From the brink of despair, Sri Lanka have risen to rapturous exhilaration after whitewashing Australia. And Test cricket is much better for it.

Andrew Fidel Fernando in Colombo17-Aug-2016Gloom hung about Sri Lankan cricket before this tour. The question was not if they would lose, but by how much. Somehow, in three winding weeks, the dark clouds have come to be banished. Bloomed in their place: unexpected, rapturous joy.No Sri Lankan series is complete without a collapse, of course, but on this occasion, the trough was hit nice and early. It is that glum 117 all out that gives the subsequent triumphs meaning. It is when Graham Ford called Kusal Mendis “The Prince”, following his 176, that a team-wide scramble for hyperbolic praise really began.In Galle, Australia came upon Sri Lankan cricket’s more sinister side. They were faced with a pitch that would wear if so much as a shadow fell upon it; a surface so dry it inspired their top order to spectacularly combust. On day two their hopes for the series went up in flames, and by the third afternoon, Sri Lanka’s spinners had frolicking merrily around the pyre.The home side had three SSC centurions to Australia’s two. Dhananjaya de Silva made a velvet hundred, after his team had been 26 for 5. Dinesh Chandimal slow-cooked a supporting ton. Kaushal Silva battled pain in his left hand and his own bad form, to set off like a spinning firework upon reaching triple figures, and leave the series with a smirk.But it fit that Sri Lanka’s slow bowlers defined the final, triumphant day. All through the series they had beaten both edges of the bat. They had Australia lunging at turning balls, and leaving straight ones. They had had batsmen running down the pitch to deliveries they should have played from the crease; having scrambled the opposition’s footwork, as well as their minds.In the last innings of the series, theirs was a catalogue of spinners’ dream dismissals. An aggressive opening batsman was bowled around his legs. Edges were taken by keeper and slip. One batsman was bowled trying to cut. There was a skied slog, a stumping, all adding up to a 9 for 60 slump.Even the pitch-markings appeared to be in thrall of Sri Lankan spin. When Moises Henriques and Josh Hazlewood were deemed out of their ground by a hair, in the second session, close-ups of the popping crease revealed it to be chunkier and wonkier than a crease should generally be. What better way to pay tribute to the thicker-than-average Man of the Series? Just like the champion spinner, these creases had their curves.Angelo Mathews dropped one of the simplest slip chances he is ever likely to get, burned two reviews in successive balls, and made an over-cautious declaration, and yet, the victory almost came too easy. His is one of the zanier captaincy records. Having failed to oversee a single win over a Test-playing nation until the end of June, he has Sri Lanka’s most famous whitewash on his resume now, to go with the 2014 series win in England.When the SSC dust settles, maybe the narrative that takes grip around the cricket world will fixate on Australia’s shortcomings with and against spin. Nine Asian failures in a row is difficult to ignore. Their slow bowlers were modest on turning tracks. The top order fell in such heaps, batsmen tripped over each other on their way back to the pavilion.But let not that narrative drown out the triumphant cries of one of cricket’s quieter voices. Let it not edge out the story of a team that draws on a smaller population than Australia, whose finances are in worse shape New Zealand’s; a team that still only taps about a third of their island for top-end talent, for reasons involving a finished conflict, and ongoing gross mismanagement. A country which, still, produces batsmen who stroke effortless sixes to begin promising Test careers; which unveils mystery spinners who turn their first games; whose youngest gun’s second first-class hundred is one of the great Test innings; and a team, whose heart-and-soul is a 38-year-old with grey-flecked hair, and maybe cricket’s gentlest spirit.When they play like they have this series, Sri Lanka are the shock of lime in cricket’s . They are the cashew in its , and the leaf in its .Cricket would still go on without Sri Lanka, but would it be anywhere near as good?

ESPNcricinfo staff07-Oct-2016England chose to bat, with James Vince opening alongside Jason Roy•Getty ImagesThey put on 41 before Shafiul Islam had Vince caught at mid-on•Getty ImagesShakib Al Hasan then removed Roy•Associated PressRoy struck 41 off 40 before holing out…•Getty Images…and Jonny Bairstow then ran himself out for a duck to leave England 63 for 3•Getty ImagesBen Duckett made a solid start on debut•Getty ImagesWhile Ben Stokes took the attack to the Bangladesh bowlers with an array of reverse-sweeps•Getty ImagesDuckett and Stokes combined for a stand of 153•AFPDuckett played sensibly for a fifty…•Associated Press…before being bowled behind his legs•Getty ImagesStokes went on to record his maiden ODI hundred before Mashrafe Mortaza pegged back England with two quick wickets•Associated PressBut Buttler hammered a 33-ball fifty to take England past 300•Getty ImagesTamim Iqbal and Imrul Kayes got off to a solid start chasing 310•Associated PressKayes was particularly fluent during an opening stand worth 46…•Associated Press…but Tamim fell to the debutant, Jake Ball, in his first over•Getty ImagesAn acrobatic David Willey catch gave Ball his second wicket•Associated PressBut Kayes brought up a 55-ball half-century to steady Bangladesh•Associated PressAdil Rashid struck twice in the middle overs, leaving Bangladesh 153 for 4•Associated PressShakib’s 39-ball half-century kept the hosts on track•Getty ImagesKayes brought up his hundred as he and Shakib closed in…•AFP…their partnership was worth 118 and looked to have sealed the chase•Getty ImagesBut Ball came back to remove Shakib and Mosaddek Hossain with consecutive balls•Getty ImagesRashid had Kayes stumped off a wide for 112, then pulled off a run-out before Ball finished the innings•Getty ImagesHis 5 for 51 were the best figures by an England debutant, sealing a 21-run win•Getty Images

From Jennings’ breakthrough to Duckett’s demise, ESPNcricinfo runs the rule over England’s players during their 4-0 series loss in India

