http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/ en Copyright 2012 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:12:23 +0000 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Saving up for a mad dash in the final overs isn't always recommended on Australian grounds © AFP
I'm no mathematician. Messrs Duckworth & Lewis clearly have brains vastly superior to mine. Until yesterday, I have largely agreed with their complex system of making a rain-affected target a fair outcome for both teams. Looking at it from a pure layman's perspective though, I cannot understand how India's target the other night at the MCG remained unchanged. Someone, educate me....please. When the rain came, Australia were struggling at 2 for 35 off 11 overs. India had already benefited from their skill at this point of the game, taking two key wickets at roughly 3 runs-per-over. Australia then batted superbly to score at almost 9 an over, losing only three more wickets in the process. I would have thought (clearly mistakenly) that the brilliance of their post-rain innings would have resulted in a target that was more than the 216 they eventually posted. India had already taken two wickets, so by getting rid of David Warner and Ricky Ponting, they had effectively reduced Australia's firepower. Sadly for them, and great credit to Matthew Wade and the Hussey brothers, Australia were able to recover from this poor start and stage an impressive comeback. Where was the reward for that great recovery? From a commonsense viewpoint, it seemed to me that India would need to have chased at least 10-15 runs more to compensate for the fact that they knew all along that it was only 32 overs. They could afford to play shots from the very outset because they didn't have to try to bat 50 overs, which is what Warner and Ponting thought they were doing at the start, hence the cautious approach (and some fine bowling from the Kumar duo). In the end it didn't matter because India were realistically never in the hunt after they lost early wickets. It was the sort of chase that needed a Virender Sehwag or Yuvraj Singh presence. MS Dhoni may have been able to score at that pace but on a big Australian ground, it was always going to be tough to hit sixes at will. I was surprised at Dhoni's reticence to go for the big shot, I must confess. I know he favours the approach of getting within striking distance and then trying to win it in a mad dash but I don't think that works in Australia. The boundaries are too big and you generally won't get too many overs of spin bowled at you at the death. Pakistan batsmen love this approach and they're pretty good at it too but I think Dhoni is making a serious miscalculation by letting the run rate drift too high before launching his assault. He doesn't have the lower-order support to be able to do that over an extended target. Perth might be one of the few grounds where you can hit sixes straight down the ground and score at 10 an over at the end of a game. Homebush in Sydney, where the first Twenty20 game was played last Wednesday has similar potential for a late flourish. But if India keep choosing to chase runs and adopt a strategy of waiting for the last five overs before they go ballistic, I don't think that strategy will work in this country. Even if Duckworth-Lewis doesn't hurt them in the way I expected it to on Sunday night. Looking forward to your thoughts on whether Duckworth-Lewis got it right on this occasion. ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/02/someone_please_explain_the_dl.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/02/someone_please_explain_the_dl.php Michael Jeh Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:12:23 +0000 Brad Hogg: happy to be on the field than off it © Getty Images
That really is the question, isn’t it? Serena Williams recently went on record saying that she dislikes tennis and would much rather shop. The irony is that tennis has made her close to $35 million in prize money, which in Sri Lanka would provide for a large portion of the national health budget. Once you get over the fact that some professionals probably don’t enjoy the fame, the stardom, the money, the glamour, the paparazzi, and realise that with all that comes the pressure, the constant travelling, being away from loved ones, high-profile failure, media attention and disproportionate dislike from some segments of the population, you begin to realise you’re really better off at your desk. Serena also went on to say she “doesn’t like working out” and also doesn’t really fancy any sort of physical activity. That said, she doesn’t have such a bad record for a couch potato. She is also not alone in taking a large chomp at the digits that provide her sustenance. Andre Agassi, one of the few men to win all four grand slams (five, if you count Steffi Graf), said in his book: “I hate tennis, hate it with a dark and secret passion, and always have.” Imagine what he may have achieved if he actually liked what he did? Trolling through ESPNcricinfo’s excellent Quote Unquote section, I stumbled across a contrary view from the irrepressible Brad Hogg. “There