Christmas wishes and wraps

Firstly, may I wish a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to everyone.

It’s been an eventful few weeks in the world of cricket. India has secured the series against England, South Africa has claimed a monumental win in Perth, and New Zealand and West Indies were forced into a stalemate.

Test cricket has been revitalised by some thrilling wins in the previous few weeks, only to be taken back a peg by some selfishness in the Mohali test. The epic win in Chennai was a victory of will, winning a test when they had been decisively outplayed in all the previous innings.

It featured a truly masterful Tendulkar century, sheltering his lesser partner Yuvraj from some determined England bowling, and featured strong showings from Virender Sehwag. India then followed up with the wrong way to finish the series.

India has a bad recent history of trying to draw remaining tests of a series when they reach the lead. In England in 2007, they seemed completely uninterested in going for the win once they took the lead in the second test.

Against Australia, they won at Mohali and then never looked like attempting to win another game on the highway-like pitches, leaving it to an Australian collapse to secure a 2-0 series win. It was not attractive test cricket in the same way as Australian over aggression is not attractive test cricket.

Don’t get me wrong. India was the better team in every occasion and deserved a series win. My qualm is that they do not treat the fans to entertaining cricket. Australia lost in South Africa but neither team can hardly be blamed for any poor cricket, it was absolutely riveting. As was the Chennai test.

Effectively India’s captain MS Dhoni summed it up by saying he wanted Yuvraj and Gambhir to score second innings centuries, which shows how India’s attitude to winning the game was completely out of whack. With conditions also limiting the amount of time played, this selfish attitude does not bode well for a team striving to be number one (And not far off from that tag).

South Africa proved their worth and new steel with a crushing victory in Perth. India completed a great chase in Chennai only prior to this, but without dampening India’s achievement, this was probably the more monumental considering the state of the series, the opposition, and the journey it took to get there.

South Africa has always been a classy team. Since readmission, they have had top quality players throughout the 90’s and naughties. However, their readmission came also during the period of Australia reaching its zenith in cricketing power. They have never beaten Australia in a test series and have folded easily at times when they had the personnel to give Australia a real shake.

This time now, is a different South Africa. Young players such as AB De Villiers and Dale Steyn have reached their prime after years of struggle, Graeme Smith has reached the emotional maturity needed for the captaincy, and has discovered the warrior within himself. Old veterans such as Ashwell Prince, Jacques Kallis and Mark Boucher are contributing well, and there is a unity and confidence that reminds me of the Australian team of 2001/2002.

The win at Perth was vital for the Cricketboks, they have a series lead against a demoralised Australian team and now have the chance to prove they are the premier team in the game. Australia is not a team that will surrender their long held number one spot lightly, but this team looks like it can do it.

2008 has been an important year, at year’s end Australia is no longer the top team in the world, with India showing its strength (And cash) and South Africa reaching their long-awaited peak.
2009 promises to bring more riches and woes as 2008 did. Let’s hope that when next year ends, test cricket is still the number one form of cricket.

Bittersweet and disappointing

The hotly anticipated India v Australia test series is now over, and strangely the future of test cricket is now under more scrutiny than ever following a series featuring bland pitches, heated confrontations, and numerous on and off field problems.

To be realistic, India should have won this series 4-0, no questions asked. They had a superior team on paper, in their own conditions, and were facing an Australian lineup with no recognised spinner and three quicks without experience bowling to test level on the subcontinent.

Australia did incredibly well to hold it to 2-0, and India’s second win only came when Australia made a game chase in the fourth innings that was eventually undone my India’s spin attack. India lost the plot at times during this series, particularly in the field, and undid the hard work their bowlers put in.

Ishant Sharma was a worthy man of the series as he was yards ahead of the rest. He bowled manfully and was a constant threat, unlike Zaheer who floundered on the increasingly highway-like pitches, and has now established himself as a world class opening bowler.

India’s big problem this series was their inconsistency. They dropped off when they could have had the foot on the throat, and they only barely escaped from threatening situations due to the Australian team’s ineptitude, case points being Bangalore and the final test at Nagpur.

Gautum Gambhir and Virender Sehwag batted well on tracks that allowed the ball to scream hit me. As did the middle order at times, although Laxman was clearly the standout. Dhoni had his moments and the tail provided some spunk. Everything clicked at least once during the series.

As for Australia, well, only Mike Hussey came away with his reputation enhanced, with Simon Katich probably not far behind him. All the other batsmen had a touch and go series. Ponting himself made a century at Bangalore and then seemed to struggle as Ishant and Harbajan continued to expose his weakness against the ball that moves back in.

Clarke had a woeful tour. He fell at critical times and was a shadow of the player that made his presence known here four years ago. His century at Delhi secured the draw but he never really asserted himself. Neither did the dominating Hayden, who struggled for form following a long injury lay off. His 77 was a grand gesture however and gave India a fright on the final day.
The remaining players had brief moments that provided little in the end to write home about. Brad Haddin struggled. He had four starts during the series and failed to convert every single one of them into a fifty or century. His glove work was at times rusty and he comes across unexperienced in unfamiliar conditions.

Watson was a real conundrum. A player of genuine talent, he was thrust into this tour following the ridiculous dropping of Andrew Symonds and was real hit and miss. He managed a defiant 78 in Mohali as his team crumbled around him, but he achieved better results with the ball, being by a long way the best of the Australian pace men with 10 wickets at 32.10, with a best of 4/42 that gave Australia the slightest of hopes in the final test.

Australia’s biggest problem was their bowling, which never really looked like taking 20 wickets. Their biggest mistake was picking Cameron White, who himself rarely bowls at first class level in deference to Bryce McGain.

White never looked threatening and his value with the bat was miniscule at best to compensate for the lack of penetration.
The pace attack also floundered. Lee should never have gone on tour. He was never in the right frame of mind and lacked rhythm. Stuart Clark was the only one of the bowlers to keep the batsmen in check, but at the same he wasn’t able to penetrate.

Don’t get me started on Johnson. I am firmly convinced he should not be playing test cricket. He was erratic and never looked threatening with a new ball, due to the fact he couldn’t swing it to save his life. How he continues to play at the expense of Bollinger or Siddle bemuse me, as they are both far superior bowlers to Johnson.

Siddle did little in his test debut but it was a tough ask bowling to strong batting lineup on a pitch so flat my grandmother could have scored a century on it. His time will come, he has the talent. Krejza is yet to discover his worth, despite an epic 12 wickets in his debut test. He needs to lower his economy rates and keep getting picked. He may be the player we were searching for.

Australia has some deep soul searching ahead of a tough 12 months on their cricket calendar. India too must address some problems within their makeup, such as their inconsistency, the loss of several old hands (Dravid is on borrowed time, but luckily they have the impressive Vijay to take his spot if needed) and a tendency to get defensive when they have a series lead.

India are still a strong side and the better side during this series, but a lot more work is needed if they are to overtake Australia as the number one nation.

You said what Gilly?

Adam Gilchrist has opened up multiple cans of worms since he released his autobiography, and in retrospect has done immense damage to a reputation forged out of his good guy demeanour off field.

In a matter of weeks, he slammed Indian great Sachin Tendulkar for his role in the acquittal of Harbajan Singh from accusations of racism, he dug into Harbajan and Sourav Ganguly for their ‘disappearing act’ in the 2004 series that led to Australia beating India in India for the first time since 1969, and now he has opened more old wounds by taking aim at the ICC over Muttiah Muralitharan’s bowling action.

It is hard to see what Gilly aims to achieve my doing this. Murali has been cleared to bowl by the ICC and is free to bowl, no matter what people may feel about it. Harbajan was cleared, with great controversy, but that matter is in the past.

There is nothing to gain from these attacks other than to end up with the reputation as a whinger. Gilly is no saint, we all know there are no saints on the cricket field, but these words have done more damage than anything his opponents could have said.

A man apart

Anil Kumble has retired and another of the warriors that triggered the golden age of spin bowling during the 90’s has retired.

Kumble was vastly different from most spinners due to his modus operandi. In comparison to Warne, a fellow legspinner, Jumbo relied less on venomous turn and more on his topspinner and wrong ‘un.

One thing Kumble, Warne and Murali share in common is their relentlessness. Once Jumbo got into a bowling grove, he relentlessly bowled until he had a wicket. His performances have won India more matches than any other player India has produced. In terms of match winning effectiveness, Kumble was worth more than even Sachin Tendulkar.

In the Australian tour of 2003/2004, Kumble, who has returned from injury to replace Harbajan Singh and turned out to be India’s defining influence. He took 5/154 in Adelaide, 6/176 in Melbourne, and 8/141 in Sydney on his way to a 12 wicket haul. He highlighted his great heart and stamina through the uncounted arduous spells he bowled.

He was only the second person to take 10 wickets in an innings, taking 10/74 against Pakistan in 98/99, and he crowned his latter career with a test century in India’s triumphant tour of England, scoring India’s only century of the series.

Jumbo is arguably India’s finest spinner during a time when India rose to prominence as a real force in World Cricket. He became India’s captain and achieved all his greatest achievements with a quiet dignity that belied his inner toughness.

If India win this current series, there can be no greater tribute to two of their retiring heroes than defeating their greatest foe, Australia.

Flirtation gone wrong

20/20. Considered in the majority of cricket circles as cricket for those with ADD (Apologies to those who do have that disorder though).

Now with the advent of the IPL, ICL, Champion’s League and Stanford 20/20 for 20, the newest form of the game is beginning to dominate the game, slowly eliminating 50 over cricket from the landscape and now encroaching on the popularity of test cricket as the number one form of the game.

To compare the two, one way to look at it is when rock music came into circulation. Test cricket can be considered the classical music where all forms of music branched off from and still to this day give inspiration.

50 over cricket is the Blues of the forms. It was raw and new and exciting when it first came out, but after many years and too much exposure to pop music, R’n’B formed from what was originally a great product, something tarnished by increasing commercialisation.

