- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Blunderous – one word sums up Australia’s loss to New Zealand in their World Twenty20 opener. From selections to tactics and batting, the Australians made more missteps than a novice dancer.
Sometimes we look for excuses or distractions when a team loses, and in the process do not afford due respect to their conquerors. New Zealand are a fine T20 side, as they showed in besting tournament favourites India this week.
But it wasn’t only amid the harsh reflections of defeat that Australian fans began to note the side’s gaffes. Even when they were still a strong chance of winning the match with a few overs remaining, the litany of errors was being catalogued online.
At that point, it appeared that a victory would be a stroke of fortune for Australia, a success in spite of themselves. Then, inexplicably, with the game still there for the taking, captain Steve Smith decided to send in Ashton Agar ahead of Australia’s renowned finisher James Faulkner.
It was a gobsmacking error, one which left the TV commentators momentarily tongue-tied as they realised it was the West Australian spinner not the Tasmanian Devil coming to the crease.
Australia were 5-100 and, as badly as they had batted, they required only 42 from 29 balls. It is in these sorts of situations which Faulkner specialises, allying a cold-blooded temperament with forceful, daring strokeplay.
But, no, sent to the crease instead was a rookie whose confidence had been destroyed via a single rank over which had cost 18 runs. A rookie whose languid batting is increasingly effective in long form cricket but lacks the power for T20s. A rookie who had a minuscule amount of experience in such situations in comparison to Faulkner.
Yes, Agar made 98 on Test debut. Yes, he has two Sheffield Shield tons to his name this summer. But his resume as a limited overs batsman is threadbare, while Faulkner’s is brimming with achievements and accolades.
In his 50 List A and T20 matches, Agar averages 18 with the bat.
The free-wheeling nature of his Test 98 gave the impression of a strokemaker suited to the shortest forms. It convinced Justin Langer to give Agar several chances in the top order for the Perth Scorchers. But anyone who has watched him closely in T20s realises that, at this stage, he is largely ineffective with the bat.
He had been selected in Australia’s squad ahead of specialist spinner Cameron Boyce. Despite the fact the Queensland leg-spinner was extremely impressive in the 3-0 T20 series defeat against India, the selectors decided to dump him for Agar.
If Agar’s batting has failed to translate to T20s then the same must be said of his bowling. From 27 T20 matches he has taken a paltry 12 wickets at an average of 32. Compare that to the international record of Boyce, who has eight wickets at 19 from seven T20Is.
In bizarrely overlooking Boyce for Agar, the selectors argued lamely that they couldn’t pick two leg spinners in the squad. Yet, for a tournament being played on slow, turning Indian decks, they saw no issue in selecting five right-arm pacemen – Josh Hazlewood, John Hastings, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Shane Watson and Mitch Marsh.
In the last World T20, hosted on dusty decks in Bangladesh, it was unanimously agreed that Australia’s biggest mistake was relying on pace in spin friendly conditions. Yet here they were picking six pace options in their squad, and only one spinner with any T20 credentials in Adam Zampa.
The South Australian leggie was the focus of a baffling tactical decision by Smith against New Zealand. When Zampa was brought on to bowl, New Zealand’s two best T20 batsmen Martin Guptill and Kane Williamson were running rampant. At 0-58, New Zealand looked set for a gigantic total.
Intelligently using the full width of the crease, Zampa cramped Guptill and Williamson for room and created some hereto absent pressure, conceding just three runs off the over. As so often happens after a group of dot balls, the batting side looks to up the ante and a wicket is earned.
So it was as the first ball after Zampa’s over saw Guptill try to launch a Faulkner delivery over the boundary only to offer up a catch. Faulkner’s over went for just four runs and suddenly the Aussies had pulled things back thanks, in a large part, to the skiddy spin of Zampa.
Yet, somehow, that was the last we saw of him for the day. As Smith followed a seemingly pre-meditated strategy of rotating his bowlers at all costs, Zampa was sidelined.
This strategy was every bit as inexplicable as the promotion of Agar ahead of Faulkner. It was every bit as bewildering as the decision to cancel Boyce from the squad in favour of Agar. It was every bit as maddening as the omission from the team of former captain and T20 run machine Aaron Finch so Australia could field seven bowling options, and use two of their specialist bowlers for just one over each.
In the lead-up to this tournament, I wrote that I feared Australia were planning to play four all-rounders in their top seven, leaving them light on for batting and with an unnecessary abundance of bowlers. How many bowlers do you need in a 20-over match?
The reality is that Australia could field 11 all-rounders right now and still not have a good attack – their pace stocks lack bite and their spin unit is wildly inexperienced.
That’s why I urged them, pre-tournament, to actually play to their strengths – their batting has serious talent, power and depth. With David Warner at four, Australia easily can accommodate all of Finch, Watson and Usman Khawaja in their top three, with Smith at four to offer a steady counterpoint to the ballistics launched by Warner before him and Glenn Maxwell after.
It’s no surprise that Australia lost to the Kiwis. When you’re playing a quality side, you can’t afford to mess up selections, implement poor strategies and bat like club cricketers.
Blunderous.