Australia faces a Herculaean task to win the Third Test and become the side with the most Test wins in succession. As any all-conquering side such as the Melbourne Storm or Sydney Kings might tell you, winning a lot of games in succession only puts you closer to your next loss. Despite that somewhat gloomy axiom, Australia's dominance of the Test cricket scene has an inherent weakness. It relies on imposing its will on the opposition by a strategy of all-out attack. In a batsman-friendly era where bowlers are fairly mediocre, bats so dense as to seemingly exert their own gravitational pull on the ball and boundaries so short that Darren Lehmann's locks look luscious in comparison, this strategy is generally a winning one.
However, if the ball swings, bounces excessively or does anything beyond the parameters regarded as normal, the penchant for attack becomes self-defeating. Australia's kamikaze approach in the first innings bears this out. The divine wind for India sprang up from the east and they made full use of it. The normally cannon-fodder line of half volley outside off-stump became a Psiren call to the grave, as such level-headed souls as Mike Hussey perished driving through the off-side. That Michael Clarke still has a clear weakness against swing bowling (and a bizarre impetuousity to take off when hitting the ball to backward point) adds another wobble to the equation. Ten years ago, perhaps fifteen, Australia would have contented itself with a score of say, 4 for 200 after day 2. Caution, however, is in short supply in the dominating mindset and hence the entire side lasted a paltry fifty overs.
If Australia are to complete the streak, they will have to win in spite of the manner in which they won sixteen Tests, not because of it. Already in this innings, Rogers and Jaques have perished courtesy of Pathan's rejuvenated movement. The pitch itself possesses relatively few terrors at this stage and is as benign a fourth-innings surface seen since Gilchrist and Langer won the Hobart Test against Pakistan. The dangers, much like with the original kamikaze, are in the air and in the psychological disturbance those raids create. Australia's relentless charge is reminiscent of the great conquest of Sulemain, the Ottoman emperor who took the Turks all the way to the gates of Vienna. However Sulemain's campaign relied on its great cannons for its success. When the rain fell, the cannons became stuck in the mud, rendered useless by the elements. The Austrian army escaped, and the Turkish charge was halted.
To win tomorrow, Australia will have to bat judiciously, seeing off the swinging ball and making the most of tiring bowlers. Both sides have found it hard to remove middle-order batsmen once the swing slows and the wind dies down. If Australia have sufficient wickets in hand to capitalise on those opportunities, they may well find themselves in rarefied run-chasing territory.
Friday, January 18, 2008
On YouTube everyone can hear you scream, just ask Marcos Baghdatis
Just when communicating had reached new heights, things have gone a step further. We have now become accustomed to the incredible utility of email to send both professional and personal correspondence. It has become second nature to 'google', tapping into the meta-searching oracle of the modern age. These changes, while revolutionary, give all but the most careless users control over their information and reputation. Individuals can maintain a level of privacy without taking too many precautions.
The next wave of social networking sites changes the equation. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube offer users a tremendous opportunity to tap into the global information stream and gain instant notoriety. The massive increase in processing capacity means that videoclips are now the media of the moment. The important detail here is that video can be both in the form of a deliberately devised skit or simply filming the activities of others. It appears this has happened to the (Greek) Cypriot tennis player Marcos Baghdatis, who has some fairly unsavoury friends who have recently developed a taste for pepper spray.
Clearly, there is a very high potential here for embarassing footage to see the light of day. An individual's control over their own image is greatly reduced. This may lead to greater accountability and accompanying caution by figures in public life. It is almost certain that many of these clips will end up in court. Lawmakers will shortly be faced with the challenge of how to handle possibly defamatory images of individuals taken and or published without their consent.
The next wave of social networking sites changes the equation. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube offer users a tremendous opportunity to tap into the global information stream and gain instant notoriety. The massive increase in processing capacity means that videoclips are now the media of the moment. The important detail here is that video can be both in the form of a deliberately devised skit or simply filming the activities of others. It appears this has happened to the (Greek) Cypriot tennis player Marcos Baghdatis, who has some fairly unsavoury friends who have recently developed a taste for pepper spray.
