http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php en Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:32:15 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.stickcricket.com/images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=4 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:11:45 GMT *ICC 2006 is available to Stick Cricket readers for only £9.99 if you click here (http://www.childishthings.co.uk/stickCricket.old.php).* Cricket... ICC 2006 is available to Stick Cricket readers for only £9.99 if you click here.

Cricket games over the years, with one notable exception, have usually been full of promises - but also full of flaws, preventing them from boasting the same sort of longevity that bigger budget games have had.

Even the most recent titles - Ricky Ponting 2007 and EA’s competing product - were no exceptions (note to Ricky Ponting developers: making catching painfully hard is only realistic if you wish to emulate Kevin Pietersen’s efforts in the 2005 Ashes). It seems the look and feel of the game are the main focus in these titles, often at the expense of the gameplay.

That’s never been the case with the International Cricket Captain series. For much of its life it’s been about as graphically intensive as the Pacman’s and Frogger’s of this world, instead relying on a wealthy statistics database to provide a thoroughly addictive captaincy experience.

It’s that addictive quality that has kept suckers like me - converted to the cult of ICC with its local incarnation, Australian Cricket Captain - forking out the dosh for new updates as they became available. Unfortunately there’s been no updates to ACC, so I have to be content with New South Wales lifting the Pura Cup, not the Sheffield Shield, or settle for county cricket instead.

That’s where International Cricket Captain 2006, sub-titled ‘Ashes Edition’ before England went and ruined the hype by losing 5-0, comes in. The graphics aren’t all that different from previous versions, including Australian Cricket Captain, but there have been plenty of tweaks to the interface and under the hood.

The most notable change is, of course, the roster updates. Back in the early days there was no Shane Watson demanding an obscene amount for a contract and then suffering an injury early on in the season. If I wasn’t so bitter about how this harmed Sussex’s chances for that particular year, I’d have been amazed at the realism.

Unlike most other cricket titles, this is purely a management sim. You can only watch with baited breath as you give the order to block out a nail-biting draw, and then send your laptop for an all-expenses-paid holiday out the window as Stuart MacGill loses his head and throws the game away (again, startling realism).

While you only possess a certain amount of control over batting, it’s with the ball where you get to pull most of the levers. If you’ve got the patience to painstakingly set fields, you probably need a social life, but you may also be rewarded with a wicket too.

The simple fact is: the International Cricket Captain have been the only cricket games that I’ve spent months on end playing (missing all sorts of deadlines, including one for this review), despite their simplistic graphics and irritatingly repetitive commentary from Aggers.

ICC 2006 Ashes Edition is no exception to this. Owners of earlier versions may have to consider whether the upgrade - essentially AI tweaks and squad updates - is worth it, but the current special price would suggest it is. Just don’t buy until your essay and/or exams are done.

Despite Stick Cricket's commercial agreements with the ICC developer, The Bunyip was not bribed in any way prior this review (other than with a copy of the game for, ahem, evaluation purposes). You can buy the game here for the budget price of £9.99.

Now it's your turn. Tell us what you think about the ICC series - feel free to talk us through the trials and tribulations of your current county season. We won't really give a crap but it'll help to get it off your chest, especially if Watto has just sustained an injury. ]]> The Bunyip http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=4 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=3 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:08:10 GMT WARNING: Do not bother attacking each other or posting racist remarks. Your comment will just be deleted and your IP will be banned. We're not joking.

--

Harbhajan Singh deserved to be banned for three matches. India’s decision to suspend their tour until they get a result from appeal - no doubt it needs to be an outcome favourable to the tourists - is disgraceful.

Match referee Mike Procter was convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that Singh uttered the infamous racial slur “monkey” during the second Test at the Sydney Cricket Ground. Harbhajan maintains his innocence, though the Australians say it’s not the first time the Indian spinner has used the term about Andy Symonds.

The story out of the Indian camp has been a confusing one. Team management, while stating that the word “monkey” was not uttered, was keen to point out that, even if it was, no offence would have been intended. In India the word “monkey” is used as a term of affection, claimed Harsha Bhogle on The 7:30 Report.

That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t wash in this situation. On Australia’s recent seven match ODI tour of India, Andy Symonds was subjected to racial taunts from the crowd. There’s irrefutable proof that crowd members were imitating monkeys and holding up offensive signs as Roy came out to bat, despite denials from the BCCI. The footage of those patrons, aired on The Cricket Show during the Sydney Test, seemed to suggest the taunting was anything but affectionate.

The monkey taunts received widespread media coverage at the time. There is no way that Harbhajan Singh could not have got the message: it’s probably not a good idea to use the word ‘monkey’ to Andy Symonds, under any circumstances. He went ahead and did the crime, so should do the time.

It seems that India are using the Harbhajan ban as an excuse to protest, when really the issue is the poor umpiring standard that marred the Sydney Test. Steve Bucknor’s decision to give Rahul Dravid out caught behind on the final day was one of the worst decisions I’ve seen on a cricket field, and he should not be allowed to stand in the Perth Test match.

It wasn’t the only howler of the match, unfortunately. Roy Symonds, Ricky Ponting, Mike Hussey and VVS Laxman all received reprieves when they shouldn’t have, some more than one. But what goes around comes around, with Punter given out when he wasn’t.

That brings me to Ponting’s behaviour during the match. For an Aussie captain, it was appalling. While calls for him to step down as skipper are overkill, some of his antics were highly embarrassing. Throwing your bat when you get back to the changing room is poor form for anyone, though it’s especially bad when you’re the captain and you’ve already been gifted 30-odd bonus runs thanks to an umpiring error.

Then there was the celebrations on the final day. The Aussie XI had a right to be overjoyed, they’d just won a Test when even Bull Lawry had given up hope. But neglecting to shake Apple Crumble’s hand immediately reflected poorly on the hosts. Think of Fred Flintoff comforting Brett Lee in the Edgbaston aftermath: a humble victory celebration compared to one reeking of unwarranted hubris.

Anyway, we want to hear your thoughts. Should the Harby ban stand or do you think what happens on the field should stay on the field? Did Ricky Ponting behave appropriately? Let us know in the comments below. Try to keep things civil, please. ]]> The Bunyip http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=3 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=22 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:56:44 GMT In the summer of 1989, England used 29 players in their doomed Ashes campaign. (Throughout the decade as a whole, the total was 82.) The next... In the summer of 1989, England used 29 players in their doomed Ashes campaign. (Throughout the decade as a whole, the total was 82.)

The next decade gave even more players a chance, however brief, in the spotlight: 84 players got the nod throughout the 1990s.

Then everything changed. Duncan Fletcher came in and central contracts were introduced and the revolving-door selection policy (for the Test team at least) became a thing of the past.

Science and logic prevailed. England stuck with the best players. Everything was marvellous.

That's the conventional wisdom, anyway.

But since 2000, England have still used 63 Test players - while Australia have used just 35. (A better comparison might be South Africa, who have used just 44).

And the squads selected in Peter Moores' first year in charge suggest that it's taking a while to work out exactly WHO the best players in the country are.

The chopping and changing could easily be mistaken as some kind of echo of the grim old days of the '80s if on a mercifully smaller scale.

What have we learned from the squads announced for New Zealand?

