The Sledge, The Niggle and Gamesmanship in general

With fairly definite views regarding The Sledge, The Niggle and Gamesmanship in general, it’s safe to assume Hughesy will be scanning the press reports over the next few days.

What follows is an exercise in gathering content that might be relevant at some point down the track, a compendium rather than a commentary, though one can’t help commentating from time to time.

The thrice daily news bulletin from the ABC that arrived this morning pointed me towards The Ashes: Chris Rogers comes to David Warner's defence over Jonathan Trott criticism. You might find a statement like no-one in the Australian team knew about Trott's condition, and the remarks were not meant to be hurtful a trifle difficult to swallow, but that’s what he apparently said. We’re obviously looking for short term tactical advantage, not long term psychological damage. There’s also a comment from Peter Siddle along the lines of Anderson brought Clarke's sledge/threat on himself, which I’m inclined to see as a reminder that all this stuff is a two way street.

Don’t, in other words, get all holier than thou if you’re inclined to dish it up yourself.

THere’s a comment along those lines in The Ashes: James Anderson threatened George Bailey before Clarke sledge, says Shane Warne along with the  comment from a tight-lipped Bailey that Anderson must have been just a bit upset about the way the game was going, which also suggests that whatever remarks George was chirping from under the lid were hitting home.

Turning the attention to the regular items in my Safari Top Sites, I headed over to the Cricket page on ABC Grandstand for The Ashes: Kim Hughes labels David Warner comments about Jonathan Trott as 'disgraceful', where Hughes admits The Sledge is part and parcel of the game. I don't know why. They say it is, it shouldn't be. But you don't do it off the field. That's just deplorable and unacceptable in any field of endeavour.

Point taken, but see previous comments about those without sin, and consider Hughesy’s long-standing belief that what transpires on the field shouldn’t be affected by organised denigration from the other side of the boundary.

The question of who fills the vacancy created at Three for England has Mike Atherton advocating Joe Root because he played Mitchell Johnson well, ... looked compact, ... got a nice stride into the ball and also dealt with all of the verbals (Here).

Nasser Hussain and Ian Chappell tend to favour Bell, and candidates to fill the vacancy caused by either of them moving up the order are Jonny Bairstow, unless Zimbabwean-born Gary Ballance or all-rounder Ben Stokes, who, according to Atherton gives the option of bringing Monty Panesar in and playing a second spinner, with Stokes as the third seamer if the pitch looks as flat as has been suggested.

Updates in the ICC Rankings are covered in The Ashes: Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon in ICC top 20 bowlers, Michael Clarke number four batsman. Johnson is now ranked 19th with the ball and 78th with the bat, Lyon 18th with the ball and Clarke up to 4th in the batting. In other moves Cook moves into 10th, Warner to 17th and Haddin 42nd with the bat, Broad and Tremlett are now 7th and 32nd with the ball).

Full rankings are here, where one notes Broad rates 4th in the All-Rounders list with Watson and Johnson 7th and 8th respectively.

Further down the page The Ashes: Jonathan Trott receives support from England players past and present after leaving tour reveals Michael Vaughan expressed regret for questioning Trott's performances in the media.

As the content increasingly disappears behind the Murdoch paywall I’ve given The Australian the flick, moving, instead to The Guardian, where, this morning Australia have no intention of changing their aggressive approach to the Ashes. Click there and you’ll find the main points are Darren Lehmann sees no reason to be less vocal and his county side Warwickshire always knew of Jonathan Trott's illness.

I may have cause to refer back to Ashes: England must learn the lessons they started studying a long time ago: Andy Flower and his team have been here before. It's not that England's chances are dead, just that the contest is alive, which is why I’ve stuck it in here.

Glenn McGrath’s Trott was right to go home, an Ashes tour is no place to sort out problems is another one I may well be referring back to on the basis of Pigeon’s suggestion that West Indian comments of Let's kill him, man. Let's kill him as he walked in to bat weren’t too far removed from Clarke’s go at Anderson.

McGrath makes the most important point when he writes:

But there is a line – it's fine as long as it doesn't get too personal. When I played, an opposition bowler (or batsman for that matter) could call me any name under the sun, I had no issue. But if they started to bring in family members, or personal issues, then that's different. That is why I thought the treatment Mitchell Johnson got on the tour of England in 2009 was a bit rough, when you start to bring in what is happening on a personal front.

Cricinfo has:

Root most likely solution for No. 3 while Australia to conserve pace resources focusses on the three day turn around between Adelaide and Perth, raises the suggestion Faulkner may come in for Bailey in Adelaide, and suggests Coulter-Nile, Bollinger, Sayers and Cutting as possible replacements should one of the current line up break down.

There’s nothing particularly new in Lehmann rejects sledging summit but

Fun turns to fear for Jonathan Trott offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Trott issue that prompts Hughesy to make two points.

