Great Test match papers over problems

Roar Guru

By LeftArmSpinner, 7 Jan 2010 LeftArmSpinner is a Roar Guru

Tagged:: Australian Cricket, Cricket, Pakistan cricket, Test cricket

Related coverage

Australia's Peter Siddle (centre) celebrates the wicket of Pakistan's Faisal Iqbal caught by Shane Watson during day 2 of the New Year's Test at the SCG, Sydney, Monday, Jan. 4, 2010. AAP Image/Dean Lewins

The Australian cricket team has pulled off an extraordinary come from behind win. This win needs to be both celebrated and, at the same time, put in perspective.

In the meantime, let’s congratulate both teams on a wonderful, entertaining four day experience to bring in the New Year.

The win was not simply down to the Australian effort and never say die attitude. The Pakistanis were at times brilliant and passionate but also very, very poor tactically and unable to close out the match on several occasions.

It is also important to remind ourselves of the context of this game.

The Pakistani team is stateless in test match terms, lacking match play and have a team that comprises mainly youngsters. Given this, they played well but, most importantly, they provided great entertainment and were excellent ambassadors for the country.

Umar is brilliant, exciting and at the same time frustrating. Watching him try to balance his natural, youthful exuberance and blistering skill with the control and maturity required to play big innings at critical times in close test matches was worth the price of admission.

Kaneria is an excellent leg spinner bowler and good leg spin is always exciting to watch.

Asif bowled straight and fast and with good control. Sami and Gul also contributed. All will benefit from the experience.

Recognition and congratulations must go to “Colonel” Tom Parker, SCG curator. The wicket was fantastic. When did we last see a green top rather than a TV wicket, as Dizzy calls the straw coloured roads we have become used to?

Parker’s wicket took the players, batsmen and bowlers alike, out of their comfort zone. The Pakistani bowlers didn’t fall into the trap of bowling short, sensibly preferring to just put it on a good length and let the wicket and the flummoxed batsmen do the rest.

The Australian batsmen’s psyche was impacted by the green top. Rather than adapt to the wicket and use the bounce and carry to their advantage, the Australian batsmen all succumbed to non-existent gremlins managing just 127 in their first innings.

What should be acknowledged and discussed, but won’t be, around the Australian selection table after this game?

The batsmanship from Hughes, Clark and North would see them dropped from any AW Green Shield team, Under 16’s. Pointing, despite showing the same lack of temperament, can be forgiven. He has many years of outstanding, courageous form.

Are his powers waning?

Did someone give Hughes a slab of V’s before he walked out to bat? He didn’t learn his lesson after being dropped off his first delivery. He didn’t learn after his first innings duck or the frosty reception from his skipper as they crossed on his egress. He didn’t learn in the second innings, continuing to swing wildly.

He has been done no service by the selectors, either in being dropped prematurely or in being reinstated prematurely. His issue is not so much with the short ball as much as knowing where his off stump is and being able to leave the balls as both Katich and Watson do so well.

Michael Clark is the heir apparent to the captaincy.

Firstly, why would you anoint someone so far out from their inauguration? Secondly, why would you anoint a person who is the laughing stock of the Australian cricketing public. “Don’t judge me for loving Lara, hating beer or not driving a ute!!” screamed the headline on the Sunday Telegraph during the Sydney test. I reply, “He doth protest too loudly!”

Players don’t have to win over the cricketing public but invariably, the cricketing public are intelligent, observant and perceptive judges of the players. “Skull” O’Keefe struck the nerve when he said “M Clark, one word. Soft!” As funny as it was with Clark readjusting his wedding tackle, due to a bullseye, Clark had two opportunities to win over his critics with the bat. He failed on both occasions.

He is not made of the right stuff to lead the Australian cricket team through a period where South Africa, England, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and even the West Indies are similarly matched.

His reference point should be Waugh, Taylor, Border, Simpson or Benaud to name just a few.

North’s ability to bounce back will determine his future.

The bowling is workmanlike but improving and everyone is contributing.

Siddle was unlucky but bowled well in the first innings. Hauritz is developing slowly but surely. Another 5 wicket haul in the second innings for him. Compare his diligence to Hughes. Ponting should be congratulated for having faith in Hauritz.

Spinners need this, particularly when getting their good balls belted out of the park!

The best news story, in personal terms is the belated but true emergence of Shane Watson. His 2nd innings was an excellent blend of brutal pulls and hooks off the quicks, lots of well judged “leaves” outside and over off stump and a very straight bat within a generally great batting technique.

