The beauty of test cricket + Spanky nailed.

Interesting article on test cricket. Below is the bit which nails Spanky and his tendency to test which way the wind is blowing.


That is why we must consider comments by colleague Malcolm Conn, a Walkley Award-winning reporter and the best cricket writer in the country. Yesterday Conn said that the first session of the third day drove "a stake through the heart of Test cricket." Fairfax columnist Peter Roebuck was of the same mind though we need to wait a day or two to see if Roebuck holds firm to this view. One day he is bowling over the wicket and the next moment around it. He is a hard man to set a field to.

Game is not the Patrick Smith | November 11, 2008
THERE is a favourite saying in cricket these days and it is not "back of a length". That is a popular phrase (though not the present No 1) made up by coaches and commentators to suggest they have found some new subtlety to bowling. It is actually the same as saying short of a length.

But if it makes commentators feel more incisive and coaches more sophisticated then let them have their ego rubbed. Just as "hitting the right areas" can be boiled down to the old fashioned concept of line and length. Cricket reinvents itself but makes no new ground.

You cannot call yourself a fast bowler any more unless you have mastered the art of reverse swing. The time is now right for someone to rediscover the lost art of traditional swing. You will become a guru overnight and the ball might move in the air in the first over and not the 50th.

No, the favourite phrase in the commentary jargon now is "the primacy of Test cricket". It is a state worshipped by the conservative and the traditional. It demands that the five-day form of the game be so cared for by supporters, players and officials that Test cricket will always remain the No1 form of the game.

Two things. We must establish what is so important in Test cricket and not shared by the shorter forms of the game that so deserves to be preserved from the force of change in the modern community. Then, having settled on its exclusive virtues, look where and how they are under attack.

The essential elements that demand Test cricket be cared for are that it continues to provide the most worthwhile benchmark for calibrating the ability of those who play the sport.

The first Test was played in 1877 so a lot of cricketers have come and gone. Don Bradman's Test average of 99.94 therefore defines him and every other batsman, past and present. Second, it is played over five days, an indulgence that allows the beauty of the game to be appreciated. Batting innings can be constructed either quickly or slowly but rarely radically. Bowlers can plot and probe for wickets and not rely on the manic pace of the shorter games to force batsmen into error.

That's why Shane Warne and Dennis Lillee were so intoxicating to watch. Why Sachin Tendulkar's cover drive and Warne's flipper become things of beauty, executed by masters.

Lastly, cricket is played over such a long period of time it allows for moods and not just moments. Matches are won or lost, retrieved or squared over long periods where a match hangs in the balance not for an over or just one ball but a set of strategies applied by both bowlers and batsmen. No other form of cricket allows for this intrigue.

That is why we must consider comments by colleague Malcolm Conn, a Walkley Award-winning reporter and the best cricket writer in the country. Yesterday Conn said that the first session of the third day drove "a stake through the heart of Test cricket." Fairfax columnist Peter Roebuck was of the same mind though we need to wait a day or two to see if Roebuck holds firm to this view. One day he is bowling over the wicket and the next moment around it. He is a hard man to set a field to.

What irritated Conn and Roebuck and many more commentators was the output of that session. Just 42 runs for the loss of one Australian wicket. Indian skipper MS Dhoni set fields with eight men on the offside and one on the leg and had his bowlers aim wide of off stump. The Australian batsmen did nothing different or inventive to make Dhoni reconsider his tactics. Former captain Ian Chappell was so appalled by what he saw that he called for a change to the laws of the game.

Conn and others made forceful arguments that such slow cricket would drive more and more people to Twenty20 and offered it as an explanation as to why so few people sat about in the heat of Nagpur to watch the critical fourth and final Test.

The counter argument is that Simon Katich and Michael Hussey had scored freely before stumps on the preceding day and Dhoni, whose side was protecting a one-Test lead and a first-innings score of 441, was entitled to ask Australia to come after him. To continue to attack with his bowlers and field placings, and give away runs would have put his series win in doubt and be considered an irresponsible response.

