2015 Test Century Watch #26 – Adam Lyth

LordCanisLupus1 Comment

Lyth

Adam Lyth – 107 v New Zealand at Headingley

Yawn. Another small ton. Can’t you feel the statistical resentment rise in me. But stop for a minute and think what it meant for Adam. His first ton in his second test on his home patch. It’s top notch for him, and he was sawn off for good measure to end his 107 as run out.

But we’ve been here before this year. It’s the second 107 following on from Asad Shafiq’s last month. So I need to pad out a couple of hundred words over and above this to make this piece somewhat worthwhile.

This is the second 107 made at Headingley. The other scorer of 107 was David Boon in the annihilation of the English in 1993, when Australia piled up the small number of 653/4, with Border making a double ton, and Steve Waugh 157 not out. The last Englishman to be dismissed for 107 in tests was Marcus Trescothick in 2004 in his two century match against the West Indies.

Lyth also shares something else with Marcus Trescothick, as well as Allan Lamb in 1982 v India at The Oval and Chris Rogers against South Africa in Port Elizabeth last year. They are the only four players to have been run out for 107 in a test match.

I thought I’d do a quick comparison of the last England openers to make their first hundreds and how many runs were in that innings. This was the 295th test century made by an English opener, by the way.

Marcus Trescothick – 122 v Sri Lanka in Galle

Andrew Strauss – 112 v New Zealand at Lord’s (on debut)

Alastair Cook – 104 not out v India at Nagpur (on debut)

Nick Compton – 117 v New Zealand at Dunedin

Sam Robson – 127 v Sri Lanka at Headingley

Adam Lyth – 107 v India at Headingley.

Michael Vaughan and Joe Root made centuries from the opener slot but they weren’t their first hundreds in tests. Interesting that Robson has the highest of those scores.

By the way that was the 77th hundred made by an English opener since 1 January 2000.

Adam Lyth’s 100 came up in 188 balls and contained 14×4.

2015 Century Watch #25 – Ben Stokes

LordCanisLupus4 Comments

Ben-Stokes-Hairstyles2Ben Stokes – 101 v New Zealand at Lord’s

Flintoff-esque came the cry. Ben Stokes had shot to glory with a ton at Perth, joining the select band of England cricketers to make a ton at the WACA in the past 25 years. At last, the man came to the party. 92 in the first innings, his second ton in the second innings.

Small tons are the bane of century watch’s existence. This was the second 101 of the year – David Warner got the first – so lots of the statistical jiggery-pokery was included on that post on HDWLIA.

This was the third century made from number 6 this year, following Asad Shafiq and Jermaine Blackwood. It was the fastest hundred made in tests at Lord’s pipping Mohammed Azharuddin’s 87 ball effort in 1990 by two. It was the 9th score of 101 made at Lord’s, with the first being scored by Nasim-ul-Ghani in 1962, who pipped his batting partner Javed Burki both to the ton and the 101 mark! He’s the third Englishman to make 101 there – Michael Vaughan did it in his two centuries in a match game against the West Indies in 2004 (103 in the first, 101* in the second) and Graham Hick did it on the day of one of my best mate’s funeral in 2000 against Zimbabwe. He’s also the fourth New Zealand-born player to do it following Trevor Franklin, Mark Richardson and Jacob Oram (praying they were born there, so as not to get caught out).

This is the 114th score of 101 in test cricket. Have you seen any Dmitri? Well, funny you should ask but no. I missed KP’s 101 to save a test against India in 2007 by a day, having been there for days 1-4.

Only Misbah, in his record-setting ton (with 5), Chris Gayle and Peter May (with 4) have hit more sixes in a 101 than Ben Stokes.

I’m bored with 101. It may have been a great knock, but it’s a boring number, Ben.

Ben Stokes 100 came up in 85 balls and contained 15×4 and 3×6.

The Rapid Reaction – ODI #2

LordCanisLupus20 Comments

2nd ODI – New Zealand 398/5 (Taylor 119*, Williamson 93, Guptill 50) beat England 365-9 (Morgan 88, Hales 54) by 13 runs on DL Method.

Dmitri on duty tonight as thelegglance is having a break from the match reviews for the evening.

I did not get to see the first innings of the match. I missed Ross Taylor’s century, the hitting, the accumulation, the posting of the second highest score in ODI history in England. 398 for 5. I will leave it to others to describe the bowling, which judging by the commenters on here, wasn’t up to much, with the inability to take wickets still a major concern. The Oval clearly put up a road for the day’s entertainment judging by what I’m watching as I start the match report.

Now England’s chase is something we’ve wanted to see. They’ve gone for it. You know that it hasn’t been reckless, but it’s been focussed, it’s been a study in hitting and technique, and it is an even better example of the change of mentality that this ODI team seems to have in these early days of full reconstruction. They set the highest score that England have ever made in the second innings of an ODI. They did it with decent contributions down the order.

