As Australia struggle to take only their 54th wicket of the series on this Thursday morning (remembering 20 of them were taken in Perth), our minds now must be cast forward to the future of Australian cricket.
Despite the struggles of the top order, the regeneration has started. Smith, Khawaja and Hughes are all under 25 and are all already in the team. Clarke could do himself a huge favour in the second innings by making some runs, otherwise he may find himself not only being replaced as captain when the Australian Test Team next play.
Michael Hussey should probably be moved on with a huge thank you from the Australian selectors, as he is not going to England in 2013. Ponting could come back down the order as well.
On further examination of Shane Watson, maybe he could bat #4. Of course, that would necessitate a new opening batsman to accompany Phil Hughes at the top of the order, and none are putting their hand up in such a way that could not be ignored. Suggestions of Shaun Marsh are folly; he doesn't average 40 in first class cricket. The dearth of opening options probably keeps Watson at the top of the order for a little while yet.
So Watson, Hughes, Khawaja and Smith stay, as well as one of Ponting and Clarke (and perhaps two if Clarke makes runs and Ponting keeps the captaincy). Maybe one spot opens up for a Callum Ferguson or another New South Wales wunderkind, but for now, the top seven (with Haddin or Tim Paine) seems fairly settled. Now all they need to do is make some bloody runs.
The bowling doesn't seem so settled. Ben Hilfenhaus has probably done his dash, to be consigned to the same area of historical record as Dave Gilbert. That Doug Bollinger didn't get a go in front of his home crowd at the SCG, when the selectors preferred him over Hilfenhaus at the same venue only 24 months ago shows the inconsistency of the selectors clearly.
An even more clear demonstration of the lack of consistency is Nathan Hauritz. If the selectors weren't persisting with Hauritz because of the upcoming Ashes series, then I don't know what they were doing. And before getting injured, he has a good summer in 2009/10, bowling well against both the West Indies and Pakistan.
After a poor tour of India (and let's face it, the last Australian spinner to succeed in India was probably named Benaud) he was sent to Coventry, never to been seen again in a Baggy Green. Enter Xavier Doherty, who was selected on the back of one four-wicket haul in a one-day match, and Michael Beer, who will probably not play for Australia again after this test match. Even Peter McIntyre (and Doherty, for that matter) got a second test.
That leaves Siddle and Johnson. Siddle is the workhorse whose career should follow the trajectory of that other Victorian hero, Merv Hughes. He's energetic, tireless, and his infectious personality helps the team keep things light and happy. That and he can bowl a bit too.
Johnson is a massive headache. Clearly no other bowler in Australia can produce spells and deliveries so devastating as Johnson. The problem is when he doesn't bowl incredibly well, he bowls utter tripe. The gulf between his best and his worst makes the Grand Canyon look like a crack in a concrete footpath. Only adding to the dilemma is the fact that he may be the best pure ball striker in the batting order, meaning a Johnson innings can also be like a Johnson spell - match winning or just plain awful.
With Ryan Harris' injury probably meaning he has missed his chance, now is the time to get someone like Mitchell Starc or James Pattinson into the side.
As for the spinner, I don't really care who it is as long as they persist with him for more than a couple of test matches. Considering the problems so many teams (West Indies, England, South Africa, New Zealand) have with wrist spin, Cameron Boyce may be a risk worth taking. It is important to note than absolutely no spinner in Australia is knocking down the door for a spot, with the possible exception of the aforementioned Nathan Hauritz.
Having said all that, the next focus should be on the ICC World Cup, and we should present a settled ODI outfit. As for the test arena, hopefully something can arise from the ashes of a ruined summer.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Dissecting a Day at the Cricket
A day at the cricket can be entertaining, it can be educational, it can be both and it can be neither.
To watch the Australian batting order dismantle themselves on Day 3 of the Fourth Ashes Test Match was depressing. My 12 year old brother in law put it best: first two sessions good, last session miserable.
Firstly, there was the galactically poor judgement of Shane Watson. Anyone who could advocate his elevation to the Test Captaincy after this demonstration of what not to do must have rocks in their head.
In order to provide some context, the Australian openers in Watson and Hughes were scoring freely, but also pushing the fielding team with enterprising running between the wickets. However, this was when the ball was pushed into the spacious MCG outfield, as Watson and Hughes regularly turned twos into threes.
Turning zeroes into ones is a harder task, and one Watson failed at miserably as he ran out his partner who was looking good and in need of a confidence building extended stay in the middle. So much for that plan as Hughes was left short, and the rot began on a pitch that gave little aid to the bowling attack.
Clearly a poor or ordinary throw at the stumps can turn a dicey run into a safe run. On the other hand, not using the bat to defend an inswinger on the diminishing bounce of the MCG drop in wicket was a clear example of Watson's complete lack of judgement. If he had played a shot, he would not have been out. It is clear now that there is good judgement, there is bad judgement, and there is Watson judgement.
The next two men in the batting order provided much the same option on the menu, but while I feel no sympathy for Michael Clarke, I feel plenty for Ricky Ponting. Determined to make his stay at the crease time consuming, he resolved to play at the ball only when required. With his broken finger filled with anaesthetic, he struggled his way to 20 runs before the curtain came down, another inswinger finding the inside of the bat and the fullness of the stumps.
Ponting trudged off a defeated man. It is clear he is finished as a test cricketer, not only defeated on skill and ability, but also in heart. The only thing he can do now is hurt his legacy, as players like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid get to enjoy a swansong, away from the harsh interrogation of character being captain or batting number three provide. Ponting has become a victim of Australian toughness in a way Steve Waugh never did.
Watching Michael Clarke, I made the comment he wouldn't get a game for St Kilda CC 2nds. After unbelievably charging Graeme Swann on the first ball he faced from him, only to miss the ball (fortunately Matt Prior did as well), he then decided to be completely subservient to Swann's whims, letting the cocky English spinner dictate terms until Swann finally decided to stop playing with him and put Clarke, and more importantly us watching, out of our collective misery.
Swann is the barometer of the English team. He is energetic, feeding off his own success and the reaction it gets from the Barmy Army and other English supporters, who were clearly much too numerous at the MCG for economic benefit to allow. Maybe the Aussie Dollar needs to hit parity with the Pound before all those loud Poms stay at home to be snowed under and finally silenced.
