Samiullah Shenwari, the warrior king

The Afghanistan national cricket team has been cricket's feel good story over the past few years. As they have continued to play and win at international level, more has been written about them.

The first player people paid attention to was Mohammad Shahzad. Afghanistan needed something to really make people take notice, and here was a batsman with talent, flair, and something called the 'helicopter shot'. When Afghanistan played in their first World T20, there he was, playing his shots, making people take notice. 

But Shahzad has been moved out of the first XI. Not because he isn't talented, or capable with the bat, but because he isn't fit enough. He has many years left to change this, but at the moment he seems to have been only the spark to get his nation noticed.

Next to be noticed was Hamid Hassan. Hassan is a classic fast bowler, sporting a headband and war paint. His focus is purely on taking wickets. He is probably the best bowler not playing Test cricket. He is an absolute joy to watch. But like a classic fast bowler, he gets injured regularly. So when Afghanistan is playing, he isn't always there.

So next was Mohammad Nabi. Nabi, unlike Shahzad and Hassan, is never out of the team. He is never injured, and does something important pretty much every match, either with a stabilising fifty, or an economical spell of off-spin. He's also their captain now. Nabi is the face of Afghan cricket, so how can you not pay attention to him?

The beauty of television has presented another Afghan player to the world: Shapoor Zadran. Shapoor is also a classic fast bowler, but in a different sense. If Hassan is a beast, then Shapoor is a beauty. He is magnificently tall, with glorious hair and a run-up that defies the modern age of precise science. He is an attention magnet.

So, that's four players to write about, four players to define Afghan cricket.

But there's one more player. One who has never had the attention these four have had. One who has made his way up the ranks from useful player to absolute necessity.

He is a player who demonstrates both aggression and calm, and seems able to use these both where appropriate, an absolutely vital attribute in international cricket. He has the heart of warrior, and the mind of a ruler.

His name is Samiullah Shenwari.

--------------------------------------------------

Shenwari played U17s for Afghanistan, along with many of his current national teammates. He was their high scorer in their loss to Oman at the ACC U17s Cup in 2004, and also took a wicket.

He played in the 2006 ACC Trophy in 2006. Sometimes he batted up the order, sometimes he batted down the order. Sometimes he would be ten overs and take a couple of wickets. Sometimes he wouldn't bowl at all. In the semi-final he batted at nine and did not bowl, in the third place play-off he batted at four and bowled five overs.

When Afghanistan began their push towards the 2011 World Cup in 2008, they were in division five of the World Cricket League. Afghanistan won the division. Shenwari scored two runs across three innings (batting at seven and eight), and bowled two balls. 

In division four, which Afghanistan won, he batted at eight and nine, scoring 49 runs in six matches. He also took three wickets. 

In division three, which Afghanistan came second in, he scored 113 runs in four innings, including a fifty, still batting at eight. He also took seven wickes.

Come the World Cup Qualifier, he was still batting at eight, scoring 194 runs, and bowling a bit, taking eight wickets.

When Afghanistan played their Intercontinental Cup match against the Netherlands, he batted at eight. When Afghanistan played their first ever ODI, against the same team, he batted at eight.

But then, in their second ODI, Shenwari got promoted to five in a search for quick runs. It worked, and Afghanistan chased down 232, with Shenwari scoring 30* off 39 deliveries.

He went back down to eight for their next ODIs and the first few matches of WCL division one. Then Afghanistan found themselves in a tight spot early against Kenya, so Shenwari came in at four. He scored a match winning 82 off 118.

Again, he went back down the order, mainly in the team for his useful leg-spin. But something had sparked, because every now and then he would come up from his position at eight or nine, and play a decent innings. Importantly, it was rarely a quickfire cameo. He was more likely to make his 30 at a strike rate of 60 than at a strike rate of 140.

By 2013 he had been nudged up to number seven, where he played a match winning innings of 81 against Bangladesh, and was pushed up to number six. After one innings there, he went back to eight. But the match-winner at seven may have been what caught the eye of the new Afghan coach.

Andy Moles arrived as Afghanistan's coach in 2014. Their first series following his appointment was against Zimbabwe. Shenwari found himself batting at five. And the thing was, he kept scoring runs. After Mohammad Nabi showed his batting to be just as reliable, they were swapped. But the two have stayed within one position of each other since then.

