Cricket: Future Ashes Teams

There's an interesting article by Vic Marks in The Observer about the futures of various elder statesmen in the English and Australian teams. He, like a number of other pundits at the moment, concludes that we may have seen the last of Paul Collingwood in the test side. Whilst Collingwood's form is poor, he has often been at his best when his back is against the wall, something the selectors are sure to bear in mind, as well as the fact that his good form from Cardiff is not so far in the past. Regardless of whether he is in decline or not therefore, expect him to tour with England this winter, as his battling qualities will be highly valued on what will be a tough tour. Whether he can make the side ahead of Bopara or Bell, or another candidate such as Key or Denly is another matter, but as a squad presence at least, the management are likely to value him.

Rugby: Tri-Nations Match Report

Match report: Australia 25 – South Africa 32

South Africa completed a relatively untroubled win against Australia in Perth today, maintaining the status quo in the Tri-Nations tournament, with the Wallabies still winless, and the Springboks still unbeaten.

Although in the end there was only seven points in it, a margin less than the sum of Matt Giteau’s missed kicks, in truth the South Africans eased off in the final fifteen minutes, allowing the Wallabies to add a couple of late scores without seriously threatening the result. The Australians did show some of their potential throughout the game, frequently finding good field position, and surprising with their ability to match and even pressurise the vaunted South African pack up front. However, repetitive handling errors and a lack of precision meant that they were unable to turn pressure into points at key periods of the game, and the Springboks could be patient in defence, safe in the knowledge that the home side would turn the ball over to them eventually.

The first half was a one-sided affair, as Fourie Du Preez kick started an outstanding individual performance with a try after a tapped penalty, stepping past a couple of defenders, before using his momentum to bundle the last two over the line with him. A short while later, a well worked, but poorly defended move from first phase ball put Jacques Fourie under the post untouched, the try putting the centre third in the all-time South African try scoring charts. It is rare to see tries from set piece possession like that in modern rugby, a symptom of organised professional defences, but miscommunication in the Wallaby ranks and a slick move from the visitors sent Fourie away.

Meanwhile, the Australians were having real trouble hanging on to the ball, dropping four high kicks from the South Africans, and knocking on in key attacking phases, leaving their New Zealander coach, Robbie Deans looking frustrated. In addition, Matt Giteau’s failure to kick a couple of easy penalties left his side without any points until late in the half. The third South African try was symptomatic of the Australians’ problems, as a high ball was fumbled by Lachie Turner under pressure from Jean de Villiers, and Bryan Habana snapped up the loose ball and raced away to score.

The Wallabies came out stronger in the second half, despite the 16 point deficit, and began to put more pressure on the visiting side, and the reward was a well finished short range try for Giteau. The Australians kept the pressure on, taking control of the territory and possession, but mistakes continued to plague their game, and repeated turnovers let the world champions march downfield and put Habana under the posts for his second. The four-try bonus point was the first scored in the tournament, and reflected a more expansive South African game plan than in previous weeks. A Morne Steyn penalty shored up the lead, and from there it was too great a position for the Australians to overcome. Late tries from Giteau and Turner came in the knowledge that they were probably too late, and the South African intensity appeared to have dropped, with multiple substitutes then on the field.

In truth, there was plenty of encouragement for the Australian side. They were able to build up good periods of possession, and did manage to break through the South African defence. Moreover, the lack of precision, and the mistakes can be eradicated over time. However, this will be little consolation in the short term for a country and a team so used to winning, and for now, Deans will be concerned that his side were unable to seriously threaten a world champion side that never really got into top gear, despite a more expansive game plan. For the Springboks, the title will surely be theirs. The question will be whether they can cap another impressive year with a clean sweep of the tournament.

The Ashes: TV Coverage

Interesting piece by Media writer Mark Lawson about the viewing figures for the Ashes. The debate over the merits of free to air TV coverage vs. Sky has been well documented, and is due to hot up in coming months as the government is due to review the entire sports TV market. In the meantime these figures give some interesting food for thought.

Harlequins & Bloodgate: A Lighter Look

In advance of some more serious blogging on this affair, the RSC offers advice on how to really fake an injury.

