Death of a Gentleman

thelegglance62 Comments

We’re hardly the first to have our say about this most important of films, but given that importance, it remains essential that the message it conveys continues to be discussed and promoted.

It’s striking that the media reporting of this film has been extremely muted; some might say that a cricket documentary is hardly mainstream, but Fire in Babylon received far more attention. Amongst the written press, the ones who have talked about, or reviewed it, are those one would expect to see do so.  Yet of the major newspapers, the relative silence has been striking.  Even at the time of the Big Three’s effective takeover of the world game, the press was largely silent.  In this country, Scyld Berry and Lawrence Booth more than had their say, while in Australia Gideon Haigh was voluble in his criticism.  That’s not an exclusive list, but that so few “journalists” put their heads above the parapet says an awful lot.  Failing to hold the ECB to account over the way they manage the England cricket team is one thing, failing to hold the ICC and constituent boards to account for actions massively detrimental to the whole game is another entirely.  They could even hold a contrary view and express why they think it is a good idea – that at least would be something.  Silence is not.  It is an absolute disgrace, and the cricket press as a body should hang their heads in shame over it.

The broadcast media too has barely even mentioned it, with Test Match Special tiptoeing around the issues raised, and Sky not so much as acknowledging its existence.  Giles Clarke would have you believe it’s because administration isn’t of interest to anyone, only teams and players are, but the film details how when the ICC discovered the story being told, Jarrod Kimber’s press accreditation mysteriously went missing, while potential interviewees were warned off.  That it is a tale the various boards don’t want told is obvious.  The lengths they go to in order to prevent that is a different matter, and the silence from so much of the cricket press about a film that is central to the future of the game more than suspicious.

There are some telling asides away from the main narrative, such as Andrew Strauss bemoaning the rise in the number of short Test series, presumably an opinion given long before there was any possibility of him beingwithin the same ECB who were party to it.  Maybe someone will ask him.

The invention of T20 cricket in 2003 (by which we mean the professional invention, that club cricketers have known the game for years doesn’t count), and the subsequent creation of the IPL is often blamed for the threat to Test cricket, but it didn’t need to be.  As Haigh points out, for T20 to have an attraction, it has to be shorter than something.  There is absolutely no inherent reason why they couldn’t co-exist.  Indeed, the potential was and is there for T20 to support Test cricket while taking the game to brand new places and countries.  It was an opportunity to grow cricket, to nurture it and also to make money for the game.

The powerful argument Messrs Kimber and Collins build instead is of a venal, self-interested group who care little for the game except as a means of building power and making money.  Lots of money.  The IPL is central to this, as businessmen spied the opportunity to make a fortune.  Yet it would be too easy to simply blame India for everything, and there is a danger that the film will be dismissed there as nothing but an attack on an India that has been on the receiving end of a patronising attitude from the English and Australians through cricket history.  In that they certainly have a point, yet a second wrong doesn’t right the first one, and in any case blaming India solely would be to miss the point being made.

The IPL itself has undoubtedly become a monster, but one which is extremely popular, and on its own merits that should be a good thing for the game.  The trouble, as is apparent throughout the film is that it is run by those who don’t care about the wider game of cricket.  It is a means of enrichment, and when those in charge of the sport don’t have that innate love for it in its own right as a game, the dangers are clear.  That is why sporting governing bodies are meant to be neutral – or at least relatively neutral – in such matters, their role is to be the custodians of the wider sport, ensuring that naked commercial interests don’t damage the integrity of the sport itself.

For that is the fundamental central point.  The ICC is not a governing body in the true sense and never has been.  One of the striking things while watching the film is that it is so reminiscent of the goings on at FIFA.  And yet even FIFA have managed to expand football and have distributed serious wealth around the world, no matter how dubious the morality behind it.  The ICC in contrast, have a woeful record of furthering the game.  The example illustrated on screen was of the pathetic £30,000 funding given to China, a nation of such size and potential growth that it would be thought a country ripe for development and support.  Perhaps it is one degree of cynicism too far to think that cricket in China would be entirely against the interests of the current establishment, for whom a new market of over a billion people represents nothing but a potential threat to their power base.  Perhaps not too cynical after all.

The film makers did at least manage to get interviews with many of the major players in the drama – though Cricket Australia manage to come out of it rather better through the simple method of refusing all co-operation.  N. Srinivasan is consistently smooth, while failing to answer a single question, and Giles Clarke manages the impossible, by coming across as even more repulsive than normal.  If he’d been born Australian, he’d be called Sir Les Patterson.

Indeed, while Srinivasan stonewalls thoughout, it is Clarke who is the undoubted star of the drama, though not in the way he probably imagines himself to be.  Lord Woolf’s report into governance at the ICC – which was rejected by the ICC itself – is dismissed by Clarke in contemptuous and self-reverential terms.  Woolf had been scathing about the lack of accountability within the organisation in his own report, stating that the ICC behaved like a “members club” for whom the development of the game was secondary, and whose boards acted in their own self-interest rather than the overall good of the game.  Giles Clarke in the film actually inadvertently proved this by stating “I have every right to put my board’s interests first” – a comment that is notable for putting the interests of his board ahead of the interests of English cricket, let alone cricket more generally.

Woolf’s criticisms were  aimed at the old ICC, yet it was known at the time that India in particular were strongly opposed to his recommendations, which amounted to a democratisation of the organisation and the prevention of conflicts of interest.  A summary of those recommendations can be found on this link:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/551836.html

Far from approving the report that they had themselves commissioned, the three richest boards decided to go in the opposite direction.  India, England and Australia in great secrecy put together a plan whereby they would take effective control of the whole of the ICC.  The middle portion of the film covers the meeting held in Dubai, in secret and without being minuted, to put this plan together.  Kimber and Collins are rightly appalled at this, the behaviour of an autocracy with plenty to hide, not those supposedly appointed to be the custodians of the game.

“There is a paragraph which says: It is proposed that the ICC executive board forms a new committee of the ICC called the executive committee, which under new terms of reference will act as – and I emphasise this word – the SOLE recommendation committee on all constitutional, personnel, integrity, ethics, developments and nomination matters, as well as all matters regarding distributions from the ICC.

“I have never seen anything of that sort in a body of this nature.” – Lord Woolf

When the details of the carve up actually became apparent, it was worse than anyone could have imagined.  Over half the revenues of world cricket were to go directly into the back pockets of the three biggest boards, with India taking the largest share.  That could be argued to be reasonable enough in principle, given that India generate the largest amount.  Of far more concern and fully detailed, was the fait accompli presented to every other cricket nation to accept it, with each other Test nation to receive a mere 5% of the pot.  Former ICC President Ehsan Mani calculated that $300 million over 10 years would be cut from the ICC Development Programme, to be redirected to the coffers of the already wealthy.

At the same time, the plan to reduce the size of the World Cup to 10 teams makes the ICC the only sporting body to actively try to shrink their game globally – a truly astounding policy.

And here is where the initial concept behind the film – the fears for Test cricket – are beautifully brought into focus.  For the other Test playing nations were neither consulted, nor given any real opportunity to object.  One of those happens to be the side who are currently the best in the world in the form of South Africa, but it applies whether or not they are good on the field.  The flexing of muscles extended to making it abundantly clear that any opposition and those countries could forget about getting lucrative tours from India.  Bullying is rarely an edifying sight, and had already been seen in India’s response to Haroon Lorgat becoming the Chief Executive of Cricket South Africa.  Earlier than that, Tim May had been ousted from the ICC Cricket Committee, with it being reported in the Australian press – and repeated by Tim May – the BCCI had put pressure on Test captains to vote for Laxman Sivaramakrishnan instead.  Sivaramakrishnan is an employee of India Cements, whose Managing Director is one Narayanaswami Srinivasan.

