what the ^%$#?

It has to be asked - what the &^%$ are the Australian selectors doing? Hughes, after an amazing debut, averaging over 50 after his first five tests and smashing the South Africans, he is given only two Tests in England. He failed to dominate and was dumped. In his place, allrounder, Shane Watson, is brought in to replace Hughes as opening bat. Give me a frigging break!

If any batter needed to go, it sure as shit wasn't Hughes. How about Hussey - he has been struggling for a hell of a lot more than than two Tests. Hussey has totally lost the plot, being dismissed in two of his last three innings, bowled without even offering a stroke. It is Hussey who needs to be given a break to get his game together, not Hughes.

Even if we accept that the Australian bowling has failed to do the job sufficiently well, that didn't mean that the only option was to bring Watson in at the top of the order. Give Hussey a badly needed break to focus on getting his game together again, bring Watson in at number six and you still have Watson there as a bowler. Instead, the Australian selectors dump Hughes, who has done SFA wrong, and throw Watson to the wolves in the opening slot. Yes, Watson top-scored in that lowly first innings Australian total, but let's be fair - along with some lovely driving, he had more than his share of good fortune as well.

On day two of this Test, the English bowlers showed just how to use conditions where the ball is swinging araound. Jimmy Anderson will go down in the record books as the hero of the innings with five wickets, but it was Onions who got the all-important first three break-throughs on day two. The pair of them were near unplayable with their control in swinging conditions. What a contrast to the shower of shit the English bowlers served up in the only session played on the first day.

When the Aussies took the field, I expected to see Ben Hilfenhaus in particular making good use of the conditions. To my disappointment, he did not produce the movement I suspected. Peter Siddle got a little movement, but he is not a great swinger of the ball anyway. And Mitchell Johnson has continued his woes. I concur with the general opinion within the media - his action is far too low, causing him all manner of problems.

With about an hour to go on day two, I suspect that only rain will save Australia in this game. And unless they have a bigger comeback than Lazarus for the remaining two Tests, the Ashes will be returning to England.

The best?

Shortly before I began drafting this entry, Brett Lee has just taken his 300th Test wicket for Australia. That makes him something like the 24th international player to achieve that significant milestone. This is a wonderful achievement but at the same time it made me think about just how much things have changed.

English fast bowler, 'Fiery' Fred Trueman was the first to achieve 300 wickets back in the 1964. He later retired after taking a total of 307 wickets, famously stating that anyone who passed that figure would be 'bloody tired'.

West Indian off-spinner, Lance Gibbs, slipped by Trueman against Australia in 1975-76, finishing with 309. Ironically this was the only time I can ever recall a crowd at the Melbourne Cricket Ground actually chanting for an opposition bowler to be given a bowl.

My boyhood idol, Dennis Lillee, passed the 300 mark in 1981, taking over from Gibbs as the record holder later that summer, ultimately retiring with 355 wickets.

Just over a century elapsed between the start of Test cricket and Dennis Lillee becoming the third player to achieve that record. Twenty-seven years later, more than twenty more players have achieved the milestone. The world record has progressed from 355 all the way to 756 (Muralitharan).

In light of this progression, I wondered just how well these bowlers from different eras shape up against each other. I decided to do a little statistical analysis. Starting with the current top ten wicket takers, I added Dennis Lillee, Fred Trueman, Lance Gibbs and Brett Lee to the mix. Then just to really throw a spanner into the works, I added in pre-World War Two Australian leg-spinner, Clarrie Grimmett.

	Player	Span	Mat	Wkts	Ave	wickets per test ratio
1	M Muralitharan (ICC/SL)	1992-2008	123	756	21.96	6.15
2	SK Warne (Aus)	1992-2007	145	708	25.41	4.88
3	A Kumble (India)	1990-2008	132	619	29.65	4.69
4	GD McGrath (Aus)	1993-2007	124	563	21.64	4.54
5	CA Walsh (WI)	1984-2001	132	519	24.44	3.93
6	N Kapil Dev (India)	1978-1994	131	434	29.64	3.31
7	Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)	1973-1990	86	431	22.29	5.01
8	SM Pollock (SA)	1995-2008	108	421	23.11	3.90
9	Wasim Akram (Pak)	1985-2002	104	414	23.62	3.98
10	CEL Ambrose (WI)	1988-2000	98	405	20.99	4.13
	DK Lillee (Aus)	1971-1984	70	355	23.92	5.07
	LR Gibbs (WI)	1958-1976	79	309	29.09	3.91
	FS Trueman (Eng)	1952-1965	67	307	21.57	4.58
	B Lee (Aus)	1999-2008	73	300	30.35	4.11
	CV Grimmett	1925-1936	37	216	24.21	5.84

That list seems pretty straight forward. A heck of a lot more cricket is played today, as reflected in the total match figures. Compare say Lillee's 70 Tests to Kapil Dev's 131! So how do we compare things by taking this variation in total tests played into consideration? Here is a comparison by bowling average. Three of the current top ten wickets takers have dropped down out of the top ten positions in my list: Warne (708), Dev (434) and Kumble (619).

