The Straight Bat with Brendan Layton

What 2010 may bring us

2010-01-11T20:18:00.000-08:00

Firstly, I must apologise for neglecting my blog. The advent of Christmas holidays plus a revolutionising of my career path have led to me being distracted.

Another year has gone and now we face 2010. India is the number one test side, Australia the number one ODI side. And 2009 was a year of definite ups and downs, with ups such as England’s against-the-odds Ashes win; Australia’s remarkable victory in the ODI series in India despite fielding a bits-and-pieces squad; Virender Sehwag’s remarkable appetite for destruction; the exciting Champion’s League; and India finally assuming the ranking of best test nation on the planet.

Downs were most certainly the IPL, which started brightly but faded into monotony by the end; Mitchell Johnson’s confusing Jekyll and Hyde transformations; the West Indian player strike; and finally the hideous and shocking attack on the peaceable Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore.

After a confusing year, it seems the appropriate juncture to offer my predictions ahead for this year’s test cricket (And maybe beyond).

Firstly, I predict Australia will probably win all their test series this year. And they will put up a firm fight (As most would expect them to) in their ODI series. Do not expect much of them at the World Twenty/20 though. If they play well, expect them to make the semi finals. But I cannot see them winning.
In fact, I reckon the West Indies are overdue and may steal the tournament from right under the noses of everyone, and they will face either India or Pakistan in the final.

Looking at the tests booked for next year, Australia looks to be playing the most series during the year, and an Australian may lead the run scoring charts by the end of the year. That said, England may turn it on and show a lot of fight to be in the running this year. And if anyone from that team is going to score runs, it’ll be either Andrew Strauss or Alastair Cook, who may finally realise his immense potential.

Following his successful 2009, the top bowler will be Graeme Swann, who has given England’s attack some much needed vitality. He will be pivotal in all England’s tours, and could end up being the difference in the Ashes.

India is going to soon face the harsh truth that their stalwarts of the middle order can’t go on forever. Despite a boom year for Rahul Dravid, and a solid one for Tendulkar, the majority of them are on the wrong side of 35 and they need to start thinking of bringing in the precocious young talents of Virat Kohli and Cheteshewar Pujara. Their bowling attack has been fine without being dominant, which is a worry outside of India. Thankfully Zaheer is back, and he makes a world of difference to their balance.

Australia is certainly ripe for the plucking, and they will face a weakened New Zealand team in New Zealand, and then Pakistan in England before the Ashes. If the groundsman want to see their colonials cousins jump, the least they could do is produce some green wickets which will make for some dynamic cricket.

Expect India to hold onto their number one test ranking this year, although they will have an interesting time against the powerful South African line up. Australia may surge back to second if they put up some fight. But I wouldn’t count on it.

ODI cricket will be as unpredictable as ever, and people may be drawn back to the format.
Twenty/20 will surge again, with the IPL hopefully fixing what went wrong last year (Being too damn long), and the Champion’s League proving popular. As an early punt, I expect an Australian team to win again. You could tell in the inaugural tournament that they were the most disciplined sides, and that it would take something special to beat them. But expect the odd shock, or maybe another brilliant calypso showing, or even an IPL team blitzing into the final.

Finally, on a more personal note, expect more blogging from me as my time is freed and I can write further about the game I am, quite unashamedly, obsessed about.

Too close for comfort

2009-12-20T16:38:00.000-08:00

You would not have found many pundits who would have predicted such an intense test series that just finished. 2-0 does not reflect how strongly the Windies came back at a weakened and perhaps cocky Australian line up.

And it was the Windies’ bowling which surprised and exceeded expectations, especially as their best bowler Jerome Taylor was forced home through injury and their potentially most devastating bowler Fidel Edwards was not picked to tour.

Chris Gayle, who has had a difficult year with his lackadaisical attitude to test cricket and fondness for ADHD cricket Twenty/20, led from the front, belting two centuries in contrasting fashion: His Adelaide century carrying his bat anchored the innings and gave the West Indies something to bowl at, while his Perth ton was all devastation, leaving the Australian bowlers sprawling in his wake.

Australia scored no centuries in the series, but had four batsman average over 50. The Windies had four centuries, but only two men averaged over 50 and one of them was Narsinghe Deonarine, who scored a defiant 82 in the last test to give the West Indies a sniff of victory.

A worrying aspect was that only Dwayne Bravo averaged under 30 with the ball, and Kemar Roach bowled better than seven wickets and an average of over 50 suggests, creating concern and alarm with his pace and bounce and leaving a lasting impression on the battered Ricky Ponting. In time, he will be a ferocious bowler able to tear attacks apart with more exposure to test level.

Australia will be wondering where their plans went wrong. The Windies defied them in moments they looked set to dominate, and they faltered at crucial times as they did in the Ashes this year. On that occasion, when Australia faltered, England capitalised on the unexpected advantage better than the Windies did this series.

I was not impressed with Mitchell Johnson who, despite being the leading the wicket taker in the series with 17, was comprehensively out bowled by Ben Hilfenhaus in Brisbane and by Doug Bollinger in Adelaide and Perth. His run rate of 4.33 suggests that he was unable to give the control needed by the bowling attack and when Hilfy returns, he may be facing trouble for his position, because after such an impressive performance they cannot drop Bollinger.

Pakistan must be feeling confident they can cause Australia harm in this series. Unlike the Windies, their bowling attack is impressively formidable on paper. It is their batting, particularly that of the top order, that is frail. They may struggle to confront an opening bowling combination that will hopefully be Hilfy and Doug the Rug.

And on a final aside note, Brendan Nash, who left Australia to live in Jamaica and suddenly found himself in the national team and then the West Indies team, acquitted himself greatly during the series. He scored 250 runs at 41.67, with only Chris Gayle of the West Indies players scoring more. They would not have fared as well in the series without his pugnacity and desire to fight.

One of cricket's greatest absurdities

2009-09-17T18:01:00.000-07:00

Cricket is definitely a funny old game. It’s a definite cliché that phrase, but it occasionally has a way of throwing a spanner in the works and providing something that just shouldn’t normally happen.

Rewind to Chittagong in 2006. Australia was playing their first test series in Bangladesh, and in the first test Bangladesh gave a spirited fight led by a stirring century from Shahriar Nafees. There was hope the spirit shown by the Bangladeshis would be carried into the Chittagong match. Alas it was not to be.

And the stage was set for the most absurd inning in cricket history.

Jason Gillespie had long been one of Australia’s great fast bowling servants. His partnership with Glenn McGrath was a major factor in Australia’s run of dominance and he could have easily been a top bowler for any other country at his peak.

He has recently been dropped following a disastrous campaign to England in 2005, which effectively spelled the end of his career, and was only called up because McGrath, Kasprowicz, and Tait were missing. He bowled well in the first test, and took three cheap and effective wickets in the first innings of Bangladesh. At the end of the first day, he was sent in at first drop after Matthew Hayden fell for 29, to join Phil Jaques.

He was not removed for the rest of the innings. Day two was shortened because of poor weather, but by the end of day three he had progressed to his maiden test (And first class) century.

Midway through day four, he moved on to an unbeaten 201, the highest ever score by a nightwatchman and also a higher score than many of his more illustrious batsmen. Along the way he chalked a gigantic 320 run partnership with Mike Hussey, who scored a rapid 182.

There was nothing really remarkable of Dizzy’s batting technique. He effectively put his leg as far as he could down the pitch and blocked. Now he was never a fast scorer, but he was incredibly difficult to dislodge. In India in 2004 his defensive innings, along with Damian Martyn’s century, helped draw the second test, setting the stage for Gillespie to take nine wickets in the next test to bowl Australia to victory.

His double century was full of drives, cut shots, and pulls. He had passed fifty twice previously, so everyone knew he could be a real pest if he hung around. This was something different. He bullied and wore down the Bangladesh attack that just couldn’t get past the long front foot. He brought up his double century with a leg glance for four. The commentators laughed with genuine glee, and Dizzy shook his head at the absurd notion that he of all people had scored a test double century.

Sadly, I have been unable to find any video footage of this particular gem. I’d dearly love to see it and laugh again. It always brings a smile to my face just thinking about it.

Only Glenn McGrath scoring a century could be close to more absurd. Or maybe Chris Martin making it into the 20s.

Is there a resolution?

2009-09-03T17:13:00.000-07:00

The problems at the moment facing West Indian cricket have been well documented, with the power struggle between the WICB and the WIPA leading to the majority of their superstars refusing to play for their team.

In the meantime, the West Indians played a test series against Bangladesh and became the second team (After the now non-test playing nation Zimbabwe) to lose a series to the Bangas. It was a vastly under strength and untried side, with young hopefuls joining old veterans to form a team who would never even look like getting a game normally (With the exception maybe of Darren Sammy).

Now recent talks between the two parties have recently fallen apart again, and now there is a distinct chance that the West Indian team to travel to Australia to compete for the Frank Worrell Trophy will be led by Floyd Reifer and will feature unknowns who, although facing a weakened Australian side, will most certainly be crucified.

While this is happening, several West Indians will may the journey south to play in the Big Bash over the summer, earning their cash as mercenaries. This may be the future of West Indian cricket now, with the best players heading abroad in search of money they claim is not coming from the board. Chris Gayle has publicly stated his disdain for test cricket, and others are being snapped up by IPL franchises as well.

The reasoning is simple. Why play test cricket for the West Indies when you can earn more money in less time playing Twenty/20?

One hopes that come the end of the day we can have a resolution so we don’t lose a cricket team filled with history, explosiveness, and raw talent. I would hate to see the day when cricket is without the West Indies. Something within the game, maybe excitement, would die with them.

Hilf and North strike a blow for anonymity

2009-08-27T19:07:00.000-07:00

Well...................well...................another Ashes series gone by and another result not everyone expected.

In 2005, we watched England down a far superior Australian team boasting several immortals of the game. In 2006/2007, we watched a highly fancied England team get annihilated by ‘Dad’s Army’. What does that leave us with in 2009?

Well it was probably a case of two mediocre teams battling to stop themselves from being the first to drop the ball, which in the end was all that was needed at The Oval. Australia dropped the ball badly and England capitalised in a big way to secure a 2-1 win that no-one really expected to happen.

Now in my opinion, the pitches were once again shite. I hate how curators are turning pitches into bland batting strips. It annoys me that the bowlers are getting the raw end of the deal. Why can’t we see a green pitch for once where the ball moves around like a nightmare? Why can’t we have a dustbowl that turns square? Why can’t we have a bouncy pitch that has a chance to rattle a batsman’s helmet?

But enough griping, on to the point at hand.

The stats make great reading for the series, especially since Australia had three bowlers with 20 wickets and four batsmen with over 300 runs yet still found a way to lose the series. Only one bowler managed to average below 30 as well, a further example of the pitches turning out like the M4 Motorway.

Australia came to England’s shores with a team made up of fledging stars and young guns, with a lot of the hype centred on Phillip Hughes and bowlers Johnson and Siddle.
Yet it was the unknown soldiers Ben Hilfenhaus for the bowlers and Marcus North for the batsmen that provided a solid base for the rest of their team.

Hilfenhaus was unheard of when he came to England. He had been well known in Australia for several season after emerging as one of the best young quicks coming through the ranks, particularly in the season Tasmania managed to win the Pura Cup (Now back to Sheffield Shield thank God) for the first time.

Conditions definitely favoured him, and in the five test series he collected 22 wickets and bowled some magnificent outswingers, although he never took a five wicket haul he so deserved. The English will have a lot of respect for the quiet former bricklayer who worked hard for his wickets.

North came through a different route. Now 30, he has plied his trade for Western Australia and has been a county pro for many years now, playing for five different counties during his time in the country. His selection for South Africa was a gamble, but in England it made perfect sense as he had the years of experience in English conditions.

His two centuries and a 96 left him a formidable object at number six and we could well hold onto that position for some time. And with Mike Hussey out of sorts and on the wrong side of 34, he could even be boosted up the order.

The success of Hilfy and the Australian cricket team’s only smoker are a good sign for the team and a victory of anonymity. Let’s hope that they continue to prosper for Australia’s sake.

A worrying lack of depth

2009-07-30T19:07:00.000-07:00

While a lot of the media attention during this Ashes series has been diverted to the Australian form woes and Freddie’s impending test retirement, I’ve noticed something alarming about the England side that no one has really delved into.

KP’s injury was a bad setback for England, which, while I concede he’s not in the greatest form, leaves a big hole in their batting lineup. He is one player who stands head and shoulders above his teammates and is one of the few batsmen in their lineup that thrives against the strongest teams.

Ian Bell is his replacement, a very talented batsman with a technique quite pleasing on the eye and eight test centuries to his credit. That said, Belly (Or ‘The Sherminator’, as Warney calls him) has never scored a test century without someone reaching the mark before him. He has frequently lacked the necessary steel to mix it with the best sides, and his record as England’s number three was decidedly woeful.

There lies the problem. When a regular team member is out, does Ian Bell fit the criteria of England’s next best batsman?

Look into the county system and you’ll start to see the problem. At the top of Division One’s run scoring chart is Marcus Trescothick, now retired from international cricket. Michael Carberry is next, but he’s an opener. The first middle order batsman you find is James Hildreth, whose numbers this year have been partially bolstered by an unbeaten 303 against Warwickshire.

His nearest opponent is Jonathan Trott who, at 28, is a more mature debutant and has been scoring prolifically in the last few years. But he has 18 hundreds as opposed to 40 fifties. Slight conversion rate issue there.

In Division Two, there problem is even worse. The top four players are past their prime as test batsmen (With Martin Van Jaarsveld also a South African!). The nearest young batsman is Alex Gidman, whose record is rather modest. And below him is Phillip Hughes!

I’ve heard a number of calls for Robert Key or Joe Denly, but neither is really true and tested yet. That statement is arguable for Key, who has a test double century to his credit, but at 30 he isn’t really a young face. Denly needs another year or two to really figure out his technique before he gets thrown into the deep end. He didn’t have a particularly good year in 2008 and Division Two isn’t full of the top bowling talent.

England do have decent bowling numbers to fall back on, with Harmison waiting in the wings (Although hopefully they won’t need him) as well as the solid Tim Bresnan, Ryan Sidebottom, the young but sharp Luke Fletcher, and the spectacularly successful Alex Shantry, who has been snatching up wicket for Glamorgan. No spinners are really being noticed though, apart from those currently in the England setup.

Mark Davies was a player I thought needed to be in the test side, but he is struggling to get a regular game with Durham and despite a truly remarkable bowling record, he may become part of the unrecognised heap.

England is not short on keepers, with James Foster a class act and the unlucky and brilliant Chris Read.

But what can England do if they start losing batsmen to injury or retirement?

And the final question for you to ponder on, what will England do when Freddie leaves the test side?

Jimmy, will you please stand up......

2009-07-02T21:18:00.000-07:00

England will be banking on its new look bowling attack taking the fight to the Australians during the Ashes. But in my opinion it is not Flintoff that holds the important card, it is Jimmy Anderson.

Jimmy has had a mixed bag of a career, pretty much summed up by one good spell and then six or seven ordinary ones. He looked the goods at times, and then he came crashing back to earth.

His Ashes series in 06/07 was nothing short of a disaster. He collected five wickets at the horrible average of 82.60 and was manhandled by Ricky Ponting and co.

Good signs were showing soon however. During the English summer he collected 5/42 against a powerful Indian batting lineup. The next two tests he was again ineffective. The story was continuing.

It took New Zealand’s tour to England to finally get the best out of Anderson. And he delivered with career best figures of 7/43 to wreck the Kiwis. He swung the ball alarmingly both ways at good pace. Had he finally arrived as a test cricketer or was it another in a long line of false dawns?

He did well against South Africa, fumbled on India’s batting tracks, and then performed brilliantly without much luck against the Windies.

Now, on the eve of the Ashes series, he has taken 5/34 against an admittedly weak Warwickshire side and has established himself as his team’s premier paceman.

England’s success will hinge on his performances. He needs to hassle openers Phillip Hughes and Simon Katich with his swing, and get the ball moving both ways. Hughes was also unsettled by the short ball in his brief stint against the Lions and he may find himself becoming an early Anderson target.

This is Anderson’s greatest test, a series against the oldest enemy Australia in which he is the unanimous spearhead. If he fails, his career will once more hit the stalling point it has hit before. If he succeeds, maybe he will have finally reached his immense potential.

My mate Hughesy

2009-05-13T22:32:00.000-07:00

I live in a little suburban town in Sydney where we call a spade a shovel and outdoor sports are a good way to meet and greet the populace. During my failed cricket career, I was privy to meet the then President of my cricket club, Steve Mullally (No relation to a certain England left-arm quick who couldn’t bat), before he became a talent scout for Cricket NSW.

One day I was fortunate enough to bump into him (He’s extremely busy these days), and out of curiosity asked him whether there were any players I should keep an eye out for.

‘There’s a young bloke that’s playing for Western Suburbs called Philip Hughes. He’s going to go all the way’.

And thus I did, being the good cricket tragic that I am, keep an eye out for him. That was about 2006, when he had just come down from his banana farm in Macksville, and he was already setting the Sydney first grade scene alight.

Three years later he is the most talked about Australian cricketer in the world. His astonishing rise to the baggy green might someday become something of a folk legend.

I watched in the papers for Hughesy, but grade cricket receives limited coverage. He was picked up for some under 19’s Australia teams, but he didn’t really achieve much. Finally in November 2007, his big appetite for runs and enormous potential became too much for the selectors to ignore.

He made his first class debut against Tasmania and made a grinding 51 in a game that Doug Bollinger took 12 wickets. Simon Katich, the captain of NSW and then on the road to the most runs in an Australian first class season, took the young man under his wing.

There were several half centuries that season but the youngster has failed to convert them into the hundreds sorely needed to get his name noticed. But then came the Pura Cup final against the strong Victorian team, containing a young fast bowler that would soon come into the Australian team, Peter Siddle.

Hughesy made only six in the first innings. But in the second, backed by the insatiable Katich, he made 116 to become the youngest man to hit a century in an Australian four day domestic final.

I was there the day Hughesy made that century, full of sharp drives, some lucky edges, and some excellent running between the wickets, and I was one of the loudest to cheer when he made the magic milestone. I’m not sure Hughesy remembers the loud guy with glasses in the stand willing him to succeed.

He made appearances for the academy team during the winter, and then came an important season for the young man the next year. Matthew Hayden was fading fast, Phil Jaques was out with injury, Chris Rogers was getting on and Simon Katich, his mentor, was in the side and whispering in ears.

Hughes took the opportunity to have a devastating season, scoring 891 runs against some of the finest domestic attacks in the world. Only Rogers and the reborn Michael Klinger scored more runs that season.

His finest performance that season was a brilliant double of 93 and 108 on a seaming Bellerive pitch where the next highest NSW score was 42.

Suddenly with Hayden retiring, Australia might have a young talent who would fill a big hole left by the powerful Queenslander.

Some were sceptical of the possibility of sending the young lad into what would be a tough debut series against the recently victorious South Africans. But the selectors decided to watch him play against Tasmania in Newcastle to have a second opinion. Hughes made 151 and 82 not out. He had booked his ticket to South Africa.

What followed was nothing short of incredible. After an embarrassing duck in his maiden test innings, Hughes grafted 75 in the second innings to help Australia to a hard fought win. Then he surprised the cricketing world by knocking off George Headley to become the youngest player to hit twin centuries in a test match with 115 and 160, knocking up his maiden century with a towering six.

He finished as Australia’s highest run scorer for the series and was probably only beaten by Mitchell Johnson and AB De Villiers as men of the series. He has now secured his role as Australia’s test opener for as long as his batting oozes runs, which may not be too hard considering his voracious appetite for runs, one usually associated with the truly great players.

As the Ashes loom, England now have a new player to worry about, one that has flogged three centuries and two fifties in five first class innings for Middlesex. One that has already scored test hundreds against arguably the most ferocious attack in the world.

You will hear a lot more about Philip Hughes before his career is over.

An culture of suspicion

2009-04-28T22:39:00.000-07:00

An old problem has just been highlighted by Pakistan captain Younis Khan, and one that is always inflammatory and brings out the worst in parochial cricket fans.

He mentioned on Cricinfo following the third ODI that controversies seem to rear their ugly head whenever an Australian team plays a nation from the subcontinent, and some degree he’s right and to some degree he is wrong, although I’m not sure to what context he is speaking.

The problem stems from the recent trouble over suspect bowling actions, with Saeed Ajmal reported for problems with his doosra and before that Johan Botha was called once again during the South African series over his doosra and quicker ball.

Now the suspicion in this case would not have come across in most cases, except that the team involved following both incidents was Australia.

It takes only that sort of evidence for the narrow-minded to draw to the conclusion that Australia, who have struggled recently, are attempting to take bowlers who have had successes against them out of play. And to be honest, it is really easy to see the connection considering the history.

