OK, the Ashes are gone and it's time for a post mortem. Congratulations to the England team - but I think they will admit that their side isn't the strongest one they have fielded. In the stats and averages, the Australians looked dominant in terms of volume of runs, centuries scored, and wickets per bowler. But it didn't translate into victories. Here's ten reasons it went pear-shaped...
1. Failure to win in Cardiff. One wicket was all that seperated the two teams in the end. Australia were dominant in Cardiff and couldn't finish them off. Lack of a quality experienced spinner and some strange captaincy on the last day helped England.
2. Mitchell Johnson at Lords. What went wrong? I am still shaking my head in disbelief. Johnson looked like a moody teenager and bowled like he was bowling with the wrong arm. Strauss was gifted a century, England were gifted a very large and rapid first innings total - and we never looked in it from there.
3. Batting collapses in the first innings three times. Killed us at Lords. Got us in a spot of bother at Edgbaston. Killed us again at the Oval. North, Ponting and Clarke got big runs, but failed when the chips were down.
4. No quality spinner. Without a really viable spinning option, Ponting had nowhere to turn to when the batsmen get set, or when one of his pacemen has an off day. In the end, it was absurd to play four quicks at the Oval.
5. Michael Hussey. Sorry Mr Cricket, but you were a big gimme in the middle of the batting order. You made runs when it didn't matter anymore and got ducks when it really did matter. You were a passenger, basically.
6. Bowling on Strauss's pads. Why do this? He's good - but not THAT good. Gifted far too many easy runs.
7. Variety in the England bowling attack. No single bowler was dominant. But each of them took a turn - Flintoff at Lords, Anderson at Edgbaston, Broad at the Oval with Swann.
8. Late order England runs. The sight of Swann and Broad swinging the bat is enough to give me nightmares. Prior, Bopara, Collingwood, Cook and Bell were disasters for England. But it didn't matter in the end.
9. Inability to play swing bowling. Not quite as pronounced as in 2005, it was still the case that the Aussie batsmen were vulnerable to inswinging deliveries.
10. Some WOEFUL umpiring. Not decisive, perhaps, but certainly there were some embarassing decisions against the Aussies. Phillip Hughes got at least two, and he only batted three times. Not easy to build confidence - or large scores - with trigger happy umps.
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The cricket problem
[don't forget to drop by my blog HIM: An Introduction and add you comments.]
It is a miserable summer for Australian cricket. To lose to India and then South Africa - and the latter at home for the first time - shows that our stocks have plainly fallen a long long way.
How has this come to pass? Well some of it is just happenstance. Warne retired, and then so did Hogg and MacGill. It is unreasonable to expect any international team to have more than three back-up spin bowlers. Then, we have had some frankly bizarre selections and mysterious non-selections. Beau Casson? Jason Krezja? Cameron White? What the?
But in the fast bowling department the failure to prepare for the retirement of McGrath is very distressing. Fast bowlers win tests. And so they need careful protection. The strain of too much cricket and overzealous training is telling on bowlers like Stuart Clark and Brett Lee. Shaun Tait had personal problems. Likewise, Brett Lee's failure to fire stems from the time his marriage disintegrated. Perhaps 'pastoral' issues play a more significant factor in this then we are led to believe. It is a very English problem to have so many injuries to key players. In the Steve Waugh era, our team was able to play test after test unchanged because the top players had so few injuries.
It all takes me back to the bad old days of the 1980s when Lillee, Chappell and Marsh all suddenly retired leaving a generation of young cricketers exposed. There were bizarre selections then, too (Glenn Trimble anyone? Robbie Kerr? Chris Matthews?). The scent of desparation hung over the team for a good while.
What did it take to revive our fortunes? It took several years, a tough minded skipper (Alan Border), the gradual coming to experience of bowlers like Lawson, McDermott, Alderman and Hughes, the persistence of the selectors with an underperforming Steve Waugh and the discovery of some consistent top order batsmen (Marsh, Boon, Taylor). Warne and McGrath appeared after all of this.
Which is by way of saying: I don't think the solution is around the corner. But whacky selections will really slow the process down.
