Cricket 2

[Jeor]

Looks like Australia will close out the series vs India, and South Africa will win the Test against Pakistan.

South Africa will want to hurry things up a bit. Smith and Kallis are batting at 2.84 an over, and while time (halfway through Day 4) and the lead (400+) look healthy, Smith must think about inserting Pakistan soon. There's still plenty of time, but the light in Lahore is notoriously bad, and already a few times in this Test the day has ended early with the batsmen taking the light.

A friend of mine has just gotten onto TAB Sportsbet. I took a look and some of the odds are ridiculously easy (for instance, earlier today Hayden and Symonds were both over $3 as the top runscorers in the series, and they lead the Aussie charts by a healthy amount of runs with only one match to go), and the draw option for the Test match in Lahore is also attractively placed. I'm also persuaded to set up an account to have a bit of a flutter. I wouldn't bet on anything else, but cricket I'd have half a clue on what's going on.

[DJDonegal]

England take the ODI series v Sri Lanka.

I know it's the first time that England have ever won an ODI series there - is it also the first time Sri Lanka have lost won one? England are looking more and more like a decent ODI side with their series wins over India (though they DID lose to Bangladesh in the World Cup...) and Sri Lanka (who were beaten finalists in the World Cup).

[Sir Thursday]

England seem to have turned into a decent ODI team remarkably quickly. Was it really as easy as just dropping Vaughan? Sri Lanka and India are pretty big scalps for a supposedly poor ODI team. The bowling has been top notch in the last 3 games and they've managed to contain Sri Lanka's explosive batsmen well. Anderson and Sidebottom have looked impressive opening the bowling, and Swann and Broad have backed them up very well indeed. Can't see Panesar getting back into the ODI team at this rate. It's a shame they aren't playing any more until February...

Sir Thursday

[Jeor]

England seem to have turned into a decent ODI team remarkably quickly. Was it really as easy as just dropping Vaughan?...

I don't think it's so much a matter of them dropping Vaughan, more the fact that Ian Bell has found a way to become an ODI batsman. With Bell batting well, and Pietersen and Collingwood making up a chunky middle order (with Master Anus and his pyrotechnics at the end) the batting lineup looks more solid, which in turn I think has made the bowling attack relax and simply play better cricket.

Ah, no wonder the TAB looked so attractive - there are more matches in the series. Still, I'm tempted to set up the account in time for the Aussie summer...

[williamjm]

I know it's the first time that England have ever won an ODI series there - is it also the first time Sri Lanka have lost won one?

I was reading an article earlier which said Sri Lanka have only lost two series in the last decade at home to Australia and Pakistan (or something like that).

England seem to have turned into a decent ODI team remarkably quickly. Was it really as easy as just dropping Vaughan? Sri Lanka and India are pretty big scalps for a supposedly poor ODI team.

And of course they beat Australia earlier this year as well

They do seem to have made significant progress - Anderson, Sidebottom, Broad and now Swann seem more convincing ODI bowlers than Plunkett or Mahmood or Kabir Ali were and the middle order of Bell/Pietersen/Collingwood/Shah is quite good. There are still some unanswered questions - they're still lacking a settled opening pair since Cook has had some good innings but often looks unconvincing in ODIs and the experiment of opening the batting with wicket-keepers hasn't been successful yet. They also need to decide where to put Flintoff - he should really bat no higher than 7 on current form, although his bowling is good enough to justify a place on its own (when he's fit).

[Jeor]

Pakistan saved the Test with a draw, although they've lost the series. Told you a draw was a good option! Although it had nothing to do with my prediction, since bad light didn't save the Pakistanis, poor fielding from the South Africans and some good batting did.

[Stubby]

Mid-Air Drama for Aussies and Indians

A PLANE carrying members of the Australian and Indian cricket teams made an emergency landing in western India today after it hit a bird.

I'm glad they are all ok, but the opportunity is too good to pass up:

Was it a duck?

[Rimmer]

There was a really good interview with Nathan Astle on Radio Sport just then, from about 11.15am Wednesday if anyone wants to listen back: http://www.radiosport.co.nz/AudioBank/ (they'll probably have it in the featured interview section soon)

He talked about his amazing world record double-century, the overcoaching in NZ cricket which killed his love for the game, and the coaches he liked and disliked. He said that players just joining the team now are overloaded with information and have their natural flair stunted - which does look to be the case with Ross Taylor, who is about as naturally talented as anyone and has got worse and worse since he joined the Black Caps. Astle's always been one of my favourite players; it's good to hear him speaking out for just about the first time, and he makes a lot of sense.

[Jeor]

For me it seems that New Zealand cricketers have always been the polar opposites of West Indies cricketers. The Windies are high on talent but low on commitment and hard work, while NZ seems to be the opposite. The Windies seem to have lots of stylish batsmen who average in the high 20s (Ganga, Samuels, and any other players who compose up half of the top 6 in the lineup). I guess there has always been that image about NZ cricket, that it's full of 'working class' players whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts, team playing cohesively together etc.