are people out there digging holes for a living and we're actually playing cricket. So stop whingeing,” he is reported to have told Melbourne Stars coach Greg Shipperd, who criticised the scheduling of the Big Bash League. Despite Williams' and Agassi’s admitted dislike of their sport, they are clearly the more celebrated superstars than the ever-smiling Bradley Hogg. Rightly so, one may argue, because they are both champions many times over, while Hogg is "merely" a good bowling allrounder. Isn’t that the problem, though? Some of those international sportspeople we don’t look at twice may just be the ones we should be looking at. We love the entertainers, the ostensibly successful, on a superficial level. Hogg will always remain etched in my memory as the perennial competitor. Bowling, as he does, in chinaman style, with that unwavering wide grin on his face, he played the international game in the spirit in which all sport should be played. I remember the incident vividly from several years ago, when Hogg chased a ball to the boundary, slid in to scoop it back, and went into the boundary wall feet first. His technique was impeccable, except that his left foot didn’t land squarely on the wall. As he sliding into the wall, at full pelt, with the camera behind him, we saw replays of Hogg’s ankle turning 180 degrees and the sole of his foot pointing towards the back of his head. The replays confirmed that it was a pretty horrific injury. In real time however, despite suffering that break, Hogg saved the boundary, got up, limp-sprinted back to the ball, got it into his keeper before collapsing in pain. Even he couldn’t bowl that day though. In an era where we see players who are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a week, falling over in the European Football Leagues and writhing in pain when replays confirm that they were barely touched by opposing players, it is unfortunate that we don’t venerate the tenacity of players like Hogg. Of course, there are others like him – but they are in the minority. Recently the Sri Lankan cricket team’s travails, both on and off the field, were well-documented. South African players said they were surprised the team was playing without being paid. In that regard the Sri Lankans deserve a pat on the back. On the flip side however, the delay was with respect to central contractual payments. Match fees and per diems were being paid on time. And a single match fee for, say, an ODI, is worth close to about five middle management executives' monthly wages in corporate Colombo. It’s hardly like the Lankan team were functioning amid the opprobrium of poverty. So does anybody really like their job? And for us cheering from the sidelines, does cricket mean more than it actually should? Hogg’s perspective certainly seems rational. You don’t get miners complaining of having to work an extra shift, because they generally could do with the pay. Cricketers complaining of “too much cricket” really need to take a long hard look at themselves lest they appear as distasteful as Serena and Andre. Yes, there is a lot of cricket being played. But the last I heard, none of it was being played for free. Also, given that one half of the game – on average - is spent (unless you’re AB de Villiers) in the dressing room with your feet up, it hardly seems the most physically demanding of sports. In a relative sense, cricket has got to be one of the least physically demanding of sports. The recent South Africa v Sri Lanka series coverage sported the “Player Tracker”, which analyses how much sprinting, jogging or walking a player does. For the fast bowlers this would go occasionally up to nearly a kilometre of sprinting over a session. Compare that with a football midfielder, who runs close to 15 kilometres, almost non-stop, over 90 minutes. Cricket’s superstars need to do more to enhance their status as role models. Proactively. Merely not getting caught with your pants down is not enough. Especially in South Asia, where it has far fewer sports to compete with, cricket can be a primary tool in shaping social attitudes. In Australia, England, South Africa and New Zealand, rugby, football and several other sports share the limelight with cricket. Asia’s sporting ambassadors have little or no competition, and like Spiderman before them, they must discharge their great power with great responsibility. Sachin Tendulkar, regardless of his place on batting’s Mt Olympus, has conducted himself exemplarily in this regard. But do we have enough Sachins? Has Sachin too, apart from being the face of everything, from eggs to car batteries, done enough to promote the sporting values that we should seek to cultivate? Individually his work rate and dedication would suggest he has. It is not his sole responsibility, though. It is also time that we as fans ask ourselves what we expect from the objects of our adoration. Mindless entertainment as a result of their lovelessly honed skill, or role models that we can proudly valourise for our children. ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/02/to_play_or_not_to_play.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/02/to_play_or_not_to_play.php Shanaka Amarasinghe Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:48:52 +0000 George's Bailey's impish smile and twinkling eyes convey a sense of irreverence that befits the shortest form of the game © Getty Images
