It's been an eventful decade for Australian Cricket.
I've selected an eleven, a "team" if you will, of the most memorable moments in Australian Cricket during the noughties.
1. McGrath's hat-trick
Also including a first ball dismissal of Brian Lara for his 300th Test wicket, McGrath snared Jimmy Adams with a softer-than-melted-ice-cream dismissal for his hat trick. This played part of an incredble 5-0 whitewash of the West Indies in the last full-length Frank Worrell Trophy series to be played in Australia.
The West Indies would the first two Tests by an innings despite Australia not scoring 400 in either match, and eventually the West Indies would manage only three innings scores of over 200.
2. Laxman and Dravid bat and bat and bat and bat...
Australia had won 16 Tests in a row when they went to Calcutta to extend their streak and finally win a series on Indian soil. After securing a massive 274 run lead on the first innings, Steve Waugh's confidence got the better of him and he enforced the follow-on before lunch on day 3.
VVS Laxman was joined by Rahul Dravid shortly before tea on Day 3, India still in arrears by 42 runs, and looking at the possibility of a humiliating defeat. They batted out day 3, all of day 4 and into day 5, putting on 376 for the fifth wicket, and leaving India in a position of dominance. India would win the Test Match, the Third Test and the series, and Steve Waugh would never play another Test Series in India again.
3. Steve Waugh's 100 - New Years, 2003
Steve Waugh was under incredible pressure to keep his spot in the Australian side when the Aussies and England travelled to the SCG for the last Ashes Test of the summer. He had been replaced as ODI captain eleven months before, seen his brother's international career ended before The Ashes, and had struggled through a summer topped off by a gruelling and laborious knock in Melbourne while suffering from severe pain in his mouth.
And so he came out and raced to a good score on the second day of the Fifth Test, and with time running out in the day, Waugh hit Richard Dawson to the extra cover boundary with the last ball of the day to record a career-saving hundred.
What everyone forgets is that Waugh was out in the first over the next morning, and Australia lost the match.
4. Symonds and Ponting bookend a remarkable World Cup
At the start of the 2003 World Cup, things were falling apart for the Aussies. A concerted media campaign to replace an out-of-form Andrew Symonds in the Cup squad with Steve Waugh had failed. Darren Lehmann had racially villified his Sri Lankan opponents in the Tri-Series in Australia, and had been suspended. Michael Bevan was recovering from an injury, and promising youngster Shane Watson had been ruled out with stress fractures in his back.
But the bombshell that would come with Shane Warne, playing in his last ODI tournament, being banned for taking a prohibited diuretic, right before the opening game of the tournament for the Aussies.
The Australians, playing a Pakistan team led by Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar, were in early trouble before the maligned Andrew Symonds played one of the greatest ODI innings ever, scoring 145 and setting the tone for a tournament where the Australians would remain unvanquished.
In the final against India, captain Ricky Ponting made his own nominee for the greatest ODI knock of all time with 140, as he hit India's attack all around Wanderers Stadium.
5. The Greatest Test of All Time
McGrath rolls his ankle before the match. Ponting wins the toss and bowls. England makes 407 in less than 80 overs. Australia collapse from 3/194 to 308 all out. Warne bowls Strauss with one of the best balls ever bowled. He takes 6/46 to restore Australia's chances. Australia need 282 for victory.
Australia collapse to 7/137. Warne joins Michael Clarke. They put on 38 before Harmison bowls Clarke. Lee comes out to bat to start day 4. There will be no day 5. Warne and Lee put on 45. Warne treads on his wicket, leaving Australia 62 runs short of victory with one wicket in hand. Kasprowicz joins Lee. They edge closer. Three runs short of victory, Flintoff bowls one short down the leg side. Kasprowicz gloves the ball. Jones dives to his left. He holds the catch. Flintoff consoles Lee. England win by 2 runs.
6. Gilchrist's 100 in Perth v England
To see this innings was to see Gilchrist, his powers beginning to deteriorate, at his punishing best. He lofted Monty Panasar into the stands at the WACA three times in the one over, each six longer and deeper into the crowd than the last. He falls agonisingly short to the quickest hundred in Test history when Matthew Hoggard decides to play spoiler and send one so wide Gilchrist could hardly reach it.
Gilchrist's 100 help decisively swing the Test Match to the Aussies, and when Warne clean bowls Monty Panasar two days later, The Ashes were back in Australia's grasp.
7. Warne's 700th Wicket
Just a few days later on one of those cold, wintry days you can only get in Melbourne in December, Shane Keith Warne, at his spiritual home, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, clean bowled Andrew Strauss to claim his 700th Test wicket, on Boxing Day no less. Warne was the first cricketer to take 700 Test wickets. He would play only one more test, as Warne, Glenn McGrath and Justin Langer all retired after the final Ashes Test.
8. Another World Cup Triumph
The 2007 World Cup was, on almost any measure, an unmitigated disaster. Despite a schedule designed to ensure the eight best teams in the world made the Super Eights, Pakistan and India were beaten by Ireland and Bangladesh respectively and knocked out of the tournament. Pakistan's coach Bob Woolmer died within 24 hours of the shock loss to the Irish. And, of course, the debacle of the final finishing in almost total darkness.
However, for the second straight World Cup, the Aussies didn't lose a game, extending their unbeaten run at World Cups to 28 matches. And Adam Gilchrist played one final incredible innings, hitting Sri Lanka to every corner of the park.
9. Ugliness in Sydney
The turning point of Australian dominance in World Cricket was almost the most unseemly event in the game this decade. Harbhajan Singh, long a tormenter of the Australian side, allegedly repeated an ethnic slur at Andrew Symonds, and this was heard by his good mate Matthew Hayden. Singh is reported, but the controversy boils over when coupled with numerous dubious umpiring decisions, overall hostility between the two teams, and a knife-edge Australian victory which doubles as the 16th victory in a record-equalling streak.
Suddenly, the Australian Cricket Team are villians, and cricket becomes the latest frontline in the culture wars, as it is suggested that our cricketers are reflections of nearly all that is bad about our racist, petulant society.
India, not satisfied that some is being chided for petulance, threaten to end the series and go home if Singh does not have his suspension for his racial abuse overturned. Eventually, a mealy-mouthed alternative is devised that sees Singh fined for regular, garden-variety abuse.
From this point on, the Australian Cricket Team is never the same. They are quiet on the field, and over the next 20 months, lose Test Series to India, South Africa and England.
10. Sharma/Ponting
Despite the furore in Sydney, the most enthralling, must-watch session of cricket for the decade occurs in Perth in the Third Test, when Ishant Sharma, the 19 year old Indian quick, battles with Ricky Ponting for one incredible hour of Test Cricket at its absolute best.
That Ponting survived for that long is a testament to the champion that he is, but eventually Sharma claimed Ponting caught behind, and India go on to win in Perth for the first time ever.
11. Another Ashes Failure in England
The decade ended on a poor note for Australia, as they lose an Ashes Series they absolutely dominate statistically.
Pundits blame the selectors for not playing Nathan Hauritz at the Oval as the pitch turns square, but Hauritz is hardly Ashley Mallett. The most overlooked facet of the series is that Australia were one session lost to rain in Cardiff away from a squared series and retaining The Ashes. The Australian also show a propensity for spectacular batting collapses that will plague them into the new Australian summer.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Just let them play Cricket
It seems that I have to come in to bat for the Australian Cricket Team. Again.
Today, Jonathan Green, over at the new ABC blog site "The Drum", opines that a losing Australian Cricket Team would be good for cricket. You can read it here.
Now, "The Drum" is a new addition to the ABC website, and features contributions from writers such as the often entertaining Annabel Crabb, Barry Cassidy, and of course Green, who also is the big wig running the site.
Before Green was running "The Drum" he was Editor in Chief of Crikey.com, and oversaw the transformation of the site and it's associated members-only newsletter from small, plucky, gossip-filled insurgency to overblown, overimportant and supercilious soft-left tome. So coming from Green, this article is hardly surprising.
Green's basic premise is that the Australian Cricket Team are bad losers, petulant in their behaviour and far from humble in defeat.
Now, he probably wrote this after seeing Doug Bollinger throwing the rattle from the pusher after the abomination of a decision he received after Asaud Rauf gave Brendan Nash not out, Nash not offering a shot. With Australia out of replay challenges, Nash was safe.
Bollinger's reaction was not one usually associated with grown men, but it was in isolation. A way of telling this is it is the only specific incident Green refers to. The rest is broad generalities about behaviour, including a description of Ponting's behaviour that defies all reason.
Green writes that he wants to like the Australian Cricket Team, but only a cursory perusal of his article would indicate that this is lip service of a fairly high order.
Unfortunately this is indicative of a recent trend that has seen the Australian Cricket Team become a key issue of debate in Australia's Culture Wars. They are either just a team of highly paid sportspeople trying to justify their large salaries, or a boorish and boganistic (!) reflection on all that is wrong with Australian society at large.
I wrote about this when this sort of guff began to appear in the mass media: when Australia controversially beat India at the SCG in the New Year's Test in 2008. (My thoughts are here.)
I also wrote about the effect this had on the behaviour of the Australian Cricket Team here. The Australian Cricket Team's talk and swagger on the field was nothing compared to the intimidation opponents felt when coming up against the teams led by Steve Waugh. This had had a manifestly detrimental affect on the team's results, and since that 2008 SCG Test Match, Australia having lost series to India, South Africa and England, while beating the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand.
The truth is the Australian Cricket Team do not behave like spoilt little brats, and never have. Under Waugh, the Australian Cricket Team was focussed on winning Test Matches, and anyone who didn't like the behaviour of the team, as long as that behaviour wasn't contrary to the rules of the game, could sod off. Waugh's loyalty was to the team, and to success.
Even Bollinger's dummy-spit in Adelaide could be attributed to a man whose spot in the side is uncertain, and whose team was badly needing wickets against a much weaker rival. It doesn't make it right or any less embarrassing, but it's no reason to start barracking for Pakistan.
If the Left are tired of the cricketer's behaviour, or more likely, are never going to be satisfied with their behaviour no matter what they do, then they should find a new sport, ideally one where no member of the Coalition of the Willing (e.g. USA, UK, Australia) are world beaters. Fencing would be a good example.
Australians play Test Matches to win Test Matches. It is that pure and simple, and we should just let them do it rather that submit to a national therapy session.
Today, Jonathan Green, over at the new ABC blog site "The Drum", opines that a losing Australian Cricket Team would be good for cricket. You can read it here.
Now, "The Drum" is a new addition to the ABC website, and features contributions from writers such as the often entertaining Annabel Crabb, Barry Cassidy, and of course Green, who also is the big wig running the site.
Before Green was running "The Drum" he was Editor in Chief of Crikey.com, and oversaw the transformation of the site and it's associated members-only newsletter from small, plucky, gossip-filled insurgency to overblown, overimportant and supercilious soft-left tome. So coming from Green, this article is hardly surprising.
Green's basic premise is that the Australian Cricket Team are bad losers, petulant in their behaviour and far from humble in defeat.
Now, he probably wrote this after seeing Doug Bollinger throwing the rattle from the pusher after the abomination of a decision he received after Asaud Rauf gave Brendan Nash not out, Nash not offering a shot. With Australia out of replay challenges, Nash was safe.
Bollinger's reaction was not one usually associated with grown men, but it was in isolation. A way of telling this is it is the only specific incident Green refers to. The rest is broad generalities about behaviour, including a description of Ponting's behaviour that defies all reason.
Green writes that he wants to like the Australian Cricket Team, but only a cursory perusal of his article would indicate that this is lip service of a fairly high order.
Unfortunately this is indicative of a recent trend that has seen the Australian Cricket Team become a key issue of debate in Australia's Culture Wars. They are either just a team of highly paid sportspeople trying to justify their large salaries, or a boorish and boganistic (!) reflection on all that is wrong with Australian society at large.
