All posts by n8rngtd.top

After a tough time over the winter Eoin Morgan returned to form and played the type of innings that no other England batsman could have produced

George Dobell at Lord's29-Jun-2012When people talk of the great moments of limited-overs cricket, this match will not warrant a mention. There were no echoes of Sir Viv’s 1984 Old Trafford century here; none of the drama of Allan Donald dropping his bat as he did at Edgbaston in 1999; no comparison with Sachin reaching a double-century or of Gilchrist thrashing a century to win the 2007 World Cup. Nor is there an urn for the winners of this series. In the grand scheme of things, it really does not amount to very much. But, in the years and months ahead, it might just be that we reflect on this game as the day when England started to believe they could win the 2015 World Cup.If that sounds excessive, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the context of this match: England had not beaten Australia at Lord’s since 1997; Australia are the No. 1 ranked ODI side in the world; England, inserted in testing conditions, overcame a disadvantage worth perhaps 20 to 25 runs to win.Make no mistake, this result could, so easily, have gone the other way. Had Brett Lee or Clint McKay taken the edge of the bat rather than beating it regularly in their testing first spells; had Michael Clarke not called Matthew Wade for an improbable single; had the Decision Review System (DRS) not reprieved Ian Bell when he had just three and, most pertinently, had Eoin Morgan not produced a fine innings, Australia could well have won.There are many more hurdles to clear before England can be considered a consistently good ODI side and rumours of their resurgence will be met, in some quarters, with guffaws of laughter until they prove themselves in Asia. But this series is not all about results. It is about building for the future. And, with that in mind, this was a highly encouraging performance from England. For not only did they win, but they demonstrated once again that they have now chanced upon – and the sudden departure of Kevin Pietersen really does mean they chanced upon it – a well-balanced side that is well-suited to the challenges posed by two new white balls, good bowling and testing conditions.Morgan will gain the plaudits, just as tourists only photograph the top of the Chrysler Building. But without the foundations provided by England’s top three, he might not have had the platform to play his wonderful innings.Some might criticise England for a slow start. After all, they scored just 27 in their first nine overs and, after 36 overs, had scored only 151. But, without the defensive ability of Alastair Cook, Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott, England could easily have found themselves 40 for 5 after an hour and out of the game. Instead they remained calm, reasoned that 270 was a competitive total and played, Morgan apart, sensible, percentage cricket. It is what they do best.There are some issues with their method. For one thing, it leaves them overly reliant on Morgan for their acceleration (while Bell, Cook and Trott are all capable of changing gear, none of them can make the destructive contribution Morgan showed here), while they also have to show they can win on pitches where a total of 330 is par.But one step at a time. This is a side that looked worryingly mediocre in India only seven or eight months ago. Who were hit by the “retirement” of their best played only weeks ago. They are not the finished article, but they are heading in the right direction.The return to form of Morgan was particularly pleasing. After an awful tour of the UAE – in three Tests, three ODIs and a T20 in the UAE, he failed to pass 25 runs in an innings – there were concerns about his long-term future. But whatever his struggles in Test cricket, Morgan remains a key component in England’s limited-overs side. The way he changed gear here, scoring 12 from his first 21 deliveries and 77 from his next 42 was immensely impressive. At one stage he struck three successive sixes, punishing Brett Lee’s marginal failure to deliver a yorker with a stunning heave over wide long-on. Pietersen apart, it is hard to think of another England batsman that could have played such an innings.Morgan put his revival down to some technical work he undertook after the tour of the UAE. “It’s no fun when you’re not getting any runs or contributing to the team,” Morgan said. “Today was a big step for my summer. When I got back from Dubai, I had two weeks off on holiday and then I came back and reflected on what I had done poorly in the UAE and made some technical changes. One of them was the balance of my head and the other was my hands moving. It was very basic stuff.”Cook agreed that Morgan’s innings was the difference between the sides, but also provided a reminder of the importance of England’s top three. “To score at a strike-rate of 130-140 was incredible and it took us to a really competitive total,” Cook said. “It was hard work to start with and you saw the ball nipping around. But what was pleasing that we didn’t panic as a batting order. We kept wickets in hands and we all know that at Lord’s and in English conditions you can make up time, particularly when you have people like Eoin down the order.”The start might have seemed a bit slow, but we laid the groundwork for Morgan. I don’t think we could have played much differently in the first 20 overs. It was hard work at the top of the order.”Cook also praised his bowling attack. While Tim Bresnan, still struggling to rediscover the nip he had before his elbow operation in December, had one disappointing spell and James Anderson, hampered by a groin strain, struggled towards the end, there still appeared no weak link in the England attack. Steven Finn, bowling with pace and hostility and skill, was quite magnificent.”It’s very nice to have five experienced bowlers,” Cook continued. “They might bowl the odd bad over, but they don’t bowl many bad spells. We thought 270 was a par score: defendable, but if someone had played out of their skin we probably couldn’t have defended it. But we kept nipping out wickets. It wasn’t a perfect performance in the field – or even close to it – so it’s encouraging to have won.”

Yuvraj Singh once said he wished he had Virat Kohli’s work ethic when he was young and watching Kohli in practice shows why.

Abhishek Purohit in Kandy02-Aug-2012It is easy to talk about Virat Kohli’s attitude. He is young, successful and from Delhi, a city where brash is known to go with the former two attributes. He has everything a regular 23-year old would only dream of. He is India vice-captain, a World Cup winner, an IPL star and currently in the form of his life. And he makes sure you know all that the way he swaggers around with what can only be termed as the Don’t-touch-me-I’m-Virat look. All of this is easily seen and easily spoken about. What is not seen much, largely due to Kohli’s outward manifestations, is the way the man goes about his game. Yuvraj Singh has said he wished he had Kohli’s work ethic when he was young, and you can see during practice what made Yuvraj say that.If Gautam Gambhir’s eyes drip intensity and Rahul Dravid’s stance shows his determination, Kohli’s entire being exudes a rarely seen combination of precision and passion during practice.Kohli’s precision is not the mere cold calculation of doing exactly what is required to be done; it seems so natural it’s almost surreal. He bats with precision, he takes catches with precision, he does fitness drills with precision, he even gives throwdowns to team-mates with precision. And appears completely natural all the time.Kohli’s passion is not the uncontrollable childlike enthusiasm of a youngster. He will take several blinders at point during training and go down with a contorted face full of disappointment if he misses even one. There are many in this side who would not even go for such catches in the first place. Kohli gives the impression he wants to be here, doing what he is doing, playing cricket for India.He starts by thumping the spinners in the nets. There are a couple of local net bowlers and the three specialist India spinners – R Ashwin, Pragyan Ojha and Rahul Sharma. Kohli hardly differentiates between them. He charges out and carts them over the boundary. He lofts them into the stands. He crashes them off the back foot. Even from a distance of tens of metres, the sight is brutal. Not in the display of power, as MS Dhoni shows later, but in the relentlessness of it.He moves on to taking high catches on the boundary. He takes them all. He leaps and takes them inches from the rope. He runs several yards in front to take them. He drops none. At no point does he appear to be straining himself. Is this man for real?Now he takes those sharp ones at point. Virender Sehwag joins in for a few minutes, then walks away. Kohli continues to throw himself around. He goes with both hands, he goes with one hand. Suddenly, he drops one. And goes down as is he’s dropped it in a World Cup final. Say what you will about the man’s behaviour, but surely he can’t be overdoing this reaction.He now takes over the duty of hitting those high catches to his team-mates. And does it with gusto. Dhoni, who is among those taking the catches, asks for one close to the rope. The next ball promptly arrives where the captain wants it.You would think at least now he would show some sign, one sign, of being tired. But wait. Gambhir wants to practice some back-foot punches. Who to give him throwdowns but his young Delhi team-mate? Kohli keeps banging them earnestly into the pitch and Gambhir keeps punching them sweetly till he is satisfied with the stroke.Ah, he is done, finally. Surely, now he will show that he is tired. At least a deep breath? Not coming. The swagger is back in place as Kohli walks to the dressing room. He even poses for some photographs with a group of Sri Lankan fans. Did he smile broadly at the camera? Of course not. He’s Virat.

