I recently spent 4 good days in Melbourne with the express intent of watching 4 AFL games in one weekend. I sucessfully saw some first class footy at exceptional footy venues. I've always liked Melbourne and went there with high expectations, but these expectations were not only met but passed in many instances.
At a bar on the Saturday that I had the idea for this post. Later, during a tram ride back to the hostel I was staying at, I was able to pen them down (the task being so easy, it was completed in about 2 minutes).
These are the reasons in no particular order. Some reasons contribute to, or overlap with, other reasons, but by and large they are identifable reasons why Melbourne shits on Sydney, and from a great height at that:
1) Culture (arts, museums, cafes, identity). Melbourne has a vibrant and identifiable cultural remit. Sydney has a homogenised, bland, tacky culture that does nothing to engage the senses.
2) Infrastructure (speed, proficieny, responsiveness, sign posts). The city is well organised. Not only in terms of layout, but also in terms of public services
3) Public transport (tickets across types, ease). The Sydney public transport system in particular is a disgrace. Melbournes is fast, efficient, frequent and affordable. One ticket allows you to ride all modes of public transport, unlike Sydney.
4) Government (corageous, public art). I'm sure they have their detractors, but the Melbourne government must be heralded for its abilility to see bold architecture projects in the city, as well as its ability to attract major events to the CBD. Federation square is an example.
5) Cost of living (reasonableness). Maybe Melbourne isn't that cheap, it's just that Sydney is outrageously expensive.
6) Architecture (inspiring). As afore mentioned, the architecture is bold and would compete with any other international city. Sydney architecture is 'sedate' at best
7) Attitude (not jaded or rude, tram seats). Melburnians are an interesting lot who love their footy and sport in general. Sydney-siders are far more concerned with how much money you make, where you work, or who you're friends with.
8) Women (knowledgeable, not superficial). Again, the fact that Melbourne women are fantastic is only supported by the fact that Sydney women are so superficial and cantankerous. Surprisingly, Melbourne women also dress better.
9) Drinking Holes (atmosphere, intimacy, not sterile). Due to the weather, most Melbourne bars are intimate little numbers with an open fireplace, cosy lounges and cruisy music. Far more accommodating than those polished floorboards/stainless steel/glass abhorrences they call bars in Sydney.
10) AFL. Not much needs to be said here really. Where else can you watch 4 games of footy in 3 days at 2 of the world's best sporting venues. And realatively cheaply as well.
The only thing against Melbourne is the weather and the beaches. However, given all things considered, not only does Melbourne shit on Sydney, but it does it from a great height.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
World Cricket Premier Leagues?
With some trepidation, I would contend that the recent Indian Premier League has been a success, at least by degrees, if nothing else.
Take these indications as justification: good to exceptional crowd sizes at games. Regular acticles in newspapers and other media in Australia. The candour of the players involved. The way some elements have entered popular culture (i.e., the joke about Andrew Symonds returning Veredah Sehwag's call to the number 464 646...)
With this in mind, I put it that one of many possible outcomes is foreseeable. This is just one of many possible outcomes given that the influence of the new form of the game is yet to be fully realised. But in this scenario, players are increasingly dissillusioned with playing for their country, given that they can earn more money in a 6 week window of slap-and-dash rather than spending 75% of an entire year on tour.
The upshot of this is that players will no longer play cricket for their country; as dishonourable as that may seem, playing for one's country simpy doesn't have the financial clout to pull the talent (more about that mindset of the players later...)
So can a happy medium be found? I suggest that the only way the two can co-exist is to enter an international-football-type arrangement, albiet in a slightly different form.
We have to suppose for a minute that the moneyed Indian Premier League could possibly spawn similar contests, and that such contests would understandably have the market power to determine a players playing career, above and beyond country, even to the point of denying them from playing for their country should they be injured or other wise made unavailable.
Now given that it is unlikely that a Premier League-type contest could go on for more than 6 weeks at a time and still hold the publics attention, and given the unlikelyhood of having successful Premier Leagues concurrently underway across the planet, due to the competitive, market-driven mechanism of allocating limited resources, and given the flacidity of the ICC to effectively govern the game on a global basis, it becomes possible to percieve a playing climate where 6 weeks are spent playing in a Premier league, followed by 1-2 weeks downtime, which is in turn followed by a 6-8 week window where countries are available to tour or host international matches.
This hypothesis becomes more feasable if the 3 strongest cricket regions in the world were to align their respective premier leagues so as not to clash and hence share in the spoils.
