Short Pitch: On Mickey Arthur, Darren Lehmann and the Australian way of death

At least it was quick.

Mickey Arthur's eighteen month spell as Australian coach was terminated on Sunday, seventeen days before the first of ten consecutive Ashes Tests.  The South African has been almost instantly replaced by cult favourite Darren "Boof" Lehmann.  Arthur's reign was a fraught one, lowlighted by "homeworkgate" and four Australian players being dropped for failing to submit their reflections on a loss to India.

Lehmann has promised an improved team culture, based around three of his favourite things: beer, mates, and winning.  Arthur presided over an atmosphere of infighting and despair not entirely of his own design.  Changes had to be made no matter what the timing.  Parallels can be drawn with the AFL's Melbourne Football Club - a once-great organisation suffering off-field mismanagement, autocratic coaching with ambitious names eyeing his position resulting in the investiture of power in dubious positions.

Arthur's dismissal occurred slightly over two weeks before the largest date in the Aussie cricket calendar, an away Ashes series, when expectations are perhaps the lowest they've been for the Baggy Green since 1985. The series also provides a baptism of fire for the new guru as he helms an underwhelmingly-talented crew against one of the world's best lineups.

When the penny drops that a change is not only beneficial but necessary, making that change immediately and without mercy is a very pragmatic - read: Old Australian - way of doing things.  The reverse - often employed in world football - sees a manager sacked before a series of winnable games, allowing for a relatively easy transition into a new way of playing.  Such advance - and often wrong - forethought smacks of the current Cricket Australia thinking, making Arthur's instantaneous demise such a shock.

Facing the Old Enemy ten times over the next seven months, Australia didn't have such a luxury, so a sudden and brutal guillotining was seen as the best method to dispose of a lame duck.  The most comparable occasion occurred in 1970-71, when Bill Lawry absorbed the wrath of a (similarly) perpetually discombobulated executive panel.

It's the first gutsy move that Cricket Australia has made in recent memory.  It has installed a popular - and perhaps the best - candidate in a position where he might be able to create a positive change in attitude, fortunes and results quite quickly.  For this, they should be congratulated; however, it's also a tacit admission that this upcoming Ashes series is all but lost and focus must be cast upon the return series this summer: no coach can be expected to make such an immediate turnaround.

Cricket Australia contract list: more questions than answers

Yesterday, Moises Henriques – he of three recent Tests against India – was ignored by Cricket Australia in their list of twenty centrally-contracted players.  He was ostensibly passed over for young Tasmania all-rounder James Faulkner, who earned his first Australia contract at age 22.

Although this isn't to detract from Faulkner's joy (he probably deserves the position), Henriques can justifiably feel rather miffed.  Although he struggled for much of the Border-Gavaskar series, he performed admirably during his debut Test, scoring 149 across two innings and taking 1/48 from seventeen mid-standard overs with the ball.  Although he only managed a further seven runs on tour, but he deserves some credence as these fifties were two of only twelve half-century-plus scores by Australians for the tour.  (Five of which were by players on tour for their ability with the ball – two each by Siddle and Henriques, and Mitch Starc’s 99).

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the remarkable fact that CA breaks up their centrally contracted group of 20 players relatively evenly across three formats rather than focusing on the game’s highest form, Test cricket.  Let’s instead examine the message that this contract list sends.

It is yet another example of institutional flip-flopping by the Cricket Australia selection panel.  While Blind Freddy and his dog clamoured for the removal of Andrew Hilditch, the current National Selection Panel has been just as – if not more – inconsistent: players are called up only to be discarded one or two Tests later.  All that remains is to then be completely forgotten. 

With Australia’s Test cricket history stretching to 136 years, it’s damning that over 8 percent of all players ever to pull on a Baggy Green have debuted since 2007.

This is in polar contrast to the last three occasions in which Australia has had to build a team after debilitating setbacks.  On those three occasions (post-1984, in 1977-78 and in 1964), the hierarchy set about identifying players of talent enough to build a team around.  The players identified in that most recent down period – Dean Jones, Steve Waugh, Craig McDermott and Bruce Reid – ushered in those wonderful nineties.

This time, Australia has identified no-one around which they can build but Michael Clarke and a promising crop of fast bowlers.  Perhaps this is due to a lack of talent, but it’s more likely this is a consequence of an itchy trigger finger.

If the ultimate leadership of James Sutherland and the National Selection Panel are this inconsistent, the role of Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur and Pat Howard is suddenly thrust from team-building to constant team integration – and hence, discipline like that famously which was infamously dispensed in Mohali.  Given his role in team selection – and the rather Draconian methods they favour – Clarke and Arthur are hardly blameless, but with such a shifting player base any concept of a unified team identity is just that – a concept.

That the selectors can't - or won't - narrow their player pool down to a promising, deserving touring part is damning and leaves more questions for themselves, and for Cricket Australia.

Short pitch: Unexpected consequences of rotation

There are many sequelae to Cricket Australia's revolving door selection policy, but one that has gone unnoticed until now is the volume of run-outs seen in all formats of cricket.

It stands to reason: every player has their own style of running.  They might call early or late, be hesitant or direct or pigheaded.  Seeing as batting practice occurs mostly in the nets where partnership running is difficult to trial, there is a consequent lack of training afforded to running between wickets.  This is only magnified when viewed through the prism of inconsistency: how can a player know the running tendencies of his teammates when so many partners are dropped in and out of the lineup?

In International cricket this season, David Warner has batted with 13 different partners ranging from Ed Cowan to Nathan Lyon.  With the paucity of First Class games available to international teams - tour matches being a thing of the past - and a crowded schedule, communication suffers and run-outs quickly follow.

It takes time for players to bed into a team, both emotionally and stylistically.  The flurry of players we see short of their crease is just testament to the changing environment batsmen particularly are forced to endure.

