All posts by n8rngtd.top

Stats highlights of the record-breaking day in Chennai

HR Gopalakrishna and Mathew Varghese28-Mar-2008

:

A statistical analysis of Sachin Tendulkar’s Test career

S Rajesh17-Oct-2008

Thirty-nine centuries, 12,027 runs, 152 Tests – the numbers are immense whichever way you look at it. In a career spanning nearly 20 years, Sachin Tendulkar has constantly been India’s biggest hope: through the 1990s, he was easily India’s best batsman, especially overseas, in conditions none of the others came close to mastering. With the emergence of Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Virender Sehwag and Sourav Ganguly, the pressure has eased somewhat, but Tendulkar still remains the most prized wicket for opposition bowlers, which is a remarkable testimony to his skill levels and the high standards he has consistently achieved.The best measure of the class of a batsman is his performances against the greatest team of his time, and if that is the yardstick then Tendulkar is matchless: in 50 innings against Australia, he averages 55.60, with nine hundreds and an equal number of fifties. Since 1990, he is one of only four batsmen who have scored more than 1000 runs against Australia at a 50-plus average. (Click here for the full list.)Through most of his career, Tendulkar has been the mainstay of the Indian batting, which is reflected in the percentage of team runs that he has scored. As you’d expect, it isn’t as high as Lara’s, who has often been West Indies’ only hope, but it’s only a few decimal points below Dravid’s, and a run lesser than Gavaskar’s, who was also helped by the fact that he opened the batting and hence had a greater opportunity to bat. The three Australians are at the bottom of the list, which clearly indicates the quality of the other batsmen they played with.

The champion at No. 4

Tendulkar started his Test journey at No.6, but 22 innings into his career, in the second innings in Adelaide in 1991-92, he was pushed up to No. 4 for the first time as India chased a daunting target of 372. The move failed – Tendulkar made just 17 – but in his next innings, on a bouncy Perth track, he scored 114 sublime runs which virtually sealed his No. 4 slot. Since then he has batted almost exclusively at that position, scoring 10041 runs at No. 4 – the most by any batsman at any position, and nearly 84% of his total runs. Tendulkar averages 56.09 at No. 4 – among batsmen with at least 4000 runs, only three have a higher average at No.4. (Click here for Tendulkar’s innings-by-innings list at No. 4.)The presence of Dravid at No. 3 has bolstered the top order immensely, but the lack of a settled and successful opening pair has meant Tendulkar has often come out to bat early in the innings, when the bowlers are fresh and encouraged by two quick strikes. Out of the 201 times he has batted at No. 4, 78 times he has come out with the score less than 50, of which on 34 occasions the score was less than 20. The table below lists his performances according to the team situation at his entry. When he has come in very early, his numbers have suffered – the average dips to less than 40. However, these situations have also produced some of his really memorable innings: against Pakistan in Chennai in 1999, he made 136 as India fell agonisingly short of a fourth-innings target of 271 after their second wicket had fallen at 6; in the Boxing Day Test in 2000, he scored 116 glorious runs coming in at 11 for 2; at Edgbaston in 1996, he came in at 17 for 2 and scored 122 out of a team score of 219, in an innings in which the second-highest score was a mere 18.However, there were also other instances when he fell cheaply – 18 times out of these 34 innings he was dismissed under 20.He was far more successful when he came in with the score between 21 and 50, averaging 54.56. Among his 44 innings in such situations, his two most unforgettable ones were in Bloemfontein, when he came in at 43 for 2 and made a stunning 155, and at Trent Bridge in 1996, when he scored 177 after the team had been 33 for 2.Most of his No. 4 runs, though, have come when the top three have given India a solid start: coming in at a score of 100 or more, he averages more than 76, with 17 centuries in 71 innings, including three of his four double-hundreds. Forty-one of those innings have been at home, where he averages almost 70. In similar situations overseas, his average is an incredible 87.39, with five unbeaten hundreds.

Breaking up those numbers host-country-wise reveals early wickets haven’t bothered him as much in England as it has in New Zealand and South Africa. In South Africa, in fact, a solid start hasn’t helped him much.

Getting starts and converting them
Comparing the scoring patterns for the seven batsmen in the 10,000-club plus Jacques Kallis, who is only 239 runs away from that landmark, it turns out Ricky Ponting has the lowest failure rate and Steve Waugh the highest. More than 40% of Tendulkar’s innings ended before it reached 20 – only Lara and Waugh have a higher low-score percentage. Tendulkar, however, makes up by converting more than 16% of his innings into centuries, a ratio bettered only by Ponting. For Allan Border, the percentage is a poor 10.80.

*Series and year-wise stats
Another indicator of the consistency of these eight batsmen is their series-wise averages. Ponting heads that chart again, with only five series in which he averages less than 30. Lara is next in the list, while Tendulkar’s ten poor series are more than offset by the 16 series in which his average soared to more than 70.

*Tendulkar has been around for 20 years now, but only in three of those did his average for the year dip to less than 30 – in 1995, 2003 and 2006. The numbers are even more impressive for Border and Dravid, who haven’t allowed their average to dip below 30 at all.

Stretches without hundreds
A measure of consistency over a long career is also the number of innings the batsmen have gone without centuries: for Tendulkar the longest such stretch is only 17 innings, the best among the eight batsmen. Gavaskar and Kallis are just one innings further behind, but Border went a whopping 61 innings without a three-figure score in 36 matches between 1988 and 1992.

All stats updated till the end of the first day’s play in Mohali.

Never at any point did Pakistan believe they could win this Test and for that alone they deserved the sorry fate that befell them at the SCG

