This account of the 13 years it took to become No. 1 – from Fletcher to Flower – is a must-read for fans of English cricket

Sam Collins09-Jun-2012For those with a royalist bent, much of this English week has been all about celebrating the past and looking to the future, so it seems appropriate to be discussing a book that is essentially a modern history of the men ruling English cricket. Steve James’ takes the reader through the 13 years it took England to rise from the bottom to the top of the world Test rankings between 1999 and 2011, while profiling the coaches, captains and administrators who effected the transformation. is most concerned with.James is a former Glamorgan (and briefly England) opening batsman who succeeded Michael Atherton as columnist for the . Ex-pros can be the subject of lazy generalisations when they move into the press box, but James’ quiet excellence, uncomplicated style and informed perspective make his Sunday column a “don’t-miss”, as one respected ex-correspondent put it to me. is more of the same.He was certainly in a unique position to write this book, having played under Fletcher at Glamorgan and ghosted two books for him, and been a friend of the Flower family for over 20 years. The author declares his hand at the start. Is the potential bias a problem? No – as befits a batsman with close to 50 first-class centuries, he is (almost) unerringly balanced. James is present throughout, breaking up the history lesson with his own memories and experiences of those involved. This is his story and he makes it compelling. I don’t fish, and I don’t think James does either, but I could imagine it being told over several easy afternoons on the river bank.Given the scope, James’ achievement is to make a 13-year summation digestible. He manages not to get drawn into the cricketing politics of the wider world, and was deliberately selective with those he interviewed (neither Fletcher nor Flower among those spoken to). The result is an unashamedly England-centric book that feels informed but never flooded. Running chronologically from the appointment of Fletcher and Nasser Hussain back in that miserable summer of ’99, through the periods of Michael Vaughan, Andrew Flintoff, Peter Moores, and on to Andrew Strauss and Flower, very little is left untouched in James’ thorough analysis. He is at pains to be fair – never better illustrated than by his excellent dissection of Moores’ unfortunate time in charge.Amid the Diamond Jubilee hype, Moores stands as proof that successions are not always ideal, and with Flower and Strauss unlikely to last 60 years (James himself cannot see Flower lasting much longer) stage three of “The Plan” – if Fletcher was stage one and Flower stage two – could yet be the most important for the legacy. James observes how England have struggled to make the most of players in the last third of their international careers, and with an ageing core (Strauss 35, Swann 33, Pietersen 32 this month, Trott 31, Prior 30, Anderson 30 next month) it serves notice that the next few years will have to be handled carefully. Mick Newell of Nottinghamshire and Andy Hurry of Somerset are among those being monitored as Flower’s successor, but much depends on whether the Moores experience has scarred the board from appointing within the English system.There will be other pressures too. If , and one final word. James was the man handed Justin Langer’s Ashes dossier in 2009, and in scolding himself for his initial indifference to a genuine scoop, he neatly sums up what is a major strength of his own book. “What I was forgetting here was the thrill for the members of the public of being on the inside, however fleetingly; of suddenly being privy to thoughts and observations that are usually out of their reach. Every fan craves to be inside the dressing room”. Let James take you there.The Plan: How Fletcher and Flower Transformed English Cricket
by Steve James
Bantam Press

Harsha Bhogle, Simon Doull and Mark Richardson discuss the state the team finds itself in ahead of its tour of India

ESPNcricinfo staff20-Aug-2012
What has been the impact on all the changes in New Zealand cricket off the field? (2.40 – 4.48)
Simon Doull: Too much change for my liking. It’s been a very difficult time for New Zealand cricket both on and off the field. Some very strange appointments, which probably date back a little earlier than Buchanan. I was very surprised when he picked up the job. I still think he has coaching aspirations, and perhaps that was why he didn’t get on too well with John Wright. If a guy of Wright’s standing cannot get along with the director of cricket then there are some real issues. For many years, New Zealand Cricket have thought that as long as we get Australians involved, we’ll get better. To me that is 100% wrong.Mark Richardson: New Zealand need leadership from the top. Unfortunately what we’ve seen over the last five or six years is that too much decision-making has come from the players, and a lot of those decisions haven’t been good. They need some very good decision-making coming from coaches, and I don’t think we’ve seen that. Now there’s a realisation that we need help.Does the lack of direction have to do with the captaincy of Daniel Vettori and Ross Taylor? (4.50 – 6.18)

“For many years, New Zealand Cricket have thought that as long as we get Australians involved, we’ll get better. To me that is 100% wrong”Simon Doull

