Hello and welcome back to my blog
Just in between my posts about the future of the game I would like to comment about two things.
First, the talented Bangladesh all-rounder Shakib Al Hasan. 22 years of age and last night scored his 4th ODI hundred (off just 69 balls) to guide his team home against Zimbabwe after taking 9-1-24-1. This lad is really good. Even if you want to scoff at the thought of scoring runs against Zimbabwe, he scored 108 against Pakistan while the rest crumbled around him. I found footage of that innings and his back-foot play is very assured, he has quick hands, the advantage of being a left-hander and great placement.
He now has 2000 runs @ 36 in ODIs plus 77 wickets @ 31 (econ of 4.08!)
In tests his stats are beginning to grow: 715 runs @ 29.79 and 48 wickets @ 28 (including 5 5WHs already!). A friend of mine suggested that he could be the NEXT man to enter the 3000 run 300 wicket club and that might be possible. Besides his own stats and ability, the value of such a player to Bangladesh will be great - a Hadlee type boost.
I first noticed him last year against New Zealand when he took 7-36 and batted well (out done by Vettori on that occasion but impressive none the less) and I really do hope he continues to succeed
On a sadder note, my favourite umpire David Shepherd passed away from cancer the other day. When I first began taking an interest in Test Cricket (2004) he was a memorable part of those games and in particular his hopping when a score reached a Nelson or multiple of that (111, 222, 333 etc); I fondly remember a commentator posing the question 'what if a batsmen were 111 over night? Would he spend the night hopping in his sleep?'
Indeed, at 1.11pm yesterday I stood on one leg as a sign of respect (or I tried to - honestly it turned out I was a minute off).
He will be remembered as a very good umpire, liked by the players and spectators because he included just the right amount of eccentric behaviour that permeates cricket and that we so enjoy
Rest In Peace
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Future of Cricket Part 1
Hello and welcome back to my blog
Over the next few days I will post my analysis of the question of the year: what is the future of cricket? This refers to all three forms of the game and I have been working towards this since June. I thought it wise to wait and allow the topic to develop before commenting (in order to avoid the mistake of writing off tests or ODIs before they had a chance to prove themselves). I'm glad I did because both showed their value in the last 5 months and a few commentators/writers have appeared foolish as a result.
Today Part 1 deals with the future of Test Cricket:
The history of what we call Test Cricket stretches back to 1877 when England and Australia played at the MCG and grew to include 3 teams by the turn of the century, 6 at the out break of the Second World War and now 10 in the 21st Century. The rules have hardly changed beyond new LBW laws, field restrictions (to combat body line) and no-ball rules; the game is played in the same structure. Only now in 2009 does it face a real threat from a three-hour, carnival version of itself. In the face of that history, I think not
The issue is relevance. What role do we want Test Cricket to fill in the 21st Century so that people can identify with and find/make time to watch it. With the success of the IPL and 20/20 World Cup this year, the question needs answering NOW. Suggestions and possible solutions have been expressed across the globe - some more realistic than others - it is useful to discuss some of the more common ones:
After the success of day-night ODIs some feel that Test Cricket could also benefit from playing it when people aren't at work. This could encourage more people to attend the matches but would not solve the other problems mentioned above. Other issues include the way the air changes as night and how this might affect the ball (personally I don't have a problem with this because it gives power back to the bowlers) also the colour of the ball itself would need to change to be seen at night.
I would advise against this idea because Test Cricket, for me, is a sport to be enjoyed during a hot sunny day - a lethargic experience rather than a chance to be crammed into a seat for SEVEN hours. Thus I support New Zealand Cricket's move to hold tests at smaller grounds rather than stadiums; the atmosphere is better and much more comfortable for enjoying Test Cricket's slower nature.
Splitting the test nations into two tiers has also been suggested in order to avoid one-sided contests. Thus the likes of Australia, South Africa, India and one other nation would play each other while West Indies, New Zealand and Bangladesh would play each other (the place of England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe would depend on their performances when the split occurs. It is suggested that the new structure could function similar to the English County system with relegation and advancement.
