ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from the opening day in Colombo

Andrew Fidel Fernando and Mohammad Isam at the Presmadasa16-Mar-2013Dot ball of the day

The fifth ball of the day was guided down to third man by Jahurul Islam for what looked like a regulation boundary. The slip fielders didn’t go chasing after it, the umpire signalled a boundary and the batsmen too didn’t bother running. Only problem was, the ball hadn’t reached the boundary. A thick layer of grass around the boundary held the ball back, which prompted umpire Nigel Llong to change his decision, and the batsman looked perplexed at losing four runs. It then took Jahurul 20 balls to get off the mark.Boundary of the day

That fifth ball of the game was a precursor to the batsmen’s struggles to reach the boundary. Overnight rain had considerably slowed down the outfield, cutting out plenty of drives, glides and edges that would have reached the rope on another day. It eventually came in the 18th over, a full 79 minutes after play started when Mohammad Ashraful slid one past point for a four.Wide of the day
Shaminda Eranga has improved his control since first arriving in Test cricket, but his wide in the 20th over of the morning would have drawn a cringe from Steve Harmison. Eranga held on to the ball too long in his delivery stride and pitched it barely three metres in front of him. He had aimed the ball poorly too, and it bounced away from the cut strip and towards first slip, where it was intercepted by the bemused wicketkeeper.Let-down of the day

Ashraful seemed a transformed man in his two innings in Galle, both of which were surprising for the care and responsibility he showed at the crease. In his first innings at the Premadasa, he seemed intent on showing his circumspect new avatar was not a one-match wonder, when he had painstakingly gathered 16 from 47 balls, and set himself for another long innings. But those plans were undone when he was run out attempting a quick single for his partner. Jahurul tapped one towards Eranga at mid-on and called Ashraful through, but the fielder swooped in and threw down the stumps to find Ashraful short.Catch of the day
Sri Lanka’s slip cordon is far poorer for Mahela Jayawardene’s absence, but fielding in the same position as his former captain, Angelo Mathews pulled off the take of the day – albeit in somewhat unconventional fashion. Rangana Herath fired one wide of Mahmudullah’s off stump, and the resultant edge thudded into wicketkeeper Dinesh Chandimal’s pads and looped square of the crease on the offside. In a second Mathews was after it, and thought the ball did not hang in the air for long, he put in a full-length dive and completed a difficult take low to the ground.

Usman Khawaja was not the reason for Australia’s defeat in Chester-le-Street, but he hasn’t solved the team’s No. 3 problem either

