It’s important, when you’re doing something resembling day by day commentary on a Test match, to get your blog piece finished before the day’s play. Developments after play has resumed tend to render some of what you’ve written irrelevant, and you're left fiddling around and adjusting things to meet the changes in the match situation.
I’d spent a good hour and a bit on Saturday morning on a piece provisionally titled It’s Not Rocket Surgery, largely based around the question of what we were doing inserting England after winning the toss on a wicket that didn’t seem to be offering the usual reasons for doing so.
Around eight-ten I wandered out of the air-conditioned office, planning a shower, breakfast, and a wrap up of the piece before play resumed at nine-thirty.
I emerged to find The Supervisor engaged in gardening activities with a list of accumulated tasks that required my immediate attention. It was lucky I emerged when I did because otherwise I’d probably have been late for the resumption.
Day Two in Melbourne had delivered a fair bit to think about, and it was hard to see how we were going to get ourselves out of a substantial hole, and harder to think of ways we could afford a fairly crushing defeat, and you’d have to put most of the blame, up to that point in time, on the decision to insert the opposition.
Pondering those matters as I lay in bed that morning I kept coming back to that very useful and much-encompassing phrase It’s not rocket surgery.
I might have picked that up from Kerry O’Keefe, who announced his impending retirement as Australia moved inexorably towards nine-for, but that combination of rocket science, with its accompanying notions of physics, gravity and aerodynamics and the attention to fiddly detail that would have to be a key ingredient in successful brain surgery epitomises something about matters of cricket strategy.
It is, when you get down to tin tacks, a very simple game. Someone bowls, attempting to hit the wicket. Someone defends the wicket and attempts to score some runs along the way.
And long-held adages are long held because they tend, year after year, season after season, to work.
Take the notion that you win the toss and bat. Filter it through the wisdom of the well-known English master of gamesmanship W.G. Grace, which went something like this:
If you win the toss, bat.
If you have reservations, give them some consideration, and bat.
If you have serious concerns, discuss them with a colleague, and bat.
I spent a bit of time after Day One pondering why we won the toss and sent England in, and after a salutary lesson yesterday, spent some time overnight pondering what I could only see as a tendency to get too smart too soon.
That might seem like taking some credit off an English attack that managed to get things pretty right, but you can only play as well as you’re allowed to and the insertion, to a large extent, helped to set things up for them.
I’m not suggesting there aren’t situations where you won’t be inclined to send the opposition in after you’ve won the toss, but they generally don’t line up well against the reasons why you tend to choose to bat.
Let’s look at those for a moment.
First, in any game, batting first ends up reading we’ve got ‘em, they’ve got to get ‘em. Knowing the target, or the score, you’re defending gives you some room to manoeuvre with your tactics and general approach.
Second, and this particularly applies to a two innings game played over two-hour sessions, batting first means you’re probably guaranteed a full two hour session and a single start to the innings. Sure, it might rain, but unless it does, your openers are only going to start once.
From there, unless the final wicket falls immediately beside a break, the team batting second, third and fourth are likely to have to get themselves through two spells with the new ball. Yesterday illustrated that point perfectly.
England might have been bundled out fairly briskly, but they used up enough time to leave thirteen overs until the Lunch break, collecting Warner and Watson along the way. They got Clarke to the crease early, and had two goes at him, eventually claiming him fairly cheaply. We’d struggled to nine-for and the prospect of a substantial deficit leading into England’s second innings.
Which brings us to the third reason for batting first, namely, if you bat first that probably means they bat last, possibly on a deck where batting would be starting to present difficulties. By that point, if it’s going to take turn it should have something for the spinners. If not, it’ll probably be increasingly slow and low which tends to make batting rather difficult.
That doesn’t mean you’re never going to bowl first, but by doing so you’re forfeiting certain other advantages. That first day Melbourne deck definitely seemed to lack justification for insertion.
What we got on Day Three, from where I was sitting, right up to the lunch break, didn’t do much to change perceptions. Haddin and Lyon stuck around, scored at a reasonably brisk clip, and got us within reach of the England first innings total.
Good. Tick. But still not where we wanted to be.
With a bit over an hour to bat until Lunch, England progressed to 0-54 with Cook looking pretty good while Carberry did a Tavare impersonation. We got a slight turnaround in that middle session, with Cook going first, Carberry following not long afterwards, followed by the unfortunately-named Root and Bell in quick succession.
it’s possible something like the two brain farts that produced these two dismissals formed part of the decision to insert on Day One, but I’m inclined to dismiss that suspicion. Root seemed to forget that Johnson is a left armer, hit the ball to hit left and ran. Possibly England rate Mitchell’s fielding on a par with their perception of his bowling, but a direct hit did the business.
Bell then proceeded to hit his first ball straight down Johnson’s throat, presenting Lyon with the first of his five-for.
That made things look better, but with Pietersen at the crease with Stokes and Bairstow, Bresnan and Broad to follow before the tail emerged, at 4-87 you’d still reckon they’d be looking good for around 220, which with the fifty run first innings lead would make for a tricky run chase.
Stokes went at 5-131 and Bairstow at 6-173, buy even at that point you’d have been rating 220 as a reasonable par score. Counting Bairstow, they then proceed to lose 5 for 6. Remarkable.
Even more remarkable was the Lyon analysis. 5-50 off 17 thank you very much.
Of course, he was helped by having Johnson at the other end, and the speed of the England demise gave us a neat little eight over spell to reduce the target from 231 to 201 in circumstances that might have been tricky if the England bowlers weren’t (and I’m assuming this to be the case) rather shocked by the fact that they were out in the paddock again.
In any case, what could have been a rather tricky session added thirty, reduced the target and failed to bring the limping Watson to the crease.
And from there, Day Four unfolded pretty well according to the script. A century to Rogers after Warner went at the end of the 17th over, a gritty 83 to Watson, who looked committed to delivering the goods and a red ink 6 to Clarke and we were home and hosed at 4-zip in the five Test series.
So, Hughesy, surely that takes care of those concerns of yours?
Actually, it doesn’t. The decision to insert suggested we were heading off into what has been a tricky area for Australia when we start looking to toy with the opposition’s mental processes. We’re at our best when we keep it very simple and snarl and gouge our way through the opposition.
I took myself through the lap around town this morning pondering these matters further, and came to the conclusion that this whole turn around from the English half of the dual series has come down to the bowling quartet, and the fact that they’ve restricted England to a modest total every time they’ve batted, and sparked a few spectacular collapses along the way.
Looking forwards, you’d have to fancy our chances in South Africa and beyond, but only as far as this particular bowling quartet (with Watson hovering on the periphery) are in action. Remove one element, and things are going to be substantially different.
The key here is Johnson and the important issue as far as he is concerned is the fear factor. A while back there were suggestions he would drop his pace back and bowl line and length the way his mentor and chief sponsor Dennis Lillee did in the later part of his career.
Don’t even think of it. He’s there to scare, particularly if the opposition aren’t inclined to rate him. End of story.
And when he goes, whatever the reason for his departure, he needs to be replaced by someone who has genuine pace and aggression. Not by someone who bowls dry. We’ve already got two blokes who do that. We don’t need a third. Go in with three dries and a spinner and the spinner might get among the wickets as the opposition look for runs where they can get them. They’re equally likely to sit back and wait until the quicks tire and then take their toll on a flagging attack.
That’s not rocket surgery either.
The beauty of this Australian attack is the balance. Two workhorses, one wild card and a spinner who learned his trade bowling in circumstances where everybody down to Eleven is inclined to Slap, particularly when the bowler is a slightly-built bloke bowling finger spin.
Harris and Siddle will keep trundling in and bowl their guts out for you. They’ll take wickets and keep things tight, Johnson has the left armer angle, and genuine pace, Lyon does what he does and if Watson bowls you’ve got a fourth medium pacer with The Genuine Quickie Mentality.
It’s handy. It’s working at the moment. Don’t tinker with it too much, and if you must tinker, don’t mess with the basics.
Watson and Harris must have question marks over the fitness going into Sydney. Possibly you rest one or both of them.
If it’s Watson, replace him with Faulkner and bat Clarke at Three. Give Faulkner a decent workout with the ball and hope to get Harris through relatively unscathed.
Rest Harris and it’s a different matter. The first question then becomes whether Watto is there and whether he’s going to bowl. He probably isn’t, so you're going to be looking for a workhorse. Coulter-Nile? Bollinger? Cutting?
Cricinfo will be providing some very interesting reading over the next day or two…
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Melbourne Day One
Having managed to sleep in, which ruled out a morning walk, and with plenty of writing backlog to work on it took a while to turn my attention to the events of Day One in Melbourne.
An hour’s walk would have provided something to hang England’s 6-226 on, but on a slow day you’d have to dig fairly thoroughly if you were going to avoid being overly negative. You could, after all, make a fairly solid case for watching paint dry as more interesting than the English run crawl.
Record chase more entertaining than run chase was one headline that caught the eye on the ABC News website, and wasn’t far off the mark. The so called world record for attendance, of course, probably isn’t. There have almost certainly been larger crowds at Kolkata’s Eden Gardens, and there have definitely been many more entertaining Day Ones.
The key issue, having missed Adelaide and Melbourne, has been the decision to insert the old enemy after winning the toss, when the natural inclination in almost every set of circumstances is to win the toss and bat.
Clarke certainly didn’t seem that sure it was a good idea, but there are two angles that might be worth pondering.
First, of course, there might just have been something in the pitch, and it was good luck rather than good management that got Root through to the Lunch score of 1-71. Cook lasted an hour or so, and with an extra break through in that first session England could well have gone into a downhill slide. Three catches would have helped in that regard as well, and it’s interesting looking at the day’s play to ponder how much damage has been done to the English esprit de corps.
They’re not quite broken. Yet. But it might be close.
One thing that did disturb me was the lack of an aggressive response to blatant time wasting by Kevin Pietersen towards the end of the day’s play. Maybe he was just out to do what he could to get his side through to Stumps without further damage, but I suspect there was an additional bit of Niggle in there. It wasn’t what you’d call subtle time-wasting.
I would have liked to see a rather aggressive approach to the umpires, something along the lines of making sure he has to pay if we get slugged for slow over rates. The consensus in the commentary box seemed to be a belief there was very little the umpires could do about it, but I’d have been interested in seeing what would have happened if a protest about time-wasting had been followed by an appeal for Obstructing the Field.
To quote the first sentence of Law 37: Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.
You’re not going to get it, of course. But you ask. And, just maybe, by repeating the appeal ad nauseam when the fielding side is in position and ready to go, and KP is wasting time you’re underlining the fact that you’re onto what he’s up to.
And a bush lawyer would be able to make plenty out of those words willfully attempts, obstruct or distract and action.
The other thing with the decision to insert might have been a degree of interest in seeing how we go when the coin falls the other way and the opposition decide to bat. Given the notion that the coin falls fifty-fifty you’d possibly want to see how things run in that sort of situation when the coin fails to co-operate.
But there’d also be a degree of seeing how close to broken they are, matched with the knowledge that we’re in for a much more competitive series in a month and a half’s time.
Juggling my attention between the resumption of play and the attempt to fill in the commentary, at thuds point, having just seen Johnson strike twice, with Pietersen as the second victim, let’s just turn our attention to the screen.
An hour’s walk would have provided something to hang England’s 6-226 on, but on a slow day you’d have to dig fairly thoroughly if you were going to avoid being overly negative. You could, after all, make a fairly solid case for watching paint dry as more interesting than the English run crawl.
Record chase more entertaining than run chase was one headline that caught the eye on the ABC News website, and wasn’t far off the mark. The so called world record for attendance, of course, probably isn’t. There have almost certainly been larger crowds at Kolkata’s Eden Gardens, and there have definitely been many more entertaining Day Ones.
The key issue, having missed Adelaide and Melbourne, has been the decision to insert the old enemy after winning the toss, when the natural inclination in almost every set of circumstances is to win the toss and bat.
Clarke certainly didn’t seem that sure it was a good idea, but there are two angles that might be worth pondering.
First, of course, there might just have been something in the pitch, and it was good luck rather than good management that got Root through to the Lunch score of 1-71. Cook lasted an hour or so, and with an extra break through in that first session England could well have gone into a downhill slide. Three catches would have helped in that regard as well, and it’s interesting looking at the day’s play to ponder how much damage has been done to the English esprit de corps.
They’re not quite broken. Yet. But it might be close.
One thing that did disturb me was the lack of an aggressive response to blatant time wasting by Kevin Pietersen towards the end of the day’s play. Maybe he was just out to do what he could to get his side through to Stumps without further damage, but I suspect there was an additional bit of Niggle in there. It wasn’t what you’d call subtle time-wasting.
I would have liked to see a rather aggressive approach to the umpires, something along the lines of making sure he has to pay if we get slugged for slow over rates. The consensus in the commentary box seemed to be a belief there was very little the umpires could do about it, but I’d have been interested in seeing what would have happened if a protest about time-wasting had been followed by an appeal for Obstructing the Field.
To quote the first sentence of Law 37: Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.
You’re not going to get it, of course. But you ask. And, just maybe, by repeating the appeal ad nauseam when the fielding side is in position and ready to go, and KP is wasting time you’re underlining the fact that you’re onto what he’s up to.
And a bush lawyer would be able to make plenty out of those words willfully attempts, obstruct or distract and action.
The other thing with the decision to insert might have been a degree of interest in seeing how we go when the coin falls the other way and the opposition decide to bat. Given the notion that the coin falls fifty-fifty you’d possibly want to see how things run in that sort of situation when the coin fails to co-operate.
But there’d also be a degree of seeing how close to broken they are, matched with the knowledge that we’re in for a much more competitive series in a month and a half’s time.
Juggling my attention between the resumption of play and the attempt to fill in the commentary, at thuds point, having just seen Johnson strike twice, with Pietersen as the second victim, let’s just turn our attention to the screen.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Resuming the Commentary
While I was always confident we’d be retrieving The Ashes from foreign interests by the end of this series I didn't expect to be sitting down two days out from Boxing Day contemplating a five-nil whitewash.
