World Cricket Watch » World Cricket Opinion

Book Review: Miller’s Luck, by Roland Perry

Guest — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:32:31 +0000

BEN ROBERTS gives a very frank review on Miller’s Luck by Roland Perry.

I entered into this book with trepidation. For a long time I have been searching for a Keith Miller biography that was not this effort by Roland Perry, with no luck. One of the great cricket writers David Frith was scathing in his review of Perry’s work, citing multiple factual errors that grated on him. Similar critiques have been provided by Gideon Haigh and even by ourselves. I scoured second hand book stores, and found all that filled their shelves were multiple copies of Miller’s Luckby Roland Perry.

Deflated that my searching had come to nothing, I swallowed my pride, took my desire to find out more about Miller to the local library and lifted a copy shelf. As I found out as I read it a previous borrower had too become so frustrated with errors (though their frustrations were World War II facts) that they had taken to the book with a pen themselves!

Without even re-hashing the factual inaccuracies of the work, simply put this biography is deplorably written. Rather than a study of a complex and polarising character, Perry serves up 500 pages of hero worshipping that completely turns you off as you read. Miller was a tremendous all-round cricketing talent and a war veteran who escaped death multiple times (often due his own insubordination). However he also was a heavy drinker, addicted gambler and constant philanderer that makes the overriding rhetoric of hero worship difficult to justify.

As a cricketing talent he could easily be worshipped; a war veteran, definitely respected. Limited to discussion primarily on these two topics such a subjective take on the man could well be accepted. But the reality was that for all the success Miller had on field it clearly came at a very heavy cost to his family which is an indictment on the man, an impression that Perry has not sufficiently captured and in fact missed completely.

Because of the books length and quantity of information provided (despite factual errors) the dedicated and discerning reader has the opportunity to draw their own conclusions about Miller and his life. Absolutely, the descriptions of Miller’s love affair with Lords and the tremendous innings he played there during the post war years make me long to travel back in time, but in all the book fails on a number of fronts. Zero stars.

Ben contributes regularly to the following two Blogs:

Balanced Sports – The thinking fans sport opinion and analysis site.

Books with Balls – Reviewing the literature of a number of genres but definitely no Danielle Steele.

Latest World Cricket Stories

Nathan Lyon Signals a Post-Warne Era for Australian Cricket

Guest — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:08:32 +0000

lead image (c) new.com.au

Gareth Hughes explains how Nathan Lyon snugly fits into the post-Warne era for Australian cricket.

There are two avenues bowlers can utilise to build pressure in test match cricket. The first is to beat the outside edge, strike the pad, coax the batsmen into playing shots they normally wouldn’t, creating chances, and making the striker’s end an unsettling, unnerving, and uncomfortable place to be.

The other method is to apply what is commonly referred to as scoreboard pressure. By choking and restraining the batsmen by simply putting the ball in places from which they cannot score runs. The pressure gradually mounts until the batsman is forced by way of an itching to score runs to attempt to score from areas in which they are not comfortable. Australia’s humble curator turned spinner, Nathan Lyon is a bowler who prides himself upon the latter.

This summer we have seen the Australian bowling attack revert to its roots of a fierce pace attack instilling fear in batsmen and a spinner who complements them by tying down an end. Since the glory days of Warne and McGrath Australian bowling coaches, selectors, and players have been caught up in the wake of their retirement and only now is Australian cricket beginning to stop mourning their loss and move on.

It has taken the best part of five years for Australia’s fast bowlers to stop trying to emulate McGrath’s back of a length delivery which brought him so much success. It has taken the same amount of time for Australian to stop searching for the next Shane Warne, a spinner who can rip through a batting line up on any wicket.

The fact is, Warne and McGrath were sublime bowlers who did phenomenal things that are almost impossible to replicate.

It is rare for Australian pitches to be conducive of spin and for spin bowling to be used an attacking weapon like fast bowling is. That is not to say spin does not play a role in cricket in Australia. In fact, with maybe the exception of matches in Perth, spin bowling is one of the most tactical facets of the game. Michael Clarke should be given a lot of credit for recognising this and using Nathan Lyon in ways few other captains use their spinner.

It has not been uncommon to see Nathan Lyon being thrown the ball with a few minutes left in a session to hurry through an over to allow a dangerous Hilfenhaus, Siddle, or Pattinson a final fiery over at a batsman with the mindset of surviving until the break. Furthermore, Lyon’s ability to land the ball in good spots is always improving and he is quickly becoming one of the hardest spinners to score off around the world.

He also knows how to bowl in Australian conditions, utilising the extra bounce. However, he showed on debut in Galle that on a spin friendly wicket he can take a bag of wickets and not just be an assistant to the quicks.

The other great thing about Lyon is how his tenacity and passion that shows through in his batting as well. In his relatively short career we have already witnessed his fighting spirit in the second innings batting debacle of Cape Town, top scoring with 14 in an innings of 47, and then his gallant effort in the second innings at Hobart, only to be left devastated after hearing his wicket skittled.

