Back in December I gave my thoughts on the future of West Indies cricket, during their embarrassing tour of Australia. It wasn't a positive outlook, particularly for the notion of the 'West Indies' continuing as one team.
For much of the cricketing world, their first ever success in the Under-19s World Cup is a much needed sign of something blooming in the West Indies, a sign that maybe, just maybe, things were looking up for cricket in the region. Well, I don't mean to be a downer (even if I did, Tony Cozier got there first), but this seems unlikely.
I said in December that 'the biggest problem facing the Windies is not talent.' This is evidently true, else they would not have won this World Cup. Talent has not ever, and will never, be a problem for the islands of the Caribbean. To be honest, I doubt talent is really, truly much of a problem in any country at all. Cricket is the kind of sport that really only needs a small amount of gems to create something magnificent.
As such, this win is not a sign of a turn-around in the administration or coaching of cricket across the islands. If anything, it can be attributed to the right circumstances coming at the right time. If we hold, as I do, that disunity is the fundamental problem with the West Indies, then clearly the solution is to unite them again. So, can you think of anything that happened during the U19 WC that could have united this team?
I can.
Their win over Zimbabwe.
It is unfair on mankading to call the end of that game a mankad, but whatever it actually was, it brought the ire of the majority of the cricket community on their young heads. The language of some of said ire was actually just as poor as the incident itself, and it seems to me that few things can unite a group as much as unfair criticism (perceived or real) being heaped upon them. Keep in mind, prior to this the team had been far from impressive, with just a loss to England and an untidy win over the out-of-their-depth Fiji to their name. Prior to that they had been whitewashed by the Bangladesh U19s in a pre-tournament series. Not exactly the form of a world champion.
But after the win over their poorer full member cousins (as amazing as it is that there can be teams poorer than them), the team just seemed to click. Everything started working, and nothing could stop them. They were, like the Windies teams of old, united.
But this doesn't really mean much in the long run. It's the most short-term solution you can imagine: a one-off event for a tournament most of them will never play in again, though hopefully many will end up playing in the full version in the years to come.
It does nothing to address the fundamental issues facing the senior players, a group they will soon join. It does nothing to address the fundamental issue of total disunity at the (inter)national level. If some of these players get thrown into the national squad straight away, the likely result would be another generation of players thrown away to a war that can't be won.
It's not as though the disputes between players and board have gone away. They're right there, looming over the World T20, just waiting for another chance to interfere in the playing of international cricket.
So all the best to the winning Windies, I hope they savour the victory. But I suspect many of these young men will end up playing international cricket in colours other than maroon.
(As an aside, these are the nations that these players divided into:
Antigua and Barbuda: Alzarri Joseph
Barbados: Chemar Holder, Shamar Springer
Grenada: Ryan John, Emmanuel Stewart
Guyana: Shimron Hetmeyer, Tevan Imlach, Keemo Paul
Jamaica: Shahid Crooks, Michael Frew, Odean Smith
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Obed McCoy, Gidron Pope
Sint Maarten: Keacy Carty
Trinidad and Tobago: Jyd Goolie, Kirsten Kallicharan)
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Thursday, 18 February 2016
Friday, 22 January 2016
Nathan Hauritz and what could have been
This week, Nathan Hauritz retired.
It was not an announcement that many were surprised by, or even took notice of. Most Australian cricket fans will have barely remembered that, for two years, he was our number one spinner. History will probably not remember him fondly, perhaps as little more than a footnote between Shane Warne and Nathan Lyon.
But I will.
To be fair, even I don't remember his Test debut in 2004, a one-off in the 4th Test of a series against India that Australia had already won. Hauritz took five wickets playing as the first spinner, an impressive performance for a young tyro. This came of the back of eight ODIs played over 2002 and 2003 which were more nondescript, and was followed by a return to domestic cricket which was similarly quiet. It took a move from Queensland to New South Wales, the retirement of Warne and Stuart MacGill, and the trying out of Dan Cullen (prior to Warne's retirement), Beau Casson, Jason Krejza, Cameron White and Bryce McGain before he managed to find himself back in the baggy green, but this time, he was there to stay.
Or so it should have been. The reason I will not forget Nathan Hauritz is because I was, and still am, consistently amazed by how poorly he was treated by the media, by the public, by his captain, and - above all - by the selectors.
Hauritz's Test career is punctuated by the three times he wasn't selected. The first was his aforementioned non-selection between 2004 and 2008, mostly justified until MacGill left the scene, after which it is difficult to understand why it took so long for him to return. The second was in the 2009 Ashes, when he was dropped for Stuart Clark for the 4th Test after solid returns in the first three. Australia won by an innings, with Clark taking an impressive 3/18 in the first innings. But it is difficult to imagine Australia wouldn't have done well with three seamers at Headingley, as Peter Siddle took five wickets in the same innings, while Mitchell Johnson took five wickets and Ben Hilfenhaus four in the second innings. In what should've been a warning to the selectors, Clark went for 74 runs off his eleven overs in that innings, taking no wickets. But instead the panel continued their tradition of never changing a winning team, regardless of individual performances. This allowed England an easy, Ashes winning victory at The Oval, as the pitch was a raging turner and Australia had Marcus North as its frontline spinner.
Alas, the selectors did not learn their lesson. The career ending non-selection for Hauritz was the third occurrence, coming a year later in the Ashes squad for the first Test in Brisbane. Hauritz had performed poorly, but not unexpectedly so, against India in India, while the opposition spinners led the wicket taking charts in the two Test series. That this should lead to the humiliation of being dropped for Xavier Doherty and Michael Beer in the same series seems remarkably unfair. After picking Doherty for the first two Tests, he was dropped for Mitchell Johnson, who performed well in Perth, delivering a match-winning spell in the first innings. The selectors, though faced with a different pitch than the one in Perth, left the bowling attack unchanged, leaving Stephen Smith as the frontline spinner as England romped to an Ashes winning victory. Sound familiar?
Alas, the selectors did not learn their lesson. Michael Beer, after a decent season with the ball for Western Australia, got the call up for the fifth Test in Sydney, presumably because they were too proud too admit their mistake in dropping Hauritz. In any case, Beer played his one and only Test and didn't do a great deal in it, while Hauritz continued plugging away at domestic level. The selectors then tried to make up for it by selecting him for the ODI series, only to dislocate his shoulder in the second ODI.
And that was the end of that.
So far, I've only really focussed on the selectors, but the other parties I mentioned earlier deserve some time under our gaze as well. The media and the public worked seemingly in tandem to sap Hauritz's confidence as often as possible. The aftermath of the Warne/MacGill years were harsh for Australian spinner, and Hauritz, a naturally private person whose off-spin was more about variations and bounce than about turn, was especially susceptible to this. He quickly became a player who appeared to be just one game away from being dropped, as the media questioned his ability and the public cried out for someone who fit their ideal of an Australian spinner more closely, seemingly not realising that he was quite literally the best the country had to offer. The selectors, of course, did nothing to help in this when they managed to find such crucial moments in which not to pick him, forcing him to start from scratch again and again.
As for his captain...while Ricky Ponting was a better captain by the end of his time in the role than he was at the start, he never seemed to get the hang of how to use spinners. Being blessed with Warne and MacGill, spinners who knew what they wanted and could back it up with results, turned into a curse as spinners with less confidence, experience and ability rotated through the Australian dressing room, rather like the most daunting job interviews on Earth. Here, Ponting decided to take on the role of deciding when to bowl the spinners and what fields they should bowl to, and his decisions were not conducive to the confidence of his spinners, with a defensive mindset dominating as he tried to hang on to a legacy of dominance that no longer matched his squad.
What would Hauritz have looked like under Michael Clarke? I imagine much like his replacement has managed. His fellow Nathan, of the Lyon variety, has become Australia's highest off-spinning wicket-taker in Tests, despite starting at a similar base to Hauritz, and being of a similar personality and bowling style. But Lyon received the support he needed at the time he needed it, despite a few bumps, and is now reaping the benefits.
This is not to say Hauritz would've succeeded to the same extent, or in the same way. I suspect he wouldn't have taken quite as many wickets, simply due to the slight differences in their bowling style. But the similarities of their records are hard to ignore, and Hauritz was decent with the blade as well.
Hauritz's career can perhaps be summed up in the story of him selling his cricket gear in a garage sale. Why? Because it was a factually inaccurate and misleading story, perpetuated and used by the public to attack him, emblematic of a lack of support from his team and the result of being wrongfully dropped. Despite its falsehood, it felt at the time like the sign that his Australian career was over. Now we know it is, and can only ponder what could have been.
It was not an announcement that many were surprised by, or even took notice of. Most Australian cricket fans will have barely remembered that, for two years, he was our number one spinner. History will probably not remember him fondly, perhaps as little more than a footnote between Shane Warne and Nathan Lyon.
But I will.
To be fair, even I don't remember his Test debut in 2004, a one-off in the 4th Test of a series against India that Australia had already won. Hauritz took five wickets playing as the first spinner, an impressive performance for a young tyro. This came of the back of eight ODIs played over 2002 and 2003 which were more nondescript, and was followed by a return to domestic cricket which was similarly quiet. It took a move from Queensland to New South Wales, the retirement of Warne and Stuart MacGill, and the trying out of Dan Cullen (prior to Warne's retirement), Beau Casson, Jason Krejza, Cameron White and Bryce McGain before he managed to find himself back in the baggy green, but this time, he was there to stay.
