A treat to warm the hearts of all Fire Nick Knight's connoisseurs of expert commentary: Botham and Knight teaming up in the commentary box. So what gleaming insights would we learn from Knight and the knight?
As discussions meanadered on with about as much purpose as a mid-90s England one-day innings, thoughts turned to the inclusion of Jonathan Trott in the one-day side.
This prompted the revelation that Sir Ian doesn't "really consider [Trott] an one-day player" before going onto say "I didn't even realise he was in the squad".
Is it really too much to ask for Sky's "expert" summariser to glance at a squad list? Here at FNK we don't mean to be dismissive of Sir Ian's charity work so if as appears to be the case here his charity work consumes too much of his time to allow him to properly fulfil his paid role, we'd be of the opinion that we could forgo his commentary in the name of charity. Even if he missed him in the squad, you'd have thought he'd have noticed him on as sub-fielder at Trent Bridge, or at least milling around the boundary edge.
Even if we are willing to overlook his lack of interest in the composition of England squads, his claim that he doesn't consider Trott to be an one-day player deserves a closer look. Trott has played four ODIs in the last 12 months for his adopted country suggesting that he shouldn't be such a surprise to be in the squad. In those four games he has a more than respectable average of 49 albeit at the sluggish run-rate of 68.83. However England easily chased down targets in the two of those four games in which Trott had a meaningful bat (he scored half centuries in both) suggesting that it would be harsh to count his run-rate in those games against him: he might not have demonstrated an extra gear, but he had no need to do so.
More telling is Trott's List A domestic record. Trott has scored 11 List A hundreds in 152 innings (30 not out). That's a hundred under every 14 games. To give some sort of context Strauss, who somehow is considered one of the best two openers, scores a hundred once every 32 and a bit List A games; Bell one of every 31.5; Collingwood one every 41 (although it should be said that batting in the lower middle order like Collingwood does, he'll have had far fewer opportunities to score hundreds than Bell and Strauss in particular); Morgan an impressive (for a middle order bat) one every 20. In the current set-up only Kieswetter has a better record (one every 11.2)
Of those on the fringes for the Lions such as Cook one every 17.75; Bopara one every 24; Davies one every 21.5; Gale one every 75 and Taylor one every 26 (Taylor and Gale have one List A hundred a piece) - all need more innings to score hundreds. Now scoring hundreds isn't the only measure of a List A batsman, but it is an important one and it seems to be premature to be writing off a batsman who has scored so many List A hundreds. It's almost as if Sir Ian is completely oblivious to what goes on on the county scene.
Beefy's co-commentator Mike Atherton reckons as a player you should read the laws of the game, maybe expert summariser should take a passing interest in the game as well?
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Sunday, 14 March 2010
Missing In Action: Bangladesh latest
The decision of Andrew Strauss (although it was actually made by the selectors, not Strauss) not to tour Bangladesh was met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Sky's Ian Botham was forthright as ever in decreeing that he should go, noting there is work to be done; his colleague Nasser Hussain said in the Daily Mail that he should not ask [others] to do something that he is not prepared to do himself. Perhaps only occasional Sky pundit Shane Warne (occasional because he has to fit it around his poker commitments) was more scathing than Beefy about Strauss' decision not to tour Bangladesh (not that this was actually Strauss' decision).
The BBC were more balanced in their summation of the situation although Jonathan Agnew suggested his absence could cause resentment whilst Christopher Martin-Jenkins said he could expect criticism although it might also provide useful experience for his successor.
So a month or two on England - minus captain Strauss - are in Bangladesh , but where are the likes of Ian Botham and Nasser Hussain in the Sky commentary team? Is there not commentary work to be done there Beefy? Surely Nasser wouldn't ask something of Strauss that he wasn't prepared to do by himself? Why is Warne deserting his team-mates (in the commentary box, rather than at Hampshire, although he has previous there as well) and playing IPL rather than giving his insight?
On the airwaves the story is the same: the BBC have sent out a TMS team lacking all its big hitters. Little danger of Agger's absence causing resentment amongst his colleagues - they aren't there either! CMJ is giving his younger rivals who might actually know what is going on some much needed experience. Sadly, Simon Mann aside, they are about as up to the task as the Bangladeshi seam attack. Simon Hughes is a top notch analyst but with a mic in his hand, Richie Benaud he ain't. Sir Geoffrey where are you? You wisely might not have made such hostage to fortune comments about touring Bangladesh as recent TMS recruit Michael Vaughan (location unknown, but not thought to be Chittagong), but your expert analysis is being sorely missed.
Only sportswriter of the year - an award FNK does not begrudge him one bit - Michael Atherton, appears to be there amongst the broadsheets, a particularly admirable gesture from a man who opposed Strauss sitting the tour out and whose appearances as Chief Cricket Correspondent in the Times seem about as frequent as England wins (more of both please). No sign of the likes of Vic Marks, Derek Pringle, Scyld Berry or Mike Selvey. Whilst England are coping fine without Strauss under Captain Cook - who led the way with 173 - the same can't be said of the media coverage of the tour*
*Although it could be that they are all there and I've just fallen asleep whenever they appear because of these 3:30am GMT starts.
Sky's Ian Botham was forthright as ever in decreeing that he should go, noting there is work to be done; his colleague Nasser Hussain said in the Daily Mail that he should not ask [others] to do something that he is not prepared to do himself. Perhaps only occasional Sky pundit Shane Warne (occasional because he has to fit it around his poker commitments) was more scathing than Beefy about Strauss' decision not to tour Bangladesh (not that this was actually Strauss' decision).
The BBC were more balanced in their summation of the situation although Jonathan Agnew suggested his absence could cause resentment whilst Christopher Martin-Jenkins said he could expect criticism although it might also provide useful experience for his successor.
So a month or two on England - minus captain Strauss - are in Bangladesh , but where are the likes of Ian Botham and Nasser Hussain in the Sky commentary team? Is there not commentary work to be done there Beefy? Surely Nasser wouldn't ask something of Strauss that he wasn't prepared to do by himself? Why is Warne deserting his team-mates (in the commentary box, rather than at Hampshire, although he has previous there as well) and playing IPL rather than giving his insight?
On the airwaves the story is the same: the BBC have sent out a TMS team lacking all its big hitters. Little danger of Agger's absence causing resentment amongst his colleagues - they aren't there either! CMJ is giving his younger rivals who might actually know what is going on some much needed experience. Sadly, Simon Mann aside, they are about as up to the task as the Bangladeshi seam attack. Simon Hughes is a top notch analyst but with a mic in his hand, Richie Benaud he ain't. Sir Geoffrey where are you? You wisely might not have made such hostage to fortune comments about touring Bangladesh as recent TMS recruit Michael Vaughan (location unknown, but not thought to be Chittagong), but your expert analysis is being sorely missed.
Only sportswriter of the year - an award FNK does not begrudge him one bit - Michael Atherton, appears to be there amongst the broadsheets, a particularly admirable gesture from a man who opposed Strauss sitting the tour out and whose appearances as Chief Cricket Correspondent in the Times seem about as frequent as England wins (more of both please). No sign of the likes of Vic Marks, Derek Pringle, Scyld Berry or Mike Selvey. Whilst England are coping fine without Strauss under Captain Cook - who led the way with 173 - the same can't be said of the media coverage of the tour*
*Although it could be that they are all there and I've just fallen asleep whenever they appear because of these 3:30am GMT starts.
Saturday, 13 March 2010
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
To go, or not to go
My latest rant is about another column in the Times. This is possibly a little unfair on the Times, who has arguably (depending on the criteria) the best cricket coverage amongst all the broadsheets, but it should see it as a compliment of sorts, that I keep on picking on them.
First, as any site that professes as one of its aims being the better use of statistics should acknowledge, is that the Times probably produces more column inches of cricket than its rivals (and certainly more than the tabloids). It therefore follows that they are likely to produce more stupid articles, merely because they produce more articles.
Secondly, because they write more about cricket than their rivals, I tend to go to their web-site more often. As a rule, I try not to read bad articles (although if readers want to suggest articles to be dissected, feel free to draw them to my attention in the comments), but I had a feeling that there would be enough reactionary column inches to fuel a blog entry on the news that Andrew Strauss would miss the tour of Bangladesh.
The column that irked me into remembering my password for blogger, is seemingly unattributed. To be honest I'm not surprised: I wouldn't own up to writing it either.
OK good, a nice start. This article is going to set out the reasons why Strauss and not Cook should captain England in Bangladesh. Not much to argue about here, other than the absence of any attempt at balance and acknowledgement that there may be reasons as to why Cook rather than Strauss should captain England in Bangladesh.
I am however encouraged by there being 14 reasons. Too often lists like this come up with an infeasibly round number of arguments. Why should these lists always been a round ten or a full dozen? Why not a baker's dozen? Why not 11 reasons? So I'm pleased to see fourteen reasons. Fourteen doesn't often feature in these sorts of lists, so this is promising. Well done anonymous columnist.
It also means the threat of the final couple of reasons being some incredibly lame joke, about being too tired or not bothered to come up with more, is less likely to be dragged out by our anonymous columnist which I'm sure will be a big relief to us all. No-one wants to see an article finish on such a weak ending.
Hold the front page: we have an exclusive!
But wait, we were promised reasons. This isn't a reason. It's a bald statement of fact, only it isn't actually a fact.
The England team has more than one captain, and I'm not just talking about Cook who will contrary to this bold claim captain England in Bangladesh. Paul Collingwood captains England in 20:20 cricket. Split captaincy is already a fact. Collingwood captains largely the same core of players as Strauss does in tests and Cook will in Bangladesh. In ODIs, there is an even greater similarity between the sides.