Cricket Australia sits and rotates

Cricket Australia and their coaching staff have come in for criticism regarding the policy formerly known as rotation, Strategic Player Management (SPM).   With precocious – but premature - talents like Steve Smith shunted into the canary yellow as Usman Khawaja is given his leave, rotation has become another rod with which to beat the national body.

David Mutton wrote recently that the rotation policy favoured by CA isn’t so much pragmatism but an ideology – something to be sought after, an end rather than the means.  With their infatuation with newcomers, Australian administrators seek a panacea to remove them from this time of trial.

The fact that SPM has been labelled a policy doesn’t help: while governmental policy is a plan with funding attached, its corporate counterpart pure risk-management, less about governance but a get-out for those unable or afraid to make decisions.  Sounds perfect for faceless bureaucracy that is Cricket Australia.

Rather than being a long-term benefit to Australian cricket, the recent policy of haphazard squad rotation undermines team cohesion and actually does just the opposite. 

In theory, player rotation makes perfect sense.  It allows tired players the rest needed to reduce injury and fatigue, while simultaneously allowing the outstanding youth talents with opportunities to see what the top level is all about.

Easily forgotten is that the results haven’t yet been proven.  Rested players still break down (c.f. Cummins, Pat and Pattinson, James), perhaps making Strategic Player Management (SPM) the cricketing equivalent of echinacea: a commonsense medical management that gained widespread uptake on the open-market uptake but was really just bollocks.  Rotation may or may not work.

Part of confusion is that CA isn’t exactly sure why they are rotating players through the coloured clothes.  Is it to blood youth, allow player recuperation, help restore form or a happy commonstance of all?  Was Glenn Maxwell’s ODI debut an audition for a role in the lower order a la Mike Hussey or just a consequence of his form in Australia’s new, annual, December-long tee-time?  It’s injury prevention, it’s specialized coaching, it’s player wellbeing, it’s rotation it’s … just the vibe of the thing.  Such a lack of boardroom vision can’t help but bleed down to the players.

There is little evidence to back up resting as an ideology, particularly with regard to player wellbeing.  It’s hard to fault Mickey Arthur et al for resting Peter Siddle after his efforts against South Africa in Adelaide, but for Mitch Starc to suffer likewise immediately after his best Test bowling beggared both belief and common sense.  If this was done in the name of Starc’s health, we must be concerned of his durability on every tour he participates in.

Cricket Australia has obviously decided that preserving their best on-field assets is the way to happy and productive cricket.  Unfortunately, James Sutherland and his mob would be far better served deploying Strategic Player Management as part of their scheduling process rather than as an escape clause for players wedged into an overcrowded calendar.  In it’s current form, SPM is no more than damage-control.

If SPM doesn’t actually produce less injuries, then how about the youth benefits?  While players have missed games going back decades, Strategic Player Management in the twenty-first century begins and ends with Liverpool Football Club under the reign of Rafael Benitez.  The Spaniard is perhaps the greatest proselytizer of SPM there is; he is a tactically gifted coach who puts faith in young players time and again.  However, the results from his time doing so at football’s most famous club are far from convincing. Players still got injured and few of the vaunted youth allegedly inspired by opportunity have kicked on into the Liverpool first team. 

Rotation for its own sake is a flawed idiom.  It’s a luxury that mediocre teams – like the current Australians – simply can’t afford in that it places philosophy above results.  In the grating words of Marge Simpson: “We can’t afford to shop at any store that has a philosophy”.

Great teams can afford dalliances with Smith, Maxwell, Chris Lynn or Shaun Marsh because the results don’t suffer in the long term.  Anyone who thinks this iteration of Australia is anything more than functional would seem to watch too much commentary by Channel Nine.

Ed Cowan, (c) Balanced Sports

While morally virtuous, when one prefers a complex idiom to simple method, results are often sacrificed.  And by refusing to face this inherent truth, CA has perhaps missed the most important reason why casual squad rotation is detrimental: those results, no matter what they are, stimulate public interest while generating the team spirit that’s forged through shared success or failure. 

Results bring about more than revenue.  Communal trials are what builds a team from a collection of individual parts.  Australia has no narrative, no identity partly because they haven’t had the chance to share enough cricket together.  Rather than building team spirit, SPM can ramp up internal rivalries, clouding the identities that have begun to coalesce.

The fact is that rotation is here to stay.  It’s another example of Cricket Australia running the sport froma middle management point of view.  The Australians will just have to thrive in spite of its shortsightedness. 

On the Australian Captaincy

Steve Waugh has recently questioned the Australian selection panel in regards to their handling of the captaincy and of ousted wicketkeeper Brad Haddin.  He is well within his right to, considering his personal achievements and stature in the game.

Up until Ricky Ponting - the man whose temporary institution he contests - the opinions of most Australian captains are considered continuing testament to the spirit of cricket.  It speaks volumes of the man that Waugh's thoughts are said to represent the spirit of the game moreso than any of his contemporaries.

While Brad Haddin has reasons to be aggrieved regarding his "resting", Waugh's comments regarding the Warner/Ponting captaincy dichotomy are far from accurate.

Cricket Australia, especially post-Argus, has several structures in place to ensure strong leadership.  Although these structures are in place for a reason - in this case, ostensibly Warner's education - the fact is that he doesn't command the tactical respect of his comrades.  While Ponting's tenure could hardly be described as strong (c.f. Fabio Capello) he still inspires ultimate respect both as a cricketer and as a cricket brain.

The fact is there is no clear leader emerging to succeed Clarke.  There needs not be at this point, as the Australian captain is 30 and with several years of high-class cricket in front of him.  A second statement could be equally true: there is no need for a clear leader to emerge with Clarke at least five years from retirement.  This is especially true considering his reign as le dauphin could quite accurately be said to have destabilised the Australian team rather than the intended opposite.

