It is clear now, hopefully to the hierarchy at Cricket Australia and not just the fans, that Australian cricket is not simply struggling, but in fact is in serious trouble. There are a number of 'Ashes' autopsies going on at the moment, however, that approach fails to correctly identify that this problem has been a number of years in the making and not a phenomenon of just the past three months. Similarly, the blame being aimed at the players does not delve deeply enough into the quagmire that is now besmirching Australian cricket in general. All aspects of the game need to be considered if the national side is to firstly arrest their current slide towards the bottom of the Test playing nations, and to start moving back towards being competitive with the top sides.
Cricket Australia
The problems in Australian cricket start right at the top. Cricket Australia needs to take a serious step back and re-consider their approach to the prioritisation, scheduling and marketing of the game both nationally and internationally. While England was preparing for the Ashes battle, the Australian team was still in India. In the scheme of things, it turned out that the players from the home team were actually less ready for the series than the tourists. While credit for England's planning should by acknowledged, it doesn't change the fact that Australian players should have been home and playing Shield cricket well before they actually did. However, that wasn't the main scheduling issue. Instead, the Australian cricketing public were treated to an isolated and completely useless series of one day internationals against Sri Lanka in November. Spectators responded to this series by largely ignoring it. However, the Australian players were distracted from their Ashes preparation by having to play a sequence of games that no-one cared about at the time, and almost no-one even remembers only a few months later. Why Cricket Australia thought this series was more vital than the Ashes preparation remains unknown to everyone. During the same period, England were preparing diligently for the longer form of the game. The term, JAMODI (Just Another Meaningless One Day International), is gaining traction around the world, as more and more of these pointless and futile matches are scheduled. Cricket Australia, and the ICC for that matter, need to urgently re-consider both when and how many JAMODIs take place.
It is also worth considering the injury that Doug Bollinger experienced during the Indian tour. He went into the Test series against India under-prepared, as Cricket Australia had insisted that both he and Mike Hussey play T20 cricket for a club team. While there are escape clauses in their contracts that mandate for release for national duty, it was his own country that insisted Bollinger not join the national team until his club duties were completed. Bollinger was selected in the ICC's World XI last year, but the injury he picked up in India due to his lack of preparation effectively removed Australia's most dangerous bowler for the summer. While it is impossible to know for certain, it is not too big a jump to assume that Brett Lee or David Warner would have been told to get back for national duty if required while they were playing for provincial sides in New Zealand, but the same standards were not applied with respect to the Indian series.
The big money in cricket is in India; that fact is inescapable. This is also unlikely to change at any time soon, as India has a population more than double all other Test playing nations combined. It is also perceived that the big money has traditionally come from the 50 over game. However, it doesn't mean that Cricket Australia should bankrupt its future for some cheap dollars now. 50 over cricket has lost much of its appeal with the introduction of the T20 format, but the plethora of ODIs doesn't appear to be lessening. Australia and its cricketers have been seen as a valuable commodity in India, however, that is only while they are considered the best. Now that South Africa, Sri Lanka and England have overtaken them, it will be interesting to see if Australia remain attractive to Indian cricket authorities and the wider Indian fan base. The Indian dollars will quickly disappear if Australian cricketers are no longer seen as being desirable. The marketing of the national side needs careful analysis. The debacle we saw prior to the Ashes, in which the selectors named a larger squad of potential players for the First Test than what the entire touring England team had in the country, was a nightmare born of marketing idiocy. Too many more examples of this type of mistake and the lustre of our national side will be tarnished for many years to come.
Selection
The Australian selection panel needs to be seriously re-shaped. Any good management team needs to have a balance of perspectives and experience. The current panel are all former top-order batsmen who played in the 1980s. There are no fast bowlers, no swing bowlers, no spinners, no wicket-keepers. While you naturally don't need one from every category, the current group is seriously unbalanced. It has been evident that our batting has been a serious issue for a couple of years now, with a collapse on the cards almost every game. However, the changes to the batting order have been minimal whilst the bowlers are dropped almost on a whim. It would appear, perhaps sub-consciously, that the current panel appear far more sympathetic to the plight of a batsman short of runs than a bowler short of wickets. If there were some former bowlers on the panel, some of these biases may be less likely to occur.
The selection panel's decision making over the past few years has been one of the major factors in the situation facing Australian cricket now. Their inability to make the hard decisions, and their unwillingness to accept their own mistakes, has been disastrous. Many people in the media have commented on the panel's poor timing in their choices, dropping players when in form and then re-instating them when out of form. Poor Phil Hughes is just one example of both ends of this spectrum. The sheer number of spinners they have tried since the retirement of Shane Warne appears indicative of their inability to actually know what makes a good Test bowler. They finally fluked a spinner in Nathan Hauritz who could perform at a reasonable level, and yet they jettison him for a ODI specialist journeyman with a first class bowling average well the wrong side of 40. While Doherty's performances in the first two Tests were, in light of his previous career, not surprising, his failures were then compounded by the selectors who picked Beer instead of admitting they made a mistake in discarding Hauritz. They told Hauritz to go back to Shield cricket and perform. He did this with distinction, recording both his best ever bowling and batting figures, but that still wasn't enough for the selectors.
This selection of an unwanted Victorian finger spinner is perhaps the worst of all their recent ones. Beer had nothing for Western Australia to indicate he would succeed, and was not in anyone's thinking going into Adelaide. However, Shane Warne talked up Beer out of left field, and stunningly, Beer was then named in the Test squad. This was the point at which Andrew Hilditch should have been sacked. There are only two possible scenarios that can have occurred. Either the selection panel blindly picked a player they personally seemed to know nothing about, as evidenced by their own statements after the event, purely on the basis of what Warne had written in a newspaper article. The second option is that the selection panel talked to Warne and asked him to do a big write-up for this player to try and justify why they were going to chose Beer from nowhere. In either case, the sheer desperation underpinning either situation shows that the selection panel have totally lost their direction and must be subject to an immediate shakeup.
The recent development of Haddin's sacking is another sign of desperation, rather than forward planning. The selection panel appear so concerned about the leadership of the current team that they are willing to ditch one of the only decent performers in the past twelve months, in the hope that his replacement will cover the holes in other areas. Hilditch has publicly commented that they want to smooth the transition over between Haddin and Paine, which is a pretty big hint that Haddin is about to be completely gotten rid of. Haddin is only 33. In the normal scheme of things, and taking into account the recent history of Marsh, Healy and Gilchrist, he has around another 3 years of good performances. Why is he being axed now? Who is to say that Paine would be the first choice replacement in three years time anyway, as we have seen other options such as Ronchi and Manou used within the last 3 year period. This change is reminiscent of the inclusion of an allrounder in place of a top order batsmen, in order to fix a problem with the bowling. Rather than fixing the actual issue at hand, they try to put in stop gap measures and then wonder why it doesn't work in the long term.
Hilditch's recent comments that the selectors have done a very good job further underline just how far from reality he is now operating. The conclusion that Hilditch has to go is inescapable; the sooner the better.
Coaching, Planning and Leadership
It is interesting that the coaching staff seem to have escaped most of the criticism aimed at the players. One of the best ways you can determine how a team is being coached is through their performance of the '1 percenters', a concept pushed by a previous Australian coach. In this regard, it is clear that Australia is underperforming, and the coaching staff need to bear a significant proportion of the responsibility. You can tell how a team is going by their ability to do the little things well, such as fielding, bowling no-balls, running between the wickets and so on. In the last series, Australia bowled twice as many no-balls as England, and were run-out four times while affecting no run-outs of their own. Australia were clearly outfielded by England, a concept that is particularly hard to accept in light of the past twenty years of fielding excellence. Neilsen is supposed to be the head coach, and therefore should take responsibility for these failings.
