Whose sports movie are we in anyway?

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I actually wrote 2/3s of this in the dark weeks after the 2015 World Cup but it remained unfinished.  After a conversation on the topic earlier this week, I remembered the unfinished post and realised it would make a useful Part 1 of question that is still relevant in this world cup: whose sports movie are we in anyway?  What you’ll read is largely taken from 2015 but with a few edits born of the luxury of a 2019 publication date.

PART I: TWO COMPETING NARRATIVES

Australia won the Cricket World Cup this year with a dominant performance in the final against New Zealand, winning by 3 wickets with more than 100 deliveries to spare.  The culmination of a long yet fascinating tournament in which the hosts dominated while favourites South Africa and India couldn't win key moments in their semi-finals.  The other major teams provided window dressing and the fans from England and Pakistan will feel especially disappointed as their teams showed no real imagination (4 years is a long time it turns out…).  The minor cricket nations made another good showing in the face of very real threats to remove them from future additions of the world cup.  We should wonder though if their success was simply against the tired strategies on display by the weaker top-8 teams; would they really ever challenge the kind of cricket on display by the likes of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India? (it seems the ICC took the latter, more cynical view).

As a New Zealander, the final was disappointing and just as much the manner of the defeat as the defeat itself.  I struggled to find a prism through which I could discuss the match but then remembered a depressingly amusing observation made by a good friend:

"damn it!  Turns out we were staring in the Australian Cricket World Cup movie and not the other way around - we're Iceland to their Mighty Ducks" D. Macaskill, 2015

We had a good laugh at the D2: the Mighty Ducks (1994) reference and in the following days traded various jokes about what a Cricket World Cup movie would look like.

What if you were to make a film about the World Cup?  You need to select a team, an angle, a hero, a villain, drama and action.  Well the World Cup had it all!

New Zealand: the 'Underdog" with a national population the equal to several Australian cities.  Facing off against the might of India and its billion-strong army of supporters (as well as its board of control that accumulates and exerts power over the game).  Or perhaps South Africa with their battery of fast bowlers and intimidating batsmen - they beat NZ 2-0 before Christmas and A B de Villiers 'stole' Corey J. Anderson's fastest-century record too.  What about Sri Lanka and Pakistan: combined they have knocked us out of FOUR semi-finals in my lifetime.  Every way you look the co-hosts are up against it this year!

Then you have the embattled captain: should he open the batting and face the wrath inherent therein, is he good enough?  The old, bearded veteran, and migrant from South Africa: Elliot, is he good enough to be in the side!  The old hand: Daniel Vettori, has he still got what it takes to compete on the biggest stage?  The Boult-er, Trent with barely a game under his belt (at the time).  The ailing hero/father-figure: Martin Crowe, on his deathbed, a survivor of campaigns past - will he make it to the final?  There is sport-movie-cliché gold in there, and just watch The Kick to see how easy it would be to mould a narrative together.  That's just the setup!

During the story you have the opening match in Christchurch, devastated by an earthquake a couple years before and the emotional but respectfully professional victory by NZ.  Brilliant performances against England and Australia (the latter would have made for a great Final), the Guptill double century after his questionable form in the 12 months before the tournament, and then the great semi-final performance in front of a packed house at Eden Park where Elliot smashes the winning runs to bring the noise and national support of the team to a crescendo.  No New Zealand team has ever made it to the World Cup Final!  Unfortunately, this is not just New Zealand's movie...

Across the Tasman an equally emotional and compelling tale unfolds to lift Australia from the void to the drunken heights of World Cup victory.  Philip Hughes' death at the beginning of the summer sucks the life out of a nation and Australia must show true character to go on, fight the fight and win the cup once again.  Even without this sad catalyst Australia yearns to redeem itself from a poor effort in 1992 (last time as hosts), and finally win one at home.  Michael Clarke: estranged captain, injury, arrogance, loss, distraction but still resolved to win.  David Warner: doing it for his mate Phil Hughes.

To balance the dramatic ledger of personal stories, one has the uplifting moments: Stark's transformation to international star, and Brad Haddin the old battler.  Australia even beaten by New Zealand (Iceland?) mid-tournament, the team licks its wounds but refocuses for the final act.  Then have everything put in proportion with the passing of Richie Benaud, one of cricket’s favourite son’s (or fathers depending on which generation you are) - perhaps Cricket World Cup 2015 is Australia’s movie.

