The National Selection Panel - Still Work To Do

This week's announcement by the National Selection Panel regarding the team for the next group of ODIs left more than a few cricket followers scratching their heads, and inspired a number of esteemed cricket figures and current players to make public comment about the team, about the leadership of the team, and the current state of Australian cricket in general.

There's no doubt that, despite the aberration in Hobart, that Australia, so far, have had a very successful summer of cricket. Defeating the Indians 4-0 with a growing dominance over their opponents and an effective leadership of the team by Michael Clarke restored confidence in our national side. And while the resurrected tri-series has continued Australia's winning ways, Clarke's hamstring injury and the treatment of wicketkeeper and fill-in vice-captain Brad Haddin has again raised questions about the group selecting the teams.

Now, no one outside the playing group would suggest that Haddin had a good summer, or that is form clearly warranted a spot in the ODI side. However, the selection panel, in initially leaving Haddin out of the ODI squad in favour of Matthew Wade, stated that Haddin was being rested, rather than being dropped. This is a characterisation with which Haddin, to some extend, disagreed.

Well, Haddin has had some rest, but it seems now the selectors have forgotten about him. He's still not in the side, and there is now an additional reason to have him in the side.

With Michael Clarke to miss Friday's game against Sri Lanka, someone needs to captain the team. Ricky Ponting's presence in the side is clearly warranted on this year's form, but having a former captain in the side is territory Australia has not traversed in a very long time, bar Greg Chappell's swansong in 1983-84.

Brad Haddin was Michael Clarke's vice captain through the test series against New Zealand and India this summer, in the absence of Shane Watson. It is fair to assume that if Haddin was in the side on Friday, he would be leading it. But we won't, and he won't.

For some reason Michael Hussey is not considered for such a role, and the selectors have stated that David Warner, who was vice captain for the first three ODIs in the tri-series, is not ready to lead the side. So they have gone back to Ricky Ponting for at least one match. It appears now vice captain is some sort of honorific title, rather than an actual designation that if the captain is off the ground or not playing, you will lead the team.

In addition to all this, for this season at least, there seems to be a lack of planning towards the end of the ODI cycle, which is the 2015 World Cup. Preparations should clearly have begun to construct the 15 man squad who will play in that tournament. There is plenty that will happen in the next three years, to be sure, but players should be being tried and tested in international cricket now. And players who are clearly not going to be playing in three years time should be transitioned out of the side.

Yet we see an ODI side with Ricky Ponting, Brett Lee and Michael Hussey who, while probably all being in Australia's all time ODI team, will not play at the 2015 World Cup. While Ponting and Hussey may not be keeping any players who are currently demanding selection out, selectors in the past have taken punts on playing players before their records demand such a selection. And Alisdair McDermott is certainly putting together a record that demands selection, while Peter Siddle is rested and bowling superbly. Yet the selectors have gone with Brett Lee and Ben Hilfenhaus.

All this shows that despite the changes to the National Selection Panel, and the obvious progress that has been made during the summer, they haven't got everything figured out just yet.

The 4th Test - An opportunity

Hands up who had Australia leading 3-0 after three Tests against India while batting only four times in those three Tests? OK, so nobody.

Despite Michael Clarke's protestations yesterday after the Australian bowlers finished off the Indian batsmen for the second time in just over two days, the final Test match against India won't hold the same importance with regards to the final result as the first three have had.

Normally it would be a steady as she goes approach, but the changes instituted by Cricket Australia with regards to coaching and and team selection since the release of the Argus Review mean that the upcoming Test match in Adelaide may be a little different.

After he was diagnosed with a stress reaction in his foot, James Pattinson was apparently due for a rest in the Perth Test match so that his workload could be managed. According to the Australian's team's physiotherapist, this means that Pattinson would not have played even if he had been deemed fit to play.

This completely changes the threshold for playing Test cricket for Australia. According to the new ethos, not all Test matches are created equal and players will be managed for the long term even if they are available in the short term.

Of course, this only recognises a reality of the global cricket landscape. And now with a "dead rubber" coming up, it gives the Australian team an opportunity to try some new things in Adelaide.

First of all, some changes to the side. While the side has been successful, some cylinders are sputtering, while others are not firing at all.

Shaun Marsh did very well in Sri Lanka, but he is past 30 years old and has a first class over 36. In fact, his century on Test debut was only his 7th First Class century.

With Shane Watson still recovering from his latest injury, let's get Usman Khawaja back in the side, batting at number 3 against a depleted attack on a friendly Adelaide pitch. Hopefully he would get that maiden big score and his career would be off, and we may have found our long term replacement for Ricky Ponting at first drop.

With Adelaide a much more friendly deck for spinners than the one at the WACA Ground, Nathan Lyon comes in. There has been some talk that Ben Hilfenhaus would be the one to get a rest in Adelaide considering his ordinary First Class record there, but he deserves the opportunity to improve on his 23 wickets at 16 so far in this series. Hilfenhaus is also unlikely to play in the T20 or ODI matches which will round out the Australian international summer.

The man who deserves a rest, if the decision is to be made on that basis rather than form, is Peter Siddle. It would leave the Australian tail a little long, but in fairness, that's not much of a concern for a team that has won its last two matches by an innings. Siddle may feature in the shorter forms of the game in February and March, so better to give him a rest now. He'll be needed in the West Indies.

The final change is one that needs to happen, and it's the completion of Brad Haddin's international career. Neither aspect of his game is where it neeeds to be, and one struggles to see any circumstances arising where he'd be in the side for either Ashes series next year. Get Matthew Wade into the side while the stakes are low.

So onto Adelaide, where a couple of youngsters can be blooded, a tired body can be given some rest, and hopefully, for us true cricket lovers, we may see our first Day 5 of the Test season.

To Test Cricket, with love

There's a thin volume on my bookcase, among the other books about cricket, and it has been there for about 20 years. The book is penned by Ian Brayshaw and is about the Chappell brothers, but the opening pages of the book contain just about the best description of the first morning of a Test match one could hope to read.


It describes the walk down King William St over the River Torrens to the Adelaide Oval. But is also describes the feeling of anticipation and excitement that surrounds the hours before the commencement of that longest of sporting contests.

There is the weather to consider. Early humidity and cloud cover can affect the shiny, red sphere of leather differently than a blazing Australian sun accompanied by a spotless blue sky. There are the teams, and anyone who thinks that this is not much of a consideration should look back to Australia's most recent Test match, when Daniel Vettori pulled up hurt during pre-game warm-ups and was replaced by a pace bowler, which despite Vettori's auspicious record, probably benefited the New Zealanders.

And finally, there is the pitch. So much that happens over 30 hours of cricket depends on the horticultural conditions of 22 yards of rolled turf. Is there moisture? How long will the moisture keep the pitch “lively”? Is there a green tinge? Is there rolled-in grass cuttings? Will the ball start to turn and spin on the latter days as the pitch wears and dries out? These are the sort of things that make this gardening philistine think wistfully about dropping everything to become a country cricket ground curator.

