While some may argue a poor performance in India was always on the cards, the sequence of events arising from Mickey Arthur’s decision to leave four players out of the third Test has done more damage than a dispirited 4-0 series loss in India could ever have.
As you would expect, everyone has an opinion. If Mickey Arthur and Michael Clarke had already not produced enough ambiguity, Pat Howard took a turn at explaining the axing decision on Tuesday.
His statements has only added more doubt to an already complicated situation.
Judging by what Mickey Arthur and Pat Howard have been telling us, the one lingering issue with Australian Test team was lack of discipline and this issue was so critical that it had to be addressed immediately.
This was despite the expense of making four players unavailable for selection, in a Test match that we desperately needed to win.
Since this real issue behind Michael Clarke’s team’s non-performance has been addressed in the most appropriate way as Pat Howard would like you to believe, Australian team should now go back to their winning ways from the third Test.
It sounds obvious from the logic we have been told but highly unlikely to happen in reality.
What Mickey Arthur, Michael Clarke and Pat Howard have really done is that they have picked the wrong problem and addressed it in the worst possible way.
The real issues are completely different and shouldn’t surprise many people as I am merely stating the issues that have been identified by the people other than team management over and over again in last few months.
Here is a list of ‘five real reasons’ behind the current mess we are in:
1) Wrong Selections
John Inverarity and Co have done an extremely poor job over and over again at selecting the best team. A selector is similar to a recruitment manager and should be judged on the success of the people they hire.
If bulk of the people you hire either get fired or don’t find a good fit with the role, you must be doing something wrong. John Inverarity has made too many bad hirings for Australian cricket and there are very few successful recruits.
An example is Phillip Hughes, who was about to be axed for a third time at the end of second test and at best will last one more test.
Ed Cowan has been a chronic underperformer yet is being persisted with and Maxwell has simply been hired for a wrong job.
Enough has already been said about the stupidity of the rotation policy if selections were not already bad enough.
2) Michael Clarke and Mickey Arthur shouldn’t be part of selection panel
Shane Warne has been saying it all along. Michael Clarke and Mickey Arthur shouldn’t be selecting the team.
When you give the captain power to choose his players, he will automatically pick those who are easy to work with but those may not be the best people around and this seems to have happened in Michael Clarke’s case.
3) Michael Clarke and Mickey Arthur are sitting on the wrong side of table
Michael Clarke and Mickey Arthur should represent players instead of trying to represent management. What trust are players are going to have in Mickey Arthur with the knowledge that anything between them and Mickey could result in Mickey calling a media conference and handing out punishments in public?
They need to now work very hard to re-establish the culture of trust within the team.
4) Lack of Accountability
There seems to no accountability whatsoever from top to the bottom.
If an embarrassing loss or an emphatic win doesn’t change much the way people are paid, treated or retained in the set up, they will eventually become indifferent to outcomes and this is exactly what’s happening to Australian cricket.
Arthur, Inverarity and Howard don’t even seem bothered to make an explanation for humiliating losses to India in first two tests.
Similar to the way selection panel makes call on dropping players for non-performance, it is about time that a similar call should be made for a lot of people involved with the administration of cricket in Australia.
5) Pat Howard
Pat Howard have not played any professional cricket in his entire life and probably doesn’t understand the game that much either.
His ‘high performance unit’ has distracted the management and player away from focussing on real ‘match performance’ and so far he has nothing to show for his work benefitting our cricket in any way.
On top of this he seems to have rather poor people skills and publicly questioning Australia’s vice captain’s commitment to the team should get him sacked if not for the lack of any tangible contribution to Australian cricket.
Not everyone will agree with these reasons and there may be more to the crisis than we know publicly, but one thing is certain that we can’t get out of this mess by keep doing things that have led us to this crisis to begin with.
A change is needed and sooner we recognize the issues, the quicker we can get to the solutions.
Bradm
Guest
Even a flat track, a washed out first day and decent first inning total is not going to save us. India will be 300 ahead by close of the play today, forcing Australia to bat on a 5th day pitch.
Bearfax
Guest
Well its an improvement in the third test isnt it. On a reportedly good batting pitch, Australia has managed to be within range of 300 and could get to 350. Does suggest a draw for this one, but at least some of the batsmen got a start. Warner can usually be relied upon to get a 50 every three or so innings but still has trouble going on with it. But I think that will come. Cowan does it again. Scores enough just to save his position yet again. Shouldnt be there but he's given so many chances that inevitably he is going to get a reasonable score eventually. Rode his luck of course yet again with several chances against him put down. Hughes is going through a horror stretch with spin bowling and probably now needs to go away and work on it. He'll be fine though on English wickets. Clarke proved he is human and was out for a duck Smith proved a lot of critics wrong. This kid is the real thing, just very raw. He handled the spin bowling better than any one in the Australian side to date, including Clarke and Henriques, the latter who has gone off the boil. Smith is somewhat like Warner. An attacking batsman who gets himself out too often with reckless shots but has the potential to be a dynamic batsman. Remember he's on 24. Surprise that Haddin got a start but dint go on with it. Did we really expect anything different. I think they'll survive for a draw, but that depends on their second dig. The pitch seems too good for India to miss out on a big first innings. Not sure that their bowling attack is up to the task of limiting their score.