However the obvious problem is that each nation does not have the same pool of potential players or resources to draw on. The top nations will improve through competition with each other far further than the bottom nations could (aided by the large resources available through the inevitable ticket sales and advertising etc). In the end it would simply make the top teams better and the bottom teams would almost stagnate. And that is just if Test Cricket were a stand alone form of the game, the lure of 20/20 competitions would surely suck the players away from the bottom nations more than ever before (more about this in Part 3).
There is a much better way to structure Test Cricket to improve its appeal and that is to create a proper Test Championship. This would involve a re-imagining of the Future Tours Programme in a way that across one year a top Test nation could be crowned. This gives a goal and purpose to each series as points are accumulated and semi-finals and finals decided before the tally is wiped clean for a new year.
The idea floated around for a few years and gained momentum this winter (summer in England) with the likes of Ian Chappell and Adam Gilchrist supporting it. Martin Crowe even organised a presentation to the ICC that would have had a championship set up beginning in October (when there are 4 series being played involving the top 8 nations) as a trial.
The only major issue that concerns me with this system is the role of key series like The Ashes, Border-Gavaskar and Frank Worrell Trophies etc, which still draw large crowds and prove to be profitable. Any championship would need to accommodate these before it could find votes to pass.
During the winter the idea of 4-day test matches gained great attention and every commentator/writer/blogger/player had something to say about it.
Conclusion
For me Test Cricket is still the best form of cricket and its popularity is somewhat explained by the recent Ashes contests:
The question over the future of Test Cricket will not be answered in this blog, nor by any other. A sport must continually adapt to maintain its appeal and relevance. That task falls to the players, officials, administrators and even the fans, just as Sir. Richard Hadlee said 'we are all custodians of the game'
Keep an eye out for Part 2 which I shall post in a few days time
Over the next few days I will post my analysis of the question of the year: what is the future of cricket? This refers to all three forms of the game and I have been working towards this since June. I thought it wise to wait and allow the topic to develop before commenting (in order to avoid the mistake of writing off tests or ODIs before they had a chance to prove themselves). I'm glad I did because both showed their value in the last 5 months and a few commentators/writers have appeared foolish as a result.
Today Part 1 deals with the future of Test Cricket:
The history of what we call Test Cricket stretches back to 1877 when England and Australia played at the MCG and grew to include 3 teams by the turn of the century, 6 at the out break of the Second World War and now 10 in the 21st Century. The rules have hardly changed beyond new LBW laws, field restrictions (to combat body line) and no-ball rules; the game is played in the same structure. Only now in 2009 does it face a real threat from a three-hour, carnival version of itself. In the face of that history, I think not
However, in 2009 there are issues that need to be addressed if Test Cricket is to continue in anything like its present form:
- With 10 teams playing each other according to the ICC Future Tours programme an inevitable wedge has formed between the top teams and the bottom teams - a difference in skill and funding that is growing. England, Australia, India and South Africa play each other in long, tough series and collect the sales and hardening of skills inherent to such match-ups while the rest struggle to catchup.
- On the other hand the top nations are also becoming the most defensive and least flamboyant with fewer risks taken and none of Strauss, Ponting, Dhoni and Smith will appear in the Top 20 Captains of All time. The energy of a competitive West Indies, a talented AND consistent Pakistan, the unique Sri Lanka or the underdog achievers New Zealand are missing from the mix of competitive Test Cricket. F0r the longest form of the game to survive there must be more of a balance between the teams.
