Ian Botham has reputedly predicted a 10-0 trashing of Australia in back to back Ashes series due to be played out over the next six months. As high a crest as the English Cricket Team are riding, this seems a rather steep climb.
But going into tomorrow's opener at Trent Bridge victory is no longer enough for the public, who are braying for an absolute annihilation of our former tormentors the Aussies. Every smug and self satisfied drubbing they handed us should be repayed in full over the next ten tests. No relenting, no mercy.
Writing in The Times a few weeks back Giles Coren bemoaned Australia's failure to produce a decent test side. All that is required of the nation, he wrote, is to send a team of 11 world class cricketers, something they have failed in miserably this year.
On the biggest of stages their team is incredibly raw. Seven of the predicted squad have never played in an Ashes. Only Root and Bairstow have that distinction for England.
Ian Bell has played in 18 Ashes tests, Pietersen 17, Cook 15. Michael Clarke himself has 20, almost a third of his team's total. In the pressure cooker that is the Ashes, some of the Australian beginners are going to get fried.
Still, Martin Johnson shared a cautionary tale in The Sunday Times of 1989, the last time Australia showed up in England as purported no hopers and gave David Gower's side an absolute battering. No Steve Waugh or any players of his calibre are hiding in the Australian squad and to be brutally honest the toughest opponent England should face this summer is the weather, harsh mistress that she is.
We will witness our first Ashes test played at Chester-le-Street as Headingly and Edgbaston miss out. Bell and Piwtersen could conceivably have played in five Ashes winning squads by the start of 2014, a fear not shared by too many Englishmen (answers on a postcard please).
If not for the David Warner-Joe Root bust up in their now infamous bust up, you might be worrying that this Ashes might be terribly dull. But the Ashes is never dull. It'll still throw a few surprises in there.
Tuesday 9 July 2013
Monday 12 September 2011
Murray clipped at semi's by Nadal, again
Another grand slam, and another postscript on Murray's hopes of winning a big one. Only a British player could have a year where he reached three grand slam semi-finals and one finals, and it gets labelled a disappointment.
More annoying than his four set loss to Rafael Nadal late on Saturday night was the constant stream of bogus analysis coming out of the sky sports commentary box. Murray's performances seem to engender over-analysis, not from print journalists, led by the Guardian's Kevin Mitchell, who keeps things blessedly simple. But broadcasters seem to go mad, diving into detailed discussion about the Scot's gameplan. They also seemed to think that Murray's encounter with John Isner, 24 hours earlier, had sapped his stamina as if his fitness has been in question for the past three years.
And then the lengthy expositions about his body language. Give it a rest, that is getting old.
Boil the defeat down to two things, Murray made too many errors and did not serve well enough. Meanwhile excellent service by Nadal nullified his usually excellent service returning. Perhaps Nadal realises that the trick with serving to Murray is to rely on placement rather than speed.
His revival in the third set was more down to a combination of luck and a Nadal blip than a shakeup in gameplan as those behind the microphones suggested. Perhaps the Spaniard threw him a pity set if there is such a thing.
Hopefully Murray will take the three loses to Nadal in three consecutive grand slam finals as a wakeup call. His tennis still needs work. He needs to learn how to shutdown his service games against the best. The problem with Murray when he plays Nadal is he never gets deep enough into a set before falling behind. Nadal is a genius and there is no easy way to beat him, but if you get to 6-6 you can fluke the odd tie-break.
In his seven grand slam matches against Nadal (record 2-5), only four sets have gone to tiebreaks, and Murray has won half of them, both in the matches that he won. In the months leading up to the Australian Open, only four and a bit months away, he needs to work on his second serve and beef up his first serve percentage.
Ah, screw it, I'm just going to watch the Murray-Gasquet match from 2008 and forget the last three years actually happened.
