Being a cricket tragic and a book tragic means that one ends up reading a lot of cricket books. Gideon Haigh has been writing for 20 years now and the quality of his writing has steadily improved over that period. His initial books were well researched with functional but rarely memorable prose. Over time he developed a reputation as one of Australia's finest cricket writers. With On Warne, Gideon Haigh has produced a little masterpiece including some of the finest passages of cricket writing ever committed to page.
Shane Warne, the modern master of the most difficult art in cricket, leg spin, is a fascinating character. Rather than write a conventional biography of him, Haigh has chosen to write a series of reflections on his bowling and his life, aiming to give the reader a greater sense of the cricketer and the man. He succeeds brilliantly. The paperback edition is covered with laudatory quotes about the book so for someone who's read quite a bit of Haigh's work, the expectations were high. He exceeded them. Easily. He gave a great sense of how Warne worked as a bowler and how it felt to be facing him. His analysis of the crises of Warne's career was enlightening and he demonstrated empathy for Warne without allowing that to interfere with critical judgements when he felt they were needed.
There's only 200 pages so it's a pretty quick read and a book that I honestly didn't want to end, such was the quality of the writing. Highly recommended for cricket fans and Gideon Haigh fans.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16309930-on-warne
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cricket. Show all posts
Saturday, 3 January 2015
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
The cheat I respect
"My name is Lou Vincent and I am a cheat."
Lou Vincent is a former New Zealand Test cricketer who was heavily involved in match fixing in English county cricket. He has, correctly, been suspended for life from involvement in cricket.
Unlike so many in the same situation, however, he has placed the blame where it rests, upon his own shoulders! His statement above is remarkably free of the bullshit that characterises similar statements from business people, journalists, politicians, sportspeople and other celebrities who have been caught doing the wrong thing. He admits his guilt, without qualification. He acknowledges that he has depression, but states bluntly that his depression never prevented him from knowing "right from wrong". He has fully co-operated with the relevant authorities.
He accepts the penalty that he has been given because for a professional sport to prosper, there can be no tolerance of match fixing. The days where one could claim naivete are long past. This is a serious matter for a sport, this isn't some drunken idiot playing games with his own urine. That we have all paid so much attention to Todd Carney's photo yet so little attention to the recent story about NRL players gambling on the game says volumes about the importance we, as fans, place upon the integrity of the game that we follow. Why weren't we all making comments about that? We can't just blame the mass media because with our own social networking choices, we help drive how that mass media acts.
I respect Lou Vincent for looking himself in the mirror and deciding that his own personal integrity going forward is more important than his future cricketing career or maintaining respect for his past performances as a professional sportsman. The man shouldn't be involved with cricket again but I would be willing to buy something off him or avail myself of his services in a different field because he has demonstrated honesty when self interest bade him otherwise. He cheated the game, but he had also cheated himself. He's stopped cheating himself, and he can move forward.
I wish him all the best in his future endeavours and thank him for making it clear that match fixing in cricket isn't just something being perpetrated on the sub continent by cricketers who aren't white!
Lou Vincent is a former New Zealand Test cricketer who was heavily involved in match fixing in English county cricket. He has, correctly, been suspended for life from involvement in cricket.
Unlike so many in the same situation, however, he has placed the blame where it rests, upon his own shoulders! His statement above is remarkably free of the bullshit that characterises similar statements from business people, journalists, politicians, sportspeople and other celebrities who have been caught doing the wrong thing. He admits his guilt, without qualification. He acknowledges that he has depression, but states bluntly that his depression never prevented him from knowing "right from wrong". He has fully co-operated with the relevant authorities.
He accepts the penalty that he has been given because for a professional sport to prosper, there can be no tolerance of match fixing. The days where one could claim naivete are long past. This is a serious matter for a sport, this isn't some drunken idiot playing games with his own urine. That we have all paid so much attention to Todd Carney's photo yet so little attention to the recent story about NRL players gambling on the game says volumes about the importance we, as fans, place upon the integrity of the game that we follow. Why weren't we all making comments about that? We can't just blame the mass media because with our own social networking choices, we help drive how that mass media acts.