Test cricket outside of the big three nations was thus put on life support, with other nations unable to make it pay, except through the largesse and exceptional and well known kindness of India, England and Australia.

“The intention to entrench a privileged position for ‘The Big Three’ appears to be an abuse of entrusted power for private gain, giving them disproportionate, unaccountable and unchallengeable authority” – Transparency International

N. Srinivasan was duly made the Chairman of the ICC, the proposal was passed, and what Scyld Berry called “the worst thing that has ever happened in our sport” was made real.

If India’s dominance wasn’t leading to a good outcome, the acquiescence, nay roaring approval, of England and Australia was worse.  Instead of looking at the wider interests of the game, they instead decided to grab as big a piece of the pie themselves and stuff the rest of the world.  England’s own conduct is entirely reflective of that – the much vaunted return of five Test series for iconic opponents quickly and silently excluded South Africa from the list, for reasons that have not been disclosed.  England decided to focus almost entirely on matches against India and Australia instead.  Bangladesh, a nation new to Test cricket will likely go a decade between tours of England, and while they may not be currently the greatest of draws, the reality is that they never will be under this global regime.  In discussions on these boards, D’Arthez did the mathematics on England’s recent schedule, and as such deserves to be quoted in full:

Since the start of 2011, there have been 47 matches between Australia and England across formats. A few of those were in World Cups / Champions Trophies T20 World Cups, but still. Compare that to the number of England / South Africa games which stands at 14. An eye-watering three of those were Tests. Pakistan stands at 10 (mostly all from the UAE tour of 2012). Bangladesh stands at 2 games in the World Cup, both games won by Bangladesh.

Australia has played 47 games against England in that period. They have played 6 against New Zealand. 4 against Bangladesh, and 3 against Zimbabwe.

India have played 42 games against England. 31 against Australia, and also (surprisingly) 31 against West Indies. 12 games against Pakistan, 11 games against Zimbabwe and 10 games against New Zealand.

Now I am aware that this snapshot may not be fair, but scheduling is not rational: we have had 3 Ashes series since the last time Australia played Tests against New Zealand for instance, or England played against Pakistan. So it is impossible to take a “fair” snapshot courtesy of the ICC.

Schedules are simply becoming increasingly dominated by teams of financially similar standings to make more money. Yay for the scrapping of the FTP. So you get a group of India, Australia, England, who dominate the fixtures between each other. England plays close to 50% of its ODIs against Australia and India for instance.

It is only going to get worse.  The other nations seeking the scraps as they are dropped from the top table, and playing more lucrative ODIs or T20s against each other when they have no one else to play against, rather than Tests.  Furthermore, what is the point of a nation like Ireland seeking Test status when this is environment in which they will be operating.  They have already been kicked in the teeth over the reduction in size of the World Cup – reduction in number of teams that is, the number of games will be barely affected, and now the Tests they hope to play will be thoroughly devalued, if not scrapped entirely, except when the Big Three deign to notice them.

Clarke attempted to make the claim that he was acting for the good of cricket, and in a nauseatingly self-justifying section pointed to his being unpaid in his role.  Curiously enough, this writer is on an industry board, also unpaid, and does so partially because of the professional advantage it gives him.  It’s best left there.

Clarke also refused to answer any kinds of questions about the Stanford affair, an example of sacrificing the values of cricket and the integrity of the England team on the altar of naked commercialism.  That it was arranged with a criminal is actually the least of the sins involved, for a national team is meant to be representative of that country, not a play thing for filthy lucre.  He not only survived that episode, but went on to create his own position of President (sarcastically referenced in the end credits) responsible for ECB dealings with the ICC which both indicates an awareness of where the real power lies, and a complete lack of any kind of integrity or conscience.  Clarke also managed to demonstrate his familiar sense of timing and old-fashioned courtesy so evident at the Wisden dinner (a note here: Lawrence Booth’s rebuff towards Clarke was sufficiently stylish and acute that it will doubtless be noted down for future retaliation by the great man) by not realising he was on the ICC’s own cameras when noting about Collins “that idiot Sam is outside”.

When the viewer is watching so aghast at the naked greed on display that even Lalit Modi appears to be something of a good guy in arguing against what is happening, the trouble the game in is clear.  It is more than right to be deeply sceptical of his motives in suddenly discovering the soul of cricket, but the news today that he intends to set up a rival governing body to the ICC ironically represents the kind of challenge that is not appearing from any other quarter – our film making heroes notwithstanding.

An interesting comment made is that his intention is that it be affiliated to the Olympic movement, and another strand of investigation in Death of a Gentleman is the refusal of the Big Three to countenance the idea of cricket being an Olympic sport.  Clarke tries to defend this on the utterly preposterous grounds that it would disrupt the English season.  And so it would.  Every four years.  When it would disrupt the season in the same way that Tests and One Day Internationals do.  What he really means is that it wouldn’t earn the ECB any money.

T20 would be perfect as an Olympic sport; it would massively raise the profile of the game, it would allow countries all over the world to appear at a major sporting event on a level playing field.  There is no downside for cricket whatsoever, there is only a downside for those who would not be able to control it as it would be organised by the IOC, and it would not make any money for those who care about little else.  Quite simply, they cannot make any kind of rational argument against it, so resort to bluster.

And in all of this, what of the cricket fan?  What of the supporter, who pays his hard earned money to watch the greats of the game?  One of the most pointed comments in the film is that the fans are there to be monetised, and that the broadcasters and boards are the only ones who matter.  The objections to the conduct of the ECB need to be seen in the context of this, for in all the documentation and comment about the changes to the ICC, there is no mention whatever of the interests of the spectator.  Not one word.  Nor is there any reference to the amateur game – which shouldn’t be any kind of surprise when the associates and the affiliates are so roundly ignored and disparaged.

Jarrod Kimber and Sam Collins have made a film that every single person with an interest in cricket needs to watch.  This is all being done in our name, by an organisation that is meant to have the interests of the game we love at heart, by constituent cricket boards who are meant to look after the game in their home countries.  It is nothing other than the complete theft of an entire sport by a self-appointed oligarchy bent on advancing their own interests.   When the English cricket fan watches this international summer, he or she basks in the enjoyment of beating the Australians but laments that only two Tests were scheduled against New Zealand.  It is all part of the whole rotten edifice.  The ECB claimed that the Ashes needed to be rescheduled because of the World Cup in order to prevent players being burned out for the premier one day competition.  It would then revert to a four year cycle.  Oh really.  Is that except for the plans in the 2020s when it doesn’t?

From the village green to the barest patch of ground to packed out stadiums, the subject of this wonderful film affects every single person with a passion for the game.  It is polemical, it asks the right questions, and that it doesn’t get all the answers is not down to any shortcomings on the part of the makers, but entirely due to the reluctance of those in and below the ICC to have their dealings exposed to public scrutiny.

You need to see it.  And you need to digest it.  And tell your friends.  The makers have set up http://www.changecricket.com/ to campaign to get our game back.  It’s up to us all to support them in that, because while we may not succeed, if we don’t try then we have no chance.  And we will deserve all we get.

