Interesting and heartwarming to see Stuart Broad politely refusing the chance to play in the Indian Premier League. Broad, a wise old head on young shoulders, possibly feels that the crucial summer of English cricket, encompassing a Twenty20 World Cup and an Ashes series, is worth preparing for properly and so has opted out of the high profile player auction to be held on 6 February.
Is it a good choice for young Broad? Financially, it is probably not. The Nottinghamshire fast bowler could stand to earn a six figure sum should he be signed by one of the eight teams involved. However, Broad has his eye on the bigger picture. England face a rigorous schedule between now and the rest of the summer and the heavy workload has seen many an England bowler break down injured (see Messrs Sidebottom, Flintoff and Harmison). Broad is clearly desperate to have a big role in the Ashes contest with Australia this summer and views this as his one chance to have a break before the hectic summer.
It is not unfeasible to say that England surely stand to benefit from Broad’s absence from the IPL. Ignoring the fact that Twenty20 is not necessarily a bowlers game and that Broad has painful T20 memories (thanks, Yuvraj), Broad could well have an extra spring in his step come the visit of both the West Indians and the Aussies. Mick Newell, Broad’s coach at Nottinghamshire, has described the decision as ‘very mature’ and is is hard to argue. Us mortals can only imagine the monetary lure of the IPL and how easy it must be to play motivated by the promise of cash.
In making this decision, Broad has shown us two things. One is that he views playing for his country as the main objective and ambition in cricket and that no amount of money can detract from that for him. And the other is that it is possible for players in this day and age to say no to the IPL’s big money riches. With all the concern over the longevity of Test cricket and the preservation of cricketing traditions, Broad’s mature stance must be a well of relief for those fretting the most.
Here’s hoping that Broad will prove that he made the right decision and really come on as a bowler this summer. I, for one, applaud his decision, wholeheartedly.
(The Corridor, 2009)
28 January 2009
17 January 2009
Alastair Cook's defence
I recently got my hands on the annual ‘England’s Summer of Cricket’ DVD, giving me a chance to re-live the unconvincing victories over New Zealand and the entertaining series with South Africa, albeit a series that England lost. It was all good fun, even though I was painfully reminded how desperately poor England were at times.
One thing that struck me as being noteworthy, however, was the form and the scores of Alastair Cook, with particular attention to the latter half of the summer. Cook, without a three figure Test score since December 2007 against Sri Lanka in Galle, has been criticised in some quarters over the last year, mainly due to that precise reason. Inability to convert good scores has been a problem afflicting English batsmen for some time but many have singled Cook out. No-one is suggesting he lose his place, but his golden boy status of his early career has most likely faded out now.
As a fan of Cook, watching him last summer was, at times, frustrating for me but never wholly disappointing. What many tend to forget about the Essex opener is that he has made a fifty in each game since the opening test with South Africa back in July. His scores in each game from then reads: 60, 60, 76, 67, 52 and 50.
Of course, these numbers are coupled with relative failures in the corresponding innings of the match. But it suggests that Cook is in touch and has been for a while.
Another impressive thing to note is that those scores were made against quality opposition. The South African attack was a fearsome one and often blew the English away and the last two scores were made in tough conditions in the subcontinent, against an excellent Indian bowling attack. Cook may have been unable to post the big totals against New Zealand but when the quicker and more skilled bowlers asked questions of him, he generally had a positive answer.
Cook is a stylish batsman - not necessarily an entertaining one in the Kevin Pietersen genre but definitely an effective one. His preferred method of accumulation is by staying in and occupying the crease. If you need a man in this England team to really grind out a score, it’s certainly Cook. He remains one of England best and, if you ask me, an essential part of the teams Ashes hopes.
He does desperately need a hundred, there is no hiding away from that fact. But before people write him off prematurely, maybe they should look at the number of runs he has actually scored. Fifties don’t win you a Test match, granted, but they can set you up pretty nicely more often than not. And they’re better than ducks.
What does everyone else make of Cook’s perceived lack of form? Answers and arguments below please.
