The King Cricket review of 2006

We were all set to do a big retrospective thing today. We went back and read all the posts over the last year (at least the headlines anyway). We even made notes. Then we looked at our notes and it looked like some kind of BBC-type article. We don't do articles like that as well as the BBC does. They don't get distracted by blind prejudice or petty vendettas or anything like that.

So instead we just sat still for a minute and tried to think if anything stood out from the cricketing year. Then we wrote down what we'd thought of on a piece of paper. Then we typed up what was on the piece of paper.

Murali Week

Bloody hell. Will you look at the size of that heading. We should probably have just put it in bold, but we didn't just learn loads of technical internet stuff for no reason. We're about as technically-minded as a slow-witted hamster suffering from dementia, so if we know something, we use it.

The first thing that we remembered happening during 2006 was that we declared that the second week in March should eternally be known as 'Murali Week'. The reasons for this are that this year, during that week, our man Muttiah Muralitharan passed one or two landmarks.

They were as follows: 1,000 international wickets. At the time of writing he was the only person to have achieved this. He also played in his 100th Test during this period. He took his 600th Test wicket and his 50th Test five wicket haul. His FIFTIETH. No-one else is within a country mile of that. Take our word for it.

Paul Collingwood: More than 'a bit of ginger'

That heading's even longer. There's no hiding from a heading like that.

Also during Murali week, elsewhere in the world, Paul Collingwood hit his first Test century. This probably wasn't a big deal for most people. But we were massively impressed. It was a blinding hundred.

England were playing India and after various injuries and personal problems for others, Paul Collingwood was finally being given a chance for England. Very few people were particularly interested. Having batted admirably in Pakistan prior to this series, Collingwood went one better in the first Test against India.

To further put this innings into context, England's injury-depleted squad had fallen from their Ashes high by getting soundly beaten in Pakistan and had been looking shaky against spin in India, as always. Overnight, they were 246-7 and Paul Collingwood was 53 not out with Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar to aid him.

The tail wagged. England make 393 and Paul Collingwood 134 not out. Most impressively, he managed to coax a 66 run last wicket partnership out of Monty Panesar, who had been depicted as some sort of poor-man's Phil Tufnell up until that point.

At a stroke, England could play spin and had a chance in the series. Paul Collingwood was to be taken seriously and respected and Monty Panesar was deemed 'not terrible' with the bat.

Rob Key lighting up the world like ten blazing suns becoming supernovae

As with any other year, the undisputed highlight of 2006 was Rob Key lighting up the world like ten blazing suns becoming supernovae. This year, it was a hundred for England A against Pakistan that did the trick.

We've only used that picture on the right because we've never used it before. In truth, it's not a particularly good one. He actually looks quite trim, for one thing.

If you've more spare time than you know what to do with, why not send us a nice picture of Rob Key with a halo or on a throne or with a backdrop of fire or something. We can assure you that we'll be happy with what you produce. Even if it's shit.

Paul Collingwood's double hundred against Australia

There's nothing to add to that. It was a rare high-point on an Ashes graph of pleasure that more resembled one of those Japanese dining tables. You know: Low and flat.

Unsung Paul Collingwood had his day on the biggest stage. He did what so few English batsmen are capable of and went on to a BIG hundred. Aussie bowlers toiled. We cheered. It was magic.

Then England made a complete balls of the whole thing by throwing the match away. In the second innings Paul Collingwood was left on 22 not out, batting at four no less. That's exactly the kind of thing that's rendered Paul Collingwood's double hundred so priceless. It stands a mile above everything else, like King Kong's dad frowning at some sea-monkeys.

Happy New Year

There you go. Sorry that the article's so massive, but it is a whole year, you know. Normally we split these things up into chunks, but we wanted to keep it all together today in the spirit of summarising (yes, there is such a spirit). There was other stuff too, but it didn't always get defined by a moment. Either that or it's been done to death and we're sick of it.

However, there should be a special mention for the day when we were at Old Trafford when Steve Harmison, but more importantly, Monty Panesar, bowled England to victory against Pakistan. That was really something and Monty Panesar is really the big thing this year, we guess. We just didn't have anything funny to say about him on this occasion, as you'll be able to tell as you near the end of this paragraph.

Maybe we'll do some predictions for the coming year in a few days. Who knows? More likely we'll forget or our mind will feel lumpen and unproductive like it usually does.

Makhaya Ntini is still one of our favourites

Not so long ago, we quite genuinely lost our temper with people pronouncing singer-songwriter Paolo Nutini's name exactly how it's supposed to be pronounced. We blithely assumed that it was spelt 'Ntini' and pronounced accordingly. We've since refined our view. We now believe that Paolo Nutini's name is both pronounced AND spelt wrong.

Earlier in the year, we went Makhaya Ntini mental for about a day. We haven't lost interest. Well, we have a bit, but that's only natural. We get a bit over-enthused about things when we're 'in the moment'. Afterwards we become more reasonable and less frighteningly intense.

South Africa have beaten India in the second Test and Ntini was 'the man'. There's been proper cricket in this series with lots of scores of 200-and-odd and none of the massive scores that are becoming increasingly common. Bowlers help in this regard. Makhaya Ntini is a particularly good one.

Ntini took a tidy 3-41 in the first innings but followed that up with something even better. He took India's first five wickets and reduced them to 83-5. If only he could have picked up a couple more, but sadly not. He finished with 5-48.

Makhaya Ntini: Better than drinking port while watching the Sopranos.

Note to Ntini's agent: You can use that.

Sreesanth rises to the challenge

We've been having a bit of a look back over the cricketing year and one of the abiding themes is the dominance of bat over ball. With Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne about to retire, things are becoming even more one-sided. So who's going to step forward and redress the balance?

One possible candidate, on current form, is Sreesanth of India. He only made his Test debut this year, against England, but he looks promising.

So far he's racked up 35 wickets at 24.40, but his recent form in India's tour of South Africa is what's drawn our attention of late. He played a major part in India winning the first Test - not something they manage all that often away from home. Sreesanth took 5-40 as South Africa were bowled out for 84 in their first innings. Now that's contributing to a victory. None of this '20 runs batting at eight' contributing.

In India's second Test defeat, he still performed, taking 4-109 and then 4-80. He's quick, which is no bad thing; keen, which is equally important; and he's prone to dancing and bat-twirling, which could go either way really - at least he's not Jaques Kallis.

