Sunday 31 March 2013
Book of the Week: Touchback
Touchback is the story of Scott Murphy, a bitter, frustrated, depressed former high school American football star. Crippled in his last game before embarking on a college and professional career, Murphy has struggled in life since, unable to properly provide for his wife and daughters subsequently, haunted by the memories of what his life could have been. Pushed beyond his endurance by his latest failings, he attempts suicide and finds himself back in time, a week before the pivotal game, in full possession of his memories. He must choose whether to change his life at this time, or to accept it.
As a middle aged man with a family, his battles to provide for his family rang very true for me, and I loved the willingness of Don Handfield to write a novel that is willing to go into the heart of a man's emotions. His presentation of American small town life conveyed humour, pathos and empathy in equal measures. While his final decision was fairly predictable, the journey he took to get there wasn't and the characters we spend time with along the way were consistently engaging. The re-telling of the game was captivating and the ending left me with the tears that I'm sure Don Handfield was hoping would appear.
Shoeless Joe covered some of the same ground and Handfield was equally wise in not attempting to explain how the time travel occurred, as such explanations inevitably tug at one's suspension of disbelief. All the American football knowledge required to read this book is that quarterbacks are the key to the game.
I picked this up for free on Kindle based upon some solid reviews. Recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/Touchback-ebook/dp/B007TXT9XA
Books
Reading has always been a giant passion of mine. It wouldn't be inappropriate to call them the greatest passion of my life (until I met Kristy). Books have provided me with many of the great moments of my life. We have 9 full bookcases in our house and number 10 is on the drawing board.
I was asked once about the last time that I had gone a day without reading a book of any sort. I wasn't able to give a definitive answer, but my guess is that it hasn't happened in my adult life. So it's inevitable that books are going to find their way into this blog.
I'm going to write some posts about my favourite books and books I am reading. I will label the posts Book of the Week. I'm going to start with a book I've only recently read, but that won't always be the case.
I was asked once about the last time that I had gone a day without reading a book of any sort. I wasn't able to give a definitive answer, but my guess is that it hasn't happened in my adult life. So it's inevitable that books are going to find their way into this blog.
I'm going to write some posts about my favourite books and books I am reading. I will label the posts Book of the Week. I'm going to start with a book I've only recently read, but that won't always be the case.
Saturday 23 March 2013
Best Australian Test cricket side since 1985
The current Australian side doesn't quite bring the same joy and satisfaction to the spectator as some of its predecessors did, so it seems as good a time as any to take a look back at the great era and pick out the best combined side I can think of.
The entry date is 1985, several of the top players were in by then. More to the point, Lillee, Chappell and Marsh were retired by this point and that marked the change of eras. The team is being chosen for a series against the West Indies best team from the 80s and 90s
Openers: There are so many strong candidates here, David Boon, Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer. Matthew Hayden was clearly the strongest candidate statistically and I chose to go with him, despite some concerns about how he would go against top notch pace bowling, which he didn't have to face that much of during his peak years in the team. Similar concerns exist for Justin Langer, I can't help but feel he wouldn't see out a series v the West Indies because he would take too many shots to the head, that hit in his debut test proved to be prophetic. Mark Taylor was a good opener and played very well against some quality Pakistani attacks but often struggled a little against the West Indies pace bowlers. Michael Slater may have struggled a little to maintain the discipline required against the skills of the West Indies pace quarter. Consequently I settled on David Boon. Boon was a very disciplined, controlled player who was a very capable handler of fast bowling. He didn't have the range of shots that Langer and Slater demonstrated but he played quite well against the West Indies and that tips the balance in his favour.
Number 3: David Boon and Ricky Ponting are the candidates but Ponting is so far ahead of Boon as a batsman that it isn't much of a contest. Ponting walks in. Like Richards, Ponting's attacking game faded a bit towards the end but he was clearly the outstanding Australian batsman of the era. Ponting was a good player of pace too. Consequently Boonie was pushed back up with the openers for consideration.
