This was a game that could have been won by either team but Australia was the team that deserved to win. There will be many talking points from this game and most notable will be the issue of the DRS and India's ongoing stance of not allowing it to be used in any games it plays. What I can still not understand is how India can hold their head up high on an issue like this and not bat an eyelid when the technology they refuse to use helps them get a wicket, when an umpire asks for the same technology to help decide if a wicket has fallen. I have previously discussed this issue and I will state again that the ICC needs to be a controlling body as it is designed to be and say that it is to be there for every game or none at all. If it is not to be available for the captains of each team then it is not to be available for the umpires either. Or take the decision out of the hands of the layers and let the umpires review any decision they want. The lack of DRS also highlighted why it is there to use, if the umpires didn't get so many decisions wrong there would not be any debate on the issue. Will the umpires get a hauling over in the press though? Doubt it.
The next issue to raise debate is that of the Australian batsmen. Australia is very close to getting a solid team together but it is also a long way off. But for the second innings, Hussey must have been close to playing his last game and may now last the summer out. But a run of low scores again may well be his last. Ponting has answered his critics to a degree (myself included) and like Hussey may have guaranteed a start in every game for the summer, but Ponting too may not be too far off being tapped on the shoulder. Warner showed what you get with a player of his style. He now must learn to show he can curb his style on pitches where it is in favour of the bowler and put away the loose shots when the time calls. Cowan was very good on debut and can be forgiven for one bad call of judgement. If anything it was nice to see a batsmen who knew what it means to play cricket over 5 days and not one session. Could be some big scores in a batsmen who looks like he could bat for 2 days. Then we come to the so called talented batsmen who must be told, sorry but you are no longer required, Haddin. Yet again this is a batsmen who is not doing anything with the bat and knows how to get himself out more than a good ball gets him out. Add to that his poor glovework (he may have taken a lot of catches but if the one he dropped cost them the game it would be a lot different.).
The final talking point will is the Australian bowling. here is a lineup that is missing some of its best in the likes of Harris and Watson and promising young quick Cummins. And it is the bowlers that won the game for Australia. All the bowlers were amongst the wickets and when you look at the valuable runs they put in for both innings (84 1st innings & 55 2nd innings) it must be embarrassing for the batsmen who only have one role.
It is always great to see Australia win, it is even greater to see them win a game against a team like India. Australia just need to go on and make India return to home soil with it's tail between it's legs. Just because India has some talented players it does not mean we should let them showcase their talent on our turf. When we tour no team is happy to see us win and do well, so it s only fair we return to the days of being a bit aggressive and arrogant on the field. One does not become a feared opponent in top flight sport by being mild and welcoming.
Thursday 29 December 2011
Tuesday 27 December 2011
No DRS or Is There?
Well it appears that the DRS is in play after all and and India have been on the beneficial end again. No matter how you put it India are becoming hypocrites when it comes to the use of technology in cricket.
After what happened yesterday it was always going to happen. Dismissals would be decided by video replay and the decision would benefit the team that did not want this technology used for the DRS system. If India wants the umpire to make the call on the field then that is what should happen. If the umpire thinks it is a noball then he should call it. If a wicket did not fall would the umpire have still called noball? How many more noballs were not called due to a wicket not falling on the delivery.
It was not long into the day when the first wicket fell and the umpire immediately called for a review of the noball and also to see if the ball carried. Once viewed and given out, the Indians were more than happy to accept the use of the review system and celebrate the wicket. In the last session of the day an Indian wicket falls, the valuable wicket of Dravid, and the umpire decides he thinks it might be a noball (if he thought it why not call it straight away), viewing the replay of the noball I can argue the point that it may not have been a noball as the foot might have slid forward but the frames are either side of the foot's initial contact with the ground. Decision reviewed and it is ruled a noball, India benefit again from the use of technology that they have declined to allow the use of throughout the series.
Why do umpires not review every wicket to see if it is a noball? Umpires do make mistakes and human error is part of sport, but when technology is available, why not use it. India have shown their true colours, they are happy to accept decisions without technology and they are happy to accept decisions that use technology, either way India are happy with everything as long as it is good for India.
It is now time that Australian cricket fans said that it is not good enough. If it is good enough for India to say that they are not happy with the DRS system it is good enough for Australians to say that we are not happy with the lack of DRS and India's acceptance of the DRS when umpires use it.
After what happened yesterday it was always going to happen. Dismissals would be decided by video replay and the decision would benefit the team that did not want this technology used for the DRS system. If India wants the umpire to make the call on the field then that is what should happen. If the umpire thinks it is a noball then he should call it. If a wicket did not fall would the umpire have still called noball? How many more noballs were not called due to a wicket not falling on the delivery.
It was not long into the day when the first wicket fell and the umpire immediately called for a review of the noball and also to see if the ball carried. Once viewed and given out, the Indians were more than happy to accept the use of the review system and celebrate the wicket. In the last session of the day an Indian wicket falls, the valuable wicket of Dravid, and the umpire decides he thinks it might be a noball (if he thought it why not call it straight away), viewing the replay of the noball I can argue the point that it may not have been a noball as the foot might have slid forward but the frames are either side of the foot's initial contact with the ground. Decision reviewed and it is ruled a noball, India benefit again from the use of technology that they have declined to allow the use of throughout the series.
Why do umpires not review every wicket to see if it is a noball? Umpires do make mistakes and human error is part of sport, but when technology is available, why not use it. India have shown their true colours, they are happy to accept decisions without technology and they are happy to accept decisions that use technology, either way India are happy with everything as long as it is good for India.
It is now time that Australian cricket fans said that it is not good enough. If it is good enough for India to say that they are not happy with the DRS system it is good enough for Australians to say that we are not happy with the lack of DRS and India's acceptance of the DRS when umpires use it.
Monday 26 December 2011
DRS Farce In Boxing Day Test
The Boxing Day Test kicked off against modern rivals India and what I always thought would be a controversial issue this series raised its head on the first day and will be a talking point all summer.
Under the rules of the ICC if both teams don't agree on the DRS then it is not used. As usual India declined to use the technology and it showed why. The decision to give out Hussey and Cowan were appalling decisions by the umpire as replays clearly showed there was no edge and also clearly showed there was no sound when the ball passed the bat on both occasions. With these facts it makes you wonder why India were appealing so loudly when there is no evidence to give the decision out. Add to that the fact the biggest appeal on both occasions came from the keeper who is also the captain of the team.
The ICC has the power to enforce the DRS for every game. The DRS is used for runout and stumping decisions and if I am correct it will also be used to see if a .ball carried to a fielder. The umpires will also use replays to confirm boundaries. India cannot have it both ways, if they do not want to use the DRS because they do not trust the technology then they cannot also say they trust the technology for other decisions.
