So, Australia have lost the Ashes, and it was hardly a shock. Long before Stuart Broad's quadrennial Ashes winning spell, fingers had been pointed, post mortems had been written and the inquests had begun. Selectors, coaches, the media, fans, twenty20, the Sheffield Shield, state cricket, grade cricket and even Sam Robson have all been blamed for the urn not being #returned, and all kinds of crazy theories have been spouted by those in the know (and those who really aren't) about how the Aussies can get back to their former glories.
One way forward, as mooted by coach Darren Lehmann, is to cut the whole lot of them, and start again. Speaking in his post-match press conference, Lehmann said that Chris Rogers and captain Michael Clarke were the only certainties to play, and that everyone else is playing at the Oval for their test careers.
While clearly being used as a motivational tool for his underperforming charges, if Lehmann is serious about dropping the entire side, this could be the worst thing to happen to Australian cricket for a long time - even considering the considerable list of bad things to happen to Australian cricket recently. The fifth Ashes test is a great chance for the Aussies to finally play freely and without pressure - while they have nothing to play for in terms of the urn, they can go and play positively, score runs and shift some momentum their way before the score resets at nil-nil in Brisbane. Attention and focus should be taken off these by-and-large inexperienced players, but instead, Lehmann has pushed it heavily back onto them.
On a cricket level, cutting his losses and moving on from this team would also be a pretty poor idea - mainly because somehow or another Australia have stumbled across a pretty decent side. More by luck than judgement, they've found two openers who complement each other well - one counter-attacking and adventurous; the other gritty and determined, both of whom will fight to the death for Australia. Moving Clarke up to 4 has been long overdue, as has dropping Watson to 6, and they give a much better balance to the batting card. Questions still remain over Khawaja and Steve Smith at test level, but they've both shown glimpses of their ability, and should be backed to come good. This is a side that were the equal of - if not outplayed England for the entire third test, and most of the fourth, but came unstuck against some high class bowlers who got their tails up. Ripping this team apart just as they've come together would be a disaster.
Shaking the team up wouldn't be a bad idea if Australia had ready-made replacements - but they don't. Unless Lehmann's found a time-machine, there really aren't many options, with most of the names (Maddinson, Doolan) touted as potential newbies having only played a handful of first-class games, let alone tests. Contrast that to the near-enough conveyor belt of potential English replacements, and it's clear where Australian problems lie.
Lehmann would do well to contrast the English sides he played against of the 90s; where players came and went with alarming regularity, there was no settled side and no idea over who the strongest eleven was, to the England side he faces as a coach in this series; where a regular set of players are given the confidence of the selectors to perform, and consistent selections are made. Nick Compton and Steven Finn could argue otherwise, but they are the exception rather than the rule, and the exceptional success of recent years compared to the overwhelming failures of earlier owe a lot to consistent selections. Australia have not had a settled side since, well, the wonder team of Warne, McGrath, Hayden and Gilchrist - with new faces appearing, disappearing, then reappearing a few years later hardly conducive to success, and woeful Australian results in the past three years bearing this out.
If Australian cricket is to return to anywhere near the glory years (though I imagine they'd take just being competitive in two consecutive games), an element of consistency has to come in. While they have been good in spells this series, those spells have been few and far between. And what surely can't help it is the constant tinkering with the side, and player's roles throughout. First Watson's an opener who won't bowl, then he's a number six expected to bowl a lot of maidens. The spinner was meant to be Lyon, but it suddenly was Agar, but then it was Lyon again. Clarke wasn't going to bat anywhere else but 5, then suddenly he had to bat 4. Mitchell Starc was playing, then he wasn't playing, then he was, then he wasn't again. Warner got in a fight so had to go to Zimbabwe, then he got parachuted in to bat at six, then suddenly he was an opener. Australia had a really long tail, then they picked three bunnies. How does Lehmann expect these players to perform if even they don't know what he expects of them?
For me, somehow or other, Australia have stumbled across a half decent formula that doesn't suck nearly as much as the team that they started the series with. Lehmann could keep throwing names up in the air and hoping a winning team magically forms, but his best bet is to stick with what he's got, and get them to grow as a unit. Lord's aside Australia have given England a much bigger contest then they thought they were going to get, and throwing this lot away for untried and untested newbies is a gamble that could spectacularly backfire. Lehmann may argue that it's a gamble worth taking as he doesn't have much to lose, but going into the fifth test, these Aussies need backing, not sacking.
Showing posts with label Michael Clarke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Clarke. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
Friday, 12 July 2013
To walk or not to walk...
"I always walked... as soon as the umpire put his finger up" - Geoffrey Boycott
Last year I wrote something about the spirit of cricket. There'd been a bit of a furore in a county game after Murali Kartik Mankadded Alex Barrow, with half of the cricket community calling Kartik a disgrace, with the rest sticking up for the Surrey twirler, arguing that he was well within his rights to run-out the non-striking batsman. Where the grey area lay was over the much spoken about 'Spirit of Cricket' - the Mankad is allowed in the laws of the game, but strictly forbidden in cricket's all-important code of conduct that attempts to ensure the sport is played in a sportsmanlike fashion. The Spirit of Cricket used to be an understanding between sides that they'd play the game in the 'correct' manner, but was officially written into the Laws of the Game as a preamble in 2000, telling players "cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this Spirit causes injury to the game itself". Wise words indeed.
So to Stuart Broad, who refused to walk after a clear edge behind at a crucial point of the first Ashes test. Broad will argue that the umpire didn't give him, but what of the much vaunted Spirit of the game? Broad knew he was out, the fielders knew he was out, but the umpire didn't, and Broad remained. While in the spirit of test cricket Broad should have walked, the laws of the game state that the umpire's decision is final, and as Aleem Dar didn't raise his finger, the batsman is not out.
All of this spirit of cricket stuff is very murky, with players happy to apply it when it suits them, and happy to sneak a fast one when the umpire isn't looking. Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin, as captain and wicket-keeper respectively took it upon themselves to castigate Broad in their self-appointed roles as guardians of the spirit of cricket, yet both have decidedly shaky records when it comes to respecting the spirit. Clarke even took to Twitter during the last Ashes series to apologise for the exact same 'crime' of not walking when given not out, writing "I want to apologise for not walking off the ground when I hit the ball - emotions got best of me". Would he accept that same apology from Broad at the close of play?
The argument that's been doing the rounds on Twitter is that 'what goes around, comes around' - that these things even themselves up over time. Broad was given not out at a vital time in the test today, but what of Ashton Agar yesterday, who was also given not out stumped controversially before making his remarkable 98? Or of Jonathan Trott, given out by DRS when the umpire's decision was perhaps incorrectly overturned? Is the idea of cricketing karma enough to justify knowingly standing your ground when you know you've hit it?
For me, it all comes down to umpiring. The difference between, for example, Broad's dodgy edge and a fielder claiming a catch when he knows he didn't catch it (step forward Dinesh Ramdin) is that a fielder puts forward an appeal knowing it is not out, whereas Broad simply stood his ground to wait for a decision. It is not the batsman's role to give himself, or anyone out - it is the decision of the umpire, who on this case thought him not out. And with all the spirit of cricket in the world, if the umpire doesn't give you out, you don't have to go anywhere.