But when you think about the people they've had in recent years - Cairns, Fleming, Bond, MacMillan to name just a few - they have had 'impact' players with talent and flair. The 'grafters' like Styris are still there, but it's unfair to say that NZ cricket is just full of hard-working bores. In each of the above four examples I just pulled out of thin air, they've underachieved. Cairns had a wonderful career, but one couldn't help but think his Test batting average should have been at least 5-10 runs higher than it was. The same with Fleming and MacMillan, given their talent.

I think in general it's been the nature of NZ cricket to emphasise safety first (unless it's some big match against Australia ). It's like the theory about Atherton; a lot of people in the cricketing community think that Michael Atherton's early days of playing first-class cricket with Cambridge and a sometimes lousy Lancashire hurt his development as a player. His teams were so reliant on his runs that he had to emphasise safety first in his batting, and as a result in the Test arena he was rarely able to bring his game up a gear and his younger amateur days of attacking cricket were lost.

The NZ coaching staff seem more interested in predictable solidity than flair, and in some cases I think players have suffered from that mindset - often MacMillan has seemed confused as to whether to hit out or dig in, Fleming has had a tendency to get bogged down in his innings, and other batsmen like Taylor are miscast in their roles.

[Vestrit]

That interview isn't up on the site yet, so I look forward to hearing it when it is, sounds very interesting.

Jeor, agree completely with what you say. NZ has traditionally always been a team that is better than the sum of its parts, but we have some players there who should have done better.

Regarding Atherton, I think you're right in terms of the Cambs and Lancs thing. But I'd also add that he came into a pretty brittle England side, so had to be very careful not to lose his wicket, and he also had a degnerative back condition from early in his career, which hampered what he could do.

I'd have loved to have seen a fully fit Atherton in a strong team, because everything I've heard about his younger days is that he was actually a very exciting batsman.

On a completely different subject - is Duncan Fletcher a cunt?

This isn't so much about Flintoff, as it's hardly news that he drinks, although I think Fletcher's probably come out of this looking worse than Flintoff. I also don't think many people who know a bit about cricket pay much attention to anything Fletcher says about Flintoff anyway as it's pretty well-known they can't stand each other.

What I'm annoyed about is the Trescothick stuff. Going into detail about Trescothick's illness and the situation there is a pretty dispicable breach of confidence in my opinion, and a bloody shabby way to treat a player who gave Fletcher some pretty good performances.

[Hereward]

On a completely different subject - is Duncan Fletcher a cunt?

Pretty much, yeah. But in his defence he pissed Boycott off, so he can't be all bad.

[Daeric]

Fletcher is a cunt indeed.

When they asked Flintoff about Flecture they couldn't get him to say anything substanial, but vice versa and we get what seems to just pure hate.

[Rimmer]

That interview isn't up on the site yet, so I look forward to hearing it when it is, sounds very interesting.

Seems like they're not going to feature it, but you can still listen back by just downloading the right time frame. They always have the last full week available in the audio bank.

I do agree about New Zealand talent constantly underperforming. Maybe we got the grafting reputation from players like Chris Harris and Gavin Larson, but they're mostly in the past now. Guys like Ross Taylor, Brendan McCullum, Lou Vincent, and Jacob Oram all have huge potential. I wish they hadn't given Bracewell another term, because he's brought the team backwards in a lot of ways, including driving away out best ODI batsman of the last 10 years.

Cairns had a wonderful career, but one couldn't help but think his Test batting average should have been at least 5-10 runs higher than it was. The same with Fleming and MacMillan, given their talent.

To be fair though, hardly anyone has a good batting average on NZ pitches. Fleming for example averages under 40 in tests overall, but over 45 in tests outside of New Zealand - and that's obviously on pitches that he's not used to. Mark Richardson's been our only batsman with a world-class average since probably Crowe, and he got it from grafting his arse off.

[IheartTesla]

When they asked Flintoff about Flecture they couldn't get him to say anything substanial, but vice versa and we get what seems to just pure hate.

I like Flintoff for the most part. Don't think there is any guile to him, while Fletcher seems a little more canny. A big part of his personality seems to be to apportion blame anywhere but with himself.

Of course, the loss in the Ashes was largely due to Fletcher's inflexibility, the inability of the Englishmen to adapt and lack of serious match practise and training leading up to the famous second slip wide. I hope his book doesnt try to paint a fairly genial person as the fall guy.

[Vestrit]

Seems like they're not going to feature it, but you can still listen back by just downloading the right time frame. They always have the last full week available in the audio bank.

