What the three teams need to do to qualify for the CB series finals after having each played six matches in the competition

S Rajesh24-Feb-2012If Australia win one of their remaining two games, they are through to the finals•Getty ImagesSri Lanka
They’re currently sitting pretty on 15 points, but aren’t yet through to the finals: if India win their last two games and if Australia beat Sri Lanka in the last match of the round-robin, then Sri Lanka will miss out on the finals. Sri Lanka could also miss out if they lose both their matches and concede a bonus point to India, and if Australia beat India. In such a case India and Sri Lanka will be level on 15, but India will scrape through on the basis of having more wins against Sri Lanka (two wins and only one defeat). However, given their current form and level of performance, Sri Lanka are best placed to make it through to the finals. In fact, they are the only team that can make it even if they lose both their remaining matches (provided Australia beat India and Sri Lanka don’t concede a bonus point to India).Australia
Australia’s two defeats to Sri Lanka have put them in a bit of a spot, though they need to win only one of their last two matches to be certain of a place in the finals. If they beat India, then Australia and Sri Lanka will contest the final, provided Sri Lanka don’t concede a bonus point to India; if Australia beat Sri Lanka and lose to India, then the winner of the India-Sri Lanka clash will go through to the finals against Australia. However, if Australia lose both their matches, then they’ll need Sri Lanka to beat India to go through. In such a case, both Australia and India will be level on 14 points (if Australia don’t concede a bonus point to India), but Australia have two bonus points compared to none for India, which will tilt the scale in Australia’s favour.If Australia concede a bonus point to India – a possibility that admittedly looks remote at the moment – and also lose to Sri Lanka, then they’ll surely be out of the tournament, regardless of the result of the match between India and Sri Lanka. However, Australia have the advantage of playing the last match of the round-robin stage, so they’ll know exactly what they need to do to qualify.India
India have it all to do in the last round of matches. If they win both their matches they’ll surely be through, but anything less, and they’ll struggle: in case they lose one of their matches, India will require a bonus point in the other, and hope that other results go their way. For instance, if they beat Australia with a bonus point on Sunday and lose to Sri Lanka, they’ll need Sri Lanka to beat Australia in the last match on Friday. If, on the other hand, they lose to Australia and beat Sri Lanka with a bonus point, they’ll want Australia to beat Sri Lanka. In that scenario, both India and Sri Lanka will have 15 points with three wins each, but India will have a 2-1 lead in their head-to-head against Sri Lanka, which, according to the rules of this tournament, will take precedence over the net run rate.

As the Sydney Cricket Ground’s 100th Test approaches, ESPNcricinfo looks back at some of the most famous – and infamous – Tests at the venue

