Australian spinners - graphicalized!

Man, Nathan Lyon can get hit. But comparisons to Tim May don't do him any justice, as the chart above demonstrates.

You know who Nathan Lyon does compare to? His near-immediate predecessor in the Australian team, Nathan Hauritz. In fact, it's so similar, it's disconcerting...

Relative merits, great South African Test bowlers

Dale Steyn's pretty damn good. And for a guy who I remember as really fast but didn't trouble Australia as much as his counterparts, Allan Donald fares especially well. As usual, qualifier is 200 Test wickets.

Relative merits, great Indian Test bowlers

As per the last three posts, this chart plots the relative effectiveness of the Indian bowlers to take 200 Test wickets. The size of the circle is their comparative wickets-per-innings (i.e. the larger the circle, the more average wickets the bowlers claims per innings).

The comparison between legspinners Chandrasekhar and Kumble is striking, while when choosing one of Bishen Bedi and Harbhajan Singh (personally, I'd opt for Erapalli Prasanna, who missed the cut by 11 wickets), one must decide on whether to value attack (Harbhajan) or defence (Bedi). The strike rates and averages are comparatively higher from the other charts in this series, which is presumably a reflection on low, slow subcontinental pitches.

Relative merits, great West Indian Test bowlers

Best West Indian fast bowler? Take your pick - and there have been some good ones. This chart tallies up the Calypso Kings' bowlers to have taken 200 Test wickets and shows that the 1970s and 1980s truly were an exceptional period for West Indian cricket.

Circle size represents the player's wickets-per-innings, which as you can make out is remarkably close (Walsh 2.14, Holding 2.20, Roberts 2.24, Ambrose 2.26, Garner 2.33, Marshall 2.49).

Relative merits, great Australian Test bowlers

Following on from our chart yesterday, here's one about Australia. It effectively demonstrates the quality of Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath as world-beaters while also establishing Mitchell Johnson as the wicket-taking phenom he has been over the past two years.

Given the different era in which he played, Ray Lindwall fared very well while the dearly departed Richie Benaud's (a strike-rate nearly 10% worse than any other Aussie bowler to take 200 wickets) perhaps comes out worst, despite his outstanding record.

Relative merits, great English bowlers

This chart details the relative details of some of England's finest Test match bowlers. The X-axis displays the player's Strike Rate, the Y-axis their Test average. The size of the circle represents the number of wickets per innings the player took (for reference, the lowest total listed here was Flintoff at 1.64 wickets per innings, while Sidney Barnes took 3.78 per).

The bowlers most likely to take cheap, quick wickets are therefore closer to the centre point of the chart.

The Decline and Fall of the Caribbean Empire

Throughout recorded human history, there exists a circular nature to the rise and fall of the great or powerful civilisations. This can be thought of as a series of stages, listed below, that describes the path each major power takes in their rise to supremacy and eventual ruin.

From bondage to spiritual faith

From spiritual faith to great courage

From great courage to strength

From strength to liberty

From liberty to abundance

From abundance to leisure

For leisure to selfishness

From selfishness to complacency

From complacency to apathy

From apathy to dependency

From dependency to weakness

From weakness to bondage

For the Roman Empire, the cycle took somewhere - if you use the same death rattle as Gibbon - a little over five hundred years. For the West Indies, a complete circle looks likely to be complete in less than fifty.

The curious case of world cricket, perspective and Sir Curtly Ambrose

Perspective is a funny thing. A respected older friend once told me “Your perspective is your reality”; it’s an adage I’ve often tried to fault without ever managing to do so.

While listening to Subash Jayaraman’s excellent interview with Sir Curtly Ambrose, I was struck by one of Sir Curtly’s remarks about his series mirabilis, the 1992-93 five-Test stoush away against the upstart Australians.

“We were a young team; we were not expected to win”.

Sir Curtly’s reasoning is logical, in a way: the Undisputed Champs had a new captain in Richie Richardson and the team’s middle order had played in a combined 43 Tests, with Carl Hooper having the vast majority of those (33).

That doesn’t make his statement any less stunning to much of his audience, because while Australia had some victories under their belts against India at home and, with the first glimpses of Warne-spun mastery, away in Sri Lanka, this hardly gave them a claim to the title of World’s Best.

