Cricket Betting Blog

Pietersen's latest childish twitter remarks

2012-05-23T16:44:00.000-07:00

I never criticise Kevin Pietersen's batting or cricket in general on this blog. I think a lot of the stick he has come in for over the years is wrong, and that at times in the past he has carried England's batting almost single handed.

I've also been criticised in the past for saying this - but I really do believe that we owe him big time.

At the same time I've mentioned it on here before about Pietersen's twitter comments, they have been stupid and childish in my view and are getting worse.

That's why I am delighted to see the ECB give him a kick up the arse over it.

I really don't see where he is going with his what seems to be bitter vendetta against Nick Knight, Knight is hardly an outspoken commentator who rubs people up with outrageous views, he's certainly no Geoff Boycott is he?

Singling out Knight in this manner seems daft. It's making Pietersen look somehow jealous or bitter. Is there something Knight has done to Pietersen that is really that bad? Or is this just as stupid as it seems?

It's not just Knight either, as in the past he has had a swipe at Dominic Cork and Kepler Wessels.

Come on Pietersen, time to grow up and get the chip off your shoulder.

A Winning Start

2012-05-23T16:31:00.001-07:00

I managed to hit my win target (I'm aiming for between 5% and 10% a test) in the 1st Test between England and West Indies last weekend. I ended up winning 9% of my betting bank which is a decent return considering I didn't do a lot.

I did have to risk a lot, 30% of my betting bank, to achieve this win, but in general I don't think my money was ever really in any danger.

I'm a bit annoyed with myself though as I was a bit lazy and complacent. I put my bet on last Thursday morning and basically just left it to run, just checking in occasionally to see what the score was.

I maybe should have greened up on Saturday evening when West Indies lost their first 3 wickets for just 36 runs. At this point from a betting perspective the game was effectively over. The market expected West Indies to crumble and for England to only have to chase a few runs in their 2nd innings, if have to bat at all - and this was reflected in the odds.

I could have bought my red back for a £1 or so, but as I supposedly knew better, I left it. At that time I was confident of my bet winning, and so it proved. But the point is that if I had covered my red on the draw on Saturday evening (as most traders probably would have done), I could have layed it again when it came into about 6/1 on Sunday afternoon when Shiv had dropped anchor.

The 6/1 on the draw at this stage on Sunday was a ridiculously low price and was always going to be blown out of the water by just one wicket - and so it was. By the time I did green up on Sunday, West Indies had just been bowled out and I backed the draw at 95 for just 50p, all this meat that I had 9% profit on a result, or 30% profit had it rained all day on Monday and the game ended in a draw.

The point about trading out is that I am freeing up my money to get involved in the game again. It would also protect me from something stupid happening or a sudden change in weather etc. Basically the less time your money is tied up in the match, the less chance you have of losing it.

A quick in and out with my money is probably going to be the best long term policy. I need to discipline myself better in future, as just putting a bet on and leaving it isn't going to make me money in the long run

My starting betting bank was £100, it now stands at £109 after 1 test.

A 1st test win despite Ed Cowan's strike rate

2012-04-15T04:23:00.000-07:00

The first test between West Indies and Australia was a topsy turvy affair that tested patience and discipline when it came to betting on the outcome.

I originally started off with a speculative outlay on the Draw with Betfair as I picked up the vibe straight away that the pitch was docile.

I don't like backing the Draw and I only did this with a view to laying it when, as expected, the odds came tumbling in. The price at the time was 3/1, which seemed very generous given the general consensus of how the pitch was likely to play.

Then a sense of reality kicked in and I thought to myself 'this is West Indies batting here, they could collapse on any given surface,' so I quickly layed my bet off to get my money back. I did regret this move badly by the end of Day 2 when the draw was priced up somewhere around the mark of 1/3 to 1/2, a nice profit could have been made there alone if I'd stuck to my original bet.

By this time though, I was actually in a bit of a hole. After I layed off my Draw bet, I took the decision to back Australia at increments between 4/5 and Evens. Given the state of the match and the fact that Australia were now about 6 or 7/1 to win the match, I was now in a position where I needed a batting collapse from someone just to have a chance of getting my money back.

What I did next was start laying. The odds on Australia and West Indies ebbed and flowed a bit during Day 2 and Day 3, whenever one came in to about 4/1 or there about, I layed it. I also layed the Draw when it came into 1/4, I couldn't ignore that price. I basically layed all three outcomes at differing intervals whenever the odds shortened.

The final two Aussie 1st innings partnerships involving Ryan Harris finally turned the match on it's head betting and result wise. This really cashed in my West Indies lays and effectively turned it into a two horse race betting wise between the Draw and an Aussie victory.

At this stage I could have got out of my bets for a minimal loss, compared to where I was at the end of Day 2, this was a result in my eyes.

I decided to leave my liability on the Draw and my win money on Australia (and West Indies, although irrelevant as they were well out of match in my view). At points on Day 5, I did lay Australia a bit to ensure profit if it ended a draw, but that was just me being way over cautious.

I did notice at times on Day 5 that there was - what I would call - good chances to cash in on massive price movements. If I hadn't of had a certain amount of red on the Draw at one stage (pre my Aussie lays) on Day 5, I would have layed it more.

There were times when one or two overs of slow run scoring by Australia would see the Draw price come right in, a major over reaction. This was then balanced out by massive price swings back towards an Aussie win if a 4 was hit, it was ridiculous really.

I was quite content that Australia were just keeping things tight until Tea and would go for it afterwards, so with this in mind I just sat on my bet until I layed the Aussies late on just in case of a calamitous spell of batting.

I must admit that Ed Cowan's strike rate of 34 when chasing a target did make me a bit jittery, but on the whole I was confident that the Aussies would deal with him if necessary, even if it meant orchestrating a Botham/Boycott style run out.

Some easy cash could have been made on Day 5 alone, with this in mind I wonder if I am better off just sitting back and waiting next time, rather than just backing Australia solely on the basis that it is West Indies that they are playing and that they only need to turn up to beat them - which is basically what I did in the last test.

