Ted Dexter's Blog

Golf for Starters

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:00:55 +0100

I have just spent a half-hour at the Villeneuve-Loubet Golf “driving range” – a weekly pleasure but a necessary one to keep the golfing muscles flexible.
There were perhaps 30 other like-minded souls of all ages and sexes trying to find that elusive sweet contact between club and ball. Sad to say there was not a single one who had a hope in hell of ever breaking a hundred on a proper golf course.
The methods were as varied as they were bizarre and common sense suggests that they must be entirely happy with their plight – or why would they continue to throw good money after bad trying to reach a goal which is so obviously beyond them? I often think that a word or a suggestion here or there might perform a kindness but I immediately realise the futility. These folks are already beyond help if they continue to just turn up and hit balls.
The politically correct answer is for them to sign up for some lessons with a trained professional but I see these well meaning men hard at work from week to week with no discernible resulting improvement in their pupils.
So either we take the view that golf is impossibly difficult, end of story: or we make a couple of lateral shifts in our thinking and provide people with a facility which could conceivably lead them to a better golfing future.
The first requirement is to have as much acreage of putting/chipping greens as there is for longer shots. Then people can start the game in a logical way i.e. by holing a few putts from six inches to get the idea of a precise and controlled strike on the back of the ball: no expensive professional guidance needed, especially if these primitive beginnings are made with a blade putter i.e. resembling, however slightly, the shape of an “iron” which will be their next club on the list.The length of putts can be slowly extended to the edge of this “starter” area and even beyond.
Sooner or later it may become obvious that long putts through thickening fairway grass are hard to repeat accurately and an aerial route to the smoother green is a common sense option.
So they substitute the straight faced “putter” for a club with a little more loft – though again, they may benefit from still thinking of the shot as a long putt. Moving further back there will come a time and a reason for more loft and carry so the “short” irons will come into play. Hopefully our guinea pigs will still remain intent on a crisp controlled strike on the back of the ball to achieve their objective. During this phase there is a case for these beginners starting to hit half shots with their feet touching – again it is a self-teaching method with no swing gurus needed.
Ideally they would then move on to a pitch and putt course of however many holes can be fitted into the space available – but six holes with varying challenges should be sufficient.
Eventually there will come a time when a full whack at the ball becomes necessary but the ground work will have been done. Each individual will have found his or her best way of getting the club square on the back of the ball – a dream that is miles distant for my “driving range” companions, flailing away in increasing desperation as the ball steadfastly refuses to obey their ill defined objectives.

My personal objective as each year passes is to score lower than my age (currently 76) which I achieved on the 22nd of January 2012, finishing par,birdie, par, par. for 75 at Cannes Mougins off the yellow tees. This included no less than 35 putts!! No wonder I am 10 handicap. Only very occasionally, as on this one occasion, can good striking make up for such ineptitude near the hole. When playing off scratch, I used to count the putts assiduously and they seldom went above 30. I don't YIP them all but as Henry Longhurst once said "once you've had'em, you've got em".

Pakistan resurgence

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:48:20 +0000

I felt like breaking silence any number of times during England’s calamitous short Test Series against Pakistan. And yet the daily dramas were so compelling that there was little time for reflection – and the odds were against providing a balanced view when there were so many issues unfolding.
That there was some sloppy batting by England is undeniable. That the Pakistan spinners were exemplary in their accuracy is a fact. The Decision Review System was used and abused to an extent that nobody who designed and introduced it could possibly have imagined. And then there was the underlying doubt about the “legality” of the bowling actions of the Pakistan slow bowlers – or “not so slow” bowlers as our batsmen found out to their cost.
Before delving deeper in each of these areas, there has been some comment comparing the sudden demise of this England team, having reached the Number 1 position in the World Rankings, and the equally sudden collapse of the Ashes winning team in 2005. This is hard to justify when the circumstances are so different.
The 2005 team was decimated not by swollen heads or excessive celebrations but by severe and virtually terminal injuries to over half the team. Vaughan, Trescothick, Jones, Harmison, Flintoff and Giles were all victims and I rather doubt that they ever again managed to get on the field together. It would be interesting to know how many first class matches they even played after that Series. Precious few would be my guess.
Under the heading “sloppy batting” I think of Cook and Trott caught behind “wafting” the bat wide of their bodies. I think of Pietersen hooking airily to long leg. I think of Bell’s uncoordinated poke to cover in his most recent innings. Then there was the Strauss rush down the pitch with a leg-side swipe at thin air. This was the only fully self inflicted dismissal against the hard to “read” spinners.
Accurate spin, constant querying of umpiring decisions and jerky actions have to be considered as a whole because there is a cause and effect. Accuracy and the extra variety which a degree of elbow flex provides means that scoring rates are low and the number of possible l.b.w. dismissals is high. Hence the constant appealing and reviewing. Strauss, Trott, Cook and Prior were able to handle the situation for some periods at a time without ever looking entirely at home. Pietersen, Bell and Morgan were completely out of their depth.
Now for the crux, which is the “degree” or “degrees” of elbow flex which were not the subject of any comment or reporting by the umpires. Gone are the days at International level when an umpire can take exception to a single ball and suspend the bowler on the field. though it is still an available option in “amateur” cricket.
In fact, if, for instance Swann had decided that enough was enough and won a match for England bending his arm double – that result would stand, for all that he risked an umpires report and later suspension.
In the case of Ajmal, he was suspended earlier in his career and sent for investigation, remedial training etc. Under the new licence arrangement which allows 15 degrees of elbow flex he was subsequently given the green light to return to the fray. I read a part of the report where some professorial physics ”expert” declared him capable of bowling within the fifteen degree limit. Indeed he does every time he turns his arm over as he warms up but when he bowls in earnest there is that tell-tale delay before the release which defeats the naked eye – and certainly confuses the batsman. It is a case of now you see it, now you don’t.
Television coverage, both visual and vocal avoided the issue entirely. The England camp made a few noises during the first Test and then fell silent, realising that Ajmal was there for the Series whether they liked it or not.
Who is to say that the umpires are incorrect? The answer lies in numerous still camera shots which show the Ajmal elbow flexing through – wait for it – FOUR times the permitted angle i.e. 60 degrees and more. The other tell tale signs are the left shoulder spinning to the left, the total lack of follow through, the pointing of the elbow towards the batsman long before the release and the point of release being well forward ot the perpendicular.
Then there is the phenomenon involving a split second when the ball in hand actually moves backwards in space after the delivery swing has progressed above shoulder height ( accounting for that “delay” I mentioned earlier). Rigorous monitoring of this element this is the wish and brainchild of a former orthodox spinner who takes particular exception to the “new” style spinners who seem to operate outside the norm with such impunity.
What would I do as an umpire? Probably the same as umpires Taufle and Davies – keep my head below the parapet rather than cause a storm involving the people who appoint and pay them. They can quote the fact that a higher body has given this kind of bowling the all clear and Ajmal’s action in particular.
Frankly I see no way out. Coaches are almost certainly already coaching in the new art which allows the ball to be spun one way or the other at will. What is for certain is that batsmen will have to adapt quickly and even if they devise a survival strategy, they will always suffer a restriction in their stroke-making so long as they are unsure which way the ball is spinning.
Once the slow bowler/pitchers have been “approved”, how long before the next generation of fast chuckers comes along. Maybe the time is coming when the description of a “fair” delivery is simply removed altogether from Law 42 Fair and Unfair Play. Now when the moderns tell me that the “game has changed”, I will give them more credence than I have up to now.

