‘I am the master of my destiny; I am the captain of my soul.’
I wonder if, by any chance, Andrew Strauss is a fan of William Ernest Henley? His above quote is entirely appropriate for the England captain. His sublime, bold innings of 142 on the first day of the Fourth Test wasn’t merely a sole brilliant innings, drifting alone in a sea of low scores. It was his second big hundred of the series following on from that majestic 169 in Antigua. Both innings have come just after his captaincy of the side has been announced - a coincidence? Not on your life.
Strauss’ world class form is fundamentally linked to him being appointed captain. When in charge of the team, he is as confident as the gargantuan slog sweep for six that brought up his hundred in Barbados. The Jamaica debacle aside, Strauss has been quite brilliant with the bat this series and it follows his twin centuries in Chennai earlier this winter, made in much trickier conditions. Yes, the pitches so far this series may be as flat and as batsman friendly as your local village green but take nothing away from Strauss. His batting is ridiculously formidable at the moment and will hopefully tide over into that small matter of the Ashes later this summer.
It is not the first time Strauss’ batting and his captaincy have had a concurrent relationship. Way back in the heady days of 2006, when Monty Panesar was still a hugely promising young bowler, running rings round the Pakistani batsmen, Strauss was made captain in Andrew Flintoff’s enforced absence. He duly cracked two counter attacking second innings hundreds in the series and helped himself to as much acclaim from as many quarters as possible. He even wedged himself into contention to captain that winter’s Ashes series down under; he lost out to Andrew Flintoff and we all know what happened there.
Strauss’ form dipped dramatically from that moment on, likely as a result of his casting aside from the England selectors. He had a poor Ashes series, registering only one score of over fifty in the drubbing at Melbourne and proceeded to be equally as profligate in the home series with the West Indies and India. Without a Test hundred since that Pakistan series, he was dropped for the series in Sri Lanka, where England took something of a pasting, and managed to scrap his way back onto the tour of New Zealand. He hit a staggeringly huge hundred, although he was hardly at his convincing best and then reinforced his position with some sporadically good performances over that following summer. All of which has led to the Strauss that we now find ourselves with.
Strauss isn’t the only man to see his batting flourish in the role of captain. Many lament Flintoff’s captaincy and his form during the brief and painful time he was in charge but perhaps those critics forget his first few Tests in charge. Four consecutive fifties in four innings in India helped England to a famous draw, immediately after he was tossed into the breach as captain. It is noteworthy that his bowling also earned him a whole dictionaries worth of superlatives.
And who can forget Kevin Pietersen’s hundred at the Oval last summer in his first game as captain? There were concerns that the leadership of the side would hinder his explosive style of batting but Pietersen combined attacking flamboyance with restrained defence to score a wonderful century (before getting out next ball). He also weighed in with a supreme 144 in India this winter, even finding the time to unveil his unique switch hitting abilities.
Captaincy of a side can drive a man to great things. One needs only observe Ricky Ponting’s single minded determination to win back the Ashes in 2006. Ponting, found liable by many an Australian media outlet for the defeat in the 2005 Ashes, embodied a man possessed as he scored a massive volume of runs, crushing English spirit and hopes and showing his own side the way forward. His 196 in Brisbane was a master class of batting and a pure example of a captain showing his team what is possible. And don’t forget Graeme Smith’s courageous, match-winning 154 not out at Edgbaston against England last summer. Here was a man and a captain so determined to win a game and a series for his nation that he closed his mind to the possibility of getting out or anything else and just batted and batted and batted.
Strauss’ performances so far as captain have only served to reinforce the theory that his batting form is inextricably linked with the captaincy. Maybe it is just an ego thing, a man desperate for his name to be up in lights. Or maybe it’s just a man charged with representing and leading his country by example. Maybe it’s the responsibility that sits so well with Strauss - the need to back up his position with good scores and the desire to not have his authority or his place undermined. Either way, it’s extremely refreshing to see Strauss in such good form and providing there are no more dramas regarding English captaincy between now and July, then he could be in the best possible position to perform his own version of Ponting’s 2006 heroics and seriously murder some inexperienced Australian bowling. Here’s hoping the rest of the team can follow the example.
