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
6.25pm And that is that. England all out for 215 as Anderson steers Gillespire to point. The Pietersen Era begins with a 51-run defeat. And it looked so promising after 30 overs of their innings and 20 of ours. New Zealand, as they have all series, were England's betters with bat and ball.
Geoff Boycott, like a rat leaving a sinking ship, was keen to get out before the rush. As the 48th over began he came dashing past in coat and hat with bag in hand, no doubt eager to reach the Tube station before everyone else. Sadly for Boycs, the final wicket fell as he stepped into the lift and it looks as if he will be mobbed by the hordes pouring out of the Compton and Edrich stands.
On another positive note: Andy Murray has just won at Wimbledon. Thanks to those who popped by this afternoon to read this blog and to both of you who left comments. If anyone else has a view on the game or series, do let me know.
6.15pm WICKET, Eng 209-9. With four overs to go and England needing 58, Shah has to attack but is caught at long off by James Marshall off Southee. Yeah, sure, his wicket-taking has been useful, but New Zealand would have been defending barely 220 if it wasn't for Styris - and his runs won the previous ODI, too. End can't be far away now.
6.05pm Breaking news: the man of the series, as voted for by the massed gentlemen of the press, is Tim Southee, who has taken 12 wickets. Personally, I went for Styris, who has made 60 runs more than the next best Kiwi batsman this series, but was outvoted. Asking rate now almost 13 an over.
Continue reading "England v NZ LIVE" »
Cap'n Kev takes charge tomorrow for England's must-win ODI against New Zealand. I'll be live blogging from the media centre at Lord's on my debut appearance at an international, so if you happen to be near a computer as the game winds on, do drop me a line even if it just to dare me to tickle Henry Blofeld.
Earlier today, KP promised that he wouldn't let the captaincy change him and that he would be the same chilled, go with your instincts sort of guy that he has always been. There will be little danger of England falling behind the over-rate with Pietersen in charge, too. KP promised that his team would be more action, less talk. "When a new batter comes in we must be in our places, no more chit-chat at the wicket," he said.
For some reason, "chit-chat" when spoken with a South African accent cracks me up. It's such a colloquial, English idiom, but sounds perfect when pronounced with clipped Sith Efrican vowels.
 And so it came to pass that a talented but slightly egotistical South African-born batsman was made England captain. It may only be for the four matches of Paul Collingwood's suspension, but perhaps this will be regarded as the dawn of a new era. I wonder what sort of captain KP will make.
Pietersen joins Allan Lamb, Andrew Strauss and Tony Greig as an England captain who first drew breath on the African continent, although he shares more in common with Greig than the more modest former two.
"I'm humbled to have been handed the England captaincy," Pietersen said, which is surely a first for him. He didn't even mention how much extra money he could earn from the IPL and sponsors with this extra title.
I'm covering the final ODI against New Zealand from Lord's on Saturday and there will be a press conference with Captain KP tomorrow. Anyone have any questions they want me to put to him?
Incidentally, quite a lot of England captains - and some of the finest - were not born in England. Peter McGuinness calls them "Schminglishmen" (which is odd given his high regard for that famous Brummie, Andrew Symonds).
Ted Dexter was an Italian by birth, Freddie Brown was Peruvian, Plum Warner was from Trinidad, Douglas Jardine, Colin Cowdrey and Nasser Hussain were Indians (some more obviously than others) and Donald Carr, captain in 1951-2, was a German. We even, in the imposing shape of Gubby Allen, had an Australian captaining the side.
We didn't quite get the same scene as at Adelaide in 1933, with one captain lying on the massage table complaining about there being "two sides out there, one is playing cricket and the other is not", but the atmosphere between Paul Collingwood and Daniel Vettori was certainly frosty at the conclusion of today's ODI at the Oval.
 Never mind that New Zealand had just won, when Collingwood went to knock on the Kiwis' dressing-room door after the game he found it closed against him. New Zealand were miffed, understandably, at the incident near the end of the game when Ryan Sidebottom in retrieving his own bowling appeared to take out Grant Elliott as the New Zealanders scampered a single and then, with his opponent sprawled in the dust, threw down the stumps and appealed for a run out.
If only England's rugby players could have tackled so well against the All Blacks last weekend.
By the letter of the law, Elliott was out but the situation stank. The umpire asked Collingwood as England captain whether he wanted to reconsider the appeal but Collingwood declined. I wonder whether he was carried away by the pressure of a tight match and having his team-mates huddled around him. His mature and contrite comments later suggest that he wasn't happy with the decision.
Oh well, things happen in the heat of battle. In the grand scheme of things this is some way below Bodyline and the Trevor Chappell underarm ball in the list of things that "aren't cricket" and probably on a par with Brendon McCullum's ungentlemanly running out of Muttiah Muralitharan when the Sri Lankan spinner had stepped out of crease to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara on reaching 100 two years ago.
All credit to Australia New Zealand for closing out the win, though, especially when with three needed off the last over and nine wickets down they could get only one off the first five balls that Luke Wright bowled. It was tense, glorious stuff to watch, a real reminder of how gripping 50-over cricket can be. New Zealand take a 2-1 lead in the series and roll on Saturday!
 I'm up in Scotland at the Amateur Championship (golf), but got back to my hotel to watch the end of last night's one-day international at Edgbaston. Yet again, players and officials seemed to forget that their primary purpose in life is to entertain the public, those poor saps whose money goes into the game and helps to pay for Kevin Pietersen's future children's future school fees (sorry to pick on KP but he brought it up first).
