Australian captain Ricky Ponting, left, and bowler Brett Lee confer during the fourth day of the second cricket test match between India and Australia, in Mohali, India, Monday, Oct. 20, 2008. AP Photo/Gautam Singh
Let’s be honest: the England side that recently won the Ashes is a very modest one. Dispute this? Well ask yourself this question: who from the 2009 English side would make the 2005 English side? Matt Prior for Geraint Jones,
Graeme Swann for Ashley Giles, while Strauss the 2009 batsman would dead heat the 2005 version (remembering he faced higher quality bowling in 2005). And that’s about it.
Or have a look at where England are in the ICC’s test rankings: 5th, a long way behind the 4th-placed country (which shall not be named!).
So if Australia lost to this mob of Poms, then surely a radical shake-up of personnel is warranted, yes?
I’d like to argue that it’s not so simple.
I have been a trenchant critic of the current Australian selection panel, and in particular its chairman, Andrew Hilditch.
However, for once I am going to express sympathy for them, and admit that they are now confronted by a very unclear picture. While there are many changes they could reasonably make, I would demand only one.
To understand why the way forward is unclear, one first must recognize that the 2009 Ashes series was a highly unusual one: Australia thoroughly dominated almost all of the standard statistical measures of performance, and yet they lost.
In my previous article on this series, I explored some of the reasons put forward for this anomaly. I rejected all these theories, and instead concluded that it was primarily down to good fortune – this from the person about whom Brett McKay once wrote “Greg, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but do you ever tire of being the voice of reason?”
Given such an unusual landscape, how indeed should Australia’s selectors react?
I would argue that only the positions of Ponting, Clarke, North and Haddin are indisputable in going forward.
First of all I will deal with the bowling, because the issues here are most simply stated.
We would love to have a better spinner than Nathan Hauritz, but he showed this series that he is better than we had thought, and the plain truth is that probably there is no-one superior.
I personally had hopes for Bryce McGain, but they have faded. What genuine evidence is there that Jason Krejza would take enough wickets to compensate for all the four-balls that he bowls? And that’s about it. What more can the selectors do about this but wait and hope?
With fast bowling the situation is more or less the other way around: too many options without it being clear which the best ones are.
Lee and Clark have the track records in test cricket, but they are on the wrong side of 30, and they have been through major injuries. Johnson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus did a sterling job against South Africa, but they were inconsistent in England, in particular the enigmatic Johnson.
Who can honestly divine the right mix from this list of candidates, especially when there is little telling which version of a player will show up for a match? The Johnson of South Africa would be the first player chosen, while the Johnson of Lord’s would be relegated to park cricket.
One thing I will say: I do not see any need to go outside this “pack” (to use Troy Cooley’s word). Doug Bollinger is a name that often is put forward. Many of the people who do so were also assuring us a year ago that Beau Casson was the successor to Shane Warne – ’nuff said.
Moving to the batting, let’s open at the top.
On strict numbers, there’s no question that Katich and Watson deserve to be retained. However the cases of Brad Hodge and Phil Hughes evidence a penchant of the Australian selectors to look beyond batting statistics.
Certainly I was not alone in feeling frustrated at the failure of our openers to convert 50s (or thereabouts) into centuries over the last three tests, and in identifying this as a significant factor in the series defeat. Here is what Geoff Lawson wrote in The Roar:
“Please don’t tell me that Shane Watson was a success at the top – when you get away to as many starts as he did you need to convert a fair number of those into big scores, scores that make team first innings big enough for winning comfort.Watson’s consistent failure to go on past the half century was maddening
… The sign of a true opener is one who battles through the new ball and prospers against the old.”
All true.
But why does Henry not find his mate Katich similarly culpable? After all, he also got starts in these matches, and he is the senior partner, whereas Watson is – literally – still learning his new trade.