The spirit of cricket is a nice thing to have in the rules, it's a very vague statement which probably stops David Warner attacking people with his bat and allows cricket fans to look down their noses at fans of other sports and demonstrate how superior the 'gentleman's game' is. But while the "unique appeal" of cricket is nice on paper, in reality every team on the planet attempts to push the laws as far as they allow, and that's just the way of the modern game. Contrast, of course, Australia's reaction to Clarke's apology in 2010/11 where he was castigated for daring to say sorry for not walking, to the Australian agony and anger at Broad doing the same thing today. Every now and again cricket will throw up these unusual pieces of poor sportsmanship, but is this any different to a footballer scoring when he knows he's offside or a scrum pushing before the balls gone in? If the officials don't find fault with it, there isn't much anyone can do. While I am looking forward to Australia's new role as moral arbiters of the sport, I'm also looking forward to them relinquishing the role when their next batsman refuses to walk. The onus shouldn't be on the players to make the decisions, it should be on the umpires, and spirit or no spirit, that should be the way it stays.
Last year I wrote something about the spirit of cricket. There'd been a bit of a furore in a county game after Murali Kartik Mankadded Alex Barrow, with half of the cricket community calling Kartik a disgrace, with the rest sticking up for the Surrey twirler, arguing that he was well within his rights to run-out the non-striking batsman. Where the grey area lay was over the much spoken about 'Spirit of Cricket' - the Mankad is allowed in the laws of the game, but strictly forbidden in cricket's all-important code of conduct that attempts to ensure the sport is played in a sportsmanlike fashion. The Spirit of Cricket used to be an understanding between sides that they'd play the game in the 'correct' manner, but was officially written into the Laws of the Game as a preamble in 2000, telling players "cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this Spirit causes injury to the game itself". Wise words indeed.
So to Stuart Broad, who refused to walk after a clear edge behind at a crucial point of the first Ashes test. Broad will argue that the umpire didn't give him, but what of the much vaunted Spirit of the game? Broad knew he was out, the fielders knew he was out, but the umpire didn't, and Broad remained. While in the spirit of test cricket Broad should have walked, the laws of the game state that the umpire's decision is final, and as Aleem Dar didn't raise his finger, the batsman is not out.
All of this spirit of cricket stuff is very murky, with players happy to apply it when it suits them, and happy to sneak a fast one when the umpire isn't looking. Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin, as captain and wicket-keeper respectively took it upon themselves to castigate Broad in their self-appointed roles as guardians of the spirit of cricket, yet both have decidedly shaky records when it comes to respecting the spirit. Clarke even took to Twitter during the last Ashes series to apologise for the exact same 'crime' of not walking when given not out, writing "I want to apologise for not walking off the ground when I hit the ball - emotions got best of me". Would he accept that same apology from Broad at the close of play?
The argument that's been doing the rounds on Twitter is that 'what goes around, comes around' - that these things even themselves up over time. Broad was given not out at a vital time in the test today, but what of Ashton Agar yesterday, who was also given not out stumped controversially before making his remarkable 98? Or of Jonathan Trott, given out by DRS when the umpire's decision was perhaps incorrectly overturned? Is the idea of cricketing karma enough to justify knowingly standing your ground when you know you've hit it?
For me, it all comes down to umpiring. The difference between, for example, Broad's dodgy edge and a fielder claiming a catch when he knows he didn't catch it (step forward Dinesh Ramdin) is that a fielder puts forward an appeal knowing it is not out, whereas Broad simply stood his ground to wait for a decision. It is not the batsman's role to give himself, or anyone out - it is the decision of the umpire, who on this case thought him not out. And with all the spirit of cricket in the world, if the umpire doesn't give you out, you don't have to go anywhere.
The spirit of cricket is a nice thing to have in the rules, it's a very vague statement which probably stops David Warner attacking people with his bat and allows cricket fans to look down their noses at fans of other sports and demonstrate how superior the 'gentleman's game' is. But while the "unique appeal" of cricket is nice on paper, in reality every team on the planet attempts to push the laws as far as they allow, and that's just the way of the modern game. Contrast, of course, Australia's reaction to Clarke's apology in 2010/11 where he was castigated for daring to say sorry for not walking, to the Australian agony and anger at Broad doing the same thing today. Every now and again cricket will throw up these unusual pieces of poor sportsmanship, but is this any different to a footballer scoring when he knows he's offside or a scrum pushing before the balls gone in? If the officials don't find fault with it, there isn't much anyone can do. While I am looking forward to Australia's new role as moral arbiters of the sport, I'm also looking forward to them relinquishing the role when their next batsman refuses to walk. The onus shouldn't be on the players to make the decisions, it should be on the umpires, and spirit or no spirit, that should be the way it stays.
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Why England need Michael Clarke back
Reports are coming out today that Michael Clarke is suffering from a recurrence of a back injury that's plagued him throughout his career. Since ascending to the captaincy in 2011, Clarke has almost single handedly led the way with the bat for his Australian side, and with the retirements of Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey is near enough the sole hope for the tourists when they attempt to win the Ashes back in a few weeks.
You'd have thought that news of Clarke's injury would be good news for England ahead of the Ashes series, with Australia so bereft of batting talent that Peter Siddle managed to top-score in the last test (where Clarke did not play), but for me, this is completely not the case. The 2005 Ashes will go down in English cricketing folklore as the series - the two best teams in the world going head to head, with all-time legends making up both sides in a gargantuan series that was fought hard, but more remarkably, was an incredibly high standard of cricket. England's achievement of winning back the urn after so many years was multiplied tenfold by the fact that they'd beaten the team of Warne, Ponting, Gilchrist, Hayden and McGrath. This was no hollow victory against a second-rate side. The events of 2005 converted a nation to cricket - kids who'd never previously heard of the game were enthralled by Vaughan's cover drive, Jones' reverse-swing, Flintoff's all-round heroics and Pietersen's haircut. And Ashley Giles.
A generation of cricketers grew up dreaming of taking on the likes of Warne and McGrath, and that series has helped produce a great many players who could become just as good as those England heroes in summers to come. Joe Root has spoken about how he used to pretend he was Michael Vaughan when playing in the garden, and Steven Finn has told of the benefit to his career that it was to watch Glenn McGrath play in that feted series.
But what if this Australian team roll over and get beaten 10-0? While English cricket would give themselves a big pat on the back, would there be the public interest? Would it get kids picking up cricket bats wanting to be the next Prior, Cook or Bell instead of the next Milner, Barry or Phil Jones? Without Clarke, a serious beating (OK, maybe not 10-0 but still a bit of a thumping) could be on the cards, which would obviously be bad news for Australian cricket, but in the long run could spell disaster for England. Australia need Clarke to get fit, but not as much as England do.
You'd have thought that news of Clarke's injury would be good news for England ahead of the Ashes series, with Australia so bereft of batting talent that Peter Siddle managed to top-score in the last test (where Clarke did not play), but for me, this is completely not the case. The 2005 Ashes will go down in English cricketing folklore as the series - the two best teams in the world going head to head, with all-time legends making up both sides in a gargantuan series that was fought hard, but more remarkably, was an incredibly high standard of cricket. England's achievement of winning back the urn after so many years was multiplied tenfold by the fact that they'd beaten the team of Warne, Ponting, Gilchrist, Hayden and McGrath. This was no hollow victory against a second-rate side. The events of 2005 converted a nation to cricket - kids who'd never previously heard of the game were enthralled by Vaughan's cover drive, Jones' reverse-swing, Flintoff's all-round heroics and Pietersen's haircut. And Ashley Giles.
A generation of cricketers grew up dreaming of taking on the likes of Warne and McGrath, and that series has helped produce a great many players who could become just as good as those England heroes in summers to come. Joe Root has spoken about how he used to pretend he was Michael Vaughan when playing in the garden, and Steven Finn has told of the benefit to his career that it was to watch Glenn McGrath play in that feted series.
