GOOGLIES & CHINAMEN
An Occasional Cricketing Journal
Edition 86
February 2010
Caption Competition
Now that our brave lads have returned from Zululand my thoughts, notwithstanding the siren voices of Bangladesh, have turned to the coming domestic season.
The other day I found myself in Leeds and so I thought I would pop in to the Headquarters-of-the-North for a quick look at how the building work was going. The “Carnegie Pavilion” is, as you can see, well on the way, and promises, according to the Chief Executive, to “transform” the Headingley ground. In a recent e-mail he told members that the pavilion will provide: “one of, if not the best, views in world cricket”. Sitting behind the bowlers arm at the Kirkstall Lane End will be analogous to: “being on the finishing line at Royal Ascot or the net at Wimbledon”. From this rather flowery prose you will deduce that there appear to be some outstanding financial issues, since the e-mail was accompanied by an invitation for me to buy a Platinum Debenture for the sum of £6,000 which would guarantee me a seat, endless cups of “complimentary coffee” and a smile from the barmaid. In trying to decide whether this was an offer not to be refused I noticed that the debenture was “repayable in 2084”, which I doubt would be a decisive factor in loosening the famously tightly-drawn purse strings of the Headingley faithful, none of whom appears to be much under 65.
Anyway, the view from the top of the pavilion gives, on one side: “spectacular views across the city of Leeds” and on the other: “a panoramic view of the Leeds Metropolitan University Campus”…further attention to the marketing script needed, one feels.
The project is due for “practical completion” (whatever that means) by May. The chap I talked to when I was taking this picture said that if they thought they would be finished by May: “They could think on”. I don’t know if you get a couple of quid off the £6,000 if it’s late, or perhaps they just extend the repayment date to 2085. Once it is finished, attention will turn to the other end of the ground which could prove more problematic in that its reverse side is, of course, the rugby stand. In the end it will be “one of the best grounds in world cricket……..”
I suspect the general view about the South African series is that we did well to come home with a draw and I read that the resignation of Mickey Arthur and the debate about the racial mix of the side is once more disrupting South African cricket, which is a shame. That aside, it was a terrific series, and while I had work to do, there were days when I found it very difficult to leave the sofa before mid-afternoon. There will, I’m sure, be endless debates about the use of “technology” (can we think of another word) which, since the technology will be forever changing will, I suspect, be forever with us. I remain in the camp that argues that the technology is there for the umpires to get the decisions right, but I feel very unhappy about players being given the right to challenge decisions (a right they lose, of course, after two unsuccessful challenges).
I have a feeling that Bangladesh might provide quite a stern test and if I’m not doing anything else in early March a trip to Dhaka might be tempting. I’ve never been there and it could be worth a jaunt. Could we put a Googlies party together?
Middlesex Matters
The Great Jack Morgan keeps us up to date with developments at Lords, and I suppose Radlett
A couple of years ago, I would have been delighted for Middlesex to have signed M Ntini, but having been arguing that he is not good enough to be in the SA team (and now I hear that the SA selectors agree with me), I can hardly be over the moon that we are signing him now. It seems to be another case of a good bowler "losing his nip"; perhaps he will regain his nip when confronted by a few second division bunnies? I suppose we have to congratulate Gus on coming good on his desperately needed promise to strengthen the pace attack by delivering two experienced pace bowlers, but I am worried that they are a little too long in the tooth. Iain is the older of the two, but he was still taking wickets at Test level, while Makhaya no longer seems to be good enough for the highest level. Ntini is also retiring from international cricket so there should be no problem with his availability; however, neither of these recruits has any batting credentials and a side featuring Iain, Makhaya and Finny would have a tail as long as a crocodile's.
It now appears that the MCC is subsidising Middlesex's signing of A Gilchrist and (if he comes aboard) S Tendulkar for the T20. Gate receipts would be shared by MCC and Middlesex, but MCC reckon they would make huge amounts from selling their overpriced refreshments to full houses (apparently MCC recently took back the catering at Lord's having contracted it out for years). It is even being suggested that MCC might take over complete financial responsibility for Middlesex... astonishing. Ntini has not yet signed, but is expected to, while Sachin wants to sign (apparently he owns a house very close to Lord's in St J's W), but cannot do so at present because the BCCI is trying to organise a one-day tournament in which he would be expected to play. All this would be exciting if one had the slightest interest in T20.
I have not actually seen that much of Iain O'B, but I know that Middx were very impressed by him when he bowled us out at Leicester last season and he has been doing pretty well for NZ. There was also the factor that he was going to retire from international cricket and settle in this country... and guess what? He seems to be a bit of an Angus Fraser-type: not that quick, but gets his wickets through accuracy and moving it around a bit. Shame about his batting though... what's he like in the field? Don't tell me Gus likes him because he is also a donkey in the field?
ECB and more daft matters
Ricky Gunn sent me the following correspondence
Dear MCB Member Club
1. The guidelines will allow junior players in Year 8 at school (
Under 13 at midnight on 31st August in the year preceding the current season) to play in open age cricket providing 'Explicit Written Consent' to play in open age cricket has been obtained prior to play.
N.B. The existing Player Profile dated November 2008 contained in 'Safe
Hands' is not sufficient to cover the 'Explicit Written Consent' element as
it does not refer specifically to open age cricket. This requirement
recognises the need for parents or guardians to be aware of the significance of allowing their young child to participate in open age cricket rather than purely junior cricket.
2. Any player in Year 7 or below (Under 12 at midnight on 31st
August in the year preceding the current season) cannot play in open age cricket with or without explicit written consent.
Please find attached a copy of the revised Guidelines for Junior Players
playing in Open age Cricket from the ECB. (I cannot bring myself to reproduce the whole of this document which must have emanated from the Health & Safety Authority)
Ricky Gunn: I suppose I have always objected to being told to do things I am eminently capable of deciding for myself, not least where common sense has always been the guiding factor. As ever, allowing for the lowest common denominator seems to involve reinventing the wheel. It is certainly confusing where guidelines finish and regulations start. I felt sufficiently piqued to pen a reply:
“Thanks for sending on the above guidelines: no, I hadn't seen them.
