Is there something I’m missing? When I started watching cricket in my younger days, as most people did, I had my favourite players.
Names included Craig McDermott, Glenn McGrath, David Boon, Mark Taylor, and the Waugh brothers, among quite a few.
It was great watching the boys play the Test matches and the one-day games all summer, with the occasional player missing one or two games with an injury.
Very rarely, a player would get dropped due to a form slump and they would find their touch in a state game and be back in the Aussie line-up not long after.
Currently, there are 40 players listed to have played for Australia in either Test, ODI or T20 cricket in the last 12 months.
Now I know people are going to say that T20 wasn’t around in the 90s and more matches are being played now than back then, but how’s this, only four of those 40 players have played only T20 cricket for Australia.
That’s still 36 players across the Tests and ODIs. What does this mean?
It means that there aren’t many Aussie cricketers that play all three forms of the game. Why is this?
Well, there are quite a few reasons, many of which Cricket Australia provides.
These include injuries, the rotation policy and player management due to the amount of cricket played these days.
But the reason that is hardest for me to understand, is that so many of the current players are T20, ODI or Test cricket specialists.
When thinking about 90s players that were ODI “specialists”, I could suggest Michael Bevan, Shane Lee, Ian Harvey and Darren Lehman to name a few.
The latter ended up playing in the Test team a few years after making his ODI debut. Bevan could be argued as Australia’s most clutch ODI player to ever play the game. Harvey and Lee were both great all rounders, which proved very useful for the limited overs form of the game.
Mitchell Starc, David Warner, and Matt Wade are the only players playing in the Melbourne T20, that have also played in the Test team this summer.
I don’t think this is good enough.
For the most part, there was only a couple of players that didn’t play every game of the summer. More current players should be striving to be the best cricketer they can be, and improve the parts of their game that they struggle with.
More cricketers should want to do what David Warner has done. I absolutely commend the way he has worked on and improved his game to be a valuable Test opener.
When he first came into the T20 side, he thrashed the bat, and scored at a great strike rate which was perfect for both limited overs forms of cricket.
Since then, he has worked on being much more patient and picking the right balls to hit, and the right balls to leave making him a great addition to the Test top order.
In my opinion, I still don’t think the selectors have the ODI or T20 sides balanced and the more players coming in and out of these teams, the harder the Aussies will find it to rise in the world rankings.
The team needs stability.
If all of these rotations of players are truly due to injury, then there is something terribly wrong with our pace bowlers, and they need to harden up a bit.
Batsmen should be able to play both at a high strike rate when runs are needed quickly (this can also be needed in Tests at times), and when required, conservatively to preserve wickets.
This would have been handy last week when we batted less than half of our 50 overs available.
I doubt I will see it, but it used to be great watching our favourite batsmen hit a patient Test ton one week, and then belt fours and sixes the next.
Or a bowler take 10 wickets in a Test, then bowl a tight four or five run over late in the game to win an ODI or T20.
Either way it’s hard to keep up with who is in the team when you turn on the TV.
lolly
Guest
I don't agree. If they play all formats over the Australian summer, that means that they'll never play domestic cricket and test players should be playing first class cricket when ever possible rather than stuffing around with international T20s.
lolly
Guest
I think George Bailey is good enough for internationals too. He has an adaptable game and looks like he's in control of what he is doing. I've never seen him look over-awed by the step up.
lolly
Guest
At most let players play 2 formats. I'd rather players who are in the mix for India play all the Shield cricket they can before they go, rather than fronting up to white ball cricket.
dasilva
Guest
I think if Bevan was given another chance. He could have done a revival similar to Hayden, Langer, Martyn I remember South Africa touring here and Bevan was completely pummeling them in the tour match scoring a double century against them and the south african bowlers were repeatedly bouncing him still thinking it was his weakness. I thought he was unlucky not to get picked in the squad at least as a reserve batsman in the return tour to South africa (then again considering Australia beat South Africa 3-0 in their own turf, selectors don't have to feel like they can pick anyone and Australia would still win) I think him actually still playing one day cricket probably counted against him as it pigeonhole him as a one day specialist and the selectors didn't even consider him when he was dominating first class cricket. In any case even if I believe Bevan had the potential to excel when given a second chance. That second chance never came and he never proven himself to be a test class batsman
Jake
Guest
Not a bad team, however having to rely on Clarke and Watson to bowl 10 overs between them isn't good enough.
matt h
Guest
I agree with you. the problem with just saying "pick the best guys from the BBL" is that the other international teams use a core of at least half of their Test/ODI teams. The step up in class is too much from the BBL. Finch, Marsh, Laughlin have all struggled with the step up. There are few freebies when batting and your loose balls get creamed. There is little doubt that if they played, say two full seasons in the BBL, that most of the test players would also rise to the top in T20. Warner, Hughes, Watson, Clarke, Hussey, Wade, Johnson, Starc, Siddle, Lyon would all do very well. Just because they do not play in the BBL due to international commitments does not mean they are not in the top X1 T20 players in the country. We only think this way because the BBL is in front of our faces. I think there should be a core of 6-7 minum that play all three formats where possible. Warner, Hughes, Watson, Clarke, Starc, Johnson, Wade, Siddle, Pattinson would be a start
matt h
Guest
Well Shaun MArsh was doing his best Ed Cowan impreonation in the first T20
matt h
Guest
Great post Sheek. Brings back memories. Back then Border, Wessells and Wayne Phillips were my absolute favourites (bit of a lefty bias).
