The West Indies can still beat Australia

OK - they can’t. There is no way in God’s Earth that the Windies could possibly hope to chase down such a huge total. Which is a bugger.

But this is defeatist! And certainly not in keeping in my hopeful Windies to Win campaign. Remember: the Ozzy bowlers are useless. Trust in that. Chanders still owes me a century too, so he might cash that in today. Lara hasn’t really filled his boots yet. Nor has Gayle. So, something extraordinary could happen…

I don’t have much to add to this. I went for a meal with a friend last night. He thought that New Zealand would come second.

I thought he was mad. But I was too polite to say anything.

Batting second

Ok – it’s the start of the Super Eight. So, I suppose I should do a follow up of the Batting Second issue. In my previous post on this subject, I examined Simon Widle’s thesis that sides batting second have an advantage. This seemed correct, as I found that 78% of chasing sides win*. Now that the first stage is complete, does this result still hold?

Adding to the list, there have been the following matches:

12. India beat Bermuda.
13. Zimbabwe lost to West Indies.
14. New Zealand beat Kenya.
15. Scotland lost to South Africa.
16. Sri Lanka beat Bangladesh.
17. Pakistan beat Zimbabwe.
18. New Zealand beat Canada.
19. Scotland lost to Netherlands.
20. Sri Lanka beat India.
21. Ireland lost to West Indies
22. Australia beat South Africa.
23. Kenya lost to England.
24. Bermuda lost to Bangladesh.

From this above list, on 6 occasions the chasing side won, whereas 7 times the side batting first had posted enough to win. Of all World Cup matches, sides batting first won 13, sides batting second won 10 and there was one tied game. Not decisive either way, but certainly not supportive of Wilde’s argument.

On the first blog, I eliminated all those matches involving minnows. I will do the same leaving numbers (20) and (22). In both these matches, the side batting first won: 100% record in intra-Big Fish battings. The reverse of my previous findings. However, if I integrated these results with my previous findings, which include warm-ups and upsets, this leaves 11 matches. Of these, seven times the chasers have won, whereas the side batting first has won on four occasions. That is to say, 63% of the time, the side batting second wins, which is a reduction from the original 78% found in the first analysis. Is the World Cup becoming friendly for those batting first?

Anyway, not particularly interesting, really. But I’ll take another look at this after the next stage is complete.

* In matches between Big Fish or upsets.

Goodbye pork pie bat

All good things must come to an end. This thing was bloody brilliant, which makes the conclusion to a magical moment in cricket all the more painful.

Sluggo delighted us with twinkling finger-spin, his stunning catching ability and his easy charm, and now the dream is over. Bangladesh dispatched the Bermudans by seven wickets. It was the minnow’s final game of the tournament. Now they are going home.

I imagine that a few hopeful Indian eyes were watching Sluggo, as the India’s needed Bangladesh to lose to proceed to the next stage. Yet, it was only an over-optimistic reverie, and another upset would have been too much for an already fantastical World Cup. In the end, Bagladesh eased home, knocking Bermuda and India out of the World Cup.

In another possible world, either India or Pakistan could dominate the international arena. Their talent should overwhelm any cocky Australian side, and yet these sub-continental sides never fulfil their potential. This is deeply distressing for the cricket fan. More ominously, however, their deficiencies are a sign of something profoundly wrong with organisational cricket at the national level.

The murder of Bob Woolmer, match-fixing, spot-fixing and structural instability has unbalanced Pakistan and injured the integrity of its Board and players. In India, disputes about central contracts, sponsorship, and the role of the coach coupled with the bubbling expectations of a billion zealous fans have also created an awkward situation for the team. Both sides are now struggling under these severe crises.

Yet, such is life. The world of business requires coping and flourishing under sometimes intense pressure. There may be obstacles, bureaucratic hell-holes, negative colleagues, or back-stabbers, but you are expected to perform under these difficult circumstances, to adapt and to tackle creatively the problems in front of you.

The Pakistan and Indian cricket teams have folded under the pressure, succumbed to their own systemic weaknesses and allowed their disparagers to affect their performance. Yes, the sides need to find stability and security, but their mental fragility must also be addressed by the cricket boards. For the good of world cricket, and also because we don’t want the Australians to win all the time. In fact, at any time.

H’mmm… This was supposed to be a post praising Sluggo, but I seemed to be ranting about other issues. Sorry. Dwayne Leverock: the King. Will we ever see his kind again?

I doubt it. I very much doubt it indeed.

The giants decide our fate

What a game. The historians will record a substantial Australian victory, but this was a tightly fought match. The Ozzies broke various records to post an intimidating 377 – with Matthew Hayden scoring the fastest century in World Cup history. The South Africans required 7.5 an over to win. A brutal attack by Graeme Smith and AB de Villiers almost made the target look possible. Unfortunately, a freak run-out and cramp saw the SA’s challenge fizzle out, but not before posting a sizable 294.

The most interesting product of this match is the emergence, I think, of a new era in world cricket. Arguably, this process may have started since Johannesburg, but I think this match indicates the existence of a trend. No longer are the Ozzies automatically dominant in all forms of the game. The South Africans now occupy the number one spot in ODIs. Yet, this is not a change of hegemon, it is a duopoly. International cricket has two powerful sides that fight each other as equals, pushing each other forward and ultimately improving the global standard.

This last point is vital. No other Big Fish would have been able to seriously challenge the Australian score as the South Africans did in St. Kitts. Maintaining over seven runs an over throughout the course of an entire innings would have quickly exhausted most batting line-ups. Although the Ozzies did bowl out the South Africans, the steel and determination never left the Proteas’ chase. England would have simply folded without a squeak. Well, maybe a squeak, but nothing more than that. Bloody squeaking is all they do.

Anyway, these two mighty teams are driving each other to achieve greater feats. The performances required for victory are ever bigger in scale. What was impossible is rapidly becoming accepted as standard. The Australians hit 11 sixes in their innings, the SAs only 6. This may not have been the decisive statistic in the match, but it illuminates a change in the nature of modern cricket: exceptional and sustained batting is the norm in the highest level of cricket. At the moment, there is no way that any other nation can compete with either of these sides. Yet, the rivalry between two truly great sides is certainly engrossing. Long may they both continue to improve world cricket.

Whilst I was watching this match, I saw possibly the second-greatest catch of all time. It was a spectator, who, I believe, caught one of Ricky Ponting’s massive sixes. The ball shot from Punter’s bat like teeth from gran’s mouth – a real wizzer. This beer-belly in the crowd was merrily chatting away to his mate, whereupon he saw a missile streaming over his head. In a flash, a pork-pie sized fist jabbed into the air and plucked this rocket from out of the air before it broke the stand behind. Only one hand was available for this deed, as the other was holding a beer. I was stunned by this skill. I was going to put a picture of this accomplishment on my blog, but I think a cartoon will better convey the brilliance and instinct of the moment.

It was like that, only more beautiful.

Dancing in the World Cup

There have been many jolly jigs performed by successful bowlers in this World Cup. Some have the moves, and some are embarrassing. This post tries to sort the groovy from the graceless and presents a definitive list of the World Cup’s Best Dancers.

The qualification procedure for this honour is difficult and complicated. We must define “dancing” as distinct from “jubilant celebrations” or “happy uncoordinated jiggling”. There is a clear difference between a jig and a jiggle. Air-punching, wild running, high-fiving and arm-raising do not count as dancing. What I am looking for is The Groove – the intentional, rhythmic wriggling that makes you, apparently, “cool”.

