a drawn series out of it. The main difference from 2010 was the batting. Pakistan were generally woeful with the bat in that series, and I don’t believe any player made a hundred. On this tour Misbah, Azhar, Shafiq and Younus all topped the hundred mark, and in topping 500 in the final test again showed England are a bit tepid when faced with big scores (Cook’s opus in the UAE notwithstanding). Pakistan drawing the series is a major achievement. Looking back  to Pakistan at the Oval, and ignoring the 2006 test when Pakistan were on top when the shenanigans went on, have done very well in South East London’s Field of Dreams. Maybe this isn’t a surprise.

Pakistan have been brilliant opposition, played enterprising and fun cricket (that Day 4 at Edgbaston aside, which still mystifies me) and rewarded all those who showed up to the venues and who watched on TV. Sadly, because we live in a world where money makes the world go round, the bottom line for this series is a reduction in revenue, possibly an ongoing loss, and plenty of financial reasons to delay the return. That would be immensely sad. People can make the very decent point that Pakistan haven’t got the memo that test cricket is dying, but this series is a sticking plaster on a serious wound. The underlying prognosis, no matter how optimistic you are, isn’t good. Tickets weren’t sold out in advance. Some days had some sparse crowds, probably down to scheduling. The series did not deserve it, being massively better than anything we’ve been served up in years. Two close tests, two hammerings. One of each for each team. My thanks to Pakistan for their contribution to the summer of cricket. India, take note.

We’ll do something on the aftermath of the series later, but for now, stick down your immediate thoughts. My first one? It’s August 14th, and the test season is over. It feels as winter gets nearer when the last test ends. Melancholy.

Ooooh. The presentation man has just said it’s 8-8 in the Super Series. We’d forgotten that. Or at least I had.

Talk away…

4th Test, Day 3 – Review Of The Day

LordCanisLupus72 Comments
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Lovely

While The Leg Glance is posting pictures of cats on Twitter, it falls to me to take up the cudgels and write the review of the day’s play. Now I’m having to write this before the end of the day’s play, with England at the commencement of this piece standing on a very steady 55/2 – I mean 55/3 as James Vince finishes his test career – and stand on the precipice. Carry on with me as we take England down in the last 50 minutes of play.

Definition of optimism…

The day started with Pakistan in the ascendancy with a small lead and four wickets remaining. A solid session for either team and the game may well swing their way. It was Pakistan who took the honours. Sarfraz, without making a massive score this series, once again showed he has a lot to offer with a 44, in support of the increasingly confident, and permanence personified of Younus Khan. I’m going with Younus, by the way. Then after Wahab stayed around to support Khan on the departure of the busy keeper, the lead inexorably rose to Edgbaston levels. Wahab’s Sunday Club Cricket stumping brought Mohammad Amir to the fray, who chose this time to make his test best score. England were looking increasingly punchless, and, it has to be said, not like a World Number One.

Suddenly the almost complacent approach of England’s legion of supporters was looking flawed. This wasn’t the tail stretching the lead, more the imperious, immovable Younus Khan. His contempt for Ali’s efforts, a salutary reminder of our spinners shortcomings exposed again, was frightening. It was summed up with him on 192. He pushed a two to mid-wicket sitting too deep, and every man and his mutt knew what his next move would be. And so it happened, biffed for six over mid-wicket and a double was up. This was majestic stuff, and the lead went over 200. Younus fell via a full ball from Jimmy (think I was watching the Men’s Eights at the time) for 218, joining Rahul Dravid and Sanath Jayasuriya in the last 20 years to visit the South London pastures and come back with a double, and he’d played the vital hand.

Woakes was again the pick of the bowlers, and again Broad seemed a little off kilter. It hasn’t been his greatest summer. Jimmy was rather under-bowled today, it seemed, but all four quicks bowled around the same amount of overs (29 for the elderly, 30 for the youth). Moeen Alis’s 2/128 with an economy rate well over 5 has to be concerning. But as we’ve said, as may have said, there aren’t a litany of options out there to take his place.

It’s 65 for 3 at this time.

A selection of Vince tweets….

There’s been a more forthright tone to this guy’s tweets this summer. Lord knows why. This one was from yesterday!

Yes. It probably did.

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

More Stocks. Also Alec Swann still around. Beginning to wonder. But while I agree about his contention about Bell, wasn’t Swann the one who didn’t have KP in his top 10 English players he’d seen? Maybe I’m watching the wrong sport.