Back to Swann: you need to hit him out of the attack. By the time Peter Siddle and Brad Haddin were doing the right thing on the fourth morning, it was too late. Siddle made 40 by whacking Swann down the ground, and Siddle is a solid number 9/10 batsman.
Clarke just sat there pushing the ball back to Swann time and time again, like a kid being pushed in the chest by a bigger kid until he starts crying. Clarke needed to literally knock the smile from Swann's face, and instead he just embarrassed himself.
Clarke's career showed all the promise of maybe a all time great of Australian cricket, but at the moment I think I'd rather Damien Martyn's career than Clarke's.
Michael Hussey played his most uncharacteristic shot of the series, but while Hussey has plenty of credits in the bank, he won't be around for the next Ashes and should announce Sydney will be his last Test Match. Better to go while they miss you and all that guff.
The best innings of the day to watch was Steven Smith's. He had a crack, and while his technique doesn't look great, his ability to just play his game regardless of circumstances is more than encouraging. Smith is clearly one to stick with, and stick with at number six. The fact he is a wrist spinner will help him succeed, especially against the likes of England, the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, who don't face wrist spinners much and therefore don't like facing wrist spin.
The lack of fight by the Australians, personified in the once talented but now unable batting of Michael Clarke, was the most disappointing thing about a day at the cricket. Let's hope the inclusion of some new blood in the top six, and the collection of a solid bowling attack, will enable the road to our next Ashes triumph to be a short one. But if a twelve year old is pencilling in 2017 as our next series win against the old enemy, who am I to argue?
To watch the Australian batting order dismantle themselves on Day 3 of the Fourth Ashes Test Match was depressing. My 12 year old brother in law put it best: first two sessions good, last session miserable.
Firstly, there was the galactically poor judgement of Shane Watson. Anyone who could advocate his elevation to the Test Captaincy after this demonstration of what not to do must have rocks in their head.
In order to provide some context, the Australian openers in Watson and Hughes were scoring freely, but also pushing the fielding team with enterprising running between the wickets. However, this was when the ball was pushed into the spacious MCG outfield, as Watson and Hughes regularly turned twos into threes.
Turning zeroes into ones is a harder task, and one Watson failed at miserably as he ran out his partner who was looking good and in need of a confidence building extended stay in the middle. So much for that plan as Hughes was left short, and the rot began on a pitch that gave little aid to the bowling attack.
Clearly a poor or ordinary throw at the stumps can turn a dicey run into a safe run. On the other hand, not using the bat to defend an inswinger on the diminishing bounce of the MCG drop in wicket was a clear example of Watson's complete lack of judgement. If he had played a shot, he would not have been out. It is clear now that there is good judgement, there is bad judgement, and there is Watson judgement.
The next two men in the batting order provided much the same option on the menu, but while I feel no sympathy for Michael Clarke, I feel plenty for Ricky Ponting. Determined to make his stay at the crease time consuming, he resolved to play at the ball only when required. With his broken finger filled with anaesthetic, he struggled his way to 20 runs before the curtain came down, another inswinger finding the inside of the bat and the fullness of the stumps.
Ponting trudged off a defeated man. It is clear he is finished as a test cricketer, not only defeated on skill and ability, but also in heart. The only thing he can do now is hurt his legacy, as players like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid get to enjoy a swansong, away from the harsh interrogation of character being captain or batting number three provide. Ponting has become a victim of Australian toughness in a way Steve Waugh never did.
Watching Michael Clarke, I made the comment he wouldn't get a game for St Kilda CC 2nds. After unbelievably charging Graeme Swann on the first ball he faced from him, only to miss the ball (fortunately Matt Prior did as well), he then decided to be completely subservient to Swann's whims, letting the cocky English spinner dictate terms until Swann finally decided to stop playing with him and put Clarke, and more importantly us watching, out of our collective misery.
Swann is the barometer of the English team. He is energetic, feeding off his own success and the reaction it gets from the Barmy Army and other English supporters, who were clearly much too numerous at the MCG for economic benefit to allow. Maybe the Aussie Dollar needs to hit parity with the Pound before all those loud Poms stay at home to be snowed under and finally silenced.
Back to Swann: you need to hit him out of the attack. By the time Peter Siddle and Brad Haddin were doing the right thing on the fourth morning, it was too late. Siddle made 40 by whacking Swann down the ground, and Siddle is a solid number 9/10 batsman.
Clarke just sat there pushing the ball back to Swann time and time again, like a kid being pushed in the chest by a bigger kid until he starts crying. Clarke needed to literally knock the smile from Swann's face, and instead he just embarrassed himself.
Clarke's career showed all the promise of maybe a all time great of Australian cricket, but at the moment I think I'd rather Damien Martyn's career than Clarke's.
Michael Hussey played his most uncharacteristic shot of the series, but while Hussey has plenty of credits in the bank, he won't be around for the next Ashes and should announce Sydney will be his last Test Match. Better to go while they miss you and all that guff.
The best innings of the day to watch was Steven Smith's. He had a crack, and while his technique doesn't look great, his ability to just play his game regardless of circumstances is more than encouraging. Smith is clearly one to stick with, and stick with at number six. The fact he is a wrist spinner will help him succeed, especially against the likes of England, the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, who don't face wrist spinners much and therefore don't like facing wrist spin.
The lack of fight by the Australians, personified in the once talented but now unable batting of Michael Clarke, was the most disappointing thing about a day at the cricket. Let's hope the inclusion of some new blood in the top six, and the collection of a solid bowling attack, will enable the road to our next Ashes triumph to be a short one. But if a twelve year old is pencilling in 2017 as our next series win against the old enemy, who am I to argue?
Monday, December 20, 2010
Sledging: It's for the best
It took almost three years, but the Australian Cricket Team is starting to put the after effects of the Harbhajan Singh - Andrew Symonds incident behind it.
I opined in this space during the disastrous South African series in 2008/09 that the Australians were too quiet on the field, and this reflected a state of mind created by the media furore after the New Years' Test of 2008 versus India. At that time, Graeme Smith even commented publicly about the lack of any chatter on the field from the Australians.