Brydon Coverdale02-Jan-2012The Demon takes ten
Ninety-four Tests have been played at the SCG since the 1884-85 battle between Hugh Massie’s Australians and Arthur Shrewsbury’s England. Only once has the result been any closer than the six-run victory the Australians achieved in this Test. And it was a ten-wicket match for “The Demon”, Fred Spofforth, that secured Australia’s win. England were left requiring 214 for victory and at 6 for 92, their hopes appeared dashed. But a 102-run stand between Wilf Flowers and Maurice Read brought them to within 20 runs of victory with four wickets in hand. Spofforth broke the partnership. When the last man came in, 15 were needed and, as described by , “the excitement round the ground and in the pavillion and stand was intense”. With seven runs required, Spofforth had Flowers caught at point from a rising ball to finish the Test.Tip Foster’s debut
The 17th Test played at the SCG was described by in glowing terms. “A finer game has rarely been seen in Australia,” the almanac said of the first Ashes Test of the 1903-04 season. England won by five wickets but the match is best known for the innings of Tip Foster, whose 287 remains comfortably the highest score on debut by a Test cricketer. The almanack reported that the latter part of Foster’s innings was “described on all hands as something never surpassed”. The timeless match went into the sixth day, England achieving their chase of 194 with five wickets in hand.McCabe vs Bodyline
Australia entered the first Test of the 1932-33 Ashes without Don Bradman, unavailable due to illness, and with the challenge of handling England’s Bodyline tactics in a Test for the first time. When Stan McCabe, 22, came to the wicket Australia were 3 for 82, and Harold Larwood and Bill Voce were bowling bumper after bumper with seven leg-side fielders. The journalist Ray Robinson wrote of McCabe: “Without a flinch, he stood up to the fearsome bowling; he hooked the short balls as if there were no danger to his ribs or skull, and as if he were unaware of the battalion of catch-awaiting fieldsmen, covered by outer scouts ready for the lofted ball”. In four hours, he scored 187 not out. Later, McCabe said: “It was really an impulsive, senseless innings, a gamble that should not have been made but came off against all the odds”.The Bradman and Barnes show
The 405-run partnership between Sid Barnes and Don Bradman, set in the 1946-47 Ashes Test, still stands as the highest fifth-wicket stand in Test history, and the largest Test partnership at the SCG. Both men finished with 234. Barnes batted throughout the second day and until nearly 6pm on the third day. His innings was interrupted early by a fierce storm, and when play resumed conditions were difficult. But Barnes settled in for a long one. He batted for 649 minutes. Bradman’s equivalent score took only 397 minutes, despite him batting without a runner, with a leg injury and sporting a pronounced limp. Together they batted England out of the Test, which Australia won by an innings and 33 runs.Illingworth’s Ashes triumph
England’s first Ashes series win in Australia in 16 years was confirmed at the SCG in 1970-71, the seventh Test added after the Melbourne Test was washed out. England entered the Test with a 1-0 lead; Australia went in needing victory and with a new captain, Ian Chappell, after Bill Lawry became the first Australian captain to be sacked mid-series. The England captain, Ray Illingworth, led his players off the field as tempers became frayed following an altercation between a spectator and the fast bowler John Snow, who had hit Terry Jenner in the head with a bouncer. By his cricketing deeds, Illingworth led by example, top scoring in the first innings with 42 on a difficult pitch, and he took 3 for 39 as Australia failed to chase down 223 in the fourth innings.Brian Lara’s first Test hundred, a wonderful innings of 277, came at the SCG in 1993•Getty ImagesAustralia end West Indies’ streak
In 1984-85, Clive Lloyd’s West Indians entered the SCG Test without having lost a Test in 27 matches. Against a struggling Australia, who had won only one of their past 13 Tests, an end to that streak seemed unlikely. But on a turning Sydney pitch, West Indies were left to rue their decision to leave out their offspinner, Roger Harper, as Australia piled up 471 in the first innings, Kepler Wessels top scoring with 173. Australia’s spin duo of Bob Holland and Murray Bennett ran through West Indies for 163 and, in the follow-on, 253. It was West Indies’ first innings defeat since the 1960s, and the final Test appearance for Lloyd.Lara’s 277
Australian spectators who sat in the stands at the SCG in 1992-93 knew they were witnessing a star in the making when Brian Lara, in his fifth Test, scored 277. It was the first of his 34 Test hundreds, and at the time the biggest Test score in Australia in nearly three decades. Lara gave one chance, low to Steve Waugh at gully on 172, and could not be removed until he called for a quick single and was sent back by Carl Hooper, failing to beat Damien Martyn’s throw from cover. The batting of Lara was so sublime that Richie Richardson, who scored 109 at the other end, said afterwards: “I can hardly remember my hundred. It was difficult playing and being a spectator at the same time”.de Villiers demolishes Australia
January 6, 1994 was one of the most remarkable days of Test cricket the SCG has seen. Australia were in a position from which they could not have expected to lose. Shane Warne had taken 12 wickets over the first four days, including 7 for 56 in the first innings as he showed his array of tricks – twice getting rid of his bunny Daryll Cullinan. At the start of the final morning, Australia were 4 for 63, their target of 117 a mere formality – or so it appeared. But in the first over of the fifth day, Allan Border offered no shot to Allan Donald and was bowled as the ball cut back in and took his off bail. From there, Donald and Fanie de Villiers, who took ten wickets for the match, ran through Australia’s lower order. Damien Martyn was the last recognised batsman but was struggling to score, and from his 59th delivery, chased a wide half-volley and was caught at cover for 6. He would not play another Test for more than six years. The No.11 Glenn McGrath came to the crease with seven runs required and could do little but bunt a slower ball back to de Villiers for a return catch. Donald later described the match, which ended in a five-run win for South Africa, as the best Test he played in.Steve Waugh’s last-over hundred
England won the dead rubber in 2002-03, but the Test was all about one man: Australia’s captain, Steve Waugh. Under pressure after averaging less than 30 in his previous 16 Tests, Waugh, 37, knew the match could be his last. He was not ready to go. On the second day, Waugh worked his way to a century, but entered the final over of the day still needing five to reach triple figures. The offspinner Richard Dawson sent down three balls that were defended, and from the fourth, Waugh took three from a square drive. He was off strike. Two deliveries remained. His partner Adam Gilchrist found a single, and Waugh was left on strike on 98 with one ball left. He duly crunched Dawson through extra cover for a boundary, bringing roars from his home crowd and, no doubt, from many of the 2.1 million TV viewers in Australia who had tuned in. The moment has been etched in Australian Test folklore. It didn’t lead to a series whitewash, but it did buy Waugh another year of Test cricket.Bollyline
The last time Australia and India met at the SCG, in 2007-08, the Test was memorable for all the wrong reasons. There was the allegation that Harbhajan Singh racially abused Andrew Symonds; there was the perception that Australia were appealing excessively, and the series of umpiring mistakes that occurred along the way; there was doubt over whether catches had carried and there was India’s belief that Australia’s excessive celebrations in victory were boorish. The biggest of the umpiring blunders allowed Symonds a let-off on 30, when Steve Bucknor called not out for what Symonds later admitted was a thick edge behind. He went on to make 162 not out. The match finished late on the fifth day, when Michael Clarke took three wickets in an over to secure victory for Australia when a draw looked inevitable. After the Test, India’s captain Anil Kumble said that “only one team was playing with the spirit of the game”. It was the low point in a series full of tension.

