Jim's mid-Ashes England team report card

There's definitely something funny/crap about a guy who can't play cricket rating the performances of the currently best players Australia and England lay claim to, but that's what I've decided to do, driven by a mixture of boredom and a feeling of obligation. I'll start with the English team (maybe the "England" team is a better description of the XI they've put together) before dealing with the Aussies in a later post.

1) Andrew Strauss- Averaging 35, including a century which is lost in the sea of runs that came in the first test does not make for pretty statistics after 3 tests for England's rock of reliability. Strauss has looked solid, and even very good at different times in the first 3 tests, but he seems to have left that aura of immovability back in Middlesex. Maybe it's the bounce Australian pitches produce, although I can't help but feel the Australians, thus far, have just managed to get him out at the right times, before he's hurt us too much. I'm not saying the Aussie bowlers have been lucky, but I do think Strauss has another big innings in him for the last two tests, and the apparently low and slow MCG pitch could be a good place for him to post another ton. Strauss is known for his determination and patience, two qualities needed when the ball isn't coming on. I'd put him down for an boxing day test score, but then again I put money on Michael Clarke to top score for the series before a ball was bowled. The Australians have been wary not to give him width outside off, nor to bowl full on middle or leg, and the rewards from bowling full just outside off have come in the form of edges so far, so let's hope that continues. Overall, I'd give Strauss 1 5.5/10 for his series so far, as his poor scores have been balanced by an Adelaide century and a Perth 50.

2) Alastair Cook- Continuing my run of incorrect pre-series predictions, if the TAB offered it, I would have definitely put money on Cook or Bell to bottom score/be dropped out of the specialist batsman for England. My logic revolved around a mixture of Cook's technical deficiencies, and the fact that along with Collingwood, are the only actual Englishmen in the top 7, and therefore, aren't very good at cricket. "Alastair Bradman" has averaged 123 in the first three tests, proving you don't have to be South African to make it in the English team, it just helps.

Cook's success has been put down almost entirely to his improved foot work when driving balls just outside off stump, which he used to insist on nicking. The Australian plan was reasonably obvious. Try to pin him on the back foot with short balls and then give him a full one for him to prod at. In the past teams didn't even have to pin him back, but this series, whilst not scoring prolifically off the shot, he has been solid enough to keep his wicket intact and has just fed off the square-of-the-wicket shots he is known for. It is certainly still worth trying to give him a drive and hoping his feet aren't quite there, especially given he hasn't been hurting Australia with the shot, which cannot be said about England's plan to bowl short to Hussey in the first three tests. Other than my tough-to-shake belief he is still crap, there is no real reason to expect Cook's run-scoring to stop, so let's hope I'm right. 9/10, losing a point for his loose shot to get out in the 1st innings in Perth and getting pinned on the crease in the 2nd, two bad ways to get out as an opener.

3) Jonathan Trott- After Ravi Bopara proved he couldn't play at 3 last Ashes, the England brains trust put their heads together and decided on a strategy that has worked for them in the past. Import another South African! Unoriginal jokes aside, Trott was absolutely murdering the English domestic scene before being brought in to the Ashes decider last year and scoring a ton on debut. Since then he has had a few form issues in his home-land, creating hope he struggles with bouncy pitches like Australian ones. So far, that has not been found to be the case, averaging just under 70 after three tests. Fantastically solid, Trott is a good number three, but lacks the tendency to really go after the bowling and put pressure on the other side. As with Strauss, he is mentally tough, patient and determined, the kind of guy that only gets out to good balls, rather than throwing his wicket away. The MCG pitch should provide a happy hunting ground for him. Two starts without going on in Perth, to go with his murderous first two tests get Trott an 8/10 for his contribution so far this series.