	Player	Span	Mat	Wkts	Ave	wickets per test ratio
1	CEL Ambrose (WI)	1988-2000	98	405	20.99	4.13
2	FS Trueman (Eng)	1952-1965	67	307	21.57	4.58
3	GD McGrath (Aus)	1993-2007	124	563	21.64	4.54
4	M Muralitharan (ICC/SL)	1992-2008	123	756	21.96	6.15
5	Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)	1973-1990	86	431	22.29	5.01
6	SM Pollock (SA)	1995-2008	108	421	23.11	3.90
7	Wasim Akram (Pak)	1985-2002	104	414	23.62	3.98
8	DK Lillee (Aus)	1971-1984	70	355	23.92	5.07
9	CV Grimmett	1925-1936	37	216	24.21	5.84
10	CA Walsh (WI)	1984-2001	132	519	24.44	3.93
	SK Warne (Aus)	1992-2007	145	708	25.41	4.88
	LR Gibbs (WI)	1958-1976	79	309	29.09	3.91
	N Kapil Dev (India)	1978-1994	131	434	29.64	3.31
	A Kumble (India)	1990-2008	132	619	29.65	4.69
	B Lee (Aus)	1999-2008	73	300	30.35	4.11

Statistics may be massaged to show just about anything. At the end of the day however, I think that the real test of a bowler is their ability to keep consistently taking wickets. Certainly that is what a captain is looking for. I have sorted the list by a ratio of average number of wickets per test match played.

	Player	Span	Mat	Wkts	Ave	wickets per test ratio
1	M Muralitharan (ICC/SL)	1992-2008	123	756	21.96	6.15
2	CV Grimmett	1925-1936	37	216	24.21	5.84
3	DK Lillee (Aus)	1971-1984	70	355	23.92	5.07
4	Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)	1973-1990	86	431	22.29	5.01
5	SK Warne (Aus)	1992-2007	145	708	25.41	4.88
6	A Kumble (India)	1990-2008	132	619	29.65	4.69
7	FS Trueman (Eng)	1952-1965	67	307	21.57	4.58
8	GD McGrath (Aus)	1993-2007	124	563	21.64	4.54
9	CEL Ambrose (WI)	1988-2000	98	405	20.99	4.13
10	B Lee (Aus)	1999-2008	73	300	30.35	4.11
	Wasim Akram (Pak)	1985-2002	104	414	23.62	3.98
	CA Walsh (WI)	1984-2001	132	519	24.44	3.93
	LR Gibbs (WI)	1958-1976	79	309	29.09	3.91
	SM Pollock (SA)	1995-2008	108	421	23.11	3.90
	N Kapil Dev (India)	1978-1994	131	434	29.64	3.31

Muralitharan has returned to the top of the list with a startling average of more than six wickets per Test. However Clarrie Grimmett has rocketed to second position with just short of six wickets per Test. Dennis Lillee comes in next, marginally ahead of Australia's nemesis during the 1980s, New Zealand's Sir Richard Hadlee. Akram, Walsh and Pollock all now drop out of the top ten.

So what does this all really mean? Does it show who was best? Does Clarrie Grimmett deserve to be holding the tag of best ever leg-spinner ahead of Shane Warne? Was Dennis Lillee the best fast bowler ever? I cannot really answer any of these questions. There are too many variables that cannot be fully taken into account. For example, Murilatharan plays a lot more cricket on turning wickets. Grounds, conditions and pitch preparation today are different to those of Grimmett's era. Even the rules changed here and there.

All I can really say is that I have seen all play except Grimmett and I am in absolute awe of all of the bowlers mentioned in this entry. Without doubt, each has truly been an exceptional exponent of the bowling art.

All statistics and images from www.cricinfo.com

'Australia humbled' they said...

and they were right. India massively outplayed Australia in the Second Test in India, and congratulations to them. I was actually in the midst of writing an entry, wondering whether the Indian team had batted on too long, when - bang - Australia is a bunch of wickets down for very little. This is a team that has more of the top-ranked batters in the world than any other team. And India absolutely humbled them.

What this match has shown is that at present, Australia is definitely lacking the necessary bowling attack to really take it up to the Indians on their home turf. Naturally we cannot replace the likes of McGrath and Warne overnight, but does the current team really have the best attack for these conditions?

