Monday 27 July 2015
Wednesday 22 July 2015
“What do they know of Watto who only Watto knows?”: A definitive history of Watto
Cricket is a popular sport
in Australia.
It’s so popular in fact that
it manages to be the highest rating Summer sport in a country which generally
experiences Summer most of the year.
Its popularity is so great
that it succeeds despite being run by people that hate the game. That would be like Luke Skywalker being left
in charge of the Rancor and not crushing it under a grate.
Since the game has been
broadcast in Australia on radio, television and other mediums, Australian
cricketers have become more accessible to the viewing public and taken on
broader and more recognised personalities.
Don Bradman so captured the
publics imagination that he was given a State Funeral (thankfully he was
deceased at the time), while Shane Warne has given hope to bogans the country
over that they may too sleep with Liz Hurley one day.
The majority of cricketers
are remembered for excelling in the field (e.g. Glenn McGrath), in certain
matches (e.g. Bob Massie taking 16/137 at Lords) or exploits off the field.
 |
| Case in point. |
Now we have Watto.
Shane Watson is arguably the
most memorable Australian cricketer for all the wrong reasons; including that
the public not only dislike him, they like to see him fail.
Shadenfreude is a
description never before linked to Australian cricketers, much like “well
groomed”.
 |
| Case in point |
Originally picked as a
bowling all-rounder, Watto was so enthusiastic in his first Test that he fellover after bowling. Later as a batsman he would fall over his front pad.
It wasn’t until the
ill-feted Ashes tour of 2009, when Watto was asked to open in the absence of
anyone else being willing to, that he rose to prominence. To his credit, he did a good job and was
Australia’s best performing cricketer for about 2 years of overall team mediocrity.
It was perhaps being the
best player in an average team, as well as his inability to earn selection
through batting or bowling alone, that earned him criticism that stayed with
him throughout his career.
It probably didn’t help that
he kept running himself and team-mates out, or using up DRS referrals either.
Foreign observers were quick
to point out that Australia’s tall poppy syndrome was strongly at play in
regards to the criticism of Watto, to which locals retorted; “nah mate, he’s
just a wanker”.
Indeed he did himself no
favours by appearing quite pleased with his…appearance, but then diversity
should be celebrated.
|
| Or maybe not |
But is Watto the worst Watto
to have played for Australia, and if not, does he deserve the criticism?
Looking back at cricketers
from the past, there aren’t too many that fit the Watto profile of promising,
failing, yet still picked.
Kim Hughes, subject of
arguably the BEST CRICKET BOOK EVER, was as gifted a batsman as Australia had
produced but was inconsistent to the point of consistency. I’m sure that’s a thing.
Hughes had all the potential
there was to be a cricketer and occasionally showed it, but mostly didn’t. Also, he cried.
Michael Slater was an
excellent, aggressive opening batsman for Australia, but his record of going
out in the 90s made him something of an object of ridicule by fans.
Later fans got to know more
about his personality when he became a commentator. He was then ridiculed
further.
Of late, Dave Warner has showed
some Watto-like characteristics; performing inconsistently and being a bit of a
tool off the pitch, but his good performances are extraordinary and do occur
often enough.
Statistics are the gospel of
Cricket history and the ability to understand them is essentially why
mathematics is taught in Australian schools.
Batsmen who retire from the
game with an average over 50 are hailed.
The Dons numbers are folklore in Australia; his average is 99.94 and he
made a total of 6996 runs.
Wattos numbers will be
remembered more for being failures (4 centuries), particularly as he had so
many opportunities (59 Tests).
In his defence, he didn’t
pick himself, though like the ‘Fast and the Furious’ franchise, he didn’t get
any better over time.
Thanks for the memories
Watto.
Tuesday 14 July 2015
Sunday 12 July 2015
Top 5: Hysterical responses to the Ashes Test
With the First Advertisers name here Test in Cardiff over & England triumphant at least 5 hours ago, we are well overdue for hysterical responses to Australia's performance.
Who am I to deprive you?
Here are my Top 5 responses:
5. Team Outlook
Australia were completely outplayed in almost all facets by a young English team that seems to be enjoying its cricket and looking forward to it, quite the comparison to almost half the Australian side which is either expecting to retire directly after the series or in the near future.
Ryan Harris has unfortunately gone already, Chris Rogers has stated that he is done after this and Brad Haddin, Michael Clarke and Shane Watson can't have much left in them. Mitchell Johnson may be starting to think about finishing his career in limited overs cricket and Adam Voges is only months away from being eligible for getting the special car park at the supermarket.
