Curious

LordCanisLupus30 Comments

I wrote this last night. I didn’t enjoy writing it and have had thoughts about whether to publish it. Quite a lot of the time I try to be humorous when having a pop at a journalist, but in this case, I couldn’t find the humour. Is it our fault?

So read on…..bilious inadequates.

There are advantages and disadvantages of being 3500 miles away when stories break. I’m a bit more removed from the sources of the stories than if in the UK, but also I’m not at work and I do find this sort of thing quite relaxing, believe it or not. But this Moores story is one of the oddest in an odd 16 months or so. Once again a major story is put out in advance of the agreements being signed or deeds being worked upon, and the ECB’s media strategy, whatever it is, has gone up in smoke. The new man in the role, name not known at present, hasn’t had a much better time than his predecessor.

This is not an ECB leak. We’ve been assured this by all and sundry, except, interestingly, Jonathan Agnew who appears to be jumping to the conclusion that we have. BOC has been informed that this was not an ECB leak, but will not be told who has spoken. Fair enough. But you could be forgiven for thinking “so what” if they did tell us. What difference would it make? Luke Sutton had been tweeting away yesterday about how bloody unfair it all was, and I’m wondering out loud about who might be the source, but I am only guessing. This isn’t right. It can’t be right. The ECB may be anal about leaks, but they seem pretty hopeless in stopping them.

Which brings me to dear old Mike. He’s been on form today. Let’s go through a couple of his golden greats. I like this one:

Too many people here do not understand how journalism works. And too many look for conspiracy where there is none. And do you seriously think we would give up the sources of our stories? Get real, as Farage once said.

This is getting out of hand. You ain’t the victim here, Michael, the paying cricketing public are. You get to sit around, write and watch games as a job. Many of us would love that role. You seem to think it better to sit behind your keyboard admonishing the great unwashed for being reasonably on form when it comes to the way the governing body has acted for the last 18 months. To say “too many people here do not understand how journalism works” is hilarious. You don’t have the faintest idea how social media and blogs work, as judged by your dismissive attitude to anyone disagreeing with you. I fundamentally disagree with a number of journalists, but have a decent online relationship with a few, because, to a degree, I get how journalism works. What I don’t get is how what you does works? When we see Moores shabbily treated like this, what are we supposed to do? Say “oh, well done ECB. Another bang up job done.” Even if the ECB did not leak, THEY ARE SACKING HIM AND THEREFORE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT INFORMATION. You made a decision and decided to tell certain people of that decision and no doubt stressed its confidential nature. If that person then went on to leak it, you’d have to question your judgement. Or am I being too harsh here?

Which brings me on to part two of Selvey’s beauty. “Too many look for conspiracy when there is none.” Nothing drives me, and I suspect those who comment on here in record numbers each month, more mad than this “I know what is going on but I’m not tellling you.” Then, to compound it, they make less than subtle digs at your sanity for thinking there might be more to things than meet the eye.

The ECB are firing a Head Coach, which while I’m not completely against the decision, is a shocking development and the way it has been “released” to the public, by what appears on the face of it to be a synchronised piece in three newspapers at 12 noon, screams out for someone to try to connect the dots! “Too many see a conspiracy” when clearly someone has coordinated this piece of information’s release (that’s how it looks). So we’ll question the timing, the synchronisation and the content. This isn’t the 19th century where we just take the view of our Lords and Masters. We try to investigate, try to get to the bottom of this and theorise. Because, at heart, we are inquisitive and want to know what is going on. To dismiss this as the work of “conspiracy theorists”, which is a dog whistle for “nutters” – a charge thrown at us regularly, and dismissed just as easily as the accusations of the morons throwing it – is insulting your readership. I’m so sorry about that Mr Selvey Sir (I tug my forelock).

In the third part, I don’t expect you to give up your sources, because I understand to a degree how journalism works. I’ve learned a lot talking to some journalists about it, funnily enough. I share as much as I can with my readership, because I don’t want to betray trusts. I’ve never been asked not to say something (I don’t think so) but recognise that balance needs to be struck. However, once my information is confirmed I let people know what I know. Don’t tell me to get real (because I believe this stuff is aimed at the likes of me and my readership). You get real. Work out why the people BTL have turned against you in large numbers in a way not seen anywhere else. Work out why Ali Martin, Nick Hoult, Lawrence Booth, Scyld Berry, Dean Wilson and even John Etheridge get better social media reactions than you. Because they don’t treat their readership like the shit on their shoes. Don’t go hiding behing a ridiculous article by Ed Smith (he’s so clever, just ask him) to prove that those who disagree with you are just a voluble minority (who can be ignored), when that minority are pretty adept at reading between the lines, and don’t like this secret squirrel bs. The secret, silent majority may pay their ticket prices and pipe down, but then who is to say that they aren’t thinking “this is a bit of a shambles, isn’t it?” You can’t keep assuming their silence means consent.