Although after all that, my original Aussie bet would have won.

The return of the test match draw?

2012-03-21T17:27:00.001-07:00

It's been out of fashion for a while now, but with rain in New Zealand and flat wickets in Sri Lanka, drawn test matches could be about to come briefly back into fashion.

The last couple of years seems to have seen a flurry of results in test cricket, draws seem to have been confined to the scrap heap, with even Dubai and Abu Dhabi offering up result pitches in the last couple of months.

The betting for the 3rd test at Wellington in New Zealand sees the odds currently below 2/1 (2.76 to back on Betfair at the moment). This is a rare low price these days, the equivalent odds going into the first two tests would have been up at around 5/2 to 3/1.

This is in due to the fact that the weather forecast for the first 3 days of the test looks a bit dodgy to say the least. The Kiwi climate can be a bit like our own UK climate - unpredictable. But given the fragility of the New Zealand batting line up and the prospect of overhead conditions, South Africa might only need the best part of 3 days to beat them, so draw backers beware.

As for Sri Lanka, we have already had a warning of what to expect with England's current warm up game against a Sri Lanka Cricket Development XI, where there has been over 740 runs scored in 2 days.

The draw price in the test match starting on Monday is already as short as 2.62 on Betfair, the market is clearly expecting normal service to be resumed in Galle on Monday.

One thing England have on this tour that I don't believe they had the last time they toured here is a resilient bunch of bowlers. We have seen over the last 24 months or so that the England attack don't get disheartened too easily and they have a nagging habit (for the opposition at least) of sticking to their task.

Taking this into account and England's atrocious batting in UAE, then I don't think this series or 1st test is the nailed on draw that the market seems to think it is.....

Runako Morton - A Real Tragedy

2012-03-07T03:24:00.001-08:00

It has been a real tragic week in the topsy turvy cricket world that is West Indies cricket. On Sunday (4th March) there was the tragic news that batsman Runako Morton had been killed in a road crash, in a reminder to us all just how fragile life can be.

We keep on hearing about disasters in sport, and West Indies cricket has seen its fair share of those over the top and clearly wrong and misguided headlines written about it in the recent past.

Things need to be put into perspective here, what happened on Sunday is a real tragedy for West Indies cricket, not a dispute about central contracts or a batting collapse.

To us outsiders, there appears to be a constant bickering that generally seems to sum up West Indies cricket these days, but incidents like this put that all into perspective and show just how futile peoples actions can be at times.

While this dreadful news has come to the media's attention, it doesn't seem to have made major headlines outside of West Indies which is disappointing given he was an international cricketer up until a couple of years back.

Benny, over at Like a Tracer Bullet Blog is one of the few to take the time to pay tribute and he has written a great piece about this untimely death which I would highly recommend taking the time to read.

Runako Morton will probably be remembered like so many West Indian cricketers of his generation, as one who seemed to have plenty of ability, but failed to completely live up to it. He clearly didn't set the world on fire with his cricket, but he was a decent player, of that there can be no doubt.

After all, he has ODI hundreds and Test 50's - and they don't get given to you.

RIP Runako Morton

Alastair Cook in T20 Squad - So What!!

2012-02-24T00:45:00.000-08:00

Why has all the talk over the last few days been about Alastair Cook's presence in the T20 squad? Why is it that the snippets of interviews I've heard on the radio and seen on TV have been of Stuart Broad having to deny that Cook's presence is undermining his captaincy?

It would appear to me to be total and utter press led bollocks - as usual, let me add.

The press are yet again digging for something that probably isn't there and putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 58, not even 5 - as is the usual level of incompetence.

It's pretty much the same in football, in particular with England managers and the same with the England Rugby team, our loyal gutter press are reading and waiting with a large knife to stick in the back at the first opportunity.

Continually trying to stir things up throughout the Test series with regard to Ajmal's action clearly didn't work (ok, Andy Flower gave them a bit of a story), but undeterred our press keep going, in the hope of finally unearthing some muck that they can spread, or in this latest case, trying to create a story that probably isn't even there.

Why is it that the question of Cook and Broad undermining Strauss' captaincy in the Test team wasn't raised at the start of the series? What's the difference in what is being asked at the moment?

This latest story is utter crap and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. The three men (Strauss, Cook and Broad) clearly have the utmost respect for each other as men, cricketers and captains, and seem happy to me to let each other get on with their respective jobs.

It is testimony to the team spirit England have built up over the past 18-24 months how effortlessly the three captains can switch.

Finally, by all means if there is something that needs exposing, by all means the press are well within their rights to do so and I would expect nothing less. But all this digging and scratching around for something that clearly isn't there and trying to create a conflict (as with the Ajmal issue) is totally out of order in my view.

Mike Parry V Stan Collymore on Twitter

2012-02-19T17:44:00.001-08:00

There was an amazing spat between two old Talksport foes on Saturday evening/night, as the Twitter accounts of both Mike Parry and Stan Collymore went into overdrive in an extraordinary exchange of insults and views.

The immediate row seems to be an overspill from a clash in the Director's Box at the Everton V Blackpool game on Saturday, Collymore claimed a drunk Parry abused him, while Parry has claimed Collymore called him out publicly, and left him with no option but to reply.

I follow them both on Twitter and from that I know that Parry has been goading Collymore for a few weeks now. I'll nail my colours to the mast before I go on, I am not a massive fan of either man for various reasons, I am on no ones side here, this is just how I see things.

On Twitter, Collymore seems to get into quite a few rows, but from what I've seen they are usually in retaliation to people having a go at him. And yes, he can also be a bit spiky at times. It may be also be a bit more than just a coincidence that this always seems to happen to Stan, who knows? Form your own opinions there.

On the whole though, I find Collymore is constructive and doesn't go out of his way to cause trouble, he doesn't shy from an argument either though and I suppose it would be fair to say that he uses his Twitter account to retaliate to anyone who has upset him.

Whereas Parry seems to use Twitter to have a go at people or goad them. He did a similar thing with Robbie Savage some months back, when he seemed to be having a dig at him almost every day.

