Facts, Stats & Records : 100 At LORDS

Author: DsupercSubject: 100 At LORDSPosted: 15 January 2011 at 8:53pmWho is the first West Indain to score 100 runs at Lords, in England

What is wrong with Australian Cricket?

It is clear now, hopefully to the hierarchy at Cricket Australia and not just the fans, that Australian cricket is not simply struggling, but in fact is in serious trouble. There are a number of 'Ashes' autopsies going on at the moment, however, that approach fails to correctly identify that this problem has been a number of years in the making and not a phenomenon of just the past three months. Similarly, the blame being aimed at the players does not delve deeply enough into the quagmire that is now besmirching Australian cricket in general. All aspects of the game need to be considered if the national side is to firstly arrest their current slide towards the bottom of the Test playing nations, and to start moving back towards being competitive with the top sides.

Cricket Australia
The problems in Australian cricket start right at the top. Cricket Australia needs to take a serious step back and re-consider their approach to the scheduling and marketing of the game both nationally and internationally. While England was preparing for the Ashes battle, the Australian team was still in India. In the scheme of things, it turned out that the players from the home team were actually less ready for the series than the tourists. While credit for England's planning should by acknowledged, it doesn't change the fact that Australian players should have been home and playing Shield cricket well before they actually did.

It is also worth considering the injury that Doug Bollinger experienced during that Indian tour. He went into the Test series against India under-prepared, as Cricket Australia had insisted that both he and Mike Hussey play T20 cricket for a club team. While there are escape clauses in their contracts that mandate for release for national duty, it was his own country that insisted Bollinger not join the national team until his club duties were completed. Bollinger was selected in the ICC's World XI last year, but the injury he picked up in India due to his lack of preparation effectively removed Australia's most dangerous bowler for the summer.

The big money in cricket is in India; that fact is inescapable. This is also unlikely to change at any time soon, as India has a population more than double all other Test playing nations combined. However, it doesn't mean that Cricket Australia should bankrupt its future for some cheap dollars now. Australia has been seen as a valuable commodity in India, however, that is only while they are considered the best. Now that South Africa, Sri Lanka and England have overtaken them, it will be interesting to see if Australia remain attractive to Indian cricket authorities and the wider Indian fan base. The Indian dollars will quickly disappear if Australian cricketers are no longer seen as being marketable.

The marketing of the national side needs careful analysis. The debacle we saw prior to the Ashes, in which the selectors named a larger squad of potential players for the First Test than what the entire touring England team had in the country, was a nightmare born of marketing idiocy. Too many more examples of this type of mistake and the lustre of our national side will be tarnished for many years to come.

Selection
The Australian selection panel needs to be seriously re-shaped. Any good management team needs to have a balance of perspectives and experience. The current panel are all former top-order batsmen who played in the 1980s. There are no fast bowlers, no swing bowlers, no spinners, no wicket-keepers. While you naturally don't need one from every category, the current group is seriously unbalanced. It has been evident that our batting has been a serious issue for a couple of years now, with a collapse on the cards almost every game. However, the changes to the batting order have been minimal whilst the bowlers are dropped almost on a whim. It would appear, perhaps sub-consciously, that the current panel appear far more sympathetic to the plight of a batsman short of runs than a bowler short of wickets. If there were some former bowlers on the panel, some of these biases may be less likely to occur.

The selection panel's decision making over the past few years has been one of the major factors in the situation facing Australian cricket now. Their inability to make the hard decisions, and their unwillingness to accept their own mistakes, has been disastrous. Many people in the media have commented on the panel's poor timing in their choices, dropping players when in form and then re-instating them when out of form. Poor Phil Hughes is just one example of both ends of this spectrum. The sheer number of spinners they have tried since the retirement of Shane Warne appears indicative of their inability to actually know what makes a good Test bowler. They finally fluked a spinner in Nathan Hauritz who could perform at a reasonable level, and yet they jettison him for a ODI specialist journeyman with a first class bowling average well the wrong side of 40. While Doherty's performances in the first two Tests were, in light of his previous career, not surprising, his failures were then compounded by the selectors who picked Beer instead of admitting they made a mistake in discarding Hauritz. They told Hauritz to go back to Shield cricket and perform. He did this with distinction, recording both his best ever bowling and batting figures, but that still wasn't enough for the selectors.

