"The Spirit of Cricket": to walk, or not to walk.

Long time no blog. I only really seem to blog nowadays when something big happens in cricket. However this one has really irked me, just because of the double standards of some people in the media and on social media networks. My issue concerns Stuart Broad's decision to not walk in the first Ashes test at Trent Bridge, and the whole "Spirit of Cricket" and cheating lark. 

I'll get one thing straight - I am not a walker. I am primarily a bowler, and at my level the nicks to slip off my bowling do not get held enough for people to have to decide whether to walk or not, however I feel that poor decisions average out somewhat. Needless to say I have never really been in a position to have to 'not walk' myself, due to the aforementioned poor catching. I think if I had middled it to slip like Broad I may well have walked, but that remains to be seen - I am more prone to being caught plumb in front! But I digress. The tirade of anger and anguish on twitter and in the media towards the decision did not really sit well with me, for several reasons. 

First things first, Michael Clarke could well have used a review on it, which obviously would have been successful, however he had already wasted them on other appeals, one of which was a dreadful LBW shout against Ian Bell, the ball heading down leg by about a foot. "Fault of the system", I hear you cry. However, the DRS system was brought in not to overturn the marginal decisions (or indeed the good ones, as the Bell review turned out to be!), but the howlers. Aleem Dar's decision was a howler, and if Clarke had not wasted a review earlier then Australia would have had the wicket of Broad, and still had a review left. Yes, the DRS system may be flawed, but that is not my quarrel here.

 

Secondly, the sheer quantity of Australian viewers who were up in arms that Broad had not walked. The irony of an Australian (or several million Australians) in disgust at a cricketer not walking is not lost on me, nor thankfully on several other commenters on twitter or in the papers. Need we remind them of Michael Clarke, the in their eyes morally upstanding human being with impeccable decency who refused to walk in Adelaide in 2010? Or Andrew Symonds against India (if I remember rightly) all those years back, who went on to make 164 after being given not out on next to nothing? And it's not just Australia, it happens everywhere, but those incidents have been the two most mentioned recently. Players can't take the blame for it all, however - the standard of umpiring has improved somewhat, so as a general rule these issues are far and far between because umpires thankfully do notusually miss those nicks, which leads us to question the abilities of some umpires on the international circuit. Again, that is a discussion for another time.

My third issue, and the one that irks me most, is the train of thought that Broad has not acted within "the Spirit of Cricket". Jim Holden from the Daily Express brought this up when on the panel for Sky Sports' "Cricket Writers on TV". He mentions the Spirit of the Game as noted by the MCC, and quoted it in saying that it can be breached if a player tries to "mislead the umpire". This is not a response to him, as I am not entirely sure where he sits on this matter, nor an attempt to 'bait' him, but purely my view. However, if one were to call Broad on this issue, of misleading the umpire, then we have a lot more calling to do as well, starting with bowlers who appeal for an LBW they don't think is hitting the stumps, if he has hit it, if it is pitching in line, or hitting in line. Then there is the batsman who waves his bat at the umpire to indicate he has hit it (even if he is nowhere near it), the bowler and keeper who appeal for something down leg side to put the umpire off calling a wide ball, people claiming catches that aren't out, people appealing for caught behinds they know the batsman has not hit, the list goes on.

My point here is that "misleading the umpire" is not just a case of not waking; everything from complaining the ball is out of shape when it is not, to appealing for an LBW when a batsman has taken the covers off the ball, it is all the same, and if we are to follow the advice of some people then we will need to fine and ban just about every cricketer currently playing professional cricket. And I don't think that will happen any time soon!

