One day cricket is a case of familiarity breeding contempt
Roar Pro
By Alec Swann, 2 Oct 2009 Alec Swann is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Champions Trophy, Cricket, ODI
South African batsman HM Amla makes runs as Australian bowler James Hopes follows his misfielded ball during the 4th One Day International cricket match between Australia and South Africa at the Adelaide Oval, Adelaide, Monday, Jan. 26, 2009. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
With England due to face Australia for the 8th time in one-day internationals in the past few weeks – and the 15th time in all cricket in three months – it seems an approapriate time to pour petrol on the fire of debate that is surrounding the 50-over game.
The problem, certainly from where I’m sitting, is not one of boredom with the format nor with apathy at the whole concept of the Champions Trophy – it is simply a case of familiarity breeding contempt.
One-day international cricket has grown to such an extent, it’s proliferation unchecked as the dollars have poured in, that it’s no longer the flavour of the month.
Too much of a good thing has led to that very thing’s presence in the greater cricketing scheme being questioned.
Call me a killjoy, but it this attitude that will eventually engulf Twenty20 cricket.
Already we are seeing tournament after tournament – who needs the upcoming Champions tournament in India, really? – being crammed into an already overcrowded schedule for no more worthwhile reason than money.
The simplicity of the format is what has made it so popular and it is its simplicity that is turning it into the mother of all cash cows.
It has a place, just as one-day international cricket has a place, but that place needs to be carefuuly scheduled.
The three forms of the game can, and should, be able to co-exist happily alongside one another, but it needs some forthright administration to make this happen.
A World Cup every four years, a Champions Trophy every four years and a World Twenty20 in all the years without one of the two former events. Is this really that hard to achieve?
As for the length of game, there isn’t really anything wrong with 50 overs and all this talk of reducing the international game to 40 overs is absolute garbage and should be treated as such.
Just because the counties over here have decided to bin 50-over games in favour of 40-overs shouldn’t make anyone sit up and take notice. In fact it should bring into question the sanity of those at Lord’s who make the decisions.
(Their reasoning was that South Africa don’t play any domestic 50-over cricket.
Well South Africa have far superior vineyards to England, but that shouldn’t persuade any farmers to ditch the livestock in favour of growing grapes.)
I fail to see just what would be achieved by this change other than accelerate the game towards the abolition of the one-day format altogether.
The various complaints are, again, borne out of saturation, not tedium.
There is a skill to scoring during the middle overs of a 50-over game, just as there is a skill towards batting for a day in a Test match or thrashing the ball out of the ground in a 20-over slog.
The Champions Trophy – all done and dusted in two weeks – keeps the interest high and the attention span brief. The World Cup in the West Indies suffered because it had too many games played over too long a period of time.
The less of it there is, the more of an event it would become and the more it would mean to those playing and those watching.
Until this is realised, the questions will remain.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (31) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (39)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (21)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (39)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Champions Trophy, Cricket, ODI
Freud of Football said | October 2nd 2009 @ 5:06am | Report comment
“The Champions Trophy – all done and dusted in two weeks – keeps the interest high” – What interest might that be? There is hardly widespread coverage of the tournament (I mean in the media), It’s not stopping nations, kids aren’t coming home early from school to watch games, it’s a dud tournament with no other purpose than to bring in the dosh.
You hit the nail on the head about the Administrators, your metaphor on the South Africans may be a little vague but why on earth they go and make these decisions, it baffles me, cricket is going back to being a genlemans game but only at the very highest level, they don’t care about the public (which Packer did in his own money-grabbing way) and the game suffers because of it, so they react and by again disregarding the public they screw it up even more.
Justin said | October 2nd 2009 @ 6:33am | Report comment
No need for ODIs. 3 forms of the game is too much. If you need ODIs then severly cut back the amount of matches. For instance the ENG v AUS series should have only been 3 matches with 3 20/20s. Done. Cut the Champions Trophy its unnecessary with a World Cup and all the 20/20 there is now. What purpose does it serve? The public care little for it.
So more Tests for the players and purists and more 20/20 for the money and those who like their cricket fix quick!
Alec Swann said | October 2nd 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Freud of football – Is the fact that there has been little media interest in the Champions Trophy indicatve of the point I’m making?
Rather than being a pretty big event, it is merely another way of diluting the product for, as you rightly say, the chance to make more money.
My South African metaphor is vague much in the same way that the justification for the majority of decisions made by those in power are.
