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

Thought of the Day: A clash of cultures requires more than one culture

Dean Jones isn't known as a man of subtleties.  During his playing days, "Deano" was a member of a 'new generation' of cricketers who captured the Australian cricket-followers interest as a member of the 1987 World Cup winning team and as a dasher between wickets.  He also scored a few runs in Chennai.

Jones spends his days as a cricket coach and commentator these days, and it is in the latter profession that he has made a score of late.

In his latest piece for "The Age", Jones writes of the on-going animosity between the South African and Australian teams since the period of South Africa's re-entry to International Cricket, drawing comparisons with the Australian teams respectful relationships with other opponents such as the West Indies and India.

And herein lies Jones' dash; the level of respect exists as both teams recognise each others different cultures and respect them, whereas South Africa had none.

That's not to say there wasn't a culture within the post-apartheid South African team, just one that the players weren't supposed to represent, and like the awkward kid at school; they were trying a little too hard to impress everyone else with the culture they decided they wanted to represent.

The Star Wars kid may or may-not have been their cultural advisor.

Jones gives telling examples of the crowds using 'sheep' jokes (implying relationships between Australians and sheep) with them, assuming a familiarity that wasn't there, as well as pointing live guns at the opposition; seeming once more like that awkward kid wanting to be seen as 'cool' or respected, without any knowledge of how.

This isn't to say that there isn't a culture within the South African team now.  The Proteas are now the undisputed Number One test team in the world and are a true representation of their country's diversity. They have had a balanced side for a number of years and seem free of the anxiety or wanting to fit in or be respected.

Lets hope the South Africans have also learned that Sheep jokes should be aimed at Kiwis too.

Thought of the Day: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Cricketer

Shane Watson has a lot to thank Andrew Flintoff for.

Flintoff was Man of the Series in the 2005 Ashes, no mean feat considering the contributions of his teammates with the bat (e.g. Pietersen, Trescothick) and ball (e.g. Jones, Harmison, Hoggard). His contributions with bat and ball, however, were often at crucial times and his ability to inspire teammates with these efforts were key to England winning.

Thus, Cricket Australia decided it needed an all-rounder in its own team to replicate the success of England.  Interesting in that it didn't look to rid itself of some of the players that were past their prime, or start developing new players, but that's another story.

The stand-out candidate for the all-rounder position at the time was Shane Watson, who had debuted 6 months prior in Sydney as a bowling all-rounder.  Watsons' highlight from his first test would have to be either his first wicket (Younis Khan LBW) or falling over during his first over.

His efforts against a mediocre Pakistan were satisfactory, though not enough to earn a place in England.

The only other all-rounders in consideration were Andrew McDonald, who didn't have Watsons abilities with the bat, and Andrew Symonds, whose medium pace wasn't threatening enough and whose part-time spin was already being misrepresented by a fleet of others.

Not naming names.

His next chance came courtesy of Flintoff in the 2009 Ashes, after the English bowler worked out that Phillip Hughes (the incumbent Australian opener) couldn't play the short ball, leaving Australia in desperate need of an opener.

With no other batsman available, Watson was asked to open the batting, as well as help out with the bowling.  Being a good cricketer with good technique, Watson did well in the role; leaving balls outside off and driving and pulling anything too straight or short.  His shot-limitations didn't seem to limit his success and he cemented his place at the top without ever making a big score.

"Thanks!"

In fact, his inability to make a big score, or even a hundred, became a national focus point.  I will never forget the day that he did make the milestone (again, against a mediocre Pakistan team) and the public celebrations of it.  I was walking down Collins Street in Melbourne and people were running into pubs and restaurants to find a television to witness the moment. 

I had never seen so much celebration regarding an Australians test century before.  Times were obviously tough.

Since then, Watson went on to win the Alan Border medal for best player of the season, and has been one of the best in the team since; when fit to play.

