Cover Points : Australia

The rest of the story

gchakravarthy — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:45:00 GMT

Not too long ago, India's captain, MS Dhoni, was being hailed for his worker bee grade of professionalism. Now, his team mates, and to some extent he himself, would only be given a B-grade for their work.

Even his famously metronomic coach, whose made run-getting such a chore that Detroit wanted to rectuit him as a robot for their screw-tightening plant, had warned of exhaustion (read: motivational fatigue) before the World T20 ... and surely made it a talking point soon after India's exit from it.

Recently, he left another byte-mark about next year's IPL already.

While the players are fatigued, many have been wondering if the fans themselves are as well. In England, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, where the sports seasons are very well demarcated, the followers of cricket seem to be able to maintain some kind of sanity. Many of Australia's internationally active cricket heroes followed their lead by skipping on IPL this time around, but did it help?

If Pakistan and Sri Lanka's 1st Test match in Galle is any indication, the answer might be: Yes!

The match has been very closely contested - well, at least until the fourth day - by two teams which are overflowing with hitherto unseen faces. It might not be a coincidence that this quality of cricket came after a prolonged and forced hiatus for Pakistan and even if not as prolonged, an equally forced, break from Sri Lanka's perspective. Of course, one could see that this break also had its impact on the quality of fielding in the Pakistani side ... but that could be "put down" to just lack of match practice ... after all this is their first Test in ...

But the vigor and drive from both teams was quite palpable and rather refreshing, especially in the face of recent Test series between the West Indies and England where all the hot air surrounding the matches seemed to have evaporated and taken away with it some of the mojo from the cricketers' as well.

In contrast, one Pakistani's mojo seems to be on the rising, and considering its already heliotropic tendencies, one wonders how much room there is to rise further. He has had considerable amount of rest as well.

England's (t)urn?

gchakravarthy — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:09:00 GMT

The way the English and the Australians have been treating the forthcoming Ashes for more than a year now, any of those "new eyeballs" (that the IPL and/or the World T20 might have managed to capture) that fall upon the build up can't be blamed for concluding that the Ashes was a tussle between the ECB's marketing forces and Australians' vicissitudes.

Under these circumstances, the Aussie traveling party was announced first, as expected, since they have to then travel ... duh! Their English counterparts were decided upon by Geoff Miller and co. more recently.

Let's take a look at the repercussions of these according to some of our own counterparts on the blogosphere.

In the green and gold corner, the Aussie perspective:

The fingers that type @ "A cricketing view" summed up the differences between the current bag of baggy greens and the last one that went to England in 2005:

2009 Ashes Squad - Australia
Ricky Ponting (c), Michael Clarke (vc), Stuart Clark, Brad Haddin, Nathan Hauritz, Ben Hilfenhaus, Phillip Hughes, Michael Hussey, Mitchell Johnson, Simon Katich, Brett Lee, Graham Manou, Andrew McDonald, Marcus North, Peter Siddle, Shane Watson.
2005 Ashes Squad - Australia
*Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Michael Clarke, Jason Gillespie, Brad Haddin, Matthew Hayden, Brad Hodge,Justin Langer, Michael Kasprowicz, Simon Katich, Brett Lee, Stuart MacGill, Damien Martyn, Glenn McGrath, Shaun Tait, Shane Warne, Stuart Clark (added 9/8/05)

"The Cricket-Bloggers" danced a few steps further down and actually forced a final XI out of their system:

Phillip Hughes
Simon Katich
Ricky Ponting
Michael Clarke
Michael Hussey (demoted one spot due to lack of form)
Marcus North
Brad Haddin
Mitchell Johnson
Brett Lee
Peter Siddle
Stuart Clark

From the greener pastures of England, the view seems to be ... well, greener on the same side. The English seem to be hopelessly in love with the idea of an encore of the 2005 scoreline:

The "3rd Umpire", though, seems to lament the demise of Michael Vaughan, at least as an Ashes cricketer.

#fullpost{display:none;}

The selection of a 16-man Ashes training squad, alongside an England Lions XI to face Australia, provides many portents for the summer ahead. The complete omission of Michael Vaughan is the clearest indication yet his Test career is at an end.

