The Question of Rest-ing

It’s become accepted wisdom that international cricketers play far too much cricket. The words ‘burnout’, ‘fatigue’ and ‘rest’ have crept their way into cricket’s terminology, and don’t look like going away any time soon. In the giant hamster wheel that is top level cricket, the players are expected to jump on and keep running for years on end, with a test series in England followed the next week by a 14 match ODI series in Australia, before jumping on a plane that for a T20 exhibition in Kathmandu against the Allen Stanford Invitational Eleven.

Understandably, what with all this cricket, cricket boards have realised that their 100mph fast bowlers won’t be able to bowl 100mph for 365 days in a row without picking up a variety of injuries, so it makes sense to give them a week off here and there. And that’s what England have done this week by not picking Jimmy Anderson or Stuart Broad for the third test match. A few days to sit at home with their feet up will keep them fresh and prepared for the challenges ahead.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to deny Anderson, Broad, or any England player from any much needed rest. It would be foolish to expect every England player to play in every game for their country, as the short-term view would ultimately lead to some very long-term injuries. However, the idea that Anderson and Broad are missing this game at Edgbaston infuriates me beyond belief.

Another long held mantra that keeps getting trotted out is that “test cricket is sacred”. And it should be. Test cricket, by its very definition, is the best eleven available players from one country pitting themselves against the best eleven players from another. It is the ultimate test between the cream of the crop, between master batsmen and skilled bowlers. There is no room for passengers or also-rans – test cricket is for the best of the best. Test caps shouldn’t be thrown around like confetti – they should only be deserved for those who truly deserve them. So to take players who are the best and to rest them, the entire set of values that test cricket is based on is undercut and diminished. Yes Steven Finn and Graham Onions are both top-class bowlers, but the selectors don’t think that they are in the best eleven cricketers in the country. So they should not be playing in this test match. Anderson and Broad should be.

What rankles more with me though is the timing of the rest for England’s regular new ball pair. Again, I’m not denying them the valuable feet-up time, but really? Now? Jimmy and Stuart are missing a test match, which is fundamentally wrong, but the fact that they are missing the test match but will play in 8 ODIs against the West Indies and Australia sickens me. Again, I enjoy ODIs. I don’t want to see them disappear. There is a place in the international calendar for the fifty over format. But the day that the England powers-that-be looked at the calendar when working out when to rest their two strike bowlers and decided to pick a test match for them to miss rather than 8 pointless and unnecessary ODIs is the day that cricket lost its soul. It baffles me beyond comprehension how the ECB feel it appropriate to protect the ODI series while devaluing and diminishing test cricket. Anderson and Broad both said that they were fit and wanted to play in this test, but their views have been overlooked.

It’s not even as if they’d get more of a rest by missing the test match. If they’d managed to get five full days of play in at the test (which with the weather forecast was never going to happen), Anderson and Broad would around 50 overs over the course of 5 days (this year Anderson is averaging 41.57 overs per test), and they’d then be finished. In 8 ODIs they stand to bowl 80 overs each, spread over the space of a few weeks. Those weeks include travelling around the country, lots of days of net practice, and a lot more opportunities to break down. So it can’t even really be said that the resting is down to a cricketing decision.

Sadly, as with many things in cricket, money talks, and the ODIs are where the big bucks are. The packed houses and the money Sky that pay for fifty over games keeps the ECB afloat, and without the star names for those games, the ODIs aren’t worth half as much. Why else are England playing Australia in a ridiculously thought-out series slap bang in the middle of the summer if it isn’t to keep the accountants happy? Why else did the ECB try to block Pietersen’s ODI retirement by threatening to stop him playing T20s (only for him to call their bluff and walk out on it anyway) if it isn’t to push the punters through the turnstiles and the cameras through the gates? And why else are they ensuring Anderson and Broad are available to wear the new blue adidas kit in the first ODI on the 19^th by resting them in a boring, dull, pointless game of test cricket?

Cricket has been more of a business than a sport for a while now; we all know that. And it’s a sad state of affairs that the international game has become so saturated that players are required to rest in the first place. But it’s another thing altogether when test cricket is being devalued by withdrawals and rests just so some can line their pockets. While England  are choosing to let their players sit out tests, the West Indies have been faced with some of their top talent preferring to play in the IPL rather than at Lord’s and Trent Bridge, and it all looks a very sorry state of affairs. Cricket is a gruelling game - England’s ODI series in Australia last year, where a half-fit squad limped their way to a 6-1 defeat after an incredibly gruelling Ashes victory took its toll on most of the team shows just how damaging cricket can be on the body, and with the international calendar as it is, it would be ridiculous to suggest that resting players is not a viable option. However, the fact that international players are on a never-ending treadmill with no natural breaks and as such need to pick and choose games is fundamentally wrong. While it’s a great shame that Anderson and Broad are missing a test match, the bigger shame is that the international calendar being what it is means they have to miss a game in the first place. It’s a slippery slope, and with the international calendar only getting worse, and with the money men only getting greedier, it might not be long before players missing test matches so they can put their feet up becomes a regular occurrence. But as long as they play in that T20 game for the Pyongyang Princes against the Baghdad Blitzers (live on ESPN), then that’s all right.

