The Short Midwicket

The ODI Bell tolls for Ian

2012-02-08T00:11:00.000Z

The curious case of Ian Bell has plagued England's One Day side for quite a while now. Clearly ridiculously talented, Bell just hasn't got it together in ODIs, with just one century from 108 games and a worse-than-expected average of just 34.04. While his test form has gone through the roof in the past two years (this Pakistan series excepted), if anything his ODI form has gone downhill, with only one fifty in the last fourteen games. After not making the team for the first four games of England's most recent ODI tour, he hasn't even made the squad for this to-be-played Pakistan series in the UAE. So is Ian Bell's ODI career over? Or indeed, should it be?

Well, simply put, the performances of Ian Bell in ODIs sum up England's failing in the fifty over format. A few starts here and there, but very rarely the big match-winning score, and when the pressure's on, he hasn't been the man to put his hand up for the team (Bell averages just 26 in games England have lost). Add to that a poor away record (averaging 28 in games outside England), and Ian Bell's ODI history is a microcosm of England and their general lack of consistent ODI success.

The stats may be harsh on Bell, as he has been shunted up and down the order, having been employed in every position from aggressive opener, to middle-order nurdler, even to number eleven tailender (admittedly coming in with a runner due to a broken foot), and the England management's inability to find a regular slot or gameplan for Bell could well sum up why England just haven't got it right in fifty over cricket as well. But, he's been given countless chances to impress at ODI level, and hasn't done it. Eventually somebody had to be ruthless and give him the boot.

Mediocrity has almost become a by-word for English batsmen in ODI cricket over the past ten years, and probably well before that as well. Players who are clearly naturally talented, or have had sparkling test careers just haven't cut it in limited over cricket, yet have been allowed prolonged stays in the side, without ever producing. Owais Shah - 71 matches, averaging 30 with only one hundred. Michael Vaughan - 86 matches, averaging 27, no hundreds. Ravi Bopara - 69 matches, averaging 29 with no hundreds. These are not numbers that lead to a successful side. You can add to that post 2008 Kevin Pietersen - 36 matches, averaging 25 with no centuries. The culture of "well, he's clearly a good player / scored runs in tests, so let's keep him in" has led to England being nothing more than a second rate ODI team, and if England are to become successful, has to stop.

There's no real room for sentiment in international cricket, and while Ian Bell's test exploits should be celebrated, his ODI form should be downright ridiculed. While being a good test batsman can sometimes mean you'll be a good ODI player, the Venn Diagram doesn't totally intersect. Just ask "good in ODIs, not so good in tests" Eoin Morgan for proof that the two disciplines require different talents, and don't always lead to the same results. In the likes of Alex Hales, Jos Buttler and Jonny Bairstow, England have some incredibly exciting young batsmen, who's games are perfectly set up for limited over international cricket. These are the players who England should be playing, not Ian Bell, and after a long time, it seems that the England management have realised it. While Andy Flower has spoken about how dropping Bell for this series isn't the end of his ODI career, if England are to make a success of it in the short-forms, hopefully this will be the last that we see of Ian Bell in ODIs.

The DRS "Paranoia"

2012-02-03T17:29:00.000Z

This series between Pakistan and England has seen the greatest amount of lbws in a three-test series in test history. Already 36 victims have been struck plumb in front, and have been forced to trudge back to the pavilion, with most batsmen and an increasing number of pundits blaming the rise of the DRS for the increased number of ell-bees.

So is the reason for the disproportionate number of leg-befores due to the use of technology? It’s certainly been proved that since the implementation of the review system that a greater percentage of appeals have been given by umpires, especially to spinners, as replays have shown that a lot of the previously rejected shouts would have gone on to hit the stumps. This has been a boost for the likes of Swann and Ajmal, who have been given plenty of wickets over the past couple of years that they would simply not have been given in times gone past. Umpires have seen that even when batsmen take a big stride down the pitch that the ball will sometimes go on to hit the stumps, meaning that they’re far more willing to give batsmen out. So arguably, DRS has played a part in the dismissals.

For this series, however, the DRS is being blamed for the fact that ball is hitting the pad more often. David Lloyd has spoken about the “paranoia” that the DRS is causing, leading to batsmen’s techniques falling apart and being struck plumb in front. But can the DRS really be blamed? Surely if a batsman plays with a straight bat and actually hits the ball, no amount of replays or ball-tracking technology will give them out. Yes, there have been a lot of lbws this series, but how many of those have been due to poor technique (especially by English players playing spin), and the awareness of the bowlers to exploit this by bowling at the stumps?

The DRS is said to have closed the gap in the balance between bat and ball in test cricket, and that can only be a good thing. One of the arguments against the review system is that there are a lot more wickets given than in the past – but wickets are only given if a batsman is out. Which means that in the past, batsmen who should have been given out weren’t, and if that happens to favour the bowlers then so be it. Surely that’s a lot better than incorrect decisions costing teams games? If the DRS is causing a “paranoia” amongst batsmen about how to play certain shots, then shouldn’t they getting down the nets and working on their obviously shaky technique rather than bleating about the pros or cons of technology? Hawkeye or no Hawkeye, a batsman is asking for trouble if he keeps getting hit on the back pad when standing in front of middle stump, and if the DRS is helping the umpires to get those decisions right, then that can only be of benefit to test cricket.

The DRS does have its opponents, and some arguments against its usage, many of which are very relevant and should be looked at. However, the fact that it is leading to more correct decisions being made surely isn’t one of them. Instead of looking for excuses, the batsmen should be looking at themselves and working out how to avoid being hit on the pads, as until then, the bowlers are going to keep bowling at them.

Is there need for change after the Abu Dhabi drubbing?

2012-01-28T15:39:00.001Z

If last week's result was bad, this one was worse. To lose one test heavily is unlucky, but two in a week suggests there is something drastically wrong. The worst thing about it though is that for three and a half days of the test match England were in command, with a handy first innings lead being complemented by some fine second innings bowling, but the game just slipped away from them this morning after being slightly lax in the field and hopelessly abject with the bat. The 72 all out collapse - not even getting half way to the 145 target - was up there with England's biggest headless chicken chases, not knowing whether to stick or twist, they eventually got rolled by a high-class display of spin bowling from Rehman and Ajmal. The calls for change have been made, but who should get a stay of execution, and who should be led to the chopping block?

There is an argument, of course, that there's no need to make any panic decisions based on the first two defeats in over a year. The England of Flower and Strauss don't do panic - they trust in the players that they've picked to go out after failing and turn it around. The consistency of selection over the past few years has been crucial to England's ascent to the top of the rankings, with a settled team able to play without the fear of constantly worrying about their place. And by and large, this has been a good thing. Players like Pietersen, Bell and Cook were eased through lean spells, and the results, and those individual player's performances in 2011 proved the selectors right. While England have performed badly these two weeks in the Gulf, there is a school of thought that if the selectors continue to consistently make consistent selections, those players will turn it around and the wins will come.

To a degree, I agree with those thoughts. Certainly in the case of Bell and Pietersen, two players who've come under a lot of scrutiny this series for four low scores, their exploits over the last year, where they could arguably have been named the world's number one and two test batsmen, shows that they clearly have the class and ability to score lots of runs at test level, and the fact that they've happened to have two poor games in a row doesn't change that. Calls for them to be dropped strike me as ludicrous.

The two players that have had a much longer trough than peak have been Eoin Morgan and Andrew Strauss. While Cook, Pietersen, Bell and Trott can point to (near-enough) 50 or above averages, Morgan doesn't have this to fall back on. Morgan has flattered to deceive so far in his fairly brief test career, but after 15 tests an average of 31 is just not acceptable. Indeed, his first class record in general (averaging 36 from 68 games) is unremarkable to say the least, and certainly doesn't indicate a rapid improvement of scores from the Irishman. Eoin's class and ability in one day cricket is undoubted, and he got into the test team on the back of limited over exploits. However, he simply hasn't cut the mustard in whites for England, and should be dispensed with.

