Ashes open thread

What is this slaughtering of Pietersen all about? England lost 19 wickets in this match and at least a dozen of those were lost to poor shots. Yet it’s Pietersen – top scorer in the 1st innings – who cops it. And why does his leave in the 2nd inings have to be down to arrogance? Why can’t it jsut be a bad shot, like Collingwood walking straight into Siddle’s and Pontings trap?

Typical British mentality. You find a sportsman who is truly world class in this field and who displays a fierce determination to be the best, and he’s slated for being arrogant. It’s not dissimilar to the treatment meted out to Andrew Murray. You guys much prefer your valiant losers like Tim henman and Frank Bruno, don’t you?

We took 19 on a flat pitch through a bowling attack with 35 caps between them (21 belonging to Mitch Johnson). The most inexperienced Australian bowling attack in a generation was one wicked from handing England an innings defeat.

The side that could only manage six wickets is the one that needs to worry.

The Chaser (Flash)

I guess the correct strategy for England is to grind out three draws, then hope for some sort of fluke to produce a 1.5-0.5 result for the last two.

You find a sportsman who is truly world class in this field and who displays a fierce determination to be the best

Are you talking about Pietersen? I will grant you that he is “world class” in that he plays for England, but he has no determination at all to be the best. He doesn’t train particularly hard, he has no interest in doing anything about the clear and gaping flaws in his game and he isn’t willing to sacrifice anything. He’s the epitome of everything people say is wrong about football players.

Also, I really don’t see how Frank Bruno can be called a “loser” – he was World Heavyweight Champion in 1995.

By the way, Mr Benaud, you seem to be taking a somewhat more aggressive line in defence of KP than you used to in your “News of the World” column – a couple of years ago when he was playing exactly the same, you were bemoaning his inability to guard his wicket and comparing him unfavourably to Collingwood. What’s changed?

Moving on from Pietersen, if that’s possible… how shameful was it of England to send out 12th man and physio to waste precious seconds as Anderson and Panesar held on grimly? Strauss seems on the one hand to be trying to deny that this was a deliberate time-wasting policy, with claims about gloves, spilled drinks, confusion and that they sent Shafayat out “to let Jimmy and Monty know there was time left, and not the overs” – which I’m not sure is actually allowed, to sent out a 12th man with the specific intent of communicating tactics. (Even if this has always been happening – 12th man delivering messages more than gloves – its probably a bit stupid of Strauss to be so candid.)

But then Strauss goes on to say that England “weren’t trying to deliberately waste a huge amount of time” which is pretty shoddy talk I think; so is it ok to waste a small amout of time then? Now there are some who say that Strauss and England are to be congratulated for their stalling tactics, this pragmatism or ruthlessness or call-it-what-you-will. Hauritz says Australia would have done the same thing, although his captain is very definite that they would not. And like with the Gary Pratt situation in 2005, he very much has a point. I think there would have been a time when Strauss would have been sacked for this sort of cheating. Either way, for me it took a lot of the gloss off an otherwise enthraling finish. I’m sure Sky’s relentless hype machine will now go into whatever gear is above overdrive and remove much of the rest of it.

Freddie Flintoff (except for getting pissed and making a prat of himself)

I’m not sure he’s reviled very much even for that; post-pedalo lots of people called him a drunken idiot, but it was no more than we’d say to our own much-loved son/younger brother/self in a similar situation. And his post-Ashes bender, back when he was a hero, basically made him a hero all over again – drinking all night, then facing the cameras, then asking the Prime Minister if he had anything stronger? That was class.

I agree with Richie Benaud on this. Not just becasue he is right, but because, when it comes to cricket, I agree with Richie Benaud on principle, and have never had the chance to do it to his face, so to speak.

I think, thankfully, it’s safe to assume that KP will ignore most of his press and keep on playing his strokes while the media sad-sacks look glumly on longing for another Boycott.

It’s been a long time since I had the pleasure of watching test cricket (since BBC1 & 2 don’t carry it anymore it’s a bit too much for non-Commonwealther’s to follow it) but I gather not much has changed over the past decennia. The typical supercharged Australian sports style (do they put a dose of testosterone in the drinking water there?) ripping to bits the English decadence & flair (I am certain Oscar Wilde would be cheering for the English here; anything’s better than machines on bikes, the English Olympic equivalent to Australian ‘sportsmanship’).

But what has training to do with anything? We love our competition because it rewards talent, & talent by definition requires less effort (Usain Bolt said he trains 6 times 3 hours, so much for all the whiners about athletes not ‘putting their heads down’). It’s a shame that we think it crucial, if only in passing, that anybody needs to work hard at achieving anything. It says more about how we’re going to be stuck in the 90’s work ethic debilia for far longer than is good for any of us.

“If you work hard enough, you can achieve it.” – nope, 99% can work as much as they want – and never even come close to running sub-10 sec’s.

But the cursing at athletes isn’t particularly English, it’s universal. Everybody loves the winners, until they loose. They never loose because the others are better, or they had bad luck, no they’ll invariably loose because they didn’t work hard enough (i.e. they do not work as hard as we have to work).

I can only applaud someone who, at the age of 78, can not only find a discussion of cricket on a blog about current affairs, but can take part in it so vociferously… [/snark]

okay, “generation” is probably overdoing it, but it is a much-vaunted opening partnership that I think averages about 80. At Cardiff they managed 21 and 13.

