Ashes 2017-2018: Preview

And so, after a glut of 3 series within 2 years and then some calm period, a new Ashes has come: the time when Trott and Swanny broke down, when Johnson blew Cook's defences away, that time seems far, far away, though Australia retain wicket-targeting weapons in Starc and Cummins. Though Australia do start as favourites, including in my books, especially if Stokes continues to be unavailable, it is still a difficult Ashes to call. I reckon that this English side's best chance would be the Gabba itself, which is an unusual feeling to have given Gabba's history, and if England start well, that would make the series very interesting. Adelaide and Perth would be good chances for Australia, though Adelaide being a day-nighter, it will be also down to twilight luck. It's difficult to call Melbourne, while Sydney may be a high-scoring draw or an Australia win. My punt is on Australia winning 3-1 or 4-0 the five-match series, but that's a very uncertain punt, and that's also based on current squads (including the fact that Stokes is absent). Australia do need to retain Starc and Cummins fresh and bowling, and Warner injury-free: as for England, they need Root and Bairstow to be injury-free, but otherwise no one is indispensable, not even Cook, in these conditions. Overall, I think, fielding will be the key to this series: if England hold on to all holdable chances that come their way and grab a couple of spectacular ones, then it could be England 3-1! Well, let's get down to the squads then!

While I said just now that Cook is not indispensable, he could make himself so, though: the English side would rely heavily on their opening partnership of Cook and Stoneman. If Cook is in form, England will certainly win or draw: whatever else happens. However, Cook to me lately has not been looking in great nick, so my hopes of a good return have dwindled down. I do hope that Cooky would prove me wrong and have another season like the 2010-2011 one: even a season close to that one would suffice! On the other hand, I do have good hopes from Stoneman, who has not so far distinguished himself much in his England career. Not in the same mould maybe as Cook, I still think his game is well suited to Australia. I am not so sure about Vince: I think Vince a likely candidate for getting out early enough with the modes of dismissal being caught-and-bowled, lbw, and caught at short mid-off or cover. If Hameed were available, I would put him there, but I would now go with Root at 3, though he doesn't seem to prefer it. Or Moeen. In any case, I would not select Vince, even though in this squad, I think, Malan is worse than Vince as a batsman. Yet, Malan might, given luck and if previous batsmen have batted well enough, still get along, given his propensity for attacking shots, which are not that bad an option in Australian conditions (if the Ashes were happening in England, I would say, you could still retain Vince, but not Malan). So, in this team (given the current squad), I would pick either Ballance or Ben Foakes instead of Vince (or both Ballance and Foakes instead of Vince and Malan): I would not ask any of them to bat at 3, though. As for the English bowling attack, I am happy with Anderson, Broad and Ball, but I don't know if selecting both Anderson and Woakes in Australian conditions is wise enough: the attack becomes too unidimensional then. However, since Mark Wood is not in the squad, and Finn also is now out, with only the raw Overton and a promising all-rounder Tom Curran in the ranks, not much is left to choose from, so one can leave as is for the Gabba Test and see how everyone performed. If Anderson bowls well and Woakes does not do enough, I would certainly like to see Curran or Overton in place of Woakes. If one were to look at the Lions squad, which might come in handy later on, though I have not seen all of them, one name that does interest me there is Ben Duckett. The man was miserable against spin, but Lyon, though a decent spinner he is, is of a different type than the ones who terrorised him: in that case, Duckett could be a good bet. He is attacking and can take the game away in a jiffy: if Stokes is not there, one does need someone to do that.

Let's get to the Aussie squad then for the first 2 matches, which has generated a lot of controversy. I like their bowling attack a lot: Starc and Cummins are very good fast bowlers, and Hazlewood and Lyon are able support. If all four of them can remain fit throughout the series, in particular Starc, Cummins and Lyon, then it will be hard for England to take the series. The problem, though, is Australia's inconsistent batting, which consists of some who should not be there. Like the no. 3 Usman Khawaja. He may or may not make runs, but he is not Test material, and certainly not no. 3 material: he is not tough for that. Then there is the captain, Steve Smith: he is in form for a couple of years and more now, incredible really considering that he never seemed such a good batsman. He still does not: one always feels that a wretched season is about to begin for him, for his technique looks awful. His hand-eye coordination might save him often, and this time too as England does not have any very good bowlers in these conditions, but I for one do not repose confidence in him. My confidence is only in Warner, who has matured considerably in recent times and has started to be more than a mere slapdash batsman. He plays proper cricket now, long innings, and can play both defense and offense these days. Warner would be the no. 1 thorn in the flesh for England. I do not know much about the guy to open with him, Bancroft, but I am sad to see Renshaw being dropped: I think he was quite good, and would have been good here as well. Shaun Marsh is a good bat, and might do well in the series: he has to keep his mental toughness going, for that is where he sometimes lacks. I do not rate Maxwell highly, but against England, with no bowlers who are going to blow you away except Broad in some spells, I don't see why not to play Maxwell: he can take the game away fast. I don't know much again about Handscomb, so let's see how that goes. As for their wicketkeeper, I don't see a lot of difference between Paine, Nevill and Wade: I am OK with Paine, as I recall him as a good, fighting cricketer. I also would have dropped Wade for either Paine or Nevill. The more important thing is that there might be a bit of confusion and sore feelings about the squad because of shock selections: if England can boss the first game, or even just win it, then that could make it a festering issue, especially if Smith is found out a bit. If Australia win, especially if that is commandingly, then those things will be forgotten about and papered over. And, hence, England's best chance is the 1st Test, at the Gabba, the ground where it seems to be too difficult to beat Australia. What England have in their favour is that some of their young players should not be awed by the Gabba and Aussie crowds: some of them, like Stoneman, have spent quite a lot of time here. That's a significant advantage in conditions like Australia and the Indian subcontinent: many lose or break down because they are too spooked or awed by being so far from their comfort zone.

Well, then, I hope that the series is played in good and competitive spirit, and no one gets injured, so one can have the pleasure of a contest at full tilt. Root's captaincy, which was very poor this summer, will be a concern for me, but I hope at least he learns on the job and is smarter by the time England travel to the subcontinent (where captaincy skills are very crucial). The series might be fun to watch as it's hard to call. I dream that Cook will again make a mountain of runs. That will be my reward, irrespective of which team lifts the series.

Ashes 2015 in England: Preview

This Ashes looks quite close to call, even though the media is viewing Australia as clear favourites and even though the final result might be pretty one-sided: this series will basically depend on how Australia will bowl to Cook, and even if they bowl well with the Dukes ball to Cook, can Cook bring his best onto the field? Cook's batting, in short, will define the results: and that is why it is hard to predict. I think, judging from what I saw of him in the New Zealand series, Cook is in close to his best form, so England stand a very good chance: and to convert that chance into some clear winnings in the bank, Cook needs to be a bit smart. No, not about field placements that much: but more about batting order plus bowling changes. The latter is where Cook often misses out.

Cook needs to use the spinners intelligently: Moeen, Root and, if need be, Rashid. I rate Root highly for getting tailenders out, as he bowls wicket to wicket and fast, whereas tailenders tend to be swashbuckling. Wood and Root would be an ideal pair to bowl if conditions are benign and tailenders are there on the crease: for me, that point is important, because it was Haddin and the tailenders of Australia who contrived that 5-0 whitewash Down Under. Unfortunately, Cook seems to use Root as the last resort, and that too for not too long: somehow, he keeps using Stokes in such situations, which only plays in the hands of the opposition, as we saw in both WI and NZ series. Stokes might get a wicket here or there with fast toe-crushers, but he is what the tailenders also like: ball coming fast onto bat to hit it with freedom. No Stokes, no Broad in such situations. I don't think Cook is going to read this, so I don't think much will change on the field. Similarly the other things: even in that famous series in India which Cook won, he used to place a third man from the very start for Virender Sehwag, fearing an out-of-form man even. That he escaped then does not mean that that will keep on happening: Cook places third mans too often and short legs too rarely. Fortunately, he has started getting the knack of keeping some leg slips and some very short covers, so he is progressing. Cook also needs to sort out his batting order; for me, Root should be at 4 or 3, he is their best bat actually. Dropping Ballance to 5 might help as well, because Ballance seems to be a person who feeds on the tone already set: he does not seem to be someone who can set the tone. Root is someone who does that; Cook also does it, even though people deride him for being slow, and as does Lyth. Ideally, Bell and Ballance should not have a place really in this team, for in modern cricket, you cannot be unable to set the tone of the match you want to. You don't want to, that's OK, but not that you cannot. Keep Stokes in the team for all matches but don't give him the ball when Haddin, Johnson and co. are out there: unless he's really in some matchwinning spell. And give him short spells: use him in the Johnson way. I do rate Stokes highly with bat: I would even like to drop Ballance altogether, and move Stokes and Moeen all up by one place (Moeen should come before Buttler), and also have Finn or Rashid as a bowler. Attacking cricket is the best way for England to beat the Aussies.