India were also unhappy with a declined LBW decision that did not go there way and clearly showed frustration. Someone needs to tap then on the should tonight and remind them of earlier decisions that went there way. For the rest of this series India maintain no right to complain about any umpiring decisions as they have handed themselves the deck they are playing with. What India need to remind themselves of is how would they handle the tow decisions if they happened to their players. Imagine the reaction in India if Tendulkar was given out first ball to a delivery that he clearly missed.
Analysis of the game with my sideline reporter had comments of cheating raised. I am not saying that India have cheated but if they continue to refuse the DRS and then appeal for dismissals that are clearly not out then they have to accept the accusations that will go their way. It will be interesting to see how today's play pans out in media reports and if either side makes any comments. I will be watching closely.
Under the rules of the ICC if both teams don't agree on the DRS then it is not used. As usual India declined to use the technology and it showed why. The decision to give out Hussey and Cowan were appalling decisions by the umpire as replays clearly showed there was no edge and also clearly showed there was no sound when the ball passed the bat on both occasions. With these facts it makes you wonder why India were appealing so loudly when there is no evidence to give the decision out. Add to that the fact the biggest appeal on both occasions came from the keeper who is also the captain of the team.
The ICC has the power to enforce the DRS for every game. The DRS is used for runout and stumping decisions and if I am correct it will also be used to see if a .ball carried to a fielder. The umpires will also use replays to confirm boundaries. India cannot have it both ways, if they do not want to use the DRS because they do not trust the technology then they cannot also say they trust the technology for other decisions.
India were also unhappy with a declined LBW decision that did not go there way and clearly showed frustration. Someone needs to tap then on the should tonight and remind them of earlier decisions that went there way. For the rest of this series India maintain no right to complain about any umpiring decisions as they have handed themselves the deck they are playing with. What India need to remind themselves of is how would they handle the tow decisions if they happened to their players. Imagine the reaction in India if Tendulkar was given out first ball to a delivery that he clearly missed.
Analysis of the game with my sideline reporter had comments of cheating raised. I am not saying that India have cheated but if they continue to refuse the DRS and then appeal for dismissals that are clearly not out then they have to accept the accusations that will go their way. It will be interesting to see how today's play pans out in media reports and if either side makes any comments. I will be watching closely.
Wednesday 21 December 2011
Suarez Banned For Not Being Racist
This is how the headlines should read. What I am trying to figure out is how the FA came up with such a decision. Suarez has been found guilty of saying racist comments yet has also been found not to be racist. The term in question throughout this whole charade is "negrito". If anyone is offended by this term I wonder if they really know what it means.
To start with it is not what you think it is. It is not the racist term that many American Rap artists uses frequently without anyone raising an uproar. Negrito is a term for a class of ethnic groups from South East Asia with possible African heritage. It is also has a literal translation of 'little black guy'. If this term is to be considered racist then the FA have opened up a can of worms that would make the PC world look insensitive. One can not be racist if one uses a term that has been defined by anthropologists. How can the FA find a word that is not offensive in one language to be racist when translated to another?
From here Liverpool FC should take this to a court of law as part of their appeal to show how foolish this decision is. If it is found that this term is no longer allowed, imagine how many other terms would be considered racist. If you cannot refer to an ethnic group, would Australians be unable to say Aboriginal. How do we refer to the Chinese or Indians. The UK government would be found guilty by the FA for terms it uses in its census for how it breaks down its ethnic classes: ie, White, Mixed, Black, Chinese & other, and in those groups it broke it down even further. Would a person be banned if in a game they referred to a redhead as a wranga. Is it no longer acceptable to call someone a white guy?
The sporting field is a place where sledging will always take place and in my time I have heard some things that are not acceptable in most places. It is not always a good thing but it is a part of sport. Yes there are lines that should not be crossed, but from this point on the FA will need to carefully decide what it does and I will be watching to see how John Terry goes with his racist charge.
I have covered this issue before and I will state that I in no way support or condone racism.
To start with it is not what you think it is. It is not the racist term that many American Rap artists uses frequently without anyone raising an uproar. Negrito is a term for a class of ethnic groups from South East Asia with possible African heritage. It is also has a literal translation of 'little black guy'. If this term is to be considered racist then the FA have opened up a can of worms that would make the PC world look insensitive. One can not be racist if one uses a term that has been defined by anthropologists. How can the FA find a word that is not offensive in one language to be racist when translated to another?
From here Liverpool FC should take this to a court of law as part of their appeal to show how foolish this decision is. If it is found that this term is no longer allowed, imagine how many other terms would be considered racist. If you cannot refer to an ethnic group, would Australians be unable to say Aboriginal. How do we refer to the Chinese or Indians. The UK government would be found guilty by the FA for terms it uses in its census for how it breaks down its ethnic classes: ie, White, Mixed, Black, Chinese & other, and in those groups it broke it down even further. Would a person be banned if in a game they referred to a redhead as a wranga. Is it no longer acceptable to call someone a white guy?
The sporting field is a place where sledging will always take place and in my time I have heard some things that are not acceptable in most places. It is not always a good thing but it is a part of sport. Yes there are lines that should not be crossed, but from this point on the FA will need to carefully decide what it does and I will be watching to see how John Terry goes with his racist charge.
I have covered this issue before and I will state that I in no way support or condone racism.
Monday 19 December 2011
Weekend Wrap
The weekend has well and truly past and Christmas is getting closer. The sport though has not stopped or slowed down at a time when everything else seems to. Plenty of talking points and more sport than I could manage to see with Christmas parties and birthday parties to attend to. I will most likely miss plenty of topics but here are what I found to be the points of interest.
 |
| Frustration Is Setting In |
Roar Lose Four
With the Roar losing again it is now four losses in a row from a team that a month ago had everyone wondering if anyone would beat them again. But four games later and it is amazing how quickly everyone starts talking about what the Roar are doing wrong and what they need to do to fix it. The same thing that people were praising for the last 12 months are now being criticised. All Brisbane seem to be struggling with is injuries to key players which has disrupted their playing style. Suddenly all the things that worked are quite going smoothly, and the doubt is stating to show. They will bounce back to winning and once they do they will be a force again. If anything it is better for them to go through this mid season then towards the finals. Al teams should be worried that they are potentially in top form too early in the season and the Roar will be at peak come finals. With the injury to Broich I can see the Roar playing for a big signing in the next transfer window.
