All posts by csb10.top

One of England’s bowling heroes, Andy Caddick, told how Australia had panicked on the evening of the first day of the Third npower Test at Trent Bridge.Caddick, who took three wickets in 11 balls as Australia collapsed to 105-7 in reply to the home side’s 185 all out, believes that Australia have now lost their aura of invincibility and shown that they are as vulnerable as any other side to quality fast bowling.”I am sure they may have just panicked in the dressing room,” Caddick said.”It just shows you that Australia are good players, but if you get stuck into them and get on top of they do anything that a human would do, and that is panic,” he reasoned.But Caddick was taking nothing for granted, and stressed that England still had a huge amount of work to do before they secure the game, let alone the Ashes.”I would say we have put ourselves in a pretty good position. But I would not say at the moment we will win. There is a lot of cricket to be played still,” he admitted.”The Australians are a very professional side and a talented one. They have some key players capable of doing the business for them in the second innings.”He pointed to the wickets of the Waugh brothers as the key moments of the day, but credited Adam Gilchrist, the not out batsman, as a pivotal figure in the morning”The key two wickets today were Steve and Mark Waugh,” Caddick revealed. “But the key thing tomorrow is to make sure Gilchrist does not get away from us.”The main thing is to ensure that the good 15 minutes we had tonight we finish off tomorrow morning. We will just plod on and stick to the basics and hope we can come out on top.”And Caddick could not help poking fun at Australian coach, John Buchanan’s much-publicised ‘Sun Tzu’ memo.”We will not be bringing any Chinamen into the dressing room, and I don’t suppose they will be either,” he joked. “We will just carry on putting it in the right places, and it is up to them to respond. They have not done that so far.”Meanwhile, opposite number Glenn McGrath – who had earlier earned Australia the initiative with 5-49 accepted that England had struck back in the final session.”They had a very good session there, and we had a very bad one,” he conceded. “But I hope we can bounce back and turn the tables again.”I am sure there will be a little bit of disappointment, but you have to give credit to England’s bowlers. They bowled well and got it in the right places.”Today they got the edges and held their catches, so we have a good game of cricket on our hands.”But McGrath insisted that his role in the match was far from over: “I haven’t got my first Test 50 yet,” he warned.But more seriously he revealed his confidence with the ball, pinpointing Michael Atherton for special attention in the second innings.”I have a lot of confidence, particularly bowling at Atherton,” he said. “I’ve picked him out 16 times now. My confidence is up and he’s always wary of me.”It’s not an ideal Test wicket but there’s a fair bit in it for the bowlers.”

Scorecard and ball-by-ball detailsJoe Burns and Usman Khawaja put on a 239-run opening stand•K Sivaraman

Dravid hopes for more from India A spinners

Rahul Dravid admitted Australia A have played spin “far better” than India A have across the two unofficial Tests in Chennai, which the hosts lost 0-1, and
today again when Karn Sharma, Parvez Rasool and Axar Patel went for 170 runs in 22 overs, at an economy rate of a shade under eight.
With Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja easing themselves to centuries and playing the spinners with ease, was there concern over India A’s slow men? “There’s no hiding from that fact that we should have responded better,” Dravid said. “Naturally, I guess the three spinners that we’ve got are spinners who bowl a little bit flatter through the air, quicker through the air. That’s not going to change overnight. But I think we could have bowled better lines, maybe.
“We kept bowling a little too straight. Burns kept hitting us straight down the ground. We could have maybe tested him a little bit by bowling outside the off stump, forced him to hit over covers. Maybe going around the wicket and make him hit across the line into the leg side. Various little things that we could have done.
“Most of the guys know what they want to do, they know exactly where they want to bowl. It’s not that the tactics are wrong. It’s just that they are not able to pitch the ball where they would like on a given day and today was that day.”

At a time when Australia are scouring high and low for batting options, Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja put themselves front and centre with a couple of effortless centuries against India A in Chennai to lead a 119-run rout.An India A bowling attack which relied on medium pace and non-turning spinners proved incredibly appetising, and the two batsmen were ravenous. Burns pummeled 154, with 14 sixes, while Khawaja batted as if he never had a knee injury; he had struck 85, 166 and 120 on the trot in October 2014 before he spent nine months on crutches. On his return to one-day cricket on Wednesday against South Africa A, Khawaja made 73, and today he smacked 100 off 104 balls. The opening stand fetched 239 in 215 balls. And in tune with the Australian teams of old, this A team put the foot on the opposition’s throat early and squeezed the life out of them.The promise displayed by two young batsmen at a time when Australia have a Michael Clarke-shaped void in the ODI team, and a few vacancies likely to develop in the Test team after the Ashes, is rather timely for Australian cricket. For the 35.5 overs that Burns and Khawaja held dominion over the batting crease, India A looked like a set of net bowlers. Add Aaron Finch’s injury-riddled summer since IPL 2015, and one or maybe both of them might find themselves in England playing the ensuing Royal London one-day series.The coin fell in Australia A’s favour – good signs for Khawaja on the day he takes over Queensland Bulls for the 2015-16 season – and then the one-way traffic began. India A contributed to their own flogging, with their three spinners constantly trying to bowl flatter and quicker every time they were targeted. Axar Patel was decent with 1 for 55 off 10 overs, Parvez Rasool was dismal with 57 runs in seven overs and Karn Sharma was abysmal, going for 58 in five overs. Even further indictment was that part-time offspinner Karun Nair had figures of 1 for 40 in eight overs, and was utilised in the final 10 because he was the among the few who actually exerted some control. It did not help that Sanju Samson dropped a couple of catches, and Burns was caught on the square-leg boundary, but Kedar Jadhav trod on the rope.But there was an important prelude to the carnage. A 9 A.M. start under cloud cover meant the first half hour had to be seen off, to the tune of 27 in six overs. Then, Khawaja began the seventh with a sublime six over extra cover and Burns ended the over with an effortless pull over deep square leg. By the tenth over, there were nine boundaries. By the 25th, there were 20. By the end of their innings, there were 38 hits that had peppered the ropes.Much of that was against spin, and it is that aspect that indicates the duo might yet be able to tackle the responsibilities of a No. 4 or 5. Burns, a tall man with long reach, kept peppering the sightscreen. He brought up his first hundred as an opener in List A cricket with the tenth six of his innings. Khawaja too soon reached his eighth List A century, and in trying to celebrate that with a six, he was caught at long-off.The run-rate began to dip a bit after that, though, indicating this was not as easy-paced a pitch as the openers made it out. There were only 16 runs between the 36th and the 40th overs. But Dhawal Kulkarni’s final two overs went for 28 runs and Australia A’s bowlers had a substantial total of 334 for 4 to defend.To down a target like that, there were two things necessary: a good start from the top order and substantial partnerships down the middle. India A got neither. Their captain Unmukt Chand stirred hopes with a strokeful half-century and Kedar Jadhav tried to avert embarrassment with a fifty of his own, but the bowlers had given away too many runs, and the mounting scoreboard pressure was just a bit too much.Adam Zampa, unlike the Indians, concentrated on turning the ball and with the batsmen coming at him, his chances of taking wickets were quite bright. He ended up with 4 for 49, including bowling Chand in his first over with a cleverly disguised flipper. Gurinder Sandhu nagged away at another end to pick up 8.3-1-28-4Essentially, the Australia A showed the hosts how to bat, and how to bowl in their own conditions, and the only interest that the chase sparked was when the final Indian pair were batting and the largest crowd of the tour so far – far more than when Virat Kohli had played here last week – cheered on every dot ball in the hopes of them lasting the full fifty overs. No luck there.