Paul Nixon liked to think he was pushing the boundary every time he played. And it hurt him when he found the management didn’t appreciate his efforts

Jon Culley08-Jul-2012When Paul Nixon called time on his playing career, he put every ounce of the energy that had driven him through 22 years as a professional cricketer into making sure he went out at the top and pulled it off as his final game in England ended with Leicestershire crowned Twenty20 champions for the third time.The veteran wicketkeeper had made a major contribution too, snaring a brilliant catch to limit the destructive West Indian Kieron Pollard to just a single, as Somerset failed to chase down the 146 runs they needed to win the final at Edgbaston. That catch – an extraordinary one-handed effort diving full length to his right – and the feel of the trophy in his hands gave him images that would forever illuminate his memory.Hardly surprising, then, that the letter he found on the doormat a few days later left a nasty taste. It was from Alan Fordham, Head of Operations (first-class cricket) at the ECB, and Nixon recalls the contents in his newly published autobiography, , written by the paper’s cricket correspondent Michael Atherton, that had made specific reference to “unacceptable levels of sledging” by Nixon, in particular towards Jos Buttler, Somerset’s then 20-year-old batsman, who was, according to the report, “visibly upset at the close”. And Paul Haywood, the Leicestershire chairman, had told Nixon that “something had been picked up from the stump mic” to the effect that he had said “something derogatory about [Buttler’s] mum”.”It left a bitter taste for a short period,” Nixon said at the launch of the book at Grace Road. “For years England have talked about breeding tough cricketers, people who want to win. The English public love characters who show their emotion – Gazza, Stuart Pearce, Daley Thompson, Ian Botham.”For me it was my last game, in a final. I had to win because it meant so much. So to have a bit of banter with a batsman, without an umpire telling me off, without anyone complaining… and I get a letter like that.”When Jos shook my hand as we came off the field, he was so disappointed they had lost the game he wouldn’t look me in the eye. I kept hold of his hand and said, ‘Come on, you’re better than that – I knew you could win that game because you’re a good player. We play hard on the pitch and have a beer together afterwards.'”When I saw him after the game at the drugs test, we had a chuckle about it. He told me he was just gutted that they didn’t win. He said, ‘Well done’, I said, ‘Good luck’, and we parted on decent terms.”Nixon was only 19 when he made his Leicestershire debut, but so far as he recalls, he was never shy about giving verbal expression to his competitive edge, even in a dressing room in which the fearsome Peter Willey could reduce a young player to a trembling wreck with little more than a stare.”It was never something I was timid about doing. I used to give a bit of stick to help keep me focused. As a wicketkeeper you use it as a tactic. Batsmen work on their mental drills, their routines. If you can interrupt his mental routines you’ve got him.”I have always been like that. I was brought up in a very competitive environment, playing village cricket in Cumbria, and people cared about winning. There was always banter. Sometimes there was close to fighting. The rivalry was huge.

“When England played Sri Lanka in the 2007 World Cup, it was the most mentally disintegrating experience I have had against any opposition, but I respected them for it because they wanted to win”

