Twenty20 squads have no room for test players...

...unless of course you're Ricky Ponting, or some other batsman of that calibre. And I agree with this sentiment. In order to succeed in Twenty20 cricket, squads need to be picked that include young, aggressive batsmen that have experience in the twenty over format. England, recently picked their team and included only their 20 over specialists. It is pointless to include test players or even ODI middle order batsmen. I disagree with the idea that a good batsman is a good batsman over the course of 100 overs, 50 overs, or 5 overs. Not true at all.

I'd much rather have Shahid Afridi bat for 12 balls, then Mohammad Yousuf bat for those 12 balls in the shortest format of the game. England plays the most twenty20 games in the world today, and have selected players that have the most experience. Regardless of how good an international star is, or his career statistics, this format of the game is best suited to strokemakers and bashers.

The Pakistani squad for the Twenty20 WC just got selected and Mohd. Yousuf wasn't included. I think its a great squad! Osman Samiuddin over at Cricinfo was more than a bit peeved at this decision however. He writes...

From this they took a not inconsiderable leap and concluded - on what basis is still not clear - that Misbah-ul-Haq (ostensibly the replacement) might do the job better than Yousuf has been doing over the last year. Perhaps Misbah's impressive domestic Twenty20 average (just under 50) got him the nod over a man with over 14,000 international runs, 35 international hundreds and just off a patch so purple, popstar Prince would have been jealous.

Needless to say, that's convincing enough for me. Misbah has average of 50 in this version of the game, has played dozens more games and is reputed to be the most sold batsman in Pakistan's domestic scene. Yousuf is not cut out for 20 over cricket. We don't need someone who has a strike-rate of 100. We need batsmen with S.R's over 150 or 200. And Misbah has a shot at international cricket way too long ago. That really can't be reason enough to discount his ability. That was years ago and only a few games. Give the guy a chance!

As far as Razzak being knocked out. Well, this was a decision that finally makes sense. Pakistan cricket should be about winning games using the best players at our disposal. Why should stars of yesteryear be selected purely on the weight of their statistics. That's unfair to the current players, unprofessional and undeniably stupid. Fawad has his ODI shot and admittedly bungled it. Big deal. It was only one game. This kid has had such a tremendous year in domestic cricket that he deserves few more shots at the top level.

In any case, Twenty20 is any ones game on any one's day. Zimbabwe have as good a shot at winning this World Cup as do South Africa. Selection in this format is much less of a gamble than it is in test cricket. It's meant to be a fun format, for the crowds, so why bother getting worked up about selections? Just choose great fielders, accurate bowlers and aggressive batsmen. That's it. And if predictions are anything to live by, I feel that the Twenty20 cup will save the game and give it that breath of fresh air that it so desperately needs.

Is Flintoff overrated as a batsman?

While watching England play these days in the World Cup, I can't help but feel that nothing much is going to happen whenever Flintoff comes into bat. To me, its the start of the English tail, which isn't exactly too great. Agreed, Flintoff is in a big slump as of late, but is he just simply overrated? Raza, who commented on my "Vaughan needs to go" post, is of the opinion that Flintoff is indeed overrated, so I wanted to check out his stats and see what's going on.

Here is Flintoff's run breakdown by year since he made his debut in 99.

Year	M	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
1999	9	6	0	1	0	50	100	16.67
2000	11	9	1	1	0	84	206	25.75
2001	8	6	1	0	0	46	144	28.8
2002	18	17	1	3	0	52	397	24.81
2003	20	20	6	6	0	*70	631	45.07
2004	14	13	2	2	3	123	633	57.55
2005	18	15	1	2	0	87	490	35
2006	7	7	0	0	0	41	102	14.57
2007	15	14	2	1	0	*72	330	27.5
Overall (9)	120	107	14	16	3	123	3033	32.61

His overall batting average falls from 32.61 to 30.81 if one removes the minnows. Here is his performance in ODI's by opponent.

Versus	M	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
Australia	21	19	1	1	0	87	519	28.83
India	21	20	1	4	0	99	580	30.53
New Zealand	11	11	1	1	1	106	277	27.7
Pakistan	14	14	2	3	0	84	443	36.92
South Africa	6	6	1	1	0	54	129	25.8
Sri Lanka	10	9	1	1	1	104	222	27.75
West Indies	11	9	1	1	1	123	295	36.88
Overall (13)	94	88	8	12	3	123	2465	30.81

It's pretty consistent and thus doesn't tell us much, but its important to put it up to indicate that its not the opponent that's the problem. What about batting position?