But what if this Australian team roll over and get beaten 10-0? While English cricket would give themselves a big pat on the back, would there be the public interest? Would it get kids picking up cricket bats wanting to be the next Prior, Cook or Bell instead of the next Milner, Barry or Phil Jones? Without Clarke, a serious beating (OK, maybe not 10-0 but still a bit of a thumping) could be on the cards, which would obviously be bad news for Australian cricket, but in the long run could spell disaster for England. Australia need Clarke to get fit, but not as much as England do.
Friday, 6 January 2012
Podcast - Samit Patel's Probably Still Eating
Download this podcast on Podbean
Yet another week has passed without Sachin making his #100th100, so Will looks at why, and how this is impacted on India's performances. Also at the SCG, Michael Clarke made hundreds of sticker-less runs, and Will looks at Clarke's potential as both a batsman and a captain. England have flown out to the UAE to take on Pakistan, so the series is previewed, as well as the England v Associates game that will take place. Pretty much everything that's happened this week in cricket, except Jacques Kallis getting 200 in his 150th test. Sorry Jacques.
Yet another week has passed without Sachin making his #100th100, so Will looks at why, and how this is impacted on India's performances. Also at the SCG, Michael Clarke made hundreds of sticker-less runs, and Will looks at Clarke's potential as both a batsman and a captain. England have flown out to the UAE to take on Pakistan, so the series is previewed, as well as the England v Associates game that will take place. Pretty much everything that's happened this week in cricket, except Jacques Kallis getting 200 in his 150th test. Sorry Jacques.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Criticsms of Clarke
Getting to the highest score in the history of test cricket isn't something that happens every day. Of all of the hundreds of thousands of test innings, to be ranked as the highest is some achievement, so a changing of the guard is very rare indeed (between 1938 and 1994 it only changed once). To post an absolute great grand-daddy triple or quadruple ton, you need to be one of three things. Either a) massively selfish and happy to play a long personal innings irregardless of the match situation (see Lara's 400 not out v England in 2004), b) playing against a crap team on a road (see Hayden's 380 v Zimbabwe in 2003), or c) freakishly good (see Bradman, numerous).
Cricket is an odd game, as it is a pursuit of individual success masquerading as a team sport. In no other team sport are personal statistics pored over so often and held with such reverence, or individual glory celebrated so vocally (see Sachin, various). While everyone says that they just love winning test matches and like doing well for the team, deep down every cricketer who's picked up a bat wants to put themselves in the history books. Sure, winning's nice, but what about a bit of personal glory?
Which makes Michael Clarke's decision to declare unbeaten on 329 slightly odd. Yes, as captain he should be seen to put the team first, but imagine the statue he would have got outside the SCG had he got past 400? In 9 months time there would be a boom of babies born in Australia, all nicknamed Pup, and he could have had his own ill-fated chat show. Against a tired, disinterested Indian attack, 401 and history was there for the taking, and Clarke let the pesky matter of trying to win a test match get in his way. And he didn't have the smarts to get a lucrative bat sponsor for this game. For shame.
Cricket is an odd game, as it is a pursuit of individual success masquerading as a team sport. In no other team sport are personal statistics pored over so often and held with such reverence, or individual glory celebrated so vocally (see Sachin, various). While everyone says that they just love winning test matches and like doing well for the team, deep down every cricketer who's picked up a bat wants to put themselves in the history books. Sure, winning's nice, but what about a bit of personal glory?
Which makes Michael Clarke's decision to declare unbeaten on 329 slightly odd. Yes, as captain he should be seen to put the team first, but imagine the statue he would have got outside the SCG had he got past 400? In 9 months time there would be a boom of babies born in Australia, all nicknamed Pup, and he could have had his own ill-fated chat show. Against a tired, disinterested Indian attack, 401 and history was there for the taking, and Clarke let the pesky matter of trying to win a test match get in his way. And he didn't have the smarts to get a lucrative bat sponsor for this game. For shame.
Thursday, 10 November 2011
The Death of Test Cricket?
South Africa all out for 96. Australia all out for 47. 68 runs fell for 18 wickets. Is test cricket dead? Obviously not.
OK, maybe it isn't right to use the events of one manic afternoon in Cape Town to prove beyond doubt that a format has been saved. But this one weird couple of hours has given us some of the best test cricket that will be seen this year, let alone this decade.
For all of the talk of twenty20 killing test cricket, of players disinterested due to the lack of money, and of crowds staying away, the main threat to test cricket over the past few years has been completely stone dead pitches. We've seen games where 700 has played 600 after the first innings, and the captains could have shaken hands on the draw after the second day. Only a miracle performance with the ball can produce any inch of excitement or sporting competition on these sorts of pitches, leading to dull draws and talk of test cricket's demise.
So isn't it refreshing when a pitch offers a tiny bit to the bowler? While there has been talk about the standard of the pitch not being appropriate to test cricket, there has been a fair battle between bat and ball throughout. The Australian first innings was a case-in-point, a fired up South African bowling attack led by the world's best paceman Dale Steyn chipped away at Australia, but were held back by a world class performance from Michael Clarke. Bat and ball were in fierce competition, and given that these were the world's best in action, the spectacle was fascinating. Clarke eventually perished for 151, dragging his team to 248, and it was as enthralling an innings as I can remember for a long time.
What happened next was absolutely mental, with wickets falling all over the place, and there were plenty of rash shots from batsmen that were far from world class. While there may have been one too many gremlins in the pitch, surely it was more exciting and interesting than seeing bat dominate ball for session after interminable session? And the partnership at the end of Amla and Smith to get South Africa to stumps just one down shows that a lot of the wickets were down to a combination of good bowling, and awful batting.
I don't think any of us really thought test cricket was on it's death bed, and days like this proved just how alive the format is. This test, and the one last week, where the West Indies gave India an almighty shock, certainly show that test cricket isn't really in a terminal decline. Sure, games like this and stories like this don't really help, but ultimately, test cricket is in rude health. And any format that England are best in the world is surely fine in anyone's book...
OK, maybe it isn't right to use the events of one manic afternoon in Cape Town to prove beyond doubt that a format has been saved. But this one weird couple of hours has given us some of the best test cricket that will be seen this year, let alone this decade.
For all of the talk of twenty20 killing test cricket, of players disinterested due to the lack of money, and of crowds staying away, the main threat to test cricket over the past few years has been completely stone dead pitches. We've seen games where 700 has played 600 after the first innings, and the captains could have shaken hands on the draw after the second day. Only a miracle performance with the ball can produce any inch of excitement or sporting competition on these sorts of pitches, leading to dull draws and talk of test cricket's demise.
So isn't it refreshing when a pitch offers a tiny bit to the bowler? While there has been talk about the standard of the pitch not being appropriate to test cricket, there has been a fair battle between bat and ball throughout. The Australian first innings was a case-in-point, a fired up South African bowling attack led by the world's best paceman Dale Steyn chipped away at Australia, but were held back by a world class performance from Michael Clarke. Bat and ball were in fierce competition, and given that these were the world's best in action, the spectacle was fascinating. Clarke eventually perished for 151, dragging his team to 248, and it was as enthralling an innings as I can remember for a long time.
What happened next was absolutely mental, with wickets falling all over the place, and there were plenty of rash shots from batsmen that were far from world class. While there may have been one too many gremlins in the pitch, surely it was more exciting and interesting than seeing bat dominate ball for session after interminable session? And the partnership at the end of Amla and Smith to get South Africa to stumps just one down shows that a lot of the wickets were down to a combination of good bowling, and awful batting.
I don't think any of us really thought test cricket was on it's death bed, and days like this proved just how alive the format is. This test, and the one last week, where the West Indies gave India an almighty shock, certainly show that test cricket isn't really in a terminal decline. Sure, games like this and stories like this don't really help, but ultimately, test cricket is in rude health. And any format that England are best in the world is surely fine in anyone's book...
