Line and Length - Times Online - WBLG

Bodyline!!!

"Australia's writers showed their claws,
Her backers raged, her batsmen shook,
Statesmen consulted — and the cause?
Our bowling was too good to hook."

So wrote Douglas Jardine, the captain of the MCC team that toured Australia in 1932-33. Seventy-five years ago on Sunday, the most fascinating, most controversial, most ill-tempered cricket series began Down Under, yet it was notable for some fantastic cricket and some great stories of derring-do on both sides.

We like nostalgia here at The Times  (we are English after all - harking back to former glories is what we do best) and what started out as a humble suggestion from your blogger to the sports editor that it would be nice to mark the occasion with an article has morphed into a five-day series of features, beginning in Saturday's Times with CMJ's take on cricket's darkest hour, plus a timeline and lots of archive material.

That will be followed by John Woodock, former editor of Wisden, on Jardine on Monday; David Frith, the cricket historian, on Harold Larwood and Don Bradman on Tuesday; Murray Hedgcock, an Australian writer who was taught at school by the Aussie Bodyline captain Bill Woodfull, on Wednesday; and Simon Barnes on the whinging Aussies and Ben Macintyre on the diplomatic row to wrap it up. Plus lots of space-filling rambling from me.

But that's not all: a Bodyline podcast is already up and downloadable from this link. Hosted by Mark Chapman, of Radio 1, it features Hedgock, CMJ and yours truly and is a lot of fun.

And then, the coup de grace, we have exclusively got hold of Douglas Jardine's video diaries for the tour. Well, sort of. I co-wrote them and Jardine is played in a rather shorter, more Jewish way to how you would expect by the excellent comedian Andy Zaltzman. Nonetheless, we hope you find it fun and much of the dialogue, smutty jokes aside, comes from what was originally said or written 75 years ago. The first one is online now, with four more to follow from Monday. Enjoy - and let us know what you think of the whole shebang.

Zimbabwe beat Windies

I have mixed feelings about Zimbabwe beating West Indies in Harare today. The cricket lover in me, while weeping for further decline in the Caribbean, is delighted that the underdogs won. And it was a full team effort - the top seven Zimbabwe batsmen all made double figures and all the bowlers did their part. It even, for those who think Robert Mugabe is just a racist, had three whites in the XI. There are players such as Prosper Utseya and Stuart Matsikenyeri who are wonderful to watch.

And yet there is a worry that this will be seized on as proof of success by Mugabe. Never mind inflation running at 8,000 per cent (and that's the official figure) or that the UN says that one quarter of the Zimbabwe population need food handouts. Everything is fine in Uncle Bob's garden if the national team can win a cricket match. But why was it ok for West Indies to tour now if it was not "safe" for their A side to do so in the summer? Why are supermarket shelves empty if everything is hunky-dory? How can Zimbabweans say, without a trace of irony, that Mugabe has made them billionaires, as one woman was reported to say at a pro-Mugabe rally today, when the national budget is Z$7.8 quadrillion (that's 15 zeroes) and a loaf of bread, if you can find one, will set you back about Z$200,000 and yet it costs the baker Z$500,000 to produce it.

Zimbabwe is rotten. The ICC's failure to add to the political disapproval of the country and the Mugabe regime by barring sides from touring there is one of the most disappointing acts of mismanagement by the game's governing body.

A pledge to England

With the first Test match of England's winter season due to start in a few hours, it appears that England have one selection decision: do they go for the all-round skill and dogged scrappiness of Ravi Bopara at No 6 or do they go for the more established batting temperament of Owais Shah? This is a rare example of a selection decision that I have no firm opinion on. I see the merits of both sides. Unlike last winter's Ashes series - and so many more besides - when any eejit could see that Chris Read and Monty Panesar were the obvious choices, this is less clear-cut.

Therefore, I publicly pledge here and now that I will not utter one word of complaint about the person that England select. Let them have a full three Test matches, barring injury, to stake their claim and good luck to them. I will fully back the selectors' decision.

Unless the player is out for a duck or drops Sangakkara. Then I may moan a little.