(The Corridor, 2009)
28 February 2009
27 February 2009
The Abraham Project
Spread the world, people: Bristol is fighting back. In an era of trip-hop and lucid ‘Skins’ style raves, there is one act who are putting two fingers up to the norm musical genre of this great city. The Abraham Project, formed in the green Bristolian suburbs, have all the raw, untapped potential that you’d expect in a young band. But alongside the gritty, penetrating lyrics and the soaring, emotional live performances, there’s a unique youthful exuberance to this quintet that is quite endearing and makes you believe they really are destined for greatness.
Formed of Tom, Matt, Jamie, (Matt) Bates and James, The Abraham Project are set to lead the revival of rock music in this part of the country. Their one-of-a-kind, explosive yet harnessed sound has been heard in many a local venue in this neck of the woods and, sure, they’re rough around the edges but should their voice be spread to pastures new, they will surely be in a perfect position to usher in a new generation of Bristol rockers.
Ask anyone of their already staggeringly large fan-base; they’ll all tell you of lead singer Tom’s scintillating omnipresence on stage. They’ll wax lyrical over Jamie’s relentless and rhythmical drumming. They’ll enthuse over the captivating way in which these boys deliver their message; they’ve arrived and they expect to go places so get used to it.
There’s a mature swagger in which they carry themselves. Be it in the manner in which they blast out Tales of a Wilton Nightmare (their usual opening song) or in the way in which they know and understand just how good they really can be. Frontman Tom is clear when he states the band’s ambitions. “We’ve got nothing to be afraid of. We know how far we’re going to go and we’re fine with it.” Pure arrogance, without a doubt, but in an industry that chews you up and spits you out, it helps to have a mean streak.
They have an eclectic range of influences, citing Arcade Fire, The Cure, Portishead and Cypress Hill as some of their favourites. And if you listen closely enough, it is evident that their musical education has featured heavily in their song formation. The melodies are brutal in their sheer originality and in the way they force themselves into the audience’s psyche and transform the feel and atmosphere of the occasion.
The Abraham Project are destined for greatness - and they know it. Once you fall in love with the songs and the lyrics and image of this band, then it’s just the rule-the-world attitude that's left to disarm you. And believe me, it will.
(Unsigned band review, 2009)
Formed of Tom, Matt, Jamie, (Matt) Bates and James, The Abraham Project are set to lead the revival of rock music in this part of the country. Their one-of-a-kind, explosive yet harnessed sound has been heard in many a local venue in this neck of the woods and, sure, they’re rough around the edges but should their voice be spread to pastures new, they will surely be in a perfect position to usher in a new generation of Bristol rockers.
Ask anyone of their already staggeringly large fan-base; they’ll all tell you of lead singer Tom’s scintillating omnipresence on stage. They’ll wax lyrical over Jamie’s relentless and rhythmical drumming. They’ll enthuse over the captivating way in which these boys deliver their message; they’ve arrived and they expect to go places so get used to it.
There’s a mature swagger in which they carry themselves. Be it in the manner in which they blast out Tales of a Wilton Nightmare (their usual opening song) or in the way in which they know and understand just how good they really can be. Frontman Tom is clear when he states the band’s ambitions. “We’ve got nothing to be afraid of. We know how far we’re going to go and we’re fine with it.” Pure arrogance, without a doubt, but in an industry that chews you up and spits you out, it helps to have a mean streak.
They have an eclectic range of influences, citing Arcade Fire, The Cure, Portishead and Cypress Hill as some of their favourites. And if you listen closely enough, it is evident that their musical education has featured heavily in their song formation. The melodies are brutal in their sheer originality and in the way they force themselves into the audience’s psyche and transform the feel and atmosphere of the occasion.
The Abraham Project are destined for greatness - and they know it. Once you fall in love with the songs and the lyrics and image of this band, then it’s just the rule-the-world attitude that's left to disarm you. And believe me, it will.
(Unsigned band review, 2009)
The League, sorry, Carling Cup 2009
On the verge of yet another Carling Cup Final for Tottenham, I found myself feeling the unrelenting need to preview the game. And when I got down to it, this* was the only thing that kept replaying itself, rather annoyingly, in my head.