George Dobell in Chennai21-Dec-20163:04

Trott: Spin is the issue for England, not captaincy

7.5Haseeb Hameed
The figures may be relatively modest, but the overall impression was not. Hameed, with his composure, his technique and his passion, made a terrific impression in his first three matches. In his first match he registered the highest score (82) by an England teenager – he sacrificed his chances of a debut century in an attempt to set up the declaration – and then made an unbeaten 59 in Mohali despite batting with an improvised technique and badly broken finger. Bearing in mind that several of his dismissals were unfortunate – he was run out in the first innings in Vizag having been sent back by Root, then trapped by a shooter in the second before, in the first innings in Mohali, receiving one which reared off a length – he is far from flattered by his figures. These are early days, but he did provide hope that England have finally found an opening partner for Cook.7Ben Stokes (five Tests, 8 wickets at 44.62, 345 runs at 38.33)
A century in Rajkot and a 70 in Vizag demonstrated Stokes’ improvement against spin bowling. While he had diminishing success as a batsman for the rest of the series – he struggled to read Ashwin’s flight, in particular – he contributed as a seamer and as a ubiquitous fielder. Despite a relative absence of reverse swing – England gained much less than they anticipated – he was the only England bowler to take a five-for in the series and generated impressive hostility despite the slow surfaces. Sparingly used by Cook who called him England’s “golden player”. It’s hard to disagree.Stuart Broad (three Tests, 8 wickets at 31.00, 44 runs at 11.00)
Had a point to prove in India and, despite injury, he largely did so. Bowled with spirit and skill on pitches offering him little, with his best performance coming in the second innings in Vizag. Despite having sustained a foot injury in the opening moments of India’s first innings, he bowled a long spell in the second innings to finish with 4 for 33. Sorely missed in the next two Tests, he returned in Chennai and again looked the best of England’s seamers. Compensating for a lack of swing with his control and changes of pace, his leg-cutter troubled the best and he bowled more maidens than any other England player.Joe Root (five Tests, 2 wickets at 28.50, 491 at 49.10)
Top of the batting and bowling averages and England’s top run-scorer in the series with fifty, at least, in every match. Looked in sublime form at times but will have learned that it is 100s (and 200s) that win matches. His 70s and 80s, though admirable, are not quite enough, either for this team or if he is to be rated the best in the world.6.5Keaton Jennings (two Tests, 167 runs at 41.75)
But for a dropped catch early in his first innings, Jennings might have started his Test career with scores of 0, 0 and 1. But, having survived that early chance in his first innings, he batted with great composure in registering a century on debut and then produced a half-century under pressure, both from an individual and team perspective, in his final innings of the series. Might well have done enough to retain a place somewhere in the top three when Hameed returns. Decent support seamer and fielder, too, and looked at home at this level and in the England environment.Haseeb Hameed was England’s find of a chastening winter•Associated Press6Adil Rashid (five Tests, 23 wickets at 37.43, 113 runs at 14.12)
No England legspinner has taken more wickets in a series than Rashid managed here and only Richie Benaud has taken more as a visiting legspinner to India. Which all sounds pretty great, doesn’t it? But by the end of the series, Cook once again looked reluctant to trust Rashid and the preponderance of loose deliveries remains an issue. It was noticeable that, after a disappointing series in Bangladesh, he improved notably when Saqlain Mushtaq was with the squad (for the first three Tests in India) and that his performance dipped once Saqlain departed. Still, Bayliss remarked that he had been England’s “best spinner” after the first three Tests and, with a half-century at Chennai adding to his wickets, he may be pushing Moeen for his place by the time England resume Test cricket.Jonny Bairstow (five Tests, 352 runs at 44, 11 catches and 2 stumpings)
Passed fifty three times (and had two scores in the 40s, too) without ever going on to make a match-defining contribution. Looked as comfortable as anyone against the spin and seems to have progressed up the order to the extent where No. 5 is set to be his long-term home. While there was some trepidation over how he would fare as a keeper, he showed impressive improvement standing up to the spinners. Inevitably, as India’s innings stretched to days at a time, a few errors crept in, but this was a vast improvement from his performance with the gloves in South Africa.5.5Moeen Ali (five Tests, 10 wickets at 64.90, 381 runs at 42.33)
How do you judge Moeen Ali? As a batsman he was fitfully brilliant, as a bowler he struggled. After seven wickets in the first two Tests, he claimed just three more in the remaining three. He bowled, on the whole, just about as well as he can, but found India’s batsmen more than his equal. With the bat, he contributed two centuries and a fifty but his tour was perhaps summed up by his final innings: having resisted for 97 balls to all but shut the door on India, he then drove to mid-on to allow them back in the game. It was an infuriatingly soft dismissal from someone trying to establish themselves in the top six. Australia and South Africa will have noted his discomfort against the short ball, too.Jos Buttler
A qualified success as a replacement for Zafar Ansari. With an unbeaten half-century in his maiden innings, Dawson was part of a rescue mission that helped England register a competitive first-innings score in Chennai. He was then the most economical of England’s three spinners to help delay India’s reply. It was a decent first impression and it’s not at all impossible that, if England reason they want a defensive spinner who can bat, Dawson’s name features heavily in future selection meetings.4James Anderson (three Tests, 4 wickets at 53.50, 20 runs at 5)
Deserves credit for his determination to join the tour as early as possible after a serious shoulder injury, but was unable to repeat the success of 2012 when he was memorably described as “the difference between the sides” by MS Dhoni. While he claimed four wickets in Vizag, he was rarely able to gain much swing – either conventional or reverse – and, with his pace diminishing with the passing years, rarely troubled India’s batsmen. Missed the final Test as a precaution, which underlined both his on-going importance to England and his increasing fragility. He has now missed eight of England’s 23 most recent Tests.Alastair Cook looked tentative against spin and was dismissed six times by Ravindra Jadeja•Associated PressJake Ball (two Tests, 1 wicket at 111, 45 runs at 11.25)
Called into the side as one of four seamers for the Mumbai Test, Ball was favoured to Woakes and Stokes by Cook at times in that match and was more economical than either of them. Retained his place for Chennai ahead of Woakes but rarely threatened in conditions offering him nothing. A couple of dropped chances did him no favours. While he may need to develop some more skills to succeed in such circumstances, he looks a bowler with a lot going for him and could well feature more in England and Australia. Contributed a surprising 31 in Mumbai, too.3Chris Woakes (three Tests, 3 wickets at 81.33, 70 runs at 14)
A disappointing end to a breakthrough year. Woakes impressed with his pace in Rajkot but could not generate enough movement with the ball to concern good batsmen and, by the end of the series, had slipped behind Jake Ball in selection. Batted nicely in Mohali, but was undone by a couple of fine bouncers by Mohammed Shami, the second of which both dismissed him and caused a small crack in his thumb.Zafar Ansari (two Tests, 3 wickets at 54.33, 36 runs at 12)
There may be some mitigation for Ansari’s less-than-flattering figures in the series. He was suffering from both illness and injury in Vizag (where he scored four runs in two innings and finished wicketless) and was subsequently forced home early. Bowled respectably on a flat wicket in Rajkot, finishing with three wickets in the match, but rarely looked threatening and looked as if he had some developing to do before he could be considered part of the answer to England’s spin bowling problems.1Ben Duckett (two Tests, 18 runs at 6)
An episode that emphasised the chasm that exists between Division Two of the County Championship and Test cricket. Duckett was dismissed by Ashwin’s offspin in all three innings. In the first two, he was punished for planting his front foot on leg stump and beaten by sharp turn. In the final one he snatched at a sweep and was caught off glove and thigh by the keeper. Taken out of the firing line to allow him to work on his game, he has the talent and the time to come again, but this was a chastening early experience.N/AGareth Batty (one Test, 0 wickets for 65 runs, 1 run at 0.5)
There was to be no fairy-tale return to international cricket from Batty. He didn’t bowl badly in Mohali, but he did look superfluous alongside another offspinner in Moeen and England favoured the variety of a left-arm spinner at other times. Harsh to judge him on such limited opportunity.

Change in personnel at the top means there’s lot to be optimistic about, but the cricketing fraternity at large needs to steps in to prevent Zimbabwe from going Kenya’s way

