Scout Report: Will Beer

There’s something about a leg-spinner that automatically makes them more interesting to watch than any other kind of bowler. It’s the sort of thing that made a Sky commentator describe Will Beer as a “more unorthodox bowler” than the rest of the bowlers in the match. Whilst that makes little sense as Beer bowls a fairly orthodox style of a long standing type of spin – he’s no Murali – there is a grain of truth hidden in the comment; the fact that leg-spinners have been rare in English cricket for a while.

Not now though, there are a better crop of leg-spinners around than for a long time. Adil Rashid and Scott Borthwick have both been selected for England, and below them there are some other talented players, from Tom Craddock at Essex, to Max Waller at Somerset, and Will Beer at

Whilst the first two are regular first team players, Beer is one of those who struggles to get a place in the first team at his county. He’s only played five first class matches with his way blocked by Monty Panesar, but he gets the limited over job regularly for the county.

That’s what happened last night against Warwickshire at Hove; he was preferred over Panesar despite the fact that he’s never replicated his T20 form in List A cricket. Still, he started well after being brought on in the 18^th over, immediately settling into a good line and length with just a fraction of flight.

In his third over he missed a sharp caught and bowled chance off a full toss, but after than almost everything he bowled was gold. He got rid of Tim Ambrose with a perfect leg-spinners delivery, drifting in to pitch on off stump before spinning and taking the edge on the way through to the keeper.

His second wicket was a stumping, beating Jim Troughton in the flight, and getting lucky that the batsman was lazy in thinking he had his foot back in. He hadn’t and he had to go. His third wicket came in his penultimate over, a leg break kept low outside off stump and Darren Maddy chopped on trying to cut. He ended up with figures of 8-0-27-3, his best performance yet in List A cricket.

Given that it was in the end a match winning performance, I’ll start with the positive attributes the young leggie has. He gives the ball just enough flight, has a pretty decent googly (I couldn’t pick it), keeps it accurate, and never looked flustered.

On the negative side, his fairly low arm action could make him susceptible to dragging the ball down, though he’s showed no evidence of that so far. He also bowls fairly slowly, which will help him to spin the ball on helpful wickets, but he may need to push his pace up on unhelpful ones. The wicket he bowled on tonight didn’t offer much turn, so I couldn’t judge how much he turns the ball, but it looked to me that he may need a little bit more rip. That’s a difficult judgement to make though.

Performance 9/10

Potential 7/10

Kevin Pietersen wants to be Sachin Tendulkar

Kevin Pietersen has always been seen as somewhat of an arrogant player. While nobody can look inside his head, it seems like an accurate assumption. Others have speculated that his arrogance is part of a deep seeded insecurity about himself. What some might see as arrogance, others can see as a need to please, a need to be liked and revered.

Sachin Tendulkar has spent his whole career being revered. No cricketer, bar perhaps Don Bradman, has ever had the amount of adulation that Tendulkar has received over his career. Whereas Pietersen has always strived towards that sort of adulation, Tendulkar has received gracefully it as a side product of his success doing the only thing he wants to do in life.

Kevin Pietersen wants to be Sachin Tendulkar, he desperately wants that idolatry, he desperately wants ever more fame and success. Most of all, he wants the freedom that Tendulkar has in the Indian team, to duck out of series at the drop of the hat.

Given that Tendulkar has been ‘rested’ for four out of six ODI series since the World Cup in 2011, and was hardly a regular before that, it’s hard to avoid the interpretation that he picks and chooses his own series. He’s been resting up at home when India beat Sri Lanka in an away ODI series, yet for the series before that he turned out at the Asia Cup, to notch his hundredth hundred (and arguably lose India the game in the process).

Before that he was rotated in and out in the Australian tri-series, but he missed two series against England, home and away, an away one against West Indies. It’s now early August, and the last game Tendulkar played was in the IPL for Mumbai Indians. Yet, he still needs more rest, and can’t bring himself to play the ODI series against Sri Lanka.

His schedule is the one that Pietersen is aiming for, virtual ever present in Tests, technically not retired from ODIs – but only coming out for the big occasions – and playing the entire IPL. The only difference is that Tendulkar is no part of the T20 set up for India whilst Pietersen has made clear his desire to play in the World T20 later this year.

The only problem is: Pietersen isn’t Tendulkar. He’s a very good, bordering on great, batsman but he isn’t the national icon that Tendulkar is. That means he can’t get away with what Tendulkar does. The ECB have been as intransigent with Pietersen as the BCCI have been flexible with Tendulkar, but the comparison is worthless. The BCCI make special arrangements for Tendulkar, but Pietersen cannot expect the ECB to do the same thing for him.

R.I.P Tom Maynard 1989-2012

I only saw Tom Maynard bat once. It was the first game, the first day of this season, and he came in with Surrey in trouble, at 119-4, and as he batted six wickets fell around him. Nobody managed to maintain a partnership for long, and Maynard ended up not out with 86 as Surrey ended up all out for 264 in their first innings of the summer. Surrey won the match by 86 runs. He truly was a match-winner.