The English also seem to have come to terms with the fact that the reduction in Monty Panesar's cricket prowess has either meant or coincided with an enrichment in England's spin coffers. The rise of Graeme Swann and Adil Rashid has tickled the English imagination and led to the sort of pre-series chatter that one might encounter before an India-Sri Lanka series where spin bowling commands prime real estate with the fourth estate.

That feeling itself seems to be at (b)loggerheads (haa!) with the Aussie version, headed by the popular JRod, which suggests that Hilditch and co. should ditch all spin completely for a pace battery.

In the meanwhile, Australia's first warm-up match against Sussex shows that their batsmen need to learn quickly to play the quicks in England. Patrick Kidd points out how even the Italians and Germans seem to be enough to dislodge the Aussies this time around:

It is possible that by this dent to Aussie morale, Sandri could become the most important Italian cricketer since Ted Dexter (born in Milan). Ponting fell to Luke Wright and James Kirtley bagged Hussey but Sandri came roaring back by dismissing Katich and North to make it 3-2 to Italy.

Speaking of bloggerheads, looks like the Ashes have been advanced:

Whoever told you the first game will be on 8th July was wrong.
The first game of the Ashes series will take place between the best of England and the best of Australia at Barnes CC in London on Monday, 29th June.

Harmi-chameleon

gchakravarthy — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:21:00 GMT

As the ECB's marketing team ensures that The Ashes will scatter all over the cricket landscape in the next few weeks a familiar pre-Ashesquestion also makes in customary (at least from the evidence of the last 4 campaigns) rounds:

Will Steven Harmison be back in the English side?

Our friends @ The Corridor certainly agree:

It may be a trend, Steve Harmison starting the season well for Durham to yet again persuade England’s selectors that he should be picked. It’s a depressing one though, isn’t it, when his domestic performances are laced with evidence of extreme talent which has only emerged occasionally in internationals, interspersed with nervous and occasionally appauling efforts for England.

Steven's recent, aggression-filled performances for Durham have not gone unnoticed by, well, duckingbeamers:, even as Harmy himself seems to have been affected more by the outcome of such aggression that the batsmen who bore the brunt of it ... at least, physically:

“It’s the worst thing in the world when you hit somebody,” Steve said. “I really don’t like it at all. I s*** myself when I hit Tony Frost. I was upset by that. And the same when I hurt Ian Bell.”

Statements that were interpreted by Patrick Kidd @ Line and Length to be indicative of his "softness":

I want my fast bowlers to enjoy hitting batsmen if that is what the occasion demands. Remember the aggression at the start of the 2005 Ashes, when Langer was hit on the forearm and Ponting's cheek was cut by a bouncer into his helmet? It set the tone and showed that we would not be bullied.

On the other hand, the guys @ The Ashes Cricket Live think the only thing relevant from the recent domestic tournament is that the English bowlers seem to be hitting more than just batsmen ... they might be hitting prime form:

England bowlers participating in county championship action this week have been in top form. With all bowlers all hoping for a place in the starting line up in The Ashes, England vs Australia, come the first test match in Cardiff on 8th July.

So while many, like the few @ Cricket 24x7, wonder how Australia's premature ousting from the World T20 might affect their morale going into the Ashes ... or won't ...

It's funny how Shane Warne's brain works. I daresay quite a few other Aussie cricketers (current and former), cricket administrators and cricket commentators/writers would have also thought along similar lines after Australia were bundled out of the T20 World Cup.

the English selectors have clearly seem to have indicated, they don't want any mental cases coming into this year's Ashes by leaving our Michael Vaughan and Steve Harmison out of the squad ... a couple who know what it takes to beat the Aussies but also know, and only too well, what it feels like to be beaten really badly by them.

Aver + Age = Average?

gchakravarthy — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:16:00 GMT

A lot had been expressed about the supposed loss of luster of the Australian cricket stars ever since they were beaten by India in India last year.That is just another tribute to the dominance of the Australian cricket team over their counterparts who were reduced to part-counters by them during the past decade. All they have really lost in that period is the sense of invincibility. They have actually not lost too many matches and the ones they have only lost to South Africa and India. And not just ANY India or South Africa, at least in the case of India many are arguing, not without evidence, this is THE BEST Indian team to have ever played cricket!

So when Rhys Thompson "roars" in relief at the "resurgence" of the Australian team, one feels like pinching oneself and him.

Just when we thought the Australian Cricket team, the Goliath of all Australian sporting rep teams had met its own David, waiting for the killer blow, the beast has suddenly re-awakened.