TLG

Dmitri View – I too have watched the film. I did so last week, but wanted TLG to cast his eye over it too. I’m sure you’ll agree, he’s done an amazing, thorough review. I know Arron is also watching it tonight, and I’d seriously recommend the film to all of you.

This is not about this blogger, or those of you on here, switching horses to another narrative, because the ECB and the way it interacts with us and other bodies in our name is part of the discourse on this blog nearly every day. Jarrod and Sam undertook this venture to discuss test cricket and instead saw the writing on the wall when they started delving deeper. Cricket is another sport being milked for cash, with corporate parasites getting their millions of pounds of flesh in an orgy of self-interest, short-termism and blatant profiteering. Sport shouldn’t be about supply and demand, it should be about equal access. Sport engenders great things in people, makes them strive, better themselves, set themselves targets they may never reach. It encourages camaraderie, spending hours with people, making lifelong mates. In the world we live in that is abused. That love of playing is there, as Gideon Haigh speaks so eruditely, to be monetised.

I can bark at the moon all I like, but cricket is just like all the rest. While the heart-strings are pulled a little by the Ed Cowan portions of the film, the rest did not shock me. Not in the slightest. I sat there getting more and more angry at a world governing body that runs the sport firmly behind closed doors. At an ECB that plays its full part in keeping it that way. It may be in our players short-term interests to trouser more money for playing for England, but who are they going to play against? Australia and India ad infinitum? I remember the 2003 series v South Africa, and the one in 2004-5 too. Five test series, absolutely brilliant cricket, entertaining and thrilling. We’ve not played them in a five test series since, but in the past three years have had mind-numbing, one-sided (results) series. This isn’t growing the game in this country, it’s putting on endless repeats.

I can’t add much more to TLG’s piece, except to finish up with Giles Clarke. I refuse to believe this man still does not hold the wheels of power in English cricket. You barely hear a peep out of Colin Graves, but Clarke still bestrides world cricket like a colossal oaf. Only oafs can be innocent. He isn’t. In no way. The contempt, the disdain, the arrogance, the sheer affront that these two “journalists” should have the gall to question this Ozymandias? How very dare they! England, we are told, are not in his grip any more. The ECB isn’t his. I don’t believe them. Because the same attitudes persist. I’ve not seen a change from them. Not really. Still sticking to the Big Three, still no apology for “outside cricket”, still no recognition of the fans. Clarke sums it up with his advice, which I’ve heard before, that no-one is interested in cricket administration. Jarrod and Sam bring this dripping condescension through. Loud and clear.

It’s a terrific film, has its rough edges, but you can’t deny that the message is clear, despite the critics saying there is no smoking gun, no silver bullet (how ridiculous is that in the context of something else we all remember). It shows the ICC and the three organisations that now dominate to be unaccountable, have no transparent governance, and they’d wish questioners away without a care.

I ain’t going nowhere, sunshine, and nor are Jarrod and Sam. #ChangeCricket could do a lot worse than #AGilesClarkeFreeECB.

@DmitriOld    

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Together, The Leg Glance and Dmitri Old/LordCanisLupus are “Being Outside Cricket”

@OutsideCricket

See more information on Death of a Gentleman at the website – http://deathofagentlemanfilm.com/ – as well as following their Twitter page – https://twitter.com/doagfilm.

ChangeCricket is their new portal, so check that out – http://www.changecricket.com/ while Jarrod Kimber and Sam Collins are both on Twitter at @sampsoncollins and

You can watch the trailer for Death of a Gentleman here:

King William Street

LordCanisLupus62 Comments

What do the Ashes mean to you? The wrapping up of the extremely one-sided Trent Bridge test has brought the majority of English fans out into raptures of delight. To see how the worm has turned, one only has to look at the headline of Tom Fordyce’s piece on BBC Sport. “Have the Ashes become to predictable?” he asks. Really? Very few predicted England would win this series, and now we’ve gone full circle. I was tempted to throw in a spurious Twelfth Night reference (as the only Billy play I’ve read, and that was out of educational necessity) but that would be pretentious. However, if this Ashes series is anyone’s idea of the food of love, then I would quite like the band to stop playing.

Oh dear. Am I being a frightful curmudgeon?

Who’s that Greek fella who rolls the bloody stone up hill? That one. I feel a bit like him. So let me please do this one more time just to make sure those who want to use my words against me, as some elegant escape narrative for the constant misrepresentation of my points. So, as the bullets were so effective in the last post, let’s play it again Sam, as Humphrey Bogart.did not say in the 1942 film Casablanca, directed by Michael Curtiz, and did you know Casablanca is not the capital of Morocco, and Rick Blaine is not the brother of David Blaine. Anyway, bullets (not rubber, as 10CC sang about in their 1973 single):
•    KP is not the illness, he is the symptom of the high-handed treatment the ECB showed towards those they need to build the sport;. The fans. Some of you were OK with it. I was not.
•    Outside Cricket is not just about Piers Morgan. Carry on believing that if you wish. This ia about a toffee-nosed, self-selecting elite telling the people who pay their wages that they are not to be concerned with the important things. Like THEIR national side.
•    I think Giles Clarke needs to be completely relieved of all duties for cricketing reasons. This is the clean break most needed in the sport in this country. He is, in my view, a malign, contemptuous, entitled charlatan, with about as much empathy as the desk fan I have next to me.
•    As certain ECB personnel leaked like my cistern, they are complicit in this episode. To suddenly forget this is not on. Absolutely not on. This may, or may not, be linked to the bullet point above.
•    The print media acquiesced and now, after 18 months, they believe the furore has passed. An Ashes win has been a pleasant surprise to them, and now they’ll milk it. And in some cases, settle scores.

TLG wrote a very good piece about his reactions to the Ashes. It was, as usual, excellently put together, brilliantly argued, and he can pay me a bit more if he wants any more nice words. As I said, I  can never want England to lose to Australia. That is not in my DNA. I walked down King William Street after the 5th Day in 2006. It was a walk of utter despair, total humiliation and a recognition that a week that started with decent expectations, and indeed with two excellent days to start the test, had gone downhill and then collapsed. It was pitiful. I’ve seen my team lose to a last minute goal at Wembley, a last minute goal in a play-off semi-final and an FA Cup Final, and I’ve never been gutted as I was that day. It was a day long torture session. English angst and passivity powerless in front of mental disintegration. It was a day we were stripped bare. So I’m not in this for the glory or the kudos, and I’ve seen the bad times, and paid a ton
of money to do it. Don’t attack my credentials. To be labelled, as we were in that wretched buffoon Ed Smith’s piece as akin to desperate students trying to garner support for a cod-Marxist rally, I say this. I’m fucking delighted to have been at your last test match, and seen your last test dismissal. The termination of your test career. As Arnie didn’t say “I won’t be back”. (I don’t like being this churlish, but stuff it. He goes on like he’s the world’s brightest light. Arrogant in the extreme).

I’ve seen one tweeter in particular, who Dave Tickner and Dan Brigham gave more house room to than he was entitled, keen to rub people’s noses in it. That an England fan thinks the upshot of the last 18 months is to gloat into other supporters’ faces is an acceptable conclusion, then well. I never meant to gloat in front of other fans unless they were being arses to me and people I give a damn about, and it wasn’t even gloating – it was despair. I would aim my points at the press, the ECB and their enablers, and yes, that included Alastair Cook. Try finding a bad word on this, or my previous blog, about Joe Root, Gary Ballance, Moeen Ali, Mark Wood, Steven Finn, Jos Buttler, Ben Stokes, Adam Lyth, Sam Robson et al. You won’t, unless it’s about cricket performance. This “I’m a better supporter than you” bollocks is that. I have a view, and people read it, but I never claim to be a better supporter. People who oppose my views, and slag me off, are supporters. The difference is, I acknowledge that. They don’t. Oh – the tweeter concerned shares the same surname as the England captain. A nice coincidence.