20/20 is Rock’n’Roll. The new, dangerous, raucous cricket formed from Blues that becomes what the Blues used to be, raw, different and energetic. Rock became the centrepiece of music and in some ways still is. And that is the possibility that 20/20 may head towards.

Strictly on marketing terms, 20/20 is a brilliant concept. It is short, furious, and full of spectacular stroke play that spectators love to see. It is the perfect format for countries across the world to be introduced to the game, and therefore make it more international.

However, this may come at the cost of test cricket, viewed by the majority of diehard fans as the most important version of the game.

Test cricket got its name due to it being the true test of one’s cricketing abilities. The truly great players of this age, the Tendulkars, Pontings, Warnes, and Laras of this world forged their names in the longest form of the game.

But 20/20’s popularity with the marketing gurus and media may lead to its role being downgraded. By all that is good about cricket, I hope this doesn’t happen. Long may test cricket remain.

The perfect captain

Australia has been blessed with plenty of determined and classy captains. From the original skipper Dave Gregory, to the classy all-rounder and now legendary commentator Richie Benaud, and on to the strong-willed and canny Ian Chappell.

In arguably Australia’s greatest cricketing age, there have been four that have taken on the challenge; Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting.

All had unique skills and abilities, and all were determine individuals. On pure ability, Punter is miles ahead of the other three, while Tubby was the least gifted. AB and Tugga were decent all-rounders in their prime, but Punter and Tubby were highly gifted fieldsmen.

Their respective terms of leadership were also highly unique and reflective of their character. AB was probably the most singled-minded of them all, probably based on the fact he played during Australia’s lowest ebb and then worked his hardest to get the team back to the top. Ponting and Waugh have been in charge during Australia’s dominance in the last eight years or so. But they inherited a team that had already claimed the top spot.

The man that set that chain of events off was Mark Taylor, close to, if not already, Australia’s greatest test captain. Taylor inherited a strong team from Allan Border that had established itself well and then set the wheels in motion to make that squad invincible. During his time Warne and McGrath came of age, players such as Steve Waugh came into their prime, and they churned out talent at a time that could have enabled two strong Australian teams to run around.

Taylor was the most balanced captain of the four. He was bright, energetic, generous and highly diplomatic. At the same time he could also be utterly ruthless without being downright cruel. He was immensely respected for his courage and tenacity, and tactically he was not merely astute, but can be considered one of the finest visionaries of his time.

He did what no Australian skipper had done since Ian Chappell in 1972-73 and toppled the West Indies in the West Indies, thus establishing themselves as the undoubted world champions, a position they still hold.

He is held is such high regard by those he played under that they consider him the finest captain they have played under. Such a credit is not to be taken lightly in Australia’s golden era, but it could go to no better player than the lad from Wagga Wagga.

Outgunned, outclassed

Everyone has gone bananas. India has beaten Australia in the second test and beaten them comfortably.

Any informed cricket spectator would have told you that it was expected.
Australia headed into this series with a transitional line-up, no spinner, no McGrath (Who arguably still had psychological holds over some batsmen), and undoubtedly a more fragile psyche than we’ve seen from historic Australian sides.

Following the hysteria and controversy of the Sydney test earlier this year, Australia went out in Perth noticeably meeker than usual. Perhaps they have met their match with a team that has taken inspiration to play with strong aggression.

To put it quite simply, Australia were outplayed by a better team. India is a better team on paper, and in Mohali they were vastly superior on the field. The only criticism I can make of India is that they should have scored 900 on the pitch in the first innings. Australia did well to bowl them out for less than 500+.

No-one expected Australia to win this series and they undoubtedly surprised people with their spirited show in Bengaluru, probably winning the majority of that test. There was no such inadequacy from India in Mohali.

As India has clamped down on Australia, the poor standard of umpiring has flown under the radar. Shane Watson got away with the most obvious LBW since cricket began. And Australia had a critical decision go against them when a stumping for Ganguly was not referred to the third umpire, replays proving he was out. Ganguly was in the 30’s at the time and went on to 102.
India is likely to win this series in what will be a swansong for their older generation, and then the challenge for India begins as they have to cover for their fab four and Anil Kumble (Although Amit Mishra seems like an excellent replacement).

A win against Australia at home will be a great moment for them, but at the end of the series, Australia will likely remain the number one side and will remain so until they get knocked off at home, which hasn’t happened since 92-93.

Exciting times.

Points victory to Australia

Australia will come out of the first test in Bengaluru feeling confident, following the rave reviews in the press around the world that predicted India would thump the world number one team this series. While this only the first of four tests, both teams gained plenty of knowledge of the other to take into the remaining games.

Australia probably came off best in this encounter. They batted first and they made 430 (Albeit slowly and patiently) thanks to centuries from Ponting, who looked in excellent touch, and Hussey, who looked impossible to get out and completely comfortable during his stay at the crease.

India’s reply started well, then went horrendously wrong as they lost quick wickets to some clever bowling. Johnson, under pressure to keep his spot, justified his promise with four wickets. But any chance Australia had of winning the test was snuffed out in the decisive moment of the test. It seemed clear that India had no chance of winning the test, but what Australia did next was cost themselves any chance of winning.

The partnership between Zaheer and Harbajan turned out to be crucial, if either had fallen early, Australia would have won. The 80 runs and plenty of minutes they contributed allowed India time to save the match. And despite an aggressive declaration from Ponting, India played out the time for a draw.

Both teams have a lot to think about. Australia did not get a sturdy opening partnership in either innings, although they will feel pleased about Simon Katich’s contributions. And Michael Clarke also failed in both innings, to each seamer. Brad Haddin proved a good fighter and Shane Watson showed his batting ability.

Australia’s bowling requires some thought. Lee bowled fine but didn’t pick up wickets his talent deserves. Clark struggled at times, and White, although accurate, is not going to be able to take wickets with his limited arsenal. Johnson was the pick of the quicks, but all the bowlers need to take action considering they were unable to dislodge Zaheer and Harbajan, neither of whom are considered credible batsmen.

India have many problems to address, the main one is Kumble. His bowling, 51 overs for 160 with no wickets, belied a man not in good form and certainly not in good condition considering he is carrying an injury. His captaincy was dull and flat, with no real imagination, and he was unable to really motivate his team.

The bonus India probably didn’t expect was the class of seamers Sharma and Khan, both who were excellent in the conditions. This should make the selectors consider bringing Munaf Patel into the side and give Harbajan the lone spinner role. The captaincy should be passed onto either Dhoni or Sehwag, who are the best candidates. Sehwag would be my choice.

Their batsmen were average at best. Gambhir allowed himself to be tied down to easily, and Sehwag’s penchant for aggression was exploited well by the Australians. The famed middle order had moderate returns, although they all passed 40 once in the test. Dhoni was humbled by Michael Clarke of all bowlers, and may sound alarm bells considering his test batting credentials.

India will have taken note on what they did wrong and will be looking to come out firing in the next test, while Australia will be quietly confident they got the better of this draw, and will now have the concern of whether Stuart Clark will be fit for the next test.

The safe option?

Australia is in a selection conundrum going into the first test next week following the premature end of Bryce McGain’s first test tour.

Jason Krejza, the only other specialist spinner on the trip, is being belted around by India’s brightest new talents and outbowled by part-timer Michael Clarke, and it is seems the fast bowlers are taking the wickets so far on tour.

The other dilemma is the batting order. It seems Phil Jaques is going to be unluckily chopped for Simon Katich, who outbatted Jaques in the Windies and also has a terrific record against India, with his first test century in 2003 and a 99 against them in their triumphant tour of 2004. He also offers his left arm wrist spin, with which he has taken 6/65 (Albeit against Zimbabwe).

As likely as Australia is to play Krejza, it won’t be playing to their strengths. Australia’s pace battery is actually quite formidable. Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Mitchell Johnson and Shane Watson, backed by Doug Bollinger (Who was immensely dangerous during the Australia A tour), and Peter Siddle, who has proven a handful at times with his accuracy.

Maybe Australia needs to forget the spin option and focus on its pace battery. It worked for the West Indies during the 80’s, why can’t it be a viable option now particularly when we have part time spinners who can roll their arm over if needed? Why shouldn’t the best bowlers play even if they are all fast men?

It’s something to think about come Thursday next week.

The hard truth

India will have to do some soul searching in the next few months as they come to the realisation that their much vaunted middle order reaches its use by date.

As Australia has been forced to find replacements for the genius of Warne and McGrath, India will have a near future without Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar. This should not be a time of despair but one of hope as the next potential stars of this world are unearthed.

I won’t play on Indian board and selection politics because to be quite frank I don’t know enough about it. There are players vying for selection and the selectors need to consider if their team is beginning to age too much.

One of the great selection conundrums of the past few years has been that of Mohammad Kaif and Yuvraj Singh. Both have been hailed as immensely talented players, and both have made starts and then failures at test level.

Having watched Yuvraj play, I am totally convinced he is not test class. He was completely destroyed by Australia’s pace attack in Australia after he had previously flattered to deceive by scoring a return century against Pakistan, hardly the most dangerous of opposition. He remains a danger in one day and 20/20 cricket, but the shorter form is a far cry from the five day game.

Mohammad Kaif is in a slightly better position, having gone back to the first class game and become a consistent run scorer in India. He charmed with a 94 against Australia A and is showing signs of more determination and willing to apply himself. However, he may find himself overtaken by some more prodigious talent.

He faces the likes of S Badrinath, Suresh Reina, Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli for a chance to take over from the ‘Fab Four’, and against the competition, he isn’t likely to play test cricket for India again. Badrinath is on the fringes of selection and looks the goods. He comes across determined and professional, and is not likely to let his chance go easily.

But who to drop? The obvious answer is Ganguly, who has been living on borrowed time for a while now. A fierce competitor, Ganguly’s weakness against Australia will count against him and it he is likely to be a major weak link in the Indian team if he plays.

Another player in the gun sights is Rahul Dravid. Although he has made some runs in the Irani Cup match, Dravid’s problem is his inability to score at rates needed to win test matches, particularly in recent times and against good teams like Australia, which have deep batting lineups.

