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
Strange things happen in sport - and this comes from someone who has been watching 53-year-old Greg Norman lead the Open for much of today - but the selection of Darren Pattinson for his first bowl in Test cricket this morning is one of the stranger. I've already posted on him, so leave your comments there. Cricinfo described his second ball today as being reminiscent of Angus Fraser in his pomp, but Graeme Smith soon went after him, hitting three fours, and Pattinson was taken off after three overs.
Great that Andrew Flintoff is back and bowling so well, but the batting looks light. Flintoff made 17, which is no worse comparatively than anyone else did, but Tim Ambrose does not look like a Test No 6 (nor more than Flintoff does) and Vaughan continues to cause worries. Ian Bell returned to his usual "so far but no farther" approach to an innings, and Kevin Pietersen remains the only batsman of threat.
On the two controversial "catches", the one claimed by AB De Villiers off Andrew Strauss even though it was very clear that the ball had been taken on the bounce and the one by Michael Vaughan that was given and then changed after Hashim Amla appealed, my view is this: fielders occasionally make dodgy appeals knowing that they are trying their luck, it is up to the umpires, backed up by TV if needs be, to tell them to get knotted. In the case of the De Villiers catch, it was very naughty of him to appeal for something so clearly not out but the umpires made the right decision.
The Vaughan "catch" was less clear-cut and I'm sure his appeal was based on a hunch rather than an attempt to con anyone. But when Amla was given out, he should have gone. It is outrageous for a batting side, watching the game in the dressing room, to see that someone should not have been given out and then demand a TV replay. The umpires should have gone to the TV in the first place but once they decided not to, the batting side should accept the poor decision.
And before anyone accuses me of pro-England bias, I expressed the same opinion in this blog last summer when Kevin Pietersen also walked off to the pavilion only to be told to appeal a catch by his team-mates. It is the men in white coats who control the game, for better or worse, not the spectating players.
 OK, I'm a bit out of touch at the moment. I'm up at Royal Birkdale for the Open and, frankly, after the downpours we suffered yesterday I'm still waiting for the mist to evaporate off my glasses. So when I turned on my computer just now to see how the Test match was looking and saw the headline "Pattinson makes debut", I thought "I didn't even realise South Africa had someone called Pattinson in their squad."
But he's one of ours. Or rather, one of Australia's. Darren Pattinson makes his England debut today (drizzle permitting) as a replacement for the injured Ryan Sidebottom, having been listed earlier this morning on Cricinfo as an Australian. He was born in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, but raised in Australia and made his first-class debut for Victoria last year - at the age of 28.
He took five wickets on his debut for Notts this season and I vaguely recall the name, but at the time I probably thought "just another Kolpaker". His first-class record of 40 wickets in 11 matches at an average of 26 does not suggest anything special.
That picture, by the way, is him bowling for Nottinghamshire, not (as I initially thought) for South Africa.
There are two possible explanations for why Darren Pattinson was called up at short notice from Trent Bridge. 1) In these straitened times, the selectors wanted to save on paying mileage to a bowler from a southern club; or 2) Possibly following on from that, the selectors actually meant to call up Darren Gough but hit the wrong number on the speed dial. I suppose there is also a third explanation: that the selectors have seen real promise and think he can do a job.
This is surely one of the most left-field selections ever. Possibly up there with the time that Australia plucked Peter Taylor from obscurity for an Ashes Test, with some people wondering if the selectors had meant Mark Taylor. Taylor took a six-for in his first Test, so maybe Pattinson can have a similarly charmed introduction. This could be the best selectorial hunch since Tom Spedegue won the Ashes for England with his "dropper".
Good luck to him. The true test of whether he is English or Australian will be the post-match interview. If he begins by saying "Ahhhh, look, mate..." then he's a fair dinkum Ocker. But who cares if he's good?
 England have added the big guy from Lancashire to their squad for the second Test against South Africa, which starts later this week, and I think we can assume that barring any late injuries he will play.
But should he? And who should be dropped to make way? And where should he bat? For what it's worth, my answers are: yes, Collingwood and (with crossed fingers) No 6 but what do you think?
Much of the first part of this summer was spent worrying about whether Flintoff had lost his batting mojo, but having made two fifties and a thirtysomething in three of his past four innings, that is an area of his game that, if not totally recovered, is at least looking better than it was.
One comment on this blog yesterday suggested that Stuart Broad should bat at No 6, which is intriguing but almost definitely won't happen.
I was impressed with the way Broad bowled at Lord's, though. He regularly forced the batsmen on to the back foot, so much so that some of them were almost treading on their stumps.
I think he has earned his place for Headingley and one assumes that Sidebottom, if fit, and Anderson go too. If Sidebottom's bed-hopping has finally knackered his back, though, there will be a temptation to play Flintoff instead of him and give Collingwood a reprieve. I'd rather see Flintoff and Simon Jones in if that were the case.
Anyway, over to you: who's in, who's out and where do they all go?
 Let me begin this post by congratulating South Africa on showing the backbone and technique to grind out their second innings for 167 overs, ensuring that the first Test match ended as a draw. Having made a bit of a mess of their first innings, they showed how hard it will be to shift them throughout the series, especially if the pitch is offering little help.
But what a shame that yet again the Test had to end in farce. I know (but don't really agree) that a Test can be called off as a draw at 5pm if the match is going nowhere, so why was there any need for the umpires to offer the light at 4.35pm, given that the batsmen weren't really in any danger and, frankly, England had given up trying to get them out?
I know that one ball from Paul Collingwood had reared up at Ashwell Prince, but it was one ball - and Colly, the old 75mph trundler - for goodness sake.
Having taken them off, the umpires then decided that the light had got better ten minutes later, so out they came again. This time there were 15 minutes to survive before stumps could be drawn, but Graeme Smith, the cunning blighter, had worked out that if he declared (SA were 47 ahead) then that would eat up ten of those minutes.
Michael Vaughan seemed to agree and so we had the ludicrous situation of first Kevin Pietersen and then Alastair Cook, a man who had bowled 26 overs in his entire first-class career, sending down an over to eat up time before at ten-to-five, Smiff declared and the match was called off.
OK, the game was going nowhere, but surely the only reason you forfeit the final hour is if neither side can win. By declaring 47 runs ahead, hadn't Smith given England a chance of winning? Scoring 47 shouldn't be beyond England in an hour. Of course, Smith's declaration was only made because England had promised not to chase it, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
Yet again, the spectators are short-changed. Even if the match had nothing riding on it, they had paid to watch six hours of cricket and they should have been given it or at least given a clean ending.
 Last night we had the unusual sight of two England spinners taking the new ball, so that they could get a few overs in against South Africa in light that was too poor to allow Sidebottom and Anderson to go first. Monty Panesar and Kevin Pietersen had two overs each and then, naturally, when play resumed this morning it was back to the quicks doing what quicks are meant to do.
