Most are agreed that this summer’s Test cricket asked more questions than it answered about the state of our national team, especially when we have all had one eye on the upcoming Ashes the entire time.
Be it through confounding selection decisions like the ‘Rob Quiney thrown to the wolves’ saga, the absurd rotation policy that saw the weakness of the NSP on full display when playing five bowlers in Sydney, or the trials and tribulations of Shane Watson, we are no closer to knowing what our best Test XI is right now, let alone in six months’ time.
But I’ve grappled with one theme more than any other over the course of the last few months – is Ed Cowan good enough for Test cricket? Does he ultimately have the class to succeed?
Depending on the day, or even the hour, my answer may change.
After seeing his first few innings at Test level and seeing the old-fashioned, ‘take the shine off the ball’ opening batsman he was, I remember thinking that with the apparent dearth of Test-quality batsmen in the country, if he could average 35 in his position we could view that as a success.
It was noted that his application and intensity between wickets made Bernard Tomic look like Lleyton Hewitt, but purely as a batsmen there seemed enough there to suggest that he could make the grade.
In fact, watching poor old Ed get run out twice this summer, it struck me that he was cricket’s version of AFL’s intellectual ruckman Will Minson, who was once called “the dumbest smart bloke in football” by his former coach Rodney Eade.
Looking at Cowan’s six Tests over 2012/13, his supporters will point to one century, two fifty’s and 364 runs at 36.4 as not so bad facing the new ball, especially when the hundred at the Gabba was against the mighty South African attack.
Detractors will say that Steyn and Philander were mere shadows of themselves in Brisbane, and four scores of 10 or less from six first innings isn’t good enough at the highest level, and his performance against popgun Sri Lankan quicks didn’t pass muster.
Cowan’s last innings, a hard-fought 36 on a wearing pitch in Sydney, was in some ways a microcosm of his career.
Those in his corner saw a gritty performance of intestinal fortitude when the more glamorous trio of Warner, Hughes and Clarke fell by the wayside. They point to him top scoring for the innings, not falling until over 100 runs were on the board, and playing a leading hand in securing victory in a dangerous situation.
Those yet to be convinced about Cowan saw only stodginess at the crease which put pressure on the batsman at the other end to score, and struggles against spin that would bring about his regular downfall in India and against Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar in England.
Over the course of his Test career, one of his main problems is that he looks solid when ‘in,’ but then has a bad habit of soft, lazy dismissals. This isn’t a good sign for a player who has got to where he is due to concentration and discipline.
The feeling is that he doesn’t quite capitalise, failing too often to make hay under the shining sun.
To add a bit of spice to the mix, the whisper has Shane Watson approaching selectors with the intent of becoming an opening batsman again, happy to push his bowling duties aside.
Watson, most people don’t need reminding, had great success as an opener at test level. With most of his appearances occurring overseas, he provided a consistent platform against some renowned bowling line-ups, scoring some 1878 runs at 43.7, including his only two centuries.
And his record as an opener in India, where Australia embarks on a four test series next month? 271 runs from four innings at 67.75, including a hundred and two half-centuries.
So Shane Watson is certainly putting his hand up at the right time, or at the very least, the right time for Shane Watson.
So, where do I stand on the Ed Cowan conundrum? This is where I have contradictory thoughts.
As the incumbent test opener, based on what Ed Cowan has done to date, I’d like to see more of him, and think he should be allowed to hold his spot through India and England.
Yet, if I was selecting the side from scratch, he wouldn’t be in it, and Watson would take his place.
Has Cowan under-performed to the extent that he should be dropped? No, I don’t believe so.
Is he a better batsman than Shane Watson, who is now his challenger for the role? Again, I’d have so say no, I don’t believe so.
It’s worth nothing that both are head cases in their own right and, one suspects, riddled with insecurity.
As we’ve seen when nearing Test hundreds, Watson has the mental strength of a yellow chick pea, and is a bloke who needs ‘a few days’ to get his head around batting at four. I say, what’s to get your head around? Simply strap the pads on when the first wicket falls, and walk out to the middle with bat in hand once the second bloke is out.
Cowan, as a man with a more cerebral take on cricket than most, is a renowned over-thinker and over-analyzer of his game. You can almost see the mechanics of his mind driving his inner turmoil when dismissed by his own hand.
Is there room for both in our Test side going forward? It appears not.
As he seems one of the most likeable guys in cricket, I’m on Cowan’s side whenever he walks to the crease, and I sincerely hope he does well for his own sake.
But if the selectors opt to go down a different path, I can see where they’re coming from too.
Fifteen months ago, when thinking about who the best pure batsman in the country was, I argued the case for Shane Watson.
Michael Clarke has clearly taken that mantle, yet a Watson that is fit, confident and in-form provides an air of stability at the top of the order that is beyond even our captain, and is also, I fear, beyond that of Ed Cowan.