England top-order failed badly (pace #2). I would blame it on a 20-over mindset but that would only apply to Bopara and KP. Aside from the top four, there wasn’t much between the sides (except – one can, embarassingly, only guess – the Aussie’s weaker tail). The Aus attack got bogged down and demoralised too once they faced some resistance (per OP, Warne sorely missed, on day 5 especially). Still, a 2005ishly tense finish.

Phil @26 – drinking all night, then facing the cameras, then asking the Prime Minister if he had anything stronger? That was class. Indeed – but not quite as amusing as “My team-mate Matthew Hoggard called the Prime Minister a knob when we were celebrating winning the Ashes at a Downing Street function and you know what? That’s the first thing Hoggy’s got right in a while: Blair is a knob.”

Batting order for Lords: Trescothick, Prior, Key*, Collingwood, Flintoff, Swann, Broad, Anderson, Onions, Rashid, Harmison.

_Surely as one of the finest bowlers and most respected broadcasters in the history of cricket, you must be aware that to win a Test match, you have to bowl the other side out twice?_

As one of the finest bowlers and most respected broadcasters in the history of cricket, I’m aware that the above statement is false.

#30 I considered pointing that out but deemed it (unnecessarily) pedantic. It’s annoying that there isn’t a simple and elegant reformulation that deals with declarationsyet preserves the basic point. I take it declarations are the exception you are alluding to – rather than forfeiture or anything similarly out of the usual run of things, or an obtusely pedantic fixation on the term ‘bowl out’. A satisfactory refinement would perhaps make the point that if you beat a side that has declared, they have to some extent gifted you your victory (even though the gift may be unecessary because overdetermined – i.e. you would have won anyway).

He’s lauded by the vast majority of fans.

Doesn’t this make it rather hard to maintain that slagging him off is a particularly English mentality?

I really doubt you’d find a professional cricketer prepared to defend someone getting out irresponsibly just because they top-scored with 69. You won’t win a Test match with 69: you might, however, win one with 169, which is what you ought to be aiming to get if you’re in, set, and getting about the bowling. That’s the professionalism part. KP is a frighteningly talented batsman but he has a long-term habit of getting out through a genuinely stupid shot (rather than a simply aggressive one) and this is something he’s had long enough to work on.

Yes, you always get people saying it doesn’t matter, criticise somebody else rather than KP because he top scores. These people don’t know anything about cricket or indeed about professional sport. You do it when it matters – that’s why Boris Becker, the single finest player of crucial moments I’ve seen in any sport, was so great. KP gets out when it matters, and for that reason it’s legitmiate to say he lets down the team for who he’s playing. And “I top-scored, what did you get?” is not a team-game attitude.

I think there would have been a time when Strauss would have been sacked for this sort of cheating.

What time did you have in mind?

“I top-scored, what did you get?” is not a team-game attitude.

Hence “Figjam”, I guess.

So it really is* Richie Benaud opening the bowling for the commenters? I had better put in some batting practice before my next innings (at least if I post on cricket)!

*Being familiar with all Internet traditions, I’d assumed a joke pseudonym. And maybe there’s a subtle joke I’m missing. But I prefer to believe.

I would if he played it to a legside bouncer.

Hence the justified criticism of poor shot selection. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but for some it was enough the Pietersen was elecitng to sweep rather than he did so to what might well have been a wide. This is the criticism to which Nielsen was responding.

If you have a certain shot in your armoury and you play it well enough often enough, there will come a time when you are out playing it when you ought not to have done. In short, Pietersen is likely to be out playing a greater array of poorly selected sweeps, cover drives, pulls and cuts than your average batsman.

Pietersen can learn to be more selective in his shotmaking because, guess what, he’s not perfect. But if you only ever want him to be out fishing at a full length outside off and getting caught at slip and not much else, then you won’t have the same player.

“KP gets out when it matters,”

Erm, 2005, last day of the Ashes? Oh, never mind.

You can tell Pietersen is a liability to Enlgand and perpetually “let’s down the team” by the way Punter and the rest of the Aussies are so unexercised at his dismissals.

I would have thought wasting time with drinks carriers was the last refuge of players who want to deflect attention from their own failures.

This is hilarious. I don’t like cricket much but I’m always highly entertained by the Ashes precisely because of the way the media always do what Richie Benaud describes. They did it to Murray too. The English soccer team get it all the time – every year this year’s team is the best one ever, then they lose to Poland and suddenly they’re just a bunch of tyro scum. The way the press talked about the Lions after their first game this year was simply awful.

The British press are famous for it. And they don’t have any restraint either! calling a top-flight cricket player “stupid” in the national media is beyond rude – especially when he was a top scorer, and the entire team collapsed after the first innings. There’s plenty of blame to go around but the press have singled out their victim and that’s it for him.

Actually, in a truly professional game what the players are providing is entertainment. The approach that grinds out draws rather than taking a marginally less than 50-50 chance of a win (not the case in the match we’re discussing, but common in a lot of sports in the 70s and 80s) seems to be a feature of the transition from am to pro.

As regards unsporting behavior and so on, it all depends on what the fans want. If we cheer on our side when they engage in sledging and time-wasting, we’ll get more of it. If we cheer the player who walks without waiting for the umpire, that’s what we’ll get.

#41. Let’s not forget KP was dropped on 15 in that innings with a total sitter to Warne at slip. Had that routine catch been taken, his entire career would be seen in a different light.

