Forgive me…

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned - it's been two months since my last confession...

I'm not Catholic but for those of you who regularly read Donning the Whites, you get my point. Unfortunately, my "real" job has got in the way of my second love, our great game - cricket. For those of you questioning my first love - family conquers all.

While I've missed my outlet, and our Twitter discussions, life isn't all beer and candy - blogging doesn't pay my bills. Thankfully, my project launches a new product tomorrow and 12 months of graft nears an end. Who knows, all things being equal I can get back to my laptop of a regular basis or write a quick piece on the iPad on my daily commute – don’t tweet and drive kids.

(Super) Over and out

Southee says it all...(Courtesy of stuff.co.nz)

For many, the final memory of New Zealand at the World T20 will be the mercurial Chris Gayle effortlessly hoisting a Tim Southee no-ball over the rope. One delivery summed up New Zealand’s tournament efforts – so close, yet in actuality a long way from success. The sight of shoulders drooping atop 11 black shirts matched the reactions of thousands of fans at home – no matter the frequency, the inevitability of another loss is no easier to swallow.    

Has the New Zealand side failed to live up to expectations? Unquestionably, but does that say more about the inflated views we have of our national side than the shortcomings in their performance? Ranked sixth in the T20 ICC rankings when leaving the Caribbean, New Zealand ended the tournament having slipped to eighth – on this occasion the numbers don’t lie. One win in five is a poor return – victory against a hapless Bangladesh will satisfy no-one.

The T20 debate: Every cloud has a silver lining

If you haven't already, have a read of the affirmative side of the debate – Blame T20, for everything?! – there are two sides to every argument.


Negative – everything in moderation:
As it was pointed out by the affirmative, T20 is having an effect on international cricket – but is it necessarily a negative one? If its evils were so divisive and detrimental to our great game wouldn’t cricket’s shortest format have died out before it even got started? It hasn’t, and that in itself holds the key – the simple principles of supply and demand mean the format is flourishing.

At its base, sport is about competition and entertainment. Competition drives players, entertainment attracts fans. In a modern world where entertainment choices are greater than ever before, has T20 filled a void that was missing in our great game? For the most staid of traditionalists T20 may offer very little – it’s seen as the antithesis of what they believe cricket is, if only because of a closed mind. But for those on the fringes, cricket is seen in a light that’s never shone on an outfield before.

The T20 debate: Blame T20, for everything?!

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.

Book review: Guile and Spin – Stuart Larner

It’s been close to 20 years since I wrote a book review, and dry essays about Shakespearean dramas written for insular school masters don’t qualify me to critique a novel built around our great game. I’ve read more cricketing (auto) biographies than one man should, so why not a work of fiction – Stuart Larner’s Guile and Spin is infinitely more readable, and believable, than most of them and doesn’t require the contrived controversy that mars current cricket books. 

Managing a dilapidated council sports and recreation centre while continuing to coach tennis as a side venture, Jeremy Freeman fills the role of the reluctant hero. Having not played cricket since his schooldays, Jeremy has little more than a passing interest in our great game and but for the influence of an attractive female cricketer, Claire Spedman, the story would likely have died before it started.

A tour to India and the World T20 – a Kiwi view

Pallekele International Stadium (courtesy of Getty Images)

For a New Zealand cricket fan, recent history has not been kind. The national team’s dismantling in the West Indies rubbed salt into an already festering wound, and reminded many of the efforts of their efforts prior to Stephen Fleming’s reign at the helm.

A one win – eight loss record across all three formats in Florida and the Caribbean should never be acceptable – most leading cricketing nations would be looking to run a scythe through their line-up but those in the second tier, such as New Zealand, do not have that luxury. That we are in the middle of the off-season means there are even fewer options to call on to step up at international level.

West Indies tour review 2012

Part 1: Early doors on tour
  

Ever since Kane Williamson and Doug Bracewell walked off the Basin Reserve having blunted the South African attack to stave off victory, my thoughts have been focussed on the New Zealand tour to the Caribbean.

 

The 2012 edition was not like the tours of old with large baying crowds, hostile bouncers, forceful stroke play and a cloud of ‘ganga smoke wafting through the stand, but it’s a Kiwi side in the West Indies – two of my favourite things in cricket. 

 

Man for man the two sides measured up well – it’s a pity for New Zealand the game is played on the pitch and not paper. I was looking forward to a close battle between two teams dear to my heart, but it was largely one-sided and the gap was substantial.

Florida's T20 post-mortem

For all the questions raised about cricket in the home of the brave I was pleasantly surprised by the two-match T20 series in Florida to kick off New Zealand’s West Indies tour. It may not have the history of the Kensington Oval or the dancing masses of Sabina Park but Florida’s Broward County ground didn’t look out of place as an international venue – if only the cricket had matched the surroundings.

The United States’ only ICC sanctioned international ground has undergone a cricketing transformation from the tentative baby steps it took when New Zealand first toured in 2010. Whilst it lacked the pace and bounce of the best limited overs wickets so do many in both New Zealand and the Caribbean. It had enough of both, and minimal sideways movement, to allow players to swing through the line with confidence – Smith, Bravo and Pollard went at it from ball one. The indifferent efforts of a sub-par New Zealand line-up shouldn’t be seen as a reflection on the wicket, more of the lack of preparation and absence of mental toughness that international cricket requires.

Coming to America - Home of the Brave?

International cricket in Florida (Courtesy of the ICC)

Even on maps of the old world, Florida has never been part of the West Indies – it has a strong Caribbean influence and a significant population of expats but it sits squarely in the United States of America. The Miami area is home to the Dolphins, Marlins and the NBA Champion Miami Heat, but for the second time it will play host to international T20 cricket in Broward County, Lauderhill. New Zealand returns after its initial foray in 2010 - they will be joined by a West Indian side who, given the issues with the game in their collection of tiny nations, would likely be better served playing at home as opposed to trying to grow the game in an Associate nation. 

