Women's cricket goes global

The history of women’s cricket is traced back to a quintessentially English occasion - a contest between the villages of Bramley and Hambledon near Guildford in Surrey. In their reporting of that match, the Reading Mercury commented that ‘The girls bowled, batted, ran and [took] catches as well as most men could’. It may come as a surprise to recent converts that this match took place in 1745, a full 103 years before the birth of W.G. Grace.

Progress in that time has not always been smooth. Although the women beat the men to staging a World Cup, England’s players were demeaningly forced to wear restrictive skirts until as recently as 1997. Meanwhile, the international game has been monopolised by the traditional power houses of England, Australia and New Zealand, who between them share all of the global silverware ever awarded. India have been competitive at times without ever winning a trophy. Those outside this clique have often looked short of class. That was true as recently as the previous World Cup in 2009, when none of the lesser teams got close to causing anything describable as an upset.

However, times are quickly changing. The ongoing World Cup in India has seen plenty of promising performances, and  even more compelling characters, emerge from the less established nations.

It is worth dwelling on Sri Lanka’s efforts. The team was not formed until 1997, and despite quickly overtaking Ireland and the Netherlands, had not beaten one of the top four in thirty attempts before this tournament. Last time round, in 2009, they finished dead last after being bowled out for 75 by South Africa in the 7^th place play-off. Now, just four years on, they have smashed their highest ever ODI total by thirty runs and pulled off the highest ever run chase in Women’s World Cups against two of the tournament favourites. The one game in which they were Dottined by West Indies aside, on the basis of the tournament so far there is little reason to believe that they couldn’t reach the final.

Dottined? That is a reference to Deandra Dottin, dubbed as ‘the female Chris Gayle’. Many male players would love to call on her hitting ability, which is second to none in the women’s game. But she is not even West Indies’ brightest star. That is Stafanie Taylor, who at 21 already has four ODI centuries, 70 wickets and has been nominated for the ICC’s Cricketer of the Year. Like Sri Lanka, West Indies were unheralded until recently. But they are now a genuine threat to any international outfit.

There is strong correlation between the introduction of de facto full-time contracts and the evident improvement in the teams benefiting from them. In Sri Lanka modest contracts, linked to the military, were launched in 2011 and players now receive a match fee. This allows the players to focus on their cricket virtually full-time without having to worry about bringing money in through other means. This has also been seen in the West Indies, whose key players are on annual retainers. Although Pakistan are yet to enjoy real success they now have more contracted players than any other nation, and themselves hit their highest ever World Cup total in the 7^th place play-off against India. It is only in recent years  that even the top teams started receiving remuneration: until 2005 Claire Taylor, one of England’s greatest batters of all time, had to combine her cricket with a job in I.T. Thus, it is an indicator of the pace of progress that even those boards that we could traditionally accuse of apathy towards the women’s game are making a sizeable investment.

But why has it taken so long? I’d argue that the absence of media coverage hindered women’s cricket for a long time. The 2009 event was the first World Cup to receive a global telecast (contrast that to tennis, where the Wimbledon ladies’ singles final has been televised for decades). The presence of cameras has allowed fans, and perhaps just as importantly administrators around the world to challenge their prejudices about the women’s game. This development has been paralleled by a substantial increase in coverage in newspapers, in magazines and online. As a result success and failure are increasingly visible, meaning that those responsible for the development of the game can no longer afford to be an embarrassment.

The ongoing World Cup has already been the most competitive women’s international cricket tournament of all time, and with the continuing improvements in funding, exposure and facilities the global spread of the game can be expected to continue. If one thing has already been proved it is that now, just as in 1745, women around the cricketing world can bowl, bat and take catches just as well as most men can.

Stability returns to England squad as they head to NZ

Following a period of relative instability, the England selectors reverted to form in making few changes to the side that toured India ahead of the forthcoming three-match Test series in New Zealand.  

Nineteen players were called up to India at one point or another, and that group has been culled back to the normal fifteen. Stuart Meaker and James Tredwell, brought out as cover, miss out whilst Eoin Morgan, who also didn’t play is dropped. Samit Patel, who is yet to play a Test outside of Asia, has also been excluded. None of these should be viewed as surprise moves. In a slightly less anticipated move Tim Bresnan was omitted, with Chris Woakes, who has been playing first-class cricket in New Zealand, called up. Although Bresnan’s place ought to have been in doubt anyway, following an average year since returning from elbow surgery, the selectors insist that the reason for his absence is to allow further assessment of the elbow.