This selection of an unwanted Victorian finger spinner is perhaps the worst of all their recent ones. Beer had nothing for Western Australia to indicate he would succeed, and was not in anyone's thinking going into Adelaide. However, Shane Warne talked up Beer out of left field, and stunningly, Beer was then named in the Test squad. This was the point at which Andrew Hilditch should have been sacked. There are only two possible scenarios that can have occurred. Either the selection panel blindly picked a player they personally seemed to know nothing about, as evidenced by their own statements after the event, purely on the basis of what Warne had written in a newspaper article. The second option is that the selection panel talked to Warne and asked him to do a big write-up for this player to try and justify why they were going to chose Beer from nowhere. In either case, the sheer desperation underpinning either situation shows that the selection panel have totally lost their direction and must be subject to an immediate shakeup. Hilditch's recent comments that the selectors have done a very good job further underline just how far from reality he is now operating. Hilditch has to go; the sooner the better.

Coaching, Planning and Leadership
It is interesting that the coaching staff seem to have escaped most of the criticism aimed at the players. One of the best ways you can determine how a team is being coached is through their performance of the '1 percenters', a concept pushed by a previous Australian coach. In this regard, it is clear that Australia is underperforming, and the coaching staff need to bear a significant proportion of the responsibility. You can tell how a team is going by their ability to do the little things well, such as fielding, bowling no-balls, running between the wickets and so on. In the last series, Australia bowled twice as many no-balls as England, and were run-out four times while affecting no run-outs of their own. Australia were clearly outfielded by England, a concept that is particularly hard to accept in light of the past twenty years of fielding excellence. Neilsen is supposed to be the head coach, and therefore should take responsibility for these failings.

Technically, the coaching staff are failing. The Mitchell Johnson situation is a prime example of this problem. He has technical issues with his action that are obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of cricket. Surely the remediation of problems such as this are the main reason for having a coaching staff. His issues have been evident, not just recently, but for a number of years. Why have the coaching staff not fixed them? Early in the series, Damien Fleming was interviewed on the ABC radio and asked why Johnson couldn't resolve the basic flaws in his action and release position. There was a long pause, before Fleming just said "I don't know". Getting Johnson to bowl with his wrist into the correct position behind the ball isn't rocket science, but it took him being dropped after Adelaide until we saw an improvement. Then, magically, he started swinging the ball again. Why did this transformation take years to affect? There are three possible reasons for this. Firstly, the coaching staff simply don't know what they are doing, which is unlikely. Secondly, Johnson is not willing to do the work necessary to improve and the coaching staff lack the authority to discipline him. Or finally, the players simply do not respect the coaching staff enough to listen when they are being advised of their problems. In any case, the current coaching setup is not working and Neilsen needs to take the rap for this.

It is hard to identify exactly what Neilsen brings to the table as a coach. It certainly can't be planning. Australia have been comprehensively out-thought by their opposition in recent years. This is exemplified by the confusion demonstrated by Ricky Ponting in setting fields. Why does he need to talk to his bowlers for five minutes at the start of first over of the day? What are they doing off the field? Surely the team would have the basic plan of attack for each batsmen in place, and only need to have further discussions if things are going wrong? Australia does not seem to have any concrete method of attack, and quickly disintegrate into panic tactics in the hope of getting a wicket, rather than working towards a plan. All of the long discussions only further diminish Australia's already poor over-rate, and lead to pressures in later stages. This then results in ridiculous situations like Mike Hussey bowling to tailenders in India, purely to increase the over-rate rather than as part of a plan to win the game.

It is particularly galling to read comments from Neilsen that basically put all the blame for the poor performances in the Ashes onto the players. That is just gutless. Neilsen has to join Hilditch in the unemployment lines.

Media
The Australian media also must take a long hard look at their role in this problem. It is beyond belief that we are still hearing commentators saying 'no-one saw it coming'. If you read the myriad of message boards around the world, genuine cricket lovers with a strong understanding of the game have been predicting this precise problem for the past three years. So how can the media claim that this recent thumping was a surprise? Rather than admitting that the occasional victory over the past few years was merely papering over the ever widening cracks, the media instead would talk about resurgence of the side. It is understandable that journalists have pressure from above to produce positive articles, however, they have failed to realistically portray the weaknesses that were rapidly emerging.