I don't know if you have taken the time to read the document but (a) over
the 50 years of my playing career I have never before heard of the term
"open age" (and do not plan to start using it now, especially as it took me
several paragraphs to see what the ECB was actually driving at), and (b)
cricketers have been eminently capable of relying on common sense when it comes to introducing boys into adult cricket (or no doubt girls for that matter). Clearly another instance of us being instructed in the bleedin' obvious. The only "advance" here is that someone has been paid to write down what has gone on during cricket matches from time immemorial whenever youngsters are introduced to the adult game. Coaches would be better advised to improve the
attitude of the youngsters under their tutelage - like "walking" after they
have edged a catch, not resorting to histrionics when appealing for LBW
(especially on being turned down), and not to actively sledge their seniors. I do not wish to be reminded by someone a fifth of my age that he "hadn't seen so many blocks since Legoland". There should be a law against adult abuse.
Item 2 makes an opening statement "There is no definitive age at which they should be introduced to open age cricket ..." which it then goes on to contradict - "... the requirement that no Junior Cricketers younger than the age group of under 13 can play in open age cricket". Perhaps "Up until now there has been no ... [etc, etc]", might have helped, if that is the new regulation the ECB is promoting. Otherwise, I for one am happy to stick with the status quo.
The phrase "the requirement that no Junior Cricketers younger than the age group of under 13 can play in open age cricket" is a presumption that everyone knows it is already illegal. Where did this "requirement" suddenly spring from? Another interpretation, of course, is that those junior to Under 13s can and do play at adult level, so to say they can't is palpably inaccurate.
Item 5 may go against the safety factor if, being happy to fill-in in the
field the child is then expected to bat in a situation in conflict with
his/her "cognitive and emotional maturity" (item 2) at a critical stage of
the innings when the opposition is rather keen to dismiss them. Preventing him/her batting may therefore deprive them of "full experience of the game" even if it is for their own safety. You can't have it both ways. "Sorry lad, we know you'd love to play (and you'd be more use in all departments of the game than at least two of the adult players in our team) but it's against the law."
I am prompted to recall in my own first adult game (team scorer, one short -"Would you like to run home and get your kit?" - "Not half!") admittedly 13 but small for my age, when all the new "Guidelines" were manifestly in full operation, even to the point of the first delivery - a slow friendly full toss from the previous wicket-taker. It was several minutes before the ball was recovered from the hedge backward of square ... To end on an even happier note, clearly we succeed at Southgate in item 7 where we get the 15-year-olds on to the lager at the earliest opportunity.
England Matters
The Great Jack Morgan has been commenting regularly on England
J Kallis is probably only a batter who bowls a bit these days rather than a genuine allrounder; nevertheless he and J-P Duminy provide much better support to the four main bowlers than England can offer. I have criticised S Watson in the past for not being a Test class bowler, but he certainly makes a better fifth bowler than anything England have up their sleeve. In fact, Shane's success in picking up the odd wicket or two made me wonder if England might consider Wright for the same role; I do not see enough of them, of course, but to me they are similar players (good batters, but ordinary bowlers) and as England had enough confidence in Luke to bring him on the senior tour, why not find out if he could fill the same role as Watson - mainly a batsman, but one who can pick up a few valuable wickets as the fifth bowler?
Well, England wrapped up the Test as expected with Swanny taking the starring role again. Graeme deservedly took his second consecutive MotM award and is now the no 3 bowler in the world Test match rankings. And (unlike Monty) he can bat and field too; but are our bowlers really that good that we can get away with only four of them? It will be different i) if one of them gets injured; or ii) if a perfect track is prepared; or iii) if they want to play two spinners (say in Bangladesh later this winter); or iv) against a stronger side than South Africa! The (British) press has been giving the Proteas some stick: their bowling is rubbish and their batters are just not doing the job. I think they are just having a bit of fun, but it reminds you how quickly things can change round!
M Carberry has been called up for the Third Test to cover for Colly, which makes one wonder (again) what Wright is doing in the squad. He was not considered for a bowling or allrounder's spot and now that a batter is injured (though expected to be fit) they have to call up another batsman. Carbs deserves the call up on last season's form, but he is an erratic sod, averaging 28.6 in 2008. Give Luke a chance!
I was a bit surprised to see the likes of Gale, Bell, Trego and Finn in the Lions squad. Gale's career average of 30 does not suggest international quality; I would have thought England would now want to keep Belly with the senior squad (although these are one-day squads I think); Pete Trego's batting has improved a lot in recent years (since his spell with Middlesex in fact), but his bowling is not international standard; and I would just like to see Finny grow stronger, faster and more accurate in his own time rather than have him rushed into international cricket. I suppose the argument about Finny above could equally be applied to other youthful selections such as Rashid, Woakes and Wainwright, but as I see much less of them, I tend to assume they are good players who are progressing smoothly towards international status (though Rashid's progress has not always been smooth), while with Finny I worry about his weaknesses and would just like to see steady improvement with Middlesex. This is also a fairly elderly squad: Kirby is 32, Lumb is nearly 30, Carberry is 29, Mahmood and Trego are 28, Tredwell is nearly 28 and Belly is 27.
I think KP's lack of fitness, practice and confidence has affected his form and I would seriously have dropped him in favour of Luke. One does not write off a player with his ability in the longer term, but he is just not doing it at present and, as you point out, his running is worse than that of Owais.
