BEN STOKES - COMETH THE HOUR ..........

A couple of months ago I suggested, quite strongly, that appointing Ben Stokes as the captain of the England cricket team, in succession to Joe Root, would be a big mistake. I suggested that what was needed was an outsider rather than another 'one of the boys' - it may well be that I was wrong.

The recent performances of the England team have been little short of revelatory as they've adopted a far more aggressive, and successful, approach than has been seen for many a long year. Of course, the new coac, Brendon McCullum, must have played a big part in this change of attitude but just watching Stokes on the field shows that he's also been a major influence. While Root always seemed to be in pain and rarely appeared to be in real control, rarely engaged with his players on the pitch, Stokes is all action. he moves around with speed and determination, he is clearly in control and gives the appearance of a man who is very happy in his role.

So far, Ben Stokes has very much looked the part. All he has to do now is to continue in the same vein for another 3 or 4 years and make sure that his team performs in similar fashion against stronger sides than the New Zealanders who, in all honesty, have frequently looked bereft of ideas and little match for this rejuvenated England team. If he can do that, then I'll happily accept that I was wrong and he really is the right man for the job.

IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD !

More than half a century ago, there was a film titled "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World !" It was a comedy about a group of people racing each other to find a pile of loot. While the case of cricketer Ollie Robinson is rather different, it's an indicator that we now inhabit a world that's at least as mad and it would be comical if it wasn't so absurd.

As a teenager, Robinson made some comments that are now considered to have been 'unacceptable' due, apparently, to them being deemed sexist and racist. Now, nearly 10 years later and after he's just enjoyed a highly successful test match debut, Robinson has been banned from all international cricket while a disciplinary investigation is undertaken.

I have no problem with murderers or rapists being pursued, caught and penalised years after their crimes are committed but Robinson's offences are hardly in that league. Indeed, they're more akin to a bit of minor shop-lifting or speeding, neither of which would attract the attention of anyone for more than a few days after the event. For Robinson to be dragged up in front of the court of wokeish opinion and to potentially lose his career over what amounts to stupid, childish remarks made years ago is bordering on the obscene.

Robinson did not hurt anyone by his actions. He did not steal anything. He did not even disadvantage anyone. He did what most of us do at some time as a result of being young and, possibly, a bit foolish, but to splash his supposed misdemeanour across the media and pursue him as if he was a major criminal is itself a crime. How many of us would be found guilty in the court of current public opinion for acts we committed decades ago if only Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the egregious social media had been around then ? 

Making remarks about niggers or poofs, wolf whistling at pretty girls - are these really crimes ? When I was a child such things were commonplace, offensive though some may have found them, but criminal they weren't. However, in today's "Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World", being offensive seems to have become the Number One crime and the offender has become Public Enemy Number One. At the same time, convicted and often deceased offenders from decades ago are pardoned because their crimes would not be considered crimes in today's world. What lunacy !

It is insane. In the words of the old saw "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me". It's time we took note. 

PS.

How good to read that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden, appears to agree with me. He's recently suggested that suspending Robinson is 'over the top' and that the England and Wales Cricket Board should reconsider it's action. Good for him !

JIMMY ANDERSON : VERY GOOD BUT NO G.O.A.T.

There is no doubt that Jimmy Anderson has been a great performer for England's cricket team over the last 15 or more years, but the claims that he is the "greatest of all time" is the usual nonsense spouted by those who are blinded by a need to laud the achievements of current players over those of former years. Sadly, the assorted pundits on the Sky cricket channel, only one of whom was born before 1968, are so blinded.

Anderson is close to becoming the first fast bowler to take 600 wickets in test matches, a notable achievement, but what is ignored is that he has also played many more matches than any other bowler of his type. In fact, his nearest rival in this respect is his usual bowling partner, Stuart Broad, who is some dozen or more matches behind, while no one else is within 25 matches; the great Australian fast bowler, Glen McGrath, played more than 30 matches fewer but managed to be within 35 or Anderson's total of wickets, suggesting that there is more to being the greatest of all time than simply the number of wickets taken.

Bowlers abilities can be measured in various ways - wickets taken, runs conceded, 'strike rate', meaning the regularity of their wicket taking, but all may be dependent on the number of balls bowled. McGrath, for instance, took a wicket every 52 balls, Anderson's average in this respect is every 56 balls. McGrath conceded 0.42 runs per ball, while Anderson'c record is 0.48, and McGrath's average runs per wicket was 21.64 while Anderson's is 26.83. On a combination of these measures, McGrath beats Anderson, as do numerous others, including former English fast bowlers Trueman, Bedser, Statham, Willis and Snow; even these illustrious predecessors are well adrift of the best performers, the West Indian trio of Marshall, Garner and Ambrose.

