A very English cricket blog by Patrick Kidd. Subscribe to a feed of this Times Online blog at http://timesonline.typepad.com/line_and_length/rss.xml
« February 2008 |
Main
| April 2008 »
It's the last day of March, which means that it is time once again for Line and Length's Cricket Pillock of the Month competition. Jesse Ryder, the Kiwi opening batsman who missed the Test series after injuring himself breaking into a lavatory, was February's winner, attracting more than 500 votes from Naperville, Illinois, to Curitiba, Brazil, passing through Beijing, Hanoi and Taipei. If there is one thing that unites the world, it is a prize fool. Who will follow in his footsteps? Here are the contenders, have your vote. And remember to come back tomorrow for the Hero of the Month poll.
Mohammad Ashraful had a bad month. The Bangladesh captain began it by making 0 and 4 in two Test innings against South Africa, followed it with 8, 0 and 9 in three one-day innings against the same opponents and was then fined 25 per cent of his month's pay by his board for slapping a spectator who had told him he was rubbish.
The Colts Cricket Club in Sri Lanka, coached by former one-day great Romesh Kaluwitharana, lost a match after being penalised for time-wasting. Hardly created headlines across the world, but I found it interesting. The Moors, their opponents, were two runs shy of victory when the match was ended for bad light, then the umpires decided to give the Moors five penalty runs because the Colts had been wasting time, which turned a draw into a defeat. Full marks to the umpires for bravery.
Angus Fraser was booked for speeding by the New Zealand police during the recent Test series. Well, most of us have done that - even if we haven't been caught by a speed gun - so I can't criticise him too much, but it does give a chance to make a joke about it being nice that one England bowler topped 90mph during the tour.
Stephen Harmison was dropped from the England team after starting the New Zealand tour the way he always tends to start tours these days, spraying the ball around at 80mph and looking for all the world as if he didn't want to be there. Finished the Test with match figures of 1-121 and a fairly lucky one it was too. Were England right to drop him? Ninety-seven per cent of you thought they were.
The New Zealand Mat(t)hews, Bell and Sinclair, were walking wickets at the top of the order against England. Bell, the opener, had three ducks in six innings and only a final-gasp fifty brought him to the respectability of an average of 19.5; Sinclair, the No 4, got off the mark every time, which makes his average of 11.8 in six innings all the more remarkable.
Robert Ogilvie, a Brisbane man, decided to streak during the second Commonwealth Bank Series final between India and Australia and ended up poleaxed by Andrew Symonds. I'm not condemning him for streaking (you have to admire his balls, so to speak) but if you are going to run starkers at a cricketer, why pick on someone built like a brick dunny? Ogilvie did well to escape without a broken shoulder.
I wish I had been born in the 1950s rather than the mid-1970s then I might have been able to draw some parallels between the Kerry Packer Circus and the funfair that is the Indian Premier League. (Actually, I think my ideal time to have been born would have been 100 years ago, so I'd have had all the fun of being an adult in the 1930s and 1940s - the Blitz, Vera Lynn, the golden age of jazz, Bradman, wanton wartime shagging - with a relatively low chance of being sent into active combat, especially considering my eyesight).
Anyway. Among the things to have come out about the IPL this weekend was the news that Lord's and the Oval, and possibly other grounds, might stage exhibition matches for the IPL teams. This was reported by the world's media after an article in The Times yesterday, although to be fair the first whispers came two days earlier in a piece written in the Birmingham Post by George Dobell (I'll have a pint of Guinness, George).
It strikes me as odd that the ECB can bleat about the involvement of players from the rebel Indian Cricket League in county cricket, saying that they fear the endorsement of a competition that could threaten their monopoly here, and yet invite in the IPL to directly promote another country's tournament rather than our own Twenty20 Cup. Actually, it's not odd, just a sign of how desperate the ECB is to kiss up to the BCCI.
Why not make our Twenty20 competition better than the IPL's, rather than allow the IPL to make money over here? The Domestic Structure Review Group is considering its options and the results will be revealed in a couple of weeks. There have been calls for them to be radical, perhaps even to go for city-based franchises rather than the old counties, but if we brush aside the stardust of the "new" IPL, what is actually being planned in India that is so innovative?
It is the same basic competition as the Twenty20 Cup. There will still be three stumps, two batsmen at any one time and a small round ball. Many of the games will be under floodlights. There will be music and razzmatazz. Any other fripperies are irrelevant. The only difference is that the world's best players are competing in India and being paid stacks of money for it. Perhaps all the ECB needs to do is to remove the restrictions on overseas players over here and allow counties to strike business partnerships with the money men to sign the biggest names.
However, I have my own radical masterplan: first, instead of 20 overs a side, why not have an unlimited number (more is always better, right?); then, instead of having the match over and done with inside three hours, expand it to four or possibly five days; finally, and this is a good one, let each side have two chances to bat. It sounds revolutionary, but it might just work. I'd be happy with it, anyway.
I'm on Boat Race detail this week so my eye was off the cricket ball, so to speak, when our deputy books editor came over just now to tell me about Virender Sehwag's magnificent efforts today. At the end of the third day of India's Test with South Africa, Sehwag is on 309 not out off only 292 balls - easily the fastest triple hundred in history - and needs 92 tomorrow to beat Brian Lara's world record score.
How wonderful that when the rest of India is getting excited about cricket that can be condensed into two and a half hours, Sehwag should remind us of the thrill of building a big innings, even if he scored at Twenty20 pace. It's a perfect batting pitch and he must have just thought "why not, let's go for my shots", safe in the knowledge that the next batsman in could always play more cautiously. And to think that Sehwag's career looked over a year ago.
By batting so quickly, Sehwag has given India a chance of winning a dead game, too. At 468 for one, replying to South Africa's 540, and with two days to go, India can build a decent lead by the end of day 4 and maybe, just maybe, the pitch will start to crack up for the spinners. Fascinating. Give me a Test any day of the week.
 I'm sure that my Doosra colleague will have plenty to say about the India v South Africa series, which has reached the end of the second day of the first Test, but it is turning into a good old-fashioned sluggathon on what presumably is an ideal batting wicket in Madras.
I've only watched bits here and there of the match but there seems to be very little in the pitch to trouble the batsmen on either side. South Africa reached 540 and India are 81-0 at stumps. Unless it starts to break up a bit as the game goes on, this will probably be a high-scoring draw. India have picked only two seamers and Kumble and Harbhajan bowled 90 overs between them; it's a bit disappointing now that India are turning out some fine pace bowlers that they couldn't prepare a more lively pitch and pick Ishant Sharma or Zaheer Khan to bolster RP Singh and Sreesanth. It must be quite demoralising for the India spinners to have to run in for almost every other over knowing that there is little in the pitch to help them.