Osman Samiuddin at the SCG06-Jan-2010Pakistan’s grip on this Test was going the minute they took a 206-run lead in the first innings. This morning, with Australia effectively 80 for 8 they knew they had lost it. Hollywood rehab clinics have fewer mental frailties than this side.Like in Melbourne last week, never at any point did Pakistan believe they could win this Test and for that alone they deserved the sorry fate that befell them at the SCG. Publicly Australia spoke yesterday as if they could win this. Pakistan, publicly and privately, only wished they could win this.The morning session was bizarre and instructive, possibly the worst session of leadership of a side in such a dominant position. Sides giving up 200-plus leads in Tests had only won five times ever after all. But Mohammad Yousuf thought Michael Hussey was Bradman and Peter Siddle that Bradman of tailenders, Jason Gillespie, and that Australia were 700 for 3. Effectively they were 80 for 8, Hussey had been dropped thrice and Pakistan began with eight men on the boundary. A more winning lost cause is difficult to conjure.Yousuf has surprised people with his leadership here, but today was the worst of him; defensive, unimaginative, sluggish and unwilling to take risk. Inzamam-ul-Haq’s beard is there and maybe the worst of his captaincy spirit was also floating around. From there, whatever the chase, the writing was being written on the wall.And then nothing matters in these chases for Pakistan; people talk of flat pitches, overhead conditions, surviving the new ball and playing out the old. But the only thing that matters is that it’s them. They could be chasing 90 on cement, with a tennis ball and in 45 degrees heat, but this batting line-up will find a way to get out for less. Who the opponent was didn’t really matter. They were called Panickstan here once, long ago. A regurgitation is in order.Three times this year they have done it – in Sri Lanka, in New Zealand and now. This will hurt the most because it isn’t every day that you dominate Australia, any Australia side, for three days and lose on the last. Australia, any Australia side, still know how to win and more importantly they know how not to throw matches away. Their players are brought up doing it. Peter Siddle’s innings is shining testament to that ethic. Pakistan’s tail presents a sorry contrast. Pakistan know simply how to play well every now and again, not to win, or avoid losing. That might never come and if it does it will take time.The Test was lost at many other stages and that is the wretchedness of Pakistan’s cricket that they could’ve won it still. They should’ve shut out Australia with their first innings, instead batting like lemons and not posting an insurmountable lead. Yousuf keeps talking about how much Twenty20 cricket is destroying Pakistan’s batsmen and with the kind of batting seen here – not least his own dismissals – it is a persuasive argument.Kamran Akmal dropped the Test four times himself through the second innings. He has been better this last year but he should’ve been dropped a few years ago; if he keeps getting selected, there is every chance now and again this may happen. His batting was crucial in New Zealand, but it’s been ill-judged here. Misbah-ul-Haq, Faisal Iqbal – should they really be in this line-up?And yet still it boggles the mind. It will do for many days. Knowing all this, feeling all along that they may lose this, to see it play itself out as it did is deeply affecting. To such an implosion, from such a position, can break you. Who knows what living it can do. Still the question: how have they lost it? Everyone knows but nobody understands, least of all the side itself.

From a cricketer in Guyana to a businessman in Australia: Carl Hooper may not play too much cricket but he stays in shape, and he plays the markets

Interview by Mark Pennell09-Dec-2009You live in Australia now, why is that?
I love the weather and the lifestyle, plus my wife Connie comes from Australia.What have you done for a living since retiring from Lancashire in 2004?

I help my wife and her brothers to run a chain of coffee shops called Un Caffe Bar.Do you enjoy any hobbies?
In my spare time I trade currencies on the foreign-exchange markets. It’s not stocks and shares, just trading dollars against sterling, that sort of thing. With the time difference between Australia, North America and England, it’s ideal for me to trade in my spare time – first thing in the morning or last thing at night. That’s when all the big boys really come out and it’s the best time for me to trade.Do you work for an investment firm?
Are you crazy? I couldn’t work for anyone else. I’d find it tough. And I could only ever invest my own money. I like to sleep at nights, and if things go against you on the markets I wouldn’t be able to do that.Have you made your fortune as yet?

I want to live well, but it doesn’t bother me about becoming a millionaire. I just want to be happy and sleep peacefully.Do you still play cricket?
The last time I played was in a benefit game for the family of David Hookes, up in the Barossa Valley sometime last year, but whenever I’ve got cricket coming up, I make sure I train. I’m off to Barbados later this month (November) to play in the first Cricket Legends of Barbados T20 Tournament organised by Joel Garner. I’m looking forward to catching up with a few old friends.

“I could only ever invest my own money. I like to sleep at nights, and if things go against you on the markets I wouldn’t be able to do that”

You were never one for spending hours in the nets, do you keep fit in other ways still?
I’m 42 now, but I’m slim and trim. I’ve played a lot of indoor soccer for the fathers’ team at my son’s school, but had to stop that, so I’m doing some road running instead.”You failed to win a major trophy while playing seven seasons of county cricket for Kent and Lancashire. Does that upset you?
I have good memories and if I could do it all over again I probably would. I couldn’t have hoped for a better club than Kent to start my introduction to English cricket. It was a good set-up. We had Min Patel, who was Indian-born; Dean Headley, who had some Caribbean roots; and a few more guys around my age, who I could mix with and relate to. The disappointment was that we didn’t win a championship or have a trophy or two under our belts.Did you notice much difference in attitude between the two dressing rooms?
There was a huge difference between Kent and Lancashire. At Old Trafford the guys were very hungry to get out on the park and desperate to win things. Most of them had aspirations and I’d hear them talking about wanting to play for England. I never heard too much of that at Kent.Do you wish you were still playing?

No, I’ve had my time and really enjoyed it. Viv Richards and Garry Sobers used to say, “We all have our time to play and you just have to make the best of it.”Your game would have ideally been suited to the Twenty20 format. Do you regret not being around to cash in on the global phenomenon of the short-form game?
You can’t look back with regrets; I had my time and enjoyed it. There will probably come a day 20 years from now when a cricketer picks up £5 million for a season. Who knows? But my thinking is, it’ll just get better and better. Good luck to them I say.<!–Will any of your children follow your footsteps by becoming cricketers?
I have three kiddies. Two girls: Alex over in England, and Catherine, as well as a son, Carl Jnr. Carl’s only 10, but he’s a big boy. The prediction is he’s going to grow to be about 6’4″. I want him bowling fast and batting at about six or seven, so in a few years’ time the England side will have to deal with him!–>

The talent is there in the Pakistan line-up, but if the team is to compete it has to learn very quickly about the demands of Test cricket