Latest World Cricket Stories

The Case Against a Fatal Four-Way at the WACA

Matthew Wood — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:10:38 +0000

image (c) news.com.au

As Australia head to Perth amidst talk of an all-pace-attack, MATTHEW WOOD, of Balanced Sports, presents a case for why four-pronged pace attacks should almost always be vetoed. Follow Matt @balanced_sports.

If the Australian selectors are starting to consider playing four pacemen for the third Test against India in Perth, they’re just as muddle-headed as the team they replaced.

Let’s not go into the ramifications of kicking another promising young spinner in the teeth (cf. Beau Casson, Dan Cullen, Nathan Hauritz and Michael Beer), it belies common sense and, eventually, come back to bite Australia fairly and squarely on the bum.

Since 1990, Australia has played 21 times at Perth. In those games, their Win/Loss ratio stands at thirteen wins, three draws and four losses. Australia has played an all-pace attack in three of those games: in the Ashes last year, versus India in 2007-08 and in the 1998-99 Ashes series, where “Funky” Miller got the nod while Shane Warne was injured.

Although they won the WACA match last year – and against the Old Enemy a dozen years before – they were absolutely pillaged in 2007-08 against the Indians. This 2-in-3 ratio seems about right for what amounts to a gamble.

There are four iron-clad reasons why an all-pace attack should be vetoed with as much haste as possible.

First, Australia seems to have a great wealth of fast bowling talent at present. Unfortunately however, the nation seems to be injuring that talent as quickly as it arrives. With James Pattinson, like Pat Cummins, succumbing to the dreaded foot stress reaction, Australia are likely to head into Perth dressing the indefatigable Peter Siddle, the injury-prone Ryan Harris and the revitalised Ben Hilfenhaus. Add a fourth to that lot (Peter George? Mitch Starc?) and suddenly Australia’s attack, should/when Harris break down again, looks quite thin when compared to a batting lineup boasting near enough to 50000 Test runs.

This doesn’t even begin to answer the questions as to whether Starc, who looked game but perhaps overwhelmed against New Zealand, or indeed George, are polished enough for Test level at present.

Secondly, the effects of dropping Lyon would be tantamount to a slap from a wet fish. Sure, he has cumulative figures of 2/180 so far this series, but he’s played on pitches hardly amenable to spin (Indian compatriot Ravi Ashwin has 4/298). He’s also on track to be the best off-spinner Australia’s had since arguably since Ian Johnson, who retired in 1956. He is worth persisting with and needs his captain, coach and even the ball-boys to tell him his place is secure. Nathan Hauritz, though captained by a man who thinks spin is something that dryers do, was never told this. And it showed.

This dovetails nicely into the third reason – Australia should play Lyon because he’s better-suited to the Perth pitch than to almost any other strip in the country. While a bigger turner of the ball than Hauritz (as are many), he still doesn’t rip the ball or have quite the grip and turn of the likes of Saqlain Mushtaq, Harbhajan Singh or Graeme Swann. What this means is that he’s a thinking bowler, and could – should? – become the Anil Kumble to Swann’s Warne, a player reliant on subtle variations … and aided enormously by bounce.

Finally, while Australia has opted for a four-pronged pace attack in the past, it has done so when conditions merited it. Those conditions are best defined by the following questions:

Does the pitch take spin – at all?

Will the strip break up?

Can variety be provided by bowlers whose name isn’t Mike Hussey?

Are the four best available bowlers pacemen?

If so, how far ahead of the competition/spinner are they?

Are any of the four liable to collapse in a screaming heap?

Unfortunately for those advocating a fatal four-way, even the most ignorant of cricket fans knows the answer to all the above questions without even needing to think. Australia would take a retrograde step in taking four speedsters to Perth, a step with both long and short-term implications.

#freeLyon

Latest World Cricket Stories

Australia vs New Zealand Series Review: Australia Marks out of 10

David Siddall — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:46:10 +0000

lead image: ‘Caught Guptill Bowled Martin’ (c) news.com.au

DAVID SIDDALL appraises Australia after their first defeat to New Zealand on home soil for 26 years and asks who is safe and who is sweating on their place for the India series.

Australia seem to take one step forward, two steps back right now. The bemused look on Australian skipper Michael Clarke’s face as he was handed the Trans-Tasman trophy ( despite their first loss to New Zealand on home soil for 26 years, they retain the trophy) indicated that they have perhaps reached a new lowest point, surpassing the 47 all out in Cape Town only a month prior.

Only a few players in the Australian squad can feel safe in their spots for their upcoming series against India. Lets take a look back over the series and see who performed and who didn’t; and who is safe and who is sweating on their place. Here are Australia’s marks out of ten:

Phillip Hughes

C Guptill B Martin. Phillip Hughes got out in this fashion 4 times out of 4 and now is not only Chris Martin’s bunny but also Guptill the fielder’s bunny. 41 runs in the series and some serious mental and technical fault surely mean that for the time being Hughes has to go back to domestic cricket, score buckets of runs and make a comeback like those before him – Hayden, Langer and Steve Waugh to name just a few he can emulate. Gone.

