Newly-promoted Leeds United have been told to bring in Jose Mourinho for Daniel Farke as the German is just a "Championship manager".
Article continues below
Article continues below
Article continues below
| Follow GOAL on WhatsApp! 🟢📱 |
Smash and grab. Robbery. Whatever you want to call it. The result will show a 1-0 win for Liverpool and that’s all that matters, with Paris Saint-Germain’s first-leg dominance counting for little in the end.
Let’s face it, this was not vintage Arne Slot football, but with grit, fight – and a fair bit of fortune – the Merseysiders got the job done at the Parc des Princes, with this Champions League tussle now finely poised ahead of next week’s return tie at Anfield.
Such an outcome had looked unlikely for much of the encounter in the French capital, in truth, with the Ligue 1 leaders boasting 71% possession and totalling 27 shots in all, albeit while fashioning just three ‘big chances’.
Up against the heroic Alisson in the visiting goal – and with Ibrahima Konate escaping an early red card for a barge on Bradley Barcola – the Parisien giants simply couldn’t find a way through, having been ultimately punished at the death as substitute Harvey Elliott pounced to hand Slot’s side the advantage in the tie.
It was perhaps apt that on a night in which the likes of Mohamed Salah toiled, it was two men on the fringes who combined to put the Reds ahead, with Elliott meeting Darwin Nunez’s pass before calmly slotting past a sprawling Gigi Donnarumma.
That last-gasp strike certainly helped to spare a fair few blushes it must be said, as did the titanic display of the aforementioned Alisson in between the sticks…
Alisson's game in numbers vs PSG
It would have been easy to assume that the Brazilian was nearing the end of his time as Liverpool’s first-choice stopper, with injuries having handed able deputy Caoimhin Kelleher a far more prominent role in recent seasons, while the club also stepped up the succession plan with the astute signing of Giorgi Mamardashvili last summer.
90 minutes played
9 saves
1 punch
2.26 goals prevented
4 saves inside the box
44 touches
57% pass accuracy
10/22 long balls completed
4 clearances
9.4 match rating
On the evidence of Wednesday night’s showing, however, Alisson is going nowhere fast, having showcased a timely reminder of his undoubted quality after producing a string of standout saves in Paris.
The former Roma man notably denied Ousmane Dembele and the lively Barcola on the hour mark, before also keeping out Khvicha Kvaratskhelia’s fizzing free-kick just after the break.
Among nine total saves for the 32-year-old was also another world-class stop to prevent Desire Doue from opening the scoring late on, with Liverpool’s number one having been a one-man wall at times up against the rampant hosts.
As such, while Elliott may have been the matchwinner it was Alisson who deservedly stole the headlines, with such an eye-catching performance having helped to cover up the woes of those ahead of him.
The Liverpool duo who could be on borrowed time
If Alisson proved to be the major positive for Liverpool on the night, then Slot won’t have to look far to find the key negatives, with the visitors’ attacking unit looking particularly blunt across the 90 minutes.
Performance in Numbers
Those woes – which saw the Reds record just two shots in total – were epitomised by the performances of both Diogo Jota and Luis Diaz, with neither man looking up to the task in the forward line.
In the case of Jota, the Portuguese marksman was hooked just after the hour mark having been restricted to just 30 touches in total, having also lost the ball on 11 occasions and won just three of his 12 total duels.
Branded with a 5/10 match rating by Liverpool World’s Will Rooney, the former Wolverhampton Wanderers man maintained his lengthy goal drought which stretches back to mid-January, having now netted just eight times in 26 games in 2024/25 to date.
Meanwhile, it was a similar story for Diaz on the left flank, with the Colombian speedster also handed a 5/10 rating by Rooney after looking rather off the boil prior to his late withdrawal, a fact encapsulated by his return of just 28 touches.
The former Porto winger also failed to register a single key pass and also lost 50% of his total duels, with Reds supporters likely to be eagerly awaiting the return of Cody Gakpo from his recent injury absence.
As broadcaster Nubaid Haroon noted, both Diaz and Jota looked to be “hiding” in the final third, with it coming to the stage in which Slot may wish to consider whether the pair can be selected alongside each other again.
FSG now ready £30m offer to sign "brilliant" star for Liverpool this summer
Liverpool are on the hunt for some exciting reinforcements once the window opens.
BySean Markus Clifford Mar 5, 2025
Ange Postecoglou faces a make-or-break Europa League final as his Spurs future seemingly hangs on one night in Bilbao.
Article continues below
Article continues below
Article continues below
Spurs reach Europa League final after 5-1 aggregate winPostecoglou dismisses critics, says league form irrelevantRobinson: Ange's job depends on final resultFollow GOAL on WhatsApp! 🟢📱WHAT HAPPENED?
After a 2-0 second-leg victory against Bodo/Glimt in Norway, Tottenham have secured a spot in the Europa League final, achieving a 5–1 aggregate semi-final win. Goals from Dominic Solanke and Pedro Porro in the Arctic Circle set up a showdown against their Premier League rivals, Manchester United in Bilbao on May 21. But while major silverware is at stake, so too might be Ange Postecoglou's future with the club. Spurs' Premier League performance has dropped and they find themselves in 16th in the table. Nevertheless, the story is different in Europe, where Postecoglou has led his side to the brink of ending a 16-year trophy drought.