The Inquisitive Reader may have been wondering at the lengthy silence following the win at The Gabba, something that stemmed from the fact that Hughesy wasn’t in the country. We were still part way through the English half of the two part series when I heard about a run of four Elvis Costello Spinning Songbook concerts in Japan. That looked like a reasonable excuse to head across to ride around on bullet trains.
The Interested Reader will find details of those shows over on The LHoC Music blog, or the LHoC web site but in between concerts and shinkansen excursions I was actually following the scores. Things would have been better if the feed from the Cricket Australia app on the iPad wasn’t geoblocked, but you can’t have everything.
And even with the prospect of a whitewash there’s no room for complacency because from what I’ve read it looks like we’re still only operating around 95%.
The important thing to remember before we get down to gloating is that this is a side that has been assembled to complete a task, and while we’re well on the way to doing that, a couple of issues will need to be dealt with on the way to reclaiming that #1 Test ranking, which is what we’re after.
Look at the current side and we’ve got Rogers, Haddin and the pace bowling trio that's the heart of what may well be the best attack going around at the moment (Australia's attack 'best in the world' - McDermott) all needing to replaced in the medium term, and we also need to build up the spin bowling department for future tours to spin-friendly environments on the subcontinent.
We’ve also got the prospect of a three Test Series in South Africa in the New Year, and one notes recent developments that suggest we’ll need to be firing on all cylinders if we’re going to win that one. We’re still ranked #5 on 101 with South Africa well ahead of the pack on 131 (India 119, England 116, Pakistan 102). They’ve got de Villiers, Amla and Smith at 1, 2 and 9 in the batting rankings (Clarke 5) and Philander and Steyn at 1 and 2 in the bowling (Harris and Siddle 5 and 6).
And while it’s rather pleasant to watch the wheels start to fall off the much vaunted England line up one notes suggestions of burnout as a significant factor. They’ve kept a fairly tight core of players together through a lot of cricket, and the strain is going to show eventually. We don't want to end up in the same pickle.
On our part, we’re looking for a long term replacement for Rogers as The Steady Opener, cover for Watson as The All Rounder (or, if you prefer, The Batsman Who Bowls), Haddin behind the stumps and depth and variation in the spin bowling department (Backup Offie, as well as a leftie and a left arm orthodox). Throw in another top order bat and someone who can bat in the middle and you’d have the makings of a decent medium to long term prospect.
Those players need to be identified and brought on, with a degree of rotation involved when we play the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangla Desh, the West Indies and New Zealand.
The fast bowling department looks reasonably good, with plenty of depth coming through, but there are two questions over that way. The first, of course, is getting them on to the park, something that we haven’t quite managed to do consistently. If you’re not convinced of that, take a squiz at the injury list.
Then, assuming you’ve got the resources fit and ready to fire, it’s a question of getting the right mix. In many ways, this current attack reminds me of the bowling group that got us home against the West Indies back in 1995. That attack went into a Test series having just lost McDermott to injury, and while it included Warne and an emerging McGrath the other two quicks (Reiffel and Julian) aren’t going to end up being ranked along Australia’s all-time greats.
That lineup, however, offered a blend of talents that gave options to attack the West Indies batting order, and, just as importantly, weren’t afraid to ruffle the West Indian tailenders who were used to monstering the opposition without getting a great deal of retaliation when they batted.
One notes some of the same thing happening here where Messrs Anderson and Broad are concerned.
So when it comes to replacing Johnson, Harris and Siddle it might not be a case of a straight like for like swap. Johnson may be The Leftie With the Terror Factor, but that doesn’t mean he can be replaced by, say, Starc, who may be The Leftie, but mightn’t fit into the Terrifying Pace side of things.
No, it’s a matter of getting the right combination, and that’s not necessarily going to be a matter of selecting the three most obvious choices.
The other matter that needs to be commented on is, of course, the rapid depletion of English resources in this series, and I’d direct The Argumentative Reader’s attention in that direction if he or she thinks I’m getting a little over the top in the comments above.
The first point to be made here is that we’ve turned on the aggression and the verbals, and one notes a report in this morning’s ABC News digest where Graeme Swann’s granny is blaming unwelcoming Australians for the lad’s decision to retire.
There are two telling comments in that report.
"I do not think they have been (made) very welcome, the team. He is not easily upset, there is something nasty happened.”
Well, you don’t (or shouldn’t) expect to be welcomed with open arms when you’re looking towards a four-series drubbing of your hosts. One doesn’t get the impression there are open arms when our blokes step onto the paddock over there. The words Barmy and Army spring to mind here.
She’s also reported as saying "When the team went down to Australia and that young lad [Jonathan Trott] came back, there was something going wrong then,” which moves the debate over the verbals into a whole new ball game.
Now, you might think that what I’m about to say is heartless, and you may be right, but both Trott and Swann came into this series with their own issues.
With Trott the psychological issues were, to some extent, known, and how much the Australian side knew about his actual mental state doesn’t matter. He was known to be a stickler for routine, fussy about his preparation for each ball he faced and that makes him liable to a little hurry up.
If I’d been on the field when he was batting I’d have been making fairly pointed comments about time wasting, particularly if it was the morning of Day One and I was looking to get through thirty overs before lunch.
As far as any damage inflicted is concerned, in this context I’m reminded of a sequence of photos I saw somewhere years ago.
Taken at what may have been a County match they showed a batsman, possibly Colin Cowdrey, lying on the ground after being struck by an Andy Roberts bouncer. There were a number of concerned individuals clustered around the figure on the ground, but Roberts wasn’t one of them.
Roberts was standing at the top of his run, ready to steam in for the next delivery.
Apparently, questioned about what might be interpreted as a heartless attitude, Roberts said something like “It’s my job to bowl it. It’s his job to deal with it.”
Go down the track and take a look at the damage you’ve done and you may lose some of your effectiveness. Using the short ball to get a batsman moving onto the back foot, then spearing in the yorker to clean him up is a fairly standard strategy. If the batsman’s technique of dealing with the short stuff has him swaying back and being hit by a ball that follows him, it isn’t the bowler’s fault.
No, if he’s batting Three he has to expect pressure, and it’s the opposition’s job to deliver it.
In Swann’s case, elbow surgery had already reduced his effectiveness, and Lehmann is on record as saying the plan was to attack him in an endeavour to force Cook to bring back the quicks (and, more than likely, bowl them to the point where they’re increasingly susceptible to injury).
What is interesting, at least from where I’m sitting, is that Swann opted to come on tour knowing he wasn’t going to be able to deliver the lengthy spells he had been used to, and then, faced with the prospect of a five-nil drubbing with a major question mark over whether Broad will take the field and turn out to be fully effective, chose to make an early departure from a side that had already been considerably weakened.
But, for all that, now I’m in a position to resume watching, roll on Boxing Day…
The Inquisitive Reader may have been wondering at the lengthy silence following the win at The Gabba, something that stemmed from the fact that Hughesy wasn’t in the country. We were still part way through the English half of the two part series when I heard about a run of four Elvis Costello Spinning Songbook concerts in Japan. That looked like a reasonable excuse to head across to ride around on bullet trains.
The Interested Reader will find details of those shows over on The LHoC Music blog, or the LHoC web site but in between concerts and shinkansen excursions I was actually following the scores. Things would have been better if the feed from the Cricket Australia app on the iPad wasn’t geoblocked, but you can’t have everything.
And even with the prospect of a whitewash there’s no room for complacency because from what I’ve read it looks like we’re still only operating around 95%.
The important thing to remember before we get down to gloating is that this is a side that has been assembled to complete a task, and while we’re well on the way to doing that, a couple of issues will need to be dealt with on the way to reclaiming that #1 Test ranking, which is what we’re after.
Look at the current side and we’ve got Rogers, Haddin and the pace bowling trio that's the heart of what may well be the best attack going around at the moment (Australia's attack 'best in the world' - McDermott) all needing to replaced in the medium term, and we also need to build up the spin bowling department for future tours to spin-friendly environments on the subcontinent.
We’ve also got the prospect of a three Test Series in South Africa in the New Year, and one notes recent developments that suggest we’ll need to be firing on all cylinders if we’re going to win that one. We’re still ranked #5 on 101 with South Africa well ahead of the pack on 131 (India 119, England 116, Pakistan 102). They’ve got de Villiers, Amla and Smith at 1, 2 and 9 in the batting rankings (Clarke 5) and Philander and Steyn at 1 and 2 in the bowling (Harris and Siddle 5 and 6).
And while it’s rather pleasant to watch the wheels start to fall off the much vaunted England line up one notes suggestions of burnout as a significant factor. They’ve kept a fairly tight core of players together through a lot of cricket, and the strain is going to show eventually. We don't want to end up in the same pickle.
On our part, we’re looking for a long term replacement for Rogers as The Steady Opener, cover for Watson as The All Rounder (or, if you prefer, The Batsman Who Bowls), Haddin behind the stumps and depth and variation in the spin bowling department (Backup Offie, as well as a leftie and a left arm orthodox). Throw in another top order bat and someone who can bat in the middle and you’d have the makings of a decent medium to long term prospect.
Those players need to be identified and brought on, with a degree of rotation involved when we play the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangla Desh, the West Indies and New Zealand.
The fast bowling department looks reasonably good, with plenty of depth coming through, but there are two questions over that way. The first, of course, is getting them on to the park, something that we haven’t quite managed to do consistently. If you’re not convinced of that, take a squiz at the injury list.
Then, assuming you’ve got the resources fit and ready to fire, it’s a question of getting the right mix. In many ways, this current attack reminds me of the bowling group that got us home against the West Indies back in 1995. That attack went into a Test series having just lost McDermott to injury, and while it included Warne and an emerging McGrath the other two quicks (Reiffel and Julian) aren’t going to end up being ranked along Australia’s all-time greats.
That lineup, however, offered a blend of talents that gave options to attack the West Indies batting order, and, just as importantly, weren’t afraid to ruffle the West Indian tailenders who were used to monstering the opposition without getting a great deal of retaliation when they batted.
One notes some of the same thing happening here where Messrs Anderson and Broad are concerned.
So when it comes to replacing Johnson, Harris and Siddle it might not be a case of a straight like for like swap. Johnson may be The Leftie With the Terror Factor, but that doesn’t mean he can be replaced by, say, Starc, who may be The Leftie, but mightn’t fit into the Terrifying Pace side of things.
No, it’s a matter of getting the right combination, and that’s not necessarily going to be a matter of selecting the three most obvious choices.
The other matter that needs to be commented on is, of course, the rapid depletion of English resources in this series, and I’d direct The Argumentative Reader’s attention in that direction if he or she thinks I’m getting a little over the top in the comments above.
The first point to be made here is that we’ve turned on the aggression and the verbals, and one notes a report in this morning’s ABC News digest where Graeme Swann’s granny is blaming unwelcoming Australians for the lad’s decision to retire.
There are two telling comments in that report.
"I do not think they have been (made) very welcome, the team. He is not easily upset, there is something nasty happened.”
Well, you don’t (or shouldn’t) expect to be welcomed with open arms when you’re looking towards a four-series drubbing of your hosts. One doesn’t get the impression there are open arms when our blokes step onto the paddock over there. The words Barmy and Army spring to mind here.
She’s also reported as saying "When the team went down to Australia and that young lad [Jonathan Trott] came back, there was something going wrong then,” which moves the debate over the verbals into a whole new ball game.
Now, you might think that what I’m about to say is heartless, and you may be right, but both Trott and Swann came into this series with their own issues.
With Trott the psychological issues were, to some extent, known, and how much the Australian side knew about his actual mental state doesn’t matter. He was known to be a stickler for routine, fussy about his preparation for each ball he faced and that makes him liable to a little hurry up.
If I’d been on the field when he was batting I’d have been making fairly pointed comments about time wasting, particularly if it was the morning of Day One and I was looking to get through thirty overs before lunch.
As far as any damage inflicted is concerned, in this context I’m reminded of a sequence of photos I saw somewhere years ago.
Taken at what may have been a County match they showed a batsman, possibly Colin Cowdrey, lying on the ground after being struck by an Andy Roberts bouncer. There were a number of concerned individuals clustered around the figure on the ground, but Roberts wasn’t one of them.
Roberts was standing at the top of his run, ready to steam in for the next delivery.
Apparently, questioned about what might be interpreted as a heartless attitude, Roberts said something like “It’s my job to bowl it. It’s his job to deal with it.”
Go down the track and take a look at the damage you’ve done and you may lose some of your effectiveness. Using the short ball to get a batsman moving onto the back foot, then spearing in the yorker to clean him up is a fairly standard strategy. If the batsman’s technique of dealing with the short stuff has him swaying back and being hit by a ball that follows him, it isn’t the bowler’s fault.
No, if he’s batting Three he has to expect pressure, and it’s the opposition’s job to deliver it.
In Swann’s case, elbow surgery had already reduced his effectiveness, and Lehmann is on record as saying the plan was to attack him in an endeavour to force Cook to bring back the quicks (and, more than likely, bowl them to the point where they’re increasingly susceptible to injury).
What is interesting, at least from where I’m sitting, is that Swann opted to come on tour knowing he wasn’t going to be able to deliver the lengthy spells he had been used to, and then, faced with the prospect of a five-nil drubbing with a major question mark over whether Broad will take the field and turn out to be fully effective, chose to make an early departure from a side that had already been considerably weakened.
But, for all that, now I’m in a position to resume watching, roll on Boxing Day…
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The Sledge, The Niggle and Gamesmanship in general
With fairly definite views regarding The Sledge, The Niggle and Gamesmanship in general, it’s safe to assume Hughesy will be scanning the press reports over the next few days.
What follows is an exercise in gathering content that might be relevant at some point down the track, a compendium rather than a commentary, though one can’t help commentating from time to time.
