Cricket-Match-Special (CMS) Blog Site

When I think of IPL, one word springs to my mind. Exploitation. Now, let me make this clear before I go on that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Players are exploiting themselves to their highest monetary value. Businessmen are exploiting the popularity of cricket in the subcontinent with the aim of making as much money as possible. The BCCI are exploiting the popularity of the competition and the money involved in their attitude towards the ICC and other national boards. Maybe another word that springs to mind is money. So, what is wrong with this exploitation? I am not going to look at the global side, but only on the effect on England and it’s domestic game and that in no great detail either.

England’s players are rarely available to play in their domestic competitions due to their international commitments in the hectic summer period. This sometimes make the domestic game feel like a pointless activity, especially with the closed shop attitude displayed by English selectors. One finds it hard to imagine where England players come from and on what merit they are picked, but we have seen that it is not by talent in the cases of both Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara. Anyway, with the domestic game already seen as defective, it seems hard to see how it would get worse. Yet, the ECB have managed to make it so. As has been mentioned, England players do not often get the chance to play for their counties, yet instead of giving them more chance to, the ECB have allowed for a three week period to have a go with the IPL. This may be beneficial to the players, but it does not help the leagues at home at all.

If this period was given to allow players to represent their counties, some interesting selection comparisons could be made. If Shah, Vaughan, Bell and Collingwood were playing in the same leagues for a more sustained period than one game, a decent comparison could be made on both their form and their general suitability for selection. However, at the moment, players rarely get out of the set up and into the league. Obviously they get a chance between the end of one series and the beginning of another, however, this is often not enough of an ample period for selectors to decide upon changes or to change their position and views on a player. If this window that has been created for the England players to play in the IPL was removed and England players continued to ply their trade at home, the effect on the England team could be for the better.

Perhaps this is not the ideal thing for the IPL or for relations between boards and most definitely it is not the best thing for the individual player who would miss out on those huge fees, however, it may be the best for the game overall. Especially the game in England. This would leave the English selectors a chance to seriously inspect the talent on a domestic level and to make some decisions that will not leave their fans puzzled but, for once, jubilant about the wisdom emanating from the England camp.

So, it is starting to seem that I will be ever the pessimist and negative writer about England’s team selections. Unfortunately, as time goes on, they (the Selectors) are giving me every reason to be if not negative, at least wary.

This is the side that will face India in the Test, that is starting in mere hours:

1. Andrew Strauss
2. Alastair Cook
3. Ian Bell
4. Kevin Pietersen (C)
5. Paul Collingwood
6. Andrew Flintoff
7. Matt Prior (WK)
8. Graeme Swann
9. James Anderson
10. Steve Harmison
11. Monty Panesar

What have I got to say about this?

I worry about the batting line up if I am honest. Collingwood is in awful form (again). As many of you have been saying over on CMS, Shah would seem to be a wiser selection. He is possibly England’s greatest player of spin and would thrive on a turning wicket. Shah was also one of the highlights of the ODI series. So, what possessed such a selection? That of Collingwood over Shah (or indeed any other batting option)? As Mike Siva said it is “becoming like a Gentleman’s club.” England have been going through a slightly tough patch after the bright start of Pietersen’s tenure. The awful incidents in Mumbai have meant that they have had a total lack of preparation and go back into India as the least prepared side ever to tour the country. Shah could have helped to stabilise the English middle order, who will be facing a buoyed Indian bowling attack. The openers are not in the best of form, and, for the first time in his career, questions will start to be asked of Alastair Cook. Strauss will soon be on his way out, if he continues in a similar vein to recent times. However, a lack of long term prospects in the English game of outstanding quality seems to secure their places for the time being. What of Bell? In my opinion, he is the best English batsman, including Pietersen. However, it is his time to show this talent and convert it into sheer runs, something of worth rather than just bland hype. Flintoff will need to build on his ODI successes in order to be of worth to the side with the bat, with such a fragile top order, runs from him may well prove valuable to the highest degree. If he is as fazed by the attacks as the media suggests, then he may not be at his best. Prior needs to improve, or face a growing hostility within the media. Moores may not drop him, but public opinion could. The tail is long as well, with the talents of the players down there being not limited, but rare to be shown. All of the four from 8-11 can bat, but whether they will add as many runs as they need to remains to be seen.

