The new National Selection Panel may have dodged some selection bullets coming into the second Test in Hobart via injuries, but you now have to wonder if the time to start the rebuilding program properly is here.
The loss to New Zealand will stick in the Australian team’s craw for some time, as it should. As well as New Zealand bowled, and Doug Bracewell in particular, Australia’s batting performance throughout the Test must become their line in the sand. There can be no going back over that line again.
I’ve never been big on making wholesale changes to a losing side. I’ve never really seen the point in flicking four or five or more players in one go when the week before they were the best guys for the job. A tweak or two here and there can add a spark, but mass changes can only destabilise a side.
Or so I thought.
The interesting situation the selectors find themselves in now is one of a losing side, numerous out-of-form players, and several other players returning from injury. We may have had two of those scenarios in the last few years, but not all three at the same time.
So the question for John Inverarity and his new selection panel cohorts becomes one of when exactly do they start leaving their mark on the side? Yes, they picked James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, and David Warner for their Test debuts in the Trans-Tasman series, but all three were known entities, having already worn the national colours under the Hilditch reign.
Injuries, again, will dictate the extent of changes for Boxing Day. But, if the panel is serious about picking the best eleven cricketers in Australia – and the Argus report which established their being says they must be – we could be looking a vastly different batting order.
The time to start making the mark is here.
Phillip Hughes seems doomed, having even lost the support of his Captain now. Michael Clarke admitted in the Hobart post-match that “…he needs to find some runs; it’s as simple as that. If he’s not making them for Australia he’s going to have to go back and score some for New South Wales.”
There is a small issue here in that NSW don’t actually play again until February, but that’s out of Clarke’s and Hughes’ hands. Hughes needs to make runs somewhere. His just-announced 2012 deal with Worcestershire is quite timely, too; Australian duties are now unlikely to preclude him from having a full season at New Road.
Usman Khawaja may or may not be under the pump again. Shaun Marsh’s fitness remains an ongoing concern, and his unlikely return for Boxing Day should mean that Khawaja holds his spot. I say ‘should’ because another Ed Cowan score in Canberra next week might just fortify the case for his selection.
Khawaja is a funny place, stats-wise. In his six Tests, he averages 29.2, with his Johannesburg 65 his highest score. In 11 innings, he has seven scores above 21, yet only one fifty. A 0no and a 7 are his only single-figure scores. He’s making starts, but hasn’t quite gone on. He’s clearly a Test-quality batsman, but he just hasn’t fully grasped his chance yet. He needs to soon.
The Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey equations get murkier by the day. If immediately following the lost Ashes series was the first opportunity, the New Zealand loss has also suddenly re-opened a small window for “Invers” and co to draw the curtains on two wonderful careers.
They could, if they were serious, pick their team for the first 2013 Ashes Test now. And on that front, I can’t see how Ponting, Hussey, or even Brad Haddin and Ryan Harris can last that long.
Yet the first three will almost certainly be picked next week, and if he’s fit enough, Harris will be too.
Ponting’s battles are well documented. Since starring throughout the Ashes series and again in Sri Lanka, Hussey has averaged less than 12. Haddin can only be holding on because of Tim Paine’s ongoing injury, and continues to bat like that super-talented but brain-explosion-prone 19 year-old I first saw in Canberra in the late 90s. Harris, by his own admission, is a Test-to-Test proposition.
Shane Watson, too, is an all-but certainty to play in Melbourne, yet he won’t have played for five weeks, and won’t be fit enough to bowl. But if he’s not fit enough to bowl, his batting hasn’t exactly been superlative lately either. So then why rush him back?
The argument will be made that a side in transition needs some experienced heads to guide them through their fledgling days in Test cricket, but this ignores the fact that the last three Man of the Match awards – popularity contests aside – have gone to an 18yo debutant, a 21yo debutant, and a 23yo in his second Test. The kids don’t need their hands held; they’re already doing the holding themselves.
Clarke, Siddle, Watson are experienced heads. Warner, Khawaja, Marsh, Paine, Pattinson, and Starc have all been in and around the Australian set-up for a few years. Cowan has worn a state cap for eight or nine seasons. Moreover, it’s not like we’re playing 14 year-olds in 2nd or 3rd Grade here; this is Test Cricket, and it’s not supposed to easy by its very name and definition.
