Tag: AusvInd

Bradman Oration

I’ll be honest, I had never heard of the Bradman Oration until about a week ago when Channel Nine tried to sell me some tickets to it during the second Test. (And even then I wasn’t paying a lot of attention because it was about the tenth thing Channel Nine had hawked during the short series.) I didn’t buy the tickets they had and I was not sufficiently impressed to try to find any live stream. I’m kind of ruing that though. Rahul Dravid may not have quite matched Kumar Sangakkara at Lord’s last year, but he gave a very impressive speech.

The full text is well worth a read, but amongst other things he expressed his concerns about the future of Test cricket. He made the point that whilst Test cricket will always be the format by which cricketers are judged the lack of attendance will likely translate into poorer television veiwership and that the administrators ought to take greater care in ensuring that people are able and encouraged to watch matches. In particular he advocated day/night Test matches. It’s an idea about which I’ve been ambivalent in the past. Instinctively I don’t like it; I think that the change in conditions as night falls is too great. Also, it has been suggested that the pink ball does not swing, though I’m not sure how true that is. Most of all though, I am a traditionalist and simply don’t like the notion. I also accept the logic of playing D/N Tests though, and that is why I am still ambivalent about it. The logistical problems are not fatal, and they would certainly be adapted to. If it is what needs to happen to ensure crowds around the world than so be it, though I hope it does not happen in England where the crowds come anyway. I accept that to survive Test cricket may have to change somewhat, although I do not like the idea.

I wholeheartedly agree with Dravid’s suggestion that the international fixtures need revising though. No one except the administrators like a seven ODI series and a two Test series. It’s been a problem for ODIs for some time that bilateral series are effectively meaningless. It’s fun if India play Pakistan, as there is a rivalry there and the fans in those countries tend to prefer ODIs, but apart from that there is not a lot of draw. The results from a bilateral series affect the world ODI rankings, but since those don’t affect the World Cup they are not particularly relevant. Few would claim that Australia are the rightful fifty over World Champions because they top the ICC ODI rankings, but that is the only affect bilateral ODI series have. There is never a need to play seven irrelevant ODIs. There is seldom a need to play even five ODIs, in my opinion. I would prefer to see three match series with the remaining time freed up for a Test match. If boards are going to persist with long series (and I suspect that they are) the ICC need to make sure they have some sort of context, ideally by making qualification for the World Cup dependent on ranking. If only the top three or four teams automatically qualified for the World Cup and the rest had to play knockout matches against lesser nations it would give context to the bilateral series in the same way a Test Championship would give context to Test series.

It is very nice to see another current Test player so clearly and eloquently express the need for a better balance between the formats. With the weight of players fans and others in the media who have been making similar statements I am optimistic that the administrators may come around at some point.

New Zealand win by seven runs

The second test just came to a thrilling finish with Australia being bowled out for 233 and losing by seven runs. Doug Bracewell, in his third test, took a match winning 6-40 in the second innings whilst David Warner, in his second test, carried his bat for 123.

It’s a great victory for New Zealand. It’s the first test they have won in Australia for quite some time (25 years?) and they did so after playing very poorly at Brisbane, losing Vettori before the match started and then being bowled out for 150 in their first innings. Australia will have some questions to ask themselves however. They collapsed badly in the first innings to be bowled out for 136 and then lost six wickets for 40 runs in the second. That last one took them from a very strong position to one in which they did well to make the match as close as it was. Some of it was down to inspired bowling, Bracewell in the second innings most notably, but there was a lot of poor batting as well. The shots Haddin played were inexcusable, especially in the second innings. He chased a ball so wide it would not have hit a second set of stumps, despite having edged the ball before between third slip and gully. Warner also displayed some odd decision making late in the run chase. He took a single off the first ball of the 56th over and exposed Pattinson to the bowling of Bracewell. Two ball later Pattinson edged to slip and two balls after that Mitchell Starc was bowled. He continued in the same vein however. Both times there were LBW decisions reviewed against Lyon he was only on strike because Warner had taken a single off the previous delivery. When Lyon was bowled to end the match Warner had taken a single off the first ball. I don’t think that Warner is culpable for Australia’s defeat of course, but a more experienced player might have done a better job of hogging the strike.

Still, Warner ought to be happy with his performance. He scored an unbeaten 123 out of his side’s 233 all out and technically won Man of the Match (though only because Channel Nine let the viewers vote on the award; Bracewell was far more deserving). He is almost guaranteed a spot in the starting XI at the MCG, which can not be said of many of the Australian batsmen. Phil Hughes played very well last night, but lasted only five balls this morning before departing in the familiar manner of c Guptill b Martin. His 20 was actually the third largest score of the innings (fourth largest if you include the 21 extras), but I can’t see it being enough to save his place in the side. At the same time none of Khawaja, Ponting or Hussey did much to improve their chances of selection. Marsh and Watson are likely to return to the side for Boxing Day and whilst both are versatile enough to either open or bat in the middle order, most likely one opener and one middle order batsman will be dropped. With Hughes the only candidate amongst the openers it only leaves a question in the middle order. In many ways Khawaja is the easiest to drop as he is not very well established in the side. He only returned due to the injury to Marsh, so it is logical for him to make way. That would be the easy route for the selectors, however. Hussey looks like he is terminally out of form and if only one middle order batsman goes it ought to be him. That all is assuming that Ponting does not decide to retire, however. If Ponting does retire than Hussey could keep his place, but I would rather see Marsh and Watson both bat in the middle order and Ed Cowan open with Warner. I would actually quite like to see that even if Ponting does not retire. I think it would be a good positive move by the selectors. They’ll be under pressure to do something, certainly. India may have struggled badly in England, but they are a better side than New Zealand and Australia will need to improve to feel confident of victory.