Let me say from the outset that I have not watched a single ball of the revamped Big Bash League (BBL) since its inception last summer. While it may seem silly, it has been done as an act of principle.
Do I dislike T20 as a format? No. I think it is great fun as a form of sporting entertainment, and the depth and breadth of skills on display can be a wonder to behold.
What I find abhorrent is the manufactured nature of the BBL and the precedence that Cricket Australia places on this tournament over the supposed number one form of the game – Test matches.
We have all heard of the Argus Report that, as quoted by Australian Cricketers Association chief executive Paul Marsh yesterday, was about “Cricket Australia’s stated prioritisation of Test cricket”.
The key phrase here is ‘stated prioritisation’, because I’m not sure the actions we’re seeing in recent times are doing anything to back these words up.
Take the following, quoted directly from the Argus report itself:
– Statistics show that our batting has declined in the past four years
– Our top six has had the tendency to underperform in key Tests
Without question, the most ‘key’ Test Australia has played since the release of this report some 16 months ago was the third against South Africa last week.
The result? After a second string Australian attack put the strongest batting line-up in the world to the sword and bowled them out for 225 in their first innings, our batsmen crumbed under the onslaught of high quality Test match bowling, and could manage only a paltry 163 in reply.
As the South Africans showed in their second innings, this was a wicket where runs were easy to come by – if batsmen were disciplined and patient enough to get through the new ball.
The batsman most to blame for the Aussie collapse was David Warner, our Test opener who is the symbol and poster-child of the T20 generation.
To his credit, he had survived the previous evening where Ed Cowan and Shane Watson could not, and walked out to open the play on day two with nightwatchman Nathan Lyon for company, Australia at a perilous 2/33.
On a side note, I would love to captain Australia simply to offer my batsmen a nightwatchman when the circumstance arose. Anyone accepting such protection would never wear the baggy green under my command again. There are few weaker acts in cricket, and it is poor strategy to boot.
But back to Warner. Lyon, our number 11 in normal circumstances, could not be counted on to be there for long, and the struggles of Ricky Ponting, next man in, had been well documented.
The state of the game demanded a mature innings from Warner. The dire circumstances he’d be leaving his country in if falling should have dictated his mindset. He needed the courage to put his natural game away for the betterment of the team.
His response? To the fourth ball he faced that morning, he swung wildly, with all the elegance and control of a man trying to chop up snakes in a phone booth.
The result? Lyon and Ponting soon followed as predicted, and for once Michael Clarke couldn’t save the day. An overnight 2/33 became 6/45 in the space of six overs, and a perilous position became unsalvageable. Momentum, hope, and the match were lost.
Now all of this is not to do a hatchet job on David Warner. After all, this was only his 24th first class match, half of which have been at Test level. It is to be hoped that he is learning with each outing, although little evidence of this has been seen so far.
A common defence of a player like Warner, and it was often used when Brad Haddin decided to forgo a fighting innings for lazy and self-indulgent play, is “that’s the way he plays”.
Next time I get pulled over for speeding, I’ll just tell the police “that’s the way I drive”.
At the cinema, I might remove my shoes and talk loudly on my phone under the proviso of “that’s the way I watch”.
Perhaps Alan Jones can say Julia Gillard’s father died of shame, and write it off as “that’s the way I broadcast”.
These are childish responses that abdicate responsibility. As a cricket-watching audience, we must demand more from our elite, and apply higher standards.
But rather than working on his red-ball game in a tour match, the Sheffield Shield, or even, heaven forbid, grade cricket, according to Cricket Australia the most suitable way for Warner to overcome his deficiencies and prepare for another test match was to turn out for the Sydney Someone’s.
In fact, all first class cricket outside the Test matches has been suspended for nigh on two months during the peak cricket-watching season so the BBL can take place.
What sort of message does this send?
Another example of the BBL being put ahead of all else was the recently completed Chairman’s XI tour match against the visiting Sri Lankans.
Wouldn’t it have been great to see a four day match against a visiting international team consisting of a team of ‘possibles’ vying for Test match selection?
Warner and Cowan could have been selected to work on their still shaky opening partnership, followed by the likes of Phil Hughes, Rob Quiney, Usman Khawaja and Alex Doolan or Callum Ferguson fighting for the spot vacated by Ricky Ponting.
Surely a match of such quality could be televised on Foxtel and played over the weekend to allow fans to see these players whose names we read about, but who few of us get the chance to see in action.
Instead we were served up a host of players whose parents had barely heard of them in a two and a half day joke that I’m not prepared to call a cricket match.
