Tag Archives: cricket

Time for some clarity: once a fan always a fan

March 6, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

On the weekend I wrote about my dismay at the selections of the Australian team for the recently completed test in Hyderabad and commented that I would not be watching the Australian cricket team play until they have a team that enters the arena that I can support. That comment has raised the hackles of many and has led to the refrain of: “if you were a real fan you would support them through good and bad”.

There are two parts to that statement that require a reply: first the concept of a “real fan” and second supporting a team through the good and the bad.

Am I a “real” fan? The facts around this are clear: I revere the game of cricket and will be a fan of the game till the day my last breath leaves my lungs. I read about the game, I talk about the game, I played the game for over a decade, I have coached the game, I have umpired the game and I write about the game. If I could find a job that allowed me to work in the game I would do it in a heart beat. I think that qualifies me as a fan of the game.

Having established my qualifications, it is obviously important to answer the second part of the challenge put to me; viz, that a fan supports his or her team through the good and the bad. To that sentiment I declare a resounding retort of “BOLLOCKS” and then in parenthesis (depending on the context). Before talking about cricket, I think it is important to traverse another example from my personal experience as a sports fan that is relevant: my ongoing fandom of the Queensland Reds.

I have been a fan of Queensland Reds and rugby for nearly as long as I have revered cricket: you can not go to a “rugby school” and not end up with a soft spot for the game. I have been a fan of the Reds since I was a teenager and have maintained my support for the team through the dark days of basically the whole of the last decade (2000-2009) when the Reds made but one final. I remember vividly waking up on 6 May 2007 to hear that the Reds had lost 92-3 to the Bulls at Loftus Versfeld and I remember sitting in Lang Park with no more than 8,000 hardy souls who loved their team.

You are probably pondering: if he is prepared to stop watching a team from a sport he reveres over a selection foible then surely he must have fallen out of love with the Reds? You may be surprised to find that I still attended Reds games during the “dark decade” and still spoke out them and, indeed, defended them to all comers. So why the difference? The answer lies in the context: the Reds, in must be said, during that period had their player stocks demolished by the raiders from the West (in the Force) and the South (in the Brumbies) that saw the talent pool diminish. That said, as a fan and a reader about the game, you always knew that the best team possible was being put on the field by the selectors and that the selectors were also looking to develop young talent. Armed with that knowledge, and whilst it was not always easy, I continued to go to the games and continued to watch the Reds.

This gets me back to the current state of play with the Australian cricket team. I repeat, in case you missed it, that I revere the game of cricket and will always do so. The fact is though that I vehemently disagree with the selection of the team and, to take it one step further, do not believe that the team that is presently gracing the fields of India is the best one Australia can put out there. Nor do I believe that Cricket Australia is looking to develop young talent for the future: there is simply too much young talent sitting on the “bench”. Conversely, the young “talent” that is being pushed through is being pushed through without semblance of form.

As a fan of the game I fear that Australian cricket and the fans of the team are being done a disservice by those who run the game and the lessons learned from the mid 80s are being lost. It must be remembered that there were dual lessons that came out of the mid 80s: the first being that planning for the retirement of great players is a must and the second that if you pick young or “project” players pick them on form not on reputation. Can you imagine a player with the record of Doherty being picked for the 1985 Ashes?

It is an interesting side bar to consider that 1985 Ashes team and the teams that were selected by the ACB (as it was then) between 1985 and 1989 (when Australian won the Ashes). The 1985 team was belted: but it consisted of the form players from around the land and saw the end of some careers and the blossoming of others. Following that tour the names of Boon, Waugh and Jones started appearing on the Australian team sheets off the back of irresistible domestic form. Before anyone retorts with: it is a worse talent pool now that person needs to stop and think … “has there been a Rebel tour this year?”

I am a fan of the game and that means that I will always support the game. It also means that I have the right to make comment about the game and the teams who play it. If Cricket Australia was fielding a team that included players in form at domestic level and they still lost by an innings and 130 odd runs I would still be commenting about it but I would also know that they were building towards something. The fact is though that this is a team that appears to be selected on an ad hoc basis with a limited plan for the future and whilst I will always be a fan of the game I will not be watching the horror show that is presently playing out in India.

