After watching Day 1 of the Boxing Day Test Match (well, the afternoon session, at least), I saw a couple of howlers that Australia would have reviewed, and (more than likely) would have been successful. Mike Hussey would have had a chance to actually have a crack at a first innings, and Ed Cowan would have had a chance to continue his innings. But, the DRS isn't available in this series. Because the Indians don't like it.
This is a problem that is going to continue for as long as the cricketing nations allow India to pull this kind of stunt. India know that they can continue to do this because they know that the ICC is will back them. And, if the other sides don't like it, too bad, right?
Well, no.
I think the time has come for the countries that like, and want to use, the DRS to make a stand. Make it a part of the conditions of play for series that they are a part of. Want to play a Test Series here in Australia? Sign our conditions of play (which include a DRS), or don't bother coming. There are 8 other Test nations that would love to come out here and compete against Australia. Want us to come and play in your country, but refuse to use the DRS? Sorry, not interested, we'll take our team to one of the countries that use the DRS.
If you think that this isn't fair, it's exactly what India is doing to the other sides at the moment. The technology is there, the other side would love to use it, but India won't be a part of it. So, let's invert the situation. If India wants to play, let them play with the conditions that we want. Or not play at all. It'll still be their choice, but the consequences will be rather different.
Monday 26 December 2011
Tuesday 20 December 2011
BBL and Franchises
I've been reading a lot of blogs and articles lately about cricket, and the popular consensus is that people won't follow franchises - people want to follow teams. One of the arguments as to why the BBL is "destined" to fail here in Australia is because the franchise teams are artificial - they have players from all over the country and all over the world playing for city franchises.
I find this argument to be rubbish. Plenty of sporting teams around the world are city-based teams. Just because it hasn't been done in Australia before, doesn't make it a bad thing. Wait - it has been done in Australia before, just not in cricket. Off the top of my head, I think that most sporting teams around the world are city-based. Some of the biggest sporting competitions around the globe have this format.
As for the players from all over the country and world side of things, that's also rubbish. Australian cricket currently has players playing for State sides that don't come from that State - they moved to the new team to further their cricket opportunities. In the past decades Australia has also had players from around the world playing in the competitions that it has had.
I think the real problem is that the people that are making these comments are the Old Guard - those that don't like T20 cricket, that don't like change, and that hope that the competition fails. Personally, I'll wait until the end of the season to see what happens...
I find this argument to be rubbish. Plenty of sporting teams around the world are city-based teams. Just because it hasn't been done in Australia before, doesn't make it a bad thing. Wait - it has been done in Australia before, just not in cricket. Off the top of my head, I think that most sporting teams around the world are city-based. Some of the biggest sporting competitions around the globe have this format.
As for the players from all over the country and world side of things, that's also rubbish. Australian cricket currently has players playing for State sides that don't come from that State - they moved to the new team to further their cricket opportunities. In the past decades Australia has also had players from around the world playing in the competitions that it has had.
I think the real problem is that the people that are making these comments are the Old Guard - those that don't like T20 cricket, that don't like change, and that hope that the competition fails. Personally, I'll wait until the end of the season to see what happens...
Wednesday 15 June 2011
Why I picked the Australian XI
My Australian XI, I believe, is the best from the current 25 Cricket Australia contracted players. Below is a quick explanation of why I picked these players, and their role in the team.
1 MEK Hussey - Mike Hussey spent most of his domestic career as an opening batsman. It was only when he joined the Australian side that he had to bat down the order to get a game at a time when Australia had an established opening partnership. I suspect that the reason that he was kept out of the side for so long was simply because he was an opening bastman, and that Australia didn't think they needed another one, despite his brilliant form and technique. I think Hussey would do a fine job back at the top of the order, and would be an excellent foil for Watson, and continue the Australian tradition of a strong pair at the top. He will also buy Australia a couple of years whilst another opener steps up, and if one does so sooner, rather than later, he can always resume a position in the middle order.