I can only really comment on what I’ve watched. The best sign was the innings of Eoin Morgan. He’s taken a hell of a lot of stick over the winter, even though he made an ODI hundred in Australia which his predecessor as captain hadn’t looked like doing for years. Sure, he wasn’t in top form, we knew that, but his 88 today was brilliant. It looked almost “risk-free” but if he’d continued he’d have beaten Buttler’s record. It’s back-to-back 50s for him, the first being mightily undetected in the last match which was crucial in the rebuilding of the innings.

The openers showed great promise, although Jason Roy’s dismissal annoyed me a touch. Fact is, that I’ll have to get over it with the way this team looks like it is setting up to play. Alex Hales made a decent half-century, but left you wanting more. One day I see that bloke clicking, being the sort you cannot bowl to, and beating Robin Smith’s record. Good grief, that needs to go, even remembering how much I liked Judge. Joe Root was a bit daft. I’m saying this early, I know, but all but one of his ODI tons came batting first, and while the other was a winning effort, it was in a chase of 240-odd. He’s our Kane Williamson. But you don’t come off every time.

Jos, even when he’s not in miracle mode, played well until nicking off. There’s the itch you can’t scratch that maybe he’s one or two places too low? Obviously not everyone can bat in the top 4 slots. If he did, he’d threathen that record too. Ben Stokes will also come off.

Then came Rashid and Plunkett. Then the rain. Then cricket being cricket.

There can be just two reasons for the equation of 13 balls to score 34 balls. Rigidity of rules so that the game finishes at a specified time, which is nonsense if all you are giving yourself is half an hour. London Transport, when it works, does run past 21:20. If it’s the Resident’s Association of Kennington, the sort that moaned when Surrey planned to build a hotel where the old relic Laker and Lock stands are, but seem to look out of their windows a lot when play is on, then stuff them. Their property values aren’t going down for 20 minutes play. Oh, I’m sure there’s plenty of rules is rules muppets out there, but get over yourselves.

Before the rain Rashid and Plunkett rode their luck but hit some superb shots. They kept a dead game alive. They are the reason we can get back to liking this team, those of us who need more than just Chef platitudes and to be told that the test team is now back in the fold. Rashid appears a totem for the past regime. A higher risk pick in a low risk management structure. Plunkett’s 44, completed in the farcical 13 ball period, was a brilliant sight. He’s a lost talent, through injury and other things, but we remember his batting being not bad stuff first time around. Rashid then fell to wonderful fielding. This game could have had such a great finale.

In defeat this England team won more admirers. That speaks volumes. We’ll forgive, always, those that give it a go, a reall good go. Not reckless abandon, but positive intent. Not fear of failure, but being positive, attacking, aggressive with the bat. This is something I can get behind. I don’t usually do “heroic failure” but we can all see progress here.

Lastly, I thought I’d address some of the stuff I had this morning. Frankly, if you read my Meantime London Lager fuelled riposte to the Pringle “irrelevant” jibe, and the main point you took out of it was that I resented business travel, then there’s not a lot I can do. I thought the piece was framed, even in my alcohol-induced blind rage, to say we pay our way, we feel the pain not only personally, but financially, and it isn’t our job to follow the team, but our passion. Now, I am not saying the hacks are not equally as passionate, but they are the envy of many by getting paid to travel the world to watch the game. Therefore, when those in that fortunate, privileged position decide that those who pay their wages are irrelevant, is the point that all but a few seemed to grasp. Thelegglance has a think piece on this which we’ll release over the weekend.

Oh, it’s not about me being criticised. I dish it out, so I have to take it. But it doesn’t mean I won’t defend myself.

England v New Zealand – 2nd ODI

LordCanisLupus72 Comments

OK, got that Pringle stuff off my chest. Now on to the cricket.

We were all gobsmacked at that batting performance on Tuesday, and now the importance of this game is paramount. Can we follow that style up? What if we need to chase a big total? How will that go? Can the relative rookies take a grip of the game and show their talent?

Again, sadly, I’m in the office so won’t get to see a lot of the match. I also know Vian isn’t going to be in contact with the game but we’ll do our best to cover the action and bring you our reactions.

Irrelevant as they may be.

Comments below, as usual.

Adelaide to Perth

LordCanisLupus29 Comments

Telegraph Cricket Editorial

It was a lovely sunny morning in Adelaide. We were mightily depressed, after the events of the day before. We’d been through the mill, watching England fail to see out the day and Australia clinch the second test. The four of us were bidding farewell to a city that had seen a fair bit of drama. I’d seen what self-confidence I had in the wake of my parents (both of them) deaths in the past 18 months had been destroyed. But it was time to leave Adelaide, and my wallet was left there too.

We arrived at Adelaide Airport, ready for the flight to Perth. We were a bit late, as the Western Australians had done something funky with their times. We gawped at the stars in and around the queue. Adam Gilchrist was whisked through (but he wasn’t on our plane) while Gladstone Small and Phil DeFreitas were in the queue behind us. Oh look, there’s Tim Abraham from Sky, and look, there’s Simon Barnes….

