Why Clarke and Haddin shouldn’t open for Australia

Roar Pro

By Geoff Lawson, 7 Apr 2009 Geoff Lawson is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: Australian Cricket, Brad Haddin, Cricket, Michael Clarke, ODI, One day cricket, Phil Hughes, Proteas

Related coverage

Australian cricketer Michael Clarke celebrates his century against India. AP Photo/Aman Sharma

Antipodean cricket watchers had a bonus on Sunday evening with a day game in Tshwanwe (Pretoria, for the old regime members) which mercifully started at 6pm on the east coast of Australia instead of a day-night match, perfect only for shift workers and web trawlers.

The Aussies to their credit had the 9 to 5 working public of Australia in mind when they crashed to 5-19 and then recovered to make a sterling 131 on the back of Callum Ferguson’s dogged half century and some minor tail end occupation.

The selectors’ opening batting theory isn’t going all that well.

Brad Haddin went early in game 2 after success in game 1. But at least he looks the part against the moving new ball, while the Test number 5, Michael Clarke, looks like a middle order player hoping that the new ball will go gun barrel straight.

Wayne Parnell didn’t bowl too many straight at all.

With quality opening bowlers the ball generally does SOMETHING! At my advanced age the memory tends to retain less and less so I searched the records from last week to check who had batted at number 1 in the Test series.

Apparently a guy called Hughes (neither Merv nor Kim, but Phil) opened and was very successful against the moving, bouncing new rock.

He played lots of shots, was unorthodox, fast between wickets, and can field and throw well. Sounds like the job description for the ODI team opening slot.

I looked up his domestic limited overs record – only three batsmen scored more runs in 20 over cricket and Hughes only played 4 of 7 possible matches.

His 50 over record was less impressive averaging 32 with a strike rate of 69, perhaps we have a clue to the selection panel’s reticence, but hardly condemning statistics.

So we may ask, why is Clarke, a Test middle order player with a modest African Test tour recently behind him, walking out first?

Simon Katich could even have greater credentials for opening in both forms.

With Mike Hussey really struggling (despite the 80 odd he scraped together at Wanderers in game 1) and David Hussey looking out of his depth at the top level (perhaps because of lack of self belief as he appears to play a very different game against domestic opposition than he does against the elite), the success of the first three are more important than ever.

Captain Ponting is groping for the good length ball outside off stump and managing to nick quite a few lately. He is down on his usually stellar form, which is more apt to happen when you are at the crease in the opening overs when the ball is moving furthest.

For Ponting to be at his most effective he needs to have more than 2 minutes settling into his dressing room chair after wishing the openers well.

Perhaps young Phillip was sent home so he could rest up for the Indian Premier League.

The rotation policy for 20 year old batsmen is a innovative one, but who really knows what Andrew Hilditch and co. will come up with next.

The selectors have got themselves caught in yet another muddled piece of thinking that has both themselves and the players wondering how their roles will be defined. A clear plan generally delivers clear thinking and then the players can go about their business.

Marcus North must also be wondering what his status in the grand scheme may be. His domestic limited overs batting was also of superior standard and he can genuinely bat in the upper order.

So the Test number five and six/seven open in 50 overs stuff, and the two new boys who were very successful in the outstanding away series win are at home sitting in their kit bags.

I look forward to the method in the madness producing consistent results.

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.

The Crowd Says (8) | Page 1 of Comments

Brett McKay said | April 7th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment

Geoff, while I agree with your calls for Hughes in the coloured gear, it was widely reported that he shunned the prospect of an early IPL superannuation injection, instead heading to England. You might recall the Poms were up in arms that their counties were “assisting the enemy” by signing Australian Test players ahead of the Ashes. Of course they overlooked the small detail of Hughes not being a Test player when he was signed (by Middlesex?).

Nevertheless, Ponting suggested in the post-match that the top order needed to have a good chat about their batting – I hope the conversation started and ended with “we have to move our feet”!! Haddin, Clarke, Ponting to a degree, D.Hussey and M.Hussey (despite getting an absolute ‘jaffa’) all fell becuase they didn’t move their feet. I know it’s been a long summer for these guys, and I know the coloured gear games get a bit monotonous, but come on guys, it’s still basic batting…

Reply
drewster said | April 7th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment

On Clarke’s recent form (1 & 5 in the 2 ODI’s + Test scores) your point is valid Geoff. Hughes could do no worse at the top of the order, but of the players in the ODI squad over there maybe Warner is worth another shot and North for Dave Hussey could save a few “Run Outs” and maybe get a few wickets when required to bowl. Who knows what the selectors are thinking as form (or lack of it) doesn’t seem to be in the equation at present.

