Best day's play ever?

No matter what happens tomorrow, Day 4 of the 2nd Ashes Test at Lord's, 19th July 2009 will go down as one of the best day's cricket I have ever seen. I wish I was there to see it live.

This is why the Ashes is such a great spectacle. Ever since 2005, when England breathed life back into Ashes cricket with their famous 2-1 win, I have followed every ball I can of England-Australia series. Unlike the previous seventeen years when England looked beaten before they even set foot on the field, since 2005 there has been a belief to their game that has made each test well worth watching. Even the 2006/7 series in Australia was a fantastic series in my book - despite the fact that Australia won 5-0, England were "in" every game except for Brisbane, but just couldn't land the killer blows when they counted. None more so than in Adelaide which they came oh-so-close to winning, but somehow contrived to lose.

As I type, Adelaide is on my mind, for more than one reason. First and foremost is the result, with Australia winning from a seemingly unwinnable position. The other is because of what I can remember as possibly the greatest partnership I've ever seen, in the form of the 192-run stand between Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey, that took Australia from the absolute brink at 3/65 to the relative comfort of 4/257. I watched nearly all of it before I couldn't keep my eyes open - I was watching it in England - but can remember watching every ball, completely riveted, and marvelling at both players' powers of concentration. Even though good batting was still to come in the form of Clarke and Gilchrist, you knew that if another partnership failed Australia were surely doomed, and so every single ball counted. Both players played within themselves and scored runs when they were available - the only thing that disappointed me was that Hussey didn't reach the ton he so deserved. Ponting said afterwards that his innings was "not one of his best" or similar, and that it was more about occupation than anything else - for the very reason that he had to play against his natural attacking instincts and still succeeded, I thought it was an absolute masterclass and his best innings to date.

There was similar feel to today's 185-run stand between Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin, although there was no sense of Australia being doomed if this partnership failed - it was clear that they were already doomed, and any sort of a resistance was only going to delay the inevitable. Clarke started brightly and dominated the strike, and when he saw the ball Haddin played well - but the talk was still about poor umpiring and how Australia were going to bounce back from what was obviously going to be a humiliating defeat. Mike Atherton, who has recently shed his dry impartiality for a one-eyedness that I'm finding very disappointing, even started talking about Ricky Ponting's future as captain.

And yet the partnership carried on, and seemingly without anyone noticing, started to become quite significant. 50 runs were brought up in 58 balls. 100 in 157. 150 in 242, until finally when bad light was called, 185 had been racked up in 47.2 overs at a rate of 3.90 an over. Utterly phenomenal when you consider that next-highest Australian partnership for the entire match was 93, and that the entire Australian team could only manage 215 for the first innings. Michael Clarke, not my favourite player and someone who I've thought has underachieved in his career to date, seemed not to put a foot wrong and played brilliantly for his 125 n.o., and Haddin, some late risk-taking aside, was equally impressive with his 80. They have now batted Australia into a situation whereby victory is not inconceivable - unthinkable when they came to the crease at 128/5.

Naturally, the day wasn't all about Clarke and Haddin, even though they played together for more than half of it. You can't talk about Day 4 without bringing up Katich, Hughes and Hussey, and the diabolical luck they had. Hughes in particular has got to be wondering what he can do in England so far this series - a bottom-edge in Cardiff, the unluckiest of dismissals down the legside in the first innings at Lord's, and now the catch that wasn't in the second. I've posted it below - I don't know how long it will be before someone takes it down, but here it is in glorious technicolour. The title is not mine, nor are the speech bubbles.



I for one don't happen to think that Andrew Strauss cheated anyone. I think you can see why he thought it was out. Essentially, the ball met the ground at the same time his hands did, and to him it felt like a catch. The other, and more obvious reason I don't think he cheated is because he's not that stupid - just the same as any international cricketer worth his salt. Why would you claim a catch like that when there are cameras everywhere, unless you really thought it was a clean catch? You'd get run out of town - and he still might. I doubt it, though - his name isn't Ricky Ponting (more on that in a later post).

All of that said, I don't think it was out. There's no way a third umpire would gave given it, and as Shane Warne says in the clip, how can Billy Doctrove, from 40 metres away, POSSIBLY say it was out? The umpiring has been shocking all match, and this is the worst example of it. It's so disappointing when things like this happen, and for three bad decisions to go against the Australians in what was a fantastic day's play was hugely frustrating. I'll be the first to stick my hand up and say that with or without Haddin and Clarke's partnership, England have been the best team in this match and daylight has been second - but that doesn't mean that things like this should happen. The only thing to say apart from "arse" or similar, is that in pressure situations, umpiring decisions will tend go with the run of play. 2005 taught us that if nothing else.