OK. Enough of that. I’ll top and tail this at 6:30….

The day finished with England on 88 for 4. They are a long way away from doing anything to avert a defeat. They lost no more wickets after I saw the end of Root to a plumb LBW that he decided to review – as plumb as Hales, who also reviewed his. We’d better hope no-one gets sawn off.

Pakistan have done superbly well in this game, outplaying us yet again – they won here in 2010, they were in the driving seat in 2006 when the ball tampering incident took over, and won here in 1996, 1992 and were very much on top in 1987. They love SE London, just like your author.

Oh. I didn’t mention the skipper. It really doesn’t matter. There will be time to discuss matters when the series finishes. But don’t invoke the great captains of the past, before time. Our media, our fans, our players seem to get ahead of themselves. This game bites you on the arse.

Good luck to Ballance, Bairstow, Moeen et al to get us to a total to bowl at, and this test might have a real sting in the tail.

Comments on Day 4 tomorrow. Anyone wanting to catch Selvey on CWOTV, let me know what happens….I’m off to a birthday bash!

 

England vs Pakistan: Fourth Test, Day Two

thelegglance47 Comments

We’ve been here before. So far this game is, if not quite a carbon copy, certainly reminiscent of the last match at Edgbaston. England struggled their way to a score that was more or less adequate but no more (again thanks to Bairstow and Moeen) and Pakistan went past it thanks to a century (well, two this time )and will hope to get a decent lead in the morning. 

Of course, all games are different and similarities are somewhat superficial. Moeen’s contribution in particular went beyond useful this time and into the exceptional, a glorious century that turned potential disaster into something half reasonable. This summer his batting has been excellent.  Today however, the weaker side of his game was exposed, as Pakistan attacked his bowling and milked him ruthlessly. This should never really be a surprise, for although he does a competent enough job, and no off spinners are demanding his place, he’s still a batsman who bowls. 

Equally he is hardly the first spinner to have had a tough time against Asian batsmen, especially on a flat surface with the now customary relative slowness. But it did mean that England struggled to maintain control.  

It was a welcome return to form for two of the tourist’s batsmen: Asad Shafiq had something of a nightmare last time out, while Younis Khan has looked downright clueless much of the time this series – an astonishing state of affairs for such a good player. 

Where Pakistan get to tomorrow very much depends on the two currently in. Sarfraz has shown repeatedly this tour that he can bat, while Younis may well extract revenge for being so out of nick, as such performers are wont to do. But there’s not a lot behind them and with a newish ball and one wicket to take before getting into the tail, England may well be batting with no more than a modest deficit.  Given how things have gone, it would therefore be typical of the perversity of it for Pakistan to instead pile on the runs. 

For England Finn showed the first signs in a while of getting his pace back up – it was touching 90mph at times, and Broad wasn’t far behind. But if the bowlers had their gander up, it didn’t transfer to the fielders, as catches went down at fairly regular intervals. Hales was the worst offender, dropping one as easy as they get at gully. It happens, but it didn’t make for a good day for him given his 15% of his match fee disappeared due to him entering the 3rd umpire’s room to argue over his dismissal yesterday. 

Quite what he hoped to achieve by doing that is hard to understand. Why England let him go is even harder to grasp. He’s lucky it was just that relative slap on the wrist based on what was reported. 

Of the four Tests this series, three have been decent. But given Pakistan were in the acendancy last time it’s hard not to expect England to come out on top this time too. These are two flawed sides, but the visitors look slightly the more brittle. We shall see. 

Day three comments below

4th Test – Day 2 Comments

LordCanisLupus47 Comments

England posted 328, and have Pakistan one down.

West Indies v India was a washout on Day 3 making a draw a very likely outcome now.

World #1 beckons, doesn’t it?

We decided not to do a Day 1 report so that Andy’s excellent post on over rates could be highlighted a day after the word dilatory barely does justice to the pace of the overs bowled. I think we’ll come back to this after the series finishes, so if you haven’t done so already, read Andy’s post.

Comments on Day 2, below. Hopefully this post doesn’t appear until 10 am on Friday, but you never can trust WordPress!

 

Guest Post – Andy On Over Rates

thelegglance23 Comments

Given that over rates have been topical in the last Test, and again today, with only 80 overs bowled (counting as 82 with the change of innings) we decided to bring forward a post that we’ve been looking to put up for a little while.  It seemed appropriate, and although it means no report on today, this is rather a report on a problem with Test cricket as it stands.

