Past Achievement vs. Future Promise

It's been a mixed couple of days for England's cricketers.

Graeme Swann's fortunes appeared to have continued on a downward spiral, post-Catgate, as his name was left off the ICC longlist for cricketer of the year. This snub -- and any resulting effects -- lasted barely 24 hours, though, as he was added to the list, and promptly picked up his 98th, 99th, 100th, and 101st Test wickets.

At the other end of the scale, Alastair Cook continued his rather ignominious battle with Salman Butt (batting totals in last five innings: 1, 8, 7, 0, 17) for the title of 'least in form left-handed opener of the series' by adding a meagre 6 runs to his aggregate of 41 in 4 previous innings.

I'm more than prepared to eat a whole dish of humble pie this evening, following a gritty 120 from Cookie that forms the backbone of an eventually-match-winning 200+ lead. The trouble is, I don't think he's going to deliver. Yes, Cook may be the second-youngest batsman in the world, after a certain ST, to reach 4000 Test runs. But past achievement, even when compared with the current greatness of a batsman such as Tendulkar, is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

Graeme Swann's achievements provide an interesting point of comparison. The third of Swann's four wickets yesterday placed him on an intriguing list of players to take 100 wickets in 23 Tests. The names Mankad, Underwood, Warne, McGrath, Mushtaq, and Kaneria will no doubt catch the eye, but it is another English name that is of note, here: nestled between the two great Pakistani spinners is one Stephen James Harmison.

In his prime, Harmison was undeniably a good -- even, on a certain March morning at Sabina Park in 2004, a great -- bowler. But he will never be lauded along with the Indian, English, Australian, and Pakistani names that he and Swann both join at 23 on the 100 list.

Swann's performances over the next years -- not his achievements over the past 23 matches -- will determine whether he goes the way, in English bowling terms, of Underwood or Harmison. Cook's fortunes, similarly, hang in the balance; though a decision on his future may come sooner rather than later.

[POSTSCRIPT, 3pm: Cook falls, 10 runs short of the fairly arbitrary total I set him. Mmmm, tasty.]

On the Kelvin Scale

Graeme Swann's drink-driving charges this week might have been seen as a distraction from the task in hand, as the no. 3 in the World Test bowling rankings was forced to miss training a mere 48 hours before the third Test against Pakistan. What caught the eye in the Cricinfo report on Swann's absence on Monday, however, was the input from the no. 3 in the England T20 batting lineup, one 'Kelvin' Pietersen.

The form of Kaypee, former captain and once the first name on [insert England coach here]'s team-sheet, has been a worry of late. Stephen Brenkley has written about the dipping Test average that will soon plumb depths from which even a Man of the Series Twenty20 performance won't be able to drag him. What this story about Swann shows, however, to the English media and -- equally importantly -- the Australian dressing-room alike, is that here is a cricketer who remains at the heart of (*yuk*) 'Team England': it is KP's twitted comments on Swannee's predicament that make the headlines, ahead of the more professional summary of the team captain.

And it reveals something about Swann, too: even within the England team there are grumblings about the South-African-born contingent. I wonder how Andrew Strauss feels about that?

Why Cricket Doesn't Matter

Umar Gul and Yasir Hameed are two players who have not been at the centre of the Pakistani cricket uproar in recent weeks, but they are significant for two reasons. Firstly, they have provided the Pakistani team with some rare high points in a lacklustre all-round performance in the little-more-than-five days of Test cricket in the series so far: Gul's 65* from no. 9 was not only the team's highest score of the first innings of the first Test, it came at a S/R comfortably higher than those around him, a stat that he reproduced in the second innings; his stats as a bowler have been pretty good, too, with 4 wickets at a respectable 31.5. Hameed's single contribution had less of an impact, but his ability to do what very few of his team-mates had done -- actually hold onto a catch -- makes his role in the side a noteworthy one.

Secondly, however, there is the question of the provenance of these two men. Whilst most of the squad are Punjabi by birth -- nearly half were born in Lahore, in the east of the country -- these two hail from Peshawar, in North-Western Frontier Province. For those of you who've been living under a rock, Gul and Hameed could be forgiven for having things other than the thwack of leather on willow on their mind at present: with current statistics for the flooding in Pakistan touching 12 million affected out of a population of 166 million, it doesn't take a vast imaginative leap to consider that these two -- if not a greater number of the tourists -- might have been directly affected in some way.

It seems to be the done thing at the moment, after successive batting collapses of monumentally inept proportions, to lambast the Pakistani cricket team. Well, after five years that have seen a major earthquake in the vicinity, a terrorist attack on a fellow international cricket team in Lahore, and now this month's floods -- not to mention, within the sport, match-fixing allegations, international bans and the rest -- is it any wonder that they're a bit . . . ermm . . . out of sorts?

A couple of days after my recent post about Murali's status as an all-time great, I read a newspaper piece that suggested Warne's career achievements were the greater as he got a lower percentage of his wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. I think if the recent travails of the Pakistanis show us anything, they serve as a reminder that the fortunes of all international cricket teams rise and fall -- West Indies after 2003 would be a good example, but England teams of the 90s and early 00s were fairly shocking, too -- and for reasons that don't always have everything to do with the sport. This is the beauty of international cricket: that it is at one and the same time a serious business for millions of people, and something that -- when faced with the natural and political disasters of certain regions of the world -- matters not a jot.