Andrew Strauss is a curious case - as excellent a batsman as he has been on his day, he just hasn't scored anywhere near enough runs for England in recent times. Since his run-a-ball half-century at Sydney this time last year, Strauss has only made one 50 in England colours, and in nine tests has only made 324 runs. For an opening batsman, this isn't good enough. While there have been some reactionary calls for Strauss to go, it shouldn't be forgotten that his batting isn't all that he brings to the team. A born captain and the natural leader of the team, taking Strauss out of the dressing room would leave a chasm that just wouldn't be filled, and could lead to imminent disaster. However, as important as it is that Strauss remains in the team, as it stands, it isn't tenable for the opening batsman to be so out of touch and form. Strauss's play at the moment reminds me of the final throes of Michael Vaughan's England career - so valued as a captain but so scratchy at the crease - incidentally the third test will be the first dead rubber England have constested since the South African series in 2008 that signalled the end for Vaughan.

So what options do England have? The only spare batsman in the England squad at the moment is Ravi Bopara, but replacing Morgan with the equally as frustrating Ravi seems more of a sidewards step than forwards. The England Lions are on tour at the moment, and of their contingent, the likes of James Taylor, Joe Root and Alex Hales have all been tipped for further international recognition. However, my solution for England's ills is a cunning one, and one that may not have even been thought about by the powers that be (probably with good reason). Strauss has really struggled against the new ball over recent times, which is sort of a bad thing for an opener to struggle against. With Morgan looking clueless in the middle order, a fix could be pushing Strauss down the order (thus keeping him in the side), with someone else coming in to open, be it Hales, Steve Davies or even Middlesex's Sam Robson (although I may be slightly biased about that one). England get the benefit of Strauss's captaincy and experience in the middle order, which as Misbah has showed is certainly no bad thing, and in their new opener they have the opportunity to pick someone who is better than Morgan or Bopara. While this is a very unlikely situation, I believe it is the right thing to do, so as such, I am hereby announcing the start of the #straussforsix bandwagon. Feel free to jump on it.

This second defeat is the first time in nearly four years that England have lost back-to-back, and the 74 all out is the lowest score since the 52 all out debacle in Jamaica. England are currently ranked as number one in the world, but can't legitimately lay claim to being the world's best until they address their stark batting issues in the subcontinent. The foundations are there for an excellent side - the bowling especially was absolutely world-class. But England have been carrying players for far too long, and some big decisions need to be made. While Bell and Pietersen do deserve to be in the team after last year's form, nobody should be "undroppable" (just see what being undroppable has done for India's test side...) and a big kick up the arse should help solve a few problems. However, if England genuinely are to be thought of as the world's best, they are going to have to rapidly step up their game in foreign conditions. Whether or not they can do it in time for the final test is debatable, but with seven more tests this calendar year to be held in the subcontinent, something has to be done.

Bowl dry or roll the dice?

2012-01-24T12:48:00.000Z

England, it seems, are a team blessed with a veritable battalion of fast bowlers, all good enough to step straight into the test side. This means that while Bresnan, and seemingly Tremlett (according to reports) will miss the second test, England still have the luxury of choice, this time between Steven Finn and Graham Onions.

So with Tremlett looking like he's going to drop out of the team, who should come in? Well, the "let's play two spinners" argument has muted since last week because according to reports, Abu Dhabi is a spinner's graveyard. This, and Team England's stringent determination to never change a winning formula means that Monty's going to spend the next five days mixing up Maximuscle for Stuart Broad.

So it's between Steven Finn and Graham Onions. Leaving aside the sentimentality of Onions, who could play his first test in two years after a career threatening injury, and the next-cab-off-the-rankness of Finn, on a purely cricketing level, who should play?

Both offer very different things as bowlers - Onions is much more of a full-length swing bowler who's fast medium at absolute most, whereas Finn is easily England's quickest, and much more of a bang-it-in bowler. Finn has so much to offer an England test team - he's an aggressive, wicket-taking bowler who can genuinely frighten batsmen with his speed, but he has one obvious Achilles heel. His control. Simply put, Finn does have an annoying habit of gifting runs to the opposition through one or two rank balls per over, which really does count against him.

A lot of England's bowling game-plan is to dry up the runs and utilise the pressure that it creates to take wickets. This was seen only last week, when England dragged Pakistan back (sort of) with the ball by keeping the run rate low and the pressure constantly on - leading to a late flurry of wickets. Unfortunately for the bowlers, who all performed admirably, the batsmen hadn't put anywhere near enough runs on the board, so that will be the priority for Andy Flower, but would England have had the same late-day success had Finn been going at 4 or 5 an over?

Finn's control has improved since his last test outing, and he's developed markedly since he was dropped at Melbourne last winter, but the doubts do still linger. This England set-up don't much like gambling, and they'll see Finn as quite a punt. Onions is the safe choice, but do safe choices win test matches? England are one-nil down, and they'll need to win both of the remaining test matches if they're to come away from the UAE with a series win. It might be harsh to call Onions nothing more than a "steady bowler", but his reliability is what's got him this far - solid if not spectacular. Finn is far more mercurial, and while on a bad day he could go for a few, he'll more often than not chip in with some big wickets while he does so. It goes against England's play it safe attitude, but sometimes it's worth taking a punt, as the rewards could be spectacular.

One bad game does not a bad team make…

2012-01-19T13:57:00.000Z

… but that was a really really bad game. England simply didn’t turn up or show any form of application with the bat in either innings, and unfortunately, if the only batsman to score over 17 in both innings is the number nine, you ain’t going to win many test matches.

The New England of Flower and Strauss don’t lose many test matches, but oddly the ones that they do lose are absolute canings. Think Jamaica and Headingley in ’09, Johannesburg and Perth in 2010, and now Dubai in 2012. England, as good as they can be when they apply themselves, are prone to the odd brainfade of a test where nobody turns up and they get hammered. Until these random inconsistent tests are cut out, England’s claims to be the all-conquering best team in the world aren’t quite as strong.

However, as bad as that was, it is just one test. One loss in 13 months for a team who have near-enough consistently swept everyone aside shouldn’t automatically mean that alarm bells should ring and knives be sharpened. Cricinfo have already run an opinion piece calling for Strauss to go, which is downright ludicrous and the definition of “knee-jerk”. Dropping an opener with no obvious replacement is one thing, but to push aside the captain of the number one ranked side after just one loss? Hardly.

The key defeats in Strauss & Flower’s reign are obvious, and have all served a purpose in the ascent of the team. The 51 all out in Jamaica right at the start of the pair’s partnership led to the batsmen sitting down and taking responsibility for their own games, and the numerous double centuries in the past couple of years is a result. The humiliation at Headingley at the hands of Australia, where England went in with five bowlers has seen the side take a formulaic shape which has served them so well. It’s obvious that this defeat has been equally as humbling, but it could lead to an improvement in the way batsmen approach and play spin in the subcontinent – something England have traditionally been very poor at doing.

There’s been a lot of negativity from all concerned about England’s performance, but I’m saying that there shouldn’t be. Yes, it was a poor performance, but these things happen. And England have shown a remarkable tendency for bouncebackability over recent years – the last four defeats have all been immediately followed by innings victories. England will have to show an incredibly dramatic upturn in form to beat Pakistan by an innings in the second test, but it isn’t impossible. England’s bowlers plugged away well, and their tenacity and control over the Pakistan batsmen was commendable. Had they had more runs on the board to contend with, the pressure would have been increased, and greater rewards could have come their ways. And with the bat, well, the only way is up. This is by no means a good day for English cricket, but on the whole, the English team is doing far more things right than wrong, and it isn’t as bad as it all seems.

England's Selection in a Spin

2012-01-13T15:51:00.000Z

England have won their second warm up match, with the Pakistan Cricket Board XI crumbling to a 100 run defeat at the hands of the-best-team-in-the-world(TM). The big story from the game concerns Monty Panesar, who certainly put forward his case for test selection with 8 wickets in the match. Monty hasn't played tests since THAT game at Cardiff in 2009, but has he given himself a shot at getting into England's XI for the first test starting on Tuesday?