The thrice daily news bulletin from the ABC that arrived this morning pointed me towards The Ashes: Chris Rogers comes to David Warner's defence over Jonathan Trott criticism. You might find a statement like no-one in the Australian team knew about Trott's condition, and the remarks were not meant to be hurtful a trifle difficult to swallow, but that’s what he apparently said. We’re obviously looking for short term tactical advantage, not long term psychological damage. There’s also a comment from Peter Siddle along the lines of Anderson brought Clarke's sledge/threat on himself, which I’m inclined to see as a reminder that all this stuff is a two way street.
Don’t, in other words, get all holier than thou if you’re inclined to dish it up yourself.
THere’s a comment along those lines in The Ashes: James Anderson threatened George Bailey before Clarke sledge, says Shane Warne along with the comment from a tight-lipped Bailey that Anderson must have been just a bit upset about the way the game was going, which also suggests that whatever remarks George was chirping from under the lid were hitting home.
Turning the attention to the regular items in my Safari Top Sites, I headed over to the Cricket page on ABC Grandstand for The Ashes: Kim Hughes labels David Warner comments about Jonathan Trott as 'disgraceful', where Hughes admits The Sledge is part and parcel of the game. I don't know why. They say it is, it shouldn't be. But you don't do it off the field. That's just deplorable and unacceptable in any field of endeavour.
Point taken, but see previous comments about those without sin, and consider Hughesy’s long-standing belief that what transpires on the field shouldn’t be affected by organised denigration from the other side of the boundary.
The question of who fills the vacancy created at Three for England has Mike Atherton advocating Joe Root because he played Mitchell Johnson well, ... looked compact, ... got a nice stride into the ball and also dealt with all of the verbals (Here).
Nasser Hussain and Ian Chappell tend to favour Bell, and candidates to fill the vacancy caused by either of them moving up the order are Jonny Bairstow, unless Zimbabwean-born Gary Ballance or all-rounder Ben Stokes, who, according to Atherton gives the option of bringing Monty Panesar in and playing a second spinner, with Stokes as the third seamer if the pitch looks as flat as has been suggested.
Updates in the ICC Rankings are covered in The Ashes: Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon in ICC top 20 bowlers, Michael Clarke number four batsman. Johnson is now ranked 19th with the ball and 78th with the bat, Lyon 18th with the ball and Clarke up to 4th in the batting. In other moves Cook moves into 10th, Warner to 17th and Haddin 42nd with the bat, Broad and Tremlett are now 7th and 32nd with the ball).
Full rankings are here, where one notes Broad rates 4th in the All-Rounders list with Watson and Johnson 7th and 8th respectively.
Further down the page The Ashes: Jonathan Trott receives support from England players past and present after leaving tour reveals Michael Vaughan expressed regret for questioning Trott's performances in the media.
As the content increasingly disappears behind the Murdoch paywall I’ve given The Australian the flick, moving, instead to The Guardian, where, this morning Australia have no intention of changing their aggressive approach to the Ashes. Click there and you’ll find the main points are Darren Lehmann sees no reason to be less vocal and his county side Warwickshire always knew of Jonathan Trott's illness.
I may have cause to refer back to Ashes: England must learn the lessons they started studying a long time ago: Andy Flower and his team have been here before. It's not that England's chances are dead, just that the contest is alive, which is why I’ve stuck it in here.
Glenn McGrath’s Trott was right to go home, an Ashes tour is no place to sort out problems is another one I may well be referring back to on the basis of Pigeon’s suggestion that West Indian comments of Let's kill him, man. Let's kill him as he walked in to bat weren’t too far removed from Clarke’s go at Anderson.
McGrath makes the most important point when he writes:
But there is a line – it's fine as long as it doesn't get too personal. When I played, an opposition bowler (or batsman for that matter) could call me any name under the sun, I had no issue. But if they started to bring in family members, or personal issues, then that's different. That is why I thought the treatment Mitchell Johnson got on the tour of England in 2009 was a bit rough, when you start to bring in what is happening on a personal front.
Cricinfo has:
Root most likely solution for No. 3 while Australia to conserve pace resources focusses on the three day turn around between Adelaide and Perth, raises the suggestion Faulkner may come in for Bailey in Adelaide, and suggests Coulter-Nile, Bollinger, Sayers and Cutting as possible replacements should one of the current line up break down.
There’s nothing particularly new in Lehmann rejects sledging summit but
Fun turns to fear for Jonathan Trott offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Trott issue that prompts Hughesy to make two points.
The first is that while Australia might not have known of the mental issues that prompted Trott’s return home they would have been aware of issues that seem to verge on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The second is, of course, to emphasise that players do actually need a break from time to time.
Time for Trott to seek new truths quotes an unnamed England player whose identity will remain secret because his assessment went to the heart of England's approach. "It can feel as if there is no escape," he said. "It as if everything you do is being assessed, as if every little thing you do is being marked and analysed and stored away. If you are not careful, it can wear you down. It's incredibly difficult to come to terms with it."
That comment, mind you, is about the England approach to the game. The opposition, of course, will be operating in the same territory as they set out looking for things that can be exploited.
Cognitive behaviour consultant Brett Morrissey, who has worked with Michael Yardy who left England's 2011 World Cup campaign is interviewed for The expert view - Big strides have been made and 'You just can't take any more' - Trescothick cites another high profile casualty.
There’s some interesting reading there to keep you going while you wait for the two squads to wend their way to Adelaide.
What follows is an exercise in gathering content that might be relevant at some point down the track, a compendium rather than a commentary, though one can’t help commentating from time to time.
The thrice daily news bulletin from the ABC that arrived this morning pointed me towards The Ashes: Chris Rogers comes to David Warner's defence over Jonathan Trott criticism. You might find a statement like no-one in the Australian team knew about Trott's condition, and the remarks were not meant to be hurtful a trifle difficult to swallow, but that’s what he apparently said. We’re obviously looking for short term tactical advantage, not long term psychological damage. There’s also a comment from Peter Siddle along the lines of Anderson brought Clarke's sledge/threat on himself, which I’m inclined to see as a reminder that all this stuff is a two way street.
Don’t, in other words, get all holier than thou if you’re inclined to dish it up yourself.
THere’s a comment along those lines in The Ashes: James Anderson threatened George Bailey before Clarke sledge, says Shane Warne along with the comment from a tight-lipped Bailey that Anderson must have been just a bit upset about the way the game was going, which also suggests that whatever remarks George was chirping from under the lid were hitting home.
Turning the attention to the regular items in my Safari Top Sites, I headed over to the Cricket page on ABC Grandstand for The Ashes: Kim Hughes labels David Warner comments about Jonathan Trott as 'disgraceful', where Hughes admits The Sledge is part and parcel of the game. I don't know why. They say it is, it shouldn't be. But you don't do it off the field. That's just deplorable and unacceptable in any field of endeavour.
Point taken, but see previous comments about those without sin, and consider Hughesy’s long-standing belief that what transpires on the field shouldn’t be affected by organised denigration from the other side of the boundary.
The question of who fills the vacancy created at Three for England has Mike Atherton advocating Joe Root because he played Mitchell Johnson well, ... looked compact, ... got a nice stride into the ball and also dealt with all of the verbals (Here).
Nasser Hussain and Ian Chappell tend to favour Bell, and candidates to fill the vacancy caused by either of them moving up the order are Jonny Bairstow, unless Zimbabwean-born Gary Ballance or all-rounder Ben Stokes, who, according to Atherton gives the option of bringing Monty Panesar in and playing a second spinner, with Stokes as the third seamer if the pitch looks as flat as has been suggested.
Updates in the ICC Rankings are covered in The Ashes: Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon in ICC top 20 bowlers, Michael Clarke number four batsman. Johnson is now ranked 19th with the ball and 78th with the bat, Lyon 18th with the ball and Clarke up to 4th in the batting. In other moves Cook moves into 10th, Warner to 17th and Haddin 42nd with the bat, Broad and Tremlett are now 7th and 32nd with the ball).
Full rankings are here, where one notes Broad rates 4th in the All-Rounders list with Watson and Johnson 7th and 8th respectively.
Further down the page The Ashes: Jonathan Trott receives support from England players past and present after leaving tour reveals Michael Vaughan expressed regret for questioning Trott's performances in the media.
As the content increasingly disappears behind the Murdoch paywall I’ve given The Australian the flick, moving, instead to The Guardian, where, this morning Australia have no intention of changing their aggressive approach to the Ashes. Click there and you’ll find the main points are Darren Lehmann sees no reason to be less vocal and his county side Warwickshire always knew of Jonathan Trott's illness.
I may have cause to refer back to Ashes: England must learn the lessons they started studying a long time ago: Andy Flower and his team have been here before. It's not that England's chances are dead, just that the contest is alive, which is why I’ve stuck it in here.
Glenn McGrath’s Trott was right to go home, an Ashes tour is no place to sort out problems is another one I may well be referring back to on the basis of Pigeon’s suggestion that West Indian comments of Let's kill him, man. Let's kill him as he walked in to bat weren’t too far removed from Clarke’s go at Anderson.
McGrath makes the most important point when he writes:
But there is a line – it's fine as long as it doesn't get too personal. When I played, an opposition bowler (or batsman for that matter) could call me any name under the sun, I had no issue. But if they started to bring in family members, or personal issues, then that's different. That is why I thought the treatment Mitchell Johnson got on the tour of England in 2009 was a bit rough, when you start to bring in what is happening on a personal front.
Cricinfo has:
Root most likely solution for No. 3 while Australia to conserve pace resources focusses on the three day turn around between Adelaide and Perth, raises the suggestion Faulkner may come in for Bailey in Adelaide, and suggests Coulter-Nile, Bollinger, Sayers and Cutting as possible replacements should one of the current line up break down.
There’s nothing particularly new in Lehmann rejects sledging summit but
Fun turns to fear for Jonathan Trott offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Trott issue that prompts Hughesy to make two points.
The first is that while Australia might not have known of the mental issues that prompted Trott’s return home they would have been aware of issues that seem to verge on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The second is, of course, to emphasise that players do actually need a break from time to time.
Time for Trott to seek new truths quotes an unnamed England player whose identity will remain secret because his assessment went to the heart of England's approach. "It can feel as if there is no escape," he said. "It as if everything you do is being assessed, as if every little thing you do is being marked and analysed and stored away. If you are not careful, it can wear you down. It's incredibly difficult to come to terms with it."
That comment, mind you, is about the England approach to the game. The opposition, of course, will be operating in the same territory as they set out looking for things that can be exploited.
Cognitive behaviour consultant Brett Morrissey, who has worked with Michael Yardy who left England's 2011 World Cup campaign is interviewed for The expert view - Big strides have been made and 'You just can't take any more' - Trescothick cites another high profile casualty.
There’s some interesting reading there to keep you going while you wait for the two squads to wend their way to Adelaide.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Developments since the close of play…
I guess it comes down to how you like your scripts.
In an old theme that’s predictable as hell, you come up with the odd new twist, and we’ve got a few of them coming into play in and around the announcement that Jonathan Trott is heading home suffering from a Stress-related illness.
To me, it’s all part of The Ongoing Niggle that was always going to feature as a key element in the series.
It has been obvious for a while that Trott had some issues with short-pitched fast bowling, as most mortals would, and David Warner’s description of his second innings at The Gabba as weak might have been better left unsaid, but, to me at least, didn’t rate as “unprofessional”.
I may have the timing wrong, but the use of the latter term by Alastair Cook preceded the he’s going home announcement and looks an awful lot like part of the approach you’d take to limit the damage inflicted in the psychological Niggle War.
You’d have to assume that the England management team were aware of the deeper issues (at any rate they claim to have been) and had adopted an array of measures to handle the problem. Some of those would have been negotiated with the batsman. Others, on a less official try it and see how it goes basis, put in place by the coach and support staff.
One way of handling those issues is to deflect scrutiny away from any perceived weakness by changing the subject. Don’t, in other words, talk about the man’s problem, divert the attention onto someone else’s unprofessionalism.
All of which, of course, depends on your definition of professionalism, doesn’t it?
If they knew there was an issue and the coach and support staff failed to take action, they’d be unprofessional.
If someone in the England camp happened to let slip that Jonathan had a problem, to do something they’d be unprofessional.
Equally, if you’re out to induce doubts about technical issues and you suspected there was a weakness there that could be exploited, you’d be unprofessional.
And once that comment had been made if the management failed to respond by describing the comment as unprofessional, they’d be unprofessional themselves.
The main point here is that by making the announcement and talking about stress-related illness in this environment you’d reckon they’ve effectively ended Trott’s international career as far as playing against Australia and his native South Africa are concerned. That doesn’t mean his actual career is done and dusted.
Marcus Trescothick went home under similar circumstances, and is still playing for and captaining Somerset at the age of 37 (he turns 38 on Christmas Day) and is looking to play on until he’s forty. A glance at the recent matches here suggests he’s not scoring heaps of runs, but he’s there, playing on and probably enjoying it.
As far as Trott is concerned, the Australian team would have spotted what they thought was a weakness and have been busily probing away since the suggestion that there was one was raised.
The other Niggle-related issue that has come into the spotlight is the Clarke-Anderson imbroglio, and the decision to fine the Australian captain 20% of his match fee.
Hopefully Channel Nine, or whoever left the effects microphone on will pony up with the dosh, because if they were handing out the equivalent penalty every time someone used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match we’d probably have most of the English and Australian squads paying for the privilege of representing their country.
Seriously, over five days, if everyone got pinged 20% of their match fee every time they used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match you’d expect most international players would end up playing for nothing.
The key issue here isn’t whether obscene, offensive or insulting remarks are made it’s more a question of whether they’ve been disseminated.
I watched the whole thing unfold, and it was obvious that there was a fair degree of Niggle flying back and forth between Anderson and George Bailey at short leg. Whether those exchanges included a wish to punch Bailey in the face as alleged by Clarke’s mate Shane Warne, in neither here nor there (as far as I’m concerned).