The Ashes: Views from the Press

Andy Zaltzman is one of the best satirical comedians in the UK, and it has been gratifying to see his love of cricket, which he always shoe-horns into his topical work, get him much deserved exposure this summer. His blog at Cricinfo is always worth a read, especially for the comments left by readers who have completely missed the point and the irony. His latest effort is no exception, as summed up by this extract:

'England’s 2009 Ashes win is the 7th greatest heist in Test history... some way off Australia’s burglary of the 1891-92 Ashes, when they filched the urn despite averaging 21.6% less than England. The injustice still rankles today, and clearly motivated Strauss and his men at the Oval. In fact, as Graeme Swann celebrated the final wicket, lip-readers would have seen him screaming the words, “This one’s for WG Grace and his boys.”'

Meanwhile in Australia, controversial columnist Peter Roebuck has written an interesting piece on the series and the future of Ponting's captaincy. Whilst favourably assessing Ponting's record as skipper, he makes a passing comment about the make up of the England team:

'England seemed to have combed the cricketing world to raise a side.'

A common criticism of the English team in recent weeks after the selection of South African born-and-raised Jonathan Trott, it is nonetheless odd that it should come from Roebuck. He was an English county cricketer who in retirement relocated to Australia, and now proudly calls himself an Australian, on the basis that should one choose to relocate to a new country, one has made a greater commitment to it than anyone who happens to have been born there. By his own standards then, Trott should be able to call himself English. More on this debate in due course. Maybe Roebuck's views are best not picked apart in this way, he often courts controversy, and strikes seemingly contradictory positions, as he subscribes to his own particular brand of logic. Nonetheless, his views on the game itself are highly regarded and sought after.

The Ashes: Day 3 - Jonathan Trott

Having blogged previously that selecting Jonathan Trott was a leap into the unknown, but that the selectors deserved the benefit of the doubt, I doubt even they could have imagined that their selections would succeed quite so spectacularly in this match. With Trott adding a debut century to his first innings 41, and Ian Bell’s (admittedly fortuitous) first innings top score of 72, albeit with a subsequent failure, I don’t think anyone can say that Ramprakash, Key or even Trescothick would have been likely to contribute any more. They may not always get it right, but when they do, the selectors deserve credit, and Jonathan Trott might just turn out to be the kind of gritty performer that England’s middle order needs. Even if his career after this point is a failure, he will always have this moment to cherish. However, the job is not done, and the memories will all be bittersweet unless the bowlers hold up their end of the bargain tomorrow.

The Ashes: Day 1 - Ian Bell

I previously mentioned that this could be a make-or-break test match for Ian Bell’s career, but I’m not sure what to make of his innings today. 72 is an undoubtedly good score, England’s highest thus far, and if Ramprakash and Key had come in and got that, their supporters would have felt vindicated. However, he struggled early on, again against Johnson, and it’s hard to know how to judge that innings. Was it was indicative of the same old Bell, making runs but struggling by on luck and never really dominating? Or is he showing fighting qualities, working out his problems and making runs against the odds, in the Collingwood mould? Maybe to choose either is reading too much into it, and it’s a bit of both. Maybe it’s just another innings, but it will be interesting to see how he does second time around, and regardless, he deserves some credit for getting a score when the pressure was on.

NFL: On-field issues for Michael Vick

The return of disgraced American Football quarterback Michael Vick to the NFL has been grabbing headlines, with his release from prison followed by his reinstatement to the league, and finally by his signing for the Philadelphia Eagles. Rather than debating the moral issues surrounding the return of a man guilty of horrific crimes, I want to look at how he fits in with the Eagles, who seemed possibly the least likely team to sign him.

Despite his credentials, Vick needed a team where he was unlikely to get a shot at the starting job. With his last game in the NFL being in 2006, going to a side like Minnesota, with a lack of quality quarterbacks, would have led to pressure on the coaches to throw him in from the start. Instead he needed a team where he could showcase his professionalism, fitness and new-found discipline to the rest of the league at his own pace.

Vick once threatened to revolutionise the league. He played a position occupied primarily by large, immobile men who focused on passing the ball and nothing else. Often the fastest man on the field, in previous eras he would played wide receiver, but instead he became the first quarterback to rush 1000 yards in a season. The spectacular way he played the game delighted fans and advertisers, but purists questioned his ability to do the basics and win games through his arm, despite playoff successes. Now approaching 30, and with 18 months in prison behind him, he has to prove that he still has that electrifying pace, and enough all-round game to prosper once it fades.