AdvertisementAFPTHE BIGGER PICTURE
Throughout the campaign, Postecoglou has come under growing scrutiny. Injuries have wrecked his team, but Spurs' domestic decline has raised doubts about his long-term future. Former Spurs keeper Paul Robinson now thinks the Europa League final will determine the club's season, which goes hand-in-hand with their manager's future.
WHAT POSTECOGLOU SAID
Postecoglou came out swinging after reaching the final in Norway, striking back strongly at those who have mocked or insulted Spurs' European success.
"It's going to upset a lot of people isn't it," he said, according to . "The debate's now raging. The latest one is that neither of us will be able to get a trophy if we win — they're just going to take a team photo because we're not worthy."
The Spurs boss dismissed the idea that league form should diminish their achievement.
"Who cares if we're struggling in the league? It's a separate thing. It's got nothing to do with league form. I couldn't care less who's struggling and who's not. I think both us and Manchester United have earned the right to be there."
Given Spurs' season, many have also asked whether winning this trophy would even matter. Postecoglou, however, made apparent its significance.
"I've said all along that this is important. What's happening now is people are fearing that — that it actually might happen, and let's see how we can tear it down somehow… by saying it's been a poor season and we don't deserve this or that, or somehow comparing us to Man Utd.
"Maybe if we had Man Utd's success then maybe I'd have a different view. So of course it's massive. You have to frame it against what this club has been through over the last 15 or 20 years and what the supporters have been through. We've given them some real hope and something to dream about — that we can do something special this year."
WHAT PAUL ROBINSON SAID
Former Spurs goalkeeper Paul Robinson added fuel to the fire with a stark assessment. "If Tottenham don't win, he won't be in charge next season,” he told. "Ange Postecoglou's whole season and Tottenham career depends on that one result."
The second season to have an extra game; each team to also sign a rookier player, aged 22 or under, who has never played in SA20 before
Firdose Moonda14-Jun-2023The second season of the SA20 will see one additional match – a mirror of the IPL’s knockout phase – and a salary purse increase of R5.1 million (USD 276,000 approx) – per team. That takes the total number of fixtures to 34, with each side playing the other five teams both home and away before the knockout stage. Instead of two semi-finals and a final, as was the case in the inaugural edition, the SA20 will have two qualifiers and an eliminator before the final.Each of the six teams can contract an additional player, bringing the total squad size to 19. The additional player must be a South African rookie, who is 22 or younger and has not played in the SA20 previously.These changes have been made after what league commissioner Graeme Smith told ESPNcricinfo was a debut season that “exceeded expectations across the board,” and with a view to growing the league “in a way that benefits South African cricket.”Related
SA20 2024 starts on January 10, will clash with Test series in NZ
SA20 2024 mini-auction to take place in Johannesburg on September 27
T20 leagues: ICC mulls hard cap of four overseas players in XI
Justin Ontong named head coach of Paarl Rocks
Smith envisages a “mini-auction” towards the end of September 2023 and no major changes to the franchises, most of whom contracted local players on two-year deals. “The position around that was that we wanted the fan base to get to know their teams,” Smith said. “And that was one of the major successes we had in season one – how fast fans got behind their teams. But with teams also getting to know South African cricket, you want a bit of space to manoeuvre and so we expect some South African players will move between franchises.”To accommodate that, an official trading window for South African players opened on June 1. Teams can pre-sign, trade, buy-out or retain players until the end of July when the SA20 will have a full audit of the squads and plan for the auction.There is a mixture of one and two-year deals for international players contracted to the SA20 and there is also expected to be some movement in that area, albeit likely before the auction. Teams will be allowed to pre-sign four overseas players in their squad, an increase by one from the last edition. This means that players who were unavailable previously can be contracted even before the auction. There will also be the opportunity to contract a wildcard player as was the case last season.The inaugural SA20 was a roaring success•SA 20With some player movement likely, teams will need to dip into the extra salary allowance, which has gone up from R34 million (USD 1.84 million approx) last season to R39.1 million (USD 2.1 million approx) for the edition. The organisers feel the extra incentive will allow squads to “attract the best talent” and help assemble “powerhouse squads”. Smith foresees another big auction ahead of the third season.In total, each of the six teams is required to have a minimum of 11 South African players in their squads. On match day, the teams can field a maximum of four overseas players and a minimum of seven local players.The inaugural SA20 season was a roaring success in South Africa, which saw Sunrisers Eastern Cape crowned as champions. The second season will be played in the same January window in 2024 and could also see some changes to the playing conditions.After the SA20 became the first league to allow teams to name 13 players at the toss and whittle that down to 11 afterwards, it is now mulling whether to keep that or explore an IPL-style Impact Player Rule instead. “The committee will debate strategies on how we think the game can move forward,” Smith said. “The regulations today are related to squad composition and how teams can build their squads and we will look to other matters in the months to come.”
