Gayle blows hot but leaves me cold

I don't like basketball particularly. I can admire the skill of the the control of the ball and the athleticism of the players but as a game - and more importantly as a contest - watching basketball leaves me cold. The reason is that it is generally a one-sided contest  as the team with the ball is expected to score. The defending team of course does its best but the attacking team, on the majority of occasions it has the ball, gets the ball through the hoop. It is not a fair contest between the team with the ball and team without it and scoring is not exciting in itself, it is more the shock of not scoring that brings the oohs and aahs from the spectators.

I was reminded of basketball when I watched Chris Gayle score his 175 not out for the Royal Challengers in the IPL this week. I am sure you are familiar with the stats that flowed as fast as the runs off his bat - 100 runs off 30 balls, 17 sixes, 13 fours, fastest this, biggest that - Gayle now holds every record that the IPL marketing men can dream up - including the smallest breakfast before a match - watch out for the launch of Gayle pancakes soon. In the context of the game, the bowling of Luke Wright and Kumar combined eight overs for 49 runs is almost a bigger achievement when you consider that the other twelve overs went for 211 runs.

I happily concede that Gayle's performance was an amazing feat, a display of almost chance-less power hitting that seemed to be both effortless and brutal at the same time. Gayle is a big strong guy but clearly he timed the ball beautifully as well, and in the main, his blows were proper cricket shots with many straight hits and perfectly executed cuts and pulls. Not for Gayle the trick shots of reverse scoops and moving around the crease (for a display of these skills AB de Villiers 31 runs off 8 balls was a mini-marvel in its own right), he did in his own inimitable style with minimal movement and maximum grace - as befits the acknowledged coolest cricketer on the planet.

Gayle rewrote the record books and redefined the power play

The problem for me in watching this incredible performance is that it quickly ceased to be a contest between bat and ball. I was watching Gayle hit, not the bowlers bowl. The question in my mind, and I suspect yours, was to where would the ball be dispatched next and how far would it go. The 17 dot balls (the same number as there were sixes) out of the 66 deliveries Gayle faced were not so much a triumph for the bowler but more a rest for Gayle before he launched another onslaught - statistically and emotionally Gayle not scoring was more of surprise than a six or four.

For me cricket must always be a good contest of skill between the bowler and batsman - sure, sometimes playing conditions will favour one rather than the other, but a wicket is still to be celebrated and a shot for six or four savoured. I fear for the game in general as I have to reluctantly accept that T20 is changing so many aspects of the game. No so long ago six runs an over was considered a very fast scoring rate, now sixteen runs an over is more often getable than not in the final throes of a game. Whether this is because of the improved skills of the batsmen, shorter boundaries, or bigger bats, is not the issue for me. I just don't want cricket to be like basketball and just be a contest between each team's attacking batsmen and where the bowlers are bit-part defenders with the occasional success and dot ball. After watching Gayle's performance MS Dhoni says he is happy he chose to be a wicket-keeper - certainly choosing to be a bowler in the IPL is only for masochists. 

A Phoney War

Every sport needs a villain - someone to add colour and column inches to the back pages and for the supporters to get all vexed about. For English cricket journos and supporters our villain is not any individual (now that Ponting has retired) but a whole organisation that exudes corruption, personal vendettas, protectionism, unfettered commercialism, pettiness, and downright vindictiveness - yes the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has been called all of those things. With its four board members, five vice-presidents, twenty-seven state associations in five zones, a further twenty-eight working parties, and more importantly 1 billion cricket fans, the BCCI generates a lot of cash  and a lot to get vexed about - and we do. Let's just look at few weeks in the world of the BCCI.

Joe Root - an English player but an Indian shot?