A better movie would be to contrast the two narratives and in doing so comment on the changing spirit of both teams by tournament’s end.  While you have two perfectly compelling sporting stories in competition, let us be honest; sporting movies – as uplifting, moral tales of loss and success – are too often meaningless after you have seen a few others from the long tradition of the genre.  All the rough edges are sawn off to make way for bromance, cliché and tired metaphor.  Or you swing the other way and get a soup of cynicism like Any Given Sunday (1999).  I include examples of both in my list of favourite sporting films – but I believe there’s an honest point that can be made here.  The final scenes should conclude, that the Black Caps did not sell their soul in their quest for glory.  The story should convey their humility throughout the tournament – especially in defeat - to inspire current and future generations.  While respectful of the human place from which their story stems, the Australian half would subtly include the ugly side of what they achieve.  Everything from the selfish sideshow that is Clarke’s obsession to return to a team that didn’t need him, to the team’s shameful behaviour in the final.

The events to which my latter comment references rightly mark the final act of the story and the tournament itself.  The behaviour of Australia is not as shining example of a successful team, but a cautionary tale about what is NOT worth sacrificing in the pursuit of victory.  Any attitude or manner of play that manifests itself as the sledging and disrespect of a retiring champion – Vettori - is simply not cricket.  Such a player deserves a formal salute from a team of players whose more talented predecessors respected Vettori as a great cricketer and competitor.  The momentum already with Australia by that point in the innings - there is no excuse.  Haddin’s, hungover comments the following morning - their discomfort at being treated so hospitably in New Zealand - says all we need say about what the team has become, their soul laid bare for all to see in that moment.

The uplifting sporting lesson is the one where Brendon McCullum and his team lead a nation past disaster, through a tournament, and make us proud.  A moral victory in the end but in the grand scheme of things a moral victory is more important.

Catch my next post for Part 2: what is our narrative?

Checking in on greatness

Hello and welcome back to my blog – how long has it been!?

A World Cup is as good of a time as any to take up the pen again, but truth be told it is just the first time I’ve managed to combine my favourite mix of night-time relaxation: cold winter evening, live cricket, scotch and something about which I am inspired to write.  My return topic is really a sequel, long awaited like I am sure, to my July 2016 (and last) entry about Kohli, Smith, Root and Williamson.  I am pleased to find, as with the glass of Glendronach to my right, it aged pretty well…

“NOTE: although Kohli’s mastery of test cricket has not quite blossomed the same as the other 3, his mastery of limited-overs cricket is so far ahead that I believe he warrants inclusion.”

…well yes, I completely agree with myself on that one – there are few better feelings than vindication.  Anyway, with these four modern masters of batting in the four best teams at the current World Cup let us see how they’ve progressed.

In 2016 I tried to make the point that while they were all established as the top batters in the world, they all brought something different to that title and would face equally different challenges in the near future; namely leadership.  After almost three years I can say I was not wrong, but first to the stats!

Virat Kohli

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	42	3194	46.29	12
	2019	77	6613	53.76	25
ODIs	2019	229	10943	59.47	41

Steve Smith

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	41	3852	60.18	14
	2019	64	6199	61.37	23
ODIs	2019	112	3601	41.87	8

Joe Root

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	44	3804	55.13	10
	2019	80	6685	49.51	16
ODIs	2019	135	5479	50.73	15

Kane Williamson

	Year	Match	Runs	Ave.	100s
Tests	2016	48	4037	49.23	13
	2019	72	6139	53.38	20
ODIs	2019	142	5673	46.50	11

Kohli is the best batsman in the world at present and it is hard to get past that fact.  In the last three years he has increased his test average from good to great and scored 13 (many huge) centuries at home and abroad.  Last time I wondered whether he could emulate Tendulkar’s hunger for runs, and that has really been the key.  He has managed to transfer his ODI run-machine style to the longer format of the game, taken up the captaincy of a rampant Indian team that is winning overseas again, and only increased his run-scoring.  However, the element I admit that I was slow to appreciate is his hard work and resolve – it is not just talent or flat pitches - he succeeds based on an insane work ethic, the same with which he is also moulding his team.  At 30/31 he should still have another 4-5 years of great batting in him, but we already expect that – instead I cannot wait to see to what heights he can march his team.