And then, when the game begins, among the excitement, the seemingly infinite possibilities (look at the India/West Indies Test from last month for an example of those possibilities), there is the space. The space to think, the space to breathe, the space to share, the space to talk. This space does not exist in the other forms of the game. If T20 cricket is Phil Spector's Wall of Sound, then Test cricket is the music produced by George Martin; sparse in places, action filled in others, always interesting, never the same twice.

According to their coach, the newborn Melbourne Renegades of the T20 Big Bash lost Thursday's game in 21 balls. No Test match can be decided in 21 balls. This is a decidedly good thing.

At a Test match, one can discuss many things while never dismissing what is happening on the field. Batsmen can get through good spells of bowling with patience, resilience and nous. Bowlers can think a batsman out, taking time to craft a plan in their head and implement it. Not all cricketers were born as naturally instinctive and wise for the game as Shane Warne.

One of my favourite hours of Test cricket was Ishant Sharma's spell to Ricky Ponting in 2008. Ponting fought bravely against a viciously moving ball for 50 minutes, while Sharma probed the Australian captain's defences. Eventually Sharma got his man, and the wicket was well earned.

This enthralling episode would simply not happen in the shorter forms of the game. The pace of the game, the pressing need to set a target rather than survive, would have meant that Ponting would have probably surrendered his wicket quickly and foolishly. His shot would not have been worthy of the delivery.

Many lament the state the longer form of the game is in. Only in England and Australia is Test cricket consistently well attended, and even in Australia it only demands good crowds from the three oldest venues, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide.

I make no such lament. So much can happen in five days, so many changes in the complexion of a match, whether they be small or significant, so much can be speculated and chewed over with a quiet ale or roast chicken sandwich, that the gift of Test cricket keeps giving right through the duration of a match.

This is what makes Test cricket the most unique sporting contest in the world. To compare it to any other single sporting contest in the world would be inaccurate: it plays out more like a NBA playoff series or an entire tennis tournament.

The fact that the best attended Test match every year occurs in my home town only deepens my love for the game. I'm pretty sure I know what will happen Christmas morning. But I don't know what will happen Boxing Day morning, or over the next five days. And I love it.

An unenviable (20)11

Ed Cowan will make his debut for the Australian cricket team on Boxing Day at the MCG. He'll join such illustrious names as Brett Lee, Steve Waugh and Craig McDermott, among others, who have made their debut for Australia in our most iconic annual Test Match.

Dan Christian may also make his Test debut, and if that happens, Australia would have had 11 debutants in Test Cricket in 2011.

Recently, I compared the cricketers Australia has debuted since Shane Warne, Justin Langer and Glenn McGrath retired to the ones that debuted immediately after the retirements of Rod Marsh, Dennis Lillee and Greg Chappell.

The period of rebuilding Australia is currently undertaking has also regularly been compared to the rebuilding that Australian cricket undertook in the mid 1980s under the stewardship of Allan Border and Bob Simpson.

However, never was a single year in the 1980s as tumultuous as 2011 where debutants are concerned. The largest number of debutants for a single year of the 1980s was 7 in 1985, and that included Geoff Marsh, Merv Hughes, Bruce Reid and Steve Waugh.

No, one has to go back to the bad old days for establishment cricket; the birth of World Series Cricket and the Packer split to recall a year where so many fresh faces toiled under the baggy green. For the last time at least 10 players debuted for the Australian Test Team in a single year was 1977.

From David Hookes famous debut in the Centenary Test, through six debuts in the doomed Ashes Tour of England in 1977, and finished with another eight debuts, replacing the Packer defectors, in the exciting series against the Indians back in Australia, 15 debutants were blooded in 1977.

Now, 1977 was a disaster for Establishment Australian cricket by any measure. Thirty of the nations best cricketers turned their backs on first class cricket, leaving such household names as Clark, Hibbert, Ogilvie and Gannon to officially represent their country.

When another nine players debuted for the official Test team in 1978, the calibre was much more powerful. That year's debutants included Graeme Wood, Bruce Yardley, Jim Higgs, Rodney Hogg, and of course, Allan Border.

Fast forward to 2011, and of the nine players who have already debuted for Australia this year, two may have already played their last Test match for Australia. Michael Beer has been replaced by the able Nathan Lyon, while Trent Copeland is now not even in the best eight pace bowlers in the country, according to the selectors (behind current squad members Siddle, Pattinson, Starc and Hilfenhaus, and injured bowlers Harris, Cummins, Cutting and Johnson). Don't expect either of them back in the side any time soon.

While the wraps on Usman Khawaja have been huge, his inability to show concentration for long periods of time have seen him dropped from the Test side for the second time in his debut year. I can't think of another specialist batsman who's had that rather unenviable honour bestowed upon him.

While gold appears to have been struck with Lyon, Pattinson and Cummins, and Dave Warner's underrated innings in Hobart shows a clear ability to take instructions and work on deficiencies, one would have hoped for a better strike rate with debutants than is currently being shown.

The upside is that in 1985, the selectors went through Rob Kerr before getting to Geoff Marsh, Simon O'Donnell before getting to Steve Waugh, Dave Gilbert before getting to Merv Hughes and Bruce Reid.

In more recent times, selectors also picked Wayne Phillips (the second one) before getting to Justin Langer and Michael Slater, they picked Michael Kasprowicz before picking Jason Gillespie, they picked Simon Muller before picking Brett Lee, and they picked Clint McKay before picking Ryan Harris. So here's hoping the Christmas present our Test team has been waiting for is a Cowan, and perhaps a Christian.

Don't do me no favours

While some members of his team, namely the bowlers, may have thought differently, I'm sure Michael Clarke wasn't happy with the colour of the pitch when he first ventured into the middle at Bellerive Oval last week.

Australia's bowling is looking dangerous and youthful at the moment, and as such, could be relied upon to deliver a robust performance without any extra assistance from the pitch.

Australia's batting is another matter. The top three are inexperienced, the number four is playing for his career every time he bats, or so it seems, and the wicketkeeper is also trying to delay the inevitable. Only the captain really looks confident and in form at the moment.

So the curator at Bellerive was really doing the home team no favours with his preparation of the pitch.

So what's new?

If there has been a theme common to Australian Test Cricket and foreign to other countries over the last 20 years, other than regular dominance, it has been producing pitches so fair as to almost render a disadvantage to the home team. This is pretty much in direct comparison to the pitches prepared everywhere else in the world, where producing a pitch that will advantage the home team's strengths is common practice.

Last year on Boxing Day, a juicy pitch met both teams. Despite a lack of heavy rain in Melbourne before the match (it has been cool and humid in the weeks preceeding the match), a green tinge rendered the toss of vital importance. England won the toss, inserted the Australians, and the Aussies failed to make triple figures. After lunch the pitch flattened out, and the game was effectively over.

To say the Aussies needed a flat deck would be like saying the Wallabies need a better performance from the forward pack.

Once upon a time, visitors cringed at the thought of playing on the bounciest pitch in the world in Perth. While Australian cricketers were used to the bounce of the WACA strip, visiting teams, especially those from the sub-continent, struggled to adapt as they were used to the low bounce of the pitches from home.