It got me thinking and researching about when England last opened the bowling with a spinner. It was actually only two years ago, when Monty opened the second innings against Pakistan at Headingley, but as you would expect it has been quite a rare occurence. Before that match, the previous time was when Ashley Giles opened with Matthew Hoggard against India at Ahmedabad (he was wicketless). Before that was in 1992 when Mark Ramprakash was given the dubious honour of bowling his off spin at Pakistan at the Oval when the away side needed two runs to win in the second innings. He began with a wide and then Aamir Sohail hit his first legitimate ball for four.
Phil Tufnell opened in the second innings against New Zealand at Wellington the previous winter in a dead game and John Emburey opened in the first innings against West Indies at Old Trafford in 1988 (perhaps because he was captain - it didn't work, he was wicketless). Phil Edmonds bowled first at India as they chased only 48 to beat England in Bombay in 1984, taking one wicket but not the ten that England would have hoped for.
You then have to go back 20 years for the previous time when England opened the bowling with a spinner. In fact it was a pair of spinners: Ken Barrington, who bowled leg breaks, and Fred Titmus's offies were used at Old Trafford because only two overs were possible at the end of a drawn Test with Australia. In 1952, however, England used two spinners as an attacking opening pair and it paid off. Malcolm Hilton, a slow left-armer, and Roy Tattersall, an off-break bowler, opened in the second innings against India at Kanpur, bowled 60 overs between them (supplemented by seven overs of off spin from Jack Robertson) and the three took nine wickets to give England a chance of victory.
Before then it was Len Braund and Colin Blythe in 1902 but maybe I'm now showing that I've got too much time on my hands...
 I was in the Tavern Stand at Lord's yesterday for the third day of the first Test, watching England move into a position of such strength that it even appeared likely that they could win by an innings within four days. South Africa showed their true colours today, losing only one wicket as they fought to get back into the game.
It is almost possible - but surely unthinkable - that South Africa could score 250 runs quickly enough tomorrow to give themselves 40 overs of bowling at England with a target of 150. That won't happen, of course, not least because South Africa will be glad just to save this game; they won't want to risk making a declaration and looking stupid this early in the series. Honours even and on to Headingley.
Funny how easily one can be made to look stupid. In the Times Online podcast before this Test, I gave the opinion that South Africa's pace trio would cause us problems, that the South Africa batsmen were if anything more dangerous and that Ashwell Prince, who had scored 118 runs in his previous eight innings, was their only weak link in the top six. Naturally, the bowlers looked toothless and Prince was the only batsman to flourish.
I was delighted to see Prince get his hundred, especially the way in which he celebrated. It has become traditional for batsmen to leap into the air as they trot the historic single that brings up three figures, but I think that Prince, from a lower starting point, outleapt even Kevin Pietersen. Yet Saturday belonged strongly to England thanks to some controlled bowling and some brilliant fielding.
James Anderson's two catches off Monty Panesar were sublimely athletic, but Panesar perhaps made the most telling contribution himself when he bowled Neil McKenzie behind his legs. It was just after lunch and I was watching the first overs from the Nursery bar on TV. As the ball reached the batsman, it was so wide of leg stump that I feared we would concede byes. But it turned beautifully and just clipped the leg stump. Panesar has become that rarity: an England spinner who really can spin.
 Even more rare is to have two England spinners sharing the new ball, but that was essential if they were to get in any overs in the twilight last night. Pietersen had dismissed Dale Steyn to close the South Africa innings and he almost had another scalp today when Graeme Smith edged a ball from Pietersen when he was on 106 and Tim Ambrose, with floppy gloves, made a hash of catching the ball. If he hadn't bothered, Paul Collingwood would probably have snaffled it but instead Ambrose did a good job of impersonating a goalkeeper turning the ball round the post.
How Pietersen would have loved to have added Smith to his list of wickets (Kamran Akmal, MS Dhoni and Ross Taylor being the other scalps). That he caught Smith one run later off the bowling of Anderson was probably a small compensation.
So what will happen on day 5? Much depends on whether South Africa continue to demonstrate that gritty determination to avoid getting out that they showed today. Across their two innings, South Africa have scored at barely two and a half runs per over. They are in no hurry and England will have to find ways of shunting them tomorrow. I fear that we could be heading for a repeat of the Lord's Test against Sri Lanka two years ago, when England were 360 runs ahead on first innings and failed to win.
In fact, on the past three occasions England have made more than 550 at Lord's (v Sri Lanka, West Indies and Pakistan) they have not won a single game. A sign of how Lord's flattens out as the game goes on, or a sign of England being unable to turn the screw of games they are winning?
[pics: Getty]
 Lunchtime in the Test match and well done to Ian Bell for reaching his eighth Test hundred - his third at Lord's - in the morning session. The responsibility is now on him, especially after Collingwood departed early, to turn his lunchtime 118 into something a fair bit bigger, 150 at least.
But... while not wanting to take anything away from Bell, I have noticed a rather odd trend in his career. Each time Bell makes a hundred, someone else has got to three figures earlier in the innings. In this Test, it was Pietersen who milked the appluase last night before Bell made his own hundred. In 2005, when Bell made his first and biggest hundred against Bangladesh, Marcus Trescothick got there first. Later that year, when Bell made 115 at Faisalabad, Pietersen was the first to reach three figures in England's innings despite coming in after Bell.
In summer 2006, Bell made three hundreds against Pakistan, the first coming after Cook and Collingwood had earlier registered tons, the second coming again in the wake of Cook, and the third after Pietersen had made a hundred first. Finally, last summer, he again let Cook and Collingwood take the applause before making his own hundred against West Indies.
Eight innings, eight hundreds and yet on no occasion was Bell the leading man. I just wonder whether he is uncomfortable with the responsibility of setting the game's agenda. Is it just a coincidence that at Old Trafford against West Indies last summer Bell fell for 97, with no other batsman making more than 60? The situation cried out for him to play a big innings and he couldn't.
Sorry, I know this will read like negative carping, rubbing it in for the poor lad after a good knock. But trends, especially 100 per cent trends, do often reveal more than innings on their own.
I spent almost seven hours in the car yesterday commuting to and from Worcester so didn't get the chance to blog on the first day of the Test, but I kept an eye on the TV in the corner of the Worcestershire press box and was impressed with both the patience of the England openers and the confidence of Pietersen and Bell later in the day.
South Africa arrived at Lord's with everyone talking up their fearsome pace trio of Ntini, Steyn and Morkel and there was a brief spell after lunch when they lived up to their reputation, but in the morning they suffered. England took a very pragmatic position, with Strauss and Cook determined just to preserve their wickets against the new ball. In the first half hour, only six runs were scored, which makes a close-of-play score above 300 all the more impressive.