Oh Pedro, you could have had the world but for a few more centimetres and a competent linesman. If the karma gods are reading this blog, then please take heed, do the right thing and carry out the appropriate retribution on Sunday at Wembley. Come on you Spurs.
* This and a painful image of Berbatov scoring a clinical hat-trick and nonchalantly shrugging his shoulders in celebration.
Oh Pedro, you could have had the world but for a few more centimetres and a competent linesman. If the karma gods are reading this blog, then please take heed, do the right thing and carry out the appropriate retribution on Sunday at Wembley. Come on you Spurs.
* This and a painful image of Berbatov scoring a clinical hat-trick and nonchalantly shrugging his shoulders in celebration.
24 February 2009
Leaving town in order to beat the credit crunch
Winter is coming to an end; but the dark gloom of the recession still continues to loom large on these shores. As the economic situation shows no signs of improving, the notion of overseas opportunities is looking more appealing to many Brits. The credit crunch may be a global problem but, according to Kate Hughes in The Independent, there are some safer havens to choose from.
Several countries are nominated as good locations for moving funds. Oliver Watson, regional managing director of international recruitment consultant Michael Page, suggests that a "sound gross domestic product (GDP) and an economy linked to natural resources" are what should be looked for when searching for the best places to relocate your dwindling finances. Brazil is identified as a potential location - their economy is suffering but the effects aren't as bad as other countries. Brazil's global location means that it isn't privy to the sort of debts that Western countries have accrued.
Another interesting choice mooted is New Zealand. The steady nature of their economy means that they too have weathered the storm better than most and their newly elected government is dedicated to keeping the economy at such a level. Also, the financial situation has changed the national stance on immigration and immigrants with money to spend are highly likely to be allowed in.
A traditionally high savings rate means that China and Malaysia are suitable candidates. China's low level of government debt and the tendency for Asian banks to fund lending through deposits (‘the old fashioned way', as Hughes puts it), means that cash levels are still high in the part of the world, despite the strong link between Eastern and Western economies. The apparent strength in natural resources comes into play as well in Middle Eastern areas such as Abu Dhabi and Qatar. A large amount of oil reserves means that economic growth in this area should return quicker than most countries. Add that to the fact that great deals of businesses move out there for long term investment and you have a potentially booming market.
Are there places to avoid? You can bet your savings there are. Australia seems to be one to stay away from; just listen to Mark Bodega, of the currency trader HiFX.com. "The government has halved its economic growth forecast for 2008/09 to 1 per cent, and the central bank cut interest rates to 3.25 per cent, the lowest in 45 years." People are even being advised to avoid previous economic stronghold Dubai. Redundancies there are becoming more and more common and property values are dropping like flies.
All in all, it seems that there are options for even the most suffering of British money holders. It appears that proper, lengthy planning and research is the key to a successful move abroad. The economies of even the best options are hardly secure at the moment and there are other costs to consider if one is serious about leaving the UK for pastures new - think Visa's, healthcare, travel expenses, the usual. The bottom line? If you want to leave, don't just take into account the better weather or you'll end up with more problems than just sunburn.
(Startupoverseas.co.uk, 2009)
Several countries are nominated as good locations for moving funds. Oliver Watson, regional managing director of international recruitment consultant Michael Page, suggests that a "sound gross domestic product (GDP) and an economy linked to natural resources" are what should be looked for when searching for the best places to relocate your dwindling finances. Brazil is identified as a potential location - their economy is suffering but the effects aren't as bad as other countries. Brazil's global location means that it isn't privy to the sort of debts that Western countries have accrued.
Another interesting choice mooted is New Zealand. The steady nature of their economy means that they too have weathered the storm better than most and their newly elected government is dedicated to keeping the economy at such a level. Also, the financial situation has changed the national stance on immigration and immigrants with money to spend are highly likely to be allowed in.
A traditionally high savings rate means that China and Malaysia are suitable candidates. China's low level of government debt and the tendency for Asian banks to fund lending through deposits (‘the old fashioned way', as Hughes puts it), means that cash levels are still high in the part of the world, despite the strong link between Eastern and Western economies. The apparent strength in natural resources comes into play as well in Middle Eastern areas such as Abu Dhabi and Qatar. A large amount of oil reserves means that economic growth in this area should return quicker than most countries. Add that to the fact that great deals of businesses move out there for long term investment and you have a potentially booming market.