I noticed a similar theme developing between Parry and Collymore. A few weeks back I seen a tweet from Parry calling Collymore a disgusting individual who threatened to throw a young Talksport employee off a balcony of their hotel in South Africa while covering the world cup in 2010.

It seemed unprovoked, I didn't see anything from Collymore towards Parry that prompted him to raise this issue. I have also never seen Collymore deny this claim, but I got the impression that Parry was trying to draw Collymore out into an argument back then.

If this claim is true - and I have no reason to doubt it isn't - it doesn't paint a great picture of Collymore, it only further serves peoples (already well established) views that he is bullying woman beater. But did Parry really need to come out with it though? It could be one of those 'what goes on on tour, stays on tour' scenarios.

Either way, Parry continued with his attack on Collymore with further tweets about his chequered past. It seems obvious that Parry hates Collymore, but I got the impression that he was maybe trying to create a name for himself.

He seemed to be attempting to follow in the footsteps of his mate (whom he regularly brown noses on Twitter) Piers Morgan, who can often be seen just trying to pick a fight by insulting people, mainly Manchester United footballers.

People might think this is ok or amusing, but it seems to me a bit childish to just pick people out to attack them on Twitter just because you don't like them or they have pissed you off in the past, some might well say it's a form of cyber bullying.

Parry has regularly called Collymore a bully, but is what Parry's doing also a form of bullying? Anyway that's another debate.

According to Collymore's tweets on Saturday, Parry was drunk and abusing him at the match, he claimed that it has been reported to officials at Goodison Park, so it will be interesting to see what (if anything) happens there.

I first noticed the tweets at about 6.30pm, I went out for a couple of hours and put Twitter back on at about 11.30pm after watching the boxing and the tweets were still flowing from Parry's account then, it was unbelievable.

What had started out as a bit amusing and a bit of a laugh at about 6.30 had now become farcical. Both men seem to be entrenched with their opinions on each other, and neither look set to back down.

I've just looked and Parry is still having a go and it's a full 28-30 hours after this latest spat started, Collymore has also tweeted that he has spoken to his solicitor and that Parry will need to substantiate some of his claims.

Where's it all going to end?

Whitewashed

2012-02-08T16:28:00.000-08:00

I could put a spin on things and say that in the 1st test England were a bit rusty, in the 2nd test we dominated things until the final day, and in the 3rd test we just had nothing to play for - but that would be a load of bollocks.

Fair's fair, a spade is a spade on this blog and credit goes where credit is due. And the facts are, that Pakistan comprehensively outplayed England over the 3 tests and fully deserved their 3-0 whitewash.

No excuses, none of this rubbish about Ajmal's action, it was a good old fashioned hammering, brought on by a combination of home conditions, good responsible leadership and an excellent well balanced Pakistan team.

It would now appear that there are 5 evenly matched competitive teams in test cricket, Pakistan, England, India, Australia and South Africa.

People will debate about who is better than who, but in my view they are all of similar ability. All are strong at home and all are decent in their own conditions, while some don't travel too well and some can't play at all in differing conditions.

It will be an interesting next 12-18 months to see if one team will emerge from the pack as the outstanding side.

Onto England, and I've said it on this blog for a few years now - if the batsmen can put the runs on the board, then the bowlers are good enough to win us the test matches.

Since Trott and Broad put together that massive 332 run partnership against Pakistan at Lord's in 2010, England's batting has gone from strength to strength, that's why we have won as many test matches as we have lately, and as soon as it starts misfiring again, this is what happens.

I expected our batsmen to struggle a bit in this series, but not to this extent. On the whole they all struggled, I half expected Trott and Morgan might, as they haven't really toured in these conditions before, but the rest...

Bell didn't know what end of the bat he was using, and he is supposed to be our most technically sound batsman, he must be embarrassed at how stupid Ajmal has made him look.

Pietersen can't get to grips at all with slow left armers - this could be starting to become a fatal flaw for him, Strauss has been struggling for some time now, while Cook at least showed glimpses of what he is capable of.

I don't expect massive changes in the batting for Sri Lanka, and in fairness they have built up some credit over the years and deserve some loyalty. I suppose only Eoin Morgan's place will be questioned, and lets be honest the only alternative, Ravi Bopara, has hardly demanded to be picked with his performances, has he?

Onto the ODI squad for the remainder of this tour and I have no problem with Ian Bell being left out, he has no place in the middle order, so unless he is going to open there is little point in keeping him in the squad.

A top 3 of Cook, Bell and Trott probably wouldn't strike fear into anybody, which is why I'm happy to see Kevin Pietersen opening the batting instead. I think this is a good positive move and I really hope England stick with it and give him and Cook a run together and a chance to really build a partnership.

Pietersen opening also gives him the chance to play himself in against the seamers, it would be a hell of a brave captain who gives his slow left arm bowler the new ball in 50 over cricket.

I'm happy to see Jonny Bairstow retained, and call ups for Danny Briggs and Jos Buttler, the middle order needs a hitter like Bairstow or Buttler, or maybe even Kieswetter for that matter. Kieswetter is a lucky boy to retain his place and needs to make a significant contribution in this series.

And finally Samit Patel, I would like to see England really back him and give him a run in this side to give him the chance to prove himself. I do believe he could be a really handy cricketer if things click for him.

Play Up Sky Blues

2012-02-01T16:47:00.000-08:00

Going to take a little break from blogging about Cricket tonight to have a moan about something else close to my heart, Coventry City football club.

Last night's 2-1 defeat away at Blackpool was the second time this season that the team I support has managed to lose an away game after leading 1-0 going into the final 3-4 minutes, the other game was against Crystal Palace early on in the season.

When you are leading a game going into the last 5 minutes, the worst case scenario you can imagine is drawing the game, so to end up losing it must be a real kick in the teeth.

I believe last night's defeat could be far more significant though, we already looked doomed to go down to Division 1 for next season, but what happened last night could just about have sealed our relegation.

If the team had hung on for all 3 points we would have been off the bottom, we would have had an away win to go with the recent 3 home victories, all of a sudden we could have looked back at our recent results and taken heart from them and maybe believed that we had a good chance of staying up.