And that is my right as a fan: if I chose to turn off the TV does that make me any less of a fan? The answer must be a resounding no because just because I am not watching the game does not mean I am not thinking about it and yearning for a better (or at least more consistent) team.

The day the cricket died: 2 March 2013

March 2, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , 2 Comments

I have been fairly vocal on Twitter and among friends regarding the selection of the Australian cricket team for the present tour of India and the news of today from India has not sated my negative feelings in this regard.

The first bit of news of the day was that Matthew Wade had suffered a broken cheek bone but was still going to play in the present test match in Hyderabad because there is no reserve wicket keeper on tour with the Australian team. The folly of this from the Australian selections was noted at the time the squad was selected but probably not as fullthroatedly as it might have been given the issues that arose with some of the others included in said team.

For the non-cricket fans among you, this move by the Cricket Australia National Selection Panel is akin to Manchester United travelling to Barcelona for a Champions Trophy Final with only one goal keeper in the squad that travelled over. Now imagine that that goal keeper is injured the morning of the game. Pretty impossible to believe isn’t it!

The second bit of news that, it must be confessed, is the straw that broke the camels back for me was the selection of the team for the second test match now underway. In case you missed it:

1. Mitchell Starc, the pick of Australia’s bowler in the last two test matches of the Australian summer, was dropped for a part time off spinning all-rounder in Glenn Maxwell; and

2. Nathan Lyon, who has been a mainstay of the Australian attack over the last 2 years, was dropped for Xavier Doherty who has 2 first class wickets this summer at an average of 80 runs per wicket.

I have written elsewhere in this blog about who I believed ought to have been selected for this test match and I also considered all of the options for the second spin bowling spot. My views have not changed in this regard.

It is incomprehensible to me that a player, clearly in very poor form in the long form of the game, would be selected ahead of someone who toiled manfully in trying conditions with limited assistance in the first test match. Yet that is exactly what has happened with the selection of Doherty for this test match.

It will concede that I have never been a fan of Glenn Maxwell. My principal objection has been that at all stages throughout the recent Australian summer there were a number of players in better form than him who seemingly had no chance for selection because he was in the frame and the selectors consider him to be a player of the future. I remain unconvinced that he has earned his spot in the squad let alone the team ON FORM.

It is important to note that my objections here are not because I do not like either of Maxwell or Doherty. I have no rationale basis for not liking them given that I do not know them. My objection, as it has been all summer when it has come to the selection of the Australian team, rest squarely on the basis that neither player selected has shown form in the long form of the game cognisant with that which is ordinarily necessary to be considered for selection for Australia let alone actually be selected.

The time to act and stop talking has come though in part because I am sick of the aggravation I am causing myself by worrying about Australian cricket and the team that represents it. I am not watching this current test match, save for reading comments about it on twitter, and will not looking at another test match until the team that enters the arena is one selected on form that I can follow.

I know many of you will disagree with me: that is ok because the support of sport and talking about it all about personal choice. Disagree with me as much you wish but whilst doing so please respect my right to have an opinion and express it.

Rant had. Now back to the Super 15!

The Siddle Conundrum: what should the team for the 2nd test look like?

February 26, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

The second test match between India and Australia starts in Deccan on Saturday. Two things are abundantly clear in the aftermath of the Australia’s abysmal showing in the first test: first that the pitch for the second test will no doubt mirror the first and second that Australia must select two spin bowlers if it is to be competitive in this fixture.

These two factors raise two selection conundrums that are polar opposites: the need to lengthen the batting order against the need for more bowling. There will be immediate calls from some factions of Australian supporters to immediately call into the team one of Glenn Maxwell or Steve Smith who, as all rounders, will have the effect of killing two birds with one stone however the answer to Australia’s bowling ills will not be solved by taking that step in my view. The answer to that question actually rests in the position of Peter Siddle in the team.