What of the bowling in the side? This is much less of a problem in my eyes. Anderson has come on leaps and bounds in recent times, playing like a real international opening bowler. Flintoff will be as steady as ever I am sure, but if too much responsibility falls on his shoulders with the bat, then pressure may tell. Harmison is the weak spot in the fast bowling line up (on paper at least). He is a good bowler, and many times over has this been proved, but questions persist about his awful performances on foreign soil. England will be hoping that he can overcome his past performances and add to a potent threesome of seamers. Collingwood and Bell may well be called upon for a few overs here and there, but one would hope that if it got to that point that the result would almost certainly be predictable. Ironically, it was Swann whose presence at Northants stopped the progression of Panesar. Now, it has been the progression of Panesar on the international scene that has halted the march of Swann. I am not a fan of Graeme Swann, but it is a bold move on the part of England to play a second spinner, who could have gone for an extra batsman and relied on Pietersen more as a second spinner. I feel that Swann will have a minor impact on the very capable Indian batsmen, but he could be the gamble that pays off. He will also add the most meat to the tail of all the other lower order batsmen. I can hope for the England fans that he will have a Krezja-esque debut, but I doubt it. Only time will tell. Panesar has much to prove. He has often been the saviour of the English side and now the big test will come. He is now an established international spinner. He must reap the rewards that such a title deserves. He will be playing on turning pitches (or at least ones that will turn more than he is used to) and he needs to use that to his advantage. Panesar could be the difference here between the sides. Whilst Harbhajan is in terrific form, Panesar is not, and this must change.

Whilst nothing has happened yet, I can only hope that England can challenge with this side that they are putting out. Alas, I do not wish to be negative when I write of England, but I always end up doing so. The persistent selection of Matt Prior is a worry, as is the risk of playing Graeme Swann, but maybe patience is the key in such situations. A strong batting performance is needed and all the bowlers will need to do something special to dismiss some of the most in-form and most talented batsmen in the world.

Ravi Bopara has been on the fringes of the England setup for a good while now. However, ‘Puppy’ has not found a stable position within the line-up.  He has played 29 ODIs since his debut in 2007, but he has often missed out to players with far inferior records and reputations. For example, Luke “I can’t play” Wright has had a prolonged run in the side since his debut. This is despite averaging 7 less than Bopara with the bat in ODIs and some 16 less in List A games. With the ball, Bopara’s economy is better by 0.01 and both have poor averages (Bopara: 49.5, Wright: 52.3). In List A, these statistics back Bopara with a much lower average despite a slightly higher economy. So, why has Bopara missed out recently?

It seems hard to tell to me, he is a very talented batsman, scoring a 200 in a limited overs game this season, joining a very elite club of players. However, in this time, is performance really good enough to ensure selection within the England side? Does one have to have political connections in order to flourish? Unfortunately, it seems that the answer is yes. Unequivocally so. Before I go into the current England setup and the side that they display, let us look at a recent story.

Martin Bodenham was selected to the ECB Elite Umpiring List, no mean feat of course. That is, until you look at his connections within the ECB. One name leaps out of the page at you, none other than Peter Moores, England Coach, of whom Bodenham said, “I thank Peter for helping me realise my potential.” Now, this would be perhaps acceptable if Moores had come across him on doing some England work or on scouting youth in some far away region of England, but then one more thing leaps out at you, the mention of Sussex. (Bodenham promoted to first class list)

This theme of Sussex has been a recurring one since Peter Moores took on the England post. Moores has frequently made selections of sub-standard Sussex players to international glory. Where does Luke Wright play his county cricket, one may ask? Unsurprisingly, the answer to this question is (don’t hold your breath), Sussex. Another question that keeps being asked is why is Matt Prior consistently selected? Why aren’t others given a chance? The resounding answer of course being, Matt Prior plays for Sussex. Why does Moores have such an allegiance to Sussex? Well, it could be the fact that he played there for many years, in a quietly efficient, but definitely not spectacular way. The fact that he later became Captain and Player-Coach, finally taking over solely as Coach. Arguably, he wouldn’t have got such a chance at another county, who probably would have found a ‘keeper who could offer more with the bat (maybe these failings on his own part play a role in his faith in Prior).

So, what can be done to fix the side that has just slipped to two resounding losses to Yuvraj (and India!)? I feel that the side needs to be rearranged, driftwood needs to be cast out. So, what would I, if I was the sole selector of the England squad do? I feel that there are many areas that need to be addressed.

