Graeme Smith reveals how the wicked witch was to blame for South Africa’s loss to Sri Lanka in Durban © Getty Images

When historians sit down at their special historical desks in decades to come and compose their unarguable histories of the year 2011, they will scratch their history-loving chins, twiddle their retrospectivising pencils, and wonder to themselves: “What was the most important thing that happened in that famous year? Was it the wave of popular revolutions around the Arab world? The forces of technology-enhanced democracy unleashed around the planet? The European economy Titanic-ing itself into an iceberg of idiocy? The violent deaths of some of the universe’s least desirable dinner companions? Or was it the rebirth of Test cricket, as a new generation of star fast bowlers emerged, and groundsmen around the world remembered that their principal purpose in life is not to bore spectators to tears and make fast bowlers wish their parents had never met?”

Time will tell which box they tick on their multiple-choice answer sheet. But they will surely give considerable thought to the last of those options. Some may even choose it. They would, of course, be wrong. And, hopefully, fired from whatever professorship they happen to occupy.

However, the last couple of months have been the most exciting for the Test game for a considerable time, a catalogue of engrossing contests in which momentum has shifted with each couple of wickets and each partnership of 30 or more, decorated by individual performances of enticing promise for the future. Test match cricket has been buffeted about like an unwanted penguin in an uncaring tumble dryer in recent years, but that penguin has emerged, flapped its wings, barked, and resolved to give flight another wholehearted attempt.

The year ended with the two teams that had begun the year tussling for the No. 1 Test spot sink to disappointingly supine defeats. India caved too easily in the face of excellent Australian fast bowling, whilst South Africa, for the third series in a row and fourth in six, contrived to lose a 1-0 lead, this time to an inspired Sri Lanka, who claimed their first win of the post-Murali era, at the 16th attempt. In a country where they had never previously won. And where they had averaged 209 all out per innings in their previous eight Tests. Seven of which they had lost (four by an innings), with one rain-aided draw. And with a bowling attack that had not taken 20 wickets in its previous 12 away Tests over three years. It was one of Sri Lanka’s greatest wins.

It was also one of South Africa’s worst modern defeats, rounding off a deeply disappointing year in both Tests and ODIs, in which a team that has almost all the component parts of a great side consistently proved itself not to be one. Yet. The Proteas can look like a top-end Rolls Royce in one match, but when the clock strikes 1-0, they seem to turn into a pumpkin, with Graeme Smith sitting confusedly at the wheel of the pumpkin like a disappointed Cinderella, banging the pumpkin dashboard and muttering, “Where’s the accelerator on this thing? Vroom vroom. Come on. Vrooom. Ah, shucks. I could have really done with more from that Prince.”

Dhoni’s India picked up where they left off in England, batting with insufficient technique and application against the moving ball. A questionable tactic, at best. From a position of first-innings control, if not dominance, they lost 17 wickets for 237, thus counteracting both their own strong team bowling performance and Australia’s own insufficient technique and application against the moving ball.

India should be in a better state to recover from their first-Test blooper than they were in England, whilst Australia have shown that they have the capacity to lose a match from almost anywhere. An intriguing series looms as these two fragile giants trade cricketing slaps with each other.

One of the prominent trends this Test year, and particularly of the 2011-12 season so far, has been the performance of bowlers new to Test cricket. In Melbourne, Pattinson again looked a potential world-beater ‒ how was he allowed to slip through England’s global recruitment net ‒ and Yadav confirmed his promise with another muscular and skilful display.

(Strap in, stats fans. I’ve spent far too long working all this out, to give statistical backing to an already widely observed phenomenon, so you can all damn well read it to justify me staying up well past my bedtime for a prolonged and intimate session with Statsguru.)

Bowlers who have made their Test debut in 2011 have, between them, taken 319 wickets at an average of 28.8. (I have included bowlers and allrounders, but not batsmen who dobble a few down every now and again. Even if they have taken wickets. They have no place in the numbers. I don’t care if it is allegedly the season of goodwill.) In 2010, debutant bowlers took 165 wickets at 41.4. From 2000 to 2010, the average yearly haul by bowlers in their debut Test year was 152 wickets at 38.7.

