Clarke demands Notts improvement after record stand secures draw

392-run stand with New Zealand’s Will Young denies Somerset before rain

ECB Reporters Network22-Apr-2024Joe Clarke and Will Young were denied the chance of a 400 partnership when heavy rain washed out most of the final day of Nottinghamshire’s Vitality County Championship First Division match with Somerset at Taunton.Only nine overs were possible at the start of the morning session, which began with the visitors 418 for 2 in their second innings, leading by 157 runs.Having already broken a Notts record for a third-wicket stand, which had stood since 1903, Clarke and Young added 22 runs, taking the total to 440 before the rain set in at 11.40am with their partnership extended to 392.No further play was possible before umpires Russell Warren and David Millns abandoned the game at the conclusion of a 1pm lunch period. Clarke was left unbeaten on 213 and Young on 174 as Somerset took 15 points from the draw and Notts ten.The early finish also deprived the pair of a chance to break the Notts record stand for any wicket, the unbroken opening stand of 406 put together by Darren Bicknell and Guy Welton against Warwickshire at Edgbaston in 2000.Related

Clarke, Young compile 370 unbroken runs to turn tables on Somerset

Overton's late hitting drives Somerset into dominant position

Overton signals return from back surgery as Somerset bowl Notts out

“We have to improve as a side because we have been putting ourselves in positions we don’t want to be in,” Clarke said. “We need to be in control and pushing to win games, so although it was good to get points from this one, we know as a group we have to be better.”This was Clarke’s third hundred of the season and he sits one run behind Warwickshire captain Alex Davies at the top of the run-scoring charts in Division One. “The partnership with Will was outstanding,” Clarke said. “We fed off each other well and kept each other going.”It was the first game this year with the Duke ball, but that made no difference to how I approached my innings. As always, I just tried to keep things simple and cash in on the confidence I am feeling with the bat at the moment.”Will Young just oozes class. He had not had many days in the country before we travelled down to play here after a long flight from New Zealand, so to fit back into the team so seamlessly was amazing.”Lewis Gregory, Somerset’s captain, said: “I would like to see pitches here offer a lot more to the bowlers than that one did. It flattened out much quicker than expected, but it’s not an exact science and that can happen here. Three draws is a solid start to the season for us. We have played some really good cricket and now need to build on it with a win.”

India's opening salvo

Faced with a relatively gettable target of 266, India’s opening combination ensured that there would be no early tremors in the dressing-room

On the Ball with S Rajesh11-Feb-2006Faced with a relatively gettable target of 266, India’s opening combination of Virender Sehwag and Sachin Tendulkar ensured that there would be no early tremors in the dressing-room. Yuvraj Singh may have top-scored with an unbeaten 82, but the win was set up the first-wicket stand of 105 in a mere 15 overs.Sehwag has been under the cosh for his poor one-day form, but today he approached his knock just right. The first four overs were meant to gauge the pace and bounce of the track, as India managed only 12, of which Sehwag contributed six off 13. Then, it was time to open the floodgates, as Sehwag launched a vicious onslaught, slamming Rana Naved-ul-Hasan for 20 in the fifth over, including an audacious slapped six over third man.The over-by-over graph shows just how the Indian openers pressed the accelerator after a circumspect start. What’s also interesting is the way each batsman played second fiddle when the other was blazing away: from overs five to ten, Sehwag creamed 41 from 28 balls, while Tendulkar’s contribution was a mere six from 12. Then, from the 11th over, Tendulkar took charge, with 31 from 20, while Sehwag cleverly looked to turn the strike over, scoring just seven from 11. It was the perfect start, and though both were dismissed in quick succession, they had done enough to ensure that there would be no hiccups.

The numbers that made the difference

The three-Test series between England and India had plenty of statistical highlights. Cricinfo analyses some of the interesting ones

S Rajesh14-Aug-2007

He wasn’t always tidy behind the stumps, but Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s contribution with the bat was crucial to India’s series win © Getty Images
The value of partnershipsEngland’s batsmen scored three centuries in the series to India’s one; there were four century partnerships for England, twice as many as the Indians managed; yet, the series scoreline read India 1, England 0.India’s triumph in the three-Test series was a victory for collective effort over personal heroics. There were as many as 14 half-centuries, and 16 half-century partnerships, which ensured that England rarely had the luxury of getting two quick wickets in succession.The list of average partnerships for each wicket also shows that England’s top order didn’t do badly. The Indian opening pair was a revelation, but England’s first three wickets did better than India’s, while the middle order (partnerships for wickets 4-6) put together healthy partnerships as well. Where they lost out in comparison to India was in the lower-order batting – their last four wickets averaged ten runs per dismissal, which means they were as good as all out when six down. The Indians scored 17 more per partnership for the last four wickets, which translates into 68 extra runs per innings.Apart from Anil Kumble’s heroics at The Oval, the difference was the performance of the wicketkeepers. Matt Prior, apart from letting through 71 byes and dropping crucial catches, also failed with the bat, averaging 14.60. Mahendra Singh Dhoni wasn’t always tidy behind the stumps, but he was superb with bat in hand, scoring 209 runs at 52.25. Without his match-saving contribution at Lord’s, India would have only managed a drawn series.