The life and death of test cricket

This week, we've seen one of the classic test matches. Set 310 to win, Australia and South Africa battled it out, with each side looking well set, only to be clawed back by their opponents. It was left to 18 year old debutant Pat Cummins, to come in with his side 8 down, and smash the 13 runs needed to see Australia to victory. It was a game that had everything - some excellent batting, some awesome bowling, some jittery collapses and some stoic partnerships. It was test cricket at it's finest, with bat and ball always in keen competition, and neither side giving the other an inch.

Contrast that to events this week in Mumbai. West Indies, a team hardly known for their batting exploits (indeed, they only possessed 7 test centuries between them) have batted through the first two days, and are 575/9 at the close of play on the second. Already, some of the Indian bowlers have been complaining about the back-breaking serface that's been served up to them, and with justifiable cause. When the West Indies are dismissed, India will then have to come out and bat, and will no doubt rack up a similiar score with no time left to force any sort of result. Even when the game in Johannesburg was reaching it's climax, it was impossible to predict which way the game would go. Contrast that to Mumbai, where the captains may as well shake hands on the draw now and save everyone the bother of turning up for the next few days.

The game in South Africa proved just how good test cricket is - not that we had any doubts about it. But events in Mumbai, and specifically the groundsmen's decision (whoever told them to do so) to create a road just sees test cricket shooting itself in the foot. Yes, attendances for test cricket are low, and the money's in T20s and One Dayers. But every cricket administrator worth his salt knows that test cricket is the ultimate, and should be protected. For all of the talk of test championships and petitions over shortened test series, the real way to "save" test cricket is to stop the batsman dominated snooze-fests that are all too common in world cricket today.

The Death of Test Cricket?

South Africa all out for 96. Australia all out for 47. 68 runs fell for 18 wickets. Is test cricket dead? Obviously not.

OK, maybe it isn't right to use the events of one manic afternoon in Cape Town to prove beyond doubt that a format has been saved. But this one weird couple of hours has given us some of the best test cricket that will be seen this year, let alone this decade.

For all of the talk of twenty20 killing test cricket, of players disinterested due to the lack of money, and of crowds staying away, the main threat to test cricket over the past few years has been completely stone dead pitches. We've seen games where 700 has played 600 after the first innings, and the captains could have shaken hands on the draw after the second day. Only a miracle performance with the ball can produce any inch of excitement or sporting competition on these sorts of pitches, leading to dull draws and talk of test cricket's demise.

So isn't it refreshing when a pitch offers a tiny bit to the bowler? While there has been talk about the standard of the pitch not being appropriate to test cricket, there has been a fair battle between bat and ball throughout. The Australian first innings was a case-in-point, a fired up South African bowling attack led by the world's best paceman Dale Steyn chipped away at Australia, but were held back by a world class performance from Michael Clarke. Bat and ball were in fierce competition, and given that these were the world's best in action, the spectacle was fascinating. Clarke eventually perished for 151, dragging his team to 248, and it was as enthralling an innings as I can remember for a long time.

What happened next was absolutely mental, with wickets falling all over the place, and there were plenty of rash shots from batsmen that were far from world class. While there may have been one too many gremlins in the pitch, surely it was more exciting and interesting than seeing bat dominate ball for session after interminable session? And the partnership at the end of Amla and Smith to get South Africa to stumps just one down shows that a lot of the wickets were down to a combination of good bowling, and awful batting.

I don't think any of us really thought test cricket was on it's death bed, and days like this proved just how alive the format is. This test, and the one last week, where the West Indies gave India an almighty shock, certainly show that test cricket isn't really in a terminal decline. Sure, games like this and stories like this don't really help, but ultimately, test cricket is in rude health. And any format that England are best in the world is surely fine in anyone's book...

Ravi Bopara is Embarrassed

Ravi Bopara is the epitome of a confidence player. So often in and out of the England team, he's never truly felt comfortable in the side, so as such, hasn't felt loved by the English selectors. This lack of inner belief and trust in himself has led to poor performances, and has meant that his great potential just hasn't been lived up too.

Ravi Bopara has only really been given two solid runs in the side. The first, back in 2009, was when new coach Andy Flower told Ravi that he was the man to bat at number three for England, and put his trust and confidence in him. Bopara backed this up by making three successive test centuries. He felt as though he had a place in the team and confidence, and runs flowed.

He's had to wait until this summer for his next prolonged spell in the side. In and out over the last couple of years, he was given his chance for the final two tests of the India series, and then for the subsequent ODIs. While he started slowly, the performances have slowly but surely improved as Ravi is slowly starting to feel loved again by the selectors. A 96 at Lord's - so nearly his maiden ODI ton and comfortably his highest ODI score preceded a valuable 37* at Cardiff to guide England home, and tellingly a 4-10 in the first T20 against the West Indies. England's best ever T20 figures.