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Australian Captaincy - As Easy As ABC
So the old football adage goes when asked who you support - "ABC. Anyone But Chelsea". And as Australia look set to appoint a new captain, the general feeling amongst Aussie fans is ABC. Anyone But Clarke.
The Australian public has massively lost faith in the captain elect over the past year. Off field issues, such as leaving the New Zealand tour to break up with his girlfriend have hardly helped endear him to a public who don't think his priority is scoring runs for Australia. The outpouring of anger when Pup was appointed (albeit temporarily) as captain for the final Ashes test when Ponting was injured just shows what a low opinion the Australian cricketing public have of Clarke, even bordering on a strong dislike.
Clarke has been groomed as "the next Australian captain" for the past few years, slowly being given more responsibility as stand in captain when Ponting's unavailable, and latterly full-time T20 captain as well. Given the very public opposition to Clarke, you'd have thought he'd failed miserably, but when you look at his performances as captain, he's fared pretty well. The selectors feel he has the required skills for the job (hence why he was groomed from a long while back), but will such a public opposition stop him from being appointed?
Viewed completely differently by the Australian public are Mike Hussey and Brad Haddin. Hads and Huss seem the sort of bloke who the average Aussie cricket fan could relate to, and down a few tinnies with. Clarke seems happier to chase a celebrity lifestyle in his surfer pad, hence why he is seen as aloof and dislikeable by fans who respect those who respect them. Haddin and Hussey, like Clarke, have played in a lot of international games, so have the required level of experience. And like Clarke, they too have their individual pros and cons. Haddin, for example, may soon be replaced by Tim Paine (who could yet captain Australia after the current choice hangs up his baggy green), whereas Hussey may be a bit too intense a captain given his penchant for 8 hour net sessions.
All three have their positive points, as well as their weaknesses. And in my view, all three would make pretty good captains for Australia. They would all be strong leaders, which is what Australian cricket needs as they look set for an overhaul and rebirth, and the new captain may yet have to deal with a certain R. Ponting, who could slip back in as "one of the lads". While Aussie fans may be hoping for Anyone But Clarke, they're probably going to be disappointed, as Cricket Australia wouldn't want to waste the years of training Clarke for captaincy. And while they may be upset now, it would only take a few wins and some runs for Clarke for the Pup love-in to start again. Stability is what Australian cricket needs right now, and while the fans may not like it, the best man for the job is the man they want least of all.
Note - I have never, ever used the term anyone but Chelsea. As a Chelsea season-ticket holder it sickens me whenever people use it. Just wanted to clear that up.
The Australian public has massively lost faith in the captain elect over the past year. Off field issues, such as leaving the New Zealand tour to break up with his girlfriend have hardly helped endear him to a public who don't think his priority is scoring runs for Australia. The outpouring of anger when Pup was appointed (albeit temporarily) as captain for the final Ashes test when Ponting was injured just shows what a low opinion the Australian cricketing public have of Clarke, even bordering on a strong dislike.
Clarke has been groomed as "the next Australian captain" for the past few years, slowly being given more responsibility as stand in captain when Ponting's unavailable, and latterly full-time T20 captain as well. Given the very public opposition to Clarke, you'd have thought he'd failed miserably, but when you look at his performances as captain, he's fared pretty well. The selectors feel he has the required skills for the job (hence why he was groomed from a long while back), but will such a public opposition stop him from being appointed?
Viewed completely differently by the Australian public are Mike Hussey and Brad Haddin. Hads and Huss seem the sort of bloke who the average Aussie cricket fan could relate to, and down a few tinnies with. Clarke seems happier to chase a celebrity lifestyle in his surfer pad, hence why he is seen as aloof and dislikeable by fans who respect those who respect them. Haddin and Hussey, like Clarke, have played in a lot of international games, so have the required level of experience. And like Clarke, they too have their individual pros and cons. Haddin, for example, may soon be replaced by Tim Paine (who could yet captain Australia after the current choice hangs up his baggy green), whereas Hussey may be a bit too intense a captain given his penchant for 8 hour net sessions.
All three have their positive points, as well as their weaknesses. And in my view, all three would make pretty good captains for Australia. They would all be strong leaders, which is what Australian cricket needs as they look set for an overhaul and rebirth, and the new captain may yet have to deal with a certain R. Ponting, who could slip back in as "one of the lads". While Aussie fans may be hoping for Anyone But Clarke, they're probably going to be disappointed, as Cricket Australia wouldn't want to waste the years of training Clarke for captaincy. And while they may be upset now, it would only take a few wins and some runs for Clarke for the Pup love-in to start again. Stability is what Australian cricket needs right now, and while the fans may not like it, the best man for the job is the man they want least of all.
Note - I have never, ever used the term anyone but Chelsea. As a Chelsea season-ticket holder it sickens me whenever people use it. Just wanted to clear that up.
End of an Era
I've spoken many times about Ricky Ponting's imminent demise as Australian captain. While I was often banging on about how I thought he would go, and how he'd cling on to grim death until there was no other option, part of me wouldn't accept that Ricky would no longer be Australia's captain.
As I've literally not known a situation in my cricketing life where Ricky Ponting hasn't been Australian captain, it's become part of the institution. While everything has to come to an end eventually, and Ponting's ever increasing age dictated that it would be sooner rather than later, I still sort of expected him to just keep carrying on. But carry on no longer, and while he may play on as a batsman, it will be difficult to see Ricky, the eternal captain, playing as "one of the boys" under a Clarke, Haddin or Hussey.
It'll be very odd to see somebody else leading Australia onto the field the next time they play, and whether Ponting is one of the boys following the new captain on or if he's sitting in the hospitality box remains to be seen. But the end of Ponting's captaincy brings with it the end of an era - the final close to the all-conquering Australian side of the late 90s through to the middle of the 00s.
Farewell Ricky. It may sound odd to say, but I'll miss you.
As I've literally not known a situation in my cricketing life where Ricky Ponting hasn't been Australian captain, it's become part of the institution. While everything has to come to an end eventually, and Ponting's ever increasing age dictated that it would be sooner rather than later, I still sort of expected him to just keep carrying on. But carry on no longer, and while he may play on as a batsman, it will be difficult to see Ricky, the eternal captain, playing as "one of the boys" under a Clarke, Haddin or Hussey.
It'll be very odd to see somebody else leading Australia onto the field the next time they play, and whether Ponting is one of the boys following the new captain on or if he's sitting in the hospitality box remains to be seen. But the end of Ponting's captaincy brings with it the end of an era - the final close to the all-conquering Australian side of the late 90s through to the middle of the 00s.
Farewell Ricky. It may sound odd to say, but I'll miss you.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Punter's Last Stand
Ricky Ponting's been Australian captain ever since I can remember. As someone who only started taking an interest in cricket circa 2003/4, Ponting was well established as one of the world's best batsmen, and had his feet firmly under the table as captain of the world's best team. Ricky hasn't made an international hundred in over a year, and the all-conquering side that he led is long gone. With yet another Ashes defeat over the past few months, and a potential quarter-final exit to India ahead, we could be seeing the final days of Ricky Ponting as Australian captain.
Ricky's time as Aussie skipper has been spoken about to death. He had some incredible years, including countless records, two World Cups, an Ashes whitewash, and general dominance over the cricketing galaxy. Ponting himself was piling on the runs, the driving force behind the most forceful side in recent cricketing history. But the players of that side have mostly hung up their boots, and even Ponting's runs have seemingly disappeared.
There are two sides to the issue - Ponting as a captain and Ponting as a batsman. While he has overseen some remarkable success, he has also seen a remarkable slump in Aussie fortunes, losing Ponting's third Ashes as well as going into the series having lost seven consecutive matches in all formats. The decline has been mirrored by Ponting's personal failures, and there have been growing calls for him to be dropped regardless of his success or failure as captain, as he simply isn't justifying his position in the side as a batsman.