If the selectors were serious, they’d draw their line in the sand after Hobart and let a batting order of Warner, Cowan, Khawaja, Clarke, Watson, Marsh/Dan Christian, and Matthew Wade loose on the Indian attack on Boxing Day.
Sadly, for the future at least, injury constraints and a touch of gun-shyness will probably mean that a Watson-for–Hughes straight swap is the sum total of the Hobart fallout.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Actually the way the system works Australia couldn't get back to number one without beating England (who are currently some 800 points ahead of Australia on the rankings). In the next three summers 1/3 of our tests are against England. Since the last time we played England we have played SL, SA and NZ 2011/12 we play India and WI 2012/13 we probably have another 10 or so tests (I've not seen the schedule) 2013 we travel to England and play them for 5 tests 2013/14 England travel here and we play them for 5 tests and there is probably another small tour.
Bayman
Guest
JohnB, To be fair to Red Kev, we don't have to beat England and get to number one at the same time. Let's beat England first, since that probably will come around before any ranking, and then work to number one after that. The Ashes is definitely number one target but, try as I might, I'm having trouble accepting a possible loss to India as "just another series". I would just love the team to beat India but we'll just have to wait and see.
Bayman
Guest
Russ, That would be players like Bradman, Harvey, Walters, Greg Chappell, etc. The fact is that in days gone by the general view was that if a player had not made the NSW team by the age of 21-22 then he would probably never really make it. Australia was a slightly harder nut to crack but even then the players I mentioned were successful at that age. Lillee was just 22, McKenzie 19, the list goes on. The problem today is that the young players do not come up against the "guns" as they come through the ranks. The Test players do not play Shield cricket - they sure as hell do not play club cricket. Consequently, the modern players are not as tough and hardened, temperamentally and techniqely, as those players I mentioned above. Throw in the Test incumbents are not retiring, and who can really blame them, the spots are not opening up in the ranks. David Warner, today, looks like the next big thing. But he's 25 already. Years ago he would have had to do what he's doing now about four or five years earlier to attain the ranking and the status he now has. Times have changed and it's much harder for young players to be truly accepted as potential Test players until their mid-twenties. General experience attained over several years has replaced being thrown in at the deep end - and sinking or swimming - as an indication of talent and potential. In those days, those that survived tended to flourish and they continued playing club and Shield cricket against the country's best players. Every week. We justify it now by saying they must have some experience, etc., but that is only because that's the way the game has developed - thanks to salaries which make it virtually impossible to walk away from. Not to mention ridiculous schedules of ODI and T20 games put up so the sponsors can make money out of the game. Thirty and more years ago we laughed at England because they invariably chose players to debut at an age when his Australian counterpart was nearing retirement. Cowper and Sheahan had retired at 27. Now, we are doing what England did then and we are saying it's not only normal but the only way to go. The truth is still - if you're good enough, you're old enough. Today it's just more of a risk.