Arguments

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:46:48 +0000

I have had arguments with the Australian cricket hierarchy before. So here we go again. They are cock-a-hoop after beating someone – anyone – after a lean spell and are in danger of losing any kind of perspective. The Indians are currently a soft target and yet you might think they have conquered the world.
Remember that the only two bowlers who have played in all three Tests v India are Siddle and Hilfenhaus and their names ring a bell. Ah! Yes. They are the same chaps who bowled nearly 300 overs against England last year with combined figures of 20 wickets at an average of 52 runs each. Hardly world class.
Have they improved at all? Hilfenhaus – Yes. Mind you, he needed to with only 7 wickets at over 60 against England: Siddle - not noticeably. Hilfenhaus has found a way to get the ball to straighten more often – good for him, but the real difference has been in the surfaces they have been lucky enough to bowl on against the Indians.
In three Tests, of the 1350 overs scheduled for play only 861 have been bowled and, admittedly without counting, it seems probable that at least 800 have been bowled by the fast bowlers. Whatever happened to the glorious game, renowned for it’s variety and twists and turns. It has just been one way traffic down a slippery highway, specially prepared to make the Indians look like learner drivers.
Commentators initiated a public poll on the last day at Perth asking whether leaving copious amounts of grass on the pitches was the right thing to do: and managed to achieve an 80% positive response. Their own opinions were just about unanimous in agreement.
Why was there no counter argument – what about the dearth of Australian slow bowlers. Will they ever encourage any spinners if they load the dice against them? Then there are the game’s finances. Finishing 5 day Tests in less than three is hardly good housekeeping.
I just hope that the England hierarchy is keeping a close eye on what is going on down-under with a view to scuppering their one-eyed plans with a plan of their own.
They have a great chance to begin the process of establishing a “spinning” advantage in the Test against Pakistan due to start in Dubai in two days time. It is a long time since England played two spinners but now is the time to start with Monty Panesar in form with the ball on pitches which may be just the ticket.
There will be a natural reluctance to change the Ashes winning team balance of just four bowlers with Swann the only spinner but getting too set in your ways can be a weakness in itself. Talking as someone who suffered at the hands of the Indians in India many moons ago when they played just one fastish bowler and three spinners to very good effect, I urge England to play according to the conditions and not to any pre-conceived formula.
Meanwhile, it would be churlish not to mention new boy left handed Australian opener Warner. He played the innings of his life - the fourth fastest hundred in Test history. He looks to have a fine future in the game with his quich hands and generally compact style. I have only one warning bell. In the back of my mind. There are words written about Kevin Petersen after his stunning hundred at the Oval in 2005 = the innings that saved the match and ensured the Ashes. " Amongst all the plaudits there is the sobering thought that in only his fifth Test match, Petersen may already have played the best innings of his career for England. Here we are, nearly seven years later and that thought probably holds good.
The other superb element of the Australian victory was the close catching - right up there with the vey best over the years - including one of the definitive catches of the 21st century taken by Clarke at an apparently impossible height and angle above his head. Wow!!

Old Fashioned Virtues

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:43:58 +0000

Television replays and highlights programmes are a godsend to those of us who have the odd hour or two on our hands in retirement. There has been quite a rash of “ look back at the Ashes“ programmes, presumably generated in the UK, concentrating on England’s recent victories. Good fun they are too, watching the old enemy suffering anguish rather than the other way round.
Now the Australians seem to be getting their own back, reverting to their own glory days with Shane Warne and Michael Slater dishing it out to the Poms with ball and bat. The man who caught my technical eye, however, was Steve Waugh with his trademark “square cutting” much in evidence.
Three things struck me, all concerning his foot movements: how far across he moved to cover the line of the ball, how far back he went and how he always kept his back foot strictly parallel to the crease. It was text book stuff from someone who was never considered the most elegant of players. Not that anyone doubted his basic skills.
Many of the moderns spend much of the time with both toes pointing up the pitch and it surprises me how often they seem to “get away with it”. But , if you think about it, it is virtually impossible to make a good move back and across unless the back foot is pointing in the direction you are going.
I wonder whether the Australian skipper Clarke had been watching the same clips, because it was early in his monumental knock of 329 that Mark Nicholas divulged the notion that the “parallel” back foot position was something he had been trying to master in practise. I was certainly taught that way as a nine year old by the martinet Headmaster – in fact all the young at my school were told to point the back foot to gully – or else!!
Apart from improving the range of your footwork, it tends to keep the upper body sideways at the same time (another old coaching tenet) and it was a treat to watch Laxman playing so fluently in the Indian second innings as a result of excellent left shoulder and forearm control of the bat. There are undoubtedly new elements in the game including reverse swing and the finger spinners ability to run the ball the “other” way, but for the most part the old adages of how best to play the game have stood the test of time.
Another instance of old fashioned virtues being “reinvented” was the theory that the Australian bowling coaches were responsible for the better length and line of the Australian quicks . Moving the emphasis across to off stump and OUTSIFE OFF seemed to be the order of the day – or in the words of Geoffrey Boycott, into the “corridor of uncertainty”. It seemed like this was a new theory and a new dawn. Maybe it is not so new after all – as I will explain.
By chance I sat next to an eminent landscape artist, specialising in gardens who happened to mention a distant ancestor who played for Nottinghamshire and England. He turned out to be a certain William Attewell who enjoyed a long and successful career 1881-1890. Of 429 matches, 10 were in England colours. Bowling medium pace he took nearly 2000 wickets at an average of 15. He was extremely economical (1.65 runs fer over) and had a strike rate of 55 balls per wicket.
Now comes the crunch. In a short profile it reads “ he used his abilities to perfect OFF THEORY, popular at the time, frustrating the batsmen, bowling to a packed off-side field. There are few new things under the sun they say and certainly not in cricket.

