My research essay on cricket marketability.

I recently had the pleasure of writing a research essay on the transformation of the marketability of test cricket. I am pretty pleased with how it turned out so I thought why not post it here for anyone who is interested to give it a read.

Thesis statement: How have the strategies employed by cricket to enhance the marketability of short forms of the game impacted on the marketability of test cricket.

Since 1938 when cricket first became televised, it has needed to advance to match technological and societal needs. The invention of limited overs cricket to more modern phenomena such as Twenty20 cricket and addition of technology, list as the changes cricket has made to remain a successfully marketable television sport. The over arching theme is improvement through shortening test cricket. There would be reasonable belief that the marketability of test cricket would have dropped off dramatically but this is not the case. Citing the recent test match at Eden Park between New Zealand and England, there is definitive proof that test cricket remains a marketable form of the game.

 Crickets entry into being a mediated sport was a simple one and very much fits Rob Brookes’ idea that “television coverage of sports events should be as unintrusive as possible” (21). The first televised broadcast was in 1938 at the Lord’s cricket ground between England and Australia (Williamson). This is indicative of cricket’s status as a mediated sport. Cricket’s sportisation globalised it making it possibly for two countries 14,469 kilometres apart to appear on television playing each other. The initial coverage consisted of one camera from one end meaning the only different angles came from when the bowlers bowled from the opposite end. This fixed location made it seem as if the viewer was actually sitting behind the bowler’s arm (or behind the slips during other overs).This is simplicity defined with descriptive rather than analytic commentary accompanying the images. This initial style remained the same for forty years until the first three days of a test between Australia and England was rained off. Instead of abandoning the game, match officials decided to play a condensed version consisting of forty overs per side (Arnold and Wynne-Thomas 28). Australian businessman Kerry Packer saw this event and an opportunity for spectacularisation.

As all cricket has, the limited overs game originated in England but was globalised for success elsewhere. Original limited overs cricket was played between the English county teams over sixty-five overs each and was seen as a way to guarantee a result in a shorter amount of time (Arnold and Wynne-Thomas 27). Even in the 1970s, the desire was to have a game where excitement and a highly competitive nature were ensured. Gradually, the overs were shortened until it was fifty overs aside and taken to an international stage with the inaugural cricket World Cup in 1975. While this product was an extensification of test cricket, it lacked the spectacularisation required to be a greater success as a marketable sport. It was Packer’s World Series Cricket that spectacularised limited overs cricket into the success it would be for decades to come. ”Packer spectacularised the game with innovations such as coloured uniforms, night games, white balls, limited overs, and extra cameras” (Mckay and Rowe 73). This process of sportisation fought against Norbert Elias’ idea of extensive globalised rules for each sport as Packer’s unsanctioned World Series Cricket carried these innovations while sanctioned cricket did not. Yet through these innovations, Packer made cricket a mediated, successfully marketable television sport, which allowed him to purchase the broadcasting and marketing rights to cricket in Australia and apply his innovations (Rowe and McKay 74). These changes made cricket accessible to a wider audience. Instead of a long game over five days, which many people found dull with the excessive lulls and no guarantee of result, there was instead a shorter, more exciting product that could be accessed by more than just cricket experts. This created a wider audience both for the live product and the mediated, televised one. This wider audience that viewed cricket on television gained excitement not only from the changes in playing style but the increased cameras. This is a direct improvement from Brookes’ idea as instead of being rooted to one spot as if actually attending the game, the viewer was afforded angles that were greater than those that could be seen at the ground, creating a better product. The direct result of a wider audience is more money through sponsorship and it was Packer’s innovations that made cricket a desirable sport to sponsor. Packer achieved this as he made cricket a cornerstone for financial success for his Nine Network and set a module for the rest of the world (McKay and Rowe 74). The financial success that these innovations afforded meant that World Series Cricket could offer large contracts to all players, essentially professionalising cricket as a sport (Arnold and Wynne-Thomas 28).. The need to continue this evolution to keep audiences interested meant that change in cricket was inevitable with the processes used by Kerry Packer almost being recreated in the Indian Premier League.

There was a lull in major changes between the 1970s innovations by Packer to the proliferation of the Twenty20 game internationally in 2005. Between these periods further upgrades such as the hawk eye system to judge leg before wicket dismissals, the introduction of fielding restrictions as well as the introduction of a third umpire to adjudicate on run out dismissals were introduced. As well as introducing new technology, during this period there was integration of these new technologies onto the test game to maintain it as a successfully marketable product to a more puritan cricket audience. Despite the aforementioned small changes occurring, there was still a desire to extensify cricket further. Former New Zealand cricketer Martin Crowe offered a prototype into an even more intense version in the form of Cricket Max citing the desire to “provide great entertainment and an exciting result in three hours” (Cricinfo). Cricket Max’s failure is a testament to over-extensifying. Cricket Max changed the rules too dramatically as it altered the scoring to offer a ‘max zone’ which doubled runs scored, as well as removing the leg before wicket rule and adding a fourth stump (Cricinfo). These changes were designed as the next step in adding excitement for the spectators and adding on from the product of the one day international (Garland, Inkson and McDermott 220). The changes for Cricket Max ultimately proved too drastic as it never succeeded internationally or financially meaning it was unable to force itself into the market as Kerry Packer’s one day game did. Despite this relative failure, it is undeniable that Cricket Max had an influence on the next step in development in creating the Twenty20 form.