Or so it should have been. The reason I will not forget Nathan Hauritz is because I was, and still am, consistently amazed by how poorly he was treated by the media, by the public, by his captain, and - above all - by the selectors.
Hauritz's Test career is punctuated by the three times he wasn't selected. The first was his aforementioned non-selection between 2004 and 2008, mostly justified until MacGill left the scene, after which it is difficult to understand why it took so long for him to return. The second was in the 2009 Ashes, when he was dropped for Stuart Clark for the 4th Test after solid returns in the first three. Australia won by an innings, with Clark taking an impressive 3/18 in the first innings. But it is difficult to imagine Australia wouldn't have done well with three seamers at Headingley, as Peter Siddle took five wickets in the same innings, while Mitchell Johnson took five wickets and Ben Hilfenhaus four in the second innings. In what should've been a warning to the selectors, Clark went for 74 runs off his eleven overs in that innings, taking no wickets. But instead the panel continued their tradition of never changing a winning team, regardless of individual performances. This allowed England an easy, Ashes winning victory at The Oval, as the pitch was a raging turner and Australia had Marcus North as its frontline spinner.
Alas, the selectors did not learn their lesson. The career ending non-selection for Hauritz was the third occurrence, coming a year later in the Ashes squad for the first Test in Brisbane. Hauritz had performed poorly, but not unexpectedly so, against India in India, while the opposition spinners led the wicket taking charts in the two Test series. That this should lead to the humiliation of being dropped for Xavier Doherty and Michael Beer in the same series seems remarkably unfair. After picking Doherty for the first two Tests, he was dropped for Mitchell Johnson, who performed well in Perth, delivering a match-winning spell in the first innings. The selectors, though faced with a different pitch than the one in Perth, left the bowling attack unchanged, leaving Stephen Smith as the frontline spinner as England romped to an Ashes winning victory. Sound familiar?
Alas, the selectors did not learn their lesson. Michael Beer, after a decent season with the ball for Western Australia, got the call up for the fifth Test in Sydney, presumably because they were too proud too admit their mistake in dropping Hauritz. In any case, Beer played his one and only Test and didn't do a great deal in it, while Hauritz continued plugging away at domestic level. The selectors then tried to make up for it by selecting him for the ODI series, only to dislocate his shoulder in the second ODI.
And that was the end of that.
So far, I've only really focussed on the selectors, but the other parties I mentioned earlier deserve some time under our gaze as well. The media and the public worked seemingly in tandem to sap Hauritz's confidence as often as possible. The aftermath of the Warne/MacGill years were harsh for Australian spinner, and Hauritz, a naturally private person whose off-spin was more about variations and bounce than about turn, was especially susceptible to this. He quickly became a player who appeared to be just one game away from being dropped, as the media questioned his ability and the public cried out for someone who fit their ideal of an Australian spinner more closely, seemingly not realising that he was quite literally the best the country had to offer. The selectors, of course, did nothing to help in this when they managed to find such crucial moments in which not to pick him, forcing him to start from scratch again and again.
As for his captain...while Ricky Ponting was a better captain by the end of his time in the role than he was at the start, he never seemed to get the hang of how to use spinners. Being blessed with Warne and MacGill, spinners who knew what they wanted and could back it up with results, turned into a curse as spinners with less confidence, experience and ability rotated through the Australian dressing room, rather like the most daunting job interviews on Earth. Here, Ponting decided to take on the role of deciding when to bowl the spinners and what fields they should bowl to, and his decisions were not conducive to the confidence of his spinners, with a defensive mindset dominating as he tried to hang on to a legacy of dominance that no longer matched his squad.
What would Hauritz have looked like under Michael Clarke? I imagine much like his replacement has managed. His fellow Nathan, of the Lyon variety, has become Australia's highest off-spinning wicket-taker in Tests, despite starting at a similar base to Hauritz, and being of a similar personality and bowling style. But Lyon received the support he needed at the time he needed it, despite a few bumps, and is now reaping the benefits.
This is not to say Hauritz would've succeeded to the same extent, or in the same way. I suspect he wouldn't have taken quite as many wickets, simply due to the slight differences in their bowling style. But the similarities of their records are hard to ignore, and Hauritz was decent with the blade as well.
Hauritz's career can perhaps be summed up in the story of him selling his cricket gear in a garage sale. Why? Because it was a factually inaccurate and misleading story, perpetuated and used by the public to attack him, emblematic of a lack of support from his team and the result of being wrongfully dropped. Despite its falsehood, it felt at the time like the sign that his Australian career was over. Now we know it is, and can only ponder what could have been.
Tuesday, 5 January 2016
Gayle the debaucher finally meets his match
Chris Gayle's blatant sexual innuendos and general manner towards Mel McLaughlin was, apparently, a surprise to some people. I do not understand why, as Gayle has, since being dropped as West Indies captain, become the most obvious example of someone who doesn't care about anything but his own pleasure you'll find in the cricketing world. For the past five years he has more or less done whatever he wants with the big money he gets from his many T20 league contracts. Judging from his social media profiles, most of that goes towards all the pleasures this world can afford.
Knowing this, why would anyone be shocked by this happening? Gayle has been doing this for years, so there should be no excuse for turning a blind eye towards it up until now. The real shock is actually this: the Melbourne Renegades thought it was a good idea to bring Gayle into their team.
Gayle has spent a few seasons in Australia, most recently with the Sydney Thunder, but that was three years ago. Gayle's on-field performances since then have dipped, as he tours around the world on the back of his big-hitting reputation. Certainly, he doesn't offer much else that other players couldn't similarly do, without his potential to be lazy and offer nothing significant to the team. This is exacerbated by his off-field behaviour, which Chris Rogers thought was problematic when they shared the Thunder shirt in 2012/13.
You'd think there would at least be some level of communication about this between teams and players. If there wasn't, then that is a problem that needs to be rectified. But if there was, and it was ignored because of Gayle's on-field ability, then that is actually a bigger problem. This is not someone who should be playing in the Big Bash League, because what he gives is far less than what he takes away. Hopefully now he will be considered persona non grata within the league, because there appears to be little chance he will change his ways any time soon.
Knowing this, why would anyone be shocked by this happening? Gayle has been doing this for years, so there should be no excuse for turning a blind eye towards it up until now. The real shock is actually this: the Melbourne Renegades thought it was a good idea to bring Gayle into their team.
Gayle has spent a few seasons in Australia, most recently with the Sydney Thunder, but that was three years ago. Gayle's on-field performances since then have dipped, as he tours around the world on the back of his big-hitting reputation. Certainly, he doesn't offer much else that other players couldn't similarly do, without his potential to be lazy and offer nothing significant to the team. This is exacerbated by his off-field behaviour, which Chris Rogers thought was problematic when they shared the Thunder shirt in 2012/13.
You'd think there would at least be some level of communication about this between teams and players. If there wasn't, then that is a problem that needs to be rectified. But if there was, and it was ignored because of Gayle's on-field ability, then that is actually a bigger problem. This is not someone who should be playing in the Big Bash League, because what he gives is far less than what he takes away. Hopefully now he will be considered persona non grata within the league, because there appears to be little chance he will change his ways any time soon.
Saturday, 12 December 2015
The future of West Indies cricket
There will be a lot of
speculation over the coming day over the future of the West Indies.
Some of this will be legitimate, pointing out long-standing
difficulties that the joint cricket team has had over the past two
decades. Others will be more short-sighted, and will probably
disappear should the West Indies vaguely improve over the next two
Tests.
It is clear that the
Windies will not win this series. It is also clear that they will
struggle to win. The biggest alarm bell about their performance in
Hobart is that wasn't unexpected. Given the past five years of
movement from the team, which has only consisted of going from bad to
worse, for this once great group of nations to go from losing to a
Cricket Australia XI, full of rookie players, by an innings, to
losing to the Australian Test team by an innings feels almost like an
improvement in and of itself – not because of their own
performance, but because of the leap in quality of opposition.
This very much appears
to be the worst team to tour Australia since Zimbabwe came in 2003,
and we all know how far they've gone since then.
The biggest problem
facing the West Indies is not talent. There is just as much potential
within the peoples of the Caribbean now as it was during their heyday
thirty years ago. The problem is disunity. Remember, the Windies are
a group of nations. These are
all independent, proud countries with their own different histories.
They first came together for cricket in order to give the touring
Commonwealth nations some competition, and no-one ever really thought
to disband them.
By
the time World Series Cricket came around, they were becoming unified
not by their relationship to each other, but to that of the other
nations they were up against. The West Indies cricket team was a way
of getting back at the old colonial powers. It was a way for these
nations to prove themselves. This was stated numerous times as being
one the key factors in their unification and subsequent dominance of
world cricket.
So,
what happened? Well, they did it. They proved themselves on the world
stage, bashed around the colonial powers and dominated cricket for
years. Like all successful kingdoms and powers, they got lazy. They
didn't prepare themselves for the years ahead, and seemed to presume
that their dominance would just carry on.
Part
of the problem, to be fair, was that much of their dominance was
built on top of things outside of their control. The county
championship was undoubtedly the biggest factor in getting their
players to move beyond 'potential' and into greatness. As the
strength of county cricket fell away during the 1990s, and the amount
of West Indians entering county cricket dropped, the Caribbean
domestic league was unable to take its place. Domestic cricket is not
cheap to organise for the WICB, as it involves flying players to
whole other countries. This, along with the region's lack of wealth,
did not leave much room creating a strong domestic competition,
creating a vicious cycle as the their intentional performances began
to fall away, and as old greats retired. By the 2000s, the beginning
of the end had come. Only in the last five years, though, has this
become abundantly clear.
