Is now the time for ‘Invers’ to make his mark?
By Brett McKay, 16 Dec 2011 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
103 Have your say
Australian Cricket selector John Inverarity speaks with spin bowler Nathan Lyon. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
Related coverage
The new National Selection Panel may have dodged some selection bullets coming into the second Test in Hobart via injuries, but you now have to wonder if the time to start the rebuilding program properly is here.
The loss to New Zealand will stick in the Australian team’s craw for some time, as it should. As well as New Zealand bowled, and Doug Bracewell in particular, Australia’s batting performance throughout the Test must become their line in the sand. There can be no going back over that line again.
I’ve never been big on making wholesale changes to a losing side. I’ve never really seen the point in flicking four or five or more players in one go when the week before they were the best guys for the job. A tweak or two here and there can add a spark, but mass changes can only destabilise a side.
Or so I thought.
The interesting situation the selectors find themselves in now is one of a losing side, numerous out-of-form players, and several other players returning from injury. We may have had two of those scenarios in the last few years, but not all three at the same time.
So the question for John Inverarity and his new selection panel cohorts becomes one of when exactly do they start leaving their mark on the side? Yes, they picked James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, and David Warner for their Test debuts in the Trans-Tasman series, but all three were known entities, having already worn the national colours under the Hilditch reign.
Injuries, again, will dictate the extent of changes for Boxing Day. But, if the panel is serious about picking the best eleven cricketers in Australia – and the Argus report which established their being says they must be – we could be looking a vastly different batting order.
The time to start making the mark is here.
Phillip Hughes seems doomed, having even lost the support of his Captain now. Michael Clarke admitted in the Hobart post-match that “…he needs to find some runs; it’s as simple as that. If he’s not making them for Australia he’s going to have to go back and score some for New South Wales.”
There is a small issue here in that NSW don’t actually play again until February, but that’s out of Clarke’s and Hughes’ hands. Hughes needs to make runs somewhere. His just-announced 2012 deal with Worcestershire is quite timely, too; Australian duties are now unlikely to preclude him from having a full season at New Road.
Usman Khawaja may or may not be under the pump again. Shaun Marsh’s fitness remains an ongoing concern, and his unlikely return for Boxing Day should mean that Khawaja holds his spot. I say ‘should’ because another Ed Cowan score in Canberra next week might just fortify the case for his selection.
Khawaja is a funny place, stats-wise. In his six Tests, he averages 29.2, with his Johannesburg 65 his highest score. In 11 innings, he has seven scores above 21, yet only one fifty. A 0no and a 7 are his only single-figure scores. He’s making starts, but hasn’t quite gone on. He’s clearly a Test-quality batsman, but he just hasn’t fully grasped his chance yet. He needs to soon.
The Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey equations get murkier by the day. If immediately following the lost Ashes series was the first opportunity, the New Zealand loss has also suddenly re-opened a small window for “Invers” and co to draw the curtains on two wonderful careers.
They could, if they were serious, pick their team for the first 2013 Ashes Test now. And on that front, I can’t see how Ponting, Hussey, or even Brad Haddin and Ryan Harris can last that long.
Yet the first three will almost certainly be picked next week, and if he’s fit enough, Harris will be too.
Ponting’s battles are well documented. Since starring throughout the Ashes series and again in Sri Lanka, Hussey has averaged less than 12. Haddin can only be holding on because of Tim Paine’s ongoing injury, and continues to bat like that super-talented but brain-explosion-prone 19 year-old I first saw in Canberra in the late 90s. Harris, by his own admission, is a Test-to-Test proposition.
Shane Watson, too, is an all-but certainty to play in Melbourne, yet he won’t have played for five weeks, and won’t be fit enough to bowl. But if he’s not fit enough to bowl, his batting hasn’t exactly been superlative lately either. So then why rush him back?
The argument will be made that a side in transition needs some experienced heads to guide them through their fledgling days in Test cricket, but this ignores the fact that the last three Man of the Match awards – popularity contests aside – have gone to an 18yo debutant, a 21yo debutant, and a 23yo in his second Test. The kids don’t need their hands held; they’re already doing the holding themselves.
Clarke, Siddle, Watson are experienced heads. Warner, Khawaja, Marsh, Paine, Pattinson, and Starc have all been in and around the Australian set-up for a few years. Cowan has worn a state cap for eight or nine seasons. Moreover, it’s not like we’re playing 14 year-olds in 2nd or 3rd Grade here; this is Test Cricket, and it’s not supposed to easy by its very name and definition.
If the selectors were serious, they’d draw their line in the sand after Hobart and let a batting order of Warner, Cowan, Khawaja, Clarke, Watson, Marsh/Dan Christian, and Matthew Wade loose on the Indian attack on Boxing Day.
Sadly, for the future at least, injury constraints and a touch of gun-shyness will probably mean that a Watson-for–Hughes straight swap is the sum total of the Hobart fallout.
Recommend this story.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
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, National Selection Panel


December 16th 2011 @ 4:52am
The_Wookie said | December 16th 2011 @ 4:52am | Report comment
so good a story you’ve published it twice!
December 16th 2011 @ 8:38am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Wookie, either something’s changed since you posted this, or I’m really missing something here…
December 16th 2011 @ 12:58pm
Ryan O'Connell said | December 16th 2011 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Bretty boy – food for thought: I believe number 3 is the hardest position to bat. I honestly do. If we had established openers, it would be easier to have a rookie at 3. But as it stands, geez, I think we’re asking a lot of a young player.
Thoughts?