When Morkel and Steyn took three wickets in two overs after lunch, England could have been rolled over but Pietersen relished the chance to make his point against his former countrymen and Bell played the long innings that we have all been waiting for. They have continued this morning with 46 runs in the first half hour.
Suddenly, having won the toss, South Africa are on the back foot. England do have a record of scoring more than 500 and not winning at Lord's, however, so we shouldn't get carried away. But why did South Africa's bowlers not fire? Inexperience? Maybe, although that doesn't apply to Ntini or Kallis. The slope? If anything, that should help their faster bowlers, with England being lured into mis-timing their drives. A bit of rustiness? That is possibly the most likely given the way weather had affected their warm-up games.
Whatever, England have risen to the occasion and, for now, are on top. Meanwhile it's raining in Worcester so I guess I'll be paying even closer attention to the TV...
The ICC continues to excel itself as a spineless excuse for a world governing body if reports that Pakistan have been able to persuade the ICC board to change the result of the 2006 Oval Test are to be believed.
The match was originally awarded to England after Pakistan refused to leave the dressing room because the umpires (note, not just Darrell Hair but both of them) accused them of ball-tampering. The basis for that allegation and the removal of Hair from the ICC elite panel have no relevance here; the central fact is that Pakistan, like all sides, are paid to provide a spectacle and they failed to do so.
It doesn't matter how aggrieved they were, they failed in their main duty to play cricket. Personally I think they should have received a bigger punishment than just forfeiting the Test. If Paul Collingwood can be banned for four matches for letting the over-rate slip, Inzamam-ul-Haq, a batsman I admire very much, should have received a ban for failing to resume play.
The ICC's decision to change the match to a draw has apparently been done to "maintain the dignity of Pakistan". As far as I'm concerned, they lost that when they refused to play. What next? Change the result of the 1932-33 Ashes because England's bodyline tactics were a bit sneaky? Give the Edgbaston one-day international last month to New Zealand because England didn't try hard enough to get their overs in?
The ICC have let down their umpires, whose every decision can now be openly questioned and if players don't like it they can go on strike, and they have shown once more their contempt for the paying public, whose right to a day's entertainment for their money can now be denied simply because an egotistical captain doesn't fancy playing.
Hurrah for the wise men of the MCC. The gentlemen in grey suits who safeguard and occasionally alter the Laws of Cricket met at Lord's today to discuss Kevin Pietersen's exotic shot-making and have decided that there is nothing infra dig about changing one's stance and reverse slogging a bowler for six.
This was their statement: MCC believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is exciting for the game of cricket. Indeed, the stroke conforms to the Laws of Cricket and will not be legislated against.
While noting the superb execution of the stroke by Kevin Pietersen for England during the recent One Day International against New Zealand, MCC had already acknowledged its existence in the 2000 Laws of Cricket - Law 36.3 - relating to the stance of a batsman. (It rules that the off side is determined by the batsman's stance at the beginning of the bowler's run-up)
MCC accepts that the use of a 'switch-hit' may have implications for other Laws of the game, principally Law 25 (Wide ball) and Law 36 (LBW), and will continue to research and discuss these implications.
MCC believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is a difficult shot to execute and that it incurs a great deal of risk for the batsman. It also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers.
Furthermore, MCC acknowledges that while bowlers must inform umpires and batsmen of their mode of delivery, they do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball). It therefore concludes that the batsman should have the opportunity – should they wish – of executing the 'switch-hit' stroke.
 Hurrah for Ricky Ponting, who is bored with making easy runs on dull batsman-friendly surfaces and wants to put the test back into Test cricket. Ponting told the Sydney Morning Herald that the state of the world's pitches needed attention.
"I think Test cricket is probably not as exciting anymore because of the wickets that we're playing on," Ponting said. "People would rather watch a game in Perth as they would in Antigua. There's much more happening. There's more bouncers, more batsmen ducking and weaving and sometimes falling on their backsides, more catches behind the wicket, more hook shots. That's the sort of Test cricket that we all grew up watching and enjoying.
"I've said it for a number of years now that some of the wickets we play on a round the world are just too flat, too placid. That's what I would be saying to all the authorities around the world: Let's just try and do something with the wickets. If it means digging them up and relaying them then let's try it. It's obviously not working too well at the moment."
Then again, with Australia 98 for four against West Indies in Barbados as I type (and Ponting out for 18), maybe he will be reconsidering his words.
Something I've just spotted, by the way, that is worth a mention. In getting out for 12 today, Mike Hussey's Test average has dropped below 70 for the first time since his debut Test. He has now not scored a hundred for eight innings. Hardly calamitous for a top-flight batsman but given that he got eight hundreds in his first 33 innings it is a bit of a slump.
Rob Eberstein left an interesting comment just now on an earlier post, which I have not published because I think it is worth raising as its own issue. Here is what Rob wrote: "My friend went to his first day's Test cricket yesterday at Trent Bridge and forked out £50. The game finished at 12pm, and the crowd wanted a full day and ended up cheering the Kiwis. I would be livid if I'd payed out £50 for an hours cricket. We are missing an opportunity here. The authorities could have organised a 'beer' match in the afternoon - Twenty20 with a couple of teams. The teams could be old players, celebrities, schools, local clubs. It really wouldn't matter. The crowd would have enjoyed it, and the bar coffers would be swelling."
I'm not sure a beer match of outsiders could be organised at such short notice (after all, New Zealand still had five wickets to lose yesterday and could theoretically have lasted all day). I also think that if there are fewer than 25 overs played then you get a 50 per cent refund (full refund for under 10 overs). Check the back of the ticket. But apart from that, I agree wholeheartedly with Rob.
An England win is great, but you also want to get some cricket for your money. Especially on a lovely day. I remember the frustration and disappointment of being at Lord's for the third day of England v Bangladesh in 2005, which also ended after about an hour. I found myself very annoyed that Michael Vaughan had declared when only 400 or so ahead on first innings as that more or less guaranteed a very early finish. The fact that I had brough two people who, like Rob's friend, were Test match virgins was also annoying. We had a two-hour picnic on the Nursery and visited the museum, but it was hardly the same.
The players will never wear it, but I think they should be encouraged to play a beer match, even if only a game of ten overs a side, to give the crowd something for their money. Given the size of their win bonus is about to increase, it would be the least they could do. In fact, the first ever one-day international came about through such philanthropy. In 1971, the first three days of a Test between Australia and England at the MCG were rained off and instead of abandoning the match they agreed to hold a 40-over game. Such respect for the paying public from those whom we pay would be welcome again.
I'm commentating on the first day of the Test today. You can read it here.