Steve Smith is a different story altogether because while he has also taken his batting to new levels in test cricket, his leadership tenure was and should ever be marked as one of abject failure.  Smith appears to share Kohli’s ability to maintain (or improve) his batting performance while captaining his team, however unlike his Indian rival, his captaincy was a poor imitation of his predecessor in the role.  His regime (although that term suggests an image of authority he clearly didn’t have) was ended as a result of the cheating that went on in South Africa.  My words may be blunt but, with hindsight I do not tarnish him with the same brush as Warner, Haddin and Clarke (latter two were not involved in South Africa) who, in their public showings, appear to have no notion of the game’s core spirit.  No, Steve Smith’s leadership will be remembered for terrible judgement and the remarkable immaturity unveiled during the aftermath of that match and tour.  He may well go on to become Australia’s most successful batsman of the modern era but anyone who believes the definition of greatness lies beyond simple numbers should never again bestow him with it.

Root is a different case again, as his batting has declined in the last 3 years – just 6 centuries in 36 tests and an average that now sits under 50 which contrasts poorly with the others.  Root’s struggles may lie in mantle of English captaincy because, again unlike the others, he leads a side of aging players (some of whom debuted 3-4 captaincies ago!).  He is the youngest of the four so has more time to rescue his stats, but if the careers of Vaughan, Strauss, and Cook are any measure I would not hold out much hope.  I will, give him credit for the marked turn around in the English ODI team though, which is a new group and very much of his own creation since the disastrous 2015 campaign.  As a captain and batsman, he has created a juggernaut of one-day cricket to the surprise of many, and I will continue to admire his ability to match his throwback English style of batting with the needs of high-scoring modern cricket.

Lastly, we have our own Kane Williamson who has spent three years hoovering up NZ batting records and improved his batting stats nicely.  I would not say his rise has plateaued but there is a definite feeling of a flattening-curve to his personal form – perhaps more pronounced in his one-day form where he seems plagued with impressive 60s, 70s and 80s.  I would also question his captaincy nous – particularly at the beginning – as too much Vettori and not enough McCullum, but what maintains my hope is the fact that he is such a student of his own game.  We’ve seen him methodically improve his own batting in each facet, there’s no reason that he cannot do the same with his captaincy and develop into a brilliant tactician.

The four pillars of modern batting continue to play their cricket above everyone else’s heads, but to rank them on their own lofty plane is to examine their captaincy of their respective teams and how they inspire their comrades (or not) to match them – even if mere mortals may only glimpse that plane of existence for moments at a time.  I will come back to this in three more years no doubt, but hopefully with many more blog posts in between this time!

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

The Four Horsemen

Hello and welcome back to my blog

With all the gloom-and-doom forecasting for test cricket I really hope the oracles are wrong.  If this decade marks the apocalypse of test cricket then we are faced with a strange quartet of horsemen to bring it about.  In Virat Kohli, Steven Smith, Joe Root and Kane Williamson cricket has four master batsmen to enjoy for the next 10 years: all from different backgrounds, different cultures and different teams.  Each has his own style but each is a batting genius in his own right.

I once saw an interview with Sir. Ian Botham regarding the competition between him and the other great allrounders in 1980s (Hadlee, Khan and Dev) in which he admitted that they all closely followed each other’s exploits.  Audiences did too and the idea of two of them facing each other across a test series was worth the admission fee alone.  In Kohli, Smith, Root and Williamson I hope we have a similar group of players to draw the people to the grounds.

Consider the following records:

VIRAT KOHLI - 42* tests, 3194 runs @ 46.29 with 12 centuries

STEVEN SMITH - 41 tests, 3852 runs @ 60.18 with 14 centuries

JOE ROOT - 44* tests, 3804 runs @ 55.13 with 10 centuries

KANE WILLIAMSON - 48 tests, 4037 runs @ 49.23 with 13 centuries

NOTE: although Kohli’s mastery of test cricket has not quite blossomed the same as the other 3, his master of limited-overs cricket is so far ahead that I believe he warrants inclusion.

These four batsmen – aged between 25 and 27 at the moment – have established themselves at the forefront of their own teams and now their generation.  Kohli with his belligerent, nothing-is-impossible style, Smith’s unorthodox but compelling technique, Root’s determined throw-back to the text-book and Williamson’s cold yet carefree demeanour are so different from one another but all succeed in their own right; it is a great balance of approaches and a fine example to young players.