Peter Moores, although he’s not a favourite on here, has never ever had his commitment questioned. He’s tried his hardest, and although I think he should have gone after the World Cup, has tried to keep this team on the road. The “antis” should not ever question that. It was the ECB who gave him the hospital pass, it was the ECB who “bigged him up”, it was the ECB trumpeting every success, backed up by a largely compliant press who were always primed to provide six inches of mitigation if we just held on for a couple of balls more. Lots of us had doubts, ongoing doubts, but we were told to pipe down about them because we beat India in a test series. We may have had those doubts, but I’m not here to bury Moores. I’m here because I get angry when I see someone treated very, very badly by authority or whoever it was who leaked this. Moores is another one spat out by this machine. Excuse me if I theorise over what happened. You get real.

I see journalism. I see a victim. I’ll theorise.

Contrast this with Ali Martin’s reponse to wctt:

And you’d been complimentary about my work early on too. Ok, I have seen both your comments today and while they stung a wee bit, no one is more aware that my writing style is not a patch on some of my illustrious colleagues than myself. What I would say is that while they turn out the beautiful flowing prose, I work very hard to source cricket news stories and share it with the readership as soon as I can turn it around. Not every piece can be Cardus – it’s news, ultimately, and that is my brief. When it comes to great writers, the Guardian had an abundance.

I respect Ali’s work a lot. He gets “us” to a degree and if I’m not putting words into his mouth, doesn’t think a great way to carry on is to piss off his customer base. Which includes those who disagree and those who agree.

Unlike this.

Good night all. Bilious inadequates. Remember, those silent and who don’t comment on blogs or the newspapers think that too.

2015 Test Century Watch #22 – Asad Shafiq

LordCanisLupus2 Comments

Asad-Shafiq

Asad Shafiq – 107 v Bangladesh at Mirpur

The third century of the innings was made by Asad Shafiq, which was his 6th in tests in 35 matches, his second in Bangladesh (the other was made in Chittagong in 2011) and his 4th highest in tests (his career best is 137 v New Zealand in Sharjah last year). He has two tons against South Africa as well, and one other against Sri Lanka.

We’ve done Mirpur now in the Younis Khan hundred yesterday, so sort of running out of things to say at the stadium or Pakistani level now! So was thinking, had we had a 107 this year, so far? The answer is no, so we can go to town on that then!

Have you seen a test 107, Dmitri? The answer is “not really”. I was there on Day 2 of the England v Sri Lanka test in 1998, when Graeme Hick was dismissed on 107 early on that day, but he’d scored all the runs the day before. So it doesn’t really count.

Asad’s 107 was the 68th score of 107 in test cricket. The last one before him was by Jimmy Neesham against the West Indies last year at Sabina Park, Kingston. The last by a Pakistani was by Younis Khan (not out) against India at Eden Gardens, Kolkata in November 2007. David Boon, Allan Lamb, Denesh Ramdin, Alec Stewart, Doug Walters and Younis Khan have all made two scores of 107 in test matches.

The first 107 was made back in July 1893 at Lord’s. Arthur Shrewsbury, who we featured in an earlier piece, had made 106 in the first innings of the game, and when Harry Graham came in for the Australians at 75/5 on the dismissal of Trott(y) things looked bleak. But Graham kept the visitors honest with his 107 which he made on his test debut. I love the old Almanack entries on Cricinfo…. here cometh a mention of a “5”:

Half the wickets were down for 75, but then came the partnership between Gregory and Graham, which completely altered the aspect of the match. These two young cricketers began by making a series of short runs, and obviously upset the fieldsmen by the fearless and rapid manner in which they travelled between the wickets. Very soon, too, the bowlers became anxious, and almost before the spectators could realise it runs were coming at a great pace. So admirably did the two Australians bat that at lunch time 120 runs had been added without further loss, and in all the total had reached 217, or 142 for the wicket, before Gregory was dismissed. With Bruce in, Graham completed his hundred, and soon afterwards the follow-on was saved with four wickets in hand, but at 264 Graham’s splendid, though by no means faultless innings, was closed by a catch at the wicket. Out of 189 added during his stay, the young Victorian had made 107, batting for two hours and twenty minutes, and hitting a 5, twelve 4’s, two 3’s, and nine 2’s.

The obituary makes you want to find out more:

Harry Graham did many brilliant things as a batsman but scarcely gave himself a fair chance. Had he ordered his life more carefully he might have had a much longer and more successful career in first-class cricket. His natural powers were great. He did not play with quite a straight bat but he was a splendid hitter with any amount of dash and vigour. When he came to England for the first time in 1893 he was at his best, playing the innings of his life against England at Lord’s. No one who saw the match will forget the way in which he and Gregory knocked off the England bowling after Australia had lost five wickets for 75.

Count me in as intrigued. On a bit of subsequent research I found this – http://www.cemeteries.org.nz/stories/grahamharrysthn90608.pdf

Other 107s to note, maybe, even if it isn’t a wonderful big ton, are Alec Stewart’s only hundred against the old enemy, made in Melbourne in 1998, when he gave up the gloves to Warren Hegg, in a game England won. In 2004, Marcus Trescothick completed two centuries in a match when he made 107 in the 2nd innings against the West Indies at Edgbaston. But all in all, 107 isn’t earth shattering, is it?