It's early days, but sometimes you can get a decent idea from little information. Our first ever reference said something like: "He could probably achieve something if he ever finds himself doing something he's remotely interested in".

A Matthew Hayden quote that could be construed as being a bit homosexual if you try really hard

"We are always getting the pressure from behind us... I love playing with these blokes, and to me, I'm just not ready to let it go just yet."

Remember when we had something to say on this site and we got excited about stuff? It seems a long time ago, doesn't it? That's what happens when you combine dark winter nights with crushingly inevitably England defeats. We wilt.

Somebody send us something to cheer us up. A cheque or booze or something like that.

Justin Langer on Shane Warne

Not literally. That would be hideous. Perhaps we should have said 'Justin Langer talking about Shane Warne'. Whatever. Here's a quote from his BBC column:

Playing with him and watching the poetry of his bowling has been without doubt one of the privileges of my career.

"The poetry of his bowling". Easy there. And we thought it was just Matthew Hayden who Langer had a soft spot for.

Warne would probably prefer a grittier description, you'd have thought.

Look! It's still twitching

There's something weirdly macabre about doing a post-mortem on a beast that's still technically alive. That's what's happening with the England team.

Australia won the Ashes after the last Test and now we all get to pick at England's faults as they show them off in a series they've already lost. There isn't even any belief that they'll restore pride with a consolation win. Everyone knows what's happening, but we're still watching. It's grotesque cruelty on a grand scale.

Today's fresh autopsy evidence probably revolves around England's consistently bad batting on surfaces which have been, for the most part, pretty darn decent. Something like that anyway.

Maybe we'll just start lying and reporting England wins. Everyone's doing 'the facts' on the rest of the internet. 'The facts' are passé.

There really is no doubt about it. This Ashes is making us angry rather than amazed.

England 159 all out and 161 all out
Australia 419 all out

Curse you Hayden; curse you Symonds

So England are getting battered. Andrew Symonds, who we like, but don't rate as a Test player, has scored 154 not out and thus made us look stupid. Matthew Hayden, who we don't rate and hugely, undeniably, steadfastly DO NOT like hit 153 and made us incandescent with rage.

One of the only joys during this series has been watching Aussie 'legends' drop like flies (they're not legends, because you can be certain that they exist). Damien Martyn went. Warne's going. McGrath's going. Matthew Hayden was scratching round like the next Mark Lathwell. Maybe he would go and at a fantastically low ebb as well. It doesn't look like it'll be that way.

Of course on the other hand, this is probably the kind of innings that will convince Hayden that he's still 'got it' and he can therefore continue his humiliation for another year - if the selectors permit him. What he's really got is a Michelin Man torso and a divine gift for talking bollocks.

England 159 all out
Australia 372-7

England are rubbish - England are great - great, rubbish, great, rubbish...

Australia aren't crap just yet. Frankly, we're getting a little impatient.

We're almost getting to the point where we'll get all jokey and defeatist about England matches. That's something that we're NOT in favour of. We hate being a good loser. We get enough of that in real life.

England were bowled out for 159, which is rubbish, whatever the wicket. England's lower-order is now so bad that several batsmen, after they'd been given out, went to the scoreboard and deliberately removed 10 runs from England's total.

Of course nobody noticed, because the incoming batsman was inevitably asking for the ball to be changed for one that did a bit more. In the break between innings, England's entire squad went into the Aussie changing rooms and took turns giving their bowlers massages.

Fortunately, Andrew Flintoff was still quite fresh, having expended precisely no energy through batting this series. He therefore managed to take two late wickets.

Tomorrow England will finish the job, bowling Australia out for 72 before powering their way to 456-0.

We'll be chanting: 'Easy. Easy.' Then we'll go and get the medication for our newly-developed bipolar disorder.

England 159 all out
Australia 48-2

Shane Warne's 700th wicket

"Ooh. Look at me. Look at me. I'm retiring. Look at me. Look at me. I can take more Test wickets than anyone else."

No-one's impressed, you know.

Andrew Flintoff's batting

Does anyone currently expect Andrew Flintoff to get any runs? We get the impression that even Andrew Flintoff doesn't.

So far his scores this series have been 0, 16, 38 not out, 2, 13, 51 and 13. The 38 not out was a quick dash before the declaration and the 51 was when all hope had gone and England were about to lose the Ashes. He's basically achieved nothing.

This wouldn't be so bad if there were anyone else in the lower order who looked like making a run. As it is, England appear to be fielding six number 10 batsmen. (No-one's quite bad enough to be a number 11.)

We can't wait until something happens that'll make the site funny again. Imagine if Matthew Hayden retires. We'll be royally screwed then.

Australia will be crap now

Thank Christ for that. We were starting to think it would never end.

Every two years we think: 'Right. That's got to be it now. McGrath and Warne have GOT to be retired by the next Ashes and England will be able to cash in.' But they never did retire.

Well now they have and Australia have to somehow replace the top wicket-taker of all time, a man who can take wickets on the flattest of pitches in any situation. They also have to replace the most reliable new ball bowler of all time, a man who would never let them down who's the third-highest wicket-taker of all time.

Quite frankly, it can't be done.

There'll be some good bowlers coming through, without doubt. But they'll be a lot more hot and cold than McGrath and Warne and that will cost Australia matches.

Bowling's the key. Bowling's always the key. Australia have had two of the very best at the same time. The effects are greater than just their wickets as well.

Brett Lee averages 32.43 with the ball. How many times has he been saved from a well-set batsman further denting those figures by Warne or McGrath getting them out. He doesn't have that luxury any more. Next time Mohammad Yousuf coasts past 100, there'll be no: 'Right, enough of this - Shane!' from Ricky Ponting. Brett'll have to plod on. Either that or Shaun Tate can take a turn watching the ball disappear to the boundary.

The batsmen won't like it either. There's a profound psychological difference between chasing 200 and chasing 400. It's unquantifiable, but it's real. Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne have indirectly inflated Aussie batsmen's averages for over a decade. Now they'll have to fend for themselves.

All in all, it's a great weight off our mind. If only there were more great bowlers elsewhere in the world.

Glenn McGrath retires

Glenn McGrath is going to retire from all forms of cricket after the World Cup. This means that that his last Test will be against England at his home ground of Sydney.

