By Spiro Zavos
January 11th 2010 @ 5:49am
Can this Australian side win back the Ashes?
The Australia team celebrates the dismissal of Pakistan's Kamran Akmal Mitchell Johnson on day 4 of the second test at the SCG in Sydney on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2010. (AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
Peter Roebuck in a forthright column in the SMH some days ago made the fearless statement that the current Australian side cannot win back the Ashes. If this is true then the much put-upon selectors (who got Shane Watson right as an opener, it must be remembered) will have to start putting together a side that will.
This means, as far as I am concerned, some small changes for the third Test side against Pakistan in Tasmania. And a couple of significant changes for the Test against New Zealand, the last of this summer, in March.
With the Ashes series starting next summer in Australia, the new team needs to be basically in place when England arrive here.
All this, however, begs the question: Can this Australian side win back the Ashes? I reckon Roebuck is right, although my success rate with predictions is about on a par with those of Malcolm Mackerras, the political scientist who tends to get his predictions wrong.
There are weaknesses in the present XI that need to be addressed before the Ashes series starts.
For all his success, Nathan Hauritz does not seem to be an Ashes-winning spinner. More importantly, he does not have the spin or the variety to winkle out stubborn tail-end batsman.
This last point is especially valid as far as England is concerned. This side has a capacity to hold out for a draw when they have been out-played. They did this at Cardiff in the last Ashes series, and twice this season in South Africa Graeme Onions has blocked out the last over of play to give England a draw in a match they had no hope of winning.
The England tail survived the finger spin of Paul Harris, a bowler much like Hauritz with his inability to bowl the wonder ball.
Some readers of The Roar have rejected my notion that Steve Smith needs to be brought into the side. But Smith is an inventive, bold batsman, a terrific fieldsman and a developing leg-spinner.
Marcus North was given his chance, partly as a back-up to Hauritz. This reasoning no longer makes sense with Hauritz’s development since last season, and North’s innocuous spinners at Cardiff.
Smith has shown in the Twenty20 matches, at least, that he can get batsmen out.
Terry Jenner reckons he needs a couple of seasons of Sheffield Shield cricket before he can be the front line spinner for Australia. This is true. But batting at number six, mainly as a batsman who can turn a match (the role Adam Gilchrist developed so successfully for Australia) and as a complementary spinner to Hauritz, particularly against the tail-enders, Smith could be an extremely useful player in the Test side.
I have been a great supporter of Phillip Hughes. But his play against Pakistan in the second Test revealed that he is too sketchy for the opening role, right now. Anyway, Watson and Simon Katich are doing an excellent job and this combination needs to be kept for the Ashes series.
There is a suggestion going the rounds that Hughes might be given North’s spot. I can see some merit in this, although I’d prefer at this time to see Smith in the position. Ian Bell has shown against South Africa that a top-order batsman playing at six, who is used to the new ball, is a great asset to a side.
After the openers, a pairing that has been a great success, the Australian side this season has faced problems with the next trio of batsmen, Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke.
Ponting is one of Australia’s greatest ever batsmen. I rate him on his statistics and the way he has got his runs as the best after Don Bradman. But he has had a poor season this summer. Is the reason for this his elbow injury? Or is the old enemy of all batsman, age, relentlessly catching up on him?
Hussey has had a great season, but … He has struggled to score his runs and was lucky at Sydney in the second Test to be repeatedly dropped by the wicket (wicked?)-keeper.
Clarke has generally looked the best of the batsman (other than Watson) but he has not gone on to score the big totals someone in the sort of form he has been in should.
Perhaps it is time for him to be challenged with batting at number 3. Ponting could bat at number four and play like Mark Waugh, and Hussey could drop down to five and specialise in batting with the tail-enders, something he does well.
The fast bowling attack, too, needs some adjusting.
Mitchell Johnson is an old ball bowler now, and an effective one. Peter Siddle doesn’t do enough with the ball or have the variety for my liking. He would be fine if the side did not have Shane Watson to do the same sort of thing as the Victorian.
There is an obvious need for a really fast bowler to back up Doug Bollinger with the new ball. Can Brett Lee come back? I doubt it. Who can this tearaway be?
I’d be interested in the views of readers of The Roar on this matter and the other issues that have been raised.
For if the Ashes are to be won back in the summer of 2010/2011, the winning Australian XI needs to be put together now, or thereabouts, rather than through trial and error during the series itself.
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...
