The class divide

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

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?

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

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

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

‘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'

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.