I have no doubt that if he wants it, Kohli will compile a record similar to Tendulkar (that is if he can play enough test cricket) and the real question is whether he has the same hunger for run-making that his predecessor had.  Steven Smith faces a different battle due to his unusual technique – it looks like genius when he’s scoring runs but (like Chanderpual in this sense) it will took terrible when he is out of form; can he adapt his game as he gets older and more experienced to succeed consistently.  Root is the youngest of the four and the most recent to achieve god-like status in his own team so how he gets through a season out of form will be interesting, but like all English sportsman he will have to carry the hopes of a very passionate and unforgiving sporting nation.  Similar could be said of Williamson but my real fear for him is how the captaincy of the weakest of the four teams will drain on his batting powers.  Captaincy is a challenge they all face/will face during their time at the top of the cricketing world but for Williamson it is the bigger threat.

Watching how these players cope with the expectation placed on them - by themselves let alone others – will be fascinating in the years to come and, I pray, their successes will play some part in avoiding the requiem knell of test cricket.

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now

Predictable Ashes Predictions

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I am sitting, about to watch the opening session of the 2015 Ashes series hosted by England.  The hosts have won the toss and will bat first.  Before we get too far into Day 1 of this ever-fascinating contest I would like to share my thoughts on the likely outcomes of each test and the series.

I will offer a quick word on the lead up for both teams but – as many Ashes battles before us have shown – series that precede the ancient contest seldom offer true insight into the strength of either team.  Ponting’s 2005 team arrived in England having swept all before them (including India IN India as you may recall), Australia again looked strong before the 2010-11 thrashing at the hands of Strauss and Cook (700+ runs) and who will forget (I assure the commentators won’t let us forget during this series) the 5-0 result inflicted on England mere weeks after they retained the Ashes at home 3-0.

England hardly looked convincing while drawing series against West Indies (away) and New Zealand (home), fielding an occasionally brittle batting line-up and a too-often toothless bowling attack.  The ODI success against the touring New Zealand side has renewed confidence in the home team for the Ashes but Test cricket is a very different beast.  Australia on the other hand have barely looked back from their loss two years ago (yes we are witnessing two Ashes series in England in a 24 month period) with their Ashes dominance at home, away wins in South Africa and the West Indies and a dominant home summer culminating in World Cup victory.  The form guide suggests Australian dominance with rain alone preventing another 5-0 result.

Then there are the opposing XIs.  The teams have been confirmed with Watson in for Australia despite some brilliant early-tour form from Marsh; in his latest bid for brilliance Watson will bat in the middle to lower order.  Meanwhile, England retain the bits-and-pieces services of Moeen Ali in a similar position as Watson; there was a great deal of talk before the match that leg-spinner Rashid (who figured against New Zealand in the ODIs last month) may start but no luck.  Both are conservative selections, clearly not based on form although both may feature later in the series if fortune goes against either team.  The other choice that leapt off the team sheet at me was the retention of Gary Balance.  He remains at no.3 when I am not entirely sure why he is still in the XI at all – his technical and form deficiencies will be on show against Australia’s fast bowlers just as they were against Southee and Boult (probably more so).  The mind-set here suggests Australian dominance with rain alone preventing another 5-0 result.

The pitches – “always of vital importance” R.I.P. R.B.C.T.C – by which I really mean the grounds, are a favourite indicator of mine as to the likely result of the series.  Cardiff is up first and despite the swing and very variable bounce that I am witnessing as I write this, the draw is always even money at the Welsh ground; although tell Anderson & Panesar how easy the draw comes about at Cardiff!  Next week is Lords and before 2009 I would have chalked this one up for Australia without hesitation because England had not won there since 1934 when Verity took 14 wickets, but they have erased that curse in recent memory with two dominant wins.  However with the re-emergence of Australia’s bowling attack I would say they should win this match.  For Round 3 the tour will move to Edgbaston where it often goes England’s way and if they can snatch a victory against the flow it may well be here.  Trent Bridge is a bowler’s ground – historically if not recently – and will depend largely on whether Anderson bowls well.  The series will be completed at the Oval which should be a batting paradise with some assistance to the spinners.  Therefore you can assume that Ali will finally be dropped in time for Rashid to be debuted hastily as an afterthought and swatted away by a dominant Australian batting line-up as an afterthought.  So I think you’re looking at either a 3-1 or 2-1 result in Australia’s favour.  This is equivalent to a no-show for England so rain alone can prevent another 5-0 result…

The stars do seem to be aligned in Australia’s favour this time – what a difference 24 months can make! – but in England you never quite know what will happen.  The weather can ruin a team’s innings in a session no matter what the pitch is doing, a bowler can lose the plot in the face of the Lords slope and injuries can take their toll.  All three of these things have undone seemingly dominant Australian teams in the past and I see no reason to dispel these fears just yet.