Are there places to avoid? You can bet your savings there are. Australia seems to be one to stay away from; just listen to Mark Bodega, of the currency trader HiFX.com. "The government has halved its economic growth forecast for 2008/09 to 1 per cent, and the central bank cut interest rates to 3.25 per cent, the lowest in 45 years." People are even being advised to avoid previous economic stronghold Dubai. Redundancies there are becoming more and more common and property values are dropping like flies.
All in all, it seems that there are options for even the most suffering of British money holders. It appears that proper, lengthy planning and research is the key to a successful move abroad. The economies of even the best options are hardly secure at the moment and there are other costs to consider if one is serious about leaving the UK for pastures new - think Visa's, healthcare, travel expenses, the usual. The bottom line? If you want to leave, don't just take into account the better weather or you'll end up with more problems than just sunburn.
(Startupoverseas.co.uk, 2009)
Lara’s Test record in danger
A word on Younus Khan. The Pakistani captain stands on the verge of history going into the final day of the first Test between Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In an incredibly high scoring game, Younus has contributed 306 runs to his side’s current score of 574-5 and needs another 95 to beat Brian Lara’s record score of 400 not out. The insanely flat pitch has helped but it’s a special effort to score that volume of runs and, record or not, Younus deserves as much acclaim as possible.
The statisticians will be having a field day whatever happens tomorrow in Karachi. Can Younus do it?
(The Corridor, 2009)
The statisticians will be having a field day whatever happens tomorrow in Karachi. Can Younus do it?
(The Corridor, 2009)
20 February 2009
Just for one more wicket
What a match. When everyone arrived at the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium last Friday, you could have scarcely believed the turn of events that would progress over the next few days. In the end, we were treated to a fantastic Test match, culminating in a brilliant last day in which England tried and tried and ultimately came up short.
One can point to Andrew Flintoff's hip injury, which, despite his lion-hearted, heroic effort, slightly hindered his bowling. However, to say that it lost England the game is inaccurate. They bossed the game and the only time they let the West Indies get on top was the mammoth partnership between the high scoring Ramnaresh Sarwan and Shivnarine Chanderpaul. You can argue that having dominated the game and then not been able to win it shows England for the slightly weakened force they may well be nowadays but in the wake of the Jamaica shambles, the performance was pretty impressive.
Particular highlights? Graeme Swann's display in both innings was highly impressive and was exactly what England fans have been praying for from Monty Panesar in the last few years. His five-wicket haul was the focal point of England's first attempt at bowling to the Windies and was agonisingly close to picking up that final wicket in the dying moments of the match.
Stuart Broad also impressed. He's picked up Chanderpaul's wicket every time he has batted this series and bowled an inspired spell with the new ball on the final day. He batted brilliantly for a number eight in the first innings and Johnathan Agnew on the BBC website was moved to say that he thinks this series could be the making of Broad at international level. Andrew Strauss played a quite superb innings on the first day and was well supported by Owais Shah, Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood. Alistair Cook played his part too although, infuriatingly, he was out in the 50's in both innings of the match.
All in all, England can be proud of their effort. Yes, the inability to pick up the last wicket and win the game was both heart-breaking and disappointing but the whole five days were a good way to bounce back from the shambles of 51 all out the week previous and Strauss will know a lot more about his team and their character. Both teams move on to Barbados next week for the fourth test.
(The Corridor, 2009)
One can point to Andrew Flintoff's hip injury, which, despite his lion-hearted, heroic effort, slightly hindered his bowling. However, to say that it lost England the game is inaccurate. They bossed the game and the only time they let the West Indies get on top was the mammoth partnership between the high scoring Ramnaresh Sarwan and Shivnarine Chanderpaul. You can argue that having dominated the game and then not been able to win it shows England for the slightly weakened force they may well be nowadays but in the wake of the Jamaica shambles, the performance was pretty impressive.
Particular highlights? Graeme Swann's display in both innings was highly impressive and was exactly what England fans have been praying for from Monty Panesar in the last few years. His five-wicket haul was the focal point of England's first attempt at bowling to the Windies and was agonisingly close to picking up that final wicket in the dying moments of the match.
