Michael Jeh
A Test match for the ages
The Adelaide Test was pulsating, dramatic and poignant, and threw up questions about India's captaincy, and the absence of the DRS
Michael Jeh
15-Dec-2014
It's a question India will grapple with over the next few years: Do you play the best wicketkeeper-batsman, or do you play the best batsman-wicketkeeper? Do you select the best captain, or is a demi-god immune from such scrutiny?
I refer here to the selection issues confronting the imminent return of MS Dhoni after a pulsating and gripping Test in Adelaide.
My sources in India have been telling me for some time that Wriddhiman Saha is the best wicketkeeper going around on the world circuit. Handy batsman but not quite in the Dhoni class. Apart from one fluffed stumping that had relatively little impact on the Test, Saha did his wicketkeeping reputation no harm with an excellent display in Adelaide, without having much opportunity to do anything brilliant to justify his continued selection. He was unlucky in the first innings, given out caught at first slip. He was dumb in the second innings, throwing his wicket away after getting India to a position they should have won from.
Full postHelmets alone offer no guarantees
In the light of Phillip Hughes' tragic accident, it's time to acknowledge that no protection is foolproof and cricket can never eliminate risk completely
Michael Jeh
30-Nov-2014
At times like this, words too can hurt, however unintentionally. Phillip Hughes' accident is not a topic to be tackled lightly. The sensitivities of many need to be considered.
At junior cricket on the weekend, much of the talk among parents was to do with the topic of safety, head injuries, helmets and short-pitched bowling. Many of these parents have never played cricket to a high standard and fall prey to some of the careless and uninformed media hype surrounding this issue. A few of them even took me to task (with good intentions) for not forcing my sons to wear a helmet.
A year ago, I wrote a mildly provocative piece, questioning the whole helmet-wearing mantra of junior cricket. In light of what has just happened in Sydney, it's topical to revisit that piece, but I trust it can be done respectfully and with due deference to the seriousness of the injury to Hughes. I would hope that respondents to this piece, regardless of which view they subscribe to, will respect the gravity of the situation and respond accordingly. This is a time to unite, to debate, to question but not to vilify.
Full postThe cons of miking up players
Getting players to commentate on their strategies from the field could invite mischief and corruption
Michael Jeh
12-Nov-2014
As a research associate of an academic institution that covers ethics and corruption in a variety of fields, my area is the field of sports betting. In that role, I have become a keen follower of sports betting trends, and am often asked to speak to administrators about ways to mitigate the risk of corruption. I am also asked to educate young athletes about the potential dangers and grooming behaviours that can lead unwittingly to exploitation, real or perceived. I emphasis perceived because when it comes to issues of integrity, perception alone is sufficient to severely undermine confidence.
It was with some fascination, then, that I watched the recent television coverage of the Australia v South Africa T20 series and felt a growing sense of discomfort with the potential for the sort of interactive commentary we saw on offer to be exploited in a myriad of ways. I stress here that there is not even the slightest suggestion that anything untoward happened in these games - the point I wish to draw your attention to is the way in which this sort of interactivity, with live crosses to the players in the middle providing us with a fascinating insight into ball-by-ball strategies, team plans for individual batsmen, field sets, targets and so on can become a fertile breeding ground for spot-fixing. Or even the accusation or thought that such a game might have been fixed, which can be just as damaging to the integrity of the sport/players as actual corrupt behaviour.
For those of you who did not watch the telecast or did not notice the subtleties that my hypersensitive antennae are geared to pick up, here are some examples. The commentators cross live to Glenn Maxwell, who has just hit a six and a four and brought the asking rate down to 6.2 runs per over. They ask him what his plans are and he tells us that he is now going to work the ball around for singles and get close to the target with some risk-free batting. For anyone betting on that market, there are half a dozen bets that can be made based on that sort of insight from the batsman out in the middle. A few balls later, Maxwell makes a mockery of his own words by attempting to launch one beyond the longest boundary on the field and gets caught in the deep. Anyone who bet on him pushing singles for a few overs would have done their dough instantly.
Full postThe gentlemen of the village green
A tribute to men for whom a game of cricket was just that
Michael Jeh
18-Oct-2014
Long before T20 cricket became popular on the international scene, I played this format every Wednesday evening against the backdrop of Welsh mountains, gasworks, factories and dairy farms.
I was the overseas professional at my local cricket club and these T20 Leagues were a weekly highlight throughout my many years of pro-ing in England and Wales. It never occurred to me then that these humble beginnings in the failing light of a British summer would spawn a form of cricket that has grown to the point where an Australian cricketer would be allowed to miss an international game to represent a club franchise.
I recall now the wise words of a gentle man I once came across in mid-Wales whose love for cricket knew no bounds. He predicted this with the sage wisdom that was so typical of so many of those beautiful folk who walked round the boundary in village cricket and knew more about the game than us young turks dared to admit.
