As The Leg Glance battles enthusiasm problems I share with this test match – if England and their apologists, I mean the media, play and say like this doesn’t matter, then why should we care – I thought I’d pick up on a few points that the whirlpool that is Social Media and background research have thrown up.
Due to some circumstances I may delve into a lot later, I might be in the market to go to the Oval test this year. I think Pakistan might be a decent opponent, Younis Khan, Azhar Ali, Asad Shafiq, Sarfraz Ahmed and the venerable Misbah-ul-Haq are good players, even great, and different from the stuff we’ve seen recently. So I went on to the Surrey site to see the state of ticket sales.
Day 3, Saturday, is almost sold out. There’s odds and sods about. Same, but with a few more, for the Friday. But Day 1 is not well sold, and Day 4 would be an utter embarrassment if that’s the final tally. The prices aren’t overly attractive for the first three days. The cheap seats in the OCS Block 1-3 are £50. Where I usually sit, which was always priced the same is now £60. This is, we are told, an attractive, attacking England team. A team we should be getting behind, with great, exciting young players. Doesn’t seem that message is getting across.
In something tangential I wanted to look at the last set of accounts put out by the ECB. They are from January 2015, covering the previous 12 months. Apart from seeing that a director was given £190k to sling their hook – two directors left that year, and the clear implication is that this could be Collier – there was also the notable £24m added to the reserve pot.
The ECB say they budget on a four year cycle and that two out of the four make a loss. I looked at the ticket situation for Day 1 at Durham against Sri Lanka (a Friday) and it looks hopeless.
This was just a spot check. Innocent Bystander tells me that Lord’s tickets for both test matches at Lord’s are going on general sale for most days. We sit back and say test cricket is in rude health in England, but is it outside of the Ashes? Really? The prices at the Oval do not match demand, and there’s a bit of a nod with the lower prices for Day 4, but cricket has to face up and wonder what it can do – stuck between the Sky money vice, and the clear lack of visibility this team with its exciting young talent has.
Which then leads me on to the panacea that is a T20 competition like that which has just finished in Australia. The Big Bash has, for a couple of years now, had envious glances cast from here at the slick running nature, the big crowds, the buzz and excitement and yes, glamour of it. We know the arguments and we’ve been over them countless times. I hear people say the competition lacks quality – it doesn’t; I hear people say it is the free to air TV that makes it – that may have a point; the size of the grounds and the climate lend to the spectacle – they do; but to me the key is that it runs for a month, has a clear Final and a limited number of teams (8). Many more than this and it would go too far and dilute the quality. There is no answer that meets the demands of the English summer. But in a year when we’re not selling test matches out, the very thing we are supposed to be shit scared of protecting, that line of defence doesn’t look strong. Nor does our argument about diversity of opposition because, as we see, it’s Australia for the crowds and India for the TV and the rest are loss-makers.
The Big Bash saw a notable performance in both the semi and the Final by Kevin Pietersen. It doesn’t really prove anything we didn’t know. He’s not done, but he’s also not coming back. That doesn’t make it a closed matter not to talk about how we got here, and it doesn’t make it OK for the ridiculous abuse any tweet on him gets, which Maxie encapsulated superbly in a Tweet today:
Reaction to @NHoultCricket 's @KP24 Tweet underlines the tragic degree to which the ECB's lies have poisoned English cricket.
One of the common criticisms of England in this match has been that they have looked off the pace, and far less intense now that the series has been won. I’ve alluded to it myself too, and as today’s play proceeded, it occurred to me that I’m just not into this match.
It’s not because South Africa are plainly winning it, but it might be because of the lack of meaning in terms of the series result. Or perhaps it could be that if England aren’t up for it, why should anyone else be either? Whatever the reason, and despite the cricket being more than passable, it’s very much a background interest in the way that the first three Test were not.
Perhaps if there were a fifth Test to be played, as the ECB of the past said they wanted, then the jeopardy of the series would make it more required viewing than it is. Judging by the number of comments in comparison to normal, it could be the sense of it all being underwhelming is shared. Or it could be because these articles are crap.
That’s a pity though, for in Kagiso Rabada, we may be watching the emergence of a rare fast bowling talent. He destroyed the England middle order with some outstanding bowling. He is only 20, and as such there are good days and bad days, but he has pace, and the ability to move the ball. No England player looks entirely comfortable against him.
The difference between the first innings scores was 133, which represented something of a triumph for England after they’d sunk to 211-5 after a decent start. That they got as close as that was mostly down to first Ben Stokes, whose 33 runs had more effect in turning the tide than the runs scored suggests, and particularly Moeen Ali, who marshalled the tail (such as it is) wonderfully. He remains a frustration in that he needs to score more runs than he is, but when he’s in full flow there are few if any players more gorgeous to watch.
With the early loss of Dean Elgar, there was a small chance of putting South Africa under real pressure, but Amla and Cook saw it through to the early finish.
175 ahead with 9 wickets left on a pitch that is noticeably wearing and becoming harder to bat on is a position of complete control. Even another hundred runs would probably be too much, so unless there’s a miracle session for England tomorrow morning, they’re going to probably lose.
