The Googly

Why I don't like... Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year

On the one hand, who cares? Nathan Bracken (he's the one on the left) has a World Cup winner's medal, luxuriant hair and a wife who appears to carry a couple of white ODI balls around for him to shine in anticipation of late swing. But as revealed by rediffnews, he has been beaten to one of the coverted Wisden Five Cricketers of the Year by... Ian Bell! Yes, Nathan's not inconsiderable contribution to a totally dominant World Cup win (16 wickets at 16 and an economy rate of 3.6!) was deemed less important than Belly Boy's contribution of er... what to er... what?

I bet Wisden editor Scyld Berry is bald.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image:Getty]

Why I don't like... Two Test Series

There's little that can gladden the hearts of followers of the greatest game than to read of a renaissance in West Indian Test cricket. Alas the Queen's Park Oval appeared to be populated with more dancing girls than cricket fans, but that did not stop Ramneresh Sarwan, supported by Shiv Chanderpaul and others reaching their target of 254 to level the Sri Lankan series 1-1. I looked forward avidly to the showdown next week where the spoils would be decided and (possibly) a new dawn at last hailed.

But no. In their infinite wisdom, the ICC's Future Tours programme saw fit to truncate this "series" to two Tests, and so deny us (and the Windies' worldwide followers) the chance to see a positive result. Shame on them.

And in case you think this is a one-off and see the malign hand of the IPL in play, here are some upcoming two / four Test series: Australia in West Indies (four Tests, April 2008); South Africa in England (four Tests, July 2008); Australia in India (four Tests, October 2008); New Zealand in Australia (two Tests, November 2008). I'm afraid there's plenty more such coitus interuptus to come.

[The Tooting Trumpet]   

Why I don't like... England's Sri Lankan itinerary

Sri Lanka is still reeling from the natural disaster of the 2005 tsunami and the man-made disaster of the seemingly endless internecine fighting in the north of the island. So one would think that the Lankan cricket authorities would do everything they could to encourage England fans to visit - but you would have to be barmy to travel that distance for five ODIs in a fortnight. Why not play Saturday and Sunday, Wednesday, then Saturday and Sunday? That would also allow more England supporters to watch, if not exactly enjoy, the games on Sky. That schedule doesn't allow for reserve days, but this is not the World Cup and 2-2 isn't so bad a result if there's a washout. And it's not as though the Lankans are turning up in droves to spectate if today's empty seats are anything to go by.

After the ODI sprawl, the England players come home for a month or so, then fly back for a couple of warm-ups and 15 days Test cricket in a day over three weeks, which is simply absurd.

And that's before I get to the carbon footprint.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image:Getty]

Why I don't like... Andrew Symonds' attitude

Andrew Symonds is a very fine cricketer who chose the much tougher route of breaking into the Australian squad over the easier route to English qualification. He is also a man who speaks his mind, an increasingly rare beast in the sporting jungle. On both counts he is to be commended.

But here he is talking about the Indian reaction to their extraordinary World T20 win over bitter rivals Pakistan last Monday. "And personally, I think they have got far too carried away with their celebrations." These celebrations were for a country of one billion people winning a global competition in their Number One Sport for the first time in 24 years. See the 3.30 mark in the clip below for how Symonds celebrates a personal milestone in a dead rubber.

[The Tooting Trumpet]

Why I don't like...Shoaib Akhtar

I don't take issue with the Trumpet's assertion that Shoaib Akhtar is one of the most entertaining cricketers of his generation.

I do take issue with the very idea that his dismissal from the Pakistan Twenty20 World Championship squad is any kind of loss to the game.

Shoaib has made a mockery of the already laughable PCB by refusing to tame his behaviour after being given second, third and fourth chances. 

When he was found guilty of using nandrolone, nobody ever claimed that he hadn't used the drug, merely that he didn't know it was illegal, as ignorance of the law is indeed a defence under the board's code of conduct.  Instead of apologising and vowing to repay the board's faith in him after his ban was overturned, Shoaib has simply complained about the way in which he was treated and the mistakes made by the investigating committee.