4) Kevin Pietersen- England have a long history of claiming things that aren't theres. Two such things that come to mind instantly are the land we now refer to as Australia, and the "English" number 4. Have you ever heard this guy talk? He sounds like a feminine version of the even less English number 3 (see above). Anyway, KP's ashes so far have been a tough one to rate. I'd be saying it's been mediocre-poor if it wasn't for his little cameo in Adelaide. That innings is why Pietersen is rated so highly when his statistics don't necessarily paint a portrait of a modern giant. An average hovering around 48 generally indicates a very good test match batsman, but falls short of the contemporary low 50s requirement to be considered a "great". But two things must be pointed out. Firstly, he plays over half his test matches in England, which is considered to be bowler friendly relative to other test playing nations, and secondly, and more importantly, his test strike rate of 62. Scoring runs quickly in test matches is not talked about enough. It is the players with high strike rates that win matches with the bat. No one doubts Jacques Kallis' standing in the giants of not only the era but potentially history, but his test strike rate of 45 is a blemish. KP scored his double hundred at Adelaide at a strike rate of over 70. If a number 4 scored a double ton at a Kallis-eqsue strike rate, a match-winning innings may well turn in to a match-drawing innings. Maybe this is a reason Kallis only just last week scored his first double century. Anyway, Pietersen's strength is his ability to score runs quickly, this is why other teams are scared of him and why such value is put on his wicket compared to his higher-averaging team-mates (such as Trott). Australia have only let him get away (or maybe it is fairer to say KP has been too good for the Australians) once in the first three tests but the prospect of a flat MCG pitch would excite him, as it is on such pitches, as was evident at Adelaide, that he can really take the game away from the bowling team. In saying this the slowness of the MCG pitch, if it turns out to be so, might frustrate him in to a silly shot, bringing a catch in front of square in to play (Ponting fielding at mid-on/mid-off because of his finger would be poetry). One thing I would also point out is the fact he has been getting out caught behind square on the off-side (i.e. in the keeper-gully cordon), so maybe look out for more problems just outside off-stump in the fourth test. All-in-all, he won England the second test, and has threatened to get going in the first, so I'd give him a 7.5/10 for the series so far, losing points for his failures in Perth.

5) Paul Collingwood- Along with Ponting, the under-performing batsman of the series so far. Averaging a meager 15 in the first three tests, Collingwood needs a score in the fourth test or he may well be dropped. Whether or not he is dropped for the 5th test (assuming he fails) will depend on whether England need to win the test or simply draw it to retain the Ashes, and also his manner of dismissal. To explain, if England lose this test and therefore need to win the 5th test, more radical measures will be put in place, including the introduction of Eoin Morgan in place of Collingwood, whilst he is also more likely to get dropped if he simply misses a straight one or nicks a length delivery rather than getting out to a very good ball which is far more acceptable. Then again, this will only be a consideration if he averages less than say, 35 for the match, as he is an important part of the England team given he is the 5th bowler and has been the heart of the middle order for some time. I know I'm repeating myself now but the MCG is setting up to be the perfect dog-fight which Colly is renowned for. Slow, low, grinding conditions are right up his alley, but hopefully the Aussies can exploit his poor form, because despite his lack of contribution with the bat, without Collingwood, what do England do if their four bowlers aren't doing the job in Sydney? He isn't a wicket-taking 5th bowler like Kallis or Watson, but he plays a great holding role. Put him down for a 2nd innings 50 at the 'G, and to retain his place for the 5th test. As for a rating, again, he's been getting caught behind and in the cordon a lot, suggesting he isn't dealing with the bounce of Australian wickets. Similar manners of dismissal lose you points in Jim's world- we'll say 3/10; would be lower but he has been bowling economically.

6) Ian Bell- Along with Cook, my other pre-series failure certainty. A completely different player from last tour. Bell and Cook are held in high esteem back in England, with the public there considering them two of the most talented players in the team but it seems only now that faith is well-found. Bell was always elegant, always a stroke-maker, the difference is now he is staying in beyond 30. Averaging 71 at a great strike rate of 61 makes for really good statistics for a number 6, especially considering he has had to bat with the tail for most of his runs and has twice got out swinging because he was running out of partners. Without a doubt the calls for him to move up to 5 are correct, as he is a waste of good form batting with an out-of-form Prior and the tail at the moment. Further down the line I think even a promotion to Number 3 is on the cards as he has the counter-attacking flair that Jonathan Trott lacks, but for the MCG test he must move up to 5. So far the Australian attempt to rough him up with short balls hasn't worked, with too few finding the right length, and those that are don't seem to be bothering him that much anyway. I can't see a reason why his prolific run should stop in Melbourne. Maybe if Michael Beer plays he will trouble him with his left arm pie. A well deserved 8.5/10, boosted by no identifiable pattern in his dismissals so far, coupled with simply how good he's looked.