Common cricketing logic dictates that a team touring the subcontinent (yes, this isn't actually the subcontinent, but the pitches will be close enough) play two spinners, which England probably want to do. However, the selectors lives are made much harder with the lack of a genuine all-rounder. If there was a Flintoff style player who is good enough to bat in the top seven as well as being a test-class bowler, then Monty would happily slip into the team alongside Swann, Anderson and Broad, with Eoin Morgan the unlucky batsman to miss out. Sadly this is not the case. England's selection policy has been reserved to say the least over the past few years, with Andy Flower still bearing the mental scars of the horrific Ashes test at Headingley in 2009 where England played five bowlers, had no backbone to their batting, and collapsed miserably. Broad has developed as a batsman (the most recent game against Pakistan where he got 169 is testament to that) but doubts remain as to whether he's consistent enough as a test number seven. While he did score runs against India, that was the first time in a long while that he done anything with the bat, and moving him up the order (especially given Panesar's notorious inability with the blade) could be a recipe for disaster. Seeing as the closest thing England have to a proper all-rounder in Tim Bresnan will be watching the series from the comfort of The North, Flower will be very reticent in vastly altering the shape of the team to accommodate an extra spinner.

Another option would be to play only two seamers, with the dual spin of Panesar and Swann, as they did in the warm-up game (with Tremlett and Onions playing the roles of Anderson and Broad). While there would be a lot of testing spin, rotating the two fast bowlers would be tricky, especially in the new-ball period which seems to offer a lot out in the UAE. England no longer have the handy holding overs of Paul Collingwood to toss the ball to, which would make this option a no-goer as well.

The third way to get Monty back into the England team would be to play him instead of Graeme Swann. Dissenting voices of Swann have mentioned his lack of wickets over the last 12 months, but surely dropping the-best-spinner-in-the-world(TM) would be wrong? Yes, Swann hasn't taken many wickets recently, but that's mainly because the fast bowlers have done the majority of the damage on pretty green pitches. When Swann has needed to step up on a final day (Adelaide v Australia, The Oval v India), he's made match-winning performances to seal victories. Besides, dropping a key player would be very un-England, where the success has come from consistent selection, backing their players, and allowing those in poor trots to come good. Swann may not be in a bad trot, but he hasn't dominated a series in a while, but on the first tour with turning pitches since he decimated Bangladesh two years ago, Swann has the chance to tear them apart, again.

All in all, Monty Panesar won't play. As much as playing two spinners is important in these conditions, there isn't really any way (short of calling up Samit Patel, which they should have done in the first place) of getting two spinners into the team without sacrificing a batsman or a fast bowler. While Panesar took the wickets to win the game, the most important wicket of the match was that of Fawad Alam, who was caught Trott bowled Pietersen. If England go in with only one frontline spinner, Kevin Pietersen will have to turn his arm over a fair bit, and that wicket will give Flower, Strauss and the selectors confidence that he can do his bit. Whether or not they think that after the first test remains to be seen...

Podcast - Samit Patel's Probably Still Eating

2012-01-06T19:02:00.001Z

Download this podcast on Podbean

Yet another week has passed without Sachin making his #100th100, so Will looks at why, and how this is impacted on India's performances. Also at the SCG, Michael Clarke made hundreds of sticker-less runs, and Will looks at Clarke's potential as both a batsman and a captain. England have flown out to the UAE to take on Pakistan, so the series is previewed, as well as the England v Associates game that will take place. Pretty much everything that's happened this week in cricket, except Jacques Kallis getting 200 in his 150th test. Sorry Jacques.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Criticsms of Clarke

2012-01-05T11:05:00.001Z

Getting to the highest score in the history of test cricket isn't something that happens every day. Of all of the hundreds of thousands of test innings, to be ranked as the highest is some achievement, so a changing of the guard is very rare indeed (between 1938 and 1994 it only changed once). To post an absolute great grand-daddy triple or quadruple ton, you need to be one of three things. Either a) massively selfish and happy to play a long personal innings irregardless of the match situation (see Lara's 400 not out v England in 2004), b) playing against a crap team on a road (see Hayden's 380 v Zimbabwe in 2003), or c) freakishly good (see Bradman, numerous).

Cricket is an odd game, as it is a pursuit of individual success masquerading as a team sport. In no other team sport are personal statistics pored over so often and held with such reverence, or individual glory celebrated so vocally (see Sachin, various). While everyone says that they just love winning test matches and like doing well for the team, deep down every cricketer who's picked up a bat wants to put themselves in the history books. Sure, winning's nice, but what about a bit of personal glory?

Which makes Michael Clarke's decision to declare unbeaten on 329 slightly odd. Yes, as captain he should be seen to put the team first, but imagine the statue he would have got outside the SCG had he got past 400? In 9 months time there would be a boom of babies born in Australia, all nicknamed Pup, and he could have had his own ill-fated chat show. Against a tired, disinterested Indian attack, 401 and history was there for the taking, and Clarke let the pesky matter of trying to win a test match get in his way. And he didn't have the smarts to get a lucrative bat sponsor for this game. For shame.

Ricky Ponting's 70th 100

2012-01-04T11:30:00.000Z

Pretty much all of the build-up to the Sydney test, as with pretty much every Indian game since the World Cup, has been focussed on Sachin Tendulkar's persuit of the elusive 100th international 100. Since making his 99th on the 12th March, the cricketing world has been on edge to see if the Little Master can go where no other batsman has gone before, and into triple figures for triple figure international scores.

Sachin's quest has been dragging on for a while now, and the spotlight hasn't become any less intense. On Twitter, which is always the best barometer to the cricketing world's feelings, each Sachin innings starts with a flurry of "I have a feeling, today will be the day" tweets, followed by the inevitable "Oh well, I'm sure he'll do it in the next knock". It would not be wrong of me to say that there are some more concerned about Sachin's personal scores than the state of the matches he plays in.

But ultimately, if Sachin did get to his 100th 100, it wouldn't really be that important. His place in the side doesn't rely upon it, nor would his legend be diminished if he fell narrowly short. It is solely a statistical quirk, and just an opportunity to celebrate the incredible career that the ~~man~~ demi-god has had. That could not be said of Ricky Ponting.

Ponting, like Sachin, is a bona fide legend, not just of our time, but of any time. Yet his search for a ton has lasted a lot longer than Sachin's, with January 2010 being the last occassion Ricky passed three figures in test cricket. Since then, the Ashes have been lost (again), the captaincy has fallen by the wayside, and an alarming dip in form has led quite a few to call for Ponting to either stand aside, or be stood aside. A few fifties in recent tests signalled some sort of revival, but without the headline grabbing hundred, Ponting would continue to be under pressure, and questions would continue to be asked.

Which is why Ponting making a hundred at the SCG was far more important or newsworthy than if Sachin had got there. Ponting's shows that he's still got the guts, ability, and run-making for test cricket, and is clearly still worth a place in this Australian team, and might be good for a Dravid style renaissance (let us not forget that The Great Wall finished 2011 as test cricket's top run scorer). Sachin's would show the ultimate endurance effort, and be the culmination of a great career, but other than an interesting statistic, it doesn't mean a great deal.

This isn't to say I won't stand and applaud if/when Sachin gets there, but at this moment in time, Ponting getting there is a far greater moment. There have been some who've called Ponting's 134 the biggest of his career, and while I wouldn't go that far, it could well be the signal of a return to the top for Punter, and for a few more years in the Aussie middle order.

Podcast - Review of the Year 2011

2011-12-28T19:19:00.000Z

Download this podcast on Podbean

2011 is coming to an end, and what a year it's been. India won the World Cup, England became the number one ranked side in the world, and Middlesex gained a generation-defining promotion from Division Two. So to look back on all of the action (as well as ranking cricket's worst haircuts, and a few other awards besides), Will has taken a break from his podcast sabbatical to put together the ultimate cricketing review of the year.

Thanks for all of the tweets, the likes and for reading the blog in 2011, and I hope you all have a happy new year and to see you in 2012!