Full postChucking: the irony
Just as political views may change over the course of time, our opinion of chuckers tends to be remarkably inconsistent. Case in point: Murali
Michael Jeh
08-Oct-2014
So much of what is going on in the world right now is mired in hypocrisy, contradiction and an ever-changing game of thrones where yesterday's friends are today's enemies and vice versa. In politics we see alliances that were forged in blood a few decades ago now rent asunder as regimes, religions and philosophies are turned upside down. Allies, once spawned and funded by the politics of convenience, are now declared bitter enemies. At a time when there is so much in the world to be sad about, cricket's recent history offers hope that one day we might see the dawn of new friendships (or truces) where today there is distrust and hatred.
Saeed Ajmal, Mohammed Hafeez and Sunil Narine have all been in the spotlight recently - a coincidence, conspiracy or crackdown, depending on which side of the fence you sit on. With exceptions, the general consensus among most Australian cricket fans is that it is about time the ICC took a strong stance against chucking. Darren Lehmann added his voice to the chorus of support for the banning of suspect bowling actions, especially timely for his team, as both Ajmal and Hafeez posed significant, imminent threats in the UAE. The emasculation of Narine, too, will have significant implications for the World Cup early next year. Depending on your current political stance, it is either a case of "about bloody time" or "why now?"
I stress "current" because that is just the way things roll these days, in world affairs and cricket politics. How does the old saying go - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? In a cricketing sense, this can be seen as hypocrisy or pragmatism, based on what is best for you in the here and now. But rather than perceiving it as a negative, it can be viewed through another prism; forgiveness and tolerance may not be as difficult to come by as they seem on even the darkest of days.
Full postThe curse of soft-tissue injuries
Michael Clarke and Shane Watson have had a history of such injuries and modern-day sports science is yet to come up with a solution
Michael Jeh
24-Sep-2014
My tongue-in-cheek comment about Shane Watson in my most recent piece was never meant to be taken literally, but sadly, it appears that when he is recovering from one injury, his fragile body finds a way to pick up another sore spot. Clearly, "calf soreness" is medical jargon for a more serious condition - it is scarcely believable that soreness itself would prevent someone from playing international cricket.
As has been well documented, both Watson and Michael Clarke have a history of soft-tissue injuries and the curse continues. It is a topic on which I have waxed hysterical on more than occasion and I am yet to be convinced that the sports science community has an answer. They appear very capable of diagnosing and detecting soreness but the continuing injury toll makes a mockery of their restorative powers, apart from prescribing rest and rehabilitation which any layman can prescribe too.
Just recently I happened to catch up with Sheldon Stackpoole, a young chap I coached at junior cricket camps in Brisbane when he was barely ten (he is now a grown man). His promising cricket career was cut short before he even finished university, due to soft-tissue injuries and this took him on a decade-long path of discovery that led him to the USA to study directly under a world-renowned physical therapist, John F Barnes. Even I had heard of his name in the sports injury field so my curiosity was piqued.
Full postHow many genuine allrounders does cricket have?
Of the game's many versatile greats, how many could command a place in their Test XI on the strength of one skill alone?
Michael Jeh
08-Sep-2014
At the MCG, thinking about allrounders. Been surrounded by them all day. Young, fit, strong, fresh-faced, 12 foot tall. Most of them allrounders. Seems to be the way of the future.
I'm in Melbourne to speak on the topic of racial vilification to the rookie contracted players. It is an annual event, superbly organised by the Australian Cricketers' Association, with the sole purpose of equipping the next generation of Australian cricketers with the skills they will need to cut it in the world of professional cricket. You could have heard a pin drop when Ricky Ponting was holding court. But even he wasn't an "allrounder" like this next generation.
So we get talking about why the system is producing so many allrounders. And then the topic comes round to defining a true allrounder in the classical sense - someone who can be picked for either of his skills, independent of the other. Looking through cricket's history, putting romance and legend aside, who might genuinely fall into this category in Test cricket?
Full postMinefield, or incompetent batting?
Combating difficult conditions tests a batsman's skill. Australia were exposed in Harare because their players failed to come to terms with a legitimate turning track
Michael Jeh
01-Sep-2014
The slowly fatiguing pitch in Harare provided the perfect backdrop for the follow-up to my previous piece on doctored pitches. Shaun Pollock, on commentary, alluded to this very theme when he expressed surprise that the turning pitch, becoming increasingly drier as the tournament wears on, should have caused so much "chatter" about home team advantage. The rolling news ticker on breakfast TV in Brisbane ran with "Australia undermined on minefield", while the other stations were less eloquent with their "Pore pitch defeats Aussies" headline. Poor spelling, poor analysis, no mention of Zimbabwe.