(26)
Wolves is popular on other...
amused said | January 11th 2010 @ 6:54am | Report comment
peter roebuck. the miranda devine of sports writing. never a positive thing to say about australia……
does he still babysit and if so will he discipline my nephews if they keep misbehaving? I may need to give him a ring for that……
Brett McKay said | January 11th 2010 @ 7:20am | Report comment
Spiro, I don’t think there’s any doubt that Steven Smith will play Test cricket for Australia, and I fully expect to see him in national colours for the T20s and ODIs later this summer. But, you’ve said it yourself, he’s still a developing bowler. Had you described him as “an inventive, bold leg-spinner, a terrific fieldsman and a developing batsman”, I don’t think you’d get any argument about his inclusion at all. Bat him at 7, shuffle Haddin up one (and tell him to put his head down!).
That all said, I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see him go to NZ, or to England for the return Pakistan series at least. I’m sure the CoS wants him to have a few Tests under his belt before the Ashes next summer.
(Sydney Grade cricket followers would know Smith knocked up 170-odd not out on the weekend off about 130 balls, and then took 2/3 off four or five overs late in the day)
vinay verma said | January 11th 2010 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Spiro,the selectors wont be making any changes for Hobart. Maybe if Katich is fit he comes back, Hughes may well replace North but I think he will get one more chance. Unless someone puts their hand up in the twelve or so Sheffield Shield Matches before the team leaves for New Zealand there may be only two additions to the current squad. Hilfenhaus and Steve Smith. There is an opportunity for a middle order bat and someone could come through the pack.The U-19 World Cup starting today could throw up someone like Mitch Marsh.
Ponting will continue at three for the next 5 tests( Hobart,NZ and 2 in England against Pakistan). I do not see him dropping down the order and nothing Michael Clarke has done suggests he is ready for it.
Coming to Hauritz he compares very favourably with Mallett,Peter Taylor,Tim May and Colin Miller.His strike rate of 59.5 is close to Australi’a best,Colin Miller at 59.2,and better than Mallett,Laker,Prasanna and Venkat. It is also marginally better than Swann’s. The nature of offspinning is such that they dont have a legal “wonder” ball. Laker’s phenomenal 19 wickets in a match owed a lot to one of the weakest Australian batting sides,a crumbling pitch and good bowling from Lock at the other end. I am not suggesting Hauritz is as good as Prasanna or Laker. I am pointing out that Nathan Hauritz is getting better and with more self belief will improve his flight and loop. Mallett is working with him and was instrumental in getting him to bowl a more attacking line to the left handers,that is on the leg stump and encouraging them to sweep aginst the spin.He got Butt out like this in the second innings. So,at this stage of his career,Haurtiz is better than Taylor,May and Miller.Incidentally,Laker had an average in the low tenties and the rest are around thirty or more. Pitches,quality of opposition and runs to play with all affect the performance of a spinner.
Having Steve Smith in and around the squad can only help. Another one to watch is Jon Holland. He is a good young left armer and is prepared to toss it up. Not defensive like Ray Bright used to be. So there are options and I think the selectors are aware of this.
Haddin continues to impress and his keeping in the Sydney Test was superlative. Siddle is a trier and is becoming an enigma. He was unlucky as he beat the bat a lot but you are right he needs to develope some variety like a slower ball. He batted with courage but he is in the side for his bowling.
Brett McKay said | January 11th 2010 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Vinay, I’m with you there on Hauritz, I think his bowling this summer has been very good, but I won’t expand too much more, for risk of giving away my column this week. But an average in the mid 20s at an economy rate of less than 4rpo is a marked improvement on recent seasons.
Glad you mention Hilfenhaus too, for I think he’s been the bowler Australia have missed. Siddle is an honest, whole-hearted bowler, but the breakthroughs just aren’t there for him, and currently he offers nothing that Doug Bollinger doesn’t already provide (batting heroics last Wed aside).
All reports overnight and this morning suggest North has the backing of coach and selectors, with the suggetsion being that Hughes will make way for Katich if fit. I’m a bit here and there on this, I don’t think it’s too big an issue just yet.