We’ve always welcomed guest contributions, and this from Andy is in our view a good one.

As always with people who post, treat them fairly, they aren’t the same as us curmudgeons, and remember, they’ve taken the time, their own time, to do this for us for which we are really grateful.

TLG/Dmitri – take it away Andy

england-v-india-august-2007-3rd-test-003-02.jpeg.jpeg

 

Over rates – a ramble

First off I’d just like to say well done to Dmitri et al.  Just writing this article has put me through the mill with the amount of research & number crunching I’ve ended up doing.  Not sure I could do it as regularly as these guys. [enough of that nonsense…ed.]

Anyway – This started off as a comment in reply to something Chris wrote after day 1 of the Edgbaston test (I think, maybe Day 2).  Then it started getting longer and longer so I felt I couldn’t post it into the comments section – so I pinged Dmitri and offered an article for the blog, and so it grew into the monster you are about to read!

(Warning – this article has brought out my inner Nerd (Capital N), but that is not to say I can do maths, use excel properly or that my calculations are correct!!!)

One of the popular gripes of the modern fan is that over rates are rubbish.  90 overs in 6 hours should be more than manageable.  How can they only bowl 86 (day 1) or 81 (day 3).  That is just embarrassing – surely.  But, rather than grumble, I thought I’d look into it (and then bore you all with my findings).

 Begin the Begin

Where to start – well, how about with how long should a cricket match actually take?

I for one was not really sure whether a day’s play is 6 hours, or 90 overs, or how the extra half hour comes into play (this can make a big difference to the number of overs a side gets in), so let’s look at the ICC Standard Test Playing Conditions.

Condition 16.1 deals with the start / end times (I’ll paraphrase because it’s long and wordy).

– The home board determines the start and end times, so long as there are 6 hours play,

16.1.1 – Minimum overs in the day

– Play shall continue until the completion of a minimum target of 90 overs (or a minimum of 15 overs per hour) or the completion of scheduled time (but with no more than 30 minutes extra time).

So basically there should be at least 90 overs a day right.  Well – the Conditions say they can finish when 90 overs are bowled, or when time is up (6 hours), but critically it basically states that there will be no more than 6.5 hours play (assuming no rain/bad light delays – which is a whole other kettle of fish).

The extra half hour in effect mostly offsets the interruptions in play such as the fall of wickets and drinks (we will come back to this below).

 Can’t Get There From Here

Right – so can we get on with over rates now?  Back to the ICC Standard Test Playing Conditions state; (I’ll paraphrase again).

Condition 16.3 – Minimum over rates

The min over rate shall be 15 overs per hour

So in theory you get 4 minutes per over – Plenty of time!  This I think is where people stop reading.

The condition goes on to state;

The umpires should calculate the days overrate at end of the match and will average the rate for the fielding team across both batting innings – accounting for interruptions (such as injuries, drinks, reviews, wickets, timewasting etc).

In other words for everything that happens outside of the ball being bowled, played and fielded – then that time should be accounted for.  It can either be a positive or a negative allowance.  So the fielding side are not punished if the batsmen are deliberately timewasting, likewise it’s obvious if the fielding side are timewasting.  Also, if the rate is slow in the first innings, it could be balanced by the second (this may be important – keep reading to find out).

There are budgeted interruptions/allowances;

  • Wickets get 2 minutes
  • Drinks get 4 minutes (and should be 1 per session)
  • Change of innings lose 2 overs (but only if not taken at a regular break such as lunch/tea)

A review would be unbudgeted in that it could take 30 seconds or 3 minutes – depending on how easy/difficult it is.  I’m sure you can think of many interruptions that just seem to occur in Cricket!  For example – how is Anderson getting removed from the attack by the umpire accounted for?  How long did it take?

So where are we?  In (at most) 6.5 hours official play, we should be seeing 90 overs at on average 4 minutes per over – minus some odds and ends which are allowed to eat into the time.

Horse to Water

What does this mean in the real world then?  Now that the 3rd test has finished I can go and crunch some numbers and see how the over rates work out (can I just say that I wish time were metric as it would make excel so much easier).