That's why I think this defeat could be so significant. How does a young inexperienced team come back from that again?

To most Coventry City fans these days what goes on on the pitch is almost secondary to what is happening off it. There is the constant fear of administration, even liquidation has been mentioned in some quarters, as the clubs owners SISU continue to cut costs down to the bone.

I can totally understand cutting costs as to keep losing money is unsustainable, but SISU's current position at the club is also unsustainable.

There is no way in the current climate that the club can become profitable, to do that SISU would need to own the ground. There is no way that is going to happen, as the grounds owners - the City council and the Alan Edward Higgs Charity - will not even entertain the thought of selling an asset of the whole of the City of Coventry to a group of faceless venture capitalists.

In reality, I believe that it is checkmate against SISU at the moment, they would appear to have no where to go, so why they are hanging in there I don't know. There is a group of would be investors fronted by City fan Gary Hoffman, who has contacts in the world of finance after spending 30 years in the business which at one time seen him as chairman of Barclaycard.

I am in no doubt that Hoffman has the finances, he also is rumoured to already have a deal struck with the council to buy half of the Ricoh arena, paramount if the club is to be run as a profitable going concern.

So at the moment, all I can see that SISU are doing is holding out for a better deal. But the club is worthless, they have no home, a threadbare playing squad and are heading for relegation. Hoffman is also a businessman and is all too aware that the club has no value, so it would appear that a game of Poker is currently taking place - while the team slides toward Division 1.

If a deal is to be struck in the next couple of weeks, we could have a chance as I would presume that manager Andy Thorn would be given the funds to go out and strengthen his squad with loan signings - hopefully much needed experienced ones.

But as it stands we have our squad if willing kids, who are currently giving their all. This coming Saturday sees Coventry at home to Ipswich, this could really be the defining game of the season. If we can show character and bounce back, we have a chance. If Tuesday's result really has knocked the stuffing out of us and we lose again, I think we are all but condemned to Division 1.

Taking the Positives

2012-01-28T00:31:00.000-08:00

‎'Taking the Positives' was a phrase that became synonymous with England towards the end of Duncan Fletcher's reign as coach (and under Peter Moores to be fair), and it would be the phrase rolled out every time England got a disappointing result.

It would be fair to say that Fletcher hasn't had the chance to take 'too many positives' out of his last 8 tests in charge of India. But at last there is a positive and it comes in the form of 'Virat Kohli.'

Kohli's maiden test century could have come a lot earlier than it has, but it has come at a timely moment for Fletcher with pressure on him to make wholesale changes to the team after their second whitewash.

With some of the old guard likely to be replaced, the last thing Fletcher needed was clamour for Kholi to be dropped also, or to be carrying him in the test side at a time of transition.

Obviously one innings doesn't mean he has made it at test level, but for a while at least it should silence the doubters who have pigeon holed him as an ODI batsmen only.

So at least that is one less headache for Fletcher in the immediate aftermath of his latest thrashing

Is this the end for Chris Tremlett?

2012-01-25T17:40:00.000-08:00

With the news that Chris Tremlett has flown home from the Pakistan series with yet another injury, I wonder have we maybe seen the last of him in an England shirt?

That might sound a bit extreme, but there are a number of reasons why I think this may be the end of his international career.

He is only 30, but he has had a lot of injuries over the years, a point which won't be lost on the selectors.

He was out of the side in the summer with injury, and he is now out again injured. As a result of this the selectors might feel his old fitness frailties are coming back to haunt him.

This latest injury set back might just persuade the selectors to look to the future. There is now Steven Finn pushing hard for a recall, the return to fitness and form of Graham Onions, the emerging Jade Dernbach and Stuart Meaker, and not forgetting the man in possession of the shirt when he is fit - Tim Bresnan.

Onto the first days play of the 2nd test, and I'm sure that England would have settled for Pakistan finishing the day on 256/7 when they won the toss and elected to bat on a supposed flat, batsman's paradise.

But with the dropped catches, I'm sure that Andrew Strauss will be disappointed to not have already bowled Pakistan out, Anderson's drop off Misbah could be the most costly.

I was pleased to see Monty play, if the pitch was supposed to be flat and unresponsive to seam, then I didn't see the point in playing three seamers. Pietersen would have ended up bowling a shed load of overs and all 3 seamers would have been rotated and under used.

At least England have shown they are prepared to stray away from their rigid tried and tested routine. Yes, it has got them to No1, but refusing to improvise a bit and adapt to conditions could see them quickly lose No1 status.

Today showed that England aren't scared to change tactics, playing two spinners might not win them the game, but I believe it is the right move for this test match.

You can now follow Cricket Betting Blog on Facebook and Twitter.

England can play with a straight bat after all

2012-01-21T09:58:00.000-08:00

But it's not any of the batsmen I'm on about, it's Andy Flower.

By straight batting away questions about Saeed Ajmal's bowling action (mainly in the form of his Doosra), Flower is basically refusing to endorse his action and has probably risked causing another breakdown in relations between the two sides, relations that are currently only in the infancy of being rebuilt.

Personally I think it's more the English media up to a bit of mischief making, rather than the England team. The media seem to be asking anyone at any opportunity about Ajmal's action, and in fairness so far Strauss, Prior and Swann have already refused to take the bait, instead insisting it isn't an issue.

Andy Flower on the other hand, didn't say anything, but he also refused to endorse the action when asked, a lack of action he must have known would grab the attention of the sh-t stirrers and headline writers.

Flower isn't stupid, which is why I'm fairly sure this was a calculated (lack of ) response.

I think that Flower knows that England were outwitted by Ajmal and the Pakistani management in the build up to the 1st test. He knows that Ajmal has got into the heads of his batsmen with all this talk of the so called Teesra, etc, so by doing this, Flower is attempting to try to unsettle Ajmal.

By allowing the debate into Ajmal's action to take off, Flower may be hoping that all the talk will unsettle Ajmal and put him off his game. If he has got into the heads of the English batsmen though, it makes me wonder will it make any difference anyway..... as it is probably already way too late.

