Its a funny ol' game
Cricket is an acquired taste - unfamiliarity can breed a lack of appreciation - as the Americans say, how can you have a game that lasts for 5 days and not have a winner at the end of it?
Then you can have days like yesterday, where after being bored shitless for 4 days a contest completely and unexpectedly explodes to life to a gripping conclusion that even the storywriters in international rugby league couldn't dream up. As someone on the radio just pointed out, how bizzare is it that you can watch a team crawling along at 0.8 runs an over truly transfixed to the events unfolding.
To be honest, I'm still a bit numb from yesterday - partly because I fucked up my betting on the match (don't ask), but partly because I don't think anyone - including the Australian cricketers - could see the eventual result actually happening. Their post match celebrations showed that.
So why did it happen? A question worth pondering - especially from a betting perspective as sometimes trying to work out what happened in the past helps in predicting the future (as much as you can predict sport).
So entering the world of supposition, here's what I take out of it all:
1. There was absolutely NO indication before the start of the last day that England would succumb like the proverbial lambs to the slaughterhouse. They had competed on an equal footing for 4 days, and in 19 overs before stumps on Day 4 had cruised to 59/1.
2. The pitch was a batting paradise, and the cooler weather over the first 2 days meant the pitch hadn't deteriorated to its normal extent, so batting was certainly not harder than the previous day.
3. But suddenly, on Day 5, negativity pervaded the English batsmen (despite Pietersen's morning comments that "yeah we'll play positive out there"). It took Australia 10 overs to get the first wicket of the day, and 10 runs were scored in that time. Sure, the bowling was good, but so are the English batsmen and the pitch was not a minefield.
4. Why the change in tactics? Everyone knows you don't show weakness to the Australian cricket team - that is what they thrive on - like the wild animal circling it's prey - and it's when they perform at their best. SOMEONE in the English dressing room decided to play for the draw - even though it's well known in cricket if you play for a draw, you more often than not end up losing.
5. The prime culprits have to be the coach (Fletcher) and/or the captain (Flintoff). I'll go with the former and I can just imagine the morning pep-talk - "OK luds, just play it cautious for the first hour or so and we'll be home and hosed". Whoever decided on the softly-softly approach needs to be shot - but of course we'll never find out who it was.
6. Even with such a negative attitude, the game still should have been a draw - but an extraordinary series of events - a bad umpiring decision, a comical runout and Pietersen falling to the first ball he faced from Warne (after having showed contempt for the 106 balls he faced in the first innings) - and suddenly the impossible became the possible.
7. Pietersen is the one person who would ignore team orders (I can see him now thinking "fuck off Fletch" during the pep-talk) but he didn't get the chance. His wicket was the turning point, and the remaining batsmen bar Collingwood - even Flintoff - were possums in headlights waiting to be squashed.
So now the 5-0 whitewash is down to $3.55 on Betfair and how, and will, England recover from this shattering defeat is the $64 question.
A question that I'll spend some time pondering but my initial thoughts is ownership of the team. If I'm right in my suspicion that Fletcher holds the whip, the English have a chance to turn things around if their captain grows some balls and takes over the reins when the players walk onto the field. I suspect there will be a fair amount of dissention within the ranks - initially through selection and now with tactics. If Freddie, KP and Co. decide "fuck this, lets do it our way", this series is far from a 5-0 certainty. Because they are a good test side - they showed that for 80% of this match.
Thankfully, the Poms have over a week before the next game starts and every day will help heal the wounds. Unfortunately, Fletcher has already come out in defence of Giles (yes, that spinner who can bat but showed yesterday he can't hold out under pressure and has no ability to dry up runs) and if he is picked for the third test ahead of Panesar, God help England.
It will be worth watching events over the next week before the next test starts - England will either go to pieces or bounce back better than most will expect - but to me the selection for the third test will tell me all I need to know.
P.S. Betting on Betfair during the last day was not for the faint-hearted: the draw was down to $1.02 before Strauss got shafted, and after Pietersen's wicket there was more mayhem than Black Monday at the NYSE.
