#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 3: Choking Proteas?

Donald's Duck! Adam Gilchrist completes the run-out to send Australia through

Every World Cup can be counted upon for high scores, exciting cricket and drama. The drama often comes in the form of an English collapse, like those mentioned yesterday, but another country involved in more than their fair share of drama, and collapses, is South Africa.

The South African’s usually arrive with a strong squad and a strong claim over victory, but as strong as their squads have been, getting over the line has been a problem. As tournaments have gone by, and South Africa have fallen in tight games in the latter stages, they have been labelled as chokers.

This World Cup will be no different in at least one respect, questions will be raised about the ability of South Africa to get over the line, whether the label is a fair one or not.

In 1999 the Proteas had more than one foot in the final before their first major meltdown. Having slipped to 61/4 chasing Australia’s total of 213, Jacques Kallis and Jonty Rhodes put together a partnership of 84 and Shaun Pollock and Lance Klusener’s big hitting gave them a great chance. Wickets continued to fall until they entered the final over on 205/9, Klusener still at the crease, and on strike.

The left-hander hit the first two balls of the over for four drawing the scores level. A run-out was narrowly avoided on the third ball before a mix-up on the fourth led to both batsmen ending up at the same end. The run out, and tie, meant Australia went through due to their superior record from the previous round.

More examples of narrow losses in bizarre circumstances have included a miscalculation in 2003 that led to a Duckworth-Lewis tie, and their elimination, following an incorrect message from the dressing room, and a miserable collapse in the 2011 quarterfinal against New Zealand.

Graeme Smith’s decade as captain was littered with attempts to distance his side from the chokers label, but having failed to get over the line in a major tournament, they’ll face question marks again in Australia and New Zealand this year.

#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 2: England snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

Cutting Loose! Michael Bevan breaks English hearts' in 2003

The Ireland v England match mentioned yesterday could easily have formed part of this section too, as England have a habit of losing matches that look all-but sewn up in these major tournaments.

In 2003 England needed to beat Australia to reach the Super 6 stage having chosen to boycott their fixture in Zimbabwe. Marcus Trescothick and Nick Knight got them off to a flier, putting on 66 for the first wicket within the first ten overs, before wickets fell and they limped to 204/8 from their 50 overs. However this looked like a winning score when Australia were reduced to 48/4 and then 135/8. Unfortunately this brought Michael Bevan and Andy Bichel together, and their unbeaten partnership saw Australia home as the wheels came off for Hussain’s side in the last ten overs.

A topsy-turvy encounter in 2007 saw the three lions defeated narrowly by Sri Lanka in the Super 8s. Having restricted the sub-continental side to 235 England set about losing early wickets. But from 11/2, Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen took them to 101/2 and well on top in the game, before a customary collapse. Four wickets fell for just 32 runs and they were suddenly on the brink of defeat. Paul Nixon and Ravi Bopara swung the momentum back towards England with an 87-run partnership that took them to within 15 of victory. Unfortunately they both fell in the last eight balls and Sri Lanka won by two runs.

Alongside defeat to Ireland, 2011 also saw a high-scoring tie with India that looked won and lost at different stages, and a humbling by Bangladesh. Having struggled to 225, England initially struggled with the ball. But after reducing the Bangladeshi’s from 155/3 to 169/8 it looked like the favourites were going to scrape through. Mahmudullah and Shafiul Islam thought otherwise though, and their ten-over partnership saw their team home.

#CricketWorldCupdates - Watch out for... No. 1: The Irish Invasion

Lift off! Kevin O'Brien celebrates his hundred against England in 2011

At their first World Cup in 2007, Ireland burst onto the scene snatching a dramatic tie with Zimbabwe before their famous win against Pakistan on St. Patrick’s Day. The Niall O’Brien inspired chase saw them through to the Super 8 stage where they added Bangladesh to their list of Caribbean scalps as they catapulted themselves into the cricketing limelight.

Four years later Ireland were at it again, this time it was Niall’s brother Kevin providing the heroics as they beat England in Bangalore. From 111/5, the target of 328 looked a mile away, but O’Brien’s 63-ball 113 saw them home with five balls to spare.

Ireland don’t play on St Patrick’s Day this year, but two days before it they play their final group game against Pakistan and I’m sure they’d happily start the celebrations a couple of days early if they repeat their 2007 heroics in Adelaide.

The class of 2015 looks set to give another good account of itself, with the O’Brien’s leading a core contingent within the squad playing in their third World Cup. Another of those is Ed Joyce who played for England in 2007 and he’ll be joined at the top of the order by Warwickshire’s William Porterfield, who played a key role in their domestic success in 2014. Boyd Rankin will be a big miss having followed in Eoin Morgan’s footsteps by making the switch to England, but much is hoped of Craig Young who has picked up 16 wickets in his first six ODIs.