Why is logical scheduling so difficult to achieve?
Freud of Football said | October 2nd 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Logical scheduling is so difficult to achieve largely due to the many conflicts of interest.
Cricketers have a much larger say in the game now than in years gone by and in comparison with other sports like football, have a big say in general. This is mainly due to the fact that the only form interesting to the general public is International cricket and as such, Players don’t move around, there aren’t various leagues and the attention comes from across the globe, the players were smart enough to realise this in the 70s and have used it to their advantage ever since by demanding better wages, conditions etc. Boards can’t just go and get new players from somewhere else (as in football, rugby etc.), they need the best Australian/English/Indian/Whatever players available and as such must afford them respect, we already saw what happened when they didn’t with the renegade tests etc. and that was disastrous.
TV is a much larger factor now than ever before. The cricket used to be on Channel 9, plain and simple, nowadays its part of a very complex sporting schedule, it must compete but also in being competitive, it is very lucrative and as such the TV Bigwigs want to milk it for every cent possible.
Administrators have to find a balance. They need to keep the public happy to keep up attendances but can’t (well shouldn’t, but have been) saturate the market with too much cricket however they are more-or-less self serving fatcats, the same as FIFA, UEFA, the AFL – name your sporting body, anyone who gets into power eventually uses it for themselves.
Then there is the whole power struggle with the BCCI, ICC, MCC and even CA. The BCCI have become a force with the TV money behind it, the MCC don’t want to relinquish any power and the ICC have always been a bunch of assorted nuts. Then you throw the influence of the cashed up IPL teams who want a window, the other international boards who want their interests served for cash injections (ie the Windies who desperately needed a WC) and it’s like a room of screaming kids thinking they all deserve more attention than the others.
Everyone fights for themselves and money brings power, there is more power in cricket than ever before and with so many conflicting interests it’s always going to be like this.
The ICC needs to be fully independent and run as a business that runs cricket as a sport, only then will we see a compromise on the amount of cricket played and unfortunately, I can’t see this ever happening.
Brett McKay said | October 2nd 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Scheduling, it’s a dangerous beast you’re questioning Alec!! In my mind, a logical international cricket schedule will emerge the day after cancer is cured, and just before peace in the Middle East is declared. Until then, we’ll two-month World Cups, Champions Trophies, multiple T20 World Cups, and copious numbers of pointless stand-alone ODI series in between. Sad but true…
Greg Russell said | October 2nd 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Alec, aficionados took an interest in the long England-Australia ODI series, for instance I was interested in things like: what is Tim Paine the Unknown like? Will Cameron White finally find his niche? How will Clarke go as captain? Have the Australian selectors stumbled on a good bowling attack? (they are too incompetent to find one by forethought).
However I realise that for most people this 7-match series was interminably long and pointless.
But from following the Champions Trophy over the last week, it seems obvious that the major reason for the unexpected success of England and Australia is that they are the best prepared teams, precisely because of their “interminably long and pointless” series that they played against each other.
(And yes, I do mean it when I say I am surprised at how well this Australian team is going, because it is a very modest team on paper, lacking three of its best players in Clarke, Haddin and Bracken, and having arguably the weakest ever opening pair in the history of Australian ODI cricket.)
Freud of Football said | October 2nd 2009 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
Your assessment of the current Australian lineup is a litle harsh Greg.
For starters we all know cricket isn’t played on paper, you can’t write down the natural talent that Shane Watson possesses, Tim Paine has played all of 11 ODI’s so it’s too early to judge but he looks capabale, Ricky Ponting, while not at his best like a few years ago would still be an automatic selection for any team in the world, Hussey’s recent performances are probably sticking in your mind but remember how long he held that ridiculous average for? That was no fluke although it was distorted.
Ferguson is another real talent and White, well you can have him, never rated him myself, he was always one of those almost men and it seems to me the only reason he’s in with a shout is that Victoria, with the exception of Siddle doesn’t really have a great deal of talent at the moment but feel the need to be represented.
Hopes is a “temporary” solution, Aus need to find a new player for this role and I think if Watson can get fit enough he should move down the order as an all-rounder and bring Warner or Hughes back in at the top.
The bowlers, well Mitchell Johnson was just named ICC Cricketer of the Year (that doesn’t look very modest on paper), Brett Lee, while in the twilight of his career is still an imposing bowler and has truly gotten better with age (anyone remember his wild deliveries going to second slip when he started?), Hauritz does a good job in the ODI’s but isn’t the type Aus should bring into tests and Siddle has talent, like a raw Glenn McGrath, he’ll take a while.