1) While Chris Read, Geraint Jones, Paul Nixon, Matt Prior and Phil Mustard have all been named in squads over the last 12 months, the selectors now believe that a sixth keeper - Tim Ambrose - is a better bet than any of them. Ambrose is inked in as the first-choice Test keeper.

2) While Ravi Bopara was considered one of the six best Test batters in the country at the start of December, good enough to keep Andrew Strauss, Owais Shah and, yes, Mark Ramprakash out of the line-up for one of the toughest tours going, in Sri Lanka, he has now been dumped altogether from the Test squad - the only casualty from the team bowled out for 81 in Galle.

3) Andrew Strauss' free-fall from being Test captain to being out of the Test and ODI picture completely at the end of last summer was widely agreed to be a fair reflection of his loss of form. But he is now - having played a total of zero innings in the meantime - considered 'healed'.

4) The selectors don't think Mark Ramprakash would score more than Strauss or Shah or Bell in New Zealand.

Here's the thing: I love watching Wing Commander Strauss bat. On form, he's as imperious as a Lord swatting the top off a boiled egg with a shooting stick (although he doesn't always look so clever when someone pitches it up to him, instead of letting him pull and cut). But if he wasn't good enough three months ago, why is he suddenly good enough now?

I'm a fan of Bopara, too - Graham Gooch says he'll be in the team for years and he's not a bad judge. But if he was good enough a month ago - why isn't he good enough now?

The wicket-keepers? I don't know the difference either way. Trouble is neither, it seems, do the selectors. Is it really possible that SIX different players can be picked for the same job in a little over a year? I don't claim to be any kind of expert myself. But I could draw a name from a hat and then, when that guy drops a catch or two, pick another one. That's kind of the media's job: selectors should stick to their guns.

Selection is about backing quality. Any great wicket-keeper can drop a catch; any batsman can get out for 0; any bowler can bowl well and yet average 63 in a tough series (as Ryan Sidebottom did in Sri Lanka, thanks to dropped catches and sheer bad luck).

These days England are meant to know their 15 best players and meant to be committed to sticking with them until they succeed, rather than losing their nerve and chopping and changing all the time as they did in the '80s and '90s.

And if they continue to ignore Ramprakash because he's 38 and they're 'building for the future', well, that's pure idiocy. Pick the best team for every game: Ravi's baptism of fire in Sri Lanka did no-one any good at all.

Get hold of SPIN's souvenir review of 2007 here ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=22 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=21 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:55:21 GMT The dispute between Cricket Australia and cricket's leading photo agencies is still ongoing. Now, it looks as if there will be no new pictures of the second Test against Sri Lanka for either Stickcricket.com readers - and for many of the world's media outlets.

If you've missed the story, here it is in a nutshell: traditionally, photographers from agencies are allowed to cover Australian cricket (and, indeed, cricket worldwide) for free.

But Cricket Australia now wants to charge agencies for access to their games.

CA argue that the agencies are making money from the game and should give something back.

The agencies refuse to pay, fearing it would set a precedent. Although CA are only looking for tiny fees - between 5,000 and 10,000 Australian dollars for the current series - agencies fear that once the fees are in place, they will be at the mercy of international cricket.

Already, the Indian board has stepped in to support Cricket Australia.

Here's the thing: the photo agencies are ALREADY giving something back to the game - by giving cricket free publicity worldwide.

What cricket ALWAYS struggles to understand is that the public can simply opt to go off and do something else. Without the free advert offered by media coverage, cricket will cease to be a talking-point in the pubs and offices or an option for kids to play in the playground.

Crowds for South Africa's recent Test with New Zealand were down in the hundreds on some days. While Australia fill their massive stadiums for the Ashes, it's a different story when the other tourists come.

Cricket Australia has already come under fire for the poor crowds at the first Test.

Outside England and Australia, crowds for Tests are often tiny. Even within England and Australia, crowds for domestic cricket are sparse at best. Apart from in India, cricket is not in a position of strength. It needs to suck in supporters by promoting the game, not make cricket some kind of Masonic secret.

Ahead of the 2004 Champs Trophy in England, the ICC sent out a two-page set of instructions to fans, telling them which brand of crisps and cola they could bring to the ground.

That letter also claimed, disgracefully, that cricket was reliant on its sponsors and that we, the punters, should be grateful, pay the ticket price, drink the one over-priced drink on sale in the ground, sit down and shut up.

The Caribbean World Cup also suffered from the fact that no-one seemed to have considered whether islanders would want to spend a week's wages on a ticket for the cricket.

Giving the fans a good deal is always bottom of the list of priorities.

The roaring success of the World T20 may have led us to believe that cricket had put its house in order.

But Cricket Australia's stance on the photographers suggests, once again, a complete lack of the basics of marketing, promotion and keeping the fans happy.

Any other industry would be delighted to get free publicity for its product worldwide.

Cricket administrators, as ever, seem not to have read Book 1 of the Public Relations course.

Until they do, we'll be using the archive pics on Stickcricket. And Murali overtaking Warner's record - or Australia picking up another innings victory - will go unseen by many of the world's cricket fans. ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=21 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=20 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:53:45 GMT Andrew Flintoff, England captain, turned up drunk for a training session during the CB Series. Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, felt let-down... Andrew Flintoff, England captain, turned up drunk for a training session during the CB Series.

Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, felt let-down by Flintoff - but didn't have the strength of character to drop him from the team and send him home.

If I want to see a team of drunks play, I can go to my local park.

Or, more kindly: if I want to see a team of talented individuals who don't have enough time or inclination to play sport at the highest, most professional level, I can see THEM in my local park, too.

Why should I pay to watch on Sky, for flights to Australia, for overpriced tickets to see a 'professional' team losing 5-0?

It's not just the money, either. The real question is: why should I CARE? Sport is meaningless unless it's between two teams who are giving their all.

Freddie's apparently given up drinking now - well done. So he'll be sober for the home visit of South Africa and New Zealand next summer. The big ones. The ones that count. A shame he seems to have spent the Ashes and the World Cup in some kind of booze blur.

His pal Steve Harmison was in the papers yesterday, saying it was the media who were to blame, and that there was always someone wanting to have a go and that it was no use going on about 'ancient history'.

Gordon Bennett.

Cricket's always been a big social sport and we all know that, say, many of the Australian team like a drink, even a big drink, sometimes. But the Aussies remain the world champions by a distance. Their training methods obviously work. Maybe their players don't turn up drunk for practise.

England's job is to try and narrow the gap.

I guess loads of readers will just say Freddie's a boy, Freddie's a lad, Freddie a character. We don't want a bunch of Nervous Nigels representing us. The line that's always trotted out on these occasions - by idiots - is that you can't expect young guys to put their lives on hold, it's a very tough lifestyle, they're only Young Guys etc etc.

Here's the thing: would you, reader, go to bed early and go easy on the sauce in return for half a million quid a year and the chance to play sport for your country?

That's the deal: we give you a load of money; you give us 100 per cent focus and only drink heavily when the team's not in a series or tournament.

Take it or leave it. If you don't take it - someone else will.

We sit in the stands, possibly drinking ourselves to oblivion. You stand on the park, earning a million quid. That's the division of labour, right there.

Let's be straight: all the money the England players get comes from the fans, directly or indirectly.