While Viv Richards and Gordon Greenidge had retired, the West Indies of 1992 had last lost a series in 1980 and had conceded only 7 of 34 Tests – never more than one in a series – since Ambrose’s debut in April 1988. But Sir Curtly’s interview tells of an interior perception of a team not expected to win.

This is somewhat odd, because the Australian crowd expected nothing else. The locals were talented and might put up a fight, but victory for the home side was nestled in next to a Geelong Premiership and dating Elizabeth Berkley in the most teen of dreams. Our perception of the West Indies was of an implacable machine, a viewpoint reinforced when Keith Arthurton made the highest score of his career in the first innings of the first Test.

Local perceptions formed our reality – the West Indies were coming and they would almost certainly win. How could two viewpoints on the same series be at such crossed purposes? The answer is relatively straighforward: a unique perspective narrows the visual field, for better and worse. What is gained in the detail is lost in the scope.

As heralded best (amongst others) by the documentary Fire in Babylon, the West Indies began life as a handful of colonies who existed almost solely to be taken advantage of. It took independence for these colonies to really coalesce around an oval and some of the best players of all time waged private battles against against racism and imperialism, not just intimidating their cricketing opponents but demoralizing them. While the forefathers of that revolution had moved on, their progeny – Richardson, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Haynes and Lara – remained.

The West Indies of 1992 thought of themselves as underdogs because forty years of being enjoyable non-threats (to 1975-76) had taught them how to be exactly not that.

To outsiders, in no way should the West Indians have been anything other than favourites – if only due to the mental barriers faced by Aussies still scarred from years of Marshall, Garner, Colin Croft, Holding, Walsh, Roberts, Ambrose and Patrick Patterson. The tourists were still a generation influenced heavily by revolutionaries like Sir Frank Worrell, Sir Garfield Sobers, Sir Clive Lloyd and Sir Vivian Richards; their self-perception was of a team that would continue fighting because otherwise they once again risked being marginalized by the actions of cricket’s off-field establishment.

Australians knew nothing of the financial climate in the West Indies. Nor were we aware of the difficulties faced by many – or most – of our vanquishers, such that cricket was only a route to a comfortable lifestyle for those who managed to secure major sponsors or County deals.

Our perception – bouncers fired in at 155 clicks and Viv swatting Tony Dodemaide for six (again) – meant antipodean audiences could see only a small fraction of the macroeconomic picture. For generations, the West Indies knew nothing but being entertainers. For nearly twenty years, the Australians could only couple this particular set of opponents with impending defeat.

Twenty-one years later, and we can begin to reconcile these opposing perspectives. Both viewpoints are still absolutely valid; if swayed a little by the Kenobi principle (“What I told you was true. From a certain point of view”). Even though world cricket is still plagued by nepotism and self-interest that threatens to further marginalize boards such as the West Indies, the accessibility of information has never been greater and as such we have more facility to appreciate the situations of our rivals. Unfortunately cricket’s never been really good at that.

More reading: My Favourite Cricketer: Curtly Ambrose

Sam Robson - Australia's "What If"

At first glance, Sam Robson has the pedigree for international success: he was raised in New South Wales and monstered county attacks for years before getting a Test call-up.

Only it was for England.

In his second Test – the deciding match of the series against Sri Lanka that concluded dramatically today – Robson made his maiden Test ton, an unspectacular but very interesting 127.

The ECB deploying cricketers born overseas is hardly new*. The ranks of proxy Englishmen have swelled even recently as players from five countries turned out for the Three Lions in the series defeat by the Sri Lankans. Even poaching Aussies isn’t a new one; however, the biggest difference between Sam Robson and Martin McCague (or Alan Mullally, ad infinitum) is that Australia desperately wanted him in a Baggy Green.

Darren Lehmann, and the decisions he faced

Australia’s cricketing revival has been both stunning and comprehensive. A 3-0 defeat in the Ashes during the Northern Summer was turned into a 5-0 retribution at home; this was quickly followed by a 2-1 win against the no. 1-ranked South Africans on their soil, the first Australian Test series win overseas since 2012 and a team featuring new-age linchpins Matthew Wade, Ed Cowan and Ben Hilfenhaus.

