The Roar
The Roar

Vas Venkatramani

Roar Guru

Joined June 2009

1.03m

Views

147

Published

10.5k

Comments

Published

Comments

I understand that sentiment Marty, but for me, Twenty20 ruined the sport I once loved.

I can enjoy T20 in the same way I can indulge in Maccas, a momentary indulgence that is highly forgettable afterwards. But the problem is that in order to give T20 the platform it now has, Test cricket and ODI cricket have been treated like ugly ducklings both administratively and at times by the players. I understand why from a business perspective, and yes, my sentiments won’t stop this, but I don’t have to like it.

Nothing in this victory sets us up for future moments of glory, unlike what winning in 1999 did for us. Not sure of your age, but I remember being 13, watching us sweep past Pakistan in the final, and then shortly after win 16 Tests in a row. I can’t see a repeat of that based on our exploits in a format where Aaron Finch openly admitted that the toss played a major role in it.

'Beneath meaningless': Why the T20 World Cup warrants recognition, not celebration

Hi Paul, thanks for your comment.
The reason this piece wasn’t published before the final or tournament was that I was not to know how I would feel about it if and when Australia did win. It would have been easy to publish it pre-tournament when no one gave us Buckley’s hope of winning, and even easier to do it before the final when NZ swept away the eminent side of the tournament in England.
The fact is the only appropriate time to publish this was in the aftermath of victory, which would serve the dissenting view amongst the otherwise praise headed to the Australian team’s way these last few days (and rightly so). The problem for people like me that never indulged in T20 was how readily the character of Australian cricket had been refocused towards winning something that would add little glamour or prestige to our name, while the areas where Australian cricket has been built upon (glorious Test and ODI history) have been repeatedly besmirched over the last decade.
Like I said, T20 isn’t the cause of all of our ills, but it isn’t to be ignored either. I think you summed that up as well, so I don’t need to stress that point.

'Beneath meaningless': Why the T20 World Cup warrants recognition, not celebration

Thank you Frank for your esteemed words with the almost customary racist bent attached to it. The only salt I can see or hear is where you decided to assume my loyalty had much to do with the etymology of my name, a mistake a fair few have made before, and one you fail to learn from.

Fact is I’ve been an Australian fan for 30+ years, and the time in which I’ve felt compelled to prove my loyalty has long gone. I’m perfectly fine in you critiquing the piece on this basis I am being too critical to the achievements of the team on Monday morning, but the fact is that none of that was the crux of your critique, but rather my race.

A fool you are for it.

'Beneath meaningless': Why the T20 World Cup warrants recognition, not celebration

There is a lot about Chappell that is to be admired, with what he has done for Australian cricket. While some of his opinions hold merit, it is clear it is done with an ideological bent, which is something Shane Warne has embraced as well.

To me, his comments on Khawaja appear to have weight, but the flaw is that the same criticism applies to a lot of the other players who have donned the cap for the last decade. Yet Khawaja is the target – is this a mere coincidence, or is it done as a way to diminish the status of Khawaja whilst uplifting the cases of others who have equally collapsed in the face of good bowling attacks?

The other issue is form: Chappell has previously had numerous cracks at Khawaja, so much so you can’t help but feel there is an agenda. Only the man himself can state if there is, but given its repeated occurrence, Khawaja is entitled to bite back.

We rely on our legends to provide commentary and opinion so as to uplift the debate, not besmirch it with standards they selectively apply to some and not all.

Khawaja's perfectly cheeky Chappelli comeback after being labelled a 'good player against mediocre bowling'

But isn’t this all subjective fodder? I mean, what you brand as others being sensitive could just be that they’re annoyed? And vice-versa?

For the record, Chappell’s entitled to his opinion, guided or misguided. As is Khawaja is entitled to the response, guided or misguided. As Paul McCartney once beautifully said: let it be.

Khawaja's perfectly cheeky Chappelli comeback after being labelled a 'good player against mediocre bowling'

Without knowing your Polish friend, I can’t imagine her being too thrilled at the idea of her country’s capital being bombed to smithereens twice in five years, only to be rebuilt into a decently planned city as “lucky”.

That’s like telling a person who is madly in love with their second spouse how lucky it was the first one died of cancer…

Next year's Pakistan tour has to go ahead

Zubin, while the project may interest Mbappe, he will be far more interested in the number of trophies he has under his belt by the time he retires.

