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.
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, December 23, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, December 12, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, November 21, 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 24, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 10, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Dissecting a Day at the Cricket
A day at the cricket can be entertaining, it can be educational, it can be both and it can be neither.
To watch the Australian batting order dismantle themselves on Day 3 of the Fourth Ashes Test Match was depressing. My 12 year old brother in law put it best: first two sessions good, last session miserable.
Firstly, there was the galactically poor judgement of Shane Watson. Anyone who could advocate his elevation to the Test Captaincy after this demonstration of what not to do must have rocks in their head.
In order to provide some context, the Australian openers in Watson and Hughes were scoring freely, but also pushing the fielding team with enterprising running between the wickets. However, this was when the ball was pushed into the spacious MCG outfield, as Watson and Hughes regularly turned twos into threes.
Turning zeroes into ones is a harder task, and one Watson failed at miserably as he ran out his partner who was looking good and in need of a confidence building extended stay in the middle. So much for that plan as Hughes was left short, and the rot began on a pitch that gave little aid to the bowling attack.
Clearly a poor or ordinary throw at the stumps can turn a dicey run into a safe run. On the other hand, not using the bat to defend an inswinger on the diminishing bounce of the MCG drop in wicket was a clear example of Watson's complete lack of judgement. If he had played a shot, he would not have been out. It is clear now that there is good judgement, there is bad judgement, and there is Watson judgement.
The next two men in the batting order provided much the same option on the menu, but while I feel no sympathy for Michael Clarke, I feel plenty for Ricky Ponting. Determined to make his stay at the crease time consuming, he resolved to play at the ball only when required. With his broken finger filled with anaesthetic, he struggled his way to 20 runs before the curtain came down, another inswinger finding the inside of the bat and the fullness of the stumps.
Ponting trudged off a defeated man. It is clear he is finished as a test cricketer, not only defeated on skill and ability, but also in heart. The only thing he can do now is hurt his legacy, as players like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid get to enjoy a swansong, away from the harsh interrogation of character being captain or batting number three provide. Ponting has become a victim of Australian toughness in a way Steve Waugh never did.
Watching Michael Clarke, I made the comment he wouldn't get a game for St Kilda CC 2nds. After unbelievably charging Graeme Swann on the first ball he faced from him, only to miss the ball (fortunately Matt Prior did as well), he then decided to be completely subservient to Swann's whims, letting the cocky English spinner dictate terms until Swann finally decided to stop playing with him and put Clarke, and more importantly us watching, out of our collective misery.
Swann is the barometer of the English team. He is energetic, feeding off his own success and the reaction it gets from the Barmy Army and other English supporters, who were clearly much too numerous at the MCG for economic benefit to allow. Maybe the Aussie Dollar needs to hit parity with the Pound before all those loud Poms stay at home to be snowed under and finally silenced.
Back to Swann: you need to hit him out of the attack. By the time Peter Siddle and Brad Haddin were doing the right thing on the fourth morning, it was too late. Siddle made 40 by whacking Swann down the ground, and Siddle is a solid number 9/10 batsman.
Clarke just sat there pushing the ball back to Swann time and time again, like a kid being pushed in the chest by a bigger kid until he starts crying. Clarke needed to literally knock the smile from Swann's face, and instead he just embarrassed himself.
Clarke's career showed all the promise of maybe a all time great of Australian cricket, but at the moment I think I'd rather Damien Martyn's career than Clarke's.
Michael Hussey played his most uncharacteristic shot of the series, but while Hussey has plenty of credits in the bank, he won't be around for the next Ashes and should announce Sydney will be his last Test Match. Better to go while they miss you and all that guff.
The best innings of the day to watch was Steven Smith's. He had a crack, and while his technique doesn't look great, his ability to just play his game regardless of circumstances is more than encouraging. Smith is clearly one to stick with, and stick with at number six. The fact he is a wrist spinner will help him succeed, especially against the likes of England, the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, who don't face wrist spinners much and therefore don't like facing wrist spin.
The lack of fight by the Australians, personified in the once talented but now unable batting of Michael Clarke, was the most disappointing thing about a day at the cricket. Let's hope the inclusion of some new blood in the top six, and the collection of a solid bowling attack, will enable the road to our next Ashes triumph to be a short one. But if a twelve year old is pencilling in 2017 as our next series win against the old enemy, who am I to argue?
To watch the Australian batting order dismantle themselves on Day 3 of the Fourth Ashes Test Match was depressing. My 12 year old brother in law put it best: first two sessions good, last session miserable.
Firstly, there was the galactically poor judgement of Shane Watson. Anyone who could advocate his elevation to the Test Captaincy after this demonstration of what not to do must have rocks in their head.
In order to provide some context, the Australian openers in Watson and Hughes were scoring freely, but also pushing the fielding team with enterprising running between the wickets. However, this was when the ball was pushed into the spacious MCG outfield, as Watson and Hughes regularly turned twos into threes.
Turning zeroes into ones is a harder task, and one Watson failed at miserably as he ran out his partner who was looking good and in need of a confidence building extended stay in the middle. So much for that plan as Hughes was left short, and the rot began on a pitch that gave little aid to the bowling attack.
Clearly a poor or ordinary throw at the stumps can turn a dicey run into a safe run. On the other hand, not using the bat to defend an inswinger on the diminishing bounce of the MCG drop in wicket was a clear example of Watson's complete lack of judgement. If he had played a shot, he would not have been out. It is clear now that there is good judgement, there is bad judgement, and there is Watson judgement.
The next two men in the batting order provided much the same option on the menu, but while I feel no sympathy for Michael Clarke, I feel plenty for Ricky Ponting. Determined to make his stay at the crease time consuming, he resolved to play at the ball only when required. With his broken finger filled with anaesthetic, he struggled his way to 20 runs before the curtain came down, another inswinger finding the inside of the bat and the fullness of the stumps.