Twenty20 is extensification defined. It is the even shorter version of one day cricket. Completed in one day with each team having twenty overs each, the game is over in around three hours. Defined by action every ball it fits in with a contemporary society that seems to not have time for a seven hour one day international, with short attention spans making this essentially highlight reel format of the game very successful.  Again, the origin of Twenty20 is found in England as the county testing ground was the first place for the format beginning in 2003 (Arnold and Wynne-Thomas 47). Internationally, Twenty20 found its debut in 2005 and was initially treated as a lesser format. The first game was between New Zealand and Australia and was characterised by retro uniforms and wild attempts at fast scoring. The joke did not last long as crowds began to thoroughly engage with the new format as it fit a time frame that was accessible, often played at night and easy to take the whole family to. The appreciation for big hits and spectacular fielding requires little knowledge of the intricacies of the rules of cricket meaning there was an even wider accessibility in the audience. Twenty20s success at attracting new audiences lies in its lack of what Morris and Nydhal label ‘dead space’ (103). This is the time between actions, where analysis from commentators or other attendees of the live event can be implemented. However, with many Twenty20 viewers not understanding this analysis, the less dead space the better, which can be seen as a key reason of success in an entry level viewer market.  Due to the initial lesser status of Twenty20 there was great room for spectacularisation. Twenty20’s desire to be far from test cricket is evident in the fact that there must be a winner. Even in the event of a tie, Twenty20 offers a decider in the form of a one over eliminator. Initially the decider was a bowl off where five bowlers were given two balls to try and hit undefended stumps with whichever team hitting the most times winning. This was advanced to the one over eliminator which gives each team one over to get as many runs as possible. This is the antithesis to test cricket where even five days of play can result in a draw. This extensification is designed to guarantee the result that the crowd desires.  Minor innovations include the addition of cheerleaders and fireworks, which add to the excitement of the game as a spectacle.  It was from this spectacular form of the game that the most spectacularised event in modern cricket has emerged: The Indian Premier League.

The Indian Premier League formed in 2008 is reminiscent of Rupert Murdoch’s World Series Cricket. The premise of the tournament is the best players in world cricket coming together in a franchise style club competition being dubbed a cross between the English Premier League and the National Basketball Association League (Smart 259). The franchise owners are comprised of wealthy Indian people including Bollywood stars such as Shah Rukh Khan.  Players were placed into teams through an auction system where the highest bidder received the player. While this is akin to Kerry Packer offering expensive contracts to the best players for World Series Cricket the money offered in the IPL was far greater leading to fears of players rather playing IPL than for their country. Indian wicket keeper Mahendra Singh Dhoni was the most expensive players as he was purchased by the Chennai Super Kings for 1.5 million US dollars. The first IPL season consisted of 59 games and has expanded to the current season containing 76 games. This intensification creates a saturation of cricket in the month and a half that the IPL is played. The expansion can be seen as a way to make further money for the sponsors that paid large amounts for certain aspects of the IPL such as Sony paying USD $1.026 billion for production rights (Smart 259). Audiences across the globe were huge as the best players in the world hit countless sixes, took many wickets and spectacular catches, which is still true even in the most recent season where the first sixteen games recorded a viewership of 140 million (Srivastava). The tournaments huge amounts of money meant there was room for spectacularisation. While Packer was the first to implement the use of more camera angles, the IPL was able to have one camera that Packer never could in the form of the Spider Cam.  The Spider Cam operated from directly above the bowler, being able to track in from their run up all the way to the delivery. This shot is one never seen before and speaks credence to the advancements in spectacularisation that cricket has gone through. This is not to say that these advancements are all successful as many players have found the spider cam particularly invasive yet it still receives use, displaying that getting the best shot for the mediated audience can be more important than the game itself (Hindustan Times). The technology afforded through the large sums of money in the IPL has even allowed it to transcend what Rob Brookes thought would be possible. He thought that viewing sport online would never become popular yet the IPL has successfully used Youtube to stream live games to access audiences all across the globe (Brookes 48).  The transformation from a time when the use of more than one angle was an advancement in World Series Cricket has been tremendous, however these changes to the very marketable shorter form of the game have not diminished the marketability of test cricket.

There are several reasons that prove the fact that test crickets marketability is not diminishing. In 1999, Ron Garland et al conducted a study into the unpopularity of test cricket. The common results consisted of it being a boring sport, a lack of understanding of the rules, the duration being too long, unruly behaviour in the crowds and a preference for television coverage (227). While this research was completed fourteen years ago, there are still applicable elements to it. There is still an underlying theme of test cricket being overly long and boring, which Sky Sports director of cricket Alex Lewis attributes this to the double edged sword that is Twenty20. He labels Twenty20 a double edged sword as despite conditioning audiences to expect action every ball, it is still an excellent entry level for transforming what Garland et al labelled a new follower to a regular viewer (227).  There are facts to display this as a true phenomenon through the rise in television audiences. The television ratings for the week of the Eden Park test showing it as the second most watched sporting event between males 18-64 (Rating Point). This is not to discount the Twenty20 audience being larger as the corresponding Twenty20 match at Eden Park ranked as the highest watched sporting event during its week for males 18-64 (Rating Point). The closeness of the television ratings of the two contrasted forms is not reflected in attendances. For the Twenty20 between England and New Zealand the attendance went as high as 23,000 whereas the test did not feature nearly as many people, as even on the drama filled final day Eden Park was nowhere near capacity (Blackcaps.co.nz).  Alex Lewis labels this as more a fact of convenience to home viewing than an idea of television providing a better viewing choice than the live event.  Martin Devlin attributed the disparity between attendances and audience ratings to the extremely high price of tickets claiming that just one day could cost as much as between $80 and $100. This shows the easier engagement with Twenty20 as people find it easier to attend a three hour game in the evening rather than an eight hour day of test cricket.

