Selectors’ biggest concern lie after Gabba Test
Columnist By Luke Doherty, 28 Nov 2011 Luke Doherty is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Mickey Arthur
Australian batsman Usman Khawaja prepares to ground his bat to complete his first run in international cricket during play on Day 1 in the Fifth Ashes Test between Australia and England at the Sydney Cricket Ground in Sydney on Monday, Jan. 3, 2011. (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Related coverage
Australia’s new look selection panel must be wondering what all the fuss was about.
Their first lot of youthful picks are in the book and the public is largely on side. Andrew Hilditch must be feeling unloved right now.
But while all seems right with the world, a banana skin of novelty sized proportions lies on a bend that is quickly coming into view.
The make-up of the squad for Brisbane was simple enough. Injuries to Shane Watson, Shaun Marsh, Mitchell Johnson, Ryan Harris and Patrick Cummins meant new blood had to be injected.
But what if the new breed thrives at Test level at the Gabba and demand inclusion for the second Test in Hobart?
This is where the selection panel will really find out about the pressure of the job.
If Dave Warner belts a century can you really drop him for the second Test?
If the answer is no then who misses out for a fit again Shane Watson, who will have to slide down the order?
It doesn’t do Usman Khawaja any good to continue his yo-yo existence as a Test player when an extended period in the Baggy Green is required.
Marsh also adds extra intrigue to the selection mix. If the left hander is available he also must play against the Black Caps in Hobart.
But who comes out of the side?
Several former players said over the weekend that Ricky Ponting would never stay on if it meant keeping a young player out of the team.
That day could be just around the corner.
There’s only room for six specialist batsmen and Brad Haddin in the Australian side, yet we have eight players demanding inclusion.
New coach Mickey Arthur has already spent his first few days in the job promoting the need for a rotating squad instead of a team fixed in cement.
It’s unlikely that Ponting will be a part of that rotation. So who misses out in Hobart?
Recommend this story.
You can follow Luke Doherty on Twitter @Luke_Doherty and on Sky News Australia.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, Mickey Arthur
November 28th 2011 @ 8:35am
Bayman said | November 28th 2011 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Luke,
If Ponting fails in Brisbane I imagine it will be he who misses out.
Mind you, I continue to be amazed at those who are calling for Ponting to have a “farewell” Test on his home ground. At last look I noticed Ponting was no longer captain and, therefore, these days not a selector. Given that, I don’t quite understand the concept of him picking and choosing. I thought that was why we actually had a selection panel.
Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see Ponting make a hundred against New Zealand and give us one last look at his talent. I just do not expect it to happen. If he does succeed, what then? Safe for the summer? I somehow doubt it. And what if he fails, should he survive any longer? I think not.
It is a tough game and it comes with no guarantees. I’m sure Ponting understands that.
I would simply say this – Most people, right now, expect Ponting to be missing from the series against India. If he is not considered good enough for that series, why would he be good enough for New Zealand? I understand injuries have paved the way for his selection in Brisbane and, really, I have no issue with that but the idea of a “farewell” Test is an insult to Australian cricket, to current and former Test players and to the public.
The public expects that the selectors pick the best possible team. If that team does not include Ponting later in the summer, why would it now (injuries notwithstanding). The very idea a team may be selected for no other reason than to give an old hand a “farewell” is appalling.
Will they do it for Clarke? Or Haddin? Or Johnson? Or Hussey? Did they do it for Lawry or Border or Healy? So what’s changed?
If Ponting makes runs in Brisbane he may well keep his spot, on performance, for Hobart. If he does not make runs, however, there is no way known he should be picked for the next game.
November 28th 2011 @ 8:50am
Brett McKay said | November 28th 2011 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Luke, I’ll throw another variable at you – I think Watson and Marsh will be rested from the Hobart Test anyway, Watson as a precaution, Marsh as a steady-as-she-goes recovery. I think with so many young players coming in to the Test team, and more to come at some point soon, we may be entering a period where rotation becomes the norm, and the Test team extends to say, 15 or 16 rather than the regular XI + 2..
November 28th 2011 @ 9:46am
Rickety Knees said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I agree Brett – hamstrings and backs are always the trickiest and the slowest to heal, getting back to full fitness from these injuries is not easy.
