The Decider

Final Test of the 2009 Ashes Series is coming up this week. As with the 2005 Ashes there is a level of excitement surrounding the series that is unique to Australia / England clashes. I'm guessing the only thing that could come close would be the old India / Pakistan battles.

3 Questions:

1. What will the pitch be like? The Oval has been an unhappy venue for the Aussies with victories few and far between. Recent 1st Class statistics show that there hasn't been a single result at the ground this season. With England needing to win to regain the Ashes there have been suggestions that the pitch may be prepared with a result in mind. I'm guessing that the Poms will be their traditionally conservative selves and produce a belter. Barring an innings of brilliance from a bowler or two I think we're in for a draw.

2. Which Australian bowlers will miss out? Hilfenhaus and Johnson are certainties to play, Siddle looks like a lock which leaves one spot open for a specialist bowler. Hauritz has performed brilliantly this series (Randy-Pete bias aside) and Clark had an excellent spell in the first innings of the Fourth Test. Lee was dominant in the Lions tour match. Speculation has been that the pitch will determine the bowler. My money is on Lee to make a comeback although I'd pick Hauritz and bowl Watson as the extra seamer. No specialist spinner on anything but an absolute green-top is a mistake for mine.

3. Can Freddy inspire a turnaround? With Freddy likely to be back for his final test for England is it possible that he can turn around a team that has been demoralised by their own media as much as their own poor performance in the Fourth Test? Freddy is a special cricketer, no doubt. Can his presence counteract decades of English collapses at the hands of Australia? Can he drag his teammates out of a brief, but considerable, hole? I'm guessing we'll see a half strength Freddy perform gallantly and with enormous heart but his teammates, especially Bopara, Cook and Collingwood (if selected) will be unable to jump on his back and crawl out of their despair.

Crazy?

Luke Pommersbach has been suspended from pre-season training by the WACA after being charged with numerous offences by WA police overnight.

1. Should sporting organisations be able to suspend an individual for off-field and non-sporting related issues? Could your boss suspend you if you got busted by the police.

2. Is being suspended from pre-season training a bad thing? I can barely walk after yesterday morning's light training session. Might have to jump in the car and go a little bonkers myself.

Jokes aside, I hope Luke is OK and whatever caused this chain of events is resolved.

MVP?

A member of the Australian cheer squad the Fanatics has been identified as the culprit in the fire alarm activation in the hotel in which the English team was staying in the early hours of Day 1 of the 4th Ashes Test.

England scored 102 in their first innings.

MVP?

P.S. Nice to see the culprit identified for once - this is not a new prank and a common one played on Australian sporting teams touring England for many years.

The Gambling Plague

Sport and gambling are an odd couple. Strung together in an attempt to make the mundane interesting - ie two flys crawling up a wall - the couple are now inter-meshed and inseparable. For better or for worse we have no way of escaping the gambling plague when we watch our favourite sport.

Over the years there have been a slew of gambling related dramas in sport. Players betting on their own team or passing on valuable insider information have been common place. The infamous Pete Rose (Baseball), Andres Escobar (Football) and Hanse Cronje are prime examples of the problems that can arise in the marriage of sport and gambling. Money is the root of all evil?

What has annoyed me the most about the coupling has been the thinly veiled attempts to integrate gambling odds and promotions into sports coverage. Betfair's agreement with the ECB and Sky Sports, and soon with the ACB, requires that Sky Sports show a minimum number of shots of the Betfair Blimp each session otherwise sponsorship dollars (pounds) are withheld. Channel Nine in Australia have a similar arrangement with a local betting agency showing odds for the win / loss / draw for Rugby League games as well as ad hoc mentions of odds for first try scorer, winner of the competition and wooden spoon.

All seemingly harmless when integrated into the coverage? Perhaps. My objections lies in the timing of these promotions of gambling. In Australia the legal gambling age is 18. Anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to legally gamble. Sporting coverage during the day and early evening has a significant smattering of gambling references and promotions in timeslots where young fans are watching. On a recent Friday night Rugby League telecast I counted eight mentions of gambling, gambling agencies and odds in the half hour between 7:30pm and 8:00pm.