Ponting trudged off a defeated man. It is clear he is finished as a test cricketer, not only defeated on skill and ability, but also in heart. The only thing he can do now is hurt his legacy, as players like Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid get to enjoy a swansong, away from the harsh interrogation of character being captain or batting number three provide. Ponting has become a victim of Australian toughness in a way Steve Waugh never did.
Watching Michael Clarke, I made the comment he wouldn't get a game for St Kilda CC 2nds. After unbelievably charging Graeme Swann on the first ball he faced from him, only to miss the ball (fortunately Matt Prior did as well), he then decided to be completely subservient to Swann's whims, letting the cocky English spinner dictate terms until Swann finally decided to stop playing with him and put Clarke, and more importantly us watching, out of our collective misery.
Swann is the barometer of the English team. He is energetic, feeding off his own success and the reaction it gets from the Barmy Army and other English supporters, who were clearly much too numerous at the MCG for economic benefit to allow. Maybe the Aussie Dollar needs to hit parity with the Pound before all those loud Poms stay at home to be snowed under and finally silenced.
Back to Swann: you need to hit him out of the attack. By the time Peter Siddle and Brad Haddin were doing the right thing on the fourth morning, it was too late. Siddle made 40 by whacking Swann down the ground, and Siddle is a solid number 9/10 batsman.
Clarke just sat there pushing the ball back to Swann time and time again, like a kid being pushed in the chest by a bigger kid until he starts crying. Clarke needed to literally knock the smile from Swann's face, and instead he just embarrassed himself.
Clarke's career showed all the promise of maybe a all time great of Australian cricket, but at the moment I think I'd rather Damien Martyn's career than Clarke's.
Michael Hussey played his most uncharacteristic shot of the series, but while Hussey has plenty of credits in the bank, he won't be around for the next Ashes and should announce Sydney will be his last Test Match. Better to go while they miss you and all that guff.
The best innings of the day to watch was Steven Smith's. He had a crack, and while his technique doesn't look great, his ability to just play his game regardless of circumstances is more than encouraging. Smith is clearly one to stick with, and stick with at number six. The fact he is a wrist spinner will help him succeed, especially against the likes of England, the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand, who don't face wrist spinners much and therefore don't like facing wrist spin.
The lack of fight by the Australians, personified in the once talented but now unable batting of Michael Clarke, was the most disappointing thing about a day at the cricket. Let's hope the inclusion of some new blood in the top six, and the collection of a solid bowling attack, will enable the road to our next Ashes triumph to be a short one. But if a twelve year old is pencilling in 2017 as our next series win against the old enemy, who am I to argue?
Monday, December 20, 2010
Sledging: It's for the best
It took almost three years, but the Australian Cricket Team is starting to put the after effects of the Harbhajan Singh - Andrew Symonds incident behind it.
I opined in this space during the disastrous South African series in 2008/09 that the Australians were too quiet on the field, and this reflected a state of mind created by the media furore after the New Years' Test of 2008 versus India. At that time, Graeme Smith even commented publicly about the lack of any chatter on the field from the Australians.
The furore was to blame for this retraction of the Australian Cricket Team into their collective shells. Despite the clear, indisputable fact that it was the Indian and not the Australian who used the racial slur, the Indian media went into a frenzy. Well, that is not entirely accurate - they're always in a frenzy. For the ideal paradigm, as Obama is for Fox News, Australia is for the Indian media.
Generally, Australians play hard. They use any legitimate means to unsettle opponents, and they do this to opponents of all colours and creeds.
The Australians rediscovered the art of sledging at the WACA Ground, but only after Kevin Pietersen stirred the sleeping giant by verballing Mitchell Johnson. Johnson was suddenly more emotionally involved in the contest, and produced a spell that turned the test match and perhaps the series.
Suddenly, the Aussies were sledging the English, and this is for the better, because a verbally aggressive Australian side is usually a successful one. However, this on-field banter, despite being obvious to all and sundry watching at home on the High Definition TV sets, did not set off the left-wing sporting intelligensia of the Fairfax press and their associated cheering brigade the way it did when we were playing India. To sledge a white South African playing for England is A-OK, but to do it to an Indian of colour is racism and shames all Australians. What tosh.
I don't really care if the Australians are liked or make friends. They are paid, very well in fact, to win games of cricket, and they lost a whole bunch of them quietly, but only when they started to show some real backbone and started to talk back to an English line-up starting to resemble their supporters for annoyance and arrogance, they started playing better cricket and the results came swiftly and dramatically.
So, here's to the Australia of old, in it to win it, taking no prisoners, and not caring what people outside of the team think about their manners and other such bunkum. On to Melbourne for Boxing Day, and hopefully the Christmas spirit of generosity won't extend to the field of contest.
I opined in this space during the disastrous South African series in 2008/09 that the Australians were too quiet on the field, and this reflected a state of mind created by the media furore after the New Years' Test of 2008 versus India. At that time, Graeme Smith even commented publicly about the lack of any chatter on the field from the Australians.
The furore was to blame for this retraction of the Australian Cricket Team into their collective shells. Despite the clear, indisputable fact that it was the Indian and not the Australian who used the racial slur, the Indian media went into a frenzy. Well, that is not entirely accurate - they're always in a frenzy. For the ideal paradigm, as Obama is for Fox News, Australia is for the Indian media.
Generally, Australians play hard. They use any legitimate means to unsettle opponents, and they do this to opponents of all colours and creeds.
The Australians rediscovered the art of sledging at the WACA Ground, but only after Kevin Pietersen stirred the sleeping giant by verballing Mitchell Johnson. Johnson was suddenly more emotionally involved in the contest, and produced a spell that turned the test match and perhaps the series.
Suddenly, the Aussies were sledging the English, and this is for the better, because a verbally aggressive Australian side is usually a successful one. However, this on-field banter, despite being obvious to all and sundry watching at home on the High Definition TV sets, did not set off the left-wing sporting intelligensia of the Fairfax press and their associated cheering brigade the way it did when we were playing India. To sledge a white South African playing for England is A-OK, but to do it to an Indian of colour is racism and shames all Australians. What tosh.