The one concern for the home team will be the fitness of Kyle Abbott, off the field with a hamstring injury. Down to two seam bowlers and without even the club medium pace of Van Zyl to call on, they’ll be twitchy if England keep them out for any length of time. Still, you’d back them to ensure it doesn’t matter.
England are developing a habit of going through the motions in the final Test of a series, and this is proving no different. For a side who profess a desire to be the best in the world, it’s less than impressive. The bowling was once again off colour, the fielding laissez-faire. The batting retained that intensity, but for the first day and a half, there was little to suggest it was a team who had come out on top in the series.
De Kock’s reinstatement in the team x been met with universal approval, for his late understudy at Johannesburg had done exceptionally well with the gloves, yet he answered those criticisms in the best way here, with a scintillating innings that turned South Africa’s decent position into one of substantial strength. He didn’t even have much in the way of support, except in terms of the lower order staying with him, it was all his own doing.
Stokes finished with the best of the bowling figures, but in truth no one except Broad on the first day will look back on their performance with great pleasure, and the frustration of the captain was evident.
As always in such circumstances it is then all about how the team batting second respond, and England will be content with their overnight position. Alastair Cook was had a poor series, but here looked somewhere back towards his best, and if he goes on tomorrow then the match could get extremely interesting. The concern will be that the pitch showed signs of unevenness as early as today, with Compton being desperately unlucky to receive one that whistled past his ear off a length, and then a grubber which gave him no chance whatever. If the pitch continues to deteriorate, England are going to have to bat exceptionally well to get close.
Should they do so, and with South African memories of a third innings collapse still fresh in their minds, England will look to strike, but at this stage and with such a big lead, the home team are warm favourites to win the so called dead rubber.
Hales failed to get going, and while he has made pleasant runs this series, he’s failed to get the big score that would get the critics off his back. But England need to make a decision on this, for the revolving door of openers not called Cook whenever there is a mediocre series is becoming rather busy with discarded batsmen. If a player is considered sufficiently talented then a longer stint in situ with a clear brief that the player in question is being backed might be the way to go.
At the start of the series, a player called Cook scoring a century could have been expected to result in endless articles paying glorious tribute, so it’s an undoubted irony that Stephen, on debut, would be the first Cook to reach three figures. In the way of cricket, there will be celebration at the achievement, and an accusing finger pointed at the selectors for waiting until he was 33 before picking him. In the wider scheme of things, it may yet matter little, but the achievement of a Test century cannot be taken away from him, and perhaps he’ll have that late career opportunity that Chris Rogers took so gleefully with both hands.
That South Africa don’t have another Test for six months may cause a problem with that hope, but in becoming the hundredth player to score a hundred on debut, he has made his mark.
It was a curious sort of day, and the kind that Test cricket is so good at, in that one side was utterly dominant for the first two thirds of the day, only for it to move slightly more back in the balance after tea.
England consistently bowled too short, something they are prone to do to immense frustration all round given how dangerous they look when they bowl a fuller length. Broad was once again the pick of the attack but even he failed to make the most of what movement there was, though he did more with the ball than anyone else by a distance.
In the case of Anderson, he was unthreatening and innocuous. It’s not been a great tour for him, and he’s at the age where the whispers start about a player in decline. Given his record that’s unquestionably premature, for he’s far from the only player to have had a quiet time, notably the captain has too.
Woakes looked tidy and decent, but sooner or later he’s going to have to start taking wickets to justify his place. His batting is certainly decent, and so is his bowling. Test quality? Well perhaps, perhaps not, but in his fifth Test he’s on his fourth spell in the side, which is hardly going to help him settle in.
Moeen just has the knack of taking wickets, and that cannot be overstated, while Stokes keeps threatening to break through with his bowling without yet showing consistency. Patience is a key to all watchers.
At 237-1, South Africa were in total command, so finishing on 329-5 will represent something of a disappointment, and so it should. On a flat surface 400 is a minimum, and while they should do that, England will feel they’ve got away with it today.
They were at least honest enough to admit it wasn’t a great day for them, which in itself is welcome given the days in the past where the approach was not dissimilar to Channel 9 commentators when assessing the chances.
Hashim Amla was again dropped early, and again punished England for it. Amla remains one of the most watchable batsmen in world cricket. Yet the malaise of the captains this series has seamlessly transferred to AB De Villiers who collected another duck.
Day one is always a wait and see day, unless one side or the other has a total catastrophe, and so it is here. But both sides have cause to be relieved and both have cause to be dissatisfied.
Bad news for all you “The Leg Glance” fans out there, as the reins for the 4th Test preview have been handed to me. Yes, one of my alter egos that gets the people to moan, is back. The Twitter Idiot Dmitri Old. If you’ve not seen my poem on trains tonight, well, go and look. The Bogfather liked it. That’s enough for me. TLG is unavailable until much later in the week, so I’m writing the preview. Loads of words, a bit of scorecard nonsense, a plea for realism and I think just the one mention of Kevin Pietersen. That’s progress.