What I loved about today though was that it was ALL on a knife-edge, and every ball mattered. Even the above controversies contributed to that. I was enthralled when Katich and Hughes started the innings, I was enthralled when Ponting came to the wicket, I was enthralled (and incensed) when Hughes was dismissed, and.... well, you make up the rest. And when Clarke and Haddin batted so well in the last session, I can't remember being as excited watching a game of cricket in a long time. Maybe Langer and Gilchrist's partnership against Pakistan at Hobart comes close.

I'm actually seldom more interested in a game of (Test) cricket unless Australia is losing. I take no pleasure from it you understand - but its purely because of the occasional bolt of brilliance like these partnerships that make me want to watch it more. When Australia lost to South Africa in Australia late last year I was in the UK and watched nearly every ball. As it was, South Africa won easily. But they might not have. Something INCREDIBLE could have happened to turn around the game - and I never want to miss that.

And the best thing about the current situation is that it's not finished!! Anything could happen from here - it could still rain, and we'll get a draw! I really hope it doesn't rain, though - I want to see this to the bitter end. I just hate to think what will happen if we lose a wicket with about 150 runs to go, and then someone has to bat with Johnson, and then the tail. What if we need, say, 40 runs, and it's Johnson and Hilfenhaus at the crease? Will we see another Edgbaston?

Anyone got a spare defibrillator?

1st Test Reflections

Right, well - the most obvious point - the English team are lucky, lucky boys. Australia did nearly everything they could have possibly done to win that test, but somehow ended up walking away, on the wrong side of a 0-0 scoreline. Although possibly not as much on the wrong side as England were. Although England will be VERY relieved that it's still 0-0 - which might mean that they're not really on the wrong side of it at all. Errr - ok then.

So. I'm not going to go into a blow-by-blow description of what actually happened - there are more prolific bloggers than me that have already done that - but the salient facts are that Australia outplayed England by just about the greatest margin you would ever see in a match without winning the match. With the bat, Ponting and Haddin were impressive, as were Katich and North if unspectacular. With the ball Hilfenhaus was very good, Siddle was very good (the spell to Swann on the 5th day was great stuff), Hauritz was much better than expected, and Johnson was bloody ordinary but somehow ended up with four wickets.

England looked largely listless and underdone. I'll start with the bowling because that's what we saw the most of - Broad in particular was rubbish all match. Anderson looked like the Anderson of old - i.e. crap. Flintoff impressed at times but was a work-horse at best for the rest of it. Monty- crap. Swann - crap. It's quite remarkable how Haruitz's match figures of 61 overs 6/158 compare to Penesar's and Swann's - a combined tally of 73 overs, 1/253. Ouch - and EVERYONE was queuing up to say how crap Hauritz was before the match started. With the bat they looked ok in the first innings but basically pretty woeful in the second, and have a lot to thank Collingwood for. I think it's amazing how he seems to be playing for his spot every third or fourth match and yet still does ok. He's actually got a pretty good record now - 49 matches, 9 hundreds, 15 fifties, 3453 runs at an average of almost 45 is pretty good going for someone so allegedly lacking in talent.

The one thing that particularly struck me though, was the teams' attitudes to the game. Australia bossed nearly all of it - and looked psychologically strong for its entirety, even during the few patches that England did well in the first innings. England were very, very ordinary in that department however, and particularly on the fourth day when Australia were piling on the runs. Everyone was talking about the likelihood of rain, it was supposed to arrive at lunchtime, and it was palpable that England were playing for the weather from ball one. It didn't arrive until tea by which time Australia had declared 239 runs in front and taken two English wickets - which served England right as far as I'm concerned. I'll say this about the English team - I have seen Australia lose, I have seen Australia play badly, but I have NEVER seen them play like that - nor seen an Australian captain allow it. How a team of highly-paid international cricketers can be allowed to go through the motions on account of a few clouds on the horizon I will never know. I think it speaks of a poor set-up in the team, and if they do that again this series it will come back to bite them. The first session of Day 4 is where England "lost" the match as far as I'm concerned, and they were very lucky it didn't actually happen properly.

I still think this series will be close, though - and I'm still going with my 2-1 margin. For all England's poor cricket and poor attitude, their tail-end batting showed a lot of application on Day 5, and it's just great to see players playing as though their lives count on it again - you only get that in the Ashes these days. Graeme Swann in particular batted very well, even in the face of one of the more frightening overs I have seen for a long time from Peter Siddle, and I really hope we get to see more of that as the series goes on. I also have the sneaking suspicion that Australia won't have it all their own way all the time - you're not going to have four of your top six scoring hundreds in the same innings every time, for starters. Unless England really are that ordinary. Which, after all, they might be.

Hope not, though.

AYALAC's take on the Stanford Debacle

This is great - and one of the reasons why the World of Blog can be so fantastic.