But the WACA hasn't played like that in 20 years. A replacement of the grass wicket area after the debacle in 1993 against the West Indies has meant that the WACA pitch has become docile and has maintained a lesser, consistent bounce for all five days. While England continue to struggle there, losing six straight test matches, India and South Africa have both won in Perth in previous years.

Contrast this to what happens in other areas of the world. Pitches in India are either roads, to suit their batsmen, or dustbowls, to suit their spin attack. In England, pitches can vary, either to suit their pace attack led by James Anderson and Stuart Broad, or their world class off-spinner, Graeme Swan. In the final test of 2009, England spun to victory behind Swan's bowling effort on a vicious turner.

No pitch is ever prepared to play to Australia's advantages. With Shane Warne closing in on 700 Test wickets on Boxing Day 2006, the MCG curator produced a slow, damp pitch. Only Warne's brilliance gave him five wickets, including his 700th.

Brisbane is generally considered one of the best cricket wickets in the world, and the Aussies haven't lost there since 1988. But England made 1/510 there last year.

The truth is a little bit of assistance wouldn't go astray, and the Aussie players who need the assistance now are the batsmen. The drop in wicket at the MCG will hold no promises, but has been playing very consistently through four days at Shield level so far this season. It'll play fair, because that's what we Aussies do. We produce pitches that give everyone a fair go. It may be time to give our own players a little leg up. Everyone else does it.

Cummins Early Arrival a Good Sign

If any one event suggests that Australian cricket may be heading back to days of glory, it was Pat Cummins six-wicket haul in Johannesburg yesterday.

No, not because he took six wickets in an innings, but for the very fact he is playing as a precocious eighteen year old.

Australian cricket history is littered with many recurring themes, such as tough, uncompromising batsmen, enterprising captaincy, hopeless attempts to chase small totals in fourth innings,  and the occasional heartbreaking loss by a small margin.

Another is the young talent included in the side seemingly before his time. In the last 30 years, celebrated fast bowlers Craig McDermott and Glen McGrath entered the Australian Test Team earlier rather than later, and while they may have struggled at times early in their career, with McDermott having an extended two year stay out of the team, both eventually developed into stalwarts of the Australian bowling line-up, with McGrath becoming one of the best fast bowlers of all time.

McGrath, in particular, resembled a baby giraffe when he first played for Australia back in 1993. But after two Australian summers around the Australian team, he performed superbly when called on to lead a depleted Australian attack in the West Indies in 1995, after injuries to McDermott and Damien Fleming. McGrath was integral to Australia's first series win against the West Indies in nearly 20 years.

McDermott had more instant success and then regressed, but came back a better bowler in 1991 when he destroyed England in Perth in his comeback test. From them on he was Australia's spearhead, and won two International Cricketer of the Year awards.

The other Australian bowler who debuted before he was probably ready was Shane Warne. In his first two tests, both against India, he was hit all around the SCG and Adelaide Oval, but within 12 months he had bowled Australia to victory in the 1992 Boxing Day Test against the West Indies, and was about to embark on his famous 1993 Ashes Tour of England, when he would bowl the ball of the century on his way to one of the most dominant displays of bowling ever seen on a tour of England. The rest is history.

Compare that to someone like Mitchell Johnson, who had to wait until he was 26 years old to play Test Cricket, while McGrath, Stuart Clark and Brett Lee led the Australian attack. Perhaps Johnson would not have been so mentally fragile if he had been thrown in the deep end at a younger age? We'll never know, but we do know that it has been a while since we've seen consistent success from Johnson.

There is already plenty of talk about managing Cummins workload, and history also suggests that he'll find himself out of the test side at some stage in his career. Now, Cummins is very young, but if his form and fitness permit, he should stay in the side. Use the shorter forms of the game to manage his workload, and also control the amount of cricket he plays when not representing Australia, but Cummins should play Test Cricket whenever he has the chance. With all the other cricket played nowadays, there should be no shortage of non-Test opportunities to give his young body some rest.

Now, if only the Australian selectors can find a young batsman to blood in the side. Khawaja and Hughes have shown glimpes in the current Test Match. Is there another waiting for an opportunity before his time?

Rebuilding the Test Team - A comparison

Four and a half years ago, Australia completed a five-nil sweep of The Ashes, and greats Glenn McGrath, Justin Langer and Shane Warne retired.

Twenty eight and a half years ago, Australia completed a ho-hum series victory against Pakistan, and greats Dennis Lillee, Rod Marsh and Greg Chappell retired.

The immediate period after these two generational changes went on different paths: the 1980s Australians would run into the might of the West Indies and not win another Test Series for another three and a half years, while the 2000s Australians were in the midst of a record-equalling sixteen consecutive wins.

But while Australian cricket suffered in the 1980s, the team was rebuilt effectively.

Post Lillee/Marsh/Chappell, the next twenty five players to debut in the Australian Test Team were Steve Smith, Dean Jones, David Boon, Bob Holland, Murray Bennett, Craig McDermott, Simon O'Donnell, Dave Gilbert, Robbie Kerr, Merv Hughes, Geoff Marsh, Bruce Reid, Steve Waugh, Simon Davis, Tim Zoehrer, Chris Matthews, Greg Dyer, Peter Taylor, Mike Veletta, Tim May, Tony Dodemaide, Ian Healy, Trevor Hohns, Mark Taylor and Greg Campbell.

Post McGrath/Langer/Warne, the next twenty five players to debut were Mitchell Johnson, Chris Rogers, Brad Haddin, Beau Casson, Cameron White, Peter Siddle, Jason Krejza, Doug Bollinger, Andrew McDonald, Ben Hilfenhaus, Philip Hughes, Marcus North, Bryce McGain, Graham Manou, Clint McKay, Ryan Harris, Tim Paine, Steven Smith, Peter George, Xavier Doherty, Michael Beer, Usman Khawaja, Trent Copeland, Nathan Lyon and Shaun Marsh.

Which groups looks more compelling? In the first group, only Smith, Kerr and Davis played in only one Test Series. In the second group, Rogers, Casson, White, McGain, Manou, McKay, George, Doherty, Beer and Copeland have played in only one Test Series, although Beer and Copeland are currently with the Test Squad in South Africa.

Although the keeping spot has been more settled in the later years, both groups include three wicketkeepers. Also, both include a number of spinners. And as with any cricketing group, bowlers are churned through more quickly than batsmen.

And here lies the problem with our current state of cricket. Whether through a lack of genuine quality coming through the ranks, or a desire on the part of selectors to persist with older guys at the expense of younger guys, the really good batsmen have not materialised. Any XI created out of the most recent XXV would have to include someone like Cameron White, Andrew McDonald or Steven Smith batting in the top six, or both Brad Haddin and Tim Paine playing.

On the other hand, from the first XXV, and XI would boast a top five of Marsh, M Taylor, Boon, Jones and S Waugh. Sticking in Mike Veletta as the other specialist bat then seems less problematic, especially considering how outstanding a fieldsman he was.

The courageousness of selectors to move older batsmen on has not been evident. While it would be folly to compare Michael Hussey with Greg Ritchie, the fact is Ritchie was moved on when he was performing reasonably well, and his spot was taken by other, younger batsmen, like Steve Waugh.

