Tangled up in white: last thoughts on Peter Roebuck

They say it’s a mistake to meet your childhood heroes; that reality can never compete with the image built up in an impressionable mind.

It’s true that we’re fools if we seek perfection from our idols. It’s not a human quality. Even the great are flawed. Sometimes it’s those flaws that drive them on. The contented ones are, very often, happy to sit by the fire with their families.

Peter Roebuck was my hero. Both as a player and, at first anyway, as a writer.

Maybe hero is the wrong word. As a boy who grew up watching Somerset, my heroes were Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham.

But their talent seemed unreachable. I knew, even as a child, that I could never whip a ball from out off stump over square leg – as Richards used to off the considerable pace of Bob Willis – or thrash sixes into the churchyard and river as Botham did with delightful regularity.

But Roebuck’s obdurate batting? His sometimes dour accumulation? His crafty bowling that lacked any of that unobtainable brilliance of Garner? Oh yes. Ridiculously, that seemed just about achievable.

So Roebuck became my role-model. I copied his stance, his grip, his safety-first approach. I liked to imagine that I could – like Roebuck, I thought – compensate for my alarming lack of talent with an astute cricketing brain. It was a laughable conceit. And even when he fell out with Richards, Garner and Botham – an episode that kept me awake with worry during my teenage years – I didn’t abandon him in my affections. I never reached a conclusion on the rights and wrongs of that affair.

Peter Roebuck was actually a fine cricketer. History will, I fear, remember him as a bit-player in Somerset’s glory years. And it’ll remember his part in the club’s civil-war and the issues surrounding his suicide. But he was better than that. He had a decent array of strokes. He was brave. He was patient. He was far better in limited-overs cricket than might be imagined; both with the ball and in the field. Several worse players represented England in the 1980s.

He wasn’t a good captain, though. Too clever by half. Martin Crowe, who played under him, has described him as “awful” and suggests the team simply didn’t warm to him.

Perhaps Roebuck flourished more at Devon. The team there were, on the whole, younger and less successful. He could impress them more easily. People there continue to speak very highly of him. I hope those voices aren’t drowned out in the coming months. He had many good qualities.

I didn’t know him well by any means. Indeed, the last couple of emails I sent him went without reply and I noticed – with irritation, if I’m honest – a patronising dig at me in one of his last articles.

But the first couple of times I met him left a lasting impression. I was about 14 and he popped into the nets where a long-suffering Somerset coach was trying – without success – to coax some talent out of me. Roebuck, who I think was captain of Somerset at the time, took the time to bowl a couple of balls and make some generous comments. His words thrilled me.

A few years later I ran into him again. This time, we were both in the press box at Taunton. Again, he was charming and encouraging. And again, he needn’t have been. I appreciated it greatly.

I devoured his early writing. It was, strange as it might now seem, the writing of Roebuck (among others; Mark Nicholas, Mike Brearley and CMJ in particular) that inspired me to want to pursue a career in cricket journalism. I still think Tangled up in White, with its reference to the magnificent Bob Dylan song Tangled up in Blue, is one of the finest cricket books I’ve read.

Over the years my attitude to Peter Roebuck changed. His writing, once so full of subtly and gentle humour, became bitter and strident. In latter years, I thought it sometimes bordered on the ludicrous.

It pains me to write that. It’s hard to shake the affection for a childhood hero and, in many ways, now is not the time to say it.

But it’s easy to take the extreme view. It’s easy to call for Test captains to be sacked or insist that everyone in authority is a buffoon. It’s easy to paint a black and white picture that ignores all the shades of grey that make up any character, any organisation, any event.

But it’s usually wrong. A good journalist, I think, should strive for the truth. Not the best line. I’m not sure that Peter did that. Not by the end, anyway.

He wasn’t really a journalist at all. He was a ‘writer’. And a writer in a knowing way. He compensated for his lack of original news with flowery prose. He had a flair for it, too. At his best, he could shed a light on an event and provoke new ways of thinking. As Dylan put it in the song to which Roebuck referred: ‘every one of those words rang true and glowed like burning coals, pouring off every page like they were written in my soul from me to you.’ At his worst, such as a recent piece about Alastair Cook, Roebuck’s affected style was faintly ridiculous. He was in danger of becoming a parody of himself.

I used to read his more recent pieces thinking ‘tell me something I don’t know, Peter’ over and over in my head. He stopped doing that. Instead he compensated by making ever more outlandish digs at all things English and ever more extreme views about those in authority. Sometimes he was right. Very often he could seem facile.