Brydon Coverdale15-Aug-2013It has been 48 innings since an Australian has scored a Test century at No. 3. Never before has the team had a drought that long at first drop. Not when Harry Moses, Harry Trott and George Giffen were struggling on uncovered pitches in the 1880s. Not when Ian Redpath, Paul Sheahan and Bob Cowper were failing to convert starts in the late 1960s. Never. Every other team – Zimbabwe and Bangladesh included – have had Test hundreds from their No. 3 since Australia’s last.To watch Usman Khawaja over the past two Tests has been to witness a continuation of the first drop malaise. At times he has appeared elegant and classy in his strokes. But, there has also been a frailness, a sense that the bowlers had his measure. In Australia’s botched chase in Chester-le-Street, he played a typical Khawaja Test innings: plenty of style but little substance. His limp prod and lbw to Graeme Swann was the beginning of Australia’s end.No. 3 need not be the team’s best batsman, but he must be up for a battle. From Ian Chappell to David Boon, from Justin Langer to Ricky Ponting, Australia’s modern-day first drops have been fighters, men who have placed a high price on their wicket, regardless of natural ability. There are times when a No. 3 can bat more freely and build on a strong platform, but just as often his main job is to ensure that one for not many doesn’t become two for very few.Big innings matter at first drop, but small ones are equally significant. Since Shaun Marsh scored 141 on debut in Sri Lanka in 2011, not only have Australia not had a century at No. 3, they have also had 11 ducks there from 48 innings. No other position in the top, middle or tail comes close to that many zeros in the same period – the next highest is six ducks from the No.8 batsmen. Since Ponting moved down the order, Australia’s No. 3s have collectively averaged 25.62.And “collectively” is the word. Marsh was injured while batting in the 2011 Cape Town Test, Ponting stood in for him in the second innings, then Khawaja was tried and discarded, Marsh returned in woeful form, Shane Watson visited No. 3 on his stopping-at-all-stations trip down the order, Rob Quiney failed and was forgotten, Watson came back, Phillip Hughes had a turn, Michael Clarke tried it once in India, Ed Cowan’s tenure was brief, and now Khawaja is back.Cricket mythology will tell you that a team’s best batsman comes in at No. 3, but Len Hutton and Jack Hobbs were openers. So was Sunil Gavaskar. Allan Border floated from four to six. Sachin Tendulkar has avoided the job so fastidiously that he has played 327 Test innings and not a single one at first drop. Clarke is this team’s talisman but as Stuart Broad has shown, the swinging new ball is not his friend. There is no need for Clarke to move higher than No.4.But then, who gets the job? The production line is not the result of having too many options, but too few good ones. Australia have used No. 3 as a place to try fresh faces (Marsh, Khawaja, Quiney) or more familiar ones in search of a spot (Watson, Hughes, Cowan). It is little wonder, for that is largely how the state teams treat the first drop position. The lack of big scores at domestic level has been well documented, but the dearth of runs at No. 3 is especially alarming.Consider the following, a list of all the batsmen used at No.3 in the Sheffield Shield last summer, nightwatchmen aside: Khawaja, Hughes, Quiney, Ponting, Marsh, Watson, Alex Doolan, Michael Klinger, Michael Hussey, David Hussey, Marcus North, Aaron Finch, Joe Burns, Peter Forrest, Cameron White, Nic Maddinson, Tom Cooper, Peter Nevill, Tim Cruickshank, Sam Whiteman, Luke Towers, Dom Michael, John Rogers, Michael Hill, Alex Carey, Steve Cazzulino, Sam Miller, Peter Handscomb, Daniel Hughes, Marcus Stonis and even the bowler Kane Richardson.That’s 31 men who batted at No. 3 last season; a mix of veterans, rookies and journeymen. And for all of that, only four centuries were made from first drop in the summer’s 31 Shield matches. Not surprisingly, Khawaja (138 v Tasmania) and Hughes (120 v Victoria) made one each, while the other centurions were Doolan (149 v South Australia) and Hill (144 v Queensland).Doolan might have sent a postcard from Victoria Falls on this year’s Australia A tour, but otherwise has had nothing to write home about, and it is difficult to argue against Khawaja and Hughes as being the best Test options. Perhaps Khawaja will be given another chance at The Oval and grasp it, but the signs have not been promising. He may one day stamp himself as a Test batsman, but right now Khawaja at No. 3 looks wrong.There is a strong argument that Hughes should get the job. Khawaja’s strokeplay appears more sophisticated, but Hughes has the fight. He showed that during the first innings at Trent Bridge, when from No. 6 he scored a patient and mature 81 not out as Ashton Agar stole the limelight at the other end. But three low scores followed and Hughes was cut.It is true that Hughes has issues against quality offspin, but Khawaja hasn’t looked comfortable against Swann either. What Hughes has is the ability to score big – 21 first-class hundreds to Khawaja’s 11 – and the proven capacity to make runs at Test level. He also has a reasonable record as a Test No.3 – 372 runs at 37.20 – but always seems the batsman most vulnerable to the axe, or to being shuffled around the order.Since the start of this year’s Indian tour, Hughes’ Test batting positions look like this: 343343346644. Including tour matches, he has batted in every spot from opening to No. 6 on this trip. Hughes conceded on Wednesday that “at times it can be [difficult] if you keep changing your position in the order, but it’s about getting your head around it, and if you do get consistent runs, you’ll hold a spot. It can be tricky but it’s a professional sport and it’s up to the captain and the selectors to give you a position”.It is time to give Hughes the No.3 position and leave him there. He enjoys the new ball, converts and fights. Yes, sometimes he looks ugly doing it. But he is much less pretty batting further down against spin. And when it all comes down to it, he has been Australia’s most effective No.3 since Ponting. He has contributed to the record century drought but he has come closer than anyone to breaking it. His last two innings at No.3 were 69 and 45 in trying conditions in India.If given the opportunity, it is of course up to Hughes to take it. But for now, perhaps the selectors should think about Hughes as first drop, not the first dropped.