You can follow Cricket Betting Blog on Facebook and Twitter.

Well Played Pakistan

2012-01-19T15:23:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to come on here tonight and start writing about how bad England were as I don't want to take anything away from Pakistan's amazing result today.

I thought that Pakistan have been excellent in this test match and they thoroughly deserved their win. It wasn't just the win that was impressive, but the manner of the performance as Pakistan comprehensively outplayed England.

I seen bits of the match and I listened to most of the rest of it on TMS. The thing that impressed me the most was the discipline and control of the Pakistan team, they are not words I would generally associate with a Pakistan cricket team.

They all seemed to be pulling in the same direction, they looked and sounded committed in the field, there was no stupid dropped catches and no reckless shots when batting. There was also no getting over excited and no erratic behaviour at all.

The team now seems to me to be more in the mould of the personalities of the impressive captain Misbah and the calm Younis Khan, as opposed to the recklessness of Shahid Afridi or the laziness of Inzy.

I have to say that this performance didn't come as too much of a surprise to me (England's batsmen did though) as I follow test cricket closely and have noticed how Pakistan have been steadily improving over the last 12-18 months.

Wicket keeper Adnan Akmal (the disciplined Akmal brother who can catch) did surprise me, he was outstanding. For me, he was my Man of the Match. He didn't miss much behind the stumps (unlike Kamran) and he applied himself when batting (unlike Umar). I don't think it would be too harsh to say that he looks the least talented of the three brothers, but by far the most effective performer of the three on this showing.

He dug in at a crucial stage on Day 2 when England were fighting back and then played brilliantly with the tail at the start of Day 3. His innings could really have been the straw that broke the English camels back, the extra 25-35 runs he got that he probably shouldn't have been allowed to by England could have struck the mental blow that downed England's batting in their 2nd innings.

Result aside, it was a bit of a disappointing test match, it was only really competitive on the 2nd day. That was a proper contest between England's bowlers and Pakistan's batsmen, the English bowlers must have wondered why they bothered busting a gut given the pathetic capitulation from most of the batsmen.

England's batting was pretty poor, they could have been spooked by Saeed Ajmal, I don't know. I certainly expected them to struggle against him, but he didn't really have to weave any magic - apart from to Ian Bell - as England's batting seemed to be petrified of him on Day 1.

Along with Ajmal, Umar Gul is a more than capable test match bowler (and a world class one day performer), but this attack wasn't exactly Wasim and Waqar in their prime, there was no Shoaib Akhtar steaming in. There was no reason at all to suggest it would take care of England's batting in the manner it did, so why did it?

You can now follow Cricket Betting Blog on Facebook and Twitter.

Oh dear, England

2012-01-17T16:38:00.000-08:00

I went to bed very tired on Monday night for various reason, mainly a lack of sleep, so with this in mind I didn't intent to get up early to catch the start of the cricket - and what a good decision that turned out to be!

I did wake up early(ish), so I checked the app on my smart phone (no, I don't have an iphone, I'm not rich enough) and seen that England were 42/4 (effectively 42/5 as Pietersen was facing a slow left arm bowler at the time), and at that moment I knew I'd made the decent call not to get up.

I also noticed on the app that there was a brief report on it about how Strauss had won the toss and elected to bat, and it mentioned how the wicket didn't look like it had anything in it, etc. Not sure if they were the words of Struass' or not, as I was still too bleary eyed and shocked to take it all in properly.

It was at this point that I put my phone down and rolled back over and tried to get another half hour.

When I finally surfaced it was lunch and - yes - Pietersen had succumbed to the left armer and we were 5 down. I then sat through a pre recorded interview with Andy Flower in which he talked about how England had upped their run rate in test cricket, etc, etc - I have to say that the irony of the situation certainly wasn't lost on me with just the 55 runs in the previous session.

I couldn't help but feel at the time that the whole thing had a calamitous look about it, that it was destined to get worse.

In the end I'm not sure it did, as to get to where we did get after the lunch scorecard wasn't a bad effort in the end. Matt Prior showed what a top class performer he has now become and just about kept England in the match with his innings.

I think (and hope) this could turn out to be a significant innings for Prior, because I can see his keeping perhaps struggling a bit on these dusty surfaces over the next three tours. This innings may be just the tonic to get him off on the right footing and will hopefully set the tone for his performances both, in front off and behind the stumps.

England are just about still in this game, will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.

You can now follow Cricket Betting Blog on Facebook and Twitter.

Will Fletcher finally wield the axe in Adelaide?

2012-01-15T17:30:00.000-08:00

There will be at least one enforced change for India in the 4th test with MS Dhoni (probably gladly) suspended, but will Duncan Fletcher show a real signal of intent and drop one of the old guard and start rebuilding now?

One of Dravid or VVS could/should go. They've both been great players, but they are the two you would have expected to dig in a bit more during this series and make things a lot harder for Australia. Instead, when these two have gone, the whole team has collapsed around them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not blaming just those two, but they are two of the rocks that this test side is built around, but they haven't resisted enough lately, they are both getting on now and are most definitely not the future for India.

Dare I also mention Sachin Tendulkar's name in all this without being bombarded with complaints? The great man surely has to be close to the end of his test career also, when did he last play a defining test innings for India?

It sure will be interesting to see the India team that takes to the field in Adelaide.

Where is Ijaz Butt?

2012-01-13T17:11:00.000-08:00

An Englishman has just pleaded guilty to a charge related to spot fixing and Ijaz Butt has this magnificent opportunity to be shouting about it from the roof tops, but he is no where to be seen or heard. Why?

Butt must have been longing for this day over the past 18 months so that he could put the boot into England over match fixing and kick us off the morale high ground that we English had been occupying until yesterday.

I'm sure though that he will speak out soon, he is probably just preparing a massive statement and is taking his time over it to make sure he gets in as many telling blows as is possible.

So come on Ijaz, hurry up. I can't wait much longer.....

Mervyn Westfield - The first of many?