So yes this isn’t a team that will tear everyone apart but it’s a team with enough to win a tournament, that’s for sure and even on paper, I’d be quite happy to take what is on offer.
Freud of Football said | October 3rd 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Well Greg. I’m assuming some words have been eaten after England were torn apart by Australia’s very modest on paper team?
vinay verma said | October 3rd 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Dr Freud…Your first response to Greg’s assesment of Australia’s current ODI lineup had merit and was well reasoned.And I thought to myself here was a writer prepared to defend his statements and opinions in a mature fashion.
Your response this morning..” I’m assuming some words have been eaten….” strike me as the self satisfied glee of vindication. Looking at it dispassionately everything that Greg said still stands. This is not a great Aussie side.It says more about the opposition’s ineptness than anything about Australia. Watson (despite his century) and Paine are not Hayden and Gilchrist. And after 89 games this is Watson’s third ton…he is competent and improving. Ponting is the only truly world class player in this current side….Hussey is a great trier and invaluable team man….Johnson is a work in progress and oscillates between the sublime and the ridiculous. I will grant you that Ferguson has class but this will take another season or two to mature.He is not Clarke’s equal and Clarke is the other world class player in Australia’s team.
And,FOF,I only know Greg from his reasoned and well reasearched writing on this site so I am not an aggrived friend.
Hopes may not have the talent of others but he is a captain’s dream…always contributing…his catch to get rid of Strauss gave Australia the momentum..Strauss was looking good.
Siddle,I agree with you has the makings of a very good fast bowler and the attack of Johnson,Hilfenhaus and Siddle has the potential to be the best in the world in all three forms. Only time will tell. Trust you can appreciate this is constructive criticism
I do like your writing and you m,ake many good points but good writing should not say..”BUT, SEE , IWAS RIGHT AFTER ALL”
Freud of Football said | October 3rd 2009 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
Vinay, I’m not sure I can help myself when an Aussie team comes out and thrashes England by 9 wickets with 49 balls to spare after being called “very modest” by a Kiwi.
“This is not a great Aussie side” – Here I most definately agree with you but I never claimed that from the start, my gripe was with Greg calling this lineup “very modest”, I think they are a lot better than people would have us believe and just because the names don’t read like a hall-of-fame list as Aussie teams of the past decade or so have, shouldn’t detract from what they do possess in talent.
“Watson (despite his century) and Paine are not Hayden and Gilchrist” – Well no, I also mentioned I’d like to see Watson back down the order as I don’t believe he is an opener but the stats would suggest otherwise, as an opener he’s batted 29 innings, made 1137 runs at an average of 43.73, he’s only batted in 71 of his 89 games and for the most part at 7 or 8 –
For the record Hayden averaged 44.30 as an opener in 147 Innings,
Mark Waugh – 44.06 in 141 Innings
Adam Gilchrist – 36.51 in 259 Innings
So on his stats alone he’s up there but I still think he belongs lower down the order, I’d say at 5/6 filling in the role Symonds had.
Paine – well I think you might have the blinkers on here Vinay. For starters he’s second choice to Haddin and can’t be compared with either Gilchrist or Haddin, Haddin debuted at the same age but has only manage 59 games since 2001. Gilchrist debuted at 24 also but played almost 300 games, you can’t compare them. Haddin & Gilchrist lit up the domestic scene for a long period of time before getting their chance, Paine is just starting out, he debuted 6 weeks ago so we can only talk about talent and I reckon he’s got a lot.
“Johnson is a work in progress and oscillates between the sublime and the ridiculous.” – He isn’t a work in progress, he will always be erratic, something you can’t remove from his game with that action and Aussies had better get used to this sooner rather than later but he is certainly world class.
The problem is we are all looking for someone to replace McGrath while Johnson is a lot more like Flintoff, not the best in the world but has the ability to turn a match on its head inside an over, he will be expensive sometimes but he’ll also win you a series with one spell of bowling and he is excellent with the bat. He will get better but we’ll never see a finished Mitchell Johnson article.
Hilfenhaus I’m not to keen on, he’s a solid bowler but won’t take enough wickets and Siddle is the one we should be looking at to replicate McGrath, he’s not as talented but if he can be the Aussies “holidng bowler”, the really stingy one, then Johnson will rip through attacks.