We’ve seen the media in full cry this week. I do believe we were world ranked #6 going into this series so inevitably knocking off the world #1 in their own backyard is sound enough evidence that this is the World’s Best on the brink of something special. Now, as you know, I’m not overly swayed by world rankings, and tend to think of who might come out best on neutral grounds in test matches. So, if England were to play Australia in India for example, who would win? India played Australia in the UAE who would win (or maybe the West Indies)? I think it is fair to say that South Africa got to number 1 because they were the most adaptable side in all conditions. They got stuck into pretty much anyone and didn’t lose. Then that tour of India saw them disintegrate and provided England with an opportunity to hit a side very low on confidence.
That they did, and kept the hammer down speaks volumes for this team, and we can all see the promise. But think of the dominant teams and you think of excellent bowling attacks – and England could provide rivals to the vaunted 2005 attack if only they could all bowl together. It’s as if Stuart needs Jimmy to be absent or off his game to be the king. Stokes has a lot more wickets at this stage of his test career than Freddie for instance. It has immense promise. The batting line-up is deep, allowing numbers 6,7 and 8 to flog tired attacks if the top order does its job. But the achilles heel is the batting. Think of world number 1 teams at their ascendancy. Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd; Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, S. Waugh/Hussey/M.Waugh, Gilchrist; Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Dhoni; Smith, Kallis, Amla, DeVilliers. We have Cook and Root. England’s team that got to world #1 had a fading Strauss, but Cook going well, Bell, Trott, KP. When you look at this team, it’s short there.
This needs to be remembered as we see press people get carried away. I’ve not read BTL, or much of the papers (that site needs updating when I have a few hours) as real life has interjected. But some of the hints on Twitter, the over-burdening of praise, over hyping individuals has been noted on social media. This is an exciting team, I really don’t want people to get the idea that I’m arguing the contrary, but act like we’ve not got ADHD? They’ve won three of their last 8 test series, drawn 1 and lost 4. Perspective is not losing sight of the bigger picture. There are many looking at the upcoming home schedule and thinking that it’s there for us. It could be, but let’s win those matches.
I was also amused at the piece today citing that Stuart Broad is in the top five English bowlers ever. All I’d say about that piece is that no-one would have written it before this test. And that’s not to besmirch Stuart Broad, who can point to the wickets and say, “it’s true.” I hate everything about this rush to hyperbole, and contextualising modern day cricket only. It’s the way the Premier League denies anything before 1992, why any young kid who scores for Man Utd is lauded out of scale etc. I’ll bark at the moon all I want on this one. I do get excited, just not carried away. That’s not the modern way.
So on to the 4th Test in Centurion. We have not lost there, if my memory serves me well. The first tour was the first test ever played on the ground, and Hick made a ton before the rains. The infamous leather jacket test was next, so less said the better. 2005 saw us clinch the series having given us mild palpitations after tea on Day 5, and the last time we visited, we drew with nine down. So the positives are that we go to a venue with a decent record. The flip side is that we don’t seem to finish test series well. Losses in Sharjah, at The Oval, Headingley and Bridgetown this past 10 months are fresh in the memory. Only one of those can be put down to being a “dead rubber” like this.
The hosts appear to be a team in disarray. A captain who seems to be giving out all the signs of jacking it in before he even started, flux at the top, Amla seeming to be not as sure as himself as he used to be, bowling raw or not good enough (or a bit of both) and the fielding surprisingly off. But there’s a palpable sense, from here, of a team lacking belief. Belief in itself, in the future, and with the sport itself. I’m used to South Africans being up for it, playing up their strengths, not approaching a game in fear. They looked a beaten side in Joburg long before the coup de grace was executed by Broad.
This is a big test match for Hales, Compton and Taylor. None have stamped their authority on their place, while all have given great hints as to why they are there. I’m not going to have the obligatory dig at Cook because there’s no point. His stats only matter when he scores runs. Bairstow nailing down the batsman/keeper spot is a bonus, Stokes’s game changing abilities are a rare commodity and we should be keen to accentuate the positive – I’m not sure we’ve really come to terms with the 258. I suppose Woakes will be in for the injured Finn to cement his status as “next taxi on the rank”.
OK, I’ve meandered enough. Comments for Day 1 will be in a separate thread, but until then, have a great rest of the week.
The series win was clinched yesterday and it’s one to savour. Since readmission we’ve won one series at home and two away against South Africa, and while we can get the feeling that we are beating a side on the way down, it’s also a salient point to remember that in 2005 we were thinking much the same thing. A number of us on this blog remember that 2004/5 series win as probably one of the greatest away wins England had, and we aren’t wrong. But there were also some similarities as well.
Any victory, in fact any tour result, has an obvious series to compare it to. 2005 Ashes had 1981, the whitewash of 2013-14 had the whitewash of 2006-7, every dominant Aussie side will be compared to the number 1 team of the late 90s, early 2000s. England’s series win here will be compared to 2004/5, so let’s do some of that now. I’m going purely on memory of 2004/5, so any errors, please let me know.