As for the Aussies, it is not that they are very good: many of them are bits and pieces players, like Mitchell Marsh or Watson, or just flashy blades with hardly anything else, like Warner and Haddin. However, they feed on confidence and bullying: and that is what they will do. Their confidence-damaging tricks compensate easily for the lack of talent in their ranks. They have only two really good players for me in their ranks: Michael Clarke and Nathan Lyon. I have always rated Lyon highly as a spinner, and the English must be careful to not to lose soft wickets to him: especially aggros like Stokes and people suspect against spin like Ballance. They also have an in-form bowler like Starc: he is not top quality for me, as he sprays it too much around as well, a bit of on and off day player, but he is right now in form, so if England can dent his confidence early on, half the contest will be won. For denting Starc means denting Johnson and all others: for me, Ryan Harris was really good, but he's retired. Siddle is large-hearted but not that talented. So Cook is key, as I said at the very beginning: for Cook and Lyth and the no. 3 will have to do that job of denting Starc - and hence I would like to see Root or, if not Root, Bell at no. 3, and not Ballance. For I don't have the confidence that Ballance can dent Starc. Lyth also does not inspire me with great confidence for now, but I'd like him to get the long rope: all 5 matches. Steven Smith is another man in the form of his life: his game has improved highly, but I doubt if he can continue that way in English conditions, especially if Cook makes the right bowling changes. Wood should be key against Smithy. But I like Smith otherwise; he's a nice lad and has talent and youth. When he comes next time to England, he will probably be the most dangerous Australian in their party. Voges is solid and might prove hard to dislodge, and Aussie tailenders all bat quite well and aggressively, so England cannot relent. That is why I would like England to drop Ballance and play a 5-man attack. Broad bowled quite well against NZ, but I still would play Finn rather than Broad if it's going to be a 4-man attack. I think England will just stick with Broad for the first 2 matches, the safely conservative choice, and then see what happened. Both sides' tails in fact play quite well, but Australia's attack is better, especially as they have a good spinner: however, if Cook has blunted the Aussie attack, the English tailenders can also make merry. For that to happen, Broad needs to bat at 11, below Anderson: at least, it will rub Broad's ego the wrong way, and he might want to prove a point, get back to no. 9 or 8 even. These are little, percentage things: but modern cricket is fast-paced, and it is these things that turn a game on its head. It is these things that most English supporters feel Cook is slow to grasp: I hope he proves us wrong. And proves us right by his form with the bat.

Ashes 2013-2014: II, Australia: Preview

The Ashes have been getting progressively short of some good cricket except in patches: the DRS dominated so much of the last Ashes that whatever good cricket was there (Bell's batting) was also completely overshadowed. It didn't help that two of the best bats from the team, Cook and Pietersen, never came to the party, nor that Clarke also was subdued for most of the time except for one big innings. Add to that stupid tactics by both camps - nod to rookie Agar ahead of Lyon as spinner-in-chief for the first part of the series, and England's bizarre selections in the last Test - and only DRS had a series to remember.

As the cricket moves to Australia, on truer pitches and with both sides showing more sense of selection and strategy, there's better hope. Australia have more importantly brought Bailey in: he might not prove to be a matchwinner in his own right at Test level, but he's a very mature person with a strong mental make-up. If he can stitch a couple of fine partnerships, that's all what Australia might need, especially since that I don't expect much from Australia's top three. Clarke should be at four, followed by Bailey, Steve Smith and the wicketkeeper (and I much prefer Wade to Haddin, but a divisive captain like Clarke will of course go for the latter): if Watson can't bowl, then I won't select him and the top three will be Warner, Rogers and Cowan for me (no Hughes or Khwaja). Mitchell Johnson will again be a liability: I never rated him as a good bowler and I don't see any reason to do otherwise. Performing against India, which he has always done, is a different thing: England rather face more problems against Watto's gentle bowling. However, if Australia does select Johnson, then they will have to drop a batsman (Cowan in my scheme of things): for they have to definitely have three men out on the field: Harris, Siddle and Lyon (except for Perth). I would select Faulkner over Watto and Johnson: that is the nut to crack for Clarke. And that could well set the momentum for the rest of series: one wrong spell by Johnson, and Australia can bid the series goodbye already.

As for England, they will depend heavily on Cook and Trott: they cannot look every time to Bell to guide them out. Pietersen might play a brilliant innings here and there but also might get out early or into 20s and 30s often: he might be a bit scratchy, but still explosive enough to turn the match on its head whenever he feels like to. That's the beauty about Pietersen, isn't it? I do expect both Cook and Root to score very well: both are good backfoot players, and what better place than Australia for such players? Carberry is an unknown for me, but I back the move to have Root back at no. 6 for now: even if Carberry does that much as what Compton did in India, that should suffice. Anything over would be lovely bonus. I don't expect England batting to have much worries, except maybe at Perth and the 1st day of Brisbane Test (since they have a history of starting a series poorly): it looks much more solid with Root at 6, and Bairstow is not bad to replace an injured Prior. The problem for England is their bowling attack. Swann is now ageing: he's not been in the best of forms since some time now, injury or no injury. It's good that Broad looks in good nick, for Anderson might not be the most suitable bowler for Australian pitches: it's Broad in fact who has to be in prime form. But look beyond them, and we've got nothing. I cannot believe that England have brought three carbon-copy bowlers in Finn, Rankin and Tremlett here: Topley or Onions should've been there instead of Rankin in my opinion. For me, the third pacer has to be Finn, even if he's expensive: he's also quality when he bowls in the right areas and is unplayable every now and then. Sure, he will spray it around, but not like Johnson: Finn will also give you wickets every now and then. The thing to fear is though what if any of (or both) Anderson and Broad break down: then England will have to be ready for attritional cricket, trying to look for draws. Hence, it is important that England break their habits of these recent years and start the series on a winning note.

A good Ashes for England will go a long way to build up tomorrow's England: for players like Root, Bairstow, Ballance (hope he gets a game or two! maybe if England have wrapped up the series early on?) and Finn, this will go a long way to nurture their confidence at the highest level. They will be readier to take on South Africa in South Africa: when that supreme battle happens.

I only hope the cricket is of much superior quality this Ashes, and that DRS controversies remain in the background. The ICC has already created more stupidity by the new rules, but hopefully there won't be HotSpot in the series: so one completely unreliable technology at least won't be affecting match flow. And hopefully no rain-affected matches petering out in draws.

Ashes 2013-2014: I, England: Preview

Ten Tests of Ashes within six months: an overkill? Not for any Test cricket fan. There will certainly be one team wanting revenge when the latter half of five Tests commence in Australia: there will have been some heads rolled, many new, fresh faces introduced (esp. in Australian terms, given the muddle they have been in during the past couple of years, combined now with Ponting and Hussey exits), and the world of cricket much richer. A chance to dream if Root can be the poster boy of English cricket: he will certainly be if he does well in an Ashes. A chance to watch if it is only negative thoughts and ill-confidence that have been ailing Australia: or is it plain mediocrity? On the evidence of their Champions Trophy one-day match vs. England, it certainly seemed the former to me. English bowling, which has been a worry now to me since some time and will continue to be so all throughout the Ashes, wasn't anything out of the decent: and yet Bailey's side played as gingerly as if they had never seen a cricket ball in their lives. Lehmann's dramatic appointment as coach will certainly bring fresh energy and some missing attitude to Aussie players: which can only be good, as one wants to see two evenly matched sides in action, at least as far as possible. However, in the long term, I am not sure if this is a good move: this team is now Lehmann's team, and Clarke, quite an arrogant man in general, wouldn't like it one whit. He doesn't have too much of a say right now, after the India fiasco and his own troubled back, plus his known history of getting good players (Katich, for one) ousted just because he doesn't get along with them doesn't help him: if Australia start winning, all will be good, issues will be swept under the carpet, but if they don't - then I don't expect the Clarke-Lehmann combo to be comfortable. Clarke is an authoritarian, and he was comfortable with Arthur, a middle-management person: what Australia needs is someone like Kirsten or Moody, who is not as weak or bereft of ideas as Arthur, nor as attention-hogging as Lehmann, rather gelling in with Clarke, let his team be his, but slipping in good management, good advice and good consultations almost unnoticed.