“But there is a line that you don’t cross. You can have funny comments about things but you don’t abuse people about family or illnesses or things like that.”The suggestion that I said something about Jos’ mother was ridiculous. Whether it was something that sounded that way on the stump mic, I don’t know, but as soon as I heard that this was what it was about, I phoned Tres [Marcus Trescothick]. He said he had heard nothing and then he called Jos, who said he had heard nothing either.”I was disappointed with what Athers had written because I really respect his journalism. I think he is a magnificent writer and broadcaster. As I said in the book, if he had asked me what had happened I would have told him.”I can laugh about it now but I think England should have people who want to win. I’ve played in international games where the opposition have ripped me to pieces because they want to win. In my experience the Sri Lankans are the worst – more so even than Australia. When England played Sri Lanka in the 2007 World Cup, a game where Ravi [Bopara] and I got runs, it was the most mentally disintegrating experience I have had against any opposition, but I respected them for it because they wanted to win. They push that boundary as far as they can because ultimately our jobs are about delivering victories.”Nixon’s participation in the World Cup to which he referred came about because, late in his career, England did recognise his competitive edge, calling him into the one-day squad sent to Australia in January 2007, charged with salvaging some national pride after an Ashes whitewash.It was an experience that began with a handwritten note under his hotel room door from Duncan Fletcher, whose concern about the mental state of England’s Test players was sufficient for him to ask the newcomers to stay away from them for as long as possible. “It was a strange introduction but he did not want us to be infected with any negativity,” Nixon said.Fletcher asked Nixon to address the senior players about his approach to the game, particularly with regard to T20, in which he had enjoyed success already with Leicestershire. It was a moment Nixon recalled for Andrew Flintoff “looking bored and distracted throughout” and noted that “at one point I thought I saw him roll his eyes”. Yet he developed a respect for Flintoff even though he was party – as a member of the same late-drinking group and fined for his trouble – to the pedalo incident that earned the ex-captain the biggest dressing-down of his career, after which the players were summoned to an 8am team meeting to explain themselves to Fletcher, with Flintoff lying on his back on a physio’s bench in the corner of the room, sand still sticking to his legs.”In some ways Freddie was unfortunate to have played in an era when players’ behaviour is under so much scrutiny,” Nixon said. “When I was a young player, if someone did something a bit naughty it might be on the back page but the next day it was fish-and-chip paper. Nowadays it goes online and stays there forever.”Freddie is a guy who can go out for a beer and rock up the day after and bowl at 90mph and be a class act on the field. But times have changed these days and you have to do everything right.”Doing everything right is a theme through the book, from Nixon’s now well-documented rejection of a match-fixing attempt to the extraordinary steps he took to overcome a condition – something between dyslexia and attention deficit disorder – that for many years left him muddle-headed, forgetful and unable to read more than a few pages of a book without developing a headache. Now he has written one of his own and it is an absorbing, informative and honest account of a rich life in the game.Keeping Quiet
by Paul Nixon
The History Press Ltd, 2012
£17.99, 224pp

A look at which team needs to do what to make it to the playoffs

S Rajesh18-May-2012If Royal Challengers win their final game, against Deccan Chargers, they’ll definitely progress to the last four•AFPMumbai Indians
A win in their last match will mean Mumbai Indians finish their league games on 20 points, which will surely put them in the top three; if Kolkata Knight Riders lose their last game, then Mumbai Indians will finish in the top two. However, if they lose to Royals their task of qualifying becomes much tougher, since four other teams will have a chance of getting 18 or more points. Mumbai Indians’ net run rate is also a worry – at -0.16, they’re only marginally better than Kings XI Punjab (-0.172). If Kings XI win their last match and Mumbai Indians lose theirs, it’s very likely that Kings XI will end up with a better NRR too. And then there’s also Royal Challengers Bangalore, who’ll go past Mumbai Indians if they beat Deccan Chargers in their final game. If they lose to Royals, Mumbai Indians must hope that not more than one out of Royal Challengers and King XI get to 18 or more points. The advantage for Mumbai Indians is that their match against Royals is the last of the league stage, so they’ll know exactly what they need to do to progress.Royal Challengers Bangalore
If Royal Challengers beat Chargers, they’ll definitely progress to the last four, though it’ll be almost impossible to take second place even if Knight Riders lose, because of their respective net run rates. However, if they lose, they’ll definitely be out, since Chennai Super Kings already have 17 points and a better NRR – Royal Challengers can’t catch up on the NRR if they lose.Chennai Super Kings
Three teams already have more points than Super Kings’ 17, and their only hope of sneaking in as the fourth side into the playoffs is if all the other teams in contention lose most of their matches. Thus they’ll want Royal Challengers and Kings XI to lose their last matches. If all those results go the way of Super Kings, they’ll still make the cut as their net run rate will remain more than that of Royal Challengers.Kings XI Punjab
The unexpected defeat for Royals against Chargers means Kings XI have a better chance of qualification. But for that, they need to win their last match, and hope that at least one of Royal Challengers and Mumbai Indians lose their last game. If Royal Challengers lose and Mumbai Indians win, then Kings XI and Mumbai Indians will qualify. If Royal Challengers win and Mumbai Indians lose, then Kings XI will still most likely go through on a better net run rate than Mumbai Indians. For instance, if Kings XI score 150 and win by two runs, and if Mumbai Indians score 148 and lose by two runs, Kings XI will sneak ahead on NRR.The battle for the top two spotsDaredevils have already made sure they’ll finish among the top two: even if they lose their last game and Mumbai Indians win theirs, Daredevils will still end with a superior net run rate. A win for Knight Riders will give them a place in the top two, but even a defeat will do that job if Mumbai Indians lose their last match. What’s certain is that the top two* positions will be decided among these three teams: Daredevils, Knight Riders and Mumbai Indians. (Royal Challengers have a theoretical chance, but even if they win by 60 runs and Knight Riders lose by a similar margin, Knight Riders will still have a higher net run rate.)*14:10 GMT, May 18: The article had earlier said ‘top three’. It has been corrected
18:12 GMT, May 18: This article has been updated to reflect that Rajasthan Royals are out of the race