As we boarded the flight the sheer hilarity was apparent. Sitting two rows behind us were CMJ and Derek Pringle. Oh yes. So while we were squeezed up on a Qantas cross-country flight to Perth, so were CMJ and Pringle. However, let us remember. We’d paid for our seats.

What’s the point of this recollection, some of you may ask? None really. Just the juxtaposition that there was I, paying some fair sum out of my meagre resources, while on the same flight were the pros. The men paid to write, paid to watch cricket, paid to comment. It’s something that drives me a little. The little man with no say, other than being a cricket nut who would follow his team to the other end of the earth and not have our lamentable performances ruin his holiday, against the grizzled old pros, who owed their whole livelihood to the game, and now made money out of not participating.

This memory, of that Qantas flight, smacked me between the eyes on the way home tonight. I try, as a rule, not to write while under the influence of alcohol, but tonight I will make an exception. I should not get annoyed, but when I’m personally attacked, in an impersonal manner, I’ll fight on my behalf. The source of my ire is this:

Some of you picked up on it. I saw it at lunchtime. The mere fact he’d copied in numbers 1,2,4 and 5 in the pantheon of shame from last night had meant he’d decided to call me irrelevant. How absolutely hilarious. The reason for my irrelevance is, according to what I infer from the tweet in my honour, my anonymity. My hiding behind a supposed pseudonym. Well. old chap, that’s a shame as I’m sticking behind my nom de blog, as you call it, for now. The problem is that me, and the people who comment on the posts we painstakingly, and lovingly, write (and I know I speak for Vian on this too) are doing for free, for fun, for enjoyment and for the love of the sport, what those paid to write are singularly failing to do. We are arguing our case, cogently, persuasively, forcefully and passionately. The other thing is that, on too many occasions for comfort for people outside the cosy press chain, we get things right. While you anointed Peter Moores as the best coach of his generation with a tide of cosy copy after his appointment, there were deep, deep reservations on here. Were we wrong? While you blithely accepted the dismissal of KP, and absolutely believing it was a storm that would die down in no time, you’ve been proven wrong and you still can’t stop the furore, even now. While you lot fellated Paul Downton for his aplomb, who were calling him an absolute disaster from Day 1? After an ODI batting performance many of us only dreamed of seeing from an England team just two days ago, who thought that Cook should be opener in the World Cup just a few months ago? I could go on, but then I’d be accused of nastiness and guesswork.

Pringle has been a source of my ire for many a year. His casual snideness in his articles has grated. There was plenty of anti-KP nonsense, plenty of chipping away, and a dismissal of those sad people who actually pay to watch the game in many of his dismissive responses I’ve seen down the years on Twitter. There’s a reason he was #1 for many years in my most loathed journalist posts.

It takes a special type of genius to come up with this (lots more here):

All the ingredients to turn this Investec Test series from korma to vindaloo are in place: a chilli-red ball, a spicy Old Trafford pitch and some hot and sour players, most notably James Anderson and M S Dhoni, India’s crusading captain.

Yes. I remember that brilliance.

You see, I’ve never claimed to be something that I’m not. I went years in the wilderness, writing for love and for enjoyment of the life I have and rage at those who seem to want to do me or my friends down. I’m in a job I like, but get no respect from anyone outside our bubble, but get my head down and do my thing. I do things like this because I enjoy the game of cricket and am in despair at what has happened to the game I love (and I don’t believe I am the font of all knowledge, or always right). I treat my readership with respect, and although we have a few ups and downs, I get thrilled that people feel this blog is a place to visit. I’ve met some good people, got the inside track from some in the reporting game, and value all the commenters on here. Unlike the likes of Pringle, I don’t take them for granted, don’t believe I am always right, and I listen and read what they say. I was chuffed when Vian wanted to write on here, and thought it a real filip for all I’ve done.

And, like it or not, pal. I’m not irrelevant. I think our hit rates on here, without the benefit of a cushy gig on a national paper are amazing. And just when I might have doubts about my posts, or what I’m doing on here, I get my copy of this month’s Cricketer magazine.

“To disenchanted class warriors the superficial evidence – public school, university degree and an accent which clings defiantly to its aitches – would have seemed irrefutable. But Strauss…..has long shown his loyalties lie not with the old-boy network but to the game of cricket.”

Read that again. Please. Me? My beef was over the use of the word trust when he called the same person he excluded a cunt. I’m really sorry, but cling to your fucking aitches all you like, you muppet, but that’s my problem. He’s the establishment candidate because the ECB is the establishment. He was earmarked ages ago for this role. He courted it. You choose to deny that all you want, but that point is not irrelevant.

Pringle is a cause of the rage. When we wanted him and his ilk to find out what was going on, and to tell his readership why and how, he cocked us a snook. He let us down. He chose his loyalty and now he can stick with it. He can call me irrelevant all he likes, but my irrelevant blog, from nothing, got a whole page in this year’s Wisden Almanack without going all out for it. I’d blogged for years. I did it for love. I did it because I care about the game. And I’ll continue having a pop at you lot when you let us down. Wisden was a nice surprise, but also a tribute to those who made HDWLIA what it was, and have gone even further with this place. Pringle and his ilk had their readership handed to them on a silver platter. I had to fucking work at it. Hard.