Muttiah Muralitharan was initially called for throwing in Australia in the early 90’s by Darrell Hair, and that sparked a massive controversy. Ross Emerson did the same thing on Sri Lanka’s next tour during an ODI, and that again sparked problems. When the 15 degree rule was introduced, Murali no longer has any problems.

Part of the problems is not with the Australian team as such, but as how the Australian team is viewed. The Australian team that has dominated the greater part of the last decade has played superb cricket, but has come to be viewed as boorish, arrogant, overconfident and aggressive.

That is true in quite a few respects; they were certainly no angels on the field. But there is no such thing as a saint on a cricket field. That issue was mostly developed under Steve Waugh’s ‘Mental Disintegration’ ploy. It’s not like Mark Taylor needed to sledge so intensely to win.

The Australian team has been viewed, primarily in the media, as bad losers and even worse winners and thus a lot of teams have their opinion switched firmly on the dislike. This has not been helped by the controversies that seem to follow them around, some of which they cause and some of which they are unfortunately drawn into.

It wasn’t the Australian team that called Murali, and in the two recent cases the spinners were called by neutral umpires, one of which was from the home country. Saeed Ajmal claimed that Shane Watson spoke to the umpires about it, but I’m sceptical about that claim as there isn’t really any evidence of it and it wouldn’t make any sense for the Australians to do it.

They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The last Indian series was one of the bitterest series in recent memory. Indian fans were baying for blood following the Sydney fiasco (Many STILL go on about it), and the attitude among the newer elements of the Indian team was to match the aggression of the Australian team.

Australia was never going to win that series, but the many on-field and off-field incidents left a bad taste in the mouth.

Australia has become a great scapegoat for problems due to the fact that they are most unpopular team in world cricket. Hell, they are liked less than George W Bush.

The Left-Handed Pearl

2009-04-09T22:04:00.000-07:00

Left-Arm Fast bowler. They are the mythical bunch that is a diamond dozen, but those who have made it to the top have shone as some of the finest bowlers of the game.

Mitchell Johnson has blown his way to the top of Australia’s bowling attack following a humble start, and Zaheer Khan has emerged from a long and difficult apprenticeship to be India’s top bowler. But the main reason they cause excitement is that they are left-arm quicks, and can do things a right-armer would dream about.

The history of left-arm quicks traces all the way back to the very first test, where England fielded Tom Emmett, a bluff Yorkshire professional who could bowl very fast on his day. Australia’s attack, missing Fred Spofforth, opened the bowling with John Hodges, a Victorian bookmaker who played the first two tests and never played test cricket again.

On the return match in England, Fred Spofforth was supported by Frank Allen, once hailed ‘the bowler of the century’, and a man who was allegedly a gargantuan swinger of the ball. He took 4/80 in the match as Spofforth annihilated England.

England would tend to rely on left arm orthodox bowlers in its early history, but they did produce an all-rounder who could be dangerous on his day in the form of George Hirst, who achieved more with the bat than the ball in his few test appearances.

More successful was Jack Ferris, who teamed up with Charlie Turner to form one of the most lethal partnerships in test cricket history. Ferris’ career was blighted by the weakness of the Australian batting at the time, and eventually left to play in England as a professional.

When South Africa initially came into the test arena, they struggled to match the strong Australian and English teams, but they did have Arthur ‘Dave’ Nourse, a left-arm swing bowler who was the ‘Grand Old Man of South African Cricket’.

In the late 1920’s, England unearthed a young lad from Nottinghamshire who would make his mark a few years later as the accomplice of one Harold Larwood. Bill Voce, although yards slower than his older partner, was a key figure in Bodyline where he would set the leg trap and use his awkward angle and great height to create havoc and a long run of bruises.
He would have sporadic success in his career, and his last tour with Wally Hammond’s team in 1946/47 to Australia when he was long past his peak was a disaster.

After World War Two Australia unearthed a candidate for one of the all-time left-armers in Bill Johnston, a droll Victorian who had been a spin bowler before he turned to swing. He took 16 wickets against India in his debut test series and then in the next five took at least 20 wickets. Not bad, especially when you consider that he was competing with Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller for the new ball.

Frank Worrell, a much-underrated bowler due to his batting talent, was often called upon to open the bowling for the West Indies as the struggled to find the next Learie Constantine. He took a best of 7/70, but a younger all-rounder from Barbados would supersede him as an all-rounder and player. Garry Sobers, arguably the greatest all-rounder of them all, took 235 wickets bowling swing, genuinely fast, or any type of spin he felt like.

When Australia toured South Africa in 1957/58, a lot of their hopes were pinned on Alan Davidson, who was finally being given the new ball after having to wait behind the impenetrable Lindwall/Miller/Johnston combination. He was acknowledged as a master bowler, but had played 12 tests and had taken an unremarkable 16 wickets at 34.06.
In the next 32 tests he took 170 wickets at under 20 to reduce that average to 20.53. Doing that he established himself as the finest left-arm quick of that time, and he is only challenged as the greatest of them all by one man.

South Africa had developed Trevor Goddard as a useful all-rounder who at times opened the batting and the bowling for his country. When the arrival of some genuinely fast men gave him better support, the ferocious South African team of the 60’s was born.

The generation gap between the next gifted lefties was bridged by Richard Collinge, a gigantic but gentle swing bowler whose best was overshadowed by Richard Hadlee, but always gave his best for New Zealand.

Lefties struggled to make an impact in the 70’s. Bernard Julien was spoken of as another Sobers but failed to have an impact. John Lever played 21 tests as a classy swing bowler, but had to shake rumours he used slave or something similar to get swing.

Australia produced two with vastly different careers. Gary Gilmour was a spectacular swing bowler and hard hitting batsman who produced his best in the one day game. He struggled later in his career as the increasing professionalism left players of his ilk in the cold.

Geoff Dymock, a maths teacher who struggled with remote postings for many years, was a determined, hard-working bowler who improved to such a state in his early 30’s that he was considered good enough to partner Dennis Lillee during the Post-WSC reunion. He was the first person to dismiss all 11 batsmen in a team at Green Park in India in a match his batsmen still managed to lose.

In the 80’s there was little to be seen of the left-arm quick, and it was thought they had gone out of fashion as quick as the Malcolm Marshall bouncer. Then suddenly out of Pakistan came a young man with a whippy action that could bowl fast and swing the ball both ways alarmingly late.

Wasim Akram took 5/56 in his second test and showed signs of greatness. At the turn of the decade, he was acknowledged the finest fast bowler in the world, even better than Windies beanpoles Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh.
Australian captain Mark Taylor, a man who managed a century against Akram hailed him as the most difficult bowler he had ever faced, and much better than any West Indian of the time. His record is formidable: 414 wickets at 23.62. He suffered during his career from a myriad of scandals, and late in his career he lost a lot of the zip that made him the most feared bowler in the world.

That said, in my opinion Wasim Akram is the greatest leftie of them all.

Australia managed to produce a tall, gangling WA quick that could make the ball swing and lift from a good length. Bruce Reid suffered from back problems his entire career, but managed 113 wickets at 24.63, he was no mug when he got it right.

Sri Lanka, after initial struggles, unearthed an invulnerable warrior who to this day carries their pace attack. Chaminda Vaas was never lightning fast, but he learned progressively as he went. He forsook pace to become a crafty swing and seam bowler, capable of blowing away teams on helpful pitches and containing batsmen with his accuracy.

Nathan Bracken had been earmarked as the next Bruce Reid when he came through the ranks, but it took a long time to make his mark. And now at 31, and having not played a test since 2005, a classy swing bowler seems to have cruelly been cast as a limited overs bowler, despite being widely admitted as one of the finest swing bowlers in the world.

But the leftie rides again. Johnson and Zaheer are at the pinnacle of this class at the moment, but South Africa has Wayne Parnell waiting to take the fight. Pakistan’s Sohail Tanvair is a wrong-footed and unpredictable quick with strong potential. And there is definitely one out there who could be the next Alan Davidson. The next Wasim Akram.

Now that would be a treat.

Bracks left scratching his head

2009-03-04T20:35:00.000-08:00

As Steve Magoffin joins Brett Geeves over in South Africa in case Peter Siddle or Ben Hilfenhaus need a replacement, the world’s premier one day bowler must be shaking his blond locks in disillusionment after he went from Australia’s best swing bowler to typecast limited overs gun.

That reasoning has the twang of the ridiculous about as you consider that Bracken, for a long time one of the most talented bowlers in the country, has destroyed teams in the Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup for years.

In 2004/2005, when NSW once again proved that Queensland could not beat them in a final (They still haven’t), Bracken devastated their strong batting line up with 6/27. Earlier that season he had bowled out South Australia for 27 in 15 overs, taking a barely believable 7/4. That evokes stories about the time Keith Miller did something similar to South Australia when claiming 7/12.

Doubters will point to his limited success in five tests, 12 wickets at 42.08. That fails to explain a one day record of 159 wickets at 22.90, with a strike rate of 31.1. In the last four years he has been a major driving force in Australia’s successes in the one day arena.

In the 2007 World Cup, his presence meant that Glenn McGrath was dropped to first change in his last hurrah, with Bracken, McGrath, and Shaun Tait proving a formidable one day attack.

In South Africa, the conditions always favour quicker bowlers with ample seam movement, good swing, and bouncy pitches. Bracken is Australia’s best swing bowler. What has he done to deserve such shabby treatment?

The mecurial Mitchell Johnson

2009-03-03T20:45:00.000-08:00

If the Australia’s test win in Johannesburg proved anything, apart from that Australia is not dead and buried yet; it proved that Mitchell Johnson is improving as a cricketer with every test.

His first season as a test cricketer was quite underwhelming, considering the amount of hype surrounding him and the fact he had to fill the quite sizable shoes of the finest bowler of modern times; Glenn McGrath.

I must admit I thought him overrated. He did not swing the ball much, a much needed weapon in a left-armer’s armoury, and could at times be wayward. Fast forward another season and he is the leader of the Australian bowling attack.

For Johnson to go from promising change bowler to Australia’s most dangerous bowler within a year shows how vital Johnson has become, and how much he has improved in such a short time.

Johnson has always been consistently quick, and one of his greatest strengths is being able to bowl at a good pace for an entire day. He can get swing, sometimes quite late, and his variations in pace are clever and well disguised.

His batting has improved dramatically. There is no doubt that when his career is over he will have scored at least one test century. He only narrowly missed out in the previous test when he ran out of partners. His stroke play is crisp and his timing quite exquisite. He may not quite reach that level of ability, but there can be some comparisons made to Johnson and other left-arm all-rounders Alan Davidson and Wasim Akram.

The only problem Australia has with Johnson at the moment is the high workload being forced upon him. When Stuart Clark returns that will be partially remedied, but in the meanwhile he is Australia’s best fast bowler and will be a key part of an Australian team rebuilding following its most successful period.

March 3: Cricket's Day of Tragedy

2009-03-03T20:27:00.000-08:00

March 3rd was a tragic day for everyone close to cricket. The most fanatical of Pakistan fans are now weeping what is surely the demise of international cricket being played in their country for some time, while worldwide cricket fanatics, myself included, mourn the fact that not even a sporting team can escape from religious fanaticism.

Sadly there were lives lost. Five members of the security team, the driver of the umpire’s car, and two bystanders were killed. Fortunately none of the Sri Lankan players, the primary target of these terrorists, were killed, although both Thilan Samaweera and Tharanga Paranavitana
were hit by stray bullets.

The repercussions from this will affect cricket on a global scale as they now realise what these cretins, misguided in their religious devotion, will do to get their messages heard.

No international team will go to Pakistan anymore. The writing looked on the wall when teams such as Australia and England were refusing to tour there, blaming the political upheaval. It looked even further doubtful following the Mumbai terror attacks, when India refused to tour the country.

Any hope of the average Pakistan citizen, most of whom worship cricket, seeing international teams compete against their nation on their home turf is now long gone.

That’s part of the tragedy. Pakistan will now be totally isolated from the rest of the cricket world, with its fans forced to watch their team play in neutral venues if they are to keep playing top level cricket. No longer can their fans see the likes of a Jayawadene, Ponting, Pietersen, Tendulkar, or Graeme Smith touring.

I am so glad the Sri Lankan players are safe. If there is any good news we can take out of this tragedy, it is that we have players of the calibre of Samaweera, Sangakarra and Mendis still able to entertain the masses.

We have witnessed one of the most, if not the most, devastating events in cricket history. If the game of cricket can recover from this, it will go on forever.

The Disaster Masters

2009-02-08T20:47:00.000-08:00

One of the unexpected laughs of the week came at the expense of England, who showed the world they are still the masters of disaster with a dismal collapse to 51 in their test against the West Indies.

And the reason I laugh? Every pommie supporter has been in my ears or on Cricinfo talking up how Australia will be devastated on their trip for England. Following their ridiculous fall on the weekend, I am completely confident that we will retain our hold on the priceless urn.

England and Australia are often accused of paying too much attention to the Ashes. It is true to some respects, although Australia in its time puts a lot of priority on its duels these days with South Africa and especially India, as well as having a long standing competition with the Windies for the Frank Worrell Trophy.

England, however, are clearly Ashes-obsessed. The tabloids in England are more infatuated with beating Australia than they are with Amy Winehouse’s drunken exploits or what stupid comment the Gallagher brothers have summoned for the week. It’s an old sore that they can’t tolerate, a colony creating its own identity and then emerging as superior in some aspects, as they have with cricket.

The hysteria surrounding 2005, when England thrillingly won to breathe life back into the contest, was a good example of how much they revere the contest, and how much it means for them to win.

There were some that hadn’t ever seen the urn in England’s trophy cabinet following its capture in 1989 and subsequent long term possession by Australia. I don’t blame them for going mad and then giving MBEs top the victorious team. They did the same for the English Union team when they won the World Cup in 2003, having knocked off, you guessed it, Australia for the title.
England were widely rumoured to be treating this tour as an ‘Ashes warm-up’. How that has now backfired spectacularly.

Their reliance on Kevin Pietersen is beginning to grow with every test, especially with the continually lean showings of Alastair Cook and the spineless Ian Bell. Their bowling, apart from the luckless yet venomous ‘Freddie’ Flintoff, is rather frail.

Stuart Broad is developing but can’t hide a lack of real pace. Ryan Sidebottom is steady and accurate, but can be negotiated by a good batting line-up. He went wicket less at Kingston, and that might be playing on their minds.

The less said of Harmison and Jimmy Anderson the better. Neither are the answer for England’s bowling woes. Harmy is way too inconsistent and has problems with his attitude. Now that he is on the wrong side of 30, they need to cut off from a talented but highly enigmatic bowler.

Anderson is a real conundrum. He can bowl prodigious swing at a good pace at times but when he has an off day, which is quite often, he can be plundered for many runs. He was highly ineffectual in the last Ashes series, and the Australian batsmen will be licking their lips if he comes into contention for a place.

Monty is certainly their best spinner. And one would hope he finds his mojo, as he can be considered a far better spin bowler than anyone Australia can muster at the present time.

England needs to have a long think, and so do all you pom supporters out there. Do you really think you can win the Ashes with this inconsistent bunch of underachievers?

Time to gamble on Hughes

2009-02-01T21:30:00.000-08:00

As the selectors, in their infinite wisdom, gather this week to decide upon the touring team to South Africa, the vital decision they have to make is who will replace Matthew Hayden as opener.

And my nomination has to be that of Phillip Hughes.

The New South Welshman, only 20 years of age, has set the domestic scene alight in his two seasons at the top level. In season 2008/2009, he has 891 runs from 13 innings at an average of 74.25. And many have been scored spectacularly.

His double of 93 and 108 on a nightmarish track in Hobart was the sign of a player who has the potential to be an all-time great. To put that into perspective, no other NSW players passed 50, the next highest being 42 by Steve Smith.

His career thus far reads 30 innings, 1570 runs at an average of 60.38, with a high score of 198, five centuries, and ten half-centuries. If Hughes was playing for any other country (Possibly apart from India), he would be considered one of the finds of the decade, and would probably already be playing international cricket.

While it can be argued that Phil Jaques is the incumbent and has test cricket already under his belt, it would be a mistake to rush the batsman back into the side when he is still recovering from back surgery.

Michael Klinger is a red hot candidate for the tour, being at the time of writing the only batsman to score over 1000 runs this season. But this is the first season he has been able to apply himself. At 28, he can be considered a gamble if he goes.

The other choices would be for the bowling attack. Johnson is first choice, followed by Peter Siddle. Doug Bollinger and Ben Hilfenhaus should round out the squad. Nathan Hauritz will remain number one spinner, even though he isn’t a particularly strong wicket-taking option, and Jason Krejza will be the back-up, as Australia struggles to look for a permanent Warne replacement.

I do reckon it is time for Australia to dump the foolish notion of fielding an all-rounder. They have fine bowlers and decent part-time options (Clarke, Katich), so they should probably boost their batting a bit by playing a straight batsman, which could open the way for either Dave Hussey or Kilnger at six.

And I am willing to say goodbye to Andrew Symonds. A class player, and one I’ve vastly enjoyed since he started his career. Australia just doesn’t need him anymore.

2009, a punter's view

2009-01-07T03:07:00.000-08:00

What are the predictions so far for 09? Will Australia be still number one by the end of the year? Will South Africa or India have overtaken them? Who will be the top batsmen? The top bowlers? The new heroes?

I’m happy to pick up the slack and make my brave predictions for the new year, and I hope we can get some discussion going.

Firstly, Australia will no longer be number one (This is of course referring to the ICC ranking system). We’ll probably get beaten in South Africa, although if Stuart Clark plays the result will be much closer than first thought. However, Australia should retain the Ashes.

England is a real mess at the moment. KP has resigned from the captaincy and there will be no Peter Moores. England is a shadow of the team that won the 2005 Ashes, although some of the heroes are still lingering around.

Flintoff is still a force to be reckoned with, and KP is a genuine superstar batsman who can by dynamite against any opposition. However, their bowling attack is pretty flimsy, as is their choice of Bell at number three. Bell has never made a test century unless another batsman has passed the mark before him, and while stylish, he just doesn’t have any steel in his spine.

India and South Africa will define excellence in 2009, and while India are looking as good as ever, South Africa have the advantage due to their finely balanced bowling attack and the coming of age of several of their players (Namely De Villiers and Amla).

India has a classy team, led by two fine fast bowlers in Zaheer and Ishant. Ishant has the mark of an all time great, and will continue to improve as long as he doesn’t break down due to his somewhat frail physique. Their problem is their aging veterans, who are approaching their use by date (Namely Dravid, Laxman, and Tendulkar, although the latter two players have a year or two left in them).

Dhoni has a lot of charisma, and leads the team well, but India will not be able to challenge South Africa unless they win important series away from home. If they can beat the South African team outside of their comfort zone, then they will be the top side.

In the meanwhile, they are probably one of the better limited overs sides around. And there is plenty of good young players coming through that could have a great affect on Indian cricket for the next few years. Look out for them at the 20/20 World Championship.

Sri Lanka have looked terrific since introducing Ajantha Mendis into their attack. While they will have to worry about how to replace Chaminda Vaas in the near future, they have a good team that can give any team a real shake on their day. They do tend to rely on Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakarra too much, but when they go strong, they will surprise. They could well provide India with some anxious moments if they tour there, especially if any turners make an appearance.

Pakistan, thankfully, are making some tours this year, including one to Australia. I’m glad they are getting some international cricket this year after a 2008 they’d rather forget. There will be no Mohammad Asif because of his idiotic drug taking, but Nasir Jamshed is a talented young opener, and they still have the services of Umar Gul, Sohail Tanvir and Yasir Arafat, not to mention the Britney Spears of cricket, Shoaib Ahktar.

New Zealand may bloom this year with their youthful team, but India is their first obstacle and their relatively pedestrian attack will struggle. Iain O’Brien bowled well last year but he is 232. A lot will fall onto Tim Southee, Kyle Mills, and the ever-reliable Daniel Vettori. Hopes will ride on the crop of young batsmen coming through (Jesse Ryder, Daniel Flynn and Ross Taylor) to find their feet this year. Keep your eyes on Flynn. He is a player who loves a scrap.

The West Indies had a long year, but the talent is there. Their fast bowling is a problem, but Jerome Taylor is still a damn good bowler. And Gayle, Sarwan, and the Shiv form a formidable batting trio. It is the rest of the team that needs to lift to match their depended-upon heroes. Another frustrating year looms.

Ah Bangladesh. The more things changed, the more things stayed the same. Any improvements were blown open by irresponsible batting, inadequate bowling, and a generally undisciplined approach, although they gave Sri Lanka a serious scare in their recent test series by reaching a 4th innings total in excess of 400. Sakib Al Hasan looks to be an allrounder of immense promise, let’s hope they nurture him well. Don’t be surprised if they pull off a shock in the World 20/20.

Alrighty, looking at the schedule, I’ll now make my predictions.

The top test run scorer of the year will be Virender Sehwag, although I reckon Michael Clarke will run him close this year. Both India and Australia have quite a few test series this year. Sehwag always scores heavily, but Clarke is a batsman that is on the improve every year and his maturity has been evident this summer via several fighting knocks.