The side taking part at Lord’s has men to admire but not players to revere

Mark Nicholas18-May-2012There was something quite sad about the second day at Lord’s, a sense of resignation to the facts. England’s runs came at a decent rate and without alarm. In part this was due to organised batting but mainly it was because West Indies were not much good with the ball. If that appears unkind, it is not to question the players’ commitment. Rather it is to say that the flair which once made West Indies both such an attraction and a threat was nowhere in sight.The selection of a fourth seamer in place of the in-form offspinner Shane Shillingford was crass. Even in the glory days of four fast bowlers, Roger Harper might have got a game on a surface like this. The mitigation is that this Lord’s pitch is drier and slower than predicted but five days is a long time without the variety of a competent slow bowler. Shillingford’s ten-wicket bag against Australia in Dominica counted for nothing it seems. Generally, it is wiser to pick teams on the quality of the players not a suspicion of the pitches.During the lunch break, the shrill of a mobile phone startled the occupants of the media centre lift. IPL music rang out and immediately those of us squeezed into the tiny space began to reflect on the West Indians who are absent at Lord’s. Chris Gayle is the obvious one. Dwayne Bravo, Kieron Pollard, Andre Russell and Sunil Narine are the others at the IPL. Ramnaresh Sarwan is playing for Leicestershire, for heaven’s sake. Jerome Taylor is injured. Seven good cricketers there. Three are shoo-ins, the rest are thereabouts. The verdict in the lift was that West Indies are better off with them than without them.Clearly this is not the view of the WICB and selectors. The ongoing battle with Gayle does neither party any service, despite the recent agreement for him to play in the one-day series against England. Gayle should treat the game that has made his name with more respect and the board should find a way to harness his talent. Briefly when he was captain, the Jamaican seemed settled, batting with due care and attention, sparkling in the field and bowling useful offbreaks: a wonderful cricketer doing justice to himself and his people. Then the board offered him a contract that he refused and, reasonably, they said he could hardly be captain if he wasn’t prepared to commit. In stepped T20 and the age of the mercenary and so began the uneasy and ultimately irreconcilable relationship between the Caribbean’s best cricketer and those who employ him.Well it’s time to sort it out. And not just Gayle either, all the others and particularly Sarwan. Cricket needs West Indies for these wonderful islands hold the game in their soul. No other cricketers in the world put the IPL before Test matches for their country. Both the Board and the players are selling the game short. They simply have to find a way through the mess. The ICC could begin the process by scheduling a window for the IPL each year and continue it by investing in the Caribbean. It’s all very well taking the game to China but let’s get it fixed where the culture already exists.In the meantime, Darren Sammy has done darn good job with limited resources. He doubtless knows that he wouldn’t get in the best available team but he battles on, making something of not much and willing the young talent around him to get the best from themselves. Friday was hard because the pitch was slow and easy and the ball refused to swing. Fidel Edwards has lost the fierce pace of his youth and Kemar Roach, though honest enough, was subdued by the surface. After these two it is humdrum stuff. Sammy hustles in but needs something in the pitch and the new man, Shannon Gabriel, looks exactly that. In desperation, Marlon Samuels bowled some offbreaks that were barely half as good as Gayle’s and, guess what, the variety he offered claimed the prize wicket of Kevin Pietersen.What we don’t want is to start patronising West Indies cricket. Yes, there is some spirit there and, of late, a decent Australia side were given a good run. But the raw truth is that West Indies are way below an acceptable standard and the fault lies with a few cricketers and a stubborn board. If the situation is allowed to drift, it will continue to infect the game at all levels back at home. Young cricketers need inspiration from heroes. They need to rejoice in stirring deeds that draw them to watch and play the game of their own volition. The side on the field at Lord’s has men to admire but not players to revere. It is time to bring them in from the cold.

Australia are looking for a No.3 in their ODI side. Phillip Hughes might have been the man for the job, but has been overlooked again

