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.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
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.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
West Indies Series Preview
Australia will win 3-0.
It's that simple.
The real issue as we start this summer which promises little but will probably over-deliver is the ridiculous schedule that has been adopted ever since Australian Cricket authorities gave the one-day Tri-Series the flick.
The West Indies will play Test Matches in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth between tomorrow and December 20. They will then go home.
The Pakistanis will come for three more Tests, renewing their love affair with Bellerive in mid-January after Boxing Day in Melbourne and New Years in Sydney. They then play ODIs in Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and two (?) in Perth, before a Twenty20 in Melbourne. This will all occur before the first week of February ends, or traditionally when the International summer used to finish during the time of the Tri-Series.
Then back come the West Indies for ODIs in Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne (again), before two Twenty20s in Hobart and Sydney. Remember than Australia have never lost an international Twenty20 match on home soil.
The International summer will finish on February 23.
First of all, the Test Matches should start the weekend after the Melbourne Cup, or at the latest the weekend after that. This year we are starting three weekends after the Melbourne Cup.
That would give the program an opportunity to play three Test Matches (say for 2009, Nov 12-16, Nov 20-24 and Dec 3-7) before a series of ODIs and Twenty20s before Christmas (Dec 11, 13, 16, 18 & 20 with a Twenty20 on Dec 22).
Then the Boxing Day and New Years Tests would proceed as usual, followed by a Third Test at the same time it is in 09/10 (January 14-18). The ODI/Twenty20 fixture would also be the same for this second series, meaning the International summer would finish in the first week of February, meaning that interest and crowds (especially in a place like Melbourne, where AFL interest really kicks in mid-February) wouldn't peter off. Have you ever been to a ODI in Melbourne in February or March (like in 07/08)? It's like a chore just to attend.
Moving Tests earlier in November would also ensure that cricket fills a sporting void after the Spring Carnival that is currently being filled by speculation about Luke Ball. Anything would be better than that.
Touring teams would also come and go, rather than come and go and come again and go again.
Anyway, here's hoping the Aussies bat tomorrow, Punter makes a 100, and all this stuff is soon forgotten.
It's that simple.
The real issue as we start this summer which promises little but will probably over-deliver is the ridiculous schedule that has been adopted ever since Australian Cricket authorities gave the one-day Tri-Series the flick.
The West Indies will play Test Matches in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth between tomorrow and December 20. They will then go home.
The Pakistanis will come for three more Tests, renewing their love affair with Bellerive in mid-January after Boxing Day in Melbourne and New Years in Sydney. They then play ODIs in Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide and two (?) in Perth, before a Twenty20 in Melbourne. This will all occur before the first week of February ends, or traditionally when the International summer used to finish during the time of the Tri-Series.
Then back come the West Indies for ODIs in Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne (again), before two Twenty20s in Hobart and Sydney. Remember than Australia have never lost an international Twenty20 match on home soil.
The International summer will finish on February 23.
First of all, the Test Matches should start the weekend after the Melbourne Cup, or at the latest the weekend after that. This year we are starting three weekends after the Melbourne Cup.
That would give the program an opportunity to play three Test Matches (say for 2009, Nov 12-16, Nov 20-24 and Dec 3-7) before a series of ODIs and Twenty20s before Christmas (Dec 11, 13, 16, 18 & 20 with a Twenty20 on Dec 22).
Then the Boxing Day and New Years Tests would proceed as usual, followed by a Third Test at the same time it is in 09/10 (January 14-18). The ODI/Twenty20 fixture would also be the same for this second series, meaning the International summer would finish in the first week of February, meaning that interest and crowds (especially in a place like Melbourne, where AFL interest really kicks in mid-February) wouldn't peter off. Have you ever been to a ODI in Melbourne in February or March (like in 07/08)? It's like a chore just to attend.
Moving Tests earlier in November would also ensure that cricket fills a sporting void after the Spring Carnival that is currently being filled by speculation about Luke Ball. Anything would be better than that.