The first is that while Australia might not have known of the mental issues that prompted Trott’s return home they would have been aware of issues that seem to verge on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The second is, of course, to emphasise that players do actually need a break from time to time.

Time for Trott to seek new truths quotes an unnamed England player whose identity will remain secret because his assessment went to the heart of England's approach. "It can feel as if there is no escape," he said. "It as if everything you do is being assessed, as if every little thing you do is being marked and analysed and stored away. If you are not careful, it can wear you down. It's incredibly difficult to come to terms with it."

That comment, mind you, is about the England approach to the game. The opposition, of course, will be operating in the same territory as they set out looking for things that can be exploited.

Cognitive behaviour consultant Brett Morrissey, who has worked with Michael Yardy who left England's 2011 World Cup campaign is interviewed for The expert view - Big strides have been made and 'You just can't take any more' - Trescothick cites another high profile casualty.

There’s some interesting reading there to keep you going while you wait for the two squads to wend their way to Adelaide.

Developments since the close of play…

I guess it comes down to how you like your scripts.

In an old theme that’s predictable as hell, you come up with the odd new twist, and we’ve got a few of them coming into play in and around the announcement that Jonathan Trott is heading home suffering from a Stress-related illness.

To me, it’s all part of The Ongoing Niggle that was always going to feature as a key element in the series.

It has been obvious for a while that Trott had some issues with short-pitched fast bowling, as most mortals would, and David Warner’s description of his second innings at The Gabba as weak might have been better left unsaid, but, to me at least, didn’t rate as “unprofessional”.

I may have the timing wrong, but the use of the latter term by Alastair Cook preceded the he’s going home announcement and looks an awful lot like part of the approach you’d take to limit the damage inflicted in the psychological Niggle War.

You’d have to assume that the England management team were aware of the deeper issues (at any rate they claim to have been) and had adopted an array of measures to handle the problem. Some of those would have been negotiated with the batsman. Others, on a less official try it and see how it goes basis, put in place by the coach and support staff.

One way of handling those issues is to deflect scrutiny away from any perceived weakness by changing the subject. Don’t, in other words, talk about the man’s problem, divert the attention onto someone else’s unprofessionalism.

All of which, of course, depends on your definition of professionalism, doesn’t it?

If they knew there was an issue and the coach and support staff failed to take action, they’d be unprofessional.

 If someone in the England camp happened to let slip that Jonathan had a problem, to do something they’d be unprofessional.

Equally, if you’re out to induce doubts about technical issues and you suspected there was a weakness there that could be exploited, you’d be unprofessional.

And once that comment had been made if the management failed to respond by describing the comment as unprofessional, they’d be unprofessional themselves.

The main point here is that by making the announcement and talking about stress-related illness in this environment you’d reckon they’ve effectively ended Trott’s international career as far as playing against Australia and his native South Africa are concerned. That doesn’t mean his actual career is done and dusted.

Marcus Trescothick went home under similar circumstances, and is still playing for and captaining Somerset at the age of 37 (he turns 38 on Christmas Day) and is looking to play on until he’s forty. A glance at the recent matches here suggests he’s not scoring heaps of runs, but he’s there, playing on and probably enjoying it.

As far as Trott is concerned, the Australian team would have spotted what they thought was a weakness and have been busily probing away since the suggestion that there was one was raised.

The other Niggle-related issue that has come into the spotlight is the Clarke-Anderson imbroglio, and the decision to fine the Australian captain 20% of his match fee.

Hopefully Channel Nine, or whoever left the effects microphone on will pony up with the dosh, because if they were handing out the equivalent penalty every time someone used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match we’d probably have most of the English and Australian squads paying for the privilege of representing their country.

Seriously, over five days, if everyone got pinged 20% of their match fee every time they used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match you’d expect most international players would end up playing for nothing.

The key issue here isn’t whether obscene, offensive or insulting remarks are made it’s more a question of whether they’ve been disseminated.

I watched the whole thing unfold, and it was obvious that there was a fair degree of Niggle flying back and forth between Anderson and George Bailey at short leg. Whether those exchanges included a wish to punch Bailey in the face as alleged by Clarke’s mate Shane Warne, in neither here nor there (as far as I’m concerned).

You can see the whole thing through a link to the Channel Nine footage here and, for mine, there was no reason why that microphone needed to be on at the time.

Unless, of course, you’re looking for material to spice up the coverage and give commentators something to talk about. If that’s the case, and your decision is largely responsible for the matter receiving the attention it did, it’s your responsibility to come up with the readies, isn’t it?

Actually, read a bit further down that ABC News article and it’s obvious that there’s a long standing issue between Clarke and Anderson. One would suggest that neither of them are Robinson Crusoe as far as longstanding animosity towards other members of the international cricket community are concerned.