As fellow Roar contributor Brett McKay explained to me in these pages last week, “it’s worth noting that the selections for the Chairman’s game would’ve been conducted with a view to lessening the impact on Big Bash sides with both Melbourne and Sydney teams playing during the three-day game.”
Unfortunately for me, and for those of us that do actually prioritise Test cricket, Brett was correct, and so I continue to be disheartened by the supposed commercial realities of the cricket world we live in.
Remember the time when the Melbourne and Sydney Tests held from Boxing Day and in the New Year were the centrepiece of the cricket season? Now they are lucky to be included as afterthoughts.
What was once a roast dinner with all the trimmings has been consigned to the ignominy of an after-dinner mint.
So I’ll continue to boycott the BBL, carrying on my one man crusade as I dream of a tomorrow where the phrase ‘the prioritisation of Test cricket’ is more than just empty words.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Johnno, there may well have been a charity match at Port Arthur; but it was not First Class or ListA even if did involve some players of that calibre (if it was played at all). As for Beaconsfield, simply, no. Not ever. Its been a very long time since a first class game was played on synthetic wickets - probably never in Australia.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Excellent piece Daniel, and some sound counter-arguments within. In order of where you've quoted me: - I addressed the my rationale in the very next paragraph (and I think you know that) - I have seen David Warner bat defensively, I've seen him block solidly, and I've seen him leave balls outside off-stump. I've also seen him do all of these several balls in a row. I'm sorry, but a wild slash outside off stump under the circumstances was not, and can not, ever be forgiveable. Warner is more talented than most, and I want to see more of him, so yes, I will continue to demand shot selection from him, and hold him to a higher standard than some seem prepared to. - I think the nightwatchman is poor strategy, and outlined its weaknesses in an earlier comment. I believe Steve Waugh agreed with me, so that's something I suppose, as not many called him an idiot. I had to look up 'ad hominem' by the way. Lovely use. - I did enjoy that turn of phrase, I must admit. - A strong Chairman's XI would hopefully encourage the visiting team to strengthen their line-up. I'd like to raise both the standard of that match, and our own standards in what we demand. Also, I'm not arguing the point to strengthen the Big Bash, so while your point makes sense, it's futile in the case of arguing against me. - Pass. - I think you know what I meant, and yes, I'll concede I went over the top in order to make the point. That was probably more of a case of, how did you so delightfully put it earlier, 'getting caught up in my own rhetoric'. - Yes, our batsmen are poorer than they were in our glory days, there is no doubt about it. And I don't think them playing in the BBL between the (short) break in tests is helping them get any better. In summary, no, I don't believe our relative lack of success in test match cricket is because of T20, I just believe that our approach and scheduling to it all isn't helping us acheive the supposed ultimate goal of being the best test nation. As for manipulating the truth, can it actually be done? An interesting philosophical question to be sure, I can see both sides of that argument.
Daniel
Guest
This is purely ridiculous. So incredibly backwards that it doesn't deserve a serious reply. You've taken the turn-off to self-parody.
Daniel
Guest
I distinctly recall Victoria playing a Shield final at Junction Oval (or another out-ground) a few years ago. I don't know if it was AFL related or not, however.
Daniel
Guest
Before I address the underlying point of your article, I'd like to point out a few mistruths contained within it. "After a second string Australian attack put the strongest batting line-up in the world to the sword and bowled them out for 225 in their first innings, our batsmen crumbed under the onslaught of high quality Test match bowling, and could manage only a paltry 163 in reply." Doesn't that paragraph follow a distinctly logical form? If a top batting line-up was skittled for 225 by a 'second string' attack, then surely a far poorer line-up making 163 against far better bowlers isn't unexpected. If Smith, Amla and de Villiers can't score against Hastings, Johnson and Starc on that track, it's a pretty long bow to draw that Messrs Warner, Ponting and Cowan should be making big runs against Steyn, Morkel and Philander. "He needed the courage to put his natural game away for the betterment of the team." Rule number one of cricket: trying to play a game that isn't yours never ends well. While 'that's the way he plays' is no excuse for stupidity, we can hardly expect Warner to grind out a dour 60 in the style of Lawry whenever an early wicket or two is lost. If so, we'd never have got his ton in the previous Test, and our batting line-up would be poorer for it. Not to mention setting your mind on defense if fraught with danger, the batsman stops scoring and pats back half volleys that should be dispatched to the boundary. We saw it with AB de Villiers in Adelaide - it may take a while, but eventually it leads to your downfall and puts the team in