Short pitch: World T20 offers more than entertainment

I make it a practice never to feel that sorry for professional athletes: they earn spectacular coin for doing what they love.  There are attendant sacrifices, but that's inherent in any achievement.  Perhaps the most obvious of these is a limited career length: even the best only sustain elite standards for ten, fifteen years at best.

Twenty/20 cricket is one of those sports which doesn't seem to demand as much sacrifice as others.  The time taken, preparation required, energy expended or in learning a perfect technique.  In many ways, this might be part of why it's yet to really draw me in.  I'll watch it quite happily, and one of my favourite MCG moments was seeing Shaun Tait hit AB de Vililers - but of cricket's three formats it doesn't have the slow burn, the pacing that makes a sporting event most compelling for me.  There's very little sensation for the viewer of teams necessarily building something of value.  T20 is to cricket what tittie-bars are to meaningful relationships: on the outside their methods can appear similar, but it takes time to build something of real value.

However, watching Brad Hogg in the T20 World Cup has made me consider the role of T20 in the cricket landscape a little differently.  Hogg bowled well this morning, claiming 1/30 from his four overs.  He fielded as energetically as a forty-one year old could, and has been doing so at the highest level - well, Australia's highest level, anyway - for nine months since his unretirement in February.

For Brad Hogg, playing in the World T20 isn't about money but the chance to represent Australia again and compete at a high level at an age where most cricketers who aren't Eddie Hemmings are relegated to the park.  While his appearances for Cape Cobras, Rajasthan Royals and even the Perth Scorchers were/are presumably all about extending his earning capacity, the World T20s are about love of the game and country.

Many sports value the new and untested.  Commentators, coaches and other players get excited about where rookies and younger players can take teams and the game - Australian cricket has decided to plunge headlong down the path of youth, expunging effective players like Simon Katich in order to blood relatively unproven youngsters.  But not T20: shortest format leagues around the world rely on ageing heavy hitters who can still contribute to wins.  Rather than T20's bimodal age distribution being a negative, it should be celebrated as the opposite: it allows players like Brad Hogg to extend their Australian careers in a sport when retirement is so ... definite.

So well done Brad Hogg for choosing to play for Australia again.  And well done Australia for selecting him.

Simon Katich retired because Australia wanted him to

Simon Katich announced his retirement from First Class cricket earlier this week, ending a career that began when Mark Taylor and Paul Keating occupied the most coveted offices in the country. He leaves with a reputation as a hardworking player who moved up the order as his career progressed, starting at six and finishing facing the new pill.

Katich also leaves with a reputation for spirit; something which would surprise those who watched his Test debut during the 2001 Ashes series. Apart from his crablike wander across the stumps in playing each delivery, the most recognisable incidents from a long and quite distinguished career involve his 2009 bust-up with Michael “Bingle” Clarke in the sheds and his press conference last year, where he said what others dared not upon his axing from the Cricket Australia contract list.

Were he still opening the Australian innings with Shane Watson or David Warner, it's doubtable Katich would have retired. He felt he still had more to offer the Australian team and his stats backed him up. Western Australia certainly thought he had something left, as they wanted him to play 2012-13 for the Warriors.  The pay's also pretty good. 

Courtesy: crickblog.com

 The enmity with Clarke contributed to Katich's replacement and almost certainly left him jaded and fed up with the politics inherent in Australia's only truly national game. Although maturing, Simon Katich had earned his place ... only to be dropped simply because of his age.

Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey fight the same battle every time they step onto the field. Both are older than Katich and appear near the end, but have no firm plans for retirement. When either fails, a gestalt Salomé appears, composed of a collective press, who screams persistent nonsense about ageing heads on salvers. The promise of youth is decried, a glorious future is prophesied – without admission that promise is all many Australian youngsters have to offer.

