Tag Archives: Cricket Australia

Mickey Arthur: just the tip of the iceberg?

June 24, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Well the inevitable has finally happened: Mickey Arthur has been sacked as the Australian cricket coach. The only surprise, from my perspective, is that Cricket Australia has chosen to take this step some 16 days before the start of the Ashes series. Given the performances of the team of late, it strikes me that the writing was on the wall much earlier than this week.

 

Coach Arthur was appointed to coach the Australian cricket team after the much vaunted Argus Review into Australian cricket, the report of which was handed down on 19 August 2011. During Arthur's time at the helm Australia won 10 of their 19 test matches but coming into the present series in England had been on a streak of four losses. Further, there have been some significant, and obvious, signs that the culture within the Australian team has taken a backward step under Arthur's reign and, indeed, since the implementation of the Argus Review's recommendations.

 

Given what has happened in Australian cricket since the implementation of Argus, is it only Mickey Arthur who should be worried about his job? In my view, the removal of Mickey Arthur is only the start of what might be the largest shake up, not only since Argus, but in the history of the administration of the game in this country.

 

For a start, the manager of the team on tour, and on the tour of India that preceded it, Gavin Dovey, must be struggling to hold his position with team. He, along with Arthur, has presided over the management of incidents such as “homework gate” and Warner's punch, and some would say, as much as the coach, the manager of the team must take some responsibility for the lowering of the standards, culturally and behaviourally, of the team. Based on the only measure that really counts when it comes to judging the work of the manager of the team, the behaviour of the players, it could only be said that Dovey has not succeeded in his task.

 

One of the massive changes made to the structure of the management of cricket in Australia post Argus was the introduction of the role of General Manager: Team Performance to oversee the team, coaching, selection and Centre of Excellence. That post has been filled by Pat Howard since its inception. Given the breadth of the role and my understanding of the basis of Arthur's sacking as coach (a mix of results and management of player behaviour leading to a loss of confidence from James Sutherland), surely based on the same measures Pat Howard's tenure must also be questionable to say the least. Simply put: the structure that Pat Howard has put in place has NOT lead to either acceptable results or a positive team environment. Why then should he stay in the job whilst Mickey Arthur goes?

 

Overarching all of this is a conundrum that has been floating around in my head for some time: why, in the context of waning performance and internal scandal, is the stewardship of the business of Cricket Australia by its CEO, James Sutherland, not under question as well? The success of a CEO of any business, including any sporting business, is, indeed must, be measured based on that business' results. There can be no denying that there a number things that James Sutherland has done well; afterall, he has just renegotiated the largest contract for the broadcast of cricket in Australia in the game's history. However, the commercial success of the business that is Cricket Australia only tells part of the story. The success of the team over which the CEO of any sporting team must also be measured is that of its success on the field.

 

It is here that I am of the view that it must be time for the board of Cricket Australia to closely look at a change in the very top of the leadership structure of the game because, no matter which way you look at it, the success of the Australian cricket team has waned under the watch of the present CEO. Many of you will be saying: we know this, but he doesn't have the players and the results were only bad for the last season and you can't sack him because of that. On both counts I respectfully disagree and here is why:

 

  1. Players of the calibre of G McGrath, S Warne and R Ponting do not come along every day. That said, it is the CEO of any business' remit to be responsible of succession planning within said business. Where the talent to handle the succession from a superstar is not readily available it is the CEO's responsibility to either search for ways to develop talent or import talent to fill the void. Importation, Fawad Ahmed aside, is not an option in this context which begs the question: what has Cricket Australia and its CEO done from a succession planning perspective to fill the void left by those who have departed the scene? I would answer that question by simply saying that the current state of the team would suggest not much. Indeed, as a fan, the impression one has is that the retirement of Warne and others has been met with a simple focus on finding the next Warne without a “Plan B”.
  2. The hallmark of a successful business not in the world of sport is its share price and its profit. A waning share price and a contracting profit are indicative of a business struggling to perform and quite often it is the CEO in that context that departs the scene as a result. To extend the analogy to the world of cricket, the benchmark for success for any central cricket management body must be focused, from an on the field perspective, on that team's wins percentage. An examination of the win percentage of the Australian cricket team in test cricket during the tenure of James Sutherland show san alarming downward trend. From the halcyon days of 2006 and 2007 when Australia was not defeated in any test match (100% win percentage over 14 tests), the winning percentage of the Australian cricket team since 2008 has been reduced to 46.88% (30 wins from 64 games). Worse still the winning percentage of Australia team in test cricket has shown a continuous downward trend since 2009 when Australia won 53.85% of games to this year when Australia has won only 20% of its games.