Last week the BCCI was fined approx $10m (about 6% of its annual revenue) by the Competition Commission of India for 'misusing its dominant position and indulging in anti-competitive practices'. This decision relates to the BCCI's support of the IPL and its effective banning of the IPL's still-born predecessor, the ICL. Naturally the BCCI does not accept this finding and is going to appeal. The previous week the BCCI gifted the media a headline grabbing ruling by banning a group of thirty English county players from a planned trip to India to further their cricketing education by playing on spin-friendly wickets at the Global Cricket School in Pune. The media smelt the acrid whiff of revenge for the 2-1 series defeat of India by England and reported accordingly - the ban was imposed, the press surmised, because Joe Root, who played so well in his test debut in Nagpur, was the beneficiary of a similar programme a year or so earlier. So you can add the sickly scent of protectionism to the unsavoury odour emanating from the BCCI.

But if you take a deep sniff you will also discern the subtle but all pervading musty aroma of the ECB in the mix. The ECB caused a row with the BCCI by playing Stephen Finn in an English Performance Programme match in Mumbai in late November to prove his fitness for the Eden test. Root also played in this game. First in appears that the BCCI did not sanction this EPP tour, and second the BCCI understood that it would not involve players from the Test squad. Following BCCI's letter of complaint the ECB has had to apologise (I seem to have missed this apology in the British press) lamely pointing out it wasn't a proper match.

In case you have been asleep for the last fifty years let me remind you that the ECB and BCCI have 'history' that is likely to run longer than the hundred years war. The power struggles in the ICC (International Cricket Council) make the Borges saga seem like a family tiff. The ICC is of course almost completely controlled by the BCCI who are hell bent in seeking retribution for years of real and imagined disrespect and arrogance shown by England (and Australia) towards India and the subcontinent in general. And the focus of all this retribution? - the IPL, that over-indulged love child of the BCCI and Indian commerce. In the eyes of the ECB the IPL represents all that is wrong with the cricketing world and the ECB's judgement is completely clouded by the red mist it produces at the mere mention of the competition. Whether it is restriction of trade, Stanford or KP, the ECB has shown it is incapable of rational thought and deed when it comes to how to deal with the IPL. But the ECB now realises that the IPL has grown into a commercial monster that is funding the dominance of the BCCI. The brand of the IPL, after only five years, was valued at approximately $3bn. If you think that is naan in the sky then consider that in 2010 Sony agreed to pay the BCCI $1.6bn over a ten year period for the IPL television rights.



Would Morgan be playing for England if
Ireland was playing in the IPL?

Which leads us nicely to the real reason for the BCCI banning the County players trip to India. Last year the BCCI had tried to get some IPL 'exhibition' matches played in Ireland and Scotland and offered to underwrite the costs. However the ECB has paid for the rights to all international matches in these countries and effectively banned IPL players from playing there. Buried deep in the Indian press is a quote from a BCCI representative that shows the true reason for the BCCI decision to ban the County players: "Discussions are still on but it has to be a two-way process. We can't see how we can allow the counties to send their players to practice here when the ECB refuses to allow the IPL players to play even in Ireland. They must explain why they did it." How are the two issues linked? The background to this is the ECB's own (as yet unexplained) plan for an international T20 competition to compete with the IPL. But the ECB appears to be thwarted in it plans as its natural allies in the ICC, Australia and South Africa have both done deals with the ICC (and therefore the BCCI) to allow IPL players to appear in their new 'domestic' T20 competitions thus giving them an international appeal.

So the ECB faces some worrying questions - is there room for another international T20 competition? How can the ECB keep its centrally contracted players from benefiting by playing in the IPL? Which of course are questions that go to the heart of the issue - money. The BCCI has lots and the ECB is trying to get more and both see T20 as the only potential source of new income. They are both fishing in the same pond but the BCCI is using dynamite whilst the ECB is using an old rod. Unfair? - of course it is. But when has any war ever been fair?

Use your head - don't wear a helmet

Did you see Bell, Root and Dhoni all batting at times without helmets during the ODI series in India? A pleasant surprise for me as I have always thought that the wearing of a helmet somehow impersonalises batsmen as they all tend to look the same under a lid. But it got me thinking - how has the wearing of a helmet changed batting technique since my day?