With the latest NFL fad being the “wildcat” formation that switches quarterbacks with wide receivers and running backs, he could bring his unique pace and athletic ability off the bench a couple of times a game. Then with a year back in the league behind him, he could look for a new team where he might get a start. There were strong rumours about a place at the New England Patriots, even in his prime he would not have unseated future hall of famer Tom Brady, but offering something different to the fairly immobile Superbowl winner might have given him a specialist role.

The reason Philadelphia seemed unlikely was that in Donovan McNabb, they have a quarterback who was the prototype for Vick. Although slowed by injuries and a reluctance to run in recent years, McNabb is one of the few who offers something similar to prime-era Vick. Vick therefore offers less of a contrast than elsewhere. However, head coach Andy Reid is an offensive genius, and the opportunity to design new plays must have appealed, especially as the side was only one game from the Superbowl last season.

Vick is unlikely to be an Eagle in the long run. Assuming he performs, he will move on to a Jacksonville, Carolina or Minnesota (assuming that Bret Favre retires again), where he could win the starting job. For now, if the Eagles’ gamble succeeds, theirs and Vick’s first Superbowl titles could follow. What a story of redemption that would be.

The Ashes: Selections for the Oval - Part 2

So what of the candidates for call ups ? Although many in the press and public have seen it as an open and shut case in favour of their chosen candidates, the simple fact is that the selectors were faced with a leap into the unknown, whoever they picked. None of the candidates is a proven performer, and aside from the fact that one can never guarantee a good performance, even from a Tendulkar or Ponting, this is especially true of all the prospective England selections for this test.
Marcus Trescothick was a non-starter, which never seems to have been rightly ignored by the selectors, who have observed simply that unless they hear otherwise, he is still retired. Moreover, any suggestion that he should put his health issues aside in the name of cricket is simply wrong. This is underlined by his own admission that the prospect was literally giving him nightmares.
Mark Ramprakash was a name that sprang to everyone’s minds immediately. One of the two most dominant county batsman of his generation (alongside Graeme Hick), a man with a good average against Australia, and who plays his cricket at the Oval. However, whilst Ramprakash did have a good case to be considered, he is far more of an unknown quantity that his supporters admit. His test career was a failure, thanks in no small part to mismanagement by various coaches and selectors, but nonetheless a failure. He has not played test cricket in seven years, although he does have that good average against the Australians, he was not consistently selected for Ashes series during his England years. Moreover, there are still question marks over his temperament. It may have significantly improved in recent times, but when the eyes of the country were on him last summer, his form dipped. Whether or not this is coincidence, only he knows, and whilst it may be unfair to draw conclusions from that, this point is merely raised to observe that his success would not be a foregone conclusion. He is as much an unknown quantity as the remaining candidates.
Jonathan Trott, the man who got the nod, has good form, but we know little else about his capabilities. His limited previous experience of international cricket was unsuccessful, but twenty over cricket must be a difficult place to get a feel for the international game, and told us little about him. Ultimately, only the selectors know if what they have seen of him compares to the qualities they see in other international cricketers. His selection is nothing if not consistent, and one can expect him to tour his native South Africa this winter, as the selectors seem to be keeping faith with their selections from one game to the next, a logical, and noble approach, although an easy target for criticism. Perhaps they hope that some Pietersenesque South African brashness will carry him through a tough debut.
Finally, assuming that Owais Shah was not seriously considered, given his mediocre form, Robert Key was in contention. Key has international experience, good form, and has played against Australia before, albeit in 2002-3. With his recent experience of the international setup, he was probably a more likely candidate than Ramprakash. However, despite some successes on the international stage, he has often been overlooked by the selectors, who must have their reasons, and there have been questions about his ability to score the pressure runs that are demanded of Ian Bell. His form in recent years, and his increased maturity since becoming captain of Kent merits another go at some stage, but again, he is an unknown quantity.
The point then, is that all the candidates had their merits, and still have them going forward into the winter. However, to portray any of those selections as a foregone conclusion is unrealistic. All of them carry huge question marks, and whomever the selectors chose, it was going to be controversial, and generate more criticism that praise. Ultimately, the result is all anyone will really care about, but in the absence of a clear-cut candidate, the selectors deserve some benefit of the doubt, and for their judgement to be trusted. Regardless, time will soon tell if they were right.

