Gayle's Blown Out, Bring On The Hale Storm

So by now the cricket community and others all know the bravado portrayed by Chris Gayle and how his flourishing shots look effortless and aesthetically pleasing to any spectator.

There's a good ten years between the Englishman and the well accomplished West Indian but how do they compare when looking at they T20 and ODI debuts. 

The 35 year old, Gayle's first came about in 1999 when he played against India, he scored 1 run off of 8 balls, his strike rate was 12.50. Alex's ODI debut came earlier this year, he like Gayle face India he managed 40 runs off of 63 balls, 5 of them creeping away to the rope that surrounds the field. His strike rate was 63.49 but what do they both average? Gayle averages 37.33 where as Hales averages 19.83 but has only played a minute 6 matches compared to Chris's 258 games, Gayles highest score is 153* and Hales' is 42.

Looking at the T20's Chris Gayle's debut was in 2006 where he faced New Zealand he scored 10 runs off of 12 balls, 2 of them ran away to the boundary, his strike rate was 13.33 and he has an average of 32.60. So what did Alex manage? On his debut in 2011 he faced India once again, he scored 0 runs from 2 balls, hmmmm... But things got better, his average is 37.92 better than Gayles and his highest score is 116* 1 less than King Chris but he doesn't have that magic asterix above his highest score.

Could England have the next flawless talent amongst them? We'll it certainly looks that way when looking at the statistics but as we all know cricket is a funny game and shapes and moulds players in strange ways. He could be one of many one hit wonders or he could develop into an English miracle who could certainly save games for England in the ever so near future.

Helmets or Helpless:- In loving memory of Phil Hughes

During the duration of 2014 we have heard of a number of head and facial injuries that batsmen and wicketkeepers have faced whilst having balls that seem to reach the speed of light come towards them.

We all heard about Mark Boucher having to face eye surgery after the kukooborough nicked the wickets and unfortunately damaged his eye ending his career. There was Joe Root who faced a ball from Josh Hazelwood that got jammed inbetween his grill, splitting his lip where he later needed stitches. Craig Kieswetter also felt the wrath of the duke ball he again needed extensive surgery and may miss the 2015 season. Another Englishman facing the damaging effects of the cricket ball is Stuart Broad who was wearing the new sleek helmet but that didn't stop him needing
needing sticheshes and resembling someone who had just faught Mike Tyson.

Last but certainly not least is Phil Hughes who tragically lost his life late this year after facing a bouncer from 22 year old Sean Abbott unfortunately hitting Phil on a fatal are of his neck.

But what can the helmet boffins do? I mean some players such as Dhoni still don't wear head protection but neither did the recognisable greats that graced our presence a number of years ago. Should they be introducing a new design like the helmet that Hampshires Michael Carberry wears but would that make any difference due to the likes of Stuart Broad wearing the sleek and aerodynamic design. Do the cricket Gods just need to simply rethink policies and procedures. Or do the helmet geeks need to rethink the standard idea of a  helmet and come up with a new dynamic, safer blueprint.

So many questions that need to be answered and considered. But realistically can things really be changed that dramatically, we can't wrap all cricketers in cotton wool. Is it just the case of freak accidents that can't really be helped.

I'd just like the end of by saying my thoughts and everyone else's thoughts are firmly with Phil Hughes' family and friends but also with Sean Abbott. RIP Phil

Fair Play or No way

The idea of Duckworth Lewis is so far fetched and complex that I'm sure Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis are the only ones that fully understand the mathematical formulation.

The idea of D/L is to calculate the target score for the team batting second in a limitless overs match due to interruptions such as weather or other circumstances. The basic principle is that the Duckworth Lewis should re-evaluate the target score set by the first batting team and adjust it to make it a fair match.