2 SR Watson - Shane Watson has proven over the last few years that he is more than qualified to open the batting for Australia, and I see no need to change something that is working. Added to the fact that he is also quite a useful all-rounder, I can see the possibility in the future for Watson to move down the order if other opening batsmen do enter the scene (something that Watson has admitted that he wouldn't mind doing), which might allow him to bowl a few more overs for Australia.
3 UT Khawaja - Usman Khawaja is definitely a player of the future, and a very good number 3 batsman. I believe that given his recent form, and his desire to become a better player (as suggested by his recent County Cricket stint - where he went to get more exposure to the game and English conditions), he deserves a spot in the side, and given Ponting's recent form, I believe that Khawaja deserves the number 3 spot.
4 RT Ponting - Ricky Ponting's form of late has been lacking. It may just be a slump that he will bat his way out of, or a permanent loss of ability - only time will tell. Batting him at number 4 will give this still-valuable batsman more of a chance against an older ball, I believe, and will hopefully allow him a better chance to regain form and confidence.
5 MJ Clarke - Michael Clarke is also a little out of form, but that is nothing that a quality player can't turn around. Batting at 5 in the order still gives Clarke a chance to make an impact on the game, and to have a steadying role. Given that his strike rate has dropped off of late, allowing him to take his time to cement the middle order might be a good thing.
6 DJ Hussey - David Hussey has a fantastic average in first-class cricket, and is quite useful with the ball as an extra spinning option. Since he has been given a CA contract, and so far Australia's desire to find a stable number 6 batsman has failed, I think David Hussey should be given the opportunity here. His maturity and experience will be a valuable asset.
7 TD Paine - Tim Paine is a useful batsman, a good keeper, and Australia would do well to have him in the Test side. They have already ear-marked him as a future leader of the team, and it only seems fitting to put him into the mix with the experienced cricketing minds that the current Australian squad have.
8 MG Johnson - Mitchell Johnson is the bowler with the most experience in the Australian line-up, and his batting ability can almost classify him as an all-rounder. His consistency at times is a worry, but given the lack of real bowling options at the moment, has to be seen as Australia's best option as an opening bowler.
9 NM Hauritz - Nathan Hauritz is probably Australia's best spinning option of all the experiments in this area. He has also, of date, proven himself to be a rather useful batsman, making a couple of first-class centuries, which can only make him more of an asset to the Australian line-up.
10 BW Hilfenhaus - Ben Hilfenhaus is a top-notch bowler that deserves to play for Australia. I think that given more experience at this level, he will turn out to be a valuable asset.
11 PM Siddle - Peter Siddle has all the makings of a fine fast bowler, and, once again, as with Hilfenhaus, needs the chance to have an extended run in the Australian side.
1 MEK Hussey - Mike Hussey spent most of his domestic career as an opening batsman. It was only when he joined the Australian side that he had to bat down the order to get a game at a time when Australia had an established opening partnership. I suspect that the reason that he was kept out of the side for so long was simply because he was an opening bastman, and that Australia didn't think they needed another one, despite his brilliant form and technique. I think Hussey would do a fine job back at the top of the order, and would be an excellent foil for Watson, and continue the Australian tradition of a strong pair at the top. He will also buy Australia a couple of years whilst another opener steps up, and if one does so sooner, rather than later, he can always resume a position in the middle order.
2 SR Watson - Shane Watson has proven over the last few years that he is more than qualified to open the batting for Australia, and I see no need to change something that is working. Added to the fact that he is also quite a useful all-rounder, I can see the possibility in the future for Watson to move down the order if other opening batsmen do enter the scene (something that Watson has admitted that he wouldn't mind doing), which might allow him to bowl a few more overs for Australia.