Technically, the coaching staff are failing. The Mitchell Johnson situation is a prime example of this problem. He has technical issues with his action that are obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of cricket. Surely the remediation of problems such as this are the main reason for having a coaching staff. His issues have been evident, not just recently, but for a number of years. Why have the coaching staff not fixed them? Early in the series, Damien Fleming was interviewed on the ABC radio and asked why Johnson couldn't resolve the basic flaws in his action and release position. There was a long pause, before Fleming just said "I don't know". Getting Johnson to bowl with his wrist into the correct position behind the ball isn't rocket science, but it took him being dropped after Adelaide until we saw an improvement. Then, magically, he started swinging the ball again. Why did this transformation take years to affect? There are three possible reasons for this. Firstly, the coaching staff simply don't know what they are doing, which is unlikely. Secondly, Johnson is not willing to do the work necessary to improve and the coaching staff lack the authority to discipline him. Or finally, the players simply do not respect the coaching staff enough to listen when they are being advised of their problems. In any case, the current coaching setup is not working and Neilsen needs to take the rap for this.
It is hard to identify exactly what Neilsen brings to the table as a coach. It certainly can't be planning. Australia have been comprehensively out-thought by their opposition in recent years. This is exemplified by the confusion demonstrated by Ricky Ponting in setting fields. Why does he need to talk to his bowlers for five minutes at the start of first over of the day? What are they doing off the field? Surely the team would have the basic plan of attack for each batsmen in place, and only need to have further discussions if things are going wrong? Australia does not seem to have any concrete method of attack, and quickly disintegrate into panic tactics in the hope of getting a wicket, rather than working towards a plan. All of the long discussions only further diminish Australia's already poor over-rate, and lead to pressures in later stages. This then results in ridiculous situations like Mike Hussey bowling to tailenders in India, purely to increase the over-rate rather than as part of a plan to win the game.
It is particularly galling to read comments from Neilsen that basically put all the blame for the poor performances in the Ashes onto the players. That is just gutless. It is hard to come up with any reasons why Nielsen should remain in what is arguably the most prestigious coaching job in Australia.
Media
The Australian media also must take a long hard look at their role in this problem. It is beyond belief that we are still hearing commentators saying 'no-one saw it coming'. If you read the myriad of message boards around the world, genuine cricket lovers with a strong understanding of the game have been predicting this precise problem for the past three years. So how can the media claim that this recent thumping was a surprise? Rather than admitting that the occasional victory over the past few years was merely papering over the ever widening cracks, the media instead would talk about resurgence of the side. It is understandable that journalists have pressure from above to produce positive articles, however, they have failed to realistically portray the weaknesses that were rapidly emerging.
If the media had done their job and actually reported more accurately about the slide of the team, more pressure may have been placed upon Cricket Australia to actually try and fix the problems. Instead, there is a now a huge crisis that could have been averted with proper planning. It is possible that the media is now too close the players and hierarchy, and are therefore afraid to be publically critical. One possible problem is the inundation of the media with former cricketers, rather than trained journalists. There is an old tactic used by many cricket viewers, in which the television broadcast picture is watched with the radio commentary. Why is the radio commentary considered so superior? Fundamentally, the entire television commentary team is composed of ex-players with little or no media training, while the radio has actual journalists supplemented by expert comments. It is no coincidence that Richie Benaud, noted as the Doyen of Cricket Commentators, is actually a trained journalist who did the crime beat during his training. However, the main issue with the media having so many former players is that they are often afraid to be openly critical of people they know well and are friendly with. There can be an advantage in having the 'inside' perspective from a former player who has been there, however, this needs to be complemented by appropriately analytical comment.
Prior to the Fifth Test, a number of Australian fans uttered the sacrilegious words - 'We hope that England win'. The rationale behind these statements were that, if Australia won and the Ashes were tied at 2-2, the media would accept Cricket Australia's positive spin on a drawn series, and no pressure would be placed onto the hierarchy to actually make the changes that are needed. It was only with another humiliating loss by an innings that the media has really started to make noises about the need for change.
The Fans
It was amusing to read comments from current and former players, as well as support staff and Cricket Australia, criticizing the fans' reaction to Australia's poor performances. Evidently, the fans are meant to never voice their disapproval when things are going wrong. Instead, they are just meant to blindly support the national side, regardless of how they are going. While supporters should remain loyal to their side, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't recognise obvious problems. True supporters of Australian cricket need to make sure that they continue to loudly voice their disapproval of the current system that needs overhauling. Otherwise, no changes will be made, the slide down the rankings will continue, and Cricket Australia will ultimately face ever more problems in attracting the 'fair weather fans' away from the rival football codes.
Players
There has been enough criticism of the actual players. Such discussion simply deflects the attention away from the deficiencies evident in the larger structure of cricket in Australia. It is clear that the current squad of players is not at the desired standard, and cannot successfully compete against the top world sides in 2011, let alone bear comparison with their predecessors in recent years. However, unless the support structures are fixed as a matter of priority, the team will continue to stagnate near the middle of the field of Test playing nations.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Unconscious Bias of Australian Selectors
If we assume for a moment that the Australian selectors are making decisions that they consider the best for Australian cricket, and not merely to piss me off (and I am not yet convinced of this argument, but anyway), I wonder whether there is an unconscious bias towards batsmen.
Recently, Australian cricket has been plagued by batting collapses, and an underperforming middle order. North and Hussey in particular have been considered by most judges (other than the selectors) to be under pressure to hold their places for over 12 months. However, in spite of losing our last three tests, the only change (other than the return from injury by Haddin) that appears likely for the first Test is the dropping of Hauritz (and potentially Bollinger evidently).
While I don't think Hauritz should be anywhere near our national team, why is a bowler the sole victim of our recent poor form? Haurie's form against India was crap, but he was actually better than expected last summer. Why does his two failures in India result in his dropping, whereas Hussey's three years of underperforming doesn't similarly result in demotion?
If you look at the composition of the panel, all are former batsmen. I wonder whether they are, perhaps unconsciously, more sympathetic to the plight of struggling batsmen than bowlers? Would a selection panel made up of Shane Warne, Geoff Lawson, Terry Alderman and Merv Hughes (hypothetically) been as likely to drop a bowler as our current group? Should there be a better balance between former batsmen and bowlers on the national panel, as there appears to be both currently and historically a strong trend towards former batsmen being selectors rather than bowlers.
Recently, Australian cricket has been plagued by batting collapses, and an underperforming middle order. North and Hussey in particular have been considered by most judges (other than the selectors) to be under pressure to hold their places for over 12 months. However, in spite of losing our last three tests, the only change (other than the return from injury by Haddin) that appears likely for the first Test is the dropping of Hauritz (and potentially Bollinger evidently).
While I don't think Hauritz should be anywhere near our national team, why is a bowler the sole victim of our recent poor form? Haurie's form against India was crap, but he was actually better than expected last summer. Why does his two failures in India result in his dropping, whereas Hussey's three years of underperforming doesn't similarly result in demotion?
If you look at the composition of the panel, all are former batsmen. I wonder whether they are, perhaps unconsciously, more sympathetic to the plight of struggling batsmen than bowlers? Would a selection panel made up of Shane Warne, Geoff Lawson, Terry Alderman and Merv Hughes (hypothetically) been as likely to drop a bowler as our current group? Should there be a better balance between former batsmen and bowlers on the national panel, as there appears to be both currently and historically a strong trend towards former batsmen being selectors rather than bowlers.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Hometown Umpiring Advantage - Why?
OK, a quick question; why do home teams get such an advantage in 50/50 calls from the umpires?
If we look back over recent series, almost every time the home team has got the rub of the green in the dubious (and sometimes not even vaguely dubious decisions). Australia certainly cannot complain, as we benefit from this in home tests, but likewise, India and England have had similar 'luck' when playing at home. It has always been accepted that this happens, however, I wonder why this is.
