Book review: The Vincibles, by Gideon Haigh

On a lazy summer afternoon with the cricket coverage in the background I completely galloped through this incredibly entertaining work by Haigh. Within pages the fortunes of the Australian test team paled into insignificance as I desperately read onto the next chapter in the life of the ‘Yarras’ 2001-02 season.

As the title suggests Haigh at no stage sought out to write a serious cricket book about a motivated sporting club. Instead a true reflection of what the ‘pitch-in’ life really is like in a local cricket club. Can you imagine David Warner sitting down weekly typing up the club newsletter, or Nathan Lyon acting as chairman of selectors (actually he may put his hand up for that)? In humorous prose Haigh describes what it is like for the true lovers of cricket to just get a game. I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments that he gets more joy from a cover drive than Mark Waugh ever did, owing to genuine surprise and elation at its execution, so do I.

I found myself giggling at most of the ups and downs in the life of the ‘Yarras’, and in a number of places being reduced to tears. Others will find differing points of greater hilarity to them but I lost it reading the description of Wombles’ stewardship and transfer protocol of the clubroom keys. The description of the elongated selection negotiation, finally requiring that whoever chose player Y (the champion) also was required to take player Y (the duffer) as well gave me much hope for the world. Middle aged men reduced to rationale more at home in a primary school yard.

Contrast this to the tedium experienced in picking up the second piece of cricketing literature ‘100 not out’, edited by Rod Nicholson. The genesis of this book review existed when these two works lay side by side, one the story of the triers the other of the champions, what a great ability to contrast those two people groups and hopefully find that common thread of passion for the greatest game[1].

I do believe the passion of Haigh’s comrades extends through to what is ultimately the third tier of competitive cricket below country & state, albeit with a few ‘A’ teams & development squads hanging around, but you wouldn’t feel it from what is ostensibly a reference book written by Williams and Nicholson for an incredibly niche audience.

What appears to ‘100 Not Out’s’ writers (and maybe many at the up echelons of cricket) is that ultimately it is a game that transcends any individual, facts and statistics only bearing importance inasmuch as they help the game’s story reach greater heights. The mountain of centuries Bill Lawry scored for Northcote pales into insignificance compared to that one century ‘Moof’ scored helping the 3^rd XI to victory in the grand final.

As you can obviously guess my clear preference is for ‘The Vincibles’ over ‘100 Not Out’  - and a lot of the cricket books I've read.

---

[1] There is one instance of crossover between the books where Haigh describes a former Prahran first grade cricketer deciding to join the ‘Yarras’ ranks being confronted immediately at his first training session by the eccentric ‘Space Cadet’ who informs the new arrival that his vocation is teaching Tibetan throat singing.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Cricket's Moneyball effect

Ben Roberts

It's my turn to throw my voice into the vortex of latter opinion and desire borne out of the 2011 release of Moneyball. I only recently watched this film, and enjoyed it immensely. It's release has awoken the rest of the sporting world to a concept that was not even new in the period portrayed in the movie, but has been around for over 30 years. Suddenly everyone wants a piece of the action, and to find the killer measurable statistic for their sport of choice that separates the wheat from the chaff.

Baseball is a sport made for such a concept. Without going into much detail, in my opinion baseball lends itself so easily to this analysis due to: 1) being very static in gameplay with players not moving around the field randomly but in a definite order; 2) having direct cause-and-effect relationships in the game play, (for example an out always equals a run saved); 3) Major League Baseball being a market based sport (also replicated in many others but not cricket) meaning that value is something more easily determined as it comes in dollars and cents.

Cricket by contrast does not have such a static nature nor cause and effect relationships. While commentators always say that the best way to restrict scoring is to take wickets this is not an absolute (like baseball) until you talk about the 10^th wicket falling. Neither does the sport have a market-based nature, although players are shifting first-class teams more today, the game remains a sport played at the highest level as a regional representative.

The key premise of the theory is stated early in the movie when Jonah Hill's character tells Brad Pitt's character that for years they have been asking the wrong question. They should be trying to buy wins (a direct result of runs scored and restricted) not players. The improvement in statistics themselves had been around for many years, the trouble was the ignorance of the users.

Cricket has a multitude of data already at its disposal. Former Australian coach John Buchanan was known for recording extensive data and this became the norm for most first-class teams. The difficulty is that unlike baseball - where you can name what you want - in cricket, you cannot be as sure. Yes, more runs are important, but in Test matches you need to take wickets also.

So what if we just use such analysis for limited over matches where it's all about runs. Good idea, except last night I saw a rain interrupted T20 match get decided by the Duckworth-Lewis method which relies on wickets in a calculation of a par score. As well, we still seem to value bowling in limited over games, if we are truly only after more runs why not simply stock your team with 11 batsman who can nominally roll their arm over and field well?

The difficulty is that we do not know what the question to ask is; that is, what constitutes total value in a game of cricket? The entire premise of using such statistics is to restrict the questions that you want the statistics answer, unless you want your statistics to prove any and all manner of things. 

To give an extreme example: You have two batsmen, 1 and 2. In traditional statistics both average 36 and have a strike rate of 72 runs per 100 balls. A normal innings therefore for either is to score 36 runs off 50 deliveries.  We have a dilemma: if we need to choose, both look equal - based on traditional measures. Turning more detailed statistical analysis, we find that Batsman 1 gets those runs in 36 singles, where Batsman 2 usually hits 6 sixes (I told you the example was extreme). Which batsman is the more valuable?

My initial reaction is to say Batsman 1 is more valuable in that they turn the strike over to the other batsman giving greater chance for team scoring while they are at the crease whereas Batsman 2 faces a stack of dot balls. But what is the effect on the bowlers? Does the potentially greater runs scored per single ball by player 2 make them more valuable? Unless you know what you really want statistics can tell you anything.

Don't read me wrong - such analysis has every place in the game but requires a liberal amount of common sense to be applied. You can easily measure the worth of two identically skilled players as above. You may use the above analysis in comparison to what the team needs, but you cannot make the clear cut decisions that they can in baseball as there is no single measure of value.

Ed Cowan at his best; (c) Balanced Sports

How would you statistically make the decision (as for the recent Melbourne Test) whether to play an opening batsman Ed Cowan or all-rounder Daniel Christian? To do so compares apples with oranges. In baseball, you can use a standard measure of total value to the team and cut through inconsistencies, in cricket understanding and intuition must still be applied.