I wrote about this when this sort of guff began to appear in the mass media: when Australia controversially beat India at the SCG in the New Year's Test in 2008. (My thoughts are here.)
I also wrote about the effect this had on the behaviour of the Australian Cricket Team here. The Australian Cricket Team's talk and swagger on the field was nothing compared to the intimidation opponents felt when coming up against the teams led by Steve Waugh. This had had a manifestly detrimental affect on the team's results, and since that 2008 SCG Test Match, Australia having lost series to India, South Africa and England, while beating the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand.
The truth is the Australian Cricket Team do not behave like spoilt little brats, and never have. Under Waugh, the Australian Cricket Team was focussed on winning Test Matches, and anyone who didn't like the behaviour of the team, as long as that behaviour wasn't contrary to the rules of the game, could sod off. Waugh's loyalty was to the team, and to success.
Even Bollinger's dummy-spit in Adelaide could be attributed to a man whose spot in the side is uncertain, and whose team was badly needing wickets against a much weaker rival. It doesn't make it right or any less embarrassing, but it's no reason to start barracking for Pakistan.
If the Left are tired of the cricketer's behaviour, or more likely, are never going to be satisfied with their behaviour no matter what they do, then they should find a new sport, ideally one where no member of the Coalition of the Willing (e.g. USA, UK, Australia) are world beaters. Fencing would be a good example.
Australians play Test Matches to win Test Matches. It is that pure and simple, and we should just let them do it rather that submit to a national therapy session.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
West Indies Series Preview
Australia will win 3-0.
It's that simple.
The real issue as we start this summer which promises little but will probably over-deliver is the ridiculous schedule that has been adopted ever since Australian Cricket authorities gave the one-day Tri-Series the flick.
The West Indies will play Test Matches in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth between tomorrow and December 20. They will then go home.
The Pakistanis will come for three more Tests, renewing their love affair with Bellerive in mid-January after Boxing Day in Melbourne and New Years in Sydney. They then play ODIs in Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and two (?) in Perth, before a Twenty20 in Melbourne. This will all occur before the first week of February ends, or traditionally when the International summer used to finish during the time of the Tri-Series.
Then back come the West Indies for ODIs in Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne (again), before two Twenty20s in Hobart and Sydney. Remember than Australia have never lost an international Twenty20 match on home soil.
The International summer will finish on February 23.
First of all, the Test Matches should start the weekend after the Melbourne Cup, or at the latest the weekend after that. This year we are starting three weekends after the Melbourne Cup.
That would give the program an opportunity to play three Test Matches (say for 2009, Nov 12-16, Nov 20-24 and Dec 3-7) before a series of ODIs and Twenty20s before Christmas (Dec 11, 13, 16, 18 & 20 with a Twenty20 on Dec 22).
Then the Boxing Day and New Years Tests would proceed as usual, followed by a Third Test at the same time it is in 09/10 (January 14-18). The ODI/Twenty20 fixture would also be the same for this second series, meaning the International summer would finish in the first week of February, meaning that interest and crowds (especially in a place like Melbourne, where AFL interest really kicks in mid-February) wouldn't peter off. Have you ever been to a ODI in Melbourne in February or March (like in 07/08)? It's like a chore just to attend.
Moving Tests earlier in November would also ensure that cricket fills a sporting void after the Spring Carnival that is currently being filled by speculation about Luke Ball. Anything would be better than that.
Touring teams would also come and go, rather than come and go and come again and go again.
Anyway, here's hoping the Aussies bat tomorrow, Punter makes a 100, and all this stuff is soon forgotten.
It's that simple.
The real issue as we start this summer which promises little but will probably over-deliver is the ridiculous schedule that has been adopted ever since Australian Cricket authorities gave the one-day Tri-Series the flick.
The West Indies will play Test Matches in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth between tomorrow and December 20. They will then go home.
The Pakistanis will come for three more Tests, renewing their love affair with Bellerive in mid-January after Boxing Day in Melbourne and New Years in Sydney. They then play ODIs in Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and two (?) in Perth, before a Twenty20 in Melbourne. This will all occur before the first week of February ends, or traditionally when the International summer used to finish during the time of the Tri-Series.
Then back come the West Indies for ODIs in Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne (again), before two Twenty20s in Hobart and Sydney. Remember than Australia have never lost an international Twenty20 match on home soil.
The International summer will finish on February 23.
First of all, the Test Matches should start the weekend after the Melbourne Cup, or at the latest the weekend after that. This year we are starting three weekends after the Melbourne Cup.
That would give the program an opportunity to play three Test Matches (say for 2009, Nov 12-16, Nov 20-24 and Dec 3-7) before a series of ODIs and Twenty20s before Christmas (Dec 11, 13, 16, 18 & 20 with a Twenty20 on Dec 22).
Then the Boxing Day and New Years Tests would proceed as usual, followed by a Third Test at the same time it is in 09/10 (January 14-18). The ODI/Twenty20 fixture would also be the same for this second series, meaning the International summer would finish in the first week of February, meaning that interest and crowds (especially in a place like Melbourne, where AFL interest really kicks in mid-February) wouldn't peter off. Have you ever been to a ODI in Melbourne in February or March (like in 07/08)? It's like a chore just to attend.
Moving Tests earlier in November would also ensure that cricket fills a sporting void after the Spring Carnival that is currently being filled by speculation about Luke Ball. Anything would be better than that.
Touring teams would also come and go, rather than come and go and come again and go again.
Anyway, here's hoping the Aussies bat tomorrow, Punter makes a 100, and all this stuff is soon forgotten.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The trouble with cricket
Apparently, cricket is in trouble. Shane Warne is in today's stable of News Limited newspapers articulating, if you can call it that, his panacea for all things ill in today's game.
For my part, I must state first and foremost that I love Test Cricket, enjoy One-Day cricket and pay to attend ODIs, and tolerate Twenty20 matches, while vowing never to pay money to attend one in person.
Recently it has been asserted Test Cricket is more popular than ever in places like Australia, England and India. James Sutherland, CEO of Cricket Australia, said as much on Offsiders on Sunday morning.
That isn't entirely true. In Australia, Test Cricket is popular in Melbourne and Sydney. Attendances are really good in Adelaide, but many of the attendees are tourists from other states. Attendances are poor in Brisbane and Perth, but the GABBA Test survives because of tradition and inability for states that lay to the south to host a Test Match in mid-November, and the WACA Test survives because the last session of each day screens into the Eastern States in primetime.
In India, while Test Cricket may be at an all-time high of popularity, that doesn't mean it is popular. A recent poll indicated that 9% of Indians consider Test Cricket to be their favourite form of the game.
It is clear that Australian cricketers still consider Test Cricket to be far and away the pinnacle for any cricketer. However, the lack of enthusiasm for this form of the game in other countries, and the lack of quality cricketers, means that Australia may have to endure more summers like the one about to occur, when Australia will host the pathetic West Indies and the nomadic Pakistan.
The money being offered for Twenty20 cricket in India will provide another problem for administrators. If the ICC would create a two month period for this form of cricket each year, then that would be advantageous to other forms of the game.
Also, no more One-Day series of more than five games, unless the World Cup is up for grabs. And it is difficult to see a reason for retaining the Champions Trophy, despite the fact Australia have won the last two.
Cricket also needs to think about innovative solutions, and stop being so married to traditions of the past. Ninety overs in six hours of cricket per day in 2009 is almost impossible, as captains, rightfully, spend significant periods of time on field placings and bowling changes. Give teams an extra half hour at the start and the end of the day.
It is nowhere near too late for Test Cricket, and the game overall is growing. But a few small changes could make plenty of difference.
For my part, I must state first and foremost that I love Test Cricket, enjoy One-Day cricket and pay to attend ODIs, and tolerate Twenty20 matches, while vowing never to pay money to attend one in person.
Recently it has been asserted Test Cricket is more popular than ever in places like Australia, England and India. James Sutherland, CEO of Cricket Australia, said as much on Offsiders on Sunday morning.
That isn't entirely true. In Australia, Test Cricket is popular in Melbourne and Sydney. Attendances are really good in Adelaide, but many of the attendees are tourists from other states. Attendances are poor in Brisbane and Perth, but the GABBA Test survives because of tradition and inability for states that lay to the south to host a Test Match in mid-November, and the WACA Test survives because the last session of each day screens into the Eastern States in primetime.
In India, while Test Cricket may be at an all-time high of popularity, that doesn't mean it is popular. A recent poll indicated that 9% of Indians consider Test Cricket to be their favourite form of the game.
It is clear that Australian cricketers still consider Test Cricket to be far and away the pinnacle for any cricketer. However, the lack of enthusiasm for this form of the game in other countries, and the lack of quality cricketers, means that Australia may have to endure more summers like the one about to occur, when Australia will host the pathetic West Indies and the nomadic Pakistan.
The money being offered for Twenty20 cricket in India will provide another problem for administrators. If the ICC would create a two month period for this form of cricket each year, then that would be advantageous to other forms of the game.
Also, no more One-Day series of more than five games, unless the World Cup is up for grabs. And it is difficult to see a reason for retaining the Champions Trophy, despite the fact Australia have won the last two.
Cricket also needs to think about innovative solutions, and stop being so married to traditions of the past. Ninety overs in six hours of cricket per day in 2009 is almost impossible, as captains, rightfully, spend significant periods of time on field placings and bowling changes. Give teams an extra half hour at the start and the end of the day.
It is nowhere near too late for Test Cricket, and the game overall is growing. But a few small changes could make plenty of difference.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A rambling post on television
A warning: this blog entry is going to seem a little like a self-indulgent whinge.
Correction: this blog entry is going to seem a little more like a self-indulgent whinge than my usual slightly self-indulgent entries.
Anyway, last week Rosso, or Merrick and Rosso "fame", announced he was quitting his breakfast radio show in Nova in Sydney. He currently hosts the show with his comedic partner, and former Home and Away actress Kate Ritchie.
The news coverage about this was something akin to the moon landing.
This morning the lead article on both the Herald-Sun and The Age websites was about Rove McManus ending his self-titled Channel Ten show.
For me, Merrick and Rosso are just some comedians who have had some success. They had a TV show on Channel Nine called Merrick and Rosso: Unplanned (I used to call it Merrick and Rosso: Unwatched), and I liked Merrick's work on The Hollowmen (I, rather surprisingly, didn't like the show overall).
While Rove won three Gold Logies, this is not the big deal it was in the 1980s. For God's sake, Kate Ritchie won Gold Logies in consecutive years, the second just last year! Rove's three wins just go to show the dearth of real personalities we have on Australian television, considering the award is for the most popular personality. Actors have won 10 of the last 13 Gold Logies.
Rove's flagship Channel Ten show was never "Can't Miss" TV the way IMT or the Don Lane Show was, anyway. You could argue that the last Australian "Can't Miss" TV show that wasn't acted or news-related was The Comedy Company.
Australian television has been veering towards low-cost entertainment that use unknowns as the stars for sometime. It's just embarrassing that if in 2002, instead of giving it to Georgie Parker, they had given the Gold Logie to the person who probably was the most popular personality on TV in the preceding 12 months: Sara-Marie Fedele from Big Brother.
Next week, Australian Idol will conclude, and Channel Ten has promised at least another year. It will probably be it's last.
I know shows like Today and Sunrise have to fill their 3 hours somehow, but a little bit of proportion please. The end of Merrick and Watts on radio is not Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis breaking up, and Rove leaving his tired show isn't exactly big news.
Maybe I'm just too concerned about television for someone who is getting married in 20 days. My fiance would agree with me. For once.
Correction: this blog entry is going to seem a little more like a self-indulgent whinge than my usual slightly self-indulgent entries.
Anyway, last week Rosso, or Merrick and Rosso "fame", announced he was quitting his breakfast radio show in Nova in Sydney. He currently hosts the show with his comedic partner, and former Home and Away actress Kate Ritchie.
The news coverage about this was something akin to the moon landing.
