AGB Cricket

IMPERSONATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF IMPERSONATION

I miss the old good days.

The Test: # 789. The year: 1976. The place: Adelaide Oval. Pakistan in the field. Australia batting last. The match (in which Thommo stuffed his shoulder after colliding with Turno) headed for a draw. Javed Miandad bowling a memorable last over.

What was memorable about it? I mean, apart from the fact that Miandad bowled a lot in his early days. Well, instead of tamely playing out time, Miandad embarked on a fantastic series of impersonations of other bowlers. So fantastic, in fact, that I can't remember exactly who he impersonated. It was a very long time ago. But trust me on this, they were excellent. I'm pretty sure Bob Willis got a run; Thommo, too.

We need more of it. During the recently concluded snore-a-thon, average-booster between India and New Zealand, the Kiwi bowlers could have spent the whole post-lunch session impersonating world bowlers. Make it a game. "Who am I impersonating now?" "Javed Miandad?"

Anyway: impersonations.

UNSOCIABLE CRICKET

Hawthorn have become renowned for their "unsociable football". It's a brilliant phrase which doesn't mean they have reverted to playing like 1984 all over again, when their matches against Essendon were all-out war and the rules allowed a certain latitude not available to today's players, it means they get up the noses of the opposition players. In their heads, in their faces and in their space, as well. Footy is all about getting your opponent thinking out of his comfort zone.

The same applies to cricket, but even more so given the "one mistake and you're out" nature of batting. No batsmen likes having a bowler all over them. The best batsmen are able to block out any distractions and get on with scoring runs, but the blancmanges invariably do something stupid.

Which brings me to Paul Harris.

Final Thoughts

A couple of final thoughts on this winter's Australia-South Africa Tests.

1. Paul Harris has... something.

Ostensibly, Harris is a pie chucker. But he gets wickets. Why? Well, for a start, he keeps the ball roughly on the spot. Second, he has a reasonable arm ball. And third, he has a passable change of pace. Neither variation is particularly noteworthy given a park mug like me can pick them while sipping a hot Milo, but a Test player should certainly be able to pick them.

What Harris does do very well, is get right up the batsman's sneezer.

How often did you see him give it the full "Phwoar!" when a batsman comfortably middled the ball? He regularly appealed when the batsman wasn't even slightly out. He was endlessly rabbiting: chipping the batsmen directly, chipping the batsman indirectly courtesy of a comment to one of the fieldsmen. And there were the sly moves, or "Fletchers". (Duncan certainly didn't invent Fletchers, but he surely knows their value.) Prior to bowling the ball that got Boiled McDonald out in Cape Town Harris engaged in a delaying conversation with Rauf Mauf. When he got Klutz Haddin out, it was on the back of a false start. There's only one reason spinners baulk their run-up: to annoy the batsman.

Harris is not the first spinner to augment his armoury with gamesmanship. Warne, Harbhajan, Bracewell and Symcox all got stuck into the batsmen. Apparently Bill O'Rielly and Doyen Benaud were feisty, too. But while Harris can continue to bowl to knuckleheads like Haddin, Symonds, Clarke and Hughes, you can bet he will continue to get wickets.

POINT MAN

Not only have Kiki & Sassy now got "commenters" to LOL and explain the jokes - Hats on to whichever CricOz PR flack came up with that cunning plan - they also have better security than Sydney airport:

Kiki & Sassy: Saffa Debrief

Editor's Note

Whilst we welcome diverse comment and robust discussion, CA will not be allowing negative comments to appear on these pages if they don't have a valid point to make.

This blog was intended to appeal to a different part of the cricket audience, not necessarily the hard core fan. We will continue to add a diverse range of blogs and articles to the website over the coming months.

Please note that comments that are derogatory, defamatory, or discriminatory will not be published. The decision to publish is solely at the discretion of CA.

Not that I'm some sexist porker ranting that teh laydeez - jolie laidies, to coin a waggish bon mot - shouldn't write about cricket. I happen to agree with Richard Hinds:

No gentleman's game

IT HAD been anticipated that the coverage of a major cricket series would highlight, in graphic close-up, the contributions that some very fit women make to the game.