Position	Inns	NO	50s	100s	HS	Runs	Avg
Opening
No. 3	9	1	0	0	*42	143	17.88
No. 4	11	0	2	0	52	260	23.64
No. 5	40	8	9	3	123	1448	45.25
No. 6	34	3	3	0	84	808	26.06
No. 7	12	2	2	0	64	358	35.8
No. 8	1	0	0	0	16	16	16
No. 9
No. 10
No. 11
Overall	107	14	16	3	123	3033	32.61

Well, he currently bats after Collingwood at number 6, yet even this graph isn't too telling. It does show us, however, that he is uncomfortable against the new ball, which isn't exactly news either. As an aggressive stroke maker one would expect a hard seaming ball to disturb him. He has been tried at one-down with not much success.

So obviously he is in a slump in the past two years, and his confidance is shot, but he had an average of 35+ from 2003-2005, so I can't conclude that he is overrated. His average over 13 innings in 2004 was almost 58, including 3 centuries against New Zealand, West Indies and Sri Lanka. That's no fluke by any stretch of the imagination.

But his position in the lineup is what irks me most. He is no 4 down batsman, and England should get a proper middle order batsman and shift Flintoff down by 1 to 5-down. I wrote something similar a couple of weeks ago, asking for my reader's opinion. The Atheist suggested a change of approach, rather than a change in batting order. Its true, but a change of approach doesn't solve the problem of a weak late middle order. England aren't aggressive enough when they really need to grab the bull by the horns. Nixon and Flintoff just don't have the ability to last 10 overs. And KP can't be expected to do everything with regards to approach, can he? Homer, in my opinion, made more sense and suggested inserting Dalrymple up the order, as he is a grafter, and can buy England some time in the middle and save Flintoff for some big hitting at the end.

Thoughts?

Vaughan needs to go

If England wants to be competitive in the one day arena, then they really can't afford to bugger around with a useless contributor like Michael Vaughan. For a while, it was amusing that Vaughan was playing, more so as a captain, rather than a batsman, but how long can this facade go on?

It's pretty much expected from the opposition that England will be losing their openers pretty soon after they start batting. Vaughan has had a terrible World Cup as a batsman, and he hasn't done anything to extraordinary as captain either. I would let Ed Joyce play with Strauss at the top. At least Joyce has had some success in this WC, while Strauss is just out of form. As far as ODI's go, Vaughan has never really ever been in ODI form. In fact, his position in the ODI side has always been debated. He's a good test opener, but in ODI's, every person needs to contribute accordingly and England are feeling the brunt of losing wickets at the top of the order too fast. One can't expect the middle order to bail them out every time. On that note, Collingwood, Bell and KP are doing a great job, but is it fair to ask them to score 80% of the runs?

Sure, Strauss failed today, but Vaughan has failed in the last 6 games. Might as well bring Joyce back in and pull out Vaughan. At least England will get some runs out of it. If they desperately need captaincy, Vaughan can bring in the drinks and dictate field placings and what not from the sidelines. It's what is best for England...

England frustrate me. They had the game by the throat at 160/2 at the 30th over, and they let the friggin Australians go.

Super 8's preview and predictions

India's out and it just got a bit more boring

Though, we all agree, they deserved to go, while Bangladesh thoroughly deserve it!

But still, one can be sad that the clash between India and Pakistan is not going to happen anymore. That was going to be one fun match. But there are still some epic games left. I am looking forward to Eng-Aus, NZ-Aus, and especially SL playing anyone. More on this in a few paragraphs.

Is the criticism on this World Cup's format justified?

I read some dude talking about how just 2 bad games in the first round was more than enough to kick a good side out of the World Cup. He concluded that such a format was not the right one for ensuring that the best teams play each other in the super 8's.

Well, that's retarded! This is the World Cup after all, teams should be playing their best and their hardest, and yes, 2 bad days SHOULD be enough to boot a good team. If they're good, then they should under-perform. Pakistan and India obviously didn't play well and were beaten by better sides on that day. So, I think the fellow's argument is a bit skewed and he is probably just hurt.