This match was lost in its first half hour, irrespective of “positives” Root says can be gleaned from the wreckage
Andrew Miller11-Dec-2021Eleven Tests, ten defeats and a draw, and scarcely a whiff of an upset in any of them. Since their last series win in Australia in 2010-11, England’s record Down Under has been abysmal – so poor, in fact, that it was hard to feel especially moved by the totality of this latest loss at Brisbane.When a side has slumped to 11 for 3 inside six overs after choosing to bat first, it’s hard to muster much more than a shrug of recognition when the same outfit squanders its final eight wickets in an unseemly rush for the exits. This match was lost within half an hour of its beginning, irrespective of the “positives” that Joe Root, England’s captain, is adamant can still be gleaned from the wreckage.”We’re game-hardened now,” Root said, after England’s Covid- and rain-wrecked build-up to the first Test. “We’d not had that going into it, so we’ll be better for it. Those guys that have not experienced [the Ashes] before know what’s coming now, and sometimes that [next] game coming around quite quickly is exactly what you need, to get straight back out there and put things right.”Related
The opening act: Rory Burns is off, way off
Hobart to make men's Ashes debut as fifth Test hosts under lights
Australia romp to nine-wicket win and 1-0 lead
'Huge asset' Cameron Green gives glimpse of his bowling impact
Nathan Lyon savours the reward for his toil but is ready for more
It’s not that Root does not have a point. With the ball, Mark Wood and Ollie Robinson were outstanding in contrasting yet complementary ways, while Root’s own reaction to his first-innings duck was reassuring confirmation that the world’s No.1 batter has not mislaid his touch in the four months since his last competitive outing. His partnership with Dawid Malan was in-game evidence of the strides that this team can make, while Haseeb Hameed and Ollie Pope are among a cast of players who may feel better orientated for their incomplete displays.And yet England, by dint of their glaring inadequacies in Australian conditions, have now set such low expectations that all manner of bouncing dead cats could be mistaken for signs of an impending recovery – maybe even Rory Burns’ triumph in avoiding a king pair, a feat he achieved by avoiding the first ball of the innings for only the fourth occasion out of 264 in his first-class career. Even then, he had to rely on the lottery that was the Gabba’s technology back-up to overturn an lbw verdict two balls later.No amount of marginal gains from first innings to second can disguise England’s current run of 11 Tests – and 11 years – without a victory in Australia. It is a longer run of failure than they managed even in an era commonly recalled as the team’s nadir – the ten-Test stretch from January 1987 to January 1995, which began with Mike Gatting’s Ashes-winners being spun to defeat at Sydney by an unknown debutant Peter Taylor (whom legend has it owed his call-up to a case of mistaken identity) and ended with an extraordinary win against the head at Adelaide – one of those glorious 1990s flashes-in-the-pan that somehow made all of the team’s other indignities worthwhile.In between whiles, those indignities included Graham Gooch “farting against thunder” during a supine 3-0 loss in the “Tiger Moth” tour of 1990-91 – a series in which England managed to take a first-innings lead in each of the opening two Tests, only to then lose them by ten wickets (at the Gabba, natch) and eight wickets respectively. Thereafter, Shane Warne’s supremacy opened such a baffling new dimension in Ashes combat that England could hardly be blamed for taking an entire generation to work out how to play him.Rory Burns trudges off after a second failure•Getty ImagesThere’s no such mystery about Australia’s dominance these days. They have a mighty roster of fast bowlers, and a spinner in Nathan Lyon with sufficient guile to claim 403 Test wickets and counting. And while Steve Smith is a freak of nature who had been averaging 120 in Ashes Tests over the past four years, he’s still not quite Don Bradman – on whose watch England’s record barren run in Australia was recorded: 12 Tests (punctuated by a World War) between 1937 and 1951.Some might counter that Australia’s recent record in England isn’t so flash either. They haven’t won an Ashes series there since 2001, which – on the face of it – goes to underline the suspicion that home advantage is half the battle won in modern-day Test cricket. And yet, that doesn’t square with Australia’s impressive haul of four wins and a draw in their last ten away Ashes Tests.Nor does it square with the fact that there has been just one truly close contest, home or away, since Australia launched their 5-0 whitewash at the Gabba in 2013. Ben Stokes’ miracle at Headingley in 2019 was precisely the sort of heist that encouraged the fallacy (and everyone bought into it to a greater or lesser degree) that there could yet be a twist to this latest tale, despite all reasonable Test-match precedent stating that, when a team trails by 278 runs on first innings, there’s really no hope of salvation.But it’s an addictive narrative nonetheless, and one that England were leaning on during the summer as well, when they lost two series on home soil for the first time since that aforementioned Ashes summer of 2001. And yes, we know that – technically speaking – the India series isn’t over yet. But anyone who witnessed England getting mangled at Lord’s and The Oval knows where the balance of power lay going into the fifth Test at Old Trafford.Everything about England’s Test cricket at present is focused on the individuals within fronting up and giving more to the cause – be it Stokes, only just returned from the abyss after fearing his badly mended finger might prevent him from playing ever again – or more recently Root, on whom English cricket’s every expectation is currently piled. The moment he failed to reach his elusive maiden century in Australia was the moment that the scales fell from the optimists’ eyes. This year’s monstrous haul of 1544 runs at 64.33 could grow larger still at Adelaide and Melbourne, but even Root’s lifetime best hasn’t been able to prevent England from losing seven and winning one of their last ten Tests.But miracle-working is a tenacious narrative – just ask the Bible’s publishers. For Root in this contest, and Stokes in general terms, read James Anderson’s recall under the Adelaide lights next week. While there’s individual brilliance in England’s ranks, there’s always reason to believe that the collective can surge as one. But just don’t look too closely at Anderson’s overall win-loss record in Australia. Nor, for that matter, at the England Lions’ batting card in their unofficial Test against Australia A, which is taking place just down the road. The rot, it seems, is set deep into the system, and not simply restricted to those who’ve been outgunned at the Gabba.