I have only a rudimentary understanding of statistic usage, and someone more esteemed than I may be able to prove that there is a methodology escalating statistical analysis beyond being a support category in cricket decision making. But until that time remain wary of the limitations when trying to apply to cricket. Mark Twain believed it was Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Though it remains historically an un-sourced statement, there is still much truth to it.

Book review: What a ride, by Rupert Guinness

I think the difficulty for Rupert Guinness (an incredibly talented wordsmith on this most gruelling of sports) is that in the past 25 years that he has covered Le Tour, thanks largely to his own impeccable efforts, Australian sporting fans have become all too familiar with it. No longer is this a totally foreign event raced by very few outside of continental Europe, it has become an Australian obsession each July. No longer are highlights packages wedged into unholy hours on television, but front and centre every night as Mum, Dad and the kids sit down for tea.

Courtesy: fishpond.com.au

This book by Guinness are his perspectives, memories and hindsight reflections from a year in year out love affair he has had with the event since the mid-1980s. Guinness over this time has elevated himself not just in the eyes of the Australian cycling fan fraternity but in the eyes of the tour as a whole.

The book is actually more a memoir of Guinness' time as a cycling journalist, centred around the one race every year that everyone really cares about. The sophistication of his writing methods, connection to those in and around the peloton, and his courage in tackling stories front-on grow with each passing years description of what he got up to during July.

Because of our increasing familiarity with the tour, and its marathon rather than sprint character, we have all been granted time and space to become couch bound experts on just what each rider is doing, planning to do, or should have done. The stories in the book therefore are all too familiar and repetitive, and shed no further insight on what occurred in the race.

There are a couple of redeeming features that make the work worthwhile for the more passionate cycling fan to have a copy of it on their bookshelf. Firstly, Guinness does not just focus on the Australian riders who have become our staple diet. O'Grady, McEwan, Evans, Stephens and Anderson all receive pages of description on their heroics, but lesser known guys happy to have just been in the event in the first place such as Scott Sunderland, Allan Peiper, and Matt White are extolled also and provide the reader with a more rounded education of how Australia has grown to be a major force in providing talent to the tour.

Secondly, that the Australian sports journalism landscape is dominated by craftsperson's who have cut their teeth writing on football (be it any code) the tendency for them to miss the point of cycling stories or just describe them poorly is common. Guinness comes from this background also (Rugby Union) however his immersion in the sport of cycling has him better placed to write comment on difficult issues such as doping, and his rhetoric is enjoyable and far more enlightened than others. Two stars.

Note: The book finishes at the conclusion of 2010s tour, therefore does not include description of Cadel Evans' General Classification win in 2011.

The South African conspiracy

by Ben Roberts

I may have been reading too many Tom Clancy military/espionage thrillers but it struck me as I was walking Zoe the dog on an overcast yet humid Melbourne Sunday morning. I was grappling with an over active mind desperately trying to come to terms with the collapse of the Australian team in Cape Town. My focus has been limited in its direction of anger. Tired of simply shaking my head at the immature Phillip Hughes' selection, my anger more justifiably has been directed at the elder Brad Haddin, who is having more and more 'seniors moments', breaking only momentarily to lament the 'man crush' Australian cricket seems to have with the hopelessly inconsistent Mitchell Johnson.

But then as I waited patiently for Zoe to investigate for the 75^th time in five minutes that potentially another dog exists in this universe I realised how hopelessly misdirected the Australian cricket team has been in its focus for too long. Sun Tzu in 'The Art of War' teaches that as part of a successful campaign you must 'know your enemy', I submit that for at least 40 years (maybe more) Australian cricket has not, and thus stands little chance of ever winning its war with the cricketing world.

Two fallacies seem to intertwine here. Firstly we continue to focus our attention on the cyclical Ashes campaigns that pit our warriors against the 'Old Enemy' in England. Nothing is more important we tell ourselves than beating our old colonial masters at their own game. Secondly we live in the 'knowledge' that South Africans are 'chokers' and will never land the final punch. But in reality I believe England are not the enemy, and more often than not a nation labelled as 'chokers' has landed the punches that have weakened Australian cricket most, albeit surreptitiously.

Australia exited Sri Lanka in hope. A new captain, a new support regime coming, and a number of players with smiles on their faces just happy to be playing cricket. This continued at least for a day into the test at Cape Town, but as we know came crashing down in even more embarrassing fashion.

Of course the rubber finally hit the road for Australian cricket when they lost in such embarrassing circumstances to the English at home last summer. This was it, the lowest we could fall, but in reality was it the English or South Africans in disguise? It was no secret that Messrs Strauss, Trott, Prior, and Pieterson with a host of non-first team selections were born (and in some instances reach adulthood) in the nation of the rainbow flag. Australia's media tried in vain to create a flap about it, but in these days of the dollar being mightier than loyalty, and that it has been going on for years, there was little justification. But regardless of the legitimacy of playing rights, these men all emanated from South Africa, and drank the water over there.

Take yourself back then to early 1994 when the Australian team visited the post-apartheid nation for the first time in 35 years. We knew that our latest superstar was a bit of a lout and taken to streaks of arrogance, but we only for the first time realised that he was capable of such abuse towards a harmless opponent. Daryll Cullinan had (and still has) a mouth on him, but Andrew Hudson was as quiet as a church mouse as a player, yet somehow Warne decided that both players needed the rough side of his tongue. Our lionhearted gentle giant in Mervyn Hughes was taken to acts of abuse on the field toward opponents, yet at the Wanderers ground his anger spilled over into the player's race. A visit to South Africa brought out the worst of these two cricketers.

Only a few months previously at the Sydney Cricket Ground had South Africa so easily taken the career of Damien Martyn away. Despite the failings of the entire batting lineup it was he who took the blame and had his career stamped with being impetuous, almost leading to its death.

In 1992 Australia hosted the World Cup as incumbent champions. In 1987 they had been the upstarts who had toppled the best in the world and created momentum that saw them rise to competitiveness again in world cricket. This World Cup would be where Australia continued that progression, in front of its own adoring fans, but it was not to be. South Africa was one of the obstacles that Australia failed to clear in its demise, losing by nine wickets and having their own former import in Kepler Wessels take man of the match over the nation for which began his international career.

