Do you think, after such sports-related injuries as tennis elbow, runner's knee and PlayStation thumb making their way into medical parlance, we will soon be talking about people suffering from selectors' headache?
If so, Geoff Miller and his cohorts must have been fighting over the Paracetamol yesterday, when they met to decide upon a final 13-man squad for the first Ashes Test against Australia (here it is, by the way). They probably weren't helped by the utterly insane run chase undertaken by Peter Trego and Somerset. Even though the 13-man squad can be changed for future matches, it can't have been an easy decision.
It can't have been easy, for example, to leave Steve Harmison out of the side. He bowled superbly for the England Lions in Australia's warm-up game, hurrying the batsmen with his pace and bounce and exposing some real flaws in the famously unorthodox technique of opener Phillip Hughes, dismissing him twice for seven and eight respectively. He bowled brilliantly, just as we all knew he could, but in the effective shootout between Harmison and Durham team mate Graham Onions, who also bowled well, Onions got the nod.
Ricky Ponting spoke out against Harmison's omission, but perhaps oversold him a touch. "He bowls at over 90mph," said Ponting, "and with his height, it's a pretty handy package." The thing is, though, Harmison doesn't bowl at over 90mph - not any more. And when he's not at his best, he's at risk of looking tame.
The 13-man squad is, as Aggers has smartly noticed, a balanced one, with flexibility allowing different selections depending on the conditions. If it's overcast, Onions will take the ball alongside Broad, Flintoff and Jimmy Anderson, with Graeme Swann likely to be the lone spinner, but given Sophia Gardens' - sorry, the Swalec Stadium's - aptitude for spin, it's likely that England will field two spinners, and in the thankful absence of the not-yet-ready Adil Rashid, they will be Swann and Panesar.
The question, of course, is whether Panesar has the nouse to spin out Australia's batsmen. He hasn't developed as well as we would have hoped in the last couple of years, and still sends down stock delivery after stock delivery, like some sort of gravy salesman. Until he learns the importance of variation, he's not going to pose the sort of threat he should.
Australia have a much bigger problem. Their only specialist spinner, Nathan Hauritz, has been very out of touch, and it looks increasingly possible they won't even pick him for the Swalec Stadium Test.
This is surely unthinkable.
The pitch won't just take spin - it will positively demand it. It's no coincidence Glamorgan were fined two points for a "poor" pitch that took too much turn (which naturally didn't help the controversy over the pitch's selection for the first Test). Quite simply, Australia need a specialist spinner, and Hauritz is the only one they have. Michael Clarke and Marcus North are both good quality part-time spinners, but they won't be bowling to take wickets, and I certainly can't see them taking five-fors.
They have to pick Hauritz despite his downturn in form. That's all they can do. Australia's dearth of spinners is good news for England though, especially with the rejuvenated Swann - who, by the way, I have been backing for an international call-up for at least ten years - being the leading Test wicket taker this year. It's enough to make you think Glamorgan's spinfest was picked for reasons other than money.
Maybe not.
Sunday, 5 July 2009
Harmison looks on, and Hauritz's downturn puts Australia in a spin
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Students to pay the price of recession
Just a quick one.
I'm appalled by this news that student loans and grants are to be frozen while tuition fees are set to rise a further two per cent.
In no way is this fair on the record number of students applying for university places this year. I completely understand that we are in a difficult financial situation and to that end, freezing student loans and grants may be a good idea. But you can't do that if you are going to raise tuition fees. You can't have one and not the other; it's both or neither.
Simple as.
Vaughan again no more
It's a shame to see Michael Vaughan has retired. Apart from anything else, he's one of the nicest blokes in cricket: look at that anecdote about his son in the above story. But mainly, of course, he's a fantastic cricketer and captain par excellence.
I do think it's too early for him to retire. He has struggled with form of late, but the greats are able to turn that around. Ricky Ponting confessed he thought Vaughan "might have had a bit more to offer international cricket", and I agree. Think what a vice-captain he'd make to Andrew Strauss.
Also, if the rightly-picked younger players start to stutter then England might need someone with experience, and while the likes of Collingwood, Strauss and - God help us - Pietersen have that experience, they don't have the Test nouse that Vaughan has.
