Vale Phil Hughes: cricket will never be the same again

Today marked the funeral of Australian cricketer Phil Hughes.  I commented on twitter that I have tried to write a tribute to him and started probably 20 drafts of such a tribute but just could not finish it.  Cricket has been a dominant force in my life since I was seven years old and in the 30 years hence I have been a player, a coach, an umpire  and a scorer as well as just being a student of the game.  The death of a player from an accident on the field has shocked me and saddened me more than I could ever have imagined.

I confess that I was not a massive fan of Phil Hughes: indeed I was oft a proponent of him not being in the team.  Equally I admired both his perseverance in the face of the adversity of being in and out of the Australian team and his keenness to seek to improve his game.  What shocked me most though was the fact that this accident could have happened to any one of the thousands of batters who play cricket each weekend or, indeed, in their back yards.  As a player I both was hit in the head by cricket balls and I hit batters in the head which has led, I am sure, to part of my shock at Phil Hughes’ loss because I keep seeing those I hit in my mind.

Phil Hughes’ untimely and tragic passing represents a significant moment of pause in the game.  Domestic cricket in Australia has been stopped, a test match against the super power of the game postponed and the cricket family the world around has been overt in its grief.  Today’s celebration of Phil Hughes’ life may lead to a lifting of the pause but it will also lead, in my view, to a seismic shift in the way the game is played (or at least I hope it will).

Of late I have bemoaned a lack of civility that has seemed to pervade the game.  Winning at all costs including the use of personal and vocal attacks on opponents and officials has become a talisman of the game and it has turned fans of the game away from it.  If the passing of Phil Hughes teaches those who play the game at all levels nothing, it must teach us that cricket is just a game.  Yes tempers will flare from time to time but surely the personal hyperbole and aggressiveness now must stop.  Life is too short and those closest to us can be taken away from us in a blink of an eye.  I hope in my heart of hearts that players, playing in the memory of Phil Hughes, are kinder to each other on the field.  I hope that is Phil Hughes’ legacy.

Many, principally non-cricket fans and those who wish to take advantage in situations like this, have pushed for a change to the laws of the game around the bowling of short balls.  In this regard there should, nay there must, not be a change in the way the game is played.  Short pitched deliveries have been part of the game since the days of Grace and Spofforth and this accident could have happened to any batter batting at any time in the games long history.

The cricket family has been united and vocal in its grief.  Now the cricket family must unite again and support those who return to the field to play in Phil Hughes’ honour: that is the best way we can all honour him.

Vale Phil Hughes.

Replacing Michael Clarke: the case for an unusual suspect

Depending on which news service you read MIchael Clarke has been ruled out of the first test to face India at the Gabba next week.  This news will, as always, lead to much hand wringing as to who ought replace him.  We all know that Cricket Australia will do what they usually do and pick a replacement from one of Phil Hughes, George Bailey or Glenn “Goat Photos” Maxwell.  That being said, I have had a look at the formlines of players playing in Australia at the moment and have come up with an unusual suspect to replace the captain in the first test: Tom Cooper.

Now before you stop reading here is my method behind this selection.  My replacement for the captain must:

  • Be a specialist batsman
  • Averaging over 40 in first class cricket over a career: the notion that a batter averaging under 40 against 2nd tier bowling is ready for test match cricket is one that it ridiculous to me.  We have to stop picking under performing batters.  This counts out George Bailey, Peter Forrest, Shaun Marsh, Aaron Finch and Nick Maddinson.
  • Aged under 30: it is time to start selecting from the youth playing the game and think about the future.  This counts out Adam Voges and Cameron White.
  • Bat at number 4 or 5 for his state team: much like batting in the top order batting at number 4 or 5 is a specialist position.  We have seen this experiment fail with attempt to turn Phil Hughes and Shane Watson into middle order players.  This counts Phil Hughes out.  It also counts out Callum Ferguson who has transitioned to number 3 this year.
  • Must have scored a first class hundred this season.  This counts out Peter Neville.