Especially when you have a 226 and a 148 coming in before you.

Asad Shafiq’s 100 came up in 149 balls and contained 9×4 and 1×6.

2015 Test Century Watch #21 – Azhar Ali

LordCanisLupus1 Comment
Pakistan batsman Azhar Ali runs as rain falls during the third one-day international (ODI) match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan at the R. Premadasa Stadium in Colombo on June 13, 2012. AFP PHOTO/Ishara S. KODIKARA (Photo credit should read Ishara S.KODIKARA/AFP/GettyImages)
 AFP PHOTO/Ishara S. KODIKARA (Photo credit should read Ishara S.KODIKARA/AFP/GettyImages)

Azhar Ali – 226 v Bangladesh at Mirpur

Mohammad Hafeez’s Pakistani record against Bangladesh lasted a week. I had a hunch this man might get close when he rested overnight on 120-odd and so it proved. An old fashioned test batsman making a really high score to set his team on the right path. It’s time for some stats.

This is the 15th highest score in tests by a Pakistani batsman and the 39th test double century. It is Azhar’s first test double, as he passed his previous best score of 157 made against England and Sri Lanka in 2012. This is his 8th test ton, half of which have come against Sri Lanka. He took his average from 41 to over 44 in this innings, and also passed 3000 runs in test matches. His previous best against Bangladesh was the 83 he made in Khulna in the previous test.

I have done the Pakistan and Bangladesh stats to death already, so let’s look at the number 226. Have you seen one, Dmitri? Given there have been just 8 scores of 226 in test history, the answer is likely to be no, and so it is. There have been recent 226s in this country – Kevin Pietersen made one against the West Indies at Headingley back in 2007, while Jonathan Trott also made this score against Bangladesh at Lord’s in 2010. Azhar’s is the second in Bangladesh – Neil McKenzie made 226 at Chittagong in his record stand with Graeme Smith back in 2008. Bridgetown has seen two scores of 226, and both by Barbadians – Sir Garfield Sobers made one in 1960 v England, while Gordon Greenidge made his score against Australia in 1991 (when, if memory serves, they were thinking of dropping him for poor form). Brian Lara is the third West Indian to make 226, completing his effort in Adelaide against Australia (of course), while our history slot looks at the first 226, made in 1931 by someone who specialised in large innings.

The first score of 226 was made by Don Bradman, and it wasn’t his usual foe (England) he made it against. This was made at Brisbane against South Africa, and his individual score was higher than both South African innings in this game (170 and 117). Bradman made 200 on the first day, and Australia made 450 in the first innings, but this test still managed to go SIX days (yeah, yeah, two of them were rained off) in a timeless match. Interesting that South Africa had a Morkel in their team….

226 is the 136th= highest score in test cricket. Still the holy grail of 229 has not been scored in the history of tests (it must go soon, surely….). 228 still has been scored just the once (Herschelle Gibbs), while 227 has three instances, 225 has three, 224 has six, 223 has nine, 222 has five, 221 has five and 220 has three. Must be something about 223 and 226!

Azhar Ali’s 100 came up in 212 balls with 10×4, and his 200 came up in 406 balls with 19×4 and 1×6. His total innings lasted 428 balls with 20×4 and 2×6.

Lament

LordCanisLupus36 Comments

Well, good morning/afternoon all. It has been an interesting one to wake up to, I have to tell you. I’ll leave “proper” politics because there’s a ton more places to look for it than on here, and it divides rather than unites which is never good in my book. So let’s talk about the sort of politics we all love to indulge in and that’s from the good old ECB.

I think you all remember the aftermath of the Ashes debacle when in the infamous February press release, the most heinous crime anyone could perpetrate in the English cricket firmament was to breach the sanctity of the dressing room. There were certain journalists who were said to be “anal about leaks” but that didn’t stop them talking out of that orifice on a daily basis. The people on this board, out there in the world aren’t stupid, and they know these stories don’t just appear out of thin air. These journalists have contacts, have their way to read the runes, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs. I’m not sure it is, as John Etheridge I believe once said “more good journalism than leaks”, but it’s something that annoys us all.

So we can’t be all up in arms because the news leaked regularly about Kevin Pietersen and not be when it affected Cook (in December when his sacking from the ODI captaincy got out) and now seems to be for Moores. I know the journalistic corps will accuse me of naivety and all that, and that this is how the world works, but it doesn’t make it right. I’m going out on a limb here and say that although I didn’t support the appointment of Peter Moores (reeked of a pre-ordained Flower-inspired stitch up) and don’t particularly rate him as an international coach (this progress we are making seems rather ephemeral to me – as Grenada / Barbados seems to indicate) he comes across as a very decent man trying his best, and the one thing that those people deserve above all else is to be treated with the same decency. If this is proved, and I note Lawrence Booth for one is saying this didn’t necessarily come from the ECB, to be from high-placed official sources then more shame on them. This is not the way a new and improved organisation does business, and if it is one of the exiting old guard doing it, well….. you know what you should do about that.

