The Harbhajan Singh / Andrew Symonds issue is not directly connected with The Ashes (which is what this particular blog is all about), but it’s such a massive issue that I just had to say something about it.

I’m not one of those Australian cricket commentators who reckons the Aussie team should all be sacked. In fact, I’m not quite sure what they’ve done wrong, but I’ll try and work through a few of the allegations:

1. Did Singh call Symonds a “monkey”?
I think he did, but he probably didn’t intend it as a racist term. However, he knew that Symonds did consider it to be racially offensive, as they apparently had a chat about this very issue during the one-day series in India last October, so it probably wasn’t a smart thing to do. Maybe Singh forgot about that in the heat of the moment, so he just went and used the first offensive term that came to his head. So Singh is offended when he is accused of being racist (because he didn’t intend to be), whilst Symonds feels that he’s been the victim of racism and, in accordance with ICC rules, his captain informed the match referee. I’m just theorising here, but this does seem to work for me.
Update: January 13, 2008 …
It looks like my theory was close to being right. According to the Indians, Harbhajan used an offensive Punjabi phrase - “maa ki” (which means “motherf…”) - it sounds like “monkey”, but it was not a racial taunt. Was this version of events put forward during the initial hearing with match referee Mike Procter? Anyway, this is the line the Indians will be putting forward when the appeal is heard some time after the third Test in Perth. However, I don’t understand why the Indians would think this phrase is OK, but they’ve accused Brad Hogg of racial vilification for calling a couple of the Indians “bastards”. Smells like double standards to me. If Brad Hogg is guilty for using the term “bastards”, then Harbhajan Singh is guilty for using “maa ki”.

2. Should Andrew Symonds have walked after edging one through to the ‘keeper early on in his innings?
No. Hardly anyone does, so we can’t say he did anything unusual or that he “cheated”, as some are saying. Take a look at this footage of Harbhajan Singh being clean bowled by Kevin Pietersen. Singh is clearly out, yet he refused to walk. So the Indians can hardly say that they are a team of righteous, “we always walk” sorts of guys.

3. Should the Australians have appealed for the Rahul Dravid caught behind?
Yes. The video footage, in slow motion, suggests that the ball came off Dravid’s front pad, yet the Aussies all appealed. Why? First up, the rules of cricket state that you’ve got to appeal in order to get a guy out (unless it’s an obvious one like being bowled, eh Harbhajan), so if they don’t appeal then, even if the umpire thinks the batsman is out, he can’t raise the finger. That’s why you’ll see players appealing all the time for anything caught behind. They’re usually a bit better for the LBWs, but some, even the Indians, can get a bit ridiculous with those. So I reckon if the situation had been reversed and it had been Mike Hussey batting, and if Huss had edged the ball off his pad to the ‘keeper, I think the Indians would have appealed too. It’s then up to the umpire to make the call.

4. Was the umpiring really that bad?
Yes. The umpiring was terrible, and perhaps it changed the result of the game. Here’s a collection of poor umpiring decisions from that 2nd Test, as shown on Indian television:

I don’t think Australia “cheated”, as some are saying, I just think they were fortunate enough this time to have most of the poor decisions going in their favour. There have been plenty of occasions in the past when poor umpiring has gone against the Australians … see, for example, pretty much every Test match Australia played in India and Pakistan during the 1980s. So if the Indians and sporting public in general have a problem, then it should be directed at the umpires, not the Australian cricket team.

Having said that, umpiring is a tough job. I spent a season working as a professional umpire when I was just a teenager living in Melboure, and it was hard work. The pressure is intense, and mistakes are easily made. Umpires Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson are experienced guys, and they’d be used to a fair bit of pressure, but they are still only human and will therefore make the occasional mistake. The replays we get on television make it all too easy for us as we sit in our lounge rooms, but it’s not as easy as that when you’re out there in the middle with the noise of 30,000 people buzzing around.

Well, it looks like England’s hero of the 2005 Ashes crashed in the 2006/2007 series in a big way. According to a book by former England coach Duncan Fletcher, Flintoff turned up drunk at a training drill in Sydney:

We were doing one drill called the ‘cut and pull’ with two groups either side of me, requiring an accurate throw from one side so that I could cut.

Flintoff was in such a state that he could not throw properly. He had to pass the ball to the bloke next to him to do so … I was fuming and stopped the practice early. Remember: this was the England captain in this state.

Fletcher considered dropping Flintoff as captain. I think he should have. In fact, he should have taken the lead that the Australian team did with Andrew Symonds when he was also inebriated at a training run - dropped for the game. It turned Symonds around, and maybe it would have helped Flintoff as well. As it is, they did nothing, and things only got worse as Flintoff again got too friendly with the drink at the World Cup.