If the media had done their job and actually reported more accurately about the slide of the team, more pressure may have been placed upon Cricket Australia to actually try and fix the problems. Instead, there is a now a huge crisis that could have been averted with proper planning. It is possible that the media is now too close the players and hierarchy, and are therefore afraid to be publically critical. One possible problem is the inundation of the media with former cricketers, rather than trained journalists. There is an old tactic used by many cricket viewers, in which the television broadcast picture is watched with the radio commentary. Why is the radio commentary considered so superior? Fundamentally, the entire television commentary team is composed of ex-players with little or no media training, while the radio has actual journalists supplemented by expert comments. It is no coincidence that Richie Benaud, noted as the Doyen of Cricket Commentators, is actually a trained journalist who did the crime beat during his training. However, the main issue with the media having so many former players is that they are often afraid to be openly critical of people they know well and are friendly with. There can be an advantage in having the 'inside' perspective from a former player who has been there, however, this needs to be complemented by appropriately analytical comment.

Players
There has been enough criticism of the actual players. Such discussion simply deflects the attention away from the deficiencies evident in the larger structure of cricket in Australia.

Brilliant England ready for final moment of glory

In a series that has been near-perfect, England are preparing for a final hurrah at the SCG as they look to seal the series in style as well as holding onto the Ashes.

Those following the Latest scores know that only the rain can deny England the victory in Sydney, but with the visitors already 2-1 up, a draw will still mean they have triumphed in the backyard of the old enemy for the first time in 24 years.

They enjoyed another dominant day on Thursday, sparkling with the bat, hitting 644 â€" a record high for an English side in Australia â€" and then ripping through the Aussie line-up with the ball.

As Ian Botham said in commentary, the fact England made a record score and then left the hosts reeling on 213-7 on the same pitch, shows the gulf in class between the two sides.

The blip at Perth aside England have been dominant in every department. Six of the top seven batsmen have scored centuries during the series, with record breaker Alastair Cook leading the way at the top of the order.

With the ball every front-line bowler has contributed â€" often working as teams to hunt down the Australian batsmen. Graeme Swann is a prime example of this. The Aussies may have designed the pitches to try and nullify his threat but his tight, disciplined bowling holds up one end, strangling the scoring and allowing Strauss to rotate his seamers at the other.

Those seamers, be it Steven Finn, Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan, Stuart Broad or James Anderson â€" have all bowled to a tailored plan to each Australian batsmen. The temptation for a bowler is to go for a wicket with every ball, but the selflessness among the players means the team always comes first, with obvious results.

Australia clearly have problems, the shadow of that all conquering team looms large over the class of 2011 and a lack of foresight by the Australian selectors during the tail end of that golden era is starting to bite.

Livescore cricket pundits note how England can only beat what is put in front of them and they have done so in the most convincing fashion possible â€" bettering Australia in every department.

In the long-term such one-sided series are not good for the game â€" the 2005 series was so special because it went to the wire in virtually every test.

But after all the hammerings England took at the hands of Australia over the past 20 years, you can’t begrudge them a bit of sweet, well-earned revenge.

England edge closer to series win

What an odd contrast this Ashes series has provided. So close in many respects, England have dominated to the point of the contest being rendered one sided.

Before the fourth test at Melbourne, tote betting pundits note how Ricky Ponting was pictured on the front page of an Australian newspaper all smiles as he looked forward to building on their win at Perth by pummelling England into submission as they melted in the cauldron that is the MCG.

Fast forward to the final test at the Sydney Cricket Ground and Australia find themselves in a relatively similar situation as they did prior to their Melbourne capitulation; Able to match England in some respects, but streets behind in others.
Their batting performance at the SCG erred on the side of respectability, but a good first hour from England could well put paid to another test match.

On a surface which offered something for everyone, the Australian top order lacked any sort of batting intelligence and application to make the most of a pitch which, while giving the bowlers plenty of encouragement, has consistent pace and bounce which should allow a batsmen willing to leave alone plenty of deliveries to make progress.