If playing for England - being captain of England - is just a laugh, well, we'll go and watch something else and you can get your beer money some other way.

As for Fletcher - well, he's right to break ranks and let the world know how his players let him down. In the extracts we've seen so far there's a slight mention of Trescothick's situation - perhaps this is teetering on being out of order - but the fans deserve to know the stuff about Flintoff. Of course they do.

Freddie's always keen to appear in Hello or OK talking about how having a family has calmed him down from his wild earlier days. So he can't really complain now.

It's bold of coach Fletcher to tell all now (in return for a nice book advance). If only he had been so bold during the Ashes: if he could have overruled Fred's desire to have Gilo not Monty in the team; and sent Fred home when his boozing disrupted the team's schedule.

The big joke is that Flintoff went into the Ashes series with a massive question marks over both his captaincy and his fitness - the whole shape of the team was changed to accommodate him. England couldn't play four bowlers because Fletcher couldn't be confident of Flintoff's fitness. The team, for the first Ashes Test, effectively, saw Flintoff replace Trescothick in the team that had won the home series against Pakistan 3-0.

Maybe you think Fletcher was the man charged with winning the Ashes - and, whatever happened, he should take responsibility. (He was the man who - after long thought - made Flintoff captain, after all.)

But - let's be fair - the coach did carry the can for much of last winter's farce, as regular readers of stickcricket.com will recall only too well. Now, it's only fair that he lets us have the bigger picture.

Or am I wrong? ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=20 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=2 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:06:16 GMT The day that Australian cricket fans have had nightmares about for a long time is finally here. The Brave New World. A world without Glenn McGrath... The day that Australian cricket fans have had nightmares about for a long time is finally here. The Brave New World. A world without Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. With the first McGrath-and-Warne-less home summer on the horizon, it’s time to look ahead to the first Test at the Gabba. Who should be in the Aussie squad? The Bunyip picks his side and then you have your chance to pick yours. As Ja’mie from Summer Heights High would say, it’s so, like, totally random and democratic.

The Openers

The battle to replace Alfie Langer at the top of the Test batting line-up has been on since roughly 1.89 seconds after Langer called it a day. The frontrunners have been Phil Jaques (New South Wales) and Chris Rogers (Western Australia), although a bout of appendicitis has ruled out Rogers’ chance of selection. Jaques was looking the likely candidate anyway, having notched up a century in the Blues opening Pura Cup game of the summer. He’s played Test cricket before, of course, in a fill-in capacity - scoring 66 in Bangladesh. Others have thrown their hat in the ring - Shane Watson and Brad Hodge to name a few - but the former can’t run without risk of a hammy twinge and the latter has just scored 2 (6b) and 0 (1b) in a Pura Cup match to follow on from a horror tour of India. So, Phil it is. Or should be. Should he fail in the two Sri Lanka Tests, there’s every chance Rogers will get a turn. Stick Cricket polling had most of you plumping for a Mr Cricket promotion to opener but given that would probably open up a spot for Brad Hodge, we'll choose to ignore you.

The Middle-Order

Ricky Ponting at first drop is a certainty, as is Mr ‘I-Don’t-Like-To-Be-Called-Mr-Cricket’ Cricket at four. Michael Clarke is perhaps the one with a long-term spot to cement - he wasn’t originally part of Australia’s Ashes plans and while he did muster up 389 runs at 77.80, including two centuries, it’s a matter of whether he can perform consistently. His contribution toward the whitewash should at least buy him a full summer in the Test side and given he’s already suffered the pain of being dumped once, that’ll be one phone call he’ll be desperate to avoid. I’m sure there’s a Lara Bingle joke to be had here, so insert your own.

The Freddie

Australian selectors came out of the 2005 Ashes with one mission. To find a Fred to call our own. They settled on Shane Watson as the most likely candidate but their dreams have been thwarted countless times as the Queenslander has suffered injury after injury. The sudden retirement of Damien Martyn after Amazing Adelaide (Channel 9, we know you’re desperate these days... I mean... The Farmer Wants A Wife... seriously?, but don’t sue us) paved the way for Roy Symonds to return to the side. No doubt the Indian bowlers are stoked about that. As with Clarke, Roy begins the summer with a bit still to prove - can he be consistent at Test level? Can he be Australia’s Freddi... err, perhaps not the best analogy these days.

The Keeper

It’s a bit boring - unlike others-who-shall-not-be-named, Australia doesn’t change Test keepers daily. There was plenty of speculation that Gilly might join the retirement club after Ashes but we’re a year later and he’s still going strong, with another World Cup trophy added to his resume. One thing to remember for the summer: if Simon O’Donnell says Adam Gilchrist is a shadow of his former self (or something to that effect), run to your local TAB and get money on a ton. Although perhaps S’OD has learnt his lesson following the Perth massacre. The heir apparent is Brad Haddin.

The Bowlers

Had you asked prior to the seven match ODI series in India, the most likely candidate to replace Glenn McGrath would have been Shaun Tait - depending on his recovery from injury. Mitch Johnson had the tour that dreams are made of and suddenly he’s in the box seat to be handed a baggy green cap at the Gabba. Hilfenhaus and Bracken are also candidates but their chance seems remote at this point. If our Stick Cricket poll results, proven to be scientifically inaccurate, are any indication Mitch Johnson will romp it in. In terms of bowling style, the real McGrath replacement was playing alongside Glenn last summer - Stuart ‘Pidge’ Clark. Can he still emulate the great man now that he’s limited to watching old tapes of McGrath bowl?

Then there’s the small matter of replacing Shane Warne. Shouldn’t be too hard a job, right? Stuey MacGill, the wine-skulling bad boy of Aussie cricket, has been waiting patiently for about 87 years for Warnie to bugger off and let him have a turn and it seems that day has arrived. At 36 he’s no spring chicken and with the South Australian spin duo of Dan Cullen and Cullen Bailey knocking on the door, his selection for the summer is far from guaranteed. But the Stick Cricket readers, by an overwhelming majority, are begging for Brad Hogg to be picked. The quiet achiever of the Aussie ODI side isn’t always a guaranteed selection for Western Australia in first-class cricket so it’s hard to see him playing in the Test side.

The Drink Carrier

Mitch Johnson will more than likely graduate into the XI, leaving selectors the unenviable task of picking a new drink-cart-driver. Is Andy Bichel still available these days?

The Bunyip’s XI for Brisbane: Phil Jaques, Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting (c), Mike Hussey, Michael Clarke, Andy Symonds, Adam Gilchrist (wk), Stuart Clark, Brett Lee, Stuart MacGill, Mitch Johnson.

Tom's XI for Brisbane: Phil Jaques, Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting (c), Mike Hussey, Michael Clarke, Andy Symonds, Adam Gilchrist (wk), Stuart Clark, Brett Lee, Ben Hilfenhaus*, Mitch Johnson.

*Tom is Tasmanian. Make of that what you will.

Now it’s time for YOU to play the role of selector and pick Australia’s first Test team. Go on then! ]]> The Bunyip http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=2 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=1 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:53:32 GMT So much for our plan to use YouTube clips of World Cup action as part of articles, to get around the fact we're too lazy to actually describe the action. The ICC has clamped down on the video sharing site, now owned by Google, demanding that all footage from the World Cup be removed.