All three players have been cast to the winds in the past twelve months as Cricket Australia chose to replace incumbent visionary Micky Arthur seventeen days before the Ashes and replace him with throwback-in-residence, Darren Lehmann.

Even as far back as Lehmann’s first Test helmed in July, changes were evident. Ed Cowan was repositioned at first drop, David Warner was sent to mend his ways in South Africa – with mixed results – and Ashton Agar’s name appeared when the Australian hierarchy ran their random-spinner-generator. Since that rather eclectic group took the field at Trent Bridge, much has turned around at the top of Australian cricket as 

Lehmann has displayed an almost-prescient ability to make key decisions.

In his eight-month spell at the top, Lehmann has faced seven major decisions with regards the Australian Test cricket team. Which of those has he swatted to the boundary, and which has he edged to the keeper?

Shaun Marsh - Ducks and Tons

It has come to some people’s attention that Shaun Marsh has an unenviable record in Test cricket.

Should Shane Watson re-enter the Australian team for the third Test at Cape Town at his expense, Marsh will have one foot in each of two curious history books. Were he never to play another Test – an eminently possible proposition – he would join such luminaries as Barry Richards*, Clive Radley and Tom Moody to have scored two tons in less fifteen or fewer innings. (*No one doubts Richards would have played many more innings and scored many more hundreds had South Africa been able to play Test cricket in the 1970s and 1980s).

Less appealingly, Marsh also be the star feature in another tome detailing batsmen with the highest percentage of failed innings.

On a good day, Shaun Marsh is splendid to watch. On bad days – of which there are far more – you barely get a look at him. This is because for any Test batsman (i.e. not specialist wicketkeeper or bowler) who has played at least 15 innings, Marsh has the highest rate of ducks per innings. He records one zero every 2.5 times he strolls to the crease (40%), a truly remarkable rate that makes him a true outlier. The only other true batsman with at least 15 innings’ experience to record even one duck in every four innings is the immortal Saleem Elahi, who made six gozzers in twenty-four.

The following is a chart that plots the frequency of a player’s ducks against the frequency of their scores above 50. To qualify, a player must have been selected as a batsman or all-rounder, played a minimum of fifteen Test innings and had a duck frequency rate (DFR) over 10% (i.e. one duck every ten innings).

Notable outliers have been named and highlighted.

A table containing these players can be found at the conclusion of this post. 

Book review: The Vincibles, by Gideon Haigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Drafting the 2013 Ashes

When American sports franchises begin to lose their on-field mojo, in order to remain relevant in a busy cultural and social environment, the typical executive response is to expand their interest-base.

Bring the family!  There’s gourmet food for Mum, a run-the-bases opportunity for Junior, and competitions the entire family can enjoy - like guessing which coloured craft will cross the finish line first in a simulated speedboat race (Green.  Always pick the green one).  Why do these three items spring readily to mind?  Because I live in a city which boasts one of baseball’s most futile recent enterprises, the Seattle Mariners.

Executives have tried for years to make the actual sport at a sporting event secondary to “the experience”; which to me, has always seemed akin to putting the decor before the flavour at a restaurant.  It’s no coincidence, however, that such events almost always occur when the team’s fortunes are flailing horribly (c.f. the aforementioned Mariners and their 0.300OBP) - the Boston Celtics, forever the NBA’s pater dominantis, only brought in cheerleaders and “animations” when stars like Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish moved on.

The simple and elegant philosophy of a bygone age: the sport should be enough, even if your team stinks.

But it isn’t.  Especially when your team stinks.  So, how do you make sport more exciting for the spectator?  There are three simple methods: gambling, alcohol, and fantasy sports.

With the Ashes series approaching fast and the Australian camp careening towards a whitewash defeat, fantasy might create a little more debate around the actual mechanics of this upcoming test of Australian nerve.  To whit, myself and colleague (and Englishman) Dave Siddall attempted to “fantasy draft” our own Ashes squads - at stake: pride in ourselves, if not our homespun countries.