But there are a few Australian cricketers to whom that word might suit much better individually. Soon after the mass exit of some of the Australian greats, various factors led to the exit of some who many thought would be counted among the greats by the time they hung their boots or cast their fishing rods for longer or strummed their guitars louder. Drum rolls please. Enter (or is it "Exit"): Brett Lee, Andrew Symonds, Stuart Clark, Shane Watson, Shaun Tait.

Of these, Binga is certain he belongs in the Australian Team, heck he demands it! The Australian Team Management seems to be certain this averment combines destructively with his aging (at least for a super-fast bowler) body resulting in average performances on the field. Roy, spurred by his agent, is bent upon averting another smash to his image. They will be hoping that it is not just the image that's below average for this otherwise fearsome competitor. "Sarfraz" , for his part, stayed true to that adage "If you love something, let it go and ...". Well, his average ODI overs have not stopped him from getting back into the side. And then there's Watto, Watto ... Watto! He must be wondering Whatto will ever bring him back from the sideline into that very side? In his case, his age might, in fact, be causing him an oppostie problem. His still-growing body a few years ago might have been put through too much resulting in a apge of injuries that possibly gave the Australian establishment that is always looking for stability, a very warm, fuzzy feeling in their collective stomachs. Tinga, who had started with a tingle in his stomach telling him he could be the next Binga, bowed himself out into the sidelineswhere he seems to linga.

All of these talented Ozzies seem to have suddenly seemed average to their national selection committee and at the same time the Australian team seems to be heading that way as well. Will their age, at least on the international cricket pitch, aver their returns to the national side? One can wait and see.

In the meanwhile, Younus Khan is lamenting the lack of Ricky, Mitch, and Mike in his opposing ranks because he feels his inexperienced side could learn a lot from them:

"When you play against the top players like Ponting, you learn different and good things"

An emphatic win

dcsiva — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:01:00 GMT

India won easily. And they won the match by winning each session played over the five days. Andy Bull thinks that we now have four teams who can beat each other on a regular basis: Australia, India, South Africa and Sri Lanka. Bull is thinking of a watershed moment in India:

In the longer term I wonder if this series won't come to represent a watershed in Indian cricket. While so much attention is focused on the ageing geniuses in their middle order it is easy to overlook the overwhelming amount of young talent that has come into the squad in recent years. Having struggled for so many years to find quick bowlers, the Indian selectors now seem to be able to whistle up new candidates at will: RP Singh, Ishant Sharma, Praveen Kumar, Pankaj Singh, Irfan Pathan, all of whom are aged 23 or under. In the leg-spinner Piyush Chawla and the batsman Virat Kohli, India have two 19-year-olds who have already proven themselves in international cricket.
More impressive still is the record of India's Under-19 team, which, almost unnoticed, have accrued a phenomenal string of results in recent years. Since 2003, in fact, India's Under-19s have won 57 out of 64 one-day matches and lost just one Test in 15.
The talents (if not necessarily Test techniques) of that generation are only going to be enhanced by the Indian Premier League, where they will play under enormous pressure alongside the finest players in world cricket. With India at the centre of cricket off the field, it may only be a matter of time before the wealth of resources and money begins to have a real influence on the success of the team on the pitch.

The argument about the usefulness of the IPL is very interesting. And rather unconvincing.

Ponting is apparently in some difficulty with his own fast bowler, still the best fast bowler in the world by some distance. He says it's because of a worry about over-rates. Here's Jagadish on the Aussie over-rate problem:

One of the indicators that Australia were in trouble with the over rate yesterday was when Hussey bowled 8 overs, having bowled only 11 overs in his previous 27 tests. In fact, a few tests ago at Perth, Ponting was forced to bowl Clarke and Symonds in tandem to do something about the over rate during India's second innings. As a result, India went from 182/6 after 45 overs (a lead of 300) when Symonds & Clarke started bowling in tandem to 234/6 after 61 overs (a lead of 350+). It was to prove crucial in the context of the match. Despite the attempts to speed things up, there was a monetary penalty imposed.

Zaheer Khan's role on the last day with the ball was very important. Can he perform without all that fine-inducing adrenaline?

And, finally, Ijaz Butt, the PCB's new chairman, probably needs to take some media lessons or something. He's been full of fascinating inside information, including a possible merger between the ICL and the IPL?!

