The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Time to leave the novelty players at home

Roar Rookie
10th January, 2018
Advertisement
Is Mitch Marsh worth a gamble? (AAP Image/David Mariuz)
Roar Rookie
10th January, 2018
17

During the course of a five-Test series, like The Ashes just played, the focus is rightly always on the 11 players who take the field. However, once we get into the planning stages for the next tour, in this case South Africa, attention turns to the touring squad. This is where things often go off the rails.

There’s really not much doubt about the playing XI for the South Africa tour, barring perhaps a change at opener, but the thinking of both pundits and selectors alike tends to get illogical when it comes to the reserve players. For some reason every time we travel overseas people suddenly feel the need to stack the squad with half-baked all-rounders and novelty players who would struggle to make the Test team in any given situation.

Unless a reserve squad member could make the team as a genuine top-six batsman or top four bowler, why do we include them in the team? They can only realistically replace one person, and that’s Mitchell Marsh.

No disrespect to Marcus Stoinis or Moises Henriques, but they are not viable replacements for Steve Smith nor Mitchell Starc, so what is their purpose? Similarly, Ashton Agar may well be the wave of the future, but at the moment he is not a Shaun Marsh or a Nathan Lyon. Who are they there to replace?

Mitchell Marsh’s only real purpose at the moment as the nominated ‘all-rounder’ is to score big runs and bowl enough overs to give the strike bowlers a rest or carry the load in case of an injury once a match starts. Nobody is under any illusions that he’s going to get a five-wicket haul – or even a one wicket haul at the moment.

(AAP Image/David Mariuz)

If you must include cover for Mitch Marsh, surely someone like Glenn Maxwell fulfils the need to both prop up an end with mediocre bowling and be a good chance for a big score. Stoinis, Henriques or Agar can meet the need for mediocre bowling, but their chances of a big score are slim at best.

The other seemingly obligatory left-field inclusion in a touring squad is the niche player or development player. These are players who it is deemed will benefit from ‘being around the team set-up’ but who will probably never get a game.

Advertisement

A perfect recent example is Mitchell Swepson. While, granted, there is no such thing as too many Mitchells in an Australian cricket team, he is a player who will never be played in a live match, so why is he there?

Swepson was in the touring squad in Bangladesh in 2017. When Australia decided they wanted another spinner for the second match they instead chose to fly an out-of-form Steve O’Keefe from Australia.

If the selectors really believe Swepson is a potential future Test player, why not play a second spinner in the Sydney Test last week? Sure, they wanted to secure a 4-0 scoreline, but if you don’t trust him in home conditions in a dead rubber, why would you take him to foreign soil in a live series?

(AAP Image/Craig Golding)

If we assume that the most recent Test team will stay intact for the first Test in South Africa, let’s include replacement players who are fit for the job for which they are selected.

On the batting front Joe Burns and Glenn Maxwell will cover the top order and middle order, with Maxwell able to prop up an end with average bowling if the need presents itself.

For bowlers let’s have one quick – be it Jackson Bird or whoever else is deemed suited to conditions – and a genuine spinner in case Lyon breaks down. Jon Holland has been on fire in the Sheffield Shield for two years now. It seems highly improbable that Australia would play two spinners in South Africa, but if they did, he spins it the other way to Lyon as well.

Advertisement

And let’s not forget that we live in a world of business class travel and can fly in an emergency replacement if necessary. It’s not ideal, but they did it in both the India and Bangladesh series last year.

close