I respect Lou Vincent for looking himself in the mirror and deciding that his own personal integrity going forward is more important than his future cricketing career or maintaining respect for his past performances as a professional sportsman. The man shouldn't be involved with cricket again but I would be willing to buy something off him or avail myself of his services in a different field because he has demonstrated honesty when self interest bade him otherwise. He cheated the game, but he had also cheated himself. He's stopped cheating himself, and he can move forward.
I wish him all the best in his future endeavours and thank him for making it clear that match fixing in cricket isn't just something being perpetrated on the sub continent by cricketers who aren't white!
Thursday, 1 May 2014
Chris Rogers
I was completely thrilled to read of his spectacular, match winning double century at Lord's overnight. For me, he's been the biggest feelgood story of Australia's recent Test cricket renaissance, a man who's worked hard his whole career to play just 1 Test in rather unflattering got an opportunity to spend some time as a real Test cricketer and has now scored 4 Test centuries and enjoyed the highs and lows of being a Test player. Chris's article about his debut Test was fantastic and showed that he may have a fine future as a writer about the game once he retires.
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Peter Roebuck: 2 years gone: A Final Letter
Dear Peter,
It is 2 years now and I still miss your voice. I click on the sports section in
the smh and there’s still a part of me that expects to see your lively pieces. It
took me a year to listen to my favourite broadcast of cricket on the ABC because I
knew that I wouldn’t be hearing from you. As a writer, you were supreme in
the field of cricket journalism. Your opinions were certainly open to question
from time to time, but the way you wrote them was everything a reader could
hope for.
I loved
that you were a literate cricket writer. I loved that you had so obviously studied history, I loved that you were an erudite man. Here was an
intellectual who loved cricket, my uncle was the intellectual in our family,
but he always scorned me for being so enamoured of sport. You were my bulwark
against the idea that I was wasting my talents by following games like cricket.
Your
comments and your articles helped me realise that cricket was a part of the
world, and a part of the history of the modern world, and that the game
reflected them both very well. One can study cricket and see many of the
great themes of modern British, Commonwealth and Australian history writ large
through it. May I take a moment to recommend Ramachandra Guha’s superb A Corner of a Foreign Field for any who doubt just how thoroughly cricket is entwined
with history?
I admired
your passion for the difficulties playing cricket at a high level presented for
ordinary people in the West Indies and in Zimbabwe. You placed cricket in the world, rather than trying to separate the two.
After a
day’s play, I would stay awake until the clock ticked over midnight, so I could
log on to the smh.com.au and read your latest account of the great deeds and
world changing events that had occurred the previous day between 11 and 6. For
they were great deeds, there was always a feeling in your articles that the events
of the previous day had mattered, they were a chapter in a much larger, more
important story than just the runs that were scored or the wickets that were
taken. Sometimes I felt that desire to fit those events into an expansive
narrative caused you to get some additional exercise in jumping to conclusions,
but that was all part of the fun.
My biggest
criticism of you was for your article demanding Ricky Ponting be sacked, which
I felt was a huge overreaction as I detailed here. But it certainly
demonstrated your influence as *everyone* picked up on that story. I think you
realised it was an overreaction later on, as I don’t recall you ever being
especially critical of Ponting subsequently. You were saying nice things about
his batting after it had become clear to my Ponting biased eyes that the great
man was past it!!
But, there
was another side to you besides the great writer. The fact that you had gotten
in trouble for caning an adult student of yours was well known and created
quite a controversy. At the time I was terribly worried that the smh and ABC
would distance themselves from the scandal in the most straightforward manner,
by giving you a termination notice. It was, I felt at the time, a reflection
upon the good sense of both organisations that you were encouraged to carry on.
And years passed, and I continued to enjoy your writing, and the question that
story raised, of had it happened again, wasn’t one that I paid much attention
to.
However, ignoring something doesn't always mean it will go away, as soon as I heard of your suicide I suspected something similar was afoot, as did many others, Adam Shand later produced a detailed, thoughtful, balanced profile that made it very clear that the term predator was not an unreasonable label to apply to you without forgetting that you were human and the evil co-insists with the good.
