England v New Zealand 2008: Fraser and Brenkley at the Tests, Lord's, Day One
Well, here we are at Lord's, first day of the First Test against New Zealand. And in a cricket world where Twenty20 is king, where there is talk of untold riches, of the need to change, of the urge to do this and do that to make the game more appealing there is nothing, Gus, is there, like the first morning of an authentic Test match series? It is a pity the weather in St John's Wood is dreadful but even that cannot entirely erode the sense of expectation. Or am I being a romantic fuddy-duddy who needs carting off to the funny farm?
No you are not. Lord's is a special place and the reason it is special is because of days like this. Sadly, as you said, the weather is awful and nobody is quite sure when play will start.
The exciting finish to the football season has slightly overshadowed the start of the Test summer but this is an important summer for England. The Ashes, always the big deal for English cricket, is fast approaching and England need to begin looking like a side that can defeat Australia. To do that many of the players need to move up a gear and that starts now.
New Zealand, as Vaughan said yesterday, are a workmanlike side, capable, hard working but limited, and England's cricketers need to show they are as good as we think, or hope, they are. A 2-0 victory containing severa hundreds and lots of good bowling is the very least England need.
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 15 May 2008 at 10:25 AM
Agreed on that. And until that happens the worry persists that this England team are not quite as good as they think they are, though captain Michael Vaughan said the other day that they were in a good place as regards the 2009 Ashes and that this team had bags of potential. Potential, of course, is different from achievement. The batsmen and Vaughan himself need to fire quickly. A lot is being said and written about Vaughan and the virtues of his captaincy - and he is an outstanding captain - and the fact that he should still be leader in a year's time. But the truth is that he is under pressure and he needs to perform well soon. Nobody, not even Ashes winning skippers, has a divine right to be captain of England.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 15 May 2008 at 10:31 AM
I am not over concerned about Vaughan's form at this moment in time but I might be at the end of the series. He batted well last summer, averaging 54, and was okay in Sri lanka without posting a big score. Yes, he was poor in New Zealand and has struggled so far this summer but if he gets a couple of scores, 70's, 80's here it will all be forgotten.
If he doesn't though and Andrew Strauss gets a couple of hundreds then it becomes interesting. At the moment, and with the Ashes where they are, he is the only realistic alternative to Vaughan. Paul Collingwood has done pretty well with the one-day side but I don't see him as a Test captain. Alastair Cook is still a bit young, and the there is your left field tip - Kevin Pietersen. I suppose it would stop him wanting to go to the IPL next spring, or would it?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 15 May 2008 at 10:37 AM
Ideally, England want Vaughan as skipper, though Strauss might easily be captain now if the selectors had chosen him to be skipper for the 2006-07 Ashes as they should have done. Never mind. By the way, as skipper Vaughan's batting average is below 40.
As for KP, I have a huge soft spot for him as you probably know. He's contrary though. One minute, he's aaying that Twenty20 is simply a slogathon and Test cricket is the only true measure and the next he's saying he wants to fill his coffers in the IPL. But I honestly think if he was aver made captain he would treat the role with the dignity it deserved - and as somebody who was born in South Africa somebody close to him should sit down and tell him about another South African born England captain, Tony Greig, perhaps even Greig himself.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 15 May 2008 at 10:45 AM
I agree, and I wonder whether the possibility of that has slightly affected his batting. Pietersen plays more responsibly now, as though he is trying to set the right example. In some ways it is nice to see but I believe he it does not bring out the best in him. When his average was at its highest so was his strike rate - runs per 100 balls. He is a better player when he is a free spirit and just goes for it.
James Anderson or Matthew Hoggard? Are England right to persevere with Anderson?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 15 May 2008 at 10:51 AM
Anderson has never been given a decent run of games for England since he played seven in a row at the start of his career. He is fully aware of of his woefully inconsistent form and spoke well about it the other day. Yes, I think he deserves to keep his place. The suspicion about Hoggard is that he is going down the other side of the mountain. He has been a wonderful servant but the selectors can't afford sentimental picks. If Hoggard has really gone as an international they have to take a view. There are plenty of bowlers around for now and Chris Tremlett, for one, clearly needs encouraging. He outbowled Hoggard for England Lions last week.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 15 May 2008 at 10:59 AM
I agree. England need to find out about Anderson one way or the other and time does seem to be catching up with Hoggard, although that was said about me on a few occasions and my best season came when I was 32/33. Hoggard is 31 and he offers great cover should injury or bad form limit England's bowling options. He no longer looks capable of leading the attack though. Age catches up with everyone, sadly.
On another matter, Darrell Hair is umpiring in next week's second Test against New Zealand. Were the ICC right to bring him back, especially as he is unlikely to feature in Tests, one-dayers involving Asian teams?
Posted by: Angus Fraser | 15 May 2008 at 11:05 AM
What a conundrum Hair presents. Here is a man who in upholding the letter of the law, as he saw it, at The Oval in 2006 forgot its spirit and then later took his employers to an industrial tribunal where his application failed, indeed ended in farce. By common consent, Hair is a sound umpire but the fact is that the ICC have reinstated a man who will never adjudicate in another Test featuring India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka because they won't have him. The countries themselves need to be brought into line as well but for Hair to have been brought back shows both odd priorities and a game without a sense of direction. Hair is a strong-minded man and he will need every ounce of that strength in Manchester. On balance, because of all that has happened I think Hair should have been let go.
Posted by: Stephen Brenkley | 15 May 2008 at 11:15 AM
I am sorry, but just what did Hair do at the Oval that is contrary to the spirit of the game? He acted within and upheld the rules, and Pakistan behaved quite abominably. A just resolution would have seen Pakistan banned for a couple of years to learn what cricket is about, while the sleazy administrators who scurried out to accuse Hair of racism should have been banned for life. No-one forced Pakistan to behave like spoiled children, any more than anyone forced Zimbabwe to sink into the depths of corruption. Yes, Hair took his employers to court - and made them look ridiculous. Well deserved ridicule, for a corrupt, lazy and dishonest club of outdated hacks and mediocre businessmen! Cricket is a marvellous game, but its administrators have been a disaster.
Posted by: maxim | 15 May 2008 at 04:22 PM