Tag Archives: australia

2011 IPL player auction (part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

Today was the second day of the 2011 IPL auction. Just like yesterday, today I will be analyzing some of the good buys, bad buys and team performance in the auction. Tomorrow I will conclude my commentary on the 2011 auction.

Good value buys:

Steve O’Keefe. Bought by Kochi for $20,000. Australian off spin bowler. In my opinion O’Keefe should be Australia’s test team. For only $20,000 he is a bargain buy.

Shaun Tait. Bought by the Royals for $300,000. Rajasthan had a bad day in the auctions yesterday. To compound their problems they had $2 million taken off their initial budget due to a legal dispute with the BCCI. Details of that can be found here. Sean Tait has the potential to be the best t20 bowler (on his day). Especially combined with the captaincy of Shane Warne, Tait should do really well if used in this years IPL.

Matthew Wade. Bought by the Delhi Daredevils for $100,000. Mathew Wade is Australia’s second best wicket keeper. Add to that a first class average of 37 and a t20 average of 21. Delhi now have a wicket keeper.

Worst Value Buys:

Paul Collingwood. Bought by Rajasthan Royals for $250,000. Collingwood isn’t in form and is not a good t20 player. Add to that the fact that Rajasthan already have 5 international buys. This would not be a problem except that each team is only allowed to play four international players in a match. Since Warne and Watson are pretty much automatic selections this means there are 2 spots for the remaining 4 international players. A poor buy from Rajasthan.

I will post my final analysis tomorrow after the dust has settled.

Regards

-Simon

IPL (Indian Premier League) Auction 2011

Posted on by
Reply

As I type this, the IPL Auction for the year 2011 is taking place. The IPL stands for the Indian Premier League. It is a cricket competition.

I take interest in this bidding process as it provides us with an estimate as to how valuable each player really is. Of course, the Indian players will fetch the higher prices simply because it is an Indian competition. Their prices are inflated because of their marketability as well as the rules surrounding a teams makeup (each team must have 20 Indian players in their squad), therefore the best Indian players are snapped up at a premium.

Also, tragically, Pakistani players are not being bidden on due to political and security reasons. But apart from that, the price each player receives from the bidding process is a reasonable representation of the relative values of the players (as a combination of their marketability and skill).

I am a Rajasthan Royals fan. The reason I am a fan of the Royals is because Shane Warne is the captain-coach.

I am now going to give my opinions on the bidding so far.

Best value buys (all amounts in US$):

Tim Paine. Bought by the Pune Warriors for $270,000. Paine is a brilliant wicketkeeper batsman. Aggressive with the bat (can open) and solid behind the stumps. In my opinion he should be Australia’s wicket keeper.

Daniel Vettori. New Zealand captain and brilliant all rounder. Bought by Royal Challengers Bangalore for $550,000. Vettori as a bowler is one of the best slow bowlers in the 20/20 game. In the inaugural 20/20 world cup Vettori was the most economical bowler in the tournament.

Dwayne Bravo. Bought for $200,000 by Chennai Super Kings for. That was his base price and Chennai were the only ones bidding for him. Bravo is a West Indian (Caribbean) all rounder. Aggressive with the bat and more than handy with the ball. He should have commanded a much higher price.

Dale Steyn. Bought for $1,200,000 by the Deecan Chargers. He commanded a good price but is the best bowler in the world. Steyn is South Africa’s leading fast bowler. In fact he is the best bowler in the world at this point in time. A good buy.

Worst value buys:

Shane Watson. Retained by Rajasthan Royals for $1,300,000. Watson is simply not worth that price. He has drained a big portion of the Royals’ salary cap (currently at 9 million). While Watson is an all rounder who opens the batting, he is a constant injury concern. Also the quality of his calling (for runs) has come into question as he has run out his opening partner 2 times and run himself out once (in the recent Ashes series).

Ross Taylor. Bought by Rajasthan for $1,000,000. Taylor is an aggressive batsman from New Zealand. A good player. My problem with this purchase is the amount paid. There were better players that were paid much less in this auction (and it isn’t finished yet). Taylor was another unnecessary drain on the Royals salary cap.

Johan Botha. Bought by Rajasthan for $950,000. Botha’s story is similar to both Taylor’s and Watson’s. A good player bought by Rajasthan who simply is not worth the price paid.  Never the less Botha is a quality spin bowler from South Africa.