December 16th 2011 @ 1:15pm
The Barry said | December 16th 2011 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Ryan, I agree wholeheartedly with this and think it’s unfair for Khawaja to find his Test match feet at No. 3.
From the moment he entered the cricket academy Ponting was tagged as a future captain and star. Even he had about 3-4 seasons batting at 6 before being elevated to the No 3 position.
If Marsh is fit he should get the No 3 spot. While he hasn’t got much test experience he has the best part of a decade of first class cricket under his belt. If Marsh is unfit then maybe Clarke needs to step up and claim the No 3 spot and let Khawaja bat down the order at 5 or 6 and work his way up (if he’s good enough).
December 16th 2011 @ 1:39pm
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
yeah, definitely truth to that mate, I detested batting at 3 myself. The exception to your rule though is when the rookie has batted at 3 his whole life, there is at least that familiarity in the situation. But even then, there wouldn’t be many no.3s getting around that enjoy walking out at 1/0 (or 0/1, for those that prefer..)
December 16th 2011 @ 6:31am
Red Kev said | December 16th 2011 @ 6:31am | Report comment
I have never understood the weakmindedness of selectors in any sport. They always talk about making too many changes and destabilising the team – why do they want to preserve stability in a losing team? Do you know what happens when you make sweeping changes – the team is disrupted, the team adapts, the team gets over it and goes out and plays. It’s doesn’t tear a hole in the space-time continuum.
Do they lack any foresight? Do they not understand that even if Ponting and Hussey perform all they gain is a feelgood story farewell tour – the guys will not help Australia back to number one, come the battle for number one against the Poms they’ll be 38/39 and unable to play?
The selectors can’t keep banging on about experience and then refuse to let any new players gain that experience. Clarke and Watson provide enough experience and leadership that Ponting, Hussey and Haddin are superfluous.
Cowan, Warner, Marsh (Cooper/Forrest), Khawaja, Clarke, Watson (Christian/Faulkner), Wade, Harris (Hazlewood/Copeland), Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon
It would be nice if Cummins and Cutting were available but since they’re not and Starc looked like Johnson against New Zealand, Hazlewood or Copeland gets a chance.
December 16th 2011 @ 7:13am
Brendon said | December 16th 2011 @ 7:13am | Report comment
Ponting’s bad form and stayed execution should not be influencing Hussey’s selection.
People are unfairly lumping Hussey and Ponting together. Ponting should have retired after Hobart but he didn’t and its obvious he wont go unless the selectors cut him.
And if we get rid of Ponting and Hussey at the same time then that only leaves Clarke as a veteran batsmen. Watson has only played 32 tests. And its not like players like Hughes and Khawaja have set the world on fire and Warner and Marsh have done well in the 5 tests between them but theres no guarantee their form will continue.
Hussey is treading a fine line but with the more batting friendly grounds coming up he can easily turn it around. Ponting could too …
As for Khajawa, he is suffering the same problem as Hussey – stupid, outdated, semi-professional notions about “digging in” and “putting your head down”. Khawaja’s test strike rate is 39 compared to his fc s/r of 50. You will NOT succeed at test level with a s/r that low. High 40′s is the minimum otherwise the bowling attack will always have the upper hand against you. Hussey has also retreated into defensive mode.
If players are getting out playing strokes to appropiate deliveries then its not a judgement issue but a technical and execution issue. If you’re getting out on long hops, half volleys and full tosses and playing shots against them playing defensive shots against isn’t going to suddenly score you a century.
December 16th 2011 @ 8:23am
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | December 16th 2011 @ 8:23am | Report comment
If Channel 9 and SMH reports are right, there will be 2 veteran batsmen if Ponting and Hussey are dropped…….there are rumours of The Kat being recalled
December 16th 2011 @ 8:34am
Chris said | December 16th 2011 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Brendon, you’re falling into the tired old “experience” trap. Who have been the best performing players in recent times? As Brett points out in the article, it’s the young guns – Pattinson, Cummins, Warner, etc. It’s actually the old guys holding the young ones back at the moment.
There should have been a clean out before the NZ series, but for whatever reason the selectors didn’t make the decisions they clearly needed to. And the old guard let the team down. When you say there’s no guarantee that Warner and Marsh’s form will continue, that’s an argument you can make about any player. At the end of the day, the batsmen should be picked to score runs – I don’t care whether they’re 17 or 37, the only criteria should be that you are scoring consistently. Neither Ponting or Hussey have fit that criteria for quite some time. Hussey continues to save himself by stringing together a few good games at a time, but it’s not consistent enough in my mind. As for Ponting – he should have gone at least two years ago, and possible even earlier.
The best, most consistent part of the Australian Test team at the moment is the bowling – which is the most inexperienced attack I can remember. If only the selectors could recognise that and apply that to the batting line-up.
December 16th 2011 @ 8:36am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Brendon, I agree with you regarding Ponting and Hussey being lumped together, and it probably is harsh on Hussey, but I think we’re at the point now where it’s both in or neither in. Personally, I’d let Mike Hussey play in the Test team until he dropped dead at the crease, and I’ve said numerous time on The Roar over the years that it’s Hussey I’d want to bat for my life.
But I think it’s just time. Warner, Khawaja, Cowan, Marsh, Wade & Paine, even someone like Tom Cooper is putting his hand up this summer. These guys deserve to forge a Test career.
Windows like this don’t open all the time, and I really think the opportunity should be taken..
And Guru, Katich being recalled will be the feel-good story of the summer, but it’s still not solving anything – it’s just delaying the inevitable (or what is currently in place) for him temporarily..