Blimey! England hung on with nine wickets down for the third time in six months to earn the draw at Newlands. I thought the draw was in the bag with Colly and Belly looking secure, but that late collapse was frightening. In the unlikely event of England deciding on an extra bowler or allrounder, the batsman to go would surely have to be KP? G Onions is not a bad no 11; he averages 13 in first class cricket, easily superior to Jimmy's 9. It's great to see that the ancient art of blocking has been revived, isn't it? But it's a shame that the best blockers get out before the end and have to rely on Bunny to block the last over. Much as I enjoyed the result, I can't help feeling that it would be a bad thing if England managed to hang on for another draw at Jo'burg. England would then think they had both a brilliant team and a well-balanced team, while I do not think they have either. They have had a decent winter, but they are not yet a really good side, neither batting nor bowling is quite good enough .
That was a pretty dreadful England performance at Jo'burg, but as you will have gathered from my earlier comments, I am not too sad about it. It would have been misleading and wrong for England to have sneaked a series win and they were lucky to share the series. That swanky hotel in Cape Town now seems ridiculously ill-judged. I blame the batters more than the bowlers, though Steyn and Morkel were the main difference between the teams. Only Colly, Belly and Cooky averaged over 40 and five of the top eight averaged between 10 and 27, though Swanny's 28 was a useful effort from no 9. I do not think the bowling unit is strong enough either, but it is tough for the bowlers when there are only four of them and there are not even any decent back up bowlers among the batsmen. Anderson, in particular, did not seem fit enough to carry this workload. South Africa have Kallis and Duminy batting in their top six, while Australia have Watson, North, Clarke and I hear that Simon Katich popped up with three Test wickets yesterday! Ideally we would have five quality bowlers, but if not we must have a couple of batters who can do a bit more than turn an arm over. With Shahzad and Tredwell joining Broady, Swanny, Plunkers and Wrighty (6 allrounders!) in the squad for Bangladesh, surely they will pluck up the courage to give us five bowlers?
Threat Level Matters
We were recently advised that the terrorist threat level had been increased from substantial to severe. Nobody seemed to know what this meant. An official spokesman said that an attack was not imminent but that everybody should be more vigilant. Does anyone know how to be vigilant? And if you do are there gradations? I would have thought that vigilant is an absolute adjective like unique. That is you either are or you aren’t.
However, it occurred to me that these threat levels could be more appropriately applied to bowlers and the likelihood of incurring injury when facing them. So here is an initial categorisation of bowlers against the threat levels:
Low - an injury is unlikely. Bomber Wells is certainly in this category. He bowled so slowly that you would probably not bruise even if the ball hit you and you weren’t wearing pads.
Moderate – an injury is possible but not likely. Monty should be in the Low category but nowadays bowls faster and faster through his spell. The injury is most likely to be the result of him running into you during his celebration if you were unlucky enough to be dismissed by him.
Substantial – an injury is a strong possibility. This is the reverse phenomenon where the batting side does something that provokes wild bowling by the opposition. A good example is when a night watchman is sent in instead of the scheduled batsman in the order. If KP bottles out and James Anderson comes to the crease at 5.40pm you can be sure that Morne Morkel will attempt to stick it up him and leave getting him out till the following morning.
Severe – an injury is highly likely. It is hard to remember that it was West Indian fast bowlers who were the most sought by the counties in the last century and that at county level it wasn’t the most successful test bowlers who proved that adrenalin was brown. Nobody wanted to face Wayne Daniel on a worn or, indeed, usually on any surface.
Critical – an injury is expected imminently. On the county circuit it is generally recognised that the scariest bowling opponent was Sylvester Clarke. It was not uncommon for class batsmen to develop niggling injuries on the morning of the match if Clarke appeared on the Surrey team sheet. It could be argued that he was the very embodiment of Shock and Awe.
Teams of the Decade
I invited a selection of Googlies readers to nominate their teams of the decade
1. First to reply was Bob Proctor:
“I would like to enter an Australian test Team of the decade as follows in batting order:-
1. M Hayden bat
2. J Langer bat
3. D Martyn bat / medium
4. R Ponting bat / medium
5. S Waugh bat / medium
6. M Clarke bat / left spin
7. M Hussey bat / right spin
8. A Gilchrist (wk)
9. S Warne occasional bat / right spin
10. B Lee right bowl
11. G McGrath right bowl
Twelth man. J Gillespie right bowl
I reckon it would take a good side to beat the above.”
2. The Great Jack Morgan submitted the following:
The Team of the Decade will be:
Sam Robson
Adam London
Dan Housego
Eoin Morgan (c)
Dawid Malan
John Simpson (w)
Gareth Berg
Tom Smith
Toby Roland-Jones
Robbie Williams
Danny Evans
Oh, did you mean the last decade? Try this one:
Justin Langer
Phil Hughes
Stephen Fleming
Scott Styris
Lance Klusener
Abdul Razzaq
Irfan Pathan
Chaminda Vaas
Murali Kartik
Stuart Clark
Glenn McGrath
A strong team isn't it? Shame about the keeper, but as no one else worries about picking a balanced team these days, why should I? Next decade, I’ll put in Adam Gilchrist! I was also able to leave out the likes of Ashley Noffke, Nantie Hayward, Ajit Agarkar, Imran Tahir, Yogesh Golwarkar, Joe Dawes and Vernon Philander, some of them because they have not played in Tests and I wanted a team of overseas Test players.
3. Roy Dodson suggested: A team of Q.P.R. managers might win the P 45 cup although it might be difficult to know who to leave out.
4. Whilst Allen Bruton was quite clear which was the team of the decade:
“No doubt about it, Andrew Baker's Ladies Football Team.”
Public School Wanderers Matters
Steve Wright sent me the following match report
Playing the South Africans reminded me of a match at the Bush in 1967. On the Friday of Cricket Week we played Public School Wanderers. I think we had a reasonable side, possibly including two of your correspondents and Keith Jones was definitely playing.