Stuart Broad also impressed. He's picked up Chanderpaul's wicket every time he has batted this series and bowled an inspired spell with the new ball on the final day. He batted brilliantly for a number eight in the first innings and Johnathan Agnew on the BBC website was moved to say that he thinks this series could be the making of Broad at international level. Andrew Strauss played a quite superb innings on the first day and was well supported by Owais Shah, Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood. Alistair Cook played his part too although, infuriatingly, he was out in the 50's in both innings of the match.
All in all, England can be proud of their effort. Yes, the inability to pick up the last wicket and win the game was both heart-breaking and disappointing but the whole five days were a good way to bounce back from the shambles of 51 all out the week previous and Strauss will know a lot more about his team and their character. Both teams move on to Barbados next week for the fourth test.
(The Corridor, 2009)
15 February 2009
England's bowling attack
Is it just me or do England have a seriously good looking attack on display in the current Test match? Speed-wise, even the most skeptical of cricket fans would have to admit it's impressive. Steve Harmison, Andrew Flintoff, James Anderson and, to a slightly lesser extent, Stuart Broad are all genuinely capable of the odd delivery in excess of 90 mph and they give the captain a wealth of options.
Harmison is painfully erratic and may well be a spent force but he is still capable of rattling his opponents, even if his days are becoming increasingly numbered. Flintoff is as reliable and dangerous as ever and Broad is a developing into a threatening force, fresh from his maiden five wicket haul in Jamaica last week. Jimmy Anderson, like Harmison, can be inconsistent but his pace is an asset and he can be a genuine strike bowler, especially when the ball is swinging (anyone remember 7-43 against New Zealand in Nottingham?).
But the decision to replace Monty Panesar with Graeme Swann could also be the most important one. Panesar's recent struggles are heavily documented and he was out-bowled by Swann during England's toiling in India. Swann's ability with the willow also means England can potentially bat down to 9, so if he can turn it on with the ball in the way that Panesar hasn't been able to for a while, then England will surely be forced to give him a run in the side.
Far be it from me to play the role of England selector, but the current bowling attack would probably be my first choice to play when the Aussies come to town in July. I would allow a bit of room for change over the spinner, as Panesar, for all his troubles, is capable of being dangerous but if you pinned me down and asked me for a set of names, then I'd be happy to give you this lot. It's harsh on Ryan Sidebottom but he'd always be in contention to play, dependant on the conditions. The same goes for Simon Jones, although he may or may not ever be fit again.
Thoughts - would anyone rather see Monty back? Is there still life in Harmison? Answers on a postcard please.
(The Corridor, 2009)
Harmison is painfully erratic and may well be a spent force but he is still capable of rattling his opponents, even if his days are becoming increasingly numbered. Flintoff is as reliable and dangerous as ever and Broad is a developing into a threatening force, fresh from his maiden five wicket haul in Jamaica last week. Jimmy Anderson, like Harmison, can be inconsistent but his pace is an asset and he can be a genuine strike bowler, especially when the ball is swinging (anyone remember 7-43 against New Zealand in Nottingham?).
But the decision to replace Monty Panesar with Graeme Swann could also be the most important one. Panesar's recent struggles are heavily documented and he was out-bowled by Swann during England's toiling in India. Swann's ability with the willow also means England can potentially bat down to 9, so if he can turn it on with the ball in the way that Panesar hasn't been able to for a while, then England will surely be forced to give him a run in the side.
Far be it from me to play the role of England selector, but the current bowling attack would probably be my first choice to play when the Aussies come to town in July. I would allow a bit of room for change over the spinner, as Panesar, for all his troubles, is capable of being dangerous but if you pinned me down and asked me for a set of names, then I'd be happy to give you this lot. It's harsh on Ryan Sidebottom but he'd always be in contention to play, dependant on the conditions. The same goes for Simon Jones, although he may or may not ever be fit again.
Thoughts - would anyone rather see Monty back? Is there still life in Harmison? Answers on a postcard please.
