England in Sri Lanka

There is inevitable disappointment at the results that have come from the Test Series in Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, it is far too easy for spectators to be critical and to recommend all sorts of remedies with the benefit of hindsight The media are also good at that! So what went wrong?

It is not easy to find better players than those selected for the tour party. There will always be a number of alternatives available and often it is merely a matter of instinct as to who will be most likely to succeed. There was not much quibbling when the tour party left for Kandy.

In Sri Lanka the England team was outplayed in three areas: the batsmen did not score as heavily as the Sri Lankans, the catching was inadequate and the lack of penetration amongst the bowlers prevented the team from finishing off the opposition even if they made early inroads. As in other series, Murali was the main difference in the bowling attacks. He is, of course, a great bowler who can turn a match in a very short spell. When a wicket was needed he usually found an unplayable delivery, though he had to work much harder and bowl more overs for each wicket. Monty, the England number one spinner, is still learning, but he still has an impressive strike rate. Against such fine players of spin as Jayawardene and Sangakarra he needed support both from better field placing and perhaps from a second spinner to apply the pressure. It is still too early for England to expect him to turn in performances as consistently as a spin bowler who has taken more wickets that anyone else in the history of the game.

It is time for the selectors to look at two issues:

1. Have they chosen the right wicket-keeper?
2. Have they chosen teams with the best balance to win matches?

There has always been a tendancy for the England wicket-keeper to be selected for his batting ability. County Cricket has a history of producing several fine wicket-keepers at the same time and selectors have often chosen on the basis of who is likely to score the most runs. That is fine if there is little to choose between them as wicket-keepers. Matt Prior is a highly accomplished player who, unusually amongst today's batsmen, does not move his feet too early. Sadly that may prove his undoing as a wicket-keeper. He still fails to move into position quickly enough to avoid a last-minute dive. Top class wicket-keepers have always appeared very light on their feet and have naturally been in position with plenty of time to make a low or wide catch. Mind you, Prior has not always had the easiest bowlers coming at him! There have been some very wide deliveries which have needed a goalkeeper's dive and agility. Nevertheless he has dropped too many catches for the bowlers or the selectors to have complete confidence in him. The media spotlight has also focussed on his failings.

In today's game the wicket-keeper is expected to bat in the top seven, be the focal point for the fielders by keeping morale high throughout the day and tidying up any poor throws, pressurise the batsman (which he ought to be able to do without constantly commenting on everything!) and catch everything within reach. The most important part, though, must be the last point. Is Prior good enough as a wicket-keeper to provide the team with this? Although every wicket-keeper will drop the occasional catch and miss the odd stumping, the odds at present are not good enough for a team wanting to be in the top two Test teams in the world.

The balance of the team has been adversely affected by the injuries to Andrew Flintoff. This is always the case when a major bowling all-rounder is unavailable. This has increased the pressure to play the best batting wicket-keeper, but has reduced the chance of playing a balanced bowling attack. On most pitches variety of bowling is the greatest asset for a captain. Three seam bowlers and one spinner always looks to be one bowler short, although England will claim that they have two additional seam bowlers in Collingwwood and Bell and two additional spinners in Vaughan and Pietersen. In the third Test in Sri Lanka there must have been a temptation to play the second spinner, although Kevin Pietersen is more than capable of bowling a limited number of overs in a day. Ravi Bopara was not the answer as a replacement for Flintoff at number six, because the captain did not seem to feel able to bowl him enough. Perhaps Michael Vaughan has the same reservations about the second spinner, in which case, why was Graeme Swann taken on tour? Even if Owais Shah had been selected ahead of Bopara, England would probably not have won the series, although, on the assumption that Shah would have scored more runs than Bopara, they might have been in with more of a chance of staying in touch with the Sri Lankan scores.

The major difference statistically between the two teams was that the Sri Lankan batsmen did not lose their wickets when they were set. Only Alistair Cook scored a century in the series for England, yet there were several who scored fifties. This is clearly closely linked to the fact that Sri Lanka had the most potent wicket-taker in Murali. However, it was not only Murali who brought about the demise of some England batsmen. Poor running between the wickets was a factor and so was the ability of the Sri Lanka seam bowlers to extract life out of seemingly docile pitches better, backed up by better close catching. There also appeared to be a greater hunger for runs amongst the Sri Lanka batsmen.

