Welcome to the 20th century.
2007-01-10
2007-01-09
My take on Islamic Terrorism
I wrote the following comment at my favourite right-wing blogger - Carol Platt Liebau.
If you take 9/11 out of the equation, America has been spared pretty much any terror activities by Islamic terrorists.
One theory for this is that America has been able to engage them in Iraq rather than on American soil - but that argument seems to fall down when one considers terror attacks in places like London, Madrid and Bali.
There's no doubt that America's internal security arrangements since 9/11 have helped enormously. However, given the problems of illegal immigration and illegal drugs entering America, it is obvious that many holes still remain.
So why aren't the Islamic terrorists exploiting these security holes?
I would argue that the reason is because the Islamic terrorists were never as sophisticated or well planned as we would like to believe. They do not have the wherewithal to take advantage of America's security holes without being noticed.
Which means, of course, that 9/11 was actually a lucky event, rather than the beginning of a well planned assault on America.
Islamic terrorism has not been, and never will be, a threat to world peace in the same way as Soviet Communism was in the 1950s and 1960s.
If you take 9/11 out of the equation, America has been spared pretty much any terror activities by Islamic terrorists.
One theory for this is that America has been able to engage them in Iraq rather than on American soil - but that argument seems to fall down when one considers terror attacks in places like London, Madrid and Bali.
There's no doubt that America's internal security arrangements since 9/11 have helped enormously. However, given the problems of illegal immigration and illegal drugs entering America, it is obvious that many holes still remain.
So why aren't the Islamic terrorists exploiting these security holes?
I would argue that the reason is because the Islamic terrorists were never as sophisticated or well planned as we would like to believe. They do not have the wherewithal to take advantage of America's security holes without being noticed.
Which means, of course, that 9/11 was actually a lucky event, rather than the beginning of a well planned assault on America.
Islamic terrorism has not been, and never will be, a threat to world peace in the same way as Soviet Communism was in the 1950s and 1960s.
Aussie Rents to rise?
According to this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, rents are set to rise 20% in the coming year. The reason? New laws that make superannuation investments more attractive which will channel money from potential retirees.
I'm sad to report that this occurrence is not as likely as you might think. The reason why people invest money is to get returns - including investing in property. If rents are going to rise then that will essentially make the investment more lucrative. In other words, the market will balance everything out.
Of course in recent years the housing market has been in a slump. Since the economy is driven in part these days by the housing market, and slump in the housing market leads to a slump in the economy as well. This means, of course, that people have less money to spend on rent which means that potential renters would not be able to afford such huge increases in rent.
And who is asking the government to change tax laws so that property gets more investment again? The Real Estate Institute of NSW. Now there's an organisation that won't stand for any talk of taking investment out of housing.
I'm sad to report that this occurrence is not as likely as you might think. The reason why people invest money is to get returns - including investing in property. If rents are going to rise then that will essentially make the investment more lucrative. In other words, the market will balance everything out.
Of course in recent years the housing market has been in a slump. Since the economy is driven in part these days by the housing market, and slump in the housing market leads to a slump in the economy as well. This means, of course, that people have less money to spend on rent which means that potential renters would not be able to afford such huge increases in rent.
And who is asking the government to change tax laws so that property gets more investment again? The Real Estate Institute of NSW. Now there's an organisation that won't stand for any talk of taking investment out of housing.
2007-01-08
In theory, communism works
Those who love the free market and are committed to the ideology of small government, lower taxes and greater personal income freedom will often point to the great works that philanthropists have done over the years.
So the basic equation is this: Government spending on social needs = bad and inefficient; Charitiable giving to the needy = good and efficient.
But it seems that even rich philanthropists like Bill Gates can get it dangerously wrong.
So the basic equation is this: Government spending on social needs = bad and inefficient; Charitiable giving to the needy = good and efficient.
But it seems that even rich philanthropists like Bill Gates can get it dangerously wrong.
God's love drives us to submission
There's an interesting discussion raised by by Michael Spencer and Kiwiandemu about preaching the love of God during gospel presentations.
Let me admit one thing before I go further - I did not listen to the sermon by Francis Chan and nor have I read in any great detail what Michael and Ali have written. So please understand that I am writing this as a response to the impressions that I received from both bloggers. Also understand that I'm not taking any sides on this debate - or if I am it is only incidental.
One of the things that I am continually aware of is our gratefulness to God for everything we experience. I had toad in the hole for breakfast with a French blend coffee - an exquisite combination that brings a small amount of joy to my day. This is an experience of God's free love - his grace. I don't deserve to enjoy it, but I do because God graciously allows it.
This sort of Grace is called "common grace". It is about the love that God has for all mankind. All of mankind can enjoy the benefits of creation that God has given them, even when most of them rebel against him. That God does not take away these benefits from sinners is an act of gracious love that is unequalled...
..except, of course, by the cross. The gift of eternal life through the death and resurrection of Christ is the ultimate form of God's graciousness, and the only thing in God's grace that guarantees salvation. Heaven cannot be attained by eggs and coffee, no matter how enjoyable they may be.
So I've decided recently that one way into a gospel presentation is to communicate just how much we owe God, and how much God owes us. In simple terms - we owe God everything and God owes us nothing. I think it is a way for people's belief in self-autonomy and freedom to be challenged - but challenged in a positive way. It's not so much telling people that they should bow down and worship God, but it is a realisation that we are in God's debt.
That, I think, is a good reason why box #1 on Two Ways to Live can be so important. Not only does this gospel presentation start off with God, but it also communicates the fact that all creation is in God's hand.
Once God's love for us in creation can be established, then we can communicate the issue of our rebellion and sin far more effectively. We are not just ignoring God or resisting a petty tyrant, we are being supremely ungrateful for everything that God has given us. We are freeloaders and moochers in the world.
I think presenting God's "passionate love" for sinners is a wonderful way to bring people not just to understand grace and faith, but also the fact that such love drives us to submission, to repentance, to falling on our face before God in realisation that we have squandered and resisted against his just rule.
