Boxing Day Preview

The Ashes are over for this edition, England has handed them over.  However, try telling the packed house at the MCG on Boxing Day that this is a dead rubber.  So what should the two teams look like going into this match?

The Aussies

The Aussies are unlikely to change a winning formula, unless there is an injury.  Gone is the rotation policy that might have cost Harris a game or two. As it is, he has made it through seven consecutive tests- a minor miracle- and while a little sore seems likely to be picked for an eighth.  

This is not to say that the Aussies don't have issues, particularly with the batting.  Rogers is constantly playing for his place, and Bailey is far from confirming himself as a long term test prospect.  Watson, in spite of doubling his tally of centuries this year, still looks a bit fragile at three.  However there is no one making an undeniable case to unseat any of them.  Of concern is the fact that all three are over 30 (as are Harris, Haddin, Johnson and Clarke- though their current form gives them plenty of breathing space).

At least Smith seems to be showing a bit of promise, and some substance (there is no way I would have believed I would write this a year ago).  The Aussies will be hoping that this continues, and he is joined by a few more.

So basically stick with the same team, and hope that a few of them consolidate their place.  And hope that Silk and/or one of the other batsmen in the Shield will start piling on the runs and putting pressure on them.  

England

Having unexpectedly lost the Ashes, in the face of 10-0 predictions to the contrary,  the English have several questions regarding their team.  Like the Aussies, they have a few ageing players, though none of these have the protection of form that some if the Aussies have.    

Cook: has had a couple of very average series against the Aussies so far.  However he has a lot of selection credit to use up before he gets dropped, having been perhaps the key batsman over much of the last four years.  He will be back, it is just a matter of time.  His captaincy is more of a question.  It is generally conservative, defensive and unimaginative on the field, and does not seem to have inspired his team off it.  However, only Bell has the form and standing in the team to take over at this stage.  Cook will stay for the foreseeable future.  After all he has only lost four of the 19 tests he has captained, winning 9.

Carberry:  has been fairly impressive, first at getting in, and then at finding a way to get out when set. Still early in his career, but he is over 30 already.  He will need to prove himself soon.  

Root: is also new(ish) in his career, and very new at the number three slot.  He is however, the wrong person for the job.  The Aussies tried Warner at six and quickly corrected that mistake.  So too, the English need to get Root out of three.  While he did make a reasonable 87 (until Stokes, the biggest English score for the series), he has batted so slowly that it has not really hurt the Aussies that he has survived for a while.  He is averaging 157 balls a match, but it is only costing the Aussies about 51 runs.  His strike rate is the lowest for the series apart from Tremlett and Panesar. Meanwhile, the pressure is on his partners to score, the Aussies get the English on the back foot, and the rest is history.  He seems to be the future of English batting (though if you take out his 180 at Lords when the Aussies were at their worst, he is averaging 24 in Ashes cricket), but three is not his cup of tea.  The English need to decide whether to put him in in place of Carberry, as everyone expects him to open eventually, or to have him serve his apprenticeship at 5 or 6.

KP:  Has had plenty of people calling for his head.  I can understand that.  He is extremely frustrating the way he gets out sometimes.  In many ways he is like Watson with the bat- you expect him to deliver far more often than he does.  However, unlike Watson, KP generally gets a good innings or two a series.  And those innings generally shift the match, if not the series his team's way (more often than not it is in the second test of a series).  The fact that he is quite human the rest of the time is not usually noticed because players like Cook, Trott, Bell and Prior have covered for him.  It is noticeable now mainly because the others have failed too.  He is still a very good player having a bad run.  Unless he fails in the rest of this series and the next one or two, I would keep him.  His experience and occasional brilliance is going to be required going forward.

Bell: is still the backbone of the side.  Having carried them to victory in England, he is having a far more modest series this time.  He has however still out scored every one of his teammates.  He needs to move to three unless and until Trott returns.  He has the technique and temperament to do well there.  He can also set the tone for the team- likely to be a much more positive one than Root has set so far. As it is, England are usually already in trouble by the time he gets in.   

Stokes:  shows promise, but it is early days yet.  One century does not make a test match batsman, though you have to start somewhere.  His bowling is also useful.  He can't be dropped for a while yet.  

Prior: has had a lousy series with bat and gloves.  He is really low on confidence.  He is perhaps the ripest candidate for being replaced.

Bresnan: had an average return in his first test back from injury.  The most conservative of the third seamer options on tour, and so will probably stay.  Needs to step up a notch with the bowling to fill a Siddle-like role for England.

Broad: if fit he has to play as he has shown the most fight out of all his team.  However the news was not very good a few days out.

Swann:  can't have had too many worse runs of three matches.  He has been thoroughly out bowled by Lyon, and on occasions Root.  However he brought a lot more to the team than Panesar (his likely replacement), so the Aussies will be happy about his retirement.  Panesar bowled slightly better than Swann in Adelaide, but his batting and fielding are a class below Swann's so it is a loss to the team overall.  A better choice may be Scott Borthwick, the young leg spinner added to the squad on Monday.  Not sure how well he bowls (there must be something to his being picked as a bowler), but sounds like he can bat, and he gives them a view to a longer future than Panesar.

Anderson: like Swann is struggling, but he has been struggling for longer, most of the last seven matches.  He looks like he needs a rest.  He is too good a bowler not to come back from this, unless he has all enjoyment of the game ground out of him.  Rest him for a test or two.  Let him get back on his feet again.  He is too proud to be happy about this, but then again, England are too conservative to be likely to drop him.

So I would keep Cook, KP and Bell as the experienced batsmen, with Bell moving to three.  I would probably open with Root, bringing Ballance in at five (though if you think Compton is a better medium term prospect as an opener, then keep Carberry and put Root at five so you don't have to move him again). Stokes stays at six.  Bairstow can't do any worse than Prior, so he would come in.  The bowlers would be Bresnan, Broad, Borthwick (or more likely, Panesar, or Rankin if England go for four quicks) and Finn (though Anderson will probably still be picked by the English).  Finn would be told that he has two tests to justify his place on the tour, and have instructions to bowl fast.  Rankin or Anderson would replace Broad if he is still hobbling.  In all probability: Bairstow for Prior, Panesar for Swann, the rest of the team unchanged.

