A New Hope

thelegglance23 Comments

One of the elements of the notorious description used by the ECB (and PCA) which provided the name of this site was the implied attitude towards those who at amateur level played the game, or who watched, bought tickets or paid television subcriptions.  It was a perfect demonstration of their opinion of the plebians who merely provided all the revenue to allow those either within cricket administration, professional players or indeed journalists or broadcasters to earn a living.  It remains one of the most despicable statements ever used by a sporting body towards those upon whom a game relies, and that statement is still carried on the ECB website, and no apology or even acknowledgement of it has ever been made.

But on its own, in isolation, it could perhaps be seen as the botched missive of an idiocracy which most people could brush off and laugh at.  Except the trouble was that this attitude was pervasive, and not just within the ECB, it went through every level of the international game.  Indeed, the attitude of the ECB was carried forward into the highest echelons of the international game.  The film Death of a Gentleman outlined the perspective that supporters were merely there to be monetised in detail, and the ECB were not just complicit, they led the way alongside India and Australia in attempting to grab as much filthy lucre as possible.

The power grab by the Big Three (one suspects that rather than hear the dripping contempt of that phrase, some within will view it as a badge of honour) was largely about increasing power and increasing the revenues to those boards, entirely at the expense of everyone else.  The remaining Test nations would be worse off, the Associate nations might as well give up, and for a nation like Ireland, the possibility of Test cricket had receded into the distance and has little appeal to it even if they were to achieve it.

Dmitri yesterday wrote a piece about the anniversary of the removal of Kevin Pietersen as an international player.  Even back then, people were told to “move on” and naturally enough, those who always seem to back the ECB no matter what were quick to repeat it.  But as so often, they miss the point.  Pietersen is one tiny part of a wider jigsaw, and in the grand scheme of things, one of the least important.  But what that episode did demonstrate above all was the utter contempt for those who are Outside Cricket not just by word, but by deed.  That attitude, irrespective of whether one is a fan of Pietersen the player or not is precisely the reason the ECB, and Giles Clarke in particular, had no compunctions whatsoever in behaving the way they did, and the reason it was so important is that it highlighted the naked greed and lack of any interest in the consequences so demonstrative of that arrogance.  It was not just that they abrogated their duty of care for the game, they showed they didn’t care about the game at all, merely their own narrow self-interests.  The expression of lofty superiority by authority was echoed in similar ways across the globe, and while Pietersen had his own problems and was to at least some extent the architect of his own downfall, the lack of interest in the game itself reached the point where players were not turning out for their national teams, preferring instead to play the T20 leagues, and the captain of South Africa – South Africa no less – was openly debating giving up Test cricket. Different circumstances, entirely different situations, yet it was possible to draw a direct line between all of them on the basis of the lack of interest the governing bodies had for the integrity of the game.

The Big Three carve up had the consequence of drawing the vast majority of the game’s revenues to themselves, impoverishing the remainder of the Test playing nations and killing any prospect of the game expanding beyond its rather narrow boundaries.  Cricket became the first sport in history to deliberately reduce its footprint on the planet.  It went further, with Clarke’s flat rejection of the idea of T20 cricket being an Olympic Sport, mostly on the grounds that it wouldn’t make his board any money, whatever he said, while slashing the development funds to non-Test playing nations and turning even the Test playing nations outside India, Australia and England into nothing other than vassals.  The three countries took complete control of the ICC, ensuring that all ICC events were to be held solely in their own territories over the following ten years (though no one expected that to change at the conclusion of the agreed period) and challenging all the others to simply lump it or face being excluded from the kinds of tours that would allow them to survive as cricketing entities.

Some journalists objected, and objected vociferously.  In Australia Gideon Haigh was scathing as only he can be, in England Scyld Berry broke ranks from his colleagues to condemn it outright, while Wisden in the form of Lawrence Booth sounded the alarm for cricket as a game.  Since then Nick Hoult at the Telegraph has frequently written about the machinations both within the ECB and beyond.  Cricinfo too raised the matter, with Jarrod Kimber impressively furious and of course along with Sam Collins making Death of a Gentleman, while Tim Wigmore has repeatedly castigated the powers that be for their duplicity and selfishness concerning the wider world game.

From others.  Silence.  From the Guardian, nothing – really nothing.  At the time of writing, there is still nothing on the ICC meeting today.  From Mike Selvey, their chief cricket correspondent, absolutely nothing at any point on the whole topic.  This is no surprise, for Selvey is known to be close to Giles Clarke to the extent that a paper that has prided itself on investigating injustice has appeared to be an echo chamber – indeed a direct hotline – for the views of the ECB.  Selvey’s first response on TMS to the potential for major change in favour of the richest boards was to profess ignorance of the whole matter and regard it as unimportant and when Death of a Gentleman came out he refused to watch it.  As far as anyone knows he still hasn’t.  It is shameful that newspaper has ignored the matter, it is despicable that they have made no effort whatever to cover it, preferring instead to imply approval of Giles Clarke’s claim that no-one is interested in administration, apparently even when it fundamentally changes the nature of the game.  Colleagues such as David Conn may have views on that. For cricket lovers who have adored the Guardian’s previously excellent coverage, it is a dereliction of duty that they will find very hard to ever forgive.  That it requires blogs like this one to point this out, and to try, in our own small way, to back up the work of those excellent journalists in asking questions and making criticisms is unacceptable.

Unless there is some kind of statement to the contrary, the assumption must be this is deliberate policy, for it is rather hard to believe a journalist of the quality of Ali Martin is purposely ignoring the whole subject.

Today the ICC held a meeting which largely reversed the changes made a year ago, the status quo ante prevailing.  This can be viewed as progress of a sort, though Tim Wigmore wrote an excellent piece on Cricinfo pointing out the limitations of what has happened.  It is well worth reading:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/969029.html

Wigmore is completely correct, and points to Lord Woolf’s scathing assessment of the ICC at the time, to which we now more or less return.  And yet even this does provide some grounds for hope, and perhaps practicality dictates that in one board meeting the only possible immediate means of rolling back the changes was to re-instate the previous constitution.  The ICC under the jackboot of India, Australia and England would have in short order killed at the very least Test cricket as we knew it.  The West Indies, already in crisis through their own administrative ineptitude have reached the point where they are uncompetitive against almost anyone, their best players preferring instead to play the shortest form of the game as hired hands – and who can blame them?  The battering received in Australia was greeted with sadness in some quarters, and with outrage amongst those who have delved rather more deeply into the wider problems.  It was only going to get worse, the alarm bells were well and truly ringing when AB De Villiers made his statement about giving up Tests.  The clear revenue increase to the majority that applies now at least buys a little time.

The ICC statement from today is worth reading in full:

http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2016/media-releases/92105/outcomes-from-icc-board-and-committee-meetings

It is a curious thing when an ICC statement provides some degree of cheer for the cricket fan.  The removal of N. Srinivasan back in November when the BCCI withdrew support and the subsequent installation of Shashank Manohar as ICC Chairman provided the first glimpse of the possibility that the theft of the world game by an avaricious few might just come under scrutiny by those with the power to change it.  The other Test playing nations, suddenly aware of their position as turkeys who had voted – or been forced to vote – for Christmas, had raised objections to their diminished status, but the constitution gave them virtually no prospect of changing anything.  It required the BCCI in particular to take the lead.  Manohar was swift to demonstrate things could change, saying upon his appointment:

“I don’t agree with the revenue-sharing formula, because it’s nice to say that India (BCCI) will get 22 per cent of the total revenue of the ICC, but you cannot make the poor poorer and the rich richer, only because you have the clout.  Secondly there is another angle to it which nobody has thought of. India generates money because the other countries come and play in India. If you do not have a fierce competition, the broadcasters are not going to pay you and the sponsors are not going to sponsor your events.”

He went on:

“I don’t agree with the three major countries bullying the ICC.  That’s my personal view, because as I have always said, an institution is bigger than individuals. You cannot guarantee which individual will occupy the top position in either of these countries. And, the ICC constitution, as it stands today, says that in all the major committees of the ICC, these three countries will be automatically there. So all the financial and commercial aspects and the executive committee will be controlled by the representatives of these three countries which according to me is wrong.

“You should have the best man, whether he comes from Zimbabwe, or West Indies, or even from an associate or affiliate to work on a committee, who will promote the interests of the ICC.”

Simple statements of truth, but it garnered attention because it was entirely at odds with everything that had gone before.  Premature it may be, but there is at least a hope that the new man at the top actually gives a shit about the game.  From today’s press release, one line stood out in particular:

“No Member of the ICC is bigger than the other”

Others have been quick to point out that as currently constituted, this is not true, for India in particular have the power that no one else does, and as the major driver of revenue in the game, that is certainly not inherently wrong by any means.  And yet the statement has been made, and while they are merely words, they are good words.  And this is where ideas begin.  At long last there is at the very least a statement of first principles that he and the ICC can be held to.  This is some small progress.

Another item was that the chairman of the ICC could not hold office with any of the boards.  This has direct consequences for Giles Clarke, as President of the ECB.  He has long aspired to be ICC Chairman, but to do so he will have to give up his role at the ECB.  And yet the indications are that despite previously appearing very likely to get it, the change in structure has crippled his prospects.  Australia and South Africa have already made it clear they won’t support him, Sri Lanka are reported to be reluctant.  Given Clarke’s unpopularity in much of the ECB, it would be an irony if the English were the only ones in favour, and it is tempting to wonder if they are even more in favour if it means ridding themselves of him at the same time.  Either way, there will be few in mourning for the dissolving dreams of a man associated with the carve up of the world game like few others.

Other elements from the press release include conducting a review of the T20 leagues and their impact on the world game.  T20 is a reality, and could – and should – be something extremely good for the game, as it raises the profile, popularity, and yes, the revenues of the sport.  That we are in a position where it constitutes a threat to Test cricket and international cricket more generally is not inevitable, and never was.  To review this is again progress, with the tantalising prospect of providing a context for Test cricket in particular, as the form of the game most under threat.