It's worth bearing that in mind. Of all of the great bowlers to have represented England over the past six years in T20 cricket, nobody has bowled better than Ravi Bopara did on Friday night. This is some achievement. However, Ravi claims he is "embarrassed" to have collected the accolade, which sort of sums up his mental issue with being in the England team. He just doesn't feel worthy enough to be playing international cricket, let alone excelling at it.

When thinking of Ravi Bopara's mentality, the perfect person to compare him to is Eoin Morgan. Both have extraordinary natural talent, as well as some equally obvious technical flaws. Yet both have had distinctly different careers in international cricket. Ever since taking to the field for England, Morgan has looked as though he belongs. Blessed with a mental fortitude that almost guarantees success, Morgan is extremely comfortable at the highest level, and has reaped the rewards of that. Bopara almost needs someone to constantly remind him that he actually is a very good cricketer, and while he will always be blessed with an extraordinary talent, what isn't so sure is his ability to perform and impress consistently for England. Ravi's feeling of embarrassment at his record figures sums up his attitude, and you get the feeling that had Morgan broken a record that he would be enjoying it rather than feeling bashful about it.

Technically, Eoin Morgan has his limitations. He isn't brilliant to the short ball, and is often very edgy when driving the ball off the front foot. But it's almost assumed that he will be a key player for England over the next few years, purely because he has the state of mind that he is sure to succeed. Ravi Bopara doesn't have this. What Bopara needs is for a prolonged run in the team backed up by good performances. At the moment, he is getting a run in the team, and those performances are beginning to come. With Morgan set to miss out on the next England tours, Bopara will get a few more opportunities in the side, and has a chance to stake a claim for a regular starting role. However, if he is to become one of the world's best - he must radically change his own mentality - stop being embarrassed and start enjoying international cricket. Only then can he become a Morgan.

What Actually Is The Point of The T20s v West Indies?

The other day I spouted something about how I'm not a huge fan of the Champions League. Created solely to make a lot of money quite quickly, it sort of opposes everything us cricket bloggers should stand for. So you'd have thought that a final hurrah for the England team in international action this summer would cheer me up and get me all misty eyed. Well, not really either. This horribly shoehorned in seriesette has no real benefit other than to fulfil Sky's contract. So I don't really care about these matches either.

You could ask what I'm doing as a cricket blogger when I evidently have no real interest in cricket. And you'd be right to ask that.

So, mainly to show that I can be bothered (even if nobody else is), here's why you should watch the two T20s against the West Indies.


Young Talent

Everyone loves seeing a young player making his first tentative steps into international cricket, filled with hope that they'll be the next big thing. And at the moment, England's team is packed with them. Bairstow, Stokes, Briggs, Hales, Buttler - the potential in this team is immense. And while some won't live up to their big billing (remember the fanfare Luke Wright arrived in after a debut fifty against India in 2007), chances are a few of them will turn into bona fide England legends. And in twenty years after Sir Joseph Buttler is made prime minister after leading England to 6 successive Ashes wins, you can say that you were there (metaphorically) at the start.


England are winning

Given even fairly recent cricketing history this is still somewhat of a novelty, and we should enjoy it while it lasts. England are currently top of the test rankings, World T20 champions and have just beaten the ODI World Cup winners. And have looked really good whilst doing so. Yes, it may be a pointless seriesette that in a couple of weeks we'll have forgotten all about, but if England get to wave yet another trophy around at the Oval on Sunday, it's a great opportunity to celebrate everything else that's good about English cricket. Enjoy the success while it lasts - it may be gone sooner than we think...


Graeme Swann will be captain

Given the fact that Swann is at least fifth (and possibly sixth) in line to the throne, the chances of him captaining England again are fairly slim. Swann probably knows this is his one and only chance to do something destructive as England captain, so expect him to pull out all of the stops. Stink bombs at the toss. The team running out to "Diamond Lights". Fielders on the boundary told to get girls numbers for the captain. Who knows. But it will be worth watching.


The West Indies are playing

Everyone loves watching the West Indies. They're either really good and make cricket look easy, or they're hilariously crap and are good for a few laughs. In a T20, there is the potential for both possibilities. Expect dolly catches dropped, huge sixes over the pavilion, stupid collapses, demon yorkers and players forgetting to bring their bat out to the middle. It's always entertaining to watch the West Indies. Plus they may start dancing if they take any wickets, which is always a bonus.


OK, that's pretty much it. While it may not make the history books in 100 years as one of the great series, it'll be good for a couple of hours of light entertainment. Plus afterwards you get to watch me on Sports Tonight Live. What's not to enjoy?

The T20 Captaincy Question

So with the news that T20 captain Stuart Broad's going to be out for a few months with a sore shoulder, as will vice-captain Eoin Morgan (spookily also with a sore shoulder), England's selectors are going to have to appoint their fifth captain of the summer ahead of the fairly meaningless T20 internationals against the West Indies in a couple of weeks. While the games will come at the end of a tiring summer and will probably be played by heavily depleted / disinterested sides, the matches (and perhaps even the away T20 in India after the ODI series out there) will give someone the opportunity to step onto the first rung of England captaincy - the chance to impress all with their cricketing brains, and the ability to tell their grandchildren that they were England captain.