Prediction:

Before Swann's retirement, I suspected that this match would be the closest yet in the series.  The English have nothing to lose, and the Aussies will have their fire dampened a little by having already won the Ashes.  However, Swann's retirement may galvanise the English (in which case my prediction holds) or it might totally shatter them, in which case Aussies all the way.  I am hoping for the former, leading to a hard fought Aussie win, unless the weather intervenes in which case a draw is likely.

Swann Dive

It must have been a while since a concerted effort to hit a top class bowler out of an attack has been this successful.  There has been an unmistakable aggression from the Aussie batsmen as they have taken on Swann.  And now three tests later, he is not only out of the attack, he is out of cricket, announcing his immediate retirement in the middle of a series.  The Aussie team will be glad to see him go.  He is the sort of player that you don't like in the opposition- he was always finding ways into the game with bat, ball or fielding.  He had that slightly cocky air that Aussie love in their players and hate in the English.  There was good reason that he was one the three English players I nominated as my least favourite of the current crop - and it wasn't that he was a bad player.  It is hard to take 255 wickets at a tick under 30 if you are not good at bowling in some way.

His retirement means that his average stays under that 30 mark (8 more runs conceded would put him over).  Thirty is that arbitrary mark between good/useful bowlers on the one hand and very good/great bowlers on the other.  For some reason history seems to treat the bowlers with an average under thirty in a class better than those whose average is just above.  Let's hope that Swann didn't retire to protect  history's view of him.  

I'm also hoping that his departure is not related to Trott's.  Not that "stress related illness" is even on the cards, but in the aftermath of Trott's departure, the English management style came in for a heap of criticism.  Swann's performance in the last few games may have been indicative of a loss of enjoyment and passion for the game. If this disappeared because of the team management style, then England have a whole lot more trouble coming their way.  

More likely is the fact that Swann always planned to retire at the end of the series and has just brought it forward for some reason (his announcement seems to read that way). His performance this series may indicate that his elbow is troubling him again- though he makes no reference to this.  It might just be that he was worded up that his performances so far meant he was surplus to requirements (being dropped) for the remaining tests, and bringing forward his retirement makes it look better for him (unless you characterise his retirement as desertion).  Besides, announcing it now gives him the option of getting home for Christmas if he wants.  Perhaps he just wanted to give his replacement a couple more matches to get used to being the English spinner as he indicates in his statement.  After all, two more matches would have made so much difference to Warne's replacements...

Big Mitch's henchmen

I made a comment in an earlier blog post that the difference between the sides was Mitchell Johnson.  In many ways I stand by that comment.  His batting in the first innings in Brisbane was a key, almost as much as his bowling in the first three innings of the series.  However he did not win the Ashes alone.  He had help.  In particular he had two henchmen that have helped him change the fortunes of Australia.

Some might nominate Michael Clarke who has scored a heap and captained really well.  However he has been the only batsman consistently scoring runs this year, so Clarke scoring runs doesn't really change the team.  Several of the other batsmen have (finally) scored runs, but most of them have been second innings runs (Warner, Watson) after the English had been beaten up by the bowlers in the first innings and the pressure was largely off.  Similar things could be said for the run glut at Perth (Smith - though his was a good innings, Watson).  However Haddin, the first of the henchmen, has come to the rescue of the team in each of the first innings of the series.  Plus he has been in very good form with the gloves.  Without him Johnson would not have had decent totals to bowl at. Even if he still blew England away, the batsmen would not have had the freedom to bat the same way as their lead would not have been as convincing.

In a similar way Johnson had help with the bowling.  Four times in the series there have been a clatter of English wickets: Brisbane first innings was 5/4 in 4 overs, and the second innings was 4/9 in 4 overs; in Adelaide's first innings it was 5/18 in 5 overs; and in the second innings in Perth it was 4/17 in 6 overs.  It is these quick bursts more than anything that sunk England's hopes this series. Most people remember the first common factor: Johnson- twelve of his 23 wickets came in these bursts.  What seems to be forgotten is that the bowler at the other end each time was Nathan Lyon.  His ten wickets this series have included 7 wickets from the batsmen, and Prior twice.  Five of these wickets plus that of Swann came during these destructive partnerships with Johnson.  Big Mitch may have scared the English, but he had help knocking them over.

Don't be fooled

The Aussies are 2-0 up, and in the box seat to regain the Ashes.  England have been pulled apart for a combined loss of 599 runs.  Given that Perth has been Mitchell Johnson's favourite ground over the years, it is not inconceivable that the urn could return to Australia in the next week.  It is not impossible, however unlikely, that 5-0 could be the score line at the end of the summer. But don't be fooled.  The gap between the teams is not as great as it looks at the moment.  It is only a few months, ago, with largely the same teams, that the English demolished Australia 3-0.  The difference then was one player: Bell.  Without his three centuries, and calming influence on the English middle order, the result could, probably would, have been different.  Overall the teams were fairly well matched apart from his influence.  Of course the weather helped, with the two matches that Australia dominated being heavily affected by rain (that England almost won one of them was more to do with Clarke declaring early because of the threat of rain than England's  efforts in the game).

This time around, in spite of the huge margins, the difference is again one player: Mitchell Johnson.  Australia may still have won in Brisbane without Mitchell, but not as comprehensively.  There is also the possibility that without Johnson, the first innings score would have been much lower, and all the pressure on the Aussies, which may have reversed the result.  Almost certainly Adelaide would not have been the same without him.  His burst of 5 for not much turned a test that was likely to be a draw into a test in which a win was possible. The psychological damage of that spell and the other bowlers did the rest.

