Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Sport: The Australian Disease - sportingaustralia.com

Refund please

November 11th 2008 04:40
Border-Gavaskar Trophy
If all contemporary test series between Australia and India are memorable, what is this most recent encounter going to be remembered for?

Will it be remembered for the rise of India? Will it be remembered for the ending of Australia’s hegemony? Will it be remembered for the remarkable debut of Jason Krejza? Will it be remembered for the emotional retirements of Anil Kumble and Sourav Ganguly?


Or could it be that the series is remembered for unsavoury, rather than historic, reasons? The incessant sniping between the two teams, perhaps, or the controversial suspension of Gautam Gambhir? The appalling over rates, or the embarrassingly empty stadiums? Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s 8-1 field, or the percentage cricket routinely employed by both sides? Or could the abiding memory of India 2008 be that it marked the time when- at long last- a message was delivered to the custodians of the game that something needed to be done to preserve the sanctity of test cricket?

Much has been written, by Sport: The Australian Disease included, of the superficiality of Twenty20. But at least you know what you’re going to get. Contrast that with this Border-Gavaskar contest, which, having promised so much, fell well short of meeting expectations. Customers of McDonalds understand that the trade-off that comes with ordering something quick and tasty is that it is also going to be cheap and nasty. Those who patronise a fine restaurant, however, demand- and are entitled to- food and service of the highest quality. Sadly, the fans who watched the Indian tour got nothing of the sort, instead receiving unpalatable and overpriced stodge. They were short-changed.


The most damning indictment that can be made of the just-completed series is to highlight the interest surrounding the cricket that will soon be taking place on home soil. This interest, though, is not related to the two tests about to be played against New Zealand, or the three to follow against South Africa; rather it concerns the wretched Twenty20 fixture between a weakened Australian outfit and the ACA All-Stars. When people are more taken with anticipating an exhibition match than basking in the memory of a Border-Gavaskar battle, it suggests that test cricket is in trouble.

Given the rivalry that exists between the world’s two best teams, given the talent that they put out on the field, and given the fact that they were fighting ferociously for supremacy, it was only reasonable to expect entertainment. After all, if Australia and India can’t put on a show, who on earth can? This is the question that casual observers must be asking, and it’s reasonable to speculate that the answering of it will only make them less favourably disposed to the longer form of the game.

What made the showdown so disappointing was the way it became infused with negativity. Far too often, the line between pragmatism and cynicism was crossed. Exchange banter and engage in mental disintegration by all means, but desist from the juvenile name-calling, the ceaseless needling and the primitive elbowing. Go on the defensive when required, but eschew the wide bowling and ultra-conservative field-settings that are designed to bore the batsman to death. Talk tactics and reposition players should the need arise, but for God’s sake make sure that every one of the 90 overs are bowled in a day (especially if an extra hour half is added on).

However meaningless the All-Stars match is going to be, it is certain that the problems that blighted the Border-Gavaskar series will be absent. The threat of costly punishments will ensure that the game is kept flowing and the overs punctually delivered. Strict rules will ensure that fairer lines are bowled and more aggressive fields set. And, as several cricketers have only half-jokingly explained in the past, the relentless pace will ensure that the time and energy that would normally be devoted to belligerence is much diminished. No wonder casual observers prefer to watch the hit and giggle.

Test cricket is at its greatest when a fierce and even battle between bat and ball is occurring. Test cricket is at its worst when nothing is occurring. One can only hope that the powers that be, having observed the Australia-India series that was played before empty stands, take decisive action to ensure that everything that is wonderful about test cricket is promoted and everything unwholesome banished forever. That means devising legislation to eradicate unsporting fields, to penalise disreputable bowling, and to improve over rates.

But (to borrow the words of Jack Gibson) waiting for the ICC to take decisive action on anything is like leaving the porch lamp on for Harold Holt. Consequently, the only way that this summer’s action is going to be more enlivening is if the hosts (and their guests) take a pro-active decision to make it so. It is too much to hope that Ricky Ponting will seize the initiative; as an inherently cautious captain, with a mandate to win, the odds of him suddenly becoming bolder are remote. Therefore, someone from Cricket Australia needs to sit down with the Tasmanian and tell him that things need to change.

