Adelaide Oval decision day

Well, at least for SACA members, only about half of whom, according to Adelaide Now/ The Advertiser , are expected to vote either by proxy or at this evening's Special General Meeting which will, we are told, determine the future of the Adelaide Oval.

The issue has been widely canvassed in the local media, including the online Indaily and
the News Ltd outlets: Adelaide Now has just posted , complete with misidentification of the speaker ("Ian Ravenscrost" should be "Ravenscroft"), a last minute plea for a Yes vote.
I have some serious misgivings, notably

• whether the cost (which will certainly be greater than the already revised amount) can be justified

• whether the market for AFL (especially in the light of the recent TV rights deal and the decline of Port Power) and cricket (the recent upgrade accommodated everyone - including those with free tickets - who wished to attend the Ashes Test) will justify the upgrade, and

• whether cricket which, for all its relatively small local support, gives Adelaide Oval (and thus Adelaide) global recognition and ambience (eg this), will be sidelined over time: the suggestion that Sheffield Shield matches will be moved 12km to Glenelg when SACA has previously indicated that a refurbished Adelaide Oval No2 would be used concerns me.

To judge from the amount of heat (and light) the issue has generated in the local media it will be difficult to get the 75% of the votes cast in favour of the special resolution required for SACA to join the AFL interests in a Stadium Management Authority.

What is more likely is that there'll be a majority of less than the required 75%. This will presumably launch Plan B, or C...or Z.

So I'll go to the meeting, listen to what is said, and cast my vote. At the moment I'm leaning, despite my misgivings above, by voting in favour.

Two teams turn up, only one really tries as Australia win series 4-0

Australia 5 for 324 (R Ponting 61, J Hopes 57*, S Watson 51, M Clarke 47, A Voges 45*) beat West Indies 199 (D Sammy 47, K Pollard 45) by 125 runs: ODI#5 at MCG. Australia won series 4-0.

ODI#5 was embarassingly one sided as West Indies fell apart in the field and, with a couple of exceptions, with the bat.

A 125 run margin if anything understated the differences between the sides. The tone of the match was set (lowered?) in the second over, bowled by Dwayne Smith, during which Brad Haddin was missed twice, once by Travis Dowlin at second slip (straight to him but missed his hands before bouncing off his chest), then two balls later by Smith himself (a harder return catch). Watch the highlights (link below) for more of the comedy of errors and footage of some robust Australian batting, where several, notably James Hopes 57*/26b (10x4) and Ricky Ponting 61/55b (1x6, 3x4) scored at more than a run a ball (as well as benefiting from fielding errors) and the lowest score was 22.

With the bat the West Indies went down with only a couple of guns blazing. After a brief flourish from Chris Gayle they collapsed to 4/39. Kieron Pollard, one of the few WI successes of the summer (another - Brendan Nash - did well in the Tests but for reasons which I can't fathom didn't even make the ODI team despite being in the squad) justified his belated elevation in the order but he left at 80. The last rites were strung out by Darren Sammy hitting out against debutant Stephen Smith (who almost certainly wouldn't have bowled as much if the match had been closer).

To say as Cricinfo does, partly echoing Ricky Ponting, that the main reason for the poor crowds was "overload" doesn't tell the whole truth. Long (more than 3 match) ODI series between unevenly matched sides just don't work. The discarded tri-series format at least kept interest alive (even if attendances at the matches not involving Australia were often low). Bring them back!



Scorecard

Recent cricket blunders #1: changing Test result

The ICC has changed the result of a 2006 England - Pakistan Test match from an England win to a draw.

In my opinion, and that of several better qualified judges than me, eg Michael Holding this is a gross mistake. Not only does it further undermine the authority of match officials but it sets a very shaky
precedent for the future.

The scorecard, with the amended result, is here.

A less than sanguine scenario for Australian cricket?

In today's Crikey Charles Happell has a piece: "Rugby woes offer a timely warning for Cricket Australia".

The rugby he's referring to is Rugby Union, whose CEO recently admitted that the sport was losing money at a rapid rate of knots. How does this affect cricket or, to be more precise, Cricket Australia?

Happell draws three parallels between the sports

Like rugby, cricket is played well by six or eight nations. It is no soccer or basketball...

