The axe must fall on Australian cricket
Roar Pro
By James Mortimer, 1 Jan 2009 James Mortimer is a Roar Pro
We have just watched Graeme Smith’s men take a nine wicket victory in Melbourne to secure a 2-0 lead and a first series win in Australia. And the home team helped them all the way.
I must first heap considerable praise on South African cricket.
I wish to take nothing away from their achievements, not only in this series, but over the last two years. They deserve to take the ranking of number one cricketing nation with an all but predictable victory in Sydney.
But Australia has made terrible gaffes in recent months and they look set to pay the heftiest of prices now and in the immediate future:
Never identifying the next tier of Australian players when they were in their golden age.
Shane Warne was bowling for the Baggy Greens for over a decade. Why were understudies never appointed or trained? Furthermore, he is still in Australia – why is he not holding a position within the coaching team? Granted, many players who have retired are, in theory, once in a generation players. But were real succession plans in place?
Allowing out of form players to continue.
Trevor Hohns would never be as graceful as Andrew Hilditch has been. On current form, only Simon Katich, Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson are guaranteed their spots. Will Matthew Hayden play in the Ashes? He has continued to fail and, as such, is placing immense pressure on the batting order. Players such as Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh were not given such gravitas, so why is Hayden?
Letting players take the field injured.
Andrew Symonds saw a specialist prior to the Boxing Day Test who warned that surgery was likely. Why did he play? Since when did a team like Australia rely on players who could not field or bowl?
Giving faith to players despite not performing at the honoured selection table of state cricket.
Andrew Symonds was in horrible form for Queensland after the “gone fishing” incident and was let back into the team on reputation alone. Why wasn’t a performing and in form Shane Watson selected?
Reappointing a coach of a losing team – that clearly is not playing well tactically and down on confidence – two necessary attributes that the coach must instil.
Tim Nielson must shoulder even more responsibility than Ponting, as at least the latter scores runs.
Even the past greats of Australia are divided.
It was fascinating to hear Ian Healy and Ian Chappell give their team selections for the third Test in Sydney.
Healy, for some incredulous reason, believes that stability is the key, and that Hayden should be given another chance.
Hayden has been given such chances.
Some suggest that Hayden should stay in the team for the sake of the new players. But are there still not senior players such as Ponting and Michael Clarke to make new players “feel at home”?
Certainly the failures of Hayden are putting pressure not only on the settled Australia batting order, but also the bowlers who do not have the totals to defend that Australian bowlers are used to.
Chappell believes that the axe should fall and that in a dead rubber, players should be bought in. I, and countless others, will no doubt agree completely.
Brett Lee is injured, and this gives other fast bowlers the opportunity to prove their worth – for Lee has not been shouldering the menace required of a team’s strike bowler.
But Hayden and Lee are not the only players not performing.
Even Michael Hussey, almost mockingly now called Mr Cricket, has been out of form in a year that has seen his once Bradman like average drop by over 20 runs. Send him back to domestic cricket, for there are high performing batsmen in Australia who deserve the chance on the international stage.
Irrespective, whatever is done now will at best only stop the rot – but the damage has now been done.
Someone in the corridors of power will need to make some very hard decisions soon.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Mathews heroics almost shakes Clarke’s resolve
- Resurgent Pakistan inspire new generation to play
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Resurgent Pakistan inspire new generation to play (0)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
sheek said | January 2nd 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
James,
In the past few days, many of us tragic sporting/cricket fans have been getting stuck into the selection panel, headed by ex-test player Andrew Hilditch, & with some justification. But I’ve been wondering, how much of our anger/frustration directed towards the selectors, is justified?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we were the selectors, how much prescience would we possess? Could we have better foreseen events unfold than the current selectors? Consider the following stats surrounding 3 of the most controversial players in the team at the moment – Hayden, Symonds & Lee.
Just a summer ago, we beat the Indians 2-1 at home. Hayden led the runs aggregates & averages with 410 runs at 82 (3 tests), including 3 centuries. Symonds also scored 410 runs at 68.3 (4 tests). He also took 9 wickets at 27.4.
Then in the Windies, Symonds added a further 264 runs at 66. Therefore, in 7 tests, Symonds averaged about 67 with the bat (Hayden was injured for the Windies). How could the selectors have foreseen the slump Hayden & Symonds would enter just a few months later???
Then there’s Lee. He was our leading bowler in both the Indian & Windies series, in 7 tests capturing 42 wickets at about 21 runs apiece. That’s awesome bowling. Again, how could the selectors have foreseen a slump in his bowling just a few months later???
We should also bear in mind, we were in a position to win both tests against the Saffies at various stages. In the 1st test, the Saffies had to achieve the 2nd highest run chase for victory. In the 2nd test, the Saffies got off the floor to take an extraordinary 1st innings lead.