The Atheist is probably no more qualified to write about cricket than I am - it's probably statistically unlikely that he could be quite as bad at the game as me, but just like me he is cursed with an obsession of the game since whenever and likes to write about it in his free time. He writes well, it's funny, and always worth a look, which is why he's on my list of followed blogs. But that's pretty much it - I wouldn't have particularly thought that he could give me any insight into the game that I couldn't have figured out on my own - until today, on account of what he does for a living. The Atheist is a Financial/Banking Type Guy, and so he has a completely unique perspective on the Stanford Debacle that we haven't seen anywhere else - all the reporting so far has been from the usual sport journos, who almost without exception are ex-players. And not one of them have been able to tell me anything that I didn't already know, on account of being qualified to talk about one subject and one subject alone - sport. All the Angus Frasers and Peter Roebucks and Jonathan Agnews can speculate endlessly about what a prawn Giles Clarke is and how stupid the ECB were in having anything to do with Stanford from the start, but the opinion I really want to hear is from someone involved in the world of finance. And there aren't too many of them writing cricket stories for the Times or the Telegraph, now are there? Now I really know just how stupid and/or corrupt the whole thing was.

Only a blog could provide me with this sort of unique standpoint. And this is why blogs, despite not being edited or vetted, or written by experts in their fields, are definitely a legitimate voice and a worthwhile source of journalistic opinion. So there!

I know I'm preaching to the choir here - you're reading a blog after all! This might as well all be aimed at my mother, who is an academic and writer, and was appalled when I told her that I was writing one. Blogs are apparently the realm of the feeble-minded, are mostly compiled by people without a valid opinion that can't get a real gig in the writing world, and yet no matter how flawed and/or bigoted their thoughts are are able to broadcast them to an audience of millions and by consequence take money out of actual writers' pockets. The world would be a better place if we all went out and got some fresh air instead. All valid opinions, really - but having read this today I'm pleased to have an argument next time the topic comes up. And besides - NO-ONE goes out for fresh air in a Dutch February.

It almost makes me think that even I could be of use to the cricketing world at some point, beyond batting at number 11 and scoring for the Barnes Sunday XI. SURELY there must be a lucrative journalism contract out there for a lyric tenor with a cricket fetish??

I can dream.

A Win At Last?

Well, we beat New Zealand. Good. Brendan McCullum said before the start of the match that it was a good time to play Australia. By the end of the first day that looked to be true, but if we're honest, it was really a good time for Australia to play New Zealand. We needed a win, and they were just the team to provide it.

New Zealand frustrate me at times. They really should be better than they are! By and large, they are a team with some talent, but for some reason they can't ever seem to get it together when it counts. Don't get me wrong, I didn't say BRIMMING with talent, they do have Aaron Redmund opening the batting after all, and the seam attack is ok but not fantastic - but in Ryder, Taylor, McCullum, Vettori, Southee, Flynn and even How on his day, they definitely have some good players. Gone are the days when you had the idea that the NZ side were park cricketers with the odd Hadlee or Crowe thrown in - these days, by and large, they have the look of good, solid, first-class cricketers. Throw in Oram when he's fit and you've definitely got a side that can make runs and take wickets.

And yet no matter what happens, they always, somehow, contrive to lose. They should have beaten England at home earlier in the year. They should have beaten them in England last summer, too. But ended up losing both series at a canter - 1-2 and 2-0. It was the Manchester test that really frustrated me, and pretty much sums up what I'm talking about. 381 in the first innings with a cracking knock from Ross Taylor, and then bowled out England for 202. Great! 179-run lead, thanks very much! Fait d'accompli, I hear you cry. But no. They slump to 114 all out in the second dig, which still leaves England with a still tricky-looking chase of 293, but they never look like threatening and England get there with six wickets to spare. An AWFUL result. I was appalled, and appalled in much the same way that I was (genuinely) after THAT result in Adelaide in 2006. Yes, it's great to beat England. It's good to humiliate England, too. But, dammit, isn't it better to beat a side when they're actually playing well, as opposed to having brain explosions in un-losable situations? I want to see GOOD cricket, not bad.

And this is why New Zealand disappoint me. They dine out on the under-estimate-us-at-your-peril-we'll-always-punch-above-our-weight thing, and sure it sometimes means that they'll do something unexpected, but nothing that's ever enough to win a Test match, or, heaven forbid, an actual series. It seems as though they enjoy annoying sides rather than actually beating them. And the recent test at the 'Gabba seemed to me to be a prime example - yes, the result was convincing in the end, and they did provide us with a pretty stern test, but how many times was Clarke dropped in the first innings? And the same with Katich in the second? It should have been so much closer, and therefore much more interesting, than it was.