The end is nigh; and other such speculations

dcsiva — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:48:00 GMT

What a difference a week makes. In the first Test, Australia looked in charge most of the time, in the second they look like they've lost their way and more. Of the Indian batsmen, only Dravid and Laxman have yet to cash in against a distinctly poor bowling line-up. (Troy Cooley must be working over-time behind the scenes.) Amongst the Indian bowlers, only Zaheer hasn't bowled to his abilities. Aside from Hussey, it looks like none of the Aussie batsmen have looked at ease.

duckingbeamers says he may come to regret these words on Aussie confidence:

But, as I said in the lower post, this Australia is not the one it used to be. Sheer confidence might just not be enough any more. To sweep Harbhajan after facing only 2 balls? For Katich to stand back and swipe, with just 10 minutes to go to tea? And what on earth was Hussey thinking, pulling on a pitch like this?
The most salient moment for me, though, came when Sharma bowled Ponting. It wasn’t the delivery itself — though that was something special — but it was the look of recognition on Ponting’s face. He just stood there, raised his bat in humble defeat, and then looked back to see the off-stump lying flat on the ground. I can’t tell you how good this feels: it’s like a new order arranging itself in the cricket world; a power that realizes that it may just have met its match. Ponting watched the ball all the way through; unlike the others, he was as careful as careful is — and yet, he was tumbled over.

Miss Fields is certainly in a bit of a worry:

Matthew Hayden, time to go.

Ricky Ponting... you're next.

I don't like having to bestow this cruelty upon my boys but we need to think of the bigger picture here.

1. Australia + cricket ≠ losing.
2. The Ashes.

Amit Mishra has yet to strike hard in the second innings, but Soulberry has a mature and measured take on the inevitable selection discussion for the next test:

And why carry Kumble? Or why push him into retirement on the basis of one performance? Why not have a valid system in place which is slightly more objective and consistent than the subjective? Either you have found a perfect replacement or you haven't yet. If you have there should be no questions about it...no accomodation. If you haven't, then there it is needless to stoke contriversy by calling for accomodation! Amit Mishra was hired as a replacement and must accept it that his time may come when the occupant retires. Or, one should have a protocol where there is a clean retirement plan for our stalwarts which is objective and well understood and is not manipulated at whim.

Finally, there's no one at the Mohali ground itself. Here's IS Bindra's story about TV and ratings:

However, he insisted that it did not mean people were no longer interested in Tests. “The IPL has generated more interest among the people towards the game. Even the TRP ratings for the current Test match are high which shows more people are watching the game on TV. People were shifting their priority towards F1 and other sports, but IPL has stopped that,” he said.

Predilictions and predictions

dcsiva — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:37:00 GMT

With the India Australia series upon us, predictions and prognostications are coming in thick and fast. Jrod is forced to conclude that neither side will win. I don't think Jrod is suggesting a draw... Homer, on the other hand, thinks it won't even be a close series:

In the last week or so, in the build up to the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, I have read enough opinion pieces ( on websites, newspapers and blogs) that seem to hedge their bets on who will win the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.

The overwhelming consensus seems to be that it will be a close contest and that we should not be reading too much into Australia's performance in the two practice games.

I beg to differ.

Ottayan asks a different kind of question: Is test cricket alive and well in India? Here's Patrick Kidd's India-Aussie quiz (no searching online please!). And Manu Goswami has finally been made captain.

Here's Q's round-up of the RBS 20-20 in Pakistan and Ben's preview of the Bangla-Kiwi series.

Roy roving around in the wild

dcsiva — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:06:00 GMT

Ottayan has a thoughtful post on the treatment of Trescothick by the ECB:

In the macho world of sports, a player who exhibits mental fragility more often than not is treated dismissively and sarcastically. In Trescothick’s case, the English team management could have taken a similar path, treated his ailment flippantly, simply asked him to stop being a sissy and continue playing. Instead, they gave him the space to recover by keeping his ailment private. Sadly, he failed to overcome his neurosis.

The comments are worth reading, particularly scorpicity's. Is it possible that Andrew Symonds is in the same position. A man desperately in need of help as he wanders in the wilderness?

