World Cricket Watch » World Cricket Opinion

Australia Searching for Identity

Matthew Wood — Thu, 17 May 2012 11:38:36 +0000

Image: Ed Cowan has had a mixed start to his Test career

MATTHEW WOOD, of Balanced Sports, believes the current Australian side is a team with an identity crisis.

Despite two consecutive series wins in vastly different circumstances, the Australian cricket team still tricks the eye. In one Test, Ed Cowan resembles a doughty old-school opener, capable of withstanding the best attacks in world cricket; the following, he disappears into the sheds at 1/11. During one match, Shane Watson fights indomitably for a hard-earned 80; the next, he plays over and around a nothing-ball and departs meekly. In any one series Australia is likely to employ seven different bowlers.

With victories against India and the West Indies under his belt and a reasonable layoff before their next Test, it’s time Michael Clarke examined his team. They aren’t super talented, abounding with youthful promise or even stocked with journeymen. The Australian team, or even the thirty-man CA contract list, has no defining single characteristic which unifies them. And it shows.

Australia are a team without an identity. Without that unifying factor and devoid of knowledge of who they are as a team, the country’s Test players will continue to play inconsistent cricket.

The greatest teams in world cricket history have rocked an identity which was the personification of their most dominant collective character traits. The Australians of the first half of the last decade epitomised arrogance. The West Indians they replaced as ostensible World Champs exuded a fearsome, calculating vibe. For years, Pakistan has been content with being unknowable. Flower’s England has committed to twin attitudes of professionalism and preparation. Look back at every great team in history and adjectives spring quickly to mind.

With the current Aussies, those adjectives are less defining and more descriptive. Inconsistent. Journeyman. They (mostly) try hard.

A sense of personal and collective identity matters. Every sport has its own tales of team identities: the underdog, the supertalented high-octane team, the fine wine year, the gnarled veterans. Stereotypes, cliches and archetypes all, but it does follow the tenet that an athlete’s perception becomes their reality: in fact, this platform underlies how players can so easily gain and lose form. Once a self-identity is perceived, belief follows. Labels beget certainty and self-actualisation, no matter if those tags are correct or badly misplaced.

Moving on from amateur psychology hour, there simply isn’t a objective, defining characteristic that denominates an Australian Test cricketer. It’s begins at the top, with the key players and standard-bearers – ie. those with Class A contracts. To wit, Watson, Clarke, David Warner, Brad Haddin and Ricky Ponting.

This handful represents starkly disparate elements of this incarnation of Australia. While all want Australia to succeed, two are seriously concerned with retaining their positions, one seems incapable of scores over 60 and another still learns the First Class game. All the while, Clarke marshals his men, who seem confused as to which to rally behind. Aggressor? Confident? “Grinder”?

Although (some of) these five represent Australia’s most important – and marketable – cricketers, financially rewarding these team leaders means Cricket Australia has subconsciously divided its resources. The CA executive want success in Tests, ODIs and T20s without needing to focus on one format in particular. Like an out-of-form batsman, they half-heartedly offer shots, afraid to fail – when a shot (or management decision) requires commitment.

The creation of consistent excellence requires a shared an ideal. Winning creates hype, which creates interest which then grows the sport. Of course, dividing their resources is a practice at which CA excels.

The simple question is how could the current team have an identity? Australia has fielded the same XI in consecutive Tests only three times in the fourteen Tests since Clarke was installed as captain. Bowlers have been constantly injured, while batsmen have been (justly) dropped when form has waned. This capriciousness is only magnified by Australia entering an epoch where there isn’t the same level of talent as it has enjoyed for the past thirty years.

This lack of top-tier players has bred a horses-for-courses selection policy and consequently a transitory Test team. To borrow a well-used cliché, teams need time playing together to cement relationships and trust. With so many passing fancies, a team can’t begin to build an identity. Alarmingly, the more consistent team elements – Hussey, Ponting and Haddin – will likely drift into the sunset sooner rather than later.