More annoying than his four set loss to Rafael Nadal late on Saturday night was the constant stream of bogus analysis coming out of the sky sports commentary box. Murray's performances seem to engender over-analysis, not from print journalists, led by the Guardian's Kevin Mitchell, who keeps things blessedly simple. But broadcasters seem to go mad, diving into detailed discussion about the Scot's gameplan. They also seemed to think that Murray's encounter with John Isner, 24 hours earlier, had sapped his stamina as if his fitness has been in question for the past three years.
And then the lengthy expositions about his body language. Give it a rest, that is getting old.
Boil the defeat down to two things, Murray made too many errors and did not serve well enough. Meanwhile excellent service by Nadal nullified his usually excellent service returning. Perhaps Nadal realises that the trick with serving to Murray is to rely on placement rather than speed.
His revival in the third set was more down to a combination of luck and a Nadal blip than a shakeup in gameplan as those behind the microphones suggested. Perhaps the Spaniard threw him a pity set if there is such a thing.
Hopefully Murray will take the three loses to Nadal in three consecutive grand slam finals as a wakeup call. His tennis still needs work. He needs to learn how to shutdown his service games against the best. The problem with Murray when he plays Nadal is he never gets deep enough into a set before falling behind. Nadal is a genius and there is no easy way to beat him, but if you get to 6-6 you can fluke the odd tie-break.
In his seven grand slam matches against Nadal (record 2-5), only four sets have gone to tiebreaks, and Murray has won half of them, both in the matches that he won. In the months leading up to the Australian Open, only four and a bit months away, he needs to work on his second serve and beef up his first serve percentage.
Ah, screw it, I'm just going to watch the Murray-Gasquet match from 2008 and forget the last three years actually happened.
Thursday 18 August 2011
Wednesday 3 August 2011
This isn't the daily show with Jon Stewart
You know considering Jon Stewart and his Comedy Central gig The Daily Show actually gets quite a lot of media coverage in the UK, I am actually a little surprised that apart from a New Statesman blogger, no one else picked up on an intriguing story from this/last week.
Stewart ran a segment using footage from David Cameron answering questions on the phone hacking scandal, in the House of Commons. He compared it to C-SPAN and saluted David Cameron on withstanding the pounding he took answering MPs questions for nearly two hours.
Footage of Parliament is pretty widespread and common now that we have had 21 years to get used to it, but you only see it on news shows and documentaries. I mean why else would you have a need to show it? More4 shows a rather mangled international version of the Daily Show that I do not enjoy watching, but Channel 4 had to pull the episode in question.
This only came to my attention because yesterday Stewart alluded to the fact that the show had been pulled in the UK and replayed the footage again, possibly putting Channel 4 in exactly the same dilemma as it had with the previous episode if they had it scheduled for this week. I bet pretty much no one knew that Parliamentary footage cannot be used for comedic or satirical purposes.
As he points out you can see the show uncensored in Yemen, Somalia and Sudan, but not the UK, as the rules around use of footage from the Parliamentary estate is tightly controlled. But it is utterly ridiculous, and that footage of the HoC have been used on numerous occasions on the net.
 |
| Dazed and confused. |
Tuesday 2 August 2011
Thank God for cricket's spirit of the game
In fact Sunday was a great showcase for unwritten rules in sports on both sides of the Atlantic, as baseball's Justin Verlander, pitcher for the MLB team the Detroit Tigers was close to pitching a no-hitter last night. For those not in the know, a no-hitter, is obviously a game in which a pitcher limits the opposing team to zero hits, a rare but not unknown feat - of which Nolan Ryan leads the way with seven of them.
In the eighth inning (there are nine), Eric Aybar bunted for a hit, which involves deadening the ball on the infield in between the pitcher and catcher and using your speed to beat out a throw. Now this is breaks an unwritten rule in baseball that you do not try and break up a no-hitter, a pretty big deal for any pitcher, by trying to get a bunt-hit. However, the play resulted in a throwing error not a hit, and Verlander's no-hitter got a reprieve for another five minutes, until it was broken up later in the inning by a Maicer Izturis single.
And in case you were feeling sorry for the Tigers, it was this incident of showboating in the inning before by Tigers' Carlos Guillen that put the whole saga in motion, and which arguably broke another unwritten rule in baseball, that is not to show up an opposing pitcher.
