Holidays in the Sun

Three cricket books were on the reading list when the TRSM caravanserai moved to Andalucia for a fortnight:-



This brought back memories of an extraordinary long hot summer. Good on the statistics and some decent anecdotes, but rather stereotyped and missed out on explaining the huge social and political implications.



Secondly, this - because you really need to re-read it every couple of years, and I was overdue.




Finally, this gave (and gives) me the opportunity to ask one of my favourite 'open' questions again... has ANY sportsman ever dominated to such an extent that Bradman did - and still does? 45 is now a good test average, 55 is excellent and anything above 65 is considered extraordinary. So where does 99.94 stand in the scheme of things? That's half as good again as any other batsman.

Some equivalents: -

1. A Premiership footballer scoring over 40 goals for seven seasons.

2. An MLB pitcher winning 36 games for ten years.

3. Tigers Woods, if he continues at the same rate for another ten years - which is not beyond the realms of possibilily.

Welcome to Paradise

Some holiday reading.

One Man Out

Sad news, as The King of Spain has to accept the inevitable and announce his retirement. A very moving farewell speech is here.

All he asks that we remember him 'as a decent bloke'. No problem with that at all.

I'll also remember him like this: -

After the Jellybean Rush

(Random thoughts after a day at The Oval)

- Shane Warne, allegedly, sorted out Chris Tremlett's bowling by halving his run up. Any chance he could do the same for Ryan Sidebottom. For someone troubling the radar at around 82 mph, it's ridiculously long.

- On the other hand, good to see Sidebottom going round the wicket. Out in the sub-continent, seam bowlers can only thrive if they have another string to their bow beyond line and length. It's no accident that reverse swing was invented by a Pakistani! By taking a leaf out of Zaheer Khan's Trent Bridge book, Sidearse has at least given the batsmen food for thought ,and something to build on before he gets to Sri Lanka. Suggest he goes and has a word with John Lever.

- Not too fussed about who does or doesn't get a central contract, but the news that Tresco and Simon Jones are to drop off the list is extremely sobering, and a reminder of how much we've missed them over the past year.

- Because of it's perennial position at the end of the test summer, there's always a certain poignancy about the Oval Test. Obvious example, Bradman in 1948. Coming more up to date, there was Steve Waugh in 2001, Alec Stewart against South African and the Warne/McGrath farewell in 2005 - which prompted the fantastic comment from a bloke behind me... "Please note that I'm only clapping Warne - McGrath's always been a c**t" (Well, we all pissed ourselves - suppose you needed to be there...) This year, it's Tendulkar...

- Excellent crowd in - at least where I was sitting in Block 20. Family groups, old couples on their 'annual day at the Test', plus a good smattering of Indians. All very knowlegable and friendly.

- When Tendulkar and Ganguly came out after tea, there was a palpable hush - a general realisation that this was a pivotal moment in the match. There followed an hour of top class, tense, test cricket. The hush was only really broken twice: -

1) Unprintable language when Prior spilled the catch. (To paraphrase Steve Waugh - 'well done Matt, you've just dropped the series')

2) Tendulkar hit an exquisite cover drive that was worth the entry fee alone. It ended up just in front of us. The old couple in front of me looked at each other - 'that was wonderful' - 'yes, and the kids will be able to see us on TV tonight!'

- Does Madugalle referee EVERY test match?

- Celebrity spotting, Trevor Macdonald in the Gents at the Pavilion End. ('And finally...')

- The Oval is looking good. New food concessions it so there's a decent range on offer. Seemingly more beer outlets so the queues aren't horrendous, and confirmation that the new development at the Vauxhall End really does work.

- Back on Saturday - to presuambly watch England chase down 550 plus.

Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?

A note from Surrey CCC...

Crowd Behaviour and Control

We have received much feedback about the "new" crowds that the Twenty20 competition has started to attract. We are highly aware, and deeply concerned, that a small minority have created pockets of unsavoury behaviour. Around the country, reports have been made about much greater disruption caused by these crowds.

We are represented on a ECB panel set up to review the way the game reacts to this and at Surrey we are conducting our own in-depth study to ensure that spectators can enjoy the atmosphere of these games in safety and comfort.

To this end, we are considering the introduction of a Family/Alcohol Free Stand for Twenty20 in 2008, which should allow a less boisterous environment for those that would appreciate this.

Fight Club?

Mike Selvey weighs in on beamers.
The closest I've ever seen two players come to blows in a Test was the infamous Sarwan/McGrath face off back in 2003. (Details)

Sugar Rush

Am I the only one who's starting to think that the Trent Bridge post mortems are more than a little odd.

The suggestion seems to be that there is some sort of equivalence of guilt between putting jelly beans onto the pitch to upset a batsmans concentration and deliberately bowling a beamer at a batsman's head.