This morning the lead article on both the Herald-Sun and The Age websites was about Rove McManus ending his self-titled Channel Ten show.
For me, Merrick and Rosso are just some comedians who have had some success. They had a TV show on Channel Nine called Merrick and Rosso: Unplanned (I used to call it Merrick and Rosso: Unwatched), and I liked Merrick's work on The Hollowmen (I, rather surprisingly, didn't like the show overall).
While Rove won three Gold Logies, this is not the big deal it was in the 1980s. For God's sake, Kate Ritchie won Gold Logies in consecutive years, the second just last year! Rove's three wins just go to show the dearth of real personalities we have on Australian television, considering the award is for the most popular personality. Actors have won 10 of the last 13 Gold Logies.
Rove's flagship Channel Ten show was never "Can't Miss" TV the way IMT or the Don Lane Show was, anyway. You could argue that the last Australian "Can't Miss" TV show that wasn't acted or news-related was The Comedy Company.
Australian television has been veering towards low-cost entertainment that use unknowns as the stars for sometime. It's just embarrassing that if in 2002, instead of giving it to Georgie Parker, they had given the Gold Logie to the person who probably was the most popular personality on TV in the preceding 12 months: Sara-Marie Fedele from Big Brother.
Next week, Australian Idol will conclude, and Channel Ten has promised at least another year. It will probably be it's last.
I know shows like Today and Sunrise have to fill their 3 hours somehow, but a little bit of proportion please. The end of Merrick and Watts on radio is not Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis breaking up, and Rove leaving his tired show isn't exactly big news.
Maybe I'm just too concerned about television for someone who is getting married in 20 days. My fiance would agree with me. For once.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Another World Cup Win Coming Up
It is amazing how quickly things can change. Not three months ago we were bemoaning the lack of planning and character as the Australian Cricket Team meekly wilted against a barrage of swing at The Oval, unhappiest of all locations in England for Aussie cricketers. By the time the next Ashes take place in England, in 2013, chances are highly likely Australia will take a squad that includes no one who has tasted victory in a series in England. The good thing about that was that the last time this happened was 1989.
Fast forward those three months, and the Australians are victorious once more. What is more impressive is that is has been accomplished with an eleven of similar quality sitting back in Australia either injured, or with papers marked "Never to play for Australia again" (and I'm talking about you, Brad Hodge).
The side that destroyed India on Sunday was Marsh, Watson, Ponting, White, Hussey, Voges, Manou, Johnson, Hauritz, Bollinger and Clint McKay. Graham Manou is Australia's third string keeper, so comparitively inept with the bat he bats at number eight. Paine and Haddin often open the batting when playing for Australia.
Cameron White has left no one pining for Michael Clarke's return, and Adam Voges has more than covered for the promising Callum Ferguson.
The side that's not playing at the moment? Haddin, Paine, Clarke, Ferguson, Hodge, D Hussey, Hopes, Holland, Siddle, Lee & Bracken. A match between those two teams would be a coin flip. And I couldn't find a spot in either side for David Warner , Ben Hilfenhaus or Moises Henriques.
This is why, if Australia can maintain their form in the one day version of the game, they should be looking forward to a fourth consecutive World Cup win in 2011.
Australia should start selecting one-day squads now for 2011. Despite his reasonable current form, Michael Hussey should probably be left to resurrect his test form (and dropped to number five in that form of the game). Brett Lee should be filed in the same area of the cabinet draw as Brad Hodge. He's old and brittle.
The selectors should also consider Brad Haddin's long term future in one-day cricket. It's not like he's a long time fixture in the team, anyway. Keep him fresh for the test matches too, and groom Tim Paine now.
A fifteen man squad for the next 18 months could ideally look like this: Ponting, Marsh, Watson, Clarke, White, Ferguson, Hopes, Johnson, Hauritz, Bracken, Siddle, Paine, Bollinger, Voges & Henriques. Plenty of quality outside of that fifteen, including players we may have not heard much about yet.
The Australians probably won't get much of a challenge this summer from the West Indies, and Pakistan are notoriously unpredictable. Let's hope the Aussies can get the challenge they need to keep at top form, and over the twelve months after that before the next World Cup. Things are looking good.
Fast forward those three months, and the Australians are victorious once more. What is more impressive is that is has been accomplished with an eleven of similar quality sitting back in Australia either injured, or with papers marked "Never to play for Australia again" (and I'm talking about you, Brad Hodge).
The side that destroyed India on Sunday was Marsh, Watson, Ponting, White, Hussey, Voges, Manou, Johnson, Hauritz, Bollinger and Clint McKay. Graham Manou is Australia's third string keeper, so comparitively inept with the bat he bats at number eight. Paine and Haddin often open the batting when playing for Australia.
Cameron White has left no one pining for Michael Clarke's return, and Adam Voges has more than covered for the promising Callum Ferguson.
The side that's not playing at the moment? Haddin, Paine, Clarke, Ferguson, Hodge, D Hussey, Hopes, Holland, Siddle, Lee & Bracken. A match between those two teams would be a coin flip. And I couldn't find a spot in either side for David Warner , Ben Hilfenhaus or Moises Henriques.
This is why, if Australia can maintain their form in the one day version of the game, they should be looking forward to a fourth consecutive World Cup win in 2011.
Australia should start selecting one-day squads now for 2011. Despite his reasonable current form, Michael Hussey should probably be left to resurrect his test form (and dropped to number five in that form of the game). Brett Lee should be filed in the same area of the cabinet draw as Brad Hodge. He's old and brittle.
The selectors should also consider Brad Haddin's long term future in one-day cricket. It's not like he's a long time fixture in the team, anyway. Keep him fresh for the test matches too, and groom Tim Paine now.
A fifteen man squad for the next 18 months could ideally look like this: Ponting, Marsh, Watson, Clarke, White, Ferguson, Hopes, Johnson, Hauritz, Bracken, Siddle, Paine, Bollinger, Voges & Henriques. Plenty of quality outside of that fifteen, including players we may have not heard much about yet.
The Australians probably won't get much of a challenge this summer from the West Indies, and Pakistan are notoriously unpredictable. Let's hope the Aussies can get the challenge they need to keep at top form, and over the twelve months after that before the next World Cup. Things are looking good.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Definition of Irony
A little Friday fun.This dude doesn't like gay people. He's tattooed a section from Leviticus, Leviticus 18:22 to be exact.
The problem is if he had read (at all is probably closer to the truth, but I digress) a little further.
Leviticus 19:28 reads:
"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
I like the Jules Winnfield finish. Have a good weekend.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
In defence of Hey Hey
First of all, let's get it out of the way. The black face skit on Red Faces last night was terrible, and should never have gotten to air. Someone should be sacked for allowing it on television, because people were going to be offended, and rightly so, and this entire controversy could have been avoided. I'm in no way defending that skit.
But I am defending the return of the show.
Look, I don't really want to sound like a culture warrior when talking about the return of a little TV show like Hey Hey It's Saturday. But the line dividing those who attack the very fact that the show returned in the first place, or that somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians would watch it on a Wednesday night in 2009, and those somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians who did watch it last week (and watched it last night) resembles the lines that divide the culture warriors.
On one hand you have what best can be described as "the arts/entertainment elite commentariat" (if that can best describe anything or anyone). Reading The Age over the last two weeks, you wouldn't have read one good thing about Hey Hey's return. Critcisms ranged from laziness and mere nostalgia on Channel Nine's part to indulging in jingoism and old-fashioned, backwards values that should have disappeared long ago.
Marieke Hardy, The Age's commentator and niece of Australian comedy legend Mary Hardy, has written twice in the last fortnight about how appalling Hey Hey is. She describes Hey Hey as "mindlessly bad", and suggests "We're better than this, I'm sure we are."
It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude which makes people who watched and enjoyed Hey Hey over the last two weeks, and when it was on TV regularly over ten years ago, furious.
And at the risk of rivalling Hardy in being holier-than-thou, we're right. We're right because we take TV, and especially commercial TV, for what it is: unpretentious entertainment, and nothing more.
Commercial TV is not a tool for social change, and it's a fairly safe bet it never will be. It is by its nature uneducational, but not everything needs to be. If you want something more highbrow, watch or do something else. It's a free country.
Criticising Hey Hey because you personally don't find it funny is fine. However, many other people do. Criticising those people (and Hardy does it, and Catherine Deveny does it all the time) for finding Hey Hey amusing is like criticising a person for liking cheeseburgers purely on issues relating to the taste of a cheeseburger.
When it comes to food, or music, or movies, people just like what they like. Hardy says she is fine with nostalgia, and is "going to see Fleetwood Mac in December. But Daryl and the gang have never produced something creatively on par with Rumours and the sooner everyone realises that the better."
Marieke, that's your opinion. But it is not a matter of logic. It is not something that can be argued to a agreed position. We live in a pluralist society. Not everyone is sophisticated, or erudite. Live with it.
It's just entertainment. Masterchef isn't exactly "Hot Docs" on SBS either.
It's also not a reflection on greater problems with our society. Molehills shouldn't be made into mountains, and long bows shouldn't be drawn.
The saddest thing is that I, and people like me, have to read this stuff and get angry, because for many people my age and a little older, Hey Hey reminds them of a simpler time when they were children and the mere sound of a fart sent one into hysterics. I guess Marieke would have been yelling at these kids to "GROW UP!"
Personally, I find myself in tears when the show began, precisely because it was just as I remembered it, and I found myself sitting on the couch at what is now my house, but was the house where I watched and loved Hey Hey for 19 years with my departed grandparents. It reminded me of how much I missed the show, and how much I missed them. It's getting dusty in here just thinking about it.
And that is what nostalgia is really about. I don't need some too-smart media scribe telling me I should be more intelligent than that. It's not about smart, and it makes me feel sorry that they don't understand that.
But I am defending the return of the show.
Look, I don't really want to sound like a culture warrior when talking about the return of a little TV show like Hey Hey It's Saturday. But the line dividing those who attack the very fact that the show returned in the first place, or that somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians would watch it on a Wednesday night in 2009, and those somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians who did watch it last week (and watched it last night) resembles the lines that divide the culture warriors.
On one hand you have what best can be described as "the arts/entertainment elite commentariat" (if that can best describe anything or anyone). Reading The Age over the last two weeks, you wouldn't have read one good thing about Hey Hey's return. Critcisms ranged from laziness and mere nostalgia on Channel Nine's part to indulging in jingoism and old-fashioned, backwards values that should have disappeared long ago.
Marieke Hardy, The Age's commentator and niece of Australian comedy legend Mary Hardy, has written twice in the last fortnight about how appalling Hey Hey is. She describes Hey Hey as "mindlessly bad", and suggests "We're better than this, I'm sure we are."
It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude which makes people who watched and enjoyed Hey Hey over the last two weeks, and when it was on TV regularly over ten years ago, furious.
And at the risk of rivalling Hardy in being holier-than-thou, we're right. We're right because we take TV, and especially commercial TV, for what it is: unpretentious entertainment, and nothing more.
Commercial TV is not a tool for social change, and it's a fairly safe bet it never will be. It is by its nature uneducational, but not everything needs to be. If you want something more highbrow, watch or do something else. It's a free country.
Criticising Hey Hey because you personally don't find it funny is fine. However, many other people do. Criticising those people (and Hardy does it, and Catherine Deveny does it all the time) for finding Hey Hey amusing is like criticising a person for liking cheeseburgers purely on issues relating to the taste of a cheeseburger.
When it comes to food, or music, or movies, people just like what they like. Hardy says she is fine with nostalgia, and is "going to see Fleetwood Mac in December. But Daryl and the gang have never produced something creatively on par with Rumours and the sooner everyone realises that the better."
Marieke, that's your opinion. But it is not a matter of logic. It is not something that can be argued to a agreed position. We live in a pluralist society. Not everyone is sophisticated, or erudite. Live with it.
It's just entertainment. Masterchef isn't exactly "Hot Docs" on SBS either.