Bangladesh and Ireland's chances

Pretty much zilch to be honest, but Bangladesh have a shot for the semis. They have the capability of beating England, West Indies and New Zealand on their day. I hate predicting stuff, plus I am nowhere as good as this chap, so I'll just discuss match-ups and leave the predictions up to you.

My final four

No sooner than I said I don't do predictions, here I am telling you who I think the semi-finalists will be. I lie.

Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka.

Yes Sir. That's it. No England. No Ireland. No Bangladesh, and no West Indies. Well, maybe West Indies. It's either West Indies or New Zealand, I believe. But I'll probably change my prediction anyway by the time the semi-finals come around and I find out I was wrong. I'll subsequently edit this entry, announce that I was right in my predictions all along, and that I am the best.

Yeah. That's right. It's not so difficult to edit this blog entry. I have the password.

Who do I want as the WC champion?

Sri Lanka! Yup. I really like these guys. Been a big Lanka supporter for years now. I know you couldn't tell. But lets hope these plucky buggers can bring us the World Cup.

England need another middle-order batsman in the lineup

And I wrote this well before they were struggling. They're lucky to get to 209, but 138/7 is a clear sign that their middle order is too brittle. My issue with their lineup is that there are not enough specialist batsmen. I feel Flintoff bats too high up. 4 down is not appropriate enough position for him. I feel that they are missing a genuine middle order stroke maker at 4 down. If they get rid of Dalrymple for example, (though in all honesty, Michael Vaughan should go), they still will have 5 bowlers, but an added batsmen. Who will that fellow be? Well Strauss obviously can then open while Joyce can then bat somewhere else.

I know a bunch of England fans read this blog. What do you guys think? Inserting another batsman right after Collingwood extends the middle order, and allows for Flintoff to play his strokes late in the game.

Harmison hates cricket

Though initially charming, titles of my posts skirting and manipulating, "Omar Loves Cricket", are a concept that has probably long worn off. Nevertheless, I will continue to amuse myself.

Steve Harmison is a strange fellow. He sucked during the Ashes apart from a couple of decent spells, retired from ODI's soon after, and is finally speaking out about his retirement and the Ashes.

He told the Mail on Sunday: "From the very first ball of the Ashes series I hated the game of cricket. I've made myself a promise as a result: from now on I'm going to make sure, whatever happens, I enjoy myself.

"Everybody told me it had been made out that I'd virtually lost the Ashes on my own.

"None of our big players turned up, at least not on a consistent basis, and some of us failed to achieve anything at all. I'd place myself in that last category.

"But I do feel I've been made a scapegoat, and I think, in part, it's because of my perceived laid-back attitude."

Harmison's plan had always been to quit ODIs after the World Cup in a bid to prolong his Test career, however his failure in the Ashes forced him to bring forward his retirement.

He said: "The plan was to pack in after the World Cup. I first thought about it in South Africa in 2004 and told Michael Vaughan.

"Last year, I missed Tests through an injury from a one-day series and in India I realised I'd had enough. I wanted to prolong my Test career and that's why I've packed in one-dayers.

"Martyn Moxon, who has just left as Durham coach, asked me if I'd missed playing for England when they beat Australia in the one-day final last month. I told him I missed celebrating on the balcony but not the game. He replied: 'You made the right decision'."

Good riddance to him then! I hate this sort of attitude from a cricketer. I'm not even English and I'm pissed off at him. What a sorry way of justifying his poor performances. He was selected to represent his country, which is such an honor, and naturally, a lot of hopes rested on his shoulder. He claims that a lot of other players didn't perform as well, but none of them seem to hate the sport they were playing. That's no excuse and its this defeatist attitude that irritates me.

Harmy doesn't agree with the critics opinion of his 'perceived laid-back attitude'? However, how is it perceived wrong, if he is claiming he hates the bloody sport? The critics are right on the money there buddy.

English cricket doesn't need Harmison on the balcony either. That's useless. The balcony should be full of players who ache to be on the field at any chance they can get. This chap belongs in the stands as a cheerleader, as cricket is lot better off without such depressing characters.

On a side note, what is up with trend of English players who can't seem to handle the mental strain of an international career? Marcus Trescothick comes to mind...

