My Favourite Cricketer: Gavin Larsen by Ken Miller, The Man in Beige

In our series My Favourite Cricketer, we invite respected cricket writers and bloggers to describe the impact one particular player had on their life.  This week Ken Miller, the Man in Beige, presents us with the archetypal New Zealand seamer, Gavin Larsen.

When people are asked to name their most iconic image about New Zealand cricket, some might picture Sir Richard Hadlee, appealing (probably successfully) arms and legs akimbo. For others the image might be of Martin Crowe cutting off the back foot for another glorious boundary. Or maybe it would be Daniel Vettori being left to do absolutely everything by himself like he has for the last decade.

For me however, the enduring image of New Zealand cricket is Gavin Larsen hopping and skipping his way to the crease and the batsman helplessly deadbatting the ball back to him. Not the most glorious image, granted, but for me it typifies all that is great about New Zealand cricket. Palyers doing the most with their, often, limited resources.

Larsen - with my haircut

Being a Wellington boy myself, Gavin Larsen was my hero growing up. So much so that I copied his style from an early age. Not as a bowler or a batsman - my exceptionally limited cricketing skills are beneath the radar even in New Zealand. Instead, I modelled my haircut on him. That’s right, the overly short spiky thing he had going on for most of his career. That was me.

 Larsen was a massive part of the New Zealand one-day side for a decade and did the job that was asked of him very, very well. His reliability with the ball earned him the nickname ‘The Postman’, in the sense that he always delivered. Some less charitable types took his nickname to mean that he actually only delivered on weekdays and sometimes on Saturdays, and this was unfortunate for a cricketer who primarily plays at the weekend.

His main weapon as a bowler was his accuracy. He knew where he wanted to bowl, and the ball went there. Over after over. He got a lot of wickets from batsmen getting frustrated and trying to force the ball. This tactic worked. He ended with over 100 ODI wickets with an economy rate of around 3.5 rpo which was great for the time, and unheard of now. I won’t forget his hundredth wicket, and I suspect he won’t either. At the Basin Reserve – his home ground. The batsman? None other than Sachin Tendulkar. A big wicket for a big achievement.

For some reason, he was never seriously considered as a Test player, competing in just 8 tests during his career. Maybe it was seen that a containment bowler had no place in a New Zealand bowling attack where leaking runs was apparently a requirement. The one-day game changed around him as well. Batsmen started becoming more aggressive (thanks Adam Gilchrist) and towards the end of Larsen’s career his figures did suffer slightly as a result. Whether he would make it in the New Zealand side for a decade in the current climate of Twenty20s and big scoring one-dayers, I’m not sure. What I do know is that he was a very popular player with the Basin faithful and that he was one of the most effective one day bowlers of his generation. Gavin Larsen was a big part of New Zealand’s ODI success through the 90s and his accuracy with the ball made Glenn McGrath look like Heath Davis.

 In preparation for writing this article, I went looking for images of Gavin Larsen to include. I found this:

edibleportland.com

Err. I’ve now got a different defining image of Gavin Larsen than I had.

 You can follow Ken Miller at his blog, The Man in Beige, or on Twitter @ManInBeige

Back to My Favourite Cricketer homepage.

Portrait courtesy Cricinfo.com

My Favourite Cricketer: Adam Gilchrist by Will Atkins

Balanced Sports and World Cricket Watch are proud to present the best cricket writers and bloggers today as part of a series remembering "My Favourite Cricketer".  Today's favourite is the greatest 'keeper-batsman of all time, Adam Gilchrist, by Will Atkins of The Short Midwicket.

Not many cricketers are remembered for completely redefining the sport in which they play. Tiger Woods. Michael Jordan. Lance Armstrong. And it would be no exaggeration toclaim that Adam Gilchrist redefined the role of the wicket-keeperbatsman. A batsman who could hit the ball an awful long way while retaining the utmost finesse whether in tests or ODIs, Gilchrist elevated the role of the wicket-keeper from one who simply needed to be able to catch the ball to a player who needed to be able to consistently perform match-winning heroics with the bat. Gilly was more than just a wicket-keeper; he was a game-turner, someone who could take a hopeless situation and salvage it, or compound the opposition’s misery as he finished them off with his lusty blows.

courtesy: theage.com.au

My love for Adam Gilchrist isn’t the most conventional story, as whilst he was making his state debuts for New South Wales in 1992, I was in England having only just been born, so unable to appreciate fully his unbeaten 20 to see NSW home in the Sheffield Shield final. However, as I began to understand and appreciate cricket, there was one player who stood out for me. It was the 2003 World Cup, and with England having set off home fairly meekly, I was able to watch as this Australian started smacking the ball everywhere, which appealed to me greatly. Making four fifties as the Aussies serenely marched to the defence of their trophy, Gilchrist was my hero, and the man who made me take up wicket-keeping. After many swings and misses, and even more dropped catches, I promptly gave up the gloves, but the seed was sown. Adam Gilchrist was the man for me.

