And now for something completely different...

This is my first blog about cricket for a long time now. Ages ago I switched cricket posts to another blog which has been allowed to go dormant. However last night I saw some an example of decision making by the Australian hierarchy that is simply nothing short of nonsensical so this week's primary Rant returns to the cricket field.

If you know anything about Australian cricket, you will be well aware that one of our most dangerous players in the short versions of the game is David Hussey. He can come in during the second half of an innings and drop a very heavy foot onto the accelerator. In the 20-20 version of the game, this ability is even more valuable and he can brutalise a bowling attack. Yet Hussey, D is more or less out of the current line-up, being pushed into a position of rotation for an available slot. And why? Because of the appointment of the captain.

The current captain is George Bailey. I am aware of Bailey's existence but not much else. Yet, rather inexplicably, he has scored the captaincy ahead of much more experienced players. His appointment as captain gives him an assured place in the batting order. And if that place is in the middle of said batting line-up, then someone else has to go. Hence Hussey, D onto a rotation list of players hoping to get at least an occasional slot.

The only acceptable justification for this situation is if Bailey is justifying his place there ahead of Hussey, D. So let us look at some statistics.

BAILEY			HUSSEY
Matches	8		Matches	38
Highest Score	42		Highest Score	88
Total runs	125		Total runs	756
Centuries	0		Centuries	0
Fifties	0		Fifties	3
Ducks	0		Ducks	3
Balls faced	110		Balls faced	621
Total innings	8		Total innings	35
Average	25		Average	23.63
Strike rate	113.6		Strike rate	121.74

  

Here is a reality check. A far less experienced player has been made captain out of the blue and despite his lack of results behind him, his presence has seen one of the real destroyers shoved onto the outer, despite the latter's average being much the same as Bailey’s but with a noticeably higher strike rate and stronger proven record.

I know virtually nothing about George Bailey. For I know, he is a male equivalent of reincarnated Mother Theresa in which case I would sincerely apologise to him. But regardless of how good a bloke he may or may not be, his position in this team is simply not justified ahead of David Hussey yet the ability of the Australian team to lift its current ranking from a very dismal tenth position in the world rankings depends on the team's overall strength. And more than any other version of the game, the 20-20 game is more a batters game than any other. Yet one of our strongest middle-order batsmen has had his effective career put pretty much on hold for a captaincy appointment that defies any of Austen's Sense and Sensibility.

Did we win our first game by defeating Ireland? Yes. But, with all respect to my distant Irish kindred, so what? And please don't go getting excited and point out that Ireland defeated Pakistan in a World Cup match. When the Pakistani's have an off game (and despite their continuing stream of talented players, they have a lot more off days than ones when they're on) the local pub's eleven could beat them. After the beer has been flowing for a while. And don't forget that, rightly or wrongly, the spectre of match fixing and throwing games etc still hangs heavily over the collective heads of the Pakistani team. So we can pretty much take that Irish win out of consideration for beating Australia. Don’t get me wrong Ireland possibly has more fight in them, shot for shot, ball for ball, than anyone else in international cricket. The extent of their improvement in only a few short years is nothing short of remarkable. But they still should not have a realistic chance against Australia at this tiem. The captaincy of the Australian team played no meaningful role. I could have come out of my decade's retirement from low-level club cricket and captained that Australian team to a win in those circumstances. So George Bailey is yet to be actually tested. And meanwhile David Hussey must wondering just whose toes he trod on to be treated as he has been.

Condemned to the attic - why?

I made myself a promise to blog here every Wednesday. Unfortunately I am a day late in posting this time but as I was fixing up some edits on a soon-to-be-released small book, I forgive myself.

It is hardly unusual for me to be l letting rip against Australian television. But this time I actually have some positive things to say in plugging a couple of programs.

30 Rock is a great little comedy. Created by Tina Fey and loosely reflecting her time writing for and then performing on the US comedic icon, Saturday Night Live, this is genuinely funny viewing. The characters in the show have been wonderfully cast in creating a diverse range of comedic conflicts and contrasts as it makes fun of television and big business. I had no idea how good a comic actor Alec Baldwin is in a role such as the one he has here and his casting was quite a gem. And how could you not like and appreciate Fey’s Liz Lemon?

