Tag Archives: cricket

David Warner: time to consider a “mature age” apprenticeship?

November 12, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , 1 Comment

Much has been made in the lead up to the current test match being played at the Gabba about question marks, alleged or otherwise, over the form of Ed Cowan. In the context of Cowan’s sparkling century today, has the time now come to move one’s withering gaze to the other end and directly at the form of David Warner?

At the outset, I must concede that I was not a fan of Warner’s initial elevation to the Test team. I thought it was all to quick and in part was based on Warner’s marketability rather than his technique. Equally, based on form last year I was moved to concede that I had been narrow sighted in my early assessment of Warner’s elevation to the top squad after he impressed with a gritty century in his second game in Hobart.

The steady tick of time and further consideration of Warner’s play in more recent times reveals that maybe my initial assessment was right and now is the time to be considering his position in the team.

Three key factors are in play in making any consideration of this issue my view:

First, the statistics: in 10 test matches, Warner averages 39.60 with the willow having made 594 runs in 17 innings. In 2 of those innings Warner scored centuries, including his epic 180 in Perth against the Indians. In 10 of those innings however Warner has scored less than 10.

Second, it has to be acknowledged that Warner has become one of the faces of the game in very short order. This is an issue that vexes me but must be acknowledged because it could well prove very difficult for Cricket Australia to drop Warner without upsetting its commercial partners.

Third, there are some obvious replacements now knocking fairly heavily on the door. Test discards Hughes and Khawaja have had new leases of life in their adopted states, whilst the man presently occupying the number 3 slot in Australia’s order could also do the job at the top of the order should the opportunity arise. These players are all players who have been mentioned as possible replacements for Ed Cowan so why shouldn’t they be considered as possible replacements for Warner?

A question arises here that needs to be considered in the context of this debate: is Warner’s start to his career all that bad compared to those openers that have gone before him? Matt Hayden’s first 10 test matches yielded 413 runs at an average of 25.81 and one hundred. Justin Langer’s first 10 test matches yielded 402 runs at an average of 26.80 and one hundred. Pure numbers suggest that Warner’s start to his career is in fact better than those both of those legends of the game. However, one also must consider that during that span of 10 test matches Hayden was dropped 3 times from the team and Langer was dropped 4 times from the team.

This leads to me to the thrust of my argument in this blog which is this: Warner has the talent to be a top line player for a long time. However, he has not done an apprenticeship in first class cricket before his entry into the test cricket and thus his game is not yet to a state properly refined for the rigours of the top flight of the game. Of his 22 first class games as at today, 10 of those have been test matches. Contrast this to Ed Cowan who is presently playing his 80th first class game of which 72 have been first class fixtures.

Whilst there are two players knocking vociferously on the door in Hughes and Khawaja, the question must be asked as to whether David Warner’s time would be better spent playing first class cricket rather than face the best fast bowlers in the game. Time spent in the best domestic competition in the world would only serve to round the edges of his presently fairly rough game and would, I have no doubt, lead to him coming back a better and more complete player.

Langer and Hayden were dropped, often, and came back stronger having spent upwards of three full seasons in the Sheffield Shield competition. Indeed once they were given time to develop, and dominate, in the Sheffield Shield competition they returned to the “top flight” at the peak of their respective games and then dominated test match cricket too.

I, for one, think that now is the time for Warner to be given time to undertaken a “mature age” apprenticeship in the Sheffield Shield competition, given the quality of replacements waiting in the wings and the current state of Warner’s own form. I know this is an unpopular view, but on form AND in order to make him a better player, there is no time like the present.

I can only hope that the commercial imperatives linked to Warner’s selection do not play a part in any decision regarding his place in the team. It will be a sad day of that is the case.