Today,
the WICB is totally disunited, with poor domestic structures (in
every way imaginable), players who aren't interested in playing for a
team that isn't their own nation, players who aren't willing to give
up T20 wealth for the sake of a collective group of nations, and
international structures that give them no assistance other than
keeping them treading water above the Associates (many of whom could
beat them on a good day).
Soon,
the West Indies will be no more. This seems inevitable. The question
is simply whether it will happen by action, or by default. The former
involves their performances collapsing to such a point that the ICC
will have no choice but to prevent them from playing Test cricket, as
they did with Zimbabwe, which will almost inevitably spill over into
the breaking apart of the WICB. The latter will happen if cricket
becomes an Olympic sport. There can be no West Indies team in the
Olympics. Each nation within the WICB will be forced to compete on
their own – if they can qualify at all. Should the international
results continue to head south, it would not be that surprising if
the collective boards decide to make this a permanent state of
affairs.
The
question then is what happens to these teams within the ICC. How
strong would they be? Would they only be on Associate level?
It
is difficult to imagine any of the individual nations within the
Windward or Leeward Islands being able to put together a team that
would satisfy the current ICC requirements for a full member nation,
so the question is essentially being asked of four nations: Jamaica,
Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana. Here's how these teams may
look at full strength if they were going to play tomorrow.
Barbados
Kraigg
Braithwaite
Dwayne
Smith
Jonathon
Carter
Shane
Dowrich
Carlos
Braithwaite
Shai
Hope+
Jason
Holder
Ashley
Nurse
Kemar
Roach
Sulieman
Benn
Fidel
Edwards
Guyana
Rajendra
Chandrika
Assad
Fudadin
Leon
Johnson
Shivnarine
Chanderpaul
Vishaul
Singh
Narsingh
Deonarine
Chris
Barnwell
Anthony
Bramble+
Steven
Jacobs
Veersammy
Permaul
Devendra
Bishoo
Jamaica
Chris
Gayle
Kirk
Edwards
Jermaine
Blackwood
Marlon
Samuels
Andre
Russell
Carlton
Baugh
Chadwick
Walton+
David
Bernard
Jerome
Taylor
Nikita
Miller
Sheldon
Cottrell
Trinidad
and Tobago
Kyle
Hope
Lendl
Simmons
Darren
Bravo
Jason
Mohammed
Dwayne
Bravo
Yannick
Ottley
Denesh
Ramdin+
Rayad
Emrit
Imran
Khan
Ravi
Rampaul
Shannon
Gabriel
Each
of these teams has its own strengths and weaknesses. Jamaica is
essentially a Test team, with a relatively strong batting line-up,
though the bowling is unimpressive. Barbados is at the opposite end
of the spectrum, with good bowlers along with more all-rounders,
though the weakness of their batting leaves them looking more like a
top Associate nation. Trinidad and Tobago is full of experience, both
at international and domestic level, but lacks top order batting and
significant fast bowling, making them seem like a truly pieced
together Associate team. But that is nothing compared to Guyana,
whose pace bowling options are essentially non-existent, with their
three frontline bowlers being spinners (albeit with the variety of
off, leg and left arm orthodox spin).
These
teams are at least capable. The question is whether playing for their
own nation will spur them on to greater things, playing with more
pride and showing more on the field than they have in their careers
so far. Furthermore, will this properly spur on the next generation,
knowing that they will play for their own countries? If so, then this
is something worth doing. Let us hope the cricket boards of these
nations are prepared for the inevitable.
Thursday, 10 December 2015
They see a red ball and they want it painted pink
The first ever day/night Test match was a roaring success.
This was, at least, the opinion of Cricket Australia (as if they would ever say otherwise) and the media (who know which side their bread is buttered on). It was also the opinion of the players...until it wasn't.
After the Test match all the players were using words that sounded like a ringing endorsement of the concept. They may well have been only that - a ringing endorsement of the concept.
Then, a few days ago, David Warner and Nathan Lyon began sounding less than enthusiastic.
And now, the results have come in from the players who played in the Test match, and it turns out the majority of players actually don't think it worked very well at all.
What gives?
All eyes are, of course, on Cricket Australia, who were absolutely dead-set on having the match happen, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the lack of evidence that it worked in the Sheffield Shield, regardless of the opinions of the players who had already used it.
Their reasoning appears simple: it will work well enough for people not to complain too much while it's happening, and crowds will flock as it is such a novelty. Often, the introduction of day/night one day cricket was used as proof of the game evolving and that there was nothing wrong with Test cricket doing likewise.
Unfortunately, as long as the ball doesn't work in an already widely existing form of the game, any such format should not reasonably be supported. This is why the actions of Cricket Australia should draw such ire. Channel Nine, which gained enormous ratings gains from the match, was naturally not interested in putting forward such criticism. Cricinfo, which is more or less independent, became particularly excited for the format as it approached - but it was more likely a mix of genuine belief it would/did work and a realisation there wasn't that much point in fighting this battle when there are bigger fish to fry in world cricket right now. The general public doesn't follow cricket that closely, and is unlikely to notice anything significant, other than the game finishing a lot quicker than the last two, and may even see that as a positive given how awful the first two matches were.
This leaves only the members of the public who are keenly interested in this great sport and its future to argue against the work of CA, which are almost entirely drawn from the AFL. And really, given the latter's last few years, who would want to copy that? Corruption, uninteresting results, constant rule changes, questionable administration with no watchdog and a focus on promoting the game instead of producing a good game. This cannot be cricket's long term future. It will only kill the game.
This was, at least, the opinion of Cricket Australia (as if they would ever say otherwise) and the media (who know which side their bread is buttered on). It was also the opinion of the players...until it wasn't.
After the Test match all the players were using words that sounded like a ringing endorsement of the concept. They may well have been only that - a ringing endorsement of the concept.
Then, a few days ago, David Warner and Nathan Lyon began sounding less than enthusiastic.
And now, the results have come in from the players who played in the Test match, and it turns out the majority of players actually don't think it worked very well at all.
What gives?
All eyes are, of course, on Cricket Australia, who were absolutely dead-set on having the match happen, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the lack of evidence that it worked in the Sheffield Shield, regardless of the opinions of the players who had already used it.
Their reasoning appears simple: it will work well enough for people not to complain too much while it's happening, and crowds will flock as it is such a novelty. Often, the introduction of day/night one day cricket was used as proof of the game evolving and that there was nothing wrong with Test cricket doing likewise.
Unfortunately, as long as the ball doesn't work in an already widely existing form of the game, any such format should not reasonably be supported. This is why the actions of Cricket Australia should draw such ire. Channel Nine, which gained enormous ratings gains from the match, was naturally not interested in putting forward such criticism. Cricinfo, which is more or less independent, became particularly excited for the format as it approached - but it was more likely a mix of genuine belief it would/did work and a realisation there wasn't that much point in fighting this battle when there are bigger fish to fry in world cricket right now. The general public doesn't follow cricket that closely, and is unlikely to notice anything significant, other than the game finishing a lot quicker than the last two, and may even see that as a positive given how awful the first two matches were.
This leaves only the members of the public who are keenly interested in this great sport and its future to argue against the work of CA, which are almost entirely drawn from the AFL. And really, given the latter's last few years, who would want to copy that? Corruption, uninteresting results, constant rule changes, questionable administration with no watchdog and a focus on promoting the game instead of producing a good game. This cannot be cricket's long term future. It will only kill the game.
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Cricket Australia XI - almost a good idea
Cricket Australia's decision to relegate the domestic one day tournament to little more than a pre-season competition has had some upsides. Getting domestic cricket back on free-to-air is one, but the idea with the most potential is that it creates space for more teams to enter the competition. Because all the teams are in the same city for a few weeks, the travel costs are lessened, and every team can play games every few days. Because CA wants to have each team play six games, rather than five, in previous seasons each team would have to play another twice instead of once. In light of this, 2015 saw a seventh team introduced: the Cricket Australia XI.
You would expect such a team to be a best-of-the-rest squad, a group of players which didn't quite make it into their respective state teams for the tournament but are still good enough to get a spot. Along with these players you could also throw in a few young tyros, so they can gain some experience from players who have been around the traps, and so they can put their talents in front of selectors and the watching public.
Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Just as the reserves competition was wrecked by turning it into the 'Futures League' and promoting young players before they were ready, so it was with the CA XI, which consisted only of players aged 23 and under who did not make their state squads. To be fair, some players that didn't end up playing were only pushed out of their state squads because of the cancelled tour of Bangladesh, but there is hardly a shortage of potential veterans and fringe players who could have been called up, in a similar vein to the old Unicorns team that once played in the English domestic competition. This change also strengthened the CA XI squad, as some good young players (such as Marcus Harris and Jimmy Peirson) were dropped from their state squads and could still qualify for the youth team. But really, this is how the teams should've been in the first place, as cramming in a tour of Bangladesh just before the home summer felt like it was done out of obligation than desire.
The changes also weren't enough. As it was, the CA XI were absolutely demolished, winning only one match (by a mere three runs) against Tasmania on a low, slow surface. This was following the biggest ever defeats in terms of runs, and then in terms of balls remaining, which happened against New South Wales and Victoria respectively. Their remaining opponents also remained mostly untroubled, leaving the CA XI with a rather lopsided results card, and few encouraging signs for their players, while leaving us spectators wondering what the point of it all was.
