Pietersen: Just not up for it

The only thing that’s certain when one of cricket’s top teams plays Bangladesh is that Bangladesh will lose – unless it rains. The questions I want to try and answer here are – what’s the point in a team as poor as Bangladesh even playing in these Test matches and what’s the point in the better teams playing Bangladesh? Who learns anything?

Geoffrey Boycott was asking the same questions on Test Match Special after the first Test at Lords. He came to the conclusion that it can’t be good for an emerging nation to continually lose at Test level. I agree. Bangladesh, obviously, don’t.

Yet it must damage confidence, will, desire and just puts an air of negativity amongst the players. There will always be the argument that testing yourself against your betters allows you to grow and improve and that is true to an extent. But surely you have to have a hope of inflicting defeat on your opponent for that to be the case.

For Bangladesh, playing against the likes of England and Australia is counter-productive. It’s a test, sure, but only of their player’s will to continue turning out for their nation.

And what of the better team? Today saw the start of the second Test between England and Bangladesh at Old Trafford – what will England get out of it? You would perhaps think that a chance to really swing the bat and rack up a huge score would inspire, but it’s the opposite. Just look at Kevin Pietersen for example. He can hardly be bothered playing.

Far from allowing the batsmen and bowlers to expand on their skills it deadens them. There is no challenge, no risk, no fear of defeat. And so they become lazy. Witness the morning session today – Strauss and Trott gone in just four balls. Why? They simply did not bring their A game. Credit must go to the Bangladesh bowlers, of course, they did their jobs well. But I believe England allowed them to do so by simply not being ‘up for it’.

It is hardly worthy preparation for an Ashes series Down Under either.

Mr Boycott’s suggestion that Bangladesh should not be troubing the international elite but should instead by facing County sides around the world until they are more prepared to handle the rigours of the full Test arena. It’s not a bad idea, but it’s not the money spinner that various cricket boards would want. Ah, money again. Always crops up doesn’t it.

A better idea would be to create a second tier of international sides. Bangladesh, Zimbabwe (when possible), Ireland, Scotland all battling it out for promotion to full Test status for the following 12 months perhaps. It has its flaws but could be worth a try to help the lesser nations find their feet within the game.

Given enough time, of course, Bangladesh could establish themselves as a serious cricketing nation. As could Ireland, Scotland et al. But why not help them along the way with a better structured international set up. Just a thought…

Do you agree or disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Sporting Fare - Serving up the world of sport...with a twist!

Murray celebrates a point on clay

The Last King of Scotland. That was how the Daily Mirror so inaccurately described Andy Murray (@andy_murray) earlier this week. Ever one to play on words with no real thought behind them, the Mirror has nevertheless raised an interesting question: will Murray ever rise to the pinnacle of the men’s game and be crowned the real king of tennis?

Knocked out of the ATP World Tour Finals last night, Murray will likely finish the year ranked fourth by the ATP, behind World Number 1 Roger Federer, Raphael Nadal and the very impressive and much improved Novak Djokovic.

Murray’s failure to reach the semi finals of the end of year tournament is key to discussing his chances of taking Federer’s number one spot.

You could look at the fact that he was knocked out by one game thanks to Juan Martin del Potro’s surprise defeat of Federer in the group stage. Murray, after all, had defeated Fernando Verdasco earlier in the day at the O2 and had taken Federer to three sets in his previous match. Leaving Verdasco to on side, the remaning three men ended with a 2-1 match record and the same sets record, but Federer won the group with a better games won percentage record (44-40), while Del Potro (45-43) edged Murray (44-43) out of the tournament.

Unlucky, right? Perhaps. In fact, if we’re fair, probably.

The Scot has had a fantastic season, ranking number two in August, the first time in four years that anyone other than Federer or Nadal were in the top two. His win/loss record reads 64/10 and he has bagged six titles this year bringing his total to 14, amassing over $3 million in prize money ($9m in his career). He is, without doubt, one of the best players in the world.

A closer look at the true barometer of tennis greats, however, and the Murray story is less convincing. Like Henman before him and like so many solo sport Brits, when it comes to the crunch there is  a mental weakness that prevents him from winning a major tournament.

At the Australian Open he was knocked out in the fourth round. On clay, where he has enjoyed huge success in 2009, he could only manage a quarter final finish at the French Open. Back in the UK at Wimbledon, the pinnacle of professional tennis, he was knocked out in the semi final by a resurgent Andy Roddick – this though, was a hint that Murray DOES have the skills necessary to capture a Grand Slam tournament. Finally, at the US Open he was disappointingly knocked out in the fourth round after reaching the final the previous year.

All this raises the question – does he have what it takes mentally to really be crowned the king of tennis? Sporting Fare will happily concede that Murray’s God-given talents and the skills he has developed in his own right are right up there with the Federers and the Nadals. AND we want to believe that he will one day be Number One and winning Grand Slam titles.

But we don’t. The same fear of success and lack of true self belief that we saw in Henman we also see in Murray. The same inability to finish an opponent off when he’s at Murray’s mercy is there, leading to five set games when they should be three sets. That in itself will take its toll as he gets older and with every passing year his chances of topping the rankings diminish. No, unless Nadal and Federer retire and no new blood comes through, we just can’t see Andy becoming king of tennis – let alone king of Scotland, last or not.

Do you agree? Or can you see something in the Scot we don’t? Let us know in the comments.

Sporting Fare - Serving up the world of sport...with a twist!