I don't really care if the Australians are liked or make friends. They are paid, very well in fact, to win games of cricket, and they lost a whole bunch of them quietly, but only when they started to show some real backbone and started to talk back to an English line-up starting to resemble their supporters for annoyance and arrogance, they started playing better cricket and the results came swiftly and dramatically.
So, here's to the Australia of old, in it to win it, taking no prisoners, and not caring what people outside of the team think about their manners and other such bunkum. On to Melbourne for Boxing Day, and hopefully the Christmas spirit of generosity won't extend to the field of contest.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tanking for Dummies (and cricketers)
Before the expansion Suns and Giants came around to steal the AFL club's much beloved priority picks, it was in vogue, when met with a situation where finals were impossible, to try to ensure you won less than 5 matches for the year. This would mean an extra pick either at the start or the end of the first round, depending on the length of a club's malaise.
Well, considering the Cricket Australia selection panel's desperate ability to grasp onto any hope of a reversal of fortune before making any sort of significant change to the side, the reality is clear that for the long term success of the Australian Test Team, they need to lose in Perth, in addition to the match already lost in Adelaide. The selectors need to be convinced as soon as possible that the Ashes are not for reclaiming this time around. Only then are the selectors likely to embrace the hard decisions that are now well past overdue.
We are now as far away from an Ashes series as one can be in the current cycle, overlooking the current "contest" we are playing in. The next Ashes are in England in 2013, more than two-and-a-half years away. So, if Test success is the pinnacle for Australian cricket, and the Ashes are the most important series for Australia, then now is the ideal time to start the rebuild. And it must start, rather surprisingly considering our inability to bowl anyone out without a hat trick, with the top seven in the batting order.
You see, this is where the age is. All of our bowlers are under 30, including the blokes who are on the outer depending on who got belted most recently. So, rather than recommend who is to be dropped and who is to be played, it would be better if the selectors just settled on a line-up and gave them some time to work together.
The top seven is a different story entirely. If the Australian Test team is to renew and rebuild, some very hard decisions need to be made about the top and middle order of the batting.
Take Simon Katich for example. As tough and courageous as he is, he doesn't convert enough of his scores into hundreds, has a Achilles injury that will keep him out for the rest of the series, and is well into his thirties. Hopefully Phil Hughes makes plenty of runs after he replaces Katich so the decision is made easy, but time's probably up for Katich's international career.
It would also be a tough decision to leave Michael Hussey and Brad Haddin out, as without these two Australia would be 2-0 down in the series. But no one can honestly expect them to be in England in 2013 in anything other than a commentary capacity, or perhaps hosting a tour of Aussie cricket fans. Haddin should probably survive the rest of the summer due to Tim Paine's injury, but Hussey is keeping a youngster out who needs experience.
It is clear that neither Ricky Ponting's captaincy, or batting, for that matter, are up to scratch, and at nearly 36, he should probably retire at the end of this summer to go and earn some serious coin hitting bowlers all over grounds the size of tennis courts in the IPL.
There is no defence for Marcus North - there should be a riot if he survives to Perth.
That leaves Shane Watson and Michael Clarke, who should be retained. Watson is a bankable 50 runs at the top of the order, and a valuable change bowler who makes the batsman play and can swing the old ball. Clarke is still one of the two or three most talented cricketers in the country, but the sooner he gives away the Twenty20 garbage, the better for all and sundry.
Anyway, here's my side for Perth, and hopefully the selector's side for Melbourne:
Hughes
Watson
Ponting (c) (to be replaced at the end of the season by Usman Khawaja)
Clarke
Ferguson
White
Haddin (to be replaced at the end of the season by Tim Paine)
Doherty
Johnson
Bollinger
Harris
Siddle - 12th man
I wish the selectors all the best, but I suspect they'll only have the courage of a dummy.
Well, considering the Cricket Australia selection panel's desperate ability to grasp onto any hope of a reversal of fortune before making any sort of significant change to the side, the reality is clear that for the long term success of the Australian Test Team, they need to lose in Perth, in addition to the match already lost in Adelaide. The selectors need to be convinced as soon as possible that the Ashes are not for reclaiming this time around. Only then are the selectors likely to embrace the hard decisions that are now well past overdue.
We are now as far away from an Ashes series as one can be in the current cycle, overlooking the current "contest" we are playing in. The next Ashes are in England in 2013, more than two-and-a-half years away. So, if Test success is the pinnacle for Australian cricket, and the Ashes are the most important series for Australia, then now is the ideal time to start the rebuild. And it must start, rather surprisingly considering our inability to bowl anyone out without a hat trick, with the top seven in the batting order.
You see, this is where the age is. All of our bowlers are under 30, including the blokes who are on the outer depending on who got belted most recently. So, rather than recommend who is to be dropped and who is to be played, it would be better if the selectors just settled on a line-up and gave them some time to work together.
The top seven is a different story entirely. If the Australian Test team is to renew and rebuild, some very hard decisions need to be made about the top and middle order of the batting.
Take Simon Katich for example. As tough and courageous as he is, he doesn't convert enough of his scores into hundreds, has a Achilles injury that will keep him out for the rest of the series, and is well into his thirties. Hopefully Phil Hughes makes plenty of runs after he replaces Katich so the decision is made easy, but time's probably up for Katich's international career.
It would also be a tough decision to leave Michael Hussey and Brad Haddin out, as without these two Australia would be 2-0 down in the series. But no one can honestly expect them to be in England in 2013 in anything other than a commentary capacity, or perhaps hosting a tour of Aussie cricket fans. Haddin should probably survive the rest of the summer due to Tim Paine's injury, but Hussey is keeping a youngster out who needs experience.
It is clear that neither Ricky Ponting's captaincy, or batting, for that matter, are up to scratch, and at nearly 36, he should probably retire at the end of this summer to go and earn some serious coin hitting bowlers all over grounds the size of tennis courts in the IPL.
There is no defence for Marcus North - there should be a riot if he survives to Perth.