Franchise cricket just isn’t very British…

Kevin Pietersen shows the flamboyance that makes him a Melbourne STAR

For a country that is known to have invented many of the most popular sports played across the globe, the British are not much of a trailblazing people these days.

We invent the basic premise, and then simply watch the World get better than us at these sports, adapt the format and leave us behind. We’re comfortable with that, so why change now.

Football went away, came home briefly in 1996, didn’t like what it saw, and hasn’t been seen since. This might look like a bad thing, but it gives us something to moan about…

The latest British-born genius to fly the nest is Twenty20 cricket, formed here in 2003, almost by accident; it is now the most marketable form of the game. When it left home it shortened its name to T20, because that’s much cooler; that was a sign of things to come.

While our format has changed slightly, it hasn’t seen a radical overhaul, and the T20 title won by Birmingham Bears in 2014 was still largely the same county competition won by Surrey in 2003. Despite the name of the winning side not being Warwickshire, it was Warwickshire.

The 2014 tournament was scheduled to be played primarily on Friday evenings, aiming to encourage large crowds through consistency of scheduling at a time that fans would readily be available for. The result was more criticism, and a tournament drawn out over more than four months that didn’t encourage the best players from around the planet to take part.

Having both taken part in the Semi-Finals of the Big Bash League in Australia over the weekend, comments by Kevin Pietersen and Michael Carberry have helped reignite the debate about England’s domestic tournament, and the way it compares poorly to the Big Bash, India’s IPL and other franchise models.

Unlike the county game in England, these franchise models allow teams to be formed solely for these competitions, and are centred at big grounds, in big cities, near a large fan-base. They are also condensed into a period that means the competition concerned is the only cricket being played by those players at that time.

The experiment with Friday night fixtures seems to have failed, so a more condensed tournament schedule has to be the way forward in England, but it has to be possible to revamp and reenergise English domestic T20 cricket without adopting the franchise model, because franchises aren’t very us.

Even without considering the question of how county teams will survive without the T20 income, and the fact that T20 franchise cricket is the global home for shameless advertising, there is still an argument against franchise cricket, and that is identity.

The county teams have a lot of history, so much so that even basic and unimaginative nicknames haven’t caught on in one-day cricket. A friend of mine once said “we don’t go in for that sort of thing in the west country” when I mentioned nicknames, and why should the good people of Gloucestershire be forced into supporting a very un-British franchise based over an hour away from them if they are to follow T20 cricket..?

The dynamism of the franchise names hits you hard in the face as soon as you look at them. Sydney Thunder, Adelaide Strikers and Perth Scorchers are all very Australian, by comparison the fact that Warwickshire kept Bears as the nickname for their revolutionary Birmingham side says a lot about our own mentality.

If we did employ a franchise system, the best we could do would be to try and invoke as much Britishness in the teams as possible to maintain our proud national identity. I have chosen the nine Test venues, and Canterbury (with its 15,000 capacity) as the homes of ten very British franchises, inspired by those from Australia and around the World.

London’s two venues, Lord’s and the Oval, could home a cross-capital rivalry to match the derbies in Melbourne and Sydney. Inspired by the Adelaide Strikers, a team whose name suggests an aggressive brand of cricket, the North London Leavers would be able to encompass a more English or British brand, favoured by the Lord’s faithful. Their rivals from south of the river, the South London Landslips have their own name inspired by the Hobart Hurricanes. A hurricane is another very un-British weather phenomenon, whereas a landslip is much more appropriate given the chance one might just delay some supporters on their train ride to the match.

Another great rivalry could be formed between the sides from Manchester and Leeds. The Perth Scorchers name is derived both from the impressive  temperatures that are reached in Western Australia and again from the brand of cricket that the side produce, Manchester Mild is equally appropriate. They will have endless (or that’s what it will feel like) battles with the team from across the Pennines, the Leeds Labradoodles. Named after the Dolphins, an exotic animal that gives its name to a T20 side in the equally exotic South Africa, the Labradoodles will be a fluffy and dependable member of the league.

The midlands is also known for sporting rivalries, and I’m sure one will form between the sides from Birmingham and Nottingham. Paying homage to the Sydney Sixers, named after big shots and excitement, the Nottingham Nurdlers will hit the gaps and run hard in the middle overs. Replacing the Birmingham Bears will be a team inspired by the outrageously named St Lucia Zouks. Until recently I had no idea what that means, but apparently Zouk is a popular Caribbean musical form, so the Birmingham Britpoppers will be in good company should they face their St Lucian counterparts in the Champions League at any stage.

The clouds gather at Edgbaston as the Birmingham Britpoppers prepare to welcome the Durham Drizzle

Even aside from the scorchers, weather is a popular analogy to make in the naming of Australian franchise teams, this is because their weather is as positive as the style of cricket they like to play. In the UK the weather matches our national modesty, so fans will flock to watch the Brisbane Heat-inspired Cardiff Chill and the Sydney Thunder-inspired Durham Drizzle.

