cricket.rickeyre.com

Adam Gilchrist was playing populist for the media on Saturday when he aired his thoughts of having a one-day game between Australia and India held every January 26 for the “Waugh-Tendulkar Trophy”.

With January 26 being both Australia Day and India’s Republic Day, Gilly has claimed the bright idea of staging a game on that day to determine the limited-over supremacy between the two countries.

While an annual match hosted alternately by each country seems to be Gilchrist’s ideal, PTI reports that it could be “once in two years, or probably [once] in four years to start with”.

It’s a warm, noble idea, but it won’t, and shouldn’t happen - at least not in the format Gilchrist has suggested.

January 26 is slap bang in the middle of the home international cricket season in Australia, where huge revenues are derived from staging the triangular one-day series during school holiday time. How will Cricket Australia suddenly interrupt an intense competition against two touring teams, say, South Africa and the West Indies, to fly the Aussie team over to India for a special trophy match, or even to do the same in Australia?

There’s another problem with January 26. While it is indeed the national day for both Australia and India, there is a great deal of discomfort in my country about celebrating the anniversary of a day (26 January 1788) when foreign invaders arrived, took over the land permanently, and decimated the indigenous population through illness, abuse and murder.

Yes there are strong arguments for moving Australia Day away from January 26, although I can’t give you off the top of my head any particular alternative.

The regular Australia v India contest could be a means of reviving the short-lived experiment of winter cricket under the roof at the Telstra Dome, Melbourne. Formerly Colonial Stadium, the Aussie Rules-dominated Telstra Dome was used for a three-match ODI series between Australia and South Africa in August 2000, and for two matches against Pakistan in June 2002. Poor attendances for the Pakistan series have seen this event put on hold for the foreseeable future, but a “Waugh-Tendulkar Trophy” could revitalise the concept.

Whether the name “Waugh-Tendulkar” would last is a moot point also, as naming rights sponsors blow in and out to grab their share of the spoils from the televised spectacular that this would become.

It is fair to say that the rivalry between Australia and India in cricket is becoming more passionate and intense, spurred along by that marvellous Test series in India in 2001, and by the World Cup final earlier this year. Australian cricket fans, in general a xenophobic lot at the best of times, are finally starting to warm to India as a cricketing rival, and we can’t be too far away from the Border-Gavaskar Trophy for Test cricket competing with the Ashes and the Frank Worrell Trophy for importance.

The Australia-India rivalry resumes in Gwalior on Sunday with the second game of the TVS Cup (the first, between India and New Zealand, having been rained off on Thursday). Although Australia’s bowling stocks are down, let’s look forward to a great battle.

Agence France-Presse have dropped an incredible clanger in a item which has appeared in many news services around the world in the past 24 hours, incorrectly attributing Steve Waugh with comments made by Murray Goodwin last week.

As I’ve previously discussed on the forum, former Zimbabwean Test batsman Goodwin made some fairly outspoken comments about that country’s selection policies when talking to reporters in Perth on October 6, comments which have since seen him charged with an alleged breach of Cricket Australia’s code of player conduct.

Australian Associated Press quoted Goodwin on October 6 as saying:

“It sounds really racist but in actual fact it’s the truth and that’s a sad state of affairs because these guys don’t have to perform as well as the European guys to get a game”

Today, an AFP wire report appears on several news sites under headings along the lines of “Waugh supports Goodwin’s colour quota comments”. (http://sport.iafrica.com/news/278448.htm is one of several sources online at the moment of the report in question.)

The AFP item contains the following sentence, which it uses as the basis for its report:

“‘It sounds really racist but in actual fact it’s the truth and that’s a sad state of affairs because these guys don’t have to perform as well as the European guys to get a game,’ Waugh said”

Oops. AFP does appear to get its fact right with the next sentence of its report, saying “Waugh, speaking to reporters said while cricket threw up a myriad of talking points, the sensitivity of some of the game’s administrators and conduct codes left players in a Catch-22 situation.”

This sentence appears in fact to have been taken from an AAP report of a Steve Waugh press conference in Sydney on Thursday. One example online of the AAP report is http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,7577658,00.html It does look to me as if a sub at AFP took the AAP report and made a hash of rewriting it, taking Goodwin’s quote and thinking that Waugh had said it.

Some sub-editorial sloppiness sullying the reputation of the Australian Test captain?