(The Corridor, 2009)
One thing that struck me as being noteworthy, however, was the form and the scores of Alastair Cook, with particular attention to the latter half of the summer. Cook, without a three figure Test score since December 2007 against Sri Lanka in Galle, has been criticised in some quarters over the last year, mainly due to that precise reason. Inability to convert good scores has been a problem afflicting English batsmen for some time but many have singled Cook out. No-one is suggesting he lose his place, but his golden boy status of his early career has most likely faded out now.
As a fan of Cook, watching him last summer was, at times, frustrating for me but never wholly disappointing. What many tend to forget about the Essex opener is that he has made a fifty in each game since the opening test with South Africa back in July. His scores in each game from then reads: 60, 60, 76, 67, 52 and 50.
Of course, these numbers are coupled with relative failures in the corresponding innings of the match. But it suggests that Cook is in touch and has been for a while.
Another impressive thing to note is that those scores were made against quality opposition. The South African attack was a fearsome one and often blew the English away and the last two scores were made in tough conditions in the subcontinent, against an excellent Indian bowling attack. Cook may have been unable to post the big totals against New Zealand but when the quicker and more skilled bowlers asked questions of him, he generally had a positive answer.
Cook is a stylish batsman - not necessarily an entertaining one in the Kevin Pietersen genre but definitely an effective one. His preferred method of accumulation is by staying in and occupying the crease. If you need a man in this England team to really grind out a score, it’s certainly Cook. He remains one of England best and, if you ask me, an essential part of the teams Ashes hopes.
He does desperately need a hundred, there is no hiding away from that fact. But before people write him off prematurely, maybe they should look at the number of runs he has actually scored. Fifties don’t win you a Test match, granted, but they can set you up pretty nicely more often than not. And they’re better than ducks.
What does everyone else make of Cook’s perceived lack of form? Answers and arguments below please.
(The Corridor, 2009)
13 January 2009
Should the House of Lords be abolished?
The House of Lords has always been a talking point in British politics, mainly over the fact that they are an unelected body and have no democratic right to determine the laws of the country. Although their power has been reduced over the years, many would argue that it is just not enough.
So why has it taken so long for the power of the House of Lords to be reduced to what it is now,
where the House is no much more than a chamber for debate? The House of Lords is highly undemocratic and in this day and age has no place in the British political system. The furore over the bill to pass foxhunting is a good example of the possible misuse of the Second Chamber. The House of Commons, who represent the ordinary people more, were heavily in favour of the ban.
However, the House of Lords were opposed - which given the typical type of person found in the House of Lords, was not surprising! In this case, The House of Lords did not represent the average people so why did they have the power to delay such a highly debated law when those who work for the people (the House of Commons) have already decided to pass it.
There is also the argument that we cannot claim to be a democracy while the House of Lords hold power to rule the decisions of the elected government. The House of Lords is seen as highly undemocratic and out of date. It can be said that peers, who are only in the position through their birthright, probably know nothing about the ordinary person and government politics. How can they have the right to decide what does and doesn’t become law when they are not being elected?
There are question marks over the individuals in the House of Lords. The fact that people can effectively donate their way into the House of Lords, and once there, assume the right to block decisions made by elected politicians in the House of Commons, is a big problem.
For all the reforms, the Lords remains an opposition to the idea of popular democracy. The life peers play the same undemocratic role as those who were born into the House of Lords through their birthright. In the old days, the Lords was simply made up of individuals who happened to be born into the right family at the right time. Today, when people are appointed by political parties, it is possible that they can be ambitious people who simply fancy a seat in the House of Lords and posh title. They are not born to be lords, and the public do not get to elect them, so why should they become Lords? It‘s a highly questionable format with people doing political favours and making monetary donations in order to effectively pay their way in. It is the undemocratic nature of the Lords and the fact that it is not elected by the public that means seats can be bought and sold between friends and acquaintances and it is this reason that many want it abolished.
The constitution and the power of the House of Lords may have changed over the decades, but its role fundamentally remains the same: to keep a check and a balance on the House of Commons, on those members of parliament we the people elect to run the country. If they are presiding over who we elect then who elects them themselves?