Nagraj Gollapudi at Lord's16-Jul-2010The Shahid Afridi episode is a clear indictment of the state of Pakistan batting. Barring Salman Butt every senior batsman went for the wrong shot exposing a fragile temperament and weak spirit, totally unfit for Test cricket. In contrast to the price every Australian batsman, including their No. 11, put on their wicket the Pakistan counterparts displayed a careless attitude and an ignorance of the occasion.Chasing a world-record score there were never any pretensions about Pakistan reaching the summit. Still one would have expected to see them grind: batsmen straining every sinew to hang in there, to put a price on the wicket, of not falling for temptations, to show a resolve and thereby highlight the uniqueness of Test cricket. Instead the batsmen showed the same resolve a five-year-old would exercise if you dangled a toffee in front of him – they tried to latch onto it instantly and were sweetly suckered by the Australians, who laughed their way to victory.It could’ve been different. The fight that Butt and Azhar Ali displayed raised expectations that Pakistan were willing to finally exercise patience. One way of combating the enemy is to never allow him to gain a foothold and Butt did well to stamp his authority. He took advantage of the numerous innocuous deliveries from Mitchell Johnson who fed his strength outside off stump and was happy to drive and cut with authority.At the other end the Azhar carried forward the confidence displayed during his brief stay on Wednesday, smartly rotating the strike and not allowing Australia to play on his nerves. But for the second time in the match Ben Hilfenhaus, the most consistent pace bowler for Australia, managed to find Azhar’s edge with a perfect outswinger. Immediately Azhar shrieked in disappointment and on his way back even apologised to Butt for falling short of his expectations.However, it was the Butt’s dismissal that gave Australia the opening they were looking for. Apart from Simon Katich, Butt was the only other batsman who had conquered the bowling and adapted to the rapidly-changing conditions. He had worked hard with Ijaz Ahmed and Aaqib Javed in the preceding weeks to put his bat in front of the pads and play close the body with a straight, stable and relaxed head. It was working and Butt seemed set to put his name on the batting honours board with a deserving century.Unfortunately he betrayed his resolve as soon as Ricky Ponting introduced Marcus North half an hour before lunch. It would’ve been better to have at least a quick look at the new bowler rather than step out against a drifter that looped from down the leg side before Tim Paine came up with some swift glovework behind the stumps. Stunned at his mistake, Butt lingered for a moment in remorse. He couldn’t believe what he had done.More unbelievable was Umar Akmal’s premeditated attempt to cut North in the final over before lunch. To his surprise the ball bounced more than expected and Umar guided a top edge into the hands of slip. Umar had done well to charge North in the preceding overs to hit some handsome lofted drives, including a straight six, but it was plain foolish to play a risky stroke on the cusp of the break. Umar might be only 20 but had learnt many things in his Test initiation.After a memorable century in his debut innings in Dunedin last year he walked in after another top order collapse as Pakistan were chasing a tempting 251 for victory. He proved his precocious talent by steeling himself against everything Shane Bond and co. tried to do to unsettle him. He would have done well to remember that innings today when the sun was shining with a placid pitch in front of him.Afridi, Kamran Akmal and the tail succumbed, putting up a toothless display. The previous evening, Umar Amin, the other debutant for Pakistan, had said the one thing he would like to learn from Katich, the highest run scorer in the match, was to leave more balls alone. Forget Katich, who is an accomplished opening batsman, but that same skill to survive was also shown by the Australian tail of Hilfenhaus and Doug Bollinger, who stitched together a useful 52-run stand for the final wicket on the third afternoon. In contrast Mohammad Aamer, Umar Gul, and Danish Kaneria gave their wickets away.What Mohammad Yousuf, the former Pakistan captain, said recently about his country’s youngsters being more inclined to excel at Twenty20 cricket rings true. In the shorter format it is the instincts that take precedence over the mind. Patience plays a minor role and it’s a trait Pakistan’s youngsters are woefully short of.”If you want to play Australia you have to be mentally and physically very strong,” Afridi said later with some strain before speaking out loud about why he was not enjoying playing Test cricket. Clearly he is not an ideal example to follow for a youngster wanting to excel in the longer format of the game.Instead the wise words of Katich are worth heeding. “I’ve just tried to enjoy each Test match and enjoy winning Test matches, because that’s part of our tradition of playing in the baggy green is to win Test matches,” he said.International players always talk about proving their mettle in Test cricket because the demands are unparalleled. Pakistan’s young batsmen have a unrivalled talent. What they don’t have, and need to learn quickly, is to combine it with sweat, persistence and patience.

Basic skill issues have not being identified and fixed by the Australia’s bulging batch of professional support staff

Peter English31-Dec-2010This Ashes series has exposed the huge gulf between the expertise of the England and Australia coaching staffs. Andy Flower’s meticulous campaign has his men purring while Tim Nielsen’s home side has spent most of the summer praying for a handful of guys to cover up a glut of mistakes.The stark reality is Australia have been out-batted, out-bowled, out-fielded and out-thought for most of the campaign. Playing strength is obviously the main reason for the result, but the combatants are groomed by the head coaches and their bulging batch of assistants.Flower, a hugely respected former Zimbabwe batsman, appears like a Godfather over the England side, working out his strategies and speaking simply and sternly. Nielsen is more like a mate to the Australians than a task master, a friend on the training paddock and a sounding board, rather than a master tactician or disciplinarian.Since being defeated in the 2009 Ashes, the Australians have beaten West Indies, a questionable Pakistan outfit at home, and New Zealand away. In the past six months there has been a drawn campaign with Pakistan, a 2-0 loss to India and now this fumbling Ashes show. Australia’s summer began with a seven-match losing streak across all competitions and so far the only international successes have been a dead-rubber ODI win over Sri Lanka and the dead-cat bounce in Perth.Changing personnel and under-performing leaders have contributed heavily to the results, but the coaching staff has been unable to provide much measurable support. Under Nielsen there is the bowling mentor Troy Cooley, the batting assistant Justin Langer, the fielding coach Mike Young and the analyst Dene Hills. Stuart Karppinen, the fitness and conditioning coach, also has a first-class bowling background.In this series Australia have only three batsmen averaging more than 25 and one of those is the No.7 Brad Haddin. The elite run-makers have failed mostly due to sub-standard techniques against fine opponents, and ignoring basic rules like not following the ball on seaming pitches. It was particularly costly at the MCG, and would have been fatal if it wasn’t for the brutal reply of Mitchell Johnson at the WACA.The bowlers have been unable to hold a teasing line for long periods, which is essential against accumulators like Strauss, Cook and Trott. Their only sustained success is starving Paul Collingwood, a small trophy. Ryan Harris, who is out with a stress fracture, and Peter Siddle are averaging in the 20s while Johnson (35.09), Hilfenhaus (73.50), Shane Watson (87.00) and Doug Bollinger (130.00) have been much less effective during the entire campaign.England’s attack has been able to mix discipline with potency and its back-up men have starred when required. Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan fitted in perfectly when called, while Bollinger was simply unfit when promoted for Adelaide. The punishment didn’t last long and he is back for Sydney.