Some things are meant to be. Some leaders are born that way. The first time I met George Bailey, I had this premonition that he would one day captain Australia. And so it has come to pass. Bailey will break a long tradition in Australian cricket, captaining his country on international debut. Apart from in the very first Test that Australia played in the late 19th century, has there has never been another cricketer who has made his international debut as skipper? Lee Germon captained in his first Test for New Zealand, but he had played an ODI before that. Naturally, any country playing their first ever international match, or their first match after a hiatus, will have a captain making his debut, but for an established team, can anyone think of another debutant skipper? To George Bailey then - what do we know of him? Decent cricketer of course, not in the best form of his life but that can soon change in Twenty20 cricket; an excellent fielder (who isn't these days amongst Australian batsmen?) and clearly rated as an astute tactician. Many cricketers could lay claim to these qualities of course so George has no absolute monopoly in this regard. What struck me when I first met him as a young man attending the Centre of Excellence in Brisbane were his standout leadership qualities. I had never seen him hit a cricket ball at this point but something about the easy manners and friendly nature of this young man just stood out. Decent cricketer? Well, clearly he was at the Centre of Excellence so that much was assumed, but it was the decency of his character that really shone through within the first few minutes of making his acquaintance. ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/george_bailey_charm_and_larrik.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/george_bailey_charm_and_larrik.php Michael Jeh Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:58:55 +0000 If it was the First World War, England's batsmen would have been lined up against the wall for gormlessness © Getty Images
As Senna the Soothsayer used to say in Up Pompeii, “Woe, woe, and thrice woe!” Except that she was usually wrong, whereas it is the only sensible reaction to England's dismal performance in the first Test against Pakistan, in Dubai. The bowlers have little to be ashamed of: on a pitch of that quality, keeping Pakistan to under 350 was a pretty decent showing, and most of them showed at least some fight with the bat. But the batsmen! In the first innings, Matt Prior showed what could be done by someone prepared to be watchful and play with care – which doesn't mean no boundary-hitting, just that you only attempt the biggish shot when it is properly on and there aren't fielders where you want to put the ball. Jonathan Trott in the second innings looked to have the right idea but was not able to keep it going. Those glimpses apart, the top seven can be glad this is not the British Army in the First World War, or they would have been lined up against a wall today and shot for gormlessness in the face of the enemy. Granted, Umar Gul and Saeed Ajmal are very good bowlers, but there is little need to help them out by wrapping your wicket in fancy paper, tying a ribbon round it and presenting it to them in a gesture of wild generosity.]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/can_england_really_be_that_bad.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/can_england_really_be_that_bad.php Mike Holmans Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:16:24 +0000 Australia won the Galle Test inside four days, yet the pitch was slammed © AFP
Let's get a few things straight before I make my point; unequivocally, Australia has clearly been the better team these last few weeks. In all aspects of the game, they have batted, bowled and fielded with superior skill. Michael Clarke has captained astutely, the coaching staff has prepared them superbly, they've handled the conditions much better than India and the selectors have also made the right calls. No excuses - just damn good cricket on all fronts. Unlike most other sports, tennis and golf notwithstanding, one of the great charms about cricket is that it is played on surfaces that require different skills to master. The great players and teams have been able to succeed on whatever pitches they had to play on, even if they sometimes lost a crucial toss and had to cope with a green first-day seamer, a crumbling turner on days 4 & 5, a pitch that developed huge cracks or one that started to shoot through at ankle height. I don't subscribe to the view that there is necessarily such a thing as a "bad pitch" (so long as it is not dangerous). Both teams get to choose their final XI's before the game begins, they have a 50-50 chance of winning the toss and they have to then adapt, even thrive, in those conditions. It's the same for both teams. This notion that there's something