P.P.S. I'm sorry stepdaughter for doubting your wisdom pre-game.
Then you can have days like yesterday, where after being bored shitless for 4 days a contest completely and unexpectedly explodes to life to a gripping conclusion that even the storywriters in international rugby league couldn't dream up. As someone on the radio just pointed out, how bizzare is it that you can watch a team crawling along at 0.8 runs an over truly transfixed to the events unfolding.
To be honest, I'm still a bit numb from yesterday - partly because I fucked up my betting on the match (don't ask), but partly because I don't think anyone - including the Australian cricketers - could see the eventual result actually happening. Their post match celebrations showed that.
So why did it happen? A question worth pondering - especially from a betting perspective as sometimes trying to work out what happened in the past helps in predicting the future (as much as you can predict sport).
So entering the world of supposition, here's what I take out of it all:
1. There was absolutely NO indication before the start of the last day that England would succumb like the proverbial lambs to the slaughterhouse. They had competed on an equal footing for 4 days, and in 19 overs before stumps on Day 4 had cruised to 59/1.
2. The pitch was a batting paradise, and the cooler weather over the first 2 days meant the pitch hadn't deteriorated to its normal extent, so batting was certainly not harder than the previous day.
3. But suddenly, on Day 5, negativity pervaded the English batsmen (despite Pietersen's morning comments that "yeah we'll play positive out there"). It took Australia 10 overs to get the first wicket of the day, and 10 runs were scored in that time. Sure, the bowling was good, but so are the English batsmen and the pitch was not a minefield.
4. Why the change in tactics? Everyone knows you don't show weakness to the Australian cricket team - that is what they thrive on - like the wild animal circling it's prey - and it's when they perform at their best. SOMEONE in the English dressing room decided to play for the draw - even though it's well known in cricket if you play for a draw, you more often than not end up losing.
5. The prime culprits have to be the coach (Fletcher) and/or the captain (Flintoff). I'll go with the former and I can just imagine the morning pep-talk - "OK luds, just play it cautious for the first hour or so and we'll be home and hosed". Whoever decided on the softly-softly approach needs to be shot - but of course we'll never find out who it was.
6. Even with such a negative attitude, the game still should have been a draw - but an extraordinary series of events - a bad umpiring decision, a comical runout and Pietersen falling to the first ball he faced from Warne (after having showed contempt for the 106 balls he faced in the first innings) - and suddenly the impossible became the possible.
7. Pietersen is the one person who would ignore team orders (I can see him now thinking "fuck off Fletch" during the pep-talk) but he didn't get the chance. His wicket was the turning point, and the remaining batsmen bar Collingwood - even Flintoff - were possums in headlights waiting to be squashed.
So now the 5-0 whitewash is down to $3.55 on Betfair and how, and will, England recover from this shattering defeat is the $64 question.
A question that I'll spend some time pondering but my initial thoughts is ownership of the team. If I'm right in my suspicion that Fletcher holds the whip, the English have a chance to turn things around if their captain grows some balls and takes over the reins when the players walk onto the field. I suspect there will be a fair amount of dissention within the ranks - initially through selection and now with tactics. If Freddie, KP and Co. decide "fuck this, lets do it our way", this series is far from a 5-0 certainty. Because they are a good test side - they showed that for 80% of this match.
Thankfully, the Poms have over a week before the next game starts and every day will help heal the wounds. Unfortunately, Fletcher has already come out in defence of Giles (yes, that spinner who can bat but showed yesterday he can't hold out under pressure and has no ability to dry up runs) and if he is picked for the third test ahead of Panesar, God help England.
It will be worth watching events over the next week before the next test starts - England will either go to pieces or bounce back better than most will expect - but to me the selection for the third test will tell me all I need to know.
P.S. Betting on Betfair during the last day was not for the faint-hearted: the draw was down to $1.02 before Strauss got shafted, and after Pietersen's wicket there was more mayhem than Black Monday at the NYSE.
P.P.S. I'm sorry stepdaughter for doubting your wisdom pre-game.
Labels: cricket
posted by Rob Crawford at 8:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home