To Ethan Peters, seven weeks old, your father presents the wicket of Dean Elgar, with a warning.”I don’t want you to become a bowler, I want you to bat. I’ve done the bowling.”On Boxing Day, 2014, Kenroy Peters certainly did. Although he did not have a debut as stellar as Stiaan van Zyl’s last week in Centurion, Peters made a long-awaited introduction into international cricket after first bowling against a South African team almost a decade and a half ago.”When I played my first first-class game it was against South Africa A. Ten years later, I am making my debut against South Africa,” Peters remembers. In September 2000, Peters played for Windward Islands against South Africa A and picked 3 for 25 in the first innings. One of his wickets was Robin Peterson, who would have played in this Test had he not hurt his finger three days before the game.Since that day, Peters has been waiting to play for West Indies but only got his opportunity after an injury ruled Kemar Roach out of the tour. Although he is 32-years old, Peters said he never gave up on the dream to represent the islands and it came true when he was named in the starting XI and tasked with opening the bowling.”I always believed that if I played first-class cricket and did well my chance would come,” he said. “I got the joyous news that I had been called up on Saturday last week and then I was told yesterday morning that I would open the bowling. That time put me in the frame of my mind to get myself ready and also prepare myself for the days’ play.”Peters’ said he experienced a mixture of “joy and butterflies,” and tried to calm them by reminding himself not to expect anything less than a challenge. “You just have to believe in yourself because fewer mistakes are being made by the batsman so bowlers had to work extra hard to get wickets.”On a slow Port Elizabeth track against a South African line-up well versed in the patience game, that was only more enhanced so Peters went back to basics. “The first spell was about trying to assess the conditions,” he said. In doing that he saw that, “The South African batsmen are excellent batsmen but they tend to play on their back foot a lot so I tried to bowl a bit fuller and to see if I can get success from just being patient.”Ultimately that was the only way to get through South Africa and after 12 overs, Peters was rewarded when Dean Elgar chased a wide one. The discipline paid off.Despite not bowling at a great pace, extracting great bounce or moving the ball any great amount, Peters had done what he always thought he could. He proved that with what he had, he could do well. “I always believe once I step on the cricket field I am No.1. When you are on the field, it’s you and the ball. It’s not about who is No.1 and No.2,” he said. And then, he thought of young Ethan and dedicated the wicket to him.

Sri Lanka sometimes go into global tournaments underdone. Other times they have carried misfiring personnel. Occasionally key players have been injured, or, like on this occasion, poor form has pockmarked their approach to the big events. They rarely seem to have the firepower of the ‘favourites’. They are so beset by poor governance they played the last World T20 in the middle of a contracts dispute. But they won.Sri Lanka are like the kung fu movie protagonist that takes a hundred knocks to the head, but somehow makes it to the end of the film. Or the old Nokia phone that is jammed in doors and dropped in puddles, but continues to live on.

Fact box

Previous World Cups
1975: Group stage
1979: Group stage
1983: Group stage
1987: Group stage
1992: Group stage
1996: Winners
1999: Group stage
2003: Semi-finalists
2007: Finalists
2011: Finalists
Squad
Angelo Mathews (capt.), Tillakaratne Dilshan, Dimuth Karunaratne, Lahiru Thirimanne, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene, Dinesh Chandimal, Jeevan Mendis, Thisara Perera, Nuwan Kulasekara, Rangana Herath, Suranga Lakmal, Lasith Malinga, Sachithra Senanayake, Dhammika Prasad
Fixtures
February 14 – v New Zealand, Christchurch
February 22 – v Afghanistan, Dunedin
February 26 – v Bangladesh, Melbourne
March 1 – v England, Wellington
March 8 – v Australia, Sydney
March 11 – v Scotland, Hobart

Angelo Mathews has three former captains in his side. He has already been at the helm for two standoffs with the board. But in the six major campaigns he has played in, Sri Lanka have failed to reach the semi-finals only once.It is not that Sri Lanka have consistently been the best side in these tournaments – often their early outings have been scratchy. But somewhere in each campaign metal strikes flint and a fire spreads. In the 2007 World Cup, Lasith Malinga had his four in four. In the 2009 World T20, the team rallied around Tillakaratne Dilshan’s electric starts. In the 2014 World T20, Rangana Herath turned a match Sri Lanka had no business winning, with his 5 for 3.If the four previous finals had not already put the cricket world on notice, actually winning the last big tournament has. They lost 2-4 to New Zealand in January, but if Malinga is fit and firing, Sri Lanka will be hopeful that big-tournament magic will catch them again.The batting is still top-heavy, but it is some top. Dilshan and Kumar Sangakkara have been mighty consistent in ODIs over the past two years, and in Mahela Jayawardene Sri Lanka have one of the best big-match players in the game. They are smuggling inexperience in that lower middle order, but Mathews has become adept at rescuing the innings, though he has been short of support in recent weeks.Sri Lanka’s fans have watched too many finals to be wowed by just another good dash to the knockout stages. They expect the team to return with the trophy. The cricketers themselves will be desperate to bag the big prize too, not least because this will be several senior players’ last chance to do so.

World Cup Pedigree

ESPNcricinfo Ltd

They have not won since 1996, but aside from the awful 1999 campaign, Sri Lanka teams have largely emerged from World Cups with credit, reaching the semi-finals in 2003 and the final in both World Cups since. The near-miss in 2011 was for many in the team the greatest disappointment in their limited-overs careers, and only a World Cup win could bring full catharsis.

X-Factor

Sri Lanka have recently found limited overs success by stacking the XI with allrounders – particularly of the fast-bowling variety – and they built a team purposefully, to ensure Mathews will not be short of bowling options even when Sri Lanka play an XI that bats deep. Mathews himself as well as Thisara Perara and Nuwan Kulasekara have had success with both disciplines in Australia, and there is Dilshan’s canny offspin to break a big partnership or apply a squeeze. The challenge for Mathews is managing these resources intelligently, and ensuring he plays enough frontline bowlers in his XI.