That it was dry was not in question. That it would turn was obvious to everybody except the Australia selectors. Minefield? Australia managed 209 on it after all, and chose to leave Steven Smith out of the playing XI. So they either misread the pitch or figured that it couldn't have been that much of a problem child. Otherwise why leave out a top-order batsman (who is also a very fine player of spin and a handy part-time legspinner) for a game on an allegedly poor pitch? Note that it nevertheless allowed a modest Zimbabwe batting line-up to chase 209 with 12 balls to spare.
Batting on a pitch like this takes a different set of skills, just as intriguing and admirable, as scoring runs on a greentop. Cricket's global appeal lies in the broad spectrum of skills that the very best batsmen need to have in their portfolio to be considered the complete package. Michael Clarke is one of these men. The last time I saw him bat was when he was worked over round the wicket by Morne Morkel in Cape Town, as compelling a piece of cricket theatre as there ever was, resulting in him surviving and then thriving to go on to make a match-winning century, despite a badly damaged shoulder. In Harare, nursing a sore hamstring that must surely have hamstrung his quick feet, he played another innings of composure and skill, completely opposite in nature to the Newlands masterpiece. Clarke, in his current form, is worth paying entrance money to watch; his range of skills showcases a batsman who has truly mastered all conditions.
Full postIt's home advantage, not doctored pitches
Why do columnists look for conspiracy theories every time a visiting team collapses abjectly?
Michael Jeh
21-Aug-2014
Amusement and bemusement are twin emotions I usually experience when reading cricket columnists in broadsheets who often write to their audience rather than writing for them. The distinction is worth noting; writers like Michael Atherton and Gideon Haigh, for example, write to educate and inform. The vast majority of cricket columnists seize on a comment that will resonate with their readers and run with a theme that is populist but not necessarily factually or analytically accurate.
In the Australian, a typically irreverent comment by Darren Lehmann, meant seriously but with a twinkle in his eye, as is his style, was the trigger for a piece that brought into focus the issue of "doctored" pitches. This was in relation to India's meek capitulation on a seamer-friendly deck at The Oval, the inference being that England deliberately produced a "dustbowl" to suit Graeme Swann in the corresponding Ashes Test a year prior. On the face of it, it is an observation that tells us nothing new. Most pitches favour the home side, mainly because the home team are accustomed to playing in those conditions. Nothing sinister in that. I scoured the Indian press and found precious little evidence of any suggestion that they were cheated by a doctored pitch. It was all focused on poor batting (India) and excellent bowling/catching (England). The conspiracy theories were non-existent as far as my searches revealed.
Even if there is any truth to England preparing typical seaming pitches to suit their strengths against India, what's the big deal? It has always been thus. Visiting teams tend to struggle on pitches that home teams seemingly have no problem with. England faced 116 overs for 486 runs (ten wickets) and India lost 20 wickets for 242 runs in 91 overs. That suggests a vast gulf in ability, not a diabolical, sub-standard pitch. There were similar embarrassing scorelines in Australia last summer but most fair-minded cricket followers would mark that down to an Australian performance that was par excellence. Anything else would be to short-change a brilliantly executed Australian strategy.
Full postAre the big three's bonds in danger of fraying?
If Australia come after India on the field the way James Anderson allegedly did, will the triumvirate be able to hold together?
Michael Jeh
04-Aug-2014
Is cricket healthier than it has ever been globally? In the aftermath of the FIFA World Cup, which probably attracted the highest TV audience for such an event in mankind's history, what can cricket learn from it to help expand its market?
In a competitive sense, I would argue that it's healthy - in that in all three forms of the game, it is now a genuinely open playing field. The West Indies dynasty of the 1970s and 1980s, followed by the ten to 15 years of Australian dominance, has now been replaced by five or six teams that are all equally capable of winning games, even away from home. Teams that are trounced one day can win equally resoundingly a week later.
England were humiliated at Lord's by India's pace attack on a green pitch. A few days later, Moeen Ali, a modest spinner playing for England, took six wickets to send India crashing in Southampton. South Africa's pace attack blew Sri Lanka away at the dustbowl in Galle and then scrapped bravely to save the next Test in Colombo, barely recognisable from the dominant team of the week previous. Sri Lanka played an early-summer series in England and beat them on pitches meant to favour England's bread-and-butter seamers. New Zealand travelled to the West Indies and brought home the spoils, unthinkable a few decades ago. Afghanistan beat Zimbabwe in two ODIs away from home. Germany put seven past Brazil in a semi-final in Brazil. Has the world gone mad?
Full postMost Read
Writers
Terms of Use|Privacy Policy|Your US State Privacy Rights|Children's Online Privacy Policy|Interest - Based Ads|Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information|Feedback
© 2024 ESPN Sports Media Ltd. All rights reserved