The last time Australian cricket was close to being as bad as it is now was of course the mid 1980s. Allan Border was grumpy, Dean Jones and Steve Waugh inconsistent, and Kim Hughes was bawling his eyes out. While not laden with anywhere near the talent to defeat the mighty West Indian teams they should not have been that bad. Why were they? Well Dr Ali Bachar and his open cheque book for rebellious play in the sporting pariah state probably has more than its fair share of blame. Heart and spine ripped out of the nations playing stocks the Australians lost in a test series to New Zealand; need description go further?

Prior to the period of outcasting from all international sport that South Africa went through they were able to take the bragging rights from Australia with one of the most dominant performances in test cricket history. Completely exhausted from proceedings in India the Australians flew into South Africa to receive one hell of a battering at the hands of Graeme Pollock, Peter Pollock, Barry Richards, and Michael Proctor, all cricketers whom, in one of the games greatest tragedies, had only limited international exposure. To lose all four tests comprehensively pushed Australia to the brink of sacking its captain Bill Lawry; the next series against Illingworth's England only needed to nudge for them to be over.

Sibling rivalry exists between Australia and South Africa. Both former colonial conquest trying to shake off the stamp of their former masters with one officially having shaken it with much bloodshed, the other remaining loyal and protected. Both nations with a history darker than one would desire but only one having felt the collective and polarised wrath of the wider world. South Africa as a proud nation has much to gain through success over Australia on the sporting field. While we fiddle with our clashes with England, the true 'Rome' will continue to burn.

Pitching it up:Muttiah Muralitharan International Stadium (Pallekele)

by Balanced Sports' columnist Ben Roberts

Can you imagine the heart ache as the relevant cricketing administrators sat down and tried to decide what they would name the new cricket stadium in Kandy? Potentially to name it after the bowler who by far and away leads the cricketing world in bowling statistics was the easiest decision anyone has ever made!

The stadium at Pallekele is only two years old and has only held one test thus far in its history. Its building was as a replacement for the formerly used Asigiriya Stadium in Kandy, and was in time for use at the 2011 World Cup. It was welcomed into the fold of this tournament by Ross Taylor of New Zealand, who in the stadiums first match of the tournament stroked a brilliant 131 not out off 124 balls, with 55 runs from his final 13 balls faced. Taylor earned for his efforts from the New Zealand commentary team the nickname 'The Pallekele Plunderer' (just a great name when said with a kiwi accent!).

courtesy: imagegossips.com

The only test match to have been hosted at the stadium was ruined by rain, with only the West Indian opponents of Sri Lanka able to bat. The cricketing world lost any ability to judge how the surface would play as the rain fell, but further that the West Indians, content to draw the series, elected to face over 100 overs in scoring 300 for 8. Kumar Sangakarra later described this as the worst test series he had been involved with.

We have little to go on therefore as we assess the relevant merits of the conditions in Kandy when Australia visits for the stadiums second test. The primarily limited over pedigree of the stadium points toward a flat wicket, with plenty of runs. In the test between Sri Lanka and the West Indies the spinners outperformed the paceman easily by bowling tight, and we can expect this to be the plan of both sides based on the first test at Galle.

The moist atmosphere of the oft rained on southern Sri Lankan city has proved a challenge for pitch preparation, and may give those quicker bowlers moving the ball in the air, just kissing the surface, some hope. Again it will be expected of the batsmen that they exert some self control and patience, batting first again will most likely be the way to go in setting the game up.

AFL Finals predictions

by Matthew Wood and Ben Roberts

Collingwood - undoubted number 1 chance for the premiership. Thomas missing the first week will not hurt them that much.

Matt's take:  The most fancied side to repeat since the Lions' against the Pies in 2002.  There's not a single weakness in their squad and, crucially, they have depth in their lower list - a "foot soldier" can be adequately replaced, rather than bringing in real rookies. 

Geelong - Realise I could end up with egg on my face on this one, but their second place on the ladder is a bit of a furphy promoted by a true home ground advantage at Kardinia Park. Have watched them a few times this year and they look old, coupled with being shorn of Abletts they lack the 'zazz' that made them unstoppable at times during 2007-2010. Its no shame - they have had their period in the sun and based on the AFL model may have gone longer at the top than reasonably expected. (EIC Matt currently yelling 'tag me in, tag me in!' WWF-style). That being said as Nick Davis once tried to say 'Form is temporary, class is permanent' (still not sure who he was referring to). Despite age, there is still class at the Cattery and they remain a chance. Number 4 challenger for Collingwood.

Matt's take:  I reckon the Cats have peaked for the year, but still probably have what it takes to be reckoned Collingwood's greatest threat.  They have a multitude of forward options - who never seem to fire at once, unless we're playing Melbourne/Gold Coast - and a defence which, while aging, can shut down the best.  The midfield - formerly a strength - is now the greatest question mark no matter how good Kelly, Bartel and Selwood are.  Strangely, stalwart fringe players David Wojcinski and Shannon Byrnes may be the players most vital to a successful finals campaign.

Hawthorn - I saw the Hawks last weekend and have pegged them as the Number 1 challenger for Collingwood. They are as hard at the ball as any side, their weakness is in their skills. If their skills are good, they have the best chance of beating anyone. They were awful by hand and foot on Saturday, but by force of effort just kept pushing the ball forward. Hodge is brilliant at winning the ball in close and Franklin is amazing, particularly when the game needs him to do something amazing. Then they have 20 other 'foot soldiers' playing as harder football as I have seen.

Matt's take:  If only they weren't injury-prone.  I can't agree with Ben's lack of skill comment as they are perhaps the most precise mid-to-long range kicking squad in the league.  Their trump card, as always, is Buddy Franklin and if he gets quality supply from Lewis, Sewell et al, the Hawks leap the Cats as threats.  Jam the midfield and Buddy doesn't get the chances - it's all so easy in theory, isn't it?

West Coast - Surprise packet of the season. Helped by fortress Subiaco - but only will get one final there at most. Number 2 Challenger for Collingwood. Inexperience will also count against them but they are pretty much assured of a preliminary final spot. Prelims and Granny's are far more a lottery than the other finals - in fact I don't think coaches can do much after semi-finals which is why I reckon the dogs sacking Eade is the wrong call an completely unfair. If the weather is fine, Nick Nat puts on a show for the ages they could do the business.