Fans without full television coverage who were turning to YouTube for match highlights in a desperate bid to keep up with the action in the Caribbean will now have nowhere to go. Other than here of course, given our over-by-over coverage is 'better than being there'. Or so they say.

It's a ridiculous decision. Of course, the ICC aren't alone in this. In fact, they're the latest in a long line of organisations that have pulled the plug on YouTube - no longer will you find clips from Viacom shows such as The Colbert Report, or even from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s The Chaser’s War on Everything. The merits of those takedowns are a different issue entirely, but it signals the end of an era… an era that allowed workers all around the world to procrastinate while watching everything under the sun at YouTube. From 'funny' cat videos, to Simply the Best, it was a haven for undiscovered gems as well as clips protected by copyright law.

Of course, they have their reasons. 'We are here to protect the commercial broadcast rights for the ICC,' said Christopher Stokes, the CEO of the agency tasked with protecting online rights on behalf of the ICC. While that's not entirely surprising, it's yet another indication that the almighty dollar holds sway.

If there's one positive to come out of the horribly tragic Woolmer murder, it's that everyone has been reminded cricket is only a game. It's a game that brings us all together, regardless of race, religion or location. It's a game loved by billions, and it's a game that generates billions of dollars.

But it's still just a game, designed to be enjoyed by players and fans alike. Unfortunately the ICC and their over-zealous lawyers have once again shown us… they simply don’t get it. ]]> The Bunyip http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=1 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=19 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:52:57 GMT It was very shocking and sad to hear the news about Bob Woolmer at the weekend: he'd been a contributor to and supporter of our magazine SPIN ever since the first issue, always ready to write columns or be interviewed. The only time I met him was the day after the Pakistan walk-off at the Oval last August: despite being under obvious pressure, he invited me to have dinner with him at his hotel and spoke very freely and openly about the situation, telling me plenty of things that possibly he shouldn't have.

Bob Woolmer was like that: you might email him suggesting he write a column and within an hour he would reply: not just agreeing to write the column, but with the column itself attached. He was a man who couldn't talk enough about cricket, his enthusiasm for it, his ideas about the game.

On his website Bobwoolmer.com, he would blog and answer queries from players and fans - even possibly insane fans suggesting the wholesale sacking of the team would get a civilised reply.

How many other top sports coaches or managers would do that?

Alongside all the other pressures he obviously faced as coach of Pakistan was the fact that he was pretty much their sole media outlet: Woolmer was always ready to talk for free. Compare his attitude to his own players who would only talk to journalists in return for a giant fee (upwards of £500 a time); or to other international coaches from whom the words have to wrenched like blood from a stone. Where so many players and coaches regard the media (and by extension the fans who pay their wages) with suspicion or even contempt, Woolmer just loved to talk about cricket, to keep the debate going.

Quite why there are so few with that enthusiasm at the top level of sport is something of a mystery.

Woolmer knew from the start that the Pakistan job would be tough: standards of preparation and organisation in the game in Pakistan were behind those in Australia or England; while the revolving-door selection policies of previous coaches could be fixed, the injury-prone nature of his star players could not. He rarely had all his best players available.

And from last August, the run-of-the-mill problems of being Pakistan coach stepped up a gear: Inzy leading the walk-off at the Oval; Akhtar and Asif failing the drugs tests; with Inzy banned, Younis Khan took the captaincy then resigned it a day later; the chairman of the PCB resigning; Akhtar allegedly slapping Woolmer during an altercation; Afridi banned for going after a spectator in South Africa; Akhtar and Asif crying off at the last minute from the World Cup, with drugs rumours still flying about; the surrender to Ireland on Saturday. Incredible events individually but taken as a whole almost unbelievable; the image of Woolmer being the well-meaning teacher charged with a class of naughty boys with no respect for a) authority or b) their own massive talent is hard to avoid.

And those were just the widely reported events. When I met Woolmer after the Oval fiasco, he was clearly not happy - if philosophical - about many other aspects of the Pakistan set-up from the top down, including his relationships with Inzamam and the tour manager Zaheer Abbas. He implied that he found it hard to get through to the younger players and that the presence of so many families on tour had inhibited his chances of running the team as he would have wanted. Re: Inzamam, he implied a breakdown of the relationship between captain and coach: "It's impossible for me," he said. "If I do something he doesn't like he won't talk to me for two days. And therein lies your reason for what happened at the Oval. I’ll communicate anytime but you can’t communicate with a brick wall."

Woolmer enjoyed the team's religious fervour – it gave them a common purpose and in some ways made them more disciplined and easier to coach, he reckoned - but it also left him as more of an outsider than a coach normally is. In many ways, it seemed like a lonely life, going round the world with this problematic bunch, while his wife stayed back in South Africa.

I've put up the interview I did with him for SPIN ahead of Pakistan's tour of England last summer: Woolmer had plenty to say about the nature of the Pakistan cricket culture - and his plans for improving the team. Bob Woolmer's enthusiasm and passion for the game and for life in general is obvious throughout: what a great interviewee he was - and what a great man. ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=19 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=18 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:50:52 GMT Exciting scenes, readers: the World Cup is nearly upon us and England - it's official - aren't rubbish after all. Three match-winning perfs from Colly in Oz suddenly sent the world crazy and had David Graveney - ambitiously - asking for hacks to apologise for being nasty to coach Fletcher over the Ashes.

We covered that last time. (Roughly, in the words of SPIN's own George Dobell, winning the CB Series after losing the Ashes was like losing your legs on Sunday and winning a pair of slippers on Monday.)

Be that as it may. Here are the brave boys that England fans are counting on...

Michael Vaughan
Injury-prone skipper and inspiration. Even though England won the CB Series without him, they seem obsessed by getting him on the field, even if they have to wheel him on. Famous for a) keeping everyone calm and b) his 1976 novelty hit. Seriously!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd7_aqkWs2s

Freddie Flintoff
You know about him, dontcha? Seen the clip of him sledging Dwayne Bravo and Tino Best?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1NFbVx0uN8

Ed Joyce
The Folksinger has somehow snuck into the side ahead of all our other favourites: Mauler Shah, Cheese Prior, Mal Loye. Has nine brothers and sisters.

Belly Bell
The blog 'he' does at is a spoof. Trust us. But it's very funny. So.

Wing Commander Strauss
Let's be honest - lovely fella, classy batter, ex-captain, no good at one-day cricket. Or not hitherto, anyway. Will be scapegoated if all the other batters are fit

Colly
The Ginger Prince was also the Ginger Genius who took to riling Warner throughout the Ashes by sledging him relentlessly. Great move, Colly. Well done for that! The commentators' script is already written and will involve one or all of the following: 1) "middle-order glue" 2) "best fielder in the world" 3) "his beloved Sunderland" 4) nudging 5) nurdling. 6) nudging and nurdling. 7) bottom-handed. 8) "dibbly-dobbly". Does he like a drink? Who knows? Is he actually ginger? I don't think so. So.

KP
The Aussies nicknamed him 'The Ego' showing that they have no flair for nicknames and should stick to adding 'o' or 'ie' to people's surnames. Leave nicknames to the experts, son. KP's nickname is KP. Obviously.

