…in the state of West Indies cricket.

A blog by mikesiva

Why is it that whenever we take one step forward, we have to take two steps backward?

CRABS AND FISH

Caribbean cricket administrators are like crabs. When you are cooking a pair of crabs, you put them both in a pot of boiling water. If one tries to escape, the other one is sure to pull his partner back into the death-trap.

The administrators of the West Indies Cricket Board don’t seem to be interested in gaining parity with other cricket boards around the world. They just seem to be interested in being big fish in a small pond.

KEN GORDON

Have they forgotten where they are coming from? Under Ken Gordon, the WICB reached a new low. The Board was heavily in debt, and constantly in conflict with the players. They were also at war with the American benefactor who started up a 20/20 competition in Antigua, Allen Stanford.

Gordon was forced to step down, and the new president, Julian Hunte, came into office with a new sense of optimism sweeping the region. The revenue from the World Cup was used to pay off the WICB’s debts, and after mending bridges with Stanford, the American started pumping funds into cricket development. And most important of all, the players expressed confidence in the new regime, and all seemed to be well….

CHRIS GAYLE

But the West Indies captain, Chris Gayle, has now tendered his resignation, expressing frustration at the team being given to him by the selectors. The WICB are apparently trying to persuade him to re-consider, but they have problems of their own.

The CEO of the Board has apparently been sent on administrative leave, and he’s now consulting his lawyers. Another official of the WICB, Tony Deyal, has apparently also been fired. To make matters worse, Stanford has also criticised the WICB for being top-heavy, and said that the organisation needed ‘trimming down’. All in all, it creates a picture of Hunte not being in charge….

THE PATTERSON REPORT

The report by former Jamaican prime minister, PJ Patterson, called on the WICB to implement some serious structural changes. Now, the Board is apparently going to meet to ‘review’ the proposals. In other words, they want to water it down into something that won’t threaten their fiefdoms.

And what about this nonsense about Hunte’s house? The WICB claim that they are not renovating his house, but are apparently renting a house that belongs to a company which is majority-owned by Hunte. And the WICB doesn’t see anything wrong in this?

Instead of trying to recruit former greats like Courtney Walsh to help get the West Indies back to the days of their former glory, the current administrators only seem to be interested in feathering their own nests.

Until we get administrators who are more interested in developing Caribbean cricket, instead of seeing what they can milk out of the sport, we will continue to go backwards….

A blog by CQ

Despite the title, I first want to say that tour matches are NOT the definitive solution to the problem of uncompetitive cricket. In my opinion they are only a part of the solution and a minor part at that with the main solution being academies, training and motivated players with good crowd support.

Recently the idea of having tiers within test cricket has been discussed on the internet (click to read) and in the ICC both now (click to read) and earlier (click to read). Some of these ideas (equal divisions) are better than others (bottom 3 team in one division and everybody else in the top division). However I don’t agree that tiers are the fundamental way to go - a tier system works great in a domestic setup but is ill suited for international play for a number of reasons:

1. In a domestic setting, there will usually be over 500 teams in a given country, far too much to have every team play every other team, so splitting them up into tier based on their performance levels also makes it easier to manage games. For instance in England alone there are estimated to be over 7,000 football clubs in the 140 leagues of the English football league system. There is no way even 1,000 teams are going to be able to play round-robin football in the lifetime of any spectator or player. The same, however, wouldn’t hold true for international sports where at most there will be around 200 teams (and in the case of test cricket only 10 with 1 team being self-suspended). Football (all forms), Basketball and Baseball don’t use a tier system so there isn’t any reason why cricket should use it.

2. In a domestic setting, a tier system can be used to encourage teams to improve in order to move up the tiers, but this effect is limited by the fact that by definition only a limited number of teams can actually move up (or down) the tiers. Take the English Premier League - there is almost no chance of Manchester United or Arsenal ever being relegated which means that in essence they have permanent spots and so the amount of teams that could move up to the EPL is effectively cut by two and this happens all the way down the footballing pyramid. With tiers, even if the first division and the second division end up with teams that are VERY evenly matched after a while (i.e. any team in the second division could beat any team in the first division and vice versa) the second division teams will remain as second division teams because there is usually never any provision to expand the various divisions (or to erase them entirely when there isn’t a difference anymore) because they have become entrenched. Also it becomes more difficult to tell when teams from a second division are improving because they face first division teams more rarely if ever at all.