Test cricket can be both entertaining and thoughtful. Just ask Jason Krejza. With figures of 8-215 he has both bowled the opposition out and bowled them to a substantial first-innings score. In the legendary 1960-61 series between Australia and the West Indies, Lindsay Kline and Slasher Mackay held out for 100 minutes against the West Indies with barely an attacking shot played to record a draw that was as exciting as the famous tied Test.

Spectators are drawn to limited over cricket and Twenty20. They are forms of the game that have their own skills, both brutal and nuanced, but neither game allows for periods where one side dares another, asks for a response, tests for a weakness in mind and heart.

Five days of Twenty20 would be as tiresome and numbing as five days of Dhoni's offside tactics. Both games are played for different reasons and both provide different entertainment. To try and make one live as the other would be to kill off both.

I suppose there had to be someone who takes Patrick Smith seriously.

To be fair, the conclusion to this article is excellent.

FFS ...Patrick Smith , Mike Sheehan , Robert Walls and Caro Wilson have all made a career out of writing an opinion piece with a very changeable opinion on AFL ...we all know Roeby does it for cricket ....how about he has a crack at the tame muppets who get fed info from the selectors and others at CA and then try and pass it off as "knowledge of the game" ....Connman would be near the top of that list

ten years after wrote:I suppose there had to be someone who takes Patrick Smith seriously.

To be fair, the conclusion to this article is excellent.

Everything printed in a paper has to be true. Didn't you know that.

That is why we must consider comments by colleague Malcolm Conn, a Walkley Award-winning reporter and the best cricket writer in the country.

The article lost all credibility after this sentence.

WTF is wrong with Malcolm Conn. He broke the John the Bookie story whilst all the other sycophants were toeing the party line.

Henry wrote:

That is why we must consider comments by colleague Malcolm Conn, a Walkley Award-winning reporter and the best cricket writer in the country.

The article lost all credibility after this sentence.

He has to say that out of loyalty of his colleague.

As for Patrick Smith, I usually take what he says with a modicum of salt. That doesn't mean he can't write the odd interesting article. If you're close-minded about everyone who annoys you from time to time, you can become very restricted in outlook and allergic to diverse opinion and inspiration.

He also claimed recently that Australia were better off now that Shane Warne has retired.

Red wrote:[ If you're close-minded about everyone who annoys you from time to time, you can become very restricted in outlook and allergic to diverse opinion and inspiration.

The forum gold award of the year goes to...

Who is the best cricket writer in Australia?

Roebuck - can be quite poetic but is a bum-nosing clown
Coward - romanticises about the game and thinks cricket is a celebration of life
Craddock - states the bleeding obvious
Conn - I always think he has an agenda

Are there any other regular writers of the game?

Spanky is the most enterntaining. He may spurt out a whole heap of rubbish at times but he's always a good read.

Paul Keating wrote:Who is the best cricket writer in Australia?

Roebuck - can be quite poetic but is a bum-nosing clown
Coward - romanticises about the game and thinks cricket is a celebration of life
Craddock - states the bleeding obvious
Conn - I always think he has an agenda

Are there any other regular writers of the game?

JC?

Gideon Haigh is probably the best.
Roland Perry is the worst.

Greg Baum's occasional feature columns or opinion pieces in The Age are usually erudite and incisive.

Paul Keating wrote:Gideon Haigh is probably the best.
Roland Perry is the worst.

I'd agree with you on Gideon.

But I must say I was miffed over his article in the Telegraph today.

He doesn't defend Ponting, but he does lash out at his critics.

According to Gideon, criticising Ponting's tactics is "echoing some death-before-dishonour tract of national greatness".

He seems to excuse Ponting when he says, "We were also granted an insight into the extraneous factors that play on a captain's mind, which require from him instant decisions, and expose him to blame and ridicule."

Gideon - that is the captain's job. It's not an easy job, but if you don't do it properly you deserve to be criticised.