nasty and sinister about a "home" pitch is just rubbish. The home team is perfectly entitled to prepare a pitch that suits their agenda and it is up to the opposition to choose a suitable XI to combat those conditions. If they don't have the skills to adapt to those alien pitch characteristics, that's nobody else's fault but their own. That's the beauty of international cricket where we get to see a wide range of skills in vastly differing circumstances. What I do think is laughable is this notion that only pitches that are hard and fast and true are "good" pitches. Who decided on that benchmark? I love watching the ball flying through throat height at the WACA, I love watching the medium pacers nipping it about at Headingley and I love a dusty turner in Mumbai. Watching any of the great players score runs on these pitches gives us mere mortals a glimpse of the versatility of their techniques and of their mental powers. ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/stop_blaming_bad_pitches_for_d.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/stop_blaming_bad_pitches_for_d.php Michael Jeh Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:29:30 +0000 Kohli was quite Australian after winning the U-19 World Cup in 2008 © AFP
Recently Virat Kohli was fined for showing his middle finger to the Sydney Hill crowd in response to insults, that Kohli described as the “worst he’s ever heard”. Which brings us to the reference points Kohli probably has, and the cultural dichotomies in a cricketing world that is held together purely and exclusively by its appreciation of the game. History tells us that Kohli is not averse to a bit of good old swearing himself. When but a wee lad, and captain of the U-19 World Cup-winning side some years ago, he came under justified criticism for the hostility of his celebration – one that would have made Captain Haddock blush in its choice of language. Judging by his general demeanour on the field, Kohli looks an intense bloke who can handle himself. But appearances can be misleading. The U-19 victory celebration showed that, for anthropological reasons that we cannot go into here, the release of tension and emotion generally manifests itself in fairly offensive language. Kohli, in taking offence and reacting to the Sydney crowd, seems to be holding them to a higher standard than he holds himself. Aussie crowds are passionate about their sports. They have also been passionate about hating the enemy, and aren’t shy about making that fact known. These are presumably qualities that Kohli shares. So does he have the right to react as he does? Perhaps. Perhaps not. While discussing the whole hand gesture and subsequent fine, a Sri Lankan friend who had spent a lot of his life in Perth disclosed the abuse he took from the crowds at the WACA. He revealed that he and his family had been asked to maybe repatriate to their ancestral homeland - in not so polite a fashion. A discerning cricket fan who had grown up in Western Australia and had been disciplined during his schooldays by Tom Moody’s father (who happened to be his principal at school), he remarked how distressed he was by the fear of imminent physical violence. This sort of abuse is not on, and it is no surprise that evictions of spectators from Australian grounds are commonplace. But this wasn’t exactly Kohli’s experience was it? He was never in any real physical danger, and his lot was not any better or worse than that of any opposition fielder on an Australian boundary line. The fact, though, is that in South Asia, slights against mothers and/or sisters are viewed in a very dim light. This is what riled Kohli. It is the same sort of cultural difference that led to the unsavoury scenes between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds in 2008. Legend has it that Harbajhan called Symonds a monkey, which can be construed as among the worst racial slurs to aim at someone of Symonds’ lineage. The subsequent negotiations - sorry, investigations - led to the conclusion that Harbhajan had, in fact, used a Hindi phrase that sounds like “monkey” instead. The fact that this word was closer in meaning to what the crowd may have insinuated to Kohli, didn’t seem to matter, because it was not racist. Funnily enough, in Sri Lanka (I can’t speak for other countries), calling someone a monkey is almost a term of endearment or affection. Therein lies the rub. The cultural divide between cultures in the way English is spoken, understood and assimilated will always make cricket, on occasion, a volcano. At other times, though, it is a melting pot – without, I would argue, the need to be sanitised. What is needed is a little education. Asia does not carry the same sort of historical racial baggage that England, Australia or South Africa do. Similarly, the cultural mores and references of Asia are alien to straight-talking, no-nonsense non-Asians. If we all stopped being so uptight about it all and enjoyed the diversity, though, things might become far more interesting and inclusive. A case in point is congenital Western inability to grasp the Asian bob of the head. You know the one. The one that says “yes”, “no” and “maybe” in one economical swivel. It drives tourists bananas (oops, there’s the monkey theme again). Native English speakers in the cricketing world are used to a nod for a “yes”, or a horizontal shake of the head for “no”. This in-between bobbing does nothing but infuriate them, hilariously. And Asian teams will continue to infuriate with their niggle and cheekiness, and non-Asian teams will continue to be dominant and unwittingly offensive for no fault of either party. It’s what makes cricket fun. ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/to_whom_is_it_an_insult_anyway.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/to_whom_is_it_an_insult_anyway.php Shanaka Amarasinghe Shanaka Amarasinghe Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:41:12 +0000 He bats, he bowls, he catches ... and he does it all with proficiency © Getty Images
As someone who loves just about everything about South Africa, whenever the conversation turns to anything remotely resembling Africa, I'm all ears. I love the bushveld, the people who forge uncompromising and hard lives in that terrain and the attitude of the modern South Africans who have afforded me understated warmth and friendship. My experiences of its rainbow people make me far from a neutral in writing this article – let me state upfront that I'm one of South Africa's most vocal tourist ambassadors. So, loyalties declared, here's my thesis: is Jacques Kallis the King? This piece was prompted by a conversation I had last night with some of my best mates, Australians all of them, skilled cricketers who have played at a very high level and not usually prone to handing out accolades lightly. It all started with the predictable conversation about whether the great Indian batsmen of the current era were past their prime or not, and it then morphed into equally predictable comparisons between Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Rahul Dravid and Jacques Kallis. Being knowledgeable cricketers themselves, this debate, pleasantly interrupted by the peeling of giant prawns, was an intelligent and mature discussion, free from the usual jingoistic limitations that can sometimes spoil these moments. All the great batsmen mentioned above are exactly that – no real argument as to their calibre. We added Kumar Sangakkara to that list, along with honourable mentions for the likes of Matthew Hayden, Mahela Jayawardene, Steve Waugh, Kevin Petersen and numerous others who are clearly fine players but just out of that exclusive bracket mentioned in the previous paragraph. When we tried to actually pick our most valuable player from among those batsmen, I was delighted to hear a strong consensus pushing for Kallis as the greatest of them all.]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/is_kallis_the_greatest_of_them.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/is_kallis_the_greatest_of_them.php Michael Jeh Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:50:04 +0000 Chris Tremlett has acquired an aura of genuine menace © Getty Images
Tim Bresnan's injury is a big problem for England in only one respect: they lose their mascot. Every Test in which Bresnan has played has been an England victory, so whatever talismanic luck he brings will be gone. It's also fair to say that none of his potential replacements offers as much with the bat, but England bat pretty deep even without him. From the two warm-up games – and how pleasant it is to see England carrying on with playing properly competitive games of cricket in the lead-up, Duncan Fletcher's 14-a-side two-day net affairs being properly consigned to the dustbin – we know that Steven Finn is the fastest, Chris Tremlett the awkward-bounciest, Graham Onions the swingingest and Monty Panesar the spinningest of the candidates and that they are all in pretty good nick. So it's going to be down to the captain and coach to decide what they want, and that will presumably depend a bit on what the pitch looks like. In the absence of detailed acquaintance with the surface, I shall plump for Tremlett. I am very well aware that there are strong cases for Finn and Panesar, but I think Onions is a couple of yards behind them in the queue.]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/tremlett_because_hes_scary.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/tremlett_because_hes_scary.php Mike Holmans Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:17:13 +0000 Plain silly © AFP