Reply
Brett McKay said | April 7th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment

Drewster, Warner was only over there for the T20 games. North is still there though, and I’d be surprised if he didn’t get a run at some point in the next three games. He’s got all the coloured gear flown in, he might as well get a chance to use it..

Reply
Jameswm said | April 8th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment

Not Warner. You could see in the T20 games he struggles against top shelf opening bowling. He just doesn’t have the class to do it in the 50 over game – not yet, anyway.

I agree Haddin should stay at the top of the order – he is a natural, clean striker and pretty consistent. Clarke on the other hand looks completely out of sorts. Bat him at 4/5, if anywhere. The other opening spot can go to Katich or Hughes. Remember, during the test series Katich often looked like he was batting on a different wicket to the others. He now also scores pretty freely and is hard to bowl to. It’s also right/left handed and a balance of a free hitter and someone who has the temperament to hang around for a big score. And frankly, in the SA test series Kato looked like our best batsman – period.

What about Symo? Geez they miss his intimidating presence.

My XI would be something like:

1. Haddin
2. Katich
3. Ponting
4. Clarke but geez I hope he finds some form – he looks awful at present
5. Symonds (otherwise Ferguson or DHussey)
6. MHussey – I have faith and he works well at 6
7. Johnson (put him in at 7!)
8. Hopes – solid, reliable pro
9. Hauritz – our best one-day spinner
10. Bracken
11. Siddle if fit, otherwise Hilfy or even Nannes

That’s 5 bowlers with MClarke, DHussey/Symo to help out. If we get a good start, send Mitch in as a pinch hitter.

Reply
Greg Russell said | April 8th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment

Would not a more appropriate line of thought be “Why Clarke shouldn’t open for Australia”? With a decent partner, I think Haddin could be a good opener.

My own view on Clarke is that he is a no. 4 in one-day cricket, in much the same mould as Damien Martyn was. Physically and mentally the two men are very similar. It’s true that Clarke’s batting game has differences to Marto’s: Marto one can think of as the Australian Tendulkar in style, while Clarke is best summed up by Kerry O’Keeffe’s brilliant line that his off-stump is anyone else’s leg stump. However Clarke is really the current player who is best suited to the glue/accumulator role of no. 4.

Although I find Clarke to be an excellent captain at T20 cricket, certainly better than Ponting, unfortunately I find that his batting game is simply too weak to warrant a place in the Australian T20I side. A batsman who cannot clear the boundary has no place in T20I cricket, and Clarke is such a player (if I had a dollar for every time he has been caught at deep mid-on, I would be able to shout everyone several rounds of drinks).

Finally, has it occurred to anyone else that Clarke is in trouble right now? After a 2008 in which he really matured and played many admirable innings, now he finds himself having a nightmare tour of South Africa (no runs in any form) and with England coming up next. Do people remember that he had a failed stint at Hampshire and that his form on the 2005 Ashes was so poor that he was dropped after that series? It is no exaggeration to say that Clarke is facing a crisis, and that all his good work of 2008 risks being blown apart by a dismal 2009.

Perhaps luckily for him, our selectors might be too dumb to notice. But don’t get me started on that!

Reply
Jameswm said | April 8th 2009 @ 8:55pm | Report comment

Greg

You didn’t see my comment that MClarke looks awful at present?

The irony is that the shorter the game, the more pressure on a batsman’s form. Hence why someone like Clarke can be out of form, but still do OK in test cricket. Test cricket is (not surprisingly) seen as the ultimate test, but you can bat your way into form in test cricket. You don’t have that luxury with T20 or 1-day cricket.

Clarke did well in the tests, but he’s battling for form right now.

If Symo’s head is right, he’s depsperately needed in the 50 and 20 over games.

Reply
Greg Russell said | April 9th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment

I know I wrote not to get me started on the Australian cricket selectors, but I see that someone mentioned Nannes above. I see his case as being the straw that has broken this camel’s back, and I am extremely frustrated that this website has not provided me with a more appropriate place to initiate a populist movement to oust the dullards that are our national selectors. So here goes.

We knew that Trevor Hohns was good as chair of selectors, but we did not realize just how good until the disastrous tenure of his replacement, Andrew Hilditch. We may now look back and contrast the work of Hohns and Hilditch in all ways.

