The crisis affecting Australian cricket

Bundled out of the Twenty/20 World Cup, their best all rounder gone, and a real sense that the hegemony that was Australian Cricket is truly behind us.

But, worryingly for the English, there is still a sense of lurking power underneath this rebuilding icon.

Their last test match series in South Africa proved that. Despite having suffered the indignity of a 2-1 loss at home in the tests and a 4-1 thumping in the one day internationals, against all odds the under siege Baggy Green came to the temporary holders of the ICC number one ranking and somehow defeated the Proteas to restore the balance.

Temporarily.

But one felt that all it did was paint a mirage over the glaring cracks not only of the team itself, but also something deep in the heart of Australian cricket.

The Twenty/20 debacle in theory would not worry the purists of the game. After all, but a few decades ago the fifty over game was just an intruder on the sanctity of test cricket. Surely this twenty over aside playground means nothing to the world, or to Australia.

This is dead wrong, as the new shortened version has proven, it is here to stay. It has, in the form of the IPL, irrevocably changed the landscape of the game – for better or for worse, and is now legitimately one form of three cricket styles.

And in the World Cup, its grandest stage, the Australians could not even win a game.

Sri Lanka is one thing, but the West Indies is in a horrific state at the moment, and the Australians, filled with enough talent to win the title, never looked close to a top team.

It is said that the key turning point was the sending home of Andrew Symonds.

But, irrespective of the side of the fence you see Symonds; one could argue that Australian cricket should have never have put themself in the position with the truant in the first place, and should have taken a far harder stance with the Queenslander a lot earlier.

With the Ashes on the immediate horizon, surely the pinnacle of cricket for an Australian team, there is no real aspect of them being ready for a defence of the little urn.

Is there an element of history repeating, when Australia lost to England in a Twenty20 match before falling apart to Bangladesh in 2005?

But it is the administration that causes the real concern.

Late last year, Tim Neilson received a contract extension. This was ushered at the same time Australia were beginning to look like anything but the number one cricket nation in the world. This decision made no real business sense.

In a world of results, this reeked of poor business.

And now, we see the Australian cricket players prospective earnings jump to huge levels, thought by most to be staving off the threat of independent cricket such as IPL.

In an era – and a first for many years - where Australian players are far from the dominators we have come to expect, they are on the cusp of earning, at the highest level, as much as $2 million.
The overall player payment pool is estimated to rise to an astonishing AUD$96.2 million over the next two years, a jump of nearly 14%. Players will be remunerated for Cricket Australia sponsorship work, and the top six players will receive fixed contracts with all monies for match payments paid out in advance in full.

So the earning power of the elite players of Australian cricket would not be affected by rotational or resting policies.

But is there a player who we could really call an elite cricketer in Australian cricket at this time?

Even the twin pillars of Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke are looking remarkable fallible at the moment. Ironically, as CA move to protect their prize players, should not these men playing extra cricket in leagues such as the IPL make them better players?

No doubt these top Australians looked out of their depth in Twenty/20 whereas IPL veterans in the competition looked battle hardened.

News has also come to light that former Australian coach John Buchanan will be joining up to spend a week coaching England, with his link up scheduled to be just prior to the first Ashes test in Cardiff. There is a speculation that he will be offered something more permanent with the ECB.

Not the first time Australian intellectual property has been taken by the old enemy.

Is it the fraying edges of Australian cricket behind the scenes that is causing so much damage to their once all powerful side?

Gordon Ramsay in Australia – is it a nation of prudes?

Channel Nine in Australia has shamefully traded poor journalism for an attack on Gordon Ramsay, which in deep analysis, proves to be a blatant act of hypocrisy and plug for ratings.

Although it is not widely known, it is strongly reported that some time ago, Channel Nine actually gave Ramsay an expensive watch, scribed with thanks, for being a jewel in their crown.

As with most superstars (as Ramsay is, based on a stunning decade of success, who only opened his first restaurant just over 10 years ago) fame can come and go, and Australia has certainly backed this statement up.

TV networks clambered over each other to try and get his shows.

If they couldn’t air his latest fare, then the competitors would still try to get a slice of the pie by replaying older episodes or series.

Now he is being hounded worldwide for his alleged treatment of media in Australia. All in all, all publicity is good publicity. Here in this part of the world in particular, it has been sometime since we have heard of Ramsay, with even his incoming journey here was kept relatively quiet.

Only recently, Channel Nine axed a series of Hell’s Kitchen after it had reportedly attracted only half the viewers compared to NCIS.

NCIS? Mark Harmon for goodness sake?

Personally, I see both sides of the fence for feelings towards Ramsay.

I myself have been criticised for my forthright view of things, to the point of being labeled offensive. Naturally it is the case of opinion and upbringing. I was raised in a fairly liberal family, where conversation about what society would think taboo was common.

But a painful lesson I have learnt in life, is that you are judged (unfairly) for being forthright with your views or vocabulary. Often, statements that are just opinion are often mistaken as insults.

And here, Ramsay has been unfairly attacked.

Tracy Grimshaw has long attacked people via her creative journalism, and in most situations, the recipients of this treatment have not had the force of will or personality to combat this.

While I do believe that a Current Affair does sometimes bring to light things that need widespread attention, what on earth were they thinking?