I am a big fan of Phil Hughes – a player who definitely knows how to score a century – but I admit I would be uncomfortable dropping the incumbents, and I really don’t have a firm opinion on what the Australian selectors should do at this stage.
And so to Mr Cricket.
Here is Mr Lawson’s take on him:
“Mike Hussey may have extended his career after the gutsy and lengthy hundred (219 balls for 100) after being dropped four times. A ton in a big losing margin, hmmm, whether this innings will keep a younger man from the middle order must be thoroughly discussed.”
In some ways this assessment is charitable, because he does not apportion any blame for the crucial running out of Ponting.
And yet, at almost exactly the same age, Matthew Hayden saved his career with a hundred at The Oval, an innings that ushered in a purple patch that lasted three summers and saw him score another ten test centuries. Why not Hussey also?
Besides, who would replace him? I guess I’ve always said that Shane Watson is a no. 4, but am I convinced he’s ready?
All of which brings me to my one demand. I have been an unabashed fan of Ponting, but he must be dropped as captain.
This might sound inconsistent with my view that the series was lost primarily because of rotten luck – why hold a captain responsible for that? I do not.
Rather, my view is one of principle. Australia has been the greatest cricketing nation over the history of the game, and it has been top dog for the last 15 years. Its aspiration must be to maintain this status. Retaining as captain someone who has twice lost the Ashes is incompatible with this aspiration, regardless of whether or not these defeats are his fault.
To put it simply, to keep Ponting on as captain is to send a message to the vast Australian cricket community that something less than excellence is acceptable. Do that, and you might as well admit that the game is up.
So, just like Dravid and Tendulkar, his great batting contemporaries, Ponting should resign the captaincy and concentrate his total effort on scoring runs. This is what he does best (which is not to deny that he has been a very good captain), and runs are what his country most needs from him at the moment.
Meanwhile, Michael Clarke should assume the captaincy. I was very disappointed with his soft dismissals in the fifth test, at moments when he really needed to stand up. However he did exactly that in the middle three tests of the series, a sustained period over which he functioned as the leader of Australia’s batting.
It would be folly to guarantee that appointing Clarke will see our fortunes improve, but he is ready to give the job a go, and it is imperative for this necessary statement to be made.
Can the leadership of Cricket Australia recognise this necessity? This is a litmus test of them too. Captain, chairman of selectors, and CEO – with one decision, we’ll know about them all.
sittingbison
Guest
its not that the ashes, home series SA or away to India were lost, its the way they were lost and what Pontings thought processes were at those crucial match turning moments. He was clearly befuddled and clueless for lengthy periods, his face painting a thousand words. Each of these series he was not necessarily outplayed, but was certainly out-thought. And Clarke is without doubt the only player in Australia that should NOT be considered for the job. He does not have the temperament. Ian Chappell always said the Australian way is to pick the best team of 11, and then select the captain. With Ponting and Clarke not considered for the role, who is left from the other 9? Of the current team it could only be Katich or Haddin. I would go with Katich, he has matured immensely in recent times, he is hard boiled. Doesn't matter the age, replace him when he is finished with someone else from within the next team in a few years time. It does not have to be a dynasty.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
A marvellous post, Greg. I think you are quite right. Indeed, I believe the key to playing well at the highest level is to dismiss outside concerns and to concentrate solely on the group and its goals. England's record in football World Cups is very similar to New Zealand's in rugger World Cups: they know how badly their countrymen want it, and this causes the poor chaps to lose focus in the heat of the moment. It is a testament to the players' humanity, I suppose, but such concerns seldom succour the disappointed supporter. Fascinatingly, the West's finest military minds have discovered that the key to fostering a killer instinct in one's troops is to inculcate a "whatever" frame of mind - that is, to make the process of killing seem mundane and ordinary, as if one was merely pushing buttons on one's Playstation. This, apparently, is much, much more successful than the alternative approach of encouraging one's troops to feel active hatred towards one's opponents. One generalises at one's peril, but I suspect that the military approach might have something to teach our sporting folk.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
