An offering of some of the correspondents The Cricketer and TheCricketer.com have received from our readers across the winter months...
Any England fan of long-standing must be fed up with how winter tours outside the Ashes series Down Under seem to be so poorly organised. In this current winter, Joe Root’s side are playing three separate series (a total of eight Test matches).
The ECB have squeezed in all these matches in New Zealand, South Africa and Sri Lanka for money-making (no doubt) but where is the quality control? Why could England not have just the South Africa tour and concentrate on it properly?
That would have meant scrapping the New Zealand tour (which was needless as we had been there 20 months previously) and use the extra time to having a proper build-up to the South African series. One four-day game against South Africa and two separate three day matches against State teams plus a three-day match between the second and third Tests would give a better preparation before and during the series.
Irrespective of what happens in the series, the schedule does the England players little favours.
England were under-prepared and not match ready. The limited over matches, which have been arranged after the series, are fine. England’s series in Sri Lanka also comes a little more than a year since the two teams played there.
Is it really necessary to have another series or is money again proving a bad influence? A break from mid-February to April would also give the England players a chance to unwind and prepare for a busy summer.
David Rimmer, Hertford Heath
SUBSCRIBE TO THE CRICKETER
When I first saw Steve Smith I thought he was probably the worst batsman I’d seen playing for Australia. Now, unless you’re old enough to have seen Sir Don Bradman, you have to say he is undoubtedly the best batsman you have ever seen playing for Australia. He is even forcing his way into your thinking for your all-time XI to face Mars to save the world (rain-affected clubhouse game). Unbelievable.
Derek Brown, Ashford, Kent
The ECB’s fast and loose treatment of the Championship can again be seen in its handling of Somerset’s preparation of a ‘poor’ pitch. Without revisiting the decision and agreeing that it’s useful to be able to apply the penalty backwards and forwards, surely the protocol should prescribe that when the game is a Championship/relegation decider all the evidence must be collected during the match and adjudication made immediately after it? As it is though, the two-month delay in reaching a decision creates the suspicion that, had Somerset won, the judgement may have been 'manipulated' to avoid a mess. And, more generally, what exactly are the penalties for each type of pitch infraction?
Craig Riddell, Prague
You should never judge a book by the cover. I did with Bob Willis. Could I have been more wrong? As an 18-year-old cricket fanatic in 1981 I’ll never forget him charging down the hill at Headingley for his 8-43, but apart from that I always thought him dull, and his press conferences as England captain and subsequent work for Sky Sports did nothing to dispel this opinion. “Hilarious” – Mike Atherton. “Very very funny man” - Kevin Pietersen. “What fun and laughter” – Henry Blofeld. His knowledge of wine impressed David Gower; Mike Brearley remembers him as the life and soul of after-dinner entertainment on a foreign tour, and Stephen Fry no less will miss him as a lunch companion. If only I were so boring. RIP Bob: 8-43 and so much more.
DRS continues to divide opinion
Derek Brown, Ashford, Kent
I’ve always been bemused by the old adage that “pitching in line with the stumps“ is important in an lbw decision, especially now that we partially put our faith in ball-tracking technology. I always wondered why you couldn’t be given out lbw if the ball was going to hit the wickets no matter where it pitched – or even if the batsman had hit it!
Surely the point of the law was that the presence of a leg prevents a stump from being hit. This past summer, I was pleased to see some lbw decisions given where it was clear that the ball had not pitched anywhere near the imaginary line with the wicket – but only in cases where the umpire agreed with a soft signal.
There were also many decisions not given where the ball was fractionally (or even quite some way) outside the line but ball-tracking indicated the stumps would have been hit. If our umpires truly accept the accuracy of ball-tracking, then why should where the ball pitches continue to be of importance when we already accept the ball-tracking verdict when the ball is pitched in line?
In an era when bowlers need all the help they can get, do we really need verdicts overturned when it is clear where the ball was destined to hit? Let’s go full tilt with the technology, and while we are at it, let it take care of no-balls!
Chris Thomas
As one of those unable to afford both Sky and BT Sport, winter can be pretty bleak cricket-wise However as a fan of the short-format game there's always the hope that an overseas franchise tournament will be shown free elsewhere.
This commenced with the Abu Dhabi T10 which was shown on the Freesports channel, and involved many well-known faces. Viewing cricket on Freesports is a challenge, but after a while you get to tolerate it! Now I've always enjoyed rain-affected T20 domestic matches, but the T10 formula doesn't seem to work for me, because of an emphasis on big hitters to the detriment of those in the middle order and many other subtleties of the game.
Anyway, this T10 series was quickly followed by the Qatar T10, which also was to be shown on Freesports and contained mostly 'unknown' sub-continent players of differing quality.
Somehow I managed to record the last group game, upon which a semi-final place was at stake.
The Pearl Gladiators (pink) needed to beat the Heat Scorchers (black/amber) by 29 runs to qualify. I became interested because fast-bowler Mohammed Sami was captain of the Gladiators. Had he still got it?
Somerset will start the 2020 season with a point deduction
The Gladiators won the toss, chose to bat but struggled to reach 93. This meant that the Scorchers needed 64 runs to reach the semis. They say “cometh the hour, cometh the man” and straight away Sami grabbed the ball to bowl the first over. After his first two balls had split the batsman in half, Sami got a wicket with his sixth ball, having conceded only 2 runs.
In the second over the batsman skied one, a fielder got under it... and dropped it! Believe it or not, Sami! No! Nevermind, Sami's second over produced another wicket, and figures of 2-9 showed his commitment. At 33 for 4 things were getting interesting. Batsmen were losing their heads! They wanted to smash the ball out of the park instead of opting for safer fours.
Scott Edwards' needless run out meant the panic-stricken Scorchers were now 34 for 5. Then, 44 for 7 became 45 for 8. Still 19 short! Up steps Philip Joseph, the Gladiator's fifth bowler who promptly fires down two wide deliveries. Oh dear.
The batsmen finally get runs (9) but Joseph fights back to take the ninth wicket. 56 for 9. Still 8 needed! Now it crossed my mind that if a catching opportunity were provided would I want to be under it? In the next over, with runs still needed, a mishit shot sends the ball high up into the air and yes, there's a fielder under it!
HE'S DROPPED IT! No! Despair!
It was to be the Gladiators' last chance. The ball was still heading towards the boundary for the second decisive four when the reality sunk in about how close the Gladiators had come.
“Sport hurts”, they say. It certainly seems too, some days.
Ian Rumens, Uckfield
Welcome to www.thecricketer.com - the online home of the world’s oldest cricket magazine. Breaking news, interviews, opinion and cricket goodness from every corner of our beautiful sport, from village green to national arena.