For a player so technically equipped, he is frustratingly unable to turn the strike over on a regular basis to keep pressure on the bowlers, which leads to him getting bogged down as he famously did during the Sydney test earlier this year. I was there and joined the crowd as it mock cheered him for his first single in about an hour and a half’s batting.

He will probably be retained for the Australia series, but if he fails he will find himself dropped. The only players I can see retained for the next 12 months will be Laxman, who for some reason has been constantly scrabbling for his spot despite being a far superior player to Ganguly, and Tendulkar, who probably will nominate when he wants to retire before being pushed.

The decision needs to be made, as India cannot afford to stay strong while their old guard scrabbles to hold on.

A sad state of affairs

Drugs are the most temperamental subject in world sport. It taints athletes and their records, and their actions can simply be described as cheating their sport and cheating themselves.

Cricket has been rocked by drug dramas in recent years, with the Ahktar/Asif controversy and now the revelation that West Indies players Xavier Marshall and Tonito Willett have tested positive to a substance that has not yet been disclosed.

The Ahtar/Asif story was a disgrace. Both players were found guilty, both were suspended and then had their penalties overturned by the PCB, an absolute insult to the cricketing community. Shane Warne was caught using a diuretic and was banned for a year, although he probably should have been banned for longer.

Although we are yet to figure out what Marshall and Willett were caught taking, they will face serious sanctions from their board that already has enough on its plate.

Drugs has rarely reared its ugly head in sport, but to stamp it out, boards and, specifically the spineless ICC, need to show initiative and either ban players for life or send them packing for a long time. It is the only way to make sure it doesn’t harm the reputation of the game.

The class divide

What separates a good player from a good one? What makes them stand head and shoulders about his contemporaries? Do statistics, romanticism, or one-in-a-lifetime performances secure their greatness?

It’s a question that splits fans of the game, and unfortunately it’s a lot like the Australian player divide known as the nerds and the julios. In terms of cricket fans, it can be called ‘stats heads’ and ‘romantics’.

Now, to stats heads, a player can be judged great based primarily on his numbers. Therefore Bradman is number one in terms of batting, followed by Mike Hussey (Average 68.38 from 42 innings) and Graeme Pollock (Average 60.97 from 41 innings). Eddie Paynter has an average of 59.23, yet rarely is he spoken of in terms of the greatest English batsmen.

The romantics love a good innings, and while appreciating the stats, judge a batsman on watching him play. Therefore Wally Hammond’s legend (Along with his formidable statistics) grows, even though there are few alive who could have seen him at his peak.

Viv Richards is also a great point. He is regarded by all comers as one of, if not the best West Indian batsmen of them all. Yet there are five West Indians above him in batting average (Headley, Sobers, Weekes, Walcott, and Lara). Why is he rated so highly, well for one reason he scored those runs in an era that was tough for runs (He faced bowlers of the ilk and class of Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan), and never surrendered the initiative.

Romantics would also like to include statistical anomalies like Mark Waugh, David Gower, or Mohammad Azharuddin. None of these have batting averages above 50 (Azharuddin’s is closest with 45.04, Waugh’s is 41.82), yet their genius was never really questioned when watched as they made batting look so simple.

A great current comparison would be Ricky Ponting and Sachin Tendulkar. Ponting is leading Tendulkar in terms of average (58.38 to 54.23), but I have no hesitation, and I have a feeling
I’m not alone in saying this, that Sachin is far superior to Ponting as a batsman.

Punter is a great batsman, don’t get me wrong. Only Bradman is ahead of him in Australia, and only Greg Chappell is equal to him (I rate Greg that highly because of the era he played in, he made runs against everyone, everywhere). Yet Tendulkar is far superior because of his ability to tear attacks to shreds with little effort, and not just weak attacks. He has consistently defied the Australian attacks that blew teams away during the 90’s and naughties.

Ponting has never had a chance against his own team, which is unfair to hold against him. Yet to average as consistently as he has over the past few years defies belief as he gets better with age. Tendulkar, on the other hand, as managed to be monumentally steady for the majority of his career.

He has declined somewhat in the last few years, but in the Australian series in 06-07, he topped the aggregates for either side. Most impressive was the fact that he never once looked like getting out as he systematically dismantled an Australian bowling attack that was hardly weak.

Ponting struggled that series as they exposed a technical tendency for Ponting to push hard at the ball coming into him, which Ishant Sharma and Harbajan exposed with glee.

Romantics appreciate the ‘prettier’ aspects of the game, and love a flashy cover drive and a player skipping down the pitch to launch a bowler over his head for six. Stats heads have a tendency to look at the game and appreciate the number crunch.

Combine the two and you have a cricket fan able to look at the numbers, appreciate them, and put on a vintage tape of Brian Lara tearing an attack to pieces.

Do you see where I’m coming from?

A critical showdown

Australia named their test squad for the tour of India, and lo and behold, the period of transition Australian cricket has reared its ugly head and led to several selection controversies.

There is no Andrew Symonds. The 33 year old all-rounder has been one of Australia’s best players in the past year, and ahead of a foreboding tour of India is regarded as one of Australia’s better players of spin bowling in what could be a series played on turning pitches. His useful medium and offspin bowling will also be missed.

There was no place for Ashley Noffke and Beau Casson, both of whom made the tour of the West Indies and Casson even managed a test, taking 3/129. And there is still no Cameron White or the rampant Dave Hussey.

There are some serious gambles whoever. 36 year old legspinner Bryce McGain has been picked as the number one spinner, supported by Tasmanian offspinner Jason Krezja, who has never taken a first class five wicket haul. Peter Siddle replaces Ashley Noffke and this is an encouraging move. Siddle shaded Doug Bollinger last year as the fast bowler of the year, and his selection is vindication of a young man brimming with talent.
Shane Watson replaces Andrew Symonds in a move that has already caused consternation.

While Watson has always been viewed as a gifted cricketer, he has garnered the reputation of being fragile and likely to get injured in a vital moment. When you consider the potential of White and other possible part-timers such as Michael Clarke, Simon Katich and even Dave Hussey or Marcus North, the selection of Watson is a huge gamble.

Brad Haddin will continue to don the gloves and remains the number one candidate. India is a big test for him and I’m confident he can rise to the appropriate level. Another concern is the inexperience of the batting lineup in India. That I’m not concerned about either, with Katich the likely replacement for Symonds and Hayden set to return.

India’s lineup looks more settled, but some big decisions remain. There just isn’t room to fit Ganguly, particularly since the revival of Mohammad Kaif and the continued good form of S Badrinath and Suresh Raina. Dravid may also face the chop, but he'll likely be retained.

Harbajan and Kumble are likely to bowl together, and I have a feeling this may be his last series. Fast bowling is likely to be supplied by Ishant and Zaheer. Zaheer hasn’t been particularly effective against Australia, but the Australians will be very wary of the young Ishant.
That said, spin is likely to be prevalent and India far outgun Australia in this department.

However, India shouldn’t be too overconfident following their failure against Sri Lanka, where Harbajan and Kumble were ineffective and they were torn apart by an unknown spinner in Ajantha Mendis.

This is a critical series for both teams to gauge their futures, Australia being in the midst of a transitional phase and India about the begin one. May the best man win.

Where did it all go wrong?

I’m taking time out from the hysterics of Bradman and the constant English focus on the Ashes to lament to decline of the Pakistan cricket team, which has fallen from world beaters to chugging along side the West Indies in a struggle to catch up.

Pakistan once boasted one of the most formidable line ups in the world. In the 90’s, they could had players of the calibre of Wasim Akram, arguably the greatest left arm quick of all time; Waqar Younis, his incomparable (And injury ravaged) sidekick; Inzamam-Ul-Haq; the chubby and dominant batsman as well as class acts such as Saeed Anwar, Ijaz Ahmed, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mohammad Yousef.

Pakistan has not won a series since 2006, and that was against the West Indies. The last series they played was against India, in which they lost 1-0, and they haven’t played since. Nor are they slated to play anyone within the next 9 months.

What happened to Pakistan cricket to bring it down the notches it had scaled to reach amongst the top three in world cricket?

As much as we would like to say cricket and politics don’t mix, it is unrealistic to believe it. Pakistan’s unstable political climate and unfortunate status as terrorism target is not conducive to attracting cricket teams, sponsors, or fans.

To further my point about politics, South Africa was isolated from world sports for decades due to its apartheid policy, a purely political reason for isolating it. A similar issue is going on in Zimbabwe, yet I have already raised my annoyance at the lack of initiative on that problem.

Their cricketers have battled controversies which have tagged along like dead weights. The match fixing accusations, ball tampering, Shoaib Ahktar’s histrionics, the drug disgrace surrounding Shoaib and Mohammad Asif, and the forfeited test have all contributed to Pakistan’s state of mind.

Their bizarre selection policies have also contributed, with players who have made successful forays overseas such Yasir Arafat all but ignored (Arafat did manage one test, in their previous series against India). Mushtaq Ahmed churned out hundreds of wickets for Sussex and helped the county to its first championships, but was not picked again.

Cricket wants a strong Pakistan team. While the board has become something of a little brother to the powerful BCCI, the health of cricket needs more competitiveness and what better time with plenty of money in the game to encourage it?

There is going to be another Wasim there, another Imran, another Javed. Pakistan needs to go and find them, not only for its own sake, but for cricket’s.

Rough ride for Australia

Australia has a nasty schedule coming up, one that will test the stretched and redeveloping Australian side.

First off is India in India. Usually a tough tour for any team, the previous series in Australia left a lot of bad blood between both teams and fans that some still haven’t forgotten. India is in a tough patch at the moment having escaped with a drawn series against South Africa and then being defeated by Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka.

The promise of Australia seems to bring out the best in India, who have had a recent history of providing entertaining and hard fought series against the world number one side. Tendulkar looked like a shadow of his former self prior to the 07-08 series, but he seemed to thrive on the competitiveness and the fact it was probably his final tour to Australia, scoring two centuries.