Australia have many options, both as potential batting replacements, and as captain. Michael Clarke has been groomed as captain ever since he first kissed the baggy green, and while he may not have the support of the Aussie public, he certainly has the backing of the selectors. He would be ready to step up immediately, as proved by the success he's had when assuming the role when Ponting's missed out through injury. And as a batsman, Ponting may not be missed thanks to the real strength in depth that Australia boast. In tests, Usman Khawaja showed that he is able to bat at number three thanks to his (albeit brief) stay at the crease in the final Ashes test, and the continued rise of Callum Ferguson, Shaun Marsh and even Phil Hughes suggest there will be no issue either in ODIs.
Even at the age of 38 Ponting's refused to talk about retirement, but a loss to India tomorrow may take the decision out of his hands. You feel that only taking the World Cup back to Australia for yet another time could save him, but even that may be too late. The odds are stacking up against Ponting, and while he clearly has the mental fortitude for the occasion, does he have the strength left in his little goblin legs for one last push? Ponting's captaincy and international future is on the line, and even he may not have enough to save himself. Exile at an English county may beckon, and tomorrow could see the end of an era, with the end of Ricky Ponting.
Ricky's time as Aussie skipper has been spoken about to death. He had some incredible years, including countless records, two World Cups, an Ashes whitewash, and general dominance over the cricketing galaxy. Ponting himself was piling on the runs, the driving force behind the most forceful side in recent cricketing history. But the players of that side have mostly hung up their boots, and even Ponting's runs have seemingly disappeared.
There are two sides to the issue - Ponting as a captain and Ponting as a batsman. While he has overseen some remarkable success, he has also seen a remarkable slump in Aussie fortunes, losing Ponting's third Ashes as well as going into the series having lost seven consecutive matches in all formats. The decline has been mirrored by Ponting's personal failures, and there have been growing calls for him to be dropped regardless of his success or failure as captain, as he simply isn't justifying his position in the side as a batsman.
Australia have many options, both as potential batting replacements, and as captain. Michael Clarke has been groomed as captain ever since he first kissed the baggy green, and while he may not have the support of the Aussie public, he certainly has the backing of the selectors. He would be ready to step up immediately, as proved by the success he's had when assuming the role when Ponting's missed out through injury. And as a batsman, Ponting may not be missed thanks to the real strength in depth that Australia boast. In tests, Usman Khawaja showed that he is able to bat at number three thanks to his (albeit brief) stay at the crease in the final Ashes test, and the continued rise of Callum Ferguson, Shaun Marsh and even Phil Hughes suggest there will be no issue either in ODIs.
Even at the age of 38 Ponting's refused to talk about retirement, but a loss to India tomorrow may take the decision out of his hands. You feel that only taking the World Cup back to Australia for yet another time could save him, but even that may be too late. The odds are stacking up against Ponting, and while he clearly has the mental fortitude for the occasion, does he have the strength left in his little goblin legs for one last push? Ponting's captaincy and international future is on the line, and even he may not have enough to save himself. Exile at an English county may beckon, and tomorrow could see the end of an era, with the end of Ricky Ponting.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Why KP (could) walk away from ODIs
So if the reports are to believed, Kevin Pietersen will hang up his proverbial fifty over boots after this World Cup, to lead a life of luxury (well, tests and T20s).
While he's since come out and refuted the claims on Twitter, Kev may well leave 50 over cricket after the World Cup anyway. But the question is - why has it taken him so long?
Since the advent of twenty20, 50 over cricket has proved to be a bit of an inconvenience on the international calendar. Very few (if any) countries play 50 over one day cricket domestically (favouring 40, 45 or even split innings games) showing that as a format, it's pretty outdated. And while the ICC have come out and said that for the foreseeable future One Day Internationals will be 50 over affairs, players (if the Daily Mail article is to be believed) evidently aren't that bothered about playing it.
For people like Kevin Pietersen, however, it isn't so much the overs in a day that's the problem - it's the fact that he has to be there. Kev has a young family; wife Jessica (off of Liberty X), and his 10 month old son, Little Man*. (*Probably not his real name). As a player of all formats, he left for Australia in October, and after the tests, T20s and 50 over games, he arrived home on Wednesday. To play in the 50 over World Cup, he has to leave for India tomorrow. So that's four days at home over the last four months. While admittedly he is staying out in India (of his own choice) to play IPL, he's said that the life of a sportsman is short, and he's entitled to earn the money while he can. And with his achilles injury that could potentially cut his career even shorter, the money could dry up very quickly.
So why bother playing in a fifty over World Cup? The lure of a World Cup can be granted to him in the T20 format, so why should be bother spending an extra few months away from his family to play in an outdated competition that doesn't interest him?
I'm not advocating scrapping ODIs (for the record, I support ODI cricket but as 40 over contests), but I can totally see why increasingly players like KP will choose to pick and choose what formats they play. Some see tests as the ultimate so drop T20s (like Michael Clarke) or ODIs (like KP could). And some know their bodies can't handle five days of running in, so drop tests (like Flintoff or Shane Bond) so they can continue to play in shorter formats. And some are just old and want to earn a quick easy buck so they just play IPL and freelance themselves playing T20 around the world.
Cricket is changing, and there are different skills and qualities required to play in the different formats. With the rise of specialist T20 players (like a David Warner) who don't even play in 50 over games, we could easily see three separate teams for the three separate formats. But that issue is secondary to the packed international calendar which will see international cricket lose it's premier players. If Pietersen does decide to walk away from 50 over cricket, it won't be surprising - and don't be too surprised if he's the first of many more to follow.
While he's since come out and refuted the claims on Twitter, Kev may well leave 50 over cricket after the World Cup anyway. But the question is - why has it taken him so long?
Since the advent of twenty20, 50 over cricket has proved to be a bit of an inconvenience on the international calendar. Very few (if any) countries play 50 over one day cricket domestically (favouring 40, 45 or even split innings games) showing that as a format, it's pretty outdated. And while the ICC have come out and said that for the foreseeable future One Day Internationals will be 50 over affairs, players (if the Daily Mail article is to be believed) evidently aren't that bothered about playing it.
For people like Kevin Pietersen, however, it isn't so much the overs in a day that's the problem - it's the fact that he has to be there. Kev has a young family; wife Jessica (off of Liberty X), and his 10 month old son, Little Man*. (*Probably not his real name). As a player of all formats, he left for Australia in October, and after the tests, T20s and 50 over games, he arrived home on Wednesday. To play in the 50 over World Cup, he has to leave for India tomorrow. So that's four days at home over the last four months. While admittedly he is staying out in India (of his own choice) to play IPL, he's said that the life of a sportsman is short, and he's entitled to earn the money while he can. And with his achilles injury that could potentially cut his career even shorter, the money could dry up very quickly.
So why bother playing in a fifty over World Cup? The lure of a World Cup can be granted to him in the T20 format, so why should be bother spending an extra few months away from his family to play in an outdated competition that doesn't interest him?
I'm not advocating scrapping ODIs (for the record, I support ODI cricket but as 40 over contests), but I can totally see why increasingly players like KP will choose to pick and choose what formats they play. Some see tests as the ultimate so drop T20s (like Michael Clarke) or ODIs (like KP could). And some know their bodies can't handle five days of running in, so drop tests (like Flintoff or Shane Bond) so they can continue to play in shorter formats. And some are just old and want to earn a quick easy buck so they just play IPL and freelance themselves playing T20 around the world.