Here’s a good starter, on the right. This is Zimbabwe’s Tawanda Mupariwa celebrating a wicket in style. He is overjoyed by taking a scalp, but he is also intensely serious when it comes to the dance. This is a solemn art, and much practice goes into perfecting his piece.

Next, on the left, we have a couple dancing the Sluggonese waltz. This is performed by members of the Bermudan team. Notice the unbalanced nature of the moves. This one-side whirl, followed by an eventual collapse, is particular popular from these regions of the cricketing world.




Now, the winners for team co-ordination: Bangladesh.

Observe the rhythmic pumping of arms, and the stamping of feet. I think I will call this the “Tiger Tango”, or the “Bangladesh Bop” I’m not sure. But seeing as they go through this routine nearly every time they take a wicket, I’m sure I’ll have plenty of further opportunities to mull over possible names. Here’s the whole team at it.

Nutters.

Lastly, the prize for outstanding individual performance, especially in the category of stamina and balance goes to the former England captain, Andrew Flintoff of the Northern Lands. Congratulations Fred:

The Predictoron

OK - I admit it. My seeming prophetic forecasting skills are false. I have a machine I bought off a bloke in a pub. It’s called “The Predictoron”. It provided me with all my previous predictions, hence the computer-like accuracy. Today I asked The Predictoron the result for today’s game, Sri Lanka vs. Bangladesh.

Port of Spain: India lose to Sri Lanka by four wickets.

Both sides will field unchanged line-ups. Sri Lanka correctly calls “heads” and bowl.

The Indian innings will start brightly, with 70 on the board before the first wicket is lost. Then a bit of carnage from Malinga: India will lose four wickets for nine runs. However, Dravid will hold things together with a 72 that provides the backbone of the innings, whilst Yuvraj Singh, Dhoni, and Harbhajan will provide some fireworks in the late-order to see India recover to 272.

Sri Lanka won’t start too well: they’ll lose Tharanga and Jayasuriya cheaply. Nevertheless, those legends, Jayawardene and Sangakkara, will put 124 for the third wicket. The scene is set for Maharoof, who scores a quick-fire 73 to see the Lankans home, with vital some lower-order support. There will be five balls to spare.

The Sri Lankan fans will cheer; the Indians will not. Although, for some pessimist fans there’s hope:

The only way India can surmount their problems is by playing out their skins. We don't think they can do it for more than 2 or 3 matches. So, better to lose now, get knocked out of the tournament and start afresh for the busy cricket season ahead.

That’s the sort of negativity will like to hear here in Ayalac, and there should certainly be more of it about.

In Jamaica, the omnipotent West Indies will devour the Irish like the minnows they are. Hurrah!

In yesterday's play, Scotland did lose against the Netherlands. By eight wickets! Ha! That certainly made my day. The Scots completely capitulated. It was like taking one of my soufflés out of the oven: excitement at the prospect of my achievement, and then despair at watching it pathetically collapse inwards. Only, I wasn’t despairing; I was smirking. The Scotch were annihilated in every match of this tournament, it was a comprehensive disaster. Suddenly, the sun is shining again.

Hang on. Why on earth do the Dutch play cricket? How did that happen? Were some cricket-obsessive pirates blown of course in the 17th century and, instead of raping and pillaging the locals, they taught them how to ponce about in white flannels on a cryptic stretch of grass. They must have been the worst pirates ever. And, by the looks of things, not great at cricket, either.

Scotland might lose

You can’t help but think that that Scotland should have invested more of their energies into beating the Netherlands, than trying the improbable of beating Australia. Today Scotland slumped to an appalling score of 136, being bowled out in 34.1 overs. The penetrative bowling of the well-known Billy Stelling getting three for 12, and the dangerous Mark Jonkman taking two for 22. Look at Jonkman in the picture. Look at that tenacity. He face is saying, “I bowled you out, Scotchman. I bowled you out, and now I am going to knock you down. I knock you down easy.” That’s the sort of attitude I like to see in minnows: undirected, futile aggression.

This Scotch failure brings joy to my heart. As I have noted, I have immature yet good reasons for wanting Scotland to lose, and lose badly. The problem is I don’t have pets, or children. I have nothing to nurture or help develop. So, I have decided to nurse a bitter grudge, feeding it with sulky remarks and sour observations. My precious one is growing strong.

In other news, New Zealand are showing England how it is done, and are destroying the Canadians. No fuss, no messing about with batting strategies. Just good, straight-forward slogging. Lou Vincent hit 101 in 117 balls, with nine fours and a six. None of the top-order deliberately played slow, and the crowd did not give them a slow hand clap. The reason for this is that the Kiwis are playing proper cricket, which is something the England Cricket Board may like to think about.

I’m starting to wonder whether the Black Caps might do a Sri Lanka, and sneak into the Semis without actually being that good. I don’t think so, though. There’s something indefinably mediocre about the New Zealanders. They have players of flair, and match-winners, but there’s just something of the defective about them, but I can’t put my finger on it.

Sluggo update

Apologies for the brevity of this post, but I found a great video of the catch of the century.

"Leverock has flown like a gazelle, I can't believe it”

In true cricket spirit, the commentators indulge in a prolonged analysis of the post-catch celebrations.

“Leverock. The big 'un. He’s off"

There’s hugging.

“You can’t pick him up, put him down.”

And running.

“It’s all moving again.”

And a pile of Bermudans.

“It’s his first ball of the World Cup, first ball of the spell and then they squash him. Please don’t let that Leverock get on top of them.”

Sluggo shows us, once again, how it’s done.

Jayasuriya: old but good

Today’s update comes rather late. I just went to a gruelling job interview. They gruelled me just as much as they grilled me. I am feeling a bit too tired to blog.

Not that any of you care. You unfeeling bastards.

I was going to write a bit about Pakistan, seeing as there is so much going on there. But I think this issue has been examined more than enough elsewhere, and it is a bit sad, too.

So, let’s talk about Sanath Jayasuriya. What a guy. He’s old enough to be my ancestor, and yet he manages 109 off 87. OK – it was against Bangladesh and all the Sri Lankans were scoring freely, but this is still an impressive performance from the old war horse. Plus, at the time of writing, the supposedly “good” batsmen of Bangladesh are being torn apart (42-5). Anyway, here's the scorecard...I only hope the Tigers don't turn the game around by the time you read this. I wouldn't want to look silly now.

Sri Lanka are the dark horses of the tournament. They have quietly been getting on with low-key, yet impressive victories. Here’s a record its campaign so far:

• Beat Scotland by 159 runs, bowling the Scots out for 135.
• Only just lost to New Zealand.
• Tonked Bermuda by 243 runs.

Admittedly, they have only played minnows, and the one time they were genuinely tested they lost. But, in warm ups it’s not a question of who, but how. Their victories have been confident and unwavering, and their loss was fought tooth and nail. There don’t seem to be many question marks in the team, and all disciplines seem to be functioning effectively. Moreover, they finally have an influential all-rounder in the form of Farfeez Maharoof, making them into a very complete side.

Saying that, I still feel claims of their regaining the trophy are still fanciful, but I would back them to get into the semi-finals. Perhaps they will lose to South Africa, to meet the Windies in the final. I’m still backing the West Indies to win. They will do it. They will do it for me, because they read my blogs. Now that you have read the end of this entry, you too should do something constructive, like do some filing, or give to charity. Go on. Do it.