The rules were simple: each team can pick only one “starting” wicketkeeper (Matt Prior and whoever Australia elects to use as a glorified backstop, likely Brad Haddin), and each team must select four bowlers and two batsmen who could be classified as openers.  Players could be selected by only one “manager”, with a coin flip determining who selected first.  Thirteen players would be drafted by Aussie and Pom.

We will revisit each individual player scores after each Test match, and at the end of the Northern Summer.

The first Ashes Fantasy Draft was held on Friday morning, 28th June and the results will be published sequentially over the next six days until we arrive at the first Test.

Graphic: Selected Australian spin bowling statistics

The following chart maps selected statistics from Australian spinners.

It continues to amaze that Steve Smith is selected for Australia as a quote-unquote spin bowler, while Steve O'Keefe remains in the Test wilderness.  For more discussion, tune in to this week's Short Jabs podcast on the Cricket Couch.

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. 

Shane Watson sells himself short

The news that Shane Watson will be self-limiting his bowling should come as no great surprise.  He has done so before, many times, with the first occurrence dating back nearly a decade to the year before the infamous haunted-mansion Ashes Tour of 2005.

Watson, despite his bulging physique and American Dad!-style chin, just isn’t made for bowling long spells.  He sends the ball down well and over the past decade has increased his movement both through the air and off the pitch.  He is one of the few part-timers with the ability to change a match.  However, the forty-eight overs he sent down in Hobart have likely put him out of the rest of the International summer.

In response, Watson elected to remove himself semi-permanently from the Australian attack.  This comes in spite of the rather extreme circumstances of Hobart.  Those four dozen overs were by far the most he’s bowled in a Test:  before Bellerive, the most Watson had ever bowled in five-day competition was 35 overs at Nagpur during Jason Krezja’s match.

It’s damning for Watson that rather than moderating his bowling, he has turned his back on the leather altogether.  Not so much for his character but his Test career, because flinging the leather is perhaps the one thing that differentiates him from his “competition” for a position in Australia’s top order. 

While said competition is hardly beating at the door with force, Watson has voluntarily removed his single most attractive, marketable skill.  Selectors make selections based on the amount of currency held by players: players gain those bargaining chips by accumulating runs or wickets, by boasting a legacy or a posing unique threat to the opposition.  Only two years from being anointed the next great one, Watson has none of these.

It has been nearly 2 ½ years since he made his second – and last, til now – Test ton.  Over that span, his average has been 35.7, near enough his career number of 37.  If one was to hazard a guess at what replacement-level at Test level was, 35 might well be it: capable of some excellence and a shedload of utter mediocrity.

Whether any putative successors could actually reach this theoretical replacement level is very much up for debate.  Usman Khawaja seems to have first dibs on Mike Hussey’s vacated no. 6 position, leaving Watson’s challengers the likes of of Alex Doolan, Joe Burns and Glenn Maxwell.  Not only does each of these players have some domestic currency to present the selectors, but each also hints at the unique promise of future glories.  Watson, with his pedestrian batsmanship and now shorn of his bowling, presents an argument based heavily upon incumbency and seniority.

His decision, reached in harmony with coach Mickey Arthur, robs Watson of some of his cricketing value.  It leaves him alone at the crease with only his guile to protect him.  If ever a thought should scare Australian cricket fans - and the player himself - it is the thought of Shane Watson left to survive on only his wits.

Commentary conundra

featuring the very welcome return of Ben Roberts, cricket connoisseur.

The recent passing of both Tony Greig and Christopher Martin-Jenkins, along with that of PeterRoebuck a little over 12 months ago has forced a reflection on the poor state of cricket commentary in Australia. Where the sound of cricket musings used to form an addictively pleasant and informative background to the summer, I find myself increasingly easily turned away.

I have almost given up on watching the cricket on TV, even with the sound down. Channel 9 constantly flits about with replays and technology, trying to ensure the viewer has no downtime whatsoever. But this counters one of the great appeals of cricket as a game, the pauses and time between balls allow for anticipation to rise, anticipation in cricket and life is often the greater thrill. The need to play with the technology means that great cricket thinkers the likes of Michael Slater and Mark Nicholas (refer their earlier work) might as well be robots.