Imagine the following cricket schedule of the Australian cricket team in a calender year:
Australiasian Premier League, Nov-Dec (played across Aust and NZ)
International cricket window, Jan-Feb (Australia hosts international matches, tests and one-days)
Asian Premier League, Mar-Apr (hosted by IND, PAK, BAN, SL)
International cricket window, May-June (Australia tour England or West indies, or host BAN in the top end)
English Premier League, July-Aug (hosted by ENG, possible 'B'-grade matches in West Indies
International cricket window, Sept-Oct (Australia tour RSA, IND, PAK, BAN)
Obviously, this is a rudimentary calenday - durations, locations and the like could all be tweaked to suit international calendars.
Nonetheless, the realisation must be made that T20 cricket can offer the type of money that international cricket boards cannot, and subsequently players will tend to align themselves with the employer they can make the most money from with their given skills, due to the short time frame of their professional employment.
I don't usually like to couch sports in such terms as 'employee', 'market-forces' and the like, but corporatisation and globalisation of the game has forced the game to be treated in such a manner, and consequently theories must be made that realise the condition of the environment in which it lives.
Maybe the 'fast-foodisation' of cricket is not such a bad thing. Some of the initiatives of the IPL have been fantastic. The 'Fairplay' award, the coloured hats for leading run-getter and wicket-taker, the Maxiumum sixes award, and so on.
Moreover, a clear delineation of the international and franchise-based systems will possibly see the emergence of different types of cricketers, in much the same way many footballers are better club players than international players and vice-versa.
Take these indications as justification: good to exceptional crowd sizes at games. Regular acticles in newspapers and other media in Australia. The candour of the players involved. The way some elements have entered popular culture (i.e., the joke about Andrew Symonds returning Veredah Sehwag's call to the number 464 646...)
With this in mind, I put it that one of many possible outcomes is foreseeable. This is just one of many possible outcomes given that the influence of the new form of the game is yet to be fully realised. But in this scenario, players are increasingly dissillusioned with playing for their country, given that they can earn more money in a 6 week window of slap-and-dash rather than spending 75% of an entire year on tour.
The upshot of this is that players will no longer play cricket for their country; as dishonourable as that may seem, playing for one's country simpy doesn't have the financial clout to pull the talent (more about that mindset of the players later...)
So can a happy medium be found? I suggest that the only way the two can co-exist is to enter an international-football-type arrangement, albiet in a slightly different form.
We have to suppose for a minute that the moneyed Indian Premier League could possibly spawn similar contests, and that such contests would understandably have the market power to determine a players playing career, above and beyond country, even to the point of denying them from playing for their country should they be injured or other wise made unavailable.
Now given that it is unlikely that a Premier League-type contest could go on for more than 6 weeks at a time and still hold the publics attention, and given the unlikelyhood of having successful Premier Leagues concurrently underway across the planet, due to the competitive, market-driven mechanism of allocating limited resources, and given the flacidity of the ICC to effectively govern the game on a global basis, it becomes possible to percieve a playing climate where 6 weeks are spent playing in a Premier league, followed by 1-2 weeks downtime, which is in turn followed by a 6-8 week window where countries are available to tour or host international matches.
This hypothesis becomes more feasable if the 3 strongest cricket regions in the world were to align their respective premier leagues so as not to clash and hence share in the spoils.
Imagine the following cricket schedule of the Australian cricket team in a calender year:
Australiasian Premier League, Nov-Dec (played across Aust and NZ)
International cricket window, Jan-Feb (Australia hosts international matches, tests and one-days)
Asian Premier League, Mar-Apr (hosted by IND, PAK, BAN, SL)
International cricket window, May-June (Australia tour England or West indies, or host BAN in the top end)
English Premier League, July-Aug (hosted by ENG, possible 'B'-grade matches in West Indies
International cricket window, Sept-Oct (Australia tour RSA, IND, PAK, BAN)
Obviously, this is a rudimentary calenday - durations, locations and the like could all be tweaked to suit international calendars.
Nonetheless, the realisation must be made that T20 cricket can offer the type of money that international cricket boards cannot, and subsequently players will tend to align themselves with the employer they can make the most money from with their given skills, due to the short time frame of their professional employment.
I don't usually like to couch sports in such terms as 'employee', 'market-forces' and the like, but corporatisation and globalisation of the game has forced the game to be treated in such a manner, and consequently theories must be made that realise the condition of the environment in which it lives.
Maybe the 'fast-foodisation' of cricket is not such a bad thing. Some of the initiatives of the IPL have been fantastic. The 'Fairplay' award, the coloured hats for leading run-getter and wicket-taker, the Maxiumum sixes award, and so on.
Moreover, a clear delineation of the international and franchise-based systems will possibly see the emergence of different types of cricketers, in much the same way many footballers are better club players than international players and vice-versa.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The wash up
Ohh, sometimes i love the ambiguity, the backtracking, the fingerpointing, the argumentative posturing of protagonists...
Many an argument have I had with firends, associates, workmates, complete strangers - debating the merits of what happened THAT day v IND, 2nd test 6/1/08.