In a sense, preaching God's passionate love is part and parcel of what some American Christians call "Lordship salvation". A proper presentation of God's love and grace will always drive us to humbly submit ourselves before God.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Let me admit one thing before I go further - I did not listen to the sermon by Francis Chan and nor have I read in any great detail what Michael and Ali have written. So please understand that I am writing this as a response to the impressions that I received from both bloggers. Also understand that I'm not taking any sides on this debate - or if I am it is only incidental.
One of the things that I am continually aware of is our gratefulness to God for everything we experience. I had toad in the hole for breakfast with a French blend coffee - an exquisite combination that brings a small amount of joy to my day. This is an experience of God's free love - his grace. I don't deserve to enjoy it, but I do because God graciously allows it.
This sort of Grace is called "common grace". It is about the love that God has for all mankind. All of mankind can enjoy the benefits of creation that God has given them, even when most of them rebel against him. That God does not take away these benefits from sinners is an act of gracious love that is unequalled...
..except, of course, by the cross. The gift of eternal life through the death and resurrection of Christ is the ultimate form of God's graciousness, and the only thing in God's grace that guarantees salvation. Heaven cannot be attained by eggs and coffee, no matter how enjoyable they may be.
So I've decided recently that one way into a gospel presentation is to communicate just how much we owe God, and how much God owes us. In simple terms - we owe God everything and God owes us nothing. I think it is a way for people's belief in self-autonomy and freedom to be challenged - but challenged in a positive way. It's not so much telling people that they should bow down and worship God, but it is a realisation that we are in God's debt.
That, I think, is a good reason why box #1 on Two Ways to Live can be so important. Not only does this gospel presentation start off with God, but it also communicates the fact that all creation is in God's hand.
Once God's love for us in creation can be established, then we can communicate the issue of our rebellion and sin far more effectively. We are not just ignoring God or resisting a petty tyrant, we are being supremely ungrateful for everything that God has given us. We are freeloaders and moochers in the world.
I think presenting God's "passionate love" for sinners is a wonderful way to bring people not just to understand grace and faith, but also the fact that such love drives us to submission, to repentance, to falling on our face before God in realisation that we have squandered and resisted against his just rule.
In a sense, preaching God's passionate love is part and parcel of what some American Christians call "Lordship salvation". A proper presentation of God's love and grace will always drive us to humbly submit ourselves before God.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2007-01-06
What to do with New Zealand cricket?
Paul Whiting appreciates my thinking about Australian cricket and wonders if I can offer some level of opinion on the state of NZ cricket. I can certainly give opinions and ideas but at a different level since I am not overly familiar with specific NZ players. Although I will say that, with the retirement of McGrath and Warne, a bowler of the calibre of Shane Bond would likely make it into the Australian team.
New Zealand has a number of natural disadvantages when it comes to producing a quality cricket team. The domestic season is short and the weather is not conducive to play often. Moreover, the lengthy Rugby season (I think it goes for 9 months) prevents many amateurs from playing during "warmer" times.
Having said that, New Zealand has produced players like Martin Crowe, Andrew Jones, Glenn Turner, Mark Richardson, John Reid, Richard Hadlee, Chris Cairns, Bruce Taylor, Simon Doull, Dion Nash, James Franklin and Shane Bond. All of these players bat in the 40s or bowl in the 20s, an indication that New Zealand is capable of producing highly competitive players.
One way to look at it is to compare New Zealand with the Australian state of NSW. NSW has 6.8 million people while New Zealand has 4.1 million. In theory, therefore, New Zealand could, in fact, produce four top class cricketers for every seven that New South Wales produces. Think of the Test cricketers that NSW have produced in the last twenty years: Brett Lee, Michael Clarke, Stuart Clarke, Nathan Bracken, Michael Bevan, Mark Taylor, Michael Whitney, Michael Slater, Adam Gilchrist, and so on. Now ask yourself - has New Zealand produced half as many cricketers of this calibre?
Of course, the answer is no - but that doesn't mean that they can't. Of the 332 Tests New Zealand have played in their history, they have won 62, lost 131 and drawn 139. This indicates that New Zealand cricket has not been as all conquering as their famed All Blacks. In fact, with only around 18% of Tests ending in victory, one would wonder whether they deserve Test status at all.
Now that I've examiend New Zealand cricket in some detail, I now need to look at Australian cricket again.
Australian cricket is very profitable. As a result of Packer's World Series Cricket back in the 1970s, cricket has become a professional sport. Television and advertising rights have made Australian cricket - both Test and One Day forms of the game - into a profitable enterprise.
But along with this profitability came the realisation that in order to maximise profit, there is a tension between building a team that the public want to watch, and providing opposing teams that the public want to watch as well. People flock to the cricket in Australia when they know that the Australian team is likely to win, but against a team that is competitive and likely to cause an upset.
Australian cricket suffers most when the disparity between the two teams is noticeable. Back in the 1980s when Australian cricket was at its lowest ebb, crowds at Test and one day matches were noticeably lower than they are now - especially when it was likely that Australia could lose. Home test series against New Zealand, West Indies and England ended in failure and the public punished the team by not buying tickets and/or turning off the TV. But crowds hardly flocked to the grounds when Zimbabwe toured recently either. The greater the perceived disparity, the less likely the public are interested.
It is therefore in Australia's interest to have a) The world's best team, and b) Matches against quality opposition. It's that second issue that I am now going to unpack because New Zealand has not, apart from a few seasons in the 1980s, provided such opposition.
Let me make it clearer. It is in Australia's interest to have a strong New Zealand Test team. Seeing as that is the case, what can Australian cricket do about it?
We need to take note of the Super 14 Rugby series. In that series, Rugby teams from New Zealand, South Africa and Australia play in a professional series. Why not do it with cricket?
These are my ideas:
1) Merge Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket into one organisation.
2) Make it a clear, unalterable guideline that this organisation will oversee two distinct international teams - there will not be a merging of the two test teams. Moreover, the goal will be that both teams be the first and second best teams in the world (without favouring one over the other).
