Have the Indian bowlers learned their lesson?

Dave Warner and Ed Cowan were amazing in their opening stand in this Second Test against India. Warner was blistering. But then Australia pretty much collapsed thereafter compared to the total they seemed destined for. So after taking out Warner and Cowan, the batting performances of both teams were surprisingly similar.

Why?

It comes down to one thing - the bowling.

When Australis demolished the Indian batting line-up in their first innings, the Australian bowlers were making the most of a good, responsive pitch which must have been fantastic to bowl on. And they were suitably rewarded. When the Australians began their turn with the bat, the Indian bowlers were nowhere near as disciplined - and they paid the price. Admittedly trying to bowl to someone like Dave Warner in full flow is anything but easy but the number of times he and Cowan were let off the hook by bowlers bowling too short or spraying them around was a stark contrast to the discipline of Hilfenhaus, Siddle, Harris and to a lesser extent, Starc.

In today's effort however, the Indian bowlers had a much improved length and in turn finally started taking wickets.

The visitors are far from the first people to have a similar experience at the WACA ground in Perth. This pitch historically has a good bounce and bowlers often need to rethink what they are doing. Plenty of Australian bowlers have fallen for the same error at times. But if India are going to have any chance whatsoever in this game (highly doubtful), then they need to remember this lesson.

Oh and by the way - Mr Sharma - next time you want to mouth off at someone like Dave Warner, have something to back it up with rather than that load of shite you served up. Bowling like that at the WACA is just asking for trouble and, sunshine, you got it!

Siddle improvement

Peter Siddle impressed me from his debut onwards in the Australian cricket team. He is not just fast but aggresive with it, driven by a huge heart. But what frustrated me with him was his habit of bowling just that bit short. And that can waste the ball.

This is something that Siddle has obviously been working on. So far this summer he has bowled a far better length and is getting regular wickets as a result. There is more to bowling fast than eating raw meat and getting pumped full of testosterone, and to his credit, Siddle has realised this. And he is benefitting from it. As is the entire Australian side.

Well done Sidds!

Whose game is it?

My - it has been a long time since I posted anything in this particular blog.

The two-test series between Australia and South Africa has just been completed with the series drawn.

The Second Test will be remembered for the remarkable debut of 18 year-old Australian bowler, Pat Cummins. Taking six wickets in the South African second innings before playing a crucial role with the bat late in the Australian second innings and getting to score the winning runs for Australia, this debut was definitely memorable. As one of the radio commentators remarked at the time, Cummins will probably find Test cricket not so exciting from here on in.

This series has however raised a number of questions.

Firstly, why only a two-test series? These two teams are well matched and consistently produce good and exciting cricket. This brief series was no different with Australia seeming to have the First Test safely in their hands only to have their batting collapse. Similarly after taking some crucial wickets, South Africa seemed to have the Second Test well under control only to see the Australian lower orders bring them home. So why only a piddling two-test series?

Next there is the question of the scheduling of this brief series. The Tests were scheduled in a part of Africa at a time of year - approaching the wet season - when the light disappears very early. For example in the Second Test, the first four days all ended early due to bad light. A friend of mine who lived in Africa for some years, described this scheduling as lunacy given this issue with light and remarked that they were very lucky not to have lost more time due to rain than they did. So why schedule a piddling two-test series at the wrong time of year?

Umpiring is not an easy task and I do not like to bag the umpires as a rule but there is one individual who consistently incurs my wrath - Billy Bowden. This New Zealand umpire's silly signals and antics were briefly amusing when he appeared on the scene but that amusement has long passed. If anyone is going to have a shocker of a Test, it will be Bowden. I am not aware of any particularly bad calls he made this time around, but there is an issue of his attitude towards light on the last day of the Test.


With only two Australian wickets in hand and only five runs to win but with light beginning to fade, Bowden then proceeded to waste time first calling for a light meter - how come the umpires don't carry them any longer? - then consulting it. There was potentially only minutes left in the game but Bowden risked that possibility of a result by fiddling around with the light meter. Would either side have liked to have gone off due to bad light? Not bloody likely! The South Africans were potentially two good balls away from a series win. The Australians just one or two strokes away from victory and drawing the series.