For those who don't know the story, it was a pretty grotty day and there were several interruptions. Eventually the match was reduced to 23 overs and it was set for a thrilling finish, with New Zealand 127 for two after 19 overs chasing a revised target of 160. Then it started to rain. To be fair to the umpires, it started to rain quite heavily. And so they came off.
But 20 overs are needed to constitute a game and so New Zealand were left stranded six balls short of being able to push for the win. Or, to look at it another way, England were six balls away from going 2-0 up in the series. This point has been underplayed, I think.
 New Zealand needed to reach 134 for two by the end of the 20th over to be ahead of the Duckworth-Lewis par, so they needed six runs in six balls. It says something about England's lack of confidence that they preferred to hold up play in the hope of getting a no result rather than trust to James Anderson, or whoever, to bowl six tight balls. Yes, Brendon McCullum and Scott Styris were set and could have ended the game with one hit, but if a wicket had fallen, remember, the D/L par would have gone higher.
Ian Botham on Sky was getting wound up in typical style about the half-hour break that they had between innings, banging on about the same point for almost as long as the break itself. He is right to a degree, but he ignored various other reasons for why the match was not completed.
1) Yes, it was raining heavily, but the umpires spent at least two minutes after the 19th over finished discussing whether it was raining enough. They should have been doing everything they could to get that 20th over in, including hurrying up the fielders and taking their own positions quickly. Once the 20th over was out of the way, then they could afford to debate the conditions.
2) No one, as far as I can ascertain, has mentioned the fact that the previous over we had a three-minute break for the TV umpire to decide whether or not Anderson had tapped the boundary rope with his toe as he scooped back the ball. This may sound like a blinkered Englishman speaking, but it was clear from the first replay that it would be too close to call. Common sense should have ruled an immediate "not proven" and given the benefit of doubt to the superb bit of fielding rather than wasting three minutes to decide that we couldn't quite tell. This happens so often and it frustrates the spectators immensely. The Law should be changed so that a four is not given unless the ball itself touches the rope.
3) England's slowness in getting through the overs was appalling. Nineteen overs in an hour and 25 minutes: that's little more than 13.5 overs an hour. They will probably get fined, but the umpires should be given greater sanctions against slow play. In tennis and archery, you get docked points if you are not ready when play is due to recommence. Perhaps cricket should bring in a rule that a bowler has to start his run-up for the first ball of an over within 30 seconds of the previous over completing.
4) Half an hour after play was called off it was sunny again. But the players couldn't come out because the official cut-off time of 7.30 had been reached. This is purely TV-driven. Perhaps Botham should have a word with his own bosses. Whatever happened to the days when matches used to go on until 9pm if the light was good enough to allow a result?
When The Times "thunders" on a subject in its leader column, the world pays notice. Or that's the way it should work, anyway. So since the Editor of The Times has decided that one of the three topics to thunder about in today's paper is Kevin Pietersen's reverse-slog-swept six against New Zealand (third in importance only behind the environment and the Lisbon treaty), it is to be hoped that the MCC and ICC members read carefully and follow our advice. Mike Atherton has some useful views, too.
Is it really "not cricket" for a batsman to change his stance as a bowler runs in and play a shot left-handed when he is a natural righty? Or is it just a bold and slightly risky move that could as easily leave the batsman with egg on his face? And if a reverse-slog-sweep is banned, then why not ban a standard reverse sweep? Or why not disallow batsmen the right to come down the pitch to a bowler he fancies hitting? Why not ban foot movement altogether?
Yes, there are some grey areas about whether the lbw law about not being out if the ball pitches outside leg stump is still valid if effectively the leg stump becomes the off. Personally, I feel that is a law that needs amending in any case. I've never worked out why, if the ball is likely to hit the stumps, the batsmen gets a life if they play it with their legs outside the leg stump but not outside off.
Some people, generally bowlers, also complain that bowlers are not allowed to switch which arm they use to bowl without telling the batsmen. Well, why not alter that law and allow bowlers to decide which arm they bowl with as they run in? After all, they can decide on the spur of the moment whether to bowl fast or slow, spin it or not, pitch it short or full. Let them bowl ambidextrously if they have the skill.
But please don't stifle creativity. After all, even the New Zealand captain, Daniel Vettori, praised Pietersen for his innovation, saying it was good for the game. But what do you think? Have a vote and click on comments below to add any thoughts.
I've decided that I already like England's new one-day kit, which got its first outing today.
I've been watching the second half of their innings against New Zealand this morning and Kevin Pietersen has made his sixth ODI hundred for England without, as far as I can recall, once hoiking up the sleeves of his new adidas shirt.
Since he made his England debut in 2004, I have found myself getting increasingly annoyed with the way that Pietersen fussed and plucked at the fabric of his shirt, picking and lifting it between balls. All the friggin' time. The flapping sleeve was evidently playing on his mind and had become something of a tic. Like a teacher who watches a pupil spend all morning with his finger up his nose, or a parent wanting to stop their child picking at a scab, I just wanted to yell at KP: "Leave it alone!"
Clearly the new tighter fit is less irritating for KP - and thus less irritating for me, too. Winners all round.
Incidentally, by making 110 today - his first ODI hundred in England - Pietersen has lifted his career ODI average back above 50 in his 66th innings. It may be a far cry from the 147 he averaged after ten ODI innings or the 89 after 20, but having dropped below 50 over the winter he is at least turning back in the right direction. Only Mike Hussey and Michael Bevan average more. It is something that Pietersen doesn't really get full recognition for.