Beholding to this tit-for-tat policy, Australian selectors have plumbed interstate cricket to select the most talented players available in a parody of an IPL-style fantasy draft. This is best demonstrated in the recently-announced squad to tour Ireland and England, and the return of Mitchell Johnson, Steve Smith and wonderboy Pat Cummins.

Cummins, rebuilt after an injury, probably deserved to tour but Johnson now has nothing on which to hang his hat but natural talent. By resurrecting a wayward fast man whose best days are three years ago leaves observers wondering how Australian leadership sees itself: the ultimate destination for the übertalented, or a team comprised of twelve interconnected, moving parts.

Often, it is not the most talented players who build teams and distinctiveness but so-called “glue guys”. Ashley Giles, Geoff Marsh and Gus Logie were integral to their relative sides for their ability to do a job, rather than being selected because they could or would dominate. Australia, for so long blessed with a gene pool where every second child became a international-quality batsman, expects to maintain the luxury of playing stars also able to double as role-players.

While speaking about his time in basketball, former Phoenix Suns GM Steve Kerr recently stated that “All champion teams have role players”. It’s possible that he has uncovered not only a basketball truth, but a universal one: the selection of Michael Beer and Ed Cowan – a man known worldwide after only seven Tests for one non-shot – suggests the Australian selectors are coming to the same conclusion. Pity the role player whose situation remains undefined: when a squad lacks an overwhelming identity, individual players suffer for not knowing their own.

Inspiration and decision must come from Clarke, in collusion with coach Mickey Arthur and the Australian selectors. The captain has obviously modelled his batsmanship on Australia’s most talismanic leader since World Series Cricket, Allan Border. Border first offered the country’s best and most gritty batting, and then authored the country’s prevailing cricketing attitude of hard-nosed, uncompromising competitiveness. That stance has defined the past two decades, but is now either outdated or ignored.

True and effective leadership replenishes itself, creating new leaders rather than demanding slavish obedience to a style. Clarke has proved himself the right man for the captaincy, a man to shepherd Australia into a new era as Border did a quarter of a century ago. However, for him to do so he must consciously elect to impart a new identity on his charges.

Why It Is Time To Say Goodbye To Ponting

Guest — Wed, 09 May 2012 21:51:09 +0000

lead image: Kemar Roach dismisses Ricky Ponting (C) AFP

Having recently witnessed Ricky Ponting in the Caribbean, GARFIELD ROBINSON thinks it’s time for the former Australian captain to call it a day.

In 1981, at the Queen Elizabeth Stadium in Nassau, Bahamas, boxing great Muhammad Ali entered the ring for the last time. His opponent was Trevor Berbick, a Jamaican who few thought belonged in the same ring as the great champion. In the end, Berbick won easily, by unanimous decision. Ali was but a shadow of his former self. Yes he got in a few punches, and might even have won the fifth and sixth rounds; he danced a little too, to remind fans of the performer he once was. But his powers had waned. Ali was no longer Ali.

I was reminded of Ali’s decline recently as I watched Ricky Ponting play in the Caribbean. Australia’s greatest batsman since Bradman had nothing like the command at the crease that was once his hallmark. Where he was once calm, positive and assured, he was now hurried and uncertain.

Not all the time: during his 41 in Trinidad he looked more fluent than at any other time in the series. He punished anything on his legs and even unsheathed a pull-shot or two, as if to remind the fans that he still had it. But, for the most part, it was clear to all who have watched him throughout the years: Ponting was no longer Ponting.

In the first innings of the Trinidad test Roach, continuing their battle from the last West Indies tour of Australia, got him with a peach of a delivery. Ponting was squared up by a delivery that angled in and landed on off-stump, then straightened and bounced—one that would probably have defeated him in his prime as well.

What epitomized his troubles to me, however, was a delivery he faced a few minutes earlier. Roach had bowled a short ball that he top-edged and skied trying to pull. It wasn’t a particularly quick delivery but the renowned punisher of everything short seemed harried. In his prime, he would have been on his back foot almost as soon as the ball was released, waited, and then decided which boundary board he would disturb, or where in the stands the ball would have to be retrieved.