If you work through all of the players playing in Australia at the moment only one man fits this criteria: Tom Cooper.  Add to the fact that he has significant international experience, albeit with the Netherlands, and, to me, he is the best replacement available to Cricket Australia for the 1st test and should be in the baggy green.  I would bat him at 5 and move the in form Steve Smith up to number 4.

Of course, as I said in the preamble, Cricket Australia will, I expect, hold true to form and select from their tightly held circle of usual suspects.  Personally I expect the selection of Phil Hughes to made with Shane Watson to drop down to number 4.  That is the predictable way to go without no thought to the future which is the ball park Cricket Australia constantly plays in.

 

An Open Letter to Cricket Australia

Dear Cricket Australia,

I am a long time fan of the game, some 30 years have passed since I first strapped on a pad, but a first time correspondent.  I write to implore you to bring an end to the charade that is domestic cricket in this country.

Until recent times, the domestic competitions in Australia, consisting of the Sheffield Shield and 50 over competition, were the benchmark world wide whilst also providing the benchmark for selection in the Australian team.  Simply, albeit with some exceptions obvious to those sitting in Queensland, if you performed in the domestic competitions you had a chance to be selected.  Of late, as confirmed by the events of today, it has become clear that the status of the domestic competitions as the last bastion before selection to the Australian team is no longer.

It has never been more clear that this is the case after the selection of the Australia One Day International team to face South Africa announced today.  The squad announced is:

Michael Clarke (capt.), George Bailey, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Aaron Finch Josh Hazlewood, Mitchell Johnson, Mitchell Marsh, Glenn Maxwell, Kane Richardson, Steve Smith, Matthew Wade (wk), David Warner, Shane Watson

The selection of Matthew Wade is, without question, a travesty and completely out of touch with the form shown by wicketkeepers in the just completed Matador BBQs Cup.  Consider these numbers arising from this just completed competition:

Player Games Innings Runs Average S/R
Matthew Wade 6 6 101 16.83 63.52
Chris Hartley 8 8 403 57.57 83.09
Peter Neville 8 8 267 33.37 69.89
Tim Paine 6 6 249 49.8 91.88

I am an unashamed Queensland fan and thus will not always advocate for the selection of Chris Hartley.  This time his form in the domestic competition not just warrants  it, it demands it.  However, even forgetting the form of Hartley the selection of Wade ahead of Neville or Paine is equally as unexplainable on form.

If players can not get selected in the Australian team even when they are in exemplary form or, as a minimum, better form than the person selected then it stands to reason that form in the domestic competitions counts for nothing.

That being the case I ask that you put these domestic competitions out of their metaphorical misery, save some money and end them.  They serve no practical purpose anymore and that would open up the schedule to allow you to put more T20 domestic games on which you so sorely and clearly crave.

Best Regards,

A long-suffering fan

Cricket: Ajmal banned … but will it stick?

Saeed Ajmal, Pakistan’s spin wizard and the taker of over 400 combined international wickets since 2008, was banned from bowling in all forms of the game having been found to have an illegal bowling action.

For those who missed it the ICC has been quoted thusly:

“An independent analysis has found the bowling action of Pakistan’s offspinner Saeed Ajmal to be illegal and, as such, the player has been suspended from bowling in international cricket with immediate effect,” the ICC said. “The analysis revealed that all his deliveries exceeded the 15 degrees level of tolerance permitted under the regulations.”

The testing was undertaken at the National Cricket Centre in Brisbane by an ICC accredited panel of bio-mechanical experts.

Whilst there are conspiracy theories already abounding on social media about Ajmal’s tests and banning and there have just as many advocates for simply allowing Ajmal to keep bowling because he, and his ilk, are “good for the game” it is important to note that, as the laws of the game presently stand this is the only decision available to the ICC given the view that the bio-mechanical experts have taken.

