Watching the West Indies in 1976

While watching the ESPN Classic replay of the 3rd Test match between England and the West Indies in 1976 I am stunned by the coverage.

In the midsts of some terrific batting by Greenidge, Richards and Lloyd there were some startling bits of play. My attention was grabbed during England’s second innings. Previous to this I had been hard at work and not that interested by the coverage, England were bowling. They bowled poorly and their fielding lacklustre. The West Indies were fed a banquet of half-volleys and slow, good length fodder. This was obviously fairly dull viewing for an English supporter.

Having had the game on in the background during the West Indies innings I was very surprised to see how the West Indian side bowled. Roberts was on fire, he was aggressive and dangerous. Whereas the English bowlers were blunt Roberts was sharp as a razor. Brian Close (without Helmet) was battered from pillar to post and lucky not to have his head knocked off on many occasions. John Edrich, Close’s opening partner, found batting so hard against the West Indian bowlers he could only make 24 in over 2 hours. At one stage a member of the crowd ran onto the pitch with a quickly fashioned cricket bat that was four or five times the size of a normal bat and handed it to Edrich, such was his inability to score of Roberts.

Call me sadistic but I enjoyed the fact that the batsman did not have all the protection that they currently do. I loved the aggresive bowling and the fact that the batsmen, when hit, stood tall to show the bowler they were not hurt. It is no wonder that the likes of Holding, Roberts and Garner are engrained in cricket folklore, they were new, they were different and they made the heart race.

Consistently Inconsistent

During the build up to the Cricket World Cup it has come to my attention that many of the ex-players I have spoken to count consistency as the most important factor in a team’s chances of winning the World Cup.

So does consistency come with playing more games? Or have the Australians changed the way we rate a team’s success?

Australia have certainly set a bench mark. Their record since 2000 speaks for itself; they have won 149 matches, losing 46 and drawing 3. England’s record is rather different; they have won 70 matches having lost 79 and drawn 2. Although this shows an unhealthy win loose ratio for the England team it also shows that Australia have played 198 games since 2000 while England have only played 151. The usual assumption is the India and Pakistan play many more ODI’s than any other side, but India have played 209 since 2000 and Pakistan 205.

Looking at the stats since 2000 it is noticeable that most teams have played a similar number of ODI games. England have played - on average - about 50 games less than the other major teams. Neil Foster [ex-England bowler] sees the lack of One Day experience as a key factor in their inability to convert good passages of play into victories.

In a recent interview with Ex-England batsman Graeme Hick he picked his top four sides for the World Cup. He decided on Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand and, patriotically, England. He was hesitant to pick England though because they “have been inconsistent and they are lacking experience”. Interestingly he also highlighted a selection policy that he thought hindered the teams development; “The likes of Australia have been preparing their side for two or three years whereas our side appears to have come together at the last minute.”

It is obvious that England have played fewer games than the big contenders for the forthcoming World Cup. But is it down to the fact that our selection policy over the last few years has constricted players from getting to know the One Day game and getting to know the team? The stats give some interesting reading, since 2002 Australia have played 38 players in their ODI team, England have played 58.

The England side have had a successful On Day International period out in Australia, they need to keep this squad together and try not to change things.

Interview with Brendon McCullum

With a few hours to go before the first ball how do you feel about the first game of the Chapell-Hadlee One Day Series between Australia and New Zealand in Wellington?

We are keen to bounce back after the disappointment of the Commonwealth Bank Series. I guess it is a luxury to be able to play Australia straight away, we have to be back on our game and it is something that we are all looking forward to, I hope we can kick things off with a win.

Is the World Cup overshadowing this competition?

Possibly, but we are trying to link them together. I think the World Cup will be decided on who has the most momentum going into the tournament. It is great to have the opportunity of playing really tough cricket leading into the World Cup; it just highlights the fact that we have to be at the top of our game.

The CB Series was obviously a disappointment for the New Zealand side. You seem to have a very well balanced side though. What were the team’s reflections of the series?

Yes, it was gutting to be honest but we took a lot out of it as well. During the series we played some outstanding cricket but also some below par cricket. We have to rectify the mistakes we made. The tough thing to take away from the tournament was that when we did play poorly it was during vital moments. If we can get ourselves into those situations again and deliver then we will come out on the right side of things.

With the World Cup just round the corner do you think the CB Series may be a blessing in disguise in some ways?

Yes and no, it certainly focuses the mind. When you hit rock bottom you have that real fire inside to rectify things and get back on top. However, when you are winning and playing well you have that momentum and confidence. It’s a double edged sword in many ways.