December 16th 2011 @ 8:41am
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | December 16th 2011 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Totally agree Brett, I believe that he should not have been dropped in the first place, but now that he has, its time to bite the bullet and look to the future.
December 16th 2011 @ 9:24am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Guru, he certainly picked the worst time to get injured (he wasn’t dropped), but what’s done is done now, we need to move this team forward..
December 16th 2011 @ 10:18am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Picking kat might win us tests for 2 years.
Is that such a bad thing? Age is no issue for me – only scoring runs.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:42am
Red Kev said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:42am | Report comment
If scoring runs is your issue then you wouldn’t pick Katich.
You just love the guy – seriously, at least half your posts mention him as if he’s 50 foot tall and an immovable rock who scored centuries every other innings. Katich is not the saviour of Australian cricket, he’s not even that good a batsman. To listen to the drivel that you and the rest of his fan club post on here you’d swear he was a guy that puts Tendulkar to shame.
Katich has played every Sheffield Shield game this year against bowlers who (presumably) are not good enough to be on test duty and averages 39.50. He’s 15th in runs scored and 32nd in batting average in the Sheffield Shield so presumably, if your claim that scoring runs is what is most important is true then he’s at best in the third-string back-up team for a test recall.
Katich Shield Season: 0, 20, 29, 110, 16, 8, 6, 125, 5, 76
That is hardly setting the world alight.
In fact it looks almost exactly the same as Phil Hughes 2011 test record – a couple of good scores and a whole lot of failures.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:07am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Kev Kat was our best batsman for 2 years before he was dumped. He almost revolutionised T20 batting with his captaincy and is hard as nails.
We need more smart tough guys in the team. Yes they need to score runs too. Our team was better with him at the top of the order.
“Half my posts” mention Katich? Saviour? I just said he’s in our best 6 batsmen.
How many millions of times have I told you not to exaggerate, Kev?
December 16th 2011 @ 11:09am
Red Kev said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:09am | Report comment
“How many millions of times have I told you not to exaggerate, Kev?”
Hahahaha – well played sir!
December 16th 2011 @ 12:23pm
Fisher Price said | December 16th 2011 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Katich’s axing was ludicrous but a recall would be a strange move. Personally, I agreed with Roebuck when he suggested Katich should take over as Test captain from Ponting during India’s last tour here.
I think Katich-like intelligence and application are qualities the current side lacks, though whether he’s the best one to provide them moving into 2012 I’m less convinced.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Kat said ‘No, thanks’ to any invitation to resume his international career?
December 16th 2011 @ 10:48am
Chris said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Brett, if the team is going to get moved forward, then let’s actually move it forward. Dropping Katich but retaining Ponting, Hussey, etc is just plain illogical. I think that’s what I object to most of all in the Katich fiasco – if you’re going to drop people because of their age, then why drop the guy who was in the best form of the three ‘oldies’?
And remember that Paine is out injured for the rest of the summer, and Marsh is very iffy at the moment. Not sure I’d be looking to either of them for any short term solutions. Wade seems to have put his hand up at just the right time – maybe time to give him a go instead of Haddin?
And with news of minor injuries to Siddle and Pattinson, there definitely needs to be another bowling option picked too. If Watson isn’t fit enough to bowl then he shouldn’t be picked in the team. Maybe Christian is the way to go here, even if it’s only until Watson is fully fit?
December 16th 2011 @ 11:13am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Nah I’d pick Watson as a batsman ahead of others – well, most of them. If we need an all rounder, someone else has to make way.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:15am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Chris, haven’t I said all this in the column??
December 16th 2011 @ 1:43pm
sheek said | December 16th 2011 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
No Brett,
I think it’s a mistake to lump Ponting & Hussey together. Remember, Ponting started his test career iway back n 1995. Hussey not until a decade later. And Hussey’s some months younger than Punter as well.
I do think Punter & Haddin are ready for the chop, but Hussey still has a role to play I believe.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:37am
Bayman said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Brendon,
Perhaps if a couple of the batsmen in Hobart applied those ‘stupid, outdated, semi-professional notions about “digging in” and “putting your head down”‘ we might have actually won the game in a canter rather than losing it in a sweaty panic.
What was Boycott’s “strike rate” and how did he go in Test cricket? Australia would fall over themselves to have an opener like Geoffrey right now. Or Bill Lawry.
If Khawaja had pottered along for another hundred balls and scored another thirty-nine runs we’d have won – easily. His problem is not strike rate but an inability to apply himself for any length of time. Concentration, perhaps? Perhaps he just finds Test cricket a bit tougher mentally than Shield bowlers on roads.
You seem to be fixated on the notion that “strike rate” is how to define talent, success, technique. I simply go back to Watson versus Sri Lanka in the first Test of the recent series. Twenty-two runs off nineteen balls and out inside the first half-hour of the match. Presumably that strike rate made his innings a match winner? To be fair, for nineteen balls he had the bowlers completely flummoxed but he didn’t bother them too much for the next five hundred balls.
Batsmen aren’t being dominated by a bowler unless those same batsmen allow themselves to think they are being dominated. It’s fine to have strokemakers in the team who can come in and, after a period of settling in (or digging in if you prefer), start knocking the ball all over the park.
That becomes a bit easier, of course, if the top order has done their job which is basically, shine off the ball, runs on the board. Perhaps that thought of “I must keep my strike rate up” is one of the reasons Australia has been knocked over for less than a hundred more times in the last two years than at any other time in my memory.
Can we assume that shot Haddin played in South Africa was in response to concerns about his strike rate or was it just a crap, irresponsible shot in the circumstances. That “digging in” rubbish is for the birds.