In a world culture where stardom starts early and young is better, Australia's sporting hierarchy leads the world. Since the country's failure at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, Australia has prided itself on world's best youth development; in cricket, this has manifested in the once-vaunted Australian Cricket Academy, an offshoot of the Australian Institute of Sport.

In Aussie Rules football, the dominant sport, the average age of last year's Premiers, Geelong, was 26.6 years old and considered almost supremely old. The year before, the average age of the Collingwood's Premiership side was 24. This led the expansion Gold Coast Suns to select a squad with average age of just 21.2 years last term. Players are often given only one chance and if renewal is required, players at age 24-26 are the first to go. Precious few delisted players are later re-drafted; an anonymous teen's promise now supersedes proven capabilities of the known foot soldier.

The trend has begun to reverse somewhat as veteran players like James Podsiadly and Orren Stephenson are drafted for short-term impact and clubs countenance that there is life in the lower leagues past the age of 21, but this  psychologically-straitjacketing desire for youth still prevails.

Australian football clubs have cottoned on that fans want one of two things: wins, or hope for the future. If you aren't challenging for the title, you regenerate the entire playing list on the back of high draft picks and hard work. Players emerge to stardom early, destroy their bodies and retire to the paddock of fond memories by age 31. With the success of young teams like Hawthorn and Essendon, the Australian public is prepared to sacrifice mid-term results – wholesale – in the ostensible guise of long-term progress.

This simply doesn't work on the cricket field. The best players should represent their country until their position becomes untenable. Due to the persistent averageness displayed by Phil “Snicker” Hughes, Usman Khawaja, Chris Lynn et al., Katich, Hussey and Ponting should have been left to judge themselves. Creating space for young players to grow is a ridiculous argument – if the players can't dominate the Shield, there's little or no reason to suggest they will perform consistently at Test level. Adam Gilchrist, Justin Langer and Glenn McGrath called time at the right moment – why should we treat Hussey and Ponting any different? Plus, although the dollars on offer cloud the decision, who else is better to judge?

Some athletes pick the correct time to go, while others hang on too long – here, cricketers could take a lesson from AFL players – but to simply remove Katich from national contention was ill-advised and affronting. At worst, a perilous drop in form deserves the oft-cited “tap on the shoulder”; Katich didn't receive even this much dignity in June 2011.

At least on Monday, his announcement carried a nobility not afforded by his former employers.

Cricketing relationships

by Ben Roberts

I may be going to sound like Oprah or Doctor Phil, but there is clearly a deep emotional need for success in all cricketers. They cannot subsist on footwork and line and length alone, and the absence of beneficial outside relationships is quite possibly catastrophic.

Take for example the beginning of the Australian summer and the very public spat between always-fiery teammates Simon Katich and Michael Clarke. Their descent into the relationship abyss came at the lowest point of the entire Australian cricket family for years, and no one would have then believed Clarke would be the captain to lead Australia to such a rapid turn in fortunes.

But things did turn around and success has come to Clarke's Australia; along the way, Clarke has related well to all comers, in particular Clarke and Ricky Ponting have in January 2012 picked up their very productive affair, missing since they last truly connected two years prior.

Ed Cowan, (c) Balanced Sports

Not only that, but this summer the new Australian selection panel (a long-established matchmaking institution) have been rather bolshie in taking plenty o’ gambles. In Melbourne they sent absolute opposites Ed Cowan and Dave Warner on a blind date (after Warner's early summer fling with Phillip Hughes clearly was a very one sided relationship) and the two openers have not looked back. Cowan in fact has spent most of the summer gazing at Warner lest he be struck by a missile from his blade!

All this is not to mention the bond that has occurred within the Skippy fast bowlers. Although Peter, Ben, Ryan, James and Mitchell know that they all cannot be included in the same team all of the time, they clearly feel and care for each other the way they have shared the Indian scalps around.

This relational need in cricket has seemingly gotten the attention of more than just the cricketing authorities.  This article link was passed over to me recently.  The tongue-in-cheek piece may require both a working knowledge of cricket and the Book of Genesis to fully appreciate the humour, however we can add it as evidence that maybe even a divine relationship is key for cricketing success.