With that in mind, I can’t see him going anywhere except the Spanish giants or Bayern Munich. The one trophy he has left to win is the Champions League. While Liverpool is England’s European giant, they are no guarantee to qualify year on year. Only Man City are bona fide certainties. He could go there, as they can afford him without breaking sweat, and he will win silverware.

But your assessment belies the main point that Liverpool do not need Kylian Mbappe. As ridiculous as that sounds, but buying him will break their wage structure, and Liverpool have built their success beyond buying a single player on higher wages than the rest.

Liverpool can afford Kylian Mbappe - and here's how

Roberto, there was good enough incentive for the EPL clubs to abandon it, insofar that instead of having to play Brighton, Burnley or Wolves, they could play blockbusters against Barca and Juventus every week. No doubt the Super League, if it did go through, would be commercially successful.

You’re right in that the other clubs would get substantially more benefit, but at some point, even that would assume that there wouldn’t be an ecosystem within the Super League which made some clubs more commercially appealing than others. And when that happened, what would the solution be? Weekly Barca v Real matches, because they can’t stomach lower revenues when playing Liverpool or Arsenal?

If this idea does come to pass again, it will be because it is an inclusive league, not an exclusive one as the first design was intended to create.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the Super League: Greed or absolute need?

Good article Amer – you’ve hit some salient points around how the declining revenues, largely forced on by the pandemic, have possibly accelerated the speed in which this ridiculous decision was taken.

There is a fundamental rule around change theory that is ubiquitous: know your customers, and know how to bring stakeholders onside. It is here the 12 clubs involved spectacularly failed.

Their customers, or should I say, the fans of football, are not atypical consumerists of a product. They are avowed fanatics of a club, a sport, a cause, all of whom buy football jerseys courtesy of an organic affiliation they have. Trying to commoditise football was only going to be successful insofar as fans were willing to continue lining the pockets of their football clubs. But instead, the ownership of their clubs betrayed them.

How did they betray them? Because by using the term “legacy fans”, this gig was up. It was clear at that moment that owners of football clubs do not want passionate people in their stands, but people who will pay to come, consume a product, and leave. For those “legacy fans” living in the streets of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Madrid, Barcelona, Milan and Turin, they spend little more than the price of a season ticket and maybe one football shirt. That is a market of only 1 or 2 million at best. Compare that to catering for a worldwide audience that can fly in, buy all the merch from the gift shop, watch the game, and fly out. That’s a market of multimillions, where the rate of return is far superior. That is why owners prefer customers over legacy fans.

Second problem is they failed to bring the stakeholders onside – who were they? They were the likes of Leicester and West Ham, who occupied the UCL places at the time of this announcement. They were Everton, rich in history and heritage. They were the FA, UEFA and FIFA: all careful to look after their own product.

The Premier League break up of 1992 only worked because it had enough clubs to form an effective coalition against the Football League, and it never closed the door on the clubs that weren’t originally included in the deal. Do well, get promoted, you’re in. The Super League failed because it designed itself to be a closed shop, where mediocrity (as all sporting teams are likely to face at some point) does not get punished.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the Super League: Greed or absolute need?

lesterlike, unlike the Glazers and the Kroenkes, FSG have some credit in the bank, a lot of which they burned during the Super League fiasco.

But the Liverpool fans are not as driven to get their owners out of the club, unlike Man Utd or Arsenal. Liverpool fans mainly want fan representation on the board, namely by Spirit of Shankly. Now even that is a hard sell, as few owners would want to dilute their sharehold over an asset they have grown. But that is more palatable than FSG selling their asset, which they aren’t likely to do at all.

But then the question is: who does FSG sell to? While they aren’t benevolent, we have enough experience of what a malevolent venture capitalist looks like. Liverpool fans should be careful what they wish for if they ask for new ownership.

