May 2010

When I was first thinking about England-Bangladesh I thought that there was no way I would find any interesting bets for the series or individual tests. The early lines showed total England domination and given the Bangla's early tour form it's hard to see past that. However now that the lines are up I'm intrigued.

First up CricketBetLive has the Bangladesh run line at 249.5 if they bat first and given that it looks to be slightly cloudy at Lords tomorrow and somewhat humid early on I like the under here. The second line that excites me is Mahmudullah's match performance at 70.5*. Here is a guy who is averaging a whopping 139 points per test against decent opposition (West Indies, India, New Zealand and England) and will definitely get a chance with ball and bat. Even more compelling is that outside the sub-continent he has averaged 174 points per game! England should and will smash the Tigers, they're still a very weak test side and haven't come on like the Sri Lankan side of the late 1990s, early 2000s did but that doesn't mean we can't make money. Definite top pick of the Test is Mahmudullah > 70.5. Good luck.

* 20 points per wicket, 1/run, 10/catch, 25/stumping.

If signing up with CricketBetLive they have a 20% first deposit bonus and a referral scheme, please email them quoting account 8913 once you have opened your account. Thanks.

By Business Card Designs

I think I'm strongly enamoured of Graeme Swann. This is not a controversial position to find oneself in but one that sits strangely with me. He's just been deservedly named ECB's player of the year. He's taken 99 wickets in a year in all international matches (in some ways a meaningless stat, but indicative of his ever presence in England's test, ODI and T20 line ups). He can bat. He fields. He's combative. He's England's premier striike bowler. He's quite witty, he's charismatic, gives good post match interviews and is striken with an underbite so big, you're not going to be insanely jealous of his good looks. What's not to like?

He's an off spinner. That's what. My cricketing heroes have been everything and anything but off spinners. Of the batsmen I have been wowed by such diverse talents as Trumper, Hobbs, Hutton, Compton, Boycott and Gower. Fast bowlers aplenty from Lohmann and Barnes to Willis and Botham. Wicket keeper Alan Knott was my first ever hero. And I can do spinners. Wilf Rhodes? Clarrie Grimmett? Shane Warne? But I don't do off spinners. I even preferred Tony Lock to Jim Laker (I know this is madness). They just can't surely carry the threat that a hero needs to possess. (I don't count Murali as an off spinner. He is brilliant, a Sri Lankan hero and a freak)Anyone can bowl off spin. What's the most dangerous ball you're going to bowl? The one that goes straight on? Do I look scared?

Yet somehow Swann is paralysing the world's batsmen with terror. When he comes on, he invariably takes a wicket early. He seems to be channeling the venomous strike power of the late Malcolm Marshall through the effete flapping of his off breaks. He takes iconic wickets, such as Hussey's to win the Ashes. He mesmersied, stunned and ultimately destroyed South Africa's middle order to the point that Duminy's career is in tatters while Prince and Smith have been struck dumb. And he bats like a game changer. Not with the same effect as a Botham or an Imran Khan, but always better than you'd dared hope. I don't understand it, but I think I'm starting to believe it.

The bouncy pitches of Australia will also suit him. He may have had an excellent year. He might be about to become an icon. And then, why surely, ennoblement from the queen who has previous with swans. 

I have just compiled the schedule for international cricket in England this summer, ready to send out to the Sofa gang for availability checking.

Unbelievably, if you include the Australia v Pakistan matches, there are 57 days of cricket between now and the end of the season (equally unbelievably, the end isn't until 22 September). That's pretty much every other day.

As glorious a prospect as this is, it also poses a really tricky problem for me. How on earth am I going to get enough time off work to do even half my share of Sofa duty? I have already spunked way too much of my holiday allowance on cricket, and it would be quite nice to have an actual holiday at some point.

What I need is for the Sofa to go massive very quickly, so that I can quit my job and do it full time. This post is therefore a rallying cry for those who love the Sofa and want the it to continue. Tell everyone you know about us, write about us, tweet about us, spread the word any way you know how, and we might just make it to the Ashes next winter.

Help us get to 100,000 listeners. It'll be worth your while in the end.

We all watch a lot of cricket, right? None of us are crazy. We try to be balanced, and assimilate the information so we can make an informed judgement. But who, apart from the lobotomised and/or Tom and Nigel would have called an England win, batting first, at Barbados, against a trio of Autralian quicks who had laid waste their every foe? Well, me.

Search deeply through every post and you have the answer right there.

England's batsmen relished the over hyped Nannes, Tait and Johnson just as they did Morkel and Steyn earlier this year. Pace on the ball was always playing in England's favour. But the delight was watching Aussies fail to adapt. Where was the slower bouncer? The Yorker? The crafty off cutter?  Whilst England's generally slower trio of pacemen tormented the Australian middle order with their variety, Clarke slung the ball to his quicks and demanded "faster". Biltong and Castle lager to Kieswetter and KP.

Allied to which it was England who had the spinner no one could hit. Swann's spell scuppered any hope of a mammoth total. Clarke and David Hussey played his overs out but had no one to go at at the other end. And when Yardy was put under pressure even Luke Wright was sufficient insurance.

England pissed it, like they did every game not influenced by rain. I'm not sure how they did it yet. But I do know three things. Andy Flower is the right man when you have 5 Africans in your squad, Matt Prior will be shitting himself, and I'm not scared of Australia right now (that may change in six months time).

Oh, and by the way, we only bloody won. 

(despite what it says above, the following opinions, grammar, spelling and syntax have been supplied by Jarrod Kimber of www.cricketwithballs.com)

According to Daniel, test match sofa is an anarcho-syndicalist commune.  This is his way of coming across as the lovable uncle you wish you had.  When Ahmer was heart broken it was Daniel who comforted him, but not because he cares about Pakistanis (he rates all former colonies the same way, like that thing he found on his boot) but because he knows that appearing to be on Ahmer’s side will win him more fans. Test match sofa is not an anarcho-syndecalist commune it is a fascist dictatorship where he regularly beats the other commentators, especially Tom.  His leadership style is styled on Lady Thatcher and Groucho Marx with a touch of Genghis Khan thrown in. 

Even though Dan clearly sees himself as superior to most other people, he does share several traits with other English supporters, the “can’t lose” attitude.  I don’t mean “can’t lose” in the way an Indian supporter who has the Indian flag painted on their face thinks can’t lose, I mean the way English supporters build themselves an emotional bunker so that no matter the result they end up winners.

Dan has already proclaimed that Australia will crush England.  So if Australia crush England, he can say, “see I told you so, I’m pretty clever”.  If England wins, he can streak naked through the streets of Tooting screaming about the power of the Empire.  Either way, Dan is the winner.  And this sort of defeated undefeatable loserism is how English fans shield themselves from ever having to look at their own ineptitude in sport. 

I, on the other hand, believe Australia should win because they are the better side.  I’ve studied this match with the asexual eagerness of a young Mike Hussey, and while I think England are a very cohesive unit, Australia should have the fire power with bat and ball to beat them. 

When Australia does win, it will be the greatest win in the history of organized sport, over coming adversity, impossible obstacles and Bangladesh. .  No team has overcome so much (including the Michael Clarke handicap) to be victorious. 

If, and this is purely hypothetical, Australia do lose, it will be Michael Clarke’s fault.  Because England couldn’t possibly play better than Australia to win.

Obviously.  

Either way Dan wins, because he has chosen both sides as usual, like a proper Englishman should.