What England did was childish and, it transpires, rather counter-productive. What Sree Santh did was incredibly dangerous and totally against the laws and spirit of the game.

There has always been initimidation in fast bowling ever since people started bowling overarm. Everyone accepts that it's a given and very much part and parcel of the game. Bowlers talk about targetting the body by bowling bouncers and shortp itched deliveries, and this is a legitimate line of attack that batsmen can try to plan for and anticipate by where the ball pitches on the wicket. A beamer is a different matter entirely. Normally batsman are trying to pick up the length of the ball, so they are focussing on the bowlers hand, and then immediately on the strip of pitch in front of them. With a beamer, the ball by definition, doesn't land on that strip and the batsman therefore has no idea where it is.

Some are arguing that the beamer was 'accidental'. That's bollocks! Sree Santh knew exactly what he was doing. He bowled around two hundred deliveries in this test and nearly three hundred hundred at Lords without producing anything approaching a beamer. Why should we now have to accept that this was an accident? If it was, it was certainly a incredibly well timed one. As Michael Vaughan said at the time - ''What the f****** hell was that?''

In their inimitable fashion, the British media are going hard on the jelly bean angle. David Graveney was interrogated to a ludicrous extent about 'Beangate' on Radio 4 this morning, with no reference at all to an attempted 'beaning'. It's not exactly scientific, but do a quick search on Google and you find 70,400 possible links for 'jelly bean England India' and only 11800 for 'beamer England India'.

It's seriously being suggested that Alistair Cook, the alleged jelly bean culprit, should be suspended for the next test. Sree Santh has been docked half of his Trent Bridge fee, but that was for a shoulder barge!

A Modest Proposal

There's no doubt that in first class cricket, the beamer remains a big 'no no' - the general reaction to Sree Santh's delivery to Pietersen at Trent Bridge yesterday bears this out. You can go to whatever lengths you need to (within the laws of the game) to get a man out, but the head high full toss aimed at the batsman is a line not to be crossed.

There can be no shadow of a doubt that the Sree Santh beamer to Kevin Pietersen was totally deliberate - as deliberate as his subsequent '18 yarder' to Paul Collingwood.

Rather than vociferous protest and an assumption that the matter will be sorted out after the game by the match referee, the beamer is serious enough to require an immediate, and meditated response. The England team should have taken a leaf out of the Major League Baseball playbook.

Throwing at batters in the MLB is more common than beamers in first class cricket. The nature of some pitches means that they can easily 'get away' from a pitcher and strike a batter. It's easy to tell when this is the case, and there is normally little retaliation. It's equally easy to tell when the throwing at a batter is deliberate. In this case, retaliation is swift. Pitchers protect their batters - it's expected of them.

SO, when the Indians came to bat England should have selected the equivalent batsman to KP in the Indian batting line up - most probably Tendulkar. When Tendulkar came to the crease, Jimmy Anderson should have deliberately bowled a head high full toss at Tendulkar. In the resulting furore - with Tendulkar likely taking strong issue with Anderson, Michael Vaughan should have apologised to him, and made it very clear that this was in direct response to the beamer bowled at Pietersen, and as far as England are concerned the matter is now closed.

The chances of Tendulkar having a quiet word with Sree Santh after the game and telling him not to try anything quite so crass again? Very high.

The chances of Sree Santh bowling a beamer at The Oval, and thus putting any of his batsmen in line for another retaliation? Very low.

Chairman of the Board

There are two candidates for the vacancy of Head of the ECB...

Mike Soper (Surrey)

Positives - Excellent job on the redevelopment of The Oval, plus some very 'fan friendly' policies like cheap ticket offers and letting ordinary spectators into the corporate hospitality boxes - the first time the seats in them had been turned to face the wicket I'd guess! Possibly immortal, as he was givn six months to live back in 2002 after being diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Negatives - sees no problem with the current amount of internationals played by the England team. In a twelve month period up to April, the England squad had spent over 200 days abroad - that's the sort of level that allows you to apply for tax-exile status.

Giles Clarke (Somerset)

Postitives - Negotiated the recent TV deal with Sky which has resulted in a big windfall for English cricket.

Negatives - Ditto, resulting in over half the population unable to watch live test cricket. Rather 'outspoken' - not exactly Mr Popular with other county chairmen.

As we await the white smoke to appear over Lords, and the name of the new Chairman it's worth reflecting one one particular acheivement of their predesSESSOR. Whoever wins, it's hard to imagine them being quite as effective as wielding power and influence as David Morgan was.

For, fired by loyalty to his home county (he was Chairman of Glamorgan for over a decade), Morgan managed to pull off the extraordinary feat of getting an Ashes Test for Cardiff in 2009 without the new ground developments even being approved by the appropriate local council committee.

An ASHES Test!! One of the biggest money spinners in the cricketing calendar.

