Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Sport: The Australian Disease - sportingaustralia.com

High-5ives not the answer

October 19th 2011 09:01
Australia v Bangladesh
Credit: Jen mainly in Bangladesh


Welcome to the world of 5ives.


This new concept has a sexy name for a good reason – it promotes itself as the saviour of the one-day international.

The aim is to make matches more interesting by keeping the teams in close contact throughout.

Team A would begin by batting for five overs. Team B would respond with 10. Team A would then bat for 10 overs, followed by Team B for 10, and so on. Bonus points would be awarded to teams that finished ahead during a cycle.

Cricket Australia is said to be interested in 5ives. The board is right to be interested, because the concept has the potential to make ODIs more interesting. However, 5ives is not the solution to the problem.

As Sport: The Australian Disease has already explained, there is a simple explanation for the declining popularity of the ODI.

The reason for the steady decline in the popularity of ODIs can be simply explained: they generally seem pointless. With an ever-increasing number of meaningless fixtures being played, it is natural that people would lose interest. But the way to win them back is not by emphasising gimmicks; the way to win them back is by emphasising cricket.


Although the idea of split innings is innovative, it is not gimmicky, so 5ives is based on sound thinking. That’s why Sport: The Australian Disease has already promoted split innings.

...splitting ODIs into two innings is a wonderful, and long overdue, idea. In day-night matches, the team that bats under lights is at a disadvantage, so this simple change would immediately make contests fairer and thus closer and thus more exciting.

It’s easy to see how playing matches in five-over bursts may produce problems. Batters and bowlers may struggle for rhythm. Innings may seem incoherent. Storylines may be difficult to follow.

But it’s also easy to see how five-over bursts may prove attractive. Matches may be more dramatic if teams are closer together. Constant changes may keep things fresh. Bonus points may introduce an intriguing new tactical element into the game.

Yet even if everything does go as planned, 5ives still doesn’t solve the problem of ODIs – that they generally seem pointless.

So often, cricket fans notice ODIs on the schedule and wonder why they are there. And they are right to ask that question, because many 50-over matches owe their existence to greed. They are not played for sporting reasons. They are played for financial reasons. Spectators know this and yawn accordingly.

Another reason fans have turned off ODIs is because they have increasingly emphasised cheap run-making.

Fans don’t only want to see close matches; they want to see matches in which there is an even contest between bat and ball. One hundred overs of slogging is mindless, even if it is somewhat redeemed by 10 tense overs at the end. By contrast, matches in which the advantage constantly ebbs and flows, in which first the bat, then the ball, then the bat and then the ball again is on top, produce drama from beginning to end.

Cricket Australia, the other boards and the ICC should be concerned about the flagging health of the ODI and be doing everything possible to revive it.

If the problem is that 50-over matches often seem pointless the solution can only be to return them to the relevant spectacle they once were.

Law changes, however wise, will only be bandaids. What is needed is major surgery – administrators need to urgently reduce the number of ODIs that are played.

First and foremost, CA should be campaigning to have the number of ODIs reduced. Fifty per cent of the matches could be cut from the international schedule and nobody would notice. This is nothing more than the commonest of common sense: reduce the supply of a product and demand increases.

The concept of 5ives fails to address this central issue. That’s why it may be part of the solution, but will never be the entire solution.
36
Vote
   


Michael Clarke
(Photo courtesy of Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5)


This is an important time in Australian cricket.

The Ashes have been lost, the World Cup has been surrendered, the captaincy has been transferred and the Argus Review has been established.

Where to from here?

In the last few months, a host of potential solutions have been offered, all of which have one thing in common – radicalism.

A team full of kids is needed. A new coach is needed. A new captain is needed. A new selection panel is needed. A spinner who never gets dropped is needed. A complete overhaul of the Sheffield Shield is needed.

The problem with radical ideas is they’re often simplistic. They can be alluring because they propose clear, decisive solutions to complicated problems. People like them because it gives them an excuse to switch off their brains.

What to do if the Australian team is old? Simple – dump the veterans and replace them with youngsters.

What to do if players underperform? Simple – sack the selectors who picked them.

What to do if spinners bowl poorly? Simple – stop rotating them, settle on one and back him ‘til kingdom come.

The solutions are so clear and decisive they have to be right – don’t they?