The Aussie press aren't exactly holding their punches. See Symonds' big-head and Symonds as a clowns. But, at the moment at least, the ACB will pick him for India on purely cricketing grounds and his teammates are supporting him:

Symonds' relationship with senior players and officials is icy after he was sent home for going fishing during a team meeting, but Bracken believes that a strong bond continues to exist between all players, and has offered to hear any of the all-rounder's concerns.

"Whatever he is feeling, how he is, if he wants to give me a call, I am happy to chat and talk about whatever he is going through," Bracken said. "I have sent him a text this week and received a reply, as have a lot of the other boys.
...
Australian selector Jamie Cox said Symonds' latest infringement would not count against him when he does make himself available. "As of now, Andrew has been given time to sort things out. But we will make a decision (about his selection) when that time comes around," Cox said.

"But the decision to pick him will surely be on cricketing grounds. It will have nothing to do with whatever has happened recently. Disciplinary issues will have no bearing on that decision."

See also a wonderful article by Sriram Veera on Sadanand Viswanath on finding some stability in life.

Symonds fishing for respect

dcsiva — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:28:00 GMT

Soulberry has put together a sort of tribute to Andrew Symonds:

People I have interacted with before on BBC's boards might recall of those positive views of mine. They might recall my support for Symonds' inclusion into the test team way back before he was actually inducted, and my reasons thereof. They might recall my awe at his all-skills prowess in the one-day game.

Things changed, Symonds became Symo for some and Roy for others. Andrew began trying to men something to everyone. And dissociation is a dark confusing world. But all this I have gone over in earlier posts and is not the focus of this post.

I just wanted to record my appreciation for Symonds, one of the most complete one-day players ever....and who could have become a decent test player if the devil times hadn't descended upon when he finally had the chance. can you ever forget his WC innings and the all-round performance in that.

The links he provides are very interesting. Meanwhile, The Age carries a story that Symonds falling enthusiasm for cricket can be dated to Bhajji abuse scandal:

To this day Symonds has not forgiven Cricket Australia for what transpired in an Adelaide federal courtroom eight months ago. It was there that he and three teammates were convinced to downgrade an initial charge of racial slander against Harbhajan Singh to one of verbal abuse, a ploy the Australians were advised would help ensure a long suspension after the Monkey-gate scandal, but one that eventually resulted in Harbhajan escaping sanction.

Harbhajan's reprieve infuriated Symonds, who felt abandoned by administrators he believed were more interested in kow-towing to India than protecting their own. Team sources say Symonds has bluntly refused CA's attempts to resolve the issue, and the lingering resentment has fuelled his deteriorating attitude to work.

Those close to the 33-year-old do not believe he will retire, but there is grave concern about the way he feels.

And the Times of India has a pair of editorials on the basic question behind all this that could have been asked of any number of wonderful cricket players. Does team discipline trump individual greatness?

The team management felt that Symonds failed to recognise, and adhere, to the team ethic so central to its success. Australia's success in the recent past is remarkable when we contrast it with that of other teams. Team India, despite boasting of some of the world's finest batsmen, have flattered to deceive. And Brian Lara's brilliance with bat did little to help the cause of the West Indies. Simply put, individual talent need not necessarily translate into success for a team unless the team has a clear plan and will to achieve its goals.

The alternative point of view, that greatness is better than rules:

Cricket, like most other sports, is not your usual nine-to-five job. At the highest level, sport is akin to art. Like artists, sportspersons cannot always be bound by rules and manuals. Too much discipline could stifle creativity and kill sporting genius. The trick is to get the balance right so that a great athlete has adequate freedom but at the same time doesn't fritter away his talent.

Meanwhile, Jrod reckons Symonds is really in trouble now:

Dean Jones, he of the self proclaimed legend status, is on his side.

Never a good sign in an argument.

Bradman's perfection

dcsiva — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:27:00 GMT

Do you know what Don Bradman's Test average is? Of course you do. Except, apparently, you don't. Via Ottayan comes news that Charles Davis, a cricket-mad statistician, says he's uncovered a possible missing four runs from Bradman's record:

In the scorebook of the epic eight-day fifth Test of 1928-29 against England in Melbourne, won by Australia by five wickets, there is a "problem" boundary in the final stages, when Bradman was batting with Jack Ryder. (I found this when rescoring the Test, ball by ball, to re-create the exact sequence of events.)