Big Bash Is Under Way
The Big Bash has one round under its belt, so where is it at? The Big Bash will only get bigger and better and that is good for Australian Cricket. With only a couple of international signings per team it will help grow our domestic scene as long as it does not get over populated with retired players deciding that they are no longer retired. At the moment there is a good mix and it is needed to help mentor the up and coming players of the future. Warner's century was a great knock but some of the calls about his greatness could be true, but lets see him perform at the top level on a consistent basis before throwing to many plaudits his way. I will wait until a few more games have passed before passing too many judgements on players. Plenty of games to go and so far my tipping is not too great. Looking to see the Heat bounce back at the Gabba and storm towards a final.
 |
| Suarez Has the Opposition Chasing Ghosts |
Suarez In Top Form
I sacrificed sleep on a sunday night to stay up and watch Liverpool play Aston Villa and it was worth the tiredness on Monday. Suarez is in great form and even with a quiet first half, once he woke up he was almost unstoppable and on any other day would have scored at least 2 goals. Unfortunately for Suarez though the woodwork was against him, which seems to be a common theme for Liverpool this season. The whole team seems to be working well as a unit and they deserve the record of having the best defensive record this season. With Chelsea drawing Liverpool have made some ground and with games against oppositions that they should account for over the next few games they should be able to move up the ladder and crack into the top four. With the style they are playing I can some plenty more late nights ahead of me.
Barcelona and Daylight
I would not envy the person who keeps the trophy cabinet shiny at Barcelona. Barcelona have added more silverware to their cabinet after winning the FIFA World Club Cup after defeating South American champions Santos, 4-0. This was a game between a team that plays the best style of football in the world and another team that seemed happy to watch them do it. It is not hard to be in awe of Barcelona as they have a system that should be the envy of every coach in the world. And with that system is some of the best players in the world. Many of their players would be happily snapped up by another team, it is just a matter of how to afford them. I am not a supporter of Barcelona but it is always a pleasure to watch how they play.
This might be the last wrap for the year as I am planning on a Wrap of the Year post next. Keep on passing the word and as always let me know if there is an issue or event that you want my thoughts on.
Sunday 18 December 2011
Fairweather Fans
With Brisbane Roar losing it's fourth game in a row and many headlines stating the declining numbers for Roar home games it is highlighting one of sports problems. Everyone loves a winner.
When a team is on top it is amazing how many people support them, when they start losing though you soon find out who the true supporters are. When Brisbane start winning again you will see the crowd numbers rise and when a final comes around you will be lucky if you can get a ticket. It is the same with any sporting event in Australia, or be it the world. Only a few years ago the Reds were the laughing stock of Rugby and struggling to get crowds, now you will be lucky if you can get a ticket for games next season. When state of Origin rolls around tickets are snapped up straight away, well in Queensland anyway, but how many of those ticket buyers ever go to another game of league. For Australians it is all about the spectacle. The majority only want to be associated with a successful team or have it known they were at a major event.
But once the team starts losing or the event loses it's appeal they all drop off the bandwagon and tell everyone what is wrong with the team or the system. A fickle fan will change who they follow to ensure they are following a winner. A true fan will walk down the street in the jersey or shirt of his favourite team any time of the year and turn up to every game they can and watch every game they can on TV.
I will be the first to admit I can be very critical of teams I follow but at the end of the day I still follow them. I have pride in my state and follow every state team, I follow teams from my home town regardless of how well they are going, I will support every team in my state in national competitions. I have followed and are a member of the only foreign football team I have supported. Fairweather fans will always be a part of the sporting world but I will always have respect for someone who is a true supporter of a team regardless of who they support.
Fairweather fans get my poor form nomination.
When a team is on top it is amazing how many people support them, when they start losing though you soon find out who the true supporters are. When Brisbane start winning again you will see the crowd numbers rise and when a final comes around you will be lucky if you can get a ticket. It is the same with any sporting event in Australia, or be it the world. Only a few years ago the Reds were the laughing stock of Rugby and struggling to get crowds, now you will be lucky if you can get a ticket for games next season. When state of Origin rolls around tickets are snapped up straight away, well in Queensland anyway, but how many of those ticket buyers ever go to another game of league. For Australians it is all about the spectacle. The majority only want to be associated with a successful team or have it known they were at a major event.
But once the team starts losing or the event loses it's appeal they all drop off the bandwagon and tell everyone what is wrong with the team or the system. A fickle fan will change who they follow to ensure they are following a winner. A true fan will walk down the street in the jersey or shirt of his favourite team any time of the year and turn up to every game they can and watch every game they can on TV.
I will be the first to admit I can be very critical of teams I follow but at the end of the day I still follow them. I have pride in my state and follow every state team, I follow teams from my home town regardless of how well they are going, I will support every team in my state in national competitions. I have followed and are a member of the only foreign football team I have supported. Fairweather fans will always be a part of the sporting world but I will always have respect for someone who is a true supporter of a team regardless of who they support.
Fairweather fans get my poor form nomination.
Saturday 17 December 2011
Big Bash Is Under Way
 |
| This for me was the deciding moment of the game. |
Well the Big Bash is under way. Here I was all buzzing and excited especially after Brisbane Heat won the toss and decided to bat. Walking out to the crease were two destructive batsmen including my favourite player, Matthew Hayden. With Brett Lee firing in, the fireworks were set to explode. But with a crack it all fizzled out to be a game that I honestly can say I tuned off to before it was over. Once Lee forced McCullum off the field with a crack to the nose, the game did not live up to the hype it deserved. With a pitch that offered more than it normally would to a bowling attack in twenty20 cricket, the Heat could never get going with the continual fall of wickets.
Once NSW started batting, just by listening to the commentators one could tell it was all over. How quickly they forget the form of past and how quickly they jump back on the bandwagon of a player scoring runs again. Haddin batted well but not too much should be read in to the form of a player in a game where he didn't really face any quality bowling. And this for me is where the Heat lost the game. The inexperience of the young bowlers let them down and there was no real threat from any bowler in the team. For the Heat to have any hope in this competition they have already found out that you cannot rely solely on a batting attack, especially when the batting attack does fire. Twenty20 cricket is just as much about stopping runs and getting wickets as it is hitting big shots.
The Heat do have promise though as Hayden looked good on his return, McCullum may have been a match winner had he not been hit and Christian showed his worth. I can see the Heat bouncing back with a big performance at the Gabba.
Also of note for this game was the very average crowd that turned up, when the SCG management were expecting 20,000, getting a crowd of 12,285 is somewhat worrying. Sydney will keep telling you they are up there as a sporting capital so to only have this many turn out on a Friday night is another example this year that Sydney is by no means a sporting mecca.
Wednesday 14 December 2011
AFL Betting Scandal....Again
Seems the AFL has got a problem with the announcement that Gold Coast Suns Player, Nathan Bock has been found guilty of providing inside information to family members enabling them to win $40,000 collectively on bets. Bock has been banned for 2 games and fined $20,000.
AFL operations manager, Adrian Anderson, has stated "We viewed this case more seriously because it happened after Maxwell and Shaw".
"We think more and more, there is no excuse for payers not to be aware of the gambling rules and not to act in accordance with them. Each time it happens, the sanctions will continue to increase"
What puzzles me is how you give a player higher punishment for an offense because someone else committed the same one. Maxwell did the same thing and was only fined $5000. I do not have a problem with a player being punished harshly but I do have a problem with inconsistency in how the punishment is handed out. And when you add to the fact that Maxwell plays for Collingwood, a team that Eddie McGuire always makes sure gets off as lightly as possible it smacks of incompetency. Bock did the wrong this yes, but surely he should not be punished heavier because of someone else'[s similar mistake or for the fact that he is smart enough to not want to wear black and white.