I guess what’s said on the field stays on the field only applies until commentators need something to talk about or players need something to add spice to the old autobiography or tour diary.

Look at it that way, and you’ve got the beginnings of a sustainable industry as various individuals use their memoirs to deliver their versions of events and their reactions to them.

Lords Day 1

I’ve been banging on for a while about the need for Australia’s batsmen to work on their bowling a bit, and Michael Clarke’s decision to hand the ball to Steve Smith at the start of the 76th over might just suggest there’s something in that suggestion.

Clarke’s not afraid to try things, and is equally disinclined to persevere with something that’s not working, which would tend to explain the decision to hand the ball to Watson for the fifth over, a decision that was rewarded with the wicket of Cook, who, interestingly, walked where certain other individuals may have been tempted to linger and discuss a referral.

That suggests a reasonably hard-nosed attitude and a fair aptitude for assessing the chance of success.

I’d been inclined to favour Bird over Harris as the replacement for Starc, but the man they call Rhino definitely delivered. Two early wickets (Root and Pietersen) and the one that broke a 99-run partnership is a fair return for twenty economical overs. The question, of course, is how long you can keep him going, and the question of who to bowl if he breaks down comes into the equation as well.

That, of course, is one of the reasons for the everybody should be able to roll their arm over and send down something reasonable proposition.

With half the side used yesterday it’s also interesting that Pattinson’s eighteen overs were the least impressive contribution with the ball, though one notes the peculiar conditions that apply when you’re bowling at Lords.

For the uninitiated there’s an eight foot drop in height from one square boundary to the other, so the ground has the sort of built in slope that would long since have disappeared in a renovation/reconstruction project anywhere other than the fabled home of cricket.

Pattinson was wayward early, which accounted for Watson’s introduction to the crease. His twelve overs were about where you’d want them on a day when the workload was shared fairly evenly among the main quicks. I’ve always held that one of the benefits of Bowling Watto’s presence in the side is the fact that he saved the other blokes from overwork without any significant drop in aggression, pace or intensity.

Siddle and Harris did the workhorse bit fairly well, but it wasn’t a day when the attack really hit the heights after that impressive score line of 3 for 28 at the end of the sixth over.

From that point Trott and Bell fought back well (as you’d expect). Bell, in particular, has a fair degree of gritty stickability and scores at a reasonable rate as well. Trott’s in much the same mould, so while you’d like to get them cheaply you’ve got to expect fairly stiff resistance so it’s a case of keep it tight and wait for the opportunity, which arrived with a catch in the deep to dispose of Trott.

At that point, 4-127 in the thirty-fourth over, having gone to lunch at 3-80 off twenty-six, things looked to be swinging back Australia’s way, but a 144-run partnership between Bell and Bairstow had England looking good in the run down to the new ball, which is where Smith came into the action.

There’d been the regulation bit of bad luck (or whatever) back in the forty-ninth over with Bairstow bowled off what ended up being ruled a no ball after extensive forensic investigation. There wasn’t much in it, and if it hadn’t hit the stumps and attracted the umpire’s attention on the big screen as the batsman went to leave, it would probably have been counted as a perfectly legal delivery.

Back to the decision to bowl Smith.

In these circumstances, with a substantial partnership, the new ball imminent and not much longer to go, it’s the classic time to try something, and it would be handy to have a few options now that Clarke’s back seems to have taken his left arm tweakers out of the equation.

It had been Watson and Siddle, who’d just come back replacing Pattinson who might need a brief spell before taking the new ball and Clarke had been working the changes already, with short spells indicating a willingness to experiment and see what we can manage to come up with.

Handed the ball, Smith delivers four dots, concedes a four and picks up the prize scalp off the last ball, caught at slip off a perfectly pitched leggie.

Siddle bowls again, Smith gets another over, which goes for three, Siddle bowls a maiden and Smith picks up a second wicket off a full toss at the start of his third over. Bairstow pops the ball back for a caught and bowled, and Smith has his sixth Test wicket, five of which have been taken at Lords.

At that point Clarke could have taken the new ball, but with Smith doing what he was doing, why would you? While you’d prefer the bowler to land them, that wicket’s a reminder you don’t always need to.

At 6-279 Siddle delivers a maiden, Smith has another go, and it yields a four. Harris comes on preparing to take the new ball, Smith gets a third, caught behind and with Anderson in as night watchman to protect Broad it’s time to see what the new ball can do.

As it turns out, two doses of the new pill take the score on to 7-289 at stumps.

The key point here is that little cameo from Smith (6 overs, 1 maiden, 3 for 18) has things set up very nicely for the resumption tomorrow. The new pill is just two overs old, Pattinson and Harris will be fresh and if we pick up a quick wicket, at eight-for and Swann still to come, you’d have to think Broad can’t do all that much damage.

