From the rising of the sun...

DRS: what's the point?

2011-06-28T10:19:00.003+10:00

Sidharth Monga writes about the DRS discussion, particularly the fact that the discussion should be going on. The focus on the stubborn BCCI as the sole hold-out in the face of the unquestioning rollout, while to some extent necessary, is way too prominent in the media coverage. Much of the thought we could see when the proposals weren't aligned to "sides" has been obscured. Many of the objections currently are serious whatever your view of technology, especially when it comes to cost and governance.

Having said that, Monga's pices goes off the rails when it comes to the paragraph on the original purpose of the review system. Yes it is true that the ICC's cricketing committee originally wanted to

spot edges (or their absence), balls pitched outside leg and balls hitting the batsman outside off when offering a shot for lbws.

and didn't want to use technology

to predict whether the ball would have clipped the leg bail.

I could raise the minor quibble that this intention was overruled very quickly, with the restriction on the use of projections dumped even before the start of the trial, but let's move on to the more serious misconceptions.

The first error is the obvious one. Monga claims the system was introduced for the odd big mistake (true enough) and for “umpires who have trouble grasping basic umpiring rules”. I don't know where this idea came from, but it doesn't make any sense at all. International umpires shouldn't be there without being able to grasp basic rules. Even facing evidence of trouble with slightly less basic rules (2007 WC final and so on), surely the answer to that problem lies in training, selection and people management. Most of all, how does a review system help? Whoever reviews the decision (third umpire or original umpire with third umpire input) is just as likely to be wrong in that regard. For wrong understanding of the rules, the very best we can get is a forced consultation with another umpire, which might help in a small minority of cases.

The second, less obvious error, comes after another reflection on pitting computer and human predictions. He seems to be urging the ICC to make decisions based on the premise that the system is meant to eliminate howlers, with the implication that it should not adjudicate on non-howlers, or in other words, marginal decisions. That this principle sets the boundaries of the DRS has been repeated for quite a while, at least as early as December 2009, but it doesn't quite do the original explanations justice.

When the "eliminate howlers" line was first used, it was addressing high expectations, pointing out that doubt wouldn't be eliminated, stating a minimal aim rather than trying to put a limit on what umpires should overturn. Put simply, we could only expect howlers to be corrected, and others might or might not be. It was aimed at observers, but also at players, who were given the choice to review and the risk of using them up where the mistake wasn't so obvious - the 'economy of error' was put in their hands, and they needed to be aware “it was not designed to remove all errors”. As Simon Barnes put it in March 09, “It is not designed as a charter for chancers”, even if the potential for pure tactical use was obvious from the start.

It's not hard to see how the stricter interpretation gained such currency. To start with, there's a quite reasonable way of looking at referrals where the only question is whether the umpire was justified or clearly mistaken, leaving each umpire their own approach to the marginal decisions, however you define such things. Once the trials got under way, we also saw the system applied by umpires inconsistently, even overturning decisions without compelling evidence. It's only natural that thoughts turned to limits on what's overturned, and the howler statement had a whole new context.

Now, the ICC members seems to be working on what are acceptable compromises (from their point of view), with room for further developments. There's a lot more to be said, a lot of it referred to in that article by Monga (along with a couple more red herrings), but for that conversation, it's better to speak of how we think the technology should be used, not bring up twisted explanations of what it was meant to do.

More DRS rubbish

2011-03-07T15:36:00.001+11:00

The latest twist in the DRS use of Hawkeye when the batsman comes down the pitch is hard to get a grip on, mainly because the reporting seems amazingly confused. There might be something we can get form the latest Cricinfo article, but it's hard to know exactly what, since it's riddled with nonsense.

Why do I say that? Let's start with last paragraph boilerplate that CI has been adding to all their article on this topic.

“The 2.5m clause was included in the DRS rules following the expert view that the ball-tracker technology, in this case Hawk Eye, lost its accuracy when the distance between the point of impact and the stumps was greater than 2.5m.”

The only expert view that seems to be published online is that of the proprietors themselves, and they firstly consider the 2.0m mark more relevant than 2.5m and more importantly don't think the loss of accuracy is great enough to make that much difference, saying the 2.5m rule is their for historical consistency, not technological reasons. Yes, the CI line follows the recent comments from the ICC, but they are speaking just as much nonsense (if accuracy were the issue, it should be relevant to “out” decisions as well), and journalists really should be holding them to account. If there was an altogether different expert view given at some point, is there any reason they can't publich it and point us to it?
The article also says that there has been a change to “rule 3.3” in the DRS code, and that the previous rule said a leg before could be reversed “only if the replay showed that the ball was hitting the middle stump dead centre.” Even if we assume that the writer meant “a not out leg before decision” rather than simply “a leg before”, there are a lot of problems with how the article describes this:

The 2.5m rule (part of clause 3.3i)iii) can't by any stretch be related to a necessary condition for a not out decision to be reversed. The clause deals with when the umpire should be told definitively that the ball was hitting (or missing) the stumps. This is not the only factor.

There is clearly no mention of a middle stump criterion of any sort in the DRS code - the decision is to simply said to be made using “normal cricketing principles” informed by the ball tracking data. Something like “only if the ball is hitting middle stump” has been popping up a lot in discussion of the Ian Bell decision, but it's not at all clear whether it comes from a less formal umpire's directive (for this tournament or more generally), an off-the-cuff press conference example of what might qualify as normal cricketing principles, or a player or commentatorsa (possibly hyperbolic) interpretation of normal cricketing principles applied down the pitch LBWs.

We are told that umpire Erasmus asked whether the ball was hitting “any part of middle stump”. The box claiming to detail the new “law” tells us that it has to be the centre of the ball hitting any part of middle stump. If that's the new guideline, then how restricted was the meaning of “dead centre” in the reported old one? In any case, by my eyes the situation shown in the graphic accompanying the article doesn't meet that criterion anyway - if this is the Cusack referral, perhaps they really mean that any part of the ball is hitting any part of middle stump?

The box with the claimed new law has also clearly misread the code. The wording which is said to have been replaced comes before the 2.5m exception, and is about the more general condition for reporting (and effectively determining) that the ball was hitting the stumps. (It also isn't anything like “hitting the middle stump dead centre” - a much bigger area than middle stump is described!)

So what can we read between all the errors? There is talk of an umpire's directive, described as changing the protocol. I'd guess that the umpires manager has given direction to the umpires that a trajectory hitting middle stump (in some sense) can be considered out (in the absence of other reasons for a not out). It's not a change to clause 3.3 – it is easily seen as a clarification of a "normal cricketing principle", set in stone as a kneejerk reaction to the predictable inconsistency in interpreting that phrase. It's possibly a change to a similar earlier directive, although that doesn't seem likely to me. It's not all that strange - I've certainly heard similar sentiments (“That far down, I'd only give it out if it were hitting middle.”) from umpires relying on their own sight, and especially if technological accuracy really is the issue, the logic transfers well.

So it looks to me that as well as spouting clueless press releases, the ICC has had made a small concession in the name of consistency in response to the media drama round this issue, and this itself hsa been beaten up. Then again, there's so much we can't know, and so much rubbish in the reporting, that I may well be wrong.

Stepping down the pitch to DRS

2011-03-01T18:28:00.000+11:00

There's (unsurprisingly) a lot of talk about how the DRS dealt with the LBW referral for Ian Bell, where umpire Billy Bowden chose to stick with his not out decision after the tracking system "predicted" the ball was going to hit the stumps. I'm going to take my own stride down the pitch on this topic - you judge whether I'm out, stumped or LBW!

The way the DRS works, the decision is ultimately up to the umpire, no matter where the point of impact is, but according to the regulations, if the point of impact has been less than 2.5m, the third umpire would simply have told him it was in line, hitting the stumps and so on, and I can't imagine that being ignored. However, in the over 2.5 m situation, the umpire not only given more details concerning distances and wherhe the ball is projected to go, but is told to use "normal crticketing principles" in deciding whether to overrule his original decision.

Cricinfo says that the reason for the 2.5m distinction is because that's where the predictions become less reliable. Of course the reliability of the trajectory prediction does depend on factors including distance from the stumps, and it's easy to believe that this was a factor in the minds of some of the people involved in accepting the guidelines. However, while the Hawkeye reports of MCC testing don't in my opinion rigorously address this issue, they also give reasonably different criteria for their "extreme LBW" classification, hinting (along with the dependence on the original decision being "not out") that this isn't what the 2.5m is really about. In fact, Paul Hawkins says the main reason for it is to ensure that the traditional dispensation for batsmen coming down the pitch "continues to be the case", even when the benefit is no longer founded in quite as much doubt.

The relevant document form Hawkeye is found online, and was first brought to my attention by Kartikeya Date. He has used the traditional approach to LBWs as a reason to oppose the use of technology for LBWs, and while he argues against the DRS even in this form on several grounds, I gather that he thinks it is better to include this clause than not.

In some ways, the 2.5m rule seems odd, but it is one of the more logical of the current systems oddities. The basic intention is that if either "traditional cricketing principles" applied to the trajectory or the projection itself say not out, it's not out. Of course, it's less transparent than simply using the calculated uncertainties of the systems, or even deciding on mathematical factors to simulate the traditional approach. Bell, Watson (v Zimbabwe) and Paine (v England in Perth) have all been given not out in a >2.5m situation where the computer said the ball was hitting the stumps. One decision was upheld by the umpire, two were overturned. We can't know whether this is because different factors were involved in the original decisions, the umpires have different ideas of what "traditional cricketing principles" are, or simply are differently inclined to overturn there own decisions. The first possible reason is in line with the aims of the clause, the second arguably so and the third clearly an unwelcome human factor. Describing the process more explicitly might help (if such a thing can be agreed on), but applying it to "out" decisions as well misses the point.

Personally, assuming the demonstration of the tracking and projection accuracy was more satisfying than indicated by the Hawkeye document, I would like to put more emphasis on the predictions of the tracking systems, but not on the grounds of transparency or lack of human involvement. Actually, even without using the tracking systems in real time, I'm happy to see umpires let them inform future decisions to some extent, as has already reportedly happened. I would rather make LBW decisions as literally as possible than maintain traditional levels of doubt in the process, but that's not because of a technological argument, but because I think I'd like the change it brings.

I'm certainly not pretending it wouldn't be a change. Which leaves us with the current clause in the DRS, intended to avoid a drastic change to interpretation of the LBW law. It might not be perfect in that regard, given that it depends on how the umpires use it, but criticism needs to either have the same intention, or tell us why it doesn't matter.

Under the arm of the law

2011-02-01T22:19:00.002+11:00

For some reason the media feels the need to keep reminding me that toady is the 30th anniversary of the Chappell's underarm incident. It was a while later before I was in a position to have a reaction to it, and that initial reaction would tell you a lot about my character at the time!

Now, with a more rounded view of things, I still find it interesting that the sport saw almost Hair/Murali-type incidents in response to overarm, and before that even roundarm, bowling should end up removing the underarm or overarm clause from the rules (first routinely through playing conditions, then from the Laws themselves).

The changes have gone further than they need to. The rolling or excessively bouncing ball has been made a no-ball, and this deals with the real problem with the 1981 scenario. There's no reason to take away the underarm option as well, even if it is just a relic. It's not likely to be relevant to serious cricket, but can't hurt it anyway, and to my mind provides a nice link to history that should be allowed if it ever is wanted. Sure, it doesn't really matter whether the underarm balls delivered to kids in the backyard are sanctioned by the MCC, but you might have gathered that I think about hte rules a bit more than necessary.

Haddin('t) kept well

2011-01-19T12:30:00.001+11:00

As World Cup squads are announced, there's chatter about their composition. MS Dhoni has no backup keeper. Australia have named both Brad Haddin and Tim Paine. Injured players can be replaced at any point (as a host, this should be particularly easy for India), so presumably Paine isn't there simply as a replacement.

Perhaps the tournament is considered long enough for Haddin to need resting even without injury. Perhaps the selectors want to be able to drop him if his keeping isn't up to scratch, although Hauritz is included as the only spinner (to India's three) despite the selectors recently considering other options in that department much more actively. (Not to mention the idea that a second spinner might be more useful than a second keeper.)

Perhaps the double choice is simply a symptom of the insistence that everyone have two strings to their bow, and the expectation is more along the lines that they could play together - neither would be completely out of place as a specialist batsman. Such a situation is hardly new, and I think will be more and more common. In this year's Big Bash, several teams have shown up with two or even three recognised keepers.

This has something to do with the trend towards keepers sealing their spot as batsman, especially explosive ones. There's plenty to think about in that story, but I'm particularly interested in the story of Haddin himself. I can't consider myself an expert, especially since I hardly saw anything of him during four and half years in England, but I've jumped to my own conclusions on him at various times based on more than his international performances, and I'd like to hear from anyone who can say the same.

I first saw Haddin in the the Canberra Comets' short-lived foray into List A cricket (he was a genuine local, while was also clearly a part of the NSW set-up - see what I'm thinking?) He left the Comets when Phil Emery retired, providing him a spot in the NSW lineup, then fairly quickly securing an apparent anointing as the successor to Gilchrist as Australian keeper.

Emery was a good keeper. Gilchrist had had to move west to get a keeper's spot. Haddin's keeping seemed to me be to better than Gilchrist's, and while he may never have been a Healy, he certainly had plenty of experience with Stuart MacGill and other spinners without looking a fool.I have heard it said the pressure to improve his batting to match the new standard set in part by Gilchrist led his keeping to suffer. I'm not sure about that, but his batting was good enough to get him not only the fill-in keeper role, but a match opening the batting with Gilchrist without taking gloves behind the stumps in 2004.

When he did permanently replace Gilchrist, we all saw some pretty poor keeping form. I had the impression this was out of character, and could come up with a few explanations. His performance in the recent Ashes series was much closer to my expectations. For some reason, a selector felt the need to come out in his support, proclaiming him the country's top keeper in all forms of the game. He was then promptly dropped from the T20 team. This isn't necessarily contradictory – this particular choice smells of picking Paine as vice-captain, rather than choosing the team first. His inclusion in the WC squad may also be as much to do with his development as the needs for the tournament, especially if the plan is to rest Haddin.

At my next opportunity to see Haddin, I was considering his keeping as the innings began. The Blues boasted two glovemen in their bash with the sandgropers. I would have had Smith behind the stumps, not as a reflection on Haddin's keeping, but on Smith's fielding away from the stumps. As it turned out, the innings featured the worst display of glovework I've ever seen from Haddin (or perhaps any professional cricketer) in the flesh, and his subsequent perfomances for Australia have not been much better.

Michael Slater suggests that the selectors should be held responsible for Haddin's latest deterioration. That didn't occur to me, but we've seen similar falling away corresponding to the selectors lack of consistency in the spinning department. The selectors make it very easy to blame them.

Now neither Haddin nor Paine are playing in the Big Bash clash tonight, and both are going to the World Cup. But what do you think? When has Hadding kept well, and when haddin't he?

What has Hilditch been drinking?

