Today saw 39 year old Adam Gilchris make a fabulous 100 for the Kings XI Punjab from just 53 balls. That's a pretty special effort by anyone, but a lot of attention has been put on his age, as he is now one of the elder statesmen of the IPL.
Since retiring from international cricket, when he realised his body wasn't up to long days in the field any more, Gilchrist has freelanced as a T20 player, plying his trade for Deccan, Middlesex, and now Punjab. This week we've also seen one of Gilchrist's former international team-mates Shane Warne step away from the IPL at the age of 41, despite not appearing to have lost any of the guile that made him the best spinner in the history of the game.
A lot has been made about Gilchrist's innings, mainly because of his age. "You never lose it" has been the gist of the consensus from those in the know. There has been some thought that Gilchrist, like Warne, will retire from cricket following this year's IPL, but I honestly don't see why he would need to.
Retiring from test matches and longer one day games is an obvious decision for players. It can be a long day in the field, with a lot of overs needed to be bowled for the bowlers, and a lot of time stood around for those who don't. Aching bodies and creaking joints mean that there is a much more clearly defined shelf-life for players in those formats - around 34/5 for bowlers, and 37/8 for batsmen. But for T20, the age limit need not be the case. It's only an hour and fifteen before the aging fielders can put their feet up, and only 24 deliveries (max) for the veteran bowlers. In this era of massages and ice baths, even the oldest players can be nursed into relative health before the next match, meaning the best players can stretch their careers to way beyond the end of their test or ODI ones finish.
It's fairly well agreed that Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne are among the greatest cricketers to ever play the game, and that cricketing genius does not fade. Gilchrist's heroics today underline that. So if players like Gilchrist, Warne or Muralitheran were able to keep themselves fit and healthy through the T20 "off-season", why shouldn't they be thought of for international T20 matches? We've seen a move towards 'specialist' T20 players such as Shaun Tait or Michael Lumb being introduced for the one-off games, so why not the legends? Their bodies can handle it, and they evidently still have the skill. In fact, they would be far more valuable than their younger counterparts, as they would have vast amounts of experience to help the team out in pressure situations.
It's only a thought, and while it may not ever happen, Australian fans, answer me this. At next year's World T20, who would you rather see bowl? Xavier Doherty or Shane Warne
Showing posts with label Xavier Doherty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Xavier Doherty. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
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, 29 November 2010
What We've Learned From Brisbane
What have we learned?: That England can bat. When it suits them. Australia's bowling attack isn't up to much. And the pitch at the Gabba was a dog.
What have Australia learned about their team?: That the bowling attack isn't good enough. Doherty is not a test standard spinner, and Mitchell Johnson had a shocker.
Where do Australia go from here?: Probably dropping Johnson and Doherty, and going for a four man pace attack (with Watson), and North / Clarke / Katich to add spin.
Is this a good idea?: Not really. Despite having one of the worst tests ever, Mitchell Johnson is Australia's best bowler (even if he didn't show it at the Gabba). He will come good.
What have England learned about their team?: That they made the right selection.
Where do England go from here?: No need to go anywhere. Team is settled, no need to disrupt it.
Is this a good idea?: Yes. If it ain't broke...
Who won each day?:
Day 1 - Australia.
Day 2 - Draw.
Day 3 - Australia.
Day 4 - England
Day 5 - England
Was the result fair?: Yes. The slow death of the pitch meant that a result was never really going to happen. And both teams had spells where they dominated, before being clawed back, so a draw was fair.
Man of the match: Alastair Cook - gritty in the first innings, expansive and brilliant second up.
Honourable mentions: Peter Siddle for 6 and a hattrick. Mike Hussey for an equally good 195. Props to Haddin. Strauss and Trott for handy tons. Steve Finn for plugging away to take 6. And don't forget Ian Bell's plucky 76 on Day 1.
Who has the all-important Ashes Momentum?: The way England fought their way back in Days 4 and 5 was massive, and could really play a part in Aussie mindset throughout the series. Advantage England.
Enjoy the 1st Ashes Test? Relive it with the Short Midwicket!
Ashes Daily Blogs
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Podcasts
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
What have Australia learned about their team?: That the bowling attack isn't good enough. Doherty is not a test standard spinner, and Mitchell Johnson had a shocker.
Where do Australia go from here?: Probably dropping Johnson and Doherty, and going for a four man pace attack (with Watson), and North / Clarke / Katich to add spin.
Is this a good idea?: Not really. Despite having one of the worst tests ever, Mitchell Johnson is Australia's best bowler (even if he didn't show it at the Gabba). He will come good.
What have England learned about their team?: That they made the right selection.
Where do England go from here?: No need to go anywhere. Team is settled, no need to disrupt it.