What day and what time was it on? The thing is in 15 minute packages, so any help in narrowing it down would be greatly appreciated

[Jeor]

Atherton: Vestrit, you're right there. I guess the situation for Athers didn't really change. He went from being the best batsman in weak teams like Cambridge and Lancashire to being the best batsman in a poor England team. At the very start of his career he had Gooch, and at times during his career he had Alec Stewart and Graham Thorpe. But Stewart's career was made up of hot and cold patches, and his position in the batting order was constantly changing whether or not he was 'keeper. And Thorpe was enigmatic with his personal problems which sometimes affected his batting. I don't think there's any doubting Athers was the best batsman in England in his heyday and the most prized wicket of England's opponents (I think there's a statistic that he scored the most runs of any Test batsman in the world during the 1990s, outscoring Lara, Tendulkar and the Waugh twins). The weight of that responsibility, as well as his back problems curtailed any chance of seeing an attacking/stylish batsman, which he reputedly was quite capable of in his younger days.

New Zealand: True Rimmer, I guess the NZ pitches aren't always conducive to heavy scoring. I think part of the batting problem has been that NZ typically bats very low down the order, and has always had a phalanx of all-rounders at their disposal. This should theoretically mean that NZ averages should be quite high as the opportunities for partnerships continue throughout the entire innings, but I think the reverse happens, as batsmen decide that the next guy down can save their skin, resulting in a lack of responsibility (actually the opposite to the Atherton effect above, which means I just contradicted myself with my earlier NZ post...ah well ).

Fletcher: I don't think anyone's doubted that Fletcher's a real bastard. I think both Fletcher and Flintoff have come out badly. Everyone's known Flintoff's a big drinker, so it's probably no surprise he took a few benders Down Under, but to do that when you're the captain and there's a training session the next day is the most infantile decision he could have made. As to Fletcher, dumping the blame on his captain isn't a great idea either; he should have fired Flintoff on the spot for that and had the power to do so, but was too cowardly to pull the trigger. And let's not forget Fletcher was directly responsible for England's losses as well, having picked both Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles for no reason whatsoever at the start of the series. And as pointed out by Vestrit, going on about Trescothick is a complete betrayal. The guy's already had all the stories and details circulated around to humiliate him, this is just another boot into him.

[Rimmer]

What day and what time was it on? The thing is in 15 minute packages, so any help in narrowing it down would be greatly appreciated

Well according to my first post, ahem, about 11.15am Wednesday

[DemonKing]

I don't think there's any doubting Athers was the best batsman in England in his heyday and the most prized wicket of England's opponents (I think there's a statistic that he scored the most runs of any Test batsman in the world during the 1990s, outscoring Lara, Tendulkar and the Waugh twins).

That was actually Alec Stewart, if my memory serves.

Athers had his moments, but in the end his average doesn't really stand up against other contemporary players and the fact that his most celebrated innings was to hold out for a draw pretty much sums him up.

So who will the selector's go with for the 1st Aus vs SL test in the spin department - Hogg or McGill? McGill would be the favoured choice if form and fitness were equal but Hogg has been remarkably effective of late and definitely adds a bit more with the bat and in the field. Pity they're both 36 and there doesn't seem to be anyone coming up who is in the same league...

[Stubby]

So who will the selectors go with for the 1st Aus vs SL test in the spin department - Hogg or McGill?

My parochial (West Aussie) choice would be Hogg, so its hard to view it dispassionately. On form, its a clear choice for Hogg, but on record its a clear choice for McGill. Aussie selectors don't have a good record of reselecting on form so it will probably be McGill. I would be very happy to be proved wrong though.

[DemonKing]

My parochial (West Aussie) choice would be Hogg, so its hard to view it dispassionately. On form, its a clear choice for Hogg, but on record its a clear choice for McGill. Aussie selectors don't have a good record of reselecting on form so it will probably be McGill. I would be very happy to be proved wrong though.

Wasn't McGill originally from WA anyway? Doesn't seem like you can lose to me...

Incidentally found this interesting table on Cricinfo today:

Home records of teams in Tests since 2000

Team Tests Wins Losses Win-loss ratio

Australia 44 35 2 17.50

England 56 31 12 2.58

South Africa 42 25 10 2.50

Sri Lanka 42 24 10 2.40

India 32 14 7 2.00

Pakistan 30 14 8 1.75

New Zealand 29 11 10 1.10

West Indies 39 10 14 0.71

Zimbabwe 22 4 14 0.28

Bangladesh 23 1 19 0.05

My maths isn't great but this must be an intimidating stat for touring teams - the Aussies are almost 8 times better than any other team when it comes to Wins/Losses at home.

Looking forward to next week's game at the Gabbatoir - although probably won't see much as the in-laws are over from Germany and I'm not sure that they'll be too interested in an aspect of our culture that can involve sitting around in front of the box for 8 hours a day for 5 days straight with potentially no clear result...