All posts by h716a5.icu

AB de Villiers may come across as something of a fictional superhero on the field. But his relatively underplayed fallibility off it shows that he is human too

Telford Vice06-Feb-2015In a former life, I worked for a 24-hour television news channel. My job was to threaten writers with violence until they delivered enough scripts and video clips to feed the monster that was the sport bulletin broadcast every half-hour. It is, and will remain, the undisputed lowlight of what I presume to call my career.But it had its moments. Like the day one of the writers was suspiciously desperate to take a lunch hour.”Lunch?” I rasped under a spiked eyebrow.In that godawful place, lunch was foraged out of greasy packaging held in one hand while the other hand continued to bang out scripts and cut video.So, I was not best pleased at this outrageousness: “Lunch? What?””Yes, lunch,” she said with an incongruously sweet smile.Months later I discovered that she did not lunch alone that day. Her date was AB de Villiers.He has this effect on people does de Villiers. He makes them want to do what they should not want to do. Countless bowlers will attest to that, as countless more will, before he hangs up his audacity.West Indies know this only too well. The innings de Villiers unleashed on them at the Wanderers in January proved that even the most innovative batsman in the game is not done innovating.That de Villiers scored the fastest ODI hundred that day was peripheral, the halo on the angel. How he scored it mattered more. There was no way to bowl to him and escape a hiding; no chance of holing up somewhere until the hurricane blew itself out. West Indies needed all hands on deck, and that was not nearly enough to stop de Villiers until the 49th over.De Villiers has not become a better or more assertive player suddenly. It is simply that a light that has for years been hidden under the bushels of players like Jacques Kallis and Graeme Smith has emerged into all its incandescent glory. He has always been this good. Others have just been more trusted in a culture that remains uneasy with the stupendous, and with de Villiers, stupendous comes standard.”You have to read the game to see what the bowler is trying to do,” he said of that innings, but it may as well have been a career mantra. “You can’t just let him bowl at you; you have to try and take the initiative and put him under pressure… you’ve got to take the initiative and take it to the bowler.”Unlike Hashim Amla, who seems to barely move a muscle – and never changes his gloves – to pile up his mountains of runs, or Faf du Plessis, who will bat all day and more and to hell with how many runs he does not score, or Quinton de Kock, whose batting is orthodoxy on steroids, de Villiers is a mad inventor. Unlike Dr Frankenstein’s, however, his creations are seamless and scar-free.From the time the ball leaves the bowler’s hand to the moment it needs to be dealt with, de Villiers is capable of mentally flipping through even the most modern coaching manual, choosing two or three options, deciding against any or all of them, and fashioning something bespoke instead; something that looks like it has been part of cricket for much longer than the nanosecond he has taken to devise it.More often than not, de Villiers’ choice proves perfect – as if he has for years been cartwheeling down the pitch at diabolical diagonals to connect with the ball and propel it way out of reach of any fielder.De Villiers bats like a tightrope walker not bothered to check whether his rope is tight. If it is not, he will die a messy death. If it is, life goes on. Somehow, de Villiers is still flying high in rude health.

Happen upon him at a restaurant and he will wave and smile. So will his wife, Danielle. The son of a doctor, avidly Christian and a wannabe pop singer, de Villiers is that corny thing: utterly middle class and happy to be accepted as such

He does it all without arrogance, without showing off. A small example, extreme in its own way: after lunch on day three of the third Test against West Indies at Newlands in January, de Villiers whipped Sulieman Benn behind square leg and deep into the outfield.On his way back to the crease to complete a second run, he stopped some three metres short of his ground. A spot of disturbed pitch had caught his eye. So he paused to prod it down. The throw was already arcing from the outfield towards the wicketkeeper when de Villiers interrupted his return. He knew this, and still he stood there as if tending his front lawn on a lazy Sunday. But he also knew, by some vectorial instinct, exactly how long he needed to make it back without causing undue alarm. He did.Few in the crowd reacted to this blatant violation of the received wisdom of “Cricket: How To Play”. Perhaps they did not see it. Perhaps they had seen it – or something like it – too many times before to pay it much heed. We are dealing with AB de Villiers, after all and this is too easy.