I get angry because I am a fan of the game. No doubt some journos are. But we are different.

Because, old son, I paid for my tickets. I earned my money and chose to spend it on the sport. You’ve got paid. I’m an amateur, and I paid attention to my audience. You were paid and ignored yours. Still, only 9 wins out of 12 to go, eh?

Night.

Revelation

LordCanisLupus42 Comments

Thanks for thelegglance for filling in the match report duties last night. I got home quite late (this work stuff is getting a pain) and by the time I did, the match was all over. Quite good to have a couple of other cricket lovers around me in the office following the scores surreptitiously on cricinfo and passing updates. Think it might be a bit blatant to lop out the old Tablet and watch SkyGo in the office!

I saw the highlights and caught some of the reaction. It was a brilliant performance. Absolutely no doubt about it, but it should be noted that the new breed went 3 for 4 in terms of “failure”. Roy, who I have a real sneaking suspicion is not going to cut it at the top level (I think when you saw him face Steven Finn in the T20 last year gave you a clue), obviously copped a first baller. Hales also hasn’t delivered in the top spot, and must do so soon, while Sam Billings, who I think should play so that we have a ready-made replacement if Buttler gets injured if he proves himself, also didn’t do well. The most experienced of the new breed, Adil Rashid, of course had an absolute blinder. I’m sure all those who slagged him off for a performance in the nets in the WIndies are saying sorry now…… [sound of crickets]

The established players, Root, Buttler and Morgan were magnificent, and yes, as Vian says, it’s that attitude and approach we want to see. I don’t buy the “no fear” codswallop, actually. It’s rather easy when you’ve been given a clean slate to create a new “brand” (and hell do I hate that phrase) to play without fear. I don’t doubt Buttler plays pretty much without it, but let’s see Joe Root make a ton chasing a big total, rather than setting one. Let’s see how we react chasing 300. Let’s see how we react chasing 250 and losing three wickets for 50. I’m interested to see how we do in those scenarios. But yes, yesterday was a remarkable day. To go from 200 for 6 to 408 for 9 was amazing. Absolutely amazing.

I now know how far I am behind on century watch. Ben Stokes (Lord’s), Adam Lyth (Headingley), BJ Watling (Headingley), Adam Voges (Dominica) and today Shikar Dhawan (Fatullah) need to be documented. No promises when. but I’ll catch up (another early start tomorrow means I’m off to bed soon).

I’m sort of reading two books at the same time – one an old paperback picked up in Hay-on-Wye and the other on the Kindle. I’ll do a book review of both when I’ve finished them, but there’s something remarkable about both. Put To The Test, by Geoffrey Boycott, is a frank view of the Ashes tour of 1978-9 – the Packer-decimated Australian team – when Boycs himself had a pretty poor tour. The frankness is in his comments on his teammates. He praises, and he criticises when he sees fit. It’s the sort of book we would never ever see now.

The other is The Plan, by Steve James. What is remarkable is the thing that seems to be lacking throughout this book is, well, a plan. It’s a series of anecdotes and events bundled together to tell the reader what, I don’t know. There are interesting bits, of course, but I’m befuddled by it, to be honest. I’ve actually no idea what it is trying to achieve. It’s all over the place.

I know I’ve promised, and the Bogfather reminds me, a press hall of shame piece. The fact is, I’ve really cooled on the idea for now. I wrote numbers 1 and 2 on holiday and then just lost the will, to be honest. I’m thinking of putting it to bed now until the annual readers awards at the end of the season, when you lot get to contribute to the voting. I don’t know why I can’t be arsed, but it just happens. For the record, though, my top five were:

1. Mike Selfey

2. Paul Newman

3. Derek Pringle (yes, old habits die hard)

4. Simon Hughes

5. Stephen Brenkley

Jim Holden had an Andy Ganteaume effort to pierce the top 5 on the back of one putrid article but would have been number 6. Henderson was in the running, thanks to detritus in the WCM. Ed Smith was also a live one, as FICJAM angered in his own patronising way. You know it is a tough field when John Etheridge is falling down the rankings, and the tenth was a pick from Chris Stocks, who I think may not really qualify for this, Malcolm Conn (for future crimes) and Aggers himself. Have I left anyone out.

Here is the citation, as written for number 1, back in May.

1. Mike Selvey – This has been a close fought battle, with at times Pringle and Newman edging ahead. But Selfey’s twitter contributions just about nail it, and he sealed the deal with the tweet that anything he said on there wasn’t an invitation for a conversation etc. In other words, unless I “respect” you, sod off. He’s not exactly got social media to a tee.

It’s the arrogance I can’t stand. The “I’ve been there, I know what’s going on and you don’t” approach. You are a journalist for crying out loud. You should be duty bound to tell us. I’m not a journalist, don’t want to be one, and therefore if someone tells me something in confidence then it remains that way because I have no responsibility to anyone other than myself. You have a responsibility to the people you report to.