The top wicket-taker will be Mitchell Johnson. Johnno had a good year in 2008 to finish equal second highest wicket taker, and I reckon he will enjoy the responsibility of being the number one. England will be facing an immensely improved and dangerous Johnson in England this year.

The top ODI run scorer will be, on a limb, either Gautum Gambhir or perhaps Kumar Sangakarra. Both are accomplished, and will face a glut of one dayers this year.

The top ODI bowler is harder, but I’ll go with Ajantha Mendis to elude second year syndrome and be a real force.

Give us your opinions and let’s get some lively discussion going!!!

Christmas wishes and wraps

2008-12-23T16:59:00.000-08:00

Firstly, may I wish a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to everyone.

It’s been an eventful few weeks in the world of cricket. India has secured the series against England, South Africa has claimed a monumental win in Perth, and New Zealand and West Indies were forced into a stalemate.

Test cricket has been revitalised by some thrilling wins in the previous few weeks, only to be taken back a peg by some selfishness in the Mohali test. The epic win in Chennai was a victory of will, winning a test when they had been decisively outplayed in all the previous innings.

It featured a truly masterful Tendulkar century, sheltering his lesser partner Yuvraj from some determined England bowling, and featured strong showings from Virender Sehwag. India then followed up with the wrong way to finish the series.

India has a bad recent history of trying to draw remaining tests of a series when they reach the lead. In England in 2007, they seemed completely uninterested in going for the win once they took the lead in the second test.

Against Australia, they won at Mohali and then never looked like attempting to win another game on the highway-like pitches, leaving it to an Australian collapse to secure a 2-0 series win. It was not attractive test cricket in the same way as Australian over aggression is not attractive test cricket.

Don’t get me wrong. India was the better team in every occasion and deserved a series win. My qualm is that they do not treat the fans to entertaining cricket. Australia lost in South Africa but neither team can hardly be blamed for any poor cricket, it was absolutely riveting. As was the Chennai test.

Effectively India’s captain MS Dhoni summed it up by saying he wanted Yuvraj and Gambhir to score second innings centuries, which shows how India’s attitude to winning the game was completely out of whack. With conditions also limiting the amount of time played, this selfish attitude does not bode well for a team striving to be number one (And not far off from that tag).

South Africa proved their worth and new steel with a crushing victory in Perth. India completed a great chase in Chennai only prior to this, but without dampening India’s achievement, this was probably the more monumental considering the state of the series, the opposition, and the journey it took to get there.

South Africa has always been a classy team. Since readmission, they have had top quality players throughout the 90’s and naughties. However, their readmission came also during the period of Australia reaching its zenith in cricketing power. They have never beaten Australia in a test series and have folded easily at times when they had the personnel to give Australia a real shake.

This time now, is a different South Africa. Young players such as AB De Villiers and Dale Steyn have reached their prime after years of struggle, Graeme Smith has reached the emotional maturity needed for the captaincy, and has discovered the warrior within himself. Old veterans such as Ashwell Prince, Jacques Kallis and Mark Boucher are contributing well, and there is a unity and confidence that reminds me of the Australian team of 2001/2002.

The win at Perth was vital for the Cricketboks, they have a series lead against a demoralised Australian team and now have the chance to prove they are the premier team in the game. Australia is not a team that will surrender their long held number one spot lightly, but this team looks like it can do it.

2008 has been an important year, at year’s end Australia is no longer the top team in the world, with India showing its strength (And cash) and South Africa reaching their long-awaited peak.
2009 promises to bring more riches and woes as 2008 did. Let’s hope that when next year ends, test cricket is still the number one form of cricket.

Bittersweet and disappointing

2008-11-10T18:14:00.000-08:00

The hotly anticipated India v Australia test series is now over, and strangely the future of test cricket is now under more scrutiny than ever following a series featuring bland pitches, heated confrontations, and numerous on and off field problems.

To be realistic, India should have won this series 4-0, no questions asked. They had a superior team on paper, in their own conditions, and were facing an Australian lineup with no recognised spinner and three quicks without experience bowling to test level on the subcontinent.

Australia did incredibly well to hold it to 2-0, and India’s second win only came when Australia made a game chase in the fourth innings that was eventually undone my India’s spin attack. India lost the plot at times during this series, particularly in the field, and undid the hard work their bowlers put in.

Ishant Sharma was a worthy man of the series as he was yards ahead of the rest. He bowled manfully and was a constant threat, unlike Zaheer who floundered on the increasingly highway-like pitches, and has now established himself as a world class opening bowler.

India’s big problem this series was their inconsistency. They dropped off when they could have had the foot on the throat, and they only barely escaped from threatening situations due to the Australian team’s ineptitude, case points being Bangalore and the final test at Nagpur.

Gautum Gambhir and Virender Sehwag batted well on tracks that allowed the ball to scream hit me. As did the middle order at times, although Laxman was clearly the standout. Dhoni had his moments and the tail provided some spunk. Everything clicked at least once during the series.

As for Australia, well, only Mike Hussey came away with his reputation enhanced, with Simon Katich probably not far behind him. All the other batsmen had a touch and go series. Ponting himself made a century at Bangalore and then seemed to struggle as Ishant and Harbajan continued to expose his weakness against the ball that moves back in.

Clarke had a woeful tour. He fell at critical times and was a shadow of the player that made his presence known here four years ago. His century at Delhi secured the draw but he never really asserted himself. Neither did the dominating Hayden, who struggled for form following a long injury lay off. His 77 was a grand gesture however and gave India a fright on the final day.
The remaining players had brief moments that provided little in the end to write home about. Brad Haddin struggled. He had four starts during the series and failed to convert every single one of them into a fifty or century. His glove work was at times rusty and he comes across unexperienced in unfamiliar conditions.

Watson was a real conundrum. A player of genuine talent, he was thrust into this tour following the ridiculous dropping of Andrew Symonds and was real hit and miss. He managed a defiant 78 in Mohali as his team crumbled around him, but he achieved better results with the ball, being by a long way the best of the Australian pace men with 10 wickets at 32.10, with a best of 4/42 that gave Australia the slightest of hopes in the final test.

Australia’s biggest problem was their bowling, which never really looked like taking 20 wickets. Their biggest mistake was picking Cameron White, who himself rarely bowls at first class level in deference to Bryce McGain.

White never looked threatening and his value with the bat was miniscule at best to compensate for the lack of penetration.
The pace attack also floundered. Lee should never have gone on tour. He was never in the right frame of mind and lacked rhythm. Stuart Clark was the only one of the bowlers to keep the batsmen in check, but at the same he wasn’t able to penetrate.

Don’t get me started on Johnson. I am firmly convinced he should not be playing test cricket. He was erratic and never looked threatening with a new ball, due to the fact he couldn’t swing it to save his life. How he continues to play at the expense of Bollinger or Siddle bemuse me, as they are both far superior bowlers to Johnson.

Siddle did little in his test debut but it was a tough ask bowling to strong batting lineup on a pitch so flat my grandmother could have scored a century on it. His time will come, he has the talent. Krejza is yet to discover his worth, despite an epic 12 wickets in his debut test. He needs to lower his economy rates and keep getting picked. He may be the player we were searching for.

Australia has some deep soul searching ahead of a tough 12 months on their cricket calendar. India too must address some problems within their makeup, such as their inconsistency, the loss of several old hands (Dravid is on borrowed time, but luckily they have the impressive Vijay to take his spot if needed) and a tendency to get defensive when they have a series lead.

India are still a strong side and the better side during this series, but a lot more work is needed if they are to overtake Australia as the number one nation.

You said what Gilly?

2008-11-04T21:17:00.001-08:00

Adam Gilchrist has opened up multiple cans of worms since he released his autobiography, and in retrospect has done immense damage to a reputation forged out of his good guy demeanour off field.

In a matter of weeks, he slammed Indian great Sachin Tendulkar for his role in the acquittal of Harbajan Singh from accusations of racism, he dug into Harbajan and Sourav Ganguly for their ‘disappearing act’ in the 2004 series that led to Australia beating India in India for the first time since 1969, and now he has opened more old wounds by taking aim at the ICC over Muttiah Muralitharan’s bowling action.

It is hard to see what Gilly aims to achieve my doing this. Murali has been cleared to bowl by the ICC and is free to bowl, no matter what people may feel about it. Harbajan was cleared, with great controversy, but that matter is in the past.

There is nothing to gain from these attacks other than to end up with the reputation as a whinger. Gilly is no saint, we all know there are no saints on the cricket field, but these words have done more damage than anything his opponents could have said.

A man apart

2008-11-02T19:43:00.000-08:00

Anil Kumble has retired and another of the warriors that triggered the golden age of spin bowling during the 90’s has retired.

Kumble was vastly different from most spinners due to his modus operandi. In comparison to Warne, a fellow legspinner, Jumbo relied less on venomous turn and more on his topspinner and wrong ‘un.

One thing Kumble, Warne and Murali share in common is their relentlessness. Once Jumbo got into a bowling grove, he relentlessly bowled until he had a wicket. His performances have won India more matches than any other player India has produced. In terms of match winning effectiveness, Kumble was worth more than even Sachin Tendulkar.

In the Australian tour of 2003/2004, Kumble, who has returned from injury to replace Harbajan Singh and turned out to be India’s defining influence. He took 5/154 in Adelaide, 6/176 in Melbourne, and 8/141 in Sydney on his way to a 12 wicket haul. He highlighted his great heart and stamina through the uncounted arduous spells he bowled.

He was only the second person to take 10 wickets in an innings, taking 10/74 against Pakistan in 98/99, and he crowned his latter career with a test century in India’s triumphant tour of England, scoring India’s only century of the series.

Jumbo is arguably India’s finest spinner during a time when India rose to prominence as a real force in World Cricket. He became India’s captain and achieved all his greatest achievements with a quiet dignity that belied his inner toughness.

If India win this current series, there can be no greater tribute to two of their retiring heroes than defeating their greatest foe, Australia.

Flirtation gone wrong

2008-10-26T19:38:00.000-07:00

20/20. Considered in the majority of cricket circles as cricket for those with ADD (Apologies to those who do have that disorder though).

Now with the advent of the IPL, ICL, Champion’s League and Stanford 20/20 for 20, the newest form of the game is beginning to dominate the game, slowly eliminating 50 over cricket from the landscape and now encroaching on the popularity of test cricket as the number one form of the game.

To compare the two, one way to look at it is when rock music came into circulation. Test cricket can be considered the classical music where all forms of music branched off from and still to this day give inspiration.

50 over cricket is the Blues of the forms. It was raw and new and exciting when it first came out, but after many years and too much exposure to pop music, R’n’B formed from what was originally a great product, something tarnished by increasing commercialisation.

20/20 is Rock’n’Roll. The new, dangerous, raucous cricket formed from Blues that becomes what the Blues used to be, raw, different and energetic. Rock became the centrepiece of music and in some ways still is. And that is the possibility that 20/20 may head towards.

Strictly on marketing terms, 20/20 is a brilliant concept. It is short, furious, and full of spectacular stroke play that spectators love to see. It is the perfect format for countries across the world to be introduced to the game, and therefore make it more international.

However, this may come at the cost of test cricket, viewed by the majority of diehard fans as the most important version of the game.

Test cricket got its name due to it being the true test of one’s cricketing abilities. The truly great players of this age, the Tendulkars, Pontings, Warnes, and Laras of this world forged their names in the longest form of the game.

But 20/20’s popularity with the marketing gurus and media may lead to its role being downgraded. By all that is good about cricket, I hope this doesn’t happen. Long may test cricket remain.

The perfect captain

2008-10-21T19:49:00.000-07:00

Australia has been blessed with plenty of determined and classy captains. From the original skipper Dave Gregory, to the classy all-rounder and now legendary commentator Richie Benaud, and on to the strong-willed and canny Ian Chappell.

In arguably Australia’s greatest cricketing age, there have been four that have taken on the challenge; Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting.

All had unique skills and abilities, and all were determine individuals. On pure ability, Punter is miles ahead of the other three, while Tubby was the least gifted. AB and Tugga were decent all-rounders in their prime, but Punter and Tubby were highly gifted fieldsmen.

Their respective terms of leadership were also highly unique and reflective of their character. AB was probably the most singled-minded of them all, probably based on the fact he played during Australia’s lowest ebb and then worked his hardest to get the team back to the top. Ponting and Waugh have been in charge during Australia’s dominance in the last eight years or so. But they inherited a team that had already claimed the top spot.

The man that set that chain of events off was Mark Taylor, close to, if not already, Australia’s greatest test captain. Taylor inherited a strong team from Allan Border that had established itself well and then set the wheels in motion to make that squad invincible. During his time Warne and McGrath came of age, players such as Steve Waugh came into their prime, and they churned out talent at a time that could have enabled two strong Australian teams to run around.

Taylor was the most balanced captain of the four. He was bright, energetic, generous and highly diplomatic. At the same time he could also be utterly ruthless without being downright cruel. He was immensely respected for his courage and tenacity, and tactically he was not merely astute, but can be considered one of the finest visionaries of his time.

He did what no Australian skipper had done since Ian Chappell in 1972-73 and toppled the West Indies in the West Indies, thus establishing themselves as the undoubted world champions, a position they still hold.

He is held is such high regard by those he played under that they consider him the finest captain they have played under. Such a credit is not to be taken lightly in Australia’s golden era, but it could go to no better player than the lad from Wagga Wagga.

Outgunned, outclassed

2008-10-21T19:11:00.000-07:00

Everyone has gone bananas. India has beaten Australia in the second test and beaten them comfortably.

Any informed cricket spectator would have told you that it was expected.
Australia headed into this series with a transitional line-up, no spinner, no McGrath (Who arguably still had psychological holds over some batsmen), and undoubtedly a more fragile psyche than we’ve seen from historic Australian sides.

Following the hysteria and controversy of the Sydney test earlier this year, Australia went out in Perth noticeably meeker than usual. Perhaps they have met their match with a team that has taken inspiration to play with strong aggression.

To put it quite simply, Australia were outplayed by a better team. India is a better team on paper, and in Mohali they were vastly superior on the field. The only criticism I can make of India is that they should have scored 900 on the pitch in the first innings. Australia did well to bowl them out for less than 500+.

No-one expected Australia to win this series and they undoubtedly surprised people with their spirited show in Bengaluru, probably winning the majority of that test. There was no such inadequacy from India in Mohali.

As India has clamped down on Australia, the poor standard of umpiring has flown under the radar. Shane Watson got away with the most obvious LBW since cricket began. And Australia had a critical decision go against them when a stumping for Ganguly was not referred to the third umpire, replays proving he was out. Ganguly was in the 30’s at the time and went on to 102.
India is likely to win this series in what will be a swansong for their older generation, and then the challenge for India begins as they have to cover for their fab four and Anil Kumble (Although Amit Mishra seems like an excellent replacement).

A win against Australia at home will be a great moment for them, but at the end of the series, Australia will likely remain the number one side and will remain so until they get knocked off at home, which hasn’t happened since 92-93.

Exciting times.

Points victory to Australia

2008-10-14T20:04:00.000-07:00

Australia will come out of the first test in Bengaluru feeling confident, following the rave reviews in the press around the world that predicted India would thump the world number one team this series. While this only the first of four tests, both teams gained plenty of knowledge of the other to take into the remaining games.

Australia probably came off best in this encounter. They batted first and they made 430 (Albeit slowly and patiently) thanks to centuries from Ponting, who looked in excellent touch, and Hussey, who looked impossible to get out and completely comfortable during his stay at the crease.

India’s reply started well, then went horrendously wrong as they lost quick wickets to some clever bowling. Johnson, under pressure to keep his spot, justified his promise with four wickets. But any chance Australia had of winning the test was snuffed out in the decisive moment of the test. It seemed clear that India had no chance of winning the test, but what Australia did next was cost themselves any chance of winning.

The partnership between Zaheer and Harbajan turned out to be crucial, if either had fallen early, Australia would have won. The 80 runs and plenty of minutes they contributed allowed India time to save the match. And despite an aggressive declaration from Ponting, India played out the time for a draw.

Both teams have a lot to think about. Australia did not get a sturdy opening partnership in either innings, although they will feel pleased about Simon Katich’s contributions. And Michael Clarke also failed in both innings, to each seamer. Brad Haddin proved a good fighter and Shane Watson showed his batting ability.

Australia’s bowling requires some thought. Lee bowled fine but didn’t pick up wickets his talent deserves. Clark struggled at times, and White, although accurate, is not going to be able to take wickets with his limited arsenal. Johnson was the pick of the quicks, but all the bowlers need to take action considering they were unable to dislodge Zaheer and Harbajan, neither of whom are considered credible batsmen.

India have many problems to address, the main one is Kumble. His bowling, 51 overs for 160 with no wickets, belied a man not in good form and certainly not in good condition considering he is carrying an injury. His captaincy was dull and flat, with no real imagination, and he was unable to really motivate his team.

The bonus India probably didn’t expect was the class of seamers Sharma and Khan, both who were excellent in the conditions. This should make the selectors consider bringing Munaf Patel into the side and give Harbajan the lone spinner role. The captaincy should be passed onto either Dhoni or Sehwag, who are the best candidates. Sehwag would be my choice.

Their batsmen were average at best. Gambhir allowed himself to be tied down to easily, and Sehwag’s penchant for aggression was exploited well by the Australians. The famed middle order had moderate returns, although they all passed 40 once in the test. Dhoni was humbled by Michael Clarke of all bowlers, and may sound alarm bells considering his test batting credentials.

India will have taken note on what they did wrong and will be looking to come out firing in the next test, while Australia will be quietly confident they got the better of this draw, and will now have the concern of whether Stuart Clark will be fit for the next test.

The safe option?

2008-10-02T21:54:00.000-07:00

Australia is in a selection conundrum going into the first test next week following the premature end of Bryce McGain’s first test tour.

Jason Krejza, the only other specialist spinner on the trip, is being belted around by India’s brightest new talents and outbowled by part-timer Michael Clarke, and it is seems the fast bowlers are taking the wickets so far on tour.

The other dilemma is the batting order. It seems Phil Jaques is going to be unluckily chopped for Simon Katich, who outbatted Jaques in the Windies and also has a terrific record against India, with his first test century in 2003 and a 99 against them in their triumphant tour of 2004. He also offers his left arm wrist spin, with which he has taken 6/65 (Albeit against Zimbabwe).

As likely as Australia is to play Krejza, it won’t be playing to their strengths. Australia’s pace battery is actually quite formidable. Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Mitchell Johnson and Shane Watson, backed by Doug Bollinger (Who was immensely dangerous during the Australia A tour), and Peter Siddle, who has proven a handful at times with his accuracy.

Maybe Australia needs to forget the spin option and focus on its pace battery. It worked for the West Indies during the 80’s, why can’t it be a viable option now particularly when we have part time spinners who can roll their arm over if needed? Why shouldn’t the best bowlers play even if they are all fast men?

It’s something to think about come Thursday next week.

The hard truth

2008-09-25T18:37:00.000-07:00

India will have to do some soul searching in the next few months as they come to the realisation that their much vaunted middle order reaches its use by date.

As Australia has been forced to find replacements for the genius of Warne and McGrath, India will have a near future without Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and Tendulkar. This should not be a time of despair but one of hope as the next potential stars of this world are unearthed.

I won’t play on Indian board and selection politics because to be quite frank I don’t know enough about it. There are players vying for selection and the selectors need to consider if their team is beginning to age too much.

One of the great selection conundrums of the past few years has been that of Mohammad Kaif and Yuvraj Singh. Both have been hailed as immensely talented players, and both have made starts and then failures at test level.

Having watched Yuvraj play, I am totally convinced he is not test class. He was completely destroyed by Australia’s pace attack in Australia after he had previously flattered to deceive by scoring a return century against Pakistan, hardly the most dangerous of opposition. He remains a danger in one day and 20/20 cricket, but the shorter form is a far cry from the five day game.

Mohammad Kaif is in a slightly better position, having gone back to the first class game and become a consistent run scorer in India. He charmed with a 94 against Australia A and is showing signs of more determination and willing to apply himself. However, he may find himself overtaken by some more prodigious talent.

He faces the likes of S Badrinath, Suresh Reina, Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli for a chance to take over from the ‘Fab Four’, and against the competition, he isn’t likely to play test cricket for India again. Badrinath is on the fringes of selection and looks the goods. He comes across determined and professional, and is not likely to let his chance go easily.

But who to drop? The obvious answer is Ganguly, who has been living on borrowed time for a while now. A fierce competitor, Ganguly’s weakness against Australia will count against him and it he is likely to be a major weak link in the Indian team if he plays.

Another player in the gun sights is Rahul Dravid. Although he has made some runs in the Irani Cup match, Dravid’s problem is his inability to score at rates needed to win test matches, particularly in recent times and against good teams like Australia, which have deep batting lineups.