Watched Luke Wright bat in a Twenty20 game for Melbourne Stars yesterday. Watched Luke Wright score a very good hundred. Watched Luke Wright kiss his Melbourne Stars helmet. Thought "how ridiculous", switched the telly off and watched an African safari documentary instead. Watched an impala escape a lion's clutches and waited for celebration. Nothing happened. Impala went back to feeding. Watching my two young sons, six and eight years old, playing cricket in the backyard and taking 'classic catches' in the swimming pool this morning. Mental note: must have quiet words to them about watching too much TV and excess celebration after every achievement. They hyper-celebrate every wicket, every catch and every boundary with actions that exactly mimic what they see from the big boys. Can't be having that in this household! My earliest memories of on-field celebrations date back to the West Indies teams of the early 1980s when their high-fiving style set new standards in 'cool'. They did it with nonchalance and a certain calypso panache that just oozed with the sort of reggae rhythm that fitted in so perfectly with the way guys like Joel Garner, Michael Holding and Viv Richards moved. The high-five is now part of every cricket celebration at any level, even in backyard cricket, testament no doubt to the powerful legacy of cool that those West Indians left behind them. It has even found its way into other sports and into mainstream life where any achievement is heralded with the obligatory high-five. In an ironic way, it has devalued the gesture at the same time as it has elevated it to the ultimate compliment to those West Indians giants who were actually so smooth, so cool, so arrogant almost, without even trying too hard. It just seemed to come so naturally to them.]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/going_over_the_top.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/going_over_the_top.php Michael Jeh Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:37:13 +0000 Andrew Strauss may have to rest James Anderson or Stuart Broad for a game in the UAE © AFP
It looks like I picked the wrong time to come back to Test cricket. I took a break from keeping a detailed eye on it, and a whole rash of close and exciting Tests broke out. Now that I'm back in cricket-obsessed mode, though, we have two Tests going on where the excitement, such as it is, lies in personal milestones: as I write, neither Sri Lanka nor India stand an earthly chance of winning their games and it's merely a question of whether they can stave off defeat. There is some talk of the visitors being at a great disadvantage because of the unfamiliar conditions, but in India's case it just won't wash: Virender Sehwag, Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, and VVS Laxman have been to Australia often enough before. Sri Lanka have somewhat more excuse, but they have already won a match in the series, so they haven't failed dismally. Of course, one reason I'm not very sympathetic is that this is going to be the year of unfamiliar conditions for England. ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/bring_on_pakistan.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2012/01/bring_on_pakistan.php Mike Holmans Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:49:42 +0000 This year has been the gestation period for Test cricket's rebirth © Getty Images
Apparently the end of the world is signalled by the rise of two suns. Now this hasn’t happened yet, but a year with two World Cups in it comes uncomfortably close for my liking: 2011 saw the cricket World Cup played in March, and the rugby World Cup in September – so perhaps the end of the world as we know it, is nigh? Hopefully not, though, for there are plenty of stars rising on the Test cricket horizon to herald not an end but a new beginning for the original format of the game. This year also saw two subcontinental cricketers of substance making their voices heard. Kumar Sangakkara, indisputably Sri Lanka’s greatest Test batsman, and Rahul Dravid, arguably India’s equivalent, called with passion for the revitalisation of Test cricket. Their plea may or may not have fallen on deaf ears as far as the game’s administration is concerned. The long-awaited Test Championship seems to be a non-starter, and the traditional powerhouses seem to be dictating who plays whom, where and when. Sri Lanka have long been requesting more tours to England, South Africa and Australasia, and when those opportunities are provided, perhaps, Test cricket will be a more equal-opportunity genre. However, until the ICC wakes from its short-format slumber, Dravid’s and Sangakkara’s peers have taken it upon themselves to raise the profile of Test cricket. It may be that the cricketers have been influenced by the astrological shifts taking place unbeknownst to us. The sages have led us to believe that 2012 will usher us into the Age of Aquarius. A more enlightened, spiritual, philanthropic age (i.e. Test cricket), freeing us from the shackles of the Age of Pisces, which is marked by organisational structures pursued and protected through violent means (i.e. the birth of T20 cricket). So perhaps the end of the world in 2012 is not really the end of the world, merely the end of the world as we know it. Dravid, during his Bradman oration, lamented the fact that he was playing Test cricket, and sometimes even ODI cricket, to sparse houses in India. With the following it has in the subcontinent, it seems inexplicable that Eden Gardens should not be packed to capacity every time India plays. But that, Dravid evidences, is the state of things as they are. There can be no doubt, assuming that Sangakkara and Dravid speak for a majority of their colleagues, that Test cricket is the preferred format for players themselves. It is what they consider the toughest test. Test matches are a cricketer’s Wimbledon. ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/a_new_dawn_for_test_cricket.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/a_new_dawn_for_test_cricket.php Shanaka Amarasinghe Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:25:31 +0000 Everyone, including Hussey, knew the rules of engagement before that match started © AFP
