Thought of the Day: Observations from India

And so the Test Series between Australia and India draws to a close with India winning the Series 4-0.  While a lot has been written about the state of the pitches in India, particularly how unsporting they were, very little has been written about this as a decisive factor in the contest - possibly because the Australian team were inexplicably poor on and off the field.

The pitches, though, must not be forgotten.  India lost their last series in Australia 4-0 and were surely looking to ensure they regained pride at home, as well as kept the interest of the local populace in Test Cricket through a breast-beating thumping of the Arrogant Aussies.

The only time the BCCI likes to see a happy Australian

Also not to be forgotten is the recent Test Tour by the England Squad (with its South African inclusions) that beat India at home 2-1.  Rubbing salt into the wound of this loss was India being out-span (spinned?) through the series, usually India's strength. Though this was a good series, the BCCI was hardly likely to let this sort of thing go on.

This is not to take anything away from the Indian side that has comprehensively beaten the damp-squib of a display that the Australian squad was.  The Australian squad did have its moments, but they were largely inconsistent or poor performers.

Highlighting this was one of the most consistent players for Australia being Ed Cowan, who averaged 33 for the series which compares nicely with his career average of 32.  The irony of your most reliable opener averaging in the low 30s is not lost here.

Several Australian players fired a few shots through the series, including Moises Henriques, who played beautifully on debut before falling away as if he had taken up heroin.  Phillip Hughes took a few Tests but looked like he remembered how to bat *a bit* before the end of the series, while Stephen Smith (perennial whipping boy here) actually looked like he could bat at Test level.  He should keep his place.

That last sentence made me feel like this.

Aside from that group; Michael Clarke, Peter Siddle, James Pattinson and Nathan Lyon (when picked) all performed admirably and certainly looked like they were trying.  Pattinson was obviously very upset about being dropped for the Third Test.

Matthew Wade (average of 18) looked like he didnt know which end of the bat to hold and an appalling choice to come in at 6.  Dave Warner (average of 24) refused to change his game plan and perished accordingly, though did manage to get in all sorts of verbal tussles with opponents which could only have been based on him barbing them to bat worse than him.

The less said and seen of Mitchell Johnson and Xavier Doherty, the better.

Alongside the poor pitches and performances was another disturbing development, that of player discipline and harmony, which is possibly the most worry of all.  While pitches and performances can be worked on, a rotten team culture will eat away at results until there is nothing left. 

Shane Watson, former dual Alan Border Medal winner and the best player in the team while it was truly terrible obviously has to take some of the responsibility for this.

Aside from his poor performances on the field (no longer bowls, hasn't scored serious runs in a long time) he has openly vied for Cowans opening position, threatened to walk away from the team and when he walked back into it (as Captain); chose fellow ODI and T20 players ahead of the Test players (Glenn Maxwell opened ahead of Cowan, Johnson bowled ahead of James Pattinson and Peter Siddle).

There may not be a divide in the team between the players who specialise in the short forms of the game (that have greater personal reward) and the longer form, but there may well be.

Watsons' ego is big enough, I probably shouldn't feed it with metaphors like this.

Australian Crickets Chief Executive recently came out in the press to bemoan the lack of interest modern players have in leadership, I would suggest that installing the best leaders in leadership positions would inspire young players to develop as such.

For mine, Peter Siddle would be an obvious candidate for the Vice Captaincy under Clarke.  This would represent the first picked batsman and bowler in the team, as well as the players that (apparently) have worked the hardest to achieve what they have.

While Watson was undoubtedly the best of a bad lot in 2010-11, several of the squad have worked harder since then at helping the Australian team win and deserve the chance to lead.


In all, the Series was always going to be tough on pitches prepared to assist India, but Australia did itself no help with its performances on and off the field.

Bring on the Ashes?

Thought of the Day: Thoughts from the Second Test

Violet Jessop was born in Argentina of Irish immigrant parents in 1887 and went on to become a nurse, before then surviving the sinkings of three ships; the HMHS Brittanic, the RMS Olympic and even the well-known RMS Titanic. 

You may call this bad luck, but one result of it should have been the accumulation of patience and perspective on Violet's part.  Thinking of Violet, I wonder how she compared the Brittanic' sinking to the Titanics and whether she did so while it was sinking.

"I've had worse"

Similarly, Michael Clarke has recently captained Australia to two emphatic Test defeats to India, experiences which (should) be providing perspective not only on the team but also the state of Australian cricket.

Clarke wouldn't need too much reminding about emphatic defeats, with the 2010/11 Ashes drubbings not nearly a distant memory yet.  That series was supposedly a nadir for Australia, with selectors forced to go to the cupboard to find replacements for its previously champion side, only to find the cupboard bare.

Putting the disastrous 2010/11 Ashes series next to the two tests in India, as well as other recent performances does provide some perspective, some of which is actually positive.

Firstly, Australia pushed the number one ranked side in the world, South Africa, over two tests before losing the third (and final) in the series after having to change their entire bowling line-up due to injury.  The Baggy Greens had the momentum for much of the series and were only denied a win in Adelaide by a miraculous innings from Faf, but things like that happen in cricket.

Like this friggin catch

Another similarly game-changing innings occured in the first Test in Chennai, with MS Dhoni blasting 224 runs in a career-best performance.  Admittedly, Australia was unable to remove these batsmen on both occasions, but even Paul Collingwood was able to score 200 runs against an Australian attack that included Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.  Again, these things happen.

The other important piece of perspective to keep is that this test series is being played in India on pitches suited to the Indian team.  In many ways, this makes this series something of an anomaly as it doesn't represent that the Australian team is incompetent overall, just in India.  Indeed, the recent record of the Australian team in other countries is relatively strong.  The preference would certainly be for a team that is strong in all conditions, but given that we are still building from the nadir, we can't expect too much.

That being said, there are some obvious poor performers and poor performances that have been highlighted in the first two Tests so far.

Phillip Hughes was 'protected' from the South Africans by the selectors who wanted to give him an easy re-introduction to Test cricket and waited until the Sri Lankans were touring until he was picked.  He did well in that series, though not against spin and without any big scores.  He is still yet to dominate a bowling attack in Tests like he did when he was first picked and doesn't look like he will anytime soon.  The best thing for him, and Australian cricket, are a few more dedicated seasons of First Class cricket. He isn't even 25 years old yet so has years ahead of him.

2 stumps is not enough

Shane Watson still gives the impression that the team is lucky to have him in it.  Unfortunately for him, the dark days of the 2010/11 Ashes are past and the team has moved on.  He is no longer the best player in a bad team, but a bad one in an OK-to-good team.  His value to the team is negative without his bowling and he is currently taking the spot of a young batsman who may also score 20-30 runs now, but 50-60 in the future.

Finally, the strange pursuit of an all-rounder in the team is neither helping batting or bowling, but hurting both. 

Not naming names.

 The team in Hyderabad included 2 all-rounders (3 if you include Watson, 4 if you include Clarke, 5 if you include Wade, 6 if you include Pattinson), neither of whom contributed enough with either bat or ball. 

Given the team struggled with both bat and ball, it is probably a more astute policy to drop both and play a specialist for each role in their place. 

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.