But what if older players are being chosen ahead of their younger counterparts because they’re better? What if the underperforming players being chosen by the selectors are actually the best in the country? What if the spinners are bowling so badly they deserve to be dropped?

Don’t ask the radicals what they would do next – they’ve already switched off their brains.

Sometimes, the best solution to a complicated problem is a radical one. Generally, though, the best solution to a complicated problem is a complicated one.

If the team is old, the veterans need to be phased out and youngsters methodically introduced. That requires careful planning – in other words, thinking.

The alternative would be to suddenly stuff the team full of 11 Steven Smiths. That, however, would send it rapidly backwards. If Smith isn’t performing when he’s got veterans to guide him and soak up the pressure, why would he – and his kind – magically flourish if the side was filled with youngsters?

If players are underperforming, the selectors need to be held to account. The selectors need to clearly explain the criteria used to pick one player over another. If there is found to be no method to their madness, by all means dump them. But if they are found to be making logical decisions, they need to be retained.

The alternative would be to replace one group of selectors who have been picking the best players with another group committed to choosing inferior players.

If the spinners are bowling poorly, the root causes need to be found. Are their techniques faulty? Are their temperaments unsound? Have they been poorly coached? Are they being badly captained? It also needs to be acknowledged that spinners are no different to other cricketers. If they perform badly, they deserve to be replaced – either by another spinner or a seamer.

The alternative would be to settle on one spinner and give him a guaranteed spot in the side for a couple of seasons. But would Hauritz or Krezja or Doherty or Beer magically transform into the next Warne if they were given an extended run?

Some things have gone wrong with Australian cricket. That means changes must be made.

The important thing is not to panic. Just because change is needed, doesn’t mean any change must necessarily be an improvement. New ideas can seduce simply because of their novelty. When something is stale, replacing it with something fresh seems logical. But what was fresh today can be horribly off tomorrow.

That’s where the Argus Review comes in. The panel consists of three former captains (Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh), the current Cricket Australia chief executive (James Sutherland), his predecessor (Malcolm Speed) and an eminent businessman (Argus).

Commissioning a review was a good idea. Calmly considered decisions are more likely to be right than snap decisions. And the make-up of the panel is encouraging. Its six members provide a good blend of player knowledge and administrative experience, while also offering both an insider’s and outsider’s perspective.

The panel members need to consult widely, before carefully working their way through the voluminous and conflicting data they gather. They should then make reasoned recommendations that focus on the long-term.

The review needs to be an exercise in thinking deeply. If it is, the chances are its recommendations will not be the radical proposals some are crying out for.

That, though, would probably be a good thing. At this important time in Australian cricket, complicated solutions are most likely the best way to solve its complicated problems.
48
Vote
   


How to fill cricket stadiums again

July 17th 2010 02:46
50-over cricket
News that Cricket Australia is planning to revolutionise the one-day format is exciting – but mostly concerning.

Several changes are going to be introduced in time for the coming domestic season, with a view to spreading them throughout the cricketing world. The aim is to arrest the declining popularity of the one-day international.

Although next year’s World Cup is going to be played under existing regulations, if even some of the changes find favour internationally, the 2015 tournament could end up looking very different.

One confirmed change is that teams will bat out their overs in two innings rather than one.

Furthermore, there are said to be quite a few other modifications being considered: reducing matches to 40 overs; giving teams 10 wickets at the start of both innings; allowing a single player dismissed in the first innings to return in the second; allowing bowlers to deliver as many overs as they like (provided a minimum of four are used per match); allowing bowlers more leeway with bouncers and leg-side wides; and making the fielding restrictions more onerous for the bowling side.

The changes, confirmed and proposed, may be divided into two categories: the orthodox and the gimmicky.

And therein lies the confusion. Embracing orthodox cricket to make the ODI more appealing would be exciting; resorting to gimmicks to seduce fans would be concerning. Sadly, it looks as though emphasis is going to be placed on the latter.

However the greater concern is that CA seems not to understand the essence of the problem. The reason for the steady decline in the popularity of ODIs can be simply explained: they generally seem pointless. With an ever-increasing number of meaningless fixtures being played, it is natural that people would lose interest. But the way to win them back is not by emphasising gimmicks; the way to win them back is by emphasising cricket.