With Mitchell Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus adding respectability to a batting card which teetered on the brink of collapse throughout, Brad Haddin proved to be a case in point. Wafting at a wide and short ball from Jimmy Anderson, the ball should have been left well alone, but one of the most dangerous weapons Australia possesses was left walking back to the pavilion wondering what might have been.

At times the Australian innings stalled in the face of consistent bowling and looked bereft of ideas. What a contrast with their approach at the MCG; swinging blindly at balls which should have been dealt with easily and safely. The batsmen seem clueless in the face of constant pressure and lacking a game plan to execute.

Those who get free bets believe that all is not lost however. A comeback of sorts and some mindless batting from Kevin Pietersen meant the door remains open for Australia to level the series, and at least have something to take away and move forward with.

As with most mornings in this exhilarating series, the first hour is crucial. England are 113 runs behind and are three down; a decent partnership early on and England can move serenely past the Australian total with wickets in hand.

Anymore rash decision making from English batsmen would invite unnecessary pressure and spoil what was meant to be the icing on the cake. This one is England’s to lose â€" why can’t all test series be this engrossing?

England revel in Ashes glory

It was a celebration 24 years in the making and England were going to
do their best to make the most of it.
The sight of the cavernous MCG empty apart from celebrating England fans is one to behold and treasure, especially since this is often a ground where England arrive as an already beaten side. After all, the livescore cricket stats pointed to the fact they were 3-0 down on Boxing Day four years ago.

But now all the work and meticulous preparation that has gone into this series has paid off as the latest scores point to a 2-1 England success with one left to play.

Captain Andrew Strauss is right to look ahead to Sydney and beyond. If England don’t go on and win this series after dominating pretty much throughout, it will be a crime.

And Strauss will also be wary of what happened in 2005, when the side became caught up in the glory of it all and lost focus â€" resulting in that desperate 5-0 whitewash down under in 2006/07.

But for one day at least, the players and fans can celebrate emulating an event that occurred before some of the current squad were even born.

It was also a record breaking one â€" from the run-filled Gabba to here, England have piled on the misery for the hosts. It is the first time Australia have ever lost by an innings twice in a series outside of England, showing the scale of the tourists’ achievements.

It can’t be denied that Australia have problems. Both captain and vice-captain are out of form, while the lack of young talent, especially compared to the all conquering side of just a few years ago, is alarming.

But credit also has to go to England â€" they can only beat what is put in front of them and they have done so in comprehensive fashion. It has been a real team effort, with all players contributing with the bat, ball and most notably in the field - an area where England haven’t always shone.

They deserve their moment of glory â€" I just hope it isn’t another 24
years before they do it again.

Hussey the key for Australia

Without Mike Hussey England could have already wrapped up the Ashes. The batsman came into the series under a fair bit of pressure following a disappointing year. With 517 runs from five innings so far, at an average of 103.4, it's unlikely anyone still thinks Mr Cricket should be dropped. The batsman has singlehandedly kept his country in this series and the English bowlers have so far failed to work out a successful plan of attack when it comes to Australia's number five and the Ashes odds reflect this.

The Aussie's return to winning ways at the Waca has been thanks mainly to two more exceptional examples of Test batting from the 35-year-old. His 61 in Australia's first innings saved his team from what could have been a crushingly low total. The second innings century was an exhibition in the pull stroke from Hussey as England's pace bowlers were punished for anything short. Anyone looking to bet on the Ashes should bear in mind his excellent form.

The Aussie's current dependency on Hussey is obvious, with Shane Watson the next top scorer with 293. The rest of the batting line-up have so far failed to hit their strides. Marcus North paid the price for a disappointing start to this series and was dropped in favour of exciting young all-rounder Steven Smith.

On current form alone, there could be cases for Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke to be drop, but don't expect that wildcard move, even from these Aussie selectors. As long as Hussey keeps performing at this level, England will need to find a way to get him out if they are going to make sure they return home with the urn.

Player Discussion : Yusuf pathan | which position in India tem

Author: cricketworldcupSubject: Yusuf pathan | which position in India temPosted: 16 December 2010 at 7:18pmWhich position Y.pathan can get placed in cricket worldcup 2011?