Greig never shied away from the technology available, but he always seemed to be giving it a pinch of salt and not taking it too seriously. Funnily enough, Richie Benaud (try to find an article about where the word ‘doyen’ does not precede his name, I dare you.  Double dare you.) still inhabits the commentary box and famously advises - “… put your brain into gear and if you can add to what's on the screen then do it, otherwise shut up.”  Present-day producers might want to reflect on that.

Even the ABC (usually a safe option) is flagging. Their use of current first class cricketers is only ever going to produce cliché and platitude.  Does anyone really believe cricketers from states other than QLD & WA think highly of Mitchell Johnson’s selection? Not likely, they’ve gotten stuck into him (and Jessica) for years in the local stuff for being picked ahead of their teammates. Roebuck’s strong, independent analysis on proceedings is sorely missed.  As a listener, even if you didn't agree, his considered comment made you think. Kerry O’Keeffe’s comedic anecdotes are tiring and without an appropriate foil (like the straight laced Roebuck), fall flat.

Regardless of the medium, the domestic T20 tournaments have allowed sickening levels of hyperbole to enter commentary boxes. Yes, a fringe first class cricketer (who no one except his mum has ever heard of) or a past-it former international (of questionable talent then and now) has swung ridiculously hard at the ball for the sixth time straight in the over and finally connected enough for it to just clear ridiculously short boundaries. But this does not mean that you, a fringe first class cricketer (who no one except your mum has ever heard of) or caller usually employed as an “around the grounds” man during football season, sitting in the commentary box need to burst into unbridled whooping.

Granted he was afforded high cost, fee-paying education that gave him clipped tones and high command of the English language, but Martin-Jenkins could speak ten words that will be recalled for a lifetime where an infinite amount of screeching at an unimportant T20 match will be forgotten immediately; and what took more of the speaker’s energy?*  

Let the greatest game on earth speak for itself.

(Ed. - listen to the latest installment of The Cricket Sadist Hour with Gideon Haigh to hear more on how incisive and talented the ineffable Martin-Jenkins was). 

Obituary: Remembering Tony Greig

Few players have impacted the worldwide direction of cricket.  Or, to put it another way, while many cricketers turn a game by dint of skill or attitude, precious few shape cricket's big picture. 

For all his talent, memories of the great Sachin Tendulkar will highlight his nonpareil ability with the willow.  However, the One Day revolution occurred during his peak and he did not compel it, but merely embraced theis new style of batsmanship.  This revolution was authored primarily by a tiny, almost forgotten wicketkeeper from a sleepy island and his tactically aggressive captain.

In contrast, Anthony William Greig was a man who changed the way we regard the game –a South African who wanted to play Test cricket during the apartheid years and did so.  Then, he led England and finally took on the role as perhaps the first truly modern professional cricket player in the world.   

Tony Greig was the ultimate pragmatist.

Pragmatism requires clarity of vision and of thought: it is a process of identifying problems and solving them simply and brutally.  With Greig, this manifested in his combative and versatile approach to the game.  This attitude saw him graduate from Western Province to Sussex, England and then the captaincy of his (first) adopted country.

Another of the traits of the results-focused is strength of will.  Hewas the first to challenge Lillee and Thomson during their Ashes campaign of 1974-75; two years later, his grit – and big ton at Kolkata – and subsequently led the first victorious MCC squad to India since his hero, Douglas Jardine.  His leadership style was so obviously influenced by Jardine’s that he may as well have worn the Harlequin cap: calculating and yet noble as defined by his own distinct moral code.

His captaincy was astute and forthright.  He deployed a thirtysomething David Steele at the top of the order and coaxed Boycott from his self-imposed exile, while focusing England first on making England  difficult to beat.  His final act as a recognised player was signing with Packer and World Series Cricket, a significant coup for the nascent league.  Leaving the establishment for the betterment of cricket players' collective financial future and serving as Packer's chief overseas recruiter made him a cricket figure of the utmost importance.

The utilitarian is always questioned both aesthetically and morally.  Greig’s reasons weren’t necessarily always the most wholesome – let’s not beat about that fact – but he bore the ultimate mark of the pragmatist: coming out on top more often than not.  Tony Greig made effective decisions that led to his benefit and that of others – and what more could one ask from a leader?

