The Roar
The Roar

Jeff

Roar Rookie

Joined June 2019

0

Views

0

Published

6.1k

Comments

Published

Comments

Jeff hasn't published any posts yet

I agree with the benefits of a 5 Test series v India. But disagree a Test v Afghanistan is meaningless. AFG has done so well to get itself to Test status and I believe they deserve their opportunity to play against the “bigger” international sides. As a WACA member, yes I am disappointed in not getting the India Test in Perth, though perhaps my disappointment stems more-so from the perceived “snub” of CA – given what we were told for missing out on a Test a few seasons back – i.e. the ageing WACA Ground not being up to standard and rectifying this would not result in Perth missing out in the future – rather than the “quality of the opposition.

But again, I would back a 5 Test series v India, but also add in an Afghanistan Test if the T20WC gets cancelled…it would simply mean that the Australian Test players who also have IPL contracts, would need to miss an additional week of the (likely) rescheduled IPL in Oct/Nov.

WACA furious about Perth's snub for India Test series

Think I would have had Langer in for Warner, on the basis of being the opening partner to Hayden. They (JL and Haydos) were an established combination and there’s a unique place in cricket for opening pairs that know how to complement one another.

The greatest Australian Test XI this century

I have no issue with a 3rd review per-se DaveJ, it’s more-so the messaging – or lack there-of – from the ICC as this being a “temporary” measure, that concerns me re the ICC’s attitude towards the authority of its umpires.

Spit banned but sweat OK to polish balls

I absolutely agree that now is the time for ICC to roll back neutral umpires. The concept was introduced with the introduction of the Elite Panel and at that time, there was still a lot of hangover from “the old days” with umpires in the system who had been direct employees of the home country’s board and still had that cultural/home bias in-built.

Twenty years on and that issue should be well and truly a thing of the past. Last year’s Ashes should absolutely be a catalyst for doing away with the need for “neutral” umpires, because they are all neutral, irrespective of country of birth/residency. That’s what concerns/confuses me about having to have the 3rd referral. The logic behind it is apparent to me. Some will say that it is the ICC trying to ward off the perception of bias by member nations. To that I would say that the ICC is nothing *but* its members. So if the members are saying there is bias, then the ICC is also saying it. Anyway…

Good observation re underlying messaging on status of WC. Perhaps they are looking to the very near term – i.e. next 2 months of matches – but it does seem that if they don’t think umpires can travel internationally, then the implication is that players can’t either so that would put the WC in question. Which makes the ICC decision a bit odd because in that scenario there are no matches to officiate. Then again, I guess every country has different rules in place.

The ICC decision will have certainly been influenced by Australia’s border restrictions given how many Australians are on the Elite Panel. There is about a dozen bilateral series scheduled for the next 10 weeks so umpires will be in high demand, assuming these series proceed.

It will be interesting to see whether the South Africa team is permitted to travel to Sri Lanka this month and whether the India team is permitted to travel to Sri Lanka next month. Both countries still have a ban on international air departures, so upcoming decisions will give an insight on whether major sports teams will be given travel exemptions by their Governments and by the Government of the host nation (Sri Lanka in this case).

Spit banned but sweat OK to polish balls

Sure, but the decision isn’t just about Australian umpires in Australia. If not about quality of umpiring, then it’s about bias – an even worse “slander” on the authority of the umpire taking the field.

These umpires are employees of the ICC and neutral, not the Board of their home country as they once were, so if the ICC and its members can’t accept that as being the case (i.e. neutrality), then the concept of the ICC really is in trouble.

If the decision was made on either bias or quality issues, all it is doing IMO is eroding the authority of the umpire.

Spit banned but sweat OK to polish balls

That’s certainly another view as to reasoning behind the decision DJM – “home bias” vs “lower-quality”. But if both teams get 3 reviews each, how does it improve the “disadvantage of home bias” perceived by the visiting team? I’m still convinced it’s a decision based on reacting to perceived reduced quality of umpiring, but most happy to be convinced to another viewpoint. But there lies another problem – what exactly is the ICC reasoning behind the decision? Now, I must admit I’ve not researched this in any way and am relying just on the facts presented in this article; it may well be there is a more comprehensive ICC statement addressing reasoning, but the past opaque nature of ICC explanations behind decisions leaves me, sadly, skeptical as to there being a clear message/approach underpinning this particular ICC directive.

Spit banned but sweat OK to polish balls

I have no idea what that 3rd DRS review as an “interim measure” is about Paul.