Matt's take:  Famously, half-way through the 1996 season, Rodney Eade was asked if his Swans could go all the way to the Grand Final.  His reply was "No, I don't think so - history says you need to have a few seasons in the finals before you make [that] leap".  The Swans surprised, but my guess it actually applies here - the Eagles have to travel and don't do that as well as in their 2004-07 heyday. If they surprise Collingwood in Week One, they're a chance to go all the way but, with Collingwood, that's a really big "if".

Carlton - For the first time in ages, a team outside the Top Four may be a decent chance (say, greater than 5%) to win it all.  And there are two (StK is the other)! Can challenge Collingwood in the midfield, but are let down by a strictly-average defence and the fact Brett Thornton still gets a game. Inconsistent as any team in the finals. On their day, devastating, but when they're not on they are abysmal and too reliant upon Chris Judd. Number 3 Challenger for Collingwood is a a choice of youth over experience (Geelong), but I'll go with it. Believe Brett Ratten (like Dean Laidley was) is a coach who can only develop a team so far, and he has hit his ceiling. Trade tip - Bryce Gibbs back to Adelaide (hometown and club needing class), for Kurt Tippett (Carlton needing a stronger key forward than Waite).

Matt's take: They'll make a Preliminary Final, at least - because one of the teams above them will slip up.  They have the beating of Essendon in Week One (cop that, Bomber!) and, should their Top Four opponent not be on the ball - I'm looking at you, Corio Bay - then they will surprise.  Partly also because Judd/Murphy is becoming the New New Judd/Cousins, replacing Ablett/Bartel.  I love Ben's trade idea, as well. 

St Kilda - When I saw the Cats play the Saints at the 'G in June, it was perhaps the most painful night of my life. They were horrible and I vowed they would never win the flag with as morose an individual as Ross Lyon as coach. They had no second gear, plan B or creative vision that night apart from setting records for the number of taggers they employed. They have improved, winning six straight, and are even showing some attacking flair. This though only rates them Number 5 Challenger for Collingwood.

Matt's take: It will take superhuman efforts from Nick Riewoldt and co. to vault them into Preliminary Final week.  In opposition to Collingwood, their recruitment policy has been shown up for its horrible flaws - they have great blue chip talent (Riewoldt, Goddard etc) but players 30-40 on their list may as well play for Balwyn in the EFL.  

Sydney - Only the spirit that they can show when not the favourites gives them a whiff, but Adam Goodes is petulant when things aren't going his way. Number 6 challenger for Collingwood.

Matt's take: Can we play every game in Sydney?  No, not at the Olympic Stadium, at the SCG.  No?  OK, FOOTY TRIP TIME!!  Everyone remember to make sure both your girlfriends don't turn up at the same time to pick you up from the airport.

Essendon - Riddled with injury and too inconsisent. No hope. Number 7 Challenger for Collingwood.
Matt's take: As long as Hird has the team playing the way they  should, even making the finals in a strong season is reason to be satisfied.  Jimmy won't omit all his ruckmen, as Knights did two seasons ago, and nor should he as with mobile big men like Paddy Ryder and Tom Belchambers, the Dons look better set up in the middle than at any time since the late '80s when Simon Madden was in his pomp.

Reaction to the Argus Report: Keep Calm and Carry On

by Ben Roberts

Hold your horses, keep a lid on it, do not get ahead of yourself, there is still a long way to go.

Yes Andrew Hilditch is now relieved of his duties as the chairman of selectors, Tim Nielson stood down and at the very least Greg Chappell has been chastised for inappropriately seeking to meddle in team matters. All three have a lot to answer for regarding poor performance, but do not start looking at them as scapegoats, there is more needing improvement in Australian cricket before it is out of the woods.

Cricket is by far and away the hardest game to govern effectively. To begin with are Australian cricketers employees, therefore beholden to the wishes of the CA board or are they private contractors able to ply their trade on terms that they set? If it was the former then no-one would play the game as CA is hardly an employer of choice, if it was the latter than we would have 10 to 20 Kieron Pollards coming and going with abandon depending on the direction of the fiscal winds.

What we do have is something that swings in the middle where the wishes of the national authority, state authorities, private enterprises (IPL and the like), and the ICC; not to mention the 'assets' in the middle the players who all have their own desires as well. You try and draw a line between the competing objectives of these parties and make it straight. If you can succeed I feel there is a role negotiating peace in the middle east awaiting you!

courtesy: heraldsun.com.au

Throw into the mix now the latest initiative (yet to begin) is the Big Bash League where T20 becomes the central focus of the domestic fixtures. The BBL has required time, effort, and resources requiring the engagement of external parties (throwing another interested party into the governance mix) only for the Argus review to come out and criticise the focus on the quick buck in T20 over the longer forms of the game. Whoops!

We still have a CEO and Board of CA who appear dysfunctional and calls for a spill of positions will not die down for a while. The self interest extends further to the state associations who rightly, left to fend for themselves, will always make development and selection decisions based on the betterment of the state teams until there is some incentive to service the national side.

Finally despite the problems in the administration of the game how much of this can be blamed for the poor performance of the A grade cricketers in the Australian team. Did it really influence Messrs Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Haddin etc. to the point in which their performance appeared suited to levels well below first-class that Hilditch was delirious, Chappell arrogant and Nielson confused? Of course not. While not optimal, these guys have been hitting cricket balls since they were knee high to a grasshopper and have natural talent in bucket loads, they are responsible for their own performance ultimately. Plenty of cricketers from less fortunate environments then them have succeeded despite poor administrations (take for example their current opposition who had civil war to contend with also).

Despite the release of the Argus report, it will be a while before Australia can truly challenge to be top of the cricket world again. It starts with the current series followed by the coming summer. The winds of change have begun, but do not expect a hurricane.

Book review: First Tests - by Steve Cannane

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts. A re-post from our affiliate book-review blog "Books with Balls". If you're interested in participating by writing a book review, contact us at balancedsports (at) gmail.com.

As I sat on a winters Saturday afternoon with the football call in the background I delved into a work that for a long time I had been desiring to read. First Tests by Steve Cannane recalled in me dreams of hot summers and backyard cricket; of the innocent yet ferocious contests played out in country and city alike every Australian summer.