Partnerships for each wicket

Wicket Ind – Runs Average 100s/ 50s Eng – Runs Average 100s/ 50s

First 322 53.67 1/ 1 260 43.33 0/ 2 Second 163 27.16 1/ 0 319 53.16 1/ 2 Third 223 37.16 0/ 2 268 44.67 0/ 2 Fourth 336 67.20 0/ 4 300 50.00 2/ 1 Fifth 181 36.20 0/ 2 144 24.00 0/ 1 Sixth 241 48.20 0/ 3 348 58.00 1/ 2 Seventh 181 45.25 0/ 2 51 10.20 0/ 0 Eighth 95 23.75 0/ 1 52 10.40 0/ 0 Ninth 36 9.00 0/ 0 32 6.40 0/ 0 Tenth 103 34.33 0/ 1 73 14.60 0/ 0

Partnerships for each cluster of wickets

Wicket Ind – Runs Average 100s/ 50s Eng – Runs Average 100s/ 50s

1 – 3 708 39.33 2/ 3 847 47.05 1/ 6 4 – 6 758 50.33 0/ 9 792 44.00 3/ 4 7 – 10 415 27.67 0/ 4 208 10.40 0/ 0Working out the angles”We’ve been asked different questions against the left-arm angles which we haven’t seen before,” Michael Vaughan admitted after the series, which was a tribute to the splendid bowling performances of Zaheer Khan and RP Singh. With Sreesanth off-colour through most of the series, the two left-armers were easily India’s stand-out bowlers, confusing the batsmen with their line of attack and the swing they generated. Zaheer became only the third Indian fast bowler – after Javagal Srinath and Sreesanth – to take 18 wickets in a three-Test series. As the table below shows, England’s batsmen weren’t comfortable against them no matter which side of the wicket they bowled from.

Indian left-armers, over and round the wicket

Bowler Over – balls, runs* Wickets Average Round – balls, runs* Wickets Average

Zaheer 695, 290 14 20.71 125, 63 4 15.75 RP Singh 404, 221 7 31.57 154, 110 5 22.00The swing-and-seam factorThe only batsmen who handled India’s three fast bowlers with a measure of success were Alastair Cook and Kevin Pietersen. Pietersen was immense throughout the series against all bowlers, but Cook blotted his book by falling twice to Kumble and Sourav Ganguly, against whom he managed a miserable seven runs in 41 deliveries.

England batsmen v India’s three fast bowlers

Batsman Runs Balls Dismissals Average

Alastair Cook 176 314 2 88.00 Kevin Pietersen 223 367 5 44.60 Andrew Strauss 150 376 5 30.00 Michael Vaughan 140 345 5 28.00 Ian Bell 109 141 5 21.80 Paul Collingwood 84 185 5 16.80 Matt Prior 42 117 4 10.50 Sourav Ganguly’s series was spoilt by a couple of poor decisions, but despite that he averaged nearly 50 and handled England’s three fast bowlers better than any of his mates. Whether getting into line to defend, weaving out of the way of bouncers, or caressing drives through the off side, Ganguly was mostly comfortable against the three-pronged attack of Sidebottom, Anderson and Tremlett, which bodes well for India’s next two Test series, against Pakistan and Australia.

Indian batsmen v England’s three fast bowlers

Batsman Runs Balls Dismissals Average

Sourav Ganguly 160 315 3 53.33 Dinesh Karthik 197 399 5 39.40 Sachin Tendulkar 151 416 4 37.75 Mahendra Singh Dhoni 112 176 3 37.33 VVS Laxman 149 304 4 37.25 Rahul Dravid 90 221 3 30.00 Wasim Jaffer 156 348 6 26.00 Spin supportWith the fast bowlers doing the bulk of the damage, the two spinners on show played largely a supporting role. That wasn’t quite so unexpected for England, but Kumble would have expected to play a bigger role with the ball, especially on the last day at The Oval. He did finish with 14 wickets in all at a respectable average of 34.50, but those numbers are slightly flattering, as half those wickets comprised the four bowlers in England’s line-up. Against the specialist batsmen, Kumble was distinctly second-best. On the other hand, he also ensured that India didn’t have to suffer any of the lower-order partnerships that have become the norm when they play overseas.

Kumble v England’s batsmen

Runs Balls Wickets Dismissals

Top seven 402 724 7 57.43 Last four 70 150 7 10.00 Panesar was even more ineffective against the Indian top order, but he too benefited from getting lower-order wickets. His series average of 50.37, though, is his second-worst: the only occasion he has been more ineffective was in his first series, also against India. (Click here for Panesar’s series-wise bowling averages.)

Monty Panesar v Indian batsmen

Runs Balls Wickets Dismissals

Top seven 320 605 3 106.67 Last four 83 180 5 16.60 Head-to-headsThe table below lists five of the more interesting head-to-heads: Ganguly was supposed to be susceptible to pace and bounce, but he handled Tremlett pretty well; Pietersen had a good time against Zaheer, but found RP Singh more difficult to handle; Ian Bell and Andrew Strauss had no such luck against Zaheer, while Anderson can legitimately claim to have Tendulkar’s number.

The key head-to-heads

Batsman Bowler Runs, balls Dismissals Average

Sourav Ganguly Chris Tremlett 74/ 151 0 – Kevin Pietersen Zaheer Khan 72, 143 1 72.00 Kevin Pietersen RP Singh 86, 124 3 28.67 Andrew Strauss Zaheer Khan 69, 173 4 17.25 Ian Bell Zaheer Khan 17, 30 4 4.25 Sachin Tendulkar James Anderson 69, 142 3 23.00