It doesn't appear that Gary Kirsten has yet been able to turn India into a decent fielding side. There were more than a few lapses that I saw, with fielders sliding over balls or diving too late and there was an amusing scene when Harbhajan and Sreesanth both went for the same high catch, only for Sreesanth to pull out and leave it to Harbhajan, who promptly gave his young team-mate a volley of abuse. However, if Twenty20 is to be the new god of Indian cricket, the players will soon learn that slapdash fielding is costly. The greatest impact of the Indian Premier League may not be the TV deals and salaries but that it turns India into a world-class fielding team, to go with their first-rate bowling and batting.
The Times can reveal exclusively (albeit with tongue in cheek) that Gudrav "Sammy" Patel, the American-based Indian-born trillionaire, is about to announce the World Premier League (WPL) in which franchised national teams will compete in five-day "Test" matches to be held at new purpose-built stadiums in China and the US for $1 million a match.
Click here to see how Christopher Martin-Jenkins rates the England players, based on their performances in New Zealand.
Meanwhile, Test cricket continues around the world. In Guyana, West Indies are battling heroically against Sri Lanka. Having struggled past the follow-on, West Indies are intriguingly poised at 96 for one at the start of the final day, having been set 437 in just under four sessions to win. Given the recent debate about when teams should declare, some may say that Sri Lanka have been generous, but if West Indies do reach the target (and with Gayle, Sarwan and Chanderpaul in the team it is possible) the achievement should not be underestimated.
A Test has also just started in Madras between India and South Africa, which I'm sure most readers have been looking forward to as much as I have. The XIs of both sides make the mouth water and while India will be the favourites, they may have to work hard to win the Tests. As things stand on the first day of the first Test, South Africa are 262 for three with some 20 overs still left in the day.
India and South Africa are playing a three-Test series, which sadly seems to be the norm these days. But if three Tests allow you to reasonably gauge who is the stronger team, surely it has to be the minimum length of a series between two of the big eight nations. The news that India have cut one of the three Tests that they were to play against England next winter is shocking and, I would suggest, something of an insult to England, who gave them three last summer (and that felt disappointingly short, too).
So much for all the toadying support the ECB has given the Indian cricket board recently over the ICL/IPL row. Yes, England may not be as much of a draw in India as Australia or some of the other more successful nations and, yes, one-day cricket is far more important to India than Tests (they've somehow managed to find room for seven one-day matches when England are there), and, yes again, other big nations have to put up with two-Test series from time to time. Even the Muralitharan-Warne Trophy this winter between Australia and Sri Lanka was only two Tests. But it seems such a pointless effort to go all that way for barely any warm-up games and two Tests and a bit of an insult.
It is the nature of the modern game, I know. And the Indian board blames the Champions Trophy in September, a tournament barely anyone wants, for eating into the calendar. And England are partly to blame because they don't want to be away over Christmas, the poor mites. I just feel that cricket has been shortchanged by the deal. England v India should be worth at least three Tests. So should Sri Lanka v Australia, Pakistan v South Africa or West Indies v New Zealand. Any less just doesn't feel right, like going out for dinner and leaving without dessert and coffee.
So England managed to take the five wickets they needed last night to ensure that they won the Napier Test and took the series 2-1. Well done to them, especially for fighting back after losing the first Test. Winning away from home is never easy either. But they made a meal of it last night as Tim Southee and Ross Taylor took New Zealand past 400. Heck, even Chris Martin made 5.
Some readers (Ann, say) may feel that this fully justifies Michael Vaughan's caution in batting on on the fourth day to get a lead of 550. We only won by 120 runs and so it was best to have the insurance in the bank. I'd suggest that it was having such a huge buffer that made England lose focus somewhat when they were bowling second time around. When they thought they were defending only 250 in the first inning, the bowling was sparky, aggressive and constantly probing. This time they had all the runs and time they needed, where was the urgency?
The large lead may also have encouraged the free-hitting from Southee in particular - 77 off 40 balls - at the end. The match was over, may as well have some post-lunch fun. It skewed the size of the win. If New Zealand were chasing 450, they would not have batted so carefree and England's tactics would have been tighter. Ann is right to say that it is Michael Vaughan's prerogative to declare when he wants, not some hack watching TV on the other side of the world. But I am worried that by pushing for a 550-run lead in the second innings, England betrayed their fear more than they showed their strength. If you don't feel confident about dictating the game to New Zealand when you are 500 runs ahead, you are in a state of weakness. Oh well, roll on the summer.
England duly completed a series victory over New Zealand in the early hours of this morning, winning the final Test in Hamilton by 121 runs, a margin that would have been far greater but for a stunning display of clean hitting by Tim Southee, the Black Caps’ teenage debutant, who also took five wickets in the first innings. Some future he has ahead of him. Ian Terence Botham, for instance, also claimed a five-for in his first Test innings, but could only manage a score of 25 with the bat.
The triumph underlined a marked turnaround in fortunes for Michael Vaughan’s side, having lost the first Test in Hamilton. Changes were made, which for the most part, worked out. But let us not delude ourselves – yet, at least – that this England team is the finished article and ready to give Australia a run for their money when our Antipodean enemies visit these shores in summer 2009.
New Zealand and South Africa are the touring sides this spring and summer and we thought it might be fun for you to have a go at being Geoff Miller, the national selector, for a day. Imagine you have a fully-fit squad to choose from, that Andrew Flintoff, for instance, has made a full and complete recovery from the fourth surgery on his troublesome ankle and that you have been put in sole charge of selecting the side to face New Zealand at Lord’s in the first Test starting on Thursday, May 17.
The rules are simple. You can pick one all-rounder and one wicketkeeper, five or six batsmen and three or four bowlers. If your arithmetic is impeccable your choices will add up to eleven good men and true. Unfortunately the voting system will allow you to have twelve players if you so wish, but we would ask you to stay within the spirit of the exercise.
Players available to you are all those who have been picked for an England Test squad since the Ashes tour to Australia last winter. Therefore, there is no Simon Jones, for instance, whose reverse swing and raw aggression would be a boon to any side. If you feel there are other omissions, then feel free to let us have it with both barrels at the bottom of this post.
Good hunting.
 So, this winter's cricket has just one day left to run (from an English perspective, that is, there is still West Indies' desperate crawl towards mediocrity against Sri Lanka and an enticing India v South Africa series round the corner). Five wickets are needed to allow English backs to be slapped and if the overall winter's results have been fairly poor, they are at least ending on a high.