You can see the whole thing through a link to the Channel Nine footage here and, for mine, there was no reason why that microphone needed to be on at the time.
Unless, of course, you’re looking for material to spice up the coverage and give commentators something to talk about. If that’s the case, and your decision is largely responsible for the matter receiving the attention it did, it’s your responsibility to come up with the readies, isn’t it?
Actually, read a bit further down that ABC News article and it’s obvious that there’s a long standing issue between Clarke and Anderson. One would suggest that neither of them are Robinson Crusoe as far as longstanding animosity towards other members of the international cricket community are concerned.
I guess what’s said on the field stays on the field only applies until commentators need something to talk about or players need something to add spice to the old autobiography or tour diary.
Look at it that way, and you’ve got the beginnings of a sustainable industry as various individuals use their memoirs to deliver their versions of events and their reactions to them.
In an old theme that’s predictable as hell, you come up with the odd new twist, and we’ve got a few of them coming into play in and around the announcement that Jonathan Trott is heading home suffering from a Stress-related illness.
To me, it’s all part of The Ongoing Niggle that was always going to feature as a key element in the series.
It has been obvious for a while that Trott had some issues with short-pitched fast bowling, as most mortals would, and David Warner’s description of his second innings at The Gabba as weak might have been better left unsaid, but, to me at least, didn’t rate as “unprofessional”.
I may have the timing wrong, but the use of the latter term by Alastair Cook preceded the he’s going home announcement and looks an awful lot like part of the approach you’d take to limit the damage inflicted in the psychological Niggle War.
You’d have to assume that the England management team were aware of the deeper issues (at any rate they claim to have been) and had adopted an array of measures to handle the problem. Some of those would have been negotiated with the batsman. Others, on a less official try it and see how it goes basis, put in place by the coach and support staff.
One way of handling those issues is to deflect scrutiny away from any perceived weakness by changing the subject. Don’t, in other words, talk about the man’s problem, divert the attention onto someone else’s unprofessionalism.
All of which, of course, depends on your definition of professionalism, doesn’t it?
If they knew there was an issue and the coach and support staff failed to take action, they’d be unprofessional.
If someone in the England camp happened to let slip that Jonathan had a problem, to do something they’d be unprofessional.
Equally, if you’re out to induce doubts about technical issues and you suspected there was a weakness there that could be exploited, you’d be unprofessional.
And once that comment had been made if the management failed to respond by describing the comment as unprofessional, they’d be unprofessional themselves.
The main point here is that by making the announcement and talking about stress-related illness in this environment you’d reckon they’ve effectively ended Trott’s international career as far as playing against Australia and his native South Africa are concerned. That doesn’t mean his actual career is done and dusted.
Marcus Trescothick went home under similar circumstances, and is still playing for and captaining Somerset at the age of 37 (he turns 38 on Christmas Day) and is looking to play on until he’s forty. A glance at the recent matches here suggests he’s not scoring heaps of runs, but he’s there, playing on and probably enjoying it.
As far as Trott is concerned, the Australian team would have spotted what they thought was a weakness and have been busily probing away since the suggestion that there was one was raised.
The other Niggle-related issue that has come into the spotlight is the Clarke-Anderson imbroglio, and the decision to fine the Australian captain 20% of his match fee.
Hopefully Channel Nine, or whoever left the effects microphone on will pony up with the dosh, because if they were handing out the equivalent penalty every time someone used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match we’d probably have most of the English and Australian squads paying for the privilege of representing their country.
Seriously, over five days, if everyone got pinged 20% of their match fee every time they used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match you’d expect most international players would end up playing for nothing.
The key issue here isn’t whether obscene, offensive or insulting remarks are made it’s more a question of whether they’ve been disseminated.
I watched the whole thing unfold, and it was obvious that there was a fair degree of Niggle flying back and forth between Anderson and George Bailey at short leg. Whether those exchanges included a wish to punch Bailey in the face as alleged by Clarke’s mate Shane Warne, in neither here nor there (as far as I’m concerned).
You can see the whole thing through a link to the Channel Nine footage here and, for mine, there was no reason why that microphone needed to be on at the time.
Unless, of course, you’re looking for material to spice up the coverage and give commentators something to talk about. If that’s the case, and your decision is largely responsible for the matter receiving the attention it did, it’s your responsibility to come up with the readies, isn’t it?
Actually, read a bit further down that ABC News article and it’s obvious that there’s a long standing issue between Clarke and Anderson. One would suggest that neither of them are Robinson Crusoe as far as longstanding animosity towards other members of the international cricket community are concerned.
I guess what’s said on the field stays on the field only applies until commentators need something to talk about or players need something to add spice to the old autobiography or tour diary.
Look at it that way, and you’ve got the beginnings of a sustainable industry as various individuals use their memoirs to deliver their versions of events and their reactions to them.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
After the Gabba: 85%
The Critical Reader might feel Hughesy’s being a trifle harsh when he rates a victory by 381 runs with a full day to spare around 85%, but cast your mind back to 6-153 at the tea break on Thursday with Haddin on 24 and Johnson on 12, and you may agree.
That partnership went on to add a further 93, and much of what followed as the bowling side of the game ran according to the script was only possible because Six and Seven dug us out of a hole.
Still unconvinced? Check the fall of wickets. 1-12 (Rogers), 2-71 Watson, just before lunch), 3-73 (Clarke), 4-83 (Warner, when we needed him to carry on), 5-100 (Bailey) and 6-132 (Smith).
Hardly what the doctor ordered, and it wasn’t as if England's bowlers were bowling particularly well. They weren’t bowling badly, but this trio of quickies with Swann as backup isn’t firing as well as the battery they had, say, three years ago. Tremlett looked to be the weak link, and you can't bank on him being there again in Adelaide.
Warner scored runs in both digs, but we really needed him to go on in the first. Clarke came good in the second, but Rogers and Watson were disappointing. Bailey needs to do more to cement his place in the side. If he does Smith will need more than his first innings 31 to hold on to Five, particularly if we start moving into batsmen who can bowl at Six or Haddin at Six with a bowler who can bat (Faulkner as one possibility) at Seven.
You don’t expect everyone in the batting order to fire in every innings, but most of them should be able to manage a decent score in one innings out of two.
The batting wasn’t the only area where there was room for improvement. We missed two run outs due to poor positioning by the bloke who was taking the return at the bowler’s end. As it turned out, neither proved particularly expensive.
But if we see fielders breaking the stumps before the ball arrives (Bailey) or taking the ball in front of the stumps and removing the bails while doing so (Lyon) there's a need for solid remedial work in the fielding drills.
Dr Hughesy would prescribe at least an hour’s rundown, throw down, underarm for the first instance, and a repetition with a relentless workout on the underarm for the second.
The bowling, on the other hand, worked very well, backed up by savvy field settings and some rather productive verbals, which is the area where I expect to hear a fair bit of Soap Dodger bleating over the next day or two.
I spent the first bit of the morning walk pondering the verbals, and came to the conclusion the Anderson sledge (the one about broken arms) may have verged on the intimidatory, but was fair enough.
With the field that was set at the time, you wouldn’t have been expecting too much that was pitched up but you want the batsman going back so when you do pitch it up you’ve got a chance of a yorker or LBW. Comments that suggest the use of limbs to protect the head are a way of getting the batsman into the right mindset to cooperate with your game plan.
That’s fair enough in my book.
It’s much fairer than the Barmy Army’s attempts to manipulate the result by taking down key players on the Australian side.
Their main target last time around out here (and the previous series over there) was, of course, Mitchell Johnson, and given what they deliberately dished out once a degree of fragility was found they have no right of reply in this instance.
In fact, given the fact that they were still in fine voice after the second resumption yesterday afternoon I’m inclined to mark our performance down further on the grounds of insufficient dominance.
I won’t really be satisfied until they’re reduced to total silence by repeated thrashings of their precious little batch of fresh-faced provocateurs.
That’s not likely to happen when the proceedings resume in Adelaide in ten days’ time, and I doubt they’ll have been given the treatment prescribed by Dr O’Keefe on their way out to the tour game in Alice Springs. A two day trip on a Greyhound bus with faulty air-conditioning is a nice concept, but one doubts the ability to con them into it.
The new drop in pitch at the Adelaide Oval is by all accounts I’ve stumbled across, close to a feather bed, and we’ll need to score big runs in both innings to ensure the draw that is the worst desired result.
A win in Adelaide would be better, but the last thing you want is to be heading into Perth with the series level. You never know, by the time they get to Perth the Soap Dodgers might have gotten their bowling sorted out.
But even if they don’t there’s a good deal of work to be done before we head off across the Indian Ocean to face quality opposition in South Africa.
That partnership went on to add a further 93, and much of what followed as the bowling side of the game ran according to the script was only possible because Six and Seven dug us out of a hole.
Still unconvinced? Check the fall of wickets. 1-12 (Rogers), 2-71 Watson, just before lunch), 3-73 (Clarke), 4-83 (Warner, when we needed him to carry on), 5-100 (Bailey) and 6-132 (Smith).
Hardly what the doctor ordered, and it wasn’t as if England's bowlers were bowling particularly well. They weren’t bowling badly, but this trio of quickies with Swann as backup isn’t firing as well as the battery they had, say, three years ago. Tremlett looked to be the weak link, and you can't bank on him being there again in Adelaide.
Warner scored runs in both digs, but we really needed him to go on in the first. Clarke came good in the second, but Rogers and Watson were disappointing. Bailey needs to do more to cement his place in the side. If he does Smith will need more than his first innings 31 to hold on to Five, particularly if we start moving into batsmen who can bowl at Six or Haddin at Six with a bowler who can bat (Faulkner as one possibility) at Seven.
You don’t expect everyone in the batting order to fire in every innings, but most of them should be able to manage a decent score in one innings out of two.
The batting wasn’t the only area where there was room for improvement. We missed two run outs due to poor positioning by the bloke who was taking the return at the bowler’s end. As it turned out, neither proved particularly expensive.
But if we see fielders breaking the stumps before the ball arrives (Bailey) or taking the ball in front of the stumps and removing the bails while doing so (Lyon) there's a need for solid remedial work in the fielding drills.
Dr Hughesy would prescribe at least an hour’s rundown, throw down, underarm for the first instance, and a repetition with a relentless workout on the underarm for the second.
The bowling, on the other hand, worked very well, backed up by savvy field settings and some rather productive verbals, which is the area where I expect to hear a fair bit of Soap Dodger bleating over the next day or two.
I spent the first bit of the morning walk pondering the verbals, and came to the conclusion the Anderson sledge (the one about broken arms) may have verged on the intimidatory, but was fair enough.
With the field that was set at the time, you wouldn’t have been expecting too much that was pitched up but you want the batsman going back so when you do pitch it up you’ve got a chance of a yorker or LBW. Comments that suggest the use of limbs to protect the head are a way of getting the batsman into the right mindset to cooperate with your game plan.
That’s fair enough in my book.
It’s much fairer than the Barmy Army’s attempts to manipulate the result by taking down key players on the Australian side.
Their main target last time around out here (and the previous series over there) was, of course, Mitchell Johnson, and given what they deliberately dished out once a degree of fragility was found they have no right of reply in this instance.
In fact, given the fact that they were still in fine voice after the second resumption yesterday afternoon I’m inclined to mark our performance down further on the grounds of insufficient dominance.
I won’t really be satisfied until they’re reduced to total silence by repeated thrashings of their precious little batch of fresh-faced provocateurs.
That’s not likely to happen when the proceedings resume in Adelaide in ten days’ time, and I doubt they’ll have been given the treatment prescribed by Dr O’Keefe on their way out to the tour game in Alice Springs. A two day trip on a Greyhound bus with faulty air-conditioning is a nice concept, but one doubts the ability to con them into it.
The new drop in pitch at the Adelaide Oval is by all accounts I’ve stumbled across, close to a feather bed, and we’ll need to score big runs in both innings to ensure the draw that is the worst desired result.
A win in Adelaide would be better, but the last thing you want is to be heading into Perth with the series level. You never know, by the time they get to Perth the Soap Dodgers might have gotten their bowling sorted out.
But even if they don’t there’s a good deal of work to be done before we head off across the Indian Ocean to face quality opposition in South Africa.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
On the morning of Day Four…
On the morning of Day Four, The Inquisitive Reader may be a tad bemused by the absence of lengthy prognostications from Hughesy after Days One and Two.
I didn’t have much to add to this looks to be our best Top Six, so let’s see how they go prior to the commencement of play. Instead, I got my teeth into a lengthy Republican rant about the significance of that Ashes Test back in 1882 on the morning of Day One.
That was the only Test played on that particular tour, and a quick look at Wikipedia and Cricinfo failed to reveal any details about the rest of the tour, but then I recalled I’ve got a shelf full of cricket reference books. Suffice it to say I then spent the rest of the time before the toss and through to the start of play reading Jack Pollard, taking notes and thinking of returning to the piece I’d started on the morning of Day Two.
Day One also happened to have some personal significance, and was celebrated with some good bottles, so I was late out of bed on the morning of Day Two, skipped the morning walk and generally took it easy until the start of play.
That Republican rant will have to wait, and the content relating to WG Grace’s gamesmanship and the start of the Ashes will probably emerge at some stage, but since the subject got a bit of coverage on the ABC Radio coverage, that stage may be well into the future.
Commentary on the actual play on Day One would have been along the lines of This looks like our best Top Six, but thank goodness the lower order can bat, which could have veered off into further discussion of all-rounders, batsmen who can bowl and bowlers who can bat. We have, of course, been over that ground in reasonable detail, which is why the veering didn’t eventuate.
Yesterday morning saw me looking back at recent batting history with a variation on this is our best six and today’s the day for them to consolidate their places in the eleven intended. Tracking back over the entrails of 2009, 2010-11, India early this year and the first half of the two part series kept me going through the morning up to the resumption, and subsequent events put the kibosh on that line of thought.