Johnson's dominance in the first three innings of the series has made the difference between the sides look huge.  However, like Bell's dominance in England, it exaggerates the difference between the sides.  If Johnson were to return to his inconsistent past during the match in Perth, suddenly the teams don't seem so far apart.  The English batsmen will suddenly look ten time better than they have thus far, and the fact that Rogers, Watson, Smith and Bailey have not been overly convincing in the first two tests will look a lot more relevant.

The Aussies are on top, and their supporters should enjoy that, but don't be fooled: the gap between the teams is not as big as it seems right now.

Cricket Pessimist

Normally an mild optimist, cricket seems to bring out the pessimist in me.  Take this test for example: There seems to be an assumption in some sections of the media that now the Aussies posted 570, England will roll over and collapse.  It may happen, after all, Mitch got Cook early with a beauty.  And the English may still have a scar or two from the 'Gabba test.  On the other hand, the way Carberry and Root batted out the rest of the day indicates to me that the draw is at least as likely.  It is only 12 months ago a South African on debut batted for an unbelievably long time to save a match on this ground (over 11 hours across the two innings).  It would not be an entire shock to see that sort of thing happen again if these two keep batting for a while.  Add the fact that KP's one big score a series is more often in the second test than any other, and the fact that Bell has been their best batsman for the last six months, and it looks ever likelier.  Then, of course they have their own debutant in Kiwi (Stokes).  In fact, unless the Aussies get at least 7 or 8 wickets today, I'm tipping a draw (still a possibility even if they do).  Then the Aussies would have to lift in Perth and win for this draw to look like anything other than a moral victory for England.

Of course, the only thing worse than a moral victory, would be an actual win for England.  If you think I am being overly pessimistic, just look up the 2003 and 2006 Adelaide matches where the team batting first scored over 550, only to be beaten.  This is the one ground where a big lead and an early wicket is still a long way from a secure win.  It doesn't even mean we can't lose.

Beauty

Beauty

A reflection on the occasion of the Graduation Service of the Disciples of the Cross, 

Melbourne, 29 November 2013

I gazed upon the faces sat upon the stage:

Diverse they were in culture, ethnicity and age.

And yet it seemed to me, to my great surprise,

That each was deeply beautiful to my beholding eyes.

From skin a deep rich brown, to those who are quite fair,

Different shapes of nose and mouth, colours of eyes and hair,

Faces of the  young, and of the not-so-old,

Of women (and of men, if I may be so bold),

Carried in them beauty deeper than the skin,

It was as if a light shone out, a light from deep within.

And I knew that I must figure out, there was something here to know:

What was this source of beauty, whence came this glorious glow?

I looked at student, friend and colleague, face by face in turn

Hoping that the secret of this beauty I could learn.

As I looked upon each one, it was as if a prayer,

For each face was of someone for whom I'd come to  care.

'Twas love that helped me see the beauty from within

'Twas love that helped me look beyond hair and eyes and skin,

To see the real person, the way that God saw them

No longer diamonds in the rough, but a bright and sparkling gem.

Yet even as I thought these things, I realised I saw more

Every diverse face reflected one that I adore.

At that very moment it became my fervent prayer

That those who saw my face would see Jesus glowing there.

Later, on the way back home, a stranger spoke to me

Yet in this brief encounter no beauty did I see.

It is to my regret and shame, I'd learned not my lesson yet,

In spite of all I'd got that night, there was one thing still to get:

Jesus said in "the least of these" was where we encounter him

But while I talked to this poor man my eyes were oh so dim

I missed the chance to see again the wonder of God's grace

Written in the lines of care upon this strange man's face.

How many times have I not seen the face of my dear Lord

Because someone that God has loved, I've passed by and ignored.

May the love that let me see You in the faces of my friends

Burn for every person that I meet, until this lost world ends.  

Ashes Match-ups 1: A tale of two seamers

He was the best of bowlers, he was the worst of bowlers.  Actually both the Aussies and the English have a bowler like this.  And this series might depend on which one of these does better in this series.  Mitchell Johnson and Stuart Broad can both be their teams most destructive bowler on their good days.  They can also leak runs at a rapid rate on their bad days.  They are both confidence bowlers who are hard to stop when they are on a role, however they usually need an early breakthrough to lift their confidence.  The opposition supporters like giving them both heaps.  They are also handy with the bat.

Of course there are differences.  Broad has a higher natural level of confidence, which might explain why he seems to have more good days that Johnson.  Johnson can get very down on himself very quickly, which may be why his worst is worse than Broad's. However his best is better than Broad's as anyone who has seen him in full flight at the WACA can attest.  Broad has shown a more consistent level of fight than Johnson over the years.  Johnson at his best is more brutal (ask Graeme Smith).  

Overall it is hard to pick from their Ashes record.  This is Broad's 13th match against Australia, and he has 50 wickets (3.84 per match) at an average of 28.9.  Johnson is only in his 10th match and has 40 wickets as at the start of day 4 (4 wickets a match so far) at 31.82.  His higher average is offset a bit by his better strike rate (48.1 to 53.9).  Even with the bat, Johnson has 330 at 23.57 and Broad 445 at 26.17, though Johnson leads the 50s count 4 to 3.  In this match, Broad has out bowled. Johnson so far, but not by much.  Johnson has out batted Broad, but Broad has another chance.  Strangely these two match winners have virtually cancelled each other out to this point.  It is the rest of the team that has made the difference.  However, I suspect that the relative performances of these two might just decide the series.

Over excited

 

I have read some ridiculous commentary on yesterday's play.  Yes, it was the best day's play from the Aussies in around a year.  Yes, England collapsed like a post-Hussey Aussie team. Yes, it was good to see big Mitchell and Nathan Lyon do well.  But the match (let alone the series) is far from won.  England have made a habit of bad starts to series in the last couple of years (5 first innings of the series under 200 since the beginning of 2012, none over 400), and they are just as adept at recovery.  It was only a few months ago that at the end of the English first Innings the Aussies looked in a very good position.  We lost that match, and despite some good positions in later matches, the series went 3-0 against us.  Furthermore, last time we played on this ground, we took around a 220 run lead into the second innings (60 odd more than this time), and the Poms scored 1/517 in the second.  Yesterday was encouraging, but let's not get over excited.  There are 23 days left in the series, and the Aussies need to win most of them still.  It will help if yesterday's effort was not just a once off.  