I should charge Essex for my motivational coaching. Less than a week after Ravi Bopara was branded a pillock on this blog for bragging about how much the IPL love him (as his batting form started to fall away), he has stuck two fingers up and got on with doing what he does best: scoring lots of runs. Bopara bashed 201 not out off 138 balls today as Essex posted a commanding total in the Friends Provident Trophy quarter-final against Leicestershire.
It was only the eighth time a batsman has made a double hundred in a one-day match and Bopara clearly owes the Essex openers a pint or two for letting him get to the wicket early enough. If there were any justice, the England selectors would call him up instantly for tomorrow's Test match. After all, Trent Bridge is only just down the road from Leicester.
Bopara has instantly put himself in contention for June's Hero of the Month poll. In fact, Bopara would be the first person in Line and Length history to go from a Hero nomination to a Pillock and back again in successive weeks. I blame myself for making him so big-headed after the first hero nomination that he acted like a pillock.
UPDATE TO POST BELOW: They've given it to Ambrose, but were they right? Read and vote...
 England will announce a squad tomorrow for the NatWest Series of one-day internationals against New Zealand and among those huddled around the wireless hoping to hear their name read out by Mr Geoffrey Miller will be the friends and family of Matt Prior, who have their fingers, toes and eyes crossed that their lad will have earned a recall.
Prior was dropped after some ghastly keeping in Sri Lanka but he said that he would fight to regain his place, even if it was only as a batsman. Certainly few can fault his batting this season with an average of 53 in both one-day and first-class cricket and more runs of the latter variety than anyone else. But has his keeping improved?
I have seen only one Sussex match this season, when Prior barely reacted to an edge off Luke Wright until it hit the boundary board, but my colleague Walter, a lifelong Sussex dupe, says he is unaware of much complaining about Prior's glovework. He has been working with Alec Stewart to improve his skills (Prior, not Walter) and maybe that has helped. Anyone else seen him?
And if England don't recall Prior for the one-day series, who should they pick? Phil Mustard is the man in possession but has only one fifty in seven one-day innings for Durham this season and his average of 27, a shade higher than what he averages for England, suggests that he is a man who can do so much and no more. James Foster is keeping beautifully for Essex and his average of 44 this season in both forms of the game is good, if bolstered by a couple of not-outs.
Chris "Fletcher Says He Can't Bat for Toffee" Read is averaging 57 in first-class games and 45 in one-dayers (again helped by not-outs) but rarely looks at ease in one-day games. Tim Ambrose has played only two one-day games for Warwickshire this season because he has been playing grown-up cricket with England and made 28 and 1 in those two innings. Or should it be someone else? If so, tell me.
Lots of good bowling feats today (or bad batting feats, depending on how you look at such things) in the ICC World Cricket League Division 5, the tournament for the lowliest of lowlies and the first qualifying stage for the 2011 World Cup.
Mahaboob Alam, the Nepal left-arm medium-pace bowler, took all ten wickets for 12 runs as Mozambique were dismissed for 19, losing by 219 runs. Gulbadin Naid took a hat-trick for Afghanistan as they bowled out Bahamas for 46 in a five-wicket win. And Norway, mighty Norway, who had given Vanuatu such a thrashing on Day 1, were pining for the fjords after being skittled for 85 by the US of A, who won by ten wickets.
Mind you, beating Vanuatu isn't much of a boast as the Pacific islanders were beaten heavily on Saturday by Germany, who had been trounced by Nepal on Day 1. Nepal are clearly the favourites to progress to WCL Div 4, but their match with the US on Wednesday could be interesting.
Mozambique and Germany are struggling, Bahamas v Botswaana is well-poised and Norway appear to be cruising against Vanuatu. Yes, it is the first day of the World Cricket League Division 5, the first qualifying tournament for the 2011 World Cup. Two of the 12 teams competing this week in Jersey will progress to Division 4 and so on until four of the minor nations have the chance of emulating Ireland or Kenya and embarrassing a bigger country live on TV.
I had a piece in today's Times about the Afghan entry, whose match against the United States should be interesting, but there are all sorts of intriguing stories around this competition, which I shall bring you when I can or you can follow it live here. Mozambique are 54 for five against the US at Farmers Field cricket club today, a ground that three years ago was just a potato field. This Channel Islands version of Field of Dreams was opened by Geoffrey Boycott, a Jersey resident. And you thought that Jersey was only famous for child abuse and Charlie Hungerford.
Warwickshire are cursing the IPL after Sanath Jayasuriya's success in that tournament has led to him being recalled to Sri Lanka's one-day side for the Asia Cup next month instead of joining the county. Apparently the selectors were swayed by the intervention of the Sri Lankan sports minister, Gamini Lokuge, who had seen Jayasuriya make 114 for Mumbai in the IPL and thought he "still had it".
Now I'm instinctively a small government sort of person, who would rather that ministers got their nose out of matters that don't concern them, but I admit that when I read that story I was rather tempted by the idea of our parliamentarians debating the make-up of the England XI. I can see a Prime Minister's Questions in the near future...
Speaker: Order, order. Questions to the Prime Minister.
A Backbencher: "Will the Prime Minister list his engagements for today?"
 Prime Minister: "This morning I had meetings with the England selectors and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will be heading to the Oval to watch Surrey play Yorkshire."
Speaker: Order. Mr Cameron.
David Cameron (Conservative): "Can the Prime Minister reveal to the House whether England will use a three or four-man pace attack at Old Trafford?"
