One of the most regularly discussed, or argued, cricketing topics is the effect T20 has had on our great game – people seem divided into the two opposing camps - there is often little middle ground.
With the World T20 in Sri Lanka in full swing, what better time to consider the evils of the shortest form of our great game – perceived, at least. I’m something of a traditionalist and would happily sustain myself on a diet of test cricket, but I’m also a realist – in a society that is now overflowing with entertainment choices, cricket has had to look outside its standard boundaries and expand its horizons.
If one were to listen to talk back radio, or read comments through Twitter, Facebook or any number of cricketing mediums it would be easy to think that everything wrong with our game started and finished with T20 – there seems a lack of balance in most opinion. Vocal traditionalists appear unable to see beyond the realm of first class cricket, whilst those drawn to our great game through the T20 vehicle are often lambasted for their love of the devil’s game.
Showing posts with label Kevin Pietersen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin Pietersen. Show all posts
Friday, September 21, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
The team and “I” in professional cricket
A professional is someone who can do his best work when he doesn't feel like it.
Alistair Cooke KBE – journalist/broadcaster
Alistair Cooke KBE – journalist/broadcaster
Most definitions of a professional centre on money and payment; they miss the essence of professionalism. Cooke’s description brings it to life – money is such a small part of it.
In the wake of the drama that is the Kevin Pietersen saga, it’s worth considering what professionalism means in modern cricket. Is it based solely on remuneration or is it a mind-set? What are the roles, and importance, of the individual and the team? Does one outweigh the other or does a successful team need to find a healthy balance?
 |
| (Courtesy of toonpool.com) |
Most definitions of a professional centre on money and payment; they miss the essence of professionalism. Cooke’s description brings it to life – money is such a small part of it.
In the wake of the drama that is the Kevin Pietersen saga, it’s worth considering what professionalism means in modern cricket. Is it based solely on remuneration or is it a mind-set? What are the roles, and importance, of the individual and the team? Does one outweigh the other or does a successful team need to find a healthy balance?
Friday, June 22, 2012
The prodigal son returns
Twenty20 is a format Dan enjoys and the opportunity to be part of a team which competes at a world event is enticing for him. He has been encouraged by his team-mates, coaching staff and others at NZC. And we are thrilled to have him in the mix. He will offer a lot to the side.
National Selection Manager Kim Littlejohn on the return of Daniel Vettori
In a month when Kevin Pietersen announced his retirement from all limited overs international cricket, Daniel Vettori’s decision to come out of retirement and make himself available for New Zealand selection for the World Cup T20 tournament in Sri Lanka, whilst showing his worth to his side, illustrates the difference in riches between cricket’s glitterati and the second tier nations.
National Selection Manager Kim Littlejohn on the return of Daniel Vettori
In a month when Kevin Pietersen announced his retirement from all limited overs international cricket, Daniel Vettori’s decision to come out of retirement and make himself available for New Zealand selection for the World Cup T20 tournament in Sri Lanka, whilst showing his worth to his side, illustrates the difference in riches between cricket’s glitterati and the second tier nations.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Pietersen’s cricket pick and mix
After a great deal of thought and deliberation, I am today announcing my retirement from international one-day cricket. I am immensely proud of my achievements in the one-day game and still wish to be considered for selection for England in Test cricket.
Kevin Pietersen, 31 May 2012
The ECB’s Hugh Morris was “disappointed”, at least that was his public sentiment – privately he may well be poking pins into a voodoo doll with a penchant for shades and a love of biltong. Michael Vaughan, in The Telegraph, proclaimed that “when I first heard the news on Thursday my gut reaction was he should never play again and kick him out the team”. Fans, it seems, in a Twitter straw poll at least, are divided between dissecting the perceived short-sighted nature of the ECB’s stance and venting their vitriol at the IPL for ruining our great game – or a combination of the two.
Are there any winners? I can think of a couple of potential ones in Australia if only strike action is averted.
Kevin Pietersen, 31 May 2012
The ECB’s Hugh Morris was “disappointed”, at least that was his public sentiment – privately he may well be poking pins into a voodoo doll with a penchant for shades and a love of biltong. Michael Vaughan, in The Telegraph, proclaimed that “when I first heard the news on Thursday my gut reaction was he should never play again and kick him out the team”. Fans, it seems, in a Twitter straw poll at least, are divided between dissecting the perceived short-sighted nature of the ECB’s stance and venting their vitriol at the IPL for ruining our great game – or a combination of the two.