Is it an answer?  No.  Is it even the outline of the answer?  No.  But does it provide the smallest semblance of hope that international cricket, and Test cricket in particular, has a future?  Just the smallest.  It is a start.  If it goes no further, then the downward spiral, which has been paused today, will resume.  But nothing is inevitable, and with the right people at the helm, things can improve.  Today is a good day, the despair is slightly lessened, and maybe, just maybe, Mr Smith has gone to Washington.

 

Two Years / 730 days / 104 weeks and 2 Days…

LordCanisLupus57 Comments

KP Sacking Anniversary - 4th Feb

I make no apology for commemorating this date. Even after a wonderful, fluent, thrilling, exciting ODI batting performance, the point remains.

February 4th. It is now two years since Kevin Pietersen was sacked as an England international cricketer.

Note to some of you who are reading this. In case there is a problem understanding this, the book “KP” was released in October 2014. By my maths, 8 months after his sacking. Therefore, it did not cause his dismissal.

I know. A number of you are rolling your eyes right now. “The book showed why he shouldn’t be playing”. Hang about, what did that have to do with the attitude shown by our cricketing authorities towards the cricket supporters when the dismissal took place? Sweet eff all, is the answer. I know, a number of yo are rolling your eyes “we’ve moved on, we’ve an exciting team, we’ve won the Ashes, we’ve won at the World #1 team”.

It’s what the sacking meant, it’s what it means now. It’s what, as one of my twitter friends says, the cause (I’d say more a very effective catalyst, but let’s not split atoms….) of the schism now. It still has a profound effect on the team, the support, the media and for this blogger.

In those two years we’ve watched people contort themselves in many twisted arguments not to go back to Pietersen. We’ve seen the funnies – the lack of form argument always tickled me, as did the “he is on the decline” right through to “no vacancies in the middle order” – and those who think he still texted the South Africans telling them how to get Andrew Strauss out. There’s those of pure blind hatred, who I sort of respect more, because they use the “I hate him” line. They used it before England sacked him. That’s daft, but it’s honest.

My line has been consistent. Pick your team on merit. All along. Not deviated. If KP is one of the best four middle order players, then play him. The only thing that would prevent that is gross insubordination, and even then, I’d want the causes of why that happened to be investigated too. That has never been suggested, as far as I know, by anyone in authority. If they did, they’d be on firm grounds legally and that would be that.

The anniversary is to note. We won’t pick him for the T20 World Cup. We certainly won’t for tests or ODIs. Strauss hates his guts. To climb down on this would be remarkable. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recall the day he was sacked. It was the first of a number of “up yours” to the supporters, and the more important one is commemorated in five days time.

Roll your eyes all you want, those who visit here to get riled up. We ain’t going away.

Remind me – did you cheer this?

Thanks to all the commenters for the last two years. The significance of this decision brought most of you here. Five days later we were to have our tag……

Oh. And in case you think I’m obsessed, there’s nothing like the Daily Mail…

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3430590/Kevin-Pietersen-smokes-shisha-Dubai-England-score-second-highest-one-day-international-beat-South-Africa.html#ixzz3z8oCw7vo 

South Africa vs England: 1st ODI

thelegglance9 Comments

An individual one day international is the equivalent of a McDonalds value meal, it’s appealing in advance, you quite enjoy it at the time, and afterwards you feel a bit empty and wondering why you’d anticipated it all day in the first place.  But enjoying it at the time is no bad thing, though a Super Size Me month might leave the equivalent feeling of sickness.

Given England’s approach to the shorter forms of the game recently, it remains consistently fascinating how they could possibly have got it so wrong for so long.  The team hierarchy of the time persistently denied that they were ever so fixated on statistics as was portrayed, though the less than entirely trustworthy Graeme Swann did claim that to be exactly what happened.  Whatever the absolute truth of it, it is hard to believe that England would have carried on throwing the bat with abandon after their quickfire start in order to reach a total just shy of 400 – more that they would have felt that keeping wickets in hand and a decent score over 300 would have been viewed as satisfactory.

Perhaps that is overly harsh, for received wisdom is a very hard thing to fight against and there’s a tendency to paint failed regimes in the worst possible light, but the reality is that five of England’s seven highest one day international totals ever have come since June last year.  Yes, it is true that the game has changed over the last few years, but it is only in this last seven months or so that England appear to have caught the zeitgeist.

Towards the end of the England innings it actually appeared quite possible that England might be bowled out, yet that didn’t stop them, they carried on attacking and considered being bowled out to be merely an occupational hazard.  For supporters of other teams around the world, this must seem a statement of the most bleeding obvious there can be, but for those who follow England, seeing them play this way is still a startling thing to witness.  There are a few players of recent vintage who would revel in this England approach.

Fifteen sixes were hit across the 50 overs, which is a record for England, and you wouldn’t bet against them breaking that again next time out.  Jos Buttler will rightly get the plaudits, for a blistering century that came off 73 balls, and still represents his slowest one yet.  That in itself indicates the absurdity of the past, and the delight of the present.  For it is bringing the best out of players who when set free can be a joy to watch.  For Root’s 52 off 58 balls to be the slowest innings in the top eight is absurd.

Buttler made the big score, but Roy looked more assured at the top of the innings than he has done before, Hales appeared liberated from the inhibited player in the Test series, while Stokes simply terrifies opponents at the moment.  His catch to remove De Villiers on the boundary had the preposterousness of so many great all rounders of the past, for whom sometimes nothing is impossible.

South Africa’s run chase was ultimately doomed by the rain that curtailed the match and allowed England to win by the not insubstantial margin of 39 runs under Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (let us hope there are no further modifications to this system, it is taking a while to type) and in truth would probably have won the game had it gone to its natural conclusion  But probably is only as far as can be said, for Quinten de Kock certainly had other ideas.  He was on the field every ball of the match, and batted superbly well to be unbeaten on 138 when the weather closed in.  With another 150 needed, and half the side out, it would have been a big ask, but not entirely impossible.

Thus far only batsmen have been mentioned rather than bowlers.  One of many jokes a batsman will lob in the direction of their bowling colleagues is that they are there to serve – and to deal with it.  In Test cricket, the bowlers are the most important members of the side, in ODI and T20 cricket, they really are there to serve.

England go 1-0 up, while South African supporters will lament that the shortened game robbed them of what could just possibly have been a great victory.  There’s been enough in this match for there to be another queue at McDonald’s on Saturday.

 

South Africa vs England: ODI series

thelegglance57 Comments

Tomorrow, there begins 7 matches – five ODIs and two T20s – against South Africa to finish off the tour.  As is usually the case when these take place after the Test series, there’s a sense of it being a winding down of the trip, as though they were tacked on the end.  Indeed, the Guardian’s preview of the series is entirely with reference to the Test team and what it might mean for that.  Yet, in a month, the World T20 begins, and this series carries far more relevance to that than anything else, particularly for an England team that ought to be in with a shout of doing well in it.

The 50 over game may not be directly translatable, but there are enough similarities for it to be a decent pointer to how the team approaches the one format where England have ever won a global title.  Jason Roy has picked up a back spasm on the eve of play, but assuming he is fit, then the batting line up offers quite some potency all the way down the order.  Whether they come off against a South African team that will pose a stiff challenge is another matter, for while England performed well in the UAE, there’s no sense that it is a settled side.

The core of the team is clearly Stokes and Root in terms of the batting, with the captain Eoin Morgan providing the solidity to the middle order that is now so critical.  Certainly there’s no doubt that shot making is this side’s strength, for of the probable side they bat right the way down to 9 or 10, every one of whom can put bat to ball to explosive effect.

Yet it’s equally true that there’s a brittleness about the line up, with limited experience and form which is essentially unknown.  It makes calling the likely outcome of the series rather difficult, for while England’s approach has been excellent, it’s an open debate as to how much quality is there.

The T20 squad is announced soon, and the 50 over format will be deemed an audition for that.  The notable absentee from the initial squad who could play is Stuart Broad, and while there is logic in managing his workload, it raises the question as to whether he is in their plans at all.  He has been called up as a replacement for Liam Plunkett, but he’s not expected to play the first game at least.

Of course, as far as that tournament is concerned, the spectre of Kevin Pietersen looms large.  The ECB will certainly be hoping that these matches go well, for a hammering will put pressure on them once again.  And so there should be, Pietersen has been a star in the T20 format this winter, and there is simply no getting away from the reality that England would be a stronger side with him than without.  If the ECB were clever, they would select him – and since the exclusion wasn’t on cricketing grounds, the reason it would be clever would also not be on cricketing grounds.  For the Pietersen issue has festered for two years precisely because of the duplicity and ineptitude of the ECB.  Bringing him back for the World T20, in a squad where there are no past issues to be managed, would strengthen the side in a cricketing sense yes, but would also allow a closing of the circle.

Pietersen is highly unlikely to play any more red ball cricket, but making use of his undoubtedly exceptional abilities in T20 would end much of the rancour at a stroke, and allow him to depart the stage with his head held high, and with the bitterness at least partly diffused.  The problem is that the ECB are simply not that clever.  And they almost certainly won’t do it.

And so it is this group of players in the 50 over matches, plus Sam Billings who will probably go into that competition.  Young, unquestionably exciting, and with bags of potential.  Yet with a major challenge ahead of them to win this series, against a very strong side.

The End Game?

LordCanisLupus43 Comments
Clarke
Your Next President Of The ICC

This blog is absolutely no fan of Giles Clarke. His appearance in Death of a Gentleman was perfect pantomime villain, except he was deadly serious. He wasn’t playing for laughs or entertainment, he was self-justification personified. I’ve talked to a number of journalists, cricket writers and bloggers on line and it seems that he is the one subject that unifies all of them. I’ve hardly heard anything good about him.