As England prepare to field the same XI for a fifth consecutive Test, something that astoundingly has not happened since the 19th century, we pick over the bones of the second Test win at Old Trafford in the latest Times Online podcast. Mark Ramprakash is the special guest, who sportingly agrees to be grilled on why he still hasn't scored that hundredth 100. Hopefully by the time the second part of the summer begins, he will have got that monkey off his back.
 Another day, another valedictory to a retired Australian cricketer. If we can only get rid of Hayden, Ponting and Hussey in the next 12 months, the next Ashes might be competitive.
Stuart MacGill is the latest to head off into the sunset, having decided that the drawn Test in Antigua would be his last. Odd - and sad after all he has done for Australia - that he should leave mid-series with his wrist injury proving too difficult to overcome. It is a shame he couldn't bow out on one last high, with just one wicket for almost 200 runs in his final game.
It sounds as if the parting has been a difficult one, with MacGill fined his final match fee for oversleeping and missing the team bus. There were also allegations, strenuously denied by MacGill, that he had turned up under the influence of alcohol.
Well, he can now head off to present his TV programmes on wine and watch as Australia try to uncork a spinner as good as MacGill or that tubby chap he used to fight for a place with. Beau Casson is the anointed successor given that Brad Hogg has also retired, but I admit to knowing nothing about the 25-year-old chinaman. His first-class record appears modest on paper. Perhaps some of our Australian readers can shed some light.
I do know from chatting to Terry Jenner, the Australian spin guru, that Dan Cullen and Cullen Bailey are highly regarded and Bryce McGain, a 36-year-old leggie who has bloomed late in life, is also in the mix. But that does mean that when England next play Australia the man given the spinning job will be pretty new to us. On the plus side, Warne says he was only joking about making a comeback.
Anyway, farewell MacGill. It's astonishing - and probably quite depressing for him - that the fourteenth most successful spin bowler in history in terms of wickets taken and the fourth fastest bowler of any kind to take 200 Test wickets will always be regarded as some sort of super-sub rather than an outstanding bowler in his own right. He came into his own during Warne's enforced year off, taking almost five wickets a match, but he needed to play Test cricket for a decade just to get to 44 matches.
Given that Tiger O'Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett worked so well in tandem for Australia in the 1930s, it seems a shame that the present selectors couldn't be tempted to play Warne and MacGill more often in the same side. They offered different styles of leg-spin bowling and, as they showed in taking 13 wickets against Pakistan at Sydney three years ago, could fit together to run through sides quite comfortably.
A prickly character who occasionally ran into trouble with opponents, team-mates and officials, MacGill often appeared on the verge of blowing his own head off when he took wickets. Peter Roebuck, his captain during a year with Devon, said that MacGill's temper didn't fray at the edges, it frayed in the middle.
Well, farewell hothead. You may have been only the second best spin bowler in your country (and perhaps the second best in the world at the same time) but if you'd been English you would have played more than 100 Tests. That said, you may have lost a few more matches than the six you lost with Australia. Six lost Tests in ten years of cricket: that's some record to look back on.
Yes, I know we have one more Test and a few ODIs against the Kiwis before the South Africans come to England, but it's never too early to start mocking Graeme Smith. This letter to an agony aunt comes from Miss Field's blog: Dear Dr. Ruth, I am a crack dealer in KEMPTON PARK, GAUTENG who has recently been diagnosed as a carrier of HIV virus.
My parents live in Hillbrow and one of my sisters, who live in Benoni, is married to a transvestite. My father and mother have recently been arrested for growing and selling marijuana. They are financially dependent on my other two sisters, who are prostitutes in Brakpan.
I have two brothers; one is currently serving a non-parole life sentence at Leeukop Central Prison for the murder of a teenage boy in 1994. My other brother is currently in jail awaiting charges of sexual misconduct.
I have recently become engaged to marry a former prostitute who lives in Yeoville. She is now a part time "working girl ". All things considered, my problem is this. I love my fiance and look forward to bringing her into the family. I certainly want to be totally open and honest with her. Should I tell her about my cousin Graeme Smith, the SA Cricket Captain?
Signed,
Worried About My Reputation
 Now I agree that Smiff has a reputation for being a bit of a knob (you don't get analysis like this from CMJ - ed). For some reason, he just has the sort of face that most people want to slap (or get Harbhajan Singh to slap it for them) and there are ostriches on the Klein Karoo with bigger brains than him, or so it appears. Here is a photo of Smiff being asked at a recent press conference if he could point to his hamstring.
But I grudgingly admire him. Anyone who scores back-to-back double hundreds clearly has something going for them and when I spoke to him recently for The Times, I found him charming, chatty and interesting. A bit like Andre Nel, in fact, who also has an on-field knobbish reputation but is quite pleasant off it.
Anyway, if Smiff is pining for cold weather after three months in India then I'm sure we can oblige when he comes over here in a couple of weeks.
Is Michael Clarke the ultimate bowling secret weapon for Australia? I suppose he's not that much of a secret anymore, but he has the knack of popping up when not expected and wreaking some damage. In 34 Tests, Clarke has been used piecemeal in 18 innings and bowled only 95 overs in total, yet he has 14 wickets at an average of 19 runs apiece and when he strikes it can turn games.
Last night he picked up two wickets in seven overs at the end of the day in Antigua to leave West Indies wobbling on 125 for three when they had been 105 for one. His best haul was six for nine against India in Bombay in 2004, but Australia could have done with more from his primary skill as they were dismissed for 93, needing only 107 to win. He made seven.
Most famously, Clarke's bowling helped Australia to beat India at Sydney this winter. India looked to have sewn up a draw before Clarke came on near the end of the day and took three wickets in an over. Of course, Australia have a few batsmen who can bowl, not least Andrew Symonds.
It helps them to field a four-man bowling attack, which is one of the problems England have. Paul Collingwood isn't bowling much now because of his shoulder problem and Michael Vaughan barely trust his own or Kevin Pietersen's spin. One of the most frustrating things about Ravi Bopara over the winter was not so much his batting but how little he was allowed to bowl. If Andrew Flintoff is ever to return as part of a four-man attack (his batting doesn't seem good enough to go at six now) then England have to find - and bowl - their own version of Clarke.
It's said through gritted teeth but "well done Ricky Ponting" on passing 10,000 runs in Test cricket today. The Australia captain joined Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Steve Waugh, Sunil Gavaskar, Allan Border and Rahul Dravid in the elite club when he drove Ramnaresh Sarwan for a couple in today's Test in Antigua. Ponting was out for 65 soon after, but Australia, at 185 for two as I type, are heading for yet another of those ominous first-innings positions of strength.
