All posts by h716a5.icu

The Sri Lanka fast bowler proved he had the heart to go from the most devastating match in his career, to being Man of the Match in the next

Andrew Fernando in Pallekele04-Nov-2012Four Sundays ago, the second ball of Lasith Malinga’s second over was thumped off the pads over midwicket for six. It was the violent beginning to Marlon Samuels’ World Twenty20 final rampage and the delivery upon which the trophy pivoted.For the remainder of the over, Malinga tried sticking to yorkers; the delivery he had worshipped as a teenager before becoming its foremost disciple as a cricketer. He had himself turned matches with that ball; reaped sensational success with the way he got it to dip and swerve well after the batsman had begun playing at it. This time though, his most trusted instrument failed him. Twice he overpitched and was scourged over cover and long on. His next over was no less painful. He has since said it was his most difficult day on a cricket field and blamed himself for his side’s defeat.In the time since he has endured much criticism, and his motivation has been questioned. Whatever Malinga may say about his knee injury, he must accept that Test retirement was not best announced during a lucrative tournament which he would have had to miss part of, if he were to continue playing Tests. Whatever the reason behind that timing, it invited doubt about his commitment to Sri Lanka.But against New Zealand, in his very next international match, Malinga responded to his critics by his performance, the way all the best cricketers do. He was intense at the beginning, skidding through with pace in the channel outside off stump.The Pallekele pitch had lost a great deal of bounce in the five days since the opening Twenty20, and the low carry initially served to further vex the New Zealand openers, neither of whom had seen much of Malinga’s low-arm action. Rob Nicol could barely lay bat on ball in Malinga’s first spell. Often Malinga would bring the ball in, before moving it away a touch off the seam. If Angelo Mathews had been positioned closer to the keeper at first slip, Malinga should have removed him for 4. Tom Latham was not so fortunate. Malinga angled one across him, and the ball kept low and skidded in between bat and pad to clip off stump. In his first five overs, he rarely allowed the batsman to safely leave the ball. The spell cost 12 runs – much of that in edges.He returned to deliver three more during the batting Powerplay. In his first spell, Malinga had gone full and low, but with Ross Taylor batting well, he changed his approach. The fast, uncomfortable bouncers that had been missing almost entirely during Sri Lanka’s World Twenty20 campaign became a feature of his next three overs. He pitched short to Taylor several times in a short period, but as length is more difficult to determine with Malinga’s low arm, Taylor was surprised each time. Once he was hit on the glove, another time, flush on the helmet. Taylor tried to pull and hook, but in the end, the best he could do was to fend him away for singles.At the death New Zealand got Malinga away for one four – only the second he had conceded in the day, and the first had been the edge past Mathews. The yorkers were humming nicely, only without the late swing he used to generate before the rule that made reverse swing obsolete in ODIs. He then put a neat full stop on a plucky performance, when he got one to dip beneath Andrew Ellis’ bat, to take the base of leg stump off the last ball of the innings.Mahela Jayawardene had backed Malinga to the hilt on the night of the final, and had been roundly chastised himself for that decision. Jaywardene is generally a master at sizing up conditions, but on that occasion he had allowed West Indies to have the pace on the ball that Malinga provided on a sluggish pitch, when he still had slow bowling options available. But in their next match together, the relationship between captain and strike bowler had not been shaken. Jayawardene still relied on Malinga to deliver the most high-pressure overs of the innings.”I think I’ve often repaid that trust when he has given the ball to me,” Malinga had said before the match. “I have bowled well in those pressure situations and given the team what it expects. I couldn’t do that in the final, but I think that’s why Mahela gives me the ball in those situations.”For much of his career, Malinga has been a player who has been given the toughest job on the field, and often he has done it well. No one can doubt his form has slipped over the past year, as his figures against India in particular, clearly lay out. But if anyone doubted his hunger, perhaps his 2 for 39 from 10 overs in this match will placate them. It takes heart to go from the most devastating match in one’s career, to being Man of the Match in the next.

It loses authenticity by attempting to match the IPL for glitz, but at least by putting domestic players in the limelight and finally attracting interest from the public, its benefits to Sri Lankan cricket are becoming clearer

Andrew Fernando21-Aug-2012Considering the sheer number of complications the SLPL has suffered since its inception, it may not be unfair to say that if the SLPL had been a baby, its parents would probably have put it up for adoption. If it had been a racehorse, it would already be glue. If it had been the Millenium Falcon, we may never have even discovered that that small moon was really a battle station.The tournament’s biggest overseas drawcard withdrew before the commencement; the SLPL’s website was hacked and defaced during the opening ceremony; a tape alleging corruption in one of the franchises had emerged; the tournament has failed to attract decent crowds, and has largely been boycotted by the local media who have opposed it for being ‘too Indian’; and most recently, allegations of sexual misconduct between an employee of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) and one of the organisers have added yet another serving of tournament kryptonite. In just over two weeks, the SLPL has combined the criminality and scandal of , with the viewer interest of Halle Berry’s Catwoman.Yet, halfway through its 24-match schedule, the tournament rolls on, apparently unconcerned. The cricket, which has largely been watchable, even compelling, may as well be happening on a parallel universe untouched by the match-fixing allegations and media antagonism. The pitches have been sporting – spinners, swingers and dashers have all enjoyed success in equal helpings. Sides like the Nagenahira Nagas have strung together impressive results, despite the lack of superstars, homegrown or foreign. And though the catching has sometimes veered toward awful, Sri Lanka internationals, who seemed burnt out in the ODI series against India have contributed heavily, and seemed rejuvenated in fierce provincial clashes against their usual team-mates. Thilan Samaraweera even played two type-busting scoop shots that both flew to the boundary.The overseas talent, which reads a little like a who’s who of cricketers who have played for Pakistan in the last half decade, has perhaps been the most disappointing aspect of the tournament. Shahid Afridi and Brendan Taylor have failed to fire, and Kyle Mills and Scott Styris have not been at their best either. Brad Hogg is yet to even get a game. But amid a majority of underwhelming imports, there have been a few stellar foreign performers. Sohail Tanvir is swinging the ball as far as it’s likely ever been swung in Sri Lanka, and has been the key to Kandurata Warriors’ resurgence after a poor start, Kamran Akmal and Tamim Iqbal have formed a dangerous opening pair for Wayamba United, and Mushfiqur Rahim has been a crucial cog in the Nagenahira’s success so far.Even the crowds have finally begun to show. Hundreds of Wayamba fans, all in team shirts, amassed in two large blocks at Pallekele International Stadium on Sunday, before their noise and presence was taken up by a large group of Uva Next fans for the second match of the evening’s double header. Some have even come hundreds of kilometres and taken time off work to partake.”Where I live, we don’t get much of a chance to see the domestic cricketers play,” says Keerthi Jayatilleke, who has traveled from the coastal town of Wennapuwa to Kandy. “I can support my team (Wayamba United) who are doing well, I can see some of the promising stars for Sri Lanka like Dilshan Munaweera, (Akila) Dananjaya and Shaminda Eranga and I can have a good time.”