Prime Minister: "The Right Honourable Gentleman will recall that Monty Panesar has taken 18 wickets at Old Trafford under a Labour Government, I have every confidence in him doing the same in the next Test."
David Cameron: "That's just spin. Answer the question. Three fast bowlers or four?"
Prime Minister: "I am not going to be lectured by the Conservatives on spin given that under their administration, England relied on John Emburey and Eddie Hemmings. Under this Labour Government, more wickets have been taken by bearded Sikh left-armers than at any time in history."
 David Cameron: "He won't answer because he has no policy on fast bowlers. He doesn't know whether Chris Tremlett should be added to the squad or whether James Anderson should play. Will he not admit that what the country is crying out for is the return of a fast bowler who can hit the deck hard and put the wind up batsmen? Will he take responsibility for the complete collapse in the share price of Steve Harmisons in the past year? And when will he admit that the health of Andrew Flintoff is much worse under him than his predecessor?"
Prime Minister: "I remind the House that England won the Ashes for the first time since 1987 under a Labour Government..."
Backbencher: "And you lost them 5-0 away from home."
Speaker: "Order, I won't have members speaking out of turn. Prime Minister."
 Prime Minister: "We are responsible for a top six who all average above 40, the revival of Ryan Sidebottom and the development of a strong support system of coaches and analysts. That is the legacy of my Government, when we are competive in all forms of cricket rather than being walloped by the Aussies. I don't think the country wants a return to the days of Boon and bust."
[Much laughter at his wit]
 David Cameron: "The Prime Minister is complacent. He talks of England victories, but he forgets the last Ashes. He forgets the World Cup, the World Twenty20 and last summer's defeat by India. It is a sad reflection of his poor handling of the England side that Chris Read hasn't been given a proper chance in the side when everyone knows he is the best wicketkeeper in the country, that Paul Collingwood remains in his post despite a poor run of scores that makes Alastair Darling look competent with numbers, that Andrew Flintoff is always promised but never delivered and that the present XI take flight at the first sight of bad light. That is his legacy, is he not ashamed?"
Prime Minister: "We'll see who's smiling next summer, sonny."
Nick Clegg (Lib Dems): "Can I ask the Prime Minister to turn his attention to house prices?"
All: Boring, boring, time for lunch.
 I missed the astonishing end to the first ODI between West Indies and Sri Lanka yesterday, but The King alerted me to Shivnarine Chanderpaul's brutal conclusion to the match. Ten runs needed, nine wickets down, two balls to go. Oh, and Chaminda Vaas to bowl them, a man with nearly 400 ODI wickets behind him and whose first nine overs had gone for 17 runs.
It was one of those situations like near the end of a First World War movie, when everyone in the trench knows that the task is impossible, that they will never be going home to their sweethearts, that Little Johnny won't get the hug from Pop that he was promised. Then the platoon commander tells his men "Best get it over and done with. Good luck and stout hearts" before blowing his whistle and going over the top.
That's how it was for Shiv Chanderpaul, only without the mustard gas and the trenchfoot. He blew his whistle and set off on a near-impossible task. And, by Jingo, he only went and did it. The fifth ball of the last over was smeared through mid-off for four and then he clubbed a full-toss over deep mid-wicket for six. Fifty-over cricket has been getting criticism for being dull after the advent of Twenty20, but there may be some life in this old dog yet.
Too much cricket did for Australia in the Commonwealth Bank Series final yesterday - and may have been responsible for them losing the same tournament to England last winter - Ricky Ponting has claimed. The fact that the Test and one-day sides are, one or two players aside, pretty much identical has contributed to a feeling of player burnout. India being better may have had something to do with it, too.
This is all credible enough - and one reason why, thankfully, the tri-nations one-day series has had its day - but I'm not sure whether there will be much sympathy given that most of the Australia team have signed up to play in the IPL during their rest period between the mooted tour of Pakistan and their trip to the West Indies. The Pakistan trip is still up in the air and it is unlikely to go ahead. If so, it must be for genuine security fears rather than simply to give Australians some time off to recharge before signing up with Mumbai, Kolkata and the rest.
So India have completed a 2-0 sweep of the Commonwealth Bank Series final against Australia. Well done to them and in particular to Sachin Tendulkar who followed his hundred in the first final with 91 more today. If this is his last tour of Australia, what a way to end it. Generally, most genuine Australian cricket lovers are big fans of Tendulkar and the little master has been well received everywhere he has gone this winter, regardless of the ructions between his team-mates and certain Australians. He carries himself with dignity, which is no easy thing given the adulation he has had for almost 20 years. The next generation could learn more than just how to bat from him.
But yet again the cricket could be overshadowed by a hearing in the referee's office. The culprit this time is Andrew Symonds, who faces a possible five Test ban (some are even claiming a lifetime's ban is a possibility) for shoulder barging a streaker during the match. Here we go, watch in awe:
Someone give that man a place in the Wallabies back row.
Now, I'm not Symonds's biggest fan, as I have often admitted here, but I'm with big Roy on this. If you can't shoulder barge an idiot who is waggling his genitals at you while you are trying to win a big match for your country, when can you? And I'm not criticising the streaker either. The po-faced administrators try to crack down on streaking with threats of £1,000 fines in this country and dire repercussions, but generally crowds like to see streakers. They just like it even more to see a streaker get walloped and don't care whether it is a steward or a player who does it. I saw a streaker clobbered once at Twickenham and it was beautiful.