This was, like with the Futures League, the brainchild of Greg Chappell, whose obsession with youth is putting actual development and stability of the game at risk. It would actually do a world of good if state players were put up against players of experience and quality who were pushing for their spots and just missed out - so they can be reminded of the standards required - and for those select few young players to gain as much experience as they can in the abbreviated tournament. Imagine throwing Ben Rohrer, David Hussey, Jon Wells, Josh Lalor, Fawad Ahmed and Nathan Hauritz into the squad. Would it make them world-beaters? By no means. But would they be more competitive? Absolutely.
This is not the only potential solution, either, if CA was willing to look beyond our shores. There are two Associate nations, one of which is particularly nearby, who have One Day International status. They don't get to play many games, and could do with some experience. Why not have them join in the tournament? Papua New Guinea already plays in the SACA Premier League, which finished before the Matador Cup begins, so transport is hardly a massive issue, while their First Class competition only begun after the final. Hong Kong is even more cricket starved and, although further away, would be a worthwhile addition. It may also be worth considering an ACT/Country NSW team, at least for the Cup, to account for the disparity of talent coming out of that state. Having said that, doing such a thing could give other states the belief they can relax their standards, knowing they will remain unpunished off the field because the best performing state has been split in two.
In any case, all of these are better alternatives than what we were given. The one day competition is already somewhat of an afterthought for Cricket Australia, but that does not mean it deserves to be treated with such a poorly thought out idea.
You would expect such a team to be a best-of-the-rest squad, a group of players which didn't quite make it into their respective state teams for the tournament but are still good enough to get a spot. Along with these players you could also throw in a few young tyros, so they can gain some experience from players who have been around the traps, and so they can put their talents in front of selectors and the watching public.
Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Just as the reserves competition was wrecked by turning it into the 'Futures League' and promoting young players before they were ready, so it was with the CA XI, which consisted only of players aged 23 and under who did not make their state squads. To be fair, some players that didn't end up playing were only pushed out of their state squads because of the cancelled tour of Bangladesh, but there is hardly a shortage of potential veterans and fringe players who could have been called up, in a similar vein to the old Unicorns team that once played in the English domestic competition. This change also strengthened the CA XI squad, as some good young players (such as Marcus Harris and Jimmy Peirson) were dropped from their state squads and could still qualify for the youth team. But really, this is how the teams should've been in the first place, as cramming in a tour of Bangladesh just before the home summer felt like it was done out of obligation than desire.
The changes also weren't enough. As it was, the CA XI were absolutely demolished, winning only one match (by a mere three runs) against Tasmania on a low, slow surface. This was following the biggest ever defeats in terms of runs, and then in terms of balls remaining, which happened against New South Wales and Victoria respectively. Their remaining opponents also remained mostly untroubled, leaving the CA XI with a rather lopsided results card, and few encouraging signs for their players, while leaving us spectators wondering what the point of it all was.
This was, like with the Futures League, the brainchild of Greg Chappell, whose obsession with youth is putting actual development and stability of the game at risk. It would actually do a world of good if state players were put up against players of experience and quality who were pushing for their spots and just missed out - so they can be reminded of the standards required - and for those select few young players to gain as much experience as they can in the abbreviated tournament. Imagine throwing Ben Rohrer, David Hussey, Jon Wells, Josh Lalor, Fawad Ahmed and Nathan Hauritz into the squad. Would it make them world-beaters? By no means. But would they be more competitive? Absolutely.
This is not the only potential solution, either, if CA was willing to look beyond our shores. There are two Associate nations, one of which is particularly nearby, who have One Day International status. They don't get to play many games, and could do with some experience. Why not have them join in the tournament? Papua New Guinea already plays in the SACA Premier League, which finished before the Matador Cup begins, so transport is hardly a massive issue, while their First Class competition only begun after the final. Hong Kong is even more cricket starved and, although further away, would be a worthwhile addition. It may also be worth considering an ACT/Country NSW team, at least for the Cup, to account for the disparity of talent coming out of that state. Having said that, doing such a thing could give other states the belief they can relax their standards, knowing they will remain unpunished off the field because the best performing state has been split in two.
In any case, all of these are better alternatives than what we were given. The one day competition is already somewhat of an afterthought for Cricket Australia, but that does not mean it deserves to be treated with such a poorly thought out idea.
Thursday, 16 July 2015
The David to the Ashes' Goliath
There are currently two international cricket series going on that stand at opposite ends of the cricketing spectrum. On the one hand, the old rivals of England and Australia are playing each other for the Ashes. On the other hand, the Twenty20 World Cup Qualifiers are being played between eligible Associate nations. I am an Australian with a love of Test cricket. Surely it is clear which of the two I am more interested in?
Yes, it's the Qualifiers. Why is this?
It certainly isn't out of love for T20, a format designed to be consumed and forgotten. It's more a matter of principle. The Ashes are a behemoth, towering over all else in the two competing nations. As a result, the two respective boards have sought, of late, to milk them to the utmost extent. This also extends to non-Ashes format, like ODIs. England has been on FTA television in Australia quite possibly every year since at least 2010. The regularity of the contest has robbed it of feeling special, while the amount of matches these two nations play every year also means that there doesn't seem to be any context to them.
There is a saving grace, in that it is still Test cricket on free-to-air television, and thus I will put it on, but normally I would also be following the news closely before, during and after the series. Not so in this case. I couldn't even bring myself to read the Cricinfo preview for the first Test.
On the other hand, we have the qualifiers. I repeat, I have no love for T20. The idea of a T20 World Cup does not fill me with excitement, or, really, any interest for the cricket that will be on show. But the teams competing in these games aren't Australia or England. They are Nepal and Jersey, Oman and Papua New Guinea. These are teams that are being deliberately ignored by the all powerful cricket administrators from the big countries. I want to see these teams playing cricket however I can, and the those in charge keep taking those opportunities away.
If you're not a big full member, you don't get wall to wall media coverage. In fact, you barely get any coverage at all, only occasionally crossing orbit with the mainstream media when a World Cup comes around, and even then generally only when one of your matches is against a full member and something interesting happens (generally against you, instead of by you). Furthermore, even if there was wall to wall coverage, there wouldn't be much to cover. The amount of matches these teams play is paltry, matching the funding they receive. As a result, the matches they play in the far flung reaches of the world are often covered only by volunteers who fly out to these places, relying on a small income or donations to do so. They do this not for a great mass of people, but for the most dedicated of cricket fans, those of us who want more teams playing more cricket across the world because we love the sport and think that these nations have something to offer.
But now, even this is being taken away. The ICC, in their wisdom, has sold off the ball-by-ball commentary rights to a group that does the commentary by automaton. This commentary is only available on the ICC's website. Here's a piece of commentary that I took from today's match between Canada and Scotland:
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
How enthralling!
If the ICC genuinely believes that this is adequate for ball-by-ball text coverage, then they do not know what they are doing. Previously, ball-by-ball was provided almost always by CricketEurope, and also from time to time by Cricinfo. These sites know how to do ball by ball, because they use people to do them, and they describe what is happening with each ball so that those reading can get imagine how it looked. The five singles in the above over could've all gone to the same fielder for all I know. There may have been an edge, a beautiful shot that went straight to a fielder, and dubious shot that they scrounged a single out of. We'll never know, because they don't tell us.
More likely is that they don't care. Opta, the group that does this commentary, has bought the rights. The ICC gets views on its website from those who are dedicated enough to follow, and also money from Opta buying the rights. What do they need CricketEurope for?
Well, CE is still providing updates, and posts full commentary at the end of the match for those that want to read it. But it isn't the same as having it live, and it's hard to believe the ICC is receiving much income from Opta for this. That they should still choose to pick this ordinary service over the work of volunteers for a set of matches they clearly aren't interested in anyway speaks volumes about those in charge. It is good that those beneath them still care enough about cricket to let CE do what they can, as otherwise Associate cricket may as well not exist.
Yes, it's the Qualifiers. Why is this?
It certainly isn't out of love for T20, a format designed to be consumed and forgotten. It's more a matter of principle. The Ashes are a behemoth, towering over all else in the two competing nations. As a result, the two respective boards have sought, of late, to milk them to the utmost extent. This also extends to non-Ashes format, like ODIs. England has been on FTA television in Australia quite possibly every year since at least 2010. The regularity of the contest has robbed it of feeling special, while the amount of matches these two nations play every year also means that there doesn't seem to be any context to them.
There is a saving grace, in that it is still Test cricket on free-to-air television, and thus I will put it on, but normally I would also be following the news closely before, during and after the series. Not so in this case. I couldn't even bring myself to read the Cricinfo preview for the first Test.
On the other hand, we have the qualifiers. I repeat, I have no love for T20. The idea of a T20 World Cup does not fill me with excitement, or, really, any interest for the cricket that will be on show. But the teams competing in these games aren't Australia or England. They are Nepal and Jersey, Oman and Papua New Guinea. These are teams that are being deliberately ignored by the all powerful cricket administrators from the big countries. I want to see these teams playing cricket however I can, and the those in charge keep taking those opportunities away.