There’s a long KP related piece in the works to give people the ammunition to call me an obsessive, but that will be released on an appropriate date. What I want to do in the remainder of this ramble is to just set out my feelings on the Ashes triumph.

Supreme indifference.

You want to know why? You know why if you’ve been reading this blog, and it has naff all to do with Kevin Pietersen. Just watch the last Giles Clarke interview in Death of a Gentleman about journalists and administration. Just read Maxie’s incredible piece on The Full Toss. Just read How Did We Lose In Adelaide. Just read @jamiecook1988 and his twitter chat with Tickers and Brigham. Just read Mike Selfey. Just read Paul Newman. Just read Stephen Brenkley. Just read FICJAM. Just attend a speaking engagement with Lovejoy. Just buy The Cricketer. Just read anything by either Alec Swann or The Analyst. Just read Derek Pringle. Watch Paul Allott on Cricket Writers on TV. 

The malcontents are treated as the enemy without, not even within – hence the name of this blog. Not once do those who criticise really try to understand why we are like we are – and I am being presumptuous on my clientele here, so do permit me to use “we”. They think we are that fickle that an Ashes win will bring us back into the fold. Fact is, we never left. We were just stuck in the naughty corner of the pen, and the only way to get in with the crowd is to come back with our tail between our legs. Admit we are wrong. Say we are sorry. Bow down to our masters. We are supplicants who need to know their place. WE WERE WRONG. ADMIT IT.

Ain’t gonna happen. I’ll be around for a while yet. So get used to it FICJAM and others. I ain’t going away. I remain, for now, firmly Outside Cricket.

Reflections

thelegglance137 Comments

It took as little time as anticipated for England to wrap up the fourth Test, and with it the series and the Ashes.  It has been an extraordinary win, all the more so for being so unexpected.  Yet in that sense it isn’t quite so different to last time, when Australia won 5-0, a result no one (apart from Glenn McGrath, who always forecasts that) expected either.

England are rightly celebrating, they thoroughly deserve to as well.  With the exception of Lords, which looks ever more peculiar in retrospect, they have battered Australia.  England did something in response to that defeat that much of the media failed to, which was to accept the pinch and move on.  England’s resilience following that hammering is something that they can rightly take pride in, and is the sign of a good team, or at least one that might become a good team.

Yet the danger in responding to this victory is in being wise after the event.  It isn’t vindication of the last two years because England didn’t play how they’d played over the last two years.  Cook is to be thoroughly praised for his captaincy because he didn’t captain the side how he’d done so up to this point.  That isn’t proof that those backing him as captain previously were right in any way, but it is a recognition that for whatever reason, he seems to have dramatically improved – something those supporting him didn’t demand he do.   And that is a fascinating development.  Cook was dreadful in Australia, he was worse against Sri Lanka, desperate against India, and a disaster as one day captain before his more than slightly hamfisted sacking.  In his interview after the game’s conclusion, he acknowledged that, admitting to being stubborn (not necessarily a bad thing), and to having made an effort to be more proactive and positive in this series.

Trevor Bayliss too chose his words carefully, saying that Cook had been excellent in this series, with a fairly clear implication when talking about how this had been done that he didn’t think he had been previously.  And that is about right – the only rational way to to respond to any situation is to adapt a view as the facts change.  Cook has been really good as skipper this series, and it is immensely to his credit that he has been prepared to take input from outside and learn.  After having been captain in the same rather plodding and defensive manner for quite a long time, that is perhaps the most welcome and unexpected development.  Being wise after the event means refusing to admit that no one saw this coming – and no one did.

Bayliss himself had come into the England set up at the start of this series, but he wasn’t present for the New Zealand one, which gave the first hint at Cook’s England adopting a different approach.  It was such a sudden switch after the West Indies series and the miserable World Cup that the removal of Peter Moores would seem to point to that being the major change.   Yet it is probably a little more than that – Moores’ style of coaching was similar to Andy Flower’s in one area, that it was prescriptive, with the coach directing the team rather than the captain.  That was seen time and again where England would come in after a session, and resume with entirely different tactics – the captain was the cipher for a coach telling them what to do.

The appointment of Bayliss, and the retention of Farbrace, indicated that this type of coach was not how Strauss saw the best interests of England – and that decision was a wise one.  Whatever anyone thought of Cook’s captaincy, it was frustrating to see him not actually captain the side himself.   It is therefore a possibility that the change in coaching set up allowed Cook for the first time to captain the side how he wanted to.  England have been the only side where the coach has been given such power, and Bayliss and Farbrace are more in the Fletcher model, where the coach stands in the background to support the players and the captain runs the team.

It’s no coincidence that England players have quickly felt the freedom to back their own ability under this kind of structure, nor that the previously rigid set up limited that freedom.  Playing without fear is an easy thing to say, but it requires a system where players aren’t berated for their failures.  England under Moores and Flower certainly had success, but the team became ever more hidebound, negative and restricted, terrified of making a mistake – and it was that attitude that Australia pounced on in 2013/14.

Equally, the early season series against New Zealand may have acted as the dropping of the scales in front of English eyes; if that is the case, then England may well owe a debt of gratitude to Brendon McCullum, though perhaps Australia would have been equally well advised to have had a chat to Kane Williamson about how to play the moving ball.  The one day series too, with England playing scintillating cricket, showed a break with the shambles of the past, in intent if nothing else – which is why no one greatly cared if England lost that final match, they were far too wowed by the style of play.  The point is that it is easy to blame Moores, but he was simply continuing an approach that he himself started and Andy Flower continued.  It worked for a while too, but signs of problems were there long before the implosion in Australia if only some had paid attention to those pointing them out.

The hardest part of coaching is being able to keep out of the way.  Bayliss, when responding to questions about Cook’s captaincy, demurred at the idea he’d given instructions, saying all he had done was to offer options, and it was up to Cook to then choose – and that he chose wisely.

What happens next is the key, because harder challenges lie ahead, in the UAE and South Africa.  At the start of this series the feeling was that this would be Cook’s last as captain – the appointment of Root as his deputy and the end of cycle feel about Ashes series indicated that win or lose, it might be time to move on.  The nature of England’s win has changed that somewhat, though Cook may still feel that he could go out on a high by doing so. Yet the change is that he now can choose himself, rather than circumstances dictating.  It isn’t the win that has done that, it’s the way England won, and the way he himself led the side.  Let’s make no bones about it – it was quite impressive, and all the more so for being so unexpected.

There has been a clear shift in so many other ways too.  The England players made a point of going around the ground after each win and meeting the supporters, posing for selfies, signing autographs.  The interviews have been much more open and honest – all things that have been areas of deep criticism for the England of the last 18 months and beyond.  There is not a chance of the ECB ever apologising for anything that they’ve done, but this at least is a start and a move in the right direction.  Whether it is mere lip service or something more, is down to the ECB.