We know from the Playing Conditions that the over rate is an average across each innings – not just how many overs are bowled per day or in a single innings, but overs bowled in the match against the time taken – so we have the following;

Pakistan’s over rate (so 1st and 3rd innings when England batted) was;

14.61

England’s over rate (so 2nd and 4th innings when Pakistan batted) was

14.91

Ah ha I hear you say – so the over rate was short and I’ve been short changed, and I’m owed money and the Captain should be banned, right!?!?!

Wwweeelllllll, not so I’m afraid.

These have been calculated based on the wickets falling, official drinks, a guesstimate of 3 minutes per review and no other distractions (even though I’m sure there were plenty… Jimmy…).

Another wrinkle is the ‘change of innings’ loss of 2 overs.  It doesn’t matter after England’s 1st innings (end of day 1), or Pakistan’s 1st innings (tea of day 3).  However the end of England’s 2nd innings was mid-morning on the 5th day – so 2 overs are removed from the required amount of overs to be bowled.  I suspect this is not given to either side in terms of a time allowance (as the 2 overs are lost between the end of one innings and the start of the next), but I could be wrong.  I haven’t included it in the above over rates.

Further to this – A little play with the spreadsheet (like I said, I’m a Nerd, I made a spreadsheet) suggests that there would only need to be 15 minutes of additional deducted time for Pakistan to get to 15 overs per hour for their match average (and only 5 minutes for England).

It’s eminently believable that 15 minutes could be accounted for with those extra drinks, changing gloves, moving the sight screen, or warnings to bowlers etc, especially across almost 3 days of Pakistan bowling.

Side note – Good umpires are supposed to make notes of every delay and its cause so that they can accurately calculate the over rate.  I don’t know if those out in the middle of a test make such notes (you do see them scribbling occasionally) or if they just leave that to the 3rd umpire.

I can well imagine the umpires only really enforcing a minimum over rate ruling if a Captain has been obviously taking the Piss and they cannot gain a bit of time here and there.

 Worst Joke Ever

Looking closer at the data, England’s bowling in the 1st Pakistan innings came out to 14.12 overs per hour– which was the worst innings rate in the match.  England only got near 15 overs per hour due to the exceptionally fast over rate of 16.71 they managed in the 2nd Pakistan innings.  It’s amazing what can be achieved when someone puts their mind to it.  Pakistan’s first bowling innings went at a respectable 15.13 while their 2nd bowling fell to 14.28.

So what are we going to do about day 3 when only 81 overs were bowled?  If I’ve got my spreadsheet working correctly it appears that the days over rate was a measly 13.61 overs per hour (accounting for deductions – but not the big one… Jimmy….).  Now both teams batted so who is to blame for the lack of overs.  Well, England bowled at 13.53 overs per hour while Pakistan bowled at 13.73 overs per hour.  Neither is great – but one is worse than the other.

But as I’ve just spent the last however many pages telling you – whether you like it or not, this doesn’t matter as it is the match rate that counts…

 TL:DR

A Match is targeted for 90 overs, but the Playing Conditions state a game must finish after 6.5 hours – no matter what, and the fielding captain is not at risk of punishment so long as they have gone along at 15 overs per hour after allowances have been made for wickets, reviews etc (or whatever else the Umpire has decided to allow or ignore – depending on how rude any given team is I assume).

Which is not to say that it is fair to the fans that they don’t bowl 90 overs in a day…. Sorry Chris, you weren’t expecting an actual answer were you…

Please correct me if I have read/interpreted anything incorrectly.  I’m far from an expert.  Thanks for indulging me and well done to anyone who spotted the REM song titles.

Bonus section

If you have skipped to the end for the conclusion – you have gone too far, go back a bit, if not, you are in for some more fun…

So, we know that there should be a minimum 15 overs per hour (over the full days play), but what happens when this is breached?

From the ICC Players Code of Conduct

Condition 2.5 (and Appendix 2) – Minimum over rate offences (for test matches)

It is a minor offence if the over rate is up to 5 overs short

It is a serious offence if it is more than 5 overs short

For a 1st Minor offence the Fielding Captain is fined 20% of his fee per over that is short, while the players are fined 10% (I assume this is all the players not just bowlers or something silly).

For a 2nd Minor offence (within 12 months) the captain and players receive the same fine but the captain is suspended for one match (of the same format).

For a serious offence the players get the above fine for the first 5 overs, then a 20% fine for the overs missing beyond the first 5 overs.  The captain however starts accumulating (insert Jaws music here) Suspension Points.