Going into that tour England had had an amazing 2004 – they’d won all but one test match they played, and that was due to playing against Brian Lara on the Antiguan equivalent of Heathrow Airport’s main runway. Some of these wins came from blowing the oppo away, but many came from gritty batting displays chasing down some very itchy totals – I’m thinking New Zealand at Lord’s (the Nasser farewell), New Zealand at Trent Bridge (all hail Thorpe) and West Indies at a very gloomy Old Trafford (a grossly unfairly forgotten knock by Rob Key). During that spell we’d drafted a new opener (Strauss) who had settled in well, and a new keeper (Jones) who made a ton in his third test. The bowling was gelling as a unit, without Simon Jones, but with Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff and Giles. The batting was solid, Strauss, Tres, Butcher/Key, Vaughan, Thorpe, with Ian Bell waiting in the wings. The focus was on 2005, and the Ashes. This was our chance. But in the way, and as it turned out, how great it was that it was, was a tour to South Africa.
Readers will know that I went to the Cape Town test, and also two days of the Jo’burg match on that tour. You may also know that by pure chance we booked into the Guest House run by the former manager of the South African cricket team who had just recently been reassigned when the Board sacked coach Eric Symons and installed Ray Jennings. This was also the time when the South Africans had a right downer on Mark Boucher. On our first full day in the country the hosts arranged for a friend to take us round the Cape Coast, and it turned out he was a retired sports journalist. We’ll always remember (I went with Sir Peter) his rationale for the exclusion of Boucher (“the board hate him. I hate him. He suffers from “little man syndrome”).
At this stage the home side were 1-0 down and had just narrowly avoided it being 2-0. The first test at Port Elizabeth was a triumph for Andrew Strauss, who made a ton in the first innings and an unbeaten 90-odd to see us home in the second innings. It was a top test match, as the game ebbed and flowed, and it also saw two reasonably decent players make their debuts, AB de Villiers and Dale Steyn. I think it fair to say we were far more impressed by the latter at the time. That team looked unbalanced, with Tsolokile keeping wicket, new players, and confused selection. The coach had come over as some sort of boot camp sergeant (infamously pinging a ball of Smith’s head in catching practice in Joburg) lacking any degree of sophistication.
The second test in Durban was one of those “stake in the ground” matches for England which made you utterly proud of them. The first two days could hardly have gone worse. Put in on a helpful wicket, England were skittled in the first innings for 139 and then felt the brilliance of Kallis who made a brilliant 162 and put the hosts nearly 200 in front. Three days left and the situation looked bleak. England did not wilt. They erased the deficit for no loss, piled on 570 for 7 declared and gave themselves time to bowl South Africa out. The hosts were clinging on (just as Sir Peter and I were venturing out for a beer in Cape Town – we were successful in our pursuit) and arguably were saved by the bad light.
The third test, in Cape Town, was a wake up call. England conceded 400+ in the first innings, fell foul of Charl Langeveldt on debut by collapsing in the reply, with the hosts putting on the required runs in enough time to give them to bowl us out for a second time. The game was sealed mid-way through Day 5, giving us enough time to belt up Table Mountain before our flight out the following day.
Herschelle Gibbs about to sweep and bring up his century – Joburg 2005 (c) DmitriPics
The Joburg test was one of those seminal moments for that team. A great first day (when we were driving down from Hluhluwe to catch our flight from Durban for Day 2) by England was eagerly taken in on the radio and the airport TV, but as we were in the air Strauss got out for his third hundred of the tour, Key was dismissed for 80 odd, and Thorpe a duck. It wasn’t so great. Nor was the weather in Joburg on Day 2, but there was enough play to see Vaughan regain some nick and he and Harmison put the hosts through the wringer before Bucknor took everyone off for bad light. England had over 400, declared overnight, and a lovely sunny Day 3, spent sitting next to Kevin Whateley while not uttering a word to him, saw Herschelle Gibbs make a century, and South Africa claw their way back into the game. We flew home that night. What followed was possibly Tres’s greatest knock for England, and then possibly Hoggy’s greatest spell of bowling. With time running out England knocked over the hosts and took a 2-1 lead.
Centurion was blighted by weather, saw AB make his first test hundred (having got out in the 90s in the first innings), Kallis make his third of the series in mystifyingly slow circumstances, and England wobbling in a nervy last session. There wasn’t really a doubt, but we’d suffered enough in the past to have it in our minds that it was. But even in that test there was confused thinking from the hosts. DeVilliers opened with Gibbs with Smith batting at 5! Seems odd to think that now, doesn’t it?
So, using this as a tenuous reference point, what are the similarities. Well, there was a feeling that England were on the up, with a team coming together. The batting had largely held up, but we knew Thorpe was nearing the end and the assumption was that Bell would come in. Butcher had played his last test, although we didn’t know that at the time, and I’m not sure Key ever played again, either. We know who came in for that slot, and we were a matter of days from hearing the name that partially dominated the newsline for the next decade. Our bowling was solid as a rock, even allowing for Jones not quite nailing it and Anderson having a bad time at Joburg.Harmison didn’t have a great tour, but then we won without our main bowler having an impact. Broad went into this series as Anderson’s oppo. Now he’s on top of the pile.
Jones was a concern at keeper as he had developed a habit of going for pretty much all that was heading for first slip and not nailing it. Bairstow finds himself a bit more advanced on the batting front but with still major keeping concerns.