2010-12-10T21:16:00.004+11:00

I thought I was beyond caring about Australian selection issues, but it just keeps getting stranger. The gum-suckers think it's all a conspiracy, with the feted Victorians finding it virtually impossible to get a game, but as soon as the big boy from St Kilda backs someone, he gets the nod. You might think the horses for courses idea might come into it somewhere, but that would imply Beer had bowled more than 108 first-class overs at the WACA.

Phil Hughes added some humour to the other inclusions by promptly getting a duck, while Steve Smith at least backed up his useful bowling by knocking off the crow-eater's meagre target.

I still don't want to bother thinking about whether Hughes/Smith/etc. are actually the right choices, but hte one thing I am sure of is that if the selectors do think the younger guys are better options than the likes of Hodge, White and so on for whatever reason, they need to pick some guys and stick with them (apart from dealing with injuries, of course). It'll be better for the team and those left behind in both the short term and the long term.

Pick me?

2010-11-15T23:20:00.003+11:00

Apparently the Cricket Australia board has been asking questions of the selectors. Has this been leaked to the media to distract from the fact it was the administrators who forced the selectors to announce a squad a week earlier than they wanted to today.

Maybe we've all got the wrong end of the stick, though. Will Sutherland and Hilditch come out with a joint press conference tomorrow?

Sutherland: I know you all thought the new look Ryobi OD Cup was an overly ambitious attempt to change the face of day-long cricket and get a head start for 2015, but in bringing back the 12 player idea, we were actually working towards an agreement for the Ashes. We're still hoping to get a good reply from the ECB, but we're sure the public will love seeing more of the favourite players in the Baggy Green.

Hilditch: We believe we've chosen a great team for a 17-a-side match. Great batting lineup with Haddin coming in at 9. With Johnson, four full-time pacers, Smith and two more spinners with no batting to think of, as well as Watson, North, Clarke and Katich, no captain could possibly run out ideas. Isn't that right, Ricky? This team will really test the English depth.

Australian T20

2010-10-28T21:28:00.000+11:00

I had plans to go to the first List A level T20 of the Australian summer, but they were discarded in light of the weather forecast and the fact that I haven't quite shaken the flu that kept me in bed for nearly 5 days, not to mention my intended companions' plans, reactions to the weather, and our general views on getting home from Rooty Hill after 10 on a Wednesday night.

As it turned out, the cracking thunderstorm was gone hours before, and it was traffic that held up the start of Blacktown Olympic Park's introduction to big time cricket. Once Sri Lanka had made it west¹, we hear that Jayawardene took the attack apart, rain interrupted the Blues innings, and they fell well short. While it was hardly the full strength team that provides half the players for Sunday's international, I think it's fair to say NSW would have expected a better result, last night, and as they started the second portion of their innings against Tasmania last week.

On the topic of full strength teams, it's worth noting that Test and ODI players are not available for the Big Bash at all, so for all the chatter, Michael Clarke really should be looking for an IPL opportunity if being the T20 captain and having the appropriate experience is at all important to him. Either CA leave him free to focus on other things, or he should be ready to go to whoever will have him.

But as we see in the news today, the Big Bash with its state teams and clashes with the international schedule is set to be short-lived. At first I had really trouble trying to see why this had popped up in the news today, asking myself what part of it we hadn't already heard.

An 8-team league is the plan, and while one report mentions second teams in Melbourne and Sydney, most stick with the old line that the last two locations are yet to be determined, allowing continued speculation about Geelong, Newcastle, Canberra, the Gold Coast, etc. The only development seems to be in the financing and ownership - my understanding of earlier reports was that CA would hold off on private ownership for a limited time, getting things going with (at least) 6 of the franchises in the hands of the state associations. The only change now seems to be that some associations would welcome investment and offers of some sort have been made. It might be sooner than expected, but I think that's where it was headed the whole time.

Split interest?

2010-10-06T15:30:00.000+11:00

The banana-benders are taking on the islanders today in the first match of the Ryobi One-Day Cup, playing a new format of day-long cricket. The idea seems to have been to give a boost to the flagging interested in the version of the game now apparently caught neither here nor there between Tests and Twenty20. A lot has been made of not knowing what to expect, but in my opinion, there's not a huge amount truly new, even apart from the fact that there had already been some split innings experiments in England.

When it was first announced with words like "two innings", a lot of people quickly thought of a game which was basically back-to-back T20s, a concept supported by several big names as capitalising on factors associated with the emergence of the short format. Of course, the convenience of a 3 hour game is lost (would double T20 be better or worse over two nights?), and the international nature of the IPL and the glitz/glamour/gimmicks associated with T20 worldwide do not rely on the format at all, but the high scoring rates are also said to be an attraction. High scoring comes from the higher pace of the game in general when squashing a whole innings into twenty overs changes the balance of risks facing the batsman, and also from decisions to encourage big hitting with smaller boundaries and other incentives. I appreciate the excitement of the former despite my preference for the traditional less hurried game, but am not really keen on the latter at all. There's nothing inappropriate about a fast-paced T20 match on the full MCG oval, or an unpredictable Kotla pitch which favours the bowlers.

Cricket Australia's new format doesn't reduce the value of a wicket quite so much – a team's innings still needs to be built over an (interrupted) 45 overs. Some of the rules, such as an extra bouncer per over, give more tools back to the bowlers, although favouring pace over spin. The separate balls from each end will probably be welcomed by batsmen as well, and while what the periods which are effectively powerplays (fixed at 5 overs at the start of each segment) come to five overs less than in current ODI rules, the restriction to four (rather than five) players in the outfield for the rest of the match could lead more attacking bowling and batting.

In any case, the most obvious change isn't to the relationship between bat and ball, but to the order of the game, trying to spread the interest out by letting both teams get 20 overs in before either has the chance to finish their innings. This means more insight into where things stand for both players and spectators, more interest for those who turn up only for the second half and more even conditions for the two teams, but there's more to it than that - the team in front at the main break gets something like “first innings points”. While you need to build for a full innings, your first segment counts for something in itself. If you're going to give points other than for simply win/loss/draw, I'd have to say this makes more sense than the stupid bonus points currently favoured by the ICC. It's new, but not quite unfamiliar to anyone used to two-innings competitions.

So there is a small way in which the innings is more than just split/interrupted, and there should be a bit more batting to cope with it too. I wonder whether the most significant change might be to the makeup of the teams. 12-player teams are old news in this competition, but bowlers are also allowed to bowl 12 overs each, more than a quarter of the number required all up. This might mean higher quality bowling, but the restriction was never there to restrict the bowlers so much as to ensure reasonably traditional team make-up. Now, a team can choose to play 8 batsmen (assuming the keeper is included as a batsman), all of whom won't need to bowl except as a back-up in unusual circumstances. If part-timers come into plan A at all, the tail is even further reduced. This isn't the place for a slow-scorer at the top of the order. (It also makes D/L more likely to be a bit weird.)

It will be interesting to see how it goes. That, I think, is the point. I'm not sure how much F50 cricket in general is dying, or how much CA want to use this format to revive it, but it is always struggling to keep interest in the domestic cup, and they might be quite happy to rely on novelty for a year or even two, whatever the long term plans are.

It's cricket season

2010-09-29T22:19:00.004+10:00

The Australian team have arrived in India, played a practise match in Chandigarh which seems to have served the purpose of a practise match, and, having travelled such a long way to Mohali, are preparing for the First Test.

Of course, playing a practise match means press conferences, and the players have duly provided some material for our consumption. This has drawn a few comments, and I'm sure there could is room for a PhD on what is generally said by different countries' cricketers and journalists (and even the response of their audiences) at home and away.

I'm not so interested in the "same old Aussie talk" angle, though. Perhaps with knowledge of the situation, I'm reading too much into it, but it the bowlers lining up to tell their plans seem, perhaps not more circumspect than what we're used to, but certainly less confident and more desperate in the less complimentary sense.

Whatever the sports psychologists say, there's good reason for that. It's a tough ask, although the current team seems ready to go out and be tested. I expect it to be interesting rather than thrilling, a more consistent contest than matches in Australia's last few series, which threatened to blow out or swing violently back at any second for more than one reason.

No fixing here

2010-09-26T20:46:00.002+10:00

I would like to state that, despite my vaguely prescient-seeming comments in the week leading up to the (first) 2010 Grand Final, I wouldn't actually try to creat such a clash with my brother's wedding, and I definitely did not influence the outcome of the match.

I doubt that St Kilda were trying to recreate the events of 1966, although perhaps they are glad to have been undefeated in a GF for only the 2nd time. I can't say anything about 'spot' fixing, although if it turns out that anyone actually offer bets on the number of kick-outs that result in a free kick by going out, then I would start to wonder.

Which team will be able to get up again the most? I might be too busy to find out...

View from afar

2010-09-23T11:49:00.000+10:00

Surprisingly, I came across an article on the Commonwealth Games that isn't all about the site or security fears. Being in London, James Schloeffel is in good position to tell us how much inattention the Games are receiving from the Brits. The cliched description of Australia's disproportionate love of sporting victory is also not altogether empty, but let's hang on a bit here.

What is the disinterest in London being compared with? I don't know when Schloeffel left his hometown, but surely he wouldn't consider his current experience analogous to being in Melbourne four years ago. He's also a long way from the Australia supposedly preparing for lock-down in 2010.

The Games haven't been seen much outside ads from the broadcasters who need to make money out of them. I expect most of us have just laughed at TEN's hyperbolic announcements, and to be fair to them, even they wouldn't be disrupting normal broadcasting so much if the planned revision to the anti-siphoning laws was already in place.

Quite simply, I think it's been quite a while since anyone outside the host country paid too much attention to any Commonwealth Games.

Settling for pies

2010-09-18T21:49:00.002+10:00

I have been driven to supporting Collingwood in a Grand Final. Can we please get it over and done with, so that I can leave this distressing fact behind and direct my attention to the following Saturday?

Swinging and Hanging

2010-08-24T18:37:00.000+10:00

Continuing to find things to question in news reports, I found a version of my recent favourite misunderstanding/oversight again yesterday, when I looked at the election coverage in the Daily Tele I found on the train seat. Speaking of the hits Labor took in inner Sydney without looking like losing a seat, they said Grayndler had gone from a massive 25% margin to 5% or less. Apples and oranges, anyone?

The (almost) 25% figure is based on the two-party preferred results between Labor and Liberal at the last election. Had preferences between Labor and the Greens been compared, it would have been significantly less, despite the Greens not doing well enough on primary votes to make that count happen. (Actually, there wasn't a need to look at any preferences.) While we can't say for sure, I'd be surprised if the change in Labor v Green 2PP result was much more than the primary swing against Labor, that is, about the same as the 8% swing being reported for the Labor-Liberal 2PP in nearly safe Labor seats. Moving on to even more guesswork, the change in the Labor v Liberal was probably even less than that.

In any case the parliament is almost certainly going to be hung. For many years I've had a dream, probably inpsired by NSW in the early 90s, of hung parliaments where independents actively pressure the major players to work together across party lines, as well as providing a separate voice of their own. Now, I'm amazed that Independent Rob Oakeshott is actually make this sort of “cheeky” proposal. I'm not still naive enough to think that this would be all good, but I like the way Oakeshott and Windsor are talking.

Macquazza Dictionary

2010-08-24T18:33:00.002+10:00

A recent SMH article explores the internet phenomena creating a generational communication gap. It starts with laguage being influenced by txt speak, and even contrasts it to traditional Aussie abbreviation. In that context, it seems particular strange that the example the Macquarie Dictionary editor gives as having reached spoken language is "TMOZ". Does she think that word's origins are purely in the typed or even written world. Really?

Stopping the boasts

2010-08-20T11:00:00.002+10:00

With a resurgence in the number of asylum seeker-carrying vessels moving shorewards, Tony Abbott has taken us back to 2001¹ and told us he will

Stop the boats.

In response, Gillard and the ALP are slightly more confused about persuing an almost identical outcome. While there are issues of fairness and honesty involved, and the policy in this area doesn't deserve to be ignored, the acceptance of the idea that unauthorised boat arrivals are significant to the overall questions related to immigration and population² is ridiculous.

The rest of the Liberal mantra can almost be summarised as 'stop the bloat'. While I've seen some details of Labor's “real solutions”, mostly they've been simply telling us to

Stop a boat,

sorry, stop Abbott, and that only they can achieve this for us. I am told that, if elected, Abbot will “take Australia backwards”. Economics and industrial relations get a run, but no doubt we're also meant to conclude that the coalition broadband-lite will 'stop the posts', at least the ones requiring a lot of bandwidth.

Not wanting to be outdone on personality-driven anti-campaigning, in the last week the opposition moved their ads forward from the bloat and boats message to also question the PM's trustworthiness. Both sides have put a lot of effort into telling us not to choose the others, and they both get agreement from Mark Latham, who thinks the answer is to

Stop your votes.

Whatever your choice, I expect that most of the boasts and promises will be stopped and forgotten pretty soon - probably by Monday.

¹Which was, incidentally, the last time I was in Australia for a federal election campaign.
²The discussion of which has been, for the most part, bringing together every issue that has population as a factor and putting them together as a scare campaign targetted at self-interest, with very little consideration of how the details interact with each other.

First preference: getting it straight

2010-08-13T12:52:00.003+10:00

In several places, I've emphasised the fact that Labor seats reported as "safest" due to the high two party preferred result against the Liberals are actually closer to being taken by the Greens. I've done this mainly it is often overlooked in an unhelpful tendency to make everything one-dimensional and it find it interesting just in being unusual.

As it turns out, Sam Byrne's campaign material has this plastered all over it - "It's between the Greens and Labor". I must admit that while it may add legitimacy to their perceptions, I doubt that it's an effective way to campaign, particular combined with the rest of their comments.

Still, at least it makes more sense that Anthony Albanese's complaints about them. Whatever they suggest regarding preferences, they're making it very clear that they're not looking for a "protest vote". There might be more to say when you put it in the national context, but I don't see anything misleading said about this particular contest.

Then there's the (inconspicuous) Liberal candidate, who also seems to protest a bit much. Even though he may well have other outcomes foremost in his mind, suggesting preferences for the Greens ahead of Labor is exactly the same as saying (truthfully or otherwise - not that I think there's a deal here) that you'd rather the result go that way. Not that that in itself should matter to a potential voter. In fact, let's completely avoid the Alan Jones response to how-to-vote cards and point out that whatever you think of the parties, candidates, and electoral and parliamentary machinations, there's no reason not to choose your own ordering.

Buy the bye

2010-07-30T16:06:00.002+10:00

Sidharth Monga thinks batsmen hit while trying to avoid the ball should not be entitled to leg-byes. Thoughts?

Second opinion?

2010-07-29T22:34:00.004+10:00

Paul Roos says "There is no better team in the competition to test yourself against than Geelong, who have been the benchmark in the AFL over the past four years."

I do hope the Swans "take it up to the Cats" more than recent form would suggest, but is any more testing really necessary after last week's meeting (if you could call it that) with Melbourne?

