So Australia has beaten Sri Lanka 3-0 in the end, securing the third Test in Sydney by five wickets on Sunday afternoon.
Rightly or wrongly, this Test was used for an unusually high number of experimental moves.
It’s arguable whether these trials would’ve been conducted if the series were still alive, and given the way the young Sri Lankan side have performed in Sydney against these trials, there is certainly an argument that they perhaps weren’t shown the full respect coming into this Test.
Regardless, the experiments went ahead, and the series clean-sweep will undoubtedly be used as justification for looking toward upcoming tours of India and England.
Personally, I think there are more than a few questions coming out of these Sydney trials, and I’ll attempt to address a few of these today.
(Normally, such questions would come via colleague Ryan O’Connell, but this time I’m going it alone. Having done another collaborative piece before Christmas, and meeting up for a sneaky beer or two in the SCG Members’, our respective wives are beginning to snicker at how much we’re in contact. The word ‘bromance’ was even used at one point last week, which, during a welcoming embrace, we both agreed was rather harsh.)
Anyway…
Did four quicks work in Sydney?
Well, yes, technically it did. The scorecard will show that Australia’s quicks took 18 Sri Lankan wickets, and the Nathan Lyon critics will point to one of his two wickets coming via a pretty ordinary shot from Thilan Samaraweera in his second innings.
Realistically, the move to play four quicks in Sydney was driven purely by the selectors painting themselves into a corner anyway; the reference to the supposedly green SCG wicket was only a ruse to divert attention away from what was a pretty poor decision forced by an already contentious policy.
The wicket in Sydney was no greener than it has been in the last few years, and I wouldn’t mind betting Michael Clarke only bowled first because of who he handed over on the team sheet. That Sri Lanka were 5/249 at drinks in the last session on day one is a fair indication of how reasonable a batting track the SCG was from the outset.
If the selectors were so hell-bent on playing five bowlers and trying things for India and beyond, they should’ve played Glenn Maxwell. Even with my doubts over Maxwell’s credentials, there’s no reason why he and Lyon couldn’t have been just as difficult as Tillakeratne Dilshan and Rangana Herath were in Australia’s run chase.
Can Australia win a Test Series with four quicks?
Theoretically yes, but not over the next nine Tests. For starters, there’s just no way Indian authorities will allow/direct their groundsmen to produce green wickets to cater for an Australian pace quartet, and it’s unlikely England will be so generous either, given their recent success with twin spinners.
More than that though, with the sudden retirement of Mike Hussey, Australia’s evident batting depth looks rather vulnerable going forward. As I mentioned last week, it’s entirely possible that David Warner and Phil Hughes could be the next most experienced bats in the Australian side in England, and neither will have played 25 Tests by then.
Australia’s strengths may well be the bowling currently, but that’s not justification for committing cricketing suicide by unnecessarily shorting the batting order.
Is Matthew Wade a Test no.6?
Again, the scorecard will show that Australia’s wicketkeeper-batsman made the only century of the game, and he did that batting at four wickets down.
In truth, I had less concern about Wade at no.6 than I did about Mitchell Johnson coming in at no.7. It seems it’s a race nowadays to label Johnson an all-rounder should he ever manage a run of quality knocks with the bat, but the truth is Johnson the supposed all-rounder still only averages 22.6 with the bat.
Wade, on the other hand, has pushed his average up to 42.4. Andrew Symonds, who spent a good chunk of his career at no.6, finished with an average of 40.6. Wade might not be a full-time no.6, but he’s not going to let anyone down whenever promoted.
What of Ed Cowan?
Needs a good Indian series, no question. His 22 Test innings to date have netted a century, five 50s, and just the one duck. It’s not hopeless, but it’s not brilliant, either.
The biggest issue he needs to work on – aside from his running between the wickets and penchant for ball-watching – is the eight scores between 16 and 36. Even if only three of those starts became a 50, eight 50s and a century from 40% of his innings sees the pressure on his spot evaporate.
