Star Wars YouTube Video of the Day

Star Wars YouTube video of the day

Thought of the Day: C is for....

With the recent One Day International series between Australia and South Africa now over, Australia has moved to the number One ranked ODI team in the world and are in prime form ahead of the World Cup.  Apart from a few issues.

Firstly, the World Cup doesn’t start for nearly 3 months, so a lot can change in that time.

Secondly, though Australia did win, it hardly was convincing as a settled unit and neither was South Africa.  Both sides dropped their best players at different times, making it more of a test to see if certain players could play certain roles.  This wasn’t about obtaining the all-important “M” in modern sports; Momentum.

Given that it was more of a test and learn series, there can be little confusion as to the small crowd sizes, which seems to have taken up a lot of the medias attention.

Some in the media were quick to defend the series, and by extension Cricket Australia, pointing out the high TV ratings for the contests.

Nice and smug there Malcolm

TV ratings are great and important, particularly given that is where Cricket makes most of its money, but crowd numbers indicate public interest and excitement about the sport.

The head of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, has come out and launched an investigation into the small crowd numbers, though (as adroitly pointed out by Titus O’Reilly) this is a little like a murderer investigating his own crime.

If CA are serious about engaging the public and ensuring interest in Cricket is something more than an alternative to repeats of M*A*S*H on a Wednesday night, it would seem that looking at the positioning of the game would be a great starting point.

< 

Eyes you could swim in for hours>>

That is, what does the “C” in “CA” stand for?  At the moment it isn’t Cricket, so is it…

Confusion

Sorry, I just love using this one.

The latest ODI series was played in the context of nothing with most of the best players unavailable.  Why would fans be interested?  What does it mean?

There is a lot of cricket being played in Australia this summer, not least the Matador Cup (already finished), the Big Bash League, another ODI series against England and India and a Test series against India…before the World Cup begins.

What are fans to think?  There is almost too much going on and none of it seems to relate to each other.

I have put forward my thoughts on making the Cricket Calendar more relevant to fans before, but perhaps this could be expanded to include short form games in the same way as the Womens Ashes; so that all games are worth points that lead to an out-right trophy that can be easily understood?  Too simple?

Calendar

Some pundits are claiming that poor attendances are due to too much cricket being played, specifically citing that most fans aren’t used to Cricket (particularly ODI Cricket) in November.

Well, the A-League didn’t even exist 10 years ago & fans certainly weren’t used to having soccer on mid-week, but they have gotten used to it.

Make the game accessible and relevant, and the fans will turn up anytime of year.  They certainly seem happy enough to switch on.

Thanks again, Malcolm.

Children

Despite being unable to set a sporting Calendar or Competition that fans can follow, CA certainly are good at getting children into the game.

Census data shows that 951,933 people participated inorganised Cricket in 2012-13, which is a startlingly high number.  Regardless of everything else it is inept at, Cricket Australia is good at getting young people interested in Cricket, even if this seems to equate more to TV audiences rather than match attendance.

Unfortunately pocket money doesn't stretch this far anymore.

Complacency

In all, CA seems like it really doesn’t give a shit about the game, fans, or a long-term future.  They are making a ton of cash for doing a crap job, so why start caring now?

This attitude seems to have carried over to the national Test team, supposedly the pinnacle of Cricketing excellence in the land, who not only lost a Test-Series comprehensively against Pakistan, but did so while picking players who wouldn’t normally get a game.

Not naming names. (photo courtesy of Getty Images)

The performances of young players coming through is also evidence of a lack of proper investment.  While Australia has been able to produce good fast bowlers in the last ten years, the number of spin bowlers and specialist batsmen (roles that traditionally require more time to develop) has declined.

Dave Warner is an obvious exception to this rule, but he is an exception to all rules, starting as a T20 slogger and developing himself into a successful test opener.

So what has Cricket Australia done to help produce better players or attract more to the game?  Nothing it seems.  Young Australian sportsmen are leaving Cricket to play other sports in greater numbers than ever, after all, why would you play a sport with a confusing schedule in front of 14,000 people when you could play 22 games a year in front of 40,000?

Just ask him.

Thought of the Day: The Cricket Names World Cup

With the Cricket World Cup less than 3 months away, interest is starting to pique in Australia with the current ODI series against South Africa underway & another series against India and England in the mix as a warm-up in January.

Heightened interest is leading fans to discover the teams involved (all 14) of them, and the star players of each.

With teams coming from such diverse locations as Ireland, the UAE, Zimbabwe and the West Indies (who could be replaced by Hong Kong if their players can’t be arsed committing to a tournament lasting more than a week), the names on offer are equally exotic.