In the final analysis, there would be at least 12 out of the latest 25 who would have next to no chance of every playing another Test Match. All 25 have debuted in the last four years. Think about that.

Democracy the Smokescreen

It's official. According to representatives of both sides of the political spectrum, democracy is dead. Or at least woefully lacking in our current society.

According to the "Occupy (insert metropolis here)", they are part of a large proportion of the population not being heard or represented. What they need is more democracy.

On the other side of the divide, it is obvious that democracy doesn't need a doctor, it needs a priest. The passage of the carbon reduction scheme is proof positive that, in Australia at least, democracy is no longer alive.

Now read those first few paragraphs again and try to suspend your disbelief. Done?

This is clearly hogwash, but claiming a lack of democracy is a wonderful and effective tool for advocating for a policy position, and criticising those who don't agree with you.

Those who occupied city centres across the world are critical of the current capitalist system that operates in many successful nations. That is their policy position.

Their problem is the democratic process hasn't worked for them, or they're just not very good at it. In fact, what many anti-capitalist policy positions have in common is they've been adopted by nations at roughly the same time as they've abandoned democracy. So pluralism isn't one of the anti-capitalist's strong suits, but don't let that get in the way of a really good demonstration and sit-in, followed by the inevitable removal and scuffle with law enforcement officers.

On the other hand, does the passage of the carbon tax really signal the death of democracy, such as those who participated in the "convoy of no-confidence" suggested? Of course not.

In fact, the whole damn saga related to the Gillard Government's efforts to introduce a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia collectively emits has been a clear demonstration of democracy at work, for all its successes and failures. Australia, pluralist and tolerant, with her government expressing a compromise between mainstream and minority opinion, arriving at a policy position developed by representatives as wide ranging as the land it comes from; the laneways and townhouses of inner Melbourne, and the wide expanses of the frontier of north-western New South Wales.

What we see in this debate is not another fatal blow for democracy, but a mere policy disagreement, albeit on a area of policy which may or may not be the most important to human kind since the Cold War.

It is important that a wide range of views are represented in a vibrant democracy, but this clearly is happening. Bob Brown and Barnaby Joyce share the same house of our parliament. And both are having a meaningful effect on our national discourse, and the legislation our democratically elected parliament is passing. 

So, for now, save the obituaries for democracy. It's quite clearly alive and well.

And let's consign the lack of democracy talk to the archives of overblown political hyperbole.

Why Depth is Vital

After the disappointment of a humiliating Ashes defeat, it hasn't taken long for the Australian One-Day team to restore a little pride. They have done so by re-establishing a key aspect to Australia's success for many years over the 1990s and 2000s: depth.

Both teams were missing large chunks of their best line-ups yesterday at the SCG, and rather than bemoan the demise of the 50-over-a-side game, it would be better to put the blame for an uninspiring game at the feet of injuries. Regardless of this, the Australians performed admirably with a side that is well below full strength.

For the English, Pietersen, Swann, Anderson, Broad & Bresnan were missing. This is their entire first string bowling attack, and perhaps their best ODI batsman.

However, the Aussies were missing Ponting, Michael Hussey, Johnson & Hauritz to short-to-medium term maladies, and Clint McKay and Ryan Harris are both nursing stress fractures in their feet. McKay and Harris were Australia's best performed fast bowlers in ODIs through 2009 and 2010.

Replacing these men for Australia have been David Hussey and Shaun Marsh, who have both made match winning contributions with the bat, a rejuvenated Brett Lee, clever Victorian all-rounder John Hastings, Xavier Doherty (who has been recalled from cricketing Coventry) and Doug Bollinger. All have played well and had a hand in at least one of Australia's impressive three wins so far against the English.

Brett Lee has reminded everyone why he has a place in Australia's all-time ODI side ahead of such greats as Dennis Lillee. He has always been a great ODI bowler, and having missed out on the 2007 World Cup win due to an ankle injury, he is energised and excited about what will be his last chance to play in a World Cup winning side.

The selectors also took a punt on David Hussey, considering it had been 18 months since he had played an ODI, but Hussey's knock last night was full of intelligence. The situation called for calm, and he provided it. It helps that he plays his state cricket for Victoria, who have made an impressive habit out of winning cricket matches. Having said that, Cameron White could use some runs, as well as the man he deputises for, Michael Clarke.

Clarke is doing a great job with his captaincy, but when Ponting returns, he may not be playing well enough with the bat to sustain his spot in the side, especially with David Hussey doing so well. Remember Hussey's brother also needs to come back into the side if fit.

One should also be reminded that a place for Callum Ferguson and Usman Khawaja cannot be found in this side at the moment. While Australia are not favourites to win their fourth consecutive World Cup, to count them out would be folly.

Protecting the Sheffield Shield

The review of the state of Australian cricket in the media has been a little over the top, but this amateur pundit thinks that it is starting to identify the causes of some of the problems that have resulted in our poor performance in recent times.

In Sunday's Herald-Sun, former South African opening batsman Barry Richards spoke of the need for Cricket Australia to retain the Sheffield Shield in its current form or strengthen it, and not to sacrifice it to the Gods of the shortest form of the game. He contends that the 10-match format must be retained despite pressure to find room for the proposed eight-franchise Twenty20 competition planned to start next summer.

Then today in The Australian, Ricky Ponting has spoken of the need of review of the lower levels of Australian cricket and how it affects the quality of the representative teams that have lost so many games in 2010.

Well, they're both right. It has been the strength and consistency of the Sheffield Shield first class cricket competition that has provided the cornerstone of quality on which the success of the test team has been built on for all those years. Ten matches, home and away against everyone, in all conditions in all states, four days of 100 overs each.

The only problem with this competition is it loses money, hand over fist. Twenty20 cricket, however, even at a non-international level, does make money and therefore Cricket Australia wants to expand it.

However, the Sheffield Shield must be defended. Try to get along to a day or two of it between now and the end of the season if you love cricket, because it clearly needs our support.

The solution is simple: play the Shield (and a truncated 45 over competition) between the middle of October and the end of January. This would also coincide with the international itinerary, to be played from November to the end of January.

The Shield would be played with two matches every three weeks, with one 45-over match during that time. The entire competition would take 15 weeks, players would regularly be playing quality, tough, first-class cricket and would benefit greatly. If you could organise it that the test players were available for the first couple of games, even better.

Then, in February, with all international cricketers available, play the Twenty20 Big Bash. All the attention would then go to this competition, and the schedule would be free (except if the Australians needed to tour New Zealand, South Africa or the West Indies). Then play the Shield final in the first or second week of March.

This would open up stadia like the MCG, the SCG and the Gabba for mid-March footy. And let's face it: Aussie Rules pays the bills at those three grounds; not cricket. The Adelaide Oval will soon be used for footy too, so all the more reason to get cricket season over and done with by the second weekend in March.

The 45/50 over form of the game is already suffering from Twenty20 cricket. The reason Twenty20 cricket was invented was because ODIs were becoming predictable and boring. But there is no reason to see Test Cricket suffer.

It is quite clear from the media reaction of the Ashes loss that Test Cricket is still the most important form of the game to Australians. Time to protect it by protecting the Sheffield Shield.

What will arise from The Ashes?