Players in focus

Angelo MathewsMathews will almost certainly have more shots at World Cup glory, but yet the stakes are high for him at this event. The team is bracing for several high-profile retirements, and it is Mathews who has the task of putting together a new team in the wake of their exits. It is a daunting prospect, but one that will become immeasurably easier if Mathews already has a World Cup to his name, with all the confidence and public goodwill that comes with the trophy.Mahela JayawardeneThe only man with tons in a World Cup final and a semi-final, few players deserve a grand finish to their international careers as much as Jayawardene. A dip in his ODI form early in 2014 helped hasten his Test retirement, and he will hope that being active in only one format will spur a return to his best. Jayawardene has not prospered on bouncier surfaces in Tests, but he has played important ODI innings in Australia and has only grown more innovative in his later years.Lasith MalingaMalinga is not so much the leader of Sri Lanka’s limited-overs attack as he is its cornerstone. The team’s bowling plans revolve so tightly around Malinga that it is the quality of his performance that often defines games. He was delivering thunderbolts in 2014’s Asia Cup and the World T20, but had since then put on a few pounds and lost a little pace – perhaps due to the ankle injury that later required surgery. He will not have had much time at the bowling crease before the tournament begins, thanks to the lengthy recovery time. Given this may be his final shot at a World Cup as well, Malinga should need little incentive to be fit and fast at the curtain-raiser on February 14.

Game Style

Sri Lanka have developed a reputation as a street-smart unit with a taste for aggression, and that is the approach that has historically brought them most success. With two new balls in play, starts may not be as brisk as usual, but their batting is capable of responding to most situations, thanks to the adaptability that the likes of Sangakkara, Dilshan, Jayawardene and Mathews provide.

Prediction

Anything less than a semi-final place would be a disaster, and even that will not please Sri Lanka fans, who have come to expect much from their team. Adjusting to the conditions, and finding that collective intensity that has fueled past campaigns will be key to their performance.

World Cup stats

• Sri Lanka inflicted the lowest-ever World Cup total of 36 on Canada in 2003
• Of the five top wicket-takers in World Cups, two are Sri Lankans. Muttiah Muralitharan is at second place with 68 wickets, and current bowling coach Chaminda Vaas is at fourth, with 49
• Sri Lanka have the most experienced squad in the World Cup by a distance. Sri Lanka’s 15 have 2017 ODI caps between them. The next-highest is Pakistan with 1314.

If they were an actor

Amy Adams: Fly in under the radar to get close to the big prize, but don’t often take the trophy home

Theme song

So close, yet so far – Elvis Presley

Terming the new umpire referral system a ‘review process’ as opposed to a challenge process, Dave Richardson, the ICC’s general manager, was confident it would work well on a long-term basis with plenty of room for improvement. He said most umpires were in favour of this system and the real purpose is to eradicate obvious mistakes.”Our policy in the decision-making process has always been to keep an open mind,” he said. “You will recall in Sri Lanka in the 2002 Champions Trophy when we first started experimenting with technology and it continued until the Super Series in 2005, during which we allowed umpires to initiate a consultation on decisions. That didn’t work because the umpires didn’t refer decisions they should have. And then when they discovered that they could have made mistakes they became over cautious.”It was actually just wasting time. They were double-checking themselves and this lead to a loss of confidence of the players in the umpires. We realised it doesn’t work.”A lot of people will say reviews are contradictory to the spirit of the game and that players are challenging the umpires, but the way we look at it is – what is better or worse for the game? Umpires make mistakes and are accused of cheating, Steve Bucknor’s effigies are being burnt, teams threaten to fly home from a country, boards criticise umpires. Should we have a system where the umpire is given an opportunity to review his own decision and make a final decision himself? That would be preferable.”Richardson, who was present in the South African Test side when the first third-umpire referral was made in 1992-93, was firm that the ICC was not paying the television channels for the use of this technology, but rather saw it as a piggyback process. “The very first step in this process was to approach Ten Sports (the main broadcasters) and ask if they were willing to help us. They were keen to do so and we are very grateful to them. The broadcasters, like it or not, have been guilty in the past of showing up the umpires. All we ask them to do is continue to do so, but help us instead of being negative.”The ICC normally appoints three neutral Elite Panel umpires for a series. For this contest, instead of one umpire rotating and taking a break, he will act as the official third umpire. This, according to Richardson, was the way it would be going forward and there may even be the case of recalling some more experienced umpires to be specialist television umpires. But that, he affirmed, would be based on how the players felt about the situation.

Over the last few days the ICC has worked with the company that provides the ball-tracking device. Cameras have been placed in correct positions around the SSC and both parties have confirmed the accuracy of the results. Camera use will differ from series to series but there are minimum specifications, clarified Richardson.The company being used to provide the ball tracking is not Hawk-Eye, as generally employed, but one called Virtual Eye. They are similar to Hawk-Eye, said Richardson, but the ICC would only use the actual path of the ball until it hits the batsman. “It will then stop, and we won’t use the predictive element because the suppliers of that technology will say that it’s a bit of a computer guess.”The trickiest part is going to be for the batsman,” said Richardson. “As far as caught-behinds and bat-pads are concerned I have no doubt that every batsman, if he is honest with himself, will know he’s got the finest edge. But I can understand as a batsman that you are uncertain as to whether the ball pitched on leg stump or slightly outside. It might be tricky and we may find a circumstance that you get back into the dressing room and your coach has spoken to you for not challenging the decision or asking for it to be reviewed. We must not forget what the real object of this system is – to eradicate obvious mistakes.”