The furore was to blame for this retraction of the Australian Cricket Team into their collective shells. Despite the clear, indisputable fact that it was the Indian and not the Australian who used the racial slur, the Indian media went into a frenzy. Well, that is not entirely accurate - they're always in a frenzy. For the ideal paradigm, as Obama is for Fox News, Australia is for the Indian media.
Generally, Australians play hard. They use any legitimate means to unsettle opponents, and they do this to opponents of all colours and creeds.
The Australians rediscovered the art of sledging at the WACA Ground, but only after Kevin Pietersen stirred the sleeping giant by verballing Mitchell Johnson. Johnson was suddenly more emotionally involved in the contest, and produced a spell that turned the test match and perhaps the series.
Suddenly, the Aussies were sledging the English, and this is for the better, because a verbally aggressive Australian side is usually a successful one. However, this on-field banter, despite being obvious to all and sundry watching at home on the High Definition TV sets, did not set off the left-wing sporting intelligensia of the Fairfax press and their associated cheering brigade the way it did when we were playing India. To sledge a white South African playing for England is A-OK, but to do it to an Indian of colour is racism and shames all Australians. What tosh.
I don't really care if the Australians are liked or make friends. They are paid, very well in fact, to win games of cricket, and they lost a whole bunch of them quietly, but only when they started to show some real backbone and started to talk back to an English line-up starting to resemble their supporters for annoyance and arrogance, they started playing better cricket and the results came swiftly and dramatically.
So, here's to the Australia of old, in it to win it, taking no prisoners, and not caring what people outside of the team think about their manners and other such bunkum. On to Melbourne for Boxing Day, and hopefully the Christmas spirit of generosity won't extend to the field of contest.
I opined in this space during the disastrous South African series in 2008/09 that the Australians were too quiet on the field, and this reflected a state of mind created by the media furore after the New Years' Test of 2008 versus India. At that time, Graeme Smith even commented publicly about the lack of any chatter on the field from the Australians.
The furore was to blame for this retraction of the Australian Cricket Team into their collective shells. Despite the clear, indisputable fact that it was the Indian and not the Australian who used the racial slur, the Indian media went into a frenzy. Well, that is not entirely accurate - they're always in a frenzy. For the ideal paradigm, as Obama is for Fox News, Australia is for the Indian media.
Generally, Australians play hard. They use any legitimate means to unsettle opponents, and they do this to opponents of all colours and creeds.
The Australians rediscovered the art of sledging at the WACA Ground, but only after Kevin Pietersen stirred the sleeping giant by verballing Mitchell Johnson. Johnson was suddenly more emotionally involved in the contest, and produced a spell that turned the test match and perhaps the series.
Suddenly, the Aussies were sledging the English, and this is for the better, because a verbally aggressive Australian side is usually a successful one. However, this on-field banter, despite being obvious to all and sundry watching at home on the High Definition TV sets, did not set off the left-wing sporting intelligensia of the Fairfax press and their associated cheering brigade the way it did when we were playing India. To sledge a white South African playing for England is A-OK, but to do it to an Indian of colour is racism and shames all Australians. What tosh.
I don't really care if the Australians are liked or make friends. They are paid, very well in fact, to win games of cricket, and they lost a whole bunch of them quietly, but only when they started to show some real backbone and started to talk back to an English line-up starting to resemble their supporters for annoyance and arrogance, they started playing better cricket and the results came swiftly and dramatically.
So, here's to the Australia of old, in it to win it, taking no prisoners, and not caring what people outside of the team think about their manners and other such bunkum. On to Melbourne for Boxing Day, and hopefully the Christmas spirit of generosity won't extend to the field of contest.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tanking for Dummies (and cricketers)
Before the expansion Suns and Giants came around to steal the AFL club's much beloved priority picks, it was in vogue, when met with a situation where finals were impossible, to try to ensure you won less than 5 matches for the year. This would mean an extra pick either at the start or the end of the first round, depending on the length of a club's malaise.
Well, considering the Cricket Australia selection panel's desperate ability to grasp onto any hope of a reversal of fortune before making any sort of significant change to the side, the reality is clear that for the long term success of the Australian Test Team, they need to lose in Perth, in addition to the match already lost in Adelaide. The selectors need to be convinced as soon as possible that the Ashes are not for reclaiming this time around. Only then are the selectors likely to embrace the hard decisions that are now well past overdue.
We are now as far away from an Ashes series as one can be in the current cycle, overlooking the current "contest" we are playing in. The next Ashes are in England in 2013, more than two-and-a-half years away. So, if Test success is the pinnacle for Australian cricket, and the Ashes are the most important series for Australia, then now is the ideal time to start the rebuild. And it must start, rather surprisingly considering our inability to bowl anyone out without a hat trick, with the top seven in the batting order.
You see, this is where the age is. All of our bowlers are under 30, including the blokes who are on the outer depending on who got belted most recently. So, rather than recommend who is to be dropped and who is to be played, it would be better if the selectors just settled on a line-up and gave them some time to work together.
The top seven is a different story entirely. If the Australian Test team is to renew and rebuild, some very hard decisions need to be made about the top and middle order of the batting.
Take Simon Katich for example. As tough and courageous as he is, he doesn't convert enough of his scores into hundreds, has a Achilles injury that will keep him out for the rest of the series, and is well into his thirties. Hopefully Phil Hughes makes plenty of runs after he replaces Katich so the decision is made easy, but time's probably up for Katich's international career.
It would also be a tough decision to leave Michael Hussey and Brad Haddin out, as without these two Australia would be 2-0 down in the series. But no one can honestly expect them to be in England in 2013 in anything other than a commentary capacity, or perhaps hosting a tour of Aussie cricket fans. Haddin should probably survive the rest of the summer due to Tim Paine's injury, but Hussey is keeping a youngster out who needs experience.
It is clear that neither Ricky Ponting's captaincy, or batting, for that matter, are up to scratch, and at nearly 36, he should probably retire at the end of this summer to go and earn some serious coin hitting bowlers all over grounds the size of tennis courts in the IPL.
There is no defence for Marcus North - there should be a riot if he survives to Perth.