Not very English

2010-07-13T21:49:00.003+10:00

After a bit of a delay (in several senses), the First Test has started. Pakistan becomes the third opponent to Test Australia at the MCC's famous home. (If only this had happened when I was in London!) Mind you, when it comes to cricket in general, Lord's is no stranger to Pakistan v Australia, this being the third such match since their first anti-climactic meeting in 1999.

The Pakistani batting has been weakened by well-publicised events. Australia have taken the opportunity to announce in advance Clarke's place in the batting order until next year. (That seems both unusual and unnecessary, to me.) Moving up a spot shouldn't hurt him or the team, but will hardly shake the world. Unsurprisingly, though, in my opinion, the big question is still how the Aussie bowlers will step up.

The return of Hilfenhaus may be useful in these conditions, but all three pacemen can be more erratic than some. The big change is the debut of Steve Smith as a spinner. I felt that throwing him in as the main spinner is rushing him, and am still concerned. Having said that, if there is a need, there is a need, and perhaps it is not such a big step from the role as all-rounder to replace a batsman that I would have been comfortable with. Even in this situation, I would put him in ahead of the other debutant. On that note, while I did get strangely confused just over a year, the Tasmanian wicketkeeper's inclusion for Haddin means that we now do indeed have three apple island born-and-bred members of the Test team!

Thwarted captain?

2010-07-08T15:15:00.002+10:00

The headline of the article from PA Sport at the Cricket Australia site is still thwarting all of my attempts to make any sense of it.

More interesting than that is claim that he “was sent in at the top of the order”. If he's not the one making those decisions, does that mean he's in the team for his batting after all?

Candidates in the news

2010-07-05T16:28:00.001+10:00

I've commented before on the transition of inner-city seats like Marrickville from safe Labor to a new sort of marginal seat, where the alternative is the Greens. It is a sign of just how complete this transition is that the Greens preselection was a story in the ABC radio news bulletins this morning.

Deputy Mayor Fiona Byrne will now challenge Deputy Premier (and former Deputy Mayor) Carmel Tebbutt for the second time in the state election next March. Together with the preselection of the 2003 state candidate (and former Deputy Mayor) as the Greens candidate for Grayndler, this means that while the sitting members in the state and federal seats are married to each other, the Greens candidates share a surname.

However, the media interest probably has more to do with the other preselection candidate, Sylvia Hale, a member of the Legislative Council since 2003, and known to the voters of Marrickville long before that (although I don't remember that she was ever Deputy Mayor). The SMH reports the vote as Greens reject Hale for Marrickville. Her past may have come into it, but I don't know whether she has received an official reason for her “rejection”.

Eye on Hawkeye

2010-07-01T14:41:00.000+10:00

Some sort of event going on in South Africa has set of the talk about the role of technology in sports officiating again. I think Kartikeya at A Cricketing View brings to this issue many of the approaches that are needed.

In particular, he highlights the fact that the aim of a drive to use technology is not about getting decisions right, but getting them “verifiably right”. It's not even about being correct. Questions are only raised because there appears to be, and often is, available evidence beyond what the umpires have traditionally relied on. Being absolutely correct is still impossible, it is only a question of whether there is a decent basis for the claim that a mistake was made.

As he says, the uncertainty is shifted to “hitherto unforeseen areas”, and this can be a problem if the technology is seen as decisive. This is related to the other important point Kartikeya makes - that technology is more than just the technical. It's use affected by the interests of those involved, and how it is understood and portrayed by them. There are a lot of sides to this - the example of the Lampard goal in the soccer raises questions, yes, but technology doesn't really come into it until we start thinking about the efficiencies and other outcomes of using broadcasters compared with those of using two more officials.

While I think these points form a strong basis for discussing technology in sports officiating, I don't agree with all the conclusions reached or implications made. The professional nature of modern umpiring, or at least the particular system run by the ICC, quite conceivably hinders umpires, rather than allowing best performances over an extended period of time. Neither is the need for umpires simply caused by players trying deceive. Asking players to give themselves out LBW might work (sometimes) in the backyard or park, but it is clearly not just a matter of honesty. This is an extreme case where the Law itself was developed assuming indepedent involvement, but it is not the only example.

This example is very relevant,as Kartikeya does focus on LBW, in particular Hawk-eye. He begins by agreeing with what I think is the vital point - we have to move past the broad rhetoric of technology vs human, and look at each method of officiating as a separate case. The fact that technology shifts uncertainty rather than eliminating it is an argument against technophilia, not against individual solutions. Being verifiably right or close to it can be a valid aim, and uncertainty is sometimes (often, for example, in run outs) not “merely” shifted, but reduced. Even a change that is not quantifiable may be arguably more acceptable for some reason. This needs to be hammered out, not pre-judged one way or the other.

So what about LBWs and Hawk-eye? It is quite different to most other examples, in that the answer does not rely simply on observing, but on some level of speculation. The basis of that speculation was changing even before the advent of Hawk-eye, so I don't think it can be blamed for changing the Law. Using a technological system to observe and speculate is not in itself any worse than putting it simply in the hands of an umpire, especially under recent versions. However, traditionally there are a large number of umpires who are unreasonably biased against giving LBWs to one extent or another, and it should also be acknowledged both that Hawk-eye is potentially much harsher on batsmen than an umpire could reasonably be. I don't think “correcting” either of these aspects of human umpiring is a bad change, but it is a change.

The reason for this is that uncertainty, and the benefit thereof, is already acknowledged in our understanding of the rule. Shifting the uncertainty isn't simply shifting the errors. Thankfully, it should be possible to talk sensibly about what the uncertainty is for Hawk-eye, and tests have been done by the MCC. Questions remain, as the reports are light-on. Kartikeya rightly objects to two-part classification of “normal” and “extreme” LBWs, and to the 'average error', suggesting the median rather than the mean. We don't know how broad this test was. I understand that pitch variation and calibration based on play are fairly unimportant, but Soulberry's reference to all the bowling variations is important here. I'd prefer an indication of the distribution of errors for a whole range of deliveries, varying over the distance and other factors and summarised with a confidence interval, rather than any sort of average or claimed absolute maximum.

That is the technical side. There is a protocol for its use in the context of the UDRS. The uncertainty is not ignored at all - while the beneficiary of the doubt in this system is controversial, a half-ball's width (let alone 45mm) is generous enough to make worrying about errors as large as half the stump's width quite ridiculous. On top of that, the Hawk-eye document implies that the protocol also prevents LBW decisions when the batsman comes too far down the pitch, following traditional umpiring rather than the letter of the law. It might fall to further criticism, but I wouldn't say Hawk-eye has been “uncritically adopted”. It certainly hasn't been adopted as though it gives certainty about the trajectory.

Yes, it is convenient for the marketing of Hawk-eye to ignore the uncertainty. It probably does give the wrong impression sometimes, but I don't agree that it would be less persuasive if a range of likely locations were shown. Most of the commentators who leap to absolute statements are of the sort that did that anyway when given much less. Most of us are ok with the idea of an approximation at one level or another. I am probably not the best sample, but I would find an indication of the confidence interval more persuasive on first look. I don't have any problem with a commentator saying “Hawk-eye gives greater than 95% probability of hitting the stumps, so that's a good decision.” In general, I'd love to see an understanding of the uncertainty involved encouraged with that sort of display, although in practise it's not obvious how to show it simply without giving all sorts of other impressions. (Mind you, it's a bit funny to worry about showing about the Hawk-eye uncertainty in an application that doesn't even claim to perfectly display the Hawk-eye results!)

All in all, I think Hawk-eye can be used sensibly. Any suggestion that Hawk-eye gives certainty where an umpire speculates should be corrected, but that correction shouldn't simply rubbish the claim, but replace it with an good idea of how accurately a the Hawk-eye system performs that same speculation. Further testing showing greater errors, or concerns about the reliability or even integrity of those operating the system, may give reason to prefer a human umpire, but not simply the fact that the technology is limited and has been over-rated.

First stop Dublin

2010-06-16T17:14:00.004+10:00

So Australia's northern tour begins. In the past, the short trip to Ireland was a bit of fun, known for things such as six-hitting exploits and so on. This time it is a full-status ODI, the first between the two teams outside a World Cup. (I think it even counts for the ICC tables.)

Ireland are in some ways like the Socceroos - not necessarily living up to their past unexpected exploits. Of course, it doesn't help to be losing players to a more prestigious neighbour. Some more creative thinking is needed here - perhaps if more players were retained, Ireland wouldn't still be using Australian and other second -string players. In any case, it is a long way from the days when SR Waugh lined up for the Irish.

This is a strange tour - an unusually seroius warm-up match, yet another long ODI series, some modern stuff, and as a climax, an 'away' Test series against a team with all sorts of internal problems. The islands off north-western Europe are a long way from the North West Frontier - let's see what happens!

One

2010-05-17T22:25:00.003+10:00

It's been a hectic few weeks, with my daughter being slightly sick on and off, probably a fair bit of worrying that she was sick even when she wasn't, and any number of things keeping us busy at work and play. Thankfully, she was well and happy for her first birthday a couple of weeks ago, with plenty of opportunities to show off her favourite word: "Hooray".

Actually that's just about her only word, certainly the only one I pick out well. "Mum" seems to mean a zillion things, and apparently she can go on about "Dad" when I'm late and she thinks I should be around, but generally making herself clear seems to be less of priority than getting some molars through those gums and taking herself to, into and onto anything she hasn't been able or allowed to explore!

The real deal?

2010-04-30T15:20:00.005+10:00

Cricinfo's headline seems a bit harsh on WI and Ireland, ahead of tonight/tomorrow morning's match.

Thinking a bit further, it would seem to be just as slack to NZ and SL. Just what does count as the real deal in this tournament?

I'm still not convinced Australia (the team) sees the tournament as a whole as the real deal, but they could pull off a fair bit if the bowlers fire.

The whole thing doesn't seem too predictable - partly because of the format, but also because international T20 is still pretty rare.

The bard and battleflags

2010-04-23T22:59:00.003+10:00

To tear or not to tear - that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to respect
The bookshelf contents of outraged parents
Or to take down amid a sea of protests
And while ignoring, rend them.

Well, not outraged, but on this, the anniversary of the death (and traditional birthdate) of William Shakespeare, I note that my daughter seems to have developed a predilection for his work - in the sense that a not-yet-one year old child ever appreciates the printed word.

There are other reports of icons taking a beating on their special day. This day is also St George's Day, and as usual its (lack of) celebration raises the questions of whether there is a positive form of English nationalism which is missing in action. One of the stories that seems to pop up every year is the idea that the patriotic Englishman may be somewhat ashamed to fly the St George's Cross flag (unless the football is on), since it has been appropriated by the racist extremists.

The racist extremists at the back of Leichardt Town Hall could certainly be said to have appropriated the cause of defending the Australian national flag at this week's debate on changing it, filmed for a 60 Minutes segment to be aired this Sunday, being Anzac Day. The timing itself drew criticism, seen as an attack on a flag 'sanctified' by the military on the day sacred to them.

I expect the loudmouths and tv producers see the dramatic results as mutually beneficial - I was to some extent expecting more of the rational discussion, but I guess those with more reasonable views are less likely to involve themselves for the sake of a flag, old or new.

I would question the trends regarding nationalism and the use of flags on the day of remembrance, whether the flag is constant or not. With perhaps a more mainstream comment, I also suggest that the values often ascribed to both the diggers and the flag are more important than which symbol is used for our nation. O for a debate that actually reflects this.

Supporting acts

2010-04-09T21:55:00.002+10:00

The ECB decided to shorten their limited-but-not-as-limited-as-some-these-days overs tournament, split it into three groups, and then realised that would work better with an extra team. They decided to fill the team with anyone who hadn't made it somewhere else.

I'm not sure where such a team would find supporters, but I learn through a tweet (that at first went over my head) that they, like the Lions team, have been named after one of the supporters in the royal arms of the United Kingdom.

Making up the numbers, I doubt they're expected to win much. Indeed,

The lion and the unicorn
Were fighting for the crown
The lion beat the unicorn
All around the town.

What's surprising is that an English team has been given that name. Surely someone in the ECB knows that the unicorn is the Scottish counterpart to England's lion?

Of course, according to Lewis Carroll's White King, even the winner does not get the crown, but the nursery rhyme continues

Some gave them white bread,
And some gave them brown;
Some gave them plum cake
and drummed them out of town.

and Alice does give the lion twice as much plum-cake!

Heavy on bats

2010-04-09T12:09:00.000+10:00

It's the time of year when we find out which players will be paid by Cricket Australia from 1 July onwards. There's nothing too surprising in the list, although there's always something to talk about. Jrod wonders why Lee gets more allowances for injuries than Bracken. Tony wonders about the magic number of contracts, pointing out the absence of T20 write-ins.

I'm not sure where the Jaques story fits in the injury picture, and I can see why a T20 position might not be considered that important, but 25 contracts does seem pretty arbitrary. It also seems to me at first glance that the squad, if we can call it that, is fairly balanced in terms of bat and ball. This is slightly surprising, given the effect of both injury rates and recent selection tendencies on the number of batsman and bowlers likely to be actually required for national duty.

Waiting for standard time

2010-03-30T17:21:00.000+11:00

This Saturday, sunrise in Sydney will occur at a later time by local clocks than on any other day this year. For the last few years, daylight saving hasn't ended until the first weekend in April, and hasn't begun until the first weekend in October, when we have the earliest sunrise of the year.

I can't see the point of this. Now that I appreciate the idea of daylight saving at all, I think the current set up is slightly better than the previous dates, where changes happened at the same time that Europe went the other way. However, where daylight saving is observed in both Europe and Australia/NZ, the times use seem to fit in with the solar pattern with unnecessary asymmetry.

I think it would be an improvement to move both changes forward a week. The only downside is that the spring adjustment will no longer fall on a long weekend, but that only happens in two states and a territory anyway. The return to standard time will also be less likely to coincide with Easter (as it does this year), but that's hardly a bad thing. There's certainly not enough reasons to outweigh the ridiculously late sunrises this week.

Mind you, even things I don't like can have a positive side. On Thursday morning I will appreciate the fact that a US-hosted webinar is on at 4am rather than 3am Sydney time!

Expansion teams

2010-03-24T19:17:00.000+11:00

The announcement of two new IPL franchises sounds familiar, and while the process is much less drawn out in this case, can we draw any parallels with the AFL's expansion?

While Fremantle and Port Adelaide have been around long enough now, the IPL has accepted a second team in a cricketing heartland state (Pune). However, they have also taken on a "Western Sydney" expansion area 'not known for cricket' (Kochi). The apparently deserving alternative of "Tasmania" has been left out (Ahmedabad), perhaps continuing to supply fans for teams from neighbouring state(s), especially "Hawthorn", who play some games there (Rajasthan).