Furthermore, over the last 12 months, debut-year bowlers have outperformed those who had played Test cricket before 2011, who collectively averaged 33.5. Thus, bowlers new to tests in 2011 have been 16% more effective than their more experienced colleagues – from 2000 to 2010, bowlers in their first year of Tests had, on average, been 15% less effective than those who had already played.

Nor is it that these statistics have been skewed by one or two particularly outstanding newcomers. Bowlers who have debuted this year have taken 18 five-wicket hauls, shared between 12 different players from eight different countries, all of them under the age of 27, six of them aged 22 or less. Only England, who did not give a debut to a new bowler this year, and Sri Lanka, cannot boast a newcomer with a five-for this year.

By comparison, in 2010, seven five-wicket hauls were taken by players new to Tests; there were five newcomer five-fors each in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2001 and 2000; only one apiece in 2005, 2004 and 2002; and a slightly rogue 10 in 2003.

Of course, these numbers are, by their nature, a little random – a bowler who makes his debut in a Boxing Day Test has less opportunity to shine in his debut year than one who prances onto the Test scene in January; and due to not wanting to wake up in the morning with pages of meaningless numbers drifting before my eyes, or to alienate my children at breakfast with exciting discoveries about the performance of bowlers in their debut years during the 1890s, my research only goes back to 2000. Even Statsguru was begging me to leave it alone by the end.

However, the sheer number of newly blooded bowlers who have made an immediate and striking impact on the Test scene this year bodes well for the next few years. Not for batsmen who do not particularly like playing pitched-up swing bowling (i.e. all batsmen), but for Test cricket and its supporters, for whom memorable bat versus ball contests have not been as plentiful as they would have liked. Provided, of course, that all these new bowling stars do not simply disappear into the Twenty20 ether, fall to pieces under the merciless hammer of the international schedule, or decide that banging it in short of a length outside off stump to keep the runs down is the way to bowling nirvana.

Next time: The Confectionery Stall 2011 Awards Ceremony.

Comments (21) |

Dean Brownlie: featured in a yet-to-be-published chapter of the Argus report titled, "Lessons from the Shield across the ditch" © Getty Images

Another Test, another scintillating finish. Test matches are supposed to provide greater variety and texture than the limited-over game, but recently all they have given us is a monotonous riot of thrilling dramas, a tediously predictable sequence of wildly fluctuating nail-biters. Yawn. No wonder the crowds have been so small. What Test cricket needs is more high-scoring draws.

The Hobart Test* was a historic one for New Zealand, who overcame both their Antipodean rivals and their own batting indisciplines, to record a landmark victory so exciting that even the dolphins in the Tasman sea reportedly bunked off from fish-eating duties and listened in to the radio commentary on their in-built sonar.

(A conversation between two bottlenose dolphins intercepted by an ESPN submarine and translated by Cricinfo’s in-house marine biologist proceeded as follows: “Hey, Maureen, that was worth missing out on that shoal of herring for, eh?” “Damn right, Gerald. What a game. Most of the batting was pretty rubbish, but that was sporting theatre of the highest order.” “Sure was, Maureen. I never thought I’d live to see the day that New Zealand won in Australia.” “More fool you, Gerald. This Australian batting unit has been an accident waiting to happen for ages. And an accident actually happening several times during those ages.” “Fair point, Maureen. But I thought that brilliant win in Johannesburg would have given them some good old baggy-green confidence.” “No, Gerald, it camouflaged the same old failings. As soon as the ball starts moving around, they’re in trouble.” “I’m the same with fish, Maureen. If they’re going in a straight line, no problem, snap, gulp, yum. But a bit of swing either way, I’m going hungry.” “That’s because you go at the fish too hard, Gerald. If the fish is moving, you’ve got to wait for it, try to play it late, with a soft snout. Your problem is that you’ve had too long eating fish that don’t move about, and now the sea has become more conducive to swing again, you don’t have the technique to cope with it. Or the patience. Or the discipline. Which I find both strange and disappointing in an experienced dolphin like you.” “All right, Maureen, you’ve made your point. And let’s give some credit to the fish, they were the better sea creature on the day.” “That’s true, Gerald, but you made it very easy for them. The fact is, you’re only still in this school because the young dolphins coming through aren’t up to scratch yet.” “Shut up, Maureen, shut up. I’ve still got it. I know I’ll come good some day soon. I’ll catch some mackerel or something. Honest. I’m too good not to. Look at my career record.” “Yadda yadda yadda, Gerald. Cripes, we’d better move it. That sounds like a Japanese fishing vessel. We’d better shift or we’re going to end up on the wrong side of a bit of wasabi.”)