Of course, the player must be careful he doesn't go the way of Terry Alderman, who dislocated his shoulder once rapping a streaker. I almost found myself in similar hot water at school when a careless younger schoolboy ran across the wicket during a game of playground cricket. I swatted at him with the bat and had the misfortune of clipping him across the head. Despite little obvious harm, the child complained to the headmaster but I was saved punishment by the testimony of one of my friends, who said that if I had been genuinely trying to hit the child on the head, there was no way, given my lack of skill, that I would have connected successfully.
 A couple of weeks ago, The Atheist posted a Top Ten Streakers on his blog, which is well worth a look. I think Symonds's mate will have to sneak in to the list somewhere, possibly instead of Erica Roe, who was surely a rugby streaker.
Finally on this theme it is worth remembering the words of John Arlott, nominated in 2006 as one of The Times's 25 best pieces of sporting commentary, on the day that Lord's had what he called a "freaker": "We have got a freaker down the wicket now, not very shapely as it is masculine, and I would think it has seen the last of its cricket for the day ... He has had his load, he is being embraced by a blond policeman and this may be his last public appearance. But what a splendid one. And so warm!"
Congratulations to Virat Kohli and his India team, who have won the Under-19 World Cup today, beating South Africa by 12 runs under Duckworth-Lewis in Kuala Lumpur. It was a low-scoring final with India dismissed for 159 and then South Africa falling to 17 for three before the rains came. The revised target was 116 in 25 overs but India strangled South Africa's innings and with 26 needed off the last two overs, they could manage only 13.
It will be interesting to see how many players on these sides kick on to become the heroes of the next decade. Ishant Sharma, of course, could have been playing in Malaysia but, having been selected by the senior India side last summer, he has moved on to greater things and a near million-dollar pay offer from the IPL. South Africa's fielding has apparently been first-rate and the side coached by Ray Jennings have lived up to the standard of Jonty Rhodes. For India, Kohli and Tanmay Srivastava were the outstanding batsmen of the tournament. Could they be the inheritors of the mantle of Dravid, Tendulkar and Sehwag?
As for England, Billy Godleman enhanced his fine reputation as an opening batsman, while James Taylor sprung to the attention as Godleman's partner, but the rest of the batsmen were given little opportunity to impress. Tom Westley has promise as a spinning all-rounder and Steven Finn, the fast bowler, should get more chances with Middlesex this season. If they become the next generation's Hick and Caddick, you read it here first.
Well done the Bermuda ladies. Bouncing back from yesterday's humiliating defeat by South Africa, they showed their true worth against the mighty Netherlands today, scoring a massive 85 runs and losing by a mere 196 runs. Maryellen Jackson, top-scorer with 1 yesterday, was again the leading batsman, making 26. Onwards and upwards!
Meanwhile, the Bermuda teenagers lived up to the national standard, being dismissed for 55 by England in the Under-19 World Cup in Malaysia. England won by ten wickets to maintain their 100 per cent record, although having also won their first game against Ireland by ten wickets on Sunday the middle order may feel redundant. There were also wins for India, Australia and Pakistan, who are likely to be the semi-finalists.
I apologise in advance to some readers who, to judge from their comments on earlier posts, think that I shouldn't be writing about women's cricket (although try and be dignified and gallant, chaps). But in addition to the hilarious display by the Bermudan ladies and the noble efforts by Charlotte Edwards's XI, I came across another item of note in today's women's ODI between Ireland and Pakistan. The latter team won by 57 runs, but in their innings of 165 there were six run-outs, five of them apparently coming from the fielding of Isobel Mary Helen Cecilia Joyce (now there's a good Catholic name if ever I saw one), who is the younger sister of England's Ed. Surely after the first couple they might have got the idea not to risk taking singles to that fielder?
There were also four run-outs in Ireland's innings and the combined total - 50 per cent of the wickets that fell - is a record for any international match, Test (incl both innings) or ODI, male or female. Astounding.
 There were no surprises on the first day of the Under-19 World Cup in Malaysia today. England, the champions ten years ago, beat Ireland with ease, bowling them out for 109 and chasing the target in 16 overs. Steven Finn, with three for 21, was man of the match and his Middlesex team-mate, Billy Godleman, showed continued promise alongside James Taylor, newly signed by Leicestershire. Click here to read a preview of this year's tournament and to see what happened to that victorious England side of 1998.
Sadly, only three of them have so far played Test cricket (with Robert Key the most successful) and seven of the squad have left the first-class game altogether. Not every promising young player develops into a Sachin Tendulkar or Ricky Ponting, of course, but England's lost generation of world champions is disappointing.
Compare some of the names who played against them in that tournament ten years ago. New Zealand, who England beat in the final, had Kyle Mills, James Franklin, Lou Vincent and Hamish Marshall; India had Mohammad Kaif, Harbhajan Singh and Virender Sehwag; Pakistan had Abdul Razzaq and Shoaib Malik; West Indies had Chris Gayle, Marlon Samuels, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Daren Ganga; and Sri Lanka had Prasanna Jayawardena, Dilhara Fernando and Chamara Silva. Yet the Australia side in 1998 contained no future world-beaters (or none that have yet emerged). James Hopes and Marcus North were the biggest names, which shows how a generation has been missed by the longevity of Australia's recent players.
Elsewhere today, India started with a 195-run win against Papua New Guinea; Pakistan, the defending champions, bowled out Malaysia for 75 and won by eight wickets and Australia clocked up 312 against Namibia, with Michael Hill, the Australia captain, making the tournament's first hundred and scoring 12 sixes in the process. Australia won by 149 runs.
