Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

bigfluffylemon wrote:Ticket sales are apparently disappointing.

Seems that Adelaide has hosted a few day-night games in recent times, that boosted attendances. This for some reason wasnt allowed to be one, and its hurt ticket sales.

Also, reading the preview, it said for some dumb reason the state government have shut down the rail system in Adelaide for the weekend..... this is supposed to be the main reason for the bad sales.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Maybe Aussie fans fear the worst?

A fair bit of that, no doubt. I think most fans are realistic about our chances.

Also, there is the massive public disaffection for cricket at the moment. The two together are big blow.

and then there's the sudden drop of FTA cricket, it has been woeful the amount of cricket we are suddenly reduced to, so much less publliicty, so much less of a buildup anyway.

that is the triple whammy.

GarlicJam wrote:this sort of thing bugs me - and it comes always from England fans

Without wanting to sound combative, I think this is a very naive statement, and you should really take a look at your own media before you make such strong statements like that. This time last year in the build up to the Ashes, I remember reading a SMH article, it was called something like "From South Africa with love", and inside IIRC it basically called Dawid Malan and Tom Curran "South Africans in the England team". Of course, it went on to mention the cliche of South Africans in the 2005 to 2013 period. This is by no means isolated. Given 5 minutes I could quite easily produce an Aussie media article that describes Trott, KP, Strauss, Prior etc as Saffers. All of these players have mentioned Aussie crowds have taunted them for being South African.

And thats before we get into what you say of your own players. When Renshaw debuted, every single article reminded people he was born in England. How many times is Khawaja's Pakistani heritage brought up?

How many times was it mentioned Labuschange was born in South Africa? The man himself recently said his own team mates give him a hard time for being a Saffer

bigfluffylemon wrote:Never understood it myself, including the KP thing. Who cares where a player was born? Surely if they've chosen to live in a country as an adult and pledged to that country, hold a citizenship/passport etc., that matters far more than where they were born (something you have no control over). But I'm an expat myself, so perhaps I have a different view from most.

People tend to see nationality as a strictly singular thing, and that its almost traitorous to embrace another. But in fact, its pretty natural. I find being an ex-pat in someways makes me prouder to be different, and that I am proud to be British. But I am also proud of my second nationality too. Its possible to be both. Thats something a lot of people dont get. KP was born in South Africa, that didnt mean to be a proud Brit he didnt need to disregard his upbringing.

Its the sort of awareness that only experiencing it can bring you, I guess. I think in modern cricket, and modern culture, it is going to be more of a thing. Lots of Aussie-UK migration goes both ways. Lots of dual nationality through parents. Its up to the players to decide.

I can ge GJ's guarded response, but I dont think its a case of British people trying to claim a player; Id like to think both ways, there is a sense that Aussie would like to see people like Sam Robson do well in England, or Renshaw do well in Australia the other way. For me its like that anyhow; it proves that people can move away an assimilate into local cultures without barriers.

End of the day, whatever nation these guys pick, you have to assume they have their reasons. And you back that. They dont need to explain they are 100% behind the team. It should be assumed.

sussexpob wrote:
Without wanting to sound combative,

Don't then.

I think people (me) point out the birthplace of Aussie players as a bit of tit-for-tat banter in response to the comments of Aussies when England had players like Craig White and that blond left arm pace bowler in the side. I know they aren't really equivalent. But what the hell. It's just low level, ambient drollery.

Alan Mullally.

GarlicJam wrote:

sussexpob wrote: Without wanting to sound combative,

Don't then.

I failed didnt I

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I think people (me) point out the birthplace of Aussie players as a bit of tit-for-tat banter in response to the comments of Aussies when England had players like Craig White and that blond left arm pace bowler in the side. I know they aren't really equivalent. But what the hell. It's just low level, ambient drollery. Alan Mullally.

The situation is very nuanced, its like a minefield. I can understand why someone would be offended by it, because at its worst side it feels like an attempt to devalue that persons status as a resident of whatever adopted country they have. KP suffered the worst, we were constantly guided to link his maverick personality to his apparent lack of dedication to his national side. It was assumed by many that his wanton, carefree freedom with which he played was a result of a selfish, non-team focused player. And that was itself down to the fact he was not a true representative of England. And in Australia, people like Labuschange feel the need to re-enforce that they are 100 percent behind Australia (as he did last month). Renshaw had his parents write articles in the press reaffirming he was a true Aussie, despite him being born in England.