This isn't a team thinking about dominating cricket for the next 5-10 years as much as dominating dominoes.
4. Player Selection
Following on from the previous response, the selection of the Australian side does ask a number of questions. With the number of impending retirements, surely the previous Test series against the West Indies was the perfect opportunity to bring in some new players?
The only eyebrow-raising inclusion in that Series was Shaun Marsh, who has talent but uses it less than he is injured. The latest news-feeds indicate he is unavailable for selection in England with a bad case of carpet burn.
Peter Nevill certainly should have been given a debut in the West Indies, particularly now that Haddin is neither scoring runs or taking important catches.
The lack of batting depth in the squad, Shaun Marsh is the only back-up, is particularly worrisome given that Clarke, Watson, Rogers and Voges may need to bat with the help of a zimmer frame anytime soon. Lord knows the zimmer may be more effective than their bats.
3. Approach
Australia went into this series with a bowling attack that was being marketed as so dangerous that the US Army should probably launch a pre-emptive strike.
A great idea at the time, but the ECB was never going to help Mitchell Johnson etc out with quick an bouncy decks. They knew it, Cricket Australia knew it and I reckon even the US Army knew it and reduced DEFCON status back down to 2.
Regardless, Australia still picked two quick but wayward left-armers who went for over 200 runs together in the first innings.
Australia also set fields expecting balls to fly off edges into the slips cordon, rather than square of the wicket where they ball was actually being played.
2. Actually, its mostly the batsmens fault...
Despite being expensive with the ball, Australia did manage to bowl England out twice and Starc & Nathan Lyon finished with 7 and 6 wickets for the match respectively. Starcs effort was particularly notable given that he was bowling off one leg for much of the second innings.
Perhaps he would bowl better still if we took the other leg away too?
Mitchell Johnson was expensive, but did manage to take a couple of wickets and top scored in the second dig. He is looking increasingly like the all-rounder the team needs.
It was Australia's batsmen that lost this game. Rogers aside, the top and middle order were unable to adjust to the conditions or change that ill-fated approach mentioned earlier.
After looking like it was his first time playing cricket early in Australia's second innings, Dave Warner managed to get settled and looked well set until his concentration was broken by lunch.
Steve Smith is in too good form to not adjust or start making big scores, but the rest of the batting line up looks seriously unreliable.
The major issue about the batting line ups unreliability and lack of depth to cover it in the squad is that there doesn't seem to be too much coming through to replace them.
1. Deja Vu of 2005, all over again?
Should Rogers, Watson and Clarke all retire in the next 6 months, Australia is going to be in some trouble. This will only be compounded if Voges is unable to treat highly rated international bowlers in the same way he did the West Indians.
This sort of exodus is reminiscent of the the retirements that followed Australia's Ashes defeat in 2005, leaving the Test team in a miserable state of disarray.
For all the platitudes that have been lauded on Coach Darren Lehmann since his start as the Australian coach, the Test team has struggled to successfully bring young batsmen into the side & the reluctance to drop players with middling performances (e.g. Watson, Haddin) has not assisted either.
Possibly serendipitously, the Australian A team starts its series against India A in about a week, which could help develop some greater depth in the batting ranks (at least).
In 2013 Dave Warner was relegated to playing for Australia A against Zimbabwe after he punched Joe Root in a nightclub. Warner was able to use that series to regain form & came back into the Test team with great success.
Here's hoping that any one or all of Usman Khawaja, Nic Maddinson, Joe Root, Peter Handscomb, Travis Head or Marcus Stoinis can find some form else the disaster of 2010/11 is very much on the horizon.
Who am I to deprive you?
Here are my Top 5 responses:
5. Team Outlook
Australia were completely outplayed in almost all facets by a young English team that seems to be enjoying its cricket and looking forward to it, quite the comparison to almost half the Australian side which is either expecting to retire directly after the series or in the near future.
Ryan Harris has unfortunately gone already, Chris Rogers has stated that he is done after this and Brad Haddin, Michael Clarke and Shane Watson can't have much left in them. Mitchell Johnson may be starting to think about finishing his career in limited overs cricket and Adam Voges is only months away from being eligible for getting the special car park at the supermarket.
This isn't a team thinking about dominating cricket for the next 5-10 years as much as dominating dominoes.
4. Player Selection
Following on from the previous response, the selection of the Australian side does ask a number of questions. With the number of impending retirements, surely the previous Test series against the West Indies was the perfect opportunity to bring in some new players?