Touring teams would also come and go, rather than come and go and come again and go again.
Anyway, here's hoping the Aussies bat tomorrow, Punter makes a 100, and all this stuff is soon forgotten.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The trouble with cricket
Apparently, cricket is in trouble. Shane Warne is in today's stable of News Limited newspapers articulating, if you can call it that, his panacea for all things ill in today's game.
For my part, I must state first and foremost that I love Test Cricket, enjoy One-Day cricket and pay to attend ODIs, and tolerate Twenty20 matches, while vowing never to pay money to attend one in person.
Recently it has been asserted Test Cricket is more popular than ever in places like Australia, England and India. James Sutherland, CEO of Cricket Australia, said as much on Offsiders on Sunday morning.
That isn't entirely true. In Australia, Test Cricket is popular in Melbourne and Sydney. Attendances are really good in Adelaide, but many of the attendees are tourists from other states. Attendances are poor in Brisbane and Perth, but the GABBA Test survives because of tradition and inability for states that lay to the south to host a Test Match in mid-November, and the WACA Test survives because the last session of each day screens into the Eastern States in primetime.
In India, while Test Cricket may be at an all-time high of popularity, that doesn't mean it is popular. A recent poll indicated that 9% of Indians consider Test Cricket to be their favourite form of the game.
It is clear that Australian cricketers still consider Test Cricket to be far and away the pinnacle for any cricketer. However, the lack of enthusiasm for this form of the game in other countries, and the lack of quality cricketers, means that Australia may have to endure more summers like the one about to occur, when Australia will host the pathetic West Indies and the nomadic Pakistan.
The money being offered for Twenty20 cricket in India will provide another problem for administrators. If the ICC would create a two month period for this form of cricket each year, then that would be advantageous to other forms of the game.
Also, no more One-Day series of more than five games, unless the World Cup is up for grabs. And it is difficult to see a reason for retaining the Champions Trophy, despite the fact Australia have won the last two.
Cricket also needs to think about innovative solutions, and stop being so married to traditions of the past. Ninety overs in six hours of cricket per day in 2009 is almost impossible, as captains, rightfully, spend significant periods of time on field placings and bowling changes. Give teams an extra half hour at the start and the end of the day.
It is nowhere near too late for Test Cricket, and the game overall is growing. But a few small changes could make plenty of difference.
For my part, I must state first and foremost that I love Test Cricket, enjoy One-Day cricket and pay to attend ODIs, and tolerate Twenty20 matches, while vowing never to pay money to attend one in person.
Recently it has been asserted Test Cricket is more popular than ever in places like Australia, England and India. James Sutherland, CEO of Cricket Australia, said as much on Offsiders on Sunday morning.
That isn't entirely true. In Australia, Test Cricket is popular in Melbourne and Sydney. Attendances are really good in Adelaide, but many of the attendees are tourists from other states. Attendances are poor in Brisbane and Perth, but the GABBA Test survives because of tradition and inability for states that lay to the south to host a Test Match in mid-November, and the WACA Test survives because the last session of each day screens into the Eastern States in primetime.
In India, while Test Cricket may be at an all-time high of popularity, that doesn't mean it is popular. A recent poll indicated that 9% of Indians consider Test Cricket to be their favourite form of the game.
It is clear that Australian cricketers still consider Test Cricket to be far and away the pinnacle for any cricketer. However, the lack of enthusiasm for this form of the game in other countries, and the lack of quality cricketers, means that Australia may have to endure more summers like the one about to occur, when Australia will host the pathetic West Indies and the nomadic Pakistan.
The money being offered for Twenty20 cricket in India will provide another problem for administrators. If the ICC would create a two month period for this form of cricket each year, then that would be advantageous to other forms of the game.
Also, no more One-Day series of more than five games, unless the World Cup is up for grabs. And it is difficult to see a reason for retaining the Champions Trophy, despite the fact Australia have won the last two.