 As a rule, I take little interest in one-day internationals. Few offer much excitement and for every South Africa v Australia in Jo'burg in 2006 (chasing 434 to win) there are dozens of one-sided contests. England have just been walloped by New Zealand for the second ODI running, having trounced their hosts in two lopsided Twenty20 matches beforehand. We are four games into a string of 17 consecutive internationals of one form or another between these two. Please God let some of them be close.
New Zealand polished off the target at a rate of nine an over, yet it is England's batting rather than their bowling that gives most concern. For all the talk of a revival after series wins against Sri Lanka and India, five of England's past seven innings have been below 200 (one was a victorious run-chase but given that they were 164 for eight against Sri Lanka they would probably have struggled to chase 200).
England's line-up in those seven matches has been almost unchanged (the one swap being Panesar for Swann for one game in Colombo). There have been only six scores above 40 - three by Cook - and the averages are grim. Only Cook averages over 30 (just), the rest are dreadful: Pietersen (24.5), Shah (20), Mustard (19), Bopara (19 - with three not-outs!), Collingwood (14) and Bell (11). In fact, the only plus are the contributions from down the order, with Swann and Broad each making three innings of 18 or more.
It is hard to pinpoint what has gone wrong. These were essentially the same players who passed 280 four times against India in the summer (Prior was the main change and he hardly set the series alight). Yes, we seem to have uncovered a knack for running each other out, with six in the past two matches, but the main thing is a failure to hang around for the 20+ overs that each batsman ought to set as their minimum. Any ideas out there?
 Contemplating the next World Cup so soon after the Australia v India Test series is a bit like going for a kebab on the way home from a Michelin-starred restaurant, but for the non-Test nations it is their one chance to grab a slice of the ICC pie and remind the rest of the world that they exist. Naturally, therefore, there is opposition from the minnows to any reduction in the number of smaller nations taking part in 2011.
The Malaysia Sun reported yesterday that several associate members - Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Holland, Bermuda, Scotland, United Arab Emirates, Namibia, Denmark and Oman - have written to Malcolm Speed at the ICC requesting that the chief executive block the plan, sponsored by India and Pakistan with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh's backing, to cut the number of teams at the next World Cup from 16 to 14. It may seem a futile gesture given Speed's general impotence in the face of the India machine (he plays the same passive role in proceedings as a toast-rack does when being stacked with hot crumpets), but you can't blame the minnows for trying.
Given the amount of money India and Pakistan lost by getting knocked out early in the Caribbean, you can understand their desire to change the system whereby one shock result (Pakistan losing to Ireland, India losing to Bangladesh) can see them heading home early - although both those sides lost two of their pool matches - but perhaps a compromise would be for a variant on the 1996 World Cup, with the main tournament featuring 12 teams in two pools of six being immediately preceded by a qualifying tournament for eight associate members to compete for two places in the tournament proper.
(Hat-tip to Andrew Nixon's Beyond the Boundary blog and Cricinfo's Beyond the Test World, both of which give more prominence to the smaller nations than the ICC's own website.)
Only three weeks into 2008 and we have an almost cast-iron winner of Line and Length's "pillock of the year" competition. Hot favourite to win the coveted award is Mr Paul Blanchard, the sales and marketing director at the Brit Oval, who says that people have been ringing him to complain that the price of tickets at the Oval is too low. This is in response to a Wisden piece in which it is revealed that the best tickets for the ODI between England and New Zealand this summer cost £103.
Yes. £103. For a 50-over game. Featuring England and New Zealand. Not a Test between Australia and India. And it is at the Oval, where the viewing experience has become so restrictive and sanitised that you would have more fun heading a mile south to spend an afternoon chatting to the stoners and winos around Brixton Tube station.
"People ring and accuse us of not charging enough because they have not been able to get the tickets," Blanchard says, proving that free-market economics in the hands of fools and the greedy is a dangerous weapon. If we were dealing with a ground the size of the MCG, you could understand the laws of supply and demand being taken into account when setting prices, but the Oval holds only 23,500 and I doubt it takes much effort to find enough bankers and people who work in sales and marketing who think nothing of dipping into their pocket for a jolly day out. Never mind true cricket fans, or children, or the black communities that surround the Oval, used to throng there and can now only be found serving watery lager to "fans" within the ground.
"We haven't had any negative feedback," Blanchard continued, although if anyone does feel that he is taking the proverbial, feel free to let him know. I'm guessing PBlanchard@surreycricket.com is his e-mail address. Mind you, what could he say? "Yes, we admit it, we're taking the p*** but we don't care"?
Meanwhile, Worcestershire have reported a pre-tax loss of almost £700,000 last season as a result of the terrible floods in the West Country, which have not abated this winter. Tickets to watch Worcestershire play a one-day match against New Zealand at New Road on June 11 this summer cost £10 (£12 if you buy on the day). Perhaps those who would normally go to the Oval would consider a day out instead. Even with a return train fare from London you would be left with more than enough to bring a really good picnic - and they won't stop you bringing in some champagne as well.
Cripes. Brendan McCullum was not hanging about in New Zealand's one-day win over Bangladesh yesterday. Chasing a paltry 94 to win, the Kiwis made the target in exactly six overs with McCullum being repeatedly handed the strike by his opening partner, who perhaps didn't fancy the bowling, to record 80 off 28 balls. This was the sequence:
4.4..4646..2.44641216.6246.4
I bet McCullum has a weak bladder and had sunk a couple of pints of squash during the mid-innings interval. I have an astoundingly weak bladder; fortunately I also have an astoundingly weak batting ability, which means the bladder is rarely tested during cricket matches.