Will

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The ODI Team of 2011

2011-12-11T16:39:00.000Z

With the conclusion of today's India v West Indies ODI comes the end of ODI cricket in 2011. It's been a fairly decent year for the moody middle-child of the formats, with a surprisingly good World Cup, lots of records broken, and some closely fought series. Yes, there have also been some one-sided humblings, but it wouldn't be the ODI cricket that we all know and sort of love without it, would it? Anyway, with the end of 2011 ODI cricket comes the chance to name a 2011 ODI team of the year, and here it is.

1) Shane Watson

While it may still be cool to massively hate him, 2011 has been the year that I've begrudingly given respect to Shane Watson. Yes, the occasional histrionics and highlights still remain, but his cricket this calendar year, especially in ODIs has been nothing short of astonishing. Starting with a record high for an Aussie at home with an unbeaten 161 at the MCG against England. He then followed that with a solid-enough World Cup with both bat and ball in a tough Aussie campaign, before unleashing hell on the poor Bangladeshis in the ensuing series. The 185 not out from a mere 96 balls contained a monstrous 15 sixes, and underlined Watto's capacity as an incredibly dangerous hitter. (His 2011 ODIs have seen 42 maximums clear the fence, more than anyone else, and he also boasts the best strike rate of 109 to boot). Add to that his ever improving bowling, and hawkish fielding and he's not far off the perfect ODI player. Comfortably the best all-round all-rounder in cricket at the moment.

2) Virender Sehwag

Sehwag has only played in 12 ODIs since the turn of the year, but he got quite a bit done in them. Setting the tone for India's victorious World Cup campaign with an imperious 175 against Bangladesh, he then went a few better and smashed every record going by reaching 219 against the West Indies only last week. While he was a little bit up and down at times, he remains the ultimate ODI master blaster, and to not include him in the year that he achieved so much would be cruel.

3) Jonathan Trott

Say what you like about Jonathan Trott's technique or strike rate, he scores runs. Lot of them. Until last week, he was 2011's top ODI run scorer (having played less games than eventual run winner Virat Kohli), and his strike rate of 80 isn't as woefully bad as many think (in fact, of the top 10 run scorers of the year, Trott has the 5th fastest strike rate). With two hundreds and ten fifties, Trott oozes consistent scoring, and provides support and backbone to his teammates, especially when wickets are tumbling at the other end. A shoo-in for my team of the year.

4) Virat Kohli

A coming of age year for Kohli, where his growing maturity and confidence has been reflected in his performances. Finishing the year with 1381 ODI runs, including four hundreds, Kohli has nailed down a spot in India's middle order and made it his own. The frightening fact that he is only 23 should see him become a staple part of India's teams for many years to come.

5) Brendan Taylor

2011 has seen something of a resurgence in Zimbabwe cricket, with a test return being greeted with a new found competitiveness against the bigger nations, and no other player has embodied that as much as their new captain, Brendan Taylor. A remarkable series against New Zealand that saw scores of 128*, 107* and 75 followed a World Cup where he was Zim's standout batsman, and finishing the year with an average of 49.53 is very handy indeed.

6) Yuvraj Singh

While 2011 has been up and down for Yuvraj, it would be impossible to miss him from this team after the World Cup that he had. Starring with the bat (averaging over 50 from his 14 games), and surprisingly with the ball (picking up 20 wickets at 26), Yuvraj was key to India's victory, and was deservedly named Man of the Tournament.

7) MS Dhoni

Captain, keeper, all-round hero, MS Dhoni (in ODI colours at least) can do no wrong. Taking the mantle as the ultimate ODI finisher, Dhoni's cool-hand has been seen throughout the year, but not as much as in it's biggest game, where his 91 not out in the World Cup final saw India to victory, and his name into Indian folklore. As exceptional a leader as they come, Dhoni has arguably been THE one day international player of 2011.

8) Shahid Afridi

A couple of retirements, a couple of comebacks, a loss of the captaincy, a lot of wickets and a few runs - 2011 has been another normal year in the life of Shahid Afridi. The leading wicket-taker during the World Cup, where his super-quick leg-spin accounted for far too many batsmen, he then retired, before returning in a blaze of glory to destroy Bangladesh in the UAE at the end of the year. While his batting was even more hit and miss than usual, his bowling (where he took an incredible four 5-fers) was easily the best of anyones in 2011.

9) Mitchell Johnson

Yes, he bowls to the left and the right, but Mitch's form in 2011 ODIs was surprisingly good. 39 wickets at 20 (with a more remarkable economy rate of just 4.4) sees cricket's biggest enigma make it into the team of the year.

10) Lasith Malinga

There is simply no bowler more frightening to face than Lasith Malinga. Working on the simple theory of getting it full and straight, the slinger took the most wickets (48) this year, and despite retiring from tests, is still as deadly in ODIs as he's ever been.

11) Zaheer Khan

An injury ravaged second half of the year saw 2011 peter out for Zaheer, but after the first half he had, he won't mind a bit. India's go-to bowler throughout the World Cup, he was instrumental in both taking wickets and strangling the run rate, both with the new ball, and the older one. His incredible spell at the start of the World Cup Final, where the normally free-scoring Dilshan and Tharanga were unable to get him off the square set up the win for India, and his 30 wickets from just 14 games see him into the team of the year, dodgy hammy or not.

My ODI team of 2011:

Shane Watson
Virender Sehwag
Jonathan Trott
Virat Kohli
Brendan Taylor
MS Dhoni
Yuvraj Singh
Shahid Afridi
Mitchell Johnson
Lasith Malinga
Zaheer Khan

The Case for ODIs

2011-11-25T20:39:00.000Z

A lot has been said over recent weeks about the "death of test cricket". Yet while people were signing petitions and marching on the ICC to demand that test cricket stays alive, it appears that one of the other formats of the game is in a terminal state.

ODI cricket has been on the decline for a while, arguably (as with test cricket) since the introduction of the evil* twenty20 to the calendar. (*not actually evil) It's been fiddled around with more than any other format, with powerplays, new balls at each end, free hits and general bending of all sorts of rules in order to freshen it up and give it some pizazz.

The main gripe with ODIs is that they're a bit unnecessary and boring. Everyone loves test cricket, and (generally) players are happy to play them every day of every week, and more often than not, supporters are happy to pay attention to them. It may not be the televisually stimulating spectacle to the casual fan, but the main appeal of test cricket is the gradual war of attrition between two teams over the course of five long days. Don't believe the scare-mongering or petitions, test cricket is in rude health. Twenty20 is everything that test cricket isn't, it's rude, loud, in your face, and goes at a million miles an hour. And this works too, because TV companies like to show it, people like to go and watch, and players like to play (and to pick up the vast wods of cash they get for the priviledge).

ODIs don't really have that. As fun, exciting and exhilerating as they were when they first burst onto the scene 40 years ago, the game of cricket has moved on, and they've stood painfully still. 50 over cricket, no matter how many powerplays or free hits are injected into it will almost always have that really dull middle period which isn't quite test and certainly isn't T20. Long, pointless series are shoehorned in to an already packed international calendar, and nobody seems that interested.

So it may not come as a huge surprise when the man who was until last month the best bowler in the format, Graeme Swann, comes out and says that he'd like to see an end to ODI cricket. "It's not enjoyable" says our Graeme, and points to the full calendar and lack of interest from almost all concerned.

But why should we scrap ODIs? I'll be the first to admit that there are too many One Day International matches played, but to completely remove the format from cricket seems a touch extreme. The issue of long, drawn out, one-sided series can be resolved by limiting all ODI series to best of threes - which would also help ease the issue of overcrowding. While money shouldn't really be a factor, it sadly is, and for smaller grounds, the prospect of hosting ODIs is all that can financially keep them going if holding test matches is unlikely. Don't forget, ODI cricket gives the minnows (who not that long ago Graeme was supporting) the chance to compete and grow, with test status also unlikely to be forthcoming. And lest we forget, while some ODIs can be dull, so can certain tests and T20 games. The last World Cup was filled with giant-killings, dramatic finales, chokes and epic wins, which was nigh on the perfect advert for the format.