There is also a contrasting atmosphere between the two forms crowds. Crowds during Twenty20 matches produce an animalistic passion through cheering which Gaffney and Bale describe as the audience creating an atmosphere through the noise only achievable with large numbers of fans in attendance (29). Test cricket is the opposite as the tension is created through a lack of noise. As the Eden Park test displayed, cricket puritan groups such as the Barmy Army kept quiet through the run up of the bowler, creating tension with each and every ball. This is indicative of the idea that whileTwenty20 is the feeder form to the purer form in test cricket they offer different experiences show the Garland et al idea that each form of cricket contains differing appeals (226). Not only has it fed audiences to the next level of cricket, Twenty20 has also helped encourage participation. The most recent SPARC participation statistics show 217,000 children between the ages of five and eighteen play cricket (Walker and Haughey 22). The correlation to the prominence of Twenty20 and attractiveness of cricket as a sport can be seen in the participation of younger children who would have been raised in a time where Twenty20 was played regularly. This is displayed by school children between years one and ten, at least half of them had participated in cricket in the last year whereas older students in years eleven to thirteen had less than half participation (Walker and Haughey 24). This speaks credence to Twenty20 attracting a younger audience with its exciting style of play making it more accessible to a youth audience.  There have in fact been arguments for the end of One Day Internationals and just keeping the excitement of Twenty20s and the drama of test matches (Premachandran). These examples display that Twenty20 is in fact helping to uphold a greater cricketing following leading to a wider potential fan base for test cricket rather than causing an end to it.

This is not to say that test cricket lacks innovations to create a marketable spectacle. A notable innovation is the Umpire Decision Review System implemented in 2009 and initially only in test cricket making it a notable inversion. The system is designed to review dismissals that the players feel the umpires have got wrong. Not only does the system remove incorrect decisions, it is also a vehicle for battling test cricket as a boring sport as it injects drama into the narrative. The countdown to the decision being made by the third umpire on the big screen at the live event builds particular tension as the live audience does not get to see the video that the televised audience does. At the Eden Park test between England and New Zealand this was particularly dramatic as there were four referrals on the final day as New Zealand searched for the final wickets. On television it provides a greater product as it induces interaction. The conversation produced regarding whether the umpire made the correct decision or if the referral was the correct choice, producing interaction with the product, keeping a greater audience interest. This example displays that test cricket in its own right can create a marketable product upon its own innovation.

In conclusion, cricket has undergone many transformations in its quest to remain a marketable viable sport. It has moved far from the one camera original broadcast in 1938. Kerry Packer innovated the sport hugely in professionalising it through contracts and greater technology through money. This was continued through one day internationals that gradually created a more and more exciting product drawing in a more regular audience and dispelling ideas of cricket being a boring sport. This has ultimately concluded in the spectacularised, intensified version in Twenty20 and the Indian Premier League. This has however not detracted from the longer form of the game. Test cricket has undergone its own spectacularisation in the form of innovations such as the Umpire Decision Review System. As well as this, test cricket has received a push through audiences from Twenty20 displayed in the high television ratings the third test between England and New Zealand received. The extra interest that Twenty20 allows in cricket has also carried over to participation in cricket in school with younger students participating more due to the influence of Twenty20. This overall displays that test cricket does not suffer from the focus onto the shorter forms of the game as it receives a flow through audience from the shorter form and participation increasing, making sure that test cricket will continue to survive the test of time as a marketable sport.

Sources Cited

Arnold, Peter and Peter Wynne-Thomas. The Complete Encyclopaedia of Cricket. Dubai: Carlton Books Limited, 2006. Print.

Brookes, Rob. Representing Sport. London: Bloomsbury, 2002. Print.

Devlin, Martin. “Paying for an Empty Eden Park” TVNZ.26 March 2013. Webpage. Accessed 22 May 2013.

Gaffney, Chris and John Bale. “Sensing the Stadium.” Sites of Sport: Space, Place, Experience. Eds. John Bale and P. Vertinsky. London: Routledge, 2004. Pp. 25-38. Print.

Garland, Ron, Kerr Inkson and Peter McDermott. “Sport Marketing” Sports Business Management in New Zealand. Eds. Linda Trenberth and Chris Collins. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press Ltd, 1999. pp.217-232. Print.

Lewis, Alex. Personal interview. 8 May 2013.

 Mckay, Jim and David Rowe. “Field of Soaps: Rupert V. Kerry as Masculine Melodrama” Social Text 50 (1997): pp 69- 86. JSTOR. Print. Accessed May 1 2013.