We always hated Glenn McGrath, but he won us over to a degree. We don't exactly love him now, but there's a grudging respect. For years we couldn't work out how this medium-pacer who did relatively little with the ball could take so many wickets for so few runs. 'Relentless' and 'accuracy' are the two words which have appeared in every Glenn McGrath article, but it's not just that.

It's partly his height and the bounce that produces. It's partly his professionalism, always working at his game. It's partly his mind, knowing exactly where to bowl to each batsman - and we mean EXACTLY. It's his ability to judge a pitch quickly and immediately adjust his length.

It's also his near-unique ability to produce all of these things under great pressure. That's partly down to his immense experience these days, but it's the sign of a hugely robust character as well. And you can't fault that action.

The first time we ever saw him bowl live, we were side-on to the wicket. We were struck by how he ran in for a mile, before coming to a virtual standstill prior to his delivery stride. We expected a bit more thrust from a quick bowler, but the results speak for themselves, we suppose.

Steve Harmison retires from one-day internationals

This should really have appeared yesterday, but we thought that we'd give Warne his day in the limelight. Always the bridesmaid, that's Shane Warne. About time he was at the centre of things.

Steve Harmison also announced his retirement (of a form) yesterday. He's retiring from one-dayers because he thinks they're crap and because he's rubbish at them. He's supposed to be unhappy with the white ball when it's new. Apparently it swings too much.

We've been reading conflicting things about Steve Harmison's commitment to cricket, recently. The official line is that he's retiring from one-dayers to prolong his Test career, which is a fairly common reason among England players. However, various people seem to think that Harmison will only play cricket for as long as he needs to.

Michael Vaughan's one. In his book he reckons that Harmison will retire as soon as he's got enough money (presumably for life). We've also read a number of predicted England sides for the next Ashes that don't feature Harmison. Nothing's mentioned about his omission and it's as if he'll be past it, but he'll only be 31. He's bowled badly recently, but that's not the way we've read these stories. They read like he'll be unavailable.

Contrast that with his interview in a recent All Out Cricket. He claimed to want to play for as long as he can. He certainly looks pretty happy when he takes a wicket. Sometimes his love of football is overstated, we think. Like he doesn't like cricket at all. A boyhood desire to play football for Newcastle doesn't exclude enjoyment of anything else.

Shane Warne retires

To quote a friend of ours: "Shane Warne is so damn Australian, it makes me want to cry".

That pretty much summed up our feelings for the first seven or eight years of Warne's international career. Stupid hair, thoughtless idiot always getting himself into trouble, irritating habit of making England batsmen look stupid. What's to like?

Turns out there's actually a lot to like about Shane Warne. He clearly loves cricket; he's massively professional, in the weirdest sort of way; he's a competitor in the most literal sense; he's wildly entertaining with the bat and utterly absorbing with the ball.

If you're reading this, you doubtless watch quite a bit of cricket. In any game there are passages of play which are less than engrossing. Have you ever been distracted while Shane Warne's got the ball in his hand? It's not just waiting for him to demonstrate each of his deliveries. It's not just that he might suddenly decide to spin one at right-angles. It's not just the ham-acting after each near miss.

When Shane Warne bowls, you can spend a good long while working out what he's trying to do. Every delivery has a reason. What's he trying to find out? What's he trying to do? Is he building up to something? Has he seen a weakness? He's moving the field. Why?

Basically, when Shane Warne's bowling, you don't know what's going to happen. That's why we like sport. If it were totally predictable, why would you need to watch? Think back only a couple of weeks to when he paralysed England during the second Test, taking 4-49 as England were all out for 129. That was the sequel to his 4-31 when England won the fourth Test at Trent Bridge in 2005. England got 129 to win, on that occasion, but it was nowhere near as easy as it should have been. That would be Shane's fault.

We'll finish with the first words we wrote about Warne here at King Cricket: "England require 12 runs to win and have all ten wickets in hand. Shane Warne’s bowling and it genuinely feels like Australia are favourites."

Shane Warne's retiring

The word on the street is that Shane Warne's going to retire. By 'on the street', we of course mean 'in the world's cricket media'.

He's called a press conference for today and people who know about this sort of stuff think it can mean only one thing.

We'll save our thoughts for now, in case he's just going to announce how much he hates pommie bastards, on a scale of one to a billion.

We'll just say that our first thought was: 'Ha. How are you going to fill THAT gap, Australia.' Then, after a second of thought, we realised that we were massively disappointed. It really will be sad, if he goes.

Australia's failings

Australia won the series and the England players will say that you can't let-up for a second against them; that they crush you, if you do. But that's bollocks. They're a great side, but to bestow on them machine-like qualities and robotic flawlessness is to show too much respect. You can't beat a side if you think of them like that.

The truth is that this Australian side is very good, but there's an argument that this might have been one of England's better chances to win in Australia. Here's why.

Openers:

Statistically, Justin Langer and Matthew Hayden are one of the greatest opening partnerships of all time, but that's going back over quite some period. Currently, they're pretty ordinary.

Langer hit what was really quite a lucky 82 in the first Test. By simply posting a third-man England could have halved his tally. In the second innings, his hundred was the equivalent of putting the boot into a prone victim after your mates have beaten him up.

Hayden's just hopeless. He's the next to go.

This is the first reason why this series presented an opportunity for England. There is, quite simply, no way on earth that the inclusion of Phil Jaques in place of one of these two wouldn't improve the Australian side considerably.

Middle order:

There aren't too many issues here. Australia have Ricky Ponting and Ashes hero, Mike Hussey playing for them. However, alongside them was Damien Martyn who was in the final, underwhelming throes of a great career. He was replaced by Andrew Symonds who's confirming everyone's view that he's a great one-day player, but no more than that.

Unfortunately for England, Michael Clarke's not going to get any worse and Ponting and Hussey have a long way to fall to be classed as merely 'superb'. Weak links in Aussie batting don't tend to last long, so the other middle-order spot is unlikely to remain a chink in their armour.

Wicketkeeper:

Adam Gilchrist's breathtaking hundred distracts from an otherwise poor year with the bat. Again, he's one of the greats, but on current form, you'd fancy your chances. He's done a lot over the years, but that's in the past.

Spin bowling:

Some things never change. Next.