It's also not a reflection on greater problems with our society. Molehills shouldn't be made into mountains, and long bows shouldn't be drawn.
The saddest thing is that I, and people like me, have to read this stuff and get angry, because for many people my age and a little older, Hey Hey reminds them of a simpler time when they were children and the mere sound of a fart sent one into hysterics. I guess Marieke would have been yelling at these kids to "GROW UP!"
Personally, I find myself in tears when the show began, precisely because it was just as I remembered it, and I found myself sitting on the couch at what is now my house, but was the house where I watched and loved Hey Hey for 19 years with my departed grandparents. It reminded me of how much I missed the show, and how much I missed them. It's getting dusty in here just thinking about it.
And that is what nostalgia is really about. I don't need some too-smart media scribe telling me I should be more intelligent than that. It's not about smart, and it makes me feel sorry that they don't understand that.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Ashes Squad
Here goes, a crack at an Ashes Squad of 15 (add Graham Manou as a 2nd keeper if you wish).
Batsmen
R Ponting (c)
M Clarke (vc)
P Hughes
S Katich
M Hussey
C Ferguson
M North
S Watson
Wicketkeeper
B Haddin
Bowlers
M Johnson
P Siddle
B Hilfenhaus
S Clark
B McGain
B Lee
Batsmen
R Ponting (c)
M Clarke (vc)
P Hughes
S Katich
M Hussey
C Ferguson
M North
S Watson
Wicketkeeper
B Haddin
Bowlers
M Johnson
P Siddle
B Hilfenhaus
S Clark
B McGain
B Lee
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Update
Sorry I haven't been posting on to this site, but it seems silly to post my footy blogs onto two places, and my other interests haven't been that interesting lately.
Anyway, you can read me twice a week on Big Footy. I'm Big Footy's most read blogger!
Go to:
The New and Improved (and entirely footy related) Blog of The Punter
And when something interesting happens with something not related to footy, I'll post my idle thoughts on here.
Anyway, you can read me twice a week on Big Footy. I'm Big Footy's most read blogger!
Go to:
The New and Improved (and entirely footy related) Blog of The Punter
And when something interesting happens with something not related to footy, I'll post my idle thoughts on here.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Live Footy on TV - The Real Solution
The past 12 months haven't been great for capitalism and the free market. A lack of regulation and the unique idiosyncracies of the USA's politcal system have contributed to the fact that the world's economy has headed south quicker than Hawthorn for a home game.
No one is really out there advocating free market solutions to economic problems any more. Kevin Rudd, self proclaimed economic conservative in 2007, is now dancing on the grave of John Howard's neoliberalism and economic rationalism a short 16 months later. The worm has turned.
At the other end of the public spectrum, the footy season is nearly upon us. Two weeknight prime-time games greet us in Round 1, Cousins v Judd (or Richmond v Carlton) on Thursday night on Channel 10, and the Grand Final re-match (Hawthorn v Geelong) on Friday night on Channel 7.
These games will not be shown live into Melbourne. Ten is showing Thursday night's game on a half-hour delay, while Seven will show it's regular Friday night match on it's usual one-hour delay.
A lot of hard-core footy fans aren't happy about this. Channel 7 is targeted for particular vitriole, considering the hour delay is usually filled with Better Homes and Gardens, not exactly can't-miss television for the average footy fan.
Channel 7 have their reasons, and don't appear to be budging from this any time soon. It doesn't bother me much, because I can usually wait the hour. Having said that, I don't usually make it all the way through a Friday night match on the TV unless St Kilda are playing.
So how do we get the networks to change? Well, here is where a free market solution will work.
Don't watch.
A lot of the louder critics of footy-on-delay state that they listen to the game live on radio or watch updates on the league's website. I can usually manage to avoid doing this, but many other cannot.
My suggestion is you keep doing this, but once it comes on the TV, don't turn your TV on.
The only way the networks are going to get the hint that this is important is through ratings. If the ratings fall through the floor, then ad revenues will as well, and so will the amount the AFL can charge for the rights. This means that the AFL will eventually have to permit the networks to show the games live, even if they would prefer this not to be the case.
So, if you want live footy on TV, settle for nothing less. If it ain't live, don't watch it.
No one is really out there advocating free market solutions to economic problems any more. Kevin Rudd, self proclaimed economic conservative in 2007, is now dancing on the grave of John Howard's neoliberalism and economic rationalism a short 16 months later. The worm has turned.
At the other end of the public spectrum, the footy season is nearly upon us. Two weeknight prime-time games greet us in Round 1, Cousins v Judd (or Richmond v Carlton) on Thursday night on Channel 10, and the Grand Final re-match (Hawthorn v Geelong) on Friday night on Channel 7.
These games will not be shown live into Melbourne. Ten is showing Thursday night's game on a half-hour delay, while Seven will show it's regular Friday night match on it's usual one-hour delay.
A lot of hard-core footy fans aren't happy about this. Channel 7 is targeted for particular vitriole, considering the hour delay is usually filled with Better Homes and Gardens, not exactly can't-miss television for the average footy fan.
Channel 7 have their reasons, and don't appear to be budging from this any time soon. It doesn't bother me much, because I can usually wait the hour. Having said that, I don't usually make it all the way through a Friday night match on the TV unless St Kilda are playing.
So how do we get the networks to change? Well, here is where a free market solution will work.
Don't watch.
A lot of the louder critics of footy-on-delay state that they listen to the game live on radio or watch updates on the league's website. I can usually manage to avoid doing this, but many other cannot.
My suggestion is you keep doing this, but once it comes on the TV, don't turn your TV on.
The only way the networks are going to get the hint that this is important is through ratings. If the ratings fall through the floor, then ad revenues will as well, and so will the amount the AFL can charge for the rights. This means that the AFL will eventually have to permit the networks to show the games live, even if they would prefer this not to be the case.
So, if you want live footy on TV, settle for nothing less. If it ain't live, don't watch it.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Embrace the Humanity
I haven't got all touchy-feely on you - this is a blog post on footy. But as we enter the six month religious festival known as the home and away season, I just wanted to remind everyone of one thing. We're all human.
How does this relate to footy? Well, relating to those people we pay to watch play, another tactical revolution is underway in 2009 with the widespread adoption of a full-field zone defence, or "the cluster". Hawthorn used it to great effect last season.
Now, it is a system. That means that it is a way of given your blokes an advantage over and above whatever they have in the way of raw football skill. You can't teach someone to kick like Luke Hodge, but you can teach them to run to places on the ground like Luke Hodge.
It worked for Hawthorn: they're defending premiers. But the real reason it worked is because the Hawks knew they could implement the system, so they recruited players who had what no system could manufacture: skill. Birchall, Guerra, Young, Hodge, Bateman, etc.. the list of Hawks who are exquisite users of the ball is as long as your arm. In short, Hawthorn can beat a full-field zone defence with their skill.
And until someone else comes up with another system to beat this system, skill will have to do. Humanity over mechanical adherence to a system.
On the other side of the whistle, our umpires struggle, and understandably so. They're job is too bloody difficult, and I've umpired at a very low open age level, so I have some appreciation.
Take this year's most contentious rule change for example. The umpire must now make a judgement on whether a ball was forced deliberately through for a behind by a defensive player. In short, the umpire must make a judgement on the evidence available to him.
The other option was to stop the player who rushed the behind from being the player to kick it in. This would have stopped Brent Guerra rushing about 14 gazillion behinds in last year's Grand Final and hitting a target with the resulting kick-in every time. And it would have required no judgement on behalf of the umpire.
There's a reason it takes a long time to become a Magistrate or Justice - it's really hard, and we want someone really qualified to do it. Someone who has many years experience working with the law, and has demonstrated a long record of good judgement.
So, the answer to improving the quality of umpiring at the highest level is easy - reduce the number of judgement calls an umpire is required to make. Make the game easier to umpire.
Firstly, minimise the number of times an umpire has to judge intent. Deliberate out-of-bounds and rushed behinds fall into this category.
Secondly, train the umpires to only act on decisive visual evidence. This would eradicate the holding-the-ball decisions when a player's back is to the umpire, and he cannot even see the ball.
Thirdly, get them to do much more match simulation at training, with players of any level. Just get blokes doing match simulation, and send around umpires to all the clubs around the place to do 30 minutes of match simulation twice a week.
We only have humans to do the job, so make it easier. The players have a system, but the umpires just want to rest on their skill. The game will be the poorer for it.
How does this relate to footy? Well, relating to those people we pay to watch play, another tactical revolution is underway in 2009 with the widespread adoption of a full-field zone defence, or "the cluster". Hawthorn used it to great effect last season.
Now, it is a system. That means that it is a way of given your blokes an advantage over and above whatever they have in the way of raw football skill. You can't teach someone to kick like Luke Hodge, but you can teach them to run to places on the ground like Luke Hodge.
It worked for Hawthorn: they're defending premiers. But the real reason it worked is because the Hawks knew they could implement the system, so they recruited players who had what no system could manufacture: skill. Birchall, Guerra, Young, Hodge, Bateman, etc.. the list of Hawks who are exquisite users of the ball is as long as your arm. In short, Hawthorn can beat a full-field zone defence with their skill.
And until someone else comes up with another system to beat this system, skill will have to do. Humanity over mechanical adherence to a system.
On the other side of the whistle, our umpires struggle, and understandably so. They're job is too bloody difficult, and I've umpired at a very low open age level, so I have some appreciation.
Take this year's most contentious rule change for example. The umpire must now make a judgement on whether a ball was forced deliberately through for a behind by a defensive player. In short, the umpire must make a judgement on the evidence available to him.
The other option was to stop the player who rushed the behind from being the player to kick it in. This would have stopped Brent Guerra rushing about 14 gazillion behinds in last year's Grand Final and hitting a target with the resulting kick-in every time. And it would have required no judgement on behalf of the umpire.
There's a reason it takes a long time to become a Magistrate or Justice - it's really hard, and we want someone really qualified to do it. Someone who has many years experience working with the law, and has demonstrated a long record of good judgement.
So, the answer to improving the quality of umpiring at the highest level is easy - reduce the number of judgement calls an umpire is required to make. Make the game easier to umpire.
Firstly, minimise the number of times an umpire has to judge intent. Deliberate out-of-bounds and rushed behinds fall into this category.
Secondly, train the umpires to only act on decisive visual evidence. This would eradicate the holding-the-ball decisions when a player's back is to the umpire, and he cannot even see the ball.
Thirdly, get them to do much more match simulation at training, with players of any level. Just get blokes doing match simulation, and send around umpires to all the clubs around the place to do 30 minutes of match simulation twice a week.
We only have humans to do the job, so make it easier. The players have a system, but the umpires just want to rest on their skill. The game will be the poorer for it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
2009 AFL Season Preview
It's that time of year again, so I'll offer a few choice thoughts on each team, and then put my neck on the line with a predicted ladder.
Adelaide
The Atlanta Braves of the AFL. In the 1990s, the Braves won their division every year, and despite only 8 teams making the playoffs every year, won only one World Series.The reason - their manager (head coach), Bobby Cox, micromanaged their regular season, leaving them no improvement once October came around.
The Crows are no different. Neil Craig has an unenviable finals record of 2-5, which compares unfavourable to Blight's 6-1, Cornes' 1-2 and Ayres' 2-4. There's every chance Adelaide will make finals again, but no chance they'll win the premiership.
Brisbane
I'm not in the Michael Voss as a Coach fan club. While he was one of my favourite two or three players when playing, I've heard nothing from him that makes me feel he'll make a good coach. Most of his effectiveness will come from the aura he carries, earnt from a stellar career.
The Lions have a clear deficiency in key defenders, have ruckmen and forwards who always seem to be injured, and an ageing midfield. While they were gifted Daniel Rich, I'm not expecting big things.
Carlton
I'm on the Carlton bandwagon, however. They have a deep midfield, a good collection of small defenders, and one of the best key forwards in the game.