From the XI that played in Nagpur, nine can expect to start at Dunedin. All being well the returning Steven Finn and Stuart Broad are likely to replace Bresnan and the unlucky Monty Panesar. Some would question Broad’s return after a poor show in recent Tests, but it was only 12 months ago that he starred in the toughest of conditions against Pakistan, and this series should be a perfect opportunity to rediscover his rhythm – if he can make himself fit. Graham Onions will again be unfortunate to be on the sidelines and if injuries occur will likely be the man to step up in conditions more likely to suit him than in India.

There may also be some debate over the opening position vacated by Andrew Strauss at the end of last summer. Nick Compton’s contributions were critical in setting a platform for the middle-order before Christmas, but Michael Vaughan believes that Joe Root should be promoted. That move would, however, be extremely harsh on Compton who should get the chance to prove that he’s more than just a blocker. Meanwhile, Root seems to be relishing his role in the England middle-order – a role which he might just be able to nail down better than Morgan or Jonny Bairstow have.

The adjustments to the one-day squad, curiously named some time back but now seemingly ripped up and selected again, are perhaps more significant.

The decision to axe Craig Kieswetter is likely to mark the end of the wicket-keeper’s international career: although he is still just 25, there are a number of younger batsman who ‘keep just as well as him. Whilst he has had his moments, this England side don’t like mediocrity and that is what has ultimately cost him. His immediate successor at number six will be either Bairstow or Kieswetter’s Somerset team-mate Jos Buttler. Although Bairstow has more ‘keeping experience in the professional game, Buttler has looked perfectly adept when given the gloves thus far. A shoot-out in the warm-up games and T20s may eventually dictate who takes up what is something of a poisoned chalice.

In another change Jade Dernbach will not be going to New Zealand. The Surrey paceman has struggled with control so far in his international career, and probably needs to spend some time with his county. James Harris and Chris Woakes have been called up, despite the fact that neither of them generally excel with the white ball.  However, as swing bowlers they might enjoy New Zealand, and can be no worse than Dernbach, who is the most expensive ODI bowler of all time.

In both formats of the game England will be big favourites. England’s ODI XI will be stronger than that South Africa fielded against New Zealand, and conditions will suit England’s gameplan more than they did in India. Meanwhile, there is a clear gap in quality in the long form of the game, where New Zealand lack depth, quality and confidence.

Why six-team Test divisions is not the answer

In the wake of South Africa and Australia’s crushing Test series wins over New Zealand and Sri Lanka there have been renewed calls for the introduction of a divisional structure for the longest format of the game. Some justifications for these calls are more convincing than others, and little indication is often given for how it could work in practice. Perhaps the most workable (though, as we will see, in my view nonetheless undesirable) solution is put forward by Tim Wigmore, and it’s his proposal - http://third-umpire.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/how-six-team-test-championship-would.html - that I will refer to in the course of this article. I will argue that, for a variety of reasons, a two-divisional structure is unworkable. However, my position is in fact not that far from Tim’s, and the international schedule that he proposes is quite similar to my optimum schedule.

Rationale

The primary rationale for the two-tier solution put forward by Tim is that it will provide ‘context’. This is a fairly reasonable thing to wish for. It is true that the lower ranked teams in particular are sometimes left with few long-term objectives in the five-day game, and that in six-team divisions operating on four-year cycles they would rarely find themselves out of contention for either the number 1 ranking, promotion or relegation. Nevertheless, I do feel that Test series should have enough context to them in their own right: it is some current scheduling issues which often prevent that from being the case. In particular, I believe that teams should play longer series against those that they are closest to in ability. Too often middle-ranking teams such as Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand play each other over two matches, preventing personal battles from developing, and making it difficult for teams to prioritise these encounters.

I also feel that Tim’s proposal to allow teams to arrange series against opponents from outside of their division could undermine the extra ‘context’ provided by a divisional structure. The losses resulting from relegation would be minimised, particularly were one of the bigger teams to go down, and there would also be less to gain from promotion. In the example Tim provides, were England relegated to Division Two they would still play twenty-two Tests over a four-year period against Australia, India and South Africa. Thus, it is hard to see exactly what they would have lost, other than now being forced to play Tests against some of the lesser lights.  Of course, in any two divisional system such a caveat is a necessity: the loss of the Ashes and a number of other encounters could have huge financial implications. However, I feel that a two-divisional system in which teams have a very similar schedule regardless of the division that they play in would be quite weak.