Morris, Barbra and Joel Nydahl. “Sports Spectacle as Drama: Image, Language and Technology” Journal of Popular Culture 18.4 (1999): pp. 101-110. Print.

Premachandran, Dileep. “The Death of the ODI?” Cricinfo. 2 June 2008. Webpage. Accessed 22 May 2013.

Smart, Barry. “Global Sport and the Cultural Economy of Late Capitalism: Play, Spectacle, and Profit.” Being Cultural. Ed. Bruce Cohen. Auckland: University of Auckland, 2012. Pp. 257-272. Print.

Srivastava, Priyanka. “IPL 6 Mania Reaches New High, First 16 Games Record a Staggering 140 Million Viewership” India Today. April 27 2013. Webpage. Accessed 20 May 2013.

Walker, Sue and Kay Haughey. “Sport and Recreation in the Lives of Young New Zealanders” SPARC. 2012. Online PDF. Accessed 22 May 2013.

Williamson, Martin. “A Brief History…” Cricinfo. Webpage. Accessed May 15 2013.

“Caught in Spider Cam Web, Players Struggle to Focus” Hindustan Times. 21 April 2011. Webpage. Accessed 20 May 2013.

“Cricket Max - The Game Invented By Martin Crowe (02 Feb 1996)” Cricinfo. 2 February 1996. Webpage. Accessed 20 May 2013.

“England Take One-Nil Lead”. Blackcaps.co.nz. 9 February 2013. Webpage. Accessed 22 May 2013

 “Weekly Top Programmes” Rating Point. Webpage. Accessed 10 May 2013.

.

Testing times- My analysis of the first test between Australia and New Zealand

Where to start, on a topic that at this stage seems more grim than my last post on death. I suppose, I'll go with the logical point and start at the beginning.....

Optimism. The typical feeling before New Zealand commences a test series. This will be the one. The one, where the rag tag group filled with potential comes to realise greatness. All the signs were there. Australia missing the likes of Watson, Johnson etc. The New Zealander's thrashing the players that would be coming into replace them all over the Allen Border Oval. McCullum promptly dispatching James Pattinson's first over in test match cricket for twelve. Then reality struck.

It slapped me in the face the only way 96 for five can. Before the tour began, John Wright promised that this team would be patient. They would not fall in the way their earlier counterparts had in taking the fight to Australia. If only that were true. Our batsmen looked as if they were trying to secure IPL contracts with fantastic strike rates and shots. Instead, they looked poor and were found out by inexperienced bowlers. Luckily New Zealand have a man called Daniel Vettori, who specialises in saving the day. He found an eventually stable and very impressive ally in Dean Brownlie. Together they added 158 face saving runs until New Zealand's lack of ability to do test basics was exposed again. Vettori foolishly ran himself out for 96 attempting to reach his century as quickly as possible when there was no time pressure. Compare this with Michael Clarke, who happily defended the overs before lunch to go to the sheds 99 not out before completing the milestone. Vettori was not the only guilty party, his captain replacement played a horrible shot a few overs before lunch when a leave would have sufficed. Compare this with Brad Haddin who is extremely aggressive but managed to rein it in for the few overs before lunch. This from a man who thought a cross batted slog was a good shot at 18 for five against South Africa. In the end 295 was far more than New Zealand deserved but it did give us a decent chance. Then Australia batted and reality slapped me in the face again.

Australia accumulated runs, left well and showed how to bat in a test match. New Zealand made this a whole lot easier by dropping several catches letting off Clarke several times and even dropping Starc came back to haunt us. New Zealand as per usual played Ponting and Haddin back into form as Australia racked up 427. Vettori was our usual workhorse conceding less than three an over, over thirty seven overs.Martin bowled well for decent reward but Southee without swing looked unthreatening and Bracewell was unlucky but also ill disciplined as he could have had Clarke out cheaply if he had not overstepped.

Then of course New Zealand had to bat again but with only 132 we were in with a chance. But not really. We were destroyed by good pace bowling, which has always hampered our batsmen. Being twenty eight for five showed how we still fail to grasp test cricket. Even when we began our usual middle order fight back, it was ruined by Ryder not being able to control his aggression and holing out. Brownlie and Vettori again put on the highest stand but it was not nearly enough as Australia easily chased down the nineteen required for victory.

Basically, this test showed the huge void between us and our 'older brother' but we definitely need to learn fast. The Black Caps need to look at how England were successful against Australia. Leaving the ball rather than needlessly giving the slips catching practice, being patient, being disciplined and taking every chance offered your way. There were a few positives to take from this test. Dan Vettori definitely still has what it takes to be a test cricketer as he showed how world class he is. This test also revealed the strong technique and temprement of Dean Brownlie as he fought hard in both innings refusing to give up. New Zealand does do well whenever counted out already therefore I'm hopeful that at Hobart we will discover some mental strength. We don't even have to win, just save a little bit of face, please Black Caps. See how one test can turn optimism into pleading for a smaller loss, aint it great being a New Zealand Cricket fan? Oh the summer is young.