Bayman
Guest
Brendon, Sorry, guru, but yes you do need to say more. I don't give a toss for Warner's strike rate because I'll think you find we lost that particular match. So much for bloody strike rate! Perhaps if his strike rate had been a bit less and he'd farmed the strike a bit more, like a professional, we'd have still won. I guess we'll never know now. As for providing evidence Brendon, don't make us all laugh. What evidence have you ever provided but your firm opinion? Cricket may well be a professional sport son but only in that the players today earn more money. Not in the area of skill or knowledge. The idea that modern batsmen brought up on roads have better technique than those "amateurs" of the 50s, 60s or 70s is laughable. Had that been the case we might have won the last Test. The idea that bowlers today can swing the ball more, or better, than bowlers of the 50s is equally laughable. If that had been the case England may not have made 5-600 nearly every time they batted last summer. The idea that a batsman's job is to launch the ball out of the park at every opportunity is also laughable. As I said previously, Watson hit 22 off 19 balls, then out, on the first morning against Sri Lanka. For an opening batsman, great strike rate, crap result. What worked in the fifties will work now just fine. The problem is that modern players aren't as good as those in the fifties. By that I mean their techniques are not as good. Brownlie, whose technique is pretty good, and simple, had absolutely no trouble on that pitch in Hobart during his innings of 56. Warner, for all his heroics, still had some luck with his edges which, if Hughes had been batting, would have been caught by somebody (but probably Guptil). A batsman needs to know how to bat when the pitch is doing something and/or the bowler is doing something. Putting your foot down the track and smashing it out of the park is not the way. As for those modern, professional approaches you seem to love so much I'll just say this - 7/40. How about all out 47? I will say one thing, at least there's plenty of action if not much batting skill. Incidentally, how many of those seven batsmen still had a great strike rate? Seriously, I don't know and I am not about to bother looking it up. All I know is - 7/40. You seem to be under the delusion that T20 methods in Test cricket will solve all problems. Given most T20 teams are fully dismissed for anything from 120-180 I wonder how this might be so? So let's forget silly notions about "professional ideas and approaches". Dare I say it, but perhaps the true professional might have dug in and just ground out the victory for the loss of maybe three of four wickets given how much time was left. Make no mistake, Brendon, being "professional" in the modern era is all about winning - not improving your strike rate while the team embarrasses itself. And if you don't believe winning is important, ask yourself why the Argus Report was initiated? Or why Katich was not given a contract? Or why Ponting was replaced as captain? Or why Tim Neilsen was allowed to disappear? Yep, I know, It still doesn't explain James Sutherland! Some things are destined to remain a mystery. P.S. If you actually ever saw those guys in the 50s, 60s or 70s actually play then I could cut you some slack. But clearly you did not. So you have no idea how good they were or, more importantly, how far techniques have slipped - batting and bowling. During the past week I had the good fortune to spend some time chatting to the great South African Barry Richards. He agreed that modern techniques were nowhere near as sound as those of his era. He described bowlers run-ups being covered but the wicket left open to the elements. He also expressed the view that back then almost every fast bowler could swing the ball, and some at very disconcerting pace indeed. And on dodgy, wet tracks to boot. If your technique wasn't tight you simply did not survive. One day, and T20 cricket, have encouraged bowlers to land it back of a length to restrict batsmen scoring. The art of swing has been lost - hence Craig McDermott now trying to get the Aussie quicks to pitch it up more to allow the ball to work for you. Siddle, for one, looked twice the bowler in Hobart than he ever looked last summer. Now Barry Richards could bat a bit and I'd hate to see what he might do with short boundaries, bats like cannons and bowlers who can't swing the ball. Any time, though, you want to tell us that Barry Richards was over-rated and nowhere near as good as, say, Shane Watson, you go right ahead. I for one, won't believe you - no matter what "evidence" you provide!
Oracle
Guest
Excellent piece. The bullet must be bitten now. Haddin out immediately, Wade is in terrific touch and doesn't need to go the Amy Winehouse Batting Rehab School. Is Invers a colt or a gelding, time to show the truth now, not on the drip over twelve months. Surely a debacle against a side that struggled against the might of Zimbabwe should ring some alarm bells!!! Having heard Merv Hughes defend every "batsman" all the way to and including Haddin, in the last test on SEN last Tuesday was a glowing endorsement for Merv's non re-appointment as a Selector.
Dc
Guest
Come on Australian cricket show some balls ...execute the clean-out cut the million dollar contracts stack the team with young vibrant talent and let a pool of them fight it out for places in the 2013 Ashes series. I am a black caps man and very happy now because we have young talent coming thru ..But Aussie cricket is meant to be tough and ruthless ..not metrosexual fishing outside the off stump ..!!!
Hazey the Bear
Roar Rookie
All this talk of Ponting, Hussey and Haddin has me thinking about that quote from High Fidelity... Barry: Rob, top five musical crimes perpetuated by Stevie Wonder in the 80's and 90's. Go. Subquestion: is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins? Is it better to burn out or fade away?
Dudfarmer
Guest
The ROAR "selection panel" seems to have spoken. Ponting, Haddin out Mr Cricket gets a life cos he seems a good bloke. Wade gets a shot and maybe Cowan as well. But the question remains..........What does everybody mean by the team is in transition?
Brendon
Guest
What was David Warner's s/r, old chap? Need I say more? It doesn't matter how much evidence I provide you you will stick to the "the way things were done in my day were so much better". Cricket is now a fully professional sport. We need professional ideas and approaches. What worked in the 50's wont work now.