Before we get to Siddle it is important examine the “candidates” for the role as second spinner in the Australian team for the second test:

1. Xavier Doherty: An excellent one day bowler, Doherty has been brought on tour as an alternate or second spinning option to Nathan Lyon. Off the bat (pardon the pun) it needs to be acknowledged that his test career to date has been less than stellar as a bowling average after two tests of 102.00 at an economy rate of 4.00 attests. Still he is the second spinner on tour and thus the search for reasons why this selection decision came to pass must also be examined. It can not be based on his first class record: a bowling average of 44.56 does not make for pleasant reading even taking into account the seaming home track he plays on. In the interests of fairness it is also necessary to look at his ODI and List A records and whilst the bowling average there is better an economy rate of around 4.50 is still a worry. A blocker at best with the bat he will do little to strengthen the batting lineup.

2. Glenn Maxwell: Seemingly the anointed next big thing in Australian cricket is a batting all rounder who bowls off spin much in the same style as Nathan Lyon. The interests of variety alone mean the selection chances of Maxwell must, on their face, be slim at best. Selecting another off spinner after your main spinner who is also an offspinner has gone for 200 runs in less than 50 overs is not palatable at best and suicidal at worst in my opinion. Still, in the interest of fairness, an examination of Maxwell’s first class record needs also to be considered in this context. 27 wickets in 24 innings at an average of 34 is not the worst record that one has ever seen before a selection for a test. The problem as I see it is that in those 24 innings, Maxwell has only bowled 1808 balls, or roughly 300 overs. To ask a bowler who averages less than 14 overs an innings at first class level to face the best players of spin in world cricket in a test match could only be detrimental to his development and simply should not happen.

3. Steve Smith:Once the golden boy of Australian cricket, Smith has returned to favour in recent times of the back of some solid performances with the willow. The problem with selecting Smith as a second spinner, and to state the bleeding obvious, is that he barely bowls for his state in first class cricket at, of all places, the best wicket for spin bowling in the country. He bowls for his state even less than Glenn Maxwell and a first class bowling average of over 50 again does not make for confidence inspiring reading. I can not see how Smith could be selected as the second spinner for the next test match or in the future.

The foregoing brief consideration of the possible inclusions into the team as second spinner reveals the yawning chasm in Australia’s spin bowling stocks. Nonetheless given the squad that is in India it is fairly clear that Xavier Doherty needs to be selected as the second spinner in the next test match.

That then leads to the conundrum as to who should be left out of the team. Henriques has done the job he was asked to do in this test match and was impressive batting with captain with the pressure was on. In order to avoid lengthening the tail of Australia’s batting order even further Henriques must remain in the team in my view. Which fast bowler needs then to be dropped (or rotated out) for the second test? The choice is down to two players (assuming Pattinson is fit for the second test) between Mitchell Starc and Peter Siddle. Both failed to take a wicket in the only innings of note (the first) of India in the first test and both performances were concerning.

It is unfortunate but the only conclusion I can reach is that Peter Siddle is the player who must miss out. Coming only 3 matches after he took 9 wickets against Sri Lanka (albeit on a seaming wicket) and given his full hearted performances over recent years this feels like a very hard call however Siddle’s propensity to look innocuous against quality batting on wickets not offering any assistance counts against him here. Mitchell Starc offers greater variety than that offered by Siddle particularly bowling left arm and will have learned some tough lessons after his performance in the first test match.

Despite Australia’s crushing loss in the first test I am only suggesting one change to the team: Siddle out and Doherty in. Whilst the batting order did not perform all that well (the captain aside), with P Hughes looking particularly out of depth against the spin bowling of India, making changes to that lineup would be a reactionary move at this stage.

India have to be short priced favourites for the second test but it was not that long ago that England found themselves in the same situation and they came back to win the series. Here is hoping that X Doherty can do the same for the Australian team as M Panesar did for England in that series. If he can not one fears that this is going to be a very very long and difficult series for the Australian team.

Shumpty’s Punt: a bit of sport and Group 1 Racing

February 15, 2013 By in Shumpty's Punt Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

A few bets for this weekend:

Sports

A small multi for this weekend that I think is on the money:

Leg 1: England to defeat New Zealand in Twenty 20 International paying $1.65.

Leg 2: Melbourne Rebels to cover the line (-7.5 points) against the Western Force in the Super 15 at AAMI Park paying $1.85.

Leg 3: Wales to cover the line (-7.0 points) against Italy in the Six Nations paying $1.90.