Johnson putting Australia in control? Maybe

Australian fast bowler Mitch Johnson has possibly started to push the First Test in Australia's direction, having taken 4 wickets with the last session on the third day coming to a close. As I type, India is seven wickets down and still some 130 runs short of the Australian first innings. The man that some of us love to hate, Harbajan Singh, is doing a fine job of resistance. As I type, he is on 52 not out, the top score of the Indian innings. One thing that we can never be left in doubt of is Singh's stubbornness, unwilling to ever lay down before an opponent.

This pitch has apparently been somewhat up and down but from the commentary, it appears more down than up. On such a pitch, a bowler like Johnson is going to be more than a handful. He has a short approach and neat, compact delivery, hitting the deck hard at considerable pace. With variable bounce and the rapidity, for a quick that is, he gets through his overs, he is back at the batter again and again, with little letup or much of a chance to recover between deliveries. Coupled with an uneven bounce, the batters get little chance of reprieve against a bowler like Johnson.

With two days to go, I suspect that spin is about to start making its presence felt after the quicker bowlers have dominated the bowling action things over the preceding three days. With all due respect to the Australian players, India currently has Australia hopelessly outgunned in that department. In that event, the Aussies will need every run lead that they can and hope like heck that they can nullify the turn Singh and co will no doubt be extracting from here on in.

And here's hoping that 451press give me my cricket blogging gig. :-)

Geoff Lawson in trouble in Pakistan

The Pakistan Cricket Board is reportedly very unhappy with the performance of its current coach, Australian Geoff Lawson. http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=644539

There are a couple of points worth considering from this story.

1. Given Pakistan's long history of direct political involvement with things like team selection, who in their right mind would willingly walk into that scenario?

2. Just exactly what were Lawson's coaching credentials to begin with? Nothing so significant in my opinion to warrant him being given a national coaching role. Being a good or even great former player doesn't automatically equate to being a good coach. Sport is littered with many stories of past elite players not doing terribly well in this role, while the real stars have been those who were very much lesser lights in their playing career. Two classic examples come from my beloved Australian Rules Football. Tommy Hafey was a battler as a player with only some 99 senior appearances, yet he went on to have one of the greatest coaching records ever. In contrast, Barry Cable was one of the most exciting and gifted players I have ever seen on the ground yet his coaching record with North Melbourne after his retirement was nothing short of abysmal. Playing and coaching are very different things. There are naturally exceptions to everything. India for example has done pretty well under former Australian great, Greg Chappell. Of course it could equally be argued that Chappell had a lot more to work with than Lawson did.

3. Why is that Pakistan can so consistently have such players of immense potential and yet perform so consistently badly? The last time Pakistan toured Australia, I was looking forward to a great series but instead, they were little more than pathetic. This is not a new development. Perhaps the problem isn't the coaching.

congratulations to Bangladesh

Big congratulations to the tadpoles of the cricketing world, Bangladesh, for their first ever victory over New Zealand in a one-day match.

The hero of the game was clearly Bangladesh's quick bowler, Mortaza, who took 4-44 to really put the visitors off their game.

So what some may? It was only New Zealand. But I assure you - nobody takes our Kiwi friends lightly on the one-day field. Skipper Daniel Vittori is a handful with his left-arm spin in any form of the game. Allrounder, Jacob Oram, can turn a game around in minutes with the bat.

Now the members of the Australian team who were infamously beaten by Bangladesh in a game some years back, can feel a little less ashamed of themselves.

more controversy and a surprising revelation

I missed the dismissal of Ricky Ponting last night in the First Test, however it sounds like yet another controversy. The bowler appealed for a return catch which South African umpire, Rudi Kertzen, ruled not out.

The radio commentary at this point admitted that they had no television coverage in the commentary box and had to rely on what was shown on the electronic scoreboard. Apparently showing this to the crowd was very quickly curtailed, suggesting that it was indeed controversial.
I think this is a very sad state of affairs when the ground staff have to cut short a replay because of the volatility of a crowd. Now before people start screaming at me, I am not suggesting that Indian supporters are alone in potentially poor behaviour. I well remember listening to descriptions on the radio of Australia players hiding in a dressing room back in about 1979 when a West Indian crowd were rioting. What about the Australian crowd throwing beer bottles at English fast bowler John Snow after he felled Australian tailender Terry Jenner with a bouncer back in 1970-71 with English captain Ray Illingworth leading his team off the ground? Shouting abuse at the opposition is part of the fun of being in the crowd. There always seem to be one or two players that you just love to hate. But acting violently is a pretty different and unacceptable kettle of fish.

Then the real surprise from the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio commentators over there in India - they had to rely on a telephone call from back in Australia to tell them exactly what that televised replay (available on a feed back here in Oz) was showing! Huh?

In the not-so-long-ago bad old days, television broadcasters had to take their own equipment to the sub-continent to broadcast cricket back to Australia or wherever. However the incredibly exciting and successful 20-20 cricket series in India earlier this year was broadcast all around the world. Surely the technology is in place there now to at least get a feed into the commentary boxes?