VC - the observation by Vaughan is very thought provoking; thanks for that! Re playing for your country, I have a theory. I have watched at close hand a succession of NZ teams fail at rugby World Cups. I am convinced that a major reason for this is because they feel they are playing for every person in their country. If you think about it, that is an unbearable pressure. On the other hand, I had an epiphany in 2003 when Australia were in the West Indies. Darren Lehmann scored his maiden test century, and when he did so, Ponting, the batsman at the other end (also a century maker), exploded with joy, and hugged Boof as if he was his bride. Firstly this made me realise that even though Steve Waugh had the 'c' next to his name, Ponting was already the 'spiritual' leader of the team. But even more so it made me realise that these guys were doing it primarily for themselves. To see the look on Ponting's face, he could hardly have been happier if he had broken a cherished record himself - he was simply overjoyed that his mate Boof had finally made it in test cricket. He was not overjoyed for his country, but simply for his team. What motivated that group of players to do so well was simply that they wanted to do it for themselves. Yes, they also wanted to do it for their country, but above all it was for themselves. I am convinced that this is the key to success in team sport. To give another example, 'dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' sounds beautiful but it was a bloodbath of a failure in WW1.
sledgeross
Guest
Maybe we should be like England and start importing South Africans! I believe the Waratahs are starting to do it ;)
Sam
Guest
Oh how great it is to see this, the Aussie supporters at each other after losing 3 out of the last 4 test series, calls for the captain to go, for the moisturizing metrosexual Clarke to be given the job, that Bollinger should be in, Hauritz in, drop this guy and that. As a non Aussie supporter it is fantastic to see them knocked off the perch by what has already been established in this article, a frankly pathetic English side minus their best bat KP. Heres what I think should happen Ponting should let go of some power. He already doesnt play T20 which is good, now it’s time to give up the ODI team as well. Yes he is scoring runs and wants to be part of the 2011 World Cup etc, but if he stops thinking about himself for a moment he will realise that he is probably not the best man for the job in the long term, let Clarke take the ODI reigns now and watch the team propser in 2011, 2015 and beyond. This leaves Ponting as test skipper, this summer they should have no problems rolling over the Pakis and the Windies (which resemble a Club 5ths team sometimes)..but if they do somehow draw one series, then wowza, watch out Punter, his days will be up. He probably has 1 more slip up free year to go I would think. In terms of the makeup of the squad it’s pretty simple, Mr Cricket seeya later. Hughes back in, stick him there because he is one of the long term and has proven he can do it at international level, consistency with the bat will come, let him iron out his technical flaws and he has the attacking game to smash attacks worldwide. Drop Watson down to four, in between Punter and Clarke, he has a solid technique and has batted middle order for his various state teams before and averages 45 at first class level with 13 tons and 27 50's. North at 6 as the all rounder, Haddin in at 7. Johnson must be kept as he is the only world class bowler, give Brett Lee this summer to say goodbye as a test player, Bollinger, Siddle and Hilfy will compete for 2 spots, and just keep playing Hauritz as a spinner until a better option comes along or by some miracle he improves. Stuart Clark, M Hussey thanks for your time and contributions but you are surplus to requirements starting this summer. The depth is there in Australian cricket, it just chooses to be ignored by the selectors. D Hussey, Hodge, Cam White, Nannes, Klinger, Rogers, Voges, Mcdonald, they can all play some part in one of the 3 Australian teams, instead we just see the same players rotating through the 3 squads. No other country does this, but somehow the Aussies think it should work. It doesnt, as I said many months ago on this website when Australia got bundled out of the T20 and I voiced my concern over the English summer ahead, everyone poo poohed my comments and said ' Don’t worry mate, its the Ashes were more worried about, who cares about this hit and giggle T20'...well that didn’t work out too well for you did it gents?
