Tuesday 9 September 2014

Top 5: Thoughts from the ODI series in Zimbabwe


While the recent ODI series held in Harare between Zimbabwe, Australia and South Africa finished with few surprises, South Africa playing Australia in the final, there was still a lot to be learned from it.  Here are my top 5:

5. ODI Cricket isn’t dead
There are many out there tipping that the impending ODI World Cup to be the last given the increasing popularity of T20 cricket & the lack of interest in, as well as the lack of availability for, the original short form of the game.

With uniforms like these people will have to watch!
Support for this opinion has grown in recent years through poor scheduling of ODI tournaments, in Australia the traditional Summer tri-series has now been scrapped after years of excess games being played, as well as the increase in popularity in T20 games.

However, this recent series in Zimbabwe showed that an interesting series will draw attention.  Indeed the series had everything a cricket fan, and promoter, wants.

There were fireworks (Mitchell Johnson breaking commentarybox windows and sending stumps cartwheeling), upsets (Zimbabwe beating Australia) and plenty to pique interest in future games (e.g. the emergence of Mitchel Marsh, Zimbabwes possible resurgence, and the infinite possibilities for Dale Steyn).

4. The spectacle is in the contest
A striking consistency becomes obvious when looking over the score cards of all the games: the comparatively low scores.

While the first Australia v Zimbabwe match was decidedly one-sided & ended with Australia posting a score of over 300, the majority of scores were under 250, or less than 5 runs per over.

Some fans may lament that this would be boring, but what it actually did was provide a contest between bat and ball that made every delivery interesting, rather than just a 6-hitting fest which distorts talent and the point of a contest.

So while T20 does gain in popularity, this series did show that a game game (or contest) is best provided where there is competition between the batsman and the bowler, not the batsman and the boundary.

3. Form is temporary, class is permanent
Faf du Plessis was easily the man of the series, scoring (seemingly) a bazillion runs and never really looking like getting out.  Even AB © De Villiers claimed that “Faf” was in the form of his life.

The problem is, what’s the point of being in the form of your life in a tri-series ahead of the World Cup?  Wouldn’t it be better to be in that form DURING a World Cup?

On the subject of form, Glenn Maxwell did little to suggest that he is anything more than a T20 slogger.  While he was asked to open the bowling and got wickets on a couple of occasions, he looks like less of a part-timer than Steve Smith, which is saying something.

Sorry, I can't help myself
  
You may be able to get wickets in T20 cricket by having batsmen caught on the midwicket boundary, but it won’t work reliably against good sides in ODI or Tests.

As for Maxwells batting, his 60-ball 90 was impressive, but his subsequent efforts through the tournament showed he has a long way to go in terms of mindset and approach before he becomes a 50-over cricketer.

2. Australia has a limited concentration span
The modern-day nadir of Australian cricket was arguably after the “homework gate” saga where the Test side was comprehensively smashed by the Indian side, leading to the dismissal of Mickey Arthur as Coach.

The recovery from that point has been monumental, with Darren Lehmann guiding the Test side to a 5-0 win over England in the Australian summer. This was capped by a Test victory over South Africa in South Africa in an excellent series that handed the number one Test ranking to Australia.

This victory undoubtedly boosted public support of the team (and the sport), but the investment in the success of the Test team looks like it has drained resources from the short-form teams.

"Think about what now?"

 While Australia has never been any good at T20 cricket, which no-one seems to mind, the ODI team is clearly suffering with little insight into what its best team is, or even who the best players are.

Team selection clearly reflected this, with Steve Smith (one of the best players of spin in the team) being omitted on a spinning wicket and several odd berths being given.

I’ve already reflected on Glann Maxwells seeming lack of ability to concentrate on anything for more than 20 overs, but George Baileys struggles were equally revealing.  His recent retirement from the T20 team may indicate that his mind was elsewhere, we can only hope that his form was on holidays with it.

The inclusion of Mitchell Starc and Ben Cutting was equally puzzling, neither seemed to have any penetration or provide a threat with the ball.  In their defence it was a slow wicket and they did score a lot of runs with the bat, but they are in the team to take wickets; something they plainly couldn’t do.

Also, the whole team can’t play spin.

1.     Zimbabwe’s presence makes international cricket more interesting
Being an Australian cricket fan, or a cricket fan living in Australia, means that you get to watch Australia play India at least once per year in either a Test, ODI or T20 series, if not all three.

The rest of the schedule is made up of games against (usually) South Africa and England, with a series against Sri Lanka or Pakistan occasionally squeezed in.  While this may make for more level contests (in theory), watching the same teams play each other repeatedly does get a bit dull.

The Harlem Globe Trotters v The Generals are the obvious exception
Seeing the Australian team play in Harare allowed fans to see how cricket is played and watched in Zimbabwe, as well as the differences to how the game is enjoyed, giving insight into how it could be grown here in Australia as well as globally.

Seeing the Zimbabwe fans celebrate when their team won as truly elating.  Here were people that live in a country with ridiculously high inflation and unemployment that had turned up to watch a bit of cricket and walked away with a win.  It reminded you why people play sport in the first place.

There were also idiosyncrasies involved in the way Zimbabwe hosts cricket, including:
·      The Man of the Match awards (Mitchell Marsh was presented a novelty cheque for $250; well less than the cost of one of this many bats & his IPL contract);
·      Tinashe Panyangara was suspended for sharing a YouTube video with team-mates (though I suspect he wasn’t in the team to start with; he was wearing a club team helmet, not a branded one); and
·      The Zimbabweans wore red uniforms, possibly not the coolest colour in the African sun and one slightly reminiscent of another