The last place...

There are some things that strike me as redundant in our language.  For example, when you are having difficulty finding something, people will often tell you "it's always in the last place you look". Well of course it is!  If you keep looking for something after you have found it, there is something seriously wrong.  You may look in one place, or one hundred and one places for your misplaced keys or phone or whatever.  But generally speaking once you have found it, you stop looking.  By definition it was it he last place you looked.  For organised people, that is quite often also the first.  For me it is usually somewhere between first and fiftieth.  But I stop looking once I have found it, so it is redundant to tell me it was in the last place I looked.

And don't get me started on those who helpfully ask where it was last while you are searching...

It ain't broke

It has been interesting listening to, and reading, people complain about the micro-parties like the "Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party" (who look like pinching a spot in Victoria despite only capturing about .5% of the primary vote) getting into the Senate.  There have been calls for a reform of the voting system.  However the system is not broken.  It is just that the really small parties have found a way of exploiting people's laziness.  

In a preferential voting system, you get to decide where your votes flow.  You number all the candidates in the order you would prefer them to get in.  That way if your first preference gets eliminated, your vote goes to the next available preference (i.e. whoever is next on your list that has not yet been eliminated).  In the senate, even if your candidate gets in, a proportion of your vote flows to your next preference (a formula related to how many votes they have over the 'quota').  

However in voting for the senate, the majority of people abdicate their responsibility to the party of their choice by putting a "1" above the line rather than filling in all the boxes below the line.  This is understandable since there were 97 people on the Victorian ballot paper this year, more in NSW. However it means that the party chosen gets to direct the preferences whichever way they choose rather than whichever way the voter chooses.  Many of the small parties preferenced each other over the other parties, and some of them managed to get the medium sized parties to preference them.  So the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts got preferences from every party except the following:

Liberal/The Nationals

Australian Labor Party

The Greens

Australian Christians

Australian Democrats

Country Alliance

Secular Party

Socialist Equality Party

If you were in Victoria, and voted above the line, unless you voted for one of the above parties, your vote helped get Ricky Muir of the aforementioned party into a position where he is expected to win a senate seat.  That is how a party which got 11770 of the approximately 2.3 million votes counted so far managed to get into a position to win a seat.

It is not that the system is broken, it is just that people don't choose to use it properly.  Of course there is still the chance that the 800000 or so Victorian whose votes are yet to be counted (early voters, postal votes and below the line voters) might just edge Ricky Muir out.  Or we might have preferred him to the other options available.  

A good day, DRS and Swann

Day 2 at Old Trafford was, for the Aussies, a good day that they would have liked to be better.  For the first time in a while, the Aussies passed 500.  They managed to bat five session, and may have batted longer if they wished (after all the key 10th wicket partnership never got to bat).  Five of the eight batsmen got passed fifty.  The area that the Aussies need to improve is the fact that only one went onto a hundred.  Admittedly, both Haddin and Starc were batting well enough to get there given more time.  But then again, Rogers and Smith looked that good in the 60s too.  Clarke has now scored two of the three centuries the Aussies have managed this year.  The other was Wade's hundred against Sri Lanka.  

The bowlers did well at the end of the day, snaring a couple of wickets and almost having one or two more.  If Clarke had been able to readjust after being wrong footed, and get to Cook's edge, the day would have been even better.  However, there was a bit of luck with Bresnan's dismissal.  Cook did not let Bresnan review even though it was fairly clear he did not hit it.  

England's use of the DRS in this game has put Australia's use of it in the first two tests into perspective.

Rogers and Clarke

Clarke and Khawaja were all over the headlines after yesterday's play, but the man of the day for me was Rogers.  A highlight reel of his innings shows great shot after great shot.  More than that, I believe it was Rogers that was responsible for the good position that the Aussies were in at the end of the day.  It was his stroke play that gave them a good opening partnership (Watson only scored 19 after all).  It was he that kept the scoring going while Clarke was struggling early on, and took the pressure off his captain so that Clarke could settle in.  I have written before about the pressure on Clarke as the only performing batsman, and to have Rogers take control as he did allowed Clarke to work through the pressure.  It is just a shame that Rogers couldn't find the extra sixteen runs to get a century.

Clarke will be proud of his innings, largely because it was a fight early on, and he still made it to the hundred.  The best bit was that it was against Swann that he started to find his stride.  Swann provided plenty of balls that tempted Clarke to get his feet moving.  By the time the seamers came back, Clarke was looking good.

I guess I can't write about yesterday without commenting on the DRS and Khawaja.  It was a bad decision by the umpire.  A worse one by the 3rd umpire who could watch it over and over and still got it wrong.  I am not sure how either of them have him out.  However, for those calling for the end of the DRS, a reminder that without it, Khawaja would still have been out.  I think that the problem with DRS is more the people operating it.  On the whole they are good umpires- even if they are having a bad series.  However they are trained, and have years of experience as centre umpires.  They are not technology specialists.  They may not get the impact of the telephoto lens etc.  The other problem is that the third umpire is restricted to answering direct questions by the on field umpire, and can't suggest the sorts of issues that might be pertinent.  Enough on that for now.

One final comment.  Watson didn't go out lbw this time, but he still managed to waste a start.  I think they replaced the wrong player to get Warner back in the team.  Oh well.  Then again he might score a ton in the second innings, or take five for not much and win the match.  We can only hope.

Where to from Here? (Part 2)

In my last post, I discussed the need for stable selection in the batting.  Now it is the bowlers turn.  While they have outperformed the batsmen significantly, the selection policies around the bowlers has been poor as well.