He remained an example to me. But now he was an example of how not to do it.

Why? Because he’d stopped learning. He’d stopped talking to players. Or administrators. Or, often, his colleagues. And, however talented you may be, you’re a fool if you think you know it all.

Besides, if he had taken the time to get to know a few more of the protagonists in this great game, he might have empathised a little more. He might also have understood a bit more of the warmth that exists within the game. He might have developed the support structures that would have seen him through the tribulations that we all face at some time or another. He wouldn’t have been so isolated.

Instead his considerable skills, his considerable warmth and generosity and wit are gone. And it’s all so unnecessary.

England No. 1; India No. 2

It would be an understatement to say that the crown of best Test team has passed from India to England.

The crown didn’t pass, it was seized. And England didn’t just seize it. They seized it and then used it to beat India to a bloodied pulp. Then they stood over the carcass and took photos while wearing their new crown at a jaunty angle.

The margin of defeat – an innings and 242 runs – does not deceive. India were murdered in this game. And not just murdered. England murdered them and danced round their grave singing comic songs in a raucous voice.

A dispirited India, ground into the blameless Edgbaston turf by the relentless glacier that is Alastair Cook, were torn apart by the skill of James Anderson. Anderson, gaining life and movement that had been absent when India bowled, claimed the first four wickets to fall in the final innings and has now overtaken both Andrew Caddick and Sir Alec Bedser in list of England bowlers with the most Test wickets.

Where do India go from here? As a Test team, their future is bleak. Most of their best players are far nearer the end than the start of their careers and the priority of the BCCI remains the money-spinning limited-overs game.

It seems the BBCI are emerging as the villains of the piece, but that may not be fair. After all, the IPL was set-up partially to negate the ‘rebel’ ICL. All the Indian board have done is try to meet the insatiable desire for players to earn more. The ECB fell victim to a similar problem with the Stanford event.

In the long-term, Indian players will need to work hard to have any hope of retaining their No. 1 status. They’ll have to be fitter and stronger. They’ll have to play county cricket to experience differing conditions and they’ll have to accept that many of them are hopeless against the short ball. While they remain in denial, they’ll never improve.

They’d be fools to hide behind an injury to Zaheer Khan. England were missing Chris Tremlett, too. These things happen. Instead, they should examine why Zaheer reported for a tour so out of shape and they should reflect on why their bowling resources are so limited.

That Praveen Kumar has been their best player so far tells as much about his tremendous heart as it does about the underachievement of the rest of the team. Kumar is a worthy but limited cricketer making the best of himself; his colleagues – Dravid excepted – are complacent superstars who have become too posh to push. Literally and metaphorically they have grown fat on their success. It remains to be seen whether they have the hunger to regain the top spot.

It’s worth remembering, too, that the first two World Test Championships are to be played in England. It’s hard to see how India can win.

Is there a better bowler than Anderson in world cricket? Probably not. Where once Anderson was a bully in helpful conditions and a liability in others, he’s now a superb on any surface. The ability to move the ball both ways in the air and off the pitch is precious in itself, but allied to Anderson’s accuracy and control and England have a special bowler.

Certainly Gambhir, who prodded Anderson’s first ball of the day to slip, and Laxman, who edged a beauty that left him, were the victim of a fine deliveries.

But perhaps India were also unfortunate. Sachin Tendulkar, batting with an ease that none of his colleagues could match, was run out backing up as Graeme Swann, in his follow through, got just a finger on MS Dhoni’s firm, straight drive. Then Dravid was victim of a poor umpiring decision. He was adjudged caught behind, though replays suggest he hit only his shoelaces. India’s failure to request a review, however, was inexplicable.

Dhoni and Kumar showed some belated heart with a furious counter-attack, but the game was long-since over as a contest. The pair thrashed 75 in seven-and-a-half overs – Swann was slogged for 55 from his last four overs – but even that came at a cost. Kumar sustained a horrid blow to the thumb off Anderson and must be rated as doubtful for the final Test. Sreesanth also sustained a blow to the hand.

The manner in which victory was sealed spoke volumes. Sreesanth, jerking out of the way of a short ball, fenced a catch off the shoulder of the bat to gully. India, battered, bruised and embarrassed had been blown away.