Are there any winners? I can think of a couple of potential ones in Australia if only strike action is averted.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Fans - critic or assassin?
"When we judge or criticise another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about our own need to be critical" - Unknown
Why is it that so many fans feel the need to be critical, bordering on the vitriolic? That's not to confuse constructive comment or well-reasoned and supported argument - more the conveyance of ownership and the personal attacks, not of sporting ability but character and personality. Are we so baseless that we take delight in the derision of our sporting 'heroes'?
The deciding New Zealand versus South Africa T20 brought such comment to the fore - the Black Caps capitulated as their African opponents have done at ICC tournaments in the past. For once, the clichéd choke is not too strong a word. With five overs to go New Zealand needed less than a run a ball with seven wickets in hand, and on a ground that only just accommodates a full sized rugby pitch, yet in the ensuing 24 hours comment centred solely on Jesse Ryder.
Ryder's an easy target. He has just returned from another injury layoff, enjoys a pint or 20 and thinks a steak and cheese pie is a well-balanced meal - but the man can wield the willow. He hit 52 at close to 125 and top scored for the match after not donning the black kit for the first time since New Zealand upset Australia in Hobart last December. Without question he made errors, big ones, but if you believe much of what has been written and preached he was the only Kiwi on the pitch. The condemnation has been direct, swift and condescending.
Little has been made of the soft dismissals of the other top order batsmen or the inability of capable middle order players to even lay bat on ball - scribes and punters lay the blame squarely at Ryder's feet. Yes, he fumbled his way through his last few runs but he has no track record of putting personal milestones above team outcomes - Twitter and talkback radio would tell you otherwise. Much of the comment was baseless at best; personal abuse at gutter level. But, the sentiment that struck me was from a former player, himself the target on too many occasions during a career that never quite reached the pinnacle of its true potential.
Craig McMillan, former Black Cap turned television commentator and radio pundit, was unerring in his criticism of Ryder and his pursuit of personal glory, whilst largely neglecting the mishaps of others. He's a paid 'expert' asked to give his considered opinion - no issues there. But, and it's one of JLo proportions, the crucifixion of Ryder is coming from a man who himself was widely criticised for his girth, his fitness and his propensity to throw it away in a blaze of glory. The same man who, when people questioned his form in test cricket near the sunset of his career, answered in the best way - with a test century but then commented that his innings should gag a few commentators - how quickly we forget about the glasshouses in which we all live.....
Whilst Ryder is so frequently the target of condescension and personal attacks, there are many others scattered throughout our great game. Brash South African, sorry - Englishman, Kevin Pietersen, Australian captain Michael Clarke and Brendon McCullum all suffer the same fate. Outspoken New Zealand wicketkeeper Adam Parore and the aforementioned McMillan were never far from the airwaves and column inches in their day either. But why is it that certain players draw unparalleled criticism whilst others seemingly walk on water, even when they have muddied them so frequently?
Why do 'fans' continually partake in the character assassination and unsupported criticism of our sporting 'heroes'? Is it our right? In the end are players, coaches, managers and teams accountable to the paying public? As we invest more heavily in inflated ticket prices, merchandise, sponsors' products and pay television, maybe they are - though that's for another day. Constructive comment and considered opinion are fair but why must we cross the boundary into personal attacks and vitriol - is it seen in any other endeavour (politics excepted)? Is it envy, jealousy or the unparalleled riches that players earn while the 'common man' (and fan) puts his nose to the grindstone in a 'real' job? It's an open question - I have no definitive answer....
Scribes and casual bloggers do it too; it's not just the domain of the man on the street. Unfortunately, emotion sells - would anyone buy a newspaper that leads with 'We lose - no one's to blame'? In a few short months of writing this blog I've realised it's easier to criticise on personal feelings than compose a considered argument.
In today’s digital, social media-obsessed world there are now endless avenues open for comment – the issue is that most are anonymous, so balanced debate is often lacking. Most fans love to comment on the stars of their sport, especially in Aotearoa where most are easily accessible to the public. Twitter, Facebook, talkback radio (with SMS comment – I still don’t get it), blogs, forums and article comments, among others, all provide an endless source of unmitigated banter. But, here is the kicker – on most occasions, in New Zealand at least, when our side wins talkback, and most others, is often slow; when we lose to France at a RWC or are farcical in our efforts at the wicket, every couch critic wants his two cents and his pound of flesh – no matter the lack of logic in the argument, heated as it often is.
