Thought of the Day: Thoughts from the First Test

And so the First Test of the Border-Gavaskar series between Australia and India is completed, with India winning by 8 wickets in the first session on Day 5.

Australia was lucky to make the game stretch out that far, with only a record 10th wicket stand between debutant Moises Henriques and 11th man Nathan Lyon making sure that India had to bat again.

Moises was the most impressive of the Australian batsman and should have guaranteed himself a spot in the next test, possibly at the expense of a batsman or a bowler.  It is hard to know who he should replace, given that it is hard to work out whether the Australian team batted worse than it bowled.

Certainly letting India score over 500 on a wearing track isn't a good sign, but the ineptitude shown by its batsman in playing spin indicates that Australia is going to struggle to defend any total it may be able to muster with the ball.

Of the batsmen, Shane Watson must be the man most in the firing line, though dropping the teams Vice Captain and two-time winner of the Alan Border Medal is unprecedented.  That being said, "Watto" did win his medals while the team was in a worse state than it is now. 

This guy used to get a game

There may not be much to celebrate at the moment but Australia can take some solace that Shane Watson, hitherto the best/only Test cricketer in the team, may no longer be good enough for the starting XI.

With Watson now unable to bowl at Test level, his scores of 30-40 really aren't enough for the middle order.  Besides, Ed Cowan seems to be doing that job. 

This does raise the question of who to bring in though; Usman Khawaja must be a consideration, though he may only be good for 30-40 himself.  Still, he is young and in India with the team.  If a batsman is going to be brought in, he seems to be the only man standing.

The Australia-A team has just smashed the England Lions in 4 consecutive 50-over matches, but these have not been on Indian pitches and none of these players could possibly be a consideration at the moment.

Should Watson keep his place and the selectors look to bring in a bowler to try and restrict the total Australia needs to chase, Mitchell Starc and Peter Siddle would have to be the men most likely to be dropped. 

Siddle is, apparently, the first man in the team picked.  This may be worrying in itself. 

He is, though, someone who tries all game and appears to be a good influence on the team.  He possibly doesn't have the variety required to be a threat in India, but he can bowl for long spells, which allows the others a break and serves a role.

Mitchell Starc is my favorite Australian Left-Arm fast bowler at the moment, though seems to spend periods of games being consistently un-threatening.  This doesn't seem to perplex him, which is a great sign and he has plenty of excellent cricket ahead of him.  After going wicket-less in the First Test, he is probably the least required bowler should a change be needed.

The obvious bowler to be brought in is Xavier Doherty, who is apparently the only spinner worth taking to India at the moment.  I'm not sure what Stephen O'Keefe has said to anyone, but I'd suggest that the X-man pay for O'Keefes ticket to India to save him embarrassment.

On reflection, all of these changes are based around Moises' (a debutants) place in the team.  Not a great sign.  Better batting and more aggressive bowling is certainly needed to make a greater contest of the Second Test.

Sign of the times: tanking not costing Melbourne federal support?

From The Age online, 20 February 2013

Question of the Day: What was TK-421 doing?

As everyone alive today knows, the Millennium Falcon was captured by the Empire in IV after being trapped in a traction beam and pulled into the Death Star. 

The response of the Empire to capturing the 'Falcon is worth a number of "Questions of the Day" (e.g. why didn't they just destroy it when they thought the plans were on it, rather than capture it etc), but the most pertinent question seems to surround their immediate response to getting the ship to themselves.

After finding that the ship was empty and escape pods jettisoned, a scanning crew is sent aboard the 'Falcon to see if there are any robots on board.  Further, sentries are established outside the 'Falcon while the scanning crew is on board.

Why?

The Death Star clearly has the ability to use the traction beam on any ship in its vicinity (which raises another question to the Empires response to the later attack on it) and several hundred Stormtroopers (armed with lasers) aboard.  So why the need to guard the 'Falcon?  Are scanning crews that unreliable?  There doesn't seem to be a large outbreak of graffiti on the Death Star, so what were the sentries guarding?

"Feeling a little like my career is slipping away from me here".

Further to this, the Sentries' boss gets upset and distressed when they do leave their post.  This anxiety only climaxes when he discovers that the Sentries can't hear him, forcing him to go and fix the situation (the communication device) himself. Aren't there maintenance people aboard the Death Star to do this for him?  We all know that Stormtroopers are bad shots, but how unreliable are they?

Is this just another example of poor management by the Empire?

Sign of the times: Bombers now being honest

Having had their club being tarred with the brush of drug cheating, it looks like The Bombers are now being open about their amphetamine use.

Question of the day: what the hell were Jabba's intentions?

Jabba the hunt is one of the recurring bad guys in the Star Wars franchise (even though he was left much less menacing in 1 through some rubbish CGI), something we know because he kills his dancing girl at the start of 6.