As Australia struggle to take only their 54th wicket of the series on this Thursday morning (remembering 20 of them were taken in Perth), our minds now must be cast forward to the future of Australian cricket.

Despite the struggles of the top order, the regeneration has started. Smith, Khawaja and Hughes are all under 25 and are all already in the team. Clarke could do himself a huge favour in the second innings by making some runs, otherwise he may find himself not only being replaced as captain when the Australian Test Team next play.

Michael Hussey should probably be moved on with a huge thank you from the Australian selectors, as he is not going to England in 2013. Ponting could come back down the order as well.

On further examination of Shane Watson, maybe he could bat #4. Of course, that would necessitate a new opening batsman to accompany Phil Hughes at the top of the order, and none are putting their hand up in such a way that could not be ignored. Suggestions of Shaun Marsh are folly; he doesn't average 40 in first class cricket. The dearth of opening options probably keeps Watson at the top of the order for a little while yet.

So Watson, Hughes, Khawaja and Smith stay, as well as one of Ponting and Clarke (and perhaps two if Clarke makes runs and Ponting keeps the captaincy). Maybe one spot opens up for a Callum Ferguson or another New South Wales wunderkind, but for now, the top seven (with Haddin or Tim Paine) seems fairly settled. Now all they need to do is make some bloody runs.

The bowling doesn't seem so settled. Ben Hilfenhaus has probably done his dash, to be consigned to the same area of historical record as Dave Gilbert. That Doug Bollinger didn't get a go in front of his home crowd at the SCG, when the selectors preferred him over Hilfenhaus at the same venue only 24 months ago shows the inconsistency of the selectors clearly.

An even more clear demonstration of the lack of consistency is Nathan Hauritz. If the selectors weren't persisting with Hauritz because of the upcoming Ashes series, then I don't know what they were doing. And before getting injured, he has a good summer in 2009/10, bowling well against both the West Indies and Pakistan.

After a poor tour of India (and let's face it, the last Australian spinner to succeed in India was probably named Benaud) he was sent to Coventry, never to been seen again in a Baggy Green. Enter Xavier Doherty, who was selected on the back of one four-wicket haul in a one-day match, and Michael Beer, who will probably not play for Australia again after this test match. Even Peter McIntyre (and Doherty, for that matter) got a second test.

That leaves Siddle and Johnson. Siddle is the workhorse whose career should follow the trajectory of that other Victorian hero, Merv Hughes. He's energetic, tireless, and his infectious personality helps the team keep things light and happy. That and he can bowl a bit too.

Johnson is a massive headache. Clearly no other bowler in Australia can produce spells and deliveries so devastating as Johnson. The problem is when he doesn't bowl incredibly well, he bowls utter tripe. The gulf between his best and his worst makes the Grand Canyon look like a crack in a concrete footpath. Only adding to the dilemma is the fact that he may be the best pure ball striker in the batting order, meaning a Johnson innings can also be like a Johnson spell - match winning or just plain awful.

With Ryan Harris' injury probably meaning he has missed his chance, now is the time to get someone like Mitchell Starc or James Pattinson into the side.

As for the spinner, I don't really care who it is as long as they persist with him for more than a couple of test matches. Considering the problems so many teams (West Indies, England, South Africa, New Zealand) have with wrist spin, Cameron Boyce may be a risk worth taking. It is important to note than absolutely no spinner in Australia is knocking down the door for a spot, with the possible exception of the aforementioned Nathan Hauritz.

Having said all that, the next focus should be on the ICC World Cup, and we should present a settled ODI outfit. As for the test arena, hopefully something can arise from the ashes of a ruined summer.

Dissecting a Day at the Cricket

A day at the cricket can be entertaining, it can be educational, it can be both and it can be neither.

To watch the Australian batting order dismantle themselves on Day 3 of the Fourth Ashes Test Match was depressing. My 12 year old brother in law put it best: first two sessions good, last session miserable.

Firstly, there was the galactically poor judgement of Shane Watson. Anyone who could advocate his elevation to the Test Captaincy after this demonstration of what not to do must have rocks in their head.

In order to provide some context, the Australian openers in Watson and Hughes were scoring freely, but also pushing the fielding team with enterprising running between the wickets. However, this was when the ball was pushed into the spacious MCG outfield, as Watson and Hughes regularly turned twos into threes.

Turning zeroes into ones is a harder task, and one Watson failed at miserably as he ran out his partner who was looking good and in need of a confidence building extended stay in the middle. So much for that plan as Hughes was left short, and the rot began on a pitch that gave little aid to the bowling attack.

Clearly a poor or ordinary throw at the stumps can turn a dicey run into a safe run. On the other hand, not using the bat to defend an inswinger on the diminishing bounce of the MCG drop in wicket was a clear example of Watson's complete lack of judgement. If he had played a shot, he would not have been out. It is clear now that there is good judgement, there is bad judgement, and there is Watson judgement.

The next two men in the batting order provided much the same option on the menu, but while I feel no sympathy for Michael Clarke, I feel plenty for Ricky Ponting. Determined to make his stay at the crease time consuming, he resolved to play at the ball only when required. With his broken finger filled with anaesthetic, he struggled his way to 20 runs before the curtain came down, another inswinger finding the inside of the bat and the fullness of the stumps.

Ponting trudged off a defeated man. It is clear he is finished as a test cricketer, not only defeated on skill and ability, but also in heart. The only thing he can do now is hurt his legacy, as players like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid get to enjoy a swansong, away from the harsh interrogation of character being captain or batting number three provide. Ponting has become a victim of Australian toughness in a way Steve Waugh never did.

Watching Michael Clarke, I made the comment he wouldn't get a game for St Kilda CC 2nds. After unbelievably charging Graeme Swann on the first ball he faced from him, only to miss the ball (fortunately Matt Prior did as well), he then decided to be completely subservient to Swann's whims, letting the cocky English spinner dictate terms until Swann finally decided to stop playing with him and put Clarke, and more importantly us watching, out of our collective misery.

Swann is the barometer of the English team. He is energetic, feeding off his own success and the reaction it gets from the Barmy Army and other English supporters, who were clearly much too numerous at the MCG for economic benefit to allow. Maybe the Aussie Dollar needs to hit parity with the Pound before all those loud Poms stay at home to be snowed under and finally silenced.

Back to Swann: you need to hit him out of the attack. By the time Peter Siddle and Brad Haddin were doing the right thing on the fourth morning, it was too late. Siddle made 40 by whacking Swann down the ground, and Siddle is a solid number 9/10 batsman.

Clarke just sat there pushing the ball back to Swann time and time again, like a kid being pushed in the chest by a bigger kid until he starts crying. Clarke needed to literally knock the smile from Swann's face, and instead he just embarrassed himself.

Clarke's career showed all the promise of maybe a all time great of Australian cricket, but at the moment I think I'd rather Damien Martyn's career than Clarke's.

Michael Hussey played his most uncharacteristic shot of the series, but while Hussey has plenty of credits in the bank, he won't be around for the next Ashes and should announce Sydney will be his last Test Match. Better to go while they miss you and all that guff.