Indeed there is somewhat of a leadership vacuum in those players of Clarke's vintage.  George Bailey, Andrew McDonald and Cameron White fail to command a place on form, while a possible logical successor, Steve O'Keeffe, is yet to make his mark on the national team.  Warner, who captains the Big Bash's Sydney Thunder, is the best of those in the current framework: a guy who regularly looks to hook wide bumpers the first ball after drinks breaks.

By extension, Ponting is the best candidate for the job - especially now Clarke has cemented his authority.  There should be no quibbling about the next generation or confusing structures, but the captaincy is such an award we should be careful to whom it is awarded.  It needs to reward for effort and talent, not a prize given for potential.  Do we want to be like England of the 1980s, where the likes of Chris Cowdrey fronted up to toss the coin?

Although Warner has achieved much in the past six months, he does not deserve - yet - the honour of leading his country in what was once the world's leading form of cricket.

How good can Australia be?

The cricket world waits on a strong Australia. In dark times for the masses, hope is required and, for the first time since 2009, Australians wait expectantly on youth. At that time, that promise rested on Peter Siddle, Mitchell Johnson and the slightly rounded shoulders and plate-sized eyes of Phil Hughes. Now, two years hence, w are intrigued by Michael Beer and happy about Usman Khawaja's Test debut. His bright 30 at the Sydney Test wasn't outstanding, but a fillip for youth development in the country.

Tim Nielsen resigns, righting a four year-old wrong

Tim Nielsen has resigned as coach of the Australian cricket team. About bloody time, too.

After co-conspirator Hilditch, Tim Nielsen will be the most unlamented sacking in Australian cricket history. It's not that he's a bad coach - you don't get to his position without being capable - it's just that as former coach John Buchanan's right-hand man, he wasn't a sufficient enough change of message from his predecessor.

Under his watch, Australian national fielding standards declined from "world's-best" to the equally hyphenable "also-ran". They also rotated bowlers - in form or out - and attempted to dominate almost every situation, apparently unaware that circumstances had changed. Throughout his reign, Australia was hardly ever in position to be the aggressor.

It was, and three years later still is, time for a change.

courtesy: guardian.co.uk

Nielsen's appointment was perhaps the most alarming symptom of the malaise that overtook Cricket Australia last decade. On John Buchanan's retirement, rather than step out of their comfort zone - which they still refuse to do now - and appoint the best person for the job, they rewarded the loyal company man.

Rewarding the foot soldier can have it's advantages, but not in this situation. Buchanan retired saying he had taken Australia as far as he could. When a successful coach retires after a lengthy tenure, often a change of message (or it's delivery) is required as players have become accustomed to their former coach's motivation strategies. This change is hardly likely to come from a 2IC.

A close-to-home example is easy to point out. In 1996 the old ACB replaced successful coach Bob Simpson, who had with Allan Border pulled Australian cricket up from the depths, with Geoff Marsh. Simpson had no wish to leave, but the board felt the players needed to hear a change of voice. It turns out their suspicions were correct.

Steve Waugh was instrumental in Buchanan's installation as Australia coach, knowing he had the requisite technical knowledge and breadth of vision to help even the most established Australian players. Nielsen lacked both the technical knowledge and panoramic point of view. As an assistant coach, it was often his role liaise between players and coach. When moving from such a position to head coach, the distance between coach and players needed for objectivity and evaluation decreases.

This is one of the reasons why Nielsen's assistants, Justin Langer and Steve Rixon, should almost immediately be discounted as possibilities for the open position. Rixon in particular has form, coaching successful NSW sides as far back as the late eighties, but the team needs differing methods and better communication. It would be a logical to assume Langer especially is too close to the players.

The best replacement for Nielsen may already be within the system. Western Australia coach Tom Moody's style is a combination of discipline and evenness which proved successful when helming Sri Lanka. Even when his powers had faded as a player, his leadership was integral in Australia winning the '99 World Cup; he has coaching and captaincy experience in England, the subcontinent and at home. Should he decide to apply, he would be the logical frontrunner.

The Argus report continues to leave a bloody trail of carnage through the offices of Australian cricket. Whether this is for better or worse, no-one can yet tell. But certainly, it is wise to rid the setup of unpopular and underperforming elements. All Cricket Australia needs to do now is ensure they appoint the best coach for the role.

Cricket Australia: Sitting on the Fence

"The time is coming where you have to choose between what is easy, and what is right"

Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

It didn't take a rocket scientist - or a banking executive - to figure out that Australian cricket has both structural and talent issues. A 4-1 thumping in our last Ashes series, mediocre World Cup campaign and a captain with a positively Reiffel-esque batting average over the past three series (21.5) is proof enough for anyone with even half an eye and a tenth of a brain that Australian cricket has reached its lowest point since 1985.

While Ricky Ponting's tetchy leadership, Mitchell Johnson's latent outswinger, Greg Chappell's insistence on youth and Andrew Hilditch's residence in a fantasy world have contributed to this state of affairs, the root cause lies with James Sutherland and Cricket Australia. For too long they have tried to have their cake and eat it too by chasing the financial gains of Twenty20 and also lauding a the benefits of a competitive Australian Test squad.

By chasing both, they will achieve neither.

On one hand, commissioning Don Argus to report on their cricket management structures sounds good, even curative. But doing so while the other hand throws so many resources into the nascent Bigh Bash League (BBL), Cricket Australia is endorsing two policy decisions which negate the other. It is another curious leadership decision from CA whose actions indicate they are chasing the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs while paying only lip service to Test standards.

