10th May 2009
As commentators say rather too frequently, cricket’s a funny game. The bare details: England won in three days (bad business, good cricket!) England all out 377. West Indies 152 and, following on (I’ll explain later!) 256 all out. England then 32 for no wicket, winning by ten wickets - a big win.
Following the soap opera with some of the characters you’ve already been introduced to (‘Previously, in the Test Match…’), Graham Onions the debutant (and darling of the headline writers for his name’s punning potential) took seven wickets in the match and so proved an inspired pick. Tim Bresnan by contrast was, one lovely catch apart, completely anonymous. As a counterpoint to Bopara’s accomplished innings, Graham Swann for the first time in his international career showed what he can do with the bat, and played very assertively towards the end of the first English innings for 63 not out, bringing up his fifty with a hook for six, a shot not thought to be in his repertoire. He also bowled with intelligence, skill, and luck, and picked up the ‘man of the match’ award. What appeared a somewhat casual, arrogant attitude early in his career, has now turned into a chirpy, media-aware confidence. England must hope that he can maintain his strut: Swann’s a breath of fresh air. And he hails from Northampton, too. Around here we’ve always known he can bat well when he puts his mind to it.
Chris Gayle, the West Indies captain, didn’t have a happy game at all. In their first innings the West Indies openers set off like a train, but Gayle set the pattern for his team’s subsequent collapse by a daft waft at a delivery from Stuart Broad which demanded far greater respect, chopping the ball onto his stumps. In the second innings he played a poor shot to a good ball and failed to score. Before the Test he’d arrived so late from South Africa that even his coach John Dyson had offered criticism: Gayle (Crystal as I always think of him) needed to show more application to avoid more negative comments. I imagine the press back home will have been rather unkind. Fidel Edwards at times bowled with pace and guile.
The West Indies’ collective heart didn’t seem in this match. The climatic conditions were challenging – although it was no colder than they should have expected, and not as cold as it may be for the next game up in County Durham this week. But there was a brisk and chilly breeze throughout which no doubt added to the problems always set by the slope of the Lord’s pitch. Across the water you may find this hard to believe, but at the ‘home of cricket’ there’s a ten foot drop from one side of the ground to the other, such that depending on which way you’re bowling, the ball will naturally follow the slope when it bounces - either into or away from the batsmen. It’s not easy for the bowlers either. When running hard into the crease to deliver they may suddenly find themselves unbalanced by the cant of the pitch, and find it hard to achieve any accuracy. On the plus side the outfield at Lord’s means that a firmly struck ball will often find the boundary ropes. For instance, the diminutive West Indian wicketkeeper Ramdin hit thirteen boundaries in his second innings of 61. It’s always been that way. When I was an avid reader of cricket literature in my teens, I remember an account by Sir Pelham Warner (how’s that for a name!), a one time grandee of English cricket and captain of a famous tour to Australia in 1903. He was remembering the first occasion he played an innings at Lord’s, some time before the turn of the 19th century. “I leant on a ball outside the off stump,” he wrote, “And she flew to the ring. I can still feel her on the bat now.” It’s a memory with which many cricketers will identify.
Cricket is played in many different climatic conditions around the world. In particular the Asian sub-continent is often seen as difficult for visiting teams – the humidity, the constant heat, the pollution, the dusty pitches. England sometimes offers the starkest contrast – cold, wet, green. And being English we often feel a little apologetic for this, although there’s nothing which says the game must be played in shirt-sleeves. Locally in Northampton, a Boxing Day game of cricket is regularly played in the village of Litchborough, and I’m sure the villagers aren’t alone in their folly. But maybe it wasn’t just the meteorological conditions which caused the West Indians’ downfall here. They were a late substitute for Sri Lanka to play this series against England, and are probably reluctant tourists. Relations between their Board and the players are indifferent, and the history of sport tells us such a psychological backdrop rarely brings out the best.
And the ‘following on’ thing? In Test cricket if a team batting second scores more than two hundred less than the team batting first, the opposition captain can choose whether to have them bat again immediately rather than take turn about as would normally happen. This isn’t a straightforward decision. Think about it. A lot of interest in long games of cricket comes from the supposition that the pitch will wear during the match, and become increasingly difficult to bat on. So by asking a team to ‘follow-on’ a captain is taking the gamble of having to score runs to win when the pitch is at its worst. It’s a nice check and balance. Strauss here chose the attacking move, and ‘enforced the follow-on’. But there have been increasing instances in recent times of this proving an unsuccessful strategy. Here it worked to perfection, despite England’s inexperienced bowling.