In face of these waning results alone, any CEO of a business in the same context would be under monumental pressure. When was the last time a CEO of a listed company survived an 80% reduction in the share price over a 5 year period? I would hazard a guess that there would be few who would survive in that context. That is before the obvious other factors in play here. Sutherland has been at the helm during the obvious diminishing of the culture within the team noted above and is one of the core architects of the current structure of management in the game which, on any fair examination, is not serving it or the game well.

 

In my view, if Sutherland was CEO of anything other than a sporting organisation he would be out of a job: the shareholders of the business would have demanded his exit in the face of such a reduction in results and standards. Why shouldn't the stakeholders of cricket in Australia, the fans, also not see a change in the position that makes the major decisions that effect the game in this country in the face a sharply waning results?

 

In my opinion, the departure of Mickey Arthur is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the fallout from Australian cricket's current problems. The board of Cricket Australia though will do themselves and the games stakeholders a massive disservice if they do not look past Arthur, Dovey and Howard and consider closely the role of James Sutherland in all of this. I, for one, think it is time for a change at the top of the game because the ideas of the past of the CEO and his implementation of the review he demanded are failing to conjure the results needed for him to stay.

 

The next move by Cricket Australia will be a critical one: if they get it wrong a further reduction in the winning percentage noted above will be least of their problems.

Channel 9 selects the team for Cricket Australia? Well … duh!!!!!!!

June 19, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 2 Comments

It has been another interesting day in Australian sport. Probably one of the most of interesting pieces of news and one that has been responded to almost immediately by Cricket Australia has been the position taken Channel 9 with respect to the selection of the Australian cricket team.

For those who missed it, the Managing Director of Channel 9 Jeff Browne told a business lunch in Sydney yesterday that as part of the network's record $400million winning bid for international cricket rights, he expected to have a say in both team selection and in the scheduling of fixtures during the Australian summer.

James Sutherland, the CEO of Cricket Australia has been swift today to retort:

“Cricket has a long-standing and successful relationship with the Nine Network, but team selections and scheduling are matters for Cricket Australia''

No matter who you believe, and frankly I am prepared to believe the MD of Australia's largest television network over a CEO who has presided over the biggest decline in standards of player behaviour seen in the Australian game in my memory during his 12 years at the helm, one only needs to examine the players currently being selected by Cricket Australia to represent this country to see that whether or not it is Channel 9 selecting the team, marketability of players has become a factor in the selection process.

 

In this regard I am already on record apropos my contempt for the selection of players such as Glenn Maxwell and David Warner without, frankly, a semblance of form or even a solid first class career behind them. In the case of Warner, many are quick to forget that he had not been selected by his state for a first class game before he was first selected to play for his country.

 

That said, it is the other piece of cricket news today that really shows how far down this track the powers that be at Cricket Australia have gone in the name of marketing. Again for those who missed it Cricket Australia announced today a squad to tour Africa in July and August to play 3 first class games and a series of 5 one day fixtures. Here is the squad announced:


Smith (c) Finch (vc) Agar Ahmed Coulter-Nile Doolan Hazlewood Henriques Maddinson M. Marsh S. Marsh Maxwell Paine Sandhu Sayers


There are undoubtedly a number of players in this team who deserve their opportunities to represent Australia A. Doolan had a brilliant season for Tasmania as did Henriques for New South Wales. Sayers is a bowler of the future and was unlucky in my view to not be in the full blown Ashes squad.

 

That said: I refuse to believe that some of the other players selected in this team have been selected because of their exemplary form in first class and other domestic cricket in Australia this season. Now don't get me wrong: there are some players in this team who have the potential play for Australia in the years to come; of this there can be no question. However, you can not tell me that some such players are not in this team because of their marketing appeal rather than form.