Ireland needed just 18.3 overs on day five – with threat of rain looming – to close out the game
Ekanth10-Feb-2025Rain was the biggest threat Ireland faced when they came to the Queens Sports Club on day five. But in 18.3 overs, they wrapped up the one-off Test against Zimbabwe with a 63-run win. They needed to create seven chances for the last three wickets, and in the process completed their first hat-trick of Test wins in their ten-match history. It is the earliest point any team has earned a hat-trick of Test wins, bettering South Africa, who needed 14 matches.Matthew Humphreys converted his overnight four-for into a career-best 6 for 57, with Andy McBrine – his spin-bowling partner – closing out the game by knocking over Richard Ngarava with the new ball.Wessly Madhevere, Zimbabwe’s last ray of hope, battled through 195 balls for his 84. When his outside edge was beaten and stumps rattled by a quicker length ball from Humphreys, he could not drag himself out of the field, covering his face with his bat in despondence as the game was effectively done.The day started 30 minutes earlier than scheduled with 37 overs lost on day four. Humphreys, who had bowled 18 overs to stumps, was handed the ball. He needed three overs to create a chance – when he got Madhevere to nearly chip a drive to cover – and one more ball to trap Newman Nyamhuri plumb in front and complete his five-for.McBrine replaced Mark Adair right after and created two chances in his second over, both of which went down. Lorcan Tucker dropped one that went low off Richard Ngarava’s edge, while McBrine failed to hold onto a low skimmer the next ball. In the next over, Paul Stirling shuffled to the right at first slip when Madhevere’s reverse-sweep went aerial but couldn’t get within reach.Ireland took the new ball in the 81st over and McBrine found extra bounce with it right away. The sun broke out but Zimbabwe’s hopes flickered off in the 84th, when Humphreys got Madhevere, his sixth scalp.Blessing Muzarabani had put on 67 for the last wicket in the first innings with Trevor Gwandu, but to put on 74 with Richard Ngarava was too much of an ask. Ngarava hung around for 39 balls and took a couple of swings. He was beaten in the 86th over and knocked over in the next.McBrine flighted a full ball on middle stump, beat the slog sweep, and set the smiles free in Ireland’s camp. When asked about the hat-trick of wins at the presentation, Ireland captain Andy Balbirnie said, “Just waiting for the DVD to come out! We are desperate to play, we don’t know when our next Test match is.”As per the FTP, they are scheduled to play Afghanistan at home in July.
Shakib Al Hasan has said that he is unlikely to travel to Dhaka, the venue of the upcoming first Test against South Africa, because of protests against him in the city. Shakib was included in the Bangladesh squad for the first Test, which was going to be his final appearance in the format.”I am not sure where I am going next, but it is almost sure that I am not going home,” Shakib told ESPNcricinfo via WhatsApp.Shakib had earlier expressed concern about his safety if he came to Bangladesh, given the number of Awami League leaders being arrested since August 5, the day their government effectively resigned from power after 15 years. Shakib was a member of parliament from his hometown Magura. He was one of 147 people named in an FIR for an alleged murder during the unrest.Shakib, however, remains in the Bangladesh squad for the first Test according to chief selector Gazi Ashraf Hossain. He said that they haven’t received any further instructions from the BCB about Shakib. On Wednesday when announcing the squad, selector Hannan Sarkar said that they picked Shakib after getting a “green signal” from the authorities to select him.”We haven’t received any further instructions from the BCB or the cricket operations committee. It is a paused status at the moment. He is in transit in Dubai,” Ashraf said.While Shakib had reportedly been assured safe passage into Bangladesh, students started protesting his imminent arrival from Wednesday evening. A group recognising themselves as “Mirpur Chhatro Janata” informed the BCB that they will protest Shakib’s appearance in the stadium. Late into Wednesday evening, Shakib was reportedly asked to wait in Dubai where he was transiting from New York. Although Shakib’s flight is on Thursday evening, he is unlikely to come to Dhaka.Meanwhile, the chief adviser’s deputy press secretary Azad Majumder said that the decision is up to Shakib to return to the country. “Shakib can return to Bangladesh anytime. It’s his decision whether he will arrive here or not,” Majumder told ESPNcricinfo.According to , Youth and Sports adviser Asif Mahmud said in a statement that he had advised Shakib not to return home to ‘avoid untoward situations’.”I have advised Shakib not to come [to Bangladesh] to avoid any untoward circumstances. This decision was made to ensure the safety of players and to protect the country’s image,” Asif said.