Quick bowling:

There's definitely a theme here. For as long as we can remember, Glenn McGrath has been untouchable. He didn't go for runs and he took wickets. Reliable? If ever you could count a bowler, here he was. But it doesn't work that way any more. Glenn McGrath has occasionally looked vulnerable.

Batsmen have attacked him. Ricky Ponting has even been forced to remove him from the attack for his own protection. This is unheard of. On his day, he's still pretty much the best there is, but now there are off days. You don't often get the opportunity to fell a champion. England could have dealt a severe blow by doing this. There probably won't be a second opportunity.

Brett Lee's paradoxically turning into quite a conservative selection. He's still a tearaway fast bowler who goes for runs, but he's a better batsman than Warne. England's number seven averages 23.91 with the bat. Australia's number nine averages 21.86. If only he took more wickets.

Stuart Clark won us over very quickly. We characterised him as an ageing, ineffective Jason Gillespie/Michael Kasprowicz substitute. In fact, he's a younger Glenn McGrath. Top that.

So why did England lose?

For all that we've written on Australia's failings, they don't compare to England's. Plus, Australia's big performers have done better than England's big performers. Ponting and Hussey broke England's bowlers and Stuart Clark has fortified a previously faltering attack.

We'd like to think that this is the final hurrah of an ageing side and that England will meet an inferior, younger side come the next Ashes. In truth, we think that this side has already aged and that their replacements will revitalise them.

Maybe we're just being pessimistic because we're miserable about England losing the bastard Ashes again.

England's failings

It's a post-mortem, even though we're barely half-way through the series. What a triumph!

Neither of England's openers, Strauss and Cook, produced anything of note for the first two matches of this series. That England's middle order of Bell, Collingwood and Pietersen acquitted themselves well is consequently all the more admirable, but a Test side can't afford to sacrifice two of its best batsmen for so few runs.

Particularly when you take into account the catastrophe that is England's lower middle-order. Flintoff doesn't actually look like a batsman at present. Perhaps he was short of match practice. Perhaps he's struggled with Australian conditions, which are relatively new to him. Either way, you didn't necessarily anticipate runs on his arrival at the crease.

The same goes for Geraint Jones, only more so. This is a cricketer in freefall. He knew he wasn't the tour selectors' first choice and was doubtless wary of being seen as a Fletcher pet. Having grown up batting on Australian pitches, surely his failures in familiar conditions should be all the proof that is needed to drop him. It just hasn't been happening for him. It doesn't seem likely that it will.

Ashley Giles had barely played cricket in an age. He was never a world-beater prior to this. Everyone's saying what a mistake it was to pick him. We don't disagree. He never looked like taking wickets. England may as well have selected another batsman and called on Pietersen, Collingwood and Bell with the ball. The difference in the standard of England's bowling attack would have been negligible.

While Matthew Hoggard should be exempt from criticism, he needed more support from his fellow bowlers. Steve Harmison was a liability early on, for whatever reason. He was yet another player being carried by the rest of the side. Ultimately, there were too few players carrying too many.

James Anderson bowled steadily but really provided little. he was another player, along with Giles and, if you think about it, Flintoff, who really didn't have enough matches under his belt.

Australia had failings too, of course, but this was one place where England out-scored them.

Australia win the Ashes

And in so doing, show why England failed.

Because will winning the Ashes stop them? No. Why would it? They'll be aiming for 5-0 now. Then they'll be doing their damnedest to win the series after this one and the one after that.

Contrast that with England, for whom winning the Ashes signalled not the start of something, but the end. They built towards it. They never built on it afterwards.

If you think we're being harsh, prior to their now-redundant home Ashes win, they had beaten all-comers again and again. Afterwards you need look no further than the callow performance against Sri Lanka in the first Test of last summer. England had a monstrous lead and ample time to bowl out Sri Lanka. They never managed it, dropping catches regularly and showing precisely no sense of urgency.

If this loss brings about that indefinable something that makes the difference between winning and losing Test matches, then all will not have been in vain. Call it 'edge' or 'intensity'. Call it 'super magic space power' if you want. Just get it back.

Well played Australia - or something similarly banal and bad-tempered.

Australia 244 all out and 527-5 declared
England 215 all out and 350 all out

Australia take a 3-0 lead and therefore the Ashes

Adam Gilchrist's batting turns up

Yesterday we were transported back in time to 2003. Turns out we're still there.

It was painfully familiar: Australia's middle-order breaks England's spirit with ruthless efficiency. Then Adam Gilchrist grinds the broken pieces into powder, before releasing it all into the Fremantle Doctor to be distributed throughout Australia's unforgiving landscape. There are specks of English spirit from Bendigo to Darwin, but there isn't a grain of the stuff in Perth.

On the one hand, Adam Gilchrist's hundred off 57 balls - the second fastest Test century ever - was just kicking a side when it's down. On the other hand it's what sport's all about. It's no good only winning when you've been up against it. You've got to win all the time. No matter what the circumstances. Why give England even a glimmer of hope? Make sure. Gilchrist made sure.

In truth, this might be a misleading flicker of glory from Gilchrist. He hasn't been batting well at all. Much like McGrath, he might increasingly have 'on days' where he shows his talent, but there are an increasing number of off days.

Today would be an 'on day'.

Australia 244 all out and 527-5 declared
England 215 all out and 19-1

The WACA pitch

Good news and bad news. Or rather, terrible news and faint die-hard optimism.

The terrible news is that England were bowled out for just 215, giving Australia a priceless first innings lead. If Australia don't do anything rash, which they didn't in reaching 119-1 at stumps, then the Ashes should be theirs.

Cameron Sutherland, the WACA groundsman, reckoned that days two and three would be the best for batting after the greenness off the first day had worn off, but before any cracks opened up. England put themselves into the perfect position in bowling Australia out on the first day, but have thrown it away.

They could have batted through both of those days. Instead, they have offered Australia use of a good batting wicket before attempting to chase down a potentially large target when it has deteriorated.

The faint die-hard optimism is that the pitch should still be decent for batting on day four and other than the cracks, shouldn't be too bad on day five. But even then, you're nervous about England chasing ANYTHING with Shane Warne about. Pressure's his greatest weapon. Batting to keep the Ashes alive? That won't exacerbate the situation then.