The drugs don't work

A review of Paul Smith’s autobiography,

Will Luke27-May-2007Wasted? by Paul Smith (Know the Score), 240pp, £11.20

Paul Smith had a bit of rock-n-roll about him. The long hair, the long run-up, the extravagant follow-through and the swashbuckling strokeplay, his cricket was energetic and unorthodox. But his is a sad story: one of regret, disappointment, depression and turmoil. Even homelessness. is a rare insight into the trappings of fame, the inadequacies of the authority’s handling of drugs – but moreover one man’s mission to transform his life.It was in 1997 that Smith was banned by the ECB for his use of “recreational” drugs: a fair cocktail of cannabis, cocaine and speed. But in the early chapters of his book, he goes at great length to tell of the double standards that he felt he fell victim to. He was not alone in being a user: there were, Smith says, other high-profile county and Test cricketers in England regularly taking recreational drugs. The ECB’s policy was, in Smith’s eyes at least, entirely inconsistent. The ban ruined him, his life turned upside down, emotionally and financially. Drugs were the treat afforded to him by his success for Warwickshire, yet they ruined him. Although acutely aware of how the effect they had, and although he now wants to prevent others falling into the same trap, the anger he feels at the authorities and some former colleagues and friends is clear and painful.And to that end, there is a strong sense of victimisation that pervades much of the book. Other players – Shane Warne, Keith Piper, Dermot Reeve to name but three – have since suffered similar fates, but none to the extent Smith feels he had to endure. It isn’t all about the drugs though: Smith’s tumultuous personal life receives extensive dissection too, and it is no less chaotic. His very good friend, Piper, had a four-year long affair with Smith’s partner, the mother of his five-year-old daughter. Given the messiness of the subsequent break-up, Smith was denied custody.

Smith tearing into bowl for Warwickshire in 1988 © Getty Images
Even now, in 2007, he hasn’t seen or heard from his daughter in two years and doesn’t even know where she lives. And in fact, it is this constant reflection of the past and comparison to his present life now which makes this book so different. So often, autobiographies are gushingly sentimental, reminiscing about past glories with rose-tinted spectacles. Smith is understandably misty-eyed – a factor not helped by the drugs, of course – but there is a refreshing honesty to his words.The prose and flow become a little disjointed though, which makes for a bumpy but stimulating ride through the 204 pages. He lurches from the 1980s to the 2000s to the 1990s and back again, citing an anecdote here and a flashback there. Much like in his playing days, there isn’t much rhythm or predictability, but it’s always entertaining. It is almost like reading his diary or a notebook, not an autobiography, such are the frequency of quirky anecdotes and yarns.Besides his rocky relationships, perhaps the most interesting section of the book is the time he spent in America. Financially ruined and often homeless, he went for days without meals and in the process met a kaleidoscope of different people. And it was in here, in Los Angeles, that he forged to turn around his life and put his experiences to good use. Cricket Without Boundaries was formed, a scheme to divert wayward kids from the dangers of guns, drugs and crime into something meaningful; using the spirit and tradition of cricket to teach them a new way of thinking.It seems to be working for the kids, but also for Smith. If anything, this venture might act as Smith’s strongest (and most addictive) substance yet. is far from a conventional read but, written by one of cricket’s more avant-garde characters, nothing less should be expected.

New game, old skills

Twenty20 may be a new format but it’s still true to cricket’s roots, and there is no substitute for class. By Will Luke

Will Luke09-Sep-2007

Ramprakash: “You’ve to think very quickly on your feet about how you are going to go about scoring the runs” © Getty Images
“You have more time than you think,” said Owais Shah, the Englandbatsman, earlier in the summer. He wasn’t referring to Tests, nor washe talking about 50-over ODIs, but the new kid on the block, Twenty20.The sweat hadn’t yet dried from Shah’s forehead, his heart was still racingfrom urging England to a tense win over West Indies at The Oval. Hadthe adrenalin of victory masked Shah’s common sense? Twenty overs is, after all, not enough time to bed in a new bat, let alone construct an entire innings.Shah has a point, however: teams build huge innings in a mere 120 balls, and the batsmen need not be the carefree, wild bullies that many assumed they would have to be in order to succeed in this format. Quite the contrary in fact, and a quick glance at the leading Twenty20 run-scorers makes for instructive reading.Brad Hodge tops the list with 1383, followed by Darren Maddy (1278), HD Ackerman and Martin van Jaarsveld. Maddy apart, these are traditional batsmen who look to play straight wherever possible. Also in the top ten are Phil Jaques, DavidHussey, and those embodiments of English orthodoxy, Mark Ramprakash andGraeme Hick. From the stands Twenty20 might feel like a carnival, but the cricket is pure and the purists are winning.”You are weighing up a lot of when out in the middle: the pace of the pitch, the size of the boundary,” Ramprakash says. “Personally, I try to decide which bowler I can get after. You’ve to think very quickly on your feet about how you are going to go about scoring the runs – if the ball is quick then you can deflect it using its pace, and if the spinners are on you can try and hit the ball out of the ground.”Initially when I played Twenty20 I just wasn’t up with the pace of the game, because the fielding team are charging in to get their overs [finished] very quickly and every ball is a very big event. And so as a batsman I had to get with the pace of the game, I had to weigh up the situation, decide in what areas I was looking to score and that was a very big adjustment for someone who was playing four-day cricket or a 50-overs game.”A big adjustment mentally, then. Look at Ramprakash build an innings in 50 overs as opposed to 20 and there are very few differences, other than his urgency at the crease. There is no substitute for class, which probably comes as a relief to the sceptics who muttered and moaned when Twenty20 first appeared that the format diluted cricket’s essentials. Ramprakash’s cricket – the cover drive; standing tall to cut past point; smiting down the ground – remains, essentially, the same. The myth that the new format requires inventive, crazy batsmanship is just that. Aggressive cricket need notbe suicidal or ugly.Though England are beginning to show a one-day renaissance, their troubles (and in particular those of Michael Vaughan) in the past decade were perplexing. How can a batsman of Vaughan’s talent in Tests appear so out of his depth in the shorter format? Vaughan averages 27.15 and, in 86 matches, is yet to reach three figures, which contradicts the Australian mantra that any Test cricketer should, by virtue of hisability, be more than capable of succeeding in one-dayers. Stuart Law, a Pom by marriage but an Australian at heart, is one such believer.