Thank you, Peter, for the writings and commentary that I so loved. I'm sorry you didn't feel more comfortable with yourself as you may have been able to find what you needed from people who were genuinely able to give consent. Adults they may have been, but their poverty left them with little choice but to do what you wished, irrespective of whether they personally wished to engage in such activities. I hope that they find peace as they go forward in their lives and that when people remember you, that they speak of you as you were, not as you wished to be.
Lindsay Went
However, ignoring something doesn't always mean it will go away, as soon as I heard of your suicide I suspected something similar was afoot, as did many others, Adam Shand later produced a detailed, thoughtful, balanced profile that made it very clear that the term predator was not an unreasonable label to apply to you without forgetting that you were human and the evil co-insists with the good.
Thank you, Peter, for the writings and commentary that I so loved. I'm sorry you didn't feel more comfortable with yourself as you may have been able to find what you needed from people who were genuinely able to give consent. Adults they may have been, but their poverty left them with little choice but to do what you wished, irrespective of whether they personally wished to engage in such activities. I hope that they find peace as they go forward in their lives and that when people remember you, that they speak of you as you were, not as you wished to be.
Lindsay Went
Australian Test team
No huge surprises here, I can't say I'm thrilled with George Bailey being selected, I like the guy and respect his performance in the shorter forms of the game, but I don't think his performance in the longer forms, especially last season, justifies his selection. I'd have preferred Phil Hughes, who's been dropped far too often despite reasonable results in his Test career.
I think we could give England a game here and there, but an England series victory is certainly expected. It really sucks having a crap team!
I think we could give England a game here and there, but an England series victory is certainly expected. It really sucks having a crap team!
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?
Monday, 13 February 2012
Adam Gilchrist's retirement
This post was originally posted in 2008 over at http://www.silkenmusings.com/ but I am moving it here as I intend to use this site for my sports commentary.
Today, one of my favourite cricketers has retired. Adam Gilchrist was one of the most exciting players I have ever had the privilege of watching. He was a bold player and he has lived his life in the same way.
Adam's determination to succeed was shown in his decision to leave New South Wales to go live on the other side of the country in order to get a position as a wicketkeeper batsman. Adam was not as good a wicketkeeper as Ian Healy, but he nevertheless managed some remarkable takes. He was a Test quality wicketkeeper who was as good as most of the other wicketkeepers in the world. He has worked hard to earn the wicketkeeping world record that he will retire with.
I will always remember Adam for his batting. He was the most fluent batsman that I've ever seen. Greg Chappell commented after Adam had made a handful of Test centuries that most of them ranked among the best innings that he'd ever seen. That comment rings true still.
Adam played only 2 innings of significance in the last 12 months of his career yet both of them were great and memorable innings. The first was his magnificent 57 ball hundred against England at the WACA in 2006 where he shredded Monty Panesar in particular, peeling 24 runs off just one over. The 7 men guarding the boundaries could do little to prevent them reaching the boundary, and nothing to stop the ball going over the boundary!
After a scratchy World Cup with the bat where his greatest achievement had been taking some shine off the new ball to allow Matthew Hayden to cut loose, his squash ball inspired assault upon Sri Lanka in the World Cup final virtually guaranteed an Australian victory. He plundered 149 off 104 balls and was in total command of the bowling, blasting the ball to all parts of the ground and forcing the spectators to keep a constant wary eye out for white missiles heading in their direction.
While he was doing this, Matthew Hayden and Ricky Ponting were both having some troubles with the pitch, as the Sri Lankans were to as well. Adam was so fluent that there weren't any troubles for him. Despite him only having 38 overs to play with, he was a distinct possibility of 200 at the time of his dismissal.
There was some controversy when Ian Healy was denied the chance to have a farewell Test in front of his home crowd in 1999 and Adam Gilchrist was selected for his debut test. The selectors made the call that Adam was now the best man for the job and should be selected. Against a strong Pakistan bowling line up he scored a fine 86 on debut.
That was just the entree for his spectacular, unbeaten, 149 in the next Test in Hobart. Australia were on the ropes at 126/5 chasing 369 when he arrived at the crease with Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram in fine form. Adam proceeded to take just 163 balls to dispatch a very good attack to all parts of the ground to spearhead an unlikely Australian victory. There were few questions asked about his position in the team after that.