Baqai Dolphins entered into the semifinals of the 17th Karachi Gymkhana Callmate Festival after having tied their match against Sindh Police Friday.Having first use of the wicket after winning the toss, Baqai Dolphins had a sound start of 102 by Maisam Husnain (55) and Man of the Match Atiq-ur-Zaman (50) but collapsed to be bowled out for 175 in 19.4 overs in a match restricted to 20 overs.Sindh Police got oof to a splendid start when Kamran Hussain (56) and Akif Alvi (27) put on 85 for the first wicket. Kamran slashed eight fours and three sixes in his 27-ball knock and Akif clobbered four boundaries and a six off 15 deliveries.With three overs remaining Sindh Police needed 21 runs for victory with three wickets in hand. But two run outs left the Police trailing by 15 runs with the last man in and only an over left.Taking two runs off the first ball and heaving the next for a six and a single off the third, Iftikhar Ali brought his team closer to victory now needing six runs to win with three deliveries to spare. Off the last ball two runs were needed to win and as the two batsmen scampered home for the winning run, Ahmed Iqbal was run out and the match was tied with both teams dismissed for 175 runs.Baqai Dolphins were awarded the match on a faster run rate.Saturday’s fixture: (Quarterfinals) Dewan Mushtaq Sugar Mills v KESC at 1-30 p.m.KESC in semis Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC), cruised into the semifinal of the Eighth Tapal Trophy Ramazan Festival tournament beating Defence Housing Authority (DHA) CC by seven wickets Friday.Winning the toss and batting first, DHA were bundled out for 89 in 20 overs with Moin Khan contributing 28 to his team’s score. Spinners Irfanuddin three for 11 and Asif Ghouri three for 17 did the damage.KESC lost both openers with 22 on the board. But Man of the Match Arif Mehmood 43 not out and Imran Javed (26), steered their team to a comfortable victory as KESC scored 95 for three in 18 overs.Aleem’s hostile spell A hostile spell of pace bowling by the Man of the Match Aleem Khan Moosa enabled Mohammad Hussain CC enter the final of the Seventh Danish Trophy Ramazan Tournament, after knocking out last year’s champions Rangers Gymkhana by 26 runs Friday.In a match restricted to 18 overs Mohammad Hussain CC winning the toss and batting first reached 123 for eight wickets, with Nisar Abbas (31) and Arslan Jawed (30) scoring the bulk of runs.Rangers Gymkhana were ahead on the run rate until Aleem Khan Moosa’s hostile spell in which he captured three wickets for 26 runs turned the tide.Saeed Tamoir top scored for the losing side with 29 runs and Saeed Ahmed chipped in with 20.Saturday’s fixture: KGA Gymkhana v Wakenhut CC 1-30 p.m.Eaglets in final Karachi Eaglets moved into the final of the Kareemuddin Colour Kit Ramazan Festival tournament getting the better of Rafiq Sherazi CC by 80 runs.Batting first, Karachi Eaglets raced to 215 for the loss of four wickets in the 20 overs through Mohammad Waheed (55), Khurram Abbas (47), Kashif Hanif (37 n.o.) and Asim Cheema (26).Sheerazi CC were dismissed for 135 in 15.1 overs. Shahid Dawood top scored with 41 and Asif Ghori made 26. Khurram Abbas later named the Man of the Match bagged three for 16.

Pakistan, barring an unexpected intervention from the weather, are practicallycertain to win the first Test match against Zimbabwe at the Harare Sports Club,thanks to contrasting centuries by Inzamam-ul-Haq and Taufeeq Umer againstinept Zimbabwean bowling. Zimbabwe, needing 420 to win, finished with 19for one.Zimbabwe began the day with hopes that history might repeat itself and asimilar victory from behind as that at Peshawar in 1998/99 might bepossible. Henry Olonga, a hero on that occasion, soon bowled a lifting ballthat struck Younis Khan (8) painfully on the fingers and flew to AlistairCampbell in the slips, reducing Pakistan to 25 for two. Then Inzamam gotoff the mark with a snick that flew just over the head of Andy Flower atfirst slip and went to the boundary. Had it been just a little lower, thestory of the day’s play might have been very different.But that was Zimbabwe’s last sniff, and they had only themselves to blame asthey surrendered the match in the pre-lunch session. Olonga never put ittogether consistently, and at one stage bounced a ball so high over the headsof batsman Inzamam and wicket-keeper Tatenda Taibu that it went for a totalof five wides. His partners at the other end were no more efficient, andshort medium-fast deliveries outside off stump are meat and drink toInzamam. He enjoyed a feast of boundaries and his fifty came up off 53balls, containing no fewer than 12 fours. When he reached 32 he became onlythe second Pakistani, after the legendary Javed Miandad, to reach 6,000 runsin Test cricket. The television suggested, though, that he was perhapslucky to survive an lbw appeal when on 40 to Raymond Price as soon as hecame on to bowl, umpire Dave Orchard disagreeing.Zimbabwe’s economic disasters have not destroyed the generous nature of herpeople, and Pakistan were so grateful for the vast number of four-balls onoffer that the hundred came up in the 19th over. Zimbabwe’s fielding becamerather ragged, and in the last over before lunch Inzamam joined the selectband who have scored a century before lunch in a Test match, although it wasan extended session due to time lost on the second day. It took him 102balls and 138 minutes. All credit to Pakistan; they were given theirchances and took them superbly.After lunch the contest briefly became keen again. Inzamam hammered Olongafor two more fours and then smashed a ball straight to Grant Flower atbackward point. He departed reluctantly, perhaps sensing anothertriple-century wasted. Yousuf Youhana uncharacteristically hung his bat outto be caught at the wicket off Andy Blignaut without scoring, and suddenly,briefly, Zimbabwe threatened again. Taufeeq became becalmed, while HasanRaza took a long time to get going. But slowly they put Pakistan back ontop, and after Raza departed to a catch at mid-off the debutant KamranAkmal, after a slow start, hit some impressive blows.Taufeeq crawled towards his century, moving from 70 at lunch to 97 at tea,27 off 83 balls. A misfield by Price allowed him to reach three figures off197 deliveries, in five hours. He finally fell for 115, caught down the legside off Blignaut and walking without waiting for the apparently indecisiveumpire Orchard. Kamran had already been bowled by Price and now Blignautbowled Waqar Younis.Pakistan were 318 for eight, to add to their lead of 60 on first innings.Then came a period of village green cricket, as tail-enders Saqlain Mushtaqand Shoaib Akhtar tried to indulge in some spectacular baseball oragricultural strokes against the second new ball, taken by Blignaut andOlonga, neither of whom seemed able to put the ball on the wicket or producethe leg-stump yorker that would almost certainly have ended the slog.Zimbabwe seemed to have lost all purpose, and the last two wickets wereallowed to add 51. Olonga finished with five wickets, but one cannot say hewas impressive.Zimbabwe, batting just before the close until bad light again curtailedplay, soon lost Hamilton Masakadza (0), superbly caught by short leg SaleemElahi off Shoaib Akhtar. Dion Ebrahim and Alistair Campbell at leastsurvived with sensible positive play until the close.

Shortest-lived record … just
India and Sri Lanka were neck-to-neck in their run-scoring spree – against Hong Kong and Bangladesh respectively – today. However, Bangladesh bowled their overs at a slower pace than Hong Kong. By the time India finished their innings at 374 for 4 – the highest in an Asia Cup match – Sri Lanka, at 318 for 5, still had five overs left, and the record in grasp. But a few late-order wickets, and they could manage only 357 for 9, despite a 17-run final over. India’s record stayed intact – for all it’s worth.Champions of the left-arm spinners’ cause
With Mohammad Rafique having retired, and Shakib Al Hasan not playing in the Asia Cup, it’s Hong Kong who have been espousing the left-arm spinners’ cause in the tournament. For the second day in a row, they rode on their left-armers’ efforts. It was Nadeem Ahmed who gave Pakistan a shock on Tuesday, and today Najeeb Amar slowed India down with the wickets of Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir. The left-armers gave away 147 runs in 28 overs, as opposed to 220 scored in the remaining 22.Roof-top view
While he was practising at the National Stadium, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, batting on a practice pitch in the cover region, hit one onto the roof of the midwicket stands. He implemented that in his first match here, launching three sixes onto the roof – one so far back that Wasim Akram reckoned it was perhaps the biggest he’s seen at the ground. Practice does make perfect.Gony’s first … almost
Manpreet Gony, one of the bowlers unearthed during the Indian Premier League, got his international debut for this game, and came close to getting his first wicket in only his second over. He had got one to cut into Tabarak Dar and take his glove on the way through to Dhoni. But umpire Brian Jerling didn’t agree with Gony, and denied him his maiden wicket. As it turned out, Gony wouldn’t get a wicket in the next three overs; his maiden ODI wicket will have to wait for another day.