The author Michael Jensen lists many of faith who have graced cricketing fields. Two stuck out on my mind for the era in which they played: England's Reverend David Sheppard was an ordained minister during his international playing days and later Bishop of Liverpool.  Australia's Brian Booth was an Anglican lay-preacher. Although previously aware of their non-cricketing backgrounds, when presented with them again reading this article, my first reaction was to exclaim to myself (and Zoe the dog) about the wilder types whom they shared dressing rooms.

Respectively, Sheppard and Booth teamed with Fred Trueman and Keith Miller, whom would hardly be described as shrinking violets. I wondered just how it went? Was there precedent for the Clarke/Katich troubles? Of course my first reference point is the modern day font of wisdom Wikipedia. Looking up both Booth and Sheppard, lo and behold both have their relationships with Trueman and Miller described, including that they were full of humour.

Now I am not proposing if looking for a life partner you give up the blind dates, internet chat rooms and bar crawling and head down to your local cricket club. Such a move may not go as well in practice as in theory, but on those days when it is 42 degrees, you're in the field defending 47, and the opposition is 0/278, look across to your mate at first slip/mid wicket/cover and realise that you may be sharing more than just the old thigh pad in the team kit!

Sixty-Six Sigma: New South Wales

Ben Roberts and Matthew Wood

Openers: Phil Hughes and Nick Maddinson

Dislodging the Australian past in Simon Katich and Phil Jacques was not easy, yet both youngsters look likely to have exciting Australian futures. If Katich opens, he deserves this position as he could well still be in Australia's top dozen most effective cricketers.

Maddinson is still only 19 years old, and has flown under the radar with colleagues like Khawaja, Hughes and Warner taking more spotlight. In seven matches last year he averaged just under 40 and struck two centuries. With such depth of talent in NSW it's easy to take a gamble on a player but Maddinson is a talent.

Hughes torments us as fans of Australia, but deep in our hardened hearts, below all the frustrations we know he can do it. Although not an exceptional season in 2010/11 he still scored 628 runs at 41. A prolonged stay in first class ranks would help the young man but is unlikely in this fast paced world of cricket.

When - if - Hughes receives a national call-up, he'll be replaced by Katich or David Warner, who broke into the Sheffield Shield team on the back of some enormous scores in the 'Futures League' under-23 competition last season. In three matches for NSW he compiled 275 runs at 45 with a century that gave hope he could indeed put what is a great eye and timing to use in longer formats.

Number Three: Usman Khawaja

The loudest cheer for an Australian cricketer in season 2010/11 was heard at the SCG in the final Test, yet Usman Khawaja merely walked off the ground in his first Test match having scored only 30-odd. But it was not the innings in particular, nor the match that was cheered, it was that finally some hope had been injected into a flagging Australian side that brought all to their feet.

Khawaja has the makings of the country's premier batsman, having the best technique and head for the job. His stints with Derbyshire and Australia A over the winter before the Sri Lanka tour were not characterised with success, but he knows how to bat and should return better than ever.

Middle Order: Simon Katich and Michael Clarke

Katich could be this generation's version of Steve Waugh - a player who has pared down his game again and again so as to make himself difficult to get out. His shuffle across his stumps should belie this, but yet he is rarely caught in front. He started as a wristy West Aussie, made his Test debut as such in 2001 and will finish his career alongside Bill Lawry as great left-handed, run-accumulating barnacles. Even though he's 36, it's likely he deserves a spot in NSW, if not Australia and shows no sign of retiring any time soon.

Australian captain Clarke recently scored a long-awaited century in national colours while in Sri Lanka. In between that and the one 18 months before in New Zealand, there had been many ground out fifties but nothing more. He is reinventing himself with the increased responsibility as more of an Border-type, gritty batsman and has eschewed the natural flair he entered public opinion with. To carry the comparisons perhaps a little too far, Clarke began as Walters and will end as Border, perhaps a function of the necessity of him of batting too high in the order.