Watson’s workload needs to be managed, especially with the poor bowling form/injury to Johnson. Right now he is our only inform genuine all rounder and IMHO should be batting at 6.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:14pm
Lolly said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
Watson bowling will be very important against India. It would be great if they just rested him completely. But if Warner goes well, and Watson drops to 6, where does Hussey go?
November 28th 2011 @ 9:28am
Vas Venkatramani said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:28am | Report comment
The injuries right now may be the best thing to happen to us (glass half-full view please people).
If the likes of Warner and Ponting succeed in Brisbane, it provides the perfect reason for the selectors to then tell Watson and Marsh to play a round of Shield games to find their feet before they return to the Test team. That’s how it was done back in the day when an injured player returned. It meant that any teething problems were done in the Shield (away from the media spotlight) and not in a Test match where the stakes are higher.
It would be worth giving Watson a rest for the NZ series, because it might be a good exercise to see how Australia fare with only four bowling options. If NZ are good enough, they will prosper against us, but given how intelligent Clarke has begun life as skipper, he looks to always have a solution. It’s important Australia gets a good test before India come.
After that, hopefully the selectors have a wonderful headache over who to leave out, because that’s the situation all Australian supporters want – complaining about too many options rather than too few…
November 28th 2011 @ 7:33pm
Fisher Price said | November 28th 2011 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
Too many options? It’s about quality not quantity, and the current quality is befitting of the world’s fourth-placed Test side.
November 28th 2011 @ 9:30am
Matt F said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I think alot will come down to whether we win or lose at the GABBA. If we win then then Ponting will survive, even if it’s only to give him a farewell test in Tassie. We’ll probably rest Watson/Marsh as a precaution for India. However if we were to lose, and Ponting fails, then the selectors will have to rush back Watson/Marsh to avoid an embarassing series defeat and that would be the end of him.
Personally I’m happy for Ponting to have a farewell game in Tassie, assuming we win in Brisbane, but no further. He would need to score big scores against NZ to make the India series, and even then I’m not sure how much we can read into a century or two against the Kiwis.
November 28th 2011 @ 6:29pm
zenboomerang said | November 28th 2011 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
Yes, NZ ranked no.8 in the world and their team looks to lack depth… they have an Australian (Brownlie) in their team… He couldn’t make Sheffield Shield for WA so moved over to NZ on his fathers natural birthplace – 25 years born & living in Oz and deserts his homeland… Still I guess he loves his cricket, so playing for someone else makes sense if he can’t get a match at home…
November 28th 2011 @ 6:45pm
Ian Whitchurch said | November 28th 2011 @ 6:45pm | Report comment
Zenboomerang,
And Australia played Kepler Wessels. What is your point again ?
November 29th 2011 @ 5:11pm
zenboomerang said | November 29th 2011 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
1. Wessels couldn’t play for SA as they were banned from international cricket… Your point?…
2. So you would ban a Chinese or USA national from becoming an Australian citizen & playing cricket for Australia… Again, your point?…
3. Brownlie is an Australian citizen & playing for NZ on his fathers citizenship, even though his parents live in Australia & have for many decades… Please, your point?…
November 28th 2011 @ 9:42am
Vas Venkatramani said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Again Matt, why is Ponting the only one who has to make “big scores” to guarantee his place? Don’t the like of Khawaja and Warner need to do the same? What’s better, a man with 158 Test experience to front up against India, or a rookie with only a handful of Tests?
If Ponting scores a 100, and one of Khawaja and Warner scores a 100, I’d pick Ponting, because I can’t think of anything better than to get those young players to go back to the Shield with a feather in their cap. The key for them is to really demand their place. None of these young guys have (Marsh – FC avg 40, Khawaja FC avg 45, Warner debuting in FC end of last season).
They need to make a mountain of runs ala Hussey in the mid 90s to really demand it. Once they do, then their case becomes indisputable. Right now, you go with the man with experience, and Ponting is that…
November 28th 2011 @ 9:47am
Ryan O'Connell said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Well said, totally agree.
November 28th 2011 @ 9:57am
Matt F said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
In an ideal world then yes, players would need to make a mountain of Shield runs to make the team but we’re in a different era now. The only reason why players of the past had to make mountains of Shield runs was because the national team was succesful and the test players were making big scores (or taking lots of wickets) so it was almost impossible to get in the team. This isn’t happening now. I’m not saying that we should drop Ponting because he’s old. I’m saying we should drop Ponting because he’s been “out of form” for 3 years and hasn’t made a test century in almost 2. If this were any other player they’d have been dropped a long time ago. If he makes a big score then I’m more then happy for him to continue, but his performances over the past few years would suggest that it’s highly unlikely.