As an example, the way that Nathan Lyon has been treated over the last six months or so has been appalling.  He has entered the last two series as Australia's leading spinner.  In India he was dropped for Maxwell, a glorified part-timer.  Yes, technically Doherty was the key spinner in the team, but the reason he was there was that they wanted Maxwell as an all-rounder.  And they did not want two off spinners, so Doherty came in as a left arm spinner, and Lyon got dumped.  Doherty is a reasonable short form bowler, but not really a test level player.  Maxwell is a batsman that bowls a bit.  The experiment failed, and Lyon returned and took nine wickets in the final match of the India series.  He was once again the number one spinner.  Except that he was dropped for the next test for an virtually unknown nineteen year old, after a third spinner, Fawad Ahmed was tipped to take his spot.

Lyon's main fault is that he will never be a Warne or McGill, nor even a Swann.  What is true is that he is a solid performer, but not a world beater.  He hasn't won Australia many matches, however a record of 79 wickets in 22 matches suggests that he is quite useful.

Where to from here? (Part 1)

In my last cricket post I suggested that the problems with Australia's batting were as much systemic as anything else.  This means that the solutions are not easy and will take time.  But what does that mean for the team right now?  What should Lehmann, and the rest of the leadership do now?

Firstly, and I can't believe I am saying this, but we need to realise that the current Ashes are not everything -after all we have a series against the world's best coming up next year.  Not that we give up.  We should fight out this series and the next.  However, we have spent the last couple years putting band aids on our problems, and taking risks especially in selection to try to pull off an amazing win.  This goes way beyond the batting, and it hasn't worked.  Now we need to take a longer term view - realising that it may cost us matches in the short term.  However, if we used the same sort of short term thinking we have in the recent past, we will need to settle in for a long time in the middle of the pack, maybe even lower.

Short of wholesale systemic change, the main area we need to change the way we work is in selection.  Our selection policy is all over the place at the moment.  Two of the eleven picked for the first test were not even in the 16 player squad.  They effectively leap frogged at least seven players to get into the team.  It is this sort of panic selection that exacerbates the problems the team is having.

In this post we will look at the selection of the batsmen, who form our biggest problem.  In the next post we will look at the bowlers, who have performed reasonably well in spite of some poor selection decisions.

I blame Hayden and Co.

The Aussie cricket team have a problem.  The problem is its batting.  That is about all that people can agree on.  Everything seems to be the reason for this problem: in separate articles, T20, the coaching structure, the selection policy and the state of Sheffield shield pitches, among others, have each been blamed for the Aussies poor batting in the past few days.  I am surprised that the GFC and global warming weren't the subject of articles -at least not that I saw.  The problem with the vast majority of these articles was that they were all looking for a single reason, and thus a silver bullet to fix it.  The trouble is that, like most real world problems, this problem is more complex than many would like.  Here we will look at some of the issues that have contributed to the problem.

Firstly, I blame Hayden and company - not that I would want to go back and change the way they played.   Matthew Hayden intimidated many a bowling attack, hitting them  to all parts of the ground.  Those that followed him often faced a battered bowling attack, and were able to score at pace.  A whole generation of cricketers grew up expecting that dominating good bowlers was the norm.  What they forget is that Hayden didn't succeed the first time he played test cricket. He went away, tightened his technique, and came back to take advantage of years of Australian domination to establish himself  as the brutaliser of bowlers he became.  He had a solid technique, a sound defence, good judgement and decent concentration, not to mention the back up of  five or six world class batsmen.  Many of the batsmen today want the domination without working on the rest.

This desire to dominate is exacerbated by T20.  It is a format that promotes big hitting.  It is also one that does not promote long innings- at best your innings lasts 20 overs.  In reality a quick fire 30 or 40 is good in this format.  An 80 at pace can win a match.  A failure is disappointing but expected given the need to throw the bat.  The problem isn't the format itself; after all Hayden and Gilchrist were champions in this format as well as Tests.  The problem is that this is now the format that many young cricketers are learning their craft and making their money.  With the Big Bucks League (BBL) players can make as much money in the T20 format as in Sheffield Shield.  The best of these can earn a huge amount in the Irresponsible Pay League (IPL).  The incentive to tighten up technique and learn to build innings is not as great.

This priority of T20 at the state level is emphasised by the way it dominates the summer.  The BBL has the prime school holiday weeks while the 50 over competition and the Shield matches are pushed to the edges of the season.  After mid-December there is no possibility to build a long innings until the end of January, or this coming summer, well into February.  I can understand that this makes the money, but what it gives in cash it robs in skill.  When players need to be learning to build a big innings, they are being encouraged to throw the bat.  After all it seemed to work for Hayden and Co.

Once they get into the test arena, the pressure to perform or face the chop is huge.  The first innings of this current series, Phil Hughes was the one who rebuilt the innings with Agar.  Agar got the headlines, but without Hughes, Agar's heroics would not have happened.  Two failures at Lord's have several commentators indicating that Hughes is batting for his place in the current tour match.  It is good to have competition for places, but there also needs to be moderation of the pressure on a batsman.  Even Clarke seems to be feeling the pressure to perform as the only established batsman in the top six.

Next time I will look at what this Aussie team needs to do two matches down in a ten match Ashes bout.

Stop the Votes

I have had an epiphany.  As a nation we have a real problem.  We are being over run, and we need to do something about it.  There are people who want control of this country and if they have it, they will impact our way of life.  If we let them, they will undermine the supposed Aussie values of a fair go and supporting the underdog.  They speak words that spread fear and even hatred.  Worse still they want us to support them with our tax dollars while they do this.  It will cost us a fortune to get rid of them, but sometimes the price is worth paying.  I will admit that technically the way they get to where they are is in fact legal, but I'm sure we can ignore that.

Of course some will point out that in their own country they are often abused and ridiculed.  Recent reports indicate that one prominent person in this group has had a missile launched at them on two separate occasions, just because of who they were.  Worse still it is children who have perpetrated this violence.  This person, having survived these attacks, was later forcibly removed from their job by the government.  However, I must point out that the bad behaviour of their fellow citizens is no excuse for us to let them ruin our country.