Let's move on to the Ashes itself. The game is this time primarily between Aussie bowlers and English batsmen: so let's review the weaknesses first, English bowling and Aussie batting. There's not much going on for English bowling now since some time, except for the top-class Anderson and Swann. Broad is an overrated bowler who might chime in with some destructive spell at some point of time, but is otherwise too profligate and nothing to worry about; Finn is yet to develop, and has somehow lost his hostility, though he does have a golden arm, it must be said; Bresnan is no bowler at all, rather just continues the now-ages-old English policy of bits-and-pieces cricketers who don't contribute neither a bit nor a piece when it matters; conservative England under Flower hasn't tried Topley, Meaker and Rankin so far in Tests, which they should have had in New Zealand; Tremlett might find himself on the plane to Australia, but right now it's too soon to call him back in; Onions is a decent bowler, and if cloud cover and other conditions assist swing, I would select him over Broad, but would the conservative duo of Flower and Cook do that? I doubt that. Swann himself is a bit of worry for me: he has not been in great form in the last couple of years (yes, he bowled well in India even with that lack of form: that just shows how good he is), plus now he's got this surgery done. Fingers crossed if he continues to be the good spinner with a very good control that he has been. The only positive for England on the bowling front is that in Joe Root they have discovered a very good part-time bowler and potential golden arm: in some years' time, Root might be even as useful as Gayle/Samuels are for West Indies (largely in one-dayers), or maybe even more, but that has to wait. If in these couple of Ashes, he just picks up a wicket or two, breaks some bedded partnership, then all of us would be more than happy: of course, there are no expectations of him on the bowling front. If he doesn't, well, he doesn't. He is just a Samuels-type wicket-to-wicket bowler, Bopara in spin version. My four bowlers would be in fact Anderson, Finn/Broad, Onions/Broad (if conditions assist swing, the former), and Swann. I would keep Rankin in the squad, to keep Broad and Finn interested: if these two fail, get in Rankin, and Tremlett if he's doing well on the county circuit. Or even Topley. But, please, no Bresnan anywhere near the team. Please, no!

What is the mitigating factor here for England is that for Aussies, it is their batting that is the main problem: they are susceptible to huge collapses, especially when Clarke does not fire. They are over-dependent on Clarke; I like the new coach's move of moving up Watson in opening, and giving him Rogers as partner, with Cowan coming one-drop. That does inspire a lot more confidence than what the Warner-Cowan duo did. However, if two wickets fall early, which could happen easily in English conditions, then it gets much trickier: both Khwaja and Hughes are simply not Test quality, and I do not expect Clarke to keep churning out double hundreds as he did in the last year. Simply put, there is no more Michael Hussey in the Australian side. What they have is Khawaja, Hughes, Wade, Smith, Haddin and tailenders like Starc who can bat: all of these to cover up for one man, Michael Hussey, and I am afraid all of these combined won't be as good as the man. A middle order comes rarely as spineless as this one: and this is where England's advantage lies. However, since it is the England bowling that is the weak link to English defence of the urn, this is where the fascinating battle lies: can England find bowlers outside of Anderson and Swann to expose this mediocre Australian middle and late order?

On the other hand, the English batting order does inspire loads of confidence. They have Cook, they have Root, they have Pietersen. What more can any team in the world ask? If these are not enough to inspire visions of 500+ totals and innings wins, then there is Trott, the ideal run machine (and good though Australian bowlers are in general, the likes of Starc keep straying on the legside every single over: Trott will love it so, so much!). So, among the 7 batsmen, we already have 4 solid run machines (with one of them, KP, a real murderous, game-changing, come-to-watch-just-me man, and I fear would be at his best - seems finally matured), all 4 hard to dislodge; plus Prior, the busy, attacking keeper, a 5th bat. The only debate is about the remaining 2 bats: I would personally prefer to have Compton as opener, at least for this Ashes and then think about the one later on in Australia, and keep Root for the time being in the middle order. As Bell has not been in any form now since a long, long time, a middle order of KP, Bell, Bairstow looks wobbly (remember, KP is coming in from a long break). If I have the utterly reliable Root there (KP, Root, Bell/Bairstow, Prior - as per my preferred order), then that looks much more solid. I would personally select James Taylor in fact over both Bell and Bairstow, but somehow inexplicably the guy has been utterly forgotten: in that case, I'd go for Bell over Bairstow for the first couple of matches, and if Bell doesn't strike form, then Bairstow for Bell. But I would keep Compton as opener and Root at 5 (6 is too low down for a player hard to dislodge: he would be wasted if he's playing half the time with tailenders). It's good by the way that both Bresnan (if he's selected) and Swann have struck some useful form with the bat: the latter in particular is a really good batsman (wish he could take it more seriously!).

Aussie bowling is though sharp: if conditions assist, they will be real handful. I will be particularly wary of Faulkner, Pattinson and Bird (if he plays). Siddle will put in lion-hearted efforts here and there, but I don't expect him to be a consistent threat; Starc does bowl some great deliveries, but all around them are cannon fodder, so he's hardly a worry for me. I haven't seen Harris bowl, so he's an unknown quantity for me. The chief worry for Australia will be to keep their pacemen injury-free plus fresh. If they can manage to do so, then this Ashes will be close. Plus, there is Lyon, whom I don't rate badly: he is a good, attacking spinner. I think he doesn't get enough support sometimes from Clarke, or he would be an even better bowler. I don't know if Watson would be able to bowl, but if he is, then he would be a real threat in English conditions.

Cricket is a mind game more than anything else or more than any other sport; Australia will come out bounding with some fresh energy fed to them from the new coach: if England, normally poor starters, can for once not start badly and win the first Test, then the series might already be a doomed one for Australia. But if Australia can take their best chance, the first Test, then you never know what may happen: the series might be close, but there might be an upset at the end of it round the corner. England must learn to be not conservative, not complacent: two evils they are often accused of, and rightly so.

For me, the stars of the first Ashes leg may be Root, Pietersen and Anderson from England, and Pattinson and Rogers from Australia. I am not selecting Cook and Clarke, the two premier batsmen of the series, in the list: I think both will have good enough series, but I think middling ones, not the mammoth ones both are used to. I don't mind getting it wrong in Cook's case, but in Clarke's case I would like to get it right!

Rooting for Root, and directions English cricket's taking

The emergence of Root - with his startling maturity, poise and ability to adapt himself to all paces of cricket - has suddenly made the English top order, which was looking a bit wobbly some time back, look so solid that I can't remember a top order more solid than this across conditions in the last fifteen years barring that Hayden-Langer-Gilchrist golden team of the Aussies. Suddenly, even England A is looking solid: the likes of Taylor are likely to stay awhile there, and Bairstow, Morgan and Bopara's Test hopes look to recede further and further away. Bairstow will at least hope that Prior will hang up his boots in two years' time, maybe after the twin Ashes: but will Bairstow be the number one keeper then, or will it be Buttler? Or someone else: in cricket, you never know!

What Root has indeed given to cricket overall is a refreshing batsman who can stick there like his captain, Cook, but who can also play murderous and innovative shots when needed: someone who is supremely talented, and in this he goes even beyond Cook. To say it another way, if Root can apply himself even 70 percent of what Cook does, he will be an all-time great: of course, it's easy to say that, hard to do, for people like Cook and Andy Flower are superhuman. They bat and bat ... and bat. Let the sun beat down or the ball swing, let them be beaten or let them complete a glorious century, the thing on their mind is keep batting. Unfazed - by failure or adulation. I personally think, though it's early days, Root, too, has such a balanced head on his shoulders: of course, if he does become successful, it will be interesting to watch how he copes up with IPL's lure, and will he remain the player he could be otherwise: in the modern era, it's much, much more difficult to achieve greatness, not only because the distractions are many, but also because greatness often finds itself decried and shunned. After all, droves go to watch a Chris Gayle, an ordinary batsman with great power; or even some Maxwell...

Coming to England, batting is not a problem for the foreseeable future, not until at least both the Ashes are over: my chief worry is a bowling attack that is getting thinner. Bresnan's career is over for me, we don't know if Tremlett would be that effective or not once he returns from layoff, and Broad is struggling with being out of form since a long time now (he was never a great bowler, anyway, though he has the potential to be). Finn is injury-prone, even if an excellent bowler: I can't see him lasting even these three NZ Test matches, let alone the 10 Ashes matches lined up! That leaves Anderson all alone, remarkable though he is! I think it's a big mistake by the selectors to not play Meaker in New Zealand: I don't see Woakes as a Test bowler, and Onions wouldn't trouble the Aussies much anyway, even if he were to regain his pre-injury form. Looking into the future, I think England must try out Meaker and Reece Topley in the whites, and soon: even in New Zealand, if one of Anderson or Finn does get injured, the English attack could really struggle! It's a solace that at least England's spin department is in good hands.

The times ahead are exciting for English cricket: it would be lovely to watch Root, KP and Cook in one team; hopefully, they can win the Ashes and carry that momentum to beat SA at home, because right now SA is being made to look a better side than they are.

Cookie and the new way

The sheep don't know what's happened. - Alastair Cook

To someone who hasn't been aware of the quiet process of rebuilding that has been happening in the English setup since the Hussain-Fletcher days, the budding talk of English dominance in cricket looks a very jaunty and flashy bit of sunshine in an English summer of rain, but it is one that threatens to continue: for, yet again, cricket brings in its own inimitable way the sort of incorruptibility that makes it the only great sport to watch and follow. One would have thought that Twenty20 and the greedy Indians and Australians have already done away with the game, that utter reflection of life itself, Test cricket; and behold, there it is, though this time in the guise of a humiliating flagellation given to a team (India) that has never boasted of much gamesmanship.