Premised upon the search for the reasons why our champions of today and yesteryear played the way they do/did the link between the backyard conditions and future technique can be tenuous at times, but in other instances you would have very little doubt as to its effect on the young champions. That Neil Harvey grew up dicing with the sideways movement of a cobblestone pitch, and the Chappells playing shots between many backyard items serving as fielders would be two examples of correlation to later skills.

The real story though in each of the chapters is the love of the game from a young age that our champions showed, and the unrelenting desire to play cricket at all available times. In a world where we are force fed information from different directions constantly it is refreshing to read of children simply pursuing dreams, dawn to dusk, for pleasure.

If you have read reasonably extensively on Australian cricketers and their lives you may find that the stories used by Cannane are repetitive and contain few new insights. We all know how Sir Donald Bradman hit a golf ball with a stump against a water tank. Also, the overriding rhetoric that it was better in the old days than today's sterile academy based environment could detract from the beauty that is reading of Australian sporting culture.

A bonus however is you get more from this work than just a cricketing technique or history lesson, you read Australia growing as a nation through the window of probably the national sport of the country. You begin to understand the depths of despair and disease that the great depression brought. Yet through all this children still played, all day and all night if they could. This was more than the individuals too, remember our champions all needed someone to bowl to or bat against at one time or another.

Pick this one up and let it inspire you to reminisce about your own childhood and cricketing dreams. Let it encourage you to enjoy the most out of everyday. Once you have finished reading I can guarantee you will run straight outside and start playing like you used to. I did, but unlike Clarrie Grimmatt's fox terrier mine won't return the balls!

image thanks to angusandrobertson.com.au

My Favourite Cricketer: Allan Border by Ben Roberts.

In the second of our series "My Favourite Cricketer", co-hosted by World Cricket Watch and Balanced Sports, is by Ben Roberts and features the man who single-handedly dragged Australian cricket from the doldrums, Allan Border.

Upon request I have journeyed deep into my memory to come to the point of selecting Allan Border as my favourite cricketer of all time. At the time that his career concluded I was just out of primary school and I am sure he was not the player that I aspired to be. My history however has the years rolling by with me continuing to turn over who my favourite player was at any one point, and likewise having been asked I have settled (with surprising ease) on Border as the one most worthy of my admiration.

My undoubted first love was Craig McDermott, now Australia's bowling coach. He was the fast bowler leading Australia's attack at the time I remember first watching cricket on TV and all I wanted to do was bowl fast. In hindsight it is a strange choice for two reasons. One, these formative memories have Sir Vivian Richards pasting McDermott and others all around Australia on his final visit to our shores; and two, my own cricket career finished with me an unspectacular opening batsman rather than a feared fast bowler.

But I did not stop there with the fast men, Glenn McGrath then followed in my affections. Maybe he carried to further height a similar style to McDermott, consistency and fire being in the right balance. Today, I remain enamoured with a fast bowler out of the current crop. Without a doubt it is Peter Siddle whom I love to watch play cricket most. But this is more about his overall attitude to the game than skills. As an adult now I have perspective on how misguided we can be that cricket is more than a game. Siddle is a breath of fresh air, he just loves playing the game, running in and bowling fast.

I have seen all the great modern Australian batsman score centuries live but none really stick in my memory as particularly inspiring. Of batsmen however, Steve Waugh during the 1989 Ashes was a favourite based purely on making the first centuries of his career with a Gunn and Moore bat (my first bat was a G&M also). I will also go to my grave claiming Mark Taylor is Australia's greatest captain ever.

But it is not the statistics or great memories that leave Border sitting atop my list. He was not the most classically gifted batsman as Greg Chappell was, nor could he play an innings of absolute power as Adam Gilchrist became known for. Yet Border climbed to the top of the batting world at a time where pitches varied wildly and each nation boasted an array of world-class bowling talent. He did so through willpower and technique alone. What elevates him above all others is who he was in Australian cricket history and what he means now to the historical landscape of Australian cricket. Allan Robert Border, no matter what position they found themselves in, represented Australian Cricket.

 
Getting his chance while the World Series players were out of the way, he quickly became a worthy First XI selection in a team of Second XI talent. Within only a few years he was a constant and a leader in a team that was as volatile off the field as it was on. He was a controlled player that underpinned the flashiness surrounding him.

When Australian cricket was at its lowest ebb, as a captain departed in tears and the core of the great side left as one, there Border remained, though still in his twenties, a man among the boys. He took on a role that today's leadership experts and sports psychologists would probably steer his type away from. In fact Border himself did not appear assured in accepting the role, being aware of his limitations in areas beyond batting.

He rolled through series after series of being battered by a West Indian pace attack that was as unforgiving as it was fast. If you look at his career he nearly outlasted three generations of these fearsome bowlers and of the greats, only Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh continued beyond him. Imagine turning up to your workplace day after day and being confronted by the message 'try as you might, you will fail today': This was Australian cricket in the 1980s.

 
Minimal footage exists of his 1984 test in Port of Spain where he dug in for 98* and 100*, but newspaper descriptions of it are enough to fire my enthusiasm for tough test cricket. West Indian wicketkeeper Jeff Dujon has gone on record saying it was the saddest thing he saw in his cricket career that AB didn't get a hundred in each innings. He was unforgiving in nature also. Less than established in the test team, Dean Jones found this out in the middle of India's M.A. Chidambaram Stadium. Though Jones scored a double hundred in immense heat, vomiting all the way, Border still asked more of him and the tied result of the match maybe justified his stance.

Despite never getting the ultimate success (for the age) against the West Indies, Border's career concluded with Australia as number two and taking off for the glory years. Border was still a constant and a force in the breakthrough 1987 World Cup and the 1989 Ashes victories. While others were on glorious runs of form in both of these tournaments, the captain held his game together as solidly as ever in the middle order. He retired after Australian cricket returned to South Africa and left behind a core of players that built on his legacy.

 
Both Waugh twins, Ian Healy, and Mark Taylor became the leaders of the next generation of Australian cricket and all learned much about mental toughness and winning hard from their former leader. Even while Shane Warne was spinning a web around the hapless Englishmen there was still one man who could still attack him. Warne himself has admitted that he has never been played as well as by Border (in training) in his early career. Despite his unspectacular batting nature you can do a lot worse than to watch footage of Border batting against spinners to learn the art of playing the slow men.

