After Australia’s 2009 Ashes debacle, while the Australian cricket hierarchy was slaving away in their laboratories devising the Argus Review, I started working on a little project of my own.
Now finally after four long years of thought and analysis I have come up with the following cricket selection bombshell that I feel will make Australia’s cricket team more competitive in all forms of cricket.
From this day forward, all cricketing selections should be dictated by form and past results.
When considering form, selectors should only consider form and results in the format that they are selecting for.
For example only Test and First Class cricket results will be used to select the Australian Test cricket team. Additionally a cricketer should not be selected on the basis that they will perform better in Test cricket than their first class results suggest.
If Shaun Marsh averages 35 in the shield over 77 matches, why would anyone be surprised that he averages 27 in Tests?
After all Test cricket is supposed to be more difficult. Sure, if two candidates have similar results and they are hard to split, then take a punt on the youngster. In all other situations choose the candidate that has the best form and results.
Yes, yes, I know it’s a completely ground-breaking concept and it might be too modern for many among you. But trust me, listen to the following evidence.
The following are all Australian Test selections over the last three years. Each one was selected without a first class record and/or form sufficient to back up their claims to be Test players.
Steven Smith
Peter George
Xavier Doherty
Michael Beer
Nathan Lyon
Shaun Marsh
Pat Cummins
Mitchell Starc
Rob Quiney
John Hastings
Moises Henriques
Glenn Maxwell
Nearly all of these selections have been failures and to me it’s not a surprise. It’s entirely predictable.
Of this list only Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc and Nathan Lyon could have been said to be successful.
Pat Cummins delivered a six wicket haul and then succumbed to injuries.
Mitchell Starc has potential and has delivered some solid results, however I don’t think it’s a coincidence that his Test numbers mirror his First Class numbers.
Nathan Lyon has been a solid performer in his role as lead spinner. I’m prepared to forgive some of the past spin selections because often there was no better candidate available.
However the recently concluded Australia versus India Test highlights the problems in Australian cricket. Instead of staying with an honest, hard working, proven performer who’d recently had a few bad matches, they haphazardly selected Doherty and Maxwell.
Neither of these two players have the form or results to back up their claims to a Test place.
The next one in the firing line is Moises Henriques, he had a great debut performance in India.
Congratulations to him. Despite his exceptional debut, in Shield cricket he’s at best an ok batsmen.
As a bowler he is a solid partnership breaker, who does well on helpful wickets. If we are expecting him to average 40 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball in Tests than I think we are fooling ourselves.
Selection isn’t a perfect science, and it’s easy to make mistakes.
Selectors are allowed to make mistakes. But surely the core principle of selection should be to pick the best candidate available and then give him a chance to perform.
It’s not quantum physics. In the past when Australian had a great team full of star players, choosing a young gun with potential was a great idea. He had a chance to learn from the best and got a great chance to experience Test quality opponents without undue pressure.
In my opinion exposing young unproven cricketers to the current climate where the public is clamouring for results and each player is under immense pressure to hold his place in the side is asking far too much.
Aaron Pickering
Roar Rookie
I agree with everything you've said here matt h. There obviously needs to be a balance in the way you select your teams. What I'm really trying to stress is that they have the balance incorrect. Over the past three years they have selected far too many project players and as a result have missed out on potentially solid test performers. If you spot a genius in the making then pick him, but there has just been too many speculative selections.
marees
Guest
Which is worse - strangling the captain or texting insulting messages about him to the opposition :-(
marees
Guest
was Katich's low average (23 in last 10 innings) a result of being run-out by Watson a few times?
Red Kev
Guest
He got injured at the wrong time and at the wrong age.
St Mark W
Guest
I completely agree with the core selection Aaron suggests, with the selectors main job be be assessment of technique. I think an important issue that wasn't touched on was, only 'recent form' should be considered and a more concise definition of 'recent form' agreed upon. Is 'recent form' the only the last season or year? Or does it include 2, 3, 4, 5 or more seasons/years? Personally, i think anything beyond 3 years is irrelevant. The other thought that has crossed my mind is adding new stats to somehow reflect the relative importance of performances. The only thought I had for doing do was percentage of total so 50 in a total of 100 would be 50% of the total and 50 in a total of 500 would be 10% of the total. A similar idea for bowling but incorporate any wickets taken as well as any runs conceded.
planko
Roar Guru
XDO is not a test cricketer ....I am happy to be wrong on this and happy to hear an argument to counter...
St Mark W
Guest
Not quite correct, Katich had an average of 23 in his last 10 innings (5 matches). He had an average of 47 in his last 10 matches (20 innings). He scored his last 50 in his second last match and his last 100 in his 7th last match.
matt h
Guest
Very true, he won us that series with North and Johnson. A stranger sentence has never been written. But it was an accident waiting to happen. The selectors have had three goes now to learn this. As I said in the 2nd paragraph his stats were too good to ignore. I was one pushing for Hughes but not as hard as some others. In hindisght he might have come through the limited over ranks first. Hughes was more an example of arm chair selectros like ourselves pushing for selection on stats etc without actually seeing him bat. Who has seen Burns bat outside the Big Bash? Doolan? Back in the 90's/2000's you could more reliably select on stats because the Shield was strong enough. a good Shield average at that time meant that your technique could stand up, because the quality attacks would find you out. Hindsight is the easiest way to select isn't it. Not for one minute do I envy the job of a selector. PS What I wouldn't give for Jamie Cox right now, as a batsman not a selector
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
Hughes did score twin tons in his second test. Hard to say he didn't justify his selection.
matt h
Guest
There has to be some room for the selectors to also use their supposed cricket expertise to look at the technique and temperament of the player. Michael Clarke averaged under 40 when selected and that went ok. Shane Warne's stats were downright average. But experts could see that they were special. The problem now appears to be that the selectors are using this "method" to the exclusion of all others. It should be the exception not the rule. To be fair to the selectors, Steve Smith actually has pretty good first class batting stats. But this is where the selectors supposed circket expertise should again come the fore. The flaws in his technique should have overridden the fact that he has flogged a few Shield attacks around the place. To a lesser extent the same could have been said in respect of Philip Hughes. However his stats for his age were too good to ignore. Just off-topic and on Hughes, who is rightly getting bagged by all and sundry, it is getting harder all the time to find anyone who said that they pushed hard for him to come into the test side back in 2009 and then raised him to the level of "next Bradman" after the South African tour. Apparently all of those people have left the country. I remember the media and social media frenzy demanding Matt Hayden be dropped for Hughes during the summer prior to that tour. It got very out of hand. I guess Matt Hayden sitting up in the commentary box got the last laugh. He finishes his career with a test average over 50 (name another Australian opening batsman who can say that), 30 test centuries at a rate per innings in the top few this country has ever producted, and then got to make his fortune in the IPL. The point of all that is that most people pushing Hughes' case at the time had never seen him bat. They just had some skill at pulling up scorecards on Cricinfo and reading stats. There has to be some actual cricket knowledge employed in these selections and analysing the conditions of play, otherwise we should just get a computer program to pick the teams.
barry
Guest
probably because he averaged 28 in his last 10 tests with one 50
the pie chucker
Guest
he nearly strangled clarkey in the scg dressing room
marees
Roar Rookie
explain to me, why Katich was axed?