So who should take the job? There are a few candidates, but as with the appointment of Broad himself at the start of the summer, nobody really jumped off the page. So I'll start with the FEC himself, and the man who already leads England's 50 over outfit, Alastair Cook. Everyone knows that Cooky is just serving an apprenticeship before being anointed England test captain, and taking on a couple of T20 games will only help his development and is another step of progression for him personally. However, Cook has long been deemed unsuitable to play T20 cricket for England. If he hasn't been in England's T20 plans thus far, with the bigger picture of the World T20 on the horizon, the selectors are unlikely to want to pick someone just for some one-off matches, which could rule Cook out. However, he has spoken of his desire to get into England's T20 team, and given the unbelievable form he's shown recently (including a T20 style innings as he guided England home at the Rose Bowl v India), this may just be the opportunity for him to get back into the shortest format side, and grab yet another captaincy in his quest for total control over English cricket.

The "not being in the side" argument would also appear to rule out some of the other senior players in England's side, with both Ian Bell and Jimmy Anderson not actually being in the T20 team. While they would both be major contenders in either of the other formats, the fact that they aren't (like Cook) actually deemed suitable for T20s should see them excluded from the reckoning.

With England's T20 team looking more pre-school than university, actual senior players who are regularly playing in there are fairly thin on the ground. In fact, only Graeme Swann and Kevin Pietersen could be deemed experienced enough to lead an England side, and both have their obvious fallbacks. Swann, for all of his laddish brilliance probably wouldn't be the best choice as he'd either do something inappropriate and unbecoming of an England captain, or by not being "one of the lads" the dressing room would miss out on Swanny's antics and the boost they give. And KP would come with the baggage of being KP, and everything that brings and has brought in the past. Besides, he may not want another crack at it after last time. However, despite how it all ended, Pietersen was actually not a tactically bad captain, and for only a one-off could consider having another go. And given that it is just for a couple of days, the powers that be may decide that Swann's influence wouldn't be missed that much, or even that even he couldn't create THAT much carnage in two days.

Another option would be giving it to an exciting youngster in order to help them progress, and given the relatively low pressure situation that it will be, that may not be the worst idea in the world. Current Lions captain James Taylor could be a shout, but after just one international cap, handing him the captaincy might be a touch premature.

However you look at it, the two games against the West Indies are turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. The players don't want to be playing them, and the selectors don't want to be forced into naming an interim T20 captain. However, a captain must be named, and while it may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, someone will be able to proudly boast that for two wet September days at The Oval, they were England captain.

We All Dream of a Team of Brendan Nash

Whenever an innings is in danger of total subsidence, someone needs to put up their hands and fight. West Indies, reduced to 77-4 chasing an unrealistic amount of runs and with over a day left to save the series win, were on the brink. Step forward Brendan Paul Nash.

Every team needs a Brendan Nash. They may not be the most elegant or pretty strokemaker. They may go through horrible runs of form and not contribute anything for years. But when their team needs them most, they stand up and are counted.

Nestling in every test batting order, amongst the flashy extroverts and the powerful big hitters should be one gusty nurdler who just refuses to get out. No matter what's thrown at them (literally, in the case of Saeed Ajmal), using a solid defence and an immaculate ability to leave the ball, they can spend hour upon hour battling for their team.

Nash hasn't been in the greatest of form. His scores leading up to the final innings so far in this two match series were 5, 3 and 6. But his team were staring down the barrel, and he knew what he had to do.

The performances of the gutsy match saver are as important as the extravagant match winner. Would England have won the Ashes in 2009 without Paul Collingwood's nine hour vigil at Cardiff in the first test? Yes, Jonathan Trott scored the runs at the Oval to take back the urn, but without Brigadier Block's sheer gritty determination, it would have been Ricky Ponting hailed as the captain of all captains, not Andrew Strauss.

Brendan Nash is currently only 30 runs and 64 balls into saving the series for the West Indies, and he probably won't, but you wouldn't count against his sheer bloody-mindedness actually carrying the day for his adopted nations. Players like Nash are the essence of test cricket - those who won't stop fighting until the final wicket has been taken or the final over bowled. You can keep your powerplays, pinch-hitters and DLF Maximums - Brendan Nash is real cricket. And long may it continue.

Flower's Journey to World Domination

The big headline news from the world of cricket today is that Andy Flower has extended his contract as England team director. While there have been a few sensationalist tweets (as there will for any story regarding international cricket) it certainly hasn't been met with a wave of shock. Flower's job with England, as successful as it has been already, is only partway through. And having only just turned down the India job, it's hardly a massive shock that he wants to stay with the England team.

If there's one thing which I could pick as a buzzword for Andy Flower's time as England head honcho (I know buzzwords are more Peter Moore's thing, but deal with it), it would be "stability". England have had a settled side in which everyone knows what they're doing, and there hasn't been chops and changes willy-nilly. Even big selectorial decisions, such as dropping Finn for Melbourne was meticulously planned, well thought-out and made with the minimum of fuss. It's not Andy Flower's way to shout and scream and rock the boat. Leaving suddenly or demanding a pay rise just isn't his way, which has been proved by today's announcement that he is to remain loyal to his players and remain as England boss.