I think they may have been on tour because they all turned up together and had definitely played earlier in the week. They were led by a manager/umpire whose face was a real mess. He had a black eye and a number of other bruises and cuts. I asked him how he had acquired these and he said he had been beaten up in a pub toilet after one of their matches a couple of days ago. Now when somebody says they have been beaten up in a pub toilet you don't like to ask any other questions but as the day progressed I was inclined to believe that the injuries may well have been inflicted by a disgruntled opponent, since, as an umpire, he was a total crook.
Their team comprised nine players who would not have made a poor club's 4th eleven. I'm sure they went to public school but would not have played much cricket there. The tenth was, apparently a very good rackets player and was probably a talented sportsman but not a dedicated cricketer. Number eleven was "Pom Pom" Fellows-Smith. I recently looked up his stats and was surprised to see that he only played a few tests in the sixties and those were over here against the likes of Trueman, Statham, Cowdrey, Dexter etc.
We batted first and scored 200. At least half of the side were victims of umpiring decisions of which Daryl Hare would have been proud. In my case I received a ball from "Pom Pom " which went down the leg side and flicked the outside of my pad. As Fellows-Smith was walking back to bowl his next ball he noticed, as did I, that the umpire had his finger raised so he said “If you are going to give that out I had better appeal" which he did and I was off. This part of the story does not reflect very well on Fellows-Smith does it?
When they batted their nine "fill ins" amassed 15 runs between them, the rackets player got 20 and Fellows-Smith 150. Those of you who know the Bush well will remember the long line of very tall poplars behind the sight screen at the far end. "Pom Pom" took a liking to our veteran off spinner Laurie Valentine and started to hit him over the poplars. Each 6 seemed to go higher and higher and further and further. I had never seen such big hitting. Eventually Keith Jones got him out and we won by about 10 runs.
It's funny what we remember and what we forget and what we think we remember but which never happened! I must have got some wickets in this game but if I did I certainly don't remember them. All I remember is their beaten up crook of an umpire, my dismissal, Fellows-Smith's ferocious but, I must say, beautiful striking and eventually Keith Jones getting him out. We never did play them after that. I wonder if they are still going.
Wisden Five Matters
It is about this time of year that the Professor challenges us to guess the Wisden Five cricketers of the year. I decided to get in first this year and sent him this:
“I can never remember what happened in the previous year, but I thought that I would go for an alliterative bunch: Sehwag, Strauss, Smith W, Swann and to spoil it Michael Clarke.”
His first response was to ask who Smith W was and so I replied that he was the captain of the County Champions. He then came back with this:
“Given it was an Ashes year and the rarity of an Ashes win, I would have thought that Scyld Berry's choices would be likely to come from those matches. There were, of course, the two Tests against the not-very-interested Windies which gave Bopara two hundreds and Onions a 5-fer but they were nothing like the contests of a couple of months before.
If we restrict the choice to the Ashes (as happened in 2005) the English candidates would seem to be: Bopara, Cook, Swann, Prior, Broad and Onions. Of those, Bopara had, famously, to be replaced, Cook had a very poor series averaging only 24 and Onions only took 10 wickets in the three games he played. Swann and Broad made crucial contributions with both bat and ball and Prior (notwithstanding the odd doubting Thomas, or Peter) made the wicketkeeping batsman slot his own. So I think I would go for: Swann, Prior and Broad.
Of the Aussies, Clarke had the highest series average (64), North had an excellent series and Haddin and Watson (somewhat surprisingly in his case), made a significant impact. Of the bowlers, my memory is of Hilfenhaus being a persistent threat and Siddle demolished us at Headingley.
So, with a slight home bias, I will go for:
Swann
Prior
Broad
Hilfenhaus
and Clarke”
He was kind enough to refrain from pointing out that I wasted a vote on Strauss who is a previous winner.
Irritating Trends in Modern Cricket Number 53
Mark Boucher plays a powerful pull to the mid wicket boundary. The camera pans across the outfield following the ball on its way across the outfield. A fielder comes into view but there is something wrong and he doesn’t look as if he is going to cut the ball off. It’s Alistair Cook and he is running as if he has shit his pants. It turns out that he is wearing what are euphemistically called shin pads but are in fact substantial leg guards under his trousers because he may be called upon to field at short leg during the session. The ball goes for four and everyone else’s heroics in the field diving about are undone. Later the ball hits Cook’s helmet which has been parked behind Prior. Admittedly it should be safer there than behind Teflon but he gives away another five to add to the four above. Why all this armour to field at short leg? Ask Brian Close what he thinks about the modern Mamby Pambies who field there.
Old Danes Matters
Shepherds Bush CC has again kindly agreed to host an Old Danes Gathering on Friday 30th July 2010. All Old Danes from any generation will be welcome and in the past three years there have been representatives from the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies. It is appreciated that some attendees have to travel considerable distances and wives, partners and non OD friends will also be made welcome. The event will start around 2pm and will continue into the evening so it is possible to join the event at any stage during the afternoon. The bar is open all afternoon and food will be available. Would Old Danes please reply whether or not you plan to attend so that I can start to circulate a list of planned attendees to encourage others to join us.
Football Matters
Ken Molloy spends a lot of time on his computer in Madrid and regularly sends me some of his findings. In his research recently he noticed that American quarterbacks had started to wear their names on their shorts rather than their shirts and sent me the following examples:
Because he is keen on all things modern, I decided to pass this information along to Andrew Baker. He smiled and a week later sent me this photo taken of his Ladies’ team all with their names on their shorts at their next home match:
Googlies and Chinamen
is produced by
James Sharp
Broad Lee House
Combs
High Peak
SK23 9XA
Tel & fax: 01298 70237
Email: [email protected]
An Occasional Cricketing Journal
Edition 86
February 2010
Caption Competition
- Alastair Cook: Of course you don’t need previous experience to captain England. Some of the greats have done it such as, er, Ian Botham and er, er KP. Oh dear. Perhaps you do need previous experience.
- Ricky Ponting: Congratulations on your appointment, Alastair. He, he. Will you be bringing the side to Australia this winter?