In his public discussions Nielsen talks a lot without saying much. He likes players “to execute their skills” and perform in the “critical moments”. There are “big challenges” in which the guys need to “maintain their focus”

Costly chances have been dropped, such as the misses by Haddin and Michael Hussey in Adelaide, which followed the stunning efforts of England in the opening hours of the game. The tourists are in such good shape that they were also able to drop two catches early on the first morning at the MCG and still dismiss Australia for 98. The local ground fielding has been sloppy and the hosts have no run-outs compared with England’s three. Watson has been involved in two of those, but both times Jonathan Trott’s throws were sharp enough to take advantage of the lapses.Haddin, who has done a lot more keeping than his counterpart, has 43 byes for the series next to Prior’s 14. Nielsen is a former wicketkeeper so he spends hours with Haddin, who still struggles with his footwork. While he can take spectacular diving takes down the leg side, he is not a natural gloveman and misses more simple offerings. He didn’t even go for an edge in Perth that went between him and Watson at first slip. There are also times when Haddin doesn’t bother trying to intercept wide leg-side deliveries, even when he should be expecting them from Johnson. In the fifth Test he is the vice-captain.If these basic skill issues stand out for spectators, then how are they not being identified and fixed by the professional coaches? Outside the team Nielsen is nicknamed “Teflon Tim” because none of the criticism of the side sticks to him.Nielsen has been in the job since replacing John Buchanan in 2007, when Australia were the best in every format but Twenty20, and keeps gaining new contracts despite not having any major trophies since beating South Africa early in 2009. (Australia won the Champions Trophy later that year but it has become a minor tournament.) Before the summer his deal was extended to after the 2013 Ashes series. Nielsen has never been part of a side that has won the urn, overseeing the 2009 and 2010-11 campaigns in which the same mistakes have occurred under pressure.After the Melbourne defeat, which ensured England retained the trophy, he was pressed on whether he was doing a good job as coach. “I’m probably the wrong person to ask in some regards,” he said. “It’s hard for me to sit here and say I’m not doing a good job — I believe I am. I believe I’m doing everything in my ability with my staff and the playing group to perform at the highest level that we can.”In his public discussions Nielsen, 42, talks a lot without saying much. He likes players “to execute their skills” and perform in the “critical moments”. There are “big challenges” in which the guys need to “maintain their focus”.Hard questions are usually laughed off, but this time he admitted to feeling the strain. “No doubt,” he said. “When you’re losing Ashes series you always feel under pressure. When you’re losing Test matches, whoever your opposition may be, you feel under pressure.”He said he questioned himself “quite strongly” after the innings defeat in Adelaide. “Did our preparation give us the best chance of starting well and being in the game?” He did not provide himself with an answer.Andy Flower appears like a Godfather over the England side, working out his strategies and speaking simply and sternly•Getty ImagesYet there is still a large element of denial about the strength of England and the weaknesses of his own side. “It was only seven days ago we were on top of the world and everything was going along swimmingly,” Nielsen said. The last time Australia were No.1 was during the 2009 Ashes. They are currently fourth and have sung the team victory song only once in their past seven matches in whites.”We understand that we’ve got some talented cricketers in our team but we didn’t click as well as we would have liked in Melbourne,” he said. There was no clicking either during the long days in Adelaide, Brisbane, Bangalore, Mohali and Leeds. In Perth there was the swing of Johnson and Harris, and the fine batting of Hussey to hang on to.Those close to the team insist Nielsen brings huge value to the squad. James Sutherland, Cricket Australia’s chief executive, is a strong supporter, believing in his technical knowledge and man-management abilities. Greg Chappell, the selector, took Nielsen on as an assistant at South Australia in 1999. When Chappell has been watching training over the past month he seems desperate to want to take over. There are experts everywhere but the success has disappeared. For so long the innovators, Australia are now battling to catch up.Cooley was viewed as the greatest bowling coach in the world after 2005, but he might instead be one of the luckiest. His reputation was made while working with a wonderful attack that mastered the secrets of reverse-swing, something Cooley has never managed consistently with any Australian line-up.After spending two weeks in the nets with Johnson, Cooley was able to make him purr for three days in Perth, where the breeze appeared more like the magic tonic than any technical tips. The bowling philosophies of David Saker, the ex-Victoria assistant who is now with England, impress gnarled former fast men and he has designed specialist strategies for each ground.The next job for Cooley is the head coach of the Centre of Excellence, where staff have previously wondered about the praise he has gained for employing the same methods they all learned on the way through the training systems. Langer, a firm friend of Ricky Ponting, was catapulted into the batting role and has a simple philosophy for the run-makers.”Focus on seeing the ball out of the bowler’s hand and winning every contest,” he told ESPNcricinfo in November. “If you do that enough the result looks after itself.” People at all levels of Australia’s set-up have taken their eyes off the ball.Young, a former Australia baseball coach, was first employed under Buchanan but remains on a part-time contract despite the increasingly error-prone fielding displays. Fresh players, such as Phillip Hughes and Usman Khawaja, are not naturally athletic and need moulding quickly. Steven Finn, who is 21 and 6ft 7in, bent low for a stunning caught-and-bowled at the Gabba and then outlined how he practised the low takes at every session because that’s what he needed to do to be an elite fielder.Hills wasn’t allowed to take up his job as the video analyst until the second Test in Adelaide because he had spent a couple of seasons working with Flower on England’s performance programme. There were initial fears from England that he would pass on secrets. They needn’t have worried.In their current state, the Australian players are having too much trouble surviving to be able to enact detailed plans. England, who have retained the Ashes, enter the final Test of the series with a 2-1 advantage and the rubber could still be drawn. But the difference between the outfits is huge, both in the middle and in the nets.

As we pass the halfway point of the county year, George Dobell talks to four county coaches about the key features of the season so far