Marsh averages 56 in his 3 tests so has earnt a spot based on runs. Warner, despite inexperience at 1st class level, averages 65 from his 11 first class games. For all the talk about “Pontings return to form” in Jo’burg the top scorer in that second innings was Khawaja (he also averaged over 60 in the Shield last summer.)
November 28th 2011 @ 10:05am
Vas Venkatramani said | November 28th 2011 @ 10:05am | Report comment
A different era, so does that mean the lessons that reaped us rewards in the past are now neglected?
To be honest, I’d rather Warner, Marsh and Khawaja showcase their flaws in the obscurity of the Shield where they can work on the games without media interference, rather than in the pressure cooker of a Test match where all eyes are on them. For a demonstration of what a period out of the spotlight can do to a player, look at Damien Martyn.
Ponting has been out of form for sure. The difference is that none of those three have really demanded their place. They all look like they can, but they need to make their case indisputable. Hayden got his first taste of Test cricket in 1993, but it was only 2001 when he cemented his spot. Until then, he was a mid 20s average batsman with only one century. Langer made his debut in 1993 against the might of the Windies at Adelaide (the one-run thriller), and then became the living example of a player who fulfilled every ounce of his ability more than 10 years later.
The stories of players going back for a spell and coming good later on are everywhere. Why would you neglect that system now when it reaps so many rewards? And for the record, our Test team isn’t going so bad. We’re fourth in the world, where you can only label England as truly better than us. We’re on par with SA, and India are yet to fully show they can dominate teams away from home…
November 28th 2011 @ 10:51am
Matt F said | November 28th 2011 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Like I said, ideally we would be in that situation of old but can we afford to wait until a player makes those kind of scores? If our aim is to beat England and be number one in the world then we won’t be doing it with Ponting in his extended slump.
Regardless, whilst it would be ideal, the reality is that they no longer have to score 1000′s of Shield runs because they’re no longer competing with a winning team averaging 50+ with the bat but with a moderately succesful team averaging, at best, 40+. In fact Ponting has only averaged above 40 once in the past 5 years and who is currently averaging in the low 20′s in 2011. The question isn’t will these players be able to make average 50+ in test cricket but will they do better then the current crop of test players, including Ponting? On current form I’m confident that they will. If our best team isfull of players that average 40+ then so be it, this means that we don’t have the quality of players we had in the early 2000′s and players averaging 50+ are very rare. The question is whether Ponting is good enough to be in our first XI in November/December 2011. Notice that for all your arguements to support Ponting in the team, none have been based about recent runs. There’s a reason for that
I’m looking at the team based on form, not greatness that appears to havey ended 3-5 years ago. In current form I would say that it’s more likely that Warner or Khawaja will score a century then Ponting.
November 28th 2011 @ 7:43pm
Fisher Price said | November 28th 2011 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
You really don’t seem to to grasp that Australia’s Test cricket been largely poor for a couple of years, and that the poor individual performances of several players (but Ponting and Johnson in particular) have been a major part of the ensuing lack of success and slump to fourth in the Test rankings.
A team that wants to win regularly can’t afford the luxury of carrying players because of their past records when in the here and now, they aren’t performing to the standard required.
November 28th 2011 @ 2:49pm
Lancey5times said | November 28th 2011 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
I’m pretty sure Greg Blewett had a pretty handy average after 3 tests. Didn’t turn out to be the champion we expected. Longevity has to count for plenty. A hundred from Ponting could spark him to do a Tendulkar/Kallis. It is disappointing that many are calling for him to leave the team regardless of his results. The guy is one of the greatest batsman of all time. I hope he finds something and spends another 2 summers at least in the team. If I was a Warner/Usman/Hughes/Marsh etc, I’d like to look at the team sheet and see the name R Ponting listed at 4
November 28th 2011 @ 3:08pm
Matt F said | November 28th 2011 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
I haven’t read anybody say he should be dropped no matter what, though I may have missed some. If he can make a big score against NZ I’m more than happy to keep him in the team but, if he doesn’t, how long do we give him? He’s averaged 27 in his last 22 months. Any other player with that run of form would have been dropped a while ago. Again, how long can we give him?