When he wandered out of the squad's training camp without permission, nobody ever claimed that he had indeed followed the necessary procedures, merely that he hadn't bothered finding out what the necessary procedures were - even though his captain had told him - and that the fine levied on him had been too harsh. Instead of apologising and thanking the board for reducing the fine, Shoaib has simply complained about being victimised.

However, attacking one's team-mate with a bat is just one step too far. Shoaib Akhtar is more trouble than he's worth, and he brings Pakistan and the game into disrepute. Good riddance. [Carrie Dunn] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like...closing ranks

Cast your minds back to Wednesday.  Exciting, wasn't it?  Now, can you remember Paul Collingwood's dismissal?  The one where Peter Hartley referred the run-out decision to the third umpire having seen a slow-motion replay on the Oval big screen?

Well, the ICC have supported Hartley's actions, saying that an umpire is well within his rights to change his mind as long as the new batsman hasn't come to the crease.

Thanks for that, ICC, we know that. The point here was that Hartley wouldn't have changed his mind had he not seen the slow-motion footage.

The ICC have never been the most proactive of bodies, but come on, chaps, sort yourselves out.  You know as well as I do that the issue here wasn't about Peter Hartley reversing a decision, it was about the manner in which he made that reversal.  We're looking to you for guidance here on the use of the ever-expanding realms of technology open to our great game - not nonsensical issue-fudging and rank-closing. [Carrie Dunn] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like.... on-field umpires adjudicating run-outs

After a sparkling response to The Trumpet's proposal to call the ball dead after the stumps are broken, I feel journalistically secure, if not psychologically secure, in venturing forth another proposal for a change in the laws.

The confusion surrounding run-outs was highlighted by Paul Collingwood's dismissal (right) in the Sixth England vs India ODI at The Oval today.

Having initially not called for the referral, the umpires appeared to influenced by the replay on the big screen and so belatedly called for the assistance of the TV umpire, who eventually gave Colly out. With big screens commonplace at international matches and hospitality suites all having flat screens to go with the flat beer, any non-referral that looks mistaken will get a huge crowd reaction - this genie is out of the bottle.

The Trumpet's proposal? When available, let TV umpires decide all run outs, referring back to the on-field umpires only if the pictures are inconclusive. This change would also avoid the farcical situation we see now of the on-field umpire running into the prescribed place to make their decision thereby blocking the cameras, but then referring to the TV umpire! What do Googlyers think? 

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like.... overthrows after hitting the stumps

What's better than a tight game of cricket? Okay, quite a few things, some even printable, but the Bopara and Broad game (the 4th England vs India ODI) showed that even a moribund format like 50 over cricket can rouse the most sated observers to something close to ecstasy.

In tight games of cricket, every run counts in determining the thinnest of margins of superiority, so it's crucial to get the boundary calls right - hence the television replays.

The Trumpet has written before of his disdain for leg-byes as legitimate runs and now makes the case against overthrows after hitting the stumps. What is the objective of a fielder with ball in hand? To hit the stumps. But if the batsman is in by any margin (including that of the benefit of the doubt), that achieved objective becomes a liability for the fielding team. No fielder can back up as the ricochet is unpredictable, so no plans can be made. The better the fielder, the more chance of giving away runs.

Invariably after such runs are added, the batters are giggling, while the fielding captain sucks his teeth and commentators rail at the injustice. Why not call dead ball once the stumps are broken and let the batters have the runs they've earned, but no more, and not penalise the fielder who does his job in hitting the stumps?

[The Tooting Trumpet]  [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like... back-to-back Test matches

If Twenty20 is a bar of chocolate and an ODI a kebab and chips, a Test match is a banquet. And you wouldn't finish a banquet on a Monday before sitting down to another on a Friday.

But that is the prospect before us. No sooner had we watched the rain finish off an excellent Test match, than England were announcing its twelve for Friday. Where is the chance to reflect on what would have happened if Karthik had pouched Strauss in the first innings; exactly where KP's knock stands in his portfolio; whether Prior's batting and temperament offset his weaknesses as a keeper; whether this bowling line-up can sustain its improvement; the worrying form of Bell and Colly; the composition of the Indian batting; the possible recall of Yuvraj as an all-rounder (especially as a fielder); and Show Pony Dhoni's redemptive match-saving knock? Amongst other points.

