Tag Archives: Cricket Australia

The Ashes, Second Test: 5 Keys to Success for Australia

July 17, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

The second test of the Ashes kicks off on Thursday at Lords. Australia comes into this game off the back of a heartbreaking loss in the first test and, to state the obvious, will need to win this game to even countenance having a chance of returning the urn to Australia at the end of the series.

Here are the 5 keys to success for Australia in this second test (in my opinion):

Can someone please score a hundred?

It has been 4 test matches since an Australian top order batsman (or any batsman for that matter) has scored a hundred. Michael Clarke’s 130 in the first innings in the first test at Chennai seems a very long time ago. More concerning for Australia is that the only other centurion for Australia’s current top order in the last 12 months is Ed Cowan arising out of his performance at Brisbane in November last year. Someone from the top 6 MUST score a hundred in this test match if Australia is to win.

Neutralise Jimmy Anderson

There has been much discussion across social media as to whom is the best fast bowler in the world at the moment: Dale Steyn or Jimmy Anderson. I decline to enter that debate. What I have been consistent in stating is that Jimmy Anderson was a class above the fast bowlers in the first test match. Australia must find a plan to deal with Anderson’s reverse swing because that will put their other bowlers under pressure and open up opportunities for Australia to get on top.

Strong first half hours with the ball

Generally speaking, Australia was not disgraced with the ball in the first test at Trent Bridge. That said, at times, particularly at the start of innings or after breaks, our bowlers seemed to take some time to get into the rhythm of the game and presented some easy opportunities to the English batsmen to get in and score. Good starts with the ball and the pressure that flows from that will be vital for Australia.

Agar Factor: second test syndrome?

Ashton Agar had an excellent debut of that there can be no doubt. All of us: fans, pundits and players alike have placed massive pressure and a heavy weight of expectation is now on him. How he reacts to that weight and performs at the home of cricket will be a key to Australia’s chances. We need him to take wickets: it is as simple as that!

Lords: Australia’s home away from home

Before England’s 115 run victory in 2009 Australia had not tasted defeat at Lords since we lost by an innings and 38 runs in 1934. The myth of Lords and Australia’s dominance there can only be a positive for this team.

Thursday 8pm can not come quickly enough. Every test match at Lords is a special test match. This one has the potential to be one of the most absorbing contests at Lords in some time.

Mickey Arthur and Cricket Australia: where to from here?

July 17, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Big news in cricket over night: Mickey Arthur has filled a Statement of Claim with the Fair Work Commission claiming, it would seem, damages for unfair dismissal. The claims made, if they are true, are scandalous and allege that Mickey Arthur was racially discriminated against among other things.

It is important here to forget the more salacious details (again alleged but not yet actually proven) of the statement of claim. The fact that an allegation is made in civil proceedings does not mean it is true: all it means is that the particular alleged at some point will need to be proven by its proponent.

It is striking that Mickey Arthur has bemoaned that he has tried to keep his claim confidential BUT others have not given him the courtesy of doing so. Either he is poorly advised or naive however documents such as a statement of claim are public documents. To think that they would not be disclosed is just ridiculous and smacks of someone who was not prepared for what might follow from making a claim.

Obviously, not every employee who makes a claim to the Fair Work Commission has the circumstances of their departure from their job but, then again, not every employee has already has the circumstances of their departure publicised for all to see.

So now that Mickey Arthur’s statement of claim has been filed: what are the next steps? As I have written before: this is not like the legal shows you see on TV where the claim is made on Monday and you are in a trial on Friday. It just doesn’t happen that way!

The Fair Work Commission website (www.fwc.gov.au) provides a great overview for the steps in an unfair dismissal claim. Those key steps are:

1. Employee sends an unfair dismissal application to the Commission.
2. The Commission sends a copy of the application to the employer.
3. The Commission sends the employee and employer a written notice with the date and time of their conciliation.
4. The employer is required to respond to the application and submit any jurisdictional objections, and send their response and jurisdictional objections to the employee and to the Commission
5. Conciliation takes place with a Commission conciliator (usually by telephone) to try to resolve the matter
6. If unresolved at conciliation, the application will be determined by a member of the Commission at a formal conference or hearing.
7. Whether a formal conference or hearing takes place depends on the nature of the claim and whether there are any questions of law to be determined.