Law: “There’s no secret formula; you can’t wake up one morning and say, ‘Right, time to put on my Twenty20 head.'” © Getty Images
“Not a truer word has been spoken,” he says. “I remember talking to a guy in the club I played in when I was growing up, an ex-senior player, who said to me: ‘One-day cricket is just an extension of two-day and four-day cricket, but it’s an opportunity to express their talent and expand on what they normally do.’ And it’s so right. There’s no secret formula; you can’t wake up one morning and say, ‘Right, time to put on my Twenty20 head.’ It’s cricket. If you can adapt quicker, sum up the conditions of the pitch as quickly as you can, then you can expand into what looks to be really aggressive cricket.”There’s no real secret formula. In Twenty20 cricket you haven’t got the time to play yourself in like you have in 50-over cricket. You’ve basically got to get out there and do it from ball one. I wouldn’t say you change the way you play your game. It’s about getting to that point where you think you can accelerate the run-rate as quickly as you possibly can.”But let’s face it. With lifeless pitches, an international schedule to make grown men weep and the continued shortening of boundaries, cricket is a batsman’s game. The poor, puce-faced bowler doesn’t have a hope in Twenty20s.”Every bowler hates Twenty20 cricket,” Law says, with a hint of glee in his voice. “If a bowler says Twenty20’s great, it’s fantastic, ‘I love it’, they’re kidding themselves … as they watch their best deliveries sail over the fence at a regular interval. It’s not much for any of them.”But once again, it’s about summing up the pitch, different paces, different lengths, bumpers and yorkers, and then [it’s up to the spinners] to change their pace a great deal. Gary Keedy’s been very successful for us [Lancashire]. He either bowls it extremely slow or as quickly as he possibly can.”And that has been one of Twenty20’s biggest surprises: the impact and success of spinners. Nayan Doshi, the former Surrey spinner, has taken 53 wickets at 14.66 – more than anyone else in the history of the format. Mushtaq Ahmed is hot on his heels, with 42 at a typically miserly 13.80. Much as Law is convinced of batsmen’s need to change their mental approach to batting, so is Harbhajan Singh, the Surreyoffspinner who is making his international comeback for India next week, with regard to bowling.”You can’t really change things. You just have to adapt your mindset,” he says. “You know that you are going to go for runs, but still you must look to get wickets. It’s a 20-over match, so you have to bowl according to that. You just get four overs to bowl, so you have to make sure you bowl four overs the way you want to bowl.”

Harbhajan: “You just get four overs to bowl, so you have to make sure you bowl four overs the way you want to bowl.'” © Getty Images
There is a hiccup to this logic, however. Spin has been a revelatory success on Twenty20 in English cricket, but next week’s inaugural World Twenty20 in South Africa carries a couple of uncertainties. And the pitches are chief among them.South Africa have never hosted an international so early in their season (their domestic competitions don’t even begin until October) which could produce somedeathly dull, slow, low pitches. “Spinners do well in Twenty20 in England because they play in June and July when the wickets are mostly dry, and they play on big grounds,” Harbhajan says. “There will be a big difference between international and domestic Twenty20.”Secondly, this is Twenty20’s international debut. How will the crowds react? Will Matthew Hayden bully the bowlers from the off, or will Australia’s slightly lax attitude toward the format cost them? The fewer the overs, the greater the chance of an upset.And yet, as Law, Ramprakash and Harbhajan have said, adaptability is the fundamental key to any player in Twenty20. If they can alter their game plan to suit a Jeremy Snape “moonball” for example, or bowlers running in off one step, they can surely cope with inclement Cape Town weather and a peaty pitch.These are professional sportsmen, after all. The grounds might appear to be dressed in candy floss and drowned in a cacophony of music, but Twenty20 cricket in the middle remains true to its roots.

Mission Impossible for selectors

With the debacle in Abu Dhabi, West Indies officials are at their wit’s end to know how to revive standards. Their proposals with respect to player selection are well meaning, but they are also patently unrealistic and unworkable, if not laughable