Victory at Lord’s came despite another poor England catching display

Andrew McGlashan at Lord's02-Sep-2012This theme will sound a bit like a broken record, but England’s catching malaise shows little sign of abating. At Lord’s the focus was back on the slips, a problem area all summer, and the fact England secured victory to take an unassailable 2-1 lead was despite, not because of, their fielding.If that feels like a downbeat note on which to reflect on another solid victory – which is a sign of the strength of character in this one-day side – it never hurts to look at how a team can improve after a win. One thing is for sure, Andy Flower will not be rubbing out the dropped catches from his notebook that gets studiously filled during each match.It is difficult to pinpoint when England last went through such a sustained period of weakness in the catching department. The Ashes tour in 1994-95 springs to mind, which came to a head when ten chances were put down in Perth, leading to Graham Thorpe booting the ball away at first slip after he grassed one. In 2006 England suffered a bad Test at Lord’s against Sri Lanka when a hatful of chances went down and the visitors saved the game, but by the next match standards had improved. While there are obviously other failures in between, too, the current issues have become a trend.This season, at least since the third Test against West Indies when Ian Bell dropped two at slip, there has been a consistency about the inconsistency. And it is not just one player, either, unlike previous occasions when the likes of Kevin Pietersen or Matt Prior have gone through periods of missing plenty. James Anderson, Alastair Cook and Andrew Strauss missed them in the Test series, while Craig Kieswetter had an awful ODI in Southampton and at Lord’s it was James Tredwell’s turn to let two escape his grasp.The first, inevitably off Hashim Amla’s outside edge, flew at an awkward shoulder-height to Tredwell at second slip and he could not decide whether to go with his hands up or down. Still, it should have been swallowed. The second came when Tredwell was stood at a lone first slip and Graeme Smith edged the same bowler, Steven Finn. Kieswetter committed to the dive and his out-stretched left glove distracted Tredwell, who never got near catching it. It was credit to Tredwell that did not let the misses affect his bowling, where he responded with a beautifully controlled 3 for 35.However, the fact that Tredwell and Jonathan Trott were England’s two slips highlights the issues they are having. It is not that they are poor slippers – it bemuses many that Trott is not there more often and Tredwell does it for Kent – but there has been a huge amount of chopping and changing in recent months. That is unavoidable to a degree – players retire, others get injured, while Test and ODI teams are not the same – but like any role in sport players have to be able to settle in a position.Cook, who has fielded slip in Tests albeit with mixed results, and Anderson are not there to quick bowlers in ODIs (although Anderson stood there to the spinners at Lord’s). Fielding in the slips, while a very individual skill, also requires a sixth sense built up over time over who will go for what, especially between the keeper and first slip. Healy-Taylor, Gilchrist-Warne, Strauss-Prior (mostly) and Smith-Boucher are just a few contemporary examples of long-term associations.

In ODIs, Cook likes to field at mid-off to chat to his bowlers but first slip is ideal for a captain. Can he make himself safe in that position? It might also help him judge the use of DRS”

In terms of England’s catching as a whole they have not replaced Paul Collingwood, who spent his career at backward point in ODIs and third slip in Tests, or second when the likes of Andrew Flintoff or Graeme Swann were bowling. It was a natural stagger, everyone knew where they would be.Crucially, too, the first slip remained almost constant, certainly in Tests, whether it be Marcus Trescothick (who had to avoid Geraint Jones’ keenness to dive more than once) or Strauss. Now that will come into focus again in the Tests with Strauss departing with a record number of England catches. In ODIs, Cook likes to field at mid-off to chat to his bowlers but first slip is ideal for a captain. Can Cook make himself safe in that position? It might also help him judge the use of DRS; as in the second match at West End, where they wasted one on JP Duminy, here there was a silly review against Amla, who was then given not out to one that was taking leg stump.However, amid another reminder of how England’s fielding has lost its edge it should be mentioned how well Kieswetter responded under pressure, making five dismissals. It was a tough game for him in Southampton and he played a hand in Smith’s reprieve here, but soon set about evening the ledger. He held a sharp catch above his head off Smith’s top edge then became the first England wicketkeeper to complete three stumpings in an ODI.Two were comfortable but he was quick to spot AB de Villiers’ toe on the line, although he blotted his copy book when he chased a shot from Robin Peterson and produced a poor throw to Anderson at the stumps. It was not a wicketkeeping error, but just another little moment to add to a lengthy list from the team season. Peterson later showed that South Africa are far from infallible when he dropped Bell at mid-on to put a seal on a disappointing show from the visitors who, this time, could not make England pay for their mistakes. But that does not mean the problems can be ignored.

Plays of the Day from the second day of the fourth Test between India and England in Nagpur

George Dobell14-Dec-2012Stat of the day (taking Root)
By the time he was out, Joe Root had batted longer – in terms of balls
faced – than all but five players on their debut Test innings in England history. Root
faced 229 balls – 151 fewer than the Nawab of Pataudi senior on his
debut in the Ashes of 1932-33 – and became the sixth member of
England’s top seven to register a half-century or better on Test
debut, once again underlining the worth of the County Championship in
producing international players.Shot of the day
Progress has been desperately slow on this begrudging surface. The one
batsman, to date, who has defied the nature of the pitch to score freely
is Graeme Swann, who registered his fifth Test half-century and his
first since the Centurion Test against South Africa almost exactly
three years ago. Swann is also the only man to have struck a six so
far in this Test with the first of them, somewhat closer to a slog
than a slog-sweep, depositing the otherwise parsimonious Ravindra
Jadeja high over wide mid-on and providing one of the more
entertaining moments in an otherwise prosaic England first innings.Duck of the day
Virender Sehwag was seen as one of the few batsmen on either side – Kevin
Pietersen is the only other obvious example – with the ability to rise
above the conditions and play a match-defining innings. It was not to
be, however, as in the first over of India’s reply, Sehwag was beaten
on the outside edge by an inswinger from James Anderson that knocked
back the middle stump. It was a fine delivery, but Sehwag’s tentative
foot movement resulted in a feeble defensive shot. It was the seventh
duck of his Test career against England. Only four men have suffered
more, with Bishan Bedi (11 ducks) leading the way.Decision of the day
Such is Cheteshwar Pujara’s obvious class that he is rapidly
developing into the key wicket in this India team. So to lose him to
another umpiring error, this time caught off the arm at short-leg as
he played forward to Swann, was desperate misfortune for the
individual and the team. While the catch, Ian Bell diving to his right
to cling on to a sharp chance, was excellent, it is a shame that such
a high-profile game can be undermined so unnecessarily by the
continued refusal to utilise the DRS.Near miss of the day
After his involvement in two run-outs in Kolkata, it might have been
expected that Gautam Gambhir would have been at his most alert when
running. But, called for a sharp but perfectly reasonable single by
Cheteshwar Pujara, Gambhir, on 30, was found resting on his bat at the
non-strikers’ end and only survived due to a poor throw from Joe Root,
at square leg, and a desperate slide.Drop of the day
Gambhir was on 33 and India were 62 for 2 when Matt Prior was
unable to cling on to a tough chance off the pad from the bowling of
Swann. With the ball coming off the inside edge of Gambhir’s
bat and on to his pad, the double deflection made the chance tricky
and the ball bounced off the gloves and chest of Prior. The chance did
not prove too costly, though, with Prior accepting an easier chance
just a few minutes later off the bowling of Anderson.