James Sutherland has already indicated that he is going to question Ponting about the bowling choices he made on day four of the fourth test (when, ironically, his commitment to improving the over rate caused him to employ part-timers, thereby ceding the advantage to India). “I’m always interested in the approach that they [captain and coach] take,” he reasoned. “It’s not something I do every day but at various stages I see that it’s part of my responsibility as chief executive to get a feel for that.”

If Sutherland believes that he has a responsibility to speak to his captain about something as minor as bowling choices, he surely has a responsibility to speak to him about something as vital as the integrity of test cricket. Indeed, he hinted as much, declaring that he felt “major concerns about over rates in international cricket”, and that it was something he would “be taking up with the ICC.” Getting “more overs in”, he added, would be “a good thing for test cricket.”

While discussing the issue with the ICC would be no bad thing, history suggests that if it leads to anything at all, it will only be self-righteous press releases from the governing body. For progress to be made- at least in the short term- Sutherland will have to instruct Ponting to adopt a more positive approach. The chief executive would have closely followed the Border-Gavaskar series, and he could not have been impressed with what he saw. For the sake of the domestic cricketing community that he represents, he must take action to ensure that Australian crowds are not short-changed this summer in the same way that India’s just were.
24
Vote
   


Cricket- to thine ownself be true

October 8th 2008 06:52
cricket
Twenty20 cricket has turned out to be something of a Hydra: whenever tournaments are cancelled, or teams are forced to withdraw, there always seems to be two to take their place.

Meanwhile, since Sport: The Australian Disease last covered the format, even more fixtures and tournaments have been dreamed up by giddy administrators. The Australian international season will now be ushered in by a match between the national team and the hallowed Australian Cricketers’ Association All-Stars, while in 2009, Australia, India and South Africa will do battle in Twenty20’s first ever tri-series. Tellingly, a window has yet to be allocated for this so-called “super series”, because the three participating countries have overloaded their schedules with so many meaningless fixtures that it has thus far proved impossible to find. Presumably, though, a block of time will somehow be manufactured, if only because a lot of money is riding on it. One can only wonder where it will all end- certainly not at any logical position, because as far as Twenty20 is concerned, we have long since passed into the realms of madness.

Yet remarkably, as the game enthusiastically sells its soul to the highest bidder, a confluence of circumstances has allowed a test tour, with all the traditional values it entails, to take centre stage in the cricketing world. Thanks to the cancellation of the Champions Trophy and the postponement of the Twenty20 Champions League, no top-level cricket is currently taking place. All eyes have therefore been focussed on Australia’s visit to India.

From the moment that the tourists landed just over a fortnight ago, the sense of anticipation has been keen, and continued to grow by the day. And while most of that anticipation has come from the two nations’ supporters, the amount of interest being shown by fans- and players- from other countries should not be underestimated. For what this test series is promising is something that no contrived limited overs tournament can hope to deliver: acute- and memorable- drama.

The glory of a competitive test series is that it provides all the depth and tension and emotion of an intricately crafted work of literature. The characters enthral, their foibles, heartaches and triumphs fascinate, so that in much the same way that it hurts to have to put down a good book, one feels a wrench that the day’s play or the match itself should have to come to an end. The best series capture the imagination and live long in the memory, just like the greatest classics. Lovers of the game can talk as reverently and expansively about the 2005 Ashes, the 2001 Border-Gavaskar Trophy and the 1960-61 Frank Worrell Trophy as a scholar would of Hamlet. A Twenty20 match, however, is nothing more than a comic strip, providing a short burst of entertainment that will most likely be forgotten the moment the next one comes along.