For much of the past twenty years as pitches become more standardised worldwide, cricket has degenerated into two groups: the "haves" and "have-nots". The "haves", fuelled by television revenue, good attendances and growth economies include the regular suspects: South Africa, England, India , Australia and perhaps even Sri Lanka. The second tier includes fallen powers West Indies and Pakistan, as well as New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

More accurately, these two groups could now be defined by the cricketers they produce. The West Indies' best now favour the shortest form, while the best of New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe often eschew their nations to tour the world as T20 guns-for-hire. The fundamentals of creating world-class players in both formats require player pathway systems so different that only the mega-wealthy institutions in world cricket can afford the time it takes to do so.

courtesy: telegraph.com.au

World cricket hasn't so much been divided along lines of Test quality, but on the type of cricket on whcih each nation has focused. If kids are developed where T20 is prioritised, it results in a bunch of individual talents and a poor Test team. Where a Test technique can occasioanlly benefit T20, the reverse is rarely, if ever, true. To acknowledge any speculation David Warner has what it takes to play Test cricket exists is to question the value of life itself - the man bears as much resemblance to a Test opener as my 94-year old grandmother.

By dividing it's attention between a Big Bash league with privately owned franchises (eeeugh - I hate that word in relation to cricket) and an Argus report recommending that the best 66 players play Sheffield Shield cricket at any one time, Cricket Australia is, dividing it's resources in an attempt to promote the game. By doing so, they've ignored the great rule: punters love success, and in Australia that means a strong Test team.

If Divide and Conquer still applies on the battlefield, so too is it effective in the marketplace. CA has already done the dividing, leaving it now open for conquest by a crowded Australian sports market which asks supporters to invest more than ever.

Let's not forget that private ownership as a model has only worked in Rugby League and never in the long term for any other sport. In fact, News Limited, after pioneering SuperLeague, now still owns the entirety of the Melbourne Storm and North Queensland Cowboys, as well as 69% of the powerhouse Brisbane Broncos. Rupert Murdoch, like Packer before him, got what he wanted out of setting up a rival competition. The hideous failures far outweigh that partial success as the names Christopher Skase, Dr. Geoffrey Edelsten, Eddie Palmer and his beloved Brisbane Bullets and the Victoria Titans weigh heavily on Aussie fans' consciousness.

courtesy: news4u.co.in

The heavily-publicised BBL, intent on chasing dollars, imports the likes of Kieron Pollard and new fans will involve suspending first-class cricket during December, Australia's busiest Test month. How can Australia rebuild with the best First Class talent they have when that talent is not receiving games?

Cricket Australia has been forced into a position that all cricketing countries now must face: chase dollars, or what you feel is important. It's a nice coincidence when those options are one and the same. In Australia's case, that is unfortunately not the case. While paying lip service to the importance of Tests, CA has done everything but say "we're here for the dollars" by instituting a flawed BBL model at the expense of First Class cricket.

courtesy: zimbio.com

Only four years ago Austrlaian domestic cricket was the strongest on the planet - now no more, as players chase the dollars (and no-one's blaming them). Australia simply can't follow the Indian model (IPL) because there isn't enough support - or money - to go around. That Australian domestic cricket - or more crucially, given how many eggs are in it's basket, the new BBL - can't get a look-in on free-to-air television is a damning indictment of what Australians think about the grass-roots. Cricket captures the imagination in the backyard, when Australia plays and never through the likes of Gary Putland and the Melbourne Stars.

CA, to use the most cliche of cliches, is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. Rather than committing - by dint of playing talent (like England has with Tests) or financial need (as the West Indians have done with T20), Australia continues not to choose its battles and try to succeed at everything.

The smaller countries of the world faced this challenge first, as New Zealand and Bangladesh have all but admitted for years that their best chance of attaining any success has been in the One-Day arena. Why else would players like Scott Styris choose to retire from Test cricket but not from the short format? Pakistan and the West Indies are already producing more guns for hire than good quality Test players. It's saddening to realise that the same is true of Australia.

As India wrestles with the impending doom brought about by Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman's respective entries into Valhalla, even that powerful nation will, in time, face the same challenge. While England will not remain immune forever, the structures in place around the game in it's birthplace may allow a defence against the irrepressible schism that threatens to divide cricket.

It's true of any business struggling in a crowded economy that you should choose either to expand your services, or focus on doing what you do best. For 125 years, Australia has produced the best Test cricketers in the world. Over the past decade, that trend has been reversed as players are seduced by the quick runs and quicker bucks available.

In a recent revealing podcast on Test Match Sofa, Australian cricket writer Gideon Haigh revealed that the first priority of the Australian cricket team wasn't to win matches but to publicise the sport in Australia. When it comes to branding - the honeypot into which Cricket Australia has fallen - it is a simple fact that Starbucks produces coffee, Asics produces quality running shoes, Sri Lanka will deliver turning pitches - and Test cricket has been elevated to its highest form by teams from the Great South Land.

For Cricket Australia to forget that would be shameful.

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.

A short history of Australian cricket in Sri Lanka, part 1

By Balanced Sports columnist, Ben Roberts.  The second part will be published later this week.

Sri Lanka, like most former and remaining British colonies, accepted cricket from the earliest time of colonisation as its national sport. Like most British colonies as well they have eventually turned over their former colonial masters at the game closest to their heart. Australia visits Sri Lanka this August and September for the 5^th time for a full test series. However for almost 100 years prior to Australia's first visit for test matches in 1982-83, Australian teams of various forms were regular visitors to Sri Lanka (Ceylon until 1972).

During International crickets formative years - the late 19^th century - both the traveling Australian and English cricket teams would stop off at the island nation to stretch the legs and take in some cricket against the local teams and representative sides. The local cricketing scene is also well established in history. The Colombo CC, still part of the first class structure today, has a formation date prior to Australia's Melbourne Cricket Club by five years.