Since taking over just about two years ago, Flower has had unbridalled success. Yes, he's won two Ashes and a World T20, but you get the impression that the job is still only mid-way through completion. Flower's ultimate aim is to create a side that dominates world cricket like the West Indian side of the 70s and the Australians during the 00s. As well as England have done in the past two years, the poor display at the World Cup showed that we're a long way off reaching world domination. This summer, in series against arguably the two best teams in the world, plus playing the pretenders to the throne summer next gives Flower the opportunity to see how far along his steeds have come.

Flower seems a man with immense loyalty to his players, and abandoning them suddenly only part way along the journey just isn't his style. He, in the Andocracy with captain Strauss, can lead this England team to hugely bigger and better things, even bigger and better than what's already been achieved. Make no mistake, Flower is in for the long haul, and for an England fan, this can only be seen as brilliant news.

Podcast - "Come On... Got Him!" (Muffled Noise)

Download this episode on Podbean

With it all on the line against the West Indies, England needed a big result. And didn't they go and get it. England's selectors finally got it right, although Will explains that they would have got it right much earlier had they been listening to the podcast. There's some unexpected love for one of England's heroes, and some very fickle predictions as to who will win the World Cup. Plus some Irish chat for the plucky boys in green, as well as some spin advice for Australia. Jonny f***ng Trott.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Enjoy this Podcast? Listen to loads like it on the Short Midwicket Podcast Page

Have England Stumbled Across a Winning Formula?

To say England have made hard work of this group stage has been a rather large understatement. Through a combination of good luck, bad luck, competence and a heavy dose of incompetence, England have stumbled into a position where only unlikely wins for the West Indies against India, and Bangladesh against South Africa can see England denied from getting into the knock-outs. After naming teams which were mainly wrong, the selectors were thrust into making changes for the do-or-die West Indies clash, and it evidently payed off (just).

But is this the team to take England on to further glories in this World Cup?

England's hand was forced after the embarrassing loss to Bangladesh, and changes had to be made. Wright came in for Collingwood, Tremlett came in for Anderson, and Tredwell came in for the injured Shahzad.

Wright, who has been much maligned in the cricket blogosphere (mainly by me) hasn't performed very well in his many internationals over the past few years. And had there been another alternative, England certainly wouldn't have picked him. However, with Collingwood looking like he's terminally out of form, enough was enough, and it was worth putting Wright in. And today was the day that Luke Wright came of age. Coming in at a crucial position, Wright needed to play a responsible innings to get England to a respectable total. In the past, he would have gifted his wicket away slogging for not many, but here, he grafted a hard fought 40-odd (before gifting his wicket away slogging, but I'll forgive him that one). While there are certainly better batsmen who could play for England, Wright is the only other one in the squad, and when given his chance, seized it with both hands. He also does have the ability to get a few overs out - which are needed when England play a four-man attack.

The decision to remove Collingwood (an over-the-hill player who's best days are firmly behind him) is one thing, but the brave decision was to drop Anderson. Jimmy is, and will be, England's leader of the attack, and will go on to take many ODI wickets for England over the next few years. However, the current Jimmy Anderson is a shadow of his usual self, he looks dejected, out of form, and low on confidence. While it is a hard thing to do to get rid of a bowler of Jimmy's ability, it was the right thing to do, as a four man attack can't afford to carry anyone, regardless of reputation. Tremlett didn't perform particularly well, and the decision that needs to be made is whether a rest of a few days is enough for Jimmy to recover his mojo, or whether its worth sticking with Goobah.

And the final change was bringing in James Tredwell. I'm feeling rather smug this evening, as I've been calling for Tredder's inclusion since the Ireland game. Mick Yardy is a defensive bowler, who won't take wickets. While this may be handy in T20s, it's not a ploy that will work consistently in ODIs. Tredwell is an attacking spinner, and while he may leak a few boundaries, once he starts racking up some dots, he'll start taking wickets. Which was seen in his 4-fer. I'm so pleased for Tredwell, he's carried drinks around without getting games for the last few months, and for him to seize his chance so well is admirable.

So is the eleven that was put out for England the eleven that can win the World Cup? Well, Prior isn't an ODI opener. I'd much prefer to see Swann opening, but I'd also like to play up front for Chelsea. England's middle order is the strength with Trott, Bell and Morgan being supplimented by the hitting power of Bopara and my new favourite cricketer Luke Wright below. Having two attacking spinners in Swann and Tredwell is a big plus, but while Anderson was dropped in favour of Tremlett, I'd prefer to see Jimmy coming in instead of big Chris. However, that's only if it's a 100% fit and firing Jim, so if he isn't going to bowl well, he shouldn't be in the team. Shahzad has been ruled out, and will be replaced, and we've seen that getting someone new and fresh into the team has payed dividends. So, as such, (and given my penchant for random left-field selections) I'd like to see Chris Woakes come in, and go straight into the side.