Even with the Twenty20 World Championships scheduled for mid-September, I reckon there are 40 days available in the rest of the season for ten days Test cricket. That five of them are scheduled between now and next Tuesday evening is short-changing the fans of the highest form of the game, indeed, the highest form of sport.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like.... Leg-Byes

Leg-byes - what's that all about? As a bowler, you've beaten the bat; as a captain, you can't set a field; as a batsman you think, whoopee - here's a free lunch, and tuck in. I'd ban them in any form of cricket, but, to placate the egg-and-bacon be-tied traditionalists, I'd settle for banning them in limited overs cricket.

But Mr Trumpet (the Googly-reading masses rise up and exclaim) they don't make that much difference! Read on to find out why Virender Sehwag is carrying a match-winner in his left-hand

Here is the list of the ten most recent close finishes in ODI cricket. We established at "Is it boundaries that make the difference" that the team scoring most boundaries lost six from the ten. Here's the leg-bye count.

21 April 2007: England (11 leg-byes) beat West Indies (1 leg-bye) by one wicket.

4 April 2007: Sri Lanka (5 leg-byes) beat England (1 leg-bye) by two runs.

28 March 2007: South Africa (4 leg-byes) beat Sri Lanka (3 leg-byes) by one wicket.

20 February 2007: New Zealand (4 leg-byes) beat Australia (1 leg-bye) by one wicket. (Hurrah!)

11 February 2007: Sri Lanka (14 leg-byes) beat India (5 leg-byes) by five runs.

9 February 2007: England (3 leg-byes) beat Australia (4 leg-byes) by four wickets. (Hurrah!)

16 January 2007: England (0 leg-byes) beat New Zealand (9 leg-byes) by three wickets.

31 December 2006: New Zealand (5 leg-byes) beat Sri Lanka (3 leg-byes) by one wicket.

7 December 2006: Pakistan (4 leg-byes) beat West Indies (2 leg-byes) by two wickets.

26 October 2006: West Indies (2 leg-byes) beat India (3 leg-byes) by three wickets.

Astonishingly, the leg-bye count winners ran out match winners seven times out of ten. Even more telling is the total count of 52 leg-byes to the winners set against 32 leg-byes to the losers. Teams are more likely to succeed winning the leg-bye count than they are winning the boundary count!

So if England really want to re-build their ODI side, they should identify which batsmen "score" the most leg-byes and draft them in.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like... England's Sri Lankan itinerary

Sri Lanka is still reeling from the natural disaster of the 2005 tsunami and the man-made disaster of the seemingly endless internecine fighting in the north of the island. So one would think that the Lankan cricket authorities would do everything they could to encourage England fans to visit - but you would have to be barmy to travel that distance for five ODIs in a fortnight. Why not play Saturday and Sunday, Wednesday, then Saturday and Sunday? That would also allow more England supporters to watch, if not exactly enjoy, the games on Sky. That schedule doesn't allow for reserve days, but this is not the World Cup and 2-2 isn't so bad a result if there's a washout. And it's not as though the Lankans are turning up in droves to spectate if today's empty seats are anything to go by.

After the ODI sprawl, the England players come home for a month or so, then fly back for a couple of warm-ups and 15 days Test cricket in a day over three weeks, which is simply absurd.

And that's before I get to the carbon footprint.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image:Getty]

Why I don't like... Andrew Symonds' attitude

Andrew Symonds is a very fine cricketer who chose the much tougher route of breaking into the Australian squad over the easier route to English qualification. He is also a man who speaks his mind, an increasingly rare beast in the sporting jungle. On both counts he is to be commended.

But here he is talking about the Indian reaction to their extraordinary World T20 win over bitter rivals Pakistan last Monday. "And personally, I think they have got far too carried away with their celebrations." These celebrations were for a country of one billion people winning a global competition in their Number One Sport for the first time in 24 years. See the 3.30 mark in the clip below for how Symonds celebrates a personal milestone in a dead rubber.