Like rugby, which is now essentially run by England and France, cricket’s powerbase has shifted dramatically in the past decade.... to the sub-continent, that is to say India. ... As anyone who has witnessed India flex its newfound muscle over the Harbhajan Singh affair will appreciate...

And, like rugby, cricket’s national team must remain competitive. If not, that’s the start of the slippery slope to oblivion.

While there's little sign that Australia's cricket will cease to be competitive in the next 3-5 years (dominant is another matter), what about beyond then? Will we look back upon the run of 16 Test victories which India arrested in Perth as the last golden age of Australian cricket?

Soccer's big day sends warning signals to cricket

The major sporting event today in Melbourne, or Australia for that matter, was not the charity cricket match at the MCG featuring Shane Warne and other celebrities which was televised by Channel Nine. It was the soccer A - League final down the road at Docklands Stadium, in which Melbourne Victory thrashed Adelaide United 6 - 0 in front of a 50,000+ crowd.

Two interesting matters arise from this: interstate sporting rivalry and the relative popularity of sports in Australia.

In yesterday's Age Greg Baum had a thoughtful piece about the longstanding sporting rivalry between South Australia and Victoria. He explores the historical background, which means essentially cricket and Australian Rules football, to show that the tradition has been around for a long time.

Today on ABC TV's Offsiders ,which now thank goodness has a website ,the panel discussed the attendances at major sports in Australia. Soccer (I'm still resisting the push to call it "football") has become much more popular following its restructure a couple of years ago into the A-league with city-based teams replacing the old ethnic-based ones who for so long inhibited the game's development. As most of the season is played during the summer the game is emerging as a major threat to cricket, which has just enjoyed a season in which the Ashes attracted the highest attendances for more than 20 years. This is unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future, so soccer will almost certainly become the best attended Australian summer sport next year and may remain so for some time.

A transcript of the Offsiders panel discussion has not, as I write, been posted but it is promised. The statistics, and many of the panellists' comments make interesting reading (or viewing: see the website for details of how to do so). Cricket Australia is on notice. I shall return to this topic soon.

Attempt to bring football and cricket closer fails

Today the Redbacks beat the Blues in a 20/20 domestic match played at Newcastle. The Blues team included Andrew Johns , who is much better known (at least in NSW) as a rugby league player. Johns bowled one over for 9 runs (some of which was shown on the Channel 9 news tonight) and batted number 11, where he faced one ball and did not score a run. NSW captain Simon Katich shielded him from the strike in the tight last over, effectively conceding the game.

Scorecard

Johns apparently played Newcastle district cricket with some success before he took up rugby.
Not so long ago it was possible to play both cricket and a football code (AFL, rugby union or league and , more in the UK, soccer) at the highest levels. Both Denis Compton and Keith Miller after whom the Compton- Miller medal (awarded to the player of the Ashes series) was named, did so (Compton soccer, Miller Aussie Rules) .

Now this is simply not possible, as even below top club level the extension of the football season and its pre-season training requirements effectively require young players to choose one sport over another. Yesterday's Australian had an interesting article about this, and quite properly made the point that there are more opportunities for players to break into AFL teams while they are still relatively young. Cricket may have more opportunities for international travel but the road into the Australian test and one day teams is harder because once a player is established they reasonably expect to remain at top level until they are in their mid 30s and thus block others from taking over from them.

Adam Gilchrist's career in test cricket is likely last less than 10 years: less than that of each of the recent retirees Messrs Warne, McGrath and Langer. Australian cricket has worked out a succession plan for eminent players like them, but increased fitness levels, not to mention remuneration, have both allowed and encouraged players to stay on. True there are some who don't last the notional distance (eg Jason Gillespie, who nevertheless remains a force in domestic cricket).

What about the young players like Tony Notte, who is mentioned in the Australian article? According to his school sports master he's a promising leg spinner, yet he's chosen an AFL career path, which is likely to confine his future cricket to the backyard or the beach. Is there any chance of cricket reclaiming him at the end of his AFL career, say after he turns 30? Or are there few transferable skills between football and cricket? This wasn't so in Compton and Miller's day. But then most cricketers and footballers weren't paid much then.