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.

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.

New Zealand's Wisden Cricketers of the Year - winning is a habit

A Crowe cover-drive: poetry

Since the end of the 1979/80 summer and a series victory against the West Indies at home, New Zealand has continued to record any number of firsts. They went 12 years unbeaten at home in a test series following what was a spiteful series marred by some of the worst acts seen on a cricketing field. The actions of Windies legends Colin Croft, Michael Holding and future ICC Match Referee Clive Lloyd sully my memories of the start of an era of West Indian dominance. How severe would Lloyd have been in his official capacity on players who shoulder charged an umpire, kicked stumps out of the ground when a decision didn’t go their way, or kept their charges in the changing rooms as a protest for 12 minutes after play was due to resume?

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

Jesse Ryder in full flow

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.

Kane Williamson - T20I or not?

Kane Williamson - tests or T20?

There is little doubt Kane Williamson will grow into one of the true stars of New Zealand cricket, helping his unfashionable band of grafters to triumphs throughout the cricketing world. The question remains whether his continued inclusion in the T20I side is hindering his rise to the upper echelons of the world game.

'Experts' and arm chair selectors alike are torn on what is best for Williamson and New Zealand cricket - not just in the now but for many fruitful years to come. There seems to be little middle ground in people's thinking - either Williamson must be a part of all New Zealand teams or he should be rested from the international T20 arena. Who's right will likely only bear out in seasons to come but the wrong move now could delay the young man's cricketing ascension.

Those who believe that Williamson's, and New Zealand's, best interests include the young Northern Districts whippet playing T20 internationals will point to his astonishing finishing in the final match against a struggling Zimbabwe. With New Zealand requiring 26 off the final two overs, both McCullum brothers were caught in the deep leaving nine balls to finish the innings and save Kiwi blushes - Williamson needed only five. He showed timing, placement and cricketing nous to score 20 and save New Zealand the embarrassment of a loss to Zimbabwe with 2 balls to spare. The innings was one that many thought would silence any doubters, but has it had the opposite effect?

In five matches Williamson averages 60 at a little over 140 in T20I but the numbers are deceptive - he's only compiled 120 international runs. In 40 matches at all levels Williamson averages below 20 at marginally over run a ball, on par with his efforts in this season's HRV Cup, but his batting seemed almost an afterthought in a Northern Districts side full of hitting options. The shining light was his economy rate in the 2011/12 domestic game at a miserly 5.74 - the competition's most economical bowler. The intriguing part is he has only bowled 30 balls for New Zealand.

While he can compete and help New Zealand, should he be part of the setup in the immediate future at least? Will his continued use in international hit and giggle affect his test game? At 21, Williamson has time on his side.

New Zealand is developing their spin stocks in McCullum, Hira and Nicol, and there is no shortage of batsmen if others do their job. With Taylor waiting in the wings after the South African series and Ryder back in the squad after another injury, Williamson's inclusion is not a necessity.

For all but jockeys, Williamson is a small man. He has shown impeccable timing but lacks the brute power of his peers so when caught a little short he can't muscle the ball to, and over, the boundary like McCullum or Guptill can, while still holding technical shape. He needs bottom hand to achieve any power whilst his game relies on batting's more subtle arts. As a result he is forced to hit to areas he would usually avoid. Over time will it prove detrimental to his test cricket development?

In a short test career Williamson has achieved only modest numbers but the manner of his play and obvious cricketing mind have shown all what is possible. A burgeoning test average a shade over 30 defies his test potential but he has his maiden test century, 131 against India on the subcontinent, and another three 50s to his name in just nine matches. Since his test debut as a baby faced 20 year old, Williamson has looked bound for greatness. His technique, though with the gaps of a man just starting his international journey, provides him with a base most senior players would envy and his temperament seems inclined towards the lengthy not the flashy. Not since Stephen Fleming has a young Kiwi looked to have the cricketing world as his feet – I discount the deeds of Ross Taylor for though he has amassed impressive numbers neither his technique nor mental ability have shown marked recent growth.

Given time to build on the early promise, and with a lot of hard work, the international game appears to open out before Williamson. Like Turner, Wright and Crowe before him, a stint in the daily grind of the County Championship would help the young pretender hone his undoubted batting talent in preparation for the fierce examination at test level. Coupled with Plunket Shield cricket and New Zealand’s test schedule, application to his craft will carry Williamson a long way – Martin Guptill’s growth in international cricket illustrates that. The volume of ODIs New Zealand plays will allow him to develop the attacking side of his game without the immediacy of T20 pressure – a challenge he has relished with two centuries at 36.20 in his first 19 outings.

The knowledge that comes with learning his game in the longer formats, without the confusion and urgency of T20 tactics, will not only aid in the test and ODI arenas but will give Williamson the cricketing introspection to excel in international T20 in the future.

I am a proud New Zealander who adores test cricket. My thoughts may appear lopsided but test cricket will forever remain the pinnacle of our great game. Regardless of whether Kane Williamson continues to play T20 internationals in his formative cricketing years, he will undoubtedly have a long and successful New Zealand career.

We quickly forget that today's greats such as Ponting, Kallis, Tendulkar, Dravid, and Sangakkara, among others, didn't have the pressure of T20 early in their careers. They spent time building an innings, fine tuning their technique and learning their game before joining the T20 circus.

The question will remain, as it does with young tyro Doug Bracewell, whether T20 will delay his ascension to his position among Crowe, Turner, Reid et al. – time will invariably bear that out. My views hold little weight; such influential decisions sit with John Wright and Kim Littlejohn, who are making steady progress and creating undoubted depth. Like most New Zealand supporters nothing would make me happier than to see Williamson lead his country in years to come and end his career among the game’s elite – time will tell.

