Gayle blows hot but leaves me cold

I don't like basketball particularly. I can admire the skill of the the control of the ball and the athleticism of the players but as a game - and more importantly as a contest - watching basketball leaves me cold. The reason is that it is generally a one-sided contest  as the team with the ball is expected to score. The defending team of course does its best but the attacking team, on the majority of occasions it has the ball, gets the ball through the hoop. It is not a fair contest between the team with the ball and team without it and scoring is not exciting in itself, it is more the shock of not scoring that brings the oohs and aahs from the spectators.

I was reminded of basketball when I watched Chris Gayle score his 175 not out for the Royal Challengers in the IPL this week. I am sure you are familiar with the stats that flowed as fast as the runs off his bat - 100 runs off 30 balls, 17 sixes, 13 fours, fastest this, biggest that - Gayle now holds every record that the IPL marketing men can dream up - including the smallest breakfast before a match - watch out for the launch of Gayle pancakes soon. In the context of the game, the bowling of Luke Wright and Kumar combined eight overs for 49 runs is almost a bigger achievement when you consider that the other twelve overs went for 211 runs.

I happily concede that Gayle's performance was an amazing feat, a display of almost chance-less power hitting that seemed to be both effortless and brutal at the same time. Gayle is a big strong guy but clearly he timed the ball beautifully as well, and in the main, his blows were proper cricket shots with many straight hits and perfectly executed cuts and pulls. Not for Gayle the trick shots of reverse scoops and moving around the crease (for a display of these skills AB de Villiers 31 runs off 8 balls was a mini-marvel in its own right), he did in his own inimitable style with minimal movement and maximum grace - as befits the acknowledged coolest cricketer on the planet.

Gayle rewrote the record books and redefined the power play

The problem for me in watching this incredible performance is that it quickly ceased to be a contest between bat and ball. I was watching Gayle hit, not the bowlers bowl. The question in my mind, and I suspect yours, was to where would the ball be dispatched next and how far would it go. The 17 dot balls (the same number as there were sixes) out of the 66 deliveries Gayle faced were not so much a triumph for the bowler but more a rest for Gayle before he launched another onslaught - statistically and emotionally Gayle not scoring was more of surprise than a six or four.

For me cricket must always be a good contest of skill between the bowler and batsman - sure, sometimes playing conditions will favour one rather than the other, but a wicket is still to be celebrated and a shot for six or four savoured. I fear for the game in general as I have to reluctantly accept that T20 is changing so many aspects of the game. No so long ago six runs an over was considered a very fast scoring rate, now sixteen runs an over is more often getable than not in the final throes of a game. Whether this is because of the improved skills of the batsmen, shorter boundaries, or bigger bats, is not the issue for me. I just don't want cricket to be like basketball and just be a contest between each team's attacking batsmen and where the bowlers are bit-part defenders with the occasional success and dot ball. After watching Gayle's performance MS Dhoni says he is happy he chose to be a wicket-keeper - certainly choosing to be a bowler in the IPL is only for masochists. 

A Phoney War

Every sport needs a villain - someone to add colour and column inches to the back pages and for the supporters to get all vexed about. For English cricket journos and supporters our villain is not any individual (now that Ponting has retired) but a whole organisation that exudes corruption, personal vendettas, protectionism, unfettered commercialism, pettiness, and downright vindictiveness - yes the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has been called all of those things. With its four board members, five vice-presidents, twenty-seven state associations in five zones, a further twenty-eight working parties, and more importantly 1 billion cricket fans, the BCCI generates a lot of cash  and a lot to get vexed about - and we do. Let's just look at few weeks in the world of the BCCI.

Joe Root - an English player but an Indian shot?

Last week the BCCI was fined approx $10m (about 6% of its annual revenue) by the Competition Commission of India for 'misusing its dominant position and indulging in anti-competitive practices'. This decision relates to the BCCI's support of the IPL and its effective banning of the IPL's still-born predecessor, the ICL. Naturally the BCCI does not accept this finding and is going to appeal. The previous week the BCCI gifted the media a headline grabbing ruling by banning a group of thirty English county players from a planned trip to India to further their cricketing education by playing on spin-friendly wickets at the Global Cricket School in Pune. The media smelt the acrid whiff of revenge for the 2-1 series defeat of India by England and reported accordingly - the ban was imposed, the press surmised, because Joe Root, who played so well in his test debut in Nagpur, was the beneficiary of a similar programme a year or so earlier. So you can add the sickly scent of protectionism to the unsavoury odour emanating from the BCCI.

But if you take a deep sniff you will also discern the subtle but all pervading musty aroma of the ECB in the mix. The ECB caused a row with the BCCI by playing Stephen Finn in an English Performance Programme match in Mumbai in late November to prove his fitness for the Eden test. Root also played in this game. First in appears that the BCCI did not sanction this EPP tour, and second the BCCI understood that it would not involve players from the Test squad. Following BCCI's letter of complaint the ECB has had to apologise (I seem to have missed this apology in the British press) lamely pointing out it wasn't a proper match.

In case you have been asleep for the last fifty years let me remind you that the ECB and BCCI have 'history' that is likely to run longer than the hundred years war. The power struggles in the ICC (International Cricket Council) make the Borges saga seem like a family tiff. The ICC is of course almost completely controlled by the BCCI who are hell bent in seeking retribution for years of real and imagined disrespect and arrogance shown by England (and Australia) towards India and the subcontinent in general. And the focus of all this retribution? - the IPL, that over-indulged love child of the BCCI and Indian commerce. In the eyes of the ECB the IPL represents all that is wrong with the cricketing world and the ECB's judgement is completely clouded by the red mist it produces at the mere mention of the competition. Whether it is restriction of trade, Stanford or KP, the ECB has shown it is incapable of rational thought and deed when it comes to how to deal with the IPL. But the ECB now realises that the IPL has grown into a commercial monster that is funding the dominance of the BCCI. The brand of the IPL, after only five years, was valued at approximately $3bn. If you think that is naan in the sky then consider that in 2010 Sony agreed to pay the BCCI $1.6bn over a ten year period for the IPL television rights.



Would Morgan be playing for England if
Ireland was playing in the IPL?