Obviously a former employer can object to an unfair dismissal claim on various basses. They are:

1. the applicant was not unfairly dismissed;
2. the application was lodged with the Commission outside of the prescribed time limits;
3. the applicant is not covered by the unfair dismissal laws or is not eligible to make an application; and
4. the application is frivolous, vexatious or has no reasonable prospects of success.

The remedies that might be available to Mickey Arthur if he is successful are reinstatement or compensation. We all know that reinstatement is not going to happen so compensation is path that Arthur has gone down.

It is impossible to assess whether Mickey Arthur was unfair dismissed at this point and whether the allegations he has made will ultimately be determined to be true. Now that a statement of claim has been made it is incumbent on the parties to take steps to resolve the dispute. Whilst it will not happen: it is also incumbent on the press to report the full facts rather than the sensationalist reporting we have seen to date.

Only time will tell how this matter will resolve and who will come out on top: after all, in every litigious matter there is always a winner and a loser.

The Ashes: Day 2 reflections

July 12, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , , 1 Comment

What an amazing first two sessions of cricket overnight at Trent Bridge. I held on to watch the Starc hatrick ball and then shuffled my way to the land of nod. The remainder of the post tea session seems to have seen the way many expect this game return to type with England grinding Australia down. Still it was a day for fans of cricke to savior. Here are my 5 talking points:

Agar the Magnificent

What an effort from A Agar! OK so he is clearly not a number 11 batsman but under pressure in one’s first test that was a mighty display from this young man. Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves though: he was picked to bowl for Australia and has a massive job to do now

Hughes: the effective crab

Phil Hughes produced the innings many of us have been waiting for: he was patient and assured when all around him was in the eye of a cyclone of indecision. When Agar came to the crease he assessed his ability and went with him. That said, Chanderpaul aside, is there a more bespoke method in the whole of cricket?

Finn: the great provider

I have followed many English cricket fans in my couple of years on twitter and blogging and the consensus regularly is that he will take wickets for you but he can be mightily expensive. Last night’s display was woeful and set the tone for Australia’s comeback. Absent a bag of wickets in the 4th inning that wretched 4 over spell may see him out for the next test.

DRS: again in the news

Whether the decisions (Agar’s stumping and Trott’s LBW) were right or wrong the system is flawed because it is still capable of 100% accuracy. You will never convince me that there is a better system than letter the umpires make the decisions on the field.

Australia’s other batting: what happened to leaving the ball?

Australia’s dismissals largely have a similarity about them that is concerning: we seem to have lost the ability to leave the ball outside off stump. This must be rectified because Jimmy Anderson is just going to destroy us with swing if we do not get this right!

All in all: another day replete with Ashes moments. What will day 3 bring?

The Ashes: Australian Team named

July 10, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

Australia has announced its XI for tonight’s first test against England at Trent Bridge. It is:

Watson
Rogers
Cowan
Clarke (c)
Hughes
Smith
Haddin
Siddle
Pattinson
Starc
Agar
Lyon (12th)

Not sure about Hughes at 5 or Siddle being in the team. Love that Cowan is in the line up. The time for talk and conjecture is over: we now know the team to take the field and it is time to get behind them.

Selection of Agar astonished me. I can not work it out and am gutted for Nathan Lyon.

Can’t wait for the first ball to bowled at 8pm Australian time tonight.

The Ashes: We know who the openers are but who bats number 3 for Australia?

July 4, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , , , 5 Comments

Darren Lehmann is off and running as the coach of the Australian cricket team and has started his “reign” by confirming before the last trial game before the 1st Test that Shane Watson and Chris Rogers will be the opening for Australia come 10 July. That decision means that neither of the incumbents from the last test match played by Australia, David Warner and Ed Cowan, will be retaining their former positions in the team.

Obviously, the Australian cricket team is in a state of flux with the appointment of a new coach and the only secure places in the batting order seemingly the openers (now that their positions have been confirmed) and that of the captain, wherever he decides to bat. That means that the number 3 position (assuming M Clarke doesn’t bow to the pressure of I Chappell and bat there) is up for grabs for the following contenders: P Hughes (the incumbent), D Warner, E Cowan and U Khawaja.

I think it would be fair to say that the issue of “who bats number 3?” has oft been a vexed question in Australian cricket. Regularly the best batsman in the team has been tapped on the shoulder to be the number 3 batsman. In this regard one only needs to look at where players like Don Bradman, Ricky Ponting and Greg Chappell spent the bulk of their careers in the Australia team. The only time that that standard does not seem to hold true is when the captain is also the best batsman in the team and declines to bat in that position. The eras of Allan Border and Steve Waugh are instructive in that context.