A lot of this year will depend on how good Brett Ratten is. He seems to be getting a lot out of guys like Thornton and Cloke, who are GOPs. They're my pick for the "from out of the eight into the top four" team this year.
Collingwood
Today in the Hun there is an article which highlights the fact that it is hard to pick the Pies' best player. Well, it certainly is not their captain, who has taken the mantle of "football's biggest empty-head" from Michael Osborne.
Malthouse will always have them competitive, but they are still capable of losing to anyone on any given day. They have a great group of youngsters, but a very even group. They remind me a little of Geelong before Bartel and Ablett got really, really good.
Essendon
Name the Bombers' three best players. If you said Lloyd, Lucas & Fletcher, you wouldn't be alone. The massive hole that will be created when these guys retire will take a while to fill, even if guys like Hille and Stanton are taking up some of the slack already.
At least Matthew Knights has the Bombers playing a brand of football which means they are capable of winning any game if they are "on". They're fun to watch.
Fremantle
Going to be a long few years for the Dockers. While they'll probably finish ahead of Melbourne because of home ground advantage and their gun forward Pavlich, in all honesty, the Dockers are further away from their next premiership than Melbourne is.
I like the direction they went in last off-season, but they probably still need another clean out before they really start moving in the right direction.
Geelong
Be afraid. The Cats know this is probably their last chance before guys like Scarlett, Harley, Mooney, Corey & Ottens really start to decline. They're healthy, and they're probably going to win the NAB Cup.
And they have something to prove after last year's missed opportunity. By the half way mark, they should be three wins ahead of Hawthorn.
Hawthorn
Speaking of which, the Hawks will be good again, but certainly fallible in the first half of the year with so many injured and underdone players.
The exciting thing about the Hawks this year will be seeing the guys who didn't get much of a crack last year. Dowler, Muston, Tuck, Thorp, Morton & McGlynn will all get plenty of games before the Hawks are really up and running.
Melbourne
They have reached the bottom, and now are working up. It'll be interesting to see how the youngsters will go, and obviously not all will make it. Hopefully we'll get to see Jack Watts before the end of the year.
Next year is the year when weight of expectation and improvement will start to weigh on Dean Bailey and his club, but for this year 5 wins should suffice.
North Melbourne
It's hard to get enthusiastic about the Roos after seeing them wave the white flag in Round 22 last year in person. They then had the Swans on toast before handing their opponents that game on a silver platter.
Those scars must still remain. They were flogged in the NAB Cup, and Dean Laidley's style must be wearing. Not a "buy" stock for me.
Port Adelaide
They have an exciting bunch of youngsters, but it is clear that Choco Williams has outstayed his welcome. Another coach with an abrasive style, it works well when they are winning, but not when they are losing.
They also have ageing superstars in Chad Cornes, Brendan Lade and Warren Tredrea. Turns out 2007 may have just been a false dawn.
Richmond
They seem to have a even spread right across the field, and addition of Ben Cousins to what was a promising, if not particularly deep, midfield, should have the Glen Waverley line rocking many times this year.
What Richmond really need is some meaningful contributions from those players in their 3rd, 4th or 5th seasons at the club. But it should be finals this year for the Tigers.
St Kilda
Apparently now masters of the cluster, St Kilda has a tough ball-winning midfield, a top-ranked defence and a superstar forward.
Unfortunately, St Kilda has shown an inability to use outside footballers effectively in the past, which contributed to poor seasons from Nick Dal Santo and Aaron Fiora last year.
What St Kilda really needs is that ability to effectively use their more highly skilled players, and a third marking medium-sized forward. Evidence suggests that attention has been paid to these concerns.
Sydney
Their premiership ticket is in County Kerry, Ireland. Hall, Goodes, O'Loughlin, Barry & Kirk are all on the wrong side of the middle of their careers.
Paul Roos will keep them competitive, but they probably don't have the cattle any more, and no depth thanks to playing 26 players for three years.
West Coast
You can never have enough quality midfielders. The Eagles forgot that idea at the draft, and while it may not hurt them in the short term, the chances that Nick Natanui may be the biggest bust this side of Anthony Banik are too large to ignore.
Hard to see the Eagles improving significantly on last season, when too much was left to too few. They did, however, get some games into some youngsters and that'll will pay them dividends.
Western Bulldogs
Let's end a myth: In the first half of 2008, there were 3 clearly superior teams. In the second half of 2008, there were only two.
The Doggies should be kicking themselves after their Preliminary Final loss last year, a match they dominated, and for some poor skill execution on part of Western Bulldog player and umpire alike, they would have played (and lost) in a grand final.
Now they are dinged up and out of form, and without a working forward structure. It could be 2007 all over again for the Doggies.
Final ladder prediction
Geelong
Hawthorn
St Kilda
Carlton
Collingwood
Western Bulldogs
Adelaide
Richmond
Brisbane
Sydney
Port Adelaide
North Melbourne
Essendon
West Coast
Fremantle
Melbourne
Adelaide
The Atlanta Braves of the AFL. In the 1990s, the Braves won their division every year, and despite only 8 teams making the playoffs every year, won only one World Series.The reason - their manager (head coach), Bobby Cox, micromanaged their regular season, leaving them no improvement once October came around.
The Crows are no different. Neil Craig has an unenviable finals record of 2-5, which compares unfavourable to Blight's 6-1, Cornes' 1-2 and Ayres' 2-4. There's every chance Adelaide will make finals again, but no chance they'll win the premiership.
Brisbane
I'm not in the Michael Voss as a Coach fan club. While he was one of my favourite two or three players when playing, I've heard nothing from him that makes me feel he'll make a good coach. Most of his effectiveness will come from the aura he carries, earnt from a stellar career.
The Lions have a clear deficiency in key defenders, have ruckmen and forwards who always seem to be injured, and an ageing midfield. While they were gifted Daniel Rich, I'm not expecting big things.
Carlton
I'm on the Carlton bandwagon, however. They have a deep midfield, a good collection of small defenders, and one of the best key forwards in the game.
A lot of this year will depend on how good Brett Ratten is. He seems to be getting a lot out of guys like Thornton and Cloke, who are GOPs. They're my pick for the "from out of the eight into the top four" team this year.
Collingwood
Today in the Hun there is an article which highlights the fact that it is hard to pick the Pies' best player. Well, it certainly is not their captain, who has taken the mantle of "football's biggest empty-head" from Michael Osborne.
Malthouse will always have them competitive, but they are still capable of losing to anyone on any given day. They have a great group of youngsters, but a very even group. They remind me a little of Geelong before Bartel and Ablett got really, really good.
Essendon
Name the Bombers' three best players. If you said Lloyd, Lucas & Fletcher, you wouldn't be alone. The massive hole that will be created when these guys retire will take a while to fill, even if guys like Hille and Stanton are taking up some of the slack already.
At least Matthew Knights has the Bombers playing a brand of football which means they are capable of winning any game if they are "on". They're fun to watch.
Fremantle
Going to be a long few years for the Dockers. While they'll probably finish ahead of Melbourne because of home ground advantage and their gun forward Pavlich, in all honesty, the Dockers are further away from their next premiership than Melbourne is.
I like the direction they went in last off-season, but they probably still need another clean out before they really start moving in the right direction.
Geelong
Be afraid. The Cats know this is probably their last chance before guys like Scarlett, Harley, Mooney, Corey & Ottens really start to decline. They're healthy, and they're probably going to win the NAB Cup.
And they have something to prove after last year's missed opportunity. By the half way mark, they should be three wins ahead of Hawthorn.
Hawthorn
Speaking of which, the Hawks will be good again, but certainly fallible in the first half of the year with so many injured and underdone players.
The exciting thing about the Hawks this year will be seeing the guys who didn't get much of a crack last year. Dowler, Muston, Tuck, Thorp, Morton & McGlynn will all get plenty of games before the Hawks are really up and running.
Melbourne
They have reached the bottom, and now are working up. It'll be interesting to see how the youngsters will go, and obviously not all will make it. Hopefully we'll get to see Jack Watts before the end of the year.
Next year is the year when weight of expectation and improvement will start to weigh on Dean Bailey and his club, but for this year 5 wins should suffice.
North Melbourne
It's hard to get enthusiastic about the Roos after seeing them wave the white flag in Round 22 last year in person. They then had the Swans on toast before handing their opponents that game on a silver platter.
Those scars must still remain. They were flogged in the NAB Cup, and Dean Laidley's style must be wearing. Not a "buy" stock for me.
Port Adelaide
They have an exciting bunch of youngsters, but it is clear that Choco Williams has outstayed his welcome. Another coach with an abrasive style, it works well when they are winning, but not when they are losing.
They also have ageing superstars in Chad Cornes, Brendan Lade and Warren Tredrea. Turns out 2007 may have just been a false dawn.
Richmond
They seem to have a even spread right across the field, and addition of Ben Cousins to what was a promising, if not particularly deep, midfield, should have the Glen Waverley line rocking many times this year.
What Richmond really need is some meaningful contributions from those players in their 3rd, 4th or 5th seasons at the club. But it should be finals this year for the Tigers.
St Kilda
Apparently now masters of the cluster, St Kilda has a tough ball-winning midfield, a top-ranked defence and a superstar forward.
Unfortunately, St Kilda has shown an inability to use outside footballers effectively in the past, which contributed to poor seasons from Nick Dal Santo and Aaron Fiora last year.
What St Kilda really needs is that ability to effectively use their more highly skilled players, and a third marking medium-sized forward. Evidence suggests that attention has been paid to these concerns.
Sydney
Their premiership ticket is in County Kerry, Ireland. Hall, Goodes, O'Loughlin, Barry & Kirk are all on the wrong side of the middle of their careers.
Paul Roos will keep them competitive, but they probably don't have the cattle any more, and no depth thanks to playing 26 players for three years.
West Coast
You can never have enough quality midfielders. The Eagles forgot that idea at the draft, and while it may not hurt them in the short term, the chances that Nick Natanui may be the biggest bust this side of Anthony Banik are too large to ignore.
Hard to see the Eagles improving significantly on last season, when too much was left to too few. They did, however, get some games into some youngsters and that'll will pay them dividends.
Western Bulldogs
Let's end a myth: In the first half of 2008, there were 3 clearly superior teams. In the second half of 2008, there were only two.
The Doggies should be kicking themselves after their Preliminary Final loss last year, a match they dominated, and for some poor skill execution on part of Western Bulldog player and umpire alike, they would have played (and lost) in a grand final.
Now they are dinged up and out of form, and without a working forward structure. It could be 2007 all over again for the Doggies.
Final ladder prediction
Geelong
Hawthorn
St Kilda
Carlton
Collingwood
Western Bulldogs
Adelaide
Richmond
Brisbane
Sydney
Port Adelaide
North Melbourne
Essendon
West Coast
Fremantle
Melbourne
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Job Justification and the AFL
Blog note: I have been asked by BigFooty.com to post blog entries twice a week on AFL, and I'll reproduce them here. That is why there will be a lot of footy blog posts over the next seven months. I'll try to still post about other stuff when I can. Apologies to my non-footy constituency.
My previous job (other than football authority) was with a government statutory authority. This organisation shared a Human Resources department (known as "People and Culture") with another statutory authority which worked roughly in same area as mine did.
This HR department was well resourced (unlike some other "operational" areas of our organisation), and went around ensuring we upheld the organisations values, knew our rights and responsibilities regarding all manner of things that had little to do with our day-to-day work.
I envisaged them sitting in their office cubicles, or more likely in one of their 34 meetings for the day, trying to brainstorm things to do so they could feel and look important, and more importantly, indispensible. When all we needed was someone to make sure we got paid on time, made sure our leave balances were correct, and then left us alone to make the world a better place.
I get the same feeling when I think of Adrian Anderson. News from the AFL is that at the Telstra Dome/Etihad Stadium/Docklands/ for the remainder of the NAB Cup, the crowd will be able to see how long there is to go in a quarter by viewing a countdown clock located on the scoreboard.
