The Return to the Bad Old Days

Last night Australia revisited the Ponting years and were reminded of how good the Clarke era has been thus far.  While I am not going to blame Ricky for the loss as that would seem unfair and indeed would not be the truth, the decision to revert to captain Ricky beckons some thought and discussion.

Last week end, the Australian selectors were faced with an interesting dilemma.  With Michael Clarke sustaining an injury, a new captain would be required for (at least) the next match.  With the desired vice captain, Shane Watson, still injured (he has just made is comeback in Shield cricket) and Brad Haddin dropped/rested, the current vice captain is David Warner.  While he appears a natural leader, Warner has only been in the team for five minutes and has been vice captain for even less.  On top of that, his form has been rather patchy and you could imagine that the selectors might want him to address that without the additional burden of captaincy. 

On the other hand, former captain and current legend, Ricky Ponting is in the team, relaxed in his role as senior statesman and freelance mentor.  And as Bobby Simpson is unavailable due to business commitments, in some ways it made sense to ask Ricky to fill in for one match.  Just one match.  It was the conservative choice, was logical in many ways and as those attributes are in keeping with the head of selectors, it was no surprise to see the return of Ponting.

I admit that it is easy for me to say this in hindsight but there are some counter arguments.  One of them was made by former Australian captain, and current sage, Steve Waugh.  He made the point that the Ponting was gone, that era was finished and the team is really moving forward.  It seems like a step backwards not to promote Warner.  After all, he is the vice captain and it is logical to promote the vice captain to captain in such instances.

I agree with Steve.  It is impossible to measure Michael Clarke’s influence as captain to the turning around of the team but I would suggest it has been great.  The unveiling of the new attack this summer has helped the team’s cause no end but you can see that Clarke is putting his own stamp on the team.  To the Australian public he appears open, decisive, upbeat and charismatic and we should expect he is that way with the team.  Add to that is heroic deeds with the bat and his Midas touch leading the team in the field and it is easy to see understand his current standing.

The human mind can be a fragile thing so it came as no surprise to me that the Australian team was awful last night. They had lost their leader.  And what was worse they were presented with one that presided over a very dark time.  A time that is behind Australian cricket and it is puzzling as to why the selectors would be providing reminders of that time.

Many questioned Clarke’s ability in the lead up to his anointing.  Did he have the spine, the maturity and the right qualities?  I admit that he seemed to lose the plot for a while with super models, super cars and the like but when he was given the opportunity, he seized it and while he has made mistakes, one cannot fault his commitment or leadership.  It’s a fact of life that we often don’t do things until we are made to do them.  All things considered, Warner should have been given his chance.

And I might add that that one day team was pretty week.  The batting is brittle and the bowling ordinary.  What is it with Brett Lee?  What is that about?  He’s a spent fuel rod and his fitness must be in some doubt.  He was rushed back into the team and the guy who ripped the heart out of the Indians in the Test series is sitting in the dressing room. I should say, “one of the guys” – the other ones aren’t even at the ground.   All people have flaws and perhaps this set of selectors is overly nostalgic.

And now, surprise, surprise, Clarke will be missing for two matches.  And what if it becomes three?  The selectors have made a rod for their backs.  They can’t very well sack Ponting as captain now and ask Warner to take over.  That would be too big a slap in the face for Ponting.  Even I accept that.  On top of that, Ponting’s own batting form should mean that his position in the team is under question.  He has not passed six runs in four innings.  Obviously, he has cemented his place in the Test team for ODIs are different.  In Test cricket, you can bunker down and simply try not to get out until your form returns and if no runs are scored during that time, it doesn’t really matter.  You simply don’t have that luxury in limited overs cricket.  Perhaps he should consider retiring from One Day cricket – for the good of team.  Or perhaps he needs to be asked to retire.

It’s Only a Little Bit Bent

I have previously stated my views on the legality of Murali’s action and the ICC’s rationale in legalising illegal bowling actions.  I recently commented to someone that now Murali has retired, they can repeal that ridiculous 15 degree chucking rule.  But it seems I spoke too soon.

I don’t want to detract from Pakistan’s marvellous whitewash in the series just concluded against England.  It may not surprise you that I would prefer to rejoice in it.  Not only because it brings England back to the field, and not only because I love it any time that England cops a good hiding but also because the more competitive Test playing nations we have, the healthier and more enjoyable is the game of Test cricket.

For the past decade or so, Pakistan has struggled against adversity and rarely prevailed.  Pakistan cricket has been dogged by economic and political troubles of an enormous magnitude which have seen the players poorly paid and unable to play matches at home.   Pakistan cricket itself has had plenty of problems ranging from the usual disharmony and in-fighting to headline-making scandals including illegal betting, spot-fixing and performance enhancing drugs.  You would all know that just recently, Pakistan’s captain and two best bowlers were sentenced to gaol for said spot fixing scandal.

Times have been tough.  But out of the scandal, a promising Pakistan is starting to emerge.  They have won their past three Test series and that smacks of consistency to me, and that is a word that has not often been associated with the Pakistan cricket team, at any time in history.  And one of the main men behind this resurgence is Saeed Ajmal.  He took 24 wickets in the three nil win over England and he really had the Poms in a spin.

Now that he has enjoyed some success, his action, which has always been suspect and under review, is causing a stir.  But it is OK.  No need to worry.  Close scrutiny has shown that to start with, his arm is naturally bent (sounding familiar) and the average amount of straightening is just 8 degrees.  It creeps up to about 13 degrees for the arm ball and faster ball (I think this is the Teesra) but not the Doosra and 13 degrees is fine.  It’s all bollocks to me.  Give me the good old days when the umpire could simply see a “chuck” and call “no ball”.  No need for the umpires to carry a protractor in those days.

The cold reality is that no such recourse will be given.  The dodgy rule is here to stay.  I have previously suggested that the reason for the rule change was to keep Murali in the game.  Sri Lanka was a new and struggling nation and was starting to win some matches on the back of Murali’s performances.  It was obvious that the ICC wanted Sri Lanka to succeed and the easy option was to change the rule.  To legitimise something that had been against the rules for over one hundred years.

Saeed Ajmal can now enjoy the benefit of the same rule change.  He is now a key player in lifting Pakistan off the mat and will be allowed to go on his merry way.  The ICC actually changed a rule to protect Murali.  For Ajmal, all they have to do is nothing – stick with the status quo.  And doing nothing is one of the few things that ICC actually does well.