I never saw a Border century live, and struggle to remember seeing one on television except maybe for glimpses of his second test double century, this against England in 1993. I maintain Taylor as the best captain that Australian cricket had tactically and in understanding the game, but give me Border to bat or captain for my life any day. He did not inspire me as a child during his career, but in retrospect he has become the marker of what I consider quality cricket. Maybe why I love watching Peter Siddle today as it is he who epitomises individuals who play as though they want to squeeze every last drop of success out of their talent.

With questions abounding Australian cricket of what group of players will lead the way back up to the top the question for me is not how much do they want success? It is whether they want it as much as AB did?

An Open Letter to Cricket Australia

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts

Dear Cricket Australia,

As a cricket fan who grew up loving the greatest era of Australian cricket ever, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, I run the huge risk of being labelled the fairest of fair weather supporters by writing this. But I continue at this great personal risk. From now I am reneging my emotional attachment to the Australian Cricket team until further notice.

This has zero to do with the on-field exploits of the players who, despite the home loss of the Ashes and the World Cup are now faced with a need to improve, still retain my utmost respect. It has everything to do with the failure of the Cricket Australia administration.

Cricket administrators hold more power and sway than any other sports administration, and this has been a truism since W.G. Grace was in short pants. Many have received honour of the highest order in the game despite never having graced the field at the highest level. But the influence of the modern administration of Australian cricket has plunged to such a depth of crises that I struggle to understand how it can pull itself from without radical overhaul – an overhaul that appears as likely to happen as a Sachin Tendulker first ball duck.

My Sunday perusal of the sporting media has identified one decision and one practice of Cricket Australia that completely boggles my mind as to how they can be considered acceptable in themselves. This is apart from the fact Australian cricket is supposedly going through a full scale independent review into the current situation. A review that I have previously highlighted is made more toothless by the day with major decisions being made without consideration of review findings!

Cricket Australia and the Australian Cricketers Association, holding a permanent loggerhead relationship, have this week agreed to roll over their memorandum of understanding on playing conditions. In a world of consistent practice and fixtures this would be unremarkable and may evoke a little applause. But with the advent of the new Big Bash League a constant MOU focussing on getting players as much money out of the T20 cash cow as possible, coupled with an extended T20 fixture, simply shifts more money away from the first-class and List A games and into T20.

As I heard Gideon Haigh point out, you are now considered more valuable by Cricket Australia if you can slog 20 runs from 10 balls than for crafting centuries. Cricket Australia, have you not realised that the crowds and ratings are still incredibly strong for Test cricket whose quality needs a strong first-class game? Or did you go to sleep while the rest of the cricketing world watched a tremendous festival of 50 over cricket in the recent World Cup?

As a CEO James Sutherland continues to be your greatest accountant. There is no doubt that with a weak board Sutherland appears to hold you over the barrel on the basis of continued short term income results. Not a bad effort for an organisation that ostensibly is supposed to be non-profit driven. But this is the extent that Sutherland’s accounting knowledge ends, his knowledge of appropriate governance practice is seemingly non-existent as the second piece of news I came across indicates.

This far reaching (yet weakening) review is apparently being hamstrung by Sutherland’s presence at all interviews being conducted. The idea of an independent review or an audit is that an unattached set of eyes are presented with information and seek to understand why particular decisions are made. Sutherland’s presence, and therefore influence over information provided by pressurised employees being interviewed, is the final nail in the coffin of a review that has already been cut off at the knees. Clearly controlling and concerned for his future, Sutherland’s behaviour paints to me a character with less than a passing interest in honesty and transparency.

Cricket Australia, if your board had any sort of fortitude it would be holding its senior management to greater account than it is, and this is a great shame. Please look to your counterparts at the ECB, trustees of the strongest domestic game in the world, for some idea of what it means to invest for the future. I cannot stop applauding some recent decisions of the ECB, and for England fans this will continue to be reflected on the field. Based on this I need to make this step of withdrawing my emotional support for Australian cricket team until such time as there are changes at Board and CEO level.

I love cricket too much to stay away. Short of spiritual or familial pursuits it is almost unarguable that a summers day attending the cricket for me borders on perfection. My regular match day attendance will remain as the next cricket season rolls on, but when it comes to emotional investment in the national team I must hold back. This will cost me in the times of success, as I cannot permit myself to enjoy them fully under such restriction.

It has been a wonderful relationship for all these years Cricket Australia, but until you grow up we must remain only acquaintances.

Yours Previously,

Ben Roberts

Image courtesy: zimbio.com

Ben Roberts also writes at Books with Balls, where you find reviews of books that guys read.

Book review: The Willow Wand, by Derek Birley

This is a re-post from our affiliate book review blog, Books with Balls. There, you'll find the literature from a number of guy-friendly genres thoughtfully reviewed. Recent posts include this one, a review of the memoirs of late night TV's Craig Ferguson and a series of pieces on renowned historical fiction author Bernard Cornwell.

by Ben Roberts

The Willow Wand's aim is to explore some of the many myths of cricket. However, for the most part it is somewhat difficult to identify truly what myth is at any one point that being investigated. One must have an in-depth knowledge of cricket and indeed English cricket to truly take in what most of Birley has to say. Despite the significant amount of historical research put into this work, it does not provide a systematic presentation of cricketing history.

But this is not meant to be a negative opinion, just a reduction in the expectations with which I approached this work. What you do get from The Willow Wand is a mosaic of characters and time from throughout the long and rich history of the sport.

The book drives constantly that cricket is a medium in which persons sought to prove distinguishable features. Gentlemen from Players (Amateurs from Professionals), Wealth from Poverty, light skin from dark – none ever proved to be successful and in hindsight all actions of the sort proving petty and hypocritical. Such is the ridiculous extent of sociology that cricket has been pushed and pulled. Birley took time to sum up his beliefs in the final chapter titled 'Fun and Games' whereupon as you might expect from the title he concludes that one cannot see cricket through any other lens.

Refreshingly honest about the figures of the past, Birley does not airbrush over the faults of the game and its traditions. He questions long held views of the cricketing figures of the past such as Lord's Harris & Hawke as well as P.F. (Plum) Warner; opinion on the latter he makes reference to in his updated edition as drawing criticism from some parts upon the books initial print run in 1979.