A win would be a nice end to Christopher Martin-Jenkins's long career as a cricket correspondent after coming to The Times from The Daily Telegraph in 1999. Although CMJ will continue to write for us - he will no doubt be a permament cheerleader for Sussex's charge to another title - the baton as correspondent will be passed to Michael Atherton next month and this is his final Test. His gentle tones and dry wit will still be heard on Test Match Special, too, and while CMJ says he is retiring from full-time writing to devote more time to his golf handicap (he was given a putter by the Cricket Writers Club as a long-service present), he will no doubt be a frequent fixture in this paper for many years to come.
Personally, I'd like to thank him for his kind encouragement and occasional chidings (normally when I've subbed his copy and removed a joke) over the past few years. I first met CMJ a few years ago when I was working on this paper's property section rather than on sport. He wanted to sell his house and called in a favour with the property editor. Knowing that I liked cricket, the editor sent me down to CMJ Manor, where I spent an enjoyable hour talking far more about cricket than en-suite bathrooms. Thus began a move towards sports journalism, so I guess I have CMJ to thank. He sold the house on the back of my article, too, although the estate agent must have forgotten to pass on a percentage cut.
Another night, another intention to stay up watching the cricket until lunchtime and then give up and head off to bedfordshire. The first session of the fourth day began an hour ago with England more than 500 runs ahead of New Zealand yet, as was expected, they chose to bat on for a bit. Why? I mean, why? I'm sure the weather in Napier is hunkydory with barely a hint of any rain to come today or tomorrow, but why not avoid the risk and get New Zealand batting from the word Go?
Here comes the statty bit: 1) the highest score ever made batting last to win a Test is 418; 2) only six teams have chased more than 350 to win a Test batting last; 3) only one team has ever made more than 500 in the fourth innings of a Test and that was almost 70 years ago in a timeless match; 4) it's New Zealand, not Australia.
So the only reason for carrying on was to see if Andrew Strauss, on 173 overnight, could get to a maiden double hundred. (Personally, having decided to bat on anyway I'd have told Strauss to set his sights on Brian Lara's record innings of 400 - after all, two and a bit sessions will surely be enough to beat a side containing the two walking wickets of Mat(t)hews Bell and Sinclair). Naturally, Strauss went in the second over.
Then Tim Ambrose, who began the day with him, went cheaply too. Eager not to look a fool, Michael Vaughan kept the team batting on even longer, until the lead had passed 550. Sadly, in his keeness to use that as an excuse to declare Vaughan failed to notice that Stuart Broad was left high and dry on 92 career runs in Tests, just eight shy of reaching 100 (which would have been coincidentally in as many innings as it took his father). Would it have cost much to let the poor lad get to the pathetic landmark? Would it? Bah humbug, as the Easter bunny would say.
 Cricket = Action = Art is a blog that I've recently discovered and become quite a fan of. The author, Martyd (surely not Damien Martyn??), hails from New Zealand and describes himself as "taller than Sachin Tendulkar, better looking than Scotty Styris, younger than Jack Hobbs, more self-controlled than Jesse Ryder and more humble than Ricky Ponting".
He is also a darned fine manipulator of Photoshop, as this image of Ryan Sidebottom shows. In fact, Martyd does barely any writing, focusing his skills instead on taking regular photos of cricket and turning them into works of art. He's well worth a regular visit.
Incidentally, this blog will be two years old in a couple of weeks and it's about time for an update of the blogroll. Send me your suggestions for your favourite blogs and I'll probably do a list or something special to mark the occasion.
 Before this Test, I said that England needed at least a couple of batsmen to make hundreds if they were to not only win but produce a display worthy of a side that has pretensions on being one of the world's top two. Well, this match has now thrown up three centurions, with Ian Bell and Andrew Strauss following Kevin Pietersen's lead to take England into a position of such dominance that only bad weather or excessive caution about a declaration can prevent them from winning.
A lead of 501 is already more than enough, but no doubt England will fear that two days leaves New Zealand plenty of time to chase it and will bat on in tonight's morning session, perhaps long enough for Strauss to reach his first Test double hundred.
Strauss was batting for his career, there is no doubt about that after failing in the first two Tests of his unmerited recall. The New Zealand bowling, shorn of its most dangerous attacks in Shane Bond and Kyle Mills, was not the most testing opposition, but you still have to make the runs. Both Alastair Cook and Paul Collingwood got out after getting in, Strauss managed to keep his concentration going for a whole day. By doing so, he has earned the right to play in England's three home Tests against New Zealand this summer.
Bell also answered his critics by finally learning how to progress from 50 to 100. A career return of seven hundreds from the 25 times he has passed 50 is not good enough. Michael Vaughan, Strauss and Pietersen have all scored as many hundreds as fifties and Bell must set an aim of staying in once he is motoring.
The same thing could be said even more emphatically about Stephen Fleming. The former New Zealand captain has one last Test innings ahead of him and he needs it to be a big one (given the poor standard of batting of some of his team-mates, a triple hundred hogging the strike is probably the minimum requirement from the opener if New Zealand are to save the game). Fleming has passed 50 on 54 occasions for New Zealand - the next best is 35 - yet he has scored only nine hundreds, which seems extremely wasteful. He also needs to score 54 to end his career with an average of 40.
A couple of days ago, Johnmc left a comment on this blog asking whether 40 is still an acceptable benchmark for a batsman, which got me doing some number-crunching with the wonderful Cricinfo Statsguru. The results are in this morning's Times. Essentially, the answer, John, is yes and no. An unprecedented number of batsmen are averaging above 45 and 50 these days and in a list of everyone to have played ten Tests since Fleming made his debut in 1994, an average of only 40 would earn him 59th place on the list. Yet there are far more people playing these days and as a percentage of the total number of batsmen, an average of 40 places you in the top 19 per cent - a few notches better than it was in the 1990s. Anyway, read the geekery here.
 Fascinating, simply fascinating. You can keep your Twenty20 bashathons; nothing beats a good Test match for excitement and twists and turns. When I went to bed last night, giving up on England just after lunch for the second night, New Zealand were 110 for two and well on their way to overhauling England's modest effort of 253. By this morning, England were in command of the game.
From 110 for two, it became 119 for five and then 168 all out. England headed steadily towards 91 for two by the close, a healthy lead opening up, although you have to assume England will need to get past 250 to be sure of winning this. There is plenty of time left in the game and the pitch does not appear dangerous. The collapses in both innings have been caused by a mixture of fine bowling and dim batting.