 

I am old enough to have learnt my cricket in the days before helmets. My protection then was pads, gloves and those sickly-looking pink plastic boxes (one size fits all), and as the bowling got faster I used a towel as a thigh pad, but it never occurred to me to protect my head. Many years later when I was still batting without a helmet I was showing my wife a graze on my forehead from a ball that had somehow beaten my solid defence -
“You wear a box don’t you?” she asked with welcome interest.
“Of course” I replied with a smile to reassure her all was still in working order.
“Well” she retorted “you have your priorities all wrong”.
Well maybe, if you are an ageing amateur cricketer with a family to provide for, but perhaps not if you are 11 years old and want to become an outstanding batsman.

To avoid injury it is vital to watch the ball
- Strauss follows the instructions

The human brain, in times of danger from injury, reacts instinctively to protect one part of the body before all others – the head. If you are faced with a projectile arrowing in on your head, you do not have to fight your natural instinct; the brain will take over and do its best to get your head out of the firing line. Research suggests that practice of certain techniques will hone reaction times and will also speed up what are now know as ‘twitch muscles’. In batting terms this means the more often you face a ball coming towards you, the better you will be at taking the necessary action. But this action will vary depending on many factors; the speed of the ball and its angle of deliver, as well as the surface on which it bounces – the pitch. Young batsmen therefore need to be trained in, and experience, all types of conditions and deliveries in order to learn the best action to take, whether evasive or pro-active. And I am not sure that wearing a helmet whilst batting really helps in honing instinct, muscles and decision making that are all necessary for turning good technique into a reliable skill.

Batting in England in bowling-friendly conditions against good seam bowlers will test the very best batsmen and quickly defeat the merely good. If a batsman has little experience in such conditions, batting becomes almost impossible - just look at how the current (admittedly very good) English seam attack completely destroyed and bemused the best batsman from India, Pakistan and West Indies. Now consider Hashim Amla of South Africa – against England in 2008 he scored 275 runs in his seven innings, four years later Amla was the rock of the top order batting with 482 runs in five innings that helped South Africa dominate and secure a series win. What is the difference between the years? Probably that Amla played for Essex and Nottingham in 2009/10 and re-learnt his technique for our seaming conditions. But how does this relate to the wearing of helmets?

 

When I was a teenager learning how to play seam bowling (mostly on uncovered wickets) I was indoctrinated with the mantra ‘watch it early, play it late’. If you got yourself forward too early then it was almost impossible to make adjustments for any seam movement off the pitch – which is what happened more often than not. So I learnt how to move into position as late as possible, use a short back lift, and punch the ball - elegant cover drives were only for later when your eye was in and you had the measure of the pitch, if not the bowling.

Edrich playing the ball late off the back foot
- look at where his back foot is pointing

Against fast bowling there was the added problem of ensuring you didn’t get hurt – a short pitched ball was not only likely to get up to head height it was also likely to be moving off the seam. Fast bowlers have always been keen to test a batsman with their bouncer early on and would pound you if you showed excessive fear or any weakness in technique. You learnt to watch the ball very closely and to take evasive action very late by swaying your head away from the line of the ball. You were told never to take your eye off the ball and look away. In those days batsmen got hit on the head when they ducked or turned their head away and didn’t follow the ball until the last minute. But guess what – I never got hit in the head directly from a delivery. However a consequence of this approach to short pitched balls was that you learnt pretty quickly how to play off the back foot – particularly through the off-side. This is because back foot shots gave you time to watch the ball and play it late. All the opening English top order batsmen, who learnt their cricket before the introduction of helmets, had to be good back foot players – Boycott, Edrich and Gower being masters of this art.