MR: The New Zealand team really performed very well between 1999-2005. This is when Stephen Fleming took over the role. Steve Rixon came into the side and cleared out all the rubbish, got the culture right, got the key players moving in the right direction, and developed a young captain in Fleming. Then Fleming grew into the role and became a great leader, and set up a model whereby the captain did have power. However, Vettori, when he took over, wasn’t in the same situation as Fleming, and needed a strong coach to help him through. I don’t believe he got that. I believe he wanted all the power. A lot of poor decisions were made and that model has been handed through to Taylor.Why aren’t New Zealand punching above their weight now as they used to? (6.19 – 9.32)
SD: Fighting cricketers who worked their guts out to get the best out of themselves and get the best for the team – that’s what typified New Zealand cricket. I don’t see that fight at the moment. I don’t see the will to work hard, that I have seen in the past. We’ve always had one or two real class players but I don’t think in this team at the moment we have any world-class players. The fact that these guys are getting all of their money upfront – no performance bonuses, with no incentive to play well, is a bit of a problem for me.MR: Kane Williamson is a player of immense talent and he plays with a degree of maturity, responsibility and desire. [Brendon] McCullum is massively talented but massively overrated as well. Vettori once was a magnificent left-arm spinner. He is still very good but has lost the ability to take wickets. The team continues to make mistakes as a batting unit and players get out in the 60s and the 70s. They fail to make 400 regularly. You’ve got to be bowling sides out. New Zealand lack pace and lack spin. Vettori hasn’t been able to produce that role. The key players have failed to be the catalyst for performance and the youngsters simply aren’t at the level to make up for that.How do things look for New Zealand cricket? Also, is it a case of players such as Guptill and Ryder being better than their numbers suggest but not delivering? (9.33 – 12.30)
SD: As a commentator, when your team is playing well, your job is easy. You can find things to talk about all the time. We had two days through that whole West Indies tour over five and a half weeks where I was able to be positive about New Zealand cricket. That, for me, was very hard. It’s hard when you go into your daily job and can’t find things to be positive about. I’d like to think things will get better on the Indian tour, but I don’t see it. From what I’ve been told, Mike Hesson brings a fair bit of organisation and structure to the job but it’s too quick to try and turn things around in the space of a week and a half.MR: That’s the frustration of a New Zealand cricket fan. We see what these guys are capable of but most of them are trying to play a style of cricket that is not sustainable for them, and no one is grabbing them by the scruff of their neck, giving them a good shake and saying, “You can’t play this way and expect to be consistent.” They all seem to want to play like Virender Sehwag. They can’t, they are New Zealand cricketers. They’ve got to pull their horns in, and no one seems to have got that message through to them.Do we see New Zealand becoming a bigger force only in the shorter formats? (12.31 – 13.53)
SD: That would be nice if that was the truth. We were ranked No. 3 in ODIs and No. 3 in Tests three to four years ago. At the moment we are No. 8 in Tests and No. 7 in ODIs. So the stats are just not stacking up, to say that we’ll be a better one-day side. There will be the odd good performance, like there was in the World Cup, but remember, South Africa was the only side we had to beat in a one-off situation. To play and win three or four games in a row, we don’t seem to be able to do that.With Tim Southee, Doug Bracewell and Trent Boult, how’s the bowling unit? (13.54 – 17.25)
MR: New Zealand, in seamer-friendly conditions, are very good, very competitive. They look a different team. But those conditions are less and less around the world. It’s about being able to generate wickets in flat conditions. New Zealand lack genuine pace. There are some lively bowlers around in the first-class level but they just don’t seem to be making that next step up. Quite often we see a guy and say, “Wow, he’s got some pace”, but we see him in an international game with a speed gun on and he bowls at 135kph.Mark Richardson: “McCullum is massively talented but massively overrated as well”•AFPHow big a problem is the IPL, especially next May when New Zealand tour England? (17.26 – 20.30)
SD: I don’t see the IPL as a problem. Players have to realise how they got there. It’s because they performed at the international level for New Zealand. That’s the only reason you get to play in those tournaments, because the country puts you on the world stage. I wonder if too many players around the world forget the fact that that is where they were predominantly first seen, and that’s where their loyalties should lie.MR: For our key players, the IPL has become their greatest earner. When you are under pressure at the international level, you need an element of desperation to succeed. If success for your country is your livelihood, it’s what you must have to perform. Does that three-year contract in the IPL take away that little bit of desperation, even at a subconscious level, away from your performance when you’re playing for your country? I think that mentality has crept in just a little bit when it comes to our top players playing for New Zealand.What’s your forecast for the series in India? (20.32 – 23.38)
MR: New Zealand’s going to struggle. There is no form behind them. I can’t see this New Zealand team bowling out India [twice].Numbers Game (24.22 – 29.03)
Starting April 2006, New Zealand have won four and lost 23 out of 39 Tests against the top sides (excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe). Starting January 1, 1980, how many matches did they play to lose 23, and what was their win-loss record during that period?