Ryan Sidebottom collected England's first seven-for since Stephen Harmison in Jamaica four years ago and racked up his 50th wicket in his thirteenth Test. He has got to the landmark as quickly as Michael Holding, Imran Khan, Ray Lindwall and Harmison, among others, but some way slower than Charlie Turner, who got there in six matches in the 19th century.
Sidebottom has become invaluable to England's chances, having been recalled to the side only last summer after a six-year wait. He combines control with aggressive pace and, now allied with a reliable wicketkeeper, his swing will get him lots of wickets in the right conditions. The only worry is that England will bowl him into the ground: he bowled unchanged for the entire afternoon session yesterday, which is surely not ideal.
 Hmmm. Well, I said that someone needed, in the old language of the Fletcher regime, "to put their hand up and come to the party" and Kevin Pietersen certainly did that with his eleventh Test hundred. Coming in to bat at four for two - with a third wicket to fall three balls later - is never easy but Pietersen played both responsibly and with some of his old flair. Almost singlehandedly he has given England a chance in this game. I'm afraid I gave up at lunchtime when England were 58 for four - to quote a friend, I collapsed shortly after England did.
Great batting from Stuart Broad as well, who is on 42 not out overnight and is justifying selection as a No 8. Ryan Sidebottom can bat a bit and if these two can somehow add another 50 runs then England will almost have hit respectability. We shouldn't expect too much support with the bat from James Anderson and Monty Panesar.
All praise to Tim Southee for a wonderful debut spell of bowling, but England played some dumb shots, and none dumber than Ian Bell's "here you go" catching practice return catch to Grant Elliott, another debutant. Yet still the top order for some reason looks solid on paper. It reminds me of the bad old days in the early 1990s, when the England top six of Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Hick, Smith, Lamb also seemed on paper to be the best side we could put out, yet repeatedly did little more than nurture a Test average of about 40.
I wonder what changes could be made? Dare I say that a return to another player from the 1990s might be the answer? No, not Mark Lathwell but Mark Ramprakash. Yes, he has failed repeatedly for England and many would say that his nine lives have gone, but he has done something astounding on the county circuit for the past two seasons. Only six men have averaged 100 over an English domestic season and he has done it twice on the trot. Should the "Ramps for England" campaign start now?
 There was a fascinating interview during the luncheon break of last night's Test match when David Gower grilled Giles Clarke, the chairman of the ECB. Normally an interview from Gower is, to quote Denis Healey on Geoffrey Howe's interrogation skills, "like being savaged by a dead sheep", but Gower actually laid into Clarke over the ECB's wrangling with the Indian Cricket League (you all know the story, but click here and here for a refresher). It was all the more impressively unsubservient given that Gower owes his salary to Clarke, as the man who negotiated the sale of England TV rights to Sky.
It wasn't quite Paxmanesque, but Gower's probing, to my eye, had Clarke flapping and angry. At least Clarke admitted that the main reason for banning ICL players from the English domestic competition was out of fear that a rebel competition could be set up in this country, but he still did not explain why he feared such competition. For a man who made his millions selling wine, turning Majestic into a big force by innovative pricing and selling techniques, I am surprised that he does not relish using the dominant position of the ECB to crush any upstarts by the quality of his product rather than by threats and bans.
Despite my gibes, I think the ECB generally does a good job. They run some attractive competitions, they develop the grassroots well and, as Clarke pointed out, have overseen a 900 per cent growth in the numbers of women and girls playing cricket over the past ten years, which has led to England women becoming the best in the world. The men are some way off being that, but generally the game in England is in good health thanks to the ECB.
I just don't understand why they feel that a putative rival Twenty20 competition (which would not be able to use the leading cricket grounds in this country as a base) would be such a threat. Surely anything that introduces more people, especially children, to cricket is a good thing. When their attention is grasped, the ECB will be there to offer a more attractive form of the game to them.
For those who just want a Twenty20 fix, the ECB is taking steps to improve the attractiveness of their own product (it's a shame that, having invented the shorter game, they had to be prodded into this by the Indians), with more night games and more overseas players mooted. With that going on, I find it hard to understand how a rebel league from a low starting point could flourish.
Happy Good Friday to you all. In a couple of hours, the final match of England's winter gets under way. It's been a pretty awful winter all round and they could do with a convincing win in Napier to snatch the series and head into the summer in good spirits.
Things are looking up with the news that Kyle Mills and Jacob Oram are both injured for New Zealand, but England should simply look to their own problems. They may have won the second Test but the match raised far more questions than answers (the answers being that Tim Ambrose looks a decent batsman and keeper - let's put that missed stumping in the past; and that James Anderson and Stuart Broad look good replacements for Stephen Harmison and Matthew Hoggard).
I'm still concerned about the following, however:
 1) Having done nothing to justify his recall to the team, Andrew Strauss remains unfulfilled at No 3. Two scores in the forties and two in single figures this series do not suggest that he deserves his place back. His career average, which was above 50 at the end of the 2005 Ashes (after 19 Tests) is now, 26 Tests later, bang on 40. He will no doubt play today, but Owais Shah must wonder what he has done wrong, after scoring 90-odd in the warm-up match on this tour.
2) Kevin Pietersen is going through a shocking run of form. No score of more than 45 for his past ten innings and an average that has now dipped well below the 50 mark that he should be aiming for. Is he undroppable? Probably more than anyone, but if this drought continues through the first part of the summer then people will be very worried.
3) The rest of the batting, frankly. Michael Vaughan has scored three fifties and no hundreds in his past 12 innings; Ian Bell hasn't scored a hundred for 11 matches; Paul Collingwood scored two fifties in the last Test but has not reached three figures for 9 matches; even Alastair Cook has, on this tour at least, developed the knack of getting in and then getting out. Someone needs to grab the game by the scruff of the neck. It's meant to be a good batting wicket in Napier, so we need two men to make hundreds.
4) And what about Monty? He's pootering along, but not setting the world alight. One wicket in the last Test, two in the last two in Sri Lanka. Hopefully the conditions will enable him to get a bit more spring in his step.
Sorry to sound so negative, but we must not let one Test win against an opposition that barely competed make us complacent. The talent is there, but nurturing a batting average of 40 or going through the motions with the ball should not be good enough. Fingers crossed for a fine opening day and a bit of hat-eating tomorrow.
Well no one can accuse the ECB of being lily-livered and failing to carry out their threats (not today, anyway). A terse email has come out this afternoon from Colin Gibson, the former journalist turned head of press at the ECB, saying that five players involved in the "rebel" Indian Cricket League have applied for registration to play for their counties this summer and the ECB has stamped a big black "rejected" sign over the applications and put them in the bin.