Death and Sport

Professional sport is supposed to be an escape from banal everyday life. This activity, where the success or failure of a group of people decides a mass number of people’s emotions. We as viewers grow to love and despise specific players for their exploits on their field of play. But sometimes this escapism is rocked to its core by life’s inevitability: death. Through the following of these players, coaches and even writers, they gain a demi-god invincible status within our minds as if they could not succumb to something as simple as death. That means when they do suffer, it is all the more shocking. The deaths I am referring to specifically are those of former cricket player come writer Peter Roebuck and former football player come manager Gary Speed.

Peter Roebuck was quite frankly the cricket writer I loved to hate. While he wrote majestically, it was often an opinion, which I disagreed with greatly, yet I could never stop reading. Roebuck’s writing style was direct and provocative therefore like any good writer he created extremely polarised opinions from readers. He loved to write about the controversial, calling for Ricky Ponting to be sacked after his poor sportsmanship during the Sydney test against India in 2008. In this piece he crafted beautiful sentences such as “Ponting has shown not the slightest interest in the well-being of the game, not the slightest sign of diplomatic skills, not a single mark of respect for his accomplished and widely admired opponents." It is sentences such as these that lead to the praise that “Roebuck was born to write about cricket, as Tendulkar was born to play it.” This brilliant writing still didn’t make me agree with him often as even recently I recall discussing with a friend how ridiculous I thought his article about John Wright becoming coach of Australia was.  Even beyond his brilliant writing, Roebuck was an accomplished player, playing more than six hundred games in county cricket, managing thirty eight hundreds and more than a hundred half centuries. Even though I never met Peter Roebuck, I was still overcome with sadness at the news of his passing. I will definitely miss muttering in disbelief at his latest opinion but with that I say goodbye to a man whom I had a million arguments but for which he knew of none. While Peter and I had differing opinions, we shared a love of cricket and writing about it, which will be sorely missed.

If it takes a good writer to divide opinions then it takes a fantastic player to unite opinions, even from the most bitter of rivals. Gary Speed was that fantastic player and man. He would be one of the few men to have played for Everton yet be loved by Liverpool, to have played for Leeds and still respected at Manchester United, to be Welsh yet completely adored by the English. Gary Speed was the enjoyable face of the Premier League upon retiring having the highest amount of appearances at 535. The consummate professional able to play left mid, centre mid and left back, always fit and raring to go managing to play until forty-one, which led to his team mates dubbing him “inspirational”. Always enjoying leading from the front, he was an astute thinker, which led to him becoming manager of the Welsh football team. From being ranked 117^th in the world, Speed through his excellent man management and pairing youth and experience (eg Aaron Ramsey as captain with the help of Craig Bellamy) he took Wales to 45^th in the world. His death was extremely unexpected but the outpouring of grief displays the greatness of the man. Tributes from the Prime Minister David Cameron as well as a potential to postpone the Aston Villa Swansea game due to sadness indicate the importance to so many, of Gary Speed.  Sadly football lost someone who was a model professional and a fantastic ambassador for the game but he will not soon be forgotten.

What is the connection between these two men? Both were great professionals who were extremely passionate about the game they played but unfortunately both men took their own lives. Peter Roebuck’s suicide was due to fear of allegations while Speed’s was extremely surprising and most likely due to depression. Many people see this as a coward’s way out of life, yet I think that both of these men deserve far better than to have their fantastic reputations sullied by their last acts. Instead let us remember two fantastic men who were great characters of their sports and who will be sorely missed.

 

Rest In Peace Peter Roebuck and Gary Speed

TEST-ing 1,2,3

" I don't like cricket, uh, oh no, I love it"- An obscure song lyric from band 10cc? Of course, but not merely a lyric more an accurate description of my life style. But let's specify here, I don't mind Twenty20, I enjoy ODIs but I absolutely love tests. Sure there can be tests where the pitch is a road and 600/3 plays 500/4 and it is a dull draw but a good test restores faith. One where the contest between bat and ball is toughly fought, a succession of balls missing the edge is followed by a flowing drive for four, batsmen have to graft rather than come in and tonk it from ball one, where a wily spinner will enjoy a wearing pitch and seam bowlers use swing to try and hit the top of off. These kind of tests where the result is not ensured until the final day revitalises my love for cricket making me want more and more.Unfortunately the introduction of competitions like the IPL lead people with short attention spans to call for the end of test cricket but let me tell you why it should remain.

But why are tests the ultimate?

Well it isn't called a test, for the hell of it. It literally tests the skills both physical and mental of the players. Here batsmen are not restricted by a number of overs, therefore neither are bowlers allowing the best batsmen to bat all day and the best bowlers to bowl all day. No fielding restrictions means there is no early advantage and no batting powerplay. Overall, it requires the best of players.

Perhaps I'm biased though. My natural talents did not bring in insanely quick bowling, instead as a steady medium paced bowler, my objective was to bowl line and length down the corridor of uncertainty. I'm not blessed with the skills of a stroke maker instead I would generally graft innings, sure I have bashed an odd fifty but my best innings have been all day forties where I have batted all day holding the team together.  Obviously I was influenced by great players of my youth, in particular Mark Richardson struck a chord with me. I remember watching him block his way to about 80 odd against England and what I remember most was the way he was frustrating them, blocking and grafting in an irritating way. When we went out in the backyard during lunch, I recreated him, blocking solidly and grafting was when I decided I wanted to be a batsmen that pissed bowlers off, cause them to make mistakes.If ever there was a form I was suited to, it would be the longest form.