The Ashes: Selections for the Oval - Part 1

It has been reported that tomorrow’s England squad for the fifth Ashes test will exclude Ravi Bopara, and include Jonathan Trott, with Ian Bell moving into Bopara’s number 3 spot. Rarely has an England selection been so heavily scrutinised. There is always speculation, but the fact that it is the Ashes, that the series is in the balance, and that there has been a two-week gap between tests, allowing time for debate, has led to especially high levels of interest. The main debate has been over the batting line-up, where apart from Andrew Strauss, none of the batsmen have been in their best form. Excluding the more extreme and fanciful opinions, that saw pundits scrapping much of the top order, there were two heads on the chopping block: Bell and Bopara. Dropping Bopara seems to have been straightforward, his form is woeful, despite a half century for Essex this week, and by all accounts, his mental state has suffered. A talented player, he will get another chance at test cricket, and hopefully he will be able to learn a few lessons and rebound. There was an argument for giving him for one last test, and other players in similar positions have been retained and played their way into form, but those individuals (e.g. Matthew Hayden in 2005) have previously proven their worth, and earned some faith.
The other man under pressure was Bell. Despite a 50 at Edgbaston, and the fact that he was not the only batsman to fail at Headingley, his career record: good, but not as good as it could be, has counted against him. There is little patience for a man who has been around for five years without turning into the pressure performer England needs him to be. Nonetheless, he has not been long back in the side, and with that score at Edgbaston, he kept the selectors interested. This may turn out to be a key moment in his career. A creditable performance now could make the second half of his career. Another failure and although he will probably figure for England again, he may well fade away before the next Ashes series. However, for this game, once the decision to drop Bopara was made, it was unlikely that a second batsman would go. To drop two out of five would be a drastic response, create more uncertainty, and undermine the consistency of selection previously. Meanwhile, the likes of Cook and Collingwood may have been below par, but both have produced scores at key moments in this series, to show that they still belong on this stage.
As for the men vying for selection in Bopara’s place, another post will follow in due course.

The Ashes: Don't Panic

In the aftermath of England’s defeat at Headingley, a sort of mania has overtaken English cricketing circles, as everyone clambers to heap scorn on the current England side, and talk up selection candidates from outside the team. Meanwhile the Australians are already being crowned as series winners. Yet only days ago, it was the Australians supposedly in disarray, whilst England were maybe not a team of world beaters, but a good outfit, growing into their own identity under new leadership.

The simple fact is that the public and the press like to deal in absolutes, and this series has offered few of those. Shades of grey aren’t satisfying, so instead everyone has settled for hyperbole. England are a good international side, competitive, but not world-beaters. Australia are still just about the best team in the world, though probably not for much longer, and not the dominant force of old. They are simply marginally better than the rest. This has led to a tight series, comprised of close games (Headingley excepted), settled by a wicket here and a decision there. Good team play has been the order of the day, rather than spectacular individual performances (although there have been a few of those). How else to explain the series being 1-1 despite England having only one century to Australia’s seven, and the tourists having the three highest wicket takers? These statistics suggest that England were punching above their individual weight, and were carried to their 1-0 lead after three tests on a mixture of team performances, well timed individual interventions, and massive crowd support. Australia are the better side and have more momentum going into the final test. However, to write England off completely ignores half of the series so far. England played well in two games, won one of them and drew the other. Australia played well in two games, won one and drew the other, so despite the debacle at Headingley, the series has been even.

Australia have the upper hand, especially as holders, and England are reliant on a couple of players, true, but it is not inconceivable that those performances from Lords and Edgbaston can be repeated. There are some selection issues to be resolved (more on them before Sunday’s announcement) but the management have preached consistency so far, and regardless of what anyone else wants, they are unlikely to deviate from that now. Before Headingley the only player under immediate pressure was Stuart Broad, one of the few to return from Leeds with an enhanced reputation. To have numbers 2-5 all on the chopping block one match later is ridiculous, and something from the Ray Illingworth era of the 90s. England were atrocious in the fourth test, and Australia were good, but the scale of the reaction would lead you to believe that this was 1999 all over again, when England were officially the worst team in the world. Rather than sweeping changes, it will be those small margins that settled the first three games, that will again settle the fifth test, and small adjustments are therefore what are required, rather than panic.