Yes, ODIs are far from perfect, and the ICC will need to seriously consider changing the format from 50 over to a forty over affair, but to scrap the format completely smacks of a man who's just been part of a team who've been whitewashed by the world champions. But relax ODI fans, Graeme Swann's word isn't law (yet), which means that the chances of an RIP for ODIs is quite a way off yet.

Sachin Tendulkar and the persuit of perfection

2011-11-25T16:00:00.001Z

Through the vast history of cricket, over the 2000+ test matches that have been played and the countless players to take part in them, there has been one man that has stood head and shoulders ahead of everyone else to have played the game. Sir Don Bradman, cricket's ultimate legend, had a career that nobody else has ever had, or will ever have. Part of the legendary tale of Bradman, however, is the story of his final innings. Needing just four runs to finish with a career average of 100, Don was dismissed for a second ball duck, and with it, an average of 99.94.

For all of the great performances, great victories and great feats that the game offers, at it's heart, cricket is a game of numbers. And it's those statistical quirks that see fifties, centuries and ten-wicket hauls celebrated so resolutely. While there never will be another Bradman, the game of cricket has been lucky enough to be touched by a successor to the throne, Sachin Tendulkar. Of course, Sachin doesn't average 100 either, but the sheer longevity of his high-class career, and the sheer amount of runs that he's scored in international cricket set him aside from his peers also. Sachin is on 99 international centuries, a mark that he's been on since the World Cup this spring. He's fallen twice in the nineties in his search for the elusive hundredth hundred. Today he fell for 94 in his home town of Mumbai, in what would have been the fairytale way to mark an ultimate achievement.

Just as nobody will average 100 in test cricket, nobody will come close to reaching Sachin's mark of 100 international hundreds. But just as Bradman failed to reach the ultimate, wouldn't it be apt if Sachin were to never make it to his goal either? In an odd way, failing to get there would add to Sachin's story, just as it added to Bradman's. If Sachin didn't make it to 100 hundreds, it would prove that the man they call God is actually human after all...

The life and death of test cricket

2011-11-23T23:33:00.001Z

This week, we've seen one of the classic test matches. Set 310 to win, Australia and South Africa battled it out, with each side looking well set, only to be clawed back by their opponents. It was left to 18 year old debutant Pat Cummins, to come in with his side 8 down, and smash the 13 runs needed to see Australia to victory. It was a game that had everything - some excellent batting, some awesome bowling, some jittery collapses and some stoic partnerships. It was test cricket at it's finest, with bat and ball always in keen competition, and neither side giving the other an inch.

Contrast that to events this week in Mumbai. West Indies, a team hardly known for their batting exploits (indeed, they only possessed 7 test centuries between them) have batted through the first two days, and are 575/9 at the close of play on the second. Already, some of the Indian bowlers have been complaining about the back-breaking serface that's been served up to them, and with justifiable cause. When the West Indies are dismissed, India will then have to come out and bat, and will no doubt rack up a similiar score with no time left to force any sort of result. Even when the game in Johannesburg was reaching it's climax, it was impossible to predict which way the game would go. Contrast that to Mumbai, where the captains may as well shake hands on the draw now and save everyone the bother of turning up for the next few days.

The game in South Africa proved just how good test cricket is - not that we had any doubts about it. But events in Mumbai, and specifically the groundsmen's decision (whoever told them to do so) to create a road just sees test cricket shooting itself in the foot. Yes, attendances for test cricket are low, and the money's in T20s and One Dayers. But every cricket administrator worth his salt knows that test cricket is the ultimate, and should be protected. For all of the talk of test championships and petitions over shortened test series, the real way to "save" test cricket is to stop the batsman dominated snooze-fests that are all too common in world cricket today.

The Ponting Dilemma

2011-11-21T00:44:00.000Z

Cricket is rarely a fairytale. Just ask Gavin Hamilton (one test cap, where he bagged a pair and went wicketless), a succession of South African captains in World Cups and Keegan Meth. But every now and again, a moment comes along where everything just falls into place, and someone has the chance to do something mythical.

Ricky Ponting is one of the greatest players of our generation; indeed of any generation. Even in fifty years his name will be spoken about reverentially by those lucky enough to have seen him. The three successive World Cups. Being captain of perhaps the greatest team to have ever played. Over 26,000 international runs. An international career thus far spanning 16 years, representing his country during their greatest era of success. There is no doubting Ricky Ponting's pedigree, yet coming into this innings, the 267th of his test career, the calls were growing for it to be his last.

Without a century in 23 months, and more incredibly, without a fifty in 11 - Ricky Ponting's form has gone to pieces. No longer the undroppable captain, and averaging well under 20 since the start of 2010, Ricky's presence in the team is becoming increasingly untenable and the idea of him being dropped ever more likely. With every loss and batting collapse come further calls for a change to be made to a brittle Australian batting line-up, and Ponting, for so long the backbone that held it together, could be the fall guy for yet another series defeat.

Ricky Ponting doesn't deserve for it to end that way. For everything he's given Australian cricket - world cricket - our last memory of Ricky shouldn't be of a dishevelled shell of himself unable to cope with the South African bowling, stripped of the captaincy and shunted down the order from his number three spot. For all of his flaws, Ponting deserves a far more dignified end. Tomorrow he'll return to the crease alongside his new captain with 54 runs to his name, and 168 more runs to win. The potential for a Ponting hundred to clinch the game and save the series is so perfectly set up that it's almost been scripted.

But Ponting getting there would create more problems than it solves. In the fairytale, Prince Ricky would hit the match-winning hundred before announcing his retirement and riding off into the sunset upon his noble steed. We've seen it before - what better way to sign off than right at the top after playing an immense innings? And Ponting might well do that. But the trouble is, Ricky Ponting loves playing cricket for Australia. Why else would he be out there? It would have been easy for him to have bowed out when he handed the captaincy over earlier in the year, but his passion for playing ensured he was determined to keep going. As long as he feels he's good enough, he will keep going. And if he is good enough, even at the grand old age of 36 years and 337 days, to score hundreds against the best bowlers in the world, why wouldn't he keep going?

So what if he doesn't get there? The new Australian selectors, headed by John Inverarity, are yet to select a squad of players, let alone a team. With recent Australian failures very much on their minds, the new selectors will certainly want to start afresh, and what better way to signal the start of a new era than to get rid of the man who epitomises the old one? While Ponting has batted very well to get to 54 overnight, even getting to a far more significant score may not be enough to save him.

Ponting deserves the dignity of a memorable test farewell, not being dropped in ignominious circumstances. While it may not be Warne and McGrath bowing out amidst the tickertape of a 5-0 Ashes whitewash, guiding his team home with a century wouldn't be far off. The fairytale ending is set up for Ricky, but even if he got it, would he take it as an ending? The hundred and the win would be the perfect close to a fantastic career, but would the lure of future glories and a Dravidian renaissance (Dravid has 10 test centuries since turning 36) keep him in the Baggy Green? Either way, some big decisions will have be made, either from the Australian selectors or Ricky Ponting himself. The next 46 runs could be the biggest 46 runs in Ponting's career - if he gets there he will prove that the light hasn't gone out, and he is still good enough to score test runs. If not, he might not get the chance to decide. For once, I'll be cheering on Ponting and hoping that he gets there, because after everything he's given to cricket, he deserves to be the one that decides.

The Death of Test Cricket?

2011-11-10T16:54:00.000Z

South Africa all out for 96. Australia all out for 47. 68 runs fell for 18 wickets. Is test cricket dead? Obviously not.

OK, maybe it isn't right to use the events of one manic afternoon in Cape Town to prove beyond doubt that a format has been saved. But this one weird couple of hours has given us some of the best test cricket that will be seen this year, let alone this decade.

For all of the talk of twenty20 killing test cricket, of players disinterested due to the lack of money, and of crowds staying away, the main threat to test cricket over the past few years has been completely stone dead pitches. We've seen games where 700 has played 600 after the first innings, and the captains could have shaken hands on the draw after the second day. Only a miracle performance with the ball can produce any inch of excitement or sporting competition on these sorts of pitches, leading to dull draws and talk of test cricket's demise.