The relevant sections of Bill Ferguson's original score are illustrated: there are four runs attributed to Ryder that are in the wrong place in both the batting section of the score and in the bowling section (Maurice Tate's 35th over). There is no doubt that a recording error of some kind has occurred. So where do these runs belong?

Perhaps Ryder scored them at some other point of the innings. Perhaps they were not scored at all (in which case Australia, technically, did not win the match). More importantly, perhaps they were scored by Bradman. Just perhaps.

This would, of course, make Bradman's average the perfect 100.00. But Davis' account of his quest---for quest it is---is more illuminating for the details of his and other statisticians' attempts to reconcile anomalies:

It is worth remembering, of course, that errors could easily cut both ways: Bradman could lose runs as easily as gain runs this way. Ultimately, that iconic average of 99.94 will probably stand. Wisden is against the retrospective alteration of scores ("that way madness lies") and I tend to agree. I do think, however, that problems with scores from the pre-computer age may create uncertainties of a few parts in a thousand.

For most statistics, this is no more than historical footnote. The Bradman average is an exception: if it really is 99.94 "plus or minus", there will always be that tantalising possibility of the magic 100.

Another lovely article on Bradman (there'll be many to celebrate his 100th anniversary) looks at his role in opposing apartheid, specifically cancelling the Aussie tour of South Africa in 1971:

Accompanied by the South African ambassador, Bradman witnessed 1971's Australia-South Africa rugby Test in Sydney. He abhorred the violence of protesters, who invaded the field, and left with concerns that a cricket match would be hard to police, and that cricket would be worse for it.

But in his last year as chairman of the Australian Cricket Board, Bradman stood firm. The cricket tour was still on. He told Rivett the rugby team "comprised mainly of [apartheid-supporting] Afrikaners", while white cricketers were "basically of English descent" and supported a political party not opposed to mixed sport.

But his mind was open to other possibilities than this rather odd one. He sought other opinions and deepened his own:

But Bradman had a flexible mind, and decided to explore the issue himself. He wrote to the anti-apartheid protest movement in Australia, asking them to explain the demonstrating. Meredith Burgmann was astonished to receive such a request from someone she regarded as typically, trenchantly Establishment.

Bradman was intrigued. He flew to South Africa to meet its prime minister, John Vorster, a wartime admirer of the *** and Adolf Hitler. Vorster expected Bradman to support the tour, but the meeting quickly became tense, then sour. Bradman asked questions in his direct way about why blacks were denied the chance to represent their country. Vorster suggested they were intellectually inferior and could not cope with cricket's intricacies. Bradman asked Vorster: "Have you ever heard of Garry Sobers?"

Vorster's racist attitudes - Bradman thought them "ignorant and repugnant" - contributed to his change of mind, which had been precipitated by Burgmann and Rivett. Bradman flew to Britain to meet Harold Wilson and Ted Heath, British political leaders who had dealt with the protest problem in England. Bradman returned to Australia with his mind made up. He reached agreement with Cricket Board fellow members, called a media conference and announced the tour's cancellation. Bradman made a simple one-line statement: "We will not play them [South Africa] until they choose a team on a non-racist basis." In South Africa, Vorster vented his anger publicly against Bradman while the African National Congress rejoiced.
...
In April 1986, a Commonwealth group of seven "eminent persons", including Malcolm Fraser, visited the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, whose commanding presence belied his 24 years of incarceration. His first question was, "Is Don Bradman still alive?" Bradman had been Mandela's sporting hero, and his 1971 ban-the-tour decision deepened the endearment.

In 1993, a South African team, chosen on a non-racist basis, toured Australia.

The same article carries Meredith Burgmann's recollections of her correspondence with Bradman.

Perhaps we could have done with better administrators to the Hair situation? He's retired finally.

Champions, but not in Pakistan

dcsiva — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:45:00 GMT

Much electronic ink has been refreshed on the topic of the Champions Trophy and playing in Pakistan. Here's Amit Bajaj's take on the contrast between the BCCI and ACA:

The ACA has given more weightage to the report given by Reg Dickason, based on his short stay in Karachi. You can't blame the PCB for being unhappy as the ACA has largely ignored the more comprehensive report provided by Nicholls Steyn, the security experts hired by the ICC.