Clearly, there is a very high potential here for embarassing footage to see the light of day. An individual's control over their own image is greatly reduced. This may lead to greater accountability and accompanying caution by figures in public life. It is almost certain that many of these clips will end up in court. Lawmakers will shortly be faced with the challenge of how to handle possibly defamatory images of individuals taken and or published without their consent.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
None of the above makes a late run to challenge Hillary
The extraordinary machinations that make up the American political system may be about to turn the strangest result of all. In the bid to gain relevance, states have moved their primaries ever forward to the point where practically the entire race will be decided on one afternoon. The piqued Democratic and Republican parties have responded to this by penalising a number of states their seats at the September conferences to elect their party nominees. One such state is Michigan, which being without either historical or democratic reasons for its early primary, has provoked the Democratic party into voiding its entire one-hundred and fifty-six delegate representation. As there are no votes on the floor available, Obama and Edwards have pulled out, while Clinton will not campaign. Voters have the option to vote 'uncommitted', which translates to 'none of the above'.
Obama and Edwards have hit upon the unique idea of rather than handing a cheap win to Clinton, or possibly even a nonentity such as Kucnich (however worthy his programme might be), they are advocating Democratic voters vote 'uncommitted'. Uncommitted seems the perfect word to describe an American polity where the Democrats are locked in an acrimonious struggle, while the Republicans have one frontrunner in hiding hoarding his campaign cash, one yet to win anything beyond the backwoods of Wyoming and two others seemingly at war with the party. If anyone knows how this lot will play out, please give me a call with next week's lotto numbers.
Peregrine now believes that Clinton and Obama represent a true generational contest between opposing schools of philosophical thought. Clinton stands for the first generation postmodernist school of feminist power, playing on her standing with women voters and the politics of struggle for minority rights dating back to the Civil Rights era. Obama stands for the second generation, post-identity politics. Rather than run as a black candidate, Obama is running as a Democratic idealist, a self-confessed 'hopemonger'. Interestingly, Obama's reaching across the black-white divide continues a trend begun by Bush, with his open appeal to Hispanic voters and promotion of Rice and Powell to the Secretary of State position.
On the Republican side, Huckabee represents the party's adoption of a predominantly Baptist support base taken to its logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion if President Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has to deal with Pakistan. A hokey name may be the least of his worries. McCain has finally begun to mention his role in backing climate change action, which must surely be his best card in being the surrogate Schwarzenegger. One suspects that Schwarzenegger may play a key role in McCain's election chances, particularly with the California primary. As a conviction politician, McCain may command as many votes from respect as outright support, as rivals such as Romney and Guiliani are severely lacking in this department.
Obama and Edwards have hit upon the unique idea of rather than handing a cheap win to Clinton, or possibly even a nonentity such as Kucnich (however worthy his programme might be), they are advocating Democratic voters vote 'uncommitted'. Uncommitted seems the perfect word to describe an American polity where the Democrats are locked in an acrimonious struggle, while the Republicans have one frontrunner in hiding hoarding his campaign cash, one yet to win anything beyond the backwoods of Wyoming and two others seemingly at war with the party. If anyone knows how this lot will play out, please give me a call with next week's lotto numbers.
Peregrine now believes that Clinton and Obama represent a true generational contest between opposing schools of philosophical thought. Clinton stands for the first generation postmodernist school of feminist power, playing on her standing with women voters and the politics of struggle for minority rights dating back to the Civil Rights era. Obama stands for the second generation, post-identity politics. Rather than run as a black candidate, Obama is running as a Democratic idealist, a self-confessed 'hopemonger'. Interestingly, Obama's reaching across the black-white divide continues a trend begun by Bush, with his open appeal to Hispanic voters and promotion of Rice and Powell to the Secretary of State position.
On the Republican side, Huckabee represents the party's adoption of a predominantly Baptist support base taken to its logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion if President Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has to deal with Pakistan. A hokey name may be the least of his worries. McCain has finally begun to mention his role in backing climate change action, which must surely be his best card in being the surrogate Schwarzenegger. One suspects that Schwarzenegger may play a key role in McCain's election chances, particularly with the California primary. As a conviction politician, McCain may command as many votes from respect as outright support, as rivals such as Romney and Guiliani are severely lacking in this department.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Can Hillary Clinton discover her inner Rudd?
The new narrative of the US election is that Clinton is back. Obama's charge has been halted like the Ottoman conquest at the gates of Vienna and all is right with the logic of experience over aspiration. Except that the narrative changes so quickly it would dazzle a chameleon. Yes, Hillary Clinton did narrowly beat Barack Obama. There is much debate in the US over whether this was due to voter turnout among older women (very high for Hillary), much lower among young people (bad for Barack). One interesting stat is that exit polls state men voted 40/29 for Obama, which by my reckoning means that Hillary is going to have a big problem with the male vote.