So isn't it refreshing when a pitch offers a tiny bit to the bowler? While there has been talk about the standard of the pitch not being appropriate to test cricket, there has been a fair battle between bat and ball throughout. The Australian first innings was a case-in-point, a fired up South African bowling attack led by the world's best paceman Dale Steyn chipped away at Australia, but were held back by a world class performance from Michael Clarke. Bat and ball were in fierce competition, and given that these were the world's best in action, the spectacle was fascinating. Clarke eventually perished for 151, dragging his team to 248, and it was as enthralling an innings as I can remember for a long time.

What happened next was absolutely mental, with wickets falling all over the place, and there were plenty of rash shots from batsmen that were far from world class. While there may have been one too many gremlins in the pitch, surely it was more exciting and interesting than seeing bat dominate ball for session after interminable session? And the partnership at the end of Amla and Smith to get South Africa to stumps just one down shows that a lot of the wickets were down to a combination of good bowling, and awful batting.

I don't think any of us really thought test cricket was on it's death bed, and days like this proved just how alive the format is. This test, and the one last week, where the West Indies gave India an almighty shock, certainly show that test cricket isn't really in a terminal decline. Sure, games like this and stories like this don't really help, but ultimately, test cricket is in rude health. And any format that England are best in the world is surely fine in anyone's book...

New Blog - The Boys From Fortress Lord's

2011-11-08T21:53:00.000Z

This is just a quick post to point you in the direction of my new blog - The Boys From Fortress Lord's. It's my Middlesex themed blog where I will follow and debate all of the happenings from Lord's (and the various outgrounds), and offer my opinions about how it's all going. Obviously not much will really be happening until the season gets underway next April, but until then you can expect thoughts on team news, player performances and general Middlesex stuff.

A couple of clicks, an add to the blog roll or a retweet would be very much appreciated, so hopefully I'll see you over there!

Spot-Fixing: Not a lol matter

2011-11-03T17:59:00.000Z

So says Tino Best on Twitter. And he's right. This is a long way from being a lol matter.

Corruption in cricket, be it spot-fixing, match-fixing, or simply telling bookies things like the pitch condition has been probably going on for decades. While the ICC and cricket in general has done it's best to stick it's collective head in the sand about the issue and pretend it doesn't happen, given the testimony of Mazhar Majeed's council, it's plainly obvious that this is a much wider-spread issue. As much as we can pretend it doesn't happen, corruption and cheating is rife within cricket, and it's now that we need to start dealing with it.

There has been some debate over the past couple of days about whether it's right for cricketers who've "only" bowled no-balls to go to jail for their actions. Jail is a place for murderers and rapists, not for bowlers who lose their stride, right? Well, while the Crown Prosecution Service has absolutely nothing to do with the governance of world cricket, it's just as well that Majeed, Butt, Asif and Amir have been sent behind bars, as the puny punishments of the ICC act as absolutely no deterrent whatsoever. All three were found guilty by the ICC, but only given bans of a couple of years. What sort of message does that send to a cricketer thinking about getting involved in all of this? Take the money for a few years, get banned, then return a few years later to carry on? And that's all assuming the ICC actually find, stop and catch them, as lest we forget, it was only through the actions of a now defunct tabloid that Amir, Asif and Butt were even caught.

Butt, Asif and Amir have indeed been caught, and brought to justice. They'll now serve 30 months, 1 year, and 6 months behind bars respectively, which will hopefully resonate around the cricketing world. Will it stop the corruption in cricket? In the UK, maybe, as a legal precedent (and the threat of another sting) has been set, which should ward off any untoward activity on these shores. But around the world? The ICC Anti-Corruption squad has proved itself time and again to be toothless, and their inability to find or stop corruption since their conception is incredibly worrying. Butt, Amir and Asif were just plain unlucky to have been caught out by the News of the World; but for the sting they'd likely be still going on now, and would be going on for a while. Just as the other cases of corruption is probably still going on, and will go on, for a while.

The ICC should be spearheading the push against corruption, and with a strong governing body who are naturally suspicious and able to police things effectively, the problem could be stamped out. So when head of the ICC anti-corruption and security unit Ronnie Flanagan says things like "corruption is certainly not rampant in the world of cricket", it hardly sends out a strong message to the corrupt that the ICC are on their case and they should stop.

Cricket is in a mess, and while we will of course enjoy the game we love when it's played, every time there is a fumbled catch, bungled run-out or overstepped no-ball, the doubts will creep in over whether we are seeing a genuine sporting contest between two top-level sides, or whether we're just watching the outcome of a heavily scripted money-making operation. While I'm sure the majority of teams and players aren't involved, there does appear to be a culture of corruption in cricket. Having one spot-fixer in world cricket is too many, and until each and every one is stamped out, there will always be that slight element of doubt hanging over each match we see.

It is a terribly sad day for cricket that an international captain and his opening bowlers have been sent to jail for perverting the sport, but hopefully we can look back on this day as a landmark in the history of the sport. A day that set us on the road to clearing out the corrupt and getting them out of cricket. The question is, can it be done?

England's ODI Wake-Up Call

2011-10-25T11:56:00.001+01:00

So England have been humiliated in an ODI series. I suppose it had to happen - for all of the talk of a new dawn post-World Cup under Captain Cook, not an awful lot had changed, and rain affected wins over disinterested Sri Lankan and Indian touring teams had papered over some sizeable cracks. The time is right to rethink the ODI strategy, be ruthless, and sort out the only format that doesn't see England sit on top of the rankings in.

As bad as England have been this series, it isn't all doom and gloom. England's bowling, when all fit, is up there, and it shouldn't be forgotten that this is an England team missing it's two main bowlers. (Yes, India have missed a few of their gun batsmen, but that's by the by). Jimmy Anderson, the oft quoted "leader of the attack" can be devastating against any side, and Stuart Broad has developed into a world-class ODI bowler. While Anderson may start to need the odd bit of strength and conditioning rotation every now and again, Broad is now coming right into his peak as a cricketer, and can become the spearhead of England's ODI bowling. The pair bring a lot of international experience (something that's been obviously lacking this series) to the attack, and combined with the also oft quoted "best spinner in the world" Graeme Swann, they provide the backbone to a more than handy bowling unit. Those three, when fit, should be automatic no-question picks, and will certainly make England a lot more competitive (at least) then they have been thus far this series.

They'll be complemented by either Tim Bresnan, who has come on leaps and bounds as an international bowler despite a poor tour here, and Steven Finn, who is probably the only England player who can hold his head up high this tour. Bresnan bowls with plenty of guile, and as proved with a very good World Cup, is suited to subcontinental conditions. While he isn't quite good enough to bat at number seven, the "all-round" (that isn't a pun on his weight) string to the bow certainly helps his argument for selection. Finn has spent a lot of time in county cricket learning his game over the past year, and it has clearly paid off. He's added a couple of yards of pace to himself (and can quite possibly be called the most consistently quick bowler in world cricket) and his one-day game is developing into a world-class standard. The only bowler to come out of this tour with any credit, it would be harsh to see him miss out, so he and Bresnan will likely vie for that final out-and-out bowling position.

Any good ODI team has a number seven who is a genuine batsman first and foremost, which is why Bresnan playing there just isn't a viable selection. Samit Patel has done well in spells and could retain his place, but long-term it's clear that England see Ben Stokes fulfilling this role. Whether he's quite up to it at the moment is debatable, but once he's over his finger injury the extra dimension that his bowling gives should help see him get a game. Personally, it would be nice to see Peter Trego given a go, but it's looking fairly unlikely.