 The bad boys are Wavell Hinds (Derbyshire, left), Johan van der Wath and Andrew Hall (Northants), Justin Kemp (Kent) and Hamish Marshall (Gloucs). Well, they can't say they weren't warned. At least the ECB did us the courtesy of putting out the news at a decent hour, rather than 10.30pm on a Friday, like they did the last time.
I've made my opinion on this clear before and there is no point going over old ground. It is the ECB's prerogative to say who can and cannot play in their competitions, but the players surely have the right to free trade when they are out of contract. There is a slight complication here as the ECB can claim that they are acting under a rule that bans players from competing as Kolpak signings (ie, not being part of an overseas quota) if they have played for their country in the past 12 months, but as we saw last season with Jacques Rudolph, who merely said that he had no intention ever to play for South Africa again when signing for Yorkshire as a Kolpak, there is a precedent for the rule being waived.
It seems ironic that the Indian Premier League, which clashes with the start of the county season and is keeping several leading players away from the paying public until June, is regarded as not being harmful for English cricket, while the ICL, which happens on the players' own time in the off-season, is bad. Obviously it has everything to do with the financial power of the Indian cricket board, which is backing the IPL and has such little faith in the quality of their own product that they fear competition.
It is illuminating to draw a comparison with the Stanford Twenty20, which was set up by an American businessman in 2005 as a direct challenger to the West Indies Cricket Board and its tired approach to running the game in the Caribbean. No one got uppity about this rebel tournament. No West Indians who competed in it were banned from playing for their national side or for other competitions, although the principle of it being "unofficial" was surely the same. In time, the Stanford enterprise was seen as a good thing, re-energising appetites for the game in the West Indies. Late last year, the WICB struck a deal with Stanford to incorporate the competition into the domestic calendar. If the ICL likewise proves a success, why shouldn't it be welcomed? And if it is not a success, let it wither. Just play fair, BCCI.
See this is why I hate taking a holiday. Go away for a few days and suddenly the cricket newswires go berserk. England win a Test match, Andrew Flintoff takes two wickets in an over on his return for Lancashire and the ICC starts spraying forth pronouncements on the game. More on the first two in time, but here is my tuppence-worth on the various ICC decisions.
 Darrell Hair will be reinstated to umpire in top-flight matches. This is a good thing. Whatever people's views of Hair being undiplomatic and heavy-handed, there has been little credible suggestion that he is a bad umpire. In fact, as was revealed in his employment tribunal against the ICC last autumn, Hair has repeatedly been rated as one of the best three umpires in the world. He has a certain knack at attracting trouble, it is true, and he has been sent on a course by the ICC to remedy flaws in his communications skills, but there is no substance to allegations that he is biased against certain nations (just ask Craig McDermott, the Australia No 11 whom Hair gave out at Adelaide in 1993 when Australia needed two runs to beat West Indies).
In any case, the ICC was on rocky ground legally if it had not continued his contract. He would have had fair grounds for suing the body for victimisation after dropping his racial discrimination case. It has emerged that Hair will not be allowed to stand in matches involving Pakistan. This is probably a good thing. Too much bad blood has flown to make his job safe and it is probably best that the ICC do not inflame tension by sending him to officiate in games where the players and crowd, even if wrongly, assume he is biased. It would be better if his lack of involvement with Pakistan had not been made explicit – rather, he should have just not been sent to cover their games – and the ICC should make it clear that it will not be dictated to by the nations, but common sense has to play a part.
When Inzamam-ul-Haq says that he is "disgusted" at Hair's reinstatement, the former Pakistan captain may wish to consider that Hair abandoned the Oval Test in 2006 because Inzamam refused to play, not for any other reason. If umpires need to be more tactful, international captains need to understand their obligations to the game and the paying spectators. Inzamam failed in that. He may also want to go back and re-read the comments he made in the official captains' reports on previous matches in which Hair had stood. As revealed in Hair's tribunal, Inzmam had regularly praised the Australian for the way he handled games.
What will be interesting is to see what happens in a year's time, when Hair's contract expires. The ICC will have few legal barriers to dropping him, should the body choose, but no doubt Hair has been advised to keep his nose clean, stay out of trouble and keep doing a good job. If he is again rated as one of the best officials, would the ICC, even if under great pressure from Pakistan, dare to drop him?
In another umpire-related development, the ICC wants to trial player referrals during this summer's series between England and South Africa. Fair enough, give the scheme, which allows captains to send a contentious decision to the TV umpire, a go. But the ECB tried a similar experiment in England last year and it was abandoned. Players didn't like it, umpires hated it and the crowds felt it held up matches.
What else? Well, the ICC has given its firm backing to the Indian Premier League, as it had to, but has been equally firm in saying that the Twenty20 league can not ride roughshod over existing international agreements and that the Future Tours Programme remains sacrosanct. This is also a good thing, but disappointingly, there was no official pronouncement on the Indian Cricket League, the "rebel" competition that is being played at the moment. The ICC has insisted that the IPL adopt approved anti-corruption and anti-doping policies, but assistance in offering this to the ICL, to make arguments against it less effective, should also have been agreed.
Zimbabwe has been audited by KPMG and despite there being "serious financial irregularities", the auditors found no evidence of criminality. This has been met with dismay and resignation in many quarters – although, let's face it, many bodies have serious financial irregularities. After all, the EU's accounts have not been signed off for the past 13 years. But it seems clear that, for more reasons than the ICC has jurisdiction, Zimbabwe's finances are in a terrible state. Many fear that the ICC handouts are not going towards developing the grassroots of the game in the country or supporting existing structures. It would have been nice to have learnt the ICC's latest stance on Zimabwe's position within international cricket, too. This leads neatly to…
 The 2011 World Cup will be cut to 14 teams, ten of whom will qualify automatically as leading nations, plus four associate members. Zimbabwe will automatically be entitled to compete at the World Cup, yet this is largely based on the competitive state of their country nine years ago. There is no suggestion that Zimbabwe are good enough – or will be in three years time – to be rated in the world's top 10. They are already below Ireland in the world rankings. If Ireland remain ahead, they should earn an automatic place.
Bill Brown, the oldest Australia Test cricketer, died today aged 95. Below is a string Patrick Kidd posted a month ago about Brown and a bygone age...
If you have a spare 15 minutes, I strongly recommend reading Peter English's interview with Bill Brown, one of the five surviving members of Australia's 1948 "Invincibles" and, at the age of 95, almost the oldest surviving Test cricketer.