There is yet another day of bidding. I will have one (maybe two) more blog posts about this IPL auction. Until then I would love to hear your thoughts.

Regards

-Simon

Lesson Learnt

Posted on by
Reply

It’s 19th century Australia. A white man hears about the racism the Aboriginals (dark skinned natives of Australia) must face.This white man decides that he wants to see for himself exactly how the Aboriginals are treated. He paints himself black and presents the appearance of an Aboriginal.

The result?

He is of course mistreated, abused and treated like an animal. The white man is disgusted by the treatment dished out to him while disguised as an Aboriginal.

He goes home, washes the paint off and restores the image of is original self. The next day, he walks up to an Aboriginal man and outlines what he had done the previous day, as well as relating to the Aboriginal the mistreatment which he received from the members of society. He then said “I learnt so much.”

“You haven’t learnt anything,” the Aboriginal man responded.

The white man replied, “yes I have, I found out the extent to which you are mistreated. I know what it is like to be you.”

To which the Aboriginal man replied, “you knew that at any moment you could get out of the situation you were in by washing off the paint. I cannot escape the situation that I am in.” He continued, “unless you have lived in my shoes without any possibility of escaping my situation, you do not know what it is like to be me. You have not learnt anything.”

I heard the above story a long time ago on television. It was, of course, told by an Aboriginal man. It made me realize very early on that knowledge of a situation did not equate to an understanding of  a situation.

“What does this have to do with anything Simon?”

Good question.

In the last few years I have come across many people that have gone traveling. Many (if not all) would have had a good time. However none of them (despite claims to suggest otherwise) learnt a thing.

The arrogance with which these people proclaimed their new found knowledge was often hilarious. At other times it was saddening and made me downright angry.

“I was in some poor countries,” they would lament “and saw the plight of poor people. I know what it is like for these people.” It was a claim that was not true. They knew that they could leave the situation at any time. Those poor people could not.

Now you may think that I am against traveling. I am not. By all means go and have a great time. But please realize that taking a few photos of the Eiffel tower or the Grand Canyon does not make you some mystical sage who has the finger on the pulse of humanity, diagnosing its problems and feeling its pain.

You may think that I claim to know what poor people go through. I know just as much as you (practically nothing), no more no less. The difference is that I know that I don’t know. Whereas many people who go traveling don’t know that they don’t know.

Regards.

-Simon

7 Steps To Baggy Green Redemption

Posted on by
Reply

At the moment the Australian cricket team is undergoing somewhat of a crisis. They have failed- for the first time in 24 years- to finish an Ashes series in Australia with the urn in hand.

Now don’t get me wrong. As an Australian fan, I know that the Aussie team is the greatest test team of all time (the stats back this up) and that they will come back much stronger. I also realize that at the time of me writing this, the series has not yet been decided (it is 2-1 to England, so Australia can still tie the series).

While Australia may win the next match (squaring the series) it remains the case that there are serious systemic problems that must be fixed in order for Australia to get back to its winning ways as soon as possible. Fixing these problems should not be regarded as panic. Not regaining the Ashes was a symptom of the sickness and not the sickness itself.

Here are my 7 steps to Baggy Green redemption. If Cricket Australia do these things, Australia will return to its winning ways.

They are:

1. Give Ricky Ponting the tap on the shoulder.

Ricky Ponting must be asked to retire. If he does not, the selectors must make the decision for him. Ricky Ponting has been a great servant of Australian cricket. He is the top Australian test run scorer and was named cricinfo’s player of the decade for the noughties. When at his peak he was the greatest batsman of his generation.

Unfortunately, his time has come to an end. I never rated Ponting as a good captain. In fact there were a few times where Australia lost or drew a test match where I thought better captaincy would have won us the game. Regardless, his batting ensured that it was worth keeping him in the team. Before 2008, Ricky Ponting averaged around 60. From 2008-present he has averaged under 40. Unfortunately this is not a temporary form slump, this is a batsman who has lost his edge.

Keeping him beyond this Ashes series would be a huge mistake. It would delay the development of a younger player (by keeping them out of the team). If Australia end up playing a series against Bangladesh (a possibility in the next 6 months) then we may find Ponting make runs against an inferior team (further delaying the introduction of new blood into the team).

2. Bring Stuart Clark back.

Stuart Clark was an invaluable member of the Australian team. It seemed that while Australia had not found a replacement for Shane Warne, they had found a replacement for Glenn McGrath. Clark was the dropped.