Anderson has blatantly stated that prior offenses comitted will affect everyone. If this is the case then why not punish the AFL officials who got into bed with betting agencies in the first place and were happy to sign off on deals for sponsorship. If the AFL was serious they would ensure that no part of their game had any association with gambling. When you state odds before and during a game you cannot complain when your game becomes embroiled in illegal acts. If you take money from the devil, then you are sleeping with the devil. Once you have have slept with the devil it is hard to get a clean image. If the AFL wants to be serious on this issue then the simple answer is life time bans, but the AFL can only do this if it cuts itself off completely from anything to do with gambling. But I can't see the AFL doing this anytime soon.
AFL operations manager, Adrian Anderson, has stated "We viewed this case more seriously because it happened after Maxwell and Shaw".
"We think more and more, there is no excuse for payers not to be aware of the gambling rules and not to act in accordance with them. Each time it happens, the sanctions will continue to increase"
What puzzles me is how you give a player higher punishment for an offense because someone else committed the same one. Maxwell did the same thing and was only fined $5000. I do not have a problem with a player being punished harshly but I do have a problem with inconsistency in how the punishment is handed out. And when you add to the fact that Maxwell plays for Collingwood, a team that Eddie McGuire always makes sure gets off as lightly as possible it smacks of incompetency. Bock did the wrong this yes, but surely he should not be punished heavier because of someone else'[s similar mistake or for the fact that he is smart enough to not want to wear black and white.
Anderson has blatantly stated that prior offenses comitted will affect everyone. If this is the case then why not punish the AFL officials who got into bed with betting agencies in the first place and were happy to sign off on deals for sponsorship. If the AFL was serious they would ensure that no part of their game had any association with gambling. When you state odds before and during a game you cannot complain when your game becomes embroiled in illegal acts. If you take money from the devil, then you are sleeping with the devil. Once you have have slept with the devil it is hard to get a clean image. If the AFL wants to be serious on this issue then the simple answer is life time bans, but the AFL can only do this if it cuts itself off completely from anything to do with gambling. But I can't see the AFL doing this anytime soon.
Tuesday 13 December 2011
Deciding Man of the Match.....
Seems the recent test match has raised yet again the issue of who should win a man of the match award. In the recent Australia v New Zealand test match the man of the match was from the losing side and on top of that was decided by the viewers. This itself raises a few questions. The main one to arise is whether or not the man of the match should come from the winning side. Generally in my opinion the answer is yes. How can one justify that a winning team does not contain a match winning performance. And how can a player on a losing team be counted as the best on field if his team has not won. If the award is called best on field then I can justify a player from a losing team winning but for me a man of the match performance is underlined by a game changing performance that sets a team up for victory. Look through the history of all sports and it is very rare for a player on a losing team to win such an award.
Leaving that issue of who should win the award aside, the way it is decided needs more examination in the modern sporting world. Firstly for cricket to now say that the fans decide who wins the award means the award should be called "The Most Popular Award". It is bad enough that TV is becoming obsessed with reality TV that is nothing but a popularity contest but to then take that to the sporting stage is fraught with danger. Once you give the power to the people in such a manner you will not get the results that are deserved. TV viewers have a short memory so when asking them to decide who is the best player over a five day game, most of the time they will vote for someone that did something in the last 2 days. Add to that the situation where the option to vote is put out before a game has finished and the process is flawed. I have seen in other sports especially Rugby League and Union where they announce the man of the match award when there is still ten minutes left in the game and the result could go either way. Television studios are too concerned about announcing the result before the game is over and the viewer changes the channel. All this is doing is saying that the award is nothing too special and only for sponsorship plugs for the company paying the prize money.
Go back to the old way of deciding the award, wait for the game to finish, gather a group of "experts" at the game from various sources, TV, Radio, Newspaper Journos and officials and ask them who was the best player on the field that affected the outcome of the game. See who gets mentioned the most and there is your man of the match. If this takes twenty minutes, so be it, at least you know you have given the process some thought and not relied on the whim of a fan sitting on the couch and potentially drunk to decide something for you. This is how most goverments are formed and look how well that is working at the moment.
Leaving that issue of who should win the award aside, the way it is decided needs more examination in the modern sporting world. Firstly for cricket to now say that the fans decide who wins the award means the award should be called "The Most Popular Award". It is bad enough that TV is becoming obsessed with reality TV that is nothing but a popularity contest but to then take that to the sporting stage is fraught with danger. Once you give the power to the people in such a manner you will not get the results that are deserved. TV viewers have a short memory so when asking them to decide who is the best player over a five day game, most of the time they will vote for someone that did something in the last 2 days. Add to that the situation where the option to vote is put out before a game has finished and the process is flawed. I have seen in other sports especially Rugby League and Union where they announce the man of the match award when there is still ten minutes left in the game and the result could go either way. Television studios are too concerned about announcing the result before the game is over and the viewer changes the channel. All this is doing is saying that the award is nothing too special and only for sponsorship plugs for the company paying the prize money.
Go back to the old way of deciding the award, wait for the game to finish, gather a group of "experts" at the game from various sources, TV, Radio, Newspaper Journos and officials and ask them who was the best player on the field that affected the outcome of the game. See who gets mentioned the most and there is your man of the match. If this takes twenty minutes, so be it, at least you know you have given the process some thought and not relied on the whim of a fan sitting on the couch and potentially drunk to decide something for you. This is how most goverments are formed and look how well that is working at the moment.
Monday 12 December 2011
Clarke Can't Have It Both Ways
It what has become another disgrace in Australia's recent cricket history, Michael Clarke has decided that it is everyone else's fault. Here I was following the cricket on-line and Australia cruising at 2/120 when I had to get my head into work. I was surprised when I was able to later check the score and see that Australia had found a way to lose the game, but I was not shocked. This is something that Michael Clarke and the selectors could have avoided but decided to stick their heads up their ass and continue with faith that all was ok with the Australian batting lineup.
Clarke has now come out after the game and stated that some tough decisions will need to be made before the selection of the Boxing day test and in his words "Since I've taken over the captaincy, I've made it very clear that my one vote on selection will not be personal, it'll be whatever I think is best for the team." Well Clarke has been given the selection he thinks is best for the team and yet again it failed. The only out the selectors and Clarke has is to make wholesale changes to a batting lineup that couldn't make runs after eating a dodgy curry in Mumbai.
Clarke is now saying that the players he has publicly stated he wants in the team and deserved to be in the team may no longer be good enough to be in his team. When Clarke next talks to the media he needs to publicly admit that he got it wrong, make an apology for his teams performance and start realising it is an honour to play for Australia not a right because the captain likes you.
