Category: Uncategorized

I had to say something about Harold Dennis Bird. Not that I would ever have called him that. As far as I can tell, Richie Benaud was the only person who called him Harold Bird. To most of us cricket fans, he was always ‘Dickie’ Bird, my favourite umpire of all time, with David Shepherd in second place.

It is fitting that fitting that I linked Bird and Benaud. A huge memory of my childhood was watching cricket on the BBC. In my head, I can still hear Benaud introducing the umpires. “The umpires today are Harold Bird and David Shepherd.” It might have been someone like Ken and Roy Palmer, David Constant, Nigel Plewes, Barrie Meyer, Barry Dudleston, John Holder…..and I will have missed a few greats. But, for me, Dickie was the greatest of all.

You did not have to watch Dickie at work for long in order to see that he was quite emotional, which I gather hindered his playing career. As an umpire, it became a strength, helping him to get alongside players. If tempted to think his emotions impacted his judgement, you only had to watch his last test match at Lords in 1996. Mike Atherton arranged for the players to form a guard of honour, which left Dickie reaching for the tissues. However, he had no trouble giving Atherton out plumb LBW in the first over. So much about Bird is encapsulated in that one game. Full of humility and emotion one minute, sending England’s captain to the pavilion the next. Yes, Dickie was often laughing, occasionally being a bit silly – but the players knew he could get serious as and when it was needed. Where a word with a player was needed – just ask Merve Hughes, he would have it, but mostly, he would try and get alongside the players. That was how he avoided conflict. And why he was so respected.

Now then, let’s get down to the biggest change in sport since those halycon days of the 1980s. Television replays. We had them, but they were not of the quality they are now. As a result, we can never prove that the ‘old’ umpires were as good as we thought. Modern hawk-eye analysis suggests that Umpire Ray Julian was right and a lot more LBWs ought to have been given in the past. But what cricketers looked for – and still do – is consistency. Unlike Julian, ex-players would say that Dickie was a not-outer. Bowlers found that frustrating but and batters knew it was highly likely to be extremely plumb when Dickie put the finger up. Some say that the implementation of the Decision Review System has weakened umpires, but I disagree. I think what has weakened umpires is a consistent failure to intervene when player behaviour or over rates are not up to scratch. That is nothing to do with technology, which I think Bird would have embraced – after all, he was one of the first international umpires to call for the ‘TV umpire’ to make a run-out decision. Even technology cannot ensure consistency – just ask Snicko. The umpires that have been consistent have been the most popular, and that is why Denis Lillee once called Bird ‘the best’.

As the 1990s wore on, neutral umpires were introduced. I think we got it right in 1990s when we had one home umpire and one neutral umpire, and I think that policy could be solidified now as we always have 3 umpires and we have DRS. Any suggestion of bias would be detected now – though I do think 1 neutral umpire is still needed. It seems a great shame that English umpires never get to umpire at home – which drove Peter Willy off the international panel due to the level of travel required for neutral umpires. Except for the period during and immediately following Covid, never again would you see two English umpires in a test match. So it was that the 90s saw off the Bird and Shepherd combination in test matches. The positive was that they got to work with international colleagues, both home and abroad, for a few more years. It gave ‘Dickie’ the chance to umpire in Australia and the West Indies, amongst other places. Given Dickie’s reluctance to give an LBW, it is a brilliant piece of irony that Dickie stood in a record breaking game in the West Indies for the number of LBWs given.

Bird memories? Crazy things seemed to happen when Dickie was involved. Unlike ‘Shep’, Dickie did not hop when the score was 111, but he did once end up with Allan Lamb’s mobile phone in his pocket. I used to love it when quick singles were taken, and the umpire had to run around to be able to see the run-out line and the stumps. Generally, ‘Dickie’ got this right, but every so often, Bird would not quite be quick enough and would obstruct a throw. A couple of times, Bird also got in the way of Graham Gooch streight drives. Dickie did the Lords test match in 1990 when Gooch made 333 – he seemed to spend the entire game signalling four. The Oval pigeons always created hilarity. And, memorably, he was standing when Shane Warne destroyed Mike Gatting at Old Trafford in 1993. I also attended that game at Old Trafford in 1995 when play was delayed due to sunlight reflecting off B&Q. The Lancashire members gave Bird a hard time. If it is not rain, it is sunshine.

As Dickie got older, the tall-stories got more and more extraorinary. But it was such a delight last summer to hear ‘Dickie’ re-tell that story about losing his cap in the 1975 World Cup final, which he said was the highlight of his career. Jonathan Agnew had to help Dickie along a bit – and he handled that interview so well.  Dickie said that his cap got taken off his head by spectator in the madness at the end of that World cup Final, but it turned up a few years later on the head of a London bus conductor. As a child, I always chose to believe that story. I really do hope it is true.