Then, in January 2015, Shenwari demonstrated everything that makes him so important to Afghanistan. They had defeated Scotland easily in the first match of a short tri-series. In the rematch, they fell apart, bowled out for 63, losing by 150 runs.

In Afghanistan's next match, Shenwari set about proving that Afghanistan could bat out a match, even if he had to do it himself. He ground out 50 from 96. Najibullah Zadran hit 83 from 50, an innings that won Afghanistan the match. Samiullah's innings seems unremarkable in comparison. But it was a foundation on which to build. That is what Shenwari does.

--------------------------------------------------

In a team that is renowned more for big hitting than grinding, Shenwari's application is an anomaly. He has a strike rate just under 70, despite an average of 38.51. This seems quite low. It seems even lower when you consider he's spent much of his career as a lower order batsman, in the team for his bowling more than his batting. His record batting up the order is actually quite remarkable: 754 runs @ 68.54. His lowest score at four is 38. At five he has made two single digit scores, and then a next lowest score of 39*. That is the kind of batting a team can build around.

It is the kind of batting that wins matches too.

When Shenwari came in at number four today against Scotland, Afghanistan were 2/45. With the help of Javed Ahmadi, Shenwari took the score to 2/85. Then, having just made his 50, Ahmadi had a wild swing at a Richie Berrington delivery, sent the ball in the air, and was out. The next four wickets fell for twelve runs. Shenwari could only calmly block, take singles and watch from the other end as the team fell around him.

Dawlat Zadran put on a 35 run partnership with Shenwari, before doing the same thing Ahmadi did, with the same result. Shenwari was livid. His calm demeanour was broken for those few seconds, and he seemed like the rest of his team - passionate and emotional. In many ways, Afghanistan seems like Pakistan from years ago.

But then he calmed again, reset, and got to working with the beast, Hamid Hassan. For the next twelve overs, the two set about bringing down the runs required. Hamid would block and leave and take the single where appropriate. Shenwari would do the same, but also take some boundaries from time to time. When he did this, it never seemed wild or out of control. It was always well controlled aggression. Despite the odds, Shenwari looked like he could single-handedly carry his team home.

Majid Haq came on in the 46th over, having gone for 26 off his first nine overs. Afghanistan needed 38 from 24. Haq came around the wicket to Shenwari for the first time in the match. 

The first ball was deposited over cow corner for six. 

The second ball was a wide. 

The third ball was mistimed for six over square leg.

The fourth ball was defended for no runs.

That is the difference with Shenwari. Most other Afghan batsmen would've tried another boundary. You cannot imagine Shahzad blocking a ball after hitting two sixes.

The fifth ball went for another six over mid wicket.

Haq came over the wicket.

The sixth ball was caught at deep mid wicket as Shenwari went for another six. He was on 96.

Shenwari seemed like his teammates again. After he walked of the field, he threw his bat down, and sat down with his helmet on, watching the game, distraught at getting out. Had he lost his team the game? Had that temporary rush of blood undone his 176 minutes at the crease?

Shenwari remained perched over the game until the end, hoping that two bowlers with batting averages of five could get his team home.

--------------------------------------------------

In the end, he won his team the game. Shapoor Zadran knocked a four from Iain Wardlaw off the third ball of the final over. Shapoor and Hassan sprinted towards the boundary, arms in the air, overjoyed at their victory.

All the photos that will be in the papers tomorrow, and in the history books detailing Afghanistan's first World Cup victory, will be of Shapoor with his arms aloft.

There won't be many of Shenwari. He wasn't there at the end. He didn't make a century. He didn't even bowl. But he did everything needed, and was the foundation of the innings.

He fought and scrapped and stayed in the contest, fighting even when he was on his haunches. He was a warrior.

But he was also cool and calm. When he scored boundaries, they were majestic. He was in control. You could believe that he would do the seemingly impossible. He was a king.

Were he only a stodgy batsman, he would not bowl leg spin. Using the wrist to spin the ball is more art than science.

But were he only an okay leg-spinner, he would not grind. He would not apply himself to every ball, waiting for the opportunity to put the team on his back.

He is something greater than that. He may even be something great.

