At the wicket with George Dobell

In the first interview featured on Donning the whites, George Dobell was kind enough to answer a few questions from a cricketing Buddha.

Since his first article in The Cricketer, George has written for SPIN – the Cricket magazine, The Guardian, The Times, and The Birmingham Post. He is now a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo and has developed a following as one of the preeminent scribes on the County Championship.

He talks to a cricketing Buddha about his start in the business, an affinity with the Windies and gives a reasoned account of a number of the issues facing our great game. He also answers the age old question of the origin of the humble pavlova.

Africa's cricketing influence

African cricketers continue to influence the world game

With one African side currently in New Zealand trying to resurrect their flagging international fortunes and another, more powerful unit, soon to follow, it's timely to reflect on the influence Africa is having on world cricket. For the New Zealand summer, Zimbabwe is simply an entree to the South African main course, but their circle of influence is far wider than just the two playing sides.

We are regularly told the BCCI holds the balance of cricketing power courtesy of the game's largest fan base, swelling coffers and the prominence of the IPL. But do they? Africa's influence is deeper at a pure cricketing level - their players and coaches are making a heavy impression across a number of countries, not just at home.

African players plying their trade abroad are nothing new. Basil D’Oliveira was one of, if not the first. He was offered a contract in England league cricket when people believed his talent was wasted in South Africa where he was given no opportunities because of the colour of his skin. He went on to represent England and brought attention to the apartheid issues in his homeland. Similarly, Tony Greig emigrated and went on to captain his adopted country in the 1970s  - he was born in South Africa, played for England, now resides in Australia and has connections to the Sri Lankan tourism board – an eclectic gentleman.

A number of others left for greener pastures and an escape from the injustices of apartheid. Mike Procter, Garth le Roux, Barry Richards and Clive Rice all had a telling impact on the county scene where they had an opportunity to play against a number of the world’s best cricketers when their motherland was exiled from international cricket. Likewise, Peter Kirsten had a lengthy county career but was lucky enough to finish his playing days in South Africa after sporting sanctions were finally lifted. Kepler Wessels on the other hand has the distinction of playing test cricket for Australia early in his career before returning home to captain South Africa on their return to international cricket.

Robin Smith, Allan Lamb and Graeme Hick all left Africa for England before being promoted to the senior side. Hick’s change of allegiance (Zimbabwe did not yet have test status) is interesting in that he first ventured to England on a Zimbabwe Cricket Union sponsored scholarship.

In 2003, the Kolpak ruling opened the floodgates for more African (and Windies cricketers) to earn their keep in county cricket as it allowed players from countries with a European Union associate agreement to effectively play as EU residents; it’s far more involved than that, but this is quickly becoming a novel. A number of counties should be sending anonymous brown envelopes to Maros Kolpak as he won’t be in the riches playing second division handball whilst they are utilising the ruling to grow their stocks.

Kolpak has allowed a number of Africans to forego their national allegiances, prosper in county cricket and earn handy coin doing it. Players like Neil McKenzie, Andrew Hall, Murray Goodwin and Dale Benkenstein have brought their hard-nosed approach to the county game over long careers, though it is debateable if England would have been better served promoting home grown talent. Current England internationals Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott (it’s worth noting he already held a British passport) are two of the younger generation switching allegiances who have developed formidable influence for their adopted nation and have been integral to its recent success. Would the same results have been realised without them?

For those not convinced of Africa’s influence on world cricket, take a further look at the current England set-up. The side is captained by South African born Andrew Strauss, and coached by an ex-Zimbabwean captain in Andy Flower. Flower’s ascension in the England set-up has aligned with them moving to number one in the test rankings – coincidence? South African born youngsters Jade Dernbach, Craig Kieswetter and Stuart Meaker are all forging limited overs careers in the national side and more of their ilk will likely follow.

But it’s not just England who have been blessed with the African influence. Gary Kirsten continued the good work of John Wright in India but moved on before the current issues affected an ageing side, and returned home for the South African job. Mickey Arthur was recently appointed the first foreign-born coach of the Australian side and with the recent 4-0 test drubbing of India is looking to restore the once champion side to its past glory. The coaching ranks of my own New Zealand were temporarily bolstered with the acquisition of Allan Donald to mould our young quicks before he too returned home – our loss.

Given the growing migration of Africans, both Zimbabwean and South African, to New Zealand’s shores the prevalence of Afrikaans names in our national and domestic sides is set to grow. Grant Elliott arrived in New Zealand a decade ago and was rushed straight into the national side once he had met the residency requirements – his tenure was short but he has shown a path for others.

Kruger van Wyk was in a two horse race for the New Zealand wicket keeping duties against Zimbabwe, and will get his chance in the future. Likewise, Neil Wagner, a sharp left-armer, looks set to get a run when he is eligible for New Zealand in April if his domestic feats are any indication. After representing the Zimbabwean U19s Colin de Grandhomme will make the step up to New Zealand’s T20 side against his former countrymen in the next fortnight. There is a sprinkling of others throughout the domestic scene, while former Zimbabwean leggie Paul Strang has held the coaching reigns of the all-conquering Auckland side for the past three seasons.