If my writing seems a little confused this week, please blame my little princess. My wife gave birth to a little girl a few days ago so what you're reading are the sleep deprived ramblings of an exhausted but elated Daddy.

Wherefore art thou Chris?



Gayle in whites - more, please

Shakespeare isn’t often associated with cricket, but it’s fair to say that Chris Gayle would have made a fitting subject in one of the playwright’s tragedies.

After a 14 month hiatus from the first-class game, Gayle returned to lead his native Jamaica to an emphatic victory over the Windward Islands – he led not as captain but by his deeds. His second innings 165 at quicker than a run a ball saw deliveries dispatched to all parts of Sabina Park, and reminded the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and cricket fans around the world of what the game has been missing. Gayle hasn’t played test cricket since a first ball duck against Sri Lanka in late 2010, and has had extended periods out of both the ODI and T20I sides  - surprisingly, it’s closing in on two years since he donned the famous maroon cap in a T20 international. But, is he missed? Should the WICB move on and mend the bridges for the betterment of the game in the Caribbean, or is the Calypso King more trouble than he’s worth?

Since Lalit Modi and the BCCI changed the face of cricket, and the weight of players’ pockets, with the launch of the IPL in 2008, Chris Gayle, and others of his ilk, have been provided with an alternative to the simple joys of international cricket. There are now professional T20 competitions played in England, Australia, India, South Africa, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, the West Indies and New Zealand, and the list will continue to grow.

For a batsman with attacking ability to burn and a touch of Caribbean cool, Chris Gayle has become the most sought after cricketing mercenary in the game. He has played everywhere bar New Zealand, though after the dismal effort of the Sydney Thunder in this season’s Australian Big Bash League he contemplated boarding a plane to Hamilton to play in the Northern Knights final HRV Cup T20 match before preferring to spend the time in the sun with a few quiets in his short-term Aussie home.  The loss was entirely ours!

In his absence from the international game, there has been little but T20 to judge Gayle on. Pundits and spectators the world over marvel at his power and potential for complete batting domination, but has he really made the impression we think he has in the past 14 months?

In short, yes. As his most recent dispute with the WICB escalated in early 2011, he joined the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) in IPL4 after being left out of the Windies side. It is debateable whether one player has had such an influence on his team throughout any tournament. In 12 innings, Gayle topped the runs scorers with 608 at an average in excess of 67, including two centuries and three 50s - second placed Virat Kohli played five more innings that the dominating Jamaican. Similarly in this season’s Australian BBL he averaged in excess of 40 and almost singlehandedly took a woeful Sydney Thunder to the playoffs.

What of the disputes between Gayle and the WICB? Has there ever been a winner or are all parties, including cricket fans, losing out on every occasion? Gayle, and a number of his cricketing contemporaries, has had a running battle with the WICB since as far back as 2003. Money, personal sponsorships, selection criteria, criticisms of the board and coaches, and contractual disputes, among others – the grievances read like a sporting soap opera. Turn it into a reality show and the WICB would at least clear its money woes. Even when he was captaining the side, the issues continued – in 2008 Gayle resigned due to team selections, only to resume the role two weeks later, and in 2009 missed tests against Bangladesh and the ICC Champions Trophy as the WICB had a wholesale cleanout over contractual matters.

The current ‘he said, they said’ storyline belongs in primary school playgrounds not in the game’s upper echelons. The dispute could provide Gayle with a convenient excuse to end a sparkling international career, with its best years unfulfilled.  A proud West Indian, there is more chance of Curtly Ambrose’s band covering Justin Bieber than Gayle retracting past statements and apologising. Likewise, the impasse has shown the pettiness of a national board charged with growing Caribbean cricket. Their lack of foresight in the Gayle saga against a backdrop of continued managerial incompetence and island infighting is killing the proud legacy of the once mighty Windies. At present the ‘any publicity is good publicity’ mantra is being severely tested.

Does Gayle really want to play for his country when he is the most recognisable T20 mercenary in the game? Or does the current situation suit him better? He plays short tournaments in most every cricketing nation, is handsomely paid for it, and gets to enjoy his time away from the restrictions that go with being an international cricketer. Consider this: after a three day test defeat in England at the conclusion of the 2009 IPL, a clearly frustrated Gayle commented he wouldn’t be sad to see test cricket die out in favour of T20 – defeatist loathing or honest observation?

Gayle brings spectators through the gate and gets viewers watching television coverage. Surely the rights are worth more when he plays, not to mention the column inches and website hits directly attributed to him? That has to have a positive effect on West Indies cricket; at least it would if Gayle was playing international cricket. His influence and standing in the current Windies setup was illustrated with the haul of awards he took away from the 2011 WIPA (Players’ Association) awards while he was surplus to requirements thanks to the WICB powerbrokers.

Gayle’s numbers bare out his loss on the field as well. When he captained the Calypso kings he averaged close to eight runs an innings more in tests (at 47.75) and four higher in ODIs (at 43.68), than he did when he was simply the leader. During the last three calendar years he played test cricket, Gayle averaged a touch under 53 – world class.  It is worth considering the win-loss ratios of the Windies with and without Gayle:

(e.g. 0.39 equates to 39 wins for every 100 losses) 

Clearly, the Windies are a better side when Gayle plays – statistics aren’t everything, but Gayle’s numbers are persuasive. It’s worth remembering that he is one of only four test players who have scored two triple centuries – against Sri Lanka and South Africa.