The question is; why?

She dies after resisting him pulling her towards him/it until he opens a trap door underneath her, letting his pet eat her.

But why pull her towards him? Surely he could have just had her thrown to the Rancor if he wanted? What was the big gross slug with small arms going to do?

Possibly better not knowing. Forget I asked.

Thought of the Day: Is Ed Cowan Monkey Magic?

Above: Ed Cowan

Having grown up in Australia in the 1980s, Monkey Magic was a constant presence in my life, and often a guiding one.

The opening to the TV show; “In the Worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned, heaven sought order; but the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown” still ring in my ears, albeit in a strange chinglish accent.

These words came back to me suddenly with the retirement of Mike Hussey, as his departure means that the Australian cricket teams batting line-up suddenly becomes as brittle as the backs of its bowlers.

Not wanting to add too much fuel to the fire, the selectors will no doubt minimise changes to the batting line-up / seek order, meaning EdCowan is likely to keep his spot at the top of the order; despite not scoring runs & keeping Shane Watson out of the team.

Here’s hoping Cowan grows some feathers (not of the Duck variety though).

Thought of the Day: The solution to Crickets problems

One of the great things about the game of cricket is that its fans and followers are always looking to find issues with it.  What other sports have these sorts of issues? 

Soccer (as a game) is fine, most of the issues seem to arise from the actions of the fans.  Basketball seemingly peaked with Michael Jordan's career, but is still widely played and supported and the supporters don't seem to bemoan changes in the game or dwell on the games seemingly inevitable demise.

Apart from maybe this guy.

So what is it about Cricket? 

The game of cricket has benefited and suffered from its colonial past; all of the current top Test playing nations were or are members of the British Commonwealth, which gives it a large playing and supporter base (particularly in India), though it has struggled to expand past these borders.






Still, a lot of cricket is still being played and the level of interest in the game has actually increased over the last five years with the advent of Twenty20 (T20) Cricket.

Given that the game is in a healthy state, where are these complaints coming from and what are they all about?

Essentially, all of the complaints seem to relate to all aspects of the way the game is run.  T20 is bemoaned for corrupting the game, confusing the annual playing schedule, wearing out players and corrupting the techniques of young cricketers.

India is criticised for bullying all other nations into playing by their own rules, though this criticism does have some justification.

May or may not be an employee of the BCCI

The amount of cricket being played is criticised for being unwieldy, disinteresting and disorganised.  Organised matches are criticised for being uneven contests, for having poor pitches and poor attendance.

There is currently a T20 World Cup held every two years, a Champions League T20 every year, an ODI World Cup every four years, as well as regular tours, domestic leagues and competitions between different nations.

There is a rankings table for each team playing each version of cricket (there are also criticism's about their being too many versions), though this is criticised for being irrelevant and confusing.

The game just can't win.

Or can it?

The overall issue seems to be that, while all of these issues are integrated in their nature, they aren't in practice.  The International Cricket Council (ICC) simply needs a way to organise cricket so that it can support all of the versions of the game in a way that aids growth and development, while keeping supporters happy.  If that is possible.



The trick is to organise a schedule that allows for all three versions of the game that everyone knows and understands, as well as understand how the results of the games impact the international rankings.

The games should be organised to ensure that they are competitive, but also allow for the game and the teams playing it to develop.

To do this, all the top teams should be organised into groups in which they all play off against one another over a ten month period (see table, below). 

This allows every team to have a break (the bye) as well as allow a two month period every year for incidental competitions (e.g. ODI World Cup, IPL, Champions League etc). This two-month window also allows for extended tours (e.g. the Ashes) where / if required) and a break from competition for players (if they want it).

The two month period allocated for competition between teams can be used for Tests, ODIs and T20s - however those teams want to use it.

The 2 teams that finish at the bottom of their league at the end of the 12 month period will move into the league below theirs, while the teams at the top would move up.  This would create much more relevance around the rankings tables and interest in competition.

The only real issue with this format is where two teams are due to play each other but are from the same hemisphere, meaning it may not be the right season for cricket.  That being said, the structure is not set in stone, it can be moved around to allow for the seasons.

The T20 World cup can be kept every two years and involve all the teams from the top three leagues in the two month break (lets call it Round 6).  This World Cup will enable the teams in the bottom league to have exposure to the top teams to help them develop, as well as share in the money to be earned from media rights (similar to the Carling Cup in the EPL).

The ODI World Cup should be more restricted, but help less experienced / developed teams get used to a longer format of cricket.

With this structure in place, it *should* give cricket fans something to be happy about, or at least find another thing to complain about.  Whatever, or whoever, that may be about.

Not naming names