There are, of course, other hurdles to clear before England can claim to categorically be the best Test team in the world. They need to defeat India in India and they need to defeat a South Africa side that, with Imran Tahir involved, at last look to have strength and balance. Both opportunities present themselves in the next year.

England have already proved themselves an excellent side however. People may mutter about the strength of the opposition but that’s not totally fair. Australia had never been beaten by an innings margin three times in a series until the last Ashes series and India – with one of the strongest Test top fives in history – have not lost a series since 2008. England have made both sides look ordinary. It’s not coincidence. England really are very good.

Finn pickings as England miss absent friends

Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone?

Well, no. Not always. Until burglars ‘liberated’ them a few weeks ago, I knew full well that I had lots of CDs, DVDs and a TV. But you know how it is with artists: you have to give them some license and, had Joni Mitchell sung, ‘Don’t it quite often seem to be the case, that you’ve not made an inventory of everything for insurance purposes just when you need it’ she’d probably never have had a hit.

Besides, it does say much about England’s bowling on the second day of the second Test that the man who enhanced their reputation most was James Anderson.

It wasn’t just his swing that was missed. It was his fuller length and control. While Broad’s first spell was excellent, Tremlett and Finn struggled for line and length and allowed Sri Lanka’s openers to play themselves in much more easily than should have been the case. As @Ginerrob tweeted: “England’s attack looks Finn without Anderson.”

The pitch is flat, for sure. But, when the ball was new, there was enough assistance to encourage the seamers for a few overs. But, Broad aside, England squandered their narrow window of opportunity.

Paul Collingwood was missed, too. Not for his batting, of course. But his excellent fielding has certainly yet to be replaced in this England side. It’s hard to believe that Collingwood would have dropped Paranavitana – as Cook, at third slip did off Finn – when the batsman had just 13. Cook, for all his excellence with the bat, is yet to look comfortable ‘in the cordon.’ He was far from impressive in the field in Cardiff and, by the standards of Test cricket, this was a pretty easy effort.

Prior also missed Dilshan, off Swann, when the batsman had 80. Prior has enjoyed an excellent game with the bat and, standing back at least, is now a world-class keeper. But this was a straightforward chance and suggested, once again, that he has some work to do in standing-up to the stumps.

Still, Prior could be forgiven for the odd error. It was, partially anyway, his batting that earned England a solid platform in this match. From the depths of 22 for three, England could be well pleased with a total approaching 500 and Prior’s fifth Test century was a typically selfless, positive contribution.

He has some fortune, too. At one stage, in the 80s, he might have been dismissed three balls in succession. Instead two edges off the luckless Lakmal flew through the slips – or past the keeper – for four, while Mahela Jayawardene, at second slip, then put down a relatively simple chance of Welegedara. “I knew it was my day then,” Prior said ruefully afterwards. “He’s just about the best slip fielder I’ve ever seen.”

The manner in which England’s tail thrashed Sri Lanka’s bowling all over Lord’s was enjoyable but should also have served as a warning. If Tremlett and Finn can bat with freedom, it suggested that Sri Lanka’s top-order might also enjoy themselves.

Had Trott batted for much of the afternoon – as Sri Lanka’s openers did in establishing a record opening stand for the country – some buffoon in the media box would have accused him of being boring.

But there’s no danger of that with Dilshan. The start of his innings bordered on the reckless as he attempted a series of foot-less swipes but, as he settled down, he demonstrated his class. This was the 12th Test century of his career and, though he lost his partner, Paranavitana, when he lost patience and flashed at a wide one, he had long-buried any demons from Cardiff by the time England trooped off the pitch after their hardest day’s cricket since Perth. The only cloud on Sri Lanka’s horizon was the news that he’d gone to hospital for a scan at the close of play following a horrid blow on the thumb from a lifting delivery from Tremlett.

There was good news, too, for a fellow in the crowd who was unfortunate to be on the receiving end of one of Dilshan’s two sixes. The man took a fearful blow to the head after the batsman skipped down the wicket and drove Swann over long-on but, after treatment, the spectator was left with nothing more than a large bruise and an amusing anecdote.

“We didn’t bowl or field as well as we could have done,” Prior admitted afterwards. “Why? Because we’re human. We can’t bowl a side out in 25 overs every time. This is a very good wicket [for batting] at the moment. But we’ll come back tomorrow even harder and better prepared.”