Which leads us nicely to the real reason for the BCCI banning the County players trip to India. Last year the BCCI had tried to get some IPL 'exhibition' matches played in Ireland and Scotland and offered to underwrite the costs. However the ECB has paid for the rights to all international matches in these countries and effectively banned IPL players from playing there. Buried deep in the Indian press is a quote from a BCCI representative that shows the true reason for the BCCI decision to ban the County players: "Discussions are still on but it has to be a two-way process. We can't see how we can allow the counties to send their players to practice here when the ECB refuses to allow the IPL players to play even in Ireland. They must explain why they did it." How are the two issues linked? The background to this is the ECB's own (as yet unexplained) plan for an international T20 competition to compete with the IPL. But the ECB appears to be thwarted in it plans as its natural allies in the ICC, Australia and South Africa have both done deals with the ICC (and therefore the BCCI) to allow IPL players to appear in their new 'domestic' T20 competitions thus giving them an international appeal.

So the ECB faces some worrying questions - is there room for another international T20 competition? How can the ECB keep its centrally contracted players from benefiting by playing in the IPL? Which of course are questions that go to the heart of the issue - money. The BCCI has lots and the ECB is trying to get more and both see T20 as the only potential source of new income. They are both fishing in the same pond but the BCCI is using dynamite whilst the ECB is using an old rod. Unfair? - of course it is. But when has any war ever been fair?

Use your head - don't wear a helmet

Did you see Bell, Root and Dhoni all batting at times without helmets during the ODI series in India? A pleasant surprise for me as I have always thought that the wearing of a helmet somehow impersonalises batsmen as they all tend to look the same under a lid. But it got me thinking - how has the wearing of a helmet changed batting technique since my day?

 

I am old enough to have learnt my cricket in the days before helmets. My protection then was pads, gloves and those sickly-looking pink plastic boxes (one size fits all), and as the bowling got faster I used a towel as a thigh pad, but it never occurred to me to protect my head. Many years later when I was still batting without a helmet I was showing my wife a graze on my forehead from a ball that had somehow beaten my solid defence -
“You wear a box don’t you?” she asked with welcome interest.
“Of course” I replied with a smile to reassure her all was still in working order.
“Well” she retorted “you have your priorities all wrong”.
Well maybe, if you are an ageing amateur cricketer with a family to provide for, but perhaps not if you are 11 years old and want to become an outstanding batsman.

To avoid injury it is vital to watch the ball
- Strauss follows the instructions

The human brain, in times of danger from injury, reacts instinctively to protect one part of the body before all others – the head. If you are faced with a projectile arrowing in on your head, you do not have to fight your natural instinct; the brain will take over and do its best to get your head out of the firing line. Research suggests that practice of certain techniques will hone reaction times and will also speed up what are now know as ‘twitch muscles’. In batting terms this means the more often you face a ball coming towards you, the better you will be at taking the necessary action. But this action will vary depending on many factors; the speed of the ball and its angle of deliver, as well as the surface on which it bounces – the pitch. Young batsmen therefore need to be trained in, and experience, all types of conditions and deliveries in order to learn the best action to take, whether evasive or pro-active. And I am not sure that wearing a helmet whilst batting really helps in honing instinct, muscles and decision making that are all necessary for turning good technique into a reliable skill.

Batting in England in bowling-friendly conditions against good seam bowlers will test the very best batsmen and quickly defeat the merely good. If a batsman has little experience in such conditions, batting becomes almost impossible - just look at how the current (admittedly very good) English seam attack completely destroyed and bemused the best batsman from India, Pakistan and West Indies. Now consider Hashim Amla of South Africa – against England in 2008 he scored 275 runs in his seven innings, four years later Amla was the rock of the top order batting with 482 runs in five innings that helped South Africa dominate and secure a series win. What is the difference between the years? Probably that Amla played for Essex and Nottingham in 2009/10 and re-learnt his technique for our seaming conditions. But how does this relate to the wearing of helmets?

 

When I was a teenager learning how to play seam bowling (mostly on uncovered wickets) I was indoctrinated with the mantra ‘watch it early, play it late’. If you got yourself forward too early then it was almost impossible to make adjustments for any seam movement off the pitch – which is what happened more often than not. So I learnt how to move into position as late as possible, use a short back lift, and punch the ball - elegant cover drives were only for later when your eye was in and you had the measure of the pitch, if not the bowling.

Edrich playing the ball late off the back foot
- look at where his back foot is pointing

Against fast bowling there was the added problem of ensuring you didn’t get hurt – a short pitched ball was not only likely to get up to head height it was also likely to be moving off the seam. Fast bowlers have always been keen to test a batsman with their bouncer early on and would pound you if you showed excessive fear or any weakness in technique. You learnt to watch the ball very closely and to take evasive action very late by swaying your head away from the line of the ball. You were told never to take your eye off the ball and look away. In those days batsmen got hit on the head when they ducked or turned their head away and didn’t follow the ball until the last minute. But guess what – I never got hit in the head directly from a delivery. However a consequence of this approach to short pitched balls was that you learnt pretty quickly how to play off the back foot – particularly through the off-side. This is because back foot shots gave you time to watch the ball and play it late. All the opening English top order batsmen, who learnt their cricket before the introduction of helmets, had to be good back foot players – Boycott, Edrich and Gower being masters of this art.

Helmets were first worn in the Packer World Series in 1978 with Denis Amis sensibly deciding that the West Indian quicks were too formidable on hard Australian wickets for his skills. (Incidentally with protective boxes being introduced in 1878 you could say that it took men 100 years to reassess their priorities in line with my wife’s thinking). With the advent of helmets, and particularly the compulsive wearing of helmets for youths, batting techniques started to change. This change has accelerated in the last ten years due to the introduction of shorter forms of the game which encourage big hitting and the development of bigger bats. Pitches at all levels of the game are now covered and have as a consequence become more batting-friendly surfaces. But it is the wearing of helmets that has allowed batsmen to introduce new batting techniques without fear of getting hit in the face or head. The Dilsham scoop is a shot that only a madman would play without a helmet and the increasingly popular sweep is a shot I was always told brings your head in line with the ball with the inherent risk of being hit in the face – but the helmet eliminates that concern.





Gayle cuts the ball for six
- a front foot shot now

Wearing a helmet also allows batsmen to get on the front foot early – if the ball rears up or the ball is pitched in short, then the batsman is not in real danger even if he isn’t good enough to play a decent shot. A big shot requires a big back lift and this is only really possible with a front foot shot. In the one day games, cuts and pulls are now played off the front foot more often than not – the big bats mean that the ball is easily lifted high in the air, or hit flat and hard - either way there are far more sixes hit square of the wicket now than there were ten years ago.