2/10

David Warner

A coming of age innings for Warner in Hobart sees him make 123 not out but fall agonisingly short of the 241 runs required for victory. The stigma of being the epitome of the one dimensional T20 player has surely been dispelled. He has to retain his opening berth in India. Didn’t deserve the man of the match award but was head and shoulders above any other Australian batsman on display. Safe.

8/10

Usman Khawaja

A technically more sound player than Phillip Hughes but 68 runs (averaging 23) in the series does not mirror his reputation for being a stroke-maker in Shield Cricket. With the return of Shaun Marsh, he’ll be sweating on his place. Sweating.

4/10

Ricky Ponting

99 runs at an average of 33 suggest a below par series for Ricky Ponting. After recording back to back fifties in Johannesburg and then Brisbane you’d be forgiven for thinking that Ricky had turned a corner. But the way he got out in Hobart was very disconcerting. In the first innings, he fell off balance and was plumb in front to the bowling of Tim Southee and walked because it couldn’t have been more out. In the second innings he toed a long hop straight to cover, a ball he wouldn’t ever get out to if bowled again. He’s probably got the summer in the side but he might be sweating on his place.

5/10

Michael Clarke

A fine century (139) in Brisbane despite being dropped 4 times set up Australia’s first test victory and 161 runs in the series reflect a good showing. He will be slightly disappointed with his grave misjudgement shouldering arms to Bracewell in the first innings in Hobart, but got an absolute ripper in the second innings. It’s hard to fault the Clarke captaincy. He rotated his bowlers well, attacked with Nathan Lyon and dismissed New Zealand cheaply on each occasion. But the batting will be a huge concern. Safe.

8/10

Mike Hussey

The Phillip Hughes headlines and the “if” or “when” concerning Ricky Ponting seems to have deflected attention away from Mike Hussey. Not too long ago Mike Hussey got 3 man of the match awards in Sri Lanka. But his two latest series have been the worst in his career. His 23 runs in the series against New Zealand was woeful and he will surely be sweating on his place. You can’t help but think he typically would have been the man you want for the second innings scenario in Hobart but he got an absolute snorter of a delivery first up from Bracewell yet again.

2/10

Brad Haddin

109 runs for the series, including a well fought 89 in Brisbane, represent a decent haul for Brad Haddin that mirrors his career average. His keeping was sharper than in South Africa and his stumping off the bowling of Mike Hussey was pretty tidy too. Getting out to the not hugely threatening Tim Southee in the 2nd innings in Hobart was yet another example of a Haddin brain fart though. When will he learn to bat the way the situation demands? He’s safe for now but will be sweating on his long term future.

6/10

Peter Siddle

Really relished being the leader of the Australian attack. Was aggressive and the quickest of the Australian bowlers. Unlike previous series Peter Siddle got wickets and struck at greater intervals than his career strike rate of above 60. Nine wickets for 207 runs is a decent haul and he is a safe bet for the India series.

7/10

James Pattinson

Man of the series. Two five wicket hauls in two games. Full out-swinging deliveries at decent pace. 14 wickets at an average of 14. James Pattinson should be delighted with his start to Test cricket and will be a safe bet for the India series.

9/10

Mitchell Starc

Despite encouraging signs in Brisbane dismissing McCullum and Ryder, Mitchell Starc was the least effective of all the Australian bowlers in this series (4 wickets for 200 runs). The potential is clear for all to see but the rhythm just seemed to be lacking. He can put it down as a learning curve and an introduction to test cricket at 21. If Ryan Harris is fit, he’ll probably come in for Starc. He’ll be sweating on his place but not disheartened.

5/10

Nathan Lyon

In Nathan Lyon, Australia have discovered an offspinner who isn’t afraid to attack. He bowls an attacking off stump line, turns the ball and is not afraid to give it some air above the batsman’s eye-line. Clarke backed him and Lyon delivered with 10 wickets for 126 runs. He is also a born fighter and was so immensely disappointed at not being able to guide David Warner to the target of 241 in Hobart.He’s definitely a safe bet for India.

9/10

What Would Your Starting Lineup for the Boxing Day Test Look Like?

Remembering Peter Roebuck

Matthew Wood — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:36:35 +0000

lead image courtesy of abc.net.au

MATTHEW WOOD, of Balanced Sports, shares with us how he’ll remember Peter Roebuck.

Peter Roebuck is dead. Obituaries have flowed, ranging from describing his awkward manner to his favourite straw hat and everything in between – relevant or not.

His death has come with the greatest outpouring of words cricket has seen for some time about one man. When Hansie Cronje died, the internet was still a pre-teen; when beloved commentators died more recently – Fred Trueman, for example – they were remembered with a smirk, a grin and tales of “Aye, and ’twas wasted on thee”. Was Alan McGilvray or Brian Johnson remembered so vividly?

Why contribute further to this internet verbosity? How best to pay respect to one of your writing inspirations? Peter Roebuck is best remembered by his writing, because the complexity of Peter Roebuck tha man was exemplified best in that commentary.