Jimmy Anderson
The only England player married to a model: Danniella Lloyd. No, she's not the one who's going out with Teddy Sheringham. She's this one!. So. Jimmy was nicknamed 'Hairdo' by the Aussie OBO team during the Ashes, although his real nickname is Jimmy. Despite briefly being the sexy face of English cricket after 'bursting' 'on' 'to' 'the' 'scene' in the 2003 VB Series (and then being laid low
with repeated injuries) he is known for, shall we say, not having a lot to say for himself. Expect: Corking yorkers mixed in with four-balls.

Sajid Mahmood
Get your tin hats on, readers: no-one's safe when Saj has the ball in his hands Ð either the batters, from his sporadic jaffers, or the crowd as the six-balls keep on coming. 'Origami' Mahmood was nicknamed by reader Steven Ellans for, so far as we can tell, entirely random reasons. What will he make today, readers? A beautiful swan? Or a big pile of screwed up and torn paper all over the floor ie rubbish. It could go either way. Expect: hostility. Towards opposing batters or the England management. Depending.

Nicko Nixon
Veteran (36) Leicester ODI champ. Boy, is he an annoying fella or what? Apparently contractually obliged to appear in EVERY single photo involving the England team, the Aussies made a laughing stock of Nicko (can't catch, can't bat, too old) throughout the CB Series, from the players to the pundits to the papers. Had he been picked purely on his ability to talk non-stop for four hours? Would that mean that 'Diddy' David Hamilton (ask your mum) might be in with a shout for the summer series? Well, look in the book, son: England won the series and Nicko had lots of pictures taken and may even be the missing ingredient that has turned England from zeros to heroes. Ish.

Jon Lewis
The Poet Ruffian is still tinkering away at those sonnets of his and after completing a thrilling spell of 2/8 off 12 likes nothing better than retreating to third mad and waving his ruff at the riff-raff in the cheap seats. The only England bowler who can be relied upon to bowl reasonably straight. He talks for 2000 words about bowling straight (but nothing about poetry) in his interview with SPIN magazine. Never cuts his hair when he's bowling well, apparently. You'd never guess.

Dazzler Darren Gough.
Ah, we're only kidding, readers.

Jamie Dalrymple
For all his supposed hi-falutin upbringing and the fact that he's the best qualified cricketer in the game (probably - he has two degrees and four A levels) he always looks to us like the sort of fellow who may own a
horse and cart. Have a look. See if we're wrong.

Pudsey Plunkett
Five GCSEs, volleyball coaching badge. Hair by self. Supposedly the funniest man in the squad. Prone to Borat impressions, salt in sugar bowl, all that. Bowled very fast in CB Series after long lay-off (Pudsey himself claims in the latest SPIN that he managed 97 mph, which CAN NOT be true. Surely) and twice removed Gilchrist with umplayable yorkers. Still prone to going for plenty - but if he gets in three or four of those jaffers first, no-one will care.

Monty Panesar
Beard of the year by all accounts. Third in Sports Personality of the Year. Who doesn't love Mont's joyful celebration; who doesn't rail against the injustices that kept him out of the Test and ODI sides until Fletcher saw sense? But who isn't bothered if they never see a single one of his none-duller post-match interviews ever again? Ever. Anyway: study this ball...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUfW6Z2o34g
...then rearrange the words 'arse' 'Warne' 'Shane' 'up' 'your' 'stick' 'you' and 'can' and sing them at the Aussies. Go on, be a grown up.

Ravi Bopara
Nickname: Puppy. Has only won one cap. When selection supremo Dave Graveney was asked about having a plyer with only one cap in the squad after having so long to plan for the tournament, Grav said: "Who's that, then?"
THAT is the genius, readers.

Anyways, we'll be bringing you our award-winning over-by-over coverage of every England and Australia game plus all the other head-to-head matches between the major Test nations during the World Cup, right here on the site. And giving away stuff, And inviting your emails, sane or otherwise. Can you wait, readers? Can you wait? ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=18 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=17 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:48:46 GMT *Settle down at the back. Now, before I begin the latest festival of publishing, readers, let me remind you that if you subscribe to our ace magazine... Settle down at the back. Now, before I begin the latest festival of publishing, readers, let me remind you that if you subscribe to our ace magazine SPIN [www.spincricket.com] right now you get a free England ODI shirt! I know regular readers are probably bored of this information, but we have new people stepping into the stickcricket tent at all times. So. Now, on with 'the' 'show'...

"Dear Sir," writes Christopher Bowyer. "Reading your blog I noticed that the last entry was of Feb 7th. Could this in any way be due to England walloping Australia in the CB series, after your blogs on how useless England are? I particularly like your 4th Feb blog, "Australia are the best team in the world right now, possibly the best ODI team ever", are you so sure now when Australia may be ranked 2nd in the World Cup?"

Yeah, well: 1) no 2) no and 3) no. But apart from that - you're very warm.

See, those of us who do the blog are all, broadly, England fans, even if we try to maintain a little bit of objectivity. And you're right: Australia don't look like (and aren't ranked as) the best ODI side in the world now. How hilarious are these ODIs in New Zealand? Poor old Mr Cricket looks like someone's just shot his dog (yes - even more than he usually does) and Bracko Bracken looks vexed, like a man who's been forced to wear a ladies' wig to work as part of some poker-related forfeit.

As if.

All of which means that the World Cup is up for grabs - and thank God for that. The way it was going, it looked like it was going to be a pretty dismal affair; one big team and loads of also-rans.

(What I love about when the Aussies lose is that all their pundits and ex-players are starting to say these games against New Zealand are meaningless and that the players are worked too hard and it's not the proper Aussie team etc etc etc. Yeah, that'll be right - I noticed when the chaps won the DLF Cup and the ICC Champions Trophy, they didn't bother celebrating winning those unnecessary additions to fixture congestion too much. Good to see you're so consistent, fellas!)

Anyway, Christopher Bowyer... we had a letter to SPIN magazine last week, raising the same issue. "Oh, you were saying England were no good at ODIs and now they're brilliant, what have you got to say about THAT?!"

What I'd say is THIS. That England winning the CB Series after that winter of abject, ill-prepared surrender was like winning the Carling Cup in the same season as getting relegated from the Premiership. It certainly doesn't cancel out the Ashes walloping; nor does it mean, as David Graveney said, that all the English media should apologise to Mr Excitement Duncan Fletcher for saying he'd lost the plot.

Graveney must have been inhaling fumes. He doesn't seem to have repeated the ludicrous request since.

I'd say the 5-0 Ashes defeat, being bowled out for 110 and 120 in Adelaide and winning just seven ODIs out of 29 were pretty sound reasons to suggest that England COULD do better and that Mr Excitement HAD lost the plot.

Seven wins in 29. One of them was against Ireland. One of them was against the Windies after they had already qualified from the Champs Trophy group.

Should we have not said anything about that?

When they asked legendary Chinaman Chairman Mao what the outcome of the French Revolution of 1789 had been, he replied: it's too soon to say.

He wouldn't have made much of a blogger.

If England go on and win the World Cup, won't we STILL want to know why it took so long for them to find a winning formula? And how come they finally turned to Paul Nixon after trying three other keepers in the previous 12 months? And how come they debuted 28 players between the World Cups and ended up selecting Ravi Bopara, who's won just a single cap?