 

Take the case of Gurinder Sandhu: no doubt he is a fine cricketer and, indeed was selected as state cricketer of the year last season for New South Wales. Kudos to him for having such a great start to his career. However, is he, off the back of two first class games in the Sheffield Shield really in the top ten fast bowlers in the country? That must be what his selection in this squad must connote must it not? I know he took 14 wickets in those first two first class games but how can that be enough to assess whether he is that good as yet? The simple answer is that Sandhu already has a marketing contract with Cricket Australia. They are pinning their hopes on “diversifying” the bandwidth of their marketing message by using the image of Gurinder Sandhu in their marketing material. In order to do that they have to, of course, select him don't they?

 

How must a player like Luke Butterworth from Tasmania be feeling in the face of this selection news today? Off the back of a season in which he played every first class game and took 45 wickets at an average of 20.89 runs per wicket he is seemingly not even in the frame to be in the top 10 bowlers in the country according to the selectors. Of course, he does not have a marketing contract with Cricket Australia.

 

For that matter, what about Trent Copeland who took 30 wickets for his state in 8 first class games last season and is bowling the lights out in the English Country competition this season? He has been a faithful servant of the game in this country and did nothing wrong when he was called up for the baggy green but, seemingly, because he is not a marketable commodity. Can anyone else come up with a cogent reason why he is not in the best 10 bowlers in the country? I have wracked my brain and can not.

 

I am not, repeat not, attacking Gurinder Sandhu: I hope he succeeds but I find it to be an abomination that players who clearly are ahead of him in both experience and the pecking order on form in domestic cricket are ignored because they do not fit a demographic that Cricket Australia wishes to market too.

 

So if you are surprised that Channel 9 think they can pick the team, then consider this: what reason have Cricket Australia given them to think otherwise? A marketing contract leading to selection on tour to represent this country despite there being other more qualified and in form players available for selection can only be an indication that selection for Australia is clearly for sale. I never thought I would see this day and to say that I am disappointed that it is here now would be an understatement.

 

And don't even get me started on Chris Hartley not being in the Australia A team!

 

The Nathan Lyon Conundrum: the second inning fallacy

June 13, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

I wrote earlier in the week about Nathan Lyon and the obscene haste with which Fawad Ahmed seems to have been pushed forward as his replacement. I received a large number of comments with respect to that post but a common refrain was that Lyon was not a performer under pressure in the second innings of matches. I found this to be an interesting argument and sought to look deeper at it.

Simply put: I consider the argument that Nathan Lyon is not a performer in the second innings of matches, when he is supposed to be winning games for Australia, is an absolute fallacy. What follows are my reasons for this view:

Venue

Nathan Lyon has played 22 test matches for Australia. Those test matches took place at the following venues for the following results:

Lyon #1

Considering the venues in question, it can only clearly be said that the Indian venues and possibly Sydney and Adelaide are what might be termed spinning wickets or even wickets on which a spinner would be expected to win a game for his team. Simply, Lyon has not played a plethora of games at “spinning venues” to date.

How much is Lyon actually bowling?

Obviously comparisons will be made between the various spinners in the game at the moment. Here are the statistics on current spin bowlers playing test matches for their respective countries presently and their records in the second innings. I have filtered this table to only include performances since the retirement of SK Warne:

Lyon #2

The results of this analysis are obvious: Nathan Lyon only bowls some 14.54 overs in the second innings of matches. This, when compared to his fellow spinners, is arguably consistent with significant underbowling. The best bowlers of this period have consistently, in the second innings of said matches bowled, on average, more than 10 overs an inning more than the Australian spin bowler. Simply: if he is not being given the overs to bowl how can he be expected to take wickets?

The 4th Innings: that is the real question

The problem with the blanket statement that Nathan Lyon is a non-performer in the 2nd innings of matches ignores that quite often a bowler will actually be bowling in the 3rd innings of the game rather than the 4th innings. If the question is one of performance under pressure by Nathan Lyon then surely the 4th innings of matches needs to be considered and, further the target that Lyon has had to bowl at. The following table is instructive:

Lyon #3

There are some compelling points that come from this table:

1. The last 3 tests Lyon has played have seen the opposition team, India, run down small targets. He has bowled a high proportion of overs in those innings in obvious losing causes. He can not be blamed for this.