One of the most striking things about this England side is the clear joie de vivre that the young players have brought to the team.  There has been a changing of the guard in many ways beyond the obvious, a recognition that in order to get the best out of them, letting them free to do their thing is the way to do it.  Stokes, Root, Moeen and Wood have been the most evident examples, and even the grumpy old curmudgeons like Broad (OK, that’s a touch unfair on him) and Anderson have bought into it.  The England dressing room appears a much better place to be than it has been for quite a long time.  The idea that this win is a put down of all those who have been calling for exactly this is somewhat bizarre.  This is not the England team approach that received so much criticism.  It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that one particular player would have thrived in such an environment, given it is exactly what he wanted to see in the first place.

Certainly Joe Root has benefitted, and has gone to number one in the Test player rankings as a result.  It may be that it is a purple patch of form and nothing more, but there are signs that he may be becoming a genuinely fantastic batsman.  He scores so quickly, without apparent effort.  Technically, he is getting out to the ball much better than he did when he was dropped in Australia, where he hung back in the crease.  His weight distribution now comes forward into the ball, hence the glorious drives – but more than anything, his approach is one where he is first and foremost looking to score runs.  This too is an expression of a change of mentality in the side, and one in which he’s thriving.  That England now have a set up that is seeking to get the best from their players rather than berate them and keep them in line, amazingly enough seems to work.

The bowlers too have performed admirably.  Broad has been underrated for quite a while; yet his record in recent years has been very good, even in the Ashes meltdown of 2013/14 where he along with Stokes was pretty much the only player who could hold his head up high; the biggest issue with him is when England insisted on playing him through injury.  He is now number two in the bowling rankings, with Anderson just behind him.  Yet those two are a known quantity, what is welcome is seeing how the support bowlers have performed.  They’ve not always got the results that might mark them out as being special, but they have shown immense promise.  Stokes blows hot and cold, as young players tend to do, Wood looks like he has pace and the ability to move the ball.  They have potential, if correctly managed.  As for Finn, one fine match and one quiet one is fine as long as he continues the upward trajectory.  He too is indicative of a different approach from the England side, allowing him to bowl rather than micro-managing him.  Again, it is to be greatly welcomed, and with a degree of luck, the results should follow, and the pace return.

All of the others contributed.  Lyth may not have had a great series to date, but the way he set about the small target at Edgbaston extinguished Australian hopes early, while his catching was very good.  He won’t be content with his series, and nor should he be, the Oval may signal a last chance for him, but he has had an effect on the outcome.  Bell batted superbly at Edgbaston but has had a quiet series outside of that.  The jury remains out for Bairstow, but he did bat well at Trent Bridge, while Buttler has had a poor series with the bat, but kept extremely well.

And Moeen, well Moeen has bowled just about adequately, but batted very well indeed.  Which probably shouldn’t come as a surprise given he’s a batsman first and foremost.  Two spinners will be needed in the UAE, and while Moeen might well be the best off spinner England have (depending on whether Panesar can continue his rehabilitation), the Oval could well be the opportunity to introduce Adil Rashid.

For Australia, the big news was the announcement of Michael Clarke’s retirement.  At many times he has been a prophet not honoured in his own land, but the warmth of the reception he got from the Nottingham crowd showed the esteem in which he is held.  He has had a year of unimagined highs and tragic lows, and perhaps that finally proved too much for him, in which case that would be completely understandable.  He has been a fantastic player and an often inspirational captain.  But over the last year, what he proved more than anything else was that he was a leader with whom few could compare.  When Phillip Hughes was tragically killed, Clarke managed to speak not just for a nation in shock, but the whole cricketing world.  He became everyone’s captain, one who all who have picked up a bat would have followed to the ends of the earth.  In terrible circumstances, he stood tall.

Sport is cruel, and doesn’t often allow fairytale endings.  But Clarke will undoubtedly receive a standing ovation on both his last visits to the crease in international cricket, and few England supporters would begrudge him a century if the cricketing gods were to smile just once more on this supremely talented player.  There is so much more that can be said about him, but one must defer to Jarrod Kimber, whose article captured it perfectly.  It is outstanding:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/908005.html

In this series, Clarke himself was a paradigm for the batting woes of his team.  Apart from Chris Rogers, and to some extent David Warner, they all struggled.  Steve Smith had one fabulous Test, but apart from that looked horrifically out of form, demonstrating how quickly confidence can turn to despair in a batsman.  The middle order has had a calamitous series, with only Adam Voges’ unbeaten half century in heavy defeat offering up any kind of contribution.  He did enough to save his career for a further Test, but beyond that, given his age, he may not have much further to go.

Rogers will finish at the Oval, and with Clarke going too, plus Haddin’s and Watson’s careers being likely over, there will be major changes to the Australian team after this series.  Shaun Marsh has yet to look a Test cricketer, and is 32, while Mitchell Johnson absolutely is a Test cricketer but is nearly 34.   And perhaps that was always likely to be the case even if they had won.  Right at the start of this series, this blog made the argument that you never know if it is one tour too many until it actually happens.  This has indeed turned out to be one tour too many, yet although that possibility was acknowledged pre-series, there wasn’t much in the way of evidence that it would happen, more a feeling that there was the potential for it, and nothing stronger than that.

With so many players likely to move on, the management of that shift is going to be critical.  The reason for including Johnson in the above list is that it would be criminal to lose him at the same time as all that experience elsewhere.  He is bowling quickly and well, and has shown little sign of age catching up with him.

The home summer coming up for them comprises New Zealand and the West Indies.  It’s going to be a tough first half for a new team.  The blow of losing Ryan Harris on the eve of the series perhaps did more than anything to wreck the plans for a last hurrah for the older generation.

For England, it has the potential to be a firm base from which to build.  The talent has always been there, it’s how it was harnessed, and the reality is that it was harnessed extremely badly for much of the preceding 18 months.  That they have managed to get a basic grip on it now is to the credit of all those behind it.  But it doesn’t excuse those 18 months, and it certainly doesn’t excuse the ECB for their wider failings.  If used properly from here, they could genuinely reclaim their position in the hearts of all England fans, but it would be a mistake to think this Ashes win will do it and make everything in the garden rosy.  Cricket in this country is in trouble.  Cricket in the world is in trouble.  The alignment of England’s undoubtedly rousing victory with the release of Death of a Gentleman makes it foolish to believe that this solves everything, because it doesn’t.  But it could be a first step used wisely.  The doubt is whether that wisdom exists, that it will be used as a smokescreen to cover all the other issues that exist.  England have won, but those Outside Cricket have been merely waved at from the ivory towers.

For now, let us appreciate the return of the urn, and the efforts of an England team who have surpassed expectations.  For a Sunday, that is more than enough.  But the wider issues will not go away.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Ashes: 4th Test. Day Three comments

thelegglance171 Comments

Here it is, the big day. All in here…

Dmitri Comment – Congratulations to the England cricket team for reclaiming the Ashes from Australia. They have taken their opportunities with ruthlessness and vigour. The bowling has been very very good, and the batting has been mostly solid where the opposition’s has been rickety.

We can discuss everything that surrounds this series in due course. The fact is that we’ve hammered Australia in two successive matches to put Lord’s behind us. Only subsequently will we find out if this is the start of something special, or a false dawn. I have no problem at all with people celebrating. I’m sorry I can’t feel the unbridled joy of 2005 or 2009 (when I was there when they were won).

Feel great for most of those players today. They did England proud.