VVS Laxman is another who loves Australia, having scored perhaps the most legendary of all Indian centuries when he knocked up 281 in THAT test at Kolkata in 2001. Laxman is one of those rarities, a player that goes mad when he sees a baggy green cap and plays better. His record against Australia is vastly superior to that of other cohorts Dravid and Ganguly.

India’s bowling is an anomaly ahead of the series. Suddenly blessed with several gifted seamers, India’s decision is who will they play? Zaheer has led the pack well, but does not have a great record against Australia. Ishant Sharma is the best fast bowling talent to emerge from India since Kapil Dev, after that is guess work.

The spin department is a worry. Harbajan was ineffective against in their previous clash and Kumble is showing obvious signs of wear, tear, and 616 test wickets. Whether India chooses to play a different spinner or three quicks is a puzzle they will have to sound out.

Australia are facing their own problems ahead or their clash, with no obvious spinner and injury troubles to prolific opener (Especially against India) Matthew Hayden.

Australia’s fast bowling stocks are still in good shape (Lee, Clark and Johnson, backed by Doug Bollinger, Ashley Noffke, Pete Siddle, Shaun Tait and Ben Hilfenhaus), but their middle order is uncertain, with Brad Haddin yet to be tested at number 7 and doubt lingering over Andrew Symonds.

Following that tour, Australia faces a home and away challenge against the surging South African side, which are dying to knock off their greatest foes.

South Africa have failed to threaten Australia since readmission and despite having some impressive playing personnel, they haven’t been able to get over the ‘aura of invincibility’ that Australia used to have.

That aura has faded, but the Australian team still boasts a side on paper that is vastly superior to South Africa. South Africa has two young and promising strike bowlers in Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, but Makhaya
Ntini is fading and Paul Harris is about to find out what happens to spin bowlers in Australia.

South Africa’s batting line up has talent, but is enigmatic. Smith and Kallis, their superstars, have failed to deliver on their ability, and the middle order was occasionally exposed as fragile during their test series with England.

Nevertheless, Australia is in for a long road, and need to fight to the bets of their ability if they wish to remain the number one side in the world.

The Bradman enigma

Following the man’s centenary last week, I saw a plethora of Bradman articles thrown around talking about his legendary status and iconic role within cricket. I’ve decided to throw my two cents in and look at both man and player.

It is extraordinarily hard to dismiss a man who has averaged 99.94 in a 52 test career span, with 29 centuries and 13 half centuries and a high score of 334, which was at its time a world record. He was leagues ahead of his nearest rivals of batting, which were at the time Wally Hammond and Herbert Sutcliffe of England, and George Headley of the West Indies. Headley and Sutcliffe average 60 and Hammond averaged 58, although that averaged suffered after World War II.

He also played in an era of uncovered pitches in which batting could be made difficult when weather permitted, such as the creation of a ‘sticky dog’ which led to balls shooting erratically off the surface. It has been a wide source of debate as whether Bradman often batted on these styles of wickets (In the home series of 1936-37, he famously reversed the order on a drying pitch at Melbourne, and his 270 changed the series).

The majority of his tests were against England, he played against South Africa, the West Indies and India once in his career and none of those tours were overseas, which is vastly different to the current crop of players that play in a variety of conditions and countries. No bowling strategy as provocative as ‘Bodyline’ has been devised for any other batsman, and even then Bradman averaged 56.57.

Bradman the man was vastly different from the cricketer idolised as an Australian hero during the Depression era. He was regarded knowledgeable but aloof, a shrewd businessman but ham-fisted with money. He was a practising mason and had a long history of grievances with Catholics Bill O’Reilly, Jack Fingleton, ‘Chuck’ Fleetwood-Smith, and Stan McCabe.

O’Reilly and Fingleton were probably his biggest foes. The trio never got on. Although they had immense respect for each other on the field, that was the end of it. The pair laughed the Don back to the pavilion on the occasion of his final test innings, when he was bowled second ball by Eric Hollies for a duck, and they constantly criticised each other over their roles in the team.

He has also been singled out by influential Australia skipper Ian Chappell as one of the prime reasons for World Series Cricket, claiming in a documentary that Bradman ‘treated board money as if it was his own money’ during a boom time for cricket in the 70’s. As an administrator, Bradman was wise but refused to budge on money. He was also regarded as somewhat old-fashioned.

Still, Bradman was regarded as the all-knowing doyen of Australian cricket and was often sought after for advice, made all the more harder in his later years when he became a recluse in his home in Adelaide. He always responded to letters with fond affection though, and was polite and helpful for young cricketers seeking advice, whether life or cricket related.

In terms of the greatest batsmen ever, what makes Bradman stand out is not just the fact that he was far ahead of his contemporaries, but he overwhelms all that follow him. It was a common trait to call an exciting young batsman in Australia ‘the new Bradman’ (Norm O’Neill and Doug Walters suffered this comparison) and it was often a kiss of death.

He is justifiably, in terms of figures, ability and influence, at the top of the batting tree in cricket, with his nearest rivals being Sachin Tendulkar (A man Bradman once considered similar to himself), Viv Richards, Brian Lara, and Wally Hammond.

There can be no other player quite like Sir Donald George Bradman.

Wayward Symonds at crossroads

‘I went down to the cross roads, fell down on my knees’ is the famous lyric thrown down by legendary bluesman Robert Johnson. It couldn’t be more apt than be used to describe the situation now facing Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds.

Symonds has a long and colourful history with the Australian cricket team, struggling to make his name known until he was picked, controversially at the time, for the 2003 World Cup. In the first game against Pakistan he hit 143 not out and it was his rebirth as a cricketer.

In 1999, he and teammate Matthew Hayden were put in serious danger when their boat capsized off Stradbroke Island in Queensland during a fishing trip. Both swam over an hour to safety in an area well noted for its shark population.

In 2005 he turned up to a one day match against Bangladesh still drunk from the previous night and was immediately suspended for two matches. Australia went on to famously lose the match against Bangladesh. His next appearance marked his best bowling return of 5/18 in their next encounter.

In 2006, he was almost involved in a fight at a South African nightclub with a player from the Central Cheetahs before Michael Clarke and giant prop Ollie le Roux diffused the situation. This current incident was, compared to the previous mentioned, a minor one, but it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Symonds had gone out fishing (A pastime he enthusiastically indulges in) early, unaware that a compulsory team meeting had been called. Upon returning, Symonds faced the leadership team and was told to head home to examine whether he still had his commitments in the right place.

Clarke, the current stand-in captain for Australia, said in an interview http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-AU&brand=ninemsn&vid=da93d52b-3b26-4f87-9b95-9369759fa9e6 that in was also attributed to several unnamed incidents leading up to the decision, which is intriguing considering the only the public know about were those broadcast in the media.

Symonds is an important member of the Australian team, one with a great deal of responsibility upon him. Perhaps he needs time away from the sport to evaluate whether his heart is still in the game. With an important tour of India looming, Australia may need his ability to win matches if they are to succeed.

Can he master himself in such a short time? Or will he just fall prey to the flaws in his character?

Never forget the 'Terror'

At the end of every Australian cricket summer, the Allan Border Medal night is held to honour the previous year’s cricket and also to induct those of the cricketing fraternity who have given great service to the game into the hall of fame.

One name I find curiously absent is a medium-pace bowler who was feared to such an extent that he earned the sobriquet ‘Terror’: Charles Thomas Biass Turner.

Charlie Turner was the most acclaimed fast bowler from Australia in his time, bridging the gap between Spofforth and Joey Palmer to ‘Tibby’ Cotter and Monty Noble. He battled jostled with George Lohmann for billing as the world’s best bowler and kept Australia competitive during that time.

His record makes impressive viewing; 101 test wickets at 16.53, with a best of 7/43; 993 first class wickets at an average of 14.25, with a best of 9/15.

No Australian bowler with more than 100 wickets has a better average. No Australian has claimed more than his 106 wickets in a first class season like he did in the 1887/88 summer.

His first test coincided with the debut of another young and promising bowler, left-armer John ‘Jack’ Ferris. Such was the immediate rapport these two had on their debut that Spofforth, the greatest bowler of the era, retired immediately after this test.

In the eight matches Turner and Ferris played together, they shared a phenomenal 104 wickets. Even more unbelievable, Australia only won one of those matches; at Lords in 1888 where they shared 18 wickets and in Australia’s second innings were the only batsmen to reach double figures.

This was often the story of their careers, as Australia did not have the batting depth to support their two bowling heroes. This would lead to Ferris eventually forsaking Australia to try his luck in England, and he eventually turned out for the old enemy in a match against South Africa, taking 13 wickets in the only test he ever won.

Turner continued to play well for Australia, being supported by Hugh Trumble, Albert Trott and George Giffen. In 1894/95 Ashes series, he was back to his best in a series dominated by Giffen and ‘Honest’ Tom Richardson.

With 18 wickets at 19.39, he was dropped from the team by fellow selectors Jack Blackham and Giffen (Who quickly took the opportunity open the bowling himself) for Tom McKibbin. McKibbin took 2/120 in the must win game that England won to claim the series.

Turner was furious about the lack of support he had received after years without support from his batsmen. He famously roared ‘I’ll never play cricket again’, and he never played test cricket again.

One of my favourite stories relating to Turner was a recollection of a young Bill O’Reilly turning up for a grade training session and being advised by champion spinner Arthur Mailey to change his grip ‘Or you won’t succeed in cricket’.

O’Reilly thanked Mailey for his advice, and at this point Turner, who was present, felt obliged to intervene. He told him to ignore Mailey and, to prove him there was nothing wrong with being different, showed him his grip in which he bent his middle right down to his wrist.

“I hadn’t ever seen it before, and still haven’t’ recalled O’Reilly. Turner really was one-of-a-kind, and needs to be finally given the recognition that his ability and hard work deserved.

Make the right decision

The Champion’s Trophy is under threat, not from terrorism, but from a possible lack of interest.

News has come through today that Australia may not go to strife-torn Pakistan, and if the world champions withdraw, expect the other ‘Western’ (I hate using that term, it implies division) nations South Africa, England and New Zealand to follow, such is the precedent Australia will set.