My argument is that the mechanics of the actual result are less important than the core character of the campaign. Certainly Obama relies on a traditionally flaky set of demographics (young people and black voters), but by the same token he may be able to inspire energy in them to stand up and be counted when the candidacy is in doubt. The worst case for Obama is that his vote in Iowa was simply an echo of the Oprah effect, in which case he is in deep trouble against Clinton. Obama's big test will come in the Southern primaries and also depend on the involvement of Bill Clinton drawing on his traditional support from black voters.
There is an understandable tendency in the Australian media to compare Obama's campaign with Kevin Rudd's. Both on paper look like a serious of well-meaning, heartfelt statements centering on key themes. However, what comes across from the limited sampling of Obama's policies is that, even for an American audience, they are thin on the ground. Obama characters simply do not exist in Australian politics, because parties must at least run on something to gain election. Obama runs on hope, reclaiming the American dream and other appeals simultaneously to national pride and pesonal circumstance. It is reminiscent of 'the glory of Rome', although unlike Rome's clear pursuit of glory through military conquest, how Obama can lead America to that juncture remains unclear. Obama's success depends on no one actually questioning his credentials on issues such as Iraq, running as the anti-war candidate, or his comparative lack of experience in contrast to his opponents.
The real relevance of Rudd's success lies with Hillary Clinton. This blog last month described Clinton's candidature as like a Kevin07 reinvention without the self-deprecation. Faced with polls predicting oblivion (and a 10-15% loss would be oblivion), Hillary showed enough emotion to start rumours that she is actually a human being and not a political robot. Clinton is in an unusual position of being both the alternative and the figure of division. Turn her candidacy one way and she is the experienced, moderate force for change. Turn it the other and she is the reviled figure of Whitewater and Lewinsky, a sign of everything wrong with the morals of the nation. At the minute, Clinton's campaign is about the Democratic party base's belief in her electability. If she wins the nomination, the election could easily become a referendum on Clinton herself and the legacy of Bill Clinton.
In order to win this referendum, Hillary needs to show she has changed. She needs to demonstrate she is not the cold, calculating figure who apparently lacks the common touch of her husband. Rudd was similarly derided by his own party as someone the punters did not want a bar of. Now he is seen in the bar itself, partaking of a XXXX or two. The question remains whether Clinton's will for the presidency has clouded her intentions. If she can translate that will into a positive programme that can demonstrably illustrate how people's lives will be improved, she will go a long way towards curing the concerns over her past voting record and previous incarnation as Bill's wife. Clinton needs to demonstrate her private self-deprecating style in public, otherwise she runs the risk of becoming an American Simon Crean. Alas, poor Simon, was a personable man in person and in private, but in the glare of cameras came across like a rabbit in the headlights. Worse, a smarmy rabbit.
Crean engendered such desperation in his party that they replaced him with the risky and risk-taking Mark Latham. It is not beyond the realms that disenchanted Democrats would desert in droves to Obama. He would at least give them hope.
My argument is that the mechanics of the actual result are less important than the core character of the campaign. Certainly Obama relies on a traditionally flaky set of demographics (young people and black voters), but by the same token he may be able to inspire energy in them to stand up and be counted when the candidacy is in doubt. The worst case for Obama is that his vote in Iowa was simply an echo of the Oprah effect, in which case he is in deep trouble against Clinton. Obama's big test will come in the Southern primaries and also depend on the involvement of Bill Clinton drawing on his traditional support from black voters.
There is an understandable tendency in the Australian media to compare Obama's campaign with Kevin Rudd's. Both on paper look like a serious of well-meaning, heartfelt statements centering on key themes. However, what comes across from the limited sampling of Obama's policies is that, even for an American audience, they are thin on the ground. Obama characters simply do not exist in Australian politics, because parties must at least run on something to gain election. Obama runs on hope, reclaiming the American dream and other appeals simultaneously to national pride and pesonal circumstance. It is reminiscent of 'the glory of Rome', although unlike Rome's clear pursuit of glory through military conquest, how Obama can lead America to that juncture remains unclear. Obama's success depends on no one actually questioning his credentials on issues such as Iraq, running as the anti-war candidate, or his comparative lack of experience in contrast to his opponents.
The real relevance of Rudd's success lies with Hillary Clinton. This blog last month described Clinton's candidature as like a Kevin07 reinvention without the self-deprecation. Faced with polls predicting oblivion (and a 10-15% loss would be oblivion), Hillary showed enough emotion to start rumours that she is actually a human being and not a political robot. Clinton is in an unusual position of being both the alternative and the figure of division. Turn her candidacy one way and she is the experienced, moderate force for change. Turn it the other and she is the reviled figure of Whitewater and Lewinsky, a sign of everything wrong with the morals of the nation. At the minute, Clinton's campaign is about the Democratic party base's belief in her electability. If she wins the nomination, the election could easily become a referendum on Clinton herself and the legacy of Bill Clinton.