He could become the perfect foil for Warner and Hughes either side of him, but an average in the 30s will only prolong the questions, particularly with a certain former opener making it known he wants his old spot at the top back, now that he may not bowl in Tests again.
And Nathan Lyon?
Still doubting Lyon’s place as an Australian spinner? He’s the most successful Australian spinner post-Warne, and he’s already gone past the likes of Kerry O’Keeffe, Ray Bright, and Greg Matthews in fewer Tests and with a better average and strike rate.
He’s only 14 wickets behind Tim May, and is on track to topple one of the best off-spinners of my generation in fewer Tests and again with a better average and strike rate.
Lyon hasn’t had the best summer, but has still taken 19 wickets in six Tests at only slightly less than his career average of 3.2 wickets per Test.
My esteemed colleague rightly pointed out during the Test that if Matthew Wade’s batting is enough for us to excuse his ‘keeping up at the stumps, then Wade’s ‘keeping must also excuse Lyon’s lowish hauls this summer, given Wade’s been responsible for anywhere up to ten chances going begging off Lyon’s bowling.
I think Lyon’s bowled better than his numbers suggest. He’ll go to India as Australia’s number one tweaker and he should do pretty well in much friendlier conditions.
Brendon
Guest
Luderman or Hartley could get a gig in that team if that's the case
Brendon
Guest
What about that bloke that Warne said can't bat, can't bowl, cant field?
Brendon
Guest
I saw Maxwell bowl for the first time last night, no way this bloke is a good as Lyon and can onlybe considered as a batting part time spinner IMO. Let's see how he gets on in Adelaide
Bearfax
Guest
Khawaja's highest first class score is 214. Hughes highest first class score is 198 (close enough I would have thought.)
sledgeross
Guest
Yep, from memory I think Khawaja is the only bloke to have done that.
Red Kev
Guest
That's why the old yardstick for upcoming players used to be scoring a double ton - because it required batting for a day in the Shield.
sledgeross
Guest
I hear you mate, and agree somewhat. I just think that Cowan is largely ineffective and alot of the younger blokes mooted for a Test role just dont know how to bat for more than 2 sessions (something STeve Waugh has pointed out previously). I think it would be beneficial to have an old head or two there to "lead the way" in some regards. I can see what youre saying about blooding youngsters. I think Bob Simpson and AB did a great job when we were last in the dumps Test wise. They identified blokes who had (more importantly) the temprment to play test cricket (Boon, Waughs, McDermott, Healy, McGrath, Jones, Warne, Taylor). It might have taken a season or two to find their feet (or longer to realise their potential), but they turned out ok.
Dan Ced
Guest
Kinger! Woo! D Huss has the ODI/T20 experience for AUS though, as much as I'd like them to finally give Klinger a chance. If they don't put Klinger in the next T20 team name I will spit in their general direction. He has been great opening in the Big Bash, a level head amongst slogging tards.
Bearfax
Guest
Unfortunately Sledge, Rogers, like Brad Hodge and David Hussey and a couple of other older batsmen, was born in an age of champion batsmen and not all of them could be given the chance to play test cricket. Rogers has an excellent first class average and is still scoring runs but he is almost 36 and like Ponting, that's about the age they seem to be retiring players. Unfortunately he has played only , I think it was, one test, so he is no more experienced in that arena than the young guns, and that does make a difference. Experience is always important and Oz will rely heavily on Clarke and Watson and perhaps there is a place for another of the older legion. But Oz is in the process of going through a rebuilding process with a bunch of potentially very good players and the last thing you want to do is deny these young future potential stars their chance, like Rogers, Davd Hussey and Hodge were denied theirs so many years ago. For mine I would use the next few tours to blood these youngsters. If they get flogged, so be it. They are learning what every young cricketer has to learn. In two years I suspect they will be doing the flogging. Mind you I'm not a selector and these guys in charge are likely to try anything for short term gains to hold onto their jobs.