[The Tooting Trumpet]

Why I don't like...Shoaib Akhtar

I don't take issue with the Trumpet's assertion that Shoaib Akhtar is one of the most entertaining cricketers of his generation.

I do take issue with the very idea that his dismissal from the Pakistan Twenty20 World Championship squad is any kind of loss to the game.

Shoaib has made a mockery of the already laughable PCB by refusing to tame his behaviour after being given second, third and fourth chances. 

When he was found guilty of using nandrolone, nobody ever claimed that he hadn't used the drug, merely that he didn't know it was illegal, as ignorance of the law is indeed a defence under the board's code of conduct.  Instead of apologising and vowing to repay the board's faith in him after his ban was overturned, Shoaib has simply complained about the way in which he was treated and the mistakes made by the investigating committee.

When he wandered out of the squad's training camp without permission, nobody ever claimed that he had indeed followed the necessary procedures, merely that he hadn't bothered finding out what the necessary procedures were - even though his captain had told him - and that the fine levied on him had been too harsh. Instead of apologising and thanking the board for reducing the fine, Shoaib has simply complained about being victimised.

However, attacking one's team-mate with a bat is just one step too far. Shoaib Akhtar is more trouble than he's worth, and he brings Pakistan and the game into disrepute. Good riddance. [Carrie Dunn] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like...closing ranks

Cast your minds back to Wednesday.  Exciting, wasn't it?  Now, can you remember Paul Collingwood's dismissal?  The one where Peter Hartley referred the run-out decision to the third umpire having seen a slow-motion replay on the Oval big screen?

Well, the ICC have supported Hartley's actions, saying that an umpire is well within his rights to change his mind as long as the new batsman hasn't come to the crease.

Thanks for that, ICC, we know that. The point here was that Hartley wouldn't have changed his mind had he not seen the slow-motion footage.

The ICC have never been the most proactive of bodies, but come on, chaps, sort yourselves out.  You know as well as I do that the issue here wasn't about Peter Hartley reversing a decision, it was about the manner in which he made that reversal.  We're looking to you for guidance here on the use of the ever-expanding realms of technology open to our great game - not nonsensical issue-fudging and rank-closing. [Carrie Dunn] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like.... on-field umpires adjudicating run-outs

After a sparkling response to The Trumpet's proposal to call the ball dead after the stumps are broken, I feel journalistically secure, if not psychologically secure, in venturing forth another proposal for a change in the laws.

The confusion surrounding run-outs was highlighted by Paul Collingwood's dismissal (right) in the Sixth England vs India ODI at The Oval today.

Having initially not called for the referral, the umpires appeared to influenced by the replay on the big screen and so belatedly called for the assistance of the TV umpire, who eventually gave Colly out. With big screens commonplace at international matches and hospitality suites all having flat screens to go with the flat beer, any non-referral that looks mistaken will get a huge crowd reaction - this genie is out of the bottle.

The Trumpet's proposal? When available, let TV umpires decide all run outs, referring back to the on-field umpires only if the pictures are inconclusive. This change would also avoid the farcical situation we see now of the on-field umpire running into the prescribed place to make their decision thereby blocking the cameras, but then referring to the TV umpire! What do Googlyers think? 

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like.... overthrows after hitting the stumps

What's better than a tight game of cricket? Okay, quite a few things, some even printable, but the Bopara and Broad game (the 4th England vs India ODI) showed that even a moribund format like 50 over cricket can rouse the most sated observers to something close to ecstasy.

In tight games of cricket, every run counts in determining the thinnest of margins of superiority, so it's crucial to get the boundary calls right - hence the television replays.

The Trumpet has written before of his disdain for leg-byes as legitimate runs and now makes the case against overthrows after hitting the stumps. What is the objective of a fielder with ball in hand? To hit the stumps. But if the batsman is in by any margin (including that of the benefit of the doubt), that achieved objective becomes a liability for the fielding team. No fielder can back up as the ricochet is unpredictable, so no plans can be made. The better the fielder, the more chance of giving away runs.