A full house at Lord’s seemed a bit frustrated by England’s lack of success in the field. But England supporters have become spoiled in recent times. This is what Test cricket used to be like: played on flat wickets and against world-class batsmen. And, whatever the evidence of Cardiff, Sri Lanka didn’t become the second ranked Test team in the world by collapsing often. That was the aberration; this is the real thing.

England extra generous to a fault

How do you solve a problem like Collingwood?

When we reflect, in years to come, on the Ashes success of 2010-11 it will probably be the names of Alastair Cook and James Anderson that spring to mind.

But there were other, largely unsung, heroes. Not just those members of the tour party, like Tim Bresnan, who chipped in with valuable performances when their opportunity arose, but the support staff and coaches who helped the team remain fit and discover their best form. The likes of Graham Gooch (batting), Richard Halsall (fielding), Bruce French (wicketkeeping) and David Saker (bowling) all played a fulsome role.

And then there were the selectors. They have enjoyed a wonderful few months and deserve a great deal of credit.

The decision to replace Steve Finn for Bresnan, for example, was a masterstroke. Finn was, at the time, England’s leading wicket-taker, so the decision to omit him was controversial. After all, can you imagine a side dropping their leading run-scorer?

But Bresnan came into the side, bowled impressively and fully vindicated the decision. The recall of Tremlett was also astute.

Most of all, however, the selectors deserve praise for their faith in Cook. Coming into the series, Cook has passed 50 just once in his previous 10 Test innings and, but for a century against Pakistan in the penultimate Test of last summer, might have been struggling to make the tour.

Or so it was thought.

Actually, it appears Cook’s spot was never in doubt.

Such was the selectors’ faith in him, that Cook was certain to tour even if he’d failed in every innings against Pakistan.

“As far as I’m concerned, Cook was never anywhere near being dropped,” Ashley Giles said this week. “He has a very good Test record and we’re not into knee-jerk reactions.”

But, what would have happened if Cook hadn’t scored that century against Pakistan?

“It didn’t make much difference,” Giles replied. “We’d have stuck with him. Perhaps we’d have taken a reserve opener on the Ashes tour. But, in Australia, we all thought it was vital to have someone of Cook’s mental strength and we all thought he’d come good.”

766 Ashes runs later, it’s looking like an excellent decision. We can only speculate on how well Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash – who made their debuts in the same Test in 1991 – might have fared had they enjoyed such enlightened management. Against the far more modest bowling attacks of today, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that both men may have averaged around 50.

But every silver lining has a cloud. And if you were a batsman on the fringes of the England team, you may feel that the consistency of selection policy has allowed some to coast on reputation for some time.

Consider Paul Collingwood. England must pick their World Cup squad this week and the Collingwood issue is beginning to cause the selectors a major headache.

No-one disputes that Collingwood has been a wonderful servant of English cricket. His determination, his selflessness, his superb fielding and his all-round ability have rendered him an automatic selection in all formats for several years. It’s not hard to see why colleagues and supporters feel such loyalty towards him. He’s a good man.

But that’s not the criteria for selection, is it? If it was, Nelson Mandela would open the bowling for South Africa and Cheryl Cole would be keeping wicket for England.

Ultimately a batsman’s job is to score runs. And Collingwood hasn’t scored many in a long, long time.

Sound harsh? Well, consider this. In the last year, he’s played 13 T20 internationals. In them he’s scored just 119 runs at an average of 10.8. Despite batting at number four, his highest score is just 21.

Meanwhile, he’s passed 50 just once in his last 15 ODI innings (in a game that England lost) and, in his last seven matches, he averages only 19.

And, in Test cricket, he passed 50 just once in his last 14 innings and, in that time, averaged just 14.

That’s not just a poor run. It’s a crisis. You have to go back a long, long time to find a match-winning performance.

While it’s true that Collingwood adds value with his bowling and fielding, there are several prospective replacements who might feel they can also offer an all-round package.

Ravi Bopara, for example, has a better strike-rate with the ball (39.1 balls per wicket compared to Collingwood’s 46.2) and concedes his runs at almost the same rate (5.07 an over compared to Collingwood’s 5.01). Collingwood’s last 25 ODIs have garnered just 11 wickets at 52 apiece, while his record in India (four wickets at 72 apiece in 18 ODIs with an economy rate of 5.78) hardly makes a compelling case for inclusion, either.