Most of us will never play at the highest level, or commentate or write about our great game to audiences too innumerable to count – more the pity. Why then do we confuse personal sporting performance with criticisms of personality - seldom do the two meet? Very few of us have insights into the players; their work ethic, attitude and personality. Our view is largely from the outside, yet fan comment often bases thoughts on what we see and our perceptions; not fact or reasoned opinion - a little context goes a long way.
Many of us have love-hate relationships with our cricketing personalities – others simply love to hate them. Whatever your opinion, most fans are just that – they love their teams and want nothing more but for them to do well – sorry, WIN! The paradox is that a minority have a confused way of showing it.
For all his faults in the decider, Ryder did not lose New Zealand the game – maybe South Africa should even get a little credit. Will the same punters who offered little more than baseless abuse jump back on the bandwagon if Ryder flays the South African quicks in the test series? Ryder appeared to have lost a little weight in his injury absence yet people still made comment about his running – did punters say the same things of the beer swilling Tasmanian, David Boon? No, the portly Boon still holds legend status for his Ashes tour drinking antics – he’s seen as the quintessential Aussie bloke.
Don’t get me wrong, I have little time for cheerleading either - Channel 9 are cringe worthy to all but a select groups of Aussie sycophants. Likewise, no-one wants to hear the Super Rugby player political correctness or the ‘netball was the winner on the day’ speech – as fans it’s about having an opinion, not a baseless rant.
If you think my ramblings are off the mark, I'm open to both destructive criticism and vitriol. Post a comment or hunt me down on Twitter (@aotearoaxi) - I don't live in the public eye, I prefer the anonymity of a faceless moniker. Let’s hope that irony is not lost…
This post also appears in the April edition of SPIN-off Cricket.
 |
| Jesse Ryder in full flow |
The deciding New Zealand versus South Africa T20 brought such comment to the fore - the Black Caps capitulated as their African opponents have done at ICC tournaments in the past. For once, the clichéd choke is not too strong a word. With five overs to go New Zealand needed less than a run a ball with seven wickets in hand, and on a ground that only just accommodates a full sized rugby pitch, yet in the ensuing 24 hours comment centred solely on Jesse Ryder.
Ryder's an easy target. He has just returned from another injury layoff, enjoys a pint or 20 and thinks a steak and cheese pie is a well-balanced meal - but the man can wield the willow. He hit 52 at close to 125 and top scored for the match after not donning the black kit for the first time since New Zealand upset Australia in Hobart last December. Without question he made errors, big ones, but if you believe much of what has been written and preached he was the only Kiwi on the pitch. The condemnation has been direct, swift and condescending.
Little has been made of the soft dismissals of the other top order batsmen or the inability of capable middle order players to even lay bat on ball - scribes and punters lay the blame squarely at Ryder's feet. Yes, he fumbled his way through his last few runs but he has no track record of putting personal milestones above team outcomes - Twitter and talkback radio would tell you otherwise. Much of the comment was baseless at best; personal abuse at gutter level. But, the sentiment that struck me was from a former player, himself the target on too many occasions during a career that never quite reached the pinnacle of its true potential.
Craig McMillan, former Black Cap turned television commentator and radio pundit, was unerring in his criticism of Ryder and his pursuit of personal glory, whilst largely neglecting the mishaps of others. He's a paid 'expert' asked to give his considered opinion - no issues there. But, and it's one of JLo proportions, the crucifixion of Ryder is coming from a man who himself was widely criticised for his girth, his fitness and his propensity to throw it away in a blaze of glory. The same man who, when people questioned his form in test cricket near the sunset of his career, answered in the best way - with a test century but then commented that his innings should gag a few commentators - how quickly we forget about the glasshouses in which we all live.....
Whilst Ryder is so frequently the target of condescension and personal attacks, there are many others scattered throughout our great game. Brash South African, sorry - Englishman, Kevin Pietersen, Australian captain Michael Clarke and Brendon McCullum all suffer the same fate. Outspoken New Zealand wicketkeeper Adam Parore and the aforementioned McMillan were never far from the airwaves and column inches in their day either. But why is it that certain players draw unparalleled criticism whilst others seemingly walk on water, even when they have muddied them so frequently?