The filming of , based on the life of the late South African captain, has been completed by his brother Frans Cronje, who says he went through his “own King Commission” during the “incredibly tough” year of shooting. Frans told Cricinfo the movie, completed on Monday, will be released across Africa on September 24 with a possible international release to follow.Frans said the film’s DVD set will include a special documentary on Hansie and will feature interviews with his family, team-mates and friends including Jonty Rhodes, Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Peter Pollock, Andrew Hudson, Gary Kirsten and Kevin Pietersen., which was shot in South Africa, England and India, traces the cricketer’s “internal journey from stardom to losing everything and then the journey to rebuilding his life”. Cronje was a role model and a national hero till his involvement in the match-fixing scandal was exposed eight years ago. He was banned from the game subsequently and died in a plane crash in 2002.One of the most poignant moments during the making of the movie, Frans said, was the scene when Hansie breaks down in tears after confessing his involvement with illegal bookmakers to the King Commission that was appointed to inquire into the match-fixing scandal of 2000.”He was very emotional and my dad and I were crying with him,” Frans said. “When we filmed this, it was like seeing the real event happen again. The acting in this scene was really magnificent. While filming, I just sat there with tears in my eyes. Fortunately, when I looked around me, I realised that everyone else on the sets were crying as well.”The other scene that will touch people’s emotions is one where Peter Pollock, the former South Africa allrounder, talks to Hansie after the King Commission. “Peter was instrumental in helping Hansie to begin the process of rebuilding his life,” Frans said.The movie has been produced by Global Creative Studios, a Cape Town-based production venture headed by Frans, who has won an Italian award for his earlier movie .The filming went through a tough phase last year, he said, when an American firm that promised advance funding pulled out of the deal. “It was incredibly tough. In a sense, it felt like I went through my own ‘King Commission’ at a stage. Especially the last week in November last year, when we heard that the funding was not there, was difficult. Fortunately, some very capable businessmen got involved. Without their assistance, it would have been almost impossible. The fact the movie has been successfully completed has helped a lot.”South African actor Francois Rautenbach will play Hansie in the movie. Frans said he decided not to use cricketers as actors as the “movie is primarily a drama”. He was assisted in filming the cricket action by Gordon Parsons, his brother-in-law, and former county player.”We decided to use actors to play the parts of Hansie’s team-mates like Allan Donald and Jonty Rhodes,” Frans said. “As the movie is primarily a drama, it was important that we have experienced actors. To ensure that the cricket action was done well, we cast younger cricket players from a few different academies in South Africa and India. I was on the sets to ensure that the cricket sequences look real.”Cricket South Africa (CSA) has given their “official endorsement and support” for the movie after Joubert Strydom, then convener of selectors, read the screenplay “to ensure that the story is told with integrity”.”The International Cricket Council (ICC) were happy for us to continue, knowing that the CSA endorsed it,” Frans said. “I think they were happy to see that we did not choose to try and uncover any more match-fixing dirt. Rather, we chose to tell the story of Hansie’s internal journey.”