For a player so technically equipped, he is frustratingly unable to turn the strike over on a regular basis to keep pressure on the bowlers, which leads to him getting bogged down as he famously did during the Sydney test earlier this year. I was there and joined the crowd as it mock cheered him for his first single in about an hour and a half’s batting.

He will probably be retained for the Australia series, but if he fails he will find himself dropped. The only players I can see retained for the next 12 months will be Laxman, who for some reason has been constantly scrabbling for his spot despite being a far superior player to Ganguly, and Tendulkar, who probably will nominate when he wants to retire before being pushed.

The decision needs to be made, as India cannot afford to stay strong while their old guard scrabbles to hold on.

A sad state of affairs

2008-09-21T20:10:00.000-07:00

Drugs are the most temperamental subject in world sport. It taints athletes and their records, and their actions can simply be described as cheating their sport and cheating themselves.

Cricket has been rocked by drug dramas in recent years, with the Ahktar/Asif controversy and now the revelation that West Indies players Xavier Marshall and Tonito Willett have tested positive to a substance that has not yet been disclosed.

The Ahtar/Asif story was a disgrace. Both players were found guilty, both were suspended and then had their penalties overturned by the PCB, an absolute insult to the cricketing community. Shane Warne was caught using a diuretic and was banned for a year, although he probably should have been banned for longer.

Although we are yet to figure out what Marshall and Willett were caught taking, they will face serious sanctions from their board that already has enough on its plate.

Drugs has rarely reared its ugly head in sport, but to stamp it out, boards and, specifically the spineless ICC, need to show initiative and either ban players for life or send them packing for a long time. It is the only way to make sure it doesn’t harm the reputation of the game.

The class divide

2008-09-18T19:21:00.000-07:00

What separates a good player from a good one? What makes them stand head and shoulders about his contemporaries? Do statistics, romanticism, or one-in-a-lifetime performances secure their greatness?

It’s a question that splits fans of the game, and unfortunately it’s a lot like the Australian player divide known as the nerds and the julios. In terms of cricket fans, it can be called ‘stats heads’ and ‘romantics’.

Now, to stats heads, a player can be judged great based primarily on his numbers. Therefore Bradman is number one in terms of batting, followed by Mike Hussey (Average 68.38 from 42 innings) and Graeme Pollock (Average 60.97 from 41 innings). Eddie Paynter has an average of 59.23, yet rarely is he spoken of in terms of the greatest English batsmen.

The romantics love a good innings, and while appreciating the stats, judge a batsman on watching him play. Therefore Wally Hammond’s legend (Along with his formidable statistics) grows, even though there are few alive who could have seen him at his peak.

Viv Richards is also a great point. He is regarded by all comers as one of, if not the best West Indian batsmen of them all. Yet there are five West Indians above him in batting average (Headley, Sobers, Weekes, Walcott, and Lara). Why is he rated so highly, well for one reason he scored those runs in an era that was tough for runs (He faced bowlers of the ilk and class of Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee and Imran Khan), and never surrendered the initiative.

Romantics would also like to include statistical anomalies like Mark Waugh, David Gower, or Mohammad Azharuddin. None of these have batting averages above 50 (Azharuddin’s is closest with 45.04, Waugh’s is 41.82), yet their genius was never really questioned when watched as they made batting look so simple.

A great current comparison would be Ricky Ponting and Sachin Tendulkar. Ponting is leading Tendulkar in terms of average (58.38 to 54.23), but I have no hesitation, and I have a feeling
I’m not alone in saying this, that Sachin is far superior to Ponting as a batsman.

Punter is a great batsman, don’t get me wrong. Only Bradman is ahead of him in Australia, and only Greg Chappell is equal to him (I rate Greg that highly because of the era he played in, he made runs against everyone, everywhere). Yet Tendulkar is far superior because of his ability to tear attacks to shreds with little effort, and not just weak attacks. He has consistently defied the Australian attacks that blew teams away during the 90’s and naughties.

Ponting has never had a chance against his own team, which is unfair to hold against him. Yet to average as consistently as he has over the past few years defies belief as he gets better with age. Tendulkar, on the other hand, as managed to be monumentally steady for the majority of his career.

He has declined somewhat in the last few years, but in the Australian series in 06-07, he topped the aggregates for either side. Most impressive was the fact that he never once looked like getting out as he systematically dismantled an Australian bowling attack that was hardly weak.

Ponting struggled that series as they exposed a technical tendency for Ponting to push hard at the ball coming into him, which Ishant Sharma and Harbajan exposed with glee.

Romantics appreciate the ‘prettier’ aspects of the game, and love a flashy cover drive and a player skipping down the pitch to launch a bowler over his head for six. Stats heads have a tendency to look at the game and appreciate the number crunch.

Combine the two and you have a cricket fan able to look at the numbers, appreciate them, and put on a vintage tape of Brian Lara tearing an attack to pieces.

Do you see where I’m coming from?

A critical showdown

2008-09-14T18:20:00.000-07:00

Australia named their test squad for the tour of India, and lo and behold, the period of transition Australian cricket has reared its ugly head and led to several selection controversies.

There is no Andrew Symonds. The 33 year old all-rounder has been one of Australia’s best players in the past year, and ahead of a foreboding tour of India is regarded as one of Australia’s better players of spin bowling in what could be a series played on turning pitches. His useful medium and offspin bowling will also be missed.

There was no place for Ashley Noffke and Beau Casson, both of whom made the tour of the West Indies and Casson even managed a test, taking 3/129. And there is still no Cameron White or the rampant Dave Hussey.

There are some serious gambles whoever. 36 year old legspinner Bryce McGain has been picked as the number one spinner, supported by Tasmanian offspinner Jason Krezja, who has never taken a first class five wicket haul. Peter Siddle replaces Ashley Noffke and this is an encouraging move. Siddle shaded Doug Bollinger last year as the fast bowler of the year, and his selection is vindication of a young man brimming with talent.
Shane Watson replaces Andrew Symonds in a move that has already caused consternation.

While Watson has always been viewed as a gifted cricketer, he has garnered the reputation of being fragile and likely to get injured in a vital moment. When you consider the potential of White and other possible part-timers such as Michael Clarke, Simon Katich and even Dave Hussey or Marcus North, the selection of Watson is a huge gamble.

Brad Haddin will continue to don the gloves and remains the number one candidate. India is a big test for him and I’m confident he can rise to the appropriate level. Another concern is the inexperience of the batting lineup in India. That I’m not concerned about either, with Katich the likely replacement for Symonds and Hayden set to return.

India’s lineup looks more settled, but some big decisions remain. There just isn’t room to fit Ganguly, particularly since the revival of Mohammad Kaif and the continued good form of S Badrinath and Suresh Raina. Dravid may also face the chop, but he'll likely be retained.

Harbajan and Kumble are likely to bowl together, and I have a feeling this may be his last series. Fast bowling is likely to be supplied by Ishant and Zaheer. Zaheer hasn’t been particularly effective against Australia, but the Australians will be very wary of the young Ishant.
That said, spin is likely to be prevalent and India far outgun Australia in this department.

However, India shouldn’t be too overconfident following their failure against Sri Lanka, where Harbajan and Kumble were ineffective and they were torn apart by an unknown spinner in Ajantha Mendis.

This is a critical series for both teams to gauge their futures, Australia being in the midst of a transitional phase and India about the begin one. May the best man win.

Where did it all go wrong?

2008-09-08T20:34:00.000-07:00

I’m taking time out from the hysterics of Bradman and the constant English focus on the Ashes to lament to decline of the Pakistan cricket team, which has fallen from world beaters to chugging along side the West Indies in a struggle to catch up.

Pakistan once boasted one of the most formidable line ups in the world. In the 90’s, they could had players of the calibre of Wasim Akram, arguably the greatest left arm quick of all time; Waqar Younis, his incomparable (And injury ravaged) sidekick; Inzamam-Ul-Haq; the chubby and dominant batsman as well as class acts such as Saeed Anwar, Ijaz Ahmed, Saqlain Mushtaq and Mohammad Yousef.

Pakistan has not won a series since 2006, and that was against the West Indies. The last series they played was against India, in which they lost 1-0, and they haven’t played since. Nor are they slated to play anyone within the next 9 months.

What happened to Pakistan cricket to bring it down the notches it had scaled to reach amongst the top three in world cricket?

As much as we would like to say cricket and politics don’t mix, it is unrealistic to believe it. Pakistan’s unstable political climate and unfortunate status as terrorism target is not conducive to attracting cricket teams, sponsors, or fans.

To further my point about politics, South Africa was isolated from world sports for decades due to its apartheid policy, a purely political reason for isolating it. A similar issue is going on in Zimbabwe, yet I have already raised my annoyance at the lack of initiative on that problem.

Their cricketers have battled controversies which have tagged along like dead weights. The match fixing accusations, ball tampering, Shoaib Ahktar’s histrionics, the drug disgrace surrounding Shoaib and Mohammad Asif, and the forfeited test have all contributed to Pakistan’s state of mind.

Their bizarre selection policies have also contributed, with players who have made successful forays overseas such Yasir Arafat all but ignored (Arafat did manage one test, in their previous series against India). Mushtaq Ahmed churned out hundreds of wickets for Sussex and helped the county to its first championships, but was not picked again.

Cricket wants a strong Pakistan team. While the board has become something of a little brother to the powerful BCCI, the health of cricket needs more competitiveness and what better time with plenty of money in the game to encourage it?

There is going to be another Wasim there, another Imran, another Javed. Pakistan needs to go and find them, not only for its own sake, but for cricket’s.

Rough ride for Australia

2008-09-04T19:33:00.000-07:00

Australia has a nasty schedule coming up, one that will test the stretched and redeveloping Australian side.

First off is India in India. Usually a tough tour for any team, the previous series in Australia left a lot of bad blood between both teams and fans that some still haven’t forgotten. India is in a tough patch at the moment having escaped with a drawn series against South Africa and then being defeated by Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka.

The promise of Australia seems to bring out the best in India, who have had a recent history of providing entertaining and hard fought series against the world number one side. Tendulkar looked like a shadow of his former self prior to the 07-08 series, but he seemed to thrive on the competitiveness and the fact it was probably his final tour to Australia, scoring two centuries.

VVS Laxman is another who loves Australia, having scored perhaps the most legendary of all Indian centuries when he knocked up 281 in THAT test at Kolkata in 2001. Laxman is one of those rarities, a player that goes mad when he sees a baggy green cap and plays better. His record against Australia is vastly superior to that of other cohorts Dravid and Ganguly.

India’s bowling is an anomaly ahead of the series. Suddenly blessed with several gifted seamers, India’s decision is who will they play? Zaheer has led the pack well, but does not have a great record against Australia. Ishant Sharma is the best fast bowling talent to emerge from India since Kapil Dev, after that is guess work.

The spin department is a worry. Harbajan was ineffective against in their previous clash and Kumble is showing obvious signs of wear, tear, and 616 test wickets. Whether India chooses to play a different spinner or three quicks is a puzzle they will have to sound out.

Australia are facing their own problems ahead or their clash, with no obvious spinner and injury troubles to prolific opener (Especially against India) Matthew Hayden.

Australia’s fast bowling stocks are still in good shape (Lee, Clark and Johnson, backed by Doug Bollinger, Ashley Noffke, Pete Siddle, Shaun Tait and Ben Hilfenhaus), but their middle order is uncertain, with Brad Haddin yet to be tested at number 7 and doubt lingering over Andrew Symonds.

Following that tour, Australia faces a home and away challenge against the surging South African side, which are dying to knock off their greatest foes.

South Africa have failed to threaten Australia since readmission and despite having some impressive playing personnel, they haven’t been able to get over the ‘aura of invincibility’ that Australia used to have.

That aura has faded, but the Australian team still boasts a side on paper that is vastly superior to South Africa. South Africa has two young and promising strike bowlers in Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel, but Makhaya
Ntini is fading and Paul Harris is about to find out what happens to spin bowlers in Australia.

South Africa’s batting line up has talent, but is enigmatic. Smith and Kallis, their superstars, have failed to deliver on their ability, and the middle order was occasionally exposed as fragile during their test series with England.

Nevertheless, Australia is in for a long road, and need to fight to the bets of their ability if they wish to remain the number one side in the world.

The Bradman enigma

2008-09-04T18:36:00.000-07:00

Following the man’s centenary last week, I saw a plethora of Bradman articles thrown around talking about his legendary status and iconic role within cricket. I’ve decided to throw my two cents in and look at both man and player.

It is extraordinarily hard to dismiss a man who has averaged 99.94 in a 52 test career span, with 29 centuries and 13 half centuries and a high score of 334, which was at its time a world record. He was leagues ahead of his nearest rivals of batting, which were at the time Wally Hammond and Herbert Sutcliffe of England, and George Headley of the West Indies. Headley and Sutcliffe average 60 and Hammond averaged 58, although that averaged suffered after World War II.

He also played in an era of uncovered pitches in which batting could be made difficult when weather permitted, such as the creation of a ‘sticky dog’ which led to balls shooting erratically off the surface. It has been a wide source of debate as whether Bradman often batted on these styles of wickets (In the home series of 1936-37, he famously reversed the order on a drying pitch at Melbourne, and his 270 changed the series).

The majority of his tests were against England, he played against South Africa, the West Indies and India once in his career and none of those tours were overseas, which is vastly different to the current crop of players that play in a variety of conditions and countries. No bowling strategy as provocative as ‘Bodyline’ has been devised for any other batsman, and even then Bradman averaged 56.57.

Bradman the man was vastly different from the cricketer idolised as an Australian hero during the Depression era. He was regarded knowledgeable but aloof, a shrewd businessman but ham-fisted with money. He was a practising mason and had a long history of grievances with Catholics Bill O’Reilly, Jack Fingleton, ‘Chuck’ Fleetwood-Smith, and Stan McCabe.

O’Reilly and Fingleton were probably his biggest foes. The trio never got on. Although they had immense respect for each other on the field, that was the end of it. The pair laughed the Don back to the pavilion on the occasion of his final test innings, when he was bowled second ball by Eric Hollies for a duck, and they constantly criticised each other over their roles in the team.

He has also been singled out by influential Australia skipper Ian Chappell as one of the prime reasons for World Series Cricket, claiming in a documentary that Bradman ‘treated board money as if it was his own money’ during a boom time for cricket in the 70’s. As an administrator, Bradman was wise but refused to budge on money. He was also regarded as somewhat old-fashioned.

Still, Bradman was regarded as the all-knowing doyen of Australian cricket and was often sought after for advice, made all the more harder in his later years when he became a recluse in his home in Adelaide. He always responded to letters with fond affection though, and was polite and helpful for young cricketers seeking advice, whether life or cricket related.

In terms of the greatest batsmen ever, what makes Bradman stand out is not just the fact that he was far ahead of his contemporaries, but he overwhelms all that follow him. It was a common trait to call an exciting young batsman in Australia ‘the new Bradman’ (Norm O’Neill and Doug Walters suffered this comparison) and it was often a kiss of death.

He is justifiably, in terms of figures, ability and influence, at the top of the batting tree in cricket, with his nearest rivals being Sachin Tendulkar (A man Bradman once considered similar to himself), Viv Richards, Brian Lara, and Wally Hammond.

There can be no other player quite like Sir Donald George Bradman.

Wayward Symonds at crossroads

2008-08-31T20:08:00.000-07:00

‘I went down to the cross roads, fell down on my knees’ is the famous lyric thrown down by legendary bluesman Robert Johnson. It couldn’t be more apt than be used to describe the situation now facing Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds.

Symonds has a long and colourful history with the Australian cricket team, struggling to make his name known until he was picked, controversially at the time, for the 2003 World Cup. In the first game against Pakistan he hit 143 not out and it was his rebirth as a cricketer.

In 1999, he and teammate Matthew Hayden were put in serious danger when their boat capsized off Stradbroke Island in Queensland during a fishing trip. Both swam over an hour to safety in an area well noted for its shark population.

In 2005 he turned up to a one day match against Bangladesh still drunk from the previous night and was immediately suspended for two matches. Australia went on to famously lose the match against Bangladesh. His next appearance marked his best bowling return of 5/18 in their next encounter.

In 2006, he was almost involved in a fight at a South African nightclub with a player from the Central Cheetahs before Michael Clarke and giant prop Ollie le Roux diffused the situation. This current incident was, compared to the previous mentioned, a minor one, but it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Symonds had gone out fishing (A pastime he enthusiastically indulges in) early, unaware that a compulsory team meeting had been called. Upon returning, Symonds faced the leadership team and was told to head home to examine whether he still had his commitments in the right place.

Clarke, the current stand-in captain for Australia, said in an interview http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-AU&brand=ninemsn&vid=da93d52b-3b26-4f87-9b95-9369759fa9e6 that in was also attributed to several unnamed incidents leading up to the decision, which is intriguing considering the only the public know about were those broadcast in the media.

Symonds is an important member of the Australian team, one with a great deal of responsibility upon him. Perhaps he needs time away from the sport to evaluate whether his heart is still in the game. With an important tour of India looming, Australia may need his ability to win matches if they are to succeed.

Can he master himself in such a short time? Or will he just fall prey to the flaws in his character?

Never forget the 'Terror'

2008-08-25T19:31:00.000-07:00

At the end of every Australian cricket summer, the Allan Border Medal night is held to honour the previous year’s cricket and also to induct those of the cricketing fraternity who have given great service to the game into the hall of fame.

One name I find curiously absent is a medium-pace bowler who was feared to such an extent that he earned the sobriquet ‘Terror’: Charles Thomas Biass Turner.

Charlie Turner was the most acclaimed fast bowler from Australia in his time, bridging the gap between Spofforth and Joey Palmer to ‘Tibby’ Cotter and Monty Noble. He battled jostled with George Lohmann for billing as the world’s best bowler and kept Australia competitive during that time.

His record makes impressive viewing; 101 test wickets at 16.53, with a best of 7/43; 993 first class wickets at an average of 14.25, with a best of 9/15.

No Australian bowler with more than 100 wickets has a better average. No Australian has claimed more than his 106 wickets in a first class season like he did in the 1887/88 summer.

His first test coincided with the debut of another young and promising bowler, left-armer John ‘Jack’ Ferris. Such was the immediate rapport these two had on their debut that Spofforth, the greatest bowler of the era, retired immediately after this test.

In the eight matches Turner and Ferris played together, they shared a phenomenal 104 wickets. Even more unbelievable, Australia only won one of those matches; at Lords in 1888 where they shared 18 wickets and in Australia’s second innings were the only batsmen to reach double figures.

This was often the story of their careers, as Australia did not have the batting depth to support their two bowling heroes. This would lead to Ferris eventually forsaking Australia to try his luck in England, and he eventually turned out for the old enemy in a match against South Africa, taking 13 wickets in the only test he ever won.

Turner continued to play well for Australia, being supported by Hugh Trumble, Albert Trott and George Giffen. In 1894/95 Ashes series, he was back to his best in a series dominated by Giffen and ‘Honest’ Tom Richardson.

With 18 wickets at 19.39, he was dropped from the team by fellow selectors Jack Blackham and Giffen (Who quickly took the opportunity open the bowling himself) for Tom McKibbin. McKibbin took 2/120 in the must win game that England won to claim the series.

Turner was furious about the lack of support he had received after years without support from his batsmen. He famously roared ‘I’ll never play cricket again’, and he never played test cricket again.

One of my favourite stories relating to Turner was a recollection of a young Bill O’Reilly turning up for a grade training session and being advised by champion spinner Arthur Mailey to change his grip ‘Or you won’t succeed in cricket’.

O’Reilly thanked Mailey for his advice, and at this point Turner, who was present, felt obliged to intervene. He told him to ignore Mailey and, to prove him there was nothing wrong with being different, showed him his grip in which he bent his middle right down to his wrist.

“I hadn’t ever seen it before, and still haven’t’ recalled O’Reilly. Turner really was one-of-a-kind, and needs to be finally given the recognition that his ability and hard work deserved.

Make the right decision

2008-08-19T20:34:00.001-07:00

The Champion’s Trophy is under threat, not from terrorism, but from a possible lack of interest.

News has come through today that Australia may not go to strife-torn Pakistan, and if the world champions withdraw, expect the other ‘Western’ (I hate using that term, it implies division) nations South Africa, England and New Zealand to follow, such is the precedent Australia will set.

Pakistan urgently needs this tournament to boost its fledging cricket side, a shadow of the team that challenged the world during the 90’s. It also needs to show it can host a major tournament ahead of the next World Cup in Asia.

If those nations choose not to go, it will cause a massive division in cricket that has already been widening due to issues such as Zimbabwe and umpiring. The ‘Asian Bloc’ will be there, but the ‘Western’ nations will not.

Australia needs to be there, whether it chooses to send a full strength team or not is another matter (An Australia ‘A’ team would still be competitive), but it needs to show a precedent and its commitment to international cricket by encouraging nations like Pakistan that are struggling with internal strife.

On the other side of the coin, I can empathise with the Australian team’s problems. Pakistan has been a hotbed in the last two years and has been racked by political problems, coming to a head this year with the assassination of Benzair Bhutto and the recent resignation of Pervez Musharraf.