Ashes 4th Test, Day two review

thelegglance64 Comments

And that is pretty much that. Still 90 runs adrift, only three wickets left, short of a cricketing miracle for Australia, or the arrival of a freak hurricane, England will go 3-1 up sometime tomorrow, probably in the morning and regain the Ashes.  After the carnage of day one, to all intents and purposes the game was already up.

Being bowled out for 60 more or less guarantees defeat anyway, so today was in some ways a fairly normal panning out of the situation as expected from the end of day one.  Australia did bowl a little bit better, though that’s not especially unusual when a day has been as bad as that, it would be hard to imagine Australia could do any worse. Yet such was the total dominance of England’s position, they could happily play their shots safe in the knowledge that it mattered little.

Mitchell Starc got just rewards for a bowling performance that was a cut above those of his colleagues, but with the game already pretty much gone, it will hardly be a successful set of figures he will look back on with too much pleasure. Once again, Moeen and Broad showed they like batting together. Moeen is simply gorgeous to watch when in full flow, reminiscent of David Gower, to the point you want him to succeed simply because of that. His batting this series has been a major plus point, the debate over him will certainly continue, but his performances at key times with the willow have been the least of the issues.

As for Broad, some time ago it started to look as though he was just beginning to get his batting back. It’s not entirely there yet, but he is staying in line, and looking to play shots, rather than desperately slogging. A Broad who plays like that is a serious asset in the lower order.

Australia couldn’t possibly have batted as badly as they did in the first innings, and the opening stand from Warner and Rogers restored both a little respect and a fair degree of sanity to proceedings. Yet the problems were still there, Rogers never looked entirely comfortable, while Warner was consistently squared up.  England have clearly identified that his strength to the short ball is also his weakness when he’s cramped for room, hence coming around the wicket. His arms don’t extend and the ball can only go up. Other teams will be watching.

From a promising start, Australia collapsed horribly yet again. In each case it was a grim shot, even allowing for the two lives provided when England bowlers overstepped; Smith looks completely at sea at present, which is remarkable when only four innings ago he looked imperious at Lords. His idiosyncratic technique was always going to be examined in conditions where the ball moves in the air and off the pitch. He’s more than good enough to work that out, but it’s far too late for this series, and not alone in having serious difficulty against the moving ball. Clarke too was hopelessly out of touch, while Marsh’s dreadful shot did little to change the minds of those who simply don’t think he’s good enough for Test cricket.

As previously mentioned, it is never quite evident that a team has lost it until it actually happens, any more than anyone expected England’s hammering last time out. The signs were there after the first Test of a team showing signs of distress, and only a pitch that couldn’t have been better prepared to entirely nullify England’s bowlers got Australia back into it. Yet the abject, spineless capitulation of Australia’s batting in the last two Tests has been every bit as shambolic as anything England produced in 2013/14.

Well as England have bowled, time and again players have been dismissed playing attacking shots that are exceptionally high risk, with no evidence of a willingness to graft in less than perfect batting conditions. These are not bad players, to be getting out in this way repeatedly betrays minds that are completely shot, a team that has no idea how to arrest the slide. There is always a temptation when England win to limit the praise to them by pointing out the faults of the opposition. Yet in just the same way as the most recent 5-0 said more about England’s abysmal surrender than it did a great Australian side, so this almost certain series victory is less about England being outstanding than Australia being dire.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of things to praise England for, the catching has been excellent, the on field direction has simply been far better than anyone could possibly have expected from the captain given his performance to date, while Joe Root in particular is starting to look the real deal, and Ben Stokes might still be inconsistent but is a major talent in the making with both bat and ball. Yet when Australia keep being bowled out to self inflicted calamity rather than England brilliance, that praise does need to be tempered by a recognition that England haven’t suddenly become a great side.

Future opponents will not be anything like so meek. That isn’t meant to be grudging, more a reflection on an astounding collapse in morale and stomach for the fight from Australia. England can certainly take pleasure from the way they have pressurised Australia – unforced errors are rarely entirely unforced when it afflicts the whole team – but there can have been few tours where Australia have been so appallingly inept on such a regular basis.

This has been a truly bizarre series, no match has even had the resemblance of a close contest, and this fourth match has been even more one sided than the three previous.  Australia are shot to pieces.   Quite why that is, will be a debate for the future. For now, they deserve every bit of the kicking they are getting from their own media who at least seem to recognise a team shambles when they see one.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

2015 Ashes – 4th Test Day 2

LordCanisLupus109 Comments

So, after a Goring, what will we see today?

I kept off the newspaper sites last night.
I think people do get carried away. Stop and smell the roses. It’s great we are winning but what’s happening here?

I find this a rather curious state of affairs. Two years ago we were routinely winning a series 3-0 against an Aussie team that at least put up a fight. This is supine nonsense. We’re really not in a position to be giving it “all that” after 2013/14’s debacle, but the one thing about being totes “loyal supporter innit” is not having a memory. “Just enjoy the now, you miserable old prick” would be some retorts.

Don’t get me wrong, don’t confuse my approach with sympathy for Australia. They don’t deserve any for a display like that, and for some of the pain they’ve put me through. But this is like putting an old animal out of its misery, isn’t it? They came for one last dance, and found the music had stopped. I’ll mix my metaphors and won’t care.

So England are 214 in front with six wickets in hand and a long batting line-up that will have Moeen Ali coming in at 9. Dear God. Top teams can pull themselves out of mighty holes, but to do so they need belief and confidence, and have undoubted top players. Australia are showing none of those qualities. Their bowling has been found seriously wanting in these last two tests. Their batting, Smith and Rogers apart at Lord’s, hasn’t been anything to write home about (Warner’s second innings digs are not relevant here). I would love us to win one of these tests in a balls-aching, close, tense encounter. This is rubbish.

If this test pans out, it will be the fourth one-sided match in a row. There’s been little tension. The result has been known, pretty much, by the end of day two. We’ve might have had the flow, but there has been precious little ebb.

All comments on Day 2 here, please. Have a good one. I’m in the office all day…..

Day 1 – A Snap Review

LordCanisLupus56 Comments

A few years ago, when I played club cricket, we used to go on tour to Berkshire / Oxfordshire for a tour. We used to play five games on the half-term week at the end of May / beginning of June. We played Bagshot, Kidmore End, Shiplake College, Harpsden or Purley (or any combo thereof) before our Friday fixture. The end of the tour match.
This match traditionally was our nadir. Goring were a decent team, but by this time our band of fat (me) and old cricketers were beginning to long for home. We’d been on tour too long. Our bodies were not coping well. The fact is, too much beer, too much curry, too many big breakfasts and too much time playing meant we were a rabble come Goring on a Friday. We used to get absolutely stuffed.
Any time our club side played a normal game, and got thoroughly defeated, we termed it a “Goring”.
Today, Australia have received a Goring. I’ll even add Harpsden (where I played my last ever club match in a 200 run defeat) to that mix. A Goring/Harpsden.
Where on earth do you start? The first over that ended 10/2 with the two hundred makers, Smith and Rogers gone and forgotten. I was at work, and Broad’s clatter of wickets resonated as the three or four of us keeping an eye on the game told each other the news. Of course, I was first because Andy gave me the head start (see comments thread).
60 all out. That is absolutely dreadful. Pomicide they are calling it Down Under. Stuart Broad took 8-15, which Devon Malcolm’s day of days aside is the best figures I’ve ever seen from an England bowler. I’ve never seen Australia bowled out for less by England. I thought Melbourne 2010 was the perfect day’s cricket, but that performance on Boxing Day was Stalingrad compared to today’s capitulation. Malcolm Conn’s birthday will always be remembered. “At least we won’t lose 5-0” was his disappointing and somewhat half-hearted response to the “bantz”.
Joe Root rammed home the advantage. This is his team, and we’ve been saying this for months now. He is our best batsman, he seems to be the one to keep the flags flying, the spirits up. We will see his tactical nous in due course.