To back up what Waugh actually said at that press conference, Trevor Marshallsea for the Fairfax press quoted him as saying “The players are caught in a bit of a catch 22″ and later that:

“You know there’s some topics that are touchy and sometimes you want to give an honest answer on, but you know if you do you’re going to get in trouble.”

(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/16/1065917551529.html for Marshallsea’s full report of the Waugh press conference.)

The ups and downs of Kenyan cricket continue. After their amazing - if somewhat lucky - appearance in the semi-finals of the ICC World Cup earlier this year, Kenya has failed to qualify for the Under-19 world championships to be held in Bangladesh next February.

The only one of the eleven full One-Day International countries needing to go through the qualifying rounds for the Youth World Cup (by virtue of not having Test status), Kenya had merely to finish in the top two of the combined Africa-East Asia Pacific tournament which concluded in Windhoek, Namibia, last week.

They got rolled in the semis, by neighbours Uganda.

The result has to be a blow for the Kenyan Cricket Association, who have been making a serious push for Test status and ICC full membership after their strong showing in the World Cup, which included victories over Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. Their record at Under-19 level has been somewhat shaky, however, with an infamous annihilation at the hands of Australia in the 2002 youth World Cup in New Zealand on their record (Australia scored 480 for 6; Kenya, in reply, were all out for 50).

There was also controversy surrounding the ethnic mix of the squad chosen for the Namibian qualifying tournament this month. Only one black player, wicketkeeper-batsman Timothy Muange, was chosen in the squad of fourteen.

Uganda beat Kenya by six wickets in the semi-final at Windhoek on October 8 to qualify for their first Under-19 World Cup, but went on to lose to lose to Papua New Guinea by 53 runs in the tournament final.

Uganda has been one of my “Watch This Space” teams in international cricket after their strong showing in the 2001 ICC Trophy, with a number of exciting performances in their debut appearance that year. There will be a heavy irony in the fact that they have leap-frogged their more illustrious neighbours to compete in next year’s youth showpiece, and one can only hope that Ugandan cricket can kick on from there.

My personal view is that, regardless of Kenya and Uganda’s status in the one-day international world, they should submit a combined bid, along with Tanzania, for Test status under the “East Africa” banner. This would provide a similar multi-nation concept as that applied with the West Indies, and East Africa did indeed field a combined team in the inaugural men’s World Cup in 1975.

Significant constitutional change would be required within the ICC for this to happen, not to mention shifting a few mindsets in the cricketing establishment, but a team comprising the best talent from Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania would have a much greater (and sooner) chance of being competitive in the first-class and Test arena than that of Kenya going alone.

It’s going to be a struggle to take an interest in the two Test “3 Test Series” between Australia and Zimbabwe. Coming so soon after the Bangladesh series, it is hard to see this being anything other than a 2-0 cakewalk for the Australians.

Despite the absence through injury of Glenn McGrath and the continuing suspension of Shane Warne, Australia will be much too strong. Consider that Martin Love, who scored a century in his last Test innings and had an outstanding county season for Dynamo Durham, has been dropped to make way for Damien Martyn. And Michael Clarke still can’t get a look in. The motivation of this Australian team is the only issue, with the bigger attraction (for some) of the ODI triseries in India just around the corner.

Zimbabwe, minus The Brothers Flower, Andy (retired to South Australia) and Grant (injured), have not set the world on fire in their first two three-day matches on their Australian tour - against an invitational team from the Rockingham-Mandurah club near Perth, and against the Western Australian shield side, a game which they very nearly lost.

Ticket sales for the First Test at the WACA have been extremely underwhelming, and channel 9 are refusing to screen the final hour or so of each day’s play in the eastern states, because of the beloved National Nine News and A Current Affair. (Afraid of a bloodbath in the ratings, and they’re probably right on that point.)

I’m at a dead loss to understand why the Second Test was allocated to the Sydney Cricket Ground. Sure, they get sellouts for the New Year’s Test every year, as they are most likely to do again when India plays in January. But mid-October? They will be lucky to get 3000 to the SCG on any given day of the Zimbabwe Test.

The presence of the Rugby World Cup in this country diverts attention as well, even in Perth where two matches at Subiaco Oval this Saturday and Sunday will clash with playing days in the Test at the WACA (granted, the rugby doesn’t kick off till 8pm each night).