The second reason that Tim advocates a ‘two-tier’ structure is to promote ‘competitiveness’. On this I think the point is somewhat missed. As usual, the finger is pointed at Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for being involved in one-sided Tests. But in truth the number of Tests the pair are involved in is minimal. Bangladesh played just two Test Matches in 2012 (both of which, incidentally, turned out to be interesting games). In fact, since the start of 2010 Bangladesh have been involved in only 14 Tests. They have not won any of them, but they have been competitive for passages of play and the infrequency of their opportunities can’t help them in any way. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe’s return has been confined to four one-off Test Matches. We should not point the finger of blame too squarely at West Indies or New Zealand either. West Indies v Australia was one of the closest fought encounters of 2012, and New Zealand have beaten both Australia and Sri Lanka within the past 18 months. Thus, the vast majority of ‘one-sided’ series have in fact involved established nations: India in both England and Australia, Sri Lanka in Australia, England in the UAE. On this point my conclusion  would thus be that one-sided matches are an inevitability, and would be just as likely to occur in Tim’s two-tier system as in a single-tier system.

Practicalities

As I have said Tim’s proposal is far more likely to work than many other such proposals. However, there would still be issues. Firstly, Test series can’t just be scheduled over night. In England tickets usually go on sale up to a year in advance, and venues like to know which teams will be visiting at least a few years in advance. A divisional system makes that difficult. Secondly, even the best-planned schedules rarely come to fruition. Curveballs like security issues, finances and the IPL have led numerous international series to be delayed, cancelled or re-formatted in some other way. Right now this is only a frustration to the players and supporters. But when Test series are part of a league it would likely cause bigger problems.

Play-off matches

I am a cautious supporter of such matches, whilst not seeing them as either the saviour of Test cricket or that important in the long run. A series of well-marketed play-offs could help with ‘context’ (though this function would be limited, in my view), whilst providing the five-day game with a showpiece occasion outside of the Ashes, and thus open to the other major teams. But I’m not sure that Tim’s suggestion would work. Test grounds outside of England and sometimes (though not always) Australia are rarely full, even when the home team is involved. I don’t believe this is necessarily an indicator of lack of interest, but nevertheless suggests that the play-offs would be unlikely to be well supported. By holding a showpiece occasion without much of an audience, the myth that Test cricket is dying would surely be perpetuated, which would not be good for the game. In fact, it could turn the supposed decline into an actual one.

Promotion of associates

I am a strong believer that cricket does itself few favours by allowing only ten members a place at its top table. This reinforces the idea that the sport is a private members club of former British colonies, and makes life very hard for those below the glass ceiling. Therefore, Tim’s proposal to allow two current Associates to play Test cricket, and to perhaps also allow more teams to aspire to Tests through the Intercontinental Cup is a good one.

From the point of view of those nations that would be promoted I only have a small gripe with Tim’s proposal: the idea that they could return to the Intercontinental Cup should they perform poorly. My view is that this would be a financial disaster for the teams involved, who would have had to make big investments in order to host Tests in the first place. Whilst Test status would not be irrevokable, I would only advocate removing it when performances and administration are truly sub-standard, such as with the current Zimbabwe team.

My proposal

I will now proceed to outline what I would do:

1. All teams awarded Test status would remain in a single division. There would be no obligation for every team to play each other, although over a four-year cycle each established team should play at least eight different opponents in at least in a two match series home and away, including at least eight three-match series and at least two series of four or more matches. This would set 42 as the minimum number of Tests to be played by top teams in each cycle. New teams would be allowed to arrange Tests on a more ad hoc basis, and would not be expected to play a full schedule.

2. Full Member status would be awarded to those teams that, through the Intercontinental Cup, prove themselves to be consistently strong enough (a judgment to be made on the basic of recommendations from the ICC's cricket committee, made up of former and current players from around the world). With this they could play ODIs and could arrange Tests.  The barrier for inclusion would be set at around the current standard of Ireland and Afghanistan, allowing them to play Tests in the near future.