Cricket also needs to think about innovative solutions, and stop being so married to traditions of the past. Ninety overs in six hours of cricket per day in 2009 is almost impossible, as captains, rightfully, spend significant periods of time on field placings and bowling changes. Give teams an extra half hour at the start and the end of the day.
It is nowhere near too late for Test Cricket, and the game overall is growing. But a few small changes could make plenty of difference.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A rambling post on television
A warning: this blog entry is going to seem a little like a self-indulgent whinge.
Correction: this blog entry is going to seem a little more like a self-indulgent whinge than my usual slightly self-indulgent entries.
Anyway, last week Rosso, or Merrick and Rosso "fame", announced he was quitting his breakfast radio show in Nova in Sydney. He currently hosts the show with his comedic partner, and former Home and Away actress Kate Ritchie.
The news coverage about this was something akin to the moon landing.
This morning the lead article on both the Herald-Sun and The Age websites was about Rove McManus ending his self-titled Channel Ten show.
For me, Merrick and Rosso are just some comedians who have had some success. They had a TV show on Channel Nine called Merrick and Rosso: Unplanned (I used to call it Merrick and Rosso: Unwatched), and I liked Merrick's work on The Hollowmen (I, rather surprisingly, didn't like the show overall).
While Rove won three Gold Logies, this is not the big deal it was in the 1980s. For God's sake, Kate Ritchie won Gold Logies in consecutive years, the second just last year! Rove's three wins just go to show the dearth of real personalities we have on Australian television, considering the award is for the most popular personality. Actors have won 10 of the last 13 Gold Logies.
Rove's flagship Channel Ten show was never "Can't Miss" TV the way IMT or the Don Lane Show was, anyway. You could argue that the last Australian "Can't Miss" TV show that wasn't acted or news-related was The Comedy Company.
Australian television has been veering towards low-cost entertainment that use unknowns as the stars for sometime. It's just embarrassing that if in 2002, instead of giving it to Georgie Parker, they had given the Gold Logie to the person who probably was the most popular personality on TV in the preceding 12 months: Sara-Marie Fedele from Big Brother.
Next week, Australian Idol will conclude, and Channel Ten has promised at least another year. It will probably be it's last.
I know shows like Today and Sunrise have to fill their 3 hours somehow, but a little bit of proportion please. The end of Merrick and Watts on radio is not Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis breaking up, and Rove leaving his tired show isn't exactly big news.
Maybe I'm just too concerned about television for someone who is getting married in 20 days. My fiance would agree with me. For once.
Correction: this blog entry is going to seem a little more like a self-indulgent whinge than my usual slightly self-indulgent entries.
Anyway, last week Rosso, or Merrick and Rosso "fame", announced he was quitting his breakfast radio show in Nova in Sydney. He currently hosts the show with his comedic partner, and former Home and Away actress Kate Ritchie.
The news coverage about this was something akin to the moon landing.
This morning the lead article on both the Herald-Sun and The Age websites was about Rove McManus ending his self-titled Channel Ten show.
For me, Merrick and Rosso are just some comedians who have had some success. They had a TV show on Channel Nine called Merrick and Rosso: Unplanned (I used to call it Merrick and Rosso: Unwatched), and I liked Merrick's work on The Hollowmen (I, rather surprisingly, didn't like the show overall).
While Rove won three Gold Logies, this is not the big deal it was in the 1980s. For God's sake, Kate Ritchie won Gold Logies in consecutive years, the second just last year! Rove's three wins just go to show the dearth of real personalities we have on Australian television, considering the award is for the most popular personality. Actors have won 10 of the last 13 Gold Logies.
Rove's flagship Channel Ten show was never "Can't Miss" TV the way IMT or the Don Lane Show was, anyway. You could argue that the last Australian "Can't Miss" TV show that wasn't acted or news-related was The Comedy Company.
Australian television has been veering towards low-cost entertainment that use unknowns as the stars for sometime. It's just embarrassing that if in 2002, instead of giving it to Georgie Parker, they had given the Gold Logie to the person who probably was the most popular personality on TV in the preceding 12 months: Sara-Marie Fedele from Big Brother.