Australia 244 all out and 119-1
England 215 all out

India reverts to the class of 2003

Remember 2003? The US was going to war in Iraq. The UK was rocking to the sounds of 'I Believe in a Thing Called Love' by The Darkness and 'Laura' by Scissor Sisters. India had a batting line-up featuring Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly.

Well those days are back! At least cricket-wise. Let's all pretend it's 2003. The marketing men haven't made cider cool and there's no need for iPod 'docks'. We've still got our sweet job in the warehouse that makes us cry every morning and phones that play bits of video are more impressive than a thousand foot pyramid made entirely out of rubies.

Kumar Sangakkara 156 runs out of 268

Context is everything in cricket. Remember Paul Collingwood's 10 in the Oval Test in the last Ashes? That was some 10. Probably the best 10 we've ever seen. Wickets had been falling and the atmosphere was becoming hysterical. A dull, blocking 10 was the perfect antidote. Contrast that with a huge hundred against demoralised, substandard opposition when you've already got 500 on the board. We can't be bothered thinking of a specific example.

In the first Test between New Zealand and Sri Lanka, we described how the context of the game led us to believe that Kumar Sangakkara 'bloody deserved' his hundred. It was low-scoring and here's the post. We won't repeat ourself.

In the second Test, Sangakkara just made 156 not out in Sri Lanka's total of 268. That's some percentage. Not out, too. Maybe Sri Lanka's other batsmen were all off their mash on ecstasy pipes, you say? Not so. New Zealand are currently 66-4, so unless there's been a big party and only Kumar Sangakkara wasn't invited, the lad's a class above.

Full marks, Kumar. We respect batsmen who score when it matters.

Monty Panesar makes his entrance

Thanks for your performances over the years, Ashley Giles. Here's your gold watch.

We were lying in bed this morning, a little unsettled by a dream about trying to keep a vampire in the wardrobe, but overall really quite comfortable and with no intention of getting up. At this point, somebody - presumably one of the cats - said: "I think Monty Panesar's done something".

Monty Panesar NEVER does anything bad and we shot out of bed. It could mean only one thing and yes, sure enough, Monty Panesar had taken five wickets. Actually, it was four at the time, but he was en route to five.

This man can do no wrong. 'Don't expect miracles', he warned England supporters. He was just toying with us. We don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect a miracle every single time he takes the field. In fact we expect a miracle even when he's eating his breakfast. You might think that's being quite demanding on our part, but he fulfils those demands EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Steve Harmison's been mended

Apologies to Kevin Shine. You weren't talking balls. You appear to have fixed Steve Harmison.

We were a bit dubious, but he bowled solidly today in taking 4-48. It's a massive relief for any Englishman. It was a good pitch for him, but that wouldn't have mattered if he'd been 'angling the ball down the leg side' - read 'inexplicably bowling the ball at the non-striking batsman'.

Hurray.

There could also be a case that the magic of Monty rubs off on Harmison. We should capitalise that, actually. 'The Magic of Monty'.

During the summer, we watched another day of cricket on a hard, bouncy pitch. Monty Panesar took five wickets and Harmison four as England tore into Pakistan. The crowd went mental. Let's pretend that the rest of the Ashes hasn't happened and that this match is just a continuation of that.

Australian Man, Andrew Symonds of Australia gets Test nod

Australia have plumped for Australian man, Andrew Symonds of Australia over Adam Voges for the third Test in Perth that starts tonight, UK time.

Symonds has Test experience of course. Plus, he's more in keeping with Australia's new five bowler strategy, which hasn't actually surfaced so far in this Ashes series.

We say that Australian man, Andrew Symonds of Australia fits in with Australia's five bowler strategy, but only barely. The truth is that he's really just a fill-in bowler. He can take the odd wicket. He's respectable. He's Darren Lehmann standard, really.

He's not Darren Lehmann standard with the bat though. Lehmann's a batting emperor. Symonds would be some sort of high-ranking military man. Influential, but at a much lower echelon.

We've a great deal of time for Symonds as a one-day player. He's a six-hitter of the purest form and the kind of indeterminate bowler who seems to prosper in that form of the game. In Test cricket, we're not so sure.

Having said that, Damien Martyn had been a walking wicket, so he hasn't exactly weakened the Australia team.

Mark Cosgrove promises to get even larger

To think that we were originally in two minds as to whether to adopt Mark Cosgrove as a King Cricket favourite. He's a fat cricketer - it's the easiest decision imaginable.

Today's great Mark Cosgrove news is that Mark may well get fatter still, potentially challenging Warwick Armstrong for the title of 'fattest ever Test cricketer', assuming Mark can force his way into the Australia side.

Mark's spiritual-guru-cum-role-model, Darren Lehmann, recently indicated that he thought that Mark's fitness (read 'pie-eating') might be holding him back. Fortunately, South Australia coach, Wayne Phillips has claimed that nothing would be done about Cosgrove's weight until "it gets ridiculous."

Hurray. That's a promise. Mark Cosgrove's own coach has given him the green light. There is no impediment to stop Mark Cosgrove's weight getting ridiculous.

Nicky Boje retires

It's a harsh world where Ashley Giles gets vilified for being a middling spinner who can bat a bit. So how come Nicky Boje was never held in such low esteem. Here's a player who managed to play 43 Tests and averaged virtually the same figure with the ball.

The only possible explanation for Nicky Boje's repeated inclusion in South African Test sides was that they were experimenting to see just how many batsmen they could field before anyone noticed. Because Nicky Boje was a batsman, really, wasn't he? He was probably the best number nine batsman there's ever been.

We've nothing against Nicky Boje per se. We just feel that he's emblematic of South Africa's innate conservatism of selection. Much as Ashley Giles is for England, currently.

Nicky Boje was of course implicated in the Hansie Cronje match-fixing scandal. We wouldn’t be the first to question whether it was physically possible for Nicky Boje to underperform.

Reasons to be cheerful about the Ashes

Yes, there are some. First and foremost: It's all coming together perfectly.

You don't believe us? These first two Tests have just been setting the scene. Don't you know anything about crafting drama? England have experienced both kinds of defeat: The remorseless, same-old, same-old, utterly outplayed, grind-you-into-the-dirt brand; and the sudden and outrageous defeat which hurts even more.