It’s the aftermath that is possibly more interesting than the action itself. Unless something else happens that defies the mind, you can stick a fork in the Aussies. They are done. Now we get to see people get carried away…..

It’s been a day. 214 in front. Game pretty much over.  A Goring.

2015 Ashes – 4th Test, 1st Day

LordCanisLupus214 Comments

While I’m in a ranty old mood, remember when a test match finished and you had over a week to wait for the next one? OK, those players would not rest but play county cricket, but international fixtures are another thing entirely. These matches are just coming too quickly. The second half of back-to-back games can produce extremely poor quality matches.

But we don’t care. It’s all about England winning. So post away. Enjoy the game. Add your comments below. It’s cricket. It’s the Ashes. Enjoy. It’s just the 14th test between the two teams in 24 months! It’s special! Let’s have more of it…..

Comments below. I’ll be at work. SE London doesn’t have an underground network. Life is a laugh, ain’t it?

Ashes Panel #010 – Bucko Kicks My Arse… I Am #StayHumble

LordCanisLupus16 Comments

australia-celebrate-the-ashes-whitewash_10piscrajeyf61qj64a1ovgr5r (2)

Sean B, aka the Great Bucko, kicked my arse on Twitter last night. Feeling a bit sorry for myself, he prompted me to raise an Ashes Panel #010, and despite the shortness of time, a number of you came through for me, and here it is. A million thanks, people.

We have Sean B, Hillel (big thanks, I know how busy you are), PGP Chapman (sans end of piece rant – I’m sad), Paul Ewart and Colonel Blimp (David Oram). And at the last knockings, it’s Man In A Barrel too!

We put this together at short notice, so forgive errors and maybe the questions, but let’s play ball….

1. Michael Clarke’s form? A permanent dip or just temporary? And do you think it is the difference between the two teams?
Philip – Firstly England have bowled very well at Clarke in this series. Secondly, class is permanent and as we have seen from Ian Bell, it only takes one really good innings to turn it around. What I would say is that he is more upright in his stance than previously (seems to be a bit of a current trend) and while this is fine and symptomatic of a player with a bad bad – think Athers in his later career, it means that his head is starting from a marginally different position, which through the delivery will a batsman’s alignment with the off stump. This is emphasised by the moving ball – the way to counteract this is by moving guard across half a stump – but for an experienced player that may also feel a bit wierd. I also suspect he is trying a bit too hard. Who knows what is going to happen – but I don’t believe he is the difference between the sides – actually I think that is Moeen – who is quietly bowling ok and scoring lots of important runs with the tail in a way that is demoralising the Aussies. In most cases Eng have also cleaned up the Aussie tail pretty well – which we have struggled to do in the recent past.

Clarke clearly also has issues with the teams he is being given – I am not sure that is because he doesn’t get on with Lehman or the selectors or what that is all about – that is hurting his (and the team’s) mental state.

Hillel – Michael Clarke’s dip in form is certainly temporary; it is flippant to suggest a batsman of his calibre has been found out, and neither (as with Tendulkar’s eyesight) does there seem to be a sign that he has lost his touch. His two vital 50’s in the World Cup is testament to the latter. Let us also not suggest he is by any means the difference between the two teams, for if Australia have been hosting an out-of-form batsman in every Test this Ashes, so too have England in the form of Adam Lyth. Nonetheless, I worry for Clarke: he looks morally beaten by years of being underappreciated by so many of his country for his efforts. There is also evidence that even if he recovers, the Australian selectors may not see a future in which he plays a part. I fear that even though this is a temporary dip in form, Michael Clarke’s time is up.

David – Hard to tell. But Clarke’s lack of runs is a symptom not a cause of the Australian ague. Form and fitness oscillate for all cricketers, and he may yet reach the heights again. I just hope not in this series! Interesting how sharply he is reputed to have rebutted the question about his ‘hunger’. Methinks the lady doth protest too much! Isn’t it amazing though how in a short period, and after a couple of bad results, the man’s entire playing and captaincy career is being reevaluated? A great batsman can become a bad one overnight if he’s out of form or unfit – but career wise we’ll always acknowledge he was a mighty fine player. But a great captain can’t become a poor one overnight. The point is Clarke’s only ever been a decent one, good not brilliant, with a few innovative field placings, and some bloody awful bowling changes. And he never completely had the dressing room. Wins in the next two Tests may yet elevate his status even higher than those who have previously (unrealistically) lauded his ‘genius’ – but defeat and I think his time, and maybe even his legacy, could well be done.
Paul – Who knows? It feels like he’s coming towards the end but I’d imagine he’s still got a couple of good innings in him. Big game players tend to come good even when their body’s giving up on them. Remember Steve Waugh’s one-legged century? I’m not sure it’s the difference between the teams. This has been a crazy series. I wouldn’t single Clarke out: what about no’s 5 and 6?
Sean –  I think it’s semi permanent now, which despite not liking the guy, is sad because he was a very good batsman (though I wouldn’t say he was one of the greats). It’s been clear for sometime that he has been hampered by his back and this has affected both his movement towards the ball and ability to sway the short ball. His footwork also seems to be hesitant, which is another reason why he has struggled this Summer. It reminds me a bit of when Vaughan returned after his knee injury – he still knew what he wanted to do but didn’t have the body to do it. I’m not sure it’s the difference between the teams as some of our batsmen aren’t exactly pulling up trees, but a fit and in form Clarke would add value to any side; however don’t be surprised if he pulls himself together for one last hurrah.
Barrel – I hope it is a temporary dip simply because he is such a graceful batsman to watch when on song.  If he were in form, the Aussies would surely be well ahead by now because we know that he has the skill and determination to graft on a difficult pitch against an attack which is short of true greatness.
————————————————————————————–
2. I can’t abide discussions on pitches, but popular demand suggests we need to talk about it. What do you think we’ll get at Trent Bridge?
Philip – I think it will have some grass on the pitch – so similar to Edgbaston. here’s hoping for a similar result!!

I think it will be a good toss to lose on Thursday (much like in the previous game).

Hillel – England seem to have realised that swinging pictures work to their advantage, especially with an in-form Steven Finn returning to the attack. To change the formula that won England the last Test would be dangerous, not to mention highly unnecessary. Furthermore, the momentum (dare I breathe the word) is with England, and even the ECB will realise that to prepare negative pitches now (pitches that detriment Australia, rather than advantaging England), will be inexcusable. The pitch will a traditional English pitches, Trent Bridge will swing as usual and that should suit Mark Wood perfectly.