Zimbabwe, as Rhodesia, played in the inter-provincial Currie Cup competition in South Africa and for cricketing purposes were under the authority of that country’s administrators until independence in 1980. With the change in government continued association with South Africa was scarcely likely to be approved, but the Zimbabwe Cricket Union took the decision themselves to sever links with South Africa and go it alone in world cricket as a separate entity.First came entry into the ICC competitions for associate members, with the winner each time earning a place in the World Cup competition. Zimbabwe won all three ICC competitions in which they took part, in 1982, 1986 and 1990, and never lost a match. In the World Cup they beat Australia in their very first match, in 1983, and England in 1991/92, and came very close to upsetting India in 1983 and New Zealand in 1987/88. All this time they were aiming for full Test status, and these performances showed they had a good case.Zimbabwe played in the World Cup competition of 1991/92 in Australia and New Zealand, losing seven of their eight matches but turning in some impressive performances at times. Apart from their victory over England in their final match, their best match was their first, against Sri Lanka at New Plymouth in New Zealand, where they ran up 312 for four – Andy Flower batting right through for 115 on his one-day international debut – only for the opposition to win the match with 313 for seven.In July 1992 the annual ICC meeting took place at Lord’s, and Zimbabwe’s application for Test status would again be on the agenda. It was crucial, as it was an open secret in Zimbabwe that if their application was again rejected, many of the country’s top players would either retire or seek their fortunes in other countries, especially South Africa, recently returned to the international fold. Had this happened, cricket in Zimbabwe would probably never have recovered.Some of the players involved commented as follows:Dave Houghton: “I was going to continue playing. I was still playing club cricket overseas at the time as well and enjoying it, so I didn’t have any plans to retire; I was still trying to make a living playing in England and just hoping we’d get back into the Currie Cup.”Andy Flower: “I remember that Grant and I were discussing leaving Zimbabwe and going to play domestic cricket in South Africa. We hadn’t planned anything, but I suspect that if we hadn’t got Test status we might well have moved on.”Grant Flower: “I thought maybe of going to South Africa or of going to play league cricket overseas.”Eddo Brandes: “I think I would still have been involved here, playing cricket as I did before Test status. A cricketer always wants to play county cricket, so you don’t know how your career would have progressed without Test cricket, and I may have had an opportunity to do that.”Alistair Campbell: “I think the Graeme Hick route to county cricket might have been the case for a lot of us – not only me but also the two Flowers. We were still very amateur in those days and all the other players had jobs – your Arnotts, Pycrofts, Burmesters, Crockers, Brandes – and they would have continued playing here, but the youngsters, particularly myself and the two Flowers, might have tried to find an occupation elsewhere, much like the youth just before us, the Trevor Penneys, Graeme Hicks and suchlike.”I think England was where everybody was going, and a lot of the guys I’ve spoken to over the years, the Bruk-Jacksons and suchlike, went and played second-team county cricket; those guys didn’t carry it on, but I think it would have been the case with us – or maybe join the MCC staff. There were a few options open at that stage, and then progress from there, try and qualify and maybe play for England, but definitely county cricket.”Kevin Arnott: “I think I would have carried on playing first-class cricket as and when it was available. I realize that I had enormous limitations as a player but the prospect of Test status was certainly encouraging for those hoping to make a professional career out of it.”Malcolm Jarvis: “I would just have carried on playing as we’d always done. There was no real thought of quitting cricket.”Many, including some of the players, felt that Zimbabwe did not have the resources to succeed at Test level and a better path would have been to link up with South Africa again and rejoin the Currie Cup competition, even though that was unlikely to mean any Test cricket played in Zimbabwe.Andy Pycroft: “Ironically I was one of many who were egging on for Test status, which is obviously the ultimate cricketing ambition for anyone, but didn’t believe we could get it. So the mind was set that we probably wouldn’t get it, it wouldn’t happen in my time, and the regrets I have is that, having got it in 1992, I look back and say in 1982, which was when we really came on to the scene internationally after independence, we had a great side coming through, and why didn’t we get it then? We had to go through three ICC tournaments and some really good results against international sides in three-day cricket on tours to Zimbabwe. But we lost cricketers during that time, and what a shame that that brilliant side, with all those youngsters coming through didn’t have that chance. People like myself, at least I played Test cricket, and was able to play three Tests in the end before I retired, but it would have been great if we had been able to get it earlier.”Dave Houghton: “I must admit at the time I thought we had a choice between Test status and going back into the Currie Cup in South Africa. I know the players felt quite strongly at the time that we should go back into the Currie Cup because we weren’t a very strong side and we were quite worried that we’d embarrass ourselves in Test cricket. My plans were very simply that if we didn’t get Test status the second option would come about.”Andy Flower: “My own opinion was that we shouldn’t get Test status, that we should try to rejoin the Currie Cup system and build our cricket from there. Those were my beliefs at the time. I was very surprised when we got Test status; I think we have been incredibly lucky to have played international cricket for ten years. We came into the game in this country at just the right time for us.”Eddo Brandes: “Obviously as a player I always wanted it to happen so we could play on the big stage. I think it probably came a few years too late; probably the best time to have got it would have been after the 1987 World Cup.”Alistair Campbell: “I thought we should have got Test status. We were at a stage where cricket needed to progress in this country. We definitely had enough players to succeed on the international stage, and we had shown that at the previous World Cups we had been to. We weren’t push-overs and that was with very little experience or preparation, and 15 guys in the squad who all worked. So considering that and our dominance of the ICC Trophy for ten years, I think the time was right. We had some very good youngsters coming through, some very good experienced older players who were rated in world terms, the likes of Pycroft and Houghton, and obviously Eddo Brandes and John Traicos in the bowling stakes. I think that was prime time for us to be introduced slowly into the world arena because we had outgrown the ICC Trophy and were a lot better than those other sides and had a much better infrastructure.”Kevin Arnott: “I think it was important for the development of the game. I think if you look back in the last ten years, Zimbabwe in the Test arena has been competitive, more than most believed we would be, given our small pool of players. Cricket in Zimbabwe has become an enormous business.”Malcolm Jarvis: “It would have been nice to have had it earlier than we did because we lost a lot of good players by not getting Test status earlier.”John Traicos: “Whilst I favoured Zimbabwe getting Test status and believed we could compete at that level, I was apprehensive about Zimbabwe being able to maintain its standards in the long term and felt that we should wait a little longer. My fears were proved wrong as Zimbabwe has done extraordinarily well in its first ten years, thanks to the commitment of its players, sound administration and good coaching.”In 1990 Dave Ellman-Brown took over as president of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union in succession to Alwyn Pichanick, who had been president for many years but had to stand down on his government appointment as president of the Sports Commission. Dave, as vice-president, was his natural successor and the two had worked together to press Zimbabwe’s claims for Test status.Dave said, “We were very amateurish in those days because we had no secretariat, but only a very small committee that ran cricket. Alwyn ran it out of his office with his secretary and I ran my affairs out of my office with my secretary. I had a period of two years as president, and it was my wish then that we really press for Test status, bearing in mind that we had been pressing for Test status ever since we became an associate member of the ICC in 1981, after leaving the South African cricketing umbrella.”We just made the qualification to go to the ICC competition for associate members in 1982. We had never been to Europe as a team and didn’t really know what the strengths were, but history will show that we went to three ICC competitions and never lost a game; we won every single one of them (excluding two abandoned matches) and I think stamped our authority as the leading associate country.”During that time Alwyn Pichanick and I had had several meetings with various countries to try and persuade them to allow us to become a Test-playing country. We received very little support, and in those days the constitution of the ICC was such that we had to have the vote of the two founder members (England and Australia) and that was the main difficulty. They then changed the rules whereby you had to get the support of one founder member and we thought this was our opportunity again to push for Test status. We realized that England were very much against any expansion of the Test-playing countries, bearing in mind that Sri Lanka had been admitted in 1981, so we believed that the people to push for support were Australia.”Australia were very difficult: Malcolm Grey, their president at the time, was not supportive of us and we found it extremely difficult. England were sympathetic but at the end of the day, when it came to voting, wouldn’t