Clark is 35. At the most we will get 1 or 2 years out of him. However his ability to play the holding role (an ability lacking in the current Aussie line up) would be invaluable for the next 2 years while we search for new bowling talent or wait until the current team has found its feet.

Clark would add to the captaincy stocks as well, having ably captained New South Wales this season in the Sheffield Shield.

3. Bring back the tough mental attitude of the 90′s.

The great team of the early 90′s (lead by the great Allan Border) did not posses a team much superior to the current crop of Australian players (talking about all Australian players, not just those selected in the Australian side). What they possessed was the willingness to fight through any situation, no matter how dire it may have become.

This current Australian side does not have the determination to do that. When they go out to bat, it seems like they do not want to be there. This was highlighted in the first inning in the Melbourne test where Australian wicket was out caught behind the stumps. Most of the shots played did not have to be played, rather it was a sign of a batsman who did not want to be out in the middle to tough it out. They were scared of the ball.

The Aussie Players need to toughen up, stop taking their spots in the Aussie team for granted and realize that it is a sacred honor to represent Australia.

4. Simon Katich to Captain.

Simon Katich only has one or 2 more years as a player. However the Australian selectors must utilize him as captain for those 2 years. His ability to captain trumps that of any other player currently in Australia. He also has the luxury of being one of the few players whose spot in the Baggy Green line up is not under question.

Katich is mentally tough and has a good captaincy brain. He played through the 2nd innings of the Adelaide test with an injured Achilles (he refused to have a runner while batting). He also fielded with the injury. This is the sort of toughness we need in a team that is currently full of softies.

5. Select the team that will win you the game.

Sounds obvious right? What I really mean though, is select the combination of 11 players that is most likely to win, rather than the 11 best individual players. Why do I say this? I say this because there are some players whose stats may not look so pretty, but their presence helps win the team a game. This may be a bowler who keeps it tight at one end (even though he does not take any wickets). His low economy rate may build up pressure which results in the bowler at the other end taking the wickets.

It may also be the batsman who toughs it out during a period where batting isn’t easy. He may only get 30 odd runs but he will have seen off the new ball or the overcast conditions, leaving the good conditions to another batsman who can come in and cash in with a century.

This current team are the opposite to those sort of players. They are the players who will have a number of rubbish bowling innings, but then take 5 wickets (in inconsequential circumstances) in order to keep the heat off them in terms of selection speculation (think Siddle’s 6/75, he did not deal any damage. It was only after England had amassed a huge lead that he cashed in the wickets column). On the batting side it is the player who will have a string of poor innings but score a 50 or 60 in order to keep the heat off them when the media talks selection.

The prime example of this is Shane Watson. In both Adelaide and Melbourne he ran his opening partner out (not being a team player) which caused a collapse in both innings. In both those innings he scored 51 and 54 respectively. In both matches he was responsible for collapses which ultimately resulted in Australia losing the match.

Australia need to select the team players. They need to select the 11 players that as a team are the best, not the 11 best individual players.

6. Introduce fairness into the selection process.

This should be simple. Select a player if his ability and form requires that he be selected over others. Unfortunately this isn’t what goes on. Selections are made based on whether the selector or the captain likes the player. Even if it means getting rid of the current crop of selectors (highly recommended) you must pick players that deserve to be there.

It seems there are some players who can play horrendously for a number of games but keep their spot with one good performance. On the flip side, there are players who will come into the team, play a number of consecutive games well but will be dropped after one poor performance. This is not on.

The first people who should be dropped if the team is playing poorly are the selectors.

and finally…

7. ‘Doug the rug’

Our best bowler of the past 12 months and the best bowler in Australia must be brought back into the team. He was most unfairly dropped for Peter Siddle a game in which Siddle took 6 wickets. While apparently dropped because of fitness concerns, he was brought back for Adelaide (a batsman’s paradise) and was duly carted.

He was then dropped on form.

This is exactly what I mean when I speak about fairness in the selection process. Dough could have gone to Brisbane and taken those 6 wickets (in fact he was much more likely to than Siddle). He then goes to Adelaide where he out bowls Siddle. Siddle is kept in the side and Doug- our best bowler- is dropped.

Australia must bring him in as soon as possible if they are to get back to their winning ways.

Conclusion.