The pressure of dots balls can be enormous in Twenty20 cricket. Hussey knows he can always fall back on three foundations of his Twenty20 batting: his running, the cover-drive and the shovel pull

Sidharth Monga08-May-2013It could be a complete coincidence, or perhaps not, but two of the best batsmen in Twenty20 cricket have faced the most maidens in the IPL. Chris Gayle has gone through four run-less overs. When Michael Hussey was done blocking out Dale Steyn in the first over of this match, he had faced his third maiden of the IPL.In a format that a couple of dot balls often result in stupid dismissals, here are batsmen playing out 5% of a team’s resources without scoring a run. That should put teams under immense pressure, right? Wrong. Of the seven times Hussey and Gayle have played out a maiden, their side has lost on only one occasion. Twice Gayle has scored a century after facing a maiden.Gayle has been well documented. He just bides his time, picks his bowlers, and then goes boom. Because he knows he can, because he knows fielders and boundaries don’t mean anything to him once he starts hitting.What of Hussey then? On the surface it might sound surprising that Hussey comes back from these slow starts often, but he is possibly the likelier of the two to do so. The number of times his team, Chennai Super Kings, have gone from around 60 in 10 overs to 160 in 20 suggests he has done so more consistently.It is perhaps logical that Hussey should do it as often as Gayle, if not more. He is a more complete batsman. Until he surprised everyone by suddenly giving up international cricket, he was one of the few batsmen in the world who was equally good at all three formats. However, whether it is Gayle or Hussey, the acceleration from slow starts is easier said than done.The pressure of dots balls can be enormous in Twenty20 cricket. You begin to owe your team that many balls as soon as you start playing those dots. If you fall mid-acceleration, for, say, 20 off 25, you end up doing your team a disservice. You leave yourself no other option but to play about 40 balls and make up for those starts. You have to be extremely sure of your game to be doing that often.Not many know their own game better than Hussey does. He knows he can always fall back on three foundations of his Twenty20 batting: his running, the cover-drive that he plays as well as anyone, and the shovel pull that he hardly ever fails at.It is not as if he deliberately plays out deliveries at the top. He minimises the risks while the pitch is a stranger. While most openers try to get the hitting out of the way, Hussey waits, as he did today. This was a ground where 130 had been the season’s highest score. Hussey was out there with an opening partner who has not been through the best of seasons. Super Kings were against bowlers who have kept their side in the competition without much help at all from their batsmen. And the leader of that pack, Steyn, was about to bowl outswingers at mid-140kmph and register the second-best IPL figures for a bowler in a score of 200 or more.Four defensive shots covering the swing, one leave outside off, and one hit on the inside half of the bat. All of a sudden it’s 19 overs v 20. Only two runs would come off the next Steyn over. Almost inconspicuously, though, Hussey followed the pattern: change gears, turn a single into a two here, nudge a four there, and while you are looking at Vijay’s three sixes off Ishant Sharma Hussey has quietly reached 14 from 11.Vijay fell, but Hussey kept on doing what he does: run hard, drive supremely, go deep in the crease and bend his knees to manufacture his own length and play the shovel pull. Along the way he reclaimed the Orange Cap. By the time he fell, having scored at a strike-rate of 160, you had even forgotten the game had begun with a maiden. Quite possibly because Hussey had played out that maiden.

With 20 to win from 16 balls and six wickets in hand, England choked like a consumptive goat wolfing a bucket of marbles

George Dobell at Edgbaston23-Jun-2013And so the wait goes on. England have now lost in the final of five global ODI tournaments – three World Cups and two Champions Trophies – and remain the only side who were involved in this event not to have won a global ODI competition.This result will hurt. It will hurt not just because they came so close, but because they will know that they were, to a large extent, the architects of their own downfall.With 16 balls remaining, England required only 20 more runs with six wickets in hand. They will never have a better opportunity. But then they choked like a consumptive goat wolfing a bucket of marbles to lose four wickets for three runs in 14 balls. England are in no position to chuckle at South Africa’s reputation as “chokers”.There will be a temptation to blame umpiring decisions, the shortened nature of the game and the absence of a couple of key players for this defeat. It is true that some of those factors might have been relevant – Kevin Pietersen making a century for Surrey even as England were collapsing provided a reminder, should any be required, of his value – but none of them inflicted the fatal blow.The truth of the matter is that when the pressure was at its greatest, England crumbled. An old failing against the spinning ball was exposed once more as England looked, for a time, as if they were back in Colombo last October or in the UAE groping in the dark against the turning ball.The batsmen will, as ever, bear the brunt of the criticism. Probably rightly so, too. The bowlers had performed admirably to keep India to an under-par total with Ravi Bopara sustaining his fine form in his latest incarnation as an international player. James Anderson, whose figures suffered for mis-fields and edges, was also excellent.

England’s other near misses

• 1979 World Cup: Mike Brearley and Geoff Boycott gave England a great start before it all went wrong chasing a Viv Richards-inspired West Indies

• 1987 World Cup: England were cruising at 135 for 2 in pursuit of Australia’s 254 but the chase blew up after reverse-sweep from Mike Gatting.

• 1992 World Cup: Again England were asked to chase and again faltered, this time to Pakistan galvanised by Imran Khan.

• 2004 Champions Trophy: England had all but won defending 218 against West Indies but Courtney Browne and Ian Bradshaw played the innings of their lives.