- Gordon Brown: Now, Alastair, I hope you realise that I am counting on a resounding victory in Bangladesh to cement my chances of being re-elected.
- Alastair Cook: The batting order will remain flexible. Under no circumstances is KP to come to the crease whilst I am still batting.
- Alastair Cook: Will someone in the dressing room please take note that I will need eyeliner and mascara at the next drinks interval.
- Alastair Cook: Why are we going to the airport? I thought Bangladesh was in Hackney.
- Alastair Cook: Belly, I don’t know why you are looking so pleased with yourself. Don’t think that I am going to field at short leg now that I am captain.
Now that our brave lads have returned from Zululand my thoughts, notwithstanding the siren voices of Bangladesh, have turned to the coming domestic season.
The other day I found myself in Leeds and so I thought I would pop in to the Headquarters-of-the-North for a quick look at how the building work was going. The “Carnegie Pavilion” is, as you can see, well on the way, and promises, according to the Chief Executive, to “transform” the Headingley ground. In a recent e-mail he told members that the pavilion will provide: “one of, if not the best, views in world cricket”. Sitting behind the bowlers arm at the Kirkstall Lane End will be analogous to: “being on the finishing line at Royal Ascot or the net at Wimbledon”. From this rather flowery prose you will deduce that there appear to be some outstanding financial issues, since the e-mail was accompanied by an invitation for me to buy a Platinum Debenture for the sum of £6,000 which would guarantee me a seat, endless cups of “complimentary coffee” and a smile from the barmaid. In trying to decide whether this was an offer not to be refused I noticed that the debenture was “repayable in 2084”, which I doubt would be a decisive factor in loosening the famously tightly-drawn purse strings of the Headingley faithful, none of whom appears to be much under 65.
Anyway, the view from the top of the pavilion gives, on one side: “spectacular views across the city of Leeds” and on the other: “a panoramic view of the Leeds Metropolitan University Campus”…further attention to the marketing script needed, one feels.
The project is due for “practical completion” (whatever that means) by May. The chap I talked to when I was taking this picture said that if they thought they would be finished by May: “They could think on”. I don’t know if you get a couple of quid off the £6,000 if it’s late, or perhaps they just extend the repayment date to 2085. Once it is finished, attention will turn to the other end of the ground which could prove more problematic in that its reverse side is, of course, the rugby stand. In the end it will be “one of the best grounds in world cricket……..”
I suspect the general view about the South African series is that we did well to come home with a draw and I read that the resignation of Mickey Arthur and the debate about the racial mix of the side is once more disrupting South African cricket, which is a shame. That aside, it was a terrific series, and while I had work to do, there were days when I found it very difficult to leave the sofa before mid-afternoon. There will, I’m sure, be endless debates about the use of “technology” (can we think of another word) which, since the technology will be forever changing will, I suspect, be forever with us. I remain in the camp that argues that the technology is there for the umpires to get the decisions right, but I feel very unhappy about players being given the right to challenge decisions (a right they lose, of course, after two unsuccessful challenges).
I have a feeling that Bangladesh might provide quite a stern test and if I’m not doing anything else in early March a trip to Dhaka might be tempting. I’ve never been there and it could be worth a jaunt. Could we put a Googlies party together?
Middlesex Matters
The Great Jack Morgan keeps us up to date with developments at Lords, and I suppose Radlett
A couple of years ago, I would have been delighted for Middlesex to have signed M Ntini, but having been arguing that he is not good enough to be in the SA team (and now I hear that the SA selectors agree with me), I can hardly be over the moon that we are signing him now. It seems to be another case of a good bowler "losing his nip"; perhaps he will regain his nip when confronted by a few second division bunnies? I suppose we have to congratulate Gus on coming good on his desperately needed promise to strengthen the pace attack by delivering two experienced pace bowlers, but I am worried that they are a little too long in the tooth. Iain is the older of the two, but he was still taking wickets at Test level, while Makhaya no longer seems to be good enough for the highest level. Ntini is also retiring from international cricket so there should be no problem with his availability; however, neither of these recruits has any batting credentials and a side featuring Iain, Makhaya and Finny would have a tail as long as a crocodile's.
It now appears that the MCC is subsidising Middlesex's signing of A Gilchrist and (if he comes aboard) S Tendulkar for the T20. Gate receipts would be shared by MCC and Middlesex, but MCC reckon they would make huge amounts from selling their overpriced refreshments to full houses (apparently MCC recently took back the catering at Lord's having contracted it out for years). It is even being suggested that MCC might take over complete financial responsibility for Middlesex... astonishing. Ntini has not yet signed, but is expected to, while Sachin wants to sign (apparently he owns a house very close to Lord's in St J's W), but cannot do so at present because the BCCI is trying to organise a one-day tournament in which he would be expected to play. All this would be exciting if one had the slightest interest in T20.
I have not actually seen that much of Iain O'B, but I know that Middx were very impressed by him when he bowled us out at Leicester last season and he has been doing pretty well for NZ. There was also the factor that he was going to retire from international cricket and settle in this country... and guess what? He seems to be a bit of an Angus Fraser-type: not that quick, but gets his wickets through accuracy and moving it around a bit. Shame about his batting though... what's he like in the field? Don't tell me Gus likes him because he is also a donkey in the field?
ECB and more daft matters
Ricky Gunn sent me the following correspondence
Dear MCB Member Club
1. The guidelines will allow junior players in Year 8 at school (
Under 13 at midnight on 31st August in the year preceding the current season) to play in open age cricket providing 'Explicit Written Consent' to play in open age cricket has been obtained prior to play.
N.B. The existing Player Profile dated November 2008 contained in 'Safe
Hands' is not sufficient to cover the 'Explicit Written Consent' element as
it does not refer specifically to open age cricket. This requirement
recognises the need for parents or guardians to be aware of the significance of allowing their young child to participate in open age cricket rather than purely junior cricket.