Brydon Coverdale16-Jul-2012Twenty players were chosen in Australia’s limited-overs squads for the series against Pakistan. A few others must have come close, including Aaron Finch, Rob Quiney and Nathan Lyon. But there was no sign of the man with the highest one-day average of all current Australian batsmen. He also has the highest Twenty20 average of all time among Australians, and is the No.1 run scorer in the county T20 competition this year.His name is Phillip Hughes. And he has played 17 Tests, no one-day internationals and no T20s for his country.It is odd that Hughes has been viewed as a Test specialist. The only other batsmen in the past decade to play Test cricket for Australia without appearing in one-dayers have been Ed Cowan, Usman Khawaja, Chris Rogers and Martin Love, all men with conventional techniques, whose role is as much crease occupation as run-scoring. Hughes is not in that category.Of course, it is easy to look at Hughes and say that he has had his chances. That is true, in the longer format. He has made Test hundreds but has also had his technique picked apart, first when facing the short ball and then when he could not help playing at balls seaming across him. But a slashing, stroke-playing technique is not a bad thing in limited-overs cricket.Perhaps the selectors have felt, in the past, that Hughes was better off focusing on his Test-match game. That is not an issue now, for Cowan and David Warner are settling as an opening combination, with Shane Watson capable of stepping back into the role should Cowan falter. Hughes has lost his Cricket Australia contract and is not part of the Australia A squad to play first-class matches in England over the next few weeks.But he has proven himself capable of scoring runs at international level, and is a naturally aggressive player who can pierce or clear the field. Not to mention the fact that Australia are currently looking for someone to play first-drop in the ODI side. Since Ricky Ponting’s departure from the ODI outfit, Australia have tried Watson, Peter Forrest, Matthew Wade, Michael Clarke and George Bailey at No.3, for a collective average of 25.33.Hughes has been batting at No.3 for Worcestershire this year, and he has made two centuries there. He is fourth on the run tally in the Clydesdale Bank 40-over competition, and is averaging 96. In the Friends Life t20 tournament, nobody has bettered his 322 runs at 80.50, with a strike-rate of 121. For the first time in the competition’s current format, Worcestershire have reached the quarter-finals.Consider the all-time list of T20 averages. Hughes is the leading Australian, averaging 47.16 at a strike-rate of 115. That may drop as he plays more games – he has appeared in only 24 T20 matches – but it’s a pretty good start. On the list of all-time List A averages, only the retired Michael Bevan, Dean Jones, Darren Lehmann, Matthew Elliott and Matthew Hayden sit above Hughes’ 44.48 among Australians.Of course Hughes is far from the only man worthy of an ODI call-up. Callum Ferguson deserved another chance, and has been given it. Quiney would be a capable one-day international player, as would Aaron Finch or any number of others.But Hughes has form, style and international experience on his side, not to mention youth – he is still only 23. His chance in the coloured clothing for Australia might not have arrived just yet, but it should soon. He certainly has the game for it.

Both Pakistan and India had the chance to qualify for the semi-finals today; the difference was that Pakistan’s attack relished the challenge of defending their total

Abhishek Purohit in Colombo03-Oct-2012Both Pakistan and India could have made the semi-finals of the World Twenty20 this evening. Both knew they needed to beat their respective opponents by considerable margins. India knew by exactly how many runs; Pakistan did not have any such prior information. Both sides batted first in their respective games and posted similar totals. MS Dhoni said stopping South Africa 31 runs short of India’s 152 was asking too much of his attack. Mohammad Hafeez said once Pakistan had reached 149, he knew they had the attack to defend it. That was the difference between the two teams. Ability, and the resultant self-belief. Who said bowlers don’t win you Twenty20 games? Pakistan’s did today, overcoming an opponent whose one opener himself had proved sufficient to destroy sides throughout the tournament.It was a staggering effort from Hafeez and his men. After Australia had swatted aside all four of their previous opponents, that Pakistan would make them struggle for their own semi-final qualification, at one stage, was almost unimaginable. But Pakistan have always delighted in the unimaginable, both good and bad. Don’t go by their display against India a couple of nights ago. That was a game played under a completely different kind of pressure, the kind that has, in recent years, only stopped Pakistan sides from playing like Pakistan sides. The kind of pressure on offer today was right up their street. In a way, it forced them to play the way they love to in such must-win situations – start steadily with the bat, build up some momentum, and then attack with the ball.Once they had got almost 150, one knew the Pakistan bowlers and fielders would be nearly unrecognisable from the match against India. What one wasn’t prepared for was the sheer, raw, brutal intensity of it. It seemed to shatter the thick glass wall of the press box and rouse you.Shahid Afridi and Umar Gul, both men no longer young, threw themselves onto the ball in the field. They were more than mere full-length dives. They were akin to big cats pouncing on prey. Legs pointing to the sky, hands coming down on the ball as their bodies crashed into the turf.Hafeez, strangely subdued and hesitant against India, was itching to bowl the first delivery of the chase, shouting instructions even before the Australia innings had begun. Raza Hasan, all of 20, but with skills and maturity far more advanced, began with four dot balls to Shane Watson. The suffocation had started. Watson fell in Hasan’s next over. Warner followed in Hafeez’s next, the first time in the tournament both men had gone cheaply.”We knew that 70-80% of Australia’s strength at the moment is their openers and Mike Hussey,” Hafeez said. “We wanted to get two of them early and their middle-order had not been tested in this tournament. We were very sure because in Dubai, our spinners had troubled their middle-order. We knew if we got Watson and Warner, we had the attack that would put them under pressure.”Hafeez, Hasan, Saeed Ajmal, Afridi, Shoaib Malik. The spinners just kept coming at Australia, who were stunned by the juggernaut, and had no answer. When Pakistan batted, Nasir Jamshed was the answer to their need for stability at 29 for 2. How he moved from accumulation to attack, after a few initial jitters, how he changed the momentum of the innings with a full-blooded thump of a pull for six off Pat Cummins, how he combined calm and power again, was another reminder of Jamshed’s maturity at 22. Hafeez praised both Jamshed and Hasan.”I have always had belief as captain in the talent of these two youngsters, and the selectors too backed them,” Hafeez said. “Jamshed has shown in ODIs that he is an excellent opener for Pakistan technically and Hasan has always performed his role in domestic cricket. We knew that whenever we brought Hasan into the team and gave him any role, with his talent and his maturity, he would fulfil it.”