It is often remarked that you can tell a good umpire if you barely notice him being there. That is because they are quietly and efficiently doing their job, letting the game be the focus. Yet whenever Bowden is present, you can be damned sure that he will be getting plenty of mentions, whether he is doing his job properly or not. As ABC commentator, Jim Maxwell, exclaimed at the time in considerable frustration, 'when will they learn that the game is not about them!'

I cannot help but contrast this with a one-day match between England and Australia in the 1977 Ashes series. OK, that was so long ago in sporting terms as to positively be ancient history. But in the last of that one-day series, it was finished in pouring rain. Why? Because a result was on the cards and both teams wanted a result. Billy Bowden seemed prepared to risk this chance of a result in the Second Test by simply wasting time.

Given the number of times I have seen Bowden make woeful calls, miscount the number of deliveries bowled and even thoroughly confuse the scorers with his at-times indecipherable signals, why is he continually in the first-rank of international umpires?

The hat-trick that should have been

Gee people can be quick. I have already received a tweet asking about the non-hat-trick that I can't blame an umpire for.

OK, it's only a short story, so here goes.

It was a one-day match, a final, against a team that really fancied their chances against us. And to be fair, they had every reason to fancy themselves.

The skipper threw me the ball. Almost instantaeous success. A wicket. Another. The hat-trick beckoned. And just like that previous episode, in all important incoming batter was a kid.

I stood at the head of my run up. I glared at the kid, doing my best impression of Merv Hughes, provided Merv had been a short, greying, bespectacled, hopeful-off-spinner. In fact, about all Merv and I had in common was a paunchy gut. But never let facts get in the way of a good story!

The bowl rolled beautifully out of my fingers, looping up in the air, dropping right on the spot. It turned in a little and the batter lunged forward, the ball catching the shoulder of the bat to loop back in the air back towards me. Oh what a dream of a return catch. I could have probably rolled a cigarette while getting into position, it was that easy a return catch. But instead, for some strange reason, I lunged forward toward the ball, only to find myself over-shooting it. A last desperate lunge back between my legs only saw my fingertips brush the ball.

The umpire, having been greeted with the sight of my hands chasing a bowl out from beneath my fat posterior, managed to keep a straight face. Almost.

The hat-trick that never was

My last post about umpiring made me remember an incident from my own inglorious cricketing career, showing just what a poor umpire can cause.

It was a ground in a small country ground. My lot were the visitors. After only posting a mediocre total, we took the field second.

At the start of the day, the captain and I had both queried the way the stumps were placed, arguing that one was set too wide. "Nothing wrong with them," the man in the white jacket insisted. Well, OK, not so much a white jacket as a white polo shirt, but white jacket sounded more impressive.

This was before I saw the light and took up bowling donkey drops - straight-breaking off spin. Back then I was still trying to become the next Dennis Lillee. I opened the bowling but into the wind as my opening partner generally got first choice of which end to bowl from. And it was not so much bowling into the wind as it was pushing into a gale. But in no time at all, the wind swung right around. From trudging into a typhoon, I suddenly found myself bowling with the wind behind me. What a treat!

The wickets started falling with me in among them. In one memorable over, I found myself on a hat-trick. Even better, the incoming batter looked like a kid. Surely I could clean him up and achieve that elusive goal?

Pitched on a good length, the ball moved off the pitch a little, back into the right-handed batter - and straight through the gate between bat and pad. Up I went in celebration - I had bowled him! Hat-trick! The keeper had gone up with me. Yes! But wait a moment. The bails were still on.

We stood and looked at the undisturbed stumps in surprise. "I thought you bowled me," admitted the young batter.

Well, we went on to win the game and I was in the wickets. But once play was over, I grabbed the ball and walked up to the stumps, the placement of which we had disputed at the start of the afternoon. Sure enough, the ball just fitted between the off and middle stumps. Probably only a cigarette paper or two either side, but fitted through all the same.

I feel quite justified in blaming the umpire for that missed hat-trick. At least I had someone to blame for that one, unlike another memorable occasion. But that is another story for another time.

A thought on umpiring

The referral system in Test Cricket was introduced with some controversy. At the end of the day, however, the reason for its introduction was to help get past some absolute howlers of decisions being made. From my observation point, one of the worst culprits was easily Billy Bowden, who has suffered my wrath before.