I’m sure that all of those players would all love to see R Ponting batting at 4 (at least the R Ponting of 5 years ago) but when you add in Clarke, Hussey and Watson you have 8 names for only 6 spots. Two of those players won’t make the team and its very difficult to justify Pontings spot in that 6 given his extended run of poor form. As much as they’d all love to see the R Ponting of old in that top 6 they’d also, justifiably, be more then a little peeved if they missed out because we allowed a player averaging under 27 for the last 22 months to play on for as long as he wants.
November 28th 2011 @ 7:46pm
Fisher Price said | November 28th 2011 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Nothing that Ponting has done at the crease for two years suggests he’s about to enjoy a renaissance as a world-class batsman.
But, hey, let’s retain past greats as some sort of vanity project. Results? Pah!
November 28th 2011 @ 9:59am
Vas Venkatramani said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:59am | Report comment
This whole age thing really annoys me because no one notices form slumps unless it relates to someone who is old. Dropping them only makes sense when you KNOW there is someone better waiting in the wings. Right now, Australian fans seem to be living on a hope and prayer that one of Warner, Khawaja and Marsh is better than Ponting when their performances are yet to suggest it.
I remember this whole thing happening to Steve and Mark Waugh nearly 10 years ago (wow, has it been THAT long?) While Steve got his ideal farewell, I hated the selectors for dropping Mark Waugh on account of his age, and then replacing him with Darren Lehmann (32 at the time). To top it off, they dropped Junior so his final Test was in the Sharjah backwater…
November 28th 2011 @ 10:54am
Matt F said | November 28th 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
I agree that older players are judged more severely that a younger player in the same form slump. It’s probably because there does come a time when every player does get too old and the question becomes, is it form or has the time come? It also maye have to do with the fact that, even if Ponting (for example) does find form, he will only be around for another 12-18 months anyway whereas a younger player could be around for years. It’s not nescessarily fair but it is the reality of professional sport.
For what it’s worth my issue with Ponting isn’t so much his age, but the extended lack of runs. If he was 25 I’d say the same thing.
November 28th 2011 @ 7:51pm
Fisher Price said | November 28th 2011 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Well, if a faltering Ponting keeps taking up a place for one of the younger top-order batsman, they’re not really getting a proper chance to show they can excel at test level, are they?
And Khawaja in particular has demonstrated he can excel at FC level already.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:21pm
Lolly said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:21pm | Report comment
Why should players get ‘ideal farewells’? If CA managed their team and schedules so that every player on the verge of retirement could have an ideal farewell, I’d 1) think they were run by lunatics and 2) wouldn’t bother following the sport.
November 29th 2011 @ 8:07am
Bayman said | November 29th 2011 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Vas,
On the other hand, re Mark Waugh and Lehmann, the former scored 20 Test centuries but only one of them exceeded 150. Lehmann, in his limited time in the team scored 5 centuries and, from memory, three of them were over 150.
Great player that he was, Junior probably under-achieved based on his talent. As for Lehmann, if he was around now he’d be one of the first batsmen picked (mind you, so would Mark Waugh!)
November 28th 2011 @ 11:18am
jameswm said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Vas – when you average 25 and don’t score a ton for 2 years, it’s more than a form slump.
And it’s not only older players under the pump. I wouldn’t have Hughes anywhere near the team, and I’d dump Haddin too.
Warner averages 60+ on FC games and is piling on the runs.
Marsh must average 55-60 in his few tests – you can’t seriously consider dumping him.
Khawaja was I think our top scorer last test and batted very well in a crisis, admittedly with Ponting. He’s scored a lot of FC runs for 2-3 years now, has a tight technique, and has no need to go back to Shield cricket to learn.
I’m afraid your comments are getting personal and you’re losing objectivity on Ponting. He’s been awful the last two years, and the three you mention have each given us quite a lot of evidence to base our hopes on. It’s not wing and a prayer stuff – they’ve been backing it up. The evidence on Ponting suggests he’s been on a solid wane for 3 years. I think those three on their way up have passed Ponting on his way down, and sentimentality doesn’t come in to it. I woudn’t argue with him getting a farewell test in Tassie though.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:23am
Vas Venkatramani said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Marsh needs to ensure his fitness is up to suggest he’s a prospect worth backing. Khawaja is yet to really stamp his authority on the game (but looks like he has the technique to do so), while Warner is yet to play a Test.
