I trust you all had a very decent Christmas, and given the cricket has resumed (with the exception of the Ranji Trophy, which has carried on through the Holidays) I thought it’s time we did. So back on the 2016 Dmitri’s we go…..
As I said when I mentioned the thinking behind the Dmitris, the “awards” are given, if that’s the right word, to players, teams, individuals etc. who have played an important part in cricket during the year, or have had a key influence on the blogging side of things. There is little doubt that where Kevin Pietersen laid the ground for the latter, in 2016 Eoin Morgan has taken his place. Morgan divides opinion, he breaks the cricket fraternity out in a rash. There is nothing quite like watching righteous indignation in full flow.
Yet, back earlier in the year, it was all so different. Eoin Morgan was lauded, a great man, a talismanic leader, a man of iron will. Because of three words. That’s. From. Me. With those words he unleashed the blind fury. Morgan was taking ownership for the exclusion of Kevin Pietersen, as unlikely as any comeback might have been, in public, up front, no questions asked in a statement to Nasser Hussain in the Daily Mail. Piers Morgan went apoplectic, and some of the more vociferous KP supporters followed. Yes, I was angry at it, in every way that I was angry in the first place, but this wasn’t from him. If Morgan wanted KP he never could have said so. We all know that. We aren’t stupid. So yes, while the anti-KP band went over the top in their excitement, we had to take a step back.
But if Eoin Morgan thought that cunning could buy him love from the ECB media, he found out how long it took to upset them and become back in the negative column. One decision and he was in the firing line, with the big beasts of the press lined up firing at him. When Eoin Morgan even hinted that he wouldn’t make the trip to Bangladesh, the game was up. He is dead meat. It is only a matter of time before the fatal blow is inflicted upon him. The anger at putting his own personal wellbeing first, regardless of whether the reasons were iron-clad logical, far outweighed failures of captaincy on the field of others. It’s completely fair enough to have your team mess up week after week, but woe betide you go against conventional wisdom of what constitutes leadership.
Once that happens the “manipulation” of statistics we are often accused of is employed against Morgan. The recent lack of centuries being the main one. The lining up of sensational young talent who have not proved much being another. Ignore his captaincy, and the way the team plays with non-stop aggressive intent – Jos Buttler can do that on the back of a tight as you know what ODI series in Bangladesh that Eoin opted out of (in case you forgot). Morgan’s role, once front and centre, became Morgan the expendable. Because he now lacks the ability to lead his team.
This reached its nadir when Oliver Holt jetted out to Bangladesh in one of the most ridiculous stunts I’ve seen in a while. If you look sanctimony up in the Illustrated English Dictionary, Holt’s face would radiate out at you. Holt had a thing about Morgan and was going to go to Chittagong himself to show the world it’s safe. If the Mail’s chief sports writer, or whatever his puffed up title is, was brave enough to pitch up in Chittagong, then so should Morgan. Plus, Morgan’s bleeding Irish, so he’s a wrong ‘un anyway when it comes to playing for England. He doesn’t even sing the National Anthem, the money-grabbing little coward. As journalistic endeavours went, it was risible. Holt pitched in, and pitched out, wrote his nonsensical piece for the Mail on Sunday, and to be very fair, most of those who follow the game and write about it off the media wagon laughed at it for what it was. Holt being a dolt. I think I might have chipped in.
Our beloved Comma, a man of impeccable trust don’t forget, because that is important and trumps all, had said that if a player had reservations about going to Bangladesh they could opt out. Nothing would be held against them. So two players took them at his word, and the denizens of good manners and military leadership were up in arms. Newman is never going to stop mentioning it, reminding you of it. Selfey’s gonna tweet how great Reggie “best in the business” is. All the while Morgan is going to have any achievements downplayed, any failure augmented, any expression of non-regret castigated. It’s the way they play.
On here the debate caused some heat and light, but many came out in favour of Morgan’s right to choose not to play. Most pointed out the ludicrous calls to leadership standards. Many recognised the modus operandi. But most of all, many supported Morgan. Now he will need to repay that support because if he doesn’t, he’s sharkbait.
The very short tradition of the Dmitris is that one goes to an England player who has performed well this year, and who hasn’t won the award before. In 2014 I shared it between Ali, Ballance and Buttler – the new hopes for English cricket. In 2015 it went to Joe Root. For much of 2016 it was an even battle between Jonny Bairstow and Chris Woakes. It was desperately close, and it has to be said, the recent tour has not favoured the Warwickshire man (although he’s an absolute dead cert for a Wisden Cricketer of the Year, eh, Lawrence?).
Jonny Bairstow has been a rescue act all year, scoring the most runs by a wicketkeeper in a calendar year (aided by having 17 test matches to do it, but still magnificent) and doing so by refining his game without totally reining in his natural attacking instincts. He brought in 2016 with a superb, emotional, 150 in that carnage in Cape Town. It may have been overshadowed by Ben Stokes rampage but it was incredibly important, as his batting at that time had to mask some of his keeping inadequacies. What was also lost that on a nervy Day 5 he steadied a very rocky boat with a 30 not out. That would be much of his role for the rest of the year. Jonny Bairstow had so many rescue acts to perform, he’ll be auditioning for the role of Scott Tracy in any Thunderbirds movie.
The thing I also liked about his three centuries were they were all decent scores post that mark. 150 not out, 140, 167 – a DBTA of 78.5 – and although his problem now seems to be converting 50s into 100s, that is a much better problem than having extended barren spells as Jos Buttler went through before he was dropped. Bairstow has had two single figure scores in tests in 2016 (Cook has had 6, Moeen has had 8, Stokes has 4 (all on this Asia tour) which shows his consistency.