I digress. Hobart showcased the continuing crisis in Australian batsmanship, which, if not quite as severe or globally momentous as the Eurozone crisis, has nevertheless lasted far longer than it should have done. And the baffling nature of that crisis was highlighted by the fact that the most technically sound Australian batsman in the game was playing for New Zealand. Dean Brownlie played like the seasoned international veteran that he isn’t, a man not considered good enough even for first-class cricket in Australia, who outshone the stalwarts of his former country’s Test team.

For just the second time since the 1880s, Australia’s top 7 between them returned 13 scores of under 25 in a Test match. (The previous occasion was in Karachi in 1988-89, when the fact that Pakistan selected a grand total of zero seam bowlers hinted that they were trying to catch Australia on a turning wicket.) Only David Warner’s brilliant, pigeonhole-defying century, in which a supposed limited-over biffer with minimal first-class experience batted with restraint and selectivity whilst 30-something veterans pushed at and chased the swinging ball, saved them from one of the greatest statistical ignominies in 120 years of Baggy-Green batsmanship.

In Cape Town, just a month ago, the Australian top 7 had posted 12 scores of less than 25 – it was only the fourth time that had happened since the First World War.

Most concerningly for Australia, the experienced players have led the way, unable to find a way to halt the collapses, repeating the same hard-handed errors. In the two recent two-Test mini-series, Clarke has scored a dazzling century in each, one of which was an early candidate for innings of the decade, but has also been out for 22 or fewer in his other five innings. Hussey passed 20 just once in seven innings, and Ponting, whose long-term struggles are statistically irrefutable, only twice. Haddin made important half-centuries in Johannesburg and Brisbane, but has not scored more than 35 in his other 12 innings this year. Watson, after hitting 16 fifty-plus scores in his first 18 Tests as an opener up to the end of 2010, has added just one more half-century in six Tests in 2011.

For many years, Australian youngsters early in their careers would watch and learn from their seniors. It appears they are still doing so. Hughes has reached 40 in two innings out of 15; Khawaja has batted for at least 45 minutes in all but one of his 11 Test innings since making his debut in the Sydney Test in January, but he has passed 40 only once.

The year 2010 was bad for Australian batting, culminating in their Boxing Day Ashes debacle, a performance so inept that the ghost of Bill Ponsford reportedly chained himself to the railings outside the MCG in protest, waving a placard reading: “Knuckle down, for heaven’s sake.”

The year 2011 has been even worse. In eight Tests, Australia’s top 7 batsmen have collectively averaged 33.5, their lowest since 1988, a year in which the Australians were more than a little inconvenienced by having to face Ambrose, Marshall, Walsh and Patterson in three Tests out of eight.

Only the first Test against India offers the hope of redemption for a year in which 60% of the Australian top 7’s innings have ended with a slow trudge back to the pavilion, head bowed, baggy green that little bit baggier, after being out for less than 25. That is the highest failure rate by the Australian top 7 in any year since 1984. That was also a year in which they were more than a little inconvenienced, this time by having to face Marshall, Garner and Holding in consecutive five-Test series, a task which, for a batting line-up, must have been as appealing as being a human guinea pig in an experiment to calculate the effect on the digestive system of being repeatedly smashed in the stomach with a baseball bat.

*1330GMT, December 16: Corrected to change the scorecard link which was previously directing to the Brisbane Test

Comments (24) | India in Australia 2011-12

Sehwag acknowledges the upward bump in his SIRI percentage with a fist pump © AFP

Virender Sehwag has blasted his way into the cricketing history books often enough during his captivating career. He has written entire chapters about fast scoring. He has helped his country to the top of the Test rankings, and to World Cup glory. He has set new benchmarks in the illustrious athletic discipline of most-slowly-trudged singles. Now he has clattered the highest ever one-day international innings, becoming the second (a) human being and (b) stocky Indian wizard to score an ODI double-hundred. Of all great batsmen, he has arguably been the easiest to dismiss, but the hardest to contain. When in form, he makes scoring runs appear easier than any batsman of his, and possibly of any, generation. When out of form, he makes scoring runs appear easier than most batsmen do, but not for as long.