In Australia the regulation of gambling advertising is left to each State. With the rapid rise of gambling advertising and popularity many states, including my home state of Queensland, are lagging behind in sensible regulation.

What impact is the sport/gambling marriage likely to have on the future of our favourite games? Are we raising a new generation of sports fans who focus on the financial return of a result as much as the connection to their favourite team's fortunes? Is it all just harmless fun adding spice to sport? Are the funds generated by gambling vital in keeping sports afloat - especially at "grassroots levels"?

Momentum

Momentum is a huge thing in sport. Without it commentators would be unable to explain the change in fortunes of one team over another. Karma, jos or luck are considered to abstract to explain why two seemingly evenly matched teams are separated. Momentum a much more scientific explanation.

It's present in all sports where confidence and self-belief can be the difference between highly skilled athletes. My beloved Cowboys found this out last week in their victory over the Titans. The lads from the Gold Coast dominated the first 10 minutes of the match thanks to some solid play and some poor handling from the Cowboys. Despite the Titan's advantage the Cowboys were able to hold them out. This gave the Cowboys confidence which was boosted by a try soon after to give them the lead. Holding the Titans out for a sustained period then scoring with their first real opportunity gave the Cowboys the confidence and the momentum. They went on to score a comfortable upset victory.

Australia regained the momentum in last night's play on the first day of the 4th Ashes Test. Despite an unfortunate "Rudi" by Billy Bowen the Australian bowlers managed to snatch the momentum out of England's hands and shake the living daylights out of it. The end result, England all out for 102, was an emphatic change in direction for the Test Series. But momentum began shifting well before play commenced.

1. Australia dominate the final day of the 3rd Test after being thoroughly outplayed for three other days (four if you count England's weather as part of their team).

Flintoff out: Freddy "the Conqueror" Flintoff was forced out of the Test with knee soreness. His quota of needles expired in the 3rd Test leaving him no option but to sit out the 4th.

2. Aussie selectors: Clark in for Hauritz was as gutsy as it was necessary. Hauritz had proven a solid member of the team playing a role similar to Tim May in the 80's. Solid but not spectacular. Valuable but not game breaking.

3. Prior spasms: Matt Prior suffered a few back spasms just prior to commencement of play putting doubt into the English lineup. Paul Collingwood subbing in as 'keeper with Johnathon Trott is as an extra batsman might have actually improved the team but the doubt and uncertainty may have nudged the momentum along.

With all this momentum switching to Australia it was inevitable that the first session was going to be critical for both sides. England needing to halt, then reverse the momentum and Australia needing to keep the flow in their direction. History shows that the momentum was all Australia until England's bowlers managed to take three quick wickets in the space of four overs. Australia looked stunned and England were strutting around with some confidence for the first time in the day. Michael Clarke and Marcus North batted out the remainder of the final session ensuring that there was no momentum shift back to England. Holding momentum can be as important as gaining it in the first place.

Momentum applies to all levels of sport - although it's more pronounced when the combatants are evenly matched. In our Grade Cricket circles I like to focus our team on winning each session. This is a common Australian strategy which was a staple of Steve Waugh led sides. We aim to win each hour of our Grade games. In the field we look to hold the runs down and take wickets in every session. In times when we are behind this gives us small, achievable goals and when we are ahead it ensures that we stay focused on maintaining the momentum. Simple strategy but very effective in sides where you have inexperienced players or juniors coming through the Grades.

Finally, momentum seems to be an aspect of cricket that only arises when there is a change from one team to another. When Australia dominated England in 2006/07 in Australia there was little talk of momentum. Why? Because it was always there. Like sunshine for five days of a Test, it's ignored if it's continuous.

Flintoff vs Johnson

If you based your opinion on who was the more valuable player solely on the first three Tests of the Ashes you'd need your head checked if you though there was any contest. Flintoff. Freddy Flintoff. The English talisman. The man who provides the heart to the English team. The man capable of tearing apart your team, carrying on like a pork chop and still being completely likeable.