That resignation couldn’t come at a worse time, as Pakistan will now have to pick a new leader as the tournament goes ahead, which could cause even more turmoil. Cricket is just a game, after all, and one to be enjoyed as the great Arthur Morris said.

But for the well being of cricket, I hope Australia can field a team for this tournament to help a nation that desperately needs the support of its fellows.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves

2008-08-17T22:00:00.000-07:00

In lieu of England’s loss to South Africa, and KP’s declaration afterwards that if they play like they did in their consolation win they will beat Australia, I must warn England not to get too far ahead of themselves as they count down to the Ashes 2009 already.

To be honest, I actually hadn’t been thinking about that particular series until KP came out with his quote of the week. I found it amazing that England had just lost a series to South Africa, dropping them to fifth on the ICC test rankings, they had a tough series against India approaching, and the next thing on their mind is the Ashes.

This has been a systematic problem of English cricket. Only one opponent seems to matter anymore, and that is Australia, despite the fact that South Africa, India and Sri Lanka are now considered superior cricket teams.

While the Ashes rivalry is the founding block of test cricket, the nations that now play have improved and contributed healthily to modern game.

For England to ignore India, for example, who defeated England in their backyard last year, as a threat, they are sowing seeds for a further drop down the ladder.

The single-minded focus on the Ashes helped England win in 2005, yes. But on the way to that, they restructured their team to find the right combination and beat South Africa in South Africa and knocked off a majority of other competitors to claim 2nd place. Their victory was wildly praised and celebrated and in the ecstasy and overlong glory that followed, England lost their chance to secure their place at the top.

Now that team is looking to 2009 and a lot has changed. KP is now captain, and while aggressive, we have yet to see whether he can marshal his troops and match wits with a strong Australian side. There is no Vaughan. No Trescothick. Several of the players who will play in that series were part of the squad that was humbled in 2006-2007 5-0.

Several of the players have showed glimpses of ability but have failed to follow this through, classic examples being the graceful but spineless Ian Bell and the determined but technically flawed Alastair Cook. And there will be no opponent more relentless on exposing those problems than Australia.

However, both England and Australia have a multitude of test series ahead of them that they should be focusing on instead. Australia has its mind set on what may be a spiteful series in India, followed by home series against New Zealand and the improving South African side. England should be focusing on their visit to India, the West Indies, and a prelude to the Ashes against the mighty Sri Lankas, who will surely be bringing their little pals Murali and Mendis.

Then England can perhaps focus on the Ashes. Australia will only be thinking about hen the time comes to wage war once more in the middle. Until then there are more important things to focus on.

India stumbles on loyalty

2008-08-11T19:31:00.001-07:00

Since their impressive and strong showing against Australia during the 07-08 summer, India have faltered in consecutive test series and have generally looked frail. The question on everyone’s lips is why?

The selection table is my bet, though others may disagree. But it seems that India are in a period that Australia is currently in themselves, a time of transition in which the golden age must pave way for a new generation to have a influence on the game.

India have been blessed during the 90’s and 00’s with some of the finest batsmen in history; the defiant wall Rahul Dravid; sanguine Sourav Ganguly; aggressive Virender Sehwag; the steely resolved Australian killer VVS Laxman; and of course the greatest batsman since Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar.

In the bowling stocks they have been supported by two solid spinners in Anil Kumble and Harbajan Singh, and have unearthed several impressive young pacemen who will take the burden up from Zaheer Khan.

India’s problem has been their reliance on what is known as the ‘fab four’, numbers 3 to 6 in their batting order, the youngest of which, Laxman, is approaching 34. While I concede it is difficult to replace players of that calibre in any line-up, India need to look to consider several factors.

Firstly, only one of the fab four have reached a century since the tour of Australia; Dravid, who made 111 against South Africa in what was his only score above 50 for the series. Only Laxman made passed 50 in the Sri Lanka series, and he made two out of the three made by a middle order batsman from India.

Secondly, consider the young talent currently waiting in the wings. Rohit Sharma, S Badrinath, Suresh Raina, Manoj Tiwary and Virat Kohli are all making big impressions in the domestic scene. Badrinath’s non-selection is baffling, considering his dominant record in recent years.

Thirdly, look at India’s next opponent; Australia, currently the number one team in the world despite some protestations from South Africa and India to the contrary. While Australia may look weak following the multiple retirements over the years, they are still a class ahead of anyone else.

In the hotly contested (and intensely scrutinised) series during the Australian summer, only Laxman and Tendulkar scored centuries. Tendulkar clearly dominated in what was probably his final tour of Australia, and that is a good sign, but Dravid and Ganguly were shadows of their former selves.

India’s only bowling problem that I see is Kumble himself, who appears to have lost his venom. Whilst his record against Australia is good (108 wickets at 28.52), his recent form has been less convincing and his captaincy lacks imagination.

Harbajan showed encouraging signs against Sri Lanka and South Africa, and will be bowling on pitches likely to help his turn and bounce. Supporting him will likely be Zaheer, who hasn’t had a great deal of success against Australia, and the dangerous Inshant Sharma if fit. Kumble is the weak link.

India needs to take the plunge and pick new faces in their team ahead of this series, and the selectors need to show nerve to pick the players performing. An Indian team that I would like to see on the park would look like this:

V. Sehwag
G. Gambhir
VVS Laxman
S. Tendulkar
Rohit Sharma or Suresh Raina
S. Badrinath (Could also bat at 3 in place of Laxman)
MS Dhoni © (Sehwag is also a candidate for captaincy)
Harbajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Either RP Singh, Munaf Patel, YK Pathan or Piyush Chawla
Inshant Sharma

This is of course my opinion, and opinions are like bums. Everyone’s got one.

A question of depth

2008-08-07T18:24:00.000-07:00

I worry for English cricket sometimes. While I may not be English, I still hope for competitive Ashes series when we take on the Poms, as competitive as duels between India are getting these days.

Sadly England is always one step behind, and especially when they have injury troubles they are caught out even worse. Their lack of depth is sadly evident.

England is currently fielding a five man bowling attack (Including the much needed Flintoff), some of which have questionable claims for being there (Namely Broad, who lacks any venom, and Jimmy Anderson, whose inconsistency continues to baffle).

The stocks in county cricket aren’t too bad for bowling. Durham has a whole plethora of good fast bowlers at their disposal, including the still developing Liam Plunkett, Graham Onions, Western Australian Callum Thorp, and the oddly ignored Mark Davies, who consistently takes more wickets than his companions.

There is other solid talent hovering around such as South African convert Ryan McLaren, who has achieved great results for Kent as an all-rounder. Chris Woakes at Warwickshire has made a fine start to his career, and of course, looming over at Worcestershire, is the bowler that cemented his reputation in the 2005 Ashes, the speedy Simon Jones.

The batting ranks look thin. Ravi Bopara is churning out runs, but apart from him, no young batsmen, apart from maybe Samit Patel, are standing up to be counted. Bob Key has led Kent well but his returns have been inconsistent. Australian-born Paul Horton looks like the best bet to replace Andrew Strauss if the latter runs out of form though.

In an odd coincidence, two former English wicketkeepers in Matt Prior and Chris Read have had good seasons with the bat, with Prior amongst the top run makers so far this year and Read leading the high flying Nottinghamshire with gusto.

That hole could be fatal if some players start to lose form and the replacements just aren’t up to scratch. The comparison England has to teams like India and Australia is that while England may have good talent on the field, they don’t have a multitude of players waiting in the wings.

Australia’s depth borders on the ridiculous. Any other nation would cry out for the luxury of having Brad Hodge, David Hussey, Chris Rogers and Ashley Noffke waiting in the wings, not to mention young talent of the quality of Shaun Marsh, Luke Pomersbach and Ben Hilfenhaus. That’s the vital strength of Australian cricket. While some nations may have equal or more talented players, Australia has continued to churn them out.

India is beginning to show signs of this as well, already having an impressive youth set up and a number of young players showing the ability to eventually take over from an aging and transitional Indian side that will soon have to move on Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly, V.V.S Laxman, and that legendary figure himself, Tendulkar.

England has been accused of resting on its laurels during a time it could have dramatically raised its stock following the epic streak of 2004 and 2005, when it laid claim to being at the top of world cricket. Instead of capitalising, England got sloppy and it has cost them their prestige and a place at the top of the pecking order, now fought over between India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Australia.

A good sit down to thrash out why they have not achieved what seemed possible all those years ago is recommended. Maybe they should look to adapting some Australian development models, or even reduce the number of county teams to encourage competitiveness.

One thing on I’d like to point out though is that talent will not be coming through if county cricket continues to allow Kolpak players into the competition. Look at Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, you could form another South African side with the numbers those teams have.

A new (and vastly unexpected) change of direction

2008-08-04T16:52:00.000-07:00

English cricket is set to travel into a brave new world following the resignations of Michael Vaughan and Paul Collingwood, and then the appointment of tyro Kevin Pietersen as the next English captain over the three cricket formats.

The Vaughan era was one of sudden prosperity and sudden decline. Following every Englishman’s dream of retrieving the Ashes (Some of the younger generation had never seen it out of Australian hands before then) in 2005, England have grown steadily worse, with poor selections, lackluster performances and the declining quality in county cricket.

One of the major reasons for this decline was Vaughan’s knee injury, taking him out of action for a good 18 months and leaving England without his steely determination and sharp tactical brain. Andrew Flintoff did almost a parallel of Ian Botham during his captaincy reign, having little success. And there was Marcus Trescothick and Andrew Strauss given a try as well.

Another key factor was the loss of Simon Jones, who seemed on the point of international explosion when he exposed flaws in the Australian batting lineup via his sharp reverse swing. He has not played a single international match since that Ashes series, and despite superb form this season, has not been reselected in the England team.

Gradually the English team lost its direction and its players performed erratically, even against weaker nations. Vaughan returned in late 2006, but was half the player he used to be. He re-inherited a team that was demoralized following an Ashes whitewash and they were soon beaten at home by India in 2007 and now South Africa in 2008. The guile of Vaughan had lost its aura.

To be fair to Vaughan, England has been woeful. With the exception of Kevin Pietersen, they have been found wanting against strong teams. Ian Bell, for example, who has a massive amount of talent, seems to go missing when the pressure is on, and he has never scored a century unless someone has got there before him.

Vaughan’s decline as a player has been sad to watch, as he is an extremely graceful batsman to watch when on song. The runs began to dry up as his injury prevented him from having the same command of his strokeplay, and the tricks began to dry up as his team began to falter against stronger opposition.

This may now change with KP’s appointment, one that has been met across the cricket world with equal parts skepticism and enthusiasm.

Logically KP was the only choice to replace Vaughan and Collingwood. He is the one batsman who is a certainty to play across all formats and he is the only player with a forceful enough personality to take on the job. While Strauss and Alastair Cook were considered, Cook is probably too young for the job and Strauss is no certainty over all the formats.

Pietersen is still under 30 and has proven himself unable to be intimidated by big name opponents such as South Africa and Australia. While we are yet to see if he has any tactical nous that is required when matching it with a Ponting or a Jayawardene, he certainly has the determination that made is previous skipper popular and respected.

His batting will hopefully be unaffected, and knowing Pietersen it may bring the best out in him. He has shown he can lift his game against the stronger opponents; hopefully he can inspire his more insipid teammates to do the same.

The first test is to see whether he can rally his troops to win the final test in order to win some pride back. Then comes a blitz of test series against India, the West Indies, Sri Lanka and finally Australia, only the Windies of those are considered a weaker team.

KP faces a tough trot in the battle to establish himself as England’s captain, and it will take his best to inspire his team to the kind of success that cemented Vaughan’s reputation as the most successful English skipper.

Where to from here?

2008-07-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

During the last few months, cricket has been transformed as the old world shifted its axis from the Anglo-centric basis to the monopolies of India, in which millions of dollars, rupees or rand are flowing into the coffers of the ICC.

The BCCI is now the strongest board amongst the major nations, and thus is at the forefront of the ICC decision-making committee. It has copped flak for its lack of action over Zimbabwe for what appears to be political reasons, but it changed the face of cricket with the introduction of the IPL.

The BCCI’s rise to power was always going to happen, whether old world administrators liked it or not. A nation of a billion, developing itself after colonial rule and colonial influences, was always going to reach a stage of being strong enough to throw its weight around.

There lies a problem within that. The BCCI needs to make sure it uses its power responsibly and not exploit it over the old guard of England and Australia, which previously had the power, and probably for too long, falling into complacency in some areas.

The response amongst the media has been mixed. Most Indian fans see any bashing of their board as either ‘racism’ or the inability of the old guard to adjust to a new world. The latter is probably true, although that has not stopped some from suggesting it is India plus the Asian block vs the rest.

The problems have arisen over the BCCI’s stance on some issues which have divided the cricket community; namely Zimbabwe and the prevalence of 20/20.

On Zimbabwe, India and the Asian block (Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) have supported the right for Zimbabwe to retain full member status despite having not played tests since 2005. The issue goes deeper than that, and it brings into perspective the thorny issue of politics and sport.

Zimbabwe’s cricket at grass roots level is in tatters. The domestic competition is reduced in stature and a great majority of the country’s best cricketers no longer play there anymore, with further rumblings within the last few months of players being refused permission to play in Europe and make more money.

The investigation into the board’s finances turned up serious irregularities into where the ICC’s money was going, not to the grassroots cricket but somewhere else. Peter Chingoka, the country’s cricket chairman, has proven himself no more than a bully boy, no more concerned with the cricketers than he is with adding a new extension to his mansion.

In return for keeping Zimbabwe floating in the top level of cricket, Zimbabwe are firmly in India’s corner when India require an issue that will be divisive of the major powers. It is frustrating that Zimbabwe is allowed to stay at the top level when (a) the team clearly isn’t good enough and (b) the grassroots level of cricket is not seeing the money the ICC shovels into the country’s cricket association.

Some have said that politics and sport should not mix with this issue, but the fact is that Zimbabwe is allowed to stay at the top level PURELY for political reasons. The BCCI recently cancelled a tour to Zimbabwe claiming it was not marketable. People should realise that they haven’t acted as so to keep Zimbabwean cricket healthy.

As a historical example, let me bring into the picture the South African ban from 1970 to 1992. This ban was based purely on that Government’s policy of apartheid, and all the major test playing nations of the time agreed to ban the South Africans from touring and refused invitations. In time, the Government changed and the cricket board changed for the better.

How is that not the same case here? A cricket board with fingers in plenty of pies and with extremely close ties to a dictator who has destroyed a country that used to be called ‘the bread basket of Africa’. A difference maybe is that Zimbabwean cricket is struggling, but will that not continue if the country’s board remains in power?

Away from Zimbabwe, the other major divisive issue is that of 20/20, which is quickly replacing one day cricket as the preferred short version of cricket. Whilst invented in England, India has taken to the game and in turn made it far more marketable and available to a wider audience.

The IPL was the BCCI’s brainchild to show off its organisational capabilities, its ability to lure to level talent, and expose the level of money it is able to produce for the game. It was a raging success, with competitive cricket and ultimate victory to a team that was initially unfancied, but brilliantly led by the genius that is Shane Warne.

The ECB, however, have been left behind as it struggles to maintain its prominence in the new order of cricket. While Australia and South Africa have leapt on the BCCI wagon, England continues to bluster around and make mistake after mistake. The Champion’s League was set to involve the top 20/20 teams from around the world, but the BCCI-endorsed tournament, set to appear in September, will not feature any county teams.

The massive feature of 20/20 is encouraging on many fronts, but my worry is that it may damage test cricket. India showed great problems readapting to test cricket against Sri Lanka recently and their batsmen were out at times when restraint was needed. Not to take anything from Sri Lanka’s bowlers, but India’s batsmen at times showed a lack of restraint.

On a closing note, may I point out (I’m aware this may seem a little biased) that as the 20/20 world cup is set to appear in India next, and the Asian countries are set to host the World Cup in 2011, Australia and New Zealand have not hosted a major cricket tournament (Not even a Champion’s Trophy) since the World Cup in 1992. Although the countries are set to host the World Cup in 2015, this is only because their bid, which was initially the only one presented, was usurped at the last minute by a decision to award the tournament to the Asian Block for the third time.

Anyone smell a rat there?

Under threat

2008-07-20T21:26:00.000-07:00

Be prepared people, it looks like the Champion’s Trophy of 2008 may be a no show.

With the tournament scheduled for later in the year, and with the country having already lost the right to host World Number One side Australia for a tour there, Pakistan is no in trouble of losing the prestigious ICC tournament due to security concerns.

Andrew Symonds, the Australian all-rounder, has made it clear he will not go to Pakistan despite fellow Australians Shane Watson and Nathan Hauritz confirming their availability.

And New Zealand may not even send a full strength side, with reports from New Zealand Player’s Association executive manager Heath Mills that several players approached him with a flat refusal to tour the troubled country.

A decision is set to be reached on the issue sometime this week, with a review of an independent security consultant to come under close scrutiny.

The ICC’s stance has not been fully confirmed, although they have expressed doubts over the abilities of either Pakistan or its original reserve venue, Sri Lanka, to control recent problems.

Pakistan desperately needs this tournament in order for its cricket to survive. Amid another drugs controversy involving Mohammad Asif, the exploits of Shoaib Ahktar, and the cancellation and rescheduling of the Australian tour, this is one they really need.

More to follow……

Ajantha Mendis- A new phenomenon

2008-07-07T17:26:00.000-07:00

The retirement of Shane Warne left a large hole in the cricket world, with the greatest spinner of all time no longer affecting the game and delighting crowds with his immaculate control and big turn.

Around the world, the search for spinners to replace the old guard that is passing is underway. Murali is 36 and injuries are beginning to mute his effectiveness. Anil Kumble is 38 this year and not far away from retirement.

Dan Vettori has plenty of years left but is not as exciting as other spinners across the world, such as Monty Panesar, who has a decade worth of service still in him for England. And there is currently no other spinner in world cricket really creating a stir. Until now.

That man is Ajantha Mendis, Sri Lanka’s newest spin sensation earmarked as the new ‘mystery’ spinner, continuing a line from Johnny Gleeson all the way back to Jack Iverson, the original ‘mystery’ bowler.

Mendis has just shocked out India in the Asia Cup Final, cementing a win that Sanath Jayasuria set up with the phenomenal figures of 6/13. India, one of the most powerful teams in the world, couldn’t even make it to 200.

Let’s put these figures into context now. Firstly, spinners are usually subject to a great deal of punishment in one day cricket, with notable exceptions of course (Murali and Saqlain Mushtaq spring to mind).

Secondly, he was playing against India, renowned across the world as the best players of spin bowling. Warne and Murali, the best spinners of this era, cannot average under 30 against them in test cricket, and their ODI records against them weren’t much better.

Thirdly, the Asia Cup has produced featherbed pitches that have been in extraordinary favour of batsmen. 10 innings of 300 or more featured during the tournament, some of those coming in the same match. Mendis took 17 wickets in 5 games, six more than the more accomplished Murali.

Finally, he was introduced in the ninth over of the Indian innings. Bowling to Virender Sehwag, who had dominated the proceedings with his 60, Mendis had him stumped off his second ball, then bowled danger man Yuvraj two balls later for a duck.

He bowled a good length that left the batsman unsure whether to come forward or back (A tactic that made fast bowler Glenn McGrath legendary), then using his variation and a straight ball as a stock delivery, he ran through the rest of the team. Three of the six victims were bowled, beaten by the variation.

Mendis had already been making shockwaves in the Sri Lankan domestic scene, and his first class record is simply bemusing. From 19 matches he has a hardly believable 111 wickets, with a strike rate 32.9 and a ridiculous average of 14.54. Murali’s strike rate is 48, and his average 19.06. Still brilliant figures, but they pale in comparison to Mendis.

Figures like his have not been seen since the golden age of cricket and before, when pitches were uncovered and a bowler had everything in his favour, in this day and age, with the game favouring batsman, they are utterly amazing.

The test now for the young Sri Lankan is to not only maintain his sense of mystery, but to crack the Sri Lankan test team, dominated by that man Murali. His record suggests he could be the man that may challenge Warne and Murali’s positions at the top of the spinning tree.

This is the bowler cricket has been crying out for to lead spin into a new era. I truly hope he can establish himself now and challenge world cricket for his place amongst the greats.

To see his peformance in the Asia Cup final, click the link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3iyoS0S1tU

SOS: Son of Swampy

2008-06-25T19:26:00.000-07:00

A new talent was unleashed on the world a few days ago, and after a fabulous ODI debut, it seems he may have the ability to go all the way at the top level.

That talent is Shaun Marsh, son of renowned Australian stonewaller Geoff Marsh, who played for Australia from 1985 to 1992. His nickname around WA and in the Australian team is SOS: Son of Swampy.

Marsh has been playing first class cricket for a few years now, and only recently has his name become better known. He was a bright talent when first spotted all those years ago, when he charmed then retiring captain Steve Waugh with his maiden first class century.