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
I agree whole-heartedly with your analysis. Australia has always possesed that rather Germanic type of ruthlessness which enables it to turn a moderate advantage on paper into an overwhelming advantage on the field. There is no better example than 2006/7. As for the home-away issue, it is not merely the crowds, of course. I suspect that each team has specific technical problems which devil them away from home: in the case of England this takes the form of a terrible lack of patience and application on the part of its batsmen on slow pitches (as Michael Vaughan observed last week, England are always competitive on 350 pitches but seldom competitive on 550 pitches); for Australia, it takes the form of terrible difficulties against old-fashioned swing bowling; for Sri Lanka and India and Pakistan, they simply are not used to pitches with pace and bounce. So conditions are probably the key factor. But the Ashes is unique in the extent to which it generates outside interest and distractions. Brett Lee wrote, during his first Ashes tour in 2001, that he felt "the entire nation of England was against him". I suspect that this is a common feeling on the part of both team's players when on tour, and that it is doubly magnified by the limitations and pressures of enduring hotel life for months on end in a (nominally) foreign land. I suspect that nowadays both teams feel like they are trying to uphold their nation's honour. This has probably always been the case for the Aussies (quite naturally seeking to put one over the Mother Country) but it is now also the case even for England. Such is the lamentable importance which the modern, sport-obsessed generation (wholly ignorant of war) invests in a ball game. It is no coincidence, I suspect, that so many fine cricketers of recent vintage - Trescothick, Johnson, Martyn, Slater, Harmison, Gillespie - have capitulated during the unique pressure of an Ashes series rather than any other.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
I agree that 5-0 in 2006/7 was misrepresentative, and I have always thought this. That Australian team had a habit of doing that. In 2005/6 they beat South Africa 5-0 in 2 series spread across the two countries, but the difference between the teams was not nearly that great, as last summer made all too evident. In response to our exchange, I thought more about 2005 vs 2009 Ashes last night. Really they were completely different series. In 2005 Australia won the first test but after that they had barely any periods of dominance. They were well outplayed at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, but due to final-day jitters by England, these both ended up very narrow wins (by 2 runs and 3 wickets respectively). At Old Trafford England were on top for most of the match, but Australia clung on for a draw. The Oval was more even, but England were never in any danger after Warne at slip dropped his mate KP on day 5. So although a lot of the scores were close, there's no question England were the better side, and the series statistics squarely reflected this. Although the overall result in 2009 was the same (2-1 to England), it was a very different series. Australia won considerably more sessions than England (cf. 2005), and "won" virtually all the statistics for the series, in many cases quite heavily. Of the recent SL-Pak series (in SL), cricinfo reported that Pak won 12 out of 19 sessions in the first 2 tests, yet SL won them both (the third test was even more strongly dominated by Pak, but ended in a draw). Earlier this year in the WI, Eng were the better side and won a lot more sessions, but lost the series 0-1 due to one absolutely disastrous session at the end of the first test (all out for 53 I think it was). And now a similar pattern in Ashes 2009. Home and away is the common factor in the above three tales, but is the cause the crowds, as you, VC, suggest? Without question it's a factor, but I find it hard to believe it's anything like the full story. Bring in the shrinks!
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Knives, Indeed, a nugget, and I swear it took me only 30 seconds to work out the relevance (I spent the first 29 thinking "What on Earth does this have to do with the present cricket issue?"). Now you just have to find an example of a FR to BR conversion that has occurred less than 59 years ago ... rugby has changed somewhat since then! Or has it?
Mushi
Guest
Well now I know why the chinese don't play cricket.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
Oh, indeed. I don't suggest that England would have won the series if they'd held on in Adelaide. I just think it would have been the usual 3-1 rather than the unusual 5-0. Home advantage seems to be becoming more and more important in the Ashes. I suspect that this has something to do with the increasingly shrill and unsportsmanlike behaviour of the local population in both countries. I know that the England players were absolutely stunned by the ferocity of the locals in 2006/7 and, regrettably, the Aussies seem equally uncomfortable in the Mother Country. I make Australia heavy favourites for 2010/11. Yours is a harsh land for the uninitiated.