The only eyebrow-raising inclusion in that Series was Shaun Marsh, who has talent but uses it less than he is injured. The latest news-feeds indicate he is unavailable for selection in England with a bad case of carpet burn.
Peter Nevill certainly should have been given a debut in the West Indies, particularly now that Haddin is neither scoring runs or taking important catches.
The lack of batting depth in the squad, Shaun Marsh is the only back-up, is particularly worrisome given that Clarke, Watson, Rogers and Voges may need to bat with the help of a zimmer frame anytime soon. Lord knows the zimmer may be more effective than their bats.
3. Approach
Australia went into this series with a bowling attack that was being marketed as so dangerous that the US Army should probably launch a pre-emptive strike.
A great idea at the time, but the ECB was never going to help Mitchell Johnson etc out with quick an bouncy decks. They knew it, Cricket Australia knew it and I reckon even the US Army knew it and reduced DEFCON status back down to 2.
Regardless, Australia still picked two quick but wayward left-armers who went for over 200 runs together in the first innings.
Australia also set fields expecting balls to fly off edges into the slips cordon, rather than square of the wicket where they ball was actually being played.
2. Actually, its mostly the batsmens fault...
Despite being expensive with the ball, Australia did manage to bowl England out twice and Starc & Nathan Lyon finished with 7 and 6 wickets for the match respectively. Starcs effort was particularly notable given that he was bowling off one leg for much of the second innings.
Perhaps he would bowl better still if we took the other leg away too?
Mitchell Johnson was expensive, but did manage to take a couple of wickets and top scored in the second dig. He is looking increasingly like the all-rounder the team needs.
 |
| ahem |
After looking like it was his first time playing cricket early in Australia's second innings, Dave Warner managed to get settled and looked well set until his concentration was broken by lunch.
 |
| To be fair, a cricket helmet is a distracting lunch |
The major issue about the batting line ups unreliability and lack of depth to cover it in the squad is that there doesn't seem to be too much coming through to replace them.
1. Deja Vu of 2005, all over again?
Should Rogers, Watson and Clarke all retire in the next 6 months, Australia is going to be in some trouble. This will only be compounded if Voges is unable to treat highly rated international bowlers in the same way he did the West Indians.
This sort of exodus is reminiscent of the the retirements that followed Australia's Ashes defeat in 2005, leaving the Test team in a miserable state of disarray.
For all the platitudes that have been lauded on Coach Darren Lehmann since his start as the Australian coach, the Test team has struggled to successfully bring young batsmen into the side & the reluctance to drop players with middling performances (e.g. Watson, Haddin) has not assisted either.
Possibly serendipitously, the Australian A team starts its series against India A in about a week, which could help develop some greater depth in the batting ranks (at least).
In 2013 Dave Warner was relegated to playing for Australia A against Zimbabwe after he punched Joe Root in a nightclub. Warner was able to use that series to regain form & came back into the Test team with great success.
Here's hoping that any one or all of Usman Khawaja, Nic Maddinson, Joe Root, Peter Handscomb, Travis Head or Marcus Stoinis can find some form else the disaster of 2010/11 is very much on the horizon.
Tuesday 7 July 2015
Thought of the Day: Nickname suggestions for Australian Cricketers
Following the withdrawal of Ryan "Ryano" Harris from the Australian Cricket team, Patrick Cummins was called into the squad as a replacement, regardless of his lack of fitness, First Class or Test cricket.
But that is for discussion elsewhere.
The issue to be discussed here is the more pressing issue, the lack of standards around Nicknames for Australian cricketers.
As the bastion and protector of Cricketing ethics, Jarrod Kimber, posted on the subject on Twitter this week:
Now, there were a few racist overtones associated with the first Australian cricketing tour to England, but at least they had the nicknames sorted.
Today we are faced with a depressing smorgasbord that even Sizzlers would scoff at.
Nicknames such as "Clarkey", "Hadds", "Watto" and even the Americanised "MJ" may be identifiable to the Australian public, but they are lazy and miss the point.
A nickname is supposed to give you an alternate identity, something that people recognize and are drawn in by. It is something to inspire recognition, a familiarity that forms a bond between teammates and fans alike.
"Watto" could be any bloke on the street or in the workplace whereas "Snipper", "Mantis", "Cupsy" and "Big Dog" leave you with a sense of mysticism and fun.
I know this because I've played cricket with all of the above (apart from Watto, his loss) and they are all top blokes who took on alter-egos on the field that drew interest from opposition and supporters alike.