Strike rate doesn’t matter that much if you don’t get out. Eventually the bowler will tire and he can be picked off comfortably – but you do have to last long enough for that to happen! It is a five day game after all.
December 16th 2011 @ 7:59pm
Brendon said | December 16th 2011 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
What was David Warner’s s/r, old chap? Need I say more?
It doesn’t matter how much evidence I provide you you will stick to the “the way things were done in my day were so much better”.
Cricket is now a fully professional sport. We need professional ideas and approaches. What worked in the 50′s wont work now.
December 17th 2011 @ 4:04pm
Bayman said | December 17th 2011 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Brendon,
Sorry, guru, but yes you do need to say more. I don’t give a toss for Warner’s strike rate because I’ll think you find we lost that particular match. So much for bloody strike rate! Perhaps if his strike rate had been a bit less and he’d farmed the strike a bit more, like a professional, we’d have still won. I guess we’ll never know now.
As for providing evidence Brendon, don’t make us all laugh. What evidence have you ever provided but your firm opinion?
Cricket may well be a professional sport son but only in that the players today earn more money. Not in the area of skill or knowledge. The idea that modern batsmen brought up on roads have better technique than those “amateurs” of the 50s, 60s or 70s is laughable. Had that been the case we might have won the last Test.
The idea that bowlers today can swing the ball more, or better, than bowlers of the 50s is equally laughable. If that had been the case England may not have made 5-600 nearly every time they batted last summer. The idea that a batsman’s job is to launch the ball out of the park at every opportunity is also laughable. As I said previously, Watson hit 22 off 19 balls, then out, on the first morning against Sri Lanka. For an opening batsman, great strike rate, crap result.
What worked in the fifties will work now just fine. The problem is that modern players aren’t as good as those in the fifties. By that I mean their techniques are not as good. Brownlie, whose technique is pretty good, and simple, had absolutely no trouble on that pitch in Hobart during his innings of 56. Warner, for all his heroics, still had some luck with his edges which, if Hughes had been batting, would have been caught by somebody (but probably Guptil).
A batsman needs to know how to bat when the pitch is doing something and/or the bowler is doing something. Putting your foot down the track and smashing it out of the park is not the way.
As for those modern, professional approaches you seem to love so much I’ll just say this – 7/40. How about all out 47? I will say one thing, at least there’s plenty of action if not much batting skill. Incidentally, how many of those seven batsmen still had a great strike rate? Seriously, I don’t know and I am not about to bother looking it up. All I know is – 7/40.
You seem to be under the delusion that T20 methods in Test cricket will solve all problems. Given most T20 teams are fully dismissed for anything from 120-180 I wonder how this might be so? So let’s forget silly notions about “professional ideas and approaches”.
Dare I say it, but perhaps the true professional might have dug in and just ground out the victory for the loss of maybe three of four wickets given how much time was left. Make no mistake, Brendon, being “professional” in the modern era is all about winning – not improving your strike rate while the team embarrasses itself.
And if you don’t believe winning is important, ask yourself why the Argus Report was initiated? Or why Katich was not given a contract? Or why Ponting was replaced as captain? Or why Tim Neilsen was allowed to disappear? Yep, I know, It still doesn’t explain James Sutherland! Some things are destined to remain a mystery.
P.S. If you actually ever saw those guys in the 50s, 60s or 70s actually play then I could cut you some slack. But clearly you did not. So you have no idea how good they were or, more importantly, how far techniques have slipped – batting and bowling.
During the past week I had the good fortune to spend some time chatting to the great South African Barry Richards. He agreed that modern techniques were nowhere near as sound as those of his era. He described bowlers run-ups being covered but the wicket left open to the elements.
He also expressed the view that back then almost every fast bowler could swing the ball, and some at very disconcerting pace indeed. And on dodgy, wet tracks to boot. If your technique wasn’t tight you simply did not survive.
One day, and T20 cricket, have encouraged bowlers to land it back of a length to restrict batsmen scoring. The art of swing has been lost – hence Craig McDermott now trying to get the Aussie quicks to pitch it up more to allow the ball to work for you. Siddle, for one, looked twice the bowler in Hobart than he ever looked last summer.
Now Barry Richards could bat a bit and I’d hate to see what he might do with short boundaries, bats like cannons and bowlers who can’t swing the ball. Any time, though, you want to tell us that Barry Richards was over-rated and nowhere near as good as, say, Shane Watson, you go right ahead. I for one, won’t believe you – no matter what “evidence” you provide!
December 16th 2011 @ 8:31am
Red Kev said | December 16th 2011 @ 8:31am | Report comment
It is not a question of Hussey’s form (which was abysmal right before teh Ashes, then good against England and Sri Lanka but then followed by his worst two test series ever against South Africa and New Zealand) or even his consistency it is about getting back to number one. Ponting, Hussey and Haddin cannot help Australia get back to number one.
I saw in the papers this morning that the Katich drum is beating again. That would be the most farcical decision in test selection … well, ever. It would make Hilditch and co look inspired by comparison.
The team cannot claim to be “rebuilding” or “in a transitional phase” if they are not moving on the old guys and bringing in the new ones.
Why do you (and so many others) irrationally believe that “experience” will make up for a lack of form? The alleged intangible (and at the moment invisible) benefit these players bring is far less important than scoring runs – you know that’s what is needed to win right?
As so painstakingly pointed out in the main article, for all the press about experience, it is the guys who total 4 tests worth of experience that have carried Australia in the last three matches. It is Shaun Marsh with his massive 3 tests of experience that everyone seems desperate to see back in the lineup.