In many ways, Cook epitomises all that's [great] about cricket: his unflappability is much different from that of Jonathan Trott, cool in cricketing terms as they both are. While Trott is much like Kallis, or even a bit more attractive but less solid version of Dravid, a bricklayer, Cook is the craftsman looking for perfection: each ball to him has an attribute about it and he thinks of each ball as the end in itself, just as for the craftsman each thread has its own colour and story to tell. While Trott sees the bricks in their entirety, Cook is in love with the bricks and his ability to understand each brick; curiously, often both Cook and Trott give the same impression to those who don't understand cricket much or to those who just want to get the building done as fast as possible, who cares how that is done, so they can have all the fancy brackets and doorknobs to fit somewhere.

What will now be the litmus test for Cook is that how well he manages the twin responsibilites of being Cook in Tests and being the English one-day captain: he must not let mix the two. A craftsman, at least as a batsman, has no role to play in one-day cricket; Cook will have to rather enjoy his captaincy and bat with a mixture of sturdiness and swish, but build a stronger team than himself around him. And when he goes back to the Tests, he needs to again play the music. This is the next challenge not only for Cook but also for England. Central to it would also be Eoin Morgan: he is too good a player to not finally become a very good Test player, even if his credentials to some seem more like that of a shorter-format player. I don't see Pietersen lasting more than a couple of years, and Morgan it is then who could have the talent and devastating effect that Pietersen promised often but delivered rarely: Morgan though seems to have a much more balanced head on his shoulders.

As a side otherwise, the only other weak spot that England has is that they lack any other excellent spinner than Swann. They need to find another wicket-taking spinner soon, and maybe also need to have a relook at Panesar and encourage him to take wickets even if he goes for runs. Someone like Irish George Dockrell or Dutch Pieter Sielaar could be great, as they are quite attacking and also very young, if they could qualify for England (though I wish Ireland start the procedure to get Test status; they are much better than West Indies, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh any day). In the present team, Ravi Bopara is the last remnant of those English teams of the past composed of players who could hardly bat or bowl and yet were selected year after year: those horrible years of Blackwell, Shah and Snape. Not to forget the bit earlier times of able but unwilling players like Stewart, Fairbrother and Lamb: all in their cocoons. Soon, Bopara has to make way for great youngsters coming through the England Lions setup and directly from the county teams: mental strength is a must in cricket, and in fact in most sports; the highly talented failure Vinod Kambli is one of the best examples of that.

The one thing that England must always remember is that good cricket makes for good memories. And that is what it is exactly for: not for riches from mindless games played for mindless people in search of fast food.

Another sad day for cricket & English, Zimbabwean and Bangla cricket ahead

How to kill the goose that lays golden eggs?

Is a lesson that can be learnt very well at many places, but in the precints of ICC, one has also the chance to learn how to mistake a hen for a goose. Ireland’s banishment from the next World Cup is not only shameful and disgusting, but it also defies all logic from even a monetary point of view: India does not invite Bangladesh for Test matches nor even for bilateral one-day series, simply because of the wide gulf between India and Bangladesh for any longer-term format of cricket; and yet, as Ireland showed on the subcontinent soil itself, if tomorrow there were to be an India-Ireland bilateral series, it could go very close and the spectators would be fully recompensed. Granted that Bangladesh has a government that provides public holidays on every match day and the people think themselves world-beaters on the basis of a fluke win and the next day, in the illusions that no one has a right to beat world-beaters, violently hurl missiles at the teams they lose to (or their own team; for that was the bizarre cover-up by a Bangladesh administrator) - thus effectively a very populous market - yet it is the strength of the game finally that generates interest and excitement. It was Ireland that provided the excitement in 2007 World Cup and yet again in this World Cup - not Bangladesh, who couldn’t even manage a team total of 100 runs on two different occasions, and certainly not Zimbabwe, who are right now only becoming more and more addled and just besotted with making the right noises to gain Test status.

Maybe, it is the art of making right noises that Ireland lack. Or, that England is not supporting their case. Bangladesh has the powerful India at its backing and Zimbabwe the only worthwhile cricket-playing African nation, South Africa: given this, it is certain that ICC would pull out all stops to prevent these two countries from being excluded out. And today, if there were a league to be held between Ireland, West Indies, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Canada, Zimbabwe, Scotland and Afghanistan, and that league were to be held anywhere apart from the pitches of Bangladesh, then it would be highly doubtful if both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would qualify: out of those eight teams, the four best on present form are Ireland, West Indies, the Netherlands, and Afghanistan. It is hard to fathom by what logic Ireland have been ousted; it is further hard to understand that what kind of motivations will be in front of the other associates, especially the bravehearts Afghanistan, if the top associate, Ireland, is in itself meted out this kind of treatment. And how come Zimbabwe gets to not only retain its place in the next World Cup but also is soon likely to get Test status completely browbeats everyone who follows cricket in the least.

Reviewing the English World Cup campaign, a tired unit did much better than expectations, and it augurs quite well for the English cricket ahead. Stuart Broad’s injury was a terrible blow post my previous write-up, and it also meant that England lost to Bangladesh, which subsequently meant that England had to face Sri Lanka on Lankan soil in the knockout game. The squad England ended up with was only half of the original selections, plus Anderson and Bresnan being burnouts, and yet the never-say-die spirit shown by England in the 50-over game was a welcome relief. England nearly lost to the Netherlands (if only Strauss had failed in that game) and managed to lose to Ireland and Bangladesh from winning positions, but apart from the knockout game, it didn’t lose against any top side. It didn’t even lose to India on Indian soil, a magnificent achievement. That could very well be the summary of things to come in the next eight-nine years: the battle of supremacy between India and England. While England have a slight edge in Tests, in the shorter formats India has a clear lead. What courageous decisions does Andy Flower take will now steer the course of English cricket: Collingwood must be trusted in again, players like Bell have no place in shorter formats, and players like Luke Wright should be given enough self-belief that they see someone like Shane Watson as their inspiration. Prior has to make way for others: I believe Foster in the Tests (whom somehow Andy is very reluctant to pick) and someone else in the shorter formats (trial and error being the possible method there). It is also important that England find a really good spinner soon: Swann wouldn’t manage to go on for ever, and a spinner could suddenly turn overnight from lethal to innocuous. Blood an exciting talent before it gets too late; and get a few Irish imports, especially now that Irish players have hardly a chance of a big stage before them. Both Dockrell and Sielaar, the Irish and Dutch main spinners, were highly impressive, and it would be a shame if their game is not looked at.

Zimbabwe have to unearth fast bowlers from somewhere, at least decent ones. They have pathetic ones right now. Get Chigumbura out of captaincy, and give it to Taylor; and avoid politics like the non-selection of Hamilton Masakadza. Taibu, even after years of cricket behind him, is completely immature about his batting; he still plays the same predetermined shots. Even I can predict what shot he is going to play next, forget the bowler. He must go. Craig Ervine, Taylor, Regis Chakabva and Sean Williams should form the linchpin of the Zimbabwe batting in the next couple of years or more to come: they are good enough; all they need is confidence and a couple of good innings each in the middle against good opposition.

As regarding Bangladesh, their problem is internal strife (cricketwise, Bangladesh needs maturity and temperament; and again good fast bowlers): captain Shakib al-Hasan is a coward, even if he’s a fine player both in skills and temperament, and the other captain in absentia, Mashrafe al-Mortaza, could only very skilfully demonstrate the malaise affecting Bangladesh cricket: he almost engineered his selection back into the Bangladesh squad by using media as a potent tool to manipulate public opinion. As Dhoni said, you don’t play for the public, you play for the team; when the public (helped by an irresponsible media) starts to have a say in everything (democratically elected cricket teams?), by direct or indirect influence, the cause is doomed. If Dhoni, one of the wisest minds I’ve seen in a long time (not just cricket), had listened to the public, India would not be the world champions right now.

(It is another story if a country like Bangladesh should be hosting flood-lit cricket matches and glittering World Cup ceremonies [a much richer nation like England rarely chooses to hold day-nighters and it had a very frugal ceremony for the World Cup in 1999; not that the ceremony was any less boring], when there are far more pressing needs to look to, and when they are not even likely to get much sporting recognition, for they are still much behind other cricketing nations: add to that the non-sporting behaviour of Bangla fans, and it would be hard to think of positives.)

World Cup 2011, and English strategies going ahead

Keven Pietersen's injury and subsequent exit from the tournament could very well prove a blessing in disguise for England; as an England supporter, I am in fact much more excited by Eoin Morgan's re-entry than doused by KP's probable end to one-day career. Pietersen is someone who is self-destructive, and all the talent that he has doesn't save him from that, rather only propels him further to his own annihilation: what it means in a team game and a psychological game like cricket is that it also influences the team. While Strauss's level-headed captaincy and Andy Flower's clear goals have done a lot to stymie that feeling of going-nowhere which often originates from destructive tendencies, England is best served, I believe, by complete absence of Pietersen from the dressing room. Not to speak of what is coming in as replacement - the world's best one-day player, Morgan!