While England's bowling is fairly sorted, it's clear that the batting needs a bit of work. Quite simply, mediocrity has been not so much tolerated as it has been celebrated, and widespread cuts should be made immediately to the batting line-up. For someone to play so many games for England and only average 29 as a top-order batsman is criminal, and while he does offer the bonus of a bit of trundly medium pace, Ravi Bopara should be cut. While Ian Bell is one of the world's best test batsmen, he simply has never done it at ODI level, and has had too many last chances. Craig Kieswetter, who is one of the worst wicket-keepers in the country and hardly one of the best batsmen is charged with opening the innings and donning the gloves, and we've seen too many dropped catches and not enough runs from him, which means someone else should have a go. And Kevin Pietersen, who only a few years back was probably the world's premier ODI player, has fallen away so badly in the format that it might be worth not using him to keep him fresh for his test and T20 travails.

So that just leaves Cook (who has to stay, as he's the captain - and to be fair he has done well since coming back into the side), Trott (who despite all of the hate is a vital part of the team due to anchoring nearly every innings), Bairstow (a clean striker who can be used to good effect in the final powerplay, as well as potentially taking over as wicket-keeper), and England's trump card Eoin Morgan. It's the basis of a good batting side, and if the likes of James Taylor, Alex Hales and Jos Buttler are brought in and take their chances, it could develop into a very good team.

England have been humbled fairly humiliatingly by India this series, but for the World Champions to beat a touring team who have notorious subcontinental troubles isn't that surprising. England do have a lot of work to do if they are to get to India's level, but it can be done, and if the big calls are made now, we could start to see a marked improvement in their ODI fortunes. This series has been an alarm call for the England management, but it remains to be seen whether they wake up and make the changes that England need.

England's potential new ODI team:

Alex Hales
Alastair Cook (c)
Jonathan Trott
Eoin Morgan
James Taylor
Jonny Bairstow (wk)
Ben Stokes
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Steven Finn
Jimmy Anderson

Why Can't England Win ODIs in India?

2011-10-18T11:45:00.000+01:00

It's the question on everyone's lips. Or, more pertinently, how can England play so badly only weeks after stuffing India out of sight on a tour where the world champions failed to register one victory?

All of the old excuses have been trotted out. England can't play spin. England don't know how to bowl on the sub-continent. England bat too slowly in India. England throw their wickets away. And to an extent, England have lost their first two games by falling into those very easy to pigeon-hole stereotypes.

But, that's just what they are. Stereotypes. Just because England teams of 3 years, or 30 years ago couldn't play spin or bowl tightly on the subcontinent doesn't mean that every England player to ever pull on the three lions is doomed to fail in India. England are currently producing some of the most technically correct players in generations, which doesn't indicate weaknesses against spin. Any problems England are having, as Alastair Cook touched upon in his post-match interview after the second ODI are confined to the mind. England can't win in India, because they don't believe they can win in India.

Without wanting to go into any psycho-babble, England do appear to have a mental block about playing fifty over cricket. How else can a team that currently dominate two of the three formats seem so far away in the third? How else can players like Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, who seem so at ease when in whites appear so out of their depths when in the colours? KP and Bell have come off unbelievable summers in test cricket and could arguably be regarded as the two finest batsmen in the world, yet put them into a fifty over match and they freeze. Pietersen hasn't made an ODI century in three years, Bell in four. Pietersen's place is under threat and Bell can't even get into this England team. How else can this be explained other than a general English mental block to playing ODI cricket?

Yes, there clearly has been a marked improvement in English ODI fortunes. Following the seminal away victory against South Africa in 2009, the Andys Flower and Strauss (and latterly Cook) have turned around English thinking about fifty over cricket, come up with winning strategies and won quite a few series. Since that South African tour, England have lost only one head-to-head series, and that was at the back end of a generation-defining and exhausting Ashes win. Yes, rain did help, but this team have just finished a home summer where they beat both of the World Cup finalists, one of them to nil. So somewhere along the line England are doing something right.

The key, as was said earlier, is in the mind. Other than the 6-1 humiliation to Australia back in 2009, England have won every home ODI series under Andy Flower. West Indies, Australia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and India have all perished. It's no surprise. England feel far more comfortable when at home with green pitches where the swing bowlers can exploit the friendly home surfaces. Just as England have a mental block about playing on the sub-continent, it seems that teams are travelling over to us and having mental blocks about playing on a cold, wet, windy night at Durham.

Two heavy defeats doesn't make this England team a bad one, just as three rain-affected wins over India doesn't make them a great one. Until England master their sub-continental yips, England fans are just going to have to accept that their brave boys are very good at home, but not as good when away. Beating all of those teams at home shows they are a good side, but being humbled by the world champions in their back yard just goes to show how far England have to go before they can really consider themselves ODI contenders.

Bairstow Blasts His Way Into the Reckoning

2011-10-11T13:46:00.002+01:00

It may only have been in a warm-up, but Jonny Bairstow's unbeaten 104 from just 54 balls against Hyderabad means omitting him from the first ODI is nigh on impossible. Bairstow's talents are obvious, and it's no longer a case of if or when he gets a regular spot in England's team, more a case of how long he'll be a permanent fixture.

With Bairstow all but nailed on, somebody from the established order is going to have to make way to accomodate him. Assuming England will go in with Cook and Kieswetter opening, with Patel at seven so he can help out with some spin, there are now four potential berths in the England middle order that need filling, with five players vying for them. And arguably, only young pup Jonny Bairstow is guaranteed of his place ahead of the old guard that he's threatening.

The question of who will bat at three is a conundrum of the highest order. With an inhumanly high average, Jonathan Trott must surely be a shoo-in, but doubts over his scoring rate do remain. There is an argument that he could be used as a "horses for courses" batsman in ODIs, just as we see bowlers picked if the pitch suits their strength, we might only see Trott play if the pitch is slow and England need someone to dig in. However, as proved today (where Trott put on 74 from 68 alongside the Bairstow carnage), he isn't as much of a slouch as often thought, and his stability down the other end gives licence to the likes of Bairstow to go big early. For me, Trott should play.

Ravi Bopara is in the form of his life, and finally coming good after so many years of promise. His handy medium pace gives the bowling another option, and dropping him is almost unthinkable.

Which just leaves one place in the middle order, and two very big names fighting over it. Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell, mainstays of pretty much every England team over the past six years and amongst the two best batsmen in world cricket, are vying for the one remaining spot. On the face of it it seems very odd, but quite frankly neither have delivered in ODI cricket for a long time. Kevin Pietersen started out by making ODI tons for fun, but hasn't made it to three figures since the last time England toured India, where he captained the side back in 2008. And Ian Bell doesn't even have the luxury of a strong ODI history on his side, with just one solitary ODI century back in 2007, 59 games ago.

Both men have played over 100 ODIs, and both are clearly talented batsmen. But for whatever reason, neither have performed in 50 over cricket for England over the past couple of years, and their places are under threat. It is a toss up as to who gets the nod for this Indian series, but with Eoin Morgan still to return, the emergence of Jonny Bairstow could signal the death knell for both Pietersen and Bell's ODI careers.

Save BBC Cricket

2011-10-07T12:37:00.001+01:00

Yesterday the BBC announced that they're making a lot of cuts. While a lot of their output is all being reduced, I don't really care about Radio 1Extra, CBBC or rubbish TV like "Snog, Marry, Avoid". What I do care about is the BBC's coverage of cricket.

The BBC and cricket have been intertwined for years, just as the national broadcaster and one of Britain's national sports should be. However, as time has passed we've seen cricket almost disappear under the BBC carpet, with the loss of TV rights, erosion of county coverage, and a general apathy towards the sport from the executives. While TMS still (just about) stands firm, county cricket coverage has been largely passed over to local radio. The same local radio that, if these cuts go ahead, will see all sport output cease from 2013.

This plainly isn't right. It isn't right that people won't be able to hear about their local football, rugby, curling or badminton teams. And from this bloggers perspective, it isn't right that the BBC's coverage of live county cricket will cease after next season.

On a personal level, from being involved in some of the coverage of live county cricket, it's clear to see just how important it is. Sometimes picking up upwards of 10,000 people (who tuned in for the dramatic climax to the Somerset v Lancashire game at the end of the season) all around the world, it is a way for cricket lovers to keep in touch with the matches. It's a way for the ex-pats to keep in touch with home. It's a way to while away the long office hours whilst listening to the excellent coverage from the likes of Kevin Hand, Mark Church, Dave Callaghan and the rest. The live county cricket commentaries is the BBC at it's ultimate best - bringing people together to engage in what is a fantastic broadcast each and every day.