Yet it was telling that the eventual margin of defeat – five runs – was exactly the same number of runs that England gave away in overthrows. Twice a failure to back-up adequately was punished, with Eoin Morgan failing to back-up an errant throw from Tim Bresnan that cost England four and then Morgan throwing wide when the batsman was comfortably home and conceding another single. England also conceded four wides. You do not have to be a mathematical genius to work out the avoidable damage that caused.There were other factors. Jonathan Trott’s failure to cling on to a catch offered by Virat Kohli, Trott’s stumping off a leg side wide and an Asian-style pitch that offered so much turn that India could hardly believe their fortune. The British really are a hospitable bunch.But perhaps the incident that will provoke most debate was the stumping of Ian Bell. Replays suggested Bell, dragging his back foot, was unfortunate to be given out. Certainly Alastair Cook was unimpressed with the verdict of TV umpire, Bruce Oxenford, stating: “I felt it was a poor decision. Maybe the umpire saw it differently. It looked pretty clear that it was in.”But on reflection, England may recall that a close no-ball call went their way in the crucial match against New Zealand. Besides, Bell had never settled and was far from certain to lead England to victory had he survived. It did not look a good decision, but to pinpoint it as a turning point may be wishful thinking. It was the fifth-wicket partnership that should have led England to victory and the Bell incident is, largely, a red-herring. The best sides tend to encourage a “no excuses” culture.It is no coincidence that India were the only unbeaten side in the tournament. They were not at their best for much of this game but, at key moments, they held their nerve better than England. It is often such factors that define these games.They could hardly have asked for more familiar conditions, either. Cheered on by a full house crowd overwhelmingly dominated by their supporters – “we didn’t have much support out there,” Cook said afterwards – their spinners gained sharp turn from the dry surface and exploited it very effectively.Still, it will frustrate England that they had earned themselves a position from which they should have won. India may have proved themselves the best team in this competition, but England will know that they squandered a wonderful chance to take this competition.Afterwards Cook admitted that the defeat represented his “lowest moment” in his career as England captain so far.”We were almost there,” Cook said. “It was in our hands. From the position we were in, you back yourself to win more times than you do to lose. We had high hopes of achieving something really special. We had the opportunity. It’s a tough pill to swallow. Clearly, us as a batting unit, we’ll be looking at ourselves going, what could we have done better?”But Cook also expressed his faith in his side and his pride in their achievement in reaching the final. Most of this squad, he said, will be involved when the next global ODI event comes around, in Australia and New Zealand in 2015.”The majority of the squad will be pretty similar in 2015,” Cook said. “There were six other teams involved in this competition that would have liked to be in the situation we were in at the start of the day.”I’m proud of the way the lads have fought. We’ve been under a fair bit of pressure in this tournament. A lot of criticism and flak have flown our way, yet we got to the final. We played some good cricket; we just couldn’t quite get over the line.”

With victory over West Indies a surety, Sachin Tendulkar took time out during his final day of cricket to enjoy the moment with his fans, team-mates and family

Sidharth Monga in Mumbai16-Nov-2013At 9.05am, Sachin Tendulkar scored a goal in the warm-up football teams play before the start of a day’s play. This was the final day of his international cricket career. A healthy crowd had already entered through the gates. This was no mundane warm-up. They were all watching, and cheered Tendulkar on. Tendulkar, who has shed a lot of his restraint over the last week, waving to crowds at every boundary he goes to, now removed his hat and took a bow. That’s about as much showmanship as Tendulkar has ever exhibited. It also began the first round of “Sachiiiiiin, Sachin” for one final day, although people still hoped that West Indies would make India bat a second time and take two early wickets so they could watch Tendulkar bat again today. And tomorrow.At 9.12am, Tendulkar walked towards the steps to go back up into the dressing room and change into India whites for one last time. What was he feeling? He possibly wouldn’t remember, because people on either side asked him for autographs, and Tendulkar didn’t turn them down. The staircase has 34 steps. It took him three minutes to finally make it to the top. Over the next few minutes he would have changed into his match whites, taped his fingers – disfigured from 29 years of non-stop competitive cricket, during which time one by one his team-mates kept walking out.Finally, at 9.26am, out he came with a confident walk, that white hat on, not perfectly stiff – it’s probably his lucky one, and he has been wearing it soon after he washes too – the right hand pushing the bracelet up. The Wankhede Stadium came back to life as soon as the left foot touched one of the 34 steps. After a team photograph was taken, MS Dhoni took the team off the field and let Tendulkar lead them back on. Tendulkar walked in for what could be his last session, surveyed the Wankhede Stadium, his Wankhede Stadium, even as two cameramen walked in front of him and Dhoni to his side.Tendulkar took his position at short-fine leg as R Ashwin began the overnight over at 9.31am. Before the next over started, Tendulkar was sent back to long-on. Pragyan Ojha could have bowled right-arm legbreaks and would have gone unnoticed. Tendulkar was not only at the boundary, he was waving to his fans. This is a bond difficult to thoroughly explain. Suffice to say Tendulkar has been the most popular personality across all parameters in independent India. The rest of the cricket didn’t matter once again.On his final day of international cricket, in front of his home crowd, Tendulkar did let himself go a bit. Off the third ball of this over, he didn’t take a start towards a ball hit between him and deep midwicket, and let the other fielder field it. But he was back to full attention now as he raised his arms and wanted to know where to field – on the boundary or up at mid-off – for the other batsman, Marlon Samuels. He was asked to stay back at long-off, much to the crowd’s joy.People in the stands either wanted Tendulkar to bowl or West Indies to score a lot of runs so they could see Tendulkar bat. Before the start of the 17th over, it seemed they had had their first wish. Tendulkar went from short-fine leg towards the umpire, the crowd left their seats and began to applaud, only to see he was taking R Ashwin’s cap over to the umpire. What a tease. What a ritual, though – one he had going with Anil Kumble. During Kumble’s perfect ten, Tendulkar insisted he hand the bowler’s cap over to the umpire. He did so before Kumble’s last over in Test cricket too. Now he was beginning to do the same for Kumble’s successors.Before the 18th over, Tendulkar went to do the same for Ojha. The idea there is for Tendulkar to give advice to the bowler, which Ojha took although he went ahead and handed over his cap himself. The Wankhede crowd didn’t like it, and let it be known. Never has a Test so one-sided been so keenly watched in India. Three balls later, Samuels lost his mind, and was stumped by a mile. Tendulkar jogged in from long-off, Ojha broke the huddle next to the stumps and ran to greet Tendulkar. Who knows, it might have been something that Tendulkar pointed out?It is difficult to imagine what Tendulkar would have been going through. This was turning out to be a perfect end for him. He had had a good innings while he batted – not a hundred, but still fluent, delightful even. Now there was no pressure as West Indies never really challenged India with the bat. The innings win looked certain, and Tendulkar could now just savour his last day in Test cricket. He would also have wanted wickets, but with every wicket that final moment would come closer. That final moment that you know is inevitable, but still want to avoid as much as possible. “Save tonight/From the break of dawn/Come tomorrow/Tomorrow I’ll be gone.”Sachin Tendulkar indulged his fans on an emotional final day•BCCISo Tendulkar saved tonight. He would look back into the stands, he would smile, and every five minutes or so he would wave to the crowd. The crowd of course would go mad. They, too, were in a quandary. They wanted India to win, but they wanted them to drag this out as much as possible.This, though, was ending fast. Chris Gayle and Narsingh Deonarine fell in the 22nd and 24th overs. Things were happening too fast to process. People were happy for Tendulkar and India, but they weren’t quite prepared for the end yet. You can never be. What they wanted, though, was a bowl for Tendulkar. About 48 minutes into the day’s play, Dhoni did remove Ojha. Tendulkar wasn’t too far out of sight, but the 30th over went to Mohammed Shami and the whole Wankhede booed. Dhoni is the best captain to have at such times. He doesn’t get swayed by emotion, and while he is a bit of a showman, he waits for the right time. That wasn’t the right time.Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Denesh Ramdin now built up a partnership. The crowd quietened down a bit. For about 19 minutes more, because that’s when they sensed another bowling change. Ojha, who had got a change of ends, was now being taken off. Another massive “boo” arrived as the ball was thrown to Ashwin. ” [Down with Dhoni],” went round the stadium. Dhoni didn’t care. You sensed he would give Tendulkar a bowl after the eighth wicket had fallen.The bowling change worked as Ashwin trapped Chanderpaul. Soon Ojha removed the clueless West Indies captain, Darren Sammy. There were eight minutes to go to lunch. “We want Sachin.” A minute later, between over breaks, Tendulkar began to remove some of the strapping on his fingers as he stood next to the pitch. The crowd leaned forward, but they knew they had been teased before. So they waited. Then Virat Kohli left him alone at the pitch, and clapped as he walked off. Here it was. Tendulkar removed his hat, and switched the electricity in the crowd on.There were only about 20,000 people in the stands, but as they all stood up they became the loudest 20,000 people you could imagine. As he corrected his hair, pushed the bracelet up, twirled the ball and set the field – two slips, gully, short leg, long-on, long-off – the sound built and built. The batsman, Ramdin, waited for the 41st over to begin. He must have thought he was facing Lillee and Marshall combined. The first ball was a legbreak, landed on middle and leg, but was too full, and was defended easily. Tendulkar sent out a full toss next ball. Were those palms sweating?Tendulkar looked up at the big screen for a replay. Big screens were not even thought of when Tendulkar started bowling in Tests. They showed Ajit Tendulkar – to the younger Tendulkar – after the replay. It had been three minutes since he was given the ball, and he had bowled only three balls. The googly didn’t arrive in that over. At 11.27am, the over finished, and this meant the last over for him before lunch unless Ojha took the ninth wicket in the next over.Ojha didn’t, but he sped through the over. There were a few seconds left. The leg umpire began to walk to the stumps, at his normal pace, but halfway through the clock turned over. He then spoke on his walkie-talkie, and it turned out we were extending this. So Tendulkar got a bowl again. “Thank you, Sachin” chants now. The second ball of this over was meant to be an offbreak but it turned out to be a generous full toss. The fourth was a googly, but too short and too straight, although that extra bounce could not be missed.The over ended, and Tendulkar went back to his fielding position at the boundary. The next over ended too. Dhoni looked towards Tendulkar at long-on. Tendulkar raised his hands to tell the captain he had had enough. It was time to go for the kill. Immediately Ashwin was brought back, and four balls later the wicket was delivered. Now the last man was in. It could be any moment now. This was the end, my friend. Hey there, lady, don’t bend to pick up the ball of wool, you might miss the moment.There was a huddle after Ashwin took that wicket, but Tendulkar left it prematurely. Presumably the captain and the team were rehearsing their plans as to what to do after the last wicket was taken. For half a minute they discussed, even as Tendulkar stood at the boundary.Eleven minutes later, at 11.50am, the moment arrived. Tendulkar had just been moved to square leg. Shami bowled Shannon Gabriel through the gate. Tendulkar raised his arms in joy. It was all over. Tendulkar was a former professional cricketer now, after 29 years of his 40-year-old life. He ran towards the stumps. Players were already there to hand him those. The extras came out, everybody formed a guard. Tendulkar walked through it, but the players formed a fresh guard as soon as he reached the end. This was supposed to happen till the end of the ground, but they couldn’t keep pace with him. Did he wipe a tear off as he approached the dressing room?For the next one hour, nobody sat, nobody moved, nobody left. They waited patiently for all the awards to be given before Tendulkar was called upon to speak at 12.28pm. Classily, Ravi Shastri, the man conducting the interviews, handed over the mic and left the frame. For 20 minutes, Tendulkar spoke and thanked everybody who contributed to his success. Most touchingly, he spoke of the “Sachiiiiin, Sachin” chant.Chaos ensued after Tendulkar was done talking. You wished he would be left alone when he took a lap around the ground. It’s between him and his biggest lovers. A unique bond. Let him savour it all alone. However, it is too much to expect that in India. Hundreds tagged along. You couldn’t see anything but an India flag being waved by possibly the shortest man in that group. Hangers-on again. A constant in his life. The crowd was being denied this private moment. They had earned it. They deserved it. Rightly they shouted, ” [Throw out the extras].”Thankfully, though, his team-mates and family were with Tendulkar. The team-mates took turns to carry him on his shoulders so he at least stood out. After the lap was over, he made a special request to everybody to leave him alone because he had to go meet another lover of his. He walked back to the pitch, bent down, touched it with both hands, and then touched his heart. On the way back, he wiped his eye. Tendulkar had left the building. Only he knows how tomorrow morning will be, when he has no bowler, no contest, no pitch, no team to prepare against.