Deceptive commentators

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:44:40 +0000

It really gets my goat when commentators fail to tell the truth: when they embroider banal sporting moments, assuming that their audience will be none the wiser: when they purposely misrepresent the facts to fit the story they are determined to fabricate.
What brought on my displeasure, not to say disgust, was the TV coverage of the first days play in the New Years Test at the Sydney cricket ground. Throughout every session they insisted that the pitch was “ a good surface to bat on”, despite the fact that 13 wickets fell in the day.
Their agenda was to belittle the skills of the Indian batsmen and at the same time to magnify the abilities of the “superbly new found discipline and focus” of the Australian fast bowlers.
To any half knowledgeable observer the first day pitch had a fast grassy surface with moisture giving plenty of swing and seam movement, not to mention varying pace and height. It was, in fact a fast bowler’s paradise. If they needed reminding what a “good pitch to bat on” really is, they only needed to switch Channels to the South Africa v Sri Lanka Test where only four wickets fell for 580 runs and it took another 100 or so before the next one. Did the two pitches look the same? Like hell they did. One obvious “green top”, one flat brown “belter” with not a twitch of help for the bowlers.
Individual moments of misrepresentation come to mind. When the very promising newcomer Pattinson came back for a new spell with Tendulkar well set, the new wonderman was not surprisingly a little tight, short of pace and wayward. None of these shortcomings were mentioned. Then he bowled a long half volley wide of the off-stump, another poor ball, only for Tendulkar to suffer a brutal inside edge onto the stumps.
Nobody said “ Oh! You lucky fellow. It is certainly your lucky day today.” No. No. The facts did not fit the fairy tale and he was heralded with another masterly plan duly fulfilled. Bah!
It all started early on when an out of form Ghambir played across a straight ball and nicked it behind. Easily done and simple to explain. But simplicity is too simple. " Pourquoi faire simple, quand on peut faire complique", as they say in these parts. It had to be a great ball “jagging” across, and, of course, due entirely to the bowler’s skill – and nothing to do with the pitch.
The trouble with this kind of reporting is that sensible men like Mark Nicholas and Tony Greig get dragged into the messy depths of deception before they know it. Not to say that I was not a trifle disappointed in even them from time to time.
No wonder that I am sure I am possibly not alone in “muting” the commentary for much of the time, turning up the sound again only when there is doubt about a dismissal or near miss when the commentary team has better and quicker information to hand than the home viewer.
I recommend time spent watching games without the perpetual fictional chatter of the “men who know all”, while listening to some quiet pastoral music. A glass or two of a modest wine also goes down well = or so I am told.
Then there is the obvious matter concerning the Indian decision to bat first on winning the toss. In retrospect, it was a dreadful gaffe. But the arguments for bowling that first morning are compelling, to say the least. The Australians were fighting mad to prove that some good quick bowling in the First Test was more than a flash in the pan. And the main reason for not bowling first against Australia for the past 15 years was missing i.e. the threat of Shane Warne's devastating leg-spin on a worn fifth day pitch. Now they dont have a spinner worth sixpence. So asking them to bat first is no longer the poisoned chalice it used to be. Dhoni made an avoidable mistake.
Why was this crucial element of the match strategy not a pivotal matter for discussion? Why? Because the commentary team was wedded to the "good pitch to bat on" premise". They may be experts - at TV presentation to suit accountants - but they did the great game a disservice. It deserves better.

Weighing up the opposition

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:50:36 +0000

A thrilling end to the 2nd (and last) Test between South Africa and Australia finally went the way of the visiting team which meant that the spoils were shared with one win apiece in this truncated Series.
When a five day match fluctuates from day to day and comes to a last hour climax, it is a moment for connoisseurs of the game to savour. Suddenly every Captaincy decision is a matter for clinical analysis. Every ball has major significance. Umpiring decisions are made under extreme pressures and there tend be unforeseeable circumstances like sudden injury on top of huge slices of luck and misfortune in equal measure.
The fairy tale element in this case was provided by the 18 year old Australian fast bowler Cummins, who first bowled his team into a possible winning position and then had the nerve to hang on long enough at the crease to hit the winning run.
It was a thrill a minute, no question, but ticking away in the back of my mind was the process of measuring the quality of the South African side with next summer’s home Test Series in mind.
On the face of it England should have little to fear, having outplayed Australia convincingly, home and away and watching the South Africans signally failing to do the same.
The England batting is currently more consistent, the bowling more capable of sustaining pressure backed up, as it is, by high quality close catching. In the spin department, Swann is way ahead of any South African and lastly England’s lower order batting strength is something to be envied in any team anywhere in the world.
Looking at key individuals South Africa has unearthed an excellent new ball bowler in Philander, which makes me wonder how it took them so long. He was consistently troubling all the Australians - but this was just as well in the light of a very lacklustre performance by Steyn on that crucial last day in Johannesburg. I was shocked to see the number one ranked bowler in the world unable to bowl a consistent line for most of a day when his Captain would have been relying on him above all the rest.
It was a pleasant surprise to see a leg-spinner in a South African side and Tahir with a penchant for bowling googlies galore, certainly brought variety and plenty of intensity to the role. Gone are the days when you could discount any but the very best and experienced back of the hand bowlers in English conditions because our pitches tend to be harder now than of yore. He deserves his place but acclimatising will still be a tough test.
With Smith, Amla and Kallis there is no lack of quality in their batting and there will be times when they stretch Strauss’s resources to the limit.
All this conjecture is however clouded by the fact that what should be billed as a battle for world supremacy will be played over three Tests. not five when a bit of luck here or there, with the pitch or the weather, can play too great a part in the outcome. Nevertheless they are matches to look forward to with eager anticipation.
On a slightly downbeat note to finish, I was less sanguine than some of the commentators during the exciting finale in Joburg, when they proclaimed that Test cricket was assured of a healthy future because of a couple of unusually exciting hours of play. I doubt that the Television moguls who will ultimately make the key decisions will see events in quite the same way – especially when so much of what they currently show us is so poorly attended.