In just over two weeks, the SLPL has combined the criminality and scandal of , with the viewer interest of Halle Berry’s Catwoman

Good times have indeed been had at the SLPL, even before the spectators arrived in numbers. The hired papare bands have helped create a sense of atmosphere, even if it is the canned version, rather than the real thing, and the few fans who have come have drunk, sung and danced their way to a good night out. The IPL-style cheerleaders (covered up to suit Sri Lankan sensibilities of course), have at times been outdone by hundreds in the stands, who lack the cheerleaders’ choreography, but more than compensate in the limbs-flying-everywhere-spastically stakes. Large groups of teenage boys have even begun gathering behind the cheerleaders at each corner of the ground, and mass-mimicking the dancers’ moves – seemingly in caricature, but partly, surely, in veiled adulation. Though plenty have moaned that Indian sponsors, Indian franchisees, Indian organisers and Indian gimmicks have rung false in a Sri Lankan domestic tournament, by yelling, partying and generally behaving like hyperactive maniacs in the stands, the public have restored some ‘Sri Lankan-ness’ to the occasion.Teams have started to generate a fan base, with some travelling from various parts of the island•Ron Gaunt/SPORTZPICS/SLPLThe expatriate reaction has also been good, if YouTube hits and internet forum buzz are any indication. Each match is being streamed with a 10-minute delay on YouTube, and the official channel is already approaching 200,000 hits. “Even if it’s not a tournament that gets a lot of crowds in Sri Lanka, it gives the thousands of Sri Lankan cricket fanatics who live elsewhere the chance to actually see some of the young players coming through,” says Dilan Silva, who has been watching the tournament online from Oslo. “Otherwise, we read these guys’ names on websites and newspapers, but have never actually seen them in action. It’s good to see them rubbing shoulders with international players from all over as well, and it’s nice that even if it’s just T20, that Sri Lankan domestic cricket gets this kind of exposure.”The SLPL has also taken on added significance not simply as a warm-up for the World Twenty20, for which R Premadasa Stadium (Colombo) and Pallekele are the two main venues, but as a proving ground for players on the cusp of selection for Sri Lanka’s final 15, as acknowledged by the SLC when they requested an additional week to finalise selections. Akila Dananjaya has had four matches as good as can be expected for someone who has never played first-class or List A cricket before, and Ajantha Mendis has bowled himself firmly into contention as well. Others like Chathuranga Kumara (Wayamba) and Dushmantha Chameera (Nagenahira) are players to watch.Whether the crowds will continue to improve when the SLPL returns to Colombo for its pointy end remains to be seen, and with the cloud of a corruption investigation hanging overhead, it may be that at least one more major difficulty is still in the works for the tournament. For the moment though, the SLPL appears to be gathering speed. It loses authenticity by attempting to match the IPL for glitz, but at least by putting domestic players in the limelight and finally attracting interest from the public, its benefits to Sri Lankan cricket are becoming clearer.

At the Gabba, Australia opener Ed Cowan not only staved off Test cricket’s best bowling attack, he flourished against them

Brydon Coverdale in Brisbane12-Nov-2012Ed Cowan is on Australia’s $50 note. Ed-ith Cowan, that is. Edward Cowan, as his parents still call him, might not have risen to such eminence as the first woman elected to an Australian parliament, but his currency gained significant value on the fourth day at the Gabba. His maiden Test century, an innings of 136 against the world’s best attack, and one which only ended via an unfortunate run-out while backing up, has proven that he belongs at Test level. And that he’ll stay there for some time.Cowan’s standing in Australia’s Test plans was apparent when he missed out on a central contract in June. Perhaps it was intended as motivation – if he played three Tests he would be automatically upgraded to a contract – but Cowan is not the kind of man who required extra incentive. Really, it was nothing more complicated than an accurate reflection of his status; in his first seven Tests he had done enough to hold his place in the side, but that was all.The challenge was for Cowan to show that he could be a viable long-term Test opener, not just a compiler of first-class runs. He has now done that. For 388 minutes at the Gabba, Cowan staved off Dale Steyn, Vernon Philander, Morne Morkel and Rory Kleinveldt, and if a man can survive for long periods against such a group, he is unquestionably of Test class. Notably, Cowan not only survived, he flourished.In the lead-up to this Test, Cowan spoke of his desire to bat with more intent than he did last summer. On debut on Boxing Day last year, Cowan made 14 runs in his first session of Test cricket. He went on to make 68 in nearly five hours at the crease. For a man trying to grasp his one chance at Test cricket, such an approach was understandable. But he entered this season with a different attitude.It was a simple plan hatched with the batting coach, Justin Langer. Before Australia’s final Test in the Caribbean in April, Cowan spoke to Langer about the best approach for a Test opener. The advice, from a supremely-qualified mentor who balanced defensive ability with stroke-making, was to “go out and play your shots”. Cowan did so in that last innings in Dominica, scoring 55 at a reasonable rate on a tricky surface.”I thought at the time that’s a pretty good blueprint, because it’s felt that in Test cricket more so than in domestic cricket, if you’re standing still, you’re a sitting duck,” Cowan said after scoring his maiden Test hundred. “I’m playing my best when I’m positive and have a good defence, rather than the other way around. I felt like I backed that up.”

Cowan’s willingness to pull and hook South Africa’s fast bowlers, and the way those shots flew off the middle of the bat, was notable. The short ball held no fears. His cover-driving was exquisite, his footwork, like everything else about his game, was balanced. For a Test opener, that’s the key word.

Cowan knows his own game inside out, as you’d expect of a man with more than 5000 first-class runs. And Cowan certainly put it to good use at the Gabba. True, the pitch was not offering much assistance to Steyn and Co, but they were dangerous enough to leave Australia at 3 for 40 on the third afternoon. Cowan watched deliveries closely, leaving those that had teased David Warner and Ricky Ponting into edges, and put away those that were available.His willingness to pull and hook South Africa’s fast bowlers, and the way those shots flew off the middle of the bat, was notable. The short ball held no fears. His cover-driving was exquisite, his footwork, like everything else about his game, was balanced. For a Test opener, that’s the key word. It is something his opening partner, Warner, has yet to master, despite showing signs of such judgment with his patient century against New Zealand in Hobart last season.Cowan also showed plenty of mental toughness. He started the final over before lunch on 98 and despite one hastily aborted single, didn’t do anything risky in pushing for triple figures before the break. Such delays can affect batsmen differently. Last year at the Gabba, Clarke went to lunch on 99 against New Zealand and calmly completed his ton upon the resumption. Three years ago against Pakistan at the MCG, Shane Watson was on 98 at lunch and brought up his hundred only after nervously sending a ball to point, where a simple catch was put down.Cowan’s nerves did not betray him. He brought up his hundred by pulling Vernon Philander confidently and his joy was obvious. There was a skip, a jump, a big smile and a raise of the bat to the crowd, and in particular to his wife, Virginia, and baby daughter Romy. There was also a look to the heavens, which Cowan later said was a nod to Peter Roebuck, his former coach and mentor, who died a year ago to the day.”I’m well aware of the date. I had a conversation with my wife this morning on an earlier than normal walk because I couldn’t really sleep,” Cowan said. “It was this day last year as well that started last season for me, having found out the news that he’d died. I was battling a little bit and that kick-started me. I was well aware of the date. That was why I looked skywards upon getting a hundred. He was a coach and a mentor and someone whose advice I valued dearly.”Roebuck would have enjoyed writing about Cowan’s hundred. Every spectator at the Gabba certainly enjoyed watching it.