For much of the past decade, Chris Gayle has been the most prominent attacking force in West Indies cricket. Gayle is not without fault in his disputes with the WICB but he’s good for West Indies cricket – he is their best opportunity for sponsorship dollars, gate revenues and publicity, and of late, that’s certainly needed in the Caribbean. It is questionable though, if he is really interested in the rigours of international cricket and the drop in salary? That said, the WICB needs to do all it can to get him back - he is good for cricket and at a time when entertainment seems to be key. Nothing would make the cricket public happier than seeing Gayle don the maroon cap and start thrashing international attacks.

One final point: for all those jumping on the David Warner bandwagon and waxing lyrical about his crossover to test cricket, cast your mind no further than Gayle – he and Sehwag were the two modern trailblazers bringing unyielding attack to test batting. The only difference is that Warner’s route wasn’t available when Gayle was starting out – let’s revisit his success when he has a few thousand test runs under his belt.

2012 and beyond: NZ’s Wright path

The naming of New Zealand’s T20 and ODI squads for the remainder of the Zimbabwe tour has raised a few eyebrows in the cricketing community, but for once it’s a good thing. With the one-off Napier test having confirmed the relative strength, or lack thereof, of the tourists, New Zealand have opted to promote some new blood to the two limited overs sides, and people are genuinely excited about their prospects. Coach John Wright and national selection manager Kim Littlejohn have begun to stamp their mark on New Zealand cricket, and it looks like they are building a strong path to future success. 

Clichéd underarm jokes aside, Kim Littlejohn, the former high performance manager of Bowls Australia, has, in conjunction with Wright, shown a leap of faith in the performances of players in domestic limited overs cricket and selected six debutants across the T20 and ODI sides to play Zimbabwe. That Littlejohn has utilised the on-the-ground knowledge of the country’s six domestic coaches in the wider selection process should not be overlooked – they are in the best position to assess developing talent and make candid assessments of the intangibles; traits such as attitude and the ability (and willingness) to learn.

Generally the same wider New Zealand squad covers all three international formats, but Wright and Littlejohn have chosen instead to look towards the T20 World Cup in Sri Lanka later this year and the ODI World Cup in New Zealand and Australia in 2015 by rewarding the domestic game’s top performers. Given Wright’s hard-nosed nature and his respect for international cricket, he will still expect any side selected to win every match against a Zimbabwean outfit lacking international game breakers.

Five of the six debutants play for the New Zealand’s two top limited overs sides, Auckland and Canterbury, and have been integral in their success. The sixth, Tarun Nethula, started his career in Auckland before making a move south to Central Districts for the 2010/11 season to get more game time.

Here’s a bit more about the six new boys:

Michael Bates (Auckland – both T20 and ODI)
The 28 year old left arm quick has led Auckland’s limited overs bowling attack for the past three seasons, and topped this season’s HRV Cup T20 wicket takers list with team mate Roneel Hira. Solid at the top of the innings, Bates relishes the job of closing an innings and has developed a deadly yorker when batsmen are looking for any error in length to clear the fence.

Andrew Ellis (Canterbury – ODI)
Having played for Canterbury for the best part of a decade, Ellis has been rewarded for a solid domestic record. Not since Andrew Jones has a player played so much domestic cricket before stepping up (there are many others but Jones was a childhood hero and I need to get his name in somehow). Equally at home with bat and ball, it will be intriguing to see if Ellis can compete at international level.

Colin de Grandhomme (Auckland – T20)
The biggest hitter of a cricket ball in New Zealand, de Grandhomme could create headaches for the Zimbabweans; he was born in Harare and represented the Zimbabwe U19s. In 39 domestic T20 games he averages a shade over 20 at a powerful strike rate of 170, and muscles a boundary every four balls!

Roneel Hira (Auckland – T20)
After losing his Auckland contract this season, Hira has shown his worth to the HRV Cup champions. A limited overs specialist, Ronnie topped the T20 wickets list and is a miser with his left arm orthodox. His selection is a just reward for two stellar limited overs seasons.

Tom Latham (Canterbury – ODI)
At 19 years old, and having played less than 25 matches in all domestic formats, Latham is a pick for the future but he has solid recent form behind him. When selected, he was the top runs scorer in the Ford Trophy (50 overs) averaging 55 at close to 100. If he gets a go, he’s one to watch.

Tarun Nethula (Central Districts – ODI)
The first leggie to play for New Zealand since Brooke Walker a decade earlier, Nethula’s fortunes have moved north since he headed south from Auckland. This season’s form spinner in domestic cricket with Hira, Nethula has good accuracy for a leg spinner still learning his trade.  

Two other selections have been discussed by commentators and punters alike; Jacob Oram and Kane Williamson. Will Oram last until 2015? No, but his recent bowling form at international level, when he has been fit, and in the HRV Cup, have earned him his spot though he could no longer be considered a batting force. The bigger talking point is Kane Williamson; a player earmarked as a future captain and with the potential to sit amongst New Zealand’s batting elite. Whilst he was the most miserly bowler in the HRV Cup, does it really matter? Williamson would be better to get his head around his batting game - will limited overs pressure simply delay his ascension in the international game or cause issues with a technique that still requires work to succeed at the highest level?

Whilst the results should be one-sided, New Zealand is prone to stumbling over pebbles even if they occasionally climb great mountains. On New Zealand’s tour to Zimbabwe late last year, captain Brendan Taylor was a constant thorn in their side. In three ODIs he scored over 300 runs at quicker than a run a ball, including two centuries, and was dominant in the T20s. If Zimbabwe are to cause New Zealand any troubles, Taylor holds the key. Waller and Taibu will need to be at the very best in supporting roles if they are to post competitive totals. Young fast-medium bowler Kyle Jarvis and the spin pairing of Price and Utseya are the most likely with the ball. Even at their very best Zimbabwe will need to lift their fielding from Napier where they looked little better than club cricketers (with apologies to the weekend warriors).