Sluggo soars, India roars

It’s the catch everyone is talking about. Sluggo launches himself into a Jonty Rhodes-like jump, soaring horizontally at full extension and seizes the ball the last possible moment. Poetry in motion.

Here’s what cricinfo had to say about this nimble take:

"Jones to Uthappa, OUT, OMG! what a catch by Dwayne Levorock! And what wild celebrations! Let no body say anymore that a fat man can't jump! Uthappa has a nervous poke, away from the body, at a length-delivery outside off stump. It flew to the right of Leverock hurled himself - hard to visualise, I am not lying but that's what happened- to his right and plucked it single-handed. And the celebrations followed. He ran off to nowhere in particular, changed directions and again went on a jig. The players mobbed him, few other went down in heap in midwicket in celebration. All over each other. Bermuda are overjoyed. The bowler is the bottom of that heap and hold on he is crying. Tears of joy! What a start!"

Sadly, despite this awesome display of athleticism, Bermuda received a thorough battering at the hands of the Indians. Interestingly, Virender Sehwag came up with the goods after a long spell of bad form, scoring 114 off 87. The Indians posted a World Cup record 413 off their 50 overs. Neat work.

Once again, the Bermudan batting lacked steel, and they folded for 156. However, Sluggo was promoted up the order, and contributed, with David Kemp, 44 for the ninth wicket. This made up, I suppose, for conceding 96 from his 10 overs.

But what a catch.

Batting first

I think we are far enough into to the tournament to begin looking at the “Simon Wilde Thesis”. The Sunday Times cricket correspondent argues that the side batting second should expect a greater chance of victory:

"Figures show 57% of all one-day internationals are won by the team batting second, and the figure is higher in matches in the West Indies."

So let’s test the hypothesis. So far, I count 11 completed matches. The full list is as follows:

1. West Indies beat Pakistan
2. Australia beat Scotland
3. Canada lost to Kenya
4. Sri Lanka beat Bermuda
5. Ireland tied with Zimbabwe
6. England lost to New Zealand
7. South Africa beat Holland
8. India lost to Bangladesh
9. Pakistan lost to Ireland
10. Australia beat Holland
11. England beat Canada

From the above, the side batting first has won six games, the chasing team has won four games and one match has been tied. 60% of the total victories has been won by the side batting first – which is a result which flatly contradicts Wilde’s thesis.

However, considering the large number of minnows in this data-set, we cannot hope to glean much useful information for aiding our predictions over Big Fish matches. I shall, therefore, refine the analysis a little more. So, let me eliminate all those games involving minnows and the keep only intra-Big Fish matches and the upsets. Preserving, in the above list, numbers (1), (6), (8) and (9), with the following additional warm-up matches (in accordance with the above criteria):

a. New Zealand lost to Bangladesh
b. West Indies lost to India
c. South Africa lost to Pakistan
d. New Zealand beat Sri Lanka
e. England lost to Australia

Of this nine, only twice has a side batting first won. 78% of the time chasing sides win. Far greater than the originally percentage predicted by the theory, and a dramatic departure from the previous conclusion.

I’m not sure whether my cleaning of the data has been legitimate, but if these results are prescient, it may create a horribly predictable World Cup. No one really wants the Final to be determined by the toss of a coin. I hate it when Simon Bloody Wilde is right.

Nevertheless, although I will revisit this issue in the future, I do not believe there to be enough results to produce meaningful statistics. A conclusion on the Wildean Hypothesis will remain on hold until I have seen more Big Fish on Big Fish action.

Bob Woolmer dies

This is really terrible news. I don’t think I can add much to what has already been said. King Cricket has written a touching obituary, and the BBC has collected some tributes from around the cricketing world.

After losing to Ireland, Bob Woolmer came under immense pressure, and was pondering his the future of his career. However, this does not explain the tragedy. He died in frightening circumstances, alone and far from his family. It is awful that any human being has to endure such ordeals, especially in the context of a prosperous career and potential to use his skills to help develop more cricketers.

One wonders where Pakistani cricket will go from here. As Inzamam has retired from one-day cricket, the team has lost its foundation. But moments like this expose the unimportance of the game, relative to value of a human life. A genuinely upsetting day for cricket.

Hungry hungry minnows

By buggery! They did it! The Irish knocked Pakistan out of the World Cup. On the same day, Bangladesh smote India. The minnows have changed world history. This justifies all I have said about the minnows. And everything else I’ve written, too.

There is a lot of talk in the blog community about Pakistan’s dismal batting. Ahmer Azhar Karimuddin in the Pakistan Cricket Update raises an interesting point:

"Who would have thought that it would be the batting that would be the biggest hang-up Pakistan would have in this tournament? "

Indeed, with the Big Three, you would think they would secure a minimum of 200 in every match. This was not the case; the batting was rubbish. Whereas the bowling was, despite the doubters and lack of stars, pretty good.

India, on the other hand, were all-round crap.

What is it with these sub-continental sides? Why aren’t they trying? Is it the old “they don’t care enough” clap-trap? Perhaps it’s the pitches? Perhaps it’s the lack of practice? Perhaps the administrative issues or off-the-field distractions? What ever it is, I wish it would stop, otherwise it looks as though no one can stop the evil Australians winning again.

As a final thought, I think we can all agree that Pakistan is a side that has not fulfilled its potential. Part of this problem has been the management issues. However, Inzy, in his current spell as captain, has done a good job. I really hope they don’t axe him, as another sacking would add to their state of confusion. I also think that Bob Woolmer has brought stability to the team, and deserves to stay on. However, the Pakistan coach has said:

"Coaching is what I like to do but whether I continue to do that at international level is under discussion. I'm going to give it some thought."

It would be a shame if he gave up coaching altogether over one mistake. It’s not his fault. We need a scapegoat. I blame Mohammad Hafeez. I had high expectations for him. He bowls off spin. A spinner should know better than losing a match. This traitor to the cause should be ruthlessly persecuted and banished from the team. It is not Inzy’s fault. Or Bob’s.

Saying this, there is clearly an attitudinal problem in the Pakistani dressing room, and something needs to change if they are to sort themselves out.

Ah well.

Cricketers at leisure

Here is a picture of Pakistan Coach Bob Woolmer and fast bowler Mohammad Sami I saw last week.

These two naked men seem to getting very close. And by the look on Bob’s face, things might get a little closer.

Actually, what is going on with his face? What is he about to do? Maybe he’s about to “dunk” Sami? I’m not sure he’d look that keen, though. Sami’s knee seems to be moving across. Perhaps he is trying to ward Bob off? “Keep off!” he says through a feigned smile. “Not in front of the cameras.”

It shows you the changing times of cricket. You certainly wouldn’t have seen Devon Malcolm and Raymond Illingworth caught in a similarly semi-nude embrace. Saucy cricketers: it’s the way forward

England rediscover their natural game

Yes. We lost again. Just like the good old days. I can’t say that many of us our surprised. But it’s a pity as their performance was rather spineless. The Kiwis didn’t really do anything special. They just turned up, bowled some good balls and tapped the ball around. Nothing spectacular. They just waited for England’s inevitable slump.