So with that in mind I have looked into which teams have the best, or World Cup winning, names here:

Zimbabwe

Best Performers:

·      Shingi Masakadza: A truly electric-sounding African name, Shingi ensures that an authentic African flavour will be present at the cup.

·      Regis Chakabva: Regis brings a regal touch with his first name and some African (and potentially hard to pronounce) flavour with his last name.  This should ensure plenty of hilarity to TV watchers while the likes of James Brayshaw struggle with pronunciation.

Overall

A traditionally strong team in the naming department (e.g Heath “Hot” Streak and Henry “How” Olonga), the Zimbabweans seem to have actually stepped up for this World Cup.  They are bringing a really diverse and interesting mix and are sure to be there for the last match.

2/14

England

Best Performers:

·      Eoin Morgan: I challenge any player in this World Cup to have as many vowels making up their first name as Eoin.  A true stand out.

·      Ravi Bopara: This blokes name sounds like a party I want to be invited to.  It jumps around off the tongue and ensures that the 3 Lions have some real diversity in the team.

Overall

A team that has lifted out of the Australian-level doldrums through an aggressive immigration policy, they bring a lot of interest to the competition with the diversity of their names, though a bad taste remains when you consider that many of the players have just been stolen from other countries.

8/14

Australia

Best Performers:

·      Mitchell Starc: Though no guarantee to play, this Mitchell (not Marsh or Johnson) at least brings some slavic representation through his last name.  Also has good eye brows.

·      Xavier Doherty: No guarantee to play, though has somehow managed to play 57 ODIs despite averaging about 40 with the ball. Brings some interest with his first name that starts with an ‘X’. Also, is Tasmanian, which is a bit weird.

Overall

Traditionally under-achievers in the Cricket Names World Cup with very few names raising more than the single eye brow.  I can’t see these guys doing much better.  They are basically making up the numbers.

14/14

Ireland

Best Performers:

·      Niall O’Brien: About as stereotypical Irish name as you could get, with weird Gaelic spelling turning a dull name like “Neil” into something more interesting.  O’Brien just makes you think of leprachauns and Guinness.  Don’t pretend it doesn’t.

·      Kevin O’Brien: See Niall.

Overall

Having blokes with really Irish names gives one hope that, if an English game like cricket can make it in Ireland, it can make it anywhere.  Their presence gives the Cup some excitement and promise.  Definitely finalists.

4/14

Scotland

Best Performers:

·      Craig Wallace: Perhaps a descendent of William Wallace who brandishes his bat like a broadsword, or perhaps just a bloke named Craig.

·      Gordon Goudie: I’m not sure if Goudie is a traditional Scottish name, but it does remind me of Tim Brook-Taylor, and that makes me happy.

Overall

A disappointing result from a team with so much potential.  Similar to Ireland, Scotland has the potential for stirring national names, but also benefit from the immigration policies that England has benefited from.  Unfortunately neither of these is well represented with this squad, who have some serious introspection ahead of them.

11/14

New Zealand

Best Performers:

·      Brendon McCullum: Not really that good a name on face value, but becomes pretty entertaining once pronounced with a New Zealand accent. I’m hoping he doesn’t find out about this blog, he terrifies me.

·      Inderbir (Ish) Sodhi: Lifts the team from a naming cesspool including “Ross”, “Kane” and “Neil”. Having a first name that is so hard for team mates to pronounce that his official name is his nickname shows how good this bloke is.

Overall

The Black Caps always win a few points simply through the entertainment created by pronouncing their names in a Kiwi accent, but that trick is starting to get a little tired and predictable, particularly in a competition as strong as this.

12/14

Bangladesh

Best Performers:

·      Mahmudullah: I’ve posted already about my admiration for the man with one name, but his unique defiance of naming conventions makes him a stand-out attraction & brings the team up the ranks

·      Shakib Al Hassan: Possibly the only player in the Tournament who is as flashy as his name suggests.  Follows on from Mahmudullahs lead by dismissing the 2 name format for 3.  One to watch.

Overall

Good performers if a little predictable, who unfortunately suffer from the precedent set by long-time World Cup participants & neighbour, Pakistan, for Muslim names.  Still, a delightful addition & will finish just short of the semi finals.

5/14

South Africa

Best Performers:

·      Morne Morkel: What can I say? Tuna Morne?

·      Quentin De Kock: OK, this is a little bit obvious, but it only gets worse when you consider that his name sounds like “Cutey Cock” when pronounced differently.

