All posts tagged 'trott'

So the first test of the summer is over. England have a resounding win, the Bangladesh batting once more showed signs of improvement, and there was even a decent fifth day crowd. So why am I feeling irritable?

Probably because no one knows what to think or feel about it. Bangladesh are so inevitably going to lose whenever they play England at the moment (provided the weather doesn't intervene) that every performance by an England player seems to be judged within that suffocating context. Trott's double century isn't actually deemed worthwhile because there isn't a Bangladesh bowler (with the possible exception of Shakib) that would take 35 wickets in a season of Division 2 County Championship cricket. Finn's wickets are similarly suspicious. Rather than applauding Morgan's relatively assured 40 odd in the 1st innings, we find ourselves despondent that he didn't make a triple hundred. As for Bresnan and Anderson, we are encouraged to believe that if they can't take 4-35 against this mob, what chance do they have in Australia?

Being possibly the only person in the world to have witnessed every ball of the three tests played this year between England and Bangladesh (apart from Jamie Siddons whose malevolent glare has never wavered) I feel uniquely qualified to offer some perspective. In all three matches the pitches have been diabolical for test cricket. Bowlers on both sides have got no change from the surfaces. In Bangladesh this makes sense, but Lord's is now an abomination. Until the weather turned nasty on Saturday, there was no swing either. The Bangladesh batting has improved vastly but notably the two most successful England batsmen had been playing four day cricket for over a month. Trott and Strauss were thus in tune for test match conditions. Bangladesh don't play enough test cricket and so eventually succumbed to lack of concentration (see Shakib's disappointing dismissal yesterday and indeed after lunch in the 2nd test at Dhaka).

Pitches such as the ones we have seen will even out the contest, giving the Bangladesh batsmen a more than decent chance of surviving for long periods. This may be good for prolonging the contest but leaves the pundit struggling with imponderables. In this latest match there were three performances of undoubted class: Finn with the ball (when he wasn't falling over or having moody first spells), and Tamim and Trott with the bat. In their contrasting ways they all rose above their peers. Finn by bowling consistently around off stump and allowing his height to take care of the rest, Trott by harnessing his many OCDs to form a bubble of concentration that not even KP's suicidal running could permeate, and Tamim by being the most insane and effective batsman in the world today with the possible exception of Sehwag. His innings contained shots of wonder mingled with the type of eye popping madness seldom seen in an under 11s 10 over a side match on a recreation ground.

Old Trafford should be different. Traditionally it helps taller bowlers and spinners which may bring Shakib into play (there was nothing in the Lord's pitch for Swann, Shakib or Mahmadullah). It's usually a terrific test match wicket. But there may be a temptation to deaden the pitch so the match goes five days (and by the way, for anyone doubting Bangladesh's right to test status let it be remembered that they have taken England to the last day in every match this year), but this would be a mistake. The current source of ennui that pervades these encounters can be traced entirely to Bangladesh's bowlers being neutered by the surfaces. Shakib goes straight onto the defensive and England are invited to make as many runs as they please as long as they don't go over 4.12 runs an over. And please God let Bangladesh bat first. That way we don't endure a first day which may as well have been conducted by a sealed bid auction (360-5? Yeah we'll take that).

Deep breath. Focus. Find the zone. Begin. In the name of all that's fucked and buggered in the world, did it have to be quite so pitifully limp, as if John Inman had cross bred with a lobotimised Alan Bennett and the resultant foetus had been gang bitten by a particularly sickly swarm of Tsetse fly. It all started so macho. Let's bat. After all, we hadn't tried that before. Let's win the toss and bat. Under cloudy skies. On a juicy wicket specially prepared for Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel. Let's finally sodding bat. We're 'ard we are. We're 1-0 up. We're the Daddies. For one ball. Well actually for less than one whole ball. For the run up and briefly before the bat turned in the limp wrist of the French courtesanly Strauss, and the quite brilliant catch at (an admittedly idiosyncratically placed) short leg. No longer the Daddies. And from that point it got worse. 

Much has been said of England's attitude after the Harper caught behind that never was. But we were in mind melt well before then. Trott may not have been ready to bat (if so this displays an astounding lack of imagination or just terrible time keeping), but even that cannot explain his 1st innings (second no better but at least it took a decent ball to be shot of him). It was as if he had got pissed in the green room of some futuristic game show based on Bullseye but now cricket themed in which he had to face 9 balls for charity, and being such a cold eyed bastard (see Chris Mason, or Kevin Painter) he couldn't really give a toss about the Hardwick Hospice and decided he'd try out some trick shots he learned in the nets when doing a session with Gary Player on South African "TV". KP is just plain confused at the moment (and a confused KP is a useless KP. All his power lies in his misplaced self confidence and we must  do nothing to derail this if we want runs - if we want to punish him, surely our time will come, when we have no more use of him, in about 6 years). Even the redoubtable Colly went nuts before lunch, and once you start a collapse it's very difficult to stop it (without a number 7 like Boucher, Gilchrist or Haddin).

South Africa showed how to bat on that pitch, and England inexplicably left out Onions in favour of a man who'd hardly played cricket in six months and was 7 mph slower anyway. Further evidence of England's sudden failure to learn from what they'd achieved hitherto. They stayed in the series by batting second and therefore being in the game for long enough to give them survival options. Obviously a good team would bat first when possible, but England, by comparison with their opponents and on foreign wickets were always second best. Suddenly they thought they were good. Much as they did at Headingley in 2009 and came dreadfully unstuck. Strauss's England is at its best when it knows its place. Then all its character can flourish. But without a proper reliable strike bowler and with Collingwood leading the batting while KP undergoes an intensive 24 session course of Neuro Linguistic Programming, England must look to scrap for as long as possible, which is why batting second allows them to assess the conditions within the confines of the unfolding match. Asked to set the tone, their batting will fall apart.