After the hype and anxiety, the Oval’s curtain-raiser lives up to its billing
Valkerie Baynes21-Jul-2021Waiting at the station in deepest, greenest Surrey for a train to The Kia Oval, a young woman walked onto the platform in a vibrant royal blue shirt, clearly the kit of some sports team. Could she be a London Spirit fan, off to heckle their crosstown rivals or simply see what this Hundred thing was all about?As she came properly into view, so too did the unmistakable sponsor’s logo followed by the mental connection which features prominently on page one of Marketing For Dummies. Within a split second, a young boy, aged no more than four, gleefully exclaimed: “Chelsea! A Chelsea top!”It was difficult to imagine any of the eight Hundred teams receiving such recognition. Yet, that is the organisers’ dream and, presumably the point of the tournament, and I was not yet at the ground.Disembarking at Vauxhall a young man and woman could be overheard. Him: “Instead of 120 balls, it’s 100.” Her: “Oh, cool.” Encouraging, although they were travelling in the opposite direction.Upon arrival, there was the familiar buzz of any well-attended cricket match, slightly surprising given the hype surrounding the first-ever match of the Hundred, between Oval Invincibles and Manchester Originals. The demographic filing in early were also the same as you’d see at any other fixture.Becky Hill plays through the pyrotechnics at the Kia Oval•AFP/Getty ImagesOnce inside, apart from the fluorescent pink-and-green branding we’d become so familiar with, splattered across the advertising hoardings, commentary pod and players’ entrance/exit and a funky looking stage with DJ Abbie McCarthy doing her thing, this was cricket at The Oval.The crowd – far from the 28,000 capacity but healthy all the same at 7,395 – appeared largely made up of families enjoying a balmy summer evening together. And then there they were, a smattering of Oval Invincibles shirts on spectators of various ages, a couple of Southern Vipers – really? Yes, it wasn’t the stewards, even though they looked the same. And a lone London Spirit shirt on a bloke in his 20s.The hum of conversation turned to cheers when the fireworks started to signal that the match was imminent. And so to the cricket.As a matter of historical note, the first ball was an all-South African affair, Marizanne Kapp bowling to Lizelle Lee after Manchester Originals won the toss and chose to bat. Again for the record, it was a leg-side wide which Lee failed to pull away and Sarah Bryce fumbled behind the stumps. But hey, this tournament had a false start when it had to be postponed last year so what’s another on a minor scale? Kapp’s second attempt was a full ball, swinging away, which Lee left.Lee provided some fireworks of her own, well, flame-throwers which greeted her six fours in a knock of 42 off 39 balls, the first cracked through midwicket and the second threaded through mid-off and celebrated with a blast of by Wiz Khalifa ft. Charlie Puth to warm applause from the crowd and players alike. But it was the players who enjoyed a stellar evening.As a showcase for their sport, this contest, which Invincibles won by five wickets with two balls to spare, was perfect. It was close, the international players were at the forefront and the action was easy to follow live. The only thing that seemed remotely tricky to navigate as an observer was the presentation of the scores, a matter of graphics rather than format.Related
New and weird, but a strangely satisfying experience
Isa Guha on the Hundred: 'The BBC can play out to the masses. I think it will cut through'
Kate Cross: 'The cricket is the cricket, it will take care of itself'
Katherine Brunt on Women's Hundred pay row: 'Equality doesn't happen overnight'
The use of bowlers was fascinating and full of potential from a tactical perspective. Kapp bowled 10 balls straight, claiming the wicket of Emma Lamb with her seventh, Invincibles needing to call upon the DRS – a new feature for domestic cricket in England – to have her caught-behind dismissal confirmed.Tash Farrant, who conceded nine off her first set of five – including those first two fours by Lee, didn’t reappear until ball 71 when she had Lee holing out to Grace Gibbs at cover for the first of her three wickets.Just when it felt like the one thing lacking was a shot to clear the rope, Cross advanced down the pitch to Danielle Gregory and thumped a six over long-on. Sophie Ecclestone obliged in similar style off Farrant a short time later before she was stumped on the next ball, the 99th of the innings.Cross finished not out 12 from four balls. Then, with her side defending 135, Cross, who took an ODI five-for against India last month, claimed three wickets in seven deliveries and the hosts looked in trouble.It was a 75-run partnership between Kapp and van Niekerk that kept Invincibles in the hunt. Then van Niekerk was ably supported by Villiers, who struck a six off fellow England spinner Ecclestone to reduce the hosts’ requirement to eight runs from eight balls. Villiers drew the scores level with a four and a single, leaving the rest to her captain, for whom the win clearly meant a lot.Whether the eight teams become household names remains to be seen, but organisers couldn’t have hoped for too much more as a starting point.