On a day where Rogers and Watson could have cemented their places for the rest of the summer and Smith and Bailey needed to consolidate it would have been nice to have at least one of them put their hands up. Instead, it was Warner and Clarke, wasn’t it?
Figures.
The interesting part, for me, has been the weaknesses that seem to be emerging in the English side, something I don’t usually spend too much time on, but there are definite implications for our blokes that emerge from that sort of analysis.
The first one is that most of them don’t like it up ‘em, which means I hope we’ve seen the last of suggestions from Mitchell Johnson about slowing down and bowling line and length in the latter stages of his career. He needs to be bowling chest and throat music and extracting significant lift off a length at pace, and as long as he does that he’s worth persisting with.
Provided he’s getting bounce at pace he can afford to be slightly wayward, particularly if he’s got someone bowling dry at the other end. Siddle and Harris both managed to do that, as did Lyon, whose work with the ball should have ensured he stays on board through the rest of the series.
With Lyon as a long term Eleven, it’s up to the likes of Smith and Agar to work on their bowling (Smith) and batting (Agar, and any other contenders for a bowler who can bat spot at Six or Seven).
There’s an interesting contrast between Lyon (9-4-17-2 and 3-1-3-0, match figures 2 for 20 off 12) and Swann’s 53 overs 2 for 215. Swann, one notes, currently sits on equal seventh in the ICC Bowler rankings (with Siddle), just behind Harris at #6. Lyon will get a lot of work over the next two days, and should move upwards from his current #21 ranking.
Actually, having found them, it’s worth looking at those player rankings:
#6 on 782 is Harris.
#7 on 760 are Swann and Siddle.
#10 on 741 is Anderson, just ahead of Broad, who is #11 on 740.
#15 on 659 is Hilfenhaus, which is interesting, as is the ranking for Finn (#20 on 580).
#21 on 576 is Lyon, Johnson is #23 on 537, #24 on 524 is Bresnan, #26 on 518 is Pattinson, Tremlett #35 on 460 and Watson #40 on 423.
I’m not sure what those numbers mean, but for those who are playing in this game the rankings total 97 (Australia, including Watson, 57 if you don’t) versus 63 (England’s four specialist bowlers, this game. On the other column, with the numbers that determine the rankings you’ve got Australia 2655 (without Watson, 3078 with) versus England 2701.
Look at the figures for the four main bowlers and you’ve got a fairly tight series, much tighter than a recent 3-0 scoreline might suggest.
Based on those figures I went over to the batting list, looking at the first seven in the two batting orders, without Bailey and Carberry. The ranking totals, with lower scores being better read England 99, Australia 221. Understandable since there’s a substantial gap from Clarke (#5) to Watson (#32), Warner (#36), Smith (#43), Rogers (#46) and Haddin (#59).
The English order ranks #10 (Bell), #11 (Cook), 13 (Pietersen), 16 (Trott) and 17 (Prior) with a jump down to #33 (Root).
All of which stems from Hughesy’s attempt to get a form line between Swann and Lyon, so you can see what I mean about being sidetracked.
And it’s a good point to leave things since there’s a garden that needs some attention as the clock sneaks past seven-fifteen. Play, of course, resumes at ten, with England looking to bat two days and save the game. At 2-24 chasing another 537 to win I think we can rule out an England victory.
With an 80% chance of rain, between 2 and 8mm likely and a forecast of showers and the chance of a storm, the draw is an obvious threat, which makes for an interesting two days.
I didn’t have much to add to this looks to be our best Top Six, so let’s see how they go prior to the commencement of play. Instead, I got my teeth into a lengthy Republican rant about the significance of that Ashes Test back in 1882 on the morning of Day One.
That was the only Test played on that particular tour, and a quick look at Wikipedia and Cricinfo failed to reveal any details about the rest of the tour, but then I recalled I’ve got a shelf full of cricket reference books. Suffice it to say I then spent the rest of the time before the toss and through to the start of play reading Jack Pollard, taking notes and thinking of returning to the piece I’d started on the morning of Day Two.
Day One also happened to have some personal significance, and was celebrated with some good bottles, so I was late out of bed on the morning of Day Two, skipped the morning walk and generally took it easy until the start of play.
That Republican rant will have to wait, and the content relating to WG Grace’s gamesmanship and the start of the Ashes will probably emerge at some stage, but since the subject got a bit of coverage on the ABC Radio coverage, that stage may be well into the future.
Commentary on the actual play on Day One would have been along the lines of This looks like our best Top Six, but thank goodness the lower order can bat, which could have veered off into further discussion of all-rounders, batsmen who can bowl and bowlers who can bat. We have, of course, been over that ground in reasonable detail, which is why the veering didn’t eventuate.
Yesterday morning saw me looking back at recent batting history with a variation on this is our best six and today’s the day for them to consolidate their places in the eleven intended. Tracking back over the entrails of 2009, 2010-11, India early this year and the first half of the two part series kept me going through the morning up to the resumption, and subsequent events put the kibosh on that line of thought.
On a day where Rogers and Watson could have cemented their places for the rest of the summer and Smith and Bailey needed to consolidate it would have been nice to have at least one of them put their hands up. Instead, it was Warner and Clarke, wasn’t it?
Figures.
The interesting part, for me, has been the weaknesses that seem to be emerging in the English side, something I don’t usually spend too much time on, but there are definite implications for our blokes that emerge from that sort of analysis.
The first one is that most of them don’t like it up ‘em, which means I hope we’ve seen the last of suggestions from Mitchell Johnson about slowing down and bowling line and length in the latter stages of his career. He needs to be bowling chest and throat music and extracting significant lift off a length at pace, and as long as he does that he’s worth persisting with.
Provided he’s getting bounce at pace he can afford to be slightly wayward, particularly if he’s got someone bowling dry at the other end. Siddle and Harris both managed to do that, as did Lyon, whose work with the ball should have ensured he stays on board through the rest of the series.
With Lyon as a long term Eleven, it’s up to the likes of Smith and Agar to work on their bowling (Smith) and batting (Agar, and any other contenders for a bowler who can bat spot at Six or Seven).
There’s an interesting contrast between Lyon (9-4-17-2 and 3-1-3-0, match figures 2 for 20 off 12) and Swann’s 53 overs 2 for 215. Swann, one notes, currently sits on equal seventh in the ICC Bowler rankings (with Siddle), just behind Harris at #6. Lyon will get a lot of work over the next two days, and should move upwards from his current #21 ranking.
Actually, having found them, it’s worth looking at those player rankings:
#6 on 782 is Harris.
#7 on 760 are Swann and Siddle.
#10 on 741 is Anderson, just ahead of Broad, who is #11 on 740.
#15 on 659 is Hilfenhaus, which is interesting, as is the ranking for Finn (#20 on 580).
#21 on 576 is Lyon, Johnson is #23 on 537, #24 on 524 is Bresnan, #26 on 518 is Pattinson, Tremlett #35 on 460 and Watson #40 on 423.
I’m not sure what those numbers mean, but for those who are playing in this game the rankings total 97 (Australia, including Watson, 57 if you don’t) versus 63 (England’s four specialist bowlers, this game. On the other column, with the numbers that determine the rankings you’ve got Australia 2655 (without Watson, 3078 with) versus England 2701.
Look at the figures for the four main bowlers and you’ve got a fairly tight series, much tighter than a recent 3-0 scoreline might suggest.
Based on those figures I went over to the batting list, looking at the first seven in the two batting orders, without Bailey and Carberry. The ranking totals, with lower scores being better read England 99, Australia 221. Understandable since there’s a substantial gap from Clarke (#5) to Watson (#32), Warner (#36), Smith (#43), Rogers (#46) and Haddin (#59).
The English order ranks #10 (Bell), #11 (Cook), 13 (Pietersen), 16 (Trott) and 17 (Prior) with a jump down to #33 (Root).
All of which stems from Hughesy’s attempt to get a form line between Swann and Lyon, so you can see what I mean about being sidetracked.
And it’s a good point to leave things since there’s a garden that needs some attention as the clock sneaks past seven-fifteen. Play, of course, resumes at ten, with England looking to bat two days and save the game. At 2-24 chasing another 537 to win I think we can rule out an England victory.
With an 80% chance of rain, between 2 and 8mm likely and a forecast of showers and the chance of a storm, the draw is an obvious threat, which makes for an interesting two days.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Couldn't help myself…
Try as you might, there are some things you just can’t ignore.
I was all set to give the cricket discussion the big miss until the end of Day One, but a couple of headlines in the old browser had me recapping some previous thoughts on the morning lap around downtown Bowen.
The first of them was on the ABC News feed: Ashes: Brad Haddin calls Mickey Arthur 'very, very insecure', lauds impact of coach Darren Lehmann, which doesn’t come as any surprise apart from the fact that someone felt the point needed to be made.
The second appeared in The Guardian: Australia's Michael Clarke out to put Ashes misery in England behind him, which probably comes as no surprise to anyone who has read Clarke’s diary from the first part of the series. I haven’t, and don’t plan to, because I gather it’s a depressing read. The Guardian also had Glen McGrath opining: Australia's restored self-belief will help win them back the Ashes, which looked to be a fair assessment of where things are, devoid of predictions about whitewashes.
Most of the pre-Jimbo section of morning walk was spent folding those matters into previous ideas, and it’s obvious that we don’t want to be complicating things too much. When you do that, the plot tends to go out the window.
Without dwelling too much on the Arthur era it’s obvious that, for much of that time, we didn’t know what our best Test line up was. Uncertainty fuels insecurity, and it was a matter of plugging away until a couple of blokes stuck their hands up and looked to deliver. Pick and stick is an easy concept, but requires a bit of courage when it comes to the stick part. It’s easy to chop and change.
The side that goes out onto the paddock tomorrow is the strongest side we can assemble out of what’s available. McGrath makes the valid point that we’ll be in trouble if we lose Johnson, Harris or Siddle, but that’s not rocket surgery either.
You’d suspect Cutting is the next cab off the rank, and playing Faulkner if the track looks like it will help the quicks will share the work load, particularly since it looks like Watto will be right for a partial workload.
The cupboard might look relatively bare after that, but there are other quicks around, and if they’re needed it’ll be a case of waiting to see whether they measure up. Simple enough, that feller.
Having assembled the best side we can manage the next task is getting them to deliver, which brings us back to the Haddin article. The key quote, as far as I’m concerned, is this one re. the notorious homework incident: "That wasn't the Australian cricket team that I knew when I flew into Mohali.”
Now, it’s obvious that we not only didn’t know what our best side was, but we couldn’t get the squad working together. Allow individuals to pick and choose what they want to do, and you can probably wave a tearful farewell to unity of purpose.
Clear routines, an agreed way of going about things and some system to back them up are the key here, as is the need to make all this enjoyable. The homework issue probably stemmed from is this really necessary? matched up with a fair bit of well, this other bloke isn’t worried about it, so why should I be?
You can, of course, work your way around those mindsets by laying down the law. This is what we’re doing. Here are the reasons why. And here are the consequences if you don’t. You match those statements with a system of penalties and incentives. Impose fines for breaches, use the proceeds to provide incentives for the sort of behaviours you want to encourage.
Dummy spits and late arrivals for the team bus et cetera get pinged for the dosh that’ll create a slush fund to pay out for particularly good bits of banter. If the fund gets too big, throw a donation to some worthwhile cause, with the cheque being presented by the leading contributors.
The most recent incident with the Wallabies is a timely reminder that you need to ensure protocols regarding nights out are adhered to, so you appoint a social co-ordinator for each game who’ll generate an itinerary that will allow the team to relax away from the spotlight and have a good time doing it. That’s the official program. If you’re not keen on tonight’s option, there’s always room service at the hotel.
If you’ve got your wife, girlfriend, partner or kids along, here’s a family-friendly option you might want to consider, and for a quiet night for two, how about this one.
When you get to that point, of course, you have the risk of fragmentation, so it might be best to leave the family home for the first part of the series, but if that’s the policy, that’s the policy.
And, most particularly, if we find ourselves in a situation where we have to draft in a replacement when the cupboard looks relatively bare, there’s to be nothing resembling the can’t bowl, can’t throw incident. Don’t even think it. But if you do, and you’re sprung in the act, expect your wallet to be a fair bit lighter and anticipate being the face in the photograph when the cheque’s being handed over to the worthy cause...
Monday, November 18, 2013
The View from Two Days Out…
A visit from The Actor yesterday morning gave a welcome opportunity to clarify the thoughts three days out from the resumption of Ashes hostilities. Grigor, being a regular correspondent to the op-ed pages of the local paper but doesn’t have access to a computer or email, needs someone to type up the correspondence, which I’m happy to do since the secretarial chore is invariably followed by an interesting conversation.
Recent interesting conversations had, however, skirted around the cricket, so once I’d finished the typing I directed our attention straight to The Gabba with a question about the final composition of the Australian eleven.
Everything seems cut and dried, except for the inevitable Faulkner or Lyon question, and that, I suspect, is largely going to depend on the state of the track. I like Lyon and reckon he’s coming on nicely, but if there’s a hint of soup in the wicket I think I’d be inclined to go with Faulkner.
If he’s included he’d have to bat Eighty, with Johnson at Nine with a Test ton under his belt and Harris and Siddle, neither of whom are mugs with the bat, at Ten and Eleven.
When you look at it in those terms, that’s a rather impressive batting line up.
Rogers and Warner to open, the accumulator and the aggressor making a rather interesting pair of counterfoils. Watson has to bat somewhere, probably harbours some lingering thoughts about opening, but Three might be an acceptable compromise for a man who seems to be used to getting what he wants.
Clarke at Four, Smith at Five and Bailey at Six is probably the best middle order we can assemble at the moment. Add Haddin at Seven and the bowlers as indicated and you’d have to be optimistic about the chances.