3. This is related to point 2. In a domestic setup, all players have a fair chance of playing in the best teams even if all teams don’t have the chance of playing in the best division. This is because domestically players can move from team to team and so individual players can potentially overcome the entrenchment of the divisions by simply signing up for a different team. This is all possible of course because they are all citizens (or have valid work permits) and so can easily qualify for any given team. This should even be at work in places like the West Indies where the new CARICOM Single Market (with the Single Economy to follow between 2008-2015) allows sportspersons to freely move about within the CSM (note this applies to all the territories that form the WICB as well as some that aren’t under the WICB banner such as Belize and Suriname). Internationally however, this kind of free movement between national teams is not possible. A very good Bangladeshi player would not be able to simply buy a house in Perth and move there and join grade cricket in Western Australia and eventually play for Western Australia and Australia. Such a player would first have to find a job in Australia, get a work permit and then stay for 5 years before obtaining permanent residency and then citizenship and hope during those 5 years that he/she gets to move up in grade cricket and then State cricket and finally Australian national cricket. All in all that Bangladeshi player would be looking at debuting for Oz when he/she was probably about 30 or older and after waiting for 5-10 years unlike players for domestic teams who can more quickly move between teams and get a debut (1-2 years easily, if as long). A good example (again from English football) is Wayne Rooney. He was born in Liverpool and grew up supporting Everton F.C. (a local Liverpool team), playing in its youth club for 6 seasons and even fulfilled his original goal of playing for Everton….for all of 2 seasons before he went to play for Manchester United (4 seasons and counting) and never looked back – and he is  only 22. Rooney’s ManU team-mate, Rio Ferdinand also doesn’t come from Manchester originally. He was born in London, started out at West Ham United, got transferred to Leeds United (now relegated) and finally ended up in Manchester United at the age of 24.

If we were to take Mohammed Ashraful as counterpart and supposed that he wished to play Test cricket for England then his path might have looked something like this: - first class debut in Bangladesh in 2000/01 at the age of 16. He get’s noticed and then maybe get’s an overseas contract or a kolpak contract to go the UK. He must then get indefinite leave to remain/ILR (permanent residency) and I don’t know how long that would take from having just an overseas contract or kolpak contract. If we (and British immigration services) are favourable we’ll give him 6 months before he gets ILR (for over £700 by the way). He must now be careful not to mistakenly enter the UK as a visitor or come across an immigration officer who suspects he may not really want to stay in the UK otherwise he could lose the ILR and have to start again from square one.  After having ILR for about 5-6 years he can then apply for citizenship and should get it…at the age of 22 in 2006. So nearly 6-7 years after making his first class debut, Ashraful might make his first Test debut and this is assuming he get ILR very quickly. He could easily face a few more years of waiting which would push his possible Test debut to age 25. So anyone who ever debuted for first class cricket in a Tier 2 country but was 18 or 19 (or God forbid 20) might make a Test debut at age 28 (or even 30) whilst looking at possibly retirement by age 33 or 39. And this assumes that someone making their first-class debut in a Tier 2 country is immediately given a contract to a Tier 1 country to start the immigration process. More likely only the really outstanding players who have shined over a couple seasons at least would get such contracts and in this scenario Ashraful is more likely to debut for England at age 24-27 instead of 22-25. Either way, by the time Ashraful managed to successful switch from just Bangladesh to England persons like Rooney or Ferdinand could have switched teams anywhere between 3-10 times.

I also don’t like the idea of tiers because there can be cases where teams get stuck in a promotion-relegation merry-go-round. A case in point I think would have been the old near-apartheid Rhodesia when they used to play in apartheid South Africa’s domestic tournament. According to cricinfo’s brief history of cricket in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe:

“During the fifties and sixties, with the Currie Cup now split into two sections, Rhodesia were forever it seemed in limbo between the two. A cycle began in which they would overwhelm B Section opposition and gain promotion to the A Section, only to find themselves outclassed at that level - lack of self-confidence being an explanation rather than lack of talent - and being demoted again to the B Section.”

In the system that the ICC was apparently thinking about such a situation could easily have happened: If WI and Bangladesh were in one tier (with Zimbabwe still suspending itself) then at the end of the cycle the WI would be promoted and NZ would probably be demoted. However if the WI only played Bangladesh during that time the standards would fall even farther than today because the majority of the time the players wouldn’t be playing (how many times can Bangladesh and WI really play each other before even the players get bored of it?…much less the fans). So when WI plays in the first division they would get hammered and then get relegated while NZ would only have played Bangladesh for a cycle and remained idle for long periods and when they get promoted to the top stage again that lack of activity and hard opposition would show when they get hammered and continue in a merry-go-round with the WI.