That leaves Shane Watson and Michael Clarke, who should be retained. Watson is a bankable 50 runs at the top of the order, and a valuable change bowler who makes the batsman play and can swing the old ball. Clarke is still one of the two or three most talented cricketers in the country, but the sooner he gives away the Twenty20 garbage, the better for all and sundry.
Anyway, here's my side for Perth, and hopefully the selector's side for Melbourne:
Hughes
Watson
Ponting (c) (to be replaced at the end of the season by Usman Khawaja)
Clarke
Ferguson
White
Haddin (to be replaced at the end of the season by Tim Paine)
Doherty
Johnson
Bollinger
Harris
Siddle - 12th man
I wish the selectors all the best, but I suspect they'll only have the courage of a dummy.
Well, considering the Cricket Australia selection panel's desperate ability to grasp onto any hope of a reversal of fortune before making any sort of significant change to the side, the reality is clear that for the long term success of the Australian Test Team, they need to lose in Perth, in addition to the match already lost in Adelaide. The selectors need to be convinced as soon as possible that the Ashes are not for reclaiming this time around. Only then are the selectors likely to embrace the hard decisions that are now well past overdue.
We are now as far away from an Ashes series as one can be in the current cycle, overlooking the current "contest" we are playing in. The next Ashes are in England in 2013, more than two-and-a-half years away. So, if Test success is the pinnacle for Australian cricket, and the Ashes are the most important series for Australia, then now is the ideal time to start the rebuild. And it must start, rather surprisingly considering our inability to bowl anyone out without a hat trick, with the top seven in the batting order.
You see, this is where the age is. All of our bowlers are under 30, including the blokes who are on the outer depending on who got belted most recently. So, rather than recommend who is to be dropped and who is to be played, it would be better if the selectors just settled on a line-up and gave them some time to work together.
The top seven is a different story entirely. If the Australian Test team is to renew and rebuild, some very hard decisions need to be made about the top and middle order of the batting.
Take Simon Katich for example. As tough and courageous as he is, he doesn't convert enough of his scores into hundreds, has a Achilles injury that will keep him out for the rest of the series, and is well into his thirties. Hopefully Phil Hughes makes plenty of runs after he replaces Katich so the decision is made easy, but time's probably up for Katich's international career.
It would also be a tough decision to leave Michael Hussey and Brad Haddin out, as without these two Australia would be 2-0 down in the series. But no one can honestly expect them to be in England in 2013 in anything other than a commentary capacity, or perhaps hosting a tour of Aussie cricket fans. Haddin should probably survive the rest of the summer due to Tim Paine's injury, but Hussey is keeping a youngster out who needs experience.
It is clear that neither Ricky Ponting's captaincy, or batting, for that matter, are up to scratch, and at nearly 36, he should probably retire at the end of this summer to go and earn some serious coin hitting bowlers all over grounds the size of tennis courts in the IPL.
There is no defence for Marcus North - there should be a riot if he survives to Perth.
That leaves Shane Watson and Michael Clarke, who should be retained. Watson is a bankable 50 runs at the top of the order, and a valuable change bowler who makes the batsman play and can swing the old ball. Clarke is still one of the two or three most talented cricketers in the country, but the sooner he gives away the Twenty20 garbage, the better for all and sundry.
Anyway, here's my side for Perth, and hopefully the selector's side for Melbourne:
Hughes
Watson
Ponting (c) (to be replaced at the end of the season by Usman Khawaja)
Clarke
Ferguson
White
Haddin (to be replaced at the end of the season by Tim Paine)
Doherty
Johnson
Bollinger
Harris
Siddle - 12th man
I wish the selectors all the best, but I suspect they'll only have the courage of a dummy.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Beware of One Term Too Many
If you have a relative in Queensland or New South Wales, it may be an idea to give them a call or drop them an email before the weekend.
If you do just that, ask them about the performance of their respective state governments since the last time the state went to the polls.
If you don't have a relative north of the Murray, you may just want to cast your minds back, if you can, to what happened after Paul Keating won the 1993 Federal Election, or John Cain won the 1988 Victorian State Election.
Australian political and electoral history is littered with examples of Labor Governments somehow eking out a final victory against the odds, only to keep on performing like the tired old government they were previous to the election, but managed to keep under wraps enough to get 50%+1 of the seats.
The writing was on the wall in 1988, with financial disasters completely of the Cain Government's making just about to become public knowledge, coupled with the global downturn associated with the stockmarket crash of 1987, conspiring to create a most important election. Only nobody knew it, and after Jeff Kennett made a silly remark about not needing the Nationals to govern, any chance of a change of government was very slim. We all know how that turned out, with the state exponentially more of a economic basketcase in 1992 than it was in 1988. Those were a very costly four years to the people of Victoria.
To a lesser extent, the surprise victory of Paul Keating and his government in 1993 against the John Hewson-led Coalition led to a three year term of indifference to real problems facing middle Australia. Keating instead chose to focus on the Republic, the Arts and Aboriginal Affairs, in a vain attempt to reshape Australia in his own image and likeness. Clearly a government governing for one term too many.
These all pale in comparison with the sideshow that has become the New South Wales ALP Government. This term, after Morris Iemma beat the unelectable Peter Debnam in 2007, has seen three Premiers, voluminous changes to the ministry, corruption allegations related to the urban planning processes, criminal proceedings against former ministers, and swings of biblical proportions in a number of by elections caused by the resignation, whether voluntary or forced by political embarassment, of many members of this dysfunctional government. To call it a dog's breakfast would be an insult only to what canines eat first thing in the morning.
While you may accuse me of hyperbole, the truth is 2010 in Victoria feels a lot like 2007 in New South Wales, or 2009 in Queensland, or 1988 here in Victoria. It doesn't appear to be an important election, but , at the time, neither did the ones I mentioned, with the exception of the 1993 Federal Election. Unfortunately, you sometimes don't know how important an election was until it is over and done with.
Sometimes it is said about sporting figures that it is better to retire while you are missed, rather than being forced out after your welcome has been warn out. So it is in politics, and it is certainly time for John Brumby and his crew of merry meddlers to be put out to pasture. Time for a change.
If you do just that, ask them about the performance of their respective state governments since the last time the state went to the polls.