Why couldn’t the SCG Test have been allocated to Bellerive Oval, Hobart, which is missing out on Test cricket this season completely. (It should also be noted that Hobart is the only state capital not to be allocated a Rugby World Cup game.) Another good option for the Second Test would have been Manuka Oval, Canberra.

Anyway, I can’t predict anything other than Australia 2 Zimbabwe 0 for this series, unless the weather turns nasty somewhere along the line.

Australia is the outstanding Test team of our time, there can be no doubt. They have a batting lineup whose depth and talent is of historic proportions. Matthew Hayden demonstrated amazing staying power with his world record 380 against Zimbabwe at the WACA, while Adam Gilchrist is an extraordinary player to be coming in to bat at seven. The bowling, however, does not have the same immense depth to draw upon.

What could have been a win by an innings and 300-plus was pulled back to an innings and 175 as Zimbabwe’s lower order exploited a depleted Australian attack on the fourth day, and then - with the help of the weather - into the fifth. Already without Glenn McGrath and, till next February, Shane Warne, Australia lost Jason Gillespie and Stuart MacGill on Saturday evening with muscle tears. Suddenly, Darren Lehmann was the strike spin bowler. Hardly the same standard as Warne or MacGill, and his 3/61 from 31.2 overs was a flattering return for persistance against a Zimbabwean team hoping, against expectation, to salvage a draw in the rain.

In the end, the match was Australia’s, but will be remembered for one reason and one reason only in years to come - Hayden’s world record knock. Zimbabwe are a team struggling to keep in touch with mediocrity, alas, and Sean Ervine was really the only player to display any long-term promise. Heath Streak’s decision to put Australia into bat after he had won the toss looked daft at the time, and only looked worse when Steve Waugh declared on 6/735.

There should be one key motive in deciding to bowl first, ie, the belief that your batsmen will score more runs than their opponents if you bat second. What *was* Heath thinking?

We should not fail to acknowledge the wider emotional context in which the Australian team placed the Perth Test, coinciding as it did with the first anniversary (on the Sunday) of the terrorist atrocity at Kuta Beach, Bali. The anniversary was an occasion of national - if perhaps a little too nationalistic - rememberance of the 88 Australians among the 202 people from many countries who died at Bali that night, and the Test team wore specially enscribed black armbands throughout the Test, while Hayden himself dedicated his innings to the memory of the victims.

The absurdly-titled “3 Test Series” ends with the Second Test in Sydney starting on Friday. It should be another romp for the Australians on a ground likely to be devoid of atmosphere, but with Brad Williams or Nathan Bracken likely to replace Gillespie with the new ball, it is clear that Australia does not have the same awesome depth in bowling stocks as it does in its batting. Brad Hogg (if, indeed MacGill is ruled unfit) is a workmanlike choice as Australia’s number three wrist-spinner, but try naming a decent Number Four. Cameron White?

It’s an odd choice by the selectors to bypass Martin Love and Michael Clarke as replacement for the injured Lehmann, and choose Simon Katich. He may have played one Test on the 2001 Ashes tour, but Katich has definitely slipped down the pecking order since then. Surely his new-found talent as a left-arm wristie hasn’t pushed his name over the line. The new Michael Bevan? Not by any measure, in my view.

Bravo to Matthew Hayden for a brilliant innings and a new world Test record of 380. And for grabbing some of the media spotlight away from the Rugby World Cup on its opening night.

Hayden showed so much promise in the early 90s with some heavy scoring for Queensland, and was very unlucky not to make the Australian team against the West Indies in 1992 and for then blowing a solitary chance in South Africa in 1994. His comeback to the Australian team in 2000 has been followed by some quite extraordinary innings, which have helped Australia set the agenda as the benchmark team in world cricket today.

It’s hard to imagine too many opening batsmen of the past who have brought such a brutally rapid accumulation of runs into their game. There’s Gordon Greenidge, and to a lesser extent, Sanath Jayasuriya. Turning 32 later this month, Hayden has 3916 Test career runs after today’s knock. One can only contemplate where he would be if he had been an Australian regular throughout his twenties. For a long time he looked destined to be Australia’s Graeme Hick. No more.

