Is Cricket Too Complex?

Whenever I read about cricket in American media — which is to say, very rarely — I always come across a disclaimer sentence about how complex game’s rules can be. Is it really all that true? I picked up cricket as a 12-year-old like a fish to water; I just watched a match and figured it out (at least that’s how I remember it). Then, I persuaded my parents to buy me a bat and I started to play. Done. Finished.

Of course, there are others in my family — notably, everyone else — who do not understand the game. My brother-in-law — a European — has long displayed an interest, but I have to remind him constantly about the rules (”Why isn’t that LBW? Why isn’t that blah-blah-blah?”). He always has this attitude that cricket’s all a sham and that somewhere in the rules’ thicket, there’s a sham or a giant, hypocritical loophole.

Perhaps cricket works as religions do, through either conversion or birth. There’s little hope you can “learn” your salvation otherwise; Spelling Bee this ain’t. Which is why I feel ambivalent when I see endless debates on cricket’s rules among cricket bloggers (”Was Brendon McCullum’s catch legal? Was Angelo Mathews’?”). On the one hand, the game’s complexity is part of its charm, and there’s a little, nerdy British bureaucrat inside all of us. But on the other, it should matter little if you know leg byes are counted as extras and not part of the batsman’s score, or that someone can be “timed out” or lose her wicket by “handling the ball.”

Ball, bat, field. That’s all it is.

Cricket Contracts And Merit Pay

Contracts are mind-numbing affairs and not even the prospect of a Bangladeshi whitewash can make me read about the dispute between the West Indies players and their board. Today’s Wall Street Journal, however, had an interesting piece on President Obama’s efforts to link performance with increased professional pay, an issue many sports managers grapple with:

Mr. Duncan adds that not linking student achievement to teacher effectiveness is like judging a sports team “without looking at the box score.” That may not be the best metaphor. Major League Baseball forbids contracts that provide bonuses for “playing, pitching or batting skill.” Highlighting the delicacy of defining objectives when pay is tied to performance, baseball sees paying a player for hitting more home runs, for instance, as counterproductive; it can lead a hitter to swing for the fences when the team needs a bunt or a base hit. Some contracts do reward playing time, though. Mets pitcher Francisco Rodriguez gets $150,000 if he finishes 50 games this season, another $150,000 for finishing 55 and $200,000 more if he gets to 60.

Makes sense, no? The same logic applies neatly in cricket. I wouldn’t give more money to a bowler for taking more wickets, since that’s likely to make him more expensive. And for batsmen, scoring runs isn’t always the highest priority; sometimes, you need to stick around and wait.

Channel Five Highlights

I don’t know why, but I just can’t stand Sky Sports’ cricket coverage. The commentators are fine — I like Mike Atherton and I think I love Nasser Hussain — but I’d still prefer Mark Nicholas and Geoff Boycott. (Yes, they’re all windbags, but at least the latter pair’s charismatic about it.) And why settle for “Third Man” Michael Holding when you could have the Analyst Simon Hughes doing his nerdy video thang?

To the point: does anyone know where I can watch the Channel Five highlights? Five.tv, alas, has territorial restrictions. Links, please!

UPDATE: Never mind, found it! Oh, joy!

England Produces More Ashes

Hilarious, punny article on cremations from The Economist. Apparently, around 70% of Britain’s dead people are cremated, compared to only 50% in Australia. The periodical offers a theory (and it has nothing to do with Shane Warne):

The availability of land for burial may matter too. In densely populated Japan and Hong Kong cremation is a common choice. That may also explain why the British are keener than Australians on cremations.

The Ashes Begin Tomorrow!

Can Australia hold on to the Ashes?

Well, technically, today, if you’re already in Britain. The time zone thing is going to be very awkward; I’ll have to rouse myself from sleep around 6 a.m. to catch the opening ball (though it’ll be worth it if it ends up at second slip). Work then starts for me four hours later at 10 a.m., which means I’ll miss most of the late-day developments. Here I come, Cricinfo “live scorecard”!

Duncan Fletcher Explains 2005 Ashes

Fletcher’s essay in The Guardian shows his good and bad side: on the one hand, he has an uncannily strong cricketing instinct for spotting weaknesses and making strategy. On the other, however, he’s not a very good people-person; ready to make snap judgments about bowlers and batsmen and then leave them to fester if they don’t fit into his grand schemes.