Die-hard fans of Ponting would no doubt point out that not long ago he scored two hundreds, including a mammoth 221, and averaged 108 in a series against India. Yet they would have to agree that India’s bowling attack was one of the most inept to visit Australia in years. Michael Clarke team’s next test engagements will be against South Africa in November, and one does not expect their highly lethal bowling unit to mimic the impotence of the Indians. Australia’s selectors have a decision to make.

Well, not just one because their openers need to be looked at as well. But in my view Ponting needs to remove himself from the side before November or the selectors should respectfully ask him to go. Respectfully, because he has been a feared and faithful warrior in Australia’s cause and so cannot be cast away lightly. The run-of-the-mill player is easier to handle in such circumstances. Aware that their abilities were limited to begin with, they, and their fans, find separation less traumatic. The dominating player, on the other hand, sometimes fails to come to terms with their diminishing powers, and their fans often cling to the folklore long after the final chapter should have been closed.

And if the question then becomes, who is it that is ready to replace him, then I would answer that it doesn’t matter. Heroes should not be allowed to regress to the point where they become unrecognizable.

Not that his legacy is in jeopardy—Muhammad Ali is still the greatest. But just as it saddened boxing devotees to see one of the sport’s icons dominated by a lumbering journeyman, Ponting should ensure that he is not made to look anything other than the great player that he undoubtedly is.

Latest World Cricket Stories

Should Ricky Ponting Call it a Day? Share your thoughts in the comments

Waugh about Warner, Ponting, and the Australian Captaincy

Matthew Wood — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:20:27 +0000

lead image (c) news.com.au

MATTHEW WOOD, of Balanced Sports, take up the debate about who should captain Australia in Michael Clarke’s absence. Matt tweets @balanced_sports.

Steve Waugh has recently questioned the Australian selection panel in regards to their handling of the captaincy and of ousted wicketkeeper Brad Haddin. He is well within his right to, considering his personal achievements and stature in the game.

Up until Ricky Ponting – the man whose temporary institution he contests – the opinions of most Australian captains are considered continuing testament to the spirit of cricket. It speaks volumes of the man that Waugh’s thoughts are said to represent the spirit of the game moreso than any of his contemporaries.

While Brad Haddin has reasons to be aggrieved regarding his “resting”, Waugh’s comments regarding the Warner/Ponting captaincy dichotomy are far from accurate.

Cricket Australia, especially post-Argus, has several structures in place to ensure strong leadership. Although these structures are in place for a reason – in this case, ostensibly Warner’s education – the fact is that he doesn’t command the tactical respect of his comrades. While Ponting’s tenure could hardly be described as strong (c.f. Fabio Capello) he still inspires ultimate respect both as a cricketer and as a cricket brain.

The fact is there is no clear leader emerging to succeed Clarke. There needs not be at this point, as the Australian captain is 30 and with several years of high-class cricket in front of him. A second statement could be equally true: there is no need for a clear leader to emerge with Clarke at least five years from retirement. This is especially true considering his reign as le dauphin could quite accurately be said to have destabilised the Australian team rather than the intended opposite.

Indeed there is somewhat of a leadership vacuum in those players of Clarke’s vintage. George Bailey, Andrew McDonald and Cameron White fail to command a place on form, while a possible logical successor, Steve O’Keeffe, is yet to make his mark on the national team. Warner, who captains the Big Bash’s Sydney Thunder, is the best of those in the current framework: a guy who regularly looks to hook wide bumpers the first ball after drinks breaks.

By extension, Ponting is the best candidate for the job – especially now Clarke has cemented his authority. There should be no quibbling about the next generation or confusing structures, but the captaincy is such an award we should be careful to whom it is awarded. It needs to reward for effort and talent, not a prize given for potential. Do we want to be like England of the 1980s, where the likes of Chris Cowdrey have led their nation?

Although Warner has achieved much in the past six months, he does not deserve – yet – the honour of leading his country in what was once the world’s leading form of cricket.

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