A tier system would also kill a lot interest in the countries in the second tier. I for one would feel cheated and might stop watching cricket period. Most international fans like the idea that on the international sports stage the teams are theoretically equal (even if in terms of skill and resources they aren’t). A system which officially turns one of the teams into a second string one (or second class one) is not going to go down well with some fans. With cricket struggling for popularity in places like WI, Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent NZ (where rugby is more popular), Bangladesh and Pakistan (where the domestic game is poorly supported like elsewhere and the best support comes from matches against Australia and India), a tier system might well cause some of them to drop out because the level of indifference to the game would have grown to the point where the board can’t make any money for over 5 years on a stretch.

ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

Tiers always struck me as addressing the symptoms and not the problem (or “disease”). The problem as greyblazer pointed out in another blog entry (click to read) is that the domestic structure in Bangladesh and to a lesser extent Zimbabwe and WI needs to improve. If WI continue to have a 50-over tournament that only last a month with groups and knockout stages and Australia has a 50-over tournament that lasts 3 months with home and away then it doesn’t matter how many tiers are setup in international cricket or what kind of innovations are applied to the tiers. In the end the WI will simply struggle because their players aren’t put through a rigorous enough domestic season (which is also why they are so injury prone - the domestic season doesn’t encourage increased fitness levels). Likewise if the WI with 6 first-class teams has a 3 month first-class tournament where each team only plays each other once while Australia which also has 6 first-class teams has a 3-month first-class tournament where each team plays home and away then it is only natural that the WI will be generally worse than Australia in Tests because their players will only play half-as-many first-class matches (if as much) as their Australian counterparts. Having cricket academies, psychologists, physiologists, trainers, batting coaches, bowling coaches, fielding coaches and so on is another area where WI and Australia differ and a tier system won’t provide those things to the WI, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. Also, if teams like India, England or Australia wouldn’t countenance their own relegation to a second division (which is always theoretically possible if a tier system even if it is practically impossible as with some teams in the English premiership) then a second division should never be made in the first place.

In fact a tier system could well serve as a disincentive for the less competitive teams to acquire such essentials as academies, bowling coaches, batting coaches, etc. Given the choice between doing what is right and necessary on the one hand and what is easy and cheap on the other, many human beings will invariably choose the latter unless they have real goals or great willpower and patience. In a tier system it could be very easy for the cricket administration to aim to be merely the best in the division instead of being the best overall. The two goals aren’t the same and to be best in a division of weak teams doesn’t take much effort or money and it would become easy for cricket boards to argue that things like academies, physiologists, physiotherapists and separate batting, bowling and fielding coaches are unnecessary and then point to the (relative) success of the team in their Tier 2 division (“we are the 2^nd best team in Division Two!” would be an appropriate distraction from the truly needed changes and it is a very easy sell to the public).

Instead of having a tier system, what should be done is to have all countries try to keep up with the latest sports advancement (skill-specific coaches, academies etc.) and then in international play reduce the number of matches in general (the future tours programme is a bit too packed anyway) or re-organize them to have more sensible tours:
     First ban two-Test series. The minimum should be three for everybody with exceptions only being made if the visiting AND host teams agree to it (so for instance if Bangladesh or West Indies thinks it’s better to have a two test series and Australia agrees).
     Second, reduce the number of ODIs and increase the number of Twenty20s and tour matches. Tour matches are a vital part of any tour since it allows visiting teams to adjust and acclimatize as well as providing match experience and training. New Zealand are going to play MANY (6) tour matches in their tour of England including 4 first class matches (3 of which are before any of the Tests). Compare that to when WI toured England where they played 5 tour matches including only TWO first class matches (of which only ONE was before the first 2 Tests) and to Australia’s tour of the WI (where they will play two tour matches and only one before the first test). Tour matches also give teams the opportunity to experiment with strategies, the batting line-up and their bowlers without facing the type of fan scrutiny and pressure that comes from the matches against the host team itself (most fans don’t really remember the tour matches more than the international matches anyway).
     Third, the various boards could try to organize more matches for the A teams and development teams (even domestic teams). For example, when England travel to Bangladesh one thing that could help would be to have England A (and England’s women team) travel to Bangladesh and play against various Bangladeshi sides such as Bangladesh A and the first-class teams. Maybe even one of the county teams such as Surrey or Yorkshire could come along and play against these other Bangladeshi teams. Likewise when Bangladesh tour England, it would probably do Bangladesh A and a Bangladesh Development XI some good to tour England and play various English counties and England A. This would help in the way that pre-domestic season tours by the English counties and Australian states would help (and that system as well should definitely be kept since it is mutually beneficial).