Tony Cozier17-Nov-2008
The non-performance of Carlton Baugh in the ODI series against Pakistan in Abu Dhabi reflects poorly on the West Indies selectors whose proposals are anything but unrealistic and unworkable © Getty Images
There are any number of instances of the muddled thinking that presently pervades West Indies cricket. The latest – not counting the bloated, sub-standard, expensive, non-sponsored regional one-day tournament in Guyana, last week’s meeting of the Caricom sub-committee on cricket that did not involve a single cricketer and Carlton Baugh’s disappointing run in Abu Dhabi – concerns a shift in selection policy.Although enunciated separately over the past month by the chief executive of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and by the Barbados Cricket Association (BCA), the stated transformation is so similar in content and timing as to suggest collaboration.At a time when West Indies officials are at their wit’s end to know how to revive standards, their proposals are, no doubt, well meaning but they are also patently unrealistic and unworkable, if not laughable. Here is the WICB man Donald Peters’s take on the issue, as delivered at the opening of the Trinidad and Tobago’s High Performance Centre last month:”If you decide that you are an opening batsman, we will expect you to occupy the crease for at least 75% of the time you go to bat and your batting average will be between 40-60 over at least ten first-class matches.”If you are a top order batsman we will expect you to have a batting average that is consistent with international players at that level/position.”The West Indies selectors, he indicated, would be guided by a first-class average that “should be similar” to that of Mike Hussey, Ricky Ponting, Kumar Sangakkara, Kevin Pietersen, Virender Sehwag and Shivnarine Chanderpaul.The theory, presumably, is that if you’re aiming high, go for nothing but the highest. No Ian Bell, Hashim Amla, Ross Taylor or others of that ilk in there. Only the top performers.The problem is that Chanderpaul and Chris Gayle are the only ones among active West Indian batsmen who meet such qualifications. Clyde Butts and his fellow selectors will find impossible to scrape together an eleven, unless, of course, they simply ignore such nonsense.A few days after Peters made known the WICB’s plan, the Barbados Cricket Association (BCA) issued a lengthy, detailed document entitled ‘Selection Policy Guidelines’, covering such aspects as attitude, fitness and commitment. Under the heading ‘Performance Levels’, this is what it states: “All players seeking to represent Barbados at the regional first-class level shall maintain a First Division (club) average of 40 or higher as a batsman or a bowling average less than 15 with at least 35 wickets as a bowler.”All players seeking to represent Barbados at the regional one-day level shall maintain a batting average of between 35 and 40 or higher as a batsman or a bowling average under 20 as a bowler.”It goes further. Those in the Barbados team who don’t maintain the required averages at club level “shall appear before the director of coaching with their club coach to give reasons for their non-performance”. If, “after further monitoring”, the standard still isn’t met then the player won’t even get into trials. The text, the BCA surprisingly revealed, was prepared “in consultation with the selectors” whose initiative it would obviously compromise.All they need do in future is to pick batsmen and bowlers who meet the given statistical specifications and argue over the wicket-keeper, the only category for which none are set.All the West Indies selectors need do in future is to pick batsmen and bowlers who meet the given statistical specifications and argue over the wicket-keeper, the only category for which none are set The problem, short of bringing back Garry Sobers, Seymour Nurse, Charlie Griffith, Joel Garner and others from the generations of greatness, is where to find them.The BCA directive offers no discretion to the selectors. The players “shall maintain” the given averages, full stop. Peters’ plan is slightly more flexible – the WICB would simply “expect”.What both should expect is a mass resignation of those self-respecting selectors whose roles are rendered redundant by such edicts. They are all former players who have been chosen specifically because of their knowledge gained from years of experience in the game. They are not strictly guided in their judgement by runs and wickets but have an eye for the intangibles behind the numbers such as talent, competitiveness and mental toughness.While they get it right more often than not, they inevitably get it wrong sometimes for which they are crucified, especially in these small, scattered, insular territories. Now they would be able to hide behind the bland figures. Had the WICB and the BCA come up with the same ludicrous idea in the past some of our finest players might never have had the chance to rise to stardom.One example suffices to illustrate how absurd these new guidelines are.For the tour of India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan 34 years ago, the panel of Clyde Walcott (chairman), Joe Solomon and J.K.Holt picked a precocious young Antiguan batsman for the first time. His average after 15 first-class matches over three seasons of regional cricket was 26. He had yet to score a first-class hundred.His name was Vivian Richards.

'I've never apologised to a player'

Daryl Harper talks about Tendulkar lbw decision from 1999, the worst thing a bowler’s said to him, and whether the ICC’s Umpire of the Year award is rigged

Interview by Nagraj Gollapudi21-Oct-2009Have you ever been hit by a batsman’s shot?
The worst hit I took was in the West Indies from a Sanath Jayasuriya square cut. The umpires were standing on the off side to accommodate the television cameras as they had only popping-crease run-out cameras on one side. I had no chance to get out of the way of the fierce shot and it hit me fair and square in the middle of the chest. After the batsmen ran for the single they walked up to me and all Sanath could say was, “You cost me four runs”. I said, “You got a single out of it.” I wore that wound for the next month.We hear you are taking a Hindi course?
Yes, I have the material here. ” [don’t ask me again].” I picked that up from a television advertisement in India.What is the longest flight you have taken?
Recently it took 50 hours from Australia to Sri Lanka, but that was several flights actually, because I detoured to Boston to watch my favourite baseball team, the Red Sox. Luckily they won all their games. And I used my frequent-flyer points for half of the journey.What has been your most embarrassing moment during a cricket match?
Probably at the WACA during the 1996-97 tri-series. I was talking too much to Pakistan captain Wasim Akram. Ijaz Ahmed had just been run out. The ball was returned to me. The bowler, Patterson Thompson, went back to his bowling mark. I gave Moin Khan his guard and went to my normal position, stood there and waited for the bowler to come charging up. I was focussed, prepared to look at his feet, and all of a sudden he called, “No ball, maan.” I thought, what’s he talking about, I’m the one that judges if it is a no-ball. As I went to signal dead ball, all of a sudden I felt a rather large, spherical object in my pocket. I hadn’t given the bowler the ball back. Thankfully the commentators never realised it.Have you ever complimented a batsman or bowler on a shot or ball?
The closest I came was on the last ball of the Chennai Test in December 2008, when Sachin [Tendulkar] turned the ball down to fine leg to get his 41st Test century, which helped India beat England, a fortnight after the Mumbai terror attacks. That was one shot I will always remember.What’s the worst thing a bowler has ever said to you?
One Australian legspin bowler [Stuart MacGill] did suggest that I should be using my brain more often. I had just knocked back a couple of lbw appeals against two West Indies batsmen who weren’t offering a shot.Name one thing you do that Dickie Bird couldn’t?
I’ve done more Tests and ODIs than Dickie.Is there an umpiring record you would like to achieve?
I must admit, doing 100 Tests is something I’m interested in. Only two people have done that so far [Steve Bucknor and Rudi Koertzen], and I don’t mind being the third.Do you think the ICC’s Umpire of the Year award is rigged, considering Simon Taufel has won it five times?
Apparently I’m in the top 12. I’ll almost be disappointed if I win it because I’m not a person who always gives the predictable answers. I don’t mind asking difficult questions of people who are casting the votes. Some umpires are less critical than I am. But Taufel is an outstanding umpire, full stop.Does Taufel still enjoy looking at his hair in the mirror, as you mentioned once?
He has a little hair at the crown, and I’ve suggested to him that he do a Harsha Bhogle treatment and have a transplant. At this stage he is only thinking about it.Why don’t you get one?
Because I’m not so vain that I’m concerned about it – if you look at the crown, it is all growing there. I’ve always told my daughter and son that I have a big forehead.