3. The current ICC rankings would be retained. Every two years the top two teams would contest a series of play-off matches for the ICC Test Championship mace (which would no longer be routinely awarded to the number 1). The series would feature three matches: two hosted by the team ranked 1^st, and one hosted by the team ranked 2^nd.

The schedule that England would fulfiill under these changes would in fact not be far  off that which Tim proposes for England were they in Division One. A degree of greater ‘context’ would be provided by the Test Championship play-off, but ‘context’ would be provided more by longer series between closer ranked teams than by this. The cricket world would also be expanded, without the ‘new’ teams facing the same obligations that Bangladesh did when they were ‘new’, and which led to a repetitive  and damaging string of heavy defeats. 

Women's World Cup deserves better than fixture farce

Preparations for the tenth Women’s Cricket World Cup in India have descended into farce, following a BCCI decision to make late changes to the schedule. Just a week before the opening matches new venues have not yet been announced to replace Mumbai’s Wankhede Stadium and MIG Club Ground. As well as undoubtedly affecting the teams as they prepare for a tournament set to be more competitive than any previous ICC women’s event, there is also a great deal of uncertainty for broadcasters. Test Match Special will be broadcasting all of England’s matches live for the first time, and the Wankhede was the scheduled venue for the marquee televised games during the first week. There must now be some question marks over whether the matches will be televised at all.

And the reasons for switching the venues are highly questionable. The Wankhede Stadium is being taken out of use primarily to allow Mumbai to use it for the Ranji Trophy final. Whilst its possible that crowds will flock in to see Sachin Tendulkar playing first-class cricket in his home city for quite possibly the last time, an ICC event which has been in the schedule for years should surely take precedence. Admittedly, the Wankhede was not an ideal venue to be chosen in the first place: for this tournament it would have been best to choose smaller venues which see less cricket, and where attendances might be higher. Meanwhile, there is little sense in the decision to prevent the Pakistan team playing in certain cities. Less than a month ago their male counterparts toured India with no trouble: now it seems that a few unhelpful protestors are being allowed to stop a Pakistani team going to Mumbai.

This uncertainty really isn’t good enough for a global event being hosted in a cricket mad country. In light of recent political developments in India, where the gang rape and murder of a student in Delhi led to mass protests against Indian attitudes towards women, this tournament should have been a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what women can do. The standard of women’s cricket is constantly improving, and on the basis of recent results this will also be the most competitive women’s event in years. England and Australia will as ever go in as favourites, but England haven’t always  been successful in Asia, and Australia’s recent series with New Zealand was close fought. The hosts must also have a chance, possessing Mithali Raj, one of the world’s leading female batters. With her classical style Raj has struggled to make an impact in Twenty20 events, but is one of the most prized wickets in ODIs.

Some people are likely to dismiss the women’s game as a low quality irrelevance amongst the big-hitters of the IPL and the male international game. Of course, it is indisputable that the quality is not the same as in the men’s game. But that shouldn’t stop people from watching and enjoying it. As a prime example of how sport which isn’t elite male sport can be enjoyed, just look at the London Paralympics last summer. After nervously looking in for the first couple of days, people quickly started seeing what the athletes could do rather than what they couldn’t. Whilst the Olympics were always likely to go well, the Paralympics were the success story of the summer, transforming perceptions of both disabled sport and disability in general. The same attitude should be taken towards women’s cricket. Whilst no female player can yet hit the ball like a Chris Gayle or MS Dhoni, or bowl as fast as Dale Steyn, that doesn’t mean that their skills are necessarily any less worth watching. Lydia Greenway fields as well as just about any player (male or female) in the world, Sarah Taylor’s batting is beautiful to watch, and a lot of the spinners on show could teach a few male cricketers a thing or two.

I do believe that this tournament could yet be a big success. If the Indian public can be galvanised to turn out at least for the matches in which the host team is playing it will make the tournament feel like an event - there must be little more annoying for international performers than playing in echoey stadiums in their home country. Meanwhile, with little major international cricket scheduled over the next few weeks the cricketing media, at least in England, are likely to give the tournament some column space. But at the moment the administrators are allowing the female game’s showpiece occasion to turn to farce. The players and supporters deserve better than that.