This just means that England's inevitable victory and retention of the Ashes will be all the sweeter. If England had got off to a flier, your appreciation wouldn't have been sufficient. This way, they lower your expectations and when they finally do get round to winning, you're awestruck. It's all relative.

Secondly, Damien Martyn can't buy a run.

Thirdly, Matthew Hayden can't buy a run.

Finally, Glenn McGrath doesn't seem to be all that.

It's all coming together...

A picture of Geraint Jones appearing to check out Matt Prior's arse

Well what would you call this post? Whatever we write, all you'll remember is the picture where Geraint Jones appears to check out Matt Prior's arse.

Matt Prior seems to be prone to appearing in photographs with barely-disguised homosexual subtexts. He's very much unaware in this particular example, but still.

As far as the justification for publishing this, Geraint Jones batted at three in England's tour game, presumably to get some runs under his belt. He didn't get any before he was out.

On an unrelated note, we found a picture of a media centre belonging to *a* Geraint Jones when we were looking for pictures. Do you think it's the media centre of *the* Geraint Jones. There can't be many Geraint Joneses can there? Why is he, or his namesake, taking pictures of his media centre anyway?

A link to Geraint Jones' media centre. Sorry - media "center".

James Anderson and Steve Harmison continue to bother England's selectors

England would have hoped that several key selection issues would have resolved themselves during this tour match against Western Australia.

Obviously they wouldn't have wanted James Anderson to bowl badly. But if he had have bowled badly, it would have been easier to drop him, which they must be thinking about. James Anderson was the pick of England's bowlers with 3-53.

Steve Harmison isn't likely to get dropped. What the selectors would have wanted to see would have been an upturn in form. Steve Harmison took 1-99.

The selectors would have probably wanted something from Monty Panesar that would have helped make their minds up too. Monty took 1-69.

There's another innings at least.

Alastair Cook and Andrew Strauss can bat together

Who'd have thought it? Alastair Cook and Andrew Strauss CAN score runs in Australia. Strauss was out for 88 in England's tour game against Western Australia, but Cook's still there, on 106 at the time of writing. Which is early. We can't sleep.

Kumar Sangakkara - a futile hundred with a controversial end

There's been some great Test cricket going on in the Antipodes recently. Not that Ashes garbage - New Zealand against Sri Lanka.

New Zealand eventually won the first Test. It was a match where all four innings combined added up to roughly one Australia v England first innings - 649 to be precise. We love cricket like this. It's far more exciting than the run-fest drudgery that's usually served up these days. You also know that when a player hits a hundred, he bloody deserves it. Kumar Sangakkara hit a hundred.

Only one other player - Daniel Vettori - passed 50 in the entire match. Clearly Murali recognised how impressive Sangakkara's achievement was, because he ran to congratulate him on completing the hundredth run while batting as his partner. Unfortunately, he did this while the ball was still en route from the boundary. Brendon McCullum rather coldly ran him out, but you can't blame him.

Can you?

Damien Martyn announces retirement due to substandard maths

This is a turn-up. Damien Martyn's announced his immediate retirement from all forms of cricket. He's done this in the middle of the Ashes citing a lack of motivation to perform at his best as a reason. Seems unlikely.

Cricket Australia guy, James Sutherland, rather generously confirmed that Martyn would have been in Australia's side for the third Test. Can we speculate that maybe this is a lie? Our theory is that the selectors told Martyn that he was going to be dropped and asked him if he'd like to make a more dignified exit from Test cricket. We could be wrong.

The other reason Martyn gave for his retirement was that the current Ashes series challenges "require people who are more than 100% committed, dedicated, disciplined and passionate about the game."

Amateur mathematicians among you will realise the schoolboy error that Martyn has made here. Could it be that Damien Martyn has been ravaged with guilt at only producing 100% commitment, little-knowing that no-one can produce more. Could it be that Damien Martyn is 100% dedicated, 100% disciplined and 100% passionate about the game and has retired as a result of a mathematical misunderstanding?

He adds that those around him are "entitled to expect more than 100%." They really aren't, Damien. That's totally unreasonable.

Either way, it begs the question: Who's got the craziest eyes in cricket now?

Australia call up Adam Voges

Australia have called up Adam Voges to replace the recently retired Damien Martyn in their third Test squad. Not Brad Hodge, who averages a shade under 60 after his five Tests. Not Phil Jaques who scores hundreds for fun. No, they've gone for Adam Voges.

If he's an Australian batsman then he's bound to be brilliant. It barely matters who they actually are. One recent exception was Damien Martyn, who was managing to get himself out in all sorts of creative ways against England. We'll miss him. Particularly when Adam 'Who?' Voges is cantering to a double hundred at the WACA.

Look at Adam Voges. Look at Adam Voges' face. Get all the laughter out now, because this time next month his face will make you wince and you'll think he's a complete bastard.

This is a really old photo, but there's no way we weren't using. Again: Look at his face!

Shane Bond takes three wickets (and so does James Franklin)

Shane Bond took 3-43. Fast-bowling-arama, or somesuch.

James Franklin actually finished with better figures, 3-30, but we're a lot less interested. Mostly this is because we don't much like James Franklin, whereas we love Shane Bond. However, having studied the scorecard more closely, we can actually justify our Shane Bond-centric focus.

Shane Bond took the wickets of Benevolent Uncle Sanath, Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, which is some trio. James Franklin took the wickets of Upul Tharanga, who's not bad; Chamara Kapugedera, who's promising, but currently not-all-that-good; and some guy called L P C Silva, who we've never even heard of. Frankly, L P C Silva could be a woman. We're not even going to check due to the minuscule chance that this could in some way render James Franklin's performance more meaningful.

For those who don't know, our hatred of James Franklin springs from a really irritating hundred he once hit.

Sri Lanka were all out for 154, by the way. Everyone's forgetting how to bat this week.

Inzamam stands firm

Tell you who wouldn't have buckled like a belt during Australia's final day assault at Adelaide: Inzamam-ul-Haq. There's a man who doesn't panic under pressure. 'Why panic,' he asks, 'when I could just stand here and hit cricket balls for a bit?'

Whether it's supreme mental conditioning or just the fact that he can't be bothered expending the energy, Inzamam-ul-Haq never flaps. Today Pakistan bowled out the Windies for 151 and then did their utmost to make a game of it when they batted themselves. They lost eight wickets, but Inzy saw them home with 42 not out.

