Captaincy and the art of batting

I write at lunchtime on day one of the fourth Test at Barbados and the Test Match Special team is busy admiring the change in Andrew Strauss’ batting. The consensus that the captaincy has brought a new dynamism to his strokeplay is hard to disagree with, which again poses the question of how captaincy affects the form of batsmen.

This issue is topical given the recent runscoring feats of skippers Mahela Jayawardene and Younis Khan (although the conditions they encountered at the Karachi National Stadium means their high scores can hardly be attributed to the responsibility of captaincy).

The sustained good form of Ricky Ponting and Graeme Smith since taking on their respective captaincy roles is more telling. Of course both are top class batsmen, but there is little doubt leadership brings the best out of their batting.

Indeed, most current international skippers seemed to have improved their output since taking charge, but statistics tell only part of the story.

Strauss’ transformation from shot-restricted accumulator to fluent stroke-maker is the most marked change of style, perhaps along with MS Dhoni and Chris Gayle’s transformation in the other direction.

Full analysis of Strauss’ new dominating approach when in charge should be delayed until he faces tougher attacks on spicier pitches, but his productivity when he stood-in as skipper in 2006 suggests he likes to lead from the front.

That wish to set an example is what unites all captains, which means the responsibility of leadership often exaggerates players’ individual traits. Mike Atherton and Steve Waugh became more stubborn; Ponting seeks to dominate even more; Jayawardene is fuller of concentration.

It doesn’t always work out that way. The responsibility of captaincy can often weigh heavily, with the implications of bad form exacerbated by the duty of leadership. Atherton at times appeared consumed by his status as most prized wicket by the opposition, whilst Nasser Hussain and Mark Taylor, who generally revelled as their teams’ figureheads, endured horror runs that brought their place in the team into question.

All England supporters hope Strauss stays in the productive captaincy category. He has just lofted Sulieman Benn for six to reach a century in consecutive Tests, suggesting we might have to wait for the introspective spell that threatens most batting captains.

Written by Philip Oliver, an online sports writer who blogs about Test match cricket.

England in WI - ratings so far

These are my views on the England squad at the halfway point of the West Indies tour.

<B>In credit</B>

<B>Strauss </B>- big captain's knock and handling a difficult dressing room with maturity. Also impressed with his comments to the press, and the themes he is picking up on (personal responsibility and re-learning how to win) - good common sense stuff which the England bubble has been lacking recently.

<B>Collingwood</B> - 3 hundreds in 6 games. People need to stop talking about dropping him now, and not even think about starting again until after the Ashes.

<B>Broad </B>- our best bowler on the tour so far, and finding some form again with the bat.

<B>Swann </B>- showing us what we missed when Ashley Giles retired. Not a special talent, but uses everything in his armoury to achieve the desired effect, and has the guts and desire to go with it.

<B>Prior </B>- despite a torrid first innings of the 3rd Test, he is doing enough with the bat and the gloves to stay a fixture. And he seems to have got rid of that obnoxious cockiness which made everyone hate him after the jelly bean debacle.

<B>KP</B> - obviously.

<B>Neutral</B>

<B>Sidebottom</B> - nagging accuracy, but needs to get his pace back up to be a threat again to get into a team oversupplied with stock bowlers.

<B>Harmison </B>- hasn't been wayward, and soldiered on when unfit when he might previously have retired to his hotel room for a week. But he is a strike bowler, and doesn't have the haul of wickets to back that up.

<B>Flintoff </B>- Not a Test 6, and needs to take more wickets with the ball. Responsibility has hampered both - he should be a free-hitting 7 or 8 and kill 'em or get 'em out strike bowler rather than what he has become.

<B>Rashid </B>- some sparks of promise in tour games, but nothing show-stopping either way.

<B>Debit</B>

<B>Cook </B>- seriously, getting out in the fifties has to stop. Particularly because they are slow, "let's put my roots down" fifties. May yet be the one to make way if Vaughan puts some runs together.

<B>Bell </B>- more pretty forties in the tour games, no argument about being dropped.

