The reaction to the poor performance of the Australian cricket side in the first Test against South Africa has been swift and excessive.
Many are calling for significant changes to the side, but altering the make up of the team will achieve little without addressing the misguided approach of the players which underpinned their poor performance in Cape Town.
The batting collapse in the second innings should mark a critical juncture for the Australian cricket side, and with it herald a shift in mentality from this point forwards. The days of playing aggressive, attacking cricket irrespective of the circumstances of the match are over.
For fifteen years Australia dominated the cricketing world. The period of dominance was such that a generation of cricket fans, and its current crop of players, grew up believing that the Australian side was almost unbeatable. Any loss within this period of sustained dominance was viewed as an anomaly.
The approach of the players was characterised by a resolute and unwavering belief in the team’s superiority over all others. Nothing was beyond the Australian cricket side, no position too dire, no goal unachievable.
While the side was filled with players of the ilk of Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist, this may well have been the case, but those days are over, and this piece is not going to be another nostalgic trundle through the golden age of Australian cricket.
Playing aggressive and attacking cricket when you are a front-runner and the best team in the world by some distance is a fine strategy, but this approach no longer befits a middling team.
A change in playing stock over the past several years has not been accompanied by the required change in attitude from the national side.
Three times in the past twelve months the Australian side has been bowled out for less than 100, compared with one sub-100 innings in the 25 years before that. This statistic says considerably more about the batting approach of the players than the skills they possess.
The idea that Australia can club its way out of trouble is a flawed one, and needs to be addressed. In its second innings of the most recent Test match against South Africa, no Australian player appeared willing or able to grit his teeth, take guard, and grind out an innings when one was so desperately needed.
For so long the Australian side had enough genuine stars that rash shots which lead to dismissals were forgiven or forgotten because someone down the order would always steady the ship with a whirlwind half century, but not any more. As the make up of the side has changed, the players’ approach to batting has not.
Maybe Alan Border needs to have a quiet chat with a few of the current players, and explain that not so long ago during the 1980’s there were occasions when just surviving at the crease was seen as an achievement against sustained good quality bowling.
The current players need to realise that they can no longer simply hammer teams into submission through relentless attacking play. They need to let the circumstances of the match dictate their approach.
Scoring at two runs or less per over for periods of a Test match may not be the most exciting prospect, but players need to recognise when to put their foot down, and when to simply hold up an end and wait for the opposition bowlers to tire.
Sure, there will be times to bring out the old bag of tricks and take the long handle to a poor bowling attack, but this should no longer be the main game for the Australian side. A significant measure of circumspection and caution desperately needs to be added as players learn that over the course of a match the momentum will ebb and flow, and likewise their approach must change with it.
Australian cricketers can no longer afford to play with the unbridled self-belief and attacking mentality of decades past.
It is time someone made the players aware of this uncomfortable truth.
Follow Michael on Twitter @MichaelFilosi
Bayman
Guest
Jameswm, I have long been doubtful of Siddle's ability with the ball at this level - but not his ticker with the bat. In this match he has embarrassed the top order - twice! In that famous "victory" against Pakistan at the SCG it was Siddle who set up the "winning" score with Hussey. As you say, it's about the mindset. As for Haddin/Paine I would also be comfortable with Wade. In fact, Wade's record with the bat far out-weighs Paine - both of whom have more fight in them than Haddin appears to have.
jameswm
Guest
Look what guys like Gillespie and Siddle have done in tests, on limited natural ability. They make themselves hard to get out, and rely on a higher batsman at the other end to score most of the runs. They might be 31 off 86 at the end of the session, and they will have done a bloody good, esp if the guy at the other end has scored 52 off 94. There's nothing more frustrating for a fielding team than tail-enders digging in and staying for a while. I remember nearly winning a grade game, having a big partnership with our no.11. He just decided to be bloody minded and block everyhing, and I scored most of the runs. If he got on strike first ball of an over and played out a maiden, fine. The fielding team were absolutely beside themselves within about 20 mins, and this went on for about 2 hours. Our no.11 said he had the best time doing it, too. But it's all about mindset and if Haddin can't be bloody minded enough to dig in, he simply shouldn't be there. Tim Paine for one has shown in limited opportunities that he has the ticker for the role. Ian Healy was picked more on attitude than ability, and I think Paine has similar attitude and more ability.