Is this a good idea?: Yes. If it ain't broke...
Who won each day?:
Day 1 - Australia.
Day 2 - Draw.
Day 3 - Australia.
Day 4 - England
Day 5 - England
Was the result fair?: Yes. The slow death of the pitch meant that a result was never really going to happen. And both teams had spells where they dominated, before being clawed back, so a draw was fair.
Man of the match: Alastair Cook - gritty in the first innings, expansive and brilliant second up.
Honourable mentions: Peter Siddle for 6 and a hattrick. Mike Hussey for an equally good 195. Props to Haddin. Strauss and Trott for handy tons. Steve Finn for plugging away to take 6. And don't forget Ian Bell's plucky 76 on Day 1.
Who has the all-important Ashes Momentum?: The way England fought their way back in Days 4 and 5 was massive, and could really play a part in Aussie mindset throughout the series. Advantage England.
Enjoy the 1st Ashes Test? Relive it with the Short Midwicket!
Ashes Daily Blogs
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Podcasts
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Day One at Brisbane
Background: Great preparation for England, winning loads of warm ups with a settled and happy side. Not so much for Australia, who only decided on their team the day before, and come into this test on the back of 3 test defeats in a row.
How did it start: With a bit of a ceremony. The teams lined up for a minutes silence for the NZ Miners, and then we had a "Welcome To Australia" speech. Everyone sang along to the national anthems (curiously except Hilfenhaus - German?) and we got underway. Strauss won the toss and had a bat.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: Allowing Cook and Bell to get on top of them during the second session. And a sort-of costly drop of Cook from Doherty early
Where did it all go right for Australia?: Peter Siddle's hat trick. That, and constant wickets throughout, restricted England to a below par 260
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Strauss getting a third ball duck didn't help, neither did losing three in three later on.
Where did it all go right for England?: The form of Ian Bell looks superb; only giving his wicket away at the end when batting with the tail. Pietersen looks in a good place with his game, and signs of improvement from Cook.
Who won each session?: Morning - honours even. Just about. But probably shaded by Australia. Afternoon - same again. But maybe England with two set batsmen felt happier. Evening - Australia. 6 wickets for not many runs, and getting through the last few overs unscathed.
Who won the day?: Australia. Big time. Restricted England to a below par score, and have already started to chip away at it.
Crumb of comfort?: A few of England's top order looked in good nick, with Bell and Cook passing fifty, and Pietersen looking likely to go on (before he got out of course).
Shot of the day: Jimmy Anderson's reverse sweep off Doherty for 4. (Before he tried the same shot again and missed it)
Ball of the day: Peter Siddle's ball to Prior (the second part of the hat trick). Bowled him middle stump; Prior was nowhere near it.
Man of the day: Peter Siddle. How could it be anyone else?
And finally... Ashes Oddity: The "Welcome To Australia" bloke's tie. That, and the sheer amount of moustaches on show. I know it's Movember and all, but that was ridiculous.
How did it start: With a bit of a ceremony. The teams lined up for a minutes silence for the NZ Miners, and then we had a "Welcome To Australia" speech. Everyone sang along to the national anthems (curiously except Hilfenhaus - German?) and we got underway. Strauss won the toss and had a bat.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: Allowing Cook and Bell to get on top of them during the second session. And a sort-of costly drop of Cook from Doherty early
Where did it all go right for Australia?: Peter Siddle's hat trick. That, and constant wickets throughout, restricted England to a below par 260
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Strauss getting a third ball duck didn't help, neither did losing three in three later on.
Where did it all go right for England?: The form of Ian Bell looks superb; only giving his wicket away at the end when batting with the tail. Pietersen looks in a good place with his game, and signs of improvement from Cook.
Who won each session?: Morning - honours even. Just about. But probably shaded by Australia. Afternoon - same again. But maybe England with two set batsmen felt happier. Evening - Australia. 6 wickets for not many runs, and getting through the last few overs unscathed.
Who won the day?: Australia. Big time. Restricted England to a below par score, and have already started to chip away at it.
Crumb of comfort?: A few of England's top order looked in good nick, with Bell and Cook passing fifty, and Pietersen looking likely to go on (before he got out of course).
Shot of the day: Jimmy Anderson's reverse sweep off Doherty for 4. (Before he tried the same shot again and missed it)
Ball of the day: Peter Siddle's ball to Prior (the second part of the hat trick). Bowled him middle stump; Prior was nowhere near it.
Man of the day: Peter Siddle. How could it be anyone else?
And finally... Ashes Oddity: The "Welcome To Australia" bloke's tie. That, and the sheer amount of moustaches on show. I know it's Movember and all, but that was ridiculous.
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!