“I’ll almost be disappointed if I win the Umpire of the Year award, because I’m not a person who always gives the predictable answers”

Name one decision you would like to forget.
One that I would like the world to forget is the Sachin [Tendulkar] one, when he ducked a [Glenn] McGrath bouncer, in Adelaide in 1999. I’ve got the video clip on my laptop still, and you can see it is still out! What I didn’t like was, when I left the ground, a lot of friends were expressing their disappointment. “Hey Daryl, we came to see Sachin bat, not to see you umpire.” So I said, “Sorry, I was just doing my job.” Sunil Gavaskar was the commentator and he agreed, saying it would’ve been out lbw if the stumps were six inches taller. Sachin was the captain and he didn’t mention it in his report – always fair play with Sachin, and he is still a wonderful sportsperson.Have you ever apologised to a player?
No, I’ve never apologised. I’ve made mistakes but there was nothing deliberate about any errors that I ever made. Replays find you out in these times, unlike in the old days, where umpires got away with anything.Why do you take so much time to bring that finger up?
It’s not as slow as some – not as slow as Rudi Koertzen. I did field in the slips when I played cricket and I was quite a good catcher, so I can react reasonably quickly.What’s the best compliment you have got from a player?
I do feature in the opening chapter in Adam Gilchrist’s autobiography, where he recorded a comment I made to him about the manner in which he played the game. I was standing in his final Test, and I said, “When you see your parents next, tell them they got it right, they shouldn’t have done anything different.” In other words, that he turned out to be an outstanding person. He used that in his book.On another occasion, in an ODI at home, I called a wide down leg side and Gilly protested the decision momentarily, as he thought the ball had deflected off the pads. Then he looked up at the replay and as he passed me at the end of the over, he said, “Sorry about that. I guess that’s why you are a world-class umpire and I’m a player.” Do you like guys like him, who walked?
I love the guys who walk. But I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t walk.One question the media should not be allowed to ask you?
“Do you think you should retire?” What’s your most treasured cricketing possession?
I have about a dozen autographs from Sir Don Bradman.

Warnie's latest trick

The spin legend is attempting to turn a lifelong hobby, poker, into a career every bit as illustrious as the one he is leaving behind on the cricket field

Andrew Miller31-Jul-2009When great sportsmen retire, they often find it hard to carve a new niche in life. Some find solace in coaching or commentary, but many drift listlessly into middle age, unable to find a suitable outlet for the competitive instincts that drove them to the peak of their professions. Not for the first time in his life, however, Shane Warne has taken it upon himself to buck convention. His 40th birthday is fast approaching at the end of the summer, but far from dwelling on past glories, he has immersed himself in a second career that promises a whole new wave of fame, fortune and razor-sharp gameplay.The world of professional poker is where Warne’s passions reside these days, and it’s hard to imagine a cricketer more likely to succeed in such a glitzy and unfamiliar world. While his punditry during Sky Sports’ Ashes coverage has been lauded for his acerbic opinions and typically keen insight, his absence from last month’s historic first Test in Cardiff was ample proof of his new priorities. Instead of fronting up at Sophia Gardens, Warne spent the week holed up in the Rio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, competing in the World Series of Poker – the single most prestigious tournament on the circuit – and coming within a whisker of taking the event by storm.It’s a safe bet that, somewhere in a quiet corner of the England and Australia dressing rooms on a frustrating first day at Edgbaston, a deck of cards and a stack of chips were brought out of someone’s coffin, as the players whiled away the washed-out hours in traditional fashion. In his retirement speech on the eve of the Ashes, Michael Vaughan said that the England squad’s regular poker games at the back of the team bus were an aspect of his professional life that he would particularly miss, while in London last month, Warne and Darren Gough brought the two pastimes together under one banner, and led their respective countries in the inaugural Poker Ashes, a contest that finished in a familiar 4-1 Australian victory.”I see a lot of similarities between poker and cricket, and I thoroughly enjoy them both,” Warne told Cricinfo. “People associate poker with gambling, but that’s not actually the case. Tournament poker, which is what I play, is completely different to playing at home or in a re-buy tournament, and it has actually been deemed in a court of law a sport and a game of skill. It’s all about reading your opponents, it’s all about when you think they are bluffing and when they are not, it’s about table image, and position on the table, and playing the percentages. There’s a real sense of satisfaction about risking your chips and making a great call, or making a great lay-down when you’re behind, Playing your cards right gives a massive sense of satisfaction.”Poker, like cricket, has a wealth of jargon designed to baffle the uninitiated, but when you cut through Warne’s complicated turns of phrase, it’s self-evident why he is so well suited to this alternative form of cut-and-thrust. When you think of the traits that turned him into arguably the greatest match-winner of his generation, there’s more at play than merely his peerless ability to spin a cricket ball on all surfaces. There was the showmanship that he brought to his game – the strut and confidence with which he set his fields and controlled the tempo of the innings, the look of incredulity after each delivery that failed to take a wicket, the absolute confidence that he, and only he, had the power to dictate the direction of a match.

“It’s all about reading your opponents, it’s all about when you think they are bluffing and when they are not”