The BCCI president responds to criticism of the proposals for the revamp of cricket’s governing body

Interview by Sambit Bal06-Feb-2014The main criticism against these proposals has been that it looks like a takeover of cricket by three boards, an imposition of your will on the rest of the world. How would you respond to that?
I would say then people have not understood the proposal. I do not think that the proposal envisages a takeover of cricket by three boards. The proposal deals with a lot of the issues that the game faces today. And it has suggested improvements by way of changes to the way the game is structured today.If I had to sum it up I will say the proposal gives financial stability to nations who play cricket. It addresses the concerns of Associates and Affiliates, provides a way forward, provides a future for the Associates. It provides greater funding for the top Associates, which was not there before to this extent, and there are also improvements in the governance structures.The Pakistan Cricket Board is on record saying that this goes against the principles of equity and against the interests of cricket.
One has to be more specific. I’m quite happy to address each one of the proposals and discuss with you if you have specific queries on each one of the proposals.One of the central concerns about this proposal has been that it puts the interest of three boards above the interest of cricket in two regards. One is allocation of money, and the second is the consolidation of decision-making authority or process. Let’s talk about money first.

It’s clear that India brings in most of the money in world cricket, and even in these proposals it’s not taking as much as it gets. But the distribution formula is not based only on the contributions made. It took into account the history of the game, the participation of the boards in various tournaments, the achievements of these boards.For example, England and Australia have been playing cricket the longest, so that was taken into account. So we tried to address a lot of attributes and that is how we came up with this. A kind of scorecard was made, giving points for all this and this distribution module came out of this.How did the 80% figure come about? Is it a simple calculation based on sponsorship from Indian corporates for ICC events?

It is not simple. It’s a combination of sponsorship, broadcast rights fees and all that. One can’t have a precise figure but I would say between 70% and 80%. This was even the assessment of ICC.But the distribution of wealth in cricket has traditionally been based on equality, and that’s the principle that even the BCCI follows in India. You don’t give more money to Mumbai and less to Manipur.

There’s a difference. You can’t compare the BCCI to ICC. You can’t say that all money is coming out of Bombay. And all the other boards recognise this, and they also recognise a certain amount of leadership has to come out of India, which is what we are trying to provide.I think one must look at it from the point of view that the revenues generated go to help all cricket. It’s only a small percentage of that that is retained by the BCCI and the rest is a contribution to world cricket. That’s how one must look at it. I think one of the other boards said this: it’s like a participation fee. But this brings wealth to cricket. I don’t think other members have objections, or that anybody said that India should not get more.

“Somebody has to prepare a draft for discussion. So three out of ten sit together and prepare a draft, others can go through it, suggest changes, and in fact, a lot of changes have taken place”

So the suggestion is that India staying strong is good for the health of cricket globally?
A strong India with a vibrant commercial structure is good for world cricket.The proposal has to be seen as a whole. It evolved from the discussions about the next rights cycle and the procedures and timelines etc. And then we started looking at all other aspects of ICC and we said that a lot of things need to be done which could be part and parcel of this.For example, we recognised the fact that the FTP had flaws. So this proposal now looks at a more reliable and dependable FTP, because there will be bilateral agreements between members. It looked at a financial model in which the Associates and Affiliates will get far more than they got before.That has not been made very clear. How are they going to get more, because there is $300 million which has been taken away?