If the BBC do go ahead with their incredibly short-sighted decision that contravenes a lot of what they set out to do in their manifesto, an awful lot of people are going to suffer. First and foremost jobs will be lost, as well as quality programming, which means that absolutely everyone loses out here, just so Chris Moyles can get an extra zero on the end of his contract. If the cricket commentaries are lost, some may continue on a subscription basis, but some may be lost forever, which would be such a shame.

So what can be done? Well, email the BBC Trust at trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk. Let them know what you think. Tweet @bbctrust, and tell them your thoughts. And follow @SaveBBC_cricket on Twitter, create a public backlash and let the execs know that they just can't take these services away from us.

Thanks.

Will.

Stuart Meaker Picked For England

2011-09-27T14:20:00.001+01:00

It's sort of an odd one, yet not an odd one. Meaker's List A pedigree is far from great - not many games (21), even fewer wickets (19) and a lofty average of 38. Indeed he barely got into Surrey's CB40 winning side all year, which makes the decision to take him on tour a surprise one. (Certainly surprising to Graham Onions who labelled the decision [on Twitter of course] "bizarre").

However, from what I've seen of Stuart Meaker, he is a very, very talented bowler. He has serious pace (supposedly topping 96 mph), and at 22 he's only going to get quicker. He can reverse it, and again, at a young age, he's only going to become more experienced on how to use and exploit such a dark art of bowling. He will eventually be an England bowler, so why not give him a taste of a subcontinental tour to get used to what being an international entails, pick the brains of the bowling coaches and work alongside some of the best bowlers in the world? And who knows, with Stuart Broad injured and Jimmy Anderson rested he might even get a game against the World Champions, which can hardly be bad for his development.

Yes, there is the almost inevitable elephant in the room of the fact that he was born in Durban which has kicked up quite a debate on Twitter, but I've grown tired of all of that, and it's probably quite irrelevant. Stuart Meaker is a hugely promising fast bowler who learnt his trade in England, is committed to England, and will probably take bagfuls of wickets for England. While I'd have liked to have seen a more experienced young buck getting a go, the selection of Meaker is certainly very exciting. We might be seeing the start of a very long, and very good international career.

Ravi Bopara is Embarrassed

2011-09-25T11:44:00.000+01:00

Ravi Bopara is the epitome of a confidence player. So often in and out of the England team, he's never truly felt comfortable in the side, so as such, hasn't felt loved by the English selectors. This lack of inner belief and trust in himself has led to poor performances, and has meant that his great potential just hasn't been lived up too.

Ravi Bopara has only really been given two solid runs in the side. The first, back in 2009, was when new coach Andy Flower told Ravi that he was the man to bat at number three for England, and put his trust and confidence in him. Bopara backed this up by making three successive test centuries. He felt as though he had a place in the team and confidence, and runs flowed.

He's had to wait until this summer for his next prolonged spell in the side. In and out over the last couple of years, he was given his chance for the final two tests of the India series, and then for the subsequent ODIs. While he started slowly, the performances have slowly but surely improved as Ravi is slowly starting to feel loved again by the selectors. A 96 at Lord's - so nearly his maiden ODI ton and comfortably his highest ODI score preceded a valuable 37* at Cardiff to guide England home, and tellingly a 4-10 in the first T20 against the West Indies. England's best ever T20 figures.

It's worth bearing that in mind. Of all of the great bowlers to have represented England over the past six years in T20 cricket, nobody has bowled better than Ravi Bopara did on Friday night. This is some achievement. However, Ravi claims he is "embarrassed" to have collected the accolade, which sort of sums up his mental issue with being in the England team. He just doesn't feel worthy enough to be playing international cricket, let alone excelling at it.

When thinking of Ravi Bopara's mentality, the perfect person to compare him to is Eoin Morgan. Both have extraordinary natural talent, as well as some equally obvious technical flaws. Yet both have had distinctly different careers in international cricket. Ever since taking to the field for England, Morgan has looked as though he belongs. Blessed with a mental fortitude that almost guarantees success, Morgan is extremely comfortable at the highest level, and has reaped the rewards of that. Bopara almost needs someone to constantly remind him that he actually is a very good cricketer, and while he will always be blessed with an extraordinary talent, what isn't so sure is his ability to perform and impress consistently for England. Ravi's feeling of embarrassment at his record figures sums up his attitude, and you get the feeling that had Morgan broken a record that he would be enjoying it rather than feeling bashful about it.

Technically, Eoin Morgan has his limitations. He isn't brilliant to the short ball, and is often very edgy when driving the ball off the front foot. But it's almost assumed that he will be a key player for England over the next few years, purely because he has the state of mind that he is sure to succeed. Ravi Bopara doesn't have this. What Bopara needs is for a prolonged run in the team backed up by good performances. At the moment, he is getting a run in the team, and those performances are beginning to come. With Morgan set to miss out on the next England tours, Bopara will get a few more opportunities in the side, and has a chance to stake a claim for a regular starting role. However, if he is to become one of the world's best - he must radically change his own mentality - stop being embarrassed and start enjoying international cricket. Only then can he become a Morgan.

What Actually Is The Point of The T20s v West Indies?

2011-09-23T14:15:00.000+01:00

The other day I spouted something about how I'm not a huge fan of the Champions League. Created solely to make a lot of money quite quickly, it sort of opposes everything us cricket bloggers should stand for. So you'd have thought that a final hurrah for the England team in international action this summer would cheer me up and get me all misty eyed. Well, not really either. This horribly shoehorned in seriesette has no real benefit other than to fulfil Sky's contract. So I don't really care about these matches either.

You could ask what I'm doing as a cricket blogger when I evidently have no real interest in cricket. And you'd be right to ask that.

So, mainly to show that I can be bothered (even if nobody else is), here's why you should watch the two T20s against the West Indies.

Young Talent

Everyone loves seeing a young player making his first tentative steps into international cricket, filled with hope that they'll be the next big thing. And at the moment, England's team is packed with them. Bairstow, Stokes, Briggs, Hales, Buttler - the potential in this team is immense. And while some won't live up to their big billing (remember the fanfare Luke Wright arrived in after a debut fifty against India in 2007), chances are a few of them will turn into bona fide England legends. And in twenty years after Sir Joseph Buttler is made prime minister after leading England to 6 successive Ashes wins, you can say that you were there (metaphorically) at the start.

England are winning

Given even fairly recent cricketing history this is still somewhat of a novelty, and we should enjoy it while it lasts. England are currently top of the test rankings, World T20 champions and have just beaten the ODI World Cup winners. And have looked really good whilst doing so. Yes, it may be a pointless seriesette that in a couple of weeks we'll have forgotten all about, but if England get to wave yet another trophy around at the Oval on Sunday, it's a great opportunity to celebrate everything else that's good about English cricket. Enjoy the success while it lasts - it may be gone sooner than we think...

Graeme Swann will be captain

Given the fact that Swann is at least fifth (and possibly sixth) in line to the throne, the chances of him captaining England again are fairly slim. Swann probably knows this is his one and only chance to do something destructive as England captain, so expect him to pull out all of the stops. Stink bombs at the toss. The team running out to "Diamond Lights". Fielders on the boundary told to get girls numbers for the captain. Who knows. But it will be worth watching.

The West Indies are playing

Everyone loves watching the West Indies. They're either really good and make cricket look easy, or they're hilariously crap and are good for a few laughs. In a T20, there is the potential for both possibilities. Expect dolly catches dropped, huge sixes over the pavilion, stupid collapses, demon yorkers and players forgetting to bring their bat out to the middle. It's always entertaining to watch the West Indies. Plus they may start dancing if they take any wickets, which is always a bonus.

OK, that's pretty much it. While it may not make the history books in 100 years as one of the great series, it'll be good for a couple of hours of light entertainment. Plus afterwards you get to watch me on Sports Tonight Live. What's not to enjoy?