Strictly Come Batting

IPL 3 is underway and I have an issue with it.

Season one got by on novelty value and season two consolidated that. Now, though, it just looks like old men having a knockabout with some kids they bumped into on a local field.

The big stars of IPL 1 were the recently retired Shane Warne, Adam Gilchrist et al. Now, however, they've been out of cricket for three years and their presence seems all the more unlikely and incongruous as a result. The backers would have you believe that this is supposed to be the best players in the world playing against each other, but the best players in the world are, in large part, involved in internationals elsewhere and won't arrive for a while, so instead you have this retirement home atmosphere and a competition featuring some of the best ex-players in the world.

It's much like the issues I have with Strictly Come Dancing. If I want to watch dancing, I'd like to see it done by people who know what they're doing and are at the top of their game. So it is with cricket. I'm just not interested in seeing long-retired players trundle in for four overs.

Bangladesh's problem summed up in four words

Too many one-dayers.


Simple, really. Watching the Bangladesh batsmen struggle against England at the moment, the rashness of the shots is the key to it all. There isn't much opportunity for the Tigers to play the longer forms of the game domestically and nobody seems to want to play them in Test matches too often either. That creates a vicious circle and it looks difficult, if not impossible, to address it as the riches on offer in a game of wham-bam-thank-you-mam outstrip Test glory.

Mind, that Tamim Iqbal can play.

Ian Bell - an apology

In recent times, this website may have given the impression that England's number six batsman, Ian Bell, was some kind of liability. Headlines such as "Bottler Bell's making our life hell" and "Why is this ginger tosser still being picked?" may have given the impression that we thought the Warwickshire right hander was in some way unsuitable for the rigours of Test cricket.

In light of his last three knocks for his country, we now realise he is not only the most gifted batsman of this and any other generation, but a man of such solid mental character that he can make the strongest and hardest men in the world (Graeme Smith) to a jibbering wreck and we apologise for any misunderstanding caused.

For whom the Bell tolls

Paul Harris is not a great bowler. Yes, he's managed to finagle his way up to ninth in the Test rankings basically by boring people out. He doesn't turn it - once thought of as a rudimentary principle of spin bowling - apart from the odd one that grips, such as the one Paul Collingwood got in the current Test match. If any English players should know about his game plan, it's his former Warwickshire team-mates among which Ian Bell is included.

So why then does Bell stand and watch as a straight-onner crashes into his stumps? It wasn't even close to being a good leave, hitting middle and off about half way up. I've been a big supporter and defender of Bell in the past, but that dismissal was simply diabolical. Park cricketers would be furious with themselves for doing likewise and so it's with heavy heart that I have to agree with what has been received wisdom for some time now and admit that he's got to go. He'll forever be remembered as a nearly man. He still has the ability, but every time he goes out to bat for England now, he looks nervous and opposition bowlers are beginning to see him as a walking wicket. The balance of the side for the first Test in South Africa looked all wrong from the outset and another bowler is needed. Bell has to step aside.

Death by 443 cuts

In Mumbai today, India scored a record 443 runs in the day for the loss of just one wicket. What on earth are they trying to do to Test cricket?
This game follows run-fests in Kanpur and Ahmedabad on flat, lifeless and deathly dull pitches. With matches like this, is it any wonder that they're played out in front of row upon row of empty seats? People will vote with their feet if they're not happy about the product being served up and the game will suffer as a result. If I didn't know better, I'd say that the Indian board was attempting to strangle the life out of unprofitable Test matches in order to make the already tubby IPL cow even more attractive to those who would milk it dry. You can get away with a one-sided contest between bat and ball for 75 minutes in a 20-over game, but spin it out over five days and people will turn off.
Moreover, it's making an utter mockery of Test records, batting and bowling. It's high time that the records show the quality of the pitch with asterisks next to any game played in such conditions.

Insight you cannot buy

In today's Guardian, Duncan Fletcher is back. The former England coach has been a regular in the pages of said periodical since he left his previous post and, frankly, his column has been as full of the same banalities as his press conferences and the same loyalties to the same, small coterie of players as typified and, ultimately, brought down the Fletcher era.

This week, Fletcher is talking about the South Africans and the threats that they will pose. His three players to watch were the most eye-catching part of the piece, the rest of it being the sleep-inducing rubbish we're accustomed to. With his wide ranging knowledge of the game and tactical insights, could we expect him to highlight someone that's maybe slipped under the radar a little? Perhaps an up-and-coming youngster unknown to English audiences? Yeah, right. Instead he's gone for Graeme Smith, Jacques Kallis and Dale Steyn. That's 241 Tests combined scoring 17102 runs and taking 436 wickets between them. Hardly going out on a limb. Why not inform us about Wayne Parnell, even if he is well known to county audiences, and Yusuf Abdulla, the two young left-arm seamers who look the real deal? No mention of Roloef van der Merwe moving from a one-day specialist to the Test arena or the exciting batting of Loots Bosman.

He played it safe, too safe at times, as a coach, and so it continues as a columnist.

Next test for England

It's South Africa next for England and the touring parties were announced yesterday. Dare we suggest that common sense seems to have broken out at ECB headquarters? Gone are Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar and about time too.

Harmison's been a good servant for England, but looking back on his career, that patch from the West Indies tour in 2004 to the Ashes in 2005 looks like the blip rather than the dross he's served up at other times. On a hard, bouncy track - an archetypal Old Trafford wicket for instance - there are few better, but there's always that nagging doubt that the next ball will go flying over second slip's head and away for four wides. Harmison is yesterday's man and the time is right to leave that behind and move on.

Monty isn't yesterday's man. Neither does he look like tomorrow's. His lack of variation means he's very easy to read - compare and contrast to the unreadable Ajantha Mendis - and he's fallen behind Graeme Swann and Adil Rashid. Finally, Rashid is in the squad and though it looks unlikely that anyone would play two spinners in South Africa, his progression is something to celebrate.

The main headline is the inclusion of four South Africa-born players now that Jonathan Trott has become a fixture. Kevin Pietersen is in, as expected, though it remains to be seen how fit he'll be.

This tour represents England's first since the retirement of Andrew Flintoff. In comes Luke Wright to the Test squad. Luke Wright. Test player? Really? I don't see it myself.