Since I wasn't at the Oval for the rest of the match, my foremost memory of Tom Maynard isn't that he helped win that match for Surrey. It's the sixteen fours he crunched in 101 balls. He played with such panache that day, I came home enthused with this young talent. I couldn't have imagined that little over two months later he would be dead.

At the game that day, I was sitting taking notes, meaning to write a blog post about the days cricket later. I never got round to it, but my notes are probably still lying around somewhere. They undoubtedly carry about a page's worth of writing on Maynard's cuts, cover drives, crunching pull shots that day. If I could find them I would write it here, knowing that was only a partial view of the man. I didn't know Tom Maynard, but I've felt genuinely sad today at his passing, based on some knowledge of him, and one great innings I saw him play. I guess everyone who knew him, ever saw him play, or even heard about him in passing as the next big prospect will see his death from a different persepctive. I just keep thinking about that great innings, and what could have been.

Bad light stops Test cricket in its tracks

Today, one over after tea, the umpires came together and my heart sank. Shortly after, they led the players off the field. Bad light stopped play. Twenty five minutes later the light was about the same, so everyone wandered out again. Six overs later, the light had apparently deteriorated enough for them to have to go off again. Again, the umpires stood around checking the light for ages, then half an hour later they walked out at 6pm to resume the Test match. An absolute shambles.

The biggest problem with the bad light rules and regulations is the opaqueness of the whole process. While most other rules in cricket are pretty transparent and easily understood (with the exception of Duckworth-Lewis) the ICC rule for taking players off for bad light are ridiculous and basically unknown.

In the ICC playing conditions it says:

The umpires shall be the final judges of the fitness of the ground, weather and light for play

So far, so simple. Now they expand on this:

If at any time the umpires together agree that the conditions of ground, weather or light are so bad that there is obvious and foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire, so that it would be unreasonable or dangerous for play to take place, then they shall immediately suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to restart. The decision as to whether conditions are so bad as to warrant such action is one for the umpires alone to make. 

I think, the important words there are: 'risk' and 'dangerous.' It's difficult to tell, watching on TV whether the light is dangerous, but I think the reactions of the players and the spectators at the grounds are the things that need to be taken into account, and the incredulous reaction as the umpires led the players off the field twice today speak everything. A little dim light surely isn't that dangerous?

The light meters are the most opaque part of the whole process:

Light meter readings may accordingly be used by the umpires:  

a)  To determine whether there has been at any stage a deterioration or improvement in the light.

b)  As benchmarks for the remainder of a stoppage, match and/or series/event.

Nobody knows what the benchmarks have to be, but basically it seems that the umpires decide that it's too dark, take a reading, use that as a benchmark and not come out until the light gets better. But how much better? And do the benchmarks change from match to match? There are so many questions, and until the ICC clarifies this or changes the rules, farces like today will continue to happen.

What's gone wrong with Essex... again!

It seems like every season is the same for Essex fans, a squad is assembled that looks good on paper, which proceeds to start well then quickly go downhill for the rest of the season, as promotion stops looking like a possibility early on.

1) Something wrong in the dressing room

I don't have any inside line to the dressing room, but it stands to reason that there's something wrong. There are a lot of big characters in the dressing room, and the fact that so many players leave the club then go on and realise their potential at different clubs - from Chopra, to Middlebrook, Palladino and Wright - points to something poisonous at the club. This is compounded by things such as the spot fixing scandal which must have affected the dressing room, and things like Tsotsobe's belief that it was: "impossible to work in this environment" further illustrate the point. There's got to be something wrong there, and the players who are causing this need to be got rid of.

2) Inconsistency in selection

It's getting ridiculous. Essex started the season well with an innings win over Gloucestershire, mostly propelled by a hundred by Billy Godleman and second innings bowling from Graham Napier, but the Essex management for some reason seemed to think that 5-58 from Napier and a useful 28 wasn't enough to keep his place, with Tim Phillips coming in for the next match. Phillips himself only stayed in the team for one match in which his bowling wasn't used - indeed, despite being picked as a spin option, Tom Westley's part time off-spin was used and he wasn't. There are other examples to use, but I think this is the most blatant example of ridiculous selection. There seems to be no grand plan at all. 

3) No senior opener again

Godleman seems like a useful player, he has five first class hundreds, but there is still no senior experienced opener at the club. Bringing in Petersen was only ever going to be a stop gap solution, and we cannot rely on Cook being at the club ever now he is 50 over captain. So why did Essex pick up a fast bowler and an all-rounder in the winter? Those are positions the club is strong in, yet the openers continue to be picked from a mixture of Godleman, Pettini, Westley and Mickleburgh. All but one of them are young players, and only one of them is a specialist opener, and whichever one of them - hopefully not Mickleburgh - is the long term opening option, they need a senior partner.

4) Pettini up and down the order
Pettini has been one of the most consistent player Essex have had this season, so in many ways it would seem to make sense building the batting line-up around him in a stable position. Instead, Essex have shunted him up and down the order to accommodate star names like Shah and Bopara. Pettini has moved from four, down to six then back up to four, then opened. Stick in a position like number five, and trust him to make the runs there.