It’s time to wake up and smell the steaming pile of mediocrity the elephant in the room has left in the corner and sack Ponting, Hussey and Haddin (hell I’ll go one step further, I’d rather have Phil Hughes in my team than any of those three).
December 16th 2011 @ 10:02am
WoobliesFan said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Supported 100%.
Couldn’t have said it better.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:15am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Kev, I missed your post before, my apologies…
I’m not sure you’re addressing your “Why do you (and so many others) irrationally believe that “experience” will make up for a lack of form?” comment at me or not? I don’t believe I’m doing that, am I?
Also, “As so painstakingly pointed out in the main article” – painstakingly??
December 16th 2011 @ 10:26am
Red Kev said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I think I was just ranting in general – sorry.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:43am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:43am | Report comment
no probs Kev, did it make you feel better, more importantly?
December 16th 2011 @ 5:08pm
JohnB said | December 16th 2011 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
One thing to bear in mind here is that getting back to number 1 is a process of winning repeatedly over an extended period of time, not building up to and winning a grand final. It’s a league, not a cup.
If the object is to get back to number 1, you have to be trying to win every game and every series. Every game is important, and none more so than the next one coming up. If the object is to get back to number 1, saying that any particular player is not going to get you back to number 1, or even is not going to be in an Ashes team in 2013, is not the issue and is missing the point somewhat. Sure, he may not still be in the team in a few years time when the number 1 is achieved. But his contribution to winning games 3 years earlier is no less important for that.
If you really want to get back to the top, the question before every game is what is the team that gives us the best chance of winning this next game? You may be prepared to make some allowance for future planning, although in my view there’s very little room to do that, and in any case I think that development/gaining international experience function can be done through the one day game.
The Australian selectors need to pick the best team to beat India. If that includes old stagers who won’t be around next year, so be it. Earmark their likely replacements and get them playing one dayers, chairman’s XI matches or anything else giving some international exposure. If the old stagers aren’t in what’s thought to be the best team, fine.
Alternatively, if the objective is to concentrate on marquee series, then risk losing other series by selecting teams on the basis of who looks likely to be in the frame for the next one you regard as important. But don’t then complain if you lose games and series you might otherwise have won, and lose spots in the rankings as a result.
December 16th 2011 @ 8:51am
Rhys said | December 16th 2011 @ 8:51am | Report comment
I just saw an interview with Michael Hussey and the same old tired lines of “batting well in the nets”, “staying positive”, “a big score is just around the corner”, “we’ve got a great bunch of guys together” etc. were trotted out. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of keeping Hussey at least until the end of the Indian series, and if form warrants beyond.
What frustrates me is the rhetoric, and likely mindset, doesn’t seem to have changed – predictably I guess from the players, but of more concern from the selectors. Let’s remember, Arthur and Clarke are both selectors, and both have publicly stated the veterans are here to stay. Inherant in that is the guarantee that their continued tenure is regardless of form. Meanwhile prospects such as Ed Cowan and Tom Cooper must be wondering if racking up big scores is a pointless exercise. Why continue trying to draw from a dry well of experience, when you could tap into a rich vein of form.
December 16th 2011 @ 9:21am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Rhys, Tom Cooper has kind of come from nowhere this summer, but the word from Manuka Oval yesterday was that his unbeaten 182 off 194 balls was all class. He could well come into calcs for a middle order berth on the Caribbean tour, and I’d be happy to see it.
Cooper and WA’s Wes Robinson (143) added 226 for the third wicket yesterday, and really put the foot down in the afternoon. The CsXI went to lunch at 2/53, but declared at stumps 6/398. Some young Indian bowlers copped some real tap and haven’t helped their Test chances much at all…
December 16th 2011 @ 9:39am
AdamLudeke said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:39am | Report comment
It will be interesting to see how on the money these reports of a Kat recall are.
I had no problem with the selectors moving older, nonperforming players on, I just think they picked the wrong one.
Have you seen Cooper bat live, Brett? I’ve only seen a bit of him on tv in the shorter stuff, but he’s certainly having a breakout season and his form is undeniable.
December 16th 2011 @ 9:48am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Adam, I’ve not seen him live, no. I was only at Manuka for about 40 minutes yesterday, and Cooper wasn’t in at that stage. I hope to see a bit more if him in next week’s game, along with the “bat-off”…
December 16th 2011 @ 10:13am
Rhys said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Brett, no doubt there’ll be a lot of keen eyes watching the 3 day Chairman’s XI game. I hope the selector’s eyes are open enough to pay heed to what unfolds – good, bad,or indifferent. I hope Zaheer plays to put up a bit more of a challenge too.
Cooper is an interesting character, having already played 18 ODIs for the Netherlands, including the last World Cup. Made 47 against England in the game where ten Doeschate made a ton, and 55* v W.I. (out of a team total of 115). A fair leap from ODIs for a minnow team to Test cricket for Australia, but it’s another string to his bow that he’s had experience on the international stage.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:20am
Fisher Price said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:20am | Report comment
He’s certainly got the jump on Ferguson.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:34am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
well and truly, this summer, Fisher. Ferguson’s picked the wrong year to have a run drought..
