Test Match Betting: England behaving badly?

Bat and ball / Andrew Hughes / 19 January 2010 / Leave a Comment

Stuart Broad was fortunate to escape punishment in South Africa

"With a famous series victory a definite possibility, England repeatedly and publically lost their cool over a series of referred decisions that did not go their way..."

It was a thrilling series that showcased the continued improvement of the England team under Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower. But the tour of South Africa 2009-10 had its share of controversy and England were often to blame. Andrew Hughes investigates

Are the England team becoming the bad boys of international cricket? The recently concluded series in South Africa featured several examples of England players behaving badly. Though it may not be up there with the Bodyline series of 1932-33 or indeed the farce of Pakistan 1987 in the annals of disastrous England tours, it was unneccessarily controversial and niggly and that was down mainly to England.

It would have been refreshing, if in his post-series interviews, Andrew Strauss had acknowledged that his players need to work on their behaviour, in particular, Stuart Broad, who seemed determined to land himself in hot water throughout the tour and was fortunate to escape Africa without punishment. From a spectators point of view, it was ugly and it is also possible that the sense of grievance England stirred up in Johannesburg did not help their state of mind as they tried to save the match.

So where did it all begin? Some would say that the issue of South African born players turning out for England is an ongoing source of friction. Some might blame South African coach Micky Arthur for his habit of stirring things up at press conferences. You could look back to the Champions Trophy when Andrew Strauss refused to allow Graeme Smith a runner in the game that knocked South Africa out of the competition. Teams play one another so often these days, that minor grievances get repeated airing rather then being allowed to fade into history.

The first incident occurred in Centurion. Stuart Broad led a public protest to the umpires about the length of time that South Africa took to decide to review a decision. Broad had a point, but the sight of the young England bowler remonstrating with umpires did nothing for the spectacle and recalled his own father's occasionally hot-headed performances on the field of play. He escaped punishment, the England management supported him and a precedent was created in which public remonstration was seen as an appropriate response to the teething problems of the review system.

Two Tests later, in Cape Town, Broad was involved again. In trapping the ball with his spikes, the fast bowler appeared to have been caught in the act of ball tampering, as was James Anderson, who was filmed tearing at the ball with his fingernail. Both men and England narrowly escaped censure, but Andrew Strauss chose to make a meal of the fact that the South Africans had not made an official complaint, when the wisest course might have been for England to keep their collective heads down.

Then on to Johannesburg. With a famous series victory a definite possibility, England repeatedly and publically lost their cool over a series of referred decisions that did not go their way, from Alastair Cook's first innings dismissal to the ludicrous tantrum over Daryl Harper's refusal to overturn a not-out decision against Graeme Smith. The suggestion was put about that Harper had not got his volume control turned up and so failed to detect an edge. This was refuted by the match referee, but by this time, all of the toys were out of the pram. The Chairman of the ECB carried on a rambling diatribe on television about the review system and an official complaint was made. To cap it all off, in the second innings, Stuart Broad, after taking an age to arrive at the crease, asked for a review of his dismissal and then took an age to depart when the correct verdict was upheld.

It has been a series with many positives for England. But they should be wary of earning themselves a reputation for poor behaviour. These reputations tend to stick and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some of their number being disciplined sooner rather than later. The trip to Bangladesh, for which they are unlikely to be much bigger than [1.3] in the winner's market, is an opportunity to polish their skills and for some of them to rediscover some form. Stand-in captain Alastair Cook might also be advised to get them to work on their behaviour.