In 1884 the Australian tourists stopped in at Ceylon on the way to England and played an 'odds' match as a XI against a Ceylon XVIII. This first match saw Australia take first innings honours in a single day match that was drawn. The tourists also called in again for a return match later in the year on the way home, this time playing as a XIII in a single day match against a Ceylon XVIII with a consistent result. Some sources have identified Australia as 'winning easily', though the scorecards available only point towards both results being draws. Given that both encounters were at odds, and Australia at the very least had the better of them, it is reasonable to deduce that the Ceylon cricket team required improvement at this stage.

This improvement however did not take long. Infamous for its misbehaviour, the 1890 Australians stopped in at Ceylon on their route by sea to England playing for the first time a non-odds match against Ceylon. Once again Australia had the better of a single day encounter forcing Ceylon to follow-on after the first innings before the match was drawn. Neither of these first three matches against Ceylon were considered first-class.

Somewhat traditionally Australian teams kept visiting Ceylon en-route to and from England; the years 1893, 1896, 1912, 1926, 1930, and 1934 had the Australians visit. But it wasn't until 1935 that a match was played that was considered first-class. New South Wales had toured itself during these earlier years and beaten the national side to the punch. In 1935 a unique tour was conducted by an Australian XI of both India and Ceylon.

This tour was unique in that it wasn't the full strength Australian team - it was in the process of touring South Africa at the time. Not only this but the team also was limited to selecting players not involved in the Sheffield Shield during the same season. The team ended up an invited group (by the Maharajah of Patalia) of lower grade cricketers together with retired former greats including Jack Ryder, Bert Ironmonger and Charlie Macartney. So strange (and perhaps controversial) was this tour that this team of Australians were under strict instructions to not entertain any ideas of a 'test-like match' against an All India side.

Kandy Stadium, courtesy: indianmirrors.com

In the only first-class match against Ceylon, a three day encounter in Colombo, the Australians triumphed by an innings and 127 runs. Replying to Ceylon's first innings of 96 the Australians were bowled out for 334 before bowling out Ceylon again for 111. Overall this cobbled together team of former greats and cricketing nobodies played 17 first class matches in India and Ceylon.

In ensuing years the world was again at war and first-class cricket was soon suspended. Players from all countries joined up to contest a fight on fields far different from those they had played cricket on. Soon upon the conclusion of hostilities the authorities in England were quick to arrange top quality cricket for the benefit of a nation's spirit wrecked by war. These encounters famously were known as the 'Victory Tests' between the Australian and English Services teams.

To show the appreciation of a nation to its colonial outposts the Australian team continued to play fixtures considered first-class on their way home through the colonised subcontinent and when arriving in Australia. In the Australian Services match against Ceylon the great but as yet uncapped Keith Miller stroked 132 in an innings victory. Miller was lauded by team mates, opponents and Wisden for his play throughout the entire series of services matches. Miller's attitude, borne out in later rhetoric, removing all similarity one might have made between war and sporting pursuits, granted Miller freedom to make his mark on world cricket before he had played a test.

Continued visits occurred throughout the 50s and 60s by Australia, but all non first-class. The lack of willingness to invest time and money in an extended match potentially reflected a lack of faith in Ceylon's ability to compete as well as the financial desire to play as much cricket in England as possible therefore limiting any time spent in Ceylon.

The season of 1969-70 saw Bill Lawry lead Australia on an ill-fated tour India and Ceylon, and then onto South Africa where the first of the final nails for his captaincy coffin were hammered in. This was the final time Australia opposed a team named Ceylon. Albeit overshadowed by the test matches to come, Jack Pollard noted in his 'Illustrated History of Australian Cricket' that a belief existed among the Australians that Ceylon were rapidly improving. The result was Australia and Ceylon playing out a drawn three day match.

This improvement was noted by world cricketing authorities as they began to invite the now Sri Lankan cricket team to more international tournaments. The advent of international one-day cricket saw Sri Lanka invited to the first two World Cups despite having not as yet been granted test match status. With the draw card of South Africa removed from cricket for its apartheid policies, there was a need for international cricket to expand beyond its limited membership.

Having not visited at all since 1969 the Australians on their way to the 1981 Ashes series stopped over in Sri Lanka for some limited over international matches and one first class test. In the four-day match Sri Lanka had the better of a draw with the Australians bowled out for 124 and the hosts taking a first innings lead with a total of 177. Australia didn't redeem itself in the second innings being dismissed for 178 before time ran out. This was just months before Sri Lanka were admitted as a full test playing nation.

The 1982 volume of Wisden heralded the granting of Sri Lanka full test status with praise. Even with their admission the total number of test playing nations was only seven (with South Africa still excluded). The early comment by Wisden of the Sri Lankan's cricket was of it being engaging, open, and ultimately welcome in the cricket world. Australia toured for test cricket for the first time with a one-test series in the season of 1982-83.

Despite much appreciation for the style of cricket that the Sri Lankans played, their first test match against Australia was memorable for the beating they received. Australia won the toss and batted at Kandy, declaring their first innings closed on 513 for the loss of only four wickets. The late David Hookes scored the only century of a career that never lived up to expectations. Hookes was joined in the runs by Kepler Wessels as the other centurion, by the end of the innings it became very much a mismatch as Australia took apart a tiring bowling attack.

The pitch at Kandy was slow, with Australian spinner Bruce Yardley taking five wickets in Sri Lanka's first innings of 271. Of great irony is that Australian cricket's mid-nineties nemesis, Arjuna Ranatunga, was in the formative stages of his career at this point and top scored for the hosts in the first innings with 90. In the second innings it was the left arm orthodox spin of Tom Hogan that took 5 wickets as Australia bowled themselves to an innings victory by dismissing the Sri Lankans for 205.

To be continued ...