a pretty average position anyway. Better to let the batsmen do their job and make some runs. "I would love to captain Australia simply to offer my batsmen a nightwatchman when the circumstance arose. Anyone accepting such protection would never wear the baggy green under my command again. There are few weaker acts in cricket, and it is poor strategy to boot." Well thankfully you never will have the armband. Not to mention stating opinion as fact; the nightwatchman has worked on many occasions. Fine, disagree with it, but generalising it as a 'poor strategy' shows a lack of appreciation for some of the nuances of the game (and a lack of tactical awareness, since flexibility is quite a beneficial skill to have as captain). Anyway, I'm bordering on ad hominem here so I'll move on. "he swung wildly, with all the elegance and control of a man trying to chop up snakes in a phone booth." Getting caught up in your own rhetoric a little bit here. Poor shot, yes, but not nearly as bad as you make out. We wouldn't be crucifying him if DRS overturned it, would we? And there wasn't much evidence either way, to be perfectly honest. This is somewhat beside the point; he shouldn't be swinging wildly, but if he'd connected properly and made a run-a-ball ton etc. etc. As he learns his game, these errors will become fewer and further between. Michael Clarke, Michael Slater, Mark Waugh and plenty of other Australian greats (Miller, McCabe, Macartney, to follow the 'M' theme) were all highly successful at Test level despite being prone to the odd stupid shot at inopportune times. "But rather than working on his red-ball game in a tour match, the Sheffield Shield, or even, heaven forbid, grade cricket, according to Cricket Australia the most suitable way for Warner to overcome his deficiencies and prepare for another test match was to turn out for the Sydney Someone’s." Yep, feasting on Sri Lanka's squad bowlers or hapless grade medium pacers would clearly help him with his Test cricket. If you're suggesting going back to a weakened grade competition is better than playing against top quality bowlers (albeit in a different format) is better prep, then I'd call you insane. He has nothing to gain from plundering grade bowlers for an easy ton. Not to mention T20 needs a window in the domestic season somewhere, if we're to change the teams around and bring in overseas players galore. Oh wait, didn't you say you'd never watched the competition? Great position to judge from, isn't it? Cricketers are getting very, very good at switching from format to format at the drop of a hat. And while we're at it, let's pull every potential Test player from the competition to play the Tour Match and Grade. How successful would that T20 competition be! And why not play a fourth Test vs South Africa if that's what you want to do? This argument is getting more and more nonsensical by the second - "The best way to prepare is to not play domestic cricket because I don't like the competition or format." "Surely a match of such quality could be televised on Foxtel and played over the weekend to allow fans to see these players whose names we read about, but who few of us get the chance to see in action." I don't think you understand how this works.. "Remember the time when the Melbourne and Sydney Tests held from Boxing Day and in the New Year were the centrepiece of the cricket season? Now they are lucky to be included as afterthoughts." Pure falsehood. Boxing Day is still, by a huge margin, the biggest cricketing event of the Summer. The Stars will never sell out the MCG, no matter what. Boxing Day does, nigh on every year. And tickets to Day 1 of the Sydney Test are still the most sought after in New South Wales (barring State of Origin, naturally). The Sixers can't beat that, by any means. They are the showpiece games; your paragraph there is blatantly untrue. "So I’ll continue to boycott the BBL, carrying on my one man crusade as I dream of a tomorrow where the phrase ‘the prioritisation of Test cricket’ is more than just empty words." So, a lengthy Australia A tour to England, playing 3 and 4-day games doesn't prioritise Test cricket? I don't see the A team playing T20s left, right and centre. Hughes, Khawaja, Klinger, McDonald, Cowan et al. didn't sign up as T20 specialists on the county circuit; they played in all formats to improve themselves, as Hussey, Waugh, Border and co. did years before. We cannot help that our batsman are poorer than they were when we had Hayden, Langer, Ponting and Martyn running around the place. People get old, people retire and sometimes youngsters aren't of the same quality. Not to mention worldwide bowling stocks have improved exponentially and Shield pitches are inherently result-driven and bowler-friendly. This isn't a case of Test-hating and being a T20 fan, I'd watch a 4 day Zimbabwean domestic game ahead of the Sixers vs the Stars anyday. Test cricket will always be the pinnacle, but other formats have to be taken seriously as well. I suspect if we maintained a ranking down with Ireland in T20s because we didn't care about them, you'd be rather unhappy. You act as if our relative lack of success in Test match cricket is because of Twenty/20. It isn't. Sometimes, other teams are just better. This article manipulates truth (and makes some up, apparently) in order to pursue a vendetta against a format that, despite your hollow praise, you clearly do not like.