How is it that humans are so much better at throwing a ball than their chimpanzee cousins?

Liam Herringshaw18-Aug-2013In my formative years in the English Midlands, I played cricket at Twycross every summer. This Leicestershire-Warwickshire border village is home to one of the UK’s most famous zoos and, before such things were frowned upon, their chimpanzees appeared in all sorts of entertainments.Most notable was a long-running series of commercials for a popular brand of tea. Some of the things the apes were made to do were preposterous, but their dexterity and intelligence was not up for question. They probably just needed a better agent.Much stronger than humans pound-for-pound, their physical strength wasn’t up for question either. Never once, however, did a Twycross chimp make it into the village cricket XI. They could probably hold a bat, but running, fielding and bowling would have been completely beyond them. Our closest living relatives were entrusted with tea, and tea alone.Why is it, then, that is so good at flinging down a ball at high speed, and Pan troglodytes so rubbish? To investigate this, we need to delve into evolutionary physiology, and a new study led by Dr Neil Roach of George Washington University has helped shed some very interesting light on the matter.As international batsmen well know, humans can throw accurately at speeds in excess of 100mph. Chimps can barely muster a fifth of that velocity and with much lower precision. Together with colleagues from Harvard University, and the National Centre for Biological Sciences in Bangalore, Dr Roach compared the two species’ body structure, investigated what it is that enables humans to throw so fast, and then looked at the fossil record of those features.As you might imagine, the shoulder is important. Just how important was demonstrated when Roach and colleagues tested the throwing capacity of baseball pitchers. The pitchers were forced to wear therapeutic shoulder braces that constrained the rotational range of movement; this reduced their throwing speed by between 2% and 14%.Though a mobile, muscular shoulder is very important, it’s not the whole story. Roach argues that the storage and release of elastic energy is just as – if not more – crucial. The extremely rapid internal rotation of the upper arm bone is then powered by a combination of cocking the arm at the same time as taking a large forward step.Of course, this is fine for baseball pitchers, since they can use their elbow flex. Studies by other researchers indicate that this is the second most important generator of throwing speed. Legally at least, cricketers do not have that luxury, so how is it that fast bowlers aren’t that much slower than the fastest baseball pitchers?”Cricket bowling is fascinating,” Roach tells me. “I actually started studying the bowling motion before transitioning to pitching.”The restriction imposed on cricket bowlers requiring them to keep a straightened, extended elbow through the throw does reduce their throwing performance,” he notes. “However, cricket bowlers compensate for this reduction by using a run-up.”In laboratory experiments, Roach disallowed cricket bowlers from running in.

Developing an ability to throw well perhaps helped with scavenging carcasses from other animals better equipped with fangs and claws. If the first lbw was lion-before-wildebeest, an accurate quickie would have been crucial to earning dismissals