Others may point out that we need to remember that these people are human beings just like you and me.  However, this does not help us get rid of this menace.  We need to depersonalise them, even dehumanise them.  Perhaps we can call them by their method for getting where they are: Vote-people.  They will do anything for your vote.  On recent evidence it seems that they will trample on the poor and marginalised if it has a chance of getting them more votes.   They will exercise their power on the powerless, and protect the rich (or at least the middle class, who, on the world stage, are the rich).  They create fear where there is no need for fear, and then use it to manipulate us.

Do not let the Vote-people destroy our country: We need to stop the votes. The only reason Vote-people can put in place inhumane policies is that they believe it will help them get elected.  We need to stop the votes going towards parties and candidates that support unjust policies.  We need to stop the votes going towards people who spread fear and myths about asylum seekers.

Don't let Vote-people make Australia a country without compassion: join with me and let's try to stop the votes.   

If you want to stop the votes, here a a few suggestions:
1. Refuse to vote for a party that supports the unjust asylum seeker policies of the ALP and the Coalition.  Find a party that has humane asylum seeker policies (e.g. The Greens greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees), and vote for them.  At very least you will be denying the major parties the money they would get from your primary vote.

2. Let your local member and/or the local Labor/Liberal/National candidate know why you are voting the way you are.  While you are at it, let Tony Abbot (@TonyAbbotMHR) and Kevin Rudd (@KRuddMP) know as well.  The more voters that tell them that their policies are unacceptable the more chance they will listen.
3. Support organisations like the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (@ASRC1; asrc.org.au) or Welcome to Australia (@welcome2aussie; welcometoaustralia.org.au) or others who take up the battle, provide information and help asylum seekers.
4. Arm yourself with information from the ASRC etc, and talk about it with friends, colleagues, and anyone who will listen.  Correct the lies and misconceptions that have been put out into the public domain during this debate.
5. Share web pages, blog posts etc. which provide facts, ideas, and resources for supporting the asylum seekers.
6. Write your own, and share it.
7. Sign this petition against the current policy, and share it in social media, via email etc.
8. Share this blogpost on twitter, Facebook, and other social media and encourage others to stop the votes.

Written and authorised by Recess75 for no organisation in particular, Melbourne.*

*The above line needs to be read at 3x the speed you read the rest of the post

Lords:post mortem

What a devastating performance.  Not England's, but the Aussies.  On a ground where not that long ago, we had not lost for over 70 years we folded like a pack of cards. Not once, but twice.

It was not that England's bowling was brilliant.  It was good, but not spectacular.  Most of the time, the Aussies bowled as well or better.  Nor was it that the English batsmen were so good- they were three down for thirty or less twice in the match.  Yes Root and Bell in particular scored heavily, and some of Root's shots were pure poetry (you know, like those songs that sound really good until you listen to the words and realise that they go against everything you hold dear), but on the whole it was patient, sensible batting.  Good, not brilliant.  No the real difference in this match has been the quality of the Australian batting: abysmal.  Once again the top order failed, and even though Clarke and Khawaja steadied for a while, the overall picture was not that different to the one I painted a couple of days ago (here).  As I said yesterday, the Aussies need to learn patient, sensible batting.  Go for good, not brilliant- at this stage, I am not sure any of our top order can get near brilliant (Clarke has the ability, but not the support he needs at this stage).  Clarke and Khawaja tried, as did the tail, but overall it was a failure by the batsmen.

Having said that, it was the bowlers (and captain) that provided the first of the two key moments that turned the test match from a competition to a cake walk.  Having England nine down for a reasonable score in the first innings,  and all that elusive momentum going our way, we changed the way we bowled to the last pair. Rather than line and length and patience which had chipped away at the rest of the team, we tried to make things happen.  Swann and Broad hit out and scored a quick and reasonably sizeable partnership.  All the momentum had swung the other way.

Watson and Rogers steadied the ship though, and saw Australia to the cusp of lunch without loss.  Rogers, realising the break was almost there, tried to slow down the game.  Unfortunately, he was not successful in preventing another over.  In that over, Watson played all around the ball, reviewed the plumb lbw and the rot started.  The momentum that Swann and Broad had established was renewed and Australia never really recovered.  Siddle's three quick wickets at the end of that second day dampened it a bit, but the damage had already been done.

The worst of this defeat is that England have not played that well, and yet beat us by almost 350.  The performance that England put up would not beat South Africa.  It may even have struggled against an improving India.  But Australia's devastating performance with the bat made sure that it was more than adequate to finish us off.

In the next couple of (cricket) posts, I will outline the key problem, and what I think needs to be done to deal with it.

Well done Root

So many puns, none of which are appropriate for a blog like this.  Oh well, I will just have to congratulate Joe Root.  He batted beautifully in the parts I saw.  His timing and placement were exquisite.  Early on he batted with the patience expected of a top class batsman.  Later on he cashed in when the bowlers tired.

Please Aussies.  Pay attention.  Learn from what you saw Root do here.  It is exactly what Bell did in three of the four innings this series.  These inngs have been the difference.  They consisted of patient batting that never got entirely bogged down, punishing the loose ball and kept the scoreboard ticking over.  Most of all, they showed they could concentrate over a long period of time.

The time for the Aussies to practice is the rest of this match.  They will have to bat virtually two days to save (or really unlikely, win) this match.  What better time to try to bat the way Root and Bell have shown works.  Last time the Aussies struggled to survive two sessions.  Two days is probably beyond them.  If they manage it, it will go along way towards getting back in the series.  Particularly because the way they will have to bat to save themselves here is the way they will have to bat over the next eight tests if they are to have a fraction of a chance.

Dear Mr Rudd

An open letter to Mr. K. Rudd, PM

Dear Mr.Rudd,

I am disappointed. You once had the, admittedly dubious, honour of being my favourite politician (Barry Jones having long since retired).  You played a central role in one of the most moving moments I have ever encountered from our politicians.  Your apology to the stolen generations was and is the proudest I have ever been of one of our politicians.  As a nation, many of us were caught up in the excitement of Kevin07, and there was an air of expectation as you showed a more compassionate and caring leadership than we had experienced for some time.  Apart from the apology to the stolen generation, there was the dismantling of the Pacific Solution and a more caring approach to asylum seekers and the potential for real change in relation to climate change.  You handled the onset of the GFC quite well, if perhaps a bit generously.  Australia seemed to be going in a good direction led by a politician who had convictions and seemed to be able to act on them.