Tristan Holme10-Nov-2016As Zimbabwe shimmied towards their latest defeat in the second Test against Sri Lanka, thoughts turned to that age-old question: what are the ingredients for an effective turnaround for Zimbabwe cricket?A lot has changed over the last 15 months. A new board and a new chairman have taken charge. The backroom staff at the national level have all changed, and there is a new head coach now in Heath Streak. Tatenda Taibu has taken over as the new convenor of selectors, and has the responsibility of setting up a new structure below the national team.There are some promising new players coming through. What’s more, Streak has infused positivity into a group of players that had for some time seen survival as their only goal.Further evolution is in the pipeline. Last season’s Logan Cup, the country’s first-class competition, comprised just six rounds, with the national players missing most of them. Although the fixtures of the upcoming season are awaited, the number of matches are expected to double. The four first-class provinces that will contest the Logan Cup will also be supplemented by five Associate provinces who will make up a feeder league.One might look at all this and wonder what else is to be done to improve a Test team that has now failed to take 20 wickets in a match in eight games, and has conceded more than 500 runs in the first innings of its last five Tests.An obvious answer is to entice players who have left – such as Brendan Taylor, Kyle Jarvis and Solomon Mire – back into the fold, but that may not happen in the short term. A less obvious one is to provide better support for the players they’ve got. Streak pointed out that, as a coaching unit, the resources at Zimbabwe’s disposal in an increasingly technological age are miles behind even those of Bangladesh, and said he would be asking Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) for backing in this regard.Further questions arise. Is it possible for Zimbabwe to move forward whilst ZC remain saddled with an asphyxiating debt that, in truth, calls into question the viability of its domestic plans? One also wonders whether anything can really improve until there is a turnaround in the country’s economy, and its political landscape stabilises.In short, there are numerous problems to tackle, but there are some good men doing their best to come up with solutions. The question then is what could happen in the global game that would assist Zimbabwe?Coach Heath Streak feels the gap between Zimbabwe’s domestic structure and international cricket is massive•AFPA decade ago, with accusations of corruption swirling around ZC, many observers wanted them to be expelled from the ICC. When that did not happen, the rest of the world quietly forgot about Zimbabwe. India have been consistent visitors over the past six years – “all-weather friends”, in the local parlance – essentially providing the income for ZC to remain a going concern. New Zealand, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all done their bit, but their tours cost ZC more money than they make. Everyone else has largely given up on Zimbabwe, and the disintegration of the Future Tours Programme has allowed other countries to ignore them.Since returning to Test cricket in August 2011, Zimbabwe have played just six away Tests, three of them in a single series in Bangladesh. Without more international games, especially Tests, Zimbabwe is unlikely to get far even if they reform themselves in every possible way.”We have too many long periods without international cricket, and unfortunately the gap between our domestic cricket and international cricket is massive,” Streak said. “Our next scheduled Test series is in June next year. If you’re a specialist Test player like Tino Mawoyo, your next Test is in eight months’ time, and his only cricket in the meantime will be domestic cricket. You can’t expect to go from that to facing Rangana Herath. But I’m telling the players we can’t just expect people to want to come and play us. We’ve got to earn the right.”The next few years will be crucial for the game here, and Zimbabwe’s future is likely to be tied to what happens at the ICC. If nothing comes of attempts to add context and structure to bilateral cricket, and Zimbabwe fail to qualify for the 2019 World Cup, then it’s difficult not to see former coach Dav Whatmore’s prophecy coming to pass and Zimbabwe going Kenya’s way. But if the ICC’s Members can agree on a new format for bilateral cricket, there is reason to be hopeful.The two-tier system discussed by the ICC in September would have solved the lack of cricket, but ZC opposed it. “I mean that was like doing this,” said a former Zimbabwe international this week, cocking his right hand into the shape of a gun before pretending to blow his brains out through the roof of his head. In July, ZC chairman Tavengwa Mukuhlani said the opposition to the proposal was because, “whatever restructuring of international cricket is done must be aimed at ensuring that it improves cricket, and our belief is that you can only improve when you play against the best.”Zimbabwe Cricket, headed by Tavengwa Mukuhlani, haven’t accepted ICC’s two-Tier proposal•IDI/Getty ImagesThe fact that only one of Zimbabwe’s Test opponents since August 2011 have been ranked in the top four at the time that the two teams played – South Africa visited for one Test in 2014 – confirms they are not playing against the best as things stand. “We have to earn the right to step up, and the only way you’re going to do that is by playing regularly,” said Streak. “I’m very keen for us to play even non-official Tests against Ireland and Afghanistan, because you’re going to be better off for it than playing Mountaineers versus Tuskers.”By opposing the two-tier system, ZC have effectively gambled on the ICC Members agreeing on a better proposal soon. The ICC is not known for moving quickly with small decisions, let alone big ones. Should it all come together, though, there are other changes on the horizon that would benefit Zimbabwe.An ODI league would bring quantity quality, guaranteeing games against everyone and even encouraging England to resume ties. The new structures look set to make all of these fixtures financially viable, rather than adding to ZC’s debt burden.Furthermore, if India come on board with the DRS and the ICC secure a global sponsor for the system, it would become readily available in Zimbabwe. The last two series have shown how badly it is needed.And if ZC can pool their television rights with other boards, they should secure more money that could result in their games being broadcast to a wider audience. Their last two series have been aired in just a handful of countries, and Zimbabweans have been vulnerable to the whims of the state broadcaster, ZBC.There is much to be hopeful about then, but the stakes are high. The ICC’s drive to change bilateral cricket was largely borne out of a desire for context in games among middle-ranking nations. But failure to transform the landscape could easily see its most embattled Full Member go quietly into the night.

M Vijay approaches his 50th Test having played important innings for the side all over the world, yet he has not quite dominated a series like his peers in the India team

Karthik Krishnaswamy in Ranchi13-Mar-20173:16

Archive: ‘When I bat, I want to play as many balls as possible’

Three days before the Bengaluru Test, M Vijay appeared at a press conference in which two major talking points went un-talked-about. The first was the fact that Vijay was carrying a shoulder injury that could – and eventually did – keep him out of the Test match. Neither did Anil Kumble the next day nor Virat Kohli on the eve of the game mention it, even when asked if the team had any injury concerns. It seemed, in the end, that India had kept this bit of news well hidden to keep Abhinav Mukund – who replaced his Tamil Nadu opening partner at the Chinnaswamy Stadium – out of the spotlight, and out of Australia’s pre-match planning.The other fact that went unnoticed at Vijay’s press conference was that he had played 49 Tests. No one asked him about his thoughts on playing his 50th Test, or about the long, winding and sometimes precarious path that had taken him there.It felt somehow appropriate, befitting a batsman who, while playing the innings of his life, a first-day 144 in the scorching heat of the Gabba, caressed Shane Watson through the covers, ambled back to his crease, looked up, bemused that the crowd hadn’t stopped applauding, and only realised he had moved from 96 to 100 when told so by his batting partner Ajinkya Rahane. There has always been a streak of absentmindedness in Vijay’s cricket.Fifty Test matches. Twenty-eight Indian cricketers have reached this milestone, of whom only four – Sunil Gavaskar (125 Tests), Virender Sehwag (103), Gautam Gambhir (58) and Navjot Singh Sidhu (51) – have been full-time opening batsmen. Shoulder permitting, Vijay will join them in Ranchi.It will have taken Vijay an awfully long time, by the standards of his day, to get there. He made his debut back in 2008, in Sourav Ganguly’s farewell Test, and has missed 37 of India’s 86 Tests since then. He spent three years making sporadic appearances whenever Virender Sehwag or, more often, Gautam Gambhir was out injured. He went through an identity crisis as to what kind of batsman he wanted to be, and spent two years out of the side before coming back to establish himself, belatedly, as India’s first-choice opening batsman.While Cheteshwar Pujara has averaged over fifty seven times while playing more than one match in a series, M Vijay has done so only twice•AFPAll of this has contributed to a Test record that is, at first glance, a little underwhelming: 3307 runs at an average of 39.84, this while he has been part of a batting line-up whose three other long-standing members – Cheteshwar Pujara, Virat Kohli and Rahane – average over 45.The average is a product of all the contradictory forces that make Vijay one of the most fascinating and frustrating batsmen of our time.There are few obvious weaknesses in his game: he leaves as well as anyone of his generation; he defends with soft hands, close to his body, and against spin is seldom caught on the wrong foot; he doesn’t have a huge array of attacking shots against the short ball, but is seldom hurried by it; he is beautifully balanced against balls aimed at the stumps, and is almost never forced into playing around his front pad.If there has been any pattern to his recent dismissals, it’s a tendency to fend at rising balls in the fourth-stump channel, but if it’s a hard ball to negotiate, it’s just as hard to deliver accurately. It isn’t, in short, a massive weakness.Vijay’s technical gifts have allowed him to play innings of substance all over the world: at Kingsmead, Trent Bridge, Lord’s, the Gabba, the P Sara Oval, and at various Indian venues against seam and spin. Hardly a series goes by without at least one significant contribution from him.But he seldom dominates a series. Through his entire career, he has only averaged more than 50 twice while playing more than one match in a series. Compare that to Kohli (8), Pujara (7), or Rahane (6). When they are in form, they really make it count. Vijay, for some reason, doesn’t.And so, the average. 39.84. It isn’t what it could be, but it is what it is. Much like Vijay himself. His fans will hope his 50th Test will bring with it a series-defining hundred, but they will not be too disappointed if he only makes 31. It’s all part of the Vijay experience.