“If you force them into a baseball pitching stance, their performance drops significantly. So I guess the simple answer is, the elbow is important to throwing velocity, but cricket bowlers get around this performance reduction by improving throwing speed with a run-up.”To go back to our non-fast-bowling cousins, it transpires that we humans have three key advantages over chimps. Firstly, our mobile waist provides more torso rotation. Secondly, the twisting of our upper arm bone takes place at a lower angle, giving a greater range of motion. Thirdly, we have a more laterally oriented shoulder joint. This aligns the flexure of the pectoral muscles with the rotation of the torso, giving a greater moment of inertia to the arm.Since humans and chimps diverged at least five million years ago, the next question is when we acquired these specific features. To explore this, Roach’s team examined the fossil record of our tribe – the hominins – to see who the first fast throwers might have been.Australopithecus, which lived in Africa between about four and two million years ago, appears to have had some of the required skeletal characters, such as a flexible waist and a low torsion of the upper arm bone, but not all.Upright Man was a different matter, though. The skeletons of Homo erectus show he had hyperextendable wrists, so would almost certainly have been capable of spin bowling. Roach, however, thinks everything was in place for speed too. Other experts disagree, but can it be a coincidence that fossils of Homo erectus have been found in England, India and Sri Lanka?More seriously, though, why were these evolutionary traits so useful? A selective advantage in hunting may have been the key.Hominins have been eating meat for more than two million years. Developing an ability to throw well was not necessarily for killing prey – at least to start with – but perhaps in defending carcasses, or scavenging them from other animals better equipped with fangs and claws. If the first lbw was lion-before-wildebeest, an accurate quickie would have been crucial to earning dismissals. We were fast-food bowlers to begin with.As to what we were bowling, the fossil record is rather harder to decipher. The earliest projectiles would have almost certainly been rocks, and it’s pretty much impossible to distinguish between a thrown rock and a non-thrown rock. The first unequivocal thrown artefacts appear much later on, and the fossil record of cricket balls is barely worth writing about.So, millennia down the line, our ability to throw fast remains, but we perhaps no longer use it so wisely. Stone Age hunters almost certainly threw less often than top-level fast bowlers, who seem to break down with alarming frequency. Flintstone would never have suffered the burnout that Flintoff did.How chimps and humans are structured to throw•Neil RoachMaybe it would be humane to develop a selective breeding programme using the least injury-prone fast bowlers. There must be a limit on the speed that any cricketer can bowl at, though, especially if accuracy is to be retained. Can anyone exceed Shoaib Akhtar’s record-breaking pace?”I don’t have a great answer,” admits Roach. “My suspicion is that the demands of storing elastic energy to produce 90-100mph throws are significant enough that the tendons and ligaments crossing the shoulder probably can’t handle much more.”It is possible that you will see more athletes throwing 100mph in the future,” he concludes, “but that will probably come at the cost of more injuries. I think it is highly unlikely that batters would be facing 120mph bowlers in the future.”And barring a very long-term Twycross breeding programme, it’s even less likely that they’ll be facing any 120mph chimpanzees.

In Ish Sodhi and Corey Anderson, New Zealand have two young talents, who if their potentials are anything to go by, could turn out to be priceless assets in the near future

