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

Sign of the Times: Australia is very modern

The following Australian team list for the impending ODI against South Africa was posted as follows on Cricinfo.com:

Good to see Jane Richardson (#9) getting a go and making a statement about equality.

You'd really think it'd get more press...

Thought of the Day: B-Grade sci fi predicts the future of the human race

Wanting to expand my knowledge of science fiction movies outside Star Wars and Star Trek, I recently revisited Cherry 2000; a B-Grade sci-fi from 1987. For those of you unlucky enough not to have seen it, the preview pretty much covers the whole storyline.

The basic outline of the plot is fairly familiar; the setting is a post-apocalyptic world in which society as we know it has broken down.  The environment is in ruins, with the wealthy having access to things like jobs and booze, while the less fortunate scour barren wastelands & forage for food & entertainment.

…really, there must be a sci-fi writers school in which they just publish Chapter One (the setting) for them & let them fill in the blanks from there.

Anyway, Cherry 2000 is interesting for a number of reasons, not least amongst them Melanie Griffith potentially looking attractive.

This may or may not be Melanie's shadow

Aside from that, though, the futuristic world in which Cherry 2000 is set (the year 2017!) is one in which people pick mates through casual encounters that use smart-phone like technology, with portable computers showing videos of their previous encounters for potential mates to judge them by.

I remember being shocked by this part of the film when I first watched it as a young boy, mostly as I had little inclination as to what they were actually suggesting, but also by the frank & transactional nature of what was being negotiated.

For context, I was equally perturbed by the willingness of E.T to dress in drag

The alternate to finding a human mate, which is also the basic story of the film, is to select a cyborg that is readily available and programmable to ones own specifications.  While nailing a robot, even an attractive one, may seem a little creepy to you or I, the essential proposition being made by the film is that it’s a lot easier than developing a relationship.

That being said, creepy gets a bad name sometimes.

The story ends with the hero falling for a non-cyborg (aka. human) lady whom he has developed a relationship with after going through an adventure together.  The message? That human love can still work, as long as you are being fired at with rocket-launchers.

That being said, the advent of  ‘sexting’, Tinder and other mechanisms of recording oneself in various situations and using these to market oneself in the modern world would seem to suggest that modern society is coming close to resembling the rampant and amoral wasteland presented in Cherry 2000.

So what to do? If the options are between getting shot at by foragers or deal with Lauren Fishburne as your lawyer to define how your next human relationship will develop, I dare say the future of cyborg relations looks good.

Just sayin'

Question of the Day: On-line performance equalling on-field?

The following article was posted on the Melbourne Football Club website (melbournefc.com.au) last weekend:

Given that the article contains 12 words and the title contains 6...could it be said that The Demons' on-line performance is now matching their on-field performance?

Sign of the Times: The Age really doesn't care anymore

With all the hoo-ha in the press about Journalism standards dropping with the advent of Social Media, I would have thought that broadsheets such as "The Age" would be protecting their brand, but it seems that standards may just be for people who care that the photograph matches the story:

courtesy of theage.com.au

(incidentally, the photo shows neither Collingwood or West Coast)

Thought of the Day: CA could learn from the Empire

The recent One-Day (50 over) Cricket match between India A and Australia A provided players, administrators and fans alike with a reminder of why Cricket, particularly 50-over cricket, is still popular.

It is hard to lose with 'A' games, even if your team doesn't score the most runs in the match.  Regardless of the run, everyone is simply interested in the contest to see who played well & may make the transition to the National side.

In this way, 6's aren't expected but applauded, wicket-tally's are held in high-esteem rather than expected and everyone can simply enjoy the game for the entertainment it provides. Should a player not perform well, they can always go back to their first-class side and do well there to be considered for National selection, 'A' games aren't the last chance saloon.

Looking at this particular game in detail, I was quite taken aback when I looked at the Australian team card, which was almost as shocking as the 47th over of the Australian innings (bowled by Kulkarni):

A Quokka-like effort, if every there was one.

For those of you unfamiliar with Australia's second-string players, the names on this team card won't mean much.  For those of you more familiar with the players picked after Darren Lehmann has chosen his preferred mob; these names would be more than familiar.

That is, there is hardly any youth or inexperience in this side at all.

Phil Hughes may be only 25, but he has already played 26 Tests and been dropped more times than the Millenium Falcons Hyperdrive failed to work.

Similarly, many in the team have already played for Australia's Test, ODI or T20 side, but haven't been seriously considered, or "in the mix", for some time.

Starting with the "C's": Cameron White, Callum Ferguson, Clint McKay all have (at least) ODI experience and have performed well (at least) at first class level, but none seem like the future of an Australian team.

Alex Doolan is the Test teams incumbent first-drop, so questions really need to be asked why he is playing in a 50-over game that means nothing when he could be getting more long-form experience elsewhere (e.g. in County Cricket).  If Aaron Finch, who seems to be in contention for the Test sides top-order, isn't playing in this match - there is no reason Doolan should be.

Cameron Boyce (another "C", but in the "D" category) spent the last week watching his first class wicket average move over the 40-mark after getting trashed by the Indian A team, which must really beg the question of where the young spinners are.  Or whose wife Steve O' Keefe has slept with.

Of the rest; Mitch Marsh and Chris Lynne have done well at domestic T20 competition, so should possibly be given a go, though Marsh may not have the aptitude or desire to play Tests.

This leaves Josh Hazelewood, Kane Richardson and Peter Neville, all good players who may represent Australia one-day, but the team selected is hardly a glimpse into the future.

If the majority of this team isn't in serious consideration for playing for Australia in ODI or Test Cricket in future, the question has to be asked; why pick them at all?

Perhaps a lesson can be learnt here from The Galactic Empire.  Sure, they weren't very good at prioritisation, but they did know a lot about succession planning.

From Star Wars Episode I (shudder), Palpatine is looking at Anakin Skywalkers development "closely", while working with and developing other Sith Lords to do his bidding, until such time as they are played out.

In this instance, "played out" and "had your hands cut off" are interchangeable.

Now, I am by no means suggesting that Lehmann begin making his players fight each other to the death for selection in an "A" game (the games are interesting enough as is, thank you), or that older players have their arms severed off by young players, but that 'A' games are used for the point intended; to give the future players more experience against other international teams.

Overheard conversation of the day

Obstetrician: "How do you feel?"
Woman: "Like Ive been f&*ked by a tree stump"