George Dobell08-Jul-2011Peter Moores, the former England coach now with Lancashire, feels county cricket is serving the English game well•Getty ImagesIs the county game fulfilling its purpose: developing England cricketers and producing entertaining cricket?
Chris Adams, Surrey coach: I’d like to think that we at Surrey are doing those things, yes. We’re regularly fielding a side with eight England-qualified cricketers aged under 25 in it and, if people remain patient, I’m very confident they will go on to do well for Surrey and England in the years ahead. But it’s all about balance and some clubs are certainly not getting it right. Some teams want to win at all costs and don’t care about England; some just want to produce players and have no expectation of winning anything.Part of the problem is that the criteria are quite different in the two divisions. In Division Two there’s just a desperate scramble to be promoted. Nothing else seems to matter and that doesn’t help sides take a long-term view. Having said that, it has produced some intense, competitive cricket and that must be a good thing.Geoff Cook, Durham: The introduction of two divisions has ensured that the cricket is always competitive – in the top division, at least. Is the standard as high as it was three or four years ago? I’m not sure. The good overseas players have been replaced by young, English players. And the availability of the top English players is limited, too. While the opportunity for the youngsters is to be welcomed, there is a balance to be struck and whether it’s quite right at the moment is debatable.Peter Moores, Lancashire: Let’s just look at the evidence: how have players graduating from county cricket into the international side fared in recent times? They’ve done very well, haven’t they? And that suggests the standard of the county game must be pretty good.There’s another way of judging it, too. When England players come back to the domestic game, do they find it easy? Well, we’ve seen the likes of Alastair Cook – who has proven himself at the top level – play a fair bit of first-class cricket this season and he hasn’t found it easy at all. That’s a good sign, too.Mark Robinson, Sussex: It’s a good question. I think history would suggest county cricket is working well. We have been producing good players and the impact of academies and central contracts has been very positive. The cricket has been pretty entertaining, too.Division One is very intense. There’s absolutely no quarter given. There’s really not that much difference in talent between the two divisions – and we were in Division Two last year – but what you find in the top division is that the batsmen at nine, ten and 11 continue to make you work for your wickets. We played Derby twice last year. In the first game they were very good. In the second, when they had nothing to play for, they just rolled over and died.Overall the game is in a bit of a mess, really. It just serves too many masters: it has to please the members; the England team; the sponsors; the broadcasters. It’s impossible. Every competition has become a marathon and, in an ideal world, the schedule would be completely different. I probably sound a bit disillusioned by it all and, in a way, I am. It’s still a great game and those of us lucky enough to make a living from it are very lucky. But it could be so much better. I’d like to start again from scratch.The Championship has been hugely entertaining over the last couple of years, partially due to the bowler-friendly nature of pitches. But will this hinder the development of future international players?CA: I’ve seen some games ruined by poor surfaces. What bothers me is that we’re constantly rewarding average cricketers and dragging down good ones to their level. It impedes the development of young players. We’ll end up with a generation of ‘stand and deliver’ batsmen who just stand there and give it a whack.The problem is, we’ve tinkered with lots of things all at once. We’ve altered the Championship points system to encourage results at the same time as encouraging more lively pitches and getting rid of the heavy roller [after the start of Championship games]. I’m not sure the balance is right now. We’ve seen quite a few two-day games and that just can’t be good for the game. It’s an issue that desperately needs addressing.I know some old-timers think that playing on uncovered pitches helped them develop as batsmen. Maybe they’re right. But I don’t think we have the balance right at the moment. I thought we had it right a few years ago. We had good pitches that encouraged tough, attritional first-class cricket.MR: Yes, it will. There’s a real danger that playing on inferior wickets will help 80mph trundlers who have no chance of success in international cricket. And I say that as a former 80mph trundler. We’re dumbing down the game. If you go back a few years – when we were playing on flat wickets – you can see English cricket produced some really good bowlers. Now we’re playing on surfaces that flatter average players. It may be entertaining, but it won’t be good for the game in the long term.’I know some old-timers think that playing on uncovered pitches helped them develop as batsmen,” says Chris Adams, “Maybe they’re right. But I don’t think we have the balance right at the moment.”•PA PhotosI just remember a game we played a Taunton a while ago. One team scored 600 and the other team scored 700. There was lots of talk about how dead pitches like that would harm the game. But it was nonsense. If we’d still had Mushy [Mushtaq Ahmed], we’d have won in three days. Because good bowlers find a way. And if we make life too easy for bowlers, they’ll never find a way to succeed at Test level.In all areas the game needs to be policed better. Whether it’s pitches or player behaviour – which has definitely deteriorated in the last few years – we have to keep on top of these issues. Teams – all teams – will always try to take advantage of any change in the playing conditions, so it’s essential that the umpires and Pitch Liaison Officers act to ensure the pitches are of good quality. There’s an absence of pace in the county game, too. Better pitches and a better schedule would help.GC: We’ve played on pretty good surfaces. Bowlers have been stretched to make breakthroughs and it’s been good preparation for Test cricket. OK, there was quite a lot of help for the bowlers on the first day in Liverpool recently, but generally we’ve played on decent wickets.PM: Division One wickets have been pretty good. Yes, there have been a lot more results – there are very few draws these days – but that’s partly due to the scheduling. We’ve squeezed seven games into the first few weeks of the season, in April and May, and conditions always help the bowlers a bit more then. The changes to the points system have also made a difference. Ideally we could do with seeing a bit more pace and bounce in wickets – that would encourage better players and replicate international cricket – but the pitches haven’t been too bad.Performance related fee payments (PRFPs) have been introduced by the ECB in recent years as an incentive for clubs to field young, England-qualified players. Is there a danger that the absence of non-England qualified players and other senior cricketers could dilute the standard of the domestic game?PM: I think the balance is just about OK. Guys like Murray Goodwin give so much back. But you’re right that there are more young players in the county game, but that’s not just about the PRFPs. There’s also a better environment for young players now. There’s a strong academy system around the country which is helping these players develop and, with the impact of overseas players diminishing, there’s more opportunity to field these guys.But yes, you’re right, the absence of the top overseas players – and the top England players – has made a difference and not all that experience can be replaced by emerging talent. The standard is pretty good, though. There are great players in every era and we can see from every measurable sport that they always get better: people run faster; jump further. But are we in an era of great bowlers? I don’t know.

In all areas the game needs to be policed better. Whether it’s pitches or player behaviour – which has definitely deteriorated in the last few years – we have to keep on top of these issuesMark Robinson