So tonight, as the people of Afghanistan revel in their team's victory, we can imagine that they, at least, will be celebrating the heroics of the man who is now their greatest ever run scorer.

He is Samiullah Shenwari, warrior and king.

The problem with Q&A politics

Q&A has been a staple of Australia's media and political landscape since its inception in 2008. Based on the BBC's long running Question Time, the show has seemingly given the public a stronger voice regarding important political, economic and social issues. It consistently rates well for its timeslot (around 900,000 in total), and every Monday night, like clockwork, #QandA will be trending on Twitter.

So, it sounds like the show is a win for everyone, right?

Wrong.

There are many people who could potentially benefit from a show like this. In theory, all Australians should be reaping the rewards of such a show, in some way or another. Holding politicians to account, and bringing important community issues and opinions to the forefront should be a good thing.

But in reality, Q&A simply is not the broad ranging, powerful and interesting place of discussion that it attempts to be. It does not benefit all those it should. Most importantly, it quite often cannot break through the increasingly bland political discourse this country is full of, instead being a vehicle for it.

The ABC loves Q&A. And why wouldn't they? It's one of their highest rating programmes and isn't particularly expensive to produce. In an era when they (unfortunately) need to keep justifying their existence, the ABC can point to Q&A as one of their great successes. It also keeps them 'in the conversation' on social media, which is of ever increasing value.

The other people who quite enjoy Q&A are the major parties. Specifically, the more prominent members of these parties, some of whom can attribute their prominence directly to their almost constant rotation into the show. Gone are the days of Rudd and Hockey, Gillard and Abbott being all jovial on morning television to get people to pay attention to them. No, these days Q&A is the lightning rod for political discussion instead – something surely confirmed by Today host Lisa Wilkinson appearing on the show last Monday. We've gone from politicians making small talk on morning shows to morning show hosts having serious discussions about politics.

And when I say constant rotation, I do mean constant rotation. Of the top ten most frequently appearing guests (to the end of 2014), nine of them were part of either the ALP or the Coalition. Of the top twenty, seventeen are from the two majors. The remaining three are two journalists from The Australian (Janet Albrechtsen and Greg Sheridan) and the leader of the Greens, Christine Milne. Of the 44 episodes to air in 2014, 28 featured a member from both of the major parties. Of the remaining 16, three were one-person specials (of which two of those featured government ministers) and eleven were specials focusing on a particular topic, mostly featuring people relevant to the topic. That leaves a whole two 'regular' episodes of five panellists talking about the big issues of the week.

To be fair to the ABC, they do seem to have tried a bit harder in recent years to make sure that people outside of the major parties are the focus of episodes from time to time. Thirteen episodes with a member from each of the major parties is a significant step up from 2010, where only four of the 41 episodes featured a five member panel and did not include two major party politicians. But it's still not enough. By making the specials into the episodes without the majors, it places the episodes with the majors as the status quo, and, politically speaking, that is the problem.

There is not necessarily anything wrong with having politicians on the show regularly. In fact, it is a good thing that they are willing to show up and answer questions, especially members of the government. But there is something wrong with having one from each party on the show basically every week. The problem is this: it reinforces the idea of two parties in total opposition to one another. Q&A is not at fault for this idea gaining traction – it is embedded into the current Australian political system – but the programme does little to challenge it either. For example, last week's show saw Jamie Briggs (Assistant Infrastructure Minister) and Chris Bowen (Shadow Treasurer) sit either side of Tony Jones. The two of them managed to degenerate into petty arguments a number of times, which is business as usual between the two majors on the show. Furthermore, the two nearly managed to speak as much as Alan Jones, which is quite an achievement in itself. Normally, when someone not so happy to talk until the cows come home is on, the two pollies will be the ones with the most airtime. Neither of these things are healthy for political discourse.

By placing them on either side of Jones and allowing them to snipe at each other, they become the centre of our attention, and our attention is being drawn to whatever political point they want to score. How can we have good political discourse when the dominant parties' idea of discourse is stale one-liners and repeated talking points? All that the viewer sees is that a) these are our only choices for government and b) our choices aren't very good. What is even more problematic is that these tired talking points are inevitably the things that get the most airtime. On a typical five person panel, there will be these two politicians, an expert of some kind, an artist/comedian/writer type, and a wild card (could be a journo, another expert, another politician, another artiste, anything really). The other three may all have something interesting to say, or only some of them, but often they only get one or two chances to properly answer a question. The two politicians will almost always take up the most time, and the result is a diluted discussion.