In conclusion, this isn’t the best Aussie side we’ve seen in the last 20 years and only Ponting would make the cut if we could pick a team from players from the 90′s & 00′s but this is a relatively young and inexperienced team for the most part on the right side of 30. Once they grow together they will be a force to be reckoned with and I will continue to gloat merrily at their 9 wicket thrashing of england
vinay verma said | October 4th 2009 @ 8:26am | Report comment
FOF..I’ve been accused of wearing rose coloured glasses but blinkered only when it comes to Test Cricket.
The “holding” bowlers I see as Siddle and Hilfenhaus…both have serious pace and have touched 150 when inspired. I see Hilfenhaus as a faster Alderman….Johnson,with a bit of coaching from Wasim akram will benefit..a visit to Lillee lmay also help.
This is a side Ponting is moulding and once they all learn their roles could be formidable in 2011.Monday’s final against NZ will show us where Ponting’s team is at. The Kiwis may have played their final against Pak and Vettori was inspirational. Taufel’s howler giving Akmal out on 55 cost the Paks dearly….ST missed the best umpire award for the first time in six years. As an aside Taufel, Dar and Rauf are the three best umpires going around at the moment
Freud of Football said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:33am | Report comment
Again Vinay, I must disagree with you.
While Siddle is genuinely quick it is action that will allow him to fill the McGrath void. Hilfenhaus swings the ball and as such shouldn’t have his action tampered with and Johnson, well I don’t think it matters who coaches him as he will always have inconsistency in his game due to his action, this can however be an advantage.
Siddle however has the action that can be honed, it’s not too strenuous and he has the ability to hit a length, of course expecting him to reach the level McGrath did is silly but he would be the most suited to tie down an end.
“Monday’s final against NZ will show us where Ponting’s team is at.” – I also disagree here.
No disrespect to NZ who consistently punch above their weight class but this isn’t going to be a monumental test of Ponting’s side, even if Aus loses (which in the ODI format against NZ is certainly a possibility) we will be no closer to knowing the future of Aus’s ODI side.
Remember that Bracken, Clarke and Haddin, 3 certain starters aren’t playing. Paine and Ferguson made their debut merely weeks ago, Brett Lee is coming to the end of his career and has just come back from injury, Watson is batting in the wrong spot and Hauritz, Hope & White are only there until someone better comes along.
The side that will face NZ won’t be indicative of the future, it’s a total mish-mash as it is and we probably won’t see a settled lineup for another 2 years or so until Ponting has retired and there is some experience in the squad, then you’ll be able to talk about them but in the meantime, we don’t know who will even make the next squad at the moment.
Greg Russell said | October 5th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
FoF – sorry to disabuse you, but I’m an Aussie. As you yourself should know from your own situation, one should not assume that place of residence equates with nationality. I mean, you live in Germany, and you have given yourself a Germanic nom-de-plume, so would it be correct to assume, dass du echt deutsch bist?
Well I know the answer to this question, because I read your comments.
Anyway, I’m wondering how long you have been living in Germany? If you were there last Australian summer, then you would not have seen a succession of very ordinary Australian efforts in one-day cricket against South Africa, NZ, and then South Africa again. And if you had seen these, then you would not be so enthusiastic to trumpet that a thumping win against an inept English side heralds a return to the pinnacle of world cricket.
That said, I enjoyed this win as much as anyone, and I do have a decent amount of respect for the ICC’s ranking system.
I would also have to say that your own analysis of the Australian one-day team does a pretty good job of backing up my statement. Hopes is a “temporary solution”. White you don’t rate. Siddle is “raw”. Lee is in his “twilight”. Hauritz is not test class. And so on. I suspect I have a higher regard for the team than you do!
Freud of Football said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Well Greg you could make that assumption and as you know you’d be incorrect, I have lived here long enough to have had a lot of the culture and characteristics of the people rub off on me and I also have german heritage so I don’t find it offensive but it would appear that spending so much time amongst the Kiwi’s has turned you anti-Aussie to an extent.
While I have lived in Europe for some time now it’s also a little silly to assume that that automatically excludes me from watching (or attending for that matter) Aus cricket games. I have barely missed a series for the last 2.5 years other than the 7 ODI’s against England which I let run in the background as I found it uninteresting and have been to quite a few ODI’s and a few days of test cricket last summer.
