How does it matter who leads England

Well the breaking news is that England have named two different captains for two limited overs format of the game with Stuart Broad having to lead the side for T20 games while Alistair Cook will henceforth take care of England's one day games. Though this news hardly sparks of any sort of debate, people keeping their fingers crossed are just countable. At least as a cricket blogger, I have no other option but to shed some words regarding the selection or appointment. The tag "No Police State Girls blog" just doesn't seem to go too well with me whatsoever at this moment.

The result of the latest development in England cricket was due to the fact that their then captain Andrew Strauss wants to focus completely on his test career while Paul Collingwood has nothing to say about his T20 career. And, Paul Collingwood has every reason to justify himself when he bought home the country's first glory since decades of cricket that included failures, just misses and chokes. Collingwood's feat was achieved after England had three workld cup finals without a win along with an ICC champion's trophy that too ending up as runners-up. If South Africans would be reading this, they'd just breathe free.

The chokers tag is not totally restricted to South Africa alone and England also have an equal share in it. Coming to the point, one has to rather concentrate on the entire team of England which are in doldrums at present with their latest such thing evident in the world cup. England failed to win matches against Bangladesh and Ireland despite posting a stiff target of 327 on the board against the latter and having the opposition reeling at 111/5 at one stage. Of course, England were able to rarely regain and defend the Ashes on the previous two occasions but that is regarding their test cricket.

Right now, it has to be the entire England team and not just the captain alone whom the ECB needs to focus on. If not for their T20 win last year, England have gone back to their old ways of leaving things half way when they had just one T20 tournament against Pakistan and test series' against the same though which England won convincingly, their body language didn't speak for them. They beat both Pakistan and Australia with destiny favoring them by not having matches against other teams like Sri Lanka and India against whom their real myth is evaluated.

Stewart has a point

Well though the world of cricket hasn't heard much from the former England wicketkeeper - Alec Stewart, whenever Stewart has made it a point to shell out his voice, it seems to count. Stewart, we hear considers the injuries to few of the English players who are currently under the tour of Australia for a 7 match one day series are a boon in disguise for, there is the mega event coming up in the next month for which England has a keen role to play. Players like Stuart Broad, James Anderson, Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann for the 7 match ODI series.

As a matter of fact, this has been the case regarding most of the key players, some of whom are rested for the fear of their non availability for the world cup and others battling injuries, be it minor or major. Players with minor injuries are rested for the fear of the minor injury turning into a major one and regarding the major injury, nothing needs to be said in particular. And, despite the presence of the aforementioned players in the England squad, England is likely to lose the 7 match ODI series against Australia and nothing needs to be worried.

But, if the players are not fit for the world cup, may be England might have 50-50 chances against teams like Bangladesh and West Indies, who can come up with surprises at times. England should well be aware of their loss to Netherlands in the 2^nd world T20 in 2009 and their should-have-been defeat against Ireland earlier this year. With the presence of the current injured players, England may atleast reach the quarter finals of the world cup if not anything else. England is grouped with teams like India and South Africa, who seem to seal the 1^st and the 2^nd position in the charts table at the end of the first stage's play.

One can remember the 1996 world cup where England had losses against all three major teams namely Pakistan, New Zealand and South Africa with which it was grouped and had won matches against Holland and UAE, where victory for England was granted and guaranteed. By default, England finished in the 4^th position and had to enter the quarter finals of that world cup. This time, things look slightly better, with England hoping to win against West Indies in addition to winning against Bangladesh and Ireland provided players are in form and fit at the same time. So was the case in the 2007 WC where England joined hands with Ireland, Bangladesh and South Africa who had wins against only minnows.

By the way do you know what chloedreamland touge is? Well, I'd be checking about it in a moment

Crap the South Africans!

One can imagine the fate of a team which can hardly chase a mere target of less than two hundred runs or defend a total in excess of 300 on its home soil. Though the latter has not been the case yet with the South Africans but, the former did happen yesterday. One need not be told specially that India managed only 190 runs on the board and South Africa required just under four runs an over to end up on the winning side. And, when this task seemed tough for the hosts, their caliber in international cricket definitely needs a rethinking.

Were South Africans really the team that chased down a total of 434 against the then strongest team - Australia, who went on to win their third world cup in a row and four overall? In the initial stages of their unsuccessful run chase, South Africa showed good signs of making it a 2-0 lead which though didn't happen were not even on the cards. South Africa did maintain the required run rate of above 4 runs an over but, failed to play the complete 50 overs which would have otherwise seen them taking a 2-0 lead in the bilateral series.

