Michael Jeh
A well-insured squad
Australia's Ashes side is probably not the most potent team they can put out, but it's a selection based on adequate back-up
Michael Jeh
24-Apr-2013
This morning, waiting for the Ashes squad to be announced, I was part of an email dialogue that spanned four continents and a dozen different people. There were rumours about which players would be selected, and the "dark horses". Dad's Army jokes were also being peddled.
One of the rumours was that the squad would feature Shaun Marsh, George Bailey and Glenn Maxwell, at the expense of Usman Khawaja and Steve Smith (a 17-man squad was assumed). The point was made at the time that (if true), it was a selection that was two steps forward and one step back, except that they were walking in the wrong direction.
I must confess that the actual names selected contain no real surprises. It is, in my opinion, a reasonable job under tough circumstances by a selection panel hampered by possible (probable) injuries to players and their poor recent form. It contains a worthwhile gamble on Ryan Harris, a fast bowler who may not have the durability to play every Test but could still win you one or two games.
Full postAustralia must choose their vice-captain wisely
Given the state of Michael Clarke's back, his deputy may be called up any time to fight for the Ashes and more
Michael Jeh
22-Apr-2013
What really does a vice-captain do in the modern game? In the wake of Shane Watson's entirely predictable resignation from this role, it may be worth exploring the genuine rather than the symbolic role that a vice-captain plays today.
My tenet is that the role is almost redundant these days when even the captain's role is less influential, guided as he is by a powerful coach with up to four assistants, a medical team, a selection panel that is sometimes influenced by the board's priorities. Even the marketing department may play a subtle role in the final make-up of the team and the way the game is played, further diminishing the role of the captain himself, let alone his deputy.
Ironically, this current Australian team harks back to a bygone era, because, with Michael Clarke's dodgy back, there is every possibility that the vice-captain might have to step into the "office" at short notice, sometimes even on the morning of a game if Clarke's back locks up suddenly. It is entirely possible, nay probable, that the vice-captain will have to lead the team on the field during the course of a match, such is the worry around Clarke's injury status.
Full postWarne's solution is not the answer
Shane Warne's solution to the disciplinary problems Australia faced in India involved music and alcohol, an astonishingly simplistic answer to a serious issue
Michael Jeh
20-Mar-2013
"As a leader, I always thought if the boys weren't getting along or we weren't performing then the best thing to was to lock everyone into a room with some music (and) alcohol"
Shane Warne on his Facebook page*, March 12 2013
Shane Warne on his Facebook page*, March 12 2013
As if we didn't already know, Shane Warne has just made it crystal clear why he was never made captain of Australia, despite possessing a sharp cricket brain and tactical nous. For a man whose on-air commentary hints at a considerable intellect, his off-field behaviour often suggests the polar opposite. This latest gem for his British newspaper column underscores the very problem that Australian sport, not just cricket, is confronting at this very moment.
It is the elephant in the room that male sport has long ignored - men behaving like boys with alcohol as the social glue. Then the elephant tramples you!
Full postThe vagueness behind Australia's crisis
The danger with writing an opinion piece so early on in the life of an evolving story is that not all facts are known yet, nor might they ever be revealed. Hindsight will no doubt reveal inaccuracies and mistaken assumptions on my part
Michael Jeh
12-Mar-2013
The danger with writing an opinion piece so early on in the life of an evolving story is that not all facts are known yet, nor might they ever be revealed. Hindsight will no doubt reveal inaccuracies and mistaken assumptions on my part; with that disadvantage, albeit with a little bit of "insider trading" knowledge, this is my stab at trying to make sense of this minor crisis in the context of global issues. Brydon Coverdale has already written an excellent piece which I broadly concur with but I must confess that when I first heard the rumours, my gut feeling was along the same lines of the ex-players who have (predictably) expressed their outrage. My gut feeling is that over the next few days, if Mickey Arthur, Michael Clarke and Cricket Australia handle the dissemination of information better than they've currently done, we'll see a shift in public sympathy away from the Forlorn Four.
Mind you, the jury of Public Opinion may yet delay their verdict until after the Mohali Test but that is the coward's way out in my opinion. Whichever position you support, it's a matter of principle rather than a cricketing "form" issue (although, not filling in some forms may ironically be one of the bones of contention). Waiting to see who scores runs, takes wickets or spits the dummy is a retrospective exercise that is based purely on cold, hard stats, the very thing that Arthur and Clarke are railing against with their brave (perhaps fatal) stance on team culture.
I haven't yet heard of an ex-cricketer who has expressed support for this decision (yet). As distinguished men who have played the game at that level and know what it's like to be in dressing-room cultures that are good, bad and indifferent, their voices are worth heeding. In their minds, this is an over-reaction. It should be all about the cricket, the sanctity of the dressing-room culture and most things can be sorted out over an honest beer or three. That's the way it used to be, perhaps not even all that long ago. Fair enough too if the conditions are still the same in 2013.
Full postCricket washed down with Australia's mess?