What is noticeable so far this series, is the closeness of many of the decisions being referred 'upstairs' for adjudication. Even when a decision has been overturned, there has not been much in it and umpire judgement has been shown to be pretty sound. This is a good thing for umpires, helping give them back some authority and giving players confidence in an umpire's ability to properly control a game. Ricky Ponting's outburst on the field during the Fourth Test, arguing with an umpire when he was not happy with the outcome of a referral, was ridiculous and uncalled for. I think he was lucky to only have lost 40% of his match fee for that stunt.

I have been very impressed with the standard of umpiring during this series. However we are only into the second day of the Fifth Test where Bowden is, unfortunately in my opinion, standing once more. As a player I would have virtually no confidence in that umpire at all. Hopefully Billy will concentrate on actually running the game and not his stupid on-field theatrics.

Lay off Usman!

Usman Khawaja made a solid debut for Australia, slipping into the number three position in the wake of injured Ricky Ponting. He seemed in charge and quietly confident, with a sound technique that the likes of Phil Hughes should have a good look at. However he only made 37. He made a solid start but that was it, although admittedly having rain delays would not have helped the concentration. Solid – yes. But hardly worth the over-the-top media headlines. According to the press, Khwaja ‘starred’, he ‘shone like a beacon’. One commentator announced that this was clearly the start of a 100-plus Test career.

Oh give me a break. The guy did not even make 50. He has made a promising start and does admittedly look darn good, but he is hardly our ‘Saviour’ just yet. Lay off the silly hyperbole, will you? Sure, the press have not had much good news to report to Australian audiences this season, but don’t go so ridiculously over top. The scorebooks are full of names of players who made a promising start only to fall away and disappear into mediocrity. Khawaja has enough pressure on him as it is, without the press putting even greater expectations on his shoulders. Just let him develop naturally.

Take a lesson from the Poms

Any aspiring medium-pace or quick bowlers would do well to pay close attention to how the successful English bowling attack has been operating. They consistently bowl at and around off-stump before putting the ball a bit wider, drawing the batter into pushing or poking at a delivery they would have been better off to leave well alone. Those are the circumstances that result in edges going to the waiting cordon behind the stumps.

It takes a disciplined batter to resist those tactics, knowing when to drop the wrists, pulling away from the shot. The current English bowling line-up are very disciplined in this approach. And a sure way to start taking wickets is to wear batters down. It is an approach that can work in most circumstances even if it is not as exciting to watch. But to make it really work, the bowling needs to be very consistent otherwise the batters receive valuable respite from the pressure. This English attack is very consistent with this attack and they are reaping the rewards.

In contrast, the Australian bowling attack has conspicuously failed to produce any continuing pressure on the English bats in the same way.

Warnie? Give me a break!

Shane was one hell of a bowler. Nobody is disputing that. But am I the only one who lost interest in his other antics a long time ago? Apparently not, going by two recent developments.

First up, according to certain media, there is supposedly this massive outcry for Warne to return to Test cricket, as captain no less. I can say in all honesty I do not know a single person pushing that view. Don't tell me that someone in the press might be making things up? Surely not!

The very latest is that Warne has been bumping uglies with Liz Hurley very recently. This allegedly occured in the last few days at the hotel Warne is living in while continuing to film episodes of his 'chat' show. Is that still even on television? So much for the publicly-ever-so-repentant Warne when trying to talk his wife into letting him back after umpteen public disclosures of his infidelities. And he STILL doesn't have the brains to keep it in his pants. If he doesn't have the sense to leave it in his undies, then (a) have the brains to do it a bit more privately and (b) stop pretending to be such a fantastic father and husband for the media.

Maybe the missus will have the brains to chuck him now for good. Hey Simone - I'm still single (widowed). :-)

Oldest Trumper footage

A slightly unusual anniversary, but the oldest known footage of early Australian cricketing great, Victor Trumper, was filmed 100 years ago today. And here it is.

Johnson out, Strauss plays games and Hauritz knocks on the door

Not entirely unexpectedly, Mitchell Johnson has been dropped from the Australian squad for the Second Test. However English captain, Andrew Strauss responded by suggesting this was a 'big call' for the Australian selectors.

According to the ABC's website "Mitchell's been a very good performer for Australia over a number of years and has been spearheading their attack, so it's quite a big call for them to leave him out," Strauss said.