2. If you exclude the last 3 tests in India, Australia’s record when bowling in the last innings of a test match to win it is simply outstanding with only one loss to the South Africans in Capetown the only blemish. It is compelling that in that game Lyon was only given 3 overs over 50.3 on a seaming wicket and that Australia was trounced by 8 wickets.

3. I concede that there are some games in this list that Australia has won where I would have expected Lyon to play a bigger role in the win. However, there are reasons for this: for example the game against Sri Lanka in Hobart was one dominated by fast bowlers and in which Lyon played a key roll in keeping one end tight whilst the fast bowlers where rotated.

4. The draw against South Africa in Adelaide is a game that sticks in the mind of many. I think people need to look again at this game though because Lyon is the only spin bowler in a game that took a wicket. Indeed the spinner from South Africa, Imran Tahir, had game comparable to that of Bryce McGain’s first test and has not been sighted since for the Proteas.

So where does this leave N Lyon?

The fact is that at venues where one would expect Nathan Lyon to lead the Australian bowling attack to victory, particularly in India, he has never been given enough runs to actually bowl at to do so. In games that Australia has won and he has bowled a large number of overs in the final innings of the game he has, to be frank, played a significant positive roll in those victories whilst not always being the match winner. That, of itself, is admirable given that he is bowling for captain who does not bowl him anywhere near as much as his contemporaries from other countries.

To suggest that Nathan Lyon is not a “pressure bowler” and does not bowl well in the final innings of games is not supported, in my view, by the objective evidence. Of course many people will have a subjective view and that is based on their own experiences watching him play. I simply ask those of you with that different view to take a look at the numbers above and reconsider!

I think Australian cricket has, continues to, do Nathan Lyon a disservice by the seemingly constant pressure being placed on his position. He can only bowl when he is asked to and within the construct of the match situation given to him by the other ten players on the field. To say that he has done anything other than his job and that he is anything other than a solid international spinner is just a fallacy.

Postscript: the tables created for this post have been done by me from score cards retained on the Cricinfo website. Any errors are my own and I apologise for the bad formatting!

Come in spinner: why is finding one for the Australian team so hard?

June 10, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

It has long been the lament of fans, pundits and journalists alike that in the “post Warne” age we (Australian cricket) have not had a consistently selectable or, indeed, match winning spin bowler. This problem has become so “acute” in the prelude to the coming battle for the Ashes against England that the parliament of Australia has seen fit to change the laws of immigration in this country to allow for the fast tracked citizenship of a 31 year old leg spinner from Merguz in Pakistan who has played only 13 first class games just so he may be available.

Before the “Era of Ahmed” a compendium of spin bowlers used by Australia since 5 January 2007 (when the “Era of Warne” ended) reads like this (this list necessarily removes batsmen who bowl a bit): 

SCG MacGill (4 matches)

GB Hogg (3 matches)

B Casson (1 match)

CL White (4 matches)

JJ Krejza (2 matches)

NM Hauritz (16 matches)

MA Beer (2 matches)

BE McGain (1 matches)

XJ Doherty (4 matches)

NM Lyon (22 matches)

GJ Maxwell (2 matches)

Australia has played 67 test matches in that span and have won 33, lost 21 and drawn 13 of same.  The present incumbent, Nathan Lyon, comes into the Ashes with a record that shows that he has taken 76 wickets in his 22 test matches at an average of 33.18 runs per wicket and with an economy rate of 3.12 runs per over. 
Am I alone in considering those numbers to actually be good numbers and, indeed, unworthy of the pressure being placed on Lyon’s place in the team by seemingly all and sundry including Cricket Australia?  Let’s consider for a moment the records of the other spinners presently playing test match cricket and see how the record of Lyon compares (the qualification make for this exercise is 20 wickets taken):

