England’s missing turn

[b]England has made this series into a battle of the quick bowlers â€" but in doing so they risk negating their home advantage.[/b]
It may seem rather odd to criticise England after an excellent opening day. But England may have already made one crucial mistake this Test match: not playing two spinners. Perhaps England’s management, normally possessing such enviable equilibrium of temperament, was simply unable to ignore the hype about this series being a battle of pace. Perhaps the two Andys simply didn’t conceive of a strategy that few in the media had so much had contemplated. Yet if England do beat South Africa in this Test series, they will owe virtually nothing to home advantage.Undeniably, England possess a coterie of quicks that, cumulatively, cover it all: devilish late swing, express pace, ferocious bouncers, canny reverse swing and, above all, sheer relentlessness. But, despite what an underwhelming first day may have revealed, so do South Africa. This series should be a salivating shoot-out of the quicks, the sort of which Test cricket lovers have been denied since the retirement of the great pace-bowling pairs â€" Donald-Pollock; Wasim-Waqar; and Ambrose-Walsh â€" in the late 1990s. But home advantage isn’t meant to be about providing the best possible spectacle. It should be about providing the home side with the greatest chance of winning â€" something England’s strategy may not have done.In any analysis of the two sides, there are legitimate debates about the superiority in batting and fast bowling. But there is no comparable debate where spin bowling is concerned. For all the intoxicating excitement of watching Imran Tahir’s variety, no South African would choose him over Graeme Swann. Indeed, it is most questionable whether they would choose him over Monty Panesar. Boldness is seldom a quality associated with the England hierarchy, but now would have been the perfect time for it. With the first Test at The Oval, England had an opportunity to genuinely surprise South Africa. For all the hype about a pace war, there was nothing stopping the management from pressing for a pitch a la The Oval in 2009, when Graeme Swann’s eight-wicket haul underpinned England’s reclaiming of the Ashes. It may in fact prove that this wicket is not too dissimilar â€" in which case Panesar would have been a perfect selection.True audacity would have resulted in Panesar replacing Ravi Bopara in this side, allowing England to field three quicks and two spinners. Given that there is a strong argument that England’s two top spinners are both the Test match superior of Tahir, and his replacement, Robin Petersen, has not played a Test in over four years, it would have been the best way of giving England a genuine home advantage.On his recall in the UAE last winter, Panesar showed he is a high-class Test match performer, taking two five-wicket hauls against Pakistan. Given the manner in which Andrew Strauss preferred him to Swann against Pakistan’s right-handers, Panesar may have been a potent weapon against South Africa’s powerful trio of right-handers â€" Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis and AB De Villiers â€" in the middle order.If England are unable to force a win in the opening Test â€" and indeed even if they do â€" they may reflect that they missed an opportunity to give South Africa’s batsmen a challenge they genuinely would not have been expecting. But if the series is one-all before the final Test at Lord’s, perhaps then it will be Monty’s turn. 