That leaves Shane Watson and Michael Clarke, who should be retained. Watson is a bankable 50 runs at the top of the order, and a valuable change bowler who makes the batsman play and can swing the old ball. Clarke is still one of the two or three most talented cricketers in the country, but the sooner he gives away the Twenty20 garbage, the better for all and sundry.
Anyway, here's my side for Perth, and hopefully the selector's side for Melbourne:
Hughes
Watson
Ponting (c) (to be replaced at the end of the season by Usman Khawaja)
Clarke
Ferguson
White
Haddin (to be replaced at the end of the season by Tim Paine)
Doherty
Johnson
Bollinger
Harris
Siddle - 12th man
I wish the selectors all the best, but I suspect they'll only have the courage of a dummy.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Sands of Time
This week the great Sachin Tendulkar passed 14,000 Test runs, while amassing his 49th Test Century, both clear records. It caused some in the media to enter into a discussion about whether Tendulkar should be regarded as the equal, or perhaps a superior cricketer to Don Bradman.
This debate is now going on all over the world, and while also possibly feeding into a rivalry between Australia and India which borders on the unhealthy, it is getting heated with many cricket followers, despite having never seen Bradman play, having strong opinions about the subject.
I'm not going to really get into the Bradman v Tendulkar debate, other than to say that Bradman scored all of his runs on uncovered pitches, and played most of his Test Cricket against the second best side in the world, so add this to Bradman's amazing average, and Bradman still remains the best, and probably always will.
However, it feeds into a deeper trend about disparaging, even if only by the mere mention of another in serious comparison, of many sportspeople who came before.
Haydn Bunton made his name in Aussie Rules at the same time as Bradman was dominating attacks and scoring a century every third time he batted. He won 3 Brownlow Medals before turning 27, and then won three Sandover Medals in the WAFL.
His 122 Brownlow votes in 119 games stands alone as the most incredible feat in polling votes in our game, and is also the best candidate for a stat like Bradman's average of 99.94.
But Bunton died young (he's been dead for 55 years), and his legacy has been mostly forgotten.
In more recent times, the AFL awarded the Full Back position in the team of the VFL/AFL's first 100 seasons to a then current player, Stephen Silvagni, over Jack Regan, the Collingwood champion of the 1930s. Regan was known as the "Prince of Full Backs", and duelled with Bob Pratt at the height of his powers.
Silvagni's feats were fresh in our minds, while Regan's had been consigned to history, forgotten in the deep archived compactus of the game. Numerous other examples exist of such thinking.
William Goldman, the famous and successful screenwriter, co-authored a book on sports in 1987 with Mike Lupica titled "Wait Til Next Year". In a chapter by Goldman defending Wilt Chamberlain, he gave us this::
"The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware that it's begun, and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. It really is a battle to the death."
He suggested the best players of that day, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, would also get the same treatment as many that had gone before, with pundits suggesting that "they couldn't play today".
While it is both honourable and right to celebrate the genius that is Sachin Tendulkar, we should never forget what those incredible sportspeople who achieved their greatness before the 24-7 sports blogosphere Twitter media circus became the norm.
As Halls of Fame become fat with the mere passing of time, we should also occassionally take time to recognise those that revolutionised the game with pioneering play, whether it be the way Bill Russell played defence, to how Polly Farmer handballed, to how Usain Bolt is changing sprinting by his mere size.
Without Bunton we would not have had Judd. Without Regan we would not have had Scarlett. And without Bradman, we would not have had Tendulkar. The best, often, is not the most recent in the memory. Let us remember that.
This debate is now going on all over the world, and while also possibly feeding into a rivalry between Australia and India which borders on the unhealthy, it is getting heated with many cricket followers, despite having never seen Bradman play, having strong opinions about the subject.
I'm not going to really get into the Bradman v Tendulkar debate, other than to say that Bradman scored all of his runs on uncovered pitches, and played most of his Test Cricket against the second best side in the world, so add this to Bradman's amazing average, and Bradman still remains the best, and probably always will.
However, it feeds into a deeper trend about disparaging, even if only by the mere mention of another in serious comparison, of many sportspeople who came before.
Haydn Bunton made his name in Aussie Rules at the same time as Bradman was dominating attacks and scoring a century every third time he batted. He won 3 Brownlow Medals before turning 27, and then won three Sandover Medals in the WAFL.
His 122 Brownlow votes in 119 games stands alone as the most incredible feat in polling votes in our game, and is also the best candidate for a stat like Bradman's average of 99.94.
But Bunton died young (he's been dead for 55 years), and his legacy has been mostly forgotten.
In more recent times, the AFL awarded the Full Back position in the team of the VFL/AFL's first 100 seasons to a then current player, Stephen Silvagni, over Jack Regan, the Collingwood champion of the 1930s. Regan was known as the "Prince of Full Backs", and duelled with Bob Pratt at the height of his powers.
Silvagni's feats were fresh in our minds, while Regan's had been consigned to history, forgotten in the deep archived compactus of the game. Numerous other examples exist of such thinking.
William Goldman, the famous and successful screenwriter, co-authored a book on sports in 1987 with Mike Lupica titled "Wait Til Next Year". In a chapter by Goldman defending Wilt Chamberlain, he gave us this::
"The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware that it's begun, and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. It really is a battle to the death."
He suggested the best players of that day, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, would also get the same treatment as many that had gone before, with pundits suggesting that "they couldn't play today".
While it is both honourable and right to celebrate the genius that is Sachin Tendulkar, we should never forget what those incredible sportspeople who achieved their greatness before the 24-7 sports blogosphere Twitter media circus became the norm.
As Halls of Fame become fat with the mere passing of time, we should also occassionally take time to recognise those that revolutionised the game with pioneering play, whether it be the way Bill Russell played defence, to how Polly Farmer handballed, to how Usain Bolt is changing sprinting by his mere size.
Without Bunton we would not have had Judd. Without Regan we would not have had Scarlett. And without Bradman, we would not have had Tendulkar. The best, often, is not the most recent in the memory. Let us remember that.