Cricket is changing, and there are different skills and qualities required to play in the different formats. With the rise of specialist T20 players (like a David Warner) who don't even play in 50 over games, we could easily see three separate teams for the three separate formats. But that issue is secondary to the packed international calendar which will see international cricket lose it's premier players. If Pietersen does decide to walk away from 50 over cricket, it won't be surprising - and don't be too surprised if he's the first of many more to follow.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Day One At The SCG
Before play started...: Ricky Ponting had an injury, so Michael Clarke stepped up as captain (unpopular). Ponting was replaced at 3 by Usman Khawaja (dayboo), as well as Michael Beer coming in for injured Ryan Harris (also making his dayboo). Ashes retaining England were unchanged.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: Didn't tick the scores along as quickly as they would have wanted. Lost wickets at key moments. Nobody went on and went big.
Where did it all go right for Australia?: Good partnerships being developed, Watson showing he's a proper opener, Khawaja showing he's test class.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't take as many wickets as they would have hoped with the muggy overhead conditions.
Where did it all go right for England?: Took wickets when it mattered, and bowled dangerously. Stopped any free flow of runs.
Who won each session?: Morning - Australia. Afternoon - Even. Evening - Just about England.
Who's winning the game?: Tight one. Both teams will feel there's a bit in it for them. Though with Khawaja falling last ball, I'd say England are ahead.
Shot of the day: Khawaja's pull off Bresnan for 4. Or Watson's drive for four (also off Bresnan).
Ball of the day: Bresnan's one to get rid of Clarke. Nice shape.
Man of the day: On debut, Usman Khawaja. Looked solid and assured at the crease throughout. Will be kicking himself that he got out in stupid circumstances.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: After enduring horrible, miserable weather in England over the past few months, I arrive in Sydney, and my first day of cricket is massively rain affected.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: Didn't tick the scores along as quickly as they would have wanted. Lost wickets at key moments. Nobody went on and went big.
Where did it all go right for Australia?: Good partnerships being developed, Watson showing he's a proper opener, Khawaja showing he's test class.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't take as many wickets as they would have hoped with the muggy overhead conditions.
Where did it all go right for England?: Took wickets when it mattered, and bowled dangerously. Stopped any free flow of runs.
Who won each session?: Morning - Australia. Afternoon - Even. Evening - Just about England.
Who's winning the game?: Tight one. Both teams will feel there's a bit in it for them. Though with Khawaja falling last ball, I'd say England are ahead.
Shot of the day: Khawaja's pull off Bresnan for 4. Or Watson's drive for four (also off Bresnan).
Ball of the day: Bresnan's one to get rid of Clarke. Nice shape.
Man of the day: On debut, Usman Khawaja. Looked solid and assured at the crease throughout. Will be kicking himself that he got out in stupid circumstances.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: After enduring horrible, miserable weather in England over the past few months, I arrive in Sydney, and my first day of cricket is massively rain affected.
Saturday, 1 January 2011
What Aussies Think
If you haven't noticed my blatant name-dropping and showing-off, I'm in Sydney. Actual Sydney, in Australia. Where the 5th Ashes test is, tomorrow.
If you're sitting there in England, I know the burning question on your lips is what do the Australians think of all of this? (If you're Australian, you probably know what the Australians think. And if you're from somewhere else in the world, you may or may not be bothered). So partly to continue showing off, and also to help give a total insight of the Ashes, here's an English perspective of the Aussie perspective of the Ashes. This is from what I've read in papers and overheard on trains. So pretty accurate.
Australians hate Michael Clarke
Australia's newest test captain has only an 8% approval rating, and is hated for a variety of reasons. From his wannabe celebrity status, to his breakup with the nation's sweetheart* Lara Bingle (*Note - in no way the nation's sweetheart), Pup is being ridiculed, disliked, vilified and generally "bagged" (I learned a new word) in the Aussie press. My humble view on it? If he was making runs, none of this would be happening.
Australians love Brad Haddin
The man who would / could / should be captain. But would he be so highly touted if he wasn't making runs???
Australians respect English players
Jonathan Trott is viewed as a latter-day South African-English Bradman; Strauss and Flower as some sort of dream team sent from above to lead successful cricket teams. Graeme Swann is seen both as a great off-spinner, and as a comedian (fair assessment). His latest Ashes Diary (you know, the one where he does the impressions of Richie Benaud and Tony Grieg) has been repeated many times on every news channel.
Australians think Kevin Pietersen is a dick
His "I resigned for the greater good, so praise me" quote has been added to the general public perception of the big ego (remember FIGJAM?), and while he's respected as a great player, he's still seen as a dick.
Ricky Ponting will be remembered for his three Ashes losses
While his vast achievements as both a batsman and captain have been recognised and celebrated, there is a general understanding that any captain that loses 3 (or at least isn't able to pick up the urn in 3) Ashes series will always be remembered for those defeats.
Usman Khawaja is the new golden boy
All of those marketing-speak phrases like "poster boy for a new generation"; "trail-blazer for many Australian communities" and such have been used for Uzzy. And a lot is expected of his batting.
Selectors don't know what they're doing
Picking Bollinger (universally popular) for Adelaide = bad move. Picking Doherty = bad move. Not picking Hauritz = bad move. 4 quicks at Melbourne = bad move. Steve Smith = bad move. Original 17 man squad = bad move. Michael Beer = bad move. Clarke as captain = bad move. Not much support for Hildrith and the boys.
If you're sitting there in England, I know the burning question on your lips is what do the Australians think of all of this? (If you're Australian, you probably know what the Australians think. And if you're from somewhere else in the world, you may or may not be bothered). So partly to continue showing off, and also to help give a total insight of the Ashes, here's an English perspective of the Aussie perspective of the Ashes. This is from what I've read in papers and overheard on trains. So pretty accurate.
Australians hate Michael Clarke
Australia's newest test captain has only an 8% approval rating, and is hated for a variety of reasons. From his wannabe celebrity status, to his breakup with the nation's sweetheart* Lara Bingle (*Note - in no way the nation's sweetheart), Pup is being ridiculed, disliked, vilified and generally "bagged" (I learned a new word) in the Aussie press. My humble view on it? If he was making runs, none of this would be happening.
Australians love Brad Haddin
The man who would / could / should be captain. But would he be so highly touted if he wasn't making runs???
Australians respect English players
Jonathan Trott is viewed as a latter-day South African-English Bradman; Strauss and Flower as some sort of dream team sent from above to lead successful cricket teams. Graeme Swann is seen both as a great off-spinner, and as a comedian (fair assessment). His latest Ashes Diary (you know, the one where he does the impressions of Richie Benaud and Tony Grieg) has been repeated many times on every news channel.
Australians think Kevin Pietersen is a dick
His "I resigned for the greater good, so praise me" quote has been added to the general public perception of the big ego (remember FIGJAM?), and while he's respected as a great player, he's still seen as a dick.
Ricky Ponting will be remembered for his three Ashes losses
While his vast achievements as both a batsman and captain have been recognised and celebrated, there is a general understanding that any captain that loses 3 (or at least isn't able to pick up the urn in 3) Ashes series will always be remembered for those defeats.
Usman Khawaja is the new golden boy
All of those marketing-speak phrases like "poster boy for a new generation"; "trail-blazer for many Australian communities" and such have been used for Uzzy. And a lot is expected of his batting.
Selectors don't know what they're doing
Picking Bollinger (universally popular) for Adelaide = bad move. Picking Doherty = bad move. Not picking Hauritz = bad move. 4 quicks at Melbourne = bad move. Steve Smith = bad move. Original 17 man squad = bad move. Michael Beer = bad move. Clarke as captain = bad move. Not much support for Hildrith and the boys.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Day Four At Adelaide
Background: England had a 309 lead and were still going strong after three days.