Here we go again - another Border Gavaskar Trophy on the line and it starts to get "tasty" after just one day. The Internet era merely serves to heighten the tensions because unlike the old-fashioned 'Letters to the Editor' which were usually written with more eloquence and vetted by editors, online blogs are much more raw and unfettered in both passion and vitriol. It's a classic Beauty and the Beast situation where we get to see what people are really thinking, protected by anonymity and distance, unhindered by rules about grammar and spelling, unafraid to vent opinions that range from sincere passion to patriotic fervour gone mad. I've seen some of that already this morning with reference to the DRS controversy. Some of it has been entertaining and illuminative whilst some of it has been just plain idiotic. That's the world wide web for you. From what I've read this morning, it seems to me that some bloggers have just lost their sense of balance and perspective, blinded by their bias for or against the two countries involved. Here's my attempt to bring some common-sense and logic back to the debate, arguing from a neutral position of indifference as to who wins but with a strong desire to see the Indian and Australians fans not rip each other to pieces with emotive arguments that go beyond mere cricketing matters. Many incidents over the last few years have unnecessarily damaged relations between us, starting with the infamous Sydney Test when Harbajhan Singh and Andrew Symonds clashed and extending off the field to more serious incidents involving student bashings and loose talk on both sides of the Indian Ocean. Let's start with the silly comments being bandied regarding the DRS not being used because it allows the Indians to cheat. It's not the ICC who are necessarily to blame, neither are the Indian cricketers themselves culpable. It was a decision agreed to at board level. Regardless of whether the BCCI has too much power or not, a topic for another debate altogether, the cricketers themselves are simply playing by the rules that were agreed before the series began. It's not like the Indian players suddenly introduced the playing condition when Michael Hussey walked out to bat. Everyone, including Hussey, knew the rules of engagement before that match started. Umpires make mistakes. That happens. Disappointed as Hussey may have been, surely he is not suggesting that he has never benefited from similar decisions going in his favour, either as individual or as a team. The accidental fact that it was a first-ball duck when his career is on the line shouldn't change anything. I'm not even sure if Hussey is complaining too much, apart from that initial show of frustration for which a man of his calibre and disciplinary record can surely be forgiven. It's the irrational fools with short memories who are quick to start labelling the opposition players as cheats who are the real cheats in my opinion.]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/umpiring_errors_are_part_of_th.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/umpiring_errors_are_part_of_th.php Michael Jeh Tue, 27 Dec 2011 07:22:31 +0000 If a pure performance-based system came into operation, players could become selfish and honest mistakes could harbour lingering resentment © Getty Images
Lost amid the hype of the launch of the Big bash League has been a much more interesting and significant event in Australian cricket – the suggestion that Cricket Australia might move to a more performance-based contract system. This will be a radical move for a system that has long been rooted in the notion of the aura surrounding the baggy green cap (substitute canary yellow for ODI's). The suggestion is reckoned to have its genesis in the Argus Report but I fear that if taken too far, it will fail to have the sort of effect that similar strategies may have in the corporate arena that Don Argus is familiar with. To a certain extent, the performance-based system is already in place anyway. A 25-man contract list that is refreshed each year is clearly based on the most highly rated players, though with an eye to the future more than a reflection of the past. If it was based purely on performance rather than potential, there can be no reasonable explanation why Brad Hodge hasn't been in this list for the last few years; his limited-overs form has been nothing short of brilliant in recent times. So clearly the performance-based system that is currently in place is a forward-looking exercise, mindful no doubt of past form but not tied exclusively to such easily measurable statistics like runs and wickets. Just ask Simon Katich. Actually, don't ask Katich – he might speak his mind and that's a breach of corporate protocol apparently. Hell hath no fury like an opening batsman scorned and all that jazz …]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/how_do_you_judge_a_cricketer_b.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/how_do_you_judge_a_cricketer_b.php Michael Jeh Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:35:23 +0000 To expect the fans to follow artificially created franchises (not teams) and engender the sort of tribal passion that characterises AFL and Rugby League is a serious error of judgement © Getty Images
Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and state my predictions upfront. Right or wrong, at least I won't be accused of pretending to be wise after the event. This post is bound to alienate as many people as it resonates with, so let's just hope we can engage in a civilised dialogue and light-hearted banter. After all, this article is about Twenty20 cricket, so what could be less serious than that? There we go – first shot fired! I know for a fact that I'm not the only person out there who thinks that the Big Bash League will end up being a flop. Many knowledgeable cricket folk I have spoken to share that view for a number of different reasons. So for the record, let me articulate why I think it is a doomed experiment, regardless of how long the experiment will be persevered with, through sheer bloody-mindedness if nothing else. Edwin Land, the inventor of Polaroid and a man who probably knew a thing or two about developing quick copies, had this to say about the sort of process that led to the birth of the BBL in some think-tank, possibly at an executive retreat on a beach on a tropical island: "it's not that we need new ideas but we need to stop having old ideas". Firstly, unlike the IPL (which I still think has a limited shelf life but at least enjoys 'first mover advantage'), the BBL is a cheap copy of a product (the IPL) that operates in a cricket-mad market and attracts the very best players in the world. Australia just doesn't have the sheer numbers who will continue to watch BBL games ad nauseaum. The IPL has proved that it doesn't require significant external interest in the event. Domestic consumption alone is enough to feed the beast, although I'm not quite sure how long it will take before that menu too will start to look a bit tired. But that's another debate altogether. From our perspective here in Australia, domestic interest in the event will wane as soon as the initial novelty wears off. Quality products stand the test of time. You can't throw enough money at a cheap imitation to keep it afloat, regardless of how many bells, whistles and Hollywood starlets you throw at it.]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/why_the_bbl_will_flop.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/why_the_bbl_will_flop.php Michael Jeh Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:27:57 +0000 If this Test had been played in New Zealand, with the same viewer voting system in place, no prizes for guessing who would have won the award © AFP
The great Man-of-the-Match debate after the Hobart Test … my first reaction when I watched it live was a bit of surprise. I would probably have gone for Doug Bracewell but could see why the judges chose David Warner. Once it dawned on me that it was a viewer-driven poll, though, I was less sanguine about the decision. "How stupid," I thought. Of course it was only ever going to go one way if that was the way it was decided. My next thought was, "Honestly, who really cares?" Clearly, I'm in the minority. Clearly, lots of people do care. So let's look at both sides of the argument then. This MOM award thing is such a fine line. Especially in such a close game. If this Test had been played in New Zealand, with the same viewer voting system in place, no prizes for guessing who would have won that award. Even if Warner had got Australia over the line, Bracewell may have won the vote. I don't think Australians are the only folk who would have voted for their own man in a tight call. Let's look at it another way; in Hobart, if Warner hadn't taken that last single, exposing Nathan Lyon to the strike and smashed two boundaries instead (if anyone in world cricket is capable of doing that, surely Warner would be close to the top of that list), would that have changed everything? It would have meant that Australia would have won the match, Warner would have scored a few more runs and Bracewell would have taken five wickets instead of six in a losing cause. So, would eight extra runs have changed our opinion on the whole matter? What if it wasn't Warner who hit those extra eight runs? What if Lyon had snicked a couple of boundaries or even played one of those delightful Mark Waugh-esque flicks through midwicket? Would that have made us less critical of the popularity contest verdict? ]]> http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/who_cares_about_the_manofthema.php http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/diffstrokes/archives/2011/12/who_cares_about_the_manofthema.php Michael Jeh Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:51:49 +0000