England's fast bowling stocks a cause for concern

Just a few months ago pundits appeared evenly divided over whether England or South Africa had the best seam bowling attack in world cricket. Whilst most would have argued that South Africa’s first choice combination of Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel and Vernon Philander edged out England’s unit it was a close run thing, and England’s depth was often highlighted as a point in their favour. But in spite of the Test series win in India, and an excellent one-day international record over the last twelve months, England now have cause for concern about both the quality and depth of their fast bowling stocks.

There is no concern about the leader of England’s attack. Steyn can rightly call himself the leading quick-man in the world but any opposition batsman will tell you that James Anderson is not far behind. His average and strike rate aren’t as good as Steyn’s, but at the back end of the Indian tour he re-confirmed to any that doubted that he’s a man for all conditions. The other man now a sure-fire starter is Steve Finn. In the last twelve months or so he’s started to produce the performances to justify the faith of his many supporters. He remains inconsistent at Test level, but his hostility now guarantees him a place in the starting line-up.

Ahead of the match-up with South Africa last summer there would also have been no dispute about Stuart Broad’s place. He was the pick of England’s successful seamers against India at home and Pakistan away, and very good against Sri Lanka and West Indies. With good reason most observers thought he had finally cracked it at Test level. But then something went wrong. He lost his pace and rhythm against Amla et al., and didn’t rediscover it until being ruled out in India with a heel injury. So drastic has been his change of fortunes that many would no longer pick him in their first choice XIs. With rumours circulating that he might be a doubt for the New Zealand trip it is now far from certain that he will share the new ball when the Ashes get underway in July.

The third member of England’s seam bowling unit in the drubbings of Australia and India in 2010 and 2011 was Tim Bresnan. Although Bresnan has never been viewed as a destroyer, he was a key member of that side. As well as building up exceptional personal figures he became the team’s lucky charm and contributed with the bat. But right now even the staunchest Bresnanite finds it difficult to justify selecting him. Since elbow surgery last winter he’s been a shadow of his former self. Whilst sporadic glimpses of form suggest he’s worth persisting with in limited-overs, he surely can’t go to New Zealand with the Test side. The case for his selection has quite simply disappeared. On recent evidence he no longer offers control, penetration, runs - or good luck.

Another fast bowler who had success but would now appear to have fallen away is Chris Tremlett. After an injury-ridden period following his successful debut Test series in 2007, he came from left-field to hurt the Australians in 2010-11. He was then also named Man of the Series after bowling Sri Lanka out in a session to throw the decisive punch of a rain-affected series which followed. However, injury has returned and he would appear to have slipped off the radar for immediate selection. Tremlett hardly played at all in 2012, and whilst England are keen to keep him around the set-up, as an injury-prone 31 year-old the chances of him playing a part in England’s future are slim.

It is worth briefly considering Graham Onions. The leading wicket-taker in Championship cricket last year, he did well in the Test Match he played against West Indies at Edgbaston. But England would appear to see him as a horses-for-courses bowler. It is feared that his style of bowling is too easy to hit on flat pitches in Asia, and in one-day cricket. Hence, although it would be no surprise to see him feature at some point in the Ashes, he’ll do little to solve the current issues with the one-day side.

Indeed, it is the limited-overs teams that would appear to have the biggest problem. Given England’s schedule, Anderson, Broad and Finn are rightly wrapped in cotton wool. But the supposed depth has disappeared, and those that have come in would not really appear to be up to it.

A big concern must be Jade Dernbach. He has become a figure of ridicule lately (and not just for his horrible tattoos), but he undoubtedly has a rare skill in the way he utilises slower balls at the back end of an innings. It doesn’t always come off, but nor do Malinga’s yorkers. Nevertheless, you can’t pick somebody who doesn’t bat well in a 50-over team purely for death bowling, and for the most part he is a liability. His ‘normal’ delivery is not particularly penetrative, and often bowled inaccurately. Even Surrey fans tend to be a little surprised to see his name on England teamsheets. He may have a role for England in the future, but right now he needs to go back to his county and spend a year or two learning more about his bowling in a less pressurised environment.

Dernbach’s Surrey teammate, Stuart Meaker, has only marginally more control. His core asset is to bowl at 90 mph, which could be useful in Tests, particularly away from home. But the feeling is that in the short forms, where he has played his international cricket, he can be just a bit too predictable. For that reason he hasn’t always featured in Surrey one-day teams, and doesn’t really fill an England supporter with confidence.