Some of his innings were just breath-taking. He just naturally scored quickly without it appearing reckless, finding gaps in fields where there were none, always with expert timing and balance. Batting at number seven in tests, Gilchrist’s quick scoring was instrumental in Australia’s dominance over the cricketing world, as he was able to counter-attack to force pressure onto the other team just as well as he could put the foot to the throat and finish off any slim hopes from the opposition. Some of his best performances speak for themselves. An 84-ball hundred to kill off India at Mumbai in 2001. A double hundredat Johannesburg in 2002 from only 214 deliveries. The extraordinary 57-ball hundred (only one ball slower than the all-time test record) against a demoralised England at Perth in 2006. But it wasn’t just about his fast scoring – a nerveless 149 not out in only his second test to chase down 369 against Pakistan in 1999 is testament to the fact that he was an excellent batsman, not a slogger.

Gilchrist redefined the role of the ODI opener as well, with a strike rate of 97 runs per hundred balls almost guaranteeing that Australia would get off to a flyer. With 16 hundreds, but more tellingly his 55 fifties (to go alongside his 472 dismissals), Gilchrist is arguably the most successful ODI opener of all-time. Indeed, his innings on the biggest stage of them all, in the 2007 World Cup final, will go down as one of the great all-time ODI innings, with 149 off 104 balls single-handedly winning Australia their third consecutive World Cup. All of which he’d been instrumental in.

I admired Adam Gilchrist though, not just for his ability with the bat or gloves, but due to his behaviour on and off the pitch. How many other cricketers would walk when givennot out in a World Cup semi-final? Gilchrist walked then (after the umpire failed to see him inside edge a ball which was subsequently caught) just as he walked every time he nicked. Given the attitudes of some of his teammates in the harsh and ruthless Australian team he played in, Gilchrist’s attitude was so refreshing, and he was an outstanding role model for any aspiring cricketer.

They say people should never meet their heroes, but this advice was fully ignored by me last summer when I did work experience with Middlesex CCC. Gilchrist, by now retired from international cricket and freelancing for T20 teams around the world, had been recruited to play for the Panthers during the fateful T20 season of 2010, and part of my role was to help out with Gilchrist’s media day. He genuinely had time for everyone he spoke to, and was absolutely delighted to be playing for Middlesex. Way back in 1989, a very young Adam Gilchrist (here’s an ominously accurate interview with him from 1989) flew over from Australia to play for Richmond in the Middlesex League, and he said just how important that time was in the development of his career. Playing for Middlesex 21 years later as a fully formed legend of the game was his way of giving back. As is the fact that he sponsors a promising cricketer each year to go and play for Richmond for a summer in the hope that they too can have as successful a career as him. While Gilchrist was initially only signed up to play at Lord’s, he decided to play in one of the T20 outground games at Richmond, just to help give back even more to the small club. You’ve got to admit, that’s pretty cool.

courtesy: cricketnews.com.au

The fact an Australian could ever be considered my favourite player just sums up how great a player, and a man, Adam Gilchrist is. A leader in everything he did on and off the pitch, Gilchrist sets the standard for pretty much everything possible – how a batsman should bat, how a wicket-keeper should keep and how a cricketer should behave. Adam Gilchrist simplified excellence, which is summed up in his thoughts on how to bat successfully; “Just hit the ball”. There won’t be another cricketer like Adam Gilchrist for an awfully long time – not many can have the respect of the cricketing world not just for their abilities, but for their sportsmanship and kind heart as well. That’s why my favourite cricketer is Adam Gilchrist, someone who led the way in every regard.

Back to My Favourite Cricketer homepage.