Pakistan urgently needs this tournament to boost its fledging cricket side, a shadow of the team that challenged the world during the 90’s. It also needs to show it can host a major tournament ahead of the next World Cup in Asia.

If those nations choose not to go, it will cause a massive division in cricket that has already been widening due to issues such as Zimbabwe and umpiring. The ‘Asian Bloc’ will be there, but the ‘Western’ nations will not.

Australia needs to be there, whether it chooses to send a full strength team or not is another matter (An Australia ‘A’ team would still be competitive), but it needs to show a precedent and its commitment to international cricket by encouraging nations like Pakistan that are struggling with internal strife.

On the other side of the coin, I can empathise with the Australian team’s problems. Pakistan has been a hotbed in the last two years and has been racked by political problems, coming to a head this year with the assassination of Benzair Bhutto and the recent resignation of Pervez Musharraf.

That resignation couldn’t come at a worse time, as Pakistan will now have to pick a new leader as the tournament goes ahead, which could cause even more turmoil. Cricket is just a game, after all, and one to be enjoyed as the great Arthur Morris said.

But for the well being of cricket, I hope Australia can field a team for this tournament to help a nation that desperately needs the support of its fellows.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves

In lieu of England’s loss to South Africa, and KP’s declaration afterwards that if they play like they did in their consolation win they will beat Australia, I must warn England not to get too far ahead of themselves as they count down to the Ashes 2009 already.

To be honest, I actually hadn’t been thinking about that particular series until KP came out with his quote of the week. I found it amazing that England had just lost a series to South Africa, dropping them to fifth on the ICC test rankings, they had a tough series against India approaching, and the next thing on their mind is the Ashes.

This has been a systematic problem of English cricket. Only one opponent seems to matter anymore, and that is Australia, despite the fact that South Africa, India and Sri Lanka are now considered superior cricket teams.

While the Ashes rivalry is the founding block of test cricket, the nations that now play have improved and contributed healthily to modern game.

For England to ignore India, for example, who defeated England in their backyard last year, as a threat, they are sowing seeds for a further drop down the ladder.

The single-minded focus on the Ashes helped England win in 2005, yes. But on the way to that, they restructured their team to find the right combination and beat South Africa in South Africa and knocked off a majority of other competitors to claim 2nd place. Their victory was wildly praised and celebrated and in the ecstasy and overlong glory that followed, England lost their chance to secure their place at the top.

Now that team is looking to 2009 and a lot has changed. KP is now captain, and while aggressive, we have yet to see whether he can marshal his troops and match wits with a strong Australian side. There is no Vaughan. No Trescothick. Several of the players who will play in that series were part of the squad that was humbled in 2006-2007 5-0.

Several of the players have showed glimpses of ability but have failed to follow this through, classic examples being the graceful but spineless Ian Bell and the determined but technically flawed Alastair Cook. And there will be no opponent more relentless on exposing those problems than Australia.

However, both England and Australia have a multitude of test series ahead of them that they should be focusing on instead. Australia has its mind set on what may be a spiteful series in India, followed by home series against New Zealand and the improving South African side. England should be focusing on their visit to India, the West Indies, and a prelude to the Ashes against the mighty Sri Lankas, who will surely be bringing their little pals Murali and Mendis.

Then England can perhaps focus on the Ashes. Australia will only be thinking about hen the time comes to wage war once more in the middle. Until then there are more important things to focus on.

India stumbles on loyalty

Since their impressive and strong showing against Australia during the 07-08 summer, India have faltered in consecutive test series and have generally looked frail. The question on everyone’s lips is why?

The selection table is my bet, though others may disagree. But it seems that India are in a period that Australia is currently in themselves, a time of transition in which the golden age must pave way for a new generation to have a influence on the game.

India have been blessed during the 90’s and 00’s with some of the finest batsmen in history; the defiant wall Rahul Dravid; sanguine Sourav Ganguly; aggressive Virender Sehwag; the steely resolved Australian killer VVS Laxman; and of course the greatest batsman since Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar.

In the bowling stocks they have been supported by two solid spinners in Anil Kumble and Harbajan Singh, and have unearthed several impressive young pacemen who will take the burden up from Zaheer Khan.

India’s problem has been their reliance on what is known as the ‘fab four’, numbers 3 to 6 in their batting order, the youngest of which, Laxman, is approaching 34. While I concede it is difficult to replace players of that calibre in any line-up, India need to look to consider several factors.

Firstly, only one of the fab four have reached a century since the tour of Australia; Dravid, who made 111 against South Africa in what was his only score above 50 for the series. Only Laxman made passed 50 in the Sri Lanka series, and he made two out of the three made by a middle order batsman from India.

Secondly, consider the young talent currently waiting in the wings. Rohit Sharma, S Badrinath, Suresh Raina, Manoj Tiwary and Virat Kohli are all making big impressions in the domestic scene. Badrinath’s non-selection is baffling, considering his dominant record in recent years.

Thirdly, look at India’s next opponent; Australia, currently the number one team in the world despite some protestations from South Africa and India to the contrary. While Australia may look weak following the multiple retirements over the years, they are still a class ahead of anyone else.

In the hotly contested (and intensely scrutinised) series during the Australian summer, only Laxman and Tendulkar scored centuries. Tendulkar clearly dominated in what was probably his final tour of Australia, and that is a good sign, but Dravid and Ganguly were shadows of their former selves.

India’s only bowling problem that I see is Kumble himself, who appears to have lost his venom. Whilst his record against Australia is good (108 wickets at 28.52), his recent form has been less convincing and his captaincy lacks imagination.

Harbajan showed encouraging signs against Sri Lanka and South Africa, and will be bowling on pitches likely to help his turn and bounce. Supporting him will likely be Zaheer, who hasn’t had a great deal of success against Australia, and the dangerous Inshant Sharma if fit. Kumble is the weak link.

India needs to take the plunge and pick new faces in their team ahead of this series, and the selectors need to show nerve to pick the players performing. An Indian team that I would like to see on the park would look like this:

V. Sehwag
G. Gambhir
VVS Laxman
S. Tendulkar
Rohit Sharma or Suresh Raina
S. Badrinath (Could also bat at 3 in place of Laxman)
MS Dhoni © (Sehwag is also a candidate for captaincy)
Harbajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Either RP Singh, Munaf Patel, YK Pathan or Piyush Chawla
Inshant Sharma

This is of course my opinion, and opinions are like bums. Everyone’s got one.

A question of depth

I worry for English cricket sometimes. While I may not be English, I still hope for competitive Ashes series when we take on the Poms, as competitive as duels between India are getting these days.

Sadly England is always one step behind, and especially when they have injury troubles they are caught out even worse. Their lack of depth is sadly evident.

England is currently fielding a five man bowling attack (Including the much needed Flintoff), some of which have questionable claims for being there (Namely Broad, who lacks any venom, and Jimmy Anderson, whose inconsistency continues to baffle).

The stocks in county cricket aren’t too bad for bowling. Durham has a whole plethora of good fast bowlers at their disposal, including the still developing Liam Plunkett, Graham Onions, Western Australian Callum Thorp, and the oddly ignored Mark Davies, who consistently takes more wickets than his companions.

There is other solid talent hovering around such as South African convert Ryan McLaren, who has achieved great results for Kent as an all-rounder. Chris Woakes at Warwickshire has made a fine start to his career, and of course, looming over at Worcestershire, is the bowler that cemented his reputation in the 2005 Ashes, the speedy Simon Jones.

The batting ranks look thin. Ravi Bopara is churning out runs, but apart from him, no young batsmen, apart from maybe Samit Patel, are standing up to be counted. Bob Key has led Kent well but his returns have been inconsistent. Australian-born Paul Horton looks like the best bet to replace Andrew Strauss if the latter runs out of form though.

In an odd coincidence, two former English wicketkeepers in Matt Prior and Chris Read have had good seasons with the bat, with Prior amongst the top run makers so far this year and Read leading the high flying Nottinghamshire with gusto.

That hole could be fatal if some players start to lose form and the replacements just aren’t up to scratch. The comparison England has to teams like India and Australia is that while England may have good talent on the field, they don’t have a multitude of players waiting in the wings.

Australia’s depth borders on the ridiculous. Any other nation would cry out for the luxury of having Brad Hodge, David Hussey, Chris Rogers and Ashley Noffke waiting in the wings, not to mention young talent of the quality of Shaun Marsh, Luke Pomersbach and Ben Hilfenhaus. That’s the vital strength of Australian cricket. While some nations may have equal or more talented players, Australia has continued to churn them out.

India is beginning to show signs of this as well, already having an impressive youth set up and a number of young players showing the ability to eventually take over from an aging and transitional Indian side that will soon have to move on Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly, V.V.S Laxman, and that legendary figure himself, Tendulkar.

England has been accused of resting on its laurels during a time it could have dramatically raised its stock following the epic streak of 2004 and 2005, when it laid claim to being at the top of world cricket. Instead of capitalising, England got sloppy and it has cost them their prestige and a place at the top of the pecking order, now fought over between India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Australia.

A good sit down to thrash out why they have not achieved what seemed possible all those years ago is recommended. Maybe they should look to adapting some Australian development models, or even reduce the number of county teams to encourage competitiveness.

One thing on I’d like to point out though is that talent will not be coming through if county cricket continues to allow Kolpak players into the competition. Look at Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, you could form another South African side with the numbers those teams have.

A new (and vastly unexpected) change of direction

English cricket is set to travel into a brave new world following the resignations of Michael Vaughan and Paul Collingwood, and then the appointment of tyro Kevin Pietersen as the next English captain over the three cricket formats.

The Vaughan era was one of sudden prosperity and sudden decline. Following every Englishman’s dream of retrieving the Ashes (Some of the younger generation had never seen it out of Australian hands before then) in 2005, England have grown steadily worse, with poor selections, lackluster performances and the declining quality in county cricket.