Four Months to Go

Strange though it may seem, given that we're still a few days shy of August, tomorrow sees the start of England's final Test series before this winter's Ashes. Though Alec Stewart was right to call for a focus on the opponents in hand when he surveyed England's prospects against Pakistan, thoughts will inevitably -- given the English sporting media's tendency towards future-focused hype; see coverage of London 2012, f'rinstance -- be turned at least partially Brisbane-wards.

I'm willing to be proved wrong (or, indeed, argued against) here, but I reckon Messrs Cook, Strauss, Pietersen, Collingwood, Broad, Swann, and Anderson are -- barring injury -- guaranteed a place in the starting XI come the 25th of November. So who has something to prove?

Jonathan Trott

He can't dine out on that Ashes-winning century for ever; the rest of the world have since figured out his mental frailties, and Bollinger, Johnson and co. aren't likely to cut him any slack.

Prediction: in the XI at 3/4.

Ian Bell

Ok, so the Australians aren't going to lose any sleep over seeing his name on the team-sheet, but he's still England's best option to join Paul Collingwood and steady the ship and the middle order, and he's also their most technically gifted batsman of his generation. There, I said it. Shoot me.

Prediction: in the XI at 6.

Eoin Morgan

The selectors have taken a commendable gamble on Morgan's ability to adapt to Test cricket. Could still stake a place in the XI, but barring an injury to Bell I think he'll be carrying the drinks.

Prediction: in the squad.

Ravi Bopara

Behind Trott, Bell, and Morgan in the pecking order, but should get a place in the squad if he can continue his sparkling recent county form.

Prediction: in the squad.

Owais Shah

Look, some batsmen -- Nick Knight springs to mind -- are fated to base their international careers on the shorter form of the game, and their Test careers never really get going. Can Shah be once and for all consigned to that pile, please?

Prediction: a white Christmas.

Luke Wright

No, he will never be Botham; no, England don't automatically need an all-rounder (newsflash: Flintoff wasn't all that, for much of his career); yes, it's time to let him go.

Prediction: walking in a winter wonderland.

Matt Prior

His glovework has improved immeasurably, but his batting appears to have gone backwards. He's lucky Craig Kieswetter's 'keeping is nowhere near 5-day standard, yet, or he could be pushed out of the Test team as well as the shorter formats.

Prediction: in the XI.

Craig Kieswetter

Unlikely to get a chance in this series to prove that he can compete with Prior behind the stumps. Will go to Australia as back-up, if needed.

Prediction: in the squad.

Steve Finn

We have Broad and Swann at first and second changes for control; what we need from an opening partnership -- and I'm assuming Anderson will be asked to 'lead the attack' -- is, frankly, a bit of aggression. Steve Finn -- all 6'7" of him -- provides just that. He may not yet have the stifling accuracy of his idol McGrath, but on Australian pitches his pace and bounce may just be able to trouble Pigeon's old team-mates.

Prediction: in the XI.

Ajmal Shahzad

His performance in the last Test showed enough promise to suggest he'll make an excellent replacement bowler should Broad/Anderson/Finn break down.

Prediction: in the squad.

James Tredwell

England's second-choice Test spinner goes as cover for Swann.

Prediction: in the squad.

Tim Bresnan

Just about scrapes in, for his batting as well as his bowling. I know, I know, in a 4-man attack -- please, England, please -- you don't need that much of a contribution, runs-wise . . . but it just adds a bit of confidence to have someone who can do a bit of willow-wielding down the order.

Prediction: in the squad.

Ryan Sidebottom & Graham Onions

Thanks for the memories, guys, but with the current unexpected crop of young seamers neither of you should get much of a look-in. Injuries suck.

Prediction: watching on tv.

So that gives a 17-man squad -- the 1st XI, 2 back-up batsmen, a 'keeper, a spinner, and 2 seamers -- of: Strauss (c), Anderson, Bell, Bresnan, Bopara, Broad, Collingwood, Cook, Finn, Kieswetter, Morgan, Pietersen, Prior, Shahzad, Swann, Tredwell, Trott.

Now bring on the injuries.

A Certain Smile

It is a truth universally acknowledged -- or, at least, it should be -- that a practising politician weighing in on a sporting topic will nearly always sound contrived. To return to recent football world cup disasters for a moment, take the hideously contrived response from David Cameron to the Frank Lampard 'goal' against Germany, or the Nigerian and French political tantrums over their respective teams' failures.

In general, such incursions on the sporting arena will generate, at most, a bemused shrug from all concerned; in some cases, however, the intrusion of a public figure can cause real damage. John Howard's 2004 description of Muttiah Muralitharan as 'a chucker' was one of these.

Six years on, Muralitharan's Test career has come to an end, and the doubters who -- silently, or vocally -- agreed with the then Australian president are likely to persist in the belief that his astonishing haul of 800 wickets was achieved by means that contravene the careful distinction between throwing and bowling in a cricketing context.