7) Matt Prior- The England wicket-keepers South African heritage is off-set by his Anglo overbite (he and Swann could be brothers), maybe explaining why he escapes the constant traitor/abandoner/defector/treason etc. lines KP and his buddies cop. His work behind the stumps has been very solid, with zero mistakes so far, a few good catches and good athleticism stopping leg-side byes. But, I think the whole notion of a wicket-keeper has changed. From what I gather, back in the day when pitches were sometimes absolutely horrific, a wicket-keeper's byes column could often be a significant contribution to the batting team's total, and thus, teams picked a keeper on his keeping ability alone. If he could bat, this was merely a bonus. These days we rarely even see volatile day 5 pitches and keepers are barely expected to stop a ball that behaves unpredictably. Thus, the wicket-keeper has become the wicket-keeper batsman, chosen for a mere ability to wicket-keep satisfactorily, and bat well; Prior is, at this stage of the series, not doing the latter. Averaging 16, he is the collapsing bridge between the batsmen and the tail, allowing Australia to run through the bottom half of the order, unlike the job Brad Haddin has done so far. In fact, I am willing to go as far as to say Prior's form is one of the reasons Bell has not scored a century in the series yet. Although Peter Siddle was lucky in a sense to bowl him in the 1st Innings in Perth, (as the ball rebounded off Prior's body, bat, then body again before falling on his leg stump) he never looked comfortable against the round-the-wicket, short length tactic and was really roughed up by the aggressive spell. The MCG will be slower, something stroke-maker's like Prior don't like, so maybe look for an L.B.W. (playing a leg glance around his pads and mis-timing it) or a miscued shot caught in front of square (especially given his insistence on pulling despite obvious discomfort). Deserves no more than a 4/10 for his contribution so far.

8) Graeme Swann- Swann, or as he has started to become known, "The Great Swann" has had a fairly disappointing series so far. With a lot of talk about his impact on the series before a ball was bowled, many were expecting great things from the leading spin bowler in the world over the past 18 months. In fact, he was heralded as the one big difference between the teams before the 1st test. 3 tests on, he has had one match/series changing innings where he bowled England to victory with a 5/91 haul in Adelaide, but really, that game was never in question once England posted 600 odd. At Brisbane he bowled averagely, Adelaide well only in the second innings, and poorly at the WACA albeit on a pitch known for its cruelty on spin bowlers. The MCG is expected to dry out late in the game, bringing Swann in to play, and with the Sydney test being the decider, he may yet prove to be an Ashes winner. There is talk that Australia will bowl first at the MCG as apparently the first session is always a tough one, and batting becomes easier as the game goes on, but I think this only applies to facing the quicks, as a dry pitch is always going to help the Swann's of the world. If this is the case, I would really hope Australia put on a big 1st innings lead because Swann is worth a healthy difference on Day 5 despite his mediocre form so far.

What we have seen this series that we haven't been seeing in the past year or two is firstly, intent on the batsman's behalf of going after Swann (no better example than Hussey's relentless efforts to come down the pitch to him, or Haddin's mid-wicket slog for 6 to get off the mark off him), and secondly, one "boundary ball" every couple overs. These two may well be related, as the pressure being put on him is causing him to bowl one pie every now and then, where as he was previously known for his consistency and unerring accuracy. I'd tip him to contribute more in the 4th test, whether it's a holding role or a more wicket-taking role. His strike-rate of almost 80 at the moment and economy of 2.9 suggest he has merely played a holding role so far, but I think this is a case of statistics lying. He has been trying to bowl attacking speeds, but has just not got the rewards as often as he'd have liked. Give him a 6/10 for his general lack of penetration, boosted by his arguably match-winning bowling at Adelaide. Further, with the absence of Stuart Broad his average of 10 with the bat is below what England need from the "captain of their tail".