In order to win this referendum, Hillary needs to show she has changed. She needs to demonstrate she is not the cold, calculating figure who apparently lacks the common touch of her husband. Rudd was similarly derided by his own party as someone the punters did not want a bar of. Now he is seen in the bar itself, partaking of a XXXX or two. The question remains whether Clinton's will for the presidency has clouded her intentions. If she can translate that will into a positive programme that can demonstrably illustrate how people's lives will be improved, she will go a long way towards curing the concerns over her past voting record and previous incarnation as Bill's wife. Clinton needs to demonstrate her private self-deprecating style in public, otherwise she runs the risk of becoming an American Simon Crean. Alas, poor Simon, was a personable man in person and in private, but in the glare of cameras came across like a rabbit in the headlights. Worse, a smarmy rabbit.
Crean engendered such desperation in his party that they replaced him with the risky and risk-taking Mark Latham. It is not beyond the realms that disenchanted Democrats would desert in droves to Obama. He would at least give them hope.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The problem is more complex than Ponting
Cricket now appears to be in a state of rapidly escalating conflict. The main battle appears to be between the BCCI and vocal sections of the Indian media on one hand and the Australian cricket team on the other. Whereas first India was in apoplexy over perceived bias in umpiring decisions and the racial charge levelled against Harbajhan Singh and his subsequent ban, the outrage has now spread here with respected SMH cricket columnist Peter Roebuck's call for Ponting to be sacked, along with seemingly half his side.
The Australian team is partly to blame for this mess purely for its stubborn failure to recognise a large proportion of people cheer for its opponents simply because they see the team as arrogant and overtly aggressive. This has been a problem since Steve Waugh's era of psychological warfare. It was build around Hayden's imposing bulk and tendency to use expletives, plus Warne's boorish behaviour and McGrath's on-field crankiness. Ponting's snarling performance in England when run out by a substitute (a practice Australia later adopted) reinforced the view on the world stage. The Australian team's persistent tendency to target opponents through the media has further added to this resentment. The fact that Darren Lehmann was suspended for racial abuse for two one-day matches seemed to confirm this reputation.
All of this, plus continual criticism about team tactics such as late declarations and apparently conservative field and bowling choices has finally got to Ponting. He and his senior playing group have closed ranks and adopted their own siege mentality, behaving something like the West Coast Eagles immediately after Ben Cousins' initial ban. That Cricket Australia felt it appropriate to put them in an appalling triumphant KFC series of commercials, which show the team so bored with thrashing the opposition that all they can think of is the food to follow is an act of extraordinarily bad timing. Kumble would be best advised to show that ad to his team as motivation that Australia does not respect them and play to the utmost of their ability. Cricket Australia should have the ads suspended immediately.
Racism is clearly a hot issue in this series. Cricket Australia launched a zero tolerance policy at the beginning of the season to prevent retaliatory stupidity from the comments made against Symonds in India. It appears that Ponting's pique at accusations of sledging have caused the team to push home the idea that India are not squeaky clean in this regard. Unfortunately it could easily look like Ponting wants Harbajhan gone because he keeps getting him out, rendering him irrelevant to the contest.
The current fracas seems to blame Australia for umpiring in its favour. In the midst of this hysteria, perhaps there is an argument about 'bias'. Being a long-suffering supporter of the Sydney Swans and watcher of a large number of AFL games, it is very apparent that umpiring follows a pattern. Umpires are constantly exposed to players and have their own psychological impressions. These may subtlely affect their view of events. It is patently obvious that Swans players get a better deal in Sydney, and they get a better deal when they are in front. When the game is in the balance, decisions often go the other way. Conversely, a national team such as Australia with an imposing record will probably get a better deal as umpires perceive the stronger team should do better and that may affect their vision. On umpire imitation, India themselves are sensitive, having had three players suspended for it and then cancelling a Test match in retaliation. One of those players was Mr H Singh.
In to all this comes the turbulent climate of India. Fanatical to the core, supporters are whipped into a frenzy by the thousands of media outlets clammering for ever more sensational stories. The team are under incredible pressure - for many this is their last chance. That must surely go for the administrators with the crisis over the two Twenty20 leagues causing chaos among those running the game. Any opportunity to get sympathy rather than blame must surely seem attractive.