Anderson is good, even very good, and his longevity is a credit to both him and those who have looked after him over the years, but to claim that he is the "greatest of all time" is just idiotic. Times change, conditions change and there actually was cricket before Sky became involved. Trueman, for instance, not only took his 307 test match wickets more efficiently than Anderson, he also played regular county cricket and amassed a career record of over 2,300 wickets; Anderson plays little other than test matches and one day games, and has around 1,350 wickets to his name in all formats, even though he has played for a similar number of years.

Media pundits really do need to be more careful in their proclamations of brilliance and their use of superlatives. Routinely describing events as being incredible, fantastic, phenomenal, and the rest, simply demonstrates a lack of language skills; constant references to players as being 'great' similarly demonstrates a lack of appreciation for, or knowledge of, the history of the game. 

WINDIES EXPOSE ENGLAND'S FRAILTIES

One thing that the Europeans don't get involved in is cricket, which is just as well given the shocking performance of the English team in the first test match in the West Indies.

In the last couple of years, England have been lauded as one of the best sides, while the West Indies have been struggling to recapture their glory days. Well, if this England team thought they'd have it easy in the Caribbean, how wrong they were !

The first of three encounters has just ended with the third biggest victory by runs ever achieved by the West Indies - a little matter of 381 runs; having set England a victory target of 628, they bowled them out for 246, the last six England wickets falling for just 31 runs on a wicket that really appeared to show little venom. Astonishingly, a spinner, Roston Chase, ended up with figures of 8 wickets for 60 runs, once of the best ever performances by a spinner for the west Indies, and on a wicket which offered him little assistance.

What went wrong for England ?

In the first place, their first innings batting performance was abysmal, the top score being 17 and the team's total of 77 being one of the worst ever by an England team. Batsmen played without what might be called 'due care and attention' and simply gifted their wickets to the home side, leaving themselves over 200 runs behind at this stage. They followed this up with a pretty spiritless performance in the field as the West Indies, having subsided to 61 - 5 and 120 - 6, rallied to a remarkable 415 - 6 declared. Could this have been on the same wicket on which England made a combined total of 77 ? Yes, and it was a shocking indictment of England's batting, bowling and captaincy.

As a batsman, Joe Root is of the highest quality but as a captain he lacks authority and leadership. Watching the team's miserable performance in the West Indies second innings, Root showed no enthusiasm for the task in hand, he did nothing to galvanise his team, his bowling tactics were highly questionable and one felt he was just going through the motions. The measure of a captain is how he manages difficult situations and Root failed this one to an epic proportion. It might be the modern way of captaincy but the likes of Mike Brearley or Brian Close would have been far more involved and active; they wouldn't have let things drift the way that Root did.

The final ignominy was to see England's second innings fold up. From a good start, reaching 134 - 1, they surrendered without struggle, only one batsman passing 35. The West Indies bowled and caught well, but nothing like so well as to excuse this miserable collapse. England were exposed as a team with many frailties.

So what is the problem ? Firstly, the team seems to have been selected on the basis of having as many reasonably proficient batsmen as far down the order as is possible. Thus, only Jimmy Anderson, at number 11, was without a first class century. Secondly, players have been selected to play out of their normal positions in order to satisfy the first condition. This means that having truly international batsmen has been sacrificed for having lots of batsmen. Thirdly, the opening partnership was effectively untried and hoped that a player who had already failed would 'come good'. Fourthly, the bowling selection was wrong - Stuart Broad, a bowler who has proved himself over many years, was omitted in favour of playing a rather problematic 'second spinner', who was hardly used, although he's scored a few first class centuries ! Fifthly, the captain was the wrong captain.

To correct this list of problems, the selectors need to do various things, most of which they won't. The worst scenario will be if England rally to win the next 2 matches when, of course, they will feel totally vindicated in whatever they've done; the best scenario will be if England are blown away and change is enforced.

My solution, for what it is worth, is firstly to change the captain. Root may be a fine batsman and one of the first names on the team sheet, but he's no captain. Secondly, I'd look at picking a properly balanced team; we need 5 or 6 proper batmen, 3 or 4 proper bowlers, a wicketkeeper and an allrounder. If some can 'double up', that's fine but let's not have the number 5 batsman as the third seamer. Let's also find a genuine opening partnership and a genuine batman to be either number 3 or number 5 in the order. Root ought to be number 3, Bairstow might be a number 4 but is probably more like a number 5; this leaves a vacancy at number 4. Neither Stokes nor Butler is appropriate for this.