There is another problem. I said earlier that it was specifically the prominent members of major parties who like Q&A at the moment. The reason for this is that the show is all about individuals. Individuals are asked questions, individuals answer the questions. How they answer the questions, and not necessarily what they actually say, will determine how people think about them. The more important the individual, the more weight is put to their answer, and the more focus is paid to their answer after the show is over. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the more members of parliament the public is aware of, the better. However, when you're trying to engage in important political discussion, is a televised forum the best place to do it? Does the policy remain as the focus? You may have heard of the classic debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, where those listening on radio believed Nixon won, but those watching on television believed Kennedy performed better. The latter was, quite literally, about style over substance, and that is what the medium of television is built for. If you can combine the two, great, but time and time again we see politicians picking style first. A pithy soundbite for the evening news will be more effective at grabbing attention, after all.

So when you bring two politicians from parties vying for government and put them in front of a television camera, and you tell them to speak freely, do you really expect them to go into any great, significant detail about their vision for the country? Because as it stands now, you probably shouldn't. The style wins over the substance, and such is the media cycle of today that the style has actually become the substance.

But how can I say that Q&A sets the tone for political discussion in this country, and that it turns the focus from the parties and their policies towards the individuals and their image? Well, let's look at a recent example. One of the people joining Wilkinson on the panel on Monday was Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull has been at the centre of leadership speculation since the spill motion was called against the Prime Minister recently. He was meant to appear on the show as the Minister for Communications, which he did, but for many in the media in the days since, his appearance was really about presenting himself as 'alternative Prime Minister', a nonsense title that is endemic of the focus of personality that the media so loves.

For the next couple of days, his appearance on the programme was a major talking point for the media. David Crowe in The Australian claimed that his performance offered an alternative to Abbott's leadership. Mark Kenny for Fairfax proclaimed that the fight between potential Prime Ministers was the most interesting part of federal politics. Catherine McGrath from SBS called Turnbull a flirt. Most importantly, News Ltd proclaimed his performance as being 'Prime Ministerial', which is basically meant to be our version of 'Presidential' (even though the PM is not like a President). Here we see how easily Q&A set the tone for discussion in federal politics for the rest of the week. And what of this is not about image? What of this is not focussed on the individual? 

What of this does not, little by little, weaken our political system every time it happens?

So, how do you fix these problems? Well, I have a few ideas, but I'm sure there are more. I'm also sure the ABC isn't that interested in them, but no matter. First, don't have a pollie from each major party on every week. When you do have one on, you don't have to have one from the other on for the sake of 'balance'. Make Jones, or whoever is moderating, clamp down on the soundbites that they so love. If you have two on (which will be fine occasionally), make them sit next to each other. Put them on one end of the desk. They're not going to be as likely to have a go at each other if they are physically next to one another, and they won't be the centre of attention if they're way down one end.

Television's place as a visual platform means that it is difficult to change the focus back to being about policy instead of image. This means that it is up to the media to stop focusing so much on what does and doesn't look good, and to instead hone in on the substance. Ultimately, Q&A can't change too much. Not because it's so great that it shouldn't be changed, but rather that it's a difficult format to change. These little changes would be positive, but you're not going to suddenly improve the quality of discussion tenfold. The show simply isn't designed for anything too high level. It's a fine balancing act between levels of acceptable style and substance, and I'm sure the ABC will have many more years to tweak it.

Well, as long as the government doesn't privatise it.

Chris Bowen's 'gotcha' moment

If you have been paying any attention to Australian politics over the past few days, you will know that Chris Bowen, the Shadow Treasurer, got 'caught out' by Alan Jones on Sky News. Jones asked Bowen what the tax-free threshold was, Bowen didn't know and tried to dance around the fact that he couldn't remember.

Jones knew the answer ($18,200) and was more than happy to crow about it. But as Bowen pointed out, he wasn't on the show to do a 'pop quiz'.

Unfortunately for Bowen, the media seems to think that was exactly what he was on there for.