How did it start: No declaration - Pietersen and Bell told to score quick runs.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: Lost a few wickets. But not actually a bad day for Australia
Where did it all go right for Australia?: Chipped away at England's lead, and could still set England some sort of target.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Kept batting, probably unnecessarily. And there's a bit of rain about...
Where did it all go right for England?: They're still in a hugely massively commanding position after four days.
Who won each session?: Morning - In the context of the game Australia (England batted too long and Aus didn't lose any wickets). Afternoon - Evens. Ditto Evening.
Who won the day?: Erm, in the balance. England still way ahead in the game though.
Crumb of comfort?: Rain for any real length of time saves Australia
Shot of the day: Prior's sweep from a good few yards outside off stump off Siddle.
Ball of the day: Swann's ball to Ponting. Doosra?
Man of the day: Michael Clarke batted well. He'll be absolutely gutted to get out final ball of the day. And he was.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: Various player fan sites popping up on Twitter. To help restore some sort of sanity, GraemeSwannFans has been created by yours truly. Follow and enjoy!
How did it start: No declaration - Pietersen and Bell told to score quick runs.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: Lost a few wickets. But not actually a bad day for Australia
Where did it all go right for Australia?: Chipped away at England's lead, and could still set England some sort of target.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Kept batting, probably unnecessarily. And there's a bit of rain about...
Where did it all go right for England?: They're still in a hugely massively commanding position after four days.
Who won each session?: Morning - In the context of the game Australia (England batted too long and Aus didn't lose any wickets). Afternoon - Evens. Ditto Evening.
Who won the day?: Erm, in the balance. England still way ahead in the game though.
Crumb of comfort?: Rain for any real length of time saves Australia
Shot of the day: Prior's sweep from a good few yards outside off stump off Siddle.
Ball of the day: Swann's ball to Ponting. Doosra?
Man of the day: Michael Clarke batted well. He'll be absolutely gutted to get out final ball of the day. And he was.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: Various player fan sites popping up on Twitter. To help restore some sort of sanity, GraemeSwannFans has been created by yours truly. Follow and enjoy!
Friday, 26 November 2010
Day Two At Brisbane
Background: England got 260 (below par) - the Aussies got fired up and Siddle took a hattrick.
How did it start: With Watson and Katich batting for Australia - and England not really looking like taking many wickets.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: With a few players looking not great - Michael Clarke and Marcus North especially.
Where did it all go right for Australia?: A good opening partnership, and a good final partnership of the day between Hussey and Haddin. Hussey's apparent return to form will be a big plus.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't look all too threatening in the morning and evening sessions which allowed Australia to put on some big partnerships.
Where did it all go right for England?: A brilliant hour at the start of the afternoon session got England right back into the game. Anderson and Finn's bowling especially will give them confidence.
Who won each session?: Morning - Australia. Afternoon - England. Evening - Australia.
Who won the day?: Probably England - got right back into this game. Would have wanted a couple of wickets in the evening - but Australia probably still in pole position in this game.
Crumb of comfort?: England's bowling attack will take great heart for the hour at the start of the afternoon where Australia couldn't score any runs, and wickets looked likely every delivery.
Shot of the day: Hussey's lofted six over mid on off Swann signalled intent, and a return to form for Mr Cricket
Ball of the day: Swann's to North - a great display of off-spin bowling to a left hander. Honourable mention to Jimmy Anderson's ball that got rid of Watson.
Man of the day: Mike Hussey. A great innings under pressure when his side needed it.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: For a man of 6 foot 8 with notably rubbish balance, Steve Finn's diving catch to dismiss Katich, as well as another diving stop off his own bowling was remarkable "hands for a big man".
How did it start: With Watson and Katich batting for Australia - and England not really looking like taking many wickets.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: With a few players looking not great - Michael Clarke and Marcus North especially.
Where did it all go right for Australia?: A good opening partnership, and a good final partnership of the day between Hussey and Haddin. Hussey's apparent return to form will be a big plus.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't look all too threatening in the morning and evening sessions which allowed Australia to put on some big partnerships.
Where did it all go right for England?: A brilliant hour at the start of the afternoon session got England right back into the game. Anderson and Finn's bowling especially will give them confidence.
Who won each session?: Morning - Australia. Afternoon - England. Evening - Australia.
Who won the day?: Probably England - got right back into this game. Would have wanted a couple of wickets in the evening - but Australia probably still in pole position in this game.
Crumb of comfort?: England's bowling attack will take great heart for the hour at the start of the afternoon where Australia couldn't score any runs, and wickets looked likely every delivery.
Shot of the day: Hussey's lofted six over mid on off Swann signalled intent, and a return to form for Mr Cricket
Ball of the day: Swann's to North - a great display of off-spin bowling to a left hander. Honourable mention to Jimmy Anderson's ball that got rid of Watson.
Man of the day: Mike Hussey. A great innings under pressure when his side needed it.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: For a man of 6 foot 8 with notably rubbish balance, Steve Finn's diving catch to dismiss Katich, as well as another diving stop off his own bowling was remarkable "hands for a big man".
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Podcast - Ashes: Brisbane Preview
Download the Short Midwicket Podcast on iTunes
Cor blimey - it's the Ashes! A preview of the Brisbane test filled with pure excitement. And with the start of the Ashes comes the start of the Fantasy Ashes (email in to shortmidwicketpodcast@hotmail.co.uk to get involved). Aaaaaargh I'm excited!
Cor blimey - it's the Ashes! A preview of the Brisbane test filled with pure excitement. And with the start of the Ashes comes the start of the Fantasy Ashes (email in to shortmidwicketpodcast@hotmail.co.uk to get involved). Aaaaaargh I'm excited!
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
The Wisden Five
Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year have been published. An annual honour of the highest degree; being named as one of the Wisden Five is the pinnacle of a cricketer's career, and is awarded to those who have made the biggest impact on the previous English cricketing summer. This year, Graeme Swann, Stuart Broad, Matt Prior, Graham Onions and Michael Clarke have been chosen. Clarke and Swann aside, it's difficult to argue for their inclusion.
Over the English summer, England played the West Indies, the World T20, and the Ashes against Australia (as well as ODIs against both of the touring nations). Graham Onions made his international debut against the West Indies. Yes, he took five wickets on debut (a fine achievement), but this was against a very disinterested West Indian side, who were upset that they were not still playing in the IPL. Onions did not feature in the ODI series, or the World T20, or indeed the opening Ashes test. When he did come in, for tests 2, 3 and 4, Onions bowled well (when the ball was swinging), but you couldn't argue that his bowling won any games for England. His Australian counterparts Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Johnson all outbowled him, and would have been better candidates for inclusion in the list.
Stuart Broad did take an Ashes winning 5 for at the Oval, and should be applauded. But we shouldn't forget the first four tests, where he looked as threatening to batsmen as a bumble-bee; it could sting you but it probably won't, and is easily swatted away. His inability to bowl remotely dangerous balls made him very much the scapegoat of the England attack, and there were large calls for him to be dropped ahead of the 5th test. Arguably, his batting outperformed his bowling, but a Wisden Cricketer of the Year should not be made due to batting exploits at number 8. Again, the fifth test aside, Broad was outbowled by Hilfenhaus and Siddle. But Broad did make the impact of winning England the Ashes, so my argument against him is basically me being very awkward.
The inclusion of Matt Prior is an interesting one. It can't be denied that Prior's keeping has improved, but the words "polishing" and "turd" do come to mind. If we are to judge Prior as a specialist number 6, he was outscored by Marcus North, and if we are to judge him as a wicket keeper - batsman, he was outplayed by Brad Haddin. Prior didn't even make the World T20 squad; and was rubbish in the one dayers, so he clearly didn't make that much of an impact on the English summer.