One of the major reasons for this decline was Vaughan’s knee injury, taking him out of action for a good 18 months and leaving England without his steely determination and sharp tactical brain. Andrew Flintoff did almost a parallel of Ian Botham during his captaincy reign, having little success. And there was Marcus Trescothick and Andrew Strauss given a try as well.

Another key factor was the loss of Simon Jones, who seemed on the point of international explosion when he exposed flaws in the Australian batting lineup via his sharp reverse swing. He has not played a single international match since that Ashes series, and despite superb form this season, has not been reselected in the England team.

Gradually the English team lost its direction and its players performed erratically, even against weaker nations. Vaughan returned in late 2006, but was half the player he used to be. He re-inherited a team that was demoralized following an Ashes whitewash and they were soon beaten at home by India in 2007 and now South Africa in 2008. The guile of Vaughan had lost its aura.

To be fair to Vaughan, England has been woeful. With the exception of Kevin Pietersen, they have been found wanting against strong teams. Ian Bell, for example, who has a massive amount of talent, seems to go missing when the pressure is on, and he has never scored a century unless someone has got there before him.

Vaughan’s decline as a player has been sad to watch, as he is an extremely graceful batsman to watch when on song. The runs began to dry up as his injury prevented him from having the same command of his strokeplay, and the tricks began to dry up as his team began to falter against stronger opposition.

This may now change with KP’s appointment, one that has been met across the cricket world with equal parts skepticism and enthusiasm.

Logically KP was the only choice to replace Vaughan and Collingwood. He is the one batsman who is a certainty to play across all formats and he is the only player with a forceful enough personality to take on the job. While Strauss and Alastair Cook were considered, Cook is probably too young for the job and Strauss is no certainty over all the formats.

Pietersen is still under 30 and has proven himself unable to be intimidated by big name opponents such as South Africa and Australia. While we are yet to see if he has any tactical nous that is required when matching it with a Ponting or a Jayawardene, he certainly has the determination that made is previous skipper popular and respected.

His batting will hopefully be unaffected, and knowing Pietersen it may bring the best out in him. He has shown he can lift his game against the stronger opponents; hopefully he can inspire his more insipid teammates to do the same.

The first test is to see whether he can rally his troops to win the final test in order to win some pride back. Then comes a blitz of test series against India, the West Indies, Sri Lanka and finally Australia, only the Windies of those are considered a weaker team.

KP faces a tough trot in the battle to establish himself as England’s captain, and it will take his best to inspire his team to the kind of success that cemented Vaughan’s reputation as the most successful English skipper.

Where to from here?

During the last few months, cricket has been transformed as the old world shifted its axis from the Anglo-centric basis to the monopolies of India, in which millions of dollars, rupees or rand are flowing into the coffers of the ICC.

The BCCI is now the strongest board amongst the major nations, and thus is at the forefront of the ICC decision-making committee. It has copped flak for its lack of action over Zimbabwe for what appears to be political reasons, but it changed the face of cricket with the introduction of the IPL.

The BCCI’s rise to power was always going to happen, whether old world administrators liked it or not. A nation of a billion, developing itself after colonial rule and colonial influences, was always going to reach a stage of being strong enough to throw its weight around.

There lies a problem within that. The BCCI needs to make sure it uses its power responsibly and not exploit it over the old guard of England and Australia, which previously had the power, and probably for too long, falling into complacency in some areas.

The response amongst the media has been mixed. Most Indian fans see any bashing of their board as either ‘racism’ or the inability of the old guard to adjust to a new world. The latter is probably true, although that has not stopped some from suggesting it is India plus the Asian block vs the rest.

The problems have arisen over the BCCI’s stance on some issues which have divided the cricket community; namely Zimbabwe and the prevalence of 20/20.

On Zimbabwe, India and the Asian block (Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) have supported the right for Zimbabwe to retain full member status despite having not played tests since 2005. The issue goes deeper than that, and it brings into perspective the thorny issue of politics and sport.

Zimbabwe’s cricket at grass roots level is in tatters. The domestic competition is reduced in stature and a great majority of the country’s best cricketers no longer play there anymore, with further rumblings within the last few months of players being refused permission to play in Europe and make more money.

The investigation into the board’s finances turned up serious irregularities into where the ICC’s money was going, not to the grassroots cricket but somewhere else. Peter Chingoka, the country’s cricket chairman, has proven himself no more than a bully boy, no more concerned with the cricketers than he is with adding a new extension to his mansion.

In return for keeping Zimbabwe floating in the top level of cricket, Zimbabwe are firmly in India’s corner when India require an issue that will be divisive of the major powers. It is frustrating that Zimbabwe is allowed to stay at the top level when (a) the team clearly isn’t good enough and (b) the grassroots level of cricket is not seeing the money the ICC shovels into the country’s cricket association.

Some have said that politics and sport should not mix with this issue, but the fact is that Zimbabwe is allowed to stay at the top level PURELY for political reasons. The BCCI recently cancelled a tour to Zimbabwe claiming it was not marketable. People should realise that they haven’t acted as so to keep Zimbabwean cricket healthy.

As a historical example, let me bring into the picture the South African ban from 1970 to 1992. This ban was based purely on that Government’s policy of apartheid, and all the major test playing nations of the time agreed to ban the South Africans from touring and refused invitations. In time, the Government changed and the cricket board changed for the better.

How is that not the same case here? A cricket board with fingers in plenty of pies and with extremely close ties to a dictator who has destroyed a country that used to be called ‘the bread basket of Africa’. A difference maybe is that Zimbabwean cricket is struggling, but will that not continue if the country’s board remains in power?

Away from Zimbabwe, the other major divisive issue is that of 20/20, which is quickly replacing one day cricket as the preferred short version of cricket. Whilst invented in England, India has taken to the game and in turn made it far more marketable and available to a wider audience.

The IPL was the BCCI’s brainchild to show off its organisational capabilities, its ability to lure to level talent, and expose the level of money it is able to produce for the game. It was a raging success, with competitive cricket and ultimate victory to a team that was initially unfancied, but brilliantly led by the genius that is Shane Warne.

The ECB, however, have been left behind as it struggles to maintain its prominence in the new order of cricket. While Australia and South Africa have leapt on the BCCI wagon, England continues to bluster around and make mistake after mistake. The Champion’s League was set to involve the top 20/20 teams from around the world, but the BCCI-endorsed tournament, set to appear in September, will not feature any county teams.

The massive feature of 20/20 is encouraging on many fronts, but my worry is that it may damage test cricket. India showed great problems readapting to test cricket against Sri Lanka recently and their batsmen were out at times when restraint was needed. Not to take anything from Sri Lanka’s bowlers, but India’s batsmen at times showed a lack of restraint.

On a closing note, may I point out (I’m aware this may seem a little biased) that as the 20/20 world cup is set to appear in India next, and the Asian countries are set to host the World Cup in 2011, Australia and New Zealand have not hosted a major cricket tournament (Not even a Champion’s Trophy) since the World Cup in 1992. Although the countries are set to host the World Cup in 2015, this is only because their bid, which was initially the only one presented, was usurped at the last minute by a decision to award the tournament to the Asian Block for the third time.

Anyone smell a rat there?

Under threat

Be prepared people, it looks like the Champion’s Trophy of 2008 may be a no show.

With the tournament scheduled for later in the year, and with the country having already lost the right to host World Number One side Australia for a tour there, Pakistan is no in trouble of losing the prestigious ICC tournament due to security concerns.

Andrew Symonds, the Australian all-rounder, has made it clear he will not go to Pakistan despite fellow Australians Shane Watson and Nathan Hauritz confirming their availability.

And New Zealand may not even send a full strength side, with reports from New Zealand Player’s Association executive manager Heath Mills that several players approached him with a flat refusal to tour the troubled country.

A decision is set to be reached on the issue sometime this week, with a review of an independent security consultant to come under close scrutiny.

The ICC’s stance has not been fully confirmed, although they have expressed doubts over the abilities of either Pakistan or its original reserve venue, Sri Lanka, to control recent problems.

Pakistan desperately needs this tournament in order for its cricket to survive. Amid another drugs controversy involving Mohammad Asif, the exploits of Shoaib Ahktar, and the cancellation and rescheduling of the Australian tour, this is one they really need.

More to follow……

Ajantha Mendis- A new phenomenon

The retirement of Shane Warne left a large hole in the cricket world, with the greatest spinner of all time no longer affecting the game and delighting crowds with his immaculate control and big turn.

Around the world, the search for spinners to replace the old guard that is passing is underway. Murali is 36 and injuries are beginning to mute his effectiveness. Anil Kumble is 38 this year and not far away from retirement.

Dan Vettori has plenty of years left but is not as exciting as other spinners across the world, such as Monty Panesar, who has a decade worth of service still in him for England. And there is currently no other spinner in world cricket really creating a stir. Until now.

That man is Ajantha Mendis, Sri Lanka’s newest spin sensation earmarked as the new ‘mystery’ spinner, continuing a line from Johnny Gleeson all the way back to Jack Iverson, the original ‘mystery’ bowler.

Mendis has just shocked out India in the Asia Cup Final, cementing a win that Sanath Jayasuria set up with the phenomenal figures of 6/13. India, one of the most powerful teams in the world, couldn’t even make it to 200.

Let’s put these figures into context now. Firstly, spinners are usually subject to a great deal of punishment in one day cricket, with notable exceptions of course (Murali and Saqlain Mushtaq spring to mind).

Secondly, he was playing against India, renowned across the world as the best players of spin bowling. Warne and Murali, the best spinners of this era, cannot average under 30 against them in test cricket, and their ODI records against them weren’t much better.

Thirdly, the Asia Cup has produced featherbed pitches that have been in extraordinary favour of batsmen. 10 innings of 300 or more featured during the tournament, some of those coming in the same match. Mendis took 17 wickets in 5 games, six more than the more accomplished Murali.

Finally, he was introduced in the ninth over of the Indian innings. Bowling to Virender Sehwag, who had dominated the proceedings with his 60, Mendis had him stumped off his second ball, then bowled danger man Yuvraj two balls later for a duck.