Bairstow came into the team in 2012, on the back of a brilliant ODI the year before, but never settled, and then found himself thrust in the limelight of the KP phone hacking scandal! His 95 at Lord’s was ridiculously lauded by Shiny Toy – who said if he’d made a hundred it would have been the greatest first century he’d ever seen – but once he’d lost his place (after a not bad Ashes 2013, but not a convincing one), and with Buttler the coming phenom, opportunities looked scarce. Given the hospital pass of replacing Prior at the end of the Difficult Winter, he was replaced by him again in early 2014, and waited his chance. He returned for the last three tests of the 2015 Ashes, outscoring Australia’s first innings on his own at Trent Bridge, and then hasn’t missed a test since. He’s one of the first names on the team sheet.
He’s also a fine ODI player, but is part of the logjam. He doesn’t let us down when he does play as his match and series winning innings in the 2015 matches v New Zealand shows.
He’s also improved his keeping – Chris is a much better authority than me on the technical aspects – and I don’t see any reason why Buttler should take the gloves from him.
So Jonny Bairstow is this year’s winner. Over 1400 runs, a sound old record, a man in possession and tenaciously holding it. Well played, sir.
This report is brought to you by Meantime Pilsner courtesy of the Market Porter public house. They’ve not paid for me to say this, but they are the reason this is a half-hearted report based on the highlights and not one from someone who got up to watch the play. I preferred the nice warm bed all morning and following the play via cricinfo’s app, rather than watch what may turn out to be a very tedious game. Or, it might not be.
Resuming on 4 down, England lost Stokes in the first over to a lazy prod. It’s been a bit of a case of diminishing returns from our talismanic all rounder, 128 in the first match, a very worthy 70 in the second and not a lot after that. The next dismissal wasn’t long in coming when SuperJos, Paul Newman’s new knight in shining armour got pinged in front, having come perilously close to doing so a few overs earlier. Jos has a ton of talent but this is his 18th test match now and he’s been playing as a pure batsman. While he is no doubt in better nick than Duckett (remember him) and the man on the best paid holiday (Ballance), there’s still a long way to go to justify Newman’s exuberance (or should that be effluence). He’s got to be buffed up, because he’s the man to combat Eoin Morgan and his unwanted ODI leadership.
With that dismissal, England looked on the brink, and Moeen followed not long after having been battered by Umesh Yadav, who when I’ve had chances to see the cricket has looked a serious performer. I have not seen Moeen’s ton, but one would suggest that some of the stick that appeared to come the way of someone making 146 is a little uncalled for (and I’ll be invoking Edgbaston 2006 very soon for those who remembet). Moeen has had trouble with the short ball for his entire test career. So, to a degree, did Steve Waugh. It need not be fatal for your career – Moeen has five test centuries, Michael Bevan has none – but it is clearly a weakness in his game. If he can make 146 runs before that weakness is exposed, then I’ll live with it.
There then followed a lovely surprise. A century partnership for the 8th wicket, where debutant Liam Dawson made a very accomplished half century, and Fragile Rashid followed suit. There was one late cut by Fragile that was absolutely filthy, a shot I absolute love, off Mishra that summed up how useful a weapon he might be if his bowling is seen as good enough to stay in the team. Dawson played very solidly, and followed some top players like Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Root in making a half century in their first test innings for England. (whole list here, excluding those who made centuries, the flash Harrys).
England climbed up to 477 and this looks like a half decent par score on a slow wicket, but a couple of attritional days to be in store. India are 60 for 0 in reply and didn’t look like losing wickets. The Verdict has been saying the cyclone and the new soil has deadened the wicket, and the evidence seems to be there for it. But it’s too easy to condemn the game to a bore draw just yet. There is always scoreboard pressure.
I’m sorry if this one is a bit “mailed in” today. Too much Christmas. Chris has promised to be on the decks, while I continue to mull over the next Dmitri, think about the new Glossary entries which we must put together, and do all the other things we have to do at this time of year.
So people, this is it. Another year of test cricket for England comes to an end. Starting with the carnage in Cape Town, and the Ben Stokes bombardment, through a low-key home summer start v Sri Lanka, which gave us 10000 reasons to be bemused, incorporating a pulsating series against Pakistan, a defining drawn series with Bangladesh and a demolition job by India, 2016 has been full on. It’s been ever so downhill all the way, and now we reach Chennai. The end of the road. The next England test isn’t until July (the day before my birthday, hint hint) and by then who knows what might have happened. But for now there is a sense of finality. The show is over, say goodbye.
Of course, the main issue outside of the game from an England standpoint is is this the last time Alastair Cook captains a test match? There have been a multitude of views and such noise does not come out of the ether. The suspicion is that this will be his last time – I’m not sure because the ECB / Comma / Cook are laws unto themselves – and if so we’ll be filling plenty of pages with discussion on legacy, record, style and all sorts. But for now we have one final match to play on a tour that has gone increasingly awry.
I’m not going to guess at team selection because that’s a fools errand with this England tour. There won’t be changes in the batting line-up, although there’s always the possibility they will mess around with the order. I doubt we’ll play four seamers, in which case Liam Dawson must be in with a really good shout of a debut, and probably the tag as a one cap wonder, but let us watch the reading of the runes on Thursday (this piece is being written on Wednesday night as all three of us are “unavailable for selection” tomorrow night).
Before the concluding diatribe, let’s just go down memory lane and my recollections of previous Chennai tests. When I was a child / teenager India had four iconic test venues – Delhi, and the exotically named Ferez Shah Kotla; Mumbai (or Bombay) and the Wankhede Stadium with all the snorting and snickering that provided; Eden Gardens in Kolkata (Calcutta) with its massive crowds and teeming noise; and the Chepauk at Chennai (Madras), which was the venue for one of my favourite TMS test matches.
The first tour I recall was Keith Fletcher’s of 1981-2. Losing the first test, we proceeded to traipse round India, playing out a succession of tedious draws. The Chennai test was the 5th. Gundappa Viswanath made a double hundred. Yashpal Sharma made 140. India took over two days to make 481, in what looked to be an appallingly slow 152 overs. That’s tea on Day 2 at the current rates (supposed). That was England bowling! 17 wickets fell in the whole tedious spectacle.