Invariably after such runs are added, the batters are giggling, while the fielding captain sucks his teeth and commentators rail at the injustice. Why not call dead ball once the stumps are broken and let the batters have the runs they've earned, but no more, and not penalise the fielder who does his job in hitting the stumps?

[The Tooting Trumpet]  [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like... back-to-back Test matches

If Twenty20 is a bar of chocolate and an ODI a kebab and chips, a Test match is a banquet. And you wouldn't finish a banquet on a Monday before sitting down to another on a Friday.

But that is the prospect before us. No sooner had we watched the rain finish off an excellent Test match, than England were announcing its twelve for Friday. Where is the chance to reflect on what would have happened if Karthik had pouched Strauss in the first innings; exactly where KP's knock stands in his portfolio; whether Prior's batting and temperament offset his weaknesses as a keeper; whether this bowling line-up can sustain its improvement; the worrying form of Bell and Colly; the composition of the Indian batting; the possible recall of Yuvraj as an all-rounder (especially as a fielder); and Show Pony Dhoni's redemptive match-saving knock? Amongst other points.

Even with the Twenty20 World Championships scheduled for mid-September, I reckon there are 40 days available in the rest of the season for ten days Test cricket. That five of them are scheduled between now and next Tuesday evening is short-changing the fans of the highest form of the game, indeed, the highest form of sport.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like.... Leg-Byes

Leg-byes - what's that all about? As a bowler, you've beaten the bat; as a captain, you can't set a field; as a batsman you think, whoopee - here's a free lunch, and tuck in. I'd ban them in any form of cricket, but, to placate the egg-and-bacon be-tied traditionalists, I'd settle for banning them in limited overs cricket.

But Mr Trumpet (the Googly-reading masses rise up and exclaim) they don't make that much difference! Read on to find out why Virender Sehwag is carrying a match-winner in his left-hand

Here is the list of the ten most recent close finishes in ODI cricket. We established at "Is it boundaries that make the difference" that the team scoring most boundaries lost six from the ten. Here's the leg-bye count.

21 April 2007: England (11 leg-byes) beat West Indies (1 leg-bye) by one wicket.

4 April 2007: Sri Lanka (5 leg-byes) beat England (1 leg-bye) by two runs.

28 March 2007: South Africa (4 leg-byes) beat Sri Lanka (3 leg-byes) by one wicket.

20 February 2007: New Zealand (4 leg-byes) beat Australia (1 leg-bye) by one wicket. (Hurrah!)

11 February 2007: Sri Lanka (14 leg-byes) beat India (5 leg-byes) by five runs.

9 February 2007: England (3 leg-byes) beat Australia (4 leg-byes) by four wickets. (Hurrah!)

16 January 2007: England (0 leg-byes) beat New Zealand (9 leg-byes) by three wickets.

31 December 2006: New Zealand (5 leg-byes) beat Sri Lanka (3 leg-byes) by one wicket.

7 December 2006: Pakistan (4 leg-byes) beat West Indies (2 leg-byes) by two wickets.

26 October 2006: West Indies (2 leg-byes) beat India (3 leg-byes) by three wickets.

Astonishingly, the leg-bye count winners ran out match winners seven times out of ten. Even more telling is the total count of 52 leg-byes to the winners set against 32 leg-byes to the losers. Teams are more likely to succeed winning the leg-bye count than they are winning the boundary count!

So if England really want to re-build their ODI side, they should identify which batsmen "score" the most leg-byes and draft them in.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]

Why I don't like... May / June Test Tours

Yes it's the international calendar, yes it's the new Test playing nations and yes it allows some attention to be paid to the neglected ODI format, but I just don't like May / June Test tours. They've hardly started before they're finished.

One of the joys of a Test series is the development of personalities, the slow dissection of weaknesses (psychological and technical) and the consequent narrative arc that runs from June to September. Who doesn't want to see how many problems a now fit Fidel can cause England's top order or whether England will ever dismiss Chanderpaul (right)? But we can't, because tomorrow is the last day of the Windies' Test Tour and that's your lot!

If we must host two touring teams each year, let's play the ODI stuff in early-May and early-September and leave the heart of the Summer for the heart of the matter - Test cricket.

[The Tooting Trumpet] [Image: Getty]