Thank you England!

England beat Australia in the 2nd final to win the Commonwealth Bank series!

Yes!

What an incredible victory! It's hard to express my joy. My depression over Pakistan's thrashing yesterday at the hands of the South Africans, has been pretty much appeased by England ending their tour on a high note.

As my readers can probably gauge, I support Pakistan most of the time, but I also support any team battling Australia. I admit having a lot of respect for Australian cricketers and their aggressive and clinical style of cricket, but their domination is boring, their arrogance is irritating, and seeing them lose on their own soil is pleasing as hell. We all love the underdog, and after a dismal series, England have really pulled this victory out of a hat. After a terrible hiding in the Ashes, its great to see England return home with their heads held high.

This also spells great news for the rest of the cricketing nations. Australia have been beaten convincingly, very soon before the World Cup, and that too in a format in which they are expected to dominate. They're probably still going to be the favorites to lift the cup, but I bet they're not going to be as cocky as before.

Anyway....Brilliantly done!

England matching Pakistani injury lists knee for knee, hamstring for hamstring

Vaughan has flown back home to England. Shabbir Ahmed played a single twenty20 and Shoaib Akhtar just played for a couple of sessions of a test and both went home. Is anyone else a bit shocked by the spate of injuries that have befallen the English and Pakistani sides? I'm no doctor, but its safe to assume the amount of cricket being played today is reducing the shelf life of our cricketers. I remember supporting Gavaskar just last year when he ridiculed the complaints of modern players on being burnt-out.

"These players are turning out for their countries. It's an honour to represent your country. I would be willing to sweat 365 days in a year for India. Those who can't stand the heat should stay out."

At the time I thought it was silly for highly paid players to complain while they had the best health care possible provided to them. Mike Selvey's response to Gavaskar last year was apt and equally valid today. Some excerpts...

What Gavaskar fails or is unwilling to grasp is the idea that it is not the volume of cricket but rather the sheer intensity of it that creates the problems.

But this does not mean we should not listen to the rest of the world on this issue. When Brett Lee confesses that the petrol has run out and he is "bowling on fumes", it really does mean something. The home boards have a duty of care to state this in the strongest terms to the ICC.

The cricketing boards are really packing in the tours for commercial purposes, and the cricketers are feeling the adverse effects. I feel that the rift between team management and their respective boards with regards to player burnout is increasing. The management have no choice but to rest key players, and adopt rotation policies. New Zealand have implemented a rotation policy for a quite a while now. However, w hen you rest key players, the competition gets reduced, and the quality of match play goes down.

Woolmer, amongst others, recently spoke up against this hectic South Africa tour, and these collective voices against overburdening the cricketers are getting louder. No matter how good medical staffs are, it seems to me that they can't catch up to the pace of international cricket. Or maybe its just Pakistan that seems to be suffering a lot. Shoaib Akhtar, Shabbir Ahmed, Umar Gul, Razzak and Malik are all on the path to recovery from some ailment or the other. England also have Anderson, KP (though he was just unlucky), and Vaughan, who keeps finding new ways to injure his fragile body. The PCB has recently launched an inquiry into how these players are getting injured to often, and England, I'm sure, will soon follow and is also concerned.

We are concerned with the number of injuries we have had on this tour and we don`t want a repeat of this in future events," a senior PCB official said.

"The chairman PCB Dr Naseem Ashraf himself is going to look into this issue and we will have our medical panel examine all the players before the World Cup squad is finalized," said director, cricket operations, Saleem Altaf.

I never thought it would come to this for me, but there really is too much nonsensical cricket being played. The commercial aspects seem to have become the primary objective, and though the fans are getting what they pay for, injuries to players is undoubtedly the biggest side effect. It is also arguable whether the quality of cricket being played is deteriorating. Tim de Lisle's column in Cricinfo touches upon how this is changing the game we all love.

I love watching cricket so my suggestion is to have separate teams for separate forms of the game, thus each squad can focus on their specialty. Naturally some players are well-accustomed to several forms of the game, and they can be rotated. If twenty20 is the next big thing, then countries should develop pure twenty20 players. If the various boards develop a strong bench of players from which to choose from, not only will players develop their game since a lot more are seeing international cricket, but the fans are getting what they want. More cricket...