Australia v South Africa, Day 4: The Keys

November 12, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

An intriguing day beckons at the Gabba today, with today’s action being determinative of whether the game petters out into a boring draw or whether the Proteas are striving for victory on Day 5. I consider there are 5 keys to today’s play that will determine which course the game takes:

1. The Clarke Factor: Say what you like about his captaincy since taking the reigns from Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke has made a fine art in recent times of coming to the wicket with his side three wickets down for not many and righting the ship. So it was again yesterday, as the captain strode to the wicket with the score on a precarious 3-40 and again he righted the ship to put the innings back on an even keel at 3-111. His appetite for big runs last year shows he can bat for long periods and he will need to today to secure what would be honourable draw for his team.

2. The Kleinveldt Conundrum: South Africa’s fourth bowler did not set the world on fire yesterday and will be needed today in the humid heat of the Gabba to bowl a tighter line and to keep the runs to a minimum while giving spells to his more vaunted counterparts Steyn, Morkel and Philander. Without a recognised spinner and seemingly seeking to limit the overuse of Kallis’ back, overs from Kleinveldt could be a determining factor in whether Australia can bat out the day.

3. DRS Drama: Yesterday again saw the DRS system come into play and again saw a wicket overturned as a result of a missed no ball call. Regardless of your views of the technology is it abundantly clear that it is playing a role in the outcome of this fixture. Success today could well hinge, in addition to the bowlers delivering legal deliveries, on who uses the DRS technology the best. South Africa did not loose one of their challenges last night on the Cowan referral so both sides still have two challenges at their disposal.

4. Fever Pitch: Most pundits have noted that the pitch has been slower than it had been in previous years and on the evidence I have seen there can be no denying that. Today presents as a different proposition with blue sky and beating sun being the order of the day. This will dry out the wicket and, as usually happens at the Gabba, make it harder and faster. This could well be a double edge sword for both teams: for Australia it will be become better for batting and for South Africa it will more suit its fast bowling quintet than at any time during the game. Which team uses the changing conditions to their advantage will be the victor of Day 4.

5. Lock it in Eddie: Yesterday we saw just how effective Ed Cowan can be as an opening batsman for Australia. He was judicious in his leaving and when the ball was in “his wheelhouse” he pounced. Impressively he played the way all cricketers have been coached since day dot: he rolled his wrists on his horizontal bat shots and played them along the ground. Today is a massive opportunity for Cowan to force feed the pundits (principally on social media) who don’t think he is up to the test stage a large piece of humble pie.

As I said in the preamble, an intriguing day beckons at the Gabba. First ball will be bowled at 9:30am and I for one can not wait.

Musings of a cricket fan: how do we get more people in the gates?

November 11, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , 2 Comments

We are half way through another cricket test match at the Gabba and, setting aside the washed out second day, already rumblings have started about the size of the crowds attending days one and three of the game.

Such “yarping on” about the support of Queenslanders for test match cricket is nothing new and it must be conceded that, Ashes test matches aside, quite regularly the attendance numbers for the Gabba test match are lower than most would expect.

As a cricket fan who loves test cricket, I have often wondered why this is so and indeed have had pause to consider how cricket administrators can get more fans to the longest and premier form of the game in Queensland. After much reflection I think there are some lessons that could equally apply across the cricket playing world.

Dealing with the “why” issues first in the context of the current test match: some are obvious and others more illusory.

At the outset, the timing of this test match, both this year and in the past, has not helped getting the paying public through the door. Unlike the Melbourne and Sydney test matches (it is always from these centres where most of the grizzling about crowds come from), the bulk of possible paying attendees have to work during at least 3 scheduled days of the test. The Queensland cricket public does not get the benefit of the Christmas / New Year holidays traditionally taken by most and this obviously makes it more difficult for people to get to the game.

This rationale equally applies to getting more children to the game: presently it is not school holidays in Queensland so children attending on Friday, Monday or Tuesday is unlikely to be possible. Add to that that weekends during this time of year are difficult for parents to make time to bring their kids to a cricket game, either because of parties or because the kids themselves are playing sport (again unlike the Christmas / New Year period where such sport is suspended), and really it is unlikely that a large roll up of children is going to occur.