We encountered a South Africa unsure of themselves and it permeated the team. Van Jaarsveld had a decent second test, playing a big role in saving the game, and was bunted out straight away and turned into the Surrey-killing Kolpak. Tsolokile was keeper for one test, then it was AB, then Boucher. Openers were changed. Pollock wasn’t long from the end of his career. South Africa had a Nathan Lyon complex over Nicky Boje. But they also had two gun young players in their midst – Steyn and AB and that meant hope sprung eternal. Also in that series we saw Amla. This Hashim Amla was a walking wicket, a man no-one feared. Stick with someone and you never know what you might have might be the mantra.
For AB and Steyn the hosts must be hoping Bavuma and Rabada are somewhere in the same zipcode. Can you rely on that and also, there are othere ageing players in that line-up too. But all the comments I’m seeing on the future for the South Africans are grim. When your not quite made it test players can go back to first class cricket and immediately dominate, it does not look great. A number subscribe to the “cyclical nature” of cricket but that’s not happened for the West Indies, is not looking likely for Sri Lanka, and who is to say Pakistan will continue to churn out talent? The noises around AB, that has inspired huge discomfort from the Saffers I come across on Twitter, have not eased anyone’s soul. There’s a lot of discontent that AB took his first captaincy press conference to pour cold water on the future spoke volumes. It may not be the cause, but the effect is that if you feel your leader’s heart isn’t 100% in it, then nor should your’s – even sub-consciously. South Africa have been under the leadership of two players who don’t really exude commitment to being the main man. The fish rots from the head.
Leaving The Wanderers – 2005
For England this is a great win. Let’s not get churlish about this from the team’s standpoint. Durban was won due to important batting contributions from Compton and Taylor, not our usual old faithfuls. It was won without Anderson. Then there was Stokes and Bairstow at CT, and then two of our old reliables, Broad and Root in Joburg. The batting isn’t world number 1 class, it just isn’t making the runs across the board, the opening slot is a mess, the number 3 in flux, Taylor hasn’t nailed down five (nor is he letting us down) and it’s because the batting has depth down, arguably, to nine, that this is not as crucial. While 2-0 in South Africa is a tremendous result, it doesn’t, for example mean 2-0 in UAE should be ignored, not with the challenges of India this winter on the horizon. This is the World #1 opposition in name only, and a #1 in flux and down in the mouth. We did what we should do. Beat a team in that shape, and make it worse.
Just for laughs, I thought I’d pick a composite team of the two from those winning squads. I bet this will go down well.
In the world of Formula One racing it’s been said that in order to make the sport exciting, just add water. And so it is with cricket, though adding water isn’t a great idea. Instead, add a pitch that has some pace and bounce to it, where bowlers feel they are in with a chance, and good batsmen can play shots and score centuries if they play well. Quite simply, it makes for better, more exciting cricket. The trouble is, a surface like this tends to be exception rather than the norm, with a tendency towards slow, turgid pitches that can be nigh on guaranteed to last into a fifth day and thus make more money for grounds and boards.
It’s a quite astoundingly short sighted view, for endless slow pitches just make for boring cricket, as fast bowlers end up on their knees from the exertion of trying to extract something, while batsmen find playing shots difficult and merely accumulate. The result is slow scoring, few wickets and a crowd who have either drifted off to sleep or haven’t bothered to turn up in the first place.
Of course, cricket needs to be played in all conditions, and home advantage should be just that. And the domestic cricket played on the pitches the domestic structure creates informs the strengths of the home side. Yet when Test cricket is in dire need of support from its boards – and the suspicion is they couldn’t care less about Test cricket because it doesn’t make them money – the refusal to comprehend what is right in front of them is part of the damage being done. Of course, the disparity in incomes, both for players not from the Big Three countries, and their respective boards is the biggest factor in the current swathe of articles about the danger the game is in, but it’s not just that – or rather there’s a corollary point that’s related to it.
It all comes back to money and to power. The crisis in Test cricket due to the land-grab by India, England and Australia has finally got the attention of at least some of the newspapers. These are the papers who generally ignored the whole matter with the odd honourable exception who pointed out what the likely impact was. Those terrible bloggers added their voices to the writers retaining their integrity and lambasted the others for their ignorance or lack of interest (or both in at least one case). Perhaps we should be grateful they’ve noticed at all, certainly the British newspapers managed to pretend Death of a Gentleman didn’t exist. And given the wider issue and the importance of it to a game we love, it is better late than never. Just. But if they have noticed the trouble Tests are in, they still haven’t joined up all the dots. Chairman’s Pitches are part of the same equation; the players certainly don’t love them, on the few occasions they can be persuaded to venture a real opinion (the deliciously outspoken Moeen Ali apart ) the one thing they will loudly criticise are pitches that have nothing in them.
The ball is also part of that. It really doesn’t matter whether the ball is a Duke, a Kookaburra or an SG, it just needs to last long enough to keep the bowlers in the game and not become a rag after 15 overs. The pitch and the ball are clearly critical, and get those right and we at least have a sport that is worth watching.
The best, most exciting Test matches tend to be the ones that don’t go the distance. In fact in some instances they are done and dusted in three days or even less, which is a disaster if that’s due to one-sidedness, thrilling if it’s a proper fight. Nor is it about rapid scoring or wicket-taking per se, for a slow but tense passage of play can be the most exciting of all. Test cricket might be considered the purist’s version of the sport, but the attractiveness of T20 stems partly from the fact there is plenty of action. In Tests, cricket with uncertainty, whether with bat or ball, is very watchable cricket. And very sellable cricket. And very broadcastable cricket. It’s not bloody complicated.