They are old-fashioned Test batsmen with a contrasting approach, but the sight of the two doing well together in a partnership is the sign that the India Test team is doing well

Sidharth Monga09-Feb-20171:29

‘I was feeling good coming into this Test’ – Vijay

In the 26th over of the day’s play, Cheteshwar Pujara played a lovely straight drive. It should have gone for a four between the stumps at the non-striker’s end and his batting partner M Vijay. Except that Vijay almost had his back to the action and didn’t make the slightest of efforts to get his bat out of the way. The ball knocked the bat out of Vijay’s hand, and created a misunderstanding as Pujara wanted a single off the ricochet, but Vijay was still processing what had just happened.It was quite reminiscent of India’s first Test with modern DRS. Pujara was given out lbw to a legbreak that was hitting leg and middle and thus ought to have pitched outside leg. Except that when you are batting and given out, you look at cues from your partner so as to not look selfish with reviews. In this case, Vijay again had his back to the action by the time Pujara looked up.They are both slow runners who can often be caught ball-watching. In Hyderabad on Thursday Vijay took a few steps for a single, Pujara charged off, looking at the ball and not his partner. Then both made off for the same crease. Vijay, who now knew he was to be beaten to the crease at the striker’s end, tried to complete the run. They were lucky this didn’t result in a run-out.In Indore, Pujara turned his back on Vijay when the call should have been his for a single into the covers. They are lucky they have had only one run-out batting together. If you didn’t know better, you would think they are a dysfunctional pair. Yet they are the most prolific second-wicket partnership in the world and fourth-best overall since October 2010, when Pujara debuted.Among Indian pairs with 2000 or more runs together, this partnership averages the best. They are also India’s most prolific pair since the start of this decade.M Vijay and Cheteshwar Pujara are the most prolific second-wicket partnership since October 2010•AFPEven when the Vijay-Pujara combine is not putting up the big numbers, they make significant small contributions. They had a big part to play in Virat Kohli’s success in Australia in 2014-15 when he hardly ever had to face the new ball. This was months after Kohli’s horror tour of England. In India’s win at Lord’s, they batted together for close to 20 overs in the first innings and added 78 in the second. When India came close to winning in Johannesburg, their partnership lasted 26.2-overs. When England racked up 537 in the first of five Tests this season, these two added 209 to calm India’s nerves.No No. 4 batsman in the world has been walking out to face an older ball than India’s since Rahul Dravid retired and Pujara moved to No. 3. On an average India have been losing their second wicket at the end of the 26th over. Over the same period only Australia’s No. 4 has walked in with more runs on the board than India’s. On an average India have been losing their second wicket at the score of 87.5.More than anything else, the sight of Vijay and Pujara batting well together in a partnership is the sign that the India Test team is doing well. The irritants – Vijay switching off at the non-striker’s end and both ball-watching when running – are offshoots of what are integral parts of their game. They are old-fashioned Test batsmen. They build their innings through a lot of leaves and a lot of defensive shots when it is the most difficult time to bat. They need to switch off between balls otherwise they will exhaust themselves in no time.They play very little of the formats where you are expected to just watch your partner and put your head down and run like hell. They have two different games – Vijay stylish, Pujara hard-working – but this is one of the big similarities. They get to play international cricket in only one format, and they are under extra pressure when they play Tests, especially given the amount of batting talent in India. They were both dropped for flashier batsmen during the West Indies tour.Vijay only looks at the positives of playing only one format. “As I am playing one format of the game at the moment, I have got a decent idea about it and the hang of it,” Vijay said. “I want to give as many consistent starts as possible, and be ready for my opportunity in other two formats as well.”Their circumstance might be similar, but as people, Vijay and Pujara are as different as their games. “We are totally different characters in the dressing room because we don’t think the same way,” Vijay said. “But once we go in the middle, we enjoy the company and enjoy each other’s success. He’s been a fantastic role model for all the youngsters in India. Hopefully he can continue doing the great work. It is a great honour to move along with him and pick his brains.”Vijay said batting with Pujara is a comfort zone for him. That Pujara’s solid batting means he can relax and play his own game. In scarcely believable form he might be, but Kohli must be feeling similarly about this partnership right now.

ESPNcricinfo previews Warwickshire’s prospects for the 2017 season

George Dobell04-Apr-2017Last season:

In: Olly Stone (Northamptonshire), Grant Elliott (Kolpak)
Out: Varun Chopra (Essex), Laurie Evans (Sussex), Richard Jones (Leicestershire), Recordo Gordon, Jonathan Webb, Freddie Coleman (all released)
Overseas: Jeetan Patel (NZ), Colin de Grandhomme (NZ, T20)2016 in a nutshell
Most clubs would be pretty content with a season that brought a trophy and mid-table Division One finish. But not Warwickshire. Concluding – not without some justification – that the Royal London success “papered over cracks”, the club sacked their director of cricket, Dougie Brown, and replaced him with Ashley Giles at the end of the season. It is true that Brown had lost the confidence of some senior players, but those players might have done well to reflect on their own performances, too. The batting, in particular, was oddly fragile (Ian Bell averaged a modest 33.90 and Sam Hain failed to deliver on his obvious promise in the Championship by averaging 22.75) but a fall-out between Brown and former captain, Varun Chopra, saw the club stubbornly refuse to pick him in white-ball competitions and led to his inevitable departure at the end of the season. Laurie Evans, frustrated at his lack of red-ball opportunities, was granted a release from his contract a year early. The bowling, led by Keith Barker’s swing and Jeetan Patel’s spin, was more impressive, while in limited-overs cricket Rikki Clarke continued to bowl well. If the highlight of their season was the Royal London Cup win – a victory built on the sort of old-fashioned approach of which Jonathan Trott is the master – the biggest disappointment was failure to qualify for the knockout stages of the Blast due, on the whole, to the failure of the batsmen to support the good work of the bowlers.2017 prospects
This could be a tough year for Warwickshire. With an ageing side and few players coming through – at least in the immediate sense – they look heavily reliant upon the likes of Trott, Bell, Barker and Patel, none of whom are under 30 and three of whom will be 35 or over by mid-April. The T20 batting line-up, in particular, looks light, with the loss of Evans particularly significant. Their best chance of success probably comes in the Royal London Cup, which will again be played on the sort of early season surfaces that may favour the method Warwickshire demonstrated in 2016. Patel will be absent on Champions Trophy duty for the knockout stages, though, and it also seems unlikely the club will see much of Chris Woakes (England duty) or Olly Stone (injury) for much of the season. There are also questions over the availability of Boyd Rankin (who has a bad back) and Ian Westwood (foot injury) at the start of the season and who will open the batting in the Championship.In charge
No one can accuse Giles of seeking an easy ride with his decision to return to Edgbaston. While some supporters have suggested the appointment of so many former Warwickshire players to the coaching staff suggests an element of cosiness, it is more likely that Giles has been appointed to shake things up and drive change. Improving the production line of talent has to be one priority, though intelligent recruitment will be another – expect him to target young or “broken” players at other counties. Neither is likely to bring immediate results. Jim Troughton is the first team coach. It is a big promotion, but he is calm and consistent and appears to have the respect of all involved. Insiders suggest the dressing room environment is already improved on recent years. Bell remains as captain across all formats.Key player
Bell is the key man at Edgbaston. Now with a coaching team he feels will help create the desired environment, Warwickshire must hope he can concentrate more on his on-field responsibilities. In particular, they desperately need his runs this year. He is far too good to be averaging in the early 30s and, if he does so again, there is a fair chance his side will be playing in Division Two next year.Bright young thing
Hain isn’t just the obvious choice in this category, he is almost the only choice. He had a good Royal London campaign last year, but can improve markedly on his Championship returns. Alex Mellor, who is 25 but has hardly started his career, may well open the batting in the Championship and could have a breakthrough season, while Sunny Singh is a left-arm spinner who caught the attention of Giles in pre-season nets and has quickly been promoted to the first-team squad. The likes of Mark Adair and Aaron Thomason, two young cricketers with something about them, are likely to win opportunities in white-ball cricket, too.ESPNcricinfo verdict
This could be the start of a painful transitional period for Warwickshire. While they remain, at full strength, a strong team, the absence of experienced support suggests there may be some tricky moments this summer. Expectations should be tempered. Survival in Division One would probably represent a decent campaign.Bet365 odds: Specsavers Championship: 11-2; NatWest Blast 12-1; Royal London Cup 9-1