Oh dear. This is flawed on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.
First he may have been captain for only a year, but is captaincy really the only part of cricket that can wear someone down? Might, I don't know, say being an batsman who has played 71 tests in five and a bit years be tiring?
Secondly, what a year! Three test matches that went down to the very wire, with the last pair batting out for a draw (a feat that has only taken place 19 times in test history) I'm guessing that takes more out of a captain than a routine win against a team like Bangladesh.
Third, how tired could he be - how about averaging 24.28 in the last series. His lowest series average for two and a half years. Last time he was in South Africa he averaged a stellar 72.88. Did burnout cause this decline? Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely worth considering rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Fourth, and the biggest concern to me here, is that this seems to entirely miss the point. England are resting Strauss now, not because he is necessarily tired now; but so he isn't tired at the end of the summer, when England have to face both the Ashes and a World Cup campaign after two series this summer and a further two ODI series. Might not a bit of planning in advance be a good thing here?
Nice topical reference to the 2008 American presidential elections there.
Hmmm, didn't we dismiss the possibility that he could have been tired from his batting in the previous point. Strauss averaged 52.66 in the Ashes, might that have made him tired? How about his stupendous efforts in India where he averaged 84.00 the previous winter and then followed that up by averaging 67.62 in the West Indies?
Might his form be a symptom, not a cause of tiredness?
Andrew Strauss was struggling to keep his place in the team until shortly before being made captain. Did he need the extra burden of being the boss?
Graeme Smith has played 81 test matches in 8 years. If Strauss plays every test match between now and the world cup, he will have played 84 test matches in six and a half years. Even skipping Bangladesh, Strauss will have played more tests in a shorter time frame.
Then there is also the question of whether Smith is someone England want to necessarily emulate. Achieving a 1-1 draw away in South Africa reflected better on Strauss than it did Smith. The series prior to that for both teams was Australia at home. England won, South Africa lost. Maybe, just maybe, Smith should be looking at Strauss rather than Strauss looking at Smith.
Personally, I'd question the wisdom of leading your country out on crutches. I doubt it would look so clever when trying to turn a single into two runs and the crutches would hinder his slip catching.
True, although utterly irrelevant.
I should also point out it's also an honour, a privilege, a duty that Andrew Strauss hasn't been asked to perform for this tour.
Ah, there's actually the bones of an argument in this. Although someone could equally say that drawing a series away in South Africa was a fine achievement and England are only playing Bangladesh, who in the words of Virender Sehwag are an "ordinary side" who can not beat India in test match cricket.
I'm not quite sure what more investigating needs to be done to discover that England lack enough fire-power to consistently bowl sides out twice and that their batsman need to score more hundreds and stop collapsing.
Even if that wasn't obvious from the test series just concluded, what exactly will be learnt against a side like Bangladesh? Probably the same lessons as were learnt from Ravi Bopara scoring three consecutive hundreds against the West Indies.
I can't imagine Wellington going out to the middle to toss with Napoleon to see who would go first, either. Nor, try as I might, I just can't picture the Duke of Wellington buckling on his pads and strolling out and taking guard. I'm not sure what exactly my lack of imagination proves*.
From my limited knowledge of military history, I understand that holding units back and keeping them fresh, was an important part of military strategy.
*Although the start of the Battle of Waterloo was delayed until noon to allow the ground to dry, so maybe it isn't that far-fetched a comparison after all.
Ah, yes. Andrew Strauss is an employee of the ECB. This means he has to obey their instructions, like when they tell you: "we want you to sit this one out, Andrew".
It also means that the ECB have a duty of care as his employer towards him as their employee. Might England want to avoid a key player going down the route of Marcus Trescothick?
Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ah, I never saw that one coming. Stop, my ribs are aching with all this joy and mirth. Where do they get such original material from?
There are arguments both for and against Strauss going and I'm perfectly happy for people to argue that Strauss should have gone provided they come up with proper arguments for doing so. Nasser Hussain, was one pundit who managed to put forward a fairly logical, reasoned argument in his Daily Mail column. I may not agree with Hussain's conclusion, but I can appreciate there is some validity in the arguments he puts forward. That's more than can be said for this column.
It is also worth pointing out the superficially impressive line of former England captains who have come out against this move: Nasser Hussain, Mike Atherton, Bob Willis, David Gower and no less than Sir Ian Botham are all quoted in an accompanying article criticising the move. It may be overly cynical to point out that all five are in the pay of Rupert Murdoch, whose subscription Sky Sports channels will be broadcasting England in a test series now given second class status. The lone dissenting voice is that of Michael Vaughan, the most recent and most successful captain. But if Botham is against it, it has to be a good thing.
First, as any site that professes as one of its aims being the better use of statistics should acknowledge, is that the Times probably produces more column inches of cricket than its rivals (and certainly more than the tabloids). It therefore follows that they are likely to produce more stupid articles, merely because they produce more articles.
Secondly, because they write more about cricket than their rivals, I tend to go to their web-site more often. As a rule, I try not to read bad articles (although if readers want to suggest articles to be dissected, feel free to draw them to my attention in the comments), but I had a feeling that there would be enough reactionary column inches to fuel a blog entry on the news that Andrew Strauss would miss the tour of Bangladesh.
The column that irked me into remembering my password for blogger, is seemingly unattributed. To be honest I'm not surprised: I wouldn't own up to writing it either.
There are 14 reasons why Andrew Strauss, rather than Alastair Cook, should be leading the England cricket team on its tour of Bangladesh.
OK good, a nice start. This article is going to set out the reasons why Strauss and not Cook should captain England in Bangladesh. Not much to argue about here, other than the absence of any attempt at balance and acknowledgement that there may be reasons as to why Cook rather than Strauss should captain England in Bangladesh.
I am however encouraged by there being 14 reasons. Too often lists like this come up with an infeasibly round number of arguments. Why should these lists always been a round ten or a full dozen? Why not a baker's dozen? Why not 11 reasons? So I'm pleased to see fourteen reasons. Fourteen doesn't often feature in these sorts of lists, so this is promising. Well done anonymous columnist.
It also means the threat of the final couple of reasons being some incredibly lame joke, about being too tired or not bothered to come up with more, is less likely to be dragged out by our anonymous columnist which I'm sure will be a big relief to us all. No-one wants to see an article finish on such a weak ending.
1. Andrew Strauss is the team’s captain.
Hold the front page: we have an exclusive!
But wait, we were promised reasons. This isn't a reason. It's a bald statement of fact, only it isn't actually a fact.
The England team has more than one captain, and I'm not just talking about Cook who will contrary to this bold claim captain England in Bangladesh. Paul Collingwood captains England in 20:20 cricket. Split captaincy is already a fact. Collingwood captains largely the same core of players as Strauss does in tests and Cook will in Bangladesh. In ODIs, there is an even greater similarity between the sides.
2. He has been captain for only a year, not ten. Everyone needs a rest, but how tired can he be?
Oh dear. This is flawed on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.
First he may have been captain for only a year, but is captaincy really the only part of cricket that can wear someone down? Might, I don't know, say being an batsman who has played 71 tests in five and a bit years be tiring?
Secondly, what a year! Three test matches that went down to the very wire, with the last pair batting out for a draw (a feat that has only taken place 19 times in test history) I'm guessing that takes more out of a captain than a routine win against a team like Bangladesh.
Third, how tired could he be - how about averaging 24.28 in the last series. His lowest series average for two and a half years. Last time he was in South Africa he averaged a stellar 72.88. Did burnout cause this decline? Maybe, maybe not. But it is definitely worth considering rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Fourth, and the biggest concern to me here, is that this seems to entirely miss the point. England are resting Strauss now, not because he is necessarily tired now; but so he isn't tired at the end of the summer, when England have to face both the Ashes and a World Cup campaign after two series this summer and a further two ODI series. Might not a bit of planning in advance be a good thing here?
3. He can hardly be exhausted by his exertions with the bat in South Africa, where his spells at the crease were mostly as short as John McCain’s temper: he averaged just 24 in seven innings.
Nice topical reference to the 2008 American presidential elections there.
Hmmm, didn't we dismiss the possibility that he could have been tired from his batting in the previous point. Strauss averaged 52.66 in the Ashes, might that have made him tired? How about his stupendous efforts in India where he averaged 84.00 the previous winter and then followed that up by averaging 67.62 in the West Indies?
Might his form be a symptom, not a cause of tiredness?
4. Alastair Cook? As captain? Cook was struggling to keep his place in the team until recently. Does he need the extra burden of being the boss?
Andrew Strauss was struggling to keep his place in the team until shortly before being made captain. Did he need the extra burden of being the boss?
5. Can you imagine Graeme Smith crying off tours because he craves a rest? He looks like he’d lead out South Africa even if he were on crutches.
Graeme Smith has played 81 test matches in 8 years. If Strauss plays every test match between now and the world cup, he will have played 84 test matches in six and a half years. Even skipping Bangladesh, Strauss will have played more tests in a shorter time frame.
Then there is also the question of whether Smith is someone England want to necessarily emulate. Achieving a 1-1 draw away in South Africa reflected better on Strauss than it did Smith. The series prior to that for both teams was Australia at home. England won, South Africa lost. Maybe, just maybe, Smith should be looking at Strauss rather than Strauss looking at Smith.
Personally, I'd question the wisdom of leading your country out on crutches. I doubt it would look so clever when trying to turn a single into two runs and the crutches would hinder his slip catching.