What is the reason for home teams getting the home-town decisions? What impacts upon the umpires to have this happen? If we assume (and please do) that the umpires are not intentionally biased towards any team, and make the decisions purely based upon what is in front of them, why do they make errors that consistently seem to favour the home side? Even if you accept that that some umpires are incompetent, in theory they should make an equal number of errors and neither team should benefit.
Is it due to the crowd's influence? Is it due to home teams putting subtle (and not so subtle) pressure onto the umpires? Is the conditions that allow home players to perform in such a way as to minimise the appearance of their guilt (i.e. in Australia and on bouncy pitches, Ponting's front foot lunge appears to get him outside the line of off-stump and umpires tend not to give him lbw). Is it a statistical illusion, based upon the fact that the home team is generally more likely to generate more close appeals and therefore get more decisions in their favour?
Perhaps we also need to include a point about our own biases in terms of interpreting umpiring errors as well. I reckon Australia has been clearly worse off in terms of decisions in the current Ashes series (not that this has had an impact upon the results - Australia has played like shit and doesn't deserve to win). However, I am naturally biased towards interpretating 50/50 decisions in a certain direction, and to therefore see things in a different light to what an English supporter would do. I can remember Nasser Hussain (for example) praising the umpires in a previous test for giving an LBW against Australia that Hawkeye showed to be clipping the top of leg stump. And only a day or so later, Nasser Hussain again praised the umpire's decision in not giving an English batsman out to a ball Hawkeye showed hitting almost the exact same spot. His interpretation of an almost identical incident was influenced by his own bias. Perhaps we are all just similarly guilty.
Of course, the home town advantage is not limited to specific sports or countries. It occurs in soccer, league or whatever sport you care to mention. However, I can see why the home town advantage plays more of an influence in certain games such as league or soccer, where the home town fans can respond instantly to off-sides, forward passes etc, and the umpire/ref must be affected (to some extent) by that pressure. But in cricket, most of the spectators are not in a position to place instant pressure onto an umpire, and the decisions occur after consideration (and not during the flow of a game such as soccer, AFL etc).
I would be interested to see what the ICC Umpiring Panel thinks about this one, however, they would undoubtedly tell me how how high the standard of international umpiring is, and how they get 95% of all decisions correct. Yeah right - they must go to the same school of media relations as Andrew Hilditch.
If we look back over recent series, almost every time the home team has got the rub of the green in the dubious (and sometimes not even vaguely dubious decisions). Australia certainly cannot complain, as we benefit from this in home tests, but likewise, India and England have had similar 'luck' when playing at home. It has always been accepted that this happens, however, I wonder why this is.
What is the reason for home teams getting the home-town decisions? What impacts upon the umpires to have this happen? If we assume (and please do) that the umpires are not intentionally biased towards any team, and make the decisions purely based upon what is in front of them, why do they make errors that consistently seem to favour the home side? Even if you accept that that some umpires are incompetent, in theory they should make an equal number of errors and neither team should benefit.
Is it due to the crowd's influence? Is it due to home teams putting subtle (and not so subtle) pressure onto the umpires? Is the conditions that allow home players to perform in such a way as to minimise the appearance of their guilt (i.e. in Australia and on bouncy pitches, Ponting's front foot lunge appears to get him outside the line of off-stump and umpires tend not to give him lbw). Is it a statistical illusion, based upon the fact that the home team is generally more likely to generate more close appeals and therefore get more decisions in their favour?
Perhaps we also need to include a point about our own biases in terms of interpreting umpiring errors as well. I reckon Australia has been clearly worse off in terms of decisions in the current Ashes series (not that this has had an impact upon the results - Australia has played like shit and doesn't deserve to win). However, I am naturally biased towards interpretating 50/50 decisions in a certain direction, and to therefore see things in a different light to what an English supporter would do. I can remember Nasser Hussain (for example) praising the umpires in a previous test for giving an LBW against Australia that Hawkeye showed to be clipping the top of leg stump. And only a day or so later, Nasser Hussain again praised the umpire's decision in not giving an English batsman out to a ball Hawkeye showed hitting almost the exact same spot. His interpretation of an almost identical incident was influenced by his own bias. Perhaps we are all just similarly guilty.
Of course, the home town advantage is not limited to specific sports or countries. It occurs in soccer, league or whatever sport you care to mention. However, I can see why the home town advantage plays more of an influence in certain games such as league or soccer, where the home town fans can respond instantly to off-sides, forward passes etc, and the umpire/ref must be affected (to some extent) by that pressure. But in cricket, most of the spectators are not in a position to place instant pressure onto an umpire, and the decisions occur after consideration (and not during the flow of a game such as soccer, AFL etc).
I would be interested to see what the ICC Umpiring Panel thinks about this one, however, they would undoubtedly tell me how how high the standard of international umpiring is, and how they get 95% of all decisions correct. Yeah right - they must go to the same school of media relations as Andrew Hilditch.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Transmogrification of Graeme Smith
Australia and South Africa have always shared a close but also strained relationship. Both countries have a large number of similarities including a history of migration dogged by ethnic conflict, and strong economies based around mining and agriculture. Australia's colonisation in 1788 occurred just prior to England's move into the Cape in 1795. Politically, Australia's stance on apartheid always seemed somewhat hypocritical in light of the 'White Australia' policy that existed until the mid 1970s. On the sporting field, the two teams have traditionally been strong competitors in both cricket and rugby, with the on-field mutual respect often not matched with off-field friendship. It has been suggested that perhaps the similarly tough approach to how the game is played has prevented the players from really enjoying each other's company.
Since their return to the international cricket family, South African sides have not been popular with the Australian public. Seen as negative and defensive, touring parties have not managed to capture the attention and love of the crowds. In the 2005/06 season, Graeme Smith managed to alienate almost the entire Australian population, at the same time as losing five of the six test matches. Smith was very young at the time, and came across as such. He tried to talk tough and combat Australia with fire, but this approach dramatically backfired. It would not be unfair to describe Smith as one of the most unpopular cricketers in Australia since Richard Hadlee hung up his boots.
However, the 2008/09 season has seen a dramatic turn-around in both public perceptions of Graeme Smith and the South Africa team. Smith has remained calm, and has managed the media particularly well. He has come across as a considered and mature captain, and has never appeared flustered. Smith deserves considerable praise for this change.It is perhaps worthy of note that the entire three Test series did not contain one single incident that even hinted at dissent or abuse.
Just as impressively, South Africa played the three Test matches in an aggressive frame of mind. Previous touring teams have been too defensive and failed to take any opportunities when they presented. Smith captained the side aggressively and with purpose. His spinner bowled an attacking line from around the wicket. His pace bowlers were constantly trying to get wickets. His batsmen were always looking for opportunities to score. And most importantly, the entire team's attitude was universally positive. Even when they looked down and out, they found a way to win.
When he walked out to bat in the second innings of the Third Test in Sydney, Smith received a standing ovation from the entire crowd. It was reminiscent of the footage of Larwood's standing ovation at the same ground during the Bodyline series. It is a popular misconception that the Australian public dislikes players who are successful. Richard Hadlee's lack of popularity in Australia was not to do with his great skill, but rather the public's perception (rightly or wrongly) of his character. Graeme Smith has managed to transmogrify from an almost universally disliked character only a few years ago, to a person who is widely commended across the country. Whilst the public would have applauded Smith's bravery in 2006 if he had come out to bat in similar circumstances, he would not have won their hearts as he so clearly did this year.
Much as it pains me to say this as an Australian, South Africa are clearly the best cricket team in the world at the moment. And Graeme Smith deserves a lot of the credit, both for the team's success and his own maturation in a great leader.