Without Michael Hussey and Ricky Ponting around to set a cultural example, Michael Clarke has been moved to enforce one by decree

Daniel Brettig12-Mar-2013Largely because he was entrusted with delivering the verdict to the public, and perhaps because as a South African he remains the sort of outsider Australians are not given to trusting with their cricket team, Mickey Arthur faced plenty of early heat for the decision to suspend the “Gang of Four”. By contrast, the captain Michael Clarke faced very little at all.Shane Warne and others were exceedingly careful not to name Clarke in connection with the decision, as though hoping it had nothing to do with him. Amid all the jokes about homework, and ridicule of the Arthur and his boss, the team performance manager Pat Howard, there was even the question raised: “why isn’t Michael Clarke stopping all this bull****?”There is a quite simple answer to that. Clarke is not stopping it because he supports it. Moreover, he is not stopping it because as the captain, most talented player and most dedicated member of the team, he had a big hand in starting it. Clarke has very lofty goals for his team, and for himself. His career approach to reaching other summits has been to prepare meticulously, train feverishly and perform fanatically. Anything less is tantamount to treason.Notions of Clarke as an old-school leader, derived from his natural flair with the bat and in setting his fields, are misplaced. He has the skills of a classical cricketer and on-field captain, but the preparatory habits and single-minded approach more commonly glimpsed in other, more forward thinking sports. His favourite sportsman of all time is not a cricketer, but rather Michael Jordan, that 20th century avatar of professionalism in all its cold calculation.Just last week, the former Liverpool doctor and Australian touring team medical officer Peter Brukner paralleled Michael Clarke with Steven Gerrard. “They dot every I, cross every T,” he told . “They’re super-talented, but you can see why they get to the top of their profession, because they’re totally committed and do all the right things.” Comparisons of Clarke with Jordan and Gerrard sit more naturally in many ways than those with Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey or Simon Katich. Clarke plays the game of the Australian trio but does it with the attitude of the duo more commonly found on American and European television screens.Jordan, for one, was known by his brilliance but also his ruthlessness. In his recent essay on Jordan at 50, Wright Thompson discussed “the ugly side of greatness” and how it defined him almost as much as his unrivalled success. “He’s a killer, in the Darwinian sense of the word,” Thompson wrote. “Immediately sensing and attacking someone’s weakest spot. He’d moo like a cow when the overweight general manager of the Bulls, Jerry Krause, would get onto the team bus. When the Bulls traded for the injury-prone Bill Cartwright, Jordan teased him as Medical Bill, and he once punched Will Perdue during practice. He punched Steve Kerr too, and who knows how many other people.”If falling short of Jordan’s cruelty, an intolerance for those unprepared to walk his way has characterised two of the more calculating episodes of Clarke’s career. Andrew Symonds was deeply admired by Ponting, but it was on Clarke’s watch that the hammer first fell on the allrounder’s career. The locum captain while Ponting holidayed, Clarke refused to tolerate a missed team meeting during a Top End series, and Symonds was dropped. Katich’s differences with Clarke were well known, and his unwillingness to contribute much more than runs to a team in which Clarke was soon to be captain in 2011 was a likely cause of his summary removal from the contracts list.It may be said that Clarke has a stricter record as a disciplinarian and demander of high standards than Arthur does. Ghosted columns for News Ltd, commonly the sort of task a cricketer will commit little energy to, are pored over by Clarke as though sacred texts. His often smiling visage for the public and at press conferences hides a stern face and insistent tone in meetings of import. There is nary a single member of the CA touring staff who have not been scolded verbally about maintaining the level of aptitude or preparedness that Clarke requires. His Argus review interview is believed to have been among the most strident. On-field opponents can also relate that Clarke’s tongue is every bit as sharp as his footwork.At length, Shane Watson has been on the receiving end of some of Clarke’s more pointed public words. Several times last summer he noted that Australia “beat India 4-0 without Watto”. In September, as Watson was flaying bowlers at the World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka, Clarke spoke after a Sheffield Shield game at Bankstown Oval in western Sydney, and when asked about Watson’s exploits and form ahead of the summer, remarked on how Test cricket was a different game, and that his own preparation – a looming boot camp with a personal trainer – would be entirely thorough. It cannot be forgotten that Clarke achieves all that he has despite a degenerative back problem that he has not allowed to cow him anywhere near as much as Watson has fallen prey to his cantankerous core.Clarke admires thoroughness, and despises a lack of it. His dim view of Watson’s continued chasing of T20 employment despite his physical frailties and still unkept Test match promise has only grown with time. There have been suspicions too about Usman Khawaja’s work-rate. Over the past year numerous others under Clarke’s command have fallen short of his expectations, whether it be through turning up late for meetings or training, slipping overweight in-season, wearing the wrong team uniform, or failing to consistently fill out the team wellness forms borrowed from the All Blacks last year.So the failure of Watson, James Pattinson, Mitchell Johnson and Khawaja to carry out Arthur’s instructions, in the wake of what was arguably Clarke’s most humiliating loss as captain, has brought about something like the Nuclear option. He is known to have raged about the team’s shortcomings and shortcuts on an ODI tour of England last year, yet Hyderabad in a Test match was many, many times worse.A significant problem for Clarke is the fact that in losing Ponting and Hussey, he was shorn of the two best examples of the high marks he set. Clarke had learned those very marks from Ponting, and had them reinforced by Hussey. At the same time both the senior men maintained those standards while also fulfilling an older commission as team men and points of assurance and advice for younger players. Playing alongside Ponting and Hussey, a younger player would want to do the extra work, simply because of who they were.Until Hussey’s retirement brought that phase to a close, Clarke was allowed to concentrate on being captain, batsman and meticulous trainer. Now he has admitted to feeling as much a coach as a player, and this week in Chandigarh has also confirmed him as a ruthless overseer. Hussey and Ponting encouraged a strong team culture merely by example. It remains to be seen whether success can be gained from Clarke’s attempt to enforce one by decree.