Friday, January 15, 2010
A predictable result
Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results. Someone should tell the Pakistani cricketers.
After dropping Ricky Ponting yesterday, the writing wasn't on the wall so much as it was on the scoreboard, or it should have been, even before it has technically "occurred". Because once Ponting had been put down on nought, in one of the worst dropped catches of all time, he was always going to score big. You couldn't change it any more than you could change what you had for breakfast a week last Thursday.
Pakistan coach Intikhab Alam lamented a cultural indifference to fielding in Pakistan, but unless that is turned around, this will inhibit the Pakistani side much more than any inability to play Test Matches on home soil. In short, "catches win matches" is a cliche not just because it rhymes, and the sooner Pakistani cricketers learn that, the better.
The defensive tactics shown on the fourth morning in Sydney that played a vital role in letting Australia bat to a position they could, and ultimately did, defend, were also revived as Pakistani captain Mohammed Yousuf decided the best way to play Australia was to stop Ponting and Michael Clarke score boundaries. Half an hour into the second morning they are both still at the crease, having scored a combined 260+ runs, with less than half coming from boundaries.
One would suggest that Pakistan would have to try something different, but they never do, so why should we expect them to now? They've always been a side that has seen cricket, and particularly Test Cricket, as a purely linear game. Pakistan has always solely relied on the batting and bowling talent of their players.
Unless you are the West Indies of the 1980s or the Australians of the early 2000s, you simply cannot consistently win Test Matches without some other method of gaining the advantage. You can either put a increased focus on fielding and catching, as the Australians did in the mid-1980s when their talents stocks were low (replicated by Zimbabwe in the 1990s and New Zealand in the early 2000s), or find a innovative thinker, make them captain, and try new things like opening the bowling with a spinner or setting attacking yet unorthodox fields. For this method think Martin Crowe at the 1992 World Cup.
However, Pakistan seem committed to mediocrity in much the same way George Pell is committed to Catholicism. They seem to want to win only one way, which is irresistable brilliance with bat and ball. Not only is this method unsustainable for long-term success, it's also incredibly lazy. They seem to have an aversion to working hard or thinking in an innovative fashion.
The fact that Australia has Pakistan on their calendar again in a few months augurs well for the confidence of the Australian Cricket Team leading into next year's Ashes series. That is, unless Pakistan do something different. Don't hold your breath.
After dropping Ricky Ponting yesterday, the writing wasn't on the wall so much as it was on the scoreboard, or it should have been, even before it has technically "occurred". Because once Ponting had been put down on nought, in one of the worst dropped catches of all time, he was always going to score big. You couldn't change it any more than you could change what you had for breakfast a week last Thursday.
Pakistan coach Intikhab Alam lamented a cultural indifference to fielding in Pakistan, but unless that is turned around, this will inhibit the Pakistani side much more than any inability to play Test Matches on home soil. In short, "catches win matches" is a cliche not just because it rhymes, and the sooner Pakistani cricketers learn that, the better.
The defensive tactics shown on the fourth morning in Sydney that played a vital role in letting Australia bat to a position they could, and ultimately did, defend, were also revived as Pakistani captain Mohammed Yousuf decided the best way to play Australia was to stop Ponting and Michael Clarke score boundaries. Half an hour into the second morning they are both still at the crease, having scored a combined 260+ runs, with less than half coming from boundaries.
One would suggest that Pakistan would have to try something different, but they never do, so why should we expect them to now? They've always been a side that has seen cricket, and particularly Test Cricket, as a purely linear game. Pakistan has always solely relied on the batting and bowling talent of their players.
Unless you are the West Indies of the 1980s or the Australians of the early 2000s, you simply cannot consistently win Test Matches without some other method of gaining the advantage. You can either put a increased focus on fielding and catching, as the Australians did in the mid-1980s when their talents stocks were low (replicated by Zimbabwe in the 1990s and New Zealand in the early 2000s), or find a innovative thinker, make them captain, and try new things like opening the bowling with a spinner or setting attacking yet unorthodox fields. For this method think Martin Crowe at the 1992 World Cup.
However, Pakistan seem committed to mediocrity in much the same way George Pell is committed to Catholicism. They seem to want to win only one way, which is irresistable brilliance with bat and ball. Not only is this method unsustainable for long-term success, it's also incredibly lazy. They seem to have an aversion to working hard or thinking in an innovative fashion.
The fact that Australia has Pakistan on their calendar again in a few months augurs well for the confidence of the Australian Cricket Team leading into next year's Ashes series. That is, unless Pakistan do something different. Don't hold your breath.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Twenty20 is a different game
In April, the Caribbean will host the third World Twenty20 tournament, in which the best cricketing nations in the world will take about five minutes to decide which ones are the best at the newest form of the game.
Australia will be about four weeks removed from playing the Trans-Tasman trophy against New Zealand. While four weeks seems like an eternity between matches, this is an anomaly in the crowded international schedule, with the Aussies going to England immediately after the World Twenty20 to play Pakistan in Test Matches and ODIs.
Australia are currently the undisputed best team in ODIs and in the middle of a mild rebuilding phase in Test Cricket. The one form of the game where Australia have enjoyed no global level success is Twenty20. If only all Twenty20 matches were played in Australia (The Aussies are 7-0 in Twenty20 matches played on home soil).
Ricky Ponting has already given the shortest form of the game away at international level (although scheduling a press conference for this announcement was a little much). Michael Clarke is Australia's current Twenty20 captain.
The only problem is Michael Clarke has never really had any success in this form of the game. He averages less than 20 at Twenty20 level, while averaging over 40 at Test and ODI level.
And this is widely representative of what Australia has done at Twenty20 level: select cricketers who generally excel at Tests and ODIs, and hope they play alright. At the two World Twenty20 tournaments, this hasn't translated into a trophy.
So the time has come to think differently. You could argue the best Twenty20 sides in the world are Victoria and New South Wales, so we should be taking the vast majority of the Australian Twenty20 team from these two sides.