Jules
Guest
I have no inside knowledge, tommy, but I get the feeling that no one in the Australian team (or world cricket for that matter) is particularly fond of Watson. I have no idea whether this is justified or not, but the recent stuff about talking to the selectors about coming back as a pure batsman and preferring to open is certainly not going to help. Technique-wise he is, however, clearly in the top six batsmen in the country currently available for test selection, so my guess is that he'll be in the team, but told to deal with whatever position in the batting order suits the other better-liked and more specialised batsmen (in terms of batting position).
Jules
Guest
I don't understand this obsession with all-rounders. Did the dominant Aussie teams of the 1990s and early 2000s really need one? If you haven't got a guy who is in your top six or seven batsmen or top four or five bowlers, he shouldn't be in the test team. An all-rounder is a luxury if you happen to have a Kallis or a Flintoff about, not something that can be manufactured from a substandard bowler, batsman or both. Surely Maxwell is neither in the top 7 batsmen in the country nor the top 5 bowlers. That means that if they want an extra spinner for India, they should pick the second best spinner in the country instead of a third seamer. I've seen enough of Maxwell to know it's not him. I'd also go with someone who turns it the other way to Lyon, either Beer / Doherty or a young leggie. It'd be exciting if they took a punt on Boyce or Zampa because, if it worked, a new young leggie could even become a game changer for the Ashes where I agree our prospects are currently pretty bleak.
Bayman
Guest
Jameswm, Stranger things have happened than your suggestion. Like you, it would have been long odds for me pre-season but now.....who knows? As for Watson, I accept the argument that his best results have come as an opening batsman - I just do not accept that he actually is an opening batsman.
Rhys
Guest
Shirley you can't be serious?
Brett McKay
Expert
Chicken or not, Kev, It's probably the right call anyway...
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
Disco, I'm not discounting Anderson from having a major impact on the next Ashes series, I'm just saying that in his current form it does not seem likely. Look at the 2010 Ashes series. Hussey ended up scoring plenty, but before the series he'd had an awful run. Ask yourself truthfully: going into the 2010 Ashes series, did you think it likely that Hussey was going to score a pile of runs? Of course you didn't. If the question was "do I think James Anderson is a good bowler?" the answer would obviously be yes. But the question is "do I think James Anderson is such a good bowler that we can write off the Australians right now in spite of the fact that his current form is no good?". What conclusion would you reach? Apparently you've reached "Yes.". Excuse me if my conclusion differs. And Ian Bell IS a non-entity. I'm about as concerned of Ian Bell as any right-thinking Englishman would be of Ed Cowan. What's Bell's average against Australia in England? Pathetic.
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
Hmmm, interesting statistics. That's pretty much what I'd have expected, except for Khawaja who has only played one Test against England. I want to make it absolutely clear what I am saying at this point. My argument is this: Right now, Australia are at least as good if not better than England. My reasoning: 1) My main argument is the recent good form of Australia's bowlers. 2) My secondary argument is the recent bad form of England's fast bowlers. 3) My tertiary argument is that the batting is about equal. To recap, I have said 1) That Australia's pace bowlers have been in good form. This is reflected statistically by their strike rates for 2012, which were generally below 60, and their averages, which where below 30; 2) That England's pace bowlers have not been in good form. This is reflected statistically by their strike rates for 2012, which were generally above 60, and their averages, which were above 30; 3) That the form of the two batting line-ups is about equal where they can be fairly compared. (Cook is in better form than Warner, but Cowan is in better form than Compton. Trott is in better form than Watson, but Pietersen is in worse form than Clarke, etc. etc.) I think the best case-studies for my case are the South African tour of England and the South African tour of Australia. In the former, the English fast bowlers failed badly on their home turf against the South African batsmen. Not one English bowler averaged under 30, and only Steven Finn spared England's blushes by having a decent strike rate of 54. Broad and Anderson both averaged around 40 runs per wicket at abominable strike rates of 71 and 98 balls per wicket respectively. These results can't be blamed on the conditions as both Philander and Steyn found it within them to perform much better than their English counterparts. To emphasise this point, the English batsmen struggled in the series; in fact, five of the top six batsmen of that series (who played in every match) were South African. In the South African tour of Australia, the Australian bowlers failed badly on their home turf against the South African batsmen (with the exception of Johnson and Starc). Not one Australian bowler bowled 50 overs or more for an average under 30. Only Johnson and Starc spared Australia's blushes by getting good returns on a lively Perth wicket. Siddle and Hilfenhaus both averaged in the mid to late 30s, and returned abominable strike rates of 78 and 101. These results absolutely can be blamed on the conditions, as neither Siddle nor Hilfenhaus were given the same facility to ameliorate their series figures by bowling on the much livelier deck in Perth. Morkel and Steyn were closer to the rest of the pack before the match at the WACA, averaging 29.3 and 51.6 runs per wicket respectively before the match in Perth. As far as batting is concerned, the Australians put up much more resistance than did the English - with three Australian batsmen being amongst the top six of batsmen in the series (who played in every match). In conclusion - I assert that the Australian cricket team outperformed the English cricket team in 2012 without ever playing against the English cricket team. This should not be taken as an assurance that Australia will outperform England in 2013, but it raises doubts over England being automatically considered outright favourites. It certainly raises doubts as to whether England could muster a 4-0 series victory over Australia - something that England have never achieved in a home series. I assert furthermore that the most likely outcome is a tied series. I expect England to retain the Ashes 1-1.