Of course, these analogies are far from perfect: The IPL (thankfully) has no Victorian roots. It might be a more realistic depiction of the relative populations, and (probably only slightly) fairer to Kochi's cricketing heritage to align them with the Gold Coast. While the Chargers this year might look like the homeless Kangaroos of old, some might think that designation would also fit Warne's Royals better than that of the Hawks. But does that make Ahmedabad the Gold Coast? I'm getting confused...

My point (other than being entertained by my own confusion) is that it's interesting how quite different mechanisms of decision making (both directed at making money, it should be said) have led to similarly disputed choices when it comes to expansion. Having said that, my colleague from Ahmedabad isn't concerned with the news at all - the whole thing seems safer ground than looking at the leagues' respective approaches to providing players for the new teams!

Sledging bingles

2010-03-16T15:29:00.003+11:00

A NZ ex-cricketer, cricket CEO and cricketer have come out saying that sledging Michael Clarke over his bingle/bungle (Kiwis can't tell the difference, after all) in his relationship. That hardly brought a response, but somewhere in there teammate Michael Hussey opined that it would indeed be "going a bit too far", and that brought on comments galore.

There's a lesson in that.

While still looking for lessons on sledging, isn't it interesting how these stories tend to prompt writers to include the stock list of all-time famous sledges? Isn't it even more interesting that nearly all of them aren't in the list because of the original sledge, but for the response?

Howard embraces ICC-speak

2010-03-05T14:58:00.000+11:00

I have spent most of the last 10 years studying, mainly mathematics. This explains why I haven't had all sorts of experience that might be considered useful for all sorts of positions. The experience I have had might be just as useful for some of these positions, and for others is might even be more appropriate, but whenever missing skills are considered important, I can't simply say that I couldn't have pursued them and completed my studies at the same time!

John Howard has no experience in cricket administration. It's not hard to find arguments for his appointment on the grounds that his experience is at least as good for the ICC vice-president's position (if it matters). His reply, on the other hand is simply to point out that we know what he was doing instead:

''I think the fact I haven't been involved in cricket administration is explained by the fact I had a day job which made that rather difficult."

All I can say is that he clearly has skill in giving completely irrelevant response. He is a good fit for the ICC!

Blasting on both sides

2010-02-26T15:08:00.000+11:00

Dave Warner bats both ways. He doesn't see why he should have to stick to one or the other during the course of the match, and there certainly isn't anything explicit in the laws to say he should. If he switches after the ball is in play, that is once the bowler's run-up has begun, it's all confirmed as fine - he is officially batting one way, and takes on the risk of changing in a restricted time-frame for the benefits of catching the bowler and fielders ready for a different approach. (Of course, it might rule out the leg-side wide and open up LBWs as well, but I wouldn't want to guess what the MCC are doing with this in this year's planned update of the Laws.)

If he changes just before the run-up starts, then he is officially batting the other way. Either the bowler is caught bowling to different rules and fielders are potentially illegally placed (not to mention tactically undone), or they notice, and will stop and take the time to change the field. Clearly against the spirit of the game, as the umpire told him.

I guess it's clear what these umpires would have done in February 1981. However, I'm not sure he should have been stopped from doing it in general. Yes, batsmen switching over adds one more time delay factor to the game, but is it any less justified than changing the field after each single for many partnerships? In general terms, if switch-hitting is ok, surely batting one way or the other with notice is in the spirit of the game! There would be no objection to batting left handed in one innings and right handed in the next, so where do we draw the line?

Mind you, why change anything when you are making 50s in 18 or 19 balls? I don't know whether the hype about this innings was going to last any longer than a T20 game in the first place, but it has certainly gone missing in the light of a more recent innings. Tendulkar's 200 was enough to excite even this fan of lower scoring matches!

Fun in the sun

2010-02-12T14:20:00.003+11:00

Despite crazy scores in the warm-up in Canberra, the first two matches of this series have made Gayle east his words, or at least his 4-1 prediction. He seems to have switched tactics, looking to lull Doug the rug in to a false sense of security. Then again, maybe he's just being speaking straight, after all, he seems to know what cricket is all about - "If we can get to 2-1, we can get things happening for us. We need to make it more interesting so you can get some more ticket sales."!

In any case, the Australians now head out into the surprising heat in Sydney, to see what happens in the next match. The four changes to the lineup might be construed as levelling things up to some extent, but the real issue is how the Caribbean batsmen face the pace trio.

Mercurial

2010-02-05T21:12:00.003+11:00

We all know the evidence behind the hype about Pakistanis and T20, but isn't it intriguing to think about what could possibly lead to a fielding performance several orders of magnitude better than what they put up in the Tests?

Responding to referrals

2010-01-26T21:44:00.002+11:00

The UDRS is an ongoing topic of discussion, even during commentary of ODI series where it does not apply. As far as the Australian summer goes, the system could be considered to have served its purpose, at least in the Sydney Test, in making sure that post-match discussion didn't revolve around what would have happened if Australia were not gifted a wicket on the last day. However, it has also, here and elsewhere, provided talking points that could be seen as failures and negative side effects.

There is plenty to be said about the design of the system, its misuse and alleged abuse, but that's not my intent right now. The question of how the game itself may be changed by the current umpiring technology and/or the review system might be a less important topic of discussion, but I find it just as interesting.

In general, the system is intended to overturn out/not out decisions where the technology in use provides evidence that the original decision was incorrect. Even apart from which standard of evidence is used and the much-discussed misuse/abuse of the system, this means different things in different contexts. While a front-foot no ball should always result in an reversal, the gadgets are not set up to capture everything. It is more likely that compelling evidence of an edge will show up than similarly compelling evidence of a non-edge, while the use of cameras to judge the cleanness of catches can be a black art. It would be interesting to check thte figures to see whether UDRS has produced more reversals of out or not out decisions.

Let's turn to specifics. So far, the most extreme departure from human umpiring is the use of Hawkeye, which aims to provide the actual path of the ball and tell us where it would have travelled if the batsman had not been there, enough to completely answer the question of whether a legal delivery deserves an LBW verdict.

Kartikeya has already raised the issue of whether this spells the end of techniques intended to reap the traditional benefit of the umpire's doubt. Personally, I am amazed that this sort of technology is used in any context, cricketing or otherwise, without the presence of a serious treatment of its margins of error. Once present, there is a decision to be made as to whether this margin of error should be incorporated in the application of the technology. I believe it is consistent with the traditions of the LBW law and the motivations of umpiring technology, that a sensible margin of error be include. Without too much certainty, I expect that this would mean the age-old technique of coming down the pitch would still provide greater immunity from LBW, although not as much as we have previously seen.

The heat-sensitive cameras provide images that in theory should be fairly easy to interpret - they show a pattern of waves received at frequencies which our eyes do not detect, showing a difference between, say, a bat in normal conditions, and a part of the bat that has just hit a cricket ball. This can establish that there was an edge, although care still needs to be taken if the question is whether the edge came before some other impact in an LBW decision.

Apart from that, the evidence is not always there. The more angles, the better the chance of finding something, and it has been suggested that with only two (or one?) camera in play, players could game the system by turning bats one way or the other. More controllably, some stickers on the back of bats do reflect electro-magnetic waves in a way that appears similar to impact-induced heat on the HotSpot screen. Persistence with this technology should possibly lead to more conditions being placed on bats.

Finally, something that I haven't heard even mentioned by anyone else. It has long been wise for fielders to remain on the ball at least until an appeal has been given a positive answer. On at least one occasion now, a batsman has been given out LBW, the fielders celebrated, only for a reversal and an outcome of four leg-byes. At the time, it didn't mean much, but you never know when four runs could matter in a Test match, let alone the shorter forms if they also adopt a review system. With (dismissal) reviews in place, it is sensible for both teams to keep playing until the ball is dead for some reason other than a wicket. Having said that, I don't want to imagine the controversy that may arise from a situation where one team continues and the other doesn't, with a reversal of a wicket resulting in a run-out decision.

Clarity on horrific crimes

2010-01-20T12:32:00.002+11:00

The recurring stories from Melbourne which have prompted worldwide headlines are very disturbing. I have not been able to find anything that could be said that would actually be helpful. I'm not sure that this article from Sushi Das will help either, but it is the one comment I have seen that has come from a helpful perspective. It is a pity that even it has been misread by many commenters more interested in arguments of superiority.

The Indian Minister of State has particularly sensible comments. Is he usually like this? It's hard to imagine such common sense appearing in Australian politics!

Bellerive records

2010-01-15T13:38:00.000+11:00

When you start your Test career with a 151 in fairly dramatic circumstances, you're probably not thinking that it will be five years before you improve on that mark. In contrast, it has only taken the Australians until the 15th day of this year to put together a partnership bigger than any they could manage in the previous decade, a fact less surprising than that one of the partners on that occasion was Jason Gillespie.

After the dearth of Aussie centuries as the summer began, who would have thought the last Test would feature a Ponting double-ton on his home turf? He has certainly capitalised on a couple of chances, and it seems his biggest worry at the moment would be deciding when to declare.

Bent wings

2010-01-12T14:36:00.003+11:00

The Blues' Bird is headed to the AIS again.

Quite within the official procedures, he'll still be playing against the Queensland tomorrow night, probably sending down deliveries sa questionable as the ones that saw him reported. At some point he'll get tested in a lab, where he will either keep within the 15 degree limit, as he has done twice, or sometimes transgressing, as happened after the last report. Either way, he will porbably be back again sooner or later, bowling who knows what.

I'd love him to knock over the banana-benders at ANZ, and I don't blame NSW for taking the procedures as they are written, but I'd rather not rely on a player who might be about to be banned for things that are already happening. I'd love him to be able to "prove" his action is (that is, has become) clean and keep playing (although his place in the state team isn't as obvious as it might seem), but this whole story is the farce that could have been predicted when these procedures were adopted. Why care about bent arms if the umpires aren't going to call them? Is this any better than the controversy?

Watching the ball

2010-01-06T11:34:00.001+11:00

What is going on? On the same day, Billy Doctrove manages to replace a ball in bad contition with Pakistan are fielding without suggesting any ball-tampering has occurred, while across two countries and an ocean, a referee's son puts his foot in it, or rather on it. It is not known whether Broad also keeps mints on his soles.

A ton has too much weight

2009-12-29T16:47:00.003+11:00

At the start of the summer, I was all for dropping Watson. Since then, everyone but the selectors seems to have dropped him, but I have to admit that he has been better than I expected, with the bat, even the ball, although not in other respects.

The most recent dropped chance allowed Watson to bring up the Australians' first Test century of the season. Much too much has been made of this. Centuries, or the lack thereof, shouldn't take on this much weight. Australia shouldn't be bothered by scores of two decimal digits except to the extent that the underlying problems are the same ones that lead to scores like 150 all out.

It may not always hurt to play for a personal or even team milestone, but there was nothing good about the situation as Watson was restrained in the 90s. The team needed relatively quick runs, not landmarks, and cricket is a team sport.

From west to west

2009-12-20T13:24:00.004+11:00

Despite the names, Western Australia is nearly as far as you can get from the West Indies. I can't pull up a personal story about cricket at the WACA. The best I can do is that I changed a nappy in the carpark there last winter. Rather than stands, it is the WACA pitch itself that has changed recently. My opinion after the first day was almost the opposite of that offered by the groundsman in Napier - that with the pitch ready to grow lane markers and neither team boasting a great attack, a result was unlikely.

Given that, Ricky's non-reappearance in the first innings was significant, and even apart from that, I thought the declaration showed a bit too much faith in his bowlers. As it turned out, the Rooty Hill RSL boy and co. did pretty well and it was the batsmen who were embarrassed, as the Windies set up an interesting chase. The fourth day was a great example not so much of quality cricket, but of the wonderful nature of cricket as a contest with a rhythm of its own.

The Australians managed to take wickets just often enough to enjoy it, but not enough to finish the game. Now they search for one last wicket as the target creeps closer. Will this be as exciting as Adelaide in 1993?

An umpire's final decision?

2009-12-07T11:04:00.003+11:00

In the past, I haven't thought much of Ricky Ponting's captaincy at all. In what I have managed to see of this series, however, I haven't had any problem with his strategies. In contrast, his behaviour after the first referral regarding Chanderpaul was ridiculous. I have in the past agreed with his comments on cameras and low catches, but they just make his response to the not out decision even more ridiculous.

Ponting says that the referral system was meant to get rid of things like that, presumably meaning mistakes that are 'obvious'. That is a stupid idea - it was only meant to get rid of mistakes that were obvious to the tv viewer with certain technology. As well as being largely motivated by television, the system restricts the third umpire to approved technology, rather than giving them everything that might be provided to the spectator at home.

It is quite clear that a mistake could be 'obvious' to those on the field without being obvious to the cameras, or even being wrong. In this case, I think it is more likely that there was an edge than that there wasn't. However, the replays and hotspot views shown did not provide enough to justify a conclusive umpire's decision, and certainly not enough to justify overturning a decision in the current framework. I do question why both hotspot cameras were not used, but I believe there will always be some level of ambiguity, if not error, not matter how good the technology is.

Ponting should have accepted that the cameras did not provide the evidence of what he thought he heard and saw. Instead, as some predicted, the review system has provoked even stronger dissent. The match referee should haul him up on a charge of dissent, or at least stupidity. Of course, off the field, more interest has been shown to the later appeal, when the umpire's not out decision was overturned. I still haven't seen footage of this, but form all accounts it was a strange decision by third umpire Asad Rauf. Most disturbing are the rumours circulating that this prompted the withdrawal and retirement of umpire Benson.

For an umpire to not complete a test for reasons other than relating to health is a very big deal. It is hard to believe the "suggestions" received by the Sunday Times (and of course repeated by Cricinfo, Fairfax media and others as facts reported by the Sunday Times) that Benson's departure from Australia was motivated by these incidents, rather than existing health problems. I don't see why the issues as reported would require a visit to hospital rather than a phone call to his long-standing doctor. Obviously the suggestions came form somewhere, but I can't see how it could be true that he was upset most by the second decision, unless there is much more to the story in the umpires' room.

Before the talk of retirement, I'd have hoped the umpires' coach would take a careful look at Benson's performance in Adelaide. In any case, he is no stranger to criticism of his decisions. However, it seems to me that apart form ill health, I suspect it is not he that should be the centre of the attention at the moment.

Now for Adelaide

2009-12-04T11:06:00.003+11:00

I think the first game of serious cricket that I watched live was at the Adelaide Oval. The NSW team happened to be in Adelaide at the same time as my family, and somehow my dad was convinced to take it along. I have memories of sitting in the stand there as a seven year old as the South Australians put up a big score, dreaming of working in the marvelous manual scoreboard. (Looking back, it turns out the main contributor, with 168, was a certain Andrew Hilditch.)

I'd heard the recent announcements of plans for the Adelaide Oval, which is definitely welcome news in various ways for the different winter sports, but I hadn't realised that work had already begun. It certainly is a change to a ground that has changed less since I was young than many others.

