Tag Archives: cricket

The Ashes: Australia to win … and here are 5 reasons why

July 9, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Tomorrow night at 8pm the Ashes series between the old foes, Australia and England, will commence. Everyone, including most Australian fans it seems, think England is going to win. I disagree … in fact I vehemently disagree! Here are my five reasons why I believe Australia will win back the Urn:

England are smug and think they are going to win:

Everything we, as fans, have heard from the pundits from the old dart is that this is the worst Australian team to travel to England since Federation and that the Australians have no chance of winning. The last time we heard such punditary from those apparent experts was in 1989 when Australia travelled to England with a squad the performance of which hinged on a new opening pairing, an allrounder without a hundred in 5 years of test cricket, an inexperienced ‘keeper and a bowling attack that mixed some old stagers (Alderman and Lawson) and an under pressure spinner (Hohns). Sound familiar? The main reason I think we will win is because the English think they will win and that approach has failed them in the past.

Is Australia’s form that bad?

OK: it is obvious that Australia’s form in Test Cricket coming into this series is not great. A 4-0 loss to India in India does not make for pretty reading. However is England’s form any more compelling? Yes they defeated New Zealand at home 2-0 but before that they did not manage a win in a three test tour against New Zealand away. All due respect to the New Zealand team that is hardly a sparkling form line itself. Before that both teams lost a series the South Africans. Of course England did perform brilliantly in India it must be conceded.

Swann v Lyon

I have written in detail about the strengths of Nathan Lyon and the fact that he is a key component in this Australian team. On the other side of the fence is Graeme Swann. Let me be clear at the outset here: I think Swann is world class. That said, his record against Australia is less than impressive. In the two series between the teams he has participated in he has taken 29 wickets at an average of 40. Last time Australia was in England he returned a less than impressive 14 wickets at 40.50 with an economy rate of 3.32 per over which is 1.22 per over higher than his economy rate for his career. Australia needs to attack Swann: England have been at their best in recent times when they have him holding up one end and drying up runs while their fast bowlers rotate up the other end. Despite Australia’s poor form against spin in India, if they attack Swann and hit him off his game that will go a long way to a win. We have to get out of the mindest that he is anything like the Indian spinners: he is not and these are not Indian wickets!

The era of Boof:

Darren Lehmann’s installation as coach of the Australian cricket can only be a positive. Simply put, Lehmann is a coach who lifted the Queensland Bulls Sheffield Shield team to two finals in two years with a player list that Cricket Australia does not deign to believe contains a test match player. Lehmann knows what it takes to win and has a history of building harmonious high performing units which it was clear the old regime was not. He is also a coach that presents as getting the best out of Shane Watson who will have a large part to play in Australia’s possible success.

Psychological warfare:

Jimmy Anderson has come out during the week and suggested that he has added sledging to his armoury. Australia has seemed to try to bring such warfare to recent performances in a somewhat hamfisted and unsuccessful way. The “Davey Warner” method of sledging and physical confrontation MUST stop! Australia needs to take a leaf out of the book of the 1989 and 1993 teams: when (if) they get on top in any of these tests and in the series they need to put the metaphorical foot on the throat of England and press down hard. I always remember the story of Allan Border in the 1993 series batting into a 3rd day to push Australia’s score over 650 just to “add to their mental disintegration”. If Australia win the mental battle they will win the series.

There is only one sleep to go before the Ashes start: it is time for Australian fans to mobilise behind our team. The fact is we can win and I think we will.

I have my supplies for the series at the ready (coffee, protein shakes and red bull), the batteries are about to be taken out of the remote control and I have banked up a heap of extra sleep to get me through. It is go time people! Let’s get our urn back!

The Ashes: England Squad Announcement

July 7, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

Here is the English squad for the first Ashes 2013 test match at Trent Bridge:

A Cook (c), J Root, J Trott, K Pietersen, I Bell, J Bairstow, M Prior, T Bresnan, S Broad, G Swann, S Finn, J Anderson, P Onions

No real surprises here for the English. Obviously deep down I am hoping for a repeat of 1989 when the Poms used 39 players but doubt that is going to happen.

Bring on Wednesday!

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.

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!