His latest assault on the great game’s numerical heritage was aided by a pitch that was not so much batsman-friendly as batsman-amorous, and by Darren Sammy shelling a catch so simple that the only explanation was that he was thoroughly enjoying watching the Delhi Demolisher bat. Sehwag had already scored 170, India were well on course for a trunkily elephantine total, and Sammy knew that his entire batting line-up boasted a total of three ODI hundreds (only one of which had been scored since 2007), and that his No. 4 batsman, Danza Hyatt, had passed 50 only once in any List A one-day match. In the circumstances, where the prospect of victory was almost as far-fetched as the stick that Neil Armstrong’s dog Mildred brought back from the moon, why not treat yourself to a ringside view of a batting genius in full flow? What better time to drop a player as annihilative as Sehwag than when he has already effectively won the match? As Aristotle himself would have said, had he been a cricket fan, “If you are going to be hammered in a cricket match, better to be hammered with a bit of history.”

Despite all this, it was another extraordinary innings by one of cricket’s most extraordinary players. In terms of averages, Sehwag has not always been a stellar ODI player. In his first 173 one-dayers, he averaged 31. India won 53% of those matches (excluding ties and no-results). Of the games Sehwag missed in that time, India won 52%. Since June 2008, however, he has averaged 50 in 57 ODIs ‒ India have won 37, and lost 17, a 68% winning percentage in games with a positive result. But in the games Sehwag has missed over this period, India have won 63%. Whether Sehwag is playing or not playing seems to make minimal difference to India’s success.

However, over the course of his ODI career, whether Sehwag succeeds or fails has had a major impact on his country’s fortunes. I have been on a stat hunt, readers. Stat hunts can be lonely voyages, during the course of which you may find yourself questioning what you are doing with your life, and wondering whether your parents would think all the years of nurturing care they gave you were worthwhile if they could see you hunched over a computer squinting at Gary Kirsten’s batting average in games South Africa lost away from home during the years 1996 to 2001. Thankfully, I have returned from this particular stat hunt clutching some numerical antlers that I think are worth mounting on the wall; antlers that might interest more people than just myself. Not quite Walter Raleigh returning from the Americas proudly waggling a potato in the air and announcing to Elizabeth I: “I reckon this would be awesome deep fried and slathered in vinegar, ma’am. Awesome.” But still, my wife found the stats mildly interesting, so here goes…

Forty-one of Sehwag’s 52 scores of 50 or more (including 14 of his 15 hundreds) have contributed to Indian wins – India have thus won 79% of the matches in which Sehwag has reached 50. They have won 86 of his other 188 ODIs – 46%. So, when Sehwag scores a fifty, India are 72% more likely to win than when he does not.

Of the 37 players who have 50 or more half-century-plus scores in ODIs, Sehwag has had the fifth-greatest impact on results with his fifties. Pakistan were 73% more likely to win when Saeed Anwar passed 50; West Indies had 89% more victories when Brian Lara did so; Andy Flower’s half-centuries gave Zimbabwe a 92% greater chance of triumph; and, leading the way – any guesses? no conferring… ‒ New Zealand’s Nathan Astle. The Kiwis won 70% of the 57 ODIs in which the Christchurch Clouter raised his bat to the crowd, but only 31% of the 166 games in which he did not. When Astle reached 50, New Zealand were 124% more likely to win.

Key batsmen in weaker teams tend to have a higher “Successful Innings Result Influence” (SIRI) – Arjuna Ranatunga, Chris Gayle, Stephen Fleming and Aravinda de Silva are also in the top ten ‒ and good batsmen in strong teams tend to score lower on this measurement, as they are more likely to have their failures counterbalanced by other team-mates succeeding. Australia have won 84% of the games in which Ricky Ponting has scored 50 or more, but have still won 64% when he has not, so his SIRI score is 31%. MS Dhoni’s is 30%, Adam Gilchrist’s 25%, Javed Miandad’s 16%, Viv Richards’ and Jacques Kallis’ both 13%. Sehwag and Saeed Anwar stand out for being batsmen in good teams whose successful innings have made victory considerably more likely.

(I understand that there will be millions, perhaps billions, of people reading this clamouring for a full breakdown of all the players concerned. I have therefore provided a full list at the bottom of this blog.) (Don’t just scroll down and spend the rest of your day memorising it, this blog is not finished yet.)