9) James Anderson- Have you noticed the England spearhead is "James" when he's bowling badly and "Jimmy" when he's taking wickets? Well, regardless, he's been Jimmy more often than not the past year or two, and has averaged 31 for the series so far which is good given its been a batsman's series up until now. He's a swing bowler, and I think the notion that he is ineffective when the ball isn't swinging is still quite true. Word is that the ball doesn't swing that much at the MCG until it starts reversing around the 40/50 over mark, and this, coupled with his "stiff" side may hurt England's bowling attack in the 4th test. Whilst proving he is a better bowler than 4 years ago, he still hasn't alleviated concerns that he lacks fight. It's dangerous to make such calls in cricket but I'm not sure Anderson is the one who will be causing Australian batsman problems at the 'G. The commentators might even start calling him James again.

Bowling at under 3 runs per over and averaging 31 indicates he's had a good series, so I'd give him a 7.5/10 given he's hardly had a bad innings, plus the fact he bowled a couple sensational spells with little or no reward, such as 1st innings Perth and 1st innings Brisbane with the 2nd new ball against Hussey and Haddin.

10) Chris Tremlett- Having played only one game it's hard to talk about England's giant quick. In one game he made a mockery of Steven Finn's position in the team in place of him, taking 8 wickets at 18, and striking every 35 balls. The lower and slower MCG won't be as kind to him and will test his patience, fitness and skills with swinging and seaming the old ball, all aspects of his game that have been called in to question, and been given as reasons of his omission from the England set up for 3 years now. After just one game you'd have to give him at least an 8/10.

11) Steven Finn- An interesting one, and another for which you have to look beyond the stats, or at least look at the stats more closely. Leading wicket-taker for the series, or most expensive bowler by almost a run an over? As Strauss said recently, wickets win you matches, but what does the pressure release do for the other end? So often people talk about how Glenn McGrath's miserly economy rate would cause his bowling partner at the other end to take wickets as the batsman would be forced to try to score more runs off them at their peril, but maybe it works the other way around. Yes, Finn has taken 14 wickets at 33, but maybe he's releasing pressure and allowing batsman to simply hold out against the better bowlers such as James Anderson or Graeme Swann. Finn hasn't looked like getting wickets until the ball he gets one with, which is not the same that can be said about the other two quicks who played at the WACA. Based on interviews given by Strauss and Co. Finn will be playing in the 4th test unless the MCG is looking particularly dry, and he needs to keep his economy down or only a bagful of wickets will keep him in the team for the SCG test. He does not seem to swing the ball much, but can seam the new ball which seems his best chance of getting wickets at the MCG. Overall, I'd give him a 6.5 only because he is taking wickets. The quality of his bowling really hasn't impressed and I think he is denying other bowlers in the attack wickets due to his poor economy. In this sense, he is a bit like the anti-McGrath.

The Australian team to come soon

Preview of the Australia v India Series

Australia play India in the first test tomorrow and I have literally been counting down the days. I remember back in August October 1 seemed like a ludicrously far away point in time, kind of like when someone tells you "don't drink you'll have no liver when you're 50", but here it is finally and oh my am i excited!

I've decided to write a brief preview of the series but at the same time, to the best of my ability, try to do so in the context of this series only, ignoring to as great an extent as possible, the infinitely greater and more significant context that is the Ashes. This preview is just that- a preview. It is not an analysis of what I think will happen; It aims only to raise the big issues that I think will decide the series.

1) Virender Sehwag v the Australian bowlers-

Sehwag has been in outrageous form the past few years and he has built himself a reputation as not only being the best test batsmen in the world, but more specifically as a man who can score extremely large scores extremely quickly. His test strike rate of 81.56 at an average of almost 55 makes him an instant nightmare if he gets in. Further, Sehwag has 21 test hundreds to go with his 22 test fifties. Therefore, once Sehwag hits a half century there is a 50/50 chance he'll go on to 100, and chances are those second fifty runs take him long to get. For the sake of Nathan Hauritz you would hope the Aussie quicks get rid of him before he's 50 N.O. facing Haurry's first test spell since his return from a foot injury. Sehwag has destroyed far better off-spinners than Nathan Hauritz in the past few years. Mohali is where it all began for the Australian off-spinner. Despite a solid match he didn't play another test for over 4 years. Who knows, if Sehwag has his way it could be where it all ends for our hero Haurry.