The responsibility for a leak goes to the source of the information. So if the ECB told someone in confidence that the decision had been made, and then this gets out, it’s the ECB’s fault for trusting that confidence. The fact is that if this is the case here, and that’s the message coming out here, there’s always the convenient “plausible deniability” on behalf of this organisation which seems to make key decisions ahead of appointees taking up their roles. Indeed, Strauss hasn’t even been officially announced yet, and he’s supposed to be the one either doing the sacking or rubber-stamping it.

I see one of the commenters BTL on the Guardian is going on about us conspiracy theorists again. I’m glad these people are so trusting of those in authority to think that way and just let those running the game to do as they please, no questions asked. Trust those inside the game. But from the outside there seems to be a bit of a power struggle within the ECB and I have no idea how it is going to pan out. The deserved sacking of Downton, a man who should never have been appointed, seems more and more like a piece of meat thrown to us “slobbering hordes”.  We then replace his role with something not yet defined, and when they found out that not many people were interested in a Downton-lite role, the new revolution stumbled across an old pillar to effect whatever it is Harrison and Graves think is needed, which at this stage, we don’t have a clue about. Memo to all here, I’m not buying what Harrison is selling, not at all. Now to appease the hordes again, we are going to fire a coach AFTER a series where we could have looked at new players, but the coach and captain were too keen to bolster positions and didn’t try much. This isn’t a new bold strategy, but something else too familiar. Clueless, aimless and now heartless. The absence of a decent media strategy, treating people in their employment with dignity and class, and allowing things to just get out there, however they get there, isn’t great. It really isn’t.

Lawrence Booth, Jonathan Agnew and Ali Martin can all put their side of the story any time they like – they are more than welcome to here, but I would not expect that. How this news got out there matters to people. It speaks of an organisation seeking to regain our trust, to re-engage with us, to make us proud of the England cricket team again and to bridge the divide. This is not what is happening. The divisions aren’t now a simple chasm down the middle framed by a decision to sack Pietersen. They are becoming fractures, along familiar fault lines, but fractures nonetheless. Those that were original members of the outside cricket club see more of the same. Those who were more attuned to the ECB way of thinking see appeasement of the great unwashed. Those of a more sceptical bent than the ECB line to takers see increasing incompetence and doubt creeps in, like rot in a wooden building. The Cook fans see devilment in every utterance on the doubts in his form. The KP fans see an ECB talking out of both sides of its mouth. The ECB are further away than ever from gaining public trust. Their ultimate test was to keep their traps shut and do this the right way. They haven’t. It’s a bloody PR disaster.

Just one thought, that could negate much of this, but not all. The only explanation that gets the ECB partially off the hook is that the leak came from Peter Moores himself, or someone close to him. In which case we can make our own judgements on him. That said, it would seem a little out of character, wouldn’t it?

Ireland v England – ONLY One Day International

LordCanisLupus38 Comments

A forlorn, over-tired Dmitri will not be up in time for the start of this game, as at 6:30 UK time, I’ve not gone to bed yet. It’s 1:30 in New Jersey, and I’m not a happy camper, but this isn’t a politics blog and I am friends with people of many political persuasions, not many of my own!

So to this game between an insulting scratch England squad and a keen and enthused Irish team. If anyone feels inclined to comment on this game, please do so. I’ll probably be asleep for half of it.

Thanks for the comments on the press people. You know, if they read it, people like Ed Smith, they may see why some get a barrage of comments on their posts. It might be of benefit to think about how they come across. I tried to call a truce a while back, a bit silly of me, open to discuss with some people, but now they don’t even seem to try, and I guess they feel the need to interact with the great unwashed is less.

That’s fine by me. I’m at least happy in this pursuit. Good night.

Election

LordCanisLupus70 Comments

Well, I’m over here, and most of you are over there, so let me just set down a quick message. In the next few days, please try to avoid political talk on here. We all have our own views, and once the votes are cast tomorrow, that’s that for us as the electorate. I like you all on here without us getting into tedious political debates that divide more than unite. Yes, it’s the “can’t we all get along” speech. I’m out for most of tomorrow, to visit the home of the Lakewood Blue Claws for their crunch Single A clash against the Augusta Greenjackets. Before that, I might be going to a location of an (in)famous TV show. So on your best behaviour and all that….

Right, with that over with, I’ve got some work to do. I’ve begun the (in)famous Journalist rankings piece, and thought I’d seek your input. You get to nominate one of the following for the top prize – Selfey, Newman, Pringle, Brenkley for the top prize – but also I’d like two or three others that you think merit consideration for the top 10. The focus should be on this calendar year, and on something or other that really got to you. We are talking quality over quantity. You can nominate anyone, as long as they write regularly and the main reason for putting them forward is their written work (spoken words can be taken into consideration). Less weight should be given for those employed as recently retired internationals.