No-one doubts KP has vast talent. The question is what he does with it. It’s not his ability that is the problem: it is his judgment. He appears to have so much faith in the former that he doesn’t exercise the latter.

In fact, now I think about it: did Don Bradman have twice the natural talent of Viv Richards? (Yes, yes, I know, odious comparisons, weaker attacks, Timeless Tests, yada yada. But still, 99.9 plays 50). Or did he have better self-discipline?

“Scrutiny” I imagine he can handle, and even the constructive criticism. But apparently KP is “stupid” and “arrogant” and “a wanker”, which is pretty insightful stuff from people who’ve never spent a nano-second in his company.

Anyway, it’s way past my bedtime. I’m 78, you know?

Well, for England’s best player to be responsible for comfortably the two worst dismissals of the entire match was…OK, let’s be nice and rather than call him stupid, we can defer to Lady Bracknell (being English).

ejh, how can you know whether he wasn’t furious; are you a mindreader? did they sit him down, and cross-examined him? Precisely the type of thing that wayward talented human beings get of the establishment: slaughtered for non-conformism. So you have to wave about frantically, and make lots of statements about how you let everybody down, otherwise you’re a bit of a wanker?

You ARE a mindreader ;-)

But apparently KP is “stupid” and “arrogant” and “a wanker”, which is pretty insightful stuff from people who’ve never spent a nano-second in his company.

there was an excellent article in Guardian a couple of years ago, by someone who accompanied KP on an entire book tour, and came away disliking him more than she’d ever disliked any other interviewee.

One can’t help being reminded of a previous “best batsman of his generation”, who was also sometimes regarded to be excessively concerned with his personal score rather than the team. Although his vice was arguably excessive caution rather than recklessness, Geoffrey Boycott was also not universally liked in his time (I know, hard to believe isn’t it?), and this, too, was not because British people can’t stand success.

i haven’t really followed cricket since i was a kid and botham saved the day — and i burst into happy tears, the only time this ever happened to me in ref. a sporting result (i guess it unconsciously decided it would never be as good again or something…)

anyway, how do elite and popular attitudes to beefy fit into the sockbrownie spectrum?

Ah! There’s an Ashes open thread, but where’s the Tour de France open thread?

I mean, we all know Australia is going to win the series anyway, so what is there to be discussed? ;)

Thanks Sy, but to me that defiance is admirable. I checked the stats now and, if a draw is better than a loss, he deserves his part of the credit for it. One shot and arrogance is not a lot to go on; and going counter to his intuition is, I think, the worst council a gifted man in sports can take.

PS: ‘Botham was>/i> universally beloved’, that just has to be an overstatement, certainly as far as my memory of an enormous amount of BBC-days serves me right: Sebastian Coe beloved, Nigel Mansell unlovable, … is there a reference document on universal British opinion?

One shot and arrogance is not a lot to go on; and going counter to his intuition is, I think, the worst council a gifted man in sports can take.

Well it wasn’t one shot, it was two, unless you’re making a cunning reference to the shot he didn’t play at a straight ball on his off stump.

So all that coaching is for nowt whenever you have a ‘gifted’ player? I’m pretty sure no one wants to turn Pietersen into Boycott, but it should, at the ripe old age of 29, be possible to ration that gift with a little more common sense. That means not sweeping balls that are offside wides, not trying to bring up every century with a six. These aren’t dreadful restrictions from the Chris Tavares Book of Boring Batting, they’re evidence of maturity, the difference between (in KP’s case) a very good batsman and a great one.

Personally, I don’t care if he’s a wanker (although I think he probably fits the bill), I just want him to make that leap when he’s playing for England.

Re: RB @29
The fact that two overs would be lost to the Aussies for the change over the second England got their noses in front of their first innings score, would have been at the forefront of Punter’s mind during that last session. Without Pietersen’s 69, that would never have been a remote possibility. Ponting would never have bowled North in order to cram his overs had Australia not needed to bat again, for example.

What could his point be here? Why would bowling more overs be a priority for Ponting – wasn’t taking wickets the thing? Indeed, especially on reaching the extensible ‘last hour’ with its minimum over allocation, Ponting should have been taking his time to get the maximum wicket-taking potential from each ball, even if that meant a total of only 326 rather than 338 deliveries to get those 4 English bowlers out. If he hadn’t ‘crammed’ the overs, he wouldn’t have run out of time. So I don’t know what our grandiosely-monikered provocateur is talking about.

Further, KP’s contribution of 77 runs from a total of 606 (687 including extras) was not (as already pointed out) a match-changing score. I’ll politely decline the proffered bottomless quag of special pleading and intractable counterfactuals (‘don’t criticise KP or I’ll delete – in imagination – the number 4 spot from your first innings, and then – in imagination – you’ll be 1-0 down’!).

In any case, the score’s irrelevant because as has been pointed out, if a batsman gets out irresponsibly he may legitimately be blamed. And KP had easily the two most irresponsible dismissals of the England batting performance. Cook, say, is less culpable for his second dismissal, even though his front foot came so far across he ended up doing a passable impression of someone trying to get something out from behind the fridge. That is a technical flaw which he has had from long time but seems either to be unaware of or unable to fix – so for which he is culpable perhaps, but less, and less flagrantly, so. The backroom boys should be having a think about it though, in case the ECB take up Boycott’s entertaining suggestion on TMS that they should be incarcerated forthwith and en masse in, er, a lighthouse.