Clarke's favourite opener Hughes must definitely never get another look at a baggy green until he has scored a mountain of runs at state level and even then be told he is not good enough. Will Clarke admit he got this selection wrong is something to be seen though. And then we has Khawaja, a player with talent that is yet to convert but also being put under extra pressure of being made a first drop who may as well pad up before a ball is bowled and wait on the boundary, ready. I have said in the past he has potential yet I will not be surprised if he gets dropped as one of the few changes.
And then we get in the problem no one will admit to and just mentioning that he should be dropped will start debate and that is Ponting. Again Ponting has failed and looked awful in his dismissal, he is out of form and only holding back an opportunity for a talented player in form to play for his country. The only question is whether Clarke has the ability to put the axe to Ponting. Ponting has been a great player in the past but at the moment he is an obstacle in a team trying to rebuild. Sometimes the foundations need to be removed completely before rebuilding.
Another experienced player who is lucky if he can last more than a few overs at the moment is Hussey. Not long ago he was the form player but that now seems a long time ago and looks like it is a long way off. He might have taken a crucial wicket but that is not what he is in the team for. Time to cut this player loose too.
After Hughes my next selection to be dropped is Haddin. His ability to get out to poor shots and to balls that he could leave or hit anywhere but to a fielder is too consistent. Clarke might like this guy too much and for me that is the only reason he must be getting selected. There are plenty of excellent glovemen around the country and all of them can bat, not quite sure why Australia keep sticking with one who is not doing enough with the bat or gloves.
With all the changes I think need to be made one could ask who do you bring in, and that is fair enough. I would keep Warner after his debut century that should have been crowned as a match winning century. With Marsh and Watson returning from injury Australia could have a very solid 1, 2, 3. An opening partnership of a dynamic Warner with the patience of Marsh being backed up at first drop for a technically correct and explosive player like Watson is a combination that can put on consistent good starts for a middle order. Clarke should be coming in at 4 with Christian and Khawaja filling 5 & 6. For all the changes you only have one player on debut and a lot more class and ability.
The wicket-keeper would be Wade who is more than capable of showing Haddin how to play a tough innings when required. As for the bowlers the only change that needs to be made is that of Starc. He still has a lot of work to do on his game and should be doing it at state level. He bowls too many loose balls and even though he can bowl a great ball he does not put any pressure on the batsmen.
The selection of the team for the Boxing day test will cause plenty of debate but the worst thing the selectors can do is think that generally things are ok and only minimal changes need to be done. This is not a batting line up that has only just started to fail, they have been on a downward slide for a long time now. Only question is whether or not the selectors and Clarke are strong enough to admit they got it wrong and are prepared to make the hard decisions.
Clarke has now come out after the game and stated that some tough decisions will need to be made before the selection of the Boxing day test and in his words "Since I've taken over the captaincy, I've made it very clear that my one vote on selection will not be personal, it'll be whatever I think is best for the team." Well Clarke has been given the selection he thinks is best for the team and yet again it failed. The only out the selectors and Clarke has is to make wholesale changes to a batting lineup that couldn't make runs after eating a dodgy curry in Mumbai.
Clarke is now saying that the players he has publicly stated he wants in the team and deserved to be in the team may no longer be good enough to be in his team. When Clarke next talks to the media he needs to publicly admit that he got it wrong, make an apology for his teams performance and start realising it is an honour to play for Australia not a right because the captain likes you.
Clarke's favourite opener Hughes must definitely never get another look at a baggy green until he has scored a mountain of runs at state level and even then be told he is not good enough. Will Clarke admit he got this selection wrong is something to be seen though. And then we has Khawaja, a player with talent that is yet to convert but also being put under extra pressure of being made a first drop who may as well pad up before a ball is bowled and wait on the boundary, ready. I have said in the past he has potential yet I will not be surprised if he gets dropped as one of the few changes.
And then we get in the problem no one will admit to and just mentioning that he should be dropped will start debate and that is Ponting. Again Ponting has failed and looked awful in his dismissal, he is out of form and only holding back an opportunity for a talented player in form to play for his country. The only question is whether Clarke has the ability to put the axe to Ponting. Ponting has been a great player in the past but at the moment he is an obstacle in a team trying to rebuild. Sometimes the foundations need to be removed completely before rebuilding.
Another experienced player who is lucky if he can last more than a few overs at the moment is Hussey. Not long ago he was the form player but that now seems a long time ago and looks like it is a long way off. He might have taken a crucial wicket but that is not what he is in the team for. Time to cut this player loose too.
After Hughes my next selection to be dropped is Haddin. His ability to get out to poor shots and to balls that he could leave or hit anywhere but to a fielder is too consistent. Clarke might like this guy too much and for me that is the only reason he must be getting selected. There are plenty of excellent glovemen around the country and all of them can bat, not quite sure why Australia keep sticking with one who is not doing enough with the bat or gloves.
With all the changes I think need to be made one could ask who do you bring in, and that is fair enough. I would keep Warner after his debut century that should have been crowned as a match winning century. With Marsh and Watson returning from injury Australia could have a very solid 1, 2, 3. An opening partnership of a dynamic Warner with the patience of Marsh being backed up at first drop for a technically correct and explosive player like Watson is a combination that can put on consistent good starts for a middle order. Clarke should be coming in at 4 with Christian and Khawaja filling 5 & 6. For all the changes you only have one player on debut and a lot more class and ability.
The wicket-keeper would be Wade who is more than capable of showing Haddin how to play a tough innings when required. As for the bowlers the only change that needs to be made is that of Starc. He still has a lot of work to do on his game and should be doing it at state level. He bowls too many loose balls and even though he can bowl a great ball he does not put any pressure on the batsmen.
The selection of the team for the Boxing day test will cause plenty of debate but the worst thing the selectors can do is think that generally things are ok and only minimal changes need to be done. This is not a batting line up that has only just started to fail, they have been on a downward slide for a long time now. Only question is whether or not the selectors and Clarke are strong enough to admit they got it wrong and are prepared to make the hard decisions.
Sunday 11 December 2011
Weekend Wrap
For those who like reading the weekend wrap here it is again. There was quite a lot of sport over the weekend and with that there is always talking points, be they positive or not.
 |
| Great shot of Suarez heading the winner |
Suarez Fires For Liverpool
I was very glad that I stayed up to watch this game. Suarez was a man on a mission and deserved the goal to give Liverpool a 1-0 victory at Anfield. His skills on the field are a treat to watch and was unlucky not to score more. Also of note was an unlucky Maxi Rodriguez who on another day could have easily walked off a hat-trick hero. The game was of frantic pace for much of the game and Liverpool looked much more determined to ensure victory. With Carroll being kept on the bench and not getting on at all, it will be interesting to see if on his return Liverpool don;t go back to form of old. If Liverpool can keep up this standard of performance and Suarez continues on with this form they should start making progress on those above them on the table.