I have to admit, deep down, that I am no exception. That is not to say I believe that what he does is illegal; his birth defect, the flexible joints, and the fact that others have been shown to flex far more in delivering a cricket ball all quash any such allegations. No, I mean that, for me, what Muralitharan has achieved will forever be tainted by the accusations of others. It’s not his fault, by any means, but it did spoil my enjoyment somewhat when I saw the wild celebrations in Galle yesterday when Mahela Jayawardene took his 157th Test catch, Sri Lanka took a 1-0 lead in the series, and Murali’s career finished on a satisfyingly round number.

To set the record straight, then, in tribute to the great man, here are an over's worth of reasons why Murali should be viewed as the greatest bowler of all time.

* 800 Test wickets is an truly mind-boggling total, but the most statistically impressive aspect is the frequency with which they came: over 134 matches, he averaged 5.97 wickets a game. The only bowler in the 10 leading wicket-takers of all time to even get over 5 wpg was Sir Richard Hadlee, whose 431 in 86 averages out at 5.01.

* The pressure generated by his unnerving accuracy at one end generated an unquantifiable number of wickets for the Sri Lankans who bowled in tandem with him. But don't take my word for it; here's Chaminda Vaas: 'It was easy for me to bowl from the other end because he was so tight, I have taken so many wickets thanks to Muralitharan.'

* As much as he was taking wickets for others, he rarely had others to take wickets for him. Vaas and -- more recently -- Malinga were notable exceptions, but in general Murali went it alone. His 5- and 10-wicket hauls -- 67 and 22, respectively -- are testament to this. (Shane Warne, next on the list in both categories, barely achieved half those numbers, with 37 and 10.)

* He certainly wasn't in the side for his batting. Test and ODI high scores of 67 and 33* don't sound too shabby, but these get put into perspective when viewed alongside his batting averages: 11.67 and 6.76 (alongside a T20 average of 0.5!) show that fielding sides were hardly quaking in their boots at the thought of Muralitharan in protective gear.

* He took -- and will keep on taking -- a phenomenal number of wickets in ODIs: 515, and counting (he hasn't yet announced his pyjama retirement). And if he had been born a decade or two later, who knows how many he would have added to his fledgeling haul of 13 T20 wickets?

* Last, and in my opinion certainly not least, he played the game quite literally with a smile. If for no other reason, this is why we should cherish the memory of Murali’s game, for this is what cricket is all about. Murali, as well as being fiendish to face, played with such happiness, such a knowledge that it was all a game. The smile that conveyed that love of entertainment will be his abiding legacy, and also -- one can’t help but feel -- what John Howard would have been met with if he’d voiced his opinion to Murali’s face.


ps. Thanks, as usual, to cricinfo for the stats used in this post.

pps. In other news this week, guess who got his second Test 5-for in as many games? Elementary.

Old Kids on the Block

'Underestimating the Australian cricket team' is an activity that comes about as recommended as taking one's eye off a bouncing football at a crucial moment, even after weeks of press coverage had focused on the unpredictable aerodynamics of said missile, or daring to publicly mourn the loss of a foreign religious leader whose values were opposed to the pro-Israeli opinions held by your supposedly 'objective' and 'liberal' employers (ouch...enough with the politics). And in the time of a McGrath-Warne or Thompson-Lillee partnership, it is one in which an England team could certainly not have been accurately accused of indulging.

Yet the success of the England team in the recent ODI series over their antipodean antagonists, and the somewhat unlikely triumph at the World T20, have started murmurings about a showing in Brisbane in November fit to banish memories of a certain Harmison-Flintoff-second slip incident 4 years ago.

Luckily, such rumblings have not emanated from the two most important figures in the England set-up, The Two Andies ('It's goodbye from him...'). The plain-spoken honesty (is there any other kind? I'm slipping into journalese, myself) of Messrs Strauss and Flower has been praised in recent days by Andy Bull. Underestimating the Aussies -- like overestimating the English -- is not, on this evidence, an option.

And looking at the result from the first neutral Test at Lord's in 98 years, this appears to be a good thing. Not because of the potency of a new generation of potent young pace bowlers: the two men who almost single-handedly took apart the Pakistani team on the second and fourth afternoons at Lord's -- Shane Watson (5-40) and Marcus North (6-55) -- were a 29-year-old journeyman seamer now better known for his batting and a 30-year-old part-time tweaker. Simon Katich's battling pair of 80s won him the man-of-the-match award for Australia, but the two names to join batsmen Charles Kelleway and Warren Bardsley on the neutral Test honours board in the visitors' dressing room at The Home of Cricket were bowlers. England, watch out.

Trust the Tale Over the Artist

Just a quick note on why I decided to start writing this. It took a month for me to get round to it, but looking back the inspiration came from the incomparable Simon Barnes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article7143657.ece

'Everyone has a view: every sincere view is valid.' Well said. When he adds 'the invitation to lose perspective is always there', I couldn't agree more; this blog appears to be about little else, so far...