On the matter of tour matches, for a team like Bangladesh what is probably needed more than a tier system is for Bangladeshi tours to other countries to include as many tour matches as possible (especially before any international matches). So if Bangladesh toured Australia they should play against grade cricket teams, country-cricket teams, the Territorial teams, State Second XI, State XI teams, an Australian Academy XI and Australia A before even thinking of playing Australia. It should help them psychologically as the progress against ever harder opposition and it should also help them as they could well go into a match against Australia with a number of wins on the tour matches (against Australian players to boot) and so could feel more confident than would happen when they land in Australia play one tour match which ends in a draw and then face Australia the very next match.
If Bangladesh had at least 7 tour matches before facing Australia they should do better than they would otherwise. The ideal Bangladesh tour might well have at least 10 tour matches and only a few international matches against Australia (maybe two-Tests if Bangladesh and Australia agree and 3 ODIs and 3-5 T20s - giving 20 matches in all).

THE DECLINE OF TOUR MATCHES

Taking a look back through the records (I did so randomly for various years and decades) it seemed apparent to me that past tours had more tour matches generally (some tours didn’t have any apparently but generally they did). Not only did there seem to be more tour matches but the tour matches seemed to be more sensibly organized. Before the advent of ODIs most cricket tours consisted of multiday tour matches and Tests. Some tours didn’t even have any Tests and only tour matches (there was apparently a NZ tour of Australia in the 1930s like this according to cricinfo’s match series archive). Some tours used to have 2 multi-day tour matches for every test match and others even had 5 multi-day tour matches for every test (usually this happened in England). So it wasn’t unheard of for there to be as much as 26 tour matches in a single tour (all multiday since this was in the 1930s). This happened in the 1930 Australian tour of England where they played the 5 test Ashes series. In 2005 when Australia toured England to play 5 tests only 8 tour matches were played…and of these only 4 were multiday matches. Also in the past some of the tours that had no tour matches were tours that were continuing on from a neighbouring country where tour matches had been played (e.g. tour to Pakistan following a tour of India or a tour of New Zealand following a tour of Australia) and the touring team would presumably have become adequately adjusted to the conditions of the tour due to the prior tour in the neighbouring country and they should have had enough practice and match experience from the previous tours.

Even when ODIs came about the tours had a certain logic to them. For example the 1987/88 Pakistan tour of WI still had 3 multi-day tour matches to 3 Tests (a 1:1 ratio) – although the ODIs were scheduled between the tour matches and the Tests. Now, however, tours today can be organized so the WI play 2 multiday tour matches and 4 Tests (with 1 tour match before the first two tests and the second tour match occurring before the third and fourth tests) but then the WI play 3 one-day tour matches before the 2 T20s and 3 ODI series. This may well have contributed to the improved WI performance in the ODIs compared to the Tests (in addition to weather/acclimatization and captaincy issues). Team like Bangladesh can end up playing 1 multi-day tour match to 3 Tests and 1 single-day tour match to 3 ODIs in a given tour. Whereas it was possible for 2-5 tour matches for each test, now teams can count themselves lucky to get 1 multiday tour match per test (even with 2 and 3 test series). At a minimum I think there should be 1 tour match per ODI and 2 multiday tour matches per test so a theoretical tour could have 3 ODIs + 3 tour matches, 2-3 T20s and 3 Tests + 6 tour matches or 2 Test + 4 tour matches. Tour matches may not draw out crowds and would thus be money losers, but they can represent an investment which can help the teams play competitive cricket in general and that is sure to bring out more crowds over time (and more money for the boards and ICC).

Speaking of uncompetitive teams, Dan Jafari also made a good point about Bangladesh’s constant losing. It isn’t something any true cricket lover would be happy about, but the fact is that they aren’t going over ground that hasn’t been gone over before. New Zealand took a quarter of a century after playing their first test before actually winning one. Bangladesh has only gone 9 years if we discount the solitary win against a weakened Zimbabwe. And tellingly Bangladesh have played more Tests in its first 9 years (53 tests) than New Zealand did in its first 26 (44 tests) so Bangladesh may well be suffering an overdose as they may not have time to really build a team before being blown away in another test. Even when South Africa played their first test (a full 20 years before there was even a Union of South Africa) they were humiliated. We all have the patience to watch a single match for 5 days, so shouldn’t we also have patience when it comes to team development?

Finally look at how tiers might have affected cricket in the past if such a system had been introduced earlier.Tiers could well have prevented NZ from ever being a respectable team at any point in their history and with the pitfalls of tiers the WI may not have ever been able to become dominant considering their poor showing in the 1930s and early 1970s - would that unsuccessful 1975/76 tour of Australia even have happened if WI were in a second division at the time? And if not, then would Lloyd have done what he did?