The announcement of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year are always going to create debate, seen most clearly when Claire Taylor was on the list last year. It's hard to argue with Swann (who was England's best player over 2009), and Clarke, who Strauss aside was the player of the Ashes. However, while England did defy the odds to win, Prior and Onions were only supplementary players to the victory, and statistically, there should have been more Australians on the list than Englishmen. However, Wisden's rules state that a player cannot win the award twice, meaning it would have been impossible for Strauss, Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison and Collingwood to be on the list. And Onions, Broad and Prior were the only players left. Well, they weren't going to pick Ravi Bopara.
Over the English summer, England played the West Indies, the World T20, and the Ashes against Australia (as well as ODIs against both of the touring nations). Graham Onions made his international debut against the West Indies. Yes, he took five wickets on debut (a fine achievement), but this was against a very disinterested West Indian side, who were upset that they were not still playing in the IPL. Onions did not feature in the ODI series, or the World T20, or indeed the opening Ashes test. When he did come in, for tests 2, 3 and 4, Onions bowled well (when the ball was swinging), but you couldn't argue that his bowling won any games for England. His Australian counterparts Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Johnson all outbowled him, and would have been better candidates for inclusion in the list.
Stuart Broad did take an Ashes winning 5 for at the Oval, and should be applauded. But we shouldn't forget the first four tests, where he looked as threatening to batsmen as a bumble-bee; it could sting you but it probably won't, and is easily swatted away. His inability to bowl remotely dangerous balls made him very much the scapegoat of the England attack, and there were large calls for him to be dropped ahead of the 5th test. Arguably, his batting outperformed his bowling, but a Wisden Cricketer of the Year should not be made due to batting exploits at number 8. Again, the fifth test aside, Broad was outbowled by Hilfenhaus and Siddle. But Broad did make the impact of winning England the Ashes, so my argument against him is basically me being very awkward.
The inclusion of Matt Prior is an interesting one. It can't be denied that Prior's keeping has improved, but the words "polishing" and "turd" do come to mind. If we are to judge Prior as a specialist number 6, he was outscored by Marcus North, and if we are to judge him as a wicket keeper - batsman, he was outplayed by Brad Haddin. Prior didn't even make the World T20 squad; and was rubbish in the one dayers, so he clearly didn't make that much of an impact on the English summer.
The announcement of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year are always going to create debate, seen most clearly when Claire Taylor was on the list last year. It's hard to argue with Swann (who was England's best player over 2009), and Clarke, who Strauss aside was the player of the Ashes. However, while England did defy the odds to win, Prior and Onions were only supplementary players to the victory, and statistically, there should have been more Australians on the list than Englishmen. However, Wisden's rules state that a player cannot win the award twice, meaning it would have been impossible for Strauss, Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison and Collingwood to be on the list. And Onions, Broad and Prior were the only players left. Well, they weren't going to pick Ravi Bopara.
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Oh, it's the IPL...
It's difficult to write the obligatory IPL blog (or IPL3 as this year's event will be hereforth known) as quite honestly I am not excited about it. I have been weighing up the pros and cons of staying up until 3am to watch the start of the Bangladesh-England test, but have payed no attention to the hype surrounding the start of the IPL. To be quite honest, I don't even know who's playing. Or any of the star players for any of the teams. It's not that I am against the IPL, it is just that I don't really care.
I know that this must be sacreligious for an internet cricket blog to not pick a pro or anti-IPL viewpoint. All of the Indian blogs are no doubt detailing each team, player, and security guard; whilst many English, Australian and South African blogs are ridiculing the cheerleaders, glitter and Lalit Modi. However, I am not going to be doing that either.
I sat down (well, lay down) to write this blog grudgingly, knowing it would have to be saying something about the IPL. Despite the many interesting things currently happening in world cricket; England touring Bangladesh, Zimbabwe touring the West Indies, Australia touring New Zealand, the PCB shooting themselves in the place where their foot used to be, Michael Clarke looking for nude photos of his girlfriend; the IPL starts tomorrow, and should take centre stage. Because Lalit Modi said so. But why should it? Just because loads of Indian businessmen I've never heard of and some woman who used to be in Big Brother have thrown loads of money at something, doesn't make it particularly interesting or enjoyable. Ultimately, the IPL is an Indian domestic competition, just like the KFC Big Bash or the MTN40 (I had to look that one up). And as such, I am treating it with the same apathy as any overseas domestic competition.
It's not that I wouldn't enjoy it if I watched it. Last year, whilst incapacitated with illness (possibly ebola, probably swine flu) I actually watched the events from South Africa. And for the most part, they were fairly interesting. I was watching as Flintoff got injured, and I was watching as Pietersen got injured. I also watched as Paul Collingwood and Owais Shah sat on the bench throughout. And then the English players went home and I stopped watching (I was better by then). I only really showed interest in the games involving players I had interest in, and no disrespect to your Roelof van der Merwes, but there were plenty of players who I didn't care about. My reason for not paying attention to the IPL is simple: there is nothing really drawing me in. Just like watching a game of French league football - it could be a perfectly fine game full of well paid players showing good skills, but if there are no players I know I won't watch it. Which is ultimately why I won't be watching this years IPL.
While I will no doubt succumb and flick through a few highlights on ITV4, the IPL lacks something to succesfully maintain my interest, and I'm guessing, the interest of the world at large (outside India). Over the next five days, the only cricket I'll be watching will be Bangladesh v England.
OK, probably the next three days...
I know that this must be sacreligious for an internet cricket blog to not pick a pro or anti-IPL viewpoint. All of the Indian blogs are no doubt detailing each team, player, and security guard; whilst many English, Australian and South African blogs are ridiculing the cheerleaders, glitter and Lalit Modi. However, I am not going to be doing that either.
I sat down (well, lay down) to write this blog grudgingly, knowing it would have to be saying something about the IPL. Despite the many interesting things currently happening in world cricket; England touring Bangladesh, Zimbabwe touring the West Indies, Australia touring New Zealand, the PCB shooting themselves in the place where their foot used to be, Michael Clarke looking for nude photos of his girlfriend; the IPL starts tomorrow, and should take centre stage. Because Lalit Modi said so. But why should it? Just because loads of Indian businessmen I've never heard of and some woman who used to be in Big Brother have thrown loads of money at something, doesn't make it particularly interesting or enjoyable. Ultimately, the IPL is an Indian domestic competition, just like the KFC Big Bash or the MTN40 (I had to look that one up). And as such, I am treating it with the same apathy as any overseas domestic competition.
It's not that I wouldn't enjoy it if I watched it. Last year, whilst incapacitated with illness (possibly ebola, probably swine flu) I actually watched the events from South Africa. And for the most part, they were fairly interesting. I was watching as Flintoff got injured, and I was watching as Pietersen got injured. I also watched as Paul Collingwood and Owais Shah sat on the bench throughout. And then the English players went home and I stopped watching (I was better by then). I only really showed interest in the games involving players I had interest in, and no disrespect to your Roelof van der Merwes, but there were plenty of players who I didn't care about. My reason for not paying attention to the IPL is simple: there is nothing really drawing me in. Just like watching a game of French league football - it could be a perfectly fine game full of well paid players showing good skills, but if there are no players I know I won't watch it. Which is ultimately why I won't be watching this years IPL.
While I will no doubt succumb and flick through a few highlights on ITV4, the IPL lacks something to succesfully maintain my interest, and I'm guessing, the interest of the world at large (outside India). Over the next five days, the only cricket I'll be watching will be Bangladesh v England.
OK, probably the next three days...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)