Number 4: Mark Waugh came up against Allan Border here, and as good as Mark was, Border's technique was better, he was as good a player of spin as Waugh was and he was a superb fielder. Additionally, I needed a captain and chose Border because he would be heavily respected by all the other players, being the most senior and they might not feel totally comfortable if he wasn't the captain. And I think Border, Ponting and Waugh are fairly similar when it comes to conservative captaincy so not much difference there. Had Clarke or Taylor made the team, I think I would have made them deal with being uncomfortable :)
Number 5: Steve Waugh: It's fair to say that I am largely in agreement with Ian Chappell re Steve Waugh. I think the argument that he was a selfish batsman has merit, and it's reflected by the low number of run outs he suffered despite being involved with plenty and it's also reflected in his not outs where he played very conservatively at the end of an innings, even if quick runs were needed Unless, of course, he was within range of a hundred, in which case all sorts of risky and unconventional slogs were pulled out for display. I think his captaincy skills were overrated and that he struggled on those rare days when the team was getting beat up.
BUT, he was a fabulous batsman even so. He had to change his batting approach because his more aggressive, devil may care attitude had led him out of the side. He was a good player of pace bowling despite not always looking comfortable against it, admittedly one wonders what might have happened had the bowlers pitched it up a bit more but they didn't so ... And he once he got on top he put teams away, Mark didn't, Mark got his good 70 or 80 and sometimes a ton and then he departed, content with a job well done.
Number 6: Michael Hussey: Ultimately, Hussey is the man who removed Mark Waugh from this team, if Hussey wasn't so good, I'd have picked Mark at 4 and moved the next 2 men down a slot. Hussey had fabulous technique, superb powers of concentration, he was an agile, reliable fielder, a superb runner between wickets. He seemed equally at home against pace or spin and was very good at pacing his innings. He batted well with the tail and could accelerate an innings when needed. One of the most complete cricketers I have seen.
Number 7: Adam Gilchrist: Very much a philosophical choice here. I consider Ian Healy to be the better keeper and Adam Gilchrist to be the better batsman. I think Gilchrist can make up for the likelihood he might drop more than Healy with his ability to hit hundreds that turn a game around. I wonder if I'm picking him partly because I loved watching him bat, being the purest striker of a cricket ball I have ever seen. Or do I just have it in for Ian Healy because he dropped Brian Lara in Barbados in 99 and missed that stumping off Warne against Pakistan?!!
Number 8: Shane Warne: An obvious choice. As good a spinner as any we've ever had, tremendous competitor, reliable slips catcher, handy lower order batsman. I think I enjoyed watching Warne bowl more than any other Australian I have seen bowl.
Number 9: Jason Gillespie: A very good bowler at his peak, he was quick and accurate. Injury problems were reasonably common but that can't be helped. When available, he was very good. He was also a top notch tailender. His disciplined approach to batting really stood out, he was very willing to keep blocking as long as it was needed. The double century against Bangladesh probably showed him he had a little bit more than good defence to offer as a batsman, as he produced some fine 1st class scores subsequently.
Number 10: Craig McDermott: This was a tough one! Craig also had some injury problems and he was up against Brett Lee for a place in this team. I think Craig was a little more accurate than Brett at his peak and consequently, a little more likely to get wickets. Both were useful lower order players although I would rate Lee higher in this category and I'd give Brett the points for fielding too.
Number 11: Glenn McGrath. Well, who else is going to be picked here?! Like Warne, a very straightforward choice. Incredibly accurate, very fit, rarely injured, very competitive, and became a handy #11 through sheer stubborness. Strong throwing arm and safe hands in the outfield.
What are your thoughts?
The entry date is 1985, several of the top players were in by then. More to the point, Lillee, Chappell and Marsh were retired by this point and that marked the change of eras. The team is being chosen for a series against the West Indies best team from the 80s and 90s
Openers: There are so many strong candidates here, David Boon, Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer. Matthew Hayden was clearly the strongest candidate statistically and I chose to go with him, despite some concerns about how he would go against top notch pace bowling, which he didn't have to face that much of during his peak years in the team. Similar concerns exist for Justin Langer, I can't help but feel he wouldn't see out a series v the West Indies because he would take too many shots to the head, that hit in his debut test proved to be prophetic. Mark Taylor was a good opener and played very well against some quality Pakistani attacks but often struggled a little against the West Indies pace bowlers. Michael Slater may have struggled a little to maintain the discipline required against the skills of the West Indies pace quarter. Consequently I settled on David Boon. Boon was a very disciplined, controlled player who was a very capable handler of fast bowling. He didn't have the range of shots that Langer and Slater demonstrated but he played quite well against the West Indies and that tips the balance in his favour.