3 UT Khawaja - Usman Khawaja is definitely a player of the future, and a very good number 3 batsman. I believe that given his recent form, and his desire to become a better player (as suggested by his recent County Cricket stint - where he went to get more exposure to the game and English conditions), he deserves a spot in the side, and given Ponting's recent form, I believe that Khawaja deserves the number 3 spot.
4 RT Ponting - Ricky Ponting's form of late has been lacking. It may just be a slump that he will bat his way out of, or a permanent loss of ability - only time will tell. Batting him at number 4 will give this still-valuable batsman more of a chance against an older ball, I believe, and will hopefully allow him a better chance to regain form and confidence.
5 MJ Clarke - Michael Clarke is also a little out of form, but that is nothing that a quality player can't turn around. Batting at 5 in the order still gives Clarke a chance to make an impact on the game, and to have a steadying role. Given that his strike rate has dropped off of late, allowing him to take his time to cement the middle order might be a good thing.
6 DJ Hussey - David Hussey has a fantastic average in first-class cricket, and is quite useful with the ball as an extra spinning option. Since he has been given a CA contract, and so far Australia's desire to find a stable number 6 batsman has failed, I think David Hussey should be given the opportunity here. His maturity and experience will be a valuable asset.
7 TD Paine - Tim Paine is a useful batsman, a good keeper, and Australia would do well to have him in the Test side. They have already ear-marked him as a future leader of the team, and it only seems fitting to put him into the mix with the experienced cricketing minds that the current Australian squad have.
8 MG Johnson - Mitchell Johnson is the bowler with the most experience in the Australian line-up, and his batting ability can almost classify him as an all-rounder. His consistency at times is a worry, but given the lack of real bowling options at the moment, has to be seen as Australia's best option as an opening bowler.
9 NM Hauritz - Nathan Hauritz is probably Australia's best spinning option of all the experiments in this area. He has also, of date, proven himself to be a rather useful batsman, making a couple of first-class centuries, which can only make him more of an asset to the Australian line-up.
10 BW Hilfenhaus - Ben Hilfenhaus is a top-notch bowler that deserves to play for Australia. I think that given more experience at this level, he will turn out to be a valuable asset.
11 PM Siddle - Peter Siddle has all the makings of a fine fast bowler, and, once again, as with Hilfenhaus, needs the chance to have an extended run in the Australian side.
My Australian XI
After thinking about this for a while (and reading an article about Shaun Marsh sticking his hand up for selection as an opener) I thought I'd put on paper my Australian XI, based on the contracted players:
1 MEK Hussey
2 SR Watson
3 UT Khawaja
4 RT Ponting
5 MJ Clarke
6 DJ Hussey
7 TD Paine
8 MG Johnson
9 NM Hauritz
10 BW Hilfenhaus
11 PM Siddle
An explanation soon!
1 MEK Hussey
2 SR Watson
3 UT Khawaja
4 RT Ponting
5 MJ Clarke
6 DJ Hussey
7 TD Paine
8 MG Johnson
9 NM Hauritz
10 BW Hilfenhaus
11 PM Siddle
An explanation soon!
Sunday 5 June 2011
Rethinking the FTP
With talk of a Test World Cup, similar to the ODI and Twenty20 World Cups, maybe it is time to have a closer look at the Future Tours Programme (FTP) and how many games that Test teams are playing.
As it stands, there seem to be no uniform tours - each tour relies on the teams involved deciding how many Tests, ODIs and T20s that they will play. If the ICC were to set a uniform tour format, with an equal number of tours for each team, perhaps the ICC Rankings would have more meaning for all involved.
My proposal is simple - we set the number of games for each tour at three Tests, three ODIs and three T20s. The total days in playing time in this format is 21 days. If we allow five days rest between each Test and one day between each of the shorter games, this allows for 14 days rest, bringing the total days to 35. Allow an additional five days between the Test and ODIs, and a day between the ODIs and the T20s, and our tour total reaches 41 days. Finally, give the sides 10 days grace on each side of the entire tour, and the magic number becomes 61 days - about two months.