Every news outlet you can think of ran a leading story on his 'gaffe'. The Australian, Fairfax, ABC, Ninemsn, Yahoo!7 and SBS all ran a story. Piers Akerman felt it necessary to tell us that it was a 'huge dent in his credibility'.

So should we care?

No, no we should not.

While it would be nice for a potential Treasurer to remember the tax-free threshold on demand at all times, his inability to do so when it was not the topic he was planning to discuss does not reflect on his ability to be a Treasurer. A Treasurer should be able to envisage a good path for the economy in the short, medium and long term. Bowen's forgetfulness of a number does not mean he is incapable of pursuing a fiscal goal over six years.

Furthermore, Bowen doesn't really need to know this. Not only is it not particularly relevant to a Treasurer's broad fiscal plans, he also will have people remind him of it should he become Treasurer. The people in the Department of the Treasury will know these things, because it is their job to know. So, should he forget again, and should it actually become important for him to know (unlikely as it is), it still won't really matter that he didn't know on a television show in 2015.

So why did his slip-up feature in various parts of the media for days? Well, presumably the media thinks it is more important than it is. Or they think that the public will genuinely perceive it as a sign that Bowen is unfit for the role of Treasurer. It's an absurd notion, but in today's world of instant media and ever-shortening attention spans, it's one that will keep getting pushed.

Bowen was on Sky for a discussion on superannuation. No-one cares about that now, because there was a 'gaffe' to focus on instead of boring discussion that may have been important. 

This pattern will keep repeating, and we are poorer for it.

What is a World Cup for?

Of all the sports in the world, not many are team sports with a large enough following to appear on free-to-air television somewhere in the world. Each of the biggest holds a world tournament every few years, and I believe these are worth comparing. I will look at association football, cricket, hockey, rugby (union) and rugby league. There are other sports that could also be included in this, but these five have very similar origins, so I'll limit it to them.

2015 sees two of these sports hold their world cup. Cricket's starts on Saturday, while rugby's begins in September. There has been some discussion in the cricketing world about the International Cricket Council's decision to cut the number of teams taking part in their next world cup to ten, down from fourteen this year. The main reason they give is that they believe the CWC should be a tournament for the best of the best. With this in mind, let us examine how true it is that sporting world cups are only meant to be for the absolute best teams to play in.

Governing body and membership

Each of these sports has one central governing body.

FIFA is the governing body for association football. It currently has 209 members, all of which are part of one of six continental confederations. Each confederation hosts a tournament of its own every four years, and members often work together to achieve results for their region within the FIFA congress. All members have equal voting rights. The congress elects the FIFA executive committee every four years. In order to join FIFA, a football association must be responsible for overseeing football in that country. There are only seven sovereign states in the world which are not members of FIFA, of which one (the UK) is represented by four teams.

The ICC is the governing body for cricket. It currently has ten full members, 37 associate members, and 59 affiliate members. Associates and affiliates are organised into regional bodies, some of which are run by the ICC, and some of which are independent and run events on behalf of the ICC. Each regional body has, at some point, organised tournaments, but the regularity and scope of these events varies. The ten full member nations are the only ones with full voting rights. The other 96 members have three collective votes. The ICC executive committee contains a permanent member from Australia, England and India, and two rotating members from the other full member nations. In order to join the ICC as an affiliate, a cricket association must meet certain criteria. Harsher criteria must be then met at least three years later to become an associate. Becoming a full member nation has no clear criteria.

The FIH is the governing body for hockey. It currently has 128 members, all of which are part of one of five continental federations. Each federation hosts a tournament of its own every four years. All members have equal voting rights. The members vote for the executive committee, of which five members will represent their federation on the committee as well. In order to join the FIH, an association must prove that it is the sole governing body for hockey in its nation.

World Rugby is the governing body for rugby union. It currently has 100 members, and 17 associate members, all of which are part of of regional unions. Some members of regional unions are not part of World Rugby. Each regional unions runs tournaments in their own region. Voting rights on the Council are unequally divided. Foundation members have two votes, four long term members have one vote, and the regional associations have one vote. No other members have votes. The executive committee is voted in by the council. In order to join World Rugby, a union must first join its regional union as an associate member. After one year, they can become a full member of the regional union. After two more years, they can become an Associate member of World Rugby. After another two years, they can become a full member.