 

It is sad to conclude that good technique back foot play appears to be a skill of the past – only mastered by players brought up without wearing helmets in their formative years. Dravid, who didn’t wear a helmet until he was seventeen, played the ball late off his back foot, his left foot pointing between point or cover depending on where he wanted to hit the ball, or he waited and tucked the ball deftly off his hip - but Dravid was one of an increasingly rare breed. I believe that unless and until batsmen ‘relearn’ back foot play then they will always be very susceptible to good seam bowling. Of course helmets are a sensible protection for most of us, but perhaps coaches need to be given some freedom to discard the helmet occasionally to teach back foot technique to youngsters. What are your priorities – safety or skill?

If it's not cricket what is it?

Cheat. Of all the insults and accusations that can be directed at a sportsman, being called a cheat is a barb that causes a deeper cut than any other abuse and much more likely to leave its indelible scar for the rest of a career. Recently cheating has taken up more than its fair share of column inches on the back pages of newspapers - Armstrong's use of drugs is making the headlines again, and a goal with the helping hand of Suarez has also exercised the the minds and attitudes of sports' journalists towards cheating.

 

But it was one obituary of Christopher Martin Jenkins ('CMJ') that, surprisingly, also included a cheating reference, for in his piece Michael Atherton said that CMJ, being a former amateur cricketer rather than an ex-professional (who now dominate cricket journalism), was the last cricket journalist who would walk if he thought he was out rather than wait for the umpire's decision. Simon Barnes took up the same theme and put forward his own code of conduct for walking - professional cricketers, whose livelihood is at stake, shouldn't be expected to walk nowadays whereas amateur batsmen are honour bound to do so. Barnes related a story of a friend who, having been given not out after nicking one to the keeper, was so ashamed and mortified that he did not walk, that he contrived to get himself out as quickly as possible. A clear cut code for Barnes perhaps but is it as straightforward as that for most of us?

 

When talking about 'not walking' we are, of course, only referring to the occasion when a batsman, perhaps, gives to the ball the thinnest of edges from his bat, or the merest feather of a touch from his glove, before it passes into the hands of the wicket keeper. The bowler and keeper are convinced the batsmen has hit the cover off the ball - they are sure there was a distinct noise and even a deflection - but the batsman stands his ground, the umpire shakes his head and, as the laws of the game determine, makes the decision that the batsmen is not out. Let us remember that the umpire's decision is also based upon giving the benefit of any doubt to the batsman - again as required by the laws.

 



“Just want to apologise for not walking off the ground tonight when I hit the ball. I was just so disappointed, my emotions got best of me” – Michael Clarke on Twitter.
The only time an Australian walks is when his car breaks down.

All of us have seen what, more often than not, happens next. Words are loudly and pointedly exchanged between the fielding side and sometimes comments are directed at the batsman. The implication, backed up by an accusation, is that the batsman is cheating by not walking. Every player knows that the laws do not oblige the batsman to admitting he touched the ball, give himself out, and walk off, but somehow the culture of cricket has evolved to put the onus on the batsman in this particular circumstance.

 

Is cricket alone amongst sports in having this strange code of honour that - let us remember - relates to only one of many ways in which a batsmen can be given out - for there is certainly no similar expectation that a batsman should give himself out for a run-out or stumping if the umpire decides otherwise? Golf is often cited as having the highest standard of code of self regulation on players - but such a code of conduct is enshrined in golf's vast array of rules - there is no umpire on hand to make such decisions. Tennis, hockey, American football, baseball, basketball, rugby, soccer, in fact any ball game with a referee or umpire, all do not require the players to make any decisions themselves - never mind anything as important as ending a player's own participation in the game.

 

Perhaps cricket likes to think it is special in having such an implied code of honour for its players? If so this is particularly odd now that DRS (the decision review system) is widely used in the professional game and players and umpires alike can see, that even with the help of sophisticated technology, how difficult it is to decide if a batsman has really hit the ball. Does the batsman himself always know if he touched the ball?

 

So where does that leave us, the amateur cricketers, in dealing with this legacy of honour handed down by players of yesteryear from a different time with different values? With due deference to Mr Barnes I don't think his code works for us so let me suggest an alternative approach that recognises the vagaries of amateur cricket and the 'professional' ethos of club league cricket today.

 

I think that if the umpires are qualified, independent and standing for the whole match, then a batsman has every right to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's decision for a catch behind. Of course a batsman may walk if he wants to but it should not be expected nor a cause for abuse if he doesn't - it's his choice. However if an umpire is only standing in to help out, is one of your own players, or is one of your club's umpires, then if you think you hit the ball and the catch behind was clean, then you should walk without waiting for the umpire's decision. My code is not about the standard of cricket being played but the status of the umpires. I think this is how the code of conduct started - it's just no fair to put that much pressure on a 'friendly' umpire. In fact, as our grandfathers would have said - it's just not cricket.

Fifty Dots of Grey

I was so engrossed in inspecting my old and well worn equipment in readiness for the beginning of another exciting summer of playing around the county, that I didn't hear her approach me from behind. "Excuse me"  - I turned around startled, still holding the balls I had found in the fold of my kit, to see the source of the husky yet obviously feminine siren voice. "Can you help me - it's just that I am looking for someone to show me how to score?" she asked hopefully. And so began a partnership that for one glorious unforgettable summer would make me feel like I was once again the star performer of my youth.

Emily was down from University she explained, and was looking for something unusual to add to her skills during the hot summer days. "My brother suggested I come down to this club and offer my services." Her shining green eyes briefly looked down demurely but she quickly returned my gaze with a defiant look. "I know I am not experienced but I am a quick learner" she whispered softly. Against my better judgement I agreed to take her on for a trial period - getting someone to score with in sleepy Valley was a real challenge so I was prepared to put in the effort to teach her the secret language of BDSM - balls by dots scoring method .

"You must do exactly what I tell you - one small slip and you will find yourself in a very difficult position which will leave you completely exposed and open to a tongue lashing by the umpires". Emily nodded enthusiastically and I saw the merest flicker of a smile over her face. "First" I continued, "it is essential to have the correct tools for the job - I don't show many people what I have got and I certainly don't share it around with anyone". And to Emily's delight I pulled from my pocket an old and well-worn pencil case. "In there you will find everything you need - from the reliable stubby one to the larger coloured ones that are so popular nowadays - oh and not forgetting a varied selection of rubbers - we don't want one silly mistake to ruin your fun."