6. Being England captain is an honour. Every schoolboy’s dream. A duty, but also a privilege.
True, although utterly irrelevant.
I should also point out it's also an honour, a privilege, a duty that Andrew Strauss hasn't been asked to perform for this tour.
7. English cricket is not in so flourishing a state that it can confidently be left to its own devices while Strauss enjoys a long, restorative massage. England has just lost a match by an innings. Team confidence is fragile. His men need him.
Ah, there's actually the bones of an argument in this. Although someone could equally say that drawing a series away in South Africa was a fine achievement and England are only playing Bangladesh, who in the words of Virender Sehwag are an "ordinary side" who can not beat India in test match cricket.
8. Strauss needs to be on hand to investigate his side’s problems and fix them before facing Pakistan this summer and Australia next winter.
I'm not quite sure what more investigating needs to be done to discover that England lack enough fire-power to consistently bowl sides out twice and that their batsman need to score more hundreds and stop collapsing.
Even if that wasn't obvious from the test series just concluded, what exactly will be learnt against a side like Bangladesh? Probably the same lessons as were learnt from Ravi Bopara scoring three consecutive hundreds against the West Indies.
9. Can you imagine Wellington saying: “You know what? I feel a bit pooped after that Peninsular War. I think maybe I’ll give Waterloo a miss and wait for the next battle. Let me know how it goes. I’ll see you guys later. Well, some of you.”
I can't imagine Wellington going out to the middle to toss with Napoleon to see who would go first, either. Nor, try as I might, I just can't picture the Duke of Wellington buckling on his pads and strolling out and taking guard. I'm not sure what exactly my lack of imagination proves*.
From my limited knowledge of military history, I understand that holding units back and keeping them fresh, was an important part of military strategy.
*Although the start of the Battle of Waterloo was delayed until noon to allow the ground to dry, so maybe it isn't that far-fetched a comparison after all.
10. Did we mention the crucial bit about Andrew Strauss’s paid job being to captain England?
Ah, yes. Andrew Strauss is an employee of the ECB. This means he has to obey their instructions, like when they tell you: "we want you to sit this one out, Andrew".
It also means that the ECB have a duty of care as his employer towards him as their employee. Might England want to avoid a key player going down the route of Marcus Trescothick?
We have another four reasons. But to be honest, we need a break before going on. This is turning out to more stressful work than we expected.
Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ah, I never saw that one coming. Stop, my ribs are aching with all this joy and mirth. Where do they get such original material from?
There are arguments both for and against Strauss going and I'm perfectly happy for people to argue that Strauss should have gone provided they come up with proper arguments for doing so. Nasser Hussain, was one pundit who managed to put forward a fairly logical, reasoned argument in his Daily Mail column. I may not agree with Hussain's conclusion, but I can appreciate there is some validity in the arguments he puts forward. That's more than can be said for this column.
It is also worth pointing out the superficially impressive line of former England captains who have come out against this move: Nasser Hussain, Mike Atherton, Bob Willis, David Gower and no less than Sir Ian Botham are all quoted in an accompanying article criticising the move. It may be overly cynical to point out that all five are in the pay of Rupert Murdoch, whose subscription Sky Sports channels will be broadcasting England in a test series now given second class status. The lone dissenting voice is that of Michael Vaughan, the most recent and most successful captain. But if Botham is against it, it has to be a good thing.
Monday, 11 January 2010
What a load of old w**k
Simon Barnes is arguably the best English sports-writer of the last decade so it is with some trepidation that I tackle his column in Monday's Times. He writes with a style and panache that us mere mortals could only dream of. However I do sometimes wonder how much substance is behind that style that threatens to cross over into hubris.
FJM, which part inspired this blog, use to love highlighting the use of sloppy food metaphors. I don't think I really want to go down the path of flagging sloppy sex metaphors or innuendo (and not just because I've already used the words tackle and column in my opening sentence), that's not what this blog is meant to be about. Besides which, that's actually a fantastic metaphor. In 48 words he has summed up the taboo nature of ball-tampering. It is writing like that which has seen Barnes win numerous awards. He could probably end his column there, or in a paragraph's time. Nice and pithy.
Ah, but there's more. Over 500 words more, must fill the column space, must fill the column space.....
It is also an excellent point about the reaction to Bodyline, the most extraordinary thing about the entire affair was in the reaction to it. I never cease to be amazed by how it is us English who are referred to as "whinging poms" when it is our convict brethren down under - Prisoners of Mother England quite literally - who whinged so incessantly throughout the Bodyline series.
OK, so sober judges don't always get it right. Point taken.
Hmmm. A million books on Bodyline. I know this column likes accuracy in its stats but we'll let him get away with some poetic licence. But I'm not too sure what exactly his point proves.
First, I'd suggest that cricket has a far richer literary history than either football or rugby. Has football produced a CLR James or Neville Cardus? If it, or indeed rugby, has I'm unaware of that writer. Neither have these sports produced an Almanac quite as revered as Wisden. It would therefore follow that cricket was more likely to produce books regardless of any tortuous moral maze that had to be followed in that sport but not others.
Secondly, those books were I think as much about the reaction to Bodyline, a reaction he has already acknowledged was remarkable. Is this not therefore repeating the same point?
OK, are we going anywhere with this? As a result of that rule change you are only allowed to bang in 2 bouncers an over, yet you've spent the last four paragraphs hammering essentially the same point. At the risk of sounding like Wisden (I wish!) aim for the target - the stumps. Although it should be pointed out with this amount of padding, the article isn't going to hurt as much if it does hit you.
Ah, finally! Back on topic. Ball-tampering. No, not that kind, I said I didn't want to go down that route. The illegal altering of the condition of a cricket ball. The very accusation of which was sufficient for Pakistan to forfeit a test match. Enough for Ian Botham to take Imran Khan to the High Court over? Well not quite, Botham sued when Khan had appeared to suggest that he was “racist, ill-educated and lacking in class”, but ball-tampering was the back-drop for this unsightly spat, so it is sort of right.
But surely Barnes has curiously missed out one infamous case here - where is mention of his own newspaper's chief cricket writer, who nearly lost the England captaincy over the issue during the "dirt in the pocket" controversy?
And that brings us up to now. If England's success is a factor in South Africa's complaints - and remember England have in two out of three attempts failed to bowl South Africa out twice - it does seem strange that South Africa should complain of ball-tampering in an innings in which England's bowlers were looking least dangerous.
**checks to see if it is my head or Simon Barnes' head**
In any case, is this not just a product of batsmen being essentially reactive to the fielding side, a passive entity until the ball is delivered? Surely they have a more limited scope to commit moral outrage?
WHAT TEST HAVE YOU BEEN WATCHING BARNES?
Sure, cricket is evolving and not all changes are necessarily for the better (even if they are predominantly for the batter), but I don't think test cricket is in too sorry a state when three of England's last eight matches have gone down to the final ball of the final hour on the final day with the last wicket partnership at the crease. Test cricket is not just a battle between bat and ball; it is also a battle against the clock. And rarely has that battle ever been more exquisitely poised than in the past six months or so.
Those supersonic railway sleepers have also produced quicker scoring rates which has enabled more results. The balance may not be quite perfect, but I certainly wouldn't pick this last test, the 1946th (nor indeed the 1945th, the Australia v Pakistan match at the SCG) to suggest that test cricket is moribund.
But then maybe sober judges - like we must presume Barnes to be - don't always get it right when they predict the demise of the game and the world as we know it.
Ball tampering is like masturbation: everyone knows it goes on, no one will ever admit to doing it. To be accused of doing it is the most terrible insult a man can be offered and to be caught doing it is the most hideous disgrace anybody could imagine.
FJM, which part inspired this blog, use to love highlighting the use of sloppy food metaphors. I don't think I really want to go down the path of flagging sloppy sex metaphors or innuendo (and not just because I've already used the words tackle and column in my opening sentence), that's not what this blog is meant to be about. Besides which, that's actually a fantastic metaphor. In 48 words he has summed up the taboo nature of ball-tampering. It is writing like that which has seen Barnes win numerous awards. He could probably end his column there, or in a paragraph's time. Nice and pithy.
Ah, but there's more. Over 500 words more, must fill the column space, must fill the column space.....
But that’s cricket for you: always some terrible hideous sin, always some ghastly scandal, always a vast and tortuous moral maze to negotiate. Bodyline is the most extraordinary incident in sport — extraordinary not in what happened on the pitch, but in the complex reactions of all concerned.So far so good. Cricket does have a strange relationship with morality: after all it is the sport that gave birth to the phrase "it's not cricket". There is a myth - and it always has been a myth - about sportsmanship and cricket that players have had to negotiate around, be it WG Grace retorting "they've come here to watch me bat, not you bowl" as he replaced the bails, or a batsman deciding whether to walk or wait for the umpire's verdict.
It is also an excellent point about the reaction to Bodyline, the most extraordinary thing about the entire affair was in the reaction to it. I never cease to be amazed by how it is us English who are referred to as "whinging poms" when it is our convict brethren down under - Prisoners of Mother England quite literally - who whinged so incessantly throughout the Bodyline series.
Then there was throwing. Sober judges believed throwing would destroy the game, and no doubt life as we know it as well. Throwing was not so much cheating as sin. It would “lead to the greatest catastrophe in cricket history”, Don Bradman said. The no-balling of Muttiah Muralitharan for alleged chucking has been a rumbling scandal and cause of resentment for years.
OK, so sober judges don't always get it right. Point taken.
