Steven Smith’s inclusion and Usman Khawaja’s lack of in the Australian party in India is the most questionable thing to come of this series. Forget everything else.
You can question giving the captaincy to Shane Watson after being dropped from the third Test or the place of Glenn Maxwell in this squad, let alone the side, if you would desire.
But continuing to deny Usman Khawaja a place in the side, while putting a halt to his domestic duties, must do little for both his technical game and his confidence.
Put aside for a moment those other things that have arisen these past few weeks and realise that a very promising player is being denied a place in this Test team by a man who has been groomed to fit a limited overs format.
Originally I didn’t buy into the idea that the selections were ruining the team’s chances of making a real impact on the subcontinent.
However I’m becoming more and more convinced I should be applying for a job on the selection panel – along with thousands of other Australian cricket fans.
So why then do I want Khawaja so badly to take Smith’s place?
Statistics won’t allow you to accurately compare the pair. They’d tell you that Smith has the higher Test average and even an extra Test to his name. Meaningless.
The real issue lies in their respective backgrounds in different match formats.
Smith has vast experience in limited overs cricket and much more match time for his country. Khawaja is far less experienced, but until his recent foray into limited overs cricket (which was a bizarre selection to say the least), he was being groomed to play in a style that works in a Test match format.
Instead he’s getting no experience over in India except getting better at sitting down. Not the most useful of cricket skills.
Before this series neither man had played a Test match in over two years. Doesn’t logic say if you had to choose between the two you should play the man better suited and, more importantly, the one who has practiced to adapt, to Test cricket?
Khawaja has also had no chance to prove himself on a turning wicket, having played all his few Tests on lively, pace-favouring wickets in Australia and South Africa.
He could benefit from a change, as well as gain some crucial experience on a vastly different surface.
Steve Smith’s 92 in the previous Test is an outlier in an otherwise poor showing throughout his career in Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka on said pitches. That’s not just in Test cricket but in all formats.
If people want to also discuss Smith’s flexibility in the squad due to his bowling, I’d really be hoping Smith wasn’t included in the squad for his bowling in the first place.
He’s bowled six wickets from nine innings of Test match bowling in Asia. Not even close enough to warrant a future place in a Test bowling attack. Smith has been given the chance to prove himself with both bat and ball in Test cricket and, until his 92, he looked like a horrendous choice.
Now he’s given himself a safety buffer with that score and pushes Khawaja further away from the first team. But credit where it’s due to Smith for doing so – if you can step up when the pressure’s on, it becomes harder to remove you from a place you’re trying to keep.
Seeing as these two occupy different roles in a team it may be hard to attempt to compare them.
But I don’t understand the mentality of the selectors by picking someone they’ve played for so long in game with completely different attitudes to scoring rates and play style. It hurts the more I think about it.
Don’t think for a moment I’m sour with Smith, I actually feel sorry for the man. He’s got a game suited for one day and T20 cricket but seems lost in the whites.
Still, I don’t understand how we can expect incredible results from players when you shift them between formats as simply as pawns on a chessboard.
Expecting great results to follow from limited overs to Test cricket is like asking a union player to adapt to the stop and start nature of league.
What message is that sending to up and coming players? That their experience in different formats and the time dedicated to learning them counts for absolutely nothing? Not very inspiring.
At times it feels harsh to put the boot into the selection panel, sitting here behind the safety of a computer screen and my keyboard, but when they continue to make questionable choice after questionable choice it takes the sting out of being so scathing.
Sydney Kiwi
Guest
I do feel Smith deserved another go to see more after his inning, reward good results. However one of the others could have given way for Kahwaja to see what he is made of, its crazy he does't get a game even when Clarke is injured, I guessing unless there is a change in selectors and management it may be the last time you see Khawaja in the Green and Gold.