There was his ability to seize the slightest moment of weakness in a team (especially England, who were in thrall of him from the very first ball he bowled in Ashes cricket) or an individual (for instance, Daryl Cullinan, who was effortlessly out-psyched throughout their jousts in the mid-1990s). And there was his ability to adapt his game to suit the needs of the hour, never more memorably than at Adelaide in 2006-07, when he took his licks from Kevin Pietersen during a humiliating first-innings return of 1 for 167, only to strike with lethal speed and intent on that irresistible final day, when at last the cards fell in his favour.”There’s a huge element of skill and tactics involved in poker, and that’s one of the things I enjoyed with cricket,” said Warne. “The tactical side, the gamesmanship involved, when to push your opponent around and when not to, when to huff and puff and when not to. I’d like to be as successful on the poker table as the cricket field, but I think I’ve got a few years to go before that happens. “Days at big tournaments are pretty tough,” he added. “Before my first World Series [in 2008] I played in three or four Aussie Millions, a tournament in South Africa and a European World Series, and they are all long days in which you have to concentrate from first hand to last, and in that respect it’s just like cricket as well. You have five two-hour sessions, and every two hours you have 20 minutes off. That adds up to 12- or 13-hour days, which start at 12pm and finish at 1 o’clock in the morning.” His Test-match instincts could hardly have honed him to better effect.The basic rules of Texas hold’em poker, the world’s most popular form of the game, are simple enough to grasp. Each player is dealt two cards, upon which they make an initial judgment on whether to bet or to fold (and as a rule, picture cards or pairs are the likeliest route to success). After an opening round of betting, the first three of five community cards are dealt in the middle of the table (“the flop”), followed by “the turn” and “the river”, each punctuated with another round of betting. The aim of the game is to create (or give the impression you’ve created) the strongest five-card hand from the seven cards available, just as the aim of cricket is to score more runs than the opposition. But as with both games, the devil is in the details.”The more tournaments you play, the more you get to understand the tactics, and you don’t get intimidated when the big heavies are at play,” said Warne. “One of my tables [at the WSOP] was described as the table of death. I started on 19,000 chips with six really aggressive pros at the table, but I managed to get down at 100,000 and then walked away at the end of the day in 24th position overall, and more than 173,000 in chips. You don’t just do that by luck. There’s a lot of strategy at play.”Dealing with aggression, particularly of the batting variety, is something Warne proved long ago he was a past master at. While fast bowlers have their own aggressive tendencies to throw back at belligerent opponents, Warne could only rely on his innate skill and deeply considered strategies to stay in command of the situation. Given that he has been a card-player for as long as he can remember (he and his brother Jason used to play for matchsticks while their parents hosted Friday-night card games) you sometimes wonder in which direction his skills have travelled.You’ve gotta schmooze: Warne with Matt Damon at the World Series of Poker•888.comBut even Warne was not an instant success at Test level. On debut against India in January 1992, he was clattered around the SCG for figures of 1 for 150, and it wasn’t until the tour of Sri Lanka eight months later that he came up with the performance that confirmed he could mix it with the big boys. His final-day figures of 3 for 11 inched Australia to a remarkable 16-run victory, and from that moment on there was no stopping the momentum of his career.”I had to try and hide my nerves in my first Test, and in poker the same thing applies,” he said. “When I played my first Aussie Millions tournament in 2004-05, sure, I was nervous, but I pulled off a bluff on the flop, and won my first pot, and once I’d got over that, I started to feel okay. After that, you can start to understand the tables a bit more, and establish your own table image, and then you can begin to work out who the pros are, and who the weak players on the table are. Hopefully the weak players steal the good players’ chips, and then you steal the weak players’ chips! But it takes a while to work all that out.”And when it comes to stealing weak players’ chips, that is where the bluff comes into its own. “A bluff is all about telling a story,” said Warne. “You have pick the right opponent, and set it up right from the word go, pre-flop. It’s about representing strength. You have to fire again on the flop, and fire again on the turn, and expect some action on the river, and actually have the strength to do that. It takes a fair amount of skill to actually back your bluff up, or if you’re halfway through a bluff and you realise you haven’t got the best hand after all, you have to have the skill to know that too, and lay it down.”Once again, the parallels with Warne’s Test career are self-evident. Take, for instance, the occasions (usually before an Ashes series) when he would announce to the world that he had developed a new and mysterious delivery, such as the zooter, which nobody to this day is sure ever actually existed. “I vary my play depending on what table I’m at,” he said. “If I’m at a super-aggressive table, I just play tight, and try to pick my mark, and wait for someone to try to take me off a hand that I’ve actually hit. But if I’m at a tight table, I play aggressive, because I’m a pretty aggressive player full stop, which probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise!”All the same, there’s a subtle difference between aggression and blind recklessness, and as far as Warne is concerned, the greatest pride he takes from his play comes on the occasions he actually has to admit defeat – which he never knowingly conceded on the cricket field. “It’s really tough to do, but it gives you great satisfaction when you make a great lay-down,” he said. “Sometimes you don’t find out whether you were beat, but usually, about five seconds after a hand has finished, you generally get an instinct or a gut feel that it wasn’t on, just by your opponent’s reaction. He’ll look down at his chips or he’ll swallow, all those little tells that say you got away with one, and actually made a great decision.”Sometimes, however, even the best calls don’t work out in your favour – as Warne, to his chagrin, discovered in Las Vegas this month. The manner in which he was eliminated on the third day of the World Series still brings him out in a grimace, but typical of his sporting career, he refuses to take a backward step. Here, in his own words, is his tale of World Series woe:

“Hopefully the weak players steal the good players’ chips, and then you steal the weak players’ chips!”