• A good opening pair, who have talent, experience and exuberance.
• A batting line-up that reflects the standard of each batsman and their form.
• A second spinner who is worthy of his position.
• A decent fast-bowling attack that rewards those who perform.

So, how would I deal with these areas? For the opening partnership, I feel that there are many options available to the England selectors. One option would be to revert back to the Test match openers of Strauss and Cook. Unfortunately, it would seem that they would be too slow to open the innings together in the shorter form of the game. Another option would be to use one of them in tandem with Shah or Bopara, or, if wanted Bell. However, I feel that the most effective combination would be that of Shah and Bopara. Bopara is wasted lower down the order and batting at 8 or 9 is not only a ludicrous selection decision, but a disgrace to the English game.

My middle to lower order would not bat as deep as the current team does. I think that under consideration for the vital number three position would be four players, the aforementioned Shah, Bopara and Bell, but also the Captain of the side KP. I think that all four of these batsmen could make the position their own, but, despite Bell being, in my opinion, within the best three batsmen who ply their trade in England, I think he would be more suited to the number four position. I would most likely give Pietersen the number three position. His explosive batting could be vital in turning around a potential thrashing to a commanding lead, through the versatility that he often shows. The harder decision to make would be the five, six, seven positions.

I feel that the wicketkeeping debate is something that is a tough one for England. This is a debate that has been followed widely within the media, and on CMS aswell. To be honest, I have no real preference over the ‘keepers. However, I would probably select Foster (or Wessels, when he is eligible, as I have said before). Foster would bat at eight. Thus, I would within my lower middle order slot in three all rounders. Andrew Flintoff is an easy selection at six, and Stuart Broad would take up my number seven position. This is because Flintoff is a vital frontline bowler and Broad is often one of the best performers with the bat. The promising start of Samit Patel would ensure he retained the number five position. However, unless he starts picking up his performances, I feel that I would bring in one of the Test openers into the side and have Shah at five.

On the bowling front, England always seem to puzzle those who watch. On paper, it is an embarassment of riches. Yet, when it comes to performing on the pitch, this side never seems to deliver. James Anderson is perhaps one of the best English bowlers and would definitely be guaranteed a position in my side. That gives me three seamers, in Broad, Flintoff and Anderson. Broad would definitely need to improve upon his bowling efforts if he was to continue, and this new team of mine sees him shouldering a lot more responsibility. So, this leaves me with two spots to fill. One of these places would ideally go to a specialist spinner, preferably Panesar (despite his one-dimensional cricket) or the talented Rashid. However, in the current squad, there is only Graeme Swann, a bowler of whom I am not a fan, yet who should make the side after some woeful performances. This leaves me with one place to fill, essentially dependent on the pitch or the make up of the opposition’s side. It would either be filled by another spinner, or by a seamer. If it were to be a seamer, I would probably opt for someone fairly young on the county circuit such as Plunkett, Onions or Tremlett. However, Sidebottom and Harmison are viable alternatives. If I wanted to take on an extra batsman, I would make it an opener and push Shah back down the order in a rearrangement at the top.

The one thing that my side does do, is to leave pressure on the top four batsmen, pressure that they have never had in reality, due to the long tail that England possesses. They would need to excel under this pressure. Some may wonder as to why Collingwood does not find himself in my team, but I have, for quite a while felt that he is holding back younger players such as Bopara and that his part-time bowling option is not really needed. Many will disagree with me and I feel that that is the dreadful nature of selection, it is always hard to please everyone, but making changes that will bring long term success to the side can only be beneficial to England and the state of the English game.

Hopefully, over the next few months we will see a lot more of this talented player, Ravi Bopara in both ODIs and Tests, and an end to ridiculous selection policies. I am sure if England end up annihilated by India, one more question will be asked. That question will be: How long can Peter Moores last? Only time will tell.

As many of you will know, Kolpaks have sprung up amongst the ranks of English cricket in recent years. A Kolpak player is a player who has origins in a nation that has a trade agreement with the E.U. that entitles its workers to be treated as equals of E.U. employees. Many counties have used the idea of these ‘extra’ overseas players to their advantage. However, some counties have exploited this concept and have imported a huge amount of players to bolster their ranks (and in some cases change the local language). One county who has exploited the situation is Northants.