So if the best batsman in the team is the captain and declines to bat at number 3 what style of batsman should be invested with the obligation of going in at the time the first wicket goes down. In my opinion one only needs to consider the efforts of David Boon to come to the conclusion that the style of batsman that ought be given the role of number 3, in the absence of the best batsman in the team (which is not to say that Boon at points was not that batsman but I think it would be fair to say that when he started batting at 3 he was not), is an established opener. With David Boon at number 3 from the 1989 Ashes tour (bearing in mind that he had batted at 3 before this point) Australia was blessed with a batsman who had spent some 20 test matches at the top of the order for almost 1,500 runs at an average of 36.85. More to the point, in Boon Australia possessed someone who was extremely experienced in going in against the new ball such that if he was in early he was used to it.

Now at this point I am sure many of you are saying: so? We have Phil Hughes batting at number 3 for Australia and he is a former opener for his country so surely, based on your own measure, Hughes must get the gig? Simply though I do not believe that Hughes is good enough form to play the role that D Boon did for Australia for all of those years post 1989 and particularly not so for an Ashes series. Hughes is, after all, in his third coming as an Australian test cricketer and in this coming has been pigeon holed as a number 3 batsman. In his 7 test matches back in the test team he has scored 380 runs in 13 innings at an average of 29.23 and is without a hundred in that span. That is simply not good enough and I am of the view that a change needs to be made for the first test.

So which of the other contenders should be selected in Hughes’ place (if that change is made). I suspect that Darren Lehmann would be looking to avoid having a change at number 3 that would see another player who has not been in the test team of recent times in the team so that, unfortunately, counts out Usman Khawaja. Whilst I think he is a player of the future he has not done enough in my view in the preliminary games to make his selection a foregone conclusion. With avoiding too much change in mind I think Lehmann will avoid using Khawaja at number 3 on 10 July.

That makes the race for the other position in the “engine room” (as D Boon used to call it) between Ed Cowan and David Warner. Have there been two more contrasting styles in Australian cricket than these two players? As good a starting point as any is to consider their records over the last 12 months:

Cowan Warner

All told then there is not much difference between the two records save that Warner has scored more fifties and Cowan occupies the crease longer. Who should Darren Lehmann go for then come 10 July? Importantly, both records are largely commensurate with that of David Boon before he became Australia’s first choice number 3 batsmen albeit the strike rate of Boon is closer to that of Cowan than that of Warner.

I think it is important here to also consider the preparation of both players in advance of this first test. I have written earlier about trials and tribulations of David Warner this year. In raw cricket terms his lead in to the first test has consisted of playing in the IPL 20/20 competition, 2 games in the Champions Trophy and then a long stint on the sidelines (and no doubt practicing in the nets) as he serves his suspension for punching Joe Root.

Conversely, Ed Cowan has spent the start of the English summer playing first class cricket for Nottinghamshire. By the end of Australia’s current trial game against Worcestershire he will have played 9 first class games in English conditions. His form for Nottinghamshire in his 7 games for them has been solid without being flashy scoring 478 runs at 43.45. A final key point on Cowan’s run in to the first test is, that if selected, he will be playing on his home ground (for Nottinghamshire) Trent Bridge.

A final consideration here is the style of players Cowan and Warner are: can anyone cogently argue that they would feel more comfortable with Warner walking out to the crease with the score on 1/0 than Ed Cowan? I, for one, shudder at the thought of Warner coming to the crease with the score one down for not many.

All of the foregoing considered then, it must be pretty obvious the way I am leaning. If Phil Hughes is not selected, as I believe he ought not be, then I am firmly of the view that Ed Cowan should be Australia’s number 3 for the first test at Trent Bridge. The statistics, the lead in form and the stylistic considerations all point that way.

Kurtley Beale: can I have his employment contract? Or that of any “sportstar” for that matter?

June 28, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , , , , 3 Comments

I have watched with a mix of astonishment and bemusement at the latest round of drama that seems to follow Australian Rugby Union player Kurtley Beale wherever he goes. For those who missed the drama of the week was Beale and is oft partner in crime, James O’Connor, being caught at a hamburger restaurant at 4am in the aftermath of the Melbourne Rebels’ defeat by the British and Irish Lions on Tuesday night. There was, apparently, no alcohol involved but they were still out eating a hamburger at 4am four days before they were due to play in a test match.