Mitchell Johnson has been talking to the media about bowling short to him early. Deja vu if you ask me. I remember the exact same talk before the 2009 Ashes from the same bowler about the English line-up. A player as good as Sehwag knows how to play the short ball, and has played it well on more troublesome pitches than Mohali will be. Sehwag shelved the pull and hook a few years back so although the short ball may be a sanctuary for the Australian attack if Sehwag gets up and going, I'm not sure if it will be a successful wicket ball. Perhaps though, it will work as a pressure builder for a man who does not like to score slowly, coupled with the traditional notion of the bouncer putting the batsman on the back foot and thus confusing his footwork (not that Sehwag actually moves his feet). OK, I know I said I wasn't going to make predictions but here's one for all you readers (all 3 of you)- few short balls and then, stuck at the crease, an airy jab at a Mitchell Johnson angler snaffled at 3rd slip. GOT HIM!!!

2) Ricky Ponting v the short ball-

I don't have to go in to detail about Ponting's struggles with the short ball the past few series, although I must say it really is alarming that the (arguably) best player of the short ball in our era is now undoubtedly vulnerable against it. One more fact that a lot of you (again, "a lot" in this sense = 2 out of the 3 reading) might not have realized, as for some reason the media surprisingly didn't focus on at the time, is that Ponting was dismissed for 9 pulling a short ball bowled by one "Unadkat" in the tour match last week. In Ricky's defence, looking at Watson and Ricky's strike rates for the start of their respective innings, neither was looking to block out a draw, but the fact Ricky fell to another short bowl bowled by an unknown B-team Indian seamer is certainly concerning. There are two factors in this series that Ponting has going for him. Firstly, the Indian pitches aren't traditionally bouncy and might give Ponting more time to control the pull/hook, although in saying this the slowness of the pitches might create a timing gap for Ponting given the speed of bounce he's used to in his beloved Australian pitches. Secondly, the Indian pace attack is far from potent, especially in the aggressive sense of bowling short. The exception is of course Zaheer, but given he is just returning from injury, may not be as dangerous as usual. The Australian camp is claiming the Mohali pitch, two days out from Day 1 still had a tinge of green due to some heavy rain in the past week, which may work in the Aussie's favour (in that it will counter-act the dangerous Indian spin attack as well as aiding the stronger Australian seamers), but a dead pitch may not be a bad way for Ponting to rediscover his form against the short ball (ASHES ALERT). Either way, there will be great interest surrounding Ponting, and particularly how he plays the bouncer in the 2 tests, and whether he comes out on top may well be the difference between a massive Australian 1st innings and another Australian batting collapse.

3) Ponting v Harbhajan (and to a lesser extent the other 10 Indian spin bowlers in the XI)-

Unlike Sachin, Ponting has one or two particular flaws in his game that are well known in the cricketing world. One of these is the troubles he has had against quality off-spin. India, in Harbhajan has one of the three, the others being Dan Vetorri and Graeme Swann, exceptional off-spinners going around test cricket at this moment (arguably Shakib is the 4th). Now everyone talks about how Ricky attacks the ball with hard hands at the beginning of his innings, and uses this as a reason why he nicks behind off seamers so often early in his innings. It is generally agreed that once he hits 20 or 30 he begins to relax and play with softer hands, letting the ball come to him. I think it is also these hard hands which gets him in to trouble against the off-spinners. Perhaps as a result of reading the length wrong, he seems to really attack the off-spinners length ball early in his innings, resulting in his hands and bat being too far in front of his pads, which subsequently results in poor balance. This then leaves him vulnerable to being bowled through the gate or some kind of bat-pad dismissal in short, a dismissal which Harbhajan loves. Ricky's only century in India was last tour in the 1st test when Hayden was (wrongly) given out in the 1st over. Ricky came in, had time to get himself in against the quicks and then was more relaxed once Harbhajan was bought on later in the session.

