Melbourne Ashes fourth test pitch judged unsatisfactory by ICC

Showing all posts about Australia

Melbourne Ashes fourth test pitch judged unsatisfactory by ICC

1 January 2026

Test matches in cricket are generally meant to last the best part of five days. Fans of the game expect to see individual batters clock up scores of one-hundred plus runs. Maybe two-hundred plus, if they get on a roll. Brian Lara, a West Indies cricketer, once made four-hundred runs in a test match.

Last week, during the fourth test of the Ashes Series, not one batter from either the Australian or English teams managed to notch more than fifty runs. Twenty wickets fell on the first day of this match. That means both teams were bowled out on the same day.

This sort of thing happens — it’s a funny old game after all — but it is not something anyone expects of the top, first class, teams of any cricketing nation.

Last Tuesday the International Cricket Council (ICC) rated the pitch at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) as “unsatisfactory”, which is the second lowest rating a cricket pitch can receive.

This was on account of the one-centimetre long grass on the pitch, which seemed to suit bowlers more than batters, and explains the regularity with which wickets tumbled. Usually, the grass on test pitches is shorter, but on occasions has exceeded one centimetre.

While the length of the grass contributed to the low scoring game, commentators also said the quality of batting left much to be desired. England went on to win the truncated two day test match, their first victory in nearly fifteen years on Australian soil.

The fifth, and final, Ashes test commences in Sydney on Sunday 4 January 2026.

While Australia has already retained the Ashes, with a three to one lead in the five game series, I’m hoping England win in Sydney. That would make the score line three to two, and look, at least on paper, that this summer’s test series had been some sort of contest.

RELATED CONTENT

Australia, cricket, England, sport

Some Australian cafes adopt automatic tipping as costs keep rising

24 December 2025

In a land were people (still) do not generally expect to pay a tip at food and beverage venues, a practice called automatic tipping is sure to be poorly received. Industry workers are reasonably well paid in Australia (or are meant to be), so customers see little need to offer tips.

This is not the case for all dining workers across the world though.

But some local food and beverage venues, struggling with escalating costs, have begun adding a gratuity of up to ten-percent to what they charge customers, a practice called automatic tipping.

Although it may not be popular, some industry observers predict the practice will become more common, in response to rising overheads. While automatic tipping is legal in Australia, food and beverage operators must be upfront about the charge, and allow customers to opt out of paying.

At a cafe I go to regularly, a large cappuccino costs five-dollars-and-fifty-cents (Australian). An automatic tip of ten-percent would see the cost rise to six-dollars-and-five-cents. I appreciate local food and beverage operators are struggling, but I’d rather meet them half-way.

Perhaps increase the price of a coffee by five-percent, maybe a tad more, taking the price to five-dollars-and-eighty-cents. Round off the price to nearest twenty-cents so people paying cash (to avoid card surcharges) don’t end up with a pocket too full of loose change.

I think most customers, certainly regulars, would continue to support their favourite coffee shop.

A reasonable price increase, and not just for coffee of course, seems far less underhand than levying an automatic tip, would avoid potential confrontations, and bring the much needed revenue boost food and beverage venues are looking for.

RELATED CONTENT

Australia, coffee, economics, trends

Jarrod Grech paints mural of Ahmed Al Ahmed, who disarmed a Bondi Beach shooter

24 December 2025

Melbourne based Australian artist Jarrod Grech, has painted a mural (Instagram link) of Ahmed Al Ahmed, who heroically wrenched a rifle out of the hands of one of the shooters during the terrorist attack targeting the Jewish community, at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, on Sunday 14 December 2025.

Ahmed was one of several unarmed and fearless civilians who confronted the shooters. Boris Gurman, wife Sofia, and Reuven Morrison, also tried to stop the shooters, but were tragically killed doing so. Hopefully their acts of bravery are never forgotten.

Former police officer warned of potential Bondi Beach mass shooting ten years ago

20 December 2025

Steve Buttel, a former NSW police officer, speaking to Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reporters Lia Harris and Pablo Vinales:

A former NSW Police sergeant claims he repeatedly warned his superiors years ago that local officers would not be equipped to respond to an active-shooter attack in Bondi.

Between 2008 and 2016 Steve Buttel was based at Waverley police station, which was responsible for patrolling Bondi Beach as part of the Eastern Suburbs Police Area Command.

Mr Buttel told the ABC he informed his bosses “it was only a matter of time” before there would be a terror attack targeting the local Jewish community.

It’s horrifying to think, despite strict gun control laws in Australia, there were some police officers concerned a mass shooting event might occur one day at Bondi Beach.