Player  Games Wickets Average Economy 

Swann  52        261       28.69      2.91 

Singh   44         175       35.79      2.86 

Herath  35         165      28.48      2.71 

Ajmal    26         133      27.6        2.66 

Ohja     22         102      31.78      2.68 

Ashwin 16          92       28.53      2.89 

Patel     18         49        49.02     3.22 

Vettori   39        131       34.66     2.45 

Panesar 35       122       33.8       2.71 

Mendis   17        64       34.2        3.08

Looking at this numbers now and comparing those of Nathan Lyon to them is all of the angst about his place in the Australian team and, indeed, the pressure being exerted by Ahmed’s selection really warranted?  His performances and statistics are all the more admirable give that he plays the bulk of his matches in Australian on less than friendly pitches, he rarely has the support of a second spinner and he has been, it must be conceded, poorly captained by captains who are themselves seemingly remembering the days of Warne.
Despite those impediments he is still tracking to have similar numbers at similar times as players of the stature of Singh, Vettori, Herath or Panesar.  I am more than a bit certain that Cricket Australia and cricket supporters of the Australian team would happily accept any of those players in the current lineup.  So, at the risk of becoming repetitious but still restating the question, what is the problem with relying on N Lyon? 
The answer to this question gets on back to an examination of the question posed in the title to this post:

Why is finding a good spinner for the Australian team so hard?

It must be clear from what has gone above that that question is unfair stated or, in fact, redundant because Australia already has a good spinner in Nathan Lyon.  The problem is that the Australian public, pundits and, possibly, players are NOT looking for a good spinner.  Rather they are looking for an answer to this question: 

Why is it so hard to find the next Shane Warne?  

That is a question that can simply must be answered this way: we will never find a spinner like Shane Warne again.  Therein lies the rub: we, the Australian cricket public, pundits and players, are searching for something we can not and will not ever have again.   Until we as a cricketing nation can get our heads around that immutable truth we are going to continue to “burn” our clearly good spinners with the pressure that comes with expectation.  Surely now it is time to get behind Nathan Lyon and back him to get the job done because, simply put, we already have a good spinner in him. 

The Warner Controversy: where to from here?

May 22, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , Leave a comment

Cricket news in this part of the world, thankfully given England’s dismantling of the Black Caps at Lords, has been all about David Warner and his spat in social media with two of Australia’s most respected cricket journalists: Malcolm Conn and Robert Craddock. I do not intend to revisit what was said: if you are a cricket fan you have read the exchange. If you are a Warner apologist you have already congratulated him on “sticking it up the journos” (aside: my favourite reply was “what would they know, they have never walked in your shoes” … are you kidding: the bloke gets paid to play cricket something the mere mortals among us would do for free). If you are on the side of the journalists you are bemoaning Warner’s conduct and declaring his captaincy prospects dead and buried. Most have taken a side and the less said about that the better.

What is important now that #warnergate has happened is to consider what the next steps are and how cricket in this country gets back to focusing on the upcoming Ashes and the return of the Ashes urn to its rightful place of residence in Australia.

Tomorrow is an important start to that process as Warner faces a charge against Rule 6 of CAs Code of Behaviour. For the uninitiated, Rule 6 provides:

Players and officials must not at any time engage in behaviour unbecoming to a representative player or official that could (a) bring them or the game of cricket into disrepute or (b) be harmful to the interests of cricket…this rule applies at all times where the unbecoming behaviour involves the player being involved in public comment or comment to or in the media.

There are various punishments available to the CA Senior Code of Behaviour Commissioner, The Hon. Justice Gordon Lewis AM, who will hear the case from a fine through to a reprimand and ultimately a suspension.

It seems difficult to argue that the conduct of Warner, no matter what side of the fence I have alluded to above one sits, is not in breach of Rule 6. As a minimum, Warner’s conduct must have been conduct banned by Rule 6(b) inasmuch as it can not be in the interests of cricket for a current player to abuse two of the most senior journalists in the game for the having the temerity to have an opinion. The question therefore becomes one of penalty and what Warner can put to the Commissioner as a plea in mitigation.