Who thought of this, and more importantly, what identified problem does this solve? Most people I know love the uncertainty of the end of a quarter, especially at the end of a game when it is tight.
But this is only typical of the noise coming from Harbour Esplanade. Hawthorn, keen to utilise a glut of silky left footers in their back half, rush a few behinds in a Grand Final. The problem isn't that big, and the easy, quick solution (stopping those who rush the behind from kicking it in) is ignored, instead responsibility is placed upon umpires to make a judgement call about player intent, and now we have a deliberately rushed behind infringement.
Sydney have 19 men on the field for 30 seconds at the end of a game, and the extra player arguably has an effect on the result of the game, which is a draw. Instead of accepting a quick, effective solution (docking Sydney two points), the AFL throws out decades of precedent (and not for the first time - see StK v Freo 2006) and radically alters how players interchange on and off the field.
And so it goes. I sat next to Adrian Anderson on a train to the cricket on December 27, and he really struck me as a man full of his own importance (and he really looks like his brother, who was with him).
It is clear that he feels a need to justify his existence, at a time when interest in the game and attendances are at an all-time high. But someone in a role like his doing no tweaking to a game that doesn't need it is a man on borrowed time. So we keep changing rules, adding "innovations", and so on.
The rushed behind change is a classic example. Instead of trying to limit the number of judgement calls an umpire needs to make in a game, thus making the game easier to umpire and minimising mistakes, the AFL under Anderson's stewardship goes the other way. It's just ridiculous.
What we need now is what a lot of players have been saying for a while: time. Some time without changes, for the game to organically and holistically evolve, and for problems to sort themselves out. And if that makes Adrian Anderson superfluous, then so be it.
My previous job (other than football authority) was with a government statutory authority. This organisation shared a Human Resources department (known as "People and Culture") with another statutory authority which worked roughly in same area as mine did.
This HR department was well resourced (unlike some other "operational" areas of our organisation), and went around ensuring we upheld the organisations values, knew our rights and responsibilities regarding all manner of things that had little to do with our day-to-day work.
I envisaged them sitting in their office cubicles, or more likely in one of their 34 meetings for the day, trying to brainstorm things to do so they could feel and look important, and more importantly, indispensible. When all we needed was someone to make sure we got paid on time, made sure our leave balances were correct, and then left us alone to make the world a better place.
I get the same feeling when I think of Adrian Anderson. News from the AFL is that at the Telstra Dome/Etihad Stadium/Docklands/ for the remainder of the NAB Cup, the crowd will be able to see how long there is to go in a quarter by viewing a countdown clock located on the scoreboard.
Who thought of this, and more importantly, what identified problem does this solve? Most people I know love the uncertainty of the end of a quarter, especially at the end of a game when it is tight.
But this is only typical of the noise coming from Harbour Esplanade. Hawthorn, keen to utilise a glut of silky left footers in their back half, rush a few behinds in a Grand Final. The problem isn't that big, and the easy, quick solution (stopping those who rush the behind from kicking it in) is ignored, instead responsibility is placed upon umpires to make a judgement call about player intent, and now we have a deliberately rushed behind infringement.
Sydney have 19 men on the field for 30 seconds at the end of a game, and the extra player arguably has an effect on the result of the game, which is a draw. Instead of accepting a quick, effective solution (docking Sydney two points), the AFL throws out decades of precedent (and not for the first time - see StK v Freo 2006) and radically alters how players interchange on and off the field.
And so it goes. I sat next to Adrian Anderson on a train to the cricket on December 27, and he really struck me as a man full of his own importance (and he really looks like his brother, who was with him).
It is clear that he feels a need to justify his existence, at a time when interest in the game and attendances are at an all-time high. But someone in a role like his doing no tweaking to a game that doesn't need it is a man on borrowed time. So we keep changing rules, adding "innovations", and so on.
The rushed behind change is a classic example. Instead of trying to limit the number of judgement calls an umpire needs to make in a game, thus making the game easier to umpire and minimising mistakes, the AFL under Anderson's stewardship goes the other way. It's just ridiculous.
What we need now is what a lot of players have been saying for a while: time. Some time without changes, for the game to organically and holistically evolve, and for problems to sort themselves out. And if that makes Adrian Anderson superfluous, then so be it.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Small Poppy Syndrome
You have to endure many things as a St Kilda supporter. In many respects, it is a calling, or to take the half-glass-empty approach, an ordeal.
Just in my nearly 29 years, I have had to put up with:
Just in my nearly 29 years, I have had to put up with:
- Not beating Essendon until I was in High School
- Losing that final to Geelong in 1991 because Gary Ablett was always more like the Old Testament "Vengeful" God than the New Testament compassionate god (see N Burke)
- Seeing Nicky Winmar almost walk out on the club in 1993, mere weeks after his (and Gilbert McAdam's) heroics at Victoria Park
- Seeing Ken Sheldon and Stan Alves dumped as coach before their time
- Seeing Tim Watson coach at all
- Seeing Malcolm Blight get lured by money
- Seeing Rod Butterss go completely b@tshit insane
- Nicky Winmar and Stewart Loewe's 1997 Grand Final Week
- Darren Jarman
- For that matter, pre-2008 Adam Schneider
- Barry Hall cheating his way to a Premiership (he dropped his opponent, took an uncontested mark and kicked a goal, and the punch was officially ruled illegal, so he cheated)
- Trent Knobel, and Cain Ackland post 2005
- Seeing Brent Guerra in a Hawthorn jumper (with hair)
How long do you have, I could keep going on and on and on .....
But you know what I hate the most?
The people who hate St Kilda.
And do you know why this rankles with me the most?
Because they have no good reason to.
Many people hate Collingwood. They are many good reasons. In the period 1960-1981 they made the Grand Final eight times, so they were pretty good through that period. And the Collingwood Army does self-promotion better than most.
Essendon dominated the competition in the 1980s, and St Kilda particularly. Kevin Sheedy coached Essendon to victories in his first 20 encounters with St Kilda, finishing his long coaching career with 33 wins and only 8 losses. And Essendon supporters let everyone know about it. This is why I hate Essendon.
But why would anyone hate St Kilda? I just don't get it.At the Olympics in Sydney in 2000, "Eric the Eel" got quite a bit of media for his unflattering performance in the 100m freestyle, taking only slightly less time to swim the distance than Susie Moroney would take to swim the English Channel. But he participated, wasn't hurting anyone, exemplified the Olympic value of taking part, and was sort of cute.
On the other hand, American swimmer Gary Hall Jr predicted the Americans would play the Aussie swimmers like a guitar in the 4X100m freestyle relay, an event they had never lost before those Olympics. The Aussies, behind a world record from Michael Klim and an amazing anchor leg from Ian Thorpe, took the gold medal.
Now, by reckoning, hating St Kilda is like hating Eric the Eel. He's embarrassing, he's making a mockery of the competition, he should be confined to anonymity where he belongs.
The AFL's efforts to make the competition more even have been advantageous to a club like St Kilda. But that is making up for years of neglect and worse by the league, including removing the Peninsula from our recruting zone in the mid 1960s, robbing us of Leigh Matthews and Dermott Brereton.
Hating St Kilda is hating the little guy. Hating the unemployed. Hating the refugee. Hating the famine stricken.
I'll be happy for the hecklers to hate us when we are winning premierships, which I hope (but do not expect to) starts this year.
We have a lot to put up with as St Kilda supporters, so much so that at times I have seen little kids trudging out of another St Kilda loss and felt compelled to grab them and yell, "Stop barracking for St Kilda, before you get emotionally attached and it's too late!" But we don't need to put up with Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon supporters, whose history is far from blot-less, telling us we have no right to be in the league, or dredging up old, murky incidents. Just let us barrack in peace.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The NAB Cup Ramblings
With apologies to my man Bill Simmons, otherwise known as ESPN's "The Sports Guy", here are my random thoughts about the first (three) weeks of the NAB Cup...
I think I'd take a blood transfusion from Amy Winehouse before I put money on Sydney to win a NAB Cup match.
If you are an AFL footballer, you may want to think twice before bumping another player.
Geelong are going to be hard to beat this pre-season.
Watch out, AFL, Brendan Goddard is coming.
It may be a slow start to the season for the Doggies.
Are Carlton the Tiger Woods of the AFL pre-season, or is Tiger Woods the Carlton of golf? I thought so.
Jarryd Roughead may kick more goals this season than Lance Franklin.
Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins Ben Cousins
If you thought no one paid any attention to the Dockers before this season, you haven't seen anything yet. They may get 10,000 to Melbourne v Fremantle if lucky.
How long will it take the West Coast Eagles to forgive themselves for picking Nick Natanui over Daniel Rich? 10 years? 15 years?
Kudos to Kelli Underwood, who called Saturday's game with the amount of excitement a football match in February deserves. (And, no, I'm not being sarcastic.)
It'll be a cold, cold day in Hell before the AFL moves a NAB Cup game for a A-League Grand Final again.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
2009 - A Year for Firsts
Allow me to go all introspective for a while. Permit me, if you will, a little self-indulgence. Well, considering what I usually right, a little more self-indulgence than usual.
For all intents and purposes, 2009 looms as the best year of my life. You see, I'm getting married, an event which a small, now dead, part of me thought unlikely to ever happen. While trying unsuccessfully most of the time to avoid cliches, I really do feel like the luckiest man on Earth. And because of what is happening this year, perhaps the busiest.
Getting married is something that is, to a certain extent, within your control. Once you find yourself in the right circumstances, you can decide to get married, or not to get married.
Likewise, you can decide to have children or not to have children. To change jobs or stay in a job. To eat a roast beef sandwich or ... you get the idea.
When I think about all the things I want the most in my life, I can conjure up some way through which I can have control over the realisation of that goal. I can work harder, choose more wisely, talk to the right people, come down on the right side of an issue. All except one.
I have no control over whether St Kilda wins a premiership or not.
How frustrating this must be for Saints supporters. We can buy our membership, attend club functions, buy club merchandise, and so on. But that only has a small affect on the club's on field fortunes. We can send positive vibes down to Moorabbin, but that's getting into the highly untested category.
I'm nearly 29, and hopefully have plenty of good years ahead of me. But I really want to see a St Kilda flag. I mean, I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllly want to see a St Kilda flag.
Last year's final series was a long feat of endurance, as I battled an uneasy nervousness and excited nausea about five weeks, right from the moment we beat Adelaide. Then came the overwhelming greatness of beating Essendon by 18 goals to finish fourth, the expected capitulation to Geelong, the equally expected rebound against Collingwood, and the long, drawn out death rattle to our season and Robert Harvey's playing career against Hawthorn.
And yet, we didn't get there. At testing times like these, one's thoughts turn inwards, asking questions such as "what more can I do?". The sober conclusion is very little. People like to use we when talking about their sporting teams, but as Jerry Seinfeld put it, "they play, you watch".
I don't particularly want to go through that ordeal again. It won't be like that once we win one. But will we win one? I mean, will St Kilda win one while I watch, in the stands?
Well, let the karma battle begin. I'm drawing the line in the sand now. I'm pushing all my chips in the table. I'm all in. If you're with me, say it now, otherwise, you're out.
This year will be the best year of my life. I'm going to get married. And St Kilda are going to win the premiership.
For all intents and purposes, 2009 looms as the best year of my life. You see, I'm getting married, an event which a small, now dead, part of me thought unlikely to ever happen. While trying unsuccessfully most of the time to avoid cliches, I really do feel like the luckiest man on Earth. And because of what is happening this year, perhaps the busiest.
Getting married is something that is, to a certain extent, within your control. Once you find yourself in the right circumstances, you can decide to get married, or not to get married.
Likewise, you can decide to have children or not to have children. To change jobs or stay in a job. To eat a roast beef sandwich or ... you get the idea.