3) Set up a common domestic cricket competition involving the six Australian and six New Zealand first class teams. These 12 teams will play each other once in four-day matches and once in one-day matches throughout a six month season.
4) Have an open-market policy for each team to contract any players they wish to - there will be no rules against international players. Thus Australian players could play for New Zealand first class teams and vice versa - as well as South Africans, Sri Lankans and even English county players. The reason for this is to increase the standard of players in the combined competition - otherwise the quality of play would be diluted. The result would obviously be less New Zealand players in the competition - but they will be the best NZ players and will thrive against quality opposition.
5) Increase the amount of juniors playing cricket in New Zealand and make amateur cricket more competitive. This is of importance since the idea would be to create an environment in which New Zealand cricketers can make it into the combined domestic series on merit.
In this situation, both Australian and New Zealand first class players would learn a great deal. New Zealand players will regularly play on the hard, fast Australian pitches and Australian cricketers will regularly play on the slower, seam-friendly New Zealand pitches. Constant exposure to these conditions will produce well-rounded cricketers from both nations. Moreover, the experience and talent of imports from overseas will enable teams to have quality players when the national team calls upon their players. New South Wales may lose Michael Clarke to Test duty, but may still have Brian Lara coming in at No. 3!
I'll say here that I don't think that this combined competition should include South African teams. This would increase the teams to 18 and would either lead to a two-tiered competition or an oversupply of cricket. English county teams may play 16 or 17 first class matches per season, but their players don't need to spend hours travelling in 747s flying across Antarctica, the Indian Ocean or the Tasman sea to do this. Besides, South Africa as a country is declining and liable to have massive political problems in the next 10-20 years methinks.
So anyway, that's my solution. Pretty radical, but I think it will benefit both Australia and New Zealand.
New Zealand has a number of natural disadvantages when it comes to producing a quality cricket team. The domestic season is short and the weather is not conducive to play often. Moreover, the lengthy Rugby season (I think it goes for 9 months) prevents many amateurs from playing during "warmer" times.
Having said that, New Zealand has produced players like Martin Crowe, Andrew Jones, Glenn Turner, Mark Richardson, John Reid, Richard Hadlee, Chris Cairns, Bruce Taylor, Simon Doull, Dion Nash, James Franklin and Shane Bond. All of these players bat in the 40s or bowl in the 20s, an indication that New Zealand is capable of producing highly competitive players.
One way to look at it is to compare New Zealand with the Australian state of NSW. NSW has 6.8 million people while New Zealand has 4.1 million. In theory, therefore, New Zealand could, in fact, produce four top class cricketers for every seven that New South Wales produces. Think of the Test cricketers that NSW have produced in the last twenty years: Brett Lee, Michael Clarke, Stuart Clarke, Nathan Bracken, Michael Bevan, Mark Taylor, Michael Whitney, Michael Slater, Adam Gilchrist, and so on. Now ask yourself - has New Zealand produced half as many cricketers of this calibre?
Of course, the answer is no - but that doesn't mean that they can't. Of the 332 Tests New Zealand have played in their history, they have won 62, lost 131 and drawn 139. This indicates that New Zealand cricket has not been as all conquering as their famed All Blacks. In fact, with only around 18% of Tests ending in victory, one would wonder whether they deserve Test status at all.
Now that I've examiend New Zealand cricket in some detail, I now need to look at Australian cricket again.
Australian cricket is very profitable. As a result of Packer's World Series Cricket back in the 1970s, cricket has become a professional sport. Television and advertising rights have made Australian cricket - both Test and One Day forms of the game - into a profitable enterprise.
But along with this profitability came the realisation that in order to maximise profit, there is a tension between building a team that the public want to watch, and providing opposing teams that the public want to watch as well. People flock to the cricket in Australia when they know that the Australian team is likely to win, but against a team that is competitive and likely to cause an upset.
Australian cricket suffers most when the disparity between the two teams is noticeable. Back in the 1980s when Australian cricket was at its lowest ebb, crowds at Test and one day matches were noticeably lower than they are now - especially when it was likely that Australia could lose. Home test series against New Zealand, West Indies and England ended in failure and the public punished the team by not buying tickets and/or turning off the TV. But crowds hardly flocked to the grounds when Zimbabwe toured recently either. The greater the perceived disparity, the less likely the public are interested.
It is therefore in Australia's interest to have a) The world's best team, and b) Matches against quality opposition. It's that second issue that I am now going to unpack because New Zealand has not, apart from a few seasons in the 1980s, provided such opposition.
Let me make it clearer. It is in Australia's interest to have a strong New Zealand Test team. Seeing as that is the case, what can Australian cricket do about it?
We need to take note of the Super 14 Rugby series. In that series, Rugby teams from New Zealand, South Africa and Australia play in a professional series. Why not do it with cricket?
These are my ideas:
1) Merge Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket into one organisation.
2) Make it a clear, unalterable guideline that this organisation will oversee two distinct international teams - there will not be a merging of the two test teams. Moreover, the goal will be that both teams be the first and second best teams in the world (without favouring one over the other).
3) Set up a common domestic cricket competition involving the six Australian and six New Zealand first class teams. These 12 teams will play each other once in four-day matches and once in one-day matches throughout a six month season.
4) Have an open-market policy for each team to contract any players they wish to - there will be no rules against international players. Thus Australian players could play for New Zealand first class teams and vice versa - as well as South Africans, Sri Lankans and even English county players. The reason for this is to increase the standard of players in the combined competition - otherwise the quality of play would be diluted. The result would obviously be less New Zealand players in the competition - but they will be the best NZ players and will thrive against quality opposition.
5) Increase the amount of juniors playing cricket in New Zealand and make amateur cricket more competitive. This is of importance since the idea would be to create an environment in which New Zealand cricketers can make it into the combined domestic series on merit.