The carving up of the ICC into the Big Three was something that got us all going. We aren’t alone, but one thing running through this blog and with our commenters is the love of much overseas cricket. Blackwash evokes the memories of the great West Indian teams. New Zealand are, in recent times, a thrill to watch. Pakistan evoke great passions in the commenters, Sri Lanka as well, especially with Sanga and Mahela. There is nothing but huge praise for Dale Steyn, and anger that we play a great team so infrequently. There’s unanimity on the need for a larger World Cup.

The justification Clarke raised was that when the ICC was being carved up, it was he who got India into the tent and not left outside to effectively go it alone. For this the ICC tournaments were handed exclusively to the Big Three for the next decade. Clarke got on the side of Srinivasan, despite his travails at home with the betting crisis involving his son-in-law at Chennai Super Kings. Srini became ICC Head Honcho, and Clarke got to be his replacement in 2016. It was neat, it was tidy.

Then Srini fell, and the game changed. I remember asking a source what the impact of the new broom in Indian cricket would have on the ICC. At the time he was non-commital but had some views…

He thought the grounds had shifted but had no idea if Manohar was going to be pro- or anti-Clarke.

We believe that the election was a fudge, to prevent a bloodbath at the ECB. That’s an accepted view.

He stated that if the BCCI professed to not knowing everything about international cricket, Clarke would be in the room as a loud voice telling them. But he was certainly of the view that Clarke’s position looked less solid.

I might bring some more, but need to speak to the individual first.

It appears as though Manohar has indicated he’s not sold on Clarke’s charms (backing the wrong horse I would imagine, Giles) and now we see the intimations that the vote will be open, there will be freedom to choose (I wonder if there will be an Indian candidate) and that some of the Big Three grab will be returned. These sound like good stories.

The Telegraph is all over it. Nick Hoult is doing great work. The Independent is silent. Andrew Miller has run this prominently on Cricinfo, the Mail is silent. And The Guardian. The Guardian is silent too. The Guardian is not interested. The Guardian does not mention it. The Guardian doesn’t really do ICC business unless it’s internet rights for the Beeb and something that tried to paint Giles in a good light. I think their coverage is shameful on the future of the sport.

Now the ECB has a dilemma. They created a post which would allow Clarke to go to the ICC and do his thing. Now, on initial assessments, he looks as popular with India, Australia and South Africa as a rat sandwich, and now we are faced with a man in a position where he’s a liability and not an asset, and there is no clear path on what to do with him. The ECB’s next move is going to be extremely interesting….he doesn’t look the sort to go quietly.

It was said by Clarke that no-one should be interested in sports administration. Look over there, that implied. People aren’t “looking over there” but the Guardian, for one, is. I don’t have time to dedicate to this post now, but hope it gives the flavour and welcome insights and views (and please add related links when you come across them – who knows, there might be a Guardian one there one day).

Giles-Clarke-and-Sir-Alle-001
Come hither, Al, and look at my soul….er, I mean this is all David Collier’s idea!

Danger Signs

LordCanisLupus43 Comments

I’d like to thank Sean B, aka The Great Bucko, for his excellent post and all of you who contributed to the discussion. Sean even got some old faces back! Really pleased it went down so well. I’m not sure a post coming up linking events of yesterday together is going to work, but that’s the joy of this. More importantly, anyone noticing the new photos on the Header?

I write this blog, in conjunction with my co-editor and guest posters, as a personal record of both my attitudes to the sport and also to the developments within the game. It is also here to reflect a little on what is going on with me (other writers can feel free to do the same) and events related to the blog that I experience.

Yesterday there came news that Giles Clarke would have to resign his role at the ECB in order to complete the end game of his master plan for world domination. I was reading an old edition of The Wisden Cricketer which contained the news of Clarke’s appointment. It was not without rancour. He went up against Surrey’s Michael Soper and the initial election finished 9 votes each. When it was re-run, Soper was bitter that three people who said they would vote for him turned and voted for Clarke. I wonder if those three would want those votes back right now! Of course, within a year of this election we’d be going through Sanford and all that and Teflon Giles was born.

Reading yesterday’s news was interesting. India are clearly changing the rules of the game just as the prize is at hand. The machinations that came about from the so-called stepping down from the head of the ECB last year look to be in jeopardy. A view from a source I speak to said that Clarke knew he would lose, Graves knew he would win, but both knew it would be a bloodbath to get to that spot. The messy compromise was that Graves knew next to nothing about the international organisational foibles, and that if he stepped down he would take that part of the job on – unpaid of course – while Graves could be the new man at the helm. This was, of course, very true. Clarke knew the then head honcho of Indian cricket extremely well. He was there to be Srini’s partner, and a new man might not have the chops to take the situation as it was. We should be grateful for the man’s foresight and equanimity.

Of course, this means some interesting organisation watching coming up. Clarke is going to gauge if he is going to win. If he thinks it is hopeless, then he’ll not put himself forward and keep his nice position at the ECB. If he does think he’ll win, he’ll resign (but probably as late in the piece as he can) but one thinks he needs India on side first and foremost and I don’t think many people know which way things are going. There are promising noises about ending the big three stitch up, but I’ll believe that when I see it. The U19 World Cup is proving, in a small way, the nonsense of the World Cup carve up.

The fact is though, with poor ticket sales on first viewing, for this year’s test cricket in England, the need for the big three revenue (we include South Africa who have been a big attraction over here) remains. In their own annual report they talk of the four year cycle. That revenue from tests is almost taken for granted by our authorities. The support of the England paying public will provide the revenue for the national game, and our prominence world wide should be rewarded on the global stage.

Sean’s piece on Friday night, and as I mentioned in Schism last weekend, emphasises that despite our despair at the ECB we still love the sport. But is that love taken for granted and would people walk away from the game if it became too much. Maybe yesterday for me proved that you can. DeNiro’s character in Heat comes up with that line about never getting involved in something/someone you couldn’t leave in 30 seconds. It’s not quite like that, but when the split is made, it’s hard to get back.

I was a football fan. Absolutely besotted by it for over three decades of my life. As soon as I got on a payroll, it was used to watch football. I went home and away. I’ve been to most grounds in the country, many of them no longer with us, including my team’s old home ground in 1993. I had the same seat in the new stadium from its opening until 2013. There were great highs – seeing my team run out against the great Liverpool team of the mid-to-late 80s and take the lead at Anfield would be one – and awful lows (Stern John, riot) but it was a story of life. We produced top talent and it was sold on, as the laws of economics dictate. But it was fun. It was really brilliant. It didn’t matter if we were on the up, or on the way down, I went. During that time I could never envisage packing it in.

I packed in my season ticket for a number of reasons. The traffic getting to the game was a nightmare. My brother, who went with me, had four kids and it took a fair bit of cash out of his pocket (and although he wouldn’t want me to use that as an excuse, it was a part of the decision). It wasn’t expensive but what we weren’t getting was entertainment at all. It was defensive, boring crap, played with a large coterie of transient footballers getting an end of career payday or loanees, and without that one thing any club needs. Hope. We were defeatists. Not for us Bournemouth… we didn’t have the nous for that. And no, I don’t quit on clubs not playing well, I quit because it was becoming an ordeal. I didn’t enjoy it.

I went to my team’s home game yesterday. Since I gave up my season ticket in 2013, I’ve returned to the ground once. My mate had a ticket for £5 and so, for reasons I still can’t quite fathom, I went (well, good to see some old mates was the best one). I found it sad. It’s the same old sport. Same old team walk-out of the tunnel. Same ground. Same turgid football, but I found it bereft of hope. 90 minutes dragged. I’d lost the connection to the team and it was never going to return. I still follow all their results, but it’s not got my emotional investment any more. I don’t think it ever could. Ironically, as I’m writing this Cristiano Ronaldo has just scored an amazing goal for Real Madrid, and they are hammering one of the cannon fodder in that league. It’s fine if you like these teams, the top ones, but the rest exist just to provide the entertainment for the show. If the understudies get too good, the big ones just nick their top players. There is no connection with clubs.

So could that happen to me with cricket? Well, I’ve taken an initial step and stopped getting test tickets for England matches at the Oval. We’ve been down that road before. The county game is still great fun if you get the right day. I can’t be arsed with T20s. But there’s the international game, and this blog, that keep me going. I have a Sky subscription for the cricket and NFL – I can take or leave the football – and now they have all the Majors, the golf. BTSport cover my baseball and basketball fandom. I can take or leave tennis, and darts and pretty much all else. International football perhaps would be an influence if it wasn’t on terrestrial.

But let’s face it. There’s no Brian Laras out there. Not really. While there is a lot of pomp and circumstance over the Big 4 batting titans (Kohli, Smith, Williamson and Root), there’s massive appreciation but for many reasons, not that certain something that gets you out of your seat. Well, my seat. Like it or not, KP had it. AB has it when he’s on form. I was checking some old photos yesterday and came across loads of a Hashim Amla masterclass against Middlesex on a rampant bunsen, and that resonates. It may be the blog, it may be the ECB, it is probably me. That connection, while still strong, isn’t unbreakable.

I’ve tried to steer away from the debates we’ve had this week on here, and reflect what yesterday meant to me – that’s what blogs are for, and I don’t pretend that I represent anyone other than me. But I do believe that an all consuming passion can burn out if care is not taken to preserve what creates that passion. There are still great things I love about this game, and just how much I do will be tested to the utmost in the not too distant future. Cricket is at the crossroads internationally and utmost care needs to be taken. We may see one of the main sores cured if Clarke doesn’t get to his dream job and the ECB is free from his influence. I don’t think it will happen. For the world game, and the future of many us who support cricketers from everywhere, this might be the best thing. It might.

Have a great week, and we’ll be in touch!

GUEST POST – Don’t Blame It On The Sunshine, Blame It On The ECB

LordCanisLupus58 Comments

Great Bucko Tag

The thing with a cricket blog, and certainly one like this one, is that we can get all wrapped up in our little worlds as authors / editors / masters of all we survey. I’m as guilty as any of that.

