Lessons Learnt from this Summer of Sport

 Walking to Uni one day, the words of Alan Hull’s Winter Song resonated with me:

"When winter's shadowy fingers
First pursue you down the street
And your boots no longer lie
About the cold around your feet,
Do you spare a thought for summer whose passage is complete?"

Having come through what will be remembered as one of the greatest sporting summers ever, I thought to myself: what have I learnt? It turns out I've learnt a fair amount.

1. I can't feel any emotion without a BBC video montage.

2. Mod sideburns are the 21st century's version of the go-faster stripe.

3. If it looks like a man, walks like a man and talks like a man it's probably a Belorussian female shot putter on drugs.

4. No matter how much England fans lower their expectations, the England football team will always disappoint.

5. Now team GB took Australia to the cleaners in the medal table and we staged a better Olympics than the Antipodeans, the only thing Australia is better at than Britain is summer itself.

6. However, to get two decent weeks of weather in the worst summer in 100 years, it was fully worth the seven years of hard work, negative headlines and the £9bn spent.

7. Graeme Smith is to England Cricket captains what a studs up knee-high tackle

is to a pro footballer: ugly, effective and career ending.

8. Playing a sport in Britain that relies on sunny weather is as good an idea as a chocolate teapot or visual jokes on the radio.

9. According to the western terrace at Headingley, where I spent two days this summer watching Test cricket, all people from Lancashire are inbred, have three arms/eyes, are homosexual, and their mothers are seemingly very promiscuous.

10. I would not take my grandmother to the Western Terrace.

11. According to Yorkshiremen I sound like I am Australian. I was then told to "f*** off out of our country". I know Yorkshire wants to be an Independent Republic but the last time I looked Surrey and Yorkshire are still both in Britain.

12. Kevin Pietersen is a nasty piece of work... Sorry everyone already knew that.

12. Handball is an incredible sport, horse dancing however is another kettle of fish entirely.

13. The British public will love any sportsman who cries, whether in victory or defeat, even they are a bad tempered Scottish tennis player.

14. The Dutch ladies hockey team are by far my favourite international hockey team, purely based on their level of technical excellence of course...

15. Due to the number of times "Chariots of Fire" was played at London 2012, Vangelis is probably the richest man in Greece.

16. I am now probably going to be sued by LOCOG for using "London 2012" without their permission.

17. Random Olympic events are the best daytime TV ever, even better than Jeremy Kyle and Heir Hunters.

18. Danny Boyle deserves a knighthood for the opening ceremony. It's certainly a good effort to offend nearly every other nation in the world in one way or another in less than four hours.

19. Despite being a buffoon, Boris Johnson is still a better politician than dancer.

20. It is possible that a German side can lose to a British side on penalties, as long as that British side is owned by a Russian Oligarch, contains seven overseas players in the starting line-up and is managed by an Italian.

21. The Ryder Cup is the only exception to Mark Twain’s assertion that “Golf is a good walk ruined”. It also proves that if pride not money is on the line, Europe can work together.

Sunbury CC Development XI vs Mayor Toronto's XI, 19th July 2012

Under grey skies and confronted with a damp, green wicket, Toronto’s captain Dixit had no hesitation in inserting Sunbury when he won the toss. Sunbury’s two opening batsmen, Garvey and Mahajan, survived the first four overs before Mahajan was caught off the bowling of Kalsi (1-19 from six overs) for seven. Although looking in good touch, Sunbury’s number three Burgess perished soon after to Vishal (1-13 from 6 overs) for four. 

The introduction of Dhruv turned the match firmly in the favour of the Toronto XI: the off-spinner’s figures of seven overs, 6-23 tore through Sunbury’s middle order. The highlight of this was the removal of opener Garvey, bowled through the gate with a flighted, turning delivery for twelve. The bowlers were more than backed up in the field, especially the outfield, which culminated in the very good run-out of Rhythm Bedi. Michael Smith’s excellent 29, a mixture of exuberant attack and stoical defence, and some lusty blows from Ishi Sohi and Saran Kalsi, meant that Sunbury scraped to a below-par 105 all out off 27 overs.