Liverpool's owners haven’t been as bad as everyone says

Zubin, I won’t criticise you as you allude to, as you make some fair points of how FSG has improved the club, especially from the place they found them in.
But I think your analysis is half-baked, not least because that you neglect where FSG have gone wrong (73GBP tickets, attempting to trademark Liverpool, furloughing staff). Then you have the Super League debacle, which sought to undermine the very essence of what competitive sport is all about. Sport without jeopardy is merely performance art.
But more than any of those, I think you, I, and many foreign fans miss what is truly essential about the marriage between FSG and the community they are working in. Having lived in London, I made enough trips north to Merseyside to at least empathise with what the people protesting against FSG are complaining about.
In all of the points you made, none of them brought substantial benefit to the community. Yes, they have improved the club, but these clubs are so embedded with their working class origins, you cannot delineate between the two. FSG are venture capitalists, and good ones at that. They saw an undervalued asset in 2010, invested in it sufficiently to help it grow, brought supporters onside with some of the decisions you listed above (plus things like hiring Klopp, buying VVD and Alisson, and winning the two big trophies on offer). The club is now worth near enough 2 billion pounds – which is a substantial ROI.
As far as venture capitalists go, FSG are some of the better ones, especially compared to the Glazers and the Kroenkes. But none of FSG’s work has improved the community in Liverpool. If you don’t think that’s important, consider the work Man City’s owners have done to gentrify the eastern side of Manchester – this part of town was seen as dangerous and a place where no family would feel safe: it is now an impressive area where quality of living now surpasses the western part of Manchester where Man Utd are.
When we look at owners, we have to consider their impact on the community as a whole: FSG have done little of that. And in a working-class area like Liverpool, where Tory politicians are seen as the devil incarnate, this matters.
So if FSG want to get back in Liverpool fans’ good books, their next moves have to centre around projects that improve standard of living in their community. Otherwise, they are merely soft-spoken venture capitalists making substantial profits based on their own interests, and not much more.

Liverpool's owners haven’t been as bad as everyone says

As usual with Pat, he is a class act.

My only concern is the destination of his generosity: the PM Cares fund was set up initially to help Indians at the outset of COVID-19 last year, yet has been subject to numerous scandals regarding where donations are going, and is yet to be subject to public audit.

While this is a generalisation, the endemic corruption within Indian politics makes Australia’s look like rank amateurs. There is a reason why India’s rise as an economic power is courtesy of private enterprise.

I’m just hoping the benevolence of Pat and any other cricketer that follows in his footsteps will help the right people in India, and not just be shoveled away in some government official bank account never to be accounted for.

Pat Cummins makes $50k donation to help India's virus fight

I think your assessment that the BCCI are doing “Australian cricket a favor” is limited solely on financial grounds.

Australian cricket may need India’s money, but India desperately needs to play and beat the likes of Australia and England to gain the legitimacy that their hegemony of world cricket extends to the field of play and not backroom shenanigans. It’s hard to brand yourself as a side in the class of the Invincibles, the Windies of 70s and 80s or the Aussies of the 90s and 00s just by routine beatings of smaller tier nations.

So yes, Australia needs India’s money in order to sustain an unsustainable business model. On that basis, I’d actually argue Australia is on the long-term better off in building its cricket relationships with other nations just so it doesn’t consign itself as a lapdog of Indian cricket. That requires strong leadership, which regrettably, Australia consigned to the backheap the moment that its leaders told Andrew Symonds to withdraw his racism charge in 2008. From that moment, Cricket Australia has worked harder to appease India than its own players.

But India cannot convince anyone but itself that they can gain the recognition they feel they are warranted without Australia and England (and South Africa and the Windies to a lesser degree) – that is where cricket’s heritage and prestige lie. And that still matters, regardless of how much Twenty20 tries to bastardise a once-glorious game.

India isolation leeway key to Gabba keeping Test

Mark Waugh got dropped in November 2002 – Hussey was 27 at the time, and not averaging the numbers he was when he got in. Martyn was near about 50 at that moment, and ended with a not-so-shabby 46-odd. Blewett’s last Test was in March 2000, and Lehmann was a generation above Hussey for knocking on the door for his chance, which he did largely well with.

I might be harsh on Head, but in a two-tiered cricket economy, the guy has a HS of only 72 against India/England. His figures are mostly fattened up by hapless SL and NZ bowling attacks on Aussie pitches. This is what I mean when I say that while he doesn’t necessarily deserve the punt, neither should his place be considered safe, especially when there is a viable alternative available.

Your last question: no, if Burns and Wade get picked and do well, they shouldn’t lose their place. I’m a firm believer of rewarding good form. If that happens, then Green and Pucovski will have to either wait their turn, or take someone else’s spot. But the argument is here and now: two young blokes are in superb form, and if the rhetoric is about players knocking on the door, then it has to occasionally be matched by action.