A blog by Mikesiva

Often, after a side goes down to defeat, the captain and the coach will talk about taking ‘positives’ from the loss, and applying it to future matches.

More often than not, those are hollow platitudes.  Nothing can erase the pain of losing a five-day Test match.

However, every now and then the history of cricket throws up a match where a team can actually be proud of the way they played on their way to losing a Test match.  That is the situation with the West Indies, when they lost the first Test match against Australia and Sabina Park….

UNDERDOGS

The Windies went into the Test as big underdogs.  They are ranked a lowly eighth in the ICC Test rankings, while the Aussies have ruled the roost for the past decade. The talk surrounded the strong possibility of the tourists inflicting the first-ever whitewash to be suffered by the host team in the Caribbean.

To compound matters, the batsman who topped the run-scoring tables in South Africa - Marlon Samuels - had been banned for two years for charges related to match-fixing.  Their inspirational captain, Chris Gayle, had to pull out of the team with a recurring injury.  Also, their promising opening bat, Sewnarine Chattergoon, also had to pull out injured.

But the biggest blow of all was the loss of the WI’s main strike bowler, Jerome Taylor, to injury, on the eve of the match.  Those losses would deflate any team, on the verge of taking on the best team in the world….

THE DEPTH OF THE AUSSIES

Yes, the Australians were without two of their most experienced batsmen, Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke, but the visitors had a certain level of depth to their squad that the WIndies did not possess.  For example, replacement opener Simon Katich  outperformed his WI counterpart, Brenton Parchment, in the warm-up game in Trelawny.

And when the Australians raced to 301-4, courtesy of prolific captain Ricky Ponting’s 158, on the opening day of the Test match in Kingston, it looked like it was about to be the same old story….

WINDIES FIGHTBACK

But then Barbadian speedster Fidel Edwards demolished the rest of the Aussie batting, taking a well-deserved five-fer to peg the tourists back to 431.  Only the powerful allrounder Andy Symonds stood in the way of the rampant paceman with the slingy action, with an authoritative 70 not out.

Once again, the West Indian top order failed to fire, and once again it was Shivnarine Chanderpaul to the rescue.

Captain Ramnaresh Sarwan failed to reproduce his form against the Sri Lankans, and it was left to the Guyanese ‘Atlas’, accompanied by a belligerent Runako Morton, to carry the WI past the follow-on target.  Brett Lee temporarily knocked out Chanderpaul with a bouncer to the head, and it seemed as if he would have to come off the field.

But the brave veteran ‘Tiger’ continued the fight, and moved on to his 18th Test century, and in the process inspired his team to fight back.  This time, Darren Powell joined Edwards in a devastating spell of pace bowling to reduce Australia to 18-5.  Then, once again, Symonds came to the rescue, and took the tourists to 167.  It wasn’t much, but added to the deficit from the first innings, it was enough to mount an insurmountable target on a deteriorating pitch….

AUSTRALIA PREVAIL

This time,  Chanderpaul failed to notch up a significant score, and the top order fell away.  The lower order staged some resistance, but it proved to be futile, as Stuart Clark ran through the West Indies innings with McGrath-like precision.

For four of the five days, the WI fought the Australians tooth and nail, only caving in to the pressure on the final day.  The fielding was excellent, and the catching was superb.  It’s not often that you can say that the present-day WI team outperformed the Aussies in the field!

The batting of Chanderpaul, the tenacity of Morton, the fire-power of Edwards and Powell, the wicketkeeping of Denesh Ramdin, and the fielding of the WI team as a while was inspirational….

So, are there any real positives to take out of this Test into the second Test, which starts in Antigua on Friday?

Yes, I think so….

A blog by Yenky

 Brad Haddin is the 400th test player to be handed the baggy green when he debuted in the current test match between Australia and WestIndies at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica. Will Brad Haddin find himself at ease to fill the boots of the pink glovester?

Ian Chappell’s  comments (click to read) which were aimed to encourage the deubutant are extremely distasteful. 
Ian Chappell should take a look at the record books before opening his rubbish. It is ridiculous to read Chappell’s less than dignified views that Australia are better off without Adam Gilchrist.

Gilchrist stands tall among all time wicket keepers with 416 dismissals behind the stumps, only 2nd to Mark Boucher.
Gilchrist debuted at 27 in tests and played 96 test matches. Haddin is 30 and he may not be lucky enough to play 96 test matches as Gilly.

Each one of Haddin’s predescessors played for a long time and established a niche for themselves. Rodney Marsh (1970 - 1984), Ian Healy (1988 - 1999) and Adam Gilchrist (1999 - 2008) feature in the all time leading wicket keepers’ (click to view) list .