Given the unusual role that KP had been assigned in this tournament, that of an opener, England does seem to be beseiged by new selection issues. Morgan, if indeed fit, is an automatic choice for no. 5 or 6 slot; but who will open with Strauss? Can England afford to weaken their middle order, given that the lower middle hasn't been performing at all (though maybe with Morgan now there, it will start to provide some of its own fireworks), and move up a man from the middle order to the opener's position? KP was performing the role of a sacrifical goat fine so far, so that later on Strauss could build big partnerships with Bell and Trott, but the question is who is up for sacrifice now?

I would say, Collingwood. He has been dropped because of his continued lack of form, but for me, with his courage and never say die, he is not one who should be overlooked. He can bowl as fine as or better than Yardy, and in addition could be the partner for Strauss for the first few overs against most oppositions (except Tait and co.). If he scores runs, better; if he gets his eye in, much better; if he is out first ball, fine: he will still do better than what Yardy can do any day. More runs made, less runs conceded. Isn't that what cricket is all about, in essence?

Four strategies seem to be on the cards for England, and it would be interesting to see with what England go; it is important that they settle on one of them successfully right now, because with their win over South Africa, the next two games appear slightly easier, before the knockouts loom. England should easily win over Bangladesh, and as far as West Indies goes, whether they even want to win or not will depend then on who might be their likely opponent in the quarters depending on those two points.

1. The conservative strategy, which England is most likely to follow and I like the least: Strauss and Bell to open, Morgan in for KP and batting at five or six, Yardy keeps his place.
This is a strategy I might go with against Australia (if England do face the Aussies any time in the knockouts), because Australia won't play Yardy well, but that's about it.

2. The overtly-attacking strategy, which could backfire dangerously: Strauss to open with Luke Wright as a pinch-hitter opener (and thus Wright in place of Yardy), Morgan in for KP.
Heavy risk in giving the ball to Wright for more than three or four overs; against any good opposition, he will be belted around. I also don't have much faith in his batting abilities except hitting an occasional boundary.

3. The defensive strategy, which to me is the wisest presently: Get back Collingwood (in place of Yardy); he is your most experienced one-day player and his guts to stick it out are legendary. Morgan in for KP at five or six.
Even if he doesn't score, the oppositions going forward will be teams like West Indies and probably Sri Lanka or Australia in the knockouts: his wicket-to-wicket line will trouble all those three teams. Get back him as opener; with Strauss playing so well, he will have the time to stick around, and with the new ball even his edges will flow to boundaries. Once he gets some confidence, the old Collingwood with tight singles run will resurface, and England will start looking formidable.

4. The confused strategy, which is always the most foolish: Prior opening with Strauss.
Whoever else is selected and is wherever, how many games do you think Prior can fire in the opening position? I see Prior succeeding neither against Brett Lee nor against Malinga.

What England must ensure is to keep Trott, Bopara and Morgan in the middle order, no matter what. Also, if a wicket falls after the 35-over mark, England must send Morgan in and not wait till the death overs start; Morgan is not hit-and-miss batsman but also technically good, and he will need ten-twenty deliveries to get in. Bopara's position should be fluid and he could be even sent in at four, ahead of Bell and after Trott. I am liking the combination of Trott and Bopara at the crease together, and as minimal the separation between the two, the better it is.

What England must also ensure is to oversee how they are using their bowlers. Swann or Collingwood (if he's there) can bowl a couple of overs right at the beginning with Anderson, then Broad to take over, maybe continuing with Collingwood/Yardy (whoever's selected). It's important to keep Anderson's overs for that 30-34 over time (as Strauss did so well against SA), and Bresnan's overs for all of the 38-50 over mark. I would underuse Bresnan till the time slog overs come into effect. It is important to remember that teams can not only explode in slog overs but also implode: as was so remarkably demonstrated in that nerve-wracking India-England thriller, where both teams chose the latter route and virtually tried everything to lose from winning positions.

According to me, England and India are the strongest contenders for the World Cup this time, but England have a slight edge now with Morgan's coming back in. Dhoni's captaincy has been impressive but he really lacks bowlers and it's difficult to see India not losing an important knockout match with the kind of bowlers they have. Australia is dangerous, especially with Michael Hussey's coming back: the problem with the Aussies is their lack of adaptability to all conditions. Aussies can win against Indians and Springboks, but they will have their work cut out against the English and Sri Lankans. Pakistan is a dangerous side, but their batting is too brittle to last for three knockouts.

To have a look at the other teams, Bangladesh has been terribly disappointing, but their main enemy has been their own complacency. New Zealand is a team out for walloping, and having whitewashed them just before the World Cup, Bangladesh thought that it belongs to the big league: they forgot discipline and character, the mainstays of cricket. Captain Shakib al-Hasan hasn't been too bright either with his toss calls, team selection or bowling changes: in the India game, he came across to me as a coward; he was protecting himself and his reputation rather than taking any risks. I don't see Bangladesh reaching knockouts, and should they do so, they will just be easy meat for the opposition.
It is Ireland for whom the Cup will be remembered: they yet have a potential win over Holland remaining, and if they could upset West Indies or South Africa, we have the possibility of Ireland making to the knockouts! And, even if they don't have Morgan which they should have had, the Irish can go as far as any other team in this tournament: they have good players, they have discipline and maturity, they gel very well as a team, and they play bravely.
West Indies could be dangerous but Dwayne Bravo has to fire: they could then even reach to the finals, with the help of a Gayle-storm or two.

I think England is going to take the Cup.

Ashes 2010-11: Preview

England not only have their best chance of finally winning an away Ashes after more than two decades of wait, but they also have a chance of being ruthless: modern sport is not an amateur's pleasure, and for the English cricket team to attain supremacy over the next five-odd years, it is important that it starts stamping its authority on a pathetic Australian team right now. A much more stiff challenge would come whenever it meets India; and there's no better way to prepare for it than to relegate the Aussies to somewhere midway in the Test teams' table.

I have no idea from where will Austalia produce a win: at the most it can hope for inclement weather, poor umpiring decisions, and draws. The biggest thorn in their flesh will be Graeme Swann: also, this time England are not carrying any baggages who only flatter to deceive; rather than the likes of Harmison and Hoggard, England have a well-rounded pace attack without stars: Anderson to swing and zip it, Broad to pepper it short, and Finn and Tremlett as able seam backups. It is important that Broad doesn't get carried away and gets mature: he should start mixing full-length deliveries with his short ones, the stock ones for him. To reiterate, Aussie batting is in doldrums, and I don't see the likes of Katich filling an opener's role beyond making a slow, scratchy half-century at times. Ponting and Clarke are completely out of sorts, while Hussey's been found out now since some time in the international arena; Australia will have to depend on quick runs by Watson at top of the order and a fightback by the lower order. But those are not ideal situations to have: it's the middle order, numbers 3 to 6, that are vital for winning a Test match. It would have been wise for Australia to bring in Cameron White in place of Marcus North; he is a much better batsman, attacks more, plus a genuine spinner compared to North's colorless bowling. But, nowadays, Australian selectors behave more like the English selectors of the last decade, and vice versa.

On the other hand, England's biggest problem ahead of the series looks only to be the enigmatic Pietersen; I don't think he will like that adjective, and he shouldn't. Geniuses like to prove themselves in tough conditions, and that is what he will love to do. However, if England have the series early in their bag, then I will still be tempted to replace him or Trott (whoever's not doing too well) with Eoin Morgan, even if Morgan hasn't played a single warm-up game so far; Pietersen and Trott are around thirty, and it's the mid-twenties' Morgan who is the future for England. He's courageous, and he takes the game to the opposition. He's a mature lad, unlike Bell, who in my books is a far greater worry than Pietersen or Cook. The rest of the English batting lineup is solid: Strauss as always is very reliable, Collingwood is in good nick, and the English lower order led by Swann and Broad know how to knock off quick runs.

The key to this series, and the difference between the two sides, is bowling. Australia haven't got any decent spinner at all, while England have got Swann, the best spinner right now in world cricket. Plus, none of the Australian fast bowlers have any huge kit of unplayable deliveries: Hilfenhaus is honest but one can keep watching him carefully and that's all; Johnson and Siddle are wild and erratic, and I don't see them getting wickets unless the batsmen get overexuberant; while Bollinger can be a little dangerous at the start of a fresh day's spell or at the end of a day, but thereafter, for lack of variety and incision, he is simply not international class. On the other hand, though the English bowling attack is not at the heyday of 2005 (Harmison, Flintoff, and Simon Jones), the present one sticks to its guns and loves to tweedle out the batsmen more by precision than by sheer bluster.

I would love England to whitewash Australia: a fair justice for being at the same receiving end last Ashes in Australia. But is that possible? Yes, I say so, if England start well, and keep the intensity going. They must keep their fielding tight and go for correct reviews. In any case, England should at least win by 3-0 or 4-0, if not more. As I said, I don't see the other column giving any work to the scorer; I just don't see how can Australia win a game!

The Ashes won in Australia will also be a lovely final reply (not that he needs any now, after having inspired England so beautifully over the last year or so) for Andy Flower to all his who-now-say-they-never-said-so detractors. (That being said, the World Cup could be the last remaining dream; England has never won the 50-over one.) Mental strength is the best pedigree, especially in cricket, as has proved Flower, Strauss, and Collingwood: three men whose play and strategies are more marked by pugnacity and audacious determination than desires to bloom only when spring comes.