Being an Indian, I would love to see my country win any match against any opposition. But, as a cricket fan, a decent and tough cricket fight is something that takes precedence. South Africa couldn't even manage what the Indians could when they lost all their ten wickets playing just above 43 overs compared to the 47 overs that India played. This once again reminds all of us the semi final match against Australia in the 1999 world cup where South Africans could not manage to chase 214 runs despite emerging as favorites throughout the tournament even higher than Australia.

This time, the situation was even more worse that, they could not even manage a tie as in the match against Australia. This time, the Proteas were playing on their home soil unlike then when they were playing in England. If the bowlers had an upperhand in the match throughout, were the bowlers as tight that they could not even let the hosts chase down a total less than two hundred? And, the bowlers involved were not Glenn McGrath or Shane Warne but some stupid Munaf Patel who is found wearing the blue uniform once in a calender year. Of course, Australia were once bowled out for 98 recently against England on their home soil and this isn't a great issue.

Ponting's never stopping attitude

Well he might have failed to win the first test at Brisbane and neither is Ponting happy with the 1st Ashes test ending in a draw which actually Australia should have lost. Though no one is to be blamed for their missed earning opportunities in life, the Australian captain does have someone to point his fingers at after drawing the first test at Brisbane when he shows his lack of interest on the technology for not dancing to his tunes. I wish Ricky Ponting was expecting all umpires in the world to be a follower of Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson.

May be his lack of confidence in the onfield umpires might have provoked him to take the decision himself when he claimed Sourav Ganguly out caught in the famous Sydney test somewhere three years down the lane. Had Ganguly been adjudged "NOT OUT", may be Ricky Ponting's words would have made news on cricinfo three years earlier itself. With that apart, coming to the news, Ponting says that he isn't satisfied with the technology for the sole reason that he couldn't get Cook out when the batsman was on 209. Cook later on went on to win the man of the match award which is a different issue.

Added to that was the fact that Alistair Cook never got out whatsoever. And, the reasons for Ponting to get annoyed with the technology is justified when he could have had another wicket to his team's name on one hand while on the other, a catch extra under his personal name. The article suggests that Ricky Ponting as expected or even suspected if one is not wrong enough, tried to convince not only the onfield umpires but also the third umpire - Aleem Dar saying that the catch was taken. But, unfortunately fortunately, it was not the Border - Gavaskar trophy involving India but the Ashes involving England.

England's influence on world cricket is equally good as is Australia's influence. And, one has to no matter what accept the fact that the Sydney test episode has implanted a fear among the onfield as well as the third umpires before getting into such dirty games. No matter what the influence of Australia has got on world cricket, it would come as no surprise if the umpires do not give the decision in favor of Australia for the fear of having to face the music for the wrong reasons. And, with all these in front of us, Ponting's lack of satisfaction towards the technology can well be understood.

Are Warne's words justified?

Well the latest from the world of cricket is that the Australian retired spin wizard - Shane Warne has not only complimented the England team that a couple of days back lifted their maiden international trophy when they won the third edition of the world T20 in the Caribbean, but in addition also gave them an undeserving applause by saying that England are not scared of playing Australia. The point is, who on earth is scared of playing any team when the least happens is that they may lose the game or the series or whatever but still go back alive saying "better luck next time"?

Anyways with that being a different issue here, the point here is whether Shane Warne's words are completely justified? Shane Warne is believed to have made the statement after England's victory over Australia in the finals of the T20 world cup and also taking into consideration the 2-1 victory over Australia in the Ashes last year. Is that completely enough to justify Shane Warne's words? Likewise, another retired Australian fast bowler Glenn McGrath had predicted a 5-0 whitewash for Australia in the last Ashes played in England. But, forget about whitewashing, Austraia couldn't even win or defend the title they had won two years ago.

Australia generously gifted England the series, first when they drew the first Ashes test which they should have won after having a major lead in the first innings and then by losing two out of the 3 matches that were played after Australia won the second. However, coming back to Shane Warne's words, if England's world cup victory is given a close look at, no doubt, England did deserve to win the title, but winning a test series against Australia and that too on its home ground needs some special consideration. With the shortest format of the game still being a fluke, the results can go either way.