Interesting you mention the U19WC too – there’s some interesting names in the Australian side: Mitch Marsh as you mention, Josh Hazelwood, Alistair McDermott, plus a swag of kids already playing in the Futures League. And being broadcast on Fox Sports too…
vinay verma said | January 11th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Brett, the U-19’s takes on greater significance when you factor in that Managers and Boards all over the world are looking to keep young talent in the fold. Sri lanka have extended their contact based players to 72 from 36 and this includes U-19s. Look for more rookie contracts to be handed to players that may be thinking of Aussie Rules. I am all for young talent to be encouraged but not at the cost of their education and development as people. Even Dhoni is trying to catch up on his education. I believe the State Associations have a mentoring program but it may be unofficial. Young players,who have not finished scholing,should be guided through the late teens and early twenties. In the past people had jobs so they learnt life skills while still playing. A curriculum for young sportsmen which takes in communication and specific reading should become mandatory.
Rickety Knees said | January 11th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Vinay – totally agree. This is true for all sports.
eric said | January 11th 2010 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Steve Smith?? Bit early Spiro. Smith has taken 11 first class wickets. Calling for him now is desperate. And to say he can get batsmen out in T20, therefore we should pick him in the Test team….really!
To me North and Hauritz are the worries. I don’t know who is the next best middle order batsman going around in Shield, and I don’t know if we have a better spinner than Hauritz.
Siddle has been unlucky, and I think he is a great contributor to the team dynamic, but don’t forget Hilfenhaus.
Rickety Knees said | January 11th 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Prior to Shane Warne’s Test debut, he had taken only 26 first-class wickets, just 15 of them in Australia. I am not suggesting that Smith is the next Warne but gambles have been taken with great results (and not so great results). However Smith is a far better batsman than Warne was and could bat at 6 and provide 4 or 5 overs of leg spin per day until he eased into bowling longer spells. The NZ tour would be an ideal opportunity for this.
Brett McKay said | January 11th 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Rickety, that’s fairly interesting about Warne, because his selection has often been referred to in support of Steven Smith. A couple of mates and I were wondering what Warnie’s ave was prior to his debut, and while we couldn’t find it definitively, we assumed it was better than 11 wickets at 70+. So do you know what his average was at that time??
And also, where and for who he did he take first class wickets that weren’t in Australia??
Rickety Knees said | January 11th 2010 @ 10:36am | Report comment
G’day Brett, I believe that Warnes average was over 100 before he played test cricket
Rickety Knees said | January 11th 2010 @ 8:50am | Report comment
It will not happen but I would be happy to bat Ponting at 4 and provide the captaincy to Katich. I just don’t think that Ponting is clever enough to win the Ashes back without being backed by Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Langer etc. Wrist spinners get wickets – I have never understood Pontings under use of Katich bowling his googlies at pivotal moments in the match. He used him to great effect in South Africa and then did not bowl him in the last Ashes series.
I really like the idea of Smith bowling 4 or 5 overs per innings and be brought on slowly. A great deal of pressure could be applied with quality spin working in tandem especially against tailenders not familiar playing against it.
Siddle has to be admired for his whole hearted efforts but he is somwhat robotic and needs to get wickets. I would take Josh Hazelwood to NZ. Having written an article calling for the re-inclusion of Hughes, I too was dissapointed with his efforts in the last test.
Jay said | January 11th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
I think the team as it currently stands is pretty close to the mark. I dont think you can get a better squad with the current depth in Australian cricket. Maybe try and talk Brad Hodge into a recall for the no.6 spot, though given the selectors treatment of him in the past, I wouldnt be holding my breath.
I think we have enough back-up spinning depth now that Kato has started bowling, just need to get Clarke right. I would personally like to see Jacques recalled to the opener spot and Katich down to 5 (Hussey dropped). This would be my side:
1. Phil Jacques
2. Shane Watson
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Michael Clarke
5. Simon Katich
6. Brad Hodge
7. Brad Haddin
8. Mitchell Johnson
9. Nathan Haurtiz
10. Ben Hilfenhaus
11. Doug Bollenger
12. Steve Smith
LeftArmSpinner said | January 11th 2010 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
jay, put Watson at 3, and Katich to open and skipper. Hodge, sadly has retired so his spot goes to a youngster. no sure who but maybe bailey from tas.
haurtitz is doing well. two 5′fers in the second innings. he’s made of the right stuff. back him. confidnce is very importatn for a spinner.
Terry Kidd said | January 11th 2010 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Spiro Nathan Hauritz is doing ok, leave him alone. I’m with Vinay on that. Marcus North should be worried. He was selected to bat and bowl. Well his batting has gone to the pack and when was the last ball he bowled. We no longer need him as a back up part time spinner therefore we should be looking for a specialist No 6 batsman. Steve Smith is not yet the answer. With regard to the fast bowling great trier that he is Peter Siddle must make way for Hilfenhaus as soon as he is fit. Siddle is there to take wickets and is not performing. Can we entice McGrath out of retirement until Hilfenhaus is fit again?