NZ should whitewash Zimbabwe in both the T20s and ODIs – the test will be whether the New Zealand debutants can help continue the clinical dominance of the test side. Shorter games tend to bring teams closer together but if New Zealand can continue their ruthless resolve the class gap should be too far for Zimbabwe to overcome. A six year exile from test cricket has hampered Zimbabwe’s ability to compete at international level, and it will be some time until they are a competitive unit again.

Those who complain they shouldn’t be given test status, and aren’t worthy of international cricket,  would do well to remember the length of time it took India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and more lately, Bangladesh, to find their feet at the elite level. A country that previously produced the talents of the Flower brothers, Streak, Olonga, Whittal and Brandes, among others, will no doubt rise again.

For New Zealand, it is great to see players blooded but Wright and Littlejohn need the courage to persevere with them - the exercise will be wasted if they are then thrown back to the domestic wilderness along similar line to youngsters Adam Milne and Daniel Flynn. Some of the players may not pull through to the South African series, but it’s a taste of international cricket and it’s important that long term depth is not sacrificed by reverting to the status quo. Others may be involved in selecting the side but largely the buck will stop with John Wright – given his success in cricket around the world and his desire to lead New Zealand forward on his terms, the future looks bright.

ODI squad: Brendon McCullum (c), Bates, Doug Bracewell, Dean Brownlie, Ellis, Martin Guptill, Latham, Nathan McCullum, Kyle Mills, Nethula, Rob Nicol, Oram, Tim Southee, Williamson.

Twenty20 squad: B. McCullum (c), Bates, Bracewell, Brownlie, de Grandhomme, James Franklin, Guptill, Hira, N. McCullum, Mills, Nicol, Oram, Southee, Williamson .

Run fat boy run!

Taylor limps off retired hurt

Friday, 27 January 2011; morning session, day 2 - only test versus Zimbabwe: New Zealand captain Ross Taylor hobbles off McLean Park, Napier, after a subdued but considered 122 against a Zimbabwe side still looking to qualify for an ICC test ranking.

As a New Zealand cricket supporter, that should be music to your ears, but for Ross Taylor who was walking off lame. Forced to retire hurt with a torn calf, Taylor will miss the rest of the Zimbabwe tour, if not the early stages of South Africa’s visit to our shores. It was also the first time, in New Zealand at least, that the error of the ICC’s decision to implement the no-runner rule came into focus, though in this instance it is unlikely to have a large effect on the final result. 

In essence, no, in actuality, the changes to the runner rule mean that at international level at least, an injured batsman is forced to either hit out or limp off - no runner is allowed so his wicket is lost. In Taylor’s case, he would likely have left the field anyway, but what if he had simply strained his calf as opposed to tearing it? What if Taylor had been on 22 instead of 122, and New Zealand were four or five down for under 100? Would the same indifference to the new rule have been shown then?

Prior to the introduction of the no-runner rule late last year, an injured batsman could call for a runner and continue his innings albeit that the opposing captain had to agree; generally that was little more than a formality. The ICC thought it was being manipulated and abused so changed the rule, yet the same power brokers previously implemented the 15 degree rule so now you have to throw a baseball pitch to be called for chucking! Double standards? An off spinners most deadly delivery is now the one that is delivered with a bent arm and goes the other way – has that not been abused as well?

A case for pinch runners?

There’s plenty of evidence that the runner rule has been exploited for years, but should a change exclude genuine injuries? Our own Jesse Ryder regularly took advantage of the loop holes in the rule, but not once did another captain show any leadership and question the runner’s use. There are numerous other offenders, Arjuna Ranatunga chief amongst them, who faked an injury and got a runner to compensate for their lack of physical prowess and couch potato fitness. Ranatunga would often get a serve from opposition players - I recall Ian Healy giving him a little Aussie mongrel in a spiteful ODI. However, Healy was happy to use a runner a couple of times in his career. Nothing unusual in that, but did David Boon, his physical equivalent, come to the crease? No, Dean Jones appeared in the middle - a thoroughbred replacing a Clydesdale?

The ICC’s decision was forced on them by a captain finally denying a batsman a runner. If such leadership had been shown more regularly, would those stretching the rules have tried so often? Many of the issues were caused by ill-prepared players getting cramps and asserting they needing running help – Andrew Strauss put an end to that.  He refused South Africa’s Graeme Smith, already having scored 100, a runner for cramp in the 2009 Champions Trophy, and more power to him. But as an isolated incident, his decision no doubt forced the ICC’s hand. Would it have caused the same change in the corridors of the ICC if Shakib Al Hasan had refused Brendan Taylor the same opportunity?

Cricket pundits the world over have varied views on the new rule – bowlers generally approve, batsmen not so much. Given how much the game has swayed in the batsmen’s’ favour in the past two decades that’s understandable. Jesse Ryder is not a fan. Given the comments of both John Wright and Ross Taylor his path back to international cricket could be a long one – no side can afford to carry an injury prone batsman anymore. But, does the no-runner rule unfairly disadvantage the batting side? Yes. If Taylor was in the early stages of his innings when the injury occurred and was unable to run, New Zealand have effectively lost his wicket. It also robs the paying public of entertainment; if injured players don’t retire hurt they can often do little else but stand and swing –I can turn on ESPN and watch the MLB if that was what I wanted from sport.

And to address the protestations of the bowling fraternity, no you don’t get a replacement, but in the modern game how many in the stands come to watch you? Bowlers with the genius of Warne, Marshall, Akram and Ambrose have largely disappeared from the game – none but a small minority would bring me, or other spectators, through the gates.