What always impressed and excited me about Adam was his ability to hit good balls to and over the boundary with such ease. The ball always seemed to be flowing off the middle of his bat. He played very aggressively and was often picked off but it seemed almost impossible for a bowler to tie him down. He could hit so easily on both sides of the wicket.
I loved his attitude when batting with Glenn McGrath in particular. Allan Border and Steve Waugh had made an artform of taking the single with the tailender at the crease and preserving their wicket and average. Adam was willing to take the single if he had to, but preferred to hit it to or over the fence. His first century in England he scored 152, sharing a 63 run partnership with Glenn McGrath. McGrath's contribution to this innings was a well struck single. Despite England placing most of their team on the fence, they were unable to prevent the barrage of runs that flowed from Gilchrist's bat, such was the power and placement of his strokes.
Similarly, when an Australian declaration was impending, Gilchrist would hit in the air, determined to add quick runs. Quite often he would get out as a result, when a more conservative approach would have protected his wicket. That, however, was not his way, he played for the team not for his batting average.
For a man who consistently captivated with his boundary hitting and clearing, one of the most impressive strokes of his career was a single. When Steve Waugh made his career saving hundred in Sydney, he found himself at the other end with 2 balls left in the day, 98 runs next to his name, a raucous home crowd seeking a fairytale finish and a Bill Lawry inspired TV audience seeking the same. There was little doubt about the next ball, with Gilchrist calmly deflecting it away to the outfield for an easy single, leaving the stage clear for his captain.
Adam got the chance to captain himself due to injuries to both Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting. He handled the position well, making a typically bold declaration against England in his first test as captain. This one didn't work as Mark Butcher played a matchwinning hand but Adam took it on the chin.
The highlight of his captaincy career was leading Australia to victory against India in 2004. This had been the one area where Australia had failed to win during their dominant period. Going into the series there were concerns that the twin role of wicketkeeping and captaincy would drag down his batting. His superb 104 off 109 balls in the first Test answered that question and set Australia up for a 1-0 lead in the series.
Adam was a rare personality who would often give an honest answer to a question. This got him into trouble on several occasions but made him a more interesting person. His decision to start walking when he was out was virtually unprecedented for an Australian in the modern era. In the way of modern cricket he may well have noticed the conflict with the culture of appealing in cricket. Bowlers are rarely pleased if the wicketkeeper has not joined their appeal, irrespective of how silly it is. Adam wasn't quite able to resolve that conflict as he continued to appeal vigorously.
Adam was lucky to come into a great team when he debuted and to play with a great team all his career. He was on the winning side in 73 of his 96 Tests and in all 3 World Cups that he played. He also made a big contribution to those victories with his magnificent batting and his regular catching. He kept well to Shane Warne and that was the most important test of his wicketkeeping.
I believe he has chosen the right time to go. While his recent centuries were great innings that will be recalled for a long time, they were also rare events. Most of the time, he was being picked off playing aggressive shots. Similarly, his wicketkeeping had deteriorated, while he often dropped chances, he rarely dropped simple ones, and several of those escaped his grasp in his final summer.
Adam Gilchrist revolutionised the role of the wicketkeeper in modern cricket. Before he arrived on the scene, wicketkeepers were chosen primarily due to their skills with the gloves. Nowadays, wicketkeepers who are not scoring runs on a regular basis are in grave danger of finding themselves back in first class cricket. Even a superb keeper such as Chris Read has not been able to hold down a Test spot due to his weak batting.
Few players can say that they have changed the way a game is played. Of all his achievements, it is that change that will form the greatest part of the Gilchrist legacy. For me though, I treasure the privilege of having watched his pure ball striking and I will always remember the grace he brought to a team that generally lacked it.
Farewell Adam and thanks for the memories!
Today, one of my favourite cricketers has retired. Adam Gilchrist was one of the most exciting players I have ever had the privilege of watching. He was a bold player and he has lived his life in the same way.