Plays of the Day from the IPL game between Delhi Daredevils and Kolkata Knight Riders in Raipur

Devashish Fuloria01-May-2013The diamond duck
Gautam Gambhir is not a slow runner between wickets, but his poor judgment of a run has often ended his or his partner’s innings. Today, he paid the price for a bad call. The second ball of the match from Irfan Pathan hit Manvinder Bisla on the pad and dropped in front of the batsman. Gambhir, however, started charging towards the striker’s end and Bisla responded belatedly. Pathan got to the ball quickly and flicked it on to the stumps to catch Gambhir short by a big margin. It was Gambhir’s eighth run out in the IPL, his 15th in Twenty20s, and it earned him his first diamond duck in T20 cricket.The celebration
Before the start of the match, brothers Irfan and Yusuf Pathan were seen sharing a laugh, but once on the field, they got on with their jobs. Yusuf, who came in early, was in a hurry to maximise the Powerplay score. He smoked a six off Morne Morkel in the sixth over but when he tried to repeat the shot, it went high instead of long. Really high. Irfan, at square leg, had to run backwards while keeping an eye on the swirler. All this while, captain Mahela Jayawardene, possibly not expecting the catch to be completed, had a neutral look on his face. But Irfan stretched his hands out, wrapped his palms around the ball but didn’t celebrate the outstanding effort. His team-mates, though, came charging towards him in delight, their reactions more in line with the quality of that catch.The catch
Kolkata Knight Riders had already been stung by some excellent work in the field by Daredevils and were tottering on 50 for 4 in the ninth over. At that stage, Jacques Kallis, who was left with the responsibility of reviving the innings, got a harmless delivery outside off, which nine out of ten times he would have crashed to the boundary. The shot, when it left the bat, seemed to be one of those 90 per cent success-rate hits, but Ben Rohrer at point leapt high in the air, intercepted the ball with his outstretched left hand and plucked it out of nowhere.The drop
Daredevils had set the benchmark in the field by converting half-chances into wickets, but Knight Riders started in a completely opposite fashion. Brett Lee was generating pace and movement and he got Virender Sehwag to play a loose drive in the air. The ball flew straight to Gambhir, who had placed himself at short cover for the shot, at a comfortable height, but the captain was off balance and ended up fluffing it.The heavy bail
For the second time in the day, the ball hit the stumps and the bail didn’t budge. It had happened when Shikhar Dhawan was batting against Mumbai Indians in Hyderabad and it happened again in Raipur, to a 145 kph delivery from Morne Morkel. Rajat Bhatia was struggling to deal with the pace and was beaten by a delivery that straightened past his bat, then flicked the off stump en route to the keeper. The noise was loud enough for everyone in the field to notice, but surprisingly, the bail didn’t even wobble in the groove.

England beat New Zealand comprehensively, but that doesn’t mean we can’t quibble about some of their tactics, which brought domesticated animals to mind

Andy Zaltzman29-May-2013England emerged from the Headingley Test with a thumping win, a series whitewash, a new batting star confirmed after a century of striking quality, and a bowling attack brimming with its old menace. It also emerged with more criticism ringing in its ears than a team with those four things would traditionally expect to receive. Much of it was justified, some a little excessive. They played some spectacular cricket. They also played some baffling cricket. They played much more of the former than the latter, which served to make the latter stand out all the more.New Zealand were completely outplayed, the spirit of their admirable seam attack finally broken by the failures of their own batsmen in the face of a relentlessly demanding technical examination, which they failed as convincingly as a drunken donkey in a driving test. “It is supposed to be ‘Mirror, signal, manoeuvre,’ Mr Donkey. Not ‘hoof through windscreen, bray, graze on the steering wheel’. No, you have not passed. Yes, you may have a carrot.”After an 18-month period in which England have often fallen well short of the high standards to which they aspire – they lost badly in two series, and were saved from a third defeat, in New Zealand, largely by a set of Auckland bails that refused to obey (a) the laws of physics and (b) the traditions of cricket when reprieving Matt Prior early in his match-saving hundred – Cook’s team have, since that crackpot final morning at Lord’s, begun to resemble the team that dismantled their opponents in 2010 and 2011, and crushed India in Kolkata. They ultimately steamrollered their opponents, as the rankings and form-lines suggested they should, albeit that, at times in Leeds, the steamroller was moving almost indiscernibly slowly, whilst the driver had a bit of a snooze.Were England’s tactics “vindicated” or “justified” by the result? Perhaps. Perhaps not. They almost certainly made no difference to the result. If they had enforced the follow-on, England would have won anyway unless something truly, epically extraordinary had happened, and they would have won by a similarly massive margin, probably without so much anxious cloud-gazing. England playing in England in May are, by all measures, a significantly superior side with significantly superior players than New Zealand playing in England in May. To update a stat from a couple of weeks ago, England have now won 26 and lost two of their 36 early-summer Tests since 2000, and the Kiwis have now won two and lost 26 of their last 32 Tests against top-eight opposition since 2004, including seven out of eight in England.”There are many different ways of skinning a cat,” said Alastair Cook in a post-match interview. Cook has a background in farming, and still dabbles in the agricultural arts, so I am prepared to bow to his superior knowledge of animal-skinning. But the point remains that, by the end of their largely woeful first innings, New Zealand were a dead cat. England could choose a number of methods of skinning that cadaverous mog. The fact they ended clutching a successfully skinned cat does not necessarily mean that they chose the most efficient one.A team can win a match convincingly despite having passages when they play moderate-to-unimpressive cricket – and Jonathan Trott’s batting on Sunday evening was pointlessly ineffective, particularly given that he is such a high-class, established and experienced Test player. Personally, like many others, I found England’s strategy and caution to be at best curious, but, given the team’s dominance in the match by that stage, the only influence that their periods of negativity had was to increase viewing figures for the weather forecast.As a Test captain, Cook’s on-field strategy is likely to be less significant than his ability to maintain a unified, focused and determined dressing room, as Andrew Strauss did so effectively during his wildly successful first three years in charge. He also has an arsenal of attacking bowlers that enables him to exercise restraint and patience, safe in the knowledge that, often if not always, their qualities will force a breakthrough.He did not need a great deal of patience in this series, given that England’s bowlers took a wicket every 32.5 balls. This was the third best team strike rate England have achieved in the 229 series (including one-off Tests) they have played since 1896, and the eighth best by any bowling attack in the 582 series of two or more matches that have been played in that time.The only two series in which England’s bowlers have taken wickets struck more frequently since Queen Victoria was still parking her enormous royal bloomers on the throne were the 1912 series against South Africa, when England struck every 30.8 balls, and the 2005 series against Bangladesh (strike rate: 29.3). For fans of irrelevant historical precedents, England also played an Ashes series in both of those summers – and won them both. Whether Australia are more concerned about this curious coincidence, or the form of Anderson, Broad, Finn and Swann, who all averaged under 21 in this series just completed, is none of my business.We should also remember that Cook was heavily criticised for a tactically bold decision in the Auckland Test, when he inserted New Zealand on a flat batting pitch in an effort to give his bowlers the greatest opportunity to take 20 wickets. The match ended with England hanging on grimly, and luckily, for a draw, not because the strategy was wrong – I think it was a good decision, and an aggressive one – but because England bowled and batted limply, and New Zealand played an excellent match.In that game, McCullum decided not to enforce the follow-on, with his side 239 ahead. As with Cook’s similar decision in Leeds, his choice further reduced the possibility of defeat from barely discernible to almost non-existent, and slightly increased the likelihood of failing to win. Bell, Prior and Broad, a hopelessly inert surface, and lashings of luck saved England in Auckland. Cook’s bowlers, a more sporting Headingley pitch, and some meteorological good fortune condemned New Zealand in Leeds.● In his post-match chats, Cook also mentioned the “one-percenters”, those marginal improvements sports teams and individuals seek to make in the hope of tipping the balance crucially in their favour. Perhaps this 1% figure explains why the follow-on was not enforced. By my calculations, in company with my old buddy Statsguru, who is a little less forthcoming on follow-on-related issues than with most other matters, the follow-on has been enforced 298 times in Tests. The enforcing team has lost only three of those matches – 1.007%. They have won 228 of those games, and drawn 67.I could not tell you, without a more time-consuming research foray than my children’s school half-term has allowed, the results for teams which have not enforced the follow-on, but I could find only one instance of a team losing after electing to bat a second time rather than stick their opponents in again. That was the Durban Test between South Africa and Australia in January 1950, an extraordinary match in which South African captain Dudley Nourse, after having the entire rest day to stew over the “to bat or not to bat” quandary, chose not to put Australia back in, and saw his team skittled for 99. He then watched in horror as Neil Harvey scored 151 not out to help Australia recover from 95 for 4 to reached their victory target of 336 with five wickets and 25 minutes to spare. If Kolkata 2001 preyed on Cook’s mind, Durban 1950 clearly did not. Understandably.● Some more on England’s bowlers… Graeme Swann became the first England bowler to return three ten-wicket matches in Tests since Ian Botham, who took his fourth and final ten-for at The Oval in 1981. The only other England bowler of the last 50 years (since Freddie Trueman in 1963) to take three or more ten-wicket hauls is Derek Underwood, who had six ten-wicket matches between 1969 and 1974-75.● Stuart Broad now has 195 Test wickets. He will turn 27 by the time he plays his next Test, leaving him five scalps short of becoming the 11th bowler to take 200 in Tests by the time of his 27th birthday. Only Botham has taken more Test wickets for England in his first 26 years on the planet – 251, in 55 Tests, at an average of 23.6 – and, Broad is the fifth-highest 26-and-under wicket-taker amongst pace bowlers, behind Dale Steyn (211), Botham, Waqar Younis (267) and Kapil Dev (281).● It is likely that, at some stage during the Ashes, barring injury (or the rapid resurrection and cloning of Bradman), Broad, Swann and Anderson will become only the second trio of England bowlers to take the field in a Test with 200 or more wickets under their belts. The only previous time England have had an attack containing three 200-plus-scalpers was when Botham, Bob Willis and Underwood played together in six of England’s seven Tests in the winter of 1981-82. Flintoff, Harmison and Hoggard came close – they last played together in Melbourne in 2006-07, at the end of which they had, respectively, 196, 187 and 235 career wickets.● James Anderson took the last wicket in both innings, his only two wickets in the match. He thus managed to maintain a sequence of having taken at least one wicket in his last 36 innings in home Tests, dating back to his wicketless performances at the Leeds and the Oval in the 2009 Ashes. Anderson does not generally specialise in tail-mopping – 154 of his 307 Test wickets have been top four batsmen.