Now, the Code doesn’t say the captain gets any fine for serious offences, but as he is a player – does he qualify for the fine in the above paragraph?  Who knows, I guess we will have to wait for it to happen to see!

Suspension points are a whole different topic and are wwwaaaayyyy to much of a diversion for this article.

 Endgame

England were last fined (in a test match) for the 5th Ashes test at the Oval last year for being ‘2 overs short of target’ – I’m guessing that the ICC calculate overs short whereas I’ve looked at how much time the umpires would need to account for… Maybe I should go and look at that match and bore you with those numbers as well….<tumble weed/>

Further reading

The ICC Playing Conditions and Code of Conduct are buried under the publications section of the website.  If you fancy a nap, they are just the thing.

I also came across these websites are I was reading up.  I wish to thank Thatscricket and cricketingview for researching an area of cricket that I am interested in (see what I’ve done there….Cough….FICJAM….Cough).

In all seriousness, they helped break down a few things and while my post and these tread similar ground, I hope I have managed to add value without copying!

http://www.thatscricket.com/news/2012/02/20/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-slow-over-rate.html

http://cricketingview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/over-rates-in-cricket.html

4th Test – Preview

LordCanisLupus48 Comments
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
A Fine Vista

In 2014, when England came from 1-0 down after two matches to win the series 3-1, there was much rejoicing in the media and from those who had taken one side of the vicious schism that had afflicted English cricket. In that series the visitors had won a surprising victory at Lord’s and gone on to absolutely collapse as their bowling fell apart and their batting became more feeble. Virat Kohli, the now venerated titan of Indian cricket had a Weston (Super Mare). So on one side there was proclaimed a great victory, on the other a more prominent calling out of the failings of the opposition. The schism remained.

In 2015, when England recovered from a hefty beating at Lord’s that had seemed to snatch away all the momentum gained at Cardiff, there was a reshuffling of the pack (well, Ballance was dropped). Australia came a cropper on two helpful wickets at Birmingham and Nottingham, where England outplayed them. England had beaten what we were given to believe were mighty foes, with the two Mitchells throwing down meteorites of left arm viciousness, and the batting bolstered by a captain who rarely failed, and an opener of Sehwagian feats. When the series was won, as evidenced on this blog, the heat rose to crucible levels. Scores were being settled. The wrong side of the schism were being shown the error of their ways. They were to be mocked, ostracised, humiliated. There would be “no peace”. If anything, the schism had grown wider.

In 2016, when England recovered from a surprise loss at Lord’s, to take a 2-1 lead in a series most of us expect to be closed out with relevant comfort at the original home of English test cricket (accept no posh, snobby North London alternatives), what will the reaction be? For if this should come to pass, England will, I think (because I’m not following it closely) be world ranked number 1. There will be much patting of backs at a job well done. There will be hosannas thrown in the direction of our much loved and much respected captain. There will be a tangible warmth of smug self-satisfaction from the hierarchy at the ECB as the proof that what they did 2 ½ years ago was spot on (if you ignore the Downton thing, the Moores thing, the Al staying as ODI captain thing, the World Cup thing). The cricket media will prostrate themselves at the feet of the leaders of the revolution and the world will anoint the new top team in test cricket. Those that look on this site as a think to revile will be joyous. Personally, I’ll feel like just the other two summers. Less angry, more resigned. Schismed out.

So where are we now? What joy and hope can I find in this? I’m a blogger on the wrong side of the celebrations. Unable to conjure up any warmth for it. Unable to let go of a betrayal. Unable to understand why many don’t see it the way I do. I look at this team and wonder how it might look with a certain player, fit and healthy, at number 4 who had a bogey number of 158, not 42. Yet to do so is to invite the celebrants to invoke their tedious comments. “Fanboy” “Boring” “Idiot”. What joy can I conjure up as Pakistan, initially so vibrant, seem to be collapsing in self-doubt? How a captain, on Day 4, while being celebrated by a former England captain at the time, didn’t so much as let England off the hook after those two early wickets, as turn his fishing vessel back to port and wait for the little blighters to jump out of the sea.

Last time Pakistan visited these shores, six years ago, they won the 3rd Test (of 4) at The Oval. For those of you slightly short of memory, that was a London test that also started on Wednesday, so no, we aren’t always given Thursday starts, and it also finished just after Saturday lunchtime, if I recall correctly (I might not). Azhar Ali played the key role with the bat, and Wahab Riaz with the ball (in the first innings). England got a relatively low score, and then didn’t perform in the second innings. Pakistan didn’t win by a lot, but by enough. Alastair Cook made a hundred that “saved his career”.