Helmets were first worn in the Packer World Series in 1978 with Denis Amis sensibly deciding that the West Indian quicks were too formidable on hard Australian wickets for his skills. (Incidentally with protective boxes being introduced in 1878 you could say that it took men 100 years to reassess their priorities in line with my wife’s thinking). With the advent of helmets, and particularly the compulsive wearing of helmets for youths, batting techniques started to change. This change has accelerated in the last ten years due to the introduction of shorter forms of the game which encourage big hitting and the development of bigger bats. Pitches at all levels of the game are now covered and have as a consequence become more batting-friendly surfaces. But it is the wearing of helmets that has allowed batsmen to introduce new batting techniques without fear of getting hit in the face or head. The Dilsham scoop is a shot that only a madman would play without a helmet and the increasingly popular sweep is a shot I was always told brings your head in line with the ball with the inherent risk of being hit in the face – but the helmet eliminates that concern.





Gayle cuts the ball for six
- a front foot shot now

Wearing a helmet also allows batsmen to get on the front foot early – if the ball rears up or the ball is pitched in short, then the batsman is not in real danger even if he isn’t good enough to play a decent shot. A big shot requires a big back lift and this is only really possible with a front foot shot. In the one day games, cuts and pulls are now played off the front foot more often than not – the big bats mean that the ball is easily lifted high in the air, or hit flat and hard - either way there are far more sixes hit square of the wicket now than there were ten years ago.

 

It is sad to conclude that good technique back foot play appears to be a skill of the past – only mastered by players brought up without wearing helmets in their formative years. Dravid, who didn’t wear a helmet until he was seventeen, played the ball late off his back foot, his left foot pointing between point or cover depending on where he wanted to hit the ball, or he waited and tucked the ball deftly off his hip - but Dravid was one of an increasingly rare breed. I believe that unless and until batsmen ‘relearn’ back foot play then they will always be very susceptible to good seam bowling. Of course helmets are a sensible protection for most of us, but perhaps coaches need to be given some freedom to discard the helmet occasionally to teach back foot technique to youngsters. What are your priorities – safety or skill?

If it's not cricket what is it?

Cheat. Of all the insults and accusations that can be directed at a sportsman, being called a cheat is a barb that causes a deeper cut than any other abuse and much more likely to leave its indelible scar for the rest of a career. Recently cheating has taken up more than its fair share of column inches on the back pages of newspapers - Armstrong's use of drugs is making the headlines again, and a goal with the helping hand of Suarez has also exercised the the minds and attitudes of sports' journalists towards cheating.

 

But it was one obituary of Christopher Martin Jenkins ('CMJ') that, surprisingly, also included a cheating reference, for in his piece Michael Atherton said that CMJ, being a former amateur cricketer rather than an ex-professional (who now dominate cricket journalism), was the last cricket journalist who would walk if he thought he was out rather than wait for the umpire's decision. Simon Barnes took up the same theme and put forward his own code of conduct for walking - professional cricketers, whose livelihood is at stake, shouldn't be expected to walk nowadays whereas amateur batsmen are honour bound to do so. Barnes related a story of a friend who, having been given not out after nicking one to the keeper, was so ashamed and mortified that he did not walk, that he contrived to get himself out as quickly as possible. A clear cut code for Barnes perhaps but is it as straightforward as that for most of us?

 

When talking about 'not walking' we are, of course, only referring to the occasion when a batsman, perhaps, gives to the ball the thinnest of edges from his bat, or the merest feather of a touch from his glove, before it passes into the hands of the wicket keeper. The bowler and keeper are convinced the batsmen has hit the cover off the ball - they are sure there was a distinct noise and even a deflection - but the batsman stands his ground, the umpire shakes his head and, as the laws of the game determine, makes the decision that the batsmen is not out. Let us remember that the umpire's decision is also based upon giving the benefit of any doubt to the batsman - again as required by the laws.

 



“Just want to apologise for not walking off the ground tonight when I hit the ball. I was just so disappointed, my emotions got best of me” – Michael Clarke on Twitter.
The only time an Australian walks is when his car breaks down.

All of us have seen what, more often than not, happens next. Words are loudly and pointedly exchanged between the fielding side and sometimes comments are directed at the batsman. The implication, backed up by an accusation, is that the batsman is cheating by not walking. Every player knows that the laws do not oblige the batsman to admitting he touched the ball, give himself out, and walk off, but somehow the culture of cricket has evolved to put the onus on the batsman in this particular circumstance.