That first match wasn't a great one for the bowlers, although Tim May did pick up 7 wickets in the NSW innings. As far as the discussion on Test pitches goes, I think it's important that they have something for bowlers, but one of the great things about cricket is variety of different pitches and conditions. Cricinfo looks at recent Tests at Adelaide and calls it a "result-oriented batting paradise", which is an intriguing phrase. It's true that if we were forced to have identical pitches for each match, I might choose Adelaide as the prototype, but I'm glad to enjoy quite a few departures from its standard.

In any case, it is a fine day in Adelaide and it's great to have a day off for the first day of the Test. It takes more than negative press about a big win by a less-than-dominant side to take away my anticipation! I had a bit of a scare when Cricinfo had the starting time incorrect, but I settled down wondering whether the youngster Barath would continue his form, and whether Bollinger would live up to his claims.

Bollinger, with the help of some great catching, has started with two scalps, including Barath. Three more might well back up the loud bowler's words, although the journalist's question about "keeping his foot on the throat" of the batsmen fits better with the overall narrative of the series than to the nature of his battle with Gayle. Now the focus is on the rest of the batting order, and rightly so, since even Sehwag would be restricted if he received only the support Barath had in Brisbane. The Windies would welcome the return of Sarwan, and hope that Chanderpaul, Bravo and co. are a bit more prepared after another week.

Follow the leader

2009-12-03T17:16:00.002+11:00

In the news in this part of the world, there is talk of a second political spill in a week. The Liberal Party tends to avoid them while in government, but apart from that they seem to come around fairly often. I don't want to get into the politics now, but I loved this paragraph about the Prime Minister's comments on the state government:

Asked if Mr Rees had his full support or whether he also needed to get his act together, Mr Rudd replied "Yes", although it was unclear to which part of the question he was responding.

FWT: A start of 480

2009-11-27T15:41:00.002+11:00

The Australians have declared at 8/480. I would have thought they would push on towards 600, or at least be looking to have a crack at the Windies' batsmen half an hour before stumps, rather than tea. This seemed possible, with Hauritz batting well. Of course, his 50 not out was only ahead of Michael Clarke and two other players picked for their bowling, making it all the more noteworthy that noone went on to make a hundred. Roebuck reports that Katich looked the most likely to stay in long enough, with his explanation strongly at odds with thoughts recently expressed by Hilditch.

I'm not that keen on Watson opening the batting. I've mentioned this several times, and tried to explain that it's not about Phil Hughes, but about the general approach to the batting line-up. Those who are still not convinced should read Jrod. Of course, there is also the issue of the dream of "the next all-rounder" clouding any assessment of individual players. For these reasons, when I ran into my brother at the railway station yesterday, I suggested it would be best for Australia if Watson made some ducks and was dropped. He disagreed, thinking it would be better if Watson simply broke down again, preferably before being given the ball.

As it happens, Watson did quack, out yet again LBW, but unfortunately it is Jerome Taylor who has been missing at the bowler's end. It is always a pity to see a game affected by the loss of a frontline bowler. Perhaps Ricky should bowl Watson just to level things up.

In any case, right now it's up to Hilfy, Siddle and Johnson. Meanwhile, Bollinger didn't make the cut and was released to fly across the continent, where he and fellow cornstalk pacemen SR and JR have each taken a wicket, and Henriques two to leave the Sandgropers at 5/56 at lunch!

Hilditch on Test preparation

2009-11-24T15:36:00.001+11:00

As reported in the SMH.

It gets worse and worse...

Rolling duties

2009-11-17T21:51:00.003+11:00

I've previously discussed the fact that, compared with the UK, the electoral enrolment system in Australia relies much more on voters to take the initiative to enrol. While the resulting expection that the rolls be kept up-to-date from month-to-month has advantages over relying on a yearly update, the system leaves plenty of room for enrolments (or changes) to simply never happen.

The NSW government has announced plans to improve the accuracy of the rolls by automatically using information held by government agencies (such as the current sponsor of the state cricket team). From the point of view of reducing the burden on voters, and removing disenfranchisement caused by simply neglecting to enrol, although would be worth paying some attention to who might not be covered by any of the information sources.

Criticism of the plan describes it as an invasion of privacy - using personal information for purposes other than for which it was supplied. In a country where voting is compulsory, there are people who are deliberately not on the roll. Will this sort of enforced enrolment cause these people to be more reluctant with their information in other circumstances?

The question of compulsory voting itself is an interesting one, often phrased in terms of whether voting is a responsibility or simply a right. I thought of this recently when events caused me to remember discussing the fact that Australians are required to update their enrolment within a month of changing address, not simply wait until an election is imminent.

My point then, which also helps explain why enrolling is compulsory even in places where voting is not, was simply that voting in elections are not the only use of the electoral roll. Appearing in a jury is not something we tend to see as a right. It is certainly treated as a responsibility, or as the Sheriff's material and court officers repeatedly describe it, a "civic duty".

What's on first?

2009-11-12T17:04:00.003+11:00

This kind of storing has been popping up a fair bit recently. I don't really see how it's news.

Watson made the Test team because he was in the squad for his versatility - as a player who could fill any position that needed filling. It just happened that he was chosen to replace an opener. I will admit that his batting performance since then was better than I expected. I am still not convinced he should be called an "all-rounder", but leaving that aside, he has easily confirmed his ability as a fill-in Test batsman, and earned consideration for an ongoing place in the lineup.

However, the idea that he is one of the two best choices for opener is a bit weird. Apart from all the hoopla about Hughes, there are at least two other openers who should be consdered at number 1 before Watson, and that's only considering those with Test experience. The most obvious response to Watson's recent performance is to compare him with other middle-order contenders.

Unexpected events

2009-11-08T21:43:00.004+11:00

Last year, Nathan Hauritz was called up from club cricket to the Test team, over once NSW and Australian spinner Beau Casson. This week, the ongoing string of injuries to Australian cricketers led to a tour call-up for Hauritz and Katich's club-mate Burt Cockley, despite the fact that not quite all of the NSW Champions League pace attack has been called up in this series. While this trend may seem inexplicable, it is enough to wonder how soon will Usman Khawaja be seen in the national green and gold.

I'm pretty sure noone expected Burt to be plucked from the middle of the Shield game against the Sandgropers. While Hauritz has been known to open the batting for the Randy-Petes and play for the state on the same day, Cricket Australia rules mean that NSW were given the opportunity to replace Cockley with an all-rounder at a point in the match where their bowling attack was no longer important. Apparently WA weren't too impressed with this unpredicted result, but in any case Lambert was kept to number 11 and the Cornstalks fell well short of first innings points on the final day.

The much more unexpected result of the exploits of the strange (and large) collection representing Australia is of course the fact that they somehow managed to win the series. Several players, veterans and call-ups, have put in some impressive performances, but not enough to change the impression on paper that they shouldn't have been able to beat India. What is going on?

Six months on

2009-11-05T16:15:00.001+11:00

Growing up so fast!

Injuries and Hilditch decimate state attacks

2009-11-03T14:02:00.001+11:00

After taking a decent first innings lead, Victoria were hampered in their attempts to put away South Australia by the loss of an opening bowler to the (still) current ICC ODI Champions the Hilditch XI. This may be disputed - it is possible that one-Test wonder Pattinson could be considered a suitable mid-match replacement, but more to the point the Gumsuckers could have been in more trouble if Hilditch & Co. had called up their other opening bowler.

Cricinfo points out that McKay was his team's top wicket-taker in the Champions League with 10 scalps, but the same could be said for his partner Dutch Daredevil Dirk, who had one took one less wicket in one fewer games with better average, strike and economy rates. Maybe they only take into account the Australian teams - after al Henriques was called up. He took the most wickets for NSW while in India, but was included in the squad after teammates Lee, who promptly broke, and Bollinger, who has certainly not looked out of place (although Doug in canary yellow rather than Cornstalk blue still seems strange).

More surprising is the omission of Clark, the miser who also notched up 9 Champions League wickets at a better average and economy rate than Clint. His 8 overs for 15 runs also anchored the demolition of the disappointing Sandgropers on the North Shore last Sunday. Perhaps the selectors are simply being kind to the Blues, who would otherwise be left with a fairly inexperienced pace attack.

Selection blues

2009-10-30T13:19:00.004+11:00

I'm generally fairly interested in the Hilditch XI - whatever else you can say, they are representing Australia. However, it's hard to get too excited about a ridiculously long series of ODIs shoehorned into a very busy schedule, no matter how worthy the opponent. For the moment, I think I'll restrict my restrict my comments on the series to remarks in the context of more interesting topics, such as plans for the forthcoming summer. In particular, my suggested fixtures which until last week seemed about as realistic as the idea of a Shane Watson being one of the few uninjured Australians.

Replacing the Australia-Windies matches with NSW-T&T contests would of course have many consequences for the domestic competitions. The Victorians would certainly be happy to have Siddle available. The Sandgropers might actually get a taste of Johnson. It would be interesting to see whether Ricky would deign to play for Tasmania after a move to Sydney and a long absence.

NSW, however, are left having to field two teams. As far as that goes, it's worth remembering that the previously mentioned "all-rounder" has moved to Sydney properly - that is, in a physical and cricketing sense. Take the recent Champions League Squad, throw in recovered Jaques, Bracken, Clarke and Haddin, pick teams for each form of the game to face T&T. With some serious respect for his batting, I think in each case Watson would be left playing a big role in the 2nd XI!

Summer of Calypso

2009-10-26T14:26:00.003+11:00

One downside of the Champions League has been the delay in the start of the representative cricket season here in Sydney. Last night, while seeing Australia seemingly try to lose a match they hard prevoiusly done well to put a grip on (although I suppose selection was done before the match), my thoughts turned to the coming summer.

I still don't understand what is going on between WICB and WIPA, but all the talk seems to be that a full strength Windies team is coming. When things seemed less optimistic, I observed in another context that a NSW v Rest of Aus series might be a decent replacement.

Now, however, I suggest that if there are still problems at a WICB level, both Test sides could be represented by one of their domestic sides. Just imagine three 5-day games, 5 fifty-over games and 2 T20s between New South Wales and Trinidad & Tobago!

East meets west in Hyderabad

2009-10-23T22:41:00.003+11:00

Tonight a team from east of the Orient meet a West Indian nation in Hyderabad to decide cricket's first ever international competition for domestic teams. There's a fair bit of money at stake, and probably even more in bragging rights.

While there is little doubt that these two teams have been the performers of the Champions' League, there has been discussion about which teams have featured at the pointy end of the event. Trinidad and Tobago dispatched the South African Cobras in their semi-final, while the NSWelshmen notched up a very satisfying win over their oldest rivals. No IPL team was in sight.

While much has been made of the predicted financial dominance of the IPL, I don't find these results surprising. The IPL qualifiers do not (yet?) compete with teams from similar but poorer leagues. Some have suggested that pride in state, province or nation has played a part, but I see more concrete factors at work. The established teams play and train as a team for whole seasons, not just for one six week tournament. The successful ones are also more crowded with international stars than teams that could be produced by the IPL model at this stage of its development, although it must be noted the IPL has indeed given many of these stars significant twenty over exposure to add to their other experience. Delhi have also played a double role, in one of hte least satisfactory aspects of the CLT20 set-up. How much would have changed if Nannes and Warner had swapped their decisions?

In any case, the finalists have played attacking cricket, and it should be a good game. As a distinctly non-neutral observer, I would be happier if it were being played in Delhi, where the bowling strength of NSW can be most exploited.

Several batsmen have talked down the Kotla pitch, and some have suggested that it robs the crowds of the fours and (super)sixes that crowds think T20 is all about. I don't understand this view. T20 certainly changes the balance of risks, giving plenty for purists to dislike in batting styles as a matter or taste, but I thought the excitement relied more on the frenetic pace of the game, than frenetic batting in particular. Surely a battle between bat or ball is more interesting than a shootout, and with similar conditions for both innings, we have the makings of a fast exciting contest, whether wickets are falling or sixes being scored!

In any case, the batsmen should fare better in Hyderabad. NSW will want to prevent the occurence of anything like Pollard's demolition which was their downfall the last time these two met. I don't know how soon that is likely to be repeated! As I see it, the question is not what the bowlers conceed to Pollard and co., but whether the NSW batsmen can emulate him. Both in the last weeks and last summer, the Blues have often seemed either unable or unwilling to fully exploit the final overs of their innings.

Not-so-clean reporting

2009-10-10T22:24:00.002+11:00

Nagraj Gollapudi writes on Cricinfo on the curious case of the 22 yards. It makes some interesting points about the pitch at the Kotla. In general, I'm not bothered by seeing a pitch which requires caution from the bowlers, and I'm not just saying that because of the results yesterday. (If anything, I think I'd rather Delhi had put the Ned Kelly-wannabes away.)

However, I have a quibble with the article in its use of cricketing language. "A good statistic that could shed light on the matter: of the 26 wickets to fall on the day, half were clean bowled," writes Gollapaudi. Really?

I know that in these days where a six must always be a "DLF maximum" or a "super six", we can't use a single word where two would do. For this purpose, perhaps adjectives are tagged onto words because we are used to hearing them together, but in all my previous reading and conversations, "clean bowled" meant something more than simply "out according to Law 30".

Don't get me wrong. This isn't a major issue. I'll take a sensible opinion with errors in writing over perfectly constructed waffle any day, but is it too much to ask that professional reporters (or commentators) resist the sensationalism and focus on what they are communicating?

Blues start their Champions' campaign

2009-10-09T23:33:00.003+11:00

I'm loving seeing NSW in an international competition. The Champions' League structure has its flaws, and on some levels I'm disappointed that it took T20 to get this to happen, but I like the basic idea.

NSW have started their campaign with a good innings from the captain. Katich brought up a record partnership with Warner, who neither fired nor got out quickly. Hughes has had one good innings against Queensland, but today he did not look comfortable, just as every other time I have seen him play T20.

Eagles bowled and especially fielded well. The performance of the rest of the batting lineup wasn't dismal, but NSW did confirm that they are relying on their bowling, especially in the absence of Haddin and Clarke. So far, the bowling (and fielding) is doing the job!

Cats or Saints?

2009-09-26T11:38:00.003+10:00

Today is the one day in September. Geelong take on St Kilda in the 2009 AFL Grand Final at the MCG. The eyes of the nation will be on Melbourne, as on the same day the Storm host the Broncos to decide who will meet late finishers Parramatta in next week's rugby league grand final.

I've wanted Geelong to lose in many Grand Finals before, and they've done a good job of it. I spent a large amount of year 9 maths classes discuss cricket and football with the only other Aussie Rules fan in the year, a die-hard Geelong supporter. I was quite happy to see Geelong lose their fourth GF in seven years. Last year, it was good to see Hawthorn stop them from winning two premierships in a row.

Then there is St Kilda. They have only ever won one premiership, by the narrowest of margins right at the end of the game in 1966. A tv commentator just observed that they have a British-like passion for supporting their team while expecting them to lose. Another win would be another fairytale. But they are also big rivals as far as I am concerned. They are one of the few teams I'd be happy to see the Cats beat. In any case, if St Kilda won, England would have to win a soccer World Cup!