Both the first innings Pakistani stars from six years ago have had, to term it politely “mixed” tours. Hafeez has been an abomination at the top of the order, while Shafiq shone well at Lord’s but with less lustre since. As for Younus Khan, heaven knows what is going on there.You can’t help but feel slightly short changed.

We needed a competitive series, and to a degree we have got one, with two really closely fought games, but it was the manner of the capitulation on Days 4 and 5 at Edgbaston that left me melancholy. That had the smack of a team scared to win. Frightened of the moment. One ripe to the slaughter against a motivated England team.

We can be revisionist on here, saying that we were seeing it coming while revelling in the formidable challenge the visitors put up in the first test, but then we aren’t here celebrating a potential 7-0 whitewash of the summer that others were thinking possible. That we are not is due to our climate and our frailties. But if, according to Ali Martin, we win this test (or is it just the series) and India don’t win both remaining games against the West Indies, we become the number 1 ranked nation in test match cricket. In many ways, ascent to that lofty perch was really well summed up by Alex Hales:

It would be an incredible feeling, particularly for a team who are still developing. If we perform as well as we did in the last two Tests hopefully we can win this series and if we can get the No1 spot that’s exciting for us.

Developing teams should not be number 1 in a major international sport. The team shouldn’t have glaring holes at opener, number 4, possibly number 5, and the spin bowling department. Because if that team is number 1, the overall quality of the competition has to be questioned. There is an overall weakness in test cricket that is genuinely scary. There are no giants. There are no super teams. There are just a bunch of worthy teams, who on their day can nick a test or two away from home, but are quite resilient on their own patch. Any comparison of this team to even its 2011 counterparts, or 2005, is, in my opinion utterly laughable. But they’ll match the 2011 one, and surpass the 2005 if three results go their way.

So with Cook in the form of his life (again), Root capable of great things, Moeen as outrageously lauded for his Day 5 bowling as he was castigated for lack of wickets before, the bowling overcoming a strangely quiet Stuart Broad we just have a couple of questions to answer. Will Hales finally nail down the openers slot with a hundred, and will Vince finally get his score which will allow the totally impartial Michael Vaughan to tweet that he told us so?

Please comment on Day 1 below. This will be the fourth year in a row I’ve not gone to The Oval test, despite it being a staple of my summers for 15 years before. It’s not the same any more, whether it’s me or the cricket. I will be going to the Oval for the Lancashire game in the week of the 22nd August though – anyone interested in popping along, e-mail me on dmitriold@hotmail.co.uk

On site matters, I have a couple of posts lined up. There’s Simon’s part 2 of the Old Trafford test from 1976; I have the conclusion of “Nightmare at Nottingham” to stick up as well. There is also a post due from one of our commenters on over rates, and I’ve done a personal one on club cricket linked to the number 42, which I might stick up on “The Extra Bits”. I thought we’d get the test series out of the way before finishing those off, and I also have another, longer series up my sleeve, which is sure to annoy a number, but hopefully engage more. Anything else you would like to see, or if you would like to write it, please let me or TLG know.

************************************

(After I completed the initial draft of this, I came across this little section of our favourite Mail journalist’s piece.

Anderson, a leading member of both teams, believes this outfit even outstrips the team of Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Graeme Swann, Matt Prior and Jonathan Trott, who won the Ashes in Australia.

 

‘I think our team at the moment is better equipped to get to No 1 and stay there,’ insisted Anderson, 34. ‘We are a more talented side, we are mentally tougher and we showed the character we have in the side at Edgbaston.

‘If I’m being brutally honest it would be a bit soon for this team to go to No 1 now because we are still developing, there is still inconsistency, and we have plenty of improving to do. It would be nice if we do it but we have plenty of time.”

 

I am all for buffing up your team, but dear of dear. This is guff.

Still, it’s Newman. The Cheerleader. So there isn’t disagreement. And also, if you read this, has he repeated himself in the same article? Don’t they have editors? )

But let me repeat myself…. Comments on Day 1 below.

England vs Pakistan: 3rd Test Day Five

thelegglance77 Comments

Pakistan must be wondering how they contrived to lose this game. Having been 257-2 one ball before the close of play on day two, a mere 40 runs behind England, they would surely have expected to go on to win the match. Even though their first innings wasn’t as big as it could have been, it still left them with a lead in excess of 100.