It has led to many a question: "How can you say that and then say this?" "Yes, but you have to apply that argument to the nth degree" "Suffice to say, that this, and that..."
And so it goes! Rarely has one been able to let fly with joyful abandon at the merits of the individual, the questionable integrity, the singularty of a moment recollected that might crystalise for someone a certain point, yet profoundly raise another's ire with similar want and reason.
Look, let's remember this. Who remembers the boxing day test? Will the Perth test be remembered as well? I doubt it...
So, if nothing else, come away with this in mind. We, collectively, were witness to possibly the most controversial test in recent history; people will be talking about this test FOR YEARS. The reprucussions are just starting to be felt.
What the role of sledging? What the role of techniology? What the role of the umpire? What the role of the captain? What the role of the media?
These quandries have surely been brewing in elite cricket so long as it has been a marketable TV commodity, and the want therefore of advertisers, and those of us with the luxury of slo-mo replays. We were just priveledged to be here to see it.
Let us for 1 second admit that. I look at the Swans '05 premiership in the same light. The dust is still settling, people are still backtracking, journalists are still claiming the morale high ground - what else would you expect. Groundbreaking moments are few and far between - this is up there with the best of them.
Look, I love cricket. And I love it as a representation of the highest of sportsmanship. But are we also unfairly judging the participants? These people have a net in the morning, then spend the rest of the day justifying their actions to an expectant media. Not to mention the corporate pressure. NO TEST IS EVER PLAYED ANYMORE WITH MERE SPORTSMANHIP IN MIND.
I'm a simple man with simple pleasures. I know what I want, but I'm also brave enough to admit when I'm a mere spectator, and a lucky one at that.
So, maybe, for now, argue all you want, but keep in mind that nothing has rocked test cricket like this for 70 years.
That, in and of itself, surely, is reason to again celebrate the game where one man hurls a leather entwined ball at another man with a plank of wood...
Many an argument have I had with firends, associates, workmates, complete strangers - debating the merits of what happened THAT day v IND, 2nd test 6/1/08.
It has led to many a question: "How can you say that and then say this?" "Yes, but you have to apply that argument to the nth degree" "Suffice to say, that this, and that..."
And so it goes! Rarely has one been able to let fly with joyful abandon at the merits of the individual, the questionable integrity, the singularty of a moment recollected that might crystalise for someone a certain point, yet profoundly raise another's ire with similar want and reason.
Look, let's remember this. Who remembers the boxing day test? Will the Perth test be remembered as well? I doubt it...
So, if nothing else, come away with this in mind. We, collectively, were witness to possibly the most controversial test in recent history; people will be talking about this test FOR YEARS. The reprucussions are just starting to be felt.
What the role of sledging? What the role of techniology? What the role of the umpire? What the role of the captain? What the role of the media?
These quandries have surely been brewing in elite cricket so long as it has been a marketable TV commodity, and the want therefore of advertisers, and those of us with the luxury of slo-mo replays. We were just priveledged to be here to see it.
Let us for 1 second admit that. I look at the Swans '05 premiership in the same light. The dust is still settling, people are still backtracking, journalists are still claiming the morale high ground - what else would you expect. Groundbreaking moments are few and far between - this is up there with the best of them.
Look, I love cricket. And I love it as a representation of the highest of sportsmanship. But are we also unfairly judging the participants? These people have a net in the morning, then spend the rest of the day justifying their actions to an expectant media. Not to mention the corporate pressure. NO TEST IS EVER PLAYED ANYMORE WITH MERE SPORTSMANHIP IN MIND.
I'm a simple man with simple pleasures. I know what I want, but I'm also brave enough to admit when I'm a mere spectator, and a lucky one at that.
So, maybe, for now, argue all you want, but keep in mind that nothing has rocked test cricket like this for 70 years.
That, in and of itself, surely, is reason to again celebrate the game where one man hurls a leather entwined ball at another man with a plank of wood...
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The differences with dialogue...
Ok, Close your eyes. Take a beath. For just a second...
Flashback to around 6:45pm Sunday the 6th of the new year. Michael Clarke runs into bowl and takes a wicket that crystalises the finish to one of the most memorable modern day tests.
Decided in the last ten minutes of the final day, against the pressures of news tv and ratings, the two present superpowers of cricket are pitted against each other on one of the biggest stages; ANY cricket fanatic could harldy be but spellbound by the ball-by-ball darma. And it had been like this for FIVE DAYS!!!
Sufficce to say that a few notable present Australian cricketers have said that this rates with the 2nd test comeback v ENG last year. And a others might say this is their best ever win.
What a contest. Really, no-one was a passenger. EVERY wicket, every run had a tale. Tons by Symonds, Laxman, Tendulkar, Hayden, and Hussey. Outstanding rearguard innings under pressure by Hogg and Harbhajan. 1000+ runs in the first 3 days. Wickets by Lee, RP Singh, Harbhajan, Clark et al. Rejoice the game that holds us all in such captication for 5 days. What other sport can announce such a claim!