Kurtley Beales other indiscretions have been well documented but are worth rementioning: an assault charge that was settled at mediation, punching two of his (now former) teammates whilst on tour with his (also now former) Super Rugby franchise and then a breach of strict alcohol rules are the known behavioural issues that have faced Beale in the last 18 months. I am all for people being given second chances and now that Beale is seemingly on his fifth chance with the ARU I have had a moment of pause to consider this question: if Beale was employed by anyone other than the Australian Rugby Union would he still be employed?

I have already written in an earlier blog about the special treatment received (having both positive and negative impacts on them) in the context of poor behaviour. I have also written about the presumption of innocence and how important it is to remember that presumption in the context of the regular imbroglios sports stars seem to find themselves presently.

All that said, I think it is pretty obvious that the answer to the question posed in the preceding is a resounding “NO”. Let’s put Beale’s conduct in the context of someone who works in a professional context. I am happy to use myself as the guinea pig here: I work for a large firm in the city. My working hours are malleable but are generally between 7:45am and 6:30pm with a couple of days of work on weekends a month the norm. I have a team of 11 people that work for me and sit in a broader team of about 70 people. I am bound by a contract of employment with my employer that regulates my conduct during work hours and also, as is standard, requires me to follow the lawful directions of my employer.

Starting then with the obvious, I can never recall any occasion during my 15 year career in the work force where I have had moment to be out until 4am and then stop to grab a burger on a work night? Perhaps on the way to work before a large mediation or if I have a heap of work on maybe but not because I felt like going out and meeting up with some mates. How could any professional function in their job after, obviously, no sleep the night before.

The assault charge is a difficult one: I am fairly sure that my employer, or any employer in the professional work force, would be extremely displeased with an employee being charged with assault. I am unsure as to whether such a scenario would be grounds for immediate dismissal but I am pretty sure the said employee would be at least given a formal warning.

Then we turn to the combination of punching a fellow team mate and then ignoring a direction not to drink: can anyone think of any context in which an employee in a professional context would survive with his or her job intact after having a drunken brawl with two of his / her colleagues? I am pretty sure if I punched one of my fellow directors and one of the partners (given that G Delve was captain of the team at the time) on a boozy night out I would not be receiving just a warning: my employment would be terminated. If, however, I did survive and receive a warning on the condition that my employment would continue on the proviso that I not break the team rules again then surely breaking said rules would mean that I would be terminated and have to find a new job wouldn’t it? I have no doubt it would.

Sportstars are regularly crying that we (being the fans and the media) do not “understand how much pressure they are under”. Forgive me for not giving any sympathy: after all said sportstars are paid to play sport. The other regular refrain from sportstars and their apologists are that they are held to a higher standard because of the “celebrity” and that is unfair. With all due respect to those who push that argument: how can you say that when, in fact, it would appear based the available evidence that sportstars are held to a lower standard by their employers than anyone else who had a professional job in this country?

My gripe here is not with Kurtley Beale and his mate O’Connor: I am not surprised that they were caught out (again). My gripe is with the spinelessness of their employers. Actually, it is worth noting that my gripe is not just with the ARU at this juncture because afterall we have, in recent times also had the displeasure of seeing the following conduct rewarded with continued employment (by the governing body of the game):

1. Semi-regular abuse of opposing players, abuse of journalists doing their job and punching an opposing player (David Warner); and
2. Complete and open disregard for the authority of one’s employer, failing to follow a direction not to drink alcohol before training and sending a photographic message to one’s coach of your contempt for him (Josh Dugan).

The governing bodies of the sports we love are doing themselves and those that they employ who do the right thing a disservice by not handling these matters like any other employer would. How will players who behave badly or, indeed, just stupidly ever learn their lesson if they are not punished as someone in everyday life would be? A semi-regular refrain from those in sport is that they just want to be treated like regular every day people but they can not have their metaphorical cake and eat it to; viz., if they want to be treated like everyone else they also must be treated like everyone else when it comes to their employment and NOT with the special treatment they seem to presently receive.

I am not talking about forcing people out of sport because they make a mistake here and I am a massive believer of second chances in life. Getting a second chance though comes with it learning from ones mistakes and I question how someone receiving the special treatment when it comes to appointment that sportstars do will ever learn from their mistakes? Getting caught out at 4am 4 days before a test match indicates that Kurtley Beale has not learned his lesson.

All that said: how good would it be to be on the same sort of contract that Beale and others must be on which entitles them to, seemingly, do whatever they want whenever they want without thought to the consequences? I wonder where I can get one of them?