That's the heart. As far as the head goes, both teams started the season amazingly well, and then slumped. I think the Cats are further down their recovery from the slump and have had the better form in recent weeks. The Saints also are coming off a fairly tense and exhausting road through the finals, which might have taken something out of them. Both teams have real quality this year, and there is potential for a game as intense as the first quarter of last week's Geelong-Collingwood clash, but my tip is that the flag will be flying high, from dawn to dark, down at Kardinia Park.

Sheep, scabs and other Champions

2009-09-25T23:03:00.004+10:00

Going by the Australian media, you'd hardly think this Champions Trophy is on. To be fair, it is on in South Africa at awkward times and it is currently the business end of the football seasons. Perhaps more to the point, when did Australia even pay any attention to previous versions of this tournament?

So far in Group A, Pakistan have fought off the best team WICB money (or organisational ability?) can buy. This team, which would probably even make England look like an ODI powerhouse, gives Australia there entry into the competition tomorrow, while the sporting eyes of the nation are on Melbourne. The India-Pakistan match seems to have more potential for drama.

Meanwhile, Group B is turning on the excitement. Sunny England has Sri Lanka's top order in real trouble, after the Lankans had put away the favoured hosts. If the results can be interpreted as a hierarchy, then the South Africans are left only above their comprehensively defeated opponents. To keep the S theme, lets call them Shebangabang - after all, that's what they're called by the advertising advisors to the Australian ODI sponsors.

It wouldn't be an ICC event without room for criticism, and F50 isn't the flavour of the month, but I reckon that simply as a chance for so many teams to play cricket against each other in a tournament, it isn't bad. It deserves a bit more attention over here.

The red dust is over the town

2009-09-23T22:12:00.002+10:00

It might not be Christmas, but there was more red dust over the town this morning than I have ever seen in Sydney. Actually, that wouldn't be too hard, but there was an awful lot of dust. (I wonder why it was reported as 'kilotonnes', rather than the wonderful sounding 'gigagrams', though ;-)

Unfortunately, I got the camera out just as the sun rose high enough to escape the scattering effect causing the eery red glow. Even once it had dissipated, the dust cloud reduced visibility and the cars drove past looking like they'd just come back from the outback. In Parramatta, the dust not only stole the lustre of our newish building, but managed to cover even the underground areas of the station.

The dust may have settled, but the wind still hasn't let up. Quite an unusual day.

NZ bowlers face match-fixing allegations

2009-09-18T22:53:00.001+10:00

AP report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Who'd have thought it?

How bad is England at ODIs?

2009-09-18T22:21:00.008+10:00

I've been a bit too busy to put up quite a few thoughts recently, as the Ashes have given way to a long ODI series almost universally recognised as bizarre. (I suppose it serves some purpose as a warmup for the next ICC event.) I was particularly worked up by the selection approach of SMH's Jamie Pandaram, but I've managed to calm down by now.

More remarkable are the latest results between Australia and England. I think it's fair to say that since this time last year, the Australian Test team hasn't seen a great deal of success, but their performance, while patchy, has looked much more promising than that seen when a slightly different team has stepped on to the field for the day-long game. I'd certainly say this about what we saw in the southern summer, and even though the Australians seemed to have looked better and better as the current series has dragged on, I'd still say they're not as good as the team which once again conceded the Ashes.

The various quirks in the schedule and system mean the ICC rankings tell a different story, and in his usual over-excited manner, Jamie says a whitewash is inevitable, barring a miracle (or rain, sometimes also referred to as an 'act of God'). Why would he even suggest such a thing? This is not a team that inspires such confidence. With that in mind, the solid 6-0 scoreline only serves to make surprisingly clear something that really isn't news: England can't play one day cricket. England really, really can't play one day cricket. Even I am finding it embarassing!

All in white?

2009-08-26T17:03:00.003+10:00

There is yet another reason being given for Australia's loss in the Ashes - "The administrators can't get past thinking that anybody but a white Anglo guy with blonde hair should be in the team." It's very easy to believe that, say, particular players of Indian origin have been ignored or even discourage where white players of similar ability in some places at various levels. It also seems that at the higher levels, Australian cricket does over-represent a particular Australian sub-culture. However, there are so many things wrong with this SMH article and even the editorial that it's hard to know where to start.

Let's start with the use of language. It's hard to take seriously any article which implies that "ethnic" is something a person can be. A member of the ethnic majority isn't from a vacuum - the dominance of their culture doesn't mean that their ethnicity is not there, or even that it should be treated as a default.

Then there are the countries raised in comparison. There is a pretty obvious difference between South Africa and Australia, and I don't mean the affirmative action selection policies. In the "Rainbow Nation", the (white) traditional cricketing cultures are a minority. Even taking into account the disproportionate interest in cricket among some of the other groups, there is a comparatively huge talent pool which was previously ignored. Australia is home to many ethnicities these days, but Anglo-Celtic roots still form a majority.

What about England? There are two issues here. The editorial refers to southern Asians and South Africans. Many of the South Africans moved to England for cricketing reasons. Cricket Australia possibly could broaden the available talent pool by opening domestic cricket up to more disgruntled Saffers and others, but that's hardly got anything to do with giving all Australians a fair go, has it? (It's also worth remembering that while you would expect the selectors to make use of the situation, the ECB did not deliberately bring this on - it is a result of EU laws and trading agreements.) Strauss is a different case - he is at least as English as Symonds is Australian.

The increasing success of English cricketers with subcontinental backgrounds is a great story, but it is hardly surprising that it has been emulated to the same extent in Australia. The "Asian or Britsh Asian" category makes up 4% of the British population, while the equivalent communities in Australia account for well less than 2%. When we're talking about less than 30 South Asians in 20 county squads and one player in 6 state teams, that's a significant difference in available talent. What's more, the British Asian community is well established. In contrast, about a third of the Australian numbers are due to arrivals in the last 5 years, who are less likely to be top level cricketers. On top of that, given the way interest in cricket among the general English public is so low (compared with Australia, anyway), it is perhaps more surprising that the Asian communities haven't made even more of an impact on top-level cricket.

Now for the claims made about Australian cricket, starting with the dismissal of Greek and Chinese Australians as unlikely to play the game. Over several years helping with my youngest brother's team, it did include the expected Anglos, an Sri Lankan, an Indian and (if I remember correctly) a couple of Bangladeshis, but the coach was Greek and there was no shortage of Macedonians. If anything, the fact that names such as Katich, Hauritz, Krejza, Hilfenhaus and Kasprowicz are not singled out in the same way as the equally "exotic" Porplyzia, Petrovski, or Fevola simply shows that youngsters with "unusual" backgrounds have wholeheartedly taken up cricket and the Australian cricketing culture together. However uniform Australia's top-level cricket culture is, it doesn't depend on an Anglo background. It could be pointed out that the players mentioned are all white-skinned, but then there is Andrew Symonds.

I have only mentioned recent Test players. At the next level, there have been names like Ronchi, Scuderi, Di Venuto, Nikitaras and Chee Quee. Reading these, it's conceivable that cricket clubs have been more open to assimilating "newcomers" than to those coming with an established cricket culture - Khawaja is indeed the first local with a subcontinental background to make it onto the first class books. Also, the explanation that Asian Australian cricketers and their families place more emphasis on study and work is cliched, but not completely devoid of truth. Similar principles no doubt mould the subculture of high level Australian cricket even within the Anglo population. However, whatever factors are at play, they can't be too significant - around 10 southern Asian names in Sydney's 20 first grade XIs on any weekend compares fairly well with the English counties. Those looking to Asia for an answer to Australia's recent cricketing woes would be better off criticising immigration policies of the 50s and 60s than recent actions of cricket clubs.

Of course, the one thing the editorial gets spot on is the statement that "There are increasing numbers of players at grassroots level from southern Asia". That increase will only continue. Australian cricket needs to be ready to grow through this, and not just by expecting all the talent to fall into the traditional opportunities.

Putting the Ashes to rest

2009-08-25T13:57:00.000+10:00

This was a series which drew interest because of a long history and the fact that neither side was dominant. The cricket itself was a succession of bat-fests, interspersed with some short spells of impressive bowling and/or poor batting which made up the few severe first innings collapses which almost completely decided the fate of the urn. This is the pattern of a lot of international cricket recently, simply adding evidence for the idea that the last ten years has not seen a glut of strong batsmen, but a lack of quality bowlers and/or good conditions for bowling.

Hilfenhaus and Strauss had a good series. Swann did his job. Batsmen such as Clarke and North did well, but mostly when matches were virtually decided. Watson coped well with opening, but doesn't seem a realistic part of future plans in that position, and given that he was in the squad as fix-all, his time with the ball counts against him. Flintoff did enough to have a positive farewell, even if he is still as annoying as ever.

There are calls for Ricky's head. Some have quite rightly pointed out that he isn't really to blame for the result. I don't see why the calls increase after this second Ashes defeat. A captain aims to win, but can only be judged on how well they get the best out of their team and the opportunities afforded. There were enough reasons to question whether Ponting was the best man for this job well before Australia started the recent string of losses. I'm not talking about the trouble in January 08 - the claim that this years' Aussies are 'nicer' doesn't let him off on the basic cricketing aspects of captaincy. Neither does the suggestion that he has done better when given players more suited to his leadership, as in South Africa. Either choose the captain who is best able to lead any of the whole teams he is likely to be part of, or choose a captain indepedently for each series. Picking a skipper and then basing a team round him has, rightly in my opinion, not been the Australian way, whatever occurs in other parts.

The only thing going for Ponting is that it is not the Australian way to play ex-captains, either. This can afford to change. He is not to blame for this loss, but he still isn't the best captain the team could have. The umpires are also not to blame - they were far from perfect, but neither were they particularly one-sided. Brett Lee's injury probably had more impact, and that is not blamable, but simply points to a lack of depth. The selection decisions, on the other hand, have both been questionable almost as long as Ponting's and have played a big part in the last couple of months.

One group of people, for me, did stand out. They weren't on the field, but I very much enjoyed MMM on SBS. Stuey, Mo and Damo were refreshing insightful without being too serious. I came to this conclusion even before they managed to include all my favourite main points when discussing the state of umpiring, and it was probably helped by the fact that I didn't hear the expected self-selection suggestions from Mo until the final day!

Ashes to phoenix, phoenix to dust

2009-08-24T21:38:00.003+10:00

Overheard conversation:

"Are you celebrating?"

"Yes. It's good."

"Why aren't you barracking for Australia?"

"I don't like the Aussies."

"You live here."

"I don't think the Aussies can.. cope with..."

"Losing?"

"Yes, losing."

"We haven't had to for 20 years, so why should we? We don't want to."

"You guys..."

"You guys? You're one of us!
My brother is over from South Africa and he hasn't stopped laughing at us."

"I'm not laughing."

"He is."

In 2005, I managed to watch the last day at the Oval as hope slipped further and further away. That was the end of a long summer, in September, and at least there was the distraction of watching my team dramatically progressing through the AFL finals, travelling across London in the middle of the night to watch the Grand Final less than two weeks later, culminating in the club's first premiership in 72 years.

This year, I went to bed at lunch, only hours after Sydney had given up even the most theoretical chance of making the finals, and woke up to find Australia slid down to 4th. At least I am not surrounded by Englishmen this time.

I remember Australia building out of the 80s, and supporting the utterly hopeless Swans of the early 90s. I suppose what goes up, comes down. I might have something to say about the actual cricket once I want to think about sport again...

Law 36

2009-08-21T21:00:00.003+10:00

I'm getting the feeling that none of the umpires in this series have taken Daryl Harper's approach of increasing the range of LBW appeals that they will answer in the affirmative based on having seen Hawkeye. The exception, of course, is the Mitchell Johnson dismissal at Lord's.

At Woolworths

2009-08-15T12:19:00.002+10:00

Bic pens, advertised by "Mike Hussey, the most consistent cricketer in the world."

Double international no longer so Dutch

2009-08-11T22:00:00.004+10:00

The Aussie selectors have decided that got something wrong in the plans for the T20 world cup, and Dirk Nannnes has finally been called up. The losers in this are the Netherlands, and possibly England, who don't have a great record against the Victorian quick.

Meanwhile, the selectors aren't acknowledging any mistakes from the beginning of hte Ashes and are also reported to be dropping Clark for the final Test. While a spin option could be valuable, and Swann did take Clark to task at the end of the last match, this seems to seriously understate his worth to the Australian, or just about any, team.

Droughts and flooding conclusions

2009-08-11T21:30:00.003+10:00

Today Sydney received some pretty heavy rainfall. Earlier in the week, two researchers at the Australian National University have released An Atlas of the Global Water Cycle, a collation of the results of 39 different models of the effect of climate change on global rainfall and other parts of the water cycle.

Both the e-book and their comments to The Australian make it clear that "There's no interpretation, this is straight out what they (the models) say", that they are no commenting on the value or any of the models or the averages calculated.

Whatever can be said about such a publication as scientific practice, wouldn't you think that the reporter should take in enough of this not to write things like

Dr Roderick and Mr Lim calculated that, by 2099, Australia's nationwide rainfall will have...

and

According to the data, by 2099, the Top End will be receiving...

More Leeds, please

2009-08-11T13:08:00.003+10:00

A lot (too much?) has been and will be said about the performances in the Fourth Test, and where that leaves Australian and England with one match to play. There's enough there to talkk forever about psychology and momentum. I'm not going to try to say anything serious, but will only comment that my enjoyment on this match is just the latest part of a love affair I have with Headingley.

It started in 1989. It grew with a grandfather's stories of seeing Bradman there. Teh 2005 schedule was a disappointment. Whether it has been simply a good match, or good performances for Waugh and other favourite players, Headingley has a special place in my cricket watching. I could say more, but I will simply suggest that you read Nestaquin's ramble, if you haven't already.

Holding on Australian batting

2009-08-05T21:41:00.003+10:00

No, not Australian batting holding on. They did that, in another match where bowlers only held sway for a session or two, but I'm talking about Michael Holding's comments on the first innings at Edgbaston.

He voiced the thought that the Australians were having trouble with English wickets since they don't have as much bounce as our local versions, and so were getting out to shouldering arms to balls that at home would pass over the stumps. Usually, I'm all for theories which point out how the neglect of or inability to cope with foreign conditions is hampering cricketers. On this occasion, the analysis describes a very believable situation, but when I look at the innings itself, I really can't see what Holding is talking about.

Is it the Mitchell Johnson wicket? Yes, he shouldered arms, and the most relevant person thought that the ball was heading for the wicket, but I'm sure even that in hindsight even the umpire would agree that Johnson wasn't too wrong there.

Anyone else? Yes. Hussey was out exactly as Holding describes, but he was the only one. More to the point, hasn't he played more cricket in England than anyone else in the team? He's not a good candidate for an example of not being used to English conditions!

What's (going) on?

2009-07-31T13:14:00.003+10:00

I've never been keen on the Australian selectors' policy of trying to kill two birds with a cominbation of two half-stones. As Mark Waugh has said, Hughes has paid the price for Watson's lack of form.