The BCCI's stand is not any show of bravado - it just shows a more intelligent understanding of the situation in Pakistan. Imran Khan does have a point when he points out that no cricket team or player has been the target of any terrorist activity ever. With the Australian players, it looks like their wives, girlfriends and the ACA have a bigger influence on their decision than an official ICC report. What remains to be seen now is how Cricket Australia reacts. Or will it be ICC that comes to its rescue?!

Here's Ottayan on the relationship between the ACA and the Players' Association in Australia:

However, yesterday’s statement from the Player’s Association that they will not play in Pakistan has added a new twist to the story. ICC feels that Cricket Australia is using the Players Association to escape making a decision.

In fact, an ICC source, who refused to be named, questioned whether the governing boards were hiding behind their "players" so as not to further antagonise India and the powerful Asian bloc which effectively rules the game.

This seems disingenuous to me at best. What on earth is wrong with having a Players' Association that wants to look after its members? There argument is wrong-headed, but they should have some input into the process surely?

Ottayan also links to an article by Mukul Kesavan on Indian batsmen and Ajantha Mendis. And, finally, Kartikeya also on the Fab Four as media project.

Team spirits and beers

dcsiva — Sun, 18 May 2008 13:36:00 GMT

Homer reports that England's players are not happy about playing in a winner-takes-all care of Stanford. From the Daily Mail article Homer links to:

The players are keen to take part in the annual big-money match at Stanford's private ground in Antigua, and an annual quadrangular tournament in England, featuring the hosts, the All-Star XI and two other international sides, initially from Pakistan, Sri Lanka or New Zealand. But the prospect of winning — or losing — such an enormous sum of money as £10m, perhaps on the misfortune of a dropped catch or the outcome of the last ball of the game, has proved too much.

Why? They fear that it will effect team cohesiveness. In a similar move, much to Miss Field's consternation, the Aussies went so far as to wear VB caps so that poor old baggy green-less Brad Haddin wouldn't feel left out during a tour game:

Former Australian player Greg Matthews has told News Limited publications that he would never have abandoned the traditional baggy green cap in favour of a sponsors cap.
"Money talks," Matthews said. "You're selling your pride, selling the baggy green. It just cheapens things.
"If someone said to me I had to wear a VB hat, I'd tell them to piss off," he continued emotionally.
Cricket Australia's public affairs manager, Philip Pope, said that the decision was made for the sake of uniformity, with commercial considerations not coming into it.

Anyone want to ask Vijay Mallya about team cohesiveness? Finally, Ottayan lists the terms of the IPL contracts and argues that they're loaded in favour of the players.

Optimus prime batting for Australia

dcsiva — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:38:00 GMT

David Barry has another excellent followup statistics post. The original was on batting strategies in the first innings of one day internationals:

To take an extreme example, suppose you're a really bad team like Bangladesh, up against a team like Australia. Whenever Bangladesh bats first, they choose the run-maximising strategy. The results might be a bell curve centred around 180. So a lot of scores around 170-190, a few past 200, a few below 160, etc.

Now Australia has no problem chasing any of those. Australia's only going to have problems when the target's up over 250. So while the Bangladeshi averages will be best-served by going with the run-maximising strategy, they may end up losing every game.

On the other hand, if they play more aggressively, then sometimes their batsmen will have a bit of luck and they'll end up with a big score. In their long series of matches with Australia, they'll have loads of heavy defeats, after making scores like 120 and 150 and so on, but every now and then, they'll make 250 and have a chance at winning. So their averages will suffer, but their win/loss ratio will improve.

Nesta replied with a comment on what exactly the Australian strategy is:

If none or one wicket is down at 15 you will see them up the tempo markedly until one of the batters falls.

The same applies throughout the innings. When each partnership begins they set the clock back to zero and try to increase the run rate in four or five over blocks until they are at the their limit.

Around the 40 over mark they set a final target and usually one that seems just out reach especially if 6 or more wickets are in hand.

And, finally, David Barry gives the facts and figures of Australia's relative dominance over batting first:

In day games, Australia has won 73% of matches when batting first (ignoring no-results). Second is Sri Lanka at 49% — a whopping 24 percentage points! Australia has won 78% of matches batting second, with South Africa second at 71% — only seven percentage points behind.

In day-night games, batting first: Aus 76%, South Africa 63%; batting second: Aus 62%, South Africa and Pakistan 55%. Once again, a bigger difference in batting first results.

So it does look like Australia have an advantage over their rivals when it comes to batting first, above and beyond their general cricket superiority.