Is Haddin a worthy successor to these legendary wicket-keepers?

Pic courtesy: Sky Sports

A blog by Mikesiva

Well, the three-Test series between the mighty Australians and minnows West Indies gets underway in Kingston on Thursday, when the first Test should set the tone for the rest of the series.

THE GOOD OLD DAYS

Gone are the days when a series between Australia and the Windies would determine who sits at the top of the pile.  The Caribbean team has fallen from those lofty heights, and is only now showing signs of dragging itself off rock-bottom. Even winning a solitary Test proved elusive under the leadership of batting genius Brian Lara.

Now that Lara has retired, the WI have managed to win a solitary Test in South Africa (losing the series 2-1), and in a 1-1 drawn home series against Sri Lanka.  The West Indies are now beginning to show some fight, but they are still a long way from being world champions again….

The Australians are the indisputable world champions.  Surely, this will be one-way traffic, and the small improvements made by the WIndies over the past two series will be ruthlessly crushed by the tourists. How can the WI possibly hope to be competitive against the powerful Aussies? Can they hope to avoid a 3-0 whitewash?

AUSTRALIA

The Australians have a few minor setbacks.  Vice-captain Michael Clarke had to pull out because of the illness, and subsequent death, of his future father-in-law, and he will rejoin the squad in time for the second Test.  This opens the door for SImon Katich to claim a recall, and he grabbed the opportunity with both hands, hitting 97 against Jamaica in the only warm-up before the first Test.

Adam Gilchrist has hung up his gloves, and Brad Haddin will make his debut behind the stumps at Sabina Park.  But his keeping in Trelawny has not been great, as he dropped Carlton Baugh on seven.  The Jamaican wicketkeeper then went on to make 111 not out….

With the retirement of veteran pacer Glenn McGrath and spinning genius Shane Warne, this opens the door for a number of new, young, talented Aussies to stake a claim to the starting XI. Leg-spinner Stuart MacGill, who long sat in Warne’s shadow, will be keen to get off to a good start at Sabina Park, while McGrath-clone Stuart Clark will be seeking to repeat his idol’s success in the Caribbean with a consistent performance.

YOUTH AND EXPERIENCE

This will be opener Phil Jaques’ first Test tour of the Caribbean, but he will benefit from opening with the experienced Matthew Hayden.  Captain Ricky Ponting will come one down, and he’s been having a lean time with the bat recently.  But he’s a class act, and he will be seeking to correct that anomaly during the tour of the Caribbean.

Michael Hussey will come in at four for his first visit to the Caribbean, followed most likely by Katich and allrounder Andy Symonds.  Hussey will be hard-pressed to maintain the high standards he set himself in the fast start to his Test career, while Katich and Symonds will seek to dispel concerns that they are not consistent enough.

Brett Lee is now the most experienced bowler in the side, and the express paceman will find the slow pitches of the Caribbean more than a little challenging. The Aussie bowling attack may depend heavily on Clark and MacGill….

WEST INDIES

The hosts have been hard-hit by injuries to openers Chris Gayle and Sewnarine Chattergoon, and they have been replaced in the squad by the under-achieving Runako Morton and the less-than-impressive allrounder Ryan Hinds.  Ramnaresh Sarwan will take over the leadership reins from Gayle, and he will most likely come to the crease after the opening partnership of Brenton Parchment and Devon Smith.

Parchment had a disappointing tour of South Africa, and did not do well in the domestic league in the Caribbean this season, capping that off with a score of just 25 for a Jamaica XI against Australia this weekend.  This paltry performance can be contrasted with Katich’s impressive return in the same match!

THE BATTING

Smith has been very inconsistent, and this series could well be seen as his last chance in Test whites. Morton will probably came in at four, with Shivnarine Chanderpaul one place lower than he should be at five. Inspirational allrounder Dwayne Bravo will most likely be at six, followed by wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin.

The batting will probably depend heavily on the experienced Guyanese duo of Sarwan and Chanderpaul, while Bravo will need to put his lean time with the bat behind him, and contribute more in the runs department. This match could also be Morton’s last-chance saloon….

THE BOWLING

Jerome Taylor is the pace bowler who has shown the most promise in recent series, but fellow seamers Darren Powell and Fidel Edwards need to show more consistency.  The selectors have been reluctant to pick spinners for Tests, but surely one is essential for every Test of this series.

The question is, who?

Do they go for Amit Jaggernauth, the Trinidadian who topped the wicket-taking stakes in the round-robin Carib Series?  Or do they select Barbadian Suleimann Benn, who’s not as good a spinner, but is reputedly a better batsman and fielder than Jaggernauth?