The best answer to this mess is for both teams to make a public show of harmony. The ICC may uphold the appeal and then the whole issue can be determined at the next ICC meeting. Ponting and Kumble should bury the hatchet, but for the rest of the series agree to defer to the umpire's decision on all appeals and make a determined effort to appeal only where they are reasonably confident. Cricket Australia could also assist its players by briefing them on the ramifications of their behaviour and issue internal fines for inciting remarks and excessive appealing.
The Australian team is partly to blame for this mess purely for its stubborn failure to recognise a large proportion of people cheer for its opponents simply because they see the team as arrogant and overtly aggressive. This has been a problem since Steve Waugh's era of psychological warfare. It was build around Hayden's imposing bulk and tendency to use expletives, plus Warne's boorish behaviour and McGrath's on-field crankiness. Ponting's snarling performance in England when run out by a substitute (a practice Australia later adopted) reinforced the view on the world stage. The Australian team's persistent tendency to target opponents through the media has further added to this resentment. The fact that Darren Lehmann was suspended for racial abuse for two one-day matches seemed to confirm this reputation.
All of this, plus continual criticism about team tactics such as late declarations and apparently conservative field and bowling choices has finally got to Ponting. He and his senior playing group have closed ranks and adopted their own siege mentality, behaving something like the West Coast Eagles immediately after Ben Cousins' initial ban. That Cricket Australia felt it appropriate to put them in an appalling triumphant KFC series of commercials, which show the team so bored with thrashing the opposition that all they can think of is the food to follow is an act of extraordinarily bad timing. Kumble would be best advised to show that ad to his team as motivation that Australia does not respect them and play to the utmost of their ability. Cricket Australia should have the ads suspended immediately.
Racism is clearly a hot issue in this series. Cricket Australia launched a zero tolerance policy at the beginning of the season to prevent retaliatory stupidity from the comments made against Symonds in India. It appears that Ponting's pique at accusations of sledging have caused the team to push home the idea that India are not squeaky clean in this regard. Unfortunately it could easily look like Ponting wants Harbajhan gone because he keeps getting him out, rendering him irrelevant to the contest.
The current fracas seems to blame Australia for umpiring in its favour. In the midst of this hysteria, perhaps there is an argument about 'bias'. Being a long-suffering supporter of the Sydney Swans and watcher of a large number of AFL games, it is very apparent that umpiring follows a pattern. Umpires are constantly exposed to players and have their own psychological impressions. These may subtlely affect their view of events. It is patently obvious that Swans players get a better deal in Sydney, and they get a better deal when they are in front. When the game is in the balance, decisions often go the other way. Conversely, a national team such as Australia with an imposing record will probably get a better deal as umpires perceive the stronger team should do better and that may affect their vision. On umpire imitation, India themselves are sensitive, having had three players suspended for it and then cancelling a Test match in retaliation. One of those players was Mr H Singh.
In to all this comes the turbulent climate of India. Fanatical to the core, supporters are whipped into a frenzy by the thousands of media outlets clammering for ever more sensational stories. The team are under incredible pressure - for many this is their last chance. That must surely go for the administrators with the crisis over the two Twenty20 leagues causing chaos among those running the game. Any opportunity to get sympathy rather than blame must surely seem attractive.
The best answer to this mess is for both teams to make a public show of harmony. The ICC may uphold the appeal and then the whole issue can be determined at the next ICC meeting. Ponting and Kumble should bury the hatchet, but for the rest of the series agree to defer to the umpire's decision on all appeals and make a determined effort to appeal only where they are reasonably confident. Cricket Australia could also assist its players by briefing them on the ramifications of their behaviour and issue internal fines for inciting remarks and excessive appealing.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Technology and common sense needed to calm fraying tempers
The Sydney Test has descended into a barrage of accusation and counter-accusation. One would not be surprised if lawyers were drafting more than the odd defamation action. This sorry statement of affairs is an indictment on all parties including the authorities (namely the ICC and the BCCI, although Cricket Australia are not without blame), numerous media outlets, the extraordinary passionate, vibrant but sometimes self- harming beast that is Indian cricket and the boorish behaviour of Australian players.
Firstly, the cricket. Teams that tour Australia lose if they adopt a siege mentality. India are in danger of adopting a complain first and ask questions later attitude, blaming a bevy of unfortunate umpiring decisions. It is notable how crestfallen India were when Symonds was given not out on 30. The situation is complicated by the tremendous pressure placed on the players and the weight of expectation stirred up. The popular movement to reinstate Ganguly has given the sense that anything is possible if demanded by the public. The players and, more to the point, the apparatchik administrators are going to be extremely reluctant to take responsibility for defeat if it means having their effigy burnt in Mumbai and Kolkata. India genuinely believe they should have won last time here, a myth perpetuated by most of the world's media. The sense that their destiny has been denied has made for an explosive outcome.