Emily gingerly handled the pencil case, "Will it be hard?" she gulped, "Of course" I replied "putting your mark six times in a small box requires intense concentration and a sharp instrument." And so Emily's course of instruction started.

Emily was indeed a quick and able pupil but also very demanding, as she not only wanted to learn how to score, but also to understand as much about the game as possible. She was clearly fascinated with my helmet, "Why do you need a strap?" she asked as she carefully caressed its smooth surface. "Because if you pull to leg quickly you need to make sure it's still firmly in place" and I demonstrated the action with quick and firm hands. "Ohhh" she moaned "I love it when you use such incredible control" so to show her I knew all about being firm with her, I had her stand at short leg - "you won't be there for long without getting one right where it hurts" I warned her, but she just widened her legs and crouched down lower in readiness. I knew then that Emily was not one to take anything lying down.

Over that sultry summer we scored together regularly and without fail Emily showed enthusiastically that she had got what it takes when it came to being disciplined with new found skills. She was happy to be pinned down for hours, unable to move in case she missed any of the action, whilst I stood over her ready to admonish her with a firm reprimand if she ever forgot to check the number of balls. 

 

As the summer nights drew in it was clear that she was able to keep going longer than I was used to, so I reluctantly decided she was ready to take on the next level. "Right, you can do the friendly stuff" I told her brusquely  "but let's see how you handle the speed and the quick instant gratification of something I have been hiding from you until now - a twenty over thrash". I needn't have worried - Emily was soon whipped into a frenzy of delight as she flicked her head between the action and her delicately crafted hand, moving quickly to first put in the incoming batsman, whose massive shots went to all parts and quickly filled her box, before he was spent and she was registering the next man in who would take over with renewed vigour.

I looked on with sadness at the relish she showed at such multiple involvement - the harder it was the more she concentrated on the task in hand -  and I realised that Emily was lost to me now. I had taught her the discipline needed to handle the roughest of games and it was obvious her head was no longer turned by the idea of scoring on a friendly Sunday afternoon where the most frightening equipment on display is Nige's worn down spikes. At least, I mused as the rain started to fall and Emily desperately tried to cover her exposed set up, I wouldn't have to explain to her the truly dark arts of the Duckworth Lewis method.

It's all about the performance

This morning, over a wonderful breakfast of scrambled eggs , my wife proclaimed “I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn't too bad either." Now I know a trap when I see one and this one had very sharp teeth poised to spring painfully shut if I managed to put my proverbial foot in it. So I paused before replying - not for effect you understand, but to desperately think whether I was supposed to agree with this statement or to counter with some reference to our thirty-odd years of married bliss - as being informed that our sex life wasn't 'too bad' I took as a real result.

 

Luckily before I could think of a reply that would guarantee I wasn't eating my last plate of scrambled eggs, my wife added with ill-disguised mirth, and without looking up from the newspaper, "well according to Harold Pinter that is". I wasn't sure whether her mirth was directed at the eyebrow-raising idea that cricket was better than sex or the scorn-raising notion that sex (with me at any rate) isn't too bad. Discretion being the better part of a succcesful marriage I busied myself with making the coffee and laughed along with her. But it got me thinking.

Clearly an asset to any team -
even without the proper protection

Perhaps, now that the cat was out of the kit bag as it were, I could turn this conversation to my advantage as I recalled that a few years ago, when Gary Kirsten was in charge of the India team, he issued all the players with a well-researched edict to have sex, and lots of it, as this was believed to be the key to add extra passion and agression into the players' performances (on the cricket field I assume). Kirsten's advice caused a ruckus at the time although I am not sure whether this was because it just increased the pressure to perform (in the bedroom that is) or whether some people were upset thay weren't given the opportunity to contribute to the research. But, I reminded myself, Kirsten did take India to become the number one Test team, so maybe this training regime has some merit worth persuing.

So, I decided, the road to success for me as a player, and the consequential positive results for my Sunday Socials team, is as clear as the benefit of a deep-heat muscle rub - a rigorous regime of heart-thumping sex before I stride out to dominate the bowling with forceful strokes to every part. All I have to do now is convince my wife of the benefits of her particpation in the programme and show her how to undo the straps holding my box in place. Thinking about it though, before risking the loss of scrambled eggs, perhaps I should practice by myself first.

Success through succession

It is the season of pantomines and the ICC has laid on its best comic pairing to perform for us in February next year with a double act of India's Peter Pans trying to ham it up with Australia's Wizards of Oz. Us cricket fans looking for a few belly laughs to shake off the winter blues are in for a real treat as India look to keep Sachin in the same line up as Sewag and Gumbair (Bashful, Dopey and Grumpy?) in a desperate attempt to cast their own spells over the Aussies.

Indian selectors are rigorously rubbing their magic lamps in the hope that an IPL Genie will appear and grant them a wish for a batsman or two who can score runs and not get stage fright at the sound of the tick tock of a croc in a frock. For sure enough in a puff of marijuana smoke, the arch Aussie villainous wizard, Shane Warne, is trying to make his own comeback as Peter Pan. Mind you, after his Liz Hurley makeover, at least Shane will look the part.

So long boys - and thanks for the fish

How is it that the two former great nations of world cricket have been reduced to playing the ugly sisters to the Cinderella and Prince Charming that are England and South Africa at the moment? In a word - succession - or more accurately, two words - no succession.

The Aussies were taken by surprise as some the best players ever to grace world cricket all decided to leave the stage at the same time with the crowd still wanting more. Ponting has now gone as well and Hussey can't be too far behind. Not surprisingly the remaining Aussie cast look more than a bit luck lustre without their star performers. Whilst the Aussie batting is being held together by their new leading man, they have not found any suitable stand-ins for the magical bowling pairing of Warney and McGrath. In particular Australia do not currently have a spin bowler that would scare even the Cowardly Lion. For Australia's own Lyon has, despite some early snarling, shown to be toothless - he recently toiled for 32 wicket-less overs against Sri Lanka before being booed off the stage. Any repeat performance from Lyon is likely to be greeted with cries of 'he's behind you' as Shane tries to convince the selectors that his new slim foot can squeeze into the glass slipper and once again become the belle of the ball.