In a sense this is already being implement by most boards, and it is bound to become a staple for the cricketing nations in because in my opinion there is no way, the ICC will hold back on the amount of cricket being played. Its just not going to happen. Though I'm happy with our sport's success, I am worried about the people in charge and their obsession with Benjamins.

England extend 'winning streak'

Agreed, it's only a 2 game winning streak, but under the circumstances, its quite an achievement! It was a long shot to the finals, but as I had hoped, it just might turn out to be an interesting battle versus Australia. The advantages of streaks in ODI cricket are quite short lived, and as a result England will be quite confidant going into the first final having beaten Australia in their last encounter. The Aussies will also be taking this game very seriously and will not be resting Ponting or any key players. Since they were beaten pretty effectively last time, they must have realized that this English side may have finally got their act together.

Have they gotten their act together though? Don't know. From the match reports, the bowling wasn't too penetrating, while the top order was a quite brittle. Lets hope for the sake of competition that the English streak extends to 3 games!

Check out Monty and Vaughan do the tango in this picture. Should Vaughan really be stressing his knees this way?

England finally beat Australia

Australia's utter dominance down under in this Commonwealth Bank series against New Zealand and England made this series quite boring to follow. Though its good to see England finally beating Australia. No doubt, this victory will do them a world of good. I glanced at the points table and both New Zealand and Eng are tied with 9 points apiece. They both have a chance of making it to the final.

The batting finally came together, with Joyce providing the anchor and everyone batting around him. Its tough to score a century anyway, and for his maiden century to be against Australia in such trying times is an even bigger deal.

I'm also pleased to see Australia getting whipped in this game. Arguably, their loss shows their over-reliance on their skipper, Ricky Ponting, who was rested for this game. Now wouldn't it be amusing if England make it to the final and beat Australia? Well, unlikely as that may be, it would the dreamiest way to end this dreadful and demoralizing winter tour.

Strauss probably better choice for captain than Flintoff

Andrew Flintoff had finally regained some form after a terrible Ashes campaign and England finally won a game. Things were going just dandy...Vaughan was back...and there was some rumors flying around about the uncertainty of the vice-captaincy. Now Vaughan is gone again and the selectors have made Flintoff captain once again.

How unsettling it must be for the English side. Not only are the low on confidence, but their specialist captain just crumbled away (again) and they're back to square one it seems. Strauss did well against Pakistan and Sri Lanka as captain on home soil. He should have been retained. Perhaps the responsibility rests better on his shoulders than on Flintoff's.

There is no doubt that Flintoff is a most important member of the English side. He fulfill 2 very important duties already, and the burden of captaincy rests once again on his shoulders. Obviously he will say he is ready to take it on. Who wouldn't? Plus Flintoff doesn't seem like the sort to shirk away.

What are the selectors thinking? Did they not watch the Ashes like we did? Why not admit one's mistakes and realize that, though he is a natural leader within team, and may very well be the future captain, he is too important a member of this side, to young and too inexperienced to juggle everything all at once.

Hmm...Can Vaughan captain from the dressing room? Make it baseball style management...Uhh..No! Sorry I even said that.

Michael Vaughan plagued by bad luck

Vaughan unlucky streak continues. After a couple of decent games, where he looked confidant, he's now done in by a hamstring tear. In hindsight, the English selectors should not have been so eager to bring him back into the thick of things, without achieving a 100% fitness. Whether this latest injury is due to his overall lack of fitness or just a freak accident is debatable. But by risking to play him without significant first class games or a completely clean bill of health, the English selectors may have compromised his career.

I also think its quite unfair, especially to those who are actually scoring runs back in England, to bring in a fellow, who hasn't played much cricket at all, and make him captain once again. Its unprofessional and the state of England's international squad needs a revival fast. The world cup is around the corner. Though one might argue, a sound thrashing by even the minnows of cricket, in that tournament would be a sufficient wake up call.

Dear England, you depress me...

You showed no fight.

I'll be honest, I knew you would lose the Ashes, but I didn't think you would get rolled over so emphatically. Your victory last year will now be looked upon as just an anomaly. I am disappointed that did not play up to your full potential. I guess I'm more disillusioned (and impressed) by how ruthlessly the Aussies are playing now. Even with aging players, they continue to dominate this game. Last year's victory was a glimpse of perhaps a new era. That Australia were, in fact, beatable, that they have weaknesses just like all of us. There were indications that perhaps the world order of cricket might have changed slightly against their favor.