Players will always find loopholes in crickets laws, it's human nature – the 15 degree bowling law illustrates that, but should we penalise those who are legitimately injured? Should we force an injured batsman to retire and his side effectively lose a wicket? If he stays it's hardly a great watch when all he can do is try to bludgeon boundaries without any thought of running (much like T20, which given its current success might be what authorities want!) – that’s not what I want to see at test level. And if none of that resonates with you, surely the mayhem and confusion that ensued when runners were in the middle made the game a more interesting spectacle – comedy on the sporting stage?

Is T20 a test cricket breeding ground?

With the meteoric rise of T20 sensation David Warner within Australia’s test ranks, there is a growing current of support for the international T20 game as a legitimate breeding ground for attacking test cricketers. However, is Warner simply a one-off talent or will more aspiring young cricketers look to use the shortest version of the game as a genuine path to long term success as test level? Is T20 a playground for developing emerging talent or simply an opportunity to get a glimpse of a young prodigy?

Even those who pay scant regard to the T20 game would have struggled not to be impressed by Warner’s exploits in his international T20 debut against a star-studded South African outfit at the MCG. The diminutive powerhouse, who as yet hadn’t played a first class match, deposited Ntini, Tsotsobe, Steyn et al. to all parts as he fell eleven runs short of a century in his first outing in the green and gold. In 43 balls, Warner cleared the rope six times in an innings that included another seven boundaries. Over the next three years he plied his trade as a hired gun in England, New Zealand and India, whilst still struggling to nail down a permanent opening spot in his native New South Wales first class side – he is yet to pass 1500 runs in the domestic format. However, the same attacking flair he had shown at T20 level propelled him to a test debut against New Zealand late last year with Australia’s opening resources thin at best. Not so anymore. In his second test, Warner put his attack-at-all-costs approach to one side and did something Australian legends Hayden and Langer never achieved in their illustrious careers - he carried his bat, albeit in a historic New Zealand victory. A little over a month later he moved ahead of Chris Gayle to hit the fourth fastest test century (off 69 balls) in 2029 test matches played around the world. In the short term, he has cemented his spot in a rejuvenated Australian side and shown that there is a pathway for players that pundits had previously dismissed. It is still questionable whether others will follow Warner’s example or if it’s the best path for cricketers to choose if all forms of our game are to continue to flourish.

Can T20 really become a breeding ground for test cricketers of the future? At first glance, with the exception of Warner, the jury is out, and with only a handful of test matches under his belt the extent of Warner’s success is still up in the air long term. Whilst he has fashioned a powerful test batting record in the early stages of his career, how he progresses may shed light on T20’s usefulness to the test arena. It is debateable whether the skills learned as a young cricketer in the T20 environment will aid in their long-term success, or adversely create bad habits that stymie their growth as test or first class players. On the positive side of the ledger, T20 has enhanced fielding levels, helped bowlers think under a constant level of pressure and enabled batsmen to understand to what extent they really can push their running between the wickets, but on the whole such benefits are tenuous at best.

Whilst the majority of established (and more mature) cricketers have the ability to move between the formats and draw on previous experiences to avoid the pitfalls of the T20 merry-go round, youngsters do not have the same mental resources. The requirements of the T20 game mean batsmen have no opportunity to build an innings but see success in hitting to unorthodox areas; playing low percentages shots in the search for quick runs. That in itself is not the key issue here; understanding when to put those strokes aside in the longer versions is. Likewise, bowlers lack the time to work out a batsman’s weaknesses and regularly bowl as many as six variations an over. Whilst the development of a varied arsenal is a definite plus, it restricts bowlers from developing any rhythm.  Over time, will the strain that imparts on young quicks cause more of them to pull up short when moving into the longer game, as it has done with two of Australia’s brightest young tyros, Pat Cummins and James Pattinson? Though spinners have dominated the current Australian BBL and its New Zealand counterpart, all but the old guard of Warne, MacGill and the effervescent Brad Hogg have achieved that success with little turn and even less flight – qualities that should remain in the shorter versions. Are the games’ brightest young stars more likely to become long term test (or first-class) combatants with a T20 diet or a smorgasbord of first class contests?

T20 provides a virtual shop window for young cricketers; a personal marketing tool to show their wares on a televised stage in the hope of getting an opportunity in the longer forms of the game. Alternatively, for those lacking the requisite desire or game to play at test, or first class level, T20 provides a path as a cricketing mercenary travelling the world on highly paid short term contracts. The second scenario is already a cricketing reality, but the first requires further debate. Whilst the glut of T20 cricket may not provide youngsters with a solid technical base, it continues to unearth young talent that may otherwise languish in club cricket with limited opportunities to break into the first class arena. From an Australasian perspective (that’s all we get in Aotearoa – if you live abroad, Google it), Pat Cummins has been the first youngster to truly use the T20 hype, getting an opportunity in first class cricket off the back of his performances before a dream test debut. Playing in last season’s T20 BBL as a 17 year old pimply-faced, raw quick bowler, Cummins blew through domestic cricket’s top batsmen and the plaudits flowed. Within two months of the end of his T20 baptism, Cummins was named in the New South Wales first class side, and before the year was out he, like a number of test debutants throughout 2011, had taken a five wicket bag on debut and led Australia’s bowling quartet to an unexpected victory against South Africa. The pity is, he hasn’t played since, and the question will be asked whether the rigours of test cricket was too much too soon – but that’s a discussion for another day. Others such as Nic Maddinson, James Pattinson and Mitchell Marsh have all used the Big Bash to reaffirm that they have the necessary skills to be successful – whether T20 will aid their progress is still unanswered. Whilst constantly described as a young man’s game, is T20 the best route to develop future stars, or are they better served honing their skills with a red ball? On the back of David Warner’s pummelling of India, Tony Greig (the cheerleader more than the commentator) proclaimed that he’d love to see more players use T20 as a pathway to test cricket. I may be little more than an amateur hack, but for the sake of our game, and tests going five days, I think the traditional route offers better value.