Nuwan Kulasekara is the not the most gifted cricketer, but it is on consistent performers like him that the Sri Lankan team’s success is built

Andrew Fidel Fernando19-Jun-2013Sri Lanka fans may not often feel they are the most fortunate cricket lovers in the world, but in some ways they have it good. The team is some way from being the best, but it is rarely unsatisfactory, at least in limited-overs cricket. The administration can be a shambles but despite the poor domestic structure, genuine talent still finds its way to the top level. Best of all their players are more accessible than most and a pleasant bunch in general.In a team that features Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, though, the best-loved cricketer in Sri Lanka at the minute is not quite so big a star. In the past eighteen months, there has been a resurgence in Nuwan Kulasekara’s game, and in two matches in the Champions Trophy, he has shown the world how he stole a nation’s hearts.Kulasekara has been a regular in Sri Lanka’s ODI team for the past five years, but he was dropped for the first match against New Zealand, largely because of his poor form in the warm-up matches. He did not commend his selection with the ball against England, but although not many would have suspected his batting prowess, he played one of the finest pinch-hitting innings in recent years to seal Sri Lanka’s victory. Confidence clearly buoyed, he was then Sri Lanka’s most effective weapon in the field against Australia, not only taking three big wickets for 42, but also dismissing a ponderous George Bailey with a brilliant direct hit from short fine-leg. As Sri Lanka prepare for a semi-final under dark skies, Kulasekara’s swing might again be key to reining in India’s powerful batsmen.It is not difficult to see Kulasekara as a cult hero, simply because his cricket is so likeable. Fans see a little of themselves in Kulasekara. Rarely hitting 130kph, he is not the most gifted player in the world, someone you might have played with on the street, or at a nearby ground.Until he was 17, Kulasekara’s cricket consisted of running in rhythmically with a tennis ball and pitching it consistently on the spot, under the coconut trees in the village of Ranpokunagama. There are probably still men there who cannot quite believe their friend bowled Michael Clarke with a delivery that hooped about a metre at the Gabba this year, because they have never seen him move a cricket ball. It wasn’t until Kulasekara moved to a school with a competitive cricket team that he realised he had a gift for inswing.”I guess I knew I was quite good when I was playing with friends, but I never thought I would be able to take my cricket this far,” he said in February. “At first, I thought playing cricket might help me to get a good job. What’s happened since then is beyond a dream.”When Kulasekara is hit for four, he responds no differently to how he might have done all those years ago. There is a hint of a smile, on occasion, but then a swift swivel on his toes and a subdued trek back to his mark. He can sometimes get batsmen to duck – maybe often in surprise that he is even attempting to bounce them – but there is never the volley of words that usually follows from the bowler. Showing verbal aggression does not make sense to Kulasekara. He is there to take wickets and keep the runs down, and every ounce of his effort is directed at those pursuits. Class and results under pressure are nice, but there is no better way to endear yourself to the Sri Lankan public than through humility and good nature. Kulasekara is the kind of cricketer people hope they would be.

At first, I thought playing cricket might help me to get a good job. What’s happened since then is beyond a dreamNuwan Kulasekara

There is perhaps more ecstasy in his celebration now, because the stakes are so much higher. His old friends might find his success hard to fathom, but when Kulasekara sprints towards fine leg grinning and leaping, it seems as if he doesn’t quite believe what he has just achieved either. It is difficult not to share his joy. Almost ten years after his ODI debut, he still approaches the game with the same wonder a million Sri Lankan kids might feel when they play for their country in their imagination.If the Cardiff weather allows it, Sri Lanka will embark on their sixth semi-final in global events in as many years on Thursday. Their consistency in big tournaments has been in part due to their versatility, which allows them to overcome the diverse challenges in a short period, but it has also been because lesser lights like Kulasekara have repeatedly chipped in, in big moments, to drive the side forward.”I’ve seen a big difference in our team in this tournament,” captain Angelo Mathews said. “Everyone wants to contribute with bat and ball, or if not they’ll come and contribute with their thoughts. As a captain you need that because a small idea can change a game, can win a game. Seniors, juniors, whoever plays, all the reserves, all the support staff – they all contribute because we are trying to achieve one goal in this tournament.”Kulasekara only has one five-wicket haul to his name in 183 internationals. Lasith Malinga, Sangakkara and Jayawardene have been the protagonists in Sri Lanka’s campaign so far, but nothing will quite warm the heart like another big haul, or furious cameo to the man they call ‘Kule’.