In fact, I think none of the current Test team should go to the World Twenty20. This would protect their confidence, which took at battering last year in England which could have helped going into the Ashes, and will also protect them from injury. As hard as it is to leave Mitchell Johnson or Brad Haddin out of any form of the game, these things should be done to preserve Australia's supremacy at ODI level, in which there will be a World Cup within 16 months, and keep an improving Test line-up intact.
So here's my crack at a different squad of 14 for the World Twenty20:
Cameron White - captain
Mitchell Marsh
Shaun Marsh
David Hussey
Tim Paine
Adam Voges
Moises Henriques
James Hopes
Steven Smith
Nathan Bracken (if fit)
Dirk Nannes
Shaun Tait
(If Bracken is not fit, replace him with Clint McKay.)
That's not a bad squad, and all have some record of performance at Twenty20 level. Installing White as captain is a good move, considering he's been doing it longer than any other Australian captain other than Ponting, and he's very good at it.
As you can see, there aren't too many specialist batsmen in the squad, and the ones in the squad can all bowl (except the Marshes). It would give youngsters like Henriques, Smith and Mitchell Marsh valuable international experience, and it would also almost completely remove any pressure on the team to win the tournament, as expectations would be low.
It's time to treat Twenty20 appropriately, and select a team of specialists with no association to the Test team. Let's start with a team from the above fourteen for the match against Pakistan in February. Should be exciting.
Australia will be about four weeks removed from playing the Trans-Tasman trophy against New Zealand. While four weeks seems like an eternity between matches, this is an anomaly in the crowded international schedule, with the Aussies going to England immediately after the World Twenty20 to play Pakistan in Test Matches and ODIs.
Australia are currently the undisputed best team in ODIs and in the middle of a mild rebuilding phase in Test Cricket. The one form of the game where Australia have enjoyed no global level success is Twenty20. If only all Twenty20 matches were played in Australia (The Aussies are 7-0 in Twenty20 matches played on home soil).
Ricky Ponting has already given the shortest form of the game away at international level (although scheduling a press conference for this announcement was a little much). Michael Clarke is Australia's current Twenty20 captain.
The only problem is Michael Clarke has never really had any success in this form of the game. He averages less than 20 at Twenty20 level, while averaging over 40 at Test and ODI level.
And this is widely representative of what Australia has done at Twenty20 level: select cricketers who generally excel at Tests and ODIs, and hope they play alright. At the two World Twenty20 tournaments, this hasn't translated into a trophy.
So the time has come to think differently. You could argue the best Twenty20 sides in the world are Victoria and New South Wales, so we should be taking the vast majority of the Australian Twenty20 team from these two sides.
In fact, I think none of the current Test team should go to the World Twenty20. This would protect their confidence, which took at battering last year in England which could have helped going into the Ashes, and will also protect them from injury. As hard as it is to leave Mitchell Johnson or Brad Haddin out of any form of the game, these things should be done to preserve Australia's supremacy at ODI level, in which there will be a World Cup within 16 months, and keep an improving Test line-up intact.
So here's my crack at a different squad of 14 for the World Twenty20:
Cameron White - captain
Brad Hodge - vice captain
David WarnerMitchell Marsh
Shaun Marsh
David Hussey
Tim Paine
Adam Voges
Moises Henriques
James Hopes
Steven Smith
Nathan Bracken (if fit)
Dirk Nannes
Shaun Tait
(If Bracken is not fit, replace him with Clint McKay.)
That's not a bad squad, and all have some record of performance at Twenty20 level. Installing White as captain is a good move, considering he's been doing it longer than any other Australian captain other than Ponting, and he's very good at it.
As you can see, there aren't too many specialist batsmen in the squad, and the ones in the squad can all bowl (except the Marshes). It would give youngsters like Henriques, Smith and Mitchell Marsh valuable international experience, and it would also almost completely remove any pressure on the team to win the tournament, as expectations would be low.
It's time to treat Twenty20 appropriately, and select a team of specialists with no association to the Test team. Let's start with a team from the above fourteen for the match against Pakistan in February. Should be exciting.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A victory for all Australia
I'm not one prone to overstatement or overestimation. As much as I love sports, I realise, and try to emphasise, their rightful place as an entertaining distraction and money making enterprise. So, permit me what I am about to write.
A little over three years ago Australia won a Test Match they should not have won, and really had no business thinking they could win on the fifth morning. At that stage, England were 1/59 in their second innings, with a lead of 97 runs, and only one 90 over day of play remaining. In short, all England had to do was bat for 50 overs at 2.5 per over to effectively end the match.
Somehow, the Aussies thought they could win. England came out in an extremely defensive mood, the Aussies, and particularly Shane Warne, sensed the fear in their opponents, and the English were bundled out for 129 in 73 overs. Australia needed just 168 runs to win. They did it comfortably.
I remember writing before that fateful final day in Adelaide three years ago, predicting a tame draw. I was wrong and admitted as much. (My day four thoughts here, my end of match thoughts here.)
Fast forward to 2009/10, and sentiment is against the Australian team. The events of 2007/08 have soured many people's thoughts about our cricketers, and the further antics seen in Adelaide and Perth this season haven't helped matters. Many have been quick to jump on the cricket team and their attitude.
As such, by Boxing Day I had taken to referring to myself as "the last unconditional lover of the Australian Cricket Team". While I am sure CJ would probably disagree, the amount of people who could accurately claim unconditional love for the Aussie Cricket Team has seriously dwindled in the last couple of years.
My love can be directly attributed to two things: the form of the Australian Cricket Team in my formative years, and the fact that a significant part of me is still a big kid. When I was growing up, Australia weren't very good. So my childlike love of Australia winning has not (and hopefully never will) been sated.
The bigger issue coming from this match is why Australia won. Many people are poo pooing Pakistan's performance, and it was pitiful. However, this was not the entire reason, or even the most important reason.