Since the turn of the century, India and Australia have established a rivalry that Sachin Tendulkar believes to be even greater than that between India and Pakistan. This bold claim has nothing to do with the 20 or 50 over battles that they have fought, but the four intense test series that the two countries have participated in. India 2001 is remembered for the hosts’ extraordinary comeback; Australia 2003-4 is remembered for Steve Waugh’s farewell; India 2004 is remembered for the visitors’ conquest of their final frontier; and Australia 2007-8 is remembered for the controversial Sydney test. The important thing is that they are remembered. All have been highly competitive and combative series, with the result that all have been dramatic, and all memorable. Who, by contrast, can possibly remember the last four one-day series that India and Australia have contested?

To merely reminisce about recent Border-Gavaskar showdowns is to understand how magnificent cricket can be. It is also to lament the degrading state that the sport has chosen to accept. Most supporters would probably agree that there is a place for the shorter forms of the game. After all, they are capable of providing genuine- if superficial- enjoyment, whilst attracting new fans and earning significant revenues. They must not, however, be regarded as the equal of test cricket, but complements, existing principally to highlight its greatness. Fewer of these limited overs matches would help to redress the balance. They would also make the limited overs matches more meaningful, and thus more exciting. And if these matches were more exciting, they would, in turn, compel people to ponder how much more satisfying five days of quality cricket could be.

Such considerations are of great importance, because in these changing times, the sport’s survival is uncertain. What is needed in cricket today is not more money- the game is already swimming in it, and in danger of drowning. What is needed in cricket today is cricket. There is no need for another Champions this or Super that; there is no need for more colourful clothing or blaring music; there is no need for jaded players to be dispatched to Malaysia or Canada. What is needed to ensure the sport’s survival is not ersatz cricket, but real cricket, of the kind that Australia and India are about to play. Somebody at the ICC needs to assume the role of Hercules and confront the Hydra before it is too late.
36
Vote
Shared on
   


Given the highly politicised nature of its board, not to mention its well-deserved reputation for infirmity, few should have been surprised by the International Cricket Council’s decision to retain Pakistan as host of September’s Champions Trophy.

While the boards of Australia, England and New Zealand, as well as the players’ association of South Africa, expressed reluctance about playing in the strife-torn nation, they lacked the numbers to overrule the Asian bloc (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh), which received predictable support from Zimbabwe, the West Indies and Cricket South Africa.

Superficially, the news is pleasing. Cricket is an engagingly multicultural sport, but one played at a serious level by only a small number of countries, so it is important that the member nations show solidarity with one another. Otherwise, there is the risk of division along racial lines, which is something that a sport of such limited appeal can scarcely afford. Now that it is Pakistan’s turn to host an important event, the other nine test-playing countries should do everything in their power to ensure that it does, indeed, go ahead, and successfully at that. The payback then comes when it is their turn to host an important event.

Having suffered the indignity of the Australians withdrawing from a tour to their country earlier in the year, the Pakistanis did not deserve to be deprived on an even higher profile tournament just a few months later. Certainly, that was how their captain viewed things. “It would have been a great loss for Pakistan cricket had the Champions Trophy been taken away from here,” Shoaib Malik responded to the news. “I’m thankful to the cricket world for taking a decision that is great for the sport in this country.”

The problem, though, is that this is not a moral issue, but a security issue. While the Pakistan Cricket Board might be morally entitled to host the Champions Trophy, and while cricket supporters around the world might wish them all the best, righteousness and sympathy do not prevent bombs going off. The many people to have perished in the many terrorist attacks to have occurred in Pakistan this year did not die because they were not worthy enough; they died because they were not secure enough. So when Malik and others speak of Pakistan’s moral claim to the Champions Trophy, they miss the point.

If media reports are to be believed, the recent security appraisal that was jointly conducted by the boards of Australia, England and New Zealand concluded that Pakistan was not sufficiently safe to receive their teams. Assuming that those reports were correct, it would be unjust- and possibly illegal- for Cricket Australia to ask its players to take part in the Champions Trophy. While not disputing that the PCB deserves its moment of glory, CA has no right to place its employees in a hazardous working environment. The Pakistanis have a moral entitlement to host the tournament; but the Australians have a moral entitlement to safety. Both parties are in the right.