His last column, “No dumpings for the sake of it“, was published in the Australian Fairfax media group on the day of his death. It detailed possible responses to the Australian collapse on day two of the First Test at Newlands. As always, his work succinctly summed up what no-one else had thought to: Australia’s batting had failed not once but twice; Shaun Marsh’s back condition isn’t likely to improve and that any potential Australian replacements (David Warner?!) aren’t unlikely to be ready or perform better.

He preached measured action. Perhaps his most famous column, coming in the wake of the fractious Sydney Test of 2008, called for Ricky Ponting’s head on a platter. Though shouted down by many, this was again a call for measured action. He reasoned the results of Ponting’s tetchy captaincy would impinge the spirit of the game. When you read Roebuck, you read foremost about the spirit of the game.

That spirit, however, took him all over the world, surveying and annotating the most nuanced game of all. That he has since been called the “Bard of Summer” sits perfectly.

There’s a saying in sportswriting: don’t use adjectives. They lead the reader unnecessarily when your words should be able to paint a picture without resorting to blunt instruments. The best sportswriting is often quite spartan, aesthetically simple stuff with elegant results: the reader knows exactly where the essayist is going through clever use of words.

Ever the contradiction, Roebuck eschewed this principle. He used such a variety of nuanced descriptive terms that those adjectives became surgical tools. It was this which set him apart from other writers. His description – simple, measured yet far-reaching – left his audience completely aware of the importance of each event without needing to reach for a thesaurus. His vocabulary, easy and extensive, meant he captured the essence of what it meant to be at the cricket on any particular day.

His successor as the Thinking Man’s cricket journalist is likely to be Fairfax Media’s Crown Prince of Commentary, Greg Baum. In the hours after Roebuck’s passing, Baum wrote an obituary – unsteady but fluent, respectful – hauting, even – which only underlined what a wordsmith the game has lost.

A friend once said of literature that there’s not enough time in life for bad prose. If a story was stilted or awkward, it was best to tell only the facts. Those able to afford it could stretch their narrative wings – Douglas Adams did it perhaps better than any.

Cricket writing mourns its premier artisan.

Follow Matt @balanced_sports

Recent Cricket Stories

Patrick Cummins is the future. Or not.

Matthew Wood — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:40:39 +0000

lead image (c) news.com.au

MATTHEW WOOD, of Balanced Sports, warns Australia against anointing a young (and unproven) leader of their attack.

Patrick Cummins is the future.

No, hang on, maybe he’s not. It’s Josh Hazelwood. Tall, quick, can get it to wobble about a bit. Yes, definitely Josh Hazelwood.

Or perhaps it’s James Pattinson. You know, English Darren’s brother. Surely he’s going to lead the Australian attack into the next decade, he’s already played in the coloured clothing for us. I’ve changed my mind, we should embrace him as our spearhead.

But then where does that leave Peter George? And Mitch Starc? Or Nathan Coulter-Nile, Jayde Herrick, Trent Copeland and Burt Cockley?

Australia has a surfeit of youthful fast bowling talent at present. Not just young fast bowlers, but – on current evidence – good ones. This is a source of much-needed encouragement given recent events in the Baggy Green as defeats to pretty much everyone again conjure memories of all the West Indies lost in their regression from behemoth to basket-case.

Cricket in Australia is far from being completely turned around – in fact, it still may not even be going in the right direction. But CA’s done everything it can – commissioning a report to put down in ink what any observer already knew. And the country has raw fast bowling talent to choose from – and it is that which is most crucial to a successful cricket side. The oldest of the fast bowlers named above are 25-year olds Copeland and Herrick.

Why so excited? Every successful postwar cricket team has had pace firepower in abundance. The Invincibles steamed through England behind Lindwall, Miller and Johnston; England of the fifties unleashed Statham, Trueman, Bedser and “Typhoon” Tyson; the West Indies speed vanguard often left their batsmen with little to do and Australia’s dominant decades came as a result of the toil of Lillee, Thomson, McGrath and Gillespie.

Fast bowling talent wins games, not bowlers who send it down fast. And there’s a difference between the two: Patrick Patterson was outrageously quick, had one of the great intimidatory attitudes, won a few of games for Jamaica and the West Indies, but never amounted to much. The same could be said for Brett Lee – you always felt he should have been better than he was.

There hasn’t been this many exciting young Skippy flingers since the mid-eighties where from 1985-1988, Merv Hughes, Craig McDermott, Tony Dodemaide, Chris Matthews (!), Bruce Reid and Dave Gilbert were all young and clamoured for Test selection.

Both the West Indies and Australia have eloquently proved that when fast bowling talent makes way for people who bowl fast (*cough* Mitchell Johnson *cough*), teams quickly begin to lose matches. Most importantly, Pace talent means time not batting is spent attacking a position, rather than defending one. A quality pace platoon also excites onlookers and relieves pressure on their run-scorers. On a broader scale, it also infinitely strengthens batting on a national scale and means Moises Henriques will never play for Australia again.

England’s transformation from also-ran to world champion came on the back of talented fast bowlers the ilk of Flintoff, Simon Jones, Bresnan, Finn, Tremlett and Anderson: each is/was able to combine discipline and an ability to make the ball “talk” with swing, seam or bounce. With a combination of some of the talent above, Aussie fans hope the same will happen in the Antipodes.