<B>Panesar </B>- looks to have got the yips, in that he seems too scared to toss it up when people start hitting him. Badly needs his confidence back, and county cricket seems the obvious place to find it.

<B>Anderson </B>- his career looks to be going backwards again, after a summer where he suggested he had finally arrived. May be that (like Harmison) he's a home pitch bowler only.

Forgotten how to win

Have England simply forgotten how to win? It has now been over five months since they won an international game, during which time they have been humiliated by the Stanford Twenty20 (now more than once), crashed to a 5-0 ODI defeat in India and been beaten by an innings by the West Indies.

After establishing a position of such overwhelming superiority in this game, what prevented England from finishing the job off?

Clearly Ramnaresh Sarwan (perhaps in the form of his life) and Shivnarine Chanderpaul are two exceptional batsmen with the skill to save games against considerably better attacks. While some thought the pitch would break up, it did no such thing, and remained excellent to bat on throughout. And the West Indies have finally developed real disciple and resilience. There is no better indicator of this than Daren Powell. His shot selection in England in 2007 was appalling; here he batted with immense responsbility and great powers of concentration in both innings.

As well as West Indian skill, England were hampered by bad luck. Had the referral system been in place, Ryan Hinds would have been dismissed for a duck in the first inning, rather than survive for an-hour-and-a-half. The injury to Andrew Flintoff was also unfortunate in the extreme. But it does not look like his Test career can conceivably extend far beyond the next Ashes series. And since his return, for all the talk of him being a perennially unlucky bowler, his statistics make for sobering reading. He averages 24 and 32; but the wrong way round for a Test match number six.

More would have been hoped for from both James Anderson and Steve Harmison. There must be a temptation to draft in Amjad Khan for the next Test, with his ability to reverse-swing the old ball. With hindsight, England would probably have won this Test had they had Monty Panesar in place of either Anderson or Harmison.

In the end, it fell to the two least experienced bowlers (in terms of Test caps) to valiantly try and enforce victory. Both Stuart Broad and especially Graeme Swann were exceptional. Few areas of their side are currently functioning, but having Broad and Swann at eight and nine in the next Ashes could be a source of great strength for England. Swann, bowling with all the off-spinner's tools bar the doosra, has surely consigned Panesar to second in the England spin queue for the foreseeable future.

England puffed and they huffed but ultimately they weren't quite good (or lucky) enough. They are a team who have forgotten how to win.

The Stanford fallout

[b]It has led to widespread mutterings of ‘I told you so’, but what will the effect of Sir Allen Stanford’s arrest and subsequent enforced pull-out from cricket actually be? Will the ECB have more to contend with than wiping egg from its face and has West Indian cricket really been dealt a devastating blow?
[/b]
ECB chairman Giles Clarke has been quick to underplay the significance of recent events. The Stanford 20/20 for Twenty millionaire match and its proposed replacement, an annual quadrangular tournament at Lord’s, were apparently bonus events, outside of the ECB’s budgetary process.

However, Stanford was also due to have a presence in the English domestic Twenty20 revamp and it is widely thought that the ECB threw their hat into the Stanford ring in order to develop a rival power base to India’s Twenty20 development and expansion.

English cricket faces an uncertain Twenty20 future, but it is at least guaranteed a future. West Indies are in a different position and their administrators are left contemplating the speed in which things can change â€" the optimism generated by the stunning win at Jamaica has given way to humiliation caused by the Sir Vivian Richards stadium fiasco and panic by the Stanford furore.

The financial implications in the Caribbean of the cancellation of the domestic Stanford 20/20 are too early to gauge â€" the Trinidad and Tobago board has already estimated a reduction in income of $195,000 â€" but an effect on the pitch will almost certainly be seen.

A reduced cash injection will have an impact further down the line on the infrastructure, marketing and development of the game, but we will perhaps imminently see a slowing in the West Indies team’s improvement.

The unity, professionalism and application that was at the fore of Chris Gayle’s Stanford Superstars win over England has transferred to the national team and whilst the impact of coach John Dyson should not be underestimated, West Indies’ recent development is an indirect consequence of Stanford’s financial contribution.