2012-01-12T17:08:00.000-08:00

Today, Mervyn Westfield became the first English cricketer to be convicted of 'corruptly accepting or obtaining, or agreeing to accept or obtain, corrupt payments' for his part in on field corruption in a Pro-40 match between Essex and Durham back in 2009.

The first thought that came into my head is that he probably isn't the only English (or county) player who has got involved in something like this.

Westfield's crimes would have been committed long before the Pakistani trio's conviction, and I doubt very much at the time that he thought he could end up in jail for accepting a £6K bribe.

But jail is probably where he is heading. A precedent of sorts was set with the Pakistani trio, although I'm not sure of the circumstances regarding Westfield's confession.

For example Butt and Asif denied everything to the very bitter end, while Amir's confession wasn't deemed sincere enough by the judge to gain him any leniency in sentencing. So that's part of the reason why those three got what seemed harsh sentences.

The sincerity of Westfield's confession, whether or not he is prepared to spill the beans, etc, could depend on the outcome of his sentence.

The problem now though is that if he gets away with a custodial sentence, people will cry foul play - one rule for the Brits, and another for the foreigners. And who could blame them?

It is also very embarrassing the the English cricketing fraternity, for years now they/we have claimed the morale high ground, how everyone else is under suspicion, but we are cleaner than clean. That image has now also been smashed, and as I eluded too in the title of this post, how many more could there be?

I'm not naive enough to think Westfield is the only one, and at the same time I'm sure there is plenty more international cricketers (of all nationality's) still out there playing who have plenty to hide.

The thing that struck me the most though, is what he has thrown away, and all for six grand. What he has done is the equivalent of going into his local Curry's or Comet store with a sawn off shotgun and holding it up, just to rob a three hundred quid TV - It is such an out of proportion payment for the risks involved.

I do actually think that maybe Westfield didn't understand the magnitude of his actions. If he was confident enough to show a team mate the money (as he is alleged to have done) and told him how he got it, then he either didn't realise how serious this was, or he is totally stupid.

And to finish, I heard on the radio report today about this case that Westfield was mixed up with a man well known in cricketing circles who is believed to have influenced him in this direction.

Well who is this man and why isn't he been outed? Let's hope the reason for the silence is because the police are close to pulling him in.

Haddin 'drops' a bombshell this time

2012-01-10T16:31:00.000-08:00

It's amazing that Brad Haddin has had the nerve to speak out and put the boot into India. Haddin's remark that India break quicker than any other team in the world when things go against them, took me by surprise to say the least.

If I was Haddin, I would be keeping my head down and my mouth shut and just concentrating on my own game, after all, he could easily have been dropped by now. In fact, it might not be too harsh to say that Haddin has only 'held onto' his place (but not much more) by default.

Having said all that, if I was an Aussie, in a way I wouldn't be disappointed. Haddin's remarks are a sure sign that the team is beginning to regain its swagger and arrogance, it could be interpreted as a sign of the teams returning confidence and self belief that one of it's supposed under pressure players feels confident enough to speak out in this manner - and after all............... he is probably right with what he said.

Zaheer has hit back though, claiming it's Haddin's keeping that looks fragile. It could all be about to go off again....

Which Aussie opener would you pick?

2011-12-13T17:37:00.000-08:00

One is just a slogger, he has no technique, no patience and will never make it at test level, while the other one is Phil Hughes.

In 2009 Hughes was supposed to be the shining light and the first of a new exciting generation of Australian cricketers to come through. Angus Fraser was slaughtered for giving him the opportunity to come to England pre Ashes, and get his eye in while playing for Middlesex.

The English cricketing world was dismayed that Fraser should be doing the Aussies a favour like this, it was outrageous as a player of the talent of Hughes surely didn't need any more help, he was already going to cane England as it was.

In the end, what did the stint at Middlesex do for Hughes? Absolutely nothing in the short term as he was found out by the short ball, and he has never really recovered from this in my opinion.

The recent test series against New Zealand represented a new low for Hughes, it was so bad I even witnessed poms on Twitter saying they felt sorry for him. He was also derided in the Channel 9 commentary box, where he was basically a laughing stock from what I heard.

And this is the guy that the Aussie selectors dumped Simon Katich for.

The other half of the temporary opening partnership, David Warner, the man brought in to keep Shane Watson's place warm, the man with no test pedigree, has taken his chance with both hands and must now be a certainty to keep his place ahead of Hughes when Watson returns.

Warner reminds me more of Steve Waugh, or Paul Collingwood, a man with grit, determination and plenty of backbone, a born fighter. While Hughes is looking more and more like Mark Ramprakash and the Ian Bell of 3 or 4 years back, with every passing test. He doesn't look to posses the fight, or have the self belief or the hunger to be a test cricketer.

Another player in the Warner mould is Eoin Morgan, he doesn't look a test natural either, but he looks to have that bit of steel and mental toughness needed at this level, unlike Ravi Bopara who apparently has all the shots.

Warner and Morgan might not be as talented as Hughes and Bopara, but like Geoff Miller said recently, it's the complete package that you need to look for, it's no good having all the shots if you haven't the temperament to go with it.

Warner looked like a typical Aussie to me last weekend, unlike Hughes, who looked anything but.

Selectors show Consistency

2011-12-10T01:50:00.001-08:00

There is no real shocks in the touring party named on Friday to take on Pakistan next month. Some might say that Bopara's name still being included is a shock, but one thing the selectors can't be accused of, is inconsistency.

Ravi Bopara for Paul Collingwood is the only change from last years Ashes touring squad, and Collingwood had to go. It's an obvious factor in all sports that instability isn't a recipe for success, England's selectors (at test level) have made sure that isn't going to be a problem.

With regard to Ravi, any regular readers will know I'm not his biggest fan at test level. But at the same time I haven't really got a problem with his selection here, he is been given every chance to succeed by the selectors at the moment in exactly the same way as Ian Bell and Alastair cook were, so from that prospective, the selectors are again showing consistency.

Maybe Samit Patel might have pushed him for his place as a batting all rounder who can bowl spin, but in fairness to Ravi, Patel hasn't done enough to justify a place on a test touring party.