KNOCKING THE DOOR DOWN... TO GET OUT

Here at the AGB we've always maintained that Michael Hussey had shed loads of luck during his golden introduction to Test cricket: nicks were grassed; other nicks went straight through strange gaps in the cordon (one between Flintoff and Strauss at the WACA in 2006 comes to mind); the odd nick was not even appealed. Many times we were moved to remark: what goes around, runs aground. Especially given a technique that presents an angled bat to anything on or about off-stump. Hussey doesn't, as they say, "give it the full face," which means he is theoretically susceptible to anything in Fleming's Aisle of Ambiguity.

There was also a nagging doubt that when Hussey first came to Test cricket - possibly six months too late, but read on - he hadn't, as is often remarked "been knocking the door down with a swag of runs", and had instead been potting easy runs in the Counties, while making merely reasonable scores here in Australia. The English refrain went "How come Hussey can't get a Test gig for Australia? He'd have played plenty of Tests for England." Putting aside the laughs inherent in that statement, my memory has it that Hussey wasn't, in fact, mistreating the entry woodwork here in Straya, and that his initial selection, while not exactly a surprise, wasn't exactly overdue.

Jrod succinctly, and expertly, sums up the career of Mr Cricket.

Michael Hussey; class, ass, or temporary?

First 18 tests, averaged 86.

Next 19 tests, averaged 34.

Do 18 tests...

ANTICIPATION IS NINE TENTHS OF THE LAW

I've been known to show dissent. Once, upon being given out elbee first ball after smashing the agate onto my pad, I chipped the umpire "Bullsh1t!" as I brandished my bat at him. Then I trudged off to sulk in the corner. Flip-side-wise, I once made an 80+ not out despite smashing an edge down leg-side to the wicketkeeper in the first over. The 'keeper was just as concise: "Fvck off!"

The point is, I accept the umpire's decision.

Remember the Martin Van Jaarsveldt catch, and that I'd sent an email to the MCC? Well, an email arrives:

Dear Mr AGB Cricket,

Yes, I had seen that catch and it does raise a question or two. It is MCC’s opinion that the catch is legal for 2 reasons.

Firstly, although the fielder starts moving before the ball reaches the striker, it is arguable that the movement is not significant. In a (brilliant) act of anticipation, he is readying himself to move to his left which actually starts with him moving his left leg slightly to the right, ie in the opposite direction to that which he eventually runs. This is to give him the “springboard” to set off to his left. If you freeze the clip at the right moment at 16 seconds, there is a frame where the ball has clearly already been played by the batsman but the fielder’s left boot is visible at the top of the screen still in line with the white line that has been painted as a guide for wides for the umpire. If you then check back to his original position, it is only about a foot or two different.

Secondly, the movement by the fielder is purely as a result of the shot selected by the striker. He only decides to move once it is clear that a sweep shot is being attempted. It would probably be wrong for such anticipation to be outlawed. A similar act of anticipation, although for a different reason, is when the silly point turns away when the striker is shaping up for a square cut. Both of these are very different from, for example, square leg moving back 20 paces as the bowler runs in, or moving from in front of square to behind square. This is the main intention of the Law although you are also correct that the movement should not distract the striker (also covered by Law 42.4)

Nobody could deny that it was a wonderful piece of anticipation and skill by the fielder and the Laws should not seek to forbid such acts.

I hope that this clarifies the Laws for you

Yours sincerely,

Fraser Stewart
Laws & Universities Manager
Marylebone Cricket Club

By the Laws, Our Don was right and the rest of us numb-skulls were wrong. In case you are tempted to unload, and I'd be surprised if you were not given Fraser Stewart's concession that his interpretation of "not significant" is "arguable" as well as the skeptical among you alleging that Fraser is merely doing the right thing by Rudi, please keep it civil because I have invited Fraser to read what we have written.