December 16th 2011 @ 10:24am
TheHawk said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Cooper batted brilliantly yesterday, very few risky shots and no chances that I recall, would have got to 200 if the played 90 overs rather than calling stumps right on 6pm after 86 overs
December 16th 2011 @ 10:40am
AdamLudeke said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Only his second first class hundred, but you get the feeling the floodgates might have burst after that double hundred against the Blues last month.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:17am
Russ said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Cooper’s career really took off after he started playing for the Netherlands; he’s gone from fringe state player to a player with world cup experience as a central and senior figure in a weak batting lineup. Which gets back to the central question about massive change and inexperience. Some players are just born pros (M.Hussey, Warne, Paine, maybe Warner), some need a solid base to bed into and thrive without the pressure (Hughes might fit this description, maybe Khawaja too, as might S.Waugh and Martyn); other don’t respond until it is clear the responsibility is on them (Bell, Ponting, McGrath).
I don’t have a problem with change, because some players will thrive with the responsibility – provided those are the players picked – but there can be no going back from it, because that would unsettle the side. I suspect that is what scares the selectors the most. It is easy to drop a young player and pithily say “they’ll be back when they score runs”. If an incumbent is dropped you are committing to a succession of young players until one can prove himself. It is increasingly difficult to see how even a parade of young hopefuls would do worse than Ponting has over the past 3-4 years though.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:20am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Brett – Tom Cooper has come from Sydney. Hardly nowhere!
December 16th 2011 @ 11:02am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:02am | Report comment
James, I didn’t mean geographically!!
December 16th 2011 @ 11:14am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:14am | Report comment
yeah I know, but I couldn’t resist.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:50am
Fisher Price said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:50am | Report comment
I quite agree. Hussey – nice bloke and all – is one of the worst proponents of that nauseating positive-speak. Prior to last summer’s Ashes he said: “We still think we’re the No.1 side.”
December 16th 2011 @ 9:44am
Matt F said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I’m not a believer in dropping a player just because he’s reached a certain age (I think Hussey deserves some more time) but age is not the issue for Ponting. It’s a lack of runs over a very long period. Where age comes in for him is that everyone eventually gets to a certain point where their body can no longer doo what it once could.
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/players/PlayerYears.asp?PlayerID=2041
If you look at that he hasn’t averaged above 50 in a calendar year at all in the last 5 years. Only once, 4 years ago, has his annual average been above 40. With those numbers he deserves to be dropped even if he was 27 years old.
As you said, for all the talk about experience being vital, our best players of late have been the youngsters (though Warner’s actually 25, not 23.) Our inexperienced top 3 in Hobart got us to 2/122 (admittedly mainly because of Warner) which was a match winning position but it was thrown away by the experienced players who are apparently so vital to us winning matches. Regardless, while many potential candidates are inexperienced in terrms of test caps, they’re not all 18 year olds. The likes of Cowan and Marsh would probably be considered veterans in any other sport. Experience is valuable, but only if those players are still up to standard. It’s clear that Ponting is no longer up to the task, probably Haddin as well. I’ll judge Hussey after the India series (or at least after Sydney.)
Like most people I was against Katch getting dumped but we can’t bring him back. If we’re serious about rebuilding then we need to move on the 36+ year olds, not bring more back. Besides a season average of 39 isn’t exactly screaming “pick me.”
Take the punt and go with youth (or at least what cricket calls youth.) It’s worked pretty well so far.
December 16th 2011 @ 9:53am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Matt, I agree with pretty much everything thing you say here, and as I’ve said above, I’m essentially calling for some of my very favourite players to be moved on. Age shouldn’t be a factor, but it is now a factor, and therefore it’s time to move. And yeah, if we’re moving Ponting and Hussey on, then recalling Katich is ridiculous. He’s in no better form than Cowan or Marsh, so why wouldn’t you play the guys with five or six years in front of them?
December 16th 2011 @ 10:36am
Duncan said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Marsh in form (cough) … if you consider form to be lying on a phsyio table getting a dodgy back pounded back into shape then ok, otherwise I would think that he has to prove his fitness.
Yes he was fantastic in SL, but if he can’t last 5 days then (my) logic says find someone who can. From memory Marsh hasn’t had a full season of first class cricket (uninjured) in the last four years. Same goes for Harris and Watson show me you can play multiple games in a row or don’t get picked.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:55am
Chris said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Yep, good point Duncan. Much as I admire the talent and heart of Marsh and Harris, I wouldn’t be picking them. They’re just too unreliable physically. It’s a real shame, both for them and for Australian cricket.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:19am
Fisher Price said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
I agree. Having them consistently come in and out would I suspect unsettle the side.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:21am
Matt F said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:21am | Report comment
It’s true that ideally you’d want a player to have had some match practise over the last month but if it was a choice between Marsh and present day Ponting I’d take Marsh without a second thought.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:41am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
yeah, it’s a fair point Duncan, obviously I’m talking Test form, and then obviously again that’s before the latest back complaint…
December 16th 2011 @ 9:47am
cruyff turn said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:47am | Report comment
The last paragraph of the article is sad but true, Brett. The continued selection of Ponting, who I’ve been a huge fan of, is not only diminishing his legacy, but it’s also a distraction the team could do without. Clarke keeps banging on about how great it is to have Ricky’s experience there, but I can’t help but wonder what effect it would have on the team it he were dropped, or if he retired. Would they play better without him? My guess is yes, they probably would.