Every column Selfey writes is met with increasing howls of indignation. It’s not so much now that we are banging on about KP, but it’s the closeness he appears to have to the hierarchy in charge. Selfey was on Moores before anyone else when it came to the selection of the new coach – many might interpret that as a scoop, most of us interpreted it as a Flower/Downton plant. If Selfey has criticised Cook at any length, I’ve missed it. If Selfey has criticised any of his favourites, then, again, I’ve missed it. His writing on international cricket is driving much of his audience mad. It’s made worse when we see the start that Ali Martin, fresh from The Sun, has made, and we can see the potential.

However, what clinches it is the way the negative views of Selfey below the line are moderated. There’s clearly difficulty in accepting that the people you write for are turning on you, and I am sure that’s tough to accept. Instead of listening to some of the more well-meaning stuff, Selfey has seen this as an excuse/reason to become more indignant, more churlish and even more set in his ways. I think he’s past the point of giving a hoot about who he writes for.

It’s funny, because Selfey’s writing has little impact on me any more. He doesn’t raise the levels of anger that Newman or Pringle, or to a lesser extent Brenkley do. But it’s the sneering contempt he appears to have to people who love the game and are incredibly frustrated by his reporting that clinches it. The suspicion is that Newman is doing much of what he does because of who he works for. Selfey doesn’t have that excuse. That’s why he’s numero uno.

Oh go on, I wrote Newman’s one as well….

Paul Newman – It would be tempting to rank Newman number 1, but I won’t. He still has a way to go to match the champion’s sneering contempt for those he is informing. What Newman does worse (or better depending on how you see it) is to provide copy that is so skewed, and at times so batshit insane, that you sit there and think “someone’s telling him to write this, they must be”.

Newman’s 2015 hasn’t been that bad, to be honest. But he wins his place this high because of the occasional lunacy that he concocts and the historically awful stuff he wrote about Pietersen and the book, which even some of his travelling colleagues thought a little bit odd. There is a constant dig on here that we see everything through a KP lens, as if all that I write is predicated on the “KP should be returned to the England fold” line to take. I’d suggest that Newman is much, much worse in this regard. Just look at what he wrote at the end of the Barbados test re Moores. That Moores should get the Ashes gig because he was stopped before by another KP-induced controversy. What the hell has KP got to do with the loss in Barbados and the World Cup except the morons in charge explicitly excluded him?

Newman can’t let Pietersen go. There are constant assertions of “fact”… that KP’s sacking was wholly justified, without ever detailing why. When challenged on Twitter, he resorts to attacking the questioner with “if you don’t know why, you’ll never know” type comments. It’s another example of contempt for the readership. It does create a question in my mind, and I’ve discussed this with Maxie, as to whether this is an editorial line and Newman is working it to the hilt. It would make sense, although I have no doubt there is massive personal antipathy there towards Pietersen, and he appears the journalist that most gets under KP’s skin.

Of course, working for the Mail renders him at a disadvantage from the get go. Blocking me on Twitter when I’ve never tweeted him abuse, or much of a comment, is just childish. Supporting Jim Holden’s article was an act of such expected density that it didn’t shock. Having a little dig at your’s truly for being “nothing important” in a Twitter exchange with Simon Hughes was lovely, actually.

However, it is the bending of the message to suit the prevailing anti-KP rage that is hilarious. Before and after the World Cup, Newman was all for burying Moores. According to Newman, dropping Cook on the eve of the World Cup would result in a make-or-break competition for the unprove new regime. In the same article he then says they have 12 months to prove themselves, but also that a failure in the World Cup followed by stuttering form in the Caribbean and beyond would claim more victims due to the rancour that envelops them. Yesterday despite a World Cup that didn’t even reach “mediocre” on the Newman scale, he’s backing him to continue.

Because, the suspicion is that despite his clear disregard for Moores over the last few months, and the laughs at us for being obsessed with KP, Newman is close to Cook and much is written through that lens. That’s not on. It really isn’t.

I picked up some old Wisden Cricket Monthlys a while back, when Newman had the County beat for the SE of England. He was good. People tell me he’s a really good bloke. But this current stuff is wretched, easily fiskable, and lacking in critical thought, and driven by ant-KP dogma, inserted at every opportunity, relevant or not. But he’s not number 1…..

Until the next time. Hope everyone is well, and let’s see the ODI team keep the show on the road.

England v New Zealand: 1st ODI review

thelegglance48 Comments

In truth, not many of the forecasts or expectations for this opening match of the series included the possibility of England battering New Zealand completely, and once again, the potential for going completely over the top on the basis of a single result in the mainstream media is more than a distinct possibility.  Yet there is also nothing wrong with enjoying an unexpected success, particularly when it is done with such style.

A single match is no basis to proclaim the brightness of the future, we have seen plenty of false dawns before, yet as an expression of intent (providing it doesn’t prove to be an outlier), this one does rather startle and grab the attention.  A 210 run margin of victory is the kind of thing that happens to England, not the other way around.