Well, let's be realistic here. Going on how erratic his form has been and how poorly Johnson performed in the First Test, naturally the Poms would be more than happy to see Johnson retained rather than replaced by the likes of Doug Bollinger. The last thing that they want to see is Johnson rested and getting his head back together, becoming the deadly missile that we know he can be. So Strauss is playing games here. The Australian selectors could not justify Johnson's inclusion when someone like Dougie is waiting in the wings. A fit and mentally with it Johnson is a deadly part of the attack but a Johnson who has lost his way is, unfortunately, hard to justify being included. Hopefully Johnson will take this setback in a positive way, sort out whatever his problems may be and get his rightful place back in the Australian attack once more.

Meanwhile, Nathan Hauritz has given a good, hard thump on the selectors' doors by a good performance against Western Australia at the WACA, not known for being especially spinner-friendly, taking five wickets for New South Wales. If the selectors were prepared to persist with Mike Hussey for so long during his dramatic form slump and for as long as they have with Johnson's problems, exactly why did Hauritz suddenly become the pariah? Yet it would hardly be fair to throw Doherty out already. Sure, Doherty did not take any wickets in the mammoth English second innings in the First Test, but then again, neither did any of the other main bowlers.

First Test lessons

The First Test, Australia v England, has ended in a draw yet several things have come out of the game.

First, there was some excellent batting by both teams, with four century makers and one double-century. Hopefully this is a sign of more excellent batting displays to come across the rest of the summer.

One thing is patently clear, however, that the current Australian bowling attack lacks sufficient penetration to bowl a decent time out twice. And make no bones about it, the touring Englishman are a much improved line-up than of a few years ago.

When a good player is out of sorts, sometimes they need to be sent down to get their head together. Surely that time has been reached with Mitchel Johnson? His arm action seems appreciatively lower as it was during his horror last tour of England. In my opinion, when Johnson's arm is dropping lower it is a sign that he is in trouble, with that changed action becoming increasingly erratic. He also seems to lose fluency in his action which I suspect is a sign of him tensing up too much in his delivery.

If I were a selector, I would be giving Johnson a rest and reinstating Dougie Bollinger for the Second Test.

Spare a thought for the Englishman, Alastair Cook. First he fielded through the fairly lengthy Australian first innings, then batted right through the English innings for his unbeaten double-century then returned to the field yet again for the short Australian second innings before they agreed to call it quits. The poor sod must be absolutely knackered.

I couldn't help but notice how mouthy English bowler James Anderson is getting between deliveries. Verbals between a fiery fast bowler and the batters is nothing new but a bowler needs to be able to back it up with the ball. Let's be honest - the moment the ball isn't swinging, Anderson has nothing much left. Apart from making him look like a goose, plenty of batsmen feel encouraged when a bowler who isn't cutting the mustard, feels the need to mouth off. It is generally a sign that you're on top of him. Wake up to yourself, Jimmy, lad.

Lost our way

Being part of a major sporting comeback is always a great thrill. I have experienced a few of those in my time such as a successful defence of 80 in a one-day game against a far stronger opponent. But the Sri Lankan comeback in last night’s first one day international against Australia, was something else again.

At 8/107 chasing 239, you wouldn’t have backed the Sri Lankans with someone else’s money, let alone your own. Yet they did it. When the ninth wicket fell at 239 bringing Muralitharan to the crease, Australia still had a chance. Such excitement and tension!

What a wonderfully entertaining, record-breaking ninth wicket stand of 132 between Mathews and Malinga! They had nothing to lose and chose to be defiant, stealing the game away in the process.

The Australian bowling became increasingly lacklustre with the Sri Lankan pair making the most of things. Hastings became increasingly erratic and was fortunate to only go for only 27 runs from his six overs. Mitchell Johnson had another one of those days when nothing would go right.

Doherty was the surprise packet, starting with a run-out and following up with a crucial four wickets during an impressive Sri Lankan batting collapse.

I was left with two important questions.

First, what happened to Steve Smith? He bowled three overs for eight runs earlier in the innings, not to be seen again. Was he injured?