The next obvious issue that effects crowds, and this is, in my view, a more generally applicable issue, is that of cost. Ticket prices this year again increased on last year and it is just a fact of the current state of the world financially that a large number of people do not have available to them the discretionary spending power to be able to afford $65 for a ticket to a day at the cricket. I concede that there were cheaper tickets available than that which I purchased, but even the cheapest ticket (around $40) still presents as an expensive day out for most people.

The cost of the ticket is not the only issue of cost that is making it difficult to justify a day at the cricket. Food and drink prices at sporting arenas in this country are at best high and at worst “day light robbery”. $7.20 for a mid-strength alcoholic beverage is steep. $5 for a 375ml bottle of water is farcical. And do not even get me started on the cost of food.

The final facet of my thoughts about why the crowds are not what one would expect at the Gabba for the first test of the summer is more illusory as I noted in the preamble to this blog. It is this: it is just not fun anymore to go to the Gabba to watch cricket. There are so many rules related to the attendance of a game a cricket at the Gabba these days that for some people the “fun police” have ruined the experience of attending. The “mexican wave” is frowned upon, beach balls are skewered by security guards at the earliest opportunity and the creation of the fabled “beer snake” leads to a visit from two of Queensland’s constabulary. If it is not fun, why should people be enticed to attend?

Now I must stop here and state that some of the very “fun stuff” that has been outlawed irritates me to the point of red misted rage. However, fans, particularly those in certain states of inebriation, love that stuff and anecdotally I am aware the stringency of the rules has lead to less of my cohorts attending the game.

So where does that leave us? Is it simple enough to say that if Queensland Cricket get the timing, pricing and the rules issues right then the fans will rush back? Does this apply equally across all countries?

The timing of the games is obviously something that needs to be looked at but it strikes me as being difficult enough now to fit all of the games to be played in a summer in the schedule so that is unlikely to change.

Making the experience of attending a cricket game more enjoyable for the fans is something that must be looked at and an appropriate balance between stamping out anti-social behaviour and creating a police state within the ground needs to be reached.

The biggest thing that I think needs to be looked at is pricing of tickets for test match cricket. By making the tickets more financially realistic for people it must allow for a broader range of people to attend. One way to do this could be to lift the prices of tickets to T20 and ODI fixtures by $5 each and use those funds to equally subsidise a reduction in the ticket prices of test matches.

Test cricket is the heart of the game and the more fans that get through the gate the more comfortable true fans of the game will be of the long term survival of it. As a Queenslander who loves the first test of the summer and who wants to see the best teams play in that test, administrators of the game in Queensland must look at methods to get more fans to this iconic game with changing the pricing structure being but one of those methods. If this does not happen, it may be another 50 years before we see the best team in the world grace the grass of the Gabba. I truly hope that is not the case.

A day at the cricket: drama, DRS and a dossier

November 10, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Anyone who reads these ramblings will know I love cricket and I love the first day of the first test at the Gabba. I have been attending this day for so long that now I could not even fathom missing it. So it was that yesterday I again made the pilgrimage to the hallowed turf and from the lofty heights of Section 71 Row MM settled in for another First Test Day 1.

Australia’s opponents this year are the best team in the world. It is as simple as that. Possessing the best opposition bowling attack to step onto the Gabba since the fearsome West Indians of 88/89 along with the best batsman in the game, Amla, and my personal pick for the player of his generation, Kallis, the South African present the ultimate test for the Australian team.

When asked in recent weeks about how I thought Australia would go in this test match, my near constant refrain has been that I was worried that South Africa would do to Australia what it did to England in the first test of their recent series and with the score reading 2-251 (Kallis 84*, Amla 90*) at stumps those fears are on the cusp of becoming reality.