He bowled a good length that left the batsman unsure whether to come forward or back (A tactic that made fast bowler Glenn McGrath legendary), then using his variation and a straight ball as a stock delivery, he ran through the rest of the team. Three of the six victims were bowled, beaten by the variation.

Mendis had already been making shockwaves in the Sri Lankan domestic scene, and his first class record is simply bemusing. From 19 matches he has a hardly believable 111 wickets, with a strike rate 32.9 and a ridiculous average of 14.54. Murali’s strike rate is 48, and his average 19.06. Still brilliant figures, but they pale in comparison to Mendis.

Figures like his have not been seen since the golden age of cricket and before, when pitches were uncovered and a bowler had everything in his favour, in this day and age, with the game favouring batsman, they are utterly amazing.

The test now for the young Sri Lankan is to not only maintain his sense of mystery, but to crack the Sri Lankan test team, dominated by that man Murali. His record suggests he could be the man that may challenge Warne and Murali’s positions at the top of the spinning tree.

This is the bowler cricket has been crying out for to lead spin into a new era. I truly hope he can establish himself now and challenge world cricket for his place amongst the greats.

To see his peformance in the Asia Cup final, click the link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3iyoS0S1tU

SOS: Son of Swampy

A new talent was unleashed on the world a few days ago, and after a fabulous ODI debut, it seems he may have the ability to go all the way at the top level.

That talent is Shaun Marsh, son of renowned Australian stonewaller Geoff Marsh, who played for Australia from 1985 to 1992. His nickname around WA and in the Australian team is SOS: Son of Swampy.

Marsh has been playing first class cricket for a few years now, and only recently has his name become better known. He was a bright talent when first spotted all those years ago, when he charmed then retiring captain Steve Waugh with his maiden first class century.

He became, however, something of an enigma over the next few seasons, unable to hold a secure place in the side and inconsistent in the first class arena. Then along came Tom Moody.

In the 07-08 domestic season, he blossomed as a class batsman. In the Pura Cup, he managed 663 runs from the difficult no.3 position at the healthy average of 60.27. In the Ford Ranger Cup he was his state’s leading run scorer with 318 runs at 39.75. In the frenzied 20/20 competition, he was devastating, scoring 290 runs at the superb average of 58.
It was a sign of things to come for the junior Swampy.

The Chennai Superkings, in arguably the most genius purchases of the comp, bought Marsh and powerful teammate Luke Pomersbach for very little and from there Marsh proceeded to lead his team’s charge towards the final, winning the coveted Orange Cap for highest run scorer with his 616 runs at 68.44. More significantly, he was 83 runs clear of Gautum Gambhir, who had played three more games.

That tournament launched his name. It seemed he had come out of nowhere and dominated a competition with some of the finest international cricketers playing with and against him. Now he has excelled on his ODI debut to score 81, the second highest score by an Australian on ODI debut.

For those who saw him when he first started all those years ago, would they ever have doubted he would reach this peak?

Long road to recovery for Windies

The signs are there for a West Indies recovery to a position of strength in cricket. New talent is looming, and a fighting spirit sorely lacking in the last few years was evident in the recent test series against Australia.

Despite their improved showing, however, there is still a long way to go before this team claws its way out of 8th spot and begins to start challenging teams such as Australia, India and South Africa, which are the three best teams in the world at this point in time.

One of the ways they have to do this is start promoting new talent. While they got on the right foot over the selection of Xavier Marshall, who made two swashbuckling half centuries and showed immense fighting spirit, they are again showing their unwillingness to look outside the Barbados-Jamaica circle.

Amit Jaggernauth only got into the first test after a public outcry for his selection. It was a good call considering his form that season for Trinidad and Tobago (41 at 15.65), but his only test of the series exposed him to batsmen who can play spin bowling, and as a result he was punished.

Oddly enough three of the top five wicket takers in the West Indies first class competition were spinners: Nikita Miller (42 at 14.85), Jaggernauth, and gangling Sulieman Benn, who impressed in the third test. The only fast bowler to top 30 wickets this year was Shane Shillingford, from the Windward Isles, yet there was never a whisper of selection for him in the test squad, despite the continued poor performances of Darren Powell, who looks way out of his depth in test cricket.

It’s worse with the batting, with the test stars dominating the domestic scene. The only young players to really set the batting scene alight was Leon Johnson who, at 20, could be considered as a having big potential, and the 18 year old Adrian Barath, who has stormed from obscurity to be one of Trinidad and Tobago’s leading lights. Their concern now is how to breach the notorious inter-island rivalry and get a decent run at international level.

A prickly problem for the selectors is the form of expat Queenslander Brendan Nash. Nash was Jamaica’s top batsman and scored a century in Jamaica’s victory in the first class domestic final. He is in good touch despite only coming into the area recently following difficulties in the Australian scene. Whether they regard him as good enough to make the team remains to be seen.

There is hope that there is a new generation of players the West Indies can usher into their side under the guidance of firm hands Chanderpaul, Sarwan, and Gayle to help build a team with the aid of talented players such as Jerome Taylor, the resolute Marshall, and the outrageously gifted Dwayne Bravo.

For cricket’s sake, a strong West Indian side will benefit not only the game in the region, but the game around the world.

Ponting deserving of respect

Whilst former England opener Geoff Boycott in this article that Ponting is not in the same class as legends such as Lara or Tendulkar, it does not mean he is not entitled to the same respect as the previous pair.

Boycott’s major reason for not including him in the same category was the other pair’s charisma whilst batting. Lara, the flamboyant calypso supremo, with his exaggerated backlift and ability to find gaps no one else can; and Tendulkar, the technical master who Bradman believed most resembled himself.

In terms of run scoring, the difference in statistics is in Ponting’s favour; he has scored heavily from the tricky number 3 position in the last 6 years and averages 58.48 after his dismissal for 18 in the current test. Tendulkar, by stat comparison, averages 55.31, Lara a ‘mere’ 52.88.

I do agree with Boycott on the assessment that Sachin and Brian are the more adored cricketers, particularly because their batting is generally the more charming and entertaining. Ponting, as an Australian, is generally not popular in wider circles. But given the company he is in the 10,000 run club, there is no doubt he is a superior batsman to Rahul Dravid, and perhaps Steve Waugh.

There other major factor is that Ponting never had to endure facing his magnificent teammates, notably McGrath and Warne, who terrorized opponents across the world for 15 years. Lara was a famous bunny of McGrath, having been dismissed 15 and only averaging 41.40 against the beanpole. Tendulkar also suffered against McGrath, only averaging 22.16.

How would Ponting have succeeded? There can be no doubt he would have struggled with McGrath, whose nagging line would have exposed his flaw at pushing hard at the ball, along with his weakness against the ball moving into the pad. I can see Ponting doing well against Warne, as Ponting seems more uncomfortable against offspin than legspin, but it would be a fascinating contest.

The straight bat is that Ponting is a great test batsman and deserves to be accorded respect, maybe not in the same stature of a Lara, Tendulkar, Viv or Greg Chappell, but he is the best in the world currently, and not far off being the best Australian batsman after Bradman.

The hard truth

England is looking down the barrel ahead of their series with South Africa. Their New Zealand triumph exposed several flaws in their lineup and approach and now it’s back to the drawing board ahead of their toughest opponents since the 06-07 Ashes.

Let’s face it, England, compared to South Africa, have a pedestrian attack. Sidebottom is a world class swing bowler; there is no doubt about that, but Anderson is still suffering from unpredictability, and poor Stuart Broad just doesn’t have any venom in his bowling yet.

South Africa have not just one, but three quality seamers turning up in this series: The fiery and rampant Dale Steyn, whose dominance in the last year and a half has been remarkable; Makhaya Ntini, still among the game’s best quicks; and Morne Morkel, who is almost as fast as Steyn and looking dangerous ahead of this series.

A major difference here will be the batting lineups. While South Africa has looked good over the last year in repelling strong bowling in unfavorable conditions, England has not. Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood are under serious suspicions regarding technique and temperament, and Alastair Cook clearly still has a problem outside off-stump that was exposed ruthlessly by McGrath and Stuart Clark.

The only area England probably wins is the spin department. Harris struggled in India and may not find favorable conditions in England. Panesar, however, is a more aggressive spinner and could be an important factor considering the South Africans have not played against him.

I can’t see England winning this series. South Africa is looking the strongest I have seen them for many years, with good players in all the right areas and an improving team ethic and standard. This is a real test for both teams, with both within the next year to face the game’s number one team, Australia.

May the best team win.

The English dilemma

England is a good cricket side. Not a great one, but a good one. They are competitive without being dominant. Efficient without being clinical. Strong without being overbearing.

In the current England v New Zealand test series, however, New Zealand, a team with few superstars to call upon, has managed to ask more questions of them than they expected. Before the series began, Michael Vaughan predicted an easy series win. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

England escaped from the first test with a draw after clearing losing the majority of the test. They managed to steal a win in the Old Trafford after Monty Panesar devastated the Kiwis to the tune of 6/37, despite being outplayed in the first innings with the bat and ball.

They go into the final test trying to prevent New Zealand from coming away with a win, despite the fact that for the majority of the series New Zealand have performed better, despite England’s better stars. Players like McCullum, Ross Taylor and Jamie How have stood up, and they have been led well by Vettori, who is taking wickets and leading with great guile.

England has access to an enviable line up of talent. It is alarming that such a lineup cannot lend itself to greater consistency. Ian Bell, like Michael Clarke, has never scored a century unless one has already been scored; KP is now averaging under 50 despite being far and away England’s best batsman.

The most frustrating aspect of England has been their bowling. Sidebottom and Panesar are both performing well, Stuart Broad has looked steady, but Jimmy Anderson has been absolutely terrible. He has a real problem with consistency, being able to deliver one good performance in one innings, then delivering 10 bad ones in a row.

My suggestion is to bring Mark Davies, the underrated Durham seamer, into the squad, or giant beanpole Chris Tremlett, who obtains good bounce. Anderson just simply isn’t good enough to maintain test quality performances.