Spit banned but sweat OK to polish balls

Hmmm….Because Elite Panel umpires may not be available, local – but still international panel quality – will be used. As a consequence, a third DRS review per innings will be permitted as an interim measure.

So essentially the message is “these umpires are likely to be error prone so we’ll compensate the teams accordingly”. Well, good luck to the umpires heading out onto the field to exercise authority and control of the game whilst at the same time having one hand tied behind their back.

What bizarre messaging from the ICC, assuming this article is passing through all relevant information.

Spit banned but sweat OK to polish balls

Always happy to agree to disagree Joshua. Robust and genuine discussion between opposing points of view is almost always going to result in positive outcomes overall.

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates

Well, there in lies the discussion point as to whether it is broke – or heading that way – or not. Some would argue that cricket is becoming less about entertainment, and more about infotainment, hijacked by commercial imperatives which aim to get eyeballs on non-cricket products at the expense of the actual cricket, with the game as the vehicle to facilitate this.

International cricket is increasingly becoming bite-sized pieces of a fractionalised game. The amount of cricket played seems to be taking an increasing back seat to how many get drawn into to the marketing/infotainment side of things, when most cricket lovers know that the game itself can/should be able to hold its own. But in a tussle between maintaining the integrity of the game and commercial influence, it isn’t the game that is winning the battle. Hence why subtle adjustments to Tests shouldn’t be discounted out of hand.

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates

How about drinks only come on between overs if the batsmen scored, say, 8 runs off the over? A couple of lazy singles in an over should surely preclude the need for re-hydration every 4 minutes? The bowlers are sorted as they can continue to squirt fluids from the boundary rope between balls. At least there would be a semblance of justification for the appearance of the hi-viz on the ground during play! It’s a bit of regulatory over-policing though – but that’s where the umpires need to take back control and not be ICC Elite Panel lackies. Oh for the likes of David Shepherd and D Bird again….Who controls the ebb and flow of the game? The umpires do!

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates

Which circles us back to the logic of the premise of Paul’s article, which is an improvement of the cricket experience by virtue of less breaks in play and therefore more actual cricket.

If the rest of the world isn’t interested in that premise as a core concept, so be it.

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates

#MeToo

The best Aussie Test XI of the 1980s

Even after Bob went electric?

The best Aussie Test XI of the 1980s

And then Greg Matthews would have to be excluded on the basis of belonging to a different species. It all starts to get very complicated!

The best Aussie Test XI of the 1980s

In Purple Rain?

The best Aussie Test XI of the 1980s

Purple Rain?

The best Aussie Test XI of the 1980s

Mmmm. If you exclude Rod, Greg and Dennis on the basis of belonging to the 70s, surely Steve Waugh has to be excluded on the basis of belonging to the 90s?

The best Aussie Test XI of the 1980s

So someone born in the year 2000 is not a Millennial? Outrageous!! 😂 😂

The best Aussie Test XI of the 1980s

In terms of playing surface, I’d certainly like to see Perth in the mix.

India went into total lock down mid-March and it was chaotic. I believe they are still in a nationwide lock down. But even then, social distancing in either big cities or rural villages is challenging. At this point in time – and I’d imagine for a few months from now – being any where in Australia would be viewed as a god-send compared to being in India in terms of potential exposure and I doubt even going to NSW were there to be outbreaks, would be seen as a comparative concern. I imagine even at other grounds, there would be limited interaction of the playing/support group with the general population. The country is currently reporting as 100,000 cases and still growing with more per day than the day before. But being India, the reporting of – and even presentation to medical clinics of – cases will be way way under the actual number of cases.

Adelaide and Perth are easily the best stadiums for spectator experience, though the SCG has its own charm. The MCG has little going for it other than it’s big. Actually too big for most cricket events.

Richard Goyder says Crows breach 'didn't help' AFL

FTA in India.

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates

Actually, it is FTA in India as well as subscription.

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates

We used 8 ball overs from the 1920s through to 1980, so absolutely it was a fundamental aspect in Australia, so yes, I can “come on here” and say that. Other countries have variously used a combination of 6 ball, 8 ball, even 4 and 5 ball overs.

6 ball overs were mandated globally in 1980 and 90 overs in a day sometime in the 1980s I recall. And how often does that 90 over target get met?

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates

Great lateral thinking in this article, Arnab. Love your left-field thinking on the game.

An uncapped Australia versus India Test match

Try watching it on Star when in India. Australia FTA is bad. The in-house TV experience in India is beyond excruciating.

A simple change could get rid of one of cricket's pet hates