Greig did not go quietly into the night.  Six months – almost to the day – before his death, he delivered a stirring – if controversial – Cowdrey Lecture on the Spirit of Cricket.  In the eyes of some, he implored India to take spiritual leadership of a game it practically leases to the rest of the world; others saw his presentation as further patriarchalism from a constant critic.

It would hardly have been Tony Greig if he didn’t address issues directly.

He will be remembered.  He will be missed.

Bowler's preview: MCG

While the first day of the Second Test between Sri Lanka and Australia at the MCG provided us with thirteen wickets for approximately 300 runs, this is no real surprise considering the way the pitch has played over the course of the past half-decade, and indeed this season.

The average first innings in Tests at the ‘G over the past five years has been slightly over 324 runs per innings, with the highest total recorded in 2009-10 when Australia recorded 4/454 against the touring Pakistanis.  Of the past nineteen innings at the G, that contest was the equal-fewest wickets lost by any one team throughout that period (11).  That several of those Pakistanis have now subsequently been sanctioned for spot-or-match fixing in no way minimises this achievement.

At Test level, the pitch has responded far better to pace than to spin.  This is probably due to a dearth of quality spin played at the MCG over the past five years: there have only been a total of 76 overs of legspin bowled at the ground at that time, of which eighteen were delivered by don’t-wannabe spinner Steve Smith – unsurprisingly for the relatively poor economy rate (E/R) of 4.11.  In fact, between Smith and Anil Kumble, leg-spinners accounted for the highest E/R for any bowling style at the ‘G as they gave up 3.8 runs per over.  That they average 20.6 in the first innings at Melbourne is purely down to Kumble’s 5/108 in 2007-08.

The same lack of leg-spinners in Shield cricket this year means that only 18 overs have been delivered in such style this season for no positive result (cumulative figures 0/66).  It’s telling that the most gifted Australian leg-spinner of his generation, Cameron White, now basically ignores his bowling to concentrate on his cavalier batting.  The pitch this season, has responded best to pace bowling: only eight wickets today have been lost to spin (all off-spin, and mostly to Glenn Maxwell), while the immortal Gary Putland has the best (two) innings match figures at the ground with 7/64 and 5/28.  This results in Shield season-best figures of 12/94.

Off-spinners are both cheaper at the ground in Tests and First Class cricket: they average a cumulative 48.63 over Test matches at the MCG and 43.13 at Shield level, while costing 2.9 and 3.6 respectively.  However, during the fourth innings of Test matches, the tweakers come into their own.  The table below shows their average strike rate (S/R) and average decrease markedly at cost to their economy:

Bowling type performance by Test Innings, MCG
	Innings 1	Innings 2	Innings 3	Innings 4
Average	324.4	341.6	264.2	191
Fast bowling average	34.68	28.25	25.88	22.24
Legspin average	20.6		51
Offspin average	66.2	70.75	49.6	25.75
Chinaman average		41		32
Fast bowling E/R	3.45	2.88	3.28	2.8
Legspin E/R	3.32	4.1	4.08
Offspin E/R	2.9	2.61	2.86	3.69
Chinaman E/R		3.9		3.37
Fast bowling S/R	60.38	58.8	47.4	47.7
Legspin S/R	37.2	75
Offspin S/R	136.8	162.7	47.9	41.9
Chinaman S/R		63		57

From the table above, we can surmise that the pitch at Melbourne does exactly what the classical Test pitch should– offer something for fast bowlers on a good batting track day one, before becoming a very good deck for hitters on days two and three before degenerating into a tricky wicket on the final two days.

Has this trend been constant?  Actually, batsmanship has become much harder over the past two MCG Tests.  This is in part to a Hilfenhaus-led Indian collapse last season and a horrible Australian batting performance the year before.   Test averages have declined from a high of 41.4 to last year’s 25.6.  Sri Lanka’s ... intriguing ... batting choices yesterday are only liable to contribute further to this decline.

This is the second in our series of bowler’s previews, which should give an insight into how the pitch will play – and thoroughly dependent on the whims of selectors.