****

It is away from the crease that de Villiers is most interesting. When he has a bat in his hands, he knows how to get from A to B in record time. Off the field, he walks a crooked line to get there.De Villiers is canny enough not to be drawn into discussions about South Africa’s attempts to undo the damage of apartheid. Officially, quota selections do not exist, which only gives rise to unfair whispers when black players are picked. White players never seem to have their credentials questioned the same way.His silence on the issue would be pertinent if it was not also the default position of his team-mates. The players are neither scared nor calculating by not speaking out: they simply do not care. As the No. 1 Test team in the world, why would they? But their silence prevents them from reaching that far more important goal: a more representative team on the field.There is a more intriguing side, however, as evident in the dithering over de Villiers’ wicketkeeping duties. He has vacillated with something close to impunity between saying he will do anything his team needs and, by voicing his reluctance to keep wicket because of a chronic back problem, not exactly doing anything his team needs.He was not behind the stumps in either of South Africa’s Tests in Sri Lanka last July, and his statements then were strangely ambiguous. “In the last game I had that ‘hammy’ issue. That’s sort of recovered, but my back has always been an issue.”It’s difficult to take on the gloves, especially keeping in mind that I haven’t kept for – what is it – six or seven months now. So with that injury and a two-day turnaround after the day off yesterday, for me to get into shape with my gloves on, and considering my back, would be a little bit unfair.Does de Villiers want to keep wicket or not? Or does he want to do what the team prefers?•Getty ImagesBut: “I’m still willing to take the gloves for the boys. I just have to come in into a series prepared without any niggles. I’d still like to think that I’m a wicketkeeping batsman and whatever the team wants me to do, I’ll do that. If they want me to take the gloves, I’d like to do that.”When de Kock tore ankle ligaments warming up for the third day of the first Test against West Indies in Centurion in December, de Villiers was the logical emergency replacement. But going by what he said in June, he would surely not do the job in the following Test. Yes, he would. And in the third Test too.So which is it? Does de Villiers want to keep wicket or not? Or does he want to do what the team prefers? Or to tell us – and the public – what he thinks we want to hear?Part of this problem is that modern cricketers are conditioned to be positive in the press, no matter what. De Villiers, nowhere near as sensible as someone like Amla, tends to say what he thinks is the safest thing, as per the suits’ wont. But sometimes he forgets who and what he is, and silliness like “We were the better team in Australia” tumbles forth (so how come the Aussies won that November one-day series 4-1?); or, “jet-lag comes into play [flying from Perth to Canberra]”, which is, um, a three-hour time difference.In moments like these it is difficult for those who regularly see and hear de Villiers to curb the cruel thought that he could just be brainlessly brilliant.On the field, he is a certified genius. Off it, he has the manners of an impeccably raised young man and that of the ambassador to Lichtenstein trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East: not a little out of his depth.This is not meant as spiteful. In fact, de Villiers will not take umbrage, mostly because he will not have read it. He knows better than to take notice of what is written about him in the media.Late one night in December 2012, de Villiers and some of his team-mates wobbled into the Lucky Shag, a bar perched on the banks of the Swan River in Perth. Many hours earlier, South Africa had beaten Australia by 309 runs to seal a 1-0 Test series triumph. Our conversation went like this:”Y’know AB, sometimes we have to write not-that-nice things about you.””And? Have I ever complained? You have a job to do. I understand.”That’s the thing with de Villiers: just when he has convinced you he is the epitome of the dumb jock, he proves why he is not. Unlike any number of apparently intelligent, mature players who have no clue why the press are not their fans, de Villiers, it seems, does.So, as capable as he is of making himself look stupid in dealings with journalists, de Villiers also understands the media’s role. This is not because he has been trained accordingly – if he had been, he would not say the things he does – but because, stripped of all that talent, skill and stardom, de Villiers is a basic bloke imbued with more good intentions than bad. Happen upon him in a restaurant and he will wave and smile. So will his wife, Danielle. The son of a doctor, avidly Christian, and a wannabe pop singer, de Villiers is that corny thing: utterly middle class and happy to be accepted as such.However, unlike Dale Steyn, who revels in being one of cricket’s rock stars, or Amla, whose unease at being a public figure thawed only after he became Test captain, de Villiers is comfortable being one of the most recognised figures in the game.

****

As a schoolboy prodigy, de Villiers did amazing things in many sports; on a cricket ground, a rugby field, a tennis court, a swimming pool or a golf course. Why cricket? Rugby careers are shorter and ask a higher physical price, and none of those other sports can be turned into a career in South Africa.De Villiers was famous in his milieu long before he became the giant we know today. And Pretoria is not any old milieu – it is a place where school sport is taken only slightly less seriously than what happens at senior level.So de Villiers’ name, face and exploits have been splashed across newspapers since he was a boy. That he attended the prestigious Afrikaanse Hoer Seunskool did not hurt his assimilation into the ranks of the rarefied.But after the 2011 World Cup, de Villiers went where even he had not gone before. Not at any level had he captained a cricket team. Often du Plessis – who went to the same school and played for many of the same teams – took that responsibility. De Villiers was simply the star, not the leader. When Graeme Smith relinquished those reins, however, de Villiers picked them up.Why? Call it growing up, or answering the call that would have been buzzing inside him because of his conservative, Calvinist upbringing; or even becoming a little bored with the diminishing challenge of flaying attacks.Initially he struggled to get his head around managing an attack in the accepted manner. But Gary Kirsten’s philosophy of spreading the leadership load among the senior players allowed de Villiers the time and space he needed to grow into captaincy. He was always going to set inspirational examples, but the smaller stuff like over rates and field placing tended to trip him up – not unlike the engineers on the Brooklyn Bridge forgetting to check that all the nuts and bolts had been tightened.

De Villiers bats like a tightrope walker not bothered to check whether his rope is tight. If it is not, he will die a messy death. If it is, life goes on

Now the World Cup looms for him like that spire atop the Chrysler Building, a shimmering prize on a towering perch that will take some climbing. No South African captain has been up there, or even ventured as high as the final. Will de Villiers be different? He is already, in that for all his ability to play cricket to a level rarely seen, he can be clumsy in the public glare. And he has had to learn how to captain a team. But despite his missteps he has shown himself to be a keen student of the lessons of leadership.De Villiers is what results when an ordinary man is given extraordinary gifts. He goes to the World Cup with a team that has, by its standards, an ordinary record in major tournaments. But Amla and Steyn and de Villiers himself lend this generation the gleam of the extraordinary. All were present that extraordinary night in Dhaka four years ago when an ordinary New Zealand team found a way to beat South Africa’s extraordinaires in their World Cup quarter-final.That was then. Now the trio are at or near the pinnacle of the game. They know that, just as they know they will never be better players. This may not turn out to be their World Cup, but they will never have a chance as good.So if South Africa do the unthinkable and win it, de Villiers would not be able to claim as much credit as, say, Imran Khan was entitled to when Pakistan triumphed in 1992. He would not want it.

****

At the crease, de Villiers knows no boundaries. But they are strewn elsewhere in his life – when he is captaining his team, or trying to tiptoe around a tricky issue in a press conference, or sitting in a restaurant with his wife. The difference between him and others of similar stature is that de Villiers knows where the invisible line is drawn; where the star ends and the person begins.As long as he does not allow that line to blur, as long as he remembers that he has weaknesses to go with his many strengths, as long as he is who he is, he will not lunch alone.

