John Inverarity, take a bow. You and your band of selectors made two tough decisions leading into this Test, and it has paid off so well.
Nathan Lyon was replaced by Xavier Doherty, and Mitchell Starc axed for Glenn Maxwell. Gutsy, but just brilliant.
For those of you who don’t recognize sarcasm, the above sentences could be a definition for it.
At the conclusion of the second day in Hyderbad, which included a clinic from Indian batsmen Murali Vijay and Cheteshwar Pujara that has the Indians 1/311 in response to Australia’s 9/237 declared, it was clear to all observers that the experimentation with the selections in the series thus far has not worked.
In fact, it has been a disaster.
It must be said that Pujara and Vijay were fantastic on day two, schooling the Australians on how to bat in the subcontinent, and in Test cricket in general. Credit must be given where it is due.
However, the bewildering nature of the before mentioned selections was exemplified as the Aussie bowling attack lacked depth, and went through the entirety of day two rarely looking like taking a wicket.
Aside from, once again, James Pattinson, the Australian pace attack lacked penetration and although Peter Siddle and Moises Henriques’ performances were filled with heart and grit, those two attributes don’t take wickets by themselves.
Doherty lacked revolutions, and variety, and although the only two chances of the day aside from Sehwag’s wicket (caught behind off Siddle) came off the Tasmanian’s bowling, Pujara and Vijay losing concentration was to blame rather than any wilyness of the bowler.
After the first Test, and the first two days in Hyderabad, the Australian cricketing community will look forward to the justification behind said selections, as is it hard to fathom for the average fan.
Dropping Starc can be substantiated adequately; the young left-armer struggled in the first Test and needs to rethink his plans to succeed on subcontinent wickets.
It could be said too that on its own Lyon’s axing is fair, but only if it had been the only change to the line-up.
Rightly or wrongly, it is clear that the selection panel wanted a second spinner in the line-up after the catastrophe in Chennai but why then, do Inverarity and his men have the best spinner in the country sitting on the sidelines?
Despite Lyon struggling in the first Test, he is still the country’s best spinning option, and in the squad selected Doherty is second in line. So doesn’t it make sense that Starc would axed in favour of Doherty, and some faith showed in Lyon?
Despite rumours of a metaphorical black line being struck through his name, it is obvious now more than ever how much NSW skipper Stephen O’Keefe needed to be on that plane.
Having proved himself at shield level, particularly this season – O’Keefe is the leading spinning wicket-taker in the competition, with 17 at 27 – along with the injuries to Michael Beer and Jon Holland and his ability as a lower-order batsman O’Keefe should clearly be Lyon’s Indian deputy, which makes his absence even more bewildering.
Chirpiness, overconfidence and arrogance have been labelled as the reasons behind the 28 year old’s non-inclusion, as these attributes will be detrimental to the team’s dynamic.
Team dynamic though, is built on and based around results, so perhaps it should be priority number one to win games to ensure a winning culture is built around the team.
For this to happen, the best possible line-up must be picked for each Test and, unfortunately, it seems impossible for the current selectors to get it right.
Blaze
Guest
Possibly, but it was desperation... However I really don't think it mattered how the Indians viewed it to Clarke... ( possibly did) i believe it was done more for the Aussie skippers men more than anything.. It's a sapping day mentally when your men are completely out classed, no harm in giving your men a signal that your captain believes in them. Who knows, with a more talented team, it may have worked....
Jaggers
Guest
I understand that but to me the declaration smacked of desperation. Like it was the last throw of the dice ... on day 1. I am sure that is how the Indians viewed it.
deccas
Guest
If those two put on a hundred we'd still have been trailing by 200 odd. Everyone knows openers hate those short periods, they'd been in the field all day and our opening bowler has by far looked the most likely. We had nothing to gain if they stayed in for a few, we were destined for a far below par score. It was a throw of the dice to hopefully get a foothold in their top order with one in the evening and a couple in the morning with a bit of moisture in the wicket and I think a good declaration. If you think its a bad one you simply haven't thought about it enough.
swannies05
Roar Pro
Dead f-ing right Blaze
Blaze
Guest
It really wasn't a matter of declaring in feel of a position of strength, how can you possibly believe that any captain of any team would do that on the basis of believed strength in the position that we were found in?.... Judging by your "maverick" term of Clarke it is clear that you don't like him personally and that's fine. I personally think it was a declaration made to not only catch the Indians a little off guard but to at least try and get an early wicket at the end of the day to somewhat prop up the teams spirits. Although this didn't happen, it's thinking outside the square and it's what we as the Australian public have been crying out for, for a long time. 20 runs ain't gonna save us but smart captaincy may let us walk away with a shred of belief.
Disco
Roar Guru
Australian is dominating off the back of the NSP brave selection policy. I mean, the maverick leader/selector declared his side's first innings, so he must have felt he was in a position of strength. Pattinson and Doherty perhaps putting on 20 for the last wicket? Nah, stuff that, the Australian team isn't in need of runs.
swannies05
Roar Pro
Good article Matthew, and I agree with a lot of your points. I am personally a huge fan of SOK and he should be over there IMO. However, I have to disagree with your opinion that "Team dynamic though, is built on and based around results". It is most certainly not. A good team dynamic comes from factors such as effort and leadership. People would have to be extremely one eyed to still accuse Clarke of not displaying strong leadership, both on and off the field. As for effort, I don't think our bowlers' efforts can be questioned, they might not be getting the wickets we need however I think this is due to a lack of actual talent than effort (I'm looking at Doherty and Maxwell here). Our batsmen on the other hand have shown little application and their positions should be in far greater question than the likes of Lyon and Doherty. Spinners can bowl with far more flight and general confidence if they had 400+ to bowl at instead of the meagre 237 the 'best batsmen' in our land conjured up on Day 1. I fully supported the attacks on Doherty and Maxwell after Day Two as neither of them would be in my team ahead of Lyon and SOK, however, at least it seems like they are toiling away for their country. I'm not sure the same can be said for Wade, Watson. Warner and Hughes.
Johnno
Guest
Nathan Lyon is rubbish, they had to try something, just SOK and the WA 19-yr old were better options.