What can be read into all this? Frankly, I am not entirely sure. SIRI is a flawed statistic for a number of reasons. Fifty is a slightly arbitrary dividing line, because an ODI innings of 30 can prove decisive (Michael Bevan, one of the finest ODI batsmen, has the lowest SIRI of anyone in the list, 8.5%, but batted in the middle order and played many crucial 30s and 40s). It does not take into account the frequency of a player’s successful innings, nor the quality of opponents or importance of the match. And due to time constraints and the desire not to further strain the delicate balance in the ménage-a-trois involving me, Mrs Confectionery Stall and Statsguru, I did not take account of non-result matches or games in which the player concerned did not bat. SIRI is not likely to hotfoot it into a player’s career stats on ESPNcricinfo. Or ever be mentioned again after this Confectionery Stall post.

Nevertheless, it is I think a statistic that shows how Sehwag is a cricketer who defies conventional statistics. His career is not without its numerical flaws. His Test average is magnificent, his strike rate is otherworldly. But his Test and ODI records in England and South Africa are poor, and his career ODI average is a decent but unexceptional 35. But part of the thrill of watching him bat is that, aside from the simple majesty of his strokeplay and the ceaseless daring of his cricketing soul, an hour of Sehwag will probably decide a match.

Extras

One consolation for West Indies was that, when Denesh Ramdin and Sunil Narine added 64 for the tenth wicket, they too had achieved something that had never before been accomplished in the history of human endeavour – they had become the first team to post two half-century last-wicket partnerships in a single ODI series. Understandably the Indore crowd seemed a little less excited at this unprecedented milestone in cricketing history, but reports suggest that the celebrations in Kingston, Georgetown and Port-of-Spain are still raging, and look set to last until well beyond Christmas.

Kieron Pollard is still struggling to turn his unquestionable ball-striking talents into an ability to consistently score more than 4 in ODIs. He has played 18 ODI innings in 2011, and been out for less than 5 in eight of them. Given that, on occasion, he makes scoring 6 off one ball look as easy as pointing at a fish in an aquarium, this has be considered a statistical disappointment for the big-earning sporadically big-hitter.

Here, for all those clamouring for it, is that list of the Successful Innings Result Influence ratings of all players with 50 or more ODI half-century-plus scores. Read into it what you will. Then mulch it up and fertilise your flowerbeds with it.

1: NJ Astle (NZ), 124.3
2: A Flower (Zim), 91.9
3: BC Lara (ICC/WI), 89.5
4: Saeed Anwar (Pak), 73.8
5: V Sehwag (Asia/India), 72.4
6: A Ranatunga (SL), 70.6
7: CH Gayle (ICC/WI), 61.9
8: SP Fleming (NZ), 57.4
9: MS Atapattu (SL), 56.8
10: PA de Silva (SL) 55.3

11: GC Smith (SA), 51.5
12: SC Ganguly (Asia/India), 51.3
13: DM Jones (Aus), 50.6
14: G Kirsten (SA), 46.0
15: Younis Khan (Pak), 45.8
16: Yuvraj Singh (India), 44.7
17: SR Tendulkar (India), 41.9
18: ST Jayasuriya (SL), 41.6
19: ME Waugh (Aus), 38.4
20: R Dravid (Asia/India), 36.5

21: Mohammad Yousuf (Asia/Pak), 33.3
22: S Chanderpaul (WI), 31.9
23: RT Ponting (Aus/ICC), 31.3
24: MS Dhoni (Asia/India), 30.5
25: Saleem Malik (Pak), 26.0
26: AC Gilchrist (Aus), 25.5
27: Inzamam-ul-Haq (Pak), 23.7
28: HH Gibbs (SA), 22.9
29: KC Sangakkara (Asia/ICC/SL), 21.5
30: DL Haynes (WI), 20.5

31: M Azharuddin (India), 20.2
32: DPMD Jayawardene (Asia/SL), 20.0
33: MJ Clarke (Aus), 18.1
34: Javed Miandad (Pak), 15.9
35: JH Kallis (SA), 13.4
36: IVA Richards (WI), 13.1
37: MG Bevan (Aus), 8.5.

Please note that the first name I gave to the stat was the “Half-century Impact on Victory”, before I realised that this could have resulted in describing some of the greats of the modern game as HIV-positive. Which might have led to legal complications.