England may not win this World Cup. In fact, England may still not get out of the groups. But as I write, they're still there, and as anyone who's ever watched a Dale Winton gameshow will know, you've got to be in it to win it. There are better teams out there, but there's something about this England team that's creating tight games. And when it really matters, England are just about doing enough to come out on top. Whether by luck or judgement, England are setting this World Cup alight, and whisper it quietly, but they still fancy their chances of winning it.

"What If" - a draft

I wrote this post when West Indies needed another 30 odd runs, with 4 wickets in hand. The last rites of England's World Cup campaign were being given, and I wanted to get the "England are out" post out of the way, so I wrote it while the game was still going. Just as I finished it, there was a quick flurry of action, and suddenly England are more than alive and kicking. England may still go out of this World Cup in the groups, but I'm keeping this post, mainly to jinx every other team who plays against them this World Cup. Come on England!

"So England are out of the World Cup. A team who were highly touted as potential winners have disappointed so much, and crashed out with barely a whimper in the groups.

What makes this so disappointing is that I genuinely thought England could do something at this World Cup. Yes, we'd struggled against Australia, but if you look at this England squad, there's a lot of quality.

In Strauss, Trott, Bell, Pietersen (and latterly Morgan) England had a world-class batting line-up. In Anderson, Bresnan and Broad we had a superb fast bowling trio. And the trump card - Graeme Swann - the best spinner in the world.

The worst thing about being an England fan is the hope that they give us; the hope that they just might do it - that they just might go on and win. There have been so many fine margins in England's departure - what if Swann had squeaked Munaf Patel away for two off the last ball against India? What if Kevin O'Brien had holed out early in his innings? What if they'd managed to take the final two Bangladeshi wickets? What if Jonathan Trott hadn't been adjudged to touch the boundary rope? What if Tredwell's appeal to Benn hadn't been an 'umpire's call'?

As it is, England are out, and there will be an inquest. England have a team good enough to have won this World Cup, but have massively disappointed. All England fans can ask, is what if?"

The West Indies Crunch Match - Preview

So the big decider is upon us. The biggest game of England's World Cup, until the next one (assuming we get another). I'm sure you all know the calculations by now. England must win, but hope that South Africa beat Bangladesh. (Technically England could tie, and go through on NRR if Bangladesh lose. Or beat West Indies heavily, hope India beat West Indies heavily, and sneak past the Islanders on NRR. But that's unlikely). But to even stand a chance, England must win.

I've spoken to death about how Swann should open, and Tredwell should come into England's team. Sadly, I've also spoken about England's cowardly selections, which makes big high risk changes unlikely. So for Swann to open, Tredwell to come in, or the selectors generally doing something out of the comfort zone would be a big surprise, so we're probably going to still see Prior opening and Collingwood at 7/8. Mainly because the selectors do not like admitting they are wrong, and changing it only three days after the Bangladeshi defeat would be an admittance that they got it badly wrong.

Which makes the rumours that Jimmy Anderson will be dropped surprising. Anderson has been in awful form, and had someone less senior than him been performing like he has, they would have been bombed out of the team long ago. However, Anderson is the supposed leader of the attack, and as such, has been an untouchable in the starting eleven. However, there have been calls for Tremlett to come in for Anderson, which as justified as they may be, England's cowardly selections thus far mean a big high risk decision like dropping Anderson would be a big shock - especially given there is no safety net from here on in. Luckily (or unluckily) Ajmal Shahzad has the squits, so a controversial and difficult for the selectors could be avoided, as Tremlett could replace Shahzad if Aj is unable to play.

As with the previous game, there have been calls for England to play three spinners, but for me this would be a wrong call. England have lacked a pace man in the middle overs, and while three spinners could strangle the West Indies, playing only Bresnan and Tremlett/Shahzad/Anderson for the opening overs and at the death would be a mistake, as we've seen how easily milked Yardy and Collingwood have been when pace has been taken off the ball in the middle overs. But I'd still like to see an attacking spinner in Tredwell play - especially if Swann opens (which allows England to bat properly down to seven, and play a proper five man attack).

It will be a crunch game for England, and they will massively up their game to beat a West Indies side who are on a good run of form. Don't forget - the WIndies do need to win themselves, or they suddenly have a very difficult game against India at the weekend. England, however, have been gloriously inconsistent, which makes it very difficult to predict how they'll do in any given game. I do hope they roll the dice and make some brave decisions, but as long as England win, I wouldn't care if Luke Wright opened the bowling and batting, and took over as captain.

Come on England!

Podcast - Squeaky Bum Time

Download this episode

This World Cup is really hotting up! At least, half of it is. While Group A's all sorted out, there's a lot of issues left to be dealt with in Group B, which is getting rather exciting. Places in the quarter finals beckon for some, and places on the bonfire of broken dreams for the rest. Will it be England, or Ireland, or Bangladesh, or West Indies, or South Africa or India? Or could it even be Holland who sneaks through? (It can't). Will got his calculator out to see who it could be. More updates on everyone's chances, and there's a new leader in the Fantasy League. Get in.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Podcast - Sprinkling Towards The Ashes

Download the Short Midwicket Podcast on iTunes


Australia have named their 13 man squad for the First Test; and there's no Nathan Hauritz. England have warmed up against an Aussie A side, and have danced their way to victory. And it was runs ahoy in the subcontinent, as Chris Gayle and Brendon McCullum filled their boots.