In this situation, both Australian and New Zealand first class players would learn a great deal. New Zealand players will regularly play on the hard, fast Australian pitches and Australian cricketers will regularly play on the slower, seam-friendly New Zealand pitches. Constant exposure to these conditions will produce well-rounded cricketers from both nations. Moreover, the experience and talent of imports from overseas will enable teams to have quality players when the national team calls upon their players. New South Wales may lose Michael Clarke to Test duty, but may still have Brian Lara coming in at No. 3!
I'll say here that I don't think that this combined competition should include South African teams. This would increase the teams to 18 and would either lead to a two-tiered competition or an oversupply of cricket. English county teams may play 16 or 17 first class matches per season, but their players don't need to spend hours travelling in 747s flying across Antarctica, the Indian Ocean or the Tasman sea to do this. Besides, South Africa as a country is declining and liable to have massive political problems in the next 10-20 years methinks.
So anyway, that's my solution. Pretty radical, but I think it will benefit both Australia and New Zealand.
2007-01-05
Reflections on the Ashes
5-0. It has been 86 years since Australia humiliated England in a similar way. Australia's team was probably one of the best in its history - one in which a good England team could not hope to challenge.
Yet there are some very worrying signs that all will not be well for Australian cricket by the time the next Ashes series comes around in 2009. The retirements of McGrath, Warne, Langer and Martyn will not easily be covered. Moreover, the England team which lost to Australia has some very good talent that will learn from their experiences.
My argument is based upon the experience of the 1986-87 Australian team which were unable to wrest back the Ashes from Mike Gatting's England team. Consider the Australian players who were in that series: Steve Waugh, Allan Border, Craig McDermott, Bruce Reid, Merv Hughes, David Boon, Dean Jones, Geoff Lawson. The next Ashes series - the famous 1989 tour - contained most of these top notch players who had lost to England previously, and managed to overcome them. The lesson? Even players who have experienced the worst of losses can manage, over time, to develop into high-class cricketers.
Think of the current England line-up. Pietersen will certainly be around in 2009 and will score heavily in the meantime. He is, based upon his batting average, the best England batsmen since Ken Barrington retired in 1968. The openers - Strauss and Cook - still boast enviable first class records and still have Test batting averages in the 40s. Once back in England and facing Test teams boasting attacks two notches below Australia, their form and confidence will return. Bell can also be put into this category.
I'm not sure that Paul Collingwood can really hack it as a Test player in the long term - and this is based upon his first class form alone. Collingwood averages around 35 with the bat and has done so for ten years. His recent bout of good form will probably be mixed up with future failures, and he will probably leave Test cricket with a sub-40 batting average.
Flintoff is of concern. His performances during the 2005 series were nothing short of inspiring but he was unable to reproduce that form - with either bat or ball - in the series just finished. Flintoff's figures show that his bowling is not as penetrative as people think. On average Flintoff bowls 19 overs every first class match he plays, compare this to 28 for James Anderson, 33 for Steve Harmison, 36 for Glenn McGrath and 42 for Shane Warne. Flintoff's first class figures indicate that he averages 35 with the bat and 32 with the ball - neither of which would, by themselves, be considered excellent. Ian Botham, the player he is often compared to, averaged 34 with the bat and 27 with the ball - and averaged 26 overs in each first class match. On figures alone Botham appears to be the superior player - however Freddie still has time on his side and players may often perform well as they age.
As far as bowling is concerned England probably did a good job in picking who they picked - except Giles of course... the King of Spain should've been dropped from the England side years ago. Who would've guessed that Harmison and Flintoff would have lost form so drastically? Hoggard played well and should remain as part of the side for years - however players like Mahmood and Anderson did not take the opportunities that were handed to them and were treated as cannon fodder by the Aussie batsmen. I can't understand why players like Jon Lewis, Dimitri Mascarenhas or Kabir Ali keep getting overlooked.
England have not produced a world-class paceman (a sub-25 bowler) since Bob Willis. Plenty of bowlers since Willis' time have been good pacemen (such as Ian Botham, Andy Caddick, Darren Gough, Matthew Hoggard, Steve Harmison, Angus Fraser, Phil DeFreitas, Graham Dilley, Dominic Cork, Devon Malcom and Simon Jones) but none of these has been as effective as a McGrath, an Ambrose, a Malcolm, an Akram and so on. World-class pacemen do not come around often but England, it seems, has had to wait longer than most.
Like many I love Monty Panesar - but wickets mean success and I am not yet convinced that Monty won't turn out like other third-rate England spinners of times past. Left arm finger spinners have not been turning the world upside down since the days of Derek Underwood - but Warne certainly revived Leg Spin so it would be great if Monty could do a similar revival in England.
England should stick with Read behind the stumps. Unless a player like Gilchrist can come along, the man behind the stumps should be the best in the country.
So, that's England. What about Australia?
Australia have lost Martyn, Langer, McGrath and Warne during this last Ashes series. In the next 12 months they will likely lose Gilchrist and Hayden as well.
Ponting, I believe, will continue to score heavily for Australia. He will pass 10,000 runs and, for a time, be the world's highest run scorer. It would be great if he could average in excess of 60 as well, which would show beyond doubt that he is actually a head above the rest of the best.
I've never been a fan of Clarke. Maybe I'm getting old and crabby but Clarke still looks like a kid. Nevertheless I think that runs will talk loudest and Clarke has scored well this season. He didn't do too well in England in 2005, but neither did many Aussie players. Clarke will have to develop into a serior player in a shorter time frame than he would like. Time will tell whether he will make it or not.
Brett Lee, I believe, will not cope without McGrath around. As an unabashed critic of Lee I think he will lose a number of tests in the future and watch his bowling average blow out beyond the already unacceptable 32 that it is already. Without Lee spearheading the attack, who can Australia turn to?
Stuart Clark has had a great 12 months but I am not convinced that he will end his career with a bolwing average of 17. At some point in the future his performances will even out and he will find it difficult to accept the tag of being the "new McGrath".