What really irks me above all about this result is that every Kiwi cricket fan, and probably pundit, on the face of the planet will now be saying "oh well, we gave them a run for their money, we were never expected to win, anyway, well done, lads." Not good enough! What they should be saying is that they cannot be content with marks for effort, a loss is a loss no matter how wide the margin, and if they'd believed in themselves more they would have won. Nothing annoys me more than an inferiority complexes, and it seems that as a cricketing nation, New Zealand have one in spades.

In other breaking news, the Zimbos just lost to the Shrees in a thriller. Bad luck, fellahs - and I'm allowing myself to say that, because these guys really ARE park cricketers.

Everything I know about singing I learnt from cricket.

Or..... everything I know about cricket I learnt from singing.

Isn't this exciting? A post involving cricket AND Life, Love and Art. How post-modern of me. I shall have to try to make it a recurring theme.

OK. So. Cricket and singing. Might seem a bridge too far. But bear with me, 'cos all of this is true.

There are various elements of the game and the artform that are inextricably linked, as far as I'm concerned. All those fat blokes singing the same thing over and over? Cricket. Same with the sheilas with horns. All those funny little men in white with the cucumber sandwiches on the village green on British summer afternoons? Singing. And ergo with the hard, Australian men trying to kill each other in 40-degree heat. They might not know it, but it's ALL THE SAME THING. I don't think it was an accident. Pavarotti wasn't a Juventus fan - he supported Middlesex and the Bangalore Royal Challengers.

Here's why.

Cricket is a stage.

I'm not a singer that often takes a tremendous amount of inspiration from singers themselves. My knowledge of the great tenors (let alone the sopranos, mezzos and bass-baritones) is pretty lamentable, if I'm being kind. I get more of my inspiration from the the abstract. Sport. Business. Stand-up comedy (yes, really - but more on that later). And cricket is perfect to draw from, because it is often so focussed on the individual. When you've seen the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards and Shane Warne play the game you've seen theatre of the highest calibre. They don't just walk onto the ground, they OWN it. Having long since convinced themselves and others of their genius, they exude self-belief, pride, ability. They take the focus, they take the momentum, they carry all before them and they take charge. Just like a great character actor, or singer. It is so often this quality that makes a stage performer great - and sometimes all the ability in the world just isn't enough without it.

They both require discipline, technique and mental strength.

From the cricketing side of the argument, I have four words and a date. Steve Waugh, West Indies, 1995. When you are carrying the hopes of a nation and a 6 foot 7-inch Antiguan is LITERALLY TRYING TO KILL YOU you've got to have all these things. And it's got to be instinctive. There's no time to think when Curtly Ambrose is bowling at 95 miles an hour at your throat. It's exactly the same with singing - there is no time to think when you walk onto a stage and strip yourself bare in front of several thousand people, either. There is no turning back - you're either up for it, or you're not. An old singing teacher once said to me that singing is a blood sport. He's dead right.

They both mess with your head.

Oh boy, this one's my favourite. How many fabulously talented cricketers are there that didn't ever make the most of their potential? Ramprakash. Hick. Hooper. How many times has that talented player worried himself out before he's even faced a ball? Got the yips and started bowling wides when yesterday he had it on a string? Doubt, and fear of failure are insiduous things. They creep up on you when you least expect it. I'm not good enough/I don't deserve to be here/Do I really want it after all? has gone through everyone's head at some point. It's what you do when you're there that makes the difference - and that doesn't often have much to do with ability.

You've got to have a ruthless, combative streak to succeed.

This is the easiest one of the lot. Any sport is like this - you're consistently required to perform in the face of any number of opposition whose very presence by definition is to make you fail, and sometimes in front of audiences of billions who want the same. Singing requires you to sacrifice everything. Leave your family. Friends. Move to the other side of the world. End relationships if they're not compatible with it. Maybe even give up on the idea of having children, if you're female. It's just something that you HAVE to do. Why do I sing? I have no choice but to. It's that simple. I can't not. Nothing else that matters matters as much as that, and no sacrifice is too great.

You're never bigger than the game.

Another personal favourite. All the Shane Warnes and Viv Richards and Don Bradmans in the world are never bigger than the game. None of the Roberto Alagnas, Angela Georghius or Luciano Pavarottis are, either. At every concievable level, you are part of something bigger than you. If you don't respect that, and those around you, ultimately it comes back to bite you. Be a force for the good, not the bad. Create, don't destroy. I try to keep these at the fore-front of my mind at all times. Will I be proven right? Who knows. But I'm convinced that I will be.

You've got to really want it.

Duh. This barely needs explaining. No-one made it to La Scala or a Lord's Test by just being good. Unless they were queuing up outside for tickets.