To start with, stop thinking of players as batsmen, bowlers and allrounders; it’s far more nuanced than that

Jarrod Kimber26-Apr-2017This is my T20 dream team.Caveats abound. Firstly, it’s not a dream team; it’s a squad to reflect best how T20 matches can be won, using modern trends and cashing in on inefficiencies within the system. The pretend league it will compete in will be played on different wickets in different conditions from around the world, and, luckily for me, this is a league in which all players count as local ones.Instead of picking one player per position, I’ll name types of players for each role in my squad of 16. It won’t be six batsmen, two allrounders, two wicketkeepers and six bowlers. Positions in modern T20 are far more specialist than this.Let’s start with batsmen, because, you know, it’s T20, and that’s most of the conversation.The crusher
Let’s call opener number one the crusher. His job is not to find himself 50 off 35 balls; his job is to get 25 runs as quickly as possible. According to Cricket Ratings, even the world’s best players struggle to score quicker than a 120 strike rate in the first over. On average, over the last five years, the first over goes for 5.9 runs. It’s understandable but it is low: think of it as six Powerplay balls going for less than a run a ball.We can’t be having that. So I am sending out one batsman with the job of putting the power back in Powerplay. I don’t want him to try to hit 20 off the first over every time. But if there are just three boundaries in the first two overs, I’m looking at a minimum of 12 runs, with nine other balls still to pick up some extra runs. If the crusher wants to be hitting in a batting cage until the moment he goes out, I’ll try to make that happen.Jason Roy, Johnson Charles, Aaron Finch, Alex Hales or Evin Lewis – these are the players I would look for in the crushing role. Counterintuitively, Chris Gayle isn’t one. For the first seven balls of his innings he goes at a strike rate of 100. He can catch up, so when he stays in, it doesn’t matter, but when he doesn’t, he wastes a good percentage of balls.Some quick and clever runs via Kohli•BCCIThe delacquerer
My other opener is the delacquerer. He is a new-ball specialist because the pitch may swing or seam early, and if it does, I need someone to take the lacquer off the ball. That doesn’t mean defend. T20 currently is far too dependent on the top three; over the last five years, they have made 50% of all T20 runs. Well, that’s obviously not efficient: 27% of your batsmen making 50% of your runs. No, something has gone a bit wrong here. We will push hard, my crusher taking risks and my delacquerer punishing poor balls and taking sensible risks. Martin Guptill, Virat Kohli and Usman Khawaja are perfect for this, and Michael Klinger and Reeza Hendricks are good lower-profile options.

Chances are, both my openers won’t be expert players of pace spin. So I need to ensure I have at least one who can score against spin at a healthy rate, and the other likewise against pace. Both will need to be shown their strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of their partners. If you are batting against a kind of bowler (or even a specific bowler who regularly stops you scoring or gets you out), it is the role of both to know this and look out for each other. This is the only batting partnership where you can adequately prepare knowing who you will bat with. That advantage should be exploited.Ultimately I don’t want the delacquer guy to bat as deep as he can either, which seems to be common now. Once the ball has stopped misbehaving, it’s his time to push on. If he is still in (and the crusher isn’t) for the seventh over, when the Powerplay hangover starts, it’s his job to attack that over. There will be no knocking it around.Boundary baron Andre Russell will be one of the hitters•Cricket Australia/Getty ImagesThe hitters
Numbers three to seven are the batting backbone. In a perfect world I’d have five batsmen, all averaging 30 at a strike rate of 200. In reality they are virtually non-existent, in part because players like this haven’t been encouraged enough to free themselves from other forms of cricket. There is far too much wastage in the first 12 overs of a T20. And 200 is a tremendous strike rate for someone who makes 30 runs per innings. But that is what I want them to think of themselves as: someone who scores two runs per ball when it is needed. And since sometimes conditions don’t favour batsmen, sometimes bowlers will bowl well, and sometimes shit just happens, we are going to need three at the moment. These are my hitters.They don’t need to be Test- or even first-class quality batsmen. In fact, I don’t care if they don’t bat top six in one-dayers either. I am looking for T20 smarts, not someone who knows how to construct a traditional innings. They need to be able to score a boundary about every six balls, and hopefully better than that. They won’t be able to do that against all kinds of bowlers, but if they are just good against right-arm seam bowlers and slow down against everyone else, they aren’t much use to me.This can’t be done on reputation but on cold hard data. James Faulkner is known as a big hitter, but he hits a boundary only every nine balls. My three hitters would be players like AB de Villiers (boundary every 5.4 balls), then Corey Anderson (5.6) and Andre Russell (4.3). That would get me the world’s best T20 batsman, best allrounder, and one of the best hitters (who also bowls left-arm seam for variety). There are other picks out there, such as Chris Lynn (5.3), Krunal Pandya (4.7), Ross Whiteley (5.6) and Sam Northeast (6). One hitter will need to bat in the first six overs, another will be held back until the 12th over, and the last one will go in wherever needed.MS Dhoni’s street smarts and calm head will complement the big hitters•AFPThe slow-starting quick-scorer
So now that I have a massively aggressive and occasionally combustible, middle order, I need to be smart. I need to find a batsman who probably takes longer to start, but once in, can score at a high rate. Adelaide Strikers last year had three slow starters in their middle order: Brad Hodge, Travis Head and Kieron Pollard. Unlike them, I don’t have a problem, as I have prioritised quick starters elsewhere in the line-up. I know once the slower starter is in, it will be huge. Yuvraj Singh is perfect for this – he reads the game, can score quickly on pitches where sluggers struggle, and when he gets going, the run rate flies. But this is probably the place in the innings where I could use a closer like MS Dhoni, Eoin Morgan or Pollard.