accept us. It really came down to the 1991/92 World Cup, by which time I was president and it was my ambition that we should seriously look for Test status at that time.”Thus began Dave Ellman-Brown’s tremendous diplomatic offensive to persuade the other Test-playing nations to admit Zimbabwe to the top level. “I did a lot of lobbying among all the Test-playing countries, apart from England, whom I did not attempt to try to persuade because I knew with their structure they would certainly not support us. We’ve always had very good support from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies.”During our days as an associate country we had West Indies A here three times and they were very supportive of our cricket, and always said they would support us for Test status. We also got very good support from India, and Pakistan and Sri Lanka came along with us, so there was never any problem with them.”We now had to get the support of Australia. New Zealand then, out of the blue, advised us that they were sympathetic to our cause and we shouldn’t even bother to go and talk to them as they had made up their minds and had already voted to support us. So the only country we still had to convince was Australia.”Prior to the 1991/92 World Cup I went to Australia with my vice-president, Peter Chingoka, and we spent a good week or more before the start of the World Cup just trying to suss out the situation and make sure they were supportive of us. It was quite a hard task. The Aussies, as you know, are not easy to get round, but we got a lot of support from the authorities, the president and various board members, who did express to us their concerns about where we should go. Numbers came into it, and they were concerned that as a newly independent country numbers might change and whether we would have sufficient people in the future to play Test cricket. We said we believed we had, and we put forward a very good case.”We had the opportunity of talking to their board because the chief executive of Australia at that time was David Richards who ultimately became the ICC chief executive. He said to me, ‘David, there’s only one way you can get our support, and that is to come and talk to our board and convince them that you believe we should support you for Test status.'”So we did that; he advised us and gave us a slot at their board meeting, and Peter Chingoka and I gave them a presentation, a written presentation together with a verbal presentation, and we tried to cover every aspect we could. We got very few questions in response, and we weren’t too sure when we left the meeting that we had convinced them. It was only that night, when we were flying to New Zealand for the first game in Auckland at the opening of the World Cup that David Richards jokingly said to me, ‘You messed that up, didn’t you?’ But in fact he complimented us on our presentation and said that they would seriously look at us.”During that World Cup I also spoke to Malcolm Grey, the president, and he said to me, ‘David, well done; you’ve made a very good presentation and we’re very impressed. Now we want to see whether you can play cricket or not.’ And of course in that World Cup we beat England at Albury and I think that helped us tremendously to swing the people in our direction.”It was a couple of months later that David Richards phoned me one Sunday, and I knew it wasn’t to say bad luck. He said, ‘We’ve just had a meeting of our overseas committee who were tasked to make a decision as to whether we should support you, and they are unanimously behind you and will support you.'”So when we went to the ICC Annual meeting in July 1992 it was a foregone conclusion that we would actually get Test status. I remember before we left the media was speculating as to whether we were looking for Test status and I merely indicated that we were. The press were speculating about our chances but I knew we had it in the bag.”At the meeting at Lord’s Sir Colin Cowdrey, as he then was, the chairman of the ICC, asked us to step outside the room, and Peter Chingoka and I stood for what seemed like ages in the Long Room while the delegates discussed our case inside. Then Cowdrey came out with a smile and invited us to enter, and as we went in we received a warm welcome of applause from all inside.”It so turned out that England and, funnily enough, Fiji abstained from voting. I don’t know why Fiji did because they were only an associate country and one of the weakest; Philip Snow, their leader, was I think looking for a knighthood for his services to Fijian cricket and perhaps kept very close to England and didn’t want to rock the boat, but it made no sense at all for him not to support us, because we were far too strong for the associates.”I have to say that when we were looking for Test status, and after we had received it, there were a lot of people in Zimbabwe who criticized us and the route we had taken. They believed it was the right thing to link up again with South Africa, which was politically impossible. It was vitally important we went that route for the good of the game and I believe we have been proven correct.”When you look back at the game in Zimbabwe over the last ten years, you can see there was an enormous explosion of cricket. Of late you have seen a whole restructuring of the administration of the game, a broadening of the game in all directions, and the development programme is enormous, so I think our decision to go the Test route was exactly correct. This country would never been able to do what it has done and what it is doing today without Test status.”I think we got it too late – I think that had we got it even four years earlier we would have saved some of the players we lost. It was a great shame Graeme Hick never played Test cricket for us. Duncan Fletcher was another who left us; so did Peter Rawson, Kevin Curran and Trevor Penney. Those people could so easily have been playing for a long time for Zimbabwe had we got it earlier.”I think ICC had a very narrow mind at that time about who they would let in as a Test-playing country. Since then they have let in Bangladesh, and when you see what they made us go through, compared to what Bangladesh had done prior to being awarded Test status it is ridiculous.”I am very proud of the fact that we were able to organize so many A team tours to this country, and we saw the best of our modern Test players during that period when they were playing for their countries’ A sides. The West Indies side was an unbelievable side; the Australian side that came here was a wonderful team. We got support from all those countries who sent their A sides here and helped develop cricket in Zimbabwe. So we had a wonderful record, and a wonderful one-day record in particular. We had some good players and the era under Duncan Fletcher was a very good era.”What would be the state of Zimbabwe cricket today had our application for Test cricket failed? “That decision to get Test status was absolutely critical for the future of Zimbabwe cricket. I’m glad we took it; we took the criticism, and a lot of those who criticized at the time have changed their minds. If we had not been given Test status then, cricket in this country would have failed completely. I think the game would be non-existent today.”One very important decision was taken at that time. When South Africa was allowed back as a Test-playing country, one year before we got Test status. I said to Lord Cowdrey at that time that if, having allowed South Africa to come in at the eleventh hour, they did not give us the lifeline of also having Test status, cricket in this country would have died a natural death. All our top players would have tried to get into South Africa to play cricket there, and the game would be totally non-existent today beyond club cricket.”But as it was, we got it. The development came in, the money came in, we had some very lucrative tours, and we’ve spent an awful lot of money on developing the infrastructure and on developing our young Zimbabwe cricketers.”It was primarily thanks to Dave Ellman-Brown’s vision and energy that Zimbabwe achieved Test status and survived as a viable cricketing entity; he proved to be the right man in the right place at the right time – as indeed did Andy Flower as a player.”I think I was very lucky in that I only started playing proper international cricket at the age of 24,” Andy said. “I had done a lot of the groundwork already in playing first-class and club cricket, and some of the youngsters these days are thrown right in at the deep end without that groundwork in first-class cricket or plying their trade in England or other places.”Dave Houghton: “I was a little bit surprised (we were granted Test status) because it seemed to me that if they were going to give us Test status they should have done it in about 1986 when we were a really strong side and had won our second ICC Trophy. I was surprised they gave it to us at that time because we were a weak team. Our strength had been depleted with the loss of Graeme Hick, Peter Rawson and Kev Curran and so on. I was also a little worried because I just didn’t think we were strong enough, so there was a fear of embarrassment as well, that we might go out there and get beaten in two days.”Alistair Campbell: “I was positive; I thought things would happen. I remember listening to it on the BBC with my old man in the bedroom where he had his receiver, but prior to that I was confident. There had been a lot of hard work done and a lot of positive vibes emanating from the powers that be regarding that meeting. There were obviously a few issues there, such as the English, but I think the other countries realized that for the greater good of the game, and they were proven right.”Things moved swiftly after that vital ICC meeting, although Dave Ellman-Brown did not find it easy to arrange tours immediately. “When we got Test status, the decision was taken on the last day of the conference, so we didn’t have much time to lobby for tours. I remember distinctly when the meeting was finished they hurried together a press conference and made the announcement, and after that we just had a function that night and then everybody goes home. So it was a case of running around to the presidents and chief executives of the various countries and saying, ‘We’re now a Test-playing country, so how about organizing some tours?'”India, one of Zimbabwe’s leading supporters, were eager for the honour of playing in the inaugural Test, and this was arranged for three