 

Is cricket alone amongst sports in having this strange code of honour that - let us remember - relates to only one of many ways in which a batsmen can be given out - for there is certainly no similar expectation that a batsman should give himself out for a run-out or stumping if the umpire decides otherwise? Golf is often cited as having the highest standard of code of self regulation on players - but such a code of conduct is enshrined in golf's vast array of rules - there is no umpire on hand to make such decisions. Tennis, hockey, American football, baseball, basketball, rugby, soccer, in fact any ball game with a referee or umpire, all do not require the players to make any decisions themselves - never mind anything as important as ending a player's own participation in the game.

 

Perhaps cricket likes to think it is special in having such an implied code of honour for its players? If so this is particularly odd now that DRS (the decision review system) is widely used in the professional game and players and umpires alike can see, that even with the help of sophisticated technology, how difficult it is to decide if a batsman has really hit the ball. Does the batsman himself always know if he touched the ball?

 

So where does that leave us, the amateur cricketers, in dealing with this legacy of honour handed down by players of yesteryear from a different time with different values? With due deference to Mr Barnes I don't think his code works for us so let me suggest an alternative approach that recognises the vagaries of amateur cricket and the 'professional' ethos of club league cricket today.

 

I think that if the umpires are qualified, independent and standing for the whole match, then a batsman has every right to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's decision for a catch behind. Of course a batsman may walk if he wants to but it should not be expected nor a cause for abuse if he doesn't - it's his choice. However if an umpire is only standing in to help out, is one of your own players, or is one of your club's umpires, then if you think you hit the ball and the catch behind was clean, then you should walk without waiting for the umpire's decision. My code is not about the standard of cricket being played but the status of the umpires. I think this is how the code of conduct started - it's just no fair to put that much pressure on a 'friendly' umpire. In fact, as our grandfathers would have said - it's just not cricket.

Fifty Dots of Grey

I was so engrossed in inspecting my old and well worn equipment in readiness for the beginning of another exciting summer of playing around the county, that I didn't hear her approach me from behind. "Excuse me"  - I turned around startled, still holding the balls I had found in the fold of my kit, to see the source of the husky yet obviously feminine siren voice. "Can you help me - it's just that I am looking for someone to show me how to score?" she asked hopefully. And so began a partnership that for one glorious unforgettable summer would make me feel like I was once again the star performer of my youth.

Emily was down from University she explained, and was looking for something unusual to add to her skills during the hot summer days. "My brother suggested I come down to this club and offer my services." Her shining green eyes briefly looked down demurely but she quickly returned my gaze with a defiant look. "I know I am not experienced but I am a quick learner" she whispered softly. Against my better judgement I agreed to take her on for a trial period - getting someone to score with in sleepy Valley was a real challenge so I was prepared to put in the effort to teach her the secret language of BDSM - balls by dots scoring method .

"You must do exactly what I tell you - one small slip and you will find yourself in a very difficult position which will leave you completely exposed and open to a tongue lashing by the umpires". Emily nodded enthusiastically and I saw the merest flicker of a smile over her face. "First" I continued, "it is essential to have the correct tools for the job - I don't show many people what I have got and I certainly don't share it around with anyone". And to Emily's delight I pulled from my pocket an old and well-worn pencil case. "In there you will find everything you need - from the reliable stubby one to the larger coloured ones that are so popular nowadays - oh and not forgetting a varied selection of rubbers - we don't want one silly mistake to ruin your fun."

Emily gingerly handled the pencil case, "Will it be hard?" she gulped, "Of course" I replied "putting your mark six times in a small box requires intense concentration and a sharp instrument." And so Emily's course of instruction started.