Of particular enjoyment personally were his descriptions of West Indian crickets background, a topic not often broached, as well as his discussion on whether cricket and art can be stated as being one and the same. For the modern cricket enthusiast stung by the increased commercialism and descent into the abyss of gambling-driven corruption it may hurt to read that the prominent driver of many of the earliest recorded matches was commercialism and gambling. Matches were often fixed not for monetary gain but as an act of patronage to the amateur dignitary!

Being a cricketing nerd, I enjoyed the book as I became immersed in the nostalgia and dreamed of being involved during golden times in cricket history. But it is only a book for those like myself who bring a certain level of background knowledge to it and can enjoy it to the full. Others will become confused and frustrated as it constantly switches back and forth between stories, eras and personalities. The high English used by Birley remains difficult for the modern reader (criticism at this point can be leveled in both directions) - Birley is clearly a man of an age where cricketers of the right ilk never had names, only initials. Somewhere between tennis balls and footballs.

Cover Image thanks to bookdepository.co.uk

NBA: Never Been Altered

Ben Roberts

I potentially risk the ire of Balanced Sports' editor-in-chief with the following reflection. Having been on paternity leave recently an old flame has been reignited. Probably it has been since the Chicago Bulls collected their first 1990s 'three-peat' when I last engaged with Basketball and watched the NBA consistently.

Not only have I been taken in by the current play-off series' but I also decided to borrow a couple of DVDs from my brother (who has maintained the fire for the hoops over many years) containing two of Michael Jordan's great performances: 1995 just out of retirement against the New York Knicks, scoring 50 plus points, followed by a flu-ridden Jordan in the 1997 NBA finals helping the Bulls to victory over the Jazz in Salt Lake City (see image).

The combination of the current play-offs with the trip into history led me to surmise that really the game of Basketball hasn't changed all that much, thus the title. Don't read into this negatively or positively, I certainly haven't made a judgement call, nor will I probably be able to back it up with expert opinion. But is it not surprising that someone can make such an observation 18 years since there last serious viewing of the game?

Watching a current match compared to these now 15 years old matches only three things stood out to me as clearly indicating a difference: The sepia toned film of the older matches, the fashions of players differed (though only slightly, spectators differed dramatically) and finally the logos of teams adorning the court. Noticeably none of this reflects the actual gameplay despite some rule changes having occurred.

While I may be mistaken, if it's true, what does this say about the game? Is the controlled environment – constant climate, consistent court, combined with the smaller number of competitors limiting the amount of variation. Minimal adjustment to rules over history? Again let me say that this is no means a negative, just an observation. Most other sports to watch bear little to no resemblance to past matches, certainly Australian football has changed markedly even since the mid 2000s and continues to change season by season and does not have the aforementioned characteristics.

Potentially this observation extends to other USA sporting pursuits where statistics play such an important part of analysis. Few sports with cultural centres outside the United States ever feel free to compare statistics half a century even a century apart, yet this is common place in Basketball and other US sports. Two sports that I have the longest history of following, Cricket and Australian Football, you cannot compare generations with great success given the changes in gameplay, but they do not exist in the heavily controlled environments that characterise Basketball and other USA centric games.

Many have been drawn once again to the NBA this year. I have heard more “water-cooler discussions” on it this year than I probably have in the last 10. How should this be viewed?

To look at it negatively; does this mean that despite my interest being pricked to continue watching this year's play-offs (and supporting the Bulls again), the fact that I cannot see any marked change potentially means that I'll tire of the sport like I did previously. Positively a generational consistency exists. If its true, you can genuinely ask the questions of whether Wilt Chamberlain could have cut it today, or Kobe Bryant in yesteryear; would the Celtics of the 1960s, Lakers of the 1980s and Bulls of the 1990s be successful at any point in history?

Image courtesy: argumentking.blogspot.com

The English Game: Essex & Sussex

by columnist Ben Roberts

Essex

The current day Essex hero, Alastair Cook, returned home from his stellar 700 plus run Ashes tour to a heroes welcome. The Essex County Cricket Club has a long history of producing England representatives of the highest order. As well, Essex have also been a side described as providing entertaining and attractive cricket, but unfortunately lacking the depth of player resources in a smaller county.

With player resources, weather patterns and perhaps the moon and stars aligned, Essex have been able to produce historically noted performances. In 1948 they were the only county to dismiss the touring 'Invincible' Australians in under a day. Of course this was after they had totalled 721 runs!

The 1950s typified the Essex story. After finishing last in the 1950 season, Trevor Bailey and Barry Knight formed a bowling partnership that was as good as any in the country. Essex competed with all comers thanks to Bailey and Knight, but come the time of injury or national call up of these two the team was caught short of class players and could not sustain momentum.

Bailey was a fine all-rounder for Essex scoring over 20,000 runs and taking over 1,500 wickets. The 'Barnacle' was also a regular thorn in the side of England's opponents. Bailey was and still is an astute observer and student of the game, his play being thoughtful and his post playing career as a journalist and radio commentator likewise. Knight was a fast-bowler and attacking batsman who later emigrated to Sydney and set up one of the earlier indoor cricket coaching schools. The school, combined with Knight's wisdom, were to have a profound effect on future Australian captain Allan Border.

Border went on to be a high profile recruit during Essex's glory period in the mid 1980s. In the midst of a tumultuous and unsuccessful time in Australian cricket, Border, still relatively new to the position of Australian captain, took the opportunity to play with Essex during the southern hemisphere winter. Border was later to comment in his autobiography of the positive effect that this stint had on his career and captaincy.

The glorious 14 seasons from 1979 until 1992 yielded Essex the only County Championships in their history. They were led by Graham Gooch and Keith Fletcher, both now occupying 1^st and 2^nd positions in the list of all time run scorers for the county. In all, from 14 seasons Essex claimed six championships and also were able to provide the English team with a number of representatives, in some instances up to four at one time.

Sussex

Sussex are the oldest county cricket club of them all. Despite the significance of their heritage, history is not favourable in terms of success for them. Pre-1890 Sussex was only declared “Champion County” once, and this was a shared title; and it took 113 years after the formation of the County Championship for Sussex to finally collected their first.