At the end of the day I have my own views, but your’s will be taken into account, and the votes actually count when we repeat the exercise for the awards at the end of the season. Particular articles that really riled should be put forward. You also know that if last year is anything to go by, some of the nominees read the piece. I know, because Jarrod Kimber told me. So fill up those comments and help me write the piece.

2015 Test Century Watch #20 – Younis Khan

LordCanisLupus3 Comments

Younus-Khan_1500837cYounis Khan – 148 v Bangladesh at Mirpur

Ah, the old warrior, fresh from missing out in the runfest at Khulna, has cashed in today with a 148 in the second test. This was his 29th test hundred, made in his 98th test match, and he continues an exemplary conversion rate which means when he reaches 50, he makes it to 100 every other time. This is his 12th highest test century, not even half way to his career best of 313 against Sri Lanka in 2009 in Karachi.

This is Younis’s third test ton against Bangladesh, with the other two both coming in Chittagong, where he made 200* in 2011, and 119 as long ago as 2002. His previous best at Mirpur was 49. This was the 18th test century made by Pakistan against Bangladesh (number 19 followed three overs later) and Younus joins Mohammad Hafeez as the only Pakistanis to make three test hundreds against them.

Let’s do 148, and ask the question. Have you ever seen a test 148, Dmitri? Ah, funny you should say that but…no. I thought that might have been the score of one of Ponting’s tons in Adelaide, but it isn’t. This was the 31st test 148, and some that my readers may remember include:

  • Rahul Dravid at Headingley in his 2002 “we don’t seem to be able to get this chap out” tour.
  • Alastair Cook’s 148 at Adelaide in his tour for the ages in 2010/11, where he followed up his 235* with this knock. Those were the days.
  • One for Arron, Robin Smith’s 148* at Lord’s in 1991 when he marshalled the tail superbly and made a magnificent hundred.
  • Tim Robinson’s 148 in 1985, allied with David Gower’s 215, was a joy to watch one glorious Saturday afternoon. Have that on video somewhere…

However, as I always try to do, I want to pick out the old or the obscure, and the first 148 was made back in 1884. It’s almost astonishing that another man was not dismissed on this score for 87 years after that (MAK Pataudi), but back in the day Allan Steel made 148 at Lord’s in 1884 to help England to an innings victory over the Australians. I liked this description of him from Cricinfo:

Though not a regular captain of county or country, he had an improbable run of success as skipper: Marlborough over Rugby, Cambridge over Oxford, Gentlemen over Players, Lancashire over Yorkshire and England over Australia.

Bet he’s on Metatone’s Mafia hitlist (well, he’d been dead over a century, so that’s probably pointless). Anyway, the almanack entry gives you the facts of the first test 148.

Les Ames made an unbeaten 148 against South Africa at The Oval in 1930, and Kenny Barrington an unbeaten 148 against the same opposition at Kingsmead, Durban in the period intervening Steel and Pataudi. Tony Greig made two scores of 148 in 13 months – once in India at the Brabourne, Mumbai, and once in Bridgetown. Greig and Dravid have been dismissed twice for 148, while Barrington and Tendulkar have a dismissal and a not out to their name of that score.

This is the second 148 of the year. The first being made by AB DeVilliers against the West Indies in Cape Town. That century watch can be found here

This was the 26th test hundred made at Mirpur. At time of writing, given Azhar Ali is not out overnight, Younis ranks in 6th place, has the highest score for Pakistan (beating Taufeeq Umar’s 130) and was the second Pakistani to make a hundred at this venue (again, obviously, Taufeeq being the first). The ground record is held by Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Mahela Jayawardena who both made unbeaten 203s.

Younis Khan’s century came up in 142 balls and contained 9 x 4 and a six.

Coronation

thelegglance110 Comments

So it’s Strauss.

There seems little doubt that the man who appeared nailed on to be a blazer at the ECB post retirement is indeed going to be a blazer at the ECB.  That people are sceptical about this is hardly a surprise, if you were to pick an Inside Cricket candidate, it could only be Strauss whose name would come up.  The line from the media is that he should be given a chance to address the doubts, and that’s a fair line as far as it goes, but it doesn’t acknowledge a fundamental point – that the ECB have broken any level of trust with the supporters that they once had, and don’t deserve it either.   It is possible Strauss will surprise us, and to that extent a degree of patience is warranted but only a degree.

The ECB have never addressed the relationship with those who provide the money for them.  The “Outside Cricket” jibe festers for good reason.  It’s never been apologised for and fundamentally there are only two options – that the ECB don’t realise the damage it caused, or that they don’t care.  Neither is exactly to their credit.