Now that this series has rolled around, we have an out-of-form Ricky playing an out-of-form Harbhajan. Two great players under siege. Perhaps the thought of having another go at each other could bring the best out of one or both of them. Harbhajan loves playing Australia, loves bowling in India, and loves getting Ricky out. Ricky is out of form, has a poor record in India and has the self-proclaimed biggest 6-8 months of his life coming up.

Ricky's troubles against the short ball began against Kemar Roach at the WACA where he was hit on the left elbow trying to defend a 150 km/h riser. After receiving some brief treatment he stayed on and faced the rest of Roach's blistering spell, continuing to pull and hook him for uncontrolled boundaries. Only after his captain pulled Roach from the attack did Ricky trudge off the ground retired hurt. In the second innings he batted at 9 and could visibly barely hold the bat. It was only then people realised how bad his injury was and how determined he was not to show it. This is a man who thrives on challenge, thrives on adversity and thrives on criticism. After what must be the hardest 12 month period of his career, the Australian captain knows he has to perform this series against Harbhajan and against the short ball.

I sense a challenge. And based on the past, this means a revival.

4) Nathan Hauritz v the Indian middle order-

Since winning the public backing of Ponting and the Australian selectors a couple years ago, Hauritz has undoubtedly surprised. He is a man constantly under criticism at the best of times, and ridiculed at the worst. After the 3 match test series against Australia last summer Chris Gayle had a stab at Hauritz by claiming that facing the off-spinner felt like he was facing himself. For those who aren't familiar with Gayle's bowling style, whilst labelled 'off spin', it is really more like darty slow-medium bowling off a 2 step run up.

Nathan will have to do a lot of bowling this series based on the safe assumption that Johnson/Hilfenhaus/Bollinger aren't going to run through the Indian top and middle orders. If he fares poorly or even averagely Australia will seriously struggle to salvage anything more than a draw from the 2 match series. He will have to be picking up at least 1-2 key scalps (I'm talking Tendulkars and Laxmans who he's coincidentally dismissed previously at this ground) each innings and hopefully dismiss India's typically stubborn tail (I'm looking at you Harbhajan) cheaply as well. The quicks can only realistically (and even optimistically) be expected to take a couple top order wickets with the new ball and then chip in in their work-man-like fashion through out what will probably be a long innings. That's why so much rests on Hauritz. If he can't find a way through the defences of "The Wall" and his 50+ averaging buddies this series can only end in a draw or an Indian win.

One thing Nathan has going for him is that Zaheer, Johnson and Bollinger (assuming he plays) are all left handers and will thus create rough in their follow-through, conveniently placed outside the right-handers off-stump. This will give Hauritz something to bowl in to, making the batsman's life much more difficult as the ball will generally act less predictably if it is pitched in the rough. The bad news is, Harbhajan will have the same patches of rough to bowl in to as well. Shotgun winning the toss!

There have been whispers of an alleged doosra Haurry has been working on, and I'm almost certain I saw him bowl one that went the other way in a one-dayer earlier this year, but as far as this series goes, expect Nathan to stick with his regular weapons of that outside off-stump line as well as clever changes of pace, mixed the odd quicker straight one. It may not be enough against a top 7 with a combined total of a ludicrous 128 test centuries (keep in mind their number 6 has only played a couple tests).

5) The spear-head factor-

India and Australia share a similarity in they both have spearheads who at their best are devastating, but have disappointed far too often over the past couple years. In Zaheer and Johnson, we have two left arm quicks capable of inducing massive batting collapses, but also far too capable of proving impotent, or even unacceptably expensive. Compare this to a Dale Steyn or James Anderson who always seem to be reliable with the new ball to at least make the batsmen's life uncomfortable for the first 45 minutes of an innings.

These Indian pitches are not ones you can let a team reach 0-100 on and have any realistic chance of pulling the game back. New-ball wickets are essential, especially given the strength of each teams opening pair (I believe the two strongest going around test cricket right now). With the exception of Watson, the other three can bat all day, and with the strike-rates of Sehwag and Watson, it is essential that Zaheer and Mitch are consistent in their first spells. As has become the theme in this post- if they fail to do this expect enormous innings totals, and therefore, inevitable draws.