No question that the stars of the show were Root, Buttler and Rashid.  All three batted beautifully at different points of the innings, showing aggressive intent, excellent shot selection and perhaps most importantly a complete lack of fear of getting out.  It’s something England supporters have cried out for for years, the complete antithesis to the safety first approach in a form of cricket that rewards those prepared to back their own ability.

And therein lies the problem.  Despite it being abundantly obvious that this was the way to go, England persisted for years with their conservative, insular approach of trying to get to around a par score that the data confirmed would give them a decent chance of victory.  It’s not a cynical view of how they did it, Graeme Swann confirmed that this was how it was done.  Above all else, this performance is an excoriating verdict of England in One Day Cricket for many years.  The whole World Cup debacle actually looks worse after today than it even did at the time, not because England succeeded today and failed then, but because they didn’t even try then.

Of course, it is better late than never, and if this is indeed the new England, then we will have a side who may or may not succeed, but who won’t die wondering – and that would be a significant step forward.  At 202-6 there is absolutely no chance that the old England would have carried on attacking, there would have been an aim of around 300 if possible and a view that it was then “competitive”.  The point here is that Buttler and Rashid could have perished in pursuit of their aim of a high target, and England would then likely have fallen well short of 300, but even then it is still exactly the right way to go.  It remains to be seen if it is seen that way when it goes wrong, as most assuredly it will at some point.  Mike Atherton – who could defend himself by saying it was a legitimate question – asked that very point, only to be swiftly put down by Adil Rashid in response, quite rightly.  There lies the test.  England will be bowled out from promising positions in some matches adopting this approach, and they must be granted the latitude for that when it happens.

It’s a single match, and a single win.  But making over 400 and the way in which they did so is a marker for a style of cricket that the rest of the cricketing world adopted some time ago.  New Zealand won’t change, it remains to be seen if England do. Let’s hope not.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

England v New Zealand – 1st ODI

LordCanisLupus81 Comments

First up, apologies.

Life has been absolutely manic for me in the past week. It started with a day trip to Monaco, included getting a massive work effort in by Friday and culminated today in a promotion interview. I hope you can excuse me from not posting on here.

I’ve been following the comments but not, in truth, the papers in the past week. I had my own feelings on the loss of the second test, as retold in the “wanderer” post below, but it really as if it hadn’t happened. I’m at a loss to understand why Day 4 at Headingley this year is any different from Day 4 last year. I’m at a loss to understand how Adam Lyth is different to Sam Robson, yet. I’m at a loss to understand how a 4th innings collapse at Headingley differs from the year before, save for the fight from the lower order lasting a darn sight more last year. No. Nothing.

That’s because one of the things I did see this week was Cricket Writers, which spent its first 10 minutes or so with no more a topical hard-hitting discussion than “Alastair Cook is really brilliant, discuss.” The defeat was shrugged off, the portents not really taken in. Still, we’ve no reason to be concerned, because all in the garden looks rosier. Kevin who?

Tomorrow we start the one day series against New Zealand. Last time we played them in an ODI we were demolished. Now we have another new dawn. There’s fresh batting talent and a new-look bowling attack. People are talking about positive cricket, and new brands. Trevor Bayliss is the man because he’s taken a sub-continental team to a sub-continental World Cup Final and is going to be the man for ODI cricket.

Excuse me if I wait a while before coronating anyone or anything.

I’m not going to be able to watch much, and if the trees keep growing the way they are, won’t be able to watch any Sky cricket in the next few weeks. That’ll need to be sorted. Any comments on the game below, or on anything else that takes your mind.

Meanwhile, Australia steamroller the West Indies in three days and people still don’t want to join the dots.  It’s the life we lead.

Wanderer

LordCanisLupus157 Comments

Well, hello all.

Can’t stop long. Work been really hectic, taking me on a day trip to Monaco on Monday (seriously not as glamorous as it sounds) and then picking the beloved up from the airport on Tuesday. Work is a serious problem at the moment as a year long project comes to fruition and is on a knife edge, and sleep is deprived. Add to that, an important interview early next week which I seriously need to prep for, and cricket is a bit of a way down my list of priorities. A really massive thank you to thelegglance for all his work this week. Without it, the blog would have not given the last test the attention it deserved.

I’m not in the habit of saying “I told you so” but I did tell them so, and so did many here. In the headlong pursuit of shutting down the debate, and in so doing rubbing those who dare to criticise noses in it, the acclaim for the first test victory was ridiculous. Look, it’s not as if we’ve got an event long before to instruct us is it? After Grenada, won on the back of a ridiculous individual performance by Jimmy Anderson, England flopped, when in a decent position, at Barbados. Here again, a wonderful England win, fuelled by great individual feats by Ben Stokes, and a top hundred by Captain Invincible, was followed up by England getting in a good position with a great opening stand, and pissing it up the wall. Yes, New Zealand bowled well to restrict us, and batted even better, with little or no fear. But England need to press those positions home.