England’s missing turn

[b]England has made this series into a battle of the quick bowlers â€" but in doing so they risk negating their home advantage.[/b]
It may seem rather odd to criticise England after an excellent opening day. But England may have already made one crucial mistake this Test match: not playing two spinners. Perhaps England’s management, normally possessing such enviable equilibrium of temperament, was simply unable to ignore the hype about this series being a battle of pace. Perhaps the two Andys simply didn’t conceive of a strategy that few in the media had so much had contemplated. Yet if England do beat South Africa in this Test series, they will owe virtually nothing to home advantage.Undeniably, England possess a coterie of quicks that, cumulatively, cover it all: devilish late swing, express pace, ferocious bouncers, canny reverse swing and, above all, sheer relentlessness. But, despite what an underwhelming first day may have revealed, so do South Africa. This series should be a salivating shoot-out of the quicks, the sort of which Test cricket lovers have been denied since the retirement of the great pace-bowling pairs â€" Donald-Pollock; Wasim-Waqar; and Ambrose-Walsh â€" in the late 1990s. But home advantage isn’t meant to be about providing the best possible spectacle. It should be about providing the home side with the greatest chance of winning â€" something England’s strategy may not have done.In any analysis of the two sides, there are legitimate debates about the superiority in batting and fast bowling. But there is no comparable debate where spin bowling is concerned. For all the intoxicating excitement of watching Imran Tahir’s variety, no South African would choose him over Graeme Swann. Indeed, it is most questionable whether they would choose him over Monty Panesar. Boldness is seldom a quality associated with the England hierarchy, but now would have been the perfect time for it. With the first Test at The Oval, England had an opportunity to genuinely surprise South Africa. For all the hype about a pace war, there was nothing stopping the management from pressing for a pitch a la The Oval in 2009, when Graeme Swann’s eight-wicket haul underpinned England’s reclaiming of the Ashes. It may in fact prove that this wicket is not too dissimilar â€" in which case Panesar would have been a perfect selection.True audacity would have resulted in Panesar replacing Ravi Bopara in this side, allowing England to field three quicks and two spinners. Given that there is a strong argument that England’s two top spinners are both the Test match superior of Tahir, and his replacement, Robin Petersen, has not played a Test in over four years, it would have been the best way of giving England a genuine home advantage.On his recall in the UAE last winter, Panesar showed he is a high-class Test match performer, taking two five-wicket hauls against Pakistan. Given the manner in which Andrew Strauss preferred him to Swann against Pakistan’s right-handers, Panesar may have been a potent weapon against South Africa’s powerful trio of right-handers â€" Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis and AB De Villiers â€" in the middle order.If England are unable to force a win in the opening Test â€" and indeed even if they do â€" they may reflect that they missed an opportunity to give South Africa’s batsmen a challenge they genuinely would not have been expecting. But if the series is one-all before the final Test at Lord’s, perhaps then it will be Monty’s turn. 

Twenty20 Blog

Apologies for my lack of posting here recently. I have been Cricinfo's main blogger for the English Twenty20 competition - it would be great to have old Third Umpire readers chipping in with their comments. The blogs can be found at - http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-live/ - see you all there for county chat!

England need Thorpe's Asian experience

The cluelessness of England’s Test batting against Pakistan has made their triumph in Pakistan in 2000/01 seem even more extraordinary. In that, and their subsequent victory in Sri Lanka, England had one man to thank above all.
On those two tours, Graham Thorpe towered above his teammates: he averaged 61, 19 more than anyone else managed, twice scoring centuries and remaining unbeaten in both series-clinching victories. In England’s first series in Asia since losing all four Tests against India and Sri Lanka in 1993, it was a genuinely remarkable performance.How did he do it? Memories of Thorpe that winter centre on his self-denial, epitomised by a century in Lahore that, uniquely in Test history, featured only one boundary. Playing the ball extremely late from his back-foot base and always light on his feet, Thorpe’s greatest skill lay in his ability to glide the ball past fielders. He also mastered the fine art of using the sweep shot intelligently to rotate the strike whilst refraining from using it excessively and predictably.But unlike so many of the current side, Thorpe, even whilst focused on unobtrusive accumulation, was ruthless in dealing with loose deliveries, in particular deploying his rasping cut shot. He also displayed a chameleon-like ability to adjust his game according to the side’s need.In all three of England’s victorious run chases that winter, Thorpe stood out â€" and not just because he top-scored each time. Displaying adaptability worthy of Tom Jones, he swapped the attrition of his first innings batting for second innings aggression, driven either by outrageous time wasting in fading light (Pakistan in Karachi) or the sheer extent of his team mate’s struggles (against Sri Lanka at Kandy and Colombo). In all three of England’s run chases, Thorpe’s second innings strike rate was at least 65; it didn’t pass 46 in his six first innings in 2000/01. Most impressive of all was his sheer mental strength facing multifarious challenges, encapsulated in his 64* to take England to their first victory in Pakistan for 39 years.England's failure to utilise his experience this winter is all the more puzzling in that his coaching of the England Lions has been widely praised, notably by James Taylor. This is not to belittle the influence of Graham Gooch â€" that “daddy hundred” has become an infuriating cliché is the greatest testament to his impact. But on tours of Asia, Thorpe’s experiences, possibly alongside that of new permanent batting coach Gooch, could help the side greatly: no one should believe a few ODI wins, impressive as they have been, mean England are suddenly experts at playing spin in Test cricket.Thorpe encountered Muttiah Muralitharan’s doosra when England toured Sri Lanka in 2003/04 and, although his performances were far less impressive than in 2000/2001, his insights into coping with would have been of great help, especially to Ian Bell. Then there is the case of Eoin Morgan. Thorpe, a fellow left-hander and with a very similar stature and style, may have been able to prevent the disintegration of his confidence and technique that occurred in the Pakistan Test series.Sri Lanka may lack a bowler of Saeed Ajmal’s mystery but the fundamental nature of the challenge will be the same. It is one Thorpe understands better than any other Englishman, and England should use his expertise.