Poor strategy, puzzling selection and persistent unsettledness have been South Africa’s weak points this tournament

Firdose Moonda30-Sep-2012Even if their match against India on Tuesday gives them an opportunity to qualify for the semi-finals, South Africa should still conduct a full forensic audit of their performance in the Super Eights so far.They will find, happily, that pressure has not undone them. The usual big tournament jitters have stayed away but still South Africa have endured two defeats. This time it’s poor strategy, puzzling selection and persistent unsettledness which have been their weak points. As a result, they were not able to handle Umar Gul’s blitz on Friday and were equally incapable of taming a clinical Shane Watson-led Australia on Sunday.The gulf between those two methods of being outplayed was so vast that AB de Villiers could not isolate a single area of concern after the loss to Australia. “It’s hard to put my finger on it,” he said. “We started badly and finished badly as well. So, there is a bit of a bad taste in my mouth at the moment.”In a way, that assessment sums it up perfectly. South Africa’s top and bottom are not working as they should and everything in between is suffering because of it.A glaringly obvious place to start the dissection is the top of the order. Richard Levi’s continued failings in the opening berth have to result in a change in that position. The days of riding on the reputation of his century in Hamilton should be over, especially since the only score of substance he has posted since then was a half-century against a half-hearted Zimbabwe.Levi’s technical problem is obvious to even the most junior level bowler. Not only does he struggle to play the ball on the off side but he cannot seem to untie his legs from the spinners’ webs. His mandate of aggression from the get-go is never fulfilled because in attempting to show intent, he only shows his stumps.Faf du Plessis is the only available replacement in the squad for Levi. De Villiers has hinted that Du Plessis may play against India because South Africa “will have to try a few other combinations,” but he has not had a great run of form leading in. In hindsight, South Africa may regret leaving out Graeme Smith, their highest run-scorer in T20 cricket, or a player like David Miller, who enjoyed a fruitful stint at Yorkshire during the Friends Life t20.Even if the Levi issue is solved, South Africa’s top three has other problems. Hashim Amla and Jacques Kallis are fine players in their own right but cannot seem to perform together in a T20 line-up. Kallis was due to open the batting – as announced by convenor of selectors Andrew Hudson when the squad was named – which he does at Kolkata Knight Riders.There, he bats in-between aggressors Gautam Gambhir and Manvinder Bisla, not one batsman who is out of form and one who is trying to cultivate it. Amla has not been able to take his ODI form and replicate it at T20 level, yet. It may be that he just requires more time, like he did in ODIs, but time is not in abundance at a tournament like the WorldT20.Below that, South Africa’s line-up seems to play the lottery. Sometimes JP Duminy goes in at No. 4, sometimes de Villiers, sometimes Albie Morkel (when he plays), sometimes a new-ish player like Farhaan Berhardien. In trying to be unpredictable, South Africa have actually unravelled. The evidence shows that it is not a tactic that works for them.Conventional thinking is that the best batsman of the side should face the most balls and that would be de Villiers, based on his ability to improvise and make an impact. He denied that it was him. “My T20 record is probably the worst of the top six,” he said. He is wrong. De Villiers is South Africa’s third highest T20 run-scorer and has a higher strike rate than both Kallis and Amla.It may not be modern to resort to a fixed line-up, but it would be sensible. Importantly, it would also give everyone an idea of their role, something that neither batsmen nor bowlers appear to have at the moment.Dale Steyn has opened the bowling as only he can: with pace, swing and venom. Against Australia, Morne Morkel started well too. Robin Peterson who was the go-to man for almost every match of the 2011 World Cup has not been used first-up in the Super Eights. The success of slower bowlers and his ability against right-handers could see him used in that capacity.The absence of a distinct fifth bowler has also become a problem. Against Pakistan, Kallis and Albie Morkel did the job but were expensive. Wayne Parnell came in cold, having sat on benches for a while, and was disappointingly wayward against Australia. Meanwhile, Lonwabo Tsotsobe, South Africa’s second most economical bowler after Johan Botha, has not played at all. Tsotsobe has slipped in the queue and his clever use of variations seems to have been forgotten.De Villiers is a new captain and is, by his own admission, still learning. What he lacks is something to study from. South Africa cannot be blamed for wanting to try new things because they were often criticised for lacking innovation but in doing so, they seem to have forgotten their foundations. They need to rediscover those. Then if a player like Gul or Watson takes the game away, there really be nothing more South Africa could have done.

Having breezed through the tournament until the final, England failed to produce their best in the field and crumbled chasing under pressure