Zaheer is just coming back from injury and Mitch off a relatively long rest period. Zaheer will be understandably rust while Johnson has become notorious for bowling poorly after lay-offs. Both of them will need to find form quickly if their teams are to take 20 wickets.

6) The part-time spinners vs the opposition batsmen-

Two giant batting line-ups facing two solid-at-best bowling line ups on what will likely be a flat pitch and given the recent rain in Mohali, one that probably won't crack up and become the spinners paradise on days 4 and 5 we are used to. A "stolen wicket" (as Simon Katich himself described the wickets he gets) or two from one of the part-timers (Sehwag, North, Tendulkar, Katich etc) could be the difference in this match/series. Batsmen always sense a chance to score quickly against part-timers, which invariably leads to riskier play. Imagine a scenario where Hussey, well-set on 30 or 40 plays a silly shot against Sehwag, exposing the unproven Australian lower-middle order, or Laxman does something similar against North, exposing the rookie Raina and his lower order companions. It isn't the likeliest of things to happen, but it could prove the difference in a contest in which the teams will take any wicket they can get.

Ricky, we miss you

When Ricky Ponting retired from international T20s, I remember being suprisingly unconcerned, but now I realise how much we could use him at number 3 instead of Michael Clarke. Averaging 29 at 133 from 17 games, I believe Australia's T20 batting line up would be utterly devastating if our test and ODI captain were still playing. Further, I believe Michael Clarke was only retained during Cricket Australia's massive culling of the 'old' T20 team because he was vice-captain, coupled with the fact he carries a strong 'golden boy' image in Australia.

With a red-hot Australia steaming through the T20 world cup tournament thus far, it may seem harsh, even distasteful to question Michael Clarke's position in the team but I am starting to agree with critics that suggest he should be dropped.

During the Australia v Sri Lanka super eights game, I noticed one of the commentators claiming the only 'untested, unproven' facet of the Aussie team was the young leg spinner, Steven Smith (who, by the way, went on to take 2-12 off 4 overs). I disagree. I believe our current number 3 is the biggest concern of the Australian team. Bar the fantastic 67 he scored against New Zealand in the tied match earlier this year, I really have not seen him play an innings which advances the team cause, and his statistics support my point. In 28 matches Clarke has managed 377 runs at an average of just over 22, but more importantly, a strike rate of 104.

This compares poorly with other number 3s around the world, such as KP (averaging 36 at a strike-rate of 140), Kumar Sangakkara (31 at 125) and Suresh Raina (25 at 133).

Now I have heard and agree with the argument that a number 3, even in T20, should be expert at steadying the ship if an early wicket or two is lost, but they also need to be able to play the more attacking role if the openers get off to a good start, or even the counter-attacking role to shift the momentum after a poor one. Clarke, evidently, cannot perform either of these roles. Ponting on the other hand, certainly can.

I love Michael Clarke. As a test and ODI middle order batsman for Australia I think he is the future, and possibly even the present. But as a T20 number 3, he does not have the brutality or the inventiveness required to make the cut. Yes he can chip in an over or two, yes he can field (my goodness he can field), but the fact is he is there as a batsman, and this is the role he is least adept at for the format. I am not sure who I would choose to replace him from the current pool of selectable players, but I can think of one man who I would love to see come out of 'retirement' and fill the gap. His surname starts with P, and ends in onting.

A Bad length?

Something a little light after my 700 word 'debut post'.

I was just watching the Kings XI v Chennai game (which, by the way, had an incredible finish) and noticed an interesting comment made by one of the commentators. He noted that Ifran Pathan should avoid pitching the final six balls of the game on a 'good area', as they are the ones 'likely to get the treatment'. Now I know this is trivial as all hell, but just a thought-

Maybe when it comes to the T20 format the term 'good length' goes out the window. The top-of-off length is desirable in test matches, and even in 50 over cricket, but in the shortest format where batsmen move around the crease more and wickets are less valuable, should we really be describing this area as 'good'?