Australian Cricket: Pay selectors, Pay the Devil

Simon Katich is right: Australian selection policy has been remarkably inconsistent during his tenure at the top of the order. He may, however, be overstepping the mark somewhat as he campaigns for paid, full-time selectors. While the sentiment behind his recent outburst is justified - everyone in the country aside from the selection panel thought him worthy of at least a further year around the Australian side - and his forthright media conference was admirable, it's worth noting that there are several flaws in his argument.

When Defence Minister Stephen Smith entered the fray, the saga turned from interesting to ludicrous, especially when Smith lambasted the selectors for bias against Western Australians. Katich has played in New South Wales for nearly a decade. A Labour "powerbroker" very pleased with such a reputation, by speaking out of turn here he has plunged Australian cricket perilously close to the credibility line and gave those of us who still care wholeheartedly for the sport horrible visions of Ijaz Butt.

Employing selectors in a full-time role is perhaps an workable idea. Though much more cricket is played now than, say, even twenty years ago, offering a selector a full-time role would be a lavish expense - for men of the game such as David Boon, The Unspeakable One (Andrew Hilditch) and Jamie Cox would command far greater than a "living wage". Employing full-time selectors could cost Cricket Australia anywhere between (very conservatively) of a quarter or half a million dollars per annum, money the board simply doesn't have.

Also, while employing selectors on a full-time basis demands their accountability, it should by no means ensure it. Cricket Australia has every right to dismiss the selection panel as it stands, yet has chosen not to. The selectors are at fault for many of Australian Cricket's ills, but by no means all of them. Had Michael Beer been selected earlier in the Ashes series or Xavier Doherty not appeared at all, Australia likely would not have triumphed over the Old Enemy. Selection inconsistency (or is it Consistent backing of the selectors) has hurt the Australians badly, but not nearly as much as the current dearth of top-tier talent.

The third flaw in Simon Katich's notion is a simple one: Would he (or indeed anyone) wish to reward the current Australian selectors - probably handsomely - for the quality of work they've been performing? The thought of Andrew Hilditch walking home with $100,000+ per year from Cricket Australia brings me out in a frigid perspiration: he - nor David Boon or Jamie Cox - deserve that kind of money. It would be tantamount to throwing fistfuls of cash out the window of a skyscraper. Such an act would probably be a more efficient waste of money than pay the current panel.

The Argus review currently underway may suggest ways in which full-time selectors could be employed. One suggestion (this one's free, James Sutherland) would be to add further tasks to certain key roles: perhaps increase the responsibility and remuneration of the head of the Australian Cricket Academy, Bowling and Batting coaches? Neither Troy Cooley nor Justin Langer are employed full-time - use the cricket analysts already working within the system as they have done by bringing in Greg Chappell (for better or worse). Or, in a relatively even First Class Competition, expand the panel to seven and include one representative from each state, paid a bonus on top of their State salary. Perhaps both options are unworkable. It may even be that the best alternative is the one already employed.

Paying the selection panel more money would certainly command their attention and entice the best-qualified cricket judges into a position with Cricket Australia. But by doing so, the central board would be required to give them time to settle, develop a policy and then see rewards. Should this period be one year, suddenly there's a sizeable hole in CA's revenues, unlikely to be made up through attendances or prize money through improved performance.

It could simply be that the selectors have judged that Australia should no longer field their best XI, preferring more to develop players with a long term future, guided by Ponting, Clarke and Mike Hussey. Foolish, perhaps, but understandable given the age of recent Australian outfits. Katich would then not be seen as a leader and his position handed to Phil Hughes, a side effect of moving from "transition" to "full scale rebuilding". Make no mistake, that is what Australia now faces and the prospects of mid-term success are not welcoming. Messrs Hilditch, Boon, Cox and Chappell would be best served by simply declaring their policy to the nation, allowing everyone to understand; this would both enlighten the nation and allow for accountability.

While Simon Katich's record suggested he warranted a new deal (as did his partner in this media session, Stuart Clark), in order to make wholesale changes, unpopular decisions must be made and by dint of age - and availability of suitable replacements, for Shaun Marsh and Hughes await - they were amongst the first to be cut. Both have every right to be insulted by their treatment by Hilditch, Greg Chappell, Boon and Cox - and by extension, Cricket Australia. Katich, particularly, had both the form and runs to back up his claim.

Once a board run by domineering fools (c.f. the reasons behind World Series Cricket, among many other examples), Cricket Australia has regained such a a stature by becoming unwieldy and awash with self-interest. By paying large fees to selectors, that self-interest would become more than an exercise in conceit and begin to include large financial components. The way forward for Australian selection is unclear - but please, let's not pay for incompetence.

Image courtesy: livecricketmag.blogspot.com

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.

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.

The Next Great Challenge

Ricky Ponting has resigned as Australian captain. And it could be the best decision he's ever made.

Though his abilities with the wand are waning, Ponting still remains Australia's best batsman against the spinning ball and could provide a useful resource for his probable successor Michael Clarke. The decision to resign but not retire ranks with his most mature choices as a leader and is also in keeping with his "lead by example" philosophy.

In Australia it is unusual to abdicate the captaincy. Kim Hughes did so under extremely stressful circumstances, the target of a West Indies pace quartet in their pomp. He also promptly lost his place in the side. Since the war, only Ian Chappell maintained his position in the side after relinquishing the reins. Chappell, like Ponting, had the forceful personality that Hughes lacked and was perhaps still the nation's second-best bat. Ponting still has a role to play, but his time at the top had come to an end and it's refreshing to see such a hard nut accept the circumstances and bow out relatively gracefully.

There is much to like about an Australian side with Ponting not at the helm but still involved. Australia has chosen consciously focused on blooding new talent over the past four years. The bowling ranks have shown the most potential for regrowth with players like Trent Copeland, James Pattinson and Michael Beer leading the way. Cycling Australia's attack may blood youngsters with a minimum of pressure at the expense of some penetration and arguably, the nation has the fast men to back up this rotation.