It’s always a matter of conjecture how representative those who Tweet or comment in the newspapers or on blogs are of cricket supporters, but Ed Smith’s preposterous argument that because those who do are only a small minority, that is evidence that it’s an unrepresentative minority is nothing but an example of confirmation bias at its worst.  For a man who basks in a reputation of high intelligence, it’s a remarkably stupid argument to attempt to make.  The truth is that all the indications are the dissatisfaction and indeed contempt for the ECB is widespread.  Proof is impossible to come by, but evidence is still evidence.  If Smith wants to try and reject that, he needs to demonstrate that there is support for how the ECB conduct themselves.  Claiming the support of the silent majority on the grounds that they are silent is desperate.

Of course, what the usual line of dismissal focuses on is Kevin Pietersen.  It is a classic example of a straw man argument, as I’ve said on so many occasions, Pietersen is a symptom not a cause.  And this is where the question of how Strauss will handle the matter becomes critical.  It will without doubt be the first or second question that is put to him, meaning that within seconds of his getting the job, the disaster of the ECB’s own making will once again be front and centre.  Strauss is hardly in a good position already, having notoriously been abusive on air about him.  His response to that question is going to be what creates the headlines, however he addresses it, that much is in no doubt.  Some of the press reports are suggesting that the line will be that a return will cause too much disruption, and this remains ludicrous.  Of course it would cause disruption to the cosy little world the ECB live in – whose fault is that?  It is because of the incompetent, ham-fisted, unprecedented decision to sack a player that it is still an open sore.  The continuing refusal to acknowledge that it is the bed they made for themselves is precisely the problem – and precisely the reason for the scepticism about Strauss himself.

Should England have a bad summer, as seems distinctly possible, this will become even more acute an issue, so long as Pietersen scores runs.  The only way of responding that will give Strauss credibility is a simple statement that all players who merit a place will be considered for selection.  Stick to that line, and don’t move off it, for that is the only one that won’t involve the potential for having to make a U turn.  And here’s the rub, how on earth can it be controversial to consider selecting your best players?  If he’s not one of them it doesn’t matter – the only reason they tangle themselves is knots about it is because of a fear deep down that he might be.

Let us cast this forward – if indeed England play badly, and Pietersen scores runs, then a failure to state all players are available for selection is simply going to be unsustainable.  Players who aren’t in the team always improve in status anyway, for such a famous one to be ignored is going to be constantly questioned.  Do they really believe that will be less disruptive than the alternative?

Yet again it ends up coming back to Pietersen.  The irony is that this is frustrating whatever side of the debate one is on.  The previous regime are actually correct in that it shouldn’t be.  Everyone would like to move on.  Including those awful people who buy tickets.  Strauss’s hardest problem is finding a means to do it, and for his own benefit that means being open to his selection, should it be merited.  Any other decision will quite simply undermine his credibility from the outset.

And what of captain and coach?  It’s been noted that Straussy and Cooky are close, and that’s another problem.  Not in itself, there’s clearly nothing wrong at all with people being friends, but the captain is himself in considerable trouble.  Will Strauss be clear sighted enough to see that and take action when needed?  There have to be doubts.  It is not the job of a Director of Cricket to prop up his mate, nor to refuse to see reality.  Strauss’s commentary has hardly been overcritical of his captaincy to date.  Does he really believe Cook is the best captain England could have?  For it really is as simple as that.

For all the debate about Peter Moores as coach, there is doubt he would go as far as to sack him.  Moores may well be out of his depth, but Strauss’s own likely appointment is because of the conservative nature of the ECB, that conservatism is no different when it comes to the choice of coach.  Whatever Moores’ failings, he’s exactly the kind of man the ECB will want to see at the helm.  That limits things to Peter Moores type coaches in the first place, and Moores is probably a good example of that kind of coach.

Fifteen years ago England chose Nasser Hussain as their captain.  Hussain was abrasive, incredibly unpopular on the county circuit, difficult, opinionated and hard to handle.  It is impossible to imagine the current ECB ever appointing such a person.  It is equally impossible to imagine the ECB appointing someone like Darren Lehmann.  That doesn’t mean that Lehmann would be the correct choice, it means that the ECB limit their choices from the outset.  Which is why we end up with an Andrew Strauss.  Safe, comfortable and quite probably the right kind of chap with the right kind of family.  So much of the dismay about his likely engagement is less about Strauss himself and more about what it represents.  A refusal to admit that they might have got things wrong before, and a refusal to admit that they might need to change.  It is unsurprising in any way.

Assembly

LordCanisLupus172 Comments

The aftermath of the tour continues and eyes turn towards the futures of the top table. Those eyes are cast more in the direction of the coach, Peter Moores, and when you read some of the stuff coming out, it’s no surprise.

Moores has to carry a number of burdens, partly of his own making, and partly a little unfair. I have not been inside a dressing room at professional level, but even at club level, you know when people don’t think you are credible, don’t listen to what you do, don’t care about your future. It’s not fair that Moores never played international cricket, and that will always count against him when it comes to motivating and coaching great international players. However, he has been on the county treadmill and knows it inside out, and will be a great county coach again when this ends. He commands respect of the county pros, but maybe lacks a little at the top level with the senior pros. Maybe. It’s guess work, but I’ve seen enough football managers lose that respect, and I can recognise some of the problems. At this stage, with a young core of players, Moores can bring them along, as long as he retains the support of the key senior pros. These being Cook, Bell, Broad and Anderson, and to a lesser degree, the next in line, Joe Root. All have played every game under Moores, and there is no hint of this changing any time soon.