And so the groundsman at the Wanderers deserves immense credit; it’s not an exact science, and wickets can sometimes perform in a manner that leaves the ground staff tearing out their hair. That’s a given, it can happen. But the intent has to be there, as it is in Johannesburg and as it all too often isn’t in England. And this is still trying to make use of home advantage, for a bouncy, pacy track is one where South Africa unquestionably fancy their chances of a win. Not a thing wrong with that either, no matter how much certain hypocritical Australians might bleat about it.
And so this game has see-sawed, from South Africa throwing away a decent position on day one only to roar back with late runs, positively made, and then to leave England in trouble before Stokes and especially Root dragged England back into a position of parity. We’re at the end of day two and we don’t know where this Test is going, except to say there will probably be a result. This is perfect, this is Test cricket as it should be, where a cricket lover can’t take his or her eyes off the screen because something is going to happen. You don’t know what, and you don’t know who – but something is.
The South African total of 313 is in that sweet spot where there is uncertainty as to whether it is a good one or not. It’s one the home team will probably be fairly satisfied with, and has the notable record of being the highest Test total where no one has made a half century. And when England were 22-2 and 91-4 they would have been ecstatic with it, and confident of a first innings lead of some size. That this is now in question – and England really should reach parity at the least – is largely to do with one partnership that bounced along at seven an over. Stokes of course was Stokes, a player who is lethally dangerous with the bat, and able to take a match away from the opposition in a session. But Joe Root was the central figure, making his ninth Test century in a career that is rapidly flowering to be very special indeed.
Root has looked in form all series, making good contributions before getting out when set, to his clear frustration. He’s now far enough into his career that we can start making proper judgements about him. He’s had the poor run of form and come out the other side grinning – as he does a lot. We may have someone truly special on our hands. If he stays in any length of time on day three, South Africa are in trouble. It’s quite striking how he seems to get to 30 without anyone noticing; he scores his runs at a fair lick without ever seeming to really attack; it’s his ability to find gaps for singles and twos that marks him out, for he doesn’t have an obviously rock solid technique defensively. He can be caught on the crease, he can be lured into playing away from his body, and early on the slip cordon will be licking their lips. But when he gets in, and when he gets going, he’s a joy to watch.
Alastair Cook was again caught down the legside cheaply. It’s clearly an opposition tactic and a technical problem for him, where he is too far over to the offside and playing the ball outside the line of his body. He has had a poor series with the bat to date. Let’s be clear about this, batsmen can have poor series, they can be slightly out of sync with their movements and they can struggle somewhat. You take the rough with the smooth and accept it happens. With Cook it is what it always is, less about him having peaks and troughs, and more about his cheerleaders in the press refusing to ever acknowledge the chosen one has been anything other than magnificent. Instead they will openly criticise other players who have done better across the series. Some sympathy for Cook in this area is due, for this sacred cow approach is doing him a major disservice. Acknowledging that a good player is having a rotten series doesn’t mean he’s not a good player. It means he’s having a rotten series. Try being honest and straightforward – it might be liberating.
A case in point resides with Compton, a player for whom there appears to be a queue formed in order to criticise him. He made a slow start to his innings, and of course it suddenly because a topic for the usual suspects to mention it. What is this? Is playing yourself in suddenly unusual? Isn’t this Test cricket, not a T20? He got in, he got going, he scored runs – and then he got out. He won’t be happy with the shot that led to his dismissal sure, but then the number of times a batsman is truly got out rather than bringing about his own downfall is rather few. He’s done a mostly good job this series, and isn’t deserving of the scrutiny he’s receiving.
The hosts’ pace attack impressed too. The absence of Steyn is giving the chance to some new, younger players. Rabada looks a bowler of immense talent, and is a pleasure to watch, while Viljoen showed pace and hostility throughout, hurrying the England batsmen repeatedly.
Tomorrow is moving day. It’s going to be fascinating. Test cricket – it really can be good.
Not sure if TLG has a day’s play review coming up, but we’ll get something later. (UPDATE – He is. Don’t worry TLG, post as soon as it is ready…)
There’s been a bit of a break from me (again) this week or so. I have a rule with this blog that if I am off sick from work I do not write posts on here. It’s not right, and I am not about to take the mickey out of an employer, no matter how much the provocation. The odd comment here and there, but no posts. But I am back fit and well, so there are opportunities for me to get back into it. I do know I still owe the patrons the rest of the review of 2015, including the May entry which, as many of you might know, was the record month for hits. All in the future, when I get around to it.
I thought I’d pick up on some of TLG’s observations in his excellent piece on Day 1 of the test. The thought is that we (I) might have over-reacted to the witterings of an idiot or two on Twitter, but TLG was right to say, yet again (and if you can sense the frustration in my “writing voice” as I put this down for the umpteenth time) that neither he nor I have any desire whatsoever to be journalists. Before some smart arse thinks they can do it for me, I need to get something off my chest.