- A large part of the problem is the Future Tours Programme itself. With 10 teams to fit into a 12 month period, the year has become full of meaningless series and one tour on the back of another; two tests here and three ODIs there. The advent of 20/20 has filled the international calendar to its limits. There is no pattern, no progression and no real sense to any of it - just a filler between World Cups. It is difficult for the public to follow their team when there is no end goal or point to it all
The issue is relevance. What role do we want Test Cricket to fill in the 21st Century so that people can identify with and find/make time to watch it. With the success of the IPL and 20/20 World Cup this year, the question needs answering NOW. Suggestions and possible solutions have been expressed across the globe - some more realistic than others - it is useful to discuss some of the more common ones:
After the success of day-night ODIs some feel that Test Cricket could also benefit from playing it when people aren't at work. This could encourage more people to attend the matches but would not solve the other problems mentioned above. Other issues include the way the air changes as night and how this might affect the ball (personally I don't have a problem with this because it gives power back to the bowlers) also the colour of the ball itself would need to change to be seen at night.
I would advise against this idea because Test Cricket, for me, is a sport to be enjoyed during a hot sunny day - a lethargic experience rather than a chance to be crammed into a seat for SEVEN hours. Thus I support New Zealand Cricket's move to hold tests at smaller grounds rather than stadiums; the atmosphere is better and much more comfortable for enjoying Test Cricket's slower nature.
Splitting the test nations into two tiers has also been suggested in order to avoid one-sided contests. Thus the likes of Australia, South Africa, India and one other nation would play each other while West Indies, New Zealand and Bangladesh would play each other (the place of England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe would depend on their performances when the split occurs. It is suggested that the new structure could function similar to the English County system with relegation and advancement.
However the obvious problem is that each nation does not have the same pool of potential players or resources to draw on. The top nations will improve through competition with each other far further than the bottom nations could (aided by the large resources available through the inevitable ticket sales and advertising etc). In the end it would simply make the top teams better and the bottom teams would almost stagnate. And that is just if Test Cricket were a stand alone form of the game, the lure of 20/20 competitions would surely suck the players away from the bottom nations more than ever before (more about this in Part 3).
There is a much better way to structure Test Cricket to improve its appeal and that is to create a proper Test Championship. This would involve a re-imagining of the Future Tours Programme in a way that across one year a top Test nation could be crowned. This gives a goal and purpose to each series as points are accumulated and semi-finals and finals decided before the tally is wiped clean for a new year.
The idea floated around for a few years and gained momentum this winter (summer in England) with the likes of Ian Chappell and Adam Gilchrist supporting it. Martin Crowe even organised a presentation to the ICC that would have had a championship set up beginning in October (when there are 4 series being played involving the top 8 nations) as a trial.
The only major issue that concerns me with this system is the role of key series like The Ashes, Border-Gavaskar and Frank Worrell Trophies etc, which still draw large crowds and prove to be profitable. Any championship would need to accommodate these before it could find votes to pass.
During the winter the idea of 4-day test matches gained great attention and every commentator/writer/blogger/player had something to say about it.
- Javed Miandad suggested 4-day tests as a good way for minor nations (Ireland, Kenya etc) to play - which is how New Zealand entered test cricket - but to shorten tests for the top nations may hurt the standard of that form of the game.
- The Indian Express asked 'would 4 days really be more exciting than 5 or would it just feel like a domestic game'
- A Daily Mail cynic sarcastically suggested that we should just shorten tests to 20 overs each
Conclusion
For me Test Cricket is still the best form of cricket and its popularity is somewhat explained by the recent Ashes contests:
- In 2005 we witnessed the best test series in decades: competitive, played in the right nature, great atmosphere, a close result and involving the best players and teams of the time. However this standard was unrealistic and proved a false rebirth for test cricket (except in England)
- In 2006/7 Australia thrashed England 5-0 in a display that was brilliant but ultimately lacking in drama due to the scoreline
- In 2009 two teams of less quality than those before, fought a tough battle for the urn and in doing so set a far better standard for others to follow
The question over the future of Test Cricket will not be answered in this blog, nor by any other. A sport must continually adapt to maintain its appeal and relevance. That task falls to the players, officials, administrators and even the fans, just as Sir. Richard Hadlee said 'we are all custodians of the game'
Keep an eye out for Part 2 which I shall post in a few days time
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Moles Gate
Hello and welcome back to my blog
I apologise about the change of topics this week but I am forced to delay my posts about Tests, ODIs and 20/20s in order to cover the Black Caps coach issue. I will endeavour to post these in the coming days.