Secondly, the Australian team itself. The spotlight of the media is on Australia, whose reputation is universally of a great team but poor winners (and even poorer, if rare, losers). No one pays much attention to the atrocious track record of India, particularly vehement appealing on the last days of Test matches. There is a considerable reservoir of sympathy available for an opposition player to criticise Australia's sledging. Australia have clearly lost the battle to portray themselves as a fair team, and they have had enough of constant criticism. More should have been done sooner, and action should certainly be taken now to stop the resentment building up.
Personally, sledging should only be demonstrative of a player's wit and not touch on anything that might be personally offensive. There is no place for any form of racial vilification. There is now an interesting exercise in cultural education going on, with what looks like a cynical counter-charge made against Brad Hogg. Whereas the use of the word 'monkey' against Symonds is well known to have racist overtones, the word 'bastard' allegedly used by Hogg (and quite possibly used) does not often mean 'illegitimate male child' in common Australian usage. This whole mess may require a list of terms to be drawn up, or at least common consensus on what players can and cannot say on the field.
On the umpiring issue, the ICC is paying for a good idea badly executed. Bucknor has stood in 120 tests because he was voted onto the ICC international panel and it is meant to represent the Test playing nations. The problem is that no other umpires have emerged on the panel to replace him, and that Australia's Simon Taufel, rated the world's best umpire, cannot stand in Australian tests due to a perceived conflict of interest.
In other words, we get substandard umpiring to avoid bias. Having said that, the two umpires in Melbourne made almost no errors until the final day. Clearly, umpires have good days and bad days. The question is how to maximise one and minimise the damage on the other.
The best way to deal with the current situation is for the ICC to put more money into training and supporting umpires. This should allow for say, a panel of 16 umpires to umpire Tests with sufficient time for umpires to recover and de-stress. Umpires would also have yearly sight and hearing testing plus complete a practical umpiring simulation. These results would then be used to determine promotion or relegation of umpires. Within matches, the ICC could direct umpires to pay less attention to calling no-balls to allow more focus on the play. Third umpires would be empowered to recall batsmen if replays showed the bowling over-stepping. Teams could have three challenges an innings. The challenges would relate to whether catches were bump balls and whether there was an edge or not on catches and lbw appeals and whether the ball pitched outside leg stump on lbws. Challenges could be made by both the batting and fielding sides, although a fielding side would only get the benefit on catches. The technology used would include Hawkeye (plotting the pitch of the ball, adopted in tennis) and the HotSpot heat-detection system, as both show objective evidence of where the ball ended up. In one-day games, two challenges would be allowed per innings.
Firstly, the cricket. Teams that tour Australia lose if they adopt a siege mentality. India are in danger of adopting a complain first and ask questions later attitude, blaming a bevy of unfortunate umpiring decisions. It is notable how crestfallen India were when Symonds was given not out on 30. The situation is complicated by the tremendous pressure placed on the players and the weight of expectation stirred up. The popular movement to reinstate Ganguly has given the sense that anything is possible if demanded by the public. The players and, more to the point, the apparatchik administrators are going to be extremely reluctant to take responsibility for defeat if it means having their effigy burnt in Mumbai and Kolkata. India genuinely believe they should have won last time here, a myth perpetuated by most of the world's media. The sense that their destiny has been denied has made for an explosive outcome.
Secondly, the Australian team itself. The spotlight of the media is on Australia, whose reputation is universally of a great team but poor winners (and even poorer, if rare, losers). No one pays much attention to the atrocious track record of India, particularly vehement appealing on the last days of Test matches. There is a considerable reservoir of sympathy available for an opposition player to criticise Australia's sledging. Australia have clearly lost the battle to portray themselves as a fair team, and they have had enough of constant criticism. More should have been done sooner, and action should certainly be taken now to stop the resentment building up.
Personally, sledging should only be demonstrative of a player's wit and not touch on anything that might be personally offensive. There is no place for any form of racial vilification. There is now an interesting exercise in cultural education going on, with what looks like a cynical counter-charge made against Brad Hogg. Whereas the use of the word 'monkey' against Symonds is well known to have racist overtones, the word 'bastard' allegedly used by Hogg (and quite possibly used) does not often mean 'illegitimate male child' in common Australian usage. This whole mess may require a list of terms to be drawn up, or at least common consensus on what players can and cannot say on the field.
