England and Australia in Sri Lanka

[Rachael]

OK... I maintained at the time that the England performances in the winter tests in Sri Lanka were more credit-worthy than many suggested... and the Aussie series has tended to back this up: they haven't found this the easy cruise in the park some thought they might.



This current test is interesting: batting first (as we did) they've posted 401 (in a way we didn't)... but if you look through the scorecard... only 2 guys out of 11 really contributed (Ponting, Lehman) and the total contribution of Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, Gilchrist, Warne, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Williams is a monumental... 130.

Added to that... Gillespie been hit out of the attack (9 overs, 0 for 57)... in just 64 overs the Sri Lankan batsmen have piled on 239 runs... and the only two wickets to fall have been to occasinal bowler Darren Lehman: one an injudicious but typically ODI style Jayasuria slog that Freddie would have been embarrased to manage.. and the other a caught behind decision that should not have been given. Puts our performance in perspective a little

[Rachael]

Oh.. just a thought on our lower middle order and tail: the Aussies managed 72 runs and lasted just 169 deliveries (180 being a full session) our last 6 scored 120 and manged 334 deliveries... which is as near as makes no difference twice as long!

It hardly proves anything monumental in itself... but Gilchrist hit 22 off 45 balls and was caught by Jayasuria off Muralitheran... whilst Read was going along strong, unbeaten on 17 off 64 balls and simply ran out of partners!

[peter foy]

Good Afternoon Folks,

I thought I would try out the site after firstly becoming very disillusioned with some of the opinons expressed by a certain element of the contributors on the BBC site, as well as the service itself and secondly seeing Rachael's coded message to the Farmer yesterday morning. My first impression is that it looks very professional and well organised although it does seem a bit complicated. Several of my attempts at posting have already disapeared into oblivion which can be frustrating and time wasting but the site certainly has potential and if it can attract some of the better informed participants from the other side
we could be in for some interesting debate in the coming months. Let's face it with such famous names as Rachael, "The Rt.Hon" Don Talon and Farmer Giles on board along with the lovely Brenda to provide us with warmth and comfort on the cool spring evenings yet to come, how can it fail?

With regard to the events in Sri Lanka I agree that our performance appears to have been better than many people seemed to think at the time as the Australia Sri Lanka games have proved and it is my opinion that had we batted like we have done in the West Indies, occupying the crease and letting the runs steadily accumulate instad of setting off on the first morning like greyhounds from the trap we would have won that last test match. Many people congratulated Tresothick for scoring so quickly in the first session but for me, especially after we had one the toss for the first time in the series, it was an act of negligence which cost us the game and should have cost him his place in the side.

I have often said that the standard of cricket played today is far lower than it used to be but having said that the two games we have just witnessed in the West Indies have produced some enthralling cricket between two sides shorn of the great players of the past but equally matched in mostl departments. This was cricket as it should be played, Good fast bowling, attacking field placings and solid batting with all our specialist batsmen at last learning the value of occupying the crease.

I remember being at Headingley in 1976 when the great West Indies side of that time had scored over 300 for two by tea time on the first day against an England side which by today's standards was quite strong. I overheard a chap passing by
ask an old Yorkshire stalwart if he was enjoying it. He replied that he would rather have seen a hundred and fifty scored properly.

Now to find the "Post It" button. Hear goes.

[Rachael]

Hi Peter - and lovely first post. I'm particularly taken by the line at the end about the "150 scored properly".

I've been trying to work out what it is about extremely attacking batting / extreme turn from spinners and extreme pace bowling that I find distasteful... and I'm coming to the conclusion it's simply the sense that it makes as much of a mockery of cricket as driving huge distances does to some golf courses.

I'm happy with a full spectrum of cricket that goes from where the bowlers are on top and the batsmen need all there wits about them to not get out... to where the batsmen are on top and the bowlers need to get everything spot on just to contain them and pressure them.

Strikes me that unplayable deliveries that no batsman on earth could stop have no real place in that spectrum... yet that's what the Shoaib / Murali enthusiasts seem to want. It also strikes me that strokeplay so incredible that there's nothing any bowler on earth could do to contain it has no place in that spectrum.... yet that seems to be what the Gillespie / Gayle / Afridi / Flintoff enthusiasts seem to want.

I'm not averse to batsmen looking to play positively when the occasion arises... and if they can knock a good bowler off his stride then I'm inclined to give them credit and say the bowler wasn't that good a bowler after all... but I'm also taken with the idea of that same player being able to respond to a different situation differently... perhaps leaving anything that isn't pitched up on the stumps... so that the bowler either wears himself into the ground to no great effect (wasting the new ball) or starts pitching the ball in the areas where the batsmen wants to play it.

Seems to me that what's ideally wanted isn't any extreme whatsoever... but actually that elusive balance in the middle ground... as provided by the likes of Pollock and Kumble more than Shoaib and Murali... and by Dravid and Steve Waugh more than Afridi and Gilchrist.

Can't help feeling that if we keep going down the "extreme" end of things we'll actually end up with something more like baseball: only speciaist "whackers" will bat... only super-fast speed machines will bowl... and the only way to score will be to swing at every ball that comes along in the hope of some explosive connection that will leave the bat in tatters and send the ball clean out of the stadium.

Sounds like some of these recent India vs Pakistan ODI matches: interesting.. but is it cricket?

[peter foy]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hi Peter - and lovely first post. I'm particularly taken by the line at the end about the "150 scored properly".