Leg 4: Australia to win the 2013 Womens Cricket World Cup paying $1.36.

This multi will return $7.98 for investers. Please note that Leg 1 starts at 3:30pm so get in quickly!

Horse Racing

A couple of bets this weekend:

Brisbane Race 5: Number 5 Peron

Sydney Race 7: Number 1 Fibrillation (each way)

Melbourne Race 6: Number 4 Royal Haunt

Good luck and good punting!

The Warne Manifesto: the end of an inglorious summer for Shane or a new beginning?

February 2, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

The publication by Shane Warne of his widely circulated “manifesto” has led to much social media comment and both support and derision from current and former players, commentators and fans alike.  Shane Warne is a legend of the game and is entitled to his opinion about the state of Australian cricket.  He is entitled, as a public citizen, to give his opinion about everything from poker to potato chips if he so wishes.  I make no comment (save for what follows), affirmative or otherwise, about the strategies Warne suggests: plenty of others have already done so.

The question that I have been turning over in my mind though since the publication of the “manifesto” is whether its publication represents a new beginning for Shane Warne as a statesman of the game or it is simply a footnote of an inglorious summer for a fading champion.  Before answering that conundrum, it is important to consider the summer it has been for Warne.

Shane Warne’s summer of cricket started  with an attempt to lift the profile of the Big Bash League via making himself available for the Ashes and then immediately withdrawing his availability again after ticket sales went through the roof for the first Melbourne Stars fixture of the summer.  Such a transparent attempt at self promotion was followed by two overs of long hops and full tosses that lead to 40 runs being taking off his bowling in a game he so disingenuously sought to promote.

This extravaganza of self interest was followed by a mid-season break to return “home” to England to celebrate the festive season with Ms Hurley which left man pundits and fans alike scratching their heads and questioning his committment to the game.  This was particularly so given that the “other” great spinner in the competition, a bloke from Sri Lanka who holds the record for most wickets in history, didn’t see the need to return home to his family and stayed in Melbourne to play for his franchise during the same period.

Then of course we move to the “battle of Melbourne” between Warne and Marlon Samuels. Regardless of who was the instigator of this most unseemly of incidents, for Warne, in his capacity as an “elder” of the game, it could not have been a worse moment to abuse a fellow player and to act in a fashion unbecoming of a sportsman at any level.  It ought not be forgotten that in the aftermath of the “battle” Warne also displayed a lack of contrition that was as overt as it was unsurprising.  It should also be remembered that his paramour Ms Hurley saw fit to weigh in on the debate via twitter.

The penultimate act of the summer from Shane Warne came in the semi-final of the BBL: setting aside Mr Warne’s failure to read the rules of the competition this was a game in which the greatest leg spinner bowler of all time took the field and did not bowl.  A man with greater than 700 wickets in test match cricket chose not to bowl himself in a sudden death match when his team needed him the most. 

All of these factors combined leads one to the conclusion that it has been a season to forget for Shane Warne.  It should also not be forgotten that before the “Warne manifesto” was published followers of @warne888 were submitted to reading the various complaints of Warne about the state of the Australian cricket team (amongst the spruiking of his poker tournament and declaring his love for Ms Hurley) ending with the declaration that the powers that be in the game are “muppets”. 

With that statement made, the manifesto was born and that leads us back to the current day and the publication of the “Warne manifesto”.  It goes without saying that he makes some valid points.  It also goes without saying that some of his suggests are so impossible in reality as to border on lunacy.  That said, regardless of where you stand on the validity or otherwise of the statements made by Warne, the unmistakable truth is that until Shane Warne decides to stop his international globetrotting with his partner, Ms Hurley, his poker playing and appearances at celebrity golf tournaments and return to Australia and make himself available to be a selector or a coach his manifesto will be considered nothing more than the hot air it actually is.  This is because, no matter who you look at it,the “Warne Manifesto” has the look of the work of someone content to sit on the sidelines and throw stones rather than roll up his sleeves and offer real assistance.

If the “Warne manifesto” was an attempt by its author to push himself forward as a statesman of the game, the failure of the author to actually take action rather than snipe condemns it to be nothing more than a footnote of an inglorious summer for an obviously fading star of the game.  It is that inglorious summer that has the potential to tarnish Warne’s reputation for a long time to come.

