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?

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.