Just over twelve months ago on this blog, I questioned Clarke's ability to mould the team in the way Border did in the eighties and nineties. Well twelve months on, I am willing to admit there is more substance to Clarke than I had given credit for. He has shown himself an astute captian.
The changes he made in the Sydney test last year seemed to me at the time the actions of a man who wanted to show he could stamp himself on the team, rather than actually doing so. It merely confirmed what I had thought just a week or so before. However, since officially taking the reigns, Clarke has shown a creativity that his predecessor did not. In particular, Clarke seems to know how to use a spinner, especially one trying to establish himself. As I noted last year, Ponting struggled with this, which made it difficult for him to rebuild the team, and contributed to the revolving door of spinners we had before Lyon. Clarke has also stepped up with the bat, with a century against each opponent he has faced as the full time captain. In particular, his score against South Africa in trying conditions was
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Saturday, 2 April 2011
I'm sure we've gone mad
On January the 6th this year the Northcote Leader reported that following a reduction in the High Street Northcote/Thornbury speed limit from 50 to 40 km/h in June last year, the number of collisions in the July to November period was 68. This compares to 45 for the same period the previous year. Incidents involving pedestrians almost doubled from 5 to 9.
Now it seems that buoyed by their "success" the council now wants to spread the 40 km/h joy to all streets in the council area. The reason - people are using residential side streets where they can do 50 rather than High Street where they are restricted to 40. Really? I'm shocked. The rest of the article goes on to outline the benefits to pedestrians of a lower speed limit (without actually linking this to the councils reasoning). Specifically it cites the benefits for cars to be limited to 30 km/h. I guess this means that once the side streets are 40km/h, High Street will be headed towards 30. I'm sure we have all gone mad.
Now it seems that buoyed by their "success" the council now wants to spread the 40 km/h joy to all streets in the council area. The reason - people are using residential side streets where they can do 50 rather than High Street where they are restricted to 40. Really? I'm shocked. The rest of the article goes on to outline the benefits to pedestrians of a lower speed limit (without actually linking this to the councils reasoning). Specifically it cites the benefits for cars to be limited to 30 km/h. I guess this means that once the side streets are 40km/h, High Street will be headed towards 30. I'm sure we have all gone mad.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Cricket: RIP Captain Ponting
Today Ricky Ponting retired as Australian Cricket Captain. The comments I have read have painted Ponting as unrealistically good, or unrealistically bad. So what should we make of him?
Well firstly, he is the best batsman that Australia has produced in the last thirty years or so. Perhaps the best since Bradman, but I am unable to make that judgement. He is certainly one of the four great batsmen of the last twenty years. Only Sachin consistently outshines him, and even that was a close run thing until the last two years. Lara was better at his best, but Ponting had him in the long haul. Kallis is the invisible one of the four, included because of sheer weight of numbers.
As a batsman, he is a great, but as a captain? If Kallis is one of the greats by sheer weight of numbers, then perhaps Ricky is one of the great captains. He has a winning record that is amazing - 48 test wins is more than any other Aussie captain, and until Australia's recent slump, the best winning percentage. He won over 70% of his one day games as captain, including two world cups in which Australia went through unbeaten. Yet on the other side of the ledger is the fact that he is the only Australian captain to lose the Ashes three times.
Comparing him the his three predecessors, I don't think he stands up well. Border was not a natural captain, but grew into the role. He handed Taylor a far better team than he inherited. Taylor was the most natural captain I have ever seen (Flemming of New Zealand was an extremely close second). He seemed to read the game in amazing ways and come up with great moves more often than not. Once again the team that he handed Waugh was even better than he received. Waugh read the game well, if not as well as Taylor, but he also added a level of steel and aggression to the team. The team he left Ponting was amongst the best in history. Ponting's record was built on the back of a team that included, at different times, players like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey, Gilchrist (not to mention one Ricky Ponting) amongst the batsmen, and Warne, McGrath, McGill and Gillespie amongst the bowlers.
A team like that would probably have won if my grandmother had captained it - provided she didn't have to bat or field. Not only were the players exceptional, but there was a winning culture around the team. McGrath and Warne in particular felt they could pull the team back from any position, and did often enough that everyone else believed it too. Ponting's strategy - a good one under the circumstances - was at the first sign of trouble hand one of them the ball. On the other side, the batsmen intimidated all but the best of bowlers. Teams were often psyched out before even a ball was bowled (remember Steve Harmison's howler in Brisbane anyone?). The culture and the aura survived the departure of most of these players, with only a few small cracks (2005 Ashes, 2008-9 home series vs. South Africa) until 2009. Australia was still the world number one test team after the return series to South Africa that year. Unfortunately the cracks opened up quickly from there on.