It is not so with their batting. The 1960s and 1970s in Australia produced the best concentrated burst of batsmanship in history. The 1980s and 1990s seem far less promising - Callum Ferguson remains an inconsistent proposition, Phil Hughes has the eye of a magician but the technique of a lumberjack and Usman Khawaja, potential and all, is likely to score a lot of very pretty thirties. And as proved throughout the recent subcontinental World Cup, Australia struggles against quality spin bowling - or any deviating ball.

The two greatest criticisms of Ponting as Captain included his only-adequate tactical acumen and his temperament. These downfalls mean he may not necessarily make the best head coach, but because of his unquestioned abilities to inspire and teach, he may become Justin Langer's successor as Australia's batting coach. Never the erudite diplomat like Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor - or even as insightful like Allan Border - Ponting's continued future in cricket should be as a specialist coach. It behoves Cricket Australia to begin this transition now - tell him outright the last days of Ricky Ponting are to mentor Khawaja, Hughes, Ferguson and Mitch Marsh without the crippling pressure of running a team.

The Ponting full of the love of the game has been hard to spot for years now as he's been weighed down with expectations, trying to drag a fading team back into relevance. His greatest leadership contribution may not be the 5-0 whitewash of England or his masterful 2003 World Cup Final century. It could - should? - be marked improvement in the fortunes of the next generation.

Book review: Golden Boy - Kim Hughes and the Bad Old Days of Australian Cricket, by Christian Ryan

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts

This book review can also be found at our sibling site, Books with Balls.

Followers of the recent Ashes series who sought statistics, analysis, and opinion from ESPN's Cricinfo website would no doubt have come across Christian Ryan's blog, 'My Funeral, Your Ashes'. I had never previously come across Ryan until this summer, and knew nothing of his background. Certainly he cannot be said to ever temper his opinion. But unlike most modern media outlets Ryan paints a very detailed picture first, bringing the reader first into position of understanding, before the sting comes. Less like a brawling bulldog, more a brooding viper.

The combination of my own unfamiliarity of Ryan's work, the struggling of Australian cricketers and the euphoria of the English, led me to believe initially that Ryan was indeed a native of the mother country himself. I was wrong, Ryan is an antipodean. Like Kim Hughes however, Ryan is from a state who's people hold a constant level of distrust of all things originating east of Eucla; Western Australia.

These feelings of distrust, envy, and frustration are where Ryan seeks to build this work from; WA having always perceived it has received a raw deal from eastern state cricketing administrations. Ryan indicates that although abolished in the late 1960s, the travel levy that the eastern states required WA to pay for every game in WA was a source of anger that burned within every cricket club and every cricketer in Australia's largest state, young and old.

Beyond the institutional politicking between state associations came something even more fervent, maybe destructive. For a cricket fan it is that moment of lost innocence when one recognises that despite players representing the same country, they can be nowhere near best of friends. Based upon his analysis, Ryan believes that the effect Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee, and Rodney Marsh had on Australian cricket was far beyond what they provided on the pitch. Add to this the non-playing influences of Ian Chappell, Kerry Packer, Austin Robertson and John Cornell in the mid-1970s and it is easy to understand why others may have felt suffocated.

In the middle, or more trying to glide over the top, was a exciting yet flighty batsman in Kim Hughes. Remembered by many as much courteous and polite as a man as he was impetuous as a batsman, Hughes still to this day seeks to rise above the need to engage in public comment on the issues that plagued his career. Despite repeated attempts of Ryan to engage Hughes for the book, he was always politely declined.

Kim Hughes' career is presented by Ryan as one of a man constantly trying to keep his head above an increasingly pressurised position as Australian captain, but even just initially as a WA team mate. It is continually clear, despite Hughes non-assistance in this work, that at the time, and even more so as years have passed that Hughes holds little resentment about his tumultuous time at the top. Whether Ryan has accurately captured the behind closed doors conversations and interactions that have occurred will always be a matter of opinion, opinions that will become more jaded with age. What cannot be argued, and Ryan is clear to state, is that certain protagonists of Hughes' fall publicly made comment on television and in print regarding Hughes.

Previously to this writer, who was barely alive when Allan Border assumed the captaincy of the Australian cricket team, Hughes had appeared to be an uncommon failure in the list of Australian captains. That an Australian would even think of renouncing the apparent greatest job in the world was just ludicrous, and a completely English approach. The pictures of Hughes in tears at the Gabba would never instil a sense of national pride. Ryan's work here though opens up this man and the surrounding cricketing culture to scrutiny of the kind that is unseen in most Australian cricketing media. To the public reliant on Channel 9 solely for their interpretation, one might even remain in the belief that all the Australians are best friends and spend their social time devouring buckets of a fried chicken product.

Writers such as Ryan, including the likes of Frith, Haigh, and Roebuck, never will obtain the universal approval of all. Their work is more valuable for it. But with Australian cricket currently facing a key juncture in the sports modern history it would no doubt be worth viewing the game as these gentlemen tend too. What are the purposes of anointing captains early in a career; how should we best support the captains during the tougher times; what effects are brought to bear on dressing rooms during and after the careers of high profile (and maintenance) superstars?

Tough as ... err... Balsa? Australian World Cup side needs variety

While Australia demolishes England in a meaningless seven match post-Ashes One-Day series, unexpected hope rises in a cricketing public. The World Cup is approaching and our boys - missing half the starters - are dismantling guys who embarrassed us in the Tests. Perhaps Australia really are a show to defend their World Cup honours? I mean, surely it could be worse? Absolutely it could - Beau Casson could wear a Baggy Green again. Or Chris Matthews. Or cricket's perpetual punchline Scott Muller.