2. Any player in Year 7 or below (Under 12 at midnight on 31st
August in the year preceding the current season) cannot play in open age cricket with or without explicit written consent.
Please find attached a copy of the revised Guidelines for Junior Players
playing in Open age Cricket from the ECB. (I cannot bring myself to reproduce the whole of this document which must have emanated from the Health & Safety Authority)
Ricky Gunn: I suppose I have always objected to being told to do things I am eminently capable of deciding for myself, not least where common sense has always been the guiding factor. As ever, allowing for the lowest common denominator seems to involve reinventing the wheel. It is certainly confusing where guidelines finish and regulations start. I felt sufficiently piqued to pen a reply:
“Thanks for sending on the above guidelines: no, I hadn't seen them.
I don't know if you have taken the time to read the document but (a) over
the 50 years of my playing career I have never before heard of the term
"open age" (and do not plan to start using it now, especially as it took me
several paragraphs to see what the ECB was actually driving at), and (b)
cricketers have been eminently capable of relying on common sense when it comes to introducing boys into adult cricket (or no doubt girls for that matter). Clearly another instance of us being instructed in the bleedin' obvious. The only "advance" here is that someone has been paid to write down what has gone on during cricket matches from time immemorial whenever youngsters are introduced to the adult game. Coaches would be better advised to improve the
attitude of the youngsters under their tutelage - like "walking" after they
have edged a catch, not resorting to histrionics when appealing for LBW
(especially on being turned down), and not to actively sledge their seniors. I do not wish to be reminded by someone a fifth of my age that he "hadn't seen so many blocks since Legoland". There should be a law against adult abuse.
Item 2 makes an opening statement "There is no definitive age at which they should be introduced to open age cricket ..." which it then goes on to contradict - "... the requirement that no Junior Cricketers younger than the age group of under 13 can play in open age cricket". Perhaps "Up until now there has been no ... [etc, etc]", might have helped, if that is the new regulation the ECB is promoting. Otherwise, I for one am happy to stick with the status quo.
The phrase "the requirement that no Junior Cricketers younger than the age group of under 13 can play in open age cricket" is a presumption that everyone knows it is already illegal. Where did this "requirement" suddenly spring from? Another interpretation, of course, is that those junior to Under 13s can and do play at adult level, so to say they can't is palpably inaccurate.
Item 5 may go against the safety factor if, being happy to fill-in in the
field the child is then expected to bat in a situation in conflict with
his/her "cognitive and emotional maturity" (item 2) at a critical stage of
the innings when the opposition is rather keen to dismiss them. Preventing him/her batting may therefore deprive them of "full experience of the game" even if it is for their own safety. You can't have it both ways. "Sorry lad, we know you'd love to play (and you'd be more use in all departments of the game than at least two of the adult players in our team) but it's against the law."
I am prompted to recall in my own first adult game (team scorer, one short -"Would you like to run home and get your kit?" - "Not half!") admittedly 13 but small for my age, when all the new "Guidelines" were manifestly in full operation, even to the point of the first delivery - a slow friendly full toss from the previous wicket-taker. It was several minutes before the ball was recovered from the hedge backward of square ... To end on an even happier note, clearly we succeed at Southgate in item 7 where we get the 15-year-olds on to the lager at the earliest opportunity.
England Matters
The Great Jack Morgan has been commenting regularly on England
J Kallis is probably only a batter who bowls a bit these days rather than a genuine allrounder; nevertheless he and J-P Duminy provide much better support to the four main bowlers than England can offer. I have criticised S Watson in the past for not being a Test class bowler, but he certainly makes a better fifth bowler than anything England have up their sleeve. In fact, Shane's success in picking up the odd wicket or two made me wonder if England might consider Wright for the same role; I do not see enough of them, of course, but to me they are similar players (good batters, but ordinary bowlers) and as England had enough confidence in Luke to bring him on the senior tour, why not find out if he could fill the same role as Watson - mainly a batsman, but one who can pick up a few valuable wickets as the fifth bowler?
Well, England wrapped up the Test as expected with Swanny taking the starring role again. Graeme deservedly took his second consecutive MotM award and is now the no 3 bowler in the world Test match rankings. And (unlike Monty) he can bat and field too; but are our bowlers really that good that we can get away with only four of them? It will be different i) if one of them gets injured; or ii) if a perfect track is prepared; or iii) if they want to play two spinners (say in Bangladesh later this winter); or iv) against a stronger side than South Africa! The (British) press has been giving the Proteas some stick: their bowling is rubbish and their batters are just not doing the job. I think they are just having a bit of fun, but it reminds you how quickly things can change round!
M Carberry has been called up for the Third Test to cover for Colly, which makes one wonder (again) what Wright is doing in the squad. He was not considered for a bowling or allrounder's spot and now that a batter is injured (though expected to be fit) they have to call up another batsman. Carbs deserves the call up on last season's form, but he is an erratic sod, averaging 28.6 in 2008. Give Luke a chance!
I was a bit surprised to see the likes of Gale, Bell, Trego and Finn in the Lions squad. Gale's career average of 30 does not suggest international quality; I would have thought England would now want to keep Belly with the senior squad (although these are one-day squads I think); Pete Trego's batting has improved a lot in recent years (since his spell with Middlesex in fact), but his bowling is not international standard; and I would just like to see Finny grow stronger, faster and more accurate in his own time rather than have him rushed into international cricket. I suppose the argument about Finny above could equally be applied to other youthful selections such as Rashid, Woakes and Wainwright, but as I see much less of them, I tend to assume they are good players who are progressing smoothly towards international status (though Rashid's progress has not always been smooth), while with Finny I worry about his weaknesses and would just like to see steady improvement with Middlesex. This is also a fairly elderly squad: Kirby is 32, Lumb is nearly 30, Carberry is 29, Mahmood and Trego are 28, Tredwell is nearly 28 and Belly is 27.