And - well, that's it, basically. I may think of more, there's bound to be a few out there. The trouble is that I don't know that many singers that are cricketers - and even fewer cricketers that are singers, so I can't really ask anyone else! I guess you'll just have to take my word for the fact that I'm right, and I really am the world's leading opinion on Love, Life, Art and Cricket.

And after all, what did you expect? Humility??? Pah - you're reading the wrong blog!

Gautem's Gambit

You've just got to love Inja versus 'Stra, don't you? Never a match goes by without some sort of Controversy. Someone says something in the heat of the moment, someone else gets upset, someone gets a ban..... And just when you already thought it was loads of fun as it was, the BCCI make it genuine theatre by dusting off their Sunday-best siege-mentality, their favourite dummy-spit, and calling everyone a racist. And once Spanky Roebuck gets involved you know you're REALLY in for a show. Get some popcorn, subscribe to Tony's comments, and laugh yourself stupid, it's great stuff. Not that that's QUITE happened quite yet, though - but just give it time.

Not seen the footage yet? Some bright spark has put it on Youtube. You'll find the incident in question at around the 1:30 mark.



Is it just me, or is there really nothing to it? He runs past Watson, and sort of leaves his elbow trailing. Was it deliberate? You betcha. Was there any weight behind it? Not much. Was it hard? Please. When placed next to incidents involving Lillee, Thomson, Croft - even McGrath, it barely seems worth talking about.

If anything, all it points out is what a bunch of schoolboys cricketers can be - and that ultimately they're all as bad as each other. Katich and Gambir getting all hot under the collar is just priceless - you can almost, but not quite, lip-read the "Yeah? So's your Mum!" remarks. In fact, in the comments - oh the comments, find it and read the comments, they're GOLD - someone's had a go at doing just that.

Naturally, Gambir's tried to play the role of the injured party, and the Ugly Australians card. All the way through the transcript of the appeal it comes up again and again - "I was sworn at," "but he was bigger than me!" "but it's not FAIR!", and inevitably, "they started it!!" What seems more likely to me, however, is that it's probably just as likely that it WASN'T the Australians that began the exchanges - you can see from Watson that somewhere along the line Gambir has well-and-truly got under his skin, and the same can be said for Katich.

To that end, going back to the transcript, second last paragraph - to whom should this remark really be applied?

Constant verbal assaults are also unbecoming, and also bring the game into disrepute, the more so if their intention is to break the player's concentration and provoke a loss of temper.

Not that I'm defending the Australians at all - if anything, they definitely come off second-best in that video. They take the tack of a team that has used all its cards and is now resorting to petty abuse. Hardly the approach of the seasoned professional. Gambir had them exactly where he wanted, and should have recognised it.

One thing's for sure, it's going to make the 4th Test an interesting one. India are without their player of the series so far, and yet another bad-tempered incident has marred an Indian-Australian series. I hadn't been enjoying it so far - now I'm glued to it.

Naturally though, given the nationalities involved in the disciplinary hearing, you can draw now other conclusion from this other that Gambir's suspension is the result of an Australian, English and South African plot to destroy Indian cricket. Racists. Racists! One and all.

You read it here first....

3rd Test 4th day report

OK, interesting.

Australia made 577 in respone to India's 613/7 declared, India are 43/2 at stumps on the 4th day and lead by 79 with a day to play.

This has been a massive couple of days for Australian cricket. And I have to say that I'm impressed. We got done in Mohali - absolutely destroyed, if truth be told - and after conceding 613 in the first innings every non-Australian cricket journalist was pulling out the old "end of an era for Australian dominance" chestnut.

But we stood up. We not only avoided the follow-on, but we actually challenged the Indian total - were it not for my mozz in Tony's comments (scroll down to about a third of the way down), we could have passed it. And we did it not by dominating, but by grinding out a total. We batted as a team, no-one came to our rescue particularly (there's an argument for Michael Clarke there, but he didn't score that many more than Ponting or Hayden), we made good partnerships, and everyone contributed. What more can you ask for? Now we're actually in a position where we have not only saved the game, but we're the only team that can win it, too. At the end of Day 2 no-one would have expected that to happen. This is a fantastic result for a side that have been on the back foot for just about nine straight days of Test cricket, and a massive psychological achievement in the context of the rest of the series. Save this one? We can still draw the series and retain the trophy. Even if we only draw the next match, a series loss of 1-0 to India on their own turf for a side without a full-time spinner is pretty decent going.

There's no question that we are not as good a side as we were a few years ago. The likes of White, Haddin, Johnson and Watson just do not stack up against names like McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist and Langer. But performances like this show that there's no reason to expect it all to come crashing down any time soon. I have every confidence that we will continue to be very hard to beat, and a very tough, professional unit. We will continue to win matches any other side would draw, and we will continue to draw matches we should really be losing. We're not going to be as spectacular, but we're still going to win more often than not, have no doubt.

