World Cup 2011- considering the place of the “minnows”

Much has been made in the commentary about the present Cricket World Cup about the inclusion of the so called “minnow” teams.  Some commentary has been good, some has been bad and some has focused on entirely another issue, the length of the tournament.

Firstly, which teams are we talking about?  In viewing much of this present tournament I have considered the following terms to be minnows:

• ·      Canada;
• ·      Netherlands;
• ·      Ireland;
• ·      Zimbabwe; and
• ·      Kenya.

These teams are quiet obviously identifiable at the base of the points tables in either of Groups A and B.  To focus though on their respective positions on the table would be to denigrate what some of these teams, at least, have brought to this World Cup.  Who will forget:

• ·      Ireland’s defeat of England – an exhilarating game and one for which the victory of Ireland has frankly been sullied by everyone’s focus on who poor England were.
• ·      The Netherlands pushing England to the limit thanks to ten Doeschate’s ton.
• ·      Canada’s opening batsmen flaying the Australian pace attack with a 19 year old pummeling Messrs Lee, Tait and Johnson.
• ·      Kenya batting through 50 overs against Australia.

Finally, this evening we have been served up a great game of cricket between Ireland and the Dutch to bring a close to the involvement of these teams in this tournament.

Sure there have also been some spectacular failures by these teams, but one could never question their spirit and their keenness to play on the “big” stage.

Pundits are also very quick to forget that in the early 80s Sri Lankan cricket and its team was clearly in the “minnow” category.  They won the whole shooting match in 1996 and are now one of the powerhouses in world cricket.  More recently, Bangladesh would have been considered to be true minnows but they now have Test status and are fast becoming competitive.  What is to say that with another decade of play under its belt, this young team could do a “Sri Lanka” in a decade’s time.

I am all for the “minnows” being in the competition.  It is not their respective faults that the tournament is too long.  Why does it have to be so long?  No matter what the pool and finals format, such a tournament is always going to run long when the timing of games is as it has been in this tournament and the one in the West Indies that preceded it.  It astonishes me that on most days there is only one game of cricket being played; at the most, two games. 

With so many venues available on the sub-continent surely there could have been 2 games per group per day.  Just by planning the tournament in this way the group stages would be compressed by a factor of 2 weeks by my reckoning; if not more.  

Of course this will never happen; TV rights will dictate one game a day OR if there are to be two games a day, then the second game will always involve a “minnow”.  This is ridiculous but is the trade off that cricket consistently faces; viz., playing the game versus who pays for the game.  Until this tension returns to the favor of actually playing the game (and in favor of the fans) tournaments such as this will continue to be ridiculously long. 

The “minnows” are not to blame for this tournament of ghastly length and deserve to be there in their in my view.  For the game to development the minnows are necessary and ought be supported.  Without support in the 80s, Sri Lanka would not be the powerhouse it is today.  Pundits the world over ought remember this the next time they are bagging the inclusion of the minnows.

It is more important to fix the tournament itself than to remove the minnows but I am pretty sure I know which step will actually be taken … and it will be to the detriment of the development cricket worldwide.  

The National Selection Panel and Queensland Cricket - what is wrong with Queensland's players?

Welcome to the Shumpty Sports Dump.  I have been pondering starting a blog to express my opinions about all things sport.  What pushed me to do it is the announcement today of the Australia A cricket squad to tour Zimbabwe today. 


I should start with a confession - I am a rabid fan of Queensland Cricket and specifically the mighty Queensland Bulls.   That confession dealt with, let the blogging begin.


To the National Selection Panel named the following "provisional" squad to go to Zimbabwe:


George Bailey - TAS; 
Michael Beer - WA; 26
Luke Butterworth - TAS; 27
Trent Copeland - NSW; 25
Nathan Coulter-Nile - WA; 23
Patrick Cummins - NSW; 17
James Faulkner - TAS; 20
Callum Ferguson - SA; 26
Aaron Finch - VIC; 24
Peter George - SA; 24
Jon Holland - VIC; 23
Phillip Hughes - NSW; 22
Usman Khawaja - NSW; 24
Nathan Lyon - SA; 23
Nicolas Maddinson - NSW; 19
Mitchell Marsh - WA; 19
Shaun Marsh - WA; 27
Stephen O'Keefe - NSW; 26
Tim Paine - TAS; 26
James Pattinson - VIC; 20
Steven Smith - NSW; 21
Mitchell Starc - NSW; 21
Matthew Wade - VIC; 23
David Warner - NSW; 24


When I first read this this afternoon I thought I must have misread but on a second reading I confirmed what I hoped was not true.  No player on the books of the Queensland Bulls has made the team.  When you add in the squad that is presently playing in the World Cup, that means there are no present Queensland Bulls players in the top 40 or so players in Australia.  Before anyone points out that Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson are from Queensland, they are do not presently play for the Bulls and having chosen to turn their backs on Queensland cricket do not count for the purposes of this discussion.