All-Rounder: Shane Watson

Though it goes against everything we may have believed three years ago, Australia's best cricketer for almost two years has been Mr Furlong, Shane Watson. There is little point in discussing the national opener more than simply he is put in at number six rather than higher in the batting order to give the bloke a break!

When Clarke and Watson are away playing for Australia, a combination of Ben Rohrer, Moises Henriques and Steve Smith will take their places. It's likely Smith will play for Australia at some stage, but Henriques, despite big raps from a young age is likely to remain a First Class player only.

Wicket-keeper: Brad Haddin

Although Haddin's status as no. 1 'keeper for the national team is shaky, he's still without question the best 'keeper in New South Wales and could decimate Shield attacks with a Warner-like eye until he turns 40. His form is waning both with the bat and the gloves, and he's not a commanding presence like Ian Healy or even the more perfunctory Adam Gilchrist.

Young Victorian convert Peter Nevill deputises for Haddin and the gap in quality is a self-evident truth in simply looking at the pair. Nevill is functional, Haddin has the gifts but not the concentration or technique.

Spinner: Steve O'Keeffe

You know the philosophical questions that are designed to open the mind? Like 'what is the sound of one hand clapping'? Here is a new one: If Kevin Pietersen has a perceived weakness against left arm finger spinners, and Steve O'Keeffe is a left arm finger spinner and captures his wicket in the lead up tour match, why was Xavier Doherty selected? My mind is opened wide, yet I am not one jot more enlightened!

O'Keeffe is a genuine top-class spinner. He has been branded with the Mark of Hilditch Cain, apparently stamped on his forehead with "higher honours - limited overs only". It is suggested that the new panel review his shield statistics from last season (5 matches, 22 wickets at 20) and comment. These stats, let alone solid batting and a good leadership (he captained them in their last Shield match against Victoria) NSW's spinning position is his in front of pseudo-spinners Smith and Beau Casson.

Pacemen: Patrick Cummins, Doug Bollinger, and Trent Copeland

flickr.com/photos/81602598@N00/2342153225

Doug the rug gets some leeway despite a poor season in 2010/11. He is a damaging bowler when 100% fit and still worth a look in the national setup.

Copeland is exciting because he is different. For too long Australia has been developing the tearaway bowlers in the hope of unearthing another Brett Lee, seeming uncaring that Lee's First Class and Test stats are embarrassing when compared to those of Jason Gillespie and Glenn McGrath. Copeland is a quality bowler who knows his limitations and plays within himself. He attacks by playing good cricket in the mould of Stuart Clark and McGrath and fully deserved his call up to the Australian team after 2010/11.

Cummins beats out Henriques, Mitch Starc, Josh Hazelwood and Mark Cameron for the third paceman's role and may beat out Bollinger for Test duties. It's likely that two of these three will for the foreseeable future be playing Test cricket or injured, so a depth of fast bowling promise is both needed and available. In fact, in two years, the Australian fast bowling lineup could conceivably all come from New South Wales.

Who's locked in?

The greatest threat to New South Wales' players is not likely to be a lack of talent but of Australian recognition. For so long it was tacitly (until the advent of David Hookes) suggested that an Australian cap was presented alongside a New South Wales cap. Though some of those New South Welshman may not have deserved their calls-up (*cough* Anthony Stuart *cough*), there is little doubt that New South Wales has the greatest reserves of natural cricketing talent in Australia.

What's disappointing?

The the following players are available but not selected:

Phil Jacques, Rohrer, Nathan Hauritz, Smith, Nevill, Henriques, Starc, Cameron, Hazelwood, Nathan Bracken, Stuart Clark, Casson, Burt Cockley and Brett Lee. Batsman Peter Forrest saw the writing on the wall took his leave moved to Queensland for this season.