A look at how ODI cricket before 2005 approached the question of risking wickets efficiently to score the highest possible total
Kartikeya Date07-Jun-2019Limited-overs cricket, in the form of the Gillette Cup in 1963, came about due to a perceived crisis in attendances for County Championship matches in England in the 1960s. By the end of the 1960s, international cricket was similarly in crisis. The D’Oliveira affair had led to the cancellation of South Africa’s 1970 tour to England. Apartheid South Africa were banned from the international game. Consequently, only six Tests were played worldwide in all of 1970. When the first three days of the Melbourne Ashes Test which began on the last day of 1970 were rained out, the authorities decided to abandon the Test and instead hold a single-innings match between England and Australia with 40 eight-ball overs per innings. This was the first one-day international.The four-innings game is one of control, where the bowlers try to dismiss batsmen who try to avoid being dismissed. Scoring rates and dismissal rates in that format have remained more or less stable over more than a century. Periods where teams have tried to score quickly have also been periods where wickets fall more quickly. The contest between bat and ball is optimally balanced in the four-innings contest.In contrast, the limited-overs game is a contest of efficiency. Given a certain number of deliveries, how efficiently can a batting side risk its wickets to score the highest possible total? Similarly, what kind of bowling attack is best equipped to restrict opponents to the smallest possible total, given a certain number of deliveries? Over the 48 years since 1971, different answers have been offered to these questions.The graph below shows the batting average, dismissal rate and economy rate in ODI cricket history, with increments of 200 matches as markers. ODI teams’ quest for efficiency has meant that while a wicket fell every 40 balls and roughly four runs were scored per over in the first 200 ODI games, in the most recent 200 ODI games, the corresponding figures are 35 balls and five runs per over. Broadly, ODI teams today are prepared to “spend” a wicket every six overs instead of one every seven overs in the early days, and to produce an extra run every over compared to the early days. Another way to think about this is that while batting teams spent between seven and eight wickets on average over the course of their allotted overs in the early days, today they spend between eight and nine wickets on average.These changes have not come about evenly. Nor have they been only a consequence of players learning to think differently. The ICC has, especially in recent years, updated the rules governing the ODI game several times to modify the incentives available (especially) to batsmen. The consequences of these rule changes are evident in the record. The history of limited-overs cricket has been the history of a continuing quest for an elusive equilibrium.Since its inception, and especially since administrators felt compelled to treat the game as a cash cow rather than as a sport that needs to produce an income in order to thrive, the ODI format has struggled with striking a balance between being a contest and being exciting. Creating a predetermined finite length for each team innings (be it 65, 60, 55, 50, 45, 40 or 20 overs) creates peculiar, often perverse, incentives for bowlers and batsmen. The imperative to provide excitement and entertainment meant that rational competitive choices made by batting and bowling sides in circumstances where there was too little time to provide the bowling side with the leverage to attack the batsmen produced stalemates – especially in the middle of the innings, when batsmen had an incentive to keep wickets in hand and bowlers had an incentive to keep the run-scoring in check with a ball that was no longer new. Ultimately, this stalemate is what led to the Powerplay era.Runs and balls per wicket and runs per over, through ODI history•Kartikeya Date/ESPNcricinfo LtdIn the early years, ODIs were considered secondary to the main event of Test cricket on international tours, and as a consequence, ODIs were infrequent. The 200th ODI was the opening game of the 1983 World Cup. The tournament marked the elevation of ODI cricket into a format on its own terms. The first 200 ODIs took just over 12 years. The next 200 took only three. By 1994, over a hundred ODIs were being played each year. The high point of ODI cricket was in the run-up to the 2007 World Cup, just before the emergence of T20.West Indies dominated limited-overs cricket in these early years. They had an outstanding attack and the best limited-overs batsman in the world by some distance. By the time Viv Richards played his final limited-overs game, in May 1991, he had compiled 6721 runs at an average of 47 and a scoring rate of 90. The average middle-order batsman scored at 70 runs per hundred balls during the first 20 years of ODI cricket. Richards was ahead of his time in a way no batsman has since approached. Every other top limited-overs middle-order batsman of his era scored at a rate between 65 and 78 runs per hundred balls faced. Saleem Malik and Zaheer Abbas were exceptional in that they scored at a rate in the mid-’80s. Kapil Dev scored at a run a ball, which he achieved at the cost of consistency, compared to Richards: he averaged 21 runs fewer than Richards per dismissal.ALSO READ: Is Kohli up there with Richards and Tendulkar as an ODI batsman?Openers tended to be even more cautious. They scored at a rate between 50 and 70 runs per hundred balls faced during those first 20 years. This was the orthodoxy of the time, borrowed from first-class and Test cricket, in which the new ball was respected and the role of the batsman early in an innings was to preserve their wicket so that the middle-order batsmen could make hay when the conditions were more favourable. This was the logic of control operating in a contest of efficiency. The operating question was not “How do we spend the ten wickets we have over 50 overs most efficiently to produce the highest possible total?” Rather, it was “How do we ensure that we preserve as many of our wickets for as long as possible?”The first great theorist of the international limited-overs game was Bobby Simpson. It is debatable how much of his reputation was due to Australia’s success in the 1987 World Cup and how much of expertise was the basis of that success. Simpson was Australia head coach for nearly a decade, a period that included three World Cups. In his book , published in 1996, Simpson laid out his three-point theory of ODI cricket:1. The team that scores at a run-a-ball wins nearly all its games.
2. Australia would target 100 from the first 25 overs, and a run a ball thereafter, including at least 60 in the final ten overs.