He became, however, something of an enigma over the next few seasons, unable to hold a secure place in the side and inconsistent in the first class arena. Then along came Tom Moody.

In the 07-08 domestic season, he blossomed as a class batsman. In the Pura Cup, he managed 663 runs from the difficult no.3 position at the healthy average of 60.27. In the Ford Ranger Cup he was his state’s leading run scorer with 318 runs at 39.75. In the frenzied 20/20 competition, he was devastating, scoring 290 runs at the superb average of 58.
It was a sign of things to come for the junior Swampy.

The Chennai Superkings, in arguably the most genius purchases of the comp, bought Marsh and powerful teammate Luke Pomersbach for very little and from there Marsh proceeded to lead his team’s charge towards the final, winning the coveted Orange Cap for highest run scorer with his 616 runs at 68.44. More significantly, he was 83 runs clear of Gautum Gambhir, who had played three more games.

That tournament launched his name. It seemed he had come out of nowhere and dominated a competition with some of the finest international cricketers playing with and against him. Now he has excelled on his ODI debut to score 81, the second highest score by an Australian on ODI debut.

For those who saw him when he first started all those years ago, would they ever have doubted he would reach this peak?

Long road to recovery for Windies

2008-06-16T19:55:00.000-07:00

The signs are there for a West Indies recovery to a position of strength in cricket. New talent is looming, and a fighting spirit sorely lacking in the last few years was evident in the recent test series against Australia.

Despite their improved showing, however, there is still a long way to go before this team claws its way out of 8th spot and begins to start challenging teams such as Australia, India and South Africa, which are the three best teams in the world at this point in time.

One of the ways they have to do this is start promoting new talent. While they got on the right foot over the selection of Xavier Marshall, who made two swashbuckling half centuries and showed immense fighting spirit, they are again showing their unwillingness to look outside the Barbados-Jamaica circle.

Amit Jaggernauth only got into the first test after a public outcry for his selection. It was a good call considering his form that season for Trinidad and Tobago (41 at 15.65), but his only test of the series exposed him to batsmen who can play spin bowling, and as a result he was punished.

Oddly enough three of the top five wicket takers in the West Indies first class competition were spinners: Nikita Miller (42 at 14.85), Jaggernauth, and gangling Sulieman Benn, who impressed in the third test. The only fast bowler to top 30 wickets this year was Shane Shillingford, from the Windward Isles, yet there was never a whisper of selection for him in the test squad, despite the continued poor performances of Darren Powell, who looks way out of his depth in test cricket.

It’s worse with the batting, with the test stars dominating the domestic scene. The only young players to really set the batting scene alight was Leon Johnson who, at 20, could be considered as a having big potential, and the 18 year old Adrian Barath, who has stormed from obscurity to be one of Trinidad and Tobago’s leading lights. Their concern now is how to breach the notorious inter-island rivalry and get a decent run at international level.

A prickly problem for the selectors is the form of expat Queenslander Brendan Nash. Nash was Jamaica’s top batsman and scored a century in Jamaica’s victory in the first class domestic final. He is in good touch despite only coming into the area recently following difficulties in the Australian scene. Whether they regard him as good enough to make the team remains to be seen.

There is hope that there is a new generation of players the West Indies can usher into their side under the guidance of firm hands Chanderpaul, Sarwan, and Gayle to help build a team with the aid of talented players such as Jerome Taylor, the resolute Marshall, and the outrageously gifted Dwayne Bravo.

For cricket’s sake, a strong West Indian side will benefit not only the game in the region, but the game around the world.

Ponting deserving of respect

2008-06-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

Whilst former England opener Geoff Boycott in this article that Ponting is not in the same class as legends such as Lara or Tendulkar, it does not mean he is not entitled to the same respect as the previous pair.

Boycott’s major reason for not including him in the same category was the other pair’s charisma whilst batting. Lara, the flamboyant calypso supremo, with his exaggerated backlift and ability to find gaps no one else can; and Tendulkar, the technical master who Bradman believed most resembled himself.

In terms of run scoring, the difference in statistics is in Ponting’s favour; he has scored heavily from the tricky number 3 position in the last 6 years and averages 58.48 after his dismissal for 18 in the current test. Tendulkar, by stat comparison, averages 55.31, Lara a ‘mere’ 52.88.

I do agree with Boycott on the assessment that Sachin and Brian are the more adored cricketers, particularly because their batting is generally the more charming and entertaining. Ponting, as an Australian, is generally not popular in wider circles. But given the company he is in the 10,000 run club, there is no doubt he is a superior batsman to Rahul Dravid, and perhaps Steve Waugh.

There other major factor is that Ponting never had to endure facing his magnificent teammates, notably McGrath and Warne, who terrorized opponents across the world for 15 years. Lara was a famous bunny of McGrath, having been dismissed 15 and only averaging 41.40 against the beanpole. Tendulkar also suffered against McGrath, only averaging 22.16.

How would Ponting have succeeded? There can be no doubt he would have struggled with McGrath, whose nagging line would have exposed his flaw at pushing hard at the ball, along with his weakness against the ball moving into the pad. I can see Ponting doing well against Warne, as Ponting seems more uncomfortable against offspin than legspin, but it would be a fascinating contest.

The straight bat is that Ponting is a great test batsman and deserves to be accorded respect, maybe not in the same stature of a Lara, Tendulkar, Viv or Greg Chappell, but he is the best in the world currently, and not far off being the best Australian batsman after Bradman.

The hard truth

2008-06-09T20:02:00.000-07:00

England is looking down the barrel ahead of their series with South Africa. Their New Zealand triumph exposed several flaws in their lineup and approach and now it’s back to the drawing board ahead of their toughest opponents since the 06-07 Ashes.

Let’s face it, England, compared to South Africa, have a pedestrian attack. Sidebottom is a world class swing bowler; there is no doubt about that, but Anderson is still suffering from unpredictability, and poor Stuart Broad just doesn’t have any venom in his bowling yet.

South Africa have not just one, but three quality seamers turning up in this series: The fiery and rampant Dale Steyn, whose dominance in the last year and a half has been remarkable; Makhaya Ntini, still among the game’s best quicks; and Morne Morkel, who is almost as fast as Steyn and looking dangerous ahead of this series.

A major difference here will be the batting lineups. While South Africa has looked good over the last year in repelling strong bowling in unfavorable conditions, England has not. Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood are under serious suspicions regarding technique and temperament, and Alastair Cook clearly still has a problem outside off-stump that was exposed ruthlessly by McGrath and Stuart Clark.

The only area England probably wins is the spin department. Harris struggled in India and may not find favorable conditions in England. Panesar, however, is a more aggressive spinner and could be an important factor considering the South Africans have not played against him.

I can’t see England winning this series. South Africa is looking the strongest I have seen them for many years, with good players in all the right areas and an improving team ethic and standard. This is a real test for both teams, with both within the next year to face the game’s number one team, Australia.

May the best team win.

The English dilemma

2008-06-04T20:20:00.000-07:00

England is a good cricket side. Not a great one, but a good one. They are competitive without being dominant. Efficient without being clinical. Strong without being overbearing.

In the current England v New Zealand test series, however, New Zealand, a team with few superstars to call upon, has managed to ask more questions of them than they expected. Before the series began, Michael Vaughan predicted an easy series win. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

England escaped from the first test with a draw after clearing losing the majority of the test. They managed to steal a win in the Old Trafford after Monty Panesar devastated the Kiwis to the tune of 6/37, despite being outplayed in the first innings with the bat and ball.

They go into the final test trying to prevent New Zealand from coming away with a win, despite the fact that for the majority of the series New Zealand have performed better, despite England’s better stars. Players like McCullum, Ross Taylor and Jamie How have stood up, and they have been led well by Vettori, who is taking wickets and leading with great guile.

England has access to an enviable line up of talent. It is alarming that such a lineup cannot lend itself to greater consistency. Ian Bell, like Michael Clarke, has never scored a century unless one has already been scored; KP is now averaging under 50 despite being far and away England’s best batsman.

The most frustrating aspect of England has been their bowling. Sidebottom and Panesar are both performing well, Stuart Broad has looked steady, but Jimmy Anderson has been absolutely terrible. He has a real problem with consistency, being able to deliver one good performance in one innings, then delivering 10 bad ones in a row.

My suggestion is to bring Mark Davies, the underrated Durham seamer, into the squad, or giant beanpole Chris Tremlett, who obtains good bounce. Anderson just simply isn’t good enough to maintain test quality performances.

Not only is the one fumbling for a spot, Paul Collingwood, who delivered such a wonderful 206 in the last Ashes series, is now fighting to keep out the rampant Ravi Bopara, who has set the county scene alight with his prolific run scoring. Colly needs runs to keep his spot urgently.

This series has been a frank eye opener for England, because they know with a strong South African side that has recently fought India to a standstill in India, their side will get crushed if they perform anywhere near as badly as they have this series.

My All-Time Teams

2008-06-02T22:23:00.000-07:00

I made these to provoke some debate, hopefully my fathful readers will be moved to comment on the sides.

Australia
M. Hayden
R. Simpson
R. Ponting
D. Bradman
G. Chappell
A. Border ©
A. Gilchrist (*)
A. Davidson
S. Warne
D. Lillee
G. McGrath

12th: K. Miller

I feel this XI is straight forward, with terrific players in all positions. Noticable admissions by some fans may be that of Miller from the starting XI, Steve Waugh, or the 'Demon' Spofforth. I picked Border because Border was to face the tougher bowling and maintained his average over 50 for the majority of his career.

England
J. Hobbs
H. Sutcliffe
W. Hammond
L. Hutton ©
K. Barrington
I. Botham
A. Knott (*)
J. Laker
S. Barnes
A. Bedser
F. Trueman

12th: J. Snow

Again I feel this was fairly straight forward, although some may be bemused at the lack of George Lohmann, W. G. Grace and John Snow. Dereck Underwood narrowly missed the spinner's spot, and Maurice Tate was thought of.

India
S. Gavaskar
V. Sehwag
R. Dravid
S. Tendulkar
V. Hazare ©
M. Azharuddin
M.S. Dhoni (*)
K. Dev
A. Kumble
J. Srinath
B. Bedi

12th: B. Chandrasekar

The majority of India's best are from the modern era, India's golden age, with 7 players having played from 1990 onwards. Vinoo Mankad was a sad ommission, as was the elegant V.V.S Laxman. Vijay Merchant also missed out, as did Erapally Prasanna and Chandra.

Pakistan
S. Anwar
H. Mohammad
Y. Khan
J. Miandad
M. Yousef
Inzamam-Ul-Haq
I. Khan ©
W. Akram
A. Qadir
W. Bari (*)
F. Mahmood
W. Younis

12th: Zaheer Abbas

I felt I got this one bang on target. The only problem was that of Wasim Bari and whether it was fair to remove him for someone with a better average, perhaps Kamran Akmal. But Bari's reputation as a gloveman sealed his spot.

South Africa
G. Smith
B. Mitchell
J. Kallis
D. Nourse ©
G. Pollock
E. Barlow
M. Boucher (*)
S. Pollock
P. Pollock
H. Tayfield
A. Donald

12th: G. Faulkner

On a whim I excluded both Barry Richards and Mike Proctor for not playing enough tests, although they'd be sure to make it usually. This team is still formidable, with a good mix of old and modern players. Herbie Taylor could easily be included, as could Alan Melville and the determined Gary Kirsten. Makhaya Ntini nearly earned a spot, and Trevor Goddard was a near miss.

West Indies
G. Greenidge
C. Hunte
G. Headley
V. Richards
B. Lara
G. Sobers (C)
C. Walcott (*)
M. Marshall
J. Garner
M. Holding
C. Ambrose

12th: F. Worrell

This was the most difficult team to select, not because of a lack of players, because of too much players. Clive Lloyd and Frank Worrell, both gifted batsmen and captains, both fail to make the grade and so does Rohan Kanhai, Shiv Chanderpaul and the supremely gifted Everotn Weekes (The comment below reminded me I had forgot Sir Garfield St. Auburn Sobers, and poor Everton misses out due to my oversight!). There is no room for Courtney Walsh, Andy Roberts, Wes Hall, or Lance Gibbs. And Clyde Walcott is a surprise choice at keeper (Considering his batting record wasn't as good when he donned the gloves).

New Zealand
B. Sutcliffe
G. Turner
A. Jones
M. Donnelly
M. Crowe ©
C. Cairns
B. McCullum (*)
R. Hadlee
D. Vettori
S. Bond
J. Cowie

12th: S. Fleming

This one will get some healthy debate. As two controversial choices, I have picked devastating tyro Shane Bond and original kingpin Jack "The Bull" Cowie to partner Richard Hadlee. Cowie's choice may be a suprise, but when you consider his record and the opposition he played against, it is well deserved. Martin Donelly, the graceful left hander, was picked ahead of Fleming, who just misses out.

Sri Lanka

S. Jayasuria
M. Attapattu
A. De Silva
M. Jayawardene ©
K. Sangakarra (*)
A. Gurusinha
H. Tillakaratne
T. Dilshan
C. Vaas
C. Fernando
L. Malinga
M. Muralitharan

12th: A. Ranatunga

Probably the most modern of teams considering their first test was 1982. Their entire bowling team is post 1990, and the omission of Ranatunga may confuse some people.

Farewell MacGilla

2008-06-02T20:47:00.000-07:00

Another test series and another high profile retirement from the Australian team. This time, Stuart MacGill, the fiery and confrontational leg spinner, hung up his boots after dismal performances in Jamaica and in the current test.

MacGill has been a good servant to Australian cricket, having to sit in the wings during Shane Warne’s dominance of spin bowling and taking wickets where he could. His career record makes impressive viewing, over 200 wickets at just over 28 and a strike rate of 53, an impressive rate for a spinner.

Unfortunately, in the twilight of his career, injuries and a disastrous loss of form put paid to his career, and hopefully people do not remember him in that way.

They will hopefully remember MacGill’s epic performance in the 1998-1999 Ashes series, where he bowled Australia to victory in Sydney with 12/107. Or when he often out-bowled his greater friend and rival, Warne, such as the ICC Supertest in 2005.

While he had many flaws in his character, including accusations of selfishness and being aloof from team mates, he was committed to keeping Australia on top and as one of the premire spinners in the world he was even at times superior to India’s Anil Kumble, another leggie.

What MacGilla’s retirement does is expose our lack of spinning depth. Australia has quality depth in other departments all around the country, from batsman, pacemen and keepers. It is our spinning stocks that have struggled, despite the popularity of Warne and MacGill.

Dan Cullen and Cullen Bailey, the South Australia boys, are struggling to break into their side, with Nathan Adcock’s off spin being more successful than Cullen’s. Aaron Heal is in need of more first class games but has talent, and the game seems to be up for Queensland’s Dan Doran and NSW’s Nathan Hauritz.

It leaves current Australian candidate Beau Casson and 36 year old Victorian leggie Bryce McGain, who showed great accuracy this Pura Cup and Ford Ranger Cup season. Casson performed well, especially late, in the Blues victorious Pura Cup campaign and deserves a shot in the next test.

However, the selectors may look to play four seamers and use Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds as their spin options. For the sake of entertaining cricket, let’s hope they give Casson a chance to possibly become the spinner Australia has been crying out for since Warne’s retirement.

A series alive, and with plenty of fight

2008-05-29T17:51:00.000-07:00

With one match, a series most expected as a walkover is now brimming with expectation after Australia escaped with a win in the first test against a resurgent West Indies.

No one saw it coming, when Australia posted 431 in their first innings, despite hostile bowling from Fidel Edwards, it was a case of ‘here we go again’. But the Windies knocked up 312 in response and then Edwards, Darren Powell and the mercurial Dwayne Bravo short circuited Australia’s 2nd innings setting up a thrilling finish.

Only the relentless accuracy and guile of Stuart Clark saved Australia this time, with good support from attack leader Brett Lee, to score first blood in the series. But Australia was suddenly proved flawed, something opposition teams have been waiting to pounce on for years.

The signs are positive for the Windies. Fidel Edwards was superb, bowling with great pace and good direction, which is a good step for a bowler usually considered too wayward. His bounce was awkward and he destroyed the confidence of openers Phil Jaques and Simon Katich.

He was backed well by the luckless Powell, as well as the steady medium pace of Bravo and Sammy. Sammy, the most accurate of the lot, was extremely hard to score off, and with a year or two to add to his repertoire he could be the next Courtney Walsh, although maybe without as much pace.

Their problem was the spinner, Jaggernauth, who looked out of his depth when suddenly faced by batsmen who can play spin bowling. This problem should be fixed by the return of Jerome Taylor, far and away the best fast bowler in the West Indies, who should cause some concern for the openers with his useful movement.

The batting is certainly a problem. Stand-in captain Sarwan threw his wicket away and he is a better player than that. Gayle should help solidify the top order over Parchment, making their top order look more fearsome. I personally still have doubts over Runako Morton’s ability, but there is still Shiv and the immensely talented Bravo.

While Chanderpaul is by far their best bat, Bravo is their most talented player. Still only 24, there is no doubt in my mind he could be one of the best all-rounders in the game if he puts his mind to it. His batting average does not reflect his skill, and the Australian team will have long memories of his century in Hobart in 2005, where he played Stuart MacGill and Shane Warne with ease.

Australia now has the massive problem of playing without Hayden. There is no doubt the dominant opener is in mighty form and could have been a huge stumbling block for the Windies. To put this into perspective, during the Indian series this summer, the only match Australia lost was the one match Hayden didn’t play, he made a century in each test he played.

There are doubts lingering also on Mitchell Johnson and Stuart MacGill. MacGill was extremely erratic, bowling plenty of long hops and full tosses that even I could have slammed for six. He is still turning the ball big, and should cause problems when he gets it right. He just has to get it right more often.

Johnson’s problem is mostly technical, and he isn’t fulfilling his potential as well as he should. He is highly capable of swinging the new ball at speed, which is why he has been opening the attack instead of the reliable Stuart Clark, but he has been unable to get the ball to swing, and he has been unable to get batsmen to play at the ball regularly. If he does not improve, a debut for Ashley Noffke or fellow dangerous left-armer Doug Bollinger could be on the cards.

The next test will be the big indication of where these teams sit. The West Indies are back to close to full strength, while Australia are hoping their depth will carry them through the series without Hayden. I will be glued to the TV tomorrow morning expecting the best Test Match cricket can offer.

Dominant Ponting back in touch

2008-05-22T22:51:00.000-07:00

He's back, and he's in the same dominating touch that has plundered 35 test centuries at an average close to 60. That's right, the Australian captain Ricky Ponting has repsonded to claims he's out of touch with a big hundred, and watching it last night, it looked as if he had never been out of touch in the first place.

Ponting has had a rough ride the last 6 months, after speculation he was falling off the horse with poor showing against Sri Lanka and India and then a rather furitless stay with Kolkata in the IPL.

However, on day one of the test against the West Indies, he showed why he has as many test centuries as he does and why he is regarded up with Sachin as one of world cricket's finest batsmen.

His tendancy to fall across the ball early was muted by his techical decision to keep his bat closer to his pad, and whenever the bowlers pitched short, he was immediately cutting and pulling with savage intent.

The Windies bowled poorly to him, they had no real plan and did not exploit Ponting's usual weakness against the ball that moves into offstump. Harbajan, Murali and Ishant Sharma all exploited this weakness during the Australian summer, but no-one stepped up for the Windies, who looked really toothless.

It does not bode well for the Windies that Ponting is in form, with a taste for centuries back. Currently sitting just below 10,000 test runs, look for Ponting to start catching up to Sachin now.

Hopes for a stronger contest

2008-05-18T23:24:00.000-07:00

The last time Australia played the West Indies in a test series they had Brian Lara, who farewelled a country that considered him a genius with 226 in Adelaide.

Now, for the first time since 2005, the Windies face off with Australia for the Frank Worrell Trophy, generally revered almost as much as the Ashes in terms of cricket trophies. With no Lara, however, this contest could turn out even worse than three years ago.

The Windies have sunken from the prestige they used to carry in world cricket alarmingly and depressingly. Where once players like Lara, Ambrose and Walsh stormed through teams, they have not been replaced by players of the same quality.

This time round, the team is led by Ramnaresh Sarwan, a gifted but enigmatic player at test level, and the only batsman generally regarded as a major threat is Shivnarine Chanderpaul, whose record against the Aussies does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Admittedly, this is one of the best times now to face Australia. There is no longer any McGrath or Warne, and Justin Langer and Adam Gilchrist cannot flay their weakened attack around.

They still have strong candidates replacing them, with Brad Haddin, a wicketkeeper with a first class average of over 40 replacing him, and Phil Jaques has revealed himself to be a top test opener already after scoring heavily against India and Sri Lanka.

Australia’s bowling attack is no longer as powerful as it used to be, but Lee has emerged as one of the top quicks in world cricket, backed well by Stuart Clark and the raw but quick Johnson. MacGill, once his rhythm comes back, will plague the Windies batsmen, most of whom struggled with Warne.