England One-Day Whitewash

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:20:40 +0100

Enland One-Day Series Whitewash.

I apologise to those faithful readers for going off the air for some months. An apology is also due to my daughter Genevieve who made me a present of this professionally designed and constructed website. Gen followed and recorded for me the “uptake”, which, gratifyingly followed a gentle upward curve until my laziness intervened.
So to business. There were two main themes emerging from press criticism of the England Cricket Team after the 85 run defeat in Kolkata, the fifth in a row. First were the difficulties and indeed inadequacies of our batsmen against spin bowling. Second was the fractiousness within the England team, normally a happy and cohesive group.
Dealing with the “team spirit” issue, it is hard not to lay fault at the door of the Captain. His comments in interviews on the subject seemed less than constructive, rather on the lines that boys will be boys. With precious little captaincy experience – none at all that I know of – Cook was never very clearly in charge either on or off the field. It is an anomaly of the “squad” system that young players are removed from County cricket before they get a chance to gain Captaincy experience. The result is that they receive sudden promotion from the “ranks” without any grounding in leadership and man management. Would Strauss have sorted things out better? You bet.
Now to the batting. There were FOUR very poor strokes; from Trott, Bopara, Bairstow and Bresnan – three of them trying to drive on a turning pitch without getting to the pitch of the ball. The odd man out was Bopara who committed the cardinal sin of sweeping without getting his leg in the way of a ball which simply carried on to hit leg stump. It was both poor shot selection and poor technique.
Amongst the mayhem of the collapse, not one of the wickets were lost whilst playing off the BACK foot. Indeed. I did not see a properly played back foot stroke either defensive or attacking against any of the four spin bowlers employed by the Indian team. I read a reported comment from team manager Andy Flower saying that there were shortcomings in “picking the length and movement of the feet” which are of course the “sine qua non” of playing slow bowling of any kind at any given time. Without waiting to assess length before moving back or forward there is little hope of success against quality spinners on a turning pitch.
Watching slow motion replays of many current batsmen, with exaggerated early backlifts, flexing of the knees and major foot movements back and forth – BEFORE the ball has even left the bowler’s hand makes me wonder how they ever survive at all.
The very best of batsmen against slow bowlers base their whole strategy on playing BACK to every ball unless they can fully reach the ball to drive on the half-volley – and that means getting their foot to the pitch of the ball. I hate to think how far adrift Trott’s front foot was from this basic precept. I simply cannot remember the great Gary Sobers ever playing a defensive stroke to a spinner other than back in his crease. His game plan was to force the spinner to bowl quicker and pitch it further up – until he had the chance to drive it safely.
I like to take some credit for the excellent record of Graham Thorpe on turning pitches. On an A Tour to Sri Lanka I saw him lunging forward and struggling on a slow turning pitch. I persuaded him to play back to every ball in a practice session, only looking to score from short of a length balls. He was a very adept pupil and never looked back from that moment on. I recommend this simple lesson in batsmanship to all and sundry – and I hope that our current England players are not too proud or stuck in their ways to give it a try.

The "New" Wentworth

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Tue, 31 May 2011 18:16:38 +0100

I was glad to hear one or two critical opinions about the changes made to the West Course at Wentworth. I have played it once, courtesy of the Wentworth directors. For their generosity, I remain grateful. But I found some of the changes distressing: not because they made some of the holes much more difficult but because the essential nature and look of the course had been hacked about in such an ugly way.
Most of the controversy has surrounded the eighteenth, but, oddly enough, I have no grouse with it at all. There were two eagles made by brave souls late in the fourth round: on the other hand Westwood and Donald took the safety first route. All well and good. There seemed to be plenty of drama for the punters in the hospitality areas. It seemed fine to me.
Ian Poulter disliked the new greens and bunkering at the 9th and 12th and Paul Casey too. To those I would add the 16th. It was such an innocent looking short par four with just the one fairway bunker on the left but it was a classic risk and reward hole. Feeling good you might reach for the driver – just a touch nervous and maybe a three iron. It certainly took it’s toll and there were not all that many birdies as I remember. By putting in more fairway bunkers, the driver is no longer an option with everyone hitting rescue clubs or five woods for position. Then you turn the corner and are faced with a raised green, only half the flag stick showing and nasty looking bunkers glaring at you. The approach shot cannot be played by eye so the visitor has to check all sorts of yardage information to have a hope of a decent result. The pros have all that info to hand but it is not golf the way it was meant to be.
I wonder too at the problems of upkeep with all the new bunkering and the reshaping of the putting surfaces. I remember last year, the owner Richard Caring saying that he wanted to ensure that the course retained it’s reputation as the finest inland course in the British Isles. Mr Sepp Blatter said “Crisis – what Crisis?” I say “Reputation – what Reputation?”. No course can bear such a claim if it is not kept to the very highest standards, at least most of the time. When I played soon after last years PGA, the greens were pretty ropey and at the short tenth, my ball was plugged on the downslope of the right hand bunker. That is not the stuff of any “best” course. And I do not recollect the Wentworth Course ever heading any of the various top hundred lists which appear from time to time in magazines.
I understand that a visitor will pay a green fee well in excess of three hundred pounds – quite a hit for the chap who tells his mates that he will pop in the shop and pay for all four. It must take hours and hours for even a reasonable handicap golfer to get round. Is it all worth it just to ensure that a winning score in a Championship is three or four shots more per round?
The only course I have played where increased difficulty has been achieved whilst retaining the charm of the original (SottoGrande New) lay out is Valderrama. This is done by the relatively simple expedient of having small, slopey greens – so that when you get out of position, it is the devil of a job to keep the damage down to a single shot. For the sake of the original architecture of Wentworth, I hope that somehow it matures and starts to look again a little more like it’s former self.