Stuart McGill may get a run as Australia's leg spinner but he is quite expensive on occasion. He probably won't make it to 2009.
Nathan Bracken is one of my favourite players, and I'm hoping that he will be picked to replace either McGrath or Lee in the future.
But who else is there we can rely upon? Cameron White's Legspin is not as wonderful as many had hoped - even when one takes account of his young age. Jason Gillespie may make a comeback but I can't see him winning tests in the same way as McGrath has done. Then we have the promise of Mitchell Johnson and maybe Shaun "Eric Bana" Tait. But the bowling cupboard is looking increasingly bare.
Batting is looking good, however. I'm reasonably sure that Jaques will be an adequate replacement for Langer. Voges is a good player as well. Katich is waiting in the wings for another chance. Cosgrove is exciting. Love may yet return to the test side, as may Brad Hodge. Symonds will find it difficult to maintain good form. Dominic Thornley is a dark horse, as is Carl Rogers.
Haddin will be able to replace Gilchrist, and maybe even be a better batter than Ian Healy. A return to a traditional keeper will be hard to handle - but players like Gilchrist come around only once in a generation.
So what are my predictions for Ashes 2009?
I wouldn't be surprised if England wins, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns into a batting fest. England and Australia are strong on batting depth but not as strong in bowling depth. Simon Jones or Stuart Clarke may turn into world-class pacemen but it is way too early to tell. I think a scoreline of 2-1 (from either side) or 1-1 is likely.
Yet there are some very worrying signs that all will not be well for Australian cricket by the time the next Ashes series comes around in 2009. The retirements of McGrath, Warne, Langer and Martyn will not easily be covered. Moreover, the England team which lost to Australia has some very good talent that will learn from their experiences.
My argument is based upon the experience of the 1986-87 Australian team which were unable to wrest back the Ashes from Mike Gatting's England team. Consider the Australian players who were in that series: Steve Waugh, Allan Border, Craig McDermott, Bruce Reid, Merv Hughes, David Boon, Dean Jones, Geoff Lawson. The next Ashes series - the famous 1989 tour - contained most of these top notch players who had lost to England previously, and managed to overcome them. The lesson? Even players who have experienced the worst of losses can manage, over time, to develop into high-class cricketers.
Think of the current England line-up. Pietersen will certainly be around in 2009 and will score heavily in the meantime. He is, based upon his batting average, the best England batsmen since Ken Barrington retired in 1968. The openers - Strauss and Cook - still boast enviable first class records and still have Test batting averages in the 40s. Once back in England and facing Test teams boasting attacks two notches below Australia, their form and confidence will return. Bell can also be put into this category.
I'm not sure that Paul Collingwood can really hack it as a Test player in the long term - and this is based upon his first class form alone. Collingwood averages around 35 with the bat and has done so for ten years. His recent bout of good form will probably be mixed up with future failures, and he will probably leave Test cricket with a sub-40 batting average.
Flintoff is of concern. His performances during the 2005 series were nothing short of inspiring but he was unable to reproduce that form - with either bat or ball - in the series just finished. Flintoff's figures show that his bowling is not as penetrative as people think. On average Flintoff bowls 19 overs every first class match he plays, compare this to 28 for James Anderson, 33 for Steve Harmison, 36 for Glenn McGrath and 42 for Shane Warne. Flintoff's first class figures indicate that he averages 35 with the bat and 32 with the ball - neither of which would, by themselves, be considered excellent. Ian Botham, the player he is often compared to, averaged 34 with the bat and 27 with the ball - and averaged 26 overs in each first class match. On figures alone Botham appears to be the superior player - however Freddie still has time on his side and players may often perform well as they age.
As far as bowling is concerned England probably did a good job in picking who they picked - except Giles of course... the King of Spain should've been dropped from the England side years ago. Who would've guessed that Harmison and Flintoff would have lost form so drastically? Hoggard played well and should remain as part of the side for years - however players like Mahmood and Anderson did not take the opportunities that were handed to them and were treated as cannon fodder by the Aussie batsmen. I can't understand why players like Jon Lewis, Dimitri Mascarenhas or Kabir Ali keep getting overlooked.
England have not produced a world-class paceman (a sub-25 bowler) since Bob Willis. Plenty of bowlers since Willis' time have been good pacemen (such as Ian Botham, Andy Caddick, Darren Gough, Matthew Hoggard, Steve Harmison, Angus Fraser, Phil DeFreitas, Graham Dilley, Dominic Cork, Devon Malcom and Simon Jones) but none of these has been as effective as a McGrath, an Ambrose, a Malcolm, an Akram and so on. World-class pacemen do not come around often but England, it seems, has had to wait longer than most.
Like many I love Monty Panesar - but wickets mean success and I am not yet convinced that Monty won't turn out like other third-rate England spinners of times past. Left arm finger spinners have not been turning the world upside down since the days of Derek Underwood - but Warne certainly revived Leg Spin so it would be great if Monty could do a similar revival in England.
England should stick with Read behind the stumps. Unless a player like Gilchrist can come along, the man behind the stumps should be the best in the country.
So, that's England. What about Australia?
Australia have lost Martyn, Langer, McGrath and Warne during this last Ashes series. In the next 12 months they will likely lose Gilchrist and Hayden as well.
Ponting, I believe, will continue to score heavily for Australia. He will pass 10,000 runs and, for a time, be the world's highest run scorer. It would be great if he could average in excess of 60 as well, which would show beyond doubt that he is actually a head above the rest of the best.
I've never been a fan of Clarke. Maybe I'm getting old and crabby but Clarke still looks like a kid. Nevertheless I think that runs will talk loudest and Clarke has scored well this season. He didn't do too well in England in 2005, but neither did many Aussie players. Clarke will have to develop into a serior player in a shorter time frame than he would like. Time will tell whether he will make it or not.
Brett Lee, I believe, will not cope without McGrath around. As an unabashed critic of Lee I think he will lose a number of tests in the future and watch his bowling average blow out beyond the already unacceptable 32 that it is already. Without Lee spearheading the attack, who can Australia turn to?