The finisher
Using data to find someone who can finish an innings is not so simple. In the last three years only two players have been not out in a chase more than ten times. One is Pollard, the other is Gayle. There aren’t many players on the top-ten list who aren’t old or massive stars: Lynn, David Miller, Hodge, Ryan ten Doeschate, Klinger and Kohli. But there are others not as sought after after or well known, like Craig Cachopa and Ian Cockbain. The problem is, there is no pattern. Lynn ends chases by breaking teams in half, Klinger bats to the end in smallish totals, Miller is known as a big hitter, but he bats far slower in his successful chases, and Kohli is Kohli.So while I might want a closer, the statistics tell me they don’t exist in reality as much as they do in my mind. Perhaps trying to crush chases, as data suggests, is the best way. But I don’t want another hitter; I want a batsman who gets set and then explodes, because I have bought extra time by batting faster earlier in the innings, and because my team is light on batting smarts, I might need him as a late-innings insurance policy.When things go wrong, the Test class of Kane Williamson will shine through even in a T20•AFPBut I also need an early-innings insurance policy. What if the pitch is mad-crazy, or Kagiso Rabada or Ravi Ashwin are running wild? I will need a particular kind of player to combat that and then attack when I need them to. They will be the team’s best batsman, probably a top Test player like Steve Smith, Kane Williamson or Joe Root, who can play spin and quicks, runs hard, and is very smart. They will also need to understand that, as they don’t hit a boundary every over, lesser-talented batsmen will often bat ahead of them. And on magnificent batting pitches, their role will be to go out and hit a single every ball, steal twos when at the non-striker’s end, and try to hit a boundary off the last ball of an over – whatever they can do to make sure the quicker scorer is facing more.In a perfect world, one where there are plenty of hitters who can destroy attacks for 15 balls against many kinds of bowlers, this role, and the slower-starter role would probably be combined. Or only one would be picked. Right now there are more proper batsmen and slow-starting hitters around than 15-ball dynamos, so one of each for the time being may work best. On good days their batting will be the glue, and on bad days, it will be the sprinkles on the cupcake.The entire batting order needs to be educated on the biggest sin in T20: wasting resources. The top six in T20 face 85% of the balls. No. 7s around the world only face 8.5 balls a match. Teams are not going hard enough early enough, just so they can keep resources they barely use. Over the last five years, the first over where teams average over eight an over is the 15th. If you just add half a run an over to your overall tally, it’s ten runs a game. That’s massive. You target the inefficient overs – the first two overs, the four overs after the Powerplay. In each, you aim for one extra run and already you’re six runs up.T20 scoring rates by over•ESPNcricinfo LtdOther than the openers, the order will change based on conditions, match-ups, and the flow of the innings. We’re beyond numbered batting positions. You have a batting role and you will be used when needed. But the batting slots will be filled by the crusher, the delacquerer, three hitters, one slow starter and one proper batsman.Within all this, there will need to be at least four overs from one bowler locked in for each game, with probably one or two more overs from the remaining batsmen, just for extra flexibility. Many people like as many bowling options as they can find, but realistically the sixth bowler goes at a higher rate than the fifth does (8.6 an over in the IPL, compared to 8.3). So while I will need a sixth bowler on those hellish days when nothing goes right, I’m better off turning to a guy who occasionally bowls in the nets than weakening my batting to fit a sixth in.Nicholas Pooran gets glove duty and lower-order hitting•CPL/SportsfileThe wicketkeeper
One of the batsmen will have to be a wicketkeeper. I would prefer a specialist, but until we have data I can’t justify my punt. If I were able to get two batsmen who also filled in my specialist bowling positions, I would make a play for the wicketkeeper who I believed was the best purely for glovework. In general, I worry about fielding, and if two players are very similar, I would always opt for the better fielder. But I don’t have fielding metrics I trust yet, so I’m not prepared to make too many calls on that.My back-up batsmen would need to be one delacquerer, one hitter, and one who could cover for the finisher or the slow-starting batsman. Ideally I would have back-ups who could cover more than one role: like Nicholas Pooran as a hitter, reserve keeper and spare crusher.I’m not going to pick any actual allrounders, because all my players need to fit a more specific role than what that implies. When Dwayne Bravo’s hamstring popped during the Big Bash, the original rumour was that his replacement was Carlos Brathwaite. That would have been a silly move for Renegades, because other than both being West Indian allrounders, Brathwaite and Bravo don’t do the same things in T20 cricket.Bravo is a death-bowling specialist. Over the last three years, his T20 death-bowling economy is 9.7 – just over the average of 9.5 – but he takes a wicket every 11 balls. Brathwaite’s bowling is probably slightly better than it looks, although he doesn’t have brilliant variety. But his career economy of 7.5 is good and better than Bravo’s. Almost all of that is down to the fact that Brathwaite doesn’t bowl at the death much; only 89 balls in the last three years (Bravo has delivered 941 in that time), and in his nine IPL games, he has only bowled in the last four overs twice.Brathwaite has a great reputation as a big hitter, thanks to a few decent Test knocks and his final-over smashing of Ben Stokes. And Bravo is known to be very decent, with three Test centuries. But they are very different batsmen. On average in the IPL, Brathwaite has faced fewer than five balls a match; in his entire career it is only 6.2. Even overlooking the fact that Brathwaite has been a late bloomer, there is nothing about him now that suggests he can be a batsman, even under my definition of a hitter. His strike rate is 144, but he doesn’t stay in long enough. Bravo’s average is 25, he averages over 12 balls an innings, hits a boundary every seven balls, and he can comfortably bat at seven or six in all forms.Eventually Renegades went with Thisara Perera, a genuine death bowler, and, like Bravo, a slower-ball specialist. And he can hit too. Not all allrounders are the same, so I’d rather pick players for individual skills that my team can bank on.Open with a spinner and you won’t regret it – mostly•BCCIThe opening spinner
The first bowler I would choose is an opening spin bowler. There is so much data to show not only that spinners should open the bowling in T20 but that they should bowl through the Powerplay, as they are just harder to hit then. Michael Beer is an opening spin bowling GOAT in T20, and he has never played outside Australia. Samuel Badree is one of the best T20 players there has ever been, and before this year, he had only played five IPL games. There are others out there, and far more who haven’t even been given their shot yet, because coaches simply aren’t getting how hard it is to hit a spinner in the Powerplay. Spinners should always bowl three overs in the first six (unless they are getting slaughtered), and in a well-balanced side, the fourth over is an option. They also take wickets, although fewer than quicks.David Willey brings variety with his left-arm pace•Getty ImagesThe swing-bowling wicket-taker
At the other end you bring on your swing-bowling wicket-taker: David Willey, Jason Behrendorff or Nuwan Kulasekara. By wicket-taker, I mean they need to be able to take a wicket at better than every 18 balls. Willey takes one every 15.7, Behrendorff 16 and Kulasekara 18.6.You might only get a few balls that swing, but you want them to count. Lock up one end with hard-to-hit spin, and then force batsmen to hit out against the swinging ball. This bowler will also need a decent slower ball, a fairly accurate yorker, and enough pace for the odd surprise bouncer. The central part of their bowling will be done before the tenth over. They will usually have to bowl a key over at the death, and if you pick well, they might be the sort of player, like Bhuvneshwar Kumar, who can also double as a death bowler.Pat Cummins: the express pace bowler who will go for runs but shake up the opposition•BCCIThe quick bowler
You need a quick, a real quick, like Tymal Mills, Pat Cummins, Mitch Starc, Liam Plunkett or Kagiso Rabada. They need to, if required, bowl with the new ball, and also deliver quick yorkers at the death – against, potentially, middle-order players who can’t handle their pace.Wickets at the death are only worth a fraction of wickets in the Powerplay. Each wicket in the 17th over saves you, on average, 3.6 runs. So you want your quick on for the 17th or 18th (3.1 runs saved), as opposed to the last two overs, when wickets save you, on average, 2.6 and 1.9 runs.But the crucial thing for a quick is the time between the sixth and 12th over, when teams have slowed down and haven’t relaunched for the death. This is the bit where your attack needs to attack. The second-lowest scoring over in T20s is the seventh (6.59 runs), as teams slow down when the field goes back. And they don’t start to fire up again until the 13th, so you can set slightly more attacking fields and try to take a few wickets at a time when each wicket saves you between five and six runs.Teams now coast in chases during this period, often on flat pitches, where they will let the required rate rise and keep wickets in hand. The best kind of bowler to rock that comfortable boat is fast as hell, who can make anything happen. This is also the bowler who will have the highest economy rate – you are paying a premium in runs per over, hoping that their wickets will save you further runs, and at times, entire games.Adam Zampa can turn the ball both ways, which is better than turning it just one way•AFPThe middle-overs spinner
The other important bowler is your middle-overs spinner. The best kind is one who can spin it both ways – Adam Zampa, Imran Tahir, Adil Rashid, Sunil Narine, Mason Crane, Liam Bowe, Kuldeep Yadav, Rangana Herath.There is a trend that favours bowlers who spin it away from batsmen. I’m not sure the data completely backs this up, but there is no doubt that spinners who go both ways are better. This bowler will be miserly and take wickets, but most importantly, will let you dictate terms through the middle. A spinner who only spins in one direction is usually easier to line up, and easier to milk. And it is far harder to slog a bowler at the death when you have no idea which way the ball is turning.Slower-ball experts can make batsmen look silly when they get out•Getty ImagesThe slower-ball bowler
Cricket doesn’t have a name for the slower-ball bowler, which is weird, because since Simon O’Donnell and Steve Waugh made it popular, this has been a major part of limited-overs cricket. I asked on Twitter and got amblers, dibblers, checkers, brakers, budget, anglers, snatchers, dupers, grifters, sod (after O’Donnell), fakers, hoaxers, tricksters, slothers, wobblers, deceivers, holders, slowlers, stallers and slow bros. The best was from @pierre_taco, who called them changers, which has a near equivalent in baseball in change-up pitchers.No one gets excited about this bowler. He isn’t fast. He doesn’t swing it much, and his job is to be hard to hit. He’s like a spinner with less sexy skills. Quite often they are late bloomers who have a bit of pace, but not enough, so they start to experiment and change their game. No one likes unsexy late bloomers. Despite cricket not thinking about this as a specialist bowling role, as T20 evolves this is the kind of player who has become more important. Like the opening spinner, there aren’t that many around. It’s a tricky role because when a bowler’s slower balls aren’t being picked, he’s a superstar, yet when they are, he’s Bantha fodder.Dwayne Bravo, Perera, Clint McKay, and Rajat Bhatia bowl more slower balls than they do regular-paced balls. And the revolutions they put on the ball, along with the fundamental deception of how the ball is delivered, makes this one of the most important bowlers in the game. At the death you can’t not have this kind available to you, and at any stage during the innings when batsmen are attacking, they are wicket-takers. They are kings of the soft dismissal.You probably also want one of your quicks, and one of your spinners, to be left-armers, but now we’re praying for perfection. There is no perfect T20 attack, unless you take Narine (with his old action), Lasith Malinga, pre-injury Mustafizur Rahman, 1991 Waqar Younis and 1999 Shane Warne. But for the way T20 is played now, this is close to the best kind of attack: one to take wickets when needed and slow the scoring. You will need a back-up spinner who spins it both ways, and a back-up quick who can bowl with the new ball a bit but also bowl slower balls at the death.With this kind of side, I also need two bowlers to be able to hit. Guys like Cummins, John Hastings, Tim Southee, Narine or Ben Hilfenhaus, who can hit sixes on demand. Cummins and Hilfenhaus have started hitting big recently, completely changing their worth and, in Hilfenhaus’ case, probably lengthening his career. Narine has been improving his batting for even longer, and now pinch-hits as an opener against spinners. With two bowlers who can hit boundaries down the order, that extends the batting to No. 9.You could bat deeper, but then again, a perfect side is probably three ABs, five Andres, a Ravi, an Imran and a Sunil. Instead, what I have is a delacquerer, a crusher, three hitters, a slow-starting batsman, a proper batsman, a changer, a both-ways spinner, a quickie and a swinger. They should be able to play on all surfaces, take wickets, hit sixes, slow the opposition down, handle the odd crisis, and cash in on some of T20’s inefficiencies. They are not a super team, but they should have most eventualities covered. They ought to win enough matches to make them finalists in most leagues.And then they might be destroyed when they run into Gayle or Mitchell Johnson in one of their moods. That is because although I have a team without any real clear weakness, unlike some other sports, where the weakest player is the most important, T20 is a strong-link sport, where the best player can make the difference. My dream team could be stopped by an hour of Brendon McCullum or Malinga magic.But you can’t judge my team by imaginary wins or losses; this is all about imaginary processes, not imaginary results.