But just for reference:

. . . . . . . . tot. . avg
PD Collingwood .138 . . 69
GP Swann . . . . 78 . . 78
KP Pietersen . . 77 . . 38.5
MJ Prior† . . . .70 . . 35
A Flintoff . . . 63 . . 31.5
AJ Strauss* . . .47 . . 23.5
JM Anderson . . .47 . . 47
RS Bopara . . . .36 . . 18
SCJ Broad . . . .33 . . 16.5
AN Cook . . . . .16 . . .8
MS Panesar . . . 11 . . 11


You’ve now got commentators dropping Pietersen. Flippancy tags notwithstanding, RB might have noticed – were it not for his ‘Poms v KP’s drive and talent’ fixation (cf. ‘Limeys v success in business’) – that all of the top four were all dropped from my 20%-seriously suggested batting order.

And BTW I’m having trouble visualising anyone nicking one with a cover drive and being caught in the covers. How would that work then?

Well RB & co have taken a lot of space with his canards. The Botham card from belle and dd seems pretty conclusive on the tall poppy issue (though belle – sorry to be so gauche as to ask for tedious explanation, but I’ve had a quick Google and still don’t get ‘sockbrownie’).

But for further rebuttal on the specific topic, here’s a couple of slabs of data culled from cricinfo and offered on an ipsa loquiter basis. (I’ve got the Latin, but still can’t get selected. I’m starting to wonder if it’s because at my last attempt, the leg break had become a top spinner and the wrong ‘un generally ended up on top of the nets. Nah, probably just too manly for those pusillanimous Pommy selectors.)

The commentators were an Aussie and a Pom but there was no easily-automated way to discern which was which.

KP’s first-innings sweeps:

Hauritz to Pietersen, 2 runs, straight ball and Pietersen lunges forward and dabs a sweep away for a couple
Hauritz to Pietersen, 2 runs, and a top-edged sweep this time, a big shout of “caaatch” from the Australians but it lands well clear of the fine leg
Hauritz to Pietersen, 1 run, and there goes the paddle sweep again, from rather a long way outside off stump, and it’s played with consummate ease
Hauritz to Pietersen, 1 run, another straight ball and another safe sweep from Pietersen
Hauritz to Pietersen, no run, a lavish attempted sweep but Pietersen misses, a big shout for lbw from Hauritz but it was about three kilometres outside off stump
Hauritz to Pietersen, 1 run, Pietersen does get this sweep away behind square
Clarke to Pietersen, 1 run, Pietersen is keen to sweep Clarke as well as Hauritz, he gets down to this one and works it from well outside off
Clarke to Pietersen, 2 runs, another premeditated paddle sweep from outside off stump, he makes it look rather easy
Clarke to Pietersen, 4 byes, oh, that’s a close call! Pietersen missed his attempted sweep and the ball misses the leg stump by a matter of millimetres. Brad Haddin must’ve thought it was going to bowl him because he didn’t manage to get a hand on it
Hauritz to Pietersen, 1 run, walks across and sweeps it to deep square leg
Hauritz to Pietersen, 1 run, and Pietersen brings up his half-century, appropriately, with a paddle sweep from outside off stump
Hauritz to Pietersen, OUT, got him! A terrible shot from Pietersen, trying to sweep this from miles outside off without getting down into position, and he top edges it meekly straight into the hands of a delighted Katich at short-leg

England dismissals:

Hilfenhaus to Cook, OUT, GOT HIM! That’s a catch and a half from Hussey at gully, as Cook felt for this wide delivery and Hussey flings himself to his right to snaffle a corker!
AN Cook c Hussey b Hilfenhaus 10 (31m 25b 0x4 0x6) SR: 40.00

Johnson to Strauss, OUT, and the bouncer does the trick! It’s a quick one and right on line, Strauss can’t get out of the way and the ball clearly takes his gloves and flies up in the air, Clarke runs back from the cordon to take a simple chance
AJ Strauss c Clarke b Johnson 30 (90m 60b 4×4 0x6) SR: 50.00

Johnson to Bopara, OUT, and the slower ball does the trick! Johnson runs the fingers over this one and Bopara is committed to the drive, he mistimes it horribly and lobs it up for a simple catch to Hughes at point
RS Bopara c Hughes b Johnson 35 (76m 52b 6×4 0x6) SR: 67.30

Hilfenhaus to Collingwood, OUT, got him – what a catch by Haddin diving to his right! Just outside the off stump, Collingwood edged it and Haddin moved a little late, but clung on with both hands
PD Collingwood c †Haddin b Hilfenhaus 64 (150m 145b 6×4 0x6) SR: 44.13

Hauritz to Pietersen, OUT, got him! A terrible shot from Pietersen, trying to sweep this from miles outside off without getting down into position, and he top edges it meekly straight into the hands of a delighted Katich at short-leg
KP Pietersen c Katich b Hauritz 69 (196m 141b 4×4 0x6) SR: 48.93

Siddle to Flintoff, OUT, bowled him! An horrid, angled bat as he tries to drive but gets a thick inside edge which hammers into his stumps
A Flintoff b Siddle 37 (66m 51b 6×4 0x6) SR: 72.54

Siddle to Prior, OUT, inswing back into the right-hander and he’s bowled him! A fantastic delivery by Siddle – huge, late inswing and it forces its way through Prior’s gate
MJ Prior b Siddle 56 (99m 62b 6×4 0x6) SR: 90.32