It happens. We’ve done to different oppositions many times (doing the improbable, that is). Remember the Ashes test against England in Adelaide 2006/07, for example.
Here are my thoughts on the statements you made above.
1. It’s a broad brushstroke to say the selectors have failed to identify the next tier of players. Take spinning, for example. Hogg, White, Casson, Hauritz & Krejza have all been tried with various degrees of success. Selecting is a two-way street. The selectors give a player an opportunity, but he must also seize that opportunity. I believe the spin situation is part of a larger problem I will mention presently.
2. Allowing out of form players to continue in the test team has always been part of the deal. It’s about continuity. When the player quickly regains form, the selectors are geniuses. When he doesn’t, the selectors look stupid. You’re wrong in saying Taylor & S.Waugh weren’t given the same latitude as Hayden. They most definitely were. On the other hand, the selectors were pilloried for ending Dean Jones’ career too quickly. Sometimes, they can’t win.
3. Letting Symonds take the field injured was a desperate gamble. When the selectors discovered Watson was in an even more serious injury position than Symonds, they had little choice but to play Symonds. It was too late to otherwise overly disrupt the playing line-up. And injured players have been taken into games before. This is nothing new.
4. Selecting Symonds in the test team despite poor performances in the Sheffield Shield, is also nothing new. Surely, after a certain period of time, players have earnt the right to selection without having to perform at state level. Afterall, they’ve done it at test level. And remember, Symonds was our best batsman from both Indian & Windies series combined, just a few months ago.
5. Imagine sacking a coach every time he loses a series, or even two. Should Robbie Deans be immediately sacked as Wallabies coach because we failed to win either the Tri-Nations or Bledisloe Cup. I don’t think Neilson is on top of his game. But at the same time, I don’t think it’s all his fault.
What I do believe is this. The Sheffield Shield is failing us, because the ‘up-&-comers’ are not being exposed to the leading 15 or so players on a regular basis. They are not playing with & against the best, being trashed by them, & learning from them. Therefore, it is difficult to know if the next generation are the ‘real deal’, or not.
This partly explains the reason why selectors have been reluctant to fast-track them, although this is no excuse. Also, keep in mind, if a team continues to be successful, dropping underperforming players can be counterproductive.
Back in 1996/97, the selectors decided to drop Slater despite his form being okay. Their reasoning was his game was too cavalier, too loose, & wanted him to tighten up. However, they could not have imagined the instability this caused to the team. His opening partner Taylor, the skipper, lost his own form, & was lucky to survive himself.
Obviously, Slater’s place in the side went further than just scoring runs, or not. He & taylor was soul mates, who fed off each other. When the selectors dropped Slater, they unnecessaily upset the whole balance of the team.
It’s a tough gig, being a selector. The current selectors are far from blameless, but I hope I have pointed out that it is not all their fault. Besides, how many of us could have predicted several key players from just a summer ago, collectively losing form???
sheek said | January 2nd 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
One thing I do agree about, with the series lost, & the 3rd test now a dead rubber, is that there was a wonderful opportunity to introduce new blood.
With Lee injured, & Symonds sacked, the selectors should have gone further. For the purposes of illustration, I would have gone to the extreme of only keeping skipper Ponting, his deputy Clarke, & relative new chums Hauritz & Siddle. I would have ‘rested’ Katich, Hussey, Haddin & Johnson, because the selectors know what they can do. And I would have ‘retired’ Hayden.
This then would have allowed 2 openers to be selected – Hughes & either North/Rogers. Another middle order bat could have been included – Klinger or David Hussey. Ronchi could have been tried as an alternate to Haddin. And of course, you could have played both Bollinger & Hilfenhaus.
The team in batting order might have looked like this: Hughes, North/Rogers, Ponting(c), Clarke(vc), Klinger/D.Hussey, McDonald, Ronchi(k), Hilfenhaus, Hauritz, Siddle, Bollinger. Of course, 6-7 new debutants all in the one test is not ideal, but then these are not ideal times.
Anyway, Haydo will probably score a century, Punter will make all the right bowling changes, the new chums will perform, Australia will win the 3rd test, & everything will be okay again. Maybe………………..!
James Mortimer said | January 2nd 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
I see much wisdom in your words Sheek – you’re not actually Warne are you?
I understand the point regarding Haydos, Symo and Lee – they are three brilliant players on their day, and have performed enough at the highest level to recieve some leigh way.
As promising as the next generation of players may be, the selectors would say “wait, this is Matt Hayden, arguably one of the most destructive opening batsmen the world has ever seen, he’ll come right”.
It is broad to blame selectors and the like, for another point that we have not considered, that the Australian cricketing fraternity – selectors, players and ex players – are simply not used to losing, and are not adjusting to the mindset that they are not being dominant.