In 1985, England recorded one of their greatest overseas victories when winning the 4th Test to take a 2-1 series lead. While many remember it for Graeme Fowler making 201 (and being dropped two tests later to make way for Graham Gooch) and Mike Gatting 207, the key to the match was Neil Foster’s finest (arguably) bowling performance when he took 6 for 104 in the 1st innings and removing Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Amarnath and Shastri. It took Chris Cowdrey to remove the two other danger men – Mohammad Azharuddin and Kapil Dev, as England bowled the hosts out for a inadequate 272. England made 652 for 7, and the pleasure of listening to that on school mornings was immense. I was in the middle of my Mock O Levels, and snow was on the ground in SE London. I then sneaked listens in one exam (naughty) as Amarnath and Azha, on Day 4 threatened to thwart us. Azha made another century, 2 in his first two tests, but we took enough wickets, frequently enough to clinch a great win, with Foster taking 5 more scalps.
We did not tour India for another 8 years, returning for the infamous Dexter Fletcher Gooch tour. This was the infamous dodgy prawn game, costing us the services of our captain Gooch, and Mike Atherton. It ended with India annihilating England, based on a Sachin masterclass (165) and major contributions from pretty much all the batsmen. India posted 560 for 6, with Ian Salisbury, fragile in all probability, taking one third of those wickets. India won by an innings, and without looking, can you name the four England batsmen in that match who recorded their top test scores?
We had to wait a long time to visit Chennai again. This time it was in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and a nervous England, under the leadership of Kevin Pietersen, returned to play a fantastic match. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the conclusion of that game 8 years ago, with Sachin Tendulkar making a composed ton on a decomposing wicket to take India home, ably assisted by Yuvraj Singh, and propelled to the winning line by a rocket named Virender Sehwag. The game was memorable for Comma, who made centuries in each innings, and putting England in a commanding position. Paul Collingwood also made a second innings ton. It was the match, sadly, which has enabled the various numbskulls who pollute Twitter to deride Pietersen’s captaincy. While by no means impressive, there have been greater clusterf*cks in my memory, that have received less bile. But it is what it is. Oh, and it’s also the test match in which Lovejoy debuted. Tomorrow’s match is going to seem tame by comparison, isn’t it?
So, to Test number 5. Number 17 this year. Number 31 is it in the last 19 months. Joe Root was there at the start, in Antigua. So was Alastair Cook. Jimmy Anderson was there but missed some time in the interim. Jos Buttler was there, but lost form later that year. Ben Stokes was in the team, but he’s had some injuries and was still promising, rather than a regular. And there was Stuart Broad, injured, but who may play as a bookend to that run of games. It’s no wonder they are frazzled, that comrades have been lost along the way, that performances might dip, that leaders may feel enough is enough. India will be loving the prospect – and isn’t in interesting how England supposedly can’t be arsed in these sorts of games, but the opposition is supposed to be more up for it – and should hand us another defeat. A win here would be one of the biggest shocks, because I can’t see India passing up the chance to do to us, what we did to them in 2011. Once finished, let the press fun begin. We might be the only organ Chris Stocks hasn’t written for by the end of it.
Happy to receive comments below. We’ll hopefully have one of us in a fit state to write a report on Day 1. That will be you, Sean……
When blogging you can get a bit caught up about what happens now, in the recent past. It’s why many of the awards get given to those who achieve late in the year, how lists are skewed towards the modern era, and not the old. It seems a long time ago now, but the busiest day on the blog this year, outside of the infamous List, and more of that later in the year, was in the immediate aftermath of the World T20 Final. I sort of think of that final over as a “Sliding Doors” moment. To guess the true significance, from my perspective, of it, is to hypothesise on what might have been.
I think the key post that frames the impact I thought might be coming our way is the one I wrote on 26 January, and called Schism. It aches me, genuinely, that as a result of actions in 2014 England supporters, the ones we encounter on social media, split down the middle. Team Cook (ECB) vs Team KP (Outside Cricket). The two sides entrenched, in many ways not seeing each others point of view, but letting the frustration of the other side refusing to “buckle” reinforce matters more. I try to see things from the anti-KP brigade, and I just can’t. I accept that. I write about it. How difficult it is to think that people can take a load of media-assembled points and run them as fact without doing the thinking themselves. About how it is evident, to me, that the ECB leaked like my old shed roof and yet this was acceptable because it was getting the man. I try to explain this pull, this wretched feeling that something went so disgustingly wrong, that there were people who would rather side with the authorities than with a maverick, not seeing the bigger picture.
The Ashes in 2015 brought out the worst in the pro-ECB masses. It put us in our place. We were there only to be told to toe the line, get in with England and Cook, and yet people still kept on keeping on. There was still a tough core of people on here who would not get over the issues, not move on, not get into line. Maybe it brought out the worst in us. A peevish refusal to accept the position, almost that to give up would be to betray what we had putout there in the previous 18 months.
Over the preceding winter to the T20 competition KP started to hit form in the Big Bash. While certain people talked up a potential recall to the England, we all deep down knew it would never happen. Too many egos at play, too much water under the bridge. But it still rankled. A brilliant T20 performer left kicking his heels, undoubtedly good enough to get in the team, but kept out by a concept, a grudge, and stupidity.
What was so important about the loss in the World T20 Final is what it prevented from happening. It’s almost sacrilege to say it was a good thing England lost, and I can’t quite go that far. Was I crushingly disappointed? No. And I like this ODI/T20 team because it doesn’t, or at least didn’t, carry the baggage the test team did. But it was the way the press, the acolytes, the hangers-on were lining up what they would say if the victory had been sealed. Within a year Comma would be vindicated, feted as a genius, a man who turned water into wine, a man who could do little wrong. Look at us 8 months on, and see where we are now – a bedraggled test unit, at the end of their tether – and see how the climate has changed. Then there would be the ample opportunities to stick the knife into Kevin Pietersen – don’t they always – and us. People like us. Those who despise the ECB. Those who had excoriated a supine, pliant media for their obsequiousness. We would have seen the Ashes 2015 aftermath rerun – a time of vile abuse, of crass stupidity, and a downright unpleasant time to be blogging. It really ceased being fun.