Since their return to the international cricket family, South African sides have not been popular with the Australian public. Seen as negative and defensive, touring parties have not managed to capture the attention and love of the crowds. In the 2005/06 season, Graeme Smith managed to alienate almost the entire Australian population, at the same time as losing five of the six test matches. Smith was very young at the time, and came across as such. He tried to talk tough and combat Australia with fire, but this approach dramatically backfired. It would not be unfair to describe Smith as one of the most unpopular cricketers in Australia since Richard Hadlee hung up his boots.
However, the 2008/09 season has seen a dramatic turn-around in both public perceptions of Graeme Smith and the South Africa team. Smith has remained calm, and has managed the media particularly well. He has come across as a considered and mature captain, and has never appeared flustered. Smith deserves considerable praise for this change.It is perhaps worthy of note that the entire three Test series did not contain one single incident that even hinted at dissent or abuse.
Just as impressively, South Africa played the three Test matches in an aggressive frame of mind. Previous touring teams have been too defensive and failed to take any opportunities when they presented. Smith captained the side aggressively and with purpose. His spinner bowled an attacking line from around the wicket. His pace bowlers were constantly trying to get wickets. His batsmen were always looking for opportunities to score. And most importantly, the entire team's attitude was universally positive. Even when they looked down and out, they found a way to win.
When he walked out to bat in the second innings of the Third Test in Sydney, Smith received a standing ovation from the entire crowd. It was reminiscent of the footage of Larwood's standing ovation at the same ground during the Bodyline series. It is a popular misconception that the Australian public dislikes players who are successful. Richard Hadlee's lack of popularity in Australia was not to do with his great skill, but rather the public's perception (rightly or wrongly) of his character. Graeme Smith has managed to transmogrify from an almost universally disliked character only a few years ago, to a person who is widely commended across the country. Whilst the public would have applauded Smith's bravery in 2006 if he had come out to bat in similar circumstances, he would not have won their hearts as he so clearly did this year.
Much as it pains me to say this as an Australian, South Africa are clearly the best cricket team in the world at the moment. And Graeme Smith deserves a lot of the credit, both for the team's success and his own maturation in a great leader.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Australian Elite Cricket - A crisis at the top?
In amongst all of the either gloating or lamentations, depending upon whether you live in Australia or not, there is a general consensus that Australia are struggling at the moment. They are not necessarily a bad team, but pretty clearly are also not the world no.1 anymore. Where does the problem lie? There have been numerous theories put forward, most either blaming the batting or the bowling inadequacies, but there seems to be a bigger issue regarding planning at the elite level.
As captain, Ponting doesn't seem to have an idea of what to do on the field. His biggest problem with maintaining a decent over-rate is that he dilly-dallys around at the start of each over simply because he doesn't seem to know what the field placings for each batsman should be. There don't appear to be any clear strategies or plans. Surely this should be discussed prior to going onto the field, but if so, why would Ponting spend two or three minutes changing the field in the second over of the day? What the coaching staff are up to is beyond me. Tim Neilson seems to have escaped any criticism so far, but perhaps his role needs a very careful re-assessment. If he is there to coach and coordinate team tactics, he is either failing badly, or Ponting doesn't agree with what he wants.
To make it worse, our selectors also seem to have no idea or plan for the future. The selection decision to pluck Andrew McDonald from the obscurity of the Victorian middle order is beyond comprehension. The selectors rated him so highly just a few months ago that he wasn't even in the 25 contracted players. Now he is to be the middle order saviour? He is nearly 28, and has not suddenly burst onto the scene with performances that scream out for selection. His top score this summer is 60, not the sort of statistic that will have the South Africans worried. Purely from a Victorian perspective, Brad Hodge, David Hussey and even Cameron White must now assume their international careers are over if McDonald is preferred to them.
The debacle over the spinning position is yet another example of the selectors not knowing what they are trying to achieve. With all due respect to Nathan Hauritz, it is blatantly obvious he is not a match winning spinner, and never will be. Krezja shows some potential (i.e. he actually flights the ball and can spin it), so they tell him to go back to state level and bowl defensively. The lesson from that is for Krezja to follow Hauritz's example and bowl darts at around 90kms that don't spin or take wickets, but also only go for 3 runs an over. That is the sort of message that kills careers.
Other problems in the past years include the dumping of Ashley Noffke from the Australian squad, in spite of him being the standout player of the first class competition last year. The selectors instead picked Peter Siddle, who had played half of one season. Noffke, Bollinger and Hilfenhaus have all performed well over a number of years, however, the selectors somehow pick Siddle on the back of a dozen first class games. In his three tests so far, Siddle has looked completely innocuous except for one spell.
Does Cricket Australia need to have a long hard look at the entire structure of elite cricket in the country, with the selectors, coach and captain all in the sights?
The question arises - what does Cricket Australia do now? Are we content to be a top 4 nation for the foreseeable future, or do we make some hard decisions now and aim to be the world no. 1 again sooner rather than later. Do we rebuild, which involves jettisoning more than one player now even though they still have a year of potentially good contribution left in them, or simply replace a few as they fall over.
If Australia wants to regain the no. 1 tag by 2010-2012, there will be some pain in the short term. I would be happy if the selectors say that we are rebuilding, and that we need to give some of the younger guys (i.e. Krezja, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Hughes, or whoever) a decent run. However, this approach would also mean getting rid of some of the older players immediately (Hayden, Symonds and Lee for example) so that the newer players could be introduced and have time to mature into a great side. This would mean that we would undoubtedly struggle to be competitive with the likes of South Africa and India, but we are also almost at the end of the cycle of playing them. Perhaps now is the time to blood the next group of younger stars so that they are ready for the challenge of regaining the world no. 1 mantle in a few years time.
As captain, Ponting doesn't seem to have an idea of what to do on the field. His biggest problem with maintaining a decent over-rate is that he dilly-dallys around at the start of each over simply because he doesn't seem to know what the field placings for each batsman should be. There don't appear to be any clear strategies or plans. Surely this should be discussed prior to going onto the field, but if so, why would Ponting spend two or three minutes changing the field in the second over of the day? What the coaching staff are up to is beyond me. Tim Neilson seems to have escaped any criticism so far, but perhaps his role needs a very careful re-assessment. If he is there to coach and coordinate team tactics, he is either failing badly, or Ponting doesn't agree with what he wants.
To make it worse, our selectors also seem to have no idea or plan for the future. The selection decision to pluck Andrew McDonald from the obscurity of the Victorian middle order is beyond comprehension. The selectors rated him so highly just a few months ago that he wasn't even in the 25 contracted players. Now he is to be the middle order saviour? He is nearly 28, and has not suddenly burst onto the scene with performances that scream out for selection. His top score this summer is 60, not the sort of statistic that will have the South Africans worried. Purely from a Victorian perspective, Brad Hodge, David Hussey and even Cameron White must now assume their international careers are over if McDonald is preferred to them.
The debacle over the spinning position is yet another example of the selectors not knowing what they are trying to achieve. With all due respect to Nathan Hauritz, it is blatantly obvious he is not a match winning spinner, and never will be. Krezja shows some potential (i.e. he actually flights the ball and can spin it), so they tell him to go back to state level and bowl defensively. The lesson from that is for Krezja to follow Hauritz's example and bowl darts at around 90kms that don't spin or take wickets, but also only go for 3 runs an over. That is the sort of message that kills careers.
Other problems in the past years include the dumping of Ashley Noffke from the Australian squad, in spite of him being the standout player of the first class competition last year. The selectors instead picked Peter Siddle, who had played half of one season. Noffke, Bollinger and Hilfenhaus have all performed well over a number of years, however, the selectors somehow pick Siddle on the back of a dozen first class games. In his three tests so far, Siddle has looked completely innocuous except for one spell.