And what a slump: England lost four wickets for five in a rather nostalgic middle order collapse. There was some nice batting at the death from Paul Nixon and Plunkers, but 209 was never enough. A slow pitch and poor fielding saw New Zealand ease home.

This doesn’t mean the World Cup is over for the English - they still will go into the Super 8 (albeit with less points). However, the great “Play Slow” plan was not productive. As I predicted (sorry, smugness getting me again) this strategy is dangerous if you lose quick wickets - as you have not accumulated a buffer of runs. If you invest batsmen’s energies in “getting their eye in” you are totally reliant on them staying in to covert this into a decent score. England’s batsman failed, and thus the innings was a disaster.

More importantly, they need to work out how to play on the St. Lucia ground and, ultimately, develop of game that is well-suited and productive on Caribbean pitches. Otherwise, the dynamic Kenyans will have us for breakfast.

Sluggo down and out

A sad day for lovers of teddy bears – Sri Lanka destroy Bermuda. Normally, minnow-swotting wouldn’t bother me. However, in this instance, cuddly Sluggo was involved. Sluggo didn’t perform well at all. And this makes me sad. :(

His bowling statistics are: 10-0-67-1 .

Not the usual standards we expect here in Ayalac.

Whilst batting, he scored one run, and his eighth ball brought the end of his, and Bermuda’s, sorry innings. (He also dropped two catches – hence the droppy picture.) Despite a brave effort from the extras (9), they only managed 78, and didn’t last half their allotted overs. Coupled with allowing the Lankan to ease over 300 runs, this made for a sorry show.

Although I noted elsewhere that I thought the minnows were a cheery addition to an otherwise formulaic international cricket scene, I am beginning to have doubts.

The rather predictable dispatching of the Banana Republic’s finest cricketing postmen doesn’t seem to mirror the intense competition in other sports – like the Football World Cup. It’s more Twickenham under-12s FCC than Inter Milan. The incorporation of the minnows might turn more people off. I’m still not sure.

Saying that, the Ireland/Zimbabwe game was a cracker, to be sure. It gave international exposure to two developing squads, which surely can’t be a bad thing? The standard of cricket wasn’t the best, but, as any England cricket fan will opine, quality isn’t a vital element in enjoying a match.

Generally, I am finding this phase of the tournament rather unsatisatisfying. The groups have been organised in such a way to ensure that the Big Fish are guaranteed to get through. Yes, there may be a surprise result – but the Test Level sides will all make it to Stage Two. There is no real drama – no tension over who might go. I can only assume that the ICC has decided that the teams require an extra long warm-up period, or perhaps they wouldn’t mind some more cash?

No… I’m sure they’re thinking about the players.

Spaceship Scotland crashes and burns

This match was always going to be a lose-lose situation for me.

Like the rest of humanity, I obviously want to see the Australians humiliated by a minnow. However, after a nasty break up with a Scottish girlfriend, I have turned rather anti-Things-North-Of-The-Border. I am now an advocate of full Scottish independence, isolation and saturation bombing. So, it’s probably best if I take the little drop of bitter glee from the match and do like any good journalist by Focusing On The Loser.

So it brings me great joy when I say: Scotland were crushed by an opposing team. Hurrah!

This, yet again, matches up to my forecasts on the matter. The Scocthmen’s bizarre strategy of targeting one of the most awesome cricket machines in history was a mistake. Why not quote myself? It saves on effort.

There is no point in drawing up detailed plans on defeating Ponting’s team; it is a waste of effort. Scotland will lose against the Ozzies. They need to be realistic, and attempt to fell a weaker team: like England.

OK – admittedly this wasn’t exactly sticking my neck out. But still, one group of barbarians defeated another. Isn’t that enough?

The Ayalac curse strikes

I’ll try not to smug in this post. I’ll probably fail, but at least I’m trying.

So! The first blood is drawn. As per my prediction, the West Indies dispatched Pakistan. I even got some things right: Pakistan won the toss (although, contrary to my advice, chose to field); Mohammad Yousuf and Inzamam-ul-Haq contributed with the second and third highest scores; and, erm, Chanderpaul scored a century.

I wouldn’t read too much into this match, however. As two teams will go through to the next round, and there’s two ‘good’ sides in each group, the first stage is rather like a glorified warm-up. Even if there is an upset, the same old pros are sure to get through.

Still, I pity the poor Pakistan fans. Unlike England, they are packed with talent and should win matches. Unlike England, you don’t expect them to lose. And yet somehow they do. Hence, I was also amused to read the desperation in Omar’s blog. It was a lot more sweary than usual. These made me laugh, so let me share:

“Imran Nazir's …. is a fucking idiot. …Someone needs to bumjack him in the dressing room”

One shudders to think what this entails.

“What in the world was [Younis Khan] doing? Did you see that shot? What the fuck?”

Eventually, the laws of physics are attacked:

“Inzi was unlucky with the decision. I think it was going over the wicket. Fuck what Hawkeye says!”

However, as we all know, it was not science that stopped Pakistan, but my predictions. I have back the Windies. Fear my wrath all those that defy my champions!

It is nearly upon us

OK – the hype for this World Cup has been near BBC Grandstand proportions. You know the feeling, you look in the paper to see when the match starts, you read “3:00pm”, giving you just enough time to make some tea. You sit down, with a biscuit in a comfortable “I’m ready to watch the match now” position. Then, they talk and talk, you see footage of past matches, interviews, statistics, pretty pictures and it seems to be tomorrow before the game has even started. By which time, you have imbibed your drink, leaving you tealess and distraught before it has even started.

This blog is rather like that.

So following on from soon-to-be-accurate predictions, I will give you a summary of today’s match straight to the point.

West Indies vs. Pakistan, Jamaica, 2:30pm GMT start.

Pakistan will win the toss and bat.

Pakistan will score 238. Inzamam-ul-Haq will score a useful 41, but Mohammad Yousuf and Mohammad Hafeez will top-score with 52 and 62 respectively.

The quicks will chip away, but Chris Gayle will do most of the damage taking 3-38 in his ten overs.

The Windies reply will start disastrously. Rapidly being reduced to 34-4, losing Brian Lara, Ramnaresh Sarwan, and Gayle for not much. However, Shivnarine Chanderpaul will hold the side together with a tremendous 109 not out. He will receive solid late-order support, with most players chipping in. Despite the efforts of Naved-ul-Hasan (2-34) and impressive spinning from Danish Kaneria (2-45) Chanderpaul will hit the winning runs on the third ball of the 48th over, with a nice flick through mid-wicket.

Winning the game by two wickets. Nice.

AYALAC Official Backing

I’m not sure I like the look of that acronym. It sounds a bit like a health-food shop for hippies. “This organic tofu contains essence of Ayalac, which decleanses your spiritual pores.” Ah well. It’s too late to change my name now. I’ll have to live with this humiliation for the rest of my blogging life – which, on average I understand, is about five minutes.

So anyway! On the World Cup’s eve, I have decided to champion the cause of one team, and one team alone. Normally, I would give my total support to the England team. Obviously, they are a bunch of useless losers, so there is no point in getting my hopes up. Besides, England teams are supposed to lose. I think our fans prefer it like that. It feels normal; losing make my insides warm and cosy. “It’s like I’m home in front of the fire” I think when we are whitewashed again.

Hence, the essence of Ayalac gives its backing to the WEST INDIES.

Sir Vivian Richards finally swung us when he said:

“Brian Lara is retiring from one-day cricket at the end of the World Cup and it would be fitting to see him smash the winning runs in the final.”