And that's the way I like it.

You little bewdy, back in business!!!

Which continues my recent classical allusions theme. Pat managed to pick "Clancy of the Overflow" below - although I must admit, I thought it was by Kevin "Bloody" Wilson - let's see who can pick this one!

Right! So the prodigal flatmate has returned and re-booted his modem. Thankfully he didn't notice my attempt to break into his room with a kitchen knife the other night. I now have access to all the internet I can handle!

It has been awhile, and no question. A pity, because it's been an interesting few weeks. In no particular order, since I last posted -

- Australia have drawn a test they should have won, were completely pummelled in the next, and are probably on their way to saving another as I type. They have also picked one of the most unlikely (and arguably one of the worst) players to ever pull on the baggy green in Cameron White. I refuse to discuss the Stanford Debacle on principle.
- I have become the only person on the face of the earth to benefit from the global economic crisis, care-of a tracker mortgage and plummeting interest rates. Hooray.
- Fulham FC have lost a few, drawn a few and won once. They will lose this weekend at Everton. Hull FC went bananas for awhile. Liverpool ended Chelsea's 86-match unbeaten stretch at Stanford Bridge and are top of the league with the equal-best start to a Premiership campaign ever, but they'll choke - they always do.
- Dabbling in Art is agreeing with me.
- I went back to London for a few days and realised that it's actually quite a nice place when you're not working for dickheads and stressed out of your mind.
- Am enjoying living in Holland. The Dutch are a nice bunch, and the (many) other nationalities in my course are pretty well-represented, too. Have realised after seeing quite a bit of the place that I live in the ugliest city in it, though! Oh well.

Which more or less brings us up to date... not the most fascinating of re-entries I know - but I'll see what I can do about that anon.

Oh - almost forgot! Despite being less than prolific recently, I have been Discovered! Head-hunted! Scouted! To whit, another blog wants me to write for them. Ain't that nice? Unfortunately I probably won't be allowed to write about cricket, and I might even have to write under another name - apparently this one is a bit obvious for their readership, *sigh*. Carrot - the man of a thousand faces.

And speaking of which - whaddaya think of the new profile pic?

Missing something?

Right, well after I had scored quite freely off the new ball, it seems that I've got a bit bogged down in the middle overs. To whit, not many posts recently. There's a reason for that.

THERE'S NO BLOODY CRICKET ON.

A blog cannot live on love, life and art alone.

AND we're going to have to wait. The first test against the Injuns doesn't start until October 9th! Which means that the only thing we're going to read about in the coming weeks is Hayden's achilles tendon, McGain's shoulder and whether the Indian middle-order can cut it anymore. I really don't have the patience for any of that, and that's why this isn't purely a cricket blog. F'rinstance I know that the biggest news at the moment is that Durham have won their first County Championship, but I don't think I could blog about county cricket and stay sane.

Lately, the internet has been for email, Skype and football. I am now counting the days until it can be used for what is was intended.

And no, stop sniggering up the back, I do NOT mean porn.

12 days to go.

It's Started

*Sigh*. England. Why are they ever thus? They win a couple of unimportant matches and all of a sudden they're World Champion Contenders.

The leading story on the smh website at the moment is an article by Scyld Berry, accompanied by a photo of Ricky Ponting in his best "Dubya" pose, with "Worried Man... Ricky Ponting" as the caption. Oh sure. I BET he's worried. Because after all, England have done SO well, lately, haven't they?

I was a little taken aback by the tone of the article, given that it's in the smh, until I finished it and saw "The Telegraph, London" as its source. So I went to The Telegraph website and found this, as well. Apparently Symonds was only getting his come-uppance when Harbhajan "called" him a monkey! Take that, boy! And back to the plantation where you belong.... I fail to see how you can hedge your bets on what was said and what wasn't, and then use it as justification for the behaviour. "We don't know what was said!! But he deserved it, either way!!!" Honestly. I expected better from a broadsheet. The first of the comments says it all - this is the sort of one-eyed, gutter journalism that England are reknowned for.

Let's examine the facts of England's so-called resurgance, shall we?

England are in rude health, to quote Berry in the Telegraph/smh. Riiiight. They lost this summer's Test series, their most successful captain ever, and their second in five years. Their new captain has won a dead-rubber Test, and the one-dayers against a depleted RSA side. Before that, they've lost home and away series pretty consistently since THAT 2005 series, and have basically been pretty ordinary for a long time. And what does precedence tell us about the side they've got at the moment? Flintoff is probably five minutes' away from his next injury. Harmison is probably 30 seconds away from his next crisis of confidence, and another form slump. These things might not happen - but my point is, let's see if they can keep the same XI on the field for more than one Test before they start crowing about how great they look.