I'm not sure what James Taylor is currently doing, Geoff Miller said something about a Lions tour on the radio yesterday, but I'm sure a year playing cricket at a higher standard with Nottinghamshire (no disrespect meant to Leicestershire) will do him a world of good before he steps up to international level.

Apart from that the squad is as expected, I'm glad to see the selectors stick with Steven Davies, he was given a harsh lesson 12 months back and hopefully he has made the required changes to his personality (there was apparently a theory that he wasn't vocal or aggressive enough behind the stumps), and there was no way on earth that Craig Kieswetter could have took the spot.

With his international experience and last seasons form Monty was a shoe in as the back up spinner, the fact that England have only named two in the squad suggests to me they are probably (in the majority of matches) planning on only using one in the team.

A show of just how strong England currently are in the bowling department is the fact that in reserve we have Monty Panesar, Chris Tremlett (assuming Bresnan keeps his place) and Steven Finn.

Tremlett and Bresnan played a major role in winning the Ashes last winter and both won't even get in the same side unless there is an injury.

I believe that Pakistan will provide a stern test for England here, they seem to be finding their feet in the UAE, they also have a good mix of youth and experience and now have a settled team, and as a result are starting to put a run of impressive performances together.

In the past (in ODI's in particular) England haven't adapted too well to differing conditions. If they are serious about staying at the top of test cricket, this is surely a series they will be looking to win, or at the very least, not loose.

Graeme Swann on 5 Live

2011-12-01T15:01:00.001-08:00

I heard Graeme Swann giving an interview to Radio 5 Live earlier today and as usual Swanny was good value and pulled no punches in telling it like it was.

When asked to clarify his recent remarks about his views on ODI cricket, Swann denied saying it should be scrapped, but did say that it should be taking up a lesser part of the cricketing calender.

Swann said that 5 and 7 match series should be reduced to just 3 match series. His whole attitude sounded to me like he doesn't have the heart and desire to play 50 over cricket any more.

In my opinion he basically said that he is sick and tired of playing too much international 50 over cricket and that he has fallen out of love with this format of the game.

If there is more than him with that view in the squad, then maybe it's time for a shake up from Andy Flower.

He also added that the home series with India was far more enjoyable because it was a shorter series (due to the weather) and that the shorter ones are generally more competitive.

He gave some very interesting and forthright views and these remarks probably go a long way to explaining why England got thrashed off the park by India's reserves in their most recent ODI series.

I was pleased to hear him say how much he loves playing test cricket and that he believes this format and T20 is the best way forward. And in a further twist, when asked about his remarks about KP's captaincy, he also added Alastair Cook's name to the list of people he believes to not be natural leaders, although he did put 'yet' in that sentence.

Onto another of Swann's targets in his book, Samit Patel, and I was pleased to read today that Samit has decided not to put himself up for next years IPL auction, instead deciding he wants to play Championship cricket in a bid to get himself in the test team.

I think that's great, but I believe that he has no chance of getting in the side as a spinner and little chance of making the top 6 as a batsman. Maybe he could get the No.6 role as a batting all rounder if he could score shed loads of runs, but that's as good as it will get for him.

The cynic in me though suggests that Patel is being very crafty here. The touring party for next year's test series against Pakistan in the UAE is named shortly, and Patel has just showed how committed he is to England ahead of the selection of a tour party that will be spinner heavy.

This is one of those rare series in which England will probably pick two spinners in the team, and this is clearly Patel's best chance of getting a test call up.

Tim Bresnan has showed how you can force your way into this team, there could be a window of opportunity opening up for Patel this winter, it will be interesting to see if he can make the most of it.

Conspiracy Theories

2011-11-28T01:10:00.001-08:00

The pitch at Wankhede Stadium used for last weeks drab (with the exception of the 5th day) 3rd test between India and West Indies raised more than a few eyebrows from interested observers (outside of India in particular).

There appears to be a school of thought doing the rounds that the pitch was produced purely for Sachin to get his 100th international century. I can see why people might think this, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I'd rather look at the facts.

Like England produce bowler friendly wickets for our seam bowlers, India also play to their strengths and regularly produce batsmen friendly wickets that suit the spinners later on in the test, as the home side that is their prerogative and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

West Indies' batting also has a bad habit of regularly collapsing, as it did in this test match. Add to this that all ten 2nd innings wickets fell to the spinners and was it really anything out of the ordinary? Probably not.

From my own prospective, I though that the pitch was pathetically easy to score on. If West Indies can score just under 600 runs on it, then either the bowling is abysmal, or the pitch is too batsmen friendly.

I hope that the pitch wasn't produced with one man in mind, I would be very disgusted if it was. The good of test cricket comes before all, even Sachin, and he is good enough to complete his feat without any additional help.

I did notice on Twitter this morning a couple of articles doing the rounds that were pointing to the fact that the wickets on the 5th day proved that this wasn't a 'Sachin' pitch. This proved nothing to me, as it was a familiar West Indian style batting collapse, followed by wickets falling in a run chase.

Onto the thorny issue of spot-fixing again. I did originally think that the jail sentence handed down to Salman Butt in the spot fixing trial was a bit harsh. With both Salman Butt and Mohammad Amir appealing last week, I expected to see Butt (at least) get a slight reduction on the length of his sentence.

I was very surprised to see both their appeals dismissed. When I heard the outcome I couldn't help think if this had been two Premier League footballers, then they would have been back out on the streets at least a couple of weeks ago.

It will be interesting to see if Mohammad Asif gets anywhere with his appeal, I don't know how the judicial system works and whether Asif will be facing a different judge with his appeal. But after the outcome of these two, I doubt he will be too optimistic either way.

Of the three men in question, if I'm honest I have a personal dislike for Asif. I have always found there to be something suspicious and shifty looking about him and I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.

Knowing him, he is probably the most guilty, and he will probably be the one who gets a reduced sentence.

The biggest shock of all for me over the past 10 days or so is the appointment of South African, Mickey Arthur to be the new coach of Australia, the Aussies first ever foreign coach. If there was no Aussie of any stature in the running for the job I could understand this appointment, but there was.