Not be a journalist? What does that mean? If it means getting paid then TLG’s assertion is about 95% true in my case, as I’ve long held a dream of being the English bloke who brought American sports to the UK in terms of writing as one day I might live out there, and perhaps be recompensed for it. I dipped my toe in the water just over a year ago. For a few weeks in 2014 I wrote a couple of pieces for a website, they never got published, and I never claimed for the work – basically, after tax on the earnings from it, it was not a great use of my time. I never bothered with it afterwards. So it’s not strictly true that I didn’t want to get paid for what I do, it’s just I never wanted to get paid for doing this blog. We don’t have donate buttons, we’ll never take on paid advertising, and speaking for myself, I’ll keep this going for as long as I can.
I have made absolutely no pretence throughout the life of this blog that it reflects my views in my posts. You can choose to agree or disagree. I don’t speak for anyone other than myself, or if the blog is challenged, the people who come on here and contribute in the way that they should. I do get annoyed at people who wilfully misrepresent what we say, act as some sort of gatekeepers for the media, or worse still, act like they give a shit on here, and then run off elsewhere and slag us off. I don’t expect everyone to like us, good grief no. I’m not that naive.
But if they want to accuse us of being journalists, then let’s have the evidence. Because it’s not new. My first ever blog was derided as being tragic. I thought it was nonsense then. We write on cricket here, but don’t want it as a profession, and don’t get paid, nor have access to players, administrators or, in many cases, those who do get paid to report. I don’t consider this journalism.
But what is journalism? The online definition when “journalism” is input to Google is…
the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television.
We write, but not for newspapers or magazines and we don’t have broadcasting capabilities (although one day we might try to do a podcast – already have a name if we do it “The KCC”). The difference between blogging and journalism can be defined by the medium of transmission, but I don’t think that’s what the likes of Agnew and Etheridge, to name two, are on about. They are on about the years of “hard yards”, the slog to get where they are, the contacts, the ability to access information, the way they go about their writing, the time it has taken to develop these skills. I’m not denying that at all. But I don’t pretend to be that, and I don’t want to be that.
However, I also think they subscribe to the journalist Saleem Khan’s description (Saleem being a full-time journalist at the time this was published)
The blogger vs. journalist debate is (in my view) primarily an old-guard one promoted by traditionalists who regard bloggers as unreliable, non-authoritative sources of information vs. journalists who are viewed as reliable and authoritative under this model. (I believe it’s an argument that stems from journalists’ self-preservation instinct, meant to warn people away from bloggers and convince them to go to journalists to stay informed as traditional news outlets’ fortunes wane.)
The reality is not so black and white. Bloggers have diligently investigated and reported news stories that had been ignored and eventually made it to mainstream news outlets, and professional journalists have reported unverified, unreliable and ultimately false stories as fact.
Bloggers may be subject-area experts with deep professional training, experience and knowledge of a topic that is often greater than a journalist (or they may not be).
Journalists may also be domain experts with extensive training and experience, but are more likely to come by their specialized knowledge of a topic over time through sources they interview.
We write, by and large, opinion pieces. We delve into “facts” when it comes to some of the stats, and we try to piece together what is going on from the shreds of evidence we come across, but after all that, most of our pieces are our opinion of what we have gleaned. We don’t think we are right all the time, but judging by some of the reactions we get, we don’t think we are miles off the mark on much of our stuff either. If this poses a “threat” then I suggest those that feel that way get used to it.
Those from the journalistic side who now snort at us were more than willing, when times were very tough and a lot of shot and shell was fired around them, to come and talk on here, or DM me, or engage on Twitter. How odd it is, post-Ashes, that any of our interactions now tend to be short, have diminished in number, or are now totally ignored. No, I’m not begging them to come back, and no, I don’t get the hump if someone else talks to them. I just get amused by their transparency of motive then and opacity of approach now. As I said, The Ashes win saved more than just the England team, it kept the media corps in clover too. There’s the offers to explain what they do, as if it’s a huge secret, sure. But where there was regular contact and dialogue, there’s not a lot.
A blogger has to be more personal. Has to develop relationships with their respondents, take on board their views, have an inkling what people might want to read if they are to come back to read more. But it is also about being your own boss, your own editor (yeah, I’m bad at that) and having your own style. If it works, it works. Hey, this works.
Personally, I’m just a fan of the sport writing about it, and writing about how it is reported. I choose to have just one title, if I was forced. Blogger. That is all.
After a break in the series which England seem to have largely spent on the toilet, hostilities resume tomorrow at the Wanderers in Johannesburg. And yet within that break, and in the context of a series finely balanced, the nature of Test cricket itself has come under scrutiny.
AB De Villiers, fresh from his appointment as South Africa’s captain, spoke candidly about the stresses of cricket, and his future within the game. There is no question that he is one of the shining lights of world cricket, a batsman as brutal in the short form of the game as he is stylish in the longer form. For him to openly question his place in Test cricket in the way he has should be ringing alarm bells.
For this is no single player whining about a workload, it is a direct consequence of the way the world game has been mistreated and viewed as an impediment to the making of money.
“I’m still very committed, to the job I’m not sure – obviously the two Test matches for now are all I’m focusing on and then there’s a nice big break of six months before we play Test cricket again” [my emphasis].