Andrew McGlashan02-Dec-2013They are two types cricketers that a captain dreams of having – A hard-hitting allrounder, capable of batting in the top six and taking Test wickets. And a legspinner.New Zealand will have both, albeit very raw versions, on display in Dunedin this week with a further sighting of two players who could be central to their Test cricket for the next decade.Ish Sodhi, 21, and Corey Anderson, 22, will both be playing their first home Tests when they face West Indies at the University Oval having been given their debuts on the recent tour of Bangladesh. Both returned with rave reviews; Anderson because of a maiden Test century and Sodhi because he is a type of player so rarely seen in New Zealand cricket.On New Zealand television the other day, Simon Doull said that Sodhi has to play every Test match for the next four or five years because he is a such a crucial “investment in New Zealand’s future.” That is a significant call and, given the pressures of international cricket, unlikely to come to pass (plus the chance that Daniel Vettori’s career may yet resume) but it shows the standing Sodhi, despite just 18 first-class matches of which two are Tests, already holds in New Zealand circles. After just one Test, he supplanted Bruce Martin, who only nine months ago made his debut against England in Dunedin, as New Zealand’s frontline spinner.Anderson, a left-hand batsman and left-arm swing bowler (what’s with all the left-armers in New Zealand?), made his debut in the same Chittagong Test as Sodhi, and began with 1 and 8 before crunching 116 in the following match in Dhaka. Also in that Test, Sodhi made 58 batting at No. 10 to suggest, like the man whose absence has created the spin-bowling void, Daniel Vettori, he too could contribute important lower-order runs. He already has five first-class fifties.For Sodhi, though, it is the bowling that really matters. A first-class average of 52 indicates that a lot of patience will be required. His, though, is an art-form few in New Zealand have mastered: Jack Alabaster is considered the best they have produced and he took 49 wickets at 38.02 between 1959 and 1972. A few others have tried, most recently Todd Astle who was given one Test against Sri Lanka, before being discarded. Astle, by comparison, averages 37.25 in first-class cricket.Anderson is plying a trade far more associated with New Zealand cricket. His bowling is the lesser-developed suit at the moment, but with the bat, there is more than a hint of Jacob Oram about how he goes about his craft. There is also a hint of Oram about the injuries he has suffered. However, if he can build on his early success in Test cricket, he can provide that priceless balance to New Zealand’s side, by either allowing a second spinner when conditions dictate, or by relieving the burden on their three frontline quicks.Although Anderson and Sodhi entered Test cricket at similar ages, they have taken contrasting paths. Anderson was earmarked from the age of 16 as a future international – at 16 years at 89 he was New Zealand’s youngest first-class cricketer for 59 years and was the youngest New Zealand player to be handed a contract, at the same age, in 2007 – before his career slipped on the back of fitness and form concerns.In late 2012, Anderson, having lost 20kg and strung together a sustained period of cricket, was named in the squad for the one-day series in South Africa only for a broken thumb to strike and delay his ODI debut until the Champions Trophy in June.Between those two events, he showed a glimpse of his batting power against England during their warm-up match, for New Zealand XI, in Queenstown earlier this year. He clubbed 67 off 62 balls in the first innings, giving some tough treatment to Graham Onions who, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, has not played for England since. In a microcosm of his career, he picked up a side strain during that match (although it didn’t hamper his strokeplay) and now, as he prepares for his home Test debut, he is recovering from a rib injury which will limit the number of overs he can bowl.Sodhi’s rise has been far more sudden and, so far, less injury-riddled. He grew up in Auckland, after his parents emigrated from India when he was young and overcame the restrictions of unhelpful surfaces and, perhaps, a perceived lack of understanding for the uniqueness of legspin. His first-class debut came in November 2012 for Northern Districts and his Test debut less than a year later. Such has been the rapid promotion, that the West Indies Test will be the first time he has bowled at the University Oval.He is now playing his domestic cricket alongside Vettori, the man who invited him to bowl at an Auckland trial. Vettori, who is both a team-mate and a mentor for Sodhi (who also credits former New Zealand offspinner Paul Wiseman), has not downplayed his belief in the legspinner. “He’s a special talent,” Vettori said earlier this year, and he knows a thing or two about young spinners.There is still a chance, with Vettori retaining hope of returning to Test cricket, that he and Sodhi could play in the same New Zealand team. Perhaps the baton will passed in person. And if both Sodhi and Anderson can form mutually successful careers, New Zealand cricket will have two priceless assets on their hands.