The notion of Faulkner at Eight also gave me the opportunity to revisit some thoughts on developing all-rounders, specifically as far as the emerging quicks are concerned. If they’re going to have their fast bowling workload strictly limited, they may as well work on the batting.
You never know. One of them might turn into the sort of genuine all-rounder who can bat in the first seven and contribute a full workload with the ball.
On the other hand, with a bit of work on the batting you might have a useful contender to contribute handy runs at Eight or Nine rather than a bunny to come in at Ten or Eleven.
Every little bit helps.
The discussion progressed from there into the whole issue of injury-prone quicks, which has been revisited often enough to be skirted around here, and ended up with Grigor expressing the hope that we’d have a competitive series.
That’s probably what almost everyone wants, but almost everyone doesn’t quite include Yours Truly.
A competitive series is fine with me, provided it involves an Australian side that’s playing close to or above 100%, and that notion gave me something to ponder on the pre-Jimbo portion of today’s morning walk.
The Critical Reader might have difficulty with the concept of achieving a result that’s better than 100%, but here’s my take on the seemingly incongruous mathematics.
I had cataract surgery at the beginning of 2012, and was surprised to be informed on a follow up visit that my eyesight was now better than 100%. That threw me for a while, but things got clarified on a subsequent visit when I ran across the very bottom line of the chart on the wall.
The second bottom line, I figured, equates to 100% normal vision, the best that you can reasonably expect to have. Read onto the next line and get things right and you’ve exceeded the perfect percentage.
So, as far as Australian cricket is concerned, I want to see an Australian side performing to around 100% of its potential. I’m not interested in a competitive series against Bangla Desh or Zimbabwe if it means we have to play down to their level to get the competitiveness.
Until recently, we haven’t been sure what our best side is, and there seem to have been definite factors within the squad that have prevented individuals and the group as a whole delivering the best they’re capable of.
When you look at this Australian Twelve, I think it’s about the best Dozen we can deliver. If they can play to their full potential we’re going to go very close to getting The Urn back, and, yes, it will probably be a competitive series.
More significantly, there are a couple of players in there who have the potential to deliver something that will really make us sit up and take notice for all the right reasons, and that’s definitely something to look forward to.
That’s where I’m coming from, anyway...
Recent interesting conversations had, however, skirted around the cricket, so once I’d finished the typing I directed our attention straight to The Gabba with a question about the final composition of the Australian eleven.
Everything seems cut and dried, except for the inevitable Faulkner or Lyon question, and that, I suspect, is largely going to depend on the state of the track. I like Lyon and reckon he’s coming on nicely, but if there’s a hint of soup in the wicket I think I’d be inclined to go with Faulkner.
If he’s included he’d have to bat Eighty, with Johnson at Nine with a Test ton under his belt and Harris and Siddle, neither of whom are mugs with the bat, at Ten and Eleven.
When you look at it in those terms, that’s a rather impressive batting line up.
Rogers and Warner to open, the accumulator and the aggressor making a rather interesting pair of counterfoils. Watson has to bat somewhere, probably harbours some lingering thoughts about opening, but Three might be an acceptable compromise for a man who seems to be used to getting what he wants.
Clarke at Four, Smith at Five and Bailey at Six is probably the best middle order we can assemble at the moment. Add Haddin at Seven and the bowlers as indicated and you’d have to be optimistic about the chances.
The notion of Faulkner at Eight also gave me the opportunity to revisit some thoughts on developing all-rounders, specifically as far as the emerging quicks are concerned. If they’re going to have their fast bowling workload strictly limited, they may as well work on the batting.
You never know. One of them might turn into the sort of genuine all-rounder who can bat in the first seven and contribute a full workload with the ball.
On the other hand, with a bit of work on the batting you might have a useful contender to contribute handy runs at Eight or Nine rather than a bunny to come in at Ten or Eleven.
Every little bit helps.
The discussion progressed from there into the whole issue of injury-prone quicks, which has been revisited often enough to be skirted around here, and ended up with Grigor expressing the hope that we’d have a competitive series.
That’s probably what almost everyone wants, but almost everyone doesn’t quite include Yours Truly.
A competitive series is fine with me, provided it involves an Australian side that’s playing close to or above 100%, and that notion gave me something to ponder on the pre-Jimbo portion of today’s morning walk.
The Critical Reader might have difficulty with the concept of achieving a result that’s better than 100%, but here’s my take on the seemingly incongruous mathematics.
I had cataract surgery at the beginning of 2012, and was surprised to be informed on a follow up visit that my eyesight was now better than 100%. That threw me for a while, but things got clarified on a subsequent visit when I ran across the very bottom line of the chart on the wall.
The second bottom line, I figured, equates to 100% normal vision, the best that you can reasonably expect to have. Read onto the next line and get things right and you’ve exceeded the perfect percentage.
So, as far as Australian cricket is concerned, I want to see an Australian side performing to around 100% of its potential. I’m not interested in a competitive series against Bangla Desh or Zimbabwe if it means we have to play down to their level to get the competitiveness.
Until recently, we haven’t been sure what our best side is, and there seem to have been definite factors within the squad that have prevented individuals and the group as a whole delivering the best they’re capable of.
When you look at this Australian Twelve, I think it’s about the best Dozen we can deliver. If they can play to their full potential we’re going to go very close to getting The Urn back, and, yes, it will probably be a competitive series.
More significantly, there are a couple of players in there who have the potential to deliver something that will really make us sit up and take notice for all the right reasons, and that’s definitely something to look forward to.
That’s where I’m coming from, anyway...
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Getting ready for the resumption
Anyone sitting down, a week out from the resumption of hostilities in the Two Part Ashes Series, scratching the noggin and pondering the absence of lengthy dispatches from The Little House of Concrete Sports Desk can relax.
We know there's someone out there since a glance at the Blogger stats reveals around twenty hits on the blog page on 12 November, around the time the side was named.
We’re back, but we’re not sure how long it’ll last because we’re not sure how much we’ll have to talk about.
I’m inclined to see the whole two part exercise as something like a football match, played in two halves. We’ve spent the first half running players on and off the field as we try to establish the right combination. We’d sort of got things right by the time we got to The Oval and a couple of players who needed to put their hands up, then headed off at half time for a break with most of the selection issues settles.
That’s most selection issues, but not all of the buggers. We have the predictable questions about who’s fit in the bowling department and one can’t help suspecting Faulkner got his guernsey in a sort of What if Watto can’t bowl scenario, which meant there was still a possible gap at Six.
White ball form had established Bailey as the most likely contender at Six, and when you look at matters like The Captain’s Back and the lack of alternative leaders in the side most likely contender probably got transformed into lay down misere.
Ain’t hindsight wonderful?
Actually, when you look at it, after all the tinkering this six at the top of the order is probably as good as we’re likely to get for the next six months. Messrs Cowan, Hughes and Khawaja haven’t done enough to upset the applecart. Doolan doesn’t quite seem to have come on as expected. Queenslanders seem to be ineligible by origin. End of story.
Which is fine, in a way, because there are longevity issues with Rogers and Clarke, Watson is a game by game proposition, so there are spots up for grabs in the medium term. All we need is a few contenders coming to the fore.
The batting may not be fine, but for the next six weeks this lot is probably as good as it gets and could do very well indeed.
The bowling ain’t too shabby either, with Johnson having hit some white ball form. He’ll deliver the shock attack (or shocking, you can never tell). Harris and Siddle will work their guts out, and Lyon continues to come along nicely. He’s a work in progress, and I think progress is being made.
And then there’s Watto to act as a fourth seamer if he’s not the fifth because we’ve included Faulkner at Lyon’s expense on a Gabba green top.
Straightforward is the term that springs to mind when it comes to this particular selection, which explains the absence of lengthy Hughesy analysis over the past fortnight or so. The only bloke who can claim a degree of disappointment is Cutting, but he’s a Queenslander, and, therefore, ineligible by origin.
There’ll be issues further down the track, and that’s where the thoughts have been headed on the morning walk over the past couple of days.
The issues, predictably, relate to the bowling, and the propensity for young quickies to break down and spend extended spells on the sideline. They also come back to the need to create a bowling attack that can take twenty wickets in a Test, bowl ninety overs in a day and come through five days without someone breaking down.
That last point seems to have something to do with bowling more than fifty overs in a Test, so let’s just linger on the mathematics of all this once more. As we do so, we’re not looking at this series, more casting an eye towards the horizon, trying to see where we’re headed in two years’ time.
We’re looking at the standard Test eleven of six bats, a wicketkeeper and four bowlers, figuring you’re going to bowl three days out of five.
Take four specialist bowlers, divide that number into ninety, multiply the answer by three and you come up with a tad under sixty-seven, which is a fair bit more than fifty. We’re assuming there is an actual statistical base for that fifty overs in a Test bit, which may not be exactly right but you have to start from somewhere.
The easiest way to get to ninety is to look at it as four twenties and a ten, which in turn comes back to a current line up of Johnson, Harris, Siddle and Faulkner/Lyon as twenty over bowlers, with Watson taking the ten.
That standard Test eleven cited before has your four bowlers batting Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, but you can open things up and start looking at Six and Seven in the long term, or in the shorter term if Watto breaks down again.
Which means we’re back with the all-rounder question again, and we’ll have Geoffrey rolling his eyes once again. But we’re looking long term, and things possible contenders should be working on rather the here and now that might stretch into the week after next.
It all comes down to how you define your all-rounders, which in turn decides how you select them.
A genuine all rounder will be good enough to bat in the first six and go close to bowling his twenty overs in a day. He probably bats six, since batting higher up seems to bring constraints with the bowling workload. Dunno why that has to be the case, but it seems to be the way it is.
Alternatively he can bat Seven if the ‘keeper is close enough to a specialist bat to slot in at Six.
Genuine allrounders are few and far between. We tend to get bowlers who can bat, and the occasional batsman who can bowl. Bowlers who can bat will send down their twenty overs a day and contribute useful runs while occupying the crease, hopefully with an established batsman at the other end. Bowlers who can bat are good prospects at Eight and Nine.
You’re always going to have someone in the side who’s a candidate for Eleven, and more than likely another who’s a Ten. Looking at a Gabba scenario that could have Harris and Siddle at Ten and Eleven if Lyon gets the drinks waiter’s job is an atypical state of affairs. Neither of them are bunnies.
On the other side of the pseudo all-rounder coin, we have batsmen who can bowl, and here we’re looking at someone who can bat in the top six and deliver around ten overs of Test standard bowling.
Note we’re talking Test quality here, not someone who is there and can roll the arm over if required.
And this, folks, is where we turn our eyes towards the horizon.
Along with the fifty overs in a Test there also seems to be some statistical basis for a suggestion that it’s the young quicks who are most likely to break down badly. The older ones, when they’re injured, seem to have issues that relate to normal wear and tear.
On that basis, it might seem to make sense to have some of your up and coming quicks, once they’re out of age group cricket, looking to bat up the order for club or state sides which could tend to put some constraints on their bowling workloads. Note the use of could, tend and some there, and we’re not talking right up to the top of the order, more like Seven or Eight if the ‘keeper’s batting Six.
You never know. That might just get them through the danger period safely, after which the work rate could be ramped up, and you’d have a bloke who could handle himself in a Test side at Eight, Nine or Ten.
More particularly, if you’ve got someone who can bowl and can also build himself into a Five, Six or Seven (if the ‘keeper bats six) you might have a way forward for the likes of Ashton Agar, though one notes that the all-rounder bit requires ten or twenty overs of Test standard bowling. Could be a way forward for Glenn maxwell as well, but revealed form suggests the bowling isn’t quite there yet.
If that all seems to be looking too far into the future, let’s just say you’ve got to do something while we’re waiting to see which way the coin falls at the Gabba in a week’s time.
We know there's someone out there since a glance at the Blogger stats reveals around twenty hits on the blog page on 12 November, around the time the side was named.
We’re back, but we’re not sure how long it’ll last because we’re not sure how much we’ll have to talk about.
I’m inclined to see the whole two part exercise as something like a football match, played in two halves. We’ve spent the first half running players on and off the field as we try to establish the right combination. We’d sort of got things right by the time we got to The Oval and a couple of players who needed to put their hands up, then headed off at half time for a break with most of the selection issues settles.
That’s most selection issues, but not all of the buggers. We have the predictable questions about who’s fit in the bowling department and one can’t help suspecting Faulkner got his guernsey in a sort of What if Watto can’t bowl scenario, which meant there was still a possible gap at Six.
White ball form had established Bailey as the most likely contender at Six, and when you look at matters like The Captain’s Back and the lack of alternative leaders in the side most likely contender probably got transformed into lay down misere.
Ain’t hindsight wonderful?
Actually, when you look at it, after all the tinkering this six at the top of the order is probably as good as we’re likely to get for the next six months. Messrs Cowan, Hughes and Khawaja haven’t done enough to upset the applecart. Doolan doesn’t quite seem to have come on as expected. Queenslanders seem to be ineligible by origin. End of story.
Which is fine, in a way, because there are longevity issues with Rogers and Clarke, Watson is a game by game proposition, so there are spots up for grabs in the medium term. All we need is a few contenders coming to the fore.
The batting may not be fine, but for the next six weeks this lot is probably as good as it gets and could do very well indeed.
The bowling ain’t too shabby either, with Johnson having hit some white ball form. He’ll deliver the shock attack (or shocking, you can never tell). Harris and Siddle will work their guts out, and Lyon continues to come along nicely. He’s a work in progress, and I think progress is being made.
And then there’s Watto to act as a fourth seamer if he’s not the fifth because we’ve included Faulkner at Lyon’s expense on a Gabba green top.
Straightforward is the term that springs to mind when it comes to this particular selection, which explains the absence of lengthy Hughesy analysis over the past fortnight or so. The only bloke who can claim a degree of disappointment is Cutting, but he’s a Queenslander, and, therefore, ineligible by origin.
There’ll be issues further down the track, and that’s where the thoughts have been headed on the morning walk over the past couple of days.