Time to be brave with Pucovski and Green

Mike Hussey had to wait by virtue of six blokes who were all averaging 50+ against fine attacks. Gilchrist is a wicketkeeper, and had to wait for Healy to lose his form.

I agree with the principle of your argument, as it’s a sound one. But I don’t know what point there is of telling young players to perform and not give them an opportunity, especially if you contextualise that none of Burns, Wade or Head have done little to demand their spots be safe.

Looks like Langer will stick to Burns – it’s the wrong call, not because of anything Burns has done, but we’re overlooking a bloke who has the ability to be a mainstay for the next decade. His form demands selection.

Time to be brave with Pucovski and Green

Paul, fair question. The answer? Because Australian cricket at its best has had a history aimed at improving the team from positions of strength.
I hark back to the likes of David Boon, Ian Healy and even Stephen Waugh being pushed out the door. It wasn’t just ageism, but reflecting that the likes of Ponting, Gilchrist and Clarke were coming through. As a youngster, I found the notion of dropping Stephen Waugh sacrilegious. But he retired, and Australia had multiple options to improve the team at the time.
Like I said, Head, Burns and Wade are fine players all, but none of them have made a case so irresistible so as to avoid scrutiny. But the mindset of the Australian team has to be to integrate young players who are in form at the time. When else is an opportune time to get them in? When their purple patch dissipates and they are thrown to the wolves as a last resort? What better way to breed confidence in them than to say, you’re in form, and we’re picking you to take that form into a Baggy Green cap?
I’m not fully aware of the progress or status of some of the Indian players like Gill, so I’ll take a pass at making a judgement.
And finally, regarding the rankings. Can you or I with justification suggest that our current number 1 status is in any way indicative of us being superior to India or England? The rankings are an algorithm based on the matches that different countries play, with no inherent equity that determines that each match is valued the same as another. And with every country having uneven schedule of matches, the ICC Match Rankings are as flawed as the time the FIFA World Rankings had the United States as the fifth best team on the planet. So I’ll take the number 1 ranking with a pinch of salt.

Time to be brave with Pucovski and Green

Chris, I never said Australia didn’t care for allrounders pre-Flintoff. But selection policy seismically changed as a result of Flintoff’s influence in 2005. Before that, Australia were perfectly content with four frontline bowlers, with handy overs from the batsmen at times as you’ve alluded to.

When I use the term allrounder, I state it on the basis of a player being able to perform with bat and ball as fully and functionally as any regulation batsman or bowler could do. The likes of the Waugh brothers were definitely handy bowlers in their youth, but their bowling was definitely not good enough to make it as one of the frontline options.

But Flintoff changed our selection policy. Prior to the 06/07 Ashes, the selectors were desperate to include Shane Watson, and were only spared of that decision due to his injury, offering Michael Clarke a chance that he made count. But my point is that nowhere in Watson’s record did he warrant a spot over Clarke or other batsmen, and his bowling was never good enough in Tests.

As I mentioned, there is no way to tell if Cameron Green is the real deal. But my concern is that we give him his opportunity when either a) he isn’t in form, or b) as a desperation move from a position of weakness. And that can undermine his progress. Right now, Australia are entering a series with an opportunity to actually improve the team, both in terms of personnel and balance. Head and Wade are fine players, but their records are not so indomitable that renders Green an outside selection.

Green and Pucovski both deserve an opportunity – success for them could help solidify Australia’s position for years to come. But failure at a young age isn’t a bad thing – the likes of Langer, Hayden and Martyn all got early opportunities, failed and then came back. We shouldn’t be so myopic to discount the opportunity we have, where we can select young players in form.

Time to be brave with Pucovski and Green

Indeed – Swepson only features if there is a third seam option, and neither Starc nor Cummins’ batting is good enough to class themselves as a number 7. Green is almost a necessity at the moment in order to determine if some flexibility can be afforded in future selections regarding a second spinner.

Time to be brave with Pucovski and Green

There is a fair argument to state that putting two debutants would be a risk. But the risk you incur is also dependant on the risk of retaining the incumbents. Neither Wade nor Head have done overly much to warrant keeping their place. Wade’s record since the Ashes is iffy while Head rarely seems to make his starts count into something substantial.

Time to be brave with Pucovski and Green

There is an ethical issue around using public money to fund development of stadiums used by privately-owned enterprises, who then get to keep the profits generated by the stadiums, with government getting little ROI.

