Wednesday 31 July 2013

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.

Monday 29 July 2013

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.

Saturday 27 July 2013

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.

Wednesday 24 July 2013

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

Monday 22 July 2013

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.

Sunday 21 July 2013

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.

Saturday 20 July 2013

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.

Friday 19 July 2013

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.

Thursday 18 July 2013

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.

Monday 15 July 2013

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.

Saturday 13 July 2013

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

Friday 12 July 2013

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...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...