(The Corridor, 2009)
13 February 2009
Bouncebackability
It was football manager Iain Dowie who first coined this term, way back when his Crystal Palace side were struggling in the English Premier League. The phrase refers to a teams ability to bounce back from a defeat or any kind of adversity. Well, this England cricket side have suffered said adversity and then some. How do they respond to the humiliation of last week’s 51 all out?
The expected change has come. Owais Shah replaces Ian Bell at number three in the order and Steve Harmison has also been left out, in favour of James Anderson. Will it make the difference that England need? Shah’s inclusion has been long championed by England fans and pundits alike. It is perhaps a tad harsh on Harmison who didn’t bowl terribly badly in Jamaica but perhaps the feeling was that a change was needed.
The outfield is a concern in Antigua. Heavy rainfall has left area’s of the ground covered in sand and the bowlers run up, in particular, is an point of worry. However, England shouldn’t use the conditions as an excuse. They have a lot of making up to do and they had better start it soon. Alistair Cook could do with a big score to settle the doubters about him and if Kevin Pietersen should find himself in the late 90’s again, surely he will be looking for singles this time.
All in all, it looks like a fascinating Test. A nerve-wracking one too, if you’re an England follower.
(The Corridor, 2009)
The expected change has come. Owais Shah replaces Ian Bell at number three in the order and Steve Harmison has also been left out, in favour of James Anderson. Will it make the difference that England need? Shah’s inclusion has been long championed by England fans and pundits alike. It is perhaps a tad harsh on Harmison who didn’t bowl terribly badly in Jamaica but perhaps the feeling was that a change was needed.
The outfield is a concern in Antigua. Heavy rainfall has left area’s of the ground covered in sand and the bowlers run up, in particular, is an point of worry. However, England shouldn’t use the conditions as an excuse. They have a lot of making up to do and they had better start it soon. Alistair Cook could do with a big score to settle the doubters about him and if Kevin Pietersen should find himself in the late 90’s again, surely he will be looking for singles this time.
All in all, it looks like a fascinating Test. A nerve-wracking one too, if you’re an England follower.
(The Corridor, 2009)
10 February 2009
Charitable cricket
Australia have levelled the five game one day series with New Zealand, after a 6 wicket win in Adelaide - but the cricket was overshadowed, in part, in the wake of the disastrous Victoria bushfire. Sponsors of the series, Commonwealth Bank, pledged to donate $5000 for every six hit in the game and $100 for every run scored, meaning that by the end of play they had raised just over $6 million, via donations from players, TV viewers, cricket boards etc.
Australian squad member Peter Siddle, not playing in the game, spent the game roaming around the crowd, asking for donations from generous members of the Australian cricketing public. Siddle’s family live in an area affected by the fires and he revealed that a member of his family had lost friends to the deadly blazes.
It’s good to see that in a time of a national crisis that cricket and sport in general can still play it’s part, however small or trivial. The incentive to hit sixes and raise more money could have also increased not only the entertainment factor but the chance of players giving their wickets away. However, batsman were not to be deterred and as Michael Hussey crashed a six over long on to win the game, their was a sense not of one team winning and one losing but of both doing their part to help out.
The obscene amount of money raised will certainly play it’s part in the rebuilding phase of this tragedy and cricket, on this occasion, can be proud of it’s collective self. It’s always heartwarming to see teams and nations rally when their countries are in crisis - Sachin Tendulkar’s wonderful hundred to beat England in Chennai last December was a tribute to those lost in the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
This act of generosity from both Australia and New Zealand and the sponsors of the series ensured that although Australia have fought back from two matchs down, the saddening loss of life will still be at the forefront of Australian minds. Good on them.
And, by the by, it looks like it’s going to be a cracker of a series decider in Brisbane on Friday.
(The Corridor, 2009)
Australian squad member Peter Siddle, not playing in the game, spent the game roaming around the crowd, asking for donations from generous members of the Australian cricketing public. Siddle’s family live in an area affected by the fires and he revealed that a member of his family had lost friends to the deadly blazes.
It’s good to see that in a time of a national crisis that cricket and sport in general can still play it’s part, however small or trivial. The incentive to hit sixes and raise more money could have also increased not only the entertainment factor but the chance of players giving their wickets away. However, batsman were not to be deterred and as Michael Hussey crashed a six over long on to win the game, their was a sense not of one team winning and one losing but of both doing their part to help out.
