As Australia moves inexorably towards a series defeat – or at best a draw – in India, it is vital that all cricket-lovers in the nation commit themselves fully to finding the right people to blame.
Candidates such as Glenn McGrath (retired), Shane Warne (retired) and the former Mrs. Brett Lee (honey trap) spring to mind.
However, as always, it is difficult to go past the national selectors, who appear to be suffering a Dravid-style form slump on this tour.
Inspired by their example, I present my Top 5 Dud Theories of Selection.
1. We must pick a spinner even if they suck (c)
I have no problem with Krejza’s selection for this Test assuming he should even have been on the tour. (I would suggest that picking an underperforming offie in preference to a much better-credentialled Chinaman bowler doesn’t make much sense to me.) However, I cannot fathom why the selectors would drop Stuart Clark and retain Cameron White. One has a Test bowling average of 22 and the other can’t get a bowl for Victoria despite being the captain! Put another way, who would you rather face?
2. We can’t pick two left-arm fast bowlers in the same side
This brilliant reasoning was used to exclude Doug Bollinger from considerations despite him plainly being the most dangerous bowler in Australian first-class cricket. Yet the Second Test team featured three bowlers of the same type in Lee, Watson and Siddle. The bias against everything except regulation right-arm meds has also been applied against Warne and MacGill (the “you can’t play 2 leg-spinners” theory), while for a while Stuart Clark was regarded as “too similar to Glenn McGrath”. Since when was that a problem?
3. We should pick that bowler for his batting – aka the Simon O’Donnell trap.
See also C. White (Cameron or, for that matter, Craig). Applies to keepers too, possibly including the current Aussie incumbent and certainly every England keeper since Jack Russell.
4. We should pick an all-rounder no matter what
A similar problem to No.3, but (like each aeroplane) subtly different. The issue in this case is not whether a player’s best batting or bowling is good enough, but which will be delivered on any given day. When one is required and the other delivered, the team becomes imbalanced. Watson is a leading example.
5. We can’t just pick people from NSW
David Hookes famously observed that every NSW debutant receives not just a baggy blue cap, but also a baggy green cap in a brown paper bag. Strangely, he thought this was a bad thing! Selectors in the current series have deviated from this NSW-centric policy (no Clark, no Bollinger) and in my biased opinion it has cost them. In future, I suggest we pick our best 6 batsmen, our single best gloveman, our 4 bowlers most likely to take wickets and then, if in doubt, pick a New South Welshman!
fatboi-v-
Guest
cricket is gay test match cricket rewards timidness and mediocrity
Andrew Jones
Guest
Mick - I think you're spot on re the likely selections for the Gabba. Bollinger is no chance because apart from non-selection in India he hasn't actually played any cricket yet this season (permanent tourist). Ponting doesn't seem to rate Clark though (not sure why, but he has consistently underbowled him or preferred Johnson), so you never know. Would be nice if Johnson started moving the ball too. As to the "difficult to see 20 wickets" - we only saw 20 in the last Test, and Krejza got 12 and run out got 1. They weren't cheap either! Watson took 10 out of a possible 80 which is handy if he gets enough runs but doesn't justify a spot on its own. I agree though that Lee in particular, but also Clark and Johnson, lacked the impact of Sharma and Khan. Clark was very tight though and at times unlucky - would have been a perfect foil for Krejza or Casson.
Mick of Newie
Guest
Andrew It is hard to see 20 wickets in Lee, Clark, Johnson and Casson in the last series given Watson got 10. I am sure Casson is better than White but I do not yet see him as a major contributor. As for Bollinger I haven't seen enough of him. If Tait has his mojo back I would like to see him given a game. He is a nice luxury to carry in a 4 prong pace attack. I think the best team for the Gabba is Symonds plus 4 quicks but I think they will go with Watson, 3 quicks and Krejza partly because they wont bring Symonds back till he gets runs, partly because Punter will say he can't bowl 90 overs with 4 quicks and partly because they see both Watson and Krezja as long term projects and the selectors would look bad punting them at this time.
Andrew Jones
Guest
Mick - Re the 6-4-1 split, it is typical that one or more batsmen will fail. The difference between batsmen and bowlers in this case, I think, is that batsmen only need to make one mistake and they're gone. Bowlers can still bowl bad balls but get wickets with other balls - Krejza is a case in point. As to the allrounder issue, it is certainly handy if a batter can bowl and vice versa but I agree they either need to be in the top 4 bowlers or top 6 batsmen (or maybe top 7) in the country. Australia certainly didn't get enough wickets, but they also didn't get enough runs, in Mohali and Nagpur in particular. Watson underdelivered in this department, as did White and Haddin (see http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=4246;type=series ). Watson was an excellent 5th (or 3rd) bowler but a poor 6th batsman. I think they would have been better to have David Hussey at 6 (or Katich at 6, with Jaques opening, pre-injury), and an attack of Lee (or Bollinger), Clark, Johnson (or Bollinger) and Casson (or maybe Krejza) with Clarke and Katich to bowl the part-timers. And don't forget that Casson got 465 runs in the Shield last year. As to Waugh and Symonds, they only became really valuable when they were capable of scoring big runs, and I think the selectors persisted with them on this basis. Finally, Aussie team would also have been better off if it included IIshant Sharma!
