By Fred Magee -
August 31st 2009 @ 8:12am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Dump the blueprint – not the captain
It was been a week since Australia lost the test at the Oval and consequently the Ashes. It has taken me that long to face the truths that currently face Australian cricket…but one of them is not to sack Ricky Ponting.
Don’t get me wrong, I am still gutted over Australia’s capitulation at the Oval. However while losing an Ashes series hurts to the core; for the sake of Australian cricket it can not be looked upon in isolation.
If it isn’t apparent that Australia is going through a rebuilding phase, the fact that we have lost three of the last four series should make it abundantly clear.
We can take heart in the fact that the margin in those series losses has been one test. This means that this rebuilding phase will not be as painful as the one that took place in the 1980’s.
It also means that despite many panic ridden opinions to the contrary, Ricky Ponting should still be captain. Calls by the likes of Dean Jones to bring back Shane Warne to captain Australia would be funny if they weren’t actually serious. Remember, this is from the man who thought it was a good idea to rev up Curtly Ambrose by asking him to take off his wristbands in a one day final in Sydney.
While the heir apparent, Michael Clarke is not yet ready to be captain. This Ashes series saw Clarke mature as a senior Test batsman. To give him the captaincy now would not only set back his development as a future captain but will no doubt have an adverse impact on his batting; at a time when stability and consistency in the middle order is critical.
To me, the key issue is that we are still trying to play to a blueprint that has served as well over the last decade but without the personnel to execute successfully.
Let’s start with the batting. I said at the start of the series that Australia’s top six had to fire consistently to win the series. Lord’s and the Oval are evidence of what happens when they don’t.
Come the first Test in November, we must have a specialist opening pair. Selecting your opener to provide cover for your opening bowler is not the formula for a successful partnership despite Watson scoring runs – none of his starts led to the big hundreds you expect from an opener.
Michael Hussey’s century should not mean that scrutiny over his form should end. His poor form is one of the primary reasons Australia lost the Ashes and if he doesn’t perform against the West Indies he should be dropped.
As for the bowling, I will admit that when the team was announced for the Oval, I was happy as it was the only lineup that had managed to bowl England out twice. Whilst saying that, the wicket did warrant Nathan Hauritz playing and it was a mistake to leave him out.
The question that remains unanswered is what is the role of the spinner? Is it to control an end or to take wickets? Is it Hauritz or Krejza? A decision needs to be made on this and once made, back the man to the hilt.
What is also clear is that Mitchell Johnson, as Peter Roebuck has previously suggested, should not be rested. He is one who needs the miles in his legs to perform. That he didn’t get his groove back until the back end of the third test hurt Australia greatly.
Finally, this is a relatively in-experienced side and one that will fluctuate as they learn about the trials and tribulations of Test Cricket. As such, our expectations should be reset and patience will be a necessary requirement for all concerned.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(4)
Brett McKay said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
some good thoughts here Fred, it’s amazing what a week calming down does for clearing the thinking. Contrast that with the early hysteria straight after the Ashes were lost.
The only thing I’d add about creating a new blueprint, is that the process needs to include the selectors. Whether that means new selectors or not is to be decided for another day, but selectors also need a re-jig in how they formulate their XIs. There should never be a repeat of conditions being mis-read like at The Oval, and likewise, there should never be so much uncertainty in the lead-up to any Test. Selectors making public comment about Hauritz being no certainty for Cardiff, or mentioning Lee as an option for The Oval should never happen. In fact, I’d bar the selectors from speaking publically about anything relating to the very next match.
Mushi said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
I like the point about why rush Clarke when he’s only just matured as a batsman, I think the fact we are in a rebuilding phase is also perhaps a good reason not to rush the Ponting/Clarke change over.
If we really believe we can rebuild, and why wouldn’t we given we aren’t that far off the pace with an unsettled team, then aren’t we better served by letting Ponting take the heat during the rebuilding process and then giving Pup the reigns once the team is settled and primed for success? I think this would help create a mystique around pups captaincy which are often false but useful.
Dan said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
I totally agree that sacking Ponting is not the answer, especially as Clarke does not appear ready/willing to take over, and I still think the jury is out on whether or not he is the best person to succeed Ponting as captain. Brett, I completely agree with your comments about the selectors not making public comments about the team. It must be a huge distraction for the players, and no doubt chips away at the ability of the team to properly focus on preparing for the upcoming match. I think the only time selectors should even consider speaking to the media is when a squad for an upcoming series or tour is announced. Otherwise, they should leave the talking to captain and coach. I also wonder if the selectors’ seeming inability to keep their mouths shut is an issue behind the scenes? If they are making such comments to the media, it concerns me to think they could be saying a lot more confusing things to the players that we don’t hear. I can remember several cases in recent years of players being unaware why they weren’t selected/were dropped and also being unsure of what the selectors expect of them. I can’t imagine any half decent organisation conducting performance reviews of staff in such a vague manner. Perhaps this is something to be reviewed if cricketers want to be considered professionals. I still think it’s time for a change in the selection committee, and perhaps a few unpopular selection decisions (unpopular amongst the team at least) for the long term benefit of the Australian team.
Fred Magee said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:00pm | Report comment
Thanks for the comments Gents. Brett, you made a key point. The selection panel needs to be reviewed. Their comments, particularly of Andrew Hilditch, are bordering on insanity. If James Sutherland does anything, then the panel and it’s chairman need to be reviewed along with the Captain, Coach and players. One in; all in.