Disco
Roar Guru
Since when did only the past 12 months form matter, Rob? It is quite a ridiculous and biased assessment of Anderson you keep making. He's been at the heart of the last two Ashes victories, so I'd say he'll be a factor next time out. Ian Bell a "non-entity"? Where's the factual basis for that? Clarke as good as Cook and Pietersen put together - same question. Other than Clarke and possibly Siddle, I wouldn't pick any Australian player in a composite side presently (I'm not at all sure about Warner on English pitches against decent swing bowling) That, of course, may change after the next series.
tommy
Guest
I'm getting an idea in my head that Cowan & Watson don't like each other. I've been thinking about this since New Years Eve when I heard third hand that the members of the Test team all hate each other. Now this is obvioulsy only 3rd hand information but my suspicions grew this morning after listening to the Cricket Sadist Hour on Cricinfo. I highly recomend this podcast by Jarod Kimber & Gideon Haigh if you haven't listened to it before. Anyway, both are good mates with Cowan & they do a lot of Watto bashing on this podcast. On the latest podcast, Gideon was questioning Watson's request to the selectors that he be put back to opener & described it as an ethical issue (which I agree with). You shouldn't be telling the selectors that you specifically want a team mates position &you can only imagine the Ed would have been pretty put out after hearing the comments. I couldn't help but think that he has developed this idea after chewing the fat with Ed & is acting as Ed's mouthpiece. Anyway, I don't know where I'm going with this & its got nothing to do specifically with the article but I just wanted to put it out there! Does anyone have similar suspicions.
sittingbison
Guest
I understand what you're saying Thommo, but I didnt cheery pick, I used a solid block of the entire previous two years which is the second half of his 5 year career "starting" in 2008. It is plain fact that the entire psat two whole years he has averaged 24, not the 43 that is blythly bandied around. And he cant have been doing that much bowling, he only picked up a single wicket per innings during this period (20 wickets in 20 innings) including the 5 at Cape Town debacle. The problem with when he was not bowling while recovering etc etc it was six or seven years ago, he was 23-24 but he is now 31. He MUST be judged on form not history, his "current" form (and even two years is going back too far) of avg 24 with no centuries over 12 tests is lamentable, and a blight on the selectors. It cleary demonstrates his selection has been problematic and in fact has let both him and the team down. He should have been playing shield, getting some form. popping in and out every three or four tests, no form, no confidence has been proven to be a disaster. How many test players either dropped or retired would like to be judged on their performance and form from more than two years ago? Every single one is the answer.
Red Kev
Guest
I actually expect the selectors to chicken out, take the path of least resistance and restore Watto to 4, replace Hussey with Khawaja and when Watson leaves tour debut Maxwell (moving Ussie up to 4).
Red Kev
Guest
Reasonable points but he should not be gifted the opener's spot, he should have to displace Cowan by weight of runs (or wait for Cowan to completely fail). The fact is his batting has been bad for 2 years and without his bowling he would not and should not be selected. Leave Watto in Aus to get fit and healthy, score shield runs, witness his kid's birth and take Cowan to India.
Brett McKay
Expert
yeah, that's certainly true Red Kev, but the debate shows that it's obvioulsy not a simple call, because of the form they're both in. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, for every Roarer that wants Watson to open, another wnats him at 6. For every comment that Cowan is struggling, comes another that points out that Watson's last year as an opener returned nearly ten runs less as an ave. And that's before we start on his bowling. It certainly SHOULDN'T be a complicated issue, but as you rightly point out, the relatively bare domestic cupboard makes it so. And I think it's the underlying quality (or lack thereof) that makes it complicated. It's an interesting discussion, if nothing else. I was labelled 'disingenuous' this week simply for wanting more from Watson before he gets a recall, which was funny not just for the label, but for the fact I also want more from Cowan and several other players..