The best innings of the day to watch was Steven Smith's. He had a crack, and while his technique doesn't look great, his ability to just play his game regardless of circumstances is more than encouraging. Smith is clearly one to stick with, and stick with at number six. The fact he is a wrist spinner will help him succeed, especially against the likes of England, the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, who don't face wrist spinners much and therefore don't like facing wrist spin.

The lack of fight by the Australians, personified in the once talented but now unable batting of Michael Clarke, was the most disappointing thing about a day at the cricket. Let's hope the inclusion of some new blood in the top six, and the collection of a solid bowling attack, will enable the road to our next Ashes triumph to be a short one. But if a twelve year old is pencilling in 2017 as our next series win against the old enemy, who am I to argue?

Sledging: It's for the best

It took almost three years, but the Australian Cricket Team is starting to put the after effects of the Harbhajan Singh - Andrew Symonds incident behind it.

I opined in this space during the disastrous South African series in 2008/09 that the Australians were too quiet on the field, and this reflected a state of mind created by the media furore after the New Years' Test of 2008 versus India. At that time, Graeme Smith even commented publicly about the lack of any chatter on the field from the Australians.

The furore was to blame for this retraction of the Australian Cricket Team into their collective shells. Despite the clear, indisputable fact that it was the Indian and not the Australian who used the racial slur, the Indian media went into a frenzy. Well, that is not entirely accurate - they're always in a frenzy. For the ideal paradigm, as Obama is for Fox News, Australia is for the Indian media.

Generally, Australians play hard. They use any legitimate means to unsettle opponents, and they do this to opponents of all colours and creeds.

The Australians rediscovered the art of sledging at the WACA Ground, but only after Kevin Pietersen stirred the sleeping giant by verballing Mitchell Johnson. Johnson was suddenly more emotionally involved in the contest, and produced a spell that turned the test match and perhaps the series.

Suddenly, the Aussies were sledging the English, and this is for the better, because a verbally aggressive Australian side is usually a successful one. However, this on-field banter, despite being obvious to all and sundry watching at home on the High Definition TV sets, did not set off the left-wing sporting intelligensia of the Fairfax press and their associated cheering brigade the way it did when we were playing India. To sledge a white South African playing for England is A-OK, but to do it to an Indian of colour is racism and shames all Australians. What tosh.

I don't really care if the Australians are liked or make friends. They are paid, very well in fact, to win games of cricket, and they lost a whole bunch of them quietly, but only when they started to show some real backbone and started to talk back to an English line-up starting to resemble their supporters for annoyance and arrogance, they started playing better cricket and the results came swiftly and dramatically.

So, here's to the Australia of old, in it to win it, taking no prisoners, and not caring what people outside of the team think about their manners and other such bunkum. On to Melbourne for Boxing Day, and hopefully the Christmas spirit of generosity won't extend to the field of contest.

Tanking for Dummies (and cricketers)

Before the expansion Suns and Giants came around to steal the AFL club's much beloved priority picks, it was in vogue, when met with a situation where finals were impossible, to try to ensure you won less than 5 matches for the year. This would mean an extra pick either at the start or the end of the first round, depending on the length of a club's malaise.

Well, considering the Cricket Australia selection panel's desperate ability to grasp onto any hope of a reversal of fortune before making any sort of significant change to the side, the reality is clear that for the long term success of the Australian Test Team, they need to lose in Perth, in addition to the match already lost in Adelaide. The selectors need to be convinced as soon as possible that the Ashes are not for reclaiming this time around. Only then are the selectors likely to embrace the hard decisions that are now well past overdue.

We are now as far away from an Ashes series as one can be in the current cycle, overlooking the current "contest" we are playing in. The next Ashes are in England in 2013, more than two-and-a-half years away. So, if Test success is the pinnacle for Australian cricket, and the Ashes are the most important series for Australia, then now is the ideal time to start the rebuild. And it must start, rather surprisingly considering our inability to bowl anyone out without a hat trick, with the top seven in the batting order.

You see, this is where the age is. All of our bowlers are under 30, including the blokes who are on the outer depending on who got belted most recently. So, rather than recommend who is to be dropped and who is to be played, it would be better if the selectors just settled on a line-up and gave them some time to work together.

The top seven is a different story entirely. If the Australian Test team is to renew and rebuild, some very hard decisions need to be made about the top and middle order of the batting.

Take Simon Katich for example. As tough and courageous as he is, he doesn't convert enough of his scores into hundreds, has a Achilles injury that will keep him out for the rest of the series, and is well into his thirties. Hopefully Phil Hughes makes plenty of runs after he replaces Katich so the decision is made easy, but time's probably up for Katich's international career.

It would also be a tough decision to leave Michael Hussey and Brad Haddin out, as without these two Australia would be 2-0 down in the series. But no one can honestly expect them to be in England in 2013 in anything other than a commentary capacity, or perhaps hosting a tour of Aussie cricket fans. Haddin should probably survive the rest of the summer due to Tim Paine's injury, but Hussey is keeping a youngster out who needs experience.

It is clear that neither Ricky Ponting's captaincy, or batting, for that matter, are up to scratch, and at nearly 36, he should probably retire at the end of this summer to go and earn some serious coin hitting bowlers all over grounds the size of tennis courts in the IPL.

There is no defence for Marcus North - there should be a riot if he survives to Perth.

That leaves Shane Watson and Michael Clarke, who should be retained. Watson is a bankable 50 runs at the top of the order, and a valuable change bowler who makes the batsman play and can swing the old ball. Clarke is still one of the two or three most talented cricketers in the country, but the sooner he gives away the Twenty20 garbage, the better for all and sundry.

Anyway, here's my side for Perth, and hopefully the selector's side for Melbourne:

Hughes
Watson
Ponting (c) (to be replaced at the end of the season by Usman Khawaja)
Clarke
Ferguson
White
Haddin (to be replaced at the end of the season by Tim Paine)
Doherty
Johnson
Bollinger
Harris
Siddle - 12th man

I wish the selectors all the best, but I suspect they'll only have the courage of a dummy.

Beware of One Term Too Many

If you have a relative in Queensland or New South Wales, it may be an idea to give them a call or drop them an email before the weekend.

If you do just that, ask them about the performance of their respective state governments since the last time the state went to the polls.

If you don't have a relative north of the Murray, you may just want to cast your minds back, if you can, to what happened after Paul Keating won the 1993 Federal Election, or John Cain won the 1988 Victorian State Election.

Australian political and electoral history is littered with examples of Labor Governments somehow eking out a final victory against the odds, only to keep on performing like the tired old government they were previous to the election, but managed to keep under wraps enough to get 50%+1 of the seats.

The writing was on the wall in 1988, with financial disasters completely of the Cain Government's making just about to become public knowledge, coupled with the global downturn associated with the stockmarket crash of 1987, conspiring to create a most important election. Only nobody knew it, and after Jeff Kennett made a silly remark about not needing the Nationals to govern, any chance of a change of government was very slim. We all know how that turned out, with the state exponentially more of a economic basketcase in 1992 than it was in 1988. Those were a very costly four years to the people of Victoria.