For a start, Hohns was rarely in the media, whereas Hilditch seems to like making explanations to the ABC. Not only should the chair of selectors keep his mouth shut, but in the case of Hilditch all he does with these comments is to illustrate his own inadequacies. For example, he made personal criticisms of Stuart MacGill after the spinner’s difficulties against Sri Lanka in Hobart. Or more recently he proclaimed that Brad Hodge was too old for Australian selection, even though the T20 World Cup is just a few months away and Hodge has just completed yet another season as the best batsman in the Australian domestic T20 competition (e.g. he comfortably out-performed David Warner in all statistical indexes). Perhaps the argument about Hodge’s age is relevant for the 2011 World Cup in 50-over cricket, but not for T20 cricket in 2009. Further, just a few months later Hilditch proceeded to select an even older fast bowler (Shane Harwood) to play for Australia!

Then there is the matter of selections themselves. The vexed spinner’s position is perhaps the best example of this. Whereas Hohns would take a long time to make a decision but then stick to it, we have seen just about every young spinner in Australia rushed into the side and then, after predictable failure, rushed out again. There has been a complete absence of analysis and philosophy in these selections, and we still have an embarrassing, dysfunctional shambles.

Similarly, where Hohns based all his decisions on long-term form, the current selectors seem to have been reduced to selecting on the basis of last-minute form, for example the selections of Callum Ferguson and Adam Voges on the basis of a solitary good interstate innings last summer. OK, so Ferguson has worked out so far, but if one throws enough darts into the air, then some will hit the target.

I would include Australia’s test victories in South Africa in the “darts in the air” category. The most crucial of these new selections was Phillip Hughes, and there is anecdotal evidence that he was the least preferred option of the selectors, behind Phil Jaques as top choice and then Chris Rogers. Because Hughes had the runs on the board, Hilditch even took the extraordinary step of announcing that Hayden’s replacement would be determined by who made the most runs in January (compare with Hohns always selecting on years worth of runs). It’s history now that Hughes responded with some big innings and forced the selectors to choose him, perhaps through clenched teeth.

Which brings me finally to Dirk Nannes. He is arguably the fastest, meanest and most feared fast bowler in Australian domestic cricket. For the last two seasons he has had success in all forms of the game, and in particular he and Hodge – the latter already dealt with above – are the main reasons for Victoria’s three-year domination of T20 cricket in Australia.

So what happens? Nannes is not included in Australia’s recently announced 30-man squad for the T20 WC later this year, and because of this rejection he promptly announces that he will be playing for Holland, the country of birth of his parents.

Instead we find the following fast bowlers in this squad: Brett Geeves, Ryan Harris, Shane Harwood, Moises Henriques and Ben Laughlin. One wonders if the selectors have ever asked players around Australia whom of these they most fear facing, because I am sure that most would say Nannes before any of these others.

Laughlin is an interesting case. He’s been playing first-class cricket for one year, and on the back of some decent form he already finds himself playing for Australia. But Nannes has been bowling with more success and for much longer, yet he can’t get a look in. It all makes no sense, and is the opposite approach to Hohns, who invariably selected on the basis of long-term performance.

I really have no idea why Nannes is on the outer. He is a former Australian skiing representative, so he must be a high-calibre athlete, as opposed to being a liability in the field.

I have never seen a columnist or comment-maker on The Roar with a good word to say about Hilditch and his cohorts. Boon, Hughes and Cox may be good men, but if they are then they have failed to stand up to Hilditch, so they should go down with him.

With the rise of South Africa and India, gone are the days (if there ever were such times) when we can afford to play with one hand tied behind our backs, which is effectively what the selectors are making us do.

Vive la revolution, out with Hilditch and his panel!

Reply
Jameswm said | April 10th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment

Greg – that was me who suggested Nannes. Every time I see him on TV in the domestic 50 over games, he looks good. I also wondered why he was never looked at and having seen the list of mediocre players selected ahead of him, I can see why he’s headed to Holland.

Lauglin is an extraordinary selection. He’s young, medium pace only and not possessed of the variety or precision of a Bracken. So how does he get selected ahead of more seasoned players? Because of who his father is? He’s only a mediocre State player FFS.

The failure to select a genuine opener for the one-dayers is another example of poor selection. When opening in limited overs internationals, you face the best fast bowlers in the world with a new ball. You therefore need new ball specialists. I can handle Haddin being there, but you can’t have two makeshift openers. As I said above, Kato has looked clearly our most dependable batsman in tests for about a year (despite batting in the hardest spot), so put him in there. It’s pretty simple, really.

And don’t get me started on the spinners. Warnie took a while to find his feet. Krejza has looked the best in the tests, so we have to pick him and stick with him, for a while at least. Yes, he went for some runs in India, but they were outright slogging him in a deliberate strategy to upset him and with him, the balance of our side. And our seletors allowed it to work, unfortunately. He handled it well, showed a lot of ticker, and took a bag of wickets. Added to that is he is a very good lower order batsman.

I don’t think the selectors really have a clue, or any form of clear strategy.

Reply