Supporters of the Lords point out that most modern states have two forms of legislatures, in which the chambers have different responsibilities that complement each other. An example is in the United States where there is the Senate and the House of Representatives. For this to work in the UK, however, the two chambers have to be comprised of different kinds of member; otherwise we may just as well have a larger House of Commons.
Abolition of the House of Lords without some form of revision on the House of Commons could lead to undesirable consequences. For example, it would be much easier for a Government with a small majority to press through laws that were not as accepted to the electorate than it currently would be.
Another reason to put forward to continue to with the House of Lords is simply to share the burden of the government more evenly. Parliament has an enormous deal of work to do, and the House of Lords currently does its fair share of it. However, the benefit of sharing the work must be balanced against the costs, particularly when conflicts between the chambers result in an increased workload for both. And one had better believe that there are plenty of conflicts between the two chambers!
Governments - particularly Labour Governments - have often find the influence of the Lords as a second legislative chamber to be more annoying rather than a positive thing. The power of the Lords to delay the passing of laws is still large. The Lords retain the power to force amendments on Bills from House of Commons. Of course, this is exactly what supporters of the second chamber want; they don't see it as a disadvantage. Critics, however, simply gain more and more ammunition against the House of Lords.
On the whole, there are compelling arguments for the House of Lords to be abolished, most of them revolving around the undemocratic nature of the second chamber. However, the doubts over the severity of that action and the effect it would have on the British political system mean that any reform may be a bit of while away.
(political article for University assignment)
So why has it taken so long for the power of the House of Lords to be reduced to what it is now,
where the House is no much more than a chamber for debate? The House of Lords is highly undemocratic and in this day and age has no place in the British political system. The furore over the bill to pass foxhunting is a good example of the possible misuse of the Second Chamber. The House of Commons, who represent the ordinary people more, were heavily in favour of the ban.
However, the House of Lords were opposed - which given the typical type of person found in the House of Lords, was not surprising! In this case, The House of Lords did not represent the average people so why did they have the power to delay such a highly debated law when those who work for the people (the House of Commons) have already decided to pass it.
There is also the argument that we cannot claim to be a democracy while the House of Lords hold power to rule the decisions of the elected government. The House of Lords is seen as highly undemocratic and out of date. It can be said that peers, who are only in the position through their birthright, probably know nothing about the ordinary person and government politics. How can they have the right to decide what does and doesn’t become law when they are not being elected?
There are question marks over the individuals in the House of Lords. The fact that people can effectively donate their way into the House of Lords, and once there, assume the right to block decisions made by elected politicians in the House of Commons, is a big problem.
For all the reforms, the Lords remains an opposition to the idea of popular democracy. The life peers play the same undemocratic role as those who were born into the House of Lords through their birthright. In the old days, the Lords was simply made up of individuals who happened to be born into the right family at the right time. Today, when people are appointed by political parties, it is possible that they can be ambitious people who simply fancy a seat in the House of Lords and posh title. They are not born to be lords, and the public do not get to elect them, so why should they become Lords? It‘s a highly questionable format with people doing political favours and making monetary donations in order to effectively pay their way in. It is the undemocratic nature of the Lords and the fact that it is not elected by the public that means seats can be bought and sold between friends and acquaintances and it is this reason that many want it abolished.
The constitution and the power of the House of Lords may have changed over the decades, but its role fundamentally remains the same: to keep a check and a balance on the House of Commons, on those members of parliament we the people elect to run the country. If they are presiding over who we elect then who elects them themselves?
Supporters of the Lords point out that most modern states have two forms of legislatures, in which the chambers have different responsibilities that complement each other. An example is in the United States where there is the Senate and the House of Representatives. For this to work in the UK, however, the two chambers have to be comprised of different kinds of member; otherwise we may just as well have a larger House of Commons.
Abolition of the House of Lords without some form of revision on the House of Commons could lead to undesirable consequences. For example, it would be much easier for a Government with a small majority to press through laws that were not as accepted to the electorate than it currently would be.