And herein lies the issue: Watson has been a very good player in a very poor team and so has been asked to, and has volunteered to, play out-of position and as often as possible.  This has resulted in considerable injuries and disruption to the team.

Flintoffs own career was ultimately ended by injuries, though these were more caused by the spinal issues that fast bowlers face.  While Flintoff did play in some unsuccessful teams initially, he was a crucial part of several Ashes-winning sides that lifted the profile of his sport and the morale of his team.

So while Watson may have Flintoff to thank for convincing Cricket Australia to include him in the side, he may want to ask Andrew if he can give CA a call to convince them to manage his workload better.

Question of the Day: What makes for smalltalk in Cloud city?

During the brilliant rolling storyline that is Episode IV, Luke Skywalkers friends find themselves in Cloud City after becoming separated from the rest of the Rebellion.  The Empire work this out pretty quickly and Vadar manipulates the Administrator of the City to use their presence to entrap Luke himself.

A different way of manipulating the Administrator.

"Pretty quickly" is a relatively indeterminable timeframe though in Star Wars terms, as Lukes friends seem to be in Cloud City long enough to (randomly) have a costume change, get shot, hang out in a cool apartment and notice if one of the party has gone missing. 

While Leia seems a pretty cool customer throughout the series, she even gets agitated enough about C3POs disappearance to comment about it.  One can only assume that this means they have been in the city for a period of longer than 2 hours and possibly as much or more than a day.

So why did they wait so long to talk to the City's Administrator about any issues he may have with the Empire?  Surely people on the run from the Empire that are leaders of an active Rebellion against it would have brought the subject up on arriving in Cloud City?  Rather than spending their arrival in a Mexican stand-off with the Administrator, then getting schmoozed by him, shouldn't they have said something along the lines of: "Hey, thanks for letting us land, we're on the run from the Empire - if that's an issue we'll just take off"?

The "you truly belong here amongst the clouds" line distracts every time

The only time that they raise the subject is when the Administrator is taking them out for a few drinks when it comes out in passing conversation, which really begs the question: what are people talking about on Cloud City that is so fascinating?

Sign of the times: Editorial standards are slipping

Image taken from www.theage.com.au on 7/09/2012. 
Not shown: a young girl in China, rescuers, her bike or a bus.
Shown: The President of the USA and his family.

Thought of the Day: The Stuart Law rule of improvement

Remember Stuart Law?  He was one of Australia's best batsmen in the mid-to-late nineties but only played the one test (one innings, 54 not out) due to the strength of the squad that was being built into a winning dynamo by Steve Waugh.

I was thinking of poor Stuart the other day after pouring over the results of the recent Australia A series against England, as this was a team he would have walked into, but Australia simply doesn't have players of his ilk waiting to get into the team anymore.  In fact, they don't have players of his ilk IN the team anymore.

not naming names

During Stuarts time, Australia won almost every Test they played, even winning 16 in a row at one stage.  Ricky Ponting was once asked in an interview how his team could possibly improve and he responded by talking about some sort of minutiae.

Its possible, though, that new players should have been included during this successful period to not only develop skills and experience, but also gain inclusion into that culture of winning, thereby letting the Stuarts of the future thrive - or at least develop a batting average.

Thought of the day: Hughes for T20

Looking up the score in the Australia A v England Lions game, I noticed Phil Hughes had been given a bat. And by that, I mean he was the fourth batsman in, they didn't actually give him a bat.

That would have been brilliant though.

Facing possibly the second-best bowling line-up England (& Wales & Ireland) could muster, Hughes did well in scoring a quick 50.

This made me think; the lad obviously has an eye and can score quickly with unorthodox strokes, so long as he isn't facing the short ball, so why not get him to play Twenty20?

Has he told the ACB he is a test player? Shouldn't that be for the ACB to decide? Shouldn't we be trying to win and promote any success in this era of poor average Australian cricket?

Just a thought.