Adam's determination to succeed was shown in his decision to leave New South Wales to go live on the other side of the country in order to get a position as a wicketkeeper batsman. Adam was not as good a wicketkeeper as Ian Healy, but he nevertheless managed some remarkable takes. He was a Test quality wicketkeeper who was as good as most of the other wicketkeepers in the world. He has worked hard to earn the wicketkeeping world record that he will retire with.
I will always remember Adam for his batting. He was the most fluent batsman that I've ever seen. Greg Chappell commented after Adam had made a handful of Test centuries that most of them ranked among the best innings that he'd ever seen. That comment rings true still.
Adam played only 2 innings of significance in the last 12 months of his career yet both of them were great and memorable innings. The first was his magnificent 57 ball hundred against England at the WACA in 2006 where he shredded Monty Panesar in particular, peeling 24 runs off just one over. The 7 men guarding the boundaries could do little to prevent them reaching the boundary, and nothing to stop the ball going over the boundary!
After a scratchy World Cup with the bat where his greatest achievement had been taking some shine off the new ball to allow Matthew Hayden to cut loose, his squash ball inspired assault upon Sri Lanka in the World Cup final virtually guaranteed an Australian victory. He plundered 149 off 104 balls and was in total command of the bowling, blasting the ball to all parts of the ground and forcing the spectators to keep a constant wary eye out for white missiles heading in their direction.
While he was doing this, Matthew Hayden and Ricky Ponting were both having some troubles with the pitch, as the Sri Lankans were to as well. Adam was so fluent that there weren't any troubles for him. Despite him only having 38 overs to play with, he was a distinct possibility of 200 at the time of his dismissal.
There was some controversy when Ian Healy was denied the chance to have a farewell Test in front of his home crowd in 1999 and Adam Gilchrist was selected for his debut test. The selectors made the call that Adam was now the best man for the job and should be selected. Against a strong Pakistan bowling line up he scored a fine 86 on debut.
That was just the entree for his spectacular, unbeaten, 149 in the next Test in Hobart. Australia were on the ropes at 126/5 chasing 369 when he arrived at the crease with Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram in fine form. Adam proceeded to take just 163 balls to dispatch a very good attack to all parts of the ground to spearhead an unlikely Australian victory. There were few questions asked about his position in the team after that.
What always impressed and excited me about Adam was his ability to hit good balls to and over the boundary with such ease. The ball always seemed to be flowing off the middle of his bat. He played very aggressively and was often picked off but it seemed almost impossible for a bowler to tie him down. He could hit so easily on both sides of the wicket.
I loved his attitude when batting with Glenn McGrath in particular. Allan Border and Steve Waugh had made an artform of taking the single with the tailender at the crease and preserving their wicket and average. Adam was willing to take the single if he had to, but preferred to hit it to or over the fence. His first century in England he scored 152, sharing a 63 run partnership with Glenn McGrath. McGrath's contribution to this innings was a well struck single. Despite England placing most of their team on the fence, they were unable to prevent the barrage of runs that flowed from Gilchrist's bat, such was the power and placement of his strokes.
Similarly, when an Australian declaration was impending, Gilchrist would hit in the air, determined to add quick runs. Quite often he would get out as a result, when a more conservative approach would have protected his wicket. That, however, was not his way, he played for the team not for his batting average.
For a man who consistently captivated with his boundary hitting and clearing, one of the most impressive strokes of his career was a single. When Steve Waugh made his career saving hundred in Sydney, he found himself at the other end with 2 balls left in the day, 98 runs next to his name, a raucous home crowd seeking a fairytale finish and a Bill Lawry inspired TV audience seeking the same. There was little doubt about the next ball, with Gilchrist calmly deflecting it away to the outfield for an easy single, leaving the stage clear for his captain.
Adam got the chance to captain himself due to injuries to both Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting. He handled the position well, making a typically bold declaration against England in his first test as captain. This one didn't work as Mark Butcher played a matchwinning hand but Adam took it on the chin.
The highlight of his captaincy career was leading Australia to victory against India in 2004. This had been the one area where Australia had failed to win during their dominant period. Going into the series there were concerns that the twin role of wicketkeeping and captaincy would drag down his batting. His superb 104 off 109 balls in the first Test answered that question and set Australia up for a 1-0 lead in the series.