Your guess is as good as mine….

A blog by mikesiva

Two Test series are about to get under way….

England host a New Zealand team that has been weakened by the retirement of batting stalwart Stephen Fleming, and the loss of star paceman Shane Bond to the renegade ICL 20/20 competition in India. But other Kiwis have also departed the scene for competitions like the ICL, and even county cricket. For example, Craig Spearman and Hamish Marshall, both of whom could command a place in this weakened Kiwi side, are devoting their energies primarily to county cricket now.

This is a NZ side that was beaten 2-1 at home recently, and the margin of defeat in the last Test of that series suggests that it will be even more one-sided in England….

And despite a home series 1-1 draw against Sri Lanka, only the eternal optimist would expect the West Indies to do well against the impending juggernaut known as Australia. It is a sign of how far the West Indies have fallen, that there can be an air of optimism surrounding the Windies home series tie against a team that doesn’t travel well!

Both England and Australia are expected to win the Test series without breaking a sweat. That then reaises the question - should there be two tiers of Test cricket?

South Africa rattled up 405 without loss on the first day’s play of their Test against Bangladesh at Chittagong, flaying the Bangladesh bowling to all parts of the ground. Captain Graeme Smith has so far hit a double-century on the first day’s play, and is well-set for an assault on Brian Lara’s individual Test batting record of 400 not out.

Neil McKenzie, his opening partner, also hit an unbeaten century, and the only likely result, given Bangladesh’s poor batting line-up, was for the hosts to follow-on and to lose by an innings and runs….

Should Bangladesh be playing Test cricket? I think the answer to that one is ‘yes’, because how else will they improve?

But should they be playing Test cricket against teams as strong as South Africa? Surely, a humiliation like this can’t be good for the development of Bangladeshi cricket!

ENGLAND VS WEST INDIES

Recently, England hammered the West Indies in a test series, but the Windies won the ODI series. So, these teams are more evenly matched in ODIs than they are in Tests….

South Africa crushed New Zealand in the Tests, but the Kiwis won one of the ODI matches. Even Zimbabwe recently won an ODI against the Windies, and Bangladesh beat India in an ODI in the World Cup.

But the situation is different in the Tests. I mean, what’s the point of the Windies playing a Test series against the Australians? The Windies will get crushed and demoralised, and some promising young cricketers’ careers will be in ruins.

New Zealand have been hammered by South Africa, and the same will happen when they go to England. Pakistan were beaten at home by South Africa, and they were convincingly beaten by India.

Wouldn’t it be better if the weaker Test nations played more Tests against each other?

TWO DIVISIONS

The first division could include Australia, South Africa, England, India, and maybe Sri Lanka.

The second division would then include Pakistan, New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh, and maybe ZImbabwe, when they are ready to be re-admitted.

Let’s call the first division the Elite Group, and the other teams the Secondary Group….

HOW IT WOULD WORK

The teams in the Elite Group are required by the ICC to play each other home and away within a four-year period, playing a minimum of three Tests or a maximum of five Tests per series. The same would also hold for the teams in the Secondary Group when they play each other….

However, when the teams from the Elite Group play teams in the Secondary Group, the rules change! Those teams are then required by the ICC to play each other home and away within an eight-year period, playing a minimum of two Tests, and a maximum of three Tests.

After an eight-year cycle, the team that finishes bottom of the Elite group goes down, and the team that finishes tp of the Secondary Group goes up.

That way, the Windies would still play Australia, but not as often as they would play New Zealand….

And Australia would have more series against England and India.

Do you think this would work?

A blog by mikesiva

Okay, then, what can we draw from this two-Test series? Because it’s such a short series, not a lot, I’m afraid….

But there are some positives, and some negatives.

WEST INDIES

First, the West Indies. No surprise that Sarwan topped the batting averages with 77. Good to see him back to his best!

Chanderpaul’s not out victory performance saw him second in the list with 43, which is average, by his standards. Bravo improved his batting average with 39.

JEROME TAYLOR

But Gayle was below what was expected of him with 35, and Chattergoon and Smith each made 28, which is not good enough. Taylor, however, showed good improvements with the bat, with 26. Ryan Hinds needs to do more to be considered, and while Ramdin was excellent behind the stumps, he needs to make more runs. And Samuels had a very poor run with the bat….

Taylor once again was the WI’s best bowlers, taking 11 wickets at an average of 24, and Edwards had a good second Test, with five wickets at an average of 29. But the other bowlers clearly have more work to do….