With this in mind, here is my list of suggestions for nicknames for the current Australian squad:
Michael Clarke
Was: Clarkey
Becomes: Access (a 'clerk' keeps records, often on a database, of which MS Access is a type - also reflects his attitude to the media)
Brad Haddin
Was: Hadds
Becomes: Spud (named after Mr Potato Head, who also has big hands and a big mouth)
Shane Watson
Was: Watto
Becomes: Whatever (I suspect it isn't worth investing the time in this one)
Mitchell Johnson
Was: Mitch / MJ
Becomes: Miyagi (based on his girlfriends Karate career)
Josh Hazlewood
Was: Joshy
Becomes: Carbon (inspired by the Hazlewood mine fire)
Mitchell Starc
Was: Starcy / Starco
Becomes: Usain (like the sprinters running, Starcs deliveries are too quick for most)
Nathan Lyon
Was: Garry / Gaz
Becomes: n/a (he is named after Garry Lyon, as big an honor as it comes in my book)
Dave Warner
Was: Davey
Becomes: Informer (related to being "Warned", also allows you to play that song by "Snow" when he punches Joe Root or some such thing)
Chris Rogers
Was: Bucky
Becomes: n/a (it's not too bad at all)
Steve Smith
Was: ??
Becomes: Jedi (he basically is one)
Mitchell Marsh
Was: Mitch / Marshy
Becomes: Rock Dog (he is the 3rd Mitchell in the team, or 3rd M; which becomes MMM - the radio station in Australia that plays a lot of Rock music)
Feel free to argue.
But that is for discussion elsewhere.
The issue to be discussed here is the more pressing issue, the lack of standards around Nicknames for Australian cricketers.
As the bastion and protector of Cricketing ethics, Jarrod Kimber, posted on the subject on Twitter this week:
Now, there were a few racist overtones associated with the first Australian cricketing tour to England, but at least they had the nicknames sorted.
Today we are faced with a depressing smorgasbord that even Sizzlers would scoff at.
Nicknames such as "Clarkey", "Hadds", "Watto" and even the Americanised "MJ" may be identifiable to the Australian public, but they are lazy and miss the point.
A nickname is supposed to give you an alternate identity, something that people recognize and are drawn in by. It is something to inspire recognition, a familiarity that forms a bond between teammates and fans alike.
"Watto" could be any bloke on the street or in the workplace whereas "Snipper", "Mantis", "Cupsy" and "Big Dog" leave you with a sense of mysticism and fun.
I know this because I've played cricket with all of the above (apart from Watto, his loss) and they are all top blokes who took on alter-egos on the field that drew interest from opposition and supporters alike.
With this in mind, here is my list of suggestions for nicknames for the current Australian squad:
Michael Clarke
Was: Clarkey
Becomes: Access (a 'clerk' keeps records, often on a database, of which MS Access is a type - also reflects his attitude to the media)
Brad Haddin
Was: Hadds
Becomes: Spud (named after Mr Potato Head, who also has big hands and a big mouth)
Shane Watson
Was: Watto
Becomes: Whatever (I suspect it isn't worth investing the time in this one)
Mitchell Johnson
Was: Mitch / MJ
Becomes: Miyagi (based on his girlfriends Karate career)
Josh Hazlewood
Was: Joshy
Becomes: Carbon (inspired by the Hazlewood mine fire)
Mitchell Starc
Was: Starcy / Starco
Becomes: Usain (like the sprinters running, Starcs deliveries are too quick for most)
Nathan Lyon
Was: Garry / Gaz
Becomes: n/a (he is named after Garry Lyon, as big an honor as it comes in my book)
Dave Warner
Was: Davey
Becomes: Informer (related to being "Warned", also allows you to play that song by "Snow" when he punches Joe Root or some such thing)
Chris Rogers
Was: Bucky
Becomes: n/a (it's not too bad at all)
Steve Smith
Was: ??
Becomes: Jedi (he basically is one)
Mitchell Marsh
Was: Mitch / Marshy
Becomes: Rock Dog (he is the 3rd Mitchell in the team, or 3rd M; which becomes MMM - the radio station in Australia that plays a lot of Rock music)
Feel free to argue.
Monday 6 July 2015
Ryan Harris: Australia's under-rated champion
The sudden and unexpected retirement of Ryan Harris has been as unwelcome as it has burdensome to myself, and will become so to other unsuspecting Australian cricket fans soon.
I'm going to put this out there: Ryan Harris is the best Australian Cricketer of the last decade.