All bad shots are bad, but some bad shots are badder than other bad shots

Phil Walker13-Aug-201710: Pietersen’s Perth Palaver
Kevin Pietersen c Harris b Lyon – 45
Australia v England, third Test, Perth, 2013
You don’t take on the Fremantle Doctor, blowing hard into your face at the fag end of a nasty day, when you’re trying to save a Test match to keep your team alive in the series, and half of your own dressing room have already abandoned you, and the Australians have posted a man back for the shot, and the spinner tosses it up there as if to say “Go on, punk, make my day”, and the libated patrons of Perth are ready to roll, and you’ve already written half of your book in your head and it’s not making great reading… You just don’t, do you? Unless you’re Kev, of course. Then you do.9: Freeform Ijaz
Ijaz Ahmed b Cork – 1
England v Pakistan, first Test, Lord’s, 1996
Most entries in this list carry some kind of context, in turn elevating the shot’s essential crapness to the gloried ranks of the truly abysmal. But sometimes, a shot is just bad for bad’s sake. Step forward Ijaz Ahmed, a player conceivably good enough to bat No. 3 for Pakistan in a Lord’s Test. Eight balls in, he topples down the track to Dominic Cork, staggering darkly to the off side and entangling his bat between his legs, as the ball, which he’s now a full six feet away from hitting, ambles embarrassedly behind his legs and into middle stump.8: Bell’s Brainfade
Ian Bell c Tendulkar b Ojha – 0
India v England, first Test, Ahmedabad, 2012
When you’ve fielded for 160 overs in sticky heat and your team’s four down for 69 in reply, and it’s the third morning of the first Test of the toughest tour, and you’re about to face your first ball, and they’ve kept the men up on the drive, and it’s starting to take spin, and you’re the most gifted and fragile strokesmith of your generation, and you so want to project, there really is nothing else for it. Oh, Belly.Lance Klusener and Mark Boucher chat in the rain – presumably not about the meaning of “par score”•Getty Images7: Math Choke
Mark Boucher not out – 45
South Africa v Sri Lanka, World Cup Group Match, Durban, 2003
The shot itself was coolly played: in the midst of a tropical downpour, Mark Boucher, believing his team to be ahead of the Duckworth-Lewis required score, rolled his wrists on a Murali offbreak, smothering the spin, easy as you like. The slight problem with the choice of shot was that South Africa still needed one more run; as it was, they were merely tying with Sri Lanka – and a tie would see them out of their own tournament. The umpires scampered off seconds after Boucher’s horrifying miscalculation, and with the rain set in, they never got back on.6: Craig’s Missed
Craig Kieswetter b Tait – 63
England v Australia, World T20 final, Barbados, 2010
He’s been brilliant. World title-winning brilliant. Man-of-the-Match-in-a-showpiece-final brilliant. Which makes the nonsense of his departure all the more glorious – running down the pitch, giving himself room, moving too far to the leg side so he can’t get back to the ball in time and shouldering arms as the ball crashes hilariously into his unguarded stumps. Fabulous.5: Nuwan Does It Worse
Nuwan Pradeep hit wicket b Jordan – 11
England v Sri Lanka, first Test, Lord’s, 2014
It’s seems harsh to target a No. 11 but this is too funny to overlook. It all begins with a heroic if somewhat garbled attempt at a hook shot. As the ball crashes into his shoulder Pradeep mislays his balance, pirouetting on the crease and flipping back towards his stumps, flattening all three on the descent.Nuwan Pradeep falls in a heap•Getty Images4: Gower Shower
David Gower c Hughes b McDermott – 11
Australia v England, fourth Test, Adelaide, 1991
The ball itself is a dirty pie, far outside the eyeline, leg side and swinging wider, the final ball before lunch. Lesser men would let it slide by, or tickle it behind square for a couple. Not our hero. Gower unwraps his perfect hands, times it sweetly, and lobs it straight to the man three-quarters back to the boundary, just posted for that specific shot. At the other end, his captain: Gooch. By this point on the tour, neither man is especially disposed to the other. “If looks could kill, Gooch would be on a serious charge,” wrote the ‘s Mike Selvey. “But you would not blame him.”3: Double Bouncer!
AB de Villiers c & b Ashraful – 46
Bangladesh v South Africa, first Test, Mirpur, 2008
Mohammad Ashraful’s leggies were such filth that AB, on 46, climbed into what appeared to be another long hop, only to find the nasty little grenade bouncing a second time right by his feet. The attempted hoick was skewed up in the air and the bashful bowler took the catch. Umpire Steve Bucknor was right to uphold the out decision, just as MCC were right to subsequently adjust the law to make any ball that bounces twice an automatic no-ball.All Out Cricket2: Up In Smoke
Adam Hollioake b Warne – 0
England v Australia, sixth Test, The Oval, 1997
Of all the gazillions of options, no single moment so vividly captured the gulf between England’s haunted lambs and Shane Keith Warne as the sight of poor, frozen Adam Hollioake, in his third Test innings, at his home ground, shouldering arms to a full, straight flipper that crashes into his middle pole halfway up. This was the nineties right here.1: Bad Angel
Shannon Gabriel b Yasir Shah – 4
West Indies v Pakistan, third Test, Roseau, 2017
The big kahuna. Eludes all comprehension. Last ball of the penultimate over, there’s a Test series to save, and your partner’s batted all day for 101*. Roston will take the last over, job done. One ball to see out. One ball. Dead pitch, tired leggie, one ball. It’s a loopy thing, outside off stump. Shannon sees it, sees it all the way, but now the shoulders are opening, and up goes his bat… The perfection of Fazeer Mohammed’s commentary is in direct opposition to the terrifying brainlessness of the shot, which, now executed, has seen the ball trickle off the whirling toe of his offending blade and onto his stumps. “WHY DID HE DO THAT?!” cried Fazeer. We’re still no nearer to finding our answer. magazine