First and foremost, CA should be campaigning to have the number of ODIs reduced. Fifty per cent of the matches could be cut from the international schedule and nobody would notice. This is nothing more than the commonest of common sense: reduce the supply of a product and demand increases.

More benefits would follow. Once players stopped being ceaselessly dragged from one corner of the world to the other to play matches that they care little about, they would be fresher, fitter and keener to play in those matches that remained on the schedule. So as the quantity of ODIs is reduced their quality would increase. And that, in turn, would further stimulate demand.

(Incidentally, slashing the one-day schedule would improve tests. Without so many meaningless 50-over games, touring teams would be able to return to the traditional practice of arriving in a country well before the start of a series, in order to play a reasonable number of warm-ups. Properly acclimatised, they would then have a greater chance of beating their hosts, making the tests more competitive and thus more appealing.)

Although playing fewer matches would be the most logical way to reinvigorate the ODI, that doesn’t mean that other changes shouldn’t also be considered. For that, CA must be congratulated – even if, as seems probable, not all their changes turn out to be sensible.

The general approach that the board should take is this: cricketing changes are worth considering, gimmicks are not.

For that reason, splitting ODIs into two innings is a wonderful, and long overdue, idea. In day-night matches, the team that bats under lights is at a disadvantage, so this simple change would immediately make contests fairer and thus closer and thus more exciting.

Another good idea is to improve the lot of the fielding side. Fans don’t only want to see close matches; they want to see matches in which there is an even contest between bat and ball. One hundred overs of slogging is mindless, even if it is somewhat redeemed by 10 tense overs at the end. By contrast, matches in which the advantage constantly ebbs and flows, in which first the bat, then the ball, then the bat and then the ball again is on top, produce drama from beginning to end.

For proof, we need only look at two of the most famous ODIs ever played. At Johannesburg in 2006, Australia belted the South Africans mercilessly for 50 overs, to accumulate 4-434. In reply, South Africa belted the Australians mercilessly for 50 overs, to accumulate 9-438, and win the game with a ball to spare. The finish was undoubtedly dramatic – but what about the other 90 overs?

Seven years earlier, the same two sides met in the semi-final of the World Cup in Edgbaston. Australia batted first, scoring 213; South Africa responded with the same score. And for the entire 100 overs, the match was in the balance, as the pendulum swung back and forth, between country and country, between batter and bowler, with none of the parties managing to get more than a nose in front before their advantage was nullified.

Administrators must be doing everything possible to produce more Edgbastons and fewer Johannesburgs. But gimmicks won’t make it happen; only orthodoxy will. In other words, administrators should be looking to make ODIs more like tests, not less.

An obvious start would be to allow the best bowlers to deliver more than 10 overs, something Ian Chappell has long campaigned for. Clearly, watching the Mitchell Johnsons of this world bowl is more appealing than watching the James Hopes’.

For the same reason, bowlers should be allowed more leeway with bouncers and leg-side wides. That would allow bowlers more opportunity to work batters over – one of the better features of test cricket – and reduce the flow of cheap runs – one of the worst features of one-day cricket.

(Moreover, administrators should insist that groundsmen abandon the practice of producing flat track after flat track, in which the bowlers are reduced to little more than glorified bowling machines. Even the contest between bat and ball and the ODI improves.)

While embracing cricketing fixes of this sort, CA must shun gimmicks. Just as supersubs and free hits haven’t increased interest in the 50-over game, neither will designated hitters (batters dismissed in the first innings allowed to return for the second). Tightening the fielding restrictions would make things harder for the bowling side, and thus make the contest between bat and ball more lopsided. Reducing matches to two lots of 20 overs would be a lazy attempt to exploit the popularity of twenty20 cricket. Fans watch this format because they want to see lots of action in a short amount of time, not because they have a spiritual attachment to the number 20. Similarly, giving teams 10 wickets at the start of both innings would be misguided; if fans want to watch twenty20 cricket, they’ll watch twenty20 cricket, rather than an ODI masquerading as a supersized T20.

The ODI has a problem, and it needs to be fixed. But to fix a problem, one must understand its cause. As ODIs have increasingly come to be seen not as a shortened form of traditional cricket, but as a cheap and crass bastardisation that seems to exist only to make money, people have been losing interest. Gimmicks will make the ODI seem even less like real cricket, and thus will only make the problem worse.