There is something about that dwindling generation that captivates me and a fair part of that is wistful remembrance of my own grandfather, who died two years ago this month at the age of 90. The struggles and sacrifices that they had to make, the poverty, the war and the decency, the optimism despite there being so many reasons to be glum. It reminds me how fortunate - and how unappreciative - we can be today.
Brown ended his Test career with a batting average higher than Justin Langer and Michael Clarke. I wonder what Brown, who ran a sports shop in Brisbane after retiring in 1948, makes of the sums that were paid last week for the latest generation of cricketers. Or what he thinks of Twenty20, given that he belonged to the day when opening batsmen's main job was to bat beyond lunch on the first day. "The pace we scored at didn't matter a darn," he tells English, adding a comment of his wife that "you could always tell when I was batting by the number of people leaving the ground".
Sounds dull? Consider this: in 1938, Brown played in the world's first televised Test match and carried his bat for an unbeaten 206. If they had been bidding for cricketers then, he would have been one of the most in demand.
As I'm technically on holiday and only have brief access to a computer, I'll be quick. Use this as a forum to discuss day 1 of the second Test in Wellington. It seems the main talking point will be Tim Ambrose, who after a fifty in his first Test innings for England is nearing a hundred in his third, 97 not out overnight. Is he the Messiah?
Well, maybe, but let's not rush to put pressure on the bloke. Just remember that both Geraint Jones and Matt Prior started their Test careers with an early hundred. The most important thing for Ambrose - indeed for any wicketkeeper - is that he fields well. Certainly there seem to be few problems there at the moment. Maybe he will develop into the wicketkeeper-batsmen we need (don't mention the G word), but give him time. What he has earned is a prolonged spell in the team. Let's leave the hype until he's played a few more Tests.
Also, don't use Ambrose's innings, and his partnership of 155 with Collingwood, to mask the fact that yet again England's top order, especially Strauss and Pietersen, failed. It's great to have someone at No 7 who can bat, but he should be coming out when the score is 300, not 150.
You have to feel sorry for Andre Nel (yes really - well, he has been a good client of this blog). Yesterday he should have been celebrating after being made man of the match for his four for 27, admittedly only against Bangladesh. Yet the same day he was dropped from South Africa's tour party to India, ostensibly because of the colour quota. And the poor mite doesn't even have a lucrative IPL contract to comfort him. It seems rough on a bowler who, for all his faults, has never lacked heart and would surely have had a role to play in India. There will always be a nets space for you at Chelmsford, Andre.
 Well, Peter Moores has cojones. Stephen Harmison and Matthew Hoggard have been dropped for the second Test, starting tonight, with Stuart Broad and James Anderson coming in. It is a great opportunity for both to make a claim to be one of the strike bowlers for the next couple of years (Ryan Sidebottom has surely demanded the right to have the new ball). Injuries permitting, both should now be given a run in the team.
Broad excites me and he can bat quite well too. Anderson worries me a bit, in the same way that Harmison does. He clearly has talent but too often he has been known to spray the ball around a bit. He must learn to control his bowling, even if it means the expense of some pace. As one commenter on this blog wrote, people like Pollock and McGrath didn't become the best bowlers in the world through pace - tho it helped. It was their superb reliable accuracy.
Apparently it will be a lively wicket in Wellington, so now's the chance for these two young bowlers to show that they can get up the noses, perhaps literally, of New Zealand's batsmen. If England lose, that will be three series losses in a row and we haven't done that for getting on for nine years.
Enjoy the Test. I'm actually going to be away for a few days in France, where I imagine it will be tricky to find a bar showing the match. Hopefully by the time I come back, England will be all-square in the series thanks to a pair of hundreds from Alastair Cook.
Feel free to comment away between yourselves on anything that springs to mind. I'll try to find someone to moderate the comments while I'm off. But remember the new policy: no anonymous trolls. In response to one comment yesterday that I didn't publish, I am not censoring you, just do me the courtesy of leaving a real email address, even if you post under a pseudonym. The main newspaper doesn't publish letters from people who don't give their details, I don't see why I should either.
It wasn't a huge surprise that Stephen Harmison was dropped for the second Test against New Zealand in Wellington, which begins tonight. His form since the 2005 Ashes has been inconsistent at best, woeful at worst.
But Matthew Hoggard as well? Is this wise? He had a poor first innings against the Kiwis in the first innings in Hamilton but picked up his game in the second. Hoggard has been one of England's most reliable performers for years. Doesn't he deserve another match to get it right? Is now the time to try a brand new pace attack of Stuart Broad and James Anderson?
Should England have dropped Harmison and Hoggard? Vote now and leave your comments below.
I know this is a cricket blog, but let's talk about rugby for a little while. Those who saw England's defeat to Scotland on Saturday will remember the ghastly lack of creativity from the World Cup finalists, the stultifying fear of failure that inhibited them, the sheer negativity at every phase of the game, the endless kicking away of possession, as if holding on to the ball was somehow a bad thing. Scotland had to do little more than kick their points to win the game.
 Today, Brian Ashton, the England head coach, has responded to the dismal display with a simple, ruthless change to his team to play Ireland this weekend. Just one change, but a brave one. He has dropped the man who won England the World Cup in 2003, the man who on Saturday did at least manage to make the kick that made him rugby's highest points-scorer. Undroppable Jonny. Gone.
It would be wrong and naïve to blame Jonny Wilkinson alone for the way that England played at the weekend, in just the same way as it is wrong and naïve to give him all the plaudits for the 2003 World Cup win. There were many heroes that day in November: Martin Johnson, Matt Dawson, the entire back row. And almost the entire team failed at their jobs last Saturday. In hindsight, it was an excellent game for Danny Cipriani to miss.
By dropping Wilkinson, Ashton sent out a strong message to his team: reputation counts for nothing. Form is temporary, class is permanent - but don't bank on class being enough to get you in the side for Saturday. Relying on class over form was Dunccan Fletcher's biggest failure as England head coach. He thought that simply by winning the Ashes in 2005, the same men were the right candidates in 2006-07.
A lot of us had awkward feelings about the MBEs and Trafalgar Square parades after the 2005 Ashes. Yes, well done to this team for a heroic effort, but it looked a bit too much like they regarded it as job done. There was no sign of building for the future. The England rugby team had gongs and parades in 2003, but then this was a final farewell for many of them. Johnson, Dawson, Neil Back, Jason Leonard, Will Greenwood and Trevor Woodman were all retired pretty soon afterwards. Fletcher thought he could win the next Ashes with the same 12 men (injuries excepted). This ignored the fact that on form, Geraint Jones was not playing as well as Chris Read and Monty Panesar had spun his way past Ashley Giles. It also meant that Stephen Harmison was given the new ball for such a crucial series despite being low on confidence.