Exit stage left

India's woeful performance against England showed just how much they missed experienced batsmen who knew how to withstand the pressures of Test cricket and bat for long periods. Sachin (38) looked like he was batting in treacle most of the time, unable to move quickly enough, and the other senior batsmen of Gumbhir (31), Yuvraj (31) and Sehwag (34) played only cameo parts at best but at least Pujara showed what the new boys can do and Kohli sneaked in a performance that confirmed he will be part of the batting line up for some time to come. But it was the bowlers that looked most in need of some new talent. Zaher Khan (34), who out-bowled the England seamers in their own back yard when India won the Pataudi trophy and the series 1-0  in 2007, was dropped before the last Test for being unfit and out of form - Harbhajan (32), so often a talisman for India, followed him out of the door.

So faced with ageing players what have Australia and India done about succession? Well if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then you may forgive the ECB for looking a bit pleased with themselves as Australia instigated their own report after the humiliating 2010 Ashes big bashing handed out to the baggy greens on their own turf. The Angus review was the result and with it the appointment of Pat Howard as performance manager of the Australian team. In my view this could be a brilliant left field appointment, for although Howard is primarily a rugby player and coach, he is definately an innovator and achiever who will have clear plan of what he thinks needs to be done. It's early days and the jury is still out for Howard as although young players are coming through, the injury list of fast bowlers is hampering his plan - and of course the search for a decent spin bowler is now becoming desparate.

As for India, well of course Indian cricket and all it decisions are political first and based upon performance second. Only very recently have cricket academies been set up in India - mostly through the IPL franchises - and in answer to the selectors' recent call to identify new young talent, the independantly minded and proud states in India loudly proclaimed their own sons and handed down a list of 124 players to the national selectors. The next Kumble may be in that list somewhere but he will take some finding.

So come the Australia test series in India I think it will be safe to say that not one bowler from the combined teams would find a place in either the current England or South Africa line ups - and when did that last happen? It could be years before the recently instigated succession plans bear any fruit for these once overly blessed nations. In the meanwhile India could be driven further away from Test cricket as lack of success kills off any lingering public interest that has not already been seduced away by the obvious charms of the IPL - but that's a story for another day.

A Fateful Day for Dhoni

There was a key moment in the Nagpur Test today at the end of an absorbing third day's cricket in which the team captains went head to head. MS Dhoni, having played 245 deliveries with hitherto unseen patience, showed for the first time during his gritty innings the pressure under which he was playing.

 

The Indian captain is not one to show much emotion but having taken 16 balls to score 4 runs and creep, uncharacteristically, to 99, he then had to endure watching Ashwin play out two overs, so Dhoni had more time than was perhaps healthy to contemplate that this hundred would be a strident message to send to all those doubters calling for his head. No surprise then that when his opportunity came MS was looking for a simple push and run to cap off a defiant performance. Perhaps in the stress of the moment he didn't take enough time to look up and realise that all the England fielders had just stepped in two paces and that a single to mid-off, that he had taken many times before, was not going to be quite so simple for this all important one run.

 

One run is one too many for Dhoni

Fate, which knows how to turn a footnote into a headline, dictated that MS would push the ball to his opposing team captain -England's man of the moment, Captain Cook. Forgive me for mentioning that Cook, ever-reliable as he is, is not known for his swooping ground fielding and dead eye throwing, but when it's your day all things are possible and for ten memory-blurring seconds, it was as if Collingwood was standing at mid-off when Dhoni set off for his well deserved run in expectation of thrusting his bat, katar dagger like, into the traitorous hearts of his non-believers.

 

But Dhoni failed by the thickness of a ten rupee note (which is now due to be phased out, just like some of the Indian players) to make his ground and deliver the defining innings of his captaincy this series - for it was Cook that monsooned on Dhoni's parade in anticipating the shot and making a squeaky clean pick up, before pausing for a sharp intake of breathe so as to take aim at the only stump he could see, and then deliver his own mobile message to the Indian team, watching anxiously from the balcony, with a direct hit right in the middle of the hapless India team's mobile phone sponsor's logo. Dhoni, knowing that his part in the drama was over, carried on running to leave the field, and his tail-enders, to whatever fate would now decide.

 

The character of a Test team is so often in the image of its captain and so it was that England - patient, self-assured, determined and fit - moved in for the kill against this India team - full of flare and talented individuals but lacking cohesion and single purpose team ethos - and struck again, in the last over of the day, to ensure that the fate of a winning series in India that they crave is once again in their own hands.

 

Did Dhoni do enough to spare his own fate or did he just fall short? It may be that Dhoni's fate is now inextricably linked to that of the President of the BCCI, N Srinivasan, who overruled the other selectors when they unanimousily decided to replace Dhoni for this Test. As fate would have it, Dhoni is captain of the Chennai Super Kings IPL team, which is owned by Srinivasam, so it would appear that Dhoni's place is secure for the time being as India look to redeem themselves in the T20s and ODIs after Christmas. But I wouldn't tempt fate with predictions.



Cook(in) the books

Don't get me wrong - no one is happier than me watching AN Cook (Nathan apparently, but that's a story for his parents), grind the opposition bowlers into the dust. I thought that Cooky's performance in Australia during the 2010/11 Ashes series was as good as it gets in seeing Siddle & co eating the dirt dished out by England's favourite son, but after the annihilation in Ahmedabad my delight knows no bounds when watching Ashwin and Ojha looking dusty, dejected and demoralised as Cook waits like a King Cobra to pounce on any deliver that strays into his strike zone.

Today cricket followers are in stats heaven as on his way to his 23rd hundred Cook also became the youngest player ever to score 7000 runs and the first captain to get a hundred in each of his first five test matches and...ok I know you have read it all by now, but my moan is that (and my regular readers will now be hearing the loud neighing of a hobby-horse of mine) - it is a batsman's game. The yeomen bowlers just don't seem to get the same accolades for their outstanding performances as is bestowed upon the batting gentry. Let's get the statisticians at their own game.

Cook is currently 23rd in the all time list of hundreds in a career - someway behind Tendulkar (51), Kallis (44) and Ponting (remember him?, 41). It is said (and don't question this as I have read lots of boring articles and reviewed lots of stats to save you the effort and tell you it is so) that scoring a hundred is the equivalent to a bowler achieving a five-wicket haul. Leading the list of five wicket hauls is, no surprise, the ICC's famous law changer, Muralitharan with 67 followed by Warne (37) and Sirich Hadlee (36). So putting the magical Murali to one side these stats seem to support the comparison. The English list of bowlers with five-wicket hauls is headed by Sirian (27), followed by SF Barnes (24) and Truman (17), which again bears comparison to the English batting list of century makers.