The RLIF is the governing body for rugby league. It currently has 45 members, divided into two federations. All members have voting rights. The executive committee contains two members from each of Australia, England and New Zealand, while the other four members are elected by the two federations. In order to join the IRLF, an association must meet certain criteria, first to become an observer, then an affiliate, then an associate (though this is only receiving approval from the full members), then a full member.

So, from this we can see that there are two schools of thought regarding membership – open and closed. Association football and hockey are open; a national governing body simply has to prove that it the sole governing body in its country for that sport, and it will be granted full membership. Cricket, rugby and league are closed; members must fulfil certain criteria to join, and even then they don't immediately become full members after joining. However, both the rugby codes have a clear path to full membership. In union, a country could become a full member only five years after joining, although this doesn't include voting rights. In league, there is no clear time frame, only a certain set of standards that must be met to get the approval of the full members, but once this hurdle is passed new members have full voting rights. In cricket, neither of these is the case. Associate members have no clear path to becoming full members. As it stands, football contains the most members with some degree of power, and cricket the least. How does this translate in global tournaments?

World Cup

The first FIFA World Cup was held in Uruguay in 1930. It featured thirteen teams, including seven from South America, four from Europe and two from North America. The most recent World Cup was held in Brazil in 2014. It featured 32 teams, hailing from every continent. Qualification tournaments have been held since the second World Cup in 1934. Seventy-seven teams have played at least one World Cup, with a further six having appeared as more than one nation. Only eight teams have won a World Cup, and of these three (Brazil, Germany, Italy) have won thirteen of the twenty to have been played. A further four nations have only been runner-up. Plans to expand it further have been mooted.

The first ICC Cricket World Cup was held in England in 1975. It featured eight teams, including the six Test playing nations of the time, along with Sri Lanka and an East African team. The most recent World Cup is being held in 2015 in Australia and New Zealand. It features fourteen teams from four continents and the Caribbean. Qualification has been automatic for Test playing nations, while associates have played qualification tournaments since 1996. Twenty teams have played at least one World Cup. Five teams have won a World Cup, with Australia winning four out of ten. England is the only team to finish as runner-up without ever being champions. The ICC plans to reduce the number of teams to ten in 2019.

The first Hockey World Cup was held in Spain in 1971. It featured ten teams from every continent bar North America. The most recent World Cup was held in 2014 in the Netherlands. It featured twelve teams from the same five continents. Qualification is based on a mix of regional tournaments and world league results. Twenty-four teams have played at least one World Cup. Five teams have won a World Cup, with three teams (Pakistan, Australia, Netherlands) winning ten of the thirteen to be held. Two teams have only been runner-up. The FIH plans to expand the number of teams to 16 in 2018, and possibly 24 in 2022.

The first Rugby World Cup was held in Australia and New Zealand in 1987. It featured sixteen teams, including the seven IRFB member nations. The most recent World Cup is being held in 2015 in 2015 in England. It features twenty teams from every continent. Qualification is based on results at the previous World Cup, as well as regional tournaments. Twenty-five teams have played at least one World Cup. Four teams have won a World Cup, with France only finishing as runner-up. There are no official plans to expand the amount of teams in the near future.

The first Rugby League World Cup was held in France in 1954. It featured four teams (the hosts, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand). The most recent World Cup was held in England and Wales in 2013. It featured fourteen teams from three continents. Qualification is based on previous World Cup results, regional tournaments and a qualifier. Nineteen teams have played at least one World Cup, four of which played as another nation (Great Britain) previously. Three teams have won a World Cup, and two teams have finished as runner-up without being champions.

What we can see here is confirmation of the Football World Cup being the greatest of them all. It is surely the goal of every sport to be as big as association football, and the sheer number of teams that have played at a FIFA World Cup compared to the other four demonstrates just how big it is. But despite fifty more teams having played at the FWC compared to the next best (RWC), only three more teams have actually won an FWC compared to their next nearest. Indeed, the top echelon of football seems little bigger than in the other sports. In fact, if World Cup tournaments are only meant to be for the best of the best, none of the sports have done a very good job. Every sport currently includes teams in the World Cup that have no chance of winning. If we assume every previous FWC winner plays in a 32 team WC, that leaves ¾ of teams not having previously won and, presumably, being highly unlikely to win the next time around. And there are already proposals to expand the FWC further! Why could they possibly want more losers playing?