While we definitely have more big-hitting batsmen now, I’m not sure that all the skills are there. Murray Goodwin was always masterful at moving the ball around into the gaps – not just smashing it over the boundary – and I’m not sure many players can match him there. But I suppose if you can smash the ball over the boundary, you might argue that you don’t need to work it around. It all seems to be about boundaries now.MR: I’m lucky in that I have a good CEO who lets me do what is right in the long-term interests of the club. But you’re right, there is a danger that we could dilute the standard. There’s no doubt that some coaches are forced to hit quotas. And any situation where teams aren’t selected by merit is a worry. It makes it very hard to judge how good a coach is. Some of them just have no resources.CA: I realised when I started here that I’d inherited a bum hand. And I knew I needed to start again. The aim was always to develop our own players who could play attractive cricket and who would go on and play for England. We’re doing that, too.When I came to Surrey there were six players on the staff who weren’t qualified for England. Now, excluding the T20, we have two.But you always need leaders. You need experienced men to lead the younger ones. So, last winter, I brought in Zander de Bruyn and he’s been outstanding for us. Exceptional. He’s added value and provided some much-needed experience. I was staggered when Somerset let him go, to be honest.When PRFPs were brought in, the aim was to reward clubs that produced England players. But now it’s become a key part of some clubs’ budgets. There are probably at least three clubs that have to hit their quotas or they won’t make ends meet. Is that what we want? Of course it isn’t.Some clubs have zero level of expectancy. Their supporters don’t expect them to win anything: they throw kids out there and if they win it’s a bit of a bonus. In a way that’s fantastic. It creates unpredictable cricket for spectators. But in terms of producing England cricketers, it’s not so good.GC: There’s balance to strike, isn’t there? I wouldn’t say I’m worried. That’s a strong word. Providing opportunities for youngsters is good, but they do need to be well led. We’ve had Dale Benkenstein at Durham who has been fantastic. It’s the same with [Martin] van Jaarsveld at Kent. These are great players for our young cricketers to rub shoulders with. They provide so much more than runs. They provide an example.In many ways Yorkshire are to be admired. They’ve given their young players opportunities and, even though they’ve found it tough, I think they will reap the benefits in the long-term.Twenty20 is now the major limited-overs competition with the CB40 often a lower priority•PA PhotosThe schedule is clearly very tough. Have you been obliged to prioritise the three competitions?
GC: We haven’t, no. We have two captains this year: one for the championship and one for limited-overs cricket and we went into the season agreeing that we’d try hard to win in all competitions. We have a decent squad so we’re quite adaptable and can cover lots of bases.
The schedule does make it difficult to maintain a high standard, but that’s where it becomes important to have a squad that can cover a lot of bases.The game is in a reasonably healthy state. But we could do with a bit more spacing so we have time for all the things we know we need: rest, recovery and practise. The search to find the right formula for that is continuous.PM: The Championship is our priority. Then the FLt20 and then the CB40. The Championship is still the ultimate test of a cricketer and of a team. But you’re right: the schedule is ridiculous. No-one will dispute that. We’ve seen Championship games squeezed in between two T20 matches, so the decision to reduce the volume of cricket has to be right. The move to 10 T20 games next season seems about right.I’d like to have seen a reduction in the amount of CB40 games, too. I’d prefer to see that competition played over 50 overs as it surely makes sense to mirror what happens in international cricket. I think it makes sense to have a look at how we’re playing our Championship cricket, too. If we just get one wet April – which we’re bound to sooner or later – the competition could be ruined. We need to look at the whole schedule and see if we can find some more time.CA: Not really. As a big club with big expectations, we’re desperate to get back into Division One. And we’d love to make it to T20 Finals Day. In days gone by, the chance to play a Lord’s final was a real thrill for players, but the 40-over competition does seem to have fallen into third place. That’s a bit sad. But it can be hard to sustain a challenge in the CB40.With no quarter-final stage, you can be out very early if you lose a couple of games. Then there’s a break for T20 cricket and the competition starts again in the second half of the season. I actually like 40-over cricket. I know a couple of journalists hang their hats on the fact that it’s not played at international level, but the spectators seem to like it and it’s more exciting to play. I’m glad we’re going back to 10 games in the T20, too. We tried 16 and it didn’t work.MR: We never have, no. We try and win all three competitions. Anything else would be a disservice to the sponsors and the spectators and would just dumb-down the game. Clearly if it looks as if you are out of the reckoning in the 40-over competition, you might look at the others a bit closer, but we still start the season looking to win all three.There’s a lot of talk about cutting the amount of T20 cricket and I understand that. But we, at clubs like Sussex, we need T20 cricket – and specifically the income generated by T20 cricket – to enable us to compete with the bigger clubs. By generating cash from T20, we can compete better in the Championship. I think we’ve won 11 trophies in 10 years but, if you take away our ability to earn any income, we’re going to struggle to compete. It’ll just be the big clubs and we’ll lose some of the richness of the English game.Look, we’ll survive. Whatever happens, we’ll adapt and we’ll carry on. It’s what we do. But the bottom line is that some of the Test-hosting clubs have got themselves in a mess and the smaller clubs – the likes of Sussex, Somerset and Essex – who have made a success of T20, are being asked to pay for that. I suppose we just have to get on with it. Maybe we could spread 16 T20 games over the season instead of in a group in mid-summer?Big-name overseas players are now a rare sight in county cricket outside of Twenty20•Getty ImagesThere’s growing debate about whether overseas players should be allowed to participate in Championship cricket. What do you think?CA: I’d be happy to debate that point now. I’m quite open-minded about it. I know how much I enjoyed playing against the likes of Malcolm Marshall when I played, but the days when we had world-beating overseas players in county cricket has probably gone. There was a time when Waqar Younis suddenly appeared from nowhere bowling exocet-like yorkers and swinging it both ways. But with the new work-permit criteria, that can’t happen anymore. Maybe we should just have overseas players for T20 cricket.PM: I want to reserve judgement on that a bit. The issue is largely dictated by finance, anyway. It certainly has been at Lancashire this year.
Ideally, you’re looking for something more than runs or wickets from your overseas players. You don’t just want a mercenary. You’re looking for them to teach your developing players something about preparation and professionalism. So, when VVS Laxman left us, he left behind a legacy. He left behind a message about his passion for his craft.GC: There is an absence of top-class internationals. A few years ago you could have seen a Lancashire team containing Law, Flintoff and Murali. You could have seen Warne or Bond or Steyn elsewhere in the county game. That’s not the case now. County cricket just isn’t as attractive to them. They can earn more elsewhere. I’d think we want to see the best possible players we could in the game, but hopefully we can compensate for their absence with the type of cricket we’re playing and by providing more opportunities to our young players.MR: I can see both sides of this debate. The international schedule is now so hectic that the days of having a player like Mushy for a long period have gone. I remember playing Lancashire a few years ago when we had Mushy in our side and they had Murali. Warne and Steyn were playing county cricket around that time, too. You really knew you’d earned your runs if you scored a century against them. There’s no doubt that their absence has seen the standard dip a bit.I’d be tempted to go back about six years and change the work-permit criteria. At the time, we brought Rana Naved into the game and he was superb. He appeared from nowhere bowling at 90mph. That couldn’t happen now. He wouldn’t have played the amount of international cricket required to earn a work-permit. I’m not sure how that helps county cricket.Are there any young players that have impressed you this season? Particularly those from other counties.
MR: Oh, yes. There are lots of good young players around. Chris Woakes [Warwickshire] is a very exciting player. Ben Stokes [Durham] and Danny Briggs [Hampshire] are exciting, too. And Josh Buttler [Somerset]. At Sussex, Luke Wells looks like an outstanding prospect, but it’s important we don’t over-hype any of them. Is Boyd Rankin [Warwickshire] a young player? Because he really impressed me with his hostility.GC: Joe Root [Yorkshire] played nicely against us. He didn’t actually score many runs, but he did look a well organised player.PM: Ben Stokes struck me as a very bright talent. He played certain shots against a really top-class bowler like Glen Chapple that really made you pay attention. Actually Durham have another one in Scott Borthwick. He looks like a really high-energy cricketer who has improved a great deal in quite a short time.Is it right that the whole schedule for the English domestic season has had to be altered to make room for a Champions League in which we have no stake and for which our teams may not qualify?PM: We want to perform in the Champions League. For a start, there’s a lot of prize money on offer. But more importantly, if you talk to guys from Sussex or Somerset, they found the experience hugely beneficial. It’s a level above the one at which they were playing. It opened their eyes to how hard they had to work and how they had to improve their skills. They were suddenly confronted by a guy who had three different slower balls. The Champions League may be the only time out players compete against New South Wales, for example, and that should only be a positive experience.CA: It’s irrelevant what I think. We are where we are and I’m not going to blame the ECB for that. The fact is that India call the shots and they are making it difficult for us to participate. County players want to participate, I can tell you that. And it’s not just about money: it’s about playing at the highest level you can. 90% of first-class cricketers won’t play at international level, so this is the highest standard of cricket they’ll ever play.MR: It’s not ideal, but I want to sit on the fence a bit. I can see both sides of the argument. I never played international cricket so my experience with the Champions League was probably the most exciting episode of my cricket career. It was fantastic to learn from other players and coaches. We came up against guys who looked as if they’d never been to the gym in their life, but could hit the ball further than any of our guys. Playing against those people can only help us raise the standard of our own game.GC: We’re in the hands of people who have no concern for the ECB, so there’s not much we can do about it. But the T20 competition has been amazing and winning that is very important. The potential finance on offer from the Champions League means it has to be a priority, really.