So what? my son might say (not that he reads these pearls of wisdom - he is too busy thinking up ever more expensive ways of sending me to my grave quickly and penniless). But in true English fashion I want to shout out that it's just not fair. Sure, we say the right things about the bowlers - 'bowlers win matches' - but this is just like throwing our dog a few scraps after the batmen have had their fill of superlatives from a batsman-centric press. Listen to Sky commentators after a poor team batting performance - its all about changing the bowling line up, or the need to 'rest' a bowler. And it's only recently that bowlers have decided to hold up a ball after their 'fifer' and acknowledge the applause of the crowd. It's just not fair. So the next time a batsman's stats are flashed up on your screen to demonstrate his prowess, remember that as far as cricket is concerned there are lies, damn lies and batting statistics.

Who to boo now?

Time to come clean - I have always had a love/hate relationship with Ricky Ponting (as in I love to hate him). But with Ricky's last Test innings looming it is only right to admit to some 'previous' and take you back to Edgbaston, day 4, in that fabulous Ashes winning 2009 series.

 

On 2nd August 2009 on Sky Sports TV, and again in the Times the following morning, Michael Atherton called my behaviour ‘disgraceful’. This was not a personal attack you understand, but his comment on the behaviour of the Edgbaston crowd (of which I was part – but not the Barmy Army) when we booed Ricky Ponting’s arrival at the crease. No doubt my fellow Surrey members and Valley team mates agreed with Mr Atherton’s comments as they watched TV with a beer or read their newspaper over breakfast and may be surprised to learn of my involvement. However, to coin a phrase, ‘they weren’t there’ and an explanation is therefore required.

 

Michael Atherton understandably defended a fellow professional sportsman against what he thought was a lack of respect. I am part of a group to which neither of these outstanding players belongs – the professional spectator who also deserves some respect. We not only directly fund their profession but we unreservedly support the national teams for whom they play. Some of the English section of this group risked divorce and poverty to support our team in Australia in the forgotten (but unfortunately not by ‘those who were there’) Ashes tour of 2007/8. Despite less than wonderful performances by our team I do not recall anything other than great unstinting support, with almost no bad language and plenty of black humour, from this group of professional spectators. Certainly there was no booing however deserved that might have been.

I say this to make the point that we know our cricket and we also know that our support can lift a team when it’s down as well as provide that 12^th man effect to achieve a special performance – as it certainly did at Edgbaston on this particular Sunday.

I think that the subtlety of the booing (or negative cheering as I prefer to think of it) on this day was lost on Athers – understandably as he has no supporter experience in such matters. But I have no doubt it was not lost on our favourite Australian captain. He had already heard our ironic cheers for Mitchell Johnston (‘Super, Super Mitch’) and knew our support was lifting the English team as both Broad and then Swann followed Freddie’s lead in facing up to Australia’s wonder bowler.

 

The spontaneous negative cheering of Ricky by us supporters that greeted his walk to the wicket was precisely because we do respect his wonderful batting. We know his talent can turn a match and make the difference between a win and a draw and that at this moment getting him out quickly was vital to our progress. However we also know that it is possible to get under his skin and we were doing the only thing we could to do so.

 

Ricky played his part in this theatrical performance – he was late arriving from the changing room and his walk to the wicket was slow and defiant as the booing reached the level of a howling gale. I have no doubt Ponting relished the challenge and accepted the supporters’ performance for what it was – a gauntlet being thrown down. So too, I have to say, did Swann who, always one to rise to the occasion, then bowled a magnificent set of almost unplayable balls to RP.

 

Swann may have bowled the ball that opened up Ricky’s defence but we provided the special atmosphere and partisan support that set the stage for him to do so. Ten minutes of wonderful sport and pulsating theatre later Ricky walked back to the biggest cheer of the day – English supporters 1, Australia’s captain 0 - and I was there.

A physics lesson

So after an amazing, incredible, KP rehabilitating, early-rising, table-thumping, cereal-spilling, wife-waking England win in Mumbai its off to Kolkata for the 3rd Test with more momentum than a Higgs bosom particle (I am never sure what momentum is in cricket but the England players think it's good to have, so that's all you need to know - though you should really try to find out more about Higgs boson - that is important). India don't play many Test matches in Kolkata but when they do they seem to know where to find their momentum and what to do with it.

In each of the last three Test matches at Kolkata (against West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan) India have scored over 600 runs in their first innings - whether they batted first or not - and won the last two Tests by an innings. MS Dhoni in particular knows how to get his own batting momentum going in Kolkata - he averages well over 100 there - so maybe it will be his turn to play the important captain's innings. MS is under some pressure from the Indian press for the team's and his own performances, and being a gritty kind of guy, don't be surprised if he doesn't make some commentators eat their words with a gritty innings.

MS says he wants to play on hard, bouncy wickets like the one in Mumbai as he relishes the challenge in playing against 'fast' spinners like Monty and Swanny. Not sure his team mates would agree with this sentiment having been made to look like, well, England batsmen usually look like when playing spin in the sub continent - bemused, befuddled and begone. Surian Botham, who does know a thing or two about winning in India, has bet a night's supply of claret that the Kolkata wicket will have less bounce than a beach. It looks like momentum will be important after all.

Sucess through hard work - naturally

If I had a pound for every time I have heard Sir Ian Botham go on about "letting Kevin Pietersen play his natural game", I could build a new clubhouse at the Valley. Sorry 'Surian' but you are talking baloney. In watching KP's marvellous and game-changing innings of 187 against India today, it was obvious that he wasn't playing his natural game - he was playing his 'Indian spinners on a turning sub continent wicket' game - and doing it rather well. His success was not so much due to natural talent but down to the hours of hard work KP has put in with, amongst others,  Mushy, the England spin coach, to make sure his game is ready for the conditions he will face. Yes, this is the old nature v nurture debate but let's put this debate to bed once and for all.

KP is a worthy example of what can be achieved through sheer hard work, rather than relying upon, perhaps dubious, talent. Growing up in South Africa, KP was an ok spin bowler and and even less ok batsman. But one thing that KP certainly has in his make up is self-belief and he knew he should and could achieve better than 'ok'. So he worked hard, very hard by all accounts, and then fell foul, in his eyes at least, of the SA quota system and so came to England determined to suceed - the rest is a colourful and as yet unfinished story. But the point is that KP's talent, or natural game, was nowhere near good enough by itself to play International cricket - it was sheer hard work and dedicated practice that made him the batsman he is today.