The lunch to tea session at the WACA today (day two of the First Test against Zimbabwe) was as breathtaking a spectacle of batting as I have seen in a Test match in years. And let’s not forget that Adam Gilchrist, who scored his ninth Test century from 84 balls. This Australian batting lineup is on a frightening high plane of brilliance.

It’s fair to say that the Zimbabwean bowling attack was not what most countries would accept for themselves as Test standard, and I believe their claims for continuing Test status are flakier than Bangladesh’s. (Not that there is any prospect of either country having the ICC full membership taken away.)

This should not, however, be any sort of argument for devaluing Hayden’s world record. Looking over the progressive list of past world record holders for the highest Test innings, I see a few instances of records being set against substandard bowling opponents. Andy Sandham’s 325 against the West Indies in 1930 is one, as is Wally Hammond’s 336 not out against New Zealand in 1933, and Garfield Sobers’ 365 not out against Pakistan in 1958. Hayden’s record is no lesser an achievement simply because it was made against the likes of Streak, Ervine, Blignaut, Price and Gripper.

And on the subject of Heath Streak: reality check, mate. The objective of cricket is to score more runs than your opponent. When the toss of the coin gives you the first chance to accumulate those runs, bloody well take that opportunity unless you have a *really* good reason. As it is, you now enter cricket immortality as the captain who allowed an opposition to bat first and score 735 runs for their trouble.

There’s been a lot of friction in Zimbabwean cricketing circles over “black quotas” in team selection. I believe that an “affirmative action” policy is important for the long-term development of the game in Zimbabwe. It’s a pity that the ZCU is not being open and transparent about its motives.

It is clear that there has been a lot of dissatisfaction among some of the country’s leading white players in recent years. Murray Goodwin stated it in a rather unsubtle fashion the other day when he said that black players were getting a “free ride” into the team without having to “perform as well as the European guys to get a game”. (It looks like he’s in trouble with the WACA over those comments, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Sussex CCC, his northern hemisphere employer, has words to him as well.)

Without doubt there has been a drain of talent from the Zimbabwean side in the last few years. Goodwin came back to Australia and Neil Johnson returned to South Africa, both because of economic concerns. Andy Flower is now splitting his time between Essex and South Australia after his courageous black armband protest at the Zimbabwe-Namibia world cup game earlier this year. Henry Olonga, who participated in the same protest, has fled to England and has just been granted a five-year visa by the British government, and intends to pursue a career in music.

Also in the past day we’ve learned that Bryan Murphy, best known for being appointed captain of the Zimbabwean team and then immediately dropping himself for poor form, has moved to South Africa to take up a coaching position at the University of Cape Town. As that tireless scribe of Zimbabwean cricket, John Ward, reported on CricInfo yesterday, Murphy is the eighth international player to leave Zimbabwe prematurely during 2003.

The reasons would appear to be manifold, and certainly not all related to quota selections. Escape from the Mugabe regime and from a crumbling economy are the two most compelling reasons, but getting away from the ZCU seems to be on the list as well. The manner in which the ZCU attempted to play down Henry Olonga’s carjacking incident in early 2002 was especially disgraceful.

Following Goodwin’s comments this week, the ZCU has denied that any quotas are in place. There may not be any set numbers laid down in their selection policies, as in South Africa, but there is clear evidence that the fast-tracking of black players is taking place. Why else would nineteen year-old wicketkeeper Tatenda Taibu be appointed vice-captain? And how else would Hilton Masakadza be elevated to the Test team at the age of seventeen?

Is that, however, a problem? Masakadza went on to score a century in his Test debut against the West Indies in July 2001.

If Zimbabwe is to develop as a cricketing nation, there must be a concerted effort to discover and develop the talent hidden throughout its whole population. The “Europeans”, to use Murray Goodwin’s ugly description, account for less than two per cent of the Zimbabwean population, and continue to dominate national team selections. Taibu and Dion Ebrahim are the only non-white players in the First Test team currently playing Australia at the WACA.

The best thing that the Zimbabwe Cricket Union could do, in my opinion, is to set out a clear “affirmative action” policy, ensuring a minimum set number of black players in the Test and one-day international teams. Would it compromise the team’s performance in the short term? Maybe, but what do they have to lose in reality? And it would be much better to have an open, transparent and consistent policy that is clear to everyone, so that at least all players know where they stand.

It’s not unlike the policy already in place in South Africa. Affirmative action does have a place in elite sport if it’s handled properly.