ESPNcricinfo presents the Plays of the Day from the third day of the first Test between Australia and New Zealand at the Gabba

Daniel Brettig at the Gabba03-Dec-2011The final straw
By the time Michael Clarke reached 106, Doug Bracewell might have been the most exasperated man in Brisbane. A swish outside off stump burst through the hands of Jesse Ryder at third slip, meaning Bracewell had endured the rare “distinction” of thrice doing enough to dismiss Clarke, and thrice being denied his wicket. Though it was Bracewell’s own transgression when a no-ball allowed Clarke to resume his innings having been bowled for 23 on day two, Ryder’s drop was one of two of eminently catchable chances slipped through New Zealand fingers on day three. On 85, Clarke snicked behind only for Reece Young to spill one of the simpler chances a wicketkeeper can receive.The injury
Daniel Vettori had not managed to get too many deliveries to jump during Australia’s first innings. With Clarke on 124 he found quick turn and sharp bounce to go past the bat, but not past wicketkeeper Reece Young, who had his face mashed by the spinning, spitting ball. Treated at first on the field, Young was eventually forced to go off in order to stem profuse bleeding, leaving Brendon McCullum to resume his former role as gloveman for the visitors. McCullum and Brad Haddin shared a rueful laugh while Young was patched up, and while Australia’s ‘keeper habitually wears a helmet to the spinners these days, McCullum remained clad only in a cap when he collected the gloves. He resumed briefly after tea without ‘keepers’ pads, until Young returned with 12 stitches.The tailender
When Mitchell Starc emerged to bat at No.10, New Zealand could have been forgiven for thinking the end of the innings was nigh. Peter Siddle and James Pattinson, Nos.8 and 9, had not troubled them for long, and anyone who bats behind that duo cannot be particularly able with the bat. Starc proceeded to edge his second ball to Ross Taylor in the slips, but the New Zealand captain spilled the chance. the drop was greeted with only mild irritation, though – another chance would be on its way soon enough, it seemed. But Starc then demonstrated decent technique and plenty of power, befitting a cricketer who was a keeper/batsman until being encouraged to take up bowling at the age of 15. He added a useful 44 with Haddin, and was unbeaten at the end on 32.The bad decision
Every pair of opening batsmen has a different way of deciding who shall take first strike in the first and second innings. New Zealand’s Brendon McCullum and Martin Guptill elected to rotate the first over in Brisbane, to the delight of Australia’s debutant new-ball bowler James Pattinson. In the first innings, McCullum had opened up against the nervous Pattinson and collared him for three boundaries in the first over of the Test. However in the second, Guptill’s more abstemious approach allowed Pattinson to settle, something he did so well as to returned the figures of 4-3-1-1 in the brief spell to stumps, nipping out McCullum with a swift, seaming delivery.

History is completely in favour of the hosts but New Zealand will fancy their chances against an Australian team trying to cope with multiple injury worries

Madhusudhan Ramakrishnan30-Nov-2011The Trans-Tasman rivalry, in contrast to many other famous ones in international cricket, has been extremely one-sided. Except for the mid 1980s, when Richard Hadlee’s superlative bowling helped New Zealand win home and away series, Australia have been by far the more consistent and dominant team, winning 26 matches and losing just seven (win-loss ratio of 3.71). Stunningly, the last Test defeat for Australia against New Zealand came way back in the 1992-93 series in New Zealand. In Australia, it was 26 years, and 17 Tests ago.Since then, Australia have gone on to win 13 out of 18 matches. In 50 Tests played over between the two teams, Australia have a batting average of 38.94, compared to New Zealand’s 27.07. The gulf is even wider in matches played in Australia, where the difference in averages is 14.40. Five of New Zealand’s seven wins have come at home, and the last time New Zealand won a Test in Australia was way back in the 1985-86 season.That was the period when Australia were on the wane following the retirements of most top players while New Zealand were in the middle of their best run. New Zealand won their first series in Australia in 1985-86 and went on to win two home series in the next four years. Statistically, this was the only phase that New Zealand matched and often bettered Australia. In the ten years between 1984 and 1994, both teams won five matches each and Australia were only slightly ahead on averages. However, since then, during an outstanding period of success, Australia have completely dominated New Zealand. The difference in averages between the teams has been a massive 19.55 in Tests since 2000, and 26.87 in the last four series. Although Australia have done well in their last two series in Sri Lanka and South Africa, New Zealand will fancy their chances of troubling the hosts, who are beset with multiple injury problems.

A surprising stat is that New Zealand have played just 17 Tests since the beginning of 2009. This is far fewer than most teams have played in the same period. Australia have fallen from their perch but have still managed to maintain a fairly healthy win-loss ratio of 1.50, which is behind only those of England and India. While their batting average of 36.14 is fifth on the list, their bowling average (32.88) is second only to that of England. Their average difference of 3.34 is slightly better than India’s (2.82) but lower than England (13.74) and South Africa (6.33).New Zealand’s position in the table is quite the opposite. They have a terribly low win-loss ratio of 0.37, which is only marginally better than West Indies’ 0.25. Their only Test win against a major Test-playing nation came against Pakistan in 2009. New Zealand have a better batting average than Pakistan and West Indies but on the flip side, they also have a bowling average of 42.23. This has meant that their average difference (-9.80) is the second-lowest among top Test teams.

