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?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Spirit of Cricket?
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.
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.
Monday, January 7, 2008
A tale of two centuries
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Old Warhorse: Why Chaminda Vass is an exceptional cricketer
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.
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.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Preview: Sri Lanka v Australia
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.
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.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Mark Waugh: Failed potential?
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.
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.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Spoiled for choice
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