As for Hussey, they seem to be keeping him on the strength of his Ashes and Sri Lanka performances, as well as thinking that there may not be many middle-order batsman warranting selection. Tom Cooper springs to mind, but is he a natural No. 6? Does he have the ability to make it at international level? I suppose we won’t know unless he’s given a chance. Personally, I’d like to see Callum Ferguson get an opportunity, he’s a classy player, though I’m at a loss to explain why he averages only 35 at first-class level. Mitch Marsh is definitely one for the future, but he’s not quite there yet. However, I remember 26 years ago the selectors picking an equally young and wet-behind-the-ears batsman, Steve Waugh.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:20am
Russ said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:20am | Report comment
You are hoping the selectors choose someone who’ll score 3 centuries in 8 years and average less than 40? Steve Waugh is an object lesson in why young players shouldn’t be selected.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:03am
Matt F said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:03am | Report comment
As opposed to a diminishing great who hasn’t averaged over 50 for 5 years?
December 16th 2011 @ 11:10am
Russ said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Did I make any argument regarding Ponting or Hussey? If you hunt back through the Roar archives you’ll see I wanted them both dropped before last year’s Ashes and Brett told me it was too many changes.
Steve Waugh wasn’t an early success, he was well into his 20s before he started making decent runs. If people want to make the case for young players choose someone who actually succeeded as a young player.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:19am
Matt F said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Apologies Russ, I’ve obviously misread your first post. Personally I’d rather a player be over 25 when they debut (particularly if they’re a batsman) as they need to be confident in their game. Batting especially is all about technique and mental application, both of which take time to build up. Almost all of the players who comprised the great Aussie team of 5-10 years ago were dropped in their early-mid 20′s, worked on their game back in the SHield, and returned stronger players, which is why I thing Greg Chappells theory that debutanats should be under 21 is stupid. Having said that if a young player is making runs/taking wicdkets etc. I’d much prefer them to the 2011 Ricky Ponting.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:27am
Brett McKay said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:27am | Report comment
And Russ, back then, I believed it, because North was under the pump too, and Watson hadn’t been opening for that long. I still don’t think mass change is good, however, we’re at the point with this team now that it’s probably what’s required to truly move it forward…
December 16th 2011 @ 11:41am
Matt F said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Very true. We’ve delayed and delayed the inevitable mass change in the hope that the ageing warriors would come good and results would pick up. They haven’t. I wonder where we’d be now if the selectors had bitten the bullet 2 years ago? If we can’t win test matches now, we might as well put a team together that gives us the best chance to win them in 2-3 years.
What annoys me is that the same excuse not to do it is used every time. “You can’t make that many changes against a team like England” leads to the same thing being said before SA, SL, NZ, India etc. I guarantee that if they don’t make the changes now you’ll here the same excuse before a “tough WI tour”
December 17th 2011 @ 5:08pm
Bayman said | December 17th 2011 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Russ,
That would be players like Bradman, Harvey, Walters, Greg Chappell, etc. The fact is that in days gone by the general view was that if a player had not made the NSW team by the age of 21-22 then he would probably never really make it.
Australia was a slightly harder nut to crack but even then the players I mentioned were successful at that age. Lillee was just 22, McKenzie 19, the list goes on.
The problem today is that the young players do not come up against the “guns” as they come through the ranks. The Test players do not play Shield cricket – they sure as hell do not play club cricket.
Consequently, the modern players are not as tough and hardened, temperamentally and techniqely, as those players I mentioned above. Throw in the Test incumbents are not retiring, and who can really blame them, the spots are not opening up in the ranks.
David Warner, today, looks like the next big thing. But he’s 25 already. Years ago he would have had to do what he’s doing now about four or five years earlier to attain the ranking and the status he now has. Times have changed and it’s much harder for young players to be truly accepted as potential Test players until their mid-twenties. General experience attained over several years has replaced being thrown in at the deep end – and sinking or swimming – as an indication of talent and potential.
In those days, those that survived tended to flourish and they continued playing club and Shield cricket against the country’s best players. Every week.
We justify it now by saying they must have some experience, etc., but that is only because that’s the way the game has developed – thanks to salaries which make it virtually impossible to walk away from. Not to mention ridiculous schedules of ODI and T20 games put up so the sponsors can make money out of the game.
Thirty and more years ago we laughed at England because they invariably chose players to debut at an age when his Australian counterpart was nearing retirement. Cowper and Sheahan had retired at 27. Now, we are doing what England did then and we are saying it’s not only normal but the only way to go.
The truth is still – if you’re good enough, you’re old enough. Today it’s just more of a risk.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:54am
Fisher Price said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Ponting’s presence can only be negative. How heads must fall every time the “second best after Bradman” falls cheaply. Contrastingly, how morale must soar in opposition ranks.
Ferguson doesn’t score enough runs at first-class level. He should be in the ODi side though.
December 16th 2011 @ 9:55am
Johnno said | December 16th 2011 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Non of the old guard of ex cricketers have had the guts to say Ponting, Hussey,Haddin, should go.
The only player they have had the courage to publicly put down, i wouldn’t use the term humiliate, as he Phil Highes deserves this public attack as he is failing.
But Ponting,Hussey, and hidden to my mind have been protected species from there former team mates. Im glad these ex players are not coaching Australia to cowardly to make the right independent designs, to many conflicts of interest by some former players who speak publicly on the team. I have listened to some of the ex players and there liens have been so cliched and once to pointing, and hussy , saying they needs to make runs but they are quality players and all this other nonsense.
Also some one made the point as well that with optioning defiantly and Hussey for many too, those 2 remain the last link with the australian team players they got, as many in the media played with pointing and quite a lot have played with Hussey.
What a joke, and weak and conflict of interest, pick the best team for Australia and support that not your ex team mates.