Why wasn’t someone in Doherty’s ear about flighting the ball more and more often. During the Mathews-Malinga partnership, the Australian bowling attack developed a real sense of sameness. Mathews was able to start well within the batting increase, allowing him to came forward and pick the ball up on the rise at will, or sit back and hammer the short balls. What was desparately needed was a change of pace. And I don’t mind the slow, loopy bouncer that seems to have come into vogue these days.

Doherty was consistently bowling flat, quicker deliveries. Yet with Mathews and Malinga in full flow, a far better option would have been to entirely change things up with slower, more flighted deliveries, drawing the false shot. The Australians at that point certainly had sufficient runs to play with. Yet the one time I saw Doherty hold one back at that time, Malinga cleared the boundary with a huge swat. So Doherty went back into his shell once more, becoming more of an attempted containing bowler rather than attacking.

Steve Smith would have been an ideal alternative option at that point, raising the question again of why he was not returned to the bowling attack.

The fact that Sri Lanka were able to steal this one, emphasises the problems the Australians have in actually finishing a game. The success of the Taylor and Waugh years was in no small way predicated on the principle of never-ending attack. These days we seem to have entirely lost our way.

The soon-to-arrive English team must be rubbing their hands in anticipation.

Don't let the facts get in the way

An annual tradition of mine for decades is each October, I purchase the latest copy of the ABC Cricket Book. This venerable little publication has all the information that we cricket tragics shall need for the coming summer. It lists all the first-class fixtures, details the touring teams, provides reams of statistics for even the most anal of cricket fans, along with interesting articles.

I recently purchased the latest Cricket Book. Towards the rear of the publication is an article by Stephen Brenkley of The Independent. To say that I am unimpressed is an understatement.

The piece starts our promisingly enough but appearing to be about the phenomenon of the Balmy Army, those sometimes entertaining, sometimes infuriating, English fans that swarm to Australia during an Ashes campaign down-under. Except that the piece instead descended into nothing but an unwarranted sneer at the Antipodes.

Take this for example. According to Mr Brenkley, when Graham Dilley appeared on his first tour of Australia, we Aussies were so cowed and threatened by him, we hid behind media attacks that accused Dilley of being a chucker.

What an unmitigated load of frog shit (apologies to any amphibian that may be offended by the comparison).

Before I started typing this entry, I did a quick Internet search. I was unable to find any references to Australian media of the period claiming Dilley to be a chucker. I certainly cannot recall anything of the kind and back then I read anything and everything I could get my hands on that had the slightest relevance to cricket. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story will you, Stevie boy.

How about something of a reality check.

The unkind could suggest that Dilley's biggest contribution was his role in the dream scoreline of Lillee, caught Dilley, bowled Willey. But that would be unfair.

Back when Dilley made his debut in Australia, the West Indies were far and away the dominant power of the time, with its seemingly never-ending stream of quartets of fast bowlers, and I mean FAST. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not suggesting Dilley wasn’t fast. He was. In fact in his day, Dilley was regarded as the fastest white bowler in the world, which was no mean thing. I enjoyed watching him bowl because he really put in and hit the track hard. But who was backing Dilley up? He sure as hell did not have another three comparable bowlers in the line-up. Some good bowlers, yes, but nothing like the Caribbean Blitzkrieg. So in comparison to facing the Windies, a visit by a Dilley-lead attack was practically going to be a holiday.

The idea that any English media can be giving Australians a hard time over throwing smears is pretty bloody hypocritical. How about another couple of reality checks? When a certain Australian lefthanded bowler was causing the touring English of the time a lot of trouble, who lead the charge to get him thrown out for chucking? The English team with the whole-hearted cooperation of the English media. What was Ian Meckiff’s real crime? He had a double-jointed elbow which caused a movement in the arm akin to throwing. Meckiff was thrown out of the game. Yet at the same time, the touring English had one Tony Lock in their time. Lock threw pretty much every damn ball he bowled in a first-class career that went on many years after that particular tour. But questioning his action was a big no-no!

Jump forward a few years to 1977. Australia was touring England and the Poms were giving us an all-up hiding. Dour Mike Brearley outcaptained us; Bob Willis had our bats mesmerised like rodents before a swaying cobra; Woolmer and Boycott defied everything the Aussie bowlers could send down. The best team didn’t just win, it slaughtered the Aussies.