What did yesterday teach us that we did not already know though? We already knew that Kallis and Amla are exceptionally classy players. We already knew that whomever won the toss would bat and that the first session would be crucial. We already knew that Australia was a bowler short and would need some luck to go its way to be competitive. We already knew that food and beverage prices at the Gabba are scandalous.

It has oft been said that “it is a funny old game cricket” however yesterday seemed to unfold the way even the most optimistic of Australian cricket fan always kind of thought it would with the South Africans on top with their boot firmly on the throat of this developing Australian lineup.

Much had been made before the game of the “leaking” of Australia’s game plan dossier and by all reports things were on track early on with Smith falling to the LBW dismissal that Australia feel he is susceptible too. That is where the success of the game plans ended: Pietersen punished anything swinging into his pad, Amla was unruffled and untroubled throughout his innings and the “chin music” served up to Kallis was dealt with with ease. Perhaps the South Africans read News Limited papers and knew what was going to be served up to them. Or perhaps such simplistic plans were never likely to succeed against such class players. Whatever the actual state of affairs, the effect of the much vaunted dossier could be expressed to be limited at best.

Yet again the DRS system was in play and yet again it is in the news today under a cloud of controversy. I have written about my views on the DRS system in this blog before and do not propose to tiller over that ground again. Suffice it to say that within the construct of the playing conditions the decisions made using DRS were correct. That should be the end to the whinging; unless the whinge relates to the mechanism for using DRS.

A dropped caught and bowled, a wicket off a no ball, a crowd ejection as a result of a “beer cup snake” gone bad and the all to regular early finish at the Gabba for bad light added drama to what was otherwise the day many of us expected if South Africa won the toss.

My early train trip home gave me a moment of reflection to think about where I ranked my day one experience compared to previous first days at the Gabba. Harmison’s first ball and Siddle’s hatrick remain my favourite days at the Gabba but this one was special for its own reason. I got to see possibly the best player of his generation bat like he rarely has previously in Australia and I got to see the best batsman in the world do what he has been doing to all the other teams in recent times. The fact that they are on the opposing team only takes a limited shine off those facts.

Of course, I also had pause to reflect on the performance of the Australian team. The immediate thought that came to mind is that Australia has, not for the first time during the reign of M Clarke, got their selection wrong. The 3 fast bowlers used had a sameness about them that only the selection of Mitchell Starc would have cured. Furthermore the selection of a batsman with 3 first class wickets at an average of 150 per wicket in the place of a true allrounder (Quiney for Watson) has also been exposed as a mistake.

Having just left the ground following the wash out of day 2, day 3 of this test match beckons as the bailiwick of the summer of Clarke’s Australians: can they use the conditions to their advantage to strike back at the dominant South Africans or will “usual service” resume and the “Amla & Kallis show” continue to roll on? Only time will tell, all I know is that by my count there are now 363 days until Day 1 at the Gabba next year and I for one am already making plans for that day.

Cricket Umpiring: is it time to jettison “neutral umpires”?

October 5, 2012 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

This weekend brings the curtain down on the career of, for mine, the best umpire of my generation Simon Taufel. The statistics do not lie: he won five consecutive ICC Umpire of the Year awards. Since making his international debut in 1999, Taufel has stood in 74 tests, 174 one day internationals and 29 T20 internationals. Simply, he retires as one of the best in the game.

Why then has Simon Taufel’s retirement led me to put fingers to keyboard to write on the topic of umpiring and, more specifically, the issue of “neutral umpires”?

Well the answer is simple, because of the ICC’s slavish focus on the “neutrality” of umpires, Taufel has umpired only 2 of his 74 tests in his home country and, despite being the best umpire in the game in 2003 and 2007, was only able to stand in a World Cup final in 2011 when Australia did not make the final.

I, for one, think this situation is a travesty. The fact that the best umpire in the game has been restrained from umpiring in his home country and could not stand in a fixture that, aside from test match cricket, represents the pinnacle of the game of itself shows the silliness of the present approach to umpiring from the ICC.