No denying that Ponting is a class act as a batsman and with 35 Test hundreds to his name he is second only to Saint Sachin in the list of centurions. I imagine that Ponting, still only 33, will go on to hold that record on his own as well as becoming the leading run-scorer in Tests, depending on how much longer Tendulkar continues. "Punter" must also have the aim of getting his career average up from 58 and a bit into the 60s before he retires and I suspect that we have a few more years of him.
Yet Ponting always seems to be a step or two removed from the top drawer of Australia batsmen. Obviously he falls well below Don Bradman, but am I alone in rating Hayden as more brutal, Border and Steve Waugh as more gritty, Mark Waugh and Dean Jones as more graceful, Adam Gilchrist as someone I'd rather pay to watch? It seems unfair, but has Ponting's undoubted talents been diminished because so often he has been just one of three or four awesome Aussies in any given Test? If he'd played when there was less expectation, as Border did, would he be regarded as Australia's greatest? What do you think?
They don't make games like this any more. A three-day two-innings match exactly 130 years ago between MCC and Australia at Lord's, wrapped up by Australia with a nine-wicket win shortly before the close of Day 1 (a day, mind you, in which more than 120 overs were bowled). MCC batted first and were dismissed before lunch for 33, a rather rotten collapse from the healthy position of 27 for two.
In came Australia and swiftly took advantage of their opponents' parlous state, advancing to 41 before they were also bowled out. Would it be enough to secure an innings victory? Not quite: MCC made 19 in their second innings to ensure that the touring side would have to bat again and Australia, having lost Charles Bannerman for one and being aware that they had more than two days in which to make the 12 runs they needed, took 16 overs to reach the target.
Actually they do make games like that still, but only at the level I play in.
 Here are the members of the 1878 Australian tour party in their silly blazers and fake beards. Click the pic for a closer inspection. Look at the eyes on some of them. If ever you needed proof that Australians descend from criminals...
The destroyers-in-chief were Harry Boyle, middle row far right, and Fred Spofforth, back row, left. They took 19 wickets between them in the match and 186 wickets (123 for Spofforth) on the tour. Guess they don't make tours like that any more either.
Pic: The Cricketer International
 How could we ever doubt Andrew Strauss? Barely six months ago he was on the scrapheap, left out of England's tour party for Sri Lanka, forced to beg a one-day contract from a New Zealand state in the hope that it might get him back in the England Test side.
Although he failed in Kiwi domestic cricket, he was called up and he had a mediocre couple of Tests before England went to Napier, having levelled after losing the first Test, and Strauss hit his career-best score, 177, to win the series.
Since then, he has looked to be England's most comfortable batsman. Two fifties in the first two innings of this series against New Zealand were followed today by a splendidly composed hundred that set up the unlikely run-chase of almost 300, 60 more than had previously been achieved at Old Trafford. Aggressive when given the chance, patient when not, Strauss offered barely a chance until he was out for 106 and even then it took an astounding catch by Ross Taylor at slip, a contender for champagne moment if ever there was one, to shift him.
A sixth of Strauss's 48 Tests have been against New Zealand and he seems to like their bowling. It was against New Zealand four years ago that Strauss made his Test debut, compiling a hundred and a near-hundred with such force and sense of destiny that it sent Nasser Hussain into retirement. He followed that with 62 in his next Test innings, before his first failure, a duck and 6 at Trent Bridge. Strauss has a chance to rectify that in the next Test of this series.
In 15 innings against New Zealand, he has scored 776 runs at an average of 52, with three hundreds and four fifties. The only side against whom he averages more, hearteningly, are the second touring team of this summer, South Africa. Strauss's record against them is an average of 73 from ten innings.
It is fair to say that without Strauss, England would not have won today. Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood, both under pressure for their places, saw England home after the idiotic run-out of Kevin Pietersen (honestly, why run two to third man when there is no need for haste?), but how would they have done if the total required were still more than 100, instead of under 50? Both rode their luck, Bell being dropped by Iain O'Brien and Colly surviving a very good leg-before shout from Dan Vettori.
Monty Panesar won the man of the match award for his career-best six-for on Sunday that turned a certain defeat into a sniff of victory. But it took Strauss's determination, inspiring solid near-fifties from Pietersen and Vaughan in support, to ensure that victory was secured. Given that he was top-scorer in England's first innings, too, I'd have been tempted to give the award to him. If England had followed on yesterday, would we have been celebrating a win tonight?
My Australian contingent of readers have gone quiet of late (if anyone sees Peter McG passed out under a table, give him a kick) so hopefully this will bring them out of the woodwork.
Interesting the way that headline writers look at similar situations differently. Two Tests going on at the moment and in each case the home side, having bowled themselves back into the match in the third innings, need getting on for 300 runs in the fourth, which would be a record chase at each ground, to take a lead in the series. In both cases, they have made good starts on the previous evening, making 50 or so runs for the loss of one wicket. Yet in the match where the run-chasers were heavy underdogs going into the match, the story is headlined on Cricinfo as "West Indies set up thrilling finale", while in the game where the batting side were favourites before the toss it is titled "England face tall ask".
Of course, the same headline works in both matches. They are thrilling finales and it will be a tough ask for both batting sides to achieve their aim. Obviously the Cricinfo headline writers wanted to avoid repetition but I find it interesting that West Indies appear to be given more of a chance than England. Maybe they were thinking of West Indies' successful run-chase of 308 in 1999 against the same opponents in Barbados. But Brian Lara isn't playing any more.
 Whatever happens, it's going to be a smashing day today on two continents. But that Australia could be even facing defeat (they won't be contemplating it) is down to some superb fast bowling by Fidel Edwards and Darren Powell; that they have not yet been defeated is down to some typical never-say-die-ness from Andrew Symonds as Australia slipped to 18 for five.
Australia have been five down for under 20 runs on only three previous occasions and not since 1936. They lost all three of those matches, but Symonds's half century and Ponting's hundred in the first innings should ensure that they don't lose this one.
It is ironic that Symonds's rearguard Test innings should come on the same day that his IPL side, the Deccan Chargers, were confirmed as the wooden spoon-winners in the inaugural tournament. Deccan must have fancied their chances this year with a batting line-up that included Symonds, Adam Gilchrist, Shahid Afridi and Herschelle Gibbs. Symonds actually earned his money in India, with 161 runs in three innings, including a hundred, but Deccan lost three of the four games that Symonds played in, winning only when he didn't bat. Proof that you can buy all the batting talent in the world but you need good bowlers to make it pay? It's up to Mitchell Johnson, Stuart Clark and others to prove the same point today.
Back in the days of Britpop when edgy music groups were emerging from Manchester with the regularity of nit-outbreaks in primary schools, there was an annoying phrase that it was impossible to get away from. "Mad for it" was the customary response of any Mancunian musico, whether he was being asked about the weather, his latest single or the political crisis in the Balkans.