So how about other formats? As I stated earlier, I don't mind Twenty20. Quite honestly, I find it hard to respect any form where they mix letters and numbers, I think one dayers would lose my respect if they started being called 1DIs. But really I get bored of Twenty20 quite easily, I mean there is only so much wild slogging to leg you can take before the gimmick wears off. Sure it is designed for those with a short attention span but quite honestly it is too dull for me. The thing that bothers me even more is the huge amounts of money involved. The IPL has meant that players like Kieron Pollard are multi millionaires without playing the top form of the game simply by being mercenaries and playing for teams all over the world and turning down contracts with their country.

I do however enjoy, ODIs but they too have a limited effect. The standard format of the batting side going after the ball for the first 15 overs then being quiet up until around the 35th over and then hitting out has produced some great games and much enjoyment but again far too predictable.

Tests provide the unpredictability that provides such entertainment. Therefore I rate the players that play it well as the greatest. In current times when I think of test batting, I think of Rahul Dravid, Alastair Cook and Glenn Mcgrath. Mcgrath hitting the same spot ball after ball just back of a length with a touch of swing forcing the batsman into a mistake. Dravid propping forward and playing that assured front foot defense which makes it seem as if he will never depart the crease. Alastair Cook leaving so confidently balls outside the line of off stump that he need not play and then calmly clipping the ball to leg. Sadly, Cook has received much criticism for batting too 'boringly' but I disagree with this. A batsman who knows his game so thoroughly that he knows which balls to play and which to leave so precisely is an amazing sight to behold especially when the batsman has cut out his weakness which is full length balls outside off stump (yes essentially every ball that should be bowled in test cricket) and is still succeeding. Surely it is a disappointing sign of the times that he is criticised for this rather than praised. 

Upon seeing this a typical bowler's reaction is "Damn, we may be here for some time"

Instead of a long drawn out conclusion about how I hope I have convinced you to love test cricket I will leave you with the simple statement: Viva la tests.

Captaincy

(Insert lame University excuse here)

Captaincy is something that I find is extremely under rated in the world of cricket. It is an extremely difficult skill to master as you have to constantly be alert while still performing to a high level.  I know this as I dabbled in captaincy for the might Avondale College Second XI rather unsuccessfully it must be said. For the first over I positioned myself at slip as I thought was customary and lost myself in thought of if the field was right, who to bowl next, would I bat myself high or low (in the end not at all) and then suddenly the ball was flying at me from the edge and I clanged it. My venture into captaincy only lasted half a season before someone far better than me replaced me but nonetheless it did make me respect a good leader.

Being a master tactician can win games and also lose them. Take for example Stephen Fleming while statistics will say he had a test average of 40.06 with nine centuries and a couple of million unconverted fifties (just kidding, I love Flem really) but what it does not say is how many wickets and games his skilful tactics won New Zealand. A prominent example that I am reminded of is Damien Martyn in New Zealand's 2001 tour of Australia. Martyn loved to cut, therefore rather simply Fleming packed the gully area causing Martyn to regularly be caught there. Seems simple enough, right? Yet if more people had used that tactic then perhaps Martyn would not have a test average of 46.37 therefore identifying the value of having a good captain.

Why bring this up? Well with the recent ending of the Cricket World Cup a new four year cycle has begun in which new leaders are often appointed therefore around world cricket there are a host of new captains: Michael Clarke, Alastair Cook, Stuart Broad, Brendan Taylor, Ross Taylor, AB De Villiers, Dilshan. This is a time that excites me as I love to see who will flourish and who will flounder in the struggle that is captaincy. Quite really I don't think a whole lot of Clarke, Cook, or Dilshan's captaincy. All excellent batsmen but do not quite have a cricketing brain that is required to succeed as a good captain. Although this is not certain as I never thought of Ricky Ponting as an excellent tactician but was just blessed by amazing players.  Ross Taylor is interesting as he has quite an astute cricket brain but I found him quite defensive and does not seem quite willing to risk unconventional positions such as Michael Vaughan's silly mid off to Matthew Hayden in the 2005 Ashes which effectively nullified his love of the drive forcing him to play uncomfortably and not score excessively. Although captaincy does seem to make Ross Taylor act more mature as his ODI average increases by around 10 runs when captain. I think AB De Villiers will make an excellent captain, well liked in the dressing room with a great cricketing brain, ready to be unconventional and lead from the front in anyway possible. Brendan Taylor is similar to De Villiers, as he is willing to be risky and when captaining in a tight knit group the job is made much easier. Stuart Broad is the one that interests me most. I love bowlers as captains as they always provide interesting tactics the only thing is how do you trust someone who turns into a petulant child when he has an appeal turned down, to lead your country? Broad is strangely a smart bowler and should bring that smart cricket brain to captaincy much as I always thought Shane Warne would have to the Australian test position had he been given a chance.

Maybe I will be wrong about all these players as captains but hopefully through reading this I brought to your attention that captaincy is hard and should not be taken for granted. Great leaders can in fact be the difference in a result so next time you see a captain get Man of the Match for his 12 off 62 don't scoff, but instead admire his great decision making.