The second cross he has to bear is that he lacks credibility among much of the watching public. James Morgan on TFT makes the analogy perfectly – would the England national team go back to Steve McClaren, or would the rugby team go back to Andy Robinson. Both were assistants under more successful coaches who never bridged the credibility gap with the public, probably unfairly. Moores, like it or not, comes across as a nice guy out of his depth at this level. I’m not, like some, going to assign some malevolent motive to his tenure on his behalf. He’s been thrown a hell of a challenge after the Ashes 2013-14, made even harder by the idiotic jettisoning of Kevin Pietersen (not for his absence from the team, but because of the messages it sent) and he has developed some of the younger players (although not greatly, not really). The sense remains though, as the World Cup campaign showed, that Moores is not up to key elements of the job. He will present a case, but the evidence is not backing it up. Combine an abject disaster in the World Cup with a home loss to Sri Lanka in all formats, and coughing up a 1-0 lead in the Caribbean, and there is not a lot to say “keep me on” other than some sort of hope for a change of fortune. My football team did that this season, and by the time we sacked our manager it was too late to save them, despite the best efforts of a new manager who did really well.

Which brings us to the third problem, and this one was partly of his own making, but more of that champion of champions Paul Downton. Peter Moores applied for a job and got it and accepted terms no manager/coach should ever do. That is, be told who he could not have in his team under any circumstances. You anti-KP fans keep making it about him if you want, but the message this sends to any player is profound. Be independently minded, have a strong opinion about your game, and how you want your career to pan out, and that could happen to you. It wasn’t a good start. Then, to have your appointment accompanied by the “greatest coach of his generation” comment by Downton was just amazing. Moores would have been completely at liberty to tell the MD to shut his hole, because that was going to stick. If he could not put before the public a set of results to live up to that billing, he was going to be ridiculed. So it has proved.

The final problem for Moores is his inability to speak, or appear to speak, in anything other than management tones. He sounds like a first year MBA student more than a cricket coach. Sport is about maximising the analytical tools to hand (I’m reading a fascinating book on baseball analysis at the moment) but it is also about unquantifiable exploits. You don’t find Jimmy Anderson’s fifth day morning session in any text book. You have that seize the day approach, the raising of the game to higher planes which can’t be factored in. If they were, sport would be bloody dull and we’d all not bother to watch it. But it’s too much process this, learning lessons that.

I’ll tell you another thing that doesn’t help, and it’s a warm welcome to a Paul Newman quote on here after at least a couple of weeks absence, is nonsense like this:

To watch England here has been to see a highly promising group who respect their coach and want to succeed for him and I believe Moores should be given that crack at the Ashes denied him in 2009 by another Kevin Pietersen-inspired controversy.

Just read that and weep. No player is going to come out in the open and say Moores shouldn’t be coach. KP did that and got fired as captain. KP said that about Flower and was booted out for it. There’s not a lot of longevity in showing you aren’t playing for the coach. I’d say we need to win more games to show how well we are playing for Moores, instead of going overboard over one win in Grenada. But Newman doesn’t let it go with his bete noire, who he is now getting all tin foil hat over. KP has the square root of eff all to do with Moores staying on as coach. Pietersen has not scored the runs required of him by Graves et al for starters. Second, KP is not responsible for Moores performance in the job thus far, so is a total utter irrelevance about whether Moores should stay in the job. Third, we’ve been down this long service award drivel before (he deserves a crack at the Ashes – if he deserved it in 2009, he’d have made an unanswerable case instead of losing home series in 2007 and 2008) and that worked in the World Cup. Also, Newman’s changed his tune. He was really down on Moores after the World Cup. Maybe Cook’s told him to lay off or something.

I feel a bit for Moores, to be honest. I actually think he’s a really decent man giving it his all, but he doesn’t really stand a chance. It may be, like before, he’s laying down the foundations for someone else, but also there’s the suspicion that this is as far as he can go. While it is hard to ignore the fact he took the job on compromised terms, he has not been the hate figure some portray him to be. He’s more a figure of sympathy, and in international sport, that is often much, much worse. If this best case you can make to keep him on is he deserves his go at the Ashes because he got sacked before, then you are not making a convincing case.

I thought I’d concentrate more on Moores in this piece, but do a brief bit on Cook and Strauss before longer thought pieces.

