Will Saeed Ajmal unveil a new mystery ball in the series against England? Perhaps the fabled teesra?
I would love to see it, and especially to see how the England batsmen, now so well supported by their coaches and intense video analysis, react to the new challenge…if it exists.
Is Ajmal playing mind games? Graham Gooch seems to think so – but what if Ajmal really does have something new?
It should be fun to watch!
I watched the BBC’s newly edited version of “John Arlott in Conversation with Mike Brearley”, with some trepidation. Here was the owner of the voice of cricket from my youth, about to be quizzed by one of England’s most successful captains, the man with the reputation of having perhaps the most probing mind amongst all England cricketers.
In the days when I had time to watch or listen to broadcast cricket matches, I longed to hear more of Richie Benaud’s expert dissection of the play – Benaud could tell you exactly what had just happened, and why – but Arlott remains the only commentator, ancient or modern, who could describe a cricket match with his poet’s eye and entrance sports fans and non-fans alike.
The original programmes were not scripted-for-TV interviews. The pauses, for thought and for another glass of wine, might not be allowed in a modern broadcast (maybe even not in 1984, when the original interviews took place, but for the remit of the then recently launched Channel 4 to provide an alternative to then existing channels).
But “John Arlott in Conversation…” is a most moving portrait of a truly human human being, who also happened to be the greatest commentator on cricket, ever.
“What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?” – CLR James
John Arlott knew so much more than cricket. But let’s not talk about that any more.
There is a lively debate going on in my Club this autumn, as our League seeks opinions on the best form of cricket to encourage younger players to stay in the game after they leave the Colts set-up. Do we go with limited overs, because every one watches IPL and T20 and wants to play that way? Or can we come up with a formula to make “time” cricket more attractive?
I admit to being biased. I grew up playing time games (or “proper” cricket – there’s the bias!), and to me the dual challenge of scoring runs and taking wickets almost always makes for a more interesting game than the “simple” run chase of a over-limited match.
I enjoy T20. But I still think that the more consistently successful players are using skills from the longer game. And as a coach, I think young players will learn more varied skills by playing a variety of forms of the game.
But can “time” be made as attractive as T20 to the younger players? I think it can.