Why do 'fans' continually partake in the character assassination and unsupported criticism of our sporting 'heroes'? Is it our right? In the end are players, coaches, managers and teams accountable to the paying public? As we invest more heavily in inflated ticket prices, merchandise, sponsors' products and pay television, maybe they are - though that's for another day. Constructive comment and considered opinion are fair but why must we cross the boundary into personal attacks and vitriol - is it seen in any other endeavour (politics excepted)? Is it envy, jealousy or the unparalleled riches that players earn while the 'common man' (and fan) puts his nose to the grindstone in a 'real' job? It's an open question - I have no definitive answer....
Scribes and casual bloggers do it too; it's not just the domain of the man on the street. Unfortunately, emotion sells - would anyone buy a newspaper that leads with 'We lose - no one's to blame'? In a few short months of writing this blog I've realised it's easier to criticise on personal feelings than compose a considered argument.
In today’s digital, social media-obsessed world there are now endless avenues open for comment – the issue is that most are anonymous, so balanced debate is often lacking. Most fans love to comment on the stars of their sport, especially in Aotearoa where most are easily accessible to the public. Twitter, Facebook, talkback radio (with SMS comment – I still don’t get it), blogs, forums and article comments, among others, all provide an endless source of unmitigated banter. But, here is the kicker – on most occasions, in New Zealand at least, when our side wins talkback, and most others, is often slow; when we lose to France at a RWC or are farcical in our efforts at the wicket, every couch critic wants his two cents and his pound of flesh – no matter the lack of logic in the argument, heated as it often is.
Most of us will never play at the highest level, or commentate or write about our great game to audiences too innumerable to count – more the pity. Why then do we confuse personal sporting performance with criticisms of personality - seldom do the two meet? Very few of us have insights into the players; their work ethic, attitude and personality. Our view is largely from the outside, yet fan comment often bases thoughts on what we see and our perceptions; not fact or reasoned opinion - a little context goes a long way.
Many of us have love-hate relationships with our cricketing personalities – others simply love to hate them. Whatever your opinion, most fans are just that – they love their teams and want nothing more but for them to do well – sorry, WIN! The paradox is that a minority have a confused way of showing it.
For all his faults in the decider, Ryder did not lose New Zealand the game – maybe South Africa should even get a little credit. Will the same punters who offered little more than baseless abuse jump back on the bandwagon if Ryder flays the South African quicks in the test series? Ryder appeared to have lost a little weight in his injury absence yet people still made comment about his running – did punters say the same things of the beer swilling Tasmanian, David Boon? No, the portly Boon still holds legend status for his Ashes tour drinking antics – he’s seen as the quintessential Aussie bloke.
Don’t get me wrong, I have little time for cheerleading either - Channel 9 are cringe worthy to all but a select groups of Aussie sycophants. Likewise, no-one wants to hear the Super Rugby player political correctness or the ‘netball was the winner on the day’ speech – as fans it’s about having an opinion, not a baseless rant.
If you think my ramblings are off the mark, I'm open to both destructive criticism and vitriol. Post a comment or hunt me down on Twitter (@aotearoaxi) - I don't live in the public eye, I prefer the anonymity of a faceless moniker. Let’s hope that irony is not lost…
This post also appears in the April edition of SPIN-off Cricket.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Africa's cricketing influence
 |
| African cricketers continue to influence the world game |
We are regularly told the BCCI holds the balance of cricketing power courtesy of the game's largest fan base, swelling coffers and the prominence of the IPL. But do they? Africa's influence is deeper at a pure cricketing level - their players and coaches are making a heavy impression across a number of countries, not just at home.
African players plying their trade abroad are nothing new. Basil D’Oliveira was one of, if not the first. He was offered a contract in England league cricket when people believed his talent was wasted in South Africa where he was given no opportunities because of the colour of his skin. He went on to represent England and brought attention to the apartheid issues in his homeland. Similarly, Tony Greig emigrated and went on to captain his adopted country in the 1970s - he was born in South Africa, played for England, now resides in Australia and has connections to the Sri Lankan tourism board – an eclectic gentleman.