Seve Ballesteros

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:14:51 +0100

Some thoughts at the death of Seve Ballesteros.

I never actually played with the great Seve. I was lucky enough to play a good deal with Gary Player. I had a round with Nick Faldo. I played in pro-ams with Lee Trevino and Sandy Lyle. Back in the dim and distant past, I played with Ryder Cuppers Eric Brown, Dai Rees and others of that generation. Bad luck, really, to miss out on the inimitable genius of the swashbuckling Spaniard from Pedrena.
But I loved to watch him and followed him all the way round in one of the match play events in the Autumn at Wentworth. Gone were the days of wild hitting and miraculous recoveries. This was the mature champion who hit the ball long and straight as well as tidying up with high quality chips and putts.
It was closely fought with Seve one up playing the par five 17th. His Japanese opponent Aoki, always so immaculate in tailor made trousers, missed the fairway right. Then he mishit to the right again. Seve was on the edge of the green for two, closing in for the kill. But he was robbed by a chip in and then a long putt against him at the eighteenth.
Come the following year, I happened to see the Ladbrokes odds in the Sporting Life. Twelve to one Ballesteros was on offer which was irresistible. I withdrew £500 in cash from the bank and called in at the Ladbrokes branch in Acton. I asked for £400 at 12 to 1 and £100 a place. “Just a minute , Sir” was the answer as the manager checked with HQ. “You can have £200 at 10 to 1 and no place bet” was the sneaky response. So I stomped off in high dudgeon without a bet of any kind.
Come the competition itself and plans were well advanced to go on holiday to France with Mrs Dexter but as the day of departure drew near it was apparent that Seve was going very well. Obviously I had mixed feelings, half of me wanting him to lose, the other half wanting him to win to prove my judgement right. But how on earth could I find a TV in France with the coverage?
My devious streak came up trumps with the idea of a romantic week end in Jersey as a stopover on the way. Which is how I came to watch him at his majestic best, winning the Final comfortably while I silently suffered the pangs of the frustrated gambler without a sniff of the £5000 pounds that might have been.
It was in practise for the next matchplay that there was further evidence of his superb control in that period of his career. One of the Sunningdale assistants had popped over to Wentworth and was lucky enough to catch Seve setting out on his own. He was given a courteous nod of assent when he asked if he might tag along as a lone spectator. Nothing was said for 16 holes until Seve called the young man over on the 17th tee.
“This tee shot is unfair” he said “ I show you”. He hit three drives: the first straight down the middle: the second tight to the out of bounds on the left and then the third with a lovely long draw into the left half of the fairway – all nominated beforehand. They walked down to find all three balls within a few feet of each other, but all in the right hand rough. “You see. It is not fair”. End of golf lesson!
One of my favourite golfing books is titled “The Masters of Golf” by Dick Altman and Ken Bowden. It is right up my street because every golf swing of the champions from Vardon through to Ballesteros is described at length and in meticulous detail. Incidentally, I once asked Henry Cotton who was the best ball striker he had seen in his long life and close acquaintance with so many of the great players. “Harry Vardon” he said without hesitation. But that is bye the bye.
The eulogy on Seve is 16 pages long as opposed to 12 on Tom Watson and only 10 on Sam Snead. Surprisingly perhaps, in view of Seve's reputation for wild shots, his swing mechanics are described as the nearest to perfection of all these great champions.
“A truly superb grip”: “Retaining perfect balance and stability”: The striking part of the action is about as good as there ever has been”: “Truly, this is a one-in-a-million golf swing and a golf swing for the ages”.
This all begs the question i.e. why did all this excellence not last him longer into the mid and late forties? He had back troubles but he is not the first golfer to endure that particular misery. I am sure that Freddie Couples could tell us all about that and yet he is back now hitting it straight and true.
Perhaps the intensity of his determination to compete simply burned out his nervous system. Or were the insidious effects of the brain tumour which killed him affecting his whole being long before the problem was diagnosed?
None of that matters now. What we will all remember is his spirit and personality which lit up the world golfing scene for so long.

Hibernation

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:19:31 +0100

A friend mailed me as to any reason for the total blank on my blog since early January. My only excuse was lack of inspiration when the England Cricket Team careered off the rails after the glorious Ashes victory. Time may tell a story of two very ordinary teams doing battle earnestly enough but at a modest skill level. When you compare England’s World Cup batting strength (or weakness) compared with the more successful teams, there are clearly questions to be answered.
So my inspiration has come not from cricket but from the riveting golfing entertainment from Augusta, Georgia. I was lucky enough to play there every day over a long week-end some 15 years ago which makes the TV coverage that much more interesting.
One of the many delights of that visit was having my very own caddy for the period of my stay. There was no requirement to let anyone know what time we wanted to tee off. We just turned up ready to play and, as if by telepathy, there were the caddies ready to go.
Playing off the members’ tees off a 2 handicap, i was able to hit most of the fairways and greens but then the trouble started. 3 putts and 4 putts were the norm despite my caddy giving me the lines. There were downhill fast putts but then there were flattish putts which seemed twice as fast again. Puzzled, I asked my caddy about the “grain”. “Sure there is plenty grain here Sir. If you don’t know the grain – forget it” came the ready answer. And yet I have only heard the word grain used once in about 16 hours of commentary from all the experts. Intriguing.
My other particular interest arose from my pre-Masters selection of Luke Donald as the likely winner. My reasoning was that, even with the lengthened holes, all the players were long enough to hit the par fives in two. That the days of picking someone who could hit long high draws off the 2nd, 10th and 13th holes were over. It was going to be down to the short game and finding someone who could hole those chilling 8 footers day after day.
And yet the current leader, Rory McIlroy is the master of the long high draw and has used it to good effect. And he has certainly missed as many 8 footers and possibly more than anyone in the field. How come he could stay on top of the leaderboard? Even if he was clearly the best iron player.
It suddenly dawned on me that there may be the little matter of the change in the permitted groove profile on the pitching clubs starting to have exactly the effect it was designed to produce. The man who was hitting the most fairways and greens was getting his reward because the less accurate guys were unable to spin the ball out of hairy lies and get the ball up and down from anywhere.
Arguably the best “scrambler” in the world is/was Podraig Harrington. Tiger Woods, and Phil Mickelson are two others that come readily to mind. None of them has shown much form since the “groove” change. Could Jose-Maria Olazabal have possibly won two Green jackets under the present regulation? Who knows?
Events over the next few hours of the 4th and final round may well kick my theory into touch. But if Rory wins, he will be the first to do so for many a year- since Jack Nicklaus perhaps - by simply striking the ball better than anyone in the field.