And how come they were so rubbish in the Ashes?

What it all suggests to me is that England may have got lucky at just the right time - there's no indication that they've been 'building' towards the World Cup with any coherant plan at all. Hovis Bresnan, The Dazzler, Yardy the Manic Dentist, Infant Phenomenon Stuart Broad. Where are they now?

And those are just the players who've been in the side in the last six months. Never mind Cheese Prior, Solanki the Smooth-talking Rogue and Rocket Rikki Clarke.

At the selection press conference last Wednesday, David Graveney was asked whether it reflected badly on him and Fletch that after four years' planning (and plenty of moaning about how inexperienced the ODI side is), they were taking a player to the World Cup who won just one cap.

What was Grav's reply?

He said: "Who are you referring to?"

!!!!!!!!!

He really said that!

How brilliant is THAT?!

No-one laughed. But they should have.

Thing is, Christopher, it was hardly a knee-jerk reaction to question England's plans when they were 7-22 on the win-loss ratio. Our excitement at the CB Series win is partly because they'd depressed us to such a level that we thought even winning a single game was some kind of achievement. Winning four in a row was like Poet Ruffian Jon Lewis turning up at your birthday party in a sedan chair, carried by Tinker Harmison and Pudsay Plunkett, and reciting a specially-composed sonnet in honour of the day.

It was THAT good.

Appropriately enough for the Colly-fired revival, England look like Sunderland from a couple of years back.

Relegated from the Premiership with a record low number of points. Everyone said they were rubbish!

Then they flew right back as champions of the second flight. Everyone said they were brilliant!

The season after that, with expectations raised, they got relegated again.

Hmmm.

So I still say England have been a shambles. Which isn't to say all the pieces won't fall together in a monkeys/typewriter style happy-ending at the World Cup, the way they did in the CB Series.

They should have picked Mal Loye, of course. But I'll cover THAT next time.

You can go now.

¥ Write to us at if you want. ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=17 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=16 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:36 GMT Readers, a question: who would be in your World Test XI? Always a good one this, and nicely complicated by the recent retirements of Pigeon,... Readers, a question: who would be in your World Test XI?

Always a good one this, and nicely complicated by the recent retirements of Pigeon, Warner (and possibly Alfie Langer).

Most of it selects itself: Ponting, Yousuf and KP must be in there. And Murali and Hussey. But what about Sangakkara or Gilly? Pollock or Flintoff (or both)? Having duffed up England and South Africa, Stuart Clark presumably takes over from McGrath.

But what about putting in a few youngsters? A few names for the future? A few players who don't belong in your world side right now but will, possibly, do the business next year or the year after or maybe the year after that.

No?

Exactly - that would be insane.

Yet when it comes to the England team, this hopeless idea of building for the future is never very far away.

After the Ashes, Duncan Fletcher said he had a good nucleus of a team for the 2009 Ashes. Flintoff said most of the team would be around in 2009, too.

Actually, fellas, the job was to win the Ashes this time round, in 2006/07. Didn't anyone tell you?

In the ODIs, Fletcher and the players repeatedly bang on about the side's inexperience, as if there was some magical sporting equation: Promise +Time = Champions.

Last week, Beefy Botham was the latest to reveal he believes that old lie, when he said he thought Paul Nixon shouldn't be in the side because "he's not one for the future".

Well, maybe Nixon, 36, and Mal Loye, 34, SHOULDN'T be in the side - but that's got NOTHING to do with the 'future'.

What's so great about the future? Is Fletcher building an entertaining team for when cricket comes back on terrestrial TV or something? Is there a reason why the NEXT World Cup should be taken more seriously than the one that starts in a month's time?

The point is if you're good enough, then you should play and it doesn't matter how old or young you are.

Alex Ferguson, famously, won the 1996 Premiership with a Man Utd side full of "kids" - but he wasn't building for the future. Beckham, Scholes and the Nevilles were already good enough to win the title, not makeweight youths keeping better players out of the side.

Ferguson's most recent signing was Henrik Larssen, who's 36. Not one for the future. Possibly Fergie wants to win the title THIS year, though. Imagine that.

Australia don't 'build for the future.' Their new, younger players - Mitchell Johnson, for example - come straight in and succeed. And, as they pick their best 11 men for the job, they turn to battle-hardened 'new' boys like Stuart Clark and Mike Hussey.

Presumably Beefy Botham would throw up his hands in horror that Australia don't have one eye on the 2013 Ashes series.

Well, look in the book, mate: the most important games in any sport are the ones taking place right now. If England could find a way to win the World Cup with a team full of 35-year-olds, one imagines the fans would be happy enough - or would they be chewing their nails, worrying about the future? (Australia are quite happy to have a team full of 35-year-olds.)

Right now, there are rumours going round that England are toying with calling up Darren Gough or Mark Ramprakash to the World Cup squad.

Beefy says that's a step backwards. Of course he does.

But the ONLY criteria here is whether the Dazzler and Ramps would make THIS World Cup campaign a success. And their age or ability to play for another decade at the top level are 100 per cent irrelevant.

If Sajid Mahmood, Liam Plunkett and Jimmy Anderson are more likely to bowl England to World Cup glory than Gough, so be it. But if Fletcher is going to take them to the West Indies as some kind of building-for-the-future exercise, then he's an idiot.

In sport, the future never comes - and that's a fact. How do you know that your players will continue to improve? You don't. When Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney burst onto the scene as teenagers, idiots assumed that somehow in five years' time the prodigies would be twice as good.

But, though no-one seems to have told our 'leading' sports pundits, sport doesn't work like that. It's not predictable.

In 18 months' time, the squad you're planning to have will have injuries or loss of form and there'll be another 20-year-old banging on the door.

I'd say only let the 20-year-old in the door if he's one of the best 11 players in the country. Beefy Botham, conversely, would prefer to see a team of teenagers as England build towards some non-specified future Golden Age.

Look at the guys Fletcher has picked 'for the future' over the four years since the last World Cup. There's been 28 new caps in all, from Jim Troughton to Rikki Clarke to Michael Yardy to Kabir Ali to Alex Loudon to Tim flipping Bresnan. Where are THEY all now?

Were any of them among the best 11 players in the country when they were given their debut? And, if not, why not? The future Fletcher was supposed to be planning for is here right now – except that now he's still apparently planning for two years' time!

Sri Lanka brought back 36-year-old Sanath Jayasuriya last summer and blasted an England team full of Bresnans and Mahmoods 5-0. Confidence buoyed, the Sirils have carried on building towards the World Cup and are now among the favourites; but none of the England youngsters involved in that debacle have 'come through' yet. Most have disappeared back to county cricket.

If only the Sirils had been planning for 2011, then things might have been very different.

Ravi Bopara looked good the other day; Plunkett and Mahmood bowled straight at the 20th time of asking; Folksinger Ed Joyce survived being dropped on 6 and hit a ton.

Well done, everyone. If we really think these guys are in the best 15 players in England then throw 'em in the world Cup squad. If you're 'building for the future' - well, let's just forget it, eh?

Club sides might need to build for the future. But international sides have got the pick of everyone. It's fantasy cricket - just pick the best 11 players in England.

Or maybe picking the best team really is no way to win a World Cup.