With the critical report published into Australian sport, Michael Jeh looks at how relevant the 10 points are to cricket
Michael Jeh
02-Mar-2013
Every so often, a fearless journalist writes a piece that is direct, honest and cuts to the bone. Here is one such article by the admirable Anthony Sharwood, written in the aftermath of yet another sporting scandal in Australia, coming hot on the heels of a controversy with (male) Olympic swimmers, the AFL "tanking" investigation and the report into performance-enhancing drugs, match-fixing and organised crime handed down by the Australian Crime Commission.
As someone who runs life skills (education) programs for many sporting codes, including cricket, I thought it might be useful to analyse these 10 reasons and see if they apply to cricket. This discussion need not be Australia-centric; we can broaden the scope to any cricketing country to see what lessons or parallels we can draw from this. Is there anything cricket can do to proactively prevent or mitigate the likelihood of such allegations being levelled at our sport?
I was struck by the striking similarity to the curriculum that I run for my workshops. It's almost as if Mr Sharwood has pinched my intellectual property except that so much of it just so commonsense. No one can claim intellectual property ownership rights for the bleeding obvious.
Full postCricket threatened by second XIs
To those unfamiliar with the Australian sporting landscape, these last few weeks have been full of controversy on many levels
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
To those unfamiliar with the Australian sporting landscape, these last few weeks have been full of controversy on many levels. Cricket was initially in the headlines when the much-denied "rotation" policy was debunked by Mickey Arthur and John Inverarity. They preferred instead to refer to it as "informed player management" or some such rubbish. The problem was that not everybody was informed of the rationale behind it, sometimes not even the players, often not the media who are much maligned but still expected to write about the sport, and definitely not the general public who merely turn up to watch whichever team Australia decides to put out on that particular day.
More recently, we have seen what was alleged to have been the "blackest day in Australian sport". To the uninformed, it relates to an ongoing drama about performance-enhancing drugs and its connection to the criminal underworld. Trevor Chappell must indeed be pleased that the underarm incident is no longer blacker than black, superseded instead by some desperate hand-wringing about how the integrity of sport has been oh so compromised by the drugs issue and its impact on betting. Whilst cricket has emerged relatively unscathed from this mess (thus far), there were nonetheless some uncomfortable questions posed by writers of the calibre of Gideon Haigh, about cricket's unholy alliances with betting agencies, whilst professing deep concerns about integrity.
Just today, the Australian Football League (AFL), so called because it is played exclusively in this country but at least has the humility to not have a World Series Competition for what is essentially a domestic competition, has released a seven-month report following an investigation into tanking, the practice of deliberately losing games near the end of the season in order to get preferential draft picks for the next season. To our great relief, the AFL have reassured us that there was no tanking involved and despite a $500,000 fine for the club involved, there were actually no tankers apparent, even though clubs selected players to play out of position, and may have "rested" some players. I wonder if that too was "informed player management," or is that jargon patented exclusively to Cricket Australia? "Tankers" they may not be but Cockney rhyming slang has a strange way of corrupting words in a manner that cuts to the bone.
Full postWhere have all the 'thinking batsmen' gone?
I'm starting to form the view that when the pitch is a bit lively with two new balls, modern batsmen have stopped thinking for themselves
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
Just a theory at this stage, unproven but gathering evidence. Watching one-day cricket these days, especially with the new rule changes, I'm starting to form the view that when the pitch is a bit lively with two new balls, modern batsmen have stopped thinking for themselves.
The emphasis on preconceived game plans set by the coaching staff, aided by statistical predictions on average scores at a certain venue, married to the T20 mind-set (see ball, hit ball) is leading to a situation where teams batting first are showing a marked inability to think on their feet. I reckon they go into the innings with a set target in mind and come hell or high water, that target is fixed in their minds. The coaching staff have probably played their part in determining that target, perhaps even as early as the pre-match team meeting the night before so the batsmen feel the need to stick to that game plan regardless of circumstance.
Watching Australia's stuttering batting performances in Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney recently allowed me the opportunity to contemplate this theory. In Adelaide, the pitch was certainly helping the seam bowlers after some time under the covers (without being unplayable) and it appeared that the batsmen made relatively little allowance for the fact that the 260+ target that is usually associated with batting first at Adelaide might have to be revised. Aaron Finch caught at cover, George Bailey on the pull shot, Steve Smith driving expansively away from his body and Glenn Maxwell nicking behind to a ball that probably should have been let through to the keeper. All of them looking for run-scoring opportunities that were simply too ambitious at that stage of the game.
Full postAdequate rest resulting in injuries now?
Anyone who has read my recent posts will know that I've been shouting myself hoarse over the injury epidemic that is sweeping through world cricket
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
Anyone who has read my recent posts will know that I've been shouting myself hoarse over the injury epidemic that is sweeping through world cricket. The last time I wrote on that topic was during the Boxing Day Test when I lampooned the 'system' for resting Mitchell Starc because there was a likelihood that he might get injured while at the same time allowing Shane Watson to play when he was injured. Things have now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Starc is now unable to play in the second ODI in Adelaide, suffering calf-soreness. It begs the question: how does one pick up a pseudo-injury like that even after being rested? Was he not rested for long enough? Should he have also been rested for the Sydney Test? Should Watson have been allowed to play when he was injured in a medical culture that rests a team-mate who might get injured? It's just plain ridiculous. At what point are we going to accept that the current system is simply not producing better outcomes?