Now that, you must agree, would be a superb way to finish the tournament. To be honest, I think most of the world wants the Windies to win. A West Indies win would surely rejuvenate a sport that increasingly less popular in the region. There’s an adage in England: “When Yorkshire are strong, England are strong.” I have a feeling that when Caribbean cricket is strong, world cricket is strong. And, at the moment, I would rather fancy the Martians chances against us. Also, the hosts have to win at some point…

Go on Brian! Do it for your spiritual pores!

(I actually think that South Africa will win. Don’t tell. But I fear it is rather prosaic to pick a side that you think will actually succeed.)

The ego and cricket

There‘s an interesting blog on Gentleman‘s Game No More on pressure. The article trots out the old Keith Miller quote, who piloted Hurricanes during the Second World War:

"Pressure? I'll tell you what pressure is. Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse. Playing cricket is not."

Mephistopheles concludes that "pressure" is an over-used word in modern cricket, and suggests that it is not applicable in the context of a sporting event. There are two reasons why this is wrong.

Firstly, the key word here is the pronoun "I". Our characters are partly formed by our past. Major or traumatic events are significant in affecting our current proclivities. Miller is alluding to a subjective episode that correlates tightly with particular circumstances in his life experience.

Yet, fortunately, the present cricketing generation has not fought in a war. Our point of reference for our concepts and language come from the notable instances from our rather less turbulent history. We deploy a vocabulary that seems, in our view, most relevant to the situation before us. As, thankfully, we all have not experienced such peril, we apply words that others (say, soldiers) who have may not feel suitable. However, surely language does not fit the extremes of the human emotions, but the middle ground. Or, more accurately, it matches with the usage of the current generation of the English-speaking community. Moreover, is this not simply too high a benchmark for our language? It is not the cricketers that must struggle to formulate an applicable phrase - but the fighter pilots.

Secondly, the nature of modern cricket has changed. I have noted elsewhere that "intensity" is just as much a part of the international game as bats and stumps. For better or for worse, this is a fact of life. Indeed, it also reflects the changing focus of society. We are no longer are stirred by national prestige, as sport is now the chief channel for our emotional energies and passions. This is surely an improvement. But also, it irresistibly heightens the role for sport in language as well as society. Consequently, cricket has become professional. Sponsorship deals are worth millions. Players give 110%. They give their all to the team; those who fail to fully commitment lose. Careers, the lives of men, hang in the balance. Like businessman and stockbrokers, they feel pressure because their future, and the team's future, is uncertain.

Moreover, as we are social animals, the pressure is felt because of the over-spilling anticipation of the millions of fans, the expectation of the coach and the demands of the press. This additional dimension adds to the excitement and to the enjoyment of the game.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Do you remember the summer of 1998? In that summer, a new bloke started playing for England. He seemed promising. The only problem was his fatness. Despite being only 20, this weight problem persisted. It even started to give him back problems. The ECB issued an ultimatum: shape up, or sod off.

Now that bloke is super-fit, and is one of the best players in the world. Although, he’ll never forget his roots. His heart is with the fat people. He feels for them, he empathises with them. He knows their pain like no other.

Hang on. This picture doesn’t seem to be saying these things. The picture says: “Betrayal.” It says, “Ex-Fatty is being mean to my new hero, Sluggo.” Well I won’t stand for that Andrew Flintoff of Lancashire! You leave the teddy bear of Bermuda alone! He is my hero. This is a warning: blogging can turn nasty.

Lets all by nice to Sluggo. I’ll start: he has the best hair-do of all the world’s cricketers.

Vaughan: Back to Basics

I notice that the BBC stole my Michael Vaughan picture in the post below. Should I sue them? Best not draw attention to myself, really… Anyway, sorry for the repetition, but here’s some more Vaughan.

In a recent interview, Vaughan has claimed that England’s recent success is due to their “back to basics” approach. I normally associate back to basics with John Major’s desperate attempts to hold a divided and toppling government together in the face of inevitable annihilation. But I’m sure it’ll all be cheery for Vaughany.

Anyway, in this interview, the England captain believes big-hitters are not central to the England plan:

“Paul Collingwood is not that explosive, but he’s very, very valuable. JD [Jamie Dalrymple] is very explosive towards the end, Belly is a nice little player who knocks it around and KP [Kevin Pieterson] is coming back. These guys are all going to play their part.”

This cerebral, clear-thinking approach for Vaughan is really refreshing. It rejects the contemporary obsession with rope-clearing; it is not the only tactic worth considering. Building an innings in a deliberate and methodical way is just as effective when compiling a score. Rather like the old adage: “It’s not how, it’s how many”.

For Vaughan, England won in Australia because of

“…going back to basics, working together as a team, trying to prepare in a way that was specific to one-day cricket and then just having that little bit of luck. We got together and talked about every aspect of one-day cricket as a team – we left no stone unturned.”

This is a very interesting comment. It shows that England are willing to scrutinise their approach and diversify their tactics. One-day cricket is not about predictable variation (rotating bowlers and field settings for the hell of it) it’s about conforming to a carefully constructed plan and being flexible in the use of tactics. Similarly, when batting you must look to your team’s particular skill-set, and build a plan that emphasis and even exaggerates this natural advantage.

I have now convinced myself: Pinch-hitting is not the only method to victory.

It seems, rather like me, Michael Vaughan is challenging the hegemonic discourses that many take for granted. Is there nothing the man can’t do?

Playing it slow

England have announced another ex post facto change of tactics. Instead of promoting a pinch-hitter to take advantage of the early fielding restrictions, they will “build a foundation”. Angus Fraser states:

“The plan is for England to make up for a slow start by scoring heavily in the final 15 overs of each innings. It is hoped the tactic allows them to consistently post scores of 260-270, totals that will ensure they are competitive in every match.”

Weirdly, this puts a lot of pressure for the bowlers to perform well. As others* have pointed out, the days of an “unchasable score” seems to be over. This means that the bowlers must (and there is not derogating this) must contain or skittle the batsman. Achieving containment is extremely difficult given the quality of current international slogging, and taking wickets depends on the penetration of the bowlers. However, considering last summer’s performance, I doubt Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett, James Anderson et al. are capable of defending scores below thee-hundred.

Saying that, the approach is a practical and realistic acknowledgement of England’s modest boundary-spanking resources. Thus, we must make the most of Kevin Pieterson and Andrew Flintoff by giving them a licence to slog towards the end of the innings. As always, we can only hope for the best with the bowlers.

Anyway, is this really a conservative return to old-fashioned one-day play? Well, consider this: if Adam Gilchrist gets out swinging the bat, there’s plenty of talent below him to recover the innings and put on a decent score through nudging ones and twos. But, what happens when England lose their upper-order cheaply? The sloggers are exposed and, if they lose their wickets, an imperfect start turns into a disastrous end.

Arguably, the insurance of consequence-free early hitting provides a greater buffer to a side wanting to “play it safe”; obtaining quickly the comfort of runs. Whereas nurdling singles can only succeed if executed over a long duration, and with wickets in hand. Pinning our hopes on preserving wickets might undermine confidence further, and place more pressure on the lower order to “catch up”. Digging ourselves further into a hole of negativity. Which is something I generally approve of.