Emily was indeed a quick and able pupil but also very demanding, as she not only wanted to learn how to score, but also to understand as much about the game as possible. She was clearly fascinated with my helmet, "Why do you need a strap?" she asked as she carefully caressed its smooth surface. "Because if you pull to leg quickly you need to make sure it's still firmly in place" and I demonstrated the action with quick and firm hands. "Ohhh" she moaned "I love it when you use such incredible control" so to show her I knew all about being firm with her, I had her stand at short leg - "you won't be there for long without getting one right where it hurts" I warned her, but she just widened her legs and crouched down lower in readiness. I knew then that Emily was not one to take anything lying down.

Over that sultry summer we scored together regularly and without fail Emily showed enthusiastically that she had got what it takes when it came to being disciplined with new found skills. She was happy to be pinned down for hours, unable to move in case she missed any of the action, whilst I stood over her ready to admonish her with a firm reprimand if she ever forgot to check the number of balls. 

 

As the summer nights drew in it was clear that she was able to keep going longer than I was used to, so I reluctantly decided she was ready to take on the next level. "Right, you can do the friendly stuff" I told her brusquely  "but let's see how you handle the speed and the quick instant gratification of something I have been hiding from you until now - a twenty over thrash". I needn't have worried - Emily was soon whipped into a frenzy of delight as she flicked her head between the action and her delicately crafted hand, moving quickly to first put in the incoming batsman, whose massive shots went to all parts and quickly filled her box, before he was spent and she was registering the next man in who would take over with renewed vigour.

I looked on with sadness at the relish she showed at such multiple involvement - the harder it was the more she concentrated on the task in hand -  and I realised that Emily was lost to me now. I had taught her the discipline needed to handle the roughest of games and it was obvious her head was no longer turned by the idea of scoring on a friendly Sunday afternoon where the most frightening equipment on display is Nige's worn down spikes. At least, I mused as the rain started to fall and Emily desperately tried to cover her exposed set up, I wouldn't have to explain to her the truly dark arts of the Duckworth Lewis method.

It's all about the performance

This morning, over a wonderful breakfast of scrambled eggs , my wife proclaimed “I tend to think that cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth - certainly greater than sex, although sex isn't too bad either." Now I know a trap when I see one and this one had very sharp teeth poised to spring painfully shut if I managed to put my proverbial foot in it. So I paused before replying - not for effect you understand, but to desperately think whether I was supposed to agree with this statement or to counter with some reference to our thirty-odd years of married bliss - as being informed that our sex life wasn't 'too bad' I took as a real result.

 

Luckily before I could think of a reply that would guarantee I wasn't eating my last plate of scrambled eggs, my wife added with ill-disguised mirth, and without looking up from the newspaper, "well according to Harold Pinter that is". I wasn't sure whether her mirth was directed at the eyebrow-raising idea that cricket was better than sex or the scorn-raising notion that sex (with me at any rate) isn't too bad. Discretion being the better part of a succcesful marriage I busied myself with making the coffee and laughed along with her. But it got me thinking.

Clearly an asset to any team -
even without the proper protection

Perhaps, now that the cat was out of the kit bag as it were, I could turn this conversation to my advantage as I recalled that a few years ago, when Gary Kirsten was in charge of the India team, he issued all the players with a well-researched edict to have sex, and lots of it, as this was believed to be the key to add extra passion and agression into the players' performances (on the cricket field I assume). Kirsten's advice caused a ruckus at the time although I am not sure whether this was because it just increased the pressure to perform (in the bedroom that is) or whether some people were upset thay weren't given the opportunity to contribute to the research. But, I reminded myself, Kirsten did take India to become the number one Test team, so maybe this training regime has some merit worth persuing.

So, I decided, the road to success for me as a player, and the consequential positive results for my Sunday Socials team, is as clear as the benefit of a deep-heat muscle rub - a rigorous regime of heart-thumping sex before I stride out to dominate the bowling with forceful strokes to every part. All I have to do now is convince my wife of the benefits of her particpation in the programme and show her how to undo the straps holding my box in place. Thinking about it though, before risking the loss of scrambled eggs, perhaps I should practice by myself first.