It's worth noting that only one of these sports has, at any point, reduced the number of teams from one tournament to the next. That sport is cricket, which peaked with sixteen teams in 2007, and has since reduced the teams to fourteen, and soon to ten. As mentioned above, the main reason given for this is to ensure that only 'the best of the best' are playing in the major tournament. While this is difficult to believe on its own, given what we know about the people controlling cricket at the moment, it is clear that it doesn't really stack up when compared with other sports either. These other sports must have good reason to pursue expansion, rather than contraction.

The most common reason given seem to be that it is a) a way to expand the game and b) representative of the global nature of the sport. The expansion of the game does not seem to necessarily be tied to on-field results – the winners of the FIFA World Cup historically aren't overly diverse – but, crucially, the game is watched in far more countries than any other. Nations can dream of world cup glory, no matter how far-fetched. Hockey is making a belated push towards expansion on the back of a fairly even top 20 ranked nations (or so they claim). Rugby league has consistently talked about international expansion over the past two decades, although it has struggled to gain traction outside of the Commonwealth. Union has been more successful, and desperately wants to be seen as a genuinely global sport, despite the somewhat slow internal shifts.

What all these sports have in common when it comes to being a global game is that they are genuinely pushing to be seen as global sports, open to all and welcoming those who aren't quite as good as the absolute best, in the hope that one day the new teams will match the old champions.

And then there's cricket.

Here we have a sport which can claim to be the second most popular sport in the world, which has a long history, which any fan can tell you is a great and unique game to watch...and which is seemingly absolutely rock solid in its resolution not to expand. It is both odd and self-defeating.

If it's ultimately all about money, it doesn't explain why other sports are so eager to expand the game now. Don't they need money too? Certainly, money seems to be a part of it. But the absolute centrality of the 'big three' seems to be equally about power, about the continuation of an elite in the sport for reasons best known to those within, and not to be told to those outside.

At least, you'd hope it is, because the alternative is that the administrators simply have no idea of what they're doing, or how to plan for the future, or have any concept of growth, and if that is the case then cricket will be in a deep rut in not too many years from now.

You will know it is in that rut when Australia, England and India are playing yearly tri-series against each other, and the administrators are wondering why crowds are so poor, and why the television rights are worth less than they were when those other countries were playing.

Author stunned by headlines following Irish victory

Actually, that isn't true.

The headlines following Ireland's not-shocking win over the West Indies in Nelson aren't even remotely surprising. But the win wasn't either, which means headlines that mention how the result is 'shocking' and 'stunning' and 'an upset' are wrong, and also quite unfair to an Irish team that deserves much more than it gets.

Among those using these sorts of words in their headlines are the BBC, Guardian, Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, Independent, Wall Street Journal, TVNZ, along with numerous others. The Daily Mail did have an analysis which pointed out that this was not, in actual fact, a surprise, and The Telegraph did likewise.

So why does Irish captain William Porterfield agree that his team's win was not an upset? It comes down (on his end) to the fact that Ireland is actually a pretty good team. There is also the issue of the West Indies, but that is for another time. For now, let us focus on Irish cricket.

When Ireland won their first World Cup match in 2007, that was a genuine upset. They fell agonisingly short against Zimbabwe, but Pakistan was meant to be better than them, and Ireland were meant to be just one of those easybeat teams the ICC had invited along. Instead a team full of amateurs took full advantage of a green tinged pitch and an opposition prone to brain explosions to produce a memorable win.

When Ireland beat another full member nation at the 2011 World Cup, it took a mammoth effort from one man. Kevin O'Brien scored a remarkable century to carry his team to their target of 328. By this time Ireland was not just another group of amateurs. Cricket Ireland had brought in central contracts, and Ireland had been regularly winning the Intercontinental Cup for years. But England, their arch rival, were undoubtedly favourites, especially after putting up such a large total. The idea of Ireland winning wasn't as foreign as it was in '07, but it was hardly expected.