Next week, Australian Idol will conclude, and Channel Ten has promised at least another year. It will probably be it's last.
I know shows like Today and Sunrise have to fill their 3 hours somehow, but a little bit of proportion please. The end of Merrick and Watts on radio is not Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis breaking up, and Rove leaving his tired show isn't exactly big news.
Maybe I'm just too concerned about television for someone who is getting married in 20 days. My fiance would agree with me. For once.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Another World Cup Win Coming Up
It is amazing how quickly things can change. Not three months ago we were bemoaning the lack of planning and character as the Australian Cricket Team meekly wilted against a barrage of swing at The Oval, unhappiest of all locations in England for Aussie cricketers. By the time the next Ashes take place in England, in 2013, chances are highly likely Australia will take a squad that includes no one who has tasted victory in a series in England. The good thing about that was that the last time this happened was 1989.
Fast forward those three months, and the Australians are victorious once more. What is more impressive is that is has been accomplished with an eleven of similar quality sitting back in Australia either injured, or with papers marked "Never to play for Australia again" (and I'm talking about you, Brad Hodge).
The side that destroyed India on Sunday was Marsh, Watson, Ponting, White, Hussey, Voges, Manou, Johnson, Hauritz, Bollinger and Clint McKay. Graham Manou is Australia's third string keeper, so comparitively inept with the bat he bats at number eight. Paine and Haddin often open the batting when playing for Australia.
Cameron White has left no one pining for Michael Clarke's return, and Adam Voges has more than covered for the promising Callum Ferguson.
The side that's not playing at the moment? Haddin, Paine, Clarke, Ferguson, Hodge, D Hussey, Hopes, Holland, Siddle, Lee & Bracken. A match between those two teams would be a coin flip. And I couldn't find a spot in either side for David Warner , Ben Hilfenhaus or Moises Henriques.
This is why, if Australia can maintain their form in the one day version of the game, they should be looking forward to a fourth consecutive World Cup win in 2011.
Australia should start selecting one-day squads now for 2011. Despite his reasonable current form, Michael Hussey should probably be left to resurrect his test form (and dropped to number five in that form of the game). Brett Lee should be filed in the same area of the cabinet draw as Brad Hodge. He's old and brittle.
The selectors should also consider Brad Haddin's long term future in one-day cricket. It's not like he's a long time fixture in the team, anyway. Keep him fresh for the test matches too, and groom Tim Paine now.
A fifteen man squad for the next 18 months could ideally look like this: Ponting, Marsh, Watson, Clarke, White, Ferguson, Hopes, Johnson, Hauritz, Bracken, Siddle, Paine, Bollinger, Voges & Henriques. Plenty of quality outside of that fifteen, including players we may have not heard much about yet.
The Australians probably won't get much of a challenge this summer from the West Indies, and Pakistan are notoriously unpredictable. Let's hope the Aussies can get the challenge they need to keep at top form, and over the twelve months after that before the next World Cup. Things are looking good.
Fast forward those three months, and the Australians are victorious once more. What is more impressive is that is has been accomplished with an eleven of similar quality sitting back in Australia either injured, or with papers marked "Never to play for Australia again" (and I'm talking about you, Brad Hodge).
The side that destroyed India on Sunday was Marsh, Watson, Ponting, White, Hussey, Voges, Manou, Johnson, Hauritz, Bollinger and Clint McKay. Graham Manou is Australia's third string keeper, so comparitively inept with the bat he bats at number eight. Paine and Haddin often open the batting when playing for Australia.
Cameron White has left no one pining for Michael Clarke's return, and Adam Voges has more than covered for the promising Callum Ferguson.
The side that's not playing at the moment? Haddin, Paine, Clarke, Ferguson, Hodge, D Hussey, Hopes, Holland, Siddle, Lee & Bracken. A match between those two teams would be a coin flip. And I couldn't find a spot in either side for David Warner , Ben Hilfenhaus or Moises Henriques.