Recently the Dominion Post broke the story that a complaint was made by senior players in the New Zealand team regarding the coach Andy Moles. There are concerns that he isn't doing enough and thus putting much of the burden on Daniel Vettori - already captain, bowler and lower-order batsman. Just one year after appointment, the Moles era has included no test wins and a 50/50 ODI winning record culminating in a finals spot during the recent Champions Trophy in South Africa.
Today the leading newspapers have jumped all over this as if he were an All Blacks coach after a World Cup. Sadly Andy Moles has had nothing to do with either and the treatment is regrettable. The Herald started posting the most ridiculous opinions ranging from blaming the coach, the players and even one fool who suggested dropping Brendon McCullum whose skills with bat and gloves have been poor for years. While that last comment suggests that even idiots can use email, there were some good points that ARE worth noting:
Stuff.co.nz featured a poll asking if Moles should be sacked and provided three possible answers:
The issue I have is that there is so much nonsense being discussed and printed/reported from just one article that didn't name anyone! Not even whether batsmen or bowlers - which makes it hard to judge the merit of the complaint
TV3 News reported tonight that concerns over the situation had been growing for sometime but again failed to give any proof or provide official statement. They simply used the 'some people say...' device which is exploited to stir up a story.
I would advise patience. We must wait until New Zealand Cricket meets with Moles ahead of the ODI series against Pakistan, not jump to conclusions and perform a public execution of the man's career through newspapers and talk back radio.
Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now
I apologise about the change of topics this week but I am forced to delay my posts about Tests, ODIs and 20/20s in order to cover the Black Caps coach issue. I will endeavour to post these in the coming days.
Recently the Dominion Post broke the story that a complaint was made by senior players in the New Zealand team regarding the coach Andy Moles. There are concerns that he isn't doing enough and thus putting much of the burden on Daniel Vettori - already captain, bowler and lower-order batsman. Just one year after appointment, the Moles era has included no test wins and a 50/50 ODI winning record culminating in a finals spot during the recent Champions Trophy in South Africa.
Today the leading newspapers have jumped all over this as if he were an All Blacks coach after a World Cup. Sadly Andy Moles has had nothing to do with either and the treatment is regrettable. The Herald started posting the most ridiculous opinions ranging from blaming the coach, the players and even one fool who suggested dropping Brendon McCullum whose skills with bat and gloves have been poor for years. While that last comment suggests that even idiots can use email, there were some good points that ARE worth noting:
- Moles is the natural opposite to the Bracewell style of control and these developments should not be too surprising
- Furthermore, was it not this laid back approach that senior players wanted before (the lack of which lead to Nathan Astle's retirement and perhaps Craig McMillan as well)
Stuff.co.nz featured a poll asking if Moles should be sacked and provided three possible answers:
- Yes the players are right
- No he needs more time to prove his worth
- No the problem is with the players not the coach
The issue I have is that there is so much nonsense being discussed and printed/reported from just one article that didn't name anyone! Not even whether batsmen or bowlers - which makes it hard to judge the merit of the complaint
TV3 News reported tonight that concerns over the situation had been growing for sometime but again failed to give any proof or provide official statement. They simply used the 'some people say...' device which is exploited to stir up a story.
I would advise patience. We must wait until New Zealand Cricket meets with Moles ahead of the ODI series against Pakistan, not jump to conclusions and perform a public execution of the man's career through newspapers and talk back radio.
Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Update
Just a couple of things:
- Congratulations to Ross Taylor for his continued success at the Champions League
- Look out this week for several consecutive posts about the state of the game. These will encompass opinions collected over the last 6 months or so and include my own commentary
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Playing with the Big Boys
Hello and welcome back to my blog
Last night I watched my first game of the Champions League 2009 and what occurred to me very quickly is the difference in skill between the different domestic teams of the world. The IPL teams will do fine because they will be loaded with international talents like Adam Gilchrist and others but for the likes of the Otago Volts this competition will be a steep learning curve and that is a GOOD thing
The only New Zealand team in the competition went down to the Cape Cobras (of South Africa) by 54 runs and the difference in performance was clear in every department and facet of the game. The highly-regarded Neil Wagner (first class bowling average of 21) bowled two deliveries outside off-stump before reverting to leg-stump half volleys that century maker Puttick duly bashed to the boundary. Ian Butler couldn't help but bowl length deliveries at the death which ended in the stands. Nathan McCullum, a spinner that has good potential in my view, did not change his game plan when bowling to batsmen who are skilled at slogging to the leg-side.
When it came to chasing the 194 for victory (20 runs too many to be fair) the writing was on the wall when Brendon McCullum underestimated the out fielding of the opposition and was run out attempting a risky second run. Too more run outs followed in the middle order and the opportunity to have a real go at chasing a large target, on a flat wicket, against less-than-threatening bowling was gone.
The problem was the clear lift in intensity required to beat these other teams. I had always wondered how our domestic teams would handle playing Australian, South African or English opposition and now my fears are realised. Each skill in the game is a little better; better developed, more experienced and consistent.
However this is exactly what New Zealand needs. We don't have enough domestic cricket at the moment and, by their own admission, the players are too friendly with each other to foster the competitive edge so apparent in the other teams. This experience should help to rectify this problem and continue to do so if this tournament continues.
I look forward to watching the Otago Volts improve and learn some new lessons to then take back to our domestic scene and encourage the others
Well that's it from here and I hope to see you again
It's good bye for now
Last night I watched my first game of the Champions League 2009 and what occurred to me very quickly is the difference in skill between the different domestic teams of the world. The IPL teams will do fine because they will be loaded with international talents like Adam Gilchrist and others but for the likes of the Otago Volts this competition will be a steep learning curve and that is a GOOD thing
The only New Zealand team in the competition went down to the Cape Cobras (of South Africa) by 54 runs and the difference in performance was clear in every department and facet of the game. The highly-regarded Neil Wagner (first class bowling average of 21) bowled two deliveries outside off-stump before reverting to leg-stump half volleys that century maker Puttick duly bashed to the boundary. Ian Butler couldn't help but bowl length deliveries at the death which ended in the stands. Nathan McCullum, a spinner that has good potential in my view, did not change his game plan when bowling to batsmen who are skilled at slogging to the leg-side.
When it came to chasing the 194 for victory (20 runs too many to be fair) the writing was on the wall when Brendon McCullum underestimated the out fielding of the opposition and was run out attempting a risky second run. Too more run outs followed in the middle order and the opportunity to have a real go at chasing a large target, on a flat wicket, against less-than-threatening bowling was gone.
The problem was the clear lift in intensity required to beat these other teams. I had always wondered how our domestic teams would handle playing Australian, South African or English opposition and now my fears are realised. Each skill in the game is a little better; better developed, more experienced and consistent.
However this is exactly what New Zealand needs. We don't have enough domestic cricket at the moment and, by their own admission, the players are too friendly with each other to foster the competitive edge so apparent in the other teams. This experience should help to rectify this problem and continue to do so if this tournament continues.
I look forward to watching the Otago Volts improve and learn some new lessons to then take back to our domestic scene and encourage the others
Well that's it from here and I hope to see you again
It's good bye for now
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Humble Pie
Hello and welcome back to my blog
THEY DID IT!
The New Zealand Black Caps have booked a spot in the final of the 2009 Champions Trophy with a professional victory over Pakistan. Forced to field on a flat, if slow, track they showed patience and accuracy in keeping the unpredictable Pakistan batting line-up to a modest 233 for 9 (50 overs) before Elliott and Vettori guided them to the target with 13 balls to spare.