In context, he has scored heavily and consistently and with great batsmanship. I am not concerned in the slightest by his large number of 90’s. Give me 90 any day and, he got a brute of a ball in the second innings.

Hopefully, with this will come the inner confidence that will allow him to stay quiet when the opposition sledge him. The selectors should mark him down as the long term number three.

The selectors mistakes continue to have massive impact and hence worry me the most.

1. Hughes has gone from a prodigy to a mess.
2. This team is not in a rebuilding phase. Five of the first 7 batsmen, the batting phalanx, are over 30 years old, including the keeper and Captain.
a. Hussey (34 and 288 days),
b. Katich (34 and 128 days),
c. North (30 and 162 days),
d. Ponting (35 and 18 days),
e. Haddin (32 and 75 days)all over 30

3. Apart from Watson, where are the runs going to come from in years to come?
4. Who is going to lead this team from the front with the doggedness and determination that has made Australian teams so difficult to defeat?

It would have been better for Australian cricket if the Pakistani’s had taken their chances, held their catches and won the game so that the spotlight would be shone more brightly on the fundamental, and as yet unaddressed, issues in the national team.

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 (63) | Page 1 of Comments

Mick of Newie said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:57am | Report comment

Nothing magical about the age of 30. Did Haddin look over the hill yesterday. The runs will come when some or all of Hughes, Kwahaja, Ferguson, Bailey, Smith or Paine replace the incumbents. Katich, Ponting and Hussey will all go reluctantly some time after the Ashes. North may go sooner.

ps: can all commentators drop the bs about Hughes being dropped prematurely. The selectors acted on the evidence in from of them, ie Hughes form in England and more particularly the England bowlers. They correctly ignored what he did in South Africa. Nothing Hughes has done since has shown this decision to be anything other than 100% right. The selectors went with what they thought was the better option and time has shown that to be an aboslute masterstroke.

Reply
- Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
  
  You seem to have forgotten Australia lost the Ashes.
  
  Reply
LeftArmSpinner said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:59am | Report comment

Spiro has done the macro and I have done the micro!!!
Test cricket is alive and kicking. just ask any one of the SCG members who packed their stands to watch the game on each of the 4 days.

Reply
LeftArmSpinner said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:09am | Report comment

MIck, hughes had a test batting average of 51 when he was dropped. three low scores and gonski!! Ywet now, he looked so highly strung, so nervous, so unclear on haow to open the innings. He was not even close to looking like an opener, a true opener. Watson, on the other hand was excellent. Hughes was not found out by the green top. he was found out by his head.

The decision was to drop Hughes rather than promote Watson to opener. It has been a disaster. Just look at Hughes play in this test. He was a young player who needed nurturing, support and understanding. dropping him and then reinstating before he was ready has done significant damage, all of it unnecessary.

Mick, there may be some youngsters in shield cricket but, they will need time to get established at test level, to feel comfortable etc. just ask Hauritz and Hughes!!!

worst case will see several of them going thro that learning process together. Who is going to support and develop them? The skipper of a losing team, fighting for his own position? the older more experienced players? nope, there will be none around.

remmeber most players, Gilly being the exception, have been dropped after making the team, only to come back bigger and better!!! This seems to be part of the process but it too takes time.

So, lets not kid ourselves that this is a team that is already in rebuilding stage. its not. the pain of rebuilding is yet to commence.

Reply
Mick of Newie said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment

The team is not rebuilding it has been rebuilt.

The end of the great side was the 2006-7 Ashes when McGrath, Warne and Langer went. (only 3 players remain from that side). Since then the team evolved. Katich comes in for Langer and develops so when Hayden goes he is the senior man. Johnson comes in for McGrath and when Clark and Lee drop back the selectors bring in Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Bollinger.

The spinning spot continues to be problematic even though Hauritz is making a great fist of it.

I expect that Hussey, Katich and Ponting will all go reluctantly and I expect the selectors will ease them out when they have identifed the replacement. North may go sooner if they decide he is not up to it.

Who will support the players coming through? The senior players, Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Johnson (maybe North, Hauritz and Siddle).

There is a lot of pop psychology around batsmen and particularly Hughes. The absurd end of the argument is that his psychological health is more important than winning the Ashes. The selectors appeared to form the view that he had been worked out and was unlikely to resolve his technical problems. No one is saying now that Watson should not have been picked but he did not have a lot of fans back then.

Now having watched Hughes bat in Sydney I agree he was brought back too soon. I think the selectors are now so committed to picking young players that the likes of Rogers and Jaques (along with Bryce McGain, Staurt Clark and the now reitred Brad Hodge had their files marked never again).