Jarrod Kimber in Colombo07-Oct-2012England came into the World T20 as the best women’s team around. They’ve barely lost a T20 in a year. They have the best batsmen in the world, the best bowling attack, field very well and are lead by an experienced World Cup and World T20 winning captain. They breezed past Australia at Galle only a few days ago, scoring their last 100 runs in approximately 10 overs to win by seven wickets and 11 balls. They’re the most professional women’s cricket side history. And Australia beat them.It wasn’t that Australia blew them out of the water with an unchaseable total. Australia batted well, but only Jess Cameron ever looked like putting the game beyond England. Australia’s problem in this tournament is that their big hitters haven’t been there at the right times and that no one made a big score. When Cameron went out for 45 off 34, Australia just didn’t have the power or form to get up to 160 and kick England out of the game. The total of 142 was good, but England chased 144 at Galle, and this was a good pitch to bat on.England started slowly, worked their way in, and then would have expected Charlotte Edwards and Sarah Taylor to score the bulk of the runs without worrying too much about losing wickets. Instead Australia just kept taking wickets. Every time England put on any kind of partnership, Australia would strike, and with England never being up with the required rate, they just put so much pressure on themselves.England usually look assured and confident, but they spent their innings looking anxious. Jodie Fields said that England hadn’t changed her game plan from Galle, so what changed was that the English players weren’t playing in a non-televised event in front of seven people; they were playing a globally televised final in front of a large crowd. The pressure of that, combined with good swing from the Australian pace bowlers and some turn from their spinners seemed to crumble this formally invincible side.Taylor’s job is to bat deep into the innings, but with the run rate slipping away from them, and suspicious clouds forming overhead, Taylor ran at Ellyse Perry with intent. At Galle such a shot would have probably gone for four but at the Premadasa it was edged behind and suddenly England had lost their captain and best batsmen with 83 runs still needed.It was never going to be easy. The run rate continued to get on top of them, as the Australian bowlers seemed to pick up wickets for fun. It looked like Australia was not just going to beat the best team in the world, but annihilate them.Then a cameo from Jenny Gunn changed it all, and the Australians who had handled the pressure of the final with ease, suddenly looked like the side who would buckle. Gunn only made 19, but it was fast and furious, and she left England with a sniff.In the last over England needed 16 runs with no top order players left. Australia gave the ball to Erin Osborne for her offspin. It was perhaps the worst over all day. Osborne delivered a head high full toss, a simple run out chance was missed, a catch was dropped and Australia looked like they were about to lose a match that had been beyond losing for almost an hour.Somehow Australia had let the match get to the last ball, with England needing an unlikely, but possible six to win. Osborne bowled her second full toss of the over, this time a legal delivery, and Hazell could only mistime it out towards midwicket.It was messy, pressurised finals cricket. And Australia had somehow managed to hold on, to the trophy if not always the ball, as the mighty England had to watch Australia pick up back to back titles.Osborne probably didn’t dream of delivering a full toss in her fantasy of bowling Australia to victory, but beating England in a final for your country is what every one of these Australians would have wanted. Underdogs and reigning champions, it’s got a nice ring to it.

Despite putting in a much better showing, it appears England are up against a side that are better than them in discipline, application and skill

George Dobell at Headingley03-Aug-2012It was hard for England supporters to avoid a sinking feeling as South Africa extended their first innings past 400 at Leeds. It was not that England bowled poorly – far from it – and it was not that it has become impossible for England to level or even win this series.It was more that England played some admirable cricket and it still was not quite good enough.England bowled beautifully on the second morning. They did not concede a run in the first six overs and, finding just enough assistance from the surface to trouble both batsmen, built up pressure. Indeed, from two-thirds of the way through the first day, England’s bowlers could not have bowled much better. And you cannot ask more from anyone than that.It would, in these conditions, have been good enough for most rivals. It was good enough for Australia, good enough for India, good enough for West Indies and good enough for Pakistan.But England have come up against a tougher foe here. They have come up against a side that seems able to better them in discipline, in application and in skill. They have come up against a side that, despite being put in and losing their four big batting guns relatively cheaply, still passed 400. In short, it is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that they have simply come up against a better side.That has not happened too often in recent years. While England have been no strangers to defeat in recent months, there have always been some straws of consolation at which to clutch. Over the winter, they could – rightly or wrongly – take comfort from the fact that they were outclassed by Pakistan and, in one Test anyway, by Sri Lanka, in conditions of which they had little experience. England could console themselves with the thought that they remained formidably strong at home. And, while there have been one-off defeats to Pakistan and Australia at home, they were followed by resounding victories that suggested such results were aberrations.Even after The Oval, there was a strange comfort in the fact that England had played so badly. The extent of the thrashing – quite colossal – could be partially mitigated by the fact that England, with bat and ball, had fallen well below their own high standards.That is not the case here. Yes, England dropped an important catch and yes, they may well have erred with their selection. But their seamers have performed admirably after an uncertain start and their batsmen have started impressively. Yet an England win remains the least likely of the three realistic results with three days of the Test to go. Increasingly it is becoming clear that the biggest impediment England have is not selection issues, or dropped catches or disappointing batting or bowling, it is that they are up against a very good side.But they can, just about, still win this game and therefore the series. Their best hope of winning here is to bat once, score in excess of 600 and bowl South Africa out cheaply in their second innings. It would be an unlikely scenario even without the poor weather forecast, but it is rendered even more unlikely by the fact that England went into this game without a specialist spinner. It is a decision that looked wrong at the time and was made to look even more wrong by Kevin Pietersen gaining extravagant turn before lunch on day two.But it was the sort of selection decision that is made when flustered. And, sometime during the Oval Test, England’s players, their management and their supporters had a reality check: South Africa are, almost certainly, the better side.It is, for example, telling that South Africa can play seven frontline batsmen and still have a better-balanced attack than England. It is telling that South Africa’s second-change seamer – a man with more than 12,000 Test runs – could bowl with more pace than England’s opening bowlers and it is telling that while four of South Africa’s top six have so far registered centuries in the series, only one of England’s has done the same.England could yet retain their No. 1 Test status even if they fail to win here. So long as they avoid defeat, victory at Lord’s would be enough. But as Alviro Petersen and JP Duminy, two of the lesser lights of this excellent South Africa side, extended the tourists’ first innings total here, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that England’s grasp on the No. 1 ranking is slipping.