The distance the BCCI instructs its players to keep from the media – both Indian and international – is a disservice to the men contesting the World Cup

Sharda Ugra in Melbourne18-Mar-2015About 48 hours before Bangladesh were due to face defending champions India in a World Cup quarter-final at the MCG, Shakib Al Hasan spoke to the media. He faced an odd question about percentages. Apparently in Bangladesh, calculations are that they have a 10-33% chance of beating India. Shakib, considerate expression in place, replied patiently: “Actually it doesn’t help calculating percentages. It all depends on how one plays on the field. Depends on the start and momentum.”It was routine cricket-speak, but the excitement in Bangladeshi ranks was palpable and Shakib left the room trying to spread his “keep calm” message, surrounded by a group of reporters from both countries seeking more.A while later, the Indian team wandered into the MCG’s great bowl for optional practice. It was to be mostly a fielding, stretching and fitness session with everyone in attendance. As the players skipped and did their drills, on one side there was the familiar sight of India’s media manager Dr RN Baba negotiating terms with journalists. Or rather, he was listening to them ask for a little more: more questions at pre and post-match press conferences for the knockouts than was previously allowed during Baba’s semaphore routine. The conversation got nowhere.A few days ago, a Bangladesh journalist approached a prominent and relatively accessible member of India’s numerous support staff and wanted a chat. When he was told it could only be done after the quarter-final, the journalist made a polite protest and was told by the person, “We don’t talk, we do.” Most Clint Eastwood of him. In the World Cup, India’s “doing” has done all the talking, and an impressive speech it has been.And that’s the point: there is no better time to attempt melting the ice with the press. Success makes the media pliant, convinced their readers and viewers are happy to share the team’s success. The power to say no, however, rests in the hand of those who control the narrative, in this case the India team’s management.The steps they have taken so far – the barest minimum media work – are a disservice to the narrative of the Indian team at this World Cup. Mohit Sharma and Mohammed Shami turned up for pre-match media briefings in Hamilton and Auckland. They spoke in Hindi and were engaging and articulate. Mohit talked about his surprise bouncer and then admitted with a laugh that it had been hit for many a six and four too. Shami spoke with sincerity about the World Cup, how it had to be played as though it was your last, and about staying on even keel on good days and bad.And it is not just the Indian media who want to know more. There are others from corners of the globe wondering what makes Indian cricket tick. They want to take the colourful and inspiring stories about India’s players – their quirks and their trials – back to their readers.Like trying to fathom how the quiet, subdued Ajinkya Rahane seems to grow about 12 inches taller and broader the moment he come to the crease, and what about his humour cracks his team-mates up.Or about how cricket got Umesh Yadav’s father out of a Western Coalfields mine in Nagpur and brother from a Goa shipyard.Or how, following the death of his mother, Ravindra Jadeja was sent to cricket practice every day and brought up by his elder sister, a nurse who still travels to work on a two-wheeler.Or that in pursuit of his cricket, Shami was sent 1600 km east from Moradabad in Uttar Pradesh to Kolkata, and went from staying in his coach’s home to becoming the leading wicket-taker for India at the biggest tournament in the world.Or how on earth Stuart Binny pulled off a Fred Astaire at Lord’s, clicking his heels mid-air after taking a catch?Or whom does the incendiary Virat Kohli go to for counsel?Never mind us guttersnipes, wouldn’t cricket fans anywhere not want to know? In the players’ own words? Presenting the Indian team as the ‘rockstars’ of cricket – which is how they have been billed for a few years now – in many ways shortchanges their lives and their struggles to get where they are. The Indian team may be the generators of the largest pool of revenue in cricket, but to make that the only prism through which the rest of the world sees them reflects limited thinking.As media manager for a regime that dislikes the media, Baba is a messenger carrying out a directive from above. He is merely the first line of defence for a policy that will not cost Indian cricket any money, only goodwill. His NTNMA (no-training-no-media-activity) emails have acquired cult status at this World Cup.In an interview with ESPNcricinfo a few years ago, former India captain Anil Kumble had said the BCCI, “certainly need[s] better PR. I think the general perception [of the BCCI] is not good and that needs to change. A lot of good things have happened: the pension scheme, one-time payment, 200 cricketers have benefited … You can’t dismiss all that has happened by saying everything that comes out of BCCI is bad and evil.” It’s not confirmed whether their own advertising struggles to get that message across, or whether it doesn’t want to, preferring to play the tough guy. But could relations between the BCCI and the press improve? As they stand today, as the Kiwis say, “not even.” It is as emphatic a negative as you can get.They most certainly need to, if only to shout out and take to the far corners of the world the rich stories behind India’s cricketers, who have lit up the World Cup with tremendous skill and magic.

A captain under immense pressure, a coach potentially pushing a claim for the full-time job. There is much at stake for England at the beginning of their Test summer, but at least the cricket is about to start