This format allows the players to have plenty of time before and after each tour (20 days), and allows teams to have six tours per year. Ideally this would be three home and three away tours. Given there are 10 Test teams (assuming that Zimbabwe are taken back into the fold), they would face each other once every 18 months, and in a three-year span would play one home and one away series against each Test nation. Of course, room needs to be made for major tournaments (the World Cups), but as a simple, starting suggestion, there seems no reason why this proposal would not work. If more Test teams enter the ranks, obviously the teams will face off against each other less frequently, but the distribution of games should still be equal.
As it stands, there seem to be no uniform tours - each tour relies on the teams involved deciding how many Tests, ODIs and T20s that they will play. If the ICC were to set a uniform tour format, with an equal number of tours for each team, perhaps the ICC Rankings would have more meaning for all involved.
My proposal is simple - we set the number of games for each tour at three Tests, three ODIs and three T20s. The total days in playing time in this format is 21 days. If we allow five days rest between each Test and one day between each of the shorter games, this allows for 14 days rest, bringing the total days to 35. Allow an additional five days between the Test and ODIs, and a day between the ODIs and the T20s, and our tour total reaches 41 days. Finally, give the sides 10 days grace on each side of the entire tour, and the magic number becomes 61 days - about two months.
This format allows the players to have plenty of time before and after each tour (20 days), and allows teams to have six tours per year. Ideally this would be three home and three away tours. Given there are 10 Test teams (assuming that Zimbabwe are taken back into the fold), they would face each other once every 18 months, and in a three-year span would play one home and one away series against each Test nation. Of course, room needs to be made for major tournaments (the World Cups), but as a simple, starting suggestion, there seems no reason why this proposal would not work. If more Test teams enter the ranks, obviously the teams will face off against each other less frequently, but the distribution of games should still be equal.
Wednesday 1 June 2011
Sanity Prevails!
After my rant the other day about the proposed changes to the Big Bash League it seems that sanity prevails.
The Powers That Be have decided to leave the BBL without the wacky changes (apart from the change to the 8 city based teams, that is), but even better they have decided to take the traditional domestic One Day competition, that last season saw it split into a two innings per side affair, and return it to its normal format. I, for one, think that this is a good decision.
If you want a pool of domestic players that you can slot into an international team, I think it is important to have the domestic game replicate the international game as closely as possible. The step up to international play is tough enough without having to negotiate differing rules and playing conditions, as well.
A win for common sense!
The Powers That Be have decided to leave the BBL without the wacky changes (apart from the change to the 8 city based teams, that is), but even better they have decided to take the traditional domestic One Day competition, that last season saw it split into a two innings per side affair, and return it to its normal format. I, for one, think that this is a good decision.
If you want a pool of domestic players that you can slot into an international team, I think it is important to have the domestic game replicate the international game as closely as possible. The step up to international play is tough enough without having to negotiate differing rules and playing conditions, as well.
A win for common sense!
Sunday 29 May 2011
BBL or BBS?
[RANT]Okay, I thought the idea of the split innings Domestic One-Day Competition was a silly idea. I really did. And (un)fortunately I was out of the country, so I didn't really get to see how it played, so I probably shouldn't slag the format off, rather than to say: If you want to develop players that can compete at the international level in a game, you should have the domestic levels of the game replicate as closely as possible the international game.
But I didn't really come here to rubbish the Australian Domestic One-Day Competition.
The Big Bash League, on the other hand...
Okay. Let's start with the fact that they have decided to scrap the 6 existing State Sides that compete in the other 2 formats of the game in Australia, and expand it to 8 city-based sides. That in and of itself wasn't the worst idea. It was a pretty bad idea, but it wasn't the worst. I could have seen it working a little better if they had decided to pick the 6 major capital cities and 2 other major cities (like, maybe, Darwin and Canberra - not state capitals, but the capitals of the territories we have here in Australia, which are pretty much states anyway). As it stands they now have to develop a new fan-base and make them care about teams and players that they still aren't sure about, get them to the games, and get ridiculous amounts of money from broadcasting rights and sponsors so they can pay the players enough money to want to attract the international and other headline players that they need in the first place to get people to care about the teams and get them to the games...