I cannot predict anything but a whitewash of these tests, but I hope that players of the quality of Bravo, Ramdin, Sammy and Sarwan get a chance to shine and show the Australian side they are not intimidated by them.

The aesthetic v the numbers

2008-04-23T23:15:00.000-07:00

One of my favourite debates in cricket centres on this age old discussion of value, does being attractive make a good player or numbers make a good player?

Strictly speaking this divides the stats gurus and the romantics who love a graceful innings and also splits players in terms of opinion.

Is Steve Waugh better than his brother simply because his average was higher? Does Viv stand head and shoulders above Lara because of his reputation? Was Gower the pinnacle of batsmanship over Geoff Boycott?

We’ll compare the first two as an example. Steve and Mark were mainstays of the Australian batting order through the 90’s, generally batting at 5 and 4 respectively. Steve finished his test career with 10,927 runs at 51.06, truly great numbers.

Mark, however, finished with 8,029 runs at 41.81. Most observers would agree that these numbers do not reflect greatness. However, those who ever saw the pair bat would not hesitate to call Mark the superior batsman; such was his style and technique.

This gave rise to the popular theory that you’d get Mark to bat for your enjoyment but Steve to bat for your life. And it is a much repeated case even today. Michael Clarke is one of the most stylish stroke makers in the current Australian side, but most people would pick Michael Hussey in their test side, for his immense numbers.

There is no substitute for substance. Bradman by all accounts was one of the most mechanical and uninteresting batsmen to ever play test cricket. Didn’t stop him from averaging 99.94 with 29 centuries in 80 innings.

By comparison again, Alan Kippax was immensely stylish and polished as a batsman. Despite his terrific first class record, his test average was a mere 36.12, with only two centuries for his country.

The argument can remain that people would rather watch a Mark than a Steve, but in the end, if you want to win a match, it’s the numbers that count.

Rush hour

2008-04-20T22:26:00.000-07:00

What a rush. IPL is off and running and after a weekend of games we’ve had our fair share of controversy and exhilarating cricket already.

The opening game set a cracking pace with a blistering 158 not out from Kiwi Brendon McCullum, smashing the 20/20 world record score. Unfortunately Bangalore could only manage 82 as the submitted to a powerful Kolkata side.

Mike Hussey became the first Australian to sit up and demand attention with 116 not out for Chennai, and James Hopes contributed 71 valuable runs in the same game.

But the Hyderabad v Kolkata game was the most contentious. Although the game went down to the wire, the match was played out on an absolute minefield of a pitch, with plumes of dust shooting up whenever the ball hit the deck.

Andrew Symonds and David Hussey, who led Kolkata to victory with an unbeaten 38, came closest to fighting the devils in the pitch, one usually seen more often on day five in test matches.

Poor V.V.S Laxman copped a snorter from Ishant Sharma on the glove, and Murali Kartik and Mohammad Hafeez then proceeded to turn the ball square. Even my innocuous off spin would have been a threat on this pitch (Does that mean I can get a contract IPL?????)

We’ve got plenty of matches to go, but the Aussies will only have another week or so to earn their money, with the tour of the West Indies looming. Let’s hope they enjoy I while it lasts.

It's alright to be excited by IPL

2008-04-15T22:46:00.000-07:00

Well after months of speculation, growing curiosity, and impatience, IPL is finally upon us, with the first game between the Bangalore Royal Challengers and the Kolkata Knight Riders kicking off on Friday.

And to be honest, what cricket fan isn’t a little curious on the names on display?

To use Aussie cricketers as an example, Bangalore, with Ashley Noffke and Cameron White at their disposal, face off with Kolkata, who boast Australian captain Ricky Ponting and rising star David Hussey.

It’s those sorts of contests that are leaving some cricket fans salivating. Who hasn’t wanted to see how Glenn McGrath fairs against Adam Gilchrist and Andrew Symonds? How Warney bowls to Matthew Hayden? If Binga can knock Mike Hussey’s head off?

The wonderful thing the IPL has done has brought International players together under a new format and encourages them to work together. After a bitter summer, we have Indians playing with Australians again and hopefully enjoying each others’ company.

Although I’m still sceptical about whether 20/20 is a format worth pursuing over ODI cricket, it has its right to be in the calendar. And in the end, this tournament might be healthier for cricket’s relations than anything we have seen before.

I’ll watch in expectation of excitement and the chance to see my heroes go at each other for the first time on an international stage. What a sight that will be.

Finding the next generation

2008-03-19T22:15:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, NSW took out the 2007/2008 Pura Cup Final, taking down Victoria by an impressive 258 runs. The final is the pinnacle of Australian domestic cricket, and arguably the better side won it in the end.

However, it is more than just a pinnacle, it is also a chance for selectors and spectators to find the next best players for the Australian team of the future, as well as reaffirm the skills of older and experienced players.

I was there on day three of the match and noticed Tim Nielsen entering the NSW dressing room when the Blues were batting. It alerted me to the fact they were keenly watching the contest, and writing down the names of players that could have a future in green and gold.

No doubt they noticed the explosive batting of the outrageously talented Phillip Hughes, who became the youngest player to hit a Pura Cup/Sheffield Shield Final century at just 19 years of age. He could be viewed as the replacement for the aging Matthew Hayden.

Nor could they ignore the hard working, accurate, and probing bowling of Victorian paceman Peter Siddle, who was Victoria’s single shining light in the final. Provided he can stay fit and recover from a shoulder reconstruction, Siddle has a big future in the game.

The old hands were excellent as usual. MacGill showed he is over the effects of surgery, Simon Katich was in unstoppable touch, and Dave Hussey, Brad Hodge and Cameron White got chances to impress those viewing.

Whether selector base their choices for the future upon this year’s domestic results remains to be seen. But what is clear is that soon the likes of Hughes, Siddle, D. Hussey and White may find themselves in the Australian team if they continue to dominate the Australian scene like they did this summer.

Bear with me

2008-03-13T19:24:00.000-07:00

Here’s a little stirrer for you cricket lovers out there. Recently WWOS writer David Lowden published this article http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=372243 regarding Michael Clarke’s captaincy credentials.

In the article, he believes Clarke is not ready for captaining Australia, but fails to go into details as to why Clarke should not be handed the captaincy.

May I first point out here that I am not saying Clarke should not be handed the Australian vice-captaincy or the eventual captaincy when Ponting retires. I am merely going to point out there are other options should Cricket Australia look outside the square.

I personally must agree with David. I don’t believe much in Clarke’s captaincy credentials, especially when you consider he doesn’t have any domestic experience nor much international experience.

I can hear you say he captained the 20/20 side this summer. Big deal. 20/20 is not test cricket or even ODI cricket, which was the 20/20 cricket of the 70’s. Test cricket requires not only requires tactical sense, but the ability to lead men.

Clarke is a bubbly, cheerful sort of bloke who gets on well with his teammates. In that respect he is a good choice. However, the best captains have strong personalities that unite a team and would inspire the players to fight from the trenches.

Steve Waugh had that sort of dominant personality, as did Alan Border and Stephen Fleming. Clarke does not yet have that sort of steel in his spine, which may come from more exposure to top level opponents at test level.

Other captains lead by example. Ricky Ponting falls into this category, being his team’s best batsman. Brian Lara fell into the category as well, although he can be argued that his captaincy was partially marred by the fact that the Windies were on the decline during his era.

Clarke needs to sit down and begin to learn the nuances of the game. And one person that he could sit down with is Mark Taylor, arguably the greatest modern day cricket captain (A close race with the master tactician Fleming).

Taylor was probably the perfect mix of iron will, diplomacy, tactics, and was not afraid to lead by example. In the famous 1995 series against the Windies, he hooked Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose fearlessly to show his teammates not to back down. It worked wonders for the team.

Now selectors may or may not go with Clarke as their leader for the future. But it there are other candidates that are equally worthy of the chance to lead the country if selected in the future.

One man in particular stands out on his own. He is still young for a cricketer, being 24 at the present time, and he has held the captaincy of his state since he was 20, not to mention the captaincy of Somerset when he made a big impact over there for two seasons.

That man is Cameron White.

I have a feeling people are starting to doubt my sanity here, but if you think about it and look at the facts, it makes good sense.

White is currently captain of Victoria, having led the side well and celebrating several cups including multiple 20/20 championships and getting to the Pura Cup Final in multiple times during his tenure.

Although he was originally a leg spinner, he has blossomed into a powerful and increasingly consistent middle order batsman that features in a dominant Victorian trio of Hodge, Hussey and White.

White average is currently averaging 41.52 with the bat with a high score of 260 not out. Clarke was not even averaging over 40 when he first broke into the Australian team and although he is definitely a better batsman then White, White seems to keep improving.

White is a useful if not devastating leg spinner and a fine fieldsman. It is his leadership of his state that has been his greatest asset. He has shown all the maturity of a veteran in his 5 or so seasons in charge, and can tick every box off on the list above in regards to leadership qualities.

Australia could do worse than look to White in the future. He is a player with a large amount of talent and the experience to lead the Australian team into a new era.

Summer of discontent

2008-03-06T19:15:00.001-08:00

This summer’s cricket will probably go down as probably the most controversial and ill tempered series since Bodyline. The ill will between Australia and India was obvious throughout the tests and ODI series as two competitive sides fought it out.

The honours were arguably even, with Australia victorious in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and India claiming the CB Series. What was most frustrating about both these series was the way in which both teams at times conducted themselves.

The media coverage was at time bordering on the ridiculous. As India lost the second test at Sydney by the barest of margins, therefore sealing the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, claims of poor umpiring and poor sportsmanship by the Australians came roaring out from both sides of the trenches.

Not only were the Indian media predictably up in arms, respected commentators Peter English and Peter Roebuck came out throwing verbal knives at the Australian cricket team’s conduct. Roebuck was particularly scathing of Ricky Ponting, going so far as to call for his sacking and replacement by Simon Katich.

It was a sign of the turbulence that would continue throughout the series, and to be brutally honest, the Australian team never really recovered mentally. They were absolutely battered by the negative treatment in the media and it became a dead weight around their necks.

Sure, there is no excuse for poor form, but it must be born in mind that they were under more pressure from the media than usual. India delighted in their use of the media to heighten their mental pressure on Australia, and it probably worked.

Sadly it also got wearisome for fans to see the constant bickering in newspapers and on television, and as a result, despite some tight contests, some fans turned away in frustration.

Australia had an up and down summer. Generally their bowling was pretty good, especially from Allan Border Medallist Brett Lee and then CB Man of the Series Nathan Bracken, who continues to be underrated despite the fact he is probably the best ODI bowler in the world.

Their batsmen, Matthew Hayden apart, have been pretty flat. Ricky Ponting has endured probably his worst season for years, with poor returns in the tests and ODI series. The once impregnable middle order looked decidedly frail this summer, and looks especially so now without the presence of Adam Gilchrist.

India, however, gained strength as they went along. They benefited immensely from the discovery of Ishant Sharma, probably the best fast bowling talent in years. And their young bowlers were unintimidated by the ‘Australian aura’, which seems to affect other teams.

They were not the innocent victims as they often made out. Harbajan was a constant thorn with his behaviour, which was worse than any Australian. He repeatedly abused and harangued the Australian players and it remains a mystery how he escaped punishment for racially abusing Andrew Symonds.
It was generally the usual offenders such as Harbajan and Irfan Pathan, who is extremely cheeky. Sreesanth was an absolute picture of clarity, and was very disciplined and subdued. While his aggression is needed, it is good that he isn’t going over the top.

I’m just personally glad, mainly as a supporter since this has all made good news for me job wise, that this summer is over and these two teams can simmer until the next series, which I’m sure will be a hotly contested as ever.

P.S. Farewell Sachin.

IPL: What are you worth?

2008-03-06T15:16:00.000-08:00

With the advent of IPL, the dawn of the millionaire cricketer has begun. Andrew Symonds, M. S. Dhoni, and the aging Sanath Jayasuria are players boasting seven figure pay packets for their stint in the BCCI- endorsed events.

It has aroused interest in me, not for what the current players are earning, but what the stars of yesteryear would have received. If you compare what the current players are earning, it could be really interesting.

For example, since all rounders are worth an immense amount in 20\20 cricket, how much would they be prepared to shell out for Sir Garfield Sobers, the game’s greatest all-rounder? He would surely be worth more than Andrew Symonds, for his audacious and thrilling batting as well as his three-in-one bowling.

Imran would be worth a fair amount, especially when you consider his leadership value, as would Indian hero Kapil Dev, seeing as Indian players usually got plenty of money. And Keith Miller and Sir Ian Botham would be musts for their charisma alone, let alone cricketing ability.

Keeper of the previous era would have been hard, as none have the hitting and batting ability of the current crop such as Gilchrist, Dhoni and Kumar Sangakarra. But Alan Knott could do well, as could Rod Marsh. Dennis Lindsay would be able to hold his own, and Les Ames would easily pass the grade

Batsmen now. First of all, Bradman. It’s hard to say how he would have adapted to 20/20, but since he had all the shots, it could be reasonably safe to assume he would do well in the shorter forms of the game. If you consider that, he would be worth a considerable amount for the runs he could score, certainly more than Ricky Ponting.

Then you could take your pick from legends such as Sir Wally Hammond, Sir Jack Hobbs, Gavaskar, Graeme Pollock, and probably the man most suited to a game of this format, the phenomenal Sir Viv Richards, who would be given free reign to demolish fast bowlers.

Fast bowlers….ahhh…..now it gets interesting. You can pretty much guarantee that any West Indian quick from 1975 through to 1995 will be snapped up, especially tall wonders Joel Garner and Curtley Ambrose, who would be impossible to score off.

It’s surprising that a hero such as Glenn McGrath would be snapped up for so little. Dennis Lillee has too much class for that, as did English quicks Fred Trueman and John Snow. Ray Lindwall would be a good buy for his batting, as would Alan Davidson.

Wasim and Waqar…ooooo…..this is drool worthy. Wasim would be worth an absolute fortune, especially considering his legendary status on the subcontinent, and his zippy pace and late swing would make him hard to play.

Spinners in general should expect punishment. But I reckon Abdul Qadir, Derek Underwood, and Richie Benaud could give a good account for themselves.

Here’s my ideal team picked from these legends.
Les Ames (WK)
Garry Sobers
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Wally Hammond
Graeme Pollock
Imran Khan ©
Richie Benaud
Wasim Akram
Joel Garner
Dennis Lillee

This team would be, in my opinion, a nightmare to face in 20/20. Who would relish the sight of Garry Sobers opening, with Bradman and Richards to come? And then having to face up against Garner, Akram, and Lillee?

As for my skills as a cricketer, I’d be happy to go for the price of free meals and a haystack to sleep in at nights. Anything for a game of cricket.

Era of the unsure

2008-03-03T21:14:00.000-08:00

Australia is now on the frontier, the edge of the precipice. After this one day series is over, there will no longer be an Adam Gilchrist, no Brad Hogg, and no Jason Gillespie. They will join vanished stars Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Justin Langer and Damian Martyn in retirement.

Matthew Hayden, despite his renewed zest for the game, is 37 this year, and Australia’s number one spinner Stuart MacGill is 38, nursing several injuries and no longer has the strike power he used to.

This is the going to be the most difficult period in Australian cricket since after 1983, when Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee, and Rod Marsh all threw in the towel in the same match. It took Australia years to get over that, along with rebel tours to South Africa that further sapped Australia’s strength during that time.

But eventually Australia’s strong domestic scene prevailed and under Allan Border, and then, most notably, under Mark Taylor, Australia emerged as the strongest team in the world, a dominance carried on by captains Waugh and Ponting.

Now though the team is at the crossroads. Losing McGrath and Warne were monumental losses, as they were the finest at their craft during the modern era. Australia suddenly does not have the five backups the team could usually call upon to fill in with ease.

During this summer, India exposed Australia’s weaker bowling attack with several good performances. They made a mockery of hard working Brad Hogg, and were often severe on newcomer Mitchell Johnson.

Their bowling attack has improved out of sight too. After a long period in which a lot of ordinary Indian quicks were bowling, they have suddenly discovered a rash of talented and sharp fast bowlers with immense potential such as R.P Singh, Praveen Kumar, and the man who could become greater than Kapil Dev, Ishant Sharma.

Australia’s batting lineup is still strong, but boasts few players still in their 20’s. In the test line up there is only one, Michael Clarke. Gilchrist’s likely replacement, Brad Haddin, has just turned 30. Mitchell Johnson is the only other player under 30 in the team.

The Indian one day team is extremely youthful, with plenty of young and talented players in the ranks. What will be India’s great challenge in the next 5 years will be when they have to replace Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman, players that only pop up once in a lifetime.

There is good talent in the Australian scene. Dave Hussey and Brad Hodge are scoring plenty of runs, but both are on the wrong side of 30. Cameron White, Victoria’s skipper and improving batsman, is getting better and has real captaincy credentials (As opposed to Michael Clarke, who has very little)

NSW has just unearthed opener Phil Hughes, who is looking the goods with six half centuries in 9 innings. Shane Watson is still hovering around and WA’s has plenty of depth with Chris Rogers, Marcus North, Adam Voges, Shaun Marsh and Luke Pomersbach.

The bowling is currently viewed as the problem, but there is still the erratic Shaun Tait, Ben Hilfenhaus, Ashley Noffke, Doug Bollinger and the raw Mark Cameron. All of the quicks have potential.

The major worry is spin. Finding a replacement to Shane Warne was always going to be a hard task, and the fact is that the spin cupboard is pretty empty. Dan Cullen and Cullen Bailey, the South Australians, are both struggling for wickets and game time.

Nathan Hauritz and Beau Casson are struggling against each other for a NSW spot when MacGil can’t play. Victoria has 35 year old Bryce McGain, whilst Dan Doran’s career is sliding backwards fast. WA currently has the best spin prospect in my books, with tall orthodox spinner Aaron Heal.

The next five years will be one of transition for Australia, when their dominance wanes as a new generation emerges. Australian should expect Australia to still be competitive, but they should be patient as Australia rebuilds itself in order to remain as the world’s best cricket team.

The Anti-Ponting Columnist

2008-01-23T20:48:00.000-08:00

On another note, I must address the articles written recently by a cricket columnist I once respected, Peter Roebuck. In this article http://www.peterroebuck.com/html/s02_article/article_view.asp?id=239&dsb=360, Roebuck attacks the captaincy of Ponting and the approach to the Test that Australia undertook.

He goes right after players Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke initially, amazingly criticising Hayden for crossing himself during tests but not first class matches. The point on Clarke is a fair one, but to say he is not deserving of the vice captaincy on one incident is a bit like an English Test selection policy approach.

The criticism of Australia’s conduct at the end is purely hypocritical; where was Roebuck’s article after India defeated Australia in the 20/20 World Cup and then proceeded to dance the house down?

He then begins his attack on Ponting, accusing him of constantly pressuring the umpires (And Kumble didn’t?) and then saying he insulted Indian reporters at the press conference. Sorry Peter, but my recollection was that they rudely suggested he breached the ‘spirit of cricket’ (See previous article).

That’s a rather selective memory you’ve got there.

You lost my respect Peter when you joined a flood of anti-Australian hysteria and then failed to take all the facts into account. Next time, could you remember that there are two teams that play cricket out there?

The Spirit of Cricket?

2008-01-23T19:42:00.000-08:00

Over the past month we’ve heard a whole lot about the ‘spirit of cricket’, which, pending on what your view is, have been flouted and ignored during this India/Australia Test series.

The Sydney Test fallout was all farce as accusations and counter-accusations rocked back and forth. Umpiring was called into question after several howlers, and an ill-feeling settled over the competitive series.

It all started with the major umpiring blunders which arguably influenced the outcome of the test: The Andrew Symonds reprieve in the 1st innings and the Rahul Dravid dismissal in the 4th innings. Both the decisions were wrong, but the backlash that followed was of almost Hollywood drama level.

The Indian press went on the offensive, initially calling into question Ponting’s sportsmanship when he claimed a catch off Rahul Dravid in the 4th innings that was eventually given not out. They of course ignored the fact that Ponting had previously admitted to the umpire in India’s first innings that he was unsure of a catch he had taken.

Kumble was upset about the loss, but was out of line in accusing Australia of breaching the ‘spirit of cricket’.

Now Australia is an intriguing nation on the cricket field. The brand of cricket they usually play is hard but fair. Mark Taylor, one of Australia’s finest leaders, really got Australia into playing genuine attacking cricket and was an aggressive leader but a fair and diplomatic man.

Steve Waugh went a step in another direction, probably the wrong direction. His brand of aggression, titled ‘mental disintegration’ was eagerly snapped up by a side desiring to cement its place at the top of world cricket.

The heavy abuse encouraged during Waugh’s reign led to many clashes on the field, the more well known being Glenn McGrath’s tirade against Ramnaresh Sarwan and Michael Slater’s argument with Rahul Dravid. This was around the time the ‘ugly’ Australia tag began to stick.