Yes, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Matthew Hayden all played in that time - but they didn't play in all of that time.
They were all great players and helped Australia dominate the sport over a prolonged period of time as a group, but they retired and the sport fell into a whole so big that even Xavier Doherty was picked as a front-line spinner for the Test side.
That's not to say "Rhyano" / "Rhino" didn't deserve his spot, not at all. Ryan Harris was not only an exceptional fast bowler, but like all champion sportsman, he made those around him better.
The expression "Bowlers win games, Batsmen save them" exists. A large part of that reason is Ryan Harris.
From the time he overcame ANOTHER injury to win back his place in the side in England during the 2013 Ashes, Australia looked like a different side.
England, along with everyone on earth, had been as surprised by Ashton Agars selection in the first Test as they were with the 98 runs he cracked off (seemingly) 12 balls. England still won though, and convincingly so.
The second Test went more to formula still as England won by 347 runs and Australia had no surprises left.
Once Harris came into the team though, Australia regained its competitiveness and the series came alive. The hope that he brought to Australian fans was almost as enjoyable as the smugness that suddenly departed from English fans.
The hope that Harris brought inspired his teammates and they went on to win the return Ashes fixture 5-0.
As good as Gilchrist et al were, they never had to play with the same teammates that Harris did or inspire individually. Like the Borg, they had a collective.
During the lean years in which Rob Quiney was picked as a number 3 to shield the sorely missed Phil Hughes from a South African Attack, Ryan Harris continually made Australia competitive & more often than not a winner.
Brett Lee took more wickets than Harris and was lauded and publicized widely. Not so for Harris, who focused on his game over publicity and finished with a better average than Lee and a better strike rate. Lee was quicker, but Harris was better.
Harris' ability to keep Australia competitive in those lean years kept the publics interest in the sport, kept punters coming to games, the coffers of Cricket Australia full and kids playing the game; ensuring its future.
Many champions are revered simply because they are good at playing their sport. Harris was exceptional at playing his sport, but he was so much more, he was inspirational.
His undying effort and approach lifted those on and off the field with him alike. He reminded us that sport is something that can inspire us to something greater and bring us together to do so.
His value to a team that had the raw pace of Mitchell Johnson and the power hitting of Dave Warner was something that was never widely understood or recognised. Ryan Harris was the best Australian cricketer of the last ten years and he will be missed.
I'm going to put this out there: Ryan Harris is the best Australian Cricketer of the last decade.
Yes, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Matthew Hayden all played in that time - but they didn't play in all of that time.
They were all great players and helped Australia dominate the sport over a prolonged period of time as a group, but they retired and the sport fell into a whole so big that even Xavier Doherty was picked as a front-line spinner for the Test side.
 |
| That's right, this guy. |
The expression "Bowlers win games, Batsmen save them" exists. A large part of that reason is Ryan Harris.
From the time he overcame ANOTHER injury to win back his place in the side in England during the 2013 Ashes, Australia looked like a different side.
England, along with everyone on earth, had been as surprised by Ashton Agars selection in the first Test as they were with the 98 runs he cracked off (seemingly) 12 balls. England still won though, and convincingly so.
The second Test went more to formula still as England won by 347 runs and Australia had no surprises left.
Once Harris came into the team though, Australia regained its competitiveness and the series came alive. The hope that he brought to Australian fans was almost as enjoyable as the smugness that suddenly departed from English fans.
The hope that Harris brought inspired his teammates and they went on to win the return Ashes fixture 5-0.
As good as Gilchrist et al were, they never had to play with the same teammates that Harris did or inspire individually. Like the Borg, they had a collective.
 |
| The Borg. Really, really good at recruitment. |
Brett Lee took more wickets than Harris and was lauded and publicized widely. Not so for Harris, who focused on his game over publicity and finished with a better average than Lee and a better strike rate. Lee was quicker, but Harris was better.
Harris' ability to keep Australia competitive in those lean years kept the publics interest in the sport, kept punters coming to games, the coffers of Cricket Australia full and kids playing the game; ensuring its future.
Many champions are revered simply because they are good at playing their sport. Harris was exceptional at playing his sport, but he was so much more, he was inspirational.
His undying effort and approach lifted those on and off the field with him alike. He reminded us that sport is something that can inspire us to something greater and bring us together to do so.
His value to a team that had the raw pace of Mitchell Johnson and the power hitting of Dave Warner was something that was never widely understood or recognised. Ryan Harris was the best Australian cricketer of the last ten years and he will be missed.
Wednesday 1 July 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)