Moving back to England I saw the Ian Bell incident slightly different from most others. While the umpire did not call over, or time, or tea, and while he did not make any verbal indication that the ball was dead, he did hand the bowler his hat. This would be a pretty clear indication to me that the ball was dead as a batsmen. When would an umpire hand the bowler his cap during the middle of a briskly-run single into the covers?
It is nice to see that a to-do was spared on the field, and I felt sorry for the Indians being booed onto the field after tea, as tempers frayed off the pitch. Geoffrey Boycott and Jonathan Agnew, best of friends usually, had a bit of a ding-dong on-air, after which Mrs Boycott forced Mr Boycott to apologise, while Ravi Shastri hit back at Nasser Hussain after the former England captain labelled India's decision not to allow reviews on LBWs a 'disgrace'.
You can see Shastri's comments at the end of the video, and it just comes off as a confused, ill-thought out rant.
But going back to the sport in general, it seems odd that cricket, through all levels maintains , while football pervades a cold-blooded ruthlessness that demands its players do everything to win. Playing in juniors more than a decade to go and chasing a massive total I was at the non-strikers end and backing up a bit too aggressively. The bowler waited until I was way out of my crease and gestured as if to break the bails off, but did not do so as I belly flopped back over the mark. He could have easily run me out, but chose instead to warn me. Suitably chastised, I kept my ground more sensibly.
Why can't this sort of sportsmanship extend to football, and is this the fault of money-grubbing foreigners or do they act as a convenient scapegoat for a sporting culture riddled with unsporting cheats?
Monday 27 December 2010
The Punter Pratted: Part 2
 |
| Ponting has a peck at Umpire Aleem Dar |
Now, in another fourth test of an Ashes series with Australia on the brink, his head under the baggy green seems less than cool in the temperate Melbourne weather.
Magnanimous in victory, and a spoiled brat when losing, Ponting's attitude towards sportsmanship seems to waver like a pendulum. At Adelaide, when he caught a disputing catch at short mid-wicket off Cook, who was by then well into three figures, he castigated the English opener for not walking when he told him he had caught the ball cleanly. This from the man who has gloved/hit two balls down the leg side so far this series (both caught by Prior and given out), but has walked on neither occasion, as Vic Marks was wont to point out yesterday afternoon.
Ponting, who has been fined 40 percent of his match fee, but escaped without a one-match ban, which might have done him some good considering his recent form with the bat and the way this series is heading.
It is hard to believe every word that comes out of the Punter's mouth, as this video clip, taken from the test match with India at Sydney three years ago shows. Ponting appeals for a catch, having taken the ball at silly mid on, but neither has the ball hit the glove of MS Dhoni, the batsmen, nor has the Australian skipper fairly caught the ball, as replays clearly show he grounds the ball on the floor when he lands.
Not content with this blatant gamesmanship, he takes it to the next level when an Indian journalist brings the catch up in the post-match conference. "If you're actually questioning my integrity in the game," Ponting thunders, "then you shouldn't be standing here," he told a room full of shell-shocked hacks.
Still, as one former Australian player after another condemned Ponting's actions yesterday, his form is probably worrying one of the most prolific test scorers ever, as he has one creditable score in seven innings so far, 51 not out when the game was already over at Brisbane. Since then, 0, 9, 12, 1 and 10.
This would be his 10th straight test match without a century (his last being 209 against Pakistan at Hobart in January), which would be his joint-second worst run in 15 years of test cricket. He was on a similar rut before that innings, having failed in the previous nine to make it to three figures, after his 150 at Cardiff against England. It would also match the ten tests in 2004 when he failed to reach 100 in the calender year, but at least then he averaged 41. 2000-2001 was his worst stretch where he went 11 matches without a ton.