Carlos Brathwaite also brought joy to the West Indies. Some of the players in that team it is very fair to say do not command respect. Gayle’s behaviour in Australia last winter being the most prominent, but Dwayne Bravo and Marlon Samuels aren’t exactly angels, and as for ‘Dre Russ, we are still awaiting his drug hearing. But there’s something about a West Indies success that just rouses you. Well it does me. It’s not being a hipster, but more in touch with my youth and their all conquering team. Those glimpses are more fleeting, their cricket more fragile – that word again – and thus unrestrained joy, especially at the expense of a cocky, arrogant foe (and England are that, whether we like it or not, we are not well liked in international circles) could be understood. Newman went ballistic at it, acting like a child, telling them off for celebrating in front of us, being mean spirited, and, worst of all, adding on to their U-19 success on the back of a Mankading, evidence of not playing the game in the right way.
That over changed a lot, and in many ways the blogging landscape has calmed down a lot since there. There’s not the visceral anger there once seemed to be. The usual suspects still have their ways of cheesing me off, but there’s not that need to fight as much. I think an England win might have exacerbated it. Not that that is at all important, and this isn’t meant to be a (totally) self-centred piece, but the anti-KP/ ECB fanboy/girl mob got to feel real pain, even if it was fleeting, even if it was in a tournament we all thought we had no chance in. It may have turned a cricket team’s fate, as their test team now looks a little better, but with still a long way to go. It was a cracking tournament and England played very well, and we can build confidence upon that display, in very testing conditions. But in the end, one of the most amazing finishes you are likely to see impacted very widely, and possibly, just possibly, the corner was turned on a number of fronts, big and small.
So, for Dmitri #2, a little obscure, a little tangential, and maybe a little controversial, I give you 6 6 6 6. Remember the Name…
It is indeed a tough task following the last two pieces by The Leg Glance. They were superbly written, cogently argued and received with the responses they deserved. So it’s a bit after the Lord Mayor’s Show, but let me try, and the subject is Alastair Cook. Isn’t that so frequently the case?
England are losing the test series 3-0, but it is a very difficult one to assess from the visitors’ standpoint (well it is in my eyes). England have missed opportunities, but if we are talking about catches in such a way, as being pivotal to outcomes in the absence of something else, we should throw away all those 2005 DVDs and just change the record on who held the Ashes that year after those key drops on Day 5 at The Oval.
You need to create chances to take them, and the team that wistfully looks back on isolated opportunities is usually one deluding itself. In referring to Adil Rashid’s dropped caught and bowled, a tough chance, as a key point of the match, we are probably less inclined to focus on Keaton Jennings being fortunate not to bag a pair on debut and we’d be saying how out of his depth he looked. On such small margins are careers forged.
Each of the batsmen in the starting XI at Mumbai has some moment of success to look back upon, and maybe it is the start of a more firm batting line-up, especially with Hameed waiting in the wings – but it’s still not the certainty many seem to indicate. There are still vacancies in the top and middle order.
The spin bowling has been game, but not as good in these conditions as their opponents but that can hardly be their fault, and it isn’t a surprise. We didn’t go to the West Indies in 1985/6 expecting to match the West Indies pace attack on friendly wickets, so why expect our spinners to match the Indian bowlers? I’ve been more disappointed with the seamers, who not only have looked mostly unthreatening, have also been talking as defeatists. We aren’t worried about them in England, but when the chips are down in Australia, and they may well be, I don’t want to hear talk of wickets nullifying them, and players being good at home.
Given the diverse signals being given off, and interpreted, by the press, the media have had to coalesce around one key issue. The agenda was set, and how it will please him that it did, by #39 and his interview with Alastair Cook prior to the tour. There he let slip that he might consider leaving the captaincy sooner or later, and that might be at the end of this tour. There was a certain wistfulness about returning to the ranks and being the senior pro, rather than the one calling the shots.
I said what I thought of that when the issue reared its head. Alastair Cook may give off an “aww shucks” demeanour, but he’s a very skilled media operator (rather than a skilled orator). There is no way that the media profile he’s had has not been achieved without some very skillful work. Grown journos have confessed their undying love for the chap. So if Alastair thinks he’s been misinterpreted, as Trevor Bayliss has mentioned today in a totally unconvincing load of old tosh, then more fool Cook. But I don’t think he was misinterpreted at all. I think he knew how that comment would come out, but as to his motives, you’ll have to ask him. This hasn’t arisen before, to my knowledge. It’s all about steel, iron and resilience under fire.
What this article did, though, was to give the journalists out there, and those sitting back here in the UK, a way in. They could start debating whether Cook should stay or go, without impugning his character or reputation. This reminds me most of the end of Atherton’s time in charge. Having won a breathless final test in the 1997 Ashes, when the media were calling for him to go (Nigel Clarke being particularly vociferous, I seem to recall), Athers was persuaded to stay on for a tour of the West Indies. We lost that series 3-1 and Atherton resigned immediately after. He’d given off the signals that he didn’t want to stay on, and was persuaded to do so. Cook is giving off those signals now, even talking about imagining a future where he is in the team, but not captain. So if he’s considering it, he knows, he had to know, that the press would speculate on it given half a chance. That would be more pronounced if we were losing the series, and the captain looked a bit frazzled around the edges in doing so. If there were a couple of odd dismissals, then even more could be read into it. Post-Bangladesh, with that series ending on a bad note, this wasn’t ideal timing.
After Rajkot the tune changed. There was a lot less about Cook’s perceived wishes, and a positive bounce in the steps after a very worthy performance and a century for the captain. The scribes, commentators and “The Verdict” crew were effusive in their praise, paying homage to the captain, and excusing his caution (which I agreed with, so you won’t be getting me on that one) as totally understandable. He had shown great resolve, some good captaincy and the universe could live in peace. Cook’s future wasn’t on the agenda.