Who's next up - or alternatively, who's loan bait?

Of the fourteen names listed above, nine have played for Australia and though it's heavy with bowlers, would compete against most shield squads. New South Wales could farm out plenty of their players to get games in a loan system.

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

Definite, Probable, Maybe ... Definitely Not.

When looking down the list at the Australian team that recently surrendered almost without whimper to India in Bangalore, it became apparent that Marcus North has an incredible ability to make runs when the pressure is on him but never scores when the pressure's on his team. His recent high-score of 128 brought his average up from 33 to 37. When taken in context, that's on a par with such luminaries as Neil McKenzie, Nathan Astle and Sanjay Manjrekar. On form – and on reputation, given his unpopularity with Australian fans – that seems about fair for a player who convinces no-one that he's about to usher in the next era of Australian greatness.

So drop him. The Australian team is unquestionably rebuilding – with Ricky Ponting, Mike Hussey, Simon Katich, Brad Haddin and North all the wrong side of 30 and unlikely to be present for Australian cricket's next period of sustained success, it's time to remove those players who won't be present in five years time and replace them with players who will be.

During the last major Aussie cricket remodelling, coach Bob Simpson and captain Allan Border identified early which players had the talent and application to be part of a winning system. Upon Simpson's hiring, the “definites” were Border, Steve Waugh, David Boon and Craig McDermott. Dean Jones and Geoff Marsh were listed as “probables”. On deciding who had the stones to stick, they then set about building a side around those players, trying a number of players in different positions in the XI – for instance it took three different wicketkeepers before chancing on Ian Healy and five spinners before Shane Warne was found. The great Australians of 1991-2007 slowly began to emerge.

When looking back, is it surprising that those listed first – Waugh, Boon, McDermott – had the longest and most productive Test careers? The probables weren't failures by any stretch as both Jones and Marsh played over 50 Tests as well, but the “definites” now rank among Australia's all-time greats.

The parallels between the two eras aren't so clear cut yet only because this batch of ageing Aussies haven't yet walked off into the sunset. But as each player from that Golden Era goes, the Australian selectors have tried to replace almost like-for-like rather than with vision. Brad Hogg was replaced by Beau Casson, Jason Krezja, Nathan Hauritz, Bryce McGain and then Hauritz again. Ditto Glenn McGrath, who passed on the torch to Stuart Clark and then Doug Bollinger. Australia has to pick players according to where they will be in three-to-four years and not for their immediate benefits. Although Australia was blessed with a remarkable number of great cricketers born between 1968 and 1978, the cricket revival our country saw in the 90s didn't come about simply as the result of a Golden Generation but of the foresight of Bob Simpson and Allan Border.

Cycling through the Australian lineup you see several players who couldn't be listed as “definites” or even “probables” for an Ashes series in 2014-15. These guys slide between the categories “Maybe”, like Nathan Hauritz or an outright “No” a la Simon Katich, if only because of his age. It's time to selectively breed out these “maybe” and “no” players and replace them not with a player who replaces what they do but with players who have a chance to be great.

To give an example of the mindset required, please take the following example plucked from my own day to day life. My wife and I are in the process of moving across the continent. On the weekend we set aside time to work out what clothes we needed or wanted, and which clothes we should give away. After half an hour of back-and-forth I worked out why the process was taking so long – I had gone into the exercise looking for reasons to discard clothes, whereas she had begun looking for reasons to keep them. The Australian selectors need to take the “What can we discard?” attitude to the current crop of Test players. They've done so before – Brad Hodge being omitted two Tests after a double-hundred springs immediately to mind – and they should do so again. Given their current run of poor results, the incumbents aren't making a convincing case to stay.

The time has come for the pressure not to be placed on underperforming Australian players but on the underperforming selectors. It's the job of Messrs Hilditch, Boon, Cox and Hughes to make the choices that don't just benefit us with an Ashes series win, but with another reign at the top of international cricket.