Australian punters (no, not that one) are excited about nascent fast bowling talent because since that fateful Sydney Test of 2007, the country’s bowlers have lacked a leader. The plan was for Stuart Clark to hand over to “Notch” Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus, which worked about as effectively as a a K-Tel nostril hair trimmer. The hierarchy hopes for a leader to whom they can turn when in trouble: a guy who gets the ball in the right spots to either restrict runs or take wickets.

Any of the current tyros may, in time, be that guy. But to expect Cummins – or anyone else, for that matter – to be a sort of proto-Mohammed Amir is unreasonable, unrealistic and more likely to produce a Lee than a McGrath.

The central board must keep two simple, everyday truths in mind: You almost never find what you’re looking for until you stop searching and anointing young, unproven leaders rarely works. This is why Cummins, Copeland, Hazelwood or Pattinson shouldn’t be anointed as the next leader of Australia’s bowling attack until they have earned that position.

All of our past leaders have had to learn from experience: McDermott, while in his ostensible prime surrendered his Test berth to Dodemaide and Chris Matthews. McGrath emerged only after McDermott’s injury – when absolutely noone saw it coming, least of all the West Indies lower order. The term “King-maker” is the epitome of a self-aggrandization, used only by the extraordinary vain and is based upon the flawed principal of anointing unproven “chosen ones” at an early age. Leaders emerge as circumstances allow.

More appropriately, leaders emerge when they conquer those circumstances. McDermott had to conquer immaturity and the stigma of being a ginger kid. Lillee overcame a crippling back injury – twice. Shane Warne fought an unlikely combination of playboy lifestyle and massive girth. McGrath had to rid himself of that horrible haircut.

It’s possible, perhaps even likely, that Cummins, Hazelwood, Pattinson and Copeland will all be top-draw seamers. Especially, calling wunderkind Cummins a saviour and future leader is placing remarkable expectations on young, still-developing shoulders. Let him learn. Let him grow into his frame, his profession and international cricket.

Follow Matt @balanced_sports

Recent Cricket Stories

Investigating the South African Conspiracy

Guest — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 02:52:42 +0000

Ben Roberts reacts to Australia’s 47 all out by investigating the ‘real’ enemy.

I may have been reading too many Tom Clancy military/espionage thrillers but it struck me as I was walking Zoe the dog on an overcast yet humid Melbourne Sunday morning. I was grappling with an over active mind desperately trying to come to terms with the collapse of the Australian team in Cape Town. My focus has been limited in its direction of anger. Tired of simply shaking my head at the immature Phillip Hughes’ selection, my anger more justifiably has been directed at the elder Brad Haddin, who is having more and more ‘seniors moments’, breaking only momentarily to lament the ‘man crush’ Australian cricket seems to have with the hopelessly inconsistent Mitchell Johnson.

But then as I waited patiently for Zoe to investigate for the 75^th time in five minutes that potentially another dog exists in this universe I realised how hopelessly misdirected the Australian cricket team has been in its focus for too long. Sun Tzu in ‘The Art of War’ teaches that as part of a successful campaign you must ‘know your enemy’, I submit that for at least 40 years (maybe more) Australian cricket has not, and thus stands little chance of ever winning its war with the cricketing world.

Two fallacies seem to intertwine here. Firstly we continue to focus our attention on the cyclical Ashes campaigns that pit our warriors against the ‘Old Enemy’ in England. Nothing is more important we tell ourselves than beating our old colonial masters at their own game. Secondly we live in the ‘knowledge’ that South Africans are ‘chokers’ and will never land the final punch. But in reality I believe England are not the enemy, and more often than not a nation labelled as ‘chokers’ has landed the punches that have weakened Australian cricket most, albeit surreptitiously.

Australia exited Sri Lanka in hope. A new captain, a new support regime coming, and a number of players with smiles on their faces just happy to be playing cricket. This continued at least for a day into the test at Cape Town, but as we know came crashing down in even more embarrassing fashion.

Of course the rubber finally hit the road for Australian cricket when they lost in such embarrassing circumstances to the English at home last summer. This was it, the lowest we could fall, but in reality was it the English or South Africans in disguise? It was no secret that Messrs Strauss, Trott, Prior, and Pieterson with a host of non-first team selections were born (and in some instances reach adulthood) in the nation of the rainbow flag. Australia’s media tried in vain to create a flap about it, but in these days of the dollar being mightier than loyalty, and that it has been going on for years, there was little justification. But regardless of the legitimacy of playing rights, these men all emanated from South Africa, and drank the water over there.

Take yourself back then to early 1994 when the Australian team visited the post-apartheid nation for the first time in 35 years. We knew that our latest superstar was a bit of a lout and taken to streaks of arrogance, but we only for the first time realised that he was capable of such abuse towards a harmless opponent. Daryll Cullinan had (and still has) a mouth on him, but Andrew Hudson was as quiet as a church mouse as a player, yet somehow Warne decided that both players needed the rough side of his tongue. Our lionhearted gentle giant in Mervyn Hughes was taken to acts of abuse on the field toward opponents, yet at the Wanderers ground his anger spilled over into the player’s race. A visit to South Africa brought out the worst of these two cricketers.

