The Headingley pitch has a reputation for producing exciting cricket. Why the grass and weather should interact there as nowhere else has never exactly been explained. But when there’s cloud cover or a sultry atmosphere, batting often seems unusually difficult in Leeds. And then, once the weather’s set fair, as it was for most of the recent match, everything is suddenly so much easier in the batsmen’s world: there’s immediately very little margin for error in the bowlers’ length. The ball ‘comes on’ to the bat when it’s pitched full, which with a speedy outfield and a compact ground means a lot of boundaries. And if pitched too short, the ball sits up and asks to be spanked away. So in one way it wasn’t surprising that the Fourth Test went no further than two and a half days, and given the momentum of the previous game I suppose we should have expected that Australia, not England, would be the winners. But what if England had chosen to ask Australia to bat? What then? The question may be one that haunts Andrew Strauss for the rest of his career because that decision, and what followed on the first morning, may have lost England the Ashes.
Two things bother me. One was the confusion which followed wicketkeeper Prior’s ‘ricked back’ which came on as a result of the pre-game kick about. Like others I can’t conceive why it’s thought a good idea to warm up for a game of cricket by playing soccer. The history of injuries sustained in this way is now a growing one. Anderson suffered in New Zealand. And so has Vaughan. And in this case, did the injury to Prior mean that Strauss was reluctant to field first, because Prior needed time to recover? If so that was an extremely expensive coaching mistake, rather than a captain’s misjudgement of atmospheric conditions, and much less easy to forgive. In the event, the ball swung and seamed throughout the first day, although England’s woefully slack batting was collusive, and 102 all out somewhere around two o’clock on the first afternoon meant that the game was as good as lost in the first three hours. Let’s pass quickly over the fact that Strauss also had to give three media interviews after tossing with Ponting, and before going out to open the batting. It’s one thing to be interviewed after you’ve come off the pitch at the end of a game, or at the end of two hours driving round a Grand Prix motor racing circuit – and even then the stars make a deal out of what a chore it is – but quite another for journalists and so-called lovers of the game to go seeking soundbytes when sports men and women should be focusing for a game or event. The tail’s wagging the dog. Perhaps we should have done things differently there, was the gist of coach Andy Flower’s response. You think?
The second thing is the omission of Flintoff. This series was always going to be about ‘Fred’ and ‘Kev’in their presence or absence. But the team selection here was mystifying. Flintoff thought he was fit. The coaching team decided otherwise. But clearly there was enough heat in the disagreement, that the big man was noticeably absent from the dressing room, at a time when you’d have thought he’d have been in there motivating, praising, cajoling. After all, he’s the one who’s supposed to make so much difference to the morale of the team. Perhaps he just couldn’t bear to look during those first catastrophic hours. And indeed what could he have said that was helpful to his erstwhile team-mates later on the second day? In his place they picked Harmison – supported it has to be said by a large proportion of the press – but not by Geoffrey Boycott, who in this matter for once talked more common sense than anyone else. Sidebottom was his pick, and surely this was right. A change of angle from a left-armer, who has a good grasp of swing and knows the ground – wouldn’t that have been a far better bet than someone whose weapon are speed, bounce, and intimidation? And, excellent cricketer that he is, why pick Swann and then bowl him for just sixteen overs while the Australians compile 445? A batsman would have been more useful, and Collingwood might have done an equally good job with the ball on this occasion. He certainly wouldn’t have bowled worse than the other England seamers.
Hindsight is all very well. And yes, after wars, particularly wars whose outcomes have been mixed (and maybe that’s all wars) we need a public enquiry so that we know better what to do next time, or so there isn’t a ‘next time’. But cricket is sport, and the kind of ruminations in which I’ve just indulged are all part of the fun. Sorry, Bill Shankly, but nobody died. What did or did not occur may be fascinating but it just isn’t that important. Except…
These days there’s so much money sloshing around in sport, that there will be enquiries, even if you and I as humble spectators have no right of attendance. Apart from anything else this was a cricket match which only lasted half as long as it should have done, and that will have financial consequences. And you’d think that, knowing that, cock-ups like the one which took place at Headingley on Friday morning would be very infrequent, that planning would be meticulous against all possibilities. Remember then one-time British premier Harold Macmillan’s muttered aside when things had gone wrong, ‘Events, dear boy, events…’
It’s inevitably going to be the one thing you haven't thought about which kills you.