Does Cricket Australia need to have a long hard look at the entire structure of elite cricket in the country, with the selectors, coach and captain all in the sights?
The question arises - what does Cricket Australia do now? Are we content to be a top 4 nation for the foreseeable future, or do we make some hard decisions now and aim to be the world no. 1 again sooner rather than later. Do we rebuild, which involves jettisoning more than one player now even though they still have a year of potentially good contribution left in them, or simply replace a few as they fall over.
If Australia wants to regain the no. 1 tag by 2010-2012, there will be some pain in the short term. I would be happy if the selectors say that we are rebuilding, and that we need to give some of the younger guys (i.e. Krezja, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Hughes, or whoever) a decent run. However, this approach would also mean getting rid of some of the older players immediately (Hayden, Symonds and Lee for example) so that the newer players could be introduced and have time to mature into a great side. This would mean that we would undoubtedly struggle to be competitive with the likes of South Africa and India, but we are also almost at the end of the cycle of playing them. Perhaps now is the time to blood the next group of younger stars so that they are ready for the challenge of regaining the world no. 1 mantle in a few years time.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Channel 9 is a disgrace
I am ceasing to write about the Gregorys for one post to express my extreme disgust at the Channel 9 commentary team in the current Test match against South Africa. Every hour or so, they are quoting the current odds being offered by betting agencies on the outcome of the game. Now, I don't mind it if commentators sometimes mention the fact that a team is now "100-1" to win the match or similar, but struggled to understand why we needed to be updated that South Africa were now $2.55 on the win.
However, it is clearly an advertising scheme approved by the hierarchy at Channel 9. One or two mentions of betting odds could be coincidence; the continual repeating demonstrates is a predetermined strategy. I don't mind if companies wish to advertise, that is what makes the world run. But don't go in for this almost 'subliminal' advertising, with commentators throwing in regular references without acknowledging that they are being paid to do so. I was under the clearly misguided opinion that there was a limit on how much advertising was allowed on television. Channel 9 are obviously trying to bypass this limitation by having their commentators constantly promoting betting. Betfair and Channel 9 have history (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1183337.htm) - its hardly surprising, but still disappointing, to see Channel 9 so actively promoting the company's activities.
This is so wrong on many levels. The actual promotion of gambling is bad enough; there are a lot of people in Australia who have problems with an addiction without it being forced down their throat whilst trying to watch our supposed national game. However, in light of the ongoing problems with match-fixing, it appears the height of hypocrisy for Channel 9 to be so openly promoting betting.
Surrounding the cricket grounds this summer is advertising material for Betfair. I have no drama with this. It is clear and transparent. However, the appalling actions of Channel 9 are beyond the pale.
However, it is clearly an advertising scheme approved by the hierarchy at Channel 9. One or two mentions of betting odds could be coincidence; the continual repeating demonstrates is a predetermined strategy. I don't mind if companies wish to advertise, that is what makes the world run. But don't go in for this almost 'subliminal' advertising, with commentators throwing in regular references without acknowledging that they are being paid to do so. I was under the clearly misguided opinion that there was a limit on how much advertising was allowed on television. Channel 9 are obviously trying to bypass this limitation by having their commentators constantly promoting betting. Betfair and Channel 9 have history (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1183337.htm) - its hardly surprising, but still disappointing, to see Channel 9 so actively promoting the company's activities.
This is so wrong on many levels. The actual promotion of gambling is bad enough; there are a lot of people in Australia who have problems with an addiction without it being forced down their throat whilst trying to watch our supposed national game. However, in light of the ongoing problems with match-fixing, it appears the height of hypocrisy for Channel 9 to be so openly promoting betting.
Surrounding the cricket grounds this summer is advertising material for Betfair. I have no drama with this. It is clear and transparent. However, the appalling actions of Channel 9 are beyond the pale.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The Gregorys - Chapter Four
Thursday the 15 March 1877 is now recognised as the first day of test cricket history. Whether the Victorian organizers deliberately chose the Ides of March as the starting date has not been recorded, but it is nicely symbolic of the colonies’ desire to ambush the mother country. Although the use of the term ‘Test Match’ can be found as early as 1862, that designation was not ascribed to this game at the time. In fact, it was not until an Australian journalist, Clarence Moody, decided to unilaterally confer it with this status in the 1890s that the concept of test matches became universally accepted.
The Melbourne Cricket Club had clearly gone to great lengths for this game, with a large circular marquee to the south of the two- storeyed stands, with rows of banked seats further complementing the permanent grandstand. Lillywhite’s team were impressed by the ground and its accommodation for spectators, considering it “unapproached by anything we can point to back home”. As with many famous historical events, the momentous nature of this game was not recognised at the time by the locals, with a disappointing crowd of only just over one thousand spectators arriving for the start of the game.
Lillywhite’s team had only arrived back in Melbourne from their New Zealand tour on the 14 March. Originally, they were meant to arrive back three days prior to the beginning of the match against the Combined team, but their ship was delayed en route back to Australia. Reports regarding the voyage also indicate that the English tourists were exposed to very sub-standard accommodation on the vessel, with some choosing to sleep under the stars rather than venture below decks. It is clear that a number of the players were badly affected by only arriving in Australia the day before the match. While many were still decidedly unwell by the start of the game, with only eleven available men, no replacements were possible.
The captains of the respective teams met to toss the coin on what was a sunny and warm Autumn morning. Dave Gregory won the first ever toss in Test cricket and, following wisdom that still prevails today, decided to bat first. The quality of the pitch is hard to judge but it was considered “under-prepared and almost grassless” by some of the observers. The two umpires for the game were Melbourne locals Curtis Reid and Richard Terry, both of whom played first class cricket for Victoria. The Australian and English representatives agreed that the timeless match would be played under the four ball per over rule, but the hours of play were less clear.
Some reports indicate that they were determined to be nominally from 10am to 2pm each day. This did not transpire, however, as the first day of Test cricket actually started at approximately 1.05pm. The Melbourne Argus had written that the game would commence at 10.00am, and consequently some spectators turned up on the first day approximately three hours before play eventually got underway.
The English team took the ground resplendent in white flannels and cravats. The round-arm bowler Alfred Shaw opened the bowling for the English side, with the twenty-five year old Charles Bannerman taking strike. Bannerman, one of six English born players in the combined colonies team, had moved to Australia with his parents at the age of two. He had first played for the Warwick Club in Sydney during the 1866/67 season, and following good performance, Bannerman made his inter-colonial debut against Victoria in 1871. Over the following six years, he established a reputation in both New South Wales and Victoria as the pre-eminent batsman in the country. Described as “the best batsman in Australia, hits brilliantly all round” in Cohen’s NSW Cricketer’s Guide for 1877/78, Bannerman was only a small man measuring only about five foot six inches in height. He was another of the players who had been coached extensively by Caffyn and was renown for his excellent strokeplay and in particular his powerful driving.
Bannerman had the privilege of scoring the first run in Test cricket cutting the second ball from Shaw for one. Bannerman’s opening partner was Nat Thomson and he became the first wicket in Test cricket, when he was bowled by Shaw’s opening partner Hill for 1. The opening partnership had been only 2, but Bannerman and the new batsman Horan pushed the score along steadily. During this period of time Bannerman badly miscued a short ball from Shaw before he reached double figures; Armitage, however, spilled the easy chance at mid-off.