This program should have excellent ratings but that is unlikely. Why? Because it is broadcast at a ridiculously hour on Australian television.

Parks and Recreation  features another graduate of SNL, Amy Poehler. Her depiction of a local-government-obsessed public servant in a mockumentary style of program is another little gem. And the diversity of the cast behind her is just as well put together as that of 30 Rock. And they have their Big Name in there as well with Rob Lowe playing a beaut, quirky role.

Just like 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation should be going gangbusters but sadly it is broadcast even later than 30 Rock in Australia.

Interestingly, Fey and Poehler are friends as well as co-performers together on SNL. This may be why there are some similarities between the two programs but more than enough differences to avoid any ‘me too’ comparisons, although Parks and Gardens has come under a little fire in the past for being too similar in technique to The Office.

These are genuinely funny television programs. So why on earth are they condemned to such late night slots? Not everyone has the flexibility of hours that I have these days and so can often afford to sit up that late to watch things that have been hidden away in the attic of late night viewing.

Hey television networks – do you have something against genuinely entertaining people? Why on earth are two of the most entertaining programs on Australian public television, condemned to the late shift without any real audience? And what are they losing out too in the programming stakes? So-called ‘reality’ garbage like The Shire, GC, the repacked-but-still-the-same-crap Big Brother?

Here’s another thought. Both of those programs feature a strong cast, good writing and the experience of two well-credentialed leads, all from North America. But we have some damned good writers and performers Down Under. So why on earth doesn’t Australian television make the most of some of them by encouraging and supporting local development of more than just ‘me too’ ‘reality’ garbage? As I have said before, that means jobs, economic production, creative opportunities, revenue streams and potential export dollars.

Wake up, Australia! Please!

Food production - a longer term view

Some folk in the struggling nation of Bangladesh, have come up with a rather remarkable and far-sighted idea for addressing future food and economic need.

This is a poor nation. Its location has it assessed as being greatly at risk from impacts of environmental change. And, just like everywhere else, its population is growing. So how will the future Bangladesh manage to continue feeding its citizens?

Bangladesh already has extensive rice farming with a great many rivers and other water sources to support the water-needs of rice. A new proposal has been brought forth that this rice farming be combined with fish farming, by stocking the water-rich rice fields with fish. Thus the production of one staple – rice – is used to produce more of another staple – fish. It even provides the opportunity to produce crops of prawns in conjunction with the rice growing, thereby producing a product for export and increasing the flow of economic wealth into that impoverished country.

http://tinyurl.com/cpaqoa6

This is quite wonderful stuff. There would be issues needing to be addressed to make harvesting of the fish a viable process. Similarly as rice fields hold shallow water which is more subject to warming which in turn reduces oxygen retention and increasing water temperature to a level not conducive to fish of an eatable size, provision of cooler water refuges would presumably be necessary.  And the overall scale of fish-rice production would need to be at a level to make the fish harvesting economically viable. However these issues would surely not be beyond resolution?

If fish are increasingly introduced into the rice-growing process, then might that not also see through the natural food cycle, fish helping reduce the presence of other aquatic life that might not be so beneficial to the rice crop, making this a much more environmentally sustainable option?

Consumption of rice in Australia has been increasing. The Ricegrower's Association of Australia point out that Australian rice harvests are sufficient to feed “20 million people, 365 days a year.” That's a lot of rice. Continuation of water supply to satisfy the rice crop needs would be an issue to Australian growers. Yet it occurs to me that the more temperate northern zones with monsoonal water falls, might be quite well suited to this combined rice-fish farming.

If we as the human species are to survive, then I suggest this sort of sensible, multi-cropping, seemingly environmentally-friendly approach is one to be emulated and encouraged. What else might benefit from similar, wide-ranging thinking? 

Now if you have an opinion on what I'm blathering about or even just feel like saying hi, then don't be afraid to leave a comment or post something to me via Twitter or Facebook. I don't bite - at least not always.