The conspiracy theorists and Ajmal advocates clearly do not understand the law or the process.  That being the case it is worth setting same out as follows.

The Law

Law 24, Clause 3 of the Laws of Cricket defines a fair delivery with respect to the arm:

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

Since 2003 this law has been interpreted as having a level of tolerance when it comes to straightening the elbow joint by no more than 15 degrees.  Put differently: a bowling action will be illegal if, in delivery, the elbow joint is straightened by more than 15 degrees.

The process from here

Effectively, Ajmal is now banned from bowling in all forms of cricket until he can prove that his bowling action, for all deliveries, is legal. Because this is Ajmal’s first suspension he can apply for reinstatement at any point in time.

Of course, there is an appeal process which can be summarised as follows:

  • The player can seek a hearing appealing the decision of the bio-mechanical experts.
  • The appeal is held in front of bowling review group selected by the ICC.
  • This group will review evidence and decide, by a simple majority vote, on the legality of the player’s action.
  • If the player is cleared the suspension will be lifted immediately.  If not the player can still apply for reinstatement assuming he can prove that he has corrected his action.

Will the ban stick?

It will be very interested to see if Ajmal’s ban is upheld when the inevitable appeal is made.  Ajmal has been quoted in the press as follows:

“My elbow is not usual so that’s why it seems that I bend it more than the normal 15 degrees allowed.”

This is an argument that has been in defence of other bowlers with questionable actions who have been allowed to continue to play the game and, indeed, set bowling records.

Ajmal is a one of the best bowlers in the game.  He is presently the number 1 bowler in the ICC ODI rankings.  His banning is massive news in the game.  That said: if his action is in breach of Law 24, Clause 3 then he, just like any other player must go through the process.

I, for one, hope the ICC resists the temptation to subvert their own process and, absent compelling evidence on appeal, set aside Ajmal’s ban on the grounds of his stature in the game.  I also hope that Ajmal takes remedial action and returns as bowler with a legal action because his bowling a delight to watch when he is in form.

This is certainly not the last we have heard of this story by a long chalk and the next machinations will fascinate.

Jadeja v Anderson: why making a complaint was the right thing to do!

I have read with much amusement the shenanigans going on between the England and India test match cricket teams in England this week.  For those how have missed it here is a summation of what has gone on:

  • James Anderson (England) and Ravindra Jadeja (India) were involved in a verbal altercation during the first test at Trent Bridge last week.
  • That altercation continued after the players adjourned from the field for a lunch break which lead to a physical altercation.
  • Said altercation was not witnessed by the umpires and no report was made to the match referee, David Boon, about it.
  • When the Indian team raised the matter with Boon he suggested the teams work it out amongst themselves.
  • India, not sated, complained to higher-ups within the ICC leading to Anderson being charged with a Level 3 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct.
  • England have made a complaint now against the Jadeja.

Much has been made in the competing press about the charges and whether India should have pushed the matter the way that they have.  The fact is that I think they were 100% right to make the complaint they did and here is why:

  • The issue of player behaviour on the field is one that has been festering for some time.  I have no cavil with sledging, as I have written about before, but increasingly, particularly in situations where one team is on top in a game, we are seeing overt discussions between opposing players that continue for more than just a ball but for overs on end and, indeed, whole days of play.  This is, at best, ugly, and, at worst, not in the spirit of the game.  The fact that another such incident spilled over the change rooms might be OK in country cricket but it can not be acceptable at the top level of the game.
  • The days of players “going around the back of the pavilion” to sort out a problem are long gone.  Anyone cogently suggesting that the players should have been left to their own devices to do that is not instep with current community values.
  • James Anderson is a serial offender when it comes to going to too far when it comes to sledging and on field aggression and, one suspects, the fact that he has not been brought into line played a part in his poor conduct on this occasion.  Let’s not forget that in all of the kerfuffle about Michael Clarke’s threat to “break Anderson’s arm” in the first test at the Gabba in 2013 it was Anderson who had threatened physical violence against George Bailey that lead to that confrontation.