 Monty Panesar is definitely "mad for it" in Manchester. Loopy at the best of times, Panesar goes completely doo-lally when he encounters one of Peter Marron's pitches. In three Tests at Old Trafford, he has taken 25 wickets, almost a quarter of his career total, at an average of under 17 and a wicket every 34 balls. That's 25 of his hop-skip-and-jump high-fiving, 25 of his roars, 25 cheers from the fans.
Frustratingly for Northamptonshire, his county have never played a first-class or one-day match at his favourite ground when he was available.
And given the response that England's leading spinner gets from this ground, is it really wise that England have decided to leave Old Trafford off the Test-match rota for the next three years?
Well done to Monty, he has turned this Test match into a real battle with his second-innings haul of six for 37 in next to no time. New Zealand showed very little wish to hang around at the crease but then they didn't really need to after earning a first-innings lead of nearly 200. It will be a tough ask for England to make 294 batting last to win, especially if Daniel Vettori gets as much turn as Panesar did, but at least Monty has given a sniff of a hope
I started to write this before Monty Panesar began ripping through New Zealand's second innings to give us hope of a win - a slim one, I'd argue, given Daniel Vettori's skills on a wearing surface. The arguments about England's batting still hold, though. I'll post on the bowling later.
 I wanted to support England this morning, I really did, but as New Zealand's bowlers began to turn a precarious position for the home side (154-4) into a desperate one (164-7) and eventually had them on the brink of following on, I found myself supporting the Black Caps. Not because I wanted to identify myself with the winning side, but because New Zealand appeared to be made of sterner stuff.
They wanted those England wickets more than England wanted to keep them. Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood and Ambrose, who should have been capable between them of taking England past 300 if not into the lead, looked tentative from the off and all were out to their own poor shots as much as good bowling.
Yes, Daniel Vettori was getting a lot of turn and bounce - not for the first time this year - but England didn't appear capable of making - or even looking for - runs against the other bowlers. As they stuttered, so the runs dried up. Only Stuart Broad, with another useful contribution before a soft dismissal, played with the right spirit, it seemed. He eked England past the follow-on.
This England team are starting to remind me too much of the England sides of the early 1990s, when the batting repeatedly failed to deliver and yet every man in the top six looked, on paper, to be worth his place. Gooch, Atherton, Hick, Lamb, Smith, Stewart (with various changes) should have been good enough to make 400 regularly, as should Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood. This England side have made 400 twice in the past 12 months, or 24 innings (the best being 467-7). There have been 11 hundreds in that time, but only one innings of more than 140. Not good enough.
 Vaughan denigrated this New Zealand side as "workmanlike" before the first Test, yet the tourists could be about to go 1-0 up with one to go. We know they don't have many great batsmen, although they have a lot of fine lower-order scrappers, yet they built a lead of almost 200 on first innings despite having one of their batsmen in the hospital. Does that tell us more about New Zealand batting, New Zealand bowling, England batting or England bowling?
England scored at 2.4 runs per over; New Zealand at 4.2. Those numbers say something about the mental state of both teams. It is not just in politics where the conservatives are coming back into force in England. I'm not asking for rashness, but some sense of adventure, some hunger for runs is in order.
So who should stay and who should go? With two fifties since his hundred in Napier, Strauss is fine. Cook and Vaughan continue to cause worries but they will also see out the summer. Pietersen, we assume, is undroppable, although I would like to see him moved up to No 3 if, and only if, the openers have built a large platform with the directive to play his aggressive game and kick the total on.
But I have grave concerns about Bell, Collingwood and Ambrose. To replace the first two, I'd suggest a mixture of youth and experience. Two of the country's leading run-scorers this season are Ravi Bopara and Mark Butcher and both deserve a recall. Owais Shah is another name in contention. As for the wicketkeeper's spot, well the leading run-scorer is one Matt Prior, who like Bopara and Butcher has a couple of hundreds to his name already. Has his glovework improved enough? If not, then Chris Read is averaging 58 for Notts...
No doubt the clamours for change will ebb away if England manage to win this game. As I type, it looks as if they will need more than 300 to win the match. With plenty of time, admittedly, but the highest score batting fourth at Old Trafford is 231. Only six teams have scored more than 300 in the fourth innings at this ground, with four of them losing. The best thing that could happen to New Zealand's chances of winning, given that rain is forecast for the final day, is that they be bowled out today.
I always enjoy it when there are two Test matches on at once, especially if they dovetail so you can go from watching one to the other. New Zealand are playing the first day of the second Test against England at the moment and having gone great guns in the first hour and a half they have been pegged back a bit by their old nemesis, Ryan Sidebottom, who has swung the ball beautifully to claim two wickets.
86 for two as I type, but if Jamie How continues his good form from the second innings at Lord's, and if Ross Taylor, Brendon McCullum, Dan Vettori and Jacob Oram bat to their expectations, New Zealand can build a decent total. As at Lord's, I really don't fancy England batting last against Vettori if there is much of a total to chase. But plenty of cricket to be played before we get there.
And then later on it is day 2 of Australia v West Indies in Jamaica. Ricky Ponting was yesterday's hero, being dismissed for 158 (Kevin Pietersen's bogey number) as Australia just passed 300 for the loss of four. That was Ponting's 35th Test hundred, which has taken him past Sunil Gavaskar and Brian Lara and with only Sachin Tendulkar (39) in front. Must have been quite a relief for him to know that he had the whole day (and then sum) in which to build his score rather than just a few overs, as he had in India.
Busy day for me today, so can't type much more but do leave your comments on either Test match in the usual fashion.
In the first Times cricket podcast of the season it was Bella Emberg who received the admiration of our studio pundits and this week we turn our appreciation of Great British Actresses to Dame Diana Rigg, whose appearance in The Cherry Orchard at Chichester on Saturday went some way to making up for that day's play at Lord's being rained off.
Oh and we talk to Matthew Hoggard about which of his England team-mates he needs to kneecap to get back in the side and to Mike Gatting, as he is pursued around the Isle of Dogs by the Met Police, about how Mark Ramprakash is cricket's version of a Chateau Petrus '47. Click here to listen and click "comments" below to comment.
He's back. Actually, he's probably not but Shane Warne dangled the tempting possibility before the Australia selectors yesterday that he might return for next summer's Ashes, but only if he doesn't have to attend any team meetings, go to any matches he doesn't fancy or fulfil any other commitments. And they have to beg him as well.
Talk about ego. Warne, to be fair, couches his offer with lots of conditionals. "If Australia really needed me and there was no one else around, and Ricky Ponting thought I could do the job, you would weigh up the options," Warne said. "If Stuey MacGill fell over and broke his leg, and there were no other spinners around, and Ricky came out and said, 'Mate, can you please help us out for this one-off tour? We need you', that is something I would weigh up."