Only a few months previously at the Sydney Cricket Ground had South Africa so easily taken the career of Damien Martyn away. Despite the failings of the entire batting lineup it was he who took the blame and had his career stamped with being impetuous, almost leading to its death.

In 1992 Australia hosted the World Cup as incumbent champions. In 1987 they had been the upstarts who had toppled the best in the world and created momentum that saw them rise to competitiveness again in world cricket. This World Cup would be where Australia continued that progression, in front of its own adoring fans, but it was not to be. South Africa was one of the obstacles that Australia failed to clear in its demise, losing by nine wickets and having their own former import in Kepler Wessels take man of the match over the nation for which began his international career.

The last time Australian cricket was close to being as bad as it is now was of course the mid 1980s. Allan Border was grumpy, Dean Jones and Steve Waugh inconsistent, and Kim Hughes was bawling his eyes out. While not laden with anywhere near the talent to defeat the mighty West Indian teams they should not have been that bad. Why were they? Well Dr Ali Bachar and his open cheque book for rebellious play in the sporting pariah state probably has more than its fair share of blame. Heart and spine ripped out of the nations playing stocks the Australians lost in a test series to New Zealand; need description go further?

Prior to the period of outcasting from all international sport that South Africa went through they were able to take the bragging rights from Australia with one of the most dominant performances in test cricket history. Completely exhausted from proceedings in India the Australians flew into South Africa to receive one hell of a battering at the hands of Graeme Pollock, Peter Pollock, Barry Richards, and Michael Proctor, all cricketers whom, in one of the games greatest tragedies, had only limited international exposure. To lose all four tests comprehensively pushed Australia to the brink of sacking its captain Bill Lawry; the next series against Illingworth’s England only needed to nudge for them to be over.

Sibling rivalry exists between Australia and South Africa. Both former colonial conquest trying to shake off the stamp of their former masters with one officially having shaken it with much bloodshed, the other remaining loyal and protected. Both nations with a history darker than one would desire but only one having felt the collective and polarised wrath of the wider world. South Africa as a proud nation has much to gain through success over Australia on the sporting field. While we fiddle with our clashes with England, the true ‘Rome’ will continue to burn.

Ben contributes regularly to the following two Blogs:

Balanced Sports – The thinking fans sport opinion and analysis site.

Books with Balls – Reviewing the literature of a number of genres but definitely no Danielle Steele.

Recent Stories

Sixty Six Sigma: The Optimal Sheffield Shield Starting with Victoria

Guest — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:50:19 +0000

lead image (c) of The Age

A new series of articles from Ben Roberts and Matt Wood look to explore how State cricket can help Australia to be a force on the world stage yet again. Ben Roberts explains the premise of the series…

The Argus Review into the performance of the Australian cricket team came to the conclusion that Australian Test performance would be best suited by having the best 66 cricketers consistently playing First Class cricket. Why did it take us this long to work this one out?

The report was clear to highlight that despite being a feeder competition for the national team, the primary focus of the Sheffield Shield had become anything but. Too many run-of-the-mill players now hold up the progress those with true potential for the world stage.

In order to hopefully foster a competitive league with more players deserving elevation to higher honours, it was recommended that the competition be liberated somewhat through the institution of a loan system. This would allow short term transfers of talent between states. We saw in the the recent English summer that when England skipper Andrew Strauss would not get the first-class practice prior to the first Test against India, he was loaned from home county Middlesex across to Somerset to face the tourists in a single match.

The premise of this series of articles will be to attempt to name the best XI for each state team. Once finalised we will analyse the resulting players missing out on a place in their contracted state and propose loans that could be made at the outset to hopefully have the 66 best Australian cricketers playing in the Sheffield Shield at one time.

Sixty Six Sigma: An Optimum Victoria

by Ben Roberts and Matthew Wood

Openers: Aaron Finch & Robert Quiney;

Finch has had a breakout couple of years, more notably in the coloured clothing where he gained international honours. He also showed last year that he was valuable in the longer form. He recently toured Zimbabwe with the ‘A’ team and in the only first-class match he played in, he made a century. He needs to calm down but could be very valuable for the Victorians in 2011/12.

Neither Michael Hill or Ryan Carters, two highly-rated young players with opening pedigrees took enough advantage of Chris Rogers absence through injury last season to be easy starters. Father Time is catching Rogers and after his injury last year he has not been as prolific during the English Summer as in years past. Rob Quiney has emerged from some wilderness time a better batsman, head-wise.
After his flirtation with the Australian team a couple of years ago, the publicity went to his head and he lost form dramatically. He is one of the most versatile batsmen in Australia, batting as required up or down the order. Last year in a poor batting lineup he averaged 42 and earned back some respect.