The Stanford 20/20 tournament in West Indies has been a great success and has made international players of Lionel Baker and Sulieman Benn. It gives West Indies players a foot-up on the ladder of career development and its cancellation will undoubtedly make the unearthing of talent in the Caribbean more difficult.

A contingency plan is needed if the effect of West Indies’ Sabina Park win is not to be negated. It is hoped that the WICB did not rely too heavily on the input of a billionaire businessman for the development of cricket in the region, although they should note the success a fresh approach can generate.

Written by Philip Oliver, an online sports writer who blogs about Twenty20 cricket.

Looking ahead to the end of the decade

[b]A look at the players who have dominated the past decade of Test cricket and those who will feature in a similar retrospective 10 years from now.[/b]

The last year of the first decade of the 21st century has begun in much the same way as the first year of the millennium did.

Ricky Ponting and Muttiah Muralitharan are churning out runs and wickets like they were early in 2000 and West Indies had just skittled out an opponent in apparent terminal decline at Jamaica (although Zimbabwe managed exactly twice what England recently managed in their second innings collapse at Sabina Park in March 2000).

Much has also changed in the intervening years. There is a new distinct format of the game, umpiring decisions are being made using a TV monitor and Australia’s grip on the number one ranking is now as weak as it was strong at the beginning of the decade.

Which players have shaped this decade of cricket? Ponting and Muralitharan are guaranteed to be the most statistically successful players â€" respective Test batting and bowling averages of 60.97 and 19.82 since the beginning of 2000 should belong to another era. Only Jacques Kallis and Glenn McGrath have come close to matching those numbers.

Makhaya Ntini is the second highest Test wicket taker of the decade so far, thanks largely to his longevity. The South African paceman has played 92 Tests, more than anyone in the top 10 of the 2000s wicket taking charts â€" Muralitharan, Brett Lee, Harbhajan Singh and Chaminda Vaas’ careers have also spanned the decade.

Rahul Dravid, fourth behind Ponting (95 matches), Matthew Hayden (96) and Kallis (96) in the run charts, has played every single one of India’s 97 Tests of the decade, a record that he looks like preserving until the end of the year thanks to his career-saving ton against England at Mohali in December.

Matthew Hoggard is the only Englishman to feature in either top 10, despite England so far playing 116 Tests this decade, 13 more than Australia (six players) or South Africa (four), 19 more than India (four) and 30 more than Sri Lanka (four). Brian Lara is the only West Indian to feature.

Of the batting and bowling top 10, only Graeme Smith and Harbhajan Singh started their careers after 2000, which suggests the most successful players of the next decade will already be in their national teams by the end of this year.

South Africa’s steady recent improvement is partly due to the performances of players who have plenty of service left in them such as Hashim Amla, AB de Villiers, JP Duminy, Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel. Ajantha Mendis might be safe bet to be the top wicket taker of the 2010s.

However, the most successful players of the decade 10 years from now might feature some Englishman - Ian Bell, Alastair Cook and Monty Panesar are apparently safe from the drop and are young enough to be going strong in 2019. The calls for their axing will be deafening by then…

Written by Philip Oliver, an online sports writer for Betfair â€" check them out for Grand National betting odds.

What a grand debacle

Of all England's humiliations - and heaven knows, there have been a few over the years - their innings humbling by the West Indies must certainly figure prominently. This is rapidly becoming the ultimate Winter of Discontent. Still, England have not won an international fixture since they jetted off for the Stanford Series.

Australia may have slipped sharply of late, but England are increasingly the laughing stocks of world cricket; this was, of course, their first Test since they managed to rid themselves of a captain and coach simultaneously.

Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower said all the right things about increased player responsbility for match preparation, but yet again deeds failed to match words. There are few things more dispiriting in sport than the England batting collapse; here, England produced another timeless classic. It was at once unbelievable and inevitable, just as when they were bowled out for 81 in Sri Lanka 14 months ago. Considering the differences in the opposition, and the fact they finished 30 runs adrift of even that paltry total, this was in a different level alltogether. A collective failure of spirit? Or, perhaps more worryingly, of skill?