This is the Test captain of the number one ranked side in the world expressing relief that the next series is half a year away, during which time he will play ODI and T20 cricket for the national team, before the World T20 and then the IPL. Ah yes, the IPL, the source of all problems, some would say. And yet the reality is that his IPL contract is worth ten times that with South Africa. There is no point in lamenting that players show interest in this, nor that with other tournaments such as the ongoing Big Bash there are other opportunities for earning that attract the attention of the leading players. When the difference is so stark, players cannot be expected to put that aside, any more than anyone else would in their own chosen career. It is not greed to wish to be paid commensurate to your earning ability; while De Villiers may be at the top of the game, the same considerations will apply at the levels below, and for those people cricket is a short career with limited opportunities for making a living.
Of course, the remedy for that requires for players to receive an income for what De Villiers recognises as the pinnacle of the game that reflects the wider reality of their position as leading performers. And this is the problem, for the power grab by India, England and Australia has directly reduced the potential income available to the cricket boards of the other Test playing nations with those three enriching themselves at their expense. Handwringing about the trouble Test cricket is in while ignoring the elephant in the room about the structure of the ICC and the divisions of the spoils ensures that only the symptoms are looked at and not the cause. For this is not an arcane possibility, the one sided hammering of the West Indies team by Australia is indicative of the problem, where players who would make the Caribbean side a competitive one, even with all their internal problems, weren’t playing and weren’t available.
Although the problems the West Indies are facing are at least partially down to longstanding structural problems and failures in administration, it remains a fact that one of the great names in world cricket cannot pick their best side because their players are off playing in T20 tournaments instead, and more importantly, the Test team is seen as a step towards achieving that T20 status rather than being the pinnacle in its own right.
Therefore, paying players properly to play Test cricket is the only way this can be prevented, and under the new structure, this is simply not going to be possible for the boards who must now make do with a smaller share of the overall pot. A striking contrast would be with James Anderson, who on the same day as De Villiers was mulling over his future made it clear his priority was Test cricket and not the IPL or anything else. Anderson is quite plainly a Test bowler first and foremost, but he is also a big name who would be an asset to the marketing of any tournament. The principal and overriding difference in his case is that as an England Test player, he is well paid for his efforts.
That means that Anderson has a definite choice, the differential is not especially large for him, and he’s never been especially effective in the shorter form of the game anyway. For younger players, brought up within the T20 era, this is not so true, and the presence of so many English players in the Big Bash is noticeable.
The ICC are doing their usual thing of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it will all go away – and so it will, just not in the way they mean – with Dave Richardson performing his usual routine of blandly ignoring reality by saying nothing will change before 2019 when the current Future Tours Programme comes to an end. The Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations pointed to a survey of their playing members considering the route of being free agents in order to play in the tournaments springing up on a regular basis. This is the death knell of Test cricket if it happens and nothing changes, for it will be impossible to schedule tours at a time when none of them are going on. Test cricket needs to find an accommodation with these leagues and money is part of that, but so is giving Test cricket a context, as FICA insisted is needed.
“If we wait until 2019 then bilateral cricket around the world is going to be in real trouble. The engagement and insight provided by players is vital to this process. We surveyed players recently on structuring in the context of cricket. We are using some of our outcomes of that with ICC.
“The worrying thing is that the players are telling us that if things don’t change they will be turning more to T20 leagues. It varies from country to country. Countries where players are well paid and Test cricket is stronger have a big affinity to Test cricket. But in many countries that is not the case. You have to think big picture. You want to keep Test cricket strong in a number of countries so players want to play the format and there is investment in the format.” – Tony Irish, Chief Executive of FICA
The concept of having divisional Test cricket has been around for a while, for it would give context to the format, and meaning to victory and defeat. The public objections to it tend to revolve around the practicality of arranging series, which is an exceptionally weak argument. The reality of the opposition is that England, Australia and India are petrified of relegation removing major series from the equation, while the other teams only make money from series against India – or at a push, England – and cannot survive on their meagre ICC percentage without them. This is of course not that difficult to overcome, for a redistribution of income from all sources would support the countries involved, as well as creating the opportunity for the likes of Ireland to become a full member – the reluctance of the chosen ten to countenance this being yet another illustration of the self-centred nature of avaricious cricketing governance.
This isn’t going to happen.
When writers are talking about the ways of giving Test cricket a viable future, they are talking about the sport. The ICC and its constituent management are not thinking about the sport itself and haven’t done for years if ever. It is about power, and it is about money. At no time have they shown the slightest inclination towards the purity of sport, which ought to be their raison d’etre. The boards themselves think the same way – the possibility that the Ashes might not happen fills the ECB and CA with horror, rather than considering the best way to ensure that never happens is to develop players and teams to provide success.
This is why at the halfway point of what has all the prospects of being a great Test series there is no celebration of how wonderful Test cricket can be, it’s more of a concern about how long this will carry on in its current form.
As for the Test itself, expectations are that the wicket will be seam friendly, to the point that South Africa will be going in without a frontline spinner. With Dale Steyn ruled out, England have a real opportunity to take a winning lead. The Wanderers usually produces a result, and a straight shoot out between the pace attacks is likely.
Being Outside Cricket 