However, yesterday the only conviction on show seemed to be that a "lurch to the right" would get you votes.  Your policy announcement made me more ashamed to be an Australian than anything I can remember.  Australia's recent history with asylum seekers has been disgraceful.  The policy you announced makes it look tame.  Rather than accepting our responsibility as citizens of the world, we are going to pass our responsibility off to another country, one that an ill afford to help.  A country in which the majority of people live in extreme poverty, and we are going to expect them to carry the cost our rejection of human need.  Asylum seekers have be vilified, dehumanised and used for political purposes for too long.  This is the last straw.  Bring back the compassion.  Where is the Kevin Rudd of 2007-2008?  The conviction politician of yesteryear seems to have disappeared.  Are you such a political animal that you would reverse your position, abandoning compassion for cruelty just to keep power?

The upshot of yesterday is that I want to make it as difficult as possible for you to implement this hideous policy.  I realise that I have little power.  However I do have a vote.  Consequently I will not be voting Labor at the next election, unless the policy changes dramatically.  With the Liberal policy almost as bad, I have been forced to explore other options.  I have resisted voting Green for many years as I question some of their policies.  However I can see that even with the areas I do not agree with their platform, their policies stem from a compassion for those impacted by their policies.  Occasionally I might feel that their compassion is misdirected or that their response is not ideal, but I would rather support people who err on the side of compassion than the fear politics and dehumanisation we have seen from Labor and the Coalition in the past 10-15 years (with the brief exception of the early years of your first Prime Ministership).  So I will be supporting the local Greens candidate Adam Bandt over the other parties, and encouraging others to do so.  I will also be thinking about my senate vote to try to minimise the chance that my vote will effectively go to Labor, and maximise the chance that a minor party can work against this policy in the Senate.

I have never been very politically active.  Now I plan to be more so thanks to your latest policy.

Yours Sincerely

S. Rhys Spiller
a.k.a Recess75

Oh dear!

What can you say after a performance like that.  The Aussies fell apart Keystone cop style.  Watson started well, before failing to go on with it yet again.  Worse he was dismissed predictably with an lbw while falling across his stumps.  Worst of all he reviewed the decision, costing Australia Rogers wicket because Rogers was to hesitant to use up the last review.  Watson is fast proving that even as an opener, test cricket is more than he can handle.  Unfortunately, we don't have anyone better who is still available. 

The rest of the innings is, as they say history (or should that be misery).  Outside of the opening partnership, the best partnership of the innings was between the number 10 and 11.  The only bright spot in the day was the Aussie bowling which took 6/103 across the day.  Harris fully deserved his name on the honour boards.  His batsmen let him down.

The problem is that this is far too regular.  The 128 on day two joins  scores of 164, 131, 163, 136 and the infamous 47 in the 46 innings since Clarke officially took over as Captain.  This does not include the many times the tail has got the Aussies out of trouble, including from 9/117 just a week ago.  In fact, on 17 occasions in the past 46 innings, the first five partnerships have failed to get the Aussies to 150.  That is significantly more than one in three.  Removing the innings where we chased 19 in the fourth innings (and lost a wicket by the way), we lose an average of 4.53 wickets in reaching (or failing to reach) 150.  That is in spite of two occasions when the openers have put on 150+.  

The average for the first five wickets during Clarke's tenure is an almost acceptable 204.87, but this is hugely inflated by the series against India in Australia when Clarke, Hussey and Ponting cashed in and the top order averaged 329 (including one innings we declared at 4/659).  Without that series it drops to an average of 185.77 across 39 innings.  If we only look at the post-Hussey era, it drops to a very alarming 134.64 in 11 innings.  The first five wickets have only passed 200 twice in that time.  

To be competitive the Aussies need to find several batsmen who can bat and bat long consistently.  Otherwise the England domination of the Ashes will continue for as long as the last Aussie one.

Honours almost even

To get to the field at Lord's, the players have to go through the Long Room.  Here there are honour boards commemorating each century and each five wicket haul in Lord's tests over the years.  When Ian Bell finished his innings yesterday, a piece of  tape with his name on it had reportedly been stuck to one of these boards awaiting a more permanent inscription.  As yet no Aussie in this match has earned this honour.  In this alone honours were uneven.

Both teams would have been a bit disappointed with the final score for the day.  Both teams would have been happy to reach that score at other times.  After losing the toss, and being made to bowl on what looked a very good batting strip, the Aussies would have settled for 7/289 as the closing score.  England would have wanted a couple less wickets.  However at 3/28, the Aussies would have hoped to have had at least one or two more Englishmen back in the sheds.  England would have been happy with the final score.  When Trott went, the Aussies must have felt like they were one wicket away from running through England.  When Siddle bowled Bairstow, they had it... except for the fact that the replays showed that Siddle had marginally overstepped and the decision was overturned.  For the second time in two innings the Aussies missed out on a key wicket at least partly due to their own poor play (no ball, bad use of DRS).  For the second time the reprieved batsman forged an important partnership with Bell, helping him to a hundred.  By the end of the Bell-Bairstow partnership, the Aussies were just hoping to get to five or six wickets for the day.  England would have been disappointed to lose three quick wickets at the end of the day.  More so because all three fell to the very part time leg spinner Smith.

There was one concern for the Aussies.  With Watson taking one to add to Smith's three it was the batsmen who contributed the most wickets.  I guess that is fair enough, as the bowlers have been doing their part with the bat in recent times (See: Batting upside down).  However the Aussies will be hoping that Harris puts his name on the honour boards in the first session, and that one of the batsmen follow suit in the afternoon.