Even a defeat doesn’t hurt too much when you’re at the Shere Bangla

Madiha Khan07-Nov-2013Choice of game
After having seen Bangladesh cruise through the ODIs, it was time for some T20 action. Bangladesh were on top after completing what Athar Ali Khan termed “Banglawash” against the Kiwis. Most people would have expected Bangladesh to be favourites for the T20 game as well, but looking at their track record in the shortest format, I wasn’t too sure. I expected New Zealand to put on a fight at the end of their tour. I was 55% sure New Zealand would take this one home.Team supported
Bangladesh. After whitewashing New Zealand in back-to-back series, they had made their fans very proud.Key performer
Very easily, Colin Munro. He displayed some brilliant power-hitting, with shots all around the ground. He took advantage of the below-par bowling and the batting-friendly pitch and tore through the Bangladeshi bowling. He remained not out with a hefty 73 off 39 balls at the end of the innings.One thing I’d have changed
Reflecting back at the game, there were a couple of things that I would have liked to change. Perhaps the sitter that Al-Amin Hossain dropped in the first over, off Mashrafe Mortaza, to let off Anton Devcich, who went on to blast a fifty off 24 deliveries, or maybe those pointless shots early in the Bangladesh innings that got Shamsur Rahman and Mominul Haque out. But if I had to pick only one, it would very simply be the result of the game.Wow moment
Sixes, fours and dropped catches were abundant in this match. The wow moment for me was the blunder Tim Southee made of a catch off his own bowling. He let the ball brush his fingers, giving Sohag Gazi a life. It caught me by surprise, since the New Zealanders are known to be fit fielders.Close encounter
Southee bowled near the boundary where I was seated, and after having dropped that catch, he was jeered by the spectators.Shot of the day
With nearly 400 runs scored in 40 overs, there were quite a few remarkable shots played. A treat to watch was Mominul’s only six, which was timed oh so sweetly. But the obvious winner would be Munro’s switch hit off Mahmudullah that went for a huge six over cover. It left the crowd speechless for a moment.ODI or Twenty20?
I would rate the ODI format ahead of T20s, which are condensed versions of ODIs. All the action and excitement seems to be squeezed into 40 overs and the game does not pan out naturally. Nerves are sky high, and you are constantly on the edge of your seats. However, it is great entertainment once in a while. The ODI, on the other hand, true to its name, gives you day-long entertainment. It is long enough for the momentum to shift from one team to the other and back, giving you the chance to watch quality cricket – something difficult to do in T20s.Banner of the day
One banner that caught my eye read: “Bangladesh needs to play more ODIs and Tests in a calendar year”. The man who wrote it was spot-on. With obvious improvement in the quality of cricket played by Bangladesh in recent times, it could only be better for them to play more.Overall
9.5. Having watched innumerable games at the Shere Bangla National Stadium, I wonder if there will ever be a day when the experience is not breathtaking, and if the passion of the Bangladeshis will ever cease to sweep me off my feet. Win or loss, the people are always there, cheering their team on. Thanks to Bangladesh’s three wins in a row, this day was even better and the fact that Bangladesh had lost was not disappointing.I even had the good fortune of meeting one of the rising talents of Bangladesh – Taskin Ahmed. During the BPL he had shown promise as a fast bowler, and I sincerely hope to see him in the national team soon.A surprise was in store for the crowd as the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, walked out to the ground to give away the series awards.

His technique would make a spider on skates look elegant, but how dangerous was he when it came to high-pressure chases?