Further, I didn’t claim that thumping England put Australia back to the top of the heap, but in my opinion they never really left it, just because they don’t win every single game doesn’t mean they are not the best or equal best team in the world, I couldn’t pick another team that would be discernably better, SAF is very good, NZ on their day, India “on paper” but none of them have the proven winners like Aus.
The world seems to expect Aus to churn out Superstart after Superstar and remain more-or-less invincible, for a country with 21 Million people that simply isn’t possible.
So yes I rate this Aus side very highly and I deem your “very modest” assessment of the team as quite a distance from the truth.
However one can’t judge Australia right now, they are still in transition and have 3 of their best players missing (in international cricket that is a lot), they’ve got two young players who’ve just entered the team and a couple of others making their final rounds of the international playing scene, as such to simply put it out there that they are “very modest” is really not taking any of the other important factors into consideration.
Greg Russell said | October 6th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
FoF – let’s give up on the assumptions.
I’m not “anti-Aussie”, in fact my heart is very pro-Aussie. But I try to be objective when I write.
If you live in Germany and you manage to watch all Australian ODIs, then I’m not sure how you do it and what sort of a life you lead. (And I write this from extensive experience of living in Germany myself.)
I’m also not sure how you could have watched Australia’s 10 ODIs against South Africa earlier this year and honestly feel that Australia is still the best ODI side in the world.
It’s true that the side seems to have made progress since then, but let’s see how they fare in India starting later this month – that will be the true test. Remember that in the corresponding series two years ago, Australia won 4-2, and were the dominant team in the match without a result. Andrew Symonds was the player of the series and performed spectacularly well – I can’t see who’s going to duplicate his efforts this time.
Schluss!
QC said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
Greg isn’t a Kiwi,
He’s an Aussie who just happens to live in NZ
Mr cheese said | October 3rd 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Dear Greg Russell
the simple answer is to get rid of 50 over cricket. I never liked it to begin with but now most people say that 20 20 has bashed ODI’s over the head.
Anyways,
Could you tell me if the NZers are going to sell out their stadium for the second leg of the World Cup Qualifier against Bahrain ?
I read an article about it over her in England. The stadium apparently holds 35000. Are there enough football fans in NZ ?
Regards
Greg Russell said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Strange place to get a question like this … it will depend on NZ still being in the tie (i.e., not getting defeated heavily in the first leg), but I’d say the chances are very good of getting something like a full house in Wellington. So far all the indications are good.
I don’t know if you are a Kiwi, but if you are not then you probably do not appreciate that football is actually the most widely played sport in New Zealand. In other words, it’s much like Australia, except that over here they haven’t yet found the key to turning participation into commercial interest. So there is a huge “silent” interest in football, and the tie against Bahrain may well succeed in tapping into it.
I’m an Aussie, but my considered opinion after living here for 15 years is that Kiwi sporting passion is selectively channelled into sports in which they can either be the best or compete with the world’s best. Rugby, league, cricket and netball are all played by a limited number of countries, so NZ’s small size is no obstacle to being on the same stage as the world’s best. The problem with football is that NZ could never be a world player. So the football fans here tend to follow Man U rather than having any local interest.
No doubt some Kiwis will chide me that sports like rowing and triathlon are world sports. Well yes they are. But they are still very small sports, which is what gives NZ the chance to be world beaters in them.
I should also add that Australians are similar, although not to the same extent.
While I’m having a go at everyone, should I hypothesize that we have inherited this tendency from the English?
Hammer said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
“I should also add that Australians are similar, although not to the same extent.” …
I’d say Australia is exactly the same – the only thing where NZ is different is they’ve not got their own special game played by no-one else
Greg Russell said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
Doesn’t NZ have rugby as “their own special game played by no-one else”?
(Just joking, sort of. As is always said, there’s only two “countries” in the world where rugby is the premier sport, and of these, Wales, is technically not a country.)
Freud of Football said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
I’d like to see that said to a Welshmen, they can be a highly volatile bunch and don’t take too kindly to be coupled with England and the English like to distance themselves too no matter what the laws say, the Welsh are from Wales and the Poms from England
QC said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
Most Kiwis support Man U thats new to me I think you will find Greg that support for teams in the EPL is quite diverse.
Greg Russell said | October 6th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
QC: My mistake, you are quite correct, what I meant to write was “the football fans here tend to follow TEAMS LIKE Man U”. This is the sort of thing that can happen when one tries to give up coffee for a day, as I did yesterday!