Reply
- Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
  
  So a few closely-contested home Test victories against Pakistan and the West Indies and the side is rebuilt? This off the back of losing in India, at home to South Africa and in England. Short memory. This summer’s wins are no proof that Australia is equipped to compete for the number one spot; no more than Hussey’s recent runs prove he should be in the side.
  
  Reply
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment

LAS..To break into the Australian Test side you have to score a mountain of runs and take a bagful of wickets in Shield. Katich did that when he was dropped as have players like Mark Waugh,Ponting,Hayden and Langer. I dont see any young batsman scoring double hundreds or taking consistent fivefers to challenge the incumbents. Khawaja has been mentioned and Smith has been on standby. The marsh brothers have more to do and Rogers and Jacques need to keep scoring runs.Age should not come into it and there is nothing wrong with a 35 year old that keeps delivering. Ferguson when he is back has to get his shield average past the 50 mark before he can be considered. You dont want to give youngsters a baggy green because they are talented. They have to earn it.

Reply
- Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment
  
  That’s not true. Andrew Symonds didn’t.
  
  Reply
  - vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
    
    Symonds was an exception to the rule. It does not enhance your argument.
    
    Reply
    - Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
      
      Other exceptions include Mitchell Johnson and Shane Watson. Not sure I had an argument, but I was disagreeing with your suggestion that “you have to score a mountain of runs and take a bagful of wickets in Shield”. Whilst I think it should be the case, the players mentioned prove this ain’t so.
      
      Other factors, such as whether the player concerned is a ‘good bloke’ seem to come into consideration.
      
      Reply
      - vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:38pm | Report comment
        
        FP,to disagree is your right. Watson and Johnson will probably end up scoring more International runs and taking more International wickets than Domestic runs and wickets. I was talking generally and as far as people being “good” blokes I am not privy to the internal group dynamics but I would have thought this should not be a factor. Hodge’s case does seem to be odd,though.
        
        Reply
        
        JohnB said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
        
        Vinay and FP, I think you could argue you’re each partly right (and therefore each partly wrong). Sometimes blokes have had to perform over time, or have been tried, discarded, and not tried again until they have performed consistently – other times I think the selectors have looked for players with an “x factor” or whatever else you want to call it (maybe more with bowlers). Johnson, for example, already has got more test than other first class wickets – percentage wise, quite a lot more. He hadn’t actually played much first class cricket when first picked for test cricket – then again, nor had Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie or Brett Lee (or going back further still, Shane Warne) and they all did ok. For others that x factor has shown through in one day cricket – certainly Symonds’ world cup performances in SA gave him the chance at test cricket which his shield performances arguably didn’t go close to justifying (and for a couple of years there he was a very very good test cricketer). Watson probably had his card marked early as a decent top order batsman who could bowl at 135km/h – that will get anyone a one day gig and performance there now (once he’s got past all the injuries) see him in the test side (possibly about the first one chosen). Of the current squad, Johnson (as mentioned) and Siddle have more test than other first class wickets, and Hauritz isn’t too far off. Bollinger and Hilfenhaus are more on the “weight of wickets” side of the argument (that is, they’ve played for a few years and taken a reasonable total of wickets before getting the nod), and Stuart Clark in the recent past certainly did that too.
        
        Don’t know who has ever got in on the basis of being a good bloke, without there being some other explanation for their selection. Mind you, in the hypothetical situation that everything else really was equal, why shouldn’t the intangibles like being a good bloke come into it?!
Jay said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:38am | Report comment

Here, here.. Long live test cricket. What an amazing game! Its been a wonderful summer of test cricket (if you take out the Brisbane and Melbourne games).

I agree with your analysis on Pakistan.. awfully unlukcy, especially when you consider they dropped Hussey three time and Siddle once – same name Kamran Akmal!

Its fair to assume that Australia have really closed the gap (by sliding) with other test playing nations.. Its also worthwhile pointing out that under a two-tier test system, this test may not have been played at all!

Reply
Republican said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:58am | Report comment

You really have to feel for Pakistan.

I was only saying this week on a previous cricket thread, that Hussey is one who should have gone some years ago. He was lucky again this time and I maintain that our batesman do not pull their weight.

They are complacent due to a glut of batting depth, all the way down the line to Johnson. This Test once again highilghts Australia’s reliance on it’s bowlers and fielders in bringing them back from the brink time and again.

It’s just not good enough.

Reply
- Justin said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:43am | Report comment
  
  I dont feel for Pakistan at all.
  