I would never have imagined the bizarre set of circumstances which has led to Watson becoming the sixth NSW-contracted player to open the batting for Australia in the space of 14 months!

I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll give you some water

2009-07-30T17:02:00.004+10:00

Back in primary school, I thought I had a great innovative idea, the main part of which involved combining desalination of water and electricity generation. Years later, having discovered that reverse osmosis is all the rage for desal (and water recycling), I thought that maybe the idea had simply been overtaken. According to this Age article, though, maybe I wasn't as naive as I had begun to think.

Australia coming from behind

2009-07-30T16:54:00.001+10:00

I've been too busy to say anything about the 2nd Ashes Test until now. It could have been a fairly dull draw if not for the fact that England capitalised on the opportunities they had. Australia was firstly beaten comprehensively in the first innings, and then, I think (in hindsight) Strauss made the right choices concerning the follow-on and the declaration. It's good to see England playing to win.

Speaking of playing to win, it must be said that even during Australia's winning streaks, they were well behind after the first two innings quite often. Some would say they deserve more of a reputation for being slow starters than for being able to win coming from any distance behind. In any case, they weren't invincible, they simply had a culture of taking on the challenge to win in any situation.

I am convinced that such an attitude has been part of the difference between Australia and some other teams. Fortunately, they still seem to have it, even without the same quality to actually pull it off. Hopefully it won't be crushed by a few more failures...

Of course, such an optimistic outlook also means that fans are left wondering whether a few umpiring decisions had gone a different way. While it wouldn't have made much difference, Australia did seem to cop most of the questionable ones this time. The Katich wicket is a good example of why it is foolish to only look at appeals when judging umpire competence. Anyone who says Strauss knew he didn't catch the ball doesn't understand what they are seeing in the replays, but the earlier Hauritz catch did look at least as clean as that one.

From one point of view, the rules call for inconsistent use of tv replays in these circumstances, but on the other hand, they are not that helpful at the moment, and as long the umpires do not use a broader standard of doubt than they do without the presense of a 3rd umpire, the game isn't any worse off. As for the referral system, while it has a lot of potential, I don't understand the commentators who have suggested it would have solved the problems in this particular innings. If the plans for later this year are the same as the trials, then the Hussey (non-)edge would have been the only one of the much discussed decisions to be overturned.

In any case, we now go on to Edgbaston with England on the front foot and the effects of ever-present English weather firmly in England's favour. Unlike 2005, there hasn't been a tornado in Birmingham this time, but I suspect the Thrid Test will have more impact on later selections than on the series scoreline. Speaking of selections, it is hard to believe reports that Hughes has been dropped for Watson! ABC Radio says the inside word is that Siddle makes way for Clark, which is less surprising. I'm glad I'm not a selector right now.

Tas v Eng day 2

2009-07-10T19:27:00.004+10:00

I think we can definitely say that the English won the first innings, but the Australian top order has hit back. They need to go on as they have started, since the most dangerous option on the bowling attack available to Ponting at the moment would appear to be runs on the board.

This is the fourth Test in a row where the Australian attack hasn't featured any of the NSW first-pick bowlers, unless you count the man who turned the usual saying on it's head, by getting his Blues call-up immediately following his recall to the Baggy Greens. He is, however on of three Tasmanian-born members of the team - I can't image that has happened before!

This blog's policy on the state allegiances of Hauritz (and Krejza), is to use either their place of birth and childhood or current affiliation, depending on their recent performance. So, it was a Tasmanian who leaked runs, along with the pace bowlers, for most of the morning. But then, once a fair bit of damage had been done, the bowling tightened, at least enough to trouble tailenders, and it was a player from my local club who took the tenth wicket four times in the last over.

Now, a lot rests on the current partnership, led by the other Sydney-dwelling Tasmanian. 700 would be a good target. Otherwise, the batsmen might need to do it again just to save the match.

Danger and ashes

2009-07-07T20:46:00.003+10:00

Is it safe to be an umpire in Britain? First the tour match between the Lions and the Australians was ended when an umpire collapsed. Now there are reports that an umpire in Swansea has died after being hit in the head by a throw from a fielder.

Not pleasant stuff, but less disturbing than the lead-in to the previous Ashes series in the Old Dart. It is four years and a day since London was awarded the 2012 Olympic Games, and four years to the day since the city was hit by terrorist attacks. Since the days when players are targets in such attacks and umpires are killed had not yet arrived, the series went on and lived up to all the hype that had preceded it.

This time, much of the possible hype has been eclipsed by big events in a form of the game that had hardly taken root back then. There is potential for quite an intriguing series, even though neither team is at the strength they were in 2005. As the original Test rivalry begins again at Test cricket's newest venue tomorrow, I'll be ready, like many times before, for cricket through the night.

England are lacking in recent serious experience. Australia still have spinning/selection issues. Their batsmen, and even Brett Lee, seem to have found a bit of form in the warm-ups, although Lee's series is starting to look like McGrath's in 2005. I don't doubt this series means a lot to the Aussies, but I don't think England will be napping like the South Africans. I am young enough that I can say I don't remember a night-time Ashes series won by England... will this continue?

Tribal colours

2009-06-25T15:38:00.001+10:00

How a night changes things. Last at night at Parramatta and Redfern, there were many people in sky blue getting on trains (in opposite directions). Today in Parramatta, there are a significant number of maroon jumpers instead.

Mind you, I reasonably often see different maroon jumpers at Redfern, and am reminded of my high school days. It was more of a shock to see the group of Cumberland High School green jumpers roaming Parramatta today, which made me think of walking through the grounds full of "grown-up kids" on the way to primary school. They don't seem so grown-up any more!

Racy reporting

2009-06-09T18:48:00.007+10:00

I'd rather this issue went away in reality, but it hasn't, and it certainly hasn't left the media's attention, with protests and violence in Harris Park today. I'm talking about the attacks in Australian cities on Indian and other foreign students. To my mind, while there are many very disturbing aspects to these events, the most concerning display of racism is in the fact that the issue is receiving the most prominent reporting in the Australian press only now that a minority ethnicity is used to describe the perpetrators of one group of attacks, as well as the victims.

I suspect that many of the attackers - whatever their ethnicity - are, figuratively and sometimes even literally, simply schoolyard bullies who need little excuse, racial or otherwise, to bully. Anti-racism campaigns and other approaches may or may not change their behaviour over time, but the sort of attitude we see in the press all the time serves to create and sustain an environment where ethnic conflict of all sorts can grow.

Twenty lessons

2009-06-08T21:47:00.003+10:00

This is the second edition of the T20 international tournament, and any number of high and low profile other T20 tournaments have preceded it. All the teams should have had plenty of time to develop strategies exploiting both the similarities and differences between 20 (or 7) over games and the longer formats.

The West Indies have learnt that it doesn't matter how many wides you bowl in the first over, as long as you take two wickets as well. I don't think that's much consolation for Steve Harmison.

Scotland have learnt that the only way to respond to missing out on a World Cup is to leave the shorter world cup in an astoundingly short time.

Australia either haven't learnt much at all or still don't care. Just start with the team - apart from the more debatable selections, Brett Lee at this point in time is clearly not a serious WC-type selection - he is a let's get him some match time before the other event of the winter selection.

The captain still doesn't look like he can think quickly enough for T20 - then again, he doesn't think that well in any other format. As for the batting, after the initial trouble, we saw nothing more than an example of turning up the tempo on standard 50 over attacking batting. It's hard to get too risky when you've lost early wickets, but I can't help wondering whether they simply hadn't realised that the Oval's boundaries are much much smaller than the MCG's.

I'm not yet convinced of the ongoing success of the 3-hour game, but I'd like to enjoy it when it's on. I'd also like see my country do well - I'll support them tonight, but in light of the way they've treated this tournament, Jrod isn't the only one who's more interested in success of Dirk and the Dutchmen.

It's cool

2009-06-01T20:33:00.006+10:00

A year ago I was somewhere over Siberia, having spent 8 hours in a hot awindy Beijing. Apart from the short and nervous trip back to England's "summer", though, I've been back in Australia for a while, and this is my second winter back in Sydney. After going through the London version 4.5 times, last year it didn't seem like winter at all.

A year sure makes a difference! I've already started to feel it this year. It was only when we had to evacuate as part of a drill today and I remembered evacuating into the evening air just before Christmas one year that I remembered just how cold this weather isn't.

Searching for safety

2009-05-30T08:18:00.004+10:00

Many reports of terrible attacks on Indian students in Australia are making their way into the news, both here and in India. I am a bit disturbed by the repeated discussion of whether or not racism is involved. As I have said before, racism is a real and dangerous issue, but by its nature it often obscures other things.

I doubt that anyone, whether making accusations or denials regarding racism, actually thinks the victim of a random robbery is any less in need of support than the victim of a racially targetted or even motivated attack. Nor is a mixed local community suffering regular attacks any better off than an ethnic community suffering racial attacks. That shouldn't be the issue. What differences does the motivation make? I see two - which group is the indirect victim, now in fear of attack, and the question of what can be done to prevent it.

In itself, coming to public conlusions about such things does little more than speed up the spread of fear about whatever pattern is identified. Even when correct, this may or may not help - it is the response to this that matters. So how does the motivation inform our response. In one sense, it is tempting to identify things as purely opportunistic, since it is hard to know how to combat racism. Perhaps making a big fuss about it is part of creating a culture that will shame the perpetrators and have even greater long-term effects. Perhaps the argument I am disturbed by is necessary after all.

However, even public condemnation does little to stop this sort of thing. Opportunism is easier to deal with - tactics for making the vulnerable less vulnerable have shown success for a long time. There are valuable skills to be learnt in unfamilar situations. History by no means distances racism from preying on the vulnerable. In cases like this, focussing on the opportunistic factors is helpful, as well as the more subtle work against racism and the general policing that is necessary regardless of motivation. These horrors need to be stopped, not just condemned.

Whinging at Poms

2009-05-25T20:55:00.001+10:00

Now Ricky Ponting has joined the discussion about the forthcoming opening Ashes Test's 'move' from Lord's to Sophia Gardens. Since pres-series interviews these days tend to be exercises in psychology rather than honesty, I don't think we can conclude that he actually expected the schedule to resemble that of 2005 to start with.

What is the effect he's after, though? All I can think is that he wants to remind the English (and Welsh?) of their poor record in St John's Wood to maximise Australia's 'psychological advantage' in the 2nd Test. Maybe if he'd pulled it off, he just might have been able to make it sound like England have resorted to such scheduling because they don't have much hope otherwise. In reality, he just comes across as a whinging schoolboy who wishes things were more "comfortable" for his team.

Spinning Wel(sh)

2009-05-20T12:50:00.001+10:00

It seem that it's not just the subcontinent that produces Bunsen burners hot enough to annoy the officials. Apart from the fact that the E(&W)CB's penalties seem harsher than anything the ICC hand out, a domestic game policed by the local board seems a good place to discuss the actual issue of what is "excessive" turn. Unfortunately, I've only got a scorecard, which doesn't really tell us anything. Anyone know anything about how the pitch actually played?

Of course, I doubt this has much relevant for the ground's First Test match later this year, despite all the noise. It seems a bit of an isolated event. Perhaps more interesting are the more cultural factors surrounding Test cricket's Welsh debut. That argument could go on and on, but I do wish people would stop suggesting that Sophia Gardens has replaced Lord's. The Mancunians and Nottinghammers migth be annoyed, but Shane Warne's comments aside, it should be noted that the 2nd Test will be at Lord's, just as it has been since 1981 - the only exception was 2005.

A very good reason

2009-05-13T11:58:00.003+10:00

for less sleep, less quiet and certainly less blogging.

Isn't she gorgeous?

Half the story

2009-05-02T12:55:00.003+10:00

I don't wish to annoy any journalists who might read this, especially any I'm related to, but I'm noticing an awful lot of unfair journalism these days. Exhibit one is brought by Homer - a Cricinfo article on the IPL's security arrangements. On reflection it is (was?) less fair than I first thought, but it's still got fairly minor problem compared with some of the stuff floating around.

Last week, I read a newspaper article which used very creative/stupid quoting, and was supplied with a headline and introduction which contradicted other content. I suspect I have a habit of discarding headlines once I acutally read a story, but I came across this article after I saw a letter in response from a reader who obviously didn't take in the "finer" details.

Last night, I happened to see a TV current affairs report. For those who might be able to guess which one I mean, I will say that I'm not trying to say anything about the case itself - I don't know anything more than reported, and wouldn't comment if I did. The issue I have a problem with is the way the targets' response was reported. It often looks bad enough when someone doesn't offer an interview, but that doesn't justify obscuring any written response that is received, by saying nothing more than that it is on the website. Will anyone not feeling sympathetic in some way bother looking for it? As I see it, journos should either give viewers an idea of hte response, or not imply that they were willing to give a fair hearing. But a written response just isn't good tv, is it?

Arabian nights

2009-05-02T12:41:00.002+10:00

Wow! Australia have one an ODI series for the first time since... beating Bangladesh last winter. At least it was good to have an interesting series again, even if the timezone is awful for day-nighters, and the free-to-air media seemed to ignore it. The ODI series in SA made the IPL seem like a welcome relief, even though I'm not that keen on the three hour game. It's not that Aus v SA shouldn't be a good series, it's just that the same two teams playing each other almost non-stop for four months makes you wonder why they can't find anyone else to play...

Anyway, Michael Clarke seems to have handled the team well enough. I'm sure captaincy is good for him, whatever side you take on the Ponting debate.

Heading beyond the ODI world

2009-04-08T18:58:00.003+10:00

There are several teams which have been given ODI status only for their participation in a particular tournament, whether a World Cup, Asian Cup or Champion's Trophy. In the case of the USA, this has meant a total of two games! Now that ODI status is offered to 6 teams for fixed time periods, we have today (in the absence of a upset) Bermuda playing their last ODI for at least the next four years.

They might agree that they did remarkably well to get it in the first place, and certainly did not disgrace themselves from a minnow's point of view, winning nearly half their games against Canada and notching up a couple more solitary victories. It will take a while to forget Malachi Jones's first ODI ball, but I wonder how cricket on the island which refused indepedence will react to have had, and lost, their place in the "best of the rest".

Their opponents in Benoni today, the Netherlands, are more established, but have problems of their own, as batsman Ryan ten Doeschate leaves the WC Qualifiers early to play for Essex. It seems to be a matter of him giving priority to earning a living as a cricketer over playing for his country, which can't really be blamed. If, however, it had been the case, as suggested elsewhere, that a county had not released him for international duties, it would be a real shame, especially considering the fact that the rest of his team would have needed generous support from employers not connected with cricket!

It isn't just the counties that take players from Ireland, though. Cricinfo documents well the strange situation of Ireland's first ODI, where they played against the batsman who most helped them gain it, and were also without Eoin Morgan, in Middlesex as his replacement. Now Morgan has also been named in an England squad.