George Dobell at Lord's20-May-20151:33

Farbrace not looking further than New Zealand

You could be forgiven for not noticing but, in the middle of all the infighting and sackings in English cricket, a Test match is about to break out.Amid the non-stop schedule that, already this year, has included a World Cup and most of an IPL season, a Test series – even a Test series starting at Lord’s – between England and New Zealand cannot demand the attention it once did. Where once touring sides arrived weeks – months even – in advance of the Tests now New Zealand have to accept the reality of their financial situation.While the first Test side from New Zealand to tour England, in 1931, played 32 first-class games on the trip, in 2015 their top four players arrived three days before the game. For many spectators, too, this series will be little more than the overture for the Ashes.That’s a shame. For this is a fine New Zealand side – arguably the best they have had – and an England side which contains six or seven youngish, exciting players who promise to play a fresh brand of enjoyable cricket. Lord’s, at least, will appreciate the tussle: a virtual sell-out is expected over the first few days.There is plenty at stake, too. No. 3 in the Test rankings will belong to whichever side wins the series; a lowly No. 7 for the loser.And, at a time when it has become apparent in England that failure will not be tolerated, this is a particularly important series for several individuals: not least Alastair Cook and Paul Farbrace.Farbrace, the interim coach, does not appear to have been considered as a serious candidate for the full-time head coach role. Not yet, anyway.A few days ago Andrew Strauss all but dismissed Farbrace’s claims of the head coach role. He described him as the “ideal No. 2” and suggested Farbrace saw himself the same way. Strauss also suggested experience of playing at international level was desirable.But such a rating is somewhat disrespectful. Farbrace is, after all, one of the few men vying for the position – Gary Kirsten is the other – to have led an international team to a global title. He was, after all, the Sri Lanka coach when they won the World T20 little over a year ago.He also has a passion for the role that few of the overseas candidates could match. While some candidates might be uncomfortable at the extent to which Strauss has prescribed their tactics – not just in the selection of Cook as captain, but in the selection of Joe Root as vice-captain and the veto over the selection of Kevin Pietersen – Farbrace seems delighted and proud to play any part in the coaching process. Not everyone needs “persuading” – as Jason Gillespie has suggested he would require to leave Yorkshire – to become England coach.That was a theme that came across loud and clear in the pre-match media conference. Underlining his enjoyment at working with the England squad – and he did leave the job of head coach of Sri Lanka for the chance to work with his national side – he clarified that he would be delighted to take the No. 1 position but happy to remain No. 2 if required.”My passion to work with the England team is still very strong,” he said. “I wanted to work with the England team. That’s why I came back from the Sri Lanka job.”I’m in a position where I’m looking after things for a couple of weeks, and see where that gets to. If at the end of that process, I’ve turned out to be someone who has a good chance of getting the job it would be a very hard one to say no to.”Whatever the job is at the end of this process, I am very happy. I just want to be involved in working with the team and helping the team and its players to get better.”Despite everything that seems to be going on, the England head coach’s job would be a fantastic one to have.”Jason Gillespie remains a frontrunner for the role. But for some, the idea of an Australian coaching England during the Ashes will be a step too far. The Ashes is, after all, meant to be England v Australia. The ECB have, too, invested in coach development (it’s part of Andy Flower’s new role) and, only a just over a year ago, Trevor Bayliss was told that the fact that he was not British counted against him during the recruitment process for this same role.Yes, we have seen Australian coaches – the likes of David Saker and Troy Cooley – form part of the coaching team. But for an Australian to lead the unit? It will grate for some. Not least the perfectly capable English coaches who would not need “persuading” to take on such a role.Cook smiled at the thought that Farbrace was the fourth coach in his relatively short stint as captain. But he needs to take some responsibility – some regret, even – for that statistic and, while he appears to live something of a charmed life in the eyes of the ECB, he will need to sustain his much-improved form with the bat he showed in the Caribbean if he is to remain captain beyond the Ashes.Cook also captained perfectly adequately in the Caribbean, but he needs to continue that improvement. Coaches and directors have fallen because of the results of teams he has captained. There can be no-one else to blame if England – and Cook, in particular – perform badly this summer.That doesn’t mean his success is dependent on England winning the Ashes – this is a young side and it would be simplistic to judge their progress simply on results – but there does need to be development.The appointment of Root as vice-captain – and the clear demotion of Ian Bell – was a sign that the ECB are grooming replacements. Cook and Farbrace are on trial.

exposes how neo-liberal economics threatens the game, while also hinting at worse lying beneath the surface, leaving you feeling disillusioned and angry

Jonathan Wilson29-Jul-2015When Sam Collins and Jarrod Kimber set out to make , their aims were vague. They wanted to make something that asked why Test cricket, the form of the game they prefer, was in decline. They ended up with something far more explosive, a shocking account of the process by which world cricket was carved up to ensure the domination of three nations: India and, to a lesser degree, England and Australia. They outline a nexus of self-interest at whose heart stands N Srinivasan, chairman of the ICC, former president of the BCCI, and the managing director of India Cements, which owns the Chennai Super Kings franchise.The basics of the story, of course, are familiar to anybody with the slightest interest in cricket politics: the financial might of the IPL and India’s exploitation of that, the craven submission of England and Australia as they gratefully gobble the crumbs from India’s table, the weakness of the other boards unwilling or unable to fight for a greater share of cricket’s revenues for fear of upsetting India and so missing out on the tours they depend upon.How, for instance, can India’s decision to reduce the length of their tour to South Africa in 2013-14, costing CSA an estimated US$20m, be seen as anything other than the worst kind of bullying, driven by the BCCI’s dispute with the CSA president Haroon Lorgat? And that, perhaps, is the most shocking aspect of the refusal of anybody at the top of the game even to pretend they are placing the wider interests of cricket first. As Gideon Haigh asks, does cricket make money in order to exist or is it now the case that it exists in order to make money?As other sports look to expand, cricket seems determined to contract. Far from investing in the Affiliates – Chinese cricket, the film points out, receives only $30,000 in funding – and seeking to become a truly global sport, the ICC has reduced the size of the World Cup.The team interviews Rahul Dravid•Death of a GentlemanThat may ensure bigger television audiences for each game in the short term, but it means cricket remains the preserve of a tiny elite – which is, of course, why so many of its squabbles are still couched in an unhelpful post-colonial framework.The contrast with FIFA is telling: blatantly corrupt as it may be, nobody doubts that football’s governing body has, over the past 40 years, diverted huge sums from the top of the game to the bottom. There would have been more, of course, had it not been for all the kickbacks and backhanders, but at least some sort of intent was there. Cricket doesn’t even have that. India revels in its role as a superpower without ever acknowledging the responsibilities that entails – and England and Australia blinkeredly go along.There’s a damning moment at which the ECB’s Giles Clarke, asked about his opposition to cricket’s possible inclusion in the Olympics, draws himself up to full sneer and proudly announces, “I’ve got every right to put my board’s interests first.”There are a lot of damning moments with Clarke. You suspect it didn’t require particularly selective editing to make him look bad: going in to the announcement of the Big Three carve-up, he walks by Collins and Kimber standing in a media area in the car park, then scoffs, “That idiot Sam’s outside”, apparently unaware he’s being filmed the whole time by the ICC’s own cameras. Yes, you think, that’s definitely the sort of person English cricket wants representing it.What’s also revealing is the shiftiness of those Collins and Kimber approach: they act guilty, implying a recognition that what they’re doing doesn’t bear scrutiny. Clarke tells the pair that their fears for Test cricket are “straight out of 1909”, which suggests a worrying level of complacency: just because disaster has been predicted frequently before doesn’t necessarily invalidate present fears.Ignoring the film because they deemed it worthless would be one thing, but cricket’s authorities seem actively to have tried to scupper it. When a trailer was released to try to raise further funding, the ECB delayed* Kimber’s press accreditation, while various interviewees were warned off. What were Clarke and the ICC so scared of?And that perhaps is the most alarming aspect, the sense that there is something that is more than just murky going on just out of sight. The film might not quite get to the bottom of what that is, but it is a passionate film that asks the right questions. At the very least it exposes how neo-liberal economics threaten the game, making the rich richer at the expense of the poor, but it also hints at something far, far worse.Perhaps these questions have been asked in various forms for over a century, but Collins and Kimber convince that they are as pertinent and as pressing now as they have ever been. It’s hard to imagine how anybody who cares for cricket and has a sense of its values beyond parochial nationalisms could watch and not feel disillusioned and angry.Death of a Gentleman
Produced and directed by Sam Collins, Jarrod Kimber, Christopher Hird and Johnny Blank
Dartmouth Films
96 mins; 2015
*07:41:37 GMT, July 30, 2015: The review originally said the ECB blocked Kimber’s accreditation