This season gone, Northants had five players registered as Kolpaks: Johan Van Der Wath, Riki Wessels, Nicky Boje, Andrew Hall and Lance Klusener. All of these players have considerable reputations in their own right. However, are their presences detrimental to the state of the English game? To understand this question, we must explore their accomplishments on the county circuit as well as, quite importantly, their attitudes towards our domestic setup.

At Northants, we have a number of English players waiting in the wings. Graeme White was named the county young player of the year. Graeme White did not make an appearance in the County Championship. He has won the NBC Denis Compton Award on three occasions as cricinfo informs me. Is that not a sad state of affairs for English cricket?

However, this may be excusable if this was the only example in the country never mind the county. Mark Nelson, the NBC Denis Compton Award winner and another England U-19 player, was given a chance this year. However, he did not feature as regularly as you would expect. While I joke about this award, recipients have included Sales, Afzaal, Trescothick, Solanki, Giles, Shah, Flintoff, Read, Harmison, Hoggard and many other names that are recognisable figures in the cricketing world. Another young player at Northants is Alex Wakely, an England U-19 Captain. Yes, you have guessed it, he faced limited opportunities in the first team.

Why is it that these players have faced such limited opportunities? Could it be that Boje is a spinner similar to White; Klusener, Hall, Van Der Wath and Louw (yes, another South African who played as an overseas player) are middle order all-rounders in the mould of Nelson and that the packed middle order meant that there was no space for Wakely towards the top of this congested mercenary outfit? Ironically, there was one young player who flourished this year when given the opportunity, his name being Riki Wessels.

While this article may seem to go down the typical route of Kolpaks preventing English youth from flourishing, although it may be an old-fashioned argument, it is relevant. I can understand that at a club like mine, where it is hard to attract top quality English players (and arguably the top quality English players that we have had in recent times have not got the international recognition they deserved, Usman Afzaal for example. Some have had to leave to try and fulfil this desire, namely Afzaal and Shafayat.) that the acquisition of Kolpaks is both an inexpensive and attractive idea and alternative.

I do believe that Kolpaks can be beneficial to an extent, surely the next best English talent will only learn from the Kluseners and Bojes in this world, but there should be a limit on this influx. Klusener added 1000 runs, however, not all were as productive as him. And he is the one that has been released, the mind boggles on occasion. Van Der Wath may have been our top bowler, but surely for the money paid, you expect him to perform like a top overseas player. This was not the case. Boje was a failure after the first month or two, Hall has never been such an all-rounder and Louw barely featured.

So, what did Northants do this year? They invested heavily in foreign ‘talent,’ what did this achieve? The progression of the English youth has been held back for a further year, while the ‘fat cat bankers’ of cricket have collected their cheques whilst destroying team morale. This statement comes from news that Hall and Van Der Wath chain-smoked outside the dressing room at every possible opportunity, according to local press, and that harsh words were spoken in Afrikaans of their try-hard English counterparts. Northants, with a bowling line-up which I am sure will have featured in an ODI for South Africa at some point, with money spent on building a team for these lucrative limited overs tournaments, failed in this quarter.

In the Pro 40, we struggled to get a point, and the whether had to do it for us with two NRs. In the FP Trophy, weather meant we could not reach the quarters, finishing third in a group of six, a group which contained Ireland. Twenty20? Oh, just the normal, they outperformed all sides in their group, reached the quarters and capitulated against an Essex side who was not that much their superior. And if this meant that we achieved in the longer form, then no, this is not the case. The foreign contingent, who amassed 113 test appearances between them finished fourth in Division 2. Obviously not their fault, you need a supporting cast as well. However, two Englishmen scored 1000 runs, and English opener and an Irish WK/opener both scored over 900 runs, with an English bowler finishing as the second best bowler, the supporting cast seemed to do its job.

Again, I emphasise the point that a few seasoned internationals can help a team and particularly its youngsters develop, but in this quantity, is it acceptable, when no serious benefit appears to have been gained? Northants, if they had blooded the youngsters in the County Championship, may have finished lower, but considering they were two points of sixth position, how much lower could they have gone? This year could have been used to give experience to some raw talent that could really feature in cricket’s future, especially English cricket’s future, by sacrificing the position of a few warhorses. However, can a poor county like Northants be blamed? If there are no regulations in place to stop them, then why should they stop? The ECB must take this issue to task and come up with a satisfactory resolution, maybe limiting counties to one Kolpak and one overseas player a year. Unless they, the powers that be, take a firm stance on this, English cricket and thus worldwide cricket will suffer perhaps irreversibly.