1. "For each team's innings
   (a) from the table note the resource percentage the team had available at the start of their innings;
   (b) using the table, calculate the resource percentage lost by each interruption;
   (c) hence calculate the resource percentage available.
2. If Team 2 have less resources available than Team 1, then calculate the ratio of the resources available to the two teams. Team 2's revised target is obtained by scaling down Team 1's score by this ratio.
3. If Team 2 have more resources available than Team 1, then calculate the amount by which Team 2's resource percentage exceeds Team 1's. Work out this excess as a percentage of 225 [the average 50 over score in ECB matches and one-day internationals (ODIs)] and this gives the extra runs to add on to Team 1's score to give Team 2's target." (http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DUCKWORTH_LEWIS.html) 

Although this is supposed to be the most fair method, is it, is it really? there has been many a time where the result has said to be "unfair" or "not the right outcome" such as recently England v New Zeland in the T20 World Cup or another England T20 game against West Indies. There have also been a number of players, past and present, that have scrutinised the way that the D/L method works such as Paul Collingwood. 

But if the Duckworth Lewis method is a flop and isn't working to the teams advantage then who is going to be the next "genius" that will work out a new method of what to do if rain stops play or other unfortunate circumstances that stop the game, because I assure you it will not be any of the players. 

If the games are being played in a major competition like a World Cup or in the IPL should both sides just be given a point. Some may think this is unfair as there may be a clear winning side, however when looking at T20 games is there ever a clear winner, in some cases such as the recent World Cup the West Indies were able to double their score in the last 5 overs so anything is possible?! 

To Broad Or Not To Broad

Is Stuart Broad the man for the job? This is the question that is on everyone's lips.

Looking at the recent T20 world cup outcome and the horrendous winter that England have had the answer is no. The 27 year old must take the blame for what can only be described as an abomination. Firstly we need to discuss how predictable England's plans have become. "Moeen Ali will start the bowling for one over. Jade Dernbach will then bowl a few overs and will bowl in the power play attempting to bowl a few Yorkers that will end up becoming a full toss. Bopara will probably bowl one over if any but yet has the lowest economy and then will be take off for the rest of the game. Tim Bresnan will then bowl here and there. Broad will come on whenever he chooses. Jade Dernbach will then most likely close the bowling."

Firstly hardly anyone can pick what Ravi Bopara is going to bowl, not even Amla SO LET HIM BOWL MORE. Broad is supposedly our "main bowler" so why is he not bowling at the most crucial stages like in the power play. Is this because he wants to keep his bowling figures down? Most likely.
Next Broad should take responsibility as captain and take the new ball at the beginning of the game and then allow Jade Dernbach to come in later and bring his variation in.

It seems to me like our batting line up is basically sorted now and ready for anything, its the bowling that is very confusing. 7 bowlers in a T20 match is not needed. As Englishmen and Women we are a very arrogant country which then makes me think, are England trying to out smart the other teams. In T20 matches a lot of the game is luck! You do not need to have a set strategy for everything. Look at Dhoni for example, during a match if something is not happening his way he'll change his plans depending on what is happening during the game. When it comes to Broad it doesn't matter whether they are loosing or winning he will simply keep the same play every single game!

Looking at the lack of success in the recent attempts for England we can safely say that Stuart Broad is not the man for the job. I'm definitely not disputing the talent that Broad has shown over the years for Nottinghamshire and England but in this case I think he needs to concentrate on his bowling rather than looking at the rest of the team.

So who is the man that should be helping and controlling the rest of the team? A lot of the team are still fairly young and inexperienced such as Joe Root, Alex Hales and Chris Jordan. The man that I would give the role to would be none other than Eoin Morgan. He is experienced, clever, laid back and a respected member of the team.

Looking at Eoin Morgan the thing that benefits him the most is that he's a batsman, so when the lads are bowling he's able to sit back and watch rather than trying to figure out when he should go on to bowl.

Morgan would have an unbiased role in the team and is experienced and respected enough to have the big role of being the skipper. He has already captained the boys before so why not make it permanent and give Broad a break to concentrate on his bowling.

So To Broad Or Not To Broad.