It used to be said that a player never recovers from the disappointment of a poor Ashes tour. What are the prospects for the senior England players who failed to deliver?

George Dobell17-Dec-2013It used to be said that a player never recovers from the disappointment of a poor Ashes tour.There is plentiful evidence in this England side to suggest otherwise: Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, James Anderson and Kevin Pietersen were all part of the grim 2006-07 Ashes campaign yet have gone on to enjoy distinguished careers.But when a man as reserved as Cook starts to talk about senior figures in the England side “playing for their futures” then you know something has gone seriously amiss.England, for the first time since 2009, do not hold the Ashes and several of the senior players on which they built their hopes have failed to deliver.Ashes defeats – particularly overwhelming Ashes defeats – tend to mark watershed moments in careers. There will be calls for resignations, there will be calls for sackings and calls for players to be dropped. It is likely some of those calls will be answered. There may even be a retirement, or at least a partial retirement, in the offing.It is surely relevant that most of those who have endured disappointing series are those who have been involved in the England set-up for some time. As such, they have played a huge amount of cricket, they have spent around 250 days a year in hotels and they have been in the same high-intensity environment. Somewhere along the line, it appears they have become jaded.The case of Jonathan Trott – forced home with mental exhaustion – might be extreme, but there are several other players on this tour who might be not so far from a similar fate.Equally, it may be no coincidence that, of those to have enjoyed better series, three are relatively new to the set-up. Michael Carberry, Joe Root and Ben Stokes are all relatively fresh to international cricket, are yet to be wearied by the treadmill or worn down by the intensity of the England set-up. All three showed the mental strength to fight just a little harder than their more experienced colleagues.Here we look at the performance of five senior players and weigh-up their chances of being involved when the Ashes is next contested, in England in 2015.Alastair Cook:By Cook’s high standards, he has endured a poor six months. He has not made a century in any of the eight Tests against Australia and, with ponderous feet and a backlift that appears to bring his bat down at an angle, he has looked an increasingly hesitant, awkward figure at the crease. A propensity to plant his back foot may be the long-term issue: he is reaching and pushing for the ball outside the off stump and over balancing towards the off side when playing off his legs. He has also, simplistic though it may sound, been the unfortunate victim of a couple of very fine deliveries. The best batsmen find ways to deal with such issues, but Cook might consider himself somewhat unfortunate. Weariness may be a factor. No batsman in international cricket has faced as many deliveries as as Cook since the 2010-11 Ashes series – he has actually faced more than 1,000 more than anyone else – and he is also carrying the burden of captaincy. When England fought back to win in India, the responsibility appeared to benefit Cook’s game but perhaps the attritional nature of the role has worn him down.He has struggled technically before. Towards the end of 2010, the Pakistan seamers provoked a crisis of self-confidence, before Cook rediscovered his form in Australia. With a record as good as his – he has already scored more Test centuries than any England player – it seems hard to imagine he will not find a way past his current predicament and it is inconceivable that Cook will step down or be sacked in the near future.James Anderson:Sometimes it is a mistake to judge simply by returns. Anderson has, for much of this series, bowled far better than his figures suggest. While comparisons with the end of Matthew Hoggard’s Test career have been made – Hoggard was dropped having lost just a little of his pace – Anderson has been bowling briskly – he passed 90mph in Perth – and has rarely delivered loose balls. But his failure to find much lateral movement has rendered him worryingly impotent on pitches on which Australia’s trio of seamers have proved more adept. Anderson has also suffered through the failure of his batting colleagues: provided with little time to rest between innings, he has invariably been forced into the field in the second innings with Australia’s batsmen benefiting from a dominant match position. It would be simplistic to dismiss Anderson as dangerous only in English conditions, too: only a year ago MS Dhoni rated him the difference between the teams in India and he was excellent in Australia three years ago. This is far from the vintage performance that Anderson produced in 2010-11, but his chances of being involved when Australia return to the UK in 2015 remain decent.Graeme Swann:Swann has bowled better than his figures suggest. On pitches offering him little – he is far from the first spinner to find life tough in Australia – and invariably facing match situations providing the batsmen with a license to attack, he has been given very little opportunity to shine. The relative lack of left-handers in the Australian order has done him few favours, either, while the lack of turn has rendered his arm-ball something of an irrelevance. You could not tell from the figures, but he produced his best bowling of the series in Perth, gaining pleasing dip and beating as good a player of spin as Michael Clarke in the flight in the first innings. He has failed to find much turn, however, and has also not generated the bounce of his opposite number, Nathan Lyon. There have been occasional, though unconfirmed, signs that his right elbow – twice operated upon and an increasing concern – is bothering him again and a nagging suspicion that he is not quite able to sustain the dip and turn he once could through long spells. With many, many miles on the clock and plentiful opportunities in other walks of life beckoning, it would be no surprise if Swann retired from at least one form of the game in the coming weeks.Kevin PietersenIt is the manner of Pietersen’s dismissals that provokes such criticism. It can often seem he is getting himself out: twice he has been caught clipping to mid-wicket, twice he has been caught pulling and once he has been caught on the long-on boundary when trying to drive over the fielder positioned for the stroke. But such a view fails to credit the excellence of the Australian bowling against him. Pietersen has been tied down by tight bowling and inventive fields that have led to him looking for release shots. While the redoubtable Peter Siddle has gained the credit for having something of a hold over Pietersen, the truth is less straightforward. Pietersen was often forced to defend for long periods against Johnson and Harris and looked to target Siddle as the weaker member of the seam unit. People may look for easy explanations – his recent knee problems, for example – but there is little evidence of any long-term issue other than his frustration at being tied down by good, accurate bowling. There has been no shortage of fight: his strike-rate for the series – 51.40 – is considerably down on his career rate – 62.01 – and Pietersen has been conspicuous in his efforts to advise and encourage other members of the squad. He has had a disappointing series, certainly, and some will always look to punish him for perceived errors in the past. But Pietersen has recently suggested he intends to continue playing international cricket until 2015 and, whether in decline or not, remains as dangerous a player as England possess. He is far too good to be jettisoned.Matt PriorFrom the moment in May that Prior was presented with England’s player of the year award for the previous 12 months, his form has deteriorated. At first it was just his batting – Prior has made only one half-century in 19 subsequent innings – but of late his keeping has started to suffer, too.As a player who likes to counter-attack, part of the problem is that Prior has been brought to the crease too early against a hard ball and fresh bowlers. But he has also shown some faulty shot selection, failing to show the requisite patience and judgement about which balls to leave and defend. And, as his run of low scores increased, so his confidence has fallen. He has been another victim of some fine, disciplined bowling from Australia.The fact that his challengers – the likes of Jos Buttler, Steve Davies or Jonny Bairstow – are deemed either not to be ready or not to be in the best of form, might win him some more time, but Prior has already been the beneficiary of the selectors’ faith. Time is running out for him.