There’s a crowd out there that say “well played New Zealand” and they are bang on. But that doesn’t absolve England from blame. Come off it. We were 170 for no loss and couldn’t get past their 350. We bowled like clowns in that second innings. You have to hope, too, that fourth innings efforts could be a bit better than falling to Williamson and Craig. I didn’t see the 4th day’s play at all (and not yet watched the highlights) but you didn’t need to be buried in an office in Monaco to know that it was awful.

I’ll do a more full review, maybe, if I get fed up working out a marketing strategy or deciding whether I’m competent enough, over the weekend. Can’t imagine I’ll be doing that 24/7.

I read that KP is now going to play in the Caribbean T20 and leave Surrey. I’m just about had it with a country who decided to chuck that talent away while watching what has happened in a number of our last test matches and thinks it is OK. I would not blame him if he turned his back on England and I won’t forgive the powers that be that decided this was the thing to do. I’m really sorry if this offends anyone who just backs those in the shirts. I’m glad that’s fine with you. You are a better person than me. Andrew Strauss could pull a rabbit out of a hat but that decision, based on that premise, and supposedly with the backing/ultimatum of an entitled skipper who should be thankful he’s still in the team after 2014, will define him in my eyes. Even if we won the Ashes, the World Cup, the World T20 and managed to avoid defeat this winter.

Enough of this wibbling. I am fully aware I am now four centuries behind on the Century Watch – Stokes, Lyth, Watling and tonight’s by Adam Voges. I’ll do what I can, when I can.

Good night.

England v New Zealand: Review

thelegglance206 Comments

Perhaps the one thing all will agree upon is that a series consisting of only two Tests has proved to be a terrible mistake.  These things are decided some years in advance of course, and New Zealand’s rise to become a team to reckon with on the field rather than just in words wasn’t known at the time of scheduling.  That is still no excuse whatever, and it shouldn’t happen again.  The trouble is, it is already going to happen again.  England are scheduled next to visit New Zealand in early 2018 for five ODIs, a T20 and…..two Tests.  It is probably too much to hope the two boards are in contact about changing that.

If ever a short series was crying out for a decider, this is it.  For all the observations on individuals and performances which will follow, the cricket throughout has been thrilling. New Zealand are certainly the ones who set the agenda given that this is how they play, but England did catch the bug at different times, and it does take two sides to ensure the cricket is of the nature we have seen.  That England couldn’t maintain that approach in the second Test shouldn’t be surprising in itself – that they tried to in the first is worthy of note given the style of the side over the last few years.

For this match there is no question than that New Zealand thoroughly and completely deserved their win.  Perhaps the most startling demonstration of their approach is shown by the fact that they only batted 163 overs in the match, against England’s 200 – yet winning by the huge margin of 199 runs.   Yet England scored at 3 an over across the match, which might not be scintillating, but isn’t tardy either, especially when the last day was taken up with trying to survive.  Given that so much time was lost to rain- equivalent to a full day –  and that New Zealand won in the final session of the last day, it can be said to have borne dividends to the ultimate extent.  Without such a high risk approach, and given a decent surface and inclement conditions, this match would have been a fairly tame draw.  Indeed the weather turned out to be kinder on the last day than they could have hoped for, and definitely better than the forecasts indicated – the anticipated rain taking out up to a session would have ensured a stalemate and an England series win.

There can therefore be little argument that New Zealand are the most exciting team in world cricket today, and it is not unimportant to note that they do so while playing the game in such an excellent spirit.  England too joined that particular party, which was good to see, because their own behaviour has fallen short on a number of occasions in recent times.

Yet none of this was particularly unknown before the series.  Their opening bowling attack is extremely potent, and Trent Boult lived up to his reputation by proving frequently lethal and taking thirteen wickets in the two games.  If anything, Southee proved to be a little disappointing. The sense of foreboding about this England side facing up to the assorted Mitches later in the summer is not misplaced.  Most of the team did contribute in the series however, and that they won this Test so comfortably with no contributions from a player as good as Kane Williamson and not too much in either Test from Ross Taylor shows that there is depth in New Zealand cricket, and that hasn’t been said too often over the years.

And what of England? The problem so often is that the media do them no favours.  The win in the first Test was something of a steal; for the first three days England were very much on the back foot, it took a fabulous innings from Cook and an extraordinary one from Stokes to turn that around.  This is of course good in itself and was undeniably thrilling, but it didn’t warrant the glowing response from the usual sections of the press for the simple reason that relying on such heroics to win a match is no basis for assuming the health of the side to be so perfect.  England do have some promising young players, and they do have some reasons for optimism.  The trouble is that the coverage of English cricket has been so appallingly mendacious that it was both predictable and pathetic when the usual suspects piled in with glee as though a single win against the odds had answered every objection or criticism ever made.  We might be used to the press being excessive, but it is unusual compared to most sports when they make excuses for every failing and then trumpet a single success.  The England football team certainly don’t get such favourable treatment and nor should they.