Earlier this week I wrote a post called “Schism”. It reflected how I felt the last two years had gone, and where we are now. Now, separately, without any prompting, our fellow writer, Sean B, had been thinking along similar lines, but with a different approach. As a long-time commenter on the blog, he’s certainly of our parish, but when he put the piece to me, I thought it would be good to have another set of eyes cast over this landscape. It might seem to be more of the same, but it isn’t. I believe this issue is simply to big to ignore. English cricket cannot afford to toss fans away.
As usual, my huge thanks for Sean’s efforts and contributions, and as always, if you want to write something, you only have to ask….
TAKE IT AWAY SEAN B……

 

I’ve been somewhat of an interested bystander this week (not to be to confused with Innocent Bystander from Twitter) around the continued arguments between what I will refer to as the “Cook enthusiasts” and the “Cook sceptics” on both the blogs and on social media. After all, this all stems from the wretched remnants of the 2014 Ashes tour, which saw England sink to new depths both on and off the field. I read with interest Dmitri Old’s piece – https://beingoutsidecricket.com/2016/01/25/schism/, in which he highlighted how time hasn’t healed the divides, in fact it is has made them more entrenched than ever before. You only have to read the BTL comments of the national newspapers (or those that haven’t been edited suitably by Mike Selvey and his Guardian chums), that the mudslinging and rancor is greater than it have ever been, which is another reason why I stopped reading BTL comments apart from those on a couple of blogs. How and why is it the case that even after 2 years, we have no sign of peace from both warring parties? Is it really just the sacking of Kevin Pietersen or is it something that goes way beyond this?

After the Ashes humiliation 2014, the ECB knew something needed to change to take the heat off them. Andy Flower, a favourite son of the ECB, was no longer in a tenable position to lead the England team; however such was the humiliation of events Down Under, they were also aware that this would not satisfy the fans. They realistically knew that one of the senior team members would have to be sacrificed (Cook, Bell, Anderson or Kevin Pietersen), so they could herald a new start and claim that lessons had been learnt. I genuinely believe that they had identified their main target after Perth, as we all knew which way the series was going by then, which was more than enough time for a new Managing Director to be briefed about the ECB’s wishes. Enter Paul Downton, a creature so hideous and incompetent that I genuinely don’t know which bog the ECB dredged him up from, to do their dirty work. Kevin Pietersen, they decided, was the man to go, as he was the easy fall guy, a man that had completely polarized England fans across the world. KP would be the sacrificial lamb and Paul Downton the bumbling hitman. The ECB probably thought the fallout would last a few months, in which time their pals in the National Media could do a character assassination of him to alienate him from the English public. Except it didn’t quite work out that way, many people were rightly angered and saw past the hacks, and here we are in 2016 with the KP issue still being violently discussed.

Now, I don’t want this to be a KP piece, there has been so much written on it, that quite frankly I’m done with it. He’s not going to come back, and as much as I am still angry about and as much as I would like Strauss to do a U-turn for the World T20’s, it’s not going to happen. You may well be thinking, that if this isn’t a KP piece, then why have I spent the last 2 paragraphs talking about him? Well I needed to put the piece into some context. I believe that the rabbit hole goes far deeper than this. As I alluded to in my paragraph, there are a group of people out there, who think Alastair Cook has had a terrible rep from some of the online blogs and on social media and can’t understand why people in the “Cook sceptic” group would want him to do badly. I will do my best to explain why not all of us hail Alastair Cook, coming from the more sceptical group myself, though I don’t agree with all of the reasons set out below, this is more to try and provide those that think we’re not “England fan’s” with some sort of context.

I’m no great fan of Alastair Cook; however neither am I his biggest critic either. I genuinely hope Cook has a great summer with the bat, England desperately need him to fire owing to the porous nature of our current batting line up for us to be successful in the upcoming series. I think when he has retired, history will look upon Alastair Cook as a good quality international batsman but an average international Captain. He will soon reach the landmark of 10,000 runs, which will be a great achievement personally for him and I will be happy to congratulate him on this; however the stark reality is that the majority of his runs were scored pre-summer 2011 and at that time only could he be rightly hailed as world class. Since the Summer of 2013, Cook has scored runs only sporadically and rarely when we have needed them most. Using the winter as an example, Cook had an average of around 48, which is very acceptable in itself; however if you take away the 250 against Pakistan on the flattest of pitches, his contribution was quite meagre. In South Africa, Cook didn’t manage to score any meaningful runs at all, yet Nick Compton’s match winning knock of 86 in the first innings has been totally forgotten and both he and Hales have been singled out as the fall guys. Aside from his international statistics, I strongly believe it’s not Cook the batsman or even the captain, that has caused any real ill feeling amongst the Cook sceptics, it’s the Cook aura that has led to most murmurings.

After the winter of discontent, when “he who must not be mentioned” (Kevin Pietersen – Ed.) was given his marching orders, it was decided the Captain Cook was the man that the ECB would lay all its eggs in. He was well spoken, talked about the team a lot and most importantly came from what the ECB would deem as “the right type of family”. As a result, any criticism of the Captain meant that you were automatically deemed as “outside cricket”. It was deemed a hangable offence from anyone inside the MSM to criticize Cook after all, the ECB knows how important it is to relay the right message to the masses – “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play”. This is actually a quote from Joseph Goebbels, that well-known member of those “lovable rogues” the Nazi’s; however if you replace “government” with the “ECB” then you have a fair idea of the ECB’s views on their approach to our national press. The deification of Alastair Cook that the MSM and Sky have been portraying since the Summer of 2014 has made many of us wary about this continued praise, I would hasten to add that this is not in any way Alastair Cook’s fault, but it is certainly a circumstance of the ridiculous eulogies emanating from our own broadcasters and national press.

This, however, is not the main reason why there are individuals out there, who not only dislike Alastair Cook, but actually want him to fail, of which I am not one for the record, despite being highly critical of him at times over the past 2 years. Alastair Cook, whether he likes it or not, is the public face of the ECB. Alastair Cook was both consulted and in the room, when KP was sacked in the full knowledge that this was an opportunity to both get rid of the person who had criticized his captaincy in Sydney in 2014 whilst also ensuring that his failings during that series alongside his captaincy were quietly forgotten about. Cook displayed a ruthless trait by quietly cozying up to the ECB, to ensure his position as “head boy” was unchanged, never mind who else got thrown under the bus. Would I have done the same, possibly, possibly not. This isn’t a one off either, you just have to examine Cook’s words at the end of the South African series to realize that self preservation is of pressing concern to our Captain:

“It’s been tough batting conditions and it’s not been easy, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions in our top seven batting,” he said.

“I think at the end of the day results matter and your end column of runs is absolutely vital. So to say they’ve totally convinced me would be wrong, but there have been flashes.

“There’s certainly places up for grabs. Myself and Trevor (Bayliss, head coach) and the selectors will have to sit down and discuss that because the output we’ve had in this series hasn’t been good enough if we’re trying to get to number one in the world – which is the ultimate aim.”

This is from a Captain, who averaged 23 with the bat, but one who was more than happy to pile the pressure of Hales, Compton and Taylor, who are all trying to make their way in the international game, whilst trying to take the heat of himself at his own poor series (also unless I’m mistaken and the Captain is now a national selector, then why would Cook be talking to Bayliss about this). It’s hardly from the Mike Brearley coaching manual of great captaincy. This is another major reason why there are some people out there that both dislike Cook and some that want him to actively fail; however again, it is not just what Cook says or does that garners a distaste for him, which I must again stress is not his actual fault, it ultimately what he represents as the face of his employers, the ECB.

The ECB, it would be fair to say, hasn’t covered itself in the greatest of glories over the past few years, unless you mean financial glories, with over £70million sitting in their account at the end of last year (I don’t think Giles will struggle to dine well this year). At a glance, some of the ECB’s highlights (or most probably low lights) over the past few years have been:

  • Sacking our best batsman, with a so called dossier of misdemeanors given as the reason; however, much to the embarrassment of the ECB, this dossier has since gone missing (though you would suspect they could call Newman, Brenkley and Selvey to throw some more mud)
  • Hiring Paul Downton, a man so inept, breweries and piss up doesn’t even seem to cover half of it.
  • Telling many English fans that we were “outside cricket” and treating the rest with such a level of disdain, that you wonder why we were ever even allowed to set foot onto a cricket ground to watch our national team in the first place.
  • Requiring Test Grounds, many of whom had been promised international cricket if they invested in their facilities’, to bid so high for Test matches, that they have to raise prices to an unsustainable level to try and break even, which are beyond the means of many.
  • Sticking with a completely antiquated and unsustainable domestic format, with the games and formats being constantly interchanged to try and plunder the most money possible from the T20 competition. I’d genuinely not be surprised if the players turning up to a ground, knew which format they’re going to be play that day.
  • Cozying up with Allan Stanford, a criminal convicted of one of the largest ever Ponzi schemes ever, as the answer to the competition from the IPL.
  • And the coup de grace, selling their souls to the BCCI to ensure that they didn’t miss out on their cut of the riches in international cricket. Never mind those outside of the Big 3, who will see international cricket slowly die in their countries. Giles Clarke is on record saying his priorities are “to put his board first”, stuff the rest of international cricket.

This is the ultimate reason, why many individuals do not see Alastair Cook as the shining beacon of hope that he has been portrayed as in the national press. In fact, if anything, it has nothing to do with Alastair Cook himself, more the ruthless, greedy and disdainful organisation that he represents every time he appears in the paper or speaks on television. This is why there are those out there, who have been England supporters all their lives, that are so disillusioned with the sport, that they are thinking of walking away for good; in their eyes, it has become impossible for them to distinguish between the team that goes onto the field with the deceitful organisation in the background. Am I one of these people, no, as much as I despise the ECB, I still want every member of the England team to do well (Cook included) and to win every series possible, but I can understand where these individuals are coming from (much as I do understand, those who choose to think that everything is rosy in the garden of English cricket). This is why I do struggle to both abide and understand the constant mud throwing from both camps, which shows no sign of abating. There shouldn’t be an “us and them”, we are all England cricket fans after all but there is and it is wider than ever before, yet we hear nothing from the ECB to try and unite English cricket under one positive banner like the Ashes in 2005. Perhaps though, it is really not in their interest to unite the English public, as whilst we’re still arguing about what a divisive individual KP is and how he should be nowhere near the England cricket team, the ECB has got in to bed with India and sold international cricket down the river, with a hardly a murmur from the masses. After all, we’re all still shouting at each other about Kevin Pietersen.