In Test cricket he needs to find a way of controlling instincts that have been successful for him in the limited-overs game

Aakash Chopra14-Nov-2012When Gautam Gambhir started out, there was much to like about his batting.He had nimble footwork for an opener, which made him an exceptionally good player against spinners. When a spinner flighted the ball, he would use his feet effectively to reach the pitch of the delivery. His eagerness to do so forced bowlers to shorten their length, to which Gambhir responded beautifully by going deep into his crease to create room.Against the quicker men, he didn’t possess the tightest of techniques, but like all good players, he found a way around it. He would always be looking for runs, which meant a lot of dabbing and running to rotate the strike, and also punishing anything that landed in his striking zone. He rarely missed out on an opportunity to score.In addition to the ability to punish loose balls, he also mastered the art of making every start count and of scoring big hundreds. His hunger for runs and penchant for batting for long made up for the minor technical deficiencies.While these qualities were enough to bring success initially in international cricket, Gambhir’s technical imperfections showed up when the going got tough. Unfortunately for him, these snags were related to each other, which meant that one faux pas would lead to the other.When he stood in his stance, his head had the tendency to fall towards the off side, and that resulted in a very short-and-across front-foot stride. The moment the head falls, the judgement of line gets blurred. Balls pitching on the line of the fourth or fifth stump seem to be pitching on off-stump, and instead of leaving them alone, you tend to fish at them. The ones pitching on middle seem to be drifting down the leg side, and hence you attempt to play them towards square leg or midwicket instead of straight. It goes without saying that the moment you miss the ball, you are caught dead in front.Gary Kirsten was quick to not only point out these lapses but also correct them. He asked Gambhir to position his head on top of his right shoulder while in the stance, which took care of his habit of leaning on the bat. Once the head stopped falling, Gambhir started leaving alone the balls that were meant to be left alone.The second adjustment was to take the forward stride towards the bowler, which resulted in the front foot going a lot straighter. In addition, he started playing the ball a lot straighter and also very late.This tweaking worked well for Gambhir, kickstarting one of his most successful periods in international cricket. The best part about his progress was that while he was wiping out minor flaws in his technique, he also kept building on his strengths. The results were there for everyone to see, which included him reaching the top of the Test batting rankings.

It cannot be the case that Gambhir is not aware of the repercussions of opening the face of his bat to run the ball down fine, but at times instincts overrule rational thinking

In the last couple of years, though, a rather significant pattern has emerged in Gambhir’s international performances. He has continued to be among the runs in the shorter formats, but has struggled to put together big innings in the longer format on a regular basis. He seems to come out with an attacking mindset in limited-overs cricket, which results in decisive foot movements, but oddly, he seems to be in two minds in the longer format. His “neither here nor there” frame of mind is among the major reasons for the decline in his Test form.Perhaps it has something to do with the (bad) habits one tends to pick up while playing too much short-format cricket. Though Gambhir has shots all around the wicket, he prefers dabbing the ball down to the third-man region. While it’s an easy single in the shorter formats, fielders at slips and gully plug that hole neatly in Test cricket. It cannot be the case that Gambhir is not aware of the repercussions of opening the face of his bat to run the ball down fine, but at times instincts overrule rational thinking.In Australia and against New Zealand, he tried hard to be more judicious about the balls he played and left around the off stump. But just one error of judgement was enough to end his resolve each time; after leaving a few balls alone, he would be lured into playing one that too should have been left alone.Gambhir’s lack of Test runs isn’t because of a technical failing, so he will find it hard to look for answers in manuals or from cricket coaches. His problem is with his mindset, particularly about controlling his instincts. It may not be a bad idea for him to spend a few hours with Sachin Tendulkar and pick his brains on the innings Tendulkar played in Sydney in 2004. In that particular innings of 241 not out, Tendulkar showed immense control over his faculties by not playing a single cover drive in the entire innings. Gambhir will have to follow suit by telling himself that there isn’t a single run available behind the stumps to him in Test cricket. Also, perhaps he needs to make a resolution to play only in front of the stumps to fast bowlers.He may only be a couple of good innings away from finding prime form, but he’s also only a couple of poor innings away from getting dropped from the team. Now it’s mind over matter.

In the past, Bangladesh have competed for parts of Test matches before folding. Can they avoid a familiar story on Saturday?