My Day One Par Score is around 6 for 320. On that basis, Australia definitely finishes the day with a nose in front with the prospect of a quick conclusion to the innings and the chance to (hopefully) bat all day to set things up...

Outlook: Definitely bullish.

And in overnight news...

I was slightly late out of the cot this morning, and a combination of a late rise, bin day and a deposit left by an incontinent cat meant I didn’t manage to get to Cricinfo before it was time to head out on the morning walk.

That’s not a problem, because a glance at the ABC News website and The Australian gave me plenty to ponder on the hour-long lap around the Catalina memorial, the Bowen Jetty and the Yacht Club.

The first of them, unsurprisingly, was the unsurprising news of Mickey Arthur’s unsurprising claim that Michael Clarke believes Shane Watson's faction is a "cancer" within the side (here and here, and undoubtedly in a myriad of other locations). The only thing that was surprising was the suggestion the news was leaked, and it’s a suggestion I’m inclined to give a bit of credence to since it will possibly have a detrimental effect on the sales of Mickey’s autobiography when it eventually appears.

Old news and all that...

What one hopes has happened is that these issues have been raised behind closed doors in the team environment, with the message delivered heavy on the words then, now, continuation and contract terminated.

I’ve no doubt the rift happened, but hopefully the law has been laid down, team procedures and protocols set in place, and anyone not happy with the new regime has been offered an airfare home and N.T.T.A. (Never To Tour Again) status.

Took me all of five minutes to sort that one out, though I did spend a bit more time considering team protocols and such, which was rehashing old ground, since I’ve banged on about the need for a social committee and suggested that there needs to be some sort of sergeant-at-arms fine system put in place.

After the law had been laid down, I’d have liked to see a suggested list of offences and penalties tabled, with suggestions about additions welcomed from the floor. Infringements would involve a certain number of points, with some additional penalty being imposed on whoever’s managed to accumulate the most, and a reduction in your tally if you come up with a really good sledge, chirp or whatever you want to call it.

I’d have Haddin as the sergeant-at-arms, with misdirected throws from the outfield being 10, 20 or 30 point infringements and penalties in place for a variety of serious and non-serious offences, all the way down to dressing room flatulence.

In any case, the Arthur allegations are hardly news.

More interesting, at least from where I’m sitting, is the report (here) that: The International Cricket Council has admitted there were three uncorrected umpiring errors during the Trent Bridge Test but, no doubt to the chagrin of many England commentators, the alleged Ashton Agar "stumping" wasn't one of them.

Two of the three involved Stuart Broad’s innings, and the suggestion that Broad should have been out LBW while not offering a shot underlines the need for us to get our use of the DRS sorted out. The third involved the Trott first ball LBW.

Interestingly, none of those involved our batting, which suggests additional proof the English approach to the DRS while they’re in the field is working.

The most interesting snippet came with Haddin’s suggestion (here) that a war of attrition might be the key to reducing the effectiveness of England's Ashes pace bowling spearhead James Anderson.

Anderson, of course, is their key bowler, and it makes sense to do whatever you can to force Cook to keep turning to him because the rest of the attack is being mauled. He’s the go to man, but if they go to him often enough eventually the wear and tear will wear him down. Stands to reason, doesn’t it?

Actually, the interesting part will come if and when he does break down, because at that point we might have confirmation of the fifty overs in a Test makes you more likely to break down in the next one argument that was used to justify the old rotation policy and the dropping of Pattinson and Siddle in Perth.

The over counts from Trent Bridge make for interesting reading.

Running down the order they bowled Pattinson had 51 overs (5 wickets), Starc 49 (5 wickets), Siddle 47.5 (8 wickets), Agar 42 overs for 2 and Watson 19, wicketless, but at a rather economical rate. On the England side the story is Anderson 55.5 for 10 scalps, Finn 25 overs (2 wickets), Swann 63 overs (4 wickets) and Broad 29.5 for 3. Root also bowled a couple, taking 1 for 6.

On that basis, lining up the attacks, the Australian workload looks to have been shared evenly among the quicks, thoughWatson could have bowled more, while it’s obvious England are going to lean on Anderson and Swan, which doesn’t come as a surprise.

The surprise comes with the suggestion that Swann, tipped to be a major factor on pitches apparently made to order for offies, doesn’t seem to have come through and trouble an Australian lineup that is supposed to be vulnerable to spin. Match figures of 63 overs, 14 maidens, 4 for 164 are reasonably economical, bit that strike rate of a wicket per 94.5 balls suggests that while he might take wickets he may well have to do plenty of bowling to do so.

I have a suspicion that a subpar performance on Indian decks a few months ago might say as much about what was happening in the dressing room and behind the scenes as it does about what was going on in the middle.

See Point 1 above...