Thommo
Guest
Regarding sittingbison's post, you cannot just cherry pick statistics. Watson averages 43 as an opener. He had a poor 2011, however the entire Australian batting lineup had a poor 2011, culminating in being dismissed for 47. They played all their tests overseas on difficult wickets and most of the Top 6 averaged between 25 & 35. The other factor at play is that under Ponting, Watson was not used as a weapon in the bowling attack, but merely as relief. This allowed him to focus on his batting. Under Clarke he was often bowling first change and his average overs per test went up to 20, during the period where his batting as an opener started to suffer, he was almost Australia's leading bowler taking 14 wickets @ 19. This is why he was moved down to 3-4, because his bowling workload under the new captain increased significantly. He started his career at #3 in the WI, where he scored 3 half centuries on wickets that were very difficult, no player in the Australian Top 6 managed a century for the entire tour. He has played just 3 tests since then, with a calf still troubling him, and whilst you might have found his most recent innings boring, 83 still went in the book. Now he is prepared to shelve his bowling, and we are approaching tours vs India and the Ashes its perfect timing the restore him to his opening position, where he averages 65+ vs India in India and 48 vs England as an opener. It's also worth noting that all available evidence throughout a 10+ year first class career, shows that when Watson isn't bowling his batting improves dramatically. In 2 first class seasons spent recovering from back injuries and not bowling he has scored 900+ and 800+ runs respectively, averaging 55+ in both years with 5 centuries, including 2 double centuries. In years when he has taken significant wickets and his bowling workload has been high, he has averaged in the 20's & 30's in test and first class cricket respectively. Clarke didn't want to treat him with kid gloves, and used him as a captain should use a quality bowling weapon - but Watto's body couldn't stand up. However, now he has given up bowling, he can focus on his batting and also return to the position he has had most success, which is a test opener.
Red Kev
Guest
Surely the fact both generate so much debate indicates that they are both right on the border of "good enough". It doesn't mean the issue is complex, it means neither is really good enough and if the first class ranks weren't so bare both would be dumped quicker than you could say Divenuto.
Thommo
Guest
Problem with Maxwell is that from what I have seen, Michael Clarke is a better spin bowler than he is. Clarke also bowls left arm orthodox, as opposed to Maxwell's regulation off-breaks which adds no variety to Lyon at all, so I see no additional benefit to our attack by including another harmless offie who can bat a bit. I'd sooner pick Steve Smith, who is a superior batsman to Maxwell and at least adds variety to the attack - and I think he is the greatest Ashes selection disaster in recent memory, so you can now get an idea of how much I'd like to see Maxwell in the team! If they want an all-rounder at 6, it needs to be McDonald, or they could put in Butterworth at 7 and bat Wade at 6 which would significantly strengthen our attack. Hopefully Watson doesn't bowl for a good 3-4 months, but then eventually follows the path of the Waugh twins and becomes a solid part-timer after commencing his career as a genuine all-rounder. That way we can share overs between Clarke (who is an underrated spinner), Warner and Watson to give us a 5th option that is not just there to give people a rest, but may actually take a wicket. Mitch Marsh is the sleeper in all this, serious talent, but currently injured and loves a beer and dust up too much
Brett McKay
Expert
Cam, you could just a easily write another 'conundrum' article, swapping Cowan out for Watson. The fact these two generate so much debate just highlights how complicated an issue it is..
Red Kev
Guest
You want facts? Trott averages 86 against Australia. Trott averaged 40.6 in 2011 and 38.6 in 2012. Trott's career average is 49.5. Clarke, Watson, Hughes and Khawaja are the only players of our likely lineup that have played against England... Clarke averages 45 against England but is in imperious form averaging 106 in 2012. Watson averages 48 against England but only 24 in 2011 and 31 in 2012. Hughes averages 17 against England, 36 for his career and 37 for 2012. Khawaja has an average of 29 against England and overall.
Justin Ware
Roar Rookie
Watson is hardly deserving of a spot either, he is the same as Cowan, he does the hard work, he gets in, he sees off the new ball and then gets himself to 50-60-70 and then somehow finds a way to get out. I am tired of our side rotating around Watson
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
Gee, I've stirred up the hornets' nest it seems! Disco and Red Kev, it is hard to counter your arguments when you don't seem to have any facts. Red Kev, you say that Trott is a better batsman than any Australian than Clarke. You don't offer any explanation of this, so I have to assume that you're not talking about recent form, but that you're referring to his career as a whole. Perhaps that is true, but where's your evidence? If I said that Dave Warner, for example, is right now a better batsman than Trott, how would you refute that? You might be right to accuse me of a reliance on statistics, but what else can I give you? Anecdotes and conjecture? Nonsense. And Disco, I really have nothing to say to you. I've given you an argument, and I have supplied some evidence for my case - to wit, that Australia have at least as good a side as England. Perhaps the English team will prove how brilliant they are the next time our nations meet, but there's no evidence for their clear superiority at this stage. I put it to you, what's your case for England beating Australia in the next series? If you're prepared to list your own argument, I will consider it. But come on, "jingoism"? You can do better than that...