My players to watch in the World Cup: Review

With the start of the IPL and other series it feels like the World Cup final was a month ago yet it was a mere nine days ago (or at least it was when I started writing this, oops) so with that in mind I thought it was time to review how well my player picks did.

Australia
Shane Watson: Rather pleasingly Watson had an average World Cup. While he did not embarrass himself as he was one of Australia's best players he didn't perform in an amazing fashion. He grafted out 290 runs at an average of 48 which is no where near poor yet he seemed to be in his test 50 to 100 conversion mode not converting one of his three half centuries to big hundreds as well as not performing in the big games against Pakistan and India. Contributing a mere three wickets with the ball is also a disappointing result for him. Clearly he could not live up to my prediction of being man of the tournament and was not even Australia's leading run scorer being beaten out by his even more annoying opening partner.

Brett Lee: Proved that class is permanent despite being the senior pro of the Australian bowling attack ran in hard and bowled probing lines to great effect. Ended with 13 wickets at 18 picking up two four wicket hauls. If this is his last World Cup he can hold his head high as he was one of the few players that carried a poor Australian team to the quarter finals. Best performance was definitely against Pakistan almost keeping the World Cup streak alive defending a low 177 he took 4 for 28 and definitely made Pakistan sweat unfortunately his strong efforts could not stop a poor Australian World Cup.

Bangladesh
Tamim Iqbal: Performed much as Bangladesh in this World Cup brilliant one moment very disappointing the next. Started with a brilliant 70 in the opening game but did not get past 50 in the rest of Bangladesh's games even recording two ducks. He ended up with 152 runs at 30.4 as Bangladesh could not even get out of the group stage in their favorable home conditions.

Shakib Al Hasan: Could not live up to his title as captain fantastic performing rather dismally with the ball although ending up Bangladesh's leading wicket taker he only took eight wickets at 27.87. With the bat he too started with a fifty in the first game but ended up with only 112 runs at 22.4 and ended up with flaming arrows being shot at his house for his troubles to reflect how everyone expected far better of Bangladesh.

Canada
John Davison: A very disappointing end for someone who usually laps up the big stage ending up with a miserable 33 runs at an average of 6.6 and being shuffled up and down the order. Managed to take five wickets with his off spin darts but overall signed off on a rather sad note for someone who deserved better.

Balaji Rao: Bowled well if not a little expensively in taking nine wickets at 33.22. Most batsmen seemed impressed with his ability to turn the ball and he managed to pick up a four wicket haul against Zimbabwe as he provided a bright spot for Canada in an overall poor World Cup for them.

England
Jonathon Trott: Proved my confidence in him correct. Was immense in a sea of English inadequacy. Amongst the top eight scorers in the World Cup he was the only one to have not come from one of the two finalist teams as he scored 422 runs at 60.28 with five half centuries. It could be argued that he didn't convert any of these to a century but he almost doubled the next best Englishmans tally of runs so there can be no complaints with even his strike rate of 80 being very acceptable. Definitely proved he is in top form and that to succeed in the short form you do not have to have big flashy shots as long as you have mastered the nudge to leg.

Graeme Swann: Was definitely the stand out bowler for England but I did expect slightly more from the worlds best spinner on pitches that suit his bowling. None the less he ended up with 12 wickets at 25.75 and blamed poor bowling against Bangladesh on dew stating "It felt like playing football with both hands tied behind my back." could not carry an inconsistent bowling attack and can still look back at his performances with pride.

Ireland
Ed Joyce: Was severely outclassed by the likes of the O'Briens and Paul Stirling but still put in one strong performance in scoring 84  against the West Indies to remind the world of his talent. Ended up with 176 runs at 29.33 as Ireland proved most definitely why they should be allowed to remain in the World Cup.

George Dockrell: I will admit some bias on George Dockrell as I personally find him to be a hero. Despite only ending up with 7 wickets at 29.57 he impressed immensely. Bowled with fantastic control and variation and did not deserve to finish his last game with a dislocated shoulder. Is definitely someone I am looking forward to watching in the future as he can only get better.

India
Sachin Tendulkar: Proved most definitely why he is the best batsman the world has seen in a long time. He finished with 482 runs at 53.55 as he moved past 2000 World Cup runs. Produced two classy centuries as well as two half centuries. Could not produce a fairytale final in scoring his hundredth international century but did finally get to raise the World Cup as he has now accomplished pretty much every achievement under the international cricket sun.

Zaheer Khan: Was very consistent despite not taking more than three wickets in an innings but still ended up the joint leading wicket taker of the tournament with 21 wickets at 18.76. Was great at the death of an innings with pinpoint yorkers and definitely lead the bowling attack to the World Cup victory.

Kenya
Steve Tikolo: Was quite frankly rubbish, scored 44 runs at 8.8 this World Cup as well as the 2007 edition both looked too far beyond him and quite really should not have come out of retirement for this one. Hopefully will be remembered for his past achievements rather than this World Cup. On the bright side at least Collins Obuya scored 243 runs and ended up 98 not out against Australia to make up for the disappointing effort of Tikolo.

James Ngoche: Only played three games in the end and only took one wicket proving that the Kenyan selection team was not prepared to give a young guy some world class experience. His brother Shem played three games as well and ended up with only one wicket to boot showing that spin bowling in Kenya is at an ebb even with Collins Obuya's legspin only yielding one wicket.