You have to wonder whether stories of dissension with Michael Clarke, despite his woeful batting form, and the man most likely to replace Ponting, on a short term basis at least are really true. Clarke, who has 21 test wickets to his name, has not been given a bowl all series, something that has bemused commentators, when a short spell by the right handed batsman, might give the front line bowlers a half hour of well needed rest, especially in the scorching heat of the earlier games. Is his back a factor, or has he fallen out with Ponting?
But Brad Haddin, behind the stumps, presumably heard a noise, but with neither snicko, or hotspot revealing anything, while instant replays show neither the bat or the ball near the pads, what was the phantom noise that had the keeper excited?
Either way, the Australians find themselves in an absolute mess, devoid of any cutting edge with the ball or the bat. Having lost the magic formula that served him so well in the third test at Perth, Mitchell Johnson has reverted to banging the ball into the ground, which at least resulted in the wickets of Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell.
Without the presence of any swing, Johnson's threat to right handers is nullified, as the natural line of a straight ball across the right hander pitches outside the leg stump, and thus the batsman has no fear of being given out leg before. Johnson is therefore infinitely more dangerous when he can pitch the ball on off stump and get it to straighten into the right hander. Without that
Trott and Prior, who put on an unbeaten 158 this morning, turned England's position from a good one, to an unassailable one. The Aussies will have to now bat for at least two days to save the test match, otherwise the words "England have retained the Ashes" will be ringing around the MSG, words not heard either side of the world since 1986/7.
Sunday 5 December 2010
There are only three things wrong with this Australia Team: They Can't bat, bowl or field.
Selection choices had Jim Maxwell whipped to quite a frenzy during yesterday's lunch interval, and apparently Shane Warne has gone around Adelaide telling everyone who will listen that they should blow up the entire Australian team and start again. Australia is not as young as it once was, as even the newcomers are golden oldies: Xavier Doherty is 28, Harris is 31 and Bollinger is 29.
Although it is amazing that Australians are already ripping their players to shreds even though it is 0-0, and some English fans are already bemoaning the fact that the Aussies aren't even a challenge, the gulf is there for all to see. When people said before the series that this was the most unsettled Australian team for 30 years, they hit the mark with great precision. The board of selectors will have to decide whether they want to gut their bowling attack for the second straight game.
Lets run down the list of players and whether they will be playing in the next test in Perth.
Simon Katich (35): Usually, he would be safe, but his fielding has demonstrated that he should not be playing. He's nursing a serious Achilles injury. If fit, he would be a useful bowler along the lines of Paul Collingwood. At the moment he's a lame duck. Given the dire straits Australia find them in, they cannot be weighed down by a passenger on the team. He's Gone.
Shane Watson (29): Watson should be ok from any cull, but he's not 100% fit either. His bowling has been solid, and at least he has made some relatively good scores (36, 41* and 51 are relatively good scores, unless you are Mike Hussey). Safe.
Ricky Ponting (36): Ponting's test career speaks for itself, and more often than not he'll make a good score. A tad unlucky to nick his first ball, but he will score runs at some point during the series. His 12,300 test runs at an average of 57 is incredible. If only they had six other Ricky's. Safe.
Michael Clarke (29): the Aussie 'vice-captain' will be batting for his place in the team in the second innings. A lower back injury and good England short bowling have combined to give Clarke a miserable series so far. Also behind the scenes grumblings that he and Ponting are not getting along too well. Gone.
Michael Hussey (35): Before the first test, they said his position was under threat. Not so after knocks of 195 and 93. Safe.
Marcus North (31): This depends entirely on how the selectors re-jig the bowling lineup. They might put a premium on bowling and bump up Haddin to 6 and go with five bowlers, including a spinner. If it wasn't for North's ability as a part time spinner, he would be gone, as his batting just is not good enough to warrant a place in the side. Far too hot and cold, he either makes a century, or gets out relatively cheaply. Averages 19 in tests if you take away his centuries. Review.
Brad Haddin (33): He and Hussey have almost single-handedly saved two Australian innings from total disaster. With no other viable option behind the stumps, his place is assured. Safe.
Ryan Harris (31): He's been solid if not spectacular through the England innings, troubling Cook, Trott and Pietersen with some decent short stuff. Safe.