If I may use an analogy (with the caveat that I’m desperately not trying to sound like Ed Smith): At the battle of Pharasalus in 48BC, Caesar dragged his war-torn armies into one last battle with his former ally and member of the triumvirate, Pompey. After a vicious battle with many casualties, Caesar eventually won and the dead Pompey was brought to him. On receiving the dead body of his former ally, he shook his head and uttered the immortal words “hoc voluerunt” – “They wanted this”. It would be quite easy to interchange 48BC with 2016, and “the Senate” with “The ECB”. I have the very same fear that in a few years time, when we finally look up from our arguments about KP, that we too maybe uttering these words when looking at the barren and parched landscape of international cricket. No-one wins in a pyrrhic victory, except perhaps the ECB and Giles Clarke, and the one thing that we can all agree on is that this would be the worst case scenario for all parties.

@thegreatbucko

 

Blackwash II – Part II

LordCanisLupus11 Comments

“Deprived of the batsman who had been far the most impressive in application, technique and temperament, and accorded inadequate practice facilities on a tour of increasingly murmuring hostility from politicians and demonstrators, England entered the first Test Match with unease. The victories over India and Australia seemed far distant, and the Indian medium pacers and the Australian bowlers of average county standard were recalled with the nostalgia of blue remembered hills. Certainly the present reality of Patterson, Marshall, Garner and Holding offered darker mountains and threatening storm.”  B&H Cricket Year – 5th Edition – First Test Match – Jamaica

Sabina Park. Even as a kid it sounded like a proper test venue, in much the same way that the WACA does, and Eden Gardens doesn’t (it sounds like a bloody flower show venue). Once the televising of overseas tests became the norm, then seeing what Sabina Park actually had to offer was a reaffirmation of those thoughts. Especially when you saw the pitch, rolled so much that it actually looked, at the start of a test, like a gymnasium floor, all polished and smooth. And bloody quick. Now, of course, it’s like all the rest. A bloody pudding.

Sabina Park 1986
Sabina Park – West Indies v England – 1986

But Jamaica would be where the test series started, and for some reason the Sabina/Caribbean tour experience seemed new to me. I don’t believe the 1980-1 series was on the radio, and I might be wrong, but I don’t really recall it and in any case, first year of secondary school was a bit of a mare that I try to erase. This test serues I do recall a bit more. It started on a school night, and as we were driving home we stopped at the shops. Mum left the keys in the car so we could listen to the radio as Gooch and Robinson got us off to an unexpectedly solid start. England had won the toss and batted.

There then followed what we’d all become used to. A procession of wickets. Robinson went for 6 and it was 32 for 1. Gower played a bit more fluently but went for 16. David Smith, making his test debut, went for 1. Two of the three falling to the new tyro, the man with pace truly like fire, Patrick Patterson. Doing homework, eating dinner, watching TV, I dipped in and out. Gooch and Lamb appeared to effect a recovery, but it was small in scale and Gooch went for 51. The innings fell away. Lamb made 49, no-one else made a thing. 159 all out. Patterson 4 for 30, Marshall 2 for 30. Garner was relatively expensive, with 2 for 58 in 14.3. Big Bird at 4 an over? Standards had slipped.

Three players made half-centuries for the hosts, Greenidge top-scoring with 58, Gomes with 56 and Dujon 54. Greg Thomas took the first scalp of the innings on his debut, taking Haynes. But his appearance miffed the B&H yearbook writer, who believed the omission of Neil Foster was “as cruel as it was incomprehensible”. The Essex Mafia were as strong then as they are now! Carlisle Best, making his debut too, began his test career hooking Ian Botham for 6. It would be a turbulent tour for Beefy. The star of the show had been Richard Ellison, fresh off his amazing end to the 1985 summer. He took 5 for 78, four of them LBW, and including Richards and Greenidge. However, with the WIndies, from my standpoint then, unless GG or IVA were spanking the runs (and RR to follow) I wasn’t that interested. Their bowling made them, their batting fed off them. The lead of 148 was imposing – in truth, in modern cricket that lead would look like 400 with that attack, on that pitch, and with that skill.

England made 152.

WI v Eng Test 1 1986
Alas Smith and Gower. Or The Despatch of the Two Daves.

The Yearbook mentions a lead of “manageable proportions”. Looking back at that now, even with the gift of hindsight, that looks very optimistic. Marshall, Garner and Patterson took three each. Robinson and Smith added ducks to their paltry first innings totals. Peter Willey made 71, in some part justifying his place, in others showing the hopelessness of it all. Promoted up to number 4, he showed why he was picked. But it was never going to be enough.

“Four of the best fast bowlers that the game has seen bowled at the top of their pace on a wicket which gave them assistance, and they were unfettered by any consideration for Law 42. Nothing should detract from the West Indian superiority, nor from their greatness of their fast bowlers, but this was cricket without subtlety and if one had only little sympathy for English batsmen of uncertain technique, one had great concern for the future of the game at international level.” B&H Yearbook

I’m not sure if this Bill Woodfull-esque or a reverse make them grovel. Bloody hell, it seemed pious and not a little unsporting. We were getting humped by a much better side in their own backyard. An all-time great team. And they knew it, both that team and the writers of the time. It was bellyaching.

Wisden put it thus…

Only while Gooch and Robinson batted without undue difficulty in the first hour of the match did England promise to give West Indies a harder fight than in 1984. Of the five West Indian victories in that series in England, two were achieved on the fourth day: at Sabina Park, after two England collapses, they had almost an hour to spare on the third when Haynes and Richardson completed the formality of scoring the 5 runs needed in West Indies’ second innings.

Once again the cause of England’s defeat was their inability to play exceptional fast bowling, much of it short-pitched. Their problems were accentuated by a fast, uneven surface and the presence in the West Indies ranks of Patterson, a 24-year-old Jamaican who, after failing to make much impact in a handful of games for Lancashire in 1985, forced his way into the West Indies team by his performances in the Shell Shield. Described before the Test as the fastest bowler in the Caribbean after Marshall, Patterson left no doubt in the England batsmen’s minds that the order should have been reversed. A heavyweight of 6ft 2in, with a sprinting run and powerful delivery, in England’s second innings he bowled at a pace comparable to that of Jeff Thomson of Australia in his prime. Deprived of the new ball by the prior claims of Marshall and Garner, he none the less took seven for 74 in his first Test and won the match award.

And yes…we were bad losers then…

England went into the game weakened by Gatting’s injury in the one-day international. (He returned home for further treatment after two days’ play.) Lamb was the only other batsman in true form following four games on sub-standard pitches, and the England batsmen were further incommoded by an inadequate sightscreen at the Southern end, which was too low to frame the hands of bowlers more than six feet tall. The Jamaica Cricket Association had been unable to grant England’s request to have it raised, lodged after their problems facing Walsh and Holding in the Jamaica match, because to do so would have obscured the view of an estimated 200 spectators to whom tickets had been sold. All Patterson’s wickets were taken from that end.

The English team licked the wounds of their 10 wicket beating and moved on to the Queen’s Park Oval for a tour match, an ODI and a test.

The writer of the piece in the Yearbook, and I’m assuming it was David Lemmon, must have been pleased to see Neil Foster take 6 for 54 in that match as in reply to a score of 229 made by England, Trinidad and Tobago were skittled for 109. In trying to set up a game due to bad weather early in the fixture, England didn’t pull off a win, but were reminded of the phenomenal depth in the home side’s fast bowling resources. Tony Gray, who played with some merit for Surrey, took 5 for 50 and if he were around in any other era might have picked up a regular berth. In the WIndies he was just another pace bowler.

The second ODI was a slightly different affair. Played on the 4th of March, West Indies were without Jeff Dujon who was replaced by Thelston Payne. For some reason, and I do not know why as I never saw him play, I always liked the thought of Thelston Payne playing for the West Indies. The surname…..the surname. The match was reduced by rain to just 37 overs a side, and the Windies struggled in the on-off conditions. After 28 overs they had 106 for 2. Now in the modern era 117 off 9 overs is still quite a lot – in that era it was almost unprecedented, and you know who, the King himself was the destroyer.

“Botham was brought back to bowl when Richards came in and the West Indian captain  greeted his friend with a 4 through mid-wicket. This was a mere prelude,”

82 not out. 39 balls. Botham’s last over going for 23. Game Over.

In West Indies’ innings, Richards was in the form that makes him impossible to bowl to. The length of the ball, and especially its line, were immaterial as he scored his runs out of 117 in nine overs, overtaking Richardson who had a start of 38. The biggest of his 6s was a straight drive off Botham out of the ground, a hit of more than 100 yards.

Now, if there were TV coverage of the England innings existing, I guarantee it would be played in one of those dewey eyed montage talking head way for generations to come. England started by thinking outside the box. They needed over 6 an over, and so sent out Botham. It didn’t work (although Botham would open in ODIs soon enough), and Wilf Slack, out as a replacement for Gatting, came in at three. Together with Gooch he added 89 at over 5 an over, so for once, we were in the game. After one failure (and a glorious Ashes summer) this was enough to threaten Robinson’s place already. Despite Gooch going well, England needed 50 off the last 5 overs and only Smith as a recognised batsman (Downton was outside batting) remaining in with him. Gooch went for it. Smith played the odd shot to keep it going.