It is a miserable summer for Australian cricket. To lose to India and then South Africa - and the latter at home for the first time - shows that our stocks have plainly fallen a long long way.
How has this come to pass? Well some of it is just happenstance. Warne retired, and then so did Hogg and MacGill. It is unreasonable to expect any international team to have more than three back-up spin bowlers. Then, we have had some frankly bizarre selections and mysterious non-selections. Beau Casson? Jason Krezja? Cameron White? What the?
But in the fast bowling department the failure to prepare for the retirement of McGrath is very distressing. Fast bowlers win tests. And so they need careful protection. The strain of too much cricket and overzealous training is telling on bowlers like Stuart Clark and Brett Lee. Shaun Tait had personal problems. Likewise, Brett Lee's failure to fire stems from the time his marriage disintegrated. Perhaps 'pastoral' issues play a more significant factor in this then we are led to believe. It is a very English problem to have so many injuries to key players. In the Steve Waugh era, our team was able to play test after test unchanged because the top players had so few injuries.
It all takes me back to the bad old days of the 1980s when Lillee, Chappell and Marsh all suddenly retired leaving a generation of young cricketers exposed. There were bizarre selections then, too (Glenn Trimble anyone? Robbie Kerr? Chris Matthews?). The scent of desparation hung over the team for a good while.
What did it take to revive our fortunes? It took several years, a tough minded skipper (Alan Border), the gradual coming to experience of bowlers like Lawson, McDermott, Alderman and Hughes, the persistence of the selectors with an underperforming Steve Waugh and the discovery of some consistent top order batsmen (Marsh, Boon, Taylor). Warne and McGrath appeared after all of this.
Which is by way of saying: I don't think the solution is around the corner. But whacky selections will really slow the process down.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Cricket - notes towards a theology
Yesterday's match at Blenheim Palace, in which I took part - for the Duke's team.I shall not attempt something so presumptuous as to claim the preference of a game for the Almighty: I am sure he can choose for himself. However, as an Englishman of Jewish heritage once said:
‘I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn't too bad either’ - Harold Pinter
Cricket is itself a byword for grace: for the supremacy of the spirit over the letter. ‘It’s not cricket’ is an accusation above all of Pharisaism, of perhaps mastering the frame of the game but not its understanding its essence. In the infamous Bodyline series of 1932-33, the Australian captain Bill Woodfull famously said to the English manager: ‘I do not want to see you, Mr Warner. There are two teams out there. One is playing cricket and the other is not.’
Cricket is a game with a doctrine of creation perhaps only rivaled by that of golf. It is a game that relates directly to the surface of the earth; it is exposed to the wind and the rain and the sun. Cricket is a game invented by shepherds: it is a pastoral game.
Cricket has a biblical relationship to time. It combines the universal truths of the sages with the dynamic progressions and epic dimensions of covenant history.
If Cricket's messiah was Don Bradman, her Abraham was the appropriately named W.
G. Grace. Well, perhaps he was more a Jacob of a figure: a wily grasper and a shamateur at that, a replacer of bails...but an impassable bearded giant at the crease.
Cricket is itself a byword for grace: for the supremacy of the spirit over the letter. ‘It’s not cricket’ is an accusation above all of Pharisaism, of perhaps mastering the frame of the game but not its understanding its essence. In the infamous Bodyline series of 1932-33, the Australian captain Bill Woodfull famously said to the English manager: ‘I do not want to see you, Mr Warner. There are two teams out there. One is playing cricket and the other is not.’
Cricket is a game with a doctrine of creation perhaps only rivaled by that of golf. It is a game that relates directly to the surface of the earth; it is exposed to the wind and the rain and the sun. Cricket is a game invented by shepherds: it is a pastoral game.
Cricket has a biblical relationship to time. It combines the universal truths of the sages with the dynamic progressions and epic dimensions of covenant history.
If Cricket's messiah was Don Bradman, her Abraham was the appropriately named W.
G. Grace. Well, perhaps he was more a Jacob of a figure: a wily grasper and a shamateur at that, a replacer of bails...but an impassable bearded giant at the crease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)