There have been a million books on Bodyline, at least two just last year. I can also remember a book on the history of throwing. Can you imagine such a thing in other sports? The History of the Crooked Put-in? Pinching Yards at Throw-ins and Free Kicks?
Hmmm. A million books on Bodyline. I know this column likes accuracy in its stats but we'll let him get away with some poetic licence. But I'm not too sure what exactly his point proves.
First, I'd suggest that cricket has a far richer literary history than either football or rugby. Has football produced a CLR James or Neville Cardus? If it, or indeed rugby, has I'm unaware of that writer. Neither have these sports produced an Almanac quite as revered as Wisden. It would therefore follow that cricket was more likely to produce books regardless of any tortuous moral maze that had to be followed in that sport but not others.
Secondly, those books were I think as much about the reaction to Bodyline, a reaction he has already acknowledged was remarkable. Is this not therefore repeating the same point?
The West Indies tactic of playing four superb fast bowlers in the same team was also regarded as immoral. They bowled short and asked questions about the courage of the batsmen: outrageous. When the West Indies bowlers declined to pitch it up to Pat Pocock, the England nightwatchman, Wisden thundered about the team’s lack of chivalry. The number of bouncers permitted in an over became a subject of legislation.
OK, are we going anywhere with this? As a result of that rule change you are only allowed to bang in 2 bouncers an over, yet you've spent the last four paragraphs hammering essentially the same point. At the risk of sounding like Wisden (I wish!) aim for the target - the stumps. Although it should be pointed out with this amount of padding, the article isn't going to hurt as much if it does hit you.
And then there is ball tampering. Pakistan surrendered a Test match rather than play on after being accused of ball tampering. Ian Botham took Imran Khan to the High Court over allegations of ball tampering. Now South Africa, unable to take 20 wickets in a match three times running, have decided that since England managed that feat, they must be tampering with the ball.
Ah, finally! Back on topic. Ball-tampering. No, not that kind, I said I didn't want to go down that route. The illegal altering of the condition of a cricket ball. The very accusation of which was sufficient for Pakistan to forfeit a test match. Enough for Ian Botham to take Imran Khan to the High Court over? Well not quite, Botham sued when Khan had appeared to suggest that he was “racist, ill-educated and lacking in class”, but ball-tampering was the back-drop for this unsightly spat, so it is sort of right.
But surely Barnes has curiously missed out one infamous case here - where is mention of his own newspaper's chief cricket writer, who nearly lost the England captaincy over the issue during the "dirt in the pocket" controversy?
And that brings us up to now. If England's success is a factor in South Africa's complaints - and remember England have in two out of three attempts failed to bowl South Africa out twice - it does seem strange that South Africa should complain of ball-tampering in an innings in which England's bowlers were looking least dangerous.
As a result, England and South Africa go into the last Test of a fraught series filled with all kinds of bitterness. South Africa think England are all cheats, while England have said that South Africa are malicious. And all because of a crime that is part of cricket’s daily life.Is it part of cricket's daily life? South Africa certainly don't think it is as open and shut as that.
There are two matters to dwell on here. The first is that no sport does moral outrage quite as comprehensively as cricket. For that matter, the only area of life that does moral outrage so well involves religious fundamentalism.I suppose it is possible that the Daily Mail involves religious fundamentalism.
(If I wasn’t already a Doctor of Letters, I would write a doctorate-level thesis about cricket and religion.)**head explodes**
**checks to see if it is my head or Simon Barnes' head**
But there is another point. All the great scandals of cricket history — at any rate, those that have come up through the playing of the game — come down to the crimes of bowlers. It is bowlers who, by bowling short, by bowling at a leg-side field, by bowling with a crooked arm, by messing about with the ball, are committing moral outrages, behaviour that might destroy the game.Is this the case? What about as I referred to above, WG Grace replacing the bails, or batsmen failing to walk? What about batsman deliberately running down the middle of the pitch with their spikes, or Dennis Lillee attempting to use an aluminium bat? Or are you saying that these are not perceived as scandalous as they should be? Presumably match-fixing - which reputedly involved players getting out before a certain score, would fall outside your category of having arisen through the playing of the game (although gambling was intricately intertwined with the development of the game).
In any case, is this not just a product of batsmen being essentially reactive to the fielding side, a passive entity until the ball is delivered? Surely they have a more limited scope to commit moral outrage?
Meanwhile, the game really is being destroyed before our eyes. It is being destroyed by the technologies of pitch preparation, bat manufacture and protective clothing. Batsmen, playing on chief executive wickets, in helmets, with supersonic railway sleepers in their hands, facing, in one-day cricket, compulsory batsman-friendly fields and draconian calling of wides, with the help of the occasional free hit, have never had it so good.Wait a minute! The game is being destroyed before our eyes? When? How? Whom? Why didn't someone tell me sooner, I could have saved myself the trouble of sitting down and watching five days of gripping test match action that went thrillingly down to the wire.
WHAT TEST HAVE YOU BEEN WATCHING BARNES?
Sure, cricket is evolving and not all changes are necessarily for the better (even if they are predominantly for the batter), but I don't think test cricket is in too sorry a state when three of England's last eight matches have gone down to the final ball of the final hour on the final day with the last wicket partnership at the crease. Test cricket is not just a battle between bat and ball; it is also a battle against the clock. And rarely has that battle ever been more exquisitely poised than in the past six months or so.
Those supersonic railway sleepers have also produced quicker scoring rates which has enabled more results. The balance may not be quite perfect, but I certainly wouldn't pick this last test, the 1946th (nor indeed the 1945th, the Australia v Pakistan match at the SCG) to suggest that test cricket is moribund.
But then maybe sober judges - like we must presume Barnes to be - don't always get it right when they predict the demise of the game and the world as we know it.
The game is marketed, organised and legislated on the belief that the ultimate excitement in cricket is a six. It is not. The ultimate point of arousal in cricket is the wicket.**rolls over and lights cigarette**
But across the cricketing ages, and to an ever-increasing extent, a bowler who looks for an advantage is a moral outlaw — while any batsmen can just help himself to the proliferating advantages that are thrust at him on all sides.**Puts out cigarette and falls asleep**
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Most pointless new statistic of the year
It may be only Epiphany, but the Sky commentary team have surely sealed their first award of 2010: most pointless new statistic.
To showthat members of the Ursidae family defecate in land covered with a thick growth of trees how utterly useless Daryl Harper is, Sky compiled a table showing for each umpire how many decisions had been referred, how many had been reversed and then our award winner: what percentage of decisions referred were upheld.
On the face of it, it seemed a sensible enough statistic - because it appeared to back up what we already knew: namely that Aleem Dar was excellent (80% of referral decisions upheld, the highest percentage upheld) and that Harper, who on Steve Bucknor's retirement had inherited the West Indian's dark glasses and white cane, was useless (50% of referrals overturned).
Sir Ian Botham leapt on this stat and started laying into Harper, like he was an Australian spinner (a metaphor which works pleasingly just as well if we are talking 1981 and Botham as a batsman and Ray Bright as the spinner, or Australia post-Warne and Botham as a pundit). Now I'm quite keen on using statistics to further our understanding and appreciation of this wonderful game and if I have already hinted at it, I don't particularly rate Daryl Harper as a test umpire, but it's a shame that nobody stopped to think what this statistic actually shows us.
The important column was the second one: the number of decisions that were overturned and therefore wrong (assuming Harper wasn't the third umpire). An umpire that is challenged ten times in a test and has got only two overturned (80%) has got more decisions wrong than an umpire in the same test that was only challenged once and that challenge was overturned (0%).
Even this isn't a perfect way of measuring an umpire's performance (not every incorrect decisions is necessarily referred), but it has to be a better way of measuring an umpire's competency than the percentage of referrals upheld. I have no issue with bashing Daryl Harper - who produced two howlers when missing a clear inside edge and mistaking a leg for a bat - but please choose the right stick to hit him with: it's the white one, marked property of S. Bucknor.
To show
On the face of it, it seemed a sensible enough statistic - because it appeared to back up what we already knew: namely that Aleem Dar was excellent (80% of referral decisions upheld, the highest percentage upheld) and that Harper, who on Steve Bucknor's retirement had inherited the West Indian's dark glasses and white cane, was useless (50% of referrals overturned).
Sir Ian Botham leapt on this stat and started laying into Harper, like he was an Australian spinner (a metaphor which works pleasingly just as well if we are talking 1981 and Botham as a batsman and Ray Bright as the spinner, or Australia post-Warne and Botham as a pundit). Now I'm quite keen on using statistics to further our understanding and appreciation of this wonderful game and if I have already hinted at it, I don't particularly rate Daryl Harper as a test umpire, but it's a shame that nobody stopped to think what this statistic actually shows us.
The important column was the second one: the number of decisions that were overturned and therefore wrong (assuming Harper wasn't the third umpire). An umpire that is challenged ten times in a test and has got only two overturned (80%) has got more decisions wrong than an umpire in the same test that was only challenged once and that challenge was overturned (0%).
Even this isn't a perfect way of measuring an umpire's performance (not every incorrect decisions is necessarily referred), but it has to be a better way of measuring an umpire's competency than the percentage of referrals upheld. I have no issue with bashing Daryl Harper - who produced two howlers when missing a clear inside edge and mistaking a leg for a bat - but please choose the right stick to hit him with: it's the white one, marked property of S. Bucknor.
Friday, 13 February 2009
When in a hole stop digging
FFS Nasser, the outfield is bad enough already without you digging holes in it!