After an excellent lunch, kindly sponsored by CIMA, the Toronto opening pair of Dixit and Dhruv made a very positive start. The opening bowlers, Kalsi and Sohi, hit back removing both batsmen. The tourists were still in a dominant position after ten overs despite the set-back: the score read 47-2, 24 of which came off the bat of Dhruv. In a similar pattern to the first innings, spin halted the progression of the Toronto innings. 

The left-arm spin of Haroon Aslem (3-11 from seven overs) and the off-cutters of Matt Nichols (2-17 from six overs) kept Sunbury in contention. After 21 overs the Toronto XI were 74-7. The pair of Dhruv (9) and Abdullah (13) took the tourists to 93-7 with three overs remaining. However, some excellent death bowling from Sam Burgess (1-13 from three overs) and Steve Smith left the Toronto XI needing six off the final over, bowled by Smith.

A scampered single and a miss-field meant that three were required off two balls. However, Smith bowled number 10 Vishal with a good ball to end with figures of 2-4 off three overs, meaning that Sunbury won a very tight and enjoyable game by two runs.

The ECB: Money is more important than the future of participation.

Sometimes I get odd looks about my love of cricket and, to some extent, quite rightly. Barely a week goes by where I don’t get asked “How can you like a game that can last for 5 days and it end as a draw?”

My answer is usually “You just don’t understand”.

I worry that this is becoming more frequent: fewer people are able to watch cricket and other “minority” sports (i.e. not football). The ECB signing a new contract with Sky is going to continue this process.

It is undeniable that Sky’s investment in cricket has done some good. They have improved the standard of cricket coverage, notably David Lloyd’s commentary. They have invested in coach education with a total of 45,000 people having benefitted from their scheme. They have also given a lot of money to county cricket for improvements in stadia.

But the ECB now seems to be putting money above the good of the game. It is as if the question surrounding future participation is only an afterthought. Putting the highlights on Channel 5 is a token gesture.

I was brought up on a diet of Channel 4 coverage. I was not inspired by England but more by their opponents. There was little that was inspiring about watching Messrs Hussain and Atherton bat. However I would not have become as obsessed as I am now about both watching and playing cricket if I hadn’t had the ability to watch Test Cricket on terrestrial TV.

I am not the only one influenced by watching cricket on TV: the 2005 Ashes series was a case in point. Because it was on free-to-air TV the number of participants jumped.

The recent cut in funding for the ECB from Sport England was brushed under the carpet and not greatly commented on. The reason for the funding cut was due to the dwindling number of new players.

This should not have been the case: England had an incredible summer, putting both India and Sri Lanka to the sword and in the process becoming the World number one Test side. Last summer should have been the summer where a generation of children were inspired by the likes of Cook, Swann, Anderson and Broad. So many people were inspired to play when England sides were relatively weak; imagine what watching a good England side playing on terrestrial TV could have done.

Giles Clarke, the chairman of the ECB, a week ago said that internet streaming was the “biggest danger” facing the game. He fails to realise that many people cannot afford the minimum £240 it costs to have Sky Sports for a year, making illegal streaming tempting. If streaming is such a concern, why did the ECB allow it to continue until at least 2017? Again, money seems to be more important than what is good for the sport.

There is a valid argument that Sky has been good for county cricket: the money they get from the TV deal keeps some counties afloat. Counties without Test match grounds such as Kent and Worcestershire are able to post a profit.

However, Sky’s deal has its limitations. Sky has the exclusive rights over which games to show – and has chosen to show only two County Championship games throughout the whole summer. That would be like Sky only showing two Premier League fixtures a season. Part of the reason the number of people watching the County Championship is limited is that the general public do not know what they are missing.

I am in no doubt that if Surrey vs Middlesex played at Guildford last year was on Sky let alone terrestrial TV, gates would increase significantly. The match was better than any Test I have watched. Moreover, the standard in Division One is such that any of five teams could win the Championship next year. That’s far more exciting than the Premier League.

Cricket is not alone in this dilemma: boxers are remembered for their interviews not performances. David Haye is known more for some of his repulsive remarks than his stunning performance against Nikolai Valuev because the number of people able to watch or afford Sky pay-per-view was limited.

Rugby and Tennis are spared because of the “National Treasure” list - a list of sporting events that have to be on terrestrial TV, on which Test Cricket should also have remained. This however has had the effect that the England Rugby side are judged by the public on World Cups and Six Nations and Andy Murray is judged mainly on his performances at Wimbledon.