So, accepting reality might be another ECB cock-up. Who knows? So, we’ll see how it goes with England. But at least Michael Vaughan has implemented some strategy to proceedings.

* The link feature appears to be broken on blogger. Here's the article I wanted to link to: http://www.cricket-blog.com/archives/2007/03/5/Preview-of-Australias-World-Cup-chances/

The minnows fight back

Despite the efforts of the ten-fingered Jacob Oram, minnow Bangladesh consumed the big fish New Zealand.

Poor batting reduced New Zealand to 34 for 4, whereupon Oram added a steady 88 to leave them with 226. Bangladesh’s reply was solid, with Javed Omar and Tamim Iqbal putting on 85 for the first wicket. Thereafter, Bangladesh commanded the game. Mashrafe Mortaza finished the Black Caps off with 30 off 14 balls, striking three sixes, with an over to spare.

Clearly, the Kiwis didn’t really turn up to Bridgetown. They’re only Bangladesh, after all. But, this is the strength of the minnow: deceptive ability. They are not a push over, like Twickenham under-13s were, you must apply yourself to win. When international teams become complacent against such sides they lose.

All these little teams are trying hard to win and deserve respect from their opponents. To fail to give this respect teams run the risk of “doing a New Zealand”.

Minnows play to an international standard, only they do not contain the consistent quality of the bigger teams. It’s more like a football World Cup, with plucky Ghana trying to fell mighty Brazil. As such, minnows are an important part of the World Cup. Their presence diversifies the international cricket experience and makes it more interesting to a wider audience.

Let them play!

England beat a fat man at his own game

When I looked up the score during the interval, England looked on the ropes. The press’ main theme was “Uninspiring England scrape a score thanks to Jamie Dalrymple’s nurdling”. This morning the headline in the Metro is “England cruise to crushing win”. 22.2 overs is a short time in cricket.

After posting a respectable 286, England blew Bermuda away, scoring 45 all out. Hopefully, our boys got some practice out of it.

There has been a lot of talk of the minnows’ place in the World Cup. I, for one, have not issued a comment on the matter. I will continue this precedent.

However, I would like to note that the Caribbean island has two decent players: David Hemp, who captains Glamorgan and 21-stone Dwayne Leverock who bowls tight left-armers. The latter is now one of my favourites in the international cricket arena – his nickname is “Sluggo”. What a name. What a man. What a spinner.

The rest of them are rubbish.

Obsession with injury

OK – I may not have a great memory,but I don’t remember
cricketers always being a bunch of old crocks. Angus Fraser (champion) used to plug away for years without injury. Alright, that may not be entirely true, but in my unfounded opinion, cricketers are receiving more injuries. There are two schools of thought explaining this development:

1. Geoff Boycottism (They’re all a bunch of girls). This thesis asserts that modern cricketers have become increasingly fragile because of universal use of “shoes” and banning corporal punishment in schools.

2. They’re over-worked. This re-iterates the usual complaint that cricketers play too much cricket.

The reality is probably a mixture of the two. Or probably not. Anyway, here is a list of international players that are either injured or have an injury “scare”.

- Mathew Hayden
- Michael Vaughan
- Herschelle Gibbs
- Justin Kemp
- Jacob Oram
- Andrew Symonds
- Abdul Razzaq
- Brett Lee
- Simon Jones
- Shoaib Akhtar
- Mohammad Asif

I decided to stop at eleven. But it’s enough for a whole team – a pretty good team, now that I look at it. It seems that at any point 5% of the world’s cricketing talent has some sort of injury.

It’s worth noting that none of the above crocks is a spinner. Look at the above picture. Anil Kumble continuing to win matches, despite the major head trauma. What does that tell you about spinners?

There is a very interesting article on the Canadian cricket website, about the under-development of cricket in the Americas.

It documents the first overseas tour in 1859, as All-England took on the Americans.

…the tour concluded with the notorious 'Frosty Match' played at Rochester, NY, on October 21, 24, and 25 between Eleven of England and Twenty-two of the United States and Canada. The home side was wrecked by the round-arm bowling of John Wisden (of the Cricket Almanack). But dismissal appeared to come as relief to the half frozen batsmen. "Shiver my timbers, I'm out!" was the relieved cry as they made a dash for the warmth of the pavilion. The home side was beaten, early on the third day, by an innings and 70 runs, but in fact, it was cricket that was defeated on the fields of Rochester.

Cricket simply failed to attract a broader audience that day. A PR disaster; cricket beaten by bad weather. It may have been the first such instance, but it wasn’t the last.

The article goes on to place partial responsibility for the death of cricket, on those that attempted to preserve it, specifically those in Philadelphia:

Indeed, I sometimes think that it was the snobbishness of Philadelphia which was largely responsible for branding cricket as a 'stuck-up' game in popular American perception

Compared to the everyman’s game of baseball, cricket didn’t have a chance. It was seen as exclusive. Which is, in itself, part of the contradictory nature of cricket: its charm lies in its antiquated and rather archaic rules that baffle outsiders. Cricket stops for tea, plays with a straight bat, and have you ever tried to explain a forward defensive to someone who knows nothing about the game? Cricket feeds on these snobberies, and appeals to those who are dissatisfied with American culture.

In another possible world cricket could have survived in America. But imagine the game if the yanks got hold of it. It would be a vulgar spectacle, with unnecessary American rules with silly titles like “power plays”. Games would last no more than twenty overs, and awful music would blare out when boundaries are scored. Ghastly.

Thankfully, this never happened, and cricket remains the better game. Conversely, baseball did catch on over here. Only we call in “rounders” and it is played by children.

Ian Salisbury agrees with me

After reading Muttiah Muralitharan’s savage attack on me, former England spinner, Ian Salisbury comes to my defence. In a recent interview, he states that Monty Panesar will be a big player in the World Cup and that “spin may play a big part in the tournament.” Take that Murali!

Moreover, he goes on to support another thesis of mine:

“…why is that a fast bowler can get away with being a No. 11 but a spin bowler can’t? Spinners are always expected to bat at seven, eight or nine. You look at Glenn McGrath, he’s in the Australia side for his bowling but he can’t bat to save his life. So why was Monty given stick for his batting when he was in the side for his bowling?”

Hear, hear! Spinners are indeed oppressed. Spinning is an important discipline in itself, and should not be sullied by the demand for batting skills. In fact, rubbishy fast bowlers should be the ones expected to swan around with the willow, and keep wicket.

Monty: says the right things

In a recent interview, Monty Panesar has said that although Michael Vaughan is very important to the team, Andrew Flintoff will be just as good. The justification being:

"Michael Vaughan likes everyone to be captain out on the field"

So, it doesn’t really matter who is captain, as Vaughan has ingrained leadership onto the entire team. Apparently, the best test of a manager (in the business world) is someone whose loss isn’t noticed, as they have created a stand-alone, functioning outfit that doesn't require mirco-management or constant crisis control. Presumably, Vaughan has constructed a similar framework. Anyway, Monty goes on.

"He's got a lot of experience and led England to an Ashes win. He's very excited about going to the World Cup and it's great to have him.”

Vaughan is good.

"But if Andrew Flintoff replaces him then we are still in a very good position because he's a very good captain who leads from the front. Andrew is an inspiration on and off the field."

But Flintoff is also good.