Grant Flower returns

Grant Flower's shock return to playing international cricket means even more than those times when Zimbabwe and South Africa were finding their feet in cricket in the late 1980s and early 1990s; I still remember an old Clive Rice struggling, another old John Traicos struggling even more. Thirty-nine-year-old Flower might or might not struggle, though I don't think he will with either bat or ball (and I believe he could be a handful with the ball in T20 cricket), but what he brings to the team is not leadership but the charisma of the halcyon days of Zimbabwe cricket - a team that had everything in the world, including their penchant of playing a game for the game, for the love of it, and not for making and grinding careers out, and yet a team that did not have a home.

What happened six or seven years ago is now painful history, but today a fresh breath is blowing in. T20 is bringing in never heard of money into the game of cricket, which would be good for the youngsters playing the game in the Caribbean and the African countries. There are options other than football, rugby and baseball. For a tall, strapping lad, basketball might not be the only avenue; he might still become a fast bowler. Because with the rise of T20, Test cricket will also rise, I believe: it is the 50-over one-day game that should suffer. I also see the United States entering the game in the next five years, of course only the T20s: that moment, especially whenever the US wins its first game, should be as pivotal a moment for cricket as was India's World Cup win in 1983. It will also be good as the power center will not remain one: earlier England, now India; rather US and India, two focal points of the game, with Australia an ambitious third.

The infusion of old and new blood in Zimbabwe cricket is not coincidental; a person like Andy Blignaut, why would he want to be a part of the team again (though not selected this time)? Coaches are pouring in for the Zimbabwean domestic teams from the world over, including someone of the stature and of the honesty of Allan Donald; they are even getting sponsors. What is important now is that the coaches play their roles: it is only encouragement that one needs in sport, especially in cricket which is completely a game of mental strength, guts and strategy. Masakadza especially is someone who is supremely talented: Flower must groom him. From somewhere, Zimbabwe needs to find a couple of good fast bowlers; they already have decent spinners. The bowling attack was the problem with Zimbabwe even when it was at its strongest; that is the first thing it must target now. I also think Zimbabwe must blood in a new keeper now: Taibu, though big of heart, has been given enough chances, and he is still not mature enough for the game. If possible, somehow, get Sean Ervine back from Australia (or wherever he is now!) and, the wildest of dreams, Doug Marillier. The most wild of dreams would of course be that in a couple of years while Zimbabwe rebuilds itself slowly and steadily, Andy Flower finishes his assignment with England's coaching position and returns to his home: now the challenge will be the sweetest, the toughest, and when has Andy shied from life's hardships? He loves truth; he will return.

Cricket formats and future; Afghan and English cricket

Test matches were always exciting, but not as often as they have lately become. The flip side is that there's not much of that Ambrose v. Steve Waugh contest, or the 153 that Lara made to single-handedly take Windies across the line; the quality is low, as evinced by the recent Ashes, though the scoreline might suggest otherwise. A loss of character however might be permanent; what's interesting is that with the advent of Twenty20, which seems here to stay, would the Tests reduce or bow out, or will it be the one-dayers that are cramped for space? Sooner or later, USA will enter the fray, and even if they play a poor team, the huge market that it is will whet the Twenty20 into another sphere; and then what remains of the future of the other formats? And even if they remain, who will play them?

What a Twenty20 does bring into reckoning is a place in the sun for all: sometimes short-lived, and sometimes not; but a jitter could be down the throat any time. Afghanistan has proudly entered the World Twenty20, and they've been winning not just limited formats, but as I write this even chased down 494 against Canada in a four-day match, which is a monumental effort from a team that has simply inspiration and ambition to choose from, nothing else. Now drawn in a tough group, it will still be an education: and who knows if on a bad day for the opposing team, another dream story in the Afghan script. Pakistan being a no-man's land, it is India and Bangladesh who must ensure Afghanis to get proper exposure of cricket in the years to come; rather than inviting English counties, it would be much more exciting as well as futuristic to invite the Afghan national team in Indian domestic tournaments.

England as always has been taking one step forward and two steps backward. A player like Eoin Morgan is not even considered for Tests; in one-dayers he is sent so late that he can hardly establish an innings. Of course, most of the English top order is so fragile that sometimes he does get the prospect of a long stay, only to realise that the English lower middle order and tail are also not ready to oblige. Trott is fast becoming another Dravid, with his momentum-breaking abilities contributing more to losses than his runs to wins. And the saga of bits-and-pieces inexplicables like Luke Wright and Denly go on and on; a Cook would be better than Denly any day, in any format, how can they not get that? Or find someone new and young. And please, in spite of all those match-saving innings, don't get back Bell in! Get in Morgan! At 5 in Tests, at 4 in one-dayers (with Pietersen at 3), at 3 in Twenty20s. Get Foster in Tests, Prior in one-dayers, and just anybody who dons gloves but can hit in Twenty20s.

Ashes 2009: Preview

While I went horribly wrong in my preview two years back, England went similarly on a wrong path, not playing Monty Panesar in the first Test, and giving all the initiative to Aussies. The onus of poor selection policy this time though seems to be on Australia: a single set of openers both of whom look likely to fail, no all-rounder, and an extremely poor spin option. On the other hand, England, even after a wretched winter and a summer of success against a poor West Indian Test side, look strong: for one, Aussies are weak against spin, and England have an option of plenty after decades, with Graeme Swann certain to give headaches to Aussies and Panesar and Adil Rashid fighting out for the other slots.

Batting well may decide the series fate, since though England seems to have a better attack on paper, they haven't too much in their arsenal should conjectures remain conjectures and speculations remain speculations. Flintoff should last the whole series, Anderson must be the matchwinner he's expected to be, Swann shouldn't become nervous and should hold ascendancy, and Onions and Harmison, whenever played, should at least be taking pressure off from the tired spearheads. These are all ifs and could horribly backfire against a middle order of Ponting, Michael Clarke, and Michael Hussey. I don't have high hopes from Katich, who at the most will last for a scratchy 30, and the new opener, barring an innings or two, and neither from Brad Haddin. Having said that, England must guard against their inability sometimes to take tailenders out quickly, especially with Australia having Mitchell Johnson, who bats better than he bowls!

Ricky Ponting's poor captaincy will be another decisive factor, and one of the things being Johnson's use itself: how much and when he is bowled, and when he is sent in the batting order. If I were Ponting I would send him even above Haddin, since he can be a genuine all-rounder and an extremely destructive one. What strategy does Australia employ against an unflappable Swann will be again crucial: if Flintoff remains fit, they can't afford to remain quiet at both ends. Ponting's own batting form might be crucial: he is a bunny to spinners, and it will be interesting to see what does Strauss do when he comes to crease. Strauss is an inventive captain, and I hope the pressure of Ashes doesn't get to him that he doesn't remain one; he showed against West Indies that he isn't averse to surprise the opposition, and this would be more than handy against Australia under Ponting.

England start as favorites this time. I think the openers Cook and Strauss will be a success, and while a lot has been said that Bopara is going to come unstuck at no. 3 position versus Australia, I think quite the opposite. If Bell is to come back into the team, it should be at the cost of Collingwood, though I would hate a coward taking the place of such a courageous man and I cannot see foresee Bell ever really doing anything other than disservice to England. KP, if he remains fit, should fire really really well: this might be his series! If he and Flintoff remain fit, then Aussies are not going to win even a single match. If problems arise there, then it will become interesting: how well Broad takes up the responsibilities both in batting and bowling departments, and does England show the courage to go to Foster in the latter part of the series, especially if the upper order is clicking well and the bowling needs more support from the wicketkeeper? A forgotten interesting cog is Collingwood himself: I think Flintoff's not going to do anything with the bat this time round, so the middle order relies heavily on KP and Collingwood, and how well Collingwood and Broad can combine and produce partnerships (not to forget Swann as we start entering the lower order, since he's a handy bat too). I don't have any worries about English bowling: Anderson and Swann are enough for the Aussies, and if Flintoff adds to trouble, I don't foresee much there.

My prediction? 2-1 in favour of England, or even 3-1, with one game certainly likely to be a draw, most probably the first one at Cardiff. Hope I am wrong, since who loves draws? :)

Holland beats England, T20 WC 2009

It's 13 years now since I have loved the Dutch cricket team: since the time I first saw a bespectacled Bas Zuiderent playing like a bookworm quietly settles in his corner and reads, just getting sucked in the book, the trees, the atmosphere, a Roland Lefevbre, one of the most economical bowlers in one day cricket and one of the best on view in that World Cup, since that time I fell in love with the Dutch team. And they were different from other amateurs: they quietly, wearily but sweetly went about their task as if a teacher gave them a very tough homework and instead of asking another student or cheating or finding out how others did it, they just are plodding along being within themselves, that one day their hard work will bring them out with colors. And it has!