months after that crucial ICC meeting, in October 1992. New Zealand also agreed to stop over on their way to Sri Lanka.”It was a case of making contact with all the countries, but it’s not easy to break into an existing system,” said Dave Ellman-Brown. “All those countries had their own tours arranged, so it was very difficult to get tours initially, and it was over the years difficult to tie people down to come. We did on occasions try to marry tours together with teams coming to South Africa, and that worked, but the greatest thing that happened was the ten-year programme that we have now. For that we can thank Chris Doig, the then chief executive of New Zealand cricket, who put it together about two years before it was all approved. That was wonderful, because we know we’re going to get two tours at home and two abroad every year, as a standard procedure.”But in those early days it was not easy, and we have to thank India for their support. But today I think everybody is supportive and it’s a wonderful club of cricketing countries. There is politics creeping into it and there are problems at the moment, and I hope those problems go away, but by and large it’s a grouping of countries and people who want to see the game develop. So cricket is assured now in Zimbabwe as long as there is no interference on the political front.”Despite his original feelings, Andy Flower felt thrilled at the prospect of playing Test cricket for Zimbabwe. “To play against the best in the world is exactly what you want to be doing,” he said. “We had been handed this opportunity to do it. It was very hard sometimes because we were getting beaten most of the time, and that makes it tough to carry on persevering – but it is an honour to carry on playing against the best in the world.”Eddo Brandes: “Our preparation was probably much the same as for all cricket tours, but there was a lot more excitement, because we were going into this new level of cricket which was Test cricket.”Alistair Campbell: “It was huge. There was a change of attitude, one of those things where you need a change of mind-set. You need to practise more, be more professional about our approach. I can remember we got paid Z$800 for our first Test match, but it wasn’t about money at that stage; it was about having the opportunity to play international cricket, making sure that we proved to the people who voted for us that we could compete among the elite.”There was no talk in those days of winning; there was talk of competing, which was the big word. To be competitive we had to be gutsy, and with Houghton and Pycroft being very experienced campaigners we talked about the need to bat for long periods of time, longer than we had ever batted before. Some of the guys had played a few four-day games, but the most the rest of the guys had played was a bit of three-day cricket, and this was suddenly five-day cricket. We talked about the need for bowlers to bowl more overs than they were used to bowling, and it needed a whole shift of mindset. Dave Houghton did that well, as did John Hampshire, who was employed as our first fulltime coach. He was really good for us just starting off in international cricket. He spoke very simply; he was a Yorkshireman so he was as tough as nails, and he really was a tremendous help to us in those formative years of Test cricket and did a tremendous job.”It was also a matter of just feeling our way through those first few years. No one knew exactly what to expect; people had been told and had obviously spoken to people, and John Hampshire had played Test cricket; on Zimbabwe’s previous tours home and abroad we had spoken to ex-Test players, so there had been the opportunity to speak about Test cricket. But it’s all very well speaking about it, it’s playing it for five days, and the mindset and mental toughness that you need. We’ve had to teach ourselves over the years, and once you have a Test culture, like countries that have been playing it for a hundred years, and we’re still getting that. But I think from those days in 1992 to what we have now, the infrastructure and the results we’ve been able to post with the resources we have has been a real testimony to those who have played and the administrators upstairs as well.”Grant Flower: “I just remember John Hampshire, our coach, trying to drum into us, especially the openers, the importance of batting long periods and breaking it down into sessions, which we had never done before or been told about.”Zimbabwe were to do better, on the whole, in their early Tests than they often did in later years; it was not until they first played in Sri Lanka in 1996/97, for their 17th Test match, that they were really overwhelmed. Andy Flower said, “I think part of the reason is that we had experienced players in those days, as opposed to youngsters thrown in at the deep end; we had guys like John Traicos, Dave Houghton, Malcolm Jarvis and Kevin Arnott to hold things together – experienced first-class cricketers. I know they didn’t play for long, but while we had them they were a steadying influence. Certainly that was my memory of them as a young cricketer.”Also I think some of the standards of international cricket have improved over the last ten years, and it’s a harder school now. One-day cricket is a more aggressive game by a long way, and standards all round have improved in one-day cricket. Test cricket I think has become more aggressive too, so we’re not only trying to hold our own, we’re also trying to improve to keep up with these other teams, let alone catch up.”I remember it being a very nervous build-up to the Inaugural Test,” he continued. “John Hampshire was our coach and he was a big influence on all of us. He emphasized the basics all the time, whether those basics were catching everything that came straight to us, taking a certain percentage of the half-chances, batting for time, making sure your footwork was simple but correct: when you had to get forward, get forward into a solid position, and when you had to get back and across do it; leave the ball, and bat for little sessions – I’m sure you’ll hear most of the batsmen say similar things. He just kept drumming this into people. Those are some of the basics that should be revisited all the time by international cricketers.”John Hampshire, former Yorkshire and England cricketer and later international umpire, certainly deserves much of the credit for Zimbabwe’s remarkable performances in their early Tests. Kevin Arnott remembers how he identified with the spirit almost of desperation among the Zimbabwe players on the eve of that inaugural Test, and could tell of the time when he himself made his Test debut against West Indies in 1969, and responded with a vital century after coming in with England in some difficulty. So inspired were the Zimbabwe players that they went in the next day and responded with 456.Dave Houghton: “We employed ‘Hamps’ as coach, and I think that was probably the best thing that happened to us because I’m sure he realized the enormity of the situation. The first thing he did was to get us to go right back to basics and literally count every ball that was bowled for the next five days – play it ball by ball, over by over, 15 overs to drinks, 15 overs to lunch, and so on, trying to occupy the crease for as long as possible.”Our preparation was basically that we wanted this game to go five days. The best result would obviously be a victory, but the next best result would be a draw and the next best result would be losing in five days. We wanted to prove that we could actually play five days and that was what our preparation was about: how do we go about playing for five days?”Eddo Brandes: “He (Hampshire) was probably an ideal coach for us initially. He was a Test match umpire, a Test cricketer, and he knew what it was all about. So we weren’t completely in the dark as to what Test cricket was about. He was a stabilizing influence, and his character also was stabilizing. He wasn’t very excitable; he just got on like an English professional would do and got us to prepare for the game with that in mind.”Kevin Arnott: “I remember very clearly that it was largely John Hampshire who inculcated into us a philosophy of simple things done well. Most of us were reasonably fit coming into the Test series, but John made it very clear that he wouldn’t take any laggers, and I can assure you that by the time the Inaugural Test took place everybody was in peak fitness. So the physical side was there; the actual playing preparation was also under the guidance of John and he made sure that we developed the ability, talking personally as an opening batsman, to leave most of the balls we felt we couldn’t score off and to play in sessions.”He then made it very clear to us that all that would be academic unless the mental preparation was there, and I think it’s largely in this area that his guidance was most helpful. I think it showed in the Inaugural Test because the record shows that for a large part of that match we were on top of the game. Although we were very slow on the first day, thereafter we were very much in the driving seat. It was really only Manjrekar who saved the game for them.”Malcolm Jarvis: “It was the first time we had really had a coach for the team. Normally it was left to chaps like Duncan Fletcher and the players to do all the coaching; now we had a fulltime professional coach in. One line that ‘Hamps’ always used with us was “Simple things done well.” As long as we did the simple things and did them well, the other things would fall into place.”John Traicos, the only player with previous Test experience, said, “Having played Test cricket obviously helped in appreciating the pressures of international cricket and realizing that it is just another game of cricket played at a tougher standard. Good mental and physical preparation was the key and in this regard John Hampshire, the coach, andDavid Houghton, the captain, were outstanding. John Hampshire recounted his first Test at the pre-Test team talk – it gave everyone an idea of the pressures of Test cricket and how they could be handled.”How did the Zimbabwe players feel they would do as they prepared to face India on the biggest stage of all for the first time? “Our feelings were always positive; you always believe you can win,” claimed Eddo Brandes. “But then after playing a game, you find out there is a big void between playing first-class cricket and Test cricket. But the build-up was that we genuinely believed we would be able to perform.”