Australia's Stuart Clark, left, celebrates with teammate Michael Hussey after taking the wicket of England's Paul Collingwood on the first day of the fourth cricket test match between England and Australia, at Headingley cricket ground in Leeds, England, Friday, Aug. 7, 2009. AP Photo/Tim Hales
The chairman of selectors for the Australian cricket team, Andrew Hilditch, has been rabbiting on in the wake of the tremendous victory at Headingley, about how his panel has got the selections “spot on” in this Ashes series, and that Stuart Clark is not guaranteed his place in the side for the fifth Test.
As for the “spot on” observation, just pull the other leg.
The selectors made a crucial mistake in not selecting Clark for the first three Tests. Now, with Clark saving their positions with a brilliant first innings performance at Headingley, they are foreshadowing going back to their initial mistake by leaving him out of the side for the Oval Test.
The suggestion is that Nathan Hauritz should come back into the side.
Hauritz seems to be a pleasantly nerdish sort of chap, although I wish he’d wear the Baggy Green cap like a cricket cap rather than a baseball cap. He has taken ten wickets in three Tests, at under four runs an over.
This looks good as a statistic, but as the old joke goes, statistics are like bikinis: what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital.
What the statistics on Hauritz don’t reveal is that he could not do the job as a spinner at Cardiff on a turning pitch. The part-timer Michael Clark would have achieved similar figures if Ricky Ponting had given him some decent spells at the bowling crease.
More importantly, it was when Clark came back into the side, with his tight line and length, that the inexperienced young trio of Peter Siddle, Ben Hilfenhaus and Mitchell Johnson came into their own in the series and England were bowled out twice for Australia to record a much needed victory.
Hilditch has justified the speculation about dropping Clark on the grounds that Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Johnston did the job in South Africa, and now again in England.
This tells us everything about why Hilditch and his panel need to be replaced by people like Geoff Lawson, Shane Warne (even), and other former players who know what they are talking about.
In South Africa, the three tyros were helped by Andrew McDonald tying down an end when the South African batsmen were on a roll. Clark played a similar role, with the addition of taking important wickets, at Headingley.
Alan Jones, a better selector than rugby coach, always talked about the importance of ‘shape’ in selecting a team. You don’t necessarily pick the best players for your team. You pick the best players to play best as a team.
The team is shaped in a way where the strengths of some of the players are complemented by the different strength of other players.
This matter of ‘shape’ is the most crucial element in selecting teams. Hilditch clearly doesn’t have a notion about the power and necessity of ‘shape’ in putting together a side.
If you look at Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Johnson, you see immediately that they are at their best when they are trying to take wickets. They often leak a lot of runs when their wicket-balls are slightly astray.
In the first three Tests, they leaked runs and the England batsmen were not put under sustained pressure for long periods of time.
Now bring in Clark.
His opening stint of in the first innings at Headingley resulted in three wickets with 1.7 runs an over conceded. This miserly concession of runs allowed Johnston to bowl flat-out and to give away runs if necessary to take some wickets.
Clark, in other words, gives a shape to the three-man attack of Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Johnson. It is a winning shape.
Hilditch and his fellow selectors should approach the matter of dropping Clark in the same spirit as W.G.Grace’s advice about whether to put the opposition in to bat after you’ve won the toss: “Consider it and then never do it.”
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)
- 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
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (30)
- 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)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
bruski said | August 13th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
I was having this discussion yesterday with someone, the first thing he said was you should never change a winning team. Remember this is the only team this English Summer to beat the pom’s and I believe it was down to one man, Stuart Clarke!!!
As Spiro has correctly pointed out, Clarke was able to tie up one end and let the other boys rip and tear their way through the brittle English line-up. The difference in the team with Clarke in the XI was plain to see for all.
As for spinners, we have Michael Clarke and Simon Katich who are quite handy and will do a similar job to Hauritz who has done nothing wrong!
If we change this line-up and loose the test and the Ashes heads should roll!
BennO said | August 13th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
I agree wholeheartedly with you Spiro. Hilditch seems like a bit of a chump to me.
And one other thing, to all the bloggers in the world, it’s Stuart Clark not Clarke.
RickG said | August 13th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Hear hear Spiro, I still can’t believe Hilditch would come out and pat himself on the back like that, when we all know they got lucky and it took 4 tests for them to get it right. As I’ve said elsewhere I usually don’t give selectors much thought, but these guys, or Hilditch in particular, need to be replaced. Add the dropping of Hughes, no top-order batting backup and a makeshift, overrated and injury-prone allrounder as an opener and things are in disarray. If we win it won’t be due to the selectors, that’s for sure.
vinay verma said | August 13th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Hilditch is a lawyer so he knows a thing or two about precedence. Australia looked like a team with self belief and more important intent to do GBH. The team was in concert except for 12 overs of carelessness in the second innings. But by then the damage had been done and England were condemned to defeat. Cricket Gods can be perverse and the defiance of Broad and Swann was only theatre to amuse the bored keepers of our destiny.
Hilditch and Co will tamper with this winning team at their own peril. The game will be won on the first innings..batting or bowling and Hauritz will not be needed till the very end when it is all academic. Clark is the bellweather. His precision enables Ponting to attack from the other end. Australia are the hunters and England is the hunted. This is also not a time for Australia to be defensive. They play their best cricket when they are aggresive. They have been in England for almost two months and know what to expect. Nothing short of a win will suffice and Ponting will lead from the front. His 78 last test was the signature of a man ready for battle.
Brett McKay said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Spot on Spiro, and while we may all have differences between our various preferred XIs for The Oval (mine has Hauritz in for Siddle, discussed at length yesterday, so let’s not go over old ground. Morning Vinay…), I don’t think anyone can see a benefit in a ‘Hauritz for S.Clark’ change.
I wonder if Andrew Hilditch would consider taking and tackling a series of questions from Roarers, a la John O’Neill??
onside said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Spiro
who selects the selectors.
who decides that Hilditch should go
vinay verma said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I would say the board members of CA. Now Mathew Hayden is a member along with mark Taylor and Mathew has often suffered the slings and arrows of the selectors so he should have current knowledge and “shape”
Andrew Thompson said | August 13th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Spiro, you are so right. But what’s the bet the selectors do exactly what they shouldn’t and we go on to draw at the Oval? Reminds me of the even older joke about nothing being as stupid as collective stupidity.
Arthur said | August 13th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
England need to win the 5th test in order to win the ashes so you would think they will produce a result wicket and as there seam bowling is stronger than there spin bowling maybe a little green, so 4 quick’s for me and if they produce a spinners wicket then I would pick 4 quick’s
RickG said | August 13th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Great suggestion Brett re taking questions, but I’m sure Hilditch and co would never expose themselves to the scrutiny.
I guess with such a long period of success the teams used to almost pick themselves, barring injury and variations in conditions, so we’re probably not used to selections being as contentious as they have been in the past couple of years.
Still, I think Hilditch is way out of touch and needs to condier his position very carefully.
Chris Bell said | August 13th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I share the the opinion of Spiro and the others on the crucial role of Stuart C in turning our overall bowling around. Doubtless the bowling coach had something to do with it too, “as he would, being paid to do so”, but the real crucial variable is the selection of Clark, even allowing for the friendliness of the pitch and conditions.
At times Ponting looks to me a bit scarily like “the great George Gregan” in his later days: “I pick me first and my friends next” and all that player democracy nonsense.
.
And more cynically, I would not want to serve on any committee with Merv on it. My of the “pick my mates first” stuff.