The score had reached 40 just before the lunch break when Horan was caught by Hill off Shaw. This brought the Australian captain Dave Gregory to the crease. He immediately got off the mark with a single from Shaw’s bowling, but he then proceeded to be run out by Jupp. The lunch break at 2.00pm saw Australia at 3 for 41, with Bannerman on 27. Cooper joined Bannerman, who was increasing in confidence rapidly. Cooper held up his end determinedly, while Bannerman started to show why he was rated the best batsman in Australia. They had a partnership of 77, of which Cooper only contributed 15. Bannerman was by now “driving dominatingly and scoring freely to most of the field”. Cooper’s dismissal by Southerton, who at age 49 years and 119 days is still the oldest test debutant, brought Midwinter to the wicket.
Bannerman and Midwinter had pushed the score on from 118 to 135 when, at approximately 4.25p.m., Bannerman scored the run that gave him the first century in test cricket. Midwinter fell soon afterwards for 5, and was followed quickly afterwards by Dave Gregory’s older brother Ned, who recorded the first duck in test cricket. By the close of play at 5 p.m., Australia had lost six wickets for 166, but without Bannerman’s unbeaten score of 126, it is hard to imagine what their total may have been. While Shaw had been the most successful bowler on the day, Ulyett had shown why he was rated by many judges as the fastest bowler in England. He had struck a number of the Australian batsmen during the day, and had made good use of the variable bounce in the pitch. Estimates of the day’s attendance are unreliable and vary from report to report, but the news of Bannerman’s efforts spread through Melbourne and it is believed that a total of around 4,500 spectators eventually turned up on this first day. At the conclusion of the day’s play, the two teams met up for dinner and went to the opera to finish off the evening.
Bannerman and Blackham resumed their innings the next day at a quarter to one, and took the score off through to 197 before Southerton bowled Blackham for 17. It was looking increasingly likely that Bannerman would carry his bat through the innings when Tom Garrett, an eighteen year old picked to open the bowling and who was to become the great–grandfather of Midnight Oil singer and Commonwealth Parliamentarian Peter Garrett, joined Bannerman and batted with a maturity beyond his years. He was second top score with an undefeated 18, and had assisted Bannerman to progress the score through to 240 when Ulyett literally struck a vital blow. Apart from his early let-off Bannerman had batted without error, but a quick delivery from Ulyett jumped from just short of a good length and struck him on the right hand. This blow split open his index finger and Bannerman had to retire hurt. Batting gloves in 1877 did not provide very effective protection to the batsman’s hands, and finger injuries such as this were not uncommon. Bannerman had scored 165, a massive contribution towards the Australian total. The innings folded quickly after Bannerman’s exit, with Kendall and Hodges only adding another five leave Australia with an eventual total of 245.
The magnitude of Bannerman’s performance can be seen by the fact that he contributed a phenomenal 67.3% of the team total, a record for Test cricket that still stands. His score of 165 is over nine times higher than the next best effort, which also remains unsurpassed in completed innings. The Argus was justifiable excited by this effort, and started a public campaign for a Charles Bannerman subscription at the end of the second day. This collection raised approximately £83 or half a pound for each run he scored. The opposition were also impressed, with Lillywhite declaring that “he had seen as good a display of batting in England, but never better”.
The English team started their reply at approximately 3.30pm with Jupp and Selby facing the Australian opening bowlers Hodges and Garrett. They put on a partnership of 23 before Selby was caught by Cooper off the bowling of Hodges for 7. The innings of Lillywhite’s team then followed a similar pattern to the Australians, with the opening batsman Jupp batting solidly whilst his partners fell about him. At the end of the second day England were 4 for 109, with Jupp undefeated on 54. Surprisingly, the crowd for day two was slightly less than the first, with only about four thousand turning up to see Bannerman continue his innings. The second day had provided slightly better value for money for those who attended, with a total of 188 runs for seven wickets comparing with 166 runs and six wickets on the first. With Bannerman’s hand injury preventing him from fielding, the Melbourne Cricket Club’s professional W. Newing acted in his steed as no twelfth men were nominated for either side.
The start of the third day at a quarter past twelve saw Armitage joining Jupp at the crease, but the batter Jupp was soon dismissed for 63 by Garrett. A valuable 35 not out by Hill batting at no. 9 managed to push England’s score towards 200, but their final total of 196 gave Australia a very useful lead of 49 in a low scoring game. The scoring rates of both teams were almost identical, with Australia scoring at 36 runs per hundred balls, whereas England were infinitesimally slower at 35.9. Allrounder Billy Midwinter became the first player to take five wickets in an innings in test cricket, with 5 for 78 off fifty four overs. Dave Gregory rotated his bowlers well, and showed that the faith of the Victorians had not been misplaced. He showed no favour towards his fellow New South Welshmen, and used all of the bowlers judiciously. His astute field placements were also unexpected by the English sides, who had been anticipating less sophisticated captaincy from a man who had never led his state team.
In spite of his injury, Bannerman insisted upon taking his place at the top of the order. With his hand swathed in bandages, Bannerman manfully attempted to recreate his first innings form, but Ulyett’s pace quickly proved too much for him. Bannerman was bowled for 4, with only 7 on the board, and without a repeat of his first innings dominance, Australia finished the third day at 9 for 83. Dave Gregory showed his willingness to experiment by changing the batting order, with Garrett rewarded for his first innings heroics by switching places with Gregory and batting at no. 4. This sadly did not work, with Garrett being dismissed without scoring and Dave not doing much better with only 3. Horan made 20, Midwinter 17 and Ned Gregory made 11, but the rest of the rest of the team did not contribute significantly. The general consensus in the papers was that England should manage to win the game easily on the next day.
The third day had seen by far the greatest audience at the match, with in excess of ten thousand spectators. After a rest day to observe the Sabbath, the game resumed on Monday and the attendance fell back to the levels of the previous week with around two thousand people turning up to see an expected England victory. The last pair of Kendall and Hodges resumed at twenty past twelve with the total at 83, and they frustrated the English team by adding another 21. Hodges was eventually bowled by Lillywhite for 8, with Kendall finishing with 17 not out. Shaw underlined his status as the premier bowler in England, taking a very economical 5 for 38 off 34 overs. He bowled very well in partnership with Ulyett and Hill, and no Australian batsman looked comfortable against their attack. Australia’s total of 104 meant that England only required 154 to win, a score that was not expected to trouble them. Dave Gregory and his side were not of this opinion, and came out determined to make them struggle for every run. The pitch was getting more and more difficult to bat upon, and it seemed that the Australian team was in a good position to win.
Dave showed his experience and cricketing brain again by changing the opening bowlers for the second innings. Left-armer Tom Kendall had only taken 1 for 54 in the first innings, but Dave had noticed that none of the English players appeared totally comfortable in playing him. Kendall opened the bowling with Midwinter, and they bowled almost unchanged throughout the innings. Lillywhite also changed his tactics, with Hill and Greenwood replacing Jupp and Selby as the openers. The reasons for this change are unclear, but it is possible that Lillywhite hoped that the hard-hitting Hill would get England off to a fast start. Regardless of the rationale behind it, the switch in order was a mistake for England, with Kendall dismissing both openers with only 7 on the board. When first innings stalwart Jupp fell lbw to Midwinter for 4, England were 3 for 20. This quickly became 4 for 22, with Kendall bowling Charlwood for 13.
Australia had rapidly become favoured to win, but a sensible partnership between Selby and Ulyett pushed the score through to 62. Kendall managed to achieve the breakthrough by bowling Ulyett for 24. Shaw also fell to Kendall soon afterwards, becoming his fifth wicket, and all on what was his first class debut as he had never been selected for Victoria. Armitage quickly settled in, however, and Selby continued on without too many problems. Feeling that his team was losing the initiative, Dave Gregory switched his bowlers around and this saw prompt results with Hodges getting Selby caught by Horan for 38. With the loss of Selby at 92, the remainder of the English innings fell away quickly, and they were dismissed for 108. Kendall was the undoubted star, taking 7 for 55 off 33.1 overs to back up his 17 not out earlier in the day. The combined Australian side had triumphed over the English side by 45 runs, a result that was as critical for the development of test cricket as it was unexpected.