The ECB have sold a generation down the river: England’s best Test side cannot be watched by millions of fans. The ECB have only themselves to blame for the dropping numbers of participants.

England vs Pakistan, 2nd Test: England's batsmen need to go back to basics

Ten letters have been the pillars of my batting since I was knee high: PYBU MYF HTB. They stand for: Pick Your Bat Up, Move Your Feet, and Hit the Ball. If I had a pound for every time they have been shouted at me by Nico Senior I would have no debt at the end of my University course. I have spent the last three days shouting these 10 letters while watching the second Pakistan-England Test in the UAE because seemingly England’s top six have forgotten the basics of batting, especially batting against spin.

PYBU

 Your bat pick-up as a batsman governs how positive you can be. Kevin Pietersen cannot be positive against any of Pakistan’s spinners because his pick-up does not get further than his waist. He is seemingly beaten before he starts.

Pietersen also seemingly has a mental problem against spinners. The number of times that his weakness against left-arm spinners has been written it is unsurprising. He does need to try and return to the cocky Pietersen circa 2005 soon otherwise his career as a whole may be on an unstoppable spiral downwards.

MYF

Against seam-bowling, many players get away with poor foot movement - take Strauss and, more extremely, Marcus Trescothick. Against spin, however, foot movement is critical. At no point in the second innings did any of the England batsmen go down the track and attempt to disrupt the length of the likes of Rehman and Hafeez. Even the less experienced Pakistani batsman such as Shafiq and Azhar Ali used their feet to Swann and Panesar despite prodigious turn.

Ajmal is more difficult. Seemingly “unpickable”, using one’s feet to come down the track must be done cautiously and judged on length more than anything else.

The somewhat clichéd phrase “quick feet” should be at the forefront of all the England batsman’s minds. The whole top six, barring Trott, have been guilty of planting their feet, meaning that they cannot adapt their shot if they misread the line or direction of spin of the three Pakistani spinners.

Moreover there was an issue with foot movement in general. Take the dismissals of Morgan and Broad in the second innings: two different shots but the same problem. Their foot movement was not good enough to play the shot attempted. Morgan attempted to play a cut too close to him. He should have given himself room instead of just rocking onto the back foot. Broad on the other hand was out attempting to drive against the spin of Rehman. His foot was not near enough to the ball, so was promptly gated by a good ball. The likes of Misbah would have either got their foot to the pitch of the ball or defended it. Broad’s shot is the type of shot that may prevent him from moving up England’s order long term.

Many of England’s players were also camped on the back foot. For once Prior has to be included in this as Ajmal has got him out twice LBW playing back. The batsman is given the whole crease for a reason: to use it. As a batsman if you are not going to come down the wicket to a spinner, at least use the whole crease. Strauss in particular seemed very reluctant to make any movement forward at all. Going forward shows the bowler some positive intent, even if the batsman is lunging at the ball. It also gives the batsman some chance of hitting the inevitable half volley that a spinner will bowl.

HTB

“Hit the Ball” is not as simple a phrase as it seems. For me it stands for positivity in whatever shot that a batsman plays and also a positive game-plan. In its simplest form, hitting the ball would be a start for both sides. The second test was a record for the most dismissals not involving the wicket-keeper or fielders.  Of the 40 wickets to fall, 26 were the result of the batsmen missing the ball.

I was always taught, no matter what the situation, that a batsman should always look to score, not just to survive. England’s top six simply looked to survive. Against any spinner, a good ball could be round the corner so being positive is a necessity, especially at the start of a spell to try and disrupt.

Scoring runs eases pressure and causes fields to spread. On a turning wicket, it is inevitable that a batsman will face an unplayable ball from a spinner. The differentiation between good and bad players of spin is how you deal with the balls in between. England’s wholly negative outlook, partly caused by the mind-games played by Ajmal and the historically poor records of England sides in the sub-continent, condemned England to defeat before they started.

Although the series is lost, all is not lost. If England’s batting unit is more positive, the last test is winnable.

England vs Pakistan Series Preview: Can England dominate on a different continent?

This series is undoubtedly England’s toughest series in the last two years: an England side minus Bresnan and one injury away from Bopara playing against an in-form Pakistan side finally united under their captain, Misbah ul-Haq.