Herein, I think, lies a major problem for Warner. He has, despite his relative lack of time in the top flight of the game (19 test matches), been involved in a series of unseemly on field incidents of what could be best be described as sledging but really, even from a one eyed Australian fan, was tantamount to abuse. The most obvious of such incidents have occurred against India in both of the most recent home and away series. Even in a losing, Warner’s approach to relations with players from opponent teams seems to be “abuse first and ask questions later”.

I know regular readers of this blog will say that I have prejudged Warner here and that my general lack of, for want of a better term, endearment for the play of Warner is colouring my judgment here. Frankly, it may well be the case that I am harder on Warner than I would be on a player that I actually enjoyed watching play the game. I know this is incongruous given the alleged entertainment value that Warner brings to the game BUT the fact is that the conduct of Warner on the field is a major part of why I do not like watching him play.

Now is an opportunity for Cricket Australia to give guidance to a young player who is arguably at a career crossroad: having gone from being considered to be a captain in waiting no less than 3 months all of a sudden that carrot seems to be gone. That fact added to a start of a career where the numbers (1263 runs in 19 tests at an average of less than 40 AND 1124 runs in 38 ODIs at an average of 30) do not match hype means that Cricket Australia must tread carefully. Equally, Warner’s conduct can not go unpunished: indeed the conduct of recent times, including the sledging noted above, is a major part of the make up of Warner, or his ego, that needs to be worked out of his game and needs to be worked out his game right now.

Whatever the penalty, and given the penalties recently handed out for failing to answer a questionnaire that penalty must involve a suspension, now has to be the time that someone like a Rod Marsh or Andy Bichel, both selectors and massively respected in the game, tell Warner to shut up and let his bat do the talking.

I, for one, will be watching the outcome of the hearing tomorrow with interest and, more particularly, be closely examining Warner’s response to see if once again his ego is his guide or he has taken a moment of pause and learned the error of his ways, at least in the short term.

The Ashes: Ryan Harris injured? Calm down everybody!

April 27, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Fans of the Australian cricket team awoke to the news on Thursday that Ryan Harris was returning home from the IPL due to an achilles heel injury. Actually, scratch that, on Thursday the news about Ryan Harris went something like this:

* Ryan Harris is injured.
* He is returning home 1 day after he was named in the Australian Ashes squad.
* He is out of the Ashes series.
* Yet again the Cricket Australia board of selectors have stuffed up.

Unfortunately for journalists of print, web and social media only one of those four “facts” were correct. As we found out AFTER the idiotic headlines (kudos to the Courier Mail for the picture of Harris with his head in his hands wearing a Queensland cap lamenting him being out of the Ashes campaign):

* Ryan Harris has an injury to his achilles heel.
* He left India on Tuesday; viz., one day in advance of the naming of the Australian Ashes squad.
* He is expected to be fit, in his words, in “a couple of weeks” OR, in the words of Cricket Australia, in six weeks. Neither timeline put him out of the Ashes squad.
* He was selected by Cricket Australia in the full knowledge of him returning home. Indeed he has returned home so that his injury can be managed by Cricket Australia doctors.

Now I know that:

* I have been a very harsh critic of the Cricket Australia selection panel and in particular John Inverarity; and
* We are all very excited about the forthcoming series: well one part excited and nine parts worried

BUT can everyone just calm down for a minute? I fully understand the social media explosion that goes with something like this happening: indeed on other occasions I have been stoking the fire. However, for the print media to beat this up the way they have smacks of another agenda or, at the very least, an attempt at expectation management of Australian fans (in the expectation of a comprehensive loss).

It seems that the print media in this country has already written this team off: having pillored Cricket Australia for the team they selected for India with the benefit of the hindsight of a 4-0 result (the same print media were very enamoured with the team before it departed these shores as I remember it) said media are now pilloring a team that has been selected seemingly solely with an eye on winning. Such writing is reminiscent of that of the English press when Australia were belting the Poms in ’89 and ’93. I never expected it from our press.

Am I missing something completely here? Cricket Australia have picked a team that is experienced in the conditions and, in my opinion, can win the Ashes. The Poms are cocky and think we are crap. What better time to get behind our team and bask in the glory of beating them? The reporting of the naming of the team and that of Ryan Harris’ injury suggests another agenda: I for one hope that changes sooner rather than later so that we can focus on getting our urn back!