Never mind that Harmison had played only one good match for England between the Oval Test in 2005 and getting on the plane to Australia 18 months later. He had given a hint of what he could do on a bouncy pitch at Old Trafford against Pakistan and that was good enough for Fletcher. Sadly, Australia
didn’t produce a hard, bouncy pitch at Brisbane. It seems that Harmison can only excel on certain tracks these days, so why persist with him on all pitches? After all, if Australia could drop Stuart Macgill for so many Tests simply because the wicket did not suit playing two spinners, why should Harmison not be kept back purely for when the situation demands?
 Peter Moores, the present head coach, needs to thank Harmison for all his hard work – and I don't think anyone could say that he has not be trying, he simply doesn't have "it" any more – and let him step back. Harmison without a 90mph throat ball is not Harmison, no more than Wilkinson (who again was trying as hard as ever on Saturday) is Wilkinson without an accurate kicking game.
Both may yet rise again, of course. (For all I know, Wilkinson will come off the bench on Saturday and kick four dropped goals.) Wilkinson is only 28, he could have another World Cup in him; Harmison is a year older and could play another 30 Tests. But they have to deserve it. Wilkinson cannot keep on living off "that kick" in 2003; Harmison needs more than videotapes of Jamaica '04, Lord's '05 and Old Trafford '06.
Harmison is not the only one who needs reminding that a starting place is not guaranteed. Vaughan, Strauss, Hoggard, perhaps even Pietersen, all need to remember that the way they play now is what counts, not those heroics at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge. I don't want to seem ungrateful, they have performed brilliantly for England and everyone is very proud of them, but don't let a glorious reputation be tarnished by raging against the dying of the light.
Have England been watching this coaching video by Kazakhstan's leading TV presenter? It may explain something. What it doesn't explain is why Borat is apparently being subtitled in Swedish. The wonders of YouTube, eh?
 Not the best of Saturdays for English sports fans then (apart from those who like the romance of the FA Cup). After watching a dire rugby match in which England showed no trace of creativity against a Scotland that had no desire to do much more than defend - and did so brilliantly - I turned on the TV later in the hope that the cricket team might show more desire. At 30 for four in the twelfth over, I decided that Gosford Park would be a better watch.
Much criticism has been made of the bowling - the majestic Sidebottom excepted - and it is true that Harmison looks gone (though my heart bleeds for him), while Hoggard and Panesar are no better than so-so. I hope that the latter two rediscover their greatness in the second Test. Broad must come in for Harmison, surely.
Yet it is England's batting that is the greater cause for concern. In making 110 last night - and they only reached three figures thanks to a stand of 33 for the last wicket - they continued a trend going back to the start of the last Ashes series, when they made 157 in the first innings in Brisbane. In the 16 Tests since the start of that series, England have passed 400 only three times (and they lost one and drew one of those matches) and have been bowled out for under 200 eight times. The Hamilton debacle came one Test after being bowled out for 81 in Galle. England have a good top order on paper, but they rarely show off their skills.
In criticising England, it would be wrong to ignore praise for New Zealand. Kyle Mills took the first four wickets to fall last night through the simple virtues of bowling a good line and length with a bit of swing; Daniel Vettori captained and bowled well; Chris Martin is a fine strike bowler and of the other players only Matthew Bell and Mathew Sinclair did not play a part in the win. New Zealand may not look like much on paper but they have discovered the knack of playing as a team.
Mills is the only survivor in international cricket of the New Zealand side that reached the final of the Under-19 World Cup exactly ten years ago. Hamish Marshall, Lou Vincent and James Franklin, his team-mates then, have now retired after good Test careers. England beat New Zealand in that Under-19 final, yet barely any of the team went on to play top-level cricket. Perhaps as their first change to try and rescue this series England should recall that day's captain, Owais Shah. The question is: who do they drop? Each of the top seven had one score above 35 and one flop (Cook and Bell were the only ones to reach double figures twice and no one made more than 66). When everyone is being mediocre, it is hard to know which one should be sacrificed.
Still, we fielded rather well. What is it they say about catches winning matches?
 Gosh. Have we suddenly moved from a position of supine weakness to the possibility of winning the first Test after Ryan Sidebottom's hat-trick? Well, no. Actually, by ensuring that New Zealand ended the fourth day with eight wickets down instead of five or six, Sidebottom may have made it more likely that England will lose.
I hope not, of course, and wish to take nothing away from Sidebottom's feat. Taking wickets is always better than not taking them. But given the weakness of New Zealand's final two batsmen, chances are they will not delay the end of the innings long tomorrow, which means that England will have more time to chase a target to win - but also New Zealand will have longer than they may have planned to take ten wickets. If they were only five or six down, chances are that they would have batted on for an hour tomorrow, which would have increased the chance of a draw. Incidentally, the highest winning score at Hamilton by a side batting last is 212.
Anyway, first things first. Let us assume that England are batting pretty early tomorrow, chasing 280, say, to win in 85 overs. Or a bit more than 3 an over. How will they approach it? Will that old enemy - fear - raise its head again and constrict their batting? If there was a time for Kevin Pietersen to come out to bat at No 4 and play aggressively, this would be it. Chance your arm, boys, and don't just settle for a draw.
Praise is due to Sidebottom, though, who has become England's most valuable bowler in the past year. The man who deserves much of the credit for Sidebottom's revival after that fruitless debut Test seven years ago was his county captain at Notts, Stephen Fleming, who was the first victim in his hat-trick. Many congratulations to Tim Ambrose, too. A fifty in your first innings is not a bad way to state that you are the wicketkeeper-batsmen England craves. Mind you, Matt Prior started well with the bat, too. Glovework is still the most important skill - and so far Ambrose looks a competent keeper.
One of the many rules I learnt during a former career in Westminster - and have since seen reinforced in journalism - is that if you want to bury a bad policy, there is little better way than sticking out a press release at 10.30pm on a Friday. Far too late for the Saturday press to do much with it and chances are the Sundays will ignore it in the morning rush. So it was with scepticism and gloom that I read the following sent out by the ECB barely an hour ago, which I print in its entirety and rebut underneath.
"The ECB today announces that it is taking immediate steps to deal with the threat posed by events which are not authorised by the ICC and its members (“unauthorised events”). The ECB believes that the steps are necessary for the protection of the organisation and administration of the game in England and Wales, primarily for the reasons communicated by the ECB to the Chief Executives of the Counties, the MCC and the PCA on 1 November 2007.