JohnB
Guest
That's quite possibly right, although the way the system works you could. My point is that beating England doesn't get you to number one, unless you've been winning everything else as well - and may not even get you there then, if England has been continuing to beat everyone else. Remember, Australia didn't cease to be number 1 after losing the 2005 Ashes.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
But you won't get to number one if you can't beat England.
JohnB
Guest
"... it is about getting back to number one, and that means beating the best on their home soil which happens to be the Ashes" Except that that isn't what it means at all. You gain or lose rankings points each series. Win the Ashes against a highly rated England and you will get points for sure. But if you've lost series before that, you'll have lost other points and probably won't be number 1.
JohnB
Guest
Why would India be flogging us? Their batting relies on a good opening pair, one of whom has been out of form, then 3 blokes 37 and older and their bowling relies on 2 seam bowlers (one of them 33) with dodgy injury histories. Despite the age in their batting, they'll still be hard to get out (although you can't discount the possibility that one or more of the middle order trio will finally hit a wall - no pun intended vis a vis Dravid) but they should have every bit as much trouble bowling Austrlia out. I'd have thought we were in with a strong chance of winning, and should be disappointed to lose. Incidentally, I'm not sure if Copeland has been injured, but he's only played 3 shield games this season (for 2 wickets at plenty).
JohnB
Guest
Bellerive has its stretches of being pretty sedate. It sparked up in a wet summer last year, but that was unusual. Batsman/keeper must be the strongest position in Australian cricket at the moment - Paine did very well when given a chance, Wade makes runs, Hartley has been good for a long time, and then you have the second stringers in both NSW (Neville) and Tasmania (Triffit) doing well.
JohnB
Guest
One thing to bear in mind here is that getting back to number 1 is a process of winning repeatedly over an extended period of time, not building up to and winning a grand final. It's a league, not a cup. If the object is to get back to number 1, you have to be trying to win every game and every series. Every game is important, and none more so than the next one coming up. If the object is to get back to number 1, saying that any particular player is not going to get you back to number 1, or even is not going to be in an Ashes team in 2013, is not the issue and is missing the point somewhat. Sure, he may not still be in the team in a few years time when the number 1 is achieved. But his contribution to winning games 3 years earlier is no less important for that. If you really want to get back to the top, the question before every game is what is the team that gives us the best chance of winning this next game? You may be prepared to make some allowance for future planning, although in my view there's very little room to do that, and in any case I think that development/gaining international experience function can be done through the one day game. The Australian selectors need to pick the best team to beat India. If that includes old stagers who won't be around next year, so be it. Earmark their likely replacements and get them playing one dayers, chairman's XI matches or anything else giving some international exposure. If the old stagers aren't in what's thought to be the best team, fine. Alternatively, if the objective is to concentrate on marquee series, then risk losing other series by selecting teams on the basis of who looks likely to be in the frame for the next one you regard as important. But don't then complain if you lose games and series you might otherwise have won, and lose spots in the rankings as a result.
Tom Dimanis
Roar Pro
The last line of this article just says it all, changes need to be made but they won't. I would love to see a Warner-Cowan selection, the good ol' attacking-defending opening combo always works best. In saying that, why doesn't Wes Robinson ever get a mention? He's been solid and cracked a ton against the Indians.
Brett McKay
Expert
Viscount, there's no better sincerity than false sincerity, at least where the Ashes are concerned. Best wishes for the festive season, old bean. Do stay warm...
jameswm
Guest
I think you've got those batsmen in the wrong order Bazza. Watson has to be 5-6, to give him time to have a shower and chill before padding up. If Clarke likes 5, then Khawaja bats at 4 and watson 6. Khawaja has always been a top order batsman.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
Forget the Ashes, chaps. It'll be 2021 at the earliest before you see the little urn again. Best to focus on improving your team in the meantime. Regards, Crouchback
sheek
Guest
No Brett, I think it's a mistake to lump Ponting & Hussey together. Remember, Ponting started his test career iway back n 1995. Hussey not until a decade later. And Hussey's some months younger than Punter as well. I do think Punter & Haddin are ready for the chop, but Hussey still has a role to play I believe.