It would be ludicrous to name all these British franchises without a nod to the IPL, and the Deccan Chargers provide the reasoning behind the Southampton Strollers. People from Southampton are much more likely to stroll than charge, they’re a pretty peaceful bunch, and we wouldn’t want to create the wrong impression.

One of my favourite franchise names in T20 cricket at the moment belongs to the Melbourne Renegades. T20 cricket is about being a renegade or a maverick, and the Australians always embrace this, the franchise from Kent however, would not. A more appropriate name for the tenth and final franchise would be the Canterbury Compliers, it’s more British just to accept the status quo.

Having come up with a very-British franchise model, that might just be accepted, it strikes me that the best players from around the World might still not be persuaded to come and take part.

Would you want to fly thousands of miles to play for the Leeds Labradoodles, any more than you would want to play for Yorkshire? I think I’d take Yorkshire if the scheduling was right…

Archive: Shinji Kagawa's Rooney Conundrum

Kagawa in his first spell at Borussia Dortmund

Shinji Kagawa’s role at Manchester United remains unclear. The club’s retention of Wayne Rooney this summer has widely been described as the most important bit of business conducted in David Moyes’ short period in charge. However, the Japanese international may be the one figure at Old Trafford who would have seen a potential departure for Rooney in a different light.

Keeping the best players is always as important as investing in new talent; the Arsenal fan’s response to the sales of Fabregas, Nasri and Van Persie in the last few years prove this. Therefore keeping Wayne Rooney, and at the same time ensuring that Chelsea were unable to significantly improve their squad, is generally accepted as a victory for David Moyes in an otherwise turbulent first summer in charge at the Theatre of Dreams.

You only have to look back as far as October 2010 to see the potential unrest within a side that is seen to be stagnating or declining after the sale of a key player. On that occasion it was Rooney himself who stated a ‘lack of ambition’ when indicating that he would not sign a new contract, the season after United had sold Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid. On that occasion, whether Rooney finally received the assurances he requested or not, a new contract was eventually signed.

Fast forward to 2013, with Rooney in dispute with outgoing manager Sir Alex Ferguson and later incoming manager Moyes, Chelsea signalled their intent to sign the ‘angered and confused’ player. However, Moyes continued to rebuff suggestions that the Liverpudlian would be leaving, and as the window closed and Rooney remained in red, positive messages began to pour from the club with encouraging words regarding the retention of the player and his role within the team.

However, one man who may not be so enamoured with United keeping Rooney is Shinji Kagawa. The Japanese international has cut a frustrated figure for much of his first year in Manchester, and during a first season curtailed by form and fitness issues, Kagawa also found himself in unfamiliar roles when selected. His second season at Old Trafford, under a new manager, could be seen to be another opportunity to establish himself in the side, but with Rooney remaining a key player, Kagawa may find himself marginalised once more.

During the 2011/12 season, Kagawa’s performances for Borussia Dortmund caught the eye of an international audience, and saw him voted the inaugural Bundesliga Football Player of the Year, and he was included in the league’s team of the year. Dortmund manager Jurgen Klopp was at pains to attribute his considerable success to his central position, a key role he has not yet been afforded at United.

With 13 goals and 8 assists from his 31 Dortmund appearances in 2011/12, Kagawa’s importance to that team is clear, and the advanced role there saw him create 134 chances for teammates, whilst completing 55 key passes in the final third. Much of Kagawa’s frustration at United stems from the lack of responsibility afforded to him, and his selection on the left hand side. The statistics from his first season at Old Trafford show him taking a back seat to Rooney, the man denying him his preferred central position.

In his first season in Manchester, Kagawa was only able to complete an average of one key pass for each of his 20 matches, and only created 19 chances, making him a shadow of the creative force that terrorised Bundesliga defences the year before. Most revealingly though, Kagawa was only able to provide 3 assists during the 2012/13 season, a figure dwarfed by Wayne Rooney’s 10. The only statistical area of Kagawa’s game to see an improvement after his move to United is his percentage of completed passes, which rose from 83% to more than 89%, but this reflects his deeper role in the side and the back seat he has had to take to Rooney.

Having managed to retain Rooney’s services, David Moyes appears set to continue the trend of playing Rooney as the deeper of two forwards, in a ‘number 10’ role, and this means using Kagawa sparingly. During United’s recent Champions League fixture against Bayer Leverkusen the relative roles of Rooney and Kagawa were typified. Rooney shone in a central role, whilst Kagawa, selected on the left hand side, continued to drift inside as he struggled to impact the game from wide areas. It is this turn of events, and the impact on the Japanese international’s form and role, that may see him as the one man not to see Manchester United’s keeping of Rooney as a positive. 

This article was written for Sports Gazette in October 2013.