When I think about all the things I want the most in my life, I can conjure up some way through which I can have control over the realisation of that goal. I can work harder, choose more wisely, talk to the right people, come down on the right side of an issue. All except one.
I have no control over whether St Kilda wins a premiership or not.
How frustrating this must be for Saints supporters. We can buy our membership, attend club functions, buy club merchandise, and so on. But that only has a small affect on the club's on field fortunes. We can send positive vibes down to Moorabbin, but that's getting into the highly untested category.
I'm nearly 29, and hopefully have plenty of good years ahead of me. But I really want to see a St Kilda flag. I mean, I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllly want to see a St Kilda flag.
Last year's final series was a long feat of endurance, as I battled an uneasy nervousness and excited nausea about five weeks, right from the moment we beat Adelaide. Then came the overwhelming greatness of beating Essendon by 18 goals to finish fourth, the expected capitulation to Geelong, the equally expected rebound against Collingwood, and the long, drawn out death rattle to our season and Robert Harvey's playing career against Hawthorn.
And yet, we didn't get there. At testing times like these, one's thoughts turn inwards, asking questions such as "what more can I do?". The sober conclusion is very little. People like to use we when talking about their sporting teams, but as Jerry Seinfeld put it, "they play, you watch".
I don't particularly want to go through that ordeal again. It won't be like that once we win one. But will we win one? I mean, will St Kilda win one while I watch, in the stands?
Well, let the karma battle begin. I'm drawing the line in the sand now. I'm pushing all my chips in the table. I'm all in. If you're with me, say it now, otherwise, you're out.
This year will be the best year of my life. I'm going to get married. And St Kilda are going to win the premiership.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Quick Plug
If you like quilts and helping people, go to
http://pinsandthimbles.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/how-to-help-when-theres-no-way-to-help/
and bid on Anne's quilt, which is up for auction and of whose proceeds will go to help the victims of the bushfires here in Victoria.
http://pinsandthimbles.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/how-to-help-when-theres-no-way-to-help/
and bid on Anne's quilt, which is up for auction and of whose proceeds will go to help the victims of the bushfires here in Victoria.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Squad to tour South Africa
Here's my take on who should be the 14 men to go to South Africa for the three match test series beginning this month:
Simon Katich - probably Australia's most important batsman at the moment
Phil Hughes - he may struggle, may even get dropped, but all the great ones get back
Ricky Ponting (c) - his batting is where it needs to be, but his captaincy needs to improve
Michael Clarke (vc) - and he needs to start batting at four
Michael Hussey - a move to five would relieve some of the pressure
Andrew McDonald - did enough in Sydney, his bowling clearly superior to Symonds
Brad Haddin (wk) - had plenty of form with the bat during the test series
Mitchell Johnson - hopefully the longer form of the game will suit him
Bryce McGain - after his performance v South Africa, he simply must go
Doug Bollinger - deserves another crack
Peter Siddle - certainly the honest trundler Australia needs
Callum Ferguson - elevation into ODI squad indicates selectors are warming to him
Ben Hilfenhaus - may get to play if green top produced or if Bollinger falters
Cameron White - provides flexibility, extra bat, possibly extra bowler
The last position is the toughest, because the selectors may be tempted to take six specialist bowlers out of a squad of 14. Personally I think they should be taking 15 to provide more flexibility, meaning they had two other options with bat and ball. Also the back up batsman proved tough to choose, but Ferguson has done enough to deserve to tour. I believe it's more important to swap Clarke and M Hussey in the batting order. D Hussey simply hasn't done enough in the ODIs to warrant a tour place.
UPDATE - I got 12 out of 14 right, with Marcus North and Nathan Hauritz instead of Cameron White and Callum Ferguson.
Simon Katich - probably Australia's most important batsman at the moment
Phil Hughes - he may struggle, may even get dropped, but all the great ones get back
Ricky Ponting (c) - his batting is where it needs to be, but his captaincy needs to improve
Michael Clarke (vc) - and he needs to start batting at four
Michael Hussey - a move to five would relieve some of the pressure
Andrew McDonald - did enough in Sydney, his bowling clearly superior to Symonds
Brad Haddin (wk) - had plenty of form with the bat during the test series
Mitchell Johnson - hopefully the longer form of the game will suit him
Bryce McGain - after his performance v South Africa, he simply must go
Doug Bollinger - deserves another crack
Peter Siddle - certainly the honest trundler Australia needs
Callum Ferguson - elevation into ODI squad indicates selectors are warming to him
Ben Hilfenhaus - may get to play if green top produced or if Bollinger falters
Cameron White - provides flexibility, extra bat, possibly extra bowler
The last position is the toughest, because the selectors may be tempted to take six specialist bowlers out of a squad of 14. Personally I think they should be taking 15 to provide more flexibility, meaning they had two other options with bat and ball. Also the back up batsman proved tough to choose, but Ferguson has done enough to deserve to tour. I believe it's more important to swap Clarke and M Hussey in the batting order. D Hussey simply hasn't done enough in the ODIs to warrant a tour place.
UPDATE - I got 12 out of 14 right, with Marcus North and Nathan Hauritz instead of Cameron White and Callum Ferguson.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Change and Obama
Barack Obama has been President of the United States for about two weeks, but already he has hit the first rocks on what will be a pretty turbulent Presidency.
News comes from the US that his nominee for the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has withdrawn his nomination due to questions about his tax records. Obama had already lost one proposed nominee in New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who was to be Secretary of Commerce.
Obama won the election running a campaign pledging change. He pledged to do things differently, in order to produce different results. Obama said he would turn his back on the Washington elite, the insiders, the lobbyists. He would create a new way of governing.
Now, despite my admiration for Obama as a thinker and an orator, I took these comments with a grain of salt. Not because I underestimate Obama the man - he just got elected President of the United States, tough under any circumstances, but even tougher when you are a person of colour. No, I doubted whether he would be able to carry out this pledge because of the great entrenchment of the American political system.
The US Congress, despite being dominated by Democrats, is still there, with its committee systems and the Senate with its filibustering. The US Constitution still provides the separation of powers it always has, and Obama will still need to get important measures approved and passed by both houses on Capitol Hill.
But, above all that, is that when you look for people to work for you, you look first to people with experience in the areas in which you are dealing. Despite Obama's campaign rhetoric, these people are the Washington elite, the insiders, the lobbyists. People like Richardson and Daschle.
And then there is how people in America get elected to public office. There is so much money and influence flowing through Washington that to get a fair, objective analysis of proposed measures is almost impossible. Put simply, elected officials need to dance with the one that brung them.
Obama's great achievement in shedding this money and influence was to use low level internet fundraising to collect massive amounts of money for his campaign. Most of the campaign funds were donated by people giving amounts as small as $20. This means that Obama was at the beck-and-call of no great interest group, no lobbyists and no multinational corporations. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for almost everyone else in Washington.
Obama faces a tough four (but, probably eight) years, but, then again, being President is a tough job. Will he succeed in fundamentally changing the way America is governed? I doubt it. However, change always happens in small increments.
News comes from the US that his nominee for the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has withdrawn his nomination due to questions about his tax records. Obama had already lost one proposed nominee in New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who was to be Secretary of Commerce.
Obama won the election running a campaign pledging change. He pledged to do things differently, in order to produce different results. Obama said he would turn his back on the Washington elite, the insiders, the lobbyists. He would create a new way of governing.
Now, despite my admiration for Obama as a thinker and an orator, I took these comments with a grain of salt. Not because I underestimate Obama the man - he just got elected President of the United States, tough under any circumstances, but even tougher when you are a person of colour. No, I doubted whether he would be able to carry out this pledge because of the great entrenchment of the American political system.
The US Congress, despite being dominated by Democrats, is still there, with its committee systems and the Senate with its filibustering. The US Constitution still provides the separation of powers it always has, and Obama will still need to get important measures approved and passed by both houses on Capitol Hill.
But, above all that, is that when you look for people to work for you, you look first to people with experience in the areas in which you are dealing. Despite Obama's campaign rhetoric, these people are the Washington elite, the insiders, the lobbyists. People like Richardson and Daschle.
And then there is how people in America get elected to public office. There is so much money and influence flowing through Washington that to get a fair, objective analysis of proposed measures is almost impossible. Put simply, elected officials need to dance with the one that brung them.
Obama's great achievement in shedding this money and influence was to use low level internet fundraising to collect massive amounts of money for his campaign. Most of the campaign funds were donated by people giving amounts as small as $20. This means that Obama was at the beck-and-call of no great interest group, no lobbyists and no multinational corporations. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for almost everyone else in Washington.
Obama faces a tough four (but, probably eight) years, but, then again, being President is a tough job. Will he succeed in fundamentally changing the way America is governed? I doubt it. However, change always happens in small increments.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
A thing isn't the absence of that thing
Now, as you who know me well already know, I'm a Catholic. And those of you who know me better will also know that it's a personal thing, and I'm not really interested in participating in mass-scale conversion of people to the flock.
But today I'm going to take up the flag for my people, and also people of all religions.
A story in The Spencer Street Soviet (otherwise known as The Melbourne Red, or The Age) today, which it has picked up from it's sibling newspaper in Britain, The Guardian, informs one that double decker buses in London now carrying advertising for atheism. They read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". You can find the article here.
Now, while I agree with the sentiment of the latter part of the message, I'm not happy with the advertisement. In fact, I'm not happy with atheism in general. Recently, it's been charting an interesting course.
Due to people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, atheism has received plenty of publicity. Both agree that religion is the basis of most of the world's problems, and because God plainly doesn't exist, this is a problem that can be easily solved by the eradication of religion.
I call this "fundamentalist atheism". Just as other fundamentalists in other religions want to eradicate all the other religions (and atheists for that matter), these people want only atheism to survive.
There is only one problem with my analogy - atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of one.
When the Church of England publicises Christ or God, it is publicising something. Atheists are publicising the absence of something. It's like selling an empty coke bottle.
I know plenty of atheists. Hell (not a swear word when talking about atheists as they don't believe it exists), I'm even marrying one. But they don't promote atheism. In fact, they talk little about God of their own accord. They may talk about the evil in the world that organised religion is responsible for, and that is fair comment. But they're not actively recruiting people to be Godless.
Paul Keating is quoted as saying (and this is about the only time I'll quote PJK in an argument I'm making), "If God doesn't exist, why isn't everyone just chasing women and antiques?", these being the two most desirable things in his mind, apparently.
Organised religions, or "faith traditions" as some people call them (urghh), have been responsible for, how does one put it, some bad shit. But they're also responsible for some incredible goodness as well. Personally, I think that is how God works on Earth, through people doing good works and being charitable. Jesus didn't call on us to be good to the poor because he wanted to change the world order or bring about social equity: He called us to do good works because it brought us closer to God. But that is another story for another day and another audience.
A few weeks ago a story ran in the local papers that the Humanist Society was about to receive permission from the Department of Education to run a "religious" education course at state primary schools that advocated the absence of God.
Now, I'm a secularist, and I don't believe religious education should be taught at schools operated by the government. But they certainly shouldn't be permitting what amounts to a "non-religious" education course to be run at a state school. It should be up to parents to provide guidance with regards to religious beliefs and greater meaning. It should also be noted that relying on parents to do parenting isn't exactly the most successful strategy at the moment.
Simply put, I don't think atheism should be put on the same level as religious belief. Actually, I think on the census the box you tick should just be " No Religion". If you don't believe in a religion, then you have no religion. Atheism is not a religion. It's the promotion of nothing. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
But today I'm going to take up the flag for my people, and also people of all religions.
A story in The Spencer Street Soviet (otherwise known as The Melbourne Red, or The Age) today, which it has picked up from it's sibling newspaper in Britain, The Guardian, informs one that double decker buses in London now carrying advertising for atheism. They read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". You can find the article here.
Now, while I agree with the sentiment of the latter part of the message, I'm not happy with the advertisement. In fact, I'm not happy with atheism in general. Recently, it's been charting an interesting course.