What can we say about The Ashes that has not been said before? We are not allowed to say England are arrogant – so shall I follow Ben Stokes’ suggestion and just call them rubbish.

The problem I have with Stokes’ comments regarding accusations of arrogance is that the England team is behaving in a really arrogant way. That response of ‘call us rubbish but arrogant is going too far’ is…..just incredibly arrogant. The whole point is that people are not calling England rubbish. They are looking at obviously talented players – and wondering why that talent is not being used. They are seeing the same mistakes repeated and are becoming very annoyed with the consistent reply from Stokes and the team. That response, consistently, says ‘we know better than you how we need to prepare, even though we are losing’.

Well, it would seem that England is in all sorts of trouble in Brisbane, and I fully expect them to have lost heavily, by an innings, before I wake up tomorrow. But they have 3 choices.

• Prove themselves right. They can only do that by winning 3 consecutive test matches. They would love to prove me wrong of course – Stokes to score 300 tomorrow backed up by Will Jacks scoring 150 anybody? More realistically, they have to make it work in Adelaide.
• Own up. Its too late to change for this series, but perhaps if they turned around and said ‘sorry – we got this wrong’, they might be able to come out of the bunker of arrogance, and have some honest conversations.
• Keep making the same, sloppy, stupid decision making – and loose 5-0. If they choose this option, its what they deserve.

Why is this so bad?

Lots of reasons.

This is as poor as anything we ever saw in the 1990s, which was a decade of doom for England cricket teams. The Perth test match in the 1994/5 Ashes series runs it close – I can not begin to remember how many catches went down in that game, but they had played well in the 2 prior games and had won the 4th test match in Adelaide. And this was against a good Australian side.

As Stuart Broad has said, this Australian team is the worst Australian cricket team since 2010. I go further than Broad – they are worse than the 2010 team. Fortunately for those Aussies, they have come up against a side with talent, but lacking in planning, application, fitness and honesty. England has never had such a good opportunity. But they have not been able to take the chance.

But the worst thing of all, something Australian media will want to ignore, is the quality of the cricket. Loose shots, dropped catches and average to terrible bowling. Australia have been average, England have been diabolocial. For The Ashes to continue to mean something, it has to get better.

England lost at Perth. They were always going to, they never had enough runs and batted like idiots. Honestly, we could leave it at that. The wickets of Ollie Pope, Harry Brook and Joe Root were plain pathetic, and all of them should be ashamed of themselves. The bowlers are not free of all blame either – they very kindly fed Travis Head’s strengths.

However, I do think we need question some of the media statements around this game. Anyone who says this is one of England’s worst ever defeats has missed a few defeats in Austrailia over the years. I always thought the games would be like they were today – England would not be too far out of it, but would have a few disasterous half hours that they often get away with in 3 match series, but in 5 test match series will open up a chasm.

Travis Head

I have to be honest, I have never rated Head, and I still don’t. He does not have a good technique. What he does manage to do is get bowlers to bowl to his strengths. He looks ungainly against short balls, so bowlers feed him short balls, which he keeps belting for 6. He walks across his stumps so bowlers go for the LBW – and he clips the ball away for 4. They see his static footwork and bowl outside off stump, and he crashes it away. It is just so predictable.

Head reminds me of Graeme Smith of South Africa and Steve Smith – though these are a vastly better batters. But these batters trick the bowlers into feeding strengths.

Here is a mad idea. Bowl to Head the same way you bowl to anybody else – just outside off stump on a full lenth. I think he is more likely to edge behind – like most batters – than to top edge a hook.

But saying all of that, Head was brilliant today, and it was a masterstroke to open with him. Undoubtedly, the Australians were better at tactics today than Ben Stokes, who was not at the races with bat or ball. He can not be at his best every day.

Can things improve?

I doubt that things will improve. But it is not impossible. I think we could ask questions about selection and also the toss. But whatever happens, England needs to score more runs – 300 must be the minimum.

It means hard practice – yes, they do need practice games – and some flexability. Not a change in approach – Head showed us that England’s approach is right. However, if a shot is dangerous and causing lots of wickets to fall, then don’t play that shot, or at least give yourself some balls to get in.

Indeed, when England got tentative, they also lost wickets. Play to your strengths – but don’t be reckless.

Was it a good test match?

No. Not in any way, shape or form. Test matches should last 4.5 days on average. When we have games over in 2 days – it means sides are not batting properly.

We know that 5 day test matches can be exciting. Yes, this game was unpredictable, but not high quality.

On this evidence, test matches will soon be 3 day slog fests soon. But it does not need to be this way – we saw how good the games were in the English home summer when they went into days 4 and 5.

Give me Steve Waugh’s Australians or Andrew Strauss’ England any day – and both of those teams would batter the current day teams.