Actually that's bollocks. But it was bloody, bloody good. Here are two things I enjoyed:
1. Kevin Peter Pietersen: As someone on the Guardian pointed out, this probably gives us a good idea of the batsman he's going to be in the second part of his career. It was a schizophrenic innings - the last 50 took 25 balls; the first 100 was his slowest ever. The dual between him and Kumar was fascinating stuff. He had elected to get as far outside off stump as he possibly could, hoping to remove LBW from the equation. From this position he could work the ball to leg whenever he didn't have to reach for it. Only three balls went through the off side. Kumar could see this and was trying to mix up the away swingers outside off with the occasional leg stump yorker that could nip behind his pads. This was proper Test cricket - Pietersen's technique against Kumar's skill. Other batsmen adopted more conventional approaches - and while Trott and Bell looked good, they both got out in conventional ways. KP deserves credit for his enterprising approach to the problems he posed.
As Vaughan and Boycs had pointed out, the problem on Thursday evening was that Kevin wasn't perfectly balanced as the ball was being sent down. On Friday there was slightly less swing, and the balance looked largely perfect. He got himself across and began to play with more of the bat through mid-on, rather than mid-wicket. Once he'd got to 150, his tactics changed entirely - this was the Kevin of 2005, the wonderful leg-side thumper with an uncanny sixth sense as to the whereabouts of gaps. This is the batsman who clears the bars, who always gives you your money's worth. I've watched him live in full flow and the brutality, against people bowling really fast, is stunning. Yes, there was no Zaheer. No, Sharma and Harbhajan weren't on their games. It was still breathtaking stuff.
2. Praveen Kumar: Many people commented on how the attritional nature of the opening exchanges gave the game something of an old-school vibe. Kumar's performance had something of the old-school medium pacers we've barely seen other than Asif. Terry Alderman and Alec Bedser have both been mentioned - certainly after the 40-over spell the latter comes to mind - this was proper unstinting medium pace trundling.
Actually the bowler he most reminds me of is Edward Simon Hunter Giddens, another swing genius who'd managed to master the tiny alterations in seam position required to swing it both ways with no change in action. Both had a supple, wristy flick in their delivery. Giddens did brilliantly on debut in 2000, but was dropped later in the summer, a touch unfairly I thought. I suppose that, like Kumar, the general feeling was that without a new ball, helpful conditions or both, he'd be cannon fodder. I actually think Kumar has more about him than that - I thought the same of Giddens.
It's a really, really hard art. As a left armer I can swing it in quite easily, but when I try to bowl the ball that comes out counter to a side on action - away swinger - it's much tougher. I can get the seam going down in the right place, but I lose all pace and control. How ironic that Duncan Fletcher, he formerly of the 90mph or nothing school, is his coach. Yesterday was all about technique and artistry. If those big names get going, we might have another day of it today. The only blemish was the catch at leg gully, which the third umpire denied. Confused by the Indians' lack of willing to use Hawkeye and yet use this - the most flawed bit of technology there is.
1. Kevin Peter Pietersen: As someone on the Guardian pointed out, this probably gives us a good idea of the batsman he's going to be in the second part of his career. It was a schizophrenic innings - the last 50 took 25 balls; the first 100 was his slowest ever. The dual between him and Kumar was fascinating stuff. He had elected to get as far outside off stump as he possibly could, hoping to remove LBW from the equation. From this position he could work the ball to leg whenever he didn't have to reach for it. Only three balls went through the off side. Kumar could see this and was trying to mix up the away swingers outside off with the occasional leg stump yorker that could nip behind his pads. This was proper Test cricket - Pietersen's technique against Kumar's skill. Other batsmen adopted more conventional approaches - and while Trott and Bell looked good, they both got out in conventional ways. KP deserves credit for his enterprising approach to the problems he posed.
As Vaughan and Boycs had pointed out, the problem on Thursday evening was that Kevin wasn't perfectly balanced as the ball was being sent down. On Friday there was slightly less swing, and the balance looked largely perfect. He got himself across and began to play with more of the bat through mid-on, rather than mid-wicket. Once he'd got to 150, his tactics changed entirely - this was the Kevin of 2005, the wonderful leg-side thumper with an uncanny sixth sense as to the whereabouts of gaps. This is the batsman who clears the bars, who always gives you your money's worth. I've watched him live in full flow and the brutality, against people bowling really fast, is stunning. Yes, there was no Zaheer. No, Sharma and Harbhajan weren't on their games. It was still breathtaking stuff.
2. Praveen Kumar: Many people commented on how the attritional nature of the opening exchanges gave the game something of an old-school vibe. Kumar's performance had something of the old-school medium pacers we've barely seen other than Asif. Terry Alderman and Alec Bedser have both been mentioned - certainly after the 40-over spell the latter comes to mind - this was proper unstinting medium pace trundling.
Actually the bowler he most reminds me of is Edward Simon Hunter Giddens, another swing genius who'd managed to master the tiny alterations in seam position required to swing it both ways with no change in action. Both had a supple, wristy flick in their delivery. Giddens did brilliantly on debut in 2000, but was dropped later in the summer, a touch unfairly I thought. I suppose that, like Kumar, the general feeling was that without a new ball, helpful conditions or both, he'd be cannon fodder. I actually think Kumar has more about him than that - I thought the same of Giddens.
It's a really, really hard art. As a left armer I can swing it in quite easily, but when I try to bowl the ball that comes out counter to a side on action - away swinger - it's much tougher. I can get the seam going down in the right place, but I lose all pace and control. How ironic that Duncan Fletcher, he formerly of the 90mph or nothing school, is his coach. Yesterday was all about technique and artistry. If those big names get going, we might have another day of it today. The only blemish was the catch at leg gully, which the third umpire denied. Confused by the Indians' lack of willing to use Hawkeye and yet use this - the most flawed bit of technology there is.
No comments:
Post a Comment