Stuart Clark has had a great 12 months but I am not convinced that he will end his career with a bolwing average of 17. At some point in the future his performances will even out and he will find it difficult to accept the tag of being the "new McGrath".
Stuart McGill may get a run as Australia's leg spinner but he is quite expensive on occasion. He probably won't make it to 2009.
Nathan Bracken is one of my favourite players, and I'm hoping that he will be picked to replace either McGrath or Lee in the future.
But who else is there we can rely upon? Cameron White's Legspin is not as wonderful as many had hoped - even when one takes account of his young age. Jason Gillespie may make a comeback but I can't see him winning tests in the same way as McGrath has done. Then we have the promise of Mitchell Johnson and maybe Shaun "Eric Bana" Tait. But the bowling cupboard is looking increasingly bare.
Batting is looking good, however. I'm reasonably sure that Jaques will be an adequate replacement for Langer. Voges is a good player as well. Katich is waiting in the wings for another chance. Cosgrove is exciting. Love may yet return to the test side, as may Brad Hodge. Symonds will find it difficult to maintain good form. Dominic Thornley is a dark horse, as is Carl Rogers.
Haddin will be able to replace Gilchrist, and maybe even be a better batter than Ian Healy. A return to a traditional keeper will be hard to handle - but players like Gilchrist come around only once in a generation.
So what are my predictions for Ashes 2009?
I wouldn't be surprised if England wins, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns into a batting fest. England and Australia are strong on batting depth but not as strong in bowling depth. Simon Jones or Stuart Clarke may turn into world-class pacemen but it is way too early to tell. I think a scoreline of 2-1 (from either side) or 1-1 is likely.
Random Musings
* I went to hospital last night with chest pains. The ECG, x-ray and blood tests showed no problems with the heart. These chest pains have been with me on and off for 3 weeks. Anna thinks it's because I've returned to family life and looking after kids again, causing stress. Could be right.
* One of the best decisions I made was to bring my mp3 player to the hospital with me. It helped me while away the hours while I waited for a doctor to see me.
* Just bough Widows by English band Sennen. As some of you know, my favourite band is Ride, an English "Shoegazing" band from the early-mid 1990s. Sennen is the name of a Ride song and obviously the band decided to name themselves after this song by Ride. Sennen is "Nu-gazing", a revival of Shoegazing but with added twists. Sennen's music is darker, more moody and more progressive than Ride, but still features the feedback and distortion that I love from the wall of sound grunge which typifies shoegazing. If I continue to fall in love with them I'll post a link to them.
* I bought a number of other CDs. Disraeli Gears by Cream, The Queen is Dead by The Smiths, Swordfishtrombones by Tom Waits and Between 10th and 11th by The Charlatans.
* The widely reported footage of Saddam's execution was obviously problematic for a number of reasons. What strikes me as disturbing is that Saddam remained defiant to the end, refusing to wear a blindfold and flinging verbal barbs back at those who were taunting him. He was executed in the way that heroes are, not petty tyrants. Saddam was certainly not the most evil man in the world, but his influence will be felt for at least another 2 generations because of the botched execution.
* The Democrats have taken over congress. Despite being someone who has railed against the Republican party and George Bush in recent years I am certainly not in any triumphalist mood. I fully expect that the trappings and prestige of office will corrupt many of these new politicians, and that the mechanisms of government will stifle any reforms that some want to make.
* Attempted to watch Syriana yesterday but pulled the plug after one hour. Hyperlink cinema may be the next big thing but it isn't affecting me just yet. Maybe if Terry Gilliam would do it?
* Lefties in America are salivating about the upcoming increase in the minimum wage and are obviously pooh-poohing anyone who starts saying things like "Let the market decide a person's wage". As a lefty myself I nevertheless concur with the right-wing that raising the minimum wage will have a negative impact of employment levels. My solution, however, is not to have a $0 minimum wage, it's something slightly more creative.
* The murder of a 17 year old in Griffith is tragic, especially since I spent 5 months there. I didn't know the victim but my sources in Griffith tell me that I may know the perpetrators and may have even taught them. What is really nice is hearing all the good vibes coming out of the town - both the victim's parents and ethnic leaders have called for calm. No one wants racial tension in Griffith.
* Peak Oil is affecting the car and bicycle market in Australia.
* One of the best decisions I made was to bring my mp3 player to the hospital with me. It helped me while away the hours while I waited for a doctor to see me.
* Just bough Widows by English band Sennen. As some of you know, my favourite band is Ride, an English "Shoegazing" band from the early-mid 1990s. Sennen is the name of a Ride song and obviously the band decided to name themselves after this song by Ride. Sennen is "Nu-gazing", a revival of Shoegazing but with added twists. Sennen's music is darker, more moody and more progressive than Ride, but still features the feedback and distortion that I love from the wall of sound grunge which typifies shoegazing. If I continue to fall in love with them I'll post a link to them.
* I bought a number of other CDs. Disraeli Gears by Cream, The Queen is Dead by The Smiths, Swordfishtrombones by Tom Waits and Between 10th and 11th by The Charlatans.
* The widely reported footage of Saddam's execution was obviously problematic for a number of reasons. What strikes me as disturbing is that Saddam remained defiant to the end, refusing to wear a blindfold and flinging verbal barbs back at those who were taunting him. He was executed in the way that heroes are, not petty tyrants. Saddam was certainly not the most evil man in the world, but his influence will be felt for at least another 2 generations because of the botched execution.
* The Democrats have taken over congress. Despite being someone who has railed against the Republican party and George Bush in recent years I am certainly not in any triumphalist mood. I fully expect that the trappings and prestige of office will corrupt many of these new politicians, and that the mechanisms of government will stifle any reforms that some want to make.
* Attempted to watch Syriana yesterday but pulled the plug after one hour. Hyperlink cinema may be the next big thing but it isn't affecting me just yet. Maybe if Terry Gilliam would do it?