Subtleties of the Greatest Game

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:23:27 +0000

It was after a round of low quality, high scoring golf (my golf) that I found myself trying to explain cricket to a Croatian called Vladimir over a comforting glass of wine. I was supported by a Dutchman, Matt who knew the bat and ball game well and together we were able to agree on two unique facets of cricket as compared with similar games, and with baseball in particular. Such are the arcane trivia bandied about in the cosmopolitan Cote D’Azur to pass the time.
The paramount importance of the Captain was one. The option for batsmen to score through 360 degrees was the other. Comparing a “fly ball” with a thick edge over gully was comparatively simple. Explaining the importance of the cricket CAPTAIN compared with football or rugby or, indeed baseball, was a whole lot harder. I am not sure whether they even have Captains in baseball.
So I want to describe the circumstances surrounding just a single ball in the Sydney Test in the hope that something of the complex role of the cricket captain can be understood – even by Croatians, perhaps,
It was in the Australian teams first innings, after their Captain had won the toss and decided to bat first. It was the last and decisive 5 day Test match of a 5 match series. Both teams still had everything to play for.
Losing their regular Captain and most experienced batsman Ricky Ponting through injury was already a major blow to the home team even though, to the surprise of some, Ponting was to be seen busying himself around the dressing room. Was Michael Clarke, happy to have his predecessor in such close proximity? Did the two of them agree on the decision to bat first when there was at least a strongish counter argument? The England Captain, Andrew Strauss had won the toss and bowled first in the previous match and won handsomely. Ponting in sole charge might well have done the same in Sydney: but advising a first timer to do the same might have been to blight his career prospects as leader if the plan backfired. There is even a time honoured saying in cricket that it might be "a good toss to lose" This is simply shorthand for avoiding resposibility.
As the match progressed to a final crushing victory by England it was clear that the decision by Clarke/Ponting to bat first on a more than usually green and well grassed pitch was incorrect. The idea that the surface would respond to spin or be subject to uneven bounce later in the game turned out to be a false assessment. The England spinner, Graham Swann, who is no mean tweaker of the ball, barely got a single ball to deviate, taking just one lower order batsman’s wicket during long spells of bowling on the 4th and 5th days of the match.
So I have already blundered my way through a few paragraphs on vital aspects of Captaincy and that is before a ball has been bowled. Of course the Captain – or Captains in Australia’s case – would have made their wishes known to selectors in the make-up of the team which included two debutants, Khawaja and Beer. The presence of these two, and a debutant Captain to boot, hardly boded well.
Fast forward to a few hours into the first day's play. The young Khawaja, a stylish left-handed batsman was impressing the TV commentators and ex-player pundits with his technique and poise. The ever probing cameras strayed to his anxious parents sitting in the stands watching their son bat with the expectations of all Australians resting on his shoulders. His mother’s reactions varied from covering her face, as though unable to watch, to putting her hands together as in prayer. They were indeed anxious moments.
Now the notoriously fickle Sydney weather threatened to intervene with darker clouds and the imminent prospect of rain. Andrew Strauss, who has a far more phlegmatic approach to captaincy on the field than leaders of other national teams, now quietly took control.
Against the run of play, he called up his slowest bowler Graham Swann and took his time in setting his fielders. There was only one close catcher on the off-side. Three balls passed with Khawaja happy enough to defend efficiently. Now Strauss intervened again, spending time talking to Swann, increasing the tension before posting a second close catcher on the leg side.
Khawaja reacted immediately to this new threat with a sally down the pitch. All the time he was aware that a leg-side boundary fielder was no longer in his normal position but nearer, leaving the boundary undefended. The 5th ball was again defended but giving the close catchers the impulse to crowd a little nearer.
Just as a fly fishermen needs to place the lure softly and invitingly in front of the hungry but also wary trout, so was it imperative to bowl the perfect ball to invite Khawaja to accept the bait. Unlike the trout Khawaja did not have the option of simply ignoring the invitation. The ball rose higher in the air and would therefore bounce a little higher. He had to play the ball with his bat.
But there is as ever in cricket only a split second to make a decision. A wiser, older head may have known that the “dead bat” option was the percentage play. A youthful brain, fuelled with more testosterone, may naturally trigger a more positive response to danger. Alas! For Mrs Kawajha, who peeked from between her fingers only to see her darling boy take a risky swish toward the open country, miscuing a gentle catch to the fielder posted exactly for such a stroke.
As the young batsman dropped his head in disappointment and set off on the slow walk back to the dressing room, so the rain began in earnest and all the actors followed him off the stage and into the wings. I could write in a similar vein about most batting dismissals with the team Captain intimately involved in the planning thereof. I desist in the hope that I have already whetted the appetite of the non- believers in the mysteries and intricacies of the Greatest Game. I say to my friend Vladimir – come along for the ride – there are riches galore to be gained but a hell of a lot to learn along the way.