To a lesser extent, the surprise victory of Paul Keating and his government in 1993 against the John Hewson-led Coalition led to a three year term of indifference to real problems facing middle Australia. Keating instead chose to focus on the Republic, the Arts and Aboriginal Affairs, in a vain attempt to reshape Australia in his own image and likeness. Clearly a government governing for one term too many.

These all pale in comparison with the sideshow that has become the New South Wales ALP Government. This term, after Morris Iemma beat the unelectable Peter Debnam in 2007, has seen three Premiers, voluminous changes to the ministry, corruption allegations related to the urban planning processes, criminal proceedings against former ministers, and swings of biblical proportions in a number of by elections caused by the resignation, whether voluntary or forced by political embarassment, of many members of this dysfunctional government. To call it a dog's breakfast would be an insult only to what canines eat first thing in the morning.

While you may accuse me of hyperbole, the truth is 2010 in Victoria feels a lot like 2007 in New South Wales, or 2009 in Queensland, or 1988 here in Victoria. It doesn't appear to be an important election, but , at the time, neither did the ones I mentioned, with the exception of the 1993 Federal Election. Unfortunately, you sometimes don't know how important an election was until it is over and done with.

Sometimes it is said about sporting figures that it is better to retire while you are missed, rather than being forced out after your welcome has been warn out. So it is in politics, and it is certainly time for John Brumby and his crew of merry meddlers to be put out to pasture. Time for a change.

The Right Kind of Campaign

Victorian Election pretty boring, huh? Good. As it should be.

Recently, we've seen a increase in the amount of loud hyperbole coming from politicians. Some of it can seem to be lacking thought, and some of it can seem downright psychic, like Joe Hockey's comments on the banks, but for many politicians and elected representatives, it seems like they only have one volume that is constantly stuck on 11.

Take the midterm congressional elections in the United States as the best example. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives behind a groundswell of resentment at the economy, Washington politics, and reforms proposed by President Barack Obama, such as those relating to health care, the financial industry, economic stimulus packages, and the military.

Americans know and love hyperbole better than most, and their politicians even more so. The use of emotive terms like "death panels" and "refounding our constitution" are meant to elicit visceral, emotional response, and mostly they do from citizens who feel very strongly about being patriotic to the American ideal.

The problem is that this sort of fearmongering doesn't address the real issues facing the US Congress and the United States as a whole: a poorly performing economy, a Federal Government laden with trillions of dollars of debt with no end in sight and no program to reduce the deficit with any chance of being approved by Congress, and fighting two wars on the other side of the world without a realistic exit strategy.

The number of high-profile Republicans proposing realistic, yet necessarily drastic, solutions to United States' crippling debt, could be fit into a small room. And because many of these people are libertarians, their lack of support for moral issues, such as outlawing abortion or preventing same-sex marriages, make them unattractive to many Republican "values" voters.

So you get elections with, as Shakespeare put it, "a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing". That is why it is so refreshing to have a low key election campaign here in Victoria, with the focus on announcing programs to address the problems facing Victoria and her citizenry.

While the media shows many signs of tiring at this understated campaign, focussing on "process stories" such as preferences and candidates flip-flopping about whether they will remain the endorsed candidates, both campaigns have on the main, with the exception of the entirely hateable Rob Hulls, stuck on a policy oriented message. This is to be commended.

Hopefully people will continue to engage with the leaders between now and November 27, and this engagement will produce a result that provides real action for all Victorians.

Hopefully the campaign will not degenerate into namecalling and the like, no matter what Rob Hulls wants.

So, don't be too unhappy this election is not very entertaining: that's the way it should be.

The Sands of Time

This week the great Sachin Tendulkar passed 14,000 Test runs, while amassing his 49th Test Century, both clear records. It caused some in the media to enter into a discussion about whether Tendulkar should be regarded as the equal, or perhaps a superior cricketer to Don Bradman.

This debate is now going on all over the world, and while also possibly feeding into a rivalry between Australia and India which borders on the unhealthy, it is getting heated with many cricket followers, despite having never seen Bradman play, having strong opinions about the subject.

I'm not going to really get into the Bradman v Tendulkar debate, other than to say that Bradman scored all of his runs on uncovered pitches, and played most of his Test Cricket against the second best side in the world, so add this to Bradman's amazing average, and Bradman still remains the best, and probably always will.

However, it feeds into a deeper trend about disparaging, even if only by the mere mention of another in serious comparison, of many sportspeople who came before.

Haydn Bunton made his name in Aussie Rules at the same time as Bradman was dominating attacks and scoring a century every third time he batted. He won 3 Brownlow Medals before turning 27, and then won three Sandover Medals in the WAFL.

His 122 Brownlow votes in 119 games stands alone as the most incredible feat in polling votes in our game, and is also the best candidate for a stat like Bradman's average of 99.94.

But Bunton died young (he's been dead for 55 years), and his legacy has been mostly forgotten.

In more recent times, the AFL awarded the Full Back position in the team of the VFL/AFL's first 100 seasons to a then current player, Stephen Silvagni, over Jack Regan, the Collingwood champion of the 1930s. Regan was known as the "Prince of Full Backs", and duelled with Bob Pratt at the height of his powers.

Silvagni's feats were fresh in our minds, while Regan's had been consigned to history, forgotten in the deep archived compactus of the game. Numerous other examples exist of such thinking.

William Goldman, the famous and successful screenwriter, co-authored a book on sports in 1987 with Mike Lupica titled "Wait Til Next Year". In a chapter by Goldman defending Wilt Chamberlain, he gave us this::

"The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware that it's begun, and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. It really is a battle to the death."



He suggested the best players of that day, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, would also get the same treatment as many that had gone before, with pundits suggesting that "they couldn't play today".
 
While it is both honourable and right to celebrate the genius that is Sachin Tendulkar, we should never forget what those incredible sportspeople who achieved their greatness before the 24-7 sports blogosphere Twitter media circus became the norm.
 
As Halls of Fame become fat with the mere passing of time, we should also occassionally take time to recognise those that revolutionised the game with pioneering play, whether it be the way Bill Russell played defence, to how Polly Farmer handballed, to how Usain Bolt is changing sprinting by his mere size.
 
Without Bunton we would not have had Judd. Without Regan we would not have had Scarlett. And without Bradman, we would not have had Tendulkar. The best, often, is not the most recent in the memory. Let us remember that.

Time for an Appointed Speaker

If you thought a pair was a piece of fruit that was a not-so-distant relative of the apple, then you haven't been keeping an eye (or ear) on what has been happening in Australian Federal Politics recently.

A hung parliament, the result of Australia not really deciding on August 21, leads to all sorts of issues, not the least of which is the common practice of the Speaker of the House being taken from the government ranks, leaving them with one less vote on the floor than they normally would have, except when there is a tie when the Speaker can cast a deliberative vote to break the tie.

Now, I'm not calling on Harry Jenkins to use that vote to ensure a premiership for St Kilda. But the razor thin majority the Gillard Government has in the House of Representatives is effectively halved when Jenkins gets up in his high chair and starts presiding over parliamentary proceedings.

This means that any planned government travel during sitting days, illness, parental leave or unexplained absence at an inconvenient time could leave the government without the required numbers to pass legislation, regardless of the whims of Messrs Bandt, Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor.