Yes Harper's decisions were crazy. He's clearly as mad as a mongoose. But in a nice, monstrously stoned way. He can't hear stuff, he can't see stuff. But it's all quite benign. He should obviously be released from the elite panel. Maybe he can umpire at the Paralympics. 

But 1-1. It's not bad. And surely that's the right result. Is it bollocks. The right result would have been another draw with England hanging on but hopefully only 7 down as rained flooded the High Veldt after lunch on the fifth day. South Africa had four notable and consistent batsmen (Smith, Amla, Kallis and Boucher)  and one very good bowler in Steyn. England don't have those resources, but they're canny game players and must always be aware of their limitations if their game sense is to going to win out. That means in this case not dropping Onions and bowling first on winning the toss.

Sod it. Harumph. So annoying. But it could yet be a high water mark. I've seen Sakib ul Hassan and Mushifiqur Rahim against India. My advice? Bowl first and hope for the Chittagong sea fret to save us.

OK. I haven’t got a clue what’s going on. Friday in Cape Town was a hideous replay of the 2nd 20/20. Sunday at Port Elizabeth and it’s tempting to talk of a finished product, an England team packed with players who know their roles and even space for Flintoff to return in place of Wright resulting in a resounding World Cup win in the last ever 50 over competition (before 20/20 takes over) and we stay champions for eternity. It's like the players have been digitised and are literally composed of a notional on or off. 

So far England have managed to produce sensational victories followed immediately by filth. “Anti momentum” is sofa new boy James’ explanation. Victory in the tests will only be achieved by getting so far ahead that the inevitable comeback from South Africa will just fall short. If so, we’re in for a hairy time. Perhaps Cook, Bell and Onions can bring consistency for the tests (though frankly a more inconsistent trio is hard to imagine – The Police?). But then, who wants dull predictability (apart from semi professional gamblers)? There is something delicious about watching James Anderson not knowing whether he’ll go for 60 or take 5-23. You can tell Trott’s new to the set up. He’s failed just the once in 8 innings, and can expect to stay behind for naughty boy nets as he perfects his “my head’s not quite on it I’m afraid” dab to backward point. Even the fielders are at it. Strauss took a blinder on Sunday having dropped three sitters in the week. 

The same could of course be said of South Africa for whom only Peterson has shone in all three games, though De Villers’ hundred on Friday was frighteningly good. Morkel has been the pick of the bowlers but I maintain he’s just Chris Tremlett without the looks (well, not just without looks; with a whole new set of genetically impossible looks tacked on, and a mouth that screams “half masticated sandwich” gaping open at every ball), and will be soothingly innocuous come the tests. 

At least the current pattern has ensured th at England can’t lose the series, but with Nigel back on the sofa on Friday an England loss by about 237 runs looks inevitable, which will set us up beautifully for the 1st test.

Listen to SA v Eng 4th ODI Highlights Port Elizabeth.

Listen to SA v Eng 3rd ODI Highlights Cape Town.

With England's coach Andy Flower less than enthusiastic about the performance of England's middle order at Headingley, it is clear that there will be a change in the batting for the Oval, possibly more than one. Bopara looks to be the first casualty, his run-scoring having followed a downward curve over the Ashes series from a low base. So who should bat at No 3? The selectors are likely to favour Jonathan Trott, having much faith in their pecking order system. Geoff Miller, said yesterday "Our policy is consistency and continuity. Jonathan was brought into the Headingley square because he merited it. If we bring somebody else in, then why did we pick Jonathan in the first place? It is just logical thinking". I beg to differ. Miller is saying that because the selectors made one bad decision, the dictates of logic require that they repeat it at the Oval. I can't answer his rhetorical question as to why they picked Trott for Headingley. His record of only 18 first class hundreds in 217 innings (one for every 12 trips to the middle) hardly does the talking for him. At least he is South African - they usually do well for us.

Look at Ramprakash's record by contrast: 108 hundreds in 698 innings (one in 6.46) and an average over a long career of 54.35. Let's put that in context; it's more than Lara, Compton and Greg Chappell and up there with Barry Richards and Sobers. Of course there is more to being a successful Test player than churning out hundreds against the counties - ask Graeme Hick. And Ramprakash has had more than his fair share of chances for England, 92 innings with only 2 hundreds and an average of 27. Frequently Ramprakash appeared nervous and restricted in his stroke play when playing for England as if overwhelmed by the responsibility and the burden of expectation. Why should he be given another chance as he approaches 40?

My main reason is a non-cricketing one. Although the first season of Ramprakash's recent Indian summer preceded his triumph on Strictly Come Dancing (he averaged over 100 in 2006) the manner in which he has followed up those twin successes has, if anything been even more remarkable, especially in an era when very few manage to play on prolifically into their late thirties. In the following seasons he has averaged 101, 62 (completing his hundredth hundred in the process) and 100.75 so far this season. Those who know him feel that his Strictly triumph has relaxed him as a person and as a batsman and given him greater confidence in his abilities. Geoff Boycott recently said that he couldn't imagine that any activity that he engaged in off the field could have helped his batting. GB always was a bit black and white; those of us who take a more nuanced view of life can well understand why inner fulfillment in another field involving testing challenges in front of an audience of millions could have provided Ramps with the mental strength to stamp his authority on bowling attacks up and down the country. Surely that is what we are looking for going into this decisive Test and not the knocking knees of a debutant.