Adam was a rare personality who would often give an honest answer to a question. This got him into trouble on several occasions but made him a more interesting person. His decision to start walking when he was out was virtually unprecedented for an Australian in the modern era. In the way of modern cricket he may well have noticed the conflict with the culture of appealing in cricket. Bowlers are rarely pleased if the wicketkeeper has not joined their appeal, irrespective of how silly it is. Adam wasn't quite able to resolve that conflict as he continued to appeal vigorously.
Adam was lucky to come into a great team when he debuted and to play with a great team all his career. He was on the winning side in 73 of his 96 Tests and in all 3 World Cups that he played. He also made a big contribution to those victories with his magnificent batting and his regular catching. He kept well to Shane Warne and that was the most important test of his wicketkeeping.
I believe he has chosen the right time to go. While his recent centuries were great innings that will be recalled for a long time, they were also rare events. Most of the time, he was being picked off playing aggressive shots. Similarly, his wicketkeeping had deteriorated, while he often dropped chances, he rarely dropped simple ones, and several of those escaped his grasp in his final summer.
Adam Gilchrist revolutionised the role of the wicketkeeper in modern cricket. Before he arrived on the scene, wicketkeepers were chosen primarily due to their skills with the gloves. Nowadays, wicketkeepers who are not scoring runs on a regular basis are in grave danger of finding themselves back in first class cricket. Even a superb keeper such as Chris Read has not been able to hold down a Test spot due to his weak batting.
Few players can say that they have changed the way a game is played. Of all his achievements, it is that change that will form the greatest part of the Gilchrist legacy. For me though, I treasure the privilege of having watched his pure ball striking and I will always remember the grace he brought to a team that generally lacked it.
Farewell Adam and thanks for the memories!
Saturday, 12 January 2008
An open response to Peter Roebuck
I'm still looking for evidence and reasons as to why Ricky Ponting should be sacked as Australian captain. Nothing he has done is exceptional for an Australian captain, or indeed a captain of any other country. The first article was long on rhetoric and short on logic. The follow-up basically admitted that the first was written to stir things up and get attention. In that, it was successful. In providing logical reasons for the demand in the first, it was a failure.
Australia has sacked one captain in the last 80 odd years and that was for overly defensive captaincy over a long period. Consequently, sacking of Australian captains is a responsibility that is taken pretty seriously, with the reluctance to do so prolonging the careers of Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor when strong cases were available for dismissing both of them.
Over zealous appealing, celebrating and unnecessary sledging have been characteristics of the modern game and are shared by all teams and most captains. Demanding decisions and pressurising umpires is a trait most players are pretty good at. Anil Kumble has been a master of it.
Indian players indulged in sledging during the test, they participated enthusiastically in appeals deliberately designed to deceive the umpire and convince him to give players out. While they didn't participate in over the top celebrations, they compensated for that burst of good taste by deliberately wasting time after both dismissals in what turned out to be the final over of the game. Sending a man out with incorrect gloves was a particularly shrewd although thoroughly unsportsmanlike tactic that may well have saved the game by preventing an additional over being bowled. For a man who was allegedly intent upon pressuring umpires, Ponting's refusal to appeal for Sharma's dismissal due to the amount of time it took him to get out there is striking.
Anil Kumble certainly saw no problem with this behaviour as he indicated that his team was the team playing the match in the spirit of the game. The Indian captain was very happy to imply that the loss was solely the responsibility of the umpires. He did not devote a word to all the runs the Australians gained through their superior ground fielding and running between wickets in comparison with the consistently lacklustre performance of the Indians in these areas. There can be no doubt that if India were even vaguely competitive in these areas, the Australians would not have had the time to bowl them out.
As there were no corresponding claims from you that Kumble should join Ponting in cricketing exile, I infer that you are satisfied that he and his team were meeting the required standard for cricketing behaviour. It would appear that demands for cricketing morality and leadership start and end with Ricky Ponting.
This is the same captain whom you saluted for sporting behaviour in 2005. (1.) You have also saluted his general captaincy in 2006 after the Ashes victory and on many other occasions.