This is why, if Australia can maintain their form in the one day version of the game, they should be looking forward to a fourth consecutive World Cup win in 2011.
Australia should start selecting one-day squads now for 2011. Despite his reasonable current form, Michael Hussey should probably be left to resurrect his test form (and dropped to number five in that form of the game). Brett Lee should be filed in the same area of the cabinet draw as Brad Hodge. He's old and brittle.
The selectors should also consider Brad Haddin's long term future in one-day cricket. It's not like he's a long time fixture in the team, anyway. Keep him fresh for the test matches too, and groom Tim Paine now.
A fifteen man squad for the next 18 months could ideally look like this: Ponting, Marsh, Watson, Clarke, White, Ferguson, Hopes, Johnson, Hauritz, Bracken, Siddle, Paine, Bollinger, Voges & Henriques. Plenty of quality outside of that fifteen, including players we may have not heard much about yet.
The Australians probably won't get much of a challenge this summer from the West Indies, and Pakistan are notoriously unpredictable. Let's hope the Aussies can get the challenge they need to keep at top form, and over the twelve months after that before the next World Cup. Things are looking good.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Definition of Irony
A little Friday fun.This dude doesn't like gay people. He's tattooed a section from Leviticus, Leviticus 18:22 to be exact.
The problem is if he had read (at all is probably closer to the truth, but I digress) a little further.
Leviticus 19:28 reads:
"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."
I like the Jules Winnfield finish. Have a good weekend.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
In defence of Hey Hey
First of all, let's get it out of the way. The black face skit on Red Faces last night was terrible, and should never have gotten to air. Someone should be sacked for allowing it on television, because people were going to be offended, and rightly so, and this entire controversy could have been avoided. I'm in no way defending that skit.
But I am defending the return of the show.
Look, I don't really want to sound like a culture warrior when talking about the return of a little TV show like Hey Hey It's Saturday. But the line dividing those who attack the very fact that the show returned in the first place, or that somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians would watch it on a Wednesday night in 2009, and those somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians who did watch it last week (and watched it last night) resembles the lines that divide the culture warriors.
On one hand you have what best can be described as "the arts/entertainment elite commentariat" (if that can best describe anything or anyone). Reading The Age over the last two weeks, you wouldn't have read one good thing about Hey Hey's return. Critcisms ranged from laziness and mere nostalgia on Channel Nine's part to indulging in jingoism and old-fashioned, backwards values that should have disappeared long ago.
Marieke Hardy, The Age's commentator and niece of Australian comedy legend Mary Hardy, has written twice in the last fortnight about how appalling Hey Hey is. She describes Hey Hey as "mindlessly bad", and suggests "We're better than this, I'm sure we are."
It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude which makes people who watched and enjoyed Hey Hey over the last two weeks, and when it was on TV regularly over ten years ago, furious.
And at the risk of rivalling Hardy in being holier-than-thou, we're right. We're right because we take TV, and especially commercial TV, for what it is: unpretentious entertainment, and nothing more.
Commercial TV is not a tool for social change, and it's a fairly safe bet it never will be. It is by its nature uneducational, but not everything needs to be. If you want something more highbrow, watch or do something else. It's a free country.
Criticising Hey Hey because you personally don't find it funny is fine. However, many other people do. Criticising those people (and Hardy does it, and Catherine Deveny does it all the time) for finding Hey Hey amusing is like criticising a person for liking cheeseburgers purely on issues relating to the taste of a cheeseburger.
When it comes to food, or music, or movies, people just like what they like. Hardy says she is fine with nostalgia, and is "going to see Fleetwood Mac in December. But Daryl and the gang have never produced something creatively on par with Rumours and the sooner everyone realises that the better."
Marieke, that's your opinion. But it is not a matter of logic. It is not something that can be argued to a agreed position. We live in a pluralist society. Not everyone is sophisticated, or erudite. Live with it.
It's just entertainment. Masterchef isn't exactly "Hot Docs" on SBS either.