Matt F
Roar Guru
The line itself is actually very accurate to Marsh, just not in the way that it was intended at the tie. He got into the test side, and started well, because of temporary good form but his mediocre class in the longer format eventually found him out
Matt F
Roar Guru
They were all very dominant statistically. Those bowling numbers would be considered world-class. They are however bowling all-rounders, who would have been more likely to come in at 7 or 8 instead of 6 (Miller being the exception.) You can't really compare batting all-rounders with bowling all-rounders, which is what Watson and Symonds are/were (if Watson's body was better he might have been a bowling all-rounder.) A better comparision would be to compare Watson and Symonds to other batting all-rounders. There haven't really been too many Australian ones but on a global scale names like Sobers and Kallis spring to mind. Watson's bowling is statistically better than Kallis' (32 with the ball) while Symonds matches Sobers bowling numbers. However both Kallis and Sobers average (or averaged) well over 50 with the bat. I think that's the difference. The best all-rounders were great at at least one discipline. Watson and Symonds could be considered pretty good at at least one discipline but not great. You're correct that there is certainly an emphasis on batting all-rounders at the moment. Perhaps it's because when we started our search for an all-rounder (after the 2005 Ashes) the two available were Watson and Symonds who happened to be all-rounders. Perhaps it's because we have very good fast-bowling stocks right now but poor batting stocks to a batting all-rounder is better for the side. That being said we need to take into account the different situations of diferent eras. The modern era is much more friendly to batsmen then bowlers. The players you mentioned all played in the era's of uncovered pitches, no helmets and sub-standard protective gear, bigger grounds (no ropes.) The bats used weren't as good either. Batting and bowling averages in general have all risen so it's likely that all of those players mentioned would have had higher batting and bowling averages if they played today (though how much higher is the question)
Matt F
Roar Guru
I wouldn't say that Watson's numbers are great. I've always thought that the mark of a top-class all-rounder is that their best discipline would be good enough to make the team on its own e.g. Hadlee would have been able to make it purely as a bowler and Kallis purely as a batsman. Watson's numbers aren't good enough to make the side as purely a batsman or a bowler, though they're not too far off. I'd say his numbers are good without being great.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Zampa is averaging 9, but has only played one game ever. Maxwell is averaging mid 20's and is actually the clear stand out while O'Keefe is next at around 34-35. Then comes Hauritz at 38.5. Beer is mid 40's, Boyce is mid 50's and Doherty/Krejza aren't even on the list which ends at 58. Only Maxwell has decent figures (not counting Zampa because he's only played one game) and I'm starting to see why Maxwell is a chance at the 2nd spinners role.
sledgeross
Guest
Steele, I like Rogers and even though he is older, he still is scoring runs, and has a heap of Pommy experience. Only a short term but if he can play the next two tours maybe someone might put their hand up before our next home Ashes. Plus, as Ive said before, he already has a baggy green, so no need to hand out a new one! And as Chaos points out, I think alot of people perhaps favour players without actually seeing them play. Im lucky that fox sports live stream of the SHield is one of the few sites I can still see at work! If you have time people, watch these young fellas play, its free!
pope paul v11
Guest
I reckon Khawaja is no hope for Eden Gardens unless something unusual happens. Arthur virtually endorsed Watto's return batting only, and for once the smug bugger has Watto's last out 83 as evidence. So he'll resume in place of Huss. Because they want this extra bowler, should he be allrounder of the week Johnners or spin capable rookie Maxwell, Wade will stay at six.
lou
Guest
Richard Hadlee's bowling brain would do for starters.
lou
Guest
Problem is Haddin's keeping to spin is equally poor. His selection as keeper would be a non-solution to a real problem.
lou
Guest
Watson's ego-driven angsting in the press is unhelpful to put it politely. He'll change his story 5/6 times in the next month. He should be blackballed from speaking to the press for the good of everyone else in the team.
Sanjay
Guest
Roarr agree with you that khawaja was dropped unfairly but he took it on the chin went back to shield and got better and looks the real desk now, looked all class again in the big bash game tonight once again, look forward to watching him bat on Friday against the Sri lankans
Sanjay
Guest
Agree mate, khawaja should be at 6. Maxwell is only being talked about because he was bought into the squad, he is no where ready to play test cricket not with the ball or bat