Although I was unable to witness the entire match, the first 30 overs of the New Zealand bowling effort impressed me. Daniel Vettori controlled the match beautifully and deserved his man of the match award for his captaincy as well as his 3 wickets and 41 runs. The whole team appeared to lift their game slightly - particularly in the field where their energy resulted in numerous run out chances. The only blemish would be the dismissal of Martin Guptil who has batted really well in this tournament so far, but once again was tempted by the success of one pull-shot and played another only to top edge for what seems the hundredth time. I have complained about this issue before and surely someone in the NZ camp notices it too
However, my post today is about a number of people who need to eat some humble pie. For those who say that we need Shane Bond to succeed, an opinion mentioned several times during the commentary, the other bowlers are not the worst in the world. Those who continue to dismiss the abilities of Grant Elliott as a stop gap measure while the likes of Oram are injured, must soon bend under the mountain of evidence to the contrary. He is urning the respect of teams around the world: Australia, England and now Pakistan - with a top order as aggressive as McCullum, Ryder and Taylor, the cool head of Elliott is a brilliant balancing measure and insurance policy.
Finally, I must eat my slice and admit my mistake. Months ago I posted a piece about the hold Pakistan has over the Black Caps - particularly in semi-finals - and I admit dismissing the idea of victory in this match in the face of that record. Firstly I was proven dead wrong on that prediction and secondly my stats were not correct. New Zealand in fact beat Pakistan in the 2000 semi-final (the one ODI tournament victory to their name) and I failed to notice this until recently.
I congratulate the team on the fine victory played with the intensity required in finals. Now they must beat their other rival, the Australians led by an in-form Ricky Ponting. It could be a classic, the Black Caps will be the underdogs and that is exactly where they are most comfortable.
Well that's it from here and I hope to see you again
It's good bye for now
THEY DID IT!
The New Zealand Black Caps have booked a spot in the final of the 2009 Champions Trophy with a professional victory over Pakistan. Forced to field on a flat, if slow, track they showed patience and accuracy in keeping the unpredictable Pakistan batting line-up to a modest 233 for 9 (50 overs) before Elliott and Vettori guided them to the target with 13 balls to spare.
Although I was unable to witness the entire match, the first 30 overs of the New Zealand bowling effort impressed me. Daniel Vettori controlled the match beautifully and deserved his man of the match award for his captaincy as well as his 3 wickets and 41 runs. The whole team appeared to lift their game slightly - particularly in the field where their energy resulted in numerous run out chances. The only blemish would be the dismissal of Martin Guptil who has batted really well in this tournament so far, but once again was tempted by the success of one pull-shot and played another only to top edge for what seems the hundredth time. I have complained about this issue before and surely someone in the NZ camp notices it too
However, my post today is about a number of people who need to eat some humble pie. For those who say that we need Shane Bond to succeed, an opinion mentioned several times during the commentary, the other bowlers are not the worst in the world. Those who continue to dismiss the abilities of Grant Elliott as a stop gap measure while the likes of Oram are injured, must soon bend under the mountain of evidence to the contrary. He is urning the respect of teams around the world: Australia, England and now Pakistan - with a top order as aggressive as McCullum, Ryder and Taylor, the cool head of Elliott is a brilliant balancing measure and insurance policy.
Finally, I must eat my slice and admit my mistake. Months ago I posted a piece about the hold Pakistan has over the Black Caps - particularly in semi-finals - and I admit dismissing the idea of victory in this match in the face of that record. Firstly I was proven dead wrong on that prediction and secondly my stats were not correct. New Zealand in fact beat Pakistan in the 2000 semi-final (the one ODI tournament victory to their name) and I failed to notice this until recently.
I congratulate the team on the fine victory played with the intensity required in finals. Now they must beat their other rival, the Australians led by an in-form Ricky Ponting. It could be a classic, the Black Caps will be the underdogs and that is exactly where they are most comfortable.
Well that's it from here and I hope to see you again
It's good bye for now
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)