A few days ago a newspaper article appeared in The Guardian quoting Michael Vaughan criticising Andrew Flintoff’s drunken adventure in the Caribbean. In the article Vaughan suggests that he’d have done a much better job at captaining the side if it weren’t for Mr Flintoff and the death of Bob Woolmer … however, I think we can ignore the issue of Bob Woolmer’s death as everyone at the World Cup had to deal with that so England was not unique in that regard.

Naturally enough, this criticism of England’s Super Fred has caused quite a furore, with Lancashire’s CEO saying that Vaughan’s comments were “despicable”, and now Vaughan is saying he was misquoted, a claim The Guardian denies.

However, this blog is dedicated to talk about the Ashes, so did Vaughan have anything to say about that? Absolutely! The Guardian asked Michael Vaughan if Flintoff was the wrong choice to replace him as captain in the Ashes:

“With the way Australia played, and the injuries we picked up, it would have been very difficult for anyone to match their intensity and character. But when you bat, bowl and field in an Ashes series, it’s a hell of an ask to be captain as well. People also have to remember that when I took on Australia as captain I’d had almost 2½ years in the job. Fred didn’t have that experience.”

Shall we take that as a “Yes”?

Michael, I suppose you could have helped England in their Ashes campaign if you’d been allowed to?

“I could’ve taken a little of that pressure. I spoke to Flintoff a few times but it was made clear to me I had to get myself fit first.”

You’re obviously fairly confident in your own ability:

“I’m not an arrogant guy - everyone knows that.
… A day will come when I think England will be better without me but at the minute I think they’re a lot better off with me. There’s nothing wrong in thinking you’re quite good.”

Right, you’re not arrogant, you’ve just come to recognise the fact that England minus Michael Vaughan is a mere shadow of the team they are with you … when you’re not under pressure, anyway.

What happened, Freddie? Well, we know what happened - you went out on the town for a bit of that famous Caribbean hospitality, and had a few too many drinks. You couldn’t skipper the national cricket team, and it looks like you can’t skipper a pedal boat either.

Perhaps it all became just a bit too much for him. Granted, he was in charge when England lost the Ashes 5-0, then Vaughan came back and England defeated Australia in the one-day series final. That can’t have done much for Freddie’s confidence. Then the England team heads over to the World Cup with some degree of confidence, and promptly lose to New Zealand in their first game. Time to, er, celebrate with a few drinks and a cruise. In a pedal boat. And a bit of a swim at 4am.

Mind you, this isn’t the first time a top cricketer has found the appeal of a right royal booze up too hard to resist, and it won’t be the last. However, it should not ever be encouraged, and I congratulate the England team management on their tough stance against such behaviour. Apparently Flintoff was warned about his excessive drinking a few times on the recent Ashes tour, but it wasn’t until he took things just a little too far that any firm action was taken.

It’s time to move on, Freddie. Let’s see if you can get back some of that lost form, and show some heroics on the field, not off it.

“In eight years in the England team, that was as low as I have ever seen players feel. That is what tours like this can do to people. You are getting beat up most days for the whole tour. It has to have some kind of effect.”
- Michael Vaughan

Vaughan is obviously worried about how his team will go at the World Cup - it’s not looking too good for them. Kevin Pietersen has admitted that he’s glad to be away from it all at home in England, which may explain why he left in such a hurry after suffering a minor rib injury:

“He was on the plane before the x-ray came back. If he’s got a broken rib, fair enough, but it wasn’t displaced broken. It was just cracked and given two weeks’ break he could be playing.”
- Allan Border

Well, Allan, now we know why Pietersen was on that plane - he was sick of being part of a side that was incapable of winning. Pietersen did say that he would return to Australia if England were to make the one-day series final, presumably because that would mean that his side would have won at least a few games, so perhaps the culture and morale of the squad would have improved sufficiently for his liking.

But then, he’s not the only one who would like to be away from playing cricket in Australia. Apparently Sajid Mahmood would also prefer to be anywhere but in Australia playing cricket, and I suspect there are another 14 players, 34 wives and children, and 10 support staff who are also looking forward to being back in the Mother Country.

Is there something wrong with the England team? More than just playing really bad cricket, is there some underlying cause?

“I think they’re overcomplicating it. I can’t imagine how many meetings they’re having, they need to somehow clear their minds and just play, and have fun. They look confused as to how to play and once you get nervous about getting out you’re always playing with hesitation.”
- Michael Slater

We all know about England’s famous bowling plans that went missing during the Boxing Day Test, and we all know who stole them. Here’s the footage again for those who missed it last time:

Seriously, perhaps it was an “inside job”. Maybe the players are so sick and tired of Duncan Fletcher’s overly complicated plans and analyses that one of them decided to take matters into his own hands … and then pass it on to the media.

In an interview on ABC radio, Australian selector Jamie Cox suggested that there must be something seriously wrong in the England dressing room. Something is causing this mayhem that we are seeing out on the park. For a while there I was saying that England’s not that bad - they’ve simply come up against a very, very good side … but now I’m not so sure. Now I think England’s one-day outfit is looking like a very poor team, and something has to change within the side in order to turn things around.

