What? No Hughes, Clark and Bracken in T20 squad?
Columnist
By Kersi Meher-Homji, 17 Aug 2009 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, ODI, Twenty20
Australian batsman David Warner strikes the third of his 6's against South Africa during the KFC Twenty/20 match at the MCG in Melbourne, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009. (AAP Image/Joe Castro)
All eyes and ears are now on the Ashes-deciding final Test at The Oval starting on Thursday. But the squads for the Limited-Overs Internationals have sprung some surprises.
One is the omission of Phil Hughes and Stuart Clark from both Twenty20 and Fifty50 squads, and of Nathan Bracken from the Twenty20 squad.
It is difficult to fathom the selectors’ minds.
Opening batsman Hughes is tailor-made for Limited-Overs Internationals, with his effusive and aggressive batting. If experts thought that bouncers were his undoing at Test level, few are allowed in the shorter form of the game.
And who will open the batting for Australia? Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin in Fifty50 and Clarke and David Warner in Twenty20?
Why risk Clarke as an opener when Hughes has more experience?
On current form, Michael Clarke is the most consistent batsman.
At no.3 or 4, he can control the game much better, pushing the accelerator pedal once there are runs on the board. Besides, he will have his hands and mind full, captaining Australia in Twenty20s.
Now to the other Clark, the one without ‘e’ at the end, the one who bowls almost as economically as Glenn McGrath.
Stuart Clark is excluded from both the squads.
More astonishing is the non-selection of the tall, economical Nathan Bracken from the Twenty20 squad. (Fortunately he is in the Fifty50 squad). But his line and length would have been ideal at Twenty20 level as well.
In 19 Twenty20 Internationals, Bracken has taken 19 wickets at 23.05 (best 3-11) and captured 2-9 in 3 overs in his debut against South Africa at Brisbane in January 2006.
In 2008 he was ranked the No. 1 ODI player in the world.
He will be an asset at Fifty50 level but will be missed in the Twenty20 slogathons.
The inclusions of tearaway fast bowler Brett Lee, and of spinner Nathan Hauritz, at the expense of Clark and Bracken, is surprising. Cameron White is already in the squad, who can spin the ball and smash it with his brute force.
But for these surprises, the selectors have chosen wisely.
The inclusion of the talented Callum Ferguson will be welcomed by all those who have seen this youngster blossom in the last year.
The Twenty20 internationals will be played on 30 August and 1 September, both at Old Trafford, Manchester.
The Australian Twenty20 squad: Michael Clarke (captain) NSW, Brad Haddin (vice-captain and wicket-keeper) NSW, Callum Ferguson SA, Nathan Hauritz NSW, Ben Hilfenhaus Tas, David Hussey Vic, Mitchell Johnson WA, Brett Lee NSW, Dirk Nannes Vic, Adam Voges WA, David Warner NSW, Shane Watson Qld, Cameron White Vic.
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)
- 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
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- 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)
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, ODI, Twenty20
matt0931 said | August 17th 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Surely Clarke won’t be opening when Watson is in the squad! He has proven himself now in one dayers and tests as an opener and I think he will be the opener in the coming one dayers and 20twenty mantches.
I also totally agree that Hughes should be in the squad. I think Hughes and Watson would make an excellent opening partnership.
And about Clark (without the E). Obviously the selectors have got something against this great bowler. They were plainly against picking him for the ashes series and only did finally pick him when they had no other choice but to turn to his accurate bowling. I would like to think the selectors were looking forward to the future but to be honest, going by past actions of selectors, I think there are more personal reasons for his non-selection.
And about selectors, why do we still need these guys in the new era of cricket? Surely like many other sports, rugby, soccer, etc etc, selection should be left to the coach and his team not to a bunch of has beens who have their own personal adgenda mixe din with their selection policies.
Jameswm said | August 17th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Michael Clarke is not an opener at that level of cricket. Haddin, Watson and Hughes – pick two of those three to open. Clarke scratches around and puts pressure on the others. It’s odd that as his test batting has really become top notch, his batting in the shorter forms has gone the other way.
If you want Warner in the T20s, put him at 4-5. He can’t handle the swinging ball early on.