Peeeko
Guest
I think punters shield form has shown that he was still the best number3
ryan
Guest
well said
Matt F
Roar Guru
The SCG hasn't been a consistent turner in years and years, especially in the Shield. In the Shield it's almost always a green top because of the number of quicks that NSW produce
Brendon
Guest
Plays at the SCG like Henriques, that's got to help
pope paul v11
Guest
classic
FARNHAM
Guest
Smith has done reasonably well on this tour and I don't see Smith's inclusion as the reason for Khawaja's non-selection. I have no idea why Maxwell was picked as the all-rounder when clearly Smith is fills that position now. IMO: Maxwell out, Khawaja in. At least that's how I see it for the final test in India. The batting order should have looked like: Cowan and Warner, Hughes, Khawaja, Watson, Smith, Wade, Johnson, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon.
buddha9
Guest
Yeah but these excuses about Khawaja are pathetic too -- I mean he's not tough enough? What, not tough enough to lose three tests in a row? Not tough enough to fail miserably like hughes? Not tough enough to slog a full toss down a fielders throat when he's 6 and the team is 126/5 like Maxwell? I mean give me a break -- it's starting to appear the only thing he's not enough is white enough -- sorry but there you go -its getting hard to come up with any other reason.
Tenash
Guest
now i don't know if i'm high while posting this but steve smith actually looks like the best player of spin in the Australian team, ofcourse excluding M.C.
Pradeep
Guest
TedS I share your frustration mate
Pradeep
Guest
Well said nick_brisbane
Pradeep
Guest
Red kev is right, Arthur had been making excuses since the Sri Lanka series against UTK, now there are no more excuses, get the kid in
Pradeep
Guest
Yes smith looks good, khawaja shouldn't come in au his expense but as part of a 6 batsman lineup with Watson bowling
St Mark W
Guest
Usman Khawaja's high performance player management by Cricket Australia, in general, and the NSP, in particular, has been quick simply deplorable, irrespective of casualness in his attitude. Khawaja should have, preferably, been give a Test match on this tour or sent home to play the Shield final. That being acknowledged, your choice of Smith as the Australian batsman least deserving to play this Test appears to be based on a faulty perception of Smith's abilities, which you now appear to have acknowledged. I think Watson or Maxwell, the outcome of the NSP's all rounder obssession, or, even, Ed Cowan would have been more valid choices.
Pradeep
Guest
+1
Nick_Brisbane
Guest
Firstly it is ridiculous that Khawaja is sent to India and hardly plays a game (homework not withstanding) while at least he could be back playing in the Shield final. Secondly IMO he has the potential to be a genuine test player but instead we have this obsession for second rate players like Maxwell - we certainly aren't preparing ourselves well for England. And now it appears that 'dodgy back' Clarke has to go and play Indian 20/20 in preparation for the Ashes Good article in the Australian today by Gideon Haigh about how the terrible scheduling of Shield Games is contributing to our players inability to score centuries
Brendon
Guest
I agree with you in regards to Sydney, was more talking about this tour specifically, it's a massive shame that he didn't get a go in the fourth test against SL and the selectors decision to play the four quicks ranks up there as one of the worst decisions I've seen by this inept NSP, along with Perth
Matt F
Roar Guru
And you are making up your own story
Matt F
Roar Guru
As for your question re Watson - At the moment I certainly would. If Watson starts bowling again then it may change but as pure batsmen I'd rather see how Smith goes. At least Smith has time on his side. Watson will be 32 when the Ashes comes around so it's hard to see him getting any better, and his batting isn't good enough right now
Matt F
Roar Guru
Funnily enough, I was watching a bit of NZ/England this morning and the commentators were actually saying something very similar in relation to Monty. When he started playing for England his fielding was woeful and he essentially became a cult figure because of this. However since then he has really improved his fielding. It's still not great but it's at least competent. However many people still remember him as being a woeful fielder and hence he is still, probably wrongly, perceived as such. They also said the same about Mcgrath's batting. While he never became anything more than an OK number 11, he did improve to the point that he could hang around for a while and let another batsman score runs, however his batting was always remembered for his early days when he was almost at Chris Martin's level. First impressions tend to hand around for a while.