If you're not a big full member, you don't get wall to wall media coverage. In fact, you barely get any coverage at all, only occasionally crossing orbit with the mainstream media when a World Cup comes around, and even then generally only when one of your matches is against a full member and something interesting happens (generally against you, instead of by you). Furthermore, even if there was wall to wall coverage, there wouldn't be much to cover. The amount of matches these teams play is paltry, matching the funding they receive. As a result, the matches they play in the far flung reaches of the world are often covered only by volunteers who fly out to these places, relying on a small income or donations to do so. They do this not for a great mass of people, but for the most dedicated of cricket fans, those of us who want more teams playing more cricket across the world because we love the sport and think that these nations have something to offer.
But now, even this is being taken away. The ICC, in their wisdom, has sold off the ball-by-ball commentary rights to a group that does the commentary by automaton. This commentary is only available on the ICC's website. Here's a piece of commentary that I took from today's match between Canada and Scotland:
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
R Taylor to N Dhaliwal. He picks up a single
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
R Taylor to N Dhaliwal. He picks up a single
R Taylor to N Dhaliwal, no run. He goes hard at the ball, but straight to the fielder
How enthralling!
If the ICC genuinely believes that this is adequate for ball-by-ball text coverage, then they do not know what they are doing. Previously, ball-by-ball was provided almost always by CricketEurope, and also from time to time by Cricinfo. These sites know how to do ball by ball, because they use people to do them, and they describe what is happening with each ball so that those reading can get imagine how it looked. The five singles in the above over could've all gone to the same fielder for all I know. There may have been an edge, a beautiful shot that went straight to a fielder, and dubious shot that they scrounged a single out of. We'll never know, because they don't tell us.
More likely is that they don't care. Opta, the group that does this commentary, has bought the rights. The ICC gets views on its website from those who are dedicated enough to follow, and also money from Opta buying the rights. What do they need CricketEurope for?
Well, CE is still providing updates, and posts full commentary at the end of the match for those that want to read it. But it isn't the same as having it live, and it's hard to believe the ICC is receiving much income from Opta for this. That they should still choose to pick this ordinary service over the work of volunteers for a set of matches they clearly aren't interested in anyway speaks volumes about those in charge. It is good that those beneath them still care enough about cricket to let CE do what they can, as otherwise Associate cricket may as well not exist.
Thursday, 4 June 2015
Mohammad Sami is probably a zombie
Discussing Pakistan's selection decisions always seems to be a good way to a punchline, but when they select cricketers who are undead, how can the opportunity not be taken?
You may quibble with the idea that Mohammad Sami could possibly be a zombie, but I would ask you to first look at the evidence.
Zombies are notoriously aggressive, to the point of single-mindedness. Anyone who has watched Mohammad Sami bowl can confirm that yes, he is an aggressive bowler and yes, he can be fairly single-mindedness. That mind is to take wickets, and the runs expended getting those wickets is an afterthought, if it comes to mind at all.
Zombies use very basic attacks. Sami, too, uses the most basic attack in a bowler's arsenal: pace. He doesn't really do anything else. Cricinfo states his bowling style as 'right-arm fast'. For someone like Dale Steyn, this doesn't really convey the immense skill involved in their bowling. But for Sami? It's more or less perfect. He uses his right arm, and he bowls fast. That's it.
Zombies cannot feel pain. If Mohammad Sami has ever actually been injured and/or unfit, he doesn't show it. Compared to his teammates, Sami has always been a man of superb fitness, able to deliver long spells at pace and not break down. Some may attribute this to a fitness regime, but we know better.
And above all, zombies cannot die. At this point it seems that Sami, too, cannot die, as, having spent a number of years in the land of the living, he died in 2007 (cause of death: Indian Cricket League syndrome), and has now staged three comebacks, each as ineffectual as the last. Given he is meant to be 34 years old, he could still come back twice more before anyone else notices that something is wrong.
As for how he keeps getting selected...well, one can only assume that the selectors went to have a chat with him, and he responded by eating their brains.
So here's to you, Mohammad Sami, bowler of the undead. May you make unusual comebacks for years to come.
You may quibble with the idea that Mohammad Sami could possibly be a zombie, but I would ask you to first look at the evidence.
Zombies are notoriously aggressive, to the point of single-mindedness. Anyone who has watched Mohammad Sami bowl can confirm that yes, he is an aggressive bowler and yes, he can be fairly single-mindedness. That mind is to take wickets, and the runs expended getting those wickets is an afterthought, if it comes to mind at all.
Zombies use very basic attacks. Sami, too, uses the most basic attack in a bowler's arsenal: pace. He doesn't really do anything else. Cricinfo states his bowling style as 'right-arm fast'. For someone like Dale Steyn, this doesn't really convey the immense skill involved in their bowling. But for Sami? It's more or less perfect. He uses his right arm, and he bowls fast. That's it.
Zombies cannot feel pain. If Mohammad Sami has ever actually been injured and/or unfit, he doesn't show it. Compared to his teammates, Sami has always been a man of superb fitness, able to deliver long spells at pace and not break down. Some may attribute this to a fitness regime, but we know better.
And above all, zombies cannot die. At this point it seems that Sami, too, cannot die, as, having spent a number of years in the land of the living, he died in 2007 (cause of death: Indian Cricket League syndrome), and has now staged three comebacks, each as ineffectual as the last. Given he is meant to be 34 years old, he could still come back twice more before anyone else notices that something is wrong.
As for how he keeps getting selected...well, one can only assume that the selectors went to have a chat with him, and he responded by eating their brains.
So here's to you, Mohammad Sami, bowler of the undead. May you make unusual comebacks for years to come.
Friday, 20 March 2015
County cricket - cornerstone or millstone?
Following England's ignominious exit from the World Cup, the public (at least, those who are still interested in cricket) and the media have been looking for someone or something to blame.
As usual, those first in the firing line are the faces of English cricket: the coach, the captain, the selector, the director, the chairman. Putting some of these people in the firing line is questionable, but it is easy to do.
Surely, though, the most attention should be paid to the structure that they exist within? After all, England has been poor at one day cricket for two decades now, and for most of that time has been poor at international cricket in general.
This is, surely, the result of domestic structures. Australian cricket was hailed for the strength of its six team Sheffield Shield for years. When moves were made to reduce the strength of the Shield 2nd XI competition, it was rightly derided for weakening the entire structure by throwing out older, experienced players. Now, Cricket Australia is trying to lure those players back.
This is in contrast to the ECB, who decided around the same time as CA was making that mistake to do a similar thing, restricting the amount of foreign players that could play in its not-so-strong eighteen team County Championship. They have since hailed this
This alone is not the cause of all their problems, but it hints at some of the issues involved in a domestic structure almost as old as cricket itself. County cricket may not be so much the cornerstone of English cricket, as it is the millstone around cricket's neck.
History
The county championship started life as unofficial games played between join club sides from one county against a joint club side from another, beginning in the 18th century. Over time the county sides became increasingly important, and financially viable, and thus in 1889 was formed the County Championship, to begin the following year. It featured eight teams: Gloucestershire, Kent, Lancashire, Middlesex, Nottinghamshire, Surrey, Sussex and Yorkshire.
Regionally, this meant the south-east of England had as many teams as the rest of England, a theme that remains surprisingly constant throughout the Championship's history. In 1891, Somerset (south-east) joined. Of the next five to join in 1895, two more were from the south-east: Essex and Hampshire. The remaining two clubs to join before the First World War were from the Midlands. So, by 1905 there were sixteen teams, of which seven were from the south-east, and only two from the north. This, in many ways, reflects the place of the game within society at the time. England has been a remarkably class-driven society for a long time, and cricket was undoubtedly one of the favoured sports of the well off. The south-east was also the most common region in which to find these people - and still is.
There is also an interesting footnote to the use of historic counties as the basis for the cricket clubs in the CC. The year that the Championship began, 1890, was the same year that historic counties ceased to be used for administrative purposes. Two of the counties playing that year - Sussex and Yorkshire - had actually had their historic counties split into two and three region respectively. It was already outdated then. Over time, as society evolves, you would expect the sports they play will evolve with it. Cricket has managed to stubbornly resist such change from day dot.
Nonetheless, the system worked well. Up until the Second World War, the game retained its strong mix of amateurism and professionalism. Increasingly after the war, it became something of a finishing school. The little-by-little expansion of cricket into New Zealand, India, Pakistan and, most importantly, the West Indies meant that the most promising players from these countries often found their way into county cricket, which did two things: firstly, it improved the quality of the cricketers coming in. These international players would get to learn from players who had been on the county circuit for years, and had vast experience. This also provided South African players with a future. Would we truly comprehend the quality of players like Garth le Roux and Clive Rice without their county careers?
Secondly, it improved the quality of cricket in England. Having seventeen counties (Glamorgan joined in 1921) meant plenty of room for internationals and domestic players alike. Just as international players would learn from experienced domestic players, so domestic players could learn from experienced internationals. This meant that fringe players could be in a dressing room with Viv Richards one week, and trying out something they've learnt from him in a second XI match the next week. Their experience can then be disseminated to lower levels of the domestic competition.
So at a purely cricketing level, county cricket worked well, both for England and for the cricket world at large. There is, however, the other side of sport that has to be kept in mind - the business side. Low attendances aren't a new thing. The whole reason for the introduction of limited overs cricket, both List A and Twenty20, was to attract crowds that could help support the County Championship. Both of them did that job for a time. But today, county cricket does not appear to be doing its job on or off the field.