Xavier Doherty (28): Hopelessly out of his depth. Whether they bring back Nathan Hauritz or maybe even bring in the young Steven Smith, Doherty does not belong on the greatest cricketing arena. Sinking not waving. Gone.
Peter Siddle (26): He may have been the pick of the bowling at the Gabba, but Siddle's bowling gameplan has looked far too ordinary, failing to try anything different. All he seemed to do yesterday and the day before was run in and bang it into the pitch, hoping for the English batsmen to get themselves out. Review.
Doug Bollinger (29): Oh dear. One maiden in 27 overs does not read well, and the selectors were probably right in not picking him for the first test. Probably does not possess the stamina needed in 40 degree temperatures, as his bowling speed tailed off towards the end of every spell. Hilfenhaus could do far better. Gone.
I maintain the right to amend these choices at the end of the test.
Although it is amazing that Australians are already ripping their players to shreds even though it is 0-0, and some English fans are already bemoaning the fact that the Aussies aren't even a challenge, the gulf is there for all to see. When people said before the series that this was the most unsettled Australian team for 30 years, they hit the mark with great precision. The board of selectors will have to decide whether they want to gut their bowling attack for the second straight game.
Lets run down the list of players and whether they will be playing in the next test in Perth.
Simon Katich (35): Usually, he would be safe, but his fielding has demonstrated that he should not be playing. He's nursing a serious Achilles injury. If fit, he would be a useful bowler along the lines of Paul Collingwood. At the moment he's a lame duck. Given the dire straits Australia find them in, they cannot be weighed down by a passenger on the team. He's Gone.
Shane Watson (29): Watson should be ok from any cull, but he's not 100% fit either. His bowling has been solid, and at least he has made some relatively good scores (36, 41* and 51 are relatively good scores, unless you are Mike Hussey). Safe.
Ricky Ponting (36): Ponting's test career speaks for itself, and more often than not he'll make a good score. A tad unlucky to nick his first ball, but he will score runs at some point during the series. His 12,300 test runs at an average of 57 is incredible. If only they had six other Ricky's. Safe.
Michael Clarke (29): the Aussie 'vice-captain' will be batting for his place in the team in the second innings. A lower back injury and good England short bowling have combined to give Clarke a miserable series so far. Also behind the scenes grumblings that he and Ponting are not getting along too well. Gone.
Michael Hussey (35): Before the first test, they said his position was under threat. Not so after knocks of 195 and 93. Safe.
Marcus North (31): This depends entirely on how the selectors re-jig the bowling lineup. They might put a premium on bowling and bump up Haddin to 6 and go with five bowlers, including a spinner. If it wasn't for North's ability as a part time spinner, he would be gone, as his batting just is not good enough to warrant a place in the side. Far too hot and cold, he either makes a century, or gets out relatively cheaply. Averages 19 in tests if you take away his centuries. Review.
Brad Haddin (33): He and Hussey have almost single-handedly saved two Australian innings from total disaster. With no other viable option behind the stumps, his place is assured. Safe.
Ryan Harris (31): He's been solid if not spectacular through the England innings, troubling Cook, Trott and Pietersen with some decent short stuff. Safe.
Xavier Doherty (28): Hopelessly out of his depth. Whether they bring back Nathan Hauritz or maybe even bring in the young Steven Smith, Doherty does not belong on the greatest cricketing arena. Sinking not waving. Gone.
Peter Siddle (26): He may have been the pick of the bowling at the Gabba, but Siddle's bowling gameplan has looked far too ordinary, failing to try anything different. All he seemed to do yesterday and the day before was run in and bang it into the pitch, hoping for the English batsmen to get themselves out. Review.
Doug Bollinger (29): Oh dear. One maiden in 27 overs does not read well, and the selectors were probably right in not picking him for the first test. Probably does not possess the stamina needed in 40 degree temperatures, as his bowling speed tailed off towards the end of every spell. Hilfenhaus could do far better. Gone.
I maintain the right to amend these choices at the end of the test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)