Bayman
Guest
Jameswm, So you seem to have no trouble understanding the requirement - why do you think Brendon is having so much trouble. In fact, your summary of the requirements is exactly what is needed. And it's exactly how Test matches are set up for the winning team. A team cannot win every single time but at least this approach mininises the losses and removes (almost) completely the "47s" amongst us. As you say, james, "Digging in does not mean blocking everything, or “refusing to play any shots whatsoever “, Brendon. It means making yourself bloody hard to get out. Putting a big price on your wicket." I could not have put it better myself.
Michael Filosi
Roar Guru
Sometimes it is too easy and not the right thing to suggest massive changes. True, there are a number of potential changes which are required of the Austrailan Test side, but it's my belief that there is something more to it than the playing list. It is the approach of the players which has lead to their downfall, and the notion that Austraila must at all costs play an attacking, aggressive style of play despite the opposition and the circumstances of the match.
Michael Filosi
Roar Guru
It is funny how grinding out an innings is seen in such a poor light these days, and an un-Australian way of play. I think there is much to admire in an innings where a player hasn't had it all his own way and has had to pick and choose the deliveries he scored from. You just have to pick your moments, and right now the Australian side isn't able to do that. They have just the one speed, and it's full steam ahead. As I mentioned in the piece, all the current group of players have ever seen of Australian sides is this attacking mentality, but it is time to reconsider this approach.
Michael Filosi
Roar Guru
Wooblies, pretty sure I'm not on the CA paylist (although I'm happy to consider all offers.)
Michael Filosi
Roar Guru
You hit on an interesting point, that playing attacking cricket is "the Australian way." It might be true for the past fifteen to twenty years when we've had an ace side, but I think that comes out of the fact that we had a side that was capable of playing that way, rather than attacking flair being distinctly "Australian".
jameswm
Guest
Very simply, it is for the batsman to judge how aggressive to be. They have to play each ball on its merits. Batting 101. However - dancing down the track with your team 6 for 18, or wafting at a fast outswinger before your eye's in (ie whilst on 1), is not great shot selection. Digging in does not mean blocking everything, or "refusing to play any shots whatsoever ", Brendon. It means making yourself bloody hard to get out. Putting a big price on your wicket. It means not playing any outswingers outside off, just letting them all go. It means not pulling till you've assessed the state of the wicket. It means not lofting any shots. It means getting right in behind the ball, and maybe leaving more than you otherwise would. In short, it really means batting loke a Cook or Katich would for the first session, or at least hour, of any test, against a new ball on the greenest the wicket will get. You get your runs by tucking them round the corner, placing your defensive pushes for 1s and 2s and running aggressively, and hitting the very occasional one that's short outside off for four, or clipping the occasional full one on leg for four. Turning a forward defence into a straight push for 2 or 3. You don't have to walk down the track in the first over of a test (a la Hayden in his pomp) to put pressure on the bowlers. There's nothing more frustrating for opening bowlers, bowling well, to go for 2-3 an over, and have the strike regularly turned over, from pushes to the cover and midwicket for 1s and 2s. A little intelligence and cricketing nous has to be shown. And that nous has been in shot supply for a while from Haddin, Ponting and even occasionally Watson.
jameswm
Guest
Hughes would be about the first I'd get rid of. He's embarrassingly awful at times. If he can sort himself out in the Shield, great, but don't rush him back too early again.
Bayman
Guest
Brendon, "Once bowlers believe batsmen are panicking and hitting out (like against South Africa) or gone completely into a defensive shell and refusing to play strokes (like times against England) then the bowler has the upper hand." So what do you want, Brendon - attacking or defending. I'm assuming attacking even though you mention the panic in South Africa recently. Mate, you are a true romantic. Despite the obvious eveidence to the contrary you still believe that each and every Australian batsman can just walk out there and dominate. - or at least should be able to. You refer, yet again, to both the "faster" scoring rate of England last series and the ludicrous figure you keep applying to run-rates of the 50s/60s. You assume that England's faster rate meant attacking batting was the reason they won. This happily ignores the fact that Cook, for example, "dug in" to the tune of 766 runs for the series. He batted a pretty handy 60% of England's batting time and faced some 29.34% of all balls faced by an Englishman. It ignores the fact that England had four scores in excess of 500 while Australia managed three scores over 300. England batted seven times to our ten (including incomplete innings). Accordingly, England's bowlers remained fresher. England faced the likes of Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhous, Watson, Doherty, Bollinger, Harris, Smith and Beer. Australia faced Anderson, Broad, Finn, Tremlett, Bresnan and Swann. I think you'll find there was a bit more to it than "run rate". England was simply better at batting, bowling and fielding. Apart from that, we pushed them! As for the VASTLY LOWER strike rate of Australia in that Ashes series the truth is something slightly different. England scored at 0.79888 runs a minute compared to Australia's rate of 0.72022. On a runs/ball basis England were again slightly faster at 0.584489 compared to Australia's rate of 0.516084. I'm happy to conclude that England having better batsmen and bowlers accounts for the rate difference of 0.068405 for runs/ball. Not to mention those vastly superior scores which kept our bowlers in the field for just that much longer and made them just that much more tired. Not so much "run rate" as grinding them into the dirt. Dare I say, a bit of "digging in".