I think KP's lack of fitness, practice and confidence has affected his form and I would seriously have dropped him in favour of Luke. One does not write off a player with his ability in the longer term, but he is just not doing it at present and, as you point out, his running is worse than that of Owais.
Blimey! England hung on with nine wickets down for the third time in six months to earn the draw at Newlands. I thought the draw was in the bag with Colly and Belly looking secure, but that late collapse was frightening. In the unlikely event of England deciding on an extra bowler or allrounder, the batsman to go would surely have to be KP? G Onions is not a bad no 11; he averages 13 in first class cricket, easily superior to Jimmy's 9. It's great to see that the ancient art of blocking has been revived, isn't it? But it's a shame that the best blockers get out before the end and have to rely on Bunny to block the last over. Much as I enjoyed the result, I can't help feeling that it would be a bad thing if England managed to hang on for another draw at Jo'burg. England would then think they had both a brilliant team and a well-balanced team, while I do not think they have either. They have had a decent winter, but they are not yet a really good side, neither batting nor bowling is quite good enough .
That was a pretty dreadful England performance at Jo'burg, but as you will have gathered from my earlier comments, I am not too sad about it. It would have been misleading and wrong for England to have sneaked a series win and they were lucky to share the series. That swanky hotel in Cape Town now seems ridiculously ill-judged. I blame the batters more than the bowlers, though Steyn and Morkel were the main difference between the teams. Only Colly, Belly and Cooky averaged over 40 and five of the top eight averaged between 10 and 27, though Swanny's 28 was a useful effort from no 9. I do not think the bowling unit is strong enough either, but it is tough for the bowlers when there are only four of them and there are not even any decent back up bowlers among the batsmen. Anderson, in particular, did not seem fit enough to carry this workload. South Africa have Kallis and Duminy batting in their top six, while Australia have Watson, North, Clarke and I hear that Simon Katich popped up with three Test wickets yesterday! Ideally we would have five quality bowlers, but if not we must have a couple of batters who can do a bit more than turn an arm over. With Shahzad and Tredwell joining Broady, Swanny, Plunkers and Wrighty (6 allrounders!) in the squad for Bangladesh, surely they will pluck up the courage to give us five bowlers?
Threat Level Matters
We were recently advised that the terrorist threat level had been increased from substantial to severe. Nobody seemed to know what this meant. An official spokesman said that an attack was not imminent but that everybody should be more vigilant. Does anyone know how to be vigilant? And if you do are there gradations? I would have thought that vigilant is an absolute adjective like unique. That is you either are or you aren’t.
However, it occurred to me that these threat levels could be more appropriately applied to bowlers and the likelihood of incurring injury when facing them. So here is an initial categorisation of bowlers against the threat levels:
Low - an injury is unlikely. Bomber Wells is certainly in this category. He bowled so slowly that you would probably not bruise even if the ball hit you and you weren’t wearing pads.
Moderate – an injury is possible but not likely. Monty should be in the Low category but nowadays bowls faster and faster through his spell. The injury is most likely to be the result of him running into you during his celebration if you were unlucky enough to be dismissed by him.
Substantial – an injury is a strong possibility. This is the reverse phenomenon where the batting side does something that provokes wild bowling by the opposition. A good example is when a night watchman is sent in instead of the scheduled batsman in the order. If KP bottles out and James Anderson comes to the crease at 5.40pm you can be sure that Morne Morkel will attempt to stick it up him and leave getting him out till the following morning.
Severe – an injury is highly likely. It is hard to remember that it was West Indian fast bowlers who were the most sought by the counties in the last century and that at county level it wasn’t the most successful test bowlers who proved that adrenalin was brown. Nobody wanted to face Wayne Daniel on a worn or, indeed, usually on any surface.
Critical – an injury is expected imminently. On the county circuit it is generally recognised that the scariest bowling opponent was Sylvester Clarke. It was not uncommon for class batsmen to develop niggling injuries on the morning of the match if Clarke appeared on the Surrey team sheet. It could be argued that he was the very embodiment of Shock and Awe.
Teams of the Decade
I invited a selection of Googlies readers to nominate their teams of the decade
1. First to reply was Bob Proctor:
“I would like to enter an Australian test Team of the decade as follows in batting order:-
1. M Hayden bat
2. J Langer bat
3. D Martyn bat / medium
4. R Ponting bat / medium
5. S Waugh bat / medium
6. M Clarke bat / left spin
7. M Hussey bat / right spin
8. A Gilchrist (wk)
9. S Warne occasional bat / right spin
10. B Lee right bowl
11. G McGrath right bowl
Twelth man. J Gillespie right bowl
I reckon it would take a good side to beat the above.”
2. The Great Jack Morgan submitted the following:
The Team of the Decade will be:
Sam Robson
Adam London
Dan Housego
Eoin Morgan (c)
Dawid Malan
John Simpson (w)
Gareth Berg
Tom Smith
Toby Roland-Jones
Robbie Williams
Danny Evans
Oh, did you mean the last decade? Try this one:
Justin Langer
Phil Hughes
Stephen Fleming
Scott Styris
Lance Klusener
Abdul Razzaq
Irfan Pathan
Chaminda Vaas
Murali Kartik
Stuart Clark
Glenn McGrath
A strong team isn't it? Shame about the keeper, but as no one else worries about picking a balanced team these days, why should I? Next decade, I’ll put in Adam Gilchrist! I was also able to leave out the likes of Ashley Noffke, Nantie Hayward, Ajit Agarkar, Imran Tahir, Yogesh Golwarkar, Joe Dawes and Vernon Philander, some of them because they have not played in Tests and I wanted a team of overseas Test players.
3. Roy Dodson suggested: A team of Q.P.R. managers might win the P 45 cup although it might be difficult to know who to leave out.
4. Whilst Allen Bruton was quite clear which was the team of the decade:
“No doubt about it, Andrew Baker's Ladies Football Team.”