Johnson to Broad, OUT, bowled him! Johnson gets one on target at last and bowls Broad off his pads and around his legs
SCJ Broad b Johnson 19 (22m 20b 4×4 0x6) SR: 95.00

Hauritz to Anderson, OUT, down the pitch and he tries to lift him over mid-on but he can’t – an easy catch for Hussey who jumps back and swallows it
JM Anderson c Hussey b Hauritz 26 (69m 40b 2×4 0x6) SR: 65.00

Hauritz to Panesar, OUT, that’s the end of the innings, Hauritz gets his third with a ball that drifts in and Panesar gets a thick edge to second slip
MS Panesar c Ponting b Hauritz 4 (15m 17b 0x4 0x6) SR: 23.52

Johnson to Cook, OUT, gone! Straight ball this time, no movement in the air or off the pitch, Cook quite simply misses the ball and is trapped dead in front. Aleem Dar sticks up the finger at world-record pace
AN Cook lbw b Johnson 6 (17m 12b 1×4 0x6) SR: 50.00

Hilfenhaus to Bopara, OUT, and Hilfenhaus strikes! Hilfenhaus pitches it in line and it moves away a fraction, striking Bopara on the top flap of the pad. Doctrove sends him on his way.
RS Bopara lbw b Hilfenhaus 1 (4m 3b 0x4 0x6) SR: 33.33

Hilfenhaus to Pietersen, OUT, oh KP what have you done! That’s an awful piece of judgment as Hilfenhaus pitches one on off, it doesn’t move off the line, Pietersen leaves it alone and has his off stump knocked out of the ground.
KP Pietersen b Hilfenhaus 8 (20m 24b 0x4 0x6) SR: 33.33

Hauritz to Strauss, OUT, Hauritz strikes! A shortish ball again, Strauss tries to repeat the square cut and it bounces a fraction more, all he gets on it is a thin top-edge that Brad Haddin gloves nicely
AJ Strauss c †Haddin b Hauritz 17 (78m 54b 1×4 0x6) SR: 31.48

Hauritz to Prior, OUT, Hauritz again! This one bounces more, and turns, and Prior tries for that late-cut that he likes, but the extra bounce does him in and the edge is snapped up well by Clarke at slip diving to his right
MJ Prior c Clarke b Hauritz 14 (37m 32b 1×4 0x6) SR: 43.75

Johnson to Flintoff, OUT, got him! Flintoff prods forward meekly and weakly to one which just held its line and it just carries to Ponting, low at second slip
A Flintoff c Ponting b Johnson 26 (89m 71b 3×4 0x6) SR: 36.61

Hauritz to Broad, OUT, gone! This one skidded through somewhat pitching on off and going on with the arm, Broad can’t get bat on ball, and he is comprehensively plumb
SCJ Broad lbw b Hauritz 14 (61m 47b 1×4 0x6) SR: 29.78

Hilfenhaus to Swann, OUT, gone! He’s got him! A straight delivery on middle-and-off, too full to pull and Swann’s trapped in front – kept a little low and that’s plumb
GP Swann lbw b Hilfenhaus 31 (63m 63b 4×4 0x6) SR: 49.20

Siddle to Collingwood, OUT, he’s dropped him, has he? Parries it – no he’s caught him! Collingwood is out! He went back, trying to force it off the back foot but edged it high to Hussey at gully who parried it above his head, and he clung on the second time
PD Collingwood c Hussey b Siddle 74 (344m 245b 6×4 0x6) SR: 30.20
——————-

I make that 4 clear cases of shot selection error – the other two being from Anderson in the 1st innings, and Colly in the second after 5 3/4 hours at the crease. (Obviously looking only at dismissals is a rather arbitrary way of sampling, but I’m notgoing through every delivery manually.) So assuming we let the no 10 off just this once, there remains Collingwood’s dreadful error. Was he irresponsible? I can’t trust my envious little Pom eyes, so here’s everything that might be called an error from Colly’s innings, including the only shout – one which the unWarnely Hauritz didn’t bother to join in with. Note the early error, which could have been serious, was not repeated (in fact only two further pulls were attempted, both risklessly – one to a short ball outide off and one to a bouncer). And the fact that all the errors were of execution rather than obviously of shot selection (fishing in the outer reaches of the Corridor doesn’t count):

Collingwood’s errors:
(24.5 – faces first delivery)
26.2 Johnson to Collingwood, FOUR, short ball and pulled away through midwicket by Collingwood but not where he intended it! Collingwood was looking behind square only to realise the ball had flown off the toe of the bat, fortunately nowhere near any fielders
51.4 Hauritz to Collingwood, no run, an lbw shout there but Hauritz doesn’t really join his team-mates, he knows it was turning down leg
59.6 Hilfenhaus to Collingwood, no run, beaten. Terrific nut, that, swinging away very late on Collingwood who fishes and misses
62.5 Siddle to Collingwood, FOUR, streaky! Not in total control of that, driving it and getting the thickest of edges wide of where a gully might have been placed. Just one slip in place…
65.3 Hilfenhaus to Collingwood, OUT, got him – what a catch by Haddin diving to his right! Just outside the off stump, Collingwood edged it and Haddin moved a little late, but clung on with both hands

Incidentally, Statsguru on cricinfo is not bad for a general use online query facility – and pastes well into excel (the poor man’s database) so a bit of sort, sumif, vlookup etc could derive an analysis of just how useful KP’s hundreds are. I doubt any significant trend would be found (perhaps balls faced in last innings of closely drawn matches?), esp given the sample size. It’s more just a case of avoidable failure on certain notable occasions like this one. (And for the purposes of the OP, only this one)

Anyway, apologies to anyone with a scrolling aversion. How about some discussion on Harmison, the captains, Broad, Flintoff (and playing both together), Warne’s absence etc.?