Another reason to put forward to continue to with the House of Lords is simply to share the burden of the government more evenly. Parliament has an enormous deal of work to do, and the House of Lords currently does its fair share of it. However, the benefit of sharing the work must be balanced against the costs, particularly when conflicts between the chambers result in an increased workload for both. And one had better believe that there are plenty of conflicts between the two chambers!
Governments - particularly Labour Governments - have often find the influence of the Lords as a second legislative chamber to be more annoying rather than a positive thing. The power of the Lords to delay the passing of laws is still large. The Lords retain the power to force amendments on Bills from House of Commons. Of course, this is exactly what supporters of the second chamber want; they don't see it as a disadvantage. Critics, however, simply gain more and more ammunition against the House of Lords.
On the whole, there are compelling arguments for the House of Lords to be abolished, most of them revolving around the undemocratic nature of the second chamber. However, the doubts over the severity of that action and the effect it would have on the British political system mean that any reform may be a bit of while away.
(political article for University assignment)
“The web has revolutionised the way in which newspapers and magazines interact with their readership.” Discuss.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
JP Duminy - a class act
Yes, Australia may have handed it to South Africa in both Twenty20 games. But at least JP Duminy is still dominating the frail Aussies. His innings today of 69 not out off 41 balls underlined his class in the shorter form of the game and continues his extremely impressive run of scores Down Under.
For Duminy, this tour has certainly been a breakthrough for him. Making only a single on Test debut in Perth, he followed it with an impressive unbeaten fifty in the successful run chase, giving solid support to centurion AB de Villers and guiding the Proteas to an historic win. And as if that wasn’t enough, he blitzed the Australian attack all over the MCG in the next Test, making a fantastic 166, batting with the tail. That innings dragged South Africa back into the game, having been pretty much out of it when he came to the crease.
Duminy had a quiet final Test but by then he had already impressed all the right people. His classy stroke-play is what draws most to him and the way in which he has accumulated his runs proves he has a fantastic temperament, well suited to Test match cricket. However, he can still perform in the limited overs arena with a bold 78 in the first T20 match followed by today’sinnings. He has five more one day games to continue being a thorn in Australia’s side.
Duminy looks to have a great future before him. He appears to have already ousted Ashwell Prince from the South African middle order and if he can replicate his Australian success when the Aussies come back for the return series, then he’ll surely be well placed to be one of the world’s best batsman for years to come. Well played, indeed.
(article for The Corridor (www.cricket.mailliw.com))
For Duminy, this tour has certainly been a breakthrough for him. Making only a single on Test debut in Perth, he followed it with an impressive unbeaten fifty in the successful run chase, giving solid support to centurion AB de Villers and guiding the Proteas to an historic win. And as if that wasn’t enough, he blitzed the Australian attack all over the MCG in the next Test, making a fantastic 166, batting with the tail. That innings dragged South Africa back into the game, having been pretty much out of it when he came to the crease.
Duminy had a quiet final Test but by then he had already impressed all the right people. His classy stroke-play is what draws most to him and the way in which he has accumulated his runs proves he has a fantastic temperament, well suited to Test match cricket. However, he can still perform in the limited overs arena with a bold 78 in the first T20 match followed by today’sinnings. He has five more one day games to continue being a thorn in Australia’s side.
Duminy looks to have a great future before him. He appears to have already ousted Ashwell Prince from the South African middle order and if he can replicate his Australian success when the Aussies come back for the return series, then he’ll surely be well placed to be one of the world’s best batsman for years to come. Well played, indeed.
(article for The Corridor (www.cricket.mailliw.com))
9 January 2009
Warne tips Key for England captain
Shane Warne - never short of an opinion or two, especially regarding English cricket. In the wake of the depressing England captain saga, Warne has suggested that official replacement Andrew Strauss would be better suited to the vice-captaincy position and that he would have chosen Kent captain Rob Key as skipper for all three formats of the game.
Key, who hasn’t played a Test for England since 2005, has impressed in recent years through his one-day captaincy and was an outside contender for the England position before Kevin Pietersen was appointed.