He then went on to say that he retired because he was sick of touring and other commitments. "If you could just turn up and play Test cricket, that would be cool. I would definitely consider that," Warne said. Perhaps that is the future for some of the big names in the IPL; they call the shots. We've already had this week the news that Brendon McCullum tried to get permission to pop back to India in the middle of New Zealand's tour of England should Kolkata reach the semi-finals. Rightly, the request was turned down. Bad enough to turn up late but you can't dance off and earn some extra cash for a few days while your touring buddies are slogging away against a county side.
Obviously Warne's tongue is rammed far inside his cheek because, for all the undeniable success he has had with Rajasthan in the IPL, Warne's international career is well and truly finished. A recall would risk him looking silly and would certainly make the Australia selectors look bad. What does it say for their development programmes if instead of choosing a younger spinner they go back to a 40-year-old former hero?
That said, what would it say for England if Warne was recalled, turned up for the Ashes with next to no practice and no international cricket in the previous two years and still skittled our batsmen?
 Almost inevitable that it should be bad light that brought an early close to the final day of the Lord's Test. There weren't too many spectators in the crowd, despite final day prices of £20 and below, and the match had been saved by New Zealand by the stage it was called off, but even so it was typical that the match would barely squeak past 5pm.
In all, 284 overs were bowled in the match out of a possible 450 and while there was a fair bit of drizzle on Saturday, spectators will no doubt feel rather let down by the eagerness of both sides at various stages, but especially by England, to run off as soon as bad light was offered. Something needs to be done by the ICC to ensure that play continues where at all possible. I cannot accept that there is much risk to the safety of established batsmen who have been at the crease for some time (as Strauss and Cook were during Friday and Saturday), especially given the amount of protection batsmen now wear. Exposing a new batsman to bad light is another matter, of course.
Strauss and Cook took the light purely for strategic reasons. They were afraid of getting out. Yet why is bad light not viewed as just one of those things that batsmen have to deal with, in the same way as a wearing pitch or humid conditions that help the ball to swing? It may not be easy, but if spectators can see the ball well enough to see where it goes when it is bowled or hit, then the light conditions are good enough for the batsmen to have a stab at staying out there. Test cricket gets its name because it is meant to be a bit of an ordeal for the players - not for the spectators.
Perhaps the pink ball could be one answer to the problem. It was being thrown around at Lord's during an interval and seemed to stand out very clearly. Another option is to start play early if time has to be made up, rather than trying to add it on at the end of the day.
 Oh well, game drawn and on to OId Trafford. England are unlikely to change their side, although Chris Tremlett, left, has been added to the squad to replace Matthew Hoggard (how unlucky for poor old Hoggy to have his thumb broken facing Stephen Harmison in a county game - just shows how far away from the wicket he must have been backing). Tremlett adds height, pace and bounce, which are useful skills to have at Old Trafford, but I suspect that the same XI will turn out.
Michael Vaughan answered his critics, even if some would have preferred that his eighteenth Test hundred had been scored a bit quicker. The middle order still worries me, with Paul Collingwood in desperate need of runs. Dim shot first-ball by Tim Ambrose to Vettori, too, but he still deserves a run in the side.
New Zealand, meanwhile, can take some heart from this. Jamie How batted maturely and with enough composure to suggest that they may actually have two Test-level batsmen in the top six (Ross Taylor should be a third but he has not had an impressive match). The New Zealand opener provided a good laugh on Thursday when the Kiwi woman I'd taken to the game looked at the new scoreboard after New Zealand lost their first wicket and said "Why does it say How Out? I thought Redmond was the one who was dismissed."
I'm fairly busy this morning so will post a more considered comment on the Test match later but it is interesting that after two full days were effectively lost to bad weather and the first innings ended in all but parity, England are still hopeful of forcing victory on the last day. That says something about the brittle state of New Zealand's batting. As I type, eight overs of the day have gone and England have taken two of the ten wickets that they will need to take by, I'd guess, mid-afternoon if they are to leave enough time for their batsmen to win the match.
Just one thought, if England are within a sniff of victory at stumps today will they regret the sissyness of their batsmen taking the light so readily on Friday? It happened last year against India as well, when England were punished for going off for bad light by India's last-wicket pair holding out just long enough for the draw. Another half an hour's play earlier in the match and England could have won that, as they may find today. Much will be written on the light issue after this match, but you do have to wonder whether England shoot themselves in the foot by reducing the amount of time they have to bat in conditions that are not all that bad. Put it like this, if it is a bit gloomy later this afternoon and England need 50 to win in 45 minutes, I don't think they will be rushing for the dressing-room.
Or rather Day 1 at Chelmsford, where I'm watching Kent struggle to deal with the controlled pace of Andre Nel, Graham Napier and Chris Wright. 120-3 off 31 overs, which is almost Test match pace rather than a 50-over game. I get all the glamorous assignments.
As this is a day-night match, I watched the morning's play from Lord's on TV and have a little set on in the corner of the Chelmsford press box, where I've been able to watch the players trudge on and off during breaks for bad light. Ryan Sidebottom was swinging the new ball a long way this morning, too far for Steve Bucknor who repeatedly turned down appeals for leg-before that did appear to be missing leg stump. Didn't stop the pained looks from Sidebottom or the pointed one at Buckner when he swung the ball past Kyle Mills's front pad to rip out his off stump.
It's hard to know how to call this game. The past four Tests there have been drawn, with England scoring more than 500 in the first innings of three of them. Yet the Ashes Test in 2005 was a low-scoring thriller and the match with India last summer featured four innings between 200 and 300. So is New Zealand's 277 all out a good score or not? How will England (68-0 overnight) find it batting on the third day or even the fifth? Will the rain and bad light let up over the weekend to allow a match to break out?
Incidentally, questions ought to be raised about Tim Ambrose's keeping in New Zealand's innings. He didn't drop any catches that I can recall, but he let 16 byes through and as a proportion of New Zealand's total runs, more than 12%, that was the eighth worst display by an England keeper (praise be to Statsguru for allowing us to work out such things). It shouldn't matter much and is hardly a hanging offence, especially as keeping is always hard at Lord's, but it is a small cause for concern.
Some thoughts on today's first day at Lord's:
 Well the rain came but it went away by lunchtime, so those of us at Lord's got to see just over 50 overs as New Zealand reached 208 for six. At 104 for five, with 15 minutes still to go until tea, it looked as if my plea that Daniel Vettori shouldn't bat until the final session would be rebuffed, but Brendon McCullum and Jacob Oram put on 99 together. It may not have tilted the game New Zealand's way - although it's fair to say that New Zealand's tail ends at 6 and the batting begins at 7, so they may yet make it to 300 or more.