“About an hour into the day’s play, a guy in middle position raised four times the blind, I called on the button with J10 hearts. The flop came 7, Q, K hearts. I think I’m good. He checks, I bet the pot, he calls, the turn card comes a spade. He bets the pot, and has about 70,000 left in his chip stack. I put him all in. He calls and turns over a set, he’s got three kings. I’m good, I’m miles ahead, but then he beats the bullet with a queen on the river, and that crippled my stack.”In layman’s terms, Warne was brutally unlucky. After the first four cards of the crucial hand had been dealt, he was sitting pretty with a king-high flush, which meant, at that stage, the only hand that could have beaten him was one involving two further hearts, one of which had to be an ace. When the two players laid their cards out on the table for “the race”, the only way his opponent could escape was if the river produced the last remaining K, to complete four-of-a-kind, or paired up with one of the other cards on the table, for a full house. The odds were therefore roughly 4 to 1 in Warne’s favour, and had he won the pot of 300,000 chips, he would have been propelled up to fifth in the chip count, from an initial field of nearly 6500 competitors.”People say poker is all about luck, but it’s not about good luck, it’s about not getting unlucky,” he said. “Four out of the five times I risked all my chips at the World Series, I actually had the best hand. The fifth and final time came right at the end of my tournament, after I had waited an hour with my last 20,000 chips. I went all-in with a pair of eights, and when the flop came 4 2 6 rainbow [a variety of different suits] I was looking pretty good. But I ran into a pair of aces, and that summed my day up. I copped some pretty ordinary beats.”There’s no question, however, that Warne will be back for another crack next year. With the best players in the world, a buy-in of $10,000, and an outlay of US$70 million in sponsorship and TV rights, the World Series of Poker is a massive event, and as prestigious in its own way as any cricket contest he’s ever played in. “The winner of the WSOP gets more than $10 million, and I can’t think of any individual sporting prize in the world that pays out that amount,” said Warne. “You might get a million dollars for winning Wimbledon, or three or four million for a golf tournament, but $10 million is massive.”So too is his desire to turn a lifelong hobby into a career every bit as illustrious as the one he is leaving behind on the cricket field. In only one aspect does his outlook to poker seem to differ, however. “I just stick to my game, and don’t worry much about the verbals,” he said. “If a conversation comes up I might get involved, but usually I just stick my headphones on, and that’s it.” If, one day, we spot Warne goading Phil Ivey to “have a go, go on, you know you want to,” in the manner in which he destroyed Mark Ramprakash at Trent Bridge in 2001, then maybe we’ll know for sure that he really has arrived as a poker star.888.com is offering cricket lovers the opportunity of a lifetime – a net session with Shane Warne. The king of spin will visit one lucky cricket club and put the players through their paces as he shows off the skills that earned him 708 Test wickets. Warne is looking for a group of cricketers who share his passion for poker. For full information on how to enter, please email [email protected]

Hayden's struggles, Harmeet's legcutters

Cricinfo presents the Plays of the day of the semi-final between Chennai Super Kings v Deccan Chargers in Mumbai

Cricinfo staff22-Apr-2010Third time unlucky: Compared to last year and his orange-cap heroics, Matthew Hayden has had a poor IPL. The old fluency was missing again on Thursday night, but the Deccan Chargers seemed determined to keep him out there, with RP Singh at cover and and Bodipati Sumanth at gully dropping straightforward catches. There was to be no third life though, with Andrew Symonds showing much safer hands at cover.Neutral crowd, neutered atmosphere: Semi-finals at “neutral” venues don’t work, not when fans of both sides have to trek more than a 1000 kilometres to make it. This wonderful and huge stadium which was packed for the Mumbai Indians game was half empty for this one. The fans that were there made themselves heard, but row upon row of vacant seats told their own story.Big-wicket taker: The slower legbreak that Harmeet Singh bowls isn’t even particularly well disguised, but it’s done the trick for Deccan on a few occasions. It got rid of Robin Uthappa in a game that Deccan had to win to make the semis, and it accounted for MS Dhoni here, with a wide one being cut to gully. He may not take many wickets, but when he does, they usually count.A straight red: When Symonds paddle-swept Shadab Jakati to fine leg, both Albie Morkel and R Ashwin chased it down. As the ball sped to the rope, they both slid in, efforts that would have invited a straight red card had they been on a football pitch. They took each other out, and the ball went for four.

Swann wins his battles against lefties

Stats highlights from the second Ashes Test in Adelaide

S Rajesh07-Dec-2010Marcus North fell to Graeme Swann for the fifth time as Australia went down by an innings to England at home for the first time since 1986•Associated Press Only five times in their entire Ashes history have England achieved a more comprehensive innings victory in Australia. The last time they won by an innings in Australia was in the Boxing Day Test in 1986, when a first-innings total of 349 was enough to secure victory by an innings and 14 runs. For Australia, it was their fourth innings defeat since 1990, and their third in a live series. And the last time they lost by an innings at the Adelaide Oval was – hold your breath – 118 years ago, when England beat them by an innings and 230 runs. This is only their second innings defeat ever at this ground. The gulf between the two teams can be seen in their series batting averages so far: England’s overall average is 87.31 runs per wicket; Australia’s is 36.67. Four England batsmen – Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen, and Jonathan Trott – have 100-plus averages, while only Michael Hussey has managed it so far for Australia. Graeme Swann was England’s best bowler in the match, and he continued his domination of Marcus North and Simon Katich. North was dismissed by him for the fifth time, and Katich for the fourth. Both have struggled to counter Swann – North averages 26 against him and Katich 18.75. With Katich ruled out and North likely to be dropped, Swann might have to miss out on bowling to his two favourite batsmen. Of the five batsmen Swann has dismissed most often, four are left-handers. Swann’s overall average against left-handers is 21.86; against the righties he averages 33.78. With Phillip Hughes or Usman Khawaja likely to replace Katich, Swann will still have enough left-handers to bowl at. Swann’s second-innings figures of 5 for 91 are the best by an England spinner in Adelaide since Derek Underwood’s 7 for 113 in 1975. In fact, those are the only two instances of England spinners taking five-fors at this ground since 1930. One of the few silver linings for Australia was the form of Michael Hussey and Shane Watson. Both scored fifties in each innings – the fourth time they’ve made 50-plus scores in each innings of a Test – but none of those knock were converted into hundreds. In fact, that’s been another big difference between the two teams: Australia have scored only two hundreds and eight fifties in the series so far, while England have five centuries – two of them being double-hundreds – and four fifties. Clearly, when the batsmen have got their eye in, Australia’s bowlers have struggled for penetration.For more stats nuggets from the Test, read Andy Zaltzman’s Confectionery Stall

Game
Register
Service
Bonus