Warne said, “He has flair and imagination, a good temperament and is well liked within the game. Ideally, you should look to appoint one captain for all forms and I don’t think that Strauss deserves a place in the one-day side on merit.”
He has a point. Strauss last played a one day game for England back at the 2007 World Cup (in the West Indies, ironically) and hardly deserves a guaranteed place in the limited overs side. He lacks the firepower neccessary for an opener in one day cricket and to have him coming in down the order may get in the way of the established players like Andrew Flintoff and Owais Shah.
However, the support for Key may be misguided. He is a fine player, yes, and definately has the potential to play for England again but captaincy seems a tad premature for Key. His success with Kent was mainly in the Twenty20 format of the game however, as impressive as that was, his side’s performances in the four day game left much to be desired. It would say a huge deal for the state of the game if England were to pick a captain on the strength of his Twenty20 skills.
Where does Strauss fit in to the one day squad then? Thoughts and comments, please.
(article for The Corridor (http://www.cricket.mailliw.com/))
Key, who hasn’t played a Test for England since 2005, has impressed in recent years through his one-day captaincy and was an outside contender for the England position before Kevin Pietersen was appointed.
Warne said, “He has flair and imagination, a good temperament and is well liked within the game. Ideally, you should look to appoint one captain for all forms and I don’t think that Strauss deserves a place in the one-day side on merit.”
He has a point. Strauss last played a one day game for England back at the 2007 World Cup (in the West Indies, ironically) and hardly deserves a guaranteed place in the limited overs side. He lacks the firepower neccessary for an opener in one day cricket and to have him coming in down the order may get in the way of the established players like Andrew Flintoff and Owais Shah.
However, the support for Key may be misguided. He is a fine player, yes, and definately has the potential to play for England again but captaincy seems a tad premature for Key. His success with Kent was mainly in the Twenty20 format of the game however, as impressive as that was, his side’s performances in the four day game left much to be desired. It would say a huge deal for the state of the game if England were to pick a captain on the strength of his Twenty20 skills.
Where does Strauss fit in to the one day squad then? Thoughts and comments, please.
(article for The Corridor (http://www.cricket.mailliw.com/))
7 January 2009
Pietersen reign over after five months
What an unholy mess. Kevin Pietersen resigning, Peter Moores being forced to resign and English cricket imploding on itself - just in time, perfectly, for this years Ashes clash. If things were in a bad state before, they’re even worse now.
You can find out all the in-detail news on this latest fiasco from the Cricinfo experts at http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/385633.html.
Far be it from me to know what is best for English cricket but, in my humble opinion, for Pietersen to demand a change of coach and to declare that he wouldn’t tour the West Indies under the current management is farcical and childish. Moores may not be the world’s best coach but can it really be that difficult to play under him? One can only assume that there is something we are not being told about their relationship.
Where now for England? Back to Andrew Strauss as captain? Will KP play for England again? As always, thoughts and comments are encouraged.
(article for The Corridor (www.cricket.mailliw.com))
You can find out all the in-detail news on this latest fiasco from the Cricinfo experts at http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/385633.html.
Far be it from me to know what is best for English cricket but, in my humble opinion, for Pietersen to demand a change of coach and to declare that he wouldn’t tour the West Indies under the current management is farcical and childish. Moores may not be the world’s best coach but can it really be that difficult to play under him? One can only assume that there is something we are not being told about their relationship.
Where now for England? Back to Andrew Strauss as captain? Will KP play for England again? As always, thoughts and comments are encouraged.
(article for The Corridor (www.cricket.mailliw.com))
6 January 2009
Mushtaq to work with England spinners
Mushtaq Ahmed has been given clearance to coach England’s spinners this summer. After six years playing for Sussex and plenty of domestic success, Mushtaq will bring a wealth of experience to the table and England fans will be desperately hoping he can coax out that missing magic from Monty Panesar.