Government ministers need, on occasion, to travel overseas to meet important people, and that opportunity may not always present itself during a week where parliament is not sitting. If Tony Abbott insists on playing hardball with parliamentary numbers, this may render the House of Representatives largely unworkable from a government standpoint until the minister returns to the House.

Which begs the question: why does the Speaker still need to be a member of the House?

It has been mentioned during the process to attract the support of the independents previously mentioned that taking the role of the Speaker would render the member unable to represent their constituents through Adjournment Debates, Matters of Public Importance, Member's Statements, and debates on individual pieces of legislation. To summarise, the Speaker cannot make any statements in the House except to rule on the conduct of the House and its members.

Despite the pay rise and additional staff, this makes the Speaker's job a less attractive one. You also need to be ever present in Parliament House in case of a division, and you need to be an expert on all the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the House.

Surely, this is a job that could be given to an appointed public servant, above party politics, expert on parliamentary procedure and practice, who would administer the rules of the House, without having a say on the composition of those rules, which would remain the responsibility of the lawmakers themselves.

In this country, governments appoint judges whose role is to interpret and administer law, but not to write law. The Speaker of the House would be a legal expert on the government payroll but administratively independent, part of the Department of the Parliament.

The person would also not be an elected member of a political party, and would therefore be above accusations of bias and partiality in their rulings in the House, which has often been a problem with governments usually enjoying more favour from the Speaker's chair than oppositions.

This would leave all 150 members of the House of Representatives free to represent their constituencies equally, and would also reflect the totality of the will of the people expressed at the most recent general election. This could also be applied to the Senate, although the reasons relating to representation, as Senators do not represent small constituencies but large states, are not as compelling.

Surely it is time that Australia leads the way, as it did with the secret ballot and the extension of the vote to women, in this important area of parliamentary practice, and made the Speaker of the House an appointed official, rather than a elected politician.

Climate Change Policy - You Decide - NOW

While many in our society like to complain that our elected officials don't know what it going on in "the real world", or aren't in touch with the real issues facing "real Australians", the fact is that we elect them to do a job and run the country, the government, and the economy. Julia Gillard would like that to change.

Climate Change is one of the more contentious issues facing policy makers today. Not only do we have a debate about whether the climate is changing, we also have debates on whether we should have a debate (hard-line climate change believers like to use words like "we need to move on from debate", "the science is settled", and "there is a consensus"), whether it is caused by human activity, what we should do about it, and whether we should do anything if bigger and larger overall polluters like China and India do nothing, preferring economic growth to carbon reduction.

Regardless of what has occurred in the last three years, Kevin Rudd and the ALP ran at the 2007 election on a platform of introducing a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia emits. Faced with a hostile Senate, filled with Liberals and Nationals who felt the scheme went too far, and Greens who felt the scheme didn't go far enough, the scheme did not pass the Senate and was not reintroduced by the Government, or used as a trigger for a Double Dissolution election.

Now, at the next election with Kevin Rudd relegated to local member and the ground shifting in this policy area, Julia Gillard wants to create a "Citizens Assembly" to develop a "consensus" on climate change.

The assembly, which would include 150 "ordinary Australians", would be "informed by experts" about climate change before making recommendations. The speech announcing this, of which The Australian has obtained a copy, apparently states "this must not just be a debate between experts ... it must be a real debate among involving many real Australians".

Firstly, I don't know who to be more offended for first, but experts are experts for a reason: they know what they are talking about. Could you imagine the government creating such an assembly to determine economic policy? Not in a million years. Also offensive is the implication that experts, or to put it more plainly, public servants, are not real Australians, but live in a land of make-believe called "Government land". They have mortgages, grocery and petrol bills, friends, hobbies, children, and all that other stuff that "real Australians" have as well.

It's also a significant abrogation of the responsibility of government, chosen from the party in the majority in the House of Representatives. We elect governments to govern.

There already exists a "Citizens Assembly", which has 150 "real Australians", informed by experts on various areas of policy and public administration: it's called the House of Representatives.

Gillard is being disingenuous as well as condescending and offensive when she plans to handball this key area of public policy, labelled by her predecessor and member of her party as "the greatest moral challenge of our time", off to 150 people, randomly selected like they have just won the Reader's Digest Sweepstakes.

What Gillard should do, considering she has been in Government for 32 months, is outline what she and her colleagues in the ALP is the best course of action regarding this issue, and if the Opposition offers a different policy, then let the people decide at an election, which we will be having on August 21. That way 13,000,000 Australians, rather than 150, can decide on policy direction the Commonwealth Government should head on Climate Change.

Australia needs better leadership than this, and this proposal demonstrates exactly why Gillard is unfit for office.

Wonky Politics

Kevin Rudd apparently loves policy detail. "Policy wonk" is the term of endearment used most often to describe his way of doing things ("control freak" is not a term of endearment).

Rudd led a government that for all intents and purposes still exists. While Julia Gillard may have replaced Kevin Rudd as the leader of that government, Rudd himself is the only change to the government. The continuity is so set in stone that Ms Gillard has chosen to retain two "lame-duck" cabinet members who have indicated they will not continue in the cabinet past the next election.

Another way you can tell this is the same government is the way that they develop policy, which has demonstrated that suggesting Mr Rudd is a policy wonk is a little like suggesting Michael Barlow has an intact tibia bone.

This Rudd/Gillard Government has in fact a well earned reputation for glossing over policy detail in order to announce and implement policies and programs as soon as possible, for maximum PR effect.

The most glaring example under the previous Prime Minister was the insulation scheme. Rather than creating a much needed regulatory framework for the registration and examination of competency of tradespeople performing the work of installing insulation in private homes, the Rudd Government got the money into the economy as soon as possible. This was the main objective of the insulation scheme.

However, this dereliction of basic policy development, admitted by outgoing Finance Minister Linsday Tanner, contributed to thousands of homes becoming "live-wired", and the increase of activity also led to the deaths of a number of installers.

The provision of solar hot water heaters to various community used facilities was also another policy where the overarching objective overrode the proper development of policy detail, leading to football ovals across Australia possessing more solar hot water heaters than they had showerheads.

Unfortunately under our new Prime Minister little has changed. Ms Gillard announced that she had discussed with the President of East Timor the possibility of processing asylum seekers in the tiny nation.

Now, here's a lesson of what not to do in politics, especially government: don't think out loud about policy. 

The result of Ms Gillard's thought bubble has been that the media has been taking her "plans" as official government policy. Only problem is that all Ms Gillard has done is talk to the President of East Timor, not the Prime Minister who would usually make this sort of decision, and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Her total discussions with these national leaders has probably totalled about sixty minutes.

This policy of a processing facility for asylum seekers on East Timor is light on for detail, hasn't been agreed to by East Timor itself, and is opens Ms Gillard to accusations of hypocrisy, given her previous opposition to the Howard's Government "Pacific Solution", which also processed asylum seekers away from Australian soil.

If Ms Gillard wants to spend longer than 100 days in the Prime Minister's chair, then it may be an idea to increase the level of work done on important government policies between now and the election, or else it may be experienced former government minister Tony Abbott who gets her job.