It's also not a reflection on greater problems with our society. Molehills shouldn't be made into mountains, and long bows shouldn't be drawn.
The saddest thing is that I, and people like me, have to read this stuff and get angry, because for many people my age and a little older, Hey Hey reminds them of a simpler time when they were children and the mere sound of a fart sent one into hysterics. I guess Marieke would have been yelling at these kids to "GROW UP!"
Personally, I find myself in tears when the show began, precisely because it was just as I remembered it, and I found myself sitting on the couch at what is now my house, but was the house where I watched and loved Hey Hey for 19 years with my departed grandparents. It reminded me of how much I missed the show, and how much I missed them. It's getting dusty in here just thinking about it.
And that is what nostalgia is really about. I don't need some too-smart media scribe telling me I should be more intelligent than that. It's not about smart, and it makes me feel sorry that they don't understand that.
But I am defending the return of the show.
Look, I don't really want to sound like a culture warrior when talking about the return of a little TV show like Hey Hey It's Saturday. But the line dividing those who attack the very fact that the show returned in the first place, or that somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians would watch it on a Wednesday night in 2009, and those somewhere between 2 and 3 million Australians who did watch it last week (and watched it last night) resembles the lines that divide the culture warriors.
On one hand you have what best can be described as "the arts/entertainment elite commentariat" (if that can best describe anything or anyone). Reading The Age over the last two weeks, you wouldn't have read one good thing about Hey Hey's return. Critcisms ranged from laziness and mere nostalgia on Channel Nine's part to indulging in jingoism and old-fashioned, backwards values that should have disappeared long ago.
Marieke Hardy, The Age's commentator and niece of Australian comedy legend Mary Hardy, has written twice in the last fortnight about how appalling Hey Hey is. She describes Hey Hey as "mindlessly bad", and suggests "We're better than this, I'm sure we are."
It's this kind of holier-than-thou attitude which makes people who watched and enjoyed Hey Hey over the last two weeks, and when it was on TV regularly over ten years ago, furious.
And at the risk of rivalling Hardy in being holier-than-thou, we're right. We're right because we take TV, and especially commercial TV, for what it is: unpretentious entertainment, and nothing more.
Commercial TV is not a tool for social change, and it's a fairly safe bet it never will be. It is by its nature uneducational, but not everything needs to be. If you want something more highbrow, watch or do something else. It's a free country.
Criticising Hey Hey because you personally don't find it funny is fine. However, many other people do. Criticising those people (and Hardy does it, and Catherine Deveny does it all the time) for finding Hey Hey amusing is like criticising a person for liking cheeseburgers purely on issues relating to the taste of a cheeseburger.
When it comes to food, or music, or movies, people just like what they like. Hardy says she is fine with nostalgia, and is "going to see Fleetwood Mac in December. But Daryl and the gang have never produced something creatively on par with Rumours and the sooner everyone realises that the better."
Marieke, that's your opinion. But it is not a matter of logic. It is not something that can be argued to a agreed position. We live in a pluralist society. Not everyone is sophisticated, or erudite. Live with it.
It's just entertainment. Masterchef isn't exactly "Hot Docs" on SBS either.
It's also not a reflection on greater problems with our society. Molehills shouldn't be made into mountains, and long bows shouldn't be drawn.
The saddest thing is that I, and people like me, have to read this stuff and get angry, because for many people my age and a little older, Hey Hey reminds them of a simpler time when they were children and the mere sound of a fart sent one into hysterics. I guess Marieke would have been yelling at these kids to "GROW UP!"
Personally, I find myself in tears when the show began, precisely because it was just as I remembered it, and I found myself sitting on the couch at what is now my house, but was the house where I watched and loved Hey Hey for 19 years with my departed grandparents. It reminded me of how much I missed the show, and how much I missed them. It's getting dusty in here just thinking about it.
And that is what nostalgia is really about. I don't need some too-smart media scribe telling me I should be more intelligent than that. It's not about smart, and it makes me feel sorry that they don't understand that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