In response to FOF: one thing I did type correctly was “Wales, is technically not a country.”
ohtani's jacket said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
“I’m an Aussie, but my considered opinion after living here for 15 years is that Kiwi sporting passion is selectively channelled into sports in which they can either be the best or compete with the world’s best.”
It’s channelled where the money is, just like every other country.
Greg Russell said | October 6th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
What, you’re saying there’s no money in football? (That’s the sport my point was in relation to.)
Come on, I don’t want to get into a nitpicking debate here, but you’ve got to admit that it’s hard to explain that football is the most widely played sport in NZ (by both children and adults), that it’s the biggest sport in the world according to all indexes, including money, and yet the sport is so commercially weak in New Zealand.
Hammer said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Mr C … the answer is yes there are … and if they’re in with a tilt of making SA – then it will be a sell out …
Brian said | October 2nd 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Cricket has become something like Tennis. One meaningless tournament week after week with the same players on a different continent. Unfortunately its unrealistic to expect that players will only play 6 months a year like they used to. The financial engineers of the world now demand that top sportspeople play to near maximum capacity. The season for professional soccer, tennis, rugby players runs for 11 months and cricket cannot be different. Even AFL, with pre-season training and Wizard Cups essentially has a 11 month year for its professionals.
How can the champions trophy, T20 WC, champions league or anything else mean anything when if you don’t like the result you can just wait a week till the next tournament.
Alec Swann said | October 2nd 2009 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
I’m afraid I agree with most of the points being made. The scheduling will always be a mess because of every Tom, Dick and Harry wanting his piece of the action.
A compromise to suit every party isn’t an impossibility, just a piece of wishful thinking on my part.
Freud of Football said | October 2nd 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
The only thing you can hope for is that cricket goes up the creek, sounds a little ridiculous but it’s always the way, no sweeping changes will be made to the running of the game until such a point where it is hanging on by the skin of its teeth.
None of the current powers are going to back down and as the ICC, the one body who should have control will forever be run by self-serving idiots, nothing will change unless A) it is in the interests of the members of the ICC or B) The ICC is overhauled.
vinay verma said | October 5th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
FOF…Dont know why you are off on a tangent about changing Siddle’s and Hilfenhaus’s action…I only spoke about Johnson benefitting from coaching..and I can tell you he is talking with Akram…and he will improve.
Bracken for mine was overrated and is also getting long in the tooth…As far as passing judgement this happens everytime any team takes the field….isn’t this the very point of the ratings? (incidentally they accurately reflect where Australia is now…No 1 in the one days and Equal 3rd in the Tests or thereabouts) Logic says it is pretty hard to judge a team two years hence.
Freud of Football said | October 5th 2009 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
“Dont know why you are off on a tangent about changing Siddle’s and Hilfenhaus’s action” – I was noting that Siddle’s action is more suitable to the “holding” role that McGrath played so well, Hilfenhaus and no swing-bowlers should have his action tinkered with unless it is causing him physical damage in my opinion, swing is hard to get and even easier to lose, just let him swing it and try and pick up wickets and let Siddle work on being the extremely accurate one.
I don’t believe that even the great Wasim can help Johnson.
Watch his action up close and you will see it’s VERY difficult to replicate. Akram was a much different bowler, they were both left handed and that’s about where the similarities end. Wasim was able to have excellent control as his action was much more compact and upright and slightly front-on, Johnson relies to much on his body (not technique) and as such there is a myriad of things that can and frequently do go wrong, he can’t adjust in mid stride like Wasim could, one reason he had such an excellent change of pace and once he enters his bowling action it’s just got to happen naturally and that’s very difficult to “uncoach”, the only thing we can hope for is that they get his head in the right position and hopefully his arm will follow but I’m afraid even that may be too much to ask.
Bracken is slightly overrated, I’ll agree with you there but at least Aus haven’t made the mistake of believing that hype, he’s stuck to the shorter forms which suit his style much more.
Shaun Tait is someone that no-one seems to mention anymore. I remember watching him in a club match in Adelaide before he was in the SA team and even then he was scary, the fastest bowler I’d ever seen and with his action, extremely difficulat to face. A friend of mine was playing and he told me it was extremely difficult to pick the ball up as it was released – incidentally he was bowled after 3 balls.
I can’t wait for him to get it back together as he is probably Australia’s best bowler, even better than Johnson.