On the umpiring issue, the ICC is paying for a good idea badly executed. Bucknor has stood in 120 tests because he was voted onto the ICC international panel and it is meant to represent the Test playing nations. The problem is that no other umpires have emerged on the panel to replace him, and that Australia's Simon Taufel, rated the world's best umpire, cannot stand in Australian tests due to a perceived conflict of interest.
In other words, we get substandard umpiring to avoid bias. Having said that, the two umpires in Melbourne made almost no errors until the final day. Clearly, umpires have good days and bad days. The question is how to maximise one and minimise the damage on the other.
The best way to deal with the current situation is for the ICC to put more money into training and supporting umpires. This should allow for say, a panel of 16 umpires to umpire Tests with sufficient time for umpires to recover and de-stress. Umpires would also have yearly sight and hearing testing plus complete a practical umpiring simulation. These results would then be used to determine promotion or relegation of umpires. Within matches, the ICC could direct umpires to pay less attention to calling no-balls to allow more focus on the play. Third umpires would be empowered to recall batsmen if replays showed the bowling over-stepping. Teams could have three challenges an innings. The challenges would relate to whether catches were bump balls and whether there was an edge or not on catches and lbw appeals and whether the ball pitched outside leg stump on lbws. Challenges could be made by both the batting and fielding sides, although a fielding side would only get the benefit on catches. The technology used would include Hawkeye (plotting the pitch of the ball, adopted in tennis) and the HotSpot heat-detection system, as both show objective evidence of where the ball ended up. In one-day games, two challenges would be allowed per innings.
Wheels within wheels
Hillary Clinton's candidacy relies on the inevitability effect. It is the force by which a behemoth suffering from structural weakness relies to crush the hope of its opponents. Clinton has constructed this effect by a careful stage managing of her character, employing weather-vane voting behaviour in the Senate and occasionally relying on the star power of her tainted husband. She has seen the field cleared by sacrificing John Kerry in 2004 and now is her hour to triumph.
Except no one told Barack Obama. Obama is profiting from the fact that all modern campaigning is about image and perception. He is the candidate of change, not just from the Republican fiasco of Bush and his Caligulan extravagance, but from the Clinton-Bush/ red-blue polarisation. His transformative campaign has a second layer: running as the great unifier, he is seeking to reconcile the fissures done between traditional Democratic southerners and their northern counterparts over civil rights. Whereas Nixon and Reagan fashioned the Republican political realignment from the late 1960s onwards via harvesting evangelicals, Obama is seeking to bring back those lost souls and capitalise on the national disenchantment with the Bush regime.
Obama's win in Iowa at least proves that his brand of rhetoric can translate into votes. With non-compulsory voting, getting the vote out is about inspiring people to turn up, not just agree with the policies presented. Obama is already being compared to the Kennedy phenomenon and his credentials are pretty much on par with those mythological figures. It remains to be seen whether rhetoric alone can still win elections, but the flux on the Republican side means Obama has a strong chance if he does maintain his momentum.
On the other side of the fence, the Republican machine is heading for a crisis point. Its man appears to be Romney. Or is it Guilani? Does anyone know? How the Republicans thought backing a man from Massachuetts might be a good idea is anyone's guess, while Guilani is a polarising one-trick pony who alienates the bedrock 'Christian Right' support base. If he ran against Clinton, he would seriously dilute the anti-Hillary factor with his record of indiscretions. Romney is the slick campaigner whose very slickness highlights precisely what is wrong with a lot of modern politics. He has recanted on almost every position while he was governor and is throwing more mud than an errant four wheel drive. Given his inconsistency, he would be crucified by Obama, who at least is consistent if nebulous in his positions. Clinton's experience would probably outweigh Romney's lukewarm support among Republicans.
The Republicans have a machine designed to win power. They use religion to turn poorer evangelical voters against their own economic interests and support low-tax, pro-business policies. Edwards, the third candidate on the Democrat side, has picked up on the mass of underprivilege and run on improving the lot of these people. Huckabee, the self-propelled Republican governor, has picked up on this groundswell and is seeking to change the party's orientation from a pro-business to a pro-people party. His focus would be on small-town America. One suspects Huckabee would at least be competitive against Clinton and Obama, unless he comes across as a divisive figure. He would appear superior to Obama on his long serving record as Arkansas Governor, and is more likable than Clinton.