How does a team lose after having the opposition 67 for 8? Ask Bangladesh

Madiha Khan18-Feb-2014Choice of game
I haven’t had a shortage of games to witness at this ground, but they only leave me craving for more. Bangladesh has had a splendid record in home ODIs and I was convinced they wouldn’t disappoint me. Alas.Who were you rooting for?
As always, I was there to cheer my team on, ready to back them the entire way regardless of how they performed. Unfortunately Bangladesh left me disappointed after a very long time.Key performer
Thisara Perera without a doubt. He walked into a desperate situation and single-handedly plucked Sri Lanka out of the doldrums. He scored 80 off 57 balls, boldly hitting boundaries when eight wickets had already fallen. As they say, luck favours the brave, though Sri Lanka had nothing to lose at that point.One thing you’d have changed
To choose a single thing that I would have liked to change would be very difficult to do for yesterday’s match. With four catches being dropped – two by our finest fielders Shakib Al Hasan and Nasir Hossain – unnecessary run-outs and shots played in the air, the Bangladesh fans were left gob-smacked repeatedly after their team got off to a terrific start. The most desirable change of all would have to be the result of the game.Wow moment
Mushfiqur Rahim’s brilliant fielding resulted in a direct throw, dismissing Kithuruwan Vithange. Not seeing the cheerful Captain Mushy behind the stumps was a novelty. Witnessing his stunning fielding filled our hearts with pride. The real wow moment though, was seeing the Lankans reduced to 67 for 8. I doubt if there was anybody at that point who thought Bangladesh would lose the game from there on.Close encounter
Lasith Malinga fielded at the boundary near where I sat for much of the second innings. Every once in a while he would turn around and wave to the fans who were calling out to him; I believe he even signed an autograph for a fan as well. His behaviour towards the Bangladeshi fans was civil and a refreshing sight.Crowd meter
The stadium was not jam-packed as it usually is for a Bangladesh ODI match in Dhaka, but there was a good crowd turnout nonetheless. The people in the stands were as lively as ever: continuous Mexican waves went around the ground followed by claps of appreciation.Throughout the match the DJ’s choice of music was quite disappointing. Patriotic songs (which I have nothing against) were being played when upbeat, cheerful songs were required to lift the players’ and the viewers’ morale. There was a significant number of Sri Lankan fans who at the start of the game were not very enthusiastic but went home with smiles much bigger than ours.There was a man dressed in a gorilla costume who received a lot of attention, especially from the children. The ever-present passionate “Tigers” tried hard in picking up the energy of the spectators as the Bangladesh wickets fell hopelessly. But the crowd’s disappointment became apparent as the match continued to slip further away from us and most of the spectators started leaving.Overall
Overall the match left me feeling bitterly disappointed. After having exhibited tremendous talent and the ability to win matches under extreme pressure, this kind of a loss is simply inexcusable in my opinion. How do you justify letting the opponents score 180 runs at the end of an innings from 67 for 8? How do you get bowled out for 167 after being 113 for 2?Wins and losses are part of playing matches, but what you don’t want to see is your team giving less than their 100%. Having said that, hats off to the Sri Lankans for pulling themselves back into a game that seemed like it would end with half a day to spare.

Ian Bishop compares modern fast bowling to that of his day, and picks the best among Johnson, Steyn and Morkel

Interview by Subash Jayaraman05-May-2014Fast bowling has had some sort of resurgence lately, especially the kind that Mitchell Johnson has brought in. What is your take on what has happened in recent years?
It was refreshing to see Mitchell bowl the way he has done. Coming through the late ’80s and the ’90s, there were probably more than a handful of guys who would have touched that pace. Waqar [Younis] started at the end of the ’80s and early ’90s. [Allan] Donald, myself and a few other guys were going on before that. There were probably a few more as well. In the recent previous generation, we had Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar and then things sort of flattened out. We have Dale Steyn, but he is a combination of swing and pace rather than all-out pace. So it was nice to see Mitchell give guys some sleepless nights.He was bowling very fast and there was the threat of physical harm. That makes batsmen uncomfortable, doesn’t it?
When we talk of fast bowling in the early ’90s, [threat of physical harm] was a big part of it.Mitchell hits good areas. It’s the combination of pace and lengths that he bowls. You are also thinking as a batsman that “Gee, I can get my ribs broken, I can get my arm broken.” Sort of like facing [Curtly] Ambrose in his prime and Allan Donald, and guys like that. To me, that is part of the real test of quality batsmanship. When you came up against West Indies in the early ’80s, I would imagine that was a huge part of what a batsman felt. So as much as the quality of the skill, the physical threat really separates good batsmen from very good batsmen.Johnson v England and South Africa, and Morne Morkel v Clarke, in that one session where he was just pounding Clarke. Why did Johnson have so much more success than Morkel?
I remember watching that spell from Morne Morkel live and tweeting immediately that if Michael Clarke got through it he would really value those runs, probably more than most of the other runs he’d got in his career. Because, at that time, I couldn’t say if he could get through it, as he’d been hit in almost every place on his body. He did get through it and he did get a hundred and said he much valued those runs. It was probably [to do with a] fear in cricket that he hadn’t experienced as often as guys in the past. It was almost a new dimension in some ways for him and it showed how good a player he is. He came through it. He took his hits. I am sure there was a broken bone somewhere, it was reported. And he scored his runs. Those were the sort of instances where you know not only the quality of the player but also the character of the player.Morne Morkel is probably the second or third of the trio of Mitchell Johnson, [Dale] Steyn and Morkel. I would like to have added Steve Finn in there but he’s gone off the boil.What made Johnson that much more successful than Morkel?
I think it is just the sustenance of Mitchell Johnson’s pace. Morkel bowled a nasty spell. But Mitchell was just consistently faster and on that pace for the series, for the year. We first saw him in the IPL, which preceded all of this harassment. I remember Simon Doull saying, “My god, Australia have to be crazy to not have picked this guy for the Ashes.”Something clicked just before the IPL and through the IPL that all of a sudden allowed this guy to bowl easily – and I say easily because he never looked to be putting in any great effort like other bowlers to bowl fast. What role did Johnson’s action – like a left-handed Jeff Thomson – play in him being more successful?
I’m sure it has its advantages. It’s not often you see guys with that action and left-handed. In our time there was Wasim Akram, even though he didn’t bowl at that pace, but he was quick. But I think if he was right-handed, and bowling as well as he had, he would have had a fair amount of success as well. I looked at Johnson’s pitch map – the guy was hitting some really good lengths, and pace and consistency with it. I think if he were a right-hander or a left-hander, he would have had success. But certainly, being left-handed lent an edge to what he did.Thommo was different. He was javelin-throwing, delayed action, but straight over the top. Mitchell’s is a delayed action but more sideways. Should I duck? Is it short? If it is short, should I stand up and play? Whereas at Thommo’s extreme pace you knew where it was going to come up at you. Mitchell sort of slides and comes up.