* Lefties in America are salivating about the upcoming increase in the minimum wage and are obviously pooh-poohing anyone who starts saying things like "Let the market decide a person's wage". As a lefty myself I nevertheless concur with the right-wing that raising the minimum wage will have a negative impact of employment levels. My solution, however, is not to have a $0 minimum wage, it's something slightly more creative.
* The murder of a 17 year old in Griffith is tragic, especially since I spent 5 months there. I didn't know the victim but my sources in Griffith tell me that I may know the perpetrators and may have even taught them. What is really nice is hearing all the good vibes coming out of the town - both the victim's parents and ethnic leaders have called for calm. No one wants racial tension in Griffith.
* Peak Oil is affecting the car and bicycle market in Australia.
2007-01-02
5th Test Day one (lots of pics)
6.00am I get up and wake the family. They have to drive me over to Charlestown to get a lift from church friends to travel down to Sydney.
The trip down was quick. We were listening to 2BL and they were promising hot sausages at their tent outside the SCG. We arrived there just as the last sausage was consumed.
We arrived in time to see both sides training. The rain began to softly fall as we began to berate both sides for playing football, touch, softball and even tennis to warm themselves up. Our group was situated in Row J of the O'Reilly Stand. The stand is okay except that it gets the afternoon sun from about 3.00pm onwards. Straight behind us there was the bar and the obligatory food stalls selling overpriced and underquality goods.
The rain came again, but unlike last year it stopped enough for play to start sometime after 11.00am. Since Justin Langer had announced his retirement as well, we all knew that we would be seeing at least one of our retiring heroes play. As it was, Freddie won the toss and elected to bat - much to the crowd's delight to see Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne bowl.
Then we had to endure Human Nature singing the National Anthem.
I don't know if it was the pitch or the quality bowling or the stodgy batting, but the first session was slow. McGrath bowled over after over and was unlucky in some areas but you could tell he was now past his best. Lee, of course, is not my favourite player - but he got the crowd going in his first over when he attempted to castrate Cook with a vicious delivery aimed at the groinal area. Cook survived, and he and Strauss put on a valuable little partnership before Lee eventually got Strauss caught behind. At lunch England were 1/58.
Then we had to endure some opera singing guy singing a tribute to Langer, McGrath and Warne.
During the first session a number of us began to wonder where the "Barmy Army" was. There was not a peep of singing or yelling or chanting from the colourful England supporters. We couldn't even tell where they were in the ground.
One group that was visible was the Aussie "Fanatics", who all wore yellow tops and sat under the scoreboard. They attempted to sing a number of Aussie songs, but they were just too loose and soft for most people to hear. Shannon, the teacher I lived with in Griffith from August until December, was a member of the Fanatics and, after phoning each other on our mobiles, I decided to go over and visit the group at the Lunch break.
The first thing you hit when you descend the stairs in the O'Reilly stand is the main corridor underneath, which was choka-block full of people. England and Aussie supporters, men and women, all cramming together to try and go somewhere - the bar, the food shop, the toilet or, like me, trying to exit the stand altogether.
As I was standing crammed in amongst all these fans I managed to talk to a member of the Barmy Army. He said the group was spread around the place - they were there, but they weren't singing.
Then Phil Tufnell walked by in the crowd. "Hello Mr Tufnell" I said "How are you today?". "Very well thankyou!" he said, smiling, and continued walking. He was dressed in a suit and was taller than I expected. The last time I saw him was in 1994.
After managing to exit I found my way into the fanatics area. I searched for about 20 minutes but Shannon had obviously gone somewhere (probably to get a drink). I walked up to the O'Reilly stand for the post lunch session.
Soon after lunch, Clark picked up Cook. Both openers had stuck around for a while but had not gone on with the job. The slow scoring indicated some sort of war of attrition going on in the middle. Kevin Pietersen then came in and we all expected something good from him.
Pieterson and Bell were scoring slowly but surely. The crowd was quiet. Suddenly from the Hill came a familiar bugle sound - the Barmy Army bugler! The effect on the crowd was electric. Within half a second the crowd (perhaps 30000) began cheering wildly as the Barmy Army started their chanting and singing.
You have to hand it to these guys - they were very entertaining. My favourite is their rendition of God Save the Queen - God save your gracious queen, long live your noble queen... long to reign over YOU!!!! and at that point the Barmy army would all point in the direction of the Aussie fans (in this case, the fanatics). It was stirring stuff. They had around a dozen different chants that they repeated throughout the day - many of which were borderline ribald.
Meanwhile, back at the cricket, the Aussie bowlers continued to toil away without luck. Pietersen and Bell continued their scoring and eventually put on a century partnership. It wasn't pretty cricket - Pietersen looked stuck in second gear and curbed his scroing rate to play it safe. Bell simply nicked and nudged his runs - no mess, no fuss, no charisma. At tea England were 2/149.
By this stage I had consumed one $6.00 glass of white wine, one $4.50 hot dog and an $8.50 fish and chips pack. I really need to bring my own food next year.
After tea things began to swing Australia's way. Pietersen, always a quick scorer, tried to pick up the pace. But he tried hooking McGrath and managed to spoon it to Hussey for a good catch. Pieterson out for 41. Finally! McGrath gets himself a wicket! One over later and Bell, 71, gets a doozey from McGrath again and the ball hits the top of middle stump. I have to say, there is nothing like a crowd cheering as one after seeing the stumps rattled.
Two new batsmen were at the crease. Collingwood and Flintoff, the England captain. Then it became quite dark and cloudy so they turned the lights on.
The above photo was taken as I snuck down to the fence to take pictures of Justin Langer, who was fielding near the O"reilly stand. Here's some more:
And here's a cropped version which I will probably add to his Wikipedia article:
And here's a photo from the stands where I was sitting:
And here's Johnno and Tom, who were at the game with me.
Tom enjoyed today's entertainment much more than last year's.