Now with an over or so to go comes my bizarre memory of this match. In those days big boxing match ups were rarely shown live on TV. They were held on midweek nights, and the fight shown the day after on Sportsnight. This game took place on a Tuesday, if memory serves, and Frank Bruno, the up and coming, glass-jawed hero of British heavyweight boxing (I’m being unfair, but most of us loved Frank) had a poster match-up as a final eliminator for the World title. Never mind Bonecrusher had knocked his lights out the year before, Frank got reinvented… That night he was due to fight Gerrie Coetzee at Wembley Arena. The thing was, the fight was due to start on Radio Two at the same time that Gooch was doing his thing in Trinidad. No red-button or digital channels in those days. The ODI was not on Radio 3 and it was a reporter (it might have been Pat Murphy, yes even that long ago, but I’m not sure) doing the commentary from Port of Spain. Nine was needed from the last over. Gooch had passed 100. This is what we’d really missed in his three years away.

First ball, single. Second ball, single. Third ball, four. Gooch pulls one through mid-wicket. 3 to win from three. Fourth ball, single.  Fifth ball, Smith on strike, he swings, he missed. It’s a bye as they ran through to the Payne Man. One off the last ball. Patterson bowling. Gooch swings, the ball squirts off his pad, they run, the throw….

MISSES.

England win….the result is announced to the fervent boxing crowd at Wembley Arena. There’s a cheer. We feel good. C’mon Frank. Coetzee was knocked out in the first and many thousands of people bought tickets to watch Bruno get larruped by Tim Witherspoon later that Summer in the early hours of a July morning – or was it June? It seemed to sum up England actually. A brief feel-good, and years of futility.

The Second Test was played a few days later and Wilf Slack made his debut in place of Robinson who was injured. Smith, according to the Yearbook, had struggled with sunstroke in the first test and so Emburey played in his stead. This looked off, given he played in the ODI and the tour match against T&T. Still  no Foster.

One of my memories of the pre-series build up was John Emburey saying he was looking forward to playing at Port of Spain because he reckoned the wickets would take spin. I raised my eyebrows at that one. Doubt there’d be much prep to that end for this tour, Ernie? But he wasn’t miles off the mark. He took 5 for 78 in the first innings – West Indies reply to another outstanding team effort of 176 in 44 overs – and two in the second innings as well. Peter Willey never got a bowl. Looks odd in hindsight.

Richie Rich
Richie Richardson – 1986 Style…

England were asked to bat, which probably sounds like being asked to slice your own arm off, but the Yearbook suggests there was little about the pitch that influenced the decision, just our state of mind. Gooch got smacked by the second ball of the match, scampered two off the third and sent on his way with the 4th. Slack soon followed, also the Maco, and Willey hung around for a bit, before he went with the score on 30. Gower and Lamb then rebuilt the innings.

It’s something that always gets me when people think about David Gower and the West Indies, and I know that crap show with Lee Hurst, Nick Hancock and Rory McGrath had something to do with it, but if you actually look it up, Gower had a pretty decent record in the Caribbean. He wasn’t the waft outside off and casual nick off of repute. That’s just home televised laziness. In nine test, with us usually being thumped, he scored 746 runs at an average of 43.88 in the West Indies. That’s the equivalent, I kid you not, of averaging 60 now. These were wickets with pace, seam movement, in alien conditions against top bloody notch bowling. Sneer at his more lame home record against them, but never over there. Never.

Gower and Lamb (who played 79 tests and barely averaged 36, which isn’t a knock on him, but showed how damn tough it was back then – and averaged bang on his career mark in the Caribbean over 9 tests too) effected a more than decent recovery posting a century stand and taking England to 136 for 3. Now the mantra goes these days that you add two wickets to the score to get the true position of the match. With the West Indies, you added 2 runs per wicket remaining to get the true scope. OK, I exaggerate. 4. Four hours after the innings commenced Gower (67) and Lamb (62) were the only players to reach double figures and we were dismissed for 176. Marshall 4, Garner 3, Patterson a very expensive 2 and Walsh, in for Holding, 1. And what a one. Paul Downton. Walsh was outside medium pace bowling. If you are keeping tabs, Downton currently had test scores of 2,3 and 8 and had been picked for his batting. Yeah, I know…

West Indies then did their usual. Solid opening start. Greenidge first to go for 37. Haynes took them past 100, and then 200 with the mighty Richie Richardson (fast on the way to becoming one of my favourite ever players – god, I wanted to play like in. Played more like Robert Robinson). Richie made it to a century and then got out to spin, and he was followed by Haynes. Downton missed a straightforward stumping according to the yearbook, and so proved he was outside glovework, but it didn’t really matter. The West Indies didn’t collapse, Malcolm Marshall made one of those all too frequent lower order 50s the so and sos used to make when you thought you had them, and they almost got to 400. At this point Downton might have been asked what his ambitions for the tour might have been. He could have said “oh, 100 runs, 20 catches and making a little stumping here or there” to which we might have replied “I was hoping you’d say getting a drawn test.”

So, a deficit of over 200 against this lot. But there was to be a little bit of resistance. Slack made a duck to have us 2 for 1, but Gooch and Gower played well, putting on 80. Both were dismissed in their 40s, and both got out by the supposed weak link of the attack. When that weak link is Courtney Walsh, you sort of know you might be in a bit of bother. At 109 for 3, England remained 116 behind with seven wickets in hand, but the surrender wasn’t forthcoming. Another stand of 81 was built between Willey and Lamb, and this little brain was hoping this might be the start of something. Maybe a lead of 150? A chance to put some pressure on. Then logical brain told me to stop being an idiot. The stand went over a fair old time. Bad light ended play on day 3. Rain delayed Day 4. But crash, Lamb went LBW to Walsh for 40, Bang, Willey was bowled by Marshall, and then Wallop, Botham was caught by Thelston Payne, that man again, for 1 off Walsh and the hope died. As if it ever lived. 190 for 3 became 214 for 8. Downton showing he remained outside double figures with 5. Edmonds and Ellison took England past the humiliation of an innings defeat, and Greg Thomas joined the Kent man at the crease.

Things started to happen. Suddenly the bowlers seemed less threatening. The 9 and 11 were becoming entrenched. They could not be moved. The scoreboard wasn’t screaming round, but they weren’t getting out. I remember setting off to the Den to see my lot play Wimbledon and they were still batting. I had a portable radio, yes kids, a portable radio not the effing internet that ruined things, and kept on listening as the partnership passed 50. England reached 300, which wasn’t frequent against the great team. Extras brought up a stunning half century, with no balls and byes making up 47 well made, compact runs, for which Mr Aplomb must have dreamed. The fun had to end, but not before Les on the tannoy at the Old Den gave us updates. Sadly, like England, our night was to end in disappointment as Wimbledon won 1-0 through a Carlton Fairweather goal on their way to the top flight, taking with them one of our best players. No more Fash the Bash. No more Ellison and Thomas.

“….and proceeded to play with a resource and determination that must have shamed some of their colleagues. They added 72 runs, full of fight and energy, and West Indies were left to make 93 to win. It was an easy task but at least England had made the match last into the fifth day.”

The West Indies lost three wickets in reaching their goal, including Gomes for 0. But it was 2-0. There was no getting away from that. All the little bits of fight were just that. Little. Inconsequential. Nothing to worry our pretty little heads about. Take some consolation, but we were being battered. Absolutely battered.

The game was played against a background of demonstrations from a small group of anti-apartheid protesters, but there was no trouble inside the ground and, without being large, the gates were satisfactory. Marshall, who completed 200 wickets in his 42nd Test when he dismissed Downton, won the match award.

With three tests still to come, it didn’t, shall we say, look good. And nor was the off the field stuff….

Part Three to Follow.

 

 

 

Blackwash II – 30 Years Ago – Part 1

LordCanisLupus58 Comments

The poignancy in writing this is overwhelming. In 1986 England travelled to the West Indies for a tour where, surprisingly, England were being built up to give the hosts a run for their money. Now, three decades on the common themes I encountered when researching this seem painful. The mention of the never-ending production line of rapid West Indian quicks. The verve and power of the batting, under the power of Viv Richards, the human tour de force. The packed crowds, jamming every corner of every ground, climbing trees to watch at homely stadia across the region. It’s almost cliche to look back like this now. But it’s painful. They were, really, that good. Put them on their own wickets, with conditions in their favour, they were invincible when at their best.

The anniversary of that tour clicks to number 30 this weekend, and I thought I’d do a little, or long, recap on thoughts of the time, and in hindsight. I’ve read up on the tour using the relevant B&H Yearbook (the 5th edition) and Wisden. The first part deals with the run-up to the series, the second starts at the first test and I hope to complete over the weekend. So, after that intro, Part 1…..

ian-botham-malcolm-marshall-england-west-indies-sabina-park-jamaica_3090911

On 1 February 1986 England started their ill-fated tour of the Caribbean with a warm-up match on the island of St.Vincent. What was to ensue over the next few weeks was the cricketing equivalent of a mismatch. Unlike, for example, David Haye’s recent victim, England had to keep getting up after being knocked out, ready to take another pummelling from a far superior foe. The captain’s ship wasn’t just sinking, it was being ripped apart at the seams. We shall never see the like from those shores of the Caribbean ever again. So I thought I’d just write a few personal memories of the test series that confirmed that lightning really could strike twice. I was a schoolkid, keen as mustard on the sport, and hoping for the best, but fearing the worst.

Let’s put this into the context of the times. I’m guessing most of my readership are more than aware of how we got to where we did, but it does no harm to look back. Mid-80s English cricket had major heroes like Gower and Botham, but were looking down the barrel. Rebel tours took out some good players. The production line wasn’t exactly rolling top players into the team. We started losing to foes we never used to, such as New Zealand and Pakistan. Then, in a painful series, England were hammered 5-0 at home by a rampant West Indian force in 1984. The Blackwash series. They slaughtered us by an innings at Edgbaston, chased down 340 odd in just over two sessions at Lord’s, handed out a one-handed beating at Headingley, had Greenidge, Dujon and Davis take us apart at Old Trafford, before applying a routine coup de grace at The Oval. If England managed to get through the top order, the lower order helped bail the West Indies out. Even if they did, no-one thought we’d match their scores anyway. Defeatism reigned. Once Larry Gomes punched that ball to the boundary at Lord’s to chase down that 340 odd for the loss of 1, we really did put the dead into dead rubber. Hell, we got excited at Headingley because Paul Allott bowled well.