For those who don’t follow the great game, since 2001 the ICC has decreed that for test matches and the matches in key tournaments such World Cups only umpires not from the countries of the combatants may stand. This situation arose out of a series of “controversies” relating to allegedly biased umpiring from “home” umpires.

Everyone who follows cricket will remember an example of umpiring that did not quite seem right. I recollect some of the umpiring of the Australian umpires of the 80s that at times was questionable at best. The Rana v Gatting incident brought to light systematically questionable umpiring in the subcontinent. I have read the story of Australia’s first prime minister, Sir Edmund Barton, and his umpiring in a New South Wales v MCC game in the late 1880s (he was the good umpire of two). One could come up with an example to suit any team that you follow.

In the face of ongoing questioning of umpires by the visiting teams, the press and fans of the game first the ICC moved to a system of having one home and one neutral umpire (hence Simon Taufel being able to stand in two home test matches at the start of his career) and then finally ruled that the only way to avoid controversy was to have two neutral umpires.

I have a deep seated dislike for the term “neutral” umpire: the fact is, and I paraphrase the great Harold Bird here, all umpires are neutral. If they are not neutral why are they umpires? I concede that this view means that I have never been a fan of “neutral” umpires being appointed for all test matches. I never saw the need and have always thought that players and press should simply just accept the decisions of the umpires on the field.

Equally I am a realist and thus have ultimately accepted that the appointment of neutral umpires is the way the game is going to be played. My acceptance of this position has changed on reflection since Simon Taufel’s early retirement for one very simple reason: technology.

Cricket today has available to it technology, except in Sri Lanka it is conceded, like it has never had before. The referral system has been put in place in most test matches (except where India plays) and all international tournaments of note to protect against the wrong decisions being allowed to be made.

With the referral system and, indeed, the minute level of scrutiny of each and every decision made by the umpires is it now the case that the ICC can be comfortable that “neutral” umpires are no longer necessary? Surely given the scrutiny of the decisions of our elite umpires the time is now to let those elite umpires stand in their home countries and to make it possible for umpires like Simon Taufel to stand in the finals of World Cups.

Forget that umpires by definition are not biased (naive as that view obviously is), any prospect of an umpire being openly biased (if it were to occur) has to be diminished to basically nil because the result of acting in a biased manner would now be the end of that umpires career.

Now some of you may suggest that my view here does not accord with my previously published views about the need for a DRS system in cricket and respecting the umpire’s decision. My views there are not changed. I still believe that DRS is unnecessary and the umpire is always right. Rather, what I see now is an opportunity to at least allow the best umpires in the world to stand at home by using the very technology that I dislike. That way someone like Simon Taufel would be able to spend his summers at home with his family and, one assumes, umpire for longer.

Of course all of the foregoing is never likely to happen, because the block of countries that run the game are led by a country that does not trust the referral system so I expect the imposition of “neutral” umpires to continue for some time to come. The real risk with that approach is that sooner or later the elite of cricket umpires will decline to stand in tests (example: Peter Willey) because of the time spent away from home: that is a scenario that can not be let happen.

To finish were I started: the international career of Simon Taufel comes to an end this weekend as he takes on the role of Umpire Performance and Training Manager. Our future umpiring stocks, no matter where they come from, are in very good hands.

Shumpty’s Favourite Places: a cricket field … any cricket field

July 17, 2012 By in Shumpty's Favourite Places Tags: , , Leave a comment

I know I committed a while ago to writing about my favourite places on this blog and it has been remiss of me to keep up this part of the blog.

I was asked today by one of my friends to name the places where I am most at ease.  Bizarrely, my immediate thought was that I was most at ease on the cricket field when I was playing.  That got me thinking about some of the places I had played the game and it made me realise that a cricket field, any cricket field, is one of my favourite places.