Andy Zaltzman04-Mar-2014Australia are currently specialising in series of almost identical matches. The recent Ashes saw a recurring nightmare of Haddin-inspired recoveries, first-innings collapses, baggy-green second-innings thwacks, and a slide to inevitable defeat, all with Johnsonian moustaches roaring past in celebration. The monotony was broken only in the fourth Test in Melbourne, when England found a new and innovative way to lose. Albeit with many similarities, and another variation on the theme of early promise giving way to miserable annihilation. It was like a series of five particularly gloomy Rothko paintings, in which the fourth one was upside down with a willy graffitied onto it.In Australia’s current series in South Africa, three times the team batting first has taken a massive first-innings lead. In the first two Tests, a 90mph-denouement was administered by a champion paceman. South Africa, unlike England, remember at least to change which side was doing what within this pattern; unless they can stop the formula being applied again in the final two days, they will lose a series for the first time this decade.Australian habits have recurred – Johnson, obviously; critical, high-impact runs by Steve Smith; a Clarke century at a series-shaping moment; proactive declarations; Warner transmuting from a fist-flinging idiot with a seemingly endless collection of stupid things to say, into one of the most influential players in Test cricket with a seemingly endless collection of stupid things to say. And, in the third Test, we have seen once again Ryan Harris scalping the opposition captain/opener with a beauty; and one of the opposition’s most important players retiring. Perhaps Graeme Smith, like Swann, checked out of Hotel International Cricket anyway, but the way in which their games were dismantled by Australian brilliance has hastened (or at least, given the impression of hastening) their departures.The similarities may end there. Perhaps South Africa will find the resolve and luck to escape with a draw. Perhaps they could conjure a miraculous victory, especially if Clarke dangles his customary declaration carrot. Whatever happens, it is hard to imagine Hashim Amla or AB de Villiers being sacked for being too gobby. Australia have transformed the tenor and landscape of Test cricket in this 2013-14 season. If they can secure victory in the next two days, they will have obliterated the status quo, with eight Tests of occasionally vulnerable but bristlingly high-octane cricket.Smith’s retirement removes from the international game another of the towering figures of modern cricket. He has captained in a record 109 Test matches (including the pointless ICC World XI’s alleged “Test” at the SCG in 2005-06), and opened the batting in 108 of them – exactly twice as many as the highest number of Tests captained by any other opener (Mike Atherton).On an entirely personal level, I hated watching him bat. This was largely because he was irritatingly good against England, especially in England. He scored five centuries in 12 Tests here. Only one man this millennium has scored more – Dravid, who scored six, with rather more finesse and rather less rapidity. Smith’s first two were elephantine double-hundreds in 2003, when he became the second man ever to hit two 250-plus scores in a Test series. (A quick multiple choice quiz question: Who was the other? (a) Donald Bradman; (b) Monty Panesar; (c) Chris Martin; (d) Elvis; or (e) Donald Bradman. And… pencils down… The answer is (e). I will also accept (a).) As an England fan, both innings were massively irritating.He added to his catalogue of English frustration with two more decisive three-figure scores in the 2008 series – 107 in the follow-on at Lord’s to blunt England’s attack and lay the platform for an ultimately comfortable and opponent-sapping draw; and a series-winning, career-defining unbeaten 154 at Edgbaston, one of the finest innings of the millennium so far. As an England fan, both innings were massively irritating.His fifth hundred on these shores was at The Oval in the first Test of 2012. He and Amla laid the foundations for South Africa’s 637 for 2, grinding England’s previously-all-conquering bowling attack into a pulp in their wildly different styles, a good-cop-bad-cop combination that was like watching Margot Fonteyn dance with a rhinoceros. As an England fan, it was massively irritating. His record against England is the best of any Test opener of the last 50 years, and surpassed before then only by Bobby Simpson and Bruce Mitchell.He was, massively irritatingly, less dominant against the other leading Test nations of the era than he was against England, but still scored significant runs in South Africa’s two series wins in Australia, and his record outside his home country (17 centuries, average 55) stands comparison with the best in Test history.There were times when he was almost comically vulnerable to swing, as when Matthew Hoggard left him face down in Johannesburg, as if he was desperately searching for his lucky termite Nigel in a crack in the patch, whilst the umpire’s finger rose majestically skywards. As an England fan, however, these sporadic failings served only to make his triumphs against us all the more massively irritating. And all the more impressive. If Jacques Kallis was a one-man walking coaching manual, Smith often appeared to be the product of a rogue laboratory experiment to design a robot to teach young children what not to do whilst batting. Hands, arms, legs clodding off in all directions. Bat clumping down at mathematically unfeasible angles. Ball pounding the midwicket fence when it should by rights have been nestling in third slip’s hands.Despite his technique from the outer reaches of peculiarity, Smith’s extraordinary eye (he has also pouched of 169 catches, mostly at slip), and his even more extraordinary will, generally prevailed. He averaged 61 in South Africa’s Test victories, only fractionally less than Kallis, Amla and de Villiers (although, with fewer not outs, Smith scored more runs per innings in his team’s wins than any of his Protean contemporaries and most of his predecessors).He has been the undisputed statistical Caesar of the fourth-innings chase – 1141 runs (comfortably an all-time record) at an average of 87, with four centuries (Ponting, with three, is the only other player with more than two) and a total of ten scores of 50 or more (Ponting, Langer and Hayden are behind him, with seven each).As a batsman, he was cussed, dangerous, ugly and skilful, a master of the crux of a match. Yes, he batted with the elegance and refinement of a motorway pile-up. Aesthetically, for what that is worth, he was a Frankenstein’s Kirsten. But in terms of his transformatory impact on matches and series, he has been one of the great Test batsmen of the 21st century.* Graeme Smith may not be the only player bowing out of Test cricket in this match, if the lurid descriptions of Ryan Harris’ crumbling fruitcake of a knee are anything to go by. Hopefully, the wonders of modern surgery and/or some well-targeted witchcraft will ensure that this match will not mark the end of his belated Test career, but if it does prove to be so, he is likely to leave having carved an eternal statistical niche in the game. As I write (before the fourth day’s play), Harris needs one more wicket to become the first ever pace bowler to take 100 Test wickets having made his debut after his 30th birthday.Admittedly, this statistical niche is itself “niche”, and the Test-packed schedule of the last few decades has made such as achievement more likely than in earlier times, but it is still a remarkable achievement by the late-blooming, mountainously-shouldered craftsman of curve.(Previously, the closest any 30-something debutant had come to taking 100 Test scalps was Harris’ recent baggy-green predecessor Stuart Clark, with 94 wickets; few others have come close. Five spinners have done so – inter-war wristspin wizard Clarrie Grimmett, Bruce Yardley (both Australia), Dilip Doshi (India), Mohammad Rafique (Bangladesh) and Pakistan’s current tweakmaster Saeed Ajmal.) (Here endeth the stat.) (Some time after it might have ended.)Harris’ 99 wickets thus far have come at an average of 23.1. He would be the 24th Australian to reach the 100-Test-wicket milestone since Alan Davidson in 1960. The great left-armer’s average when he took his 100th was 20. Assuming Harris takes his 100th before conceding 58 more runs, he will become only the second of those 24 to reach 100 wickets with an average below 23.5. The only Australian in the last 50 years to take his first 100 Test wickets at a better average than Harris was Jason Gillespie (22.1). (Here endeth another stat.) (Are you still there?)* The ECB has announced that, in protest at Russian actions in the Ukraine, England are retroactively boycotting the 2013-14 Ashes. The unremittingly official ECB spokespersonage Harculian Javes explained: “What Putin is doing is completely unacceptable. Bang out of order. In the great tradition of politically motivated sports boycotts, therefore, we are withdrawing from the recent Ashes series, in order to send a message to Mr Putin that English cricket will not tolerate his flagrant disregard for international law. Nor would we have tolerated it last November, when the Ashes began. The series has now been ruled null and void. England therefore hold the Ashes once more. If Mr Putin does not withdraw Russian troops from Crimea immediately, we will be left with no option but to also boycott the 2006-07 Ashes. The time has come to take a stand.”