I should also note it is now at least eight weeks since the allegations of racism were made against Saurez by Patrice Evra and yet nothing has been done. Surely if this allegation was serious it would have been at least heard at some level by now. The FA is starting to look very ordinary indeed in this matter. Maybe the season will be over before we hear any more on this issue.
 |
| Ever seen a more depressed looking batsmen? |
Australian Top Order Not Top Class
Just when you think Australia are starting to find some sort of Test cricket form in come the batsmen to change your thinking. I have written plenty on my thoughts about the batsmen in this team but I will once again state that Phil Hughes must surely be dropped after this test match. Even if he goes on to get a score in the second innings it is too late. Especially when early in the second innings he edges one down the legside only for the umpire to say not out and the foolish Kiwis not referring the decision. Mu money is on Hughes getting around about fifty runs, Clarke saying he still wants him in the team for the Boxing day test, and then the Indians showing why he should have been dropped.
Kookaburras Win Fourth Consecutive Champions Trophy
Hockey does not get enough coverage from my point of view. And when you have a team as good as the kookaburras it is a shame. Although I didn't see the game it is worth reporting that they beat Spain in a close 1-0 victory in a game that had a few moments where Spain were more worried about complaining then playing the game.
How Stupid Are Sportsmen
For my last article I have to make a comment about one of the biggest idiots in sport. Golden State Warriors guard, Charlie Webb, turned up to a hearing for his drink driving case drunk. How clueless was this guy? Looks like making the big money of the NBA does not require an IQ. Either way he will go down as one of the stupidest basketballers for this year.
It is a bit of a short weekend wrap but as always if you want me to cover something I have missed or know there is an event coming up where you want my opinion let me know. I am always happy to receive feedback and suggestions.
Keep reading and pass the word.
Saturday 10 December 2011
Batting Disgrace - What's to Blame?
Yet again Australia has hit a new low in Test cricket and our batsmen are to blame. After dismissing New Zealand for a lowly 150 in the first innings, Australia were in a good position. The bowlers had done the job and now it was time for the batsmen to do theirs. And this is where the problem was. Put our batsmen on a good deck and generally they can put on a good score. Put them on a pitch and in conditions where it is favourable to the bowlers and it all falls apart. Watching the way wickets fell was embarrassing and all too familiar. All out for 136. Look at the batsmen one by one and it is easy to start seeing where the problems are.
Hughes - Surely now the selectors (Captain included) must be ready to admit that this guy is not of standard and way out of form. He is the most depressed looking cricketer I have seen and looks about as solid in batting as Chris Martin does at number 11. Regardless of the second innings he must be sent back to Shield cricket.
Warner - Yes this guy can hit a ball and score runs quick and has had some brilliant innings in the short formats of the game. This is the problem, here is a batsmen who has been picked on his ability to play on lifeless pitches, opening in Test cricket is very rarely ever going to be on a dead pitch. He has talent but why have selectors gone away from picking batsmen who have scored a bag of runs in Shield cricket.
Khawaja - Definitely has talent and ever since I saw his first test innings I liked what I saw. Only problem is I think they are playing him in the wrong spot. Patience needs to be held with him in the same way patience was held with Steve Waugh. Put him down at 5 or 6 and take a bit of pressure off him. Putting him at 1st drop at the moment with Hughes and Warner and he may as well open the batting.
Ponting - His time has come, tap him on the shoulder and tell him this is his last test match. He may have scored some runs at the Gabba but his continual ability to be dismissed LBW the same way almost every innings shows he is not able to change his game. His footwork is slow and he is on the back foot too much. And to start walking before the umpire puts his finger up for an LBW decision is a sign he knows how bad it is.
Clarke - Actually in some form with the bat but still getting out to poor shots or in the last case a poor leave. I never like seeing a batsmen bowled shouldering arms, especially when the ball is moving about. Looked poor and was poor.
Hussey - He might be Mr Cricket but of late he is not reliable. Only a few tests ago he was our form batsmen but can't seem to take a trick of late. On his day he can be great but I have a feeling this will be his last summer of cricket if he does not get a big score soon.
Haddin - Yet again gets caught out at mid off playing a foolish shot when quick runs were not needed. Time to find a keeper who can bat a bit but has excellent glovework, as yet again Haddin is not taking balls cleanly. Glovework aside though, Haddin rarely puts in an innings when his team really needs it.
Tail End - At the start of the Gabba test many comments were made about the length of the tail, yet it is the tail putting the top order to shame.
Why is it that Australia cannot bat on a bowler friendly pitch? Once selected for Australia you will very rarely see a player play 4 day cricket for his state. When not playing tests they are playing one-dayers & twenty20 games which are in general on pitches where the batsmen know that they can play their shots and throw there wicket away chasing runs. When they do have a chance to play shield games a rest is usually taken due to the hectic schedule they claim to have. Our test cricketers do not get back to play enough games on a variety of pitches around the country and against a variety of bowlers. All the net sessions in the world will never replicate a green top wicket.
They say Twenty20 will ruin test cricket and it may well do but it is the selection process and Australia's cricketing setup that will enhance the prospect. Australian batsmen have lost focus on what test cricket is about. A test is won over 5 days, it is a battle of attrition. It is not a game reliant on big scores scored at 4-5 runs per over. Bowlers do not need to take a wicket every ball. Test cricket is about building and maintaining pressure over a long period of time. Test cricket is about having our best team, not picking players the captain likes or maintaining a player because of past records. It is not a right to wear the baggy green, it is an honour and privilege, just because a player is contracted does not mean he should be selected.
 |
| Dead Man Walking |
Hughes - Surely now the selectors (Captain included) must be ready to admit that this guy is not of standard and way out of form. He is the most depressed looking cricketer I have seen and looks about as solid in batting as Chris Martin does at number 11. Regardless of the second innings he must be sent back to Shield cricket.
Warner - Yes this guy can hit a ball and score runs quick and has had some brilliant innings in the short formats of the game. This is the problem, here is a batsmen who has been picked on his ability to play on lifeless pitches, opening in Test cricket is very rarely ever going to be on a dead pitch. He has talent but why have selectors gone away from picking batsmen who have scored a bag of runs in Shield cricket.
Khawaja - Definitely has talent and ever since I saw his first test innings I liked what I saw. Only problem is I think they are playing him in the wrong spot. Patience needs to be held with him in the same way patience was held with Steve Waugh. Put him down at 5 or 6 and take a bit of pressure off him. Putting him at 1st drop at the moment with Hughes and Warner and he may as well open the batting.
Ponting - His time has come, tap him on the shoulder and tell him this is his last test match. He may have scored some runs at the Gabba but his continual ability to be dismissed LBW the same way almost every innings shows he is not able to change his game. His footwork is slow and he is on the back foot too much. And to start walking before the umpire puts his finger up for an LBW decision is a sign he knows how bad it is.