Then there's Johnson. Poor, downtrodden, out of form Mitchell Johnson. Capable of bowling pie after pie, scowling like a guilty school boy but somehow still able to make you pray for his return to form.

Statistics might show otherwise...

The test performances of the two players, up to and including the 3rd Ashes Test were:

Flintoff has played considerably more Test Cricket, three times more Test Matches in fact. Otherwise there is very little separating the two players. Johnson has a marginally better batting average but Flintoff has amassed 26 half-centuries. Johnson has a better bowling average and strike rate but Flintoff has the wickets on the board with an impressive 225 in his career. Should Johnson continue to take wickets at his career rate he would be close to 300 wickets at the same stage in his career as Flintoff. However, factors such as durability, consistency and form can dramatically change careers.

Until the recent home and away Test Series against South Africa, Johnson was a promising player who might be the answer to Australia's aging bowling stocks. After the series he was considered a world-class all-rounder largely responsible for a rousing series win by the Australians. Two Tests into the Ashes series and the always insightful media was calling for him to be dropped. Not even Jessica Bratich can keep him smiling on the field.

Will Johnson go on to be a world-class all-rounder for years to come? Is he a one-summer wonder?

Let me know your thoughts.

Here's a listing of the great all-rounders and their career statistics:

Highlights Don't Do Justice

Like most cricket fans in Australia and England I've been keenly following the current Ashes series. Staying up late to watch the SBS / Sky-TV coverage has been compelling, if not quite as compelling as the 2005 Ashes - yet. There have been many nights where the rigours of the day have caught up with me and the TV has been turned off with a session or more to play. As much as I love cricket I don't think I can sit through a couple of hours of taped play with knowledge of the score without losing interest. So I do the next best thing and watch highlights and read about the day's play the next morning along with the masses.

Highlights are great if you want to keep up to date with what's happening. They give you a brief glimpse at the day's play, provide you with teasers of the major stories and keep the hunger for statistical minutiae fed. But they fall short. Even SBS's excellent video highlight packages (12 minutes of highlights per day's play) and extended replays the following afternoon lack that little something that makes Test Cricket special. They don't seem to be able to really communicate the essence of the day's play. The sub-plots, characters, drama and tension of a Test Match are hollowed out in the name of brevity.

So to last night's play. Australia were two wickets down in their second dig and still trailing England's first innings by 25 runs. They day was setup with two real possibilities: Australia bat out the day, or most of it, to save a draw or England bowl Australia out quickly enough to win the Test. The highlights show that the Australian batsmen stood up to England and batted out the day for a draw. There is some hint that there was passion in the early stages but otherwise it appeared to be a day of measured batting against a ball that refused to swing as it did in Australia's first innings.

What the highlights, internet reports and newspapers can't show are the intricacies of the sub-plots. In the first session England's captain Andrew Strauss opened the bowling with Onions and Flintoff leaving James Anderson to cool his heals despite taking a bag of wickets in the first innings. Whether it was a strategy to get the most out of Flintoff before his knee injury flared or a patient gamble to wait for the ball to lose it's lacquer and start to swing we will never know. The speculation by commentators and the anticipation of the bowling change is lost to highlights.

[I'm guessing that non-cricket fans like my wife would be thinking that the choice of bowler isn't all that interesting right about now. I'd have to explain it to her in "shoes" as she sees the same levels of depth in a pair of Christian Louboutin shoes.]

Small stories like this add flavour to a Test in the same way that sub-plots add depth to a novel or a movie. When you add up all these sub-plots and tie them into a compelling story you build interest and create a connection between the reader/viewer and the novel/Test Match.

This is why I love watching Test Cricket. Without these sub-plots it becomes 30 hours of guys in white clothes standing around do not much. Without these sub-plots highlight packages would be enough.

Top 5 Sub-Plots of the 3rd Test:

5. Weather: England has miserable weather. I've experienced this first hand. I spent an English "summer" playing cricket in Manchester in the late nineties for a brilliant little club called Urmston. I was also offered an opportunity to play in Edinburgh that same season but declined thinking that Manchester would be "less cold" than Scotland. I landed in Manchester just after Easter to be greeted by a snow-covered city.