Tactically, at times, England seem to get it wrong. The perception, rightly or wrongly, is that they expect the three seamers to take most of the wickets supported by Monty, either to tie up an end or to toil by himself as the sole spin bowler. On slow sub-continent pitches surely most captains would prefer to have five front-line bowlers with the option of two spinners? The first five batsmen have to be good enough to score big hundreds, the sixth batsman should ideally be a wicket-taking bowler as well as a batsman capable of scoring hundreds, number seven should be the best wicket-keeper/batsman available and the last four should be the bowlers most likely to succeed in the conditions of the day. That probably means that the main strike bowler will bowl in short bursts supported by two swing bowlers who can be relied upon to bowl economically when required. Monty needs a fellow slow bowler, preferably bowling off-spin. That would give Vaughan the variety that the England team currently lacks, though it is not clear whether he wants that kind of attack.

New Zealand in the New Year will be a different prospect on different pitches. However, there will still be a need for big scores from the batsmen, good catching led by the wicket-keeper and a balanced bowling attack capable of taking twenty wickets in the match.

Roger Knight

Technology in cricket - Should players be cited?

Technology in Cricket – Should players be cited?

Much has been said over the last few years about the use of technology to assist cricket umpires in making their decisions. As a former Chairman of the Laws of Cricket Working Party at MCC it is clear to me that technology has an increasing part to play at the top level in televised matches. However there are a number of factors which need to be considered before the game moves forward with the different technologies available.

The accuracy of the technology is vital; technology cannot yet provide all the answers. In an appeal for LBW, for example, Hawkeye can accurately show where the ball has travelled and where it has hit the pad, but the path that the ball would have taken after that is less certain. Using Hawkeye, in conjunction with a coloured zone superimposed on the pitch and with ultra-slow-motion replays, it is likely that a television umpire would have a good idea whether the batsman was out LBW. However there are still occasions when there is doubt, in which case the batsman would normally have the benefit of that doubt.

There was a trial in County Cricket in England and Wales in 2007, whereby the players had the right to appeal to the television umpire against a decision made by an umpire on the field. Although there were restrictions put in place to prevent this right being abused, it was not seen as successful or helpful and the trial has been abandoned. I am delighted that this idea has been cast aside. It goes against the Spirit of Cricket. The Preamble to the Laws states "It is against the Spirit of the Game to dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture". The players have an appeal in the first place to ask the umpire to make a decision. To have another appeal was always ridiculous. However, there has never been any reason why the umpire at the bowler's end, to whom most appeals are addressed, should not refer to either his partner on the field or the television umpire, if he believes that they can help his decision.

Perhaps the most important difference between Cricket and other sports is that it is stated in the Laws that "The Captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws". NB The Captains and not the Umpires. The umpires should expect the highest standards of honesty and integrity from the players and technology, where available, should be used to help the players maintain their standards.

Although this might sound naive, there are ways in which a player's actions can be reviewed in ultra-slow-motion and, as in the case of Rugby Union, a player can be cited after the event, if it transpires that he has cheated or fallen below the required standards of conduct.

There are two areas of the game which can frustrate and enrage players: fielders claiming catches when the ball has bounced first and batmen nicking or gloving the ball to the wicketkeeper or slip and standing their ground. In both cases I believe that, initially, the umpires should rely on the honesty of the players. A catch should only be claimed if the ball was caught cleanly - I believe that a player always knows! If a catch is claimed, the batsman should "walk" if he has hit the ball - again I believe that the player always knows whether the ball has touched the bat or glove! Of course, if there is doubt then the fielder or the batsman is entitled to say so, in which case the umpire is called to make a decision and may refer it to the television umpire. The television umpire should be in a position to review all such incidents and, after the match in conjunction with the other umpires, a sanction should be recommended, if a player is cited for not acting in the Spirit of the Game. That sanction, available to the Match Referee, has to be sufficiently severe to have any effect - perhaps a ban for a number of matches or the rest of the series. This threat of being cited ought to act as incentive for the players to act within the Spirit of the Game and should make the life of an umpire easier.

It is important to allow the umpires to retain their authority, whether they are the on-field umpires or the team of four that now plays a part. That is why the umpires must have access to technology, as it becomes available. Viewers on television, including, of course, the team in the dressing room, see the ultra-slow-motion replays, even if the spectators at the ground do not. Often the only men not to have the benefit of this technology are the umpires who are making the decisions on the field. The use of this kind of technology is currently only available in televised matches. It should be used and perhaps a trial could be conducted over a series of matches either in English domestic cricket or in an international series.

To see players at the top level competing hard but fully within the Spirit of the Game would be a great example to players at club or school level. Instead of Adam Gilchrist being one of a minority of players who show the way now, we would see many more of the top international stars showing what should be done.

Roger Knight