The county did not waste much time in collecting their 2^nd and 3^rd championships. They came at a speed in comparison to their first, in the 2006 and 2007 seasons. The winning of these three championships plus some limited over trophies dictated Sussex as the leading team of the decade. The decades conclusion was not without drama as post 2007's success, Sussex were relegated to and then won Division 2, to be promoted again, all in the space of three seasons.

Former Zimbabwe test cricketer and long time Western Australia representative Murray Goodwin played throughout the decade for Sussex. He made the highest ever score (335 not out) in Sussex history during the 2003 season in helping the county to the inaugural championship. His score remained a record until he beat it in 2009 with 344 not out.

County Championship regulars Michael Bevan and Michael Di Venuto both spent time at Sussex. Victorian and Australian player Tony Dodemaide played three seasons with the county from 1989 until 1991. In the 1990 limited overs cup competition Dodemaide helped Sussex dismiss the Irish national team for 72, his figures were 6 for 9 from 11 overs. Having captained Australian teams on tours to England in 1880 and 1882, Billy Murdoch was considered to be enough of a gentleman to be invited to captain Sussex. Murdoch took up this offer and later went on to represent England.

In the early history of the county championship Fred Tate followed by his son Maurice Tate were the counties leading bowlers. Fred collected 1,306 wickets for Sussex during his career and Maurice remains the leading wicket taker for the county by almost 400 wickets finished with a tally of 2,211. Where Fred was an exponent of off-spin, Maurice became a fast bowler. Maurice also had a highly regarded test match career, his 39 test matches yielding 155 wickets, and his lower order batting valuable for county and country as well.

Sussex also produced another great in Ted Dexter. Though later maligned for his stint as chairman of selectors, he was a great all-rounder for the county. The 1970-71 Ashes series brought to fame, at least in Australian eyes, the volatile and dangerous Jon Snow. The sometime poet in addition to his cricketing career was a player for Sussex for 18 seasons during the 1960s and 1970s.

Patience and time

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts

“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time” – Leo Tolstoy

Cricket is a game that exists and occurs while affording every respect to time. Yet the peripheral influences afford no respect and errors are regularly made.

You may have noticed that Ricky Ponting has relinquished the Australian captaincy recently. Good, you say, how could we afford to continue to be led by a man who has lost three Ashes series as captain. But take five minutes and actually review his captaincy record, he has a greater than 60% success rate in test matches and even better in limited over internationals. He won as captain the record 16 test matches on the trot and two World Cups. Of course he had the greatest 'wind up' cricketers of the generation in Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, throw them the ball and they just did the job.

But do you really think it was that easy? Do you think that Warne was easy to captain given it was him who was overlooked for the role in favour of Ponting? Warne may have been the greatest leg spinner of all, but he was and potentially still is the most narcissistic character in and around the game. Warne also played no part in the World Cup victories, and in reality did his best to derail the 2003 tilt with his tournament eve 'diet pill' fiasco. Granted McGrath was probably not as difficult as Warne, but he was a strong character on the field and crossed the line a few times behaviourally. Ultimately as well one of the Ashes defeats included both these men in the touring party (albeit McGrath was limited in playing capacity due to injury), it just isn't a done deal to criticise Ponting's captaincy.

On the Ashes lets reflect on where this great duel was in the mindset of cricket fans. Australia walloped England again in 2002-03 and the cries for the series to be reduced to three tests in favour of extended series against stronger teams got louder. This was unlikely due to the great historical significance of the Ashes, but it reflected just how far the disparity was between the two teams. It is just a hypothesis, but I believe the win by the English in 2005 really saved the series in terms of being a competitive attraction for spectators, the Ashes now for the two countries remains the greatest prize in test cricket regardless of their world rankings. Had Ponting led Australian sides to a 4-0 record in Ashes series rather than than a 1-3 record it is not stretching it to say that he wouldn't have been exactly feted for having done so – everyone else achieved that. Certainly the inverse proportion of credit to the criticism he has actually received would not have been as much.

We cannot write obituaries for Ponting the batsman either because he remains dedicated to playing on, and playing competitively. A five minute glance at his batting record of a plus-50 test average and a plus-40 limited over average shows he is above the barrier that separates the good from the great batsman in both forms of modern cricket. He is Australia's greatest batsman of the modern era, and some would argue him being second to Bradman for Australia of all time.

As now he moves to the expected 'renaissance' like the greatest batsman of the modern era Sachin Tendulkar has had in the past year. Its worth taking time to reflect on where our expectations should lie. Let's reflect that Tendulkar had the best part of 10 years post his dabble with captaincy that wasn't to his taste before his phenomenal past 12 months. Do not hear me wrongly here – Tendulkar is no doubt the greatest batsman of the modern era, but abdicated the captaincy early to maintain his greatness with the bat. Where Tendulkar has focussed on his game without captaincy for 10 years, Ponting will have had barely two weeks before the first match. Let's then temper our expectations of how big this 'renaissance' could be, but I for one hope to see Punter in full flight once again.

In probably the greatest display of impatience Cricket Australia has barely let the temperature drop slightly on the chair before thrusting Michael Clarke the job full time. Hang on, aren't we supposed to be taking time out during this winter to review the state of Australian cricket and asking what went wrong? What would have been the issue in giving Clarke the captaincy temporarily for this brief (and meaningless without a test match being played) tour of Bangladesh pending the review of Australian cricket? Clarke would have been 90% certain to be allocated the job on a full time basis come August so why not do the due diligence and fully back him in the future knowing that all are 100% behind him? Clarke isn't going anywhere. He wouldn't dream of giving up a test career petulantly nor can he request to be transferred as he could in club based sports. The cards were with Cricket Australia and because of impatience they may have played them too early.

Australian cricket is now entering a review asking what the problems are with Australian cricket with a board not going anywhere (despite strong calls for a spill); a Chief Executive rooted in his position because of his willingness to sell the game's soul repeatedly for fast income; a chairman of selectors and selection panel who, under some illusion, think the world of themselves and still are under no pressure from their employers; a coach who is contracted for now two and a half further years; and now Clarke who probably is the right man for the job but cannot be said to have the full backing of the cricket community. Where will responsibility be apportioned for the cricketing failure be laid with so much locked in for the future?

Given great time, many seem destined to continually waste it.