Brett McKay said | August 17th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Kersi, the only thing about Stuart Clark playing the shorter games is that in the past, his persistent line and length has given batsmen the confidence to go after him once they get his length. Becuase of his enduring accuracy, it’s a relatively low risk to swing through or across the line, even with a little premeditation. Just as against a bowling machine, it wouldn’t be that hard to pick up Clark’s line and length early and swing accordingly.
The same could be said for Bracken in the T20 squad, though with his pace variations, and given the success of the slower bowlers taking the pace off the ball during the T20WC, Bracken’s omission is a little strange.
Hughes absolutle needs to be given a go in the shorter games. He can only cop one bouncer an over, so his apparent limitations in this area shouldn’t be a major concern. He proved for NSW last summer that he’s more than adequately equipped with the shot selection and improvisation required, particularly for T20 where his unpredictability would be a huge plus. In my humble opinion, Hughes might actually be more use than Warner in the short forms. The technical correctness of Watson with the unbridled youth of Hughes would be a pretty handy opening pair I’d reckon..
FIsher Price said | August 17th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
But surely Warner’s most effecttive from the get go – where he’s proven he can make big scores, quickly? He’s more likely to produce a cameo of 20 or 30 from 4 or 5.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | August 17th 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
matt0931 and Jameswm,
Thanks for pointing out that Shane Watson is there to open the innings in T20 matches and Michael Clarke can come in at no.4. Here I was criticising selectors and made a mistake myself!
Brett,
Good we agree on Hughes and Bracken although disagree on Stuart Clark. 2 out of 3 ain’t too bad, eh?
Talking of Bracken, I had a chat with him for an interview for Inside Cricket magazine. He told me that his mother-in-law had predicted that he would take 7 for 4 in the then Pura Cup match for NSW v. South Australia in Sydney in 2004. Can a Roarian think of such cricketing predictions? He had figures of 7-5-4-7 in that match which appeared more like a postcode than bowling analysis!
Although a tail-ender, Bracken (34 not out) had outscored the opponents total of 29 all out in that match.
Brett McKay said | August 17th 2009 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
Kersi, we actually agree on all three (just realised I perhaps didn’t make that clear), but the difference is that I can understand the reasoning behind leaving Clark out. I guess it’s an indication of where the international game is going when one of the best bowlers in world cricket in the longer forms suddenly becomes pedestrian and vulnerable when only limited to 10 or 4 overs.
At the risk of suggestion something controversial, I think if Glenn McGrath was 28 now and not 38, his international career in limited overs might be being cut short too, for the reasons I outlined above..
whiteline said | August 17th 2009 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
What about Cameron White? Spare me please.
vinay verma said | August 18th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Brett,there is a vast difference between Clark and McGrath in ODI’s. Clark had an economy of 4.84 whereas McGrath in 250 matches had an economy of 3.88. Anything under four seperates the good from the great. McGrath could adapt whereas Clark for all his success in the Tests could not. so the selectors have got it right in omitting Clark from the shorter versions.
Brett McKay said | August 18th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Vinay, I’ve raised that as a completely hypothetical scenario, not as a comparison between Clark and McGrath. Who’s to say that batsmen wouldn’t go after McGrath in the same manner they do Clark? I certainly can’t say McGrath could still adapt now as he did, so I don’t know how you can use that to dismiss a theory. And what’s to say Clark cannot learn to adapt?
All I’m saying is that if McGrath now was only halfway through his career (rather than being two years retired), he MIGHT be coming under the same attention as Clark is in the shorter games. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable theory, given the improvements in bat technology even in that short timeframe??
vinay verma said | August 18th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Brett,I have done you a disservice. Sorry,mate on reading your comment again you have said “…one of the best bowlers in world cricket in the longer forms…..”
But the preceeding remark on the hypothesising stand.
vinay verma said | August 18th 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Brett,all well and good to hypothesise but Mcrath is not going to become Peter Pan and the selectors are not about to give Clark a chance to adapt. I only disputed your call that Clark was one of the best bowlers in World Cricket. Test cricket,yes but world cricket(which includes the shorter forms) an emphatic no.