SRI LANKA

Now, how did Sri Lanka fare?

Samaraweera was the top batsman for the visitors, on the back of his century in the final innings, averaging 62….

THE BATTING

Warnapura and Mahela averaged in the 50s, and Chamara Silva returned an average of 44 from one match. Vaas had a good allround performance, averaging 37 with the bat, and taking 12 wickets at a miserly 19.

But Dilshan and Vandort had disappointing averages in the 20s, as well as Sangakkara, who entered the series as the top-rated batsman in the world!

VAAS AND MURALI

Vaas was Sri Lanka’s top bowler, and Murali’s average of 32 was disappointing by his high standards. But a similar average for Thushara represents a promising start for this left-arm seamer….

So, the players who will leave this series with fond memories are Sarwan, Samaraweera, Taylor and Vaas. Sri Lanka go on to play India, and the West Indies host Australia.

Can these smaller nations raise their game against the big giants of the game?

A Blog by Yenky

Simon Jones is anticipated to return to cricket against Northamptonshire on April 30th in the LV County Championship.  http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/display.var.2231561.0..php

Simon Jones didn’t produce anything special in his first few years of cricket. One series, the most important series for a whole generation of cricketers, has changed the way we read the name Simon Jones.

With a bowling average of 28, Jones may not scare the opposition batsmen but the Ashes 2005 series saw him as a potential great fast bowler. His bowling average is better than the current bowlers in England team -  Mathew Hoggard (30.5), Steve Harmison (32.00), Stuart Broad (38) and Sidebottom (32.5).
On his heyday, he consistently bowled above 90 mph, bagged 18 wickets in 4 matches and mastered the art of reverse swing that was a rarity for any bowlers other than from Pakistan before this series. He had a string of injuries which stopped him from coming back to playing cricket.

He is anticipated to come back to playing International cricket but since 2005, he only played 5 first class games. Is it dream to even think that he will play International cricket again?

A Blog by Yenky

Musavir Khote
Wilkin Mota
Palani Amarnath
Manpreet Gony

Ever heard of these names in International Cricket? These players are playing in the Indian Premier League. All 4 of them played less than 10 first class matches in Indian domestic cricket. Inspite of that, they are given a chance to run shoulders with legends of the Cricket World like Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne, Ricky Ponting.

Would a good show in IPL for their franchises make the Indian selectors to stand up and give them a chance for the Indian team? Absolutely! IPL seems to be the new short cut that cricket players have found on their way to name and fame.

Selection committees from different countries have different yardsticks and different measures for selecting players into the International team.

Marvan Attapattu called the Sri Lankan selectors ‘Muppets’. His statement seemed correct, for Sri Lanka lost that test series in Australia 0 - 2 and couldn’t reach the final of the CB series in Australia. 

In India, even upto 10 years back, zonal/ regional politics were most prevelant. The teams were selected based on players’ zones/ regions.
Players from certain domestic teams were more favored. Such inconsistences still continue, but less prevelant. Noel David (a nobody in International cricket, even in national cricket - sorry to say but that is the truth) was once selected and sent to WestIndies as a replacement for Javagal Srinath when Srinath was injured! 

There was a trend around when Sourav Ganguly was the captain, U-19 players were rewarded as soon as they performed in few U-19 matches.
Yuvraj Singh, Mohammad Kaif are the products of U-19. In recent times, only Ishant Sharma is directly from U -19 teams. Ishant only played 3 matches when he was 1st selected for the India team.

Talented cricketers playing for India directly without any domestic/ U - 19 cricket is very rare. Sachin is the only shining example.
He played only 2 domestic matches, if I am not wrong, before he was selected for International cricket. A certain genius by name Sunil Gavaskar watched him in the nets and recommended him for the tour of Pakistan. He was selected for the India tour of Pakistan, in between the gap of the selection and the tour, he played Ranji trophy games.
Successful Pakistan teams have been built around this principle by Imran Khan.

Domestic performance based selections rule the roost currently in India, but there are cricketers like Ranadeb Bose and Badrinath whose domestic performance are superb, yet don’t get a nod.

Recently comeback cricketers who performed well in the counties are getting the nod. Murali Karthik, Harbhajan Singh, and Zaheer Khan earned their place in the Indian team riding on the back of their county performances.

Politics play a major role in SouthAfrican selections, rumble my pals from South Africa. Inter-island politics play a part in the selection policies, WestIndian fans often say. How much of it is truth? What plays the major role?

How about England? Is there any county whose players are favored?

Is Australia the only country, that seems to have none of these problems? Or aren’t the problems obviously glaring because of the No. 1 status in International cricket?