Thought of the day: Possibly not the best time for Melbourne to release personalised Footy's

Thought of the Day: Mitch has no peripheral vision

On a day when other cricketers with fine reputations announced their retirements from the game for reasons ranging from admirable to personal, Mitchell Johnson (who you may remember as a man that advertises chicken and underwear) announced that he thought English crowds taunted him about bowling poorly because they felt threatened.

While Michael Di Venuto stepped away from a successful first class career at the age of 38, ensuring he retires before damaging his reputation, and Tatenda Taibu retires to fulfill his unspecific desire to 'serve god', Mr Johnson continues to draw a salary from Cricket Australia and help lose games for Australia.

Perhaps the reason his bowling has been so off is that he has no awareness of his surroundings?

Thought of the Day: Cricket Australia hates New South Wales?

Cricket Australia (CA) made a big change this week, dropping its confusing system for contracting national players for a more baffling one.

The old system provided 25 of the best players in the country with financial assurance to enable them to focus on throwing, catching, bowling and hitting cricket balls.  Seemed fairly simple, but the players selected and the contracts given were not always so simple.

The new system allows for less contracts, only 17 now, and has an even more confusing process for allocation; the vast majority of players with national contracts now are bowlers.

While this has been a positive for South Australia and Queensland, who have gained players that lost their national contracts and have gone in search of more lucrative state contracts, the way in which these contracts reconcile to selection is still a mystery.

For example, Mitchell Johnson (last seen advertising underwear, or chicken, or both), has retained his contract though hasn't played anything close to Test cricket for over 18 months.

Further, Steven Smith (who has never looked like a cricketer), lost his contract though was selected for Australia's One Day match against England last night. Making this more confusing was that he was selected seemingly as a batsman, as he wasn't called into bowl, and this was a game in which the Australian bowlers needed greater support (only taking 5 wickets).

There are many more examples of this, which has made me consider who has benefited from this system most and least.  The players don't seem to have benefited, as there is now less structure and certainty, though many of the states now have due to the Diaspora.  The one state that has suffered the most though, is New South Wales, with Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja both leaving the state for better deals.

After decades of support from CA, has NSW now fallen out of favour?  Is this just a means of encouraging interest in the Sheffield Shield again, or is something more personal at play?

Question of the Day: Whatever happened to Theo from Die Hard?

Watching Die Hard for the umpteenth time the other night, I suddenly realised that not all of the terrorists in the movie are killed. 

In the climax of the movie, the evil IT geek Theo (able to hack elevators, stop escalators, break safes etc) is getting ready to make a break for it in a stolen Ambulance when he is knocked out by Argyle, the sassy limousine driver.

Sassy limousine driver and inspiration to a young Usher

We know that at the end of the movie John McLane has been shot, blown up and beaten up, so decides to go back to his estranged wife's house for the palliative care that can only be provided by an illegal immigrant - driven by said limousine driver.

I can't administer care right now, I'm on the phone to a sassy limousine driver

But what ever happened to Theo?  Did the police find him, unconscious in a fake ambulance?  Or did he wake in time to flee the scene, only to go on and wreak havoc on elevators everywhere?  And finally, why didn't Argyle let the police know that one of the terrorists was knocked out in the car park?

Question of the Day: What is Tourism SA up to?!?

Tourism South Australia has recently come under fire for paying celebrities $750 per Tweet that they made to promote Kangaroo Island, as part of the larger current publicity campaign.

While the issue of disclosure does exist in this sort of promotion, reading what celebrities think from time to time about where they want to spend their holidays isn't necessarily compromising, nor should it be a source for detailed holiday planning.

The bigger issue, as I see it, in relation to this campaign is the Television advertisement, which shows people walking around beaches and forests in average weather while a familiar song plays in the background. 

What familiar song you may ask? "Rise" by Eddie Vedder, from the 'Into the Wild' soundtrack.  That's right, the very same soundtrack from the movie in which a young man goes (unprepared) into a forest that has average weather...and dies.

