With the second Test in Hyderabad all said and done the embattled Aussies will now have to win the last two Test matches to keep their hands on the Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
However, a small part of me hopes this unlikely scenario doesn’t become reality.
I will begin with our batting. The Indian spinners have toyed with Phil Hughes in his four innings this series, he has salvaged just 25 runs at an average of 6.25, including two ducks.
Coming from a young man who is one of the most talented young players in the world, I do not see how the Australian selectors can pass this off as acceptable.
Number three is the most important batting position in the side and Phil Hughes looks too fragile since he’s taken the role.
Secondly, I do not understand the banter and discussion regarding Ed Cowan, for me personally I give him a big, fat tick since he made his début.
Prior to this series, he was averaging 32.82, which doesn’t do him justice. He’s a much better player than that and I admire how he knuckles down and wants to play the long innings.
He has had a spree of scores around 40 runs and I do believe he needs to go on with his starts.
Given that, I would like to see the selectors give Cowan a chance at three. I think the opening role has been a par performance, but I see more opportunities for him at three.
I see him as a player who can steady the ship if an early wicket falls, as he takes his time and doesn’t give his wicket away easily. A skill I believe to be an important element of that position in the order.
Regardless of where he bats, I see Cowan – although 30 years of age – improving with more time in the Test arena. He needs to be there.
Then, there’s Pup. 329*, 210, 259*, 230. There’s nothing worth mentioning around him. I don’t care what position he bats, he needs support.
Whether you bring in a player like Rob Quiney who knows how to hold his own, or you bring in a player like Usman Khawaja who I regard as a “quiet achiever” (as he gets runs and receives no praise for it) I don’t mind.
As long as someone can stick around with Pup long enough to salvage something in the runs column for the Aussies. Henriques did it in Chennai.
Watson for me isn’t an automatic selection. He need centuries, not 20 odd. Especially when he gets out to an appalling shot like he did in the first innings of the Hyderabad Test match.
He doesn’t value his wicket. In saying this, if he is picked in the side, it’s as an opener, enough said.
Although the bowlers have struggled on this tour – managing 22 wickets for 1,125 runs – I still think we have the right combination as far as the seamers are concerned.
With the likes of Pattinson, Starc, Siddle, Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Bird, throw Cummins in there and you’re sorted.
It’s the spinners that need work, yet everyone is saying that it’s not.
Stuart MacGill has recently been appointed as Australia’s spin mentor. One of the first things he said was that Xavier Doherty is not a Test standard bowler.
A couple of days later, Doherty is our frontline spinner when we have our backs up against the wall, and isn’t doing anything that will seemingly get us out of the situation any time soon.
This just shows the standard of our spinners. I hope that having Stuart MacGill in and around the Australian team will spark some better decisions on the selection panel – why Steve O’Keefe didn’t go to India I’ll never know – and guys like Adam Zampa, Michael Beer and Fawad Ahmed will get a look.
I doubt much will change on this tour of India, the last two Tests will result in huge defeats as the first couple did. But here is my side for the first Ashes Test where Australia need to bring their A-game.
1. Shane Watson
2. David Warner
3. Ed Cowan
4. Michael Clarke (c)
5. Usman Khawaja
6. Moises Henriques
7. Matthew Wade (w)
8. Glenn Maxwell – May surprise a few with this choice. Why have a spinner that can only take wickets and will most likely fail anyway? I believe we should take a spinner that can also make plenty of runs with the chance of snaring a few Poms!
9. Peter Siddle
10. James Pattinson
11. Patrick Cummins
I hope I have helped you all think outside the box a little bit with regards to the Ashes team.
Cricket Australia need to do something.
kid
Guest
I think your point about steve waugh is off the mark. He succeeded despite possessing less natural talent than others of his era. He was picked for his hard work and determination to score runs in any conditions. It was mark waugh who had all the talent and yet was forever in the shaddow.
Jonah Anthony
Guest
Yes, stick with him until we lose in India 4-0, and then in England 5-0. I do think we need an upcoming talent in the side, but Hughes has no resistance to spin at all, therefore, I'd rather have Khawaja in there. I heard a statistic the other day, that in Hughes' last 40 balls of facing spin, he has scored no runs, and been dismissed 4 times, I don't think we can afford to have our number 3 failing like that. I must admit, it would be a tough decision to leave him out, but I'd rather see Khawaja get another go.
Manoj
Guest
No i think he needs a rest in this series, by all means bring him back for the ashes but for this series Khawaja should come in.
Red Kev
Guest
I have decided I have over-reacted to Hughes' failures so far, stick with him for a while.
Anthony
Guest
If we're playing Doolan, Khawaja, Marsh or Ferguson in the ashes, we need to play them at 6. Whether they're used to being top order players or not, it's the best way to ease them in. Ponting, Martyn, Katich, Langer are all names we gave time in the middle order before pushing them up.
Mark T
Guest
@Jonah I think he did very well in the Australian summer and while in the past he has struggled to convert his good form to the test arena, I do think this time around he's a much better player. However, playing in India for the first time is hard and he does have issues against the spinning ball but then no-one in the top order really has made many runs. Also, remember Ponting's tour of India in 2001 when he was 27, 3 years older than Hughes. That abysmal tour was followed by a golden period for Ponting, 2002 - 2006 which defined his greatness. I can understanding dropping him for the India tour but I would definitely have him in there for the Ashes. The wickets are different there and he did well there in the Winter last year in England (averaged 100 in T20 and 80 in List A). I do think, however, that we should persist with him for more than 2 tests of failure. Look at Steve Waugh; he averaged 12 after 5 tests and didn't score a century until his 26th. If Australia lost patience, then we would have been deprived of a great. I think Hughes needs the experience of playing in India and he's a player who can surprise us. When he isn't doing well he looks really ugly and you think he'll never get back to form but then the next match he scores a century (the ODI series against Sri Lanka is a great example). It's that hunger for big runs and that when he does get a start he goes on that separates him from other young talents such as Marsh, Ferguson who never really achieved to their potential. Even Clarke was mediocre many years ago but now look at him. My verdict is to persist with Phillip Hughes for at least until the end of the next Ashes series.
Jonah Anthony
Guest
The guy scored 115 and 160 against South Africa in his second test match. There's no doubt he can play. However, he is struggling putting this form into the test arena, which is why Phillip Hughes is not in my top 11.
ANON69
Guest
"Coming from a young man who is one of the most talented young players in the world", How often have Aussie journalists have said this about their cricketers. Simple fact is they are not good enough. 22 matches, 1300 runs average of 33 and you consider him one of the most talented young players in the World. Awful technique whether he is facing fast bowlers or spinners.