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.
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.
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)
Well, that's rather an unfair headline but it is interesting that Tendulkar seems to have developed a bout of the yips when he is in the nineties.
Tendulkar was caught behind for 99 off Umar Gul this morning, trying to steer the ball to third man, the third time he has been out one shy of a hundred in the past four and a half months. In that time he has also been out for 93 and 94 in ODIs, making five times in his past 20 ODI innings that he has been dismissed in the nineties. He also scored 91 against England in the Trent Bridge Test match.
In his career, Tendulkar has been out in the nineties in 15 ODIs, yet he has played more than anyone, passing Sanath Jayasuriya's record of 403 in today's match, and perhaps it is inevitable that he will occasionally fall short. He has, after all, had 41 ODI hundreds, 16 more than Jayasuriya. There is a fair case to say that Tendulkar is the best one-day batsman there has ever been (perhaps excepting Viv Richards), but his knack of falling just shy of three figures is perplexing. Does he pay too much attention to his score (and thus get out in his over-anxiety to reach a hundred) or not enough?
Either way, what would England give for someone who gets so close to 100 as often as Tendulkar? Pietersen has five ODI hundreds, Collingwood four, Flintoff three and Strauss two with one each for Bell, Cook and Shah of recent players. Results have been good for the England team of late, but we could still do with a batsman who can build a long innings.
The Pakistan Cricket Board are kicking up a fuss. Nothing new there, but for once they have a valid point. Next year's ICC Champions Trophy, which will take place in Pakistan in September, clashes with Ramadan, so they are trying to get the dates moved. Not unreasonably, England, West Indies, India and New Zealand are opposing a move because they already have scheduled fixtures in October.
Another bureaucratic cock-up? This quote from Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president, announcing the awarding of the tournament to Pakistan last year now appears a bit silly: "The Champions Trophy is an established part of the international cricket calendar and we were inundated with members that wanted to host this prestigious event," he said. "This means that we have been able to find very sensible time slots for this and other events in the years ahead." D'oh, as they say in Dubai.
I can sympathise with the PCB. Pakistan has not hosted a major international tournament since 1996 and they want to guarantee good attendances and that everyone has fun. Daytime matches mean that people will not be able to eat while watching the game (and what would be the point of cricket if you couldn't eat?), while day-night matches are also a bad idea as everyone will be more keen on breaking their fast (iftar) than watching the batting. The proposal if the tournament cannot be moved is to schedule matches so that there is a suitable iftar break, even if it doesn't come at the exact midpoint of the match.
Just one thought, though: why didn't anyone spot this when the tournament was awarded to Pakistan? It was announced in May 2006 and, while Ramadan is a movable feast based on the lunar calendar, it is always was due to be around September. Did no one think to check whether there would be a clash? Or did Pakistan feel that it would jeopardise their bid to hold it if they started making demands over dates? And if so, do they deserve any sympathy?
Sometimes, I confess, this blog misses stories. Or rather, I get to them a bit late. I do have a regular job to do on the paper as well as just blog, and I've spent the past two days in the courtroom listening to Big Darrell Hair's "why the world hates me" plea. More on that tomorrow morning.
Anyway, I just came across this post on King Cricket that deserves a wider airing. The King points out that after England lost their first one-day to Sri Lanka by some margin yesterday, Paul Collingwood,the captain, failed to say that "this is a young side and they'll learn from this defeat".
Shrewdly, the King suggests that while this could be interpreted as a welcome break from blanditudes, it is possibly a worrying sign that England's younger players have decided to stop learning. Which is it?
Forget about those predictions of a 7-0 series whitewash for Australia against India, the bad weather in Bangalore saw to that yesterday. But there were few signs in the rain-affected match that India, the world champions at Twenty20, will have it easy against the world champions of the longer form of one-day cricket. Michael Clarke lasted just four balls in the World Twenty20 but he faced 128 more yesterday in making 130 runs to take Australia past 300.
That in itself is not enough to guarantee victory, although more often than not it is good enough, but the early dismissal of Sachin Tendulkar in India's innings left the home side 9 for 1 in the third over before the rain came. India may well have taken it to the wire, but as a statement of positive intent by Australia for the series, Clarke's hundred, on the ground where he made 151 on his Test debut, was revealing. Brad Haddin and James Hopes, two players who were barely involved in Australia's World Cup win this year, added quick runs in the closing stages to suggest that the future for Ricky Ponting's side is rosy enough. On to Kochi on Tuesday for part 2.
How delicious. I know I have only just complained in my previous post about there being too much cricket heaped on the back of more cricket, but the fact that Australia start a one-day series in India tomorrow is fascinating. Ignore what Australians say about the Mickey Mouse nature of the World Twenty20; whenever Australia fail to win a tournament (a pretty rare occurrence) they will always be on the look-out for swift revenge. I fear for India that they are about to have done to them what Australia did to England's Test team last winter as retribution for losing the 2005 Ashes.
The Australian newspaper reports today that Ricky Ponting's side are keen to take India down a peg or two. Or, as Peter Lalor writes, "the world champion Test and one-day team arrived in India this week in time to see a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears cricketers showered with cars, houses, cash and the unbridled devotion of a billion people because they managed to win a hit-and-giggle Twenty20 contest".
Ponting was swift to put the upstarts in their place, not least to remind the young Twenty20 champions of their real position within India. "Good luck to them," Ponting said. "The young Indian team played well, but of course they will now have to make way for the senior players like Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly, which is a shame."