Harsh Sinha
Roar Guru
Transition Phase like no other. Which team had lost all its best players at one go? The selection committee or internal affairs might be the reason for today's pathetic performance but its due to transitional phase in Australian Cricket.
Bearfax
Guest
The issue with backchat is that it tells you there is not consensus and that decisions are being made unilaterally, or at least by a few without the right of consultation. These are professional cricketers and each highly skilled in particular areas of the game. It would seem imperative that players, especially those in specific roles, should be afforded the right to challenge strategies that directly relate to their skill. Pattinson for example knows what is best for him as a fast bowler and his voice should be seriously considered when discussing tactics relating to fast bowling. Hughes, Warner, should have the same right regarding batting. Seems to me that the leadership group are saying there is no right of reply. That perhaps explains why Micky is asking for written comments. because in a public forum, such suggestions can be debated. When its written, its unlikely that it can be debated and possibly just finds itself in the bin. Any leader who doesnt listen to the concern of those for whom he is responsible, is not worth being a leader.
AndyMack
Guest
think u got 5/5 in this one. well said....
AndyMack
Guest
Cannot see AB ever putting up with back chat, would have dealt with it on the spot, without it becoming an issue. What a joke. And i like Clarke......!!!!!
Col
Guest
Back chat, giving attitude, cheek - like I said on another thread Bill, Clarkey now has a team of "Clarkeys" to manage. I dont think he is the problem, but he has paved the way FOR the problem - which are the players. One self absorbed, brash, opinionated youngster can be managed within a team. But a group of this kind would be tough work - especially without senior support. Clearly Arthur is out of touch with these guys but you cant get stuck into him for trying something. Maybe the tough love, team first approach will work. But I ain't holding my breath.
Bill Hamlet
Guest
The problem seems to be with Michael Clarke. He has had problems with team mates before namely Andrew Symonds and Simon Katich had him up against a wall threatening him. Just recently he upset Michael Hussey so his people skills obviously leave a lot to be desired. What is wrong with Australian sport when we have a South African cricket coach and a New Zealand Rugby coach. And we have an ex Rugby player in Pat howard what a joke. Clarke needs the backing of the players so have a beer with them instead of being a dobber and crawling to management
Bearfax
Guest
Sad thing is that many of the players selected can potentially become top line test players. But the problem over there is multiple faceted. Firstly the lack of experienced players to help meld these guys together, to give them confidence when things arent working. As I've said in other commentaries, this is the most inexperienced team to have visited the sub continent in over 30 years. And there seems a very poor attempt to offer individual support. These guys are exposed on the field and exposed off it. Secondly there seems a marked separation between management (including Arthur and Clarke) and the players. Obviously some are in the favour of this polygamy, but others arent and given Siddle, Johnson and Watson are the only other experienced players other than Clarke and that at least two of them are on the outer (Watson and Johnson), there is no one there to take some of these young players under their wing. Thirdly, having known the conditions in India Australia faced, the selection group held most of the players back playing ODI matches, so they had little time to acclimatise to the conditions. Better that they had played ODI matches first in India to help with the adjustment. Those sent over early were fringe players like Khawaja, Smith and Maxwell. Little wonder Hughes and Warner are struggling, along with Wade as wicket keeper on a totally different type of pitch and our bowlers just thrown to the lions. The team as a whole should have been there many weeks before and playing as many non test games as possible to help with the adjustment. One obvious flaw was leaving Khawaja out of the team from the start. He is after Clarke the next best recognised exponent against spin bowling, yet he didnt get a look in. Finally the failure of selectors to make appropriate team selections after the first test. Dropping Lyon after one test was foolish. Promoting Doherty and Maxwell and dropping Starc made it worse. Continuing with a failing opening pair for now over a dozen tests is crazy. Watson should have replaced Cowan and Khawaja should have moved to 5 and Clarke to 3, Hughes to 4 or vice versa. Henriques should be 6 and Wade 7. Such a team might not have won the match, but I'm convinced they would have bee far more competitive. This series has been poorly prepared, some selections made are diabolical, there is no experienced support group for the players and you've got a group of detached school teachers treating these guys like children
JMW
Guest
Losing does not constitute a crisis! In a competitive situation between two competitive entities the odds strongly suggest that one entity will lose and the other will emerge triumphant. Some of these gratuitous kickings of the Aussie team are going to look a little silly and premature if our boys can rally and square the series. Nobody writing is closely connected to the team so to denigrate the effort is nothing more than uniformed conjecture. Let's wait and see the end result before we dispassionately and objectively analyse the facts and conclude a balanced appraisal of what went right and what can be improved. I'm not prepared to concede defeat until the series is over and the fat lady is in full voice! I recall a lot of very good players emerged from our past periods of bottoming out and their competitiveness and desire to win was exemplary as a consequence.