Ok, so Justin Langer isn't an experienced coach like Arthur, but Tom Moody was in the running and he has coached all over the world. This must feel like a right kick in the teeth for Moody (you may need Peter Crouch to administer such a kick).

In Arthur's defence, he has been coaching in Australia, so at least he has had a good look at all the young talent in the country and as England have found with Andy Flower, a foreign coach can bring an "unblinkered eye to the role," (Arthur's words).

I'm also pleased to see John Inverarity in the role of Australia's National Selector. Inverarity is a former Warwickshire coach and should bring a vast amount of experience and know how to his role within the new Australian set up.

Lord Condon stokes the fire of the fixing debate

2011-11-16T14:52:00.001-08:00

Lord Condon, once the head of the ICC's anti-corruption unit, has upset plenty in England over his comments that match fixing was rife in English county cricket in the 1980's.

He also claimed that tests and world cup matches were being fixed routinely in the late 1990's and that every international team, at some stage, had someone doing some funny stuff.

I don't dispute for a minute that there is more than a strong possibility that domestic matches were decided with nods, winks, and "we'll go easy today in the county championship and you go easy in the Sunday league game" (usually in the middle of the county championship game) scenarios, back in the 1980's, and they are still going on today to some extent with the manufactured run chases.

Back in the 1980's, county cricket was more of an old boys club, no relegation worries, not so many financial worries (if memory serves me right), there was also fewer restrictions on gambling back then. There also wasn't the explosion in gambling that we see today.

In short, it wouldn't have been called match fixing back in those days.

It is a general allegation and it is easy for Condon to say that about the county championship back in those days, the problem is, that it is a damaging accusation to all those players of that era.

I'm sure that it could also be said that some players of that era were also racists, as the sort of language that is regarded as a racist slur these days, was (wrongly) seen as acceptable back then.

Does this mean that some/all players of this era were racists as well? This is the damage that sweeping allegations can do.

Times are different now, it doesn't make it right, but all these things were accepted as the norm back in those days, so to retrospectively call it match fixing seems a bit harsh to me. It was probably a form of match fixing, but it can't be compared to the multi-billion pound gambling industry that is attempting to organise spot-fixing these days.

Onto the international scene of tests and world cup matches in the 1990's, and that's a totally different scenario. No one could have been doing a county championship style 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' in test and world cup fixtures, the prospect of that is just totally incomprehensible.

In general, I don't agree with Condon making sweeping statements (about county cricket), but in the instance of his international accusation, I don't believe this to be a sweeping one. Condon said that every international team, at some stage, had someone doing some funny stuff. That's a more specific accusation, it says to me that the ICC (may) know of, or suspect, certain individuals.

Lord Condon is a man of integrity and highly intelligent, I don't believe him to be making outlandish statements just to gain publicity here.

Why he has said this without naming names? I don't know, maybe there is not enough evidence, or maybe the evidence is word of mouth? These is probably never going to be a paper trail either.

It's all well and good people like David Lloyd getting their knickers in a twist over this insinuation, but what's the alternative, say nothing and continue to bury all the collective heads?

I wish that if Condon has strong evidence he would say who he alleges is guilty and get this all out in the open, also to give the accused the opportunity to clear their names, I know that he probably won't though due to legal reasons.

One possible scenario that would shed some light on all this would be a Parliamentary Select Committee investigation. Lord Condon would have to be called in light of what he has said and the work he did in the anti corruption unit, I do believe that he would also have Parliamentary immunity from prosecution and so would be free to name names.

The English FA in football have recently had to give evidence to a Select Committee about how it is run, so why not cricket?

After all cricket is a national sport, it's reputation is currently getting dragged through the gutter, so why shouldn't Parliament get involved?

Will they cop on before it's too late?

2011-11-15T00:41:00.001-08:00

More attempts at killing test cricket in Kolkata this morning. Bad light stops play before lunch at Eden Gardens, a ground that has recently had massive amounts spent on it and could probably do with the revenue brought in by those people left who are still remotely interested in wanting to watch test cricket - and more importantly, a ground with floodlights..

I understand that Darren Sammy was only doing what was best for his team (in the short term) by deliberately bringing on his quick bowlers. What I can't understand is why did he, as captain of West Indies, and MS Dhoni decide at the start of the series not too use the floodlights in the event of bad light?

It was reported in the commentary that both teams decided the lights wouldn't be used. Was it actually a case of both captains deciding this, or is it a case that they couldn't decide, so the default setting is that if a decision can't be reached, the floodlights stay off?

What I really can't understand though is why ICC haven't taken this negative tactic out of the players hands and decided that they will make it mandatory that teams play under floodlights in bad light, obviously within reasonable conditions.

I'm sure if I search back through this blog, I will find numerous articles wrote by me on this subject, and there will no doubt be more until something is done and ICC decide to enforce this much needed rule change instead of letting test cricket slowly strangle any life it has left in it, out of itself.

Peter Roebuck 1956-2011

2011-11-13T14:29:00.001-08:00

I got up this morning to see the sad news that Peter Roebuck had died late last night. I'm not going to go into the reasons why he might have killed himself, that is for another day, and there is clearly a lot more to come out with regard to the circumstances leading up to his suicide.

There is a couple of points that have struck me today reading all the tributes to Roebuck. One is the exceptional high regard he was held in as a journalist, the other being that people seemed to think he was a complex character who was hard to understand.

Roebuck first came to my attention during the controversy surrounding Somerset's decision to replace Viv Richards and Joel Garner as the counties overseas players, and the subsequent falling out with Ian Botham.

I remember as a youngster obsessed with the likes of Botham and Richards been amazed by Roebuck's actions , ignorant of the bigger picture.

Some years later when I was old enough to fully understand what had really happened and why it had happened, I soon came to realise that Roebuck was in fact a strong man who wasn't afraid to make decisions that weren't popular with the masses.

He wasn't afraid to stand alone with his views and his actions, and this was a trait that stuck with him throughout his career in cricket and journalism. People like that are few and far between these days.