Even when South Africa have been winning in recent times it’s been despite a lack of big hundreds from the main batsmen

Firdose Moonda at The Oval28-Jul-2017So there were clouds. This is England. There are always clouds somewhere, right?And there was movement. This is England. They use the Duke ball. It swings, it seams, it wobbles, it whizzes.But these are South African batsmen brought up on pitches greener than most outfields, bouncier than rubber, who learn to survive and then thrive in conditions others emerge from, at best, humbled, at worst, hurt. These are batsmen who are, as Faf du Plessis explained when asked about his decision to bat first at Trent Bridge, “not scared” of a bit of spice. “Brave,” du Plessis called them, especially the openers and Dean Elgar was first to take guard at The OvalHe refused to be drawn into playing at anything that swerved away so Stuart Broad’s first few screamers were ignored. Broad had to get straighter and closer, whisper his threat rather than shout it. “How did you not touch that?” Broad asked Elgar after the fifth ball of his second over veered dangerously close to the edge but couldn’t find it. Elgar shrugged sheepishly, admitted he had no idea and then, as his luck sank in, just grinned.Broad had to go shorter, show more aggression, add the adjectives to the sentence he was scripting that basically said, “I am going not going to make this easy for you” to Elgar. The fourth ball of his fourth over landed on a length and reared up towards Elgar’s nose. He threw his head back and pulled his bat in, the ball leapt over him and missed everything. Broad didn’t bother asking any questions about that one. Elgar couldn’t even bring himself to grin in relief. But he survived. Just like du Plessis promised he would.Why then, after such a fight against big, bad Broad which included a fair amount of discipline in his shot (non)selection, did Elgar decide to go chasing after Toby Roland-Jones? He reached for one, even as it tried to avoid his outside edge, then came forward to another and although Elgar was so convinced the sound was bat-pad that he reviewed, Ultra Edge showed a faint spike when ball passed bat and the on-field decision stood.And so it began.Faf du Plessis pads up against James Anderson and regrets it•Getty ImagesHashim Amla had an lbw appeal reviewed off the first ball he faced. Had he been given out, he would have stayed out for it was an umpire’s call on review and Aleem Dar had not been convinced of this one. Roland-Jones did not have to wait too long to get his own back. Amla was out two overs later when a lifting delivery clipped his glove.At 30 for 3, it suddenly looked like having Quinton de Kock as high as No.4 was risky, especially because he changed absolutely nothing about his approach. The ball after Amla’s dismissal was short and wide from Broad, the same Broad who had been such a beast to Elgar, de Kock cut it for four. The first ball of the next over was from Roland-Jones, the same double-barrelled newbie who plucked Heino Kuhn and Amla, but it was on the pads so de Kock clipped it for four. Three balls after that, de Kock drilled Roland-Jones through mid-off. Three boundaries in 10 balls. De Kock seemed to be playing an entirely different game.That de Kock is given the freedom to play naturally is going to serve South Africa well in future, but they may be wondering when it will naturally occur to de Kock to rein it in. Maybe never. Certainly not today, when he tried to work one to the leg side and outside-edged to gully.Before the Test, du Plessis admitted he had not seen much of Roland-Jones. By 5pm, he may have decided he never wanted to see Roland-Jones again, even though it wasn’t the debutant that dismissed du Plessis and sunk South Africa further. That was the old-timer, James Anderson, who soon saw that movement off the seam, not swing, was what he should be search for. Du Plessis has made his reputation on defence but he has not been able to replicate the efforts of Adelaide or Johannesburg too many times recently. This time, he got a good ball from a great bowler and should have offered a shot. He didn’t.The rest…well, the rest was a case of how long they could last and how close they could come – first to 100 and then to avoiding the follow-on – but for South Africa it will also be about answering questions about what has become a familiar batting concern which has crept up on them over the last year. Even though, South Africa have only lost two of the 14 Tests they have played in that time, their top-order have not been performing to the standards of the line-up in years gone by. They’ve had 12 centuries, in those games an average less than one a match. Over the same period, India, Australia and Sri Lanka have average more than one century a match. This year is also South Africa’s second-leanest year in the last six (in years where they have played more than five Tests). Only 2015, which included their disastrous tour to India, was worse and it’s worth considering what’s caused them to drop off.Personnel plays some role. Graeme Smith, Jacques Kallis and for now, AB de Villiers, re no longer part of the Test set-up and Amla has not scored a daddy-hundred since his double against England in January 2016. Elgar grinds much more than he flows, and not having a settled opening partner has not helped, JP Duminy was always out of form and while de Kock and Temba Bavuma often had each other, there were many occasions in which they lacked the lower-order support to go really big.But there are also conditions. South Africa have spent the last year playing at home, in Australia, in New Zealand and in England – all places where the ball can star as much as, or more than, the bat as the manner of the victories illustrated. They won the series in Australia because they bowled the hosts out for 85 in Hobart, they won at home because they groomed their green mambas and then lured Sri Lanka’s batsmen into its mouth and they won in Wellington because they bowled New Zealand out for 171 at the Basin Reserve, but that was the series that warned them all was not as well as it could be.In that same match, South Africa were 94 for 6 in their first innings before de Kock and Bavuma rescued them and 80 for 5 and 95 runs behind after four days in the next Test in Hamilton but rain saved them. They will be hoping for something similar this time, though there is much more time in the game and their situation is much more dire. Yes, there are clouds and yes there is movement and yes this is England, but where is the real South Africa?