Some examples. Good Fletcher:

Australians have never played swing well because of the way they stand still until they’ve picked up the line of the ball. That means their feet move into the first line of the ball they see, so if the ball swings they have problems adjusting. And when the ball started reversing, their legs were getting in the way.

Bad Fletcher:

We needed an attacking bowler [Simon Jones] who could get five wickets on a consistent basis, because Andrew Flintoff tended to hold up an end rather than rip through the opposition, Steve Harmison blew hot and cold and Matthew Hoggard was better against the left-handers than the right-handers.

Good Fletcher:

[Ricky Ponting's] always been vulnerable to leg-before early on, so we decided to bowl for that and to make sure he knew it. That made him conscious about trying to keep his leg out of harm’s way, and that meant you could then settle into a length outside off.

Interesting bag of goodies. Apparently, he’ll be writing in the paper through the Ashes.

Wimbledon, Cricket and Reaction Time

Was watching the great semi-final between Andy Murray and Andy Roddick today. At one point, the commentary put up a graphic that showed why Roddick’s serve is so powerful: opponents essentially have only half a second reaction time. Coincidentally, commentators explained, that’s also the same amount of time Ricky Ponting will have against a ball from Andrew Flintoff (0.56 seconds).

Ah, got to love cross-sport promotion. I know England 2009 is nothing like England 2005, but I can’t help feeling this is a great time to be a British sports fan. You’ve had a great Wimbledon (Murray’s loss notwitstanding) and an incredibly hot, dry summer — perfect for some swing. Make this one to remember, Strauss.

An Indian Decline, Or Just A Hiccup?

Why do South Asian teams go from brilliance to embarrassingly low depths in a week? More specifically, what is going on with India? On the one hand, you want to blame a ridiculously non-stop schedule (who scheduled this ridiculous series anyway?) and dismiss India’s 2nd ODI performance as nothing more than a blip. On the other hand, there are the usual worries: is Rohit Sharma cut out for the big leagues, or will he only prosper in the Twenty20 format? What’s wrong with Gautam Gambhir? And who knew R.P. Singh could play defense so well?

Don’t have many answers, I’m afraid. I’m relatively happy with the current team, and I’ll give them as much space and time they need before the 2011 World Cup. Thank goodness this flare-up isn’t happening too close to the event.

Australians Worried About Cardiff Spin

Well, Ricky Ponting says he isn’t, but he’s worried enough to look up the stats about spin victims at Cardiff. From Cricinfo:

“There was even talk a month ago about the Test not going ahead there because of problems with the pitch. But we had a closer look at some stats last week and found that something like only 14 of the 69 wickets taken there is the last three county matches have been taken with spin.”

Australia’s only specialist spinner in the touring party, Nathan Hauritz, struggled against Sussex and finished with match figures of 1 for 158. The selectors will consider a four-man pace attack if the Cardiff pitch looks suitable, although Ponting believes Sophia Gardens was in part selected to open the series because of Australia’s lack of a top-class Test spinner.

Hot and dry, a perfect season for some turn. Go, Swann, go!

Michael Jackson And Cricket Fashion

Of all the fashion styles Michael Jackson played with in his short life — military epaulets, silver gloves, neon jackets, shortened black trousers with white socks — I think he missed an opportunity to take on cricket chic as well. Cricket whites and ODI pajamas may not sound superstar worthy, but the sweaters and jackets and baggy greens certainly amount to a posh enough look in my mind. Esquire ran a feature on this very subject last year:

“Cotton-and-cashmere cricket vest ($298) and cotton-and-linen polo shirt ($90), Polo by Ralph Lauren; cotton trousers ($235) by Canali.”

Huh. Certainly a Jackson-worthy budget, at least. MTV picked up on the game’s sartorial snobbishness when Jamie Foxx hosted a reality show “From G’s to Gents.” In the third episode, the contestants — a bunch of clueless men trying to prove their sly “G-ness” (or whatever) — had to learn “one of the most sophisticated games in the world,” all while nattily dressed in ties and cardigans. Wodehouse style, as it were.