Edgbaston is a little south of Manchester in the similarly exotic city of Birmingham. The ground experienced a ridiculous amount of persistent drizzle amounting to rainfall on 13 of the 17 days prior to the Test.

Would the Test start on time? Would the Test be interrupted by rain? Would there be a chance of a victory to either side? If the Test was drawn due to reduced play how would this impact the Ashes Series?

History shows that the match was drawn largely due to the loss of play on days two and three. Without the poor weather there was a chance of victory to either side although you would think that the pressure on the Australian's in the third innings would have given the English side the advantage if another day's play was available.

4. Aggression: Australia had been trumpeting that they were under instructions to keep quiet and curb their traditional sledging tendencies. Some commentators pinpointed this as a factor in England's rise over the firs two tests calling for Australia to become more aggressive. The Australian team appeared to agree demonstrating this with their body-language, bowling and verbal communication with the English batsmen. Johnson and Watson in particular had some spirited discussions with Flintoff and Anderson respectively. Gotta love it.

3. Swing Bowling: The cricket balls used in England for Test Matches is manufactured by Dukes. It is a long lasting ball which can produce pronounced swing in the right conditions. The Australian bowlers have struggled to come to grips with the change from the Kookaburra balls used in Australia. This surprises me as the Australian bowling coach is Troy Cooley who was credited with some of the success for the English bowlers in the 2005 series where England's ability to swing and reverse-swing the ball were considered to be the difference between the teams. What surprises me more is that people are expecting bowlers such as Johnson and Siddle to swing the ball despite neither of them being swing bowlers. The closest thing Australia have to a Terry Alderman type swing bowler is Ben Hilfenhaus who has swung the ball in each test and been Australia's most consistent.

2. Mitchel Johnson: He's been in miserable form. While his bowling figures in the first two tests were mediocre, his decline in impact from the most recent Test series in South Africa has been baffling.

Leading Wicket Takers (first two Tests):

Hauritz 9 @ 29.33
Hilfenhaus 9 @ 31.77
Johnson 8 @ 41.37 (4.00 economy)
Flintoff 7 @ 35.28

Siddle 7 @ 44.57 (3.88 economy)

There were constant calls from the media to drop Johnson for Stuart Clark for the 3rd Test (anyone get a hint of the old Baggy-Blue influence?) but the selectors and Ricky Ponting stuck with him in the hope that he would come good.

The sub-plot added interest to England's first innings which was heightened by the decision to open the bowling with Hilfenhaus and Siddle before bringing Hauritz on first change ahead of Johnson. When Johnson did get a bowl there was a mixture of nerves and hope which were neither dashes or confirmed early on. Johnson's battle with Flintoff gave glimpses of the Johnson most people were hoping for adding to the sub-plot for the next Test. It's a shame Johnson was "Rudi-ed" late in the day after seemingly having Ian Bell plumb in front.

1. Australia Under Pressure: Australia were under immense pressure heading into the 3rd Test. Down 1-nil to a confident and, this is hard to say, competent England there was pressure to draw level in the series or at least remain within a game. The pressure has been evident on the faces of the players and the way they appear to approach their games. Batsmen seem uncertain against the swinging ball, bowlers seem slow to recover from a bad delivery and the fielding doesn't seem to have the same crispness and energy of the past.

Until the final day it appeared that the pressure was on top of the Australians. A fine batting performance, albeit against a ball that failed to swing beyond the norm, showed that the Australians are digging their way out of a hole and regaining some of their lost confidence.

It remains to be seen how this translates into the 4th Test and whether Australia will continue to rise or if England can put them back in their hole with a strong showing on Day 1.

These sub-plots roll between the Tests, develop, rise, fall and eventually fade. Some are destined to play minor roles in the greater story while others will be resurrected in stories to come. This is why I love Test Cricket above all other forms of the game and this is why I can't wait until the next Test.