There is a lot of anger and aggression, it would seem, between certain teams in international cricket at the moment.  It seems every game involving Australia, South Africa, England and India (or a combination of any of them) includes an unseemly incident or series of incidents between the teams.  The fact that one of those incidents has spilled over to an off the field incident necessarily requires a strong response and by complaining to the ICC, India should be applauded for the stand they are taking.

PostScript: It is not lost on me that India are often the most aggressive of teams in that list noted above and, indeed, it might be considered hypocritical for them to be such an active complainant here.  I concede that their conduct is not blameless but at some point someone has to take a stand and I am glad that someone had regardless of who it is or how hypocritical it might be.

Cricket: 4 wickets in 4 balls … WOW!

Alphonso Thomas, the journeyman fast medium bowler from Cape Town, has had a day out for Somerset today in its Division One County Championship game against Sussex at Taunton taking 4 wickets in 4 balls. A link to the score card is here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2014/engine/match/692783.html

The mythical “double hatrick” is a rare beast having only been achieved 40 times in first class cricket.  Here is a list of the players who have preceded Thomas in achieving this feat:

J Wells Kent v Sussex Brighton 1862
G Ulyett Lord Harris’ XI v New South Wales Sydney 1878-79
G Nash Lancashire v Somerset Manchester 1882
JB Hide Sussex v MCC Lord’s 1890
FJ Shacklock Nottinghamshire v Somerset Nottingham 1893
AD Downes Otago v Auckland Dunedin 1893-94
F Martin MCC v Derbyshire Lord’s 1895
AW Mold Lancashire v Nottinghamshire Nottingham 1895
W Brearley Lancashire v Somerset Manchester 1905
S Haigh MCC v Army XI Pretoria 1905-06
AE Trott* Middlesex v Somerset Lord’s 1907
FA Tarrant Middlesex v Gloucestershire Bristol 1907
A Drake Yorkshire v Derbyshire Chesterfield 1914
SG Smith Northamptonshire v Warwickshire Birmingham 1914
HA Peach Surrey v Sussex The Oval 1924
AF Borland Natal v Griqualand West Kimberley 1926-27
JEH Hooker New South Wales v Victoria Sydney 1928-29
RK Tyldesley Lancashire v Derbyshire Derby 1929
RJ Crisp Western Province v Griqualand West Johannesburg 1931-32
RJ Crisp Western Province v Natal Durban 1933-34
AR Gover Surrey v Worcestershire Worcester 1935
WH Copson Derbyshire v Warwickshire Derby 1937
WA Henderson NE Transvaal v Orange Free State Bloemfontein 1937-38
F Ridgway Kent v Derbyshire Folkestone 1951
AK Walker * Nottinghamshire v Leicestershire Leicester 1956
SN Mohol President’s XI v Combined XI Pune 1965-66
D Robins South Australia v New South Wales Adelaide 1965-66
PI Pocock * Surrey v Sussex Eastbourne 1972
SS Sain Delhi v Himachal Pradesh New Delhi 1988-89
D Dais W Province (Suburbs) v Central Province Colombo 1990-91
Ali Gauhar Karachi Blues v United Bank Peshawar 1994-95
KD James* Hampshire v Indians Southampton 1996
GP Butcher Surrey v Derbyshire The Oval 2000
Fazl-e-Akbar PIA v Habib Bank Lahore 2001-02
CM Willoughby Cape Cobras v Dolphins Durban 2005-06
Tabish Khan Karachi Whites v Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Karachi (UBL) 2009-10
N Wagner Otago v Wellington Queenstown 2010-11

This is, frankly, an amazing feat and one, it must be noted, that has never been achieved in the test match arena.

Well played Alphonso!