While the smart money suggests Collingwood will be selected in England’s 15-man World Cup squad, his position now hangs by a thread. If he is to see off the threat of the likes of Trott and Bopara, he really needs to start repaying the selectors faith with something more tangible than being a good influence. He needs runs and he needs them now.

Cook leads the way for England

Alastair Cook 10/10
766 runs at 127.66

A magnificent series. By the end of last summer, Cook was clinging on to his place in the England side and, by his own admission, “couldn’t hit a beach ball.” He averaged just 26 in previous Ashes encounters and his troubles outside the off-stump had the Australian bowlers salivating in anticipation. His career appeared to be in the balance.

It’s not any more. Cook batted for more than 36 hours in the series – no Englishman has ever spent longer at the crease in a Test series – and scored an eye-watering 766 runs. Only Wally Hammond and Don Bradman have scored more in an Ashes series. He fully deserved his man of the series award.

How did he do it? He left the ball outside the off stump and waited for the bowlers to stray into his areas. Then he cut, pulled and flicked to his heart’s content. And, as his confidence grew, he even unveiled a surprisingly elegant cover drives. Aged just 26, he’s already scored over 5,000 Test runs and recorded 16 Test centuries: he’s going to break every English Test batting record in existence.

Credit, too, for the selectors who stuck with him and the coaches who worked with him. Their judgement and faith has been fully vindicated.

Andrew Strauss 8/10
307 runs at 43.85

A sound, if unspectacular, series with the bat. Bouncing back from his first over dismissal at Brisbane, he settled England’s nerves with their first century of the series in the second innings. He passed 50 three more times in the series, often helping his side steal the initiative, but failing to go on.

His greatest contribution, however, remains the captaincy. While he’s somewhat conservative on the pitch, his admirable calm head ans sensible disposition helped England regroup after a shaky start at Brisbane and the debacle of Perth. He’s now one of just three man (Hutton and Brearley are the others) to have led England to Ashes success home and away. There’s little reason to think he can’t go further and lead England to World Cup success and the top of the Test rankings.

Jonathan Trott 9/10
445 runs at 89

You have to go back a long, long time to find a better England No. 3 than Trott. His sound technique, calm head and relentless hunger for runs have created a wonderfully consistent Test batsman who is equally proficient coming in at 0-1 or 200-1. And he seems to love batting against Australia: before his duck in Sydney he averaged more than 100 in the Ashes. Don’t forget that run-out of Katich at Adelaide, either. Trott was superb and has now answered every question about his technique and temperament.

Kevin Pietersen 7/10
360 runs at 60
1 wicket at 16

A somewhat perplexing series. Magnificent at Adelaide – he scored a match-winning double-century and took a crucial wicket – he only passed 50 once more in the series. For a player with as much talent as Pietersen, that’s slightly disappointing. Some of his off-field comments – such as the swipe at Peter Moores – hardly helped team unity, either. Even if there was more than a grain of truth in them.

Paul Collingwood 3.5/10
82 runs at 13.83
2 wickets at 36.50

He took several wonderful catches and a couple of useful wickets but, from a personal perspective, this was a bitterly disappointing series from Collingwood. He rarely looked comfortable at the crease and, while all his colleagues flourished, often looked as if he were struggling to cope with the pace of the Australian bowlers. His retirement was inevitable. It was the right decision, too. For all his determination and all his positive contributions behind the scenes, it’s runs that define a batsman’s worth and Collingwood simply hasn’t scored enough.

Ian Bell 8/10
329 runs at 65.80

If there were still doubters before this series, they are surely silenced now. No-one on either side timed the ball as sweetly as Bell and his century at Sydney, an innings that ensured his side of a series win, was the coming of age of a man who has promised much for a long time. Batting at least one place too low, he was often obliged to sacrifice his wicket in the search for quick runs and the feeling persists that, with more opportunity, Bell might have gained many of the plaudits that have gone to Cook. It is surely telling that, in the first innings at Brisbane and Perth, with all his colleagues struggling, Bell top scored. The next few years promise much.

Matt Prior 7/10
252 runs at 50.40
23 catches

A much improved ‘keeper, Prior was very good against the fast bowlers and, the odd indiscretion apart, reliable against the spinners. His six catches in an innings at Melbourne equalled an Ashes record and he finished with an admirable 23 victims. With the bat, he improved after a shaky start (he was part of Siddle’s hat-trick in Brisbane) and scored a maiden Ashes century at Sydney. To underline the selfless nature of his play, it was the fastest Ashes century by an Englishman since Ian Botham in 1981.