Don't forget to keep your computer switched on because during the Ashes I'm going daily! Starting on Wednesday, there will be a daily dose of all things Short Midwicket. Emails to shortmidwicket@hotmail.co.uk, tweets to @shortmidwicket, and keep reading the blogs at theshortmidwicket.blogspot.com



Sprinkle on!

Powered by Podbean.com

Podcast - Two Overs of Underarm Lobs

Download the latest podcast here

Darren Sammy is West Indian captain, and Will is pleased. The ECB aren’t changing the fixtures (much), or letting Iain O’Brien play, and Will isn’t pleased. Also an email from America, a tweet from a man with a large chin, and some news on England’s number one.

Keep the emails flooding in to shortmidwicketpodcast@hotmail.co.uk, as well as visiting the site theshortmidwicket.blogspot.com. TTFN for now!

Powered by Podbean.com

The Short Midwicket Podcast is available on iTunes! Click here to view the podcasts

Who Is The Best In the World?

I was talking to a few people the other day about the merits of this India v Australia series. In the not too distant past, these two would be going toe to toe as the best two teams in the world. I don't know if they are today.

When I look at both teams, they both have some awesomely crap players. Marcus North is not a test player; neither is Hauritz. McGrath, Warne or Hayden they are not. There are some good journeymen players such as Bollinger and Katich, but they will not be remembered in 30 years as any of the best. Yes, there are some world-class performers in the Australian side, but it's fairly obviously a shadow of the all-conquering side of only a few years ago.

The Indian side is better, and with legends like Dravid and Tendulkar in the top order, they will beat most sides. But the bowling of Sreesanth, Ojha and Zaheer would struggle to worry the Richards, Gooches or Laras in their pomp.

When I look globally, I see plenty of brilliant players in the world's top sides, but I also see JP Duminy, Ian Bell and Dale Richards. Top level cricket isn't what it used to be.

When the Australian side of Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist and Lee were tearing teams apart, they were clearly the best side in the world. Likewise the West Indian side of the 80s, and the England side of the 90s (spot the odd one out...). When sides would play against them, they would need to raise their games in order to compete, and any players not good enough would soon be found out, and taken away from test cricket. Without that sort of dominant team, too many test cricketers are being carried by the performances of their teammates, and racking up far too many test caps. Or grinding out one gritty innings to save their career. (Step forward Mr North).

Sure, everyone who plays test cricket must be half-good. They're probably better than me, and probably better than a few of their club / county / state mates. But are they test-class? Without teams being right at the top of their games, test cricket is suffering. The 2005 Ashes were contested by a team who were rightly regarded as the best in the world (and full of hall of famers), and a side who had built themselves up for that series, giving themselves a chance to overhaul that great side. It led to (perhaps) the best series of all time, with the standard of cricket superb throughout. 2009 was different. Australia were rebuilding having lost loads of players; England were trying to create a team after the loss of the coach and two captains. While the competition of the series was great, the overall quality of the cricket was poor. Yes, England won, so I'm not complaining, but nobody will be watching the 2009 DVD ahead of the 2005 six-disc boxset.

So what's the point of this blog? Basically, I am saying that the overall quality of test cricket is lower than it was a few years ago. We've seen Pakistan collapse for under a hundred three times in a four game series - unthinkable previously. And this week we've seen a player who isn't good enough to be playing in tests make a hundred. For Australia. In India. I'm sure this is a cyclical thing, and in a couple of years better players will be displacing their crap counterparts, and the natural order will be restored. But until then, we're going to have to suffer another few years of Marcus North. And Ian Bell.

What England owe Ravi

Kevin Pietersen, star of England's World T20 win over South Africa has flown home. In his place comes the black sheep of English cricket Ravi Bopara. Bopara, scapegoated and slaughtered for four indifferent tests on the back of three successive hundreds, has been dropped out of the one day side, and become an unloved, unwanted pariah.

But it wasn't too long ago when Ravi Bopara was the great hope of English cricket. A mainstay of the one-day team (having been part of some fantastic innings - Sri Lanka and India in 2007 to name two), Bopara made English cricket history by scoring three successive test hundreds against the West Indies last year. Bopara was fast-tracked into the test team as a specialist number three (a position he is unfamiliar with) for last summer, but after a few failures he was bombed out for the final Ashes test for the untried Jonathan Trott. Bopara didn't even make the squad for the tour of South Africa, in either the test or one day squad, but was surprisingly named in the World T20 squad. Some would say to simply justify his central contract. But who would be that controversial?