Success through succession

It is the season of pantomines and the ICC has laid on its best comic pairing to perform for us in February next year with a double act of India's Peter Pans trying to ham it up with Australia's Wizards of Oz. Us cricket fans looking for a few belly laughs to shake off the winter blues are in for a real treat as India look to keep Sachin in the same line up as Sewag and Gumbair (Bashful, Dopey and Grumpy?) in a desperate attempt to cast their own spells over the Aussies.

Indian selectors are rigorously rubbing their magic lamps in the hope that an IPL Genie will appear and grant them a wish for a batsman or two who can score runs and not get stage fright at the sound of the tick tock of a croc in a frock. For sure enough in a puff of marijuana smoke, the arch Aussie villainous wizard, Shane Warne, is trying to make his own comeback as Peter Pan. Mind you, after his Liz Hurley makeover, at least Shane will look the part.

So long boys - and thanks for the fish

How is it that the two former great nations of world cricket have been reduced to playing the ugly sisters to the Cinderella and Prince Charming that are England and South Africa at the moment? In a word - succession - or more accurately, two words - no succession.

The Aussies were taken by surprise as some the best players ever to grace world cricket all decided to leave the stage at the same time with the crowd still wanting more. Ponting has now gone as well and Hussey can't be too far behind. Not surprisingly the remaining Aussie cast look more than a bit luck lustre without their star performers. Whilst the Aussie batting is being held together by their new leading man, they have not found any suitable stand-ins for the magical bowling pairing of Warney and McGrath. In particular Australia do not currently have a spin bowler that would scare even the Cowardly Lion. For Australia's own Lyon has, despite some early snarling, shown to be toothless - he recently toiled for 32 wicket-less overs against Sri Lanka before being booed off the stage. Any repeat performance from Lyon is likely to be greeted with cries of 'he's behind you' as Shane tries to convince the selectors that his new slim foot can squeeze into the glass slipper and once again become the belle of the ball.

Exit stage left

India's woeful performance against England showed just how much they missed experienced batsmen who knew how to withstand the pressures of Test cricket and bat for long periods. Sachin (38) looked like he was batting in treacle most of the time, unable to move quickly enough, and the other senior batsmen of Gumbhir (31), Yuvraj (31) and Sehwag (34) played only cameo parts at best but at least Pujara showed what the new boys can do and Kohli sneaked in a performance that confirmed he will be part of the batting line up for some time to come. But it was the bowlers that looked most in need of some new talent. Zaher Khan (34), who out-bowled the England seamers in their own back yard when India won the Pataudi trophy and the series 1-0  in 2007, was dropped before the last Test for being unfit and out of form - Harbhajan (32), so often a talisman for India, followed him out of the door.

So faced with ageing players what have Australia and India done about succession? Well if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then you may forgive the ECB for looking a bit pleased with themselves as Australia instigated their own report after the humiliating 2010 Ashes big bashing handed out to the baggy greens on their own turf. The Angus review was the result and with it the appointment of Pat Howard as performance manager of the Australian team. In my view this could be a brilliant left field appointment, for although Howard is primarily a rugby player and coach, he is definately an innovator and achiever who will have clear plan of what he thinks needs to be done. It's early days and the jury is still out for Howard as although young players are coming through, the injury list of fast bowlers is hampering his plan - and of course the search for a decent spin bowler is now becoming desparate.

As for India, well of course Indian cricket and all it decisions are political first and based upon performance second. Only very recently have cricket academies been set up in India - mostly through the IPL franchises - and in answer to the selectors' recent call to identify new young talent, the independantly minded and proud states in India loudly proclaimed their own sons and handed down a list of 124 players to the national selectors. The next Kumble may be in that list somewhere but he will take some finding.

So come the Australia test series in India I think it will be safe to say that not one bowler from the combined teams would find a place in either the current England or South Africa line ups - and when did that last happen? It could be years before the recently instigated succession plans bear any fruit for these once overly blessed nations. In the meanwhile India could be driven further away from Test cricket as lack of success kills off any lingering public interest that has not already been seduced away by the obvious charms of the IPL - but that's a story for another day.