A short hop between the entirely different worlds of the Wankhede and the Brabourne takes South Africa out of the limited-overs whirl and into the serious business of preparing for a long and arduous Test series

Firdose Moonda at the Brabourne29-Oct-2015No matter whose side you were on, you have to admit the limited-overs’ legs of the series between India and South Africa looked like a lot of fun. From a distance it felt like cricket had come to life for both teams. They pushed each other and then pulled away, took the packed crowds through a party atmosphere of ups and downs and played with a passion that is usually reserved for the real stuff. The stuff that’s coming.The Test series is where things get serious. There is more at stake than just rankings’ points, there is reputation. India have built a fortress at home, losing only one Test series on their own turf in the last ten years; South Africa are road warriors and are in their ninth year of not being beaten on the road. These are the kinds of feats eras are built on.As though the schedule is serving as a reminder of the shift in mood, the action has moved from the shower of sound that is the Wankhede to a sanctum of sport, the Brabourne. The Wankhede is the India I have come to know in my decade of visiting the country, bullish and brash like Ravi Shastri’s six sixes in an over in a first-class match; the Brabourne is the kind of India my father told me about, refined and regal with cherry-coloured wooden tables and chairs, a stained-glass skylight and club members lunching in suits and ties.There are only 750 metres between the two venues but South Africa chose to make a 1200km round-trip to Goa to get from once to the other, probably so the physical shift could mimic the mental one. In the beach-side state, they put their feet up and switched their minds off. They spent two days as tourists, and visited the second-oldest church, although Dale Steyn wondered out loud (read: on Twitter) why they didn’t get to the oldest, and they transitioned from the frenetic pace of the last fortnight or so into the more considered clip a Test series demands.In personnel terms, South Africa’s more serious statesmen have arrived. Temba Bavuma, Simon Harmer, Vernon Philander, Dane Piedt and Dane Vilas are entirely different characters to David Miller, Quinton de Kock, Kyle Abbott, Farhaan Behardien and Aaron Phangiso. Speak to the former group and you will be listening to cricket chat for the learned soul, speak to the latter and you will more than likely have a laugh too.That’s why it seems only sensible that Vilas was retained in the Test squad and de Kock, despite a comeback of confidence and class in ODIs, made to go back to the domestic game to earn his spot. South Africa want to build a Test squad on maturity and Vilas offers that at the moment. He knows that moment won’t last forever, especially with de Kock nipping at his heels, and he is determined to seize it. He was last man out of the nets at the Brabourne on Thursday and could well be the first back in them ahead of the warm-up match on Friday.Vilas is not the only one playing for a long-term future. Imran Tahir has been given a last chance to prove he belongs at this level, Philander will be looking over his shoulder as 20-year-old tearaway Kagiso Rabada gains on him, and Stiaan van Zyl probably needs a few more solid knocks to successfully convert from a No.3 to an opener and if he can do it in India, all the better.Van Zyl knows the importance of this tour for him. He has said all the right things, that, “India will be up for the challenge”, that the pitches will be challenging because they are so unlike what he has at home – “a lot slower and spin a lot” – and that he will call on past experience such as his 96 for South Africa A in an unofficial Test against India A earlier this year for motivation.Talk amounts to very little in this game, which may be why van Zyl’s words were so sparse. Action is everything. The shorter formats already proved that; the longer one should be even better.