Due to people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, atheism has received plenty of publicity. Both agree that religion is the basis of most of the world's problems, and because God plainly doesn't exist, this is a problem that can be easily solved by the eradication of religion.
I call this "fundamentalist atheism". Just as other fundamentalists in other religions want to eradicate all the other religions (and atheists for that matter), these people want only atheism to survive.
There is only one problem with my analogy - atheism isn't a religion. It's the absence of one.
When the Church of England publicises Christ or God, it is publicising something. Atheists are publicising the absence of something. It's like selling an empty coke bottle.
I know plenty of atheists. Hell (not a swear word when talking about atheists as they don't believe it exists), I'm even marrying one. But they don't promote atheism. In fact, they talk little about God of their own accord. They may talk about the evil in the world that organised religion is responsible for, and that is fair comment. But they're not actively recruiting people to be Godless.
Paul Keating is quoted as saying (and this is about the only time I'll quote PJK in an argument I'm making), "If God doesn't exist, why isn't everyone just chasing women and antiques?", these being the two most desirable things in his mind, apparently.
Organised religions, or "faith traditions" as some people call them (urghh), have been responsible for, how does one put it, some bad shit. But they're also responsible for some incredible goodness as well. Personally, I think that is how God works on Earth, through people doing good works and being charitable. Jesus didn't call on us to be good to the poor because he wanted to change the world order or bring about social equity: He called us to do good works because it brought us closer to God. But that is another story for another day and another audience.
A few weeks ago a story ran in the local papers that the Humanist Society was about to receive permission from the Department of Education to run a "religious" education course at state primary schools that advocated the absence of God.
Now, I'm a secularist, and I don't believe religious education should be taught at schools operated by the government. But they certainly shouldn't be permitting what amounts to a "non-religious" education course to be run at a state school. It should be up to parents to provide guidance with regards to religious beliefs and greater meaning. It should also be noted that relying on parents to do parenting isn't exactly the most successful strategy at the moment.
Simply put, I don't think atheism should be put on the same level as religious belief. Actually, I think on the census the box you tick should just be " No Religion". If you don't believe in a religion, then you have no religion. Atheism is not a religion. It's the promotion of nothing. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
3rd Test and 20/20 ODI squads
Some quick thoughts....
- Graeme Smith is one tough hombre, as Dennis Commetti would say. Great effort to go out and bat, and nearly save the match. Much deserved Man of the Series.
- Siddle and Johnson are keepers, but this attack (with Stuart Clark and Ben Hilfenhaus) will look more like Australia's attack 1989-1991 than 1999-2001. Jury out on Bollinger, but plenty of time yet.
- My current fourteen man squad for South Africa tests - Ponting (c), Clarke (vc), Hughes, Katich, M Hussey, Symonds, McDonald, D Hussey, Haddin, Siddle, Johnson, Clark, Hilfenhaus, McGain. Bollinger, Hauritz & Krejza unlucky, but we need a wrist spinner for South Africa and England.
- Good move to rest Mitchell Johnson for a couple of weeks. Also good move to select Hauritz for 20/20 and one dayers, but can't see how he plays with that squad.
- Michael Clarke to open batting in first two one dayers, ahead of Brad Haddin or James Hopes.
- 20/20 matches to be split, Aussies to win one day series 3-2, mainly due to absence of Graeme Smith.
- Graeme Smith is one tough hombre, as Dennis Commetti would say. Great effort to go out and bat, and nearly save the match. Much deserved Man of the Series.
- Siddle and Johnson are keepers, but this attack (with Stuart Clark and Ben Hilfenhaus) will look more like Australia's attack 1989-1991 than 1999-2001. Jury out on Bollinger, but plenty of time yet.
- My current fourteen man squad for South Africa tests - Ponting (c), Clarke (vc), Hughes, Katich, M Hussey, Symonds, McDonald, D Hussey, Haddin, Siddle, Johnson, Clark, Hilfenhaus, McGain. Bollinger, Hauritz & Krejza unlucky, but we need a wrist spinner for South Africa and England.
- Good move to rest Mitchell Johnson for a couple of weeks. Also good move to select Hauritz for 20/20 and one dayers, but can't see how he plays with that squad.
- Michael Clarke to open batting in first two one dayers, ahead of Brad Haddin or James Hopes.
- 20/20 matches to be split, Aussies to win one day series 3-2, mainly due to absence of Graeme Smith.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Silence is not golden
The end of 2008 couldn't come quickly enough for the Australian Cricket Team. From a familiar position on Day 2 of the WACA Test Match (and the MCG Test Match for that matter), the Aussies couldn't seal the deal, failing mostly with the ball, but also with the bat, particularly in the 2nd innings in Melbourne, where even Ricky Ponting's 99 was disappointing, given he got out to such an obvious set-up.
What was more disappointing about Ponting's dismissal, even more disappointing than how it happened, was his reaction. He wandered off the pitch a beaten man. It was the same reaction that came from a brave Brett Lee when he heard Billy Doctrove call no-ball after he bowled Neil McKenzie late on the fourth evening. They just seemed defeated.
Watching the DVD of the first 16-match winning streak enjoyed by the Australian Test Team from October 1999 until March 2001, I noticed Ponting's reaction when he was out for 197 in Perth versus Pakistan, playing a similar shot. He was ropable with himself, screaming "no" loudly as he walked angrily off the ground. That was the reaction of a man not defeated, and not satisfied. Ponting reaction was more like a surrender in Melbourne, despite the fact he had made 98 fewer runs. He had given it his best shot, and almost looked comfortable with the fact that it wasn't good enough.
Another astonishing thing I read during the Boxing Day Test Match was an article by Robert Craddock in the Hun. He reported than when Graeme Smith, the South African captain, walked off after batting in Perth, he couldn't believe how quiet it was. Very little chatter, and certainly no talk directed at unsettling the batsman.
It is not a long bow to draw to say that this all goes back to match in Sydney 12 months ago. That match caused a national outcry, but not at the man who had made a racial slur, or his team, but ours, for playing the game while taking no prisoners.
Andrew Symonds had nicked a ball to the keeper and not walked. What terrible form to rely on the umpire to do his job! Imagine an AFL footballer throwing a lunging foot at a ball, getting close, the ball bouncing through the goals, and then the footballer telling the umpire he didn't get a foot to it? No, one expects better behaviour from a cricketer, although there is more money involved and also the little question of national pride.
There was no great ourpouring of approval when Symonds got a howler of a decision in Adelaide and walked off the field without comment or visable dissent. Of course, everything that is wrong with Symonds' cricket career can also be traced back to the New Year's Test Match of 2008.
The massive media reaction last year has resulted in the Aussies having their verbal tail between their legs. I can't imagine a Steve Waugh team reacting the same way; he would have called a spade a spade, said something about being paid to win games of cricket, and carried on as if the fuss had never happened.
Since Michael Clarke bowled Australia to victory late on the Sunday afternoon, Australia has won only four test matches, all against the West Indies or New Zealand, and lost five, all against India or South Africa. Like it or not, the Aussies are at best third in the world at the moment.
Sure, there have been some personnel problems. We can't find a quality spinner. Fast bowlers keep getting hurt and changing, but during the first 16 game winning streak, Australia played McGrath, Fleming, Muller, Kasprowicz, Lee, Bichel & Gillespie. Two sides of quicks, with a 12th Man thrown in. During the 2nd 16 game winning streak, Australia played quicks McGrath, Lee, Kasprowicz, Clark, Gillespie & Mitchell Johnson. You need a good squad of players.
Shane Warne said before the Sydney match that the Aussies bowlers need to recapture some aggression on the field. That could well start with the verbal aggression, although it is hard to see newbies Bollinger or Siddle, or the seemingly patholigically friendly (and incredibly lucky) Andrew McDonald doing that. Johnson has been growing into that role, and he looms as one of the three most vital members of that team, along with captain and vice-captain.
In the final analysis, the players are paid to play and win. When they won the Sydney match 12 months ago, it was almost like they had caused some sort of international incident. Firstly, it was that awful little Indian who caused the "incident". However, it was Australian heads that were being called for. If Ponting should be sacked, it should be for poor captaining, not waiting for the umpire's decision, pressing home every advantage he can, and verballing his opponents. The Australians need to forget about the events of Sydney 2008, and once again make a cricket field full of Australians an uncomfortable place to be.
What was more disappointing about Ponting's dismissal, even more disappointing than how it happened, was his reaction. He wandered off the pitch a beaten man. It was the same reaction that came from a brave Brett Lee when he heard Billy Doctrove call no-ball after he bowled Neil McKenzie late on the fourth evening. They just seemed defeated.
Watching the DVD of the first 16-match winning streak enjoyed by the Australian Test Team from October 1999 until March 2001, I noticed Ponting's reaction when he was out for 197 in Perth versus Pakistan, playing a similar shot. He was ropable with himself, screaming "no" loudly as he walked angrily off the ground. That was the reaction of a man not defeated, and not satisfied. Ponting reaction was more like a surrender in Melbourne, despite the fact he had made 98 fewer runs. He had given it his best shot, and almost looked comfortable with the fact that it wasn't good enough.
Another astonishing thing I read during the Boxing Day Test Match was an article by Robert Craddock in the Hun. He reported than when Graeme Smith, the South African captain, walked off after batting in Perth, he couldn't believe how quiet it was. Very little chatter, and certainly no talk directed at unsettling the batsman.
It is not a long bow to draw to say that this all goes back to match in Sydney 12 months ago. That match caused a national outcry, but not at the man who had made a racial slur, or his team, but ours, for playing the game while taking no prisoners.
Andrew Symonds had nicked a ball to the keeper and not walked. What terrible form to rely on the umpire to do his job! Imagine an AFL footballer throwing a lunging foot at a ball, getting close, the ball bouncing through the goals, and then the footballer telling the umpire he didn't get a foot to it? No, one expects better behaviour from a cricketer, although there is more money involved and also the little question of national pride.
There was no great ourpouring of approval when Symonds got a howler of a decision in Adelaide and walked off the field without comment or visable dissent. Of course, everything that is wrong with Symonds' cricket career can also be traced back to the New Year's Test Match of 2008.
The massive media reaction last year has resulted in the Aussies having their verbal tail between their legs. I can't imagine a Steve Waugh team reacting the same way; he would have called a spade a spade, said something about being paid to win games of cricket, and carried on as if the fuss had never happened.
Since Michael Clarke bowled Australia to victory late on the Sunday afternoon, Australia has won only four test matches, all against the West Indies or New Zealand, and lost five, all against India or South Africa. Like it or not, the Aussies are at best third in the world at the moment.
Sure, there have been some personnel problems. We can't find a quality spinner. Fast bowlers keep getting hurt and changing, but during the first 16 game winning streak, Australia played McGrath, Fleming, Muller, Kasprowicz, Lee, Bichel & Gillespie. Two sides of quicks, with a 12th Man thrown in. During the 2nd 16 game winning streak, Australia played quicks McGrath, Lee, Kasprowicz, Clark, Gillespie & Mitchell Johnson. You need a good squad of players.
Shane Warne said before the Sydney match that the Aussies bowlers need to recapture some aggression on the field. That could well start with the verbal aggression, although it is hard to see newbies Bollinger or Siddle, or the seemingly patholigically friendly (and incredibly lucky) Andrew McDonald doing that. Johnson has been growing into that role, and he looms as one of the three most vital members of that team, along with captain and vice-captain.
In the final analysis, the players are paid to play and win. When they won the Sydney match 12 months ago, it was almost like they had caused some sort of international incident. Firstly, it was that awful little Indian who caused the "incident". However, it was Australian heads that were being called for. If Ponting should be sacked, it should be for poor captaining, not waiting for the umpire's decision, pressing home every advantage he can, and verballing his opponents. The Australians need to forget about the events of Sydney 2008, and once again make a cricket field full of Australians an uncomfortable place to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