Melbourne victory

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:00:24 +0000

As the tumult and the shouting dies, it may be worth looking back at the crucial phases of play that ensured the brilliant England victory at Melbourne.
It was a handy toss to win, but a “gutsy” decision to bowl first – after the same ploy came nastily unstuck at Perth. Well done Andrew Strauss. But who could have imagined the Australians collapsing to 98 all out, a record low at Melbourne in Ashes history? Six catches by Matt Prior deservedly brought attention to his high quality of keeping throughout the series.
Then the gods really smiled when the combination of heavy roller and a burst of sunshine combined to produce the easiest batting conditions of the whole match for openers Cook and Strauss. They took full advantage and virtually sealed the fate of the Australians by the close on the first day.
Then the phlegmatic Jonathan Trott played one of the great Ashes innings to ensure that there would be no possible salvation for the home side. He adopts the technique common to so many of the very best batsmen whereby he scores the bulk of his runs on the leg side. It means that he always has the line of the ball well covered with any edges sliding off the inside of the bat into the second line of defence i.e. his pads.
Even so it still seems preposterous to allow anyone to score 70 – 80 percent of their runs in a relatively small arc without taking suitable stop gap measures. Rather than asking the bowlers to change their normal line of attack, surely it makes sense to shift the field according to the batsman. If you can force the Trotts of this world into changing their style, it is at least some kind of a victory even if it is not always immediately rewarded with their wicket.
He clearly frustrated the opposing Captain, Ricky Ponting, culminating in the final indignity of his argumentative episode with umpire Aleem Dah. He got off pretty lightly with a fine which neither dents his bank balance very much nor really deters other like minded Captains from following suit. The first lines under the Fair and Unfair Play section in the Laws include the placing of responsibility squarely with the Captain to ensure that the game is conducted “not only within the Laws but within the Spirit of the Game”. A suspension cannot have been far away.
There was a moment in the Australian second innings when a major rescue act seemed just possible. England had bowled for over three hours with only a run out to show for their efforts. Watson 50 not out, Ponting 20 not out – if either could do a Jonathan Trott there was still a glimmer of hope. Then came the dramatic spell of swing bowling by Yorkshire’s mister dependable, Tim Bresnan with the three prize victims, Watson, Ponting and Hussey. The selectors must take a bow here for selecting him ahead of England’s leading wicket taker Finn.
I was interested to hear Watson’s take on what happened. He thought that the rougher pitch conditions at Melbourne compared with the previous venues made the ball “reverse” swing earlier than usual, when it was still hard enough to do damage.
One area where this England side has been the best I have ever seen is in the close catching. They make some of the slip catches look so routine that we will need to rethink the old adage that there is no such thing as an ”easy” one off the outside edge. Add to those some of the brilliant ones by Collingwood and Swann and they seldom gave any of the Australians a second chance.
Now England faces the ultimate challenge of winning the Series outright in Sydney. My side in 1963 was hoping to do just that and we were thwarted by a dead pitch and an outfield so slow that that there was barely a boundary the whole of the first day. It had rained for a fortnight before the match making it impossible to get the mowers into action. It would be a rotten shame for the same sort of outcome this coming week but the forecasts are sadly discouraging.

Australian revival

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:58:30 +0000

So where did it all go wrong? Was it just the predicted unpredictability of both sides? Or was England suffering from misplaced feelings of superiority after the substantial Adelaide victory? Probably a bit of both.
Things started to unravel for Andrew Strauss halfway through the first Australian innings. The first problem was that in a four man, three fast bowler attack, you cannot afford any passengers. And there was clearly something amiss with Finn from the start. He was scratching around with his footmarks after his first over and was not running in freely. Then he forgot the cardinal rule which is not to get carried away by the high bounce of the Perth pitch by bowling too short. Gone was the intense discipline that Broad provided at Adelaide, even when he wasn’t taking wickets. Australia got at least 80 too many runs in that first day.
Then it was Australia’s turn with the ball and they made the most of the conditions. They bowled quicker, swung the ball more (not least because they bowled a fuller length) and had the extra bowler on a pitch to suit. But there was a frailty about the England batting against good pace, much of it due to unsuitable techniques.
In the first innings, two of our first seven, Collingwood and Prior were definitely bounced out – to use the normal dressing room vernacular – possibly Trott too. Collingwood narrowly avoided a very quick throat ball from Johnson and was then hopelessly late on the next ball – looking for another short ball, a cardinal sin. Prior was guilty of trying to get away to the off side as an evasive tactic before he knew the line of the ball (as was Ricky Ponting in the second innings): another basic failure of technique.
There has been a sea change in dealing with short pitched bowling ever since the advent of helmets. In pre head-protection days, batsmanship at Test level was virtually determined by the ability to hold your nerve against “bouncers”, to keep your eye on the ball, to make a last split second move, usually to the off side, letting the ball slide past your cheek and over your shoulder. Those who remained sideways provided a smaller target and moved laterally more easily. Those who batted more “square” to the line of the ball got caught with nowhere to go and took many a blow to the body. The late Ken Barrington was one such – brave as a lion but unable to avoid the consequences of the way he played.
Come the helmet and the old precept of “always keep your eye on the ball” became a thing of the past. Even such a prolific run scorer as Graham Hick was a head turner and must have been hit on the back of the helmet enough times to have spent months in hospital without the protection. Ducking down and throwing the shoulders backward are further variations. It amuses me that the current crop of TV commentators pay lip service to the old precepts but they mention them “en passant” as though they are of little importance. Only when you see Michael Hussy bat, embracing all the long established essentials, are you able to spot the difference compared with others less accomplished – on both sides.
Coming to the matter of batting techniques generally, there are a number of departures from classical principles, none of which seem to produce better results. There is the top hand round the back of the handle. There is a fashion for walking round the ball for a defensive back stroke (Trott and Smith) and there is a general disease of squaring the shoulders. The common denominator is evidenced by the feet finishing with toes pointing up the pitch and, in the process, there are always signs of the bat coming down from off to leg. Finally there are all the different “pick-ups” with the closed face low position prevalent (encouraged by the poor grip).
Special mention has to be made of Pietersen in this context because he is more unorthodox than most. I had never thought to see a fully committed front foot player achieve so much at Test level. They say that there are always exceptions from the norm and he certainly qualifies for that description. But let’s look at his two dismissals on 0 and 3. In the first innings he missed a leg stump inswinger to be lbw – so far so normal but he was only just in and was playing a full bloodied swish to leg. Too dangerous by far.
Then in the second he was struggling to find a place to score. He is used to playing straight bat forcing shots on the rise on the off-side but the higher bounce at the WACCA ground makes that both difficult and dangerous. His get-out waft outside the off stump looked dreadful but it is something he gets away with regularly when the bounce is lower.
Now you may understand why I get such a kick out of watching Test cricket. In my mind I analyse the bowling and batting techniques involved for every ball of a match. Some would say that such little things only please little minds. OK, I plead guilty but it is a pleasing little world to live in and does little to contribute to the sum total of human sadness.