3. Wickets in hand were essential for the final 15 overs of the innings.As plans go, this was a succinct statement of the advanced orthodoxy of his day. Simpson also held that batting teams should target 100 singles in 300 balls, and bowling sides should try to keep this figure down to two figures. Keeping wickets in hand for the final 15 overs was a popular idea. The premise was that while a game could be lost in the first half of the innings, it could not be won.Imran Khan and Javed Miandad manned the Pakistan middle order in the middle overs to set the table for Saleem Malik and others (including, later, Inzamam-ul-Haq) to score quicker in the last few overs of the innings. Sachin Tendulkar reported that when Ajit Wadekar and Mohammad Azharuddin sent him up the order in New Zealand in 1994, Wadekar told him that he expected India to reach 100 by the 25th over.Simpson presented the thinking in his day in the form of an explicit plan. It allowed him to persuade his team to improve their ground fielding because this helped with keeping the number of singles down. It made thinking about efficiency possible by creating avenues for improvement.The big problem still lay with openers. This was the central tactical innovation of the 1990s.The graph below shows the scoring rates for openers and Nos. 3 and 4 through the history ODI cricket, with increments of 200 matches as markers. The scoring rate of openers began to catch up with that of the middle-order engine room by the mid-1990s. If considered by year, 1996 was the first year in which ODI openers scored quicker than the batsmen batting at three and four. The evident inefficiency in the 1980s approach to opening the batting (and the use of wickets as resources to be spent more generally) was addressed in three ways during the 1990s. Two of these were successful, the third was arguably not.Batting strike rate in ODIs through history•Kartikeya Date/ESPNcricinfo LtdThe first approach, which is arguably the best known, was to take advantage of the fielding restrictions imposed during the first 15 overs of the innings (a legacy of Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket) by granting a licence to one or both openers to chance their arm. Romesh Kaluwitharana and Sanath Jayasuriya, a wicketkeeper and a spin-bowling lower-order batsman, did this most famously for Sri Lanka in the mid-’90s. Jayasuriya went on to become one of the outstanding limited-overs openers of all time.Martin Crowe’s New Zealand side of 1992 is often heralded as a path-breaking ODI team. They opened the bowling with the offspinner Dipak Patel and the batting with a pinch-hitter, Mark Greatbatch, who had a great World Cup in that role. He made 313 runs in seven innings at 88 runs per hundred balls faced. After the tournament his form fell away and he made only 909 further runs in his ODI career, at a strike rate of 65. Greatbatch’s World Cup success might be considered to owe as much to form in home conditions as to his approach. Krishnamachari Srikkanth, for instance, made 248 runs in seven innings at a strike rate of 83 during the 1987 World Cup, well above his career rate of 72 runs per hundred balls. During their brief purple patches at the top of the order, Srikkanth and Greatbatch demonstrated that it was possible for the opener to take advantage of the fielding restrictions.Pinch-hitting was not the only approach to exploiting inefficiencies in the first half of the innings. A second approach was based on the idea that, given an innings lasted only 50 overs, it made great sense to ensure that the best batsman in the side had the opportunity to face most of those overs, since he would exploit those 50 overs most efficiently more often than any other player. This meant that the best batsman in the side – typically the one who batted at three, four or five in the Test batting order – would open the batting in the limited-overs side. Inzamam and Brian Lara were sent up to open the batting under this theory, as were Mark Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar. Contra Simpson, the reasoning here was that given only 50 overs, there was no point in protecting the best batsman from the new ball, as one would in a Test match.The third, and most common approach, was the conventional one. It involved using the Test opener as the limited-overs opener. The majority of ODI openers in the 1990s were also Test openers. They had mixed success as Test and ODI openers, but played in both formats as openers.ALSO READ: The three phases of Sachin Tendulkar’s ODI battingTendulkar was the outstanding opener of this period. He was as far ahead of his contemporaries as Richards was in his day. No player could match the speed and certainty of his run production. Virender Sehwag, Jayasuriya, Adam Gilchrist and Shahid Afridi scored quicker than Tendulkar, but this cost them at least ten runs in batting average compared to him.To illustrate this, consider that Tendulkar’s average contribution as opener was 49 in 55 balls. The next best player was arguably Gilchrist, whose average contribution was 36 in 38 balls. If you prefer consistency to power, then the next best player was arguably Lara, whose average contribution was 47 in 63 balls.The chart below shows the records of Richards and Tendulkar relative to their contemporaries. Richards’ record spans a career of 167 matches. The first 15 years of Tendulkar’s record spans 241 matches.Kartikeya Date/ESPNcricinfo LtdThe table below lists all ODI openers who scored at least 1500 runs at the top of the batting order from 1990 to May 2005 (when the Powerplay era began). The pinch-hitting openers are in green, the best-player openers are in blue, and the conventional openers are on a white background.
The pursuit of efficiency was not limited to the batting side of things. Teams were considering how to squeeze out more runs from the batting order. This led to the keeper-batsman becoming an increasingly valued figure. India took this idea as far as it could go by relying on Rahul Dravid to keep wicket so that they could play the extra batsman.The bowler who could hit the ball hard also emerged during this period as a specialist limited-overs allrounder. Chris Harris, Abdul Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood, Lance Klusener, Nicky Boje, Ian Harvey, Brad Hogg, and Shahid Afridi built an identity as players of this sort, distinct from their success (or lack of it) in the Test team. Others like Shaun Pollock were world-class all-format allrounders.This tendency to look for players who could contribute with the bat, in addition to their primary skill as a bowler or wicketkeeper, had an important consequence. It created bowling attacks in which nearly half the bowlers were picked with one eye on their ability to bat. This meant that bowling attacks were no longer capable of challenging batsmen’s defences for most of the 50 overs. Teams would try to take wickets with the new ball if the conditions permitted, and then with a great spinner or first-change fast bowler (Allan Donald was the best example).But beyond that, the name of the game was restriction. Once the field-setting constraints were lifted after 15 overs, the game settled into a pattern where the batting side was content to milk the bowling and accept whatever uncontested runs might be offered by the spread-out field (unless the bowling was rank bad), and the bowling side was content to keep a lid on things. The bowlers would be accurate but generally non-threatening. (Kumar Dharmasena, now a distinguished Test umpire, was a great example of this type of bowler.) With resources saved up, batting sides would then attempt to explode during the last 10-15 overs of the innings.This stalemate came to be known as the “middle-overs problem”. In 2005, the ICC decided to change the rules to try and disturb the stalemate. Over ten years from 2005 to 2015, the rules were changed frequently in pursuit of the perfect formula that would sustain excitement.The first team that dominated ODI cricket had batsmen whose job was to bat and bowlers whose job was to take wickets. When opponents got to face Richards or Larry Gomes when batting against West Indies in an ODI innings, this was viewed as a respite from having to fight for survival. Absent such depth in bowling, teams decided to compromise. Specialist bowlers and batsmen gave way to allrounders. This produced a contest in which neither batsman nor bowler felt the need to look for more than that which was being offered by the opponent. The ICC’s efforts to tackle this will be the subject of the second part of this essay.