The issues, predictably, relate to the bowling, and the propensity for young quickies to break down and spend extended spells on the sideline. They also come back to the need to create a bowling attack that can take twenty wickets in a Test, bowl ninety overs in a day and come through five days without someone breaking down.
That last point seems to have something to do with bowling more than fifty overs in a Test, so let’s just linger on the mathematics of all this once more. As we do so, we’re not looking at this series, more casting an eye towards the horizon, trying to see where we’re headed in two years’ time.
We’re looking at the standard Test eleven of six bats, a wicketkeeper and four bowlers, figuring you’re going to bowl three days out of five.
Take four specialist bowlers, divide that number into ninety, multiply the answer by three and you come up with a tad under sixty-seven, which is a fair bit more than fifty. We’re assuming there is an actual statistical base for that fifty overs in a Test bit, which may not be exactly right but you have to start from somewhere.
The easiest way to get to ninety is to look at it as four twenties and a ten, which in turn comes back to a current line up of Johnson, Harris, Siddle and Faulkner/Lyon as twenty over bowlers, with Watson taking the ten.
That standard Test eleven cited before has your four bowlers batting Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, but you can open things up and start looking at Six and Seven in the long term, or in the shorter term if Watto breaks down again.
Which means we’re back with the all-rounder question again, and we’ll have Geoffrey rolling his eyes once again. But we’re looking long term, and things possible contenders should be working on rather the here and now that might stretch into the week after next.
It all comes down to how you define your all-rounders, which in turn decides how you select them.
A genuine all rounder will be good enough to bat in the first six and go close to bowling his twenty overs in a day. He probably bats six, since batting higher up seems to bring constraints with the bowling workload. Dunno why that has to be the case, but it seems to be the way it is.
Alternatively he can bat Seven if the ‘keeper is close enough to a specialist bat to slot in at Six.
Genuine allrounders are few and far between. We tend to get bowlers who can bat, and the occasional batsman who can bowl. Bowlers who can bat will send down their twenty overs a day and contribute useful runs while occupying the crease, hopefully with an established batsman at the other end. Bowlers who can bat are good prospects at Eight and Nine.
You’re always going to have someone in the side who’s a candidate for Eleven, and more than likely another who’s a Ten. Looking at a Gabba scenario that could have Harris and Siddle at Ten and Eleven if Lyon gets the drinks waiter’s job is an atypical state of affairs. Neither of them are bunnies.
On the other side of the pseudo all-rounder coin, we have batsmen who can bowl, and here we’re looking at someone who can bat in the top six and deliver around ten overs of Test standard bowling.
Note we’re talking Test quality here, not someone who is there and can roll the arm over if required.
And this, folks, is where we turn our eyes towards the horizon.
Along with the fifty overs in a Test there also seems to be some statistical basis for a suggestion that it’s the young quicks who are most likely to break down badly. The older ones, when they’re injured, seem to have issues that relate to normal wear and tear.
On that basis, it might seem to make sense to have some of your up and coming quicks, once they’re out of age group cricket, looking to bat up the order for club or state sides which could tend to put some constraints on their bowling workloads. Note the use of could, tend and some there, and we’re not talking right up to the top of the order, more like Seven or Eight if the ‘keeper’s batting Six.
You never know. That might just get them through the danger period safely, after which the work rate could be ramped up, and you’d have a bloke who could handle himself in a Test side at Eight, Nine or Ten.
More particularly, if you’ve got someone who can bowl and can also build himself into a Five, Six or Seven (if the ‘keeper bats six) you might have a way forward for the likes of Ashton Agar, though one notes that the all-rounder bit requires ten or twenty overs of Test standard bowling. Could be a way forward for Glenn maxwell as well, but revealed form suggests the bowling isn’t quite there yet.
If that all seems to be looking too far into the future, let’s just say you’ve got to do something while we’re waiting to see which way the coin falls at the Gabba in a week’s time.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Looking Forward
While were not planning on a never-ending blog regurgitating never-ending themes from time to time between here and November there’ll be something of note in the early morning trawl through the websites that’ll give me something to cogitate over the course of the morning walk.
Take, for instance, Lehmann promises a 'pick and stick' policy for Test side in The Australian this morning. Given the way things have gone recently, you’d think that’s a no-brainer, but there were a couple of associated issues to muse on as I stepped out around regular the circuit.
We’ve got a fairly definite batting order with a space at either Three or Six that’ll be decided by who’s been scoring Shield runs in the early rounds and where we want them to bat. Haddin at Seven, and Siddle, Harris (if fit) and Lyon. That leaves two spaces for quickies in the twelve, so the question becomes which two?
The current contracted players list includes Cummins, Faulkner, Harris, Hilfenhaus, Johnson, McKay, Pattinson, Siddle and Starc. With Watson presumably right to bowl that’s a fair battery of quicks, with several candidates lurking on the fringe, but we have an interesting point that was raised regarding the first name on that list, so let’s leave the fringe players out of it for the moment.
Fringe players don’t have central contracts and are therefore, presumably, outside the Cricket Australia player management/rotation/whatever you want to call it policy.
There was an interesting piece in The Age from Australian team doctor Peter Brukner (Why our young fast bowlers keep breaking down) which didn’t tell us much I didn’t already know, but reinforced a couple of points.
The most significant of them is here: The bowling load of these players is monitored very closely. Total numbers of balls bowled at training and in games is planned as much as possible ahead of time and adjusted according to circumstances. What we particularly try to avoid is rapid increases in the number of balls bowled from week to week.
There was an interesting article a couple of days back that I’ve just spent a quarter of an hour trying to track down that points out Pat Cummins is involved with three separate squads when you take national, Shield and Big Bash commitments, with potentially different workloads and build ups involved with each.
He’s just twenty, with around another four years until he’s out of what Brukner cites as the extreme danger zone as far as stress fractures are concerned, so Cummins ... will have to severely limit the amount of bowling he does over the next two to three years if he wishes to remain free of injury.
On hopes these matters are being looked at, along with a number of other issues with team protocols and procedures. On 21 November we want to deliver a side onto the paddock that’s focussed and free from distractions. There are a number of things that are going to be part of that package, and the news coming out of the England team celebrations reminds us that there are issues with alcohol and socialising.
It would be hypocritical of me to suggest that players shouldn’t drink, but it’s fairly obvious that going out for a few jars with the boys from the opposition isn’t a particularly good idea at the best of times in the era of cameras in mobile phones and Twitter.
At the same time you’re not expecting the side to turn into hermits and sit up in the hotel playing the X-Box or whatever. They’re probably going to have to go out to eat, for a start.
What you want, under those circumstances, is some sort of protocol to handle these things, and a fair bit of the lap around town went into considering how these things might be done.
For a start, you’ve got three separate environments. There’s the team, and in the days of wives/ girlfriends/ kids on tour there’s the family and, lastly, there’s the bloke who’s just had a shit of a day and wants to be on his own.
That last one’s easy to handle. If you want to do a Greta Garbo and just be left alone, that’s fine. Stay in the hotel. We’ll arrange appropriate space if required.
In all these cases it should be a case of let us know what you’re after and we’ll fix it for you. That’s not a case of mollycoddling. It’s called damage control.
In a case where the city hosting a Test match is going to have a couple of thousand members of the Barmy Army prowling the pubs and clubs the last thing you want is an Australian player with a chip on his shoulder over something or other running up against the buggers.
So if you’re going to brood, the hotel’s the place to do it.
I’d presume if you’ve got the wife/girlfriend/kids in tow you mightn’t be too keen on heading off for a session with the other fellers, but if you’re looking for a dinner for two, or a family meal somewhere kid-friendly and you’d like us to arrange it...
In those environments I suspect you’re after something low key where you can relax as a couple, family or whatever.
Then there’s the group from the team bit, where there are separate but similar issues. Again, you don’t want to be running across the Barmy Army or getting photos splashed across the front pages of the tabloids. Quiet places where you can eat, have a drink or three, relax and unwind, bond or whatever.
It struck me there are a number of ex-Australian players in each of the capital cities you could draw on to make sure there are plenty of social options that could be tailored to suit whatever requirements need to be met.
Appoint one bloke as the unofficial social secretary, get him to set up the network and get people out to build up a dossier of possibilities for the side when they’re in that particular city. You could even work it to a point where there’s a bit of intercity rivalry about who can throw up the best selection.
Small things, maybe, but they’re issues that can be delegated, would probably help the internal dynamics of the team, and simultaneously limit any damage that might come from having the wrong bloke in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong company.
If the other mob are going to have a few jars and hose the odd bouncer, pitch or whatever, that’s fine. They can have the headlines. We’d just like the urn back, thank you very much.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Out of The Oval
What with the weather and all we’ve had the predictable amount of navel-gazing from people who have to write something to keep the pay cheques rolling in. Given the fact that I’m partial to a sleep in when I can manage it (and I actually did on Saturday and Sunday mornings) I figured it was an opportune time to leave the blogging alone and pursue other matters, but, at the end of the Test series we need to stop and consider a few matters, so here we go.
We could, of course, continue to blather on about The Niggle, and one notes a rather interesting bit of pot and kettle in the statement from the ECB discussed here. Uncle Fester’s remarks are supposed to constitute incitement, but one wonders exactly how far you’d get if someone was silly enough to start up a chant at The Gabba on the morning of November 21.
Hughesy has fond memories of consistent chanted sledging of the South Australian side during That Historic Sheffield Shield Final in 1995, and wonders what would happen if someone were to start up just one chant every time Mr Broad takes guard with the bat, walks back to his mark to bowl or handles the ball in the field.
Actually, if I was going to the ground that day I might be inclined to see what could be arranged, but you’d have to expect to be tapped on the shoulder by someone from Security and, more than likely, ejected from the ground to the accompaniment of orchestrated jeers from the Barmy Army.
One notes the following remark in the ECB statement: The ECB, in supporting its players, management support staff and their families, believe no one in the game condones incitement of any kind and leaves the topic muttering about pots, kettles and Barmy Armies...
Count the drinks, not the runs, wrote Brydon Coverdale a couple of days back, and we’ll probably get a little more pot and kettle action from irate England supporters claiming to be hard done by after Michael Clarke took his time towards the end of an intriguing run chase. England took their time on Day Three, obviously out to ensure they couldn’t lose. They picked up the rate this morning, since they reckoned they were safe, ended up all out 377 and ended up being given a very gettable target in an extremely generous declaration that would have gone right down to the wire if they hadn’t gone off for bad light.
One notes their run chase started fairly brightly, and when Root departed it was 1-22. I wasn’t awake at the time, but a scan of the ball by ball doesn’t reveal anything exciting between then and Cook’s departure at 2-86 in the twentieth. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if Clarke’s venture into spin (he had Lyon on to bowl the 9th, and bowled the 13th and 15th before trying Faulkner) had paid off with a wicket or two.
I’m quite sure, under those circumstances Pietersen would have had the same tonk he ended up having, but if he’d then got out reasonably cheaply they’d have shut up shop.
There was a bit of to and fro about England’s scoring rate on Day Three here, particularly from Faulkner, and it’s interesting to look at the comments under a fairly even handed summary of the day’s play here. I don’t usually head in that direction, and based on some of the blather there won’t be in a hurry to go back.
Because, in the end, despite the 3-0 score line, we’ve had a much closer series than most people anticipated. There seems to have been a certain amount of pooh-poohing of the story headlined Arthur reveals two-series strategy, which looks to me like a case of someone needing something to fill the column inches.
We wanted to try to push England really hard in England, but we wanted to win in Australia, Arthur told ABC Radio. Really? And this is supposed to be news?
So what have we got out of the end of this series?
First up, we’ve got a bowling attack that should be able to take twenty wickets in Australian conditions. It’s obvious the wickets we’ve just played on were tailored to suit Swann, but it’ll be a different kettle of fish when hostilities resume, assuming we’ve got a battery of fit quicks with Harris as a key player.
Second, you can probably be reasonably confident about more than half the batting order. Having chopped and changed, I’d like to see Rogers and Warner at the top, Watson at Three or Four, Clarke at Four or Five and Smith at Five or Six. Throw in Haddin, Harris if fit and Lyon and there’s eight out of the eleven with spaces for two quicks, one of whom will be Siddle and a gap at Three or Six, depending on what you’re going to do with a fit Watto.
Third, as pointed out here, England’s batting can be vulnerable if things are planned correctly, and while Australia's players - and selectors - lack resilience if tested for extended periods (good point) that batting order noted above looks to be close to as good as it’s likely to be unless Clarke’s back starts playing up again.
There’s the opportunity for someone (Hughes, Cowan or Khawaja, for starters) to claim back the Three with good scores in the early rounds of the Sheffield Shield, and the possibility of a younger bloke (Doolan is one possibility, though there are others) claiming a berth at Six with Watto staying at Three.
I like it, anyway.
There will, of course, be plenty to look forward to, though transmission from here won’t be resuming on a regular basis until mid-November, and may not be back thereafter, depending on travel arrangements and such.
The forthcoming one dayers and T20s? Push me to one side and call me a fuddy duddy with other fish to fry.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
The Oval Day Two: Some things I pondered as rain washed out the first session
As I headed out on the regular lap around town this morning I realised that I must have known there was going to be a significant rain delay as I set about putting a batch of a regular kitchen staple together.
Someone, I thought, might take yesterday’s comments about the haka and Jerusalem as evidence of significant anti-Kiwi or anti-Pom sentiment in these parts. While I’ll accept there’s a bit of that in these parts it’s not what fuels a rather intense dislike of manipulating things to someone’s advantage by disrupting the opposition’s pre-match preparation.
As a result I spent a fair portion of the time I spent waiting for the start of play musing on a particularly irritating piece of time wasting that may well have cost me a chance of coaching the winning side at the 1996 Queensland Primary Schools’ state carnival and going on from there to ponder some things you’d possibly be looking to adapt if you were coaching a side at international level.
Those musings and ponderations continued through the morning walk, and form the basis of what follows here.