• Agree? Disagree?
• Subscribe to SPIN, get a free England shirt:www.spincricket.com ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=16 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=15 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:46:20 GMT Let's get something straight. Australia are the best team in the world right now, possibly the best ODI team ever. It's not all that disgraceful for England to be losing to them. It's the manner of England's surrender, the gifting of their wickets that is so gutting for England fans. All we want to see is a bit of fight.

And what about New Zealand? Are THEY one of the best ODI teams the world has ever seen? Probably not – and yet the other day they bowled England out for 120.

Like SPIN's own Ian Bell says, England are at rock bottom.

English-based players have the chance to play loads more one-day cricket than those who play anywhere else in the world. Even better, since England pioneered Twenty20, our players have had more of a chance to develop their skills in the game's most cutting-edge form, where big-hitting and economical bowling are even more important.

Weirdly, though, it's the Aussies who seem to be taking on board the lessons and tactics of Twenty20, as they absorb carefree, brutal hitting into the 50-over game, a form once built around plenty of mid-innings nudging and nurdling.

The England team look as if they've never even heard of Twenty20.

How come? Well, ask yourself this question: how many of England's current crop of players have actually ever had any success at all in county one-dayers? After all, if you know how to win a game at county level, that experience might stand you in good stead at ODI level too.

The England football team is built round players from the four most successful teams - Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal. It would be pretty strange if it wasn't. (Obviously, the football team is even more hopeless than the cricket team but don't let's get distracted.)

But cricket is different.

Since Twenty20 was introduced in 2003, the champions have been Surrey, Leicester (twice) and Somerset. But of players with Twenty20 winners medals, only Rikki Clarke, Ian Blackwell and Stuart Broad have even been considered for the England side; and they've been kept at the very fringes. (In addition, there's Paul Nixon, twice a Twenty20 winner, who has finally been given a run out of desperation in this CB Series at the age of 36.)

So who won the county one-day titles last year? Leicestershire, Essex and Sussex. And how many of their players were in the original squad for the CB Series? Again, just Nixon. (Essex's Ravi Bopara has since been called up.)

I'm not saying that, say, KP shouldn't be in the side because Hampshire didn't win a one-day title last year. I'm not an idiot. The demands of international cricket are obviously different to those of domestic.

But England are trailing a team of losers round the globe - just six wins in 25 now - a team built round Test-style players who don't know how to win ODIs. One-day cricket has moved on.

The root of the problem, as with the problem with the Test side, is that Duncan Fletcher prefers to head hunt young talent and mould it himself, rather than looking at the county averages and choosing players who have already been successful.

When that strategy works, Fletcher looks like a genius. Famously, he did this with Trezzer and Virgil Vaughan. Those hunches worked well. That was seven years ago. Even Jimmy Anderson, brought in as an unknown four years ago, has been a qualified success.

But since then, plenty of hunch players have come and gone. Since the 2003 World Cup, England have given ODI debuts to 28 players, while Australia have introduced just 12. Jim Troughton, Kabir Ali, Tim Bresnan, Cheese Prior, Alex Loudon... Where are they now? Were they not good enough to be picked in the first place? If they were good enough, shouldn't England have stuck with them a bit longer?

Tell me this: would it be so insane to have picked a few players who had shown they could do the business at some level, rather than going with prospects who might possibly be moulded into decent players over a number of years?

No-one scored more one-day runs in the 2006 season than Mal Loye - but he was only called up to the current tour when the barrel was being scraped. As an improvising whacker at the top of the order, he was the obvious replacement for Trezzer, yet Ed Joyce – yet another 'nice' touch player – was called up ahead of him. England play ODIs like a Test match; everyone else knows ODIs these days are closer to Twenty20. Powerplays were introduced in July 2005. Did Fletcher get that memo?

Winning is a habit - and it's not a habit that any young players are likely to get within the England ODI set-up.

I reckon England should pick the best 11 one-day players in England and let them get on with it - not 20 youths who Fletcher thinks can be trained up to be any good over the next five years; or classy Test players who couldn't hit sixes for money.

He's ignored Origami Mahmood in this series and picked Poet Ruffian Jon Lewis when fit. That's a step in the right direction, towards proven experience rather than random promise. Now he needs to do some more of that.

What's the worst that can happen? England lose every game humiliatingly and become a laughing stock?

At least that wouldn't be any worse than where they're at now.

• Agree? Disagree? Let the Third Umpire know! ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=15 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=14 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:45:11 GMT Why, the BBC's Mark Pougatch asked Tinker Harmison yesterday, did he think he'd done so badly in this series. "I don't know," said Tinker, slightly hurt, slightly hostile, slightly sarcastic. "I leave that to the experts like you."

Fair enough, I thought at first. Pougatch sounds out of his depth, a football man drafted in for the Ashes jolly, like so many of the Beeb's lightweight foreign/holiday correspondents, shipped out there at our expense in order to deliver lily-livered blogs and the like. Rightly or wrongly, players like KP and the Tinker respond so much better to ex-players, or at least cricket specialists. They can spot a wrong-un.

But hang on a minute. The media is representing all the fans who've paid three grand to go to Oz to see England surrender the Ashes; and all the fans who've stayed up late to watch them. It's those people, Tinker ,who pay your wages - wages that are so big that you can afford to take a massive cut in them by opting out of half the international programme because you're not enjoying it.

Imagine, readers, if we all had that luxury.

England enjoyed the sudden trappings of celebrity after the 2005 win: they enjoyed the rush of endorsements, the way advertisers allowed them to top up their meagre £200,000-plus central contracts. They enjoyed having agents; they enjoyed book publishers queuing up to give them big money; they enjoyed being all over the papers, celebrating in Trafalgar Square. Maybe they even enjoyed giving interviews about how marvellous they were.

The flipside of that is that when things go wrong, you need to front up. No England cricket team has ever been under such scrutiny. Cricket has never been more popular in England - certainly not in the television age. But the chaps don't seem to get it: any opportunity to explain themselves is shunned. They act as though the fans that they have attracted to cricket, the fans that pay their wages, the fans that attract the bluechip sponsors are a NUISANCE.

And the 'media' that they find a nuisance is really, readers, us. How else can we, the fans, find out what's happening with our team, if not via the media?
Sure, there's some lame-brained journos out there – but England need to think about the people at home. They need to think that every second in front of a camera or a microphone is their OPPORTUNITY to speak directly to the fans. Look at how brilliant the Aussies are at it: Justin Langer sounds like he's swallowed a dictionary of quotations.

These guys have media training, you know. But then again, they supposedly have batting and bowling coaching, too. So.

Thoughts? ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=14 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=13 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:44:21 GMT Welcome back, readers. Have anything nice for Christmas?

So I'm back Back BACK from my Aussie trip, not actually converted to wearing vests and watching swimming but, you know, keen to go back. The Aussies all seemed very pleasant too - I don't know why everyone hates them. Highlights? Loads, but being in Perth 'nite' 'spot' The Deen when Binger staggered on stage at 1 in the morning to play some pub rock was pretty good. (Environmental do-gooders claim that Australia is sinking two inches a year under the weight of all that pub rock, of course. But what do they know?) Also a 40 minute audience with Poet Ruffian Jon Lewis (to go in next month's SPIN magazine). Lowlights? None, really, England's abject surrender aside - but, after all the hype, it was disappointing to see the WACA so empty when Australia reclaimed the Ashes. England won the Ashes in 2005 on a Monday and the place was absolutely RAMMED. At the WACA there were literally dozens of Australians going MAD. Well, looking mildly interested anyway. Fanatics? Are they only called that because it's snappier to put on a T-shirt than 'People Who Can Take It or Leave It, Really'?