I just want him to make that leap when he’s playing for England

This is the point and it is why this

isn’t it enough to be a brilliant, exciting (top-scoring) batsman?

invites the answer “no”.

He’s not an artist, he’s not a showman, he’s a professional cricketer playing for England against Australia on the first day of an Ashes series in which England are a long way second favourites.

Now what, I ask you, is the nature of professionalism? I would suggest that it involves doing the job thoroughly and getting the job done. In a cricketing context, and particularly in the context of the situation obtaining in that match at that time, this involves not giving your wicket away by playing a little legside scoop to a ball going to far down the offside you’ll be lucky if first slip stops it. It wasn’t a simple case of an aggressive batsman getting out with an aggressive shot – that’s an occupational hazard. But it really ought to be possible for an intelligent cricketer – and indeed the intelligent viewer – to distinguish between an aggressive shot and a brainless one. Provided, that is, that we are not more interested in using it as a proxy for a war against imaginary English sporting ethics.

Indeed, playing the “envy” card regarding the on-field lapses of leading sportspeople is even lamer than playing it in regards to one’s opinions about economics. It’s also a way, in both instances, of avoiding the points people are actually making.

How about some discussion on Harmison, the captains, Broad, Flintoff (and playing both together), Warne’s absence etc.?

I think bringing back Harmison will be a mistake. How many times has he been recalled now and found not to be up to scratch? His best bowling patch was in 2005, and he has never reached those heights since, so I see no reason to believe he will be much of a threat now. The selectors should take the same hard line they took with Vaughn – his time as a Test player is up, build for the future etc… I think we may have reached a similar turning point with Flintoff. And 78-year old commentators sockpuppets also.

The first thing I’d say about this is that it is factually inaccurate. The edge didn’t go “straight into the hands of a delighted Katich”. The catch came via Pietersen’s helmet badge after he’d edged. Something that might be considered a trifle unlucky were he, ooh, almost anyone else.

No, no, and no. You top edge a sweep and you’re lucky if it’s not caught. End of story.

“Just to add to belle’s point—it is always Botham, not Dilley, Willis, or Brearley, who gets the credit for that Test. ”

Personally I think it is pretty obvious that the Aussies threw it, so I caan’t think what credit there should go where.

“No, no, and no. You top edge a sweep and you’re lucky if it’s not caught. End of story.”

But it is not the end of the story, is it? If the ball had not hit his hat, Pieterson would not have been out, it was horrible bad luck, although you might think karma awas satisfied given the daft shot. The fact remains that he was out unluckily playing a poor shot at the end of an excellent, high scoring innings and then got out playing no shot because he mistook the flight of the ball in the second innings. That hardly deserves all the opprobrium. In what way was he more selfish than, say, Collingwwod? Look, Pieterson is better looking, more talented, richer, and fitter than me too, but I can STILL see he is England’s best player by a country mile.

“You play a poor shot and you’re out, it’s not unlucky.”

Of course it is, if the circs are unusual enough. The ball pinging off your hat counts as bad luck in my book.

The selectors should take the same hard line they took with Vaughn – his time as a Test player is up, build for the future etc… I think we may have reached a similar turning point with Flintoff.

I think you may be right about Flintoff. I suspect his presence may have had a negative effect on Anderson who has been doing pretty well with senior bowler status. It also looks like he’s going to be dogged with injury from here on, and without expecting a repeat of That Over at Edgbaston, he didn’t look (well, sound, really) as threatening as in the past. Someone (Aggers I think) was saying he’s pretty similar to Broad – bang it in and get wickets at the other end sort of thing – though Broad doesn’t (yet) have his presence – nor (yet) his brutal hitting FWTW.

On the other hand, the middle of a winnable (yes, that’s right) Ashes series is perhaps not the time to be focussing on the future to the exclusion of the next 6 or 7 days…

Anyway, who should have replaced Panesar instead of Harmy (and who Flintoff if applicable)? Onions? (Spidey?) Someone else who with my shocking inattention to the county game I haven’t come across? Anyone been following Simon Jones – isn’t he fit again by now?

Also – Jack Russell has been saying Foster should be keeping because the potential cost of keeping errors outweighs any lesser batting ability – which is plausible enough, though he would say that wouldn’t he. But since it’s not going to happen, perhaps that’s just too hypothetical (whereas on other matters, the ECB will be taking frantic notes of course).

“Anyone been following Simon Jones – isn’t he fit again by now?”

Still gimpy, I think. There was a big interview with him in one of the Sundays. I would have gone with Harmison, but I think he is a huge risk. If he has a bad first over, I think the test will be doomed … doooomed I tell ye.

“No it isn’t. The nature of a bad shot is that you’ve given yourself a good chance of getting out: you’re lucky if you don’t.”