I have the same fears for cricket in Australia as Shane Warne does but unlike him I am not in a position to do anything about it. The time for talk is over and the time for action is now.  Shane Warne should be given kudos for trying but he is not the emissary of change cricket in this country needs.  I hope such an emissary appears from the slipstream of Shane Warne’s attempt but I have to concede I am not hopeful.

What is the NSP doing (part 2)? Australia’s T20 Squad announcement / ODI debacle

January 21, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , Leave a comment

This morning Cricket Australia’s National Selection Panel announced it’s squad for two T20 games against Sri Lanka on 26 and 28 January 2013.  The squad is:

  • George Bailey (c)
  • Ben Cutting
  • Xavier Doherty
  • James Faulkner
  • Aaron Finch
  • Ben Laughlin
  • Shaun Marsh
  • Glenn Maxwell
  • Mitchell Starc
  • Adam Voges
  • Matthew Wade
  • David Warner

There are few ommisions  from and inclusions in the team that stick out like the proverbial and warrant comment.  First let me be clear: I have no cavil with the selections of Bailey, Warner, Starc and Wade and make no comment on their lack of form or otherwise in the BBL because they either did not play in it or did not play enough for a good guide to be found.  I would have replaced Wade with T Ludeman if I had my choice but he is the incumbent and has earned  his spot.

I am delighted that Shaun Marsh has received a second opportunity having, seemingly, been in the wilderness after his test form left him and I am also delighted Messrs Finch, Faulkner and Laughlin have received call ups after an excellent BBL season.  There my delight ends.

The failure by NSP to select either of Luke Pomersbach or Ben Rohrer who, along with Shaun Marsh, were the stand out batsmen of the tournament for mine is just incomprehensible.  Rohrer’s performances for the Renegades were every bit as compelling as those of Aaron Finch and drove them to only being one game short of the final and the efforts of Luke Pomersbach were second only to those of Shaun Marsh in the run scoring takes.  In their place are Adam Voges and Glenn Maxwell.  Voges is a fine player but at nearly 34 one must question the longevity of his selection.  Maxwell is so out of form at the moment he can not make the, in must be conceded, below par Australian ODI team and is coming off a seven game stint for the Melbourne Stars where, again, he failed to take a wicket and only got past 20 once.

Surely this was an opportunity to reward an excellent BBL summer from two players who have been on the fringes for a long time with selection.  In going with an older player unlikely to have a long stint in the team and a player out fo form and out of answers yet again the NSP is sending the message that, on the one hand whilst they say they are preparing for the future they actually are not, and, on the other hand, if you are one of their “project players” it matters not what form that player is in.  These are ubundantly the wrong messages in my opinion.

Of course there is also the problem that the team that won the competition again appears to be underrepresented.  I am an unabashed Queensland (Brisbane) fan I concede however it remains incomprehensible to me that a team that wins both the Sheffield Shield and the BBL can only have one player worthy enough for selection in this nations teams in red ball cricket, ODIs and T20.  Forget the argument about whether Chris Hartley is the best wicket keeper in the country; Burns and McDermott are also stars of the future that, if the NSP is genuine in its alleged remit to develop the teams of the future, then surely they, along with the many other young players knocking on the door, should be in the frame for selection rather than seemingly forgotten. 

Innings of 170, 74 and 9/220 (off the back of our number 10 batsman) should be the wake up call that the NSP needs to look hard the top six and truly select a top six that they see representing Australia at the next World Cup in 2015.  Of the current top six can anyone genuinely see, on current form and noting age, the names Bailey, Hussey and Maxwell in that team? Surely now is the time to genuinely plan for 2015 and blood players like Finch, Khawaja, Burns and Lynn (if a spin bowling batsman is needed) with an eye on the future rather than using one day internationals a forums for centre wicket practices for the Ashes as the NSP appears to be. 

Don’t get me wrong, selecting any sort of team is a tough job.  As a fan of the game though, I crave consistency in selection and at present the messages being given by the selection panel, being the failure to select based on domestic form, the continued selection of “project players” and dropping players after a single opportunity, could be nothing further from consistent.