When it comes down to it I would highlight a couple things to keep in mind:

• Ryan Harris’ 22 wickets in the last series beautifully complimented the carnage of Johnson at the other but not just in numerical terms.  Harris’ control was instrumental in pinning the English to their crease and allowing Johnson to attack and Australia’s ability to consistently take wickets will depend on Hazelwood’s ability to replicate Harris’ control with the latter’s sad retirement this week.  It is not enough to throw fast bowlers at the opposition when playing in England – success in English conditions is about the basics of the game and consistency.
• For England I fear their principal problem will be confidence, particularly if Australia takes an early lead.  They need the confidence to attack the fast bowlers and also the spinner Lyon who is a fine off-spinner but he is not Shane Warne.  Anderson and Broad need the confidence to pitch the ball up and not get stuck bowling length balls; swing has always decimated Australian teams and can do so again.  Finally, Cook needs the confidence to attack in the field and not fall into controlling patterns; he does not have the strongest team on paper this time and his old style will not succeed in this series.
• Having said that, the Australians have a certain fragility in their batting that has gone largely unnoticed in recent times.  Since the retirements of Hussey and Ponting their batting has relied heavily on first Clarke and then Smith and if both fail there is little substance to the middle order.  Warner’s style may prove inconsistent and therefore unreliable in England so middle-order runs are where the tests may be decided and with Clarke on the decline and Smith untested as the front-man in England (he did well 24 months ago but lower in the order) they present a fascinating match-up with Bell and Root (the declining Bell and the young, world-class Root).  There is plenty to be decided and that includes the final score line.

Despite my reservations about holding yet another Ashes series, these tests look set to entertain and if nothing else gives us an idea of what New Zealand should expect when they tour Australia in November…

Well that’s it from here and I hope you join me again

It’s good bye for now

'Langue de bois' strikes again

Hello and welcome back to my blog

"New Zealand Cricket set to scrap Aussie test for Chappell-Hadlee ODIs"

Not quite the headline I wished to come home to.  The Australian and NZ boards are in negotiations about home and away fixtures between the two teams next summer.  The Black Caps are set to play 3 tests in Australia in November and then host the Australians in February.  It seems, in order to fit in an ODI series as part of the latter tour, one of the tests must be scrapped.  India host the 2020 World Cup at the end of the season - I will go ahead and assume that the IPL is not moving to accommodate this tournament... anyway.  Enjoy

I have reproduced sections from the article here and provided a translation for what it really means:

David White: "It's an interesting debate. We want three-match test series where possible and there's been a lot of valid discussion about that over the last week."

Translation: "it's a question that I don't really want to answer at the risk of jeopardizing monetary gains from staging more limited overs cricket next season, but in order to suggest that we don't have an opinion on the matter we shall say there is a debate.  We don't have a problem with three-match series as long as they don't interfere with our ability to re-stage the World Cup final over and over again, and there's been a lot of annoying discussion recently due to the genuine excitement produced by the tests in England."

David White: "But on the back of the success of Cricket World Cup, and bearing in mind we would have played three test matches in Australia [in November], it would be very appealing to have three Chappell-Hadlee ODIs in New Zealand."

Translation: "But after the team managed to make the final of the World Cup using an easily marketable brand of cricket - also don't forget that we will have played three test matches in Australia in November and people shouldn't get, ahem, greedy - it would be very appealing to our investors and stakeholders to have three Chappell-Hadlee ODIs in New Zealand.  Chappell-Hadlee being - as you all know - euphemism for spirited rivalry but we're using it to justify cashing-in on recent world cup success."

David White: "It's fair to say it is advantageous for NZC to have a close working relationship with Australia. They're one of the top teams in the world and it would be great for us if we could play them more."

Translation:  "we don't trust our ability to draw crowds with the most entertaining team in the world, we'd much rather sell out now"

I won't beat about the bush on this one - I think this is a terrible decision and a clear betrayal of the Black Caps by New Zealand Cricket.  While the team and it's captain continue to create a positive style of cricket in all formats, the board appears to be blindly searching for any cash stream it can get in the short term.  Does it occur to them that the World Cup - both as an event in New Zealand AND the team doing well - can be a force for increased enjoyment and marketability in all forms, not just ODIs?  They are the most exciting test team going around and with a squad of talented players only just coming into their prime there is a bright future for the test side if they're given the chance.

Well that's it from me and I hope you join me again

It's good bye for now

Note "langue de bois" meaning language that uses vague, ambiguous, abstract or pompous words in order to divert attention from the salient issues