"The steps are as follows: The Regulations Governing the Qualification and Registration of Cricketers (“the Regulations”) will be amended with immediate effect to provide, amongst other things, that a cricketer who has played in an unauthorised event in the 12 months leading up to 1 April in any given year will not qualify for registration. Although the ECB has discretion to waive non-compliance with its registration requirements, the policy of the ECB from now on will be to decline to exercise its discretion in favour of cricketers who have played in unauthorised events, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
"In addition, the Regulations will now provide that, once registered with the ECB, a cricketer will be disqualified if he plays in an unauthorised event. The ECB will not exercise its discretion in his favour, save in the most exceptional circumstances. In respect of cricketers who are already registered with the ECB, and who have already contracted with an unauthorised event, the ECB has been advised that no action should be taken against them. The ECB understands that this affects only a handful of cricketers. However, in respect of future contracts which any cricketer enters into with unauthorised events, the amended Regulations will apply.
"In relation to an overseas cricketer (termed an “Unqualified Cricketer” under the Regulations), there has long been a requirement that a County wishing to register such a cricketer obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the Governing Body of the country for which such cricketer is qualified to play Test cricket. This is consistent with ICC policy. Without an NOC a cricketer is not entitled to registration under the Regulations. The ECB will not exercise its discretion in favour of a cricketer who has contracted with an unauthorised event, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
"The ECB has taken legal advice from Leading and Junior Counsel and Slaughter and May in respect of the above steps. The ECB is satisfied that its response is lawful, robust and proportionate in the face of the challenges presented by unauthorised events."
All clear? The response of the players' unions will be interesting as this appears to be a restraint of trade for any cricketers who play in a non ICC-sanctioned event. Whatever the ECB's legal advice, there are plenty of employment lawyers out there who think this could be thrown out by the courts should any player challenge it. The TCCB and ICC tried to do this in the 1970s over Kerry Packer and lost. The World Series players were still allowed to play in county cricket. Likewise, the apartheid rebels were not banned from playing in England (and indeed were allowed to play for England after a suitable guilt period).
This, we suspect, is all to do with the Indian Cricket League, which by coincidence starts a second tournament in barely 24 hours. The ECB hopes that this late act of defiance may make certain players think twice before playing unless they already have a no-objection certificate from their national board. However, what it really shows is the cowardice and weakness of the ECB, desperate not to get on the wrong side of the BCCI, the biggest force in world cricket. The BCCI controls the "official" Indian Premier League and does not relish the competition. Understandable because of the money tied up in the IPL, but it doesn't say much for their faith that the quality of the IPL's cricket will be more attractive to the public.
Nor does it say much for the ECB's faith that their own product - the county championship, Twenty20 Cup and so on - can win over paying punters in this country. There has been a lot of rubbish from the ECB about how this tough stance is for the good of the game because the ICL does not invest its money into the grass roots and because it does not follow the ICC anti-doping and anti-corruption policies. Ignoring the number of match-fixing scandals to have happened on the ICC's watch, the reason why the ICL has no policy is because the ICC has shown no interest in working with it to implement one. As for investing in the grass roots, if the ICL offered to channel part of its funds into the school or state system would it be allowed to by the body that already controls the funding?
The real reason, I suspect, that the ECB is so opposed to the ICL is because it fears it could expand and set up a competition in this country during our domestic season. Let's face it, if some international or England players choose to play a tournament in India during the English off-season it will have no impact on the game over here, no more than if they played state cricket in Australia or got a job selling Christmas trees. The threat comes if the ICL creates a direct competition to the ECB's products. If it did, I have every confidence that the events the ECB stages would be more attractive in the long run than some meaningless hit and giggle diversion. Clearly the ECB has less faith in what it promotes - and is not prepared to introduce the changes (such as allowing counties to sign more overseas players in the Twenty20 Cup, as advocated by Rod Bransgrove, the Hampshire chairman) that would make its product more impressive.
The ECB also seems keen on creating a top level of a very few super-rich cricketers, which does not suggest that it cares about the majority of English players. Do the maths: with eight teams in the IPL and only a maximum of eight foreign players allowed per team, the chances are that no more than a dozen English players will be involved. That means that other just as talented players will be denied the right to earn a boost to their incomes by other means. It will create a gulf between the haves and have nots.
Personally, I care not a fig about either the IPL or the ICL. Both are frivolities that matter little to me. I would like to see them allowed to fight each other into a financial stalemate, but then I have faith that watching Essex v Middlesex at Lord's is a more enjoyable way to pass the time than some padded version of the Harlem Globetrotters. Clearly the ECB does not think so.
Right, pay attention. I like receiving comments on this blog, even ones that take me to task. Abuse (within reason) and criticism are fine, although obviously I'd prefer praise and sensible debate. Nonetheless, I have been happy to publish all comments sent in by readers unedited. Whether you are a frequent contributor, such as Peter McG, Rusty, Oscar, Ann, Steve, John Mc, Andre Nel and others, or have only left a comment once, you are all welcome. Do more of it.
But... there has been a rash of inane and frankly dull comments left recently under a series of pseudonyms by someone using the IP address 58.161.130.136 (I'm watching you, you see) that are not adding to this blog's overall quality and are wasting my time in moderation. That most of them have been having a fairly boring and predictable pop at the English or English weather just adds to the annoyance - as does the fact that often they are making the same point under a different name and a fake email address (yoko@btinternet.com, michaelvaughan@btinternet.com are, I suspect, not genuine). If you want a discussion with yourself, ask the nurses to get you a private room.
I have no problem with people posting under pseudonyms - the Hon Kevin Rudd is always welcome to get one of his apparatchiks to post for him - but from now on my policy is that anyone who wants to post a comment has to leave a valid email address (which will be hidden from view of all readers) otherwise it will not be published.
 Following on from my earlier post, I've done some number-crunching. In only five innings in the past five years have England batted more slowly than they have in this match (average 2.13 runs per over) and they won only one of those games (against India in Bombay in 2006). They drew three and lost famously in Adelaide in 2006 after making 129 runs in 73 overs. They also lost against Australia in Melbourne last winter when again they batted at 2.13 runs per over in their first innings.
But it is not just England who are unable to force a win out of deathly slow progress. Again taking the past five years but expanding the search to include all teams, there have been 23 innings of 2.13 runs per over or slower and still England's win in Bombay is the only one that ended with a W for the plodding side. Thirteen of those slow innings ended in defeat (and o |