Another young talent who’s been on the radar for a while is Chris Woakes. Warwickshire fans will tell you that he’s a fine all-rounder. But his international efforts so far don’t make good reading. Since taking six expensive wickets in Adelaide two years ago, he’s taken just two more in ODIs at a disappointing economy rate. He undoubtedly has talent with the bat and as a new ball bowler in English conditions. But, like Onions and Meaker, may find that limited-overs cricket is not his forte.

In sum, England continue to have strength in numbers in the seam department. But of late many of them have struggled to progress. In terms of depth, England are probably now third in this department behind Australia and South Africa. To retain hopes of an imminent return to the top of the Test and ODI ladders progress will need to made, with it unlikely that Anderson, Finn and an in-form Broad could play all ten upcoming Test against Australia. Getting Broad fit and firing will be key. But others also needs to put their hands up, particularly in one-day cricket where the young bowlers struggle for control

Farewell, CMJ

It was with sadness that over the last few days the cricketing diaspora heard of the deaths of Tony Greig and Christopher Martin-Jenkins. The pair were amongst cricket’s longest-serving and most valuable contributors, serving the game in a variety of roles for a combined total of eighty-nine years. Though contrasting in style – Greig was far more abrasive and forthright; Martin-Jenkins calm and eloquent – both have left their mark on the sport in their own ways.

Words on Greig and the massive contributions he made to the development of the sport have been widely circulated in the last few days. As a young writer who remembers him mostly as one of the many voices of Channel Nine I am in no position to add much of value. But suffice to say that whilst not everything he did was good, the sport is far better for his lifelong support.

Martin-Jenkins, or CMJ as he was usually referred to as, was better known in England than elsewhere. But in the broadcasting field he was a giant among giants. The most knowledgeable of a legendary Test Match Special team in which his colleagues over the years included Jonathan Agnew, Henry Blofeld, John Arlott and Brian Johnston, he was described by former Wisden editor Scyld Berry as the single person you would want to describe a crucial Ashes Test. He wasn’t wrong.

I was lucky enough to briefly encounter CMJ in October 2011, when he agreed to give an after-dinner speech at my cricket club’s end of season do to celebrate our 150^th anniversary. The CMJ we heard on that evening was different from the one on the radio. On TMS he played the straight man – the perfect foil to the antics of Johnston, Blofeld and in more recent years  Michael Vaughan and Phil Tufnell. In many ways he kept the show together, ensuring that it delivered not only the type of entertainment you want at five in the morning, but also cricket coverage of the highest quality. But on his own he was incredibly witty, leaving his audience crying with laughter as he recalled tours to Pakistan from years gone by. As an aspiring writer I regret not pressing him more to offer some advice on cricket writing – all of the comments I’ve read today suggest he surely would have done.

It is significant that Martin-Jenkins was never a professional player. He joined the TMS team at the age of just 28, and went on to establish himself as a senior correspondent for various newspapers as well as for the BBC. In the 21^st Century world this is becoming increasingly uncommon. In TV Harsha Bhogle and Tony Cozier are the last flagbearers for the non-playing commentator, whilst even at TMS it has become exceptionally hard for anybody to establish themselves without a background as a player. I sincerely hope that CMJ’s generation will not be the last of the non-playing commentator. Although ex-players undoubtedly offer a fine perspective, and for TV companies offer the benefit of being able to double up as studio analysts, the perspective of the non-player is itself valuable. They perhaps understand the game in a similar way to their audiences, and can instinctively identify what is going through the listener’s mind.

One of CMJ’s greatest strengths as a broadcaster was that he never got too excited about anything accept at genuinely scintillating moments. When his voice went up a decibel you knew that something important was going on. In the modern era of shoutiness it can be difficult to distinguish the top edge for four from the Ashes-clinching wicket. CMJ knew just what tone to take at what moment.

His contributions as a writer should not be neglected amongst his commentary work. Along with the likes of Neville Cardus and John Woodcock he will surely go down as one of the greatest cricket writers’ England has known. A few years ago, around the time of his retirement as Times correspondent he wrote a book which ranked the Top 100 Cricketers of All Time. That he had seen so many of them play live is testament to his longevity. Selecting and ranking 100 cricketers from over 130 years of international cricket was a near impossible task. His selections and rankings can of course be contested. But few men would have been brave enough to even try, let alone produce such a convincing list.