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Cracking title, shame about the rest of it
One of my old professors use to tell the story of the book he'd written that had made his name (and I suspect quite a bit of money for him). It was a cracking title - so good that the phrase entered into, aptly enough, popular culture. Shortly after the book had been published my old professor bumped into one of his contemporaries, a world renowned expert in the field. The expert rushed over and congratulated my old professor, telling him "cracking title Jim, shame about the rest of it."
Reading Simon Wilde's brilliantly titled Dumb-slog Millionaires in the Times I wonder if he ever had the same lecturer? If not, he probably had the same e-mail that I had with the dumb-slog millionaire pun in. It's so good that you've got to get a story out of it somehow. So what has Wilde to say.
Pietersen is 28 years old but there is a part of him that is still eight, the little boy playing out his sporting fantasies.
Fair play to Pietersen is what I say. Why not enjoy what you are doing? Or is this just a sly way of getting a dig at Pietersen for not having dreamt of playing for England?
In one respect, he is doing a good job of realising them.
I'd say in just about every possible respect.
Averaging over 50 with the bat - check.
Scored hundreds against every nation except Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (mainly because he hasn't played against them) - check, check (as he has at least two against them all).
Hit the best bowlers of his generation for six - Warne, McGrath and who can forget that switch-hit off Murali? - check, check, check
Won the Ashes - check
Test double hundred - check
Of the 15 centuries he has scored in Test cricket, he has brought up 11 with boundaries. Last year, he ticked off a clutch of emotional highs by reaching a century at Lord’s (home of cricket) against South Africa (the land of his birth) with a boundary (Morne Morkel, crashed through point). No wonder his celebrations were so effusive: he whipped off his helmet and gave it a kiss.
So we can also tick off century at Lords, century against the land of his birth certificate and a boundary to bring up his hundred. Is Wilde going to suggest Pietersen has nothing more left to achieve and should retire forthwith?
Is this the same Chris Gayle who was later out for 104? You know, just after having reached a hundred?
stopped Benn mid-stride to adjust the field and allow Pietersen a moment to premeditate his shot at glory. Sure enough, Pietersen snatched at a slog-sweep and sent up the easiest of catches to the keeper. The ego had crashlanded again.
In the week in which he was valued by the Indian Premier League as the world’s most valuable cricketer, alongside Andrew Flintoff, “dumbslog millionaire” seemed the only appropriate name for him.
Hang on again. Wasn't it Flintoff who got out cheaply, recklessly slogging across the line in the second innings on Saturday. Surely that makes Flintoff a dumb-slog millionaire? Pedants might also note that Pietersen's attempted slog came before the IPL auctions, so before Pietersen was a millionaire.
Pietersen’s impetuosity was emphasised when Gayle moved to his own century by soberly fine-sweeping Monty Panesar for three. Gayle had just hit the England spinner for two mighty sixes but, unlike Pietersen, refused to get carried away.
Of course. I remember it well. Gayle hit Monty for six. And then, not getting carried away, he hit Monty for six again. And then played a shot which was full of contempt, nonchalantly flicking Panesar down to the boundary.
And then what happened? Oh yes, Gayle added another couple of runs and got out. Gayle made exactly SEVEN more runs than Pietersen. Had Pietersen's shot came off, there would have been exactly one run difference. An extra seven runs would have made the difference between losing by an innings and 23 and losing by only an innings and 16. Kevin, what were you thinking?
Blah, blah, blah
If Pietersen wants to be regarded as a truly great player he needs to throw off the excues (sic) and raise his game to the next level.
It was a similar scenario at Edgbaston where Pietersen was out for 158 against Sri Lanka. The score was a precarious 502/4 when Pietersen got out, allowing Flintoff to come in and club 33* out over a run a ball and England to declare on 551/6. Block, block, block!
I'm not overly enamoured with the methodology here, but according to this article Pietersen has been out having just hit a boundary within the previous couple of balls (not even always the previous ball) a total of eight times. Kevin Pietersen has been out a total of 82 times in tests, so presumably he's been out 74 times when he hasn't just hit a boundary that over.
In all Pietersen has hit 46 sixes and 487 fours. By my possibly ropey maths, that's a total of 533 boundaries for 2224 runs. Even if we discount the 80 runs he hit when he got carried away and got out eight times, he's scored 2144 runs in boundaries when he hasn't got out. And you want to rein him in?
Reading Simon Wilde's brilliantly titled Dumb-slog Millionaires in the Times I wonder if he ever had the same lecturer? If not, he probably had the same e-mail that I had with the dumb-slog millionaire pun in. It's so good that you've got to get a story out of it somehow. So what has Wilde to say.
Every cricket-loving child nurtures the dream of the hundreds they will score in Test matches. The dream is always capped the same way, a magical century brought up with a mighty hit into the stands.
This is the dream Kevin Pietersen still lives. Measured by his birth certificate,
Pietersen is 28 years old but there is a part of him that is still eight, the little boy playing out his sporting fantasies.
Fair play to Pietersen is what I say. Why not enjoy what you are doing? Or is this just a sly way of getting a dig at Pietersen for not having dreamt of playing for England?
In one respect, he is doing a good job of realising them.
I'd say in just about every possible respect.
Averaging over 50 with the bat - check.
Scored hundreds against every nation except Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (mainly because he hasn't played against them) - check, check (as he has at least two against them all).
Hit the best bowlers of his generation for six - Warne, McGrath and who can forget that switch-hit off Murali? - check, check, check
Won the Ashes - check
Test double hundred - check
Of the 15 centuries he has scored in Test cricket, he has brought up 11 with boundaries. Last year, he ticked off a clutch of emotional highs by reaching a century at Lord’s (home of cricket) against South Africa (the land of his birth) with a boundary (Morne Morkel, crashed through point). No wonder his celebrations were so effusive: he whipped off his helmet and gave it a kiss.
So we can also tick off century at Lords, century against the land of his birth certificate and a boundary to bring up his hundred. Is Wilde going to suggest Pietersen has nothing more left to achieve and should retire forthwith?
But what of the times the adrenalin-rush went awry? When, in a frenzy of boundary-hitting, he threw away his wicket and stood accused of risking his team’s interests for the sake of his own?
Do Pietersen's runs not count to the team? Surely Pietersen scoring runs is in the team's interest and Pietersen getting out isn't in Pietersen's interest. Or have I missed something?
This recklessness has been on show too often for comfort. An analysis of Pietersen’s dismissals for scores in excess of 50 reveals that in 15 of 25 instances, 60%, he was out just before or soon after reaching a century, or having overreached himself as he tore a bowler to shreds.
Ooh, I like analysis. So, what about if he has passed fifty 25 times and we found out earlier he has 15 test centuries, doesn't that suggest his method of getting from 50 to 100 is actually quite successful? Do the names Alistair Cook and Ian Bell mean anything to Simon Wilde?His first innings in Kingston was typical. Frustrated by a slow pitch and Sulieman Benn’s suffocating line, he lashed the giant left-arm spinner for four, four and six. That took him to 97. One more boundary and a century in his first Test since losing the captaincy was his. If Pietersen was not thinking rationally, his opponents were.
Coolly, Chris GayleIs this the same Chris Gayle who was later out for 104? You know, just after having reached a hundred?
stopped Benn mid-stride to adjust the field and allow Pietersen a moment to premeditate his shot at glory. Sure enough, Pietersen snatched at a slog-sweep and sent up the easiest of catches to the keeper. The ego had crashlanded again.
In the week in which he was valued by the Indian Premier League as the world’s most valuable cricketer, alongside Andrew Flintoff, “dumbslog millionaire” seemed the only appropriate name for him.
Hang on again. Wasn't it Flintoff who got out cheaply, recklessly slogging across the line in the second innings on Saturday. Surely that makes Flintoff a dumb-slog millionaire? Pedants might also note that Pietersen's attempted slog came before the IPL auctions, so before Pietersen was a millionaire.
Pietersen’s impetuosity was emphasised when Gayle moved to his own century by soberly fine-sweeping Monty Panesar for three. Gayle had just hit the England spinner for two mighty sixes but, unlike Pietersen, refused to get carried away.
Of course. I remember it well. Gayle hit Monty for six. And then, not getting carried away, he hit Monty for six again. And then played a shot which was full of contempt, nonchalantly flicking Panesar down to the boundary.
And then what happened? Oh yes, Gayle added another couple of runs and got out. Gayle made exactly SEVEN more runs than Pietersen. Had Pietersen's shot came off, there would have been exactly one run difference. An extra seven runs would have made the difference between losing by an innings and 23 and losing by only an innings and 16. Kevin, what were you thinking?
Blah, blah, blah
If Pietersen wants to be regarded as a truly great player he needs to throw off the excues (sic) and raise his game to the next level.
I suspect miscues are probably more of a problem than excues or even excuses.
To do that will require greater maturity than he now displays. He needs to accept he is not only an ordinary starter - whose first single is so often the notorious “Red Bull run” - but an ordinary finisher, too.
I've no idea what statistically being a good starter is, but I do know that The Don was out 18 times for single figures in 80 innings and he's normally a good starting point. Pietersen has been out 19 times for singles figures (and not one of them run out) in 85 innings.
As for being an ordinary finisher, this is a very interesting concept. Innings invariably end/finish when someone gets out, unless this is an oblique reference to the referral system and Darryl Harper.
This is, at the moment, the flaw in his genius.
Bradman's as well it appears.
He should remain aggressive but not be content with scores of 100, aiming instead for 150s, 200s and beyond. His average century score is 137, whereas Richards’ is 147, Graeme Smith’s 147, Brian Lara’s 173 and Don Bradman’s 186. He is selling himself short.