The obscene amount of money raised will certainly play it’s part in the rebuilding phase of this tragedy and cricket, on this occasion, can be proud of it’s collective self. It’s always heartwarming to see teams and nations rally when their countries are in crisis - Sachin Tendulkar’s wonderful hundred to beat England in Chennai last December was a tribute to those lost in the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
This act of generosity from both Australia and New Zealand and the sponsors of the series ensured that although Australia have fought back from two matchs down, the saddening loss of life will still be at the forefront of Australian minds. Good on them.
And, by the by, it looks like it’s going to be a cracker of a series decider in Brisbane on Friday.
(The Corridor, 2009)
7 February 2009
All to play for
The first test is evenly poised - England were slightly disappointing with the bat but still managed to post a competitive total. With the ball, they were admirable but the gargantuan partnership between Chris Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan meant that damage limitation was always going to be the objective. Having said that, England fought their way back into it, led by the irrepressible Andrew Flintoff.
The fourth day looms with the West Indies holding a slender 34 run lead, with three wickets left. If England can wrap up the innings quickly then a good second innings could set up a victory charge on the final day. However, Brendan Nash currently stands in their way, having repelled everything England threw at him last night in a painfully slow but important innings. If the Windies can forge a lead of over 60 or 70 then the pressure will all be on England.
England? Pressure? No problem. It’s not like they’re prone to a batting collapse when trying to save the game, although Adelaide in 2006 and Hamilton in 2008 do spring to mind. However, having put the mockers on England, my money is on the draw. The Windies have looked impressive so far, much more disciplined than what many have come to expect from them. England have fought it out but haven’t been at their best and with two days to go, the only chance of a victory for either team is a massive effort from whoever wants it most. Like I said, I think they’ll settle on a draw and move on.
Thoughts on the outcome of the game?
(The Corridor, 2009)
The fourth day looms with the West Indies holding a slender 34 run lead, with three wickets left. If England can wrap up the innings quickly then a good second innings could set up a victory charge on the final day. However, Brendan Nash currently stands in their way, having repelled everything England threw at him last night in a painfully slow but important innings. If the Windies can forge a lead of over 60 or 70 then the pressure will all be on England.
England? Pressure? No problem. It’s not like they’re prone to a batting collapse when trying to save the game, although Adelaide in 2006 and Hamilton in 2008 do spring to mind. However, having put the mockers on England, my money is on the draw. The Windies have looked impressive so far, much more disciplined than what many have come to expect from them. England have fought it out but haven’t been at their best and with two days to go, the only chance of a victory for either team is a massive effort from whoever wants it most. Like I said, I think they’ll settle on a draw and move on.
Thoughts on the outcome of the game?
(The Corridor, 2009)
3 February 2009
Party like its 2006/07
People who regularly read me will know that I’m not the kind of writer to instantly jump to the defence of my team, regardless of fact or subjectivity. It could be argued that I’m more critical of those overpaid idiots at White Hart Lane than most are - support a team like mine and, trust me, you‘ll be at the same stage of disappointment and self-loathing. However, recent events and a handful of comments have provoked me to defend the activities of a club, often laughed at up and down the land and rarely respected by too many.Tottenham’s resigning of Jermain Defoe in early January was a Godsend; bereft of proven strikers all season, apart from the excellent (at times) Roman Pavlyuchenko, Spurs’ poor form was being blamed mainly on a lack of firepower in the attacking region. Eyebrows were raised though when defender Pascal Chimbonda was brought back to the club from Sunderland, having left in the summer. Harry Redknapp cited Chimbonda’s ability to play anywhere in defence as a main justification; Spurs were anything but short of defenders, hence the eyebrow elevation.
However, the biggest shock of them all was reserved for the third returning player - a certain Robbie Keane. Mr Keane’s homecoming makes good business sense. Spurs sold him, albeit reluctantly, for £20 million in the summer to his ‘boyhood team’ Liverpool, where he was, by most accounts, a failure. Lack of playing time and trust from his coach Rafael Benitez lead to a return of five league goals in nineteen games and to Keane admitting ‘the move had not worked out’. Tottenham stole him back for a measly £12 million.