Two test matches later, some odd dismissals, some lacklustre, even downright bad captaincy in those games, combined with a week off between tests, and the mood and direction had changed. In watching how the press approached it, one could see the great forces at play. Having a go at Cook is, for the digital world, with its plethora of opinions, On here the outside world believes we are mostly focused on “getting rid of Cook because he got KP sacked”. That’s the view we get, no matter how many times we repeat ourselves as being the wrong end of the stick. It’s a very unreasonable simplicity that prevents those reading for looking at this more deeply.
I’m past caring whether Cook carries on or not. What we have not done on this, as the media have at this juncture, is to raise a storm now – this is seen as the most vociferous of blogs, but it isn’t us who have started the fire. It hasn’t been much elsewhere I’ve seen, but it is with some of those who have sat on the fence, or even issued “Back Cook” missives in the past. In this case, believe it or not, the digital world of social media has followed, not encouraged. Has commented but not been the provocateur.
I wrote in “What’s Cooking”
So why now, people? What aren’t you telling us? Someone is clearly muttering something, because even though we have no idea how good journalism works, we know how this thing works, because we’ve seen it happen. Is Strauss talking? It appears the most likely as Bayliss is a Strauss appointment, and Cook a Hugh Morris/Paul Downton one (Morris originally, Downton post Ashes 2103-14). Is it the Venus Fly Trap, through Newman, who is laying his poisonous seeds for sins of the past? Something is afoot, and I think we all want to know what it might be. Going to tell us good ladies and gentlemen of the press? Why have Pringle and Newman turned? Now?
Is it merely a coincidence, or is it a message? Can the press seek the changes they always used to, but in a more deferential, less combative manner? To call for Cook to resign because he’s a poor captain is to invoke a wrath rarely seen in the media world, and from his loyal fans online – hell we’ve seen it often enough. But it’s not far from the truth to question his ability, because tactically he’s never been the best. He’s had to rely on the nonsensical “leads from the front”, probably because he opens, but in his past 45 test matches he has five test hundreds. There’s no doubt he is a leading figure in the dressing room, looked up to by many of his colleagues, but is that enough? Are we aiming so low as creation of a good environment? There’s the contention he’s a nice guy, and you don’t have a go at them (friends of mine at work encountered him at Chelmsford, and said he was genuinely very friendly) if they are nice, do you? That makes you mean spirited, bilious, vitriolic. Something the mere blogger gets thrown at them. So the press get to do their thing having it both ways. Looking to create the succession, but keeping their cards close to their chest if it doesn’t happen now.
Which has been perfect for them. This whole “debate” is a pretty cynical construct if you ask me. It allows key supporters like Newman, Stocks and Selfey (passim) to put forward public positions of support, but that he should pack it in if he really doesn’t feel up to it. They wouldn’t have a go at him for feeling he’s run his race, given what he has been through, and he’s been an absolute beacon of integrity. The man has “suffered enough”. There’s no debates over who might be the best captain, whether the team needs fresh ideas, a new impetus, a different direction, because these people will still be very happy if Cook remains in post. There are little digs about Joe Root, about how he might not be a leader – nothing in the league of Newman’s leak against Ian Bell – and how we might ruin his best form. As Chris said in the comments on the previous piece, why is this a given?
An attempt to put the case from outside this cosy consensus is met with the usual old crap about us being pro-KP zealots who wanted him gone the day he got shot of our hero. I could write another 10000 words on that old bollocks, but I saw it again today and it made me whistle now as it did then. I’ve been pretty laid back about this Cook crap. If he wants to go, he’ll go. If he wants to stay, Strauss would stun me if he effectively dismissed him. I’ve always felt getting to the 2017-18 Ashes was a huge stretch, given Cook would need to be in the job for over 5 years, and the natural cycle (unless your Graeme Smith) is 4 years or so, but I can perfectly understand why Cook might want another go at the Ashes down under to lance a boil if possible. But it’s not his decision, and that is the point – or at least it shouldn’t be his decision. This is England, not Cook’s England. If our board, our Comma, think Cook is at the end of the race, then they should tell him. If he chooses to make a dignified exit, then so be it. It should not be if Cook wants to stay, that’s it. But I suspect that is precisely how it will be.
The press can speculate. It’s fun to speculate. But when that speculation has to be on message, then we smell a rat. We can come up with all sorts of theories – mine is Cook has been very affected by missing the immediate aftermath of the birth of his latest child and has appeared slightly off key all winter – but at the end of the day if, as I sort of expect, he goes at the end of this tour (that’s what all the desperate signals say) I’ll actually be quite disappointed. Yes, you read that right. I’d be disappointed because if he felt like this at the start, and all impressions were that he was, he should have sought a rest. Some proper time off. I don’t think anyone, really, could have begrudged him that. He should not have skippered with this in his head. Because if he quits after this next test, it was in his head all along. Just like Atherton back in 1997-8.
We can evaluate the test series at the end, but I find our media machinations much more fascinating. They have had to twist and contort their way through this issue, keeping loyal to the Cosa Cooky, while intimating they aren’t out of touch with the messages being dripped to them. It is a high wire act convincing no-one. This is about the softest press a captain at the end of his tether has ever got. It’s about invoking KP tweets to feed the hostility some more. It’s about complaining that we never had a chance, and then saying it is perfectly understandable that the captain might think about his future. They may not be all either/or issues, but they are a clear message. Cook is still their main man, will always be their main man, and nothing is going to sway them from it. By trying to give him a dignified way out is out of character, and isn’t fooling many of us. It’s the same in many ways as 2014. Cook is the ECB’s man, and that means a lot. Get in line, follow the crowd, make the pro-points, and be a good little journo. Because Cook is nice.