Fans of cricket, whether committed or casual, want to watch cricket – so why not give them cricket? Gimmicks might pique their interest in the short term, but once the novelty wears off, they’ll be seen for what they are. The solution to the problem of ODIs is not to trick people into watching them. It is to make them what they once were: cricket. After all, if cricket doesn’t respect itself, why would others?
346
Vote
   


War minus the shooting?

March 2nd 2010 01:02
Cricket in India
Australia, India, security: they’re three words that have been mentioned in the same sentence a lot recently.

If Indian students aren’t being attacked on the streets of Melbourne, Australian athletes are wondering aloud if they ought to compete in India. One could also mention Tennis Australia’s decision to forfeit a Davis Cup tie in Chennai last year, and even the ongoing debate about whether or not it’s safe for Australia to sell uranium to India


[ Click here to read more ]
229
Vote
   


Bowling from the Wall Street end

March 14th 2009 07:39
Australian cricket is producing sub-prime performances
In the 2005 Ashes series in England, Australia’s greatest ever bowler, Shane Warne, took an incredible 40 wickets. Amazingly, despite that performance the Australians were unable to claim victory. It was their first loss in 17 series, and their first series loss in England since they reclaimed the Ashes in 1989. At the time much was made of the absence of Warne’s counterpart, Glenn McGrath, who rolled his ankle after the first test (which Australia won), and was absent for both English victories.

The loss exposed the Australian team’s lack of depth. With the imminent retirements of both Warne and McGrath, suddenly they were not looking as infallible as they had been.

[ Click here to read more ]
138
Vote
   


Not as appealing as he once was

December 28th 2008 15:13
Brett Lee
After picking up a foot injury during the MCG test, Brett Lee is expected to miss next week's finale in Sydney. Should anybody care?

It's a painful comparison to have to make, but Lee is nothing more than a cricketing version of Sandra Sully. These glamorous blondes have always promised so much, but seldom delivered. Whenever the moment comes to perform, even those who ought to know better do not so much hope as expect that this time it will be done authoritatively. Yet more often than not, lines are fluffed, and the sort of limp display that one would expect of a summer substitute produced. Having consistently flattered to deceive, star status can no longer be justified- if, indeed, it ever could. After all these years, an understudy deserves to be given an extended audition, so that everybody can see whether or not they are deserving of top billing. A replacement could hardly do worse


[ Click here to read more ]
62
Vote
   


Jason Gillespie
There’s solidarity- and then there’s solidarity.

Standing shoulder to shoulder with the Indians, as the English have been doing in the wake of the Mumbai Massacre, is a stirring example of the former. Standing shoulder to shoulder with the Indians, as the Australians have been doing in relation to the Indian Cricket League, is a shameful example of the latter


[ Click here to read more ]
61
Vote
   


The ugly face of sport

December 8th 2008 10:34
Ricky Stuart
In the space of 24 hours, two utterly contrasting stories have appeared in the media, illustrating much of what is noble and ignoble and sport, and how it has the capacity to so fascinate.

The first was the decision by England’s cricketers to fly back into India, after their tour had been postponed in the wake of the Mumbai Massacre. This was as inspiring as it was surprising, because when the team left the country immediately following the terrorist attack, it seemed highly unlikely that it would return any time soon. In recent years, as bombs have exploded with dismaying regularity on the subcontinent, and security consultants have composed ominous reports, a mentality has taken hold amongst western cricketers. That mentality dictates that at the first sign of trouble, they either flee the danger zone, or adamantly refuse to enter it. It was this mentality that led to Australia refusing to play a test series in Pakistan earlier this year, as well as the refusal of Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa to participate in the Champions Trophy that was scheduled for September


[ Click here to read more ]
92
Vote
   


End of an era?

December 6th 2008 02:49
test cricket
If you believe the hype, the 2-0 defeat in India has shattered Australia’s cricketing hegemony.

Due to the recent retirement of several stars, and due to the convincing nature of the loss, there has been no shortage of commentators willing to proclaim the end of Australia’s reign as the sport’s predominant team


[ Click here to read more ]
70
Vote
   


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


[ Click here to read more ]
71
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


[ Click here to read more ]
71
Vote
   


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


[ Click here to read more ]
90
Vote
   


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 ]
76
Vote
   


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 ]
97
Vote
   


Nick Bendel's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Nick Bendel
Copyright © 2012 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 ]