But, first, the background.
Primary School Cricket, back when I was involved (it may have changed in the interim, it’s been a good sixteen years since the events under consideration) might have been played in a fifty over format, but games were cut into two hour sessions. Two hours, lunch, two hours, afternoon tea, then however long you needed to wind things up.
It was also played in an environment where there were definite protocols in place when it came to coaching on the field. Two years before this particular chain of events I’d been chatted, for instance, for telling the twelfth man to take these batting gloves out to the captain, who was batting at a snail’s pace in pursuit of a difficult target, and tell him to get runs or get out.
It was going to be the third time this particular message had been sent out, and a degree of frustration may have had something to do with the fact that everyone nearby was aware of the specific instructions.
But, as The Astute Reader may gather, in this environment there are limited avenues through which instructions can be communicated to the batsmen in the middle. You had slightly more latitude when your team was fielding, but these things were watched and obvious offenders chatted.
In any case, with two hour sessions and limited avenues of communication there’s a definite advantage in maximising the number of overs you bowl in the first session, particularly if you can keep things tight and restrict the run rate.
That means the opposing coach will have fewer overs to work with when he sets out with modified instructions after the lunch break, if you catch my drift.
Crawl through the overs in the first session and he’s got more time to work things so his side throws the bat. Run through them at a fair clip, and there’s less room to work with. Do the maths yourself. Someone who goes to lunch at 2-60 off 30 overs has plenty of time to build a total. If that 2-60 comes off 35 you’re not going to be facing the same run chase, and if it’s off, say, 38 (which was, if I recall correctly, the best any of my sides managed, and I was understandably pleased) you’d definitely fancy your chances batting second.
That meant, when you went through your team preparation you used your centre wicket practice to work on a lively change between overs. Keeper and slips jog to the other end, and everyone should be in place by the time the umpires are in position with the bowler at the top of his run up ready to bowl.
The NQ speak for this was the razzle dazzle. You set out to razzle dazzle the opposition, and you worked on your batsmen to take their time and avoid being hurried when the opposition set out to razzle dazzle you. Take a moment, check your guard, that type of thing. Not deliberate time wasting, but not being hurried either.
That’s Part One of the background. There were a couple of additional factors that applied on the Sunshine Coast in 1996. One was the fact that this was my fourth go at the NQ coaching job, and having coached the winning side in 1992 and missed out in ’93 and ’94 I was hoping to depart on a winning note.
We also had a couple of kids who looked rather good chances for State selection, one of whom was the best prospect I’d sighted in the Bowen Junior Cricket Under 12s, over the twelve years I’d been involved. Maybe not quite as good as Greg Pearce, who went on to Australian Under-17 selection, but the best prospect since Pearcey, who wasn't far off graduating out of the Junior system.
There were a couple of other matters that related to this particular carnival, which was being played over venues scattered across the countryside, rather than in one central location. Constraints imposed by the calendar meant twelve teams were split into four pools of three rather than two pools of six.
Two pools of six meant you were in the Final if you finished on top of your pool. Four pools of three meant you had to win a game against one of the other two sides if you wanted to progress to the quarter finals, and from there things worked on a knock out basis.
We’d duly won our first game, had a day off for an excursion to the beach while the other two sides in the pool played, and got rolled by a Metropolitan side on Day Three. The opposing coach expressed commiserations, since the cross pool knock out bit meant our next game was against Darling Downs, rated as odds-on favourites to win the carnival and, coincidentally, historically rated as masters of the razzle dazzle.
Not the side you’d want to meet in the quarter finals when you’ve got three kids with a fair chance of State selection.
They won the toss, elected to bat, and after I’d gee’d up our boys on the Razzle dazzle (at least thirty-five by lunch would have been the instruction) out they went.
The problem came at the end of the first over.
We had a badged (qualified) umpire looking after the bowler’s end. The batting side provided someone to stand at square leg, and the coach wasn’t allowed on the field during playing time.
So, the end of the over. The umpire calls over and sets off for the other end. Keeper and slips pass him before he’s half way there. They’re in position by the time he gets to the other end, bowler’s ready to go. A quick gee up and we’re on again.
But wait.
The square leg umpire hasn’t quite made it from square leg to the pitch. Everyone stands and waits while he laboriously makes his way out to square leg. He did that for every one of the fifty overs.
By the fourth or fifth the kids in the field were totally off the boil. Flat. Looking to bowl thirty-five in the session we didn’t get to thirty, and ended up chasing more than two hundred in an environment where 150 was generally a winning score. We ended up about thirty short as I reshuffled the batting order to try to get the win and avoid being relegated to the also rans.
That caused problems over the next two games as I tried to give all the kids a go and, simultaneously, keep three of them in contention for State selection. I was copping it from parents to the point where I went up to the State coach to see if there was anything in particular he wanted to see on the final day.
Yes, was the reply. He’d like to see these two kids at the top of the order. We won the toss and batted. One of the two opened, the other went in at Three. The opener (Steve Aitken, from Bowen) went cheaply, Three (Simon Page, on his third trip away, we’d initially selected him as a ten-year-old) got a ton, and ended up making the State side along with the all-rounder who’d batted Three in the run chase against the Darling Downs.
I ended up copping heaps from parents of kids who weren’t getting a bat while Pagey carted the bowling. What was I expected to do? The State coach wanted to see this kid bat at the top of he order, so he was going to be out there until someone from the selection panel said he’d seen enough.
And, when the State side was named that afternoon we’d finished either seventh or eighth, and ended up with two in the State side. Pretty good going for seventh or eighth, I’d have thought.
Just after the side was announced the Darling Downs coach came over to congratulate me on the two selections. They’d taken out the carnival in a hand canter and ended up with a commensurate number of selections. He also suggested we’d been the only side that had stretched them.
That, I think, is a fair wrap, but The Astute Reader can probably understand why these things rankle.
I spent most of the washed out first session last night pondering what you’d be looking to do with a Test side when it came to your approach to the first session on Day One. Was there anything you could draw from that Queensland Primary Schools bit?
As it turns out, yes, I think there is.
If you’re bowling on Day One of a Test you want to bowl thirty-plus overs in the first session. England managed twenty-nine on Wednesday.
At Trent Bridge we managed 26 (England 2-98), at Lords 26 again (England 3-80), England managed 26 at Old Trafford (Australia 2-92) and at Durham we bowled 27, with England crawling to 1-57.
Those twenty-nine on Wednesday had us at 1-112.
Considering the above you might be inclined to think thirty in that first session is a bridge too far, particularly on the basis of that 1-112 and the thought of what might have happened if Warner had managed to stick around a little longer than he did, but consider:
Day One with a new rock should be optimum pace bowling conditions, so you’d figure there’s a definite advantage in getting in as many overs as possible.
The only way you’re going to get to what may be an aspirational rather than anticipated target will be by keeping things bowling and bowling dots. Fetching the ball back from the boundary takes time when the field is up.
Anything defended forward of the wicket will get back to the bowler quicker than a ball that goes through to the ‘keeper, but if it’s been defended forward of the wicket that also means you’ve forced the batsman to play, which is what you want to do with the new ball anyway.
You won’t get to the thirty unless you’ve managed to take wides and no balls out of the equation.
If you’re going to get to the thirty you’ll have to be ready to hit the openers with everything but the kitchen sink right from the time Mickey’s big hand passes the twelve on the clock and the umpire calls play.
And, most importantly, batsmen like to take their time. Razzle dazzle ‘em. Don’t give them time to settle.
If they look like getting away, of course, you can always slow things back a tad, but that thirty in the first session of Day One should go a fair way to ensuring your over rate is up where it’s supposed to be.
All of which makes sense from where I’m sitting.
As far as overnight events go, let’s just take a long read of the press reports and ponder the contents. I seem to recall hearing suggestions regarding further weather interventions over the next thee days, so we’ll need something to keep our minds occupied, won’t we?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
THe Oval Day 1: The Niggle and the Damage Done (Or Not, as the case may be)
Having made the point that the difference between the two sides in this Ashes series comes down to Ian Bell it’s worth making again on the back of a better than par performance on Day One of The Oval Test.
It could, of course, have gone drastically wrong, and at 1-11 with Warner heading back to the pavilion it was hard to avoid the suspicion that the nuts were dangerously loose and we were once again in a position where the wheels could fall off.
Watson’s 176 meant they didn’t, even after Rogers went fairly cheaply (23) and Clarke got himself into trouble against the short ball and ended up bowled Anderson, 7. Throw in 66 not from Smith and 18 from nightwatchman Siddle and you’d have to be fairly upbeat about Australia’s prospects.
I’ve been muttering about the injustices of a score line that reads 3-0, but would respectfully suggest the following antidote to any Australian supporter confronted with a gloating Pom.
Give him a chance to deliver his serve, fix him with a beady eye and inquire:
Take out Bell. How good would you be looking then?
Pause, then before he can get a reply in, hit him with:
Actually, take out Bell and Broad and where’d you be then? More than likely four-nil down against a side that’s playing well short of a hundred per cent.
That last point might be stretching it a tad, but this series has been a lot closer than the score line suggests, and much of the difference, once you remove Bell from the calculations, comes down to Broad, who is rapidly becoming a major pain in the you know where.
Which, of course, brings us back to the eternal subject of The Niggle.
Prior to the start of play there was much being made of Uncle Fester’s response to Mr Broad’s remarks about That Catch That Wasn’t.
Lehmann’s suggestion that Australian crowds should give the blond English dude who looks like he could pick up a gig in the remake of Brideshead Revisited (thanks for that one, Jimbo) a constant stream of sledge was being regarded as unsporting (or something) from the Pommie-phile commentariat, largely on the basis of what a few lagered-up occupants of Bay 13 might happen to deliver.
Say what?
This, mind you, comes from people who’d describe the antics of the Barmy Army as a colourless bit of mostly harmless fun.
As The Astute Reader might guess, the conjoined subjects of The Niggle and The Sledge occupied much of Hughesy’s cogitations on the morning lap around town and a fair bit of the conversation after the right on schedule rendezvous with Jimbo at the bottom of Herbert Street.
You might, of course, be inclined to believe Hughesy’s taking these things a little too far, but much of the pre-rendezvous cogitations concerned this article by none other than Glenn McGrath from The Guardian.
Bowlers have the wood on Australians, the headline reads, but a closer examination reveals a rather thoughtful and decidedly analytical piece on the influence of The Niggle when it comes to bowler dominance over particular batsmen.
A glance at that overnight score card shows Rogers out to Swan, which now makes six out of seven innings.
The more you get a batsman out the more it becomes psychological, The Pigeon opines, and he’s right on line, just short of a length hitting the top of off stump.
You want to build the pressure, make sure the batsman knows exactly what is going on, he continues a bit further down, as Hughesy casts his mind back to the short midwicket that automatically went into place when Alderman was bowling to Gooch back in 1989.
Then McGrath delivers the blow that loops things nicely back into the Land of The Niggle: And you do not have to confine the talking to the pitch – you can always say a few things in the media as well. Get commentators and fans talking about it, make it an issue, which is, of course, exactly what Broad was doing with his comments on That Catch That Wasn’t.
Brydon Coverdale’s one of the better cricket journos going around (IMHO) but he doesn’t quite get it right here. Lehmann fires, but misses the point
Instead of trying to rattle the England players, Australia's coach should focus on the issues in his own team, the headline says, which is true up to a point.
Actually, it’s not so much a case of trying to rattle the England players, more an instance of he’s had a Niggle at us, here’s one back. Which, to me is fine. It’s all part of The Niggle.
You’re not trying to rattle anybody. It’s more a case of inserting the grain of sand in the sock and waiting to see if it becomes an irritant.
There are some rather interesting manifestations of The Niggle that sprang to mind as I headed out along the jetty this morning, with, IMHO, the prime international example being, and I know Angry is just going to love this, the All Blacks and the haka.
Now, hang on, Hughesy, someone’s going to say. That’s part of their cultural tradition. You can’t complain about that.
Actually, you not only can, but you should. The same way that you can complain about the dude who has Jerusalem booming out over the P.A. at the start of every day’s play in this Test series. Suggest they give equal time to Down Under or Waltzing Matilda and see how far you get.
Suppose you’re looking to get out on the ground and warm up before the umpires come out. I’m not sure whether this is allowed under existing protocols, but say you wanted to. Warm up, have everyone loose and ready to fire right as the batsmen arrive at the crease.
Maybe you can, but what do you do when this dude hasn’t sung Jerusalem yet? And what do you do, assuming you’re out there and loosening up, when he starts to sing?
Keep going? Yes. Definitely. Have the British broadcasters condemn you as a bunch of upstart colonials lacking in respect for our cultural traditions. Good one. It’s all about making sure these things are working in your favour at the start, that welling of national pride that delivers the final adrenaline rush before the start of play.
Recognize it for what it is.
Just like the haka, which allegedly requires the opponent to stand and show respect in the face of quite obvious and bare faced intimidation wrapped up as cultural heritage.
Think I’m kidding?
How far would this suggestion get?
Fine, you can have Jerusalem. You can have it as your side, or your batsmen take the field. Develop a protocol that says Umpires, fielding side, batsmen, with the appropriate piece of music booming out over the P.A. Under that regime later today at The Oval you’d have Jerusalem followed by, say, Down Under. Tomorrow, more than likely, with England batting, the order would be reversed. Sound fair?
Seriously, how much of a hearing would that get?
It’s time we recognized these things as what they are, fairly blatant little exercises in gamesmanship wrapped up in patriotic bunting, and if you’re going to use them, there should be something in place for both sides.
According to Coverdale It is hard to imagine that Lehmann would have called Broad a cheat had he been in a press conference full of English reporters.
Why not? A press conference full of English reporters will feel quite free to make all sorts of comments about the abilities of the side you’re coaching, and will question anything they see as constituting dodgy practice.
No, it’s all part of The Niggle. And until the other mob stops it, you have to expect the right to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)