Today
When did county cricket stop doing its job on the field? The 2005 Ashes series seems to have been the beginning of the end. It was after this triumph that central contracts were brought in, as the ECB sought to take proper control of the national team and fully realise its business interests. The England Lions second team and the National Academy in Loughborough both came into prominence around this time as well. These three things had the combined effect of taking a large amount of county cricket's best players away from county cricket. Not merely the best fifteen or so playing Test cricket, but also the next fifteen playing for the Lions, and some promising young player at the academy. In a competition with such a large player base, taking the best away seriously damages the quality of the competition, as those taking their place are likely of lower ability than in smaller competitions.
In response the counties, in need of capable replacements, began increasing the number of Kolpak players they were bringing in. This reached its zenith in 2008, when the now-infamous match between Northants and Leics took place with thirteen foreign-born players. This became such a big issue within the press over the course of the season that the ECB managed to influence the Home Office to tighten the restrictions on overseas players for 2009. This appeased not only locals concerned about county cricket, but also Cricket South Africa, whose domestic competition was beginning feeling the pinch of the mass migration.
One other thing is striking about that scorecard. Can you tell which of Leicestershire's overseas players was their official overseas player, rather than a Kolpak player? If you said Boeta Dippenaar, congratulations! You must have a good memory, or cheated. Now, while I don't mean to sully Dippenaar as a player, there doesn't seem to be too much difference between him and the Kolpak players in terms of ability. He's certainly no Viv Richards, and this was true of international players across the board that year. Compare this to Leicestershire's overseas player twenty years earlier, Winston Benjamin.
In fact, pick any match from 1988 and see which overseas players you can find. The quality of these players is substantial, and what is particularly striking is that players genuinely come from all over the world to play. What's also interesting is that, at the time, every club had two overseas players, but the two couldn't play in the same game. Generally this meant picking one well known, high quality overseas player, and one potential young gun. By 2008, this had turned into picking a decent overseas player who could hopefully play a full season, generally because they were either out of favour with their national selectors, or retired. The international schedule now works against county cricket, with both England and international players often unable to play county cricket.
The situation has become even worse since 2008. The limits on Kolpak players has meant that the players filling the void now are generally promising young players, the kind of players who would formerly have to work their way from the second XI to the top team through sheer weight of numbers. International schedules, meanwhile, have become so convoluted that clubs are left with two options - pick one of the aforementioned lesser internationals and hope they play the full season, or try to fill in the gaps with a bunch of different, better internationals. The latter sounds better in theory. For example, Surrey had Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla and Tillakaratne Dilshan for a month each in 2014. But when you keep in mind that the main benefit of such experienced internationals is in what they can teach the players, how much can they really do in a month? They don't really become embedded within the club, which is the kind of situation you want them to be in for them to teach well.
Off the field, things are not so clear. Some counties are in better financial health than others. Worcestershire, for example, have run at a profit for five years running, while Leicestershire relies on the ECB for two thirds of its turnover. Each county faces its own challenges. Surrey, for example, has a far easier time of it than Derbyshire, simply due to location. County cricket as a whole, though, faces a challenge in that the very nature of it being county cricket removes it from much of the population. In order to have good finances, you need decent crowds. In order to have decent crowds, you need to have a population that is both large enough to sustain the club, and connected enough to want to sustain the club by going and watching some cricket.
Twenty20 was meant to be the way for county clubs to reconnect with the public, but overall attendances for the T20 Blast were greatly below what was hoped. County cricket is failing to connect with the people in the same way as it has in the Indian and Australian T20 leagues. In many ways this is the most important part of all. It's not as though any country has large attendances to domestic first-class or list A competitions. But T20 is the one the public comes to see...except in England. What's going on?
Fixturing and a lack of free-to-air television coverage has to share at least some of the blame, but these aren't basic parts of the structure of county cricket. If we're talking about a sport that wants to be seen by as many people live as possible, let's look at where these teams are based.
According to the UK's Office for National Statistics, there are eleven urban areas with a population of 500,000 or more within England and Wales. Ideally there would be at least one county team for each of these urban areas, spread out across the regions. Unfortunately, this is not the case. (Note: I have chosen to use the ONS urban areas rather than EPSON's metropolitan areas, as I think the former gives a better indication of what the public perceives as local).
Nine teams play in one of these urban areas, with a further two playing in areas with 450,000+. This means that there are seven teams playing in areas that could not reasonably be called large population centres.
Furthermore, three of the eleven urban areas (Liverpool, Tyneside and Sheffield) do not have a team. Durham may argue that Chester-le-Street serves Tyneside, but I believe it cannot reasonably be considered to do so (and the ONS agrees, removing Chester-le-Street from the Tyneside urban area at the last census).
Of the remaining seven clubs, four serve small urban areas (Derby, Essex, Northampton, Worcester) and three don't serve an urban area at all (Durham, Kent, Somerset).
If a Twenty20 match happens in a place where no-one goes to see it, what's the point of playing it?
If a sport doesn't have a prominent ground in an urban area of 870,000, and a metro area of 2.3 million, does it even exist?
Unsurprisingly, given its predominance in places that aren't major urban areas, cricket has an image problem in England right now. And even when it is in a major urban area, it's as though that is the exception, rather than the norm. Even Leicestershire, one of the teams with a large urban area, and (even better) with a large Asian population, has mostly failed to connect with the local community, as new chief executive Wasim Khan has stated. Cricket is, perhaps more than it has been since before the Second World War, primarily the estate of the well-off. And, increasingly, the old.
Future
None of this bodes well for the future, and the ECB knows it. The structure of county cricket is one of the things up for review under incoming chairman Colin Graves and chief executive Tom Harrison. Franchises specifically designed for a T20 cricket league have been mooted since the apparent success of the Big Bash League. (Whether the Big Bash needed to become a franchise league to become successful is for another time). But there seems to be a great deal of caution with doing too much to the counties themselves, even though the current situation is unsustainable. The ECB (or Cricket England and Wales, as it will soon be known - CEW?) must figure out a way
Just creating T20 franchises with eighteen teams contesting the other forms of the game won't work, for the simple reason that some clubs will miss out. Attempting to compensate these teams for not playing seems a very difficult thing to do, particularly as they wouldn't just be missing out financially. The primary aim of domestic cricket should be to ensure it is a breeding ground for the international team. Twenty20 tournaments and the like are simply designed to ensure that the breeding ground is sustainable. So, what does the ECB want county cricket to be? As far as I can see, there are three possible solutions.
Option one: Protectionism. Essentially, get the best England players back to playing county cricket. Lions tours and squads must never hurt county sides, and international players must be able to play for their county as often as possible. This reduces the pressure on county sides to find replacements, and also acts as a lure to get audience seeing England's best play for their local side.
Option two: Free market. Let the internationals roam free (to some degree at least). As long as they figure out a way to ensure that they aren't restricting international eligibility for those players, they could make county cricket the pinnacle of domestic cricket. It would genuinely be a finishing school for international players again, as it was when it was part of the reason the West Indies were so formidable.
Option three: Planned. Don't just make franchises for T20, make them for the whole competition. South Africa may yet again help out county cricket, this time by giving them a model to go from. CSA reformed their domestic competition with six franchises playing the four-day, major one day and T20 competitions, while the provincial teams played three-day and minor limited overs competitions. A similar model could well work in England, with one team for each region. This would also prevent the counties, especially the smaller ones, from disappearing, as the franchises are simply chosen from the best players in a particular region. This could also re-establish the role of minor counties, particularly in regions with less major county teams.
There is, of course, no reason why more than one of these can't be done. In any case, it is difficult to see how the county structure survives without some kind of change being made. As it stands today, the place of the sport itself in English society hangs in the balance, increasingly overtaken by other sports. An overhaul of the domestic competition may be just the kickstart English cricket needs.
As usual, those first in the firing line are the faces of English cricket: the coach, the captain, the selector, the director, the chairman. Putting some of these people in the firing line is questionable, but it is easy to do.
Surely, though, the most attention should be paid to the structure that they exist within? After all, England has been poor at one day cricket for two decades now, and for most of that time has been poor at international cricket in general.
This is, surely, the result of domestic structures. Australian cricket was hailed for the strength of its six team Sheffield Shield for years. When moves were made to reduce the strength of the Shield 2nd XI competition, it was rightly derided for weakening the entire structure by throwing out older, experienced players. Now, Cricket Australia is trying to lure those players back.
This is in contrast to the ECB, who decided around the same time as CA was making that mistake to do a similar thing, restricting the amount of foreign players that could play in its not-so-strong eighteen team County Championship. They have since hailed this
This alone is not the cause of all their problems, but it hints at some of the issues involved in a domestic structure almost as old as cricket itself. County cricket may not be so much the cornerstone of English cricket, as it is the millstone around cricket's neck.
History
The county championship started life as unofficial games played between join club sides from one county against a joint club side from another, beginning in the 18th century. Over time the county sides became increasingly important, and financially viable, and thus in 1889 was formed the County Championship, to begin the following year. It featured eight teams: Gloucestershire, Kent, Lancashire, Middlesex, Nottinghamshire, Surrey, Sussex and Yorkshire.
Regionally, this meant the south-east of England had as many teams as the rest of England, a theme that remains surprisingly constant throughout the Championship's history. In 1891, Somerset (south-east) joined. Of the next five to join in 1895, two more were from the south-east: Essex and Hampshire. The remaining two clubs to join before the First World War were from the Midlands. So, by 1905 there were sixteen teams, of which seven were from the south-east, and only two from the north. This, in many ways, reflects the place of the game within society at the time. England has been a remarkably class-driven society for a long time, and cricket was undoubtedly one of the favoured sports of the well off. The south-east was also the most common region in which to find these people - and still is.