Number 3: David Boon and Ricky Ponting are the candidates but Ponting is so far ahead of Boon as a batsman that it isn't much of a contest. Ponting walks in. Like Richards, Ponting's attacking game faded a bit towards the end but he was clearly the outstanding Australian batsman of the era. Ponting was a good player of pace too. Consequently Boonie was pushed back up with the openers for consideration.
Number 4: Mark Waugh came up against Allan Border here, and as good as Mark was, Border's technique was better, he was as good a player of spin as Waugh was and he was a superb fielder. Additionally, I needed a captain and chose Border because he would be heavily respected by all the other players, being the most senior and they might not feel totally comfortable if he wasn't the captain. And I think Border, Ponting and Waugh are fairly similar when it comes to conservative captaincy so not much difference there. Had Clarke or Taylor made the team, I think I would have made them deal with being uncomfortable :)
Number 5: Steve Waugh: It's fair to say that I am largely in agreement with Ian Chappell re Steve Waugh. I think the argument that he was a selfish batsman has merit, and it's reflected by the low number of run outs he suffered despite being involved with plenty and it's also reflected in his not outs where he played very conservatively at the end of an innings, even if quick runs were needed Unless, of course, he was within range of a hundred, in which case all sorts of risky and unconventional slogs were pulled out for display. I think his captaincy skills were overrated and that he struggled on those rare days when the team was getting beat up.
BUT, he was a fabulous batsman even so. He had to change his batting approach because his more aggressive, devil may care attitude had led him out of the side. He was a good player of pace bowling despite not always looking comfortable against it, admittedly one wonders what might have happened had the bowlers pitched it up a bit more but they didn't so ... And he once he got on top he put teams away, Mark didn't, Mark got his good 70 or 80 and sometimes a ton and then he departed, content with a job well done.
Number 6: Michael Hussey: Ultimately, Hussey is the man who removed Mark Waugh from this team, if Hussey wasn't so good, I'd have picked Mark at 4 and moved the next 2 men down a slot. Hussey had fabulous technique, superb powers of concentration, he was an agile, reliable fielder, a superb runner between wickets. He seemed equally at home against pace or spin and was very good at pacing his innings. He batted well with the tail and could accelerate an innings when needed. One of the most complete cricketers I have seen.
Number 7: Adam Gilchrist: Very much a philosophical choice here. I consider Ian Healy to be the better keeper and Adam Gilchrist to be the better batsman. I think Gilchrist can make up for the likelihood he might drop more than Healy with his ability to hit hundreds that turn a game around. I wonder if I'm picking him partly because I loved watching him bat, being the purest striker of a cricket ball I have ever seen. Or do I just have it in for Ian Healy because he dropped Brian Lara in Barbados in 99 and missed that stumping off Warne against Pakistan?!!
Number 8: Shane Warne: An obvious choice. As good a spinner as any we've ever had, tremendous competitor, reliable slips catcher, handy lower order batsman. I think I enjoyed watching Warne bowl more than any other Australian I have seen bowl.
Number 9: Jason Gillespie: A very good bowler at his peak, he was quick and accurate. Injury problems were reasonably common but that can't be helped. When available, he was very good. He was also a top notch tailender. His disciplined approach to batting really stood out, he was very willing to keep blocking as long as it was needed. The double century against Bangladesh probably showed him he had a little bit more than good defence to offer as a batsman, as he produced some fine 1st class scores subsequently.
Number 10: Craig McDermott: This was a tough one! Craig also had some injury problems and he was up against Brett Lee for a place in this team. I think Craig was a little more accurate than Brett at his peak and consequently, a little more likely to get wickets. Both were useful lower order players although I would rate Lee higher in this category and I'd give Brett the points for fielding too.
Number 11: Glenn McGrath. Well, who else is going to be picked here?! Like Warne, a very straightforward choice. Incredibly accurate, very fit, rarely injured, very competitive, and became a handy #11 through sheer stubborness. Strong throwing arm and safe hands in the outfield.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)