T20 has its place – it helps take our game to areas and crowds that cricket had never truly explored. I disagree with a number of the older brigade that T20 is destroying their game; it may not be taking cricket down a path I necessarily like or agree with, but sport must adapt to the audience it relies on for its continued success. It brings revenues into the coffers of both provincial and international associations that administrators never previously dreamed of. In the case of New Zealand cricket at least, those revenues are relied on to develop cricket at every level; without it I fear for the long term development of the game in our little corner of paradise. With all that said, my wish is that the true pinnacle of our game continues to be the epic battles at test level – I just hope we don’t see the instant gratification generation destroy their cricketing development in repetitive three hour slots.

T20 legends - that never were... (Part 1: batsmen)



This year’s Australian T20 Big Bash League (BBL) has seen the re-emergence of a number of retirees into the forefront of the game - Warne, Hayden, Hogg and MacGill. Instead of simply making up numbers or acting as a marketing tool, though they have done that too, all four have shown touches of genius against peers much younger. So, I thought it might be interesting to take a look back at players whose careers had finished prior to the T20 circus, but who would have likely outshone all before them had they played in the current era (the only stipulations – players must have played at ODI level but retired prior to T20I).

It's likely all of us have selected a fantasy team at some stage; a side we'd love to see play, and which ignores nationality, age and era, but in our minds would dominate all comers. I have tried to do nothing more than that - I have selected a T20 team of international legends I would have loved to see in the current format. It'll never take to any field but it's the kind of team I would imagine playing against as a child as I repetitively hit a ball hanging from the rafters in the garage. It's not a definitive list and not driven solely by statistics; they seldom tell the full story. Where I have had to choose between two or more players for one position I’ve gone for the older one. Don’t ask me why – respect for my elders, perhaps? Please keep in mind I'm a Kiwi but I grew up watching the West Indies dominate the international arena - I would have liked just to choose a team full of Windies greats accompanied by Dean Jones and Wasim Raja, but where’s the fun in that?

Like most of the current BBL or IPL squads, I’ve selected 20 players which made it easier for me to include a few more legends too. I’ll cover the squad off in two parts; this blog, Part 1, will look at the top six batsmen, while Part 2 will select a bowling line-up to complement them as well as considering the wider squad. 

The playing XI:

 

1. Roy Fredericks

West Indies. Matches: 12, Runs: 311, Average: 25.91, Strike rate: 70.68 (all ODI statistics)

A batsman who genuinely relished facing the quicks, Fredericks’ international record was solid if not outstanding. So, why pick him? One reason and one reason alone – a 71 ball century at the WACA (in the days when it was ferociously quick) against a bowling attack that included Lillee and Thomson. That effort still stands amongst the fastest test centuries in a game latterly laced with dashers such as Richards, Warner, Gayle, Afridi et al. Imagine what he might do to today’s quicks on T20 roads!

 

2. Romesh Kaluwitharana (Wk)
Sri Lanka. Matches: 189, Runs: 3711, Average: 22.22, Strike rate: 77.70
Along with Sanath Jayasuriya, ‘Kalu’ took batting at the top of the order to a new level during World Series Cricket in Australia in 1995/6. He struck at close to 100 and continued that as he helped Sri Lanka to their first World Cup title on the sub-continent later in 1996. His overall record would scare no-one but for those few short months he set up huge totals with a break-neck start and would likely do the same in T20. I’ve selected him because he can take the wicket keeping gloves, though it was a close run thing with the current England coach.

3. Dean Jones
Australia. Matches: 164, Runs: 6068, Average: 44.61, Strike rate: 72.56
There are very few batsmen who have terrorised fieldsmen with their running quite as Deano did. Even in today’s tip and run format he would have run fielding sides ragged. He changed the way modern batsmen played one-day cricket as he walked down the wicket at the quicks and put them on the back foot. As an outfielder he was unrivalled – an Andrew Symonds of an earlier era.

4. Sir Viv Richards
West Indies. Matches: 187, Runs: 6721, Average: 47.00, Strike rate: 90.20
Imagine being two down in a T20 match and seeing King Viv swagger to the wicket. He was the most destructive batsman of his era and with today’s boundaries constantly being shortened for ‘entertainment’ he would have regularly cleared the ropes. But the key to his brilliant stroke making was an uncanny ability to deposit a length ball through mid-wicket and then smash the same ball through extra cover next up. His skidding off-spinners would have been taxing in a season that has been dominated by spinners, and his cat-like fielding would have tested batsmen looking for a sharp single into the covers.

5. Mark Waugh
Australia. Matches: 244, Runs: 8500, Average: 39.35, Strike rate: 76.90
One of the most elegant stroke makers of any era, Junior could play every shot in the book with consummate ease and often treating even the best international bowlers with absolute contempt. What’s more, he could go the aerial route whenever he chose. His easy off-spin would be an asset as another bowling option, as would his unrivalled athleticism anywhere in the circle.

6. Clive Lloyd (C)
West Indies. Matches: 87, Runs: 1977, Average: 39.54, Strike rate: 81.22
Having led his side to three World Cup finals, the first two as victors, Lloyd would lead my side of superstars. At 6ft 5in. and with huge shoulders, Lloyd wielded a bat most other international cricketers would have struggled to pick up. When in the mood he could dismantle any attack and for a big man was a fantastic fielder in the inner ring.

Given the roads today’s T20 cricket is played on, a total of 200 would be viewed as below par for some of the hardest hitters ever to take guard and face the music. These legends of the game would entertain even the harshest opposition crowds with an unrivalled batting ferocity.