Bayman
Guest
Johnno, I'm not sure if Test cricket is struggling or simply the Australian Team in struggling. The crowds have been pretty good so far considering Adelaide is a bomb site and Perth is just, well, tiny! As far as your innovations go - I'd be horrified. I can't stand having to listen to the national anthem before every game now and I certainly don't give a rats about the welcome to country ceremonies. Which reminds me I should also avoid countries with anthems which must be sung in more than one language. By the time they finish my toe nails are growing through my socks. As for ground announcers talking drivel in the breaks - we get that now and if I could spot him in the crowd I'd happily shoot him - or at least point him out to the bloke with the gun (editor, that last bit was a joke - but I thought I might test the Roar's sense of humour).
Bayman
Guest
D.Large, About those Mayans........hopefully the world won't end before I can get one of Johnno's 'collared caps".
Brendon
Guest
I was a professional speedway rider in the UK for 5 years, we drove everywhere from teh south coast to scotland and did all our own machine maintenance in between.....Harden up, some bloke rode 5 days a week and crashed into fences at 100 kms only to get back on and ride again the next night with busted ligaments and broken bones (If you doubt me look the sport up on youtube). Professional sport is getting soft.
Brendon
Guest
petty disco, nice one
Brendon
Guest
One more point, they change the rules in AFL every year, this year they had a significant drop in crowd figures, CA beware of fiddling with the top form of the game to much.
Brendon
Guest
You're so far off the mark here Johno, I'm 30 and would be really dissapointed if they changed test cricket, jazzed it up as you say. Part of the charm is the tradition. Most grounds have loads of entertainment out the back of the stands anyway, and then there is beer. I'm not against progress, but test cricket is good enough as it is and I think you will find that as the gen y/z's get older they will turn to test cricket. The crowds this year for SA test matches were excellent. The problem isn't the game, it's the timing of the big bash and the way it's affecting our cricketers, as in giving them no prep time or first class cricket before what was a series to decide the number one team in the world.
Brendon
Guest
Maybe if their team was full of Englishmen they wouldn't be so successful ha ha. It's the England international XI
Brendon
Guest
I actuallly really like one dayers, let's me watch cricket all day and you get a result, what's not to love?
Brendon
Guest
We've got one dayers for this, which by the way, I still love.
Brendon
Guest
I like this idea, no international t20 games, great suggestion
Brendon
Guest
As gen Z grow up, they will want to watch a game that requires, resolve, patience and skill. As they get more patient in their own lives their tastes will change and they will want to watch Test Cricket, I am only 30 and as I get older I love the test matches more and more. I'm with the writer, I'm not watching or going to the BBL, can't watch it anyway because I can't afford Foxtel. I see the attendances are pretty poor and the players only play for money, so they don't care, why should I? Bring on the first test against Sri Lanka, can't wait.
Awais Rafique
Guest
fantastic piece and your absloutely correct. agree with you on everything and besides the bbl is a failure the teams aren't even making a profit and cricket australia keeps investing money into a project which is failing to make profits. the money they are investing into this failure is made from test. absolultely hate people who want to join the t20 bandwagon. odi and test cricket will live on and t20 is already losing its popularity and you clearly see that in the viewing figures and the low attendences. Cricket World Cup (odi) and Test World Championship (Test) will halt the success of t20 bashing. would deifinitely read more of your stuff and follow me on twitter @AW41S because i always tweet about these kind of things in cricket
tonysalerno
Roar Guru
All things are good in moderation. A new format has been adopt but you can't dismiss it entirely. There will always be a play in the game for test cricket.
Lancey5times
Guest
That's why it would be up to the players to nominate which contract they would like to pursue and therefore which forms they are to be considered eligible for selection. Is it restraint of trade if the player chooses? We may then see the IPL become like golfs Champions Tour :) And Rhys, the "So, it is possible that T20 can actually add strength to a batsman’s game (or bowlers)" idea is hardly backed up by the Australian batting since the introduction of T20 cricket
Cameron Rose
Expert
Rhys, I'm saying that test players certainly shouldn't be considered for the national T20 team, and neither for any franchises, like within the BBL during the period when test matches are being played, or in the lead up to a series. Naturally, the counter-argument is as you've suggested, restraint of trade etc. Where in life does it say we should all get everything we want? Tough decisions have to be made in all walks of life, and this would be no different. To a player that would argue to play T20, I would say they are free to play all the T20 they want, but as a chairman of selectors I don't consider it appropriate preparation for test match cricket, and thus you will not be considered for test selection. For me it's actually quite simple.