Mohammad Isam in Mirpur16-Nov-2012The fifth day’s play of the Dhaka Test will be Bangladesh’s second “final” of the year, but the cricket to be played on the final day against West Indies will have little resemblance to the other final held in March.
In the last four days, the batsmen got them the first-innings lead and a late burst of wickets from the spinners on the fourth evening means Bangladesh still have a say in the proceedings. Such a position is not rare but they have often squandered it. To handle it properly, the Bangladesh team has to harness their talent with an attitude that combines pragmatism and creativity.The most crucial phase will be when Bangladesh chase. Having posted their highest-ever score and crossed the 500-mark for the first time, the threat of free-fall is looming. The batting line-up has normally had calamitous second innings’ after crossing the 400-mark in the past. The team’s inaugural Test is a prime example while the same happened against Australia in Fatullah, against England in Dhaka and against New Zealand in Hamilton.Also, out of the 13 times they have batted in the fourth innings of a Test, Bangladesh have been bowled out ten times. The batting worries multiply given the gap between Bangladesh’s last Test and the current one, but they can take inspiration from the two times they fought to a draw by batting well on the final day and, of course, the three wins in their Test history.The recent confidence is going to come from Tamim Iqbal’s form and Naeem Islam’s new-found doggedness, along with the batting that goes on till No. 8. But pessimistic Bangladesh fans would suggest that those who scored 62, 72, 89, 96 and 108 have already completed their quota of runs for the match, if not the series.If Bangladesh acknowledge their trend of making few after plenty, they will apply a bit of pragmatism to their approach, especially if they have to bat out time to save the game. If however the chase is on, the batsmen must show maturity in adapting. They haven’t done this in the past, so they have to be creative about chasing, and not just go after the bowling.But before they go out to bat, the bowlers have to mop up the West Indies tail which is likely to include the ill Shivnarine Chanderpaul. The condition of the wicket would be crucial but it is unlikely to vary too much even though a few deliveries did burst through late on the fourth afternoon.The old ball is expected to turn a lot, and that is where Mushfiqur Rahim has to take charge. Shakib Al Hasan and Sohag Gazi have bowled well in tandem so far, and the captain should press on with the spin duo in an all-out attempt to break the overnight partnership. But if he wants to settle for a draw, he will have to take the lead in ensuring the Bangladesh second innings starts as late in the day as possible (and then brace for criticism).There are lessons too from that narrow defeat to Pakistan in the Asia Cup. Tamim had scored 60 but wasn’t determined enough to turn it into a big score while there was agonisingly slow batting from Nazimuddin and Nasir Hossain. There was an assumption that when Tamim or Shakib Al Hasan are blazing away, the rest can sit back. It won’t be the case on the fifth day when all eight frontline batsmen have to contribute to save or win against West Indies.The selection panel has announced an unchanged side for the second Test in Khulna, but it shouldn’t be the only encouragement for Junaid Siddique and Shahriar Nafees, or for Shahadat Hossain and Rubel Hossain. It is missing the percentages that often hamper Bangladesh’s chances of winning, something they can’t afford on Saturday.

Bracing weather, a picturesque landing, and men with famous surnames making their mark – they all feature in the first edition of our correspondent’s New Zealand diary