Stuart Broad 3/10
0 runs at 0
2 wickets at 80.50

A bitterly disappointing series. A muscle tear forced Broad out of the series after the second Test, by which time he’d claimed just two wickets and suffered a first ball dismissal. He had bowled somewhat better than the figures suggested, however, conceding just 2.3 runs an over and ensuring his captain a measure of control in the field. The pitch at Perth would surely have suited him ideally bit, with Tremlett, Finn and Bresnan now all pressing for inclusion, Broad can no longer consider himself an automatic selection.

Graeme Swann 6/10
88 runs at 22
15 wickets at 39.80

It was presumed before the series that if England were to win, Swann would need to enjoy a big series. It didn’t turn out that way. Swann failed to find much help from the Australian pitches and found Hussey one of the toughest opponents of his Test career to date. Swann didn’t always look comfortable against Australia’s quick bowling, either. Still, when conditions suited, at Adelaide, he played his part with a five-wicket haul that helped his side to victory, while his excellent bowling at Melbourne went largely unrewarded. He remained cheerful on and off the pitch, too, and certainly contributed to the relaxed and happy mood in the England camp.

Chris Tremlett 9/10
19 runs at 6.33
17 wickets at 23.35

A breakthrough series. Seemingly in the cricketing wilderness just 12-months ago, Tremlett build on his excellent season in county cricket with a performance that announced him as one of the most fearsome fast bowlers in world cricket. Casting off his reputation as injury prone and small hearted, Tremlett bowled with pace, bounce, hostility and skill. In such form, he is as fearsome as fast bowler as any in the world.

Tim Bresnan 8/10
39 runs at 19.50
11 wickets at 19.54

Called into the side for the final two Tests, Bresnan responded with two highly impressive performances. Maintaining an excellent, nagging line and length, Bresnan gained movement in the air and off the pitch and generated surprising pace. While the highlight may have been the superb spell in Melbourne that accounted for Ponting, Hussey and Watson within 18 balls at the cost of just two runs, his batting at Sydney will also have reminded the selectors of his all-round ability.

James Anderson 9/10
22 runs at 4.40
26 wickets at 26.04

The series that established Anderson’s reputation as one of England’s finest post-war bowlers. Answering all the questions, Anderson swung the new ball conventionally, reversed the old ball, gained movement off the seam and, throughout, maintained excellent control and a wonderfully probing line and length. There are very few better fast bowlers in world cricket.

Steve Finn 7/10
3 runs at 3
14 wickets at 33.14

Started the series well, with six wickets in an innings at Brisbane and a brave performance in Adelaide. But he seemed to tire in Perth and paid the price for conceding more than four an over by losing his place for the final two Tests. It was a brave decision from the selectors, however, as, at the time, Finn was England’s leading wicket-taker in the series. Aged only 21, Finn remains one for the future.

It’s a dog’s life – and death – for Colly

Why England won the Ashes

The best and worst of 2010

Highlight of the year:
England’s success in the World T20.
Until May, England held an unwanted record in limited-overs cricket. Of all the ever-present Test-playing nations over the last 25 years, England were the only side not to have won a global tournament. West Indies, India, Pakistan, Australia, Sri Lanka and New Zealand all had better records.
All that changed in May. Stung by a series of embarrassing reverses, England coach Andy Flower resolved to adopt a bold, new approach. As Paul Collingwood, England’s T20- captain put it: “It got to the point, last year, when the two Andys [Flower and Strauss] said, ‘Look, we’ve got to do things differently. If we continue to do the same old things, we’ll continue to get the same old results.’ England have never really done very well in one-day cricket. I remember in my early days Duncan Fletcher used to tell us, “Just bat though the 50 overs in a one-day international, because we kept getting bowled out in 40 overs. Our aim was just to bat 50 overs!”
So England selected a new-look side. In it were the likes of Michael Lumb, Michael Yardy, Ryan Sidebottom and Craig Kieswetter – all of whom might be considered T20 specialists – and all of whom combined to form a far more positive, athletic and fearless team than England ever before fielded.
Kevin Pietersen batted brilliantly, Graeme Swann bowled superbly and all their colleagues chipped in with bat, ball and in the field. There was nothing lucky about England’s success: the best team won.