Mick of Newie
Guest
How about, why 6 batsmen, 1 wk and 4 bowlers? We appear to pick 6 batsmen because at any one time a couple will fail. If your best 5 batsmen are strong why not pick 5 bowlers. If one is tanking you have cover. I agree to a point on the allrounder. Some have said the test of an allrounder is whether they could hold their own as a batsman or a bowler. If this was the test Steve Waugh or Andrew Symonds may never have played for Australia. For me the test is does the total contribution of the player outweigh that of a specialist batsman. In this series I would argue Watson has contributed more than another specialist batsman could have. Whilst he has only made limited runs we haven't lost this series for lack of runs it is wickets we lack. Whilst some of the specialist bowlers have gone missing he has been strong and consistent. Doesn't Watson's performance defeat your point, he is picked primarily to score runs in this series and it is his bowling that has been strong. My subtle variation on your allrounder proposition (and perhaps it is restating no 3) is that an allrounder must only take the place of a bowler if he is one of the best 4 bowlers in the country. This captures a Shaun Pollock but means a Cameron White, a Simon O'Donnell, a Greg Matthews or a Michael Bevan should never have taken the place of a specialist bowler.
Andrew Jones
Guest
Thanks all for the comments - keep 'em coming! Sheek, I agree with you but with Miller you were getting an outstanding and reliable bowler first and foremost (170 wickets at 23) and the batting (avg 38) was a bonus. Not sure "Watto" is in the same class! Not as good in a Spitfire either...cheers, AJ
dasilva
Guest
MC To be fair on Krezja. He didn't ball darts and try to stay economical like Cameron White. He tossed the ball up and flighted every delivery. When he was hit of the park. He kept on persevering when 99% of other spinners would have started to bowl darts and try to remain economical. Also Tendulkar was dropped when he was bowling so he should have nine wickets. He shows he has the temperament and mentality the spinner where if you get hit for four. Don't worry and try try again. Now what he needs is some variation especially an arm ball. He just ball his stock delivery again and again. He may not be test class and good enough for Australia but he shows he has something there to develop.
Michael C
Guest
Gordo - Let's not get too carried away with Krejza - - don't forget, he had 40 overs, 3 for 200. And Ponting refused to bowl anyone else?!?!?! How does that final Indian capitulation explain the 40 overs that went before? So, every spin bowler can expect 40 overs to get settled? Cam White would've loved that no doubt and thus far his econ. rate has been around 3.75 or so, so, he'd only have 'bled' 150 runs. With Australia losing every toss, and playing on barren pitches that refused to break up - - - and with Cam White doing a reasonable job but seemingly not having the trust of his captain to bowl long spells? (or his own trust?).........at least he's come to grips with batting in tests, shame he didn't crack a 50, may have been his only chance. Haddin is only there because Australia is completely barren for wicket keepers. Watson still satisfies an idea, and that idea seems most recently symbolised by Symonds who doesn't want to be there.........time to move on. re. spinners - the West Indies DID have their decent 'spin' side-show options of Larry Gomes and Viv Richards. they became professional 'filler' at the bowling crease. A skill worth developing. Not that they needed it overly to retain their spots!!! (esp Gomes vs Australia)
sheek
Guest
Andrew, When selecting all-time or periodical teams, since you have the cream of players from 100 years, or 10 years, whatever the case, you can, all things being equal, select a team for purposes of "balance" & "variety". Take Australia's all-time XI for example. The pivotal selection is all-rounder Keith Miller, batting at #6 or #7 (alternating with keeper Gilchrist) & being the 3rd pacemen. This then allows you to select 2 specialist pacemen (for me Lllee & Lindwall) & 2 specialist spinners (for me O'Reilly & Warne). Of course, selecting Miller to occupy the #6 batting position & 3rd pacemen position, means on the one hand, one of Border, Harvey or S.Waugh misses a batting spot, & McGrath also misses out on 3rd paceman. But it also allows you to select 2 spinners, without detracting from the pace attack. At opener you can select a right & left hand combo, because the candidates are so close in ability. For me, Hayden (leftie) & Ponsford (rightie). But you could just as easily go with Morris (leftie) & Trumper (rightie). Or heaven forbid, Lawry (leftie) & Simpson (rightie). It was the Windies in the mid-70s who put paid to theories of balance. They persisited with the idea of a spinner until India scored 400 runs in the last innings to win a test in the Caribbean. After that, spinners were banished for quite some time! By the late-70s, the template was set - 4 pacemen, all right-armers, & to hell with balance or variety. Ditto the openers. Greenidge & Haynes were both right handers. So what, they still scored tons of runs. Looking through the lists of teams from all countries, over the decades, there have been players selected "because we had to have a spinner", or "because we had to have an all-rounder". However, it often traspired the spinner couldn't spin, & the all-rounder could neither bat nor bowl. Balance & variety remain important, but not purely for their own sake. The selected players still have to perform.
Gordo
Guest
Was point 1 written before Krejza took 8 wickets in one innings at an average of 27? Would have thought that Krejza's performance, along with the figures of the other bowlers on this tour, goes to show that Australia should never again, ever, under any circumstances, play a test match in India without a specialist spin bowler... I don't think anyone considers White to be a spin bowler. Nude maybe, pie possibly, but surely not spin... Agree with your other points and Spiro's point on selectors not considering the conditions of the country being toured. Selections on this tour almost as bad as going to England without a bowler that can swing the ball.
matta
Guest
was with you until point 5...
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Andrew is making a strong case for the shape of a side being correct when it comes to selecting the best team. I think this lot of selectors have been quite poor. There has been too much grandstanding by going on tour with the team and not enough hard thinking about the best XI Australia can put in the field, under Indian conditions. Why Cameron White, a nice bloke remains in the side is a mystery. He seems to be an Australian equivalent of Ashley Giles: not a good enough batsman or bowler for Test cricket..