THIRD TEST: LAMBS TO THE LAUGHTER

So, two Tests down and under-experienced, under-dog Australia have played sensational, old-style, hard-nosed cricket to take an unassailable 2-0 lead. Over-rated, over-dog South Africa have played soft-cock, dumb-head, atrocious cricket and, just like all sides who get flogged via an upset, are shit-storming behind the scenes. (Given that Australia were in front for most of the Perth Test, half of the Melbourne Test and just about all of the Sydney, Joburg and Durban Tests, you could make a fair case that South Africa have been shit-storming for some time. There must be something wrong.) Tonight, just like boarding school, we get to tuck into the dead rubber... which means tradition says we'll lose, which is a pity, because 4-2 sounds a whole lot better than 3-3. Maybe it will come down to the toss, which would appear to be the most important thing in deciding a Test match. Assuming Kallis is still captain tonight, will he pitch a fit should Ponting win the toss again, especially with the Cape Town track reputed to be a late turner.

Let's look at the predictions.

Russ: "Logic says SA are a good chance, statistically speaking." RT: "Grim. Go, the Dees." Monty: "Spanked like red-headed step children." The Mongrel: "Woof." Sid Vicious: "Click my sig." Hangover: "No chance, but this site is better than The Australian." Bruce: "After I wrote the Cats were home last year, I've given up predicting." Prof Ross: "SA pun-nil." Nick: "I hate South Africans." Skeptical Lawyer: "The Master of Brasenose College, the esteemed Professor Roger Cashmore, CMG, MA, DPhil, FRS, told me confidentially: 'Get the fvck on the Varks'." Adsy: "Ross Lyon could do worse than consult Jeremy Snape." Pat: "Schtum." Dave Barry: "Exp [SUM wi log(Ri)\SUM wi] says we'll get pumped." Our Don: "DOOOOMED!" Biggy: "Get a dog up you, Sizzle Chest." TT: Australia will be 2-0 up after the first two Tests. Gag on it, Sorth Efrica. Enjoy the dead rubber."

GONG BUT NOT FORGOTTEN

What better way to look forward to the 2009 Ashes than by looking back to the 2005 Ashes. This post is spot on:

OBEs for EVERYBODY!!!!!

Here are my top reasons why losing to England in 2005 was so hard to take:

Via Miss Field, who, emulating 2008 Melbourne Cup trainer Aidan O'Brien's pre-race instructions, has gone early: "We are going to win the Ashes."

FLEG SLIP

This catch by Martin Van Jaarsveld is pretty amazing:

Pity it is a gyp and should not have been given out:

Law 41 (The fielder)

7. Movement by fielders
Any significant movement by any fielder after the ball comes into play and before the ball reaches the striker is unfair. In the event of such unfair movement, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball.

8. Definition of significant movement
(a) For close fielders anything other than minor adjustments to stance or position in relation to the striker is significant.

CHICKER

As if by way of an excuse, we were told that Murali was able to get through to Test cricket because of the lax nature of coaching in Sri Lanka. As if by way of a sop, we were told that increased scrutiny would prevent further dodgy bowlers from making it to Test cricket. Well, it's complete bullshit. As if we didn't know. As soon as a nation finds a spinner who can turn it, they will pull any string available to get that "bowler" through to the Test team. Thus, the Shrees knew Murali could take steal and cheat wickets, but they also knew he was a chucker and that he was certain to be called, so they cooked up their illusion story (as well as the idea that he should bowl leggies and that it was all a racist conspiracy). This, of course, was proven to be the bare-faced lie we all knew it was when biomechanical analysis proved what we could all see: Murali did chuck, and it wasn't an illusion.

Now the Pommy women are pulling the same stroke. Jenny Gunn is a "bowler" who can take wickets, but who many have pegged as a chucker, including umpires and the bowling doctors at the Australian Institute of Sport (who found that none of her deliveries were under 15 degrees). But guess what? The cheating Poms, playing vampires and bloodbanks, have ignored the ICC's independent testing and courtesy of their own testing, have slithered through a loophole in the women's cricket rules, and deemed Gunn's chucking to be an illusion.

Chucking chaos ensnares women

CRICKET'S seemingly endless capacity to make a fool of itself and its inability to deal adequately with bowlers who throw have combined to cause acute embarrassment in the Women's World Cup.

Jrod has more, including a debate in comments.

RDB Cricket

Russ fixed the comments.