Lowlight of the year
The match-fixing scandal.
It was surely fitting that the news broke during an epic Test at Lord’s – the home of cricket – that should have captivated spectators.
An outrageously talented, young fast bowler – Mohammad Amir – was doing battle with England’s golden boy – Stuart Broad – in a wonderfully entertaining game.
But then ‘those’ pictures were published. Pictures that proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that Pakistan players were taking money in exchange for match-fixing. Amir was right in the thick of it, but the episode has raised serious questions about many of his team-mates and Pakistan cricket in general. It’s no exaggeration to say that the integrity of the sport has never been so badly compromised.
There is a bright side. Such has been the furore around the story that the ICC have finally been forced to confront a cancer that has eaten away at the game for years. Several players face lengthy bans, though it is hard to see how the game can really be clean while Pakistan cricket – rotten to its core – is allowed to compete at world level. Just as it is sometimes necessary to cut off a limb to save a body, so Pakistan cricket requires a substantial period in isolation before we can be assured it will not poison the rest of world cricket.

Comeback of the year:
Worcestershire.
Few gave Worcestershire much hope of success in 2010. After a horrid 2009 saw them relegated after going through the whole Championship season without a win, they then lost five senior players (Kabir Ali, Steve Davies, Stephen Moore, Gareth Batty and Simon Jones) to other counties and had to cut their cricket budget by £300,000.
Yet, thanks to a strong team spirit, some astute recruiting – Alan Richardson and Shakib-Al-Hasan in particular – and some encouraging performances from young players such as Moeen Ali and Alexei Kervezee, Worcestershire achieved an unlikely but thoroughly deserved promotion.
There were still some poor days – remember that loss against the Unicorns? – that suggest Worcestershire remain a work in progress but, with results showing a marked resurgence once Daryl Mitchell assumed the captaincy (they won four CB40 games in and four of their last six Championship games) they may shock a few in 2011, too.
Chris Tremlett also deserves a mention in this category. At the end of 2009, Tremlett was unwanted by Hampshire and in danger of drifting out of the game as a massively unfulfilled talent. Barely 12-months later, however, he has developed into the world-class fast bowler his talent always suggested he could become and is an automatic selection in the England side.

Man of the year
Zulqarnain Haider
He may never have made a huge impression as a player – he played only one Test, after all – but the world of cricket may yet come to be most grateful for Zulqarnain Haider’s contribution.
Haider, a wicket-keeper batsman on the fringes of the Pakistan side, not only declined the overtures of those wanting to lure him into match-fixing, but blew the whistle on their entire operation.
It was a brave move. Not only did it end Haider’s hopes of a career in international cricket, but it may well have jeopardised his safety and the safety of his family. If, as suspected, the roots of match-fixing spread into the worlds of terrorism and organised crime, then Haider has made some powerful enemies. He recently sought asylum in the UK and may require protection for the rest of his life.
The reaction of many involved in cricket in Pakistan spoke volumes. Instead of offering Haider support, he was ridiculed. The reason? His information promises to bring down many players and officials who have made vast sums from match-fixing. It was also telling that Haider reported his concerns not to the cricketing authorities, but to the media. It suggests, surely, how much confidence he had in the game’s governing body to deal with such a serious situation. Remember, it was the media – not the much-vaunted Anti-Corruption Unit – that uncovered the Pakistan match-fixing story in the first place.

Batsman of the year:
Alastair Cook.
Within an ace of being dropped late into the English summer, Cook has responded with a run of form so purple that it threatens records only Don Bradman could reach. Cook has produced match-turning innings in four of his last six Tests and, after 695 runs at an average of 116 a time (with power to add) is fully vindicating the England selectors’ admirable faith in him.

Bowler of the year:
Graeme Swan
Most people thought off-spin was a dying art. Particularly if the spinner didn’t have the ability to bowl the ‘doosra’; a delivery that many feel is impossible without being chucked in any case.
But then Swann came along. With the old-fashioned virtues of flight, control, variation and turn, Swann has claimed 62 Test wickets at 26 apiece this year (with power to add) and played a key role in England’s World T20 triumph. He rose to second in the world Test ratings, third in the ODI ratings and proved that hard work, intelligence and perseverance are qualities that never lose their value at any level of the game.

Near miss of the year:
Somerset.
Runners-up in all three domestic competitions, it was hard not to feel sorry for Somerset in 2010. They remain one of the few counties never to have won the county championship but, having strengthened once again this winter, may well break their duck in 2011.

Crushing margin of victory speaks volumes

Next Page »