Day 1 : England 102. Australia 196 for 4
Two things bother me. One was the confusion which followed wicketkeeper Prior’s ‘ricked back’ which came on as a result of the pre-game kick about. Like others I can’t conceive why it’s thought a good idea to warm up for a game of cricket by playing soccer. The history of injuries sustained in this way is now a growing one. Anderson suffered in New Zealand. And so has Vaughan. And in this case, did the injury to Prior mean that Strauss was reluctant to field first, because Prior needed time to recover? If so that was an extremely expensive coaching mistake, rather than a captain’s misjudgement of atmospheric conditions, and much less easy to forgive. In the event, the ball swung and seamed throughout the first day, although England’s woefully slack batting was collusive, and 102 all out somewhere around two o’clock on the first afternoon meant that the game was as good as lost in the first three hours. Let’s pass quickly over the fact that Strauss also had to give three media interviews after tossing with Ponting, and before going out to open the batting. It’s one thing to be interviewed after you’ve come off the pitch at the end of a game, or at the end of two hours driving round a Grand Prix motor racing circuit – and even then the stars make a deal out of what a chore it is – but quite another for journalists and so-called lovers of the game to go seeking soundbytes when sports men and women should be focusing for a game or event. The tail’s wagging the dog. Perhaps we should have done things differently there, was the gist of coach Andy Flower’s response. You think?
The second thing is the omission of Flintoff. This series was always going to be about ‘Fred’ and ‘Kev’in their presence or absence. But the team selection here was mystifying. Flintoff thought he was fit. The coaching team decided otherwise. But clearly there was enough heat in the disagreement, that the big man was noticeably absent from the dressing room, at a time when you’d have thought he’d have been in there motivating, praising, cajoling. After all, he’s the one who’s supposed to make so much difference to the morale of the team. Perhaps he just couldn’t bear to look during those first catastrophic hours. And indeed what could he have said that was helpful to his erstwhile team-mates later on the second day? In his place they picked Harmison – supported it has to be said by a large proportion of the press – but not by Geoffrey Boycott, who in this matter for once talked more common sense than anyone else. Sidebottom was his pick, and surely this was right. A change of angle from a left-armer, who has a good grasp of swing and knows the ground – wouldn’t that have been a far better bet than someone whose weapon are speed, bounce, and intimidation? And, excellent cricketer that he is, why pick Swann and then bowl him for just sixteen overs while the Australians compile 445? A batsman would have been more useful, and Collingwood might have done an equally good job with the ball on this occasion. He certainly wouldn’t have bowled worse than the other England seamers.
Hindsight is all very well. And yes, after wars, particularly wars whose outcomes have been mixed (and maybe that’s all wars) we need a public enquiry so that we know better what to do next time, or so there isn’t a ‘next time’. But cricket is sport, and the kind of ruminations in which I’ve just indulged are all part of the fun. Sorry, Bill Shankly, but nobody died. What did or did not occur may be fascinating but it just isn’t that important. Except…
These days there’s so much money sloshing around in sport, that there will be enquiries, even if you and I as humble spectators have no right of attendance. Apart from anything else this was a cricket match which only lasted half as long as it should have done, and that will have financial consequences. And you’d think that, knowing that, cock-ups like the one which took place at Headingley on Friday morning would be very infrequent, that planning would be meticulous against all possibilities. Remember then one-time British premier Harold Macmillan’s muttered aside when things had gone wrong, ‘Events, dear boy, events…’
It’s inevitably going to be the one thing you haven't thought about which kills you.
Day 1 : England 102. Australia 196 for 4