Batty Boycott bans lunch breaks

Geoffrey Boycott has come up with a novel proposal (actually, it is not that novel, it was tried 30 years ago and didn't catch on). He wants an end to five-day Test cricket and instead for it to be played over four eight-hour days under floodlights, with matches starting at 2.30pm and ending about 10.30pm.

Boycott's argument is that South Africa and India are finding it hard to sell out Test matches "because people have jobs" and that the national boards ought to change when they stage matches to make it more attractive. Ignoring for a second the idea that cricket has hitherto only been for the idle or the unemployed - indeed, ignoring the fact that unemployment is at 30 per cent in South Africa, which surely should be enough to fill Newlands several times over - Boycott's idea is batty.

There are enough variables to unbalance a game already, such as the toss and the weather, without adding another complication in the form of batting under lights. I don't mind lights being used to extend a gloomy day by an hour or so, but he is talking about playing under the full glare of lights when the sky is pitch black. Would they suddenly swap to a white ball and coloured clothing when it gets dark?

But most importantly, if you start matches at 2.30 you get rid of the single most important reason to go to a cricket match: the luncheon interval. Bah.

Having a ball

The Australian media is hot on the heels of the scoundrel who made off with a cricket ball at the Bellerive Oval in Hobart a couple of weeks ago. Not just any ball, but the one that Adam Gilchrist hit for his 100th Test six, 12 more than the next best man (Lara).

A spectator got a picture of the man running away after picking up the ball and the papers have tracked him down to a Melbourne hospital. Apparently, his name is "John". Well, John, should you be reading this blog, don't be a pillock, give it back so that Gilchrist can put it on his mantlepiece next to his World Cup medals. Unlike in baseball, there is neither tradition nor any rule allowing spectators who gather a ball that has been hit for six to keep it. The ball still belongs to Cricket Australia and they want it back.

John has a chance to be the bigger man, to give the ball back, shake the hand of a great Australian cricketer and show that he is not a dill. Otherwise perhaps Gilchrist should send Roy Symonds and some of his pig-hunting buddies round to talk some sense into him.

Eight years on

There has been a fair bit of ridicule directed at Duncan Fletcher in the past couple of months, but today offers the chance to reflect on how far he brought England. On this day in 1999, Fletcher's first Test in charge of England ended in an innings defeat by South Africa in Johannesburg, cementing the country's hard-earned place as the worst of the Test-playing nations.

As far as good starts to an era go, England being four wickets down for two runs is sort of up there with the Titanic's maiden voyage, but Fletcher turned England round and even after the recent ups and downs they still sit in second place in the world rankings (although India could move above them if they win their series against Pakistan 3-0). A lot of good players were developed and structures put in place to help them to thrive. That Australia remain so far out in front of the pack is due to their strength not so much our weakness.

Fletcher was helped by having a stubborn captain in Nasser Hussain, who taught the team how to scrap for a draw, followed by a man who taught them how to win. This day in 1999 marked the end of Michael Vaughan's debut Test match and he has undeniably been one of Fletcher's great successes. Chris Adams and Gavin Hamilton were less of a wise pick.

Nel the destroyer

John McNamara emailed me yesterday to ask why I have not mentioned South Africa's last-ball ODI win on Sunday against New Zealand, particularly as Andre Nel, a frequent commenter on this blog, was the hero, scoring ten runs off five balls.

Well, John, I just didn't want to encourage him, but if Andre has something to say about it, here is his chance. Although why don't we hear from him about something else, such as the Springboks' chances against the Barbarians this weekend or his historical view, as a recent visitor to Zimbabwe, of the late Ian Smith?

John also asks whether Kyle Mills's return of five wickets for 25 runs was one of the best by a bowler on a losing side in an ODI. To which the answer is: it's the tenth-best analysis by a losing bowler. Imran Khan heads the list with six for 14 against India in 1985. Shame that Pakistan were skitted for 87.

Our friend Andre makes the list with a return of five for 45 that was not good enough to help South Africa to beat Bangladesh in the World Cup this year. Now that really was embarrassing.

The England team for the first Test

England's final (and, worryingly, their first) proper 11-a-side warm-up game for the Test series in Sri Lanka was an up-and-down affair. Yesterday, the scorecard made us look like such a bunch of Muppets that, following Marvan Atapattu's recent suggestion, I fully expected Michael Vaughan and Kevin Pietersen to be co-opted on to Sri Lanka's selection panel.