"Everywhere we go, people want to know where we come from," sing the Barmy Army all day (or at least all day when things are going well for England - when England really NEED support, they're as silent as a rigorously policed library). Note to all those 'people'. The answer is The North, especially parts of it without major top-flight football teams. That'll save you a question, then.

Incidentally, while Savile - the Barmy leader - is plainly a legend, the REAL star is the 'Ave It' man - a cab driverish fella with two printed boards that say 'Ave It' - he stands up once every 20 minutes and urges the surrounding hordes to, indeed, 'Ave It'. Ah - you have to be there.

Anyway hopefully, me and Mrs The Third plus Kemp will be doing some over-by-overs in the next couple of weeks (or at least some sessions) plus do a new podcast to replace the one that's been up there about six weeks now. Watch this space. If you care.

Still no sign of Mr Excitement Duncan Fletcher's long-missing ODI masterplan - but at least the Test version is now in the public domain. It's all basic stuff: "Bowl at the three wooden things"; "try not to fall over"; "don't start crying within first ten overs". Yep, England's Test Masterplan - or, as I like to call it, the longest suicide note in history - has been doing the rounds in the media these last 24 hours. I don't see that it makes all that much difference - if Symo can't move his feet or Gilly doesn't like bouncers from round the wicket, that's still true, whether they see it written down or not. Anyway, what plan is Origami Mahmood (or any of them) bowling to? "Bowl 10 overs of rubbish to confuse them and, 200 runs later, bowl a couple of corkers when it's too late."?

Here's the thing: Australia are obviously a better team than England. For the tourists to compete, they needed to pick the right players, everyone needed to play to their best AND probably they needed a little bit of luck. Even the most one-eyed Aussie (and how would you judge THAT competition?) would agree that the umpiring decisions have gone against England: three bad dismissals for Strauss in the series; three let-offs for the Big Fish in the first innings in Melbourne alone. That's not why England have lost - really, it's just proof that the best team gets all the luck. BUT the sheer number of mistakes, especially from Slow-Death Rudi Koertzen MUST mean we need to look at getting in more technology into the game.

So all you Aussies who've written in whingeing about me whingeing - well, if you REALLY think the umpiring's been any good, you're straight idiots. And I ain't saying England would have won otherwise - Australia are better than England at cricket and swimming and the weather's lovely. Well done. But England fans have been let down not just by their players and coaches - but by the umpires too. That's all I'm saying.

The thing that gets me about the England camp is just how relaxed they all are. Their girlfriends and wives have been out there since the start of the series and, at night, instead of going out as a team, they go out with their families instead. Concerts? They've been to a few - Elton, Robbie, Kylie, U2. And generally they seem very breezy about everything, they're having a nice time: never mind that defeat, let's put it behind us, focus on the next game. But look at the Aussies - they're on a MISSION: look at Roy Symonds' interview after his ton on Tuesday - he was using words like "passion" and "joy". Imagine Hoggard or Strauss talking like THAT, rather than just laughing it off. Sure, Fletcher's regime is all about keeping level-headed - never up, never down, let's not get carried away etc. But at what point do England really start playing with some guts and raw emotion, some life-or-death application, instead of throwing their wickets away and then having a laugh at close of play? At what point do they start to look like they're really hurting, like these defeats really matter to them? Maybe they DO need to stay relaxed out on the park - but they could TRY and give the appearance of having a bit of passion. Or am I wrong?

The one-day team? I have views... which I'll tell you tomorrow. The phrase 'Re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic' will appear. And may suffice.

Write in! ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=13 http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=12 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:43:11 GMT It was all going so well: Cookie and Belly batted for three and a half hours; they’d added 185 without losing a wicket and the Aussies were starting... It was all going so well: Cookie and Belly batted for three and a half hours; they’d added 185 without losing a wicket and the Aussies were starting to look a little ragged. The English supporters were oooh-ing and aaah-ing after every Warner ball, the way the great man does himself; they were booing every dodgy appeal (these Aussies appeal for leg-before even if the ball goes for six.) The Aussie fans were also on their players’ backs. Just not so wittily: “Warne, you useless w***er” was the best effort. Seriously. The Perth heat was also on the ageing Aussie backs - ‘just’ 32 degrees. And then Belly played a loose drive at Warner and the spell was broken....

The thing is England have a massive tail in this game; you’re not even confident that Freddie at No 6 isn’t part of it. When he came in at the end of the day - after Farmer Hoggard’s brief attempt at being nightwatchman - it looked as though he couldn’t get a bat on it. As the clouds came over the WACA, McGrath suddenly became unplayable. The other thing is: England fans STILL think they can win it.

Okay, readers: here’s one for you. If England had been playing South Africa or India or Zimbabwe in this series, would Freddie, Gilo, Jimmy A and Tinker Harmison have been considered match fit to play the first Test? Would they have been hot-housed back to ‘fitness’ in time for that to even be an issue? My guess is ‘No’ on both counts. So: if the guys wouldn’t have been fit enough to play Zimbabwe - which buffoon thought they would be match-hardened enough to take on the Aussies in the biggest series ever? I’ve said it a few times on here, but surely you can’t prefer four half-fit (or half-prepared) first-choice players to four fully-fit youngsters on a roll? Maybe you need one - Fred, say - but all four was asking for trouble.

I tell you who I’ve got NO TIME AT ALL for: commentators and fans who say, ‘Well, it’s never been done in the history of the game.” Fact is, these guys are idiots. They trot out these statements as though it means that something is prohibited and CAN never happen. And yet cricket records are being broken every month these days: what about the Saffers 438 off 50 overs at Jo’burg? What about Gilly’s 100 off 57 in the first innings here? (Okay, not quite an all-time record that, but there was probably some fool saying that no-one had ever hit a 57-ball ton at the WACA, shaking his head as though he was talking about the future prospects of that, as well as the history of it.)

What I have got a lot (well, some) time for is the ABC radio commentary here in Oz, and in particular Kerry O’Keeffe, a kind of mix between Kevin Keegan and Stan Boardman who seems only vaguely aware that there’s a game going on at all. He’s spent four days laughing at his own jokes, discussing his career as an after-dinner speaker and so on. Agnew treats him the way a teacher would treat a naughty child. Yesterday, O’Keeffe asked fellow gantryist Jim Maxwell “if you talk this kind of bollocks at your barbecues.” There was a long silence. Imagine Blofeld saying that! What a country!

So can England do it? Hit 290-odd in a day and not lose five wickets? Will they even try? Well, its like I said yesterday - the fans still think they can, but they also know it could be all over and down the beach by lunchtime. What do you reckon, though? 158 from KP and Fred and Jonah to suddenly come good? If the sun’s out the conditions will still be great for batting; I’m just worried England’s tail is too long. If only we had a No 8, eh? ]]> The Third Umpire http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php?b=12