The victory of Dave Gregory’s team was greeted with jubilation in the colonies, with the newspapers in both Melbourne and Sydney reporting with great glee the defeat of the English side. The Sydney Daily News used the occasion to send a patronizing message back to London, declaring that “It may console them to note that the English race is not disintegrating in a distant land and on turf where lately the blackfellow hurled his boomerang.” The Australasian was highly effusive, saying that :
“The victory of the Australian Eleven over the English cricketers is no ordinary triumph. For the first time a team representing the cricketing prowess of England has been beaten on equal terms out of that country. The event marks the great improvement which has taken place in Australian cricket; and shows, also, that in bone as muscle, activity, athletic vigour, and success in field sports, the Englishmen born in Australia do not fall short of the Englishmen born in Surrey or Yorkshire.”
Whilst Dave Gregory had previously not had a happy time playing at the Melbourne Cricket Ground for New South Wales, this victory made up for much of that anguish. The Argus newspaper reported that the leadership of Dave was the difference between two evenly matched sides.
To celebrate their win, the Victorian Cricket Association presented a gold medal to each player, with Dave Gregory being awarded a slightly larger medallion in recognition of his role as captain. In addition to the subscription list for Bannerman, Blackham and Kendall were also the recipients of collections of approximately £23 each. The takings from this first game exceeded all expectations, and the two teams agreed to meet again at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in a fortnight for a re-match. It was agreed that this game would be for the benefit of Lillywhite’s team, and, following the success of Australia in the first game, it was expected that the match would be a financial windfall for Lillywhite’s team prior to their return home.
Not all of the publicity surrounding the game was positive, and there was some gloating by the local media, with some disparaging remarks about the strength of Lillywhite’s side. The Australasian claimed that the team was by far the weakest to have ever played in the colonies, and that the bowling attack lacked penetration:
“If Ulyett, Emmett and Hill are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is, either they have not been in their proper form in this Colony or British bowling has sadly deteriorated”.
There were also a number of rumours circulated throughout Melbourne claiming that the English side had deliberately lost the game in order to increase the attendance at the second game.
The Melbourne Cricket Club had clearly gone to great lengths for this game, with a large circular marquee to the south of the two- storeyed stands, with rows of banked seats further complementing the permanent grandstand. Lillywhite’s team were impressed by the ground and its accommodation for spectators, considering it “unapproached by anything we can point to back home”. As with many famous historical events, the momentous nature of this game was not recognised at the time by the locals, with a disappointing crowd of only just over one thousand spectators arriving for the start of the game.
Lillywhite’s team had only arrived back in Melbourne from their New Zealand tour on the 14 March. Originally, they were meant to arrive back three days prior to the beginning of the match against the Combined team, but their ship was delayed en route back to Australia. Reports regarding the voyage also indicate that the English tourists were exposed to very sub-standard accommodation on the vessel, with some choosing to sleep under the stars rather than venture below decks. It is clear that a number of the players were badly affected by only arriving in Australia the day before the match. While many were still decidedly unwell by the start of the game, with only eleven available men, no replacements were possible.
The captains of the respective teams met to toss the coin on what was a sunny and warm Autumn morning. Dave Gregory won the first ever toss in Test cricket and, following wisdom that still prevails today, decided to bat first. The quality of the pitch is hard to judge but it was considered “under-prepared and almost grassless” by some of the observers. The two umpires for the game were Melbourne locals Curtis Reid and Richard Terry, both of whom played first class cricket for Victoria. The Australian and English representatives agreed that the timeless match would be played under the four ball per over rule, but the hours of play were less clear.
Some reports indicate that they were determined to be nominally from 10am to 2pm each day. This did not transpire, however, as the first day of Test cricket actually started at approximately 1.05pm. The Melbourne Argus had written that the game would commence at 10.00am, and consequently some spectators turned up on the first day approximately three hours before play eventually got underway.
The English team took the ground resplendent in white flannels and cravats. The round-arm bowler Alfred Shaw opened the bowling for the English side, with the twenty-five year old Charles Bannerman taking strike. Bannerman, one of six English born players in the combined colonies team, had moved to Australia with his parents at the age of two. He had first played for the Warwick Club in Sydney during the 1866/67 season, and following good performance, Bannerman made his inter-colonial debut against Victoria in 1871. Over the following six years, he established a reputation in both New South Wales and Victoria as the pre-eminent batsman in the country. Described as “the best batsman in Australia, hits brilliantly all round” in Cohen’s NSW Cricketer’s Guide for 1877/78, Bannerman was only a small man measuring only about five foot six inches in height. He was another of the players who had been coached extensively by Caffyn and was renown for his excellent strokeplay and in particular his powerful driving.
Bannerman had the privilege of scoring the first run in Test cricket cutting the second ball from Shaw for one. Bannerman’s opening partner was Nat Thomson and he became the first wicket in Test cricket, when he was bowled by Shaw’s opening partner Hill for 1. The opening partnership had been only 2, but Bannerman and the new batsman Horan pushed the score along steadily. During this period of time Bannerman badly miscued a short ball from Shaw before he reached double figures; Armitage, however, spilled the easy chance at mid-off.
The score had reached 40 just before the lunch break when Horan was caught by Hill off Shaw. This brought the Australian captain Dave Gregory to the crease. He immediately got off the mark with a single from Shaw’s bowling, but he then proceeded to be run out by Jupp. The lunch break at 2.00pm saw Australia at 3 for 41, with Bannerman on 27. Cooper joined Bannerman, who was increasing in confidence rapidly. Cooper held up his end determinedly, while Bannerman started to show why he was rated the best batsman in Australia. They had a partnership of 77, of which Cooper only contributed 15. Bannerman was by now “driving dominatingly and scoring freely to most of the field”. Cooper’s dismissal by Southerton, who at age 49 years and 119 days is still the oldest test debutant, brought Midwinter to the wicket.
Bannerman and Midwinter had pushed the score on from 118 to 135 when, at approximately 4.25p.m., Bannerman scored the run that gave him the first century in test cricket. Midwinter fell soon afterwards for 5, and was followed quickly afterwards by Dave Gregory’s older brother Ned, who recorded the first duck in test cricket. By the close of play at 5 p.m., Australia had lost six wickets for 166, but without Bannerman’s unbeaten score of 126, it is hard to imagine what their total may have been. While Shaw had been the most successful bowler on the day, Ulyett had shown why he was rated by many judges as the fastest bowler in England. He had struck a number of the Australian batsmen during the day, and had made good use of the variable bounce in the pitch. Estimates of the day’s attendance are unreliable and vary from report to report, but the news of Bannerman’s efforts spread through Melbourne and it is believed that a total of around 4,500 spectators eventually turned up on this first day. At the conclusion of the day’s play, the two teams met up for dinner and went to the opera to finish off the evening.
Bannerman and Blackham resumed their innings the next day at a quarter to one, and took the score off through to 197 before Southerton bowled Blackham for 17. It was looking increasingly likely that Bannerman would carry his bat through the innings when Tom Garrett, an eighteen year old picked to open the bowling and who was to become the great–grandfather of Midnight Oil singer and Commonwealth Parliamentarian Peter Garrett, joined Bannerman and batted with a maturity beyond his years. He was second top score with an undefeated 18, and had assisted Bannerman to progress the score through to 240 when Ulyett literally struck a vital blow. Apart from his early let-off Bannerman had batted without error, but a quick delivery from Ulyett jumped from just short of a good length and struck him on the right hand. This blow split open his index finger and Bannerman had to retire hurt. Batting gloves in 1877 did not provide very effective protection to the batsman’s hands, and finger injuries such as this were not uncommon. Bannerman had scored 165, a massive contribution towards the Australian total. The innings folded quickly after Bannerman’s exit, with Kendall and Hodges only adding another five leave Australia with an eventual total of 245.