In the midst of all this, one Lenny Pascoe made his Australian debut. Now Len Pascoe was a ferocious fast bowler with an almost pathological hatred of batsmen. When he started taking a few wickets, one Ted Dexter suddenly appears in the press, claiming Pascoe was a chucker. Dexter’s ‘evidence’ of this charge? That to Dexter’s eye, Pascoe could produce the occasional much faster ball which could only be explained by chucking. And the English media lapped it up. For the record, Len Pascoe was no chucker and only His Lordship and the English media jumped on that bandwagon. The English frog population must suffer from a terrible case of the trots.

The real question is why did editor, Jim Maxwell, even decide to include this piece of crap in the ABC Cricket Book in the first place?

Howard may be the right man afterall

Outrage, speculation and the Pakistani cricket team all seem to go hand-in-hand. In the past we have seen performance enhancing drugs, match fixing, ball tampering and other matters come up over and over. But this latest effort really outshines all the others.

What News of the World has uncovered and provided compelling evidence for, is a well-established pattern of blatant bribery and tailoring performance to meet those demands. The Pakistani team management have suspended the players involved and the International Cricket Council has come out strongly against such inappropriate practices. However in my opinion, this is not nearly strong enough.

The first question to be address is why? It is a simple fact that Pakistani players receive far less as players than do their contemporaries in Australia, England and elsewhere. That they even consider going along with bribery is in a sense, understandable when comparing their financial security to other players. There is an Indian connection as noted by the bag man being an Indian with known connections in this area. While India still has living conditions that are staggeringly lower than the much of the world, there is still big money around in commercial interests and that sort of money appears to be making its presence felt in sports bookmaking circles.

If more money were put into Pakistani cricket, there is less motivation for the players to agree to participate in such behaviour. Now the Pakistani economy may well not be up to putting more money into the game. Perhaps there is a role here for the ICC as a whole to have a hand in lifting the player remuneration.

Now to what is occurring? These latest revelations relate to 'spot betting'; the ability to place a wager, not on the outcome of a sporting event, but on specific events within the game, in this instance, on particular no-balls being balled. It would much easier to 'fix' a specific event occurring, as we have just seen, than it would be to fix an entire match outcome, especially one that takes place over a period of days. It could still be done, but still it would be harder to do. So stamp out bookmaking on spot bets of this sort.

How well informed are we on what has been happening. In wake of the allegations against the Pakistani players concerned, others including senior Australian cricketers have come out admitting similar approaches being made to them. These approaches were all apparently reported to the team management with the appropriate bodies within the ICC structure, notified.

Here's a thought. In future, every time such an approach is registered with the ICC, they make an immediate press release. Lets get the frequency of these things out there in the public eye on an ongoing basis. Remove the veils of secrecy and ignorance. The more attention is paid to these stunts, the harder it will be to continue to get away with them. Make it all visible enough and it will become increasingly unlikely that bookmakers will be prepared to take the risk of such bets.

Next, a full and genuine inquiry with real teeth and backbone is required. The lid needs to be lifted off it all. Will the measures announced to date achieve such ends? I have a sneaking suspicion that they will not. Let's be really honest here - the ICC has a long and well-established pattern of rolling over on the big issues. Those with the biggest voice, which is usually the ones with the most money behind it, gets their way.

The issue now becomes how to achieve all these ends. This is where a strong, dominant driving force is required. Now I am anything but a John Howard fan. I detest much of what he has done in the past and his track record. But I do dispute the allegations that he is a racist.

Initially I was not that concerned about John Howard not getting the deputy's job at the ICC. However in light of the current situation, I suspect that Howard's hardheaded, autocratic way of handling things may be what is required in order to drive real change.

the best?

An interesting observation recently by that doyen of cricket commentators, Richie Benaud, while commentating on a guy in which New Zealander, Billy Bowden was officiating.

Some years back, the International Cricket Council determined that in future, umpires from the host nation could not officiate in Test matches. As a result, good umpires may not necessarily be seen in action on their home soil.

Benaud correctly notes that we are now in an era of referrals by both players and umpires to off-field umpires for adjudication on decisions by reference to the various forms of technology being employed. In that event, Benaud argues, we do not have that same difficulty that arguably existed prior to the introduction of this access to greater technology. Consequently, Benaud continued, there is no longer necessarily the need to have home fans denied the chance to see the best in action when it is one of their own.