Then Hoggard did his usual Mr Dependable piece, assisted by Ravi Bopara, and the Sri Lankans were routed this morning for 81, leaving England less than 250 to chase in lots of time. No sweat (well, probably buckets of sweat, but you know what I mean).

So where does this leave things before the first Test, which starts on Saturday? Paul Collingwood, who was rested for this match, will return, leaving one space in the top six up for grabs between Bopara and Owais Shah. Both had good matches, Shah making 59 runs for once out, Bopara making 47 and 21 and adding three wickets in 21 overs. I'd say Bopara would be more useful, but then I have that Essex bias. Anyway, I quite like Shah, too. And he can bowl a bit of spin, but so can Vaughan and Pietersen. Arggh. This is why I'm not a selector. I'd pick both and drop Bell. Maybe.

"Ravi's had a good start to the trip, and he's an exciting cricketer," Vaughan said. "But Ace was out there at the end and that time in the middle will be invaluable for him." That may settle it. Once the captain has given someone a nickname, especially one as cool as Ace, he is in.

As for the bowling, well Hoggard, Sidebottom and Panesar are surely inked in. I think we need someone who can bat at No 8, so that is Anderson and Harmison out. No point picking someone who may not last five days, in any case. Poor old Harmison is bowling so poorly, back injury or not, that it is a wonder he is out there. As The Atheist writes on another blog: "Like mythical African diseases, he just gets worse the more you are exposed to him. I mean really. He's bollarks."

All of which leaves Stuart Broad or Graeme Swann as the man to, in the old language, "put his hand up and come to the party". I'd go for Broad, who has more chance of scoring 20-odd and taking four-for than Swann.

Rudd takes guard

Australia would never stomach a dour football-lover as their Prime Minister, so it goes without saying that, unlike Gordon Brown, the new Aussie PM must be a cricket fan. But what does Kevin Rudd have to say about the noble sport, given that John Howard was quite happy to spout his opinions from beating the Poms to Murali's action?

Not much, it seems. As opposition leader, he popped up four years ago to defend Henry Olonga and Andy Flower after their protest at the death of democracy in Zimbabwe. Rudd tried to get the Government to give Olonga a scholarship to play in - and possibly for - Australia. He has also spoken out in favour of Australia not touring Zimbabwe until Mugabe is deposed.

His constituency includes the Gabba cricket ground and Rudd has said that he was "an attacking batsman in backyard cricket" while a diplomat in China but that's about it. He was at least savvy enough not to allow the media to film him playing cricket, unlike Howard who found that footage of him failing to land a ball on the wicket became a favourite on YouTube. So if anyone does have any info on Rudd and cricket, let me know.

Aussies may be reassured by this statistic: under Labour governments they have won 2.2 times more Tests against England than they have lost, while under the Liberals or their forerunners the win ratio is only 1.3. The reverse is true for England where our national team have won the Ashes only four times under Labour (losing 13 series) compared with a 16-18 series record under the Conservatives. If Brown goes for an election in May 2009, people may feel that voting for David Cameron is the best chance of winning back the Ashes.

Australia reduced to second-best

A quick question: which is the most successful country in one-day internationals in 2007?

Those who got swayed by Australia winning the World Cup should hang their heads: Australia are only the second-best team in terms of win percentage this year.

The best, helped by beating Bermuda 3-0 in a series last month, are Kenya, who have won 13 of their 17 ODIs this year, a win percentage of 76.47 to Australia's mere 73.33. Even if Australia sweep New Zealand 3-0 next month, they will not be able to overtake Kenya. That CB Series defeat to England back in February proved crucial!

Cynics will observe that only two of those ODIs were against Test-level opponents (New Zealand and England) and that Kenya lost both of them handsomely, but you can only play the opponents put in front of you. What's more, it is nice to know that by some dubious abuse of statistics Australia can be prevented from winning all the crowing honours this year.

(Nod to Andrew Nixon's fascinating minnows bloggage for this straw-grabbing opportunity)