An interesting post-script to Cook leaving the captaincy is how much rope he will be given to stay in the team. Cook the batsman is more disposable than Cook the captain. He will be 32 in less than a fortnight. A bad run at the top of the order is, with 32 year olds, accompanied by accusations of not being fit, being worn out, having your eyes going, not wanting it any more, or “time to make way for young players”. Watching our media when that happens is going to be truly fascinating. I suspect many want him to play until he’s 36 / 37 when he can get to Sachin’s run totals. There will be more rope than others, I’ll bet. Ricky Ponting didn’t have to make too many iffy scores before he got the tap on the shoulder.
I’m never surprised by this lot. Not really. It wouldn’t surprise me if they went into mourning the day he does resign. Especially if it is before the next Ashes, where the Redemption Tour will be in full force. Deep down they know they can’t go into it with a half-hearted leader. They know he really has to go. But they can’t force themselves to really say it. But they can still create a debate. It’s been a fascinating exercise to watch. Vic Marks reckons his time is up. Dean Wilson seemed to be saying it too. All at the end of a series where we have been well beaten, and the captain excused of it while players are blamed. It’s been a real treat. There’s more to follow, I am sure.
I’m sick to bloody death of it. He has a fragile temperament. A day when Adil Rashid did not deliver the goods isn’t explained away by any other factor than that he bottled it. That he won’t do well under pressure. That he is fragile. Amazing isn’t it? How someone gets labelled. He was our exciting spinner in the last test. Now he’s some unreliable precious little flower.
Cards on the table folks. I didn’t see any of today’s play. I’m catching up on yesterday’s highlights as I write this, and a debut ton for Keaton Jennings. I noticed how that was lauded and praised, but not in any sense or proportion to the Justin Bieber-esque HH responses that our media giants conveyed. Still, it’s only a hundred on a road, innit? So I’m going to have to wing this a bit, but then you are used to that.
India are playing at home and we are being a little more competitive than some of the other giants of the game over there. We’re not getting skittled for very low scores in every game, and while India are making scores, we’re not getting battered to all parts. We have a bad session or two, and it seems to cost us.
India finished the day still a fair way behind. A lot can happen in making up another 254 runs, so lets not get too carried away. I can remember a test match I was at in 2002 – the infamous Nasser toss game – Aussie got 450+, and at the end of the day England had 160 odd for 1! We all know how that turned out. I also know that although I enjoyed that day, I knew we were nowhere near in the game. Yes, I know it is markedly different but by thinking we’re is total strife at this point betrays our own mental state, just as mine did then. Nick one of these two out early, get Kohli, and then there’s all to play for. Who knows, Adil might not be fragile tomorrow.
I’ll update when I see the highlights, but in case I don’t get time tonight, this can act as the conduit for comments on Day 3. Thanks to Sean for holding the fort, and if anyone gives a hoot, the migraines have eased. Reading Newman is enough to make me want to lay down in a darkened room, though.
Sorry for the lack of analysis/comment, but it’s been madness as usual in life and recreation, and not helped by feeling a bit ropey, and I hope to be able to finish off the series I’ve undertaken. But, as you probably know, I’m a blogger of fragile temperament. Some days I feel like it, others I bottle it.
Welcome, welcome, to the Annual Journalist Poll Winners announcement. While I look at you data for the supplementary awards, we all know one in particular gets the passions burning on here. BUt we’ll come to that after this year’s Best Journalist of the Year award.
Winners – 2014 George Dobell, 2015 – Jarrod Kimber
FIFTH – GIDEON HAIGH
FOURTH – NICK HOULT
THIRD – JARROD KIMBER
SECOND – TIM WIGMORE
FIRST – GEORGE DOBELL
George thrilled with the news he has won this again.
And now, the top ten “worst” journalists as voted by the readers of this blog and the editorial staff. It is usually one of the most awaited posts of the year, for some reason, and I have no idea why!
From last year’s top 10 we lose Alec Swann (10th), Martin Samuel (9th), JOHN ETHERIDGE (8th) and Jim Holden (4th).
So, here we go, with a logjam at 8th!
8th = Stephen Brenkley (down 2), Peter Hayter, Mark Nicholas, Will MacPherson, Malcolm Conn (all new entries)
All garnered two points for the cause. Slightly surprised that Stocks wasn’t in there given your love for him on here, and slightly surprised a self confessed non-journo like Conn popped up. But there’s enough to get your teeth into here.
7th – Andy Bull (new entry)
Nominated by quite a few, the author of The Spin certainly gets pulses racing around these parts. Me? Never been on my radar.
6th – Oliver Holt (new entry)
A new entry, almost impacting on this poll like Jim Holden did last year, for one article/cause celebre. Unlike Holden, Holt has no track record worth a light on cricket, and his nonsense appeared to be bandwagon jumping rather than something set deep in his cricket soul. Placed this high because one of the editorial staff was really pissed off with him.
5th – Derek Pringle (Up 2 places)
Old habits die hard. Way clear of fourth, but due to lack of meaningful pulpit, he’s slipping down the table. Still can’t mention an intense cricketer without invoking Ramprakash, and still can’t mention anyone who isn’t a ra-ra team man without mentioning Pietersen, this plank of the Essex media has delighted us for year, irrelevancies that we are. He works, though. Without him, The Cricket Paper is bereft of something to give a toss about.
4th – Simon Hughes (down 1 place)
#39 was placed fourth on my chart, and he indeed finished clear of Pringle but well adrift of the podium. Despite placing higher in his own influential chart than the three winners, the thing is that we think he’s a bit of a joke. A conceited one, never failing to insert himself into stories, but a joke nonetheless. But enough of the pretenders….
So to the TOP THREE
THIRD – MIKE SELVEY (down 2 places)
Our champion is dethroned. He threatened the top spot, and secured a number of first choices, but he’s now not the figure he used to be, and the Pringle drop is sure to happen. Unless he sets up the long-promised blog. Selvey has been the bete noire of many on here, and many feel he has let them down, been a disappointment, had a fall from grace. Me? Never liked him, never cared that much about him, until he nailed his colours to the Giles Clarke / ECB mast, and now he’s just seen as a management stooge. I didn’t rejoice in his dismissal, but I also wasn’t putting a candle out in sorrow. It was a close fight between him and second, but the runner-up pulled it out…..