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Podcast - Sprinkling Towards The Ashes
Download the Short Midwicket Podcast on iTunes
Australia have named their 13 man squad for the First Test; and there's no Nathan Hauritz. England have warmed up against an Aussie A side, and have danced their way to victory. And it was runs ahoy in the subcontinent, as Chris Gayle and Brendon McCullum filled their boots.
Don't forget to keep your computer switched on because during the Ashes I'm going daily! Starting on Wednesday, there will be a daily dose of all things Short Midwicket. Emails to shortmidwicket@hotmail.co.uk, tweets to @shortmidwicket, and keep reading the blogs at theshortmidwicket.blogspot.com
Sprinkle on!
Australia have named their 13 man squad for the First Test; and there's no Nathan Hauritz. England have warmed up against an Aussie A side, and have danced their way to victory. And it was runs ahoy in the subcontinent, as Chris Gayle and Brendon McCullum filled their boots.
Don't forget to keep your computer switched on because during the Ashes I'm going daily! Starting on Wednesday, there will be a daily dose of all things Short Midwicket. Emails to shortmidwicket@hotmail.co.uk, tweets to @shortmidwicket, and keep reading the blogs at theshortmidwicket.blogspot.com
Sprinkle on!
Xavier Doherty. Not Nathan Hauritz.
So cricket's worst kept secret has been confirmed. Nathan Hauritz has been dropped. Seemingly for Xavier (Ex-aviour? Zav-ee-yay?) Doherty (Dock-erty? Dough-erty?), a man who has been somewhat plucked from obscurity to become the new big thing.
Only he isn't. He's hardly forced his way into the side via sheer virtue of wickets. 84 FC wickets at 48 in ten years is hardly forcing your way into a side. I've never seen Doherty bowl, so my view on him is based solely on averages. And in FC cricket, it hardly strikes fear into Strauss, Pietersen et al.
Nathan Hauritz, despite his doe eyes and naive grin has been castigated for the past however long for not being good enough. While Paul Harris has shown there is a place for crap spin in world cricket, the "Hauritz Out" bandwagon has rapidly picked up speed. However, the main reason Ritz didn't get the boot he deserved was because there was nobody there to spin instead of him. Krejza and McGain got their chance and fumbled their lines, and Steve Smith is a batsman who can turn it a bit (when he can be bothered). While there were a few cabs on the rank, there weren't any obviously better then Hauritz, so Ritzy stayed.
Doherty probably isn't much better than Hauritz, but public opinion over Hauritz meant the NSP felt they had to get rid. Doherty was the lucky man who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Forget Hilditch claiming that Doherty's been picked to "trouble England's right handed middle order"; after losing three consecutive tests, somebody had to be the sacrificial lamb. And it was Hauritz. And as such, somebody had to come in as the saviour. And a man in a bit of form is Xavier Doherty.
So does Doherty's selection (and Hauritz's omission) improve Australia? Probably not. If it was based purely on ability, Ritz would have kept his place, as he has test experience, as well as Ashes experience. Doherty does not. The main thing he has going for him is that he is not Nathan Hauritz. That, and the fact he's a left arm spinner playing against Kevin Pietersen.
Only he isn't. He's hardly forced his way into the side via sheer virtue of wickets. 84 FC wickets at 48 in ten years is hardly forcing your way into a side. I've never seen Doherty bowl, so my view on him is based solely on averages. And in FC cricket, it hardly strikes fear into Strauss, Pietersen et al.
Nathan Hauritz, despite his doe eyes and naive grin has been castigated for the past however long for not being good enough. While Paul Harris has shown there is a place for crap spin in world cricket, the "Hauritz Out" bandwagon has rapidly picked up speed. However, the main reason Ritz didn't get the boot he deserved was because there was nobody there to spin instead of him. Krejza and McGain got their chance and fumbled their lines, and Steve Smith is a batsman who can turn it a bit (when he can be bothered). While there were a few cabs on the rank, there weren't any obviously better then Hauritz, so Ritzy stayed.
Doherty probably isn't much better than Hauritz, but public opinion over Hauritz meant the NSP felt they had to get rid. Doherty was the lucky man who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Forget Hilditch claiming that Doherty's been picked to "trouble England's right handed middle order"; after losing three consecutive tests, somebody had to be the sacrificial lamb. And it was Hauritz. And as such, somebody had to come in as the saviour. And a man in a bit of form is Xavier Doherty.
So does Doherty's selection (and Hauritz's omission) improve Australia? Probably not. If it was based purely on ability, Ritz would have kept his place, as he has test experience, as well as Ashes experience. Doherty does not. The main thing he has going for him is that he is not Nathan Hauritz. That, and the fact he's a left arm spinner playing against Kevin Pietersen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)