Some may say - Lalor certainly does - that the return of the big three may actually play into Australia's hands because they know them so well. Yet the fact remains that Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly are three of the five highest run-scorers in one-day history. Australia should respect them - but the smart money will still be on a 7-0 series win for Australia, followed by victory in the one-off Twenty20.
Which is a big shame, as the only contest I am keen to see is Australia v India in Test cricket. Even a Test between Bangladesh and West Indies would do.
This is wrong, so wrong. A fascinating summer of cricket has barely finished and yet already England are playing their first match of the winter, with a friendly today against a Sri Lankan XI ahead of a series of five ODIs. Most of the England one-day side, having missed the end of the county season because of the world Twenty20, flew straight from South Africa to Colombo. And, most bizarrely, after the five one-dayers the team will fly home for five weeks before flying back out to Sri Lanka in November for two first-class matches and three Tests. In the modern sensibility, I hope they are offsetting their carbon footprint by building a windmill or something while they are out there.
I love my cricket - even one-day cricket - but can't we have a pause for breath occasionally, to digest what has just gone rather than moving on yet again to another feast?
Appropriately for a cricket ground just round the corner from Abbey Road, the Backbeat Beatles, a tribute band for the Fab Four, will be entertaining the crowd in the luncheon interval at the final one-day international against India at Lord's.
I don't know if the Beatles were/are ever big cricket fans. Paul McCartney lives in St John's Wood but it is the Rolling Stones who are more associated with watching cricket. I suppose Get Back could have been about a batsman turning down a quick single.
Gosh. And indeed, Cripes. With three overs to go in England's ODI innings against India just now Ian Botham said "280 is an absolute minimum". Given that England were 265-6 that was a fairly low expectation that Sir Beefy had. Fortunately Dimitri Mascarenhas had higher hopes. Here's how the last 18 balls went, Mascarenhas taking strike:
1lb-wd-1-1-wd-2-wd-dot-1 // 4-dot-2-4-1-1 // (are you ready for this?) dot-6-6-6-6-6 = 51 runs, with Mascarenhas scoring 32 of them off nine balls.
Phew. Match that India.
 After his latest hundred against England today, Shiv Chanderpaul has taken his tally of runs in six international matches this summer (three Tests, one Twenty20 and two ODIs) to 656 from eight innings, four of them not out, to give him a running average of more than 160.
He has scored three hundreds, four fifties and in his only "failure", in the Twenty20, he made 41 off 26 balls. Oh and in his only other innings on tour, against Somerset, he made 82 not out. Surely a shoo-in, as CMJ writes in The Times tomorrow, to be one of Wisden's five cricketers of the year. How West Indies have needed the little fellow with the odd stance and the black streaks of advertising under his eyes.
It is surely unfair to make comparisons with England batsmen when the home side won the Test series 3-0 and are honours even in both limited-overs series, but what the heck. In the same matches England's best batsmen are averaging 49 (Pietersen, with 110 fewer runs), 47 (Collingwood), 46 (Prior) and 43 (Cook). I suppose four moderate successes is better than one mammoth one.
[pic: Empics]
Michael Vaughan has stepped down as captain of England's one-day side, probably going before he was pushed. He says that he reached the decision some time ago, but had not wanted to say anything before the end of the Test series with West Indies in case it "became a distraction to the team". That is, a distraction in addition to the distractions he had already caused by saying that England should have used him more during the Ashes and that "Fredalo" was to blame for them doing badly in the World Cup.
So, farewell then Michael Vaughan (the one-day version, anyway). You actually had a reasonable record as captain of England's one-day side, with 32 wins and 22 losses in 60 matches (compared with nine wins in the 26 matches he played but wasn't captain), but you never quite made it as a one-day batsman.
An average of 27 from 86 matches is not good enough for a top-three batsman, especially without making a hundred. It is for that reason, fearing that he would be dropped as a player, that Vaughan has fallen on his sword as captain, even though he says he is available for selection. It may just prove to be the best decision he has taken: expect a fighting fit Vaughan, unwearied by having to play any more Mickey Mouse pyjama games, to captain England's Test side into the 2009 Ashes series.
As we creep slowly towards the World Cup, enthusiasm for the tournament slowly seeping away as the memory of beating Australia disappears, all sorts of newspapers and magazines are compiling supplements to mark the occasion (The Times one, which I'm editing, is out on March 13). Many of these will include "greatest ever XIs" or some variation on the theme and Line and Length is nothing if not derivative, so here we present the first in an irregular series of World Cup XIs, beginning with a subjective view of the worst XI men to represent England in one-day cricket, taking a minimum of five ODIs as qualification. As usual, send your thoughts via the "comments" button below.
- Wayne Larkins (one big score, 23 quite small ones)
- Robert Key (54 runs in five innings)
- Jim Troughton (Dr Who's grandson never made more than 20 in five innings)
- Matthew Maynard (surprisingly flopped at Test and one-day level)
- Graham Lloyd (39 runs in six matches)
- Ian Austin (below, averaged 60 with the ball and 7 with the bat for England, so naturally Wisden made the all-rounder one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1999)
- Bruce French (just about worse with the bat, if not the gloves, than Paul Nixon)
- Gareth Batty (six runs and four wickets in seven matches)
- Saj Mahmood (wide, wide, wider. Economy rate of more than 6 after 19 matches)
- James Kirtley (better at Test level, expensive in one-day cricket)
- Neal Radford (two wickets in six matches)
|