Cricket is a game that I revere: I have played it, coached it, umpired it, watched it, studied it and written at about and a cricket ground is the church as which I worship the game that I love.

When I was playing the game the first thing I did every time I got to a ground was take a walk around the boundary and take in the surrounds, then I would walk out to the pitch and get a sighter of the conditions.  The smells of a cricket field were a comfort for me and relaxed me before crossing the boundary rope to play: the freshly cut grass, the white paint used to mark the creases and the mixed aroma of suncream, “deep heat” and Juicy Fruit all combined to make me feel like I was at home.

One of the best places on earth: a cricket field (Allan Border Field)

I was fortunate enough as a player to have the opportunity to travel up and down the coast of Queensland, through New South Wales and to New Zealand to play cricket and all of those aromas and sites were essentially the same.  It would be fair to say that one of the great allures of cricket grounds for me and one of the reasons I was always at ease was that consistency.

I associate some of my fondest memories of childhood with time spent on cricket grounds. I remember fondly (among other memories):

  1. My first six at Ivor Marsden 2 in Ipswich off an off spin bowler called Doyle in Under 16’s (I was a late bloomer) and my dad yelling from the side line to “get my head down” … I got out next ball.
  2. Captaining the Booval Cricket Club Under 14s to victory in a final against the North’s team led by one of my best mates John Ruscoe on the old concrete pitch at Timothy Maloney Park in Ipswich.
  3.  Taking 5 for 5 in a game in Toowoomba at the Downlands School as part of the Ipswich Grammar School under 16Bs and then spending two hours waiting for the bus to take us home to Ipswich because the game was over within the first hour.
  4. The first time I ever cramped up after playing a game of cricket in Cairns after opening the bowling for South East Queensland in an under 14 state title and having a laugh with my team mates when I had to be carried back to the team bus.

My favourite field to play on was the old Ipswich Grammar School No 1 Oval.  I did not get to play there much as the season I was in grade 12; the confluence of a wet Queensland summer and a 1st XI coach who did not think I was any good (he may or may not have been correct) meant that I can only recall playing there twice but to this day I don’t believe I have played anywhere better.  Surrounded by a white picket fence with turf nets and gardens at one end and over looked by one of the school’s two boarding towers and the music school with an amphitheatre of stairs on which viewers could sit I remember it being just the best place to play cricket I could think of.  The grass was like carpet, the pitch was always true and you could sit right being the bowler’s arm and watch the play.  I loved the joint and wish I had have played there more.  I also loved sitting around and talking to the other guys in the team.  It will not surprise that I was far from the most popular guy at school and it was only during those times watching, training and playing cricket on No 1 Oval that I felt like I was “part of the gang”.

Aside from the odd comeback here and there to play with mates, I have not played competitive organised cricket since I hurt my back as a 19 year old.  I have compensated for that by becoming a vociferous watcher of the game.  Be it an international game, a state game or a local club game I try to sit myself behind the bowlers arm and watch the play.

I have not missed the first day of the Brisbane test match since 1999 and if I have my way I will never miss one till I die.  I often try to go to Queensland Bulls Sheffield Shield games on a Sunday and just watch the play for hours and if the stars align and I am in Ipswich on a Saturday I try to find out where my old club is playing and go along for a look.

To this day, the ‘Gabba is my favourite ground to watch cricket.  It was my favourite ground back when the dog track still ran around it and it is my favourite ground now.  I remember being on the hill when Carl Rackemann took the catch that won Queensland its first Sheffield Shield in 1995 (to this day my parents think I was at Uni) and I was there for Steve Harmison’s first ball to second slip in the 2006.  There is no better place to watch cricket in my view that high in the stand at either end of the ground behind the bowler’s arm.  I could, and have, sat there for hours just watching the game.

A cricket field, any cricket field, is one of my favourite places, not just because I love cricket but because at a cricket ground I feel completely at home.  Now all I have to do is bide my time until September, for cricket season to start so I can get back to one of my favourite places.