Plays of the Day from the first ODI between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in Mirpur

Mohammad Isam17-Feb-2014The delayed return
Mushfiqur Rahim took a baffling decision to keep Shakib Al Hasan out of the attack for much of Thisara Perera and Sachitra Senanayake’s 14-over stand. The pair blasted 82 runs in the interim, with none of the spinners or Rubel Hossain finding a way to break the partnership. Shakib had bowled just four overs, and was waiting for his turn, and had also gone close to ending the stand with a fine diving effort from short midwicket. He eventually made a breakthrough by foxing Senanayake, but by then it was far too late a move from the captain.The swoop
Shakib was having a superb time during the Sri Lanka collapse, the zenith being his dive, swoop and throw which accounted for Dinesh Chandimal’s run-out. The ball seemed set to go past him at cover, but the dive threw off the two batsmen in the middle, and as they couldn’t decide which way to turn, Shakib threw the ball on the turn while on the ground, and returned it to Arafat Sunny, who took a moment to break the stumps after being far too excited at first. The hero to zero moment
Sohag Gazi suffered a loss of fortune in a matter of minutes. He first had an indirect role to play in the Kithuruwan Vithanage run-out, by moving behind, and pressing the oncoming batsman to move further to the left, thereby winning a split second as Mushfiqur Rahim threw down the stumps. Just six balls later, though, Gazi crucially dropped Thisara at long-on, and it changed the course of the Sri Lanka innings dramatically.The decision
In the 20th over, after Shamsur Rahman’s bat had got stuck just short of the crease as he was completing a run, third umpire Anisur Rahman took more than five minutes to decide whether both of Shamsur’s feet were in the air when the bails were taken off. Anisur finally decided to give Shamsur out, although the number of replays and the ensuing doubt suggests he was not entirely sure. The TV commentary didn’t quite agree with the decision too, but Shamsur walked back, rather slowly. It was a moment of misfortune that had a big impact on the final outcome of the match.The miss
Mahmudullah’s body language has often given the wrong vibe, but his laidback approach was never viewed as a major hindrance. In the 38th over, however, he froze at long-on when the ball came at him, and it looked awful in the replay. Thisara had smashed one straight towards him and Mahmudullah actually moved away from the line of the ball. It went for a one-bounce four and Thisara made him pay further by hammering the next ball for a six.