Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog

I never understand when a bowler or batsman falls into that dreaded “bad form.” Why do great performers suddenly go wobbly? What changes? And then, when things start to get better, what happened?

Answers were not forthcoming with the latest patient, Mitchell Johnson, who’s had a torrid Ashes, until I read this Guardian piece:

Johnson has other problems to deal with at the moment. Back home in Australia, his mother, Vikki Harber, continues to complain to reporters that his fiancée, the karate champion Jessica Bratich, has “stolen” her son away from her. Shane Warne, who knows a thing or two about emotional turmoil, reckons mum is wrecking Mitch’s Ashes tour.

As they say, cricket’s a very dangerous game. Via The Daily News:

A cricket player was battling for his life Sunday night after being struck by lightning while racing off the field to escape a sudden thunderstorm in Brooklyn.

Patrick Gibson, 41, was barely breathing and his legs were badly burned after the Marine Park lightning strike, witnesses said.

“His pants were burned. His tongue was out of his mouth and his eyes were rolled back in his head,” said Kenneth Charles, 38.

Gibson was playing in his first game for the Brooklyn-based Stars United team when the wild weather chased players off the field at Avenue S and E. 32nd St. just after 4 p.m.

Ah, the great question of our times: did Kevin Pietersen run, or didn’t he? Did he run, but not inhale? Does it all depend on how you define “run” (and can we prove he did run with a stained sock?) I don’t buy this proto-scandal as real, though I enjoy the press releases it’s creating. This, from The Guardian:

Neither the board nor Pietersen’s advisers denied that the player had gone on the run or even that his achilles may have been damaged during the exercise, but the ECB did deny that Pietersen had flouted instructions not to go running.

There are two problems here: first, we don’t know what exactly happened, because we’re caught in a confusing (but exciting!) bit of he said-he said. At the very least, this shows once again how mealy-mouthed the ECB can be when Pietersen is the subject (the poor man lost his captaincy the last time something like this happened).

But secondly, and more importantly: let’s say Pietersen did injure himself while he was playing in the IPL? So what? Players are regularly injured during games. Should Pietersen have sat out the the tournament? By that logic, though, he should have sat out every match before the Ashes (yes, including those million ones against the West Indies).

Don’t get me wrong. If the bloke flouted medical advice, he deserves to feel all the guilt and hurt he says he’s feeling. If he didn’t — and this Achilles thing just turns out to be a case of stupendously bad timing — then relax. The furor behind the scandal betrays just how much English fans believe their team depends on Pietersen. It’s almost a tribute to the man how much they hate him.

H/T Reverse Swing Manifesto:

1741: 340-6 A charming sight on the England balcony. Alastair Cook, deep in conversation with Paul Collingwood, sticks a long finger up his nose, has a little rummage and pulls out a prime specimen. He stares at it for a while, rolls it between thumb and first finger and then flicks it dismissively over the edge of the balcony. Good luck down below.

Forget what I wrote. Who needs 2009 when you can have another 2005? Then again, there are differences between that Flintoff and this one: that Flintoff was near his apogee, finally hitting his stride after a mediocre start to his career. This Flintoff is near his end, after a gradual fall. That makes him more poignant and almost statesmanlike; he’s not drunken Big Freddie, but a great and fallible man asking for the crowd’s heart one last time. Give it to him.

A 3-minute clip of Australian actor Russell Crowe opine on Australia’s chances in the 2nd Test. Watch for he calls Shane Warne “sparky”:

Why doesn’t Billy Doctrove ever speak up? Surely, at some point, he could have told Rudi, “I didn’t see the ball that well, please refer it upstairs and save us a possible international dispute like the one I helped create at The Oval.” (OK, a bit long-winded, but he could have said something to that effect.)

UPDATE: Actually, I prefer JRod’s fictional dialogue.

Tried to get all the cricketers’ names in the headline (SEO-friendly website, don’t you know). The catching referrals clearly need some revision, and not just because Ricky Ponting’s head is likely to explode. Sure, many Indian fans will note Ponting deserves little to no sympathy after the fraught Sydney Test, but things are still a mess.

To review: Ravi Bopara miscues a pull to Nathan Hauritz, who looks like he takes the catch practically next to Rudi Koertzen. Bopara stands his ground and, predictably, the cameras are no help. Ponting’s angry, but a little bit of him resolves to adopt the tactic, so when Phil Hughes edges one to Andrew Strauss, he holds the line, knowing that regardless what anyone saw in 3-D mode on the grass, those silly cameras are likely only to sow doubt. And that’s what they did:

Some conclusions: first, cameras and technology are clearly not the cure-all many believe. The umpire referral system will be in place soon, but I’m not sure it’ll clear things at all (as several Test series have already shown). Worse, players now understand they can manipulate technology to see what they want to see. Since the standard set is so strict — beyond any doubt whatsoever — they know the camera replays will save their skins even though they don’t deserve to be. Doubt, rather than the truth, becomes the decider.

Second, Ponting — oh, I hate to say this — has a point. Why refer Bopara’s catch and not Hughes, when, if anything, Bopara’s was nearer to you? Ponting doesn’t deserve much credit for this little piece of logic, though: he wanted a system wherein fielders decided any dispute, but that failed largely because no opposition team trusts the Australians (this may have something to do with it). Besides, it didn’t make much sense: umpires should make decisions, not players.

Tim De Lisle has an excellent Cricinfo column on England’s woeful selection strategy. He argues the team has arrived at its woeful current position — with only Kevin Pietersen as an attacking batsman, and no one as an attacking bowler — because the country’s selection committee prefers conservative choices to risks:

When you don’t have a born No. 3, a Ponting or a Dravid, the classic plan B is to pick a third opener, a David Boon or a Mark Butcher. England don’t have a third opener in sight. Why? Because they have picked Cook so often. England’s five specialist batsmen have the same problem as their five bowlers: most of them can’t take a match by the scruff of the neck.

Kevin Pietersen can, obviously, when not going through with a crazy shot like a bore in the bar who insists on finishing his point. Ravi Bopara has the personality, but it would be asking a lot for him to do it against Australia at this stage (when Ponting was his age, he was down at No. 6). Strauss, Cook and Collingwood – heroic though he was yesterday – strike fear into nobody. Like Flintoff, Broad and Panesar, they shouldn’t all be in the same team. If England beat Australia with this line-up, they will be defying gravity.

In a way, then, Flintoff’s latest injury could possibly change the side’s mental framework for the better. Sure, they may draft Harmison, which wouldn’t be a bad choice, but they could also go for broke and complete the team’s renovation, employing Graham Onions. Regardless, with no Flintoff, they’ll know for sure they aren’t playing 2005 anymore.

Fifth Day, lunch at Kingstown. The equation: West Indies require another 211 runs with 8 wickets remaining. If I’m not mistaken, this will be Bangladesh’s first Test match victory against another Test nation. That’d be something, even if it’s against the second-string West Indies team currently on display.