There is also an interesting footnote to the use of historic counties as the basis for the cricket clubs in the CC. The year that the Championship began, 1890, was the same year that historic counties ceased to be used for administrative purposes. Two of the counties playing that year - Sussex and Yorkshire - had actually had their historic counties split into two and three region respectively. It was already outdated then. Over time, as society evolves, you would expect the sports they play will evolve with it. Cricket has managed to stubbornly resist such change from day dot.
Nonetheless, the system worked well. Up until the Second World War, the game retained its strong mix of amateurism and professionalism. Increasingly after the war, it became something of a finishing school. The little-by-little expansion of cricket into New Zealand, India, Pakistan and, most importantly, the West Indies meant that the most promising players from these countries often found their way into county cricket, which did two things: firstly, it improved the quality of the cricketers coming in. These international players would get to learn from players who had been on the county circuit for years, and had vast experience. This also provided South African players with a future. Would we truly comprehend the quality of players like Garth le Roux and Clive Rice without their county careers?
Secondly, it improved the quality of cricket in England. Having seventeen counties (Glamorgan joined in 1921) meant plenty of room for internationals and domestic players alike. Just as international players would learn from experienced domestic players, so domestic players could learn from experienced internationals. This meant that fringe players could be in a dressing room with Viv Richards one week, and trying out something they've learnt from him in a second XI match the next week. Their experience can then be disseminated to lower levels of the domestic competition.
So at a purely cricketing level, county cricket worked well, both for England and for the cricket world at large. There is, however, the other side of sport that has to be kept in mind - the business side. Low attendances aren't a new thing. The whole reason for the introduction of limited overs cricket, both List A and Twenty20, was to attract crowds that could help support the County Championship. Both of them did that job for a time. But today, county cricket does not appear to be doing its job on or off the field.
Today
When did county cricket stop doing its job on the field? The 2005 Ashes series seems to have been the beginning of the end. It was after this triumph that central contracts were brought in, as the ECB sought to take proper control of the national team and fully realise its business interests. The England Lions second team and the National Academy in Loughborough both came into prominence around this time as well. These three things had the combined effect of taking a large amount of county cricket's best players away from county cricket. Not merely the best fifteen or so playing Test cricket, but also the next fifteen playing for the Lions, and some promising young player at the academy. In a competition with such a large player base, taking the best away seriously damages the quality of the competition, as those taking their place are likely of lower ability than in smaller competitions.
In response the counties, in need of capable replacements, began increasing the number of Kolpak players they were bringing in. This reached its zenith in 2008, when the now-infamous match between Northants and Leics took place with thirteen foreign-born players. This became such a big issue within the press over the course of the season that the ECB managed to influence the Home Office to tighten the restrictions on overseas players for 2009. This appeased not only locals concerned about county cricket, but also Cricket South Africa, whose domestic competition was beginning feeling the pinch of the mass migration.
One other thing is striking about that scorecard. Can you tell which of Leicestershire's overseas players was their official overseas player, rather than a Kolpak player? If you said Boeta Dippenaar, congratulations! You must have a good memory, or cheated. Now, while I don't mean to sully Dippenaar as a player, there doesn't seem to be too much difference between him and the Kolpak players in terms of ability. He's certainly no Viv Richards, and this was true of international players across the board that year. Compare this to Leicestershire's overseas player twenty years earlier, Winston Benjamin.
In fact, pick any match from 1988 and see which overseas players you can find. The quality of these players is substantial, and what is particularly striking is that players genuinely come from all over the world to play. What's also interesting is that, at the time, every club had two overseas players, but the two couldn't play in the same game. Generally this meant picking one well known, high quality overseas player, and one potential young gun. By 2008, this had turned into picking a decent overseas player who could hopefully play a full season, generally because they were either out of favour with their national selectors, or retired. The international schedule now works against county cricket, with both England and international players often unable to play county cricket.
The situation has become even worse since 2008. The limits on Kolpak players has meant that the players filling the void now are generally promising young players, the kind of players who would formerly have to work their way from the second XI to the top team through sheer weight of numbers. International schedules, meanwhile, have become so convoluted that clubs are left with two options - pick one of the aforementioned lesser internationals and hope they play the full season, or try to fill in the gaps with a bunch of different, better internationals. The latter sounds better in theory. For example, Surrey had Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla and Tillakaratne Dilshan for a month each in 2014. But when you keep in mind that the main benefit of such experienced internationals is in what they can teach the players, how much can they really do in a month? They don't really become embedded within the club, which is the kind of situation you want them to be in for them to teach well.
Off the field, things are not so clear. Some counties are in better financial health than others. Worcestershire, for example, have run at a profit for five years running, while Leicestershire relies on the ECB for two thirds of its turnover. Each county faces its own challenges. Surrey, for example, has a far easier time of it than Derbyshire, simply due to location. County cricket as a whole, though, faces a challenge in that the very nature of it being county cricket removes it from much of the population. In order to have good finances, you need decent crowds. In order to have decent crowds, you need to have a population that is both large enough to sustain the club, and connected enough to want to sustain the club by going and watching some cricket.
Twenty20 was meant to be the way for county clubs to reconnect with the public, but overall attendances for the T20 Blast were greatly below what was hoped. County cricket is failing to connect with the people in the same way as it has in the Indian and Australian T20 leagues. In many ways this is the most important part of all. It's not as though any country has large attendances to domestic first-class or list A competitions. But T20 is the one the public comes to see...except in England. What's going on?
Fixturing and a lack of free-to-air television coverage has to share at least some of the blame, but these aren't basic parts of the structure of county cricket. If we're talking about a sport that wants to be seen by as many people live as possible, let's look at where these teams are based.
According to the UK's Office for National Statistics, there are eleven urban areas with a population of 500,000 or more within England and Wales. Ideally there would be at least one county team for each of these urban areas, spread out across the regions. Unfortunately, this is not the case. (Note: I have chosen to use the ONS urban areas rather than EPSON's metropolitan areas, as I think the former gives a better indication of what the public perceives as local).
Nine teams play in one of these urban areas, with a further two playing in areas with 450,000+. This means that there are seven teams playing in areas that could not reasonably be called large population centres.
Furthermore, three of the eleven urban areas (Liverpool, Tyneside and Sheffield) do not have a team. Durham may argue that Chester-le-Street serves Tyneside, but I believe it cannot reasonably be considered to do so (and the ONS agrees, removing Chester-le-Street from the Tyneside urban area at the last census).
Of the remaining seven clubs, four serve small urban areas (Derby, Essex, Northampton, Worcester) and three don't serve an urban area at all (Durham, Kent, Somerset).
If a Twenty20 match happens in a place where no-one goes to see it, what's the point of playing it?
If a sport doesn't have a prominent ground in an urban area of 870,000, and a metro area of 2.3 million, does it even exist?
Unsurprisingly, given its predominance in places that aren't major urban areas, cricket has an image problem in England right now. And even when it is in a major urban area, it's as though that is the exception, rather than the norm. Even Leicestershire, one of the teams with a large urban area, and (even better) with a large Asian population, has mostly failed to connect with the local community, as new chief executive Wasim Khan has stated. Cricket is, perhaps more than it has been since before the Second World War, primarily the estate of the well-off. And, increasingly, the old.
Future
None of this bodes well for the future, and the ECB knows it. The structure of county cricket is one of the things up for review under incoming chairman Colin Graves and chief executive Tom Harrison. Franchises specifically designed for a T20 cricket league have been mooted since the apparent success of the Big Bash League. (Whether the Big Bash needed to become a franchise league to become successful is for another time). But there seems to be a great deal of caution with doing too much to the counties themselves, even though the current situation is unsustainable. The ECB (or Cricket England and Wales, as it will soon be known - CEW?) must figure out a way
Just creating T20 franchises with eighteen teams contesting the other forms of the game won't work, for the simple reason that some clubs will miss out. Attempting to compensate these teams for not playing seems a very difficult thing to do, particularly as they wouldn't just be missing out financially. The primary aim of domestic cricket should be to ensure it is a breeding ground for the international team. Twenty20 tournaments and the like are simply designed to ensure that the breeding ground is sustainable. So, what does the ECB want county cricket to be? As far as I can see, there are three possible solutions.
Option one: Protectionism. Essentially, get the best England players back to playing county cricket. Lions tours and squads must never hurt county sides, and international players must be able to play for their county as often as possible. This reduces the pressure on county sides to find replacements, and also acts as a lure to get audience seeing England's best play for their local side.
Option two: Free market. Let the internationals roam free (to some degree at least). As long as they figure out a way to ensure that they aren't restricting international eligibility for those players, they could make county cricket the pinnacle of domestic cricket. It would genuinely be a finishing school for international players again, as it was when it was part of the reason the West Indies were so formidable.
Option three: Planned. Don't just make franchises for T20, make them for the whole competition. South Africa may yet again help out county cricket, this time by giving them a model to go from. CSA reformed their domestic competition with six franchises playing the four-day, major one day and T20 competitions, while the provincial teams played three-day and minor limited overs competitions. A similar model could well work in England, with one team for each region. This would also prevent the counties, especially the smaller ones, from disappearing, as the franchises are simply chosen from the best players in a particular region. This could also re-establish the role of minor counties, particularly in regions with less major county teams.