Clarke - Actually in some form with the bat but still getting out to poor shots or in the last case a poor leave. I never like seeing a batsmen bowled shouldering arms, especially when the ball is moving about. Looked poor and was poor.
Hussey - He might be Mr Cricket but of late he is not reliable. Only a few tests ago he was our form batsmen but can't seem to take a trick of late. On his day he can be great but I have a feeling this will be his last summer of cricket if he does not get a big score soon.
Haddin - Yet again gets caught out at mid off playing a foolish shot when quick runs were not needed. Time to find a keeper who can bat a bit but has excellent glovework, as yet again Haddin is not taking balls cleanly. Glovework aside though, Haddin rarely puts in an innings when his team really needs it.
Tail End - At the start of the Gabba test many comments were made about the length of the tail, yet it is the tail putting the top order to shame.
Why is it that Australia cannot bat on a bowler friendly pitch? Once selected for Australia you will very rarely see a player play 4 day cricket for his state. When not playing tests they are playing one-dayers & twenty20 games which are in general on pitches where the batsmen know that they can play their shots and throw there wicket away chasing runs. When they do have a chance to play shield games a rest is usually taken due to the hectic schedule they claim to have. Our test cricketers do not get back to play enough games on a variety of pitches around the country and against a variety of bowlers. All the net sessions in the world will never replicate a green top wicket.
They say Twenty20 will ruin test cricket and it may well do but it is the selection process and Australia's cricketing setup that will enhance the prospect. Australian batsmen have lost focus on what test cricket is about. A test is won over 5 days, it is a battle of attrition. It is not a game reliant on big scores scored at 4-5 runs per over. Bowlers do not need to take a wicket every ball. Test cricket is about building and maintaining pressure over a long period of time. Test cricket is about having our best team, not picking players the captain likes or maintaining a player because of past records. It is not a right to wear the baggy green, it is an honour and privilege, just because a player is contracted does not mean he should be selected.
Thursday 8 December 2011
Poor Form Nomination
It has been awhile since I felt a poor form nomination was warranted but today I have felt that the Football Association is deserving of this nomination. Only a few days ago I was none too pleased with the performance of Kevin Friend in Liverpool's loss to Fulham in a game where many questionable decisions affected the outcome of the game. Out of this game two charges have been laid by the FA. The first is to Luis Suarez for his alleged gesture to Fulham fans at the end of the game and the other is to Liverpool for the reaction of the players after the red card was shown to Jay Spearing for an incident that still has me scratching my head.
Out of this game it is fair enough that the FA wants to look into those incidents but surely the FA should be more concerned with the performance of Kevin Friend in what could be described as a biased performance or if not biased a very poor standard that would not be accepted in at any level. Sportsman are told to play to the whistle and respect the refs decision, but when the ref is making decisions that have even the commentators questioning the reason then who in their right mind would expect a player on the field charged with emotion and adrenaline to stay calm and say, "fair enough, we will cop that on the chin". As a coach I would not want to ever see my players be emotionless lambs on the field.
And then you have the home crowd constantly chanting cheat to a player from the opposition and yet the only thing they see wrong is the reaction from the player receiving the taunts. Should not Fulham be reprimanded for the fans performance. Respect works both ways. If a crowd shows no respect to a player then they should not expect any respect either. Fans will say they pay their good money to go and yell abuse at players and that is fair enough, but if you cannot handle the fall out then keep quiet.
So the Football Association gets my poor form nomination for their inability to control all things in their game.
Out of this game it is fair enough that the FA wants to look into those incidents but surely the FA should be more concerned with the performance of Kevin Friend in what could be described as a biased performance or if not biased a very poor standard that would not be accepted in at any level. Sportsman are told to play to the whistle and respect the refs decision, but when the ref is making decisions that have even the commentators questioning the reason then who in their right mind would expect a player on the field charged with emotion and adrenaline to stay calm and say, "fair enough, we will cop that on the chin". As a coach I would not want to ever see my players be emotionless lambs on the field.
And then you have the home crowd constantly chanting cheat to a player from the opposition and yet the only thing they see wrong is the reaction from the player receiving the taunts. Should not Fulham be reprimanded for the fans performance. Respect works both ways. If a crowd shows no respect to a player then they should not expect any respect either. Fans will say they pay their good money to go and yell abuse at players and that is fair enough, but if you cannot handle the fall out then keep quiet.
So the Football Association gets my poor form nomination for their inability to control all things in their game.
Tuesday 6 December 2011
Ref Affects Outcome
Why is it that a ref affects the outcome of a game directly through poor decisions yet little is written about it in the media. Rising early to watch Liverpool away to Fulham I was looking forward to Liverpool closing the gap on the top 4 in the EPL. At half time with a nil all scoreline, the game was in the balance although Liverpool had dominated the game in possession but unable to convert that into goals.
With the start of the second half in stepped the ref, Kevin Friend, to put his stamp on the game and show to all that his ability at this level is not good for the game. The first instance of his questionable thinking was when Fulham's Dempsey reacted to a tackle by Bellamy. Dempsey all but head butted Bellamy whilst showing his angst. In what was an unacceptable reaction that should have seen red from the Friend, instead saw both players being shown a yellow card. A yellow for Dempsey was the least he deserved but for Bellamy to receive the same for doing nothing but stand there whilst an opponent tries to do all but head butt or kiss him is remarkable.
Then in the 59th minute Liverpools Adam is taken down in the box by Senderos, in a tackle designed to stop a goal scoring opportunity. Friend blows the whistle but says the tackled occurred a grass width ouside the box, awards the free kick and a yellow card. Interesting call to say the least and for what I saw he was easily infleunced by the player pointing to the mark where his slide tackle started. Add to that if the tackle was in the box, a red card would have been a deserved colour.
It was in the 72 minute that it all became obvious that Liverpool were never meant to win this game when Spearing was shown a straight red for what Friend deemed to be a serious foul. Spearing was first to the ball and after kicking the ball clipped a Fulham player who was coming in late. Tags up or not, it was not a deliberate hit or a tackle attempt. Yellow at best and for me one of the worst red card decisions I have seen for awhile. Now the ref has changed the game and the eventual result of the game. If Friend cannot give a red for a foul that only had a purpose to stop a goal scoring opportunity then a red for an incident where a player kicks a ball and then in the follow through collects a player late on the scene makes you wonder what this ref had as a motive.
Liverpool may not have taken their chances and deserved a win but they did not deserve to lose in this manner. All that will happen out of this is that the players and coaching staff will say little to avoid fines, the media will do their normal job of finding more negative things to write about Liverpool and it is only through us amateurs that the real thoughts get written about the game. Yes I am biased towards Liverpool but that does not mean that the ref does not deserve the criticism. If a player has a game as bad he would be sitting on the bench in most cases, so surely this ref deserves the same.