Lords: Preview

The Queen has been and gone and the play is about to start.  The Aussies have made a couple of changes.  Khawaja is in for Cowan and Harris for Starc.  Cowan being dropped is not a surprise.  His performance in the first test was not at all inspiring.  As a fan, I am disappointed at the way he played that test.  He had been one of the very few players to be better at the end of the Indian series than at the beginning.  Yet he looked all at sea at Trent Bridge.  I thought he might have had one more test to prove himself (See here), and to give Warner a chance to dislodge him.  If he was going to go earlier, I wondered if Faulkner wouldn't get a chance.  Still Khawaja looks good at the crease, and hopefully he will grab his chance.  The Aussies need it.

As for Starc, he may have missed out because Siddle took a five-for last match.  I think they may have been thinking that Harris would come in for Siddle, given his warm up games.  Harris is one of the best bowlers Australia has when he is fit.  Using him in two or three tests, picking the grounds that will suit him, is a good idea.  His injury prone nature is another reason I would have preferred Faulkner to Khawaja.  Three of the Aussie bowling line up are injury prone, and it would have been nice to have a quality back up.

Bresnan in for Finn is a good move from England, though the Aussies won't be too unhappy.  Finn at his best is way more dangerous than Bresnan, but he gives more four balls too.  He was the player that released the pressure on the Aussies in the last match.

It is a shame for the match that the English won the toss.  I think the game would have been much more interesting if the Aussies got to bat first.  Still, if the Aussies can get a few early it could be very interesting.

The moment the (cricket) romance started

I can remember the few days that sealed my lifelong love affair with cricket.   They were December 26-30, 1982.  Don't get me wrong, I loved cricket before these five days, but there was no turning back after them.

The first almost eight years of my life, I lived in a cricket mad country, so there was already a love for the game.  Then we were moving from Asia to Africa, so we visited "home"- Australia in between.  So from playing cricket I got to watch some serious cricket for the first time: The Ashes were on.  And I watched every minute I was allowed to, from the beginning of the first test to the end of the last.  But it was the fourth test that stuck deep in my psyche..

Lessons from Trent Bridge

England won a tight test.  It should have been an easy win, especially with Australia at 9 down and about 100 behind in the first innings.  However they made it closer than it needed to be.  There is much that Australia can learn from this match:

1. Swann can be played.  Twice Swann looked dangerous, once in each innings but he never ran through the Aussies even though the match, weather and pitch all seemed to be conspiring to make him the person to win the test.  As it was Anderson had to do the work.

2. England are reliant on Anderson.  He is by far their best bowler, especially with Swann underperforming.  Finn and Broad are dangerous but inconsistent.  When the Aussies put the pressure on it is Anderson that Cook relies on to change the game.  It was also instructive that he struggled with cramp yesterday.  If we can force Cook to use Anderson for 50+ overs a match, he may not last the distance, or at least drop in effectiveness.

Broad the Fraud?

I awoke this morning to read several outraged comments from Aussies about the fact that Stuart Broad failed to walk when given not out even though he obviously edged a catch to Clarke at first slip.  The general consensus seemed to be that Broad was (is) a cheat.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not an English fan, and Broad is in a battle with KP and Swann as my least favourite English player.  However, I find myself in the awkward position of defending him.  Broad is not the first, nor will he be the last player who let the umpire decide whether or not he was out.  In fact most players do.  Even Australia's captain has been known to do this.  Yes some players will walk on fairly obvious dismissals (Bairstow earlier).  A few rare players will walk even when they could have gotten away with it: Gilchrist comes to mind.  But some may remember, there was almost as much controversy over Gilchrist walking as there has been over Broad refusing to.  Perhaps Broad would be more respected by the Aussie fans had he overridden the umpire, but he is not really the problem.  The problem consists of three parts: firstly the umpire, secondly DRS and finally the Aussie tactics.

If you don't laugh, it just seems mean

A couple of years back, I received a set of DVDs for the first season of "How I met your mother" for Christmas. It is a show I have often enjoyed when it is on the TV though I rarely go out of my way to find it.  One of the episodes caught my attention. In it Barney, the self declared "awesome" one of the group whose exploits are (in his own words) "legend... wait for it... dary", plays a prank on the main character, Ted. Towards the end of the episode, just before the pay off, Barney explains what he has done to the rest of the group, and is greeted with silence. He encourages them to laugh because "if you don't laugh it just seems mean". The lesson of course being that it is fine to be mean as long as it seems funny.

It was an episode that I was reluctant to watch a second time. The main reason is that I don't laugh, and it does seem mean. Or more precisely, it seems mean so I don't laugh. I find it difficult to laugh at some of the mean humor that people/TV shows/movies employ. One of the reasons is that it takes me back to

Phil and Agar

Last night the Aussies got themselves out of a heap of trouble thanks to a virtually unknown 19 year old and a two time has been.

This is Phil Hughes' third crack at test cricket.  Both other occasions had early success (2 hundreds vs. South Africa the first time, and one against Sri Lanka the second) but soon after the flaws in his technique were exposed and he was dropped.  This time hasn't seen the stunning success of the earlier attempts, but rather he has grafted out a couple of decent scores in tough circumstances in the last few tests.  He still has a unique approach, but there is a level of grit and determination that wasn't there before. Hopefully it will last.

Batting upside down

In 1937, faced with a sticky wicket, Australian captain Don Bradman decided to reverse the batting order and sent in the weaker batsmen first to give the pitch a chance to dry out and for conditions to improve.  In 2013, I wonder if the Aussies have done it again, but on a more permanent basis.  The weaker batsmen (or the tail) are sent in early to take the shine off the ball and encourage the opposition, leaving the stronger batsmen to bat lower in the order and clean up the mess.  Ashton Agar's fine knock yesterday was just the latest example.  The last five Test innings for Australia (most recent first) have had as their top scorers:
Agar 98
Siddle 50
Siddle 51
Hughes 69 (occasionally a tailender will top score, and as he showed by sticking around with Agar, he is handy especially when he has a decent batsman at the other end)
Starc 99.

Now if we can just get Rogers to swing the ball, and Cowan to work on a flipper...