David – Not so keen on pitch discussions myself! I’ve never ever met or seen on TV someone who genuinely could read a pitch accurately ahead of a game. And once the game is underway many experts still manage to make the wrong guess. “This’ll take turn on days 4 and 5” and it doesn’t.  “This pitch will deteriorate” and it flattens into a road. Likewise groundsmen. I’ve thought for over 30 years that Mick Hunt is an appalling preparer of cricket pitches, but does manage a beautifully maintained lawn. He has no idea what sort of track we will eventually get for a Test, regardless of whatever the weather has done (but never fails to use it as a handy excuse) but occasionally ‘Mike’ does get lucky – but mostly it’s crap. I have just as much faith in the other Test grounds. I hope Trent Bridge is something similar to Edgbaston because Rogers apart, they are hopeless against the moving ball.
Paul – Talk is it’ll be like Edgbaston. As long as there’s something in it for both bowling attacks I’m happy. I don’t like doctored pitches and Cardiff was doctored.
Sean – You’ve discovered my real bug bear, as I on the other hand, hate to see doctored low and slow wickets designed to nullify the opposition rather than play to your own strengths (I could go on all evening about this, but fear not, I won’t). They would literally be batshit crazy to produce another wicket like the one against India last year, as then it’s a win the toss, win the game scenario and I also think Stuart Broad would spontaneously combust! I think the wicket will have a bit in it, especially if there’s cloud cover overhead but equally it’s not going to be a raging green seamer either. If the pitch is similar to Edgbaston then that would suit me fine.
Barrel – I guess it will be a slow Trent Bridge pitch with a bit of grass on it to appease the journos, Nass and Strauss(y).  It won’t have the bounce of Edgbaston so it will just be a tricky pitch which doesn’t help anyone really.
——————————————————————————————-
3. The loss of Anderson. A crucial blow or one we can get over?
Philip – Well he will stop playing at some point. So we have to get over it. Yes we will be fine. If Finn hadn’t bowled so well in the last game I would be much more nervous, but we will be fine (if I tell myself enough times we will be fine, I will eventually believe it). Whether Wood, Plunkett or Footitt play they all have extra pace and will do well at Trent Bridge – what we do need is smeone who doesn’t go at 5 an over to bowl with broad – we have to accept that Finn is likely too as is Moeen, so who ever plays has to be able to do the dot ball holding roll.
Hillel – On the surface of it, a terrible blow – despite all of Finn’s heroics, Anderson played a huge part in victory at Edgebaston. However, scratch a bit deeper and England should (the famous last word) be alright. Broad has been bowling superbly, and has until now gone largely unrewarded for his efforts; it is almost certain wickets for him are imminent. I need not go into detail about just how well Finn is bowling at the moment. There is room to suggest Mark Wood’s record at Trent Bridge means that he can replace Anderson there as well, despite the fact that he is not a like-for-like replacement as someone like Jack Brooks might have been. Where England will be hurt is if Anderson remains injured for the final Test; with England unlikely to go with the experience of Jack Brooks, they could find their attack rather depleted.
David – Yes and yes. It may well be fate that Finn has come of age just as Anderson has acquired his free pass bus. We only see the pivotal moments for what they are in the rear view mirror. I hope Jimmy comes back at The Oval, but we really need to be thinking hard about life after Jimmy. How all that effects this Test though is anyone’s guess. And we’ve all been doing a hell of a lot of guessing in this series!
Paul – Could be a McGrath moment, could be nothing of the sort. I’ve given up predicting anything in this series. It’ll give the Aussies a boost, that’s for sure, but it’s up to them to take advantage. I’d expect them to bounce back but, like I say, it’s a crazy series.
Sean – It’s a massive blow if the pitch has something for the swing bowlers (but not if its a featherbed). We don’t have another bowler like Anderson in county cricket that doesn’t bowl at late 70 mph (Rushworth as a prime example). I think they’ll go with Wood if fit and he does have a good record at Trent Bridge in his first class career, so I’m taking some solace in that. The unknown is how much of a boost that has given to the Australian dressing room knowing they won’t have to face Jimmy on one of his favourite grounds.
Barrel – I suspect it will be crucial.  Although Broad is bowling well, Finn is only one match into his “comeback”, Stokes is variable, and it looks as if Wood has had a cortisone.  Given that you should only have 3 cortisones in your career – learned from Simon Jones’s memoir – this is a very bad sign.  I suspect Wood will struggle in this match to fill Anderson’s workload.
——————————————————————————————-
4. I’m a bit concerned about Jos Buttler’s batting. Are you? 
Philip – Yes I am concerned, but I think Jos is a massive superstar and will score runs. At the moment he doesn’t seem to have a clear plan of how to play, plus, I suspect, he is lacking some form. Personally I would swap him and Johnny B in the batting order and play him just as a batsman (as said previously) and tell him to treat the match as if it was a one day game. Focus on the ball and not the match situation.

Jos, like Root and Moeen is just one of those players you have to back.

Hillel – Not particularly. Jos Buttler did score good runs against New Zealand (only three Tests ago!), and stick with him for long enough, he’ll do so again. It’s worth mentioning as well that whilst Jos should be performing, England’s success will not (or should not) be decided at the number 7 position.

David – Very. He’s looked a hapless shadow of himself. And his thinking has been wobbly too. Not reviewing (however OUT he thought he was, it was an obvious tactical necessity with his LBW with only the tail to come) was schoolboyish. If there hadn’t been more obvious guys to drop he might have been axed by now. Get out and play your natural game Jos. Hit the bloody thing!
Paul – Not especially. Better judges than I say he’s the real deal. If so he’ll work it out. It might be that he should be moved up the order in the longer term.
Sean – Yes it’s a concern, like a number of our other batsmen, though he has been noticeably better with the gloves. They’re not going to dump Jos (yes Ian Healy, that’s Jos not Josh) as he has been identified as the heir apparent and without doubt is a talented batsman (his test batting seems to mirror his county batting in that he blows hot and cold) but I still think we’ll see a significant score from him before the series is out. One thing I’d be tempted to do would be to send Moeen in ahead of him, as Moeen has looked in form with the bat this series and it seems a waste to have him continuously batting with the tail.
Barrel – Yes – he hangs his bat out to dry when there is any pace directed at him.
—————————————————————————————–
5. Your prediction for this match coming up?
Philip – England to win – no idea why. probably in 4 days. England play well at Trent Bridge and it is Broad’s home ground – he is due a hot streak and I think he will be MoM
Hillel – I’m not sure even the Oracle of Delphi would dare voice a prediction on the next Test, in light of how the previous three have gone. At a push, I’d suggest England.
David – Defeat. It’s obvious isn’t it?
Paul – I’d be surprised if Australia don’t bounce back at Trent Bridge: they’ll be hurting. I can’t help feeling that they have a deep well of confidence that England sides, 2005 excepted are unable to match. That may, however, be nothing more than mental scarring as a result all those defeats in the 90s and the subsequent whitewashes in Oz.
Sean – Seriously, who knows, such has been the inconsistencies of each side during the series. My heart says England due to the dreaded M worded being bandied about by the pundits, but head says Australia will get it together and perform well at Trent Bridge. I do think whoever bats the best in the first innings will win the game as neither side’s batting line up has been able to cope with scoreboard pressure. On the other hand I am hoping for a number of Celebrappeals, a terrible Broad review in his first over, Mitchell Johnson to injure his ankle by stepping on a cricket ball and Moeen to mankading Michael Clarke, but that just might be me…
Barrel – Draw – rain-affected
—————————————————————————————-

Thanks to the contributors, once again, and to Sean for unknowingly rising me from a bit of a stupour. Great answers, showing that this gang aren’t some sad pathetic bunch, but passionate about the game. I might be a broken record on this, but until those arrogant little —— think that cheerleading is not the only way to follow this sport, and actually stop and read some of this stuff, then I’ll keep banging the drum. Well done all. Of all the things I’ve put on this blog, getting you to participate in the panels is one of the best. I thoroughly enjoy them!

Dmitri.