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 Austral