I hope John Inveririty and Micky Arthur realise they owe pointing and Hussey nothing, what did those 2 batsmen do for them and there careers, nothing. They have had very little too do with both of them.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:57am
Fisher Price said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:57am | Report comment
The selectors are starstruck.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:06am
LK said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:06am | Report comment
What’s with the Paine love? I don’t get it. With the bat, he averages 30-odd and has one century in 6 years at first class level. One century! If Haddin is to be dropped for his keeping, or lack of it, that is a different story. However, it is hard to believe that Paine will add much to our fragile batting line up. Paine is also injury prone. It will be interesting to see if his position in the pecking order changes by the end of the season.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:26am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:26am | Report comment
LK Paine was exceptional in India covering for Haddin. His glovework was exemplary, and he came in to bat in a crisis several times and scored half centuries (92, 9, 59, 23).
He was tough and consistent, qualities Haddin is sorely lacking. And supposed to be the best gloveman in the country.
I think toughness and smarts are two subjective qualities we have to take into account, and Paine seems to have both in spades.
Paine is hardly injury prone – he busted a finger in a meanningless game and it hasn’t healed properly. That is not injury prone.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:46am
LK said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Nope, I still don’t get it. In four years of Shield cricket Wade has 4 centuries and an average of over 40. In a couple of seasons Peter Nevill has 3 centuries and an average of almost 50. Both are younger than Paine.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:58am
Chris said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:58am | Report comment
But Paine has just had surgery on his busted finger. He won’t be playing again this summer. So either it’s stick with Haddin for the next few months, or pick Wade. And if Wade gets picked and performs well, then Paine may look back on that meaningless exhibition game last summer as the game that cost him a long Test career.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:10am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Chris – I totally agree. I’d pick Wade now, and it would be up to Paine to force his way back in.
I’ve heard Wade’s glovework come under scrutiny, but Haddin’s so consistently sloppy (that stumping aside), that it couldn’t be any worse.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:29am
Big Steve said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:29am | Report comment
i dont get it either. Wade averages nearly 40 with 3 hundreds over the same number of games. He should replace haddin immediatly. Paine should come back and play for TAS and if he plays well, he can wait until Wade isnt performing for his chance. Calling someone a future captain of Australia and having succession plans, which include players not even in the team is wrong on many levels.
Healy’s comments about Haddin are inappropriate, he should be the first to go based on his commitment in recent games. Im slowly loosing respect for two of my past favourite players, Healy and Ponting.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:46am
Frankie Hughes said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Wade plays on a flat road at the MCG, compared to Paine playing at the rather fiery Bellerive.
No point scoring hundreds where the bowlers are just cannon fodder. Paine is technically sound and more likely to succeed as Test level.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:02am
Red Kev said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Which is where the next test is … good familiar ground to get his eye in.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:06am
Russ said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:06am | Report comment
That explains why Wade’s highest score at the MCG is 100* and he has 3 centuries elsewhere including two at Bellerive (avg. 54), and why his f/c average at the MCG of 40.11 is practically identical to his overall average (40.16). Paine is an excellent keeper and solid batsman with decent temperament. But he has never scored buckets of runs.
December 16th 2011 @ 12:33pm
Frankie Hughes said | December 16th 2011 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
You make a good point about Wade scoring two hundreds at Hobart. But you need to consider that Paine opened the batting for Tassie in his first few seasons.
December 16th 2011 @ 5:24pm
JohnB said | December 16th 2011 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Bellerive has its stretches of being pretty sedate. It sparked up in a wet summer last year, but that was unusual.
Batsman/keeper must be the strongest position in Australian cricket at the moment – Paine did very well when given a chance, Wade makes runs, Hartley has been good for a long time, and then you have the second stringers in both NSW (Neville) and Tasmania (Triffit) doing well.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:08am
Matt F said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:08am | Report comment
The whole Wade/Paine debate is really irrelevant now, well at least it should be anyway. Given Paine’s injury it’s now between Wade and Haddin. Paine comes back into contention when he’s fit but that won’t be until after the WI tour. Given that he hasn’t played any cricket for almost a year and won’t be playing much over the winter months, he’ll probably need a year in the Shield to find his form anyway.
If Wade is a better option then Haddin (which I think he is) then play him now. Don’t wait for a minimum of 7 more tests for Paine to be fit and in form. If Paine is truly the better keeper then eventually his class will show and he will take Wade’s spot. If he’s not then that must mean Wade is playing well which means we’ve still got a good keeper.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:41am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Exactly Matt.
Fat chance of them dropping Haddin though. He made a score 3 tests ago, so that should last him for a while.
December 16th 2011 @ 10:30am
jameswm said | December 16th 2011 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Others have alluded to this, but look at the performances of the youngsters we’ve blooded in the last 12-14 months:
- Tim Paine for Haddin, excellent glovework, consistent scores, and dug us out of crises with gutsy batting. Then Happy Haddin walks straight back in
- Shaun Marsh – not a great overall FC record, but v good for the past couple of years. Consistent scores and looked solid
- David Warner – two failures, then an almost match-winning ton
- Patrick Cummins – we all know what happened there
- James Pattinson – ditto, but he did it two tests in a row
- Mitchell Starc – the only one who’s been so so
- Nathan Lyon – looks a test class all over and now has a captain with a clue about captaining spinners.
On that basis – why are we worried about replacing older non-performing players with rookies? The rookies have been doing fine thank you very much.
December 16th 2011 @ 11:01am
Chris said | December 16th 2011 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Yes, exactly. I can’t stand all this “we need experience in the team” crap. In my view it’s the retention of the out for form old guard that’s been holding back the opportunities of the younger crowd. I’d much rather watch Warner fail a few times as part of his development into a great Test player for the next 5-10 years, than sit through another pointless failure by Ponting and Hussey.