What is the leadership required of an Australian cricket captain? Please define it and explain how other countries are meeting that standard and how recent Australian captains have met it and where Ponting has not met it ? If only Australian captains should meet this standard, could you please explain why captains of other cricketing nations are not required to meet it?
Was this really the ugliest Australian effort of the last 20 years? Glenn McGrath's efforts against the West Indies in 2003 comes to mind.
Harbhajan Singh started the altercation, and then responded inappropriately to the inevitable responses and said something he should not have, that had been clearly explained to him would cause problems. What would your article have said had it been an Australian who had produced an unacceptable comment after being privately warned by the Indian players about it? It may be that Symonds did not want Ponting to wash it under the carpet, which would have been the easier option.
I saw plenty of sympathy for Harbhajan Singh from you, despite him being a very experienced cricketer with a long history of sledging. Hunted from the game? If his suspension holds up, he'll be back. If someone's being hunted from the game, it's Brad Hogg, who was put up on a charge in a cynical tit for tat exercise which has seen not a comment from you in sympathy for the man or in disgust at the callous tactic. A suspension along Harbhajan's lines could well endanger Hogg's future as his position in the team is precarious. I believe he has a family too.
With regards to Simon Katich being captain, your Australian citizenship clearly has not overridden your English cricket heart. Only an Englishman would suggest making someone captain who can't even make the team. There is no place in Australian cricket for a captain who isn't worth his place in the side. The captain who resigned was heavily influenced in doing so by his complete inability to score runs, Katich would likely find himself in the same spot. As for one day cricket, even if he scored runs, his strike rate simply does not justify a position.
I wasn't impressed with Ponting's lack of awareness re India's feelings myself or his general behaviour during the Sydney Test, but it's a huge step from that to sacking him. I am a strong supporter of the Australian policy to only sack captains when there is no other alternative. I certainly don't sack them for conduct well within the bounds of accepted behaviour in the modern cricket game. Whether the behaviour should be accepted is another issue altogether, one that should be being debated with the sort of passion you displayed in venting over Ponting. Nevertheless, sacking someone for behaving in the same manner as his peers is unjustifiable. We'd have to retrospectively sack every Australian captain for the last 30 years and most of our opposing captains as well.
Most of this mess is a reflection of the hypocrisy in modern cricket etiquette. It's normal to cheat when you're batting or appealing, but it's an insult to your opponents when you're catching. It's part of the game to be rude and intimidate your opponents in most conceivable ways as long as you don't say certain unacceptable comments. While cricket has that half hearted and illogical moral code built in, it's going to continue to have blow ups about player behaviour. I have zero respect for this code of etiquette and think it's appalling. However, seeing that it's accepted by the game in general, I cannot support dismissing a captain for following it.
An aside to finish. One of your concerns about Ponting was his pressuring of umpires, something you see every time the ball hits the pad anywhere near in line. Why are appeals necessary? It may be a historical part of the game but there's no reason for them. If the umpire puts up his finger, you're out. Appealing influences umpires. Ban it. It'll make the game more boring, but it'll make umpire's decisions more reflective of what they are seeing, not what the players are seeing or claiming to see. Other sports with waiting time don't have appeals before a decision, it's obvious when a decision needs to be made and they just look at the umpire and await it.
Australia has sacked one captain in the last 80 odd years and that was for overly defensive captaincy over a long period. Consequently, sacking of Australian captains is a responsibility that is taken pretty seriously, with the reluctance to do so prolonging the careers of Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor when strong cases were available for dismissing both of them.
Over zealous appealing, celebrating and unnecessary sledging have been characteristics of the modern game and are shared by all teams and most captains. Demanding decisions and pressurising umpires is a trait most players are pretty good at. Anil Kumble has been a master of it.
Indian players indulged in sledging during the test, they participated enthusiastically in appeals deliberately designed to deceive the umpire and convince him to give players out. While they didn't participate in over the top celebrations, they compensated for that burst of good taste by deliberately wasting time after both dismissals in what turned out to be the final over of the game. Sending a man out with incorrect gloves was a particularly shrewd although thoroughly unsportsmanlike tactic that may well have saved the game by preventing an additional over being bowled. For a man who was allegedly intent upon pressuring umpires, Ponting's refusal to appeal for Sharma's dismissal due to the amount of time it took him to get out there is striking.