The magnitude of Bannerman’s performance can be seen by the fact that he contributed a phenomenal 67.3% of the team total, a record for Test cricket that still stands. His score of 165 is over nine times higher than the next best effort, which also remains unsurpassed in completed innings. The Argus was justifiable excited by this effort, and started a public campaign for a Charles Bannerman subscription at the end of the second day. This collection raised approximately £83 or half a pound for each run he scored. The opposition were also impressed, with Lillywhite declaring that “he had seen as good a display of batting in England, but never better”.
The English team started their reply at approximately 3.30pm with Jupp and Selby facing the Australian opening bowlers Hodges and Garrett. They put on a partnership of 23 before Selby was caught by Cooper off the bowling of Hodges for 7. The innings of Lillywhite’s team then followed a similar pattern to the Australians, with the opening batsman Jupp batting solidly whilst his partners fell about him. At the end of the second day England were 4 for 109, with Jupp undefeated on 54. Surprisingly, the crowd for day two was slightly less than the first, with only about four thousand turning up to see Bannerman continue his innings. The second day had provided slightly better value for money for those who attended, with a total of 188 runs for seven wickets comparing with 166 runs and six wickets on the first. With Bannerman’s hand injury preventing him from fielding, the Melbourne Cricket Club’s professional W. Newing acted in his steed as no twelfth men were nominated for either side.
The start of the third day at a quarter past twelve saw Armitage joining Jupp at the crease, but the batter Jupp was soon dismissed for 63 by Garrett. A valuable 35 not out by Hill batting at no. 9 managed to push England’s score towards 200, but their final total of 196 gave Australia a very useful lead of 49 in a low scoring game. The scoring rates of both teams were almost identical, with Australia scoring at 36 runs per hundred balls, whereas England were infinitesimally slower at 35.9. Allrounder Billy Midwinter became the first player to take five wickets in an innings in test cricket, with 5 for 78 off fifty four overs. Dave Gregory rotated his bowlers well, and showed that the faith of the Victorians had not been misplaced. He showed no favour towards his fellow New South Welshmen, and used all of the bowlers judiciously. His astute field placements were also unexpected by the English sides, who had been anticipating less sophisticated captaincy from a man who had never led his state team.
In spite of his injury, Bannerman insisted upon taking his place at the top of the order. With his hand swathed in bandages, Bannerman manfully attempted to recreate his first innings form, but Ulyett’s pace quickly proved too much for him. Bannerman was bowled for 4, with only 7 on the board, and without a repeat of his first innings dominance, Australia finished the third day at 9 for 83. Dave Gregory showed his willingness to experiment by changing the batting order, with Garrett rewarded for his first innings heroics by switching places with Gregory and batting at no. 4. This sadly did not work, with Garrett being dismissed without scoring and Dave not doing much better with only 3. Horan made 20, Midwinter 17 and Ned Gregory made 11, but the rest of the rest of the team did not contribute significantly. The general consensus in the papers was that England should manage to win the game easily on the next day.
The third day had seen by far the greatest audience at the match, with in excess of ten thousand spectators. After a rest day to observe the Sabbath, the game resumed on Monday and the attendance fell back to the levels of the previous week with around two thousand people turning up to see an expected England victory. The last pair of Kendall and Hodges resumed at twenty past twelve with the total at 83, and they frustrated the English team by adding another 21. Hodges was eventually bowled by Lillywhite for 8, with Kendall finishing with 17 not out. Shaw underlined his status as the premier bowler in England, taking a very economical 5 for 38 off 34 overs. He bowled very well in partnership with Ulyett and Hill, and no Australian batsman looked comfortable against their attack. Australia’s total of 104 meant that England only required 154 to win, a score that was not expected to trouble them. Dave Gregory and his side were not of this opinion, and came out determined to make them struggle for every run. The pitch was getting more and more difficult to bat upon, and it seemed that the Australian team was in a good position to win.
Dave showed his experience and cricketing brain again by changing the opening bowlers for the second innings. Left-armer Tom Kendall had only taken 1 for 54 in the first innings, but Dave had noticed that none of the English players appeared totally comfortable in playing him. Kendall opened the bowling with Midwinter, and they bowled almost unchanged throughout the innings. Lillywhite also changed his tactics, with Hill and Greenwood replacing Jupp and Selby as the openers. The reasons for this change are unclear, but it is possible that Lillywhite hoped that the hard-hitting Hill would get England off to a fast start. Regardless of the rationale behind it, the switch in order was a mistake for England, with Kendall dismissing both openers with only 7 on the board. When first innings stalwart Jupp fell lbw to Midwinter for 4, England were 3 for 20. This quickly became 4 for 22, with Kendall bowling Charlwood for 13.
Australia had rapidly become favoured to win, but a sensible partnership between Selby and Ulyett pushed the score through to 62. Kendall managed to achieve the breakthrough by bowling Ulyett for 24. Shaw also fell to Kendall soon afterwards, becoming his fifth wicket, and all on what was his first class debut as he had never been selected for Victoria. Armitage quickly settled in, however, and Selby continued on without too many problems. Feeling that his team was losing the initiative, Dave Gregory switched his bowlers around and this saw prompt results with Hodges getting Selby caught by Horan for 38. With the loss of Selby at 92, the remainder of the English innings fell away quickly, and they were dismissed for 108. Kendall was the undoubted star, taking 7 for 55 off 33.1 overs to back up his 17 not out earlier in the day. The combined Australian side had triumphed over the English side by 45 runs, a result that was as critical for the development of test cricket as it was unexpected.
The victory of Dave Gregory’s team was greeted with jubilation in the colonies, with the newspapers in both Melbourne and Sydney reporting with great glee the defeat of the English side. The Sydney Daily News used the occasion to send a patronizing message back to London, declaring that “It may console them to note that the English race is not disintegrating in a distant land and on turf where lately the blackfellow hurled his boomerang.” The Australasian was highly effusive, saying that :
“The victory of the Australian Eleven over the English cricketers is no ordinary triumph. For the first time a team representing the cricketing prowess of England has been beaten on equal terms out of that country. The event marks the great improvement which has taken place in Australian cricket; and shows, also, that in bone as muscle, activity, athletic vigour, and success in field sports, the Englishmen born in Australia do not fall short of the Englishmen born in Surrey or Yorkshire.”
Whilst Dave Gregory had previously not had a happy time playing at the Melbourne Cricket Ground for New South Wales, this victory made up for much of that anguish. The Argus newspaper reported that the leadership of Dave was the difference between two evenly matched sides.
To celebrate their win, the Victorian Cricket Association presented a gold medal to each player, with Dave Gregory being awarded a slightly larger medallion in recognition of his role as captain. In addition to the subscription list for Bannerman, Blackham and Kendall were also the recipients of collections of approximately £23 each. The takings from this first game exceeded all expectations, and the two teams agreed to meet again at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in a fortnight for a re-match. It was agreed that this game would be for the benefit of Lillywhite’s team, and, following the success of Australia in the first game, it was expected that the match would be a financial windfall for Lillywhite’s team prior to their return home.
Not all of the publicity surrounding the game was positive, and there was some gloating by the local media, with some disparaging remarks about the strength of Lillywhite’s side. The Australasian claimed that the team was by far the weakest to have ever played in the colonies, and that the bowling attack lacked penetration:
“If Ulyett, Emmett and Hill are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is, either they have not been in their proper form in this Colony or British bowling has sadly deteriorated”.
There were also a number of rumours circulated throughout Melbourne claiming that the English side had deliberately lost the game in order to increase the attendance at the second game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)