Casting our minds back again to Adelaide 2006, only one team in the world could believe they could win from 97 runs behind with nine wickets to take on the flattest of pitches, where over 1100 runs had been scored in four days for the loss of 17 wickets.
Again, only one team in the world could believe that they could win from the position the Aussies found themselves in yesterday morning. Two wickets in hand, eighty-odd runs in front, pitch improving for batting all the time.
However, it wasn't just the cricketers. All over yesterday, you could hear people suggesting that if only the Aussies could get 150 in front, or 170 in front, or 200 in front, then they would have a fighting chance.
An essential aspect of the Australian spirit is to never, ever count yourself out of a contest. No matter what the situation is, you can always dust yourself off and overcome adversity. Again, it wasn't just the cricketers yesterday who believed that the remarkable could be achieved.
So, yesterday's result was more a reflection on Australian society generally than only on the eleven who played yesterday.
On final reflection, there are those who view the Australian Cricket Team as a microchosm of Australian society more widely, and this is seen as a negative. On this day, and at this time, I have to say I agree with them, but with completely different affections. The Aussie Cricket Team, and the Aussie spirit, are victorious this morning, and it feels great.
A little over three years ago Australia won a Test Match they should not have won, and really had no business thinking they could win on the fifth morning. At that stage, England were 1/59 in their second innings, with a lead of 97 runs, and only one 90 over day of play remaining. In short, all England had to do was bat for 50 overs at 2.5 per over to effectively end the match.
Somehow, the Aussies thought they could win. England came out in an extremely defensive mood, the Aussies, and particularly Shane Warne, sensed the fear in their opponents, and the English were bundled out for 129 in 73 overs. Australia needed just 168 runs to win. They did it comfortably.
I remember writing before that fateful final day in Adelaide three years ago, predicting a tame draw. I was wrong and admitted as much. (My day four thoughts here, my end of match thoughts here.)
Fast forward to 2009/10, and sentiment is against the Australian team. The events of 2007/08 have soured many people's thoughts about our cricketers, and the further antics seen in Adelaide and Perth this season haven't helped matters. Many have been quick to jump on the cricket team and their attitude.
As such, by Boxing Day I had taken to referring to myself as "the last unconditional lover of the Australian Cricket Team". While I am sure CJ would probably disagree, the amount of people who could accurately claim unconditional love for the Aussie Cricket Team has seriously dwindled in the last couple of years.
My love can be directly attributed to two things: the form of the Australian Cricket Team in my formative years, and the fact that a significant part of me is still a big kid. When I was growing up, Australia weren't very good. So my childlike love of Australia winning has not (and hopefully never will) been sated.
The bigger issue coming from this match is why Australia won. Many people are poo pooing Pakistan's performance, and it was pitiful. However, this was not the entire reason, or even the most important reason.
Casting our minds back again to Adelaide 2006, only one team in the world could believe they could win from 97 runs behind with nine wickets to take on the flattest of pitches, where over 1100 runs had been scored in four days for the loss of 17 wickets.
Again, only one team in the world could believe that they could win from the position the Aussies found themselves in yesterday morning. Two wickets in hand, eighty-odd runs in front, pitch improving for batting all the time.
However, it wasn't just the cricketers. All over yesterday, you could hear people suggesting that if only the Aussies could get 150 in front, or 170 in front, or 200 in front, then they would have a fighting chance.
An essential aspect of the Australian spirit is to never, ever count yourself out of a contest. No matter what the situation is, you can always dust yourself off and overcome adversity. Again, it wasn't just the cricketers yesterday who believed that the remarkable could be achieved.
So, yesterday's result was more a reflection on Australian society generally than only on the eleven who played yesterday.
On final reflection, there are those who view the Australian Cricket Team as a microchosm of Australian society more widely, and this is seen as a negative. On this day, and at this time, I have to say I agree with them, but with completely different affections. The Aussie Cricket Team, and the Aussie spirit, are victorious this morning, and it feels great.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
A more solid order
Today, in all likelihood, the Australian Cricket Team will lose at Test Match to Pakistan on home soil for the third time in 28 years. During those same series (3 Tests in 1981, 5 in 1983/84, 3 in 1990, 3 in 1995, 3 in 1999, 3 in 2004/05 and the Boxing Day Test Match just finished), Australia have defeated Pakistan 14 times, with 5 draws.
In fact, those two previous defeats have occurred in dead rubbers where the series was decided, at Melbourne in 1981, and in Sydney in 1995. The last time Pakistan won a "live" Test Match in Australia was 1977. Yet, Pakistan will probably win the Test Match today, levelling the series at 1-1 and making the Bellerive Test Match the series decider.
In short, Australia's problem is their batting. Everyone knows that Australia's bowling is not what it once was, considering the departures of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne & Jason Gillespie, and the subsequent apparent ends of the careers of Brett Lee and Stuart Clark. However, the Australians have four very promising fast bowlers in Mitchell Johnson, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus, and if they could find a genuine speedster to compliment that bunch, then they would probably be all set for some time.
Obviously, Australia still needs to find a good spinner, but Australia won plenty of Test Matches from 1989-1991 with either Trevor Hohns, Peter Sleep, Peter Taylor or Greg Matthews. Nathan Hauritz is doing his job as well as can be expected, and not one spinner's form at domestic level is making Hauritz's position untenable.
No, the problem is the top seven.
Shane Watson is playing well, and yesterday's dismissal in the 90s was the result of an absolute brute of a delivery, rather than mental demons on Watson's behalf. The solution to Australia's woes certainly does not lie with moving him to another position in the order. Watson is playing better than anyone in the Australian side right now, and protects his wicket appropriately. Leave him at the top of the order.
Philip Hughes is worth perservering with. While hot headed in the first dig, he'll learn, and showed glimpes of that education with a measured effort in the second dig, before he went to a brilliant return catch by Kaneria.
Simon Katich is a number 3 batsman. He played some great innings there in India in 2004, and would add a resoluteness to the top of the order, where either Hughes or Watson can go for their shots with Katich at number 3. As a long-time advocate for Matthew Elliott at number 3 before he calcified, an batsman with opening experience would not be a bad idea at the most important spot in the order.