If you don't have a relative north of the Murray, you may just want to cast your minds back, if you can, to what happened after Paul Keating won the 1993 Federal Election, or John Cain won the 1988 Victorian State Election.
Australian political and electoral history is littered with examples of Labor Governments somehow eking out a final victory against the odds, only to keep on performing like the tired old government they were previous to the election, but managed to keep under wraps enough to get 50%+1 of the seats.
The writing was on the wall in 1988, with financial disasters completely of the Cain Government's making just about to become public knowledge, coupled with the global downturn associated with the stockmarket crash of 1987, conspiring to create a most important election. Only nobody knew it, and after Jeff Kennett made a silly remark about not needing the Nationals to govern, any chance of a change of government was very slim. We all know how that turned out, with the state exponentially more of a economic basketcase in 1992 than it was in 1988. Those were a very costly four years to the people of Victoria.
To a lesser extent, the surprise victory of Paul Keating and his government in 1993 against the John Hewson-led Coalition led to a three year term of indifference to real problems facing middle Australia. Keating instead chose to focus on the Republic, the Arts and Aboriginal Affairs, in a vain attempt to reshape Australia in his own image and likeness. Clearly a government governing for one term too many.
These all pale in comparison with the sideshow that has become the New South Wales ALP Government. This term, after Morris Iemma beat the unelectable Peter Debnam in 2007, has seen three Premiers, voluminous changes to the ministry, corruption allegations related to the urban planning processes, criminal proceedings against former ministers, and swings of biblical proportions in a number of by elections caused by the resignation, whether voluntary or forced by political embarassment, of many members of this dysfunctional government. To call it a dog's breakfast would be an insult only to what canines eat first thing in the morning.
While you may accuse me of hyperbole, the truth is 2010 in Victoria feels a lot like 2007 in New South Wales, or 2009 in Queensland, or 1988 here in Victoria. It doesn't appear to be an important election, but , at the time, neither did the ones I mentioned, with the exception of the 1993 Federal Election. Unfortunately, you sometimes don't know how important an election was until it is over and done with.
Sometimes it is said about sporting figures that it is better to retire while you are missed, rather than being forced out after your welcome has been warn out. So it is in politics, and it is certainly time for John Brumby and his crew of merry meddlers to be put out to pasture. Time for a change.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Right Kind of Campaign
Victorian Election pretty boring, huh? Good. As it should be.
Recently, we've seen a increase in the amount of loud hyperbole coming from politicians. Some of it can seem to be lacking thought, and some of it can seem downright psychic, like Joe Hockey's comments on the banks, but for many politicians and elected representatives, it seems like they only have one volume that is constantly stuck on 11.
Take the midterm congressional elections in the United States as the best example. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives behind a groundswell of resentment at the economy, Washington politics, and reforms proposed by President Barack Obama, such as those relating to health care, the financial industry, economic stimulus packages, and the military.
Americans know and love hyperbole better than most, and their politicians even more so. The use of emotive terms like "death panels" and "refounding our constitution" are meant to elicit visceral, emotional response, and mostly they do from citizens who feel very strongly about being patriotic to the American ideal.
The problem is that this sort of fearmongering doesn't address the real issues facing the US Congress and the United States as a whole: a poorly performing economy, a Federal Government laden with trillions of dollars of debt with no end in sight and no program to reduce the deficit with any chance of being approved by Congress, and fighting two wars on the other side of the world without a realistic exit strategy.
The number of high-profile Republicans proposing realistic, yet necessarily drastic, solutions to United States' crippling debt, could be fit into a small room. And because many of these people are libertarians, their lack of support for moral issues, such as outlawing abortion or preventing same-sex marriages, make them unattractive to many Republican "values" voters.
So you get elections with, as Shakespeare put it, "a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing". That is why it is so refreshing to have a low key election campaign here in Victoria, with the focus on announcing programs to address the problems facing Victoria and her citizenry.
While the media shows many signs of tiring at this understated campaign, focussing on "process stories" such as preferences and candidates flip-flopping about whether they will remain the endorsed candidates, both campaigns have on the main, with the exception of the entirely hateable Rob Hulls, stuck on a policy oriented message. This is to be commended.
Hopefully people will continue to engage with the leaders between now and November 27, and this engagement will produce a result that provides real action for all Victorians.
Hopefully the campaign will not degenerate into namecalling and the like, no matter what Rob Hulls wants.
So, don't be too unhappy this election is not very entertaining: that's the way it should be.
Recently, we've seen a increase in the amount of loud hyperbole coming from politicians. Some of it can seem to be lacking thought, and some of it can seem downright psychic, like Joe Hockey's comments on the banks, but for many politicians and elected representatives, it seems like they only have one volume that is constantly stuck on 11.
Take the midterm congressional elections in the United States as the best example. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives behind a groundswell of resentment at the economy, Washington politics, and reforms proposed by President Barack Obama, such as those relating to health care, the financial industry, economic stimulus packages, and the military.
Americans know and love hyperbole better than most, and their politicians even more so. The use of emotive terms like "death panels" and "refounding our constitution" are meant to elicit visceral, emotional response, and mostly they do from citizens who feel very strongly about being patriotic to the American ideal.
The problem is that this sort of fearmongering doesn't address the real issues facing the US Congress and the United States as a whole: a poorly performing economy, a Federal Government laden with trillions of dollars of debt with no end in sight and no program to reduce the deficit with any chance of being approved by Congress, and fighting two wars on the other side of the world without a realistic exit strategy.
The number of high-profile Republicans proposing realistic, yet necessarily drastic, solutions to United States' crippling debt, could be fit into a small room. And because many of these people are libertarians, their lack of support for moral issues, such as outlawing abortion or preventing same-sex marriages, make them unattractive to many Republican "values" voters.
So you get elections with, as Shakespeare put it, "a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing". That is why it is so refreshing to have a low key election campaign here in Victoria, with the focus on announcing programs to address the problems facing Victoria and her citizenry.
While the media shows many signs of tiring at this understated campaign, focussing on "process stories" such as preferences and candidates flip-flopping about whether they will remain the endorsed candidates, both campaigns have on the main, with the exception of the entirely hateable Rob Hulls, stuck on a policy oriented message. This is to be commended.