  They stuffed up one of the easiest wins of all time by gifting Hussey a century. Dropped 3 times and all would be taken by a club keeper. Then to make matters worse they had one or two catchers at most for him on the fourth day. There was absolutely no pressure on him with 5 and 6 men on the boundary. They weren’t trying to get him out but saving themselves for a breakthrough on siddle who showed the pitch had little venom if you played sensibly.
  
  The only reason AUS won is because our batting isnt quite as bad as Pakistans which is woeful!
  
  Reply
eric said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment

LAS, I really object to you quoting that disgusting comment of O’Keefes. Absolutely no-one, at established Test level, deserves to be summed up as “soft”, especially when they have scored hundreds all around the world against the best.
Back to the Test, I thought Hauritz’ bowling was ordinary. It was Johnson who put the wind up the Pakis with his two wickets, and really, the Pakis self destructed. Four of Hauritz’ wickets were catches from injudicious shots. Only Sami’s dismissal was the result of Hauritz’ delivery beating the bat.

Reply
- Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment
  
  O’Keeffe was joking.
  
  Reply
- Brett McKay said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
  
  eric, if you didn’t hear the context in which Kerry O’Keeffe labelled Clarke as ‘soft’ then it’s likely you’ve mis-interpreted what was said. LAS has even stretched the context to some degree in the way he’s used the comment in his piece here.
  
  In short, it was completely tongue-in-cheek. At the time, Clarke was hit flush in the box that brought SCG-wide groans and then laughter as the replays started. O’Keeffe was in his element at this point, and even said “if anyone sees a blonde driving an Aston Martin, tell her she’s needed at the SCG…” From the pockets of laughter around me in the Turmper Stand, a lot of people were enjoying this latest O’Keeffe tangent, as is his habit. The “M Clarke, one word. Soft!” comment came only after repeated suggestions that Clarke should not dare rub anything, and when he did give in to the obvious urge, this comment was made.
  
  There was absolutely no malice or even the slightest hint of seriousness in what was said…
  
  Reply
  - LeftArmSpinner said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
    
    thanks Gentlemen. i believe that he is soft, but not because he went down when hit, but because he has failed to deliver on criitical occasions like in the latest test match. Further, his personal life shows that he places more import to the riches of life. he cannot afford an Aston. Sure he can buy it with finance, but the real cost is the massive drop in resale. only truly wealthy people can afford this. sure, he can buy the car, but in doing so, it gives us a view into his head!!!!!
    
    In the business world, the smart investor is selling when the corp jet arrives. the Aston is the equivalent
    
    Why did he do the Telegraph piece? degrading to him, and again, another insight to the boy. He is not an Australian captain.
    
    Reply
Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment

Until Australia is able to field a batting line-up with the skill to survive and thrive against the moving ball it will not re-establish itself as the clear number one Test side.

Not only was the single-geared top seven exposed on the past two tours to England, but now even an under-strength West Indies and an underdone, inexperienced Pakistan have done so.

The collapses we’ve seen in Adelaide, Perth and Sydney would be punished by the stronger sides.

Reply
- Roger Rational said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:34am | Report comment
  
  Spot on.
  
  Reply
  - LeftArmSpinner said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
    
    spot on and spot on.
    
    Reply
Jameswm said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:32am | Report comment

Here is my Ashes batting order
Jaques
Katich (c)
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Ferguson

Hughes, Hussey and North gone from the currrent group. Hussey did better obviously, this test. I’ve found him far from convincing. If he stays, I’d omit Jaques and move everyone up one, but I’m not dead keen on that. Ferguson is a must, as he’s shown in the one-dayers that he can make batting look relatively easy on tougher decks. He has looked all class and in control every time he’s batted.

The’ve got the quicks right. Now what about the spinner? 5 wicket or not, Hauritz leaks runs like Krejza does. I wouldn’t bother with a spinner in Perth, unless you bring Steve Smith in as a bowling all rounder. He has to show a lot of improvement before that can happen, though. I haven’t seen Krejza bowl much. I think it has to come from those 3 though.

Reply
- Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
  
  Pretty decent looking batting line-up; though Watson will need to prove he’s top three material against strong opposition and I’d probably still plump for Katich, who’s a natural number three, at first drop.
  
  Reply
- LeftArmSpinner said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
  
  i like the idea of Watson at 3 and Katich as captain. I’m not sure it will work because I suspect there is a split between katich and Ponting/clark. But ponting is a realist and has shown he can rise above things. jusdt like with the Wallabies, tough decisions with Giteau need to be taken and the sooner the better.
  
  Reply