But there was a significant but. England were without their Apartheid Tour players and the bans were soon to be lifted. This meant the automatic reinstatement of Graham Gooch, probably the insertion of John Emburey, and maybe Peter Willey as well. The England selectors of the time certainly didn’t hold this betrayal against the various participants, as the 1985 Ashes series saw Gooch, Emburey and Willey in the team, and with Sidebottom and Les Taylor also given a shot. It always brings a smile to my face when you see some of the outlandish stuff now about “team culture”. Our keeper at the time was Paul Downton…..he didn’t rebel tour. Just thought I’d throw that in.

There was a definite whiff of optimism in the air going into 1985 and the “strengthening” of our team because a redoubtable band of men, without Ian Botham, went out to India and won 2-1. Tim Robinson, one of my favourite bats at the time, making a magnificent 160 in Delhi to set up a levelling win, and then Fowler and Gatting making double hundreds in Madras, as it then was, to back up Neil Foster’s excellent bowling to put us 2-1 up. Fowler made 201 there, and was dropped, never to play for England again, after the next test. He could probably feel a bit more peeved than most at the forgiveness shown to rebel tourists.

We won the Ashes 3-1 against a pretty feeble Australian team, kept afloat by Allan Border and Craig McDermott. It was a great summer of batting, England winning the last two test matches by an innings, including 300+ partnerships in both matches. Tim Robinson made two hundreds, so did Gatting, Gooch got a 196 at The Oval and captain Gower made three tons, all over 150, including a 215. As a kid watching that partnership at Edgbaston between Gower and Robinson, I was transfixed. My old favourite with my new.

So we were hopeful going into the next tour, the hardest tour. I was in the A Level years at school, so I was no callow youth, but I do recall reading all the previews and the suggestion was prevalent, if I’m correct. “Although no-one underestimates the strength of the opposition, one thing is certain. It won’t be another blackwash.” The old logical gene was going off the charts – they are at home, the wickets are fast, their bowling is miles better than ours, and their batting isn’t exactly crap, especially now Richie Richardson is established and looking good. But then hope over-rides that (and why that first test win in Jamaica in 1990 was so special) and you think about those writing these things “well, they must know what they are talking about…..”

These were the days before live TV coverage of cricket overseas. BBC would dabble with a little live play from Australia if it got interesting on an ad hoc basis, and we’d get the Channel 9 highlights (and those from New Zealand too with Peter Williams, I think, about as unbiased an anchor man you could ever have) for those tours. But there was nothing from the West Indies other than what the news would show you for five or ten seconds each night. On some occasions there wasn’t, I recall, total radio coverage because BBC with just a few stations weren’t prepared to have key slots taken up with the cricket. It is why one of my recollections of the first test was tuning into LBC (a London radio station where Jeff Stelling cut his teeth on football score coverage) every half hour to hear the Sunday score.

In these days of wall-to-wall coverage of pretty much all international cricket, you’d think the situation back then would be hell, but it really wasn’t. Sam Collins (yes, a name drop) said to a number of people talking to him after the DOAG screening I went to earlier this week, that it was like Stockholm Syndrome. We were grateful, extremely grateful, for whatever we got. There were no campaigns to get this live on the TV, because we had four channels. The technology did not exist. It was radio or nothing. When that coverage included the tones of Tony Cozier, it seemed absolutely dreamy. Exotic. Brilliant.

The tour, commencing on 1 February at the Arnos Vale (not Grove, you muppet. That’s on the Piccadilly Line) ground did not start auspiciously. The weakest team in the West Indian domestic competition bowled England out for 186, yet England fought back and bowled themselves to a small lead. This was not to prove vital. England barely scraped into three figures on their second dig, and the home team knocked the runs off for the loss of 3. This did not augur well. The one half century in the match was a 77 made by Mike Gatting, who at least had shown he was up for the challenge. The top score in the second innings? 18 by David Smith and Phil Edmonds. Desmond Collymore, the chief destroyer in the first innings with a career best 5-34, averaged 38 with the ball in the Shell Shield that year. We weren’t talking Marshall or Garner.

On to the Leeward Islands and another sketchy performance, but decidedly better in the first innings. The hosts made 236 with the wickets being shared around, and although no England player made three figures, they scored over 400 and set up the match. Leewards got to parity with 4 wickets down but Ralston Otto, a cousin of Curtly Ambrose, made 92 not out and set England 116 to win. The Leewards used two bowlers for the 34 overs that it would take to get these runs. At one end was Leicstershire man Winston Benjamin, and at the other, bowling superstar Richie Richardson! The latter actually took five wickets as England collapsed in a heap and finished grateful for a draw with 8 wickets down and 94 on the board. Tim Robinson, with 32, was the only one to hold his head up high. It wasn’t good.

The third prep game was against Jamaica, and England sealed a victory against one of the stronger sides in the West Indies. Gatting and Lamb made runs in the first innings, Lamb again in the second but still no hundreds, while the Jamaican wickets were well spread, with Les Taylor taking a lot of the top order scalps. England registered a 158 run win.

Of course back then England’s test and ODI teams were picked from the same squad and the fixtures were inter-mingled. The opening match against the full national side would be an ODI fixture at Sabina Park. A match that will live in infamy for the introduction of Balfour Patrick Patterson to an England team, and a projectile from Maco into Mike Gatting’s septum.

“A bad injury to Gatting, whose nose was broken when he missed an attempted hook off Marshall from a ball which cannoned off his face into the stumps, did far more damage to England than West Indies’ easy victory. They won with thirteen balls to spare in a match reduced by eight overs by their own slow over-rate, four fast bowlers and off-spinner Harper managing only 46 overs in the allowed 200 minutes. After England had been sent in, Patterson made immediate inroads by dismissing Robinson and Gower with his fourth and eighth balls in international cricket. Marshall prevented a full recovery by bowling Gatting and Gooch, and though Lamb and Willey added 62 off sixteen overs, England could not put West Indies under pressure. But for careless strokes by Gomes and Richardson with 7 runs needed, the margin would have been eight wickets.”

8136

The ODI had been a disaster. All the fragilities we feared were exposed. The batting could hardly score at a pace to make us competitive, 145 off 46 overs. Marshall, Patterson, Garner and a young Courtney Walsh (Holding had been injured in the Jamaica match) gave us nothing. Then the West Indies scored patiently to win with a couple of overs to spare. The tests were just around the corner. The foreboding, immense. One thing was certain, 5-0 was a possibility all right.

 

TO BE CONTINUED……

South Africa vs England: 4th Test and series review

thelegglance116 Comments

It’s quite an achievement for England to finish a series in South Africa as victors, and still leave a trail of furious supporters in their wake, but they’ve managed it well enough.  The spineless capitulation of today reached such impressive levels that they’d managed to lose the game before most of the country had arrived at their desks, sipped a coffee and turned the desktop on to check the score.  Alastair Cook had good reason to look embarrassed as he collected the Basil D’Oliveira Trophy, as even Mike Selvey suggested he should, for even by England’s historically impressive standards of collapses, this was abject.

The succession of batsmen arriving and departing can be covered quickly enough, not much less time than it took them in real time, for few of them were got out.  Bairstow perhaps got a decent enough ball as did Taylor, while Moeen Ali can at least hold his head up from the shambles having batted well in both innings with little support down the order.

In reality, in this Test England were lucky to finish second, having been outplayed throughout, but it shouldn’t alter the truth that they won this series, and won it well.  Yet that England have lost the final Test in seven of their last eight series shouldn’t be ignored either.  Ian Botham tried to pass this off as being human nature when a series is won, only for a rather pointed Michael Holding to comment that it wasn’t in the team he played in.  Nor is it a matter of dead rubbers, for in four of those series the overall outcome has been on the line.  Why England have this issue is hard to pin down, but these final match defeats also have a habit of being extremely heavy.

Part of the problem is that England are being portrayed in some quarters as being an exceptional side in the making, but the recent performances don’t completely support that.  Yes, they have won in South Africa, and that is certainly meritorious.  They also won the Ashes, as curious and bizarre a series as you could wish to see.  But they lost in the UAE too, showing many of the same vulnerabilities as they have done today, and furthermore beat a South Africa shorn of Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander.

That’s not a mean-spirited summary, for any team can only beat what is in front of them, and not many sides at all go to South Africa and win, irrespective of how strong they are at a given time, while England’s defeats when players are missing are never excused by such a thing.  It must also be added that had the two of them been fit, then there would have been no place for Rabada, who looks a serious prospect.  Yet although South Africa may have lost the series, by the end of it they are the team who look to have learned something and discovered players for the future.  This is entirely against the narrative the media are all too often wishing to push, but it is undoubtedly England who have the thinking to do.

Stephen Cook may not necessarily be a long term solution as opener (although with his father’s genes that can’t be entirely assumed), but with Elgar having a decent series, it at least looks like South Africa have one more opener than England do, while Rabada, Bavuma and De Kock all look excellent cricketers to form the core of the side in years to come.  Add in to that two genuinely world class batsmen in Amla, back to his best, and De Villiers – around whom there is more debate, though not about his ability – and there is more than enough to work with.

In contrast, England have some issues to address, and Geoff Boycott was scathing about the way they haven’t moved on this series.  Alex Hales is clearly a big question mark at the top of the order, having had a poor series with a solitary half century.  There do appear to be technical issues with his footwork, for he is consistently failing to get across to the ball, but there’s another element to it, whereby he appears constrained from his natural game.  This was hardly uncommon in the England set up of the past, and there have been and at this point still are hopes that under Bayliss’ tutelage players will be allowed to play their own game.  Yet far from being the dashing opener Bayliss clearly wants, having stated he wishes to see two of the top three being positive, he has been subdued and attempting to play differently than to his strengths.  No one expected him to offer the levels of solidity of Boycott himself, for that is not his game, but nor is it David Warner’s game, and he has been encouraged to attack and play to his strengths.  Whether Hales ever makes it or not is one thing, but it would be a dismal end if he is discarded without ever having the chance to show what he is good at, rather than what we know he isn’t good at.