ESPNcricinfo staff27-Sep-2015Shoaib Malik, however, fashioned a recovery with his 35 off 24 balls. Mohammad Rizwan then provided the late boost with an unbeaten 33, despite late wickets, helping Pakistan finish at 136 for 8•AFPLeft-arm spinning allrounder Imad Wasim, though, made the total look bigger, as he removed both the Zimbabwe openers•AFPHe showed good control and ended with career-best T20 figures of 4 for 11•AFPElton Chigumbura mounted a late fightback but the regular loss of wickets continued to hurt Zimbabwe as they eventually fell short by 13 runs•AFP

Anthony Everard, the head of the Big Bash League, talks about plans to expand its fan base, and what he has picked up from other franchise-based competitions

Interview by Freddie Wilde05-Dec-2015Last season you had a lot of success – TV ratings went up, average attendances went up. How do you feel you can build on that success?
There’s two things we are focusing on: one is that as much success as we’ve had in recent years we’ve still got a lot of empty seats in our grounds, and that applies to some teams more than others. The clubs in the smaller venues are pretty full, but the majority of teams have still got seating capacity, so we are encouraging them to make sure they are chasing down additional ticket sales.Beyond that the research has indicated that while there’s a pretty strong following of the BBL, not a lot of people have chosen to follow a particular team. So it is really important to us that we drive that passion and engagement with a particular club. A lot of the fans, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, where you’ve got the two teams [each], are still to commit to a team.Do you still feel it was the right decision to have two teams in Melbourne and Sydney?
Yes, totally. We always felt it would be the right decision to give those teams the chance to establish fan bases concurrently rather than start with one team in Melbourne and Sydney and a couple of regional teams. It would always be a huge challenge for a second team to come into the town when the other team had had a five- to ten-year head start.It is obviously really important for us to have strong representation within the two biggest commercial markets within Australia and Channel Ten are very supportive of that.How have you tried to distinguish teams in the dual-team cities? Is it a geographical thing, or is there a deeper distinction between the two?
In Sydney you could argue there is a geographic divide. That’s not the case in Melbourne, where both stadiums are in the CBD. Originally we really took a lot of learnings from other leagues around the world: look at the LA Lakers and the LA Clippers, or Manchester City and Manchester United, with everything from colours through to other brand elements and values. We really tried to separate them, so although I appreciate it is marketing talk, they do represent a reasonably strong contrast on paper.

“We did some research last year with some mums who weren’t cricket fans. One of them was looking up at the vision screen and said, ‘I can find Smith, I can find Watson, but I can’t find sundries!'”

The [Sydney] Sixers have built themselves as a really strong entertainment brand. The [Sydney] Thunder are a bit more grounded, in terms of their community outreach, etc. The [Melbourne] Stars consider themselves very much as the Melbourne sporting fabric at the MCG, while the [Melbourne] Renegades offer something very different in a stadium with a roof and the motocross at the innings break.At the beginning of the BBL, teams had a biography on their website. The Stars stood for the traditionalists and the Renegades were the rebels. Is that something you felt would translate seamlessly into their promotion, or did you feel it was a bit forced?
We designed eight distinct brands, all of whom occupied a different space. We actually revisited that last year. We had a brand consultancy come in and help us. You can’t artificially manufacture brands, and ultimately it is how the clubs actually represent themselves, whether it is through their match-day experience, how their players engage with fans, the way they dress their venues.How involved is Cricket Australia in consulting the separate teams with regards to marketing?
Not really. We’ve established a framework within which the clubs operate. From a marketing perspective, Cricket Australia conducts the national campaign and the clubs are responsible for their local market engagement. We leave them to their own devices. We were very central to the establishment of the brands to make sure they were occupying reasonably different spaces and we avoided duplication were possible. We are certainly close to what they are doing and there’s a certain set of principles that everyone buys into upfront and then off they go.Which clubs do you feel are doing the best?
The one-team towns have a natural advantage. If you live in Adelaide, by and large you are going to support the Adelaide Strikers. And Perth, Hobart and Brisbane. So they have all done a good job. We must admit we are all surprised by how quickly the fans have got on board with their clubs. If you go to a Perth Scorchers game you’d think that club has been around for 30 to 40 years. Everyone is wearing the orange gear, it’s incredibly parochial. In Melbourne and Sydney it’s taking a bit longer, and that’s for the reasons we discussed earlier.”The Stars consider themselves very much as the Melbourne sporting fabric at the MCG, while the Renegades offer something very different in a stadium with a roof and the motocross at the innings break”•Getty ImagesLast season the semi-final structure received a lot of criticism when first-placed Adelaide Strikers lost in the semi-finals. Why has the BBL not adopted a CPL/IPL style playoff structure?
It comes down to time available to play matches. Adding a prelim would add an extra three days to the season [allowing for travel]. This would result in more afternoon matches [half the ratings of a night match], or the season continuing outside the school holiday period. For now we consider that the pros don’t outweigh the cons. But we are open-minded about different finals systems into the future.Have you considered the possibility of expanding the season to include home-and-away matches in the future?
We are starting to consider a future approach to growth for BBL, which contemplates a variety of options – more games, more teams, finals etc. It’s early days and we won’t rush. We need to consider which option helps best achieve our objective of new and diverse fans – not expansion for expansion’s sake, or purely commercial reasons. Our focus now is successful delivery of BBL5. We’ll know more early to mid-next year.Before last season the BBL wasn’t quite making a profit, but according to former BBL chief Mike McKenna, it was on track to, and a couple of teams were making a profit. What’s the latest situation with regards to that?
They actually all made a profit last year – the first time all teams have made a profit. Part of that was funding from Cricket Australia. So I don’t think it’s fair to say they are all standing on their own feet just yet, but that’s to be expected. We envisaged that at this early stage of the league we would support them financially. The encouraging thing is, in only four short years they have made a profit. From year one to year four, their reliance on central funding is decreasing substantially. In year one, funding as a percentage of overall revenue was 67%. That number last year was down to 50% across the league, and this year it will dip below 50%. So that trend is heading in the right direction and they’ll all be budgeting again for profits this year. So we are certainly encouraged by the direction in which their financial health is going.