With a reliable No 6 and Hilfenhaus fit the team can win the Ashes.
sheek said | January 11th 2010 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Spiro/Guys,
Are we becoming over-analytical & hyper-reactive?
Any national sporting team is in constant change, constantly evolving.
Another thought – there doesn’t appear to be the same confidence with players coming through Sheffield Shield as in the past. Once upon a time, the selectors didn’t worry too much about a player’s experience. if he was performing against the best in SS, he was deemed good enough for the test team.
The only unknown being if he could carry his temperament over to the international level. I guess when the best 20 odd players are taken out of the SS regularly, it does reduce its overall quality & capacity to produce ready made test stars.
sledgeross said | January 11th 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Good point Terry. I dont think North is one of the top 10 batsmen in Australia, so it appears they did pick him because he is a good off-spin bowler (I actually rate him top 5 in the off spin rankings). So why in the bloody hell wont they bowl him? His selection beggars belief in some ways because they have seleceted him as an allrounder essentially. I have no problem with him being there, but he has to get a bowl, becaus he aint scoring runs.
Brett McKay said | January 11th 2010 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Sledgie, I thought it was particularly interesting that when a part-time tweaker was needed in Melbourne, Katich was the one Ponting brought on. Nearly got a wicket too, from memory..
Fisher Price said | January 11th 2010 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
Katich’s bowling suggested he should be given more overs; I suspect Punter resisted this in case it showed him up for barely bowling Katich at all in the past couple of years.
Punter has very little clue about captaining spinners.
Justin said | January 11th 2010 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Katich and Clarke both have ongoing injury issues which prevent them bowling much at all…
Fisher Price said | January 11th 2010 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
North’s record suggests he is.
Hayden said | January 11th 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
You bet Australia can win it. It’ll take a massive effort on behalf of England to deliver the goods Downunder. I think the Aussies will relish going into the series as underdogs. The recent SCG test showed they can never be counted out. Much as I like to see them get beat, I don’t think England will be up to it.
M1tch said | January 11th 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Hilfy will replace Siddle I would say, Dougy has been too good to be dropped and Johnson’s batting alone keeps him in the side, North has 1 more chance..funny 1 more test than Hughes got in England (hmm)
Watson could be a number 4, with Clarke moving to 3 once Ricky goes
sledgeross said | January 11th 2010 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Yeah Brettles, cant understand it myself. From memory, both Clarke and Katich have test 5-fers. Anyone who has watched North bowl (especially in the domestic one dayers), know that he is a pretty good off spinner who has good flight and decent turn. I dont understand the love affair with allrounders the selectors have, especially when we have Watson doing well, and a keeper who will probably end up averaging close to 40.
Katich, like Michael Bevan, can be a wicket taker in international cricket because chinamen generally turn heaps. unfortunately, it is also probably the most inaccurate of spin bowling as well.
I certainly think we can beat the Poms, though I think they are building into a well balanced team. The last two series over in England (which I have been (un) fortunate enough to attend) have been pretty close where Australia have only lost a session or two rather than a day or two. I dont have any answers for how we should make up our side, but I think we need to tweak one or two things to be a decent team again.
Republican said | January 12th 2010 @ 11:53am | Report comment
No, they won’t even beat NZ
Viscount Crouchback said | January 12th 2010 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
No one has really mentioned the captaincy-coach combination. This is where I think England really holds the advantage over the Aussies. Is anyone convinced by Nielsen and Ponting? It’s not exactly a brains trust, is it? The England bowlers are not extraordinary by any means but their plans seem brilliantly conceived and the backroom planning and analysis seems to be absolutely spot on. So much of top level sport is played between the ears and Flower and Strauss seem to have the psychology down pat.
Surely the Australians can do better than Nielsen. I know that Darren Lehmann is very highly regarded by people in England. I wonder whether in ten years people might look back at John Buchanan’s era in the same way that English soccer supporters now look back on Sir Alf Ramsey?
Whiteline said | January 13th 2010 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Viscount – I agree, Ricky and Tim have provided no evidence to me of being ahead of the game so to speak. I find their combination rather amusing. But, the selection of the Australian captaincy is often narrow minded with a few notable exceptions.