Hopefully people will continue to engage with the leaders between now and November 27, and this engagement will produce a result that provides real action for all Victorians.
Hopefully the campaign will not degenerate into namecalling and the like, no matter what Rob Hulls wants.
So, don't be too unhappy this election is not very entertaining: that's the way it should be.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Sands of Time
This week the great Sachin Tendulkar passed 14,000 Test runs, while amassing his 49th Test Century, both clear records. It caused some in the media to enter into a discussion about whether Tendulkar should be regarded as the equal, or perhaps a superior cricketer to Don Bradman.
This debate is now going on all over the world, and while also possibly feeding into a rivalry between Australia and India which borders on the unhealthy, it is getting heated with many cricket followers, despite having never seen Bradman play, having strong opinions about the subject.
I'm not going to really get into the Bradman v Tendulkar debate, other than to say that Bradman scored all of his runs on uncovered pitches, and played most of his Test Cricket against the second best side in the world, so add this to Bradman's amazing average, and Bradman still remains the best, and probably always will.
However, it feeds into a deeper trend about disparaging, even if only by the mere mention of another in serious comparison, of many sportspeople who came before.
Haydn Bunton made his name in Aussie Rules at the same time as Bradman was dominating attacks and scoring a century every third time he batted. He won 3 Brownlow Medals before turning 27, and then won three Sandover Medals in the WAFL.
His 122 Brownlow votes in 119 games stands alone as the most incredible feat in polling votes in our game, and is also the best candidate for a stat like Bradman's average of 99.94.
But Bunton died young (he's been dead for 55 years), and his legacy has been mostly forgotten.
In more recent times, the AFL awarded the Full Back position in the team of the VFL/AFL's first 100 seasons to a then current player, Stephen Silvagni, over Jack Regan, the Collingwood champion of the 1930s. Regan was known as the "Prince of Full Backs", and duelled with Bob Pratt at the height of his powers.
Silvagni's feats were fresh in our minds, while Regan's had been consigned to history, forgotten in the deep archived compactus of the game. Numerous other examples exist of such thinking.
William Goldman, the famous and successful screenwriter, co-authored a book on sports in 1987 with Mike Lupica titled "Wait Til Next Year". In a chapter by Goldman defending Wilt Chamberlain, he gave us this::
"The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware that it's begun, and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. It really is a battle to the death."
He suggested the best players of that day, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, would also get the same treatment as many that had gone before, with pundits suggesting that "they couldn't play today".
While it is both honourable and right to celebrate the genius that is Sachin Tendulkar, we should never forget what those incredible sportspeople who achieved their greatness before the 24-7 sports blogosphere Twitter media circus became the norm.
As Halls of Fame become fat with the mere passing of time, we should also occassionally take time to recognise those that revolutionised the game with pioneering play, whether it be the way Bill Russell played defence, to how Polly Farmer handballed, to how Usain Bolt is changing sprinting by his mere size.
Without Bunton we would not have had Judd. Without Regan we would not have had Scarlett. And without Bradman, we would not have had Tendulkar. The best, often, is not the most recent in the memory. Let us remember that.
This debate is now going on all over the world, and while also possibly feeding into a rivalry between Australia and India which borders on the unhealthy, it is getting heated with many cricket followers, despite having never seen Bradman play, having strong opinions about the subject.
I'm not going to really get into the Bradman v Tendulkar debate, other than to say that Bradman scored all of his runs on uncovered pitches, and played most of his Test Cricket against the second best side in the world, so add this to Bradman's amazing average, and Bradman still remains the best, and probably always will.
However, it feeds into a deeper trend about disparaging, even if only by the mere mention of another in serious comparison, of many sportspeople who came before.
Haydn Bunton made his name in Aussie Rules at the same time as Bradman was dominating attacks and scoring a century every third time he batted. He won 3 Brownlow Medals before turning 27, and then won three Sandover Medals in the WAFL.
His 122 Brownlow votes in 119 games stands alone as the most incredible feat in polling votes in our game, and is also the best candidate for a stat like Bradman's average of 99.94.
But Bunton died young (he's been dead for 55 years), and his legacy has been mostly forgotten.
In more recent times, the AFL awarded the Full Back position in the team of the VFL/AFL's first 100 seasons to a then current player, Stephen Silvagni, over Jack Regan, the Collingwood champion of the 1930s. Regan was known as the "Prince of Full Backs", and duelled with Bob Pratt at the height of his powers.
Silvagni's feats were fresh in our minds, while Regan's had been consigned to history, forgotten in the deep archived compactus of the game. Numerous other examples exist of such thinking.
William Goldman, the famous and successful screenwriter, co-authored a book on sports in 1987 with Mike Lupica titled "Wait Til Next Year". In a chapter by Goldman defending Wilt Chamberlain, he gave us this::
"The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware that it's begun, and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. It really is a battle to the death."
He suggested the best players of that day, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, would also get the same treatment as many that had gone before, with pundits suggesting that "they couldn't play today".
While it is both honourable and right to celebrate the genius that is Sachin Tendulkar, we should never forget what those incredible sportspeople who achieved their greatness before the 24-7 sports blogosphere Twitter media circus became the norm.
As Halls of Fame become fat with the mere passing of time, we should also occassionally take time to recognise those that revolutionised the game with pioneering play, whether it be the way Bill Russell played defence, to how Polly Farmer handballed, to how Usain Bolt is changing sprinting by his mere size.
Without Bunton we would not have had Judd. Without Regan we would not have had Scarlett. And without Bradman, we would not have had Tendulkar. The best, often, is not the most recent in the memory. Let us remember that.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Time for an Appointed Speaker
If you thought a pair was a piece of fruit that was a not-so-distant relative of the apple, then you haven't been keeping an eye (or ear) on what has been happening in Australian Federal Politics recently.
A hung parliament, the result of Australia not really deciding on August 21, leads to all sorts of issues, not the least of which is the common practice of the Speaker of the House being taken from the government ranks, leaving them with one less vote on the floor than they normally would have, except when there is a tie when the Speaker can cast a deliberative vote to break the tie.
Now, I'm not calling on Harry Jenkins to use that vote to ensure a premiership for St Kilda. But the razor thin majority the Gillard Government has in the House of Representatives is effectively halved when Jenkins gets up in his high chair and starts presiding over parliamentary proceedings.