With the start of the second half in stepped the ref, Kevin Friend, to put his stamp on the game and show to all that his ability at this level is not good for the game. The first instance of his questionable thinking was when Fulham's Dempsey reacted to a tackle by Bellamy. Dempsey all but head butted Bellamy whilst showing his angst. In what was an unacceptable reaction that should have seen red from the Friend, instead saw both players being shown a yellow card. A yellow for Dempsey was the least he deserved but for Bellamy to receive the same for doing nothing but stand there whilst an opponent tries to do all but head butt or kiss him is remarkable.
Then in the 59th minute Liverpools Adam is taken down in the box by Senderos, in a tackle designed to stop a goal scoring opportunity. Friend blows the whistle but says the tackled occurred a grass width ouside the box, awards the free kick and a yellow card. Interesting call to say the least and for what I saw he was easily infleunced by the player pointing to the mark where his slide tackle started. Add to that if the tackle was in the box, a red card would have been a deserved colour.
It was in the 72 minute that it all became obvious that Liverpool were never meant to win this game when Spearing was shown a straight red for what Friend deemed to be a serious foul. Spearing was first to the ball and after kicking the ball clipped a Fulham player who was coming in late. Tags up or not, it was not a deliberate hit or a tackle attempt. Yellow at best and for me one of the worst red card decisions I have seen for awhile. Now the ref has changed the game and the eventual result of the game. If Friend cannot give a red for a foul that only had a purpose to stop a goal scoring opportunity then a red for an incident where a player kicks a ball and then in the follow through collects a player late on the scene makes you wonder what this ref had as a motive.
Liverpool may not have taken their chances and deserved a win but they did not deserve to lose in this manner. All that will happen out of this is that the players and coaching staff will say little to avoid fines, the media will do their normal job of finding more negative things to write about Liverpool and it is only through us amateurs that the real thoughts get written about the game. Yes I am biased towards Liverpool but that does not mean that the ref does not deserve the criticism. If a player has a game as bad he would be sitting on the bench in most cases, so surely this ref deserves the same.
Sunday 4 December 2011
Aussies Still Have Worries
Australia has had a comfortable victory over New Zealand in the first Test of the cricket season at home this summer. Although many questions are still hanging over the Aussies, the Kiwis must be wondering how bad they really are. For the first two days they looked competitive against an Australian team that only a few weeks ago had many daggers pointed at their back and were a disgrace to the baggy cap.
Even though Australia won easily there should still be changes made before the next test. With Watson and Marsh due back in the next couple of tests and Bailey being picked in the squad for Hobart it must be time for Hughes to be sent back to NSW to find out how to play a short ball or a ball outside off stump. His ability to pick out the slip cordon and gully on a regular basis before getting his eye in shows great talent. If only he was able to put that talent to letting those balls go and he might be classed as a decent cricketer. If Hughes is picked in the next test then it will show that the selectors still have not improved. It might be looking like Mr Cricket, Mike Hussey, could be facing an axious few weeks if he fails again in Hobart. With Australia looking to rebuild, surely he is the next to be scrutinized with Ponting,
Then we get to the bowlers. Pattinson was better than I ever expected and deserves a run for the rest of the summer. Australia was still lacking one other good strike bowler though and for me Starc is not quite there yet and will most likely make way for a returning fit Harris or Cummings. As a bonus though after all the chopping and changing of spin bowlers it looks like Lyons has stepped up and taken his chance. As long as the selectors stick with him and don't react on one bad game he is sure to stay a regular. He as the good ability to not only get wickets but to also keep an end tidy whilst being a threat.
At the end it was still only a win over New Zealand, so good performances should be considered but a poor performance deserves more criticism. Australia have a short time to prepare for India, and India will not be an easy target.
Even though Australia won easily there should still be changes made before the next test. With Watson and Marsh due back in the next couple of tests and Bailey being picked in the squad for Hobart it must be time for Hughes to be sent back to NSW to find out how to play a short ball or a ball outside off stump. His ability to pick out the slip cordon and gully on a regular basis before getting his eye in shows great talent. If only he was able to put that talent to letting those balls go and he might be classed as a decent cricketer. If Hughes is picked in the next test then it will show that the selectors still have not improved. It might be looking like Mr Cricket, Mike Hussey, could be facing an axious few weeks if he fails again in Hobart. With Australia looking to rebuild, surely he is the next to be scrutinized with Ponting,
Then we get to the bowlers. Pattinson was better than I ever expected and deserves a run for the rest of the summer. Australia was still lacking one other good strike bowler though and for me Starc is not quite there yet and will most likely make way for a returning fit Harris or Cummings. As a bonus though after all the chopping and changing of spin bowlers it looks like Lyons has stepped up and taken his chance. As long as the selectors stick with him and don't react on one bad game he is sure to stay a regular. He as the good ability to not only get wickets but to also keep an end tidy whilst being a threat.
At the end it was still only a win over New Zealand, so good performances should be considered but a poor performance deserves more criticism. Australia have a short time to prepare for India, and India will not be an easy target.
Thursday 1 December 2011
Arthur Beetson The Legend
 |
| Athrur Beetson: 1945 - 2011 |
In hearing about the passing of Artie Beetson was a shock and is something that still seems surreal. Since hearing of the passing of Beetson it has made me think about my memories of this legend of sport. Although I am too young to remember his career, I still have some memories of what I heard my father say and combined with footage I have watched, Beetson is a player that is at the top of the pedestal when it comes to legends/immortals of Rugby League.
The thing that sticks out most for me is the affect Beetson had on representative football and the creation of State of Origin. I still have memories of hearing my father say how great it was to see Beetson finally playing for his state and proudly walking out onto Lang Park to send a message to the southerners that without the greats from Queensland they were not the team they thought they were. It always hurt Queensland to see NSW teams come up with players like Beetson in their side. With Beetson able to play for Queensland it was always going to go down in folklore how this great man came home to play for his state.
Beetson started his career with Redlciffe in 1964 before being lured south to play for the Balmain Tigers in 1966-1970 and later going on to play for Eastern Suburbs, 1971-1978, for most of his career before finishing with Parramatta Eels, 1979-1980. Whilst playing in Sydeny Beetson represented NSW from 1966-1977 (18 matches) During this time Beetson went on to play for Australia from 1966-1977 (28 matches) and was to become the first indigenous captain of an Australian national team. It was not until 1980 when his career was amost over that Beetson was able to play for his home state in the first Origin match.
After his playing career Beetson went on to become a successful coach at club and representative level but for me it is his playing career that will always be remembered. I have never heard anyone speak negatively about Beetson and probably never will. Named as an Immortal, Beetson will be forever remembered and it will be a memory of thoughts that put a tingle at the back of your neck everytime you see footage of his career or hear stories in the pub. There are not enough words to describe the effect he has had on the game of Rugby League but there will be plenty of stories doing the rounds from many greats of the game whose lives have been influenced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)