Can New Zealand be a real contender in the World Cup?

We are aiming to be there at the business end of the World Cup. During the last few years we have looked down the track to the World Cup and put systems in place to give us the best opportunity in the competition. We have put a lot of pressure on ourselves and we have sacrificed a few results for the bigger picture. But from that we have given ourselves a lot of depth, in terms of the squad, and we have also played in high pressure games in order to know how to react to those high pressure situations. The squad and the management are all under pressure to get to the final but that’s the way we like it.

Do you think the teams in the CB series will be in the semi finals of the World Cup?

You certainly expect England and Australia to be there, its not rocket science, Australia are the best team in the world and England are also right up there. England have got some serious momentum in the last few games so you would expect to see them there at the end. It depends how we all play in the conditions out in the Caribbean.

Stephen Fleming said that putting on a big total is vital, as a keeper how do the team look to bowl against that?

If you have the bowlers that can blast out teams then you have to look to take early wickets within the first twenty overs. If you don’t have those bowlers at your disposal then you have to try and deny the batsman the opportunity to make quick runs, which can be tough during 50 overs. If you can guarantee yourself to get 250 plus every game then you are going to win more than you loose, without a doubt. From our point of view that’s what we try and do because we know our bowlers will be there or there abouts.

Do you think that the wicket keeper batsman is the most valuable player in world cricket?

We’re getting to the stage where a wicketkeeper batman is very important to the make-up of a good One Day side. Gone are the days when you played an out-an-out keeper, wicketkeepers have to be able to contribute to the score, a good keeper batsman caters for two players in one. Most teams have one but there are other vital players such as Andrew Symonds, Flintoff and Jacob Oram who contribute with bat, ball and with their fielding.

There has been a lot made of Paul Nixons’ style of wicket keeping, what do you think is the role of the keeper?

I think Nixon hypes things up a bit, he’s a bit over the top and I think it would annoy the hell out of our team. There’s a time and a place for that kind of thing, in my view. As a keeper you are the focal point and at times you have to try and conduct the field a bit, but that’s always in conjunction with the captain. If the intensity isn’t there then you have to try and get it back somehow. You have to make sure the field is slick and sharp so that when opportunities happen you are in the best mindset to take it. Everyone’s got there own individual style and Nixon has waiting along time for his chance. He has made an impact on the England team but I can say that his style wouldn’t be suited to every team.

The tail must wag

With England securing a place in the CB Series final it does, for some, put a slight sheen on an otherwise forgettable tour.

However, this late awakening (typical of England in Australia) must not be jumped upon by fans as a sign of an upturn in fortune and form. There is still a big question to be answered by this England Squad and, more importantly, the management. Notably; what is the game plan?

A One Day cricket game is won or lost on a teams batting. The problem is that the batting has been unreliable and has left our bowlers with little to bowl at.

The bowling line up selected for the last game against New Zealand in the CB series was as follows; Dalrymple, Plunkett, Mahmood, Panesar, Flintoff and Collingwood. The stats can argue that Dalrymple and Mahmood are unnecessary to the way the team is performing.

If we look at the wicket takers over the CB ODI series it would appear that England should plump for two specialist bowlers; Plunkett or Anderson and Panesar. Then rely on Flintoff and Collingwood as batsman-bowlers and Pieterson and Vaughan as occasional spin options. With the wild card inclusion of Stuart Broad – not before time - England could put together a strong side for the World Cup, based on batting.

What the bowlers must do is to bowl tightly and economically in tandem with clever fielding positions and canny use of the power plays. This relies on the captain knowing his bowlers and trusting them to bowl to a plan. The bowlers mentioned would not be picked to take wickets necessarily but to restrict runs and tie up at least one end.

Anderson has arguably been the pick of the fast/medium bowlers during this long tour; he’s been consistent and accurate. He would be my first choice but with his constant back problems there is a question mark and Plunkett should be his back-up.

Mahmood, Lewis and Tremlett have all had their moments but would anyone have them in their World XI? Surely a team with any chance of winning the World Cup has to have at least one player who would make it into most peoples World XI . We have two in my opinion, Pieterson and Flintoff, and they are both batsmen.

My team for the World Cup:
Loye, Pieterson, Vaughan, Joyce, Strauss, Collingwood, Flintoff, Nixon, Broad, Anderson, Panesar

Top ODI wicket takers in the CB ODI series:
Plunkett 10
Anderson 8
Flintoff 8
Panesar 7
Collingwood 6