A fine piece of PR: he said the right things and didn’t put his foot in it. And complied with the normal rules of remaining blindly positive, humble and open. I am wondering whether the spinning superstar might be taking over from Paul Collingwood’s media duties. If so, this paradigm shift would certainly make him into a multi-dimensional cricketer, who is well-adjusted to the information economy and human resourcing through a sustainable holistic synergy strategy.

At last! Blessed negativity.

According to Viv Richards (another God) reckons that Australia are stuck in an inevitable decline.

"A lot of the other sides see the Aussies as a team with stars of the past nearing the end of their careers. They now believe they can beat the Aussies - and none more so than South Africa and New Zealand."

They are old and finished. This is a truly refreshing outlook on cricket: you are crap, don’t bother. I wish more people thought like this.

But they don’t.

How England can win the World Cup

Assuming he doesn’t catch diphtheria in the next week, the England and Wales Cricket Board should enrol young Jonny Wilkinson.

Occasionally, he plays a spot for his local village team. Here’s a photograph I took of him on Twickenham Green. I think that you will agree, he has a fine cover drive. Obviously, his technique is rather unorthodox. But we found strapping a bat to his leg was more effective for big hitting required at the death.

This man is a god. He single-handedly won one World Cup; he can easily win another. Furthermore, in cricket, people won’t deliberately try to remove his shins. A doddle!

Murali attacks me

A recent cricinfo piece quotes Muttiah Muralitharan saying, due to the use of power plays, spinners will struggle in the World Cup.

"The rules have changed now with the 20-over power plays coming so the spinners go out of the game, you can't play two or three spinners any more," he said. "We have only one spinner at the moment so fast bowlers have more chance [of success] because they bowl in the power play."

Obviously, this is a defeatist point of view, and one that also could be characterised as “wrong”. Especially considering my own air-tight argument, made elsewhere.

Once you accept that spinners are easy slog-fodder for the batsman, then all is lost. In fact, spin bowling has many weapons against sloggers. Variety, spin and flight are key tools in the spinner’s arsenal to confuse pinch-hitters.

Moreover, unlike fast bowlers, batsmen actually have to generate their own pace onto the ball to hit big: they cannot deflect a spinner for six. Batsmen have to come after the bowler, immediately making him more vulnerable. 20-over power plays, therefore, are a key attacking opportunity for the spinner.

Scotland: We will fly to the moon

Scotland’s coach, Peter Drinnen, thinks that his team has a good chance against Australia.

“We don’t fear anyone at this World Cup and we won’t be losing any sleep over playing the world champions.”

There is no point in drawing up detailed plans on defeating Ponting’s team; it is a waste of effort. Scotland will lose against the Ozzies. They need to be realistic, and attempt to fell a weaker team: like England.

Besides, the whole point of a “surprise victory” is that it is unexpected. A minnow cannot simply expect a win, that would take the fun out of it.

However, that Scotland fancy their chances against the Ozzies, after defeats by England and New Zealand, is indicative of Australia’s rapid fall from hegemony. And a sign of things to come, surely? It is also hilarious.

Anyway, this is all in keeping with my world cup predictions.

This is too wonderful

Australia get thrashed. Again.

This is stupendous news. Now, consider Australia’s condition:

- They can’t seem to win any ODIs.
- Their best players are injured, or old.
- Their captain is away.
- There bowling attack is full of youngsters, that are totally incapable of containing the batsman.
- Players that used to dominant, are going through an inexplicable bad patch.

That’s right. The Ashes Tour have exposed the Australian team to a deadly virus: Englanditus. There is no coming back. Teeheehee.

AHAHAHA!

Brilliant. Australia lose. Badly.

I had a suspicion, during the Ashes, that the Ozzy bowling attack was a little vulnerable. Beyond Shane Warne and Glen McGrath (when he was good) – there wasn’t much else. Now, the lowerling bowlers have received injuries, we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Let’s consider that barrel sludge, in their recent loss:

N W Bracken 10.0 -1 -66 -2
G D McGrath 9.4- 0- 50 -0
S W Tait 9.0- 0- 64- 0
S R Watson 10.0- 0 -58 -3
G B Hogg 7.0- 0- 58- 0
C L White 3.0 -0 -29 -0

Appalling. But brilliant. Too.

Collingwood: We will win the Noble Peace Price

Here are some remarks by Colly “Paul Collingwood” Coleslaw, regarding England’s chances at the World Cup:

“We hope we can take that kind of form and the momentum from the last four games into the World Cup – and we hope we’ll go a long way. We hope we’ve peaked at the right time.”

He went on to say: “Sod it. We’re unstoppable. I’ll have that trophy, next to my MBE medal, on m’mantelpiece before long, man.”

OK – I may have used some tricks from political journalism there, but I think we all know what he’s getting at. Because England have demonstrated that it is possible to win a match, they’re certain to win the World Cup.

This may be true, but I’m more interested in Colly’s constant use as England PR man. His prolific output is almost McGrathian. For instance, scoring a double hundred gave him a "great feeling"; England are good at “fighting back”; Shane Warne would be a handy addition to the back-room team, etc. Throughout the many crushing defeats he was always there to note that it wasn't all lost yet. Until it was. But he still didn't shut up.

However, he did produce one very illuminating comment to the Metro the other day, saying that Michael Vaughan had brought “calm” to the outfit. Suggesting that a previously positive team were in a state of panic. The spirit of the team was never mentioned publicly and, I suspect, privately either. If the England team had acknowledged these feelings of inadequacy, they may have moved on from them. Instead, the platitudinous wittering about “taking positives out of a loss” were counter-productive. We need to be honest and embrace our lameness. Collingwood builds “knowing his limitations” into his game – why can’t England do the same and start talking sense?

Spinners will run away with the World Cup

My prediction is that spinners will be the deciding factor in the World Cup. Contrary to generations of over-whelming fast-bowling success on Caribbean pitches, the World Cup will serve as a major turning point for West Indian and world cricket.

The pinch-hitter won the 1996 World Cup. The 2003 World Cup was won by the all-rounder. 2007 will be dominated by the spinner.

With most proper sides convinced of the necessity to have a few tidy overs from that young lefty, the slow bowler will finally prove his worth in ODIs. Once spectacular batsman will be constrained and bamboozled by overs of intelligent variety in spin and flight. This may result in the most crushingly boring World Cup of all time. But it’s a price worth paying if the spinners lead the way to this new era of tedious cricket.

Ones to watch:
- Chris Gayle. I think his bowling is much under-rated. To be honest, I think he should give up batting, and focus on his real talents. Will bowl Inzy around his legs.
- Monty. I’m not sure he’s as good as Gayle. But I like to watch him leap about. Will steal trophy, fending off attempted tackles, and will score an amazing try at the Pavilion End (see above).
- Vettori. Long over-due some success at this level. Will bore six English batsmen out.
- Kaneria. Apparently it was an "unexpected move" by the PCB to include this weird leggie in their campaign, but he will single-handedly beat the Windies by taking 7-22 in the early rounds.

Elevens to forget:
- South Africa and Australia will not make it to the Second Stage

World eleven

Sanath Jayasuriya
Michael Vaughan
+Kumar Sangakkara
Sachin Tendulkar
Kevin Pieterson
Chris Gayle
Shahid Afridi
*Anil Kumble
Paul Adams
Monty Panesar
Muttiah Muralitharan

My world team requires the following: a) you must be currently available for international duty and b) pretty good at spinning.