ESPNcricinfo presents the Plays of the Day from the first T20 at Chester-le-Street

David Hopps09-Sep-2012Guv’nor of the Day
Jade Dernbach, an England bowler whose method relies on infinite variety, treated Jacques Kallis to a slower offcutter. Kallis saw it early, seemed to have an hour to play the shot and struck it imperiously through cover for four. In one ball, Kallis seemed to tell Dernbach that he had seen all his tricks and was even a little bored by them.12th man of the Day
A close contest, this one. Hashim Amla was rested from South Africa’s side and when he came on, polite and bespectacled, he might have been a University professor rather than a great international batsman. Luke Wright, by contrast, ran on with his usual energy for England and looked what he is – an allrounder on the back of a successful T20 season desperate for a game.Fall guy of the day
It cannot get much worse than this for Ravi Bopara. He looked defeatist, nicked a fast bowler to slip – in this case, not for the first time, Dale Steyn – and departed, hangdog. He deserves sympathy for a time of emotional upheavel but as an England batsman has he ever really been as good as the England management loyally profess?Question of the Day
The group of fans with “Kevin Who?” signs attached to their shirts were obviously banking on England’s batsmen backing up their bravado with a bravura display to provide firm evidence that life was just fine without their superstar-in-exile. They weren’t the only ones who were let down.Disappointment of the Day
No, not England’s performance, which barely bordered on competitive, but the size of the crowd. With temporary seating, Durham’s ground can hold almost 20,000, but there was no need to throw up extra stands for the first of this three-match series, as around half of the tickets went unsold. Worrying signs for what is supposed to be a cash-cow format.Tweet of the day

@JohnSunCricket: “Another day, another rubbish cricket match. Surely one of the remaining two T20s will provide some excitement.” The Sun’s cricket correspondent feels the strain after a long season.

The records continue to tumble for Alastair Cook during a tour where his standing on the world stage is reaching new levels

George Dobell in Kolkata06-Dec-2012This was the day that Alastair Cook cemented his place among the greats of the game.Statistics never tell the whole story, but they do bear repeating: Cook is now the youngest man to reach 7,000 Tests runs in the history of the game; he has scored more Test centuries than any other England player; and, having become the first man to score centuries in each of his first four Tests as captain only a week or so ago, he has now extended that sequence to five. And he does not seem to have expended a drop of sweat in the process.The tale beyond the statistics is, arguably, more impressive. Cook has produced his three centuries this series, surely the best batting of his career, when his team most required it. Coming into this series, England looked fallible against spin and had been beset by internal unrest. But, by demonstrating that a calm head and occupation of the crease were the best methods of survival during the rout at Ahmedabad, he has instilled a belief into his side that had looked absent a few weeks ago. He is not just on the threshold of greatness. He is sitting with his feet up in his dining room demanding another cup of coffee.He keeps improving, too. When he first came into the England side, he was regarded, despite a century on debut in Nagpur, as an unconvincing player of spin bowling. He spent many hours working on his game, however, not least against the Merlin spin-bowling machine, and gradually developed a method that worked for him.His sweeping, once more of a nurdle, now has power and command. His driving, once reserved for the longest of half-volleys and the flattest of pitches, continues to increase in scope and grace and his footwork, once hesitant, now has purpose and confidence. The languid drive through extra-cover off Zaheer Khan and the straight six he skipped down the pitch and drove off R Ashwin, would have pleased David Gower.He has lost none of his original qualities either: he still has the concentration of a security camera; he still leaves the ball well; he still cuts, pulls and works of his legs efficiently. But he has become, not just obdurate, but challenging for any fielding side to control. He has become a great batsman.Some will baulk at that description. They will point out, with some justification, that Cook’s feat of reaching 7,000 Test runs before his 28th birthday is as much a reflection of the modern fixture schedule as his talent. It is true that while it took Wally Hammond 18 years and 236 days to play the 131 innings he required for the milestone, it took Cook just six years and 279 days.It is true, too, that Cook does not dominate like Viv Richards, he rarely times the ball like Rahul Dravid and he scarcely plays shots that make a crowd purr with delight like Brian Lara. He does not feel like a great player.But perhaps feeling should have little to do with it. While batsmen are often judged on aesthetics, to do so disregards many other skills; skills such as resilience, concentration and, most importantly of all, run scoring. Based on those, perhaps more prosaic criteria, Cook has a strong case to be considered a great batsman. His is a classic case of substance prevailing over style.