A good year to be an Australian debutant

[b]When Ed Cowan makes his Test debut in the Boxing Day Test, he will nudge the number of Australians handed their baggy green cap up to ten in 2011- more than any year since 1977. Then the selectors could blame the chaos caused by World Series Cricket; now it is the fallout to Ashes defeat.[/b]

Of those that have already debuted in 2011, four can be sure of joining Cowan in the final eleven at the MCG. David Warner carried his bat for 123* in Australia’s recent defeat to New Zealand and, though he has only played two Tests, there are legitimate hopes he can transfer his stunning Twenty20 form into the Test game. To become anything close to an Australian Sehwag, Warner will need to cope with the swinging ball, but he managed rather well against the Kiwis. The well-directed short ball will also be a challenge: Phil Hughes, remember, scored two hundreds in his second Test until found out by this.

Shaun Marsh looked a Test match natural in compiling 141 on debut in Sri Lanka: so compelling was his knock that Ricky Ponting was promptly moved away from number three, and the spot given to Marsh. Injuries mean he has only received two more caps, but given the solidity and range of shots Marsh has displayed, as well as a phlegmatic temperament, expect him to finish his career, like his father Geoff, with over 50 appearances.

Two new bowlers will also appear on Boxing Day. James Pattinson younger brother of England’s Darren, picked up 14 wickets in two Tests against New Zealand, pitching the ball up and consistently swinging the ball late. The off-spinner Nathan Lyon has been quietly successful: with his cool temperament, control and subtle variations, he enjoys more job security than any Australian spinner since Warne. This might not be saying much, but 22 wickets at less than 25 is a hugely impressive return from his first seven Tests.

Yet the most memorable Australian debut of 2011 was from a man who won’t play at the MCG. Pat Cummins’ first Test was as remarkable as they come, combining a haul of 6/79 with a calm 13* to take Australia to a two-wicket win in South Africa. Only 18, Cummins is clearly a cricketer of rare promise, combining pace and swing with a dangerous bouncer that, unlike many young quick bowlers, he doesn’t overuse. Mickey Arthur has already compared Cummins to Dale Steyn, and the new Australian coach will be frustrated Cummins will miss the India Tests through injury. That a man with only one Test appearance is regarded as a substantial loss is an indication both of Cummins’ progress and the current state of the Australian side.

Rather inevitably, the positive impressions have not extended to all Australia’s Test debutants this year. With an excellent first-class record, Usman Khawaja was much-hyped before his Test debut and, somewhat bizarrely, earned a standing ovation for his assured 37 against England in January. He has a solid technique but, like a young Mark Ramprakash, his Test batting is characterised by passivity: when scoring 7 off 51 balls against New Zealand, Khawaja appeared strokeless. He also shares a propensity for middling scores with the young Ramprakash: seven of Khawaja’s nine Test dismissals have been between 12 and 38.

Whereas Khawaja’s problems seem about self-belief, Australia’s other three Test debutants of 2011 lack the requisite class. The left-arm spinner Michael Beer has slipped back into obscurity since taking 1-112 against England at Sydney: a first-class average of 45 suggests he should remain there. Trent Copeland, better described as a medium-pacer than a fast bowler, performed well enough when injuries earned him three caps in Sri Lanka. But for all his parsimony â€" his economy rate in those Tests was 2.1 â€" Copeland lacks penetration, as three wickets in his last four first-class matches reveals. Finally, the left-arm quick Mitchell Starc is not yet 22, but didn’t look Test ready in his two games against New Zealand.