The UAE is unknown territory for England. Pakistan only have the experience of the series against Sri Lanka in recent times of playing in the Middle East, but their side seems to lend itself more to the style of cricket to win in these conditions.

Misbah was recently quoted as saying that “It is hard to take wickets [here] but it is also hard to score runs”. Pakistan have enough of a varied attack and, unlike England, have more options. Mohammed Hafeez has greatly improved as a batsman and is a more than handy third spinner. In Ajmal, Pakistan have the most in-form spinner. Unlike Swann, he has a doosra and supposedly a “new” delivery which he has saved for England. Swann also recently struggled in India, albeit in ODI not tests, but he had an average summer, disguised by the incredible summer the seamers had. Furthermore, in Rehman, they have a spinner who is able, like Herath in the SA-Sri Lanka series, to keep the run-rate down, allowing the other bowlers to attack.

The Pakistani seamers also have the advantage as they are all quick and reliable reverse-swingers of the ball. Moreover, they have the advantage of being able to play a left-armer, in either Junaid Khan and Wahab Riaz.

The banning of Asif and Amir, which initially weakened their side, has given Pakistan an advantage that the majority of their attack has not been seen at close quarters by the English top order. Although Ajmal and Junaid Khan did play county cricket, the England top order were not available at the time. Gul did make the last tour, as did Riaz. Cheema is the most unknown quantity. He has an awkward action, causing the ball to angle across the left-handers, which may cause problems for Cook and especially Strauss.

Thankfully, there is a glimmer of hope. England are the number one side in the world and have, apologies for the cliché, a “culture of winning”. Moreover, they have the more positive captain in Strauss, something that hasn’t been said of him before. England’s batting line-up has been in good form, apart from Morgan. However, the conditions will suit Morgan, England’s best player of spin. Morgan also has a reasonable record against them, which includes both a ODI and test hundred in the blighted series of 2010. They also bat deeper into the order than Pakistan, with Swann coming in at 8 if six batsmen are played, which is surely the case.

England’s bowling attack also showed that it could adapt to different conditions in their performance in Australia. Although Bresnan has left, Finn was very impressive in India. He bowled accurately and regularly bowled at over 90mph. He may also cause a problem for the Pakistani batsmen due to his height. Anderson and Broad will also get some reverse-swing, but England will be more reliant on the new ball than Pakistan.

Although England are the number-one test side in the world, Pakistan do hold the edge for this series. A four-man bowling attack will truly be put to the test in un-bowler friendly conditions. Spin will play a major part; Swann vs Ajmal, Rehman and Hafeez may even decide the series if the pitches are dusty. England do have a stronger batting line-up, but their lack of bowling variety may hinder them. Misbah’s lack of positivity may well prevent Pakistan however. If England don’t lose the series, they firmly deserve their number one ranking.

My Prediction: 1-1.

A badger's perspective on Surrey's season and and what can be expected from them next year

I am, by my own admission, an incredibly pessimistic Surrey fan. My relation with somewhat love-hate shall we say. I wasn’t brought up on the glory days. One of my early Rey experiences was watching Jason Gillespee score a first class hundred on a very cold day at the Oval (the real home of cricket), I have never been so embarrassed watching a sporting event.

Yet last year showed that Surrey once again have some promise which they collectively may fulfil.

Although I was one of the doubters calling for Chris Adams’ head last year, the start of this improvement definitely started with his work in the off-season. The signings of Zander de Bruyn and Tom Maynard were exactly what the squad needed. De Bruyn did take over from Ramprakash as the dominant senior figure in the batting department. He exuded calm at the crease and added some much needed steel, nouse and experience to the middle order of stroke-players.

De Bruyn also added an extra option in one-day and t20 with the ball which allowed three spinners, Ansari, Batty and Schofield, to play without the side lacking balance. His bowling, at points, was more than useful in the Championship as well.

Maynard, however, was my player of the year. The way in which he looked to dominate bowling was at points outstanding, as anyone who watched his hundred at Guildford would testify. In my seven seasons watching Surrey, it was the best innings I have seen from a Surrey batsman (The best was Justin Langer’s 342- I have never seen someone make batting look that easy). The distain in which Maynard played Finn, Murtagh and Collymore, arguably the best seam attack in Division 2, on an interesting track was incredible. He looked every inch someone who should be in the England senior squad in the near future, especially in the shorter formats. His finishing in both shorter formats was impressive, especially in the CB40 semi-final against Sussex.