Agnew said today that ‘It's doubtful if anyone has contributed more in a lifetime to the overall coverage of cricket than CMJ’. Whilst he may have a few rivals for that title he’s certainly not far off. He’s high up on my list of inspirations for sure. The cricketing world is a markedly poorer place without CMJ.

A heartfelt tribute has been written by his friend and colleague Mike Selvey – it is well worth a read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/01/christopher-martin-jenkins-cricket-best-friend?CMP=twt_gu

2012 in review: The moans and groans

2012 has been another busy year for cricket with a lot of positives to look back on. But in this particular article I’ll look at some of the things which have got steam coming out of my ears over the past twelve months. There is only one place to start:

1. The weather

2012 was an absolutely shocking year weather-wise. Club cricketers, county cricketers and international cricketers spent most of the English summer watching weather forecasts and huddled inside pavilions. Whole rounds of Championship matches were virtually wiped out and, as a result, Yorkshire were promoted after drawing eleven matches. Edgbaston was underwater every time they tried to play an international. The club season was even worse hit. My local league surpassed the previous record for matches called off in a season before the half-way point had even been reached. Quite simply the rain wreaked havoc during the English season.

2. The schedule for England v South Africa

It was one of the most eagerly anticipated non-Ashes Test series for years but a combination of England’s performance, the Olympics and the schedule combined to make it a peripheral event in the 2012 experiences of most sports fans.  Whilst the ECB could do very little to change matters on the field, the schedule left a lot to be desired. For a start there were only three matches, making a mockery of the designation of matches between the two sides as an ‘icon’ series to be contested over five. In addition, the 2^nd Test at Headingley clashed directly with the most important sports event to hit British shores, ever. Even my eyes were elsewhere when Kevin Pietersen was producing one of his masterclasses. Finally, the two Tests either side of the Olympics were both held in London. Although good crowds turned up, it seemed odd to give the two most lucrative cricket matches of the year to a city who’s sports fans could not complain of a shortage of world class competition. The 30 seconds cricket got on Sports Personality of the Year showed how much this series had been marginalised. That could easily have been avoided with more sensible scheduling.

3. The BCCI’s stance on photographers

As somebody who’s Dad was a professional golf photographer, and campaigned extensively on behalf of photographers in all sports, it saddened me to see the BCCI withold accreditation from major photographic agencies and insist that the only published pictures came from their website.  The British press deserve a pat on the back for deciding not to take the BCCI pictures. The BCCI’s stance sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom. But more than that it is a tremendous kick in the teeth to the specialist photographers, who havemade a career out of being amongst the best in their field. Given that the BCCI have no real interest in how good the pictures are, it can only be assumed that their photographers are those willing to work for the lowest salary and won’t take any pictures which paint the board in a bad light. The industry is already facing challenges in the 21^st century environment, and it seems ridiculous that cricket’s administrators want to make life even harder for skilled professionals that deserve to make a living.

4.  The actions of the Sri Lankan board

Whilst the BCCI’s sins are well known, less attention has been paid to SLC. At the start of the year they couldn’t afford to pay their players. So they charged British fans extortionate prices to get into the Galle Test. Arguably fair enough. Then they hosted a World Twenty20, which should have brought in lots of cash. But they still felt the need to cancel or shorten Test series after Test series to make room for ODIs against India. This only gets worse next year, and is already starting to have an effect on other nations. West Indies had a thin schedule in the first place, but their series at home to Sri Lanka has now been cancelled to make way for guess what? An ODI tri-series involving India. Nobody would argue with Mahela Jayawardene when he says that he has “lost all confidence in dealing with SLC”.

5. Calls for a franchise system in England

Sorry if you’ve heard this one from me before - it’s a bit of a personal campaign of mine. This summer player after player, pundit after pundit, former player after former player, came out to pledge their support for an IPL or Big Bash-style franchise system in the UK. The justification was that it would spice up the competition, bring the crowds back and attract global stars. But every single person that wanted a franchise system was missing the point. In the long-run its unrealistic for domestic cricket in England to fill big grounds whoever’s playing and wherever its played. Franchises would surely be given to the big cities, robbing those grounds which actually do well out of Twenty20 of their main income stream. Meanwhile, its assumed that Yorkshire fans will suddenly want to support the Leeds franchise in the new T20, and that those who pour in for T20 at Chelmsford will head to The Oval. At the end of the day franchises can’t do anything about the rain either…