Anil Kumble certainly saw no problem with this behaviour as he indicated that his team was the team playing the match in the spirit of the game. The Indian captain was very happy to imply that the loss was solely the responsibility of the umpires. He did not devote a word to all the runs the Australians gained through their superior ground fielding and running between wickets in comparison with the consistently lacklustre performance of the Indians in these areas. There can be no doubt that if India were even vaguely competitive in these areas, the Australians would not have had the time to bowl them out.
As there were no corresponding claims from you that Kumble should join Ponting in cricketing exile, I infer that you are satisfied that he and his team were meeting the required standard for cricketing behaviour. It would appear that demands for cricketing morality and leadership start and end with Ricky Ponting.
This is the same captain whom you saluted for sporting behaviour in 2005. (1.) You have also saluted his general captaincy in 2006 after the Ashes victory and on many other occasions.
What is the leadership required of an Australian cricket captain? Please define it and explain how other countries are meeting that standard and how recent Australian captains have met it and where Ponting has not met it ? If only Australian captains should meet this standard, could you please explain why captains of other cricketing nations are not required to meet it?
Was this really the ugliest Australian effort of the last 20 years? Glenn McGrath's efforts against the West Indies in 2003 comes to mind.
Harbhajan Singh started the altercation, and then responded inappropriately to the inevitable responses and said something he should not have, that had been clearly explained to him would cause problems. What would your article have said had it been an Australian who had produced an unacceptable comment after being privately warned by the Indian players about it? It may be that Symonds did not want Ponting to wash it under the carpet, which would have been the easier option.
I saw plenty of sympathy for Harbhajan Singh from you, despite him being a very experienced cricketer with a long history of sledging. Hunted from the game? If his suspension holds up, he'll be back. If someone's being hunted from the game, it's Brad Hogg, who was put up on a charge in a cynical tit for tat exercise which has seen not a comment from you in sympathy for the man or in disgust at the callous tactic. A suspension along Harbhajan's lines could well endanger Hogg's future as his position in the team is precarious. I believe he has a family too.
With regards to Simon Katich being captain, your Australian citizenship clearly has not overridden your English cricket heart. Only an Englishman would suggest making someone captain who can't even make the team. There is no place in Australian cricket for a captain who isn't worth his place in the side. The captain who resigned was heavily influenced in doing so by his complete inability to score runs, Katich would likely find himself in the same spot. As for one day cricket, even if he scored runs, his strike rate simply does not justify a position.
I wasn't impressed with Ponting's lack of awareness re India's feelings myself or his general behaviour during the Sydney Test, but it's a huge step from that to sacking him. I am a strong supporter of the Australian policy to only sack captains when there is no other alternative. I certainly don't sack them for conduct well within the bounds of accepted behaviour in the modern cricket game. Whether the behaviour should be accepted is another issue altogether, one that should be being debated with the sort of passion you displayed in venting over Ponting. Nevertheless, sacking someone for behaving in the same manner as his peers is unjustifiable. We'd have to retrospectively sack every Australian captain for the last 30 years and most of our opposing captains as well.
Most of this mess is a reflection of the hypocrisy in modern cricket etiquette. It's normal to cheat when you're batting or appealing, but it's an insult to your opponents when you're catching. It's part of the game to be rude and intimidate your opponents in most conceivable ways as long as you don't say certain unacceptable comments. While cricket has that half hearted and illogical moral code built in, it's going to continue to have blow ups about player behaviour. I have zero respect for this code of etiquette and think it's appalling. However, seeing that it's accepted by the game in general, I cannot support dismissing a captain for following it.
An aside to finish. One of your concerns about Ponting was his pressuring of umpires, something you see every time the ball hits the pad anywhere near in line. Why are appeals necessary? It may be a historical part of the game but there's no reason for them. If the umpire puts up his finger, you're out. Appealing influences umpires. Ban it. It'll make the game more boring, but it'll make umpire's decisions more reflective of what they are seeing, not what the players are seeing or claiming to see. Other sports with waiting time don't have appeals before a decision, it's obvious when a decision needs to be made and they just look at the umpire and await it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)