Spurs have been criticised in a few, small quarters for their apparent ‘bring back all old players’ policy - at this rate, don’t be surprised to see Hoddle and Blanchflower making a return to N17. It’s been said that Tottenham look foolish, like they’re covering their mistakes by getting back players they didn’t think they needed at the time.
I would take issue with that opinion. These players were sold under the infamous reign of Juande Ramos. At a time when, Keane aside, they were deemed surplus to requirements, the players were sold and for a tidy sum, as well. Defoe was frozen out by the brilliant partnership of Keane and Dimitar Berbatov, whereas Chimbonda was a problem player and was sold as part of a summer clearout of deadwood. Ramos was shaping his own team, for better or worse and he didn’t necessarily want or need these players around.
Having then lost his job, it is clear Ramos was wrong. Redknapp is now trying to rectify that mistake, not by signing every single player back but by covering his options. Tottenham horribly needed strikers and they got arguably two of the best in the league. Defoe, a proven goal getter, and Keane, already on his way to becoming a Tottenham legend - not bad in front of goal, too. If it looks stupid to be buying back our old players, then so be it. But if Redknapp chose those two strikers as the ones he wanted, regardless of their status as former Spurs players, then good for him.
Admittedly, the signing of Chimbonda puzzles me, but he was so cheap, it becomes immaterial. Defoe, as he would be, is now injured and out until April. The Gods, it seems, aren’t smiling on the Lilywhites and they will need Keane to continue the great form he showed at the Lane over the last three seasons. The Liverpool debacle would have been hard for him and his ego to endure. But given a bit of man-management from the boss, Robbie should be firing on every single cylinder possible. And he’d do well to start again against Arsenal at the weekend.
If Redknapp himself had sold all these players and then tried to get them back, then the criticism would be entirely justified. But he’s trying to build his own team and save Tottenham’s skin from their awful season. Needless to say the fans are pleased by crowd favourites coming back to the Lane to emotional ovations (maybe not Chimbonda). For now, I and many other Spurs fans are enjoying the sight of Keane and co. back in Tottenham shirts. Although, we can hold off on signing Ricky Villa for just a few more weeks, I think.
1 February 2009
Oval result recieves another ICC U-turn
The ICC have, once again, changed the result of that infamous Oval Test match between England and Pakistan in 2006. The match, notable for the allegations against Pakistan of ball-tampering and the subsequent decision of the Pakistani's to delay play by not re-entering the field after tea, was originally given as a win for England. Last July, the ICC decided to change the official result to a draw. However, the powers that be have decided to re-instate England's 'win' and the result of series will go down as 3-0 to England.
Haroon Lorgat, ICC Chief Executive, has said that the decision ensures 'the integrity of the game'. Is it the right decision. The adjusted series scoreline certainly flatters England as they did not deserve to win that Oval Test - Pakistan held a huge first innings lead and England had just about made up that deficit when the drama all kicked off.
However, awarding Pakistan a draw would be like rewarding them for not playing the game. Whether they were guilty or not in the whole ball-tampering fiasco, no team should have the power to delay a game on their terms. They should have been aware of the consequences of their actions and accepted the decision. As much as the umpires were in the wrong, the one thing they did right was to follow the rules of the game.
Far be it from me though to say what is right and what is wrong. Have the ICC made the right decision, finally? Thoughs, comments and answers are encouraged below please.
(article for The Corridor)
Haroon Lorgat, ICC Chief Executive, has said that the decision ensures 'the integrity of the game'. Is it the right decision. The adjusted series scoreline certainly flatters England as they did not deserve to win that Oval Test - Pakistan held a huge first innings lead and England had just about made up that deficit when the drama all kicked off.
However, awarding Pakistan a draw would be like rewarding them for not playing the game. Whether they were guilty or not in the whole ball-tampering fiasco, no team should have the power to delay a game on their terms. They should have been aware of the consequences of their actions and accepted the decision. As much as the umpires were in the wrong, the one thing they did right was to follow the rules of the game.
Far be it from me though to say what is right and what is wrong. Have the ICC made the right decision, finally? Thoughs, comments and answers are encouraged below please.
(article for The Corridor)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