Giving Test caps away is a precarious business. As such, the Australian selectors, so derided for their haphazard selections in the Ashes, deserve credit: realistically, five of this year’s debutants could be prominent members of their 2013 Ashes side. Australia should certainly be encouraged by the displays of their debutants; it is their senior players who should concern them.

Sobers Versus Kallis - Who is the better all-rounder?

Kallis's recent good form with the bat has seen the argument about where he sits in the historical ranking of Test all-rounders raise its head again. Statistically, he would appear to be very close to the legendary Gary Sobers. More and more pundits, many of whom never saw Sobers play admittedly, are now pushing Kallis to be considered the greatest all-rounder of all time.

Personally, I would still go with Sobers (by quite a long way actually) for a couple of reasons (some rational and some emotive):Sobers was good enough to be picked for the Windies as both a batsman or a bowler. To me, that is the ultimate sign of a great all-rounder, and very few have ever met this criteria (Imran and Miller being two others). This can be seen by the fact that Sobers actually debuted for the Windies as a left-arm spinner, and batted near the tail. With all respect to Kallis's bowling, he wouldn't have ever been picked for South Africa if he was somehow unable to bat. Imran Khan and Keith Miller both player for their respective countries purely as batsmen when injured, even though they were fantastic fast bowlers.Kallis bowls a lot less in general than Sobers; in fact Sobers bowled nearly twice as much as Kallis does each Test. He averaged 38 overs a test match (21599 balls in 93 tests), whereas Kallis only averages 20 overs a match (18505 balls in 150 tests). Sobers' figure is quite remarkable, and is in front of others such as Holding (35 overs a match), Botham (35 overs a match), Imran (36 overs a match), Marshall (36 overs a match) and Jeff Thomson (34 overs a match) amongst others. In contrast, Kallis's figure is only slightly higher than other batting all-rounders like Bob Simpson (18 overs a match).Sobers' statistical record as a bowler is also slightly misleading, as his ability to bowl finger spin, chinamen or pace was fantastic for the team but ultimately detrimental to his own performance. The Windies would pick their team around the other bowlers, and then rely on Sobers to fill whatever gap was left. Therefore, if the pitch was likely to turn, Sobers would end up opening the bowling to take the shine off the new ball before it was tossed to Valentine, Ramadhin, Gibbs etc. Conversely, if the pitch was fast, Sobers would be asked to fill the role of the spinner and bowl some containing overs prior to quickies like Hall, Griffith and Gilchrist taking the new ball. Kallis only bowls in one style, and also doesn't bowl a lot when the pitch doesn't suit him. This is supported by the above statistics about the significant difference in total bowling per test match.While their batting averages would appear comparable, Sobers scared the opposition. Kallis does not. I realise that this is a somewhat arbitrary argument, but what the hell. As an Australian, I am never confident of victory against India until VVS is out. It doesn’t matter if they are 7-100 chasing 300, if VVS is still in, I am worried that the bastard will somehow manufacture a win out of it. Kallis doesn’t scare me at all in that regard. Sobers was the same as VVS â€" until he was out of the equation, the opposition were never quite confident.The argument has also been put forward that Sobers' batting was somehow inferior to Kallis's, because Sobers batted more at no. 5 and no. 6 whereas Kallis tended to bat at first or second drop. This line of thinking also doesn't stand up to analysis. In actual fact, Sobers batting was unduly affected by the decision of his captains to bat him lower in the order. If you look at his figures, Sobers batting average at no. 3 (1009 runs at 72) and no. 4 (1530 runs at 63.75) is superior to his batting at no. 5 (1895 runs at 59.21) and no. 6 (2614 runs at 53.34). Sobers was seen as very good at batting with the tail, because he had the ability to score quickly when needed. This meant that he was denied the opportunities that Kallis has always had, with many of Sobers innings cut short by running out of partners. Like with his bowling, Sobers did what was best for the team, rather than what was best for himself.
Kallis is an all-time legend, and fully deserves his place near the very top of the pantheon of all-rounders. Australia would love to have someone of his skill playing for them. But, for me anyway, Sobers continues to reign supreme.


However, Kallis versus Imran - that is an interesting match-up .......