An indication of this has been that after today’s defeat, the “five wins from the last eight Tests” line has been trotted out – of course it was “five from seven” until today – which is trying to shut down debate and criticism by clinging to raw figures of their choosing.  Why pick eight?  Why not twelve, so we can take into account the defeat to Sri Lanka and the Lords loss to India?  Why not seventeen so we can include the Ashes shambles?  Or go the other way and say “two wins and two defeats in the last five” which isn’t so impressive, especially when three of those matches were against the eighth ranked side in the world.  It doesn’t mean that saying “nine defeats in the last seventeen Tests” is a more accurate figure, but it does mean it’s an equally valid one.  To try and select a specific one of those and repeat it at every juncture (whichever one it is) is trying to push a particular point of view.

England do have some grounds for optimism – Cook’s return to form with the bat is essential to the success of the side, and it’s not just that he’s scoring runs it’s how he is scoring those runs that counts.  Never mind how, count how many is true in the overall sense, but the how in terms of a specific player is important for indicating how many.  Cook is batting very, very well.  Yet again here it should not and must not be used to cover the issues with his captaincy.  Yesterday morning’s bowling to the New Zealand tail was nothing less than a complete meltdown, not for the first time.  Where the balance of blame lies for that is a matter of some discussion – Cook himself talked about it being very definitely a plan, which is extraordinary if so, given that time and again it results in England being flayed around the park.  Others suggested with varying degrees of strength that it definitely wasn’t the plan, in which case the captain failing to overrule the bowlers is quite simply weak.  Whichever it might be, it doesn’t look very impressive.

One side issue about his batting did come up during the Test, that he’d engaged Gary Palmer for some private coaching sessions.  Good.  He was seeking solutions and finding someone who could help him without direction from on high.  There is nothing to criticise him for about this, just as there is nothing to criticise other players who use a person they trust.  Players must look after their own game, and that doesn’t mean being confined to official structures; that would be just about the worst thing they could do.  One or two in the press ought to have known better when using it as a stick to beat a particular player with.

Cook did OK as captain in the first Test.  And that’s rather the point, he did OK.  It shouldn’t have been treated with such praise for doing the tactical basics passably well.  Yet there should be no problem in agreeing entirely that he was fine in that match, because it’s acknowledging how it is, just as it’s fine to acknowledge that he is batting superbly well.  The problem arises in the complete ignoring of situations like yesterday morning.  The Black Caps scored 116 in 16 overs in that morning session.  An already strong but not impregnable lead turned into a position of total supremacy in the space of an hour.  It is of course entirely possible that even had Cook and the team got it absolutely spot on, something similar could have happened (in any case, 350 or so would have likely been well beyond them), but it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that in that short period England well and truly threw away any remaining chance they had.  It doesn’t help anyone to skate over things like this, a year ago at the same ground England more obviously disintegrated, but it is merely a matter of degree; the same occurred on the fourth morning this time too, and when put under identical pressure.

Joe Root’s comments that England would go all guns blazing for the total caused some wry amusement given five of the first six overs of the day were maidens, yet in reality they didn’t have a great deal of choice.  Sometimes the opposition just bowl well.  Root probably absolutely believed it at the time he said it, circumstances just changed rather quickly.  In any event, England never had the option.

Other positives (which we must take of course) for England included Mark Wood, Adam Lyth and Jos Buttler.  Lyth and Wood being two games into their nascent Test careers look promising, it’s not fair on either of them to push it further than that.  But they should certainly be in the Ashes side given their performances.

Buttler has quietly gone about his business since coming into the team, and without ever going on to make a really big score has still impressed.  Five half centuries in twelve innings is an excellent return, as is an average of 52.66.  It doesn’t mean for a moment he will or can maintain that, but he can be quietly satisfied thus far.  His keeping standing back has been good – he’s not the first to struggle at Lords – and his keeping standing up has been mostly adequate with a couple of technical flaws to address.  There’s work to do there, but it’s a decent beginning.

We now move into the one day series, and the side announced today is actually quite exciting.  There will be another time to discuss that, but in terms of how the Test side will look in July when the Ashes begins, the likelihood is that barring injuries it won’t be too different.  Bell and Ballance have some work to do, as both need runs, but dropping Bell would be astonishing given his overall record, and would no doubt cause uproar given he is in the same kind of slump that Cook was fully supported throughout. He doesn’t seem terribly happy at present and he deserves precisely the same faith.

Ballance appears to be going through sophomore difficulties.  But it should be remembered that focusing on his footwork during his current problems only has value as criticism if the same were levelled when he was batting so well.  He looks horribly out of nick, not technically inadequate.

Moeen too is under scrutiny, yet his bowling record to date is perfectly adequate by the standards of any spinner England have had since Underwood.  England need to decide what to do here, he’s only going to improve if he is given time to do so.

There is plenty of time for these matters to sort themselves out.  For now it is a matter of saluting a fine team, who played with verve, skill and daring.  A drawn series is the very least they deserved, because in truth barring a couple of days at the end of the first Test, they outplayed England.  And above all else, they were a privilege to watch. If only we had that third and deciding Test to look forward to next week.

@BlueEarthMngmnt