I pose this question – if multiple NRL clubs cannot sell out the stadiums they currently occupy, then what is the economic argument being mounted to redevelop the same stadiums into so-called “boutique” ones? There is no guarantee that this will bring about crowds.

If the NRL wanted to mount a worthwhile argument, it would come as a result of stadiums having to turn people away. That would be an argument for taxpayer-funded redevelopment, not the present scenario.

Until such time, NRL clubs should be subject to the same financial decisions that effect other private business, which is that if they want new infrastructure, they should primarily fund it themselves.

As an aside, I think all Sydney clubs should look to return to their suburban grounds. It will definitely come at less profit, but the big concern for the NRL right now is its cost base. Returning to spiritual homes is a far stronger argument for fans to return than pumping millions into infrastructure white elephants that could send entire economies broke.

The NSW stadium policy is in shambles, but there is hope

David, what is the merit of letting them return? Because the others who got caught didn’t face the same severity?

That’s the same line of thought when someone who smuggles drugs around Australia gets a fine/jail sentence, while if you get caught doing that in SE Asia, then it’s curtains.

Quite simply, CA made a decision to punish them, and they should stick to it. They disgraced the identity of Australian cricket by their low acts. I personally supported a lifetime ban being a firm deterrent for the future, but the decision was made, and nothing they have done suggests they should re-enter earlier.

Time for Cricket Australia to end the Smith, Warner and Bancroft bans

As a Liverpool fan, it’s been a pleasure to witness this unfold.

That aside, the malaise inside United is at the feet of both Mourinho and Woodward, who both have different strategies. Mourinho’s is that he should have a limitless budget to work with until he gets it right, like he previously had at Chelsea. Woodward’s is one of financial prudence, where he doesn’t mind spending money, and also is rightly asking the manager to make the most of the investment already made. Remember, Lindelof and Bailly are Mourinho’s own signings.

Finally, there is a general distaste among the United supporter base for the football being played. It’s not ideal for United base to be gazing towards the other half of Manchester or the red of Merseyside on the football there. The results haven’t been terrible, but the rise of City and Liverpool, plus the ongoing threats of Spurs and Chelsea, and the prospect of a renewed Arsenal should worry United supporters.

Only way this gets resolved is if Mourinho gets the punt and is replaced by someone who will play attractive football and gets some decent results. Right now, there is a cultural mismatch between Mourinho and United. The issue for Mourinho is there is no bigger job available than United – he’s done Spain, Italy and England. No German club will tolerate Mourinho’s persona – PSG is an option if Tuchel doesn’t fit.

Right on time, Mourinho’s third season syndrome is taking shape

Klopp is overrated? He is the only manager that since 2010 has taken the Bundesliga title away from Bayern Munich. Since being at Liverpool, he has been making a profit in the transfer market, despite the team being substantially better than the one he joined. His Liverpool team haven’t won anything, but neither did SAF for his first five seasons at United. In a more contemporary example, Pochettino hasn’t won anything yet for Spurs, but no question as to which manager more attack-minded players want to play for.

I wouldn’t say Mourinho is past it, but I do know that the Man Utd fans only have a limited tolerance for the football his team have shown. Manchester United fans are like Liverpool fans in the sense they are brought up on teams that play attacking and entertaining football.

Much has been made about United being second ahead of Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea. Well, most United fans would argue there is no difference being second or fourth. But there is a big difference between first and second. Most United fans would rather their team be fourth and be enterprising and motivated, as opposed to a club whose home ground has the atmosphere of a well-attended funeral.

Finally, look at the history of Jose Mourinho. He has only ever left two clubs on a high of CL wins, one being Porto, and the other being Inter. Aside from that, he’s been shunted out of every other club he’s been at, usually during the third or fourth season. Next year will be Mourinho’s third season at United, where he will either win the title, or set the place to flames.

Everyone talks about the hard task of following Ferguson’s winning era. It’s following Mourinho’s narcissistic destruction that’ll be the challenge.

Jose Mourinho: The chosen one is still the only one for Manchester United

Good call Scott.

One thing in our favour is that the second leg of the playoff will be at home, so if Australia can navigate a tricky first leg, you’d hope we could do the job here.

Socceroos vs Syria: World Cup Qualifier highlights, live scores, blog

Now can they defend for 15 minutes? One Syrian goal still takes them through…

Socceroos vs Syria: World Cup Qualifier highlights, live scores, blog

close