McCain has his own failings. A good old-fashioned conviction politican, the times do not suit him. He is not particularly enamoured with the CR base, who prefer candidates such as Huckabee and the positions stated by Romney and "Blokeman" Thompson. McCain could capitalise on his support for climate change action if he can gain traction, having supported a major bill on the issue. However that may only serve to remind Republicans of their wish to have Schwarzenegger as their nominee, whose profile, command of a traditional Democrat state and major status as a climate change statesman make him an imposing figure. As it is, McCain is best known for advocating an invasion of Iran. Having said that, his comments on increasing troop numbers in Iraq have been borne out over time, and if he can regain credibility with donors and the media, his campaign may yet make him competitive. A strong McCain candidacy is dangerous to both Clinton and Obama. McCain has the benefit of being a conviction politician against Hillary's hesistancy in the Senate, while he would look Obama look like a college sophomore.
On the basis of the above, Clinton's juggernaut needs to recover its momentum. However, her non-committal record and residual unpopularity from the Clinton years are major weaknesses ripe for exploitation. Obama sits in the middle of three political figures in the US Pantheon: Robert Kennedy (calls for idealism), George W Bush (next-door guy appeal) and Ronald Reagan (remaking old alignments, reaching out). Which one of those he ends up closest to in the American mindset may determine how far his campaign goes.
Except no one told Barack Obama. Obama is profiting from the fact that all modern campaigning is about image and perception. He is the candidate of change, not just from the Republican fiasco of Bush and his Caligulan extravagance, but from the Clinton-Bush/ red-blue polarisation. His transformative campaign has a second layer: running as the great unifier, he is seeking to reconcile the fissures done between traditional Democratic southerners and their northern counterparts over civil rights. Whereas Nixon and Reagan fashioned the Republican political realignment from the late 1960s onwards via harvesting evangelicals, Obama is seeking to bring back those lost souls and capitalise on the national disenchantment with the Bush regime.
Obama's win in Iowa at least proves that his brand of rhetoric can translate into votes. With non-compulsory voting, getting the vote out is about inspiring people to turn up, not just agree with the policies presented. Obama is already being compared to the Kennedy phenomenon and his credentials are pretty much on par with those mythological figures. It remains to be seen whether rhetoric alone can still win elections, but the flux on the Republican side means Obama has a strong chance if he does maintain his momentum.
On the other side of the fence, the Republican machine is heading for a crisis point. Its man appears to be Romney. Or is it Guilani? Does anyone know? How the Republicans thought backing a man from Massachuetts might be a good idea is anyone's guess, while Guilani is a polarising one-trick pony who alienates the bedrock 'Christian Right' support base. If he ran against Clinton, he would seriously dilute the anti-Hillary factor with his record of indiscretions. Romney is the slick campaigner whose very slickness highlights precisely what is wrong with a lot of modern politics. He has recanted on almost every position while he was governor and is throwing more mud than an errant four wheel drive. Given his inconsistency, he would be crucified by Obama, who at least is consistent if nebulous in his positions. Clinton's experience would probably outweigh Romney's lukewarm support among Republicans.
The Republicans have a machine designed to win power. They use religion to turn poorer evangelical voters against their own economic interests and support low-tax, pro-business policies. Edwards, the third candidate on the Democrat side, has picked up on the mass of underprivilege and run on improving the lot of these people. Huckabee, the self-propelled Republican governor, has picked up on this groundswell and is seeking to change the party's orientation from a pro-business to a pro-people party. His focus would be on small-town America. One suspects Huckabee would at least be competitive against Clinton and Obama, unless he comes across as a divisive figure. He would appear superior to Obama on his long serving record as Arkansas Governor, and is more likable than Clinton.
McCain has his own failings. A good old-fashioned conviction politican, the times do not suit him. He is not particularly enamoured with the CR base, who prefer candidates such as Huckabee and the positions stated by Romney and "Blokeman" Thompson. McCain could capitalise on his support for climate change action if he can gain traction, having supported a major bill on the issue. However that may only serve to remind Republicans of their wish to have Schwarzenegger as their nominee, whose profile, command of a traditional Democrat state and major status as a climate change statesman make him an imposing figure. As it is, McCain is best known for advocating an invasion of Iran. Having said that, his comments on increasing troop numbers in Iraq have been borne out over time, and if he can regain credibility with donors and the media, his campaign may yet make him competitive. A strong McCain candidacy is dangerous to both Clinton and Obama. McCain has the benefit of being a conviction politician against Hillary's hesistancy in the Senate, while he would look Obama look like a college sophomore.
On the basis of the above, Clinton's juggernaut needs to recover its momentum. However, her non-committal record and residual unpopularity from the Clinton years are major weaknesses ripe for exploitation. Obama sits in the middle of three political figures in the US Pantheon: Robert Kennedy (calls for idealism), George W Bush (next-door guy appeal) and Ronald Reagan (remaking old alignments, reaching out). Which one of those he ends up closest to in the American mindset may determine how far his campaign goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)