But I don't judge the selectors for dropping Vaughan - of course not. You need to pick on form and current quality, not performances of yesteryear. I wouldn't have picked him for the 16-man squad either (although, having just seen his performance in the Lions warm-up game against Australia, I'm not sure I feel the same about Harmison). It's just a shame that Vaughan took this opportunity to retire because I, like Ponting, really feel he has more to offer. If he'd stuck around on the county circuit for another year or two, he might have picked up a lot more runs and even found himself back in the international set-up - and even if he didn't, he'd still be a major player at his beloved Yorkshire.
So do I think he's lost his bottle and retiring too soon? Yes. He's 34: the 'spending time with the family' excuse doesn't ring true yet, and since he's blaming a loss of form anyway, it's not even relevant. This may seem harsh, but remember I'm a massive Michael Vaughan fan, and let us remember him this way. But ultimately, when the going gets tough the tough get going, and Vaughan has - unfortunately, in the wrong direction.
Friday, 26 June 2009
About Last Night (re: Michael Jackson's death)
At last, then, it seems safe to confirm the death of Michael Jackson at the age of 50. Now the mania is over, we can take a look at the development of the story and how different parts of the media reacted to what were at the time mere allegations.
Sorry, that sounds incredibly boring. I'll keep it simple, then, and I'll keep it brief. Still, if you're expecting Jacko-related jokes ("His heart couldn't beat it any more" etc.), then you're better off trying somewhere else: I was bored of them after minutes, and we've still months of them to come. Joy.
News of MJ's passing first came from TMZ, a celebrity gossip site following a tip-off that paramedics had visited the singer's home. All that was known at that point was that he had gone into cardiac arrest (not the same as a heart attack, by the way), so the entertainment website responsibly responded by telling the whole world HE'S DEAD, HE'S DEAD OH MY GOD HE'S DEAD.
Sky News followed. Of course it bloody did: Sky News' long-standing motto, which it makes no attempt to deny, is 'never wrong for long'.
Which is why I didn't trust it.
Myself, I was waiting for confirmation from BBC News - a predictable but much more reliable outlet - who steadfastly led with nothing more hyperbolic than 'Michael Jackson taken to hospital'. For this, they deserve praise, which should also be lavished upon them for keeping constant coverage, including my hero and one-time pee buddy (don't ask) Lizo Mzimba. BBC Online's headline then graduated onto calling him 'gravely ill' and then the admittedly ill-advised 'Michael Jackson 'dead'' - ill-advised because 'these' just make it sound 'sarcastic' - before finally confirming the story some hours after it first broke.
So given that the story of Jackson's death was true, was the BBC just slow, perhaps even irresponsibly slow, to report it? No. It was waiting for reliable confirmation from official sources, not an entertainment website. As it should do. Take a note, Sky News.
Anyway, once TMZ had broken the 'story' (understand, BBC? 'These' mean 'sarcasm'), it was within minutes all over the internet, as people such as myself sought to learn the truth of the news from more people like myself. That is, people didn't know whether Jackson was alive or dead, so had to ask other people who didn't know either. This led to a hive of activity, soon becoming a hive of inactivity as the internet buckled under the weight of worldwide confusion. Briefly, Google died, Twitter died and even TMZ, who started the whole thing, died. Nice work bringing that on yourself, guys.
Will the interwebs be able to withstand another assault on their blogotubes? I don't think we'll ever know.
I can't think of many stories that would have such an effect worldwide - people talk about the death of the Queen and the like causing a global stir, but due to the decline in the British Empire and the release of best-selling album ever Thriller, she hasn't touched as many people in as many countries as Michael Jackson. Think of that what you will.
But it does show that social networking sites are now the best news aggregators you can hope for. Find a story, pass it on. Admittedly you have to wade through the shit (OMG HES DED!!!!!!!!!!!!!11), but Twitter, with its #hashtags and trending topics, is actually quite a good news source.
Anyway, now it's all over and his death has been confirmed, what have we learned? Well...nothing, really. The story was right. So TMZ and Sky News were right. Damn. I was hoping this would be a chance for people to realise they can't be trusted.
And Jackson's death itself? Well, with debt, illness and 50 concert dates he was never realistically going to make, the conspiracy theories are flying around almost as quickly as the jokes. But it's my firm belief that he's dead, and we should accept that. Sorry, kids.
Perhaps not.