When the Martians come to get us, we hope that Inzy's the King of the world. We need someone in power who'll treat the whole thing as a non-event.

Navjot Sidhu guilty of manslaughter

Jesus. Navjot Sidhu killed a man.

Navjot Sidhu is the former Indian opening batsman who many people will know for his unique commentary style. A Sidhuism is a particularly flowery piece of comment or an unusual simile. Examples include: 'The Sri Lankan score is running like an Indian taxi meter' and 'statistics are like miniskirts, they reveal more than they hide'.

We'd always found Sidhu to be weirdly amusing, but not so any more. In a road rage incident, back in 1988, he beat a man to death. Today he was found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison.

Ashley Giles over Monty Panesar - Duncan Fletcher's irritating stubbornness

Duncan Fletcher loves Ashley Giles. Mostly because he can bat a bit. This means that he never picks Monty Panesar and just about everybody thinks that Panesar's mint.

It's not Ashley Giles' fault. We actually quite like Ashley Giles. We even admire his batting ability. Did he not brave it out for England's victory in the Trent Bridge Test during the last Ashes series? Did he not hit a crucial 50 to ensure England regained the Ashes at the Oval?

On the other hand, you can't just use any old facts to 'prove' your view is correct, like Fletcher's been doing. The fact is that Ashley Giles has been out of the game for quite a while. He's not taking wickets and he's not really scoring runs.

Here's what Duncan Fletcher said in the aftermath of England's calamitous defeat in Adelaide:

"We want to bat to eight. Look at Australia where Warne had that 100 partnership with Clarke. Those runs put the pressure back on to us."

What Fletcher fails to notice is that Shane Warne isn't England's number eight. He's Australia's. Ashley Giles is England's number eight and he got a duck when England needed runs in the second innings. He also fails to see that Shane Warne took four wickets in England's second innings and gave Australia their marvellous victory. THAT'S why he's playing. Not for his batting.

Kevin Pietersen v Shane Warne: A lesson unlearnt

Remember this post about how well Kevin Pietersen played Shane Warne in the first innings in Adelaide?

We were impressed with how Pietersen controlled himself and padded the ball away. In his second innings, with England en route to a catastrophic defeat, Warne pitched his first ball to Pietersen outside leg-stump into the rough. Pietersen tried to sweep it and got bowled.

Pillock.

Can we say 'well played' to Australia?

We're not totally sure whether we're allowed to do this as a cricket website with an English bent, but we want to commend the Australian team. They played brilliantly.

They may have had a bit of luck to get England out for 129, but it was hardly just luck, was it? Come on. Admit it. Australia played well.

They conceded 551 over the first two days and managed to take only six wickets. From there, they fought back and, on a wearing pitch, almost achieved parity. Then they disposed of England taking full advantage of any nervousness in the opposition. To prove that batting wasn't impossible, they then banished any nerves of their own and swept to their target.

They had one slim chance of winning the match. They sensed it. And they took it. They're a special team.

One that's worth beating.

Shane Warne sucks up the pressure and spits it in England's faces

"When Warney’s bowling and the match is in the balance, we have heart palpitations and have to breathe into a paper bag like they do on the telly."

Almost 12 months ago, we wrote the King Cricket top ten. This is what we wrote about Shane Warne who appeared at two.

The theme of that post is that runs are hard to come by and nerves play a massive part when Warne bowls in tight situations. That's what happened today. Warne took 4-49. England were all out for 129.

England's batsmen batted like lunatics, but Shane Warne created that situation. There would have been a little bit of nervousness at first; then, as wickets fell, they would have increased; until before long the batsmen were gibbering wrecks. That factor plays as big a part as any in Shane Warne's success.

The ability to channel the pressure of a match situation solely onto the batsman is Shane Warne's unique skill.

Australia take jaw-dropping victory

Wow. Glad we're not English.

If we were English, we'd be sickened that a side who scored 551-6 in their first innings contrived to be bowled out for just 129 in their second innings. We'd be incensed that not one batsman managed to stick with Paul Collingwood in order to save this game.

We'd be utterly downhearted at England being two-nil down in a five match series - particularly when they'd performed so positively and encouragingly earlier in the match.

If we were English, all the memories of past Ashes catastophes would be welling up in our mind with grotesque familiarity.

Oh, wait - we are English.

Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif have their bans overturned

Now this is a bit ridiculous. Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif have had their bans overturned. It's seemingly on the grounds that nobody told them not to take various supplements that turned out to be illegal. Never mind ignorance being no defence in the eyes of the law - that's all their defence was.

We've sympathy with Mohammad Asif who had apparently never been given any sort of guidance as to what substances were legal and illegal (although surely any professional sportsman must treat many products with suspicion). Shoaib Akhtar, however, seems pretty clued-up. We'd be surprised if he wasn't aware of any wrongdoing.

Have you seen how burly Shoaib Akhtar is these days? He used to be really slight and wiry.

Andrew Flintoff's ankle injury

England say that Andrew Flintoff has been experiencing 'discomfort' in his left ankle, but that it isn't a concern.

Well we're concerned. It's all well and good to say that he didn't bowl as a precaution, but he's supposed to be bowling. It's a Test match. It's a precaution when you're preserving something for a reason. A Test match IS the reason.

They also try and pass it of as being because of back-to-back Tests. You can't say that either. It's not some roll of the dice that's brought about that situation: The Tests are back-to-back. That's the way cricket is. You have to play according to those rules.

It's clearly time for a bionic ankle, anyway. We don't know why they didn't go ahead with this ages ago. They mucked about before they decided to invest in a bionic knee for Michael Vaughan as well. It shouldn't be that way. It should be: Ankle twinge - bionic ankle; neck twinge - bionic neck; back twinge - bionic back.

Bionics exists for a reason, you know. Mankind didn't create Robocop all those years ago so that England cricketers can just skive matches as they please. England: Heed the lessons of history and implement a policy of replacing body parts with bionic versions at the first sign of trouble.

Matthew Hoggard's ticked off

He's not annoyed, as far as we know. We're the one's doing the ticking on our list of England players who can perform in Australian conditions.

Hoggard was a little bit of a worry. During the last Ashes tour he was pretty inconsequential and while he's clearly a more rounded bowler now, you still want proof. In taking 4-76, he's given us that proof. Matthew, go and stand with Paul Collingwood, Freddie and KP. Wait for everyone else.