Is it bad planning or too much planning? Is there conflict amongst the players or the management? Or is the England team simply out of its depth?

In a video interview with Richie Benaud at News of the World, Kevin Pietersen has declared that England will be the best team in the world in 2008:

“The England statement was to be the best team in the world in 2007 and I don’t think that this has done the England team any harm …
We’re going to be a greatly improved team. That statement [regarding becoming the best team in the world] might be put on hold for a year.”
- Kevin Pietersen

On the ICC Test rankings, England is on 114 points to Australia’s 135, so England is going to have to win most of their Test matches over the coming year in order to topple Australia. And, importantly, Australia will have to start losing a few series to give England a chance. Frankly, I can’t see that happening. Nor can Mike Atherton:

“This England team is not bereft of talent, but there is a fug of complacency that needs to be stamped out.”
- Mike Atherton

I agree with Mike. The complacency shown by Stephen Harmison and others in the England squad has got to go, and that may only happen if certain administrators - and perhaps even a few players - are dismissed.

Pack your bags, Mr Graveney and Mr Fletcher, it’s time for a holiday!

“We had a whole squad under 30 years of age and there have been some big losses to this side, huge losses, and it always takes time to fill those gaps.”
- Duncan Fletcher

With all due respect, Mr Fletcher, I disagree. For an example of what can be achieved, look at how quickly the new guys in the Australian team have filled the gaps after losing a few men from 2005.

In fact, let’s look at the players that have been lost from both sides from the 5th Test in 2005, which was a draw, when compared with the 1st Test in Brisbane, which Australia won by 277 runs:

Australia: Tait, Katich
England: Vaughan, Trescothick

Now let’s look at the statistics for Vaughan and Trescothick in 2005, and compare it with their replacements in 2006/07.

In 2005, Michael Vaughan made 326 runs at an average of 32.60. His replacement at number 3 was Ian Bell, who made 331 runs at 33.10. So at number 3, England actually gained 5 runs for the series, so you can hardly call it a “huge loss”

In 2005, Marcus Trescothick made 431 runs at an average of 43.10. His replacement at the top of the order was Alastair Cook, who made 276 runs at 27.60. So in Cook, England lost 155 runs. Ok, that is a lot of runs, but this is the only loss of runs from a replacement player that England had from that 5th Test at The Oval.

To say that “there have been some big losses to this side, huge losses” is, well, wrong.

“When you get young guys coming into a side, they’re always inconsistent and that’s what happened. We took about two years to build that Ashes-winning side. This winter was probably a winter too early.”

What hope does England have of ever being the number one Test nation if their coach reckons they can only be competitive once every two or three years?

Rebuilding a side takes time, Duncan, but you actually didn’t have to do much rebuilding between the final Test in 2005 and the first Test in 2006. It wasn’t the young replacements that lost it for you this time, it was the guys like Flintoff, Strauss, Giles, Jones and Hoggard - the experienced ones who just didn’t perform as well as they did in 2005.

Simon Hughes from London’s Daily Telegraph interviews a very honest Ricky Ponting. Punter gets it right when he says that Australia had to work very, very hard for this Ashes win, and I think he also offers a fair and accurate assessment of England when he says that they played really well at times, but were forced into playing uncharacteristically poor cricket. Sure, England’s batsmen could have selected their shots a little more carefully, but that’s what intense pressure does to you. We saw that from the Australians in 2005 when England’s bowlers were on song, and we’ve seen it in this series.

The biggest difference between this series and the previous one in England has got to be the bowlers on both sides. In 2005 Australia’s bowling was ragged. McGrath missed the two Tests that Australia lost, and Dizzy Gillespie and Kasprowicz were well short of their usual standards. Meanwhile, England were bowling as well as they ever have.

In 2006/2007 it was England who went in without a key bowler in Simon Jones, and it was Stephen Harmison who looked completely out of touch. Eighteen months ago at Lord’s Harmy’s first over was terrifying … in November 2006 his first over was atrocious. That opening over, perhaps, set up the series and the final result for both Australia and England.

Another of Australia’s greats will retire at the end of the Sydney Test, with Justin Langer saying that the timing’s right for him to hang up his boots. Speaking about Australia’s unexpected win in Adelaide, he said:

“I just wonder how it can get better than that? Everyone keeps saying ‘you’ll know when it’s time’. Well, at one o’clock two days ago I knew it was time - it just came to me.”

Langer is Australia’s warrior, and that gritty, hard-nosed determination will certainly be missed. He scored 3 double hundreds in his career, 23 centuries, and together with his good mate Matt Hayden was one of the most potent opening partnerships the game has ever known. He contemplated retirement after copping a heavy blow to the head from Makhaya Ntini last February, but, like Shane Warne, the desire to win back the Ashes was so strong that he had to continue on until the precious urn was back in Australian hands.

With so much determination flowing through this Australian team, is it any wonder that England have been blown away?