Not only is the one fumbling for a spot, Paul Collingwood, who delivered such a wonderful 206 in the last Ashes series, is now fighting to keep out the rampant Ravi Bopara, who has set the county scene alight with his prolific run scoring. Colly needs runs to keep his spot urgently.

This series has been a frank eye opener for England, because they know with a strong South African side that has recently fought India to a standstill in India, their side will get crushed if they perform anywhere near as badly as they have this series.

My All-Time Teams

I made these to provoke some debate, hopefully my fathful readers will be moved to comment on the sides.

Australia
M. Hayden
R. Simpson
R. Ponting
D. Bradman
G. Chappell
A. Border ©
A. Gilchrist (*)
A. Davidson
S. Warne
D. Lillee
G. McGrath

12th: K. Miller

I feel this XI is straight forward, with terrific players in all positions. Noticable admissions by some fans may be that of Miller from the starting XI, Steve Waugh, or the 'Demon' Spofforth. I picked Border because Border was to face the tougher bowling and maintained his average over 50 for the majority of his career.

England
J. Hobbs
H. Sutcliffe
W. Hammond
L. Hutton ©
K. Barrington
I. Botham
A. Knott (*)
J. Laker
S. Barnes
A. Bedser
F. Trueman

12th: J. Snow

Again I feel this was fairly straight forward, although some may be bemused at the lack of George Lohmann, W. G. Grace and John Snow. Dereck Underwood narrowly missed the spinner's spot, and Maurice Tate was thought of.

India
S. Gavaskar
V. Sehwag
R. Dravid
S. Tendulkar
V. Hazare ©
M. Azharuddin
M.S. Dhoni (*)
K. Dev
A. Kumble
J. Srinath
B. Bedi

12th: B. Chandrasekar

The majority of India's best are from the modern era, India's golden age, with 7 players having played from 1990 onwards. Vinoo Mankad was a sad ommission, as was the elegant V.V.S Laxman. Vijay Merchant also missed out, as did Erapally Prasanna and Chandra.

Pakistan
S. Anwar
H. Mohammad
Y. Khan
J. Miandad
M. Yousef
Inzamam-Ul-Haq
I. Khan ©
W. Akram
A. Qadir
W. Bari (*)
F. Mahmood
W. Younis

12th: Zaheer Abbas

I felt I got this one bang on target. The only problem was that of Wasim Bari and whether it was fair to remove him for someone with a better average, perhaps Kamran Akmal. But Bari's reputation as a gloveman sealed his spot.

South Africa
G. Smith
B. Mitchell
J. Kallis
D. Nourse ©
G. Pollock
E. Barlow
M. Boucher (*)
S. Pollock
P. Pollock
H. Tayfield
A. Donald

12th: G. Faulkner

On a whim I excluded both Barry Richards and Mike Proctor for not playing enough tests, although they'd be sure to make it usually. This team is still formidable, with a good mix of old and modern players. Herbie Taylor could easily be included, as could Alan Melville and the determined Gary Kirsten. Makhaya Ntini nearly earned a spot, and Trevor Goddard was a near miss.

West Indies
G. Greenidge
C. Hunte
G. Headley
V. Richards
B. Lara
G. Sobers (C)
C. Walcott (*)
M. Marshall
J. Garner
M. Holding
C. Ambrose

12th: F. Worrell

This was the most difficult team to select, not because of a lack of players, because of too much players. Clive Lloyd and Frank Worrell, both gifted batsmen and captains, both fail to make the grade and so does Rohan Kanhai, Shiv Chanderpaul and the supremely gifted Everotn Weekes (The comment below reminded me I had forgot Sir Garfield St. Auburn Sobers, and poor Everton misses out due to my oversight!). There is no room for Courtney Walsh, Andy Roberts, Wes Hall, or Lance Gibbs. And Clyde Walcott is a surprise choice at keeper (Considering his batting record wasn't as good when he donned the gloves).

New Zealand
B. Sutcliffe
G. Turner
A. Jones
M. Donnelly
M. Crowe ©
C. Cairns
B. McCullum (*)
R. Hadlee
D. Vettori
S. Bond
J. Cowie

12th: S. Fleming

This one will get some healthy debate. As two controversial choices, I have picked devastating tyro Shane Bond and original kingpin Jack "The Bull" Cowie to partner Richard Hadlee. Cowie's choice may be a suprise, but when you consider his record and the opposition he played against, it is well deserved. Martin Donelly, the graceful left hander, was picked ahead of Fleming, who just misses out.

Sri Lanka

S. Jayasuria
M. Attapattu
A. De Silva
M. Jayawardene ©
K. Sangakarra (*)
A. Gurusinha
H. Tillakaratne
T. Dilshan
C. Vaas
C. Fernando
L. Malinga
M. Muralitharan

12th: A. Ranatunga

Probably the most modern of teams considering their first test was 1982. Their entire bowling team is post 1990, and the omission of Ranatunga may confuse some people.

Farewell MacGilla

Another test series and another high profile retirement from the Australian team. This time, Stuart MacGill, the fiery and confrontational leg spinner, hung up his boots after dismal performances in Jamaica and in the current test.

MacGill has been a good servant to Australian cricket, having to sit in the wings during Shane Warne’s dominance of spin bowling and taking wickets where he could. His career record makes impressive viewing, over 200 wickets at just over 28 and a strike rate of 53, an impressive rate for a spinner.

Unfortunately, in the twilight of his career, injuries and a disastrous loss of form put paid to his career, and hopefully people do not remember him in that way.

They will hopefully remember MacGill’s epic performance in the 1998-1999 Ashes series, where he bowled Australia to victory in Sydney with 12/107. Or when he often out-bowled his greater friend and rival, Warne, such as the ICC Supertest in 2005.

While he had many flaws in his character, including accusations of selfishness and being aloof from team mates, he was committed to keeping Australia on top and as one of the premire spinners in the world he was even at times superior to India’s Anil Kumble, another leggie.

What MacGilla’s retirement does is expose our lack of spinning depth. Australia has quality depth in other departments all around the country, from batsman, pacemen and keepers. It is our spinning stocks that have struggled, despite the popularity of Warne and MacGill.

Dan Cullen and Cullen Bailey, the South Australia boys, are struggling to break into their side, with Nathan Adcock’s off spin being more successful than Cullen’s. Aaron Heal is in need of more first class games but has talent, and the game seems to be up for Queensland’s Dan Doran and NSW’s Nathan Hauritz.

It leaves current Australian candidate Beau Casson and 36 year old Victorian leggie Bryce McGain, who showed great accuracy this Pura Cup and Ford Ranger Cup season. Casson performed well, especially late, in the Blues victorious Pura Cup campaign and deserves a shot in the next test.

However, the selectors may look to play four seamers and use Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds as their spin options. For the sake of entertaining cricket, let’s hope they give Casson a chance to possibly become the spinner Australia has been crying out for since Warne’s retirement.

A series alive, and with plenty of fight

With one match, a series most expected as a walkover is now brimming with expectation after Australia escaped with a win in the first test against a resurgent West Indies.

No one saw it coming, when Australia posted 431 in their first innings, despite hostile bowling from Fidel Edwards, it was a case of ‘here we go again’. But the Windies knocked up 312 in response and then Edwards, Darren Powell and the mercurial Dwayne Bravo short circuited Australia’s 2nd innings setting up a thrilling finish.

Only the relentless accuracy and guile of Stuart Clark saved Australia this time, with good support from attack leader Brett Lee, to score first blood in the series. But Australia was suddenly proved flawed, something opposition teams have been waiting to pounce on for years.

The signs are positive for the Windies. Fidel Edwards was superb, bowling with great pace and good direction, which is a good step for a bowler usually considered too wayward. His bounce was awkward and he destroyed the confidence of openers Phil Jaques and Simon Katich.

He was backed well by the luckless Powell, as well as the steady medium pace of Bravo and Sammy. Sammy, the most accurate of the lot, was extremely hard to score off, and with a year or two to add to his repertoire he could be the next Courtney Walsh, although maybe without as much pace.

Their problem was the spinner, Jaggernauth, who looked out of his depth when suddenly faced by batsmen who can play spin bowling. This problem should be fixed by the return of Jerome Taylor, far and away the best fast bowler in the West Indies, who should cause some concern for the openers with his useful movement.

The batting is certainly a problem. Stand-in captain Sarwan threw his wicket away and he is a better player than that. Gayle should help solidify the top order over Parchment, making their top order look more fearsome. I personally still have doubts over Runako Morton’s ability, but there is still Shiv and the immensely talented Bravo.

While Chanderpaul is by far their best bat, Bravo is their most talented player. Still only 24, there is no doubt in my mind he could be one of the best all-rounders in the game if he puts his mind to it. His batting average does not reflect his skill, and the Australian team will have long memories of his century in Hobart in 2005, where he played Stuart MacGill and Shane Warne with ease.

Australia now has the massive problem of playing without Hayden. There is no doubt the dominant opener is in mighty form and could have been a huge stumbling block for the Windies. To put this into perspective, during the Indian series this summer, the only match Australia lost was the one match Hayden didn’t play, he made a century in each test he played.

There are doubts lingering also on Mitchell Johnson and Stuart MacGill. MacGill was extremely erratic, bowling plenty of long hops and full tosses that even I could have slammed for six. He is still turning the ball big, and should cause problems when he gets it right. He just has to get it right more often.

Johnson’s problem is mostly technical, and he isn’t fulfilling his potential as well as he should. He is highly capable of swinging the new ball at speed, which is why he has been opening the attack instead of the reliable Stuart Clark, but he has been unable to get the ball to swing, and he has been unable to get batsmen to play at the ball regularly. If he does not improve, a debut for Ashley Noffke or fellow dangerous left-armer Doug Bollinger could be on the cards.

The next test will be the big indication of where these teams sit. The West Indies are back to close to full strength, while Australia are hoping their depth will carry them through the series without Hayden. I will be glued to the TV tomorrow morning expecting the best Test Match cricket can offer.