The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Brittle top six expose cracks

Phillip Hughes passed away just three days shy of this 26th birthday. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Roar Rookie
20th July, 2013
7

“Swann to Rogers, no run, slow stuff from Swann and Rogers defends”. The description from Cricinfo.com told you the play, however it lacked context.

It doesn’t tell you that before the ball was bowled Rogers took a while to take guard, it doesn’t tell you the relief on his face as he played it away, and most importantly it doesn’t tell you the dread when told that he and Shane Watson would have one more over before lunch.

Cue Watson, a glorious and stunning player to watch, possessing a constant intent to score. However, such an attribute can be a double-sided sword. It makes a final over for Watson tougher than for others players, for it is simply against his nature.

Watson shouldering arms and trying to play out a final over looks as unnatural and dis-jointed as Israel Folau playing AFL.

It was hence inevitable that on the fourth ball of the over the struggle ended, and fans were simply left debating what was more predictable; the time Watson got out or the way in which he fell.

For a player who gets out in a particular manner so often, it is amazing he still hasn’t rectified the problem, especially considering he doesn’t have too many other technical flaws.

However, what’s even more baffling is how he can logically keep reviewing something that is blatantly out over-and-over again.

It’s as though he is still trying to avenge an unjust from three-and-a-half years ago, when wrongly given out LBW against the West Indies.

Advertisement

In a way Watson typifies the way Australia uses the DRS as much as he is a symbol for Australian batting.

Watson, like the rest of the team, doesn’t have a method to decipher the DRS, often playing it off instinct and emotion.

If anything, his recent review typifies this. His dismissal to Bresnan will be used as an exemplar in future years to illustrate what an LBW is, because, quite simply, if was as plumb as they come.

Why his partner continues to allow him to review, or why Watson continues to disillusion himself that ‘this’ time will be different, is a mystery as much to us as it is his coach and teammates.

His constant waste of resources, however, has also accustomed Australia to playing with a constant hindrance.

The team’s general lack of awareness and ability to comprehend and use the DRS effectively means that Watson, although not alone, only magnifies an issue that effectively advantages an opposition that are generally already more fancied.

Just in this Test match, his err in judgement has convinced Rogers not to take the chance to review due to uncertainty, and suddenly a close call against Phil Hughes leaves Australia totally reliant on the umpire.

Advertisement

Yet, unfortunately for Australia, he’s not alone. While most major countries have a particular method, most notably England who rely heavily on Matt Prior when in the field, Australia lacks a proper procedure.

A similar dependence on Brad Haddin would be unrealistic, because he, like the bowler, is often too emotional to distinguish between an effective referral and a review that will only give Australia a second of hope.

One wonders whether in Trent Bridge Australia would’ve had a referral left to review Haddin’s wicket if they were in England’s situation. I strongly doubt it.

DRS is a wonderful piece of technology, which if used wisely can be an asset.

Unfortunately for Australia it is currently a liability, a constant presence on a batsman’s mind that does not appear in any other side, and hence a burden that has a contagion effect on the whole side.

However, DRS is only second in Australia’s list of problems, behind their paper-thin batting.

It is no secret that Australia is struggling in terms of batting depth at the moment, and that is due to a number of reasons, most notably Twenty20 cricket.

Advertisement

A recent trend has seen efficient countries split up their one-day and Test cricket, most notably England hiring Ashley Giles to take over the one-day sides, leaving Andy Flower solely responsible for the Test side.

Another example is South Africa heavily focusing and investing into Test cricket, achieving great results in that particular format but becoming less competitive in others.

Quite simply, in the modern day it is becoming increasingly difficult to compete with constant quality in all forms of the game, particularly for lower-populated nations, and such Australia has struggled.

However, to blame the recent struggle on Twenty20 cricket would be too easy.

For, ironically, it is those with their techniques most under pressure who have lifted. Steve Smith with 53 and Phil Hughes with 81* in the first innings, and Brad Haddin with a fighting 71 in the second innings of Trent Bridge.

So perhaps mental strength, desire, and grit are missing?

Chris Rogers is a stable, calming, reliable batsman when in the middle, but he is the only one.

Advertisement

It takes either a great plan (Anderson in Trent Bridge) or “the worst piece of cricket in history” (Swann at Lord’s) to remove him.

It’s unfortunate that he’s reaching the twilight rather than the prime of his career now, for Australia could use him for a few more years while others develop around him.

Shane Watson, on the other hand, is like a soap drama. He performs daily a short and sharp episode of entertaining stroke-play, keeping everybody on the edge of their seat, until like clockwork he falls and the next program, or in this case batsmen, must commence.

What frustrates Australia, and particularly his fans, is the potential he has, but as time passes our expectations of him are gradually falling, as we learn that drifting in and out of the contest is as much a part of Shane Watson as his propensity to pick up an injury, both increasingly unlikely to change with time.

Michael Clarke builds his innings and works hard throughout, his concentration never lapsing.

There is elegant stroke-play and a real desire to succeed for the team. However, it is simply not possible for every innings to be a ‘blockbuster’, and hence he needs support.

Phil Hughes, Steve Smith, and Usman Khawaja are young and inexperienced but will learn.

Advertisement

Perseverance is necessary with them in order to build a strong team in the future. However, their mental strength and application will need to improve significantly in the short-term in order for them to succeed in the long-term.

What is most worrying for Australian cricket is not the scores that are being scored, but the fact that these are the best batsmen in the country, that supposedly nobody could do better.

The standards being set are falling dramatically, both domestically and internationally, and the great sides of the past decade are now nothing but a distant blur.

Cricket Australia have recognised this, as well as noticing that they have a side with young batsmen that need to have high-standards in the short-term for medium-long term success.

This is why Australian Cricket needed Darren Lehmann, not for the technical prowess that he brings, but for a reminder of the ‘good old days’.

Australian Cricket simply must become more efficient and realistic about its expectations in the different formats, especially Test cricket, and achieve them without exception in a bid to rise again.

If not, then lets pray the likes of Ashton Agar, James Pattinson, and Steve Smith continue producing miracles, because it’s the only hope we have.

Advertisement
close