Indeed, although England wiped off the deficit without loss, they were soon back in some kind of trouble at effectively 23-2 and again though less so at effectively 179-5. That turned out to be the final chance to win the game, from there Moeen and Bairstow took the match away from Pakistan and by the start of play today a draw was about the best they could hope for.

Cook has not been especially brave with his declarations during his captaincy but there could be few complaints (whatever the eventual result) with today. The plan was clearly to throw the bat and declare as soon as possible and Moeen rather helped by taking the first over from Yasir for 20. He might be a flawed player (albeit one who has had a great year to date with the bat) but he is exceptionally unselfish. He could have a better batting average than he does by quietly ensuring the red ink, but many a time he has got out desperately seeking runs when batting with the tail. Today his immediate assault ensured that it was quite clear England were going for the win.

344 was the nominal target, but despite a pitch that was still flat, and despite the usual panic about Pakistan making it, the history of the game makes it clear that such targets are unlikely in the extreme. But there was no reason at all the tourists couldn’t bat out the day, the surface showed no signs of breaking up – if anything the only concession to four days of play was for it to have got slower and lower.

When batting out time a key requirement is to have a good start, but Hafeez once again decided to give England a boost. Having slapped a long hop to point in the first innings, this time he decided to hook Broad straight to Woakes at fine leg. Batsmen make mistakes, it’s part of the game, but this was poor batting and given the circumstances, somewhat irresponsible.

Still, there was a recovery from there, Azhar Ali joining the hugely impressive youngster Sami Aslam. For a time, all seemed serene and England were, if not flat, somewhat subdued.

It was not long before tea that all hell broke loose, four wickets falling for a single run as Anderson, Finn and Woakes ripped through the middle order. Edgbaston is the most raucous, noisy ground on the English circuit, and when the home team gets on top – especially with the ball, it creates an air of expectancy and certainty that another wicket is round the corner. Enough sportmen are quick to say that the crowd can be the twelfth player for it to be obvious that this does make a difference, and it takes a strong team to resist that kind of atmosphere.

When Finn (who bowled at times with something approaching his old hostility) persuaded Sami to leave a ball that darted back in to the crash into his off stump, it was all over bar the shouting. An entertaining last wicket partnership merely delayed the inevitable slightly.

Make no mistake about it, this was a fine England victory. The lower order strength in batting rescued them from an unpromising position, and when the seamers get some shape through the air, they look lethally dangerous. England’s bowlers are superb exponents of making the most of favourable conditions, where they look toothless is when there’s nothing to help them, for they don’t have the raw pace or hostility to trouble opponents on flat and unhelpful surfaces/conditions. No matter, for all bowling sides can be criticised for the times they don’t succeed, but England do have a useful unit, one that might be completed by a truly Test class spinner. Ah yes, the Moeen question – he has a poor average but it’s worth noting that he also has a very similar strike rate to Nathan Lyon. It’s hard to see anyone else being a radical improvement, which isn’t to say that they shouldn’t be tried of course.

Today they forced a win they had little right to expect. It was great to watch, and a perfect example of why those who talk about four day Tests are quite simply wrong. 

England can go to the top of the ICC Test rankings if they win the final Test. That is perhaps more reflective of a number of flawed sides in world cricket than anything else, for there is no outstanding team in the game, only ones who look good sometimes, dreadful others. A degree of uncertainty is not something to be unhappy about, though winning away in the modern era looks increasingly difficult to achieve.

This was a second good Test from three this series. If the final one of the summer approaches it then it will have been one of the better ones in recent years. It was therefore slightly disappointing that Edgbaston was barely half full for what was likely to be a good final day. This time it wasn’t about the pricing, as £16 for adults was well judged and good value.

It was a weekend, England had a good chance of winning and it was cheap. But not full or close to it. Perhaps this is having unreasonable expectations, misremembering a time when there were queues to get in; certainly the 80,000 spectators over five days seems a number the authorities are pleased with. It just doesn’t feel like cricket can ever again truly capture the public, and that’s a deep concern.

England 2-1 up, and no one has even thought about the score across the whole tour. I suspect most have forgotten about it. Which probably says it all.

One final point. The over rate today was excellent. Indeed had they needed to really push they might have been able to squeeze another in. Funny that.