An obvious implication is that they look great under Kevin Pieterson. Who has been captain for about five minutes, and more or less completely unproven. This is what the British press do, of course. They hover insanely between condemnation and hero-worship, and nothing in between. Someone new to the scene does well, and all of a sudden they're the Next Big Thing. You only need to look at what they've done with their 'keepers to see that. Each of Jones, Prior and Ambrose (and to a point, Nixon and Mustard) have been feted beyond measure after a handful of matches. And then, one-by-one they've disappointed, and become villians. I actually hope that Pieterson doesn't suffer the same fate, because I'm going to really look forward to us feeding his ego to him next summer. THEN they can do it to him.

Australia, meanwhile, haven't lost a series since 2005. The last one before that was in 2001. Regardless of whether you think we're worse off without Warne and McGrath, there has been no tangible difference in the results since they left. 2-0 against Sri Lanka. 2-1 against India. 3-0 against the Windies. No matter which way you look at it, the results favour Australia.

Next. Berry again, the IPL, and Australia's over-crowded schedule? Please. The IPL is Twenty20! Bowlers bowl four overs each, if that. Batsmen hit a few boundaries and get out. It's not physically demanding. Wear and tear does not come into it. Hayden's injury probably could have happened carrying the groceries as much as for his "demanding schedule". As for the rest, he fails to address the point that you don't need to use the same XI for every match.

What I love about both these articles is that they've taken complete red herrings and used them as justification for why England are going to win. England winning a one-day series? Symonds being (rightly) disciplined? Australia's "prissy" correctness? The schedule? Come on. As if any of those things are going to make a shred of difference.

I don't have a crystal ball. In fairness, though, neither do they. And it's just this sort of assumptive journalism that makes England such satisfying opponents to beat. For the record, I think it's going to be a good series, and I'm going to look forward to seeing it - but based on the sort of flimsy evidence that both these journos have given us, England are not, and cannot, in any way, shape or form, be seen as anything LIKE favourites at this point. One month does not a good team make.

And as if to prove my point....

This is published. If that doesn't give you a good insight into what the guy is like, then I don't know what does. You've got to be careful with these sorts of pieces as sometimes they can go with the tide of opinion (i.e. if public and journalistic opinion was behind Symonds there might have been a different take on it), but really - the guy's a dick.

It's interesting that he should be prepared to act in such a (self) destructive fashion after such a stop-start to his career. Just as he's done the hard work and learned how to be a successful player at all levels, he obviously feels entitled to throw his weight around. What chance a little humility, or dare I say it, professionalism? Lalor's article has it right, though - "He is also discovering that no matter how many runs you make or save, no matter how many wickets you take or defend, that your place in the Australian side is never a given." This is a very good thing, and something that has been at the core of all successful Australian sides. Recent history has shown that if you're not prepared to fit in with the team then you won't stay in it very long, either. Dean Jones and Stuart MacGill are similar examples.

It's interesting, too, to note the tone of the comments, and how quickly people's opinion can change. There's the odd "ya can't do this to Symmo!" remark, but on the whole, people are very critical. Australians can't stand people that put themselves ahead of the team. If the tall poppy syndrome wasn't coined with us in mind, it should have been! Probably the more intelligent comments are from those that are critical of his behaviour, but hope that he gets it together soon because he is a great talent.

I'd go along with that. I'm not so sure that he's that indispensable, though. There are others that can hit a cricket ball a long way, and whole careers have been forged around being good team men - just look at Andy Bichel.

With thanks to Tony for seeing it first.

My take on the Andrew Symonds affair

Right, so my first cricket post. There's nothing else going on in cricket at the moment - probably why this is still making headlines.

I get the feeling that if you met Andrew Symonds, you probably wouldn't like him. There's no doubt in my mind that what makes Roy "Roy" is the sort of Aussie boof-headery that is charming when played out with a bat in his hand in front of 80,000 people at the MCG, but is genuinely obnoxious off it. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he turned out to be your basic, pig-ignorant dickhead.

Sure, he's everyone's favourite action hero. The dreads, the zinc-cream, the swash, the buckle, the derring-do, the sheer bulk of him. He doesn't just hit a cricket ball to the fence, he beats it into submission. Even his forward defence carries a certain amount of menace, and it’s exactly this sort of physicality, his artlessness, and his single-minded aggression that make up someone that, if popular opinion is to be believed, is just about the most Australian man alive, and hugely popular on that basis.

But it’s not just the cricket, or the way he goes around it, is it. It’s the whole package. It’s the tall stories about fishing trips with Matt Hayden. The larrikin streak. The brushes with authority. And doesn’t the world just LOVE the fact that when “Symmo” gets in trouble it’s for having a few too many in Cardiff, or more recently for fishing, for crying out loud. How Australian is that? When AFL footballers are getting done for repeat drug abuse and involvement with organised crime (Ben Cousins take a bow), Symonds’ indiscretions seem like good, clean fun.