Let’s not squabble over this split hair. Every successful innings is a combination of luck and skill. Every batsman survives some poor strokes, some good bowling that misses the bat, and some poor shot selection in just about every big score. I think Pieterson was unlucky not to survive his poor shot choice because they do not usually bounce on the batsman’s hat into the keeper’s gloves. You just think he wasn’t lucky. But it amounts to the same thing. Nothing to beat him up over.

So — Pietersen qua Decent icon? A most interesting development, I must say, for anyone still fascinated by the habits of this endangered species: perhaps as significant as the strange animus towards teenagers and the peculiar loyalty to Philip Morris…

Also invocation of the chattering classes, of course. And why are people obsessed with KP? I find it all highly suspicious…

John Meredith @89

If the ball had not hit his hat, Pieterson would not have been out, it was horrible bad luck, although you might think karma awas satisfied given the daft shot. The fact remains that he was out unluckily playing a poor shot at the end of an excellent, high scoring innings
But if I may say so (and…ah! Yes, I may) that is a silly approach, though a widespread one (you see the same thing in the light sentences given to dangerous drivers who happen not to kill anyone). He was out luckily-and-only-then-unluckily: lucky that the edge didn’t go straight to a fielder, but then that luck cruelly snatched back by the helmet-badge god.

And ‘out at the end of an excellent, high scoring innings’ eh? Yes, I suppose there’s not much else to do at the end of an innings other than get yourself out, especially when you’ve done so well scoring your half-century with a highly risky shot that has already gone badly wrong a number of times.

and then got out playing no shot because he mistook the flight of the ball in the second innings. You can’t describe that as playing no shot – he was jumping around and waving the bat all over the shop. I assumed at first that the bat must have metamorphosed into a biggish lamprey, but the replay showed otherwise. He was already being shown up by Hiflenhaus around off stump, so any professional batsman should had everything right behind that ball, or at least in front of his off stump.

In what way was he more selfish than, say, Collingwood? Err, I don’t know the answer to that one, but eliminating your backlift almost completely and hitting only the very worst balls while remaining at the crease for 5 3/4 hours, almost singlehandedly saving what looked (to the glory-seekers) like a lost cause until a bitterly-rued loss of concentration at which point the first chance you yield goes to hand (now that has some claim to being unlucky perhaps) seems like quite a different kind of innings from Pietersen’s one to me.

That Pieterson is richer and fitter than me doesn’t (since I am neither three years old nor severely neurotic) blind me to the fact that he’s England’s most talented player. But that consideration just doesn’t seem to intersect with the matter in hand – was he exceptionally stupid and arrogant in the way he joined the other failed batters in almost costing the game? (Clue: yes, it appears so.)

Having seen that Brownie was posting under a pseudonym, I deleted all his comments I had not seen Chris’s comment above stating that they would be kept to preserve the integrity of the thread. After reading this, I was able to restore all but one of the comments manually.

mart, if he reads this blog, we’d all be impressed!

Sorry, that was a wankerish remark. Far stranger things have happened after all.

[Pauses, smiles over-brightly, does that strange clap/handrub thing] So! Any predictions for Lord’s? Contingencies may be specified (Fred in/out, winner of toss/first to bat, amount of rain etc.), but prizes will be awarded for generality of application and simplicity of formulation as well as accuracy and granularity of predictions, all combined into a single measure by means of a Popperian formula yet to be devised (which reminds me – has there been a Duckworth-Lewis thread?)

First prize is the ‘InFredible’ tour: an all night drinking session (drink, venue and companions not supplied) followed by a bus ride (at winner’s expense). Cigars are optional, but bring an umbrella – this is not 2005 you know.

Second, third and runner-up prizes the same. There will also be a number of consolation prizes, also the same, of which I’ve taken the liberty of awarding myself one.

I think that the most interesting issue at the heart of Swalec 2009 is the last-day (last-minute!) off-field choices of another of the same personal heritage.

I don’t think this is much of an issue. I mean it was wrong, but no more so than dozens of Aussie rule-stretching actions over the years, I think either none of this kind of ‘gamesmanship’ is legal, or you allow it all – it’s stupid just to whinge about particular instances.

Was it wrong or right?

I think I answered this question pretty clearly. My point was not that England be excused this act of gamesmanship, rather that Australians be less selective in memory when condemning it.

Tim, yep, very wankerish indeed.

Prediction: Australia bats first and bats well, relatively high run-rate, bowled out on the 2nd day after which KP swings and gets caught early in his 1st innings, leaving Australia the luxury of the risk of a high run-rate again (and enough time to cope with some periods of mild drizzle) and set an incredible target for England, with nobody believing even in the remotest chance of – even a – draw, KP scores a double century building the momentum for taking the match comfortably ;-)

As regards unsporting behavior and so on, it all depends on what the fans want. If we cheer on our side when they engage in sledging and time-wasting, we’ll get more of it. If we cheer the player who walks without waiting for the umpire, that’s what we’ll get.

So given that football players that constantly fake injuries each time they are tackled are roundly booed, and the tactic is constantly lambasted in the media and by fans, it no longer happens any more, right?

So given that football players that constantly fake injuries each time they are tackled

When you say “given”, who does this “constantly” and “each time they are tackled”?

CB @ 120: Italy. Also.

As suggested above, Flintoff to retire from Test cricket after the Ashes.

Are we certain that Richie Benaud is not actually brownie?