Different patriotic pundits around the globe could put forward persuasive arguments for the merits of their country being the most influential in world cricket, but even as a West Indian cricket loving Kiwi, it is hard for me to go past the two African nations. Zimbabwe is currently struggling to find their feet after a long test hiatus, but ask England if they would give up their coach for all of Mugabe’s stolen riches – not a chance. Likewise, many an Englishman secretly applauds Mr Kolpak and in years to come I’ll not care a jot where New Zealand talent was born.

Consider this: with England in the throes of defeat in Dubai there is the possibility they could lose the number one test ranking to the South Africans if they can sweep New Zealand 3-0. Before you fret, those in the MCC long room can mop their furrowed brows; New Zealand won’t let that happen, driven by a love of queen and country…..

Run fat boy run!

Taylor limps off retired hurt

Friday, 27 January 2011; morning session, day 2 - only test versus Zimbabwe: New Zealand captain Ross Taylor hobbles off McLean Park, Napier, after a subdued but considered 122 against a Zimbabwe side still looking to qualify for an ICC test ranking.

As a New Zealand cricket supporter, that should be music to your ears, but for Ross Taylor who was walking off lame. Forced to retire hurt with a torn calf, Taylor will miss the rest of the Zimbabwe tour, if not the early stages of South Africa’s visit to our shores. It was also the first time, in New Zealand at least, that the error of the ICC’s decision to implement the no-runner rule came into focus, though in this instance it is unlikely to have a large effect on the final result. 

In essence, no, in actuality, the changes to the runner rule mean that at international level at least, an injured batsman is forced to either hit out or limp off - no runner is allowed so his wicket is lost. In Taylor’s case, he would likely have left the field anyway, but what if he had simply strained his calf as opposed to tearing it? What if Taylor had been on 22 instead of 122, and New Zealand were four or five down for under 100? Would the same indifference to the new rule have been shown then?

Prior to the introduction of the no-runner rule late last year, an injured batsman could call for a runner and continue his innings albeit that the opposing captain had to agree; generally that was little more than a formality. The ICC thought it was being manipulated and abused so changed the rule, yet the same power brokers previously implemented the 15 degree rule so now you have to throw a baseball pitch to be called for chucking! Double standards? An off spinners most deadly delivery is now the one that is delivered with a bent arm and goes the other way – has that not been abused as well?

A case for pinch runners?

There’s plenty of evidence that the runner rule has been exploited for years, but should a change exclude genuine injuries? Our own Jesse Ryder regularly took advantage of the loop holes in the rule, but not once did another captain show any leadership and question the runner’s use. There are numerous other offenders, Arjuna Ranatunga chief amongst them, who faked an injury and got a runner to compensate for their lack of physical prowess and couch potato fitness. Ranatunga would often get a serve from opposition players - I recall Ian Healy giving him a little Aussie mongrel in a spiteful ODI. However, Healy was happy to use a runner a couple of times in his career. Nothing unusual in that, but did David Boon, his physical equivalent, come to the crease? No, Dean Jones appeared in the middle - a thoroughbred replacing a Clydesdale?

The ICC’s decision was forced on them by a captain finally denying a batsman a runner. If such leadership had been shown more regularly, would those stretching the rules have tried so often? Many of the issues were caused by ill-prepared players getting cramps and asserting they needing running help – Andrew Strauss put an end to that.  He refused South Africa’s Graeme Smith, already having scored 100, a runner for cramp in the 2009 Champions Trophy, and more power to him. But as an isolated incident, his decision no doubt forced the ICC’s hand. Would it have caused the same change in the corridors of the ICC if Shakib Al Hasan had refused Brendan Taylor the same opportunity?

Cricket pundits the world over have varied views on the new rule – bowlers generally approve, batsmen not so much. Given how much the game has swayed in the batsmen’s’ favour in the past two decades that’s understandable. Jesse Ryder is not a fan. Given the comments of both John Wright and Ross Taylor his path back to international cricket could be a long one – no side can afford to carry an injury prone batsman anymore. But, does the no-runner rule unfairly disadvantage the batting side? Yes. If Taylor was in the early stages of his innings when the injury occurred and was unable to run, New Zealand have effectively lost his wicket. It also robs the paying public of entertainment; if injured players don’t retire hurt they can often do little else but stand and swing –I can turn on ESPN and watch the MLB if that was what I wanted from sport.

And to address the protestations of the bowling fraternity, no you don’t get a replacement, but in the modern game how many in the stands come to watch you? Bowlers with the genius of Warne, Marshall, Akram and Ambrose have largely disappeared from the game – none but a small minority would bring me, or other spectators, through the gates.

Players will always find loopholes in crickets laws, it's human nature – the 15 degree bowling law illustrates that, but should we penalise those who are legitimately injured? Should we force an injured batsman to retire and his side effectively lose a wicket? If he stays it's hardly a great watch when all he can do is try to bludgeon boundaries without any thought of running (much like T20, which given its current success might be what authorities want!) – that’s not what I want to see at test level. And if none of that resonates with you, surely the mayhem and confusion that ensued when runners were in the middle made the game a more interesting spectacle – comedy on the sporting stage?