Maybe in times gone by it was fine to banter in this way, but nowadays it might be flirting with danger, and parallel's itself to darker forces in society. Not that I am saying I am perfect or right, my own opinion I stated above has nuances. Much like the French "African" football team, I probably dont have a right to say I want Renshaw to do well because he is representative of British culture..... he could consider himself 0% percent British, and its not up to me to decide that.

I don't give a crap where people were born - after all, a huge percentage of Australians were born o/s.

I do care where people learn their cricket - part of the reason is that the originating country may well have invested time, money and care into developing cricketers, or at least their component regional bodies (so here, I see no problem with the likes of Strauss, Renshaw or Matt Prior, but KP grates with me). Also though, there is the cricketing character that is developed in the originating country - and that should not be readily dismissed, imo.

With rarer cases like Robson (if I remember him correctly) who CHOOSE to represent one country over their place of residence - I assume because he felt more English/British due to his family (??). I don't overly like it, but that is for purely selfish reasons. Once again, KP grates with me.

I see KP's 'defection' purely as a choice of convenience and ego - and yes, once he became British, loyalty developed, but it always seemed manufactured to my jaundiced eye. He was within the rules, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.


Aussie politicians like to spout about "will it pass The Pub Test?", in the case of sportspeople and nations, I like "will they pass the accent test?" Most do, but yet again, there is one obvious, glaring, exception.

sussexpob wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote:Ticket sales are apparently disappointing.

Seems that Adelaide has hosted a few day-night games in recent times, that boosted attendances. This for some reason wasnt allowed to be one, and its hurt ticket sales.

Also, reading the preview, it said for some dumb reason the state government have shut down the rail system in Adelaide for the weekend..... this is supposed to be the main reason for the bad sales.

According to what I read, India refused to allow the D/N test. It's not clear why - there is some speculation that they are concerned because the evening sessions favour fast bowlers because of the lights and dew, which can be detrimental to a team whose main weapons are spin and batting long.

From a viewing perspective, you'd think it would affect the audience. A D/N test will be better timed for the Indian viewing public than a day test - the latter will start about 5am Indian time.

Well, that went south fast. As I said earlier, I think a lot of English fans are a bit fed up with KP being held up to a different standard to other players because of his perceived personality, so feel the need to point out where other players originate.

As an aside, Khawaja's Pakistani origins are all over the news as apparently his brother has been arrested in connection with a fake terrorism offence. No suggestion that Usman had any connection, but still.

Anyway, back to the cricket at hand.

As GJ said, I think there's a general sense here that this is going to be a tough series for Australia. Aside from attitudes towards the national side and cricket in general, India are number 1 in the world (still), Australia are number 5 and in a bit of a crisis.

There was a fairly combative article by Geoff Lemon (can't find it to link, unfortunately) stating that the public fears are probably overblown. He made the following points:

It's really, really hard for visiting teams to win in Australia. Only two sides (South Africa and England) have done it this century. England did it when one of their strongest sides in recent memory ran into an Australian side that was in transition, especially in the bowling department. South Africa have a unique advantage as their own home conditions more closely resemble Australian than any other team.

It's even harder for Asian sides to win in Australia. No Asian team has ever won a test series here. Most go home without even having won a match. Asian sides' strength is usually in spin, and visiting spinners tend to get creamed in Australia, especially offies.

Australian pitches have been very flat in recent years. Australian batsmen are bloody good at racking up huge scores on lifeless wickets (not so much when the ball moves) - just see the warmup game. Asian batsmen tend to be good at that too, but Australian fast bowlers are also uniquely good at restricting teams on those sorts of wickets, whereas visiting quicks don't tend to have the pace. Indian batsmen may be good at scoring big at home, but (Kohli excepted), they don't travel well.

India don't tend to start overseas tours well, and they've only had one rubbish quality practice game. Lose the first test in a series in Australia, and it's practically impossible to come back.

All that said, India probably have the best chance they have had in a long time to win a series in Australia. But we said that before the England series, and look what happened.

Blatant plug: the fantasy league thread is here, for anyone who wants to sign up. Just over 24 hours to go:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21748

bigfluffylemon wrote:
It's really, really hard for visiting teams to win in Australia. Only two sides (South Africa and England) have done it this century. England did it when one of their strongest sides in recent memory ran into an Australian side that was in transition, especially in the bowling department.

Though Australia are even more in transition, and India are arguably just as strong. The big difference is the overlap of optimal conditions which may be less for India than England.

Great preview bfl.

Ta.

Arguably Australia are more in transition, but the big difference to me is the bowling. Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins and Lyon are a world class attack in home conditions capable of bowling any side out twice. Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Watson and Doherty were, er, not.