Cricket Australia and homework-gate

So, 4 players have been dropped from the Australia test squad for the in-play 3rd test in India. The reason? They failed to hand in a piece of (for wont of a better word) homework to Mickey Arthur detailing 3 ways in which their individual and team performance from the second test could be improved. The players in question are Mitchell Johnson, Usman Khawaja, James Pattinson and Shane Watson. Now before I even get into the positives and negatives of this, the one thing that stood out for me was that 2 of these players, Khawaja and Johnson, didn't even PLAY the second test match. What do they expect to be written? I half imagine Khawaja to have written "individual: 1) get picked. 2) carry drinks better. 3) find compromising pictures of Mickey Arthur. Team: 1) pick me. 2) don't pick Phil Hughes. 3) clone Michael Clarke." It just doesn't make sense to me.
For me, there has to be some other agenda, I don't think I've seen anything like this happen in my 10 years of following cricket (and copious amounts reading up on past games), and I seriously cannot imagine the Australia of yesteryear doing this. Imagine asking Dennis Lillee or Allan Border to do this. Or even Ricky Ponting or Matthew Hayden! Not likely. What I imagine them doing to prepare for the next game is exactly what others would be doing: practising! It must be difficult taking your selectors and coach seriously when they ask for what essentially amounts to homework, especially when they don't even pick the strongest side at their disposal in the first place (Steve o'Keefe anyone?). I seems that Arthur is trying to stamp his authority on his side, yet all it seems to have done is made them the laughing stock of the cricketing world.
However, there have been a couple of positives to come out of the situation. In this third test, runs have been scored by 1 man who would have no doubt been dropped if all were available, and another who probably didn't expect to play at all, in Phil Hughes and Steve Smith. In addition, if Pattinson were available, one of Starc and Siddle would have in all probability sat out, and between them they have taken 7 wickets in the first innings, bringing Australia right back into the game. Maybe homework-gate will turn out to be a master stroke by Mickey Arthur. Only time will tell.

The day's cricketing news...

So, I've not blogged for like, a year. I've also never blogged about anything besides my own cricket experiences before. But I felt as though I had to make my views known on this. I was also unsure how to word the title, so instead I just decided to call it "the day's news...", as I just cannot think of an apt enough way to lead this post.
Now, I can't make any real, informed, insightful comments on the complete ins and outs of the cause/factors of Tom Maynard's death, I only know what I (like most others) have read on twitter/newspaper websites. I only know that Tom had traces of illegal substances in his blood/hair samples. This, in itself, is shocking, but at the same time cricketers are earning more than ever, are playing in an incredibly professional environment, and are under intense pressure to perform and (as is the case with most sports) possibly more-so than any other sort of working environment. And, due to human nature, it is almost inevitable that with all the pressures and expectations, those people will try and find a way to relax. I'm not trying to vindicate or defend Tom's actions by any means. I am, however, trying to shed a little light on why this happens, and making the point that there is not enough help or guidance given to these young sportsmen and women. The psychological impact of the pressures on cricketers (and other sports players, but I shall use cricketers as the example in this blog) has been greatly expanded upon in recent times by Marcus Trescothick, Steven Davies, Michael Yardy and Ed Cowan, amongst others. It is clear that there needs to be a support system for those in cricket, as it appears to me that there isn't anything substantial enough in place. It seems as well that there needs to be more drug testing, even for recreational drugs. The ECB today stated that they currently carry out "around 200 tests a year". This equals about 35-40% of the registered professionals. However, this may need to be increased, in order to try and further decrease the number of cases, and for those that do test positive for recreational substances, some sort of guidance of help (whether within the club, under ECB auspices, or outside help such as therapists or support groups) needs to be in place. It is also maybe worth noting that these sorts of drugs do not enhance sporting ability, but can (and in this case, sadly do) wreck lives, and we need to be made aware of that, as do those in the game. People in other walks of life would be getting proper support, often nudged towards it by their colleagues/employers, it would be fair to say that cricketers/sportspeople should have the same support from their friends/colleagues/employers. I find it difficult to write on such a difficult subject at such a time, because it is so sad, but if this sort of thing happens then something in the system has to change.
This all brings me round to Edwina Currie's comments today after the inquest's findings. Now, once again I am not defending Tom's actions here, but how can anyone with the background that Edwina Currie has (John Major, anyone?) find themselves of a sufficient moral ethical standing to make such a comment on someone that she does not know, and a situation she is barely aware of? What right does she have to comment on and criticise someone for their actions, given her extremely long list of indiscretions and foot-in-mouth comments that she has made in the past? Of course, she is no stranger to controversy, having once stated that "good people do not catch AIDS", but she has once again showed her lack of tact, this in such a sensitive situation, and it has sparked outrage from not only cricket fans, but county cricketers as well, and personally I am genuinely shocked by her words. The phrase "Darwinism at work" in particular is extremely disrespectful, and once again given her background maybe what goes around will come around, and her words may well bite her back. It is a shame that someone feels the need to make such a comment on a day where most just wanted some closure on the issue, and wanted to remember a wonderful cricketer, and (for those close to him) their friend, someone that was most definitely taken too soon.