I don't have the patience to go back to cricinfo and search for the last time when England held the Ashes in Australia. I remember a series of 4-1 loss in the Ashes by England when Steve Waugh was the captain, with the latest one being in 2002-03 played in Australia. Australia have always been a predictable team for the right reasons with most of the time being victorious while England on the other hand having a 2005/2009 Ashes sort of thing or a world T20 2010 thing once in a lifetime. The only team that England can beat is the West Indies in today's cricket and they still need not fear Australia or any other team whatsoever.

Not a bad cricket record

When the news that former English cricketer - Alec Bedser died at the age of 91 came in, most of the cricket fans would have rushed to cybercafe to check out who this great cricketer was. And upon checking, though one would hardly rate him as an all time great cricketer, they would surely not close all gates for him. Not because his statistics reveal that he has a record of bowling out 256 batsmen in 51 tests and 71 innings which means that in 20 games that he has played, his team would have bowled in only one innings which suggests that there is a more probablity of him ending on the side which would have lost by an innings.

I bet no one would have even heard about this cricketer until yesterday when the million dollar news of his death broke out. May be in the near future, the ECB might honor him by naming one of the stands in any of a dozen cricket stadiums in England by his name. There might as well be a trophy named after him like there is the Border - Gavaskar trophy that is played between India and Australia. One need not confuse with the living legends namely Gavaskar & Border to have died. They are happily dancing around and can be seen roaring like lions in the commentary box for atleast a decade.

But, speaking statistics, one can notice his name preceeded by "Sir" which suggests that he was awarded the knighthood. Though not having an apealing statistics like some Sir Garfield Sobers or Sir Donald Bradman, his record is not too far behind. He was one of the few cricketers of the black and white era who returned with more than 200 test scalps. He played in that part of the time when there were no big bucks that is the case with today's cricketer. If at all there was a cricketer in those times, he should have had a liking for the game with his entire cricket career lasting close to decades but having played only in two countries.

Statistics suggest that Alec Bedser played between 1939 to 1960 but featured in only 51 test matches which brings up an average of just more than two test matches per year. Unlike in today's world where a player would have featured in atleast 10 to 12 test matches every year and plays with most of his intention being the money that he gets and the name that he earns. He was the chairman of selectors for the England team that made it to the finals of the Prudential cup in 1979 that lost to the mighty West Indies. Today's chairman of selectors can't even boast of selecting an English team which can even make it to the semis of the world cup.

Thinking wise, leaving behind the sorrow of his death, one has to also oblige the fact that he was alive and healthy until the age of 91.

A bold decision by Ponting

Well there are at present two test series' going on in parallel namely, the tour of England over Bangladesh and the other one being the Australian tour of New Zealand. However, if both the tournaments are considered, it looks that the Bangladesh have shown better performance against England compared to New Zealand's performance against Australia. This was evident from the fact that there, the England captain didn't turn up to impose a follow on over Bangladesh while here, Ponting took no further thinking in imposing the same against New Zealand. This itself shows the caliber of the New Zealand team.

In just one full day, New Zealand lost as many as 11 wickets which is as good as getting all out and losing a wicket extra. The entire day belonged to New Zealand which saw them bat without any Aussie taking the crease. The New Zealand team had ended the previous day that is day 2 with 108 runs on the board and losing 4 wickets which included an unbeaten 5^th wicket partnership of 65 runs between Vettori and McCullum which could last for just 4 more runs on day 3 of the test match. It would not be longer for the Kiwis to lose the remaining 9 wickets in a similar fashion.

New Zealand were playing at home and no excuses regarding their debacle can be entertained. The first innings of New Zealand lasted for just 49 runs with 6 losses of wickets inbetween. After the loss of the 4^th wicket on the 2^nd day's play, New Zealand were expected to put up a fighting performance atleast if not a match winning one. But, all that happened was the continuation of the bad work that was seen by the New Zealand batsmen in the initial part of the first innings. And if that was not enough, they lost yet another wicket in the second innings of their batting when Watling lost out to a controversial decision.

Whatever, the highlight of the day's play was the Australian captain Ricky Ponting imposing a follow on upon the New Zealand team. Ponting was never found doing such a thing in the past despite there being a huge margin. I remember Ponting deciding to continue batting in the first test against England in the Ashes 2007 with a lead of 445 runs. And then, in the recently concluded test series against Pakistan, Ponting decided not to go in for a follow on despite the fact that Pakistan failed to cash out an opportunity to win a test at Sydney. These were the cases where Australia were hosting unlike in the current test against New Zealand. This shows some maturity of Ponting as a captain.