Australia has named its team for the final test of the Ashes tour of England. James Faulkner comes in for Usman Khawaja and Mitchell Starc replaces Jackson Bird.
Faulkner will bat at 7 with Haddin moving up to number 6 and Watson to bat at 3.
The team is: Clarke (c), Rogers, Warner, Watson, Smith, Haddin, Faulkner, Siddle, Starc, Harris, Lyon
I have waiting until this evening to read the speech of Rahul Dravid to the ESPNcricinfo For Cricket Summit and to say it is a must read for any cricket fan would be an understatement. If you want to read it in full here is a link to the speech http://www.espncricinfo.com/cricinfo-for-cricket/content/story/663447.html
In describing test cricket Dravid relies on an allegory about a tree to make the point that test cricket is the life blood of the game. He says:
“Test cricket, an older, larger entity is the trunk of a tree and the shorter game – be it T20 or ODIs – is its branches, its offshoots,” he said. “Now to be fair, it is the branches that carry the fruit, earn the benefits of the larger garden in which they stand and so catch the eye. The trunk, though, is the old, massive, larger thing which took a very long time to reach height and bulk. But it is actually a life source: chip away at the trunk or cut it down and the branches will fall off, the fruit will dry up.”
Dravid expresses concern for test match cricket and suggests a series of improvements to assist the development of the game such as:
I love the ideas in this speech from Rahul Dravid and I have to say I only hope that the administrators of the game worldwide look at this roadmap for improving the game of cricket and actually take on board the ideas presented. If they do not then the fear that Dravid states for the game, I suspect will become reality.
Dravid warns:
“We are, I believe, maybe one generation away from reaching the point where our entire youth structures could cater only to T20 without any emphasis on the longer form of the game. By not giving young players a chance to explore their versatility, endurance or even improvisational skills, we will be selling ourselves and our sport well short.”
I can only pray he is wrong!
The Board of Directors of the Canberra Raiders have confirmed that they have today terminated the contract of coach David Furner and appointed Andrew Dunemann in his place for the rest of the season. The link to the official confirmation is here: http://www.raiders.com.au/news-display/Raiders-board-decision-on-Coach-David-Furner/82437
As a long time Raiders fan to say this is saddening would be an understatement. In his 5 years at the helm the Raiders may only have won 43% of their games. Terrible seasons in 2009 and 2011 were dovetailed with finals appearances in 2010 and 2012 against expectations and the team is still in the hunt for the finals this season. There are plenty of other coaches going around that would be very happy with that record given the player list Furner has had to work with.
There has been no other coach who has had to deal with more idiocy from within his own player group than Furner; such idiocy reached its epoch this season with the conduct of Josh Dugan and Blake Ferguson and their clear lack of respect for him is a disgrace to say the least. Through all of that he acted in a reasonable and responsible way and always had the best interests of the club at heart.
I am stunned by this decision and can only hope now that the Raiders lift under Dunemann for the last games of the season and make the finals. Otherwise sacking the coach now has all been for nothing and could be considered nothing more than a disrespectful end for a wonderful servant of the club.
The 5th and final test of the Ashes Series is imminent and thus selection speculation for the Australia team is rife. The usual phalanx of former players and commentators (including those of the armchair variety) have come out of the woodwork to demand the dropping of Shane Watson. In reply I ask: are you drunk?
I know that question is inflammatory and condescending, and on that basis I withdraw it in order to pose it in a different way: on form, in comparison to the other batters in the team, explain to me why Watson ought to be dropped?
Here is the exercise I would like all those calling for such a change to the Australia team to undertake: set aside your irritation at his use of the DRS as well as your irrational hatred of his, alleged, personality traits (and look at his actual form.
Some number to assist with that exercise are as follows:
· Watson is Australia’s 3rd highest run scorer in the series after Michael Clarke and Chris Rogers.
· Watson has a better batting average in this series than Messrs Khawaja, Cowan, Smith, Haddin and Hughes.
· If one broadens the scope and includes England batters in the equation then the following batters have also scored less runs than Watson despite having played the same number of tests: Bairstow, Trott and Prior. It is also worth noting that his 180 runs aside at Lords, Joe Root has only scored 80 runs in 7 innings at an average of just over 10.
Forget the Australian batters for a moment, are the people suggesting Watson be dropped also lining up to suggest that Jonathan Trott be sacked? Are they also suggesting that Joe Root be dropped? I think not.
Steve Smith and Uzman Khawaja are obviously in worse form than Watson and whilst Khawaja’s name has been mentioned in dispatches as being a prime target to have been dropped, Steve Smith’s name has not been mentioned. Shouldn’t he, Smith, be ahead of Watson in the dropping stakes?
I am all for debate: debate is the cornerstone of intelligent discussion. That said, I would really like it if the debate was based on the actual numbers and actual form of the players rather than issues, imagined or otherwise, one has with the person.