Next, they decide to hold the competition at a time when not even the Australian International players are available, and the only Internationals that might be available of from the West Indies, who may or may not be interested in playing. Between you and me, I'd be more interested in following the East Melbourne Echidnas (not an actual team name) if I knew that Mike Hussey and David Hussey were playing all the games, and that they had Martin Crowe and Viv Richards as their imports, rather than holding my breath on a diluted domestic talent pool and the possibility that there might be a WI player that is going to play.
Speaking of retired players, they then go out and try to enlist a couple of retired Australian players that have no intention of playing any more cricket at that level, or at that time of year. Unless you're willing to drive a dumptruck full of money up to their door (which I'm pretty sure they don't have), these players are going to prefer to do the thing that they retired to do - spend time with their family over the holiday period.
Then there are the proposed rules changes to, I assume, freshen up a game that is pretty much still out of its wrapping paper and doesn't really require freshening up. It's like jumping out of a nice hot shower, and applying a KFC refresher towel to your face, really.
The notion of keeping the balls hit into the crowds isn't too bad, I suppose. Sure, there are a lot of sixes hit in T20 games (I think they cited 14 as being the most hit so far in the competition), but replacing the ball seems no real drama, except they used the term "new ball". I believe they used the term twice. Now, I hope that they mean "new replacement ball", as in a reconditioned ball, not actually a brand new ball. Call me crazy, but isn't a new ball nice and hard and much easy to slog over the fence than an older ball? Then it occurred to me, that it's not only sixes that go into the crowd - it's not that uncommon for balls to bounce and go into the crowd. Are these to be thrown back, or can the fans keep these lesser keepsakes as well? If not, it's only a matter of time (probably the first game) before there is a picture of Little Johnny or Jane on the back page of the Perth Daily News (not an actual paper) crying because they caught a ball that bounced into the crowd while the Perth Possums beat the West Sydney Wombats (not actual team names), only to have to give the ball back.
The Super Over is the next proposed change. An over that doubles every run in the over scored. That seems like a whacky, fun idea, until you think about how it's going to affect the stats. But maybe it's best not to think about batting and bowling averages, and economy rates, and such. Maybe they have promised Chris Gayle the chance to beat the over that he was part of in the IPL where 37 runs were scored, or for David Warner to be able to crack the fasted T20 century (bowl a couple of no balls in the Super Over, and you could do it in an over. Take the Super Over in the first over of the first game against a guy recruited from one of the club sides to make up the numbers, and you could do it right at the start of the competition to really make the papers!). In a game where the scores are already pretty impressive, I don't see the need to make the scores even higher with a meaningless bonus over.
And then there is the 12th man as a Pinch Hitter. Didn't we already go down this road in the Domestic One Day competition a while ago? And why do we need a pinch hitter in a T20 game where everyone is trying to score as quickly as possible, anyway? Is this a plan to lure back some retired players who want to play the game, but don't want to bother with "all that fielding business"? Maybe there are some baseball players that want to have a hit, but don't want to be confused by all the rules of the game that the BBL organizers are looking to get into the squads?
I think there was some other proposed changes about fielding restrictions, and so on, and an online survey you could complete on the suggestions that I was going to mention, but I think I have run out of steam. That and the page that the survey was supposed to be on didn't work. An omen perhaps?[/RANT]
But I didn't really come here to rubbish the Australian Domestic One-Day Competition.
The Big Bash League, on the other hand...