There was something in what Benaud was saying - except for one prominent exception. He classed Billy Bowden as one of the best. Give me a break! The sheer number of blunders that bloke makes puts him well outside the numbers of the 'best'. Sure, he has done a heck of lot better in his umpiring career than I ever even dreamed of during my own lacklustre playing career, but still - calling him one of the 'best'?

Richie, mate - just how many glasses of chardonnay did you have that day during lunch?

Where the excitement is

When one day cricket burst onto the scene, it was seen as a breath of fresh air. Exciting hitting was the name of the game, thrilling the crowds. But then the game evolved to something more statistically-based. For example, in the lead-up to the 1987 World Cup, then-Australian coach, Bob Simpson, did his homework. His analysis revealed that the teams that consistently scored the most singles, tended to make the biggest scores and win the most games. That lead to a quite deliberate, considered approach to building an innings.

Today, one-day cricket is often almost formulaic at the top level: a solid opening followed by consolidation before final acceleration.

Twenty-twenty cricket has now assumed the role that international one-day cricket previously held in its earlier days. Excitement is the name of the game. The roar of the crowd is to the accompaniement of rock music. The batting team are seated around the boundary, akin to a Saturday afternoon club fixture, bring a greater degree of intimacy with the spectators. We see wonderful improvisation in batting with often seemingly impossibly shots scorching to the boundary.

The fast rising star of this scenario is Australian David Warner. The pint-sized dynamo is Excitement Plus. He has taken the even more abbreviated form of the game by the neck and shaken it like a Jack Russell terrier. Yet Warner has only played one first-class game for his home state of New South Wales. Just over twelve months ago he was plucked from club cricket obscurity, straight into the Australian 20:20 team.

This latest game, the second 20:20 game, Australia v West Indies, saw a conclusive, crushing victory to Australia with Warner smashing 67 off only 29 balls, the second fastest 20:20 fifty off only 19 balls. Yet the fixture was not without controversy.

Warner demonstrated his batting switch-up. A natural left-hander, he held the bat with a right-hand grip in a left-hand stance, before switching to the right-hand stance as the bowler was delivering the ball. The umpire spoke to him at the end of the over, with Warner later stating the umpire had warned him that the move was not in the spirit of the game.

The West Indian bowler of the moment, Pollard, responded by delivering his balls from further and further back to the ludicrous position of his front foot actually still on the green grass at the edge of the turf square.

Both incidents are legal, but are they really both in the spirit of the game? I suspect not. Admittedly in Warner's case, I suspect that few would have both the talent and dexterity to get away with it as well as he does.

Catches Win Matches - again

Australia v Pakistan, MCG, Day 5

One over into day 5. Pakistan resumed at 3/170. Five balls later and they were 5/171.

Pakistan had to pull-off a record-breaking run chase of 422 to win. But with 170 already under their belt, the remaining 252 with seven wickets was actually quite achievable, even more so considering there were two world class bats at the crease with another next to come in. That chance went out the window with Mitchell Johnson's 4th and 5th deliveries.

Where I am leading to is a further dig about the Pakistani fielding. No, I am not referring to the dropped catch that gave Shane Watson his maiden century. It was those badly-missed chances in the first session of Day 1 which has cost Pakistan this game.

As a bowler it is heart-breaking to bowl your guts out, give it everything, get the edge only to see eminently catchable chances hit the turf. As a captain, it is incredibly frustrating to see your players spill chances that they should be taking. I imagine coaches would be uttering unrepeatable (at least in this blog) phrases.

At the end of the day, poor fielding has undone some fine Pakistani bowling, particularly the hard work by Mohammad Aamer in getting 5 wickets.

The team management and coaching have to wear some of the responsibility here. It is all very well to talk about the underlying culture of not taking fielding seriously, but it is the management and coaching staff that are in the position to take positive action with the team under their control. If fielding is sub-par, which the Pakistani catching most definitely is, then the players must be forced to work at it harder. Introduce mandatory sessions at the slips cradle at most training sessions - that sharpens those slips reflexes like nothing else. Force the players to have sessions taking catches in close with tennis balls off a tennis racquet - that forces you to soften your hands and to stop snatching at the ball.

Those sort of training tactics will not turn every player into Mark Taylor quality in slips, but it would vastly improve Pakistan's quite lacklustre performance with this fundamental.