That is my opinion about the current state of the Australian team and the way forward for them. While things are not looking good at the moment, Australia should do much better in the Sydney test, leveling the series 2-2.

Would love to read your comments on the issue.

Regards.

-Simon

The Video Referee In The World Cup

Posted on by
Reply

There has been much debate regarding the use of video technology in soccer. The recent world cup has brought about further calls for the use of video technology.

The controversy mainly surrounds 2 incidents. One was England’s disallowed goal. The other was Argentina’s unjustified goal. These both happened on the same day.

England’s (disallowed) goal was scored by Frank Lampard. The shot hit the crossbar, then went in, then bounced out because of backspin on the ball.

Argentina’s goal that shouldn’t have been was scored by Carlos Tevez who was in an offside position when receiving a headed assist from Lionel Messi.

I will now comment on these 2 goals and the issues surrounding them.

Lampard’s Goal

This was a goal, but neither the linesman nor the referee can be blamed for not seeing that it had. The linesman must stay in line with the 2nd last defender until a ball is kicked by an attacking player. He must then quickly look at the 2nd last defender to see if there are any offside attacking players (this is my experience from when I used to officiate club games).

My point is, even if the linesman was faster than (current fastest man) Usain Bolt, he would not have had enough time to see whether or not the ball had crossed the line.

On the other hand, both the linesman and the referee would have been saved a lot of grief had one they been allowed to refer the decision.

Tevez’s ‘goal’

This is one decision the linesman should have correctly made. He was in line with the second last defender and had ample time to see whether or not there was an offside player. Further adding to my annoyance was the fact that the referee of this game was the same referee who wrongly sent Australian Harry Kewell off against Ghana (more on that later).

In this situation, a replay of the incident was shown on the screen, causing the Mexican players to confront the linesman. Once the incident was replayed on the big screen, there was zero chance of it being rectified. Referees are not allowed to use video evidence in making refereeing decisions. Once the ‘goal’ had been shown on the big screen the referee had to stand by his original wrong decision. If it hadn’t been shown, he would have had until the restart to consult the linesman and reverse decision.

Again, the use of the video referee or some sort of challenge system (like the ones used in cricket or tennis) would have eliminated this controversy altogether.

Use of video technology to stamp out diving

Diving is a huge problem in this sport. It ensures that only the whimpiest of nations ever succeed at this sport. Diving could be eliminated straight away with the use of video technology. The method is simple. After a game, find footage of all those who dived, and hand them one match bans. This would not interrupt the flow of the game (one argument against the use of the video ref)  and would stamp out the practice.

Previous calls for the video referee.

Australians have been calling for the video referee in this sport ever since they were wrongly knocked out of the 2006 world cup due to a dive by Fabio Grosso. Italy went on to win the world cup and Australia went home after the second round. Four years later and both Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell are given red cards. In both cases, video evidence would have seen the decision overturned. This costs Australia a spot in the second round (handing it to Ghana, who have just advanced to the quarter finals).

There have been other incidents in this world cup where video evidence would have overturned a crucial (incorrect) decision.

Why the sudden calls for video referees?

Why is it only now that there is a strong push for the video referee? Why is it that after England and Mexico have been harmed, is there a huge outcry? Why wasn’t there an outcry when the chances of Australia were destroyed? Why wasn’t there an outcry when the chances of New Zealand were destroyed (through a DeRossi Dive). Why not when Henry hand balled against Ireland?

I believe there is now an outcry because it is one of the superpowers who has suffered as a result of refereeing mistake (that could easily be fixed with video evidence). The injustice was suffered by England. Had the injustice been suffered by Australia, or Ireland, or New Zealand or any of the other teams who have already suffered injustices then there would be no outcry.

“But wait, you forgot to mention the Mexico incident”

I haven’t forgotten. The Mexico issue was merely used as a backup by those touting England’s case. Had it just been Mexico that was wronged, we may not have heard about it again. Having said that, Mexico can be seen as a superpower in this sport, or at least just below superpower status.

It’s nothing against England

I am not criticizing English fans here. I would be pissed off too. But the fact that the world decides to sit up and take notice of the issue now, rather than previously, is just wrong. The video ref should have been brought in years ago.

Where to from here?

The use of video technology is inevitable. If it is not brought in now, it will be brought in in 5 years. If not, then in another 5 years etc. The only question is: will video technology be brought in now?

I hope it is.

Regards

-Simon