SECOND – ED SMITH (unchanged)
I placed him second. Selvey got more first place votes, but my weighting and the fact the editorial staff placed him very high meant he pipped the retired one into second. I mean, what can you say? Let’s keep this brief. You write long words. You read lots of books. You are educated. But you copied a piece and got caught. And your credibility will never recover. You may hope it goes away, that people forget what you did, that the New Statesman doesn’t care. But you did what you did and we all know.
FIRST – PAUL NEWMAN (Up 4 places)
More will be written on this award in due course (which rather gives away one of the Dmitris this year). It was a very close thing this year, and Newman has moved into the slot that Selvey occupied because of the tone, the outlet, and really, due to his consistency. His consistency in writing annoying prose. His consistency in attacking all but those who need to be attacked. His consistency in just not making sense. There always seems to be a personal edge to all of his work. The usual suspects cop it. Always right about Pietersen being sacked. Until very very recently, a supine, pro-Cook stance. There’s attacking Compton. There’s the illogical pushing for Buttler. And beneath the surface lays Andy Flower, and this year’s Jim Holden Article of the Year (as highlighted by nonoxcol). I had my say on that nonsense.
I voted him number 1, a good number of you did too. It seems like he should have won it before, but he has now reached the summit. He benefited from Selvey’s release, and FICJAM’s relative (imposed) silence on cricket matters, and stormed through. He is this year’s Being Outside Cricket Worst Journalist of the Year, as voted by us on the site.
Until next year……will we have our first repeat champion, after Derek, Mike and Paul have taken one prize each? Will Dobell get his third award for best journalist?
More poll results around or after Christmas, but I know how much you all like this one. So have it now!
It’s that time of year again. December brings the Dmitris. Like Wisden Cricketers of the Year but on a shoestring budget. Like Sports Personality of the Year but without a gala occasion and no Andy Murray. In the past two years they have been awarded to people, groups of people, numbers, teams etc. They aren’t all about merit, but significance to the blog, and major events. I’m not limiting them in number, but year 1 had 10, year 2 had 7 (I think).
The first Dmitri this year is awarded to a journalist who I think has contributed to matters discussed in this blog, and who I know a number of you regard highly. It is for Tim Wigmore, who finished a very close second in the Poll for favourite journalist.
OK, let’s get something out of the way. I’ve met Tim a couple of times, and also spoken to him a little off line, but not a lot. So this is most definitely not an award because I am in any way friendly with him. However, my votes, which count for more in the poll (because I’m an authoritarian dictator) did propel him over long-time leader Jarrod Kimber into the top spot for a while before a usual suspect had a late rally. Jarrod did not make my top three this year, although that’s not any major reflection on him – he did not make Death of a Gentleman this year after all!
So why Tim? Well, first of all George and Jarrod have won a Dmitri and so they can’t win it again! The poll is separate, but influential in the Dmitri awards. He was by far the highest scorer of those that have not got one. There are many reasons why. What we see from Tim is pure grunt work. He’s not a test match reporter like his more glamorous peers, but he’s very much an international cricket man. His work on the Associate nations, especially in The Cricket Paper, is absolutely top notch, but it isn’t confined to that – his work for cricinfo and occasional forays into the national press resonate. He attacks his subjects with brilliant passion, has a wide range to his brief, and importantly to us on here, he goes on the attack when he thinks the game is going wrong, and because he so transparently believes in his position. I think he’s the best out there at what he does.
The Editorial board were discussing this at our meeting on 22 November, and compared his output to others in the up and coming group. Compared to Chris Stocks and Will McPherson, we thought Tim had the better pieces, the more tricky and meaty subjects, and yes, we probably had less cause to be annoyed at the pieces than with the other two.
I wish Tim all the best going forward, tackling the Associate agenda with the gusto he’s shown so far, doing the grind on the county scene, and hopefully getting the big break if he so wants it. Let’s put it this way, without his input into the Cricket Paper, we’d be left with a lot of Stocks and Pringle. Good for copy on the blog, but not on my blood pressure.
So the first Dmitri of 2016 goes to Tim, for the slot reserved for our favourite journos, and joins Dobell and Kimber/Collins in the Dmitri Award Hall of Fame. As great an honour as there is in the game I’m sure! But it’s a clear message from us that Tim should keep on keeping on.
The Final poll results will follow in the next few days.
I thought I’d break off from the Adelaide story to put a short (ha) piece up on some of the noise coming out of the media after the defeat in the 3rd Test in Mohali. It seems that now, and only now, some of Cook’s staunchest supporters in the press, and increasingly on Twitter and BTL, are worrying about his limitations as a captain. It seems that he is “too conservative”, that he is “muddled in his thinking” and that he too often reverts to “defensive captaincy”. So, now in media land, this means an open questioning of his role as captain. The almost silent question of “is he up to it”? When Newman starts posing the questions, there is something in the air. I’m not at all sure what that is, to be honest. Is it getting at Cook? Is it a vicarious attack on Bayliss, who is presiding over a one day revolution that he has to claim the credit for because Eoin Morgan is completely persona non grata with the press and TV media, but is not exactly pulling up the trees as time goes by with the test team? Why, and this probably speaks more about me than anything, do I fear the dead hand of the Venus Fly Trap, a flower of much aggression, in all this.
What we are getting in India is what we were programmed to receive by the pundits, especially after Bangladesh. It was going to be 5-0. It was because England’s spinners wouldn’t be able to bowl India out, whereas India’s spinners could bowl us out. We were going to be provided turning wickets, which we know is our weakness. We were going to be given result wickets, as the previous series against New Zealand, and those from before against Australia and South Africa had been. We were going to be bedding in new players like Hameed, like Duckett. We had fragile Adil, Woakes who had never bowled in India, and would be without Anderson for at least a couple of tests. Hell, even a draw or two would be an achievement.