Ponting’s reign has been an odd one. Although the abuse of opposition is less prevalent under Ponting than under Waugh, the Australian team still plays it hard and aggressive without as much diplomacy as Taylor promoted.

Australia has been accused in the past of over-appealing in an attempt to intimidate umpires. This wasn’t prevalent in the previous three tests, but it has been done, especially by one certain blonde leg spinner.

The irony of this is India is often guilty of over-appealing themselves, especially their spinners. This isn’t an entirely Australian problem.

Another issue of contention was walking. Australia is singled out as being a nation of non-walkers, and the press was incensed after the Symonds non-dismissal when it seemed the all-rounder knew he had hit the ball. Michael Clarke not leaving the ground immediately after being dismissed was another.

This again is a ‘cry wolf’ scenario. No team in the world walks. The only players in recent memory that walk have been the now retired Brian Lara and Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist. None of the Indian batsmen walk, and when Sourav Ganguly refused to leave the arena after Michael Clarke claimed a catch was poor form.

Truth is no one walks because of the chance an umpire makes a mistake, which is what happened in the Sydney Test.

After the Sydney fallout, Australia took to the field in Perth a team wary of being criticised for their behaviour and were exceptionally diplomatic, to the point that they forgot to play aggressively. Thus India had a much easier time defeating them (This does not detract from the fact India played better).

The term ‘spirit of cricket’ is an ambiguous and misleading term. Most teams around the world criticise another for breaking it when they are in fact hypocritically doing it themselves.

Unfortunately, because Australia is the top team in the world, their actions are always going to be under more scrutiny than the rest and every excessive appeal or minor personality clash they have will always lead back to the image of the ‘ugly’ Aussie cricketer.

A tale of two centuries

2008-01-07T22:08:00.000-08:00

I’ll deal with the fallout of the dramatic Sydney Test in a later article; I’d firstly like to draw your attention to India’s first innings.

In that first innings two batsmen made centuries, both of contrasting style and appeal. Both these players have superb records both against Australia and the SCG. From there, though, the similarities end.

Both V.V.S Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar thrilled an adoring SCG crowd with dashing and charismatic stroke play, and they will leave Australian shores, probably for the last time, firmly in the hearts of Australian cricket followers.

Australians love a player who can stick it to them, give a good fight, and succeed against the team viewed as the best in the world. Brian Lara regularly thrilled Australian audiences and left the country with a firm reminder of his genius after scoring 226 in Adelaide, his final test in this country.

In terms of cricketing journeys, they don’t come much different than these too. Sachin Tendulkar is ‘the little master’, the finest of all Indian batsmen. He made the test team at 16 and has played for two decades at the top level, acknowledged as the best batsman of his generation. There is Bradman, and then there is Sachin.

V.V.S Laxman has had a different career. Although only a year younger than Sachin, he debuted in test cricket at 1996 and made an impression against a strong South African side with 51. Since then he has played 88 tests, but has constantly been chopped and changed from the Indian side.

Rarely has such a gifted batsman been under such pressure to hold his place, considering that he averages as much as Sourav Ganguly does, who has played 100 tests. He averages over 50 against Australia and was mainly responsible for stopping Australia’s previous record winning run with his brilliant 281 at Eden Gardens.

Had Laxman failed with the bat at Sydney, he may have faced trouble again, after having a flat season during India’s victory in England. Instead he did what he does best; he counterattacked.

In reply to Australia’s 463, India lost Wasim Jaffer early and Rahul Dravid was struggling for form and confidence. Laxman started well, and aggressively launched his side, at one point reaching 57 off 47 balls.

His 109 off 142 balls was filled with sublime stroke play: Wonderful wristy flicks and gloriously timed drives through cover and straight. He was applauded with relish by the SCG crowd who adore he man dubbed “Very Very Special”.

Sachin was a little more selective than the aggressive Laxman, but his century could arguably be the greater for the fact that at no stage did it ever look like he would be dismissed. His 154 not out from 243 was precise and immaculate, with the attractive and pleasing shot selection that makes Sachin a master.

Although he could be criticised for protecting his average during the latter stages, something Symonds was guilty of doing during his century, he made sure India’s tail contributed to a first innings lead that set up a cracker of a test by giving them plenty of strike and encouraging them.

Two centuries of vital importance, in contrasting style and modus operandi, showed the Australian public and the Australian cricket team that this Indian team still has a lot of fight and class, and can never be underestimated.

We probably will never see these players again, and it is special to see them for the last time in this country. There are still two tests to go, so what more could we expect from them?

And finally, which player did I enjoy more?

V.V.S Laxman. For two reasons; firstly, I was there to see it live, which made it all the more enthralling. Secondly, whilst Tendulkar has benefited from never being under the selector’s eye much in his career, Laxman always has.

The fact that his name will be recalled fondly by Australian cricket fans despite having a lesser reputation makes his century all the more wondrous.

Old Warhorse: Why Chaminda Vass is an exceptional cricketer

2007-11-06T21:53:00.000-08:00

Sri Lanka’s rise in international cricket has been quite astounding, probably surprising even themselves. Just over a decade after their test debut they won the World Cup, historically toppling Australia in the final.

They have produced a number of talented cricketers over the years; Aravinda De Silva, their first world class batsman; Muttiah Muralitharan, the off-spin wizard; Mahela Jayawardene, probably their best captain; Kumar Sangakarra, one of histories greatest keeper/batsmen; and Chaminda Vaas.

Vaas made his debut against a Pakistan line-up featuring the rampant Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, and his test debut passed without notice, taking no wickets and making 0 and 4. His next test he took 4 wickets, and he became their strike bowler from that point on.

His test bowling record reads 319 wickets at 29.21 with a strike rate of 65.6 and an economy rate of 2.66. While not brilliant, an average under 30 is generally quite good, especially from a nation still establishing itself as a cricket power.

He also doubles as an accomplished all-rounder, with a test century and a batting average of 23.54. If you point out the fact that he has never really had a world class opening partner and that he is often burdened with a large workload (Along with Murali), Vass’ figures are quite remarkable.

Unfortunately it seems he is often underrated because of his lack of histronics and simple bowling method. As Lasith Malinga was hyped up for the previous Australian series in 2004, it was Vaas who landed the telling blows, taking 5/31 in the first test off 18.3 overs.

He is, to this day, the only bowler in ODI history to take eight wickets in an innings, with his 8/19 against Zimbabwe which included a hat-trick. He is the most prolific bowler in Sri Lanka’s history after Murali. No other bowler apart from this pair have taken more than a hundred wickets at test level. Only Sanath Jayasuria joins them in the 300 club of wickets in ODIs.

People are all talking about Murali’s record this series, about Malinga’s pace, about Dilhan Fernando’s chance to shine.

Without Chaminda Vaas, Sri Lanka’s record in recent times would never have been quite as good as you would think.

Preview: Sri Lanka v Australia

2007-11-04T23:05:00.000-08:00

Since the World Cup final, it’s been one of the more anticipated test series in world cricket. The challengers: Sri Lanka, having emerged as one of the more powerful teams in the world via their competitive displays in test cricket and in the World Cup.

Now they face the supremos: Australia. The unstoppable juggernaut of cricket has not lost a test since the 2005 Ashes, when they went down 2-1 to England, and have not lost a home series since the West Indies won in 1992-93.

Strictly speaking, there has never been a better chance to beat Australia than now. They have lost their stalwart bowlers Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne. There is no Justin Langer to get them off to a flying start and no reassuring presence of Damian Martyn in the middle order.

Australia is still an immensely powerful side though. Whilst Langer may be gone, Hayden, who has been hungrily pursuing runs, is not. And he is joined by the equally run hungry NSW opener Phil Jaques, whose aggressive batting and penchant for big centuries will be put to good use.

Ricky Ponting is in excellent touch, but this series is a big test for him. Ponting has been accused of being weak against spin bowling and Sri Lanka has access to the best off-spinner in world cricket: Muttiah Muralitharan.

Their middle order has a new look but is still formidable. Mike Hussey has looked unstoppable in test cricket and he is joined by the improving Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds, who has a big chance to score runs this summer and cement his position.

Gilchrist will have fond memories of his World Cup final century, but he has been on the wane for some time now. He is no longer consistently devastating as he used to be, and his brilliance has been reduced to flashes. His keeping is still of an excellent standard though. But this summer could be his swansong.

The bowlers are all shooting out for spots, and this is where it gets interesting. The only two guaranteed a spot are Brett Lee and the reliable Stuart Clark. Mitchell Johnson is leading for the third spot against Ben Hilfenhaus and Shaun Tait, whilst Stuart MacGill has the experience advantage over the better all-round cricketer Brad Hogg.

Sri Lanka have come with a team that mixes young enthusiasm with hard experience. In Mahela Jayawardene they have a top quality batsman and probably their best captain ever, combining tough play with all the sensibilities of a diplomat.

Their bowling attack is fearsome and has variety. In Chaminda Vaas they have a reliable left-arm swing bowler who gives nothing away. In Lasith Malinga, they have scorching pace and unpredictability. In Dilhara Fernando, they have sharp pace and seam. Finally, with Murali, they have a cunning master able to work out even the best batsmen.

Sri Lanka’s problems come with their batting. Jayawardene and Sangakarra are world class batsman able to face any attack. But after that the cupboard gets thin.
Jayasuria is 38, and probably past his prime. Despite being one of only two Sri Lankan batsmen in this side to have scored a test century against Australia, he is no longer as devastating as he used to be. Old stalwart Marvan Attapattu is back as well, but his average of 38.91 won’t really cause fear in Australia’s bowing.

The middle order after Jayawardene is a major problem. Silva, Samaraweera and Prasanna Jayawardene are relatively untried at test level, especially in tough conditions against the world’s most formidable attack. As most teams discover playing Australia, they can’t match the depth that makes Australia so formidable.

Australia should win this test series. Their record at home bodes well in their favour. By comparison, Sri Lanka has never won a test on Australian soil. And only Attapattu and Jayasuria have scored centuries here.

Despite having a good bowling attack, the two players who have extensive experience against Australia, Vaas and Murali, have poor records against Australia. Malinga made his test debut against Australia in their previous tour there, but wasn’t able to inflict the damage people know he is capable of.

In their most recent warm-up match against Queensland, they were humbled by Ashley Noffke on a bouncy and seaming pitch Queensland is famous for. What will happen when they face Lee, Clark, Johnson or Hilfenhaus on that sort of pitch? How would they play the tweakers of Hogg or MacGill?

Sri Lanka must go out and play the most aggressive cricket they can, only then can they hope to match it with the powerful Australian team.

Mark Waugh: Failed potential?

2007-11-01T04:34:00.000-07:00

Few people who watched cricket during the 90's will have forgotten the Waugh twins. They defined an era where Australia once again became the dominant force in cricket, and they played under three captains during this time.

They both had relatively different career paths into the Australian team. Steve, the older twin by a few minutes, was thrust into the team at barely 20, and forced to fend for himself for years, until he blossomed as a batsman in the famous 1989 Ashes campaign.

By the end of his career Steve was the most respected and worshipped cricketers Australia has ever produced, having become captain by the end of his career and finishing with the great average of 51.06.

Mark's however was completely different.

As Steve was thrown against tough teams having had the bare minimum of first class experience, Mark bided his time. He made NSW, and began peeling off centuries for the state and overseas for Essex, where he was befriended by soon-to-be English captain Graham Gooch.

Whilst Junior made mountains of runs at first class level, Steve's career was up and down. The 1989 Ashes was a great triumph for Steve, but he needed to keep it up. During that tour, he and Mark had become the first brothers to score centuries against each other, with Steve scoring a century for Australia whilst Mark helped himself to one for Essex.

During the 1990-91 Ashes series, with Steve suffering from lack of form, Mark was put in place of him and immediately scored 138. Many critics who saw this innings rated it his greatest innings and one of the most exhilarating debut centuries ever.

For a while, Mark was suddenly ruler of the roost. He did well in a tough tour of the West Indies later that year, and seemed to be enjoying test cricket. Steve, realizing his career was on the line, re-evaluated his technique and emerged as a risk-free and determined batsman capable of winning games.

Sadly, Mark became something else.

When the two are compared, it is like chalk and cheese. Steve was all grit and determination, waiting until a loose ball was bowled before punishing it heavily. Mark, however, was brilliant. He oozed elegance and confidence, and like the English batsman David Gower, had the remarkable ability to make batting look relatively simple.

He could drive with pristine timing, as well as cut and hook spectacularly. When he used his feet to spinners, rarely was the case that he misjudged the ball. His specialty shot was to flick the ball casually through square or midwicket. It was if bowlers were more a hindrance than a threat when Mark was batting.

This casual indifference was usually a double-edged sword, as he would often play lazy shots not befitting a man of his talents. Although he scored 8029 test runs with 20 centuries, his average was 41.81, hardly worth writing home about.

In one day cricket there can be no doubting he was superior to Steve. He opened later in his career with Adam Gilchrist and the pair formed a truly destructive duo. His penitence for riskier shots allowed him to display a lot of his talent, and he played some truly memorable innings.

Mark's 173 off 148 balls against the West Indies in the final of the Carlton-United series in 2001 was a masterpiece of one day cricket, and gives him the rare distinction of having a higher score in one day cricket than in test cricket.

The only other ability in which Mark stands alone, and probably is superior to any other, is fielding. On all-round ability, Mark exceeds the exploits of the finest fieldsman of the modern era, including Jonty Rhodes, Andrew Symonds and Ricky Ponting. His 181 catches is a world record, with Brian Lara next with 164.

He often fielded at slip, taking the majority of his catches from the bowling of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath. Often these catches were spectacular, including some that had gone past him. His claim to immortality was that he took catches no-one else could take.

When we focus on his batting record, it is difficult to see what made Mark Waugh such a great player, and why people such as I hold him with such great esteem. 41.81 is good, but not great. His first class average by comparison is 52.04, over ten runs better.

Like David Gower and even Victor Trumper, with Mark Waugh is was more about how he made the runs and not how many he made. Often he was the bane of opposition captains, when out of nowhere suddenly he'd have 70 runs on the board and they'd be tearing their hair out trying to stop him.

We are left with a cricketer that perhaps never really achieved what others believed him capable of. By the end of career he was a shadow of his former self, and was weighed down by his guilt over a bookmaking scandal he and Shane Warne were involved in.

But a smile can be brought to the face of any cricket lover when they are asked to recall Mark Waugh at his graceful best.

Spoiled for choice

2007-10-29T07:02:00.000-07:00

Australia is a lucky country. There's no denying it.

When it comes to cricket, we are one of the few nations in the world, probably the only nation, that can create an Australia 'A' team that is good enough to match it with other test nations. As we go into battle without McGrath, Warne, Langer, and Martyn, Australia is still confident of victory. Why?

Because we have depth. The domestic competition here is the best in the world, and the lack of spots available creates an intensity that is not rivalled by any other county's domestic competition. By comparison, County Cricket in England has too much teams, and therefore average cricketers who wouldn't otherwise get a run in a restricted competition fall through the gaps.

Australia are really spoiled for choice. To replace Langer, the contenders are Phil Jaques, Chris Roger, Brad Hodge and Shane Watson, all of whom could play for another test nation. In the middle order we could have Dave Hussey, Simon Katich, Hodge, Watson, Adam Voges and a plethora of young batsman with talent, one of the most exciting being young Western Australian Luke Pomersbach.

In the fast bowling department, Australia have Mitchell Johnson, Shaun Tait, Ben Hilfenhaus, Doug Bollinger, Brett Dorey, Ashley Noffke and the like. The problem to come will be replacing Shane Warne, a once-in-a-lifetime cricketer. Stuart MacGill and Brad Hogg are relaible spinners, but both are over 35. Aaron Heal is a big talent, as is South Australian spin duo Cullen Bailey and Dan Cullen. The fact is they can't really replace Warne, so Australia must bide its time whilst the young and inexperienced spinners develop their craft instead of being thrown into test cricket too young.

The likely Australian test side, well at least in my opinion, should probably look something like this:

Phil Jaques (NSW)
Matthew Hayden (QLD)
Ricky Ponting (C) (TAS)
Michael Clarke (NSW)
Michael Hussey (WA)
Andrew Symonds (QLD)
Adam Gilchrist (WK) (WA)
Brad Hogg (WA)
Brett Lee (NSW)
Stuart Clark (NSW)
Mitchell Johnson (QLD)

12th Man: Shaun Tait (SA)

Quite a formidable side.

An Australian 'A' side, featuring the best of the rest, could look something like this.

Chris Rogers (WA)
Shane Watson (QLD)
Simon Katich (C) (NSW)
Brad Hodge (VIC)
Dave Hussey (VIC)
Brad Haddin (WK) (NSW)
Luke Butterworth (TAS)
Ashley Noffke (QLD)
Aaron Heal (WA)
Doug Bollinger (NSW)
Ben Hilfenhaus (TAS)

12th Man: Cameron White (VIC)

Now you can't say this team wouldn't be competitive at International level. It features players that any other test nation would die to have. Two of those players average over 50 at first class level and another three average over 45. The bowling attack is potentially strong enough to give any test nation a shake up.

Does any other nation have this sort of spoilt choice? Not to such a level as this. I could even find you a third team to go along with this Australia 'A' team. Nowhere else in the test nations can you find such depth of talent.

Cricketer of the Week

2007-10-25T22:36:00.000-07:00

It's that time of the week where the Straight Bat announces its Cricketer of the Week. And this week's winner is:

South Africa's star all-rounder Jacques Kallis

Born October 16th, 1975 in Cape Town, Jacques Kallis has been the most prolific South African player since the legendary Graeme Pollock. A tough, grinding batsman and a useful swing bowler, he has been a key part of strengthening the South African cricket team in test and one day cricket.

He made his test debut against England in late 1995, but he gave no indication of what was to come, making 1 and not bowling in a drawn match. He played only one more test before being discarded until he was called upon to fight the mighty Australian team for the first time.

He did not start well, but in Pakistan he made he first half century, and making his maiden tour of Australia he cracked his first century, 101, guiding South Africa to a hard-fought draw.

Since then he has gone from strength to strength, amassing a record that would make any cricket fan impressed. His test average of 57.10, with 27 test tons is mightily impressive, as is his 216 wickets at 31.64. He has more international runs than any other South African, and at 32, he is hot on the heels of 9,000 test runs and beyond.

Throughout this, Kallis isn't as highly regarded in some circles than his record suggests. His record may rival that of Sir Garfield Sobers, but Kallis has gone about his craft in a completely different way.

One of the most unique achievements of Sobers was that no matter what he did, he was always going to have an affect on the game, whether batting, bowling or fielding. He could dominate matches, as he did in England in 1966, where he scored 722 runs at 103.14 and 20 wickets at 27.25.

Kallis has never really achieved this sort of dominance over a series, whilst he achieved good bowling figures and good batting figures in the same match, he has been unable to replicate it consistently. It should be remembered along that vein though, that cricket is not a one man game.

Kallis is more of a wicket accumulator, not a strike bowler, which Sobers was quite capable of doing. As economical as he can be, Kallis is not noted as being a prolific wicket taker. He has taken 44 wickets against the frail West Indies, and although he has taken 35 wickets against Australia, his average is a frustratingly high 37.17.

As a batsman, Kallis is much more impressive. He can look unmovable at times, and has a talent for remaining not out. However, his strike rate per 100 balls is 43.12. Ricky Ponting's by comparison is 58.95, Kevin Pietersen's 65.49.

His average against the West Indies is 77..33, against Zimbabwe 169.75, and he is yet to gain an average against Bangladesh, having scored 214 without being dismissed. Against those nations he has scored 11 of his 27 test centuries.

But against Australia he only average 38.32, with 3 centuries. And against Sri Lanka, a meager 33.63, with no centuries in 12 tests.

This is the blight on Kallis' remarkable achievements, that he has built a record on dominating weak teams but falling short of his talents against teams like Australia. For such a talented player, his record suddenly doesn't hold up to closer inspection. If he could follow he lesson of another great South African, Aubrey Faulkner, and "get on with it", maybe we'll see the best of Jacques Kallis.

He still the best South African cricketer of the modern era, and with still quite a few years left, he could amass a record that leaves any cricketer behind.

The Straight Bat

2007-10-23T00:11:00.000-07:00

My inaugural post will be something of a description of the blog's purpose.

As a young journalist, I am keen to put down my opinions for all to read and comment on, particularly if the subject is my passions.

Being an atypical Australian male, I love my sport. And the sport I love above all is cricket. Over the years I have progressed from occasional spectator to keen spectator, and then to student of the game, and then to cricket tragic.

If you don't believe me, you should ask anyone who knows me.

With my posts, I hope to provide intelligent and thought provoking arguments about the modern game from a younger perspective, myself being still in my early 20's. In some areas I might be a little naiver than others, but I am confident in my abilities as a journalist and as a fan.

Arthur Morris, the great Australian opener once said: "Cricket is a game, and one to be enjoyed". It is a philosophy that all should remember when discussing the great game.