No. 3: David Hussey

No-one in the Victorian squad deserves the number three position in the team. This selection is based purely on the fact that despite Glenn Maxwell being one of the best batsmen in the state, he needs some protection and is not naturally suited to a higher order position. Call either of the Hussey brothers old at your peril, but it is unlikely that younger brother will play test cricket except in the direst of emergency.

This is disappointing as he has been one of the Shield’s great runmakers since making the trip East a decade ago, but selection for the national team is often as much luck as it is skill – just look at David Warner. Despite a below-average season last year, where he averaged just 40, he still deserves to be named among the best cricketers in Australia and (can) serves a purpose at number three for this side.

Middle Order: Cameron White & Glenn Maxwell

There weren’t many positives that came from of a season where Victoria’s captain was elevated to skipper Australia’s T20 team and vice their and 50-over squad. How wrong were the voices that bleated prior to the season that White should be given another go in the Test side as a batsman. By seasons end White had been dropped from the 50-over team for poor form, and in the only three shield matches he played he averaged just 28 with the bat. He did lead the Australia ‘A’ team against the English astutely, making a century, but is back in the pecking order for Australian batsmen, and probably holds onto his Victorian spot by the ‘skin’ of his captaincy credentials.

Maxwell is an exciting prospect. He showed that he can play shots with some daring that pushes his case beyond that of Hill and Carters who seemed to seize up at the crease. He will need to temper his approach, but given time and some protection down the order he could be a great batsman for the state. From five innings in the shield last season he made two half centuries and one century.

All-Rounder: Andrew McDonald

Easily Victoria’s spine upon which they need to build around. He was the best batsman in the state last year by a significant margin, with an average of 76 and three centuries struck at a rate of 84 runs per 100 balls. Couple this with his medium pace bowling that gets lost behind the front line talent at Victoria’s disposal and you have one hell of a player.

Wicket-Keeper: Matthew Wade

The former Tasmanian made further advancement as one of his adopted state’s key players, so much so that he has now been selected for higher honours behind Tim Paine and Brad Haddin. Of all the keepers completing every match in the Sheffield Shield last year, Wade was one of only three averaging greater than 30 with the bat. His wicket-keeping is of the highest order, making him unlikely to be replaced very soon.

Spinner: John Holland

At a time in Australia’s cricket history where one only has to have rolled their fingers over a cricket ball to receive Test honours, it’s amazing that Holland hasn’t entered wider discussions over the past 18 months. Although injured at an inopportune time, he still played 7 matches last year and took 19 wickets at 42, as good as any finger spinner in Australia.

Pacemen: Peter Siddle, James Pattinson & Clint McKay

This is Victoria’s strongest suit. The ability to team these three internationally honoured bowlers together will be probably something unlikely to happen this summer, but it does make the mouth water.
Siddle is an established member of the Australian team, and his hustling style is known to batsman as a difficult prospect particularly when conditions favour him. Both McKay and Pattinson are probably the two more naturally talented members of this trio, but had their season wrecked by injury last year. Both, who have received a small taste of international cricket, did perform in limited matches for Victoria. McKay captured 11 wickets in three matches; Pattinson seven in two.

Who’s likely locked in for Victoria?

Andrew McDonald, with his record with both bat and ball, is guaranteed a place in the Victorian side. Although in his best use now may be more a shepherd’s role at number three and despite a poorer year last year, David Hussey still is one of Australia’s best batsmen. Wade as wicket-keeper/batsman and the three paceman are irreplaceable with the likely talent available for loan from other states.

What’s disappointing for Victoria?

Well the top order batting, plenty of talent and potential, but a glut of good cricketers elsewhere could see anyone of White, Finch, Quiney, and Maxwell replaced if we are looking for the best 66 cricketers in the country at the moment.

The biggest disappointment is that bowling all-rounder John Hastings has no spot. His bowling is similar in nature to that of McDonald, and shades McDonald for effectiveness, it is not enough to dislodge McDonald who’s batting was the best for the state last year. Therefore in this exercise, Limited over international representative ‘The Duke’ Hastings will be a prime candidate for being loaned to another state.

Of particular concern for Victoria should be their inability to convert centuries into really big scores. Only Andrew McDonald showed this last year, making 163. All others who scored hundreds topped out with David Hussey’s 122.

Who’s next up – or alternatively, who’s loan bait?

Hastings (Allround), Darren Pattinson (RFM), Rogers (LHB), Hill (RHB), Carters (RHB).

The Teflon Era Comes to an End

Guest — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:44:40 +0000

lead image (c) courtesy of PerthNow.com.au

With the Tim Nielsen resignation still fresh in his mind, Daniel Gray gives a frank appraisal of the departing Australia coach’s tenure after his parting shot at Cricket Australia.

“The only thing I’m a little disappointed in is that my role as Australian cricket coach doesn’t just cover Test match cricket. We’ve maintained our No. 1 ranking in one day cricket over the last four years while I’ve been here, we’ve improved our T20 cricket and made some dramatic changes there to play in the last World Cup final. I feel as though we’re on the right track.” -Tim Nielsen

Like the proverbial dead man walking, Tim Nielsen has gone about his business in Sri Lanka with a sense of dignity and respect. He appeared to take the Argus Report’s findings in his stride, whilst surely knowing the axe had fallen and the best he could do was slow the bleeding and limp to the finish line. It is with surprise, then, that I feel compelled to bestow our not-overly-esteemed, now former coach with a new nickname. Without further adieu, stand aside Teflon Tim, and arise Tantrum Tim.