Aftermath of England Victory at Adelaide

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:01:29 +0000

There was one line of commentary from Adelaide that summed up the plight of the Australian team. Nasser Hussein provided the following pithy insight. “Xavier Doherty was picked to get Pietersen out. But they can’t get Pietersen IN to get him OUT.” Of course when they did eventually get him in, Pietersen went on to his highest ever Test score which sealed the match for England. So much for my doubts about the Pietersen technique and resolve.
I remember a newspaper quote after Pietersen secured the Ashes at the Oval in 2005` with a swashbuckling 150+. The scribe introduced a whimsical footnote after all the plaudits wondering whether Pietersen had already played the finest innings of his England career. Until last week this assessment was proving uncannily accurate but I would put his Adelaide innings in the same bracket as that at Oval.
It was hard to fault England at any stage through the five days. They caught everything, they fielded slickly, including two sharp run outs and bowled to a plan. What more could a Captain wish for. There was only one possible missed opportunity that struck me.
It was well into the Australian second innings during a fairly ordinary spell of bowling by the tall right arm Finn. As a variation against the obdurate Hussey he gave it a try from round the wicket and immediately beat the bat a couple of times. He did the same in his next over before even the commentary box woke up to the fact that, for the first time in the match, the Kookaburra ball was starting to reverse swing.
I expected Strauss to pick up on this possible lifeline with a change of field, an extra slip or at least something to make the batsman think and have to reassess. An option was to give the toiling Swann a breather and see if Anderson could get the same movement. In fact Strauss just took Finn off as though nothing had happened. I know that Raymond Illingworth would have done no such thing.
Going back to the Australian plight, you only have to see their selections for the Perth Test to realise how limited their options are. It was no surprise that Mitchell Johnson was dropped after Brisbane but to bring him back so soon is a desperate measure. I was surprised that they dropped Hilfenhaus and he deserves to be back. I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually play four fast bowlers hoping for a repeat of Headingley 2010. If they do I trust that Strauss will bowl first if he wins the toss.
Losing Broad is the last thing that England wanted and he will definitely be missed despite his lack of wickets in the first two matches. What he provided was really good control going for less than three an over whilst shouldering his full share of the workload. Tremlett is the logical replacement.
The possible pitfall for the two very tall men, Finn and Tremlett, will be to bowl too short on the livelier Wacca pitch. When they see the ball bounce shoulder high through to the keeper there is a tendency to shorten up just for the fun of seeing the ball fly. They will need good advice and good discipline to get their length right.
Already there has been a huge improvement in these basics by the England attack. When I did my selection stint in the early 90’s, I made a habit of counting the number of balls that “MIGHT” have hit the stumps in the first hour on the field. That I never reached ten was a damning indictment. I can’t say that I have been religiously ball counting this Series – considering that it is more a case of when I wake in the night when I get to watch – but I am pretty sure that there would be at least double the tally.
The rather lack lustre England showing against Victoria should have a sobering effect on the dressing room, which may not be a bad thing. There is much hard graft yet before any idea of keeping the Ashes can be assured.

Goings on at the Gabba

nospam@example.com (Ted Dexter) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:07:52 +0000

I got one or two things right in my Ashes preview and one or two laughably wrong. I was not expecting great things of Ponting and Pietersen and so it turned out. I had sung the praises of Michael Hussey (195) in a midsummer piece. On the other hand my faith in the lower order England batting, Prior (first ball) Broad (first ball) and Swann was just a trifle misplaced!! Swann’s bowling was a disappointment too but he will have plenty of opportunities to put this lack lustre effort behind him.
I also wrote disparagingly of Mitchell Johnson and he had a very poor game. Even when the pitch was green on the first day he made no impression and got worse as the match progressed. Another symptom of his lack of confidence was the way he batted. With 450 runs on the board already, it was the perfect moment to swing the bat and deliver the final thrust. There are few people who can fulfil that role better than Johnson and he was fresh from making a hundred in a Shield match. I was expecting fireworks but he never lit the fuse.
I thought the commentators missed the point about the first day’s play. They made light of the way the pitch played and kept repeating a mantra of too few runs from England in the first innings. The ball swung, seamed and also turned. Some of the short stuff actually broke the surface. This was no ordinary first day pitch by any stretch of the imagination. Which is why I was pretty sanguine about our chances, even when Australia went past 400. If our bowlers were not taking wickets, they were still bowling tidily and, in the context of all the runs scored later on it was a great effort to knock over Australia’s last 5 for 30 runs.
So we come to the record breaking batting of Strauss, Cook and Trott. Handsome is as handsome does and I have no intention of belittling their achievements. However they were a bit lucky to have Mitchell Johnson out of form and rooky spinner Xavier who looked for all the world like any number of club bowlers on view every week in parks all around the world. Oh! My Shane Warne. My Derek Underwood. My Murali.
Two cricketing buffs in this part of the world were also a bit taken aback when I pointed out that neither side had a batsman who would currently get in a world eleven and possibly not in a world second eleven. And this rather damning comment was born out by the ICC Test Batting Rankings – led by Sachin Tendulkar, of course – which listed no Brit or Aussie in the first 15 spots: apparently the first time such a thing has happened in all Test history.
I watched Strauss and Cook batting either side of lunch on the fourth day and was actually quite surprised at the number of false strokes being made: missed sweeps, sallies down the pitch without reaching the pitch of the ball and one total miscue of a pull shot by Strauss which lobbed up gently over cover. Sky shows replays of missed chances. It would be interesting to see the run of the mill errors as well.
It will also be interesting to see what the Rankings actually make of this plethora of runs because the mathematical formula used to evaluate one innings against another takes note of the attack you face, the runs per wicket throughout the match and is less generous in a drawn match than one with a result. For a long time it was Graeme Gooch’s match winning hundred against the West Indians at Headingly that ticked all the boxes and held top spot. i.e. runs made against highly rated bowlers in an otherwise low scoring match and being on the winning side. The fact that he was captain as well made the innings all the more memorable.
So the caravan moves on to Adelaide. It was the great New Zealand batsman Martin Crowe who put a neat twist to the old saying about death and taxes being the only certainties. Crowe added “and a hundred at Adelaide”. We shall see. Four years ago Collingwood made a double hundred but England still lost. If he does it again it is hard to imagine a repeat result with these Australian bowlers.