Any serious coach should not be in any doubt that the talent myth should not be perpetuated any longer - it is rather the ability to work hard and learn from all that effort that should be held in high esteem. For students of theory look no further than the research by Carol Dwerk1 who clearly showed that students who believe that talent is a prerequisite to success quickly became demotivated by failures - 'it's not my fault, I'm just not good at this' - whilst students whose mindsets are that ability could be improved through effort saw failure as something to be overcome and an opportunity to learnt from mistakes. So the good coaches don't say 'you have a wonderful natural cover drive' they say 'how can you hit the ball better?' Of course some players are born with better eye-hand-ball coordination or faster reactions than others but hard, specific practice, and lots of it, with a smart coach will quickly achieve better results than a reliance upon God-given talent. So if you are told you don't have the talent to play at the highest level, think yourself lucky and just start practising.

1. Bounce by Matthew Syed.

As night follows day

It should be strange to see Jimmy Anderson coming out to bat when England are only 3 wickets down but unfortunately for us England supporters it is too common a sight. We know what's coming more often than not - another wicket and sometimes two. For this nightwatchman malarkey doesn't work - the stats confirm it doesn't work and more importantly it messes with batsman's minds.

By all accounts Andy Flower leaves it to the incoming batsman to decide if he would prefer to sit out the final overs of day if a wicket falls. What nonsense - who is charge here? What is the logic of
sending in someone whose day job is bowling to bat in, what is usually, the most demanding time of the day. And when he arrives at the crease what is the nightwatchman's job? - to keep off strike to avoid being exposed or to take all the strike to protect the other batsman? The same half baked logic should say that if another wicket falls then another nightwatchman should be sent out - so the batting order is suddenly reversed to get through a few overs.

Meanwhile the man best qualified to bat is sitting in the pavilion with his feet up watching the crazy proceedings out in the middle. This must send out all the wrong signals to the opposition and also plays mind games with the batsman. First he is asking himself if he wants a nightwatchman and whether that is a sign of weakness or fear. Next, at what stage does he call for a nightwatchman - 10 overs to go, 5 overs to go? This is the way that madness lies. If a batsman is due in next then he should go in. It should never be questioned - so the batsman is prepared whenever that wicket falls and he should back his skill and determination to bat in whatever way is the circumstances demand. Jimmy's a great cricketer but let him serve the team by bowling not by trying to do a job he is not qualified to do.

UPDATE: On the first day of the 3rd Test between Australia and South Africa, the second Australian wicket fell with six overs left in the day. Ricky Pointing, playing in his last Test, was next in. Ricky is known for his toughness as well as his talent. So I wonder who decided it was best to send in Lyon as nightwatchman for the last six overs in what was a very tough final session?

2nd UPDATE: The following morning Warner was out first ball of the day. Ponting walked in...and then was back in the pavilon again 7 balls later. Australia collapsed to 163 all out. Did the nighwatchman make a difference? It is difficult to think it could have been any worse if Ponting had gone in a toughed it out and perhaps set the tone for the following day.

When stubborn can be stupid

I am sorry but Mr Flower's number one fan is becoming disillusioned. First I thought that Andy did not cover himself in glory during the KP debacle. I am in the Clive Woodward camp in thinking KP should never play for England again, but I gave the ashes winning and former number one test side coach the benefit of the doubt. However after today's play at Ahmedabad I am becoming seriously wobbly about whether Flower's well signalled stubbornness to stick with a four man bowling attack whatever the conditions is just plain stupid.

You could hear the cries of 'I told you so' from Taunton to Durham as our much vaunted seam attack was shown to be no more than an appetising starter for Sehwag and co. Swanny however did not disappoint and the slow turning wicket was no surprise either. So unless we have convinced the BCCI to let Swann bowl at both ends we are going to desperately miss Panesar. Unfortunataly you didn't hear it it here first. Call me stupid if you like Mr Flower - but not for being just plain stubborn.

The biggest little squad in Surrey

 

A little momento for you all - one of the hottest day's of the season for the club's 6-a-side day. But where's Wally?

The original Whispering Death

You are forgiven for not knowing that today is the birthday of one of the world's most fearsome and destructive bowlers - not Michael Holding - Harold Larwood. Larwood was not a big man (5' 8" and 11 stone) but was quick - seriously quick and frightened most batsmen, but he was also mean. He was mean in not allowing the batsman to score runs off him and he was particularly mean when they did - bowling for Larwood was a bloody affair - both giving and receiving. In the last Test at Sydney in the Ashes winning 'bodyline' series Larwood was bowled into the ground by his captain, Jardine, in an attempt to totally dominate and intimidate Bradman. When the day was over, Larwood, who was wearing new boots, was able to wring the blood out of his socks. Larwood never gave an inch nor expected any in return.

Larwood will always be associated with the bodyline Ashes series of 1932/2 in Australia. Larwood was the X-factor in Jardine's masterly plan to stop Bradman from scoring and the rules of the game were changed as a result. However it wasn't short bowling or even leg side bowling that was the plan - it was to bowl directly at Bradman's body that was the tactic that Jardine employed. This was after a review by Jardine of as much film of Bradman as he could find in attempt to find a weakness (the first video analysis?). It was the look in Braman's eyes after he had faced a short ball that Jardine saw - fear was evident even at long range on black and white grainy film - and the plan to stop Bradman was hatched.



Although Jardine employed other bowlers to bowl short and leg side it was only really Larwood who was able to bowl fast and accurate enough to cause Bradman real problems. Bradman scored less than 400 runs in eight inning in that series - well below his career average and Larwood got his man on four occasions. Larwood finished with 33 wickets in that series at an average of under 20 and economy of under 3. For that performance and dedication to his team and captain he was dropped and made a scapegoat by a weak MCC in the furore that followed England's 4-1 series win.

Cricket is dominated by stats - here are some stats that show the domination by one man:

- Larwood was consistently timed at over 95 mph and once at over 100 mph.
- 1,427 first class wickets (batman friendly pitches remember), 743 of which were bowled.
- 100 wickets in a season eight times and headed the first class average in five summers: no other bowler before or since has equalled this feat.
- He usually broke at least one if not two stumps in very match.
- Larwood's run up was so fast he had a drag of 32 inches after his final stride.