“You can’t artificially manufacture brands, and ultimately it is how the clubs actually represent themselves, whether it is through their match-day experience, how their players engage with fans, the way they dress their venues”

How long do you envisage it will be until they can stand on their own feet?
We haven’t put a time frame on that. We have this year and next year, when our funding level is committed, so they have another 18 months of certainty. But Cricket Australia still sees BBL as our fan and customer acquisition arm of the business, so we don’t shy away from the fact that we need to invest in that. This is not a purely commercial exercise. If we see that we need to continue to support the clubs and invest in particular areas, which may be families, or women, or different ethnic groups, we’ll redirect some of that funding to make sure it’s being spent on particular areas that will ultimately deliver a greater return.Have you looked at the possibility that the BBL could, in the more distant future, become Australian cricket’s No. 1 commercial property?
I think the view of Cricket Australia is that there is room for all three forms of the game. Certainly in the short to medium term, the commercial engine room is still international cricket, and that’s from a media-rights perspective, sponsorship and gate receipts. There is an enormous gap in the money that is derived from international cricket relative to BBL. I know that is not necessarily consistent with other countries around the world, but from an Australian perspective, the view is to use the different forms of the game as a competitive advantage for cricket over other sports. Ultimately I guess the fans will determine what the landscape will look like in the future.How is the BBL doing abroad? Are you eyeing overseas viewers as well?
It’s a secondary consideration for us. The BBL was established around capturing a more diverse and younger audience around Australia. That is the rationale for the significant investment that Cricket Australia has made into the league, and that absolutely remains our priority. The BBL revenue is an outcome rather than a focus area, so if we are putting a fantastic, entertaining league, as part of that we are going to grow attendances, more people will be watching on TV in Australia and the revenue will come.”The BBL was established around capturing a more diverse and younger audience around Australia. The revenue is an outcome rather than a focus area”•Getty ImagesIs there any thought to expand the number of overseas players permitted?
It’s been spoken about since the first season. We made a slight change where we relaxed the conditions around replacement players. Obviously you’ve got your two primary overseas players and if they get injured or get called up for international duty, you can get a replacement. So you can have four overseas players in your squad and two on the park. We think that has worked pretty well. The players’ association may have a different view. If we opened up an overseas spot, that’s eight domestic players who may not get on the park. When the BBL is being played there’s a hell of a lot of international cricket being played, and I would be doubtful that we’d get real high-quality players that would add value.Do you feel that the BBL can lay claim to being the leading T20 league in the world?
They are all very different, aren’t they? The IPL is in a league of their own. They have a structural advantage in that they have a window and everything is just on a different scale in India anyway. We certainly talk to our counterparts in the other leagues, but we don’t see each other as competition. We’ve got a really close relationship with Damien [O’Donohoe] at the CPL.Obviously the more alignment we can get between the league, our clubs and our broadcasters around that, the better. And if we all do a good job on that then the crowds will come and people will tune in on TV etc.You went to the IPL final last season. What were the things that you have taken out of other leagues that you feel that you can translate into the BBL?
I thought they did a really good job at simplifying the vision screens and using them in a simple but effective way. They were very good at how many runs off how many balls. For a new fan they did a much better job than we do to actually explain what’s going on in the game.We did some research last year with some mums who weren’t cricket fans. One of them was looking up at the vision screen and said, “I can find Smith, I can find Watson, but I can’t find sundries!” She thought sundries was a player. Do you really need sundries up there? That’s something we are focusing on this season. It’s a fine line. You have to make sure your fans can follow the game. But you don’t need Duckworth-Lewis up there, you don’t need extras.What has worked in sport in the past is not what the fans want in the future, and that’s the philosophy we are adopting at the BBL.

Stats highlights from the fourth Test between SA and England in Centurion where the hosts set England a target of 382 to chase.

Shiva Jayaraman25-Jan-20165 Number of South Africa batsmen before Hashim Amla to make a hundred and a score in the nineties in Tests. Amla got a hundred in the first innings before getting out to Stuart Broad on 96 in the second. The last such instance for South Africa had come against India in 2007-08 in Chennai when Neil McKenzie made 94 and 155. Pieter Van der Bijl, Jacques Kallis, Herschelle Gibbs and AB de Villiers are the others.87.92 Amla’s batting average in Centurion – the highest for a South Africa batsman with at least 750 runs at any venue. His 96 in this innings was Amla’s tenth fifty-plus score out of 14 innings at this venue – the most he has made at any venue. Overall, with a 1000-run cut-off there are only ten instances when batsman have averaged higher at any venue than Amla in Centurion.470 Runs by Amla in this series at an average of 67.14. He is the first batsman to make 400-plus runs in the Basil D’Oliveira Trophy series twice. He had made 482 runs in the 2012 series in England.7 Number of South Africa batsmen who have faced 1000 balls in a Test series, including Amla in this one (for the series in which balls-faced information is available). This is the second such instance for Amla. He faced 1033 deliveries in just two Tests in an away series against India in 2009-10. That was also the last time any South Africa batsman faced 1000-plus balls in a series.1912 Last, and the only time, before de Villiers in which a South Africa captain got a pair in Tests. Louis Tancred got ducks in both innings of the Oval Test in 1912. De Villiers’ three ducks at Johannesburg and Centurion are the most by any player in his first two Tests as captain. This was de Villiers’ fourth duck in his last 11 innings. He had got only three ducks in his first 165 innings and his first duck didn’t come until his 78th Test innings, which is a record for the most Test innings by a batsman for his first duck.49.60 Temba Bavuma’s batting average in this series; he made 248 runs from seven innings including one hundred, two fifties and two ducks. Bavuma’s average in this series is the third highest for any batsman who got two or more ducks batting at No. 6 or lower in a series. Bavuma’s unbeaten 78 in this innings was the first fifty-plus score in the second innings by a South Africa batsman batting at No. 6 or lower in their last 11 Tests. Before this, Vernon Philander had made 51 not out in the 2013-14 Cape Town Test against Australia.249 Highest target successfully chased in Tests in Centurion, which was by England against the hosts in 1999-00. South Africa have set a target of 382 runs in this Test, which is 46 runs more than the highest ever target chased successfully in Tests in South Africa. Australia chased down 336 against the hosts in Durban in 1950.3/47 James Anderson’s bowling figures in this innings; this is the first time he has taken more than one wicket in six innings in this series – previously, he had taken three wickets at 54.33 at Cape Town and Johannesburg. Anderson passed Richard Hadlee’s tally of 431 Test wickets with Dean Elgar’s wicket in South Africa’s second innings and is just one wicket short of drawing level with Kapil Dev who took 434 wickets.20.00 Runs England openers collectively averaged in this series – the lowest they have averaged in any Test series since the 1989 Ashes, in which they averaged just 17.22 from six Tests. While Alastair Cook’s average of 23.00 is his lowest in any series when he has played at least three Tests, Alex Hales’ batting average of 17.00 is the sixth lowest ever by an England opener from eight or more innings in a Test series. Since 2015, England have tried five different openers besides Cook, all of whom have averaged below 21.00.