But the World Cup squad of fifteen (link) doesn't exactly say "locked in", does it?

The team currently decimating the Englishmen comprises the bulk of the World Cup squad. What's concerning is it's attack, which offers about as much variety as a monk's dinner. By relying on One-Day luminaries Lee, Tait, Bollinger and Zoolander Johnson, the team has opted for pace over spin. The supporting all-round roles are filled the the team's hirsuteness bookends, man-beast John Hastings and waxer extraordinaire Shane Watson. Steve Smith also gets a guernsey but his spin bowling is on par with Cameron White's for penetration so is likely to be employed mostly as a low order pinch-hitter.

The incumbent spinner is Nathan Hauritz, the patient girlfriend to which CA selectors always return after stupid flings with the new blondes on the Domestic scene with big knockers: this time, Tasmanian Spin Bimbo Xavier Doherty. Without Hauritz - which due to injury may happen - Australia is likely to field a lineup of spinners as imposing as an mouse's member on the spin-friendly subcontinental pitches.

The pace attack looks threatening, boasting three of the world's fastest bowlers, each of whom is more - sorry - only effective in the shorter formats. Leaving behind versatility, what's most concerning is the fragility of the squad. At least five serious injury risks project as first-choice, as all of Lee, Tait, Bollinger, Hauritz, Ponting and Mike Hussey are either extremely injury-prone or under a cloud going into the tournament. The spearheads, Tait and Lee, despite being walk up starts for all or most of Australia's 115 ODIs since 2007, have a combined seventy appearances, due mostly to injury (Tait 26, Lee 44). While Johnson's physical capability is apparent, "Doug the Rug" has struggled with injury and form for the better part of six months now. Though none resemble Bruce Reid in height, ability or movement in the air, the Curse which struck him down appears to have targeted the Aussie fast men.

This World Cup is in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh which by default means the toughest conditions in which cricket can be played. Lee's history of meltdowns in India and Bollinger's last six months don't inspire confidence in the attack; Tait remains unable to bowl more than sixty deliveries a year without his body crumbling into dust like at the end of an Indiana Jones movie. To preserve their spearheads, the spear-handle is going to have to bowl quite a bit, meaning Watson, Hastings, David Hussey and Michael Clarke can all expect to roll the arm over quite a bit, an each-way bet as to what comes out: flowers or fertilizer.

Apart from Hastings, Australia doesn't really sport too many genuine all-rounders but just batsmen who can bowl if needed. And their ability with the six-stitcher may just determine how successful Australia's World Cup will be.

Target 2014

Whether Australia's 3-1 defeat at the hands of the Old Enemy doesn't really matter even though the gut feeling is that Australia's best side hasn't ever been as outplayed as convincingly as they were during this series. The Australia defeated yesterday was comprehensively outgunned and more disturbingly, out-thought.

According to Greg Baum of The Age, this was Australian cricket at it's deepest depths, it's perihelion, so heads must roll. Fair enough - but which ones? When examining the players who didn't perform - Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Hughes and Ponting chief among them - there aren't adequate candidates awaiting in first class cricket to replace them. There's undoubtedly the talent but it's either too young or too old to be considered ripe for representing their country.

The objective now must be to qualify for the inaugural Test World Championship mooted for 2014. It's only three years away and therefore it must be at the forefront of Cricket Australia's planning - to fail to qualify would be an embarrassment on a par with Canada failing to qualify for an Ice-Hockey tournament or New Zealand being eliminated in the first round of the Rugby World Cup. Only the four best Test-playing nations will be entered into that competition and it's now nearly impossible to argue that Australia form part of that quartet.

But all is not lost. To think back, four years ago England were humiliated to a similar extent by an Australian team no longer great but simply very good. Of the current Ashes tourists, seven played in the 2007 debacle. Once the correct path for regrowth is established for a nation, the regreening of their playing stocks can occur relatively quickly, especially with the amount of cricket currently played. In the next two years there are nineteen Tests against everyone from Bangladesh to South Africa and the "New Enemy" India, enough for youngsters to establish themselves and develop their own techniques coping mechanisms.

Of the seven Englishmen who returned to the antipodes this year, the only trundlers were James Anderson and Monty Panesar and Monty didn't play a match. It's the bowling stocks which needed refreshment and that's a situation with which Australia can readily identify. Ben Hilfenhaus and Mitchell Johnson must have exhausted the selectors patience by now and with Ryan Harris willing, though physically unable to be relied upon, the search for new-ball bowlers must begin in earnest, bowlers who can put the ball in threatening areas time and again. All of Peter George, Josh Hazelwood and James Pattinson have the talent and both Clarke and Ponting have shown they are serviceable leaders of fast men. There is hope for Michael Beer as the spinner designate and the sooner he is flown to India to learn from the great Indian spinners, the healthier Australian cricket will be.

More troubling is the lack of application displayed by the Australian batsman this series. Every single player got out with ill-advised shots and to a lack of patience. With questions still remaining over Shane Watson's position at opener and the longevity of Ponting and Hussey, their replacements must be young and given time to grow into their roles rather than shoehorned into position and told to perform. The focus isn't now crushing Bangladesh or beating Sri Lanka in 2011, it is ensuring that each player elevated to national player experiences the game in all conditions against the very best players the world has to offer. If a player - especially a batsman - has a future as a Test cricketer there is a good argument that they shouldn't be bothering with Twenty20. If T20s aren't played then enough space can be created in a player's schedule which could be used to hone their Test game further.

If Australia misses a Test World Championship in three years' time, the sport risks irrelevancy in the entire Pacific region. New Zealand hasn't been anywhere near the right path since several of their stars defected to the rebel ICL and Australia's slide into sub-mediocrity has been slow and painful. Change is needed, though not necessarily in personnel but in approach.