A number of others left for greener pastures and an escape from the injustices of apartheid. Mike Procter, Garth le Roux, Barry Richards and Clive Rice all had a telling impact on the county scene where they had an opportunity to play against a number of the world’s best cricketers when their motherland was exiled from international cricket. Likewise, Peter Kirsten had a lengthy county career but was lucky enough to finish his playing days in South Africa after sporting sanctions were finally lifted. Kepler Wessels on the other hand has the distinction of playing test cricket for Australia early in his career before returning home to captain South Africa on their return to international cricket.
Robin Smith, Allan Lamb and Graeme Hick all left Africa for England before being promoted to the senior side. Hick’s change of allegiance (Zimbabwe did not yet have test status) is interesting in that he first ventured to England on a Zimbabwe Cricket Union sponsored scholarship.
In 2003, the Kolpak ruling opened the floodgates for more African (and Windies cricketers) to earn their keep in county cricket as it allowed players from countries with a European Union associate agreement to effectively play as EU residents; it’s far more involved than that, but this is quickly becoming a novel. A number of counties should be sending anonymous brown envelopes to Maros Kolpak as he won’t be in the riches playing second division handball whilst they are utilising the ruling to grow their stocks.
Kolpak has allowed a number of Africans to forego their national allegiances, prosper in county cricket and earn handy coin doing it. Players like Neil McKenzie, Andrew Hall, Murray Goodwin and Dale Benkenstein have brought their hard-nosed approach to the county game over long careers, though it is debateable if England would have been better served promoting home grown talent. Current England internationals Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott (it’s worth noting he already held a British passport) are two of the younger generation switching allegiances who have developed formidable influence for their adopted nation and have been integral to its recent success. Would the same results have been realised without them?
For those not convinced of Africa’s influence on world cricket, take a further look at the current England set-up. The side is captained by South African born Andrew Strauss, and coached by an ex-Zimbabwean captain in Andy Flower. Flower’s ascension in the England set-up has aligned with them moving to number one in the test rankings – coincidence? South African born youngsters Jade Dernbach, Craig Kieswetter and Stuart Meaker are all forging limited overs careers in the national side and more of their ilk will likely follow.
But it’s not just England who have been blessed with the African influence. Gary Kirsten continued the good work of John Wright in India but moved on before the current issues affected an ageing side, and returned home for the South African job. Mickey Arthur was recently appointed the first foreign-born coach of the Australian side and with the recent 4-0 test drubbing of India is looking to restore the once champion side to its past glory. The coaching ranks of my own New Zealand were temporarily bolstered with the acquisition of Allan Donald to mould our young quicks before he too returned home – our loss.
Given the growing migration of Africans, both Zimbabwean and South African, to New Zealand’s shores the prevalence of Afrikaans names in our national and domestic sides is set to grow. Grant Elliott arrived in New Zealand a decade ago and was rushed straight into the national side once he had met the residency requirements – his tenure was short but he has shown a path for others.
Kruger van Wyk was in a two horse race for the New Zealand wicket keeping duties against Zimbabwe, and will get his chance in the future. Likewise, Neil Wagner, a sharp left-armer, looks set to get a run when he is eligible for New Zealand in April if his domestic feats are any indication. After representing the Zimbabwean U19s Colin de Grandhomme will make the step up to New Zealand’s T20 side against his former countrymen in the next fortnight. There is a sprinkling of others throughout the domestic scene, while former Zimbabwean leggie Paul Strang has held the coaching reigns of the all-conquering Auckland side for the past three seasons.
Different patriotic pundits around the globe could put forward persuasive arguments for the merits of their country being the most influential in world cricket, but even as a West Indian cricket loving Kiwi, it is hard for me to go past the two African nations. Zimbabwe is currently struggling to find their feet after a long test hiatus, but ask England if they would give up their coach for all of Mugabe’s stolen riches – not a chance. Likewise, many an Englishman secretly applauds Mr Kolpak and in years to come I’ll not care a jot where New Zealand talent was born.
Consider this: with England in the throes of defeat in Dubai there is the possibility they could lose the number one test ranking to the South Africans if they can sweep New Zealand 3-0. Before you fret, those in the MCC long room can mop their furrowed brows; New Zealand won’t let that happen, driven by a love of queen and country…..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)