An Alternative to Exclusion: The Statistical Basis for an ICC World Cup Qualifying Tournament

The ICC have announced that affiliate nations are to be excluded from the World Cup in 2015, only to be reinstated from 2019 after a mooted ODI League begins. As well as manifestly defending without consequence the full member nations Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at the expense of the affiliates, there are several flaws in the ICC's logic. Their thinking is that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe deserve protection as developing cricket nations. Perhaps the ICC, when considering the following analysis, should expand their vista somewhat.

Over the last two World Cups, perhaps the most startling comparison is each team's success rate. Ireland have recorded four wins, one tie and eleven losses, Bangladesh went 6-10 and Zimbabwe managing two wins and a tie from nine matches. In fact if you take into account every ODI each nation has played since June 2006 (Ireland's first ever ODI), records are even more enlightening.

Nation	Games	Wins	Losses	Ties	N/R
Bangladesh	119	52	67	0	0
Zimbabwe	95	28	66	1	0
Ireland	64	30	30	1	3

Although Irish results don't quite measure up to those of Bangladesh, these tables don't take into account a decline in Bangladesh's form since their Super-8 appearance in the 2007 Cup in the West Indies. Comparing last decade to this, Irish cricket appears well in advance of their third-world neighbours in development:

Nation	Games	Wins		Losses		Ties	N/R
Bangladesh	119	52	43.7	67	56.3	0	0
2006-2009	86	40	46.51	46	53.49	0	0
2010-2011	33	12	36.36	21	63.64	0	0
Zimbabwe	95	28	29.47	66	70.53	1	0
2006-2009	69	19	27.54	49	71.01	1	0
2010-2011	26	9	34.62	17	65.38	0	0
Ireland	64	30	46.88	30	46.88	1	3
2006-2009	41	17	41.46	20	48.78	1	3
2010-2011	23	13	56.52	10	43.48	0	0

Given that many of Ireland's ODIs have been against ICC-trophy opposition, this is hardly conclusive proof that Ireland are a comparable side to either Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. However, what must be remembered is that while they may face weaker opposition more often, almost all of their matches are played "away". The same can't be said of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Every nation uses Key Performance Indicators in their overall analysis of performance. Since Ireland entered the ODI arena, theirs compare well with their subcontinental and African cousins:

	Statistic	Bangladesh	Zimbabwe	Ireland
Bowling KPI	Runs conceded p/wkt	26	25.08	27.05
	Runs conceded p/over	4.56	4.54	4.68
Batting KPI	Highest Score	320	351	329
	Lowest Score	58	44	77
	Average Total Score	217.96	205.42	240.53

Let's examine both individual performances in both the last two World Cups to see how, on a per-match basis, the Irish stack up.

	Bangladesh	Zimbabwe	Ireland
Game 1	191	221	221
Game 2	318	204	132
Game 3	94	349	190
Game 4	106	262	266
Game 5	178	123	165
Game 6	184	166	263
Game 7	147	327	92
Game 8	243	164	169
Game 9	230	147	81
Game 10	370		205
Game 11	178		327
Game 12	59		210
Game 13	225		275
Game 14	160		272
Game 15	284		306
Average runs conceded	197.8	218.11	211.6
Total wickets taken	95	58	103
Average p/wkt	31.23	33.84	30.82
Adjusted Avg runs conc.	207.71
Adjusted avg/p/wkt	30.94

In this analysis, "Adjusted" removes the influence of any low totals made by the team while batting first - ie. Bangladesh's record-low 58 is not considered in the "Adjusted runs conceded". This has the happy benefit of decreasing their average per wicket (Adjusted avg/p/wkt) as they only took one West Indies scalp when attempting to defend their meagre total.

With batting, the story is very similar.

World Cup	Bangladesh		Zimbabwe		Ireland
	Runs	Wkts lost	Runs	Wkts lost	Runs	Wkts Lost
2007	1372	72	522	30	1452	79
2011	1017	51	1276	52	1393	51
Totals	2389	123	1798	82	2845	130
Average p/wkt	19.42		21.93		21.88

Perhaps rather than automatic ascension to ODI status, it would be best to enforce qualification rules upon the weakest two Full ICC Members - a simple, round-robin tournament evaluated by wins, losses and run-rate. It could be there that Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada and Kenya - perpetually the strongest four affiliate nations - could compete against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for entry rights.

Such a setup may also strengthen those full members as it would provide another focal point at which things need to be "going right" in order to avoid the humiliation of failing to qualify. It only needs to be for one (two at most) World Cup and could easily be superseded by an ODI League.