The main struggle was over the wicket keeper. Thankfully, cricinfo claims that Sangakkara bowls a bit of off-break, when he isn’t conquering the world, so that’s good enough for me.

As for the bowler bowlers, I tried to pick the best of each of the four spin bowling disciplines. As I couldn’t think of any other chinaman, I thought South Africa’s Paul Whatsit should do the job. The rest, I think, are fairly uncontroversial.

The batsmen were selected for bowling reasons alone. It is a handy coincidence that they are some of the best batsman in the world, too. Why do good batsman make good bowlers? Are they naturally amazing? It is also interesting to note that most of the batsmen are openers. Why do opening batsman bowl spin quite well? I assume that, after they get out quickly, they have nothing better to do than bugger about in the nets, trying to be Shane Warne. Which is less amazing, as it is something I do.

I decided to make Kumble captain, in the face of seriously good candidates further up in the order. I think bowlers are better people than batsman, and they are routinely and unfairly over-looked in the captaincy. They need some support.

I think I will have to do an All Time Greats soon: Carl Hooper and Graeme Hick, here we come!

How to beat Australia

Well, it seems as though England have now won the opportunity to be thrashed again. As a pub-frequenting Englishman, I feel it is my patriotic duty to pass on my advice to the England administration, on how they may avoid this.

Now, much has been made of “matching the Ozzy intensity” and “being more determined to win” etc. etc. You know the sort of thing I mean – strong mental side of the game, and all that clap-trap. I decided to search “intensity” in Google images and, amongst the many pictures of cats, there was this:


This is an “intense” person. Would you describe this man as normal? Quite. But, if we keep asking for the England team to look intense, they will, eventually, all end up like this bloke.

“Intensity” is part of the Australian game. Ozzies have been brought up on a deep-seated need to win and do well at sport. Why? Because they are a messed up nation of weirdoes. Think about it: this is about a bunch of grown men poncing about on a bit of grass waving about bits of wood. Is it worth the effort? Getting worked up about bits of wood. Really?

“Yes” says the weirdo Australian “I could get worked up about global poverty, world peace and making lots of money. But I decided to invest ALL my mental efforts in dominating the attack of Lower Dingo’s first XI.”

This is the wrong way to look at sport. It treats it as if it was important. Consequently, the Ozzies don’t play within the spirit of the game. They play in a prattish way, pushing their weight around and trying to intimidate the opposition.

“Bugger skill” say Ozzy “I’ll bully ‘em. Then I’ll win. And that is all that matters.”

This can spill-out onto acts of violence, racism and simple prattishness.

No one can compete being bigger prats than the Ozzies, so, what is needed, therefore, is for the Englishmen to use our absolute advantage: No Fear of Failure. The Ozzies are TERRIFIED of losing, it actually affects their soul when they lose. We Englishmen are well-acquainted with our ol’ chum Failure. It frees us. It liberates us.

Once we realise we cannot win, we cannot lose. The melting away of mental anxieties is in itself a serious mental edge. What is needed is nonchalance. Ease. Charm. Thus, I propose, bringing back amateur cricket. Perhaps Flintoff can pursue his career as a politician. Strauss can return to the Manner, and “dabble in crickers on the side”. Maybe David Nevin can bowl us some of his fierce leg-cutters. It doesn’t matter if they don’t do too well, it’s the taking part that counts.

This will infuriate the hell out of the Australians. Creating a total collapse of confidence, over-reaction and mental disintegration, meanwhile, the indifferent Englishman will saunter in and politely win the game.

There are some cliches to support my argument: He who cares, loses. Fight fire with water. The past: it’s the way forward.

England’s natural game.

There has been much talk over the last few months, and possibly years, as to one-day cricket being second-favourite in England’s Top Ten Forms of the game. Test cricket, it is argued, it the highest and most challenging examination of a player’s ability, and thus should be our chief concern. They say that this has been a long-held snobbishness in English cricket that looks down on the vulgar, cheap-thrills slog-a-thon that is limited-overs cricket. We English perfer more high-mind things, like test cricket.

This is nonsense.

I remember reading Michael Atherton’s book as a lad. (This was my introduction to “thinking cricket”. I received it for a Christmas present in about 1995/6. I studied it like a bible. It’s where I learnt my field settings for a leggie. I always had the same Atherton-approved field, until I realised that if I put Nathan The Giant Child at short cover, his bulk would more or less stop everything.) In this book, he (Atherton, not Nathan) argues that England, who were losing the test matches but not the one-dayers at the time, were more naturally suited to limited-overs cricket.

Now, not having the book any more and not being able to remember much from it, I cannot tell you why he thought this was the case. But, I vaguely recall mentions to the English inventing it, be better at it and Neil Fairbrother. Indeed, his arguments are born out by the evidence. Consider the following summers, when Athers was about:

1995: West Indies in England
- ODIs: England 2, Windies 1
- Tests: England 2, Windies 2

1996: India in England
- ODIs: England 2, India 0
- Tests: England 2, India 0

1997: Australia in England
-ODIs: England 3, Australia 0
-Tests: England 2, Australia 3

Now, the picture for the one day internationals obviously isn’t the stark, depressing image that exists now. We beat India (who love the shorter format) and we even thrashed the Ozzies in 1997. Arguably, over these seasons, we were even better at playing in the one-day stuff than tests.

What does this mean? This: it is false that England are “naturally” pre-disposed against one-day cricket. The track record for success in this form is there – we were once better at limited-overs than test cricket.

I rather suspect that this is a rumour that the ECB has put about to explain the English failure in ODIs. However, I do not think that these two elements of the game are as distinct as people like to believe. If you look closely at the above result, you will see that (relative) success in one form of the game seems to feed into success in the other. And the reason that England are currently rubbish at one-day cricket is probably due to being rubbish at test cricket.

Spinners aren't clever

Looking at the recent report from the BBC’s account of England’s thumping victory over the mighty New Zealanders a phrase stuck in my mind:

“The scoring rate was strangled by spinners Patel and Vettori, who varied their flight intelligently, and the pressure they exerted paid off when Collingwood (10) was guilty of an ugly stroke off Patel which ended in Taylor's hands.”

There is another bog standard remark in the spinner’s lexicon: “a clever variation of pace”. Now obviously as a spinner in my youth, I was useless. I was also, we can say, thick. However, as a wee willy twelve-year old, trying my damndest for Twickenham under-13s, even I knew that mixing up the deliveries was probably a good idea.

There may be things such as the ‘unplayable googly’ but it is only unplayable because the batsman doesn’t expect it. If he knows that there a high, slow off-spinner coming, he will hit it for six. The same principle applies to a spinner’s standard ball: a consistent line, length and arch makes the bowling predictable, and therefore easier to slog. Thus, when I watched the ball whistle over my head as Teddington thrash as again, even to a ball of reasonable line and length, my young mind begins to tick. “Perhaps I should try something else?” In my head, there were other things, too: “I wonder if we can finish this match before The Avengers comes on.” And “I wonder what girls are.” This was not a sharp mind – it was stupid, and yet it occasionally produced balls that caused decent batsman problems.

Thus, surely, changing things up a bit is just part of the standard game of cricket. It is not an original act of genius to produce a ‘clever’ slower ball. It’s just what bowlers do. Perhaps captaincy can be clever, and even sitting down and mulling a specific line, or pace to a particular batsman. But I just feel the need to dispel the myth that unthinking variation means intelligence. We even knew that in Twickenham.