So what does this mean?  Forget the usual conspiracy theories, they have been put forward enough times to seek to explain any imbalance in selections and do not warrant a repeat.   One would have thought that performances during the season would have played a role in selection.  What do the stats (sourced from the Cricket Australia website) have to say about this team, or better put, say about no Queensland players being selected?


The Top 10 runscorers in Sheffield Shield cricket in 2010-11 were:  Quiney, Cosgrove, Finch, Lynn, Blizzard, Khawaja, Hopes, Voges, Jacques, Manou.  The Top 10 wicket takers in Sheffield Shield cricket in 2010-11 were: Butterworth, Copeland, Maher, Duffield, Faulkner, Siddle, Feldman, Swan, Hogan and Hopes.


I am not for one second suggesting that any of the players selected in this preliminary squad do not deserve to be picked but whatever happened to picking on form?  Aside from Chris Lynn's great run scoring in the Shield this year he is a player of the future and dealt with one of Australia's allegedly premier fast bowlers, Peter Siddle, in his last innings with aplomb and ease.  I know because I was in the members stand watching him bat.  Surely he is one of the form young batsmen in the country and yet he does not get a call up.


Aidan Blizzard and Adam Voges could also equally feel aggrieved by missing out on selection given their form lines. 


What about with the ball?  Luke Feldman has bowled the house down for the second year in the row.  Where is his reward for being consistent and bowling well?  He has not been selected for no real apparent reason.  This is even more confusing when a number of bowlers selected such as Butterworth, Copeland and Faulkner have been picked on form.  


Obviously some of these players selected are project players for Cricket Australia.  How else would, for one, Mitchell Marsh be selected?  He has been injured for the bulk of, if not all, of the domestic summer.  


The selection of this squad really makes me wonder what cricket the selectors have been watching in the last couple of months.  It is easy to "bash" the selectors, indeed it is an Australian tradition.  Equally the failure to pick Chris Lynn and Luke Feldman is so astonishing as to warrant a "please explain?"  After the season that was (losing the Ashes and the present labouring performances in the World Cup) surely the focus of the selection panel would be selecting based on domestic form rather than on the basis of who are project players and who might look good spruiking mobile phones.


Is the NSP selecting players that have done well in all forms of the game?  The statistics do not support this and more to the point what does performing in the Twenty20 hit and giggle fest have to do with playing for your country in 4 day first class cricket?  One should not forget that it is intended that two 4 day games and a one day series (not under the idiotic Ryobi Rules but under international rules) are being played on this tour and NO Twenty20 games.


A final comment on the player who has to have by now taken over the mantle of Australia's unluckiest cricketer from previous holders including Stuart Law and Martin Love.  What does James Hopes have to do to get selected?  He is in the top 10s in both batting and bowling and has proven his mettle this season as a leader when the Queensland team was a certifiable basket case during the middle of the season.  I am one fan who thinks he should be in India / Sri Lanka right now doing the job he has consistently and competently done over the years at number 7 in the order and bowling 10 tight overs.  His replacement, an amalgam of Cameron White and Steven Smith one supposes, has done nothing of merit.   I for one would feel much safer with Hopes walking out at 7 or being thrown the ball.  Alas not only is he not over there, he is not required to train on to go to Zimbabwe.  To say that is astonishing would be understatement.


What is the answer?  I do not know.  I do know that as a fan of cricket I would love to see selection on form be the priority.  I can not say with any certainty that form is presently a criteria that is high on the NSP's list when it comes to selection.  One can only hope that the "three wise men" of cricket (Border, Waugh and Taylor) look at this issue in their upcoming review. 


So that is my first blog.  I know it will have a limited audience but it was fun to write and I would love any feedback.  Tomorrow I will review Australia's performance against Canada tonight.


Yours in Sport, 


Shumpty