Okay. Let's start with the fact that they have decided to scrap the 6 existing State Sides that compete in the other 2 formats of the game in Australia, and expand it to 8 city-based sides. That in and of itself wasn't the worst idea. It was a pretty bad idea, but it wasn't the worst. I could have seen it working a little better if they had decided to pick the 6 major capital cities and 2 other major cities (like, maybe, Darwin and Canberra - not state capitals, but the capitals of the territories we have here in Australia, which are pretty much states anyway). As it stands they now have to develop a new fan-base and make them care about teams and players that they still aren't sure about, get them to the games, and get ridiculous amounts of money from broadcasting rights and sponsors so they can pay the players enough money to want to attract the international and other headline players that they need in the first place to get people to care about the teams and get them to the games...
Next, they decide to hold the competition at a time when not even the Australian International players are available, and the only Internationals that might be available of from the West Indies, who may or may not be interested in playing. Between you and me, I'd be more interested in following the East Melbourne Echidnas (not an actual team name) if I knew that Mike Hussey and David Hussey were playing all the games, and that they had Martin Crowe and Viv Richards as their imports, rather than holding my breath on a diluted domestic talent pool and the possibility that there might be a WI player that is going to play.
Speaking of retired players, they then go out and try to enlist a couple of retired Australian players that have no intention of playing any more cricket at that level, or at that time of year. Unless you're willing to drive a dumptruck full of money up to their door (which I'm pretty sure they don't have), these players are going to prefer to do the thing that they retired to do - spend time with their family over the holiday period.
Then there are the proposed rules changes to, I assume, freshen up a game that is pretty much still out of its wrapping paper and doesn't really require freshening up. It's like jumping out of a nice hot shower, and applying a KFC refresher towel to your face, really.
The notion of keeping the balls hit into the crowds isn't too bad, I suppose. Sure, there are a lot of sixes hit in T20 games (I think they cited 14 as being the most hit so far in the competition), but replacing the ball seems no real drama, except they used the term "new ball". I believe they used the term twice. Now, I hope that they mean "new replacement ball", as in a reconditioned ball, not actually a brand new ball. Call me crazy, but isn't a new ball nice and hard and much easy to slog over the fence than an older ball? Then it occurred to me, that it's not only sixes that go into the crowd - it's not that uncommon for balls to bounce and go into the crowd. Are these to be thrown back, or can the fans keep these lesser keepsakes as well? If not, it's only a matter of time (probably the first game) before there is a picture of Little Johnny or Jane on the back page of the Perth Daily News (not an actual paper) crying because they caught a ball that bounced into the crowd while the Perth Possums beat the West Sydney Wombats (not actual team names), only to have to give the ball back.
The Super Over is the next proposed change. An over that doubles every run in the over scored. That seems like a whacky, fun idea, until you think about how it's going to affect the stats. But maybe it's best not to think about batting and bowling averages, and economy rates, and such. Maybe they have promised Chris Gayle the chance to beat the over that he was part of in the IPL where 37 runs were scored, or for David Warner to be able to crack the fasted T20 century (bowl a couple of no balls in the Super Over, and you could do it in an over. Take the Super Over in the first over of the first game against a guy recruited from one of the club sides to make up the numbers, and you could do it right at the start of the competition to really make the papers!). In a game where the scores are already pretty impressive, I don't see the need to make the scores even higher with a meaningless bonus over.
And then there is the 12th man as a Pinch Hitter. Didn't we already go down this road in the Domestic One Day competition a while ago? And why do we need a pinch hitter in a T20 game where everyone is trying to score as quickly as possible, anyway? Is this a plan to lure back some retired players who want to play the game, but don't want to bother with "all that fielding business"? Maybe there are some baseball players that want to have a hit, but don't want to be confused by all the rules of the game that the BBL organizers are looking to get into the squads?
I think there was some other proposed changes about fielding restrictions, and so on, and an online survey you could complete on the suggestions that I was going to mention, but I think I have run out of steam. That and the page that the survey was supposed to be on didn't work. An omen perhaps?[/RANT]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)