Hats off for a remarkable, deserving victory, their first significant in the highest arena, to the Netherlands; it might be over England, a poor limited-overs specialist, and might be in T20, a great leveller, but nothing can take away from that they won because of their hunger to win. It could lead to recognition for some players, could make the players and the country cricket board more cash rich, and most importantly it could lead to Holland being finally accepted into the English county structure.

Andy is the Coach

You don't average 50 in Tests playing for a team such as Zimbabwe without a core of steel and you don't make a public stand against a murderous dictator ... without a bit of ticker, a broader view of the world - and a one-way plane ticket out. -- Mike Atherton

English cricket is finally in good hands. Andy Flower has just been announced as Team Director. Another Ashes win might be a little far-fetched, since England has been in bit of a shambles; but if Flower stays put, I wouldn't discount an Ashes in Australia itself in two years' time. What even Fletcher couldn't do, Andy will do.

First of firsts, Andy must do what he wants. He's a shy man, a man committed to perfection and expecting silently the same of others, but here he has to be assertive; he has to look widely, not even Ireland but even as far as South Africa and Namibia to recruit talent for England. Since the country cricket is only throwing up fat under-performing players, at the best only capable of playing T20, and Flintoff is aging, Strauss the captain is aging, and even the bowling doesn't have anybody real good and young. England basically need right now three things: (1) KP learns self-discipline and importance of putting team first without losing his arrogant flamboyance; (2) a good wicketkeeper-batsman (which I believe Foster can be) and a good wrist spinner; (3) Cook matures and learns patience and stamina, even after the half-centuries. It's Cook England will have to build around in the coming years; after seven years, he will be the veteran and star. Andy must recognise that and Cook, already once his Essex team-mate, should now blossom.

What Andy brings to the table needs no mention: what the players should not forget that here is the opportunity to really learn. KP might be a good adventurous player of spin, but he still is not a good player; he has the chance of going further up as a batsman with his coach now being the best ever player of spin. It's a supercharged time for England, a busy 11 weeks looming: recriminations are already ready to pop out, but most are waiting with bated breath for mistakes to creep out, for failures to slink in; for most people, expending their precious breath is more important than really thinking what's been ailing with English cricket since almost a quarter of a century. I like this England set-up: the quiet and mentally strong and perfectionist Andy Flower with a methodical and sweet captain Andy Strauss with one of the best batsmen the mercurial KP and the finest allrounder England ever produced Andrew Flintoff; throw in bravehearts Paul Collingwood and James Anderson, and you've got a good, promising stew!

Irish cricket goes ahead

Eoin Morgan's call-up for England duty sets not a bad, but a good example: well, judging previous ones like Joyce, not a precedent of course. Yes, Ireland's loss, that too in the midst of the World Cup qualifiers, but Ireland is anyway going to win the tournament, as long as they have the O'Brien brothers. What's good is that England is more and more looking Ireland as the goldmine: and this gives a superb incentive for players in Ireland to not remain amateurish but to improve their game; once on the international firmament, there's no limit to the money and fame they would enjoy, not to speak of some quality games they would experience. And this slowly leads us to a team full of good players: England can't and won't take all, so slowly Ireland comes into its own and sooner than later becomes a full Test-playing nation in its own right (which it anyway should have done much ahead of Bangladesh, but unfortunately it's the crowds in B'desh which bring in the money).

To compare it with Zimbabwe would be amiss: Zimbabwe couldn't benefit from similar poachings mainly because of two issues. One, Zimbabwe was not the '19th county' for England: it didn't have any kind of development system in place, and still doesn't have. To have someone like the Flower brothers still come out was more fluke rather than any credit to the country's cricket board. Two, there was always the issue of 'home': most in Zimbabwe stayed there and loved the land, loved their country, some the old Rhodesia, some the new Zimbabwe, but anyhow for them playing for England was unthinkable, and of course not at all an incentive.

Even if it soon becomes the most boring and dustbin-consigned format in cricket, what T20 is sure to do is one thing: bring the best from anywhere in the world on one podium, reward them, and in short bring cricket more towards being a club game than one played between nations most times on dead pitches.

England must curb Pietersen

Kevin Pietersen is proving to be more mercurial than Brian Charles Lara ever did, and even a more destructive influence on his team. A fine talent, ruined by his own inordinate ambitions! Cricket can even tolerate that combination, but not with selfishness combined that Pietersen has shown more than once: not the best of times to raise an outcry of fatigue while eager to become captain of Bangalore.

What English cricket admins must do now is to nip the flower in the bud: else they could have the same problems on their hands that West Indies suffered under all those years with Lara. Flintoff will retire soon, and England must begin a culture of disciplined high-performance cricket: not whims and fancies of talented individuals. Cricket is a team sport, and while it still depends largely on individual performances, but what matters more is the team morale and spirit. An influence like Pietersen can only be described as corrosive: he would do well to take a leaf from, if no one else, Flintoff: humble and quietly being a vital part of England rather than talking big, delivering little and in fits.

Blessing in disguise for English cricket?

The two Andrews for the time being together--both men who have more brains and more guts than some of their counterparts who have had natural flairs but quite a serious lack of grit for fight. Andrew Flower and Andrew Strauss!

What a combination it already feels. Strauss would probably have been always the first choice skipper, had not the English selectors continued with their mystifying ways of selecting bits-and-pieces players ahead of him. They too often forget a good Test batsman is a good batsman anywhere. It's interesting what kind of bonding the two Andys develop, especially if they continue on with their roles after the WI tour: since both have been mentally strong players, both have been very strong square of the wicket, and how do young spinners like Adil Rashid come up with this set-up. Next year's Ashes seems to be another humdinger, especially with it being set in England, with the Aussies not at all what they were but not yet the team easily beaten, and with the English lions starting to roar: Pietersen might want to now look at the game a little more unselfishly and hence more soberly and thinking of the team at least at some time and with a little less arrogance; Flintoff's golden autumn should be ending on a high note barring injury; and Stuart Broad and Adil Rashid should give some real all-rounders to follow in the footsteps of Freddie for the time to come. Captaincy would bring the best of Strauss to fore, I think, in terms of batting: he already would be a very shrewd captain.

The only thing left to do: even though Matt Prior is going strong, England should look towards the future now, and blood James Foster. Flower should increase his weightage, and look to get in his former Essex mate in; the courage young Foster showed on a tough India tour under Nasser Hussain was something which foretold a lot about him.

Last of the Valiants

Graeme Hick retires! An era ends.

The last of the Rhodesians, the valiants, the cricketers who played the game has retired. Now, there's no more.

Why did Hick leave Zimbabwe? Yes, he has the county records. But no international lustre. With him and Andy Flower, Zimbabwe could have taken those last steps as well, since it was always the only weak point of Zim. Would also have sent Hick to better immortality than being just Ray Illingworth's undeserved, most rashly selected victim-in-chief.

England Cricket, World Cup 2007, And Other Things

The reserve days kept for each of the matches say it all - the rain's the extra slice of unpredictability this World Cup. While I have never been a big fan of the one-day format, and especially the World Cup, it still does succeed in giving me a kick on sometimes - for the sake of my teams. So, while 1999 was the year I was hooked for Zimbabwe (and the year when all my predictions used to be true - Zim beat Ind and SA, got beaten by Eng, Geoff Allott of NZ was the leading wicket-taker of the World Cup, and India didn't qualify for the semis, Neil Johnson was one of the stars of the World Cup), this time it is England - of course, never now with the same intensity.

This World Cup has even a better format than the 1992 World Cup held in Australasia - and sadly, this one also seems to be marred by rains. Cricket is a game, which can be totally ruined by rain - it breaks the rhythm of whosoever is coming into rhythm, and gives the down-and-out opposition a sneaking chance, not of their creation, of not only coming right back into the game but winning it. And that's what breaks the heart, really. Not a dropped catch or a missed runout, not a wrong umpiring decision cutting up a blooming batsman's innings, not an overthrow releasing the pressure which was beginning to build up with five previous dot balls, not a slip absent or standing way back (worse!) or trying to be second as well as third slips (worst!) and sometimes even the third man combined as well (and when the captain is in such a pitiable state of mind, he expects the wicketkeeper to triple up as the first slip and the leg slip as well), not a superb spell's pressure at one end broken by a flood of runs at the other end, not a straight drive deflected onto the stumps of the non-striker leading to his runout (with probably the non-striker in the form of his life, and the striker on say 3 in 26 balls) - no, but rain, which is not a bit in anyone's hands, pouring, and changing the match position, targets, rhythm, confidence, mood, pitch and air conditions, toss decisions, team decisions, everything. Though, very, very rarely, rain does liven up the match in fact, and makes a slow jog a canter, a coasting-to-win into a mad rush and late charge, with accompanying excitement, a test of temperament and nerves of steel and gentlemanly behaviour (after all, isn't cricket all about this? not Sreesanth's shameful antics but Flintoff and Lee's respect and friendship for each other) - and just when you had begun to doze off in those consolidating overs, you are woken up directly into a mayhem, about which you have no clue about - either its origin or its destiny.

Let me begin with England, then the World Cup will take care of itself. For though Australia is still the favorite for me (even after now four straight losses, and five in six games), my guts go out to England. After all, they have the Barmy Army with them!