Not quite so...Their incredible run until this series, their planning, their desire to reclaim what should have been theirs was insurmountable. They were more aggressive and they knew how to get it. They tried new strategies, new field placings, new sledges....yet you were were stuck in glorious 2005 series. And lost or drew series after series in between.

So many mistakes. Where could I start? Playing both Giles and Jones was foolish. Choosing Flintoff as captain was foolish. Leaving out Panesar was dumb. Ignoring Mahmood was just silly. How can a bowler get into his stride, if you're not going to bowl him. He's the fastest of the lot. Give him first change and 20 overs an inning. And your batting was too defensive. While Australia scored at 4.5 runs an over, you would score at 2.5 runs. The best defense is offense. Lets not even talk about field placings. I have no clue what Flintoff must have been thinking when he placed his men.

Hope you recover soon. Sorry for the curtness in advance.

Sincerely

Warne, McGrath and now Harmison retire

Retirements in cricket, it seems, are cyclic. A few players announce their departure within a season of each other. They come in patches, and may or may not, mark the end of certain style of cricket that that particular team plays. It's too early to tell what affect Warne and McGrath's retirement will have on Australian cricket. And we still have 2 more tests to go. Since its all happening so fast, one probably wont be surprised if Langer and Hayden hang up their bats. One thing is for sure though. This Ashes meant a whole lot more to Australia. Announcing your retirement after retaking the series so emphatically, indicates how satisfied they are with their accomplishments, and how they would like to end their international careers on a high.

Though McGrath's retirement is still yet to be confirmed, its still a whole lot of retirement talk this past month. Martyn announced it after the 2nd test while Boje silently parted ways with South Africa soon after. I assumed McGrath would stay till the World Cup. Harmisson, on other hand, bar a game here or there, had become a liability for England in ODI's.

The big news is Shane Warne though. Sad day for cricket. As far as I can remember, he's been cocky, arrogant, and a his rise to cricking stardom coincided with Australia's dominance this past decade. He's been an incredible part of Australia's success. There is no doubt that he is the best at what he does. The numbers speak for themselves. But more than that, he was an integral part of the Aussie aggressive, in your face, mind games, which propelled them to the top and intimidated all others.

England can't win....can they?

226 runs required of 72 overs...

Flintoff on 51 off 66 balls.

Peitersen is 50 off 128 deliveries.

Both are batting well and have attacked Australia this morning. Do you think they can do it!?

UPDATE: Nevermind. I spoke too soon. Flintoff and Jones out.

Australia ruthless

I went to bed after Hussey made his century thinking Australia were well and truly in charge of this game. I felt sorry for England. But they seemed to bowl with no strategy. Australia, on the other hand, amended their first innings mistakes, conquered Harmisson and Panesar, and set about trying to win the test match. Drawing the game was never an option for the Aussies.

They were in control of the situation. Clarke and Hussey were dancing down the pitch, taking singles on both sides of the wicket, and smashing boundaries at will.

Naturally, I didn't think anything more would shock me afterI woke up this morning, got my cup of coffee, and checked the scoreboard.

My goodness. 102 from 59 deliveries? Are you kidding me?

Gilchrist has effectively ended this series! His onslaught, though I haven't seen it yet on reply, must have been incredibly demoralizing. No wonder most bowlers chose Gilchrist as the "World's Scariest Batsman".

The Aussies have not only given it to England like no other, but they have embarrassed the opposition beyond belief. England have been put in their place. Their Ashes win last year was an anomaly. What I am enjoying about this is how confidant everyone in their camp seemed to be coming in this Ashes series. All the talk in their media was Ashes, Ashes Ashes and how they were the 2nd best test team in the World. Their thrashing at the hands of Sri Lanka and Pakistan was a clear indicator that their class was temporary. Australia don't look like they are going to let up. I am no one to predict but 5-0 seems like the likely scenario. Save face and fly home now is my advice to the English camp.

Monty on fire!!!

Oh! How England must be regretting not playing Panesar in the first 2 test matches! This is great stuff from him on a day one pitch. If only this were the 1st test and not the 3rd...