England owe Ravi Bopara. Big time. Ravi is one of our most talented batsmen, and there is no way there isn't a place for him in one of the codes. After those three hundreds (albeit against a West Indies team who had no idea why they were there), Bopara should have nailed on a place in the team for the next five years. Ian Bell has carved out a career from making a score every 10 tests, and he keeps his place. Yes, Bopara had a poor Ashes, but there's no way that Bell deserved to play in that final test ahead of Ravi. Bopara had a poor four tests, Bell had a poor four years. Bell's England career seems to be based on the principle that "he's due runs". What's to say Bopara isn't due runs? Players go in and out of form, and as any cliché-enthusiast will tell you, form is temporary but class is permanent. (Copyright every blog about Dimitar Berbatov ever). Can the selectors really justify Bell over Bopara, when Ravi is clearly the better batsman?

Ravi is definately owed one by the ECB. For the final day at the Oval, where the Ashes was clinched, every England player who played in the series got a medal, lap of honour, and a mention in Andrew Strauss' speech. Monty Panesar, who played in one test, got a special mention. Bopara's imput into England winning was slight, but at least he was part of a test winning team at Lord's. Panesar played out a draw. Bopara's cumulative score of 1-1 was the same as Steve Harmison and Graham Onions, and was equal to Panesar's 0-0. But Onions and Panesar (along with Kevin Pietersen) were all out for the lap of honour, basking in the reflective glory of an Ashes win. Bopara was playing for Essex at Chelmsford.

Bopara didn't make the squads for the tours to South Africa and Bangladesh, or the squad for the T20 tour of Dubai against Pakistan. He made a solid fifty in the T20 warm-up game before this tournament, before he was again dropped. England do owe Ravi Bopara, but ultimately, Ravi Bopara owes England a few scores. If he can make a few match-winning contributions as England win the World T20, Bopara can force himself back into the selectors reckoning for further test and ODI honours. Bopara owes it to himself to make runs. Hopefully starting tonight against New Zealand.

... more like the Disgrace-Lewis method...

At the change of innings in the West Indies - England T20 game yesterday, I made a few notes about how England's innings was amongst the best T20 innings around. England fired in the powerplay through first Michael Lumb, and then Craig Kieswetter. They then consolidated during the 'middle overs', with Wright and Morgan keeping the run rate ticking over without losing wickets. After getting their eyes in and finding the pace of the pitch, they then teed off over the final few overs, with a 95 partnership and the highest score of the World T20 so far in 191.

England performed brilliantly, and the innings from Morgan was one of the best T20 innings in the situation. He, alongside the much maligned Luke Wright (whose contribution in changing the momentum should definitely not be ignored) turned the game in England's favour, setting a target which would have been defended 999 times out of 1000.

And then it rained.

It's got to be said that I'm a fan of the Duckworth-Lewis method. Nobody wants to have games where teams need 22 from one ball. And normally, in ODIs, the Duckworth-Lewis method is fair. However, Twenty20 is a very different contest from ODIs. And to be set 30 from 22, after the opposition have posted the highest score just isn't right. While I am not pretending that I have the mathematical know how to even comprehend the vagaries of the D-L method, there must be a few x's and y's that can be moved for T20 games to make it fair for both sides. The advantage for the chasing team with D-L is unbalanced, which was seen as England crashed out of last years World T20 at the hands of (again) the West Indies, who took advantage of a much simpler total to chase.

While England's prospects in the tournament will probably be unaffected by the loss, Mr Duckworth and Mr Lewis should be expecting a call from the ICC telling them to have a rethink about their method for T20 games. England lost in a relatively unimportant group game, but if it's not amended, there could be a much more major victim at a later point in the tournament.

And don't even get me started on the decision to hold an international cricket tournament in Guyana during the rainy season...

Things the World T20 has given us - Day One

This may be a regular feature, and it may not. But here are some observations I had from what I watched of the first day of the T20 Worlds.

Things the World T20 have given us:

West Indies wearing the worst cricket shirt since England had that light blue one
Nathan McCullum giving us a free ticket to the gun show
William Porterfield having the best accent to ever exist
The Guyanese cheerleaders refusing to dance when Shiv got out
Dinesh Ramdin dancing and singing to Sean Kingston without realising the camera was on him
Shiv getting a rather homo-erotic massage as the West Indian wickets fell
A 17 year old with grey hair
A really close game
Not a very close game


Would you find these in the IPL?

World T20 Preview

As Twenty20 is the shortest form of cricket, I will preview each team in the World T20 in the shortest possible way. It's not because I'm lazy, honest.

Group A:

Pakistan: infighting, chaotic, potentially brilliant
Australia: strong, favourites, complacency?
Bangladesh: could spring an upset, probably won't

Group B:

Sri Lanka: out of form, but three M's could be deadly
New Zealand: dark horses
Zimbabwe: pleased to be back, won't be pleased to be battered

Group C:

South Africa: bottlers
India: probably knackered, have T20 experience, will go far but won't win
Afghanistan: unknowns, could spring a Holland, will have the support of the neutrals

Group D:

West Indies: need team unity, Gayle and Pollard can be destructive, have home support, but stars aside not good enough
England: will need luck and belief, not out of the running
Ireland: want to relive 2007; it's unlikely.


Winners - England.
Most runs - Eoin Morgan
Most wickets - Mitchell Johnson