Happy Birthday Harold

PS If you would like to know more about this incredible cricketer - and man - then I can highly recommend Duncan Hamilton's biography.

Curry for Christmas lunch?

At last something useful and interesting from Twitter - Sky tweeted to give us the fantastic news that India v Pakistan T20 match is on Christmas Day at 1.30. Thank goodness for that. Turkey curry in front of the telly watching Kohli smash sixes or Afridi do some strictly dancing moves on a length during the interval, is infinitely preferable to acting out a scene from Downton Abbey for a game of charades with my mother. And with Australia playing South Africa in the boxing day test I should be able to stay up all night watching some great cricket. I will then have the perfect excuse to sleep during boxing day instead of acting out a scene from Coronation Street for a game of charades with my mother-in-law. Then back home in time to see Quins smash L Irish in the Big Game at Twickers. Holiday sorted.

Coaching – a necessity or unaffordable luxury?

The big issue facing the club at the moment is whether the club needs, or can afford, to invest in formal coaching of our players – both youths and seniors. Surely the more important question is can the club afford not to provide coaching for its players?

The constitution of the club (which is also a charity now of course) is very clear about this – the only stated objective in the constitution contains the unequivocal obligation for ‘the provision of …high class coaching facilities’. Perhaps the debate should end there but let’s look at the issues that are generating much angst amongst the great and good at the club.

To be honest it is unlikely that any club member is advocating, in an ideal world, that coaching shouldn’t be provided – it is more likely that real world constraints of money and personnel are the understandable concerns of those responsible for the management of the club – and no wonder given the almost financially ruinous season the club has just, barely, survived. When it comes to the playing side – and those all-important league results – the club did a whole lot better than just survive – it positively flourished. A promotion, a cup win, and good league placings for all sides, in spite of the cancellations due to poor weather, meant that the club’s record in Surrey saw another strong performance. However the danger is that these good playing results are papering over the cracks of concern regarding the club’s coaching provision.

The membership has not been ignored and has been asked for its views on a whole host of issues – a recent survey of youths’ parents identified poor coaching as the number one issue for the club to address and the seniors’ survey results also identify coaching as a big concern. So the management has got the message that it needs to do something about it – but what?

Money of course is the real issue, or rather the lack of it. The club is not cash rich and barely breaks even each season so to provide a paid coach of any kind the club needs to find additional money from somewhere – either by generating new funds or by making savings elsewhere. Let’s not be under any illusion - the club’s financial resources are stretched to the limit with the new facilities coming on stream at Woodlands Lane. The ground staff more than rose to the challenge as the main Woodlands facilities finished top of Surrey Championship’s pitch and ground criteria – but that came at a cost and understandably last season the club management felt the need to prioritise funds in this direction. And that in a nutshell is the issue facing them for next season – priority of funding.

It is easy to pretend that the club can somehow provide adequate coaching for ‘free’. There are after all qualified coaches who are members of the club – surely they can provide the coaching the club needs? Well perhaps, but these guys have their own understandably different personal priorities and unless they are prepared to commit to lots of time to oversee, run and organise a coaching programme then any part time coaching will be just that – only provided part of the time. So probably the club must look externally for such coaching resources.

The ‘overseas’ player is an obvious place to start. The club could take on an overseas player who can add playing strength to the first team and provide coaching as well. Other clubs do this but for our club this option is not so straightforward.  There are two reasons – first, other clubs pay their overseas player a reasonable wage whereas we take overseas players who see it more as experience and almost a gap year project – so we can get these players on the cheap (with, it must be said, significant financial support from some members that provide the player’s accommodation and much more), and that usually means that these players have little or no coaching experience or ability. Second, the club uses the overseas player as additional ground staff. The club’s head grounds man readily admits that preparing the wickets and the grounds at both Woodlands and the old ground would be an impossible task without the work done by the overseas player. So again money and priority are the issues.

Is doing nothing an option? After all the playing results continue to be good so it is understandable that the club management, faced with financial restraints, feels it has other more pressing priorities for funding. But there can be no doubt the club is teetering on the edge of the slippery slope of player and parental disaffection with its lack of proper coaching and player development. The signs are there for all to see: youth membership numbers have fallen for the first time in years; and, at the moment at least, the club does not appear to bringing on many players with the quality of the Youngs, Durandt, Peploe, Nevin and Kingsnorth. So the question remains: can the club afford not to prioritise its funds to improve the provision of coaching and if so what has to give?
The club’s General meeting on 21^st November is your chance to join in the big debate – and influence the future of your club.

We need to talk about....ClubHub

I think it took most people by surprise – all of a sudden there it was, an all dancing, all singing, brand shiny new piece of bespoke software that would make our lives easier…..we were told. But like a child with Attention Deficit Syndrome, ClubHub demands an awful lot of our attention and effort.

The basic idea of ClubHub is simple. Every player is registered on ClubHub and can then log on and mark their availability, or otherwise, against the relevant games, and then bingo – the selection committee has all the information it needs at its finger-tips to select the teams from the available players. The selected teams are entered on ClubHub, the player logs on to see his selection, confirms it and receives instructions for the day. Simples.

Except like any computer application – rubbish in, rubbish out – and that’s what we had last season as the player availability data was rubbish. It was inaccurate and incomplete and therefore almost worse than not having anything at all. Every player availability had to be rechecked as we couldn’t rely upon it and there were an awful lot of players who couldn’t be bothered to even register yet alone use it. So selection required the usual manic texting and phone calls with players to confirm availability before selection could be confirmed. To cap it all the selected teams were posted on the club website so players didn’t even have to use ClubHub to check their selection.

The reason for this mess, in hindsight, is obvious. No one is going to make any effort to do anything unless they can see the benefit of it. And a lot of players could not see the point of putting their availability on ClubHub when the old system of telling the captain worked ok as they got their game of cricket each week as always.

But for us captains it doesn’t stop there. We have to enter our selected side on ClubHub, then confirm whether they played or not and finally enter the result. We were asked to do all this to make it easier for the data to be collected for the Club Mark accreditation. Fair enough, because this is vital to the club for grants – except that players are not buying into this importance.

So what will happen next season? To my mind either players see the value of it and use it, or we ‘make’ the players use it, or we drop it (and just use for youths which generally works apparently). Whatever happens I hope it is soon discussed and agreed by the membership for I have better things to do with my time – like writing blogs.