On a side note, its great sportsmanship how Gilchrist chooses to walk. That's pretty respectable in today's game.

Poll shows 97% of the world* thinks Australia will win the Ashes

There you have it folks. The people have spoken. Australia will win the Ashes.

Though some might say 30 is too small of a polling number to make such broad-based assumptions, I shall stand by my poll and claim that it was a fair survey. I feel 30 a fairly decent sub-section of our populace, and this blog probably attracts a diverse community! The blog stats, after all, indicate that most of my visitors actually hail from the UK. So, in conclusion, 29 to 1, or 97% feel the Aussies will win.

In other news, I shall update my blog poll of the week...umm every week.

*refers to the 30 chaps who took my poll.

My advice to the England team to avoid another thrashing

Over this thanksgiving break here in the US, I managed to watch 3 of the 5 days of the first Ashes test. I didn't have time to write about it, but I had some thoughts in my mind.

First of all, this test was everything I felt it would turn out to be. England were well and soundly beaten. Australia were clinical and thorough in their approach. Flintoff might claim the damage is not resounding, and the English supporters may point to their defeat in the first test of the 2005 series, but my opinion is that, unless things change dramatically, McGrath's arrogant 2005 prediction of a 5-0 whitewash may come true this time around.

In order to avoid this England need to play Monty and Chris Read. Focusing on just wicket-keeping, Read was unfairly dropped after a decent run with the bat. Clearly Fletcher is a man who like his cronies and favorites around, but in order for his team to win matches, one needs a great wicket keeper. Read is talented and I like his batting style. He is a lot more aggressive. (more on this later)

Watching Ashley Giles bowl was painful. He is out of form and the only way he can get wickets if if they are gifted to him. England needs to put faith in their batsman, give them the added responsibility of playing one less batsmen, and play Monty Panesar. Monty is someone who creates the wicket taking opportunities that England so desperately need. The balance in the end would be worthwhile, as ideally, Australia would not score as much (since Monty would be playing) and thus, there would be less runs to chase (which is good, since you're playing a batsmen less).

As far as their batting goes, the Englishmen need to take a page out of the Australian strategy book and realize that attacking is the best option. Langer's assault on the first morning set the precedent for a huge total. England DO have the players who can bat for 200 odd balls. If they could do so at a strike rate of 75, then we would have a match on our hands. I like Strauss, Cook and Bell. I feel they are the best batsmen on this English side who can provide this role of an anchor. Strauss is an aggressive batsmen by nature, and has the ability to focus for long periods of the game.

Pietersen was brilliant on the 4th day. It was fun watching him bat. I doubt anything affects him and he will be fine for the rest of the series.

Flintoff needs some runs under his belt. I have a feeling the extra bowling responsibility that he is taking on is affecting his batting. Makes sense. I mean, one can only take so much strain. Which is where Panesar comes in. He is a wicket taking bowler and he will provide those long spells allowing the pacemen to rest.

As far as the rest of them go, Sajid Mahmood isn't good enough for a look just yet. Harmisson, Anderson and Hoggard are England's best bets, and will probably improve as the series goes on.

The first Ashes test resulted in complete embarrassment for the English. There was no way, i ever thought they were the second best side in the world. Sadly the Aussies have given them a reality check. However all is not lost. I feel they have the ability to draw this next game. Given the way things are going, a draw would be a remarkable achievement in its own right and a victory of sorts for them.

Ashes: Exciting first session goes Australia's way

The first session just ended and the one thing that stood out for me was Flintoff's fiery exuberance after getting Hayden's wicket. That just serves to complement my beliefs that playing Australia in the Ashes really brings out the best in him. I say that because he was quite dull in Pakistan.

As for Harmison, I don't think he should have been taking off so early, after just 2 overs. Langer was playing streaky shots off him initially and Flintoff was perhaps hasty in his decision. Certainly won't help the chief strikers confidence if your captain takes you off at the first sign of trouble. He should have been given some time to settle into his stride. His second spell was a lot smoother.

Langer, on the other hand, is on a personal mission. He is batting superbly. His aggressive batting is similar to Lara's batting intent yesterday.

Just as I finish this, Langer gets caught! Flintoff strikes! Its swung England's way again! Here comes Martyn....