Next up: Part 2 – Bowlers (and the wider squad)

Give those men a microphone

T20 will never be the most beloved of cricket's formats for me, but it is cricket; if it's being televised, broadcast or played, chances are I'll be taking more than simply a passing interest. Like motorists who slow down to rubber neck at a nose-to-tail, curiosity outweighs logic, and I feel compelled to take an interest hoping for some flash of brilliance or the unearthing of a future superstar.

On the surface, Australia's T20 Big Bash League (BBL) appeared that it would be just another domestic T20 league, much the same as the hit and giggle slog fest that seems to take precedence in India, the Caribbean and New Zealand, among others, and whilst there has undoubtedly been a fair proportion of baseball with wickets, the BBL has given us something extra - commentary with context. From a television perspective, two players, not the experts in the commentary box, have been hugely influential in lifting the entertainment value and providing must-see viewing. Surprisingly, that influence hasn't grown through the hard hitting of Travis Birt, Herschelle Gibbs' swagger and bravado or the flowing mullet of crowd favourite Rana Naved. From our lounge rooms, it's debatable whether even Chris Gayle's belligerent six hitting has made the same impression on the viewing public as two forty-something, semi-retired Australian cricketing legends.

Australian cricketing royalty Shane Warne and Matthew Hayden have both been miked up throughout their matches for the Melbourne Stars and the Brisbane Heat respectively. There’s nothing new in that, a number of players with the gift of the gab do it in T20 all around the world; some even at international level, but not quite like these two giants of the game. Anyone with even a basic sporting knowledge knows who Warney and Haydos are, but most of us hear little of their personality or thought processes outside of run of the mill interviews; both on television and in print. This year’s BBL has changed all that and has, at least in part, been responsible for the huge television viewing audience that has settled on the couch with a beer in hand (insert XXXX, VB or Steinlager as you will) most nights for the last three weeks.

So, how are two cricketers who haven’t played at international level for at least three years (five in Warne’s case) making such a hit with the microphone? Easy – by taking the lead, providing insights into the nuances of a game most of us love but will never excel at, then backing it up with their talent, all the time mixing their thoughts with a little of the much-loved Aussie larrikin. When the pair signed on for the revamped, and extended, Big Bash League, the cynics amongst us wondered whether their signatures were for little more than marketing purposes. No-one had expectations of seeing a repeat of feats like the infamous Gatting delivery to start Warne’s first Ashes test in 1993 or Hayden imperiously walking at the world's most feared fast bowlers and depositing them back over their heads without a second thought. That didn’t concern me; I saw that at the highest level of the game for more than a decade. But, and I can’t emphasise this strongly enough, they are still captivating. Their commentary has been nothing short of sublime, not that their returns have been poor - on current form they’d both still waltz into the Australian T20I side.

Every time we settle in to see the Heat or the Stars do battle, we get to understand a little more of the genius of Warne and Hayden, in their own words. Sure, they’ve answered the odd question from Junior, AB, the Bowlologist or Roy, but for the larger part they get little more than a prompt from the commentary box and are left to freestyle, so to speak. Whether they’re waiting for the next delivery, fielding in the circle or preparing to deliver a biting leggy, the pair talk as freely as if the game meant nothing and they were simply going through the motions at training - but it does matter and these two don’t know how not to compete.

Hayden, one of the game’s premier sledgers, provides a very different commentary to that he provided to opposition players who showed any weakness during his international playing days - much of that would have led the Channel 9 team to consider turning down the stump microphone. Instead, during this year’s BBL, as he gets his head together between deliveries, Hayden has talked enthralled viewers through hitting zones, batting tactics and his predictions of what the bowler is trying to do. And with more than 15,000 international runs under his belt, you tend to sit up and listen. Explanations of why he walks at a bowler and slaps him straight down the ground or how he believes pre-meditation has little place in a batsman’s mind set, provide a small window into the psyche of one of the most intimidating batsmen the game has ever witnessed.

It’s Warne though who has taken player commentary to a whole new level. Widely regarded as the best cricketing mind never to captain his country, poker-loving Warne could almost give odds on how he’ll dismiss the man wielding the willow. In the most part he has talked the viewer through almost every delivery he’s bowled, but only after he’s enlightened us as to how the batsman plays, where his weakness is and where he’s going to try and hit the next delivery. The kicker though, is that more often than not he can make his predictions a reality. If you’re in any doubt, Google Warne bowls McCullum. After being given a bit of tap by David Warner in the Stars’ first match, Warne showed his true genius when he dismantled Brendon McCullum, one of the most explosive batsmen in the T20 game, in his next outing. After a quiet first over, Warne predicted McCullum would have a fair crack at him, and sure enough, two balls in McCullum advanced at him only for the miscued lofted drive to fall just out of reach of the cover fieldsman – we (the seasoned internationals in the commentary box included) were all hooked. Warne nodded knowingly, thinking about his next play, just as he would at a private table at the Crown Casino. When McCullum came back on strike, Warne confidently asserted he “might shape to sweep one after that first one, or maybe even go inside out again a bit harder. So, I might try to slide one in there – fast”. As if guided by a Nostradamus prophecy, McCullum moved across his stumps and shaped to sweep a quicker Warne delivery which pitched and turned to bowl him around his legs. Everyone who had listened and watched the magic unfold shook their head in disbelief at the genius they had just seen. And Warney’s response when quizzed about what we’d all just witnessed – “not bad”. All hail, King Warne! A one-off, you might suggest? No - Bravo, Gibbs and Mitchell Marsh, among others, have fallen as foretold by the leg spinning supremo, and we’ve heard every word. 

After the conclusion of this year’s Big Bash League, it’s unlikely we’ll ever have the opportunity to listen to the commentary genius of either Warne or Hayden again – while they’re playing at least. So, take the chance to witness some of the magic in their remaining matches, and Fox – sign up a couple more legends next year!