5) Foster batting too low
Foster, as the captain, should be able to command a higher place in the batting order, especially as the highest averaging player this season. Instead, he's spent most of the season batting at seven, and eight at times, rather than being the top order player making solid runs, he's the fire-fighter who rescues Essex from 50-5. Foster should bat above the all-rounders, not below them.

6) Owais Shah
There was a reason Middlesex let him go, while he is the most talented of players, he's just not committed and motivated enough to score the runs to justify batting at number three. Something that I think sums up Shah is watching him fielding at Leicestershire last season, on his heels, stopping balls with his feet, it just doesn't seem like he cares enough.

7) Where's Topley gone? Why is Willoughby here?
He started the season so well last year, yet even with nineteen players being used by Essex so far this season, his way has been blocked by the number of fast bowlers Essex have, which makes the signing of Charl Willoughby even more perplexing, you can only play maybe four - and normally three - frontline seamers, so why do we need so many?


8) Who's the number one spinner?
Essex don't seem to know. Phillips and Craddock have shared the spinning duties so far this season, with a mixture of Greg Smith and Tom Westley's occasional off-breaks. Phillips was even picked for a game and not given a single over. Pick one spinner in each format, Craddock for the County Championship and Phillips in the CB40 and T20.

9) Don't know how to win
Essex have been a team who draw a lot so long that they seem to have forgotten how to win. Against Gloucestershire at the beginning of the season they won by an innings without having to think much, but whenever in the last couple of seasons, some quick batting, declarations or any creative ways to secure a result have been needed, Essex have come up short.

This isn't a definitive list, I've barely touched upon the CB40, but there's something seriously wrong with Essex, a team with such talent should not be near the bottom of Division 2 in the County Championship, when  teams like Worcestershire battle above the sum of their parts to secure a place in Division 1.  Despite this, Essex have bowled fairly well - helped by the early season conditions, and hindered by the inconsistent selection. The first innings batting however, is not good enough, only once passing 400, and when there's so little platform, the bowlers are up against it. Big changes are needed, and soon. 

Scout Report: Kaushal Lokuarachchi

Like most Sri Lankan names, this leg-spinner's name is a bit of a mouthful, so I'm going to go with his team-mates and call him 'Loku' for the rest of the blog. 

Loku is undoubtedly a decent cricketer on the Sri Lankan domestic circuit, but I'm afraid on this showing he's nothing special. He's one of those new breed of 'spinners' you get from T20, they roll the ball out and spear it in, are afraid to give it any work or flight. 

He may have got two wickets against Pakistan today, but one was a long-hop pulled to short mid-wicket and another was a straight ball which Umar Akmal played all around. He's played a couple of Tests and 21 ODIs before, but the fact that he only has five wickets from his four Tests sums him up: no penetration. He finished with 2-30 off his four overs, respectable figures in T20 normally, but given that few players managed to get in on the pitch, he surely would be disappointed, especially given the three consecutive boundaries he gave away from his last over.

The main problems with Loku are that he doesn't 'explode' through the crease and just rolls the ball out of his hand, meaning that despite bowling at a pace quicker than most spinners, he's pretty gentle. Shane Warne's leg-break used to fizz out of his hand, Loku's ambles apologetically.

Performance 6/10

Potential 4/10

James Taylor stakes his claim for Pietersen's place.

The current England selectors seldom pick a player on one innings, like they would have done regularly in the 80s and 90s, so James Taylor's 115 from 77 today wouldn't have secured Pietersen's place in the limited overs teams, but it does put him in contention.

He started stodgily, making 25 off 45 balls, haring between the wickets to pick up singles and twos to just tread water as far as a one day innings is concerned. Then he picked up a length ball from Sean Ervine and deposited it over mid-wicket for six.

That was followed by three more boundaries in the next over, then ten more spread over the last seven overs, along with some more quick running between the wickets. He hit some magnificent shots among the lot: a precise drive timed over long off for six; a full toss flicked over long leg for six, a dilscoop/ramp over fine leg for four. Balls pitched outside leg and going down went over extra cover, wide of off stump balls went over mid-wicket. Fourteen boundaries in all.

Tonight was the first time I'd ever seen Taylor bat for an extended period, having seen him get out cheaply twice before. It wasn't the player you'd see in the championship, but it shows why he averages nearly 50 in one day cricket. He was inventive and clever, used his quick hands and strong wrists to manoeuvre the ball around for singles and flick the ball over the ropes for six. Not many players can hit sixes that look that effortless.

It's unlikely that he'll be the man to take over from Pietersen in either limited overs team - although he has already made his ODI debut, against Ireland last year. Ultimately the selectors seem to have their eye on other players, Jonny Bairstow could slot back in after taking over the Test No.6 spot, and Ravi Bopara is also a contender, along with Alex Hales who could fill Pietersens's opening role in both limited overs formats.

The selectors shouldn't rule out Taylor for the openers slot though, he's a top order player, and has the sort of mental resilience to be an opener, but also the all round game to do it. He reminds you of so many players, Chanderpaul like physique and wrists; the acceleration and helicopter shot of Dhoni today; Graham Thorpe's ability to always find a single. He's not any of those players, he's his own man though, and he's surely going to get an England place within the next couple of years.