(For a more comprehensive method of measuring players’ impact on cricket matches, please take a look at my friend Jaideep Varma’s Impact Index, an interesting site with some interesting results (if you are a cricket fan) (if you are not a cricket fan, you are unlikely to add it to your favourites) (if you are not a cricket fan, why are you still reading this article?) (even most cricket fans probably canned it around paragraph three).

Comments (108) | Sehwag

Matthew Hayden cracked a thunderous 15 on debut. It was all downhill for Australian openers from there © Getty Images

The highest score made by an Australian opener in his first innings on Test debut, since Matthew Hayden’s unforgettable 15 against South Africa in Johannesburg in 1993-94.

David Warner’s dashingly pugnacious third-ball 3 in Brisbane (the shortest recorded innings by an Australian opener in his debut Test innings), followed Phil Hughes’ 0 in South Africa in 2008-09, Chris Rogers’ 4 against India in 2007-08, Phil Jaques’ 2 and Mike Hussey’s 1 in the 2005-06 season, and Matthew Elliot’s duck in 1996-97.

Debuting Australian openers have thus averaged 1.66 in their maiden Test innings since 1994. Unsurprisingly, this is by far the lowest figure of any Test nation, although the stats show that many debut openers have struggled ‒ none of the 10 Indians and seven Sri Lankans to open on debut since 1994 have reached 50 in their first Test innings.

By comparison, in the same period since Hayden first galumphed to the Test match crease, 15 Australians have made their Test debuts batting at Nos. 3, 4, 5 or 6. Between them, they have scored four hundreds and six fifties, and recorded a collective average of 90.17 (next highest: South Africa, averaging 47). All of this suggests that modern Australian batsmen are 5432% more effective in their debut Test innings when not opening the batting. Which also suggests that Australia should keep picking debut openers until at least one reaches double figures, before flooding the rest of their batting order with randomly conscripted debutants, who will then, with mathematical inevitability, score at least a quintuple-century each. You cannot fight mathematics.

Of course, the likelihood is that these failures have been deliberate. Not, I hasten to add, for any dubious reasons. It is a well-known fact that education in Australian schools consists of little other than sledging and obscure cricket statistics, so Warner, like his immediate predecessors, would have been well aware of the fact that, of the 19 openers to have made first-innings hundreds on Test debut, 11 have never made another century (and only Alviro Petersen has any realistic hope of doing so, unless a more-than-usually fractious contractual dispute in the West Indies gives 90-year-old Andy Ganteaume a chance to add to his 112 in his only Test innings). Eight of these 11 never even passed 50 in a Test again. These facts would, without any doubt, have been coursing around Warner’s mind as he plotted the most likely way to ensure himself a long and productive Test career.

Also: The least common place in the batting order for a debutant player to bat: 103 Test debutants have batted at 4 in the first innings of their debut match. (The figures for the rest of the batting order are as follows: 1: 117 debutants; 2: 268; 3: 147; 5: 154; 6: 269; 7: 251; 8: 286; 9: 271; 10: 313; 11: 362.)

Only two debuting No. 4 batsmen have made centuries in their first Test innings – the Nawab of Pataudi, for England in the first Test of the Bodyline series, and Aminul Islam, in Bangladesh’s first Test. Neither made another Test hundred. Use that fact wisely. It could open doors for you in one of both of business and romance.

Also: The number of decades (plus a couple of years) from 1928-29 that it took Australia to find the same number of bowlers to take five-wicket hauls on debut as have done so in the last three months. Lyon, Cummins and Pattinson have combined to ensure that there have been as many five-wicket hauls by debutant Australian bowlers since 31 August as there were in the 1930s, ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s combined (or between 1987 and 2008).

Conclusion: He who reads too much into Test debuts is as much a fool as he who wanders into a lion enclosure dressed as a zebra, shouting, “Can we not sort this out with dialogue rather than violence?”

Comments (13) | Multistats

Also: why Test cricket is like The Wire. And is Phillip Hughes really made out of a chunk of Ayers Rock? Andy Zaltzman discusses these and other thrilling topics (among them: why he is an eternal Chemplast and Napoleon Einstein fan) with Daniel Norcross of Test Match Sofa

Download the podcast here (mp3, 25MB, right-click to save).

Comments (8) | World Cricket Podcast