So where is this volte face, and believe me, as a watcher of our press, this is a volte face coming from? The first line of sight is hanging on an article by #39 in the Cricketer, where Cook looks forward to the day when he is just an opening batsman in the ranks, and not a captain. Cook has been in the job for four years, and all his previous captains got worn down by it. With the absolutely nonsensical schedules imposed on him by his masters at the ECB, it’s no surprise he’s knackered. Add to that he’s just become a father again to a child he has barely seen, and that wistful thought could solidify rapidly. The thing is, Cook is an experienced media performer (Pringle’s assertion in The Cricket Paper that he isn’t is, like most things he writes, complete crap), and even putting out the suggestion that you are thinking beyond captaincy means you are already opening the door. So despite denials that he meant he wanted to quit, no-one believes him. But you’ve opened the door, and there’s a gale blowing.
Because Cook, deep down, must know this team wouldn’t win in India. There’s too many flaws in the team, too many weak spots to win in the ultimate test for England these days. If everything went right, they might be able to prey on the Indian resolve, but it didn’t, and now he’s 2-0 down with a week’s media space to fill to keep cricket relevant. A somewhat defensive declaration at Rajkot is now held against him – every armchair captain is gung-ho, and would declare half an hour earlier than the one who gets paid to do it – and because that was an impressive performance, England had made a rod for Cook’s back. A second test defeat in Vizag was put down to a favourable toss to win by England, by a ropey batting performance in the first innings, but marked by a decent fightback in the third innings of the match when previous England teams would have chucked in the towel. A poorer game in Mohali, where his reticence to change tack after a tactic had worked, when it stopped with Ashwin, Jadeja and Yadav in that first innings, is now used against him. Coupled with four ordinary innings since his second innings ton at Rajkot, and we have ourselves a story.
Now, people, you haven’t come to All Out Cricket, and a staunch Cook supporter piece is here for your delectation. No, as usual, it is the media with me, and the modus operandi of English cricket. Journalists have now started speculating about handing over the reins, and citing poor captaincy? Now? Cook hasn’t been awful for about 18 months now, and although I’m not confusing him for Richie Benaud at this time, his captaincy has hardly changed dramatically. If these people cared about the role of captaincy itself, they’d have been outside the Headingley gates in 2014 with pitchforks, asking what the hell was that they had just witnessed when trying to deal with Angelo Mathews and Rangana Herath. Cook then was treated like a protected species, for to give in to common sense then would be to invoke something altogether more disgraceful. But denying that doesn’t get you the epithet “Cook Fanboy” while pointing it out gets you the “KP fanboy” and judging by the usual cretin in the Guardian BTL, that latter one still very much counts.
At that time we were being told that a series winning captain in India, and an Ashes winner as well was “still learning”. Now we are being told that his captaincy may not be seen as taking the team forward. At that time, Cook’s captaincy was like an anchor on a dinghy, while now, while not great, isn’t the horror-strewn calamity that Swann, Broad, Anderson and KP couldn’t bale out. The funniest thing about that time was that it is referred to as a time where Cook faced “intolerable media pressure”. Did he bollocks. They lined up to save him, praise his every positive move over and above its real significance, and participate in Operation Protect Cook(y). People in the press openly admitted that if he’d got to a hundred at Southampton, they’d have stood up and cheered. This was an ECB line, it was a pro-Cook, anti-KP line, it was railing against the louder voices of social media, and it was one of the key tenets of the schism that enveloped English cricket.
So why now, people? What aren’t you telling us? Someone is clearly muttering something, because even though we have no idea how good journalism works, we know how this thing works, because we’ve seen it happen. Is Strauss talking? It appears the most likely as Bayliss is a Strauss appointment, and Cook a Hugh Morris/Paul Downton one (Morris originally, Downton post Ashes 2103-14). Is it the Venus Fly Trap, through Newman, who is laying his poisonous seeds for sins of the past? Something is afoot, and I think we all want to know what it might be. Going to tell us good ladies and gentlemen of the press? Why have Pringle and Newman turned? Now?
———————————————–
My thanks to those of you who have appreciated the Adelaide pieces. I really enjoy writing them and vamping up the photographs. I also know they are pretty long reads, so instead of trailing the Adelaide test religiously, I am going to space them out, although I will put something up for the anniversary of Day 5. I was thinking of trying to be Being Outside Cricket on that fateful Tuesday morning when most people awoke to the news. It might, or might not, work. I’d have torn into KP, that’s for bloody sure! I will produce Day 3 and Day 4 over the weekend, and then put them up at appropriate times. They don’t garner the hits and comments that other posts do, but blogging is, by its very nature, self indulgent.
December is also time for other traditions. I award my Dmitris… yes, my ego is still big enough. The rules are that individuals can’t be nominated for a second time, but if they were part of a collective (eg, the four horsemen journos in my first iteration) they can be put in on their own. There’s no rule of thumb per se for them, except I usually give one to a “good” journo, and that one is written already, and the winner of the poll, and I can reveal we have a new winner this year, so I have to write that. I give one to an international performer, and one to an England one. The rest are random. The first year I did 10. Last year 7. It will probably be around 7 again.
I also have the poll results to announce, as we produce the annual “Top Journalist” list, as voted by all of us. As I’ve said, Mike Selvey has lost that honour, but who has taken it out of Ed Smith, Paul Newman, Oliver Holt or Simon Hughes? All will be revealed soon.
There’s also the annual media review, that I didn’t bother with last year. I know how much that is loved, and I would be letting you down if I didn’t do it this year. But as always, time is limited in supply.
And, of course, we have two test matches as well. Visitor numbers are up. Hits are up. November was our busiest month for a long time. Comments are going up too. There’s still appetite for the blog, and that’s great. Maintaining this interest through the year has been incredible. Thanks to all.
Being Outside Cricket 