Australia go into the first Test with a new opening pair following the injury to Shane Watson. Watson and Phillip Hughes shared a 174-run opening stand in the second Test in Johannesburg. This was the first century opening stand for Australia since the one between Simon Katich and Hughes against New Zealand in 2010. In the last two years, Ricky Ponting’s poor form has meant that the partnership average for the second wicket has also fallen. New Zealand, on the other hand, have continuously had problems at the top of the order against major teams. Their average for the first two wickets (28.39 and 29.44) is well below par. While the fifth-wicket averages for both teams are very similar, the numbers for Australia are much better for the fourth and sixth wicket.

Michael Clarke, who took over the captaincy in Sri Lanka, has had a fairly successful start leading the side. He scored a fighting century in the final Test in Sri Lanka and followed it up with an outstanding 151 on a difficult pitch in Cape Town. He has also had tremendous success against New Zealand, scoring over 476 runs at an average of 79.33. Michael Hussey had a poor tour of South Africa, but has been Australia’s stand-out batsman since the Ashes series. He, however, has struggled against New Zealand, scoring 198 runs at an average of 33.00 with just two fifties. Ponting has been fighting for runs recently, and has had his problems against New Zealand too, averaging only 28.16 in his last four Tests against them.For New Zealand, Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum have impressive stats against Australia, and will need to maintain that form for their team to do well. They also ave fine records in Tests over the last three years, averaging more than 45. Jesse Ryder, another vital player in New Zealand’s batting line-up, averages over 42 since the beginning of 2009 but is yet to demonstrate any form in Tests against Australia.

In the absence of Mitchell Johnson and the impressive Pat Cummins, Australia’s attack could be tested. While Johnson has 24 wickets at 16.57 in four Tests against New Zealand, Cummins bowled with great pace and aggression in his debut game against South Africa in the recently-concluded series. Peter Siddle, who will play New Zealand for the first time, will lead the inexperienced pace attack.New Zealand’s pace line-up is likely to be led by Chris Martin and Tim Southee. Martin, one of only four New Zealand bowlers with 200-plus wickets in Tests, has barely troubled Australia in the past. In his last four Tests against Australia, he has picked up just seven wickets at an average of 68.71. Doug Bracewell had an excellent debut against Zimbabwe picking up a five-wicket haul in New Zealand’s close 34-run win. Daniel Vettori is easily the most experienced bowler for them, but even he has fairly ordinary stats in Tests in Australia, averaging almost 40 per wicket.Brisbane, the venue for the first Test, has been Australia’s stronghold. They have not lost a single Test at the venue since their defeat against West Indies in 1988. Brisbane’s bouncy conditions have generally favoured Australia’s attack and the result percentage has been fairly high. However, in the recent Ashes series, the pitch at the Gabba was completely out of character as the match ended in a dull draw with England scoring over five hundred runs for the loss of just one wicket in their second innings. While the batting averages in the first and third innings in Brisbane have been high, the corresponding numbers for the second and fourth innings are much lower. Pace bowlers, who have 240 wickets at 34.29, have easily outperformed the spinners, who have just 64 wickets at 42.56.Hobart, on the other hand, has played host to just four Tests since 2000. As in Brisbane, the batting averages are high in the first and third innings. The venue, however, has been a far more successful one for spinners, who have picked up 37 wickets at 37.91. In contrast, pace bowlers have struggled picking up 61 wickets at an average of 47.91.

ESPNcricinfo presents the Plays of the Day from the opening game of the Asia Cup, between Bangladesh and Pakistan in Mirpur

Siddarth Ravindran at the Shere Bangla Stadium11-Mar-2012The freak dismissal
There have already been a number of bizarre dismissals and close calls in one-dayers this year. Lahiru Thirimanne reprieved after being Mankaded, the David Hussey obstructing the ball/handling the ball conundrum, and the Sachin Tendulkar run-out after he crashed into the bowler Brett Lee. Add to that the Shahid Afridi dismissal today. In the 40th over, Afridi tamely pushed his first delivery back towards the bowler Shakib Al Hasan. It flew low to Shakib’s right, and though he got both hands to it, he couldn’t collect cleanly. With the ball now dropping to his left, Shakib lunged again, and only managed to juggle it once more, this time onto the non-striker Misbah-ul-Haq. The ball deflected off the batsman’s chest, hit the grill of his helmet and looped up before Shakib finally snaffled it. No batsman will be happy with a golden duck, but to get one in this manner would be particularly galling for Afridi.The celebration
All headlines about Tamim Iqbal this week had been about his controversial axing from the squad, and his subsequent inclusion, a consequence of a tussle between the national selection chief and the board president. If anyone had any doubts over his place in the ODI side, he answered them with an unusually cautious half-century, his first since the series in Zimbabwe in August last year. He reached the milestone with a punch to long-on for a single, and celebrated with a series of fist pumps. That was followed by some vigorous pointing to the dressing room, before he raised his bat specifically at the person he was looking for.The silence
Mohammad Hafeez is another opener coming in to the tournament needing runs. He had a dismal limited-overs series against England, which he ended with a couple of ducks in the Twenty20s. He rediscovered his touch in some style, first top scoring with the bat and then delivering with the ball. The game was evenly poised when he came on in the 29th over. He first dismissed the well-set Tamim – an inside-edge on to the stumps – and then sent back the vice-captain Mahumudullah for a golden duck. Two strikes which found the Shere Bangla’s mute button.The counterattack
Umar Gul was changing the game’s momentum with his late blitz after Pakistan had slumped to 198 for 7. He saved his best for the 49th over, off a fading Mashrafe Mortaza. A slower ball was clubbed over midwicket for four, the follow-up was a full toss down the leg side which was duly put away for another boundary. Mortaza’s radar remained misplaced as he served up a waist high full toss next; it was dispatched for six to bring up Gul’s highest score in one-day internationals.The comeback
Gul had a rough time with the ball early on, with the returning opener Nazimuddin playing some stylish strokes to send him out of the attack. When he returned for his third spell, in the 43rd over, the Shere Bangla was buzzing after Shakib and Nasir Hossain had brought Bangladesh back in the game. The pressure increased even more on Gul as his first ball was dinked to the third man boundary and the next tucked for four to fine leg. 7.2-0-50-0 were his unflattering figures at that stage, but he hit back with his next delivery, bowling Nasir to stall the home side.