Compton too had a mixed series; he started superbly and was arguably man of the match in the first Test, for his two innings did more than anyone to set up the platform for victory.  Yet his returns diminished as the series went on, and more worryingly, he too appeared to playing in a manner alien to his own skills.  Compton is a plodder, an accumulator, who possesses excellent concentration, a limited range of shots and a decent defence.  If he is picked on that basis, he should be capable of demonstrating them.  But his dismissals were all too often down to overly aggressive batting, which is simply not his forte.  Again, if that is his own approach, then it is self-inflicted, but one way or the other, he’s attempting to be what he is not.

Joe Root had a good series, with the only proviso that on too many occasions he got himself out when set.  It is to his credit that this can be used as a mild criticism of a player who averaged 55, for Root is looking so very very good, it is a major surprise and disappointment these days when he doesn’t cash in.

James Taylor had his moments, but didn’t consolidate his place.  He did look like he had more to give at least, and showed on occasion a real aptitude for the fight.  And while it has no bearing on his position in the side, his truly astounding catching at short leg cannot pass unmentioned.

Jonny Bairstow topped the averages, though his batting exploits were tempered by his problems keeping wicket.  England can all too easily go round and round in circles over this one, as they did a few years before ultimately settling on Matt Prior second time around.  The problem is one that afflicts all sides who ultimately pick a keeper for his batting, and that is for such a player the batting is what will have taken priority.  Many of Bairstow’s errors were the result of simply not being a regular, consistent wicketkeeper, and thereby keeping like a part-timer.  The missed stumping on the inside of the bat is a perfect case in point, because it isn’t a matter of technique or aptitude at that level, it is a matter of doing it sufficiently often for the eyes not to be dragged off the line of the ball by the bat.  If he is affirmed as the wicketkeeper, then the work he will have to put in will reap rewards and he will improve.  It is extremely simple here, for all Alastair Cook’s comments (of which more later) about the importance of the man behind the stumps taking the chances, some are going to be missed if that man is not a full time, regular wicketkeeper.  Bairstow is not at this time.  If England want him to be, then they will have to show patience.  Exactly the same applies to Joss Buttler, and applied thoroughly to Matt Prior too.  There are some very short memories on display.

Ben Stokes was the star of the show for the England team, mostly because of the astounding double century.  It does inflate his figures of course, but that’s what big scores do, and no one takes the ducks out of statistics to even it up.  So a batting average of 58 and a bowling one of 29 would do rather nicely to say the least over a career.   There can be quibbles with him, as there always can be, but Stokes is the beating heart of this team, a player who can change the course of a game on his own.  Such cricketers are like gold dust, and while Ian Botham’s assertion that Stokes is a better player than he was at the same age is preposterous in its modesty (Botham was a genuinely great bowler until injuries and fitness issues took their toll), he is a fantastic prospect, and one who will make every opponent deeply nervous about what he can do.

Moeen Ali had a slightly curious series.  On surfaces that were rarely truly spinner friendly – or when they were, were still more conducive to pace anyway – neither he nor Piedt had a major impact on matters.  Yet Moeen does have the ability to take wickets, and does so often out of the blue.  It is a knack that is certainly useful, and he probably is the best finger spinner England have.  The raw figures don’t look that pretty for either of the spinners in this series, but Moeen did a job.  Batting wise, his best moments tended to come, as is the nature of someone batting at number eight, at the end of the innings running out of partners.  A more selfish player could have finished with a markedly better average.

Broad had a wonderful series, taking more wickets than anyone bar Rabada, and capped off by the devastating spell of 6-17 to win the series for England.  Broad is England’s best bowler and one of the best they’ve had in a long time.  He has been excellent for four years now, not always receiving the credit he has deserved in that time.  If he’s finally being recognised for the outstanding performer he is, then it’s about time.

Steven Finn too had a good time of it, reminding everyone that he is a wicket taker first and foremost.  His strike rate of 49 is actually slightly above his career average, which quite effectively points out the stupidity of trying to make him into something other than he is over the last few years.  He goes for runs sometimes.  But he takes wickets.  That’s his job.  Deal with it.

Chris Woakes.  Ah, Chris Woakes.  A fine cricketer is in there somewhere, for he was at time unlucky, and appears to have all the attributes to succeed.  But all too often he appears entirely innocuous, and struggled throughout to take wickets.  He isn’t helped by coming in for one game, dropping out again, then being brought back, a pattern that has repeated itself over his short Test career.  It’s hard to realistically assess him when he’s used that way, but he needs to find a way to contribute more than he is.

James Anderson has had a surprising amount of stick for his efforts in this series.  It’s quite plainly a long way from being one of his best, but he was injured for the first match and struggled for the next couple.  The fourth Test he appeared to get something more of his normal zip back, and swung the ball.  At 33, for the first time he has had people prepared to say it is the beginning of the end.  Based on a single series that’s a little harsh, particularly for someone who has generally stayed so fit and who doesn’t rely on pace in the first place.  It is of course entirely possible he’s lost his nip, but it’s premature to say the least to assume so just from this series, unless 30 year old batsmen who also had a poor series are going to be treated the same – and that is most unlikely.

Finally there’s the captain.  As skipper, he did ok.  Not outstandingly well, for he is not an outstanding on field captain.  But he has at last become a competent one, a skipper who you tend not to notice which implies he is not doing anything wrong at least.  The one thing Bayliss has brought as coach has been an insistence that the captain run the side rather than being a cipher for a dictatorial backroom team.  Under that philosophy, Cook has flowered as captain to some extent.  That is in itself a good thing, and begs the question as to whether Cook would have been a better captain throughout his tenure if he hadn’t instead been designated classroom monitor rather than captain.  Perhaps some of the appalling displays of cluelessness in the past were less specifically down to him, and more to do with the structure of the England management.  Perhaps.  But here he was perfectly fine, though the idea that the captain won the series remains a stubbornly held meme in the media.

His batting on the other hand was fairly poor, even if towards the end of the series there were signs of improvement.  Here’s the thing, as has been repeatedly stated about Cook with every low score: good batsmen can have bad series.  AB De Villiers didn’t have a great one (though he did score more runs) either, so there’s no shame in having a poor run.  It happens, and it happens to every player.  Yet Cook’s average of 23 is the lowest he has ever had in his career in series of three Tests or longer, and has gone almost unnoticed.  Furthermore, so many of the cricket journalists have bent over backwards to avoid mentioning it, while at the same time focusing on Hales, Compton and Taylor – two of whom have performed considerably better.  This is now par for the course with Cook, and irritates no end.  It is hard to enjoy a player’s success when so many who follow England professionally (as opposed to paying to do so) are so keen to excuse and ignore the failures.  If there’s sympathy with Cook, it is that the Pravda approach which he presumably hasn’t asked for is actually damaging the perception of him through no fault of his own.

Cook then took the opportunity after the match conclusion to offer up some thoughts on other players in the side, and these were eyebrow raising to say the least.  Firstly there was the comment that

“Trevor Bayliss, myself and the selectors will have to sit down and discuss that [lack of runs by some players] because the output we’ve had in this series hasn’t been good enough if we’re trying to get to No1 in the world – which is the ultimate aim.”

which may well be a throw away line, but if true should set alarm bells ringing.  Cook is not a selector, and the captain has never been a selector.  And for good reason too, if other players feel the captain has major input on their presence in the side it is fundamentally unhealthy, as being favoured by the captain becomes much more important than it should be.  It’s especially the case when the captain himself has had such a poor series.  Few with any sense would advocate dropping Cook of course, but if others are going to be scrutinised, then so should he be, for there is little more guaranteed to cause division in the dressing room than someone who hasn’t performed holding judgement over others who haven’t performed.  He did later on include himself in the list of those who needed more runs, but for a player trying to make his way in the side, hearing the captain publicly criticising them for having done little better or worse than he did will be galling.

Likewise Jonny Bairstow, who was subject to Cook talking at length about how dropped catches by him were costly and that at Test level not acceptable.  Bairstow did have a mixed time as keeper as outlined above, but also had a huge impact on the series overall; he deserved better than having his place openly questioned by his captain at the conclusion when he would have been reflecting on a job largely well done.

For Hales, Cook went further.  Having been asked if four Tests was long enough to judge him, Cook replied

“You can certainly form an opinion. Absolutely. If Halesy has a great run now in the one-day series and back at Nottinghamshire, he’ll be pushing again. He’ll be disappointed with the number of runs he’s scored but it hasn’t been easy.”

which to Hales will read like his time is up.  This is not Cook’s place to say these things.  Yes we do criticise players for giving anodyne answers in interviews, but for the captain to say these things has a direct impact on the players.  It isn’t good enough, and it isn’t the first time he’s done it either.  A captain has a responsibility to his team mates.

Cook is no naive neophyte.  He knows what he is doing when he says these things.  It is certainly the behaviour of someone utterly sure of his position, but it perhaps would have reflected better on him had he recalled the two years he spent making very little contribution to the England batting order.  Cook is a very good player indeed, and he’s captained the side well recently.  It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make him invulnerable and it certainly doesn’t make him the person to openly judge other players unless he wants to be openly judged himself – something he seems to object to.  That’s not because it’s Alastair Cook, it’s because he’s the captain.  Not the coach, and not a selector.

The two sides now move on to the one day series, and England have a break from Test cricket until the first part of the summer, and those players not involved in the hit and giggles can come home to rest.  And that is deserved, for cricketers spend a long time away from family.  For Cook himself, he needs that break, so yes he will be doing things with sheep.  And may it re-charge his batteries for the summer ahead.