I’ll explain it to you. In the last rights cycle, a total of $314 million was allocated to the Associates. But actually the Associates, in terms of money, got directly from the ICC $125 million. And then the balance, the difference between the two, went by way of subscriptions collected from them, then there were ICC administration costs, event costs, tournament costs, and costs of running tournaments and some umpires’ programmes or some other high-performance programmes etc. So basically it is 125 plus cost.Now in this proposal they are likely to get 200 plus costs, so the amount has gone up substantially. The top-performing Associates will get almost 100 million, which is what was given to all of them.What has not been understood is the fact that the Associates and Affiliates are going to get more money and they are also going to get the opportunity to play at a higher level. That’s been one of their major concerns. They say, we are playing only amongst each other, we never get to play you. Now that opportunity is given. So conceptually we have broken that glass ceiling, which is a very, very big change. You can’t look at things overnight, you take a ten-year cycle, 20 years. A top Associate can become a top Test nation – that possibility is there.How will that work?

You will see when it is finally tabled. Some small, minor changes have been made to the earlier draft. Let’s wait for it to get approved.We’ll come back to the bilateral agreements. There is a concern that if there is no universal FTP, and agreements are made between individual boards, it will leave the weaker boards at the mercy of the stronger ones. You can simply choose to play who you want.

The present FTP is not a guaranteed FTP.”Associates and Affiliates are going to get more money and they are also going to get the opportunity to play at a higher level”•International Cricket CouncilBut there’s at least a thing in principle and concept.
For your information, the present FTP is not signed. That is indicative, but it is not a legal document. It is not and it was never binding. Whereas, the FTP bilateral agreement will be stronger. India has sat down during the Dubai meeting and discussed with a number of countries the proposed FTP for going forward, which we are going to coincide with the right cycle.So in principle you are committing to play all the countries?
We are working out details. We have worked out with a number of countries. One or two are left and that also is being finalised.A few boards have said that it has become a bargaining tool – an “either you are with us or against us” kind of situation.

No, you are saying that. I am not saying it.That’s something some of the boards have told us. That they have been told, “We’ll only sign bilateral FTPs with people if you agree to this proposal or you are exposing yourself to isolation.”
I don’t know who has said that but certainly not India.So if two boards voted against this proposal, will they also be given tours?

Our team of three or four officials from India sat in Dubai and have held discussions of all the possible FTPs with various countries there. Now, we have only so much time in a year to play. I also want to have a good domestic season and we want to have inbound tours. We want to have at least two inbound tours during our home season, because that is very important to BCCI. Our fans must see our cricket. So therefore, with all this in mind, we are working on a schedule. It is a question of whoever comes first, whoever comes and we are able to accommodate, fine. If we are filled up, then we have a difficulty but we are trying our best to see as many as we can accommodate.Can I take two specific names – Pakistan and South Africa?
We are open for them. About South Africa, somewhere some wrong information is floating around. We are due to sit with them and discuss the FTP. Somebody is coming here over the next two days and discussions are going to happen.India have been fairly generous travellers but now you are going to carve out a home season. So will that mean India’s touring commitments will shrink?

Possible, but I have to balance both. I must play sufficient cricket in India, and I don’t think anyone will deny that. We have excellent venues and all venues should see cricket. Our matches are allotted by rotation, so every state wants matches. We have got 21 ODI centres. We have so many international venues and I think cricket should be seen in the length and breadth of India.It’s been suggested by the ECB and CA that this proposal came about “to keep BCCI in a tent”, and they have said it on record that there was a danger that India wouldn’t have signed the MPA [Members Participating Agreement].

There were a lot of issues we had on the MPA, genuine issues. I would not have signed the last MPA, but whoever signed it, I don’t know how it got signed. There are a lot of disadvantages.

“The present FTP is not a legal document. It is not and it was never binding. Whereas the FTP bilateral agreement will be stronger”

Any specific ones that you would want to point out?
I don’t want to get in to details, but we have had substantial issues on the MPA. Secondly, it is no secret that we have had many issues at ICC, not ICC, the ICC.Administrative issues?
I’m just saying there were a lot of issues at ICC. Now, I think BCCI is quite happy to be involved with the leadership of cricket. We will embrace this ICC in the new structure, which will be good for cricket as a whole. All of us are on the same page, so to that extent I think these new proposals, if you take them one by one, you will see how they are inclusive. Basically it is more inclusive now.Going back to the earlier question: the view is that we did it to keep India in the tent and we didn’t want India outside, throwing stones. How would you respond to that?
I have already said that now we can have an ICC that India can be fully involved with.But was the threat real that you would have not signed the MPA in its current form? Was signing the MPA conditional to these proposals going through?
We had made it clear that we could not sign the MPA in the form in which it was. It needed many changes. And the other members in the committee realised that India’s concerns were legitimate, and therefore it led to a discussion, a lot of discussions, out of which all those proposals came.One of the other concerns has been that when such far-reaching reforms were being discussed, there was not a wide consultative process, and it was essentially a small group of people who put it together, and then it was sought to be imposed on the rest of the members.

I think this is not fair. What did we do? The F&CA [Financial and Commercial Affairs committee] has a working group to prepare and suggest. So we discussed amongst ourselves and then invited other members and presented them with a draft proposal. This was for discussion, it was not for approval.From the 9th of January, when we met in Dubai, I made the presentation and what we said was: this is a draft, this is what we are suggesting. If there are improvements or suggestions, or some other model, please feel free. On the 9th when we presented, it was written in big, bold letters: “Draft for discussion”. Somebody has to prepare a draft for discussion. So three out of ten sit together and prepare a draft, others can go through it, suggest changes, and in fact, a lot of changes have taken place. There has been a lot of consultation and a lot of points that were mentioned earlier have been dropped also, and some changes have been made.The ExCo [executive committee], which has India, Australia and ECB as permanent members – the composition of it has stayed that way.

That alone has stayed. We had said that the chairmanship will rotate between the three – that has been dropped. Anybody can become a chairman. We have only said that the first chairman will be so-and-so, and after that it will be elected by the committees.”We must look at possible reasons why spectators in some or many geographies are no more coming to the grounds to watch Test cricket”•Getty ImagesThese three members will always stay. What’s the rationale behind that?
Because they are providing a leadership role also. On the ICC board and the IBC [ICC Business Company], all members will be directors. Even in the ExCo and the F&CA, there will be two other members from the remaining seven, so four will already be there out of the seven. Seven people will be in one or the other committee, then the decision is democratic isn’t it? There is a casting vote for a chairman.What people have not understood and appreciated is that all proposals will go to the board through the ExCo; and to the IBC Board, the F&CA will make recommendations. The final decision is taken by the ICC board or the IBC board, where all ten members are present. And in the ICC you need seven votes to pass a resolution. So I am not able to understand the criticism here, because ultimately you need seven votes and finally the ICC board and the IBC board function in the same fashion.There is a simple reason why it has looked bad. It has looked like three people got into a room and came out saying that we will get more power and we will get more money.
Someone has to do the work to start thinking, someone has to come up with a draft. And it was a draft that was open for discussion.To many the great irony in this proposal is that the BCCI is now proposing a system that it had always opposed. This feels like a return to the Imperial Cricket Council.