And yet, with such joy, comes such heartbreak, such sorrow. And it's unfortunate cousin; finger pointing and blame-laying...
The Indians are BY FAR the most gentlemany guest to our cricketing shores in many a long year. Never have compatriots been under such scrutiny by their own countrypeople, yet so composed as we know it is here. That, as Australians, demands an understanding on the grounds of the bollocks. That stone was locally quarried by AB, carted by Tubby and cut by Steve Waugh.
And no-one can complain the want of a contest. Remember 2005? the Ashes? I recall a bitter loss, but i also remeber the actual FEELING of the game. The fact there was finally a CONTEST. It's now rare.
Look, to come to a pont. Umpires make mistakes. And maybe it's a thing of nature that the home team gets the run of the green. That's what makes winning away so sweet when you get there.
Things have been said, decision mades - all of which can't be taken back. But maybe this is better that a 5-0 whitewash vs the Shettland Ponies Club Open 12? What other game has been so discussed recently?
Having said that, once the dust has settled, people might reflect and wish they had it over again...underarmbowl...
But should a fielder appeal to the umpire for a field catch in the same way umpires are asked to adjudicate on fine catches by the keeper, and LBW. Or should we allow the slo-mo replay to 'clarify' the outfield catch along with the stumping and the run out?
Questions not easily answered. Maybe Technology!! Yeah, but interpretation... Think Hawkeye. Super slo-mo. And let's throw in claims of 'depth-of-field', 'benefit-of-doubt', etc. All just and fair.
Suffice to say, I have doubts. Should M. Clarke have claimed THAT catch? Should A. Gilchrist or A. Symonds have appealed for THAT caught behind v Dravid 2nd innings?
Have I lost a little bit of faith in the presnt and future state of Aussie cricket? Maybe . . .
I hope not...
Flashback to around 6:45pm Sunday the 6th of the new year. Michael Clarke runs into bowl and takes a wicket that crystalises the finish to one of the most memorable modern day tests.
Decided in the last ten minutes of the final day, against the pressures of news tv and ratings, the two present superpowers of cricket are pitted against each other on one of the biggest stages; ANY cricket fanatic could harldy be but spellbound by the ball-by-ball darma. And it had been like this for FIVE DAYS!!!
Sufficce to say that a few notable present Australian cricketers have said that this rates with the 2nd test comeback v ENG last year. And a others might say this is their best ever win.
What a contest. Really, no-one was a passenger. EVERY wicket, every run had a tale. Tons by Symonds, Laxman, Tendulkar, Hayden, and Hussey. Outstanding rearguard innings under pressure by Hogg and Harbhajan. 1000+ runs in the first 3 days. Wickets by Lee, RP Singh, Harbhajan, Clark et al. Rejoice the game that holds us all in such captication for 5 days. What other sport can announce such a claim!
And yet, with such joy, comes such heartbreak, such sorrow. And it's unfortunate cousin; finger pointing and blame-laying...
The Indians are BY FAR the most gentlemany guest to our cricketing shores in many a long year. Never have compatriots been under such scrutiny by their own countrypeople, yet so composed as we know it is here. That, as Australians, demands an understanding on the grounds of the bollocks. That stone was locally quarried by AB, carted by Tubby and cut by Steve Waugh.
And no-one can complain the want of a contest. Remember 2005? the Ashes? I recall a bitter loss, but i also remeber the actual FEELING of the game. The fact there was finally a CONTEST. It's now rare.
Look, to come to a pont. Umpires make mistakes. And maybe it's a thing of nature that the home team gets the run of the green. That's what makes winning away so sweet when you get there.
Things have been said, decision mades - all of which can't be taken back. But maybe this is better that a 5-0 whitewash vs the Shettland Ponies Club Open 12? What other game has been so discussed recently?
Having said that, once the dust has settled, people might reflect and wish they had it over again...underarmbowl...
But should a fielder appeal to the umpire for a field catch in the same way umpires are asked to adjudicate on fine catches by the keeper, and LBW. Or should we allow the slo-mo replay to 'clarify' the outfield catch along with the stumping and the run out?
Questions not easily answered. Maybe Technology!! Yeah, but interpretation... Think Hawkeye. Super slo-mo. And let's throw in claims of 'depth-of-field', 'benefit-of-doubt', etc. All just and fair.
Suffice to say, I have doubts. Should M. Clarke have claimed THAT catch? Should A. Gilchrist or A. Symonds have appealed for THAT caught behind v Dravid 2nd innings?
Have I lost a little bit of faith in the presnt and future state of Aussie cricket? Maybe . . .
I hope not...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)