Knives Out
Guest
Mr Russell, I don't want to take up space on your cricket thread (I just don't understand the game) but I have a little nugget of information from you. John Kendall-Carpenter won his first two (Oxford) Blues as a prop in 1948 and 1949 and was capped by his country in the front-row in between. After three more caps at prop in 1950 he stepped back to the No 8 position for the 1950 Calcutta Cup match and captained Oxford from the back of the scrum in the Varsity Match later the same year. Thereafter he was England's regular No 8 for four more seasons, winning the last of his 23 caps in 1954. All told he played five times as prop and 18 as No 8.
FIsher Price
Guest
The home series loss to SA should have been the final straw.
FIsher Price
Guest
Much better to blindly back players until they get out of hand - a la Punter with Symonds...
Hansie
Guest
The strongest argument for change is that Ponting is the first captain in over 100 years to hand the Ashes back, twice. He has to be accountable for the performance of his team.
Phil Coorey
Guest
When Michael Clarke becomes captain I will be dedicating my summers to becoming an intense NBA fan. Go Celtics
davido
Guest
Mongrel is essential indeed.
Brett McKay
Expert
to quote Pippinu a few months back in a similar situation "hey, i got a mention!" cheers Greg! I'm not sure about dumping Ponting, but Greg I think you've highlighted a bigger problem: there probably isn't a lot of options available to make mass changes even if we wanted to, and that's where the blueprint must be wiped (and I think it was Fred McGee who had this idea early this week). We might see the likes of Hughes, Ferguson, and even Manou again, but apart from the spin merry-go-round and some tinkering with the quicks, is there much scope for change?
davido
Guest
Im sorry but this is factually incorrect. Ponting is in fact in a league of his own as a captain. He is undisputeably a much better captain than Taylor, Border or even Waugh. None of these captains have a 100% record at the world cup. None of these captains have won an ashes 5-0. If you want the facts read this assessment http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/08/30/ponting-for-the-record/ Ponting’s record of 134 wins to 39 losses in ODI - some 72.83% of matches won. Far exceeds that of Taylor, Border or Waugh.
Hammer
Guest
"That’s not to say that 2005 Australian team was not better than the 2005 England team. I think it was probably better to the extent that it would have won the series six and a half times out of ten" ... really VC - I've often felt that by the end of that series England were growing as a side ... and if there was another 5 test series straight after - they'd have won more convincingly ... of the Australains Warne really was the only one showing some fight
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
I like to say that England's win in 2005 was "skinny", in that some small things turned out to be hugely influential: McGrath treading on a cricket ball as he warmed up, Billy Bowden discerning that a ball brushed Kaspa's glove on day 5 at Edgbaston, and so on. Of course England were the better team throughout the Edgbaston test, but it was only a line-ball umpiring call that delivered them the win in the end. If Billy didn't raise his finger, then would England have come back from 2-0 down? Notwithstanding the above, with my earlier comment I do NOT "mean that it proves the 2005 defeat to be some kind of aberration." Rather, all I mean is that if Australia played to its potential in 2005, then as a team stacked with all-time greats, it had to win. But with the exception of Warne, those greats played well short of their potential in 2005, and the series was (not undeservedly) lost. No question, sport is about what happens, not what happens if everyone plays to their potential. Incidentally, comments about Adelaide in 2006-7 seem to me to involve a rewriting a history. Yes, England had a horrible choke on day 5, but that only cost them a draw, not a win. I don't really see any evidence that a draw in Adelaide could have transformed the series. Apart from having Australia 4/50 in Melbourne (but even this was after a very poor England score), I don't remember any other promising positions for England in the rest of the series.