Overall

I really would like to put these guys up the ladder for creativity alone, but you can’t reward creativity for creativities sake alone. They are just weird and uncomfortable names.  Only the dull Australian names keep them from the cellar. Kick them out.

13/14

India & Pakistan

I am never going to preference one of these on-line over another.

Tied for 6^th and 7^th.

Sri Lanka

Best Performers:

·      Harder to pick than a broken nose.  Could be any of Lokuge Dinesh Chandimal, Herath Mudiyanselage Rangana Keerthi Bandara Herath, Uda Walawwe Mahim Bandaralage Chanaka Asanga Welegedara or Ranaweera Mudiyanselage Shaminda Eranga

Overall

Traditionally strong performers in the Cricket Names World Cup, the Sri Lankans have only improved in the last 4 years and will take out the main prize again this year.  With cricketing talent to match their names, they will be playing more games than most & giving fans the longest enjoyment. First place by a furlong.

1/14

Afghanistan

Best Performers:

·      Mohibullah Oryakhel:  One of the things I like best about this bloke, is that his CricInfo profile says you can alternatively spell his last name with an “I”, rather than an “e”.  Genius.

·      Shafiqulluh: See Mahmudullah (Bangladesh)

Overall

With the potential to suffer from the issue of similar names as that of Bangladesh and Pakistan, Afghanistan break the mould with an influx of the letter “Z” and other exotic pronunciations.  A welcome addition to the competition & certain contenders for the “Super Sixes” stage.

6/10

West Indies

Best Performers:

·      Narsingh Deonarine: Adds a real flair to a team that is otherwise filled with “Dwayne”, “Darren” and “Chris”. 

·      Sulieman Benn: There is so much about this bloke that represents the plight of modern WI Cricket; he is 6 foot 7 but bowls off spin.  That being said, I can’t help but think of Neil Diamond whenever I hear his name.  Also an issue.

Overall

Have never really set a good standard since their heydays of the 70s and 80s with the likes of Colin Cowdrey and Malcolm Marshall.  In many ways the tournament would be a lot better if this lot didn’t show up & were replaced by Hong Kong.

10/14

United Arab Emirates

Best Performers:

·      Krishna Karate: With a first name invoking a peaceful deity and a last name invoking Daniel-San, this bloke has an attractive and juxtaposed mix.  Look for some very David Carradine style play.

·      Andri Berenger: In a team of very Islam-inspired names, Berenger is a stand-out & gives the team some real diversity

Overall

Last seen at the 1996 World Cup after qualifying for the Group Stages, the UAE have brought some real fire, creativity and diversity in the naming department.  Definitely Quarter finalists, I see them finishing third.

3/14

Sign of the Times: Australia aren't too committed

A glance at the recent Australia A v Pakistan scorecard reveals a few interesting insights:

And not the Esclusive on-the-go games!

If Australia is resting its players so that it is relying on Pakistan providing fill-in fielders, they probably aren't taking preparation too seriously.

Sign of the Times: Australia not very sportsmanlike

Taken from Cricinfo on October 13, 2014.

Australia celebrating the last ball victory over Pakistan

A picture tells a thousand stories.

Mitchell Starc obviously enjoying himself

Or sometimes just one.

Top 5: Lessons from Australian Cricket Debuts

The recent publication by Cricket Australia of the 49 cricketers to have debuted for Australia since 2004 caused little stir in the media or amongst cricket fans, apart from perhaps a few chuckles over some selections and a few wistful reminiscese about performances and what may have been.

There was one, though, dissenting voice from former fast-bowler Rodney Hogg who slammed the list as a travesty and an example of the dire state of Australian cricket, the end of the world and other histrionics.

With this in mind, I decided to take a closer look at the list to see if it really was time to pack a bug-out-bag and head for a bomb shelter, or whether things are ok.

Here is what I found….

The Method:

When looking at the players, I looked at the role they were selected to play, the number of games they played and whether they were successful, unsuccessful or moderately successful.

I also took into account whether their careers were curtailed by injury or the Stuart Law rule (where they are dropped for an existing member of the team, despite good performances).

I also took into account the year in which they made their debut, and whether it was possibly 'too early to tell' whether they had been successful.

Now, much of these categories are subjective, but its my blog and no-one reads it, so I’ll do as I please.   With this in mind, I present my summary.

Please keep in mind that I was a little lax on accurate performance statistics, often rounding total runs scored up or down.  Also, Ashton Agar is highlighted as the first debutante since Darren Lehmann took over as Coach.