Jason
Guest
Bevan averaged well over 60 in Sheffield Shield for the rest of his career after he was last dropped from the Aust side. It actually might have been closer to 70.
Bearfax
Guest
ps. Never got enough chances and that why he had an average in tests at 30. But his first class average was one of the all time best in Oz.
Bearfax
Guest
Thing is Bevan was good enough as a test player and would walk into the present side. But he was up against some great batsman for Australia at the time. Shades of Hodge.
Bearfax
Guest
Ah Simon O'Donnell. Not a bad OID all rounder. Won us more than a few games.
Bearfax
Guest
Hayden was averaging 50+ at first class level when he had problems in the tests. He had the skill but just needed to correct a few elements of his game, somewhat like Hughes. Finch is averaging 30 at first class level. A big difference. He's an average first class batsman and he certainly wouldnt be a good test batsman. he's a good slogger and will probably eventually succeed at International T20s. But that's it.
dasilva
Guest
I said it before that I believe that t20 and ODI specialist that are selected for Australia should at least have a solid domestic record in first class cricket. Despite the forms, they are all games of cricket and at international level you are facing higher standards of cricket. You have to have class and solid technique to survive international ODI and t20i. Guys like Michael Bevan dominated first class cricket (50+ average),and whilst he wasn't good enough for test cricket he still had a good enough technique developed from first class cricket, similarly nathan bracken had a solid FC record (average 26 with the ball), Symonds was a good FC batsman (average 40+), Ian Harvey had a decent FC record (34 with the bat and 27 with the ball which is perfectly acceptable for an allrounder) My view is you filter the players who had a good FC record so average over 35 for batting (ideally it will be 40+ but we don't have many 40+ batsman these days) and under 30 for bowling for FC cricket and then you picked the best List A or T-20 batsman and bowlers from that list Guys like Ben Laughlin shouldn't be near the international side even though he had a good list a and big bash record (average 25 in domestic cricket). However he average over 50 in First class cricket, it doesn't suggest a player who could rise to the occassion at international level. England made the mistake in the first two t20 world cup when they selected a fair amount of t20 specialist and they flopped at the tournament. it was commented that you may be able to bash a few runs at domestic t20 cricket but at international level you really have to have the class to handle excellent bowling. I don't think of many (or any) good ODI or T20 specialist who sucks at first class cricket
Johnno
Guest
No Dav Whatmore sheek, glad you had Murray Bennett in there., saw highlights of him Loved his big square glasses lol. Andrew Zeezers was very talented he deserves a start too. Glad Shiipperd and Tom Hogan are there too. Haysman now a good commentator on STH African tv, he is a good commentator, him and Kepler Wessells are on tv there.
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
On the flip side, are we creating jacks of all trades, who are proficient in all forms but masters of none. Shouldn't we prefer to have our best XI focusing exclusively on honing their test match skills? I know that's what I'd prefer.
Renegade
Guest
Thanks Tavis, My team/squad was more for tests and ODI....i think we could certainly use the same players for both of these forms. I don't really have much time for T20s at international level.....i think it should just be played domestically. I think Marsh is good enough for ODI and tests as a middle order batsmen....I know i'm in the minority however i think George Bailey is good enough for internationals....the test will be seeing how he goes overseas though. As you said, there is no reason why the likes of Warner, Watson, Hughes, Clarke, Wade, etc can't give all 3 forms a go but i would personally have them play tests and ODI only.
Chui
Guest
Reminds me a bit of Hayden when he was in no mans land between Shield and Test cricket years ago. A superman in state colours bludgeoning bowlers all over the place, to meek and mild at test level getting out to tentative shots. Looks psychological to me.
Renegade
Guest
Sorry Dan, I was referring to the one say squad in particular to show that the test players can play both ODI and tests....I don't really care who plays in the T20s though....BBL form is probably the best measure but i don't believe there should be a place for T20 internationals at all - that's for another time though.
nachos supreme
Guest
Dirk Welham. Best name in world cricket. Sounds like some kind of Victorian era explorer.....and the best specs at the time....ahem I digress.As you were.