Roy
Guest
Of Paine and Wade ... surely the better gloveman gets the job. Both players have proven themselves to be capable batsmen, but the primary job of a keeper is to keep wicket. I haven't seen enough of either keeping to have a view on this, but I would hope the new selectors do.
Lolly
Guest
Brad Haddin is saying he's going to keep playing attacking cricket. And Michael Clarke as usual is backing him up. I think the problem IS the aptitude. But that's what they want, attacking batsmen to play 'the Australian way'. it's clinging on to the old template but without the manpower to fulfill that.
Brendon
Guest
Like most situations in life people will provide criticism of others but rarely apply those criticisms to themselves. Perfect example is many people criticising Australian batsmen getting out too cheaply (correctly) because of outdated ideas but then straight away use antiquated terms and ideas like "digging in". In modern cricket refusing to play any shots whatsoever and allowing bowlers free reign to attack you is a recipe for disaster. Australia's strike rate throughout the past Ashes series was VASTLY LOWER than England's. There were times Australian top order batsmen DID try and "dig in" and you could see James Anderson's eyes light up knowing he could attack without fear of bad balls being punished. Once a bowler knows he can dictate terms to a batsmen in the modern era its all over. The days of the 50's and 60's where run rates of 0.00000000000000000000000001 runs per over are gone. When facing a batsmen should want to have the bowlers in a frame of mind that good deliveries will be defended/left alone and bad deliveries will be punished. Once bowlers believe batsmen are panicking and hitting out (like against South Africa) or gone completely into a defensive shell and refusing to play strokes (like times against England) then the bowler has the upper hand.
BARGE-ARSE
Guest
Johnson has to go. The more tattoos, the less effective.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
Exactly. Its been mentioned in posts above but the dominant Australian teams could afford to carry a struggling Langer, Hayden or Martin, for example, because you could guarantee the others would be posting scores of 40 plus in almost every innings with a couple of tons chucked in for good measure per innings. Now its a good innings if all recognised batsman can average above 25 and we are lucky if we see 1 ton in a match. This is where selections on form become even more vital. Its true bowling is the only way you can win a match, but the batsmen really need to give the bowlers a target to go for. I really hope the status quo isn't maintained against NZ as a series win would probably just paper over the cracks and result in massive failures against the Indians.
jameswm
Guest
And can't be carried by a spluttering team. Look what has happened when Marsh was given a go. And Khawaja has hardly looked out of place either.
Harry
Guest
Agree with these changes, apart from Hughes. Still think he can be a test opener by gee he needs to learn how to start. Given there will be no change in the 2nd test, with Marsh injured I'm hoping Khawaja rather than Warner comes in, think Ponting needs to be politely tapped on the shoulder on the flight home to Aus and told he will be retiring after the NZ series. Unless Ponting can save himself with a Stee Waugh like SCG 100.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
The only test batsmen who seem to be able to grind out an innings in the past 12 months are Hussey, Clarke and Marsh. Clarke and Marsh more so on their recent form. I have been a big critic of Clarke, and thought he was anointed as heir apparent way to early. For my mind his batting never showed the patience of a captain which has been evident in Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponitng. His wicket was always way to cheap. Recently however in Sri Lanka and South Africa I have seen 2 classy innings when Australia needed them from the new skipper. I believe the his solid 60 in the first test won us that series. While he has had some shockers in Sri Lanka and in the second innings in South Africa I believe he is improving his concentration. For my mind the calls for Hughes, Ponting and Haddin are not unjustified and do not smell of panic. They are merely a reflection of 3 players who have been inconsistent over the past 2 years.
Matt F
Roar Guru
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/langer-backs-his-former-captain/story-e6frg7rx-1226193976640 Some more words of wisdom from the great JL......... Summary of the article: There's nobody better then Ponting (apparently nobody else has made a test century in the past two years) and nobody would be talking about moving Watson down the order if he was scoring runs! Glad he cleared that up...... I don't know why they hired a coach who used to be teammates with some of the players, especially with Ponting being his old captain.
Lolly
Guest
Too right. CA doesn't criticise it's players at all quite the opposite.