But I still stand by my case that nothing decisive is being done, on or off the field, so some action must be taken.
Based on your responses to my statements, I again see you angle, albiet I feel as much as I am playing the devil’s advocate, you are looking at it from a “glass half full” standpoint.
In response to 1) I still feel that Australia is missing a trick not having Warne or even Macgill, both world class operaters, give more input. When we watched Warne (yourself?!?!) do a cricketing class during the Cricket show, millions of budding spinners would be twice the bowler if implementing the advice he gives. Is this translating to the future spinners of the Australian test team?
I understand 2) the point of continuity, but we are not talking about eighty minutes, we are talking about five days of a game. A selector must think about the future. With an Ashes defence less than a year away, will continuity continue – or should the brains of Aust Crick disregard such patterns and usher fresh blood.
In 3) and 4) I still feel that Symonds got away with murder for the “gone fishing” incident – and we forget one simple fact, Watson was in form and Symo should never have been selected in the first place – unless he had been smashing centuries in the domestic game. Under conventional circumstances I might agree with your points, but now he is back in the team, he is not performing to expectations. And what do other players around him think. “Bloody Hell, I should go fishing and walk away cold turkey from the team, will still get paid, will walk straight back into the team, etc”. Symo has a history of incidents, and while he is a great player when on form – you or I would not get such mothering from our employers had we committed such acts.
And finally 5) I made no reference to Neilson getting sacked – but to reappoint him is madness at this stage. And with the greatest respect Sheek, a reference to Deans is completely off track. It is clear the team is evolving under Deans, despite losing some matches, and Deans has a track record uncomparable to a contempary in cricket.
Remember the simple point of all sport. Lose, and lose again, and there are problems. Win, and win again, and all is well. But when an Australian sporting public have seen year after year of such success, they are entitled to feel aggreviated that the powers “appear” to be sitting on their ***
sheek said | January 2nd 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
James,
As a general observation, I think that today’s players are over-coached, in most sports. I agree Warnie should be available (& it’s also a disgrace Lillee is virtually ignored) for coaching clinics. But I would suggest this on a casual basis, rather than a formal one.
There should be a pool of ex-test players to provide guidance & technical support. Other than this, players are being over-coached way too much. Someone on this post mentioned how Hauritz (I think it was, or Casson?) had had his bowling almost destroyed because well meaning but ignorant coaches were trying to turn him into something he wasn’t.
There was a wonderful story about one of the Saffies (Duminy maybe?) where the coaches had tried to get him to change his batting grip, but eventually decided he was better off the way he was. The point was to get his attitude right, & give him options to playing different balls, & a mindset for different circumstances, rather than changing his technique.
Which brings me back to Warnie. His coach Terry Jenner wasn’t a patch of a bowler compared to Warnie. I think Warnie mainly used him as a sounding board, to discuss tactics & techniques, & fine tune things. But Jenner couldn’t teach Warnie any tricks he didn’t already know. With Jenner, Warnie relied on friendship & trust, for a re-affirmation of certain things, rather than anything else.
Often, that’s all you need – quality, bonding time with someone you like & trust. The rest then falls into place.
With respect to Symonds, where I believe CA went wrong, & not necessarily the selectors, was failing to appreciate the state of mind of Symonds. He is clearly not happy with is cricket, which obviously affected his performance. And I would suggest he still has issues with some of his team mates. I continue to be amazed by the events of the previous summer, which I believe were a mountain made out of a mole hill.
I myself have had a go at the selectors. And clearly, their softly, softly approach to the 3rd test doesn’t really make sense under the circumstances, & also underlines their tardiness in other areas. But it is really a tough gig. It’s impossible to foresee every contingency.
I’m sure there have been times when the selectors thought it might be better to say drop Hayden, & bring the next generation in. But as we found in say, the case of Gregan with the Wallabies, it’s easier to say than to do. The timing becomes tricky. And there is no hard & fast formula.
But I still think whatever the selectors are doing, or not doing, we have a major structural problem with the Sheffield Shield, as previously mentioned.
sheek said | January 2nd 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
James,
You might be interested in this. The first overseas cricket tour I ever followed in full was the 1969-70 tour to both India & South Africa. I had started following cricket only at the end of the 1968 Ashes tour. I remember Richie Benaud describing in Australian Cricket magazine, the selectors’ decisions on the final 3 places in the touring team, & how the selectors (Bradman, Harvey & Ryder) might have arrived at those selections.
12 of the touring party were obvious, from the 5th & final test against West Indies – Bill Lawry(c), Ian Chappell(vc), Keith Stackpole, Doug Walters, Ian Redpath, Paul Sheahan, Brain Taber(k), Eric Freeman, Graham McKenzie, Johhny Gleeson, Alan Connolly, Ashley Mallett(12th). The selectors needed an extra batsman, paceman & keeper to complete the party.