Australian gun laws set to be tightened following Bondi Beach shooting

16 December 2025

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has flagged more restrictions on gun ownership. At present, to legally possess a gun, a person must, among other things, be “fit and proper”, have a genuine reason for ownership, belong to a gun club, and undertake to store the weapons securely.

Chris Minns, the Premier of the Australian state New South Wales (NSW), where Sunday’s shooting took place, is considering recalling the state parliament, which is currently in recess for the year-end holidays, to enact further gun control measures in NSW.

One of the Bondi Beach perpetrators had held a gun licence, allowing him to own the weapons, for ten years. The person in question had six guns in his possession.

Reddit: the Australian social media ban is unconstitutional, in a way

15 December 2025

Social news aggregator Reddit has filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Australia, claiming the ban preventing Australians aged under sixteen using social media intrudes on free political discourse.

The Australian Constitution does not protect free speech as such. In fact, the document seems more concerned with matters pertaining to the Australian government, parliament, and judiciary. However, in 1992, the High Court found that an implied freedom of political communication exists.

The thing is, the social media ban doesn’t curtail this freedom for young Australian as such, it merely means they have to find other channels to express themselves. A personal website, or blog, is of course an option. But let’s see what the High Court of Australia has to say about the Reddit filing.

Numerous people killed in terrorist incident at Bondi Beach Australia

14 December 2025

Terrible news from Bondi Beach, this evening. As of the time I type, twelve people, including one of two perpetrators, are dead. Some sixteen people, including two police officers, have been injured.

Here’s hoping there are no further causalities.

RELATED CONTENT

Australia, current affairs, Sydney

Australian social media ban, day one: so far I have not been carded

11 December 2025

Not that I’m under the age of sixteen of course.

But say what you will about it, the social media ban for Australians under the age of sixteen is now in force. Already some of those effected are claiming to have circumvented the restrictions. That shouldn’t surprise anyone.

If anyone’s gong to figure out how to do something they shouldn’t be doing, it’ll be teenagers.

Going around the socials, I’ve so far noticed little difference to anything. I logged into Instagram, Threads, and Facebook without incident. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. As Cam Wilson, writing for Crickey points out, “they already know your age with some accuracy.”

Nothing to report with Mastodon to date. The only exception has been Bluesky, where I was asked to supply my date of birth, but not for proof. Bluesky advised though I might need to verify my age to access certain features. I imagine that refers to content that might be deemed for adults only.

But let’s see what happens in the coming days.

UPDATE: Australian journalist and pod-caster Stilgherrian, on Bluesky no less:

One correction. The teens can still *access* social media media to view things. They just can’t have accounts to be able to post or respond. They can’t have the social part of social media, just the media part.

Also noteworthy, I was able to locate his Bluesky post, and page, via a search engine query, on a device not logged into any social media accounts, on an Australian IP address. That’s a selective social media ban for sure.

The Australian social media ban is also a ban on education

11 December 2025

American economist Tyler Cowan writes about the educational impact the Australian social media ban for people under the age of sixteen could have:

YouTube in particular, and sometimes X, are among the very best ways to learn about the world. To the extent that the law is effectively enforced, targeting YouTube will have a terrible effect on youth science, and the ability of young scientists and founders to get their projects off the ground will take a huge and possibly fatal hit. If you are only allowed to learn from the internet at age 16, you are probably not ready for marvelous achievements at age 18 or perhaps not even at 20. The country may become more mediocre.

No one learns solely from school issue textbooks anymore. Obviously there’s a lot of content on YouTube (and elsewhere of course) that isn’t suitable for all ages (or any age for that matter), but there are some truly valuable resources.

Kurzgesagt, whose educational videos I often link to, is but one example.

Cowan’s full article can be read at The Free Press with an account.

The Australian social media ban may not achieve much

8 December 2025

Nathan Powell writing for Mumbrella :

A social media ban for under 16s will have six uncomfortable realities that policymakers will not tell you. But they matter, because they determine whether this decision actually protects young people, or simply creates new risks in new places.

This is the polarising issue in Australia in 2025. People are either ardently in favour of restricting social media access to people under the age of sixteen, while others think it’s a terrible idea.

Both sides have convincing arguments to support their view. I don’t need to be told there is a lot of rot on social media that no one at all should see.

I’ve been winding back my social media use. I removed the Facebook app from my smartphone a couple of months ago, and have barely missed it. I’m considering doing away with Threads. It becomes more like the present Twitter/X with each passing day.

Ditto Instagram. There I’d just login to the website every now and then to see what’s happening.

But it’s also known younger Australians, particularly those marginalised in some way, are able to seek support safely and privately through social media, something they’ll lose access to. There’s no doubt the ban is going to be to the detriment of some Australians under the age of sixteen.

« older posts