Yeah, Warne was intending to bowl him alright. And a leg break is simply a ball (slow enough not to be a leg cutter) which turns from leg to off – a right-handed wrist-spinner’s standard (if not stock) delivery. Nothing to do with length or flight.

It is not very common to bowl a right-hander with a leg break (the latter term not being sensitive to the handedness of the facing batsman), but Warne used to do it a fair bit, sometimes behind a recognised batsman’s legs. He was probably the greatest bowler of the last, I dunno, 20 years (possibly in living memory), so not what you’d call typical.

And bowling a leg break that pitches on leg side is, unless only aimed at limiting runs, basically aimed at getting a bowled dismissal – or caught in front defending against such. Lbw would have been an aim before rules came in which make it absolutely impossible to be out lbw if the ball pitches outside leg.

And if I may attempt to revivify this thread, any thoughts on the decision not t enforce the follow on? I was marginally in favour at the time – which is really the only time at which to be sure of afair assessment. It’s now looking a goodish decision I’d say.

And can I take this opportunity to point out that I (‘boldly’) predicted at least one century for Bopara, and never even looked like being anywhere near right – and he would probably indeed be looking at deselection were England and Wales (Brittania?) to lose this match.

I think that in the past the follow-on would almost certainly have been enforced, however the last decade has seen several matches where teams following on were able to amass large second innings scores and turn the match around, so I’m not sure if the modern preference isn’t to err towards non-enforcement…

I might try and dig up some stats from Cricinfo on this later.

BTW, anyone hear the interview with David Mitchell on TMS over lunch? Was really funny and reminded me of parody they did of those underdog sports films where England reach the “finals” of the Ashes and play West Germany… funny stuff.

Ah, it seems that Alex Massie has done the job for me .
It seems that the modern preference is indeed not to enforce, because of that amazing match in Calcutta, so Strauss isn’t being all that radical here. What with Twenty20 and ODI run-rates, I think modern batsmen are less intimidated at the thought of having to knock off a pile of runs than used to be the case, so maybe the follow-on doesn’t really make that much difference?

Also apologies for linking to the UK’s Premier Wingnut Rag, but Massie’s usually worth reading.

any thoughts on the decision not t enforce the follow on?

Mine can be found here:

Enforcing the follow-on was the pub-commentary option, batting again was the professional option

Why would a team enforce a follow-on? Largely, for the reason the rule was introduced – because you think you might run out of time if you do not. This might be an element here, though to be honest, with two innings over before lunch on the third day, it shouldn’t be. You might also enforce if you were so far ahead you thought it likelier than not that you would win without batting again, though that didn’t sway Ricky Ponting here.

There might also have been an issue had the Australians been all out on the second evening (and the light been better) because you don’t really want to start your innings towards the end of the day – I don’t know what Strauss would have done in those circumstances. However, I’m pretty sure that whatever time the last two Australian wickets had fallen on the third morning, Strauss and the great majority of captains (those playing in games, that is, not those sitting in commentary boxes) would have batted again. They would have done so for all the usual reasons – because you don’t want to put tired bowlers out again immediately, because you want to bat the other side out of the game, because you don’t want to be chasing a fourth-innings target (as happened, for instance, when Vaughan declared on the third morning in this game).

Basically, all the reasons except time are in favour of batting again, and as, in most comtemporary Test cricket, runs are scored faster and less time lost (because play can be extended) than was the case two or three years ago, declarations are now less common than was once the case. Though I was present on the third day of this match twenty-five years ago, when Willis, having bowled out New Zealand in the morning session, chose not to enforce the follow-on – with a lead very close indeed to that which Strauss had yesterday.

I’d have been astonished if Strauss had put the Australians back in again. I’d also have been surprised had the commentary-box mob not slagged him off for it.

Right – 10 mins to go and I suspect they will go back in for 1/2 an hour or so…really get that lead to crushing proportions enabling even more attacking fields, and possibly even demoralise the opposition still further – as well as wrong-foot them?

Hmm, ejh’s link points out Nasser Hussain says batting easier on days 4 & 5! The reverse was traditionally a reason for enforcing. If we don’t lose too many overs, most of those runs would come as a corollary of Aus staying in: 180 overs @ 3, anyone? Still a definite game on here, pleasingly.

But my poit was that (given good weather throughout) if the draw were on, so in all probability would the Aus win be.

Obviously things looking entirely different by 12:40 BST. But it wasn’t that implausible before the start that Aus could have been 110/0 rather than 90/3 by now. After all fortunes/form have been oscillating wildly thus far on both sides.

hmm…think we’ve got this one in the bag now.

Or not

Odds still on an Eng win though.

In the morning: 8 overs of Fred and Anderson charging in with the new ball and pitching it up on off-and-off+1, with 4 slips and a gully or two – proper old school. A wicket or three should be forthcoming from that and the rest ought to be manageable. After lunch? Spin. (as Mr Benaud’s cadences would have it.)

Misleading slo-mo replays for establishing that a catch has carried, anyone? I’d say that if the ball ends with fingers underneath and it hasn’t bounced on the way, it must have been caught. You don’t catch (rather than trap) a ball on the ground before it bounces back up, let alone somehow slither yer fingers round under it in one smooth split-second motion.

(btw @139 ‘for enforcing’ should read ‘ for not enforcing’)

Yes, barring bad weather the cricketing equivalent of excluded middle applies. (As intimated in an earlier Cassandrian comment, which it gives me no pleasure to see vindicated.)