A draw's the most likely result, but England won't see it that way. Their plan will be to get a couple of quick wickets early on, dispose of the tail with clinical efficiency, have a bit of a slog and then declare to set up a nailbiting final day.

We believe that they can do it. Cricket's the only place where we believe in unlikely stuff. In real life, we quite often don't believe in reasonably likely things, like 'something nice happening'. We never believe that something nice might happen.

Paul Collingwood - an Ashes double hundred

At the start of play last night, we were nervous because Paul Collingwood was 98 not out. We needn't have worried, because he got his hundred.

And then he got another one.

We always get massively carried away at times like this, but Paul Collingwood is rapidly becoming one of our favourite cricketers. In our current state, with England's towering total acting like the strongest of opiates, we'd say that there was no player we respect more. He's the complete antithesis of the effete, spineless England batsmen who used to crumble at the first 'g'day'.

Someone wrote a headline in a nameless Aussie paper last week: "Is this England's worst ever number four" accompanied by a picture of Collingwood. We've still got a few slices of humble pie left over from the last Test. In fact, we'd better provide that person with the recipe. They'll probably need to go into business mass-producing the stuff.

You can say that this is a flat pitch - and it is - but Paul Collingwood scored 206 against Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Brett Lee and the increasingly impressive Stuart Clark. How flat can a pitch be? That's a fair variety of bowling as well. You can't say he hasn't been tested.

Out of his depth? Technically ill-equipped to bat at four? Those are weak arguments now, surely. Weaker than our will to 'get things done'.

Kevin Pietersen v Glenn McGrath

Occasionally, during a cricket match, there's a passage of play where someone attempts to make some sort of an impact beyond that particular delivery, that over or even the match.

With Test cricket being played over a series, players often talk of having a psychological hold over the opposition. Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne have had a psychological hold over England batsmen for as long as we can remember. One good ball, early on in a series, is enough to make the English worry about what's to come.

Bearing this in mind, was it just us, or did Kevin Pietersen try and knock Glenn McGrath out of his career last night? Glenn's first over (not with the new ball, which went to Stuart Clark) went for 4, 0, 4, 0, 4 and 0. It seemed to us that Pietersen was trying to make a statement above and beyond his not being afraid of McGrath. He was implying that McGrath was a liability.

It may be that McGrath's injured, but he only bowled 12 overs yesterday; he didn't get the new ball; and nor did he get a wicket. It's certainly not his pitch, but that didn't used to matter. It will be intriguing to see how he fights back.

You can say that it's just one bad day for McGrath, but Glenn McGrath NEVER used to have bad days. Especially against England.

Kevin Pietersen v Shane Warne

Quite early on yesterday, Shane Warne started bowling round the wicket into the rough at Kevin Pietersen. Perhaps the theory was that Pietersen would get impatient and go for high-risk shots. He didn't.

It's a strange feature of cricket that you can be impressed by someone essentially doing nothing. 'Good leave' is a baffling and hilarious comment to a non-cricket fan, but cricket's a mind game as much as anything. Leaving the ball can show clear thinking and an appreciation of the match situation. It warmed our heart to see Kevin Pietersen spend half an hour kicking the ball away last night.

It said that he knew what he was doing and that he was there for runs - as many as possible. It also said that Shane Warne had pretty much no other idea what to do.

We're a little bit concerned that Kevin Shine might be talking balls about Steve Harmison

Steve Harmison bowled loads of wides and other garbage during the first Test. Kevin Shine is England's bowling coach. It's his job to mend Steve. Here's what we just read in the Sydney Morning Herald:

According to Shine, a change of just two degrees in the angle of Harmison's bowling arm was the initial cause of the fast bowler's problems.

When bowling at his best, Harmison's arm is six degrees past the perpendicular towards his head. That, however, blew out to eight degrees at various stages at the Gabba, prompting him to lose all sense of direction and rhythm in his first few spells.

We'll be the first to admit that we know less about the technicalities of elite fast bowling that we do about 'applying ourself'. However, two degrees sounds like a mighty fine line between success and abject failure.

Kevin Shine might well be right, but we're worried that to the ears of Steve Harmison, this sounds like: "Steve. There is, quite literally, NO margin for error here. If you're out with one of your movements, by so much as a degree, you'll transform into Crap Bowling Man."

With this playing on your mind in front of millions of people, how would you bowl? We get a bit wobbly and uncertain when we think someone's watching us walk and walking's piss-easy.

James Anderson picked ahead of Monty Panesar

We're as desperate for Monty Panesar to get a game as anyone, but it's not the end of the world that England have selected an unchanged side.

Sure, Anderson was hit-and-miss during the last Test and went for quite a few, but he's a different kettle of fish when the ball swings. He's a giant vat and he's full of sharks.

During the practice match against South Australia, the ball did swing when the ball was new, so Anderson's got a chance to redeem himself. That's fair. We hate it when players are in and out of the side.

As for Monty, he just has to bide his time. He'll definitely get a game in Sydney at the very least. That's the final Test and there could be everything to play for. Monty Panesar could just be England's secret weapon, unleashed to wreak havoc in the final act.

It's all coming together in fantasyland. That's what a reasonable first day total for England gets you: Demented optimism born of a lifetime of England winning the Ashes in your own head and nowhere else.

Paul Collingwood: Another nurdling, nudging, gritty triumph

That title's ironic, by the way. We hate it when people use those words about Paul Collingwood , even if his innings perhaps merits it (except for the word 'triumph' - we don't mind that one). You just get the feeling that people are delighted that he's living up to his reputation. He's not though, because, as we all know, it's reputed that he's out of his depth.

Out of his depth and technically ill-equipped to bat at four, Paul Collingwood has once again fluked his way into the nineties. Please let him get two more runs tomorrow. He's on 98 not out and he deserves a hundred. Sometimes hundreds are all that counts. People say things like: "He hasn't passed three figures in his last ten Test matches" and stuff like that. You could have been averaging 80, but 99 is bottling it; 100 is influencing the course of a match.

Paul Collingwood's twice been out for 96, so presumably he's past the bit where he gets nervous and will be sleeping soundly like we'll be doing tonight, during the afternoon session, awash with curry and beer.