England bowled well but not brilliantly, I thought. The pace bowlers were controlled and hard to get away - until McCullum got in - but they lack an absolute snorter of a fast bowler. That's not to criticise, but against some very ordinary batting they did not need to do much to take wickets, just stick it in the right place. A huge amount of New Zealand's runs came through edges through, over or wide of the slips, with very few runs scored between extra cover and mid-wicket.
Poor Aaron Redmond on his Test debut. Great location, lousy weather. After twiddling his fingers nervously in the Pavilion for two hours, he came out to bat and was heading back five balls later, just failing to judge the movement from Anderson. Daniel Flynn, the other debutant, stayed around longer, hitting two decent fours, but also departed for a low score.
Ross Taylor deserves a bollocking from the coaches tonight. He was like a wound-up spring, always appearing on the verge of doing something silly. So often he charged off for singles without considering if the run was on - could this be the influence of the IPL? - and that very nearly did for James Marshall, who sent Taylor back, realised that his partner wasn't going back and set off very late himself. He would have been run out if Anderson's shy at the stumps hadn't been rushed.
In the morning as the covers were being removed we got to see the warm-up routines of the two sides. New Zealand kicked rugby balls and threw into baseball gloves but little else, while England went through a very elaborate series of routines, that seemed to involve bunny-jumps, dosie-dohs, press-ups and lunges. Probably the influence of their new fielding coach, Richard Halsall, who started just before this match. It seemed to work as the fielding was fairly impressive, although I bet KP was thinking "not the face, not the face" when he ducked beneath a ball hit hard at him by, I think, McCullum rather than catching it at gully.
 Monty Panesar was only given four overs but made the crucial breakthrough, bowling McCullum on 97. A poor shot from McCullum who clearly thought he'd get his hundred out of the way quickly before building something impressive. Second time he's been out in the nineties at Lord's. We gave him a standing ovation when he walked off anyway, but would have been nice if he got to three figures.
Naturally Panesar went into his usual impression of a puppy on speed after taking the wicket, which remains endearing. Less so is his increasingly theatrical appeals for balls that are clearly missing the stumps or, in one case, hit the bat. Panesar clearly thinks that he should go down the Warne route of trying to con wickets out of umpires (either that or he has a very poor judgment of what leg-before is) but it is not worth doing. Warne was too good a bowler for such histrionics and so is Panesar. There is a fine line between ebullience and being a tosser, and he is in danger of crossing it.
Left the ground after the match to see ladies from Spearmint Rhino, the lap-dancing club, handing out flyers, which seemed counter-intuitive. As my friend Charles said to me: "Are middle-aged men clutching picnic baskets and umbrellas really their target audience?" Perhaps they thought that McCullum's run-a-ball innings had given some of the crowd the horn?
Oh well, tomorrow is another day. Sadly I won't be at Lord's but will instead by covering Essex v Kent at Chelmsford.
 And so the Test summer begins tomorrow with the first day of England v New Zealand, take 2. Mike Atherton makes his Test debut in the Lord's press box for The Times, flanked by Richard Hobson and Simon Barnes, while your blogger, just a feeble amoeba alongside such titans of journalism, has paid for his ticket and will be in his customary spot in the Tavern stand. Any readers of this blog who are also planning to be there, and who spot me during the lunchtime exodus from stand to bar, are welcome to grab my shoulder and slur "Ere, aintcha wotsisname off the thingummyblog" and I will happily stand you a beer.
The fragrant Clare Skinner at Lord's tells me that there are still 2,000 tickets available for tomorrow's play, priced at £65 and £60 (£20 for juniors), which go on sale from 9am at the North Gate.
The first Test at Lord's is always special and not just because MCC maintain an enlightened policy towards the importation of your own beer and wine. The place just smells and sounds right, from the well-spoken chap who says "Good morning and welcome to Lord's" over the PA at 10.45, to the ding of the pavilion bell at 10.55 and then at 11am the first pop of a champagne cork. Here are six other things I want to happen tomorrow:
1) If New Zealand bat first, I don't want to see Daniel Vettori come out to bat until at least lunchtime and preferably well after tea.
2) That the corporate section of the Grandstand, which always empties on the stroke of lunch, is full again by 3pm, otherwise MCC should ban those businessmen from being allowed to buy tickets for next summer's Ashes Test. What is the point of going to the cricket and not watching?
3) That Brendon McCullum plays a patient, watchful innings (well, until he gets to double figures, then let him go berserk and make a hundred off 50 balls).
4) That no England fast bowlers break down in their pre-match warm-up. Having taken the odd step of announcing that Matthew Hoggard was surplus to requirements two days before the toss, it would be rough on the poor lad, who has probably planned a weekend of DIY and walking the dogs, to ask if he wouldn't mind playing after all.
5) That the reheated Strauss/Cook opening partnership flourishes, making a double hundred together and going on to become the Hobbs and Sutcliffe or Taylor and Slater of their day, culminating in a string of big partnerships together next summer, rather than the scratching, shuffling, edging and missing monster that they were when they last played together.
6) That it doesn't rain.
Apologies for having a couple of days off but I was away at the rowing World Cup (read all about Britain's success here) and then yesterday was getting painfully sunburnt on a golf course.
This morning we recorded the first of our summer cricket podcasts, which you should be able to access on the cricket homepage soon. It features Shane Bond and Mike Atherton as well as yours truly, Mark Chapman and, our new regular panellist, Andy Zaltzman. Some may remember Andy from our Bodyline video diaries last year when he was an uncanny likeness for Douglas Jardine. That is if Jardine really was a slightly tubby Jewish-looking fellow with manic hair. Anyway, go and enjoy.
One of the things we discuss is the priority for Test matches in the days of Twenty20. It seems that series are becoming shorter and shorter, with only two Tests scheduled between England and India this winter. The Ashes is sacrosanct (so far) as a five-Test series, although it wasn't so long ago that we played six, but some of the more juicy series, such as India v Australia or England v South Africa really should be five matches long. If the IPL organisers get their way and have a dedicated window in the calendar for their tournament, that will only mean shorter Test series.
John Stern, the editor of The Wisden Cricketer, tackles this issue in an interesting piece for Cricinfo. Why not arrange the calendar so we play a longer series home and away, John argues. His starting point is that England have just come off the back of a 2-1 series win in New Zealand, having been 1-0 down, and the two teams now start again at level. Why not start this England leg of the series 2-1, with three to play?
Australia and South Africa have sort of done this, with back-to-back home and away series in 2005-06, but instead of them being two three-match series, it would have been interesting to have seen them as one six-match series. That said, I think the Ashes needs a year or so's break between episodes just to allow us to all calm down and then build ourselves up again. Anyway, what do you think?
|