Greg Chappell was the obvious choice as extra batsman. However, with the Australian B team touring NZ in early 1970 after the Shield season, the selectors felt he would benefit more from having a full Shield season, then touring NZ. Had he gone to India & SA, he would have got very few opportunities, & it mightn’t have helped him at all.
The selectors got that right because Chappell made his test debut in the 1970-71 season. WA’s Jock Irvine, a journeyman bat, got the nod, & didn’t do anything for the remainder of his career. Ditto the paceman & keeper. The selectors decided to select WA paceman Laurie Mayne (who had played 3 tests in the Windies in 1965) rather than some young gun.
Again, the theory was, some bright, new, young gun might emerge the next season, & go on the NZ tour. That bright, new, young gun turned out to be Dennis Lillee. For backup keeper, the selectors chose veteran Victorian Ray Jordan.
The alternatives were Qld’s John Maclean & WA’s Rod Marsh. It was felt they would benefit more from a full season of Shield, & fight it out for a place on the team to NZ. Maclean got the nod to NZ, but Marsh won full test selection next summer 1970-71.
It seems with respect to the 1969-70 season, & subsequent events, selectors Don Bradman, Neil Harvey & Jack Ryder got it mostly right.
drewster said | January 2nd 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
I feel some more emphasis should be put into the Australia A side. If the Sheffield Shield doesn’t give our up and coming players enough exposure to our existing Internationals then use this second tier team to play more games, maybe some old fashioned warm up games against the touring sides and some more exposure with more off season tours or invite teams to the North of Australia to play during our winter, I am sure Cricket Australia can afford this.
If the gap is so big between the top and second rated players and the selectors are not prepared to expose these players to test cricket, At least give them the opportunity to show something and put some pressure on the players who aren’t performing.
Losing a test series is not the total demise of Australian cricket but if we don’t learn from the mistakes made
(eg Ashes 2005) and come back with a new plan of attack then it is hard to see where we are headed.
ohtani's jacket said | January 2nd 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
My take on it is that the Aussies expected SA to choke like usual.
In both Tests, the Aussies got themselves into match winning positions, where the opposition usually crumble, but instead of crumbling, SA pulled off some amazing rear guard feats. That stuffed the Aussie match-winning psyche, and when they had to find some other way to win, Ponting was lost for ideas. In the end, they rolled over meekly. If I were an Australian, that would be the most disappointing aspect for me. South Africa cantered home in both Tests.
Personally I enjoyed it. Sixteen years. Glad that’s over. More than the selections, I think they need to get back into it mentally. If that means bringing in some young guys who haven’t been there before, so be it, but you’ve got to question how much the veterans actually want to play.
Chris Ash, syd - Aust said | January 2nd 2009 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
just read the article to get in the spirit of things as i’m attending the match tomorrow in sydney. great comments sheek. i’ve been watching super 14 repeats on fox sports recently to get some rugby fix hehe.
James Mortimer said | January 3rd 2009 @ 1:44am | Report comment
Sheek, great reflection on the 69-70 tour.
Bloody good memory mate – I have trouble recalling games a week ago at times.
Johnb said | January 3rd 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
First off, I agree with pretty much everything in Sheek’s first post. I also thought it would have worth resting Johnson for this game and trying both Bollinger and Hilfenhaus, although I’d have kept most of the rest of the current team (seems to me losing Lee and Symonds, dropping Hayden and resting Johnson is enough change for one game).
Slightly off topic, but is a factor in the selectors getting so much stick that there seems to have been very little in the way of transparency in the past year? I don’t mean so much that they aren’t coming out and giving a point by point explanation as to why a particular selection is made (although we punters would probably appreciate that in the case of, for example, the Casson non-selection for India) but that there seems to be repeated incidents of covering up the existence of injuries in players. It’s struck me that almost every time there’s been a disputed selection (and a number of times that there have been controversies over on-field decisions) news of one of the players involved having an injury comes out later. People were still wailing here about Jaques not being picked for the first test in India when he was already flying home; the whole Symonds/Watson episode in the current series – I can only agree that an unfit Symonds was not the optimum selection, but it does become a bit more understandable if you know that the obvious alternative is even less fit; Stuart Clark in India – I’ll bet he wasn’t fit at any time in the Indian tour; Lee – when was he last fit (and while his marital situation is his business that includes pyschologically fit) and how much has that contributed to his lacklustre results; the repeated furores over bowling changes or lack of them – how many of them were because Katich has a bad shoulder, Clarke and Watson have bad backs or something similar. And they’re just the examples I can immediately recall – there may be others.