Ok, the test was subject to planning approval- but what planning committee is going to be able to stand up to that sort of pressure?

There have been two more orthodox additions to the list of International venues in the past five years - the Rose Bowl and Chester-le-Street. Each has effectively gone through an apprenticeship, starting off with a couple of ODIs and tests against minor opponents. This has been quite a handy process as it revealed, for example, problems with road access at the Rose Bowl - a proboem that is now being addressed prior to any more internationals being allocated.

Cardiff has jumped straight in with an Ashes Test two years from now - no warm ups, no trial runs- just an assumption that everything will be ok by then.

Morgan's new job is as head of the ICC. Their headquarters is currently in Dubai, but on past performance, I think we can expect it to be moved to the Rhonnda Valley before too long.

Incidently, how cool would it have been had Bill Morris been persauded to take the job. Imagine the conversation in the Lords Long Room: -

- 'Who's this Morris fella?'

- 'He's a member of the House of Lords Sir'

- 'Excellent'

- 'A lifelong cricket fan'

- 'Wonderful'

- 'Er, he's an ex trade unionist'

- 'Hmmmm'

- 'Member of the Labour Party'

- 'Grrrrr, you'll be telling me he's black next....'

New Model Army

When it came down to a straight choice at Lords between Chris Tremlett and Stuart Broad, I was firmly in the Broad camp. My thoughts were that - based on what I'd seen, read and heard, Broad has the attitude and 'intangibles' to face up to a decent test batting line up - Tremlett doesn't. I still stand by that, admittedly rather sweeping, judgment. It didn't help that Tremlett had apparently been favoured based his performance in the nets on Wednesday afternoon! That smacked too much of the bad old days when that reason was used to justify Ashley Giles playing in a test after only a couple of first class games in twelve months. If that criteria still applies though - I wouldn't like to be a batsman facing Broad in any pre-test net session in the coming weeks. (I've already made a mental note to get to Trent Bridge early on Friday to watch the fun!)

I realise this is very short sighted, and more than a little unfair. Maybe part of the problem is that the trauma of last winter last winter is still very much in the forefront of my mind - and thus everything tends to be focussed purely on summer 2009 rather than the 'here and now'. When a new player, especially a bowler, comes into the frame my immediate thought is 'how will they do against Australia?' - or in India or in Sri Lanka? There have been too many false dawns over the years, too many 'next big things', and too many disappointments and let downs.

Tremlett's body language and performance during the ODIs in Oz were frankly embarrassing, whereas Broad had come in the summer before and shaken up some decent Pakistan batsmen - and given them a mouthful for good measure. Reports from the counties suggested that Broad has 'got what it takes' - and you there's also the fact that Broad Senior was a very good opening bat who had the happy knack of getting hundreds in Australia, whereas Tremlett Senior was a pretty average county medium pacer.

Hats off to Chirs Tremlett, therefore, for his debut performance. With the ball coming down from around ten feet high, you don't have to be lightening quick - though it would help, but he showed excellent control and had a very strong Indian middle order showing him the utmost respect from the word go. On TMS yesterday - Gooch and Ashley Giles were both making the point that he needs to get in batsmens face more. He comes across as almost sheepish though he certainly has a decent teacher to remedy that in his county captain. 'Sheepish' isn't a word in Shane Warne's vocabulary, unless it's describing one of his Aussie teamates girlfriends...

Perhaps it's churlish to carp on one particular point after someone has only played a single test. After all, no one can be expected to set the world alight on their test debut (unless their names are Botham or Trueman) so maybe we shouldn't be so critical, but it's done for the best possuible reasons.

You can only beat what's in front of you at the time. The truth is that, at Lords over the past five days, in old fashioned 'typically English' conditions a very inexperienced attacked exceeded expectations. They bowled as a unit - attacked effectively when they needed to attack, and were disciplined enough to go onto the defensive when necessary - Sideshow Bob especially showed admirable nous, shortening his length when the ball stopped swinging - and the Show Pony was an absolute revelation.

Although one swallow doesn't make a summer. it's safe to say that the biggest positive is that there now appears to be some proper depth to our quick bowling line-up. No one, except perhaps a fully fit Flintoff, can take their bowling place for granted. You have to hope that Saj Mahmood (once he's fit) and Liam Plunkett will take inspiration from this performance and be looking to return to the England set up as soon as they can.

If there's one element of doubt, it has to be that this particular four bowler attack consisted of four number ten batsmen. Although some of what Duncan Fletcher preached seems to have become heresy and sometimes his dogma became a little too rigid (Monty last winter) , you can't argue with his contention of the importance of bowlers being able to bat. Dear old Gilo had his critics, but he was a pretty effective number eight, as he proved many times over the years. it's quite alarming to consider that six down now means that the hutch is open.

Off to Trent Bridge!