OK, so this is a bit more like it. In order to match up to Sir Donald Bradman, Brian Lara, Viv (presumably, rather than the equally gifted Barry) and Graeme Smith(!!!!) he needs to score bigger hundreds. I can buy that. It's not quite the same as saying his ego gets him out looking for the big shots to bring up his hundred though.
Kevin Pietersen may never regain the Test captaincy (though the leadership of the 50-overs and 20-overs sides could soon be his again) but, if he is serious about reclaiming the position he believes should be his, he must display a cool head under pressure.
Perhaps we should not hold our breath. In his seminal work, The Art of Captaincy, Mike Brearley quoted an academic who observed of sporting talent: “The ability to tap the boyhood sources of energy and illusion is essential in most highly competitive activities and one would hesitate to back a fully adult person (should one exist) in any serious contest. There is nothing like a sudden upsurge of maturity to impair the will to win.”
An upsurge in maturity on Pietersen’s part might just diminish his extraordinary game, not enhance it.
Wooooaah! So are you now going against every you've been saying? What is the point of me having bothered to read the preceding twenty paragraphs? Is this like the bit in Dallas, where it's all explained away as a dream?
Pietersen’s rushes of blood to the head
BOUNDARY FEVER
57 v Australia, Lord's, 2005 Out one ball after hitting Warne for six 71 v Australia, Edgbaston, 2005 Out two balls after hitting Brett Lee for six 87 v India, Nagpur, 2006 Out after taking 15 from previous five balls 158 v Sri Lanka, Lord's, 2006 Out the next ball after hitting Chaminda Vaas for four to equal his personal best score 142 v Sri Lanka, Edgbaston, 2006 Out two balls after reverse sweeping Muttiah Muralitharan for six 135 v Pakistan, Headingley, 2006 Holed out after taking 10 off three balls 70 v Australia, Perth, 2006 Holed out after taking 19 off six balls 226 v West Indies, Headingley, 2007 Out after hitting 14 from three balls
It was a similar scenario at Edgbaston where Pietersen was out for 158 against Sri Lanka. The score was a precarious 502/4 when Pietersen got out, allowing Flintoff to come in and club 33* out over a run a ball and England to declare on 551/6. Block, block, block!
I'm not overly enamoured with the methodology here, but according to this article Pietersen has been out having just hit a boundary within the previous couple of balls (not even always the previous ball) a total of eight times. Kevin Pietersen has been out a total of 82 times in tests, so presumably he's been out 74 times when he hasn't just hit a boundary that over.
In all Pietersen has hit 46 sixes and 487 fours. By my possibly ropey maths, that's a total of 533 boundaries for 2224 runs. Even if we discount the 80 runs he hit when he got carried away and got out eight times, he's scored 2144 runs in boundaries when he hasn't got out. And you want to rein him in?
CHASING A CENTURY
96 v Pakistan, Oval, 2006 Caught chasing wide ball; hit six three balls earlier 94 v South Africa, Edgbaston, 2008 Holed out attempting a six off Paul Harris, whom he had hit for two fours in his previous over 97 v West Indies, Kingston, 2009 Out trying to hit Sulieman Benn for six after taking 14 off three balls
LOSING CONCENTRATION AFTER HITTING TON
100 v Pakistan, Faisalabad, 2005 Out the ball after reaching his century with a six 109 v West Indies, Lord's, 2007 Out reverse sweeping Chris Gayle 15 balls after reaching a hundred 101 v India, Oval, 2007 Out four balls after reaching his century 100 v South Africa, Oval, 2008 Out two balls after reaching his century
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Keep up Auntie!
It feels a little strange at this moment in time to be writing about anything other than the England captaincy and coaching shambles, and whilst the title of this moan could easily apply to the BBC's coverage of that fiasco, the subject of this post is actually the BBC web-site's predictions for 2008. Oops, I mean 2009.
Each year at the BBC Sport website they attempt to predict, in Oliver Brett's words: "players on the cusp of making an impact on the international cricket scene."
Now deciding these at the end of December or start of January is a little arbitrary. It would probably be better to wait until April and see what up and coming youngsters were making waves during pre-season or had put on a yard of pace over the winter, but if it is a chance to expand the BBC's cricket coverage beyond mere news to include some more substantial content and informed comment then we at FNK are all for it.
That's more like it. Marshall has a test average of just 22.09, a first class average of 26.97 and an ODI average of 17.85 (from 24 games!). That is brave punditry, none of this let's pick the 5th ranked bowler in the world malarkey. Brett could have gone for Andre Fletcher who made a good impression at the Stanford 20:20, but instead he's plumped for Xavier Marshall on the basis of his "ability to strike the ball cleanly" which "may make him one to watch at the ICC World Twenty20 in June." Fair play to you sir on this one.
Next up is Mark Davies.
Hmm, wasn't the criteria players on the cusp of the international scene? If Davies gets capped by England this summer I'll eat his test cap. Widely considered to lack the pace necessary to make an impact on the higher stage, Davies has not just the "very good" first class bowling record Brett attributes, but an excellent one. Whether that record would look quite so good away from the Riverside and playing on some flat test pitches is another matter. I suppose he could get a test call - no-one predicted Pattison last year - in the case of injuries to become the Headingley specialist (although these days that is more Trent Bridge) but it strikes me as a teletext selection. As Brett alludes to, Davies will invariably be injured anyway.
Is this really a prediction of who will get an international call-up, or is it a safe, boring prediction so you can turn round and say "well he might not have been selected, but he had a good year"?
Robbie Joseph is a more interesting call. For both Davies and Joseph to get the call in an Ashes summer, I can only imagine Brett is expecting a mass IPL defection. It is not inconceivable that Joseph breaks into the international team, particularly if the Ashes are quickly relinquished. Interestingly Brett talks only of his one-day form, so he may see him as only an one-day selection. The chances of him being picked and making an impact on the international scene are fairly minimal though, as bowlers in particular seem to rarely make an immediate impact on the international scene.
The final selection (other than the token female) is Will Smith.
Ignoring Brett's mistake as to how Smith left Notts (they wanted to keep him) I'd be astonished if Will Smith got an England call in 2009 ahead of the likes of Bopara, Shah, Key and Denly. Yet again this appears to be tipping for who to have a good county season last year. Picking a player who was player of the year at the champions to have a good 2009 is hardly a brave choice. It is however the first time I've heard Will Smith's name being mentioned as an England prospect, so I'll give some credit here, even though I suspect it might yet be the only time he does get mentioned in England talk.
If you were to insist on picking three players who might have a breakthrough year for England, the likes of Bopara, Shah (at least in tests) and maybe slightly longer shots Saj Mahmood or Tim Bresnan at their second bites of international cricket could be considered to be on the verge of breakthroughs. All four would however be unexciting choices considering that they've been around the England set up for some time. Of far more interest would be to make the focus instead on young English players in county cricket on the verge of making a name for themselves. Joseph and Smith would have been an excellent shouts in 2008, as would Johnson on the international stage. But who will be their counterparts in 2009? Surely this piece should be concentrating on asking whether the likes of Steven Finn and Danny Evans at Middlesex, Jaik Miklebrugh and Maurice Chambers at Essex, Josh Cobb at Leicestershire, Adam Lyth at Yorkshire can break through and trying to work out who is going to be the Robbie Joseph, Graham Napier, Luke Wright, James Harris or David Malan of 2009. It needs to be looking at who can be this year's Mitchell Johnson, not at who Mitchell Johnson is.
Ultimately this isn't so much a preview of who will breakthrough in 2009, as an unispiring review of who broke through in 2008. Come on Beeb, you can do better than this.
Each year at the BBC Sport website they attempt to predict, in Oliver Brett's words: "players on the cusp of making an impact on the international cricket scene."
Now deciding these at the end of December or start of January is a little arbitrary. It would probably be better to wait until April and see what up and coming youngsters were making waves during pre-season or had put on a yard of pace over the winter, but if it is a chance to expand the BBC's cricket coverage beyond mere news to include some more substantial content and informed comment then we at FNK are all for it.
The criteria is a little restricting, like Wisden's cricketers of the year you can only appear once and they try to name one each from the touring sides, three from the county scene hoping to break into the England team that summer and a token female for political correctness.
Brett boasts of the Beeb having had some success over the years, including last year Dale Steyn. Quite how the Beeb pulled that one out of the bag, I don't know. His success in tests in England last summer (eight wickets at 36.25) obviously caught out a lot of people by surprise at where this bloke - who on New Year's Day 2008 when this brave prediction was made was ranked a lowly 6th in the world in the bowling rankings having taken 76 wickets at 25.25 - had suddenly emerged from.
The other 2008 choices seem nearly as inspired. Joe Denly followed up his 1003 runs at 41.79 in 2007 with a disappointing 905 at 30.16; Boyd Rankin managed just 12 wickets all season whilst Chris Jordan was an eccentric choice as a young England hopeful considering he'd said he wanted to represent the West Indies. No Kiwi was proffered as none stood out (Ross Taylor? Tim Southee?) instead Tim Ambrose was predicted. Ambrose did go onto play both test and one-day cricket for England that summer, but by the end of it had lost the gloves in both formats.
It is easy to criticise with hindsight and the author, Jamie Lillywhite had acknowledged that he was an awful tipster (which rather begs the question why did anyone ask him to write the piece?) so it is probably unfair to look too closely at the choices. It is worth asking again why Dale Steyn is still highlighted as a good tip when Oliver Brett reviews the 2008 selections. As we've already established it can't be on the basis of his English summer and it can't be on the basis of his sudden impact on world cricket because he'd already taken 44 wickets at an amazing 17.47 in 2007.