Andrew McGlashan12-Mar-2013February 25
London-Dubai-Sydney-Christchurch. Not really sure what day it is. First time back in Christchurch since the devastating earthquake in 2011. On the drive from the airport you can see corrugated road surfaces that are among the effects of the quake. Decide to take a walk around; quite a sobering experience. A section of the CBD is still cordoned off, although shrinking all the time as construction continues. The hotel I stayed in on my previous visit is one of many buildings no longer standing. This will be a low-rise city from now. Love some of the initiative shown in temporary structures, such as a shopping area made of shipping containers, and an entertainment block of packing crates. The city wants to be a host for the 2015 World Cup. Hope it comes their way.February 26
“Ladies and gentlemen, we have begun out descent into…” When the captain makes that announcement it is not, normally, a precursor to much more than closing your tray tables and putting your seats in the upright position. However, when those words are followed by “Queenstown”, it is the cue to fix your gaze outside the window, or to politely ask the other passengers in your row if they mind some encroachment into their personal space.Arriving in Queenstown, on New Zealand’s South Island, is one of the world’s great landings. Google a list and it is often alongside places such as Hong Kong, St Maarten (where you land just metres beyond the beach), and some of the white-knuckle runways in the Himalayas. Aircraft take a narrow course between the mountains, banking left and right. As the landing gear is lowered, and the earth approaches, you can see the Queenstown Events Centre – the rather unglamorous name for the cricket ground, which has provided the foreground for many airplane-landing-over-match pictures.Straight from the airport to England’s first red-ball training session. Andy Flower is back in charge and directs the centre-wicket practice. Alastair Cook and Nick Compton bat together. Presume that means no batting changes.February 27
There are not many better locations for a cricket match. The contest on the pitch is good too. New Zealand’s eager attack nip the ball round and it needs a classy ton from Ian Bell to keep England on track for a decent total.After play, make it to the waterfront in time for sunset. The light catches the top of the mountains. They are truly remarkable.February 28
It’s always interesting when players likely to appear in a Test a few days later face the opposition in a match such as this. Notes are taken by both sides. Hamish Rutherford makes an impressive 90. The England bowlers are forced to work hard. During his innings he has contact-lens trouble. “It ended up somewhere near my brain,” he says afterwards.March 1
Corey Anderson picked up a side strain bowling in the first innings, but it doesn’t appear to impact his batting as he clubs England for 67 off 62 balls. One over from Graham Onions costs 22. Then England’s top order falls to 67 for 4. Not a convincing day.The evening is spent with Mike Walters, who is covering the trip for the and is back on tour for the first time in seven years. Listen to some great stories of touring years ago. Things have certainly changed.March 2
Neil Wagner has close to the perfect day. Gets added to the New Zealand Test squad and hits the winning runs as the XI chase down 334 with eight balls to spare. Isn’t afraid to speak his mind at the press conference: “It’s good that Kevin Pietersen hasn’t batted very long.” Looking forward to Wagner v KP in the Tests.Last evening in Queenstown, but it’s a quiet one, spent with a couple of colleagues discussing the new county cricket season. (Well, it’s only a month away.)March 3
Another lovely journey, this time from Queenstown to Dunedin. You really do get spoilt over here. Valleys, mountains, lakes, rivers, forests and wildlife. Pass through a small town called Waihola just outside of Dunedin. Sign on arriving says, “No doctor, no hospital, one cemetery.”Immediately feel the chillier climate of the east coast, although, like most of New Zealand, Dunedin has had a warm, dry summer. There’s a cricket match in town. Isn’t that normally the signal for a change?An entertainment block in Christchurch, where packing crates feature prominently•Andrew McGlashan/ESPNcricinfo LtdThe game also coincides with Freshers’ Week for Otago University. That coupled with the Barmy Army in town means it should be lively.March 5
It’s New Zealand census day and visitors to the country have to fill a form in as well. The census has been delayed two years because of the Christchurch earthquake, which caused so much displacement that it would have distorted any survey. The news channels have stories of the lengths the census-takers go to to ensure everyone fills out a form and all properties are logged. It means going around abandoned buildings and making trips to the many remote islands, especially in New Zealand’s north, where people who don’t want to be found often go. I make it easy for them. One page, a few tick boxes and my duty is done.The early evening is spent at a function put on by Otago Cricket at University Oval. They are immensely proud of hosting this Test. “Four years ago we set out our aim to get an England Test,” Ross Dykes, the Otago CEO, says. “This is the pinnacle for us.” Finishing touches are being put to the ground, which looks a picture.March 6
The cricket-weather jinx strikes again. The cloud rolls in almost as Brendon McCullum says, “We’ll bowl.” The front row of the press tent quickly gets soaked – not ideal for the electrics – and the grass banks, which were filling up moments earlier, start to empty as fans hunt for cover. Feel desperately sorry for the local organisers.March 7
Close-of-play score: 167 all out plays 131 without loss. Not the dominant start many expected England to make. They have been inept; New Zealand have had a day they could scarcely have dreamt of. Wagner is the main man, marking his first home Test with the notable scalps of Alastair Cook, Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell.March 8
Hamish Rutherford makes a magnificent 171. Feels like we’ve seen the start of a long Test career. His father, Ken, followed every ball from his home in South Africa and his mother, Karen Broad, was at the ground. ”I remember when he was six months old and from the moment he could sit up he had a little bat. We spent all day bowling to him,” she tells the . “And Tom [Hamish’s younger brother] was no different. “It is overwhelming. I’m just so proud of him. He has just done so well and he is so confident and calm.”March 9
Turning into a family Test at University Oval. Following Rutherford’s innings, Nick Compton fights to his maiden Test century. He gives a press conference of rare emotion and openness. When asked about the family name, he just replies. “It’s nice to do something my grandfather did, sure, but right now I’m happy for myself and my family.”March 10
Catch a few minutes with Richard Compton, Nick’s dad, while queuing for coffee. He is still beaming with pride. The photos of his first-pump when Nick reached his hundred are all over the press. “The support from South Africa has been amazing as well,” he says, “I spent all night replying to messages.” He was particularly delighted with a couple of Nick’s cover drives. “I hadn’t seen him play them so well before. In England he would say it was just too risky.”The batting story of the day, though, is Steven Finn. He doesn’t quite seem to know how to celebrate when he reaches 50. Maybe he’ll get another chance. Anyway, it’s all square. Next stop Wellington. I bet it’s windy.