Fine, fine fettle! Pietersen is definitely back - and that was all the missing link. Even if half of the others on the injury list - Vaughan, Anderson, Jon Lewis - remain on the list, there should not be any problems with England's bid for their first World Cup. The Caribbean will not assist swing much, unless moisture comes into the picture - and here lies the sudden strength that England has acquired now. Monty and Dalrymple are sure to excel in the bowling department for England in the World Cup - and if a pace bowler misfires, there's the support of Bopara, Vaughan, and Pietersen. A couple of overs from each of them, supplemented by Collingwood's intelligent bowling, should surely make up 10, if not 20, overs. All the pace bowlers of England are in great form, and if England is captained by Vaughan (and if unavailable, then please Strauss rather than Flintoff - will raise the game of Strauss as well as Flintoff), then, for me, England is a certainty till the semi-final of the World Cup. (After that, its luck, off days, and temperament.) Now, the bit of concern is batting for England - Vaughan might or might not be there, and the skipper is anyway not much of a great one-day player. The opening three or four is a bit of concern - Ed Joyce is a great find, but who's to partner him? Bell is maturing fast, but goes into a shell time and again. Strauss has been terribly unlucky throughout the Australian summer, and could have his confidence and form dented. So, now the real game is up to the solid, powerful, and explosive middle order of Collingwood, Pietersen, and Flintoff. England's decisions will be key here. What if Vaughan is not playing? In such a case, Pietersen at no. 5 is too low down for me in my opinion - better would be then Joyce and Bell opening, followed by Collingwood, Pietersen, Strauss, and Flintoff. I don't know why I have this feeling, but I always get it - that Flintoff and Strauss could make a great no. 5-no. 6 partnership in the history of the game. And if Vaughan is not there, we could have Bopara and Dalrymple at nos. 7 and 8 (but selecting Bopara would then mean to select only one specialist pace bowler - this might be a good move only if Flintoff is finding the Carribean to his especial liking). Or Bopara even higher up, depending on match situation and who is in what form and are the spinners or pacemen in operation. Battingwise, another concern for England is that none of their tailenders know much of batting - and also, the wicketkeeper Nixon also doesn't look much of a bat. The problem with England is the problem of plenty right now - with both Vaughan and Pietersen, who would they keep out? They cannot afford to drop Joyce or Bell - then who, Strauss? But, Strauss himself is captaincy material - Vaughan might not play all the matches, and I would not prefer Flintoff captaining. Also, Strauss is supremely talented - it is only that somehow he has still not come in his own in the one-day arena (a case similar to Matt Hayden's?). Slow bowlers are a must on West Indian pitches - so Dalrymple is an automatic selection, even though Monty is already there. Then, would they pick only one specialist pacer, either of Plunkett or Lewis or Anderson? If Anderson is fit, my vote will be for him - otherwise, any of the other two. Mahmood, I think, even though he is maturing fast, might find himself out of the World Cup team, if all other pace bowlers are fit.

How does England grapple with the problem of plenty, what decisions it takes for team selection as well during the matches, does rain play a role, and with how much momentum and rhythm can they begin the Super Eight - the key for England. The ability, the sportsmanship, the talent, the joy of playing - no doubt about these things in this England team (and, mind you, for all other teams, including Australia, these issues are there - for some, small, for other, big). And this World Cup does provide every team a wonderful chance to acclimatise, to get into playing rhythm, to get into the hot of the things hot. The warm-up matches at the start of the tournament can be called as the warm-ups of the warm-ups (interestingly, Eng play Aus in the warm-ups, which could also be the final itself). Then comes the group stage, and since the Super Eight match schedules are not at all affected by who tops the group and who comes second, the matches of the Super Eight could be held pretty much decided (that is, who plays whom, where, when). It would only take an upset in the group stage to mar the great organising and marketing ploy of not considering the group topper - and I don't think there's going to be one. Though, of course, you can never say if West Indies would like to produce an upset or so (they are also up against some better minnow teams - Zimbabwe and Ireland). Actually, only Ireland gives me slight jitters about an upset - it could upset any of its group partners, both Pak and WI being also the likeliest to oblige at any time. Otherwise, there's not much to analyse in this World Cup about the match-ups - since every team has to play all the other powerful teams, barring the one it played against in the group stage. And this, coincidentally, has made it a little tough for most of the teams.

Let me first say, that West Indian pitches are most of the times 220-230 pitches, with 250-260 being a real good total. Slow bowlers will dominate; yet, if the batsman has the patience and the zest to get his eye in, and is not befooled by bowlers of the type of Gayle and Dalrymple, the totals could also go up to 280 region. But the norm of the game would be 225 region in the Super Eight. So, now, life will be difficult for the teams who don't have any good slow bowlers. South Africa and Pakistan are the candidates here. Especially the former - for not only SA has any good slow bowlers, but it also plays the slow bowling terribly. So, for me, this is not at all South Africa's cup. Also, it would not have been anywhere else, given their racial policies of selection (with Kevin Pietersen the biggest visible slap on their face, the laughing stock that South Africa and South African cricket has become). Australia is also another team who doesn't have a good slow bowler if Michael Clarke stays unfit - but still, Aussies will manage at least in the Super Eight. Now, Aus won't have to play SA, India won't have to play SL, Eng won't have to play NZ, and WI won't have to play Pak in the Super Eight stage. And, I think, Aus, Ind, and Pak would have been better served if they would have got these matches in the Super Eight (so, its easy to see, that, for me here Aus winning over SA, Ind over SL, and Pak over WI are pretty much foregones). They would have got one easier match out of the six they would have to play in the Eight. Only, Eng v NZ is too hard to call - and its good for both the teams that they don't have to bother with each other in the Super Eight.

I like the sequence for England in the Eight. Their toughest matches will be in the right middle of the Eight and the World Cup - the ones versus Australia and India. And their last match - which could be a crunch encounter, even if they have qualified, to decide who meets them in the semis - is against West Indies, a team which I believe they can defeat very, very easily (and have the luxury to lose to them willingly or win slowly (the thing that Aussies did against WI in the 1999 World Cup - decried as dirty all over, though I didn't see the dirtiness ever), if the situation demands it.)

Just looking at all the other sequences, I think that India's is the toughest. For India, the Super Eight is all toughies, maybe except the game against Pak - first four real ones - Aus, NZ, SA, and Eng. And the crunch for India could be again WI - but India don't do too well against them. The Super Eight sequence is comfortable for both SA and SL. Interestingly, their first Eight game could be against each other - and each would feel a chance against the other, but if rain is not in the picture and Jayasuria is fit, then SL, I think, could have a clear edge here. West Indies, I think, has the toughest sequence of the match-ups, and, per me, they might be able to win only against one (India, possibly) or two teams (that is, if Ireland have not already edged them into oblivion!). Pakistan is another team who doesn't fire me at all - the only glimmer I get for them is Sri Lanka, their last, and maybe by then inconsequential (at least for them) encounter.

Rains, umpires, upset wins, scheduling, factors that can never be prophesied - so many things could make all the above go awry. But still, I think that the following teams will not make to the semis, at any cost: the host (West Indies) and Pakistan. I cannot predict more regarding the semifinalists. The World Cup this time looks to be won by any of Australia, India, England, or New Zealand (in order of their being favorites for me). I would wish England, for English cricket's sake; my dream would be an Australia-India semifinal, England-New Zealand semifinal, and India-England final, won by England.

Ashes 2006-07: Review

There's nothing much left to say. England had lost before the start of the series itself - in its own mind. When a team can think of Ashley Giles as a batsman, it indicates how woe begone is the team. Right through the series, Flintoff's captaincy was defensive and pathetic, to say the least. Wrong field placings for Monty so many times, wrong bowling selections at the wrong time, strange team selections (starting from the squad itself), and careless profligacy from many batsmen.
Strauss - it's time he, the great player he is, matures himself, curbs his tendency to slash outside the off stump everytime, and takes up the responsibility of being an opener. Bell - he cannot afford to go into his shell every now and then; the game is to score runs, not to simply stay there, boringly. Cook - the only one who didn't used to get out in a profligate manner, and showed maturity always. He has to work on his game when it comes to the corridor of uncertainty. Collingwood - is maturing, and playing beyond his abilities. So, cannot find fault with him. Pietersen - he was easily the best batsman and player for England in this Ashes, but he is a god. Don't think gods are expected to make 70s and 80s. Flintoff - the big let-down both with bat and ball, and captaincy. He bowled well, but didn't get enough support from other end, and luck from above. And battingwise, I thought he lacked some match practice, and that in Australia, he and Collingwood should have swapped their batting numbers. Geraint Jones and Chris Read - both the wicketkeepers - were dismal. The bowling was only good in patches, with Hoggard and Monty shining occasionally. Australia didn't have to do much except play their natural hard, aggressive game, and they were the winners. Besides Ponting, Hussey and Stuart Clark were the stars for them - and future matchwinners.
Hats off to Australia for winning it 5-0!