It's not just Australia that suffers these indignities. Vernon Philander played in Brisbane in mid-November, missed the Adelaide Test due to injury at the end of November, played the Perth decider in early December, had three weeks off before the Cape Town Test against New Zealand and is now unavailable to front up again (after a three-day Test against the Kiwis). Is anyone inside Cricket South Africa questioning why this is happening to a premier fast bowler who presumably is receiving the best medical advice that money can buy? Is his fitness, recovery and rehabilitation so poor that he is unable to play more than one game in succession? And this is his profession?
No point asking the Sri Lankan conditioning staff for any tips. Chanaka Welegedara tore a hamstring bowling at 125 km/h in an early spell at the MCG when fatigue clearly cannot be cited as a factor. The impressive Dinesh Chandimal, forced to sit on the bench for the first two Tests, plays one Test in Sydney that only lasts four days and can't make it through a single ODI without also succumbing to the accursed hamstring strain.
Full postA disgrace to cricket
For the first time ever, my entire family happened to be watching this game when the Warne/Samuels incident kicked off
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
Fair play to Cricket Australia. I had wondered whether their disciplinary system would be hijacked by the marketing department, desperate to promote a packaged entertainment product meant purely for theatrical purposes. It appears now that the traditional values of cricket still nominally apply, with Shane Warne copping a one-match ban despite his Twitter comments expressing surprise at the harshness of the decision. Honestly, what did he expect? That the BBL is a product that resembles the ridiculous, choreographed and inanely bird-brained wrestling 'thing' that comes out of America, that WWF caper? Wickets, Warne and Fools could be an appropriate acronym for it I suppose.
If the cricket part of the BBL was to retain any credibility, the authorities had no choice but to impose serious penalties on Warne for that behaviour. He is probably lucky that it was just one game. Serious grown-up cricket quite simply cannot condone deliberate physical contact between players, leaving aside cricket bats flying down the pitch (Marlon Samuels), audible swearing (Warne) and clear disrespect shown towards the umpire (Warne again). If the whole incident was swept under the carpet and written off as a bit of uber-exuberance, it would then have been clear that the values of cricket itself had no genuine place in this theatre. There can be no credible cricket disciplinary system that can allow the behaviours witnessed during prime time viewing, presumably to an audience that deliberately targets young viewers, ostensibly to attract/retain these same young players to the sport, to pass without strict censure.
Actually, Cricket Australia probably had no real choice but to impose some form of penalty. They are to be commended for running an exhaustive education program for their Under-17 and Under-19 squads, covering topics such as illicit drugs, alcohol, respect for women, Code of Conduct etc. I'm fortunate enough to be involved in running these programs for a few of the States and I know for a fact that it is more than lip service. The commitment to promoting credible role models is at the cornerstone of their motives and it is a responsibility they take seriously in Jolimont St. To allow this incident to go unpunished would have gone against everything the organisation genuinely tries to instil in the next generation of cricketers coming through the system.
Full postWhere does Sangakkara sit in the 10000 Club?
There is a French proverb that states that "to compare is not to prove"
Michael Jeh
25-Feb-2013
There is a French proverb that states that "to compare is not to prove". At a time when so many great cricketers are nearing the twilight years, that proverb may remind us that it is almost impossible to compare cricketers from across the history of the game because there are just too many variables to factor in. So let's keep it contemporary and ask ourselves this question: is Kumar Sangakkara is the best of the "10,000 Club batsmen" of the modern era, bracketed alongside Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Jacques Kallis and Rahul Dravid? On one measure, the number of innings taken to get to the ten thousand run mark, the choice then comes down to Lara, Tendulkar and Sangakkara (195 innings) with Ponting at 196 innings. This sort of conversation is meant for pure debate. There can be no right or wrong answer, just an opportunity for genuine cricket lovers, hopefully liberated from jingoistic bias, to discuss the various factors in coming to their own conclusion.
Of the three batsmen who got to the magical figure in 195 innings, I would mischievously put Sangakkara at the top of the list only because he had the dual burden of keeping wicket for a fair chunk of his Test career, often standing up to Muttiah Muralitharan and having to concentrate on picking the variations. Using that measure, neither Tendulkar or Lara can claim that sort of fatigue although Tendulkar can rightfully lay claim to the burden of carrying India's hopes on his broad shoulders for 20 plus years. I suppose Lara and Sangakkara can also argue the same case, except that the sheer numbers and the level of adulation pale into insignificance when compared to SRT.
Both Lara and Sangakkara batted at No. 3 for most of their career while Tendulkar was a fixture at four. Does this mean that Tendulkar had it ever so slightly easier because he was that little bit more protected against the new ball? You could prosecute that argument I suppose, but it would be purely for argument's sake because it would be splitting hairs. Lara and Sangakkara generally had to bat without the added protection of Dravid, Virender Sehwag, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman which might have put more pressure on them to perform.
Full postMost Read
Writers