Public School Wanderers Matters
Steve Wright sent me the following match report
Playing the South Africans reminded me of a match at the Bush in 1967. On the Friday of Cricket Week we played Public School Wanderers. I think we had a reasonable side, possibly including two of your correspondents and Keith Jones was definitely playing.
I think they may have been on tour because they all turned up together and had definitely played earlier in the week. They were led by a manager/umpire whose face was a real mess. He had a black eye and a number of other bruises and cuts. I asked him how he had acquired these and he said he had been beaten up in a pub toilet after one of their matches a couple of days ago. Now when somebody says they have been beaten up in a pub toilet you don't like to ask any other questions but as the day progressed I was inclined to believe that the injuries may well have been inflicted by a disgruntled opponent, since, as an umpire, he was a total crook.
Their team comprised nine players who would not have made a poor club's 4th eleven. I'm sure they went to public school but would not have played much cricket there. The tenth was, apparently a very good rackets player and was probably a talented sportsman but not a dedicated cricketer. Number eleven was "Pom Pom" Fellows-Smith. I recently looked up his stats and was surprised to see that he only played a few tests in the sixties and those were over here against the likes of Trueman, Statham, Cowdrey, Dexter etc.
We batted first and scored 200. At least half of the side were victims of umpiring decisions of which Daryl Hare would have been proud. In my case I received a ball from "Pom Pom " which went down the leg side and flicked the outside of my pad. As Fellows-Smith was walking back to bowl his next ball he noticed, as did I, that the umpire had his finger raised so he said “If you are going to give that out I had better appeal" which he did and I was off. This part of the story does not reflect very well on Fellows-Smith does it?
When they batted their nine "fill ins" amassed 15 runs between them, the rackets player got 20 and Fellows-Smith 150. Those of you who know the Bush well will remember the long line of very tall poplars behind the sight screen at the far end. "Pom Pom" took a liking to our veteran off spinner Laurie Valentine and started to hit him over the poplars. Each 6 seemed to go higher and higher and further and further. I had never seen such big hitting. Eventually Keith Jones got him out and we won by about 10 runs.
It's funny what we remember and what we forget and what we think we remember but which never happened! I must have got some wickets in this game but if I did I certainly don't remember them. All I remember is their beaten up crook of an umpire, my dismissal, Fellows-Smith's ferocious but, I must say, beautiful striking and eventually Keith Jones getting him out. We never did play them after that. I wonder if they are still going.
Wisden Five Matters
It is about this time of year that the Professor challenges us to guess the Wisden Five cricketers of the year. I decided to get in first this year and sent him this:
“I can never remember what happened in the previous year, but I thought that I would go for an alliterative bunch: Sehwag, Strauss, Smith W, Swann and to spoil it Michael Clarke.”
His first response was to ask who Smith W was and so I replied that he was the captain of the County Champions. He then came back with this:
“Given it was an Ashes year and the rarity of an Ashes win, I would have thought that Scyld Berry's choices would be likely to come from those matches. There were, of course, the two Tests against the not-very-interested Windies which gave Bopara two hundreds and Onions a 5-fer but they were nothing like the contests of a couple of months before.
If we restrict the choice to the Ashes (as happened in 2005) the English candidates would seem to be: Bopara, Cook, Swann, Prior, Broad and Onions. Of those, Bopara had, famously, to be replaced, Cook had a very poor series averaging only 24 and Onions only took 10 wickets in the three games he played. Swann and Broad made crucial contributions with both bat and ball and Prior (notwithstanding the odd doubting Thomas, or Peter) made the wicketkeeping batsman slot his own. So I think I would go for: Swann, Prior and Broad.
Of the Aussies, Clarke had the highest series average (64), North had an excellent series and Haddin and Watson (somewhat surprisingly in his case), made a significant impact. Of the bowlers, my memory is of Hilfenhaus being a persistent threat and Siddle demolished us at Headingley.
So, with a slight home bias, I will go for:
Swann
Prior
Broad
Hilfenhaus
and Clarke”
He was kind enough to refrain from pointing out that I wasted a vote on Strauss who is a previous winner.
Irritating Trends in Modern Cricket Number 53
Mark Boucher plays a powerful pull to the mid wicket boundary. The camera pans across the outfield following the ball on its way across the outfield. A fielder comes into view but there is something wrong and he doesn’t look as if he is going to cut the ball off. It’s Alistair Cook and he is running as if he has shit his pants. It turns out that he is wearing what are euphemistically called shin pads but are in fact substantial leg guards under his trousers because he may be called upon to field at short leg during the session. The ball goes for four and everyone else’s heroics in the field diving about are undone. Later the ball hits Cook’s helmet which has been parked behind Prior. Admittedly it should be safer there than behind Teflon but he gives away another five to add to the four above. Why all this armour to field at short leg? Ask Brian Close what he thinks about the modern Mamby Pambies who field there.
Old Danes Matters
Shepherds Bush CC has again kindly agreed to host an Old Danes Gathering on Friday 30th July 2010. All Old Danes from any generation will be welcome and in the past three years there have been representatives from the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies. It is appreciated that some attendees have to travel considerable distances and wives, partners and non OD friends will also be made welcome. The event will start around 2pm and will continue into the evening so it is possible to join the event at any stage during the afternoon. The bar is open all afternoon and food will be available. Would Old Danes please reply whether or not you plan to attend so that I can start to circulate a list of planned attendees to encourage others to join us.
Football Matters
Ken Molloy spends a lot of time on his computer in Madrid and regularly sends me some of his findings. In his research recently he noticed that American quarterbacks had started to wear their names on their shorts rather than their shirts and sent me the following examples:
Because he is keen on all things modern, I decided to pass this information along to Andrew Baker. He smiled and a week later sent me this photo taken of his Ladies’ team all with their names on their shorts at their next home match:
Googlies and Chinamen
is produced by
James Sharp
Broad Lee House
Combs
High Peak
SK23 9XA
Tel & fax: 01298 70237
Email: [email protected]