This time around, it's different. Ireland is even more experienced than it was in 2011. The core of the team, particularly the batting, is still mostly the same, and they're had four years to gain experience (not that the full member nations have been much help there). The central contracts have expanded. Cricket Ireland has set up what is essentially a first class system. Phil Simmons is still in charge. Possibly most important of all, many of players in the squad are playing county cricket. In the long run that may be an issue, as Ireland tries to balance its own system with the lure of the county system, but right now it means that Ireland has a wealth of experience and talent to draw on. As it stands, the only players without county experience are Cusack, Mooney, Sorensen and Thompson. Sorensen replaced Middlesex's Tim Murtagh, and of the remaining three only Mooney is a regular first XI player.

This is without two other notable Irishmen who have been lured across the sea - absentee Boyd Rankin, and English captain Eoin Morgan. So, then, the Irish squad is brimming with experienced, talented players, playing for the best Associate nation going around. They are playing against an opposition who are disinterested, not at full strength, full of internal squabbling and being led by a 23 year old captain, who was only appointed a couple of months ago. What, exactly, about this scenario screams 'stunning upset'?

It seems the biggest battle Ireland faces is their perception amongst the casual cricketing public. There are (apparently) many who still think that the nation is question has no interest in cricket, and isn't even aware of there being a cricket world cup. But why is it necessary for the headline writers to pander to this supposed audience? Surely said audience will be just as surprised by a headline like 'Ireland cruise to four wicket victory over West Indies'. Perhaps it suggests something about how much attention the journalists in question are paying to Ireland that they think it is a shock.

Thankfully, there are those who know what they are talking about.

As Sambit Bal put it: "I am afraid Michael Holding will have to wait for the first upset of the World Cup. West Indies aren't likely to pull this off."

The Five Minute Cricket World Cup Preview

With the Cricket World Cup upon us, there are countless previews out there online and in print. But in this all too fast world of ours, who has time to read those wordy, well-though out previews? Instead, let me offer you this easy to understand, quick to read guide that will tell you everything you need to know about the longest sports tournament ever. Please note there are three teams listed as making the final, and five as making the quarters. This is because they are impossible to split.

Afghanistan

Batting: Flaky

Bowling: Match-winning

Fielding: Poor

Position: Group

Australia

Batting: Good

Bowling: Good

Fielding: Good

Position: Final

Bangladesh

Batting: Confused

Bowling: Spinning

Fielding: Okay

Position: Group

England

Batting: Prepared

Bowling: One-paced

Fielding: Fine

Position: Quarters

India

Batting: Uncomfortable

Bowling: Thumped

Fielding: Hmm

Position: Quarters

Ireland

Batting: Starters

Bowling: Promising

Fielding: Acceptable

Position: Quarters

New Zealand

Batting: Striking

Bowling: Watchable

Fielding: Sure

Position: Final

Pakistan

Batting: Misbahesque

Bowling: Lacking

Fielding: Eh

Position: Quarters

Scotland

Batting: Learning

Bowling: Surprise

Fielding: Yes

Position: Group

South Africa

Batting: Wow

Bowling: 4/5

Fielding: Proven

Position: Final

Sri Lanka

Batting: Top-heavy

Bowling: Heralinga

Fielding: Affirmative

Position: Quarters

United Arab Emirates

Batting: Tries

Bowling: No

Fielding: Exists

Position: Group

West Indies

Batting: Careless

Bowling: Demoralised

Fielding: Athletic

Position: Group

Zimbabwe

Batting: Possibly

Bowling: Hopeful

Fielding: Re-energised

Position: Group

In a decade six weeks from now, once the tournament finally finishes, we will know how accurate these words are.

But if we're wrong, we won't post a correction, because who has time for that in today's world? Who cares? We can just say whatever we like without any consequences, because that's how the media works, right?

Right?

Chapter One

There are many things in this world that frustrate us.

Inevitably, that which frustrates us the most are the things we care about the most as well. Occasionally, if we care about something enough, we may be driven to express our frustrations in some form or another. If we spend long enough thinking about these things, the stray thoughts may start to come together to form one coherent thought that needs to be expressed.
 
This site will be an expression of those thoughts.

While I generally enjoy the things that I will comment on, I do not do so blindly. If there is a failing somewhere in something I enjoy, an issue that should be addressed, I will bring it up here. If I have really enjoyed some aspect of these things, I will also bring it up here. It would not do to be all negative, all the time.

Hopefully you like the things I like. If you don't, hopefully I can make you interested in at least some of them. If you still don't, that's fine.

I am Dissenter, and this is my game.