At number 6, Butler or Stokes could fill the role, and Stokes probably gets the vote, as did the great Gary Sobers for the West Indies in days passed. Butler could be number 7 if he doubles as wicket-keeper. At 8, it is then a choice  between Moeen Ali and Sam Curran dependant upon the conditions, while for  10 and 11 there can surely be no choices other than Stuart Broad and the ageless Jimmy Anderson.. This leaves number 9 which, depending on the conditions, could be filled by Curran, Mark Wood, Chris Woakes, Jack Leach or Adil Rashid.

In the way of this approach is that England's selectors appear to have given up on finding any real batsmen to fill the voids at opener and number 4. They've also surrendered the appointment of captain to the media, rather than picking the best man for the job. In truth, I don't really see a captain in the current team, so it may be that resolving the issues over opening and number 4 might also find us a true captain.

Captaincy is a very specific skill which few possess and finding the right man might prove galvanic to the team as a whole, even if he's not quite top class as a batsman, as was the case with Brearley. Interestingly, ever since captains have been appointed for their batting rather than their captaincy ability, their results have been shocking - Cook, Gooch, Atherton and Gower have the worst records of England captains who've survived for 30 or more matches; Root's record so far isn't bad, though it's far from the best, but is that more luck than judgement ? He often wins, but he also loses far too many.

Sadly, I'm not an England selector, so my notions will go unheeded and we'll continue to play unbalanced teams and to rely on the occasional brilliant performance to bail us out. It's an approach that certainly didn't work on its latest test.

STEVE SMITH; STILL CHEATING.

A few days ago, Steve Smith, now the former captain of the Australian cricket team, appeared in front of the cameras to make light of his team's ball tampering. Smith then seemed to believe that it was a pretty minor matter and insisted that he would simply 'learn' from the 'mistake' and carry on as team member and captain.

Today, having discovered that blatant cheating is considered rather more seriously by the Australian cricketing authorities, Smith has again appeared before the media but his demeanour this time was somewhat different. Apologetic and contrite, he developed a nasty case of crocodile tears as he talked of his sins.

How utterly false and nauseating. Having been found out and condemned, Smith now seeks to engender pity; for a man who is as hard as nails, this simply doesn't wash. The actions that he initiated and supervised were premediated and calculated yet now he wants us to accept that it was really just a terrible single mistake. 

Poppycock. A mistake it wasn't and whether it was a single occurrence is seriously open to question. The man is a cheat of the worst kind and his behaviour today was nothing more than an attempt to cheat watchers again. Do not be fooled by the phoney tears.

AUSTRALIAN CHEATS CAUGHT - THIS TIME.

In the sport of cricket, 'ball tampering' is not only against the rules, it's the height of unsporting behaviour and cheating. Shockingly, the Australians have admitted that they have been guilty of this in the course of the current test match against South Africa.

It seems that  a group of leading players, including the captain, Steve Smith, got together during a lunch interval and decided to engage in this heinous activity. Unfortunately for them, the actions of the main perpetrator, Cameron Bancroft, were caught on film and the plot was revealed.

Bancroft has owned up, has been charged with misconduct and will undoubtedly suffer for his actions. However, Captain Smith, while admitting to the scheme has insisted that he will not resign his role and there seems to be no action proposed against him at the present time. How can this be ?

Smith is one of the world's greatest batsmen and has proved himself to be a fine captain, until now. As an admitted cheat surely, the Australian cricketing authorities must nonetheless remove him from his post with immediate effect, and also remove him from the team regardless of his prowess with the bat. To do anything less will be for them to condone cheating and to render every Australian player and every Australian performance suspect.

As an afterthought, how can we be sure that such cheating did not also occur during the recent Ashes series in which the Australians defeated England 4 - 0 ? 

Once a cheat, always a cheat !

postscript :

It seems that the world of cricket, and politics, has realised that this appalling behaviour has to be dealt with. Smith has been relieved of the captaincy and David Warner of the vice-captaincy, temporarily for now but surely for good once things are settled. To his credit, the Australian Prime Minister has made a fairly believable appearance as a man who finds it all very embarrassing for his country. Smith has been banned for one match by the ICC and will undoubtedly find that he has lost the captaincy and, quite possibly, his place in the team for, at least, a few games more than that. Additionally, the situation of the national coach, Darren Lehmann, is surely 'dead in the water'.

Pundits, commentators, reporters and all of the rest seem to be of one mind - this can't be allowed and the guilty must pay. Let's see if politics, of all sorts, allows that to happen.