As I said, this comment is not going to change the world of cricket forever, but who knows; it's possible that soon we no longer refer to the top-of-off length as 'good' one as far as T20 goes.

Just a thought.

The remarkable rise of the T20 format has caused a frenzy since the first international game between Australia and New Zealand in 2005. It was truly inconceivable five years ago that an off-spinner who could more accurately be described as a slow bowler would be opening the bowling in a limited overs match. But T20 is here and as the recent expansion of the IPL to 10 franchises indicates, it's here to stay. Personally, the most intriguing consequence of T20 cricket has been the invention of a new shot, or the way I like to think about it, the conquering of a new scoring zone.

As far as I know, the shot was first attempted (and successfully so) by Sri Lankan limited-overs opener Tillakaratne Dilshan in the IPL of 2009, and the moment that ball went up and over the keeper's head for four runs, the final piece of the scoring jigsaw was complete.

If you think about a scoring map, it is easy to imagine the shot that yielded the runs. For example, anything to point was probably a square drive or cut, anything to square leg probably a pull, and anything down the ground almost certainly a straight drive. But there was an area that you could only really guess how the runs were scored. The batsman's no man's land- directly behind the keeper. Prior to 'The Dilshan Scoop', if a batsman scored runs in this area one could only assume it was an edge of some sort; that is, the 'shot' and consequential runs were unintentional.

Dilshan has now made that zone his own; or at least only has to share it with a select few players in the world (Brendan McCullum and Kieron Pollard come to mind).

Just yesterday I was discussing the evolution of shots with a friend. He believes this is just the beginning of the development of new, exciting shots, the invention of which will be not only facilitated but also demanded by the newest, shortest format.

I must say, he definitely has an argument. In the five short years of T20 cricket not only has Dilshan has blown our mind with his artisan-like innovation, but we have seen reverse sweeps being played far more regularly, even appearing the odd time in test matches.

Now, we come to the point of my article. I could be swallowing my words in a matter of weeks with the T20 world cup in the Caribbean beginning shortly, but I do not believe we will see such radical innovation as Dilshan's any time soon as far as playing shots goes.

Why? For one reason- there is no need.

Dilshan's ludicrous disregard for his teeth was born out of an inability to play a certain delivery, and to score in a certain area. In the past five years bowler's have had to master the yorker. It is- or should I say- was, the only ball that, if executed perfectly (and not accounting for a lucky edge) was certain not to be blasted to the boundary in the dying stages of a limited overs' innings. Now, not even the sacred yorker is safe. Players like Dilshan, McCullum and Pollard are now able to intentionally hit a boundary off what use to be considered the 'perfectly pitched' ball. They can simply take a step or two down the track so to get leverage underneath the ball and use their willow as a ramp to the boundary.

The moment Dilshan executed his shot, the bowler's final sanctuary was lost, and what was the batsman's no man's land was conquered. So then, the question I would ask to anyone who, like my friend, believes new shots will continue to be invented is this:

Why would a batsman invent a shot when he, assuming he is reasonably accomplished, can already hit any ball to the boundary?

To summarize, Dilshan's invention was born out of need, out of a desperate urgency to over-come bowlers like Gul and Malinga who their captain's could rely on to restrict the last over of an innings to a miserly 6 runs. With the vanquishing of that need, I do not believe the evolution of shots will continue, however unfortunate that may be for fans.

Welcome to The Inside Edge!

Welcome to the Inside Edge, the blog with out the bog.

I am not entirely sure what "blogging" entails. What I do know about is cricket; or to be more precise, the current affairs of cricket. The reason I correct myself is because I do not want to give the false impression that I can actually PLAY cricket.

The extent of my playing experience spans no more than 10 games at a level which would make the most social of players cringe. If I tried out for a School team I think I would give the 16Cs a decent shake, but would probably miss the cut due to my inability to direct the ball to the leg side, coupled with the fact I am more likely to catch AIDS than a ball.

Enough about me. This blog will include my, and hopefully, some of my friends' thoughts on the game and everything even slightly relevant to it.

Enjoy!