18th April
Judgement day. The two opening batsmen don leg-pads, protective gloves, thigh and arm guards, an abdominal protector, maybe some extra chest protection and a helmet. They cross themselves a few times and then jog down the pavilion steps to face the worst the opposition bowling can do. Given their intention will be to stay out in the middle all day if they can, and that cricket’s best played in hot weather, and you can see why dehydration may be a problem.
The bowlers have a brand new ball to work with. The leather, divided into two hemispheres by the prominent stitched seam, is covered in lacquer, and to begin with is therefore equally shiny right across the two halves of its surface. The ‘new ball’ is a significant factor in long games of cricket. It may curve through the air (swing) more readily than an old one, and at first the batsmen will be vulnerable as they adjust to the pitch and the light. However, sometimes the bowler may find this early swing hard to control. The lacquered ball may slip slightly from the hand and the ball will pitch (land) in a place where it’s easy to hit. Cheap runs may be made. On the other hand at this early point in the game the ball may bounce more because of its hardness, and the extra lift will sometimes provoke misjudgements from the batters. Later on, as the ball becomes softer, life will become easier until the bowlers are offered another new one, after eighty six-ball overs, if the innings lasts that long. The new, hard ball isn’t all bad news for a batsman though. It tends to come off the bat pleasantly, with a zingier, more higher-pitched sound. And if you’re a fieldsman it’s nicer to catch too, seeming to stick easily in the hand and with less pain than it will when its leather’s been distressed by repeated heavy contact with a stick of willow.
So, despite the fact that the order of a team’s batting tells you something about the relative skills of the batters ( numbers 1-6 will probably all be specialists, but thereafter the batsmen will present themselves in rough order of ability), a wicket is always likely to fall early. And strategically, the number three position in the batting order is crucial. If he or she also gets out quickly, the opposition are bossing the game. A pattern for the innings may be set.
At the start of this season there’s a bit of doubt as to who will fill this no. 3 slot for the English team. One who might is a bloke called Michael Vaughan. He’s been a successful captain of the team (and in cricket the captain’s role is important), but those days in charge are well behind him now. Since he resigned, things have moved on. Vaughan is a Yorkshireman, but despite the stereotypes, is urbane and drily witty, a man of character and emotion, clearly liked by fellow-players and the press. Those of us who merely watch the game often like him too. He’s tall and slim, and when he bats his movement is graceful, the shape of his shots always elegant. Particularly memorable are his hook shots off quick bowling, where the ball is played off the upper body or face to the leg-side of the pitch (that’s the the left hand side as a right handed batsman faces the bowler) with bat parallel to the ground. When Vaughan plays a hook, he seems to pick up the line of the ball unusually quickly, his follow through is full and certain, and he hits down, rolling the wrists as the textbooks suggest, to avoid the possibility of being caught out. In Vaughan’s repertoire, it’s a clinical, counterpunching shot, and the man’s temperament and quality is such that the chastened bowler tends not to offer verbal commentary after the event. Either he’s just admiring the skill too, or he knows the ball deserved it. He also probably knows nothing will be gained from abuse. Insults are water off Vaughan’s back.
The stats suggest Vaughan is a big occasion player. Unusually, his figures are rather better in Test cricket than they are at lower levels. But here’s the problem. Once away from the larger stage (and it’s been that way for a year or so) it’s hard to assemble the evidence for his recall. How do we know if he’s ‘over the hill’ and patience or eyesight have started to fail? Or do we stick to the old ‘form is temporary, class is permanent’ cliché? Injury’s been a problem for him in the past.
The man to some extent in possession is Ian Bell. When he’s played for England the rather diminutive Bell has done little wrong. The accusations are that he somehow lacks character, and has been guilty of rarely converting his many good starts for England into really match-winning innings. Isn’t there research which suggests smaller men always lose out to the tall guys when it comes to life-chances? At any rate there is perhaps something of a question-mark about Bell’s body-language. He doesn’t impose himself on the opposition, and can seem rather anonymous at the crease even when he’s playing really well. Despite the good figures, there’s never been a memorable ‘Bell Moment’ in international cricket. But he’s relatively young, so maybe this is still to come. He’s a good timer of the ball, and his trademark shots are a square drive to the off which has a provenance stretching back to Michael Atherton and Geoffrey Boycott (two more or less recent England batting heroes), and a clip off his legs at which neither of those other two batters excelled. He’s a slightly more mobile fielder than Vaughan. Having been dropped for the last few Tests, Bell has said to the press he knows he’ll have to score heavily in the early season if he’s to regain his place. He’s made his words good with a fine 172 in the recent match at Taunton.
The third obvious candidate is Owais Shah. Early in his career, like Bell, Shah was singled out as a player with a big future. At that early stage there seemed to be occasional insinuations that he was an awkward character, although perhaps this was blatant prejudice, racial, or anti-urban. Shah very definitely can impose himself on the opposition when he’s on song. When he bats, he’s capable of both a long hit, and considerable grace, with a phenomenal ability to use his wrists to whip the ball to the leg side when it has no business being sent in that direction at all. It’s a skill which is more often seen in batsmen from the Asian sub-continent: the disgraced former Indian captain Mohammed Azharuddin is one who comes first to mind. Of other current English Test batsmen only Pietersen has the ability to do this, although he’s added his own eccentric variations to the shot. When played it gives the bowler an apparent chance as the batsmen reduces the window of timing by marginally playing across the angle of the ball. But if the eye is sound, and the shot is played with repeated success, it drives bowlers to distraction. Shah is only a moderate fielder: one wonders why.
And down in Somerset is a young man called James Hildreth. After Bell’s century in that opening county match, Hildreth went to the crease and scored 303 without losing his wicket. Big scores are the province of young men. If this kind of stat stuff is beginning to draw you in, look up the figures of legends Donald Bradman, Vivian Richards, Brian Lara and Graham Hick to see how it’s true. The conditions for good scoring at Taunton will have been benign, but anyone who scores 300 should be taken seriously. Vaughan has never done it, nor has Bell, and nor has Shah. One day Hildreth will play for England and with distinction, but not yet.
And then there’s Ravi Bopara.