It would also take some of the pressure off Ponting, whose form doesn't really warrant a place in the side right now. However, it is (rightfully) difficult to drop someone with 11,500 Test runs at 55, and he is capable of incredible batting. His elbow clearly isn't right, and he probably shouldn't be playing right now, but as his actions in India in 2008 demonstrate, nothing is more important to Ponting than playing Test Cricket. Despite the fact he has never batted there for Australia, I think he should drop himself a spot and come in at four.
Michael Hussey is the "in-form" Australian middle order batsman right now. Read that again. I hope he gets a century today, as it might be the basis for an unlikely series-clinching victory, but his spot isn't really in jeopardy. Considering his ability to bat with the tail, a drop to six in the order wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but it's probably too low for him. I've always liked him at five.
Michael Clarke is the next captain, but his form has dropped off somewhat since England. Someone has to bat six, and Clarke would have little pressure on him if he did. Also consider than Ian Bell is batting six for England right now, and Duminy for South Africa. Batting six doesn't mean you are a dud.
Marcus North simply has run out of chances. He should look on the careers of Jamie Siddons, Brad Hodge and Darren Lehmann and consider himself most fortunate.
Brad Haddin would want to make some runs pretty soon as well, but he has enough credits in the bank. However, if the selectors are looking to renew, Haddin's age will work against him. Tim Paine gained many fans with his efforts in Haddin's absence in England during the ODIs.
Having Katich, Hussey and Watson all in the side together should ensure enough batsmen are protecting their wicket appropriately, and Ponting at four would act as a pressure release, and maybe prolong his career. The pressure would also be taken off Clarke coming in at six, where Ponting himself made a name for himself before finally ascending to three in 2001.
Considering the side you could pick out of those not playing at the moment (Rogers, Jaques, Klinger, White (c), Bailey, Henriques, S Smith, Paine, Geeves, McKay, Nannes), the current side, and particularly the batsmen, should be feeling some pressure to perform or find themselves back at state level. The time for tough decisions is coming.
In fact, those two previous defeats have occurred in dead rubbers where the series was decided, at Melbourne in 1981, and in Sydney in 1995. The last time Pakistan won a "live" Test Match in Australia was 1977. Yet, Pakistan will probably win the Test Match today, levelling the series at 1-1 and making the Bellerive Test Match the series decider.
In short, Australia's problem is their batting. Everyone knows that Australia's bowling is not what it once was, considering the departures of Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne & Jason Gillespie, and the subsequent apparent ends of the careers of Brett Lee and Stuart Clark. However, the Australians have four very promising fast bowlers in Mitchell Johnson, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus, and if they could find a genuine speedster to compliment that bunch, then they would probably be all set for some time.
Obviously, Australia still needs to find a good spinner, but Australia won plenty of Test Matches from 1989-1991 with either Trevor Hohns, Peter Sleep, Peter Taylor or Greg Matthews. Nathan Hauritz is doing his job as well as can be expected, and not one spinner's form at domestic level is making Hauritz's position untenable.
No, the problem is the top seven.
Shane Watson is playing well, and yesterday's dismissal in the 90s was the result of an absolute brute of a delivery, rather than mental demons on Watson's behalf. The solution to Australia's woes certainly does not lie with moving him to another position in the order. Watson is playing better than anyone in the Australian side right now, and protects his wicket appropriately. Leave him at the top of the order.
Philip Hughes is worth perservering with. While hot headed in the first dig, he'll learn, and showed glimpes of that education with a measured effort in the second dig, before he went to a brilliant return catch by Kaneria.
Simon Katich is a number 3 batsman. He played some great innings there in India in 2004, and would add a resoluteness to the top of the order, where either Hughes or Watson can go for their shots with Katich at number 3. As a long-time advocate for Matthew Elliott at number 3 before he calcified, an batsman with opening experience would not be a bad idea at the most important spot in the order.
It would also take some of the pressure off Ponting, whose form doesn't really warrant a place in the side right now. However, it is (rightfully) difficult to drop someone with 11,500 Test runs at 55, and he is capable of incredible batting. His elbow clearly isn't right, and he probably shouldn't be playing right now, but as his actions in India in 2008 demonstrate, nothing is more important to Ponting than playing Test Cricket. Despite the fact he has never batted there for Australia, I think he should drop himself a spot and come in at four.
Michael Hussey is the "in-form" Australian middle order batsman right now. Read that again. I hope he gets a century today, as it might be the basis for an unlikely series-clinching victory, but his spot isn't really in jeopardy. Considering his ability to bat with the tail, a drop to six in the order wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but it's probably too low for him. I've always liked him at five.
Michael Clarke is the next captain, but his form has dropped off somewhat since England. Someone has to bat six, and Clarke would have little pressure on him if he did. Also consider than Ian Bell is batting six for England right now, and Duminy for South Africa. Batting six doesn't mean you are a dud.
Marcus North simply has run out of chances. He should look on the careers of Jamie Siddons, Brad Hodge and Darren Lehmann and consider himself most fortunate.
Brad Haddin would want to make some runs pretty soon as well, but he has enough credits in the bank. However, if the selectors are looking to renew, Haddin's age will work against him. Tim Paine gained many fans with his efforts in Haddin's absence in England during the ODIs.
Having Katich, Hussey and Watson all in the side together should ensure enough batsmen are protecting their wicket appropriately, and Ponting at four would act as a pressure release, and maybe prolong his career. The pressure would also be taken off Clarke coming in at six, where Ponting himself made a name for himself before finally ascending to three in 2001.
Considering the side you could pick out of those not playing at the moment (Rogers, Jaques, Klinger, White (c), Bailey, Henriques, S Smith, Paine, Geeves, McKay, Nannes), the current side, and particularly the batsmen, should be feeling some pressure to perform or find themselves back at state level. The time for tough decisions is coming.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The decade in Australian Cricket
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