As I said on Day 1, catches win matches. And dropped catches have almost certainly cost Pakistan this game.

Controlling a game

Has anyone else noticed the big difference between the Second and Third Tests against the West Indies this summer and the subsequent First Test against Pakistan?

Unlike Billy Bowden with his theatrics while utterly failing to actually exercise any authority with the players, we now have the likes of Rudi Koertzen in charge of things. Koertzen is an old-fashioned, no-nonsense style of umpire.

Good umpires are barely noticeable during a game as they are doing their job properly. More than once in this current Test, Koertzen has quitely defused testosterone-fulled situations by a simple quiet word, telling the players to get on with things. His fellow umpire, Billy Doctrove, seems similarly in control. Contrast that to Bowden's shameful ignoring the on-field shenanigans in Perth. He stood there, stoney-faced, taking absolutely no interest in attempting to defuse the altercation between Brad Haddin and Suilemen Benn. Ian Gould at square leg, must have been cringing.

There is little doubt in my mind that matters would not have escaleted in Perth as they did, if Bowden had done the job he is paid to do and done it properly.

This was far from the first time that Bowden's umpiring has been worth some negative comment. When he has a bad day, he has a shocker. The number of times he calls 5- or 7-ball overs is simply not acceptable from a supposed elite umpire. Doesn't he know how to use his ball counter properly? Why isn't he checking after the fifth ball with square leg that you are expected to do at club levels of the game? And what's the deal with the silly signals? During the last Ashes series, at one point he was giving such a strange signal that nobody off the ground, including the scorers, had a flipping clue what he was on about. Sure, Bowden was mildly amusing and different when he first appeared on the scene but his theatrics have become just so tired, boring and irritating.

Being a character is fine. Consider the likes of Harold 'Dickie' Bird or David Shepherd in England. They were definitely characters, especially with Shep standing on one foot to ward off bad luck when the score reached 111 or multiples thereof. But at the same time they were in clear control and obviously respected by the players. Bird would have been all over the players in Perth, pulling them back into line. Then there was a certain Australian umpire, subsquently imprisoned on sexual charges, who as an umpire would hand out Minties to players. I do not recall him having problems with controlling the game either.

Billy Bowden would do well to have paid close attention to the quiet, no-nonsense approach of
Koertzen and Doctrove in this Test and tried applying the same. Or better still, have the umpiring fraternity leave him on the outer until he has learned to apply himself to actually umpiring and controlling a game rather than stupid theatrics and bad decisions.

Catches Win Matches

Australia v Pakistan, MCG, Day 1

There is an old saying in cricketing circles: 'catches win matches.'

This was never more evident than in the first session of play in the Boxing Day Test. The Pakistani's dropped both Australian openers on lowish scores with Shane Watson and Simon Katich going on to make 93 and 98 respectively.

These dropped catches did more than just cost the fielding team well in excess of 100 runs. Holding either or both had the potential to destabilise the Australian team. It would have brought Ricking Ponting to the crease against a faster, harder, newer ball at a time when he is still recovering from the elbow injury sustained in the last Test against the West Indies merely days before. While Michael Hussey has finally returned to form, his position in the order means that he rarely has to face a newer ball at the start of his innings.

These were major opportunities lost. The game was quite possibly lost in that first two hours of play.

Poor fielding has been a feature of the Pakistani game for years. Quoting the Pakistan coach, Intikhab Alam:

"This is the weakest part of the game we have. This is a grass roots problem in our country, those who play don't take fielding that seriously, this has been a problem for a very, very long time."

In this day and age where cricket is played at a very professional level, it beggars belief that players of a national side can take such a lax approach to fielding. The first catch spilled at slip for example, was simply unacceptable - it should have been almost regulation for that level of the game. For that matter, most club players would have expected that one to stick.

Cricket is more than a national pastime in Pakistan, it assumes near-religious overtones with burning effigies of players deemed to have failed. The Pakistani President is known to have words with cricket authorities about his displeasure over selections, providing a political overtone to proceedings as well.

With that background, why is it so difficult to hone Pakistani players on the full range of required skills? A smart fringe player could significantly enhance his chances of long-term selection by simply becoming a reliable fielder, especially in the slips region.