While batsmen are often judged on aesthetics, to do so disregards many other skills; skills such as resilience, concentration and, most importantly of all, run scoring. Based on those, perhaps more prosaic criteria, Cook has a strong case to be considered a great batsman

Cook’s success must also be attributed, in part at least, to England’s selectors. Not so long ago, a player enduring the form Cook had in 2010 would have been dropped and, perhaps, never found their way back into the side. He had, after all, failed to pass 30 in eight successive innings and, just as importantly, looked all at sea outside off stump.But the selectors persevered with him. They trusted in his character and in his work ethic. They trusted him to find a way to work out his problems. He rewarded their patience with a dogged century against Pakistan at The Oval and, since then, has scored 11 centuries in 28 Tests at an average of 68.53. He amassed 766 runs in the Ashes series of 2010-11 – among England batsmen, only Hammond (with 905 in 1928-29) has managed more – and he has now become the first man to score a century in each of his first five Tests as captain. Aged 27, the best should still be ahead of him.More importantly, he has presented his team with a once-in-a-generation opportunity: the chance to beat India in India. No-one has done that since 2004 and England have not done it since 1984-85. By dismissing India for an under-par total, England gave themselves the opportunity to use the wicket before its anticipated deterioration. And, by taking that opportunity, they will aim to bat just once in this game. There is a long way to go, but the tide in the series has turned and is currently flowing strongly in England’s direction.Perhaps the key difference between these sides, however, is fitness. While England have been able to call on their top players to produce extra efforts when required – the bowling of James Anderson and Monty Panesar on the first day and the batting of Cook, in particular, on the second – India effectively have to nurse half their team through the day.India’s fielding veered between the ambivalent to the awful. It was not just that they dropped a crucial catch – Cook put down on 17 when Cheteshwar Pujara, usually at short-leg, suddenly found himself at slip while Virender Sehwag, the regular slip, found himself at cover – but that England were able to drop and run the ball with an ease that, at times, embarrassed some of the biggest names in Indian cricket.Shown up for their age and their lack of athleticism, sharp singles became comfortable; long twos were turned into threes and overthrows were donated as the basic disciplines, such as backing up, deserted India. Nor was this an aberration. It was the norm. It wrecked any chance the bowlers had of building pressure and allowed a soft release for the batsmen.This difference did not just show in the fielding. With the match to be shaped after lunch and Zaheer Khan producing an excellent spell that troubled both batsmen, India could have fought their way back into the game. Instead, MS Dhoni was obliged to rest Zaheer after just three overs and the opportunity slipped away.A sports psychologist who has worked with players from both teams suggested there may be a cultural issue at play. In England, he reasoned, the emphasis is invariably on work ethic; in India there is a greater onus on rest. Perhaps both teams could learn from aspects of each other’s approach, but India surely need to work harder on their fielding.This is why defeat in this series might not prove to be such a disaster for India. While a side continues to make excuses for setbacks – injuries, unfamiliar conditions, doctored pitches et al. – they are failing to confront the real issues. Being forced into a period of reflection might do no harm.

From Dr

Cricinfo25-Feb-2013Dr. Ajay R. Kamath, India
I was seventeen in the Summer of 83, the year we won the world cup. For all the greatness of our Test performances, it is the World Cup that defines us….it was 1983 that made the world sit up and take notice of our cricket. Until then, it had all been individual performances- a Hazare here, a Gavaskar there, an occasional Vishy cameo and a cheerful thrashing overall.In 1983, we played as a team for the fist time. We had all rounders who bowled seam up. Everyone contributed. All of this was a rarity for us. It is impossible to describe the excitement of that evening. I live in Mangalore and I was a student then. There was no television, so the dulcet tones of Brian Johnston, Christopher Martin Jenkins and Don Mosey kept me company into the night.At first, it was all about “giving a fight” to the West Indies. To lose honourably was the highest ambition, for who could dream of beating the two times champions in a final. It was only at the fall of Clive Lloyd’s wicket that I began to hope and my father promptly went off to bed, a signal that things were hotting up, for he is, to this day, unable to take the tension of watching or listening to an Indian win, which never comes without several dozen palpitations.There were firecrackers outside my house when Holding was leg before. And yet, things on the field were, by today’s impossibly crass standards, very dignified. There are only two television events that make me weep- Amitabh dying in a film (‘Sholay’ brings on a veritable flood) and an Indian cricket win. Assuredly, the emotions are different in the latter scenario.