The findings:

5. The majority weren’t failures

While 49 players making their debut in ten years may indicate a change-over of nearly half the team every year, the reality is far from true.

42% of the players were classified as ‘Unsuccessful’, meaning 58% (the majority, for those of you not familiar with forks and traffic lights) were acceptable cricketers. 

This takes extra precedence when you take into account that of the ‘Unsuccessful’ players, 2 had their careers curtailed by injury (Shaun Tait and Beau Casson), while 3 are defined as being “Too early to tell” (the resurgent Phillip Hughes, Usman Khawaja and George Bailey) and 1 falls under the Stuart Law rule (Graham Manou).

Graham Manou, right, his Cricinfo profile omits the phrase he may be heard muttering to himself “what might have been”

Taking these 6 players out of the overall count means that the overall Unsuccessful percentage of players moves down to 33%.

4. You can’t Spin bad Spin

The obvious area where selection could be criticised is in the Spin bowling department. Of the players defined as Unsuccessful, 45% are Spin Bowlers. Of these, the average number of matches played is only 2.1, indicating that they either weren’t given much of a go, or shouldn’t have been there at all.

Not naming names

The ineptitude of these players is reinforced when compared with the records of batsmen who were adjudged as Unsuccessful, who averaged 12 matches each.  This figure (12 matches) could also have been higher if not for the inclusion of Rob Quiney (2 matches).

3. I may be being a bit harsh

Using “Moderate” to define a players record is a bit of a cop-out, they either are or they aren’t, but it does allow me to add an element of success in determining how well the selectors performed in the period.

Looking at the players adjudged as moderate is quite telling.  Batsmen and Quick bowlers make up 33% of the total each, contributing over 3,500 runs (from 5 players) and over 200 wickets (also 5 players).  Interestingly, the “Moderate” batsmen played an average of 11.8 Tests, almost identical to the 11.4 played by the Quicks.

Its also important to take into consideration that 4 of the Moderately performed players were unable to take the next step due to injury (Andrew McDonald, Ben Hilfenhaus, Tim Paine and Shaun Marsh), 4 were adjudged “Too early to tell” (Steve Smith, Mitchell Starc, James Faulkner and Alex Doolan) and 1 suffered from the Stuart Law Rule (Brad Hodge).

2. May the lessons of the past not be forgotten

Only 15 players that made their debut for Australia before 2009, leaving 34 to debut since then. Of the 15 that made their debut before 2009; 5 were spinners, 4 were Quicks and Batsmen, while there was 1 All-Rounder and 1 ‘Keeper.

More tellingly though, was that only 33% of these were judged Unsuccessful and that 2 of those were Cullen and Tait.  The others were Spinners (Cameron White, Jason Krejza and Dan Cullen).

The consistent trend here?   Unsurprisingly, that selecting players to perform in the Spinnning role that aren’t up to it will not succeed and will not last.  Equally unsurprising is that this applies to all other roles too, though poor spinners seem to get found out sooner rather than later.

Not naming names.

Given the comparably poor level of success experienced by the Australian cricket team in the period of 2004 – 2014, or in particular 2009 – 2013, one could mount an argument for selecting the best team & not simply picking a Spinner to make up the numbers.

Further to this, it is worth noting that continued success appears to be more prevalent where there are fewer debuts.  This is particularly telling when taking into account that only 4 players have made their debut since Darren Lehmann became coach in mid-2013, while others have had their careers resurrected (e.g. Dave Warner, Chris Rogers).

1. Hogg isn’t that bright

Of the players that Cricket Australia has selected in the past 10 years, more than half of them were not Unsuccessful (sorry for the double negative). 

This figure jumps to 66% not being Unsuccessful when the poor Spinners are removed and jumps higher still when players impacted by injury, the Stuart Law rule or who are “Too early to tell” are taken into account.

For the selection years since 2009, 2011 is a real stand-out with 10 debutants in that year alone, or 21% of the total debutants in the 2004-2014 period.  Of these, 4 were adjudged Successful, 3 Not Successful (including Khawaja and Starc) and 3 Moderate. 

The average number of matches for players that made their debut in this year is 13, indicating that many of these players are still going around 3 years later.

In Graham Yallops excellent book “A lamb to the slaughter”, recalling the dreaded 78/79 Ashes series, Hogg is seen as a bit of a mystery.  He takes a record number of wickets for the series, but simply gives up bowling when the mood seems to take him and is generally the stereotype fast bowler (aggressive, short-tempered and a little thick).

Given the accuracy of his comments on team selection, I for one advocate that we listen to the likes of Yallop in future.