This means that any planned government travel during sitting days, illness, parental leave or unexplained absence at an inconvenient time could leave the government without the required numbers to pass legislation, regardless of the whims of Messrs Bandt, Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor.
Government ministers need, on occasion, to travel overseas to meet important people, and that opportunity may not always present itself during a week where parliament is not sitting. If Tony Abbott insists on playing hardball with parliamentary numbers, this may render the House of Representatives largely unworkable from a government standpoint until the minister returns to the House.
Which begs the question: why does the Speaker still need to be a member of the House?
It has been mentioned during the process to attract the support of the independents previously mentioned that taking the role of the Speaker would render the member unable to represent their constituents through Adjournment Debates, Matters of Public Importance, Member's Statements, and debates on individual pieces of legislation. To summarise, the Speaker cannot make any statements in the House except to rule on the conduct of the House and its members.
Despite the pay rise and additional staff, this makes the Speaker's job a less attractive one. You also need to be ever present in Parliament House in case of a division, and you need to be an expert on all the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the House.
Surely, this is a job that could be given to an appointed public servant, above party politics, expert on parliamentary procedure and practice, who would administer the rules of the House, without having a say on the composition of those rules, which would remain the responsibility of the lawmakers themselves.
In this country, governments appoint judges whose role is to interpret and administer law, but not to write law. The Speaker of the House would be a legal expert on the government payroll but administratively independent, part of the Department of the Parliament.
The person would also not be an elected member of a political party, and would therefore be above accusations of bias and partiality in their rulings in the House, which has often been a problem with governments usually enjoying more favour from the Speaker's chair than oppositions.
This would leave all 150 members of the House of Representatives free to represent their constituencies equally, and would also reflect the totality of the will of the people expressed at the most recent general election. This could also be applied to the Senate, although the reasons relating to representation, as Senators do not represent small constituencies but large states, are not as compelling.
Surely it is time that Australia leads the way, as it did with the secret ballot and the extension of the vote to women, in this important area of parliamentary practice, and made the Speaker of the House an appointed official, rather than a elected politician.
A hung parliament, the result of Australia not really deciding on August 21, leads to all sorts of issues, not the least of which is the common practice of the Speaker of the House being taken from the government ranks, leaving them with one less vote on the floor than they normally would have, except when there is a tie when the Speaker can cast a deliberative vote to break the tie.
Now, I'm not calling on Harry Jenkins to use that vote to ensure a premiership for St Kilda. But the razor thin majority the Gillard Government has in the House of Representatives is effectively halved when Jenkins gets up in his high chair and starts presiding over parliamentary proceedings.
This means that any planned government travel during sitting days, illness, parental leave or unexplained absence at an inconvenient time could leave the government without the required numbers to pass legislation, regardless of the whims of Messrs Bandt, Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor.
Government ministers need, on occasion, to travel overseas to meet important people, and that opportunity may not always present itself during a week where parliament is not sitting. If Tony Abbott insists on playing hardball with parliamentary numbers, this may render the House of Representatives largely unworkable from a government standpoint until the minister returns to the House.
Which begs the question: why does the Speaker still need to be a member of the House?
It has been mentioned during the process to attract the support of the independents previously mentioned that taking the role of the Speaker would render the member unable to represent their constituents through Adjournment Debates, Matters of Public Importance, Member's Statements, and debates on individual pieces of legislation. To summarise, the Speaker cannot make any statements in the House except to rule on the conduct of the House and its members.
Despite the pay rise and additional staff, this makes the Speaker's job a less attractive one. You also need to be ever present in Parliament House in case of a division, and you need to be an expert on all the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the House.
Surely, this is a job that could be given to an appointed public servant, above party politics, expert on parliamentary procedure and practice, who would administer the rules of the House, without having a say on the composition of those rules, which would remain the responsibility of the lawmakers themselves.
In this country, governments appoint judges whose role is to interpret and administer law, but not to write law. The Speaker of the House would be a legal expert on the government payroll but administratively independent, part of the Department of the Parliament.
The person would also not be an elected member of a political party, and would therefore be above accusations of bias and partiality in their rulings in the House, which has often been a problem with governments usually enjoying more favour from the Speaker's chair than oppositions.
This would leave all 150 members of the House of Representatives free to represent their constituencies equally, and would also reflect the totality of the will of the people expressed at the most recent general election. This could also be applied to the Senate, although the reasons relating to representation, as Senators do not represent small constituencies but large states, are not as compelling.
Surely it is time that Australia leads the way, as it did with the secret ballot and the extension of the vote to women, in this important area of parliamentary practice, and made the Speaker of the House an appointed official, rather than a elected politician.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Climate Change Policy - You Decide - NOW
While many in our society like to complain that our elected officials don't know what it going on in "the real world", or aren't in touch with the real issues facing "real Australians", the fact is that we elect them to do a job and run the country, the government, and the economy. Julia Gillard would like that to change.
Climate Change is one of the more contentious issues facing policy makers today. Not only do we have a debate about whether the climate is changing, we also have debates on whether we should have a debate (hard-line climate change believers like to use words like "we need to move on from debate", "the science is settled", and "there is a consensus"), whether it is caused by human activity, what we should do about it, and whether we should do anything if bigger and larger overall polluters like China and India do nothing, preferring economic growth to carbon reduction.
Regardless of what has occurred in the last three years, Kevin Rudd and the ALP ran at the 2007 election on a platform of introducing a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia emits. Faced with a hostile Senate, filled with Liberals and Nationals who felt the scheme went too far, and Greens who felt the scheme didn't go far enough, the scheme did not pass the Senate and was not reintroduced by the Government, or used as a trigger for a Double Dissolution election.
Now, at the next election with Kevin Rudd relegated to local member and the ground shifting in this policy area, Julia Gillard wants to create a "Citizens Assembly" to develop a "consensus" on climate change.
The assembly, which would include 150 "ordinary Australians", would be "informed by experts" about climate change before making recommendations. The speech announcing this, of which The Australian has obtained a copy, apparently states "this must not just be a debate between experts ... it must be a real debate among involving many real Australians".