The leader of this team, Ponting, was not a natural captain. Unlike Border, I don't think he grew up into the job. At the end he still struggled to think creatively on the field. He seemed a bit lost with how to deal with a spinner who needed guidance - Warne and McGill had known their games so well and were so well established that they virtually took care of themselves.
Ponting did however have one outstanding leadership quality. Those who played under him seem to be incredibly loyal to him. With only one exception, I have never heard any of his players - past or present - say or do anything to undermine him. Rather there is a fierceness to their loyal support when Ponting is attacked. The one exception was Shane Warne - the man who probably would have had Ponting's job if he had been able to clean up his off field behaviour at least as much as Punter did. Such loyalty from such a diverse group as the Australian XI has been over the years says something for his leadership. He more than his immediate predecessors won the heart of his team. Only Border came close, and that because he was the father figure of the team.
In the past couple of years the pressure got to Ponting. As the team deteriorated, so did his performances. He was trying to be everything. Captain, Premier Batsman, Rebuilder, Mentor, Chief Spokesman and cheerleader, everything. I think that it was the right decision to hand over the reigns and concentrate on what he does best - batting. We need him to help the team over this hump. And for that he needs a clear mind - one focus - score as many runs as he can. And if he helps some of the young guns get into the game - all the better.
Well firstly, he is the best batsman that Australia has produced in the last thirty years or so. Perhaps the best since Bradman, but I am unable to make that judgement. He is certainly one of the four great batsmen of the last twenty years. Only Sachin consistently outshines him, and even that was a close run thing until the last two years. Lara was better at his best, but Ponting had him in the long haul. Kallis is the invisible one of the four, included because of sheer weight of numbers.
As a batsman, he is a great, but as a captain? If Kallis is one of the greats by sheer weight of numbers, then perhaps Ricky is one of the great captains. He has a winning record that is amazing - 48 test wins is more than any other Aussie captain, and until Australia's recent slump, the best winning percentage. He won over 70% of his one day games as captain, including two world cups in which Australia went through unbeaten. Yet on the other side of the ledger is the fact that he is the only Australian captain to lose the Ashes three times.
Comparing him the his three predecessors, I don't think he stands up well. Border was not a natural captain, but grew into the role. He handed Taylor a far better team than he inherited. Taylor was the most natural captain I have ever seen (Flemming of New Zealand was an extremely close second). He seemed to read the game in amazing ways and come up with great moves more often than not. Once again the team that he handed Waugh was even better than he received. Waugh read the game well, if not as well as Taylor, but he also added a level of steel and aggression to the team. The team he left Ponting was amongst the best in history. Ponting's record was built on the back of a team that included, at different times, players like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey, Gilchrist (not to mention one Ricky Ponting) amongst the batsmen, and Warne, McGrath, McGill and Gillespie amongst the bowlers.
A team like that would probably have won if my grandmother had captained it - provided she didn't have to bat or field. Not only were the players exceptional, but there was a winning culture around the team. McGrath and Warne in particular felt they could pull the team back from any position, and did often enough that everyone else believed it too. Ponting's strategy - a good one under the circumstances - was at the first sign of trouble hand one of them the ball. On the other side, the batsmen intimidated all but the best of bowlers. Teams were often psyched out before even a ball was bowled (remember Steve Harmison's howler in Brisbane anyone?). The culture and the aura survived the departure of most of these players, with only a few small cracks (2005 Ashes, 2008-9 home series vs. South Africa) until 2009. Australia was still the world number one test team after the return series to South Africa that year. Unfortunately the cracks opened up quickly from there on.
The leader of this team, Ponting, was not a natural captain. Unlike Border, I don't think he grew up into the job. At the end he still struggled to think creatively on the field. He seemed a bit lost with how to deal with a spinner who needed guidance - Warne and McGill had known their games so well and were so well established that they virtually took care of themselves.
Ponting did however have one outstanding leadership quality. Those who played under him seem to be incredibly loyal to him. With only one exception, I have never heard any of his players - past or present - say or do anything to undermine him. Rather there is a fierceness to their loyal support when Ponting is attacked. The one exception was Shane Warne - the man who probably would have had Ponting's job if he had been able to clean up his off field behaviour at least as much as Punter did. Such loyalty from such a diverse group as the Australian XI has been over the years says something for his leadership. He more than his immediate predecessors won the heart of his team. Only Border came close, and that because he was the father figure of the team.