Seems to me that what's ideally wanted isn't any extreme whatsoever... but actually that elusive balance in the middle ground... as provided by the likes of Pollock and Kumble more than Shoaib and Murali... and by Dravid and Steve Waugh more than Afridi and Gilchrist.

Can't help feeling that if we keep going down the "extreme" end of things we'll actually end up with something more like baseball: only speciaist "whackers" will bat... only super-fast speed machines will bowl... and the only way to score will be to swing at every ball that comes along in the hope of some explosive connection that will leave the bat in tatters and send the ball clean out of the stadium.

Sounds like some of these recent India vs Pakistan ODI matches: interesting.. but is it cricket?

That is exactly my point Rachael, I agree with everything you have said. That is the reason I got fed up with the other board. All they want is to see who can hit the biggest six or bowl the fastest beamer. Like golf and tennis the skill and craft has been replaced by the big hitters. To put it in perspective some of these guys would rather watch Flintoft than Bradman. I have no objection to them getting their kicks from this kind of entertainment but I just wish they would realise is that whatever they are watching it certainly isn't cricket.

I have probably mentioned before that the best example of great batsmanship was the Roses match at Old Trafford in 1952. Statham's first roses game. On the first day Hutton batted all day for 108 not out, withstanding not only Statham and Pollard but also the spin of Tattersall and Hilton as well. All of them present or future England bowlers. Having batted for six hours to build the foundations of the innings, he came out on the second morning and scored another 91 at a run a minute to enable Yorkshire to declare before lunch. He was on 201 not out but to this day I cannot decide which was the most enjoyable part of his innings. The dour defensive battle on the first day against some superb bowling or the superb display of orthodox cutting and cover driving on the second. That is what cricket is all about. There is a cameo role for a Botham, Flintoft, Trueman or Johnny Wardle to play, coming in low down the order and swinging the long handle and it is good to watch. But only in the context of the game. You don't queue all night for the privelege of seeing that sort of thing, but they did just that in their thousands in 1948 just to see Bradman bat and he only ever hit three sixes in his entire career.

[CJ D]

My opinion is that it is all cricket - Every style of player has a place from the Afridi's to the Tavare's, from the Lillee's to the Hemmings'.

I don't care what they are doing as long as they do it with passion, and people want to watch it.

The Purist will argue that Test cricket is the only real form of the game, whilst some of the members at my club would only go to a test for the beer and always go to ODI's as that is what they like. The crowds at last years 20-20 suggest that the "instant " form of the game will be popular although some County Members would need to be dragged to it by FG's tractor.

Cricket is Cricket and should be celebrated in all its forms, if the way of playing one form evolves then so be it, somebody will work out how to better it before to long.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I dont agree with all of what you said but as I sat nicely on the fence in this regard I'll reply thus.

The flintoff school of batting has its place, which some people think should be the norm. Butch and hussain got alot of stick for taking 150odd deliveries and scoring 50. Both innings were superb IMHO.

I disagree with the pace bowling element though. Shoahib and brett lee arent that effective, and niether was gough towards the end of test career when he became obbessed with the speed gun. Bottom line pure pace and no skill is dull and inieffective. McGrath, much more interesting. Donald even more so.

Spinners I heartily disagree with. We all want a murali and warne and a kumble they are craftsmen, all with variety and guile, even our ashly. Besides you cant have a flintoff or ponting etc without having some sort of nemisis like a world class spinner. I only wish we had one. They can all be hit out the ground but t hey can all bowl a side out too.

The problem with extremes is that we never see them at each other. Murili is playable, I could do it by closing my eyes and swinging - might work might not. An agressive bat might may often get undone by a part timer as he's swinging the bat. But the aussies have moved the game on certainly in terms of batting, for better or worse, and innings like hussains may become rarer. If you really want to watch pure cricket the typical village green team may give a more honest reflection of the game. is it better ? I dont know !

[Rachael]

RBLC - I don't think Peter or I would object to genuine, quality fast bowling (Trueman, Ambrose), to spinners who turn the ball a lot (Qadir, Warne) or even to positive batsmen (Tendulkar, Lara). The issue, for me, is more the aspiration of younger fans... as if the purpose of selecting a pace bowler or leggie who turns it square is to get the unplayable delivery... and the purpose of playing Tendulkar and Lara is to, as Viv Richards apparently put it once, "to break a bowler's heart".

I could dream of seeing an attack that reads Ambrose, Trueman, Wasim, Qadir, Warne bowling to a top order that read Tendulkar, Hayden, Ponting, Lara, Laxman... who wouldn't? I'd hope, though, that it took place on a pich such that the spectrum of cricket ranged from bowlers on top, batsmen surviving to batsmen on top, bowlers struggling... not from a series of dismissals from unplayable balls to 10 an over devastation that no bowler could contain!

Bottom line: it's the ODI enthusiasts I have the problem with, not the test match players!

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

I dont have a problem with 1 day enthiasts its the 1 day OVER enthusiasts who think a 5 day match is nothing more than 5 1 dayers !

[CJ D]

I still think Cricket is Cricket and I love it all (except when some first team ringer is smacking my 4th team bowling all over the shop), Other people however need to recognise that whilst the general idea of bat v. ball is the same in all kinds of cricket ODI and Tests are very different animals and must be viewed as such, I have no problem with one person watching tests and shunning ODI's or vice versa as long as they have an interest in some form of the game and preferrably also in the grass roots as well.