Any suggestions the Bangladeshis or Zimbabweans would crush the competition in a qualifying tournament is fatuous in the extreme. To throw in one final statistic, in the past two Cups three Irish batsmen have scored hundreds. None have from Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (though one of each has come close). Ireland's batsmen seem to fire after playing themselves in - they have only eight unconverted 50s to their credit, while Bangladesh have managed nine half-centuries and Zimbabwe have eleven.

In all the statistics put together today, there's plenty of evidence that suggests that Irish, Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean cricket is relatively well-matched. Indeed, it's eminently possible to throw a blanket over the differences in each nation's stats. All statistical indicators point to a very even three-cornered series.

As with any developing cricketing nation, no-one is really sure who is going to step up on any given day to play a key hand. What it does seem however, is that Ireland are fully capable of upsetting bigger opponents, and their form is only improving rather than the cul-de-sac into which Bangladeshi cricket seems to have turned. The only fair way to ensure the development of cricket across the globe is to give the affiliate nations something to strive for, and Full member nations something to fear. That should take the form of World Cup qualifying.

ICC turns back on affiliate nations' World Cup hopes

By excluding Ireland, the Netherlands and other affiliate nations from the 2015 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, the ICC could well have signed the death warrant for International 50-over cricket. A format which could well have been revitalized by one of - if not THE - best World Cups ever, now stands on the precipice of becoming an elitist tournament with no second division. Any league around the world needs a feeder system. By robbing themselves of that at ODI level, cricket's head honchos have announced that Twenty20 is the way of the future.

The ICC has decided that a ten-team format is the best for the ODI World Cup. That much is clear and, probably, fair. To compensate for their brutality, the Twenty20 World Cup will be expanded in a clear message to the world's 95 associate nations: T20 is the future. Notwithstanding the perilous effects this is likely to have on player techniques, this also cements the notion that no affiliate nation has any hope of ascending to Test level within twenty-five years.

Without a strong One-Day program, Test cricket is weaker. The fifty-over form is the best way of choosing a World Champion and, to the delight of the non-baseball crowd, demands batting and bowling technique, thought and tactics rather than an abrupt slog-a-thon. A nation can wean players on ODIs in preparation for Test matches; the same cannot be said of Twenty20. If countries like Ireland and Afghanistan aren't able to expose their men to the best in the world, there remains no hope for growth in the Test world. The step up from ODI to Test is often too great, let alone from T20.

Should, as is rumoured, the mooted ODI League - complete with promotion and relegation - come into effect after the 2019 tournament in England, the affiliates will be again able to attempt qualification for the World Cup, play regular matches and attempt to improve both grass-roots and elite talent pathways to full International level, a process likely to take at least 10 years. But with an eight-year gap between Cups, there exists the chance that the fifty-over game will have fallen into irreparable decline or even been eradicated completely.

Without question, Ireland are the team closest to making the step to the next level - and may have surpassed both Bangladesh and Zimbabwe already. They are the archetypal Big Fish in a Small Pond, identified by the ICC not as "too good for affiliate" but "too small for the Big Time". Sadly, Ireland are in a category all of their own and stand as the nation shafted by Haroon Lorgat's arbitrary nature. As they produce quality cricketers, (faint) hope grew for an Irish Test team. It is all now gone.

The debate isn't whether Cup is suited best to a ten- or fourteen-team format, the big picture is that the ICC has made a sweeping reform to the game's Showpiece to benefit smaller "Full" members at the expense of growth. Globally, cricket is far from being in a safe position and thus growth is required to ensure that cricket doesn't become confined to its heartland - now, proudly the subcontinent. When growth is required, it behoves administrators to focus most on strengthening their weaker elements. Here, the opposite has happened and more revenue has been funnelled into wealthy coffers.

To exclude Ireland, a team whose performances everyone has admired, simply because they haven't yet broken into the big time is wrong. If their displays at the last two Cups and ICC trophy dominance aren't reason enough to include them in the planning for 2015, then surely their administration is: there's good reason to think that the Cricket Ireland is more transparent and better administered than counterpart organisations in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangaldesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies.

The exciting new ODI League may have been initialised to save the fifty-over format. That comes as cold comfort for players like Kevin O'Brien and William Porterfield, who though young now, probably won't get a chance to strut the big stage again. The ODI revolution may come years too late for the smaller nations in world cricket.