Firstly, I don't know who to be more offended for first, but experts are experts for a reason: they know what they are talking about. Could you imagine the government creating such an assembly to determine economic policy? Not in a million years. Also offensive is the implication that experts, or to put it more plainly, public servants, are not real Australians, but live in a land of make-believe called "Government land". They have mortgages, grocery and petrol bills, friends, hobbies, children, and all that other stuff that "real Australians" have as well.
It's also a significant abrogation of the responsibility of government, chosen from the party in the majority in the House of Representatives. We elect governments to govern.
There already exists a "Citizens Assembly", which has 150 "real Australians", informed by experts on various areas of policy and public administration: it's called the House of Representatives.
Gillard is being disingenuous as well as condescending and offensive when she plans to handball this key area of public policy, labelled by her predecessor and member of her party as "the greatest moral challenge of our time", off to 150 people, randomly selected like they have just won the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes.
What Gillard should do, considering she has been in Government for 32 months, is outline what she and her colleagues in the ALP is the best course of action regarding this issue, and if the Opposition offers a different policy, then let the people decide at an election, which we will be having on August 21. That way 13,000,000 Australians, rather than 150, can decide on policy direction the Commonwealth Government should head on Climate Change.
Australia needs better leadership than this, and this proposal demonstrates exactly why Gillard is unfit for office.
Climate Change is one of the more contentious issues facing policy makers today. Not only do we have a debate about whether the climate is changing, we also have debates on whether we should have a debate (hard-line climate change believers like to use words like "we need to move on from debate", "the science is settled", and "there is a consensus"), whether it is caused by human activity, what we should do about it, and whether we should do anything if bigger and larger overall polluters like China and India do nothing, preferring economic growth to carbon reduction.
Regardless of what has occurred in the last three years, Kevin Rudd and the ALP ran at the 2007 election on a platform of introducing a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia emits. Faced with a hostile Senate, filled with Liberals and Nationals who felt the scheme went too far, and Greens who felt the scheme didn't go far enough, the scheme did not pass the Senate and was not reintroduced by the Government, or used as a trigger for a Double Dissolution election.
Now, at the next election with Kevin Rudd relegated to local member and the ground shifting in this policy area, Julia Gillard wants to create a "Citizens Assembly" to develop a "consensus" on climate change.
The assembly, which would include 150 "ordinary Australians", would be "informed by experts" about climate change before making recommendations. The speech announcing this, of which The Australian has obtained a copy, apparently states "this must not just be a debate between experts ... it must be a real debate among involving many real Australians".
Firstly, I don't know who to be more offended for first, but experts are experts for a reason: they know what they are talking about. Could you imagine the government creating such an assembly to determine economic policy? Not in a million years. Also offensive is the implication that experts, or to put it more plainly, public servants, are not real Australians, but live in a land of make-believe called "Government land". They have mortgages, grocery and petrol bills, friends, hobbies, children, and all that other stuff that "real Australians" have as well.
It's also a significant abrogation of the responsibility of government, chosen from the party in the majority in the House of Representatives. We elect governments to govern.
There already exists a "Citizens Assembly", which has 150 "real Australians", informed by experts on various areas of policy and public administration: it's called the House of Representatives.
Gillard is being disingenuous as well as condescending and offensive when she plans to handball this key area of public policy, labelled by her predecessor and member of her party as "the greatest moral challenge of our time", off to 150 people, randomly selected like they have just won the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes.
What Gillard should do, considering she has been in Government for 32 months, is outline what she and her colleagues in the ALP is the best course of action regarding this issue, and if the Opposition offers a different policy, then let the people decide at an election, which we will be having on August 21. That way 13,000,000 Australians, rather than 150, can decide on policy direction the Commonwealth Government should head on Climate Change.
Australia needs better leadership than this, and this proposal demonstrates exactly why Gillard is unfit for office.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Wonky Politics
Kevin Rudd apparently loves policy detail. "Policy wonk" is the term of endearment used most often to describe his way of doing things ("control freak" is not a term of endearment).
Rudd led a government that for all intents and purposes still exists. While Julia Gillard may have replaced Kevin Rudd as the leader of that government, Rudd himself is the only change to the government. The continuity is so set in stone that Ms Gillard has chosen to retain two "lame-duck" cabinet members who have indicated they will not continue in the cabinet past the next election.
Another way you can tell this is the same government is the way that they develop policy, which has demonstrated that suggesting Mr Rudd is a policy wonk is a little like suggesting Michael Barlow has an intact tibia bone.
This Rudd/Gillard Government has in fact a well earned reputation for glossing over policy detail in order to announce and implement policies and programs as soon as possible, for maximum PR effect.
The most glaring example under the previous Prime Minister was the insulation scheme. Rather than creating a much needed regulatory framework for the registration and examination of competency of tradespeople performing the work of installing insulation in private homes, the Rudd Government got the money into the economy as soon as possible. This was the main objective of the insulation scheme.
However, this dereliction of basic policy development, admitted by outgoing Finance Minister Linsday Tanner, contributed to thousands of homes becoming "live-wired", and the increase of activity also led to the deaths of a number of installers.
The provision of solar hot water heaters to various community used facilities was also another policy where the overarching objective overrode the proper development of policy detail, leading to football ovals across Australia
Unfortunately under our new Prime Minister little has changed. Ms Gillard announced that she had discussed with the President of East Timor the possibility of processing asylum seekers in the tiny nation.
Now, here's a lesson of what not to do in politics, especially government: don't think out loud about policy.
The result of Ms Gillard's thought bubble has been that the media has been taking her "plans" as official government policy. Only problem is that all Ms Gillard has done is talk to the President of East Timor, not the Prime Minister who would usually make this sort of decision, and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Her total discussions with these national leaders has probably totalled about sixty minutes.
This policy of a processing facility for asylum seekers on East Timor is light on for detail, hasn't been agreed to by East Timor itself, and is opens Ms Gillard to accusations of hypocrisy, given her previous opposition to the Howard's Government "Pacific Solution", which also processed asylum seekers away from Australian soil.
If Ms Gillard wants to spend longer than 100 days in the Prime Minister's chair, then it may be an idea to increase the level of work done on important government policies between now and the election, or else it may be experienced former government minister Tony Abbott who gets her job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