Sunrisers Hyderabad were the sole winless team remaining in IPL 2016, but the pace trio of Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Barinder Sran and Mustafizur Rahman paved the way for a first win

Nagraj Gollapudi in Hyderabad18-Apr-2016In the two matches they had played before Monday, Sunrisers Hyderabad’s bowlers had managed just six wickets. On Sunday their captain David Warner was clear that his bowlers had “missed the mark” in those two matches, away against Royal Challengers Bangalore before hosting Kolkata Knight Riders. As the sole winless team remaining in IPL 2016, Sunrisers were under pressure to get it right at home on Monday night against Mumbai Indians.After his side’s swift disintegration when batting first against the Knight Riders, Warner was happy to allow Rohit Sharma’s Mumbai to set a target. Sunrisers’ bowlers thus assumed the responsibility of getting the team off to a good start, and Bhuvneshwar Kumar provided the perfect first over. He bowled a probing Test match line to Martin Guptill, finding the outside edge though to Naman Ojha with a ball that straightened, to ensure that the New Zealander’s IPL debut lasted just four balls.Bhuvneshwar’s opening partner was Barinder Sran, who had hit the headlines during the limited-overs series in Australia earlier this year for his canny changes of pace and potent yorkers. In his first over, the left-arm quick offered width, which Parthiv Patel slapped for a four.As Sran commenced his second over, Mumbai sat at 12 for 1 in three overs and Parthiv was desperate to up the ante. Sran offered up three wides in the over. The first was an intended slower delivery that drifted down the leg side. The second was a short delivery which the umpire deemed too high. The third was a short, slower delivery outside the off stump which floated over the tram line, and which the umpire was perhaps harsh to call a wide.In between, Parthiv hit Sran for two fours – a pull and a straight loft over the bowler’s head off a fuller delivery. But Sran kept his emotions in check. He had watched Parthiv charge down the pitch earlier only to swing and miss. He finished the over with a lovely back-of-the-hand, loopy slower ball that fooled Parthiv before crashing into his stumps.Sunrisers went on to capitalise on the early gains. Rohit Sharma ran himself out to start the eighth over and at the halfway mark Mumbai were in a desperate spot at 58 for 3. From there, Sunrisers were ruthless in maintaining their advantage. Sran returned for an over in the eleventh and directed a short ball at the ribs of Englishman Jos Buttler, who could only glove it to Ojha behind the wicket.Left-arm spinner Bipul Sharma, playing his first game of the season, used opposing batsmen’s anxiety to his advantage by cleverly pulling back his length whenever Ambati Rayudu charged him. He also varied his pace smartly to give away just 14 runs off his first three overs.Before they reached a point of no return, Mumbai’s batsmen decided to go for the slog. But even when Krunal Pandya and Rayudu looted 26 runs in the 14th over off Bipul, the rest of the Sunrisers bowlers held steady. Warner was smart with his bowling changes and consciously left Bangladesh left-armer Mustafizur Rahman for the death overs, with ‘the Fizz’ working out the perfect plan for the right-left pairing of Rayudu and Krunal.For Rayudu, Mustafizur pushed mid-on back while cover and mid-off were kept in the circle. When Krunal was on strike, point was pulled back into the circle. The plan was clear: Mustafizur would bowl full-length cutters, yorkers and mix it up with his slower deliveries. Even when Rayudu tried to back out and make room to hit inside out over the inner circle, Mustafizur pitched the ball short of a length and fast, leaving the batsman in a helpless position. Only five runs came in the 17th over and Mustafizur had begun the process of stalling the momentum that Mumbai had generated in the 14th over.At the start of the 18th, a fatiguing Rayudu played a tired drive against an angled, fuller delivery outside off from Sran into the hands of Moises Henriques at point. Hardik Pandya joined his elder brother, but the siblings were pushed into a corner by the accuracy and skills of Bhuvneshwar and Mustafizur for the final two overs.Throttling the opposition towards the end of the innings was something Sunrisers’ bowlers did well last season. On this day, the Sunrisers bowlers took advantage of a vulnerable Mumbai batting unit which had been thoroughly exposed so far in the tournament. They did so courtesy a well-executed all-round bowling effort. Surely captain Warner would agree that his bowlers were on the mark this time.

ESPNcricinfo staff26-Jun-2016David Willey was the man with the opening breakthrough•AFPBut Kusal Mendis was quickly into his stride•Getty ImagesChris Woakes couldn’t cling onto a sharp return chance•AFPKusal Perera was frustrated during his innings of 9 from 25 balls•AFPDinesh Chandimal anchored Sri Lanka’s mid-innings recovery…•AFP… adding 80 for the fourth wicket with Angelo Mathews•AFPChandimal top-scored with 62•AFPIt was his second half-century of the series•AFPWoakes, however, finally removed Chandimal …•AFP… before Liam Plunkett removed the dangerous Seekkuge Prasanna•Getty Images… thanks to a steepling catch at deep midwicket from Jonny Bairstow•Getty ImagesChris Jordan had Mathews caught behind for 56•Getty Images… while Dasun Shanaka ran himself out off the bowling of Adil Rashid•Getty ImagesIn reply, Suranga Lakmal bagged Alex Hales for a golden duck•Getty Images… but rain drove the teams from the field after four overs of England’s innings•Getty Images