Plays of the day from the IPL game between Delhi Daredevils and Pune Warriors in Raipur

Siddhartha Talya28-Apr-2013The glitch
There was some worry for the staff at Raipur’s Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Stadium just 13 minutes into the venue’s first game, as play was held up for a while in the second over due to sightscreen trouble. Seven minutes were lost, until play resumed and proceeded smoothly thereafter.The debut
Kane Richardson played his first game of the IPL and he was visibly nervous when brought on to bowl in the second over of the day. It was one he’ll remember, for bowling wide and producing an outside edge for four past third man. He went on to concede 38 in his four-over spell, not the best start for someone who sold for $700,000 at the auction.The surprise
Robin Uthappa is not a specialist wicketkeeper but his glovework was impressive today, with three catches. The best among them was a nick he snapped off Ben Rohrer’s bat while standing up to Abhishek Nayar. Rohrer slashed hard, got a thick edge and Uthappa reacted well, moving quickly to his left and wrapping his gloves around a sharp one.The escape
Aaron Finch had a huge slice of fortune in Pune Warriors’ chase. The first ball of Morne Morkel’s second over, Finch got a leading edge that landed smack in the middle of the patch between mid-off and extra cover. He took off for the single and would have been miles out of his ground had Mahela Jayawardene aimed accurately at the non-striker’s end.The error
Finch was at the receiving end of some bad luck later in his innings when he was given out caught behind, the umpiring thinking it flicked his glove down the leg side when in fact it had brushed his thigh. The luck was in favour of Irfan Pathan, who picked up two wickets that over with deliveries bowled down leg.

Stats highlights from England’s impressive 170-run win in the first Test against New Zealand at Lord’s

S Rajesh19-May-2013

• New Zealand’s total of 68 in the fourth innings at Lord’s is their ninth-lowest total in Tests; six of those have been against England. In terms of overs faced, the 22.3 that they were bowled out in at Lord’s is their second-lowest ever, next only to the 19.2 that they faced against South Africa in Cape Town earlier this year.
• This is also the fourth-lowest number of overs played by a team in a completed innings at Lord’s, while there have been nine lower totals at the ground.
• Forty wickets fell for 720 runs in the Test, an average of 18 runs per wicket. This is the lowest match average at Lord’s in the last 12 years, and the second-lowest in the last 53. The only instance of a lower average since 1960 was the 2000 Test between England and West Indies, when 646 runs were scored for the loss of 38 wickets – an average of 17. England won that Test by two wickets despite being bowled out for 134 in their first innings, because they hit back and bowled West Indies out for 54 in their second. New Zealand’s 68 is the lowest total at Lord’s since West Indies’ 54 in that game.
• For only the second time in their Test history, New Zealand’s top six all fell for single-digit scores. The only previous instance of this happening was against Pakistan in Dhaka in 1955-56. Overall, this is the 19th such instance in Tests.
• New Zealand lost their first six wickets for 29, the third time in 2013 that they’ve been six down for less than 40. In the first Test of the South Africa tour in Cape Town, they were six down for 28 before being bowled out for 45. In the next Test, in Port Elizabeth, they were 39 for 6 before being all out for 121.
• Stuart Broad’s figures of 7 for 44 are his best in Tests, and his second haul of seven in Tests: he had taken 7 for 72 against West Indies at the same venue last year. In ten Tests at Lord’s, Broad has taken 47 wickets at 26.82; At no other venue has he taken even 20 Test wickets. (Click here for his venue-wise stats.)
• Broad’s seven wickets came in just 11 overs. Only four times in Test cricket has a bowler bowled fewer deliveries in an innings to finish with a haul of seven or more wickets. The last of those instances was in 1952, when Fred Trueman took 8 for 31 in 8.4 overs against India at Old Trafford.
• For the first time since 1999, a team was all out with two bowlers bowling unchanged through an entire innings. In 1999, Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie combined to bowl West Indies out for 51 in Port of Spain.
• New Zealand’s top-score in their second innings was 17, by Neil Wagner, batting at No. 9. Only five times in their Test history have New Zealand had a lower top-score. One of those five instances was in Cape Town earlier this year, when Kane Williamson’s 13 was the top-score in a total of 45.
• This is the fourth time in the last seven years that a No. 9 batsman has top-scored for New Zealand in Tests. Tim Southee did it in consecutive Tests in 2010-11 – scoring 31 against India in the third Test of the 2010 series in Nagpur, and 56 against Pakistan. Daniel Vettori was the other batsman who achieved it during this period, scoring 38 against South Africa in April 2006. Between March 1990 and March 2006, there wasn’t a single such instance for New Zealand.
• New Zealand didn’t have a whole lot to celebrate on the final day, except in the first hour, when they took four wickets to bundle England out for 213. The architect of that collapse was Southee, who took six in the second innings to finish with a match haul of 10 for 108. Southee became only the second New Zealand bowler to take ten wickets in a Lord’s Test. The first wasn’t Richard Hadlee, but Dion Nash, who took 11 for 169 in 1994. Hadlee’s best here was 8 for 135 in 1983, while he also took seven on a couple of occasions.