The extremely understandable motive of Joyce and Morgan to play ODIs and T20s for England is the uncertain hope that it will take them to Test cricket. It makes me wonder whether cricket (that is, the ICC), having this unique set-up and already bending the usual rules for it, should allow players to play Tests while still being eligible for an associate in the shorter form. The pay-rate might still cause problems for the Irish, etc., and indeed the biggest objections may come from the English (or Pakistanis, South Africans, whoever else) in terms of sorting out contracts, coaching and so on, but is they idea really unworkable?

Westward ho!

2009-04-07T20:30:00.001+10:00

At work, we are packing for Parramatta. Or perhaps for the new-look Indian cricket team:

Short tours

2009-03-26T20:12:00.003+11:00

It looks like the Australian selectors have decided it is worth sending some T20 specialists along for two very short matches in the new home of twenty-over-cricket. I don't recall this happening much before - I guess it shows that the World Championship is coming up. I'm sure the relevant IPL teams would appreciate it as well, although who knows what's going to happen next in that department. The 80 overs and then the ODI series should be interesting, although I doubt that they'll live up to the Test series, even if the last Test was a bit of a disappointment from my own point of view.

In the meantime, while the weather wouldn't suggest it, it's time for another sport which fits well in a 3-hour window, even if the new sporting channel planning its whole open around the opening game of the season has decided it isn't important enough in this state...

Northern exposure

2009-03-20T19:10:00.004+11:00

The equinox occurs in a few hours. In the northern half of the world, it is spring, and the start of a year has been linked to it in many times and places throughout history. With fairly good but not decisive meteorological justification, it is considered in some place, at least the US, the start of spring. I have talked about all these things before.

The fact that Google has decided it is one of the many events marked on it's search pages is unremarkable. The fact that it has translated it onto the Australian search page as the start of autumn is straightforward but slightly naive, since it fits awkwardly with our pretty strong tradition of starting seasons at the start of the month. But what in the world does The Very Hungry Caterpillar and the fruit it eats have to do with the "start of autumn"?

Finals and fever

2009-03-19T18:51:00.005+11:00

There's been a fair bit of interesting cricket going on in the last week or so. There was the Sheffield Shield final, which I would like to get more excited about. However, this year, compared with last year, the final was:

Not at the wonderful SCG, but (playing second fiddle to a strangely timed fundraising concert) at a suburban Melbourne oval once home to a certain tubby blond legspinner^*

Rain affected, despite being in a city which has barely seen any rain in the last two years.

Not at a time when I had just become blissfully "unemployed" with lots of time on my hands.

Most importantly, not lost by Victoria.

So my attention has been more drawn to the Indians taking on Vettori (I think there are some other sheep, oops... I mean players, on that team), and the Women's World Cup going on in this very city. Today saw the Australians' last game, it not being enough to deal out a whopping to the previously undefeated English, who must be glad that the Aussie women hadn't found this sort of form in the earlier matches. The Final, on Sunday, will now be between the two countries an Australian should never be expected to choose between.

Anyway, jokes aside, all of this hsa whet my appetite for tonight's game - Australia's final Test before the Ashes. This series (and the one before it, depending on how you view it) has been full of twists and turns and drama, so who knows what will happen. South Africa go in changed and looking to start afresh, the Australians have lost their centenarian on debut to sickness (so much of it this tour - and it's not even the subcontinent!) and added some balance to their attack with an ageing leggie. Let the game begin...

^*Why not restore my tradition of offering points for questions that are unlikely to be answered? Ten for naming the batting team in this photo, Twenty for the batsmen's names!

The farce of the face who is always right (II)

2009-03-13T07:41:00.003+11:00

In my earlier post, I described why I thought the idea that the umpire is not always right should be not about the umpires, but the good of the game, even though we all love to whinge about bad decisions. I referred to what I see as an increasing emphasis on individual umpires and linked it to a serious desire for better standards. Soulberry's comment on the banality of rejecting mediocrity expresses the point.

So how can we take the spotlight off the umpires, resulting in a quality meal rather than disappointment and discussion about the cooking process? There are many suggestions, and no cure-all, but I'd like to offer some thoughts on what this means in a world where umpires are by no means faceless.

To start with, this means choosing and training the umpires who will perform best. We are all ready to criticise, but unless there is someone who will perform better, it doesn't mean much. There are many theories, and many comments that miss the mark. For example, while it may be true that first-class playing experience makes better umpires, it is hardly helpful for a former player to come out and imply that players should respect other umpires less. If umpires need to appreciate the experience of players, perhaps Tony Greig should hold his mouth on umpiring until he has tried it himself. He is not the only one who makes demands of umpires without understanding the demands of the job.

Any strategy begins before the Test level, but it appears to me that perhaps the Elite Panel aren't performing even to their own usual standards. That would hardly be surprising. In the last four years, for example, Simon Taufel has umpired in only 10 less international games than Sachin Tendulkar has played (1 Test less). Yes, it is easier to avoid a mistake on a single ball as an umpire than a batsman, but umpiring requires even more concentration over a whole day or days. Consider also the strains that touring places on a player. Many of these also affect an umpire, yet while Tendulkar played 57 of his 119 matches in India, Taufel has travelled away from home and family for all but 14 of his matches, often rushing from one side of the world. That isn't counting TV umpire duties or domestic games, which top umpires these days show up for more often than top players do.

I'm not sure what sort of standard we can expect. All umpires strive to get every single detail correct, down to no balls and short runs, while most public concern is about dismissals. In any case, they are servants of the game, not part of the contest, and it is fairly clear that the cricketing community is demanding that umpires make far fewer errors than players do, and fewer than are currently made. Surely that means placing at least as much importance on training and rest as on having neutral umpires. In any case, when we need to give the umpires a face, it means not just listing mistakes and victims, but building up a capable team and understanding their limitations.

The institutionalisation of dissent

2009-03-12T21:15:00.004+11:00

As a brief interlude to my more measured musings on umpires, discussion over at Homer's blog has made me wonder about the trial referral system. There was a lot of talk about weeding out dodgy decisions about dismassals, but perhaps the bigger effect was the "decriminilisation" of dissent in the form of asking for a tv replay. I don't want to get into the question of whether decriminalisation takes away some of the danger of drugs and things like that, but I wonder whether it softens the power of dissent.

What was once beyond the pale and subject to the usual (inconsistent) application of the Code of Conduct is now provided for in the playing conditions. Now it is allowed, it is crazy to think of anyone being fined for suggesting the third umpire could have been consulted, but at the same time, players are expected to understand that this can only be done at certain times. Once there are signals from the dressing room, or once there have already been two unsuccessful requests, players are left regretting their own actions in chossing when to refer, rather than simply angrily blaming the umpire, even though the umpire is just as much to blame as they always were. If I were even more cynical than I am, I might think that was the intent of the system...

The farce of the face who is always right (I)

2009-03-11T21:23:00.004+11:00

The referral system has brought into even more prominence the issue of umpiring standards, particularly as it becomes clear that it is about more than just having technology. When I was growing up, I had hammered into me a view of umpires that is probably what some mean when they talk of umpires being seen as 'godlike'. The idea we were taught was that "the umpire is always right".

There is a joke, I think originally from a baseball context, about three umpires who are also an engineer, a physicist and a mathematician respectively. After a batsman is dismissed run out, he asks the engineer umpire why he was out. He receives the response, "You are out because your bat was not grounded beyond the crease when the wicket was broken." In a similar situation, a batsman questions the physicist and the reply comes back, "I say you are out because based on my observations, it is extremely unlikely that you or your bat were grounded beyond the crease when the wicket was broken." Questioned about another run out, the mathematician replies, "You are out because I gave you out."

This is one of many similar jokes, most of which pokes fun at mathematicians, but this one says just as much about an umpire. As both a mathematician and an umpire, I have a lot of sympathy with the last response! While the physicist probably gives the fullest picture, the mathematician makes a good point. The laws themselves word things in a slightly different way - a batsman can be out by any of ten laws, but he is dismissed only when he is out and either he walks or the umpire answers an appeal. The point of the "always right" catchphrase was not that the umpires were perfect and didn't make mistakes, but that their word was final and there wasn't room to argue. This is not because they are gods, but because to not have a powerful independent arbiter is to give the players god-like status, and the game falls apart.

Of course, that didn't mean that I or my peers had any hesitation uttering the other common catchphrase oncde we stepped off the field, or perhaps even beforehand - "We wuz robbed!". Accepting the decisions of the umpire doesn't always mean being happy about the them. Cricket umpiring is not quite as subjective as officiating, say, some of the football codes, and despite or because of this we get just as upset about a dodgy decision, whether on the weekend or when watching our national team.

Having said that, I don't remember hearing people associate mistakes with particular umpires too often until relatively recently, in internet discussions. I don't know how much this is to do with cultural differences, the nature of the 'net, the establishment of a small group of umpires who are always there, or whether I just somehow managed to avoid such talk in the past, but the pastime of tracking one umpire's mistakes is a relatively new thing to me. As with all things, some people do it pretty dismally. The Tendulkar LBW on the shoulder has been attributed to Hair as part of claims of racism and to Bucknor when his efforts in Sydney were under the spotlight, before being correctly given as an example of Harper's efforts now that he is the talk of the town. However, that should not detract from the comments made fairly by those who do care for the facts.

Clearly someone should be assessing the umpires, and perhaps the fans and commentators have a part to play. There was something attractive about treating the umpire as a faceless representative of the laws, mistakes or otherwise - after all, we want to focus on the players. It would be good to have the assessment and appointment going on behind the scenes as much as possible for a transparent process, but a combination of the modern system and some glaring mistakes have put the spotlight on the umpires and the only way to take it away is to improve standards.

To be continued...

The long haul

2009-03-10T18:32:00.001+11:00

Apparently a team batting in the fouth innings has only lasted more than 160 (six ball) overs only 8 times. I think someone on the radio said that after 1912 Tests, that's a one in a thousand event, but perhaps they were a bit more accurate and said something like one in 200.

There's quite a bit missing, though... only 1257 Tests have had a fourth innings - that brings it down to 1 in 150. Of these, on 834 occasions the team batting last has managed to win or draw without batting for 960 balls. If we restrict ourselves to completed 4th innings, we have 3 out of 418 that were that long - roughly 1 in 140. I can't be bothered thinking about any way to make get a meaningful statistical analysis (I wouldn't be surprised if David Barry could do something in his sleep, but I'll give it a miss), but just a simple glance through some of the other long fourth innings is enough to suggest to me that the number of 4th innings that look like they could have gone on for 160 overs if needed is more like at least 1 in 75.

I would like to think that the upper hand in Durban is still very strongly with the Australians, but a draw is well within the realms of possibilities, and I think there is a chance the Saffers could win it. More importantly, they are playing like they think there is a chance. This, as much as anything else, is why they now deserve to be fighting over the top spot in world cricket.

Fish's stomach or stomach bug?

2009-03-02T13:46:00.003+11:00

Sydney has had enough shark attack stories recently to make it seem like Perth. Apparently there are a lot of fish around, a lot of sharks eating the fish, and in the dawn or dusk they might go after a surfer or diver.

This morning the state Primary Industries Minister was on the radio responding to claims the government has neglected protection of swimmers from sharks. He said the way to be "100% safe" when swimming was to go to a swimming pool or something like that. This is a few days after news stories about cryptosporidium in public pools. If you want 100% safety while swimming, perhaps you'd better not swim. I'm not sure what "100% safe" activities you could take up instead, but summer's over now anyway.

The benefit of the camera?

2009-03-01T21:38:00.003+11:00

Despite being caught up in things like weddings this weekend, there's so much crickte going on, that it would be hard to stay away from it. I did manage to listen to the Test in Jo'burg late last night while very close to Casson Avenue in Warners Bay!

The thing that keeps popping up is the referral system, which has reached the final stages of its trial, and is starting to turn a lot of heads. I'm not sold on the current concept, the main reasons being a dislike for the position it puts the players in and a scepticism regarding just how much the current technology can do.

One other issue worth keeping in mind is that the 'elite' umpires, whatever is said about them, are there because they have yeras of experience watching cricket from the bowlers end and square leg, and making decisions. I don't know how possible it is to develop a similarly helpful experience watching and making decisions form a flat screen, but they certainly wouldn't have it yet.

It seems particularly strange to apply camera replays to most LBWs, and yet it has happened an awful lot in the last few days. Among other things, this has led to a lot of talk about the fact that a decision by the onfield umpire is only meant to be overturned if there is a clear error. While it is not at all clear that this principle is actually being followed, one commentator described this "giving the benefit of the doubt to the umpire, rather than the batsman" as subtle shift in a fundamental part of the game, implying it is something to be concerned about, but this is nonsense.

The way the system is meant to work, the onfield umpire still gives the batsman the benefit of the doubt. In the relatively rare case that a decision is questioned, this decision is then given the benefit of the doubt. Is this good or bad?

Overturning marginal decisions might more seriously undermine an umpire's authority, but there is probably truth in both the arguments that authority needs to be maintained and that the correct decision is more important than an ego.

More particularly, used properly, this principle makes sense if the third umpire is to consider incidents where the camera doesn't tell the whole story. Sometimes it would be ridiculous to consider a dismissal only in terms of what can be seen on the screen, and any tv-watcher just has to say, "I can't tell!" So why ignore the opinion of one who has already gathered evidence from a different view?

Apart from all of this, perhaps this approach unwittingly puts the umpire in even more of a spotlight. Most would agree that the right decision is of principle importance, not judging the umpires. While umpires should be subject to scrutiny, the game shouldn't be made all about them.

In any case, this system is not taking benefit of the doubt away from the batsman. If the umpire now, when challenged, is assumed correct until proven wrong, then this simply shows how much more the role of the umpire could be changed. Traditionally, the batsman was given the benefit of the doubt, but the umpire was always right.

Warner finds a county

2009-02-26T14:52:00.003+11:00

Durham think he's worth a shot, but only for the short stuff before Shiv gets there.

Not quite what I was getting at.

Plus ça change...

2009-02-24T19:32:00.006+11:00

A recently silent reader of this blog has complained at the lack of non-cricket related posts. This is one, but I'm not sure it will be any more welcome. A theme of the early days of the blog was that many posts compared "east" and "west" in one way or the other - from the rising of the sun to its setting. In not too long, my office moves from "central" Sydney to the "west". (In purely physical terms, it's more like "east" to "central", but never mind that...) The road linking the west, Parramatta or Penrith, to the city is the M4, but it stops well short. There is talk about extending it underground to the city and then the airport, and some news reports about this have referred to the "marginal seats" of Marrickville and Balmain. How times have changed, and how much difference a few more Green votes has made!

In other political news, we see how much some things never change. The federal opposition is complaining that only Labor parliamentarians are allowed to be part of events associated with stimulus package school infrastructure funding. When they were in government, not having global downturn on their mind, they had a smaller scheme in place - funding a flagpole for any school that didn't have one. Of course, a condition was that a Coalition MP or Senator attend the dedication ceremony. Politicians are politicians.