In the past couple of years the pressure got to Ponting. As the team deteriorated, so did his performances. He was trying to be everything. Captain, Premier Batsman, Rebuilder, Mentor, Chief Spokesman and cheerleader, everything. I think that it was the right decision to hand over the reigns and concentrate on what he does best - batting. We need him to help the team over this hump. And for that he needs a clear mind - one focus - score as many runs as he can. And if he helps some of the young guns get into the game - all the better.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Toxic Fame: Desperately seeking Hannah
In our house Hannah Montana gets at least her fair share of air time. For the uninitiated Hannah is the alter ego of mild mannered teen Miley (Miley Cyrus). In the show Miley and her father Billy Ray (real life father Billy Ray Cyrus) created Hannah so that she can have the 'best of both worlds'. Adding a blond wig and a trendier wardrobe allows her to live the rock star lifestyle. Removing them allows her to live a normal life without the problems of celebrity.
So it was interesting, and very sad to read the following article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140105.htm
In it Billy Ray Cyrus blames the show Hannah Montana for ruining his family and setting his daughter on a dangerous spiral. Indeed in the last twelve months Cyrus has filed for divorce from his wife, and his daughter has stumbled from controversy to controversy.
She seems to be sliding off the rails. It appears that she might be taking the first steps down a road too often trod by young celebrities. Names such as Drew Barrymore, Dana Plato (Kimberley from Different Strokes) and don't forget the current pin up of off-the-rails-child-actors Lindsay Lohan, lead the list of stars who have struggled with being thrust into the spotlight as children or teens. Others have not gone quite so far down this road, but still had difficulties - Macaulay Culkin, the Olsen twins and Tracey Gold (Growing Pains) come to mind. Nor is this a new phenomenon. Child stars Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney are almost as well known for their seeming inability to have a long term relationship (each married 8 times - though to be fair Rooney's last marriage has lasted over 30 years) as they are for their film careers.
It seems that celebrity has a potentially toxic effect, especially on the young stars. Some seem to be able to cope. Hilary Duff seems to have survived in ways that near contemporaries Cyrus and Lohan haven't. This may be because she seems to understand the place she plays in the lives of her fans, and has tried to be a good role model. Others like Candace Cameron (Full House) largely turned their back on fame after the show finished, and are content to live a "normal" life. However for those caught in the celebrity trap life seems difficult. Even one mistake can come back to bite you - ask Vanessa Hudgens. A series of them, and it all snowballs. One seems to have to be almost impossibly good, or reject celebrity to survive.
I wonder how differently the Cyrus story would have been if Miley Cyrus had had a Hannah Montana. Then her mistakes would have been private, rather than held out for the world to see. She could have had a shot at a "normal" childhood, free from the scrutiny of celebrity.
Billy Ray wishes there had never been a Hannah Montana, but I wonder if Miley sometimes wishes there had been...
So it was interesting, and very sad to read the following article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140105.htm
In it Billy Ray Cyrus blames the show Hannah Montana for ruining his family and setting his daughter on a dangerous spiral. Indeed in the last twelve months Cyrus has filed for divorce from his wife, and his daughter has stumbled from controversy to controversy.
She seems to be sliding off the rails. It appears that she might be taking the first steps down a road too often trod by young celebrities. Names such as Drew Barrymore, Dana Plato (Kimberley from Different Strokes) and don't forget the current pin up of off-the-rails-child-actors Lindsay Lohan, lead the list of stars who have struggled with being thrust into the spotlight as children or teens. Others have not gone quite so far down this road, but still had difficulties - Macaulay Culkin, the Olsen twins and Tracey Gold (Growing Pains) come to mind. Nor is this a new phenomenon. Child stars Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney are almost as well known for their seeming inability to have a long term relationship (each married 8 times - though to be fair Rooney's last marriage has lasted over 30 years) as they are for their film careers.
It seems that celebrity has a potentially toxic effect, especially on the young stars. Some seem to be able to cope. Hilary Duff seems to have survived in ways that near contemporaries Cyrus and Lohan haven't. This may be because she seems to understand the place she plays in the lives of her fans, and has tried to be a good role model. Others like Candace Cameron (Full House) largely turned their back on fame after the show finished, and are content to live a "normal" life. However for those caught in the celebrity trap life seems difficult. Even one mistake can come back to bite you - ask Vanessa Hudgens. A series of them, and it all snowballs. One seems to have to be almost impossibly good, or reject celebrity to survive.
I wonder how differently the Cyrus story would have been if Miley Cyrus had had a Hannah Montana. Then her mistakes would have been private, rather than held out for the world to see. She could have had a shot at a "normal" childhood, free from the scrutiny of celebrity.
Billy Ray wishes there had never been a Hannah Montana, but I wonder if Miley sometimes wishes there had been...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