England have won only two away Tests in three years - both against a depleted New Zealand side (and even then after being thrashed in the opening Test, scene of another collapso special). A year ago, the bowlers took the blame for a batting collapse, as Harmison and Hoggard were ditched. Whilst it is clear that the bowling of Monty Panesar has become as cliched as Shane Warne's line about him having played the same Test 30-odd times, and his spark has vanished, the seamers essentially performed well enough. Graeme Swann must play in the next Test but the bigger faults, as for so long, lie in the batting departement.

Those mainstays of the England batting line-up for the next half-dozen years, Alastair Cook and Ian Bell, have regressed horribly in the last twelve months. Cook is a particularly problematic case; he is barely 24 and has already scored centuries in Australia, India and Sri Lanka, yet appears fatigued and incapable of capitalising when he gets in. But England have no other options in the Caribbean. Bell's is a different case, however. He has played 46 Test matches - and is he any better now than before number one? If Warne's line on Panesar is increasingly becoming the definitive word on the left-arm spinner, so Stuart Law's words on Bell - "that timid little creature" - ring true too. Time for England to send Bell back to county cricket, a season of which could yet toughen him up. Owais Shah, outstanding for England in recent ODIs, should have been handed a run in the side away to Sri Lanka - but now is better than never.

Excuses will be made in the shape of the dressing-room politics at the turn of the year. Yet the reality is England had this coming to them, just as they did in Hamilton 11 months ago. A few changes will help, and England must establish they are prepared to be ruthless with batsmen as well as bowlers. Strauss will need all his captaincy skills to get England out of this one.

Test umpiring reaches a new low

The First Test between West Indies and England at Sabina Park witnessed many humilations, including England succumbing to their third lowest Test innings total of all time. Yet, the match should also be remembered for some of the worst Test umpiring ever seen, as the elite panel showed once again why it is the most inappropriately named unit in cricket.

With an array of technology at his disposal and newly agreed rules and procedures on referrals, Daryl Harper decided to go his own way. When asked to adjudicate on an lbw decision against Ramnaresh Sarwan he ignored the need for irrefutable evidence. Instead he told on-field umpire Tony Hill that there was doubt about the decision, putting Hill in an impossible situation - the kind of situation the new referral system was designed to avoid. This confusion led to the lbw being wrongly overturned. Just to prove it was no fluke, later in the innings Harper watched several television replays of Daren Powell clearly missing the ball, only to confirm the on-field decision that he was caught behind.

One could be generous and say that he was muddled up with the new rules and regulations, that he was caught up in the moment, using his honed instincts instead of following the correct procedure. However, the man is a professional umpire. He is paid to undertsand the laws of cricket and all the rules relating to umpiring both on and off the field. It seems that the Daryl Harper that sits in the third umpire's seat is no better than the one that officiates on the field.

Which brings us to Tony Hill, one of the two on-field umpires. Now it is true that he was brought in at the last minute because the umpire who was supposed to stand could not get his visa sorted out in time, which shows that the elite panel are as organised as they are competent, yet Hill was deemed fit to stand in a Test match. What followed was an embarassment of poor decisions, many of which were overturned by the referral system, which seemed at times to be there purely to show poor Mr Hill up.

If this had been an isolated match, riddled with poor decisions because of the new referral system, then it might be fair to let the matter pass and move on to the usual high standard of umpiring. But this is simply not the case. Over the last twenty five years watching Test cricket I have witnessed consistently poor levels of umpiring. Many of these went unnoticed before the days of multiple television replays and serious media scrutiny. But now the evidence just continues to accumulate.

Whether it be high profile decisions like those in the Australia v India series last year or England v Pakistan at the Oval in 2006, or just the run of the mill poor decisions that get made in every match, does not really matter. what does is that Test umpiring is poor and the elite panel has done nothing to alleviate the problem. The referral system, despite being poorly applied at Sabina Park, is the way forward. The use of more and better technology must be introduced to reduce the high number of errors. It may take a long time, but a system will eventually emerge that allows Test matches to be played with minimal wrong decisions and where the result is purely a matter of which team plays better.