Anyhow, let's look instead at Oliver Brett's selections.
First up is Mitchell Johnson.
On the cusp of making an impact in international cricket? He's just taken 63 wickets at 29.01 in the last calendar year and is rated the number FIVE bowler in the world. What is that if that isn't already having made an impact in international cricket? It's like picking Dale Steyn all over again. I tell you what, I reckon that Sri Lankan spinner is one to keep an eye out for, no not Mendis, that Murali.
I know it is one of their rivals, I know there is a danger of having to listen to Mark Nicholas on commentary, but will someone please give the Beeb a subscription to Sky Sports so they can watch some world cricket.
It's not even as if Australia are lacking newcomers. How about New South Wales' youngster, Philip Hughes? With Hayden's test career surely coming to an end, why not tip Hughes. Sure Jaques (another one who has played fewer tests than Mitchell Johnson) may return and partner Katich at the top of the order, but why not highlight a young up and coming cricketer who many won't have heard of yet? Then there are players like Peter Siddle, Shaun Marsh, Ben Hilfenhaus, Doug Bollinger (stop laughing at the back) who are all names many won't have heard much about. If BBC readers don't know about Mitchell Johnson, I'd suggest the BBC is failing in its coverage of world cricket.
That's more like it. Marshall has a test average of just 22.09, a first class average of 26.97 and an ODI average of 17.85 (from 24 games!). That is brave punditry, none of this let's pick the 5th ranked bowler in the world malarkey. Brett could have gone for Andre Fletcher who made a good impression at the Stanford 20:20, but instead he's plumped for Xavier Marshall on the basis of his "ability to strike the ball cleanly" which "may make him one to watch at the ICC World Twenty20 in June." Fair play to you sir on this one.
Next up is Mark Davies.
Hmm, wasn't the criteria players on the cusp of the international scene? If Davies gets capped by England this summer I'll eat his test cap. Widely considered to lack the pace necessary to make an impact on the higher stage, Davies has not just the "very good" first class bowling record Brett attributes, but an excellent one. Whether that record would look quite so good away from the Riverside and playing on some flat test pitches is another matter. I suppose he could get a test call - no-one predicted Pattison last year - in the case of injuries to become the Headingley specialist (although these days that is more Trent Bridge) but it strikes me as a teletext selection. As Brett alludes to, Davies will invariably be injured anyway.
Is this really a prediction of who will get an international call-up, or is it a safe, boring prediction so you can turn round and say "well he might not have been selected, but he had a good year"?
Robbie Joseph is a more interesting call. For both Davies and Joseph to get the call in an Ashes summer, I can only imagine Brett is expecting a mass IPL defection. It is not inconceivable that Joseph breaks into the international team, particularly if the Ashes are quickly relinquished. Interestingly Brett talks only of his one-day form, so he may see him as only an one-day selection. The chances of him being picked and making an impact on the international scene are fairly minimal though, as bowlers in particular seem to rarely make an immediate impact on the international scene.
The final selection (other than the token female) is Will Smith.
Ignoring Brett's mistake as to how Smith left Notts (they wanted to keep him) I'd be astonished if Will Smith got an England call in 2009 ahead of the likes of Bopara, Shah, Key and Denly. Yet again this appears to be tipping for who to have a good county season last year. Picking a player who was player of the year at the champions to have a good 2009 is hardly a brave choice. It is however the first time I've heard Will Smith's name being mentioned as an England prospect, so I'll give some credit here, even though I suspect it might yet be the only time he does get mentioned in England talk.
If you were to insist on picking three players who might have a breakthrough year for England, the likes of Bopara, Shah (at least in tests) and maybe slightly longer shots Saj Mahmood or Tim Bresnan at their second bites of international cricket could be considered to be on the verge of breakthroughs. All four would however be unexciting choices considering that they've been around the England set up for some time. Of far more interest would be to make the focus instead on young English players in county cricket on the verge of making a name for themselves. Joseph and Smith would have been an excellent shouts in 2008, as would Johnson on the international stage. But who will be their counterparts in 2009? Surely this piece should be concentrating on asking whether the likes of Steven Finn and Danny Evans at Middlesex, Jaik Miklebrugh and Maurice Chambers at Essex, Josh Cobb at Leicestershire, Adam Lyth at Yorkshire can break through and trying to work out who is going to be the Robbie Joseph, Graham Napier, Luke Wright, James Harris or David Malan of 2009. It needs to be looking at who can be this year's Mitchell Johnson, not at who Mitchell Johnson is.
Ultimately this isn't so much a preview of who will breakthrough in 2009, as an unispiring review of who broke through in 2008. Come on Beeb, you can do better than this.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Happy New Year
Fire Nick Knight would like to wish both its readers a Happy New Year.
Here at FNK mansions we had a most enjoyable Christmas watching the Australians fall to yet another defeat in what has been a gripping test series.
What says 'Merry Christmas' more than hearing the desperation in Ian Healy's voice as he unsuccessfully claims a leg-side catch off the pad as the Aussies stumble to yet another loss? The icing on the cake (or should that be the brandy liberally applied to the Christmas pudding?) was when the replay showed the ball was no closer to the bat than Nathan Hauritz is to being a test class bowler; Healy could only reply "well I've seen them given."
Ho ho ho Merry Christmas indeed.
Here at FNK mansions we had a most enjoyable Christmas watching the Australians fall to yet another defeat in what has been a gripping test series.
What says 'Merry Christmas' more than hearing the desperation in Ian Healy's voice as he unsuccessfully claims a leg-side catch off the pad as the Aussies stumble to yet another loss? The icing on the cake (or should that be the brandy liberally applied to the Christmas pudding?) was when the replay showed the ball was no closer to the bat than Nathan Hauritz is to being a test class bowler; Healy could only reply "well I've seen them given."
Ho ho ho Merry Christmas indeed.
Monday, 15 December 2008
Botham has nothing to declare but his ignorance
Sky viewers might recall Sir Ian Botham's calls shortly after lunch yesterday on the fourth day of the first test against India for England to declare as they had enough runs on the board and no-one ever scores that many runs to win a test.
Obviously that worked out well, and with hindsight England could have done with declaring earlier leaving them more time to work out before the second test just how to dismiss Indian batsman on a turning 5th day pitch, and just as importantly leaving the good knight more time to go fishing or boozing round at Ravi Shastri's.
This has become something of a Beefy tradition. In recent years as soon as one team has built up a 2nd innings lead of around 300 runs, there at the back of the box is Beefy getting twitchy and wanting to get away from his (presumably well-paid) job as soon as possible. Viewers are then subjected to numerous "I really don't know what is going on here"s as the man who captained his country 12 times (no wins, 8 draws - clearly should have declared a little earlier) sees his day off rapidly vanishing before his own eyes. In fact, Botham's track record for wanting quick get-aways stretches back at least to Headingley 1981, when he checked out of the hotel along with his team-mates on the morning of the 4th day.
Botham's argument in Chennai was that only five times in the history of test cricket had a team chased more than 350 to win. If it only happened 5 times in all test history, Beefy said his maths wasn't very good but he'd take his chances on England having enough runs.
Forget his maths, his first problem is that he is asking the wrong question.
What about teams who were chasing mammoth targets and fell just short? Botham only had to go back to March, when New Zealand scored 431 runs. Scores of 553 runs may be impossible to chase down, but it was clearly possible to score 431 runs in the 4th innings. Botham should remember this test as he spent much of it questioning what on earth Michael Vaughan was doing allowing England to bat on with a lead of over 350.
Secondly, there may have been 1897 test matches prior to this one, but how many of them provided an opportunity for a team to chase over 350 in the 4th innings?
The first question he should have been asking how many teams have scored more than 350 in the 4th innings and then how many teams have been set more than 350 in the 4th innings.
His third issue was that he was not noticing trends. Thirty-seven times teams have scored 350 or more in the 4th innings. More revealingly, sixteen times has been in the last decade, a decade during which he has been employed to sit and watch test cricket. In other words in the first 1468 test matches, teams scored 350 or more in the 4th innings 21 times, or at a rate of about once every 70 test matches. However in the last decade, the one where Botham has been a regular in the Sky commentary box and you know might actually pay attention to what is going on in world cricket, teams have scored 350 or more in the 4th innings in16 out of 519 tests - one every 32 test matches. In the last 5 years it is 11 times in 210 tests matches - once every 19 test matches, take it to the last 3 years and it is eight times in 121 tests, or once every 15.125 tests.
Remember, that is once every 15 tests but that includes the rain interrupted tests such as Dunedin, or the flat-track no result pitches that means teams run out of time (not likely to be an issue for India in the last test) like the last test in Chennai, or the one-sided contests involving Bangladesh, who have played 17 tests during the last 3 years. Fifty-four of those 121 games saw 30 or fewer wickets fall (the equivalent of three innings games), if these are eliminated as (almost certainly) rain-affected, non-result pitches or mismatches where the weather/pitch/match situation didn't allow a team the opportunity to chase 350plus - and this is certainly a conservative estimate - we can conservatively estimate that a team would, given time, reach 350 in the fourth innings once every eight opportunities. It becomes clear that 350 runs shouldn't be an automatic declaration in order to allow Beefy to go off fishing.
Obviously that worked out well, and with hindsight England could have done with declaring earlier leaving them more time to work out before the second test just how to dismiss Indian batsman on a turning 5th day pitch, and just as importantly leaving the good knight more time to go fishing or boozing round at Ravi Shastri's.