So what is Tourism SA up to?  Why are they getting Twitterers everywhere interested in visiting Kangaroo Island, and what do they have planned for aforementioned tourists?

Thought of the Day: Attendance isnt that exciting

Being a Melbourne Demons fan is a rather mixed blessing. There are very few expectations to actually win, which means that one has the pleasure of simply enjoying watching a game of football, rather than agonising over defeat or missed goals.

This culture of attendance has had mixed impacts on the club, during the 90's the management became a little too lackadaisical and almost killed it off completely through a merger. There was then a period of consideration, in which the club decided it did want to survive, but wasn't sure in what capacity.

It was during this time that Melbourne went through five club Presidents and six CEO's (7 if you don't count Cameron Schwab twice), before past champion Jim Stynes took over and set a course for club stability and growth, though with very little in the way of expectations for on-field success.

The recent tragic passing of Jim has coincided with the club again celebrating the culture of attendance through broadcasting its mediocrity to anyone listening.

This began with Don McLardy, the new President (best make that 6 Presidents) declaring that Melbourne wants to be one of the Top 5 clubs, not in the league, but in Victoria. What better way to strike fear into your opponents than by saying you want to be a bigger club than North Melbourne. And this was advertised as an ambition!

Most recently though, has been the very public announcement of Energy Watch as the major sponsor of the club, followed by the even more publicised ditching of Energy Watch as the major sponsor.

The appointment of Energy Watch was surprising to start with, as the company was already under investigation from the ACCC and the other contender for being the major sponsor was the Bank of Melbourne.

I'm not sure who was in charge of choosing a dodgy energy-referral website over one of the most established banks in Australia, but it was clearly not someone who wanted to change the 'attendance' reputation, but more shout it to the skies.

I suppose the lesson here is that whenever the club has gotten a little excited about itself, things have gone badly. If one is to be a club that provides a comfortable and enjoyable brand of football to be watched, one should promote itself accordingly.

Thought of the day - Not sure which market the ANZ is going for now here...

source: 'The Age', Wednesday, 8 Feb 2012

Cricket & Advertising don't mix (part II)

Following on from an earlier post, it seems like curse of advertising on our cricketers continues. KFC have been advertising their new 'it might be chicken' quite prominently throughout the Test series, with advertisements featuring the likes of:

• Mitchell Johnson (seems more occupied with showing off his underwear than with bowling well);
• Steve Smith (see earlier reference);
• Cameron White (recently dumped as T20 captain, though did score some handy club runs of late); and
• David Hussey (who should be on alert for injuries, falling pianos etc).

This trend of advertisers going with useless, washed-up or injured cricketers is really starting to make me wonder, why would they pick these players? Is KFCs advertising budget as cheap as their "food"? Or are they a bit smarter than the rest of us & are really appealing to the common man with common men?

Thought of the Day: Cricket & Advertising don't mix (part I)

Observe if you will the above packaging, witnessed last weekend at Coles, Northcote Plaza.

I was as surprised as you probably are, seeing that the worlds most identifiable brand is placing broken down or washed up cricketers on its product to help promote it. To elucidate:

• Steve Smith (far left): Has proven that, as a cricketer, he makes a fine trainer;
• Shane Watson: Brilliant cricketer when fit, which isn't now (or previously, or soon);
• Brett Lee: 400 years old and very, very weird;
• Doug Bollinger: Played some Test cricket until he couldn't be arsed and realised he made cash from being in ads pretending to still be a Test cricketer;
• Nathan Hauritz: Could have been placed in the ad out of sympathy, similar to the reason he was picked to play for Australia last (not this) summer; and
• Brad Haddin: Quite a good dropper of the ball, which is a unique skill for someone who still plays and practices the game.

So, is this another example of the curse of advertisers on cricketers, greater support of the theory that Cricket Australia doesn't know how to market itself, or perhaps a combination of the two?