As commentators say rather too frequently, cricket’s a funny game. The bare details: England won in three days (bad business, good cricket!) England all out 377. West Indies 152 and, following on (I’ll explain later!) 256 all out. England then 32 for no wicket, winning by ten wickets - a big win.
Following the soap opera with some of the characters you’ve already been introduced to (‘Previously, in the Test Match…’), Graham Onions the debutant (and darling of the headline writers for his name’s punning potential) took seven wickets in the match and so proved an inspired pick. Tim Bresnan by contrast was, one lovely catch apart, completely anonymous. As a counterpoint to Bopara’s accomplished innings, Graham Swann for the first time in his international career showed what he can do with the bat, and played very assertively towards the end of the first English innings for 63 not out, bringing up his fifty with a hook for six, a shot not thought to be in his repertoire. He also bowled with intelligence, skill, and luck, and picked up the ‘man of the match’ award. What appeared a somewhat casual, arrogant attitude early in his career, has now turned into a chirpy, media-aware confidence. England must hope that he can maintain his strut: Swann’s a breath of fresh air. And he hails from Northampton, too. Around here we’ve always known he can bat well when he puts his mind to it.
Chris Gayle, the West Indies captain, didn’t have a happy game at all. In their first innings the West Indies openers set off like a train, but Gayle set the pattern for his team’s subsequent collapse by a daft waft at a delivery from Stuart Broad which demanded far greater respect, chopping the ball onto his stumps. In the second innings he played a poor shot to a good ball and failed to score. Before the Test he’d arrived so late from South Africa that even his coach John Dyson had offered criticism: Gayle (Crystal as I always think of him) needed to show more application to avoid more negative comments. I imagine the press back home will have been rather unkind. Fidel Edwards at times bowled with pace and guile.
The West Indies’ collective heart didn’t seem in this match. The climatic conditions were challenging – although it was no colder than they should have expected, and not as cold as it may be for the next game up in County Durham this week. But there was a brisk and chilly breeze throughout which no doubt added to the problems always set by the slope of the Lord’s pitch. Across the water you may find this hard to believe, but at the ‘home of cricket’ there’s a ten foot drop from one side of the ground to the other, such that depending on which way you’re bowling, the ball will naturally follow the slope when it bounces - either into or away from the batsmen. It’s not easy for the bowlers either. When running hard into the crease to deliver they may suddenly find themselves unbalanced by the cant of the pitch, and find it hard to achieve any accuracy. On the plus side the outfield at Lord’s means that a firmly struck ball will often find the boundary ropes. For instance, the diminutive West Indian wicketkeeper Ramdin hit thirteen boundaries in his second innings of 61. It’s always been that way. When I was an avid reader of cricket literature in my teens, I remember an account by Sir Pelham Warner (how’s that for a name!), a one time grandee of English cricket and captain of a famous tour to Australia in 1903. He was remembering the first occasion he played an innings at Lord’s, some time before the turn of the 19th century. “I leant on a ball outside the off stump,” he wrote, “And she flew to the ring. I can still feel her on the bat now.” It’s a memory with which many cricketers will identify.
Cricket is played in many different climatic conditions around the world. In particular the Asian sub-continent is often seen as difficult for visiting teams – the humidity, the constant heat, the pollution, the dusty pitches. England sometimes offers the starkest contrast – cold, wet, green. And being English we often feel a little apologetic for this, although there’s nothing which says the game must be played in shirt-sleeves. Locally in Northampton, a Boxing Day game of cricket is regularly played in the village of Litchborough, and I’m sure the villagers aren’t alone in their folly. But maybe it wasn’t just the meteorological conditions which caused the West Indians’ downfall here. They were a late substitute for Sri Lanka to play this series against England, and are probably reluctant tourists. Relations between their Board and the players are indifferent, and the history of sport tells us such a psychological backdrop rarely brings out the best.
And the ‘following on’ thing? In Test cricket if a team batting second scores more than two hundred less than the team batting first, the opposition captain can choose whether to have them bat again immediately rather than take turn about as would normally happen. This isn’t a straightforward decision. Think about it. A lot of interest in long games of cricket comes from the supposition that the pitch will wear during the match, and become increasingly difficult to bat on. So by asking a team to ‘follow-on’ a captain is taking the gamble of having to score runs to win when the pitch is at its worst. It’s a nice check and balance. Strauss here chose the attacking move, and ‘enforced the follow-on’. But there have been increasing instances in recent times of this proving an unsuccessful strategy. Here it worked to perfection, despite England’s inexperienced bowling.