Netherlands
Ryan Ten Doeschate: Was quite really the hero I thought he would be. Although the Netherlands did not perform as competitively as they should, Ten Doeschate was always competing. He managed to score 309 runs at 61.40 while taking seven wickets at the slightly more expensive rate of 46. Still it is very impressive that he managed to be heavily relied on and come out with two very classy centuries against strong teams providing further reason as to why we should not lose the associates from the World Cup.

Adeel Raja: Sadly not much to write about as he only got two games remaining wicketless while conceding 75 runs at under six an over not showing his true wicket taking potential.

New Zealand
Martin Guptill: It is a tough one in regards to Guptill. He did manage to score 262 at 43.66 which is respectable yet he did most of his run scoring against the minnows. Scored a nice fifty against Pakistan and put in a lot of hard work against Sri Lanka in the semi but got a thunderbolt of a yorker from Malinga. You can say it is disappointing that Guptill did not push on for at least one hundred and did not score heavily against quality teams yet Guptill is still young and this was his first World Cup so lets just hope that he used this as a learning experience. Fielded insanely well through out the tournament setting a high standard for the rest of the team to match and constantly kept fighting for wins which is very commendable.

Tim Southee: Glad to say I picked it. Bowled with the swing and accuracy that everyone has been hoping for since his debut. Took 18 wickets at 17.33 ending up second highest wicket taker. He was inexpensive and consistent as he did not once take over three wickets in an innings. Was aggressive and in the batsmans face and had the skills to back it up. Lets hope we can get Allan Donald to hang around to keep improving him and as he said to make him the best swing bowler in the world.

Pakistan
Misbah Ul- Haq: Did not live up to his pre tournament form as he scored 248 at 49.60 which is still very respectable but in New Zealand he looked as if he would be one of the leading scorers. Chipped in with three fifties but at a strike rate of 73.80 he needed to push more anchor centuries.

Umar Gul: Bowled well to take 14 wickets at 19.42, never took a huge haul and was always in back up to Shahid Afridi but was the perfect foil conceding under five an over with his tactical death bowling.

South Africa
Hashim Amla: Perhaps one of the more disappointing players out of my picks. Has been by far the best batsman over the last year but just did not quite perform as exceptionally as hoped. Still managed 306 at 43.71 but after an early century did not carry on to many more big scores. Ended the tournament with a sadly freak dismissal when his team needed him to perform.

Imran Tahir: Proved that he is indeed up to international standards and did not disappoint in taking 14 wickets at an amazing 10.71 with two four wicket hauls. Strangely was not South Africa's leading wicket taker amongst spinners as Robin Peterson managed to take one more but it was still an outstanding beginning to his international career. Hopefully after a few more games he will stop celebrating like it is his first wicket each time he takes one.

Sri Lanka
Tillakaratne Dilshan: May be my proudest pick, ended up leading run scorer with 500 at 62.50 with two centuries and hardly any minnow bashing. Provided one of the funniest moments when he almost cost his fellow opener Tharanga a century in the quarter final against England after he could not resist bashing fours. Chipped in with the ball very handily and even managed taking a freaking 4 for 4 as he ended up with eight wickets at 15.75.Now being burdened with the captaincy it will be interesting to see if he can keep up his good form.

Is quite good.

Muttiah Muralitharan: Despite the final send off providing no wickets Murali still bowled very admirably during the tournament. Taking 15 wickets at 19.40 when you're one of the oldest and definitely the most injured player still playing is a very good effort. Will be sad not to see his freakishly large eyes around international cricket anymore.

This from a 39 year old who is injured. That is why he will be missed he just loves the game so much

West Indies
Darren Bravo: Despite a very good 73 in the West Indies first game never really got going after that ending up with a very sad 139 runs. Very similar to the whole situation of the West Indies World Cup starting off decently before tailing away to be very disappointing. Luckily for Bravo youth is on his side so he will have many chances to redeem himself.

Kemar Roach: Bowled with pace and venom and ended up taking 13 wickets at 15. This involved some minnow bashing in taking 6/27 against the Netherlands which included a hat trick but other than that he combined pace and accuracy along with a good yorker to take a wicket every 21 balls and only concede only four an over showing that Roach is most definitely a bowler on the improve and not just a source of smoking jokes.

Zimbabwe
Brendan Taylor: Did not quite live up to his promise and pre tournament form as he only managed 170 runs at 28.33. Did perform very well against Sri Lanka as he showed his potential in a very well struck 80 in a lost cause. Provided one of the shots of the tournament in an upper cut off Malinga which was both daring and brilliant clearly displaying his great skill as a batsman.

Not something I will be trying any time soon

Ray Price: Bowled very very well in my opinion. In a stand out moment of the tournament Ray Price along with Mpofu restricted Shane Watson and Brad Haddin to 28 runs in 10 overs. Took 9 wickets at 18.77 and conceded less that four an over. Showed fighting spirit against the quality international batsman and proved that he deserves to be known as one of the best spinners in world cricket.

So how did I go? Not too badly if I do say so myself. I picked the two leading run scorers and two of the leading wicket takers (darn that Afridi for taking me by surprise). Overall a very enjoyable World Cup especially compared to the farce that was the last one hopefully next time I just don't take as long to write a review blog!