“Speed must be a desire, because you can’t teach someone to run like Usain Bolt. You find a Usain Bolt, great, but you can’t make someone run like Bolt. You can refine his action and technique after you find him, but the basic, natural element is pace”

What is your take on the overall Jonathan Trott situation? At the Gabba, he fell to Johnson’s short-pitched bowling. Since then we have known that he has had other issues, but perhaps the Mitchell Johnson barrage was a catalyst that pushed things over the top for Trott?
I don’t have an opinion, because I struggled to come to terms with the fact that a guy who had scored so many Test runs can actually sort of give in to a battle. I struggled to come to terms that Mitchell Johnson would have such an effect on such a good player. I know what Michael Vaughan said. I know what Michael Atherton said. They are coming from two polarised places, different views. The guy says he is ill. I’m taking him at his word. In sport, when you say you are injured, people usually don’t believe them. I’d hate to think that he ran from a battle. Johnson and Morkel actually hurt people, with sustained spells of physically intimidatory bowling. You said in an earlier interview that you didn’t believe in causing physical harm to a batsman. Did that take away from your effectiveness to be a quick bowler?
I think I wanted to intimidate. Most fast bowlers want to intimidate. You want batsmen to be scared of you, but you don’t want to break someone’s arm or finger. That is another level. That wasn’t for me. I didn’t want to see it. But you wanted the batsman to fend and you wanted to look in his eyes and see that he didn’t really want to be out there. That is what we call intimidation. We all wanted to intimidate but not to injure. Have you had chats with Michael Holding, Joel Garner, Andy Roberts and Colin Croft about this aspect of fast bowling?
Andy Roberts was the first person I got into contact with as a young pacer. He came to Trinidad to coach, but it was basically on the physical demands of fast bowling and the methods and techniques of it. Mikey, same thing – a very decent guy. He talked about being tough when we played in Derbyshire together but never really about intimidation. Crofty was a very hard man, and remains a very tough competitor today. He didn’t mind intimidating and, I suppose, if you got in the way and got hurt, Crofty would say it wasn’t his fault. We didn’t have extensive conversations on intimidation. It was purely about how to get wickets, how to be fit, how to carry ourselves as fast bowlers, but never about hurting people. Gideon Haigh wrote in an article that he talked to some of the coaches in Australian clinics, where it was all about batsmen. Then Mitchell Johnson comes along and suddenly the coach has a long line of 13-14-year-olds picking up the ball, marking long run-ups, wanting to be fast bowlers. Was it something like that that got you into fast bowling?
Yeah, my formative years in cricket were between 1980 and 1984, my four years of high school. At that time West Indies were the top team in the world under Clive Lloyd. A part of the aura of that team was the batting of Viv Richards, Greenidge and Haynes, but also the fast bowling. I started out as a batsman, because a lot of our cricket is about batting, but then gravitated towards fast bowling out of necessity. We always tried to mimic the West Indies fast bowlers. I don’t know why that stood out. Maybe because there were four of them. It was a rare thing. Myself and my group of friends always tried to copy every fast bowler – probably sometimes four in one!Who was the fastest bowler you ever played with or against?
Measuring the pace is always tough. I thought Waqar at his peak was the fastest that I ever played against. When we went to Pakistan, certainly from my point of view, we were glad he wasn’t the type of guy who enjoyed bowling short. He liked bowling at the stumps and very rarely bowled a short ball. But he was unbelievably quick through the air, which was different to some of us in that we pitched it short a lot more. Allan Donald in his prime was a handful as well. Those two guys stand out as the fastest that I played against. At the back end of my career, Shoaib had started his journey in Test cricket. He wasn’t at his peak yet. Why do you think there was a fall in the number of quick bowlers around the world? We see some are operating at 135-139kph with the ability to swing the ball but not at genuine pace.
It is very hard to sustain that sort of pace over a career. Shoaib did well, Brett Lee did well, but they had their injuries too. Unless you are in peak physical condition and are a superb athlete, it is hard to sustain that pace over a period of eight to nine years. You can be quick but can you sustain 90-95mph? I don’t think so. There is a lot of cricket played out now too. Look at the Indian fast bowlers. I think some of these guys have been so promising but after two to three years are just medium pace.Does structured coaching have anything to do with it? Because genuinely quick bowling, as Wasim Akram says, cannot be taught. You have to be born with it.
Some guys can be over-coached, but your overall ability needs to be refined. Some of the most beautiful actions were of fast bowlers. If you look at Brett Lee’s action, it is a perfect action. Allan Donald’s is smooth, flowing, it is fantastic to look at. Once you find a natural pace, there must be a streamlining of it.Imran [Khan] was a bit before my time in his prime, but I was watching tapes of Imran when he just started, and it’s like he had three different actions: at the beginning of his career, in his prime, and towards the end of his career. He was raw, then he was refined, and then he was economical. I guess it was the same for [Richard] Hadlee, but I wouldn’t call him an out-and-out quick. Andy Roberts, for sure.There must be some element of evolution and coaching in the refinement of a fast bowler, but there must always be first and foremost the desire to bowl as fast as you can. Speed must be a desire, because you can’t teach someone to run like Usain Bolt. You find a Usain Bolt, great, but you can’t make someone run like Bolt. You can refine his action and technique after you find him, but the basic, natural element is pace.”There must be some element of evolution and coaching in the refinement of a fast bowler, but there must always be first and foremost the desire to bowl as fast as you can”•Getty ImagesFrom the current lot, you mentioned Steyn, to some extent, Mitchell Johnson and Morkel. Let’s assume they are all perfectly fit and performing at the peak of their powers. Which one would you pick?
Who would be the best? Steyn would definitely be the most complete, in the sense that he swings the new ball and he reverses the old ball. He has a great feel for bowling. He just knows how to get rid of someone. Johnson has the edge in pace but doesn’t have the range of skills Dale Steyn has. That is not picking on Johnson. Everybody can’t have the same set of skills. But Steyn has many.How do you see the future of fast bowling in cricket, especially with the shorter formats dominating the calendar?
It is a challenge. When I saw Pat Cummins in the Champions League, I thought, “My god, another one on the horizon.” I don’t know what will become of Pat with all the injuries he has had. Mitchell Starc is another one who was sharp but who is constantly faulting, but he’s still very young. There are so many different versions of the game. I wonder whether it’s too challenging for the guys to sustain that edge and compromise that edge of pace in order to sustain themselves, particularly across the shorter formats and then blend into Test cricket.The game seems to be constantly moving in favour of batsmen. How do you redress this imbalance between bat and ball?
Pitches, just pitches. It is similar to Mitchell Johnson coming on the scene. Suddenly Johnson arrives and people look as though they have never seen a fast bowler before and they are getting hurt. Similarly, as soon as you see a pitch with a little bit of spice in it, batsmen play as if they have never held a bat in their hands. Any time you see a pitch that has something in it, the game is a totally different game, with a little bit of seam and bit of bounce.