For a man to whom nothing seemed to stick for years, the stench of the past four years of often rotten performances under his leadership has hit him square in the face, and his criticism of Cricket Australia when announcing his resignation has all the hallmarks of a four year old throwing a tantrum when they realise they’re not going to get their own way this time.

After years of appearing to approach coaching with more of a big brother or older friend mentality than anything clearly resembling leadership or hard work, Nielsen has little to complain about. Under his not-always-watchful eye, the Test side has produced woefully inadequate and inconsistent performances, highlighted of course by last summer’s humiliating capitulation to England at home.

While Tantrum Tim is correct in stating Australia is the number one ODI side in the world today, performances there have also remained inconsistent, often punctuated by an apparent lack of intensity perhaps best encapsulated in the side crashing out of this year’s World Cup much earlier than expected. And while T20 remains little more than hit-and-giggle cricket with a zeroes attached, Nielsen’s coaching here has also clearly underwhelmed.

With all four selectors and the coach standing aside in the past month, the Scorpions classic ‘Winds of Change’ may well be an appropriate theme song for Channel Nine’s coverage of the game this summer. A few question marks remain after the tour of Sri Lanka, but the strong form of Shaun Marsh and Ryan Harris, combined with promising signs from Trent Copeland and Nathan Lyon bode well for a slaughter-free summer ahead. Tim Nielsen, meanwhile, should wait by the phone for a call-up to the cushy corporate arena. With his mastery of buzzwords and mediocre performance, a six figure salary and days of meetings await.

Australian Coach Tim Nielsen Resigns

Matthew Wood — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:07:15 +0000

Lead image (c) Guardian.co.uk

Matthew Wood, of the excellent Balanced Sports, reacts to the news of Tim Nielsen’s resignation. Matt tweets @Balanced_Sports.

Tim Nielsen has resigned as coach of the Australian cricket team. About bloody time, too.

After co-conspirator Hilditch, Tim Nielsen will be the most unlamented sacking in Australian cricket history. It’s not that he’s a bad coach – you don’t get to his position without being capable – it’s just that as former coach John Buchanan’s right-hand man, he wasn’t a sufficient enough change of message from his predecessor.

Under his watch, Australian national fielding standards declined from “world’s-best” to the equally hyphenable “also-ran”. They also rotated bowlers – in form or out – and attempted to dominate almost every situation, apparently unaware that circumstances had changed. Throughout his reign, Australia was hardly ever in position to be the aggressor.

It was, and three years later still is, time for a change.

Nielsen’s appointment was perhaps the most alarming symptom of the malaise that overtook Cricket Australia last decade. On John Buchanan’s retirement, rather than step out of their comfort zone – which they still refuse to do now – and appoint the best person for the job, they rewarded the loyal company man.

Rewarding the foot soldier can have it’s advantages, but not in this situation. Buchanan retired saying he had taken Australia as far as he could. When a successful coach retires after a lengthy tenure, often a change of message (or it’s delivery) is required as players have become accustomed to their former coach’s motivation strategies. This change is hardly likely to come from a 2IC.

A close-to-home example is easy to point out. In 1996 the old ACB replaced successful coach Bob Simpson, who had with Allan Border pulled Australian cricket up from the depths, with Geoff Marsh. Simpson had no wish to leave, but the board felt the players needed to hear a change of voice. It turns out their suspicions were correct.

Steve Waugh was instrumental in Buchanan’s installation as Australia coach, knowing he had the requisite technical knowledge and breadth of vision to help even the most established Australian players. Nielsen lacked both the technical knowledge and panoramic point of view. As an assistant coach, it was often his role liaise between players and coach. When moving from such a position to head coach, the distance between coach and players needed for objectivity and evaluation decreases.

This is one of the reasons why Nielsen’s assistants, Justin Langer and Steve Rixon, should almost immediately be discounted as possibilities for the open position. Rixon in particular has form, coaching successful NSW sides as far back as the late eighties, but the team needs differing methods and better communication. It would be a logical to assume Langer especially is too close to the players.

Tom Moody: the best candidate?

The best replacement for Nielsen may already be within the system. Western Australia coach Tom Moody’s style is a combination of discipline and evenness which proved successful when helming Sri Lanka. Even when his powers had faded as a player, his leadership was integral in Australia winning the ’99 World Cup; he has coaching and captaincy experience in England, the subcontinent and at home. Should he decide to apply, he would be the logical frontrunner.

The Argus report continues to leave a bloody trail of carnage through the offices of Australian cricket. Whether this is for better or worse, no-one can yet tell. But certainly, it is wise to rid the setup of unpopular and underperforming elements. All Cricket Australia needs to do now is ensure they appoint the best coach for the role.

Latest World Cricket News