If Watson is to miss the 5th test at the Oval, as sad as it is to say, I hope it is due to injury because if he is dropped on form it makes a mockery of the selection process given the form of other players with lesser claims to being in the team.
Mickey Arthur has been quoted thusly in the press in Australia today when speaking about the young players that came into the team during his tenure:
“They’re good players, they’re not great players. They’re earning obscene amounts of money and they’ve got big egos, but they don’t know the best way to go about it … we had no leaders there.”
If you were wondering: these were the players that debuted, in test match cricket, during Mickey Arthur’s era in control of the Australia team (the span being from November 2011 through to June 2013):
James Pattinson
Mitchell Starc
David Warner
Ed Cowan
Matthew Wade
Rob Quiney
Jon Hastings
Jackson Bird
Moses Henriques
Glenn Maxwell
It is trite to say but this comment from Arthur, if a true reflection on the state of things, is a pretty sad indictment on these players coming into the test match set up and, indeed, the cricket program in Australia more broadly. I know I have written about this before and, frankly, I feel like I am whipping the metaphorical dead horse but is it not striking that the bulk of these players have had extremely limited first class careers of note before their selection in Australia test team?
Here the statistics in this regard:
James Pattinson: 8 games (all games are first class for the purposes of this exercise)
Mitchell Starc: 16 games
David Warner: 10 games
Ed Cowan: 52 games
Matthew Wade: 41 games
Rob Quiney: 49 games
Jon Hastings: 26 games
Jackson Bird: 17 games
Moses Henriques: 39 games
Glenn Maxwell: 15 games
I know Australia does not appear to be spoilt for choice for players to select at the moment but it could hardly be suggested that, Cowan, Wade and Quiney aside, this list of players have had anything resembling the first class apprenticeship that players of the past received. That being the case is it all surprising that they are not fully rounded players who “know the best way to go about it” when they enter the team? By extension it must be asked if it is really the coach of the test match team’s job to complete the education of Australia’s top players?
It seems to me that something has gone horribly amiss in the way in which cricket (as a sport) and Cricket Australia (as the ultimate governing body of said sport) is developing the young players for the next step into the test match team. It would be simple to say that said players are not playing enough first class cricket and are not getting an opportunity early enough to prove themselves.
That said, it has often been said that the simplest answer is often the right one and I suspect it is the case here. One only needs to look at the England set up to see that they are getting there pathway to the test team correct where Australia is failing. For this purpose consider these recent debutants in test match cricket for England and the number of first class games they have played:
Jonny Bairstow: 47 games
James Taylor: 76 games
Nick Compton: 99 games
Joe Root: 36 games
England’s young cricketers, even on the foregoing evidence, are getting more first class cricket and, therefore, more of an apprenticeship before they reach the big time of test cricket.
Again I concede that this may be a simplistic analysis but surely one of things that cricket in Australia must be looking at to ensure that the games of our future test players are complete, or as near as they can be to being complete, is giving them more first class cricket?
That does not appear to be the case though in the current climate in Australia given the enhanced and elongated focus on short form cricket and the fact that our best young players are being pushed into the international short form of the game ever faster than they have been before.
Final comment: I will leave you with a question … how can we expect our young players to succeed when we don’t give them the tools to even compete? At the moment the structure in Australia promotes the fast tracking of players through the short form of the game but that approach has been about as successful as it would be for a law firm to send a 1st year lawyer to the High Court to argue an appeal. We need to get back to basics and give the players the building blocks to develop their games. The “on the job” training method is not working and is only serving to inflate egos which can only be a bad thing for cricket in Australia in the long term.
What will you do today? This poem makes one look closely at what they are doing and what their plans are. Live each day to the fullest everyone!
Today, many will awaken with a fresh sense of inspiration. Why not you?
Today, many will open their eyes to the beauty that surrounds them. Why not
you?
Today, many will choose to leave the ghost of yesterday behind and seize the immeasurable power of today. Why not you?Today, many will break through the barriers of the past by looking at the blessings of the present. Why not you?
Today, for many the burden of self doubt and insecurity will be lifted by the security and confidence of empowerment. Why not you?
Today, many will rise above their believed limitations and make contact with their powerful innate strength. Why not you?
Today, many will choose to live in such a manner that they will be a positive role model for their children. Why not you?
Today, many will choose to free themselves from the personal imprisonment of their bad habits. Why not you?
Today, many will choose to live free of conditions and rules governing their own happiness. Why not you?
Today, many will find abundance in simplicity. Why not you?
Today, many will be confronted by difficult moral choices and they will choose to do what is right instead of what is beneficial. Why not you?
Today, many will decide to no longer sit back with a victim mentality, but to take charge of their lives and make positive changes. Why not you?
Today, many will take the action necessary to make a difference. Why not you?
Today, many will make the commitment to be a better mother, father, son, daughter, student, teacher, worker, boss, brother, sister, & so much more. Why not you?
Today is a new day!
Many will seize this day.
Many will live it to the fullest.
Why not you?
Shumpty Speaks 