Flintoff hit a six off Clark that I completely lost. After that point the Army began singing the praises of Flintoff, singing
We love your gorgeous wife,
...your chain smoking,
...your beer drinking,
...your slips catching,
...your seam bowling,
...your six six hits.
But the six didn't bring about either an increase in runs overall or any wickets. Collingwood and Flintoff remained at the crease when Billy and Aleem offered the light at 6.30.
And then off home again. It took about 45 minutes to get the car out of Moore Park but once we got onto the Harbour Tunnel it was easy peasy all the way back to Novocastria.
The trip down was quick. We were listening to 2BL and they were promising hot sausages at their tent outside the SCG. We arrived there just as the last sausage was consumed.
We arrived in time to see both sides training. The rain began to softly fall as we began to berate both sides for playing football, touch, softball and even tennis to warm themselves up. Our group was situated in Row J of the O'Reilly Stand. The stand is okay except that it gets the afternoon sun from about 3.00pm onwards. Straight behind us there was the bar and the obligatory food stalls selling overpriced and underquality goods.
The rain came again, but unlike last year it stopped enough for play to start sometime after 11.00am. Since Justin Langer had announced his retirement as well, we all knew that we would be seeing at least one of our retiring heroes play. As it was, Freddie won the toss and elected to bat - much to the crowd's delight to see Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne bowl.
Then we had to endure Human Nature singing the National Anthem.
I don't know if it was the pitch or the quality bowling or the stodgy batting, but the first session was slow. McGrath bowled over after over and was unlucky in some areas but you could tell he was now past his best. Lee, of course, is not my favourite player - but he got the crowd going in his first over when he attempted to castrate Cook with a vicious delivery aimed at the groinal area. Cook survived, and he and Strauss put on a valuable little partnership before Lee eventually got Strauss caught behind. At lunch England were 1/58.
Then we had to endure some opera singing guy singing a tribute to Langer, McGrath and Warne.
During the first session a number of us began to wonder where the "Barmy Army" was. There was not a peep of singing or yelling or chanting from the colourful England supporters. We couldn't even tell where they were in the ground.
One group that was visible was the Aussie "Fanatics", who all wore yellow tops and sat under the scoreboard. They attempted to sing a number of Aussie songs, but they were just too loose and soft for most people to hear. Shannon, the teacher I lived with in Griffith from August until December, was a member of the Fanatics and, after phoning each other on our mobiles, I decided to go over and visit the group at the Lunch break.
The first thing you hit when you descend the stairs in the O'Reilly stand is the main corridor underneath, which was choka-block full of people. England and Aussie supporters, men and women, all cramming together to try and go somewhere - the bar, the food shop, the toilet or, like me, trying to exit the stand altogether.
As I was standing crammed in amongst all these fans I managed to talk to a member of the Barmy Army. He said the group was spread around the place - they were there, but they weren't singing.
Then Phil Tufnell walked by in the crowd. "Hello Mr Tufnell" I said "How are you today?". "Very well thankyou!" he said, smiling, and continued walking. He was dressed in a suit and was taller than I expected. The last time I saw him was in 1994.
After managing to exit I found my way into the fanatics area. I searched for about 20 minutes but Shannon had obviously gone somewhere (probably to get a drink). I walked up to the O'Reilly stand for the post lunch session.
Soon after lunch, Clark picked up Cook. Both openers had stuck around for a while but had not gone on with the job. The slow scoring indicated some sort of war of attrition going on in the middle. Kevin Pietersen then came in and we all expected something good from him.
Pieterson and Bell were scoring slowly but surely. The crowd was quiet. Suddenly from the Hill came a familiar bugle sound - the Barmy Army bugler! The effect on the crowd was electric. Within half a second the crowd (perhaps 30000) began cheering wildly as the Barmy Army started their chanting and singing.
You have to hand it to these guys - they were very entertaining. My favourite is their rendition of God Save the Queen - God save your gracious queen, long live your noble queen... long to reign over YOU!!!! and at that point the Barmy army would all point in the direction of the Aussie fans (in this case, the fanatics). It was stirring stuff. They had around a dozen different chants that they repeated throughout the day - many of which were borderline ribald.
Meanwhile, back at the cricket, the Aussie bowlers continued to toil away without luck. Pietersen and Bell continued their scoring and eventually put on a century partnership. It wasn't pretty cricket - Pietersen looked stuck in second gear and curbed his scroing rate to play it safe. Bell simply nicked and nudged his runs - no mess, no fuss, no charisma. At tea England were 2/149.
By this stage I had consumed one $6.00 glass of white wine, one $4.50 hot dog and an $8.50 fish and chips pack. I really need to bring my own food next year.
After tea things began to swing Australia's way. Pietersen, always a quick scorer, tried to pick up the pace. But he tried hooking McGrath and managed to spoon it to Hussey for a good catch. Pieterson out for 41. Finally! McGrath gets himself a wicket! One over later and Bell, 71, gets a doozey from McGrath again and the ball hits the top of middle stump. I have to say, there is nothing like a crowd cheering as one after seeing the stumps rattled.
Two new batsmen were at the crease. Collingwood and Flintoff, the England captain. Then it became quite dark and cloudy so they turned the lights on.
The above photo was taken as I snuck down to the fence to take pictures of Justin Langer, who was fielding near the O"reilly stand. Here's some more:
And here's a cropped version which I will probably add to his Wikipedia article:
And here's a photo from the stands where I was sitting:
And here's Johnno and Tom, who were at the game with me.
Tom enjoyed today's entertainment much more than last year's.
Flintoff hit a six off Clark that I completely lost. After that point the Army began singing the praises of Flintoff, singing
We love your gorgeous wife,
...your chain smoking,
...your beer drinking,
...your slips catching,
...your seam bowling,
...your six six hits.
But the six didn't bring about either an increase in runs overall or any wickets. Collingwood and Flintoff remained at the crease when Billy and Aleem offered the light at 6.30.
And then off home again. It took about 45 minutes to get the car out of Moore Park but once we got onto the Harbour Tunnel it was easy peasy all the way back to Novocastria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)