Certainly, his expertise could and should be greatly felt by England’s slow bowlers. Adil Rashid, the Yorkshire leg-spinning prodigy, could benefit greatly from the wily Pakistani. Rashid has been included in England’s Test squad for the tour of the West Indies, although it isn’t expected that he’ll be pushing for a starting place. Pundits and former players are desperate for Rashid not to be rushed and, although the experience with the squad shouldn’t do him any harm, surely the arrival of Mushtaq as spin coach will do Rashid the greatest benefit.
Rashid is third in line for the premier England spinners role. Panesar currently holds that role and he will most definately be collaring Mushtaq for all the advice he can give. Panesar’s lack of development in the recent year is an ongoing concern for the England management and with Graeme Swann impressing in India combined with Rashid’s continual development, Panesar must be nervously looking over his shoulder.
Let’s hope the Mushy magic will rub off on Monty and the rest of England’s spinning prodigies.
(article for The Corridor (www.cricket.mailliw.com))
Certainly, his expertise could and should be greatly felt by England’s slow bowlers. Adil Rashid, the Yorkshire leg-spinning prodigy, could benefit greatly from the wily Pakistani. Rashid has been included in England’s Test squad for the tour of the West Indies, although it isn’t expected that he’ll be pushing for a starting place. Pundits and former players are desperate for Rashid not to be rushed and, although the experience with the squad shouldn’t do him any harm, surely the arrival of Mushtaq as spin coach will do Rashid the greatest benefit.
Rashid is third in line for the premier England spinners role. Panesar currently holds that role and he will most definately be collaring Mushtaq for all the advice he can give. Panesar’s lack of development in the recent year is an ongoing concern for the England management and with Graeme Swann impressing in India combined with Rashid’s continual development, Panesar must be nervously looking over his shoulder.
Let’s hope the Mushy magic will rub off on Monty and the rest of England’s spinning prodigies.
(article for The Corridor (www.cricket.mailliw.com))
3 January 2009
Town isn’t big enough for KP and Mooresy
It appears obvious to English fans that Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores just aren’t a winning formula ala Vaughan/Fletcher. Events have been spiced up by KP’s apparent anger over the failure to recall Vaughan for the tour to the West Indies and many feel that the coach and the captain are unable to work together.
If this is so, and Pietersen has demanded face to face talks with the ECB as reported, then which man goes? English cricket desperately needs KP as captain at the moment. That ugly Stanford business and results in India aside, Pietersen has handled himself and his position excellently since his appointment. And there’s his incredible batting form, too.
Moores’ record is less flattering. He has overseen four series defeats out of the seven that England have played under his leadership, lost the once proud unbeaten home record and generally been in charge whilst the side has gone backwards.
Indeed Michael Vaughan found it tougher to work with Moores than the Fletcher days. See the Darren Pattinson debacle for evidence.
If KP is to issue an ultimatum then it is hard to see the ECB siding with the coach over the captain. However, what would that say about Pietersen’s strength and influence as a mere team captain? Having the captain decide who is and who isn’t good enough to be coach would not sit well with cricketing purists and ECB bigwigs.
Rest assured, the fireworks are still to go off on this one.
Mark Tilley is new here. Don’t bite his head off yet
(The Corridor, 2009)
If this is so, and Pietersen has demanded face to face talks with the ECB as reported, then which man goes? English cricket desperately needs KP as captain at the moment. That ugly Stanford business and results in India aside, Pietersen has handled himself and his position excellently since his appointment. And there’s his incredible batting form, too.
Moores’ record is less flattering. He has overseen four series defeats out of the seven that England have played under his leadership, lost the once proud unbeaten home record and generally been in charge whilst the side has gone backwards.
Indeed Michael Vaughan found it tougher to work with Moores than the Fletcher days. See the Darren Pattinson debacle for evidence.
If KP is to issue an ultimatum then it is hard to see the ECB siding with the coach over the captain. However, what would that say about Pietersen’s strength and influence as a mere team captain? Having the captain decide who is and who isn’t good enough to be coach would not sit well with cricketing purists and ECB bigwigs.
Rest assured, the fireworks are still to go off on this one.
Mark Tilley is new here. Don’t bite his head off yet
(The Corridor, 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