You only need to look at Jamie Pandaram’s article in the Age to get an idea of how he’s received. You can’t drop Roy! Roy’s a legend! A man’s man! A true Aussie battler! Etc! And naturally, Michael Clarke only disciplined him (the obvious implication being that he did it alone and uni-laterally, which is far from the truth) because he’s trying to make a name for himself, what with his tatts and his earring and peroxide blonde hair. The girl. And it’s just the sort of one-eyed parochialism that really annoys me.

Alex Brown, in his excellent article in Saturday’s SMH has a much more balanced view, in my book. There are a few lines that stick out for me.

"… at the opposite end of the spectrum, the more sinister side of this double-edged sword, goodwill is harder to detect. There, Symonds is a sook, a brute, a character for the too-hard basket. And in that pigeonhole he will stay - until his next century."

and

"Many - journalists, in particular - have witnessed his leery, bullying side at pubs and nightclubs, where alcohol and testosterone have contributed to open hostility. But it has been the Harbhajan Singh affair that has most embittered Symonds. The sense of betrayal at Cricket Australia's supposed lack of support during the Monkeygate controversy has consumed him, resulting in a lingering anger that has eroded his passion for the game."

Let’s have a look at these points one by one, shall we?

First of all, a sook? Our Roy? Surely not! Never in a million years!

Actually, I have no difficulty believing this at all. It was probably Uncle JRod who best summed up Symonds’ hypocrisy about the now-cancelled ICC Champions Trophy. It WAS just a bit interesting that he was perfectly happy to go to be paid in spades to go to India for the IPL, and play in Mumbai, a recent terrorist target - but as soon as the words “Pakistan” and “security” get mentioned, out came the statements to the press. JRod brings up the key word “Muslim” and someone else “no beer” which may or may not be being overly cynical, but you make your own mind up. Whatever his motives, he was going to kick up as much of a stink as he could.

Second, and by far the easiest to believe – “brute”, “leery, bullying side”, “open hostility”. You only have to look at the below to see that.



And just in case you think that I’m a COMPLETE prude, yeah, I laughed, too. It’s funny. I don’t have a great amount of sympathy for the guy, either – he probably doesn’t even want any. When you run naked onto the ‘Gabba in front of 40,000 people, you get all that you deserve. But all that said, it’s assault, isn’t it? I’m sure you wouldn’t find it anywhere in the players’ manual. The manner in which Symonds took that guy out smacks of exactly the sort of aggressive behaviour to which Brown refers. If he’s prepared to do that and nonchalantly lean on his bat like it’s all in a day’s work when he’s stone cold sober, imagine what he’s like with a few beers in him.

And finally, Monkeygate. What a can of worms that was! A real watershed moment – it even made the normally football-mad British tabloids sit up and take notice. I was actually at the game that day – not that I noticed it happen. I was probably at the bar.

Is this relevant to today’s situation? Brown obviously thinks it is. Cricinfo thinks it is. Just about every news story you come across mentions it. I suppose it must be – surely he wouldn’t be to all intents and purposes ruling himself out of the tour to India just because he’s been disciplined for missing a team meeting. Has he been betrayed, though? At the end of the day, no-one could prove anything! He and his mates got their day in court, it was his word against Harbhajan’s, and the ICC’s John Hansen ruled that the case couldn’t be proven. Surely Cricket Australia had done all they could to make sure that justice was done. There wasn’t much they COULD have done - it was out of their hands after all, and the BCCI’s posturing about calling off the tour was nothing more than that in my book and had nothing to do with Hansen’s ruling.

Does this not support the first point, then? If Symonds is still ticked off about Monkeygate, nine months on and after a full tour of the West Indies, surely this is sulking at its best? Was he genuinely waiting for his next disciplinary infringement before he showed the world how hard-done by he was? Is this not complete opportunism by that token?

I’ve worked with people like that. In any team, there are people that are prepared to take the rough with the smooth, and there are those that are not, and throw the toys out of the pram and scream “conspiracy!” at the slightest hint of injustice. Good management and communication are important at those times, but in an administration that seems outwardly as well-run as Cricket Australia, I can’t imagine that they didn’t go out of their way to talk to Symonds about the events after the Sydney Test and make sure that he wasn’t feeling too disenfranchised. After that it’s up to Symonds – and he might win a few cheap points with his fan-base and the more populist media by going into this hole that he’s put himself in, but he’s not fooling me, and I very much doubt that he’s fooling the Australian team, either.

As far as I’m concerned, just for the moment, they’re better off without him.