Although the stances adopted by the two countries seem irreconcilable, a logical compromise is available. The PCB can continue to champion its security, while quietly letting it be known that it would understand if any cricketer chose to skip the tournament. And CA can continue to demur, while leaving the door open to any player who may wish to take part. If CA advises its players to stay away from Pakistan, it would seem to be ethically and legally absolved of responsibility should any of them ignore the advice and subsequently get hurt.

That would mean sending an understrength squad overseas. Normally, that is not permitted under international regulations, but the ICC chief executive, Haroon Lorgat, has already given his consent. Provided the Pakistanis also agree, they would be able to stage the tournament as planned. While it would be devalued by the fact that not all of the eight teams would have all of their stars, at least all of the teams would be there. Such is the nature of compromise; you don’t get everything you wanted, but you get more than you would’ve had a deal not been done.

How depleted would an Australian team be? Again, one can only rely on media reports, but it seems as if it would be severely depleted. Although Shane Watson has expressed his willingness to tour, and although Matthew Hayden has openly considered the idea, many of the stars, such as the strident Andrew Symonds, are said to be against it. Another to have come out in favour of going to Pakistan is Nathan Hauritz- and it could be that any Australian eleven is largely filled with fringe players like that.

Whatever ends up happening, it seems unlikely that this unpleasant saga could possibly have a happy ending. Through no fault of its own, the entire cricketing community- boards, players and fans- has been placed in a regrettable position. Sadly, it looks like the winners of the 2008 Champions Trophy are going to be the terrorists.
50
Vote
Shared on
   


So, think you know your Twenty20? Think you know your Twenty20 Cup from your Twenty-20 Cup? Think you know your Indian Premier League from your Indian Cricket League? Think you know your Cape Cobras from your Delhi Daredevils? If so, you’re a better- or perhaps battier- man than most.

Recently, Twenty20 tournaments have been sprouting like weeds. In October, the inaugural Champions Twenty20 will take place in India. The following month will see the first Stanford 20/20 for 20 [million dollars], an annual event in which a West Indian XI will play England for truckloads of cash ($20 bills, presumably). And in four weeks time, Canada- yes, Canada- will host a quadrangular competition that also includes Bangladesh, Pakistan and the West Indies


[ Click here to read more ]
41
Vote
Shared on
   


From May 22 to June 16, Australia will hop between Jamaica, Antigua and Barbados, to contest a three match test series with the West Indies.

On paper, it looks a complete mismatch. Starting with Australia’s historic win in the Caribbean in 1995, the two rivals have faced off 25 times, resulting in 18 wins for the Australians and just 6 for the West Indians (along with one draw). The rankings tell a similar story: while the visitors are first by a long way, their hosts are languishing in second last place. The dominant side of the past decade will be expected to trounce a team that is a sad, sad shadow of its former glorious self


[ Click here to read more ]
64
Vote
Shared on
   


Sexy cricket

April 27th 2008 07:02
Just over a week into its debut, the Indian Premier League appears to be a roaring success. The melange of clobbered drives, baying crowds, thumping music, nubile cheerleaders and Bollywood strumpets has proven irresistibly intoxicating. Already, it does not seem as though 59 games in six weeks could possibly be enough.

Traditionalists who bemoan the fact that ‘it’s just not cricket’ fail to recognise how ‘amped’ this exciting new product is. These are dynamic times in which we live, and dynamic times call for a dynamic game. Test matches, for all the subtle pleasures they afford initiated eyes, are no longer vibrant enough to command the attention of today’s market. Admittedly, previous generations once found pleasure in probing spells, dogged rearguards, gallant counterattacks and tactical duels- but didn’t those same people also rhapsodise about the wonders of wireless, or the merits of a sturdy top hat


[ Click here to read more ]
75
Vote
   


Nick Bendel's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Nick Bendel
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]