Fiscal discipline and open communication will be the key to reviving cricket in the country, says the Zimbabwe Cricket consultant
Liam Brickhill03-Apr-2019The last year was not a good one for Zimbabwe cricket. The national team fell four runs short of qualifying for the 2019 World Cup, and Zimbabwe Cricket came very close to being suspended from the ICC soon after – had it happened, it would have been ruinous for the game in the country.Zimbabwe will not be at the World Cup, but Vince van der Bijl, the former South African fast bowler who was hired as a consultant by ZC last year, believes that there is now “a viable game there” as ZC continues to claw its way back from the edge of the abyss.Van der Bijl’s appointment took place as the cash-strapped organisation attempted to formulate a path through multiple challenges, with Zimbabwe being put on notice for suspension from the ICC ahead of the annual conference in Dublin in June 2018. By September, though, ZC was said to be “in survival mode”. Now, an optimistic van der Bijl believes that Zimbabwe’s future could still be bright, but a lot of work remained to be done for that to happen.
The proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating. They’ve got to keep their costs below their income, and ensure the schools are continually feeding talent into the gameVINCE VAN DER BIJL
“ZC have to show the ICC, which I think they will, that cricket is a viable option and that their strategy is absolutely viable and will produce cricket of an international standard,” van der Bijl told ESPNcricinfo. “And so right now we have a viable game there. And the proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating. They’ve got to keep their costs below their income, and they’ve got to ensure that the schools are continually feeding talent into the game.”Ahead of last year’s ICC Annual Conference, ZC were mired in a $ 19 million debt, having lost out on what would have been vital revenue from a place at the World Cup. Incoming ICC funds were being drained by the servicing of debts, and cricket in the country was stagnating. “So the ICC said, and bless them for doing this, that we don’t want to lose this heritage and legacy of cricket in this country,” van der Bijl explained. “Because 15 years ago, it looked very strong. So they gave certain parameters.”Foremost among those was a roadmap for ZC to find its way out of crippling debt, and for that the board needed help from Zimbabwe’s government. “And the government came to the party. The government froze an amount, paid all the creditors that were due, and dropped the interest rate from a very high interest rate to 6.5%. So that all made it viable for the operation to work properly.””But obviously ZC has to produce cricket of an international standard, and have structures in the company which are going to continually feed that into the future,” van der Bijl added. “So there are challenges. Like any company in an operation that’s going through provincial management for example, when they’re close to bankruptcy they have to do certain things. And it takes courage. It takes courage.”Vince van der Bijl at an ICC Cricket Committee meeting with Andrew Strauss (L) and David Kendix (R)•Getty ImagesIn order to keep a drip feed (or “controlled spending”, as van der Bijl put it) of ICC funds coming in, ZC had to trim both its administrative staff and the number of teams in the domestic competitions. The national academy side, Rising Stars, was dismantled, the domestic season was abridged, and various austerity measures implemented as the organisation sought to keep losses out of the way. It hasn’t been easy.The 2018-19 season featured just 12 first-class matches, with one match postponed and two abandoned completely after increases in the price of fuel and rising hardship sparked civil unrest around the country. A rare trip to India that had been scheduled for March was also postponed, while a visit from Afghanistan was called off over ZC’s inability to have the games screened live on television. With Zimbabwe on a five-month hiatus from international cricket between their trips to Bangladesh in November and UAE’s tour in April, most of the national squad was available for the domestic season, but even that was truncated.”It’s really important playing club and, in particular, franchise cricket as that’s the build-up to the international stage,” wicketkeeper Regis Chakabva told . “As players we always want to play more games but unfortunately this season has been really short for us. Nothing beats game time and hopefully the administration resolves that next season.”For van der Bijl, that the domestic season still went ahead despite all the challenges was a positive sign. “I think the domestic game was successful this year,” he said. “Even though they had four, rather than five, teams,” he said. “So the academy infiltrated into the other franchises, which meant the youngsters were playing with experienced, old bulls who could feed information and give them the experience, which I think happens in cricket around the world. So that side was good.”As far as I’m aware, the finances have been within their controlled spending. An MD (managing director) is imminently going to be on the ground and announced quite soon I think, and that will be the final chip. Things are going according to plan, but it’s going to require fiscal discipline and open communication with the players, and everyone understanding where they fit in the game.”The work that’s being done, I think, is the work of this open transparency with the players, everyone understanding the strategy. It’s the modern way of running a company. Gone are the days where you have a dictatorial chief executive who just tells everyone: this is the strategy, this is the mission, this is your team song. This is about collaboration. I believe in collaboration and connectivity totally.”