There is, of course, no reason why more than one of these can't be done. In any case, it is difficult to see how the county structure survives without some kind of change being made. As it stands today, the place of the sport itself in English society hangs in the balance, increasingly overtaken by other sports. An overhaul of the domestic competition may be just the kickstart English cricket needs.
Thursday, 19 March 2015
World Rugby confirms their internationalism
It's quite nice when something you write gets confirmed by one of the organisations you're writing about. Last month, this article of ours discussed what the point of a World Cup was, the crux being that cricket was the only sport to deny internationalism, attempting instead to keep the sport entirely in the realm of those who already play it.
One of the examples of a sport opening itself up was rugby union. Lo and behold, the head of World Rugby confirms this by saying that "As the sport grows and we conquer new markets the discussion is about looking towards expansion, rather than contraction."
And then some more harrowing logic:
"A larger World Cup would offer the chance to sell the sport into new markets, as well as increasing the potential revenues from the tournament in terms of TV deals, sponsorship, hospitality and ticket sales."
Yes, it seems the head honchos at World Rugby understand the idea that more markets = more money in the long term.
Few sports can claim so similar a background to cricket as rugby can, so to see their philosophies on expansion be worlds apart underscores just how short-sighted cricket's administrators are.
One of the examples of a sport opening itself up was rugby union. Lo and behold, the head of World Rugby confirms this by saying that "As the sport grows and we conquer new markets the discussion is about looking towards expansion, rather than contraction."
And then some more harrowing logic:
"A larger World Cup would offer the chance to sell the sport into new markets, as well as increasing the potential revenues from the tournament in terms of TV deals, sponsorship, hospitality and ticket sales."
Yes, it seems the head honchos at World Rugby understand the idea that more markets = more money in the long term.
Few sports can claim so similar a background to cricket as rugby can, so to see their philosophies on expansion be worlds apart underscores just how short-sighted cricket's administrators are.
Saturday, 14 March 2015
Book review - Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts
There's something about a World Cup that makes people look outside of their own time. Some may look back, reminiscing about past glories (especially for Australians) or past failures (especially for Englishmen). Some may look forward, wondering how the next World Cup might look, what should be changed, will it be any good?
It seems that this World Cup has tried to combine the two. There has been much written about the decision to turn the 2019 World Cup into an exclusive, ten team affair. The major justification used for it is that the best World Cup was supposedly held in 1992, and had a similar format to the one proposed.
It is with this background that Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts has been written. It is, as far as I'm aware, the first book ever to focus on a variety of national teams that don't play Test cricket, although there are a smattering of books on specific nations. It's primarily the work of Tim Wigmore, a prolific freelance writer whose work on Associate cricket over recent years has been outstanding, and Peter Miller, another freelancer, best known for his cricket podcast. There also contributions from Tim Brooks, Sahil Dutta, and the ubiquitous Gideon Haigh (which is by no means a bad thing).
The book contains, despite the name, ten chapters (like any second XI it's missing one, ho ho ho). There are four parts to the book: four chapters on the World Cup associates (Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland, United Arab Emirates), two chapters on Associates that have since lost ODI status (Kenya, Netherlands), two chapters on rising Associates with strong homegrown talent (Nepal, Papua New Guinea), and two chapters on the potential gold mines (China, United States).
It's difficult to argue with the selections. While there are other teams that undoubtedly have stories worth telling - Canada and Bermuda have both fallen from grace in their own ways, while Hong Kong is the only current ODI nation without a chapter - these countries offer great variety. Each have their own unique stories to tell.
Cricket in Ireland took far too long to get to the point it is now. Afghanistan is the great romantic story. Kenya is a sorry tale of corruption. The Netherlands is a sorry tale of a couple of bad days ruining the near future. The United States has managed to mangle its future countless times.
Very quickly, though, a common theme becomes apparent: development of the game in these outposts is clearly being hindered by the way the ICC and the full member nations are treating them. Why has Ireland played so few full members? Why has the Netherlands lost 'ODI status' and, with it, had years of hard work undone? Why was Kenya abandoned as soon as the 2003 World Cup was over? Why is Nepal not receiving any assistance from its neighbours? Why is the ICC so insistent on not joining the IOC?
The answer to all these questions seem to come down to the short-sightedness of the current administrators, who are insistent on maximising revenues gathered amongst themselves (something they are failing at too).
Each chapter does well to tell the tale of cricket in that country, charting the history of the game from its beginning to the modern day. Particular highlights are Wigmore's chapters on Ireland and Kenya, and Dutta's on China. Dutta paints a wonderful picture of the state of the game in a country where even the most basic concepts are completely foreign. The reproduction of Haigh's essay on cricket in PNG could be seen as disappointing, but it's a thoroughly readable piece. The UAE chapter is slightly short, but at the same time doesn't leave the sense that much is being left unsaid.
The overall tone is factual, without being dull; serious, without being morose; teaching, without being preachy; and with elements of levity, without being condescending. It's a tough balancing act, but it's done well.
Miller deserves kudos for his efforts to get some words out of Sultan Zarawani, immortalised in cricket history as the man who faced Allan Donald in a hat. Wigmore likewise for the less glorious find of Maurice Odumbe, accused and banned on account of corruption, who to this day protests his innocence. Haigh's tale contains a number of characters, the best of whom is the scene-stealing Luke, and none of whom you'd expect to meet in an essay on, say, the ECB.
Above all, Second XI is a great introduction into the world of Associate and Affiliate cricket. Anyone who enjoys cricket should read this book, as it will open up a world of vivid colours that contrast remarkably with the increasingly monochrome world of full member nations.
One quote summed up the latter best, whether in or out of context: "It makes no financial sense." - Giles Clarke, ECB.
Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts is out now. You can buy it here.
It seems that this World Cup has tried to combine the two. There has been much written about the decision to turn the 2019 World Cup into an exclusive, ten team affair. The major justification used for it is that the best World Cup was supposedly held in 1992, and had a similar format to the one proposed.
It is with this background that Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts has been written. It is, as far as I'm aware, the first book ever to focus on a variety of national teams that don't play Test cricket, although there are a smattering of books on specific nations. It's primarily the work of Tim Wigmore, a prolific freelance writer whose work on Associate cricket over recent years has been outstanding, and Peter Miller, another freelancer, best known for his cricket podcast. There also contributions from Tim Brooks, Sahil Dutta, and the ubiquitous Gideon Haigh (which is by no means a bad thing).
The book contains, despite the name, ten chapters (like any second XI it's missing one, ho ho ho). There are four parts to the book: four chapters on the World Cup associates (Afghanistan, Ireland, Scotland, United Arab Emirates), two chapters on Associates that have since lost ODI status (Kenya, Netherlands), two chapters on rising Associates with strong homegrown talent (Nepal, Papua New Guinea), and two chapters on the potential gold mines (China, United States).
It's difficult to argue with the selections. While there are other teams that undoubtedly have stories worth telling - Canada and Bermuda have both fallen from grace in their own ways, while Hong Kong is the only current ODI nation without a chapter - these countries offer great variety. Each have their own unique stories to tell.
Cricket in Ireland took far too long to get to the point it is now. Afghanistan is the great romantic story. Kenya is a sorry tale of corruption. The Netherlands is a sorry tale of a couple of bad days ruining the near future. The United States has managed to mangle its future countless times.
Very quickly, though, a common theme becomes apparent: development of the game in these outposts is clearly being hindered by the way the ICC and the full member nations are treating them. Why has Ireland played so few full members? Why has the Netherlands lost 'ODI status' and, with it, had years of hard work undone? Why was Kenya abandoned as soon as the 2003 World Cup was over? Why is Nepal not receiving any assistance from its neighbours? Why is the ICC so insistent on not joining the IOC?
The answer to all these questions seem to come down to the short-sightedness of the current administrators, who are insistent on maximising revenues gathered amongst themselves (something they are failing at too).
Each chapter does well to tell the tale of cricket in that country, charting the history of the game from its beginning to the modern day. Particular highlights are Wigmore's chapters on Ireland and Kenya, and Dutta's on China. Dutta paints a wonderful picture of the state of the game in a country where even the most basic concepts are completely foreign. The reproduction of Haigh's essay on cricket in PNG could be seen as disappointing, but it's a thoroughly readable piece. The UAE chapter is slightly short, but at the same time doesn't leave the sense that much is being left unsaid.
The overall tone is factual, without being dull; serious, without being morose; teaching, without being preachy; and with elements of levity, without being condescending. It's a tough balancing act, but it's done well.
Miller deserves kudos for his efforts to get some words out of Sultan Zarawani, immortalised in cricket history as the man who faced Allan Donald in a hat. Wigmore likewise for the less glorious find of Maurice Odumbe, accused and banned on account of corruption, who to this day protests his innocence. Haigh's tale contains a number of characters, the best of whom is the scene-stealing Luke, and none of whom you'd expect to meet in an essay on, say, the ECB.
Above all, Second XI is a great introduction into the world of Associate and Affiliate cricket. Anyone who enjoys cricket should read this book, as it will open up a world of vivid colours that contrast remarkably with the increasingly monochrome world of full member nations.
One quote summed up the latter best, whether in or out of context: "It makes no financial sense." - Giles Clarke, ECB.
Second XI: Cricket in its Outposts is out now. You can buy it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)