Cook has been the subject of a vicious attack by Boycott in the Telegraph. I wonder how Cook will approach Jonathan Agnew about that. Cook doesn’t take kindly to being spoken about like that and the consequences could be interesting. Boycott is a loudmouth, paid to express loud opinions, and you take them as they come. But I’ve never seen him this aggravated by a captain / player ever. This was going for the throat. I would say that it’s not as easy to dismiss Boycott’s views that align with a lot of us outside cricket, than it is for them to slate me, but they try (he’s a wife beater, he quit on England, blah blah – he also faced top quicks at 90 mph without a helmet on). A lot of us believe Cook isn’t the nice guy that his image is portrayed as, but I want to get away from that part. I want to look at the evidence – it’s all I try to do, and try to interpret. He’s protected, for now, and could jettison Moores to keep his career in check. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

As for Strauss…. appointing him the new Director of Cricket would be Downtonian in its brilliance. He talks the language of all charlatans – promising to build for a non-specific future, while using this to move on from something else that he doesn’t like (in this case a player who might return to form and demand selection). He also has the cult of Cook in his playbook, and would be an establishment, company candidate when root and branch change to a more exciting, attractive style of play is going to be needed. This current England team still has dedicated fans and lovers of the game actively wanting them, or key members of them, to fail to get the changes needed in structure, attitude and approach. Bringing back Mr Bowling Dry, with his foster son as captain and his foster dad wheeling away behind the scenes, is spitting in the face of those who actively want to love this side again. Strauss is typical ECB. Unexciting, not credible and the wrong man. More of this later.

2015 Test Century Watch #19 – Alastair Cook

LordCanisLupus12 Comments

o-ALASTAIR-COOK-facebook

Alastair Cook – 105 v West Indies at Bridgetown, Barbados

And so it came to pass on the first day of the fifth month of the year two thousand and three fives since the birth of our lord, that Saint Alastair of Cook made his 26th test century. And there was great rejoicing among the corps de press, and amongst former disciples and pharisees, who announced from the highest heights that the lord and saviour was “back to his best” and doth bellowed from their pulpits that the Saint had “rammed the critics’ words back down your throats” and “be quiet muppets”.

Alastair Cook’s 26th test hundred came nearly two years after his previous one. In that time he immortalised the number 95, and went the number of innings not making a century from the opener slot that was inhabited by people like Mike Brearley. I could make this a whole piece on the nonsense between hundreds, but let’s try to keep this true to form.

Only one of Cook’s tons has been less than 105 – his unbeaten first century on debut v India at Nagpur where he made 104 not out. This was his second century at Kensington Oval, where he made 139 not out in the first innings back in 2009, and it remains his only venue in the Caribbean where he has made a test hundred. This is his fourth century against West Indies, and as we’ll see later, he’s not exactly gone on from the three figure score in those innings. This is his first test century in the first innings of a test match (first overall, not England’s first innings) since his 115 in 2012 v South Africa.

Have you seen a 105 Dmitri? Well, funny you should ask, but I saw a large part of a 105 made by Alastair Cook, when he made that score v Pakistan at Lord’s in 2006. I have seen two others at The Oval – the first by Chris Gayle in 2004, in an innings that drove Michael Holding mad I seem to recall, and the other by Justin Langer in 2005, when the Aussies started getting us all worried with that opening partnership. There have been 92 scores of 105 in test cricket. Alastair Cook and Jacques Kallis are the only two players to have been dismissed three times on that score. Ricky Ponting and Kumar Sangakkara have also made the score three times, but both have a not out to their name.

In our vintage slot, we go back to the first 105 made in tests, and that took place a mere 130 years ago (any jokes about it seeming like that between Cook’s last two hundreds is your gag, not mine). His name was Arthur Shrewsbury Sr, and he made his unbeaten 105 at the MCG. The home team had been dismissed for 163, and it reached that due to the Demon Spofforth making 50 from number 11. In England’s reply of 386, made over a very sedate 221 overs, Shrewsbury came in at 97 for 3 and batted for over 5 hours in making his score. Must have got a wiggle on with that over rate. England went on to seal an innings victory, bowling out Australia for 125 in a mere 102 overs. Paul Collingwood….beat that. The match report is worth reading.

The first 105 in the West Indies was by Les Ames in 1930 at Port of Spain. Doug McGlew’s 105 against Australia in 1958 held the record for the slowest ever test hundred until Mudassar Nazar beat him twenty or so years later. Just the nine hours and five minutes in getting to three figures. Fifty of these 105s have been scored since 1992, although it has been over a year since the last one – Virat Kohli made 105 against New Zealand at Wellington last year (after McCullum’s triple). Sherwin Campbell made the last 105 at Bridgetown, in the famous 1999 test against Australia (think Brian Lara).

This was England’s 17th test century in Bridgetown. Alastair Cook nestles in at #15. The record score for an England player is, surprisingly, 154 by Mark Ramprakash in 1998. Only one other player has passed 150 there for England, and it’s that man Andrew Sandham again, who made 152 in 1930. Alastair Cook joins Alec Stewart (two in one match) and Graham Thorpe as the only England players to make two centuries in Barbados.

Going back to Sandham, that 152 was made in the first innings of the first test. After a lean run in tests 2 and 3, Sandham made 325 and 50 in a timeless 4th test and never played for England again.

Imagine that, Alastair.

Alastair Cook’s 100 came up in 259 balls and contained 10 x 4.