Does anyone honestly think that Grimshaw was not serving up to Ramsay?

The man is in Australia for his reputation as a chef and his considerable nous as a businessman. What on earth was she doing insinuating his treatment to his wife?

My partner and I (both of us unashamed admirers of Ramsay) watched Current Affair after seeing the advertisement on television.

We were both expecting Ramsay to physically assault people and insult their dead mothers. What we saw was what everyone in the world has known for years.

What I saw was just classic Ramsay, that was overhyped for the benefit of attracting ratings. It is with much shame that I contributed to this rating, the first and last time I will watch a Current Affair.

Watching Grimshaw sit there and call Ramsay names was just appalling – to typical for Channel Nine to try and get the last shove in.

Sure, Ramsay may not be a complete gentleman; but has it ever been any other way? Beyond the insight that we get to his skills as a restaurateur and self marketer, do not most people watch Ramsay because of his controversial approach.

I don’t know for sure, but in the beginning, I can almost guarantee that the powers that made the decision to use Ramsay as a cash cow themselves via television weren’t doing it for his pretty looks.

(Yes, I realise that Ramsay has “sex god” status, but this is one thing I can’t bring myself to agree with, and I am sure that Ramsay himself would concur).

Can we not admire the restaurant magnate for just saying it how it is? The world would be far more interesting and home to less bull**** if more people could have the courage to say what they mean.

But in Australia, this has gotten to be too much.

Is this not a country where a bit of rough language and borderline chauvinism is a trademark. Is Australia not the land which famously ended a marketing campaign with a statement “where the bloody hell are you?”

Worst yet, the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard have waded in onto the affair.

Good lord, aren’t you supposed to be too busy running the country. Having the leader of your country verbalise such opinion is just too much.

Now that all of this is said and done, Ramsay himself has opened a new restaurant in London, named Pétrus, after enduring a torrid time of late with the effects of the financial crisis.

We should appreciate that someone of his reputation can come down to Australia.

At the end of the day, love him or loathe him, he is one of the world’s great culinary geniuses. I remember with some amusement a while ago when Macro Pierre White, one of Ramsay’s great foes, remarked that Ramsay had no signature dish, and this was why he could not be regarded as an authentic “master chef”.

As someone who has recently began to set his sights very high with some ambitious goals, how can you not admire what the man has achieved?

Personally, I cannot wait to have the opportunity in the future, to dine in one of his many outstanding venues.

As for my fellow Australians, let’s harden up shall we?

Kevin Rudd’s cash splash financial stimulus continues to show its flaws

The dust has long settled with the newest Australian budget, and while the pain of some of the changed laws are still to be felt, again the question must be asked - was handing out bundles of money to individuals worth it?

Naturally, there are people – a lot of people – that would say it was worth every cent. Numerous families, especially those with many children, as well as some other denominators, received multiple amounts.

At the end of last year close to $10 billion was handed out, and this time round over $8 billion has been given.

Of course, the injection of financial stimulus into stalled economies is crucial to most nations’ recoveries.

For the basic principle of any economic engine is money or credit being moved around through the system.

Or, essentially, people spending money.

But this stimulus and cash handout has not only been poorly conceived, but now evidence is being revealed that the system is being rorted.

First of all, as nearly a million Australians have found out, the criteria for determining who received this money is a bit misleading.

It is not based on whether you earned up to $80,000.

You actually had to have paid tax.

So if you were a low income earner, say on anything from $13,000 and lower, you don’t receive a cent of the stimulus.

This is damningly ironic, as in Parliament today; the Rudd government launched a scathing attack on the oppositions (Liberals) traditional mindset of only looking after the rich.

Despite having this recent fuel for retaliation, it was something that the Lib’s didn’t pick up on.

But, terrible loopholes are now emerging in regard to the payments themselves.

16,000 dead Australian citizens have received payments, some reports state that this in excess of $10 million dollars.

27,000 Expats have received this money as well. So if you have recently moved away from Australia, and filled in a 2007/08 tax return (the basic criteria) check your mailbox and bank account.

You could be up to $900 richer.

Bankers working in America and the Middle East who are Australian citizens are receiving these cheques if they have assets back home, and are paying tax on their property or assets.

Also thousands of backpackers from overseas have received the payments.

But it is the rich who have benefited the most.

Accountants have revealed all throughout Australia than some people have claimed up to six of the $900 bonus payments; all done quite legally, due to the various ways that high income earners can split their “earnings”.

One Melbourne accountant revealed that a client that earned $360,000 received six payments, while another client who earned $13,000 as a carer received nothing.

Other people have reported receiving extra payments for no reason.

And what happens when they contact the Tax office to inform of the error?

A blessing to go and spend the “misdelivered money”; it is almost as if they know the system was poorly conceived.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has tried to defend the stimulus payments. "The stimulus measures have gone overwhelmingly to low and middle-income families, singles and pensioners, and were delivered as quickly as possible on the ATO's advice," Mr Swan said.

The prime minister has stated that these payments, as well as creating jobs, were absolutely necessary in the face of a crisis.

Even though Australia has suffered the least of any first world countries.

"I recognise that a temporary deficit may not be popular," Mr Rudd said.

"But that is the global reality we face with virtually all Governments now in deficit. I cannot remove the impact of the global recession on Australian jobs.

"But by Government action we can reduce it."