Maynard seems to have the sort of inner confidence and belief that a certain Mr. Pietersen showed at the start of his international career. If I was an England selector, I would be looking for a way to fit him in the ODI side already.

The other outstanding performer of the year was Tim Linley, someone who I had major doubts over at the start of the season. To me he looked like a good player playing a standard too high. In retrospect, 70-odd wickets later, I feel I should write an apology to Mr. Linley. Some of his performances were top notch.

For those regular viewers of Surrey TV, his performances should possibly not have come as a surprise. He seemed to put in a vast amount of work over the winter and it paid dividend (young aspiring cricketers take note).

However, a note of realism: the real test of Linley, and the likes of Surrey old boy Tim Murtagh, and David Masters, is can they repeat their success with the change to the Dukes ball?

I am personally a fan of the Tiflex, as a fully paid up member of the seam bowler’s union. I think it makes far more interesting cricket and challenges batsman more. Furthermore, it makes for more interesting cricket. I’m sure that even the likes of Marcus Trescothick would have struggled at points at the “lesser” bowlers in Division Two using the Tiflex.

I used Tiflex balls for three years in school cricket, on fairly flat wickets, and I found it kept batsman honest and evened up the game considerably. It can be argued that the Tiflex makes it too much of a bowlers game, allowing average bowlers to become more successful, however I think that the use of it aids the development of the more subtle arts of swinging and seaming the ball, not just “bowling nice areas” to use a cliché. I certainly think the Tiflex should be used in places, like the sub-continent, where boring cricket seems to prevail.   

Undoubtedly the real success of the year was the immergence of the home-grown Surrey players on the first team and the promotion of messrs Dernbach and Meaker to the full England side. Jordan, Roy, Hamilton-Brown and Ansari made strides forward this year, setting themselves up for a challenging year next year.

Roy and Hamilton-Brown looked better players at the end of the year, but still frustrate me greatly in the longer format. Yes, both of them are extremely gifted stroke-players and they both have the ability to take bowling attacks apart. Yet they both lack the restraint at this point in time to go on and score big runs. Hamilton-Brown is the worst of the two culprits; a player of his talent and with the burden of both opening and skippering this young side should be leading by example and should be averaging more than in the mid-30s.

Unlike some, I was not surprised by the impact Zafar Ansari made on the t20 side. Having been fortunate enough to play with him, and unfortunate enough to drop the odd catch off him. I saw him as someone who had the ability, application and maturity to make an impact. He will, in time, become an integral part of the Surrey first team in all formats. The Surrey faithful will have to be patient due to his commitments with Cambridge but their patience may well be justified.

Looking forward to next year, I can see Surrey making a major impact on Division One of the Championship. The acquisition of John Lewis, although at 36 will have his best days behind him, may be a good one as he is an incredibly consistent performer.

The loss of Chris Schofield, in my opinion, was a mistake. He exudes so much enthusiasm and commitment. In his six years at Surrey turned himself into a genuine all-rounder and was one of the reasons that Surrey were a force in limited overs cricket. I can see why Adams let him go- wanting to promote youth and the possibility of an overseas spinner, however I totally disagree.

Surrey are not short of spinners. Batty, Ansari Schofield and Van Den Bergh would have sufficed in the First Division. The really pressing matter is the opening position. Adams has arguably forced himself into getting an overseas spinner, when that was not the real issue, although Ojha was outstanding.

 The real issue throughout the season was that Surrey had no natural openers throughout the season. With the injury to Michael Brown and Tom Lancefield, Arun Harinath was the only real opener in the squad. An experienced opener would have taken the pressure off Hamilton-Brown, limited the exposure of Ramprakash to the new ball and would have allowed Steve Davies to bat in the middle order. Someone of the calibre of Chris Rogers would have fitted the bill perfectly. His runs were very valuable for Middlesex and Surrey’s progression to Division One cricket may have been smoother with him.

Overall, however, I have nothing really to complain about. Surrey for the greater part of the season were very impressive and highly entertaining. Great things should await this side. Next year may well be a season too early for them. I will be very interested to see how a team, excluding Ramprakash, de Bruyn and Lewis, with very little Division One cricket experience copes with the step up.