This has become something of a Beefy tradition. In recent years as soon as one team has built up a 2nd innings lead of around 300 runs, there at the back of the box is Beefy getting twitchy and wanting to get away from his (presumably well-paid) job as soon as possible. Viewers are then subjected to numerous "I really don't know what is going on here"s as the man who captained his country 12 times (no wins, 8 draws - clearly should have declared a little earlier) sees his day off rapidly vanishing before his own eyes. In fact, Botham's track record for wanting quick get-aways stretches back at least to Headingley 1981, when he checked out of the hotel along with his team-mates on the morning of the 4th day.
Botham's argument in Chennai was that only five times in the history of test cricket had a team chased more than 350 to win. If it only happened 5 times in all test history, Beefy said his maths wasn't very good but he'd take his chances on England having enough runs.
Forget his maths, his first problem is that he is asking the wrong question.
What about teams who were chasing mammoth targets and fell just short? Botham only had to go back to March, when New Zealand scored 431 runs. Scores of 553 runs may be impossible to chase down, but it was clearly possible to score 431 runs in the 4th innings. Botham should remember this test as he spent much of it questioning what on earth Michael Vaughan was doing allowing England to bat on with a lead of over 350.
Secondly, there may have been 1897 test matches prior to this one, but how many of them provided an opportunity for a team to chase over 350 in the 4th innings?
- He only had to look as far as the weather interrupted 1897th test match, which finished earlier the same day in Dunedin in a draw halfway through the third innings, without it ever getting as far as a 4th innings.
- Or he could have looked at the last test on the ground, back in March, when 1498 runs were scored for the loss of just 25 wickets on a track so flat South Africa didn't even get round to setting India a total.
- Neither would you expect Bangladesh to chase down 350 against Australia and you wouldn't expect Australia to be set 350 against Bangladesh. Does Bangladesh not reaching 350 against Australia in the 4th innings actually tell us anything?
The first question he should have been asking how many teams have scored more than 350 in the 4th innings and then how many teams have been set more than 350 in the 4th innings.
His third issue was that he was not noticing trends. Thirty-seven times teams have scored 350 or more in the 4th innings. More revealingly, sixteen times has been in the last decade, a decade during which he has been employed to sit and watch test cricket. In other words in the first 1468 test matches, teams scored 350 or more in the 4th innings 21 times, or at a rate of about once every 70 test matches. However in the last decade, the one where Botham has been a regular in the Sky commentary box and you know might actually pay attention to what is going on in world cricket, teams have scored 350 or more in the 4th innings in16 out of 519 tests - one every 32 test matches. In the last 5 years it is 11 times in 210 tests matches - once every 19 test matches, take it to the last 3 years and it is eight times in 121 tests, or once every 15.125 tests.
Remember, that is once every 15 tests but that includes the rain interrupted tests such as Dunedin, or the flat-track no result pitches that means teams run out of time (not likely to be an issue for India in the last test) like the last test in Chennai, or the one-sided contests involving Bangladesh, who have played 17 tests during the last 3 years. Fifty-four of those 121 games saw 30 or fewer wickets fall (the equivalent of three innings games), if these are eliminated as (almost certainly) rain-affected, non-result pitches or mismatches where the weather/pitch/match situation didn't allow a team the opportunity to chase 350plus - and this is certainly a conservative estimate - we can conservatively estimate that a team would, given time, reach 350 in the fourth innings once every eight opportunities. It becomes clear that 350 runs shouldn't be an automatic declaration in order to allow Beefy to go off fishing.
Fire Nick Knight
An occasional blog, in homage to baseball's excellent http://www.firejoemorgan.com/
web-site, which is sadly no longer criticising bad sports journalism, picking up on their misuse of statistics and bad food metaphors. When I am similarly enraged/can be bothered, I might add my own comments on bone-headed cricket commentators/"experts" stuck in the past, and actually backed up with logic and where possible statistics rather than a knowledge of what the conventional wisdom was twenty years ago.
Joe Morgan was probably the greatest second baseman in baseball history, but as a commentator for ESPN he gathered a cult following for his awful commentary and his JoeChat specials, in which he'd (a) try and answer every question using the word consistency at least twice in every sentence; (b) mangle the English (well, American) language; (c) refer back to his day, his only point of reference - as despite being the face of ESPN baseball he didn't appear to watch any modern baseball; and (d) rubbish (and misrepresent) baseball statisticians and the use of modern statistics. So hypnotically bad was he, that it attracted my attention from the other side of the Atlantic through the scribblings of FJM.
If his cricketing equivalent is Ian Botham, it is only because Nick Knight doesn't have the career to match Morgan's. Regardless both Knight and the knight are likely to feature heavily on this blog going on past performance in the commentary box. Botham is well known for his sense of humour, and there is a possibility that his "I just don't understand what they are doing, in my day we didn't do it like this" routine might actually be a big joke, playing on the disdain he held during his on field career for the out of touch likes of Fred Trueman (RIP) and Ray Illingworth. I'm however beginning to suspect it isn't.
This is a shame as Beefy is my all time hero. I was once fortunate enough to be in the presence of a lifesize cardboard cut-out of Sir Ian and I found the 'tache and mullet combination awe inspiring. A few years later I bumped into the real thing, maybe it was because he was shorn of porn star 'tache and dyed mullet that screamed "look how good I am, I can get away with looking like this because I'm going to slog a hundred before lunch, sink 10 pints and then take 5 Convict wickets before tea" but whatever the reason the real thing just didn't have same impact. This experience convinced me that Sky should replace Beefy with a cardboard cut-out and we should save the knight of the realm for his magnificent charity work and diplomatic duties down under, both of which Fire Nick Knight fully endorse.
Nick Knight's redeeming qualities are far less obvious. How he got chosen it somewhat of a mystery. The Sky producers were presumably after a "safe pair of hands with international playing experience" for a commentary vacancy, but someone had got the wrong end of the stick and had recommended him based on his fielding expertise. I for one don't believe this rumour, not least because Sky would surely have learnt from the Colin Croft "we need a high-flyer" misunderstanding.
As a player Knight had risen to prominence as the first English pinch-hitter to use his feet to dance down the pitch and make the most of the fielding restrictions by hitting over the top. Sri Lanka had Jayasuriya (career strike-rate of 91.03), Australia responded by selecting Adam Gilchrist (strike-rate 96.94) so England had Nick Knight selected especially to capitalise on what would become powerplays, with his forays down the wicket and hitting over the infield allowing him to score at a heady strike-rate of 71.52. A stalwart of the England side from 1996-2003, he was the perfect choice to explain to the Sky viewers how English one-day cricket had failed to keep up with the times.
web-site, which is sadly no longer criticising bad sports journalism, picking up on their misuse of statistics and bad food metaphors. When I am similarly enraged/can be bothered, I might add my own comments on bone-headed cricket commentators/"experts" stuck in the past, and actually backed up with logic and where possible statistics rather than a knowledge of what the conventional wisdom was twenty years ago.
Joe Morgan was probably the greatest second baseman in baseball history, but as a commentator for ESPN he gathered a cult following for his awful commentary and his JoeChat specials, in which he'd (a) try and answer every question using the word consistency at least twice in every sentence; (b) mangle the English (well, American) language; (c) refer back to his day, his only point of reference - as despite being the face of ESPN baseball he didn't appear to watch any modern baseball; and (d) rubbish (and misrepresent) baseball statisticians and the use of modern statistics. So hypnotically bad was he, that it attracted my attention from the other side of the Atlantic through the scribblings of FJM.
If his cricketing equivalent is Ian Botham, it is only because Nick Knight doesn't have the career to match Morgan's. Regardless both Knight and the knight are likely to feature heavily on this blog going on past performance in the commentary box. Botham is well known for his sense of humour, and there is a possibility that his "I just don't understand what they are doing, in my day we didn't do it like this" routine might actually be a big joke, playing on the disdain he held during his on field career for the out of touch likes of Fred Trueman (RIP) and Ray Illingworth. I'm however beginning to suspect it isn't.
This is a shame as Beefy is my all time hero. I was once fortunate enough to be in the presence of a lifesize cardboard cut-out of Sir Ian and I found the 'tache and mullet combination awe inspiring. A few years later I bumped into the real thing, maybe it was because he was shorn of porn star 'tache and dyed mullet that screamed "look how good I am, I can get away with looking like this because I'm going to slog a hundred before lunch, sink 10 pints and then take 5 Convict wickets before tea" but whatever the reason the real thing just didn't have same impact. This experience convinced me that Sky should replace Beefy with a cardboard cut-out and we should save the knight of the realm for his magnificent charity work and diplomatic duties down under, both of which Fire Nick Knight fully endorse.
Nick Knight's redeeming qualities are far less obvious. How he got chosen it somewhat of a mystery. The Sky producers were presumably after a "safe pair of hands with international playing experience" for a commentary vacancy, but someone had got the wrong end of the stick and had recommended him based on his fielding expertise. I for one don't believe this rumour, not least because Sky would surely have learnt from the Colin Croft "we need a high-flyer" misunderstanding.
As a player Knight had risen to prominence as the first English pinch-hitter to use his feet to dance down the pitch and make the most of the fielding restrictions by hitting over the top. Sri Lanka had Jayasuriya (career strike-rate of 91.03), Australia responded by selecting Adam Gilchrist (strike-rate 96.94) so England had Nick Knight selected especially to capitalise on what would become powerplays, with his forays down the wicket and hitting over the infield allowing him to score at a heady strike-rate of 71.52. A stalwart of the England side from 1996-2003, he was the perfect choice to explain to the Sky viewers how English one-day cricket had failed to keep up with the times.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)