Ponting is on the wane for sure, but if you drop him now, we must remember we don’t go back to him. That’s the crucial factor. If you drop him, then he’s done. To go back to him would be ridiculous, and would be a huge vote of no confidence for our young brigade.
Keeping them back for a little while is not a punishment. If they really are good as we would like them to be, not being part of the side will increase their appetite for runs for their states. That’s what forges healthy competition.
And again, Ponting scored a fine 62 his last knock out, and was done in extreme pressure against a fine attack. Before you get the gun out and drop him, think of what we will DEFINITELY lose than what we may gain with others…
November 28th 2011 @ 11:41am
Matt F said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
I wouldn’t put a line through him but he would need a season like Katich had when he got recalled (i.e. a miracle) and even then he would only be there for the Ashes in mid 2013. If he did that then I wouldn’t have a problem given the Ashes is the most important series for us, though current form suggests he wouldn’t be able to do this.
It’s a sad state of affairs for our national team when a knock of 62 (his first 50 since the 1st Ashes test if memory serves me correctly) can be considered career saving. The Waugh twins needed centuries in Sharjah to save their spots (Steve did this and Mark got a 50 which wasn’t enough) and Steve again needed a century against England. Whilst Ponting looked pretty good for his 62 his dismissal was a poor one. At least Khawaja got out to a good ball in bad light, Ponting slashed at a wide one.
Keep in mind Vas that this article, and comments, are based on the assumption that Warner/Khawaja do well, Ponting fails and Watson/Marsh are fit to return. If, hypothetically, that all hapens then I don’t see how Ponting could remain.
November 28th 2011 @ 2:13pm
Brian said | November 28th 2011 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
drop Hussey and Watson bats at 6
November 28th 2011 @ 2:26pm
Matt F said | November 28th 2011 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Drop Hussey? I know he had a poor SA tour but he was out best batsman in the Ashes and against SL. If we’re willing to give Ponting 2 years to turn around form surely we can give Hussey more than 2 tests?
November 28th 2011 @ 11:28am
jameswm said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:28am | Report comment
we lose someone who’s averaged 25 for two years and has been on the wane for longer.
Whichever of the three you’re talking about, we gain someone in the form of his life, who is on his way up.
You can’t use the hasn’t played a test argument against Warner – on that basis no one would ever debut.
How badly does Ponting have to go for 2-3 years until he’s dropped?
Leave him in the ODI team for now, but drop him from the tests after Hobart.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:35am
Brian said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Seems like we are getting ahead of ourselves, first lets see the results in Brisbane. Was our attack bluffing on the weekend or are we going to struggle to get 20 NZ wickets.
If so whats the plan for India. We might head into Boxing Day with our attack having fewer first class wickets than the oppossition batsman has Test centuries
November 28th 2011 @ 7:57pm
Fisher Price said | November 28th 2011 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
Well, the Australian attack has generally struggled to get 20 wickets for two years now, so it wouldn’t be much of a surprise. That said, Johnson not being there means that it might be possible for the attack to at least build up sustained pressure on the opposition.
November 28th 2011 @ 10:29pm
Rhys said | November 28th 2011 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
To be honest I think our attack will face more of a challenge from the Black Caps line-up than India. NZ nearly always raise the performance bar against their arch sporting nemesis. Having watched the recent series between India and the West Indies (and prior to that India v. England), I’m not sure the much vaunted Indian top 7 will be as much of a challenge as people think.
In saying that I acknowledge that India won the W.I. series 2-0 and came within a whisker of winning the 3rd Test. It’s also true that the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid, and Laxman are all genuine legends of the game and deserve the greatest respect. But aside from Rahul ‘The Wall’ Dravid, the Indian top order totally capitulated against the English attack – I mean there were some seriously soft dismissals during that series. During the series at home against W.I., the Indian batsman showed similarly flawed application and techniques against arguably the weakest bowling attack in international cricket (never thought I’d be saying that about a West Indies team). Yes they notched up some decent scores but really only when they were batting on roads. An Aussie attack comprising 3-4 quicks, even inexperienced ones, bowling at 140+ will prove an interesting contest.