There is no veto here. Except the fact that the three boards will be members of the F&CA and the ExCo, it doesn’t say anywhere that there will be a veto. There are two other members at all times. Anyone can become the chairman after the first chairman. Now that India is through this proposal committing to playing a bigger role in world cricket, what is your vision for cricket globally?
We must understand, cricket is a great game. In the beginning and for a very long time, we only knew Test cricket. I think the first thing is that the primacy of Test cricket must be established. We must also look at possible reasons why spectators in some or many geographies are no more coming to the grounds to watch Test cricket. I think it’s a concern. Administratively, today the ICC has spread cricket to a number of countries, there are a lot of Associates and Affiliates. Some who knew cricket earlier are now developing it, some who never played cricket are entering cricket. From that point of view, the propagation of cricket, taking it around, that is already in place, that is going on.So you are committed to the idea of expanding cricket?
No, I’m not saying expanding, I’m saying it’s already in place. I believe resources should be used more efficiently, and those areas and geographies where there is a lot of interest in cricket, we should give greater attention, obviously. It is very important, now that we have three forms of cricket, that all these forms flourish and grow. I think that is a very big challenge. And you will agree that all the three forms are not equally popular in all countries. That is also a challenge. And, importantly, I think the ICC has to deliver truly world-class events.The Test championship has been removed.

The Test championship did not have the kind of support one would have liked. There were difficulties in the format. We are used to Test series – two Tests, three, four or five. So a one-off Test match… whether it would sustain the interest – these were the questions that were going around the table. And finally I think the feeling was that the last Champions Trophy in England was such a great success, we should persist with it.So how will the primacy of Test cricket be maintained in the long run?
This is what we are doing. We are encouraging even Full Members [by giving them] additional resources so that they don’t give up Test cricket, because for many members, they incur losses running Test series. So this might help fund that, so that it helps them to sustain Test cricket.

When the dust over their exit from the World Twenty20 settles, Ireland will have to introspect and find answers to concerns on their long-term team composition and strategies

Ger Siggins22-Mar-2014For seven years, Ireland have been cricket’s scrappy outsiders, gate-crashing world tournaments and picking up prize scalps. Pakistan, Bangladesh, England and Zimbabwe have all had their noses rubbed in it by a side which always seems to add up to more than the sum of its parts.For almost a decade they have been top dogs in Associate cricket, a position cemented by their being crowned champions in all three formats in 2013, and no side, not even the best in the world, has taken apart their attack quite as brutally as Netherlands did in Sylhet.Kevin O’Brien took a similar death-or-glory approach in Bangalore in 2011 and it paid off with a match-winning century against England. But to be on the other side of such an onslaught was not pleasant.”It’s a bit of a shock,” O’Brien admitted after the game. “None of us really envisaged what has just happened. We just didn’t have any answers.”Although disappointed with the result, Cricket Ireland’s chief executive Warren Deutrom saw nothing to divert him from his aim of getting Ireland to the sport’s top table.”It was one of those days when everything went right for Netherlands,” Deutrom said. “I’ve never seen a batting performance like it. They just went for it from the first ball, which you’ve got to admire.”Deutrom isn’t concerned that the defeat and early exit will have negative repercussions for his organisation as it continues to make its case at ICC: “Cricket people will look at that and see how it was one of those days. In the last four weeks, we have beaten West Indies and Zimbabwe, both full members, and those results aren’t wiped away by a freak batting performance.”Irish supporters, who usually travel in numbers to world events but gave this one a miss – saving for Australia/New Zealand 2015, they say – were more nonplussed than angered by the defeat. The Blarney Army isn’t used to seeing its team beaten by Associates – just 12 losses in 110 games since 2007, and Netherlands’ win was their first in 18 against Ireland since 2008.Blame was hurled, too: at Ed Joyce for dropping Tom Cooper on 1; at the bowlers who never found their length; at the captain for his lack of answers. But the bowlers who were carted around the Divisional Stadium were the same who were magnificent against Zimbabwe and UAE. Alex Cusack was savaged on the internet forums that sang his praises two weeks earlier when he took 4-14 and 2-17 in four-over spells in Kingston.When emotions cool, however, there will be a need for answers on why two offspinners were entrusted with the new ball, one of them a 20-year-old who played his maiden T20 international only four days before. Andy McBrine is a fine prospect, who was a real success in the West Indies, but he should have never been asked to set the tone for the innings against a batsman like Peter Borren, who feasts on spin. This after Borren and Stephan Myburgh had got their eye in against the similar style of Paul Stirling in the previous over. McBrine went for four sixes and Netherlands were on their way.The captain looked lost without the counsel of the retired Trent Johnston, and with the absence of John Mooney and the continued exclusion of Niall O’Brien the side lacked the traditional Irish sporting qualities of “boot, bollock and bite”. Niall O’Brien was suspended in 2012 for missing an Intercontinental Cup game in Kenya and Gary Wilson was given the gloves in his absence. The Surrey man has continued to wear them since O’Brien’s return.Ireland have also been missing the services of Niall O’Brien behind the stumps•AFPPhil Simmons has drawn wide criticism for his refusal to countenance a switch, despite Wilson’s lack of day-to-day experience – he kept in four games for Surrey last summer, a total of 242 overs, against O’Brien’s 2,304 overs behind the stumps at Leicestershire. It has weakened the team in the field, too, where O’Brien is a poor outfielder and Wilson one of the best.A series of keeping blunders last year – including a couple which probably cost Ireland a win over Pakistan – frustrated the players and a delegation of four senior bowlers approached the management in Abu Dhabi in November requesting change. Wilson, who is close to the captain, kept the gloves.The team management will also have to explain why, incredibly, it failed to let the captain know just why Netherlands had set off with such belligerence to get the runs within 86 balls. Porterfield himself was clearly irked by the blunder.
“I was more concerned about defending 190 runs but I only found that out with about 20 balls to go,” Porterfield admitted in three separate interviews after the game.”I might have gone about it differently,” Porterfield insisted. “I thought spin was going to be the way but maybe we could have gone with the seamers slightly earlier to try to get the run-rate up, and try to get them out of the game. That might have made it easier.”His bowlers struggled with the no-fear attack of the Netherlands batsmen on a good pitch, and their carefully-worked out plans were torn up. But the sheer freaky nature of the display was best summed-up by Porterfield: “Maybe we bowled too full – but it’s hard when one ball is going straight over your head and the next is disappearing over midwicket.”Simmons will continue to search for and develop new bowlers. Three fast-medium seamers have spent several weeks in Australia, working with Craig McDermott. Craig Young, a former Sussex player, came on so well that he was selected for Bangladesh.”We’ve never necessarily ever had an express pace man,” Porterfield said. “Boyd Rankin was the last quick bowler we had but he’s playing for England. Express pace is one of the things we’d want – so would quite a few teams around the world.”Craig Young has that potential, and we have Peter Chase back home as well. We’ll be looking to those lads over the next 12 months to step up and get as much experience as they can. I know Craig has learned a lot over the last eight weeks and played a couple of times when we were in the West Indies. But the more he plays and learns, the better it’s going to be for ourselves because he does have that something different.”

One brought life to a dead rubber, the other gave a lesson in how not to play spin

Andy Zaltzman01-Apr-2014England’s match with Netherlands was, in many ways, the least relevant of the 23 internationals they have played in all formats this winter. Both teams had already been eliminated; the England team is likely to be scheduled for dismantlement under whichever new coaching overlord is appointed; they have only two T20 internationals scheduled this summer, and their limited-overs focus will be trained entirely on next year’s World Cup. Objectively, this game was completely meaningless. And yet England miraculously conspired to find a way to make it seem to be the most relevant match they have played in years, an expression of all that has crumbled in the last few months. It was not, in the greater scheme of their catastrophic, resources-defying season. But, in the heat of what should have been battle, it seemed to be.They were unremittingly drubbed by an impressive Dutch bowling and fielding performance, failing to chase down a moderate target with striking anti-aplomb. And yet, England had been tantalisingly close to departing the competition with dignity intact, which was perhaps the height of many England supporters’ expectations.It is true that they had been knocked out approximately when most people expected them to be knocked out, having recorded the exact number of wins (or one more than the number of wins) that people were expecting them to be knocked out with. But at least they had played – or, at least, batted – quite well, and, in their spectacular victory over Sri Lanka, played some of their best cricket of the winter. Admittedly, as accolades go, “England’s best cricket of the 2013-14 season” is on a par with “Dracula’s Happiest Girlfriend”, “Megadeth’s Most Soothing Lullaby”, “Vladimir Putin’s Most Trustworthy Pledge”, or “Graeme Smith’s Most Elegant Cover Drive”.The thorny issue of the new appointment of a new head coach remains distractingly prickly. Ashley Giles’ results have done nothing to support his candidacy. He may be viewed as the safe option, but his appointment would be an enormous risk. As, you might argue, would the appointment of any of the other candidates. Whoever is rewarded/punished with the job will have to deal with the ongoing reverberations of the five-month cricketing trauma the England team has just endured, in which a handful of barely visible diamonds have struggled to glisten in an alarmingly mountainous dung heap of underachievement. It will be a fascinating summer.In media interviews concerning his potential employment as England coach, Giles pledged a “carrot-and-stick” approach. Ironically, the carrot and stick were the two implements that England appeared to be batting with on Monday, as their winter of discontent reached a barely believable nadir of uselessness. Since their humbling by Sri Lanka, Netherlands have played some excellent cricket, and challenged both New Zealand and South Africa. Losing to them is clearly no disgrace. But folding like an agoraphobic deckchair was a suitably dismal way to conclude what has been one of the most comprehensive, wide-ranging single-season failures in the history of cricket, perhaps even in the history of top-level sport.● Why are England copping so much incendiary flak for their performance against Netherlands, a team who had challenged both New Zealand and South Africa hard? Commentators, journalists and minority-interest comedian-bloggers are far too eager to pass judgement. The fact is that England already knew that they could not qualify for the semi-finals. Their 88 all out was perfectly pitched to keep their net run-rate figure fractionally ahead of the Dutch. Thus, fourth place in the group was heroically secured, an achievement that no one can ever take away from this proud cricketing nation. Furthermore, the previous day, Australia had slunk out of the tournament with a total of 86 all out. You could, therefore, understand the nerves afflicting the England players as the target of 87 loomed. They stumbled over the line, overcoming the Baggy-Screen score and sparking scenes of wild celebration across England, before concluding their winter by playing to the crowd with a final slapstick run-out, having gained glorious numerical vengeance for their 5-0 Ashes galumphing. (I write this before Australia’s final innings of the tournament. But still, 88-86. What a win.)● It was an extremely touching gesture by New Zealand to perform an homage to English batsmanship in their crucial quasi-quarter-final against Sri Lanka. Imitation, the saying goes, is the sincerest form of flattery, if not, in this case, the most tactically productive, and for the Kiwis to pay such a pitch-perfect tribute to England – rabid uncertainty against the turning ball, festooned with a couple of pre-school-level run-outs – even at the expense of their own tournament aspirations, speaks volumes for the regard in which they hold the founding fatherland of cricket.New Zealand, who, as often in major tournaments, sporadically looked like potential winners, gave the cricket world a peerless object lesson in how not to play spin bowling. The conventional, old-school wiles of Rangana Herath, looping tempters lobbed onto a length, were the principal source of pain, aided by Sachithra Senanayeke’s more 21st-century stylings. Between them, they took seven wickets for six runs in 6.3 overs; New Zealand’s other two wickets fell to run-outs from balls bowled by Herath, so, in total, the Kiwis managed to mini-amass 6 for 9 from the 39 balls they received from Sri Lanka’s spinners, a performance described as “a bit of a disappointment” by the New Zealand government’s Ministry For Understatemenets.The four runs micro-harvested by New Zealand’s Nos. 3 to 7 constitute the fewest scored by those positions in any T20 innings in which all five of those batsmen have batted (and the 11 runs nano-stockpiled by their Nos. 3 to 10 was also an contra-record, thrashing the previous low of 17).● England’s one consolation in their World T20 humiliation was that Australia fared equally badly. Clearly, playing a World T20 so soon after an Ashes series is unsustainable for both sides, just as playing a 50-over World Cup directly after a five-Test squabble for the urn proved completely impossible for both England and 1999, 2003 and 2007 world champions Australia.The Ashes calendar must therefore, unarguably, be re-re-adjusted to ensure that this limited-overs dessert is never again served so soon after such a filling five-day feast. I suggest that additional Ashes series are therefore scheduled for 2014, 2014-15, 2016, 2016-17, and 2017. Purely to protect the players. Any additional income would be entirely incidental, and given to charitable causes, such as The Bob Willis Trust For Exhausted Commentators, The Rudi Koertzen Foundation For Slowly-Raised Index Fingers, and The Barmy British Legion, a terrific organisation that assists veteran travelling England supporters.● Some more Sri Lanka Spin Stats:1. Herath’s 5 for 3 was the cheapest five-wicket haul in all T20 history, undercutting the five runs conceded by Anil Kumble (5 for 5, RCB v Royals, 2009), Arul Suppiah (6 for 5, Somerset v Glamorgan, 2011) and Delorn Johnson (5 for 5, Windwards v Barbados, 2011-2012).2. It was also Herath’s first five-wicket haul in any limited-overs match, international or domestic, in 50-over or 20-over cricket (he has taken 17 in Tests, and 35 more in first-class games).3. Herath and Senanayake were the third and fourth bowlers in T20 international history (if the term “history” can apply to something that is still in its first decade of existence) to bowl more than two overs with an economy rates no more than one run per over. Bhuvneshwar Kumar bowled three wicketless overs for just three runs against West Indies on March 23; prior to this tournament, the only instance was when Ireland’s Alex Cusack took 3 for 2 off 3 against Kenya in a WT20 qualifier in 2008.4. This was the first time in all T20 cricket that two bowlers in the same innings have bowled more than 12 balls each at an economy rate of less than or equal to one run per over.● Lasith Malinga captained Sri Lanka for the first time, and proceeded to defend a meagre target of 120 with a considerable margin to spare. T20 captain Dinesh Chandimal will, presumably, return for the semi-final, and it is entirely conceivable that Malinga will end his distinguished international career (a) without having ever skippered his country again, and (b) with an unimpeachable record and a reputation as a tactical genius for defending small totals.Alongside him in the field were four previous Sri Lankan captains (